4.7 Article

Climatic control of bud burst in young seedlings of nine provenances of Norway spruce

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 28, 期 2, 页码 311-320

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/28.2.311

关键词

chilling; dormancy; forcing; light conditions; Picea abies

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Detailed knowledge of temperature effects on the timing of dormancy development and bud burst will help evaluate the impacts of climate change on forest trees. We tested the effects of temperature applied during short-day treatment, duration of short-day treatment, duration of chilling and light regime applied during forcing on the timing of bud burst in 1- and 2-year-old seedlings of nine provenances of Norway spruce (Picea abies (L.) Karst.). High temperature during dormancy induction, little or no chilling and low temperature during forcing all delayed dormancy release but did not prevent bud burst or growth onset provided the seedlings were forced under long-day conditions. Without chilling, bud burst occurred in about 20% of seedlings kept in short days at 12 C, indicating that young Norway spruce seedlings do not exhibit true bud dormancy. Chilling hastened bud burst and removed the long photoperiod requirement, but the effect of high temperature applied during dormancy induction was observed even after prolonged chilling. Extension of the short-day treatment from 4 to 8 or 12 weeks hastened bud burst. The effect of treatments applied during dormancy development was larger than that of provenance; in some cases no provenance effect was detected, but in 1-year-old seedlings, time to bud burst decreased linearly with increasing latitude of origin. Differences among provenances were complicated by different responses of some origins to light conditions under long-day forcing. In conclusion, timing of bud burst in Norway spruce seedlings is significantly affected by temperature during bud set, and these effects are modified by chilling and environmental conditions during forcing.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据