Effect of plant age and methods of stem treatment on the quality of cut roses

Document Type : Research Paper

Authors

1 Department of Horticultural Science, University of Tabriz, Tabriz, Iran

2 Department of Horticulture Science, University of Shiraz, Shiraz, Iran

3 Department of Horticulture, University of Zanjan, Zanjan, Iran

Abstract

Cut roses are always valued for their beautiful and outstanding flowers. Apart from the physiological and nutritional features of the plants, there are many other factors which influence the marketable quality of cut roses over the entire period of production phase. Among them we tried to understand how plant age and different methods of stem treatment can modify cut stem physical properties. To do this, the effect of newly stented plants beside the three-year old stented plants combined with four stem training methods were evaluated for their cut flower qualities. The results showed that the time to bud break was shorter (seven days) for young plants while it reached to about 15 days in old plants particularly for the third and fifth buds. In general, young plants performed better for some quality traits such as higher stem length and higher flower and stem diameter. When shoots were bent over the fifth bud, the highest shoot weight and leaf area were produced in the new growing cut flowers. It was concluded that young plants tended to increase their foliage volume by producing more leaves on relatively vigorous shoots, thereby they increased their marketable stem quality.
 

Keywords

References

Bredmose N and Hansen J, 1995. Regeneration, growth and flowering of cut rose cultivars as affected by propagation material and method. Scientia Horticulturae 64: 103–111.
Bredmose N, Hansen J and Nielsen J, 2001. Topophysic influences on rose bud and shoot growth and flower development are determined by endogenous axillary bud factors. Acta Horticulturae 547: 177–183.
Bris LM, Champeroux A, Bearez P and Le Page-Degivry MT, 1998. Basipetal gradient of axillary bud inhibition along a rose (Rosa hybrida L.) stem: growth potential of primary buds and their two most basal secondary buds as affected by position and age. Annals of Botany 81: 301–309.
Demotes-Mainard S, Huché-Thélier L, Morel P, Boumaza R, Guérin V and Sakr S, 2013. Temporary water restriction or light intensity limitation promotes branching in rose bush. Scientia Horticulturae 150: 432–440.
Kajihara S, Itou J, Katsutani N, Goto T and Shimaji H, 2009. Partitioning of photosynthates originating from bent shoots in the arching and high-rack culture systems of cut rose production. Scientia Horticultureae 121: 485–489.
Kim SH, Shackel KA and Lieth JH, 2004. Bending alters water balance and reduces photosynthesis of rose shoots. Journal of American Society for Horticultural Science 129: 896–901.
Marcelis-van Acker CAM, 1994. Development and growth potential of axillary buds in roses as affected by bud age. Annals of Botany 74: 437–443.
Matloobi M, Baille  A, González-Real MM and Colomer RPG, 2008. Effects of sink removal on leaf photosynthetic attributes of rose flower shoots (Rosa hybrida L., cv. Dallas). Scientia Horticulturae 118: 321–327.
Ohkawa K, 2010. The past and the future of cut rose production and industry in Japan. Acta Horticulturae 870: 21–28.
Sarkka LE and Eriksson C, 2003. Effects of bending and harvesting height combinations on cut rose yield in a dense plantation with high intensity lighting.Scientia Horticulturae 98: 433–447.
Sood S, Vyas D and Kumar P, 2006. Physiological and biochemical studies during flower development in two rose species. Scientia Horticulturae 108: 390-396.
Vries DP, De Kuyper EPM and Dubois LAM, 1981. Anatomy of flower differentiation and abortion in relation to the growth and development of hybrid tea-rose seedlings. Scientia Horticulturae 14: 377–385.
Zamski E, Oshri S and Zieslin N, 1985. Comparative morphology and anatomy of axillary buds along a rose shoot. International Journal of Plant Sciences 146: 208–212.
Zieslin N and Algom R, 2004. Alteration of endogenous cytokinins in axillary buds of conventionally grown greenhouse rose plants. Scientia Horticulturae 102: 301-309.
Zieslin N, Spieglestein H and Halevy AH, 1978. Components of axillary bud inhibition in rose plants. IV. Inhibitory activity of plant extracts. Botanical Gazette 139: 64–68.
Journal of Plant Physiology and Breeding
Volume 8, Issue 1
June 2018
Pages 1-9

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics