Skip to main content
Log in

Effect of two forms of maleic hydrazide on the cell structure at the midsection, stem and bud ends of the cortical and perimedullary regions of Russet Burbank tubers

  • Published:
American Potato Journal Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The cortical and perimedullary cells of the potato tuber increased in size when treated with the diethanolamine and the potassium salt of maleic hydrazide. The best time for maleic hydrazide application appeared to be from mid to late July. There was a greater increase in cell size in the cortex than the perimedullary region and treatment with the amine salt was more effective than the potassium salt. The cells were smallest at the bud end; however, with maleic hydrazide treatment, increase in cell size was greater in this region compared to the midsection and stem end. From late August to late September the cell size of untreated tubers remained relatively unchanged, whereas, tubers treated with the amine salt showed a 16 to 46% increase with a lesser increase with the potassium salt. The rounder form of the treated tubers can be explained by the shape and increase in cell size in the cortical and perimedullary region. Increase in cell size also may help prevent the formation of misshapen tubers.

Resumen

Las células corticales y perimedulares del tubérculo de papa aumentaron de tamaño cuando fueron tratados con las sales dietanolamina y potasio de hidracida maleica. El mejor momento de aplicacidn de hidracida maleica fué de mediados a fines de Julio. El incremento del tamaño de las celulas fué mayor en la región cortical que en la perimedular, siendo el tratamiento con dietanolamina más efectivo que la sal potásica. Las células mas pequeñas se produjeron en el extremo terminal del tuberculo; sin embargo, el tratamiento con hidracida maleica produjo un mayor incremento en el tamaño de las células de esa región en comparación a la seccidn central y la de unidn al tallo. Desde fines de Agosto a fines de Septiembre el tamaño de las células de los tubérculos no tratados permaneció constante, mientras que los tubérculos tratados con dietanolamina mostraron 16 a 46% de aumento. Este aumento fué menor en el tratamiento con la sal potásica. La forma redondeada de los tubérculos tratados pudo deberse a la forma y aumento en tamaño de las células en región cortical y perimedular. El incremento en el tamafño de las células podría también ayudar a prevenir la producción de tubdrculos deformados.

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. Abel-Rahman, M. and F.M.R. Isenberg. 1974. The role of exogenous growth regulators in the dormancy of onion bulbs. J Agric Sci 82:113–116.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Beach, R. and A.C. Leopold. 1953. The use of maleic hydrazide to break apical dominance ofChrysanthemum morifolium. Proc Am Soc Hortic Sci 61:543–549.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  3. Compton, Winifred. 1952. The effects of maleic hydrazide on growth and cell division inPisum sativum. Bull Torrey Bot Club 79:205–211.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  4. DeRivero, J.M. and J. Cornejo. 1969. Trials of preharvest; sprays with maleic hydrazide for sprout control of garlic. Bol Patal Veg Entomal Agric 31:71–77.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Gifford, E.M. 1956. Some anatomical and cytological responses of barley to maleic hydrazide. Am J Bot 43:72–80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Greulach, Victor A. 1953. Notes on starch metabolism of plants treated with maleic hydrazide. Bot Gaz 114:480–481.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Greulach, V.A. and E. Atchison. 1953. Inhibition of mitosis in bean buds by maleic hydrazide. Bot Gaz 114:478.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Johansen, D.A. 1940. Plant Microtechnique. McGraw-Hill Book Company Inc., New York and London.

    Google Scholar 

  9. Klein, W.H. and A.C. Leopold. 1953. The effects of maleic hydrazide on flower initiation. Plant Physiol 28:293–298.

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  10. Nakashima, T. and T. Kinoshita. 1954. Change of the amount of starch treated with MH30, J Utilization of Agric Prod 1:202–203.

    CAS  Google Scholar 

  11. Paterson, D.R., S.H. Wittwer, L.E. Weller and H.M. Sell. 1952. The effect of preharvest foliar sprays of maleic hydrazide on sprout inhibition and storage quality of potatoes. Plant Physiol 27:135–142.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  12. Peterson, E.L. 1952. Controlling tobacco sucker with maleic hydrazide. Agron J 44:332–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Reeve, R.M., H. Timm and M.L. Weaver. 1973. Parenchyma cell growth in potato tubers I. Different tuber regions. Am Potato J 50:49–57.

    Google Scholar 

  14. Salisbury, Frank. 1957. Growth regulators and flowering survey methods. Plant Physiol 32:600–608.

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  15. Sparks, W.E. 1958. Abnormalities in the potato due to water uptake and translocation. Am Potato J 35:430–436.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Struckmeyer, B. Esther. 1953. The effect of maleic hydrazide on the anatomical structure of Craft Easter Lilies. Am J Bot 40:25–29.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  17. Weis, G.G., J.A. Schoenemann and M.D. Grosskopp. 1980. Influence of time of application of maleic hydrazide on the yield and quality of Russet Burbank potatoes. Am Potato J 57:197–204.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Additional information

This study was supported in part by the University of Wisconsin, College of Agricultural and Life Sciences, and the Wisconsin State Potato Industry Board.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Struckmeyer, B.E., Weis, G.G. & Schoenemann, J.A. Effect of two forms of maleic hydrazide on the cell structure at the midsection, stem and bud ends of the cortical and perimedullary regions of Russet Burbank tubers. American Potato Journal 58, 611–618 (1981). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02853472

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02853472

Key Words

Navigation