Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 13, Issue 11, pp 612–618 | Cite as

Scanning electron microscopy of hydrated and desiccated mature somatic embryos and zygotic embryos of white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench] Voss.)

  • Larry C. Fowke
  • Stephen M. Attree
  • Pat J. Rennie
Article

Summary

Four scanning electron microscope techniques for preparing somatic and zygotic embryos of white spruce (Picea glauca [Moench] Voss.) were compared. Direct sputter coating without critical point drying worked well for desiccated embryos while conventional methods using chemical fixation were appropriate for hydrated somatic embryos. Low temperature scanning electron microscopy and plastic replicas provided excellent specimens of all embryos studied. Plastic replicas were used to document cotyledon formation and growth during maturation of somatic embryos. Apart from some differences in embryo size, orientation of cotyledons and surface wrinkling, the general morphology of mature somatic embryos of white spruce was very similar to zygotic embyros at a similar stage of development.

Key words

Picea glauca Scanning electron microscope methods Somatic embyros Maturation Desiccation 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ammirato PV (1983). In: Handbook of Plant Cell Culture, New York, MacMillan Publishing Co, V 1, pp 82–123.Google Scholar
  2. Attree SM, Dunstan DI, Fowke LC (1989). Can. J. Bot. 67: 1790–1795.Google Scholar
  3. Attree SM, Fowke LC (1993). Plant Cell. Tiss. Org. Cult. 35: 1–35.Google Scholar
  4. Attree SM, Moore D, Sawhney VK, Fowke LC (1991). Ann. Bot. 68: 519–525.Google Scholar
  5. Attree SM, Pomeroy MK, Fowke LC (1992). Planta 187: 395–404.Google Scholar
  6. Attree SM, Sheffield E (1984). Micron Microsc. Acta 15: 181–186.Google Scholar
  7. Brisibe EA, Nishioka D, Miyake H, Taniguchi T, Maeda E (1993). Plant Sci. 89: 85–92.Google Scholar
  8. Burwale UB, Kerns HR, Widholm JM (1986). Planta 167: 473–481.Google Scholar
  9. Fowke LC (1994). In: Gamborg OL, Phillips GC (Eds), Fundamental Methods of Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture and Laboratory Operations, Springer Verlag, Berlin, (in press).Google Scholar
  10. Hakman I, Fowke LC (1987). Plant Cell Rep. 6: 20–22.Google Scholar
  11. Jeffree CE, Read ND (1991). In: Hall JL, Hawes C (Eds), Electron Microscopy of Plant Cells, Academic Press, London, pp 313–413.Google Scholar
  12. Misra S, Attree SM, Leal I, Fowke LC (1993). Ann. Bot. 71: 11–22.Google Scholar
  13. Robards AW, Crosby P (1979). Scanning Electron Microsc. 2: 325–344.Google Scholar
  14. Vasil V, Vasil IK (1981). Ann. Bot. 47: 669–678.Google Scholar
  15. Williams MH, Green PB (1988). Protoplasma 147: 77–79.Google Scholar
  16. Xu N, Bewley JD (1992). Plant Cell Rep. 11: 279–284.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1994

Authors and Affiliations

  • Larry C. Fowke
    • 1
  • Stephen M. Attree
    • 1
  • Pat J. Rennie
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of BiologyUniversity of SaskatchewanSaskatoonCanada

Personalised recommendations