Type of Explant Affects In Vitro Development and Multiplication Success of the Rare Halophyte Plant Honckenya Peploides L. Ehrh
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Results
3. Discussion
4. Conclusions
5. Materials and Methods
5.1. Plant Material
5.2. Culture Initiation and Stabilization Stage
5.3. Propagation Stage
5.4. Rooting Stage
5.5. Effect of NaCl
5.6. Culture Conditions
5.7. Statistical Analysis
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
Abbreviations
MS | Murashige and Skoog |
NAA | 1-naphthaleneacetic acid |
BAP | 6-benzylaminopurine |
KIN | kinetin |
mT | meta-topoline |
References
- Wróbel, M.; Banaś-Stankiewicz, U. Factors responsible for rapid diminishing of endangered grass plant Elymus farctus subsp. boreoatlanticus in phytocoenoses on dunes coast of Baltic Sea. Polish J. Ecol. 2019, 67, 53–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Garcia-Mora, M.R.; Gallego-Fernandez, J.B.; Garcia-Novo, F. Plant functional types in coastal foredunes in relation to environmental stress and disturbance. J. Veg. Sci. 1999, 10, 27–34. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Cerantola, S.; Bessieres, M.A.; Magne, C.; Deslandes, E. Occurrence of the unusual amino acid N5-(hydroxymethyl-2, 5-dihydro-2-furyl)-L-allo-γ-hydroxyglutamine in Honkenya peploides (L.) Ehrh. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2005, 33, 1187–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Doing, H. Coastal fore-dune zonation and succession in various parts of the world. In Ecology of Coastal Vegetation. Advances in Vegetation Science; Beeftink, W.G., Rozema, J., Huiskes, A.H.L., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1985. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez-Vilas, J.; Retuerto, R. Sex-specific physiological, allocation and growth responses to water availability in the subdioecious plant Honckenya peploides. Plant Biol. 2009, 11, 243–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hultén, E.; Fries, M. Atlas of North European Vascular Plants; Koeltz Scientific Books: Köningstein, Germany, 1986. [Google Scholar]
- Hultén, E. Flora of Alaska and Neighboring Territories: A Manual of the Vascular Plants; Stanford University Press: Stanford, CA, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
- Walmsley, C.A.; Davy, A.J. Germination characteristics of shingle beach species, effects of seed ageing and their implications for vegetation restoration. J. Appl. Ecol. 1997, 196, 131–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Houle, G. Interactions between resources and abiotic conditions control plant performance on subarctic coastal dunes. Am. J. Bot. 1997, 84, 1729–1737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Árnason, S.H.; Thorsson, A.T.; Magnússon, B.; Philipp, M.; Adsersen, H.; Anamthawat-Jónsson, K. Spatial genetic structure of the sea sandwort (Honckenya peploides) on Surtsey: An immigrant’s journey. Biogeosciences 2014, 11, 6495–6507. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Gagne, J.M.; Houle, G. Factors Responsible For Honckenya peploides (Caryophyllaceae) and Leymus mollis (Poaceae) Spatial Segregation On Subarctic Coastal Dunes. Am. J. Bot. 2002, 89, 479–485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Kaźmierczakowa, R.; Bloch-Orłowska, J.; Celka, Z.; Cwener, A.; Dajdok, Z.; Michalska-Hejduk, D.; Pawlikowski, P.; Szczęśniak, E.; Ziarnek, K. Polish Red List of Pteridophytes and Flowering Plants; Institute of Nature Conservation PAS: Kraków, Poland, 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Łabuz, T.A. Initial foredune field as a factor of accumulative character of coastal dunes of the Swina Gate Barrier (west Polish coast). Oceanol. Hydrobiol. Stud. 2003, 32, 39–58. [Google Scholar]
- Ager, T.A.; Ager, L.P. Ethnobotany of the Eskimos of Nelson Island, Alaska. Arct. Anthropol. 1980, 17, 26–48. [Google Scholar]
- Ootoova, I.; Atagutsiak, T.Q.; Ijjangiaq, T.; Pitseolak, J.; Joamie, A.; Joamie, A.; Paptsie, M. Interviewing Inuit Elders. Perspectives on Traditional Health; Nunavut Arctic College: Arviat, NU, Canada, 2001; Volume 5, p. 304. [Google Scholar]
