4.6 Review

Dormant buds and adventitious root formation by Vitis and other woody plants

期刊

JOURNAL OF PLANT GROWTH REGULATION
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 296-314

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00344-003-0001-3

关键词

adventitious roots; Vitis; dormant bud; grapevine; propagation; ecodormancy; endodormancy

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Viticulture has historically depended upon clonal propagation of winegrape, tablegrape, and rootstock cultivars. Dependence on clonal propagation is perpetuated by consumer preference, legal regulations, a reproductive biology that is incompatible with sustaining genetic lines, and the fact that grapevine breeding is a slow process. Adventitious root formation is a key component to successful clonal propagation. In spite of this fact, grapevine has not been a centerpiece for adventitious root research. Dormant woody canes represent complex assemblages of tissues and organs. Factors that further contribute to such complexity include levels of endogenous plant growth regulators, the extent and duration of dormancy, carbohydrate storage, transport, the presence or absence of dormant buds or emergent shoots, and preconditioning treatments. For the above reasons, the mechanisms driving adventitious root formation by grapevine and other woody cuttings are poorly understood. We present results indicating that the dormant bud on cane cuttings from a non-recalcitrant to root Vitis vinifera cultivar, cv. Cabernet Sauvignon, slows or inhibits adventitious root emergence. In contrast to Cabernet Sauvignon, removal of the dormant bud from cane cuttings of a recalcitrant to root hybrid rootstock (V. berlandieri X V. riparia cv. 420A) and an intermediate to root hybrid rootstock (V. riparia x V. rupestris cv. 101-14) had no influence on adventitious root emergence. Reciprocal transplanting of nodes containing dormant buds among all three cultivars did not affect rooting behavior. Our results indicate that the commonly held belief that bud removal diminishes adventitious root emergence is not true.

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

4.6
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