Skip to main content
Log in

Comparative field performance of potatoes from microculture

  • Published:
American Potato Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The growth and yield in the field of two cultivars of potatoes originating from three different propagation sources — tubers, microcultured shoots (microcuttings) and small tubers produced in culture (microtubers) — were analyzed. Plants originating from microculture produced only single stems emerging from the soil surface whereas tubers formed multistemmed plants. Due to vigorous branching on microcultured plants, however, vine growth appeared similar. Although the total tuber yields were the same for plants from all three propagation sources, in general microcultured plants produced smaller-sized but a greater number of tubers. Microculture is a promising method of producing high quality, certified propagules for potato production.

Resumen

Se analizó el crecimiento y rendimiento de dos cultivares de propagación: tubérculos, brotes micro cultivados (micro esquejes) y pequeños cultivares producidos a través de cultivo (micro tubérculos). Las plantas producidas por medio de micro cultivo produjeron matas de tallos únicos, mientras que los tubérculos produjeron matas de tallos cultivares. Debido al vigoroso crecimiento de las yemas axilares de las plantas originadas en micro cultivo, la apariencia de las matas fue, sin embargo, similar. A pesar de que el rendimiento total de tubérculos fue el mismo para las plantas obtenidas a través de los tres métodos de propagación, las plantas obtenidas por micro cultivo, produjeron tubérculos más pequeños per más numerosos.

El micro cultivo resulta un medio promisorio para la producción de elementos de propagación de alta calidad certificada.

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

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

Literature Cited

  1. Accatino, P. and D. Horton. 1980. Strategy for generating and transfering improved potato technology. In: Optimizing potato production in developing countries, p. 24–44. Report of a planning conference, International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Allen, E. J. 1978. Plant density. In: P.M. Harris (ed.), The potato crop. The scientific basis for improvement, p. 279–326. Chapman and Hall, London.

    Google Scholar 

  3. Doncaster, J.P. and P.H. Gregory. 1948. The spread of virus diseases in the potato crop. Agric Res Comm Rep Series No. 7, H.M.S.O., London.

    Google Scholar 

  4. Goodwin, P.B. and G. Brown. 1980. Field performance of potato shoot-tips proliferated in culture. Potato Res 23:449–452.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Headford, D.W.R. 1961. Sprout growth of the potato. PhD Thesis, Nottingham Univ, England.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Headford, D.W.R. 1962. Sprout development and subsequent plant growth. Eur Potato J 5:14–22.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Hendriksen, J.B. 1963. The mother tuber and the growth of the potato plant. Proc 2nd Trienn Conf, Eur Assoc Potato Res, Pisa, Italy.

    Google Scholar 

  8. McCown, D.D. and D.H. Dinkel. 1974. Shoot inhibition inSolarium tuberosum. I. Responses to ammonium and nitrate nitrogen sources. Am Potato J 51:223–228.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  9. Milthorpe, F.L. 1963. Some aspects of plant growth. In: J.D. Evins and F.L. Milthorpe (eds.), The growth of the potato, p. 3–6. Butterworth, London.

    Google Scholar 

  10. Moorby, J. 1967. Inter-stem and inter-tuber competition in potatoes. Eur Potato J 10: 189–205.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Moorby, J. and F.L. Milthorpe. 1975. The potato. In: L.T. Evans (ed.), Crop physiology-some case histories, p. 225–257. Cambridge Univ Press, Cambridge, England.

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  13. Krythe, N. 1955. Observations on the formation and growth of tubers of the potato plant. Neth J Agric Sci 3:291–304.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Sawyer, R.L. 1979. Annual Report. International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Sawyer, R.L. 1980. The role of the potato in the world’s tropical regions. In: Optimizing potato production in developing countries, p. 18–23. Report of a planning conference, International Potato Center, Lima, Peru.

    Google Scholar 

  16. 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 

  17. White, A.C. 1961. The role of the mother tuber in the growth of potato shoots. BSc Thesis, Nottingham Univ, England.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This research was supported by MUCIA and the Agricultural Research Station, University of Wisconsin.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Wattimena, G., McCown, B. & Weis, G. Comparative field performance of potatoes from microculture. American Potato Journal 60, 27–33 (1983). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02853544

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02853544

Key words

Navigation