4.7 Article

Trophic control of bud break in peach (Prunus persica) trees:: a possible role of hexoses

期刊

TREE PHYSIOLOGY
卷 24, 期 5, 页码 579-588

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/treephys/24.5.579

关键词

carbohydrate metabolism; meristematic tissues; sorbitol; vegetative bud; xylem sap

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Vegetative buds of peach (Prunus persica L. Batsch.) trees act as strong sinks and their bud break capacity can be profoundly affected by carbohydrate availability during the rest period (November-February). Analysis of xylem sap revealed seasonal changes in concentrations of sorbitol and hexoses (glucose and fructose). Sorbitol concentrations decreased and hexose concentrations increased with increasing bud break capacity. Sucrose concentration in xylem sap increased significantly but remained low. To clarify their respective roles in the early events of bud break, carbohydrate concentrations and uptake rates, and activities of NAD-dependent sorbitol dehydrogenase (SDH), sorbitol oxidase (SOX) and cell wall invertase (CWI) were determined in meristematic tissues, cushion tissues and stem segments. Only CWI activity increased in meristematic tissues shortly before bud break. In buds displaying high bud break capacity (during January and February), concentrations of sorbitol and sucrose in meristematic tissues were almost unchanged, paralleling their low rates of uptake and utilization by meristematic tissues, and indicating that sorbitol and sucrose play a negligible role in the bud break process. Hexose concentrations in meristematic tissues and glucose imported by meristematic tissues correlated positively with bud break capacity, suggesting that hexoses are involved in the early events of bud break. These findings were confirmed by data for buds that were unable to break because they had been collected from trees deprived of cold. We therefore conclude that hexoses are of greater importance than sorbitol or sucrose in the early events of bud break in peach trees.

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