Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-t8hqh Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T15:44:33.037Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Sugars, hormones, and environment affect the dormancy status in underground adventitious buds of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Wun S. Chao ,
Marcelo D. Serpe ,
James V. Anderson ,
Russ W. Gesch  and
David P. Horvath
Marcelo D. Serpe
Affiliation:
Department of Biology, Boise State University, 1910 University Drive, Boise, ID 83725
James V. Anderson
Affiliation:
USDA–Agricultural Research Service, Plant Science Research, 1605 Albrecht Boulevard, Fargo, ND 58105-5674
Russ W. Gesch
Affiliation:
USDA–Agricultural Research Service, North Central Soil Conservation Research Laboratory, 803 Iowa Avenue, Morris, MN 56267
David P. Horvath
Affiliation:
USDA–Agricultural Research Service, Plant Science Research, 1605 Albrecht Boulevard, Fargo, ND 58105-5674
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Signals from both leaves and apical or axillary meristems of leafy spurge are known to inhibit root bud growth. To test the hypothesis that carbohydrates and growth regulators affect root bud growth, decapitated leafy spurge plants were hydroponically treated with glucose, sucrose, gibberellic acid (GA), abscisic acid (ABA), 1-naphthaleneacetic acid (NAA), 6-benzylaminopurine (BA), and a GA biosynthesis inhibitor, paclobutrazol. Both glucose and sucrose caused suppression of root bud growth at concentrations of 30 mM. The inhibitory effect of sucrose was counteracted by GA at 15 μM. In contrast, BA, ABA, NAA, and paclobutrazol inhibited root bud growth at concentrations as low as 1, 2, 1, and 16 μM, respectively. Sugar and starch levels were also determined in root buds at various times after decapitation. Buds of intact plants contained the highest level of sucrose compared with buds harvested 1, 3, and 5 d after decapitation. To determine how seasonal changes affect root bud dormancy, growth from root buds of field-grown plants was monitored for several years. Root buds of field-grown leafy spurge had the highest level of innate dormancy from October to November, which persisted until a prolonged period of freezing occurred in November or early December. Our data support the hypothesis that carbohydrates may be involved in regulating dormancy status in root buds of leafy spurge.

Keywords

Leafy spurge, Euphorbia esula L. EPHESCarbohydratesdormancy
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 1 , February 2006 , pp. 59 - 68
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

