Inhibiting the Postharvest Wounding Response in Wildflowers
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Inhibiting the Postharvest Wounding Response in Wildflowers A report for the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation by Dr Virginia G. Williamson, Dr John Faragher, Sarah Parsons and Peter Franz August 2002 RIRDC Publication No 02/114 RIRDC Project No DAV-161A © 2002 Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation. All rights reserved. ISBN 0642 58513 X ISSN 1440-6845 Inhibiting the Postharvest Wounding Response in Wildflowers Publication No. 02/114 Project No. DAV-161A The views expressed and the conclusions reached in this publication are those of the author and not necessarily those of persons consulted. RIRDC shall not be responsible in any way whatsoever to any person who relies in whole or in part on the contents of this report. This publication is copyright. However, RIRDC encourages wide dissemination of its research, providing the Corporation is clearly acknowledged. For any other enquiries concerning reproduction, contact the Publications Manager on phone 02 6272 3186. Researcher Contact Details Dr Virginia Williamson Institute for Horticultural Development Department of Natural Resources and Environment Private Bag 15 Ferntree Gully Delivery Centre VIC 3156 Phone: (03) 9210 9222 Fax: (03) 9800 3521 Email: [email protected] RIRDC Contact Details Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation Level 1, AMA House 42 Macquarie Street BARTON ACT 2600 PO Box 4776 KINGSTON ACT 2604 Phone: 02 6272 4539 Fax: 02 6272 5877 Email: [email protected]. Website: http://www.rirdc.gov.au Published in August 2002 Printed on environmentally friendly paper by Canprint ii Foreword Cut flowers are dramatically wounded plant tissue. A general response to any mechanical damage to plant tissue is suberin formation. Suberin is an hydrophobic substance that is deposited in plants as a defence response to wounding. It was hypothesised in this project that a suberin barrier caused premature wilting in cut flowers because stems were no longer able to take up water from the vase solution. Although suberin might only coat the xylem walls very thinly in the early stages of its formation, a small amount could still impede water flow. Several chemicals are known to inhibit suberin formation, and these were tested on a number of Australian wildflowers. If the borderline vase lives (i.e. < 7 days) of many Australian flowers could be improved, the range of species available for export might increase. This publication examines the effects of numerous wound-inhibiting chemicals and treatments on the vase lives of 13 genera/species of Australian cut flowers and foliage. It provides practical advice on improving the vase lives of several of these flowers, and recommends some easy ways to increase water uptake and vase life. As a by-product of this research, the ethylene sensitivity of some popular Australian native flowers was discovered. The report also shows evidence of the early stage of the wounding response in cut flowers under transmission electron microscopy for the first time. This project was funded from RIRDC Core Funds which are provided by the Federal Government. This report, a new addition to RIRDC’s diverse range of over 800 research publications, forms part of our Wildflowers and Native Plants R&D program, which aims to understand, strengthen and develop markets; improve existing products and develop new ones; provide profitable and sustainable production systems; and enhance the human capital of the industry. Most of our publications are available for viewing, downloading or purchasing online through our website: • downloads at www.rirdc.gov.au/reports/Index.htm • purchases at www.rirdc.gov.au/eshop Simon Hearn Managing Director Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation iii Acknowledgements This work was funded by the Rural Industries Research and Development Corporation (RIRDC) and the Department of Natural Resources and Environment, and sponsored by Longford Flowers. The project was the equivalent of one year’s full time work (2 years at 50% FTE). In order to attain so many results, assistance was obtained from several people: Lynette Bangay, Trish Grant and Sarah Parsons. Trish and Sarah also provided extremely useful discussions, advice and fun – thanks guys! Sarah Parsons also expertly performed the majority of the data analyses. Professor Michael Reid (UCLA, Davis) provided useful and stimulating discussions and suggested the “boiling” experiment. Dr John Faragher suggested the “blasting”, deep and shallow water, and recutting experiments,. and the use of TCA. Sarah Parsons took all the photos in this report, except for the TEM photos. Peter Franz provided statistical advice. Bret Henderson supplied horticultural advice. Janyce Truett helped devise the washing experiment apparatus. Joel Saywell (State Chemistry Laboratory) made the soluble form of SHAM. Dr Simon Crawford (University of Melbourne, Transmission Electron Microscope Unit) performed the TEM preparation and operation, and Megan Klemm provided the initial TEM preparation discussions. Professor Dr Walter Liese and Dr Uwe Schmitt (Germany) interpreted the TEM photos for me. Denis Tricks (Longford Flowers) and Bill Frew (Farmgate Flowers) provided floral material. Tony Slater provided Baeckea and Leptospermum material from the IHD plots. Several people also assisted in particular ways during this project: Dr Wendy Morgan, Denise Millar, Angelika Ziehrl, Bronwyn Clarke and Soehir Salib. I am grateful to Dr John Faragher for supervising this project, and for the useful discussions, advice and assistance. Thanks also to Dr Brendan Rodoni, my other 50% FTE supervisor, for all the give and take on his project during this project. As ever, my long-suffering husband, Dr Patrick Laplagne, put up with my regular experiment monitoring on weekends, and provided invaluable formatting assistance for this final report. Dedicated to Wendie and Greg Williamson iv Table of Contents Foreword...............................................................................................................................................iii Acknowledgements............................................................................................................................... iv Table of Contents .................................................................................................................................. v List of Tables and Figures .................................................................................................................. vii List of Photographs ............................................................................................................................viii List of Abbreviations and Symbols..................................................................................................... ix Executive Summary .............................................................................................................................. x Background......................................................................................................................................... x Objectives ........................................................................................................................................... x Research outcomes.............................................................................................................................. x Recommendations.............................................................................................................................. xi 1. Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 1 1.1 Australian flower exports — genera and $.......................................................................... 1 1.2 The unfulfilled “potential” of Australian native flowers..................................................... 2 1.3 Could untapped genera be used if vase life were increased?............................................... 2 1.4 Common factors involved in cut flower senescence ........................................................... 3 1.5 The suberin/wounding hypothesis compared with the cavitation hypothesis...................... 6 1.6 Suberin biochemistry........................................................................................................... 7 1.7 Suberin synthesis ................................................................................................................. 8 1.8 Suberin detection ................................................................................................................. 9 1.9 Possible suberin inhibitors................................................................................................. 10 2. Objectives .................................................................................................................................... 11 3. Methodology................................................................................................................................ 12 3.1 Plant Material .................................................................................................................... 12 3.2 Transport and Preparation of Plant Material ..................................................................... 12 3.3 Vase Life Conditions......................................................................................................... 13 3.4 Determination of pH.........................................................................................................