..
2 :1 2:2
2 :l1- 2 2 6
3:
3:2 The
./• z •
4:
5
:1 :1 2
5
:1 :h •
_,/.
.;
I
es
2 2
0 r
8 8
12
4
6
Differe!1ces 1
of 18
of
5:
2: 15:3
The 56:
1 :21 : 1 :
1
2
of Scions
1 20 20
4. -
Effect of Hormone Treatment on each of Variance5. -
Effect of onof Variance
1
1 representation the ci
+ _,_.
vO vlme.
from of
extracts in
shoot
Plate 1.
e 2
3
e
5
6
1 1
1 1
20 on a""fte:r
21. after
after
t,
occupy an
to
the
in the
2
It has been that differences exist between varieties between of a genera, in to their to form roots on stem This has been true in relation to fruit trees ( v1here e. wide range of clones may exist in a
ticular but has also been in ornamental
(7
Hibiscus(22,
Camellia (),
(of Citrus ) , and a sim- ilar extensive showed that
easy to root; t and some of the
mediate; and ( Ci
very difficult to root, or did not root at all.
Similar results
(2)
who found that ofof Citrus varied from fair to very poor. In order of ease of
Crescima."i'lno ( 11) showed that lemons rooted and mandarins difficul Frolich (19) found that acid Citrus, such as Lemons, Limes,
Citron root most and Mandarins, and s, are slowest
to
root while occupy intermediate position ..
Similar results have been Shan_'k:er ( , Salomon :Mendel ( Kinsella ( ) have described the easy difficult
root in Citrus, Hibiscus and
these di:f'ferences h:::i.ve been shown to exist little or no evidence has been forvmrd for their existence, other than
to
influence at1xins
been e ( 12
effect of
(
to
in that thes erials have
upon the of (
of
This erial (
( :found
in buds
are
the
the in
au1::tn* indicat of' ef'fect
formation
(9
) Theof treatment are much of v1hich
than on of
different relation to
1
'
( (
of certain is
on
(1
Hess
of mature
extracted mixtures of from These extracts were the effects of various of
In
presence oflittle imulus.
that
the presence of
found that
) ent the
in
l!
,
form of
of
chroma to-
extracts of of
extracts leaves
' (
, • .J- • ...f- O~l S vlllCv
(
s
( )
acted
to root formation. Odom with various ornan1entals, that auxins did not appear to be the lim-
factor erratic responses of the studied.
indicated that other , such co-factors be invol
(5
obtained in hardwood ofCrab C rootstockse In the rootstocks, temp enhanced root formation also increased the
Fadl and
(16 17)
have that differences co-factor varietiesheat of
s ( ) that 2
of'
in the both above ana. decreased
lateI~ substantial
of
t-to-root
this
These ed across the and the
difficult-to-root
(1
( '
(22 20) have shownthat substances are to adult
the is
In
i t
from
-'-' ,_,ne to
of
ch
It is
'
the
This to establish
it did
the
to in area of
This in an e
root
ions of
10
All both
taken the same in to eliminate variation
VYith buds
Because of differences in time of it secure
on
a about
thes
into of
The non shoots in each divided into 2
,
treated
all This
treatment,,
1 ..
lemcn Control
lemon Non
Non Control
mandarin
Control
di
5
1above
for
to
u.is-~.roots
12.
latter are referred to as
the of the routine spray in
the shouse vrnre ed to all of the of the all of the leaves retained on the
root and root inhibi substances: These
s made use of the Hess for this
modified.
the
methanol
minut decanted into a fresh of
blender. The mixture of tissue and methanol was left to stand for
hours then The filtrate
film the residue taken up in a small (2 cc) of methanol.
extract was then s out 111ea:ns of paper
No. 3 paper. mixture of ed as the solvent
10.5 inches in each case
The then divided into
15
, each1 of the relative ascent of the Eacl1
of per tube. s
i.11dicative of the int of root t tl1at
on
1
s
1 1
in 1
8 2
Care t£L1<:en to ensure between each treatment this
The method of out the mung bean at as
a result of a series of aimed at the tech-
ve the most consistent results. To extent dif'f- erences from the detailed method used Hess, and ( , are the result of differences e
for cutt th
to those i11 the v1ere
in
onto -'-' vlllS
.
a r:ith
the same
conditions were treated
the
used
n varieties were established.
lemon on lemon
1 on Cl
Clementine Clementine
on Navel orange
on lemon
orange
on
The first
4-
nine
eacl1
Details of data and variance of the results are pre- sented in summary in
3, 4
ancl5.
