Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-q99xh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-03T18:18:45.738Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of gibberellic acid upon growth habit and heading in late-flowering red clover (Trifolium pratense L.)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

J. L. Stoddart
J. L. Stoddart
Affiliation:
Welsh Plant Breeding Station, Aberystwyth
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

The response of S. 123 extra-late-flowering red clover in the year of sowing to three sprayings of gibberellic acid (GA) given at 28-day intervals is described. Plants in both soil and vermiculite cultures were used.

1. The first effects, noticeable in the basal rosette, were an increase in petiole length and a parallel increase in leaf area.

2. Fewer stems were formed on the treated plants but their thickness and the number and length of the internodes were increased.

3. Secondary branching was not significantly increased but the GA-treated plants produced a large number of tertiary branches from axillary buds on the secondary branches. Tertiary branching was not frequent in the control plants.

4. Cauline leaves showed an increased length/breadth ratio at each node with treatment, elongation tending to be most marked at those nodes where leaf formation coincided with GA sprayings. Leaf thickness was also increased by GA treatment.

5. Treated plants produced nearly 80% more heads, and flowering after GA treatment was up to 14 days earlier than the control.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 52 , Issue 2 , April 1959 , pp. 161 - 167
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1959

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

Brian, P. W., Elson, G. W., Hemming, H. G. & Radley, M. (1954). J. Sci. Fd Agric. 5, 602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Curtis, P. J. & Cross, B. E. (1954). Chem. & Ind. p. 1066.Google Scholar
Gray, R. A. (1957). Amer. J. Bot. 44, 674.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kurosawa, E. (1926). Trans. Nat. Hist. Soc. Formosa, 16, 213.Google Scholar
Lang, A. (1956). Naturwissenschaften, 43, 544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leben, C. & Barton, L. V. (1957). Science, 125, 494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lippert, L. F., Rappaport, L. & Timm, H. (1957). Abstr. Meeting Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 178, 1356.Google Scholar
Lockhart, J. A. (1957). Plant Physiol. 32, 204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Marth, P. C., Audia, W. V. & Mitchell, J. W. (1956). Plant Physiol. (Suppl), 31, xliii.Google Scholar
Morgan, D. G. & Mees, G. C. (1956). Nature, Lond., 178, 1356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rappaport, L. (1957). Plant Physiol. (Suppl.), 32, xxxii.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Williams, R. D. (1927). Bull. Welsh Pl. Breed. Sta. Series H, no. 7, 20, 22, 23.Google Scholar
Williams, R. D. (1930). Bull. Welsh Pl. Breed. Sta. Series H, no. 11, 73.Google Scholar
Wittwer, S. H., Bukovac, M. J., Sell, H. M. & Weller, L. E. (1957). Plant Physiol. 32, 39.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yabuta, T. & Hayashi, T. (1939 a). J. Agric. Chem. Soc. Japan, 15, 257.Google Scholar
Yabuta, T. & Hayashi, T. (1939 b). J. Agric. Chem. Soc. Japan, 15, 403.Google Scholar
Yabuta, T., Sumiki, Y., Aso, K., Tamura, T., Igarashi, H. & Tamari, K. (1941). J. Agric. Chem. Soc. Japan, 17, 721, 894, 975.Google Scholar