Hostname: page-component-84b7d79bbc-7nlkj Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-01T16:20:23.588Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effect of gibberellic acid on the germination, growth and development of Trifolium repens L

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. W. Fletcher  and
D. J. Martin
W. W. Fletcher
Affiliation:
West of Scotland Agricultural College, Glasgow
D. J. Martin
Affiliation:
West of Scotland Agricultural College, Glasgow
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Gibberellic acid had no effect on the germination of six species of small-seeded legumes.

2. Seven varieties of Trifolium repens L. plants were treated with gibberellic acid and their responses determined. All varieties showed an increase in petiole length and individual leaf area due to an increase in cell numbers; a decrease in stolon numbers and length was also noted. The total leaf area per plant remained unchanged. Total dry weight, shoot dry weight and root dry weight were each significantly reduced.

3. The stolons lost their normal diageotropic response and became negatively geotropic and it is postulated that the stoloniferous habit may be due to a gibberellic acid/indole-acetic acid interaction.

4. Because treated plants of Wild white clover closely resembled untreated plants of Ladino clover it is postulated that endogenous levels of gibberellins may play an important part in the development of varieties and in the evolutionary process as a whole.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 58 , Issue 2 , April 1962 , pp. 235 - 241
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1962

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

Brian, P. W. (1959). Biol. Rev. 34, 37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brian, P. W. & Hemming, H. G. (1955). Physiol. Plant. 8, 669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brian, P. W., Elson, G. W., Hemming, H. G. & Radley, M. (1954). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 5, 602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donoho, C. W. & Walker, D. R. (1957). Science, 126, 1178.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fletcher, W. W. (1959). 9th Int. Bot. Congr. 2, 115.Google Scholar
Fletcher, W. W., Alcorn, J. W. S. & Raymond, J. C. (1958). Nature, Lond., 182, 1319.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Galston, A. W. (1957). Plant Physiol. (Suppl.), 32, 21.Google Scholar
Greulach, V. A. & Haesloop, J. G. (1958). Amer. J. Bot. 45, 566.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Greulach, V. A. & Haesloop, J. G. (1959). 9th Int. Bot. Congr. 2, 115.Google Scholar
Guttridge, C. G. & Thompson, P. A. (1959). Nature, Lond., 183, 197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kahn, A., Goss, J. A. & Smith, D. E. (1957). Science, 125, 645.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lona, F. (1956). Ateneo parmense, 27, 641.Google Scholar
Maramorosch, K. (1957). Science, 126, 651.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morgan, D. G. & Mees, G. C. (1956). Nature, Lond., 178, 1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Phinney, B. O. (1956). Proc. not. Acad. Sci., Wash., 42, 185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sawarda, K. & Kurosawa, E. (1924). Taiwan Sotokufu Chuo Kenyusko Mogyobu Iho 21, 1.Google Scholar
Scurfield, G. & Biddiscombe, E. F. (1959). Nature, Lond., 183, 1196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scurfield, G. & Bull, J. A. (1958). J. Aust. Inst. Agric. Sci. 24, 257.Google Scholar
Stoddart, J. L. (1959). J. Agric. Sci. 52, 161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stowe, B. B. & Yamaki, T. (1957). Annu. Rev. Pl. Physiol. 8, 181.CrossRefGoogle Scholar