The resu1ts the show clear that
dif':t'erences exist bet•;rnen varieties :1n their to form roots on cutt-
Dif:t'erences betrreen varieties in the number and of
roots were (Table
1).
dif:E-erences also varieties in the number of roots !'ormed
(TabJ.e
c.)
of roots i i l (Table )Because of correlation which existed between the
n _,_ •
OI vime to :t'orm roots • 1 ) the number of roots dev-
=
-~ and the co:i:Te.lation between theof time to !~orrn roots a11.Cl the 'o:f roots it is
to assume that in :!:'act, in this case the number o:r roots per
roots are both of the of root rormat-
ion rather tha:ri. o :f some f'actore
~tarted to show roots 14 a.nd at
that time most of the
7
3 to
but took one week to root. the o:f the third
had roots, but most had root init- ia1s and callus. the end of the ixth of the cut-
1 Table 1 The Lisbon lemon also
ties of roots numerous roots
6 t difficult to count t11e roots both
ieties but lemon of
2
3)@
veJ:;/ to a
the
5, 6 7
$to
some cutt-
form
ea.
roots 8 - 12 "of all to form roots, and gave
roots Roots vrere on
the of the few
at of the seventh week@ the end of the
the had roots 1, Table 1 Plates 13, 1
15 "
(
1
to
2
of'
)
( )
7
of s any effect
scio11s
+
(
1
1 +
7
11
+ +
1
Lisbon lemon after
after
Clementine mandarin control, after
Clementine after
Clementine mandarin + after
Navel control, after
a:fter
e 1
after
12:
after
Scarlet
Scarlet af'ter
6 -
differentlemon on after
Clementine on Clementine er
lemon on Navel orange; after
after
p
l.JJ
I-
0
0
0
p:: 100
(fl (!'J
z 80
t- t- 60
::;,
u
LL
40
0
UJ
1.0
CJ
15 0
w
2LI
er:
w 90
p..
60 40
A. NON FLOWER\NG NO HO'RMONE
B. NON FLOWE.RI NG +HORMONE
c. FLOWERING +HORMONE
1
I I I
I
I I I I
I I
,,, ....
/
\,..\//
. /
.,..
.,..
/ / /
.,,---
~0.-·-,.;.
. - • --:".-.<:r'
• ,,,,,,,,.""'_.,.,r-ti.,,,.
-·-·- :asM
.._..,...~ • • t • • • • • • • • .. ••I
--- .... - ... ---
I I I I I I I
...
..,,
II ~
--
,,..
...
-
JME IN WEEKS
261 231
20
18 16
-
I14
-t---'----'-~~~-~.1··-~-J--~L~---·L---L___lL___L--L---'---1---L---L----L--'---L---• J ·1 ·3 '4 ·5 ·6 ·7 ·8 ·9
f-()1\j. value
MEYER LEMON (NF)
85
30
25'
20
·t '.2. ·:! ·4 ·5" ·6 ·7
-89
f·ORf..
~vatue 15
II
LISBON LEMON (NF')
4
39
2S
2.1 19
17
~-~~__.__;__,__,__,__,__.___.__~~-~_.__._-±-~.J____
O·
·1 ·2 ·3 ·4 ·5 ·6 ·7 ·0 ·9 1·0
~ Rf V<llue
11 ~ CLEMENTINE MANDARIN (NF)
I
l
2.0
I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I
·I ·2 ·3 ·4 ·5 ·6 ·7 ·8 ·9 f ·O
R/. vdue
1 CLEMENTINE MANDARIN (P')
19-+-~~~~~~~~~~---'=~__.__~~~
·J ·.2. ·3 ·4 ·5 ·6 ·7 ·B •9 l·O
Rf v4hte
NAVEL ORANGE (NF)
201----'--'---"'--'~:--'---'7--'--'--'--L--'--'---'-_,__-'--'--'-~
·J ·2 .g ·4 ·5" ·6 .7
·8·9 1·0
Rf vctlue
NAVE'L ORANG~ (F)
·I ·1 ·'3 ·4 ·5 ·6 ·7 ·8 ·9 1·o
·Rf. v<Jlue
GRAPEFRUIT WHE'ENY (NF)
19
16 ·2 ·3 ·4 ·5' ·6 ·7 ·B ·9 J·O
Rf value
BURGESS SCARLET MANDARIN (NF)
23
19
15'
U ·I ·2 ·3 ·4 ·5 ·6 ·7 ·B ·9 l·O
Rf· Vfllue
BURGESS SCAllLET MANDARIN ( F)
. '
Number of Total Total
Treatments root root
number roots
H'
... 10 10 2cm too andH 10 .,} z 6
7 3
0 10 too
H 10
3 5
10 7
3
10 10 too many and
too
0 1 1 0
'U l.L
10 0 too
H 10 1 2 0
0 6 7 1
10 10 19 too and
H 10 1 1 0.,1 cm
1 of roots counted at the of 7th
later the roots
in roots.,
(1
( '1
in the ence absence of fact- nevertheless
icular clone. The auxin content of
could have
to
root formation from control root
( i
other
(1
ex-of
The
or
of
root all
t
to
to cutt-
conducted to the which to exist between varieties of' " Vl
.
their toroots on
clones t
e to
or absence of cefactors
for the to
evidence
sincere to Ricb.ards the
this ect, and for his of
1.
of the Central
sistance of studies
,
v:i
III
10 1 1
0 10 10
8 6 0
7
108
2 8
7
1 1 0 2
0 ./ h 10
1 0 2 2 0
'
10 0
0 0
2
after
Treat-
( br.i..
