Growth‐Inhibiting Substances in Terminal Buds of Fraxinus

Hemberg, Torsten

doi:10.1111/j.1399-3054.1949.tb07646.x

Cited by 96 publications

(19 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Nonetheless, it is a poorly understood process, despite an extensive literature going back to the 1930s (Boysen-Jensen 1936;Hemberg 1949;Howard 1951;Doorenbos 1953;Samish 1954;Nitsch 1957;Chandler 1960;Eagles and Wareing 1964;Perry 1971;Wareing and Saunders 1971;Fuchigami et al 1977;Couvillon and Erez 1985;Saure 1985;Powell 1987;Martin 1991).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

“…Plant hormones and inhibitory substances were implicated early on in bud dormancy (Boysen-Jensen 1935;Hemberg 1949;Hendershott and Walker 1959;Cornforth et al 1965;Okhuma et al 1965). Once it was discovered that GA 3 applications could break dormancy under short days (Lockhart and Bonner 1957), the concept that dormancy is maintained by a balance between growth promoters (gibberellins (GAs)) and inhibitors (numerous) was soon put forward (Phillips 1962;Smith and Kefford 1964).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Dormancy in peach (Prunus persica) flower buds. VI. Effects of gibberellins and an acylcyclohexanedione (trinexapac-ethyl) on bud morphogenesis in field experiments with orchard trees and on cuttings

Reinoso¹,

Luna²,

Dauría³

et al. 2002

Can. J. Bot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The effects of several gibberellins (GAs), exo-16,17-dihydro GA 5 , 2,2-dimethyl GA 4 , and GA 3 , and trinexapac-ethyl (an acylcyclohexanedione inhibitor of late-stage GA biosynthesis), were assessed for their effects on flower bud development during and after winter dormancy in peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.) in three field trials and one experiment using cuttings. At late developmental stages, GA 3 hastened floral bud development and shortened the time to anthesis, whereas early-stage applications of GA 3 either had no effect or delayed floral bud development. In contrast, an exceptionally growth-active GA, 2,2-dimethyl GA 4 , promoted floral bud development (tested only on cuttings) across a range of application dates. However, it also induced a high percentage of bud abscission and remaining buds had a necrotic gynoecium and alterations in the androecium. Surprisingly, trinexapac-ethyl also promoted floral bud development, although it was not as effective as GA 1 . Trinexapac-ethyl-treated buds also showed morphological alterations and gynoecium necrosis. However, the best and most consistent treatment for enhancing floral bud development and hastening flower anthesis was 16,17-dihydro GA 5 . It stimulated floral bud development in up to 80% of the treated buds. Further, the promotive effect of 16,17-dihydro GA 5 was maintained through to anthesis across three years of field experiments on intact trees, as well as with cuttings. Whether 16,17-dihydro GA 5 , a competitive inhibitor of the 3β-hydroxylation step in GA biosynthesis, acts per se, acts via a metabolite (such as 16,17-dihydro GA 3 ), or acts by modifying endogenous GA metabolism is not yet known.Résumé : Les auteurs ont évalué les effets de plusieurs gibbérellines (GAs), soit l'exo-16,17-dihydro GA 5 , la 2,2-diméthyl GA 4 , et la GA 3 ainsi que le trinexapac-éthyl (un inhibiteur de l'acylcyclohexanedione vers la fin de la biosynthèse des AG, sur le développement du bourgeon floral; ces essais ont été effectué au cours et après la dormance hivernale chez la pêche (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch.), dans le cadre de trois expériences conduites sur le terrain, et une expérience effectuée sur des boutures. Aux dernières étapes du développement, la GA 3 accélère le développement du bourgeon floral et raccourci la durée de l'anthèse, alors que des applications de GA 3 aux premiers stades restent sans effet, ou retardent le développement du bourgeon floral. Au contraire, une GA particulièrement active sur la croissance, la 2,2-diméthyl GA 4 , stimule le développement du bourgeon floral (vérifié uniquement sur boutures) pour un ensemble de dates d'application. Cependant, il induit un fort pourcentage d'abscission des bourgeons, et les bourgeons qui restent montrent des gynécées nécrosés et des altérations de l'androcée. Ce qui est surprenant, le trinexapac-éthyl stimule éga-lement le développement du bourgeon floral, bien qu'il ne soit pas aussi efficace que la GA 1 . Les bourgeons traités avec le trinexapac-éthyl montrent également des altérations morphol...

