Abstract
Cryopreservation of dormant buds has potential to provide back-up conservation of vegetatively propagated genetic resources for fruit crop species. This system may be useful where clonal integrity must be maintained and where it is desirable to rapidly recover plants with flowers for crossing purposes. In 1988, a pilot project involving the National Clonal Apple Repository at Geneva, NY and the National Seed Storage Laboratory, Fort Collins, CO, was initiated to test handling protocols as a prelude to establishing a cryopreservation backup system for apple genetic resources. Sufficient buds have been cryopreserved to permit viability evaluation after 1 month, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 10, 15, 20, and 25 years storage in liquid nitrogen vapor phase storage (-150 C]. Recovery of dormant buds collected 12/12/88 and 02/06/89 after one month in LN 2 was 36% and 35%, respectively, for eight different taxa. After one year in LN 2 , recovery was 50% and 48% for the same taxa. The difference was attributed to improved handling during dehydration prior to patch budding for viability estimation. In 1990, recovery after 1 month in LN 2 was 38% for six different cultivars. The response to controlled acclimation and desiccation for 15 taxa will be presented.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Dormant buds collected 12/12/88 recovered at 36% after one month in liquid nitrogen.
- Organ / stage
- dormant budse0
- Treatment
- one month in LN 2e0
- Outcome
- Recoverye0
- Value
- 36%e0
- Qualifier
- 12/12/88e0
Malus sp.Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Recovery of dormant buds collected 12/12/88 and 02/06/89 after one month in LN 2 was 36% and 35%, respectively, for eight different taxa.”
t0“APPLE (Malus sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Dormant buds collected 02/06/89 recovered at 35% after one month in liquid nitrogen.
- Organ / stage
- dormant budse0
- Treatment
- one month in LN 2e0
- Outcome
- Recoverye0
- Value
- 35%e0
- Qualifier
- 02/06/89e0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Recovery of dormant buds collected 12/12/88 and 02/06/89 after one month in LN 2 was 36% and 35%, respectively, for eight different taxa.”
t0“APPLE (Malus sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Recovery after one year in liquid nitrogen was 50% for buds collected 12/12/88.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“After one year in LN 2 , recovery was 50% and 48% for the same taxa.”
e1“Recovery of dormant buds collected 12/12/88 and 02/06/89 after one month in LN 2 was 36% and 35%, respectively, for eight different taxa.”
t0“APPLE (Malus sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Recovery after one year in liquid nitrogen was 48% for buds collected 02/06/89.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“After one year in LN 2 , recovery was 50% and 48% for the same taxa.”
e1“Recovery of dormant buds collected 12/12/88 and 02/06/89 after one month in LN 2 was 36% and 35%, respectively, for eight different taxa.”
t0“APPLE (Malus sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
Improved handling during dehydration was attributed as the reason for the recovery difference.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The difference was attributed to improved handling during dehydration prior to patch budding for viability estimation.”
t0“APPLE (Malus sp.)”
Claim · model-written summary
In 1990, recovery after one month in liquid nitrogen was 38% for six cultivars.
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“In 1990, recovery after 1 month in LN 2 was 38% for six different cultivars.”
t0“APPLE (Malus sp.)”