- Sánchez-Vilas, J.; Philipp, M.; Retuerto, R. Unexpectedly high genetic variation in large unisexual clumps of the subdioecious plant Honckenya peploides (L.) Ehrh. Plant. Biol. 2010, 12, 518–525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uno, Y.; Nakao, S.; Yamai, Y.; Koyama, R.; Kanechi, M.; Inagaki, N. Callus formation, plant regeneration, and transient expression in the halophyte sea aster (Aster tripolium L.). Plant. Cell Tissue Organ. Cult. 2009, 98, 303–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lee, C.W.; Glenn, E.P.; O’Leary, J. W. In vitro propagation of Salicornia bigelovii by shoot-tip cultures. Hortic. Sci. 1992, 27, 472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Papafotiou, M.; Martini, A.N.; Bertsouklis, K.F.; Majumder, D.A.N. Micropropagation of Atriplex halimus L. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1113, 207–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Erişen, S.; Öncel, Z. In vitro propagation of the threatened plant Sphaerophysa kotschyana (Fabaceae), Inter simple-sequence-repeat (ISSR) analysis and salt tolerance of the regenerants. Austr. J. Bot. 2013, 61, 67–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martini, A.N.; Papafotiou, M. Micropropagation of Limoniastrum monopetalum L. Acta Hortic. 2016, 13, 195–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kharrazi, M.; Nemati, H.; Tehranifar, A.; Bagheri, A.; Sharifi, A. In vitro culture of carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus L.) focusing on the problem of vitrification. J. Biol. Environ. Sci. 2011, 5, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
- Amor, N.B.; Hamed, K.B.; Debez, A.; Grignon, C.; Abdelly, C. Physiological and antioxidant responses of the perennial halophyte Crithmum maritimum to salinity. Plant. Sci. 2005, 168, 889–899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Grigoriadou, K.; Maloupa, E. Micropropagation and salt tolerance of in vitro grown Crithmum maritimum L. Plant. Cell Tissue Organ. Cult. 2008, 94, 209–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shi, X.L.; Han, H.P.; Shi, W.L.; Li, Y.X. NaCl and TDZ are two key factors for the improvement of in vitro regeneration rate of Salicornia europaea L. J. Integr. Plant. Biol. 2006, 48, 1185–1189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Joshi, M.; Mishra, A.; Jha, B. NaCl plays a key role for in vitro micropropagation of Salicornia brachiata, an extreme halophyte. Ind. Crops Prod. 2012, 35, 313–316. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ben Hamed, K.; Castagna, A.; Salem, E. Sea fennel (Crithmum maritimum L.) under salinity conditions: A comparison of leaf and root antioxidant responses. Plant. Growth Regul. 2007, 53, 185–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Simona, L.; Cerasela, P.; Lazăr, A.; Maria, B. Influence of growth regulators on morphogenetic processes under in vitro condition. J. Hortic. For. Biotechnol. 2012, 16, 197–202. [Google Scholar]
- Ali, A.; Afrasiab, H.; Naz, S.; Rauf, M.; Iqbal, J. An efficient protocol for in vitro propagation of carnation (Dianthus caryophyllus). Pak. J. Bot. 2008, 40, 111–121. [Google Scholar]
- Zalewska, M.; Miler, N.; Wenda-Piesik, A. Effect of in vitro topophysis on the growth, development, and rooting of chrysanthemum explants (Chrysanthemum grandiflorum Ramat. Kitam). J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2010, 85, 362–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lu, C.Y.; Nugent, G.; Wardley, T. Efficient, direct plant regeneration from stem segments of chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium Ramat. cv. Royal Purple). Plant. Cell Rep. 1990, 8, 733–736. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Łabuz, T.A. Polish coastal dunes—Affecting factors and morphology. Landf. Anal. 2013, 22, 33–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, A.; Jani, K.; Kumari, P.; Agarwal, P.K. Effect of MgCl2 and double concentration of Murashige and Skoog medium on in vitro plantlet and root cultures generation in halophytic grasswort Salicornia brachiata. Plant. Cell Tissue Organ. Cult. 2014, 120, 563–570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Murashige, T.; Skoog, F. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue culture. Physiol. Plant. 1962, 15, 473–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Cytokinin Content [mg·dm−3] | Plant Height [mm] | Number of Shoots | Roots Length [mm] | Number of Roots | |||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shoot | Top | Mean | Shoot | Top | Mean | Shoot | Top | Mean | Shoot | Top | Mean | ||
MS | 0 | 5.77 | 16.75 | 11.26 | 1.00 | 1.25 | 1.13 | 1.42 | 9.23 | 5.32 | 1.00 | 2.22 | 1.61 |
BAP | 0.50 | 5.75 | 11.42 | 8.59 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 6.25 | 3.13 | 0 | 1.75 | 0.88 |