\ u. v
10 1
9 10
7 6
1
1
:;;
.,/
2
0
1
H 1 10 10
10 1
7
85 3
0
0 0
root eel
10 10 10 1
10 10 10 1
10 10 1
.,, I 10 10 1
8
6
8 05 7
2 0 2 10
2
7 5
201 2 2 9
:;; 1 B
. /
3
b /0 0 0 1
0 0 1
on
II III
6
615
A I2
"
0. /
0
3
8r
3
13?
0 0 2 0
2 2 0 1 2 16 0
-l 0 2 2 ·12
'
0
0 7 0
'
0
iJ 0 0 0
3
I
Treat-
2
3 1 2
0 0 0
6
2 2
0 1
!J:otal roots
200 21
1
3
8
0 0 0
0 0
Total root
in cm.
6
5.,2·1 ·1
Clementine 0
1
A r-, A
VmC u
2 2
0 Oe 1
0
0 0
0,.0 0
0
after 2 Obser11"ttions after of
of
0 0
1 1 10 1 1
10 1
1 1
1
.j I
10 1
second- roots
1
10 too
3
b / b /' l+0
0
4
0
6
2.,10 10 too many
1
1
1 1 1 1
0 10
10
of
3:
:1of
DF
F5
19 +1 l;. 0 0
.,20
5
+
4- 1 "'
8.,13 8
14
3 :2 :1
Source of error
Block
:2:2
of error
Block
3:2:3
Source of error
Block
auxin
- rri th auxin
with auxin
DF
5 4
5
20
2
1+
8
7 8
"11
19 17 1
1 1
0
F Result
+ + +
NS
Result
+ + +
3: :
1of Result
1
5
+4
11
1
3:3:
error
SS DF
F .J.. u1
5 6.
14 +1 -1
" "+ '
~11
3
:3
of
2 2.
1 0
11 8 1
11+
0 1
'
Lf..
4
1
0 1
4:1
Blo Residual
1 :
Block
4: : 6
of
7
.. o
,..
0
DF
1
4 4-
1 li-
F Result
10.0 1
1 ..
o.
5
6
0 0
2 15
F
0
o .. 5 o .. 6
4:2:
F
$ 0
5
04 l
10 0
l+ 1
DF
0
of
1 1 -1
6
'
Block 5e0
4 3. o.
L1-
6
a ./
4:2
16 6 1
12
4
1
4-: :6
error Result
0 0
Blo
3
04
Total 8
9
4
3 :1DP
F Result4
0.,Total
9
of' .l.. v
Treatment 1 2
4 6
+).
kl·
a ./
4: :3
t
Treatm 1 0
1
4:3
of F
1 0
1
9
1 1.,10
0
4:3:6
0 0
0 0
of flower buds on
2
6 17
5
:1: 2error
bud 12
Block 10
6
otal
5: :3
Source of' error
Flower bud 0
0 1
4
1
4
9
1
4 4
0 /
of variarice.
Result
2
1
5
0F
2 1 12 1
2.6
2.,61 6
F Result
0 0
0
:2:
6
7 4
1.6
1 1
1 4
0
5:3:1
1
:2
1
• -z •
• .J.
0
0
..
1
1 D.G and time sca .. le fo1~
ential in Rhododendron Sci. 1
factors of cit-
' 11 (1)
3 ..
Biale, J .. B. The ofSoc Hort 1
5
The of root sub st-ances in rootstocks,.
for 1 1 the effect
shoots of
t 1
Hort er.
effect tirn.e of the
of t:Ciree tivers of .~~erican
..
c ..
1
8 to root
stem
9
of Hormone inPlant 1
11
c.
and root formatio11 Botan. Gaz1
11 Crescimanno Studies citru~s
1 12
1 D
1 Doorenbos, J. of in
The of'
l
( 1
H.T
1
1 characterizat-
factor
1
18.
ci clones9 cutt
c
c 1
1
difficult-to-root
( )
J
tlet to
s
c
c
c
of
1
"
1
"
c
(official
s ) • 1
1 1
J
1
and
adt1lts of 1
1
c
1
" 'l
1
"
® Frolic11 factors G-rafted
1
Root of citrus leaf
21
o:f~ ci to air
(
i
(
1 )
of trees
effect of
c 1
influence
tio:n :Hort
cutt
in
of
0