Initiating cultures ofHalesia andMalus: influence of flushing stage and benzyladenine
- 35 Downloads
Shoot tips ofHalesia carolina L. andMalus domestica Borkh. ‘Golden Delicious’ collected at various times during the spring growth flush varied considerably in their ability to initiate shoot proliferating cultures. Shoot tips collected during, or at the end of, the period of most rapid shoot elongation exhibited weak shoot proliferation potential, while shoot tips collected before or after this period were capable of strong shoot proliferationin vitro. Benzyladenine concentrations in the culture media above 22.5 µM (Halesia) or 44.5 µM (Malus) were inhibitory during the period between bud break and rapid shoot elongation. Benzyladenine concentrations of 22.5 or 44.5 µM were useful in enhancing shoot proliferation potential in shoot tips collected after the period of rapid shoot elongation, but before the onset of summer dormancy. Benzyladenine concentration did not affect the shoot proliferation potential of shoot tips collected during the rapid shoot elongation phase of the spring growth flush.Halesia andMalus shoot tips behaved similarly in this study. For deciduous woody perennials, the time of explant collection for culture initiation could be refined on the basis of these results.
Key wordsculture initiation micropropagation shoot tip culture seasonal variation
Murashige & Skoog
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Kyte L (1987) Plants From Test Tubes. Timber Press, OregonGoogle Scholar
- Lloyd G & McCown B (1980) Commercially-feasible micro-propagation of mountain laurel,Kalmia latifolia, by use of shoot tip culture. Comb. Proc. Intl. Plant Prop. Soc. 30: 421–427Google Scholar
- Murashige T & Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 15: 473–497Google Scholar
- Selby C & Harvey BM (1985) The influence of natural andin vitro bud flushing on adventitious bud production in Sitka spruce [Picea sitchensis (Bong.) Carr.] bud and needle cultures. New Phytol. 100: 549–561Google Scholar