0.75 | 6.25 | 21.00 | 13.63 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 1.25 | 0 | 5.00 | 2.50 | 0 | 0.75 | 0.38 | |
1.00 | 8.75 | 16.50 | 12.63 | 1.00 | 1.50 | 1.25 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
2.00 | 7.25 | 11.50 | 9.38 | 1.00 | 1.25 | 1.13 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
mT | 0.50 | 8.25 | 18.25 | 13.25 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 11.75 | 5.88 | 0 | 1.00 | 0.50 |
0.75 | 12.00 | 19.50 | 15.75 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 0 | 11.50 | 5.75 | 0 | 0.50 | 0.25 | |
1.00 | 7.75 | 8.50 | 8.13 | 1.25 | 2.75 | 2.00 | 1.25 | 11.75 | 6.50 | 0.5 | 3.50 | 2.00 | |
2.00 | 6.42 | 6.50 | 6.46 | 1.00 | 1.25 | 1.13 | 1.25 | 9.25 | 5.25 | 0.5 | 1.50 | 1.00 | |
KIN | 0.50 | 9.75 | 26.00 | 17.88 | 1.00 | 1.75 | 1.38 | 0 | 5.50 | 2.75 | 0 | 0.75 | 0.50 |
0.75 | 13.00 | 29.25 | 21.13 | 1.00 | 2.00 | 1.50 | 0 | 3.75 | 1.88 | 0 | 0.75 | 0.38 | |
1.00 | 12.00 | 30.00 | 21.00 | 1.75 | 4.33 | 3.04 | 0 | 1.67 | 0.83 | 0 | 0.17 | 0.09 | |
2.00 | 16.00 | 19.00 | 17.50 | 1.17 | 1.17 | 1.17 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | |
Mean | 9.99 | 18.01 | 1.11 | 1.65 | 0.30 | 5.82 | 0.15 | 0.99 | |||||
LSD 0.05 | Media (M) = 1.63 | Media (M) = 0.45 | Media (M) = 2.06 | Media (M) = 0.21 | |||||||||
Explants (E) = 2.80 | Explants (E) = 0.36 | Explants (E) = 1.20 | Explants (E) = 0.36 | ||||||||||
MxE = 2.31 | MxE = non signifficant | MxE = 1.70 | MxE = 0.29 | ||||||||||
ExM = 3.96 | MxP = non signifficant | ExM = 2.91 | ExM = 0.51 |
NAA Content [mg·dm−3] | Plant Height [mm] | Number of Shoots | Roots Length [mm] | Number of Roots | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shoot | Top | Mean | Shoot | Top | Mean | Shoot | Top | Mean | Shoot | Top | Mean | |
0 | 3.83 | 19.73 | 11.78 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.67 | 6.23 | 3.95 | 1.00 | 1.93 | 1.47 |
0.5 | 6.06 | 42.63 | 24.34 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3.22 | 20.92 | 12.07 | 1.11 | 2.63 | 1.87 |
1 | 6.54 | 40.83 | 23.69 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 2.73 | 21.43 | 12.08 | 1.81 | 4.13 | 2.97 |
1.5 | 9.68 | 67.17 | 38.43 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 6.55 | 17.60 | 12.08 | 2.37 | 6.17 | 4.27 |
Mean | 6.53 | 42.59 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 3.54 | 16.55 | 1.57 | 3.72 | ||||
LSD 0.05 | ||||||||||||
Media (M) | 1.18 | non signifficant. | 1.05 | 0.92 | ||||||||
Explants (E) | 3.37 | non signifficant | 4.27 | 0.98 | ||||||||
MxE | 1.42 | non signifficant | 1.23 | 0.85 | ||||||||
ExM | 3.76 | non signifficant | 5.62 | 0.38 |
NaCl Content [mM] | Plant Height [mm] | Number of Shoots | Roots Length [mm] | Number of Roots | ||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Shoot | Top | Mean | Shoot | Top | Mean | Shoot | Top | Mean | Shoot | Top | Mean | |
0 | 10.22 | 65.21 | 37.72 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 7.05 | 18.25 | 12.65 | 2.45 | 7.02 | 4.74 |
25 | 11.21 | 64.25 | 37.73 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 1.00 | 7.58 | 17.85 | 12.72 | 1.56 | 5.64 | 3.60 |
50 | 10.05 | 61.32 | 35.69 | 1.00 | 1.14 | 1.07 | 6.98 | 18.24 | 12.61 | 1.78 | 5.29 | 3.54 |
75 | 8.12 | 45.25 | 26.69 | 1.11 | 1.00 | 1.06 | 2.02 | 6.25 | 4.14 | 0.65 | 2.28 | 1.47 |
Mean | 9.90 | 59.01 | 1.03 | 1.05 | 5.91 | 15.15 | 1.61 | 5.06 | ||||
LSD 0.05 | ||||||||||||
Media (M) | 5.23 | non signifficant | 2.36 | 1.32 | ||||||||
Explants (E) | 2.35 | non signifficant | 1.06 | 0.56 | ||||||||
MxE | 4.92 | non signifficant | 4.25 | 1.45 | ||||||||
ExM | 3.25 | non signifficant | 2.56 | 0.82 |
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations. |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Kulpa, D.; Wrobel, M.; Bednarek, M. Type of Explant Affects In Vitro Development and Multiplication Success of the Rare Halophyte Plant Honckenya Peploides L. Ehrh. Plants 2020, 9, 1526. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111526
Kulpa D, Wrobel M, Bednarek M. Type of Explant Affects In Vitro Development and Multiplication Success of the Rare Halophyte Plant Honckenya Peploides L. Ehrh. Plants. 2020; 9(11):1526. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111526
Chicago/Turabian StyleKulpa, Danuta, Mariola Wrobel, and Martyna Bednarek. 2020. "Type of Explant Affects In Vitro Development and Multiplication Success of the Rare Halophyte Plant Honckenya Peploides L. Ehrh" Plants 9, no. 11: 1526. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9111526