Paper · 2014 · Journal of natural product and plant resources

Effect of low cost macronutrients in the micropropagation of Banana(Musa paradisiaca L.)

S. Dhanalakshmi; Roger Stephan

4
claims
7
verbatim quotes
3
citations
2
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Banana plantains are grown as staple food, significant cash crops and major export crops in many tropical and subtropical countries. The objective of this study was to assess in vitro regeneration response of Poovan and Monthan varieties of banana using low cost macronutrients source to reduce the cost of micro-propagule production. The five MS conventional macronutrients;viz, ammonium nitrate, potassium nitrate, calcium chloride, magnesium sulphate, and potassium hydrogen phosphate were substituted to the locally available urea fertilizer, potassium fertilizer, cal rich, magnesium sulphate fertiliser and trio powder respectively. The result show that the sword suckers banana shoots and roots compared to conventional medium significant differences (p>00.5). The use of locally available macronutrients significantly (p<0.05) reduced the cost of micropropagation of banana. The Poovan performed better the highly shoots and roots produced and compared to Monthan. There was 72.4 % savings in the cost of the macronutrients used in media preparation.

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 4

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Substituted macronutrient medium gave a reported difference in shoot and root production versus conventional medium.

Taxon
bananae0
Treatment
low cost macronutrientst0
Outcome
shoots and rootse0
Comparator
conventional mediume0

Not reportedDirection

Verbatim

e0

“The result show that the sword suckers banana shoots and roots compared to conventional medium significant differences (p>00.5)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 639–766 · show in text ↑
t0

“low cost macronutrients”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 10–33 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Local macronutrients significantly reduced banana micropropagation cost.

Taxon
bananae0
Treatment
locally available macronutrientse0
Outcome
cost of micropropagatione0
Direction
reducede0

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

e0

“The use of locally available macronutrients significantly (p<0.05) reduced the cost of micropropagation of banana”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 768–881 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Poovan produced more shoots and roots than Monthan.

Taxon
bananat0
Material
Poovane0
Outcome
shoots and rootse0
Direction
bettere0
Comparator
Monthane0

Verbatim

e0

“The Poovan performed better the highly shoots and roots produced and compared to Monthan”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 883–971 · show in text ↑
t0

“Banana”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–67 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Local macronutrients saved 72.4 % of media macronutrient cost.

Taxon
bananat0
Outcome
cost of the macronutrients used in media preparatione0
Direction
savingse0
Value
72.4 %e0

Verbatim

e0

“There was 72.4 % savings in the cost of the macronutrients used in media preparation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 973–1057 · show in text ↑
t0

“Banana”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 61–67 · show in text ↑

macronutrient · yield · MusaResults agree

2 papers: 2 positive, 0 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper

  1. positive
See all 2 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.