Advertisement

Gauging the influence of in vitro conditions on in vivo quality and performance of woody plants

  • M. A. L. Smith
  • M. T. McClelland
Regular Papers

Summary

The tremendous diversity in techniques, timing, and facilities used to produce woody plant microcuttings for the nursery industry can result in substantial differences in the quality and performance of the same clones, depending on the producer. Evidence suggests that relatively minor procedural discrepancies that occur during the in vitro production stages as a consequence of these different production methods can determine the survival and acceptability of the plants during subsequent production. This review tracks the influence of methodologic variables during microshoot proliferation and rooting on quality of the plant, and examines the continuing repercussions for plant performance in the ex vitro environment.

Key words

acclimatization image analysis microenvironment 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Benbadis, A. K.; Schloten, H. J. Micropropagation of recalcitrant species: dicotyledons. International Association of Plant Tissue Culture Workshop Proceedings, Amsterdam; June 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bottcher, I.; Zoglauer, K.; Goring, H. Induction and reversion of vitrification of plants cultured in vitro. Physiol. Plant. 72:560–564; 1988.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Briggs, B.; McCulloch, S. Update on tissue culture of woody plants. Proc. Inter. Plant Propagator’s Soc. 38:218–224; 1989.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Debergh, P. C.; Maene, L. J. A scheme for commercial propagation of ornamental plants by tissue culture. Sci. Hort. 14:335–345; 1981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Dunstan, D. I.; Turner, K. E. The acclimatization of micropropagated plants. In: Vasil, I. K., ed. Cell culture and somatic cell genetics of plants. Volume 1: Laboratory techniques. New York: Academic Press; 1984:123–129.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dunstan, D. I.; Turner, K. E.; Lazaroff, W. R. Propagation in vitro of the apple rootstock M4: effect of phytohormones on shoot quality. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 4:55–60; 1985.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Economou, A.; Read, P. E. Light treatments to improve efficiency of in vitro propagation systems. HortScience 22:751–754; 1987.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Fujiwara, K.; Kozai, T.; Watanabe, I. Fundamental studies on environments in plant tissue culture vessels. (3) Measurements of carbon dioxide gas concentration in closed vessels containing tissue cultured plantlets and estimates of net photosynthetic rates of the plantlets. J. Agric. Meteorol. 43:21–30; 1987.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    George, E. F.; Sherrington, P. D. Plant propagation by tissue culture. Hand book and directory of commercial laboratories. London: Exegetics Ltd.; 1984.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Griffis, J.; Hennen, G.; Sargent, W., III, et al. How we have overcome the problems of establishing plantlets in soil. Am. Nurseryman October 15:73–75; 1984.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hammerschlag, F. A.; Bauchan, G. R.; Scorza, R. Factors influencing in vitro multiplication and rooting of peach cultivars. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 8:235–242; 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Ivanicka, J. In vitro micropropagation of Mulberry,Morus nigra L. Sci. Hort. 32:33–39; 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Knuttel, A. J. Tissue culture troubles. American Nurseryman December 1:43–49; 1989.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lentini, A.; Mussell, H.; Mutschler, M. A., et al. Ethylene generation and reversal of ethylene effects during development in vitro of rapid-cyclingBrassica campestris. L. Plant Sci. 54:75–81; 1988.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacDonald, B. Practical woody plant propagation for nursery growers. Portland, OR: Timber Press; 1986.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mackay, W. A.; Kitto, S. L. Factors affecting in vitro shoot proliferation of French tarragon. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 113:282–287; 1988.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    McClelland, M. T.; Smith, M. A. L. Vessel type, closure, and explant orientation influence in vitro performance of five woody species. HortScience 25:797–800; 1990.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    McClelland, M. T.; Smith, M. A. L.; Carothers, Z. The effects of in vitro and ex vitro root initiation on subsequent microcutting root quality. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Culture. 23:115–123; 1990.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Monette, P. Micropropagation of kiwifruit using non-axenic shoot tips. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 6:73–82; 1986.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Schwarz, O. J. Plant growth regulator effects in the in vitro propagation of three hardwood tree genera:Castanea, Juglans, andQuercus. Plant Growth Regulation 6:113–135; 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Smith, M. A. L.; Spomer, L. A.; Meyer, M. J., et al. Non-invasive image analysis evaluation of growth during plant micropropagation. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult. 19:91–102; 1989.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thorpe, T. A.; Patel, K. R. Clonal propagation: adventitious buds. In: Vasil, I. K., ed. Cell culture and somatic cell genetics of plants, vol. 1. New York: Academic Press; 1984:49–60.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wott, J. A. Concerns when propagating plants for the urban environment. Proc. Inter. Plant Propagator’s Soc. 33:225–229; 1983.Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Ziv, M.; Schwartz, A.; Fleminger, D. Malfunctioning stomata in vitreous leaves of carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus) plants propagated in vitro; implications for hardening. Plant. Sci. 52:127–134; 1987.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Tissue Culture Association 1991

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. A. L. Smith
    • 1
  • M. T. McClelland
    • 1
  1. 1.Plant Sciences Laboratory, Department of HorticultureUniversity of IllinoisUrbana

Personalised recommendations