Record Details
Field | Value |
---|---|
Title | Modeling optimal mineral nutrition for hazelnut micropropagation |
Names |
Hand, Charles
(creator) Maki, Shinya (creator) Reed, Barbara M. (creator) |
Date Issued | 2014-11 (iso8601) |
Note | To the best of our knowledge, one or more authors of this paper were federal employees when contributing to this work. This is the publisher’s final pdf. The published article is copyrighted by Springer and can be found at: http://link.springer.com/journal/11240. |
Abstract | Micropropagation of hazelnut (Corylus avellana L.) is typically difficult because of the wide variation in response among cultivars. This study was designed to determine the required mineral nutrient concentrations for micropropagation of C. avellana cultivars using a response surface design analysis. Driver and Kuniyuki Walnut (DKW) medium mineral nutrients were separated into five factors: NH₄NO₃, Ca(NO₃)₂, mesos (MgSO₄ and KH₂PO₄), K₂SO₄, and minor nutrients (boron, copper, manganese, molybdenum, and zinc) ranging from 0.59 to 29 the standard DKW medium concentrations with 33 treatments for use in modeling. Overall quality and shoot length for all cultivars were influenced by ammonium and nitrate nitrogen, mesos and minors. Reduced Ca(NO₃)₂ improved multiplication while higher amounts increased shoot length for most cultivars. Uptake of nutrients varied among the cultivars. Calcium and magnesium concentrations were greater in the shoots that grew well compared to poorly-growing and control treatments. All five cultivars showed improved growth on some treatments and the models indicated that shoots grown on an optimized medium would be even better. This model indicates that NH₄NO₃, Ca(NO₃)₂, mesos, and minors all had significant effects on hazelnut growth and multiplication and should be optimized in future experiments. |
Genre | Article |
Topic | Corylus |
Identifier | Hand, C., Maki, S., & Reed, B. M. (2014). Modeling optimal mineral nutrition for hazelnut micropropagation. Plant Cell, Tissue and Organ Culture, 119(2), 411-425. doi:10.1007/s11240-014-0544-y |