Use of the temporary immersion bioreactor system (RITA®) for production of commercial Eucalyptus clones in Mondi Forests (SA)

  • B. Mc Alister
  • J. Finnie
  • M.P. Watt
  • F. Blakeway

Abstract

In order to optimise tissue culture systems and to meet production targets, Mondi Forests’ biotechnology programme has in the last two years concentrated efforts on the use of the RITA® temporary immersion bioreactor system. Protocols have been established for six Eucalyptus clones. Results indicate a four- to six-fold increase in yield, in half the time, with the RITA® system when compared with axillary bud proliferation on semi-solid media. Furthermore, plants produced from the RITA® system are hardier and acclimatize better, giving higher yields of hardened-off plants. The establishment of aseptic axillary shoots into the RITA® system is from shoots in the semi-solid system. Highest multiplication was achieved using 30-second flushes of medium every 10 minutes, starting with 50 shoots per vessel. The multiplication cycles in RITA® are between 14 and 18 days, compared with 25 to 28 days in a semi-solid system. There is minimal callus evident on the leaves and bases of the stems of plants in the RITA® system and, in addition, cold-tolerant plants have a greater rooting competence when compared with plants coming from the semi-solid system. Ex vitro rooting of RITA®-derived plantlets is substantially better than the plants from the semi-solid media.

Key words

costs forest tree liquid vs. semi-solid tissue culture rooting woody plants 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aitken-Christie J, Kozai T & Takayama S (1995) Automation in plant tissue culture. General introduction and overview. In: Aitken-Christie J, Kozai T & Smith MAL (eds) Automation and Environmental Control in Plant Tissue Culture (pp. 1–18). Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  2. Akula A, Becker D & Bateson M (2000) High-yielding repetitive somatic embryogenesis and plant recovery in a selected tea clone, ‘TRI-2025’, by temporary immersion. Plant Cell Rep. 19: 1140–1145Google Scholar
  3. Alvard D, Cote F & Teisson C (1993) Comparison of methods of liquid medium culture for banana micropropagation. Effects of temporary immersion of explants. Plant Cell, Tiss. Org. Cult. 32: 55–60Google Scholar
  4. Berthouly M & Etienne H (2002) Temporary immersion system: A new concept for use of liquid medium in mass propagation. First International Symposium on Liquid Systems for In Vitro Mass Propagation of Plants (pp. 37–38). Cost 843 Working Group. Aas, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  5. Borroto CG (1998) Temporary immersion bioreactor systems reduced micropropagation costs. Agricell Rep. 30(1): 2Google Scholar
  6. Cassells AC (1997) Pathogen and microbial contamination management in micropropagation — an overview. In: Cassells AC (ed) Pathogen and Microbial Contamination Management in Micropropagation (pp. 1–13). Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  7. Cornu D & Michel MF (1987) Bacterial contaminants in shoot cultures of Prunus avium L. choice and phytotoxicity of antibiotics. Acta Hort. 212: 83–86Google Scholar
  8. Denison NP & Kietzka JE (1993) The use and importance of hybrid intensive forestry in South Africa. SA For. J. 165: 55–60Google Scholar
  9. Escalona M, Lorenzo JC, González B, Daquinta M, González JL, Desjardins Y & Borroto CG (1999) Pineapple (Ananas comosus L. Merr) micropropagation in temporary immersion systems. Plant Cell Rep. 18: 743–748Google Scholar
  10. Etienne H (2000) Direct sowing of temporary immersion-produced somatic embryos. Agricell Rep. 34(3): 17–18Google Scholar
  11. Etienne H, Lartaud M, Michaux-Ferrière N, Carron MP, Berthouly M & Teisson C (1997) Improvement of somatic embryogenesis in Hevea brasiliensis (Müll.Arg) using the temporary immersion techniques. In Vitro Cell. Biol. 33: 81–87Google Scholar
  12. Fujiwara K & Kozai T (1995) Physical micro-environment and its effects. In: Aitken-Christie J, Kozai T & Smith MAL (eds) Automation and Environmental Control in Plant Tissue Culture, (pp. 319–369). Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  13. George EF (1993) Plant Propagation by Tissue Culture. The Technology, Vol 1 (pp. 612–635). Exegetics Ltd: EdingtonGoogle Scholar
  14. Holdgate DP & Zandvoort EA (1997) Strategic considerations for the establishment of microorganism-free tissue cultures for commercial ornamental micropropagation. In: Cassells AC (ed) Pathogen and Microbial Contamination Management in Micropropagation (pp. 15–22). Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  15. Ikemori YK (1987) Epicormic shoots from the branches of Eucalyptus grandis as an explant source for in vitro culture. Comm. For. Rev. 44: 351–356Google Scholar
  16. Jackson MB (2002) Ventilation of plant tissue cultures. First International Symposium on Liquid Systems for In Vitro Mass Propagation of Plants (pp. 56–57). Cost 843 Working Group. Aas, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  17. Jiménez E, Pérez N, de Feria M, Barbón R, Capote A, Chávez M, Quiala E & Pérez JC (1999) Improved production of potato microtubers using a temporary immersion system. Plant Cell, Tiss. Org. Cult.. 59: 19–23Google Scholar
  18. Le Roux JJ & Van Staden J (1991) Micropropagation and tissue culture of Eucalyptus: a review. Tree Physiol. 9: 435–477PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Lorenzo JC, González LB, Escalona M, Teisson C, Espinosa P & Borroto C (1998) Sugarcane shoot formation in an improved temporary immersion system. Plant Cell, Tiss. Org. Cult. 54: 197–200Google Scholar
  20. Martre P, Dominique L, Just D & Teisson C (2001) Physiological effects of temporary immersion on Hevea brasiliensis callus. Plant Cell, Tiss.Org.Cult. 67: 25–35Google Scholar
  21. Murashige T & Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 15: 473–496Google Scholar
  22. Phillips R, Arnott SM & Kaplan SE (1981) Antibiotics in plant tissue culture: Rifampicin effectively controls bacterial contaminants without affecting the growth of short-term explants cultures of Helianthus tuberosus. Plant Sci. Lett. 21: 235–240Google Scholar
  23. Preil W & Hempfling T (2002) Application of temporary immersion system in propagation of Phalaenopsis. First International Symposium on Liquid Systems for In Vitro Mass Propagation of Plants (pp. 47–48). Cost 843 Working Group. Aas, NorwayGoogle Scholar
  24. Smith MAL & Spomer LA (1995) Vessels, gels, liquid media and support systems. In: Aitken-Christie J, Kozai T & Smith MAL (eds) Automation and Environmental Control in Plant Tissue Culture (pp. 371–404). Kluwer Academic Publishers, DordrechtGoogle Scholar
  25. Zobayed SMA, Armstrong J & Armstrong W (2001) Micropropagation of potato: Evaluation of closed, diffusive and forced ventilation on growth and tuberization. Ann. Bot. 87: 53–59Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Mc Alister
    • 1
  • J. Finnie
    • 2
  • M.P. Watt
    • 3
  • F. Blakeway
    • 1
  1. 1.Mondi ForestsHiltonSouth Africa
  2. 2.School of Botany and ZoologyUniversity of Natal PietermaritzburgScottsvilleSouth Africa
  3. 3.School of Life and Environmental SciencesUniversity of Natal DurbanDurbanSouth Africa

Personalised recommendations