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 97%

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Dormancy in peach (Prunus persica) flower buds. VI. Effects of gibberellins and an acylcyclohexanedione (trinexapac-ethyl) on bud morphogenesis in field experiments with orchard trees and on cuttings

Reinoso¹,

Luna²,

Dauría³

et al. 2002

Can. J. Bot.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Inhibitors have been reported to increase in buds of fruit and forest trees during the autumn and winter (5,14,21), and to decrease after the chilling requirement has been fulfilled (5,13,21). However, recent results indicate that emergence from the dormant state cannot always be correlated with the disappearance of inhibitors (22,26).…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Cytokinins in Populus×robusta: Changes during Chilling and Bud Burst

Hewett

Wareing

1973

Physiologia Plantarum

104

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Cytokinin levels in sap and vegetative buds of Populus x rohusta Schneid have been determined during chilling and bud burst. From non-detectable levels in December and January, parallel increases in cytokinin levels occur in sap and buds during February and March, both in material from the field and that held at 2°C in the dark. The maximum in the sap occurs two weeks prior to natural bud burst, and 3 weeks, prior to the maximum attained in the buds. Excised twigs, forced to bud burst, show a similar pattern. The role of roots as a possible source of cytokinms is discussed.Partition chromatography on Sephadex LH-20 indicates tbat at least 5 cytokinins are present in buds, two of whick have similar elution volumes to zeatin and zeatin riboside. The main activity in the sap is confined to a zeatin ribosidelike component.

show abstract

“…As the photoperiod is perceived by (most probably) the leaves, it has been postulated in early days that the dormancy-controlling factors are exported from leaves to effectuate their growth-inhibiting function in the buds (Hemberg, 1949). Despite very limited data, since its isolation ABA was suggested to be the growth-inhibiting substance in dormant buds (originally called "dormin").…”

Section: Seed and Bud Dormancymentioning

confidence: 99%

Insights into Bud Development and Dormancy in Poplar

Rohde

Boerjan

2001

Tree Physiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Dormancy is a survival strategy that enables plants or plant parts to grow synchronized with seasons and to endure periods that are unfavorable for growth. In addition, dormancy can be imposed upon plant organs to control the architecture of the whole plant in ways that are advantageous for growth and survival. Because bud dormancy is utilized for both adaptive and morphogenetic reasons, trees can adapt to a wide range of growth conditions while developing their characteristic form. Here, we will refer to dormancy as the temporary absence of visible growth of any plant structure containing a meristem (Lang, 1987).Depending on species, organ, and ontogeny, bud dormancy may include cessation of shoot extension, formation of the bud, formation of embryonic leaves inside the bud, arrest of meristematic activity, entry into dormancy, increase in drought resistance, leaf fall, and acquisition of frost resistance. Once dormancy has been imposed, no apparent changes in bud morphology can be observed. Nonetheless, metabolic changes are continuous, because when chilling temperature is perceived dormancy is released gradually. Finally, growth resumes when the environmental conditions are favorable.Dormancy is best described and regarded as a developmental process (as much as active growth is). The type, intensity, and duration of dormancy in a given organ is determined by its previous ontogeny and the dormancy-triggering process. The notion of dormancy as a developmental process (and not a state) implies that it consists of many interrelated subprocesses. The systematic dissection of the dormancy process into subprocesses may, in the end, give us a basis to distinguish mechanisms that are active during the different periods of this developmental process.Here, we will focus on the morphological events that occur at the onset of dormancy in photoperiodically-determined species. We will give a short survey on organogenesis during active growth and introduce the molecular network that controls meristem function 33 S.

show abstract

Growth‐Inhibiting Substances in Terminal Buds of Fraxinus

Cited by 96 publications

References 7 publications

Dormancy in peach (Prunus persica) flower buds. VI. Effects of gibberellins and an acylcyclohexanedione (trinexapac-ethyl) on bud morphogenesis in field experiments with orchard trees and on cuttings

Dormancy in peach (Prunus persica) flower buds. VI. Effects of gibberellins and an acylcyclohexanedione (trinexapac-ethyl) on bud morphogenesis in field experiments with orchard trees and on cuttings

Cytokinins in Populus×robusta: Changes during Chilling and Bud Burst

Insights into Bud Development and Dormancy in Poplar

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About