Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-94fs2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-06T12:18:43.326Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Development of mould on the cut surfaces of potato tubers

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

W. A. R. Dillon Weston  and
R. Eric Taylor
W. A. R. Dillon Weston
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Cambridge
R. Eric Taylor
Affiliation:
School of Agriculture, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. Cut potato tissue possesses strong inherent powers of healing which are impaired by treatment with salts of copper, cobalt, nickel and iron. Treatment is followed by mould growth, particularly by Penicillium spp., this being most profuse with copper salts and least with those of iron.

2. Association between mould growth and treatment with salts of copper, cobalt, nickel and iron suggests a periodic relationship.

3. Development of Penicillium on potato tissues following treatment with salts of copper is greater than may be explained solely on the basis of saprophytic growth following phytocidal action and. the prevention of suberization.

4. Under moist conditions, treatment of nonliving substrata such as straw, leather and skin with copper sulphate tends to prevent mould growth whilst considerable growth develops on these materials when untreated.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 34 , Issue 2 , April 1944 , pp. 93 - 96
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1944

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

Bald, J. G.(1943). J. Aust. Agric. Sci. 9, 35.Google Scholar
Bell, G. D. H., Gilson, M. R. & Weston, W. A. R.Dillon, (1942). J. Agric. Sci. 32, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cunningham, H. S. (1936). Bull. N.Y. St. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 668.Google Scholar
Foster, J. W. (1939). Bot. Rev. 5, 207–39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goldsworthy, M. C. (1938). J. Agric. Res. 56, 489.Google Scholar
Haskell, R. J. & Doolittle, S. P. (1942). Fmrs' Bull. U.S. Dep. Agric. no. 1862.Google Scholar
Lutman, B. F. (1937). Bull. Vt. Agric. Exp. Sta. no. 418.Google Scholar
Mulder, E. G. (1938). Landbouwk. Tijdschr., Wageningen, 1, 618, 898–902. Cited in Rev. Appl. Myc. 18, 240.Google Scholar
Smith, G. (1942). An Introduction to Industrial Mycology, p. 228. London: Edward Arnold.Google Scholar
Weston, W. A. R.Dillon, & Taylor, R. Eric (1943). Nature, Lond., 151, 54.CrossRefGoogle Scholar