Effect of plant growth regulators on the tuberisation and physiological age of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.) tubers grown from true potato seed

Abstract

The effects of plant growth regulators [6-benzyl amino purine (BA), indole-3-acetic acid (IAA), 2,4-dichlorophenoxyacetic acid (2,4-D), gibberellic acid (GA 3 ), chlormequat chloride (CCC), daminozide] and their time of application on tuberisation and physiological age of cv. Chacasina F 1 grown from true potato seed (TPS) were studied in four experiments conducted in spring or autumn in Greece. BA, IAA and 2,4-D did not affect plant development, tuberisation or the physiological age of the tubers produced. Daminozide and CCC reduced plant height when applied 30 but not 60 d after transplanting (DAT) in both spring and autumn. Neither substance affected tuberisation or the physiological age of the tubers formed. Application of GA 3 30 DAT significantly increased plant height and the number, but not the weight, of tubers formed per plant. Tubers from GA 3 -treated plants tended to be elongated with a low dry matter content. When GA 3 was applied at 60 DAT, plant height was increased, but tuber number, weight and dry matter content were not affected. Late application of GA 3 induced a high percentage of sprouted tubers prior to harvest and significantly increased the physiological age of the tubers, as reflected by an increased rate of respiration, sprouting and weight loss after harvest. Although early application of GA 3 also increased tuber sprouting prior to harvest, it had no effect on sprouting, respiration and weight loss after harvest. Application of GA 3 early in the vegetative cycle may be useful for the production of mini-tubers for propagation, whereas application at a later stage may aid in early planting by accelerating the breaking of tuber dormancy.

The effect of the time and mode of application of gibberellic acid and inhibitors of gibberellin biosynthesis on the dormancy of potato tubers grown from true potato seed

“…Plants from TPS exhibit a longer period of juvenility12 than plants from seed tubers, as indicated by their production of five or six simple leaves prior to the formation of compound leaves,24 whereas plants from seed tubers form only compound leaves. The application of GA 3 to plants from TPS has been shown to increase leaf area mainly as a result of increased leaf size,12 whereas GA 3 increases leaf number in plants from seed tubers 15.…”

“…Plants from TPS exhibit a longer period of juvenility12 than plants from seed tubers, as indicated by their production of five or six simple leaves prior to the formation of compound leaves,24 whereas plants from seed tubers form only compound leaves. The application of GA 3 to plants from TPS has been shown to increase leaf area mainly as a result of increased leaf size,12 whereas GA 3 increases leaf number in plants from seed tubers 15. Moreover, repeated applications of GA 3 to plants from TPS initiated early in the growth cycle cause an increase in tuber number per plant,16 whereas in plants from seed tubers the tuber number per plant is decreased by repeated GA 3 applications 15.…”

“…TPS is used widely in many developing countries to produce tubers for consumption 9,10 or propagation. 11 Moreover, since plants from TPS are considered more juvenile and have a longer period of development than those derived from seed tubers, 12 it was considered that this factor might affect the response to growth regulator application.…”

Effect of two cytokinins and a growth inhibitor on the in vitro tuberization of two genotypes of Solanum tuberosum L. cvs. Atlantic and Alpha

“…The differences in WM and DM when compared to the control could be explained by the work of Alexopoulos, Akoumianakis, and Passam (2006) who argued that the effects of cytokinins on increasing increase cell division and reducing tuber dormancy depend on the PA of the mother tubers. Villafranca et al, (1998) concluded that under in vitro conditions the PA of the mother tubers had a significant effect on responses in terms of microtuberization, confirming the importance of the PA throughout the process; however, in our study it was not possible to know the PA of the genotypes at the beginning of the assays.…”

Fate and transport of chlormequat in subsurface environments

“…Regulatory issues relating to the use of Cq have been reviewed by the US EPA (Anonymous 2007b). Much is known about its mode of action (Hughes 1967;Tolbert 1960), distribution in treated plants (Dekhuijz and Vonk 1974), effect on crop yield (Alexopoulos et al 2006;Berry et al 2004;Browne et al 2006;Espindula et al 2009;Gencsoylu 2009;Leitch and Kurt 1999) and residue concentration in food and agricultural products (Granby and Vahl 2001;Juhler and Vahl 1999;Zhao et al 2000;Ueberschar et al 2003). No studies have yet been published on the environmental fate of Cq and the contamination risk it may pose to the aquatic environment, however.…”