DOI QR코드

DOI QR Code

Characteristics on the Field Growth of Plantlets Regenerated from Leaf Segment Cultures of Boxthorn (Lycium chinense Mill.)

구기자나무의 엽절편체에서 유도된 재분화식물체의 포장생육 특성

  • 김동찬 (충남농업기술원 예산국화시험장) ;
  • 정해준 (충남농업기술원 예산국화시험장) ;
  • 민변훈 (배재대학교 원예조경학부) ;
  • 양덕춘 (한국인삼연초연구원) ;
  • 김수동 (충남농업기술원 청양구기자시험장) ;
  • 이봉춘 (충남농업기술원 청양구기자시험장)
  • Published : 2002.06.01

Abstract

194 plantlets regenerated from leaf explants of boxthorn 'Cheonyang' were cultivated to investigate their morphological characteristics in the field for 2 years. Based on the morphology of leaves, 66.1% of them had elliptical type leaf, the same as that of mother plants, while 22.2% in oval type, 7.2% in obovate type, 2.6% in long-obvate type and 2.1% in lanceolate type. They were classified to 4 groups; group A was selected with both high fruit size and fruit yield, group B with only high fruit size, group C with larger or thicken leaf, and group D with multiple brenches. In comparision of production efficiency between the selected groups and mother plants, group A (99741, 99781, 99854, 99870 and 99886) were longer (2.1 to 2.7 mm) in length of fruits and higher in fruit production (15 to 30%) as compared to mother plants. Croup D (99797 and 99892) was higher in leaf production (7.2%) as compared to boxthorn 'CL1-48', which is the highest in leaf production among boxthorn veriaties.

포장에서 자란 '청양'의 상부 잎 절편체 유래의 캘러스에서 200개체의 유식물체를 분화시켜 194개체를 포장에 정식한 후 2년 동안 특성을 조사하였다. 잎의 형태는 모본과 같은 타원형이 66.1%였고, 모본과 다른 난형 22.2%, 도란형 7.2%, 장타원형 2.6%그리고 피침형이 2.1%였다. 또한 재분화된 구기자의 포장생육특성을 검정한 후 열매의 크기가 커지고 수량이 증대된 계통군 5계통 (99741, 99781, 99854, 99870, 99886)과 열매가 커진 계통군 4계통 (99774, 99831, 99840, 99849), 잎이 두꺼운 특징을 보인 2계통 (99747, 99783), 그리고 액아에서 신초가 많이 발생되는 다분지성의 초형변이 계통군 2계통 (99797, 99892) 등 13계통을 선발하였다. 열매의 변이를 나타낸 체세포 변이체간의 생산성을 비교한 결과, 대과와 다수확 계통으로 선발한 5계통들은 '청양'에 비해 과장이 2.1∼2.7 mm 길었으며, 10a당 생산량은 15∼30%가 증수되었다. 초형변이를 나타낸 개체간의 엽수량을 비교한 결과 대소계통인 CL1-48에 비해 99892계통이 7.2% 증수되었고 가시가 발생되지 않았으며 잎이 유연한 특징을 보였다.

Keywords

References

  1. Baruah A, Bordoli DN (1989) High frequency plant regeneration of Cymbopogon martinni Roxb. wats by somatic embryogenesis and organogenesis. Plant Cell Rep 8:483-485 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00269054
  2. Barwale UB, Widholm JM (1987) Somaclonal variation in plants regenerated from cultures of soybean. Plant Cell Rep 6:365-368 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00269562
  3. Carlson PS (1975) Crop improvement through technique of plant cell and tissue cultures. Bioscience 25:747-749 https://doi.org/10.1093/bioscience/25.11.747
  4. Larkin PJ, Scowcroft WR (1981a) Somaclonal variation - a novel source of variability from cell cultures for plant improvement. Theor Appl Genet 60:197-214 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF02342540
  5. Larkin PJ, Scowcroft WR (1981b) Eyespot disease of sugar cane. Host-specific toxin induction and its interaction with leaf cells. Plant Physiol 67:408-414 https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.67.3.408
  6. Morel G (1971) The impact of plant tissue culture on plant breeding. In: F.G.H. Lupton et aI,(eds), The way ahead in plant breeding, Cambridge, 6th Congress Eucarpia, pp 185-194
  7. Murashige T (1974) Plant propagation through tissue culture. Ann. Rev. Plant Physiol 25:135-166 https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.pp.25.060174.001031
  8. Murashige T, Skoog F (1962) A revised medium for rapid growth and bioassys with tobacco tissue culture. Physiol Plant 15:487-497
  9. 농촌진흥청 (1995) 농사시험연구 조사기준. pp 586-588
  10. Shepard JF, Bidney D, Shahin E (1980) Potato protoplasts in crop improvement. Science 208:17-24 https://doi.org/10.1126/science.208.4439.17
  11. Skirvin RM (1978) Natural and induced variation in tissue culture. Euphytica 27:241-266 https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00039141
  12. Skirvin RM, Janick J (1976) Tissue culture-induced variation in scented PeIargonium spp. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 101:281-290
  13. Thomas E, King PJ, Potrykus I (1979) Improvement of crop plants via single cells in vivo - An assessment. Z Pflanzenzuchtg. 82:1-30
  14. Vuylsteke DR, Rodomiro O (1996) Field performance of conventional vs. in vitro propagules of plantain (Musa spp., AAA group). HortScience 31:862-865