1982
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/33.1.170
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Genetic Differences in the Root Regeneration of Radiata Pine

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0
2

Year Published

1983
1983
2011
2011

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 28 publications
(11 citation statements)
references
References 3 publications
0
9
0
2
Order By: Relevance
“…Another possible source of the observed R w /R t variation not explained by the response surface represented in Fig. 4 is the genetic variability previously observed for root growth potential at family (Nambiar et al 1982) or clonal (Lamhamedi et al 2000) levels.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Another possible source of the observed R w /R t variation not explained by the response surface represented in Fig. 4 is the genetic variability previously observed for root growth potential at family (Nambiar et al 1982) or clonal (Lamhamedi et al 2000) levels.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 94%
“…Segundo os autores, a extensão de raízes finas é uma característica intrínseca (fator hereditário) do genótipo, a qual é estreitamente relacionada com o seu comportamento nutricional, seu potencial produtivo e sua capacidade de adaptação às condições de estresse ambiental. Nambiar et al (1982) ratificam a alta herdabilidade dos parâmetros radiciais e seu potencial para o melhoramento genético.…”
Section: Comprimento De Raízes Finasunclassified
“…Cold hardiness and RGP variance statistics were averaged over the entire deacclimation period. Others have observed large differences in responses for various physiological attributes among genetically related groups of conifers (Nambiar et al 1982, Colombo et al 1992, Deans et al, 1992, as well as relatively low within-clone variability in these responses (Lundkvist et al 1992). Thus, the physiological and statistical behavior of the groups included in this experiment were viewed as reasonable.…”
Section: Physiological Responsesmentioning
confidence: 79%