4.0 Article

Water soaking and benzyladenine as strategy for improving grapevine grafting success

期刊

REVISTA BRASILEIRA DE FRUTICULTURA
卷 44, 期 3, 页码 -

出版社

SOC BRASILEIRA FRUTICULTURA
DOI: 10.1590/0100-29452022946

关键词

Callus degree; Indols; Phenols; Peroxidase; Vitis vinifera

资金

  1. Cairo University

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study investigated the effects of water soaking and growth stimulate on grapevine grafting. The results showed that both water soaking and growth stimulate can improve the success rate of grafting, and the formation of callus plays a key role in determining the success of grafting.
The grafting of grapevines has become essential to overcome biotic and abiotic stresses because permits access to the benefits of the agronomical characteristics of different rootstocks. Stimulating the rapid formation of the grafting union is the key to grafting success. This investigation studied the effect of removing growth inhibitors through soaking in water for 24 hours versus adding growth stimulate through fast dipping in 250 mg/L benzyladenine (BA) for 30 seconds of graft wood before grafting on the grafting success of 'Flame Seedless' and 'Early Sweet' scions (Vitis vinifera) grafted onto 'Freedom' rootstock (Vitis champinii x 1613C). Water soaking came first and followed by treatment of 250 mg/L BA, which significantly improved the grafting success of both cultivars. Grafting success was positively associated with increasing callus formation at the grafting zone, which was accompanied with the highest total indols content, the lowest total phenols content, and peroxidase activity above and below the grafting zone. However, water soaking significantly increased total indols and decreased the total phenols content of the ungrafted cuttings. In this study, it was suggested that the application of water soaking to grafted cuttings prior to grafting is an environmentally friendly and alternative practice for synthetic growth regulators to improve grafted cuttings success.

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

4.0
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