Paper · 2013 · AFRICAN JOURNAL OF BIOTECHNOLOGY

Effect of different concentrations of carbon source, salinity and gelling agent on in vitro growth of fig ( Ficus carica L.)

Issam M. Qrunfleh; Mohamad M. Shatnawi; Zakaria Al-Ajlouni

5
claims
11
verbatim quotes
13
citations
3
research areas
✓
Open access

Abstract

Three in vitro experiments were conducted to study the effect of different concentrations of carbon source, salinity and gelling agent on number of new shoots, shoot length, fresh weight, and dry weight of fig (Ficus carica L.) to develop an efficient in vitro propagation method. The results show that there were no significant differences between the three carbon sources regarding number of newly formed shoots and their shoot lengths. However, there were some differences regarding fresh and dry weights. On the other hand, increased salinity concentrations reduced the number of the newly formed shoots, as well as, their shoot lengths. In addition, liquid media produced more shoots compared with the three solidifying agents used. However, there were significant differences among the concentrations of solidifying agents used.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Carbon sources did not differ significantly in new shoot number or shoot length.

Taxon
fige1
Treatment
three carbon sourcese0
Outcome
number of newly formed shoots and their shoot lengthse0
Direction
no significant differencese0
Comparator
three carbon sourcese0

Verbatim

e0

“there were no significant differences between the three carbon sources regarding number of newly formed shoots and their shoot lengths”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 303–437 · show in text ↑
e1

“fig (Ficus carica L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 206–227 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Carbon sources differed in fresh and dry weights.

Taxon
fige2
Treatment
three carbon sourcese1
Outcome
fresh and dry weightse0
Comparator
three carbon sourcese1

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“there were some differences regarding fresh and dry weights”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 448–507 · show in text ↑
e1

“three carbon sources”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 353–373 · show in text ↑
e2

“fig (Ficus carica L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 206–227 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Increasing salinity reduced new shoot number and shoot length.

Taxon
fige1
Treatment
increased salinity concentrationse0
Outcome
number of the newly formed shoots, as well as, their shoot lengthse0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“increased salinity concentrations reduced the number of the newly formed shoots, as well as, their shoot lengths”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 528–640 · show in text ↑
e1

“fig (Ficus carica L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 206–227 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Liquid medium produced more shoots than solidifying agents.

Taxon
fige1
Treatment
liquid mediae0
Outcome
shootse0
Direction
moree0
Comparator
three solidifying agentse0

Verbatim

e0

“liquid media produced more shoots compared with the three solidifying agents used”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 655–736 · show in text ↑
e1

“fig (Ficus carica L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 206–227 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultmixedsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Concentrations of solidifying agents differed significantly in effect.

Taxon
fige1
Treatment
concentrations of solidifying agentse0
Outcome
significant differencese0
Comparator
concentrations of solidifying agentse0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“there were significant differences among the concentrations of solidifying agents used”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 747–833 · show in text ↑
e1

“fig (Ficus carica L.)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 206–227 · show in text ↑

in vitro · growth · Ficus carica (common fig)Positive and negative results

16 papers: 15 positive, 1 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. positive
  3. negative

12 papers more in this group

See all 16 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.