Advertisement

Norway Spruce Picea abies (L.) Karst

  • Saila Varis
Chapter
Part of the Forestry Sciences book series (FOSC, volume 84)

Abstract

The increasing use of wood as a source of bioenergy, bio-products and conservation of more natural (old) forests with high biodiversity, compel us to find means to increase forest productivity. Using the best quality regeneration material can increase the economic gain obtained from future silvicultured forests. Norway spruce is an important raw material in the European forest industry and it is the most-planted tree species in Finland. However, there is periodically a lack of high-quality Norway spruce seed due to irregular flowering of the species, as well as pests and pathogens which can lower the productivity of seed orchards. To ensure availability of good-quality forest regeneration material, effective vegetative propagation methods like somatic embryogenesis (SE) can be introduced. SE has become the method of choice for vegetative propagation of conifers (Sutton in Ann For Sci 59:657–661, 2002) due to its high multiplication rate and the maintenance of juvenility via cryopreservation that allows long-term field testing of materials.

References

  1. Bozhkov PV, von Arnold S (1998) Polyethylene glycol promotes maturation but inhibits further development of Picea abies somatic embryos. Physiol Plant 104:211–224CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Chalupa V (1985) Somatic embryogenesis and plantlet regeneration from cultured immature and mature embryos of Picea abies (L.) Karst. Commun Inst Forest Cech 14:57–63Google Scholar
  3. Etienne H, Berthouly M (2002) Temporary immersion systems in plant micropropagation. Plant Cell, Tissue Organ Cult 69:215–231CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Filonova L, Bozhkov P, von Arnold S (2000) Developmental pathway of somatic embryogenesis in Picea abies as revealed by time-laps tracking. J Exp Bot 343:249–264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Gruffman L, Ishida T, Nordin A, Näsholm T (2012) Cultivation of Norway spruce and scots pine on organic nitrogen improves seedling morphology and field performance. For Ecol Manag 276:118–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Gupta PK, Durzan DJ (1986) Plantlet regeneration via somatic embryogenesis from subcultured callus of mature embryos of Picea abies (Norway spruce). In Vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 22:685–688CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hakman I, von Arnold S (1985) Plantlet regeneration through somatic embryogenesis in Picea abies (Norway spruce). J Plant Physiol 121:149–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Högberg KA, Varis S (2016) Vegetative propagation of Norway spruce—experiences and present situation in Sweden and Finland. In: Park YS, Bonga JM, Moon HK (eds) Vegetative propagation of forest trees. Seoul, National Institute of Forest Science (NIFoS), pp 358–550Google Scholar
  9. Högberg K-A, Bozhkov PV, Grönroos R, von Arnold S (2001) Critical factors affecting in vitro performance of somatic embryo plants of Picea abies. Scand J For Res 16:295–304CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Jain SM, Soltes EJ, Newton RJ (1988) Enhancement of somatic embryogenesis in Norway spruce (Picea abies L.). Theor Appl Genet 76:501–506CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. Klimaszewska K, Lachance D, Pelletier G, Lelu M-A, Séguin A (2001) Regeneration of transgenic Picea glauca, P. mariana and P. abies after cultivation of embryogenic tissue with Agrobacterium tumefaciens. In vitro Cell Dev Biol Plant 37:748–755CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Klimaszewska K, Overton C, Stewart D, Rutledge RG (2011) Initiation of somatic embryos and regeneration of plants from primordial shoots of 10-year-old somatic white spruce and expression profiles of 11 genes followed during the tissue culture process. Planta 233:635–647CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Landis TD, Dumroese RK, Haase D (2010) The container tree nursery manual. Atmospheric environment. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Washington, DC, Agricultural handbook 674. vol 2, pp 71Google Scholar
  14. Litvay JD, Verma DC, Johnson MA (1985) Influence of a loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) culture medium and its components on growth and somatic embryogenesis of the wild carrot (Daucus carota L.). Plant Cell Rep 4:325–328CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15:473–497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norgaard JV, Duran V, Johnsen Ø, Krogstrup P, Baldursson S, von Arnold S (1993) Variations in cryotolerance of embryogenic Picea abies cell lines and the association to genetic, morphological, and physiological factors. Can J For Res 23:2560–2567CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Salonen F, Varis S, Aronen T (2017) From Petri dishes to bioreactors—first experiences on optimization of Norway spruce SE-process for bioreactors. In: Park YS, Bonga JM (eds) Proceedings of the 4th international conference of the IUFRO unit 2.09.02. on Development and application of vegetative propagation technologies in plantation forestry to cope with a changing climate and environment, La Plata, Argentina, 19–23 Sept 2016, pp 293–297Google Scholar
  18. Sutton B (2002) Commercial delivery of genetic improvement to conifer plantations using somatic embryogenesis. Ann For Sci 59:657–661CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tikkinen M, Varis S, Peltola H, Aronen T (2017) Norway spruce emblings as cutting donors for tree breeding and production. Scand J For Res 33:207–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Tikkinen M, Varis S, Aronen T (2018a) Development of somatic embryo maturation and growing techniques of Norway spruce emblings towards large scale field testing. Forests 9Google Scholar
  21. Tikkinen M, Varis S, Peltola H, Aronen T (2018b) Improved germination conditions for Norway spruce somatic cotyledonary embryos increased survival and height growth of emblings. Trees, in pressGoogle Scholar
  22. Tremblay L, Tremblay FM (1995) Maturation of blackspruce somatic embryos: sucrose hydrolysis and resulting osmotic pressure of the medium. Plant Cell Tissue Org Cult 42:39–46CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Vagner M, Fischerova L, Spackova J, Vondrakova Z (2005) Somatic embryogenesis in Norway spruce. In: Jain SM, Gupta PK (eds) Protocol for somatic embryogenesis in woody plants, vol 77. Forestry Sciences, Springer, Dordrecht, pp 141–155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Varis S, Ahola S, Jaakola L, Aronen T (2018) Reliable and practical methods for cryopreservation of embryogenic cultures and cold storage of somatic embryos of Norway spruce. Cryobiology 76:8–17CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. von Arnold S, Eriksson T (1981) In virto studies of adventitious shoots of Pinus contorta. Can J Bot 59:870–874CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. von Arnold S, Larsson E, Panagiotis NM, Tianqing Z, Uddenberg D, Bozhkov PV (2016) Norway spruce as a model for studying regulation of somatic embryo development in conifers. In: Park YS, Bonga JM, Moon HK (eds) Vegetative propagation of forest trees. Seoul, National Institute of Forest Science (NIFoS), pp 351–372Google Scholar
  27. Vondráková Z, Eliášová K, Vágner M (2014) The anti-actin drugs latrunculin and cytochalasin affect the maturation of spruce somatic embryos in different ways. Plant Sci 221–222:90–99CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Natural Resources Institute FinlandPunkaharjuFinland

Personalised recommendations