Articles

Figure 2. Comparison of fiber diameters of <i>Musa </i><i>balbisiana</i>, M<i>usa </i><i>paradisiaca</i><i> and Musa </i><i>sapientum</i> pseudo-stalks

Figure 3. Comparison of lumen widths of <i>Musa </i><i>balbisiana</i>, M<i>usa </i><i>paradisiaca</i><i> and Musa </i><i>sapientum</i> pseudo-stalks

Figure 4. Comparison of cell wall thicknesses of <i>Musa </i><i>balbisiana</i>, M<i>usa </i><i>paradisiaca</i><i> and Musa </i><i>sapientum</i> pseudo-stalks

Figure 5. Comparison of slenderness ratios of <i>Musa </i><i>balbisiana</i>, M<i>usa </i><i>paradisiaca</i><i> and Musa </i><i>sapientum</i> pseudo-stalks

Figure 6. Comparison of flexibility coefficients of <i>Musa </i><i>balbisiana</i>, M<i>usa </i><i>paradisiaca</i><i> and Musa </i><i>sapientum</i> pseudo-stalks

Figure 7. Comparison of Runkel ratios of <i>Musa </i><i>balbisiana</i>, M<i>usa </i><i>paradisiaca</i><i> and Musa </i><i>sapientum</i> pseudo-stalks