Mykhailo Kotsyubynskyi Vinnytsya State Pedagogical University 32 Ostrozhsky St., Vinnytsya, 21100, Ukraine e-mail: KRAVETS07041992@gmail.com
It has been established the influence of gibberellic acid (GK3; 0,005 %) and triazole derivative retardant folicur (0,025 %) aqueous solutions on growth processes, morphogenesis, formation of leaves, partitioning of biomass between organs, depositing possibilities of vegetative organs and their significance in carpogenesis of tomatoes. Based on the results of three years field research, it was found that gibberellin and folicur treatment increased the source potential due to increase the leaves mass and leaf surface, improved leaf mesostructure formation and net productivity of photosynthesis, which created the perequisites for increasing productivity of the crop. The linear growth inhibition under folicur treatment was accompanied by an increase in the leaf area surface, in the consequence of intensified branching of the stem. In the period of fruiting growth, due to formation of a more powerful source activity of leaf apparatus, the content of nonstructural carbohydrates (sugars + starch) was higher under the influence of folicur and gibberellin in the plant vegetative organs compared to control. Drugs application induced significant changes in the ratio between plants source and sink spheres, contributed to increase the transport and reutilization of nonstructural carbohydrates and nitrogen-containing compounds from vegetative organs to fruits that led to increase of yield. Gibberellin treatment increased the total fruits number, but they were smaller than under folicur application. Fruits of both experimental variants had a higher sugar content, however, increased acidity and decreased the content of ascorbic acid. The most effective to regulate the source-sink relations and optimize production process of tomatoes was folicur.
Keywords: Lycopersicon esculentum L., tomatoes, gibberellins, retardants, source-sink, productivity
Full text and supplemented materials
Free full text: PDFReferences
1. Havrylenko, V.F. & Ladyhina, M.E. (1975). Large practical work of plant physiology. M.: Vyssh. shk. [in Russian].
2. Ermakov, A.Y. (1987). Methods of biochemical research of plants. L.: Ahropromyzdat [in Russian].
3. Ikrina, M.A. & Kolbin, A.M. (2005). Regulation of plant growth and development. Vol. 2. M.: Khimiia [in Russian].
5. Kuryata, V.G. (2009). Retardants - modifiers of plants hormonal status.Vol. 1. Fiziologija roslyn: problemy ta perspektyvy rozvytku. Kyiv: Logos [in Ukrainian].
6. Kuryata, V.G. & Polyvanyi, S.V. (2015). Effect of retardant folicur on photosynthetic apparatus and seed productivity of oil poppy. Fiziol. rast. genet., 47(4), pp. 313-320 [in Ukrainian].
7. Miliuvene, L., Novitskene, L. & Havelene, V. (2003). Effect of 17-DMC on the phytohormones level and the growth of rapeseed Brassica napus. Fiziolohiia rastenii, 50(5), pp. 733-737 [in Russian].
9. Pochynok, Kh.N. (1976). Methods of biochemical annalysis of plants. Kiev: Nauk. dumka [in Russian].
10. Priadkina, H.O., Zborivska, O.P. & Ryzhykova, P.L. (2016). Stem deposition ability in modern winter wheat varieties under different environmental conditions as a physiological marker of their productivity. Visnyk ukrainskoho tovarystva henetykiv i selektsioneriv, 14(2), pp. 44-50 [in Ukrainian].
11. Rohach, V.V. & Rohach, T.I. (2015). Influence of synthetic growth stimulators on morphological and physiological characteristics and biological productivity of potatoes. Visnyk Dnipropetrovskoho universytetu. Biolohiia, ekolohiia, 23(2), pp. 221-224 [in Ukrainian].
12. Bonelli, L.E., Monzon, J.P., Cerrudo, A., Rizzalli, R.H. & Andrade, F.H. (2016). Maize grain yield components and source-sink relationship as affected by the delay in sowing date. Field Crops Research, 198, pp. 215-225. doi: https//doi:10.1016/j.fcr.2016.09.003 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.fcr.2016.09.003
14. Matysiak, K. & Kaczmarek, S. (2013). Effect of chlorocholine chloride and triazoles — tebuconazole and flusilazole on winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus var. Oleifera L.) in response to the application term and sowing density. J. Plant Prot. Res., 53(1), pp. 79-88. doi: https//doi:10.2478/jppr-2013-0012 https://doi.org/10.2478/jppr-2013-0012
15. Pobudkiewicz, A. (2014). Influence of growth retardant on growth and development of Euphorbia pulcherrima Willd. ex Klotzsch. Acta Agrobotanica, 67(3), pp. 65-74. doi: https//doi:10.5586/aa.2014.030 https://doi.org/10.5586/aa.2014.030
16. Rademacher, W. (2016). Сhemical regulators of gibberellin status and their application in plant production. Annual Plant Reviews, 49, pp. 359-403. doi: https//doi: 10.1002/9781119312994.apr0541 https://doi.org/10.1002/9781119312994.apr0541
17. Yu, S.M., Lo, S.F. & Ho, T.D. (2015). Source-sink communication: regulated by hormone, nutrient, and stress cross-signaling. Trends in plant science, 20(12), pp. 844-857. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2015.10.009