EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
53,869,633
Abstracts:
29,686,251
+ Search Articles
+ Subscribe to Site Feeds
EurekaMag Most Shared ContentMost Shared
EurekaMag PDF Full Text ContentPDF Full Text
+ PDF Full Text
Request PDF Full TextRequest PDF Full Text
+ Follow Us
Follow on FacebookFollow on Facebook
Follow on TwitterFollow on Twitter
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Flower-bud formation in explants of photoperiodic and day-neutral Nicotiana biotypes and its bearing on the regulation of flower formation



Flower-bud formation in explants of photoperiodic and day-neutral Nicotiana biotypes and its bearing on the regulation of flower formation



Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 90(10): 4636-4640



The capacity to form flower buds in thin-layer explants was studied in flowering plants of several species, cultivars, and lines of Nicotiana differing in their response to photoperiod. This capacity was found in all biotypes examined and could extend into sepals and corolla. It varied greatly, depending on genotype, source tissue and its developmental stage, and comparison of the culture medium, particularly the levels of glucose, auxin, and cytokinin. It was greatest in the two day-neutral plants examined, Samsun tabocco and Nicotiana rustica, where it extended from the inflorescence region down the vegetative stem, in a basipetally decreasing gradient; it was least in the two qualitative photoperiodic plants studied, the long-day plant Nicotiana silvestris and the short-day plant Maryland Mammoth tobacco, the quantitative long-day plant Nicotiana alata and the quantitative short-day plant Nicotiana otophora line 38-G-81, where it was limited to the pedicels (and, in some cases, the sepals). Regardless of the photoperiodic response of the source plants, the response was the same in explants cultured under long and short days. The finding that capacity to form flower buds in explants is present in all Nicotiana biotypes studied supports the idea that it is regulated by the same mechanism(s), regardless of the plant's photoperiodic character. Howerver, the source plants were all in the flowering stage, and no flower-bud formation can be obtained in explants from strictly vegetative Nicotiana plants. Hence, flower formation in the explants is not identical with de novo flower formation in a hitherto vegetative plant: it is rather the expression of a floral state already established in the plant, although it can vary widely in extent and spatial distribution. Culture conditions that permit flower-bud formation in an explant are conditions that maintain the floral state and encourage its expression; conditions under which no flower buds are formed reduce this state and/or prevent its expression.

(PDF emailed within 0-6 h: $19.90)

Accession: 002384744

Download citation: RISBibTeXText

PMID: 11607381

DOI: 10.1073/pnas.90.10.4636



Related references

Flower formation in explants of photoperiodic genotypes of nicotiana. Plant Physiology (Rockville) 86(4 SUPPL): 128, 1988

Effects of ca(2+) -carrier A23187 and Ca(2+) -chelator EGTA on the flower formation of chrysanthemum under photoperiodic induction and the Ca2+ distribution and carbohydrate contents in leaves during the flower formation. Ying Yong Sheng Tai Xue Bao 21(3): 675-682, 2011

Comparison of de-novo flower-bud formation in a photoperiodic and a day-neutral tobacco. Planta 171(4): 560-564, 1987

The photoperiodic regulation of promotion and inhibition of flower formation. Berichte der Deutschen Botanischen Gesellschaft 97(3-4): 293-314, 1984

Auxin regulation of flower bud formation in tobacco explants. Journal of Experimental Botany 39(201): 451-460, 1988

Research on biennial bearing at the Experimental Garden at Werkhoven. (2) The effect of flower thinning on flower bud formation. Fruitteelt 73(12): 281-282, 1983

Flower formation in Erica. I. Results so far, and the morphology of flower formation. II. Effect of temperature, temperature sum (WS) method. III. Effect of light and daylength. IV. Effect of nitrogen. V. Flower formation in various climatic regions. VI. Possibilities of application of the WS-method. Deutscher Gartenbau 37(8; 9; 10; 11; 12; 14): 318-321; 393-395; 454-458; 506-508; 539-544; 661-663, 1983

Multidirectional effects of exposing freesia corms to chilling on flower bud initiation, flower bud development and flower stalk elongation, and corm formation. Journal of the Japanese Society for Horticultural Science 69(1): 115-117, 2000

Ecological studies on flower bud formation in apples. (1) Vigour of the lateral branch in relation to flower bud formation and fruit growth.. p.] Tech. Bull. Fac. Hort., Chiba. 11, 45-50. bibl. 11, 1963

Control of citrus d flower bud formation part 1 the effect of gibberellic acid spraying on flower bud formation in satsuma orange d. Bulletin of the Horticultural Research Station (Ministry of Agriculture & Forestry) Series B (Okitsu) (8): 1-11, 1968

Control of citrus flower bud formation. I. The effect of gibberellic acid spray on flower bud formation in Satsuma orange. Bull. hort. Res. Stat. Okitsu, 8, 1-11. bibl. 25, 1968

Flower formation in Begonia boweri and an offspring of B. 'Cleopatra'. IV. Influence of the number of leaves and their position on flower formation. Gartenbauwissenschaft 45(1): 29-34, 1980

The relationship between environment and vegetative growth, dormancy and flower formation in vines (Vitis species). III. Flower formation. Vitis. 4: 240-61. bibl. 53, 1964

Environmental influence on vegetative growth, dormancy and flower formation in vines. (Vitis species). III. Flower formation. Vitis. 4: 240-61, 1964