Micropropagation ofPrunus mume
Shoot proliferation from axillary buds ofPrunus mume Sieb. et Zucc. was obtained on Woody Plant Medium (WPM) supplemented with 1 to 5 μM benzyladenine, 3% sorbitol and solidified with 0.5 to 0.7% agar. Effects of different carbon sources on shoot proliferation were examined. Glucose provided better shoot proliferation than sucrose, sorbitol and fructose. In the presence of sucrose, leaf chlorosis occurred and shoots gradually declined. Best rooting percentage was obtained on WPM supplemented with 1 μM naphthaleneacetic acid. Rooted plantlets were acclimatized under intermittent mist. However, survival rate was relatively low (20 to 30%).
Key wordsfructose in vitro rooting shoot proliferation sorbitol
Murashige and Skoog (1962)
Woody Plant Medium [Lloyd and McCown (1981)]
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- BorkowskaB & SzczerbaJ (1991) Influence of different carbon sources on invertase activity and growth of sour cherry (Prunus cerasus L.) shoot cultures. J. Exp. Bot. 42: 911–915Google Scholar
- LloydG & McCownB (1981) Commercially-feasible micropropagation of mountain laurel,Kalmia latifolia, by use of shoot tip culture. Comb. Proc. Intl. Plant Prop. Soc. 30: 421–427Google Scholar
- MarinoG, MagnaniniE, BattistiniS & RighettiB (1991) Effect of hormones and main carbon energy sources onin vitro propagation of apricot (Prunus armeniaca L.) cvs. ‘San Castrese’ and ‘Portici’. Acta Hort. 293: 355–362Google Scholar
- MurashigeT & SkoogF (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 15: 473–497Google Scholar
- RosatiP, MarinoG & SwierczewskiC (1980)In vitro propagation of Japanese plum (Prunus salicina Lindl. cv. Calita) J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 105: 126–129Google Scholar
- UematsuC & AkihamaT (1987) Effect of 4PU on the dormant shoot tip culture of peach, nectarine, sweetcherry and plum. Japan. J. Breed. 37: 283–290Google Scholar
- ViseurJ (1987) Micropropagation of pear,Pyrus communis L., in a double-phase culture medium. Acta Hort. 212: 117–124Google Scholar