EurekaMag.com logo
+ Site Statistics
References:
52,725,316
Abstracts:
28,411,598
+ 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 Google+Follow on Google+
Follow on LinkedInFollow on LinkedIn

+ Translate

Effects of daffodil flowers on the water relations and vase life of roses and tulips






Journal of the American Society for Horticultural Science 123(1): 146-149

Effects of daffodil flowers on the water relations and vase life of roses and tulips

Placing a daffodil (Narcissus pseudonarcissus L. 'Carlton') flower in a vase with a rose (Rosa hybrida L. Sonia) flower reduced water uptake by the rose and resulted in precocious wilting of its leaves and flower and in pedicel bending. These symptoms were also observed when mucilage from daffodil stems was placed in the vase water. The effects of the mucilage and the daffodil stem were overcome by adding 8-hydroxyquinoline (HQC) to the vase solution. HQC inhibits ethylene production and is an antimicrobial compound. Aminoethyoxyvinylglycine (AVG) or silver thiosulfate (STS), inhibitors of ethylene synthesis and action, respectively, did not alleviate the mucilage effects, but sodium hypochlorite, an antimicrobial compound, did. Bacterial counts in the basal 5-cm segment of rose stems increased after placing mucilage or a daffodil stem in the vase water, and counts were reduced by adding HQC or sodium hypochlorite. One daffodil stem also reduced the vase life of tulips (Tulipa gesneriana L. 'Frappant' and 'Apeldoorn'), which showed precocious leaf yellowing. This was not alleviated by HQC and was also found when mucilage was placed on the leaf surface. Placing mucilage on the leaf produced no effect in roses. Separating the mucilage indicated that the effect in roses is mainly due to the sugar and polysaccharide fraction and the effect in tulips is due to a fraction containing several alkaloids. The results indicate that the decreased vase life of rose flowers, after one daffodil is placed in their vase water, is due to daffodil mucilage, which, in the rose cultivar tested, blocks water uptake, mainly as a result of increased bacterial growth. In the tulip cultivars tested, the negative effect on vase life is primarily due to mucilage toxicity.


Accession: 003117241



Related references

Auxin like activity of daffodil exudate reduces vase life of cut tulips. Gartenbauwissenschaft 52(3): 130-135, 1987

The extension of the vase life of cut flowers. The use of materials for extending vase life in carnations, gerberas and roses. Jber. st. Lehr- u. ForschAnst. Gartenb. Weihenstephan. 67. 92-118. bibl. 5, 1966

Effects of polyamines in the vase water on the vase life of cut rose flowers. Horticultural Research Japan 3(1): 101-104, 2004

Effects of the temperature of vase water on the vase life of cut rose flowers. Environment Control in Biology 44(2): 85-91, 2006

Water relations and gas exchanges of cut Godetia flowers during vase life. Advances in Horticultural Science 12(3): 153-157, 1998

The effects of microbial exopolysaccharides eps in vase water on the water relations and the vase life of rosa cultivar sonia. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 68(4): 367-384, 1990

Cold storage of rose flowers: effects of cold storage and water loss on opening and vase life of 'Mercedes' roses. Scientia Horticulturae 24(3/4): 369-378, 1984

The effects of microbial exopolysaccharides (EPS) in vase water on the water relations and the vase life of Rosa cv. Sonia. Journal of Applied Bacteriology 68(4): 367-384, 1990

The influence of the number of foliage leaves on the vase life of cut rose flowers in two media Water relations, preservative. Agroplantae 13(3): 73-76, 1981

A study on vase life extension of cut roses rosa hybrida l. cv. marina ii. effect of vase water management and addition of sucrose and aluminium sulfate. Journal of the Korean Society for Horticultural Science 32(4): 497-505, 1991