Hostname: page-component-5c6d5d7d68-wpx84 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-08-08T17:51:07.041Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

In Vitro Selection of Imazethapyr-Tolerant Tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Susan E. Iler ,
Clarence J. Swanton  and
K. Peter Pauls
Susan E. Iler
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Clarence J. Swanton
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
K. Peter Pauls
Affiliation:
Dep. Crop Sci., Univ. Guelph, Guelph, Ontario, Canada N1G 2W1
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effectiveness of cyclical in vitro selection for imazethapyr tolerance in tomato was studied. Cotyledons and leaf explants from shoots regenerated on media containing imazethapyr were used to initiate three successive cycles of selection. Increases in tissue viability, callus initiation, and callus proliferation were observed following three cycles of selection on 10−7 M imazethapyr. Dry matter accumulation of unselected tomato seedlings was reduced by 50% when imazethapyr was applied postemergence at a rate of 28 g ae ha−1. Progeny of eight tomato lines selected after one cycle of selection had greater tolerance to imazethapyr than control plants (60 to 70% dry matter accumulation versus 50%, respectively). Variability was also generated for imazethapyr tolerance among progeny of the same tomato line.

Keywords

Imazethapyr, (±)-2-[4,5-dihydro-4-methyl-4-(1-methylethyl)-5-oxo-1H-imidazol-2-yl]-5-ethyl-3-pyridinecarboxylic acidtomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. ‘Heinz H722’Imidazolinonesomaclonal variationSolanum ptycanthum#3 SOLPT
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 41 , Issue 1 , March 1993 , pp. 12 - 17
Copyright
Copyright © 1993 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

1. American Cyanamid Company (Agricultural Research Division). 1985. Pursuit Herbicide Technical Report. American Cyanamid Co., Princeton, New Jersey. 17 pp.Google Scholar
2. Behki, R. M. and Lesley, S. M. 1980. Shoot regeneration from leaf disc callus of Lycopersicon esculentum . Z. Pflanzenphysiol. Bd. 98:83–87.Google Scholar
3. Brain, P. and Cousens, R. 1989. An equation to describe dose responses where there is stimulation of growth at low doses. Weed Res. 29:93–96.Google Scholar
4. Brown, R. H., Shaw, J. E., and Pitblado, R. E. 1988. Weed management research in processing tomatoes. Highlights of Agric. Res. in Ontario 11(3):12–15.Google Scholar
5. Buiatti, M., Marcheschi, G., Tognoni, F., Lipucci di Paola, M., Collina Grenci, F., and Martini, G. 1985. Genetic variability induced by tissue culture in the tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Z. Pflanzenzuecht. 94:162–165.Google Scholar
6. Chaleff, R. S. 1981. Genetics of Higher Plants: Applications of Cell Culture. Cambridge Univ. Press, New York. 184 pp.Google Scholar
7. Evans, D. A. and Sharp, W. R. 1983. Single gene mutations in tomato plants regenerated from tissue culture. Science 221:949–951.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Evans, D. A. 1987. Somaclonal variation. Pages 59–69 in Nevins, D. J., ed. Tomato Biotechnology. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
9. Frankenberger, E. A., Hasegawa, P. M., and Tigchelaar, E. C. 1981. Diallel analysis of shoot-forming capacity among selected tomato genotypes. Z. Pflanzenphysiol. Bd. 102:233–242.Google Scholar
10. Gavazzi, G., Tonelli, C., Todesco, G., Arreghini, E., Raffaldi, F., Vecchio, F., Barbuzzi, G., Biasini, M., and Sala, F. 1987. Somaclonal variation versus chemically induced mutagenesis in tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.). Theor. Appl. Genet. 74:733–738.Google Scholar
11. Hanson, M. R., O'Connell, M. A., and Vidair, C. 1987. Regeneration of calli and plants following protoplast fusion in Lycopersicon . Iowa State J. Res. 61(4):445–458.Google Scholar
12. McFerson, J. K. and Frey, K. J. 1991. Recurrent selection for protein yield of oat. Crop Sci. 31:1–8.Google Scholar
13. Murashige, T. and Skoog, F. 1962. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 15:473–497.Google Scholar
14. Nevins, D. J. 1987. Why tomato biotechnology? A potential to accelerate the applications. Pages 3–14 in Evans, D. J., ed. Tomato Biotechnology. Alan R. Liss, Inc., New York.Google Scholar
15. O'Connell, M. A., Hosticka, L. P., and Hanson, M. R. 1986. Examination of genome stability in cultured Lycopersicon . Plant Cell Rep. 5:276–279.Google Scholar
16. Peoples, T. R., Wang, T., Fine, R. R., Orwich, P. L., Graham, S. E., and Kirkland, K. 1985. AC 263,499: a new broad-spectrum herbicide for use in soybeans and other legumes. Pages 99–106 in 1985 Br. Crop Prot. Conf.—Weeds.Google Scholar
17. Perez, F.G.M. and Masiunas, J. B. 1990. Eastern black nightshade (Solarium ptycanthum) interference in processing tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum). Weed Sci. 38:385–388.Google Scholar
18. Ratkowsky, D. A. 1990. Four parameter models. Pages 89–90 in Ratkowsky, D. A., ed. Handbook of Nonlinear Regression Models. Marcel-Dekker, New York.Google Scholar
19. Rick, C. M. 1978. The tomato. Sci. Am. 239:76–87.Google Scholar
20. Shaner, D. L. and Robson, P. A. 1985. Absorption, translocation, and metabolism of AC 252,214 in soybean (Glycine max), common cocklebur (Xanthium strumarium), and velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti). Weed Sci. 33:469–471.Google Scholar
21. Shaner, D. and Anderson, P. 1985. Mechanism of action of the imidazolinones and cell culture selection of tolerant maize. Pages 287–299 in Zaitlin, M., Day, P., and Hollander, A., eds. Biotechnology in Plant Science. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
22. Sibi, M. 1982. Heritable epigenetic variations from in vitro tissue culture of Lycopersicon esculentum (var. Monalbo). Pages 228–244 in Earle, E. D. and Demarly, Y., eds. Variability in Plants Regenerated from Tissue Culture. Praeger Publishers, New York.Google Scholar
23. Swanson, E. B., Herrgesell, M. J., Arnoldo, M., Sippell, D. W., and Wong, R.S.C. 1989. Microspore mutagenesis and selection: canola plants with field tolerance to the imidazolinones. Theor. Appl. Genet. 78:525–530.Google Scholar
24. Thomas, E. and Davey, M. R. 1975. From Single Cells to Plants. Wykeham Publications, London. 170 pp.Google Scholar
25. Weaver, S. E., Smits, N., and Tan, C. S. 1987. Estimating yield losses of tomatoes (Lycopersicon esculentum) caused by nightshade (Solanum spp.) interference. Weed Sci. 35:163–168.Google Scholar
26. Work, P. 1952. Pages 38–39 in The Tomato. Orange Judd Publishing Co., Inc., New York.Google Scholar