Lateral bud outgrowth and its control by the apex

Rubinstein, Benjamin I. P.; Nagao, Mike A.

doi:10.1007/bf02860863

Cited by 64 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 121 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…However, this response should not be interpreted as indicating that resource availability regulates ramet initiation from axillary buds (Rubinstein & Nagao, 1976). In this investigation the number of juvenile ramets initiated per plant was 70% greater in plants grown in the large than in the small soil volumes and ramet number increased, rather than decreased, in response to a reduction in PFD.…”

Section: mentioning

confidence: 57%

Does resource availability modulate shade avoidance responses to the ratio of red to far‐red irradiation? An assessment of radiation quantity and soil volume

Monaco

Briske

2000

New Phytologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We conducted two experiments to investigate the expression of shade avoidance in response to low ratios of red to far-red irradiation (R : FR) in the C % perennial grass Schizachyrium scoparium at two levels of above-ground (photosynthetic photon flux density (PFD) 400-700 nm) and below-ground (soil volume) resource availability and in plants of two ages. Young plants showed greater sheath and ramet height in response to low R : FR and old plants showed reduced ramet initiation in experiments one and two, respectively, but both responses were not expressed simultaneously in either group. Growth of all ramet variables, including ramet initiation, was suppressed in small as opposed to large soil volumes. By contrast, architectural variables, but not ramet initiation, were greater for plants grown in low as opposed to ambient PFD. However, expression of shade avoidance to low R : FR was not significantly affected by either level of PFD or soil volume. We must conclude that the levels of resource availability provided do not modulate shade avoidance in this perennial grass. These results demonstrate that S. scoparium is capable of expressing shade avoidance in response to low R : FR, but inconsistent juvenile ramet initiation and architectural responses in plants of different ages and phenological stages of development indicate that the shade avoidance response might not be expressed consistently throughout the life of plants.

show abstract

Section: mentioning

confidence: 57%

Does resource availability modulate shade avoidance responses to the ratio of red to far‐red irradiation? An assessment of radiation quantity and soil volume

Monaco

Briske

2000

New Phytologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…First, branches above girdles, where the direct connection with the terminal is intact, are released from apical control, whereas buds above girdles remain under apical dominance. Second, there is a lag of two months before girdling affects apical control, in contrast to a lag of less than 10 h in apical dominance (10).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…Control of cambial activity in branches is one step further removed from inhibition of bud outgrowth. It should not be presumed that the extensive literature on apical dominance (9,10) applies to the control of branch movements discussed in this paper.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the few hormonal studies, auxin applied to a severed stem above a branch can replace the control of the terminal (13), and exogenous gibberellins increase apical control in conifers, including pines, but decrease control in Sequoia sempervivens (8). An hypothesis for direct apical control would assume that a correlative, hormonal message moves from the terminal shoot to the lateral branch, where it acts to inhibit branch growth (9,10) or to cause epinastic bending and downward growth (7). An hypothesis for indirect control is that the branch competes with the stem for photosynthate produced by the branch and that the competitive ability of the stem depends on hormones, probably auxin, from the terminal (15).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Apical Control of Branch Movements in White Pine: Biological Aspects

Wilson¹,

Archer²

1981

Plant Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Two-year-old branches on control trees (Pins strobus L.) were compared through a season with branches on trees stem-girdled just above, or below, the branch whorL AU branches first sagged down for 20 days and then moved up for 40 days. Then, control branches reversed and moved back down while branches in both girdle treatments continued to move up. Movement reversal correlated with cessation of both elongation and diameter growth in control branches. Diameter growth continued in branches of girdled trees. Control branches continued to stiffen even after diameter growth stopped. Dffferences in movements due to gdling are from compression wood formed after cessation of branch elongation. Apical control stops cambial activity and compression wood formation in branches after branch elongation ceases, allowing photosynthate produced in the branch to move to the stem. Control branches bend down from increasing selfweight after cambial activity ceases.In white pine (Pinus strobus L.) and most conifers, when the terminal shoot is intact, the lateral branches gradually sag downward over the years. When the terminal shoot is injured or when the stem is girdled above a branch, the uppermost branch bends upward to replace the terminal (4,7,14,15). This bending is from compression wood action in older portions ofthe branch, not from geotropic bending of elongating shoots (16,17). The overall result of bending is well known, but the dynamics of the process has been studied only in stems (1, 2). Apical control decreases diameter growth in white pine branches (15), but Munch (7) stated that girdles below a branch increased cambial activity without affecting branch movements, suggesting that movement and cambial activity are controlled separately. The present paper describes the results of stem girdling experiments to modify apical control of the movements of the 2-year-old portion of 2-year-old branches during their third growing season. We also followed changes in mechanical factors that affect bending and branch movements

