Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wbk2r Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-22T07:38:35.643Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Role of mature leaves in inhibition of root bud growth in Euphorbia esula L.

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Abstract

Earlier studies on the source of signals controlling correlative inhibition of root buds (underground adventitious buds located on the lateral roots) in Euphorbia esula indicated that either growing meristems (apical or axillary buds) or fully expanded leaves could prevent root buds from breaking quiescence. An investigation of the production and transport requirements of the leaf-derived signal is described. As few as three leaves remaining on budless stems greatly reduced the growth of (but not the number of growing) root buds. Also, light and CO2 fixation were necessary for the leaf effects on root bud growth, but not necessary for correlative inhibition imposed by growing axillary buds. Treatment of plants with Ametryn induced root bud growth on budless plants but not on plants with intact axillary buds. The polar auxin transport inhibitor N-1-naphthylphthalamic acid prevented transmission or the signal from growing axillary buds, but it had only a minor effect on the transmission of the leaf-derived signal. Treatment of plants with gibberellic acid (GA) induced growth of root buds under otherwise noninducing conditions to some extent in all plants. However, the greatest effects of GA were on plants with intact leaves (meristemless/budless and meristemless). GA had no significant effect on root bud quiescence under conditions that induced root bud growth.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1999 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Budd, T. W. 1973. An excellent source of vegetative buds for use in plant hormone studies on apical dominance. Plant Physiol. 52:8283.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Cline, M. G. 1991. Apical dominance. Not. Rev. 57:318358.Google Scholar
Coupland, R. T., Selleck, G. W., and Alex, J. F. 1955. Distribution of vegetative buds on the underground parts of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L). Can. J. Agric. Sci. 34:161167.Google Scholar
Champagnat, P. 1955. Les correlations entre feuilles et bourgeons de la pousse herbacée du lilas. Rev. Gen. Bot. 62:325371.Google Scholar
Dostal, R. 1909. Korrelationsbeziehung zwiscen dem Blatt und seiner Axillaryknopse. Ber. Dtsch. Bot. Ges. 27:547.Google Scholar
Galitz, D. S. 1994. The biology of leafy spurge. Pages 5762 in Proceedings of the Leafy Spurge Strategic Planning Workshop, March 29–30. Dickinson, ND: National Park Service.Google Scholar
Horvath, D. P. 1998. The role of specific plant organs and polar auxin transport in correlative inhibition of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) root buds. Can. J. Bot. 76:15.Google Scholar
Jang, J-C., Leon, P., Zhou, L., and Sheen, J. 1997. Hexokinase as a sugar sensor in higher plants. Plant Cell 9:519.Google ScholarPubMed
Leopold, A. C. and Kriedermann, P. E. 1975. Plant Growth and Development. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 137 p.Google Scholar
McIlrath, W. J. and Bogorad, L. 1960. The control of axillary bud growth in Xanthium, Plant Physiol. 35(Suppl.): 1920.Google Scholar
McIntyre, G. I. 1971. Developmental studies on Euphorbia esula . The influence of the nitrogen supply on correlative inhibition of root bud activity. Can. J. Bot. 50:949956.Google Scholar
McIntyre, G. I. 1979. Developmental studies on Euphorbia esula . Evidence of competition for water as a factor in the mechanism of root bud inhibition. Can. J. Bot. 57:25722581.Google Scholar
McIntyre, G. I. and Hsiao, A. I. 1990. The role of expanded leaves in the correlative inhibition of axillary buds in milkweed (Asclepias syriaca). Can. J. Bot. 68:12801285.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Metzger, J. D. 1994. Evidence that sucrose is the shoot-derived signal responsible for the correlative inhibition of root bud growth in leafy spurge. Plant Physiol. 105:S97.Google Scholar
Mitchell, J. W. and Livingston, G. A. 1968. Methods of Studying Plant Hormones and Growth-Regulating Substances. USDA-ARS Agricultural Handbook No. 336. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. 13 p.Google Scholar
Nissen, S. J. and Foley, M. E. 1987. Correlative inhibition in root buds of leafy spurge. Weed Sci. 35:155159.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Noble, D. L., Dunn, P. H., and Andres, L. A. 1979. The leafy spurge problem. Pages 815 in Proceedings of the Leafy Spurge Symposium. Fargo, ND: North Dakota Cooperative Extension Service.Google Scholar
Perata, P., Matsukura, C., Vernieri, P., and Yamaguchi, J. 1997. Sugar repression of a gibberellin-dependant signaling pathway in barley embryos. Plant Cell 9:21972208.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soni, R., Carmichael, J. P., Shah, Z. H., and Murray, J. A. 1995. A family of cyclin D homologues from plants differentially controlled by growth regulators and containing the conserved retinoblastoma protein interaction motif. Plant Cell 7:85103.Google Scholar
Steel, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1980. Principles and Procedures of Statistics: A Biometrical Approach. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill. 130 p.Google Scholar
Zieslin, N. and Halevy, A. H. 1976. Components of axillary bud inhibition in rose plants. I. The effects of different plant parts (correlative inhibition). Bot. Gaz. 137:291296.CrossRefGoogle Scholar