Skip to main content

Regeneration of Plants from Protoplasts of Hemerocallis (Daylily)

  • Chapter
Plant Protoplasts and Genetic Engineering VI

Part of the book series: Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry ((AGRICULTURE,volume 34))

  • 312 Accesses

Abstract

Daylilies (Hemerocallis species and cultivars) are herbaceous perennials much sought after for their showy, albeit very short-lived, blooms. The genus has traditionally been classified in the family Liliaceae but now is placed in the Hemerocallidaceae comprising a single genus and some 14 or 15 species (Dahlgren et al. 1985). The family is endemic to the temperate regions of Asia, but ranges from eastern and southern Europe to northern, eastern, and central China, to Korea and Japan. Hemerocallis assumes the gross habit of other clump-forming perennial monocotyledons. The mature plant is composed of fans (ramets) which consist of an underground stem (rhizome), roots, leaves, and a flowering scape. The crown of the plant, referred to horticulturally as the vegetative stem or rootstock, sometimes and erroneously called a pseudobulb, produces long, strap-shaped leaves above andfibrous roots below. Axillary buds may grow or remain dormant and can be forced to yield vegetative separations. The crown is said to be slowly pulled into the ground with continued contractile root growth (Wilkins 1985). An expansive fibrous or fibrous-tuberous root system anchors the plant. The foliage, which may be deciduous or evergreen, consists of sheathed-at-the-base, heavily ribbed leaves which when mature (Fitter and Krikorian 1985; Smith et al. 1989) are long and two-ranked (distichous). Flowers are borne on afloral stalk or scape which is often branched and largely leafless but with some leaf-like bracts, and shoot propagules called proliferations. The number of flower buds per scape may vary (approx. 5 to 12). Flowers are hypogynous, trimerous (3+3 petaloid) and basally connate into a tube; tepals may be apically recurved. Theflowers are perfect and fairly large and last only 1 day (Bielski and Reid 1992). The plants are genetically heterozygous and hence seedlings must be raised to maturity before their qualities are assessable. This generally takes 3-4 years for varieties that are “fast” and longer for those that are “slow”. When a plant with a desirable phenotype is obtained, it is invariably multiplied vegetatively so as to fix the genotype.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 259.00
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 329.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  • Arisumi T (1964) Colchicine-induced tetraploid and cytochimeral daylilies. J Hered 55: 255–261

    Google Scholar 

  • Arisumi T (1972) Stabilities of colchicine-induced tetraploid and cytochimeral daylilies. J Hered 63: 15–18

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bielski RL, Reid MS (1992) Physiological changes accompanying senescence in the ephemeral daylily flower. Plant Physiol 98: 1042–1049

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bui Dang Ha D, Norreel B, Masset A (1975) Regeneration of Asparagus officinalis through callus derived from protoplasts. J Exp Bot 26: 263–270

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen CH, Goeden-Kallemeyn YC (1979) In vitro production of tetraploid plants from colchicine-treated diploid daylily callus. Euphytica 28: 705–709

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Dahlgren RMT, Clifford HT, Yeo PF (1985) The families of monocotyledons. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Darrow GM, Meyer FG (eds) (1968) Daylily handbook. Am Hortic Mag 47 (2): 41–272

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitter MS, Krikorian AD (1981) Recovery of totipotent cells and plantlet production from daylily protoplasts. Ann Bot 48: 591–597

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitter MS, Krikorian AD (1983) Plant Protoplasts: some guidelines for their preparation and manipulation in culture. Calbiochem-Behring, LaJolla.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fitter MS, Krikorian AD (1985) Mature phenotype in Hemerocallis plantlets fortuitously generated in vitro. J Plant Physiol 121: 97–101

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Fitter MS, Krikorian AD (1988) Daylily protoplasts: Isolation, culture and organized development into plants. In: Valentine F (ed) Progress and prospects in crop and forest biotechnology. State Univ New York College Environ Sci For Coll, April 18-20 1985, Syracuse. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 242–256

    Google Scholar 

  • Griesbach RJ (1963) Induction of polyploidy in newly-germinated Hemerocallis seedlings. Hemerocallis J 17: 70–75

