Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture

, Volume 45, Issue 3, pp 215–222 | Cite as

Nodal segments or microtubers as explants for in vitro microtuber production of potato

  • S. Khuri
  • J. Moorby
Original Research Papers

Abstract

Experiments on recycling small microtubers back into tissue culture revealed that they have a great advantage over nodal segments when used as explants in vitro. They produced plantlets ready for micropropagation in one-half the time it took nodal segments to do so. They did not require a fixed daylength (either long or short days) for this, nor were they dependent on the presence of sucrose in the culture medium. Small microtubers were more suitable than large because the latter produced very many branches which senesced more rapidly. When maintained in culture, these plantlets from microtubers themselves produced microtubers of a similar array of sizes and fresh weights to nodal explants, but at a much faster rate. For this, the presence of a high level of sucrose (8%) was beneficial, and slightly larger microtubers produced a higher yield. The microtubers produced from these plantlets were identical to those from nodal segments, and had a similar period af dormancy.

Key words

plantlet potato sprout sucrose 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Abbott AJ & Belcher AR (1986) Potato tuber formation in vitro. In: Withers LA & Alderson PG (eds) Plant Tissue Culture and its Agricultural Applications (pp 113–121). London: ButterworthsGoogle Scholar
  2. Allard J & Blake J (1990) The use of microtubers in the field. Abstracts of 11th Triennial Conference of the European Association of Potato Research. Edinburgh (pp 303–304)Google Scholar
  3. Alsadon AA, Knutson KW & Wilkinson JC (1988) Relationships between microtuber and minituber production and yield characteristics of six potato cultivars. Am. Pot. J. 65: 468Google Scholar
  4. Amirouche L, Stuchbury T & Mathews S (1985) Comparisons of cultivar performance on different nutrient media in a routine method for potato micropropagation. Pot. Res. 28: 469–478Google Scholar
  5. Emilsson B & Lindbolm H (1963) Physiological mechanisms concerned in sprout growth. In: Ivins JD & Milthorpe FL (eds) The Growth of the Potato (pp 45–62). Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  6. Garner N (1987) The development and dormancy of microtubers of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) produced in vitro. PhD thesis. Wye College, University of LondonGoogle Scholar
  7. Garner N & Blake J (1989) The induction and development of potato microtubers in vitro on media free of growth regulating substances. Ann. Bot. 63: 663–674Google Scholar
  8. Goodwin PB & Adisarwanto T (1980) Propagation of potato by shoot tip culture in petri dishes. Pot. Res. 23: 445–448Google Scholar
  9. Goodwin PB, Kim YC & Adisarwanto T (1980) Propagation of potato by shoot tip culture. 1. Shoot multiplication. Pot. Res. 23: 9–18Google Scholar
  10. Haverkort AJ, Van de Waart M & Marinus J (1991) Field performance of potato microtubers as propagation material. Pot. Res. 34: 353–364Google Scholar
  11. Hussey G & Stacey NJ (1981) In vitro propagation of potato (Solannum tuberosum L.). Ann. Bot. 48: 787–796Google Scholar
  12. Kahn BA & Ewing EE (1983) Factors controlling the basipetal pattern of tuberisation in induced potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) cuttings. Ann. Bot. 52: 861–871Google Scholar
  13. Khuri S & Moorby J (1995) Investigations into the role of sucrose in potato cv Estima microtuber production in vitro. Ann. Bot. 75: 295–303Google Scholar
  14. Murashige T & Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 15: 473–497Google Scholar
  15. Rosell G, De Bertoldi FG & Tizio R (1987) In vitro mass tuberisation as a contribution to potato micropropagation. Pot. Res. 30: 111–116Google Scholar
  16. Seabrook J (1990) Phenotypic variability in single-node cultures of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Abstracts of IAPTC Congress, Amsterdam (p 132)Google Scholar
  17. Slater JW (1963) Mechanisms of tuber initiation. In: Ivins JD & Milthorpe FL (eds) The Growth of the Potato (pp 114–120). Butterworths, LondonGoogle Scholar
  18. Tovar P, Estrada R, Schilde-Rentschler L & Dodds JH (1985) Induction and use of in vitro potato tubers. CIP Circular 13(4): 1–5Google Scholar
  19. Wattimena G, McCown B & Weis G (1983) Comparative field performances of potatoes from microculture. Am. Pot. J. 60: 27–33Google Scholar
  20. Wiersema SG (1986) A method of producing seed tubers from true potato seed. Pot. Res. 29: 225–237Google Scholar
  21. Wiersema SG, Cabello R, Tovar P & Dodds JH (1987) Rapid seed multiplication by planting into beds microtubers and in vitro plantlets. Pot. Res. 30: 117–120Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Khuri
    • 2
  • J. Moorby
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Agriculture, Horticulture and the EnvironmentWye CollegeNr, Ashford
  2. 2.Department of Agricultural Botany, Plant Science LaboratoriesUniversity of ReadingReadingUK

Personalised recommendations