sucrose · Growth · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)
16 claims from these papers; 1 citation between them.
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
1 citation between these papers: 1 on the same side, 0 across the two sides.
- 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 11
Studies on the Effects of Major Nutrients on Suspension Culture of Sugarcane Leaf Cell · 2002
- positive
EFFECT OF SUCROSE AND GROWTH REGULATORS ON THE MICROPROPAGATION OF SUGARCANE CLONES · 2006
- positive
Rapid In Vitro Propagation Technique For Sugarcane Variety 018 · 2011
- positive
Effect of Sucrose and Naphthalene acetic acid Concentrations on Rooting of Sugarcane In vitro · 2011
- positive
- positive
- positive
Refinement of Cost Reduction Technology in Sugarcane Micro propagation · 2014
- positive
DEVELOPING REGENERATION SYSTEM FOR CRYOPRESERVATION IN SUGARCANE (SACCHARUM OFFICINARUM L.) · 2015
- positive
Standardisation of Callus Culture Techniques for Efficient Micropropagation in Sugarcane · 2015
- positive
- positive
- positive
- positive
Effect of various carbon sources on in vitro morphogenetic responses in sugarcane · 2020
- positive
- positive
Hormonal Manipulation for Rapid Micropropagation of a New Sugarcane Variety CoS 17231 · 2024
- 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.