American Potato Journal

, Volume 69, Issue 7, pp 461–470 | Cite as

Gelling agent and light effects onin vitro tuberization of potato cultivars

  • J. Nowak
  • S. K. Asiedu


The effects of Gelrite and agar onin vitro tuberization of six potato cultivars, Atlantic, Chaleur, Cherokee, Desiree, Kennebec and Red Pontiac under low light intensity and in the dark were examined. The medium consisted of MS salts, vitamins, 6% sucrose, 2.5 mg/l kinetin and either 2 g/l Gelrite or 6 g/l agar. The cultures were kept either under diffused light with a 16 h photoperiod or in darkness at 22/19 C day/night temperatures for eight weeks. Tuberization was earlier and more uniform (a higher proportion of tubers ≥ 5 mm) on Gelrite than on agar solidified medium and earlier in the darkness than in the light. Light effects varied from cultivar to cultivar. The slowest to tuberize in light were Atlantic and Red Pontiac, the fastest, Chaleur and Cherokee. Chaleur, Cherokee and Kennebec produced significantly more large tubers and higher total tuber mass under low light than in darkness. Atlantic and Red Pontiac reacted in the opposite way. Desiree produced significantly more large tubers in the dark, but the differences in tuber mass between the dark and light conditions were not significant. Light also stimulated shoot and root growth in most of the cultures. No relation was observed between the relative maturities of the tested cultivars and their tuberization responsesin vitro.

Additional Key Words

Tuberization media microtubers tuberization response 


Se examinaron los efectos del Gelrite y del agar sobre la tuberizaciónin vitro de seis cultivares de papa, Atlantic, Chaleur, Cherokee, Desirée, Kennebec y Red Pontiac en baja intensidad de luz y en la oscuridad. El medio consistio de sales de MS, vitaminas, 6% de sucrosa, 2,5 mg/L de kinetin y 2 g/L de Gelrite o 6 g/L de agar. Los cultivos fueron mantenidos ya sea bajo luz difusa, con un fotoperiodo de 16 horas, o en la oscuridad a 22/19 C de temperaturas diurna/nocturna por ocho semanas. La tuberización fue más temprana y más uniforme (una proporción mayor de tubérculos ≥ 5 mm) sobre Gelrite que sobre agar solidificado y más temprana en la oscuridad que en la luz. Los efectos de la luz variaron de cultivar en cultivar. Los que tuberizaron más lento en la luz fueron Atlantic y Red Pontiac, los más rápidos Chaleur y Cherokee. Chaleur, Cherokee y Kennebec produjeron significativamente tubérculos más grandes y una masa total de tubérculos más alta bajo luz difusa que en la oscuridad. Atlantic y Red Pontiac reaccionaron de manera opuesta. Desirée produjo significativamente tubérculos más grandes en la oscuridad, pero las diferencias en masa de tubérculos entre las condiciones de oscuridad y luz no fueron significativas. La luz estimuló también el crecimiento de brotes y raíces en la mayoría de los cultivos. No se observó ninguna relación entre la madurez relativa de los cultivares estudiados y su respuesta de tuberizaciónin vitro.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Literature Cited

  1. 1.
    Abbot, A.J. and A.R. Belcher. 1986. Potato tuber formationin vitro. In: L.A. Withers and P.G. Alderson (Eds.) Plant Tissue Culture and Its Agricultural Applications. Butterworths, London, pp. 113–122.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bourque, J.E., J.C. Miller and W.D. Park. 1987. Use of anin vitro tuberization system to study tuber protein gene expression.In Vitro 23:381–386.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Estrada, R., P. Tovar and J.H. Dodds. 1986. Induction ofin vitro tubers in broad range of potato genotypes. Plant Cell Tiss Organ Cult 7:3–10.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Hussey, G. and N.J. Stacey. 1981.In vitro propagation of potato (Solanum tuberosum L.). Ann Bot 48:787–796.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hussey, G. and N.J. Stacey. 1984. Factors affecting the formation ofin vitro tubers of potato. Ann Bot 53:565–578.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nowak, J. and D. Colborne. 1988.In vitro tuberization and tuber proteins as indicators of heat stress tolerance in potato. Am Potato J 66:35–45.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ortiz-Montiel, G. and H. Lozoya-Saldana. 1987. Potato minitubers: technology validation in Mexico. Am Potato J 64:535–544.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sipos, J., J. Nowak and G. Hicks. 1988. Effect ofdaminozide on survival, growth and yield of micropropagated potatoes. Am Potato J 65:353–364.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Slimmon, T., V. Souza Machado and R. Coffin. 1989. The effect of light onin vitro microtuberization of potato cultivars. Am Potato J 66:843–848.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Tovar, P., R. Estrada, L.S. Shielde-Rentschler and J.H. Dodds. 1985. Induction and use ofin vitro potato tubers. CIP Circular Lima, Peru 13:1–5.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Wang, P. and C. Hu. 1982.In vitro mass tuberization and virus-free seed potato production in Taiwan. Am Potato J 59:33–37.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Wattimena, G., B. McCown and G. Weis. 1983. Comparative field performance of potatoes from microculture. Am Potato J 60:27–33.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wiersema, S.G., R. Cabello, P. Tovar and J.H. Dodds. 1987. Rapid seed multiplication by planting into beds microtubers andin vitro plants. Potato Res 30:117–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer 1992

Authors and Affiliations

  • J. Nowak
    • 1
  • S. K. Asiedu
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Plant ScienceNova Scotia Agricultural CollegeTruroCanada

Personalised recommendations