4.7 Article

13C-photosynthate accumulation in Japanese pear fruit during the period of rapid fruit growth is limited by the sink strength of fruit rather than by the transport capacity of the pedicel

期刊

JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 56, 期 420, 页码 2713-2719

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/jxb/eri264

关键词

C-13 labelling; fruit growth; gibberellins; Japanese pear; pedicel vascularization; Pyrus pyrifolia Nakai; sink strength

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In Japanese pear, the application of GA(3+4) during the period of rapid fruit growth resulted in a marked increase in pedicel diameter and bigger fruit at harvest. To elucidate the relationship between pedicel capacity and fruit growth and to determine the main factor responsible for larger fruit size at harvest, fruit growth and pedicel vascularization after GA application were examined and the carbohydrate fluxes were monitored in a spur unit by non-invasive techniques using C-13 tracer. Histological studies of fruit revealed that GA increased the cell size of the mesocarp but not the cell number and core size. The investigation of carbon partitioning showed that an increase in the specific rate of carbohydrate accumulation in fruit or the strength of fruit should be responsible for an increase of fruit weight in GA-treated trees. Observation of pedicel vascularization showed that an increase in pedicel cross-sectional area (CSA) by GA application mainly resulted from phloem and xylem CSA, but it is unlikely that an increase in the transport system is the direct factor for larger fruit size. Therefore, it can be concluded that larger fruit size resulting from GA application during the period of rapid fruit growth caused an increase in the cell size of the mesocarp and increased carbon partitioning to the fruit. Although GA is closely involved with pedicel vascularization, it seems that photosynthate accumulation in fruit is limited by the sink strength of fruit rather than by the transport capacity of the pedicel.

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