Unlocking the potential of nodal propagation by raising plantlets from the longer stem segments of perennial forage maize at the tasseling stage

doi:10.11686/cyxb2019426

Abstract

Abstract: Novel perennial forage maize cultivar (‘Yucao No.6’, Yu6), an allopolyploid containing genomes of Zea mays, Tripsacum dactyloides and Zea perennis, is a palatable, sterile, high-tillering and productive C₄ grass. By virtue of sterility, it is limited to vegetative propagation. In comparison with ramet division as a propagation method, little is known about the performance of plants propagated from stem segments and the clonal potential of stem. The aim of this study was to clarify the field performance of plants derived from stem segments and the ability of stem to produce new plants. Field trials were performed to investigate the effect of propagule type on the developmental morphology and above-ground biomass (AGB) of Yu6 over two years, and to evaluate the effects of sowing time, nodal position and stem segment size on the regeneration of aboveground stem fragments from Yu6 in a field setting. Results showed that the establishment mortality (12.5%) of ramet division was higher than that (2.5%) of stem division in the establishment year, and that both types of propagules could safely overwinter (100% overwintering rate in the first winter after planting). We found slight advantages in plant height (PH), grass length (GL), basal circumference (BC), tiller number (TN), AGB for stem propagation compared to ramet division, and no propagule-related difference in stem to leaf ratio (SLR) in the establishment year, except that stem diameter (SD) was significantly greater in stem propagated plants during the tillering stage. There was no significant difference in plant characteristics (PH, GL, BC, TN, SD and SLR) and AGB between the propagule types in the second year following planting, but the second-year metrics (except SLR and SD) were significantly higher than the first year. Sowing date and nodal position had a significant effect on the survival rate, multiplication rate and plantlet size. However, the effect of stem segment size on these parameters was non-significant. Of the treatment combinations, the longer stem