sucrose · Growth · Dianthus caryophyllus (carnation)
19 claims from these papers.
Papers here report positive and negative or no-effect results. No pair of them has been accepted in the claim-by-claim check.
How these papers cite each other
None of these papers cites another one here.
- Positive result
- Negative result or no effect
- Citation, pointing to the cited paper
- Citation across the two sides
- Larger circle: more citations overall
Years run left to right. Citations come from the papers’ OpenAlex reference lists. Hover a paper to bring forward its citations; click it to open the paper.
Papers reporting a positive result 15
- positive
- positive
Direct Somatic Embryogenesis and Plant Regeneration in Carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L.) · 2008
- positive
Induction of Embryogenic Callus and Plant Regeneration in Carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L.) · 2008
- positive
Fresh-keeping Effects of Different Fresh-keeping Solution on Cut Flowers of Carnation · 2008
- positive
Prolonging the vase life of cut Carnation 'GIOKO' by using different chemicals · 2008
- positive
- positive
A protocol for the mass-micropropagation of carnation (Dianthus caryophyllusL.) · 2011
- positive
The Application of DPS in the Cut-flower Preservation of Carnation · 2012
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
In Vitro Medium-Term Conservation of Several Carnation Accessions through Nutrient Modification · 2016
- positive
Influence of post-harvest chemical treatments on shelf-life of carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L.) · 2017
- positive
- positive
Effect of Holding Solutions on the Water Relations in Vase Life of Cut Carnation cv. Kiro · 2018
- positive
- positive
- positive
Papers reporting a negative result or no effect 1
A paper is on the positive side when any of its claims here is positive. Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. Claims that compare genotypes are left out; a claim about lacking a nutrient counts the other way round in that nutrient’s question. “Results differ” marks a question where two model reviewers, reading both claims, accepted at least one pair of papers whose results differ.