Micropropagation of roses (Rosa spp.): The effects of different media on in vitro rooting

Metka ŠIŠKO

pp. 19-22

In vitro propagation techniques were studied in 3 different genotypes of roses (Rosa spp.) and the effects of two different disinfectants (dichloroisocyanuric acid and sodium hypochlorite) were evaluated. The sterilisation based ondichloroisocyanuric acid was more efficient (32.6% of vital explants) when compared to the sterilisation with sodium hypochlorite (7.3% of vital explants). The sterilised and vital explants were transferred onto a shoot proliferation medium based on MS. The subcultivation period lasted 4 months. From the first genotype, 186 shoots were obtained, from the second 219 and from the third only 88 shoots. Sufficiently developed plants were transferred to three different rooting media which differed in the presence of auxin (IBA), sucrose and MS concentration. The results show, that the rooting medium did not have the same effects on all tested genotypes. The first genotype resulted in 82% rooted plants on the medium with 1/2 MS supplemented with 30 g/L of sucrose and no IBA added. The most successful rooting for second genotype (55.6% rooted plants) was obtained on the rooting medium with full strength MS, supplemented with 30 g/L sucrose and 0.5 mg/L IBA. The third genotype rooted most successfully (65.9% plants with developed roots) on the medium with 1/4 MS supplemented with 30 g/L of sucrose and no IBA added. Rooted plants were transplanted into the substrate and acclimatised in the laboratory (common growth chamber) and in the greenhouse (moist chamber). The acclimatisation in the moist chamber had a positive effect on the number of survived plants (90.9% survival) compared with the acclimatisation in the common growth chamber (68.1% survival).

Key words: rose, Rosa spp. micropropagation, in vitro propagation, in vitro rooting

Full text PDF

REFERENCES

1. Bressan PH, Kim YJ, Hyndman SE, Hasegawa PM, Bressan RA. 1982. Factors affecting in vitro propagations of rose. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1982; 107(6):979-90.

2. Carelli BP, Echeverrigaray S. An improved system for the in vitro propagation of rose cultivars. Sci. Hortic. 2002; 92:69-74.

3. Davies DR. Rapid propagation of roses in vitro. Sci. Hortic. 1980; 13:385-9.

4. Hasegawa PM. In vitro propagation of rose. Hortscience 1979; 14 (5):610-2.

5. Horn W, Schlegel G, John K. Micropropagation of roses (Rosa hybr.). Acta Hortic. 1988; 226:623-6.

6. Hyndman SE, Hasegawa PM, Bressan RA. The role of sucrose and nitrogen in adventitious root formation on cultured rose shoots. Plant Cell Tiss. Org. 1982a; 1:229-38.

7. Hyndman SE, Hasegawa PM, Bressan RA. Stimulation of root initiation from cultured rose shoots through the use of reduced concentrations of mineral salts. Hortscience 1982b; 17(1):82-3.

8. Kane M.. Micropropagation and in vitro flowering of rose. In: Trigiano R, Gray D (eds.). Plant Tissue Culture Concepts and Laboratory Exercises, CRC
Press, Boca Roton, Florida, 2000; 119–23.

9. Kosh-Khui M, Sink KC. Micropropagatin of new and old world rose species. J. Hortic. Sci. 1982a; 57(3):315-9.

10. Kosh-Khui M, Sink KC. Rooting-enhancement of Rosa hybrida for tissue culture propagation. Sci. Hortic. 1982b; 17:371-6.

11. Murashige T, Skoog F. A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue culture. Physiol. Plantarum 15(3):473-97.

12. Nikbakht A, Kafi M, Mirmasoumi M, Babalar M. 2005. Micropropagation of Damask Rose (Rosa damascena Mill.) cvs Azaran and Ghamsar. Int. J. Agri. Biol. 1962; 7(4):535-8.

13. Pierik RLM. In Vitro Culture of Higher Plants, Kluwer Academic Publishers, The Netherlands, 1998; 348 p.

14. Skirvin RM, Chu MC, Young HJ. Rose. In: Ammirato PV, Evans DA, Sharp WR, Bajaj YPS (eds.), Handbook of plant cell culture, volume 5. McGraw-Hill, New York, 1990; 716-43.

15. Valles M. Micropropagation of several Rosa hybrida L. cultivars. Acta Hortic. 1987; 212:611-5.