Evaluating costs for the in vitro propagation and preservation of endangered plants

By V. Pence. In Vitro Cellular & Developmental Biology - Plant, 2011

147 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

The Vulnerability of Plant Genetic Resources Conserved Ex Situ (2017, methodology): “Innovations in plant cryobiology over the last 30 yr have shown the promise of cryopreservation as the most efficient method to preserve viability of nonorthodox germplasm (Li and Pritchard, 2009; Engelmann, 2011; Pence, 2011; Chaudhury and Malik, 2016).”
Discovery and resupply of pharmacologically active plant-derived natural products: A review (2015, background): “However, the higher costs of in vitro techniques as compared to conventional propagation are amajor disadvantage andhave limited its use at a commercial level (Mehrotra et al., 2007; Pence, 2011; Sahu and Sahu, 2013; Wawrosch, 2005).”
Cryopreserved storage of clonal germplasm in the USDA National Plant Germplasm System (2017, background): “Seed banking is considered themost cost-effective preservationmethod (Pence 2011), but it is not appropriate for clonal crops.”
Can a Botanic Garden Cycad Collection Capture the Genetic Diversity in a Wild Population? (2014, background): “These living collections are particularly important for ex situ conservation of exceptional species (i.e., species that cannot be conserved ex situ through standard seed- or tissue-banking protocols; Pence 2011).”