4.7 Article

The Effect of 8-Hydroxyquinoline Sulphate and Gibberellic Acid on Postharvest Viola odorata L. Leaf Longevity

期刊

AGRICULTURE-BASEL
卷 12, 期 2, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/agriculture12020247

关键词

vase life; 8HQS; GA(3); Viola odorata

类别

资金

  1. Polish Ministry of Science and Higher Education [005/RID/2018/19]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

The aim of this study was to evaluate the postharvest longevity of cut leaves of Viola odorata and determine the effects of plant preservatives on their longevity. The results showed that conditioning in gibberellic acid and 8-hydroxyquinoline sulphate, as well as the maintenance in 8-hydroxyquinoline sulphate, reduced the vase life of cut V. odorata leaves. Conditioning in 100 mg.dm(-3) gibberellic acid followed by water treatment had the best impact on the Soil Plant Analysis Development value of the leaves.
The aim of the study was to evaluate the postharvest longevity of cut leaves of Viola odorata and determine their usefulness as a florist green. The research also involved the study of the influence of chemical compounds used as plant preservatives on the longevity of leaves of V. odorata. The leaf stalks of V. odorata were soaked in water or conditioned in a 200 mg.dm(-3) solution of 8-hydroxyquinoline sulphate, or a 50 or 100 mg.dm(-3) solution of gibberellic acid. After one day, the leaves were kept in water or 200 mg.dm(-3) of 8-hydroxyquinoline sulphate. The leaves of V. odorata had a longevity of about 31 days in water. Both the conditioning in gibberellic acid and 8-hydroxyquinoline sulphate and the maintenance in 8-hydroxyquinoline sulphate reduced the vase life of cut V. odorata leaves. The application of conditioners resulted in a significantly greater reduction of the leaf mass. The Soil Plant Analysis Development value of the leaves was best affected by conditioning them in 100 mg.dm(-3) gibberellic acid followed by keeping them in water. Cut leaves of V. odorata with water treatment may be used as a florist green.

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