Anderson, J. V., Chao, W. S., and Horvath, D. P. 2001. A current review on the regulation of dormancy in vegetative buds. Weed Sci 49:581–589.Google Scholar
Anderson, J. V., Gesch, R. W., Jia, Y., Chao, W. S., and Horvath, D. P. 2005. Seasonal shifts in dormancy status, carbohydrate metabolism, and related gene expression in crown buds of leafy spurge. Plant Cell Environ. In press. DOI: 10.1111/j.1365–3040.2005.01393.X).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bangerth, F. 1994. Response of cytokinin concentration in the xylem exudates of bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) plants to decapitation and auxin treatment, and relationship to apical dominance. Planta (Berl) 194:439–442.Google Scholar
[CAB] CAB International. 2004. Euphorbia esula [original text by W. Chao and J. V. Anderson] in Crop Protection Compendium, 2004 edition. Wallingford, U.K.: CAB International [CD-ROM].Google Scholar
Cline, M. G. 1991. Apical dominance. Bot. Rev 57:318–358.Google Scholar
Coupland, R. T., Selleck, G. W., and Alex, J. F. 1955. Distribution of vegetative buds on the underground parts of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L). Can. J. Agric. Sci 35:161–167.Google Scholar
Cry, D. R. and Bewley, J. D. 1989. Carbon and nitrogen reserves of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) roots as related to overwintering strategy. Physiol. Plant 77:67–72.Google Scholar
Finkelstein, R. and Gibson, S. I. 2001. ABA and sugar interactions regulating development: cross-talk or voices in a crowd? Curr. Opin. Plant Biol 5:26–32.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, M. E. 2001. Seed dormancy: an update on terminology, physiological genetics, and quantitative trait loci regulating germinability. Weed Sci 49:305–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gesch, R. W., Vu, J. C. V., Boote, K. J., Allen, L. H. Jr., and Bowes, G. 2002. Sucrose-phosphate synthase activity in mature rice leaves following changes in growth CO2 is unrelated to sucrose pool size. New Phytol 154:77–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gibson, S. J. 2004. Sugar and phytohormone response pathways: navigating a signaling network. J. Exp. Bot 55:253–264.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harvey, S. J. and Nowierski, R. M. 1988. Release of postsenescent dormancy in leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) by chilling. Weed Sci 36:784–786.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Horvath, D. P. 1998. The role of specific plant organs and polar auxin transport in correlative inhibition of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula) root buds. Can. J. Bot 76:1227–1231.Google Scholar
Horvath, D. P. 1999. Role of mature leaves in inhibition of root bud growth in Euphorbia esula L. Weed Sci 47:544–550.Google Scholar
Horvath, D. P., Anderson, J. V., Chao, W. S., and Foley, M. E. 2003. Knowing when to grow: signals regulating bud dormancy. Trends Plant Sci 8:534–540.Google Scholar
Horvath, D. P., Chao, W. S., and Anderson, J. V. 2002. Molecular analysis of signals controlling dormancy and growth in underground adventitious buds of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L). Plant Physiol 128:1439–1446.Google Scholar
Jacobsen, S. E. and Olszewski, N. E. 1993. Mutations at the SPINDLY locus of Arabidopsis after gibberellin signal transduction. Plant Cell 5:887–896.Google Scholar
Jang, J-C., Léon, P., Zhou, L., and Sheen, J. 1997. Hexokinase as a sugar sensor in higher plants. Plant Cell 9:5–19.Google Scholar
Jones, H. D., Smith, S. J., Desikan, R., Plakidou-Dymock, S., Lovegrove, A., and Hooley, R. 1998. Heteromeric G proteins are implicated in gibberellin induction of α-amylase gene expression in wild oat aleurone. Plant Cell 10:245–253.Google Scholar
Koch, K. E. 1996. Carbohydrate-modulated gene expression in plants. Ann. Rev. Plant Phys. Plant Mol. Bio 47:509–540.Google Scholar
Lang, G. A., Early, J. D., Martin, G. C., and Darnell, R. L. 1987. Endo-, para-, and ecodormancy: physiological terminology and classification for dormancy research. HortSci 22:371–377.Google Scholar
Leitch, J. A., Leistritz, F. L., and Bangsund, D. A. 1996. Economic effect of leafy spurge in the upper Great Plains: methods, models, and results. Impact Assess 14:419–433.Google Scholar
Le Page-Degivry, M-T. and Garello, G. 1992. In situ abscisic acid synthesis. Plant Physiol 98:1386–1390.Google Scholar
Leyser, O. 2003. Regulation of shoot branching by auxin. Trends Plant Sci 8:541–545.Google Scholar
Li, C. J., Guevara, E., Gerrera, J., and Bangerth, F. 1995. Effect of apex excision and replacement by 1-naphthylacetic acid on cytokinin concentration and apical dominance in pea plants. Physiol. Plant 94:465–469.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lindley, V. A. 1992. A new procedure for handling impervious biological specimens. Microsc. Res. Tech 21:355–360.Google Scholar
Lym, R. G. and Messersmith, C. G. 1987. Carbohydrates in leafy spurge roots as influenced by environment. J. Range Manag 40:139–144.Google Scholar
McIntyre, G. I. 1972. Developmental studies on Euphorbia esula: the influence of the nitrogen supply on the correlative inhibition of root bud activity. Can. J. Bot 50:949–956.Google Scholar
Metzger, J. D. 1994. Evidence that sucrose is the shoot-derived signal responsible for the correlative inhibition of root bud growth in leafy spurge. Plant Physiol 105:S97.Google Scholar
Nakayama, A., Park, S., Zheng-Jun, X., Nakajima, M., and Yamaguchi, I. 2002. Immunohistochemistry of active gibberellins and gibberellin-inducible α-amylase in developing seeds of morning glory. Plant. Physiol 129:1045–1053.Google Scholar
Nissen, S. J. and Foley, M. E. 1987a. Correlative inhibition and dormancy in root buds of leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula). Weed Sci 35:155–159.Google Scholar
Nissen, S. J. and Foley, M. E. 1987b. Euphorbia esula L. root and root bud indole-3-acetic acid levels at three phenologic stages. Plant Physiol 84:287–290.Google Scholar
Nobel, P. S. 1999. Physicochemical and Environmental Plant Physiology. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nooden, L. D. and Weber, J. A. 1978. Environmental and hormonal control of dormancy in terminal buds of plants. Pages 221–226 in Cutter, M. E. ed. Dormancy and Developmental Arrest. New York: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Perata, P., Matsukura, C., Vernieri, P., and Yamaguchi, J. 1997. Sugar repression of a gibberellin-dependent signaling pathway in barley embryos. Plant Cell 9:2197–2208.Google Scholar
Pollard, J. F. and Walker, J. M. 1990. Plant cell and tissue culture. Methods Mol. Biol 6:50–77.Google Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1989. SAS/STAT User's Guide, Volumes 1 and 2, Version 6, 4th ed. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Shafer, N. E. and Monson, W. G. 1958. The role of gibberellic acid in overcoming bud dormancy in perennial weeds, i.e., leafy spurge (Euphorbia esula L.) and ironweed (Vernonia baldwinii Torr). Weeds 6:172–178.Google Scholar
Sheen, J., Zhou, L., and Jang, J-C. 1999. Sugars as signaling molecules. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol 2:410–418.Google Scholar
Smeekens, S. 2000. Sugar-induced signal transduction in plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. Plant Mol. Biol 51:49–81.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Soni, R., Carmichael, J. P., Shah, Z. H., and Murray, J. A. H. 1995. A family of cyclin D homologs from plants differentially controlled by growth regulators and containing the conserved retinoblastoma protein interaction motif. Plant Cell 7:85–103.Google Scholar
Stafstrom, J. P. 1995. Developmental potential of shoot buds. Pages 257–279 in Gartner, B. L. ed. Plant Stems: Physiology and Functional Morphology. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Suttle, J. C. and Hultstrand, J. F. 1994. Role of endogenous abscisic acid in potato microtuber dormancy. Plant Physiol 105:891–896.Google Scholar
Wang, H., Qi, Q., Schorr, P., Cutler, A. J., Crosby, W. L., and Fowke, L. C. 1998. ICK1, a cyclin-dependent protein kinase inhibitor from Arabidopsis thaliana interacts with both Cdc2a and CycD3, and its expression is induced by abscisic acid. Plant J 15:501–510.Google Scholar
Yu, S-M., Lee, Y-C., Fang, S-C., Hwa, S-F., and Liu, L-F. 1996. Sugars act as signal molecules and osmotica to regulate the expression of α-amylase genes and metabolic activities in germinating cereal grains. Plant Mol. Biol 30:1277–1289.Google Scholar