Search Results

You are looking at 31 - 40 of 1,133 items for :

  • differences among plant parts x
  • Refine by Access: All x
Clear All
Full access

Kimberly A. Moore, Amy L. Shober, Edward F. Gilman, Christine Wiese, S. Michelle Scheiber, Maria Paz, and Meghan M. Brennan

landscape establishment of slash pine differences among three production methods J. Arboriculture 18 281 287 Broschat, T.K. Meerow, A.W. 1996 Betrock's reference guide to Florida landscape plants Betrock Information Systems Hollywood, FL Cathey, H.M. 1990

Free access

Haishan An, Jiajia Meng, Fangjie Xu, Shuang Jiang, Xiaoqing Wang, Chunhui Shi, Boqiang Zhou, Jun Luo, and Xueying Zhang

, central, and apical cuttings. We further analyzed the effects of cutting positions on the rooting ability. The RPs of the basal, central, and apical parts of the cutting fluctuated widely among cultivars. For ‘O’Neal’, there were no significant differences

Free access

David Noshad, Andrew Riseman, and Zamir Punja

screen is valuable in not only identifying taxon-specific variation for pathogen resistance, but also for further evaluation of the plant's genetic structure. Among the 32 Daphne taxa evaluated, significant differences were present for resistance to T

Free access

Jennifer M. Bousselot, James E. Klett, and Ronda D. Koski

species reaching 0% VMC in as little as 1 d ( VanWoert et al., 2005 ). The dissimilarity between studies is most likely the result of differences among species, differences in developmental stages of plants, differences in substrate depth, solar radiation

Full access

Oleg Daugovish, Hai Su, and W. Douglas Gubler

. Yield loss due to anthrac-nose on fruits. There were no significant differences in percentage yield loss caused by anthracnose fruit rot among all the treatments in each of the three plantings (data not shown). Yield loss ranged from 3% to 16% in Summer

Free access

Xiaoya Cai, Terri Starman, Genhua Niu, Charles Hall, and Leonardo Lombardini

Rodriguez (2009) suggested that frequent measurements of ψ are necessary to identify the critical SMC to detect differences among plants in leaf ψ responses to substrate drying. Decreased g S resulting from drought stress was reported to aid in

Open access

Bruce L. Dunn, Carla Goad, and Lynn Brandenberger

little or no differences in the height of the treated plants although all are considerably shorter than control plants. Main effects for plant height, SPAD, and shoot dry weight were significant among application rates ( Table 1 ). For plant height, 2

Free access

Kwang Jin Kim, Myeong Il Jeong, Dong Woo Lee, Jeong Seob Song, Hyoung Deug Kim, Eun Ha Yoo, Sun Jin Jeong, Seung Won Han, Stanley J. Kays, Young-Wook Lim, and Ho-Hyun Kim

among species within the ferns as indicated by the high se values. There were no significant differences between the woody and herbaceous foliage plants and the Korean native plants classes in the removal of formaldehyde. Figure 4 illustrates

Free access

Sameh Sassi-Aydi, Samir Aydi, and Chedly Abdelly

among the four plant parts in 0, 25, or 50 m m mannitol. However, as the stress level increased (75 m m mannitol), more potassium was allocated to leaves (leaf and petiole) compared with roots and stems. Fig. 7. Distribution of potassium in different

Free access

Madhurababu Kunta, John V. da Graça, Nasir S.A. Malik, Eliezer S. Louzada, and Mamoudou Sétamou

titers were recorded for grapefruit compared with sweet orange ( F = 17.49; df = 1, 30, P = 0.0002) and juvenile tissues (not sampled from sweet orange), no significant differences were observed for other plant parts between the two host plants