show abstract

“…Applicaion of 0.1 i BAP in lanolin to the petiole or hypocotyl was ineffective. However, applcation of 0.1 milmoar TIBA as a ring around the petoles of the cotyledons or 1-centimeter on the hypocotyl below the cotyledons significanty promoted cotyledonary bud development.The growth of lateral buds in plants and their correlative inhibition by the apical bud have been investigated by a number of investigators (1,8,15,16,19). In Lycopersicon esculentum Mill., understanding the nature and control of lateral bud development is of special interest because: (a) its morphology exhibits an initial phase of monopodial growth followed by a sympodial growth habit (3); and (b) manual or chemical removal of unwanted lateral buds or lateral shoots poses certain physiological problems such as disease and chemical injury in addition to being a laborrequiring and costly operation in tomato production (22,25,26).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Hormones and Young Leaves Control Development of Cotyledonary Buds in Tomato Seedlings

Aung¹,

Byrne²

1978

Plant Physiol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Hormonal and plant factors regulating the development of the inhibited cotyledonary buds of Lycoperskon escueatum Mill. cv. 'Firebal' seedings were studied. Excision of the Immature plumular leaves of 5-to 20-milhimeter length significantly stimulated bud development after 2 to 4 days, but excision of leaves exceeding 20-millimeter length was without effect. Apial application of 20 microliters of 5 milmolar abscisic acid significantly promoted development of the cotyledonary buds after 6 days. A subapical ring of 0.1 mim r concentration of 2,3,5-triodobenzoic acid (TIBA) in lanoln slgllatiy promoted cotyledonary bud development after 11 days. Twenty microliters of 0.1 mllimolar 6-benzylaminopurine (BAP) applie directly to the cotyledonary bud loci significantly promoted bud develmt, but I mkromolar pberelln A4/7 was ineffective. Applicaion of 0.1 i BAP in lanolin to the petiole or hypocotyl was ineffective. However, applcation of 0.1 milmoar TIBA as a ring around the petoles of the cotyledons or 1-centimeter on the hypocotyl below the cotyledons significanty promoted cotyledonary bud development.The growth of lateral buds in plants and their correlative inhibition by the apical bud have been investigated by a number of investigators (1,8,15,16,19). In Lycopersicon esculentum Mill., understanding the nature and control of lateral bud development is of special interest because: (a) its morphology exhibits an initial phase of monopodial growth followed by a sympodial growth habit (3); and (b) manual or chemical removal of unwanted lateral buds or lateral shoots poses certain physiological problems such as disease and chemical injury in addition to being a laborrequiring and costly operation in tomato production (22,25,26).In IAA-treated decapitated stumps of tomato plants, exogenous application of a combination of gibberellin A3 and kinetin in lanolin paste stimulated lateral bud development, but the treatment effect was inconsistent on intact plants (7). Tucker (23,24) found that the far red light suppression of the development of lateral buds of tomato was associated with an increase in endogenous levels of auxins and ABA, while stimulation of lateral bud development was associated with increased levels of endogenous gibberellins and cytokinins. The vigorous lateral bud situated immediately below the first main inflorescence was not inhibited by the far red light exposure following the 16-hr photoperiod. Aung (3) indicated that the factors controlling the development of the lateral bud located immediately below the first main inflorescence emanated from the inflorescence itself and from the roots.Heretofore, studies on the development of the lateral buds of tomato have been concerned primarily with the buds subtended between the first inflorescence ofthe main stem and the cotyledons (3, [22][23][24][25]. There is little information on the inhibition of the cotyledonary axillary buds during the ontogenetic development of the tomato plant. In an earlier study on the effects of gibberellins and cytokinin on ...

show abstract

Lateral bud outgrowth and its control by the apex

Cited by 64 publications

References 121 publications

Does resource availability modulate shade avoidance responses to the ratio of red to far‐red irradiation? An assessment of radiation quantity and soil volume

Does resource availability modulate shade avoidance responses to the ratio of red to far‐red irradiation? An assessment of radiation quantity and soil volume

Apical Control of Branch Movements in White Pine: Biological Aspects

Hormones and Young Leaves Control Development of Cotyledonary Buds in Tomato Seedlings

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About