Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T12:30:00.244Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Studies of the Formation and Translocation of Carbohydrates in Plants: I. The Carbohydrates of The Mangold Leaf

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

William A. Davis ,
Arthur John Daish  and
George Conworth Sawyer
William A. Davis
Affiliation:
(Rothamsted Experimental Station.)
Arthur John Daish
Affiliation:
(Rothamsted Experimental Station.)
George Conworth Sawyer
Affiliation:
(Rothamsted Experimental Station.)
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

1. The formation and translocation of the sugars in the mangold have been studied under actual conditions of growth, in which translocation was normal.

2. Starch is entirely absent from the leaf after the very earliest stages of growth. As soon as the root begins to develop so that the sugars formed in the leaf can be translocated to it, starch disappears almost entirely from the leaf. Maltose is entirely absent from leaf, mid-ribs and stalks at all stages of growth and at all times of night and day.

3. During the early stages of growth of the mangold, when leaf formation is the principal function, saccharose is present in the leaf tissue in excess of the hexoses. Later in the season, when sugar is being stored in the root, the reverse is true, hexoses largely predominating in the leaf.

4. In the mid-ribs and stalks the hexoses always predominate greatly over the saccharose and vary widely in amount during the day and night, and throughout the season, whilst the saccharose remains practically constant. In passing from leaves to mid-ribs, from mid-ribs to the tops of stalks and from the tops of stalks to the bottoms, the ratio of hexoses to saccharose steadily and rapidly increases. As the season advances the predominance of the hexoses in leaf, mid-ribs and stalks becomes more and more marked.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 7 , Issue 3 , February 1916 , pp. 255 - 326
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1916

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

Baeyer, (1870). Ber. 3, 63.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barbet, (1896). Bull. Assoc. Chim. Sucr. 1896, 223Google Scholar
Boehm, (1856). Sitzber. k. Akad. Wien, 22, 479.Google Scholar
Brasse, (1886). Ann. Agron. 12, 305.Google Scholar
Brown, and Morris, (1893). Trans. Chem. Soc. 63, 604.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Campbell, (1911). Journ. Agric. Sci. 4, 248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Colin, (1914). Compt. rend. 159, 687.Google Scholar
Colin, (1915). Compt. rend. 160, 777.Google Scholar
Daish, (1914). Journ. Agric. Sci. 6, 255.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, (1913). Journ. Agric. Sci. 5, 434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, and Daish, (1913). Journ. Agric. Sci. 5, 437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, and Daish, (1914). Journ. Agric. Sci. 6, 152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, and Sawyek, (1914). Journ. Agric. Sci. 6, 406.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Deleano, (1912). Zeit. physiol. Chem. 80, 79.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Girard, (1884). Ann. Inst. Nat. Agron. 10, 153.Google Scholar
Grafe, (1905). Sitzber. k. Akad. Wien, 114, II. 15.Google Scholar
Gutzeit, (1911). Naturw. Zeit. Forst. u. Landw. 9, 481.Google Scholar
Kayser, (1883). Landw. Versuchsstat. 29, 461.Google Scholar
Kluyver, (1914). Biochemische Suikerbepalingen (E. J. Brill, Leiden).Google Scholar
Maquenne, (1895). Compt. rend. 121, 834.Google Scholar
Meyer, (1885). Bot. Zeit., Nos. 27–32.Google Scholar
Meyer, (1886). Bot. Zeit., Nos. 5 to 8.Google Scholar
Neuberg, (1904). Ber. 37, 4616.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ofner, (1904). Ber. 37, 3362.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ofner, (1905). Monatsh. 26, 465.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ost, (1905). Zeit. angew. Chem. 30, 1170.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Parkin, (1912). Biochem. Journ. 6, 1.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peklo, (1908). Oest.-Ung. Zeit. Zuckerind. 37, 153.Google Scholar
Pellet, (1913). Bull. Assoc. Chim. Sucr. 31, 173.Google Scholar
Pellet, (1914, 1). Butt. Assoc. Chim. Sucr. 31, 981.Google Scholar
Pellet, (1914, 2). Bull. Assoc. Chim. Sucr. 32, 59.Google Scholar
Robertson, , Irvine, and Dobson, (1909). Biochem. Journ. 4, 258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ruhland, (1911). Jahrb. wiss. Botanik, 200.Google Scholar
Sachs, (1862). Bot. Zeit. 20, 365.Google Scholar
Schimper, (1885). Bot. Zeit. 43, 738.Google Scholar
Senft, (1904). Sitzber. k. Akad. Wien, I. 113 and Monatsh. 25, 397.Google Scholar
Stephani, (1911). Kühn-Archiv, 5, 107.Google Scholar
Strakosch, (1907). Sitzber. k. Akad. Wien, 116, 855 and Zeit. Ver. Deut. Zuckerind. 57, 1057.Google Scholar
Strohmer, (1908). Oest.-Ung. Zeit. Zuckerind. 37, 18.Google Scholar
Strohmer, (1911). Oest.-Ung. Zeit. Zuckerind. 40, 857.Google Scholar
Vivien, (1913). Bull. Assoc. Chim. Sucr. 31, 164.Google Scholar
de Vries, (1879). Landw. Jahrb. 417.Google Scholar
de Vries, (1897). Zent. Ver. Rübenzuck. Oest.-Ung. 1897, 289.Google Scholar
Went, (1898). Jahrb. wiss. Bot. 31, 289.Google Scholar