Plant Cell Reports

, Volume 8, Issue 5, pp 270–273 | Cite as

Somatic embryogenesis and plantlet regeneration in Cornus florida

  • Robert N. Trigiano
  • Robert M. Beaty
  • Joseph T. Dietrich
Article
Received:
Revised:

Abstract

Somatic embryos were initiated from 12 to 15 weeks postanthesis (WPA) zygotic embryos of Cornus florida L. (flowering dogwood) cultured on Murashige-Skoog (MS) or Schenk and Hildebrandt (SH) medium amended with either 3 mg/L 2,4-D or 5 mg/L 2,4-D and 1 mg/L kinetin. White, opaque globular and early cotyledonary stage embryos were formed directly on detached cotyledons from 2 of the 5 trees sampled after 7 weeks of culture. Morphologically mature embryos developed after an additional 4 weeks incubation on medium without growth regulators; however, many of the embryos were fused in pairs along the entire length of the hypocotyl-radicle axis. Indirect embryogenesis was observed from callus cultures initiated from 9 to 15 WPA zygotic embryos. These cultures have continued to produce embryos for 16 months. Many of the embryos formed roots on germination medium, but only 12% formed plantlets and none developed past the first true leaf stage.

Keywords

Somatic Embryo Somatic Embryogenesis Kinetin Callus Culture Zygotic Embryo 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Abbreviations

2,4-D

2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid

BAP

6-benzylaminopurine

NAA

1-naphthaleneacetic acid

FPA

Formalin-propionic acid-ethanol (50%)

WPA

weeks post-anthesis

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Ammirato PV (1987) In: Plant Tissue and Cell Culture (Green CD, Somers DA, Hackett WP, and Biesboer DD, eds.) AR Liss, Inc. pp 57–81.Google Scholar
  2. Chen THH, Marowitch J, and Thompson BG (1987). Plant Cell Tissue and Organ Culture 8:73–81.Google Scholar
  3. Haccius B (1978) Phytomorphology 28:74–81.Google Scholar
  4. Hanning GE and Conger BV (1982) Theor. Appl. Genet. 63:155–159.Google Scholar
  5. Hibben C and Daughtrey M (1988) Plant Disease 72:199–202.Google Scholar
  6. Hodges TK, Kamo KK, Imbrie CW, and Becwar MR (1986). Biotechnology 4:219–223.Google Scholar
  7. Johansen DA (1940) Plant Microtechnique. McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
  8. Kavathekar AK, Ganapathy GS, and Johri BM (1977) Z. Pflanzenphys. 81:358–363.Google Scholar
  9. Keyes GB, Collins GB, and Taylor NL (1980) Theor. Appl. Genet. 58:265–271.Google Scholar
  10. Merkle SA, Wetzstein HY, and Sommer HE (1987). HortScience 22:128–130.Google Scholar
  11. Murashige T and Skoog F (1962) Physiol. Plant. 15:473–497.Google Scholar
  12. Niki T. Yoshida S, and Sakai A (1978). Plant and Cell Physiol. 19:139–148.Google Scholar
  13. Rajasekaran K, Vine J, and Mullins MG. (1982) Planta 154:139–144.Google Scholar
  14. Riemenschneider DE, Haissig BE, and Bingham ET (1987) In: Genetic Manipulation of Woody Plants (Hanover JW and Keathley DE, eds.) Plenum Press pp 433–449.Google Scholar
  15. Schenk RU and Hildebrandt AC (1972). Can. J. Bot. 50:199–204.Google Scholar
  16. Trigiano RN, Beaty RM, and Graham ET (1988). Plant Cell Rep. 7:148–150.Google Scholar
  17. Trigiano RN, Conger BV, and Songstad DD (1987). J. Plant Growth Regul. 6:133–146.Google Scholar
  18. Trigiano RN, Gray DJ, Conger BV, McDaniel JK (1989). Bot. Gaz. 150:72–77.Google Scholar
  19. Tulecke W and McGranahan G (1985) Plant Science 40:57–63.Google Scholar
  20. Williams EG and Maheswaran G (1986) Ann. Bot. 57:443–462.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • Robert N. Trigiano
    • 1
  • Robert M. Beaty
    • 1
  • Joseph T. Dietrich
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Ornamental Horticulture and Landscape DesignUniversity of TennesseeKnoxvilleUSA

Personalised recommendations