    Google Scholar 

  • Krikorian AD, Staicu S, Kann RP (1981) Karyotype analysis of a daylily clone reared from aseptically cultured tissues. Ann Bot 47: 121–131

    Google Scholar 

  • Krikorian AD, O’Connor SA, Kann RP, Fitter MS (1982) Development of, and karyotype stability in, Hemerocallis plants reared via tissue, suspension and protoplast culture. In: Fujiwara A (ed) Plant Tissue Cultures (1982) Maruzen, Tokyo, pp 429–430

    Google Scholar 

  • Krikorian AD, Cronauer-Mitra SS, Fitter Corbin MS (1988a) Protoplast culture of perennials. Sci Hortic 37: 277–293

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Krikorian AD, Kann RP, O’Connor SA, Fitter MS, Cronauer SS, Smith DL (1988b) The range of morphogenetic responsiveness in aseptically cultured daylily tissues and cells: Significance for multiplication and improvement. In: Valentine F (ed) Progress and prospects in crop and forest biotechnology. State Univ New York College Environ Sci For Coll, April 18–20 1985, Syracuse. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 82-98

    Google Scholar 

  • Krikorian AD, Kann RP, Fitter MS (1990) Daylilies. In: Ammirato PV, Evans DA, Sharp WR, Bajaj YPS (eds) Handbook of plant cell culture, vol 5. Ornamental species. McGraw-Hill, New York, pp 375–412

    Google Scholar 

  • Krikorian AD, Kann RP, Smith DL (1995) Somatic embryogenesis in daylily (Hemerocallis). In: Bajaj YPS (ed) Biotechnology in agriculture and forestry, vol 31. Somatic embryogenesis and synthetic seed II. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg New York, pp 285–293

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunitake H, Mii M (1990) Somatic embryogenesis and plant regeneration from protoplasts of asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.). Plant Cell Rep 8: 706–710

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Munson RW Jr (1989) Hemerocallis, the daylily. Timber Press, Portland

    Google Scholar 

  • Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol Plant 15: 473–497

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith DL, Krikorian AD (1991) Growth and maintenance of an embryogenie cell culture of daylily (Hemerocallis) on hormone-free medium. Ann Bot 67: 443–449

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Smith DL, Kelly K, Krikorian AD (1989) Ethylene-associated phase change from juvenile to mature phenotype of daylily (Hemerocallis) in vitro. Physiol Plant 76: 466–473

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Stout AB (1956) Variegation and somatic mutations in daylilies. Hemerocallis J 10 (2): 15–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout AB (1986) Daylilies. The wild species and garden clones, both old and new, of the genus Hemerocallis. Introduction and updating by Darrel Apps. Sagapress, Millwood, NY

    Google Scholar 

  • Stout AB, Chandler C (1933) Pollen-tube behaviour in Hemerocallis with special reference to incompatibilities. Bull Torrey Bot Club 60: 408–416

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun Y, Heil B, Khal G, Kohlenbach H (1987) Plant regeneration from protoplasts of the monocotyledonous Haworthia magnifica v. Poelln. Plant Cell Tissue Organ Cult 8: 91–100

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sybenga J (1983) Genetic manipulation in plant breeding: somatic versus generative. Theor Appl Genet 66: 179–201

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Voth PD, Griesbach RA, Yeager JR (1968) Developmental anatomy and physiology in daylily. Am Hortic Mag 47 (2): 121–151

    Google Scholar 

  • Wallace M (1985) Hemerocallis fulva. In: Halevy AH (ed) CRC Handbook of flowering, vol 3. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 130–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Wilkins HF (1985) Hemerocallis fulva. In: Halevy AH (ed) CRC Handbook of flowering, vol 3. CRC Press, Boca Raton, pp 130–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhou C (1989) Pollen protoplast culture leading to embryogenie divisions in Hemerocallis fulva. Acta Bot Sin 31: 409–413

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1995 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Krikorian, A.D. (1995). Regeneration of Plants from Protoplasts of Hemerocallis (Daylily). In: Bajaj, Y.P.S. (eds) Plant Protoplasts and Genetic Engineering VI. Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, vol 34. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57840-3_8

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-57840-3_8

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-642-63374-4

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-642-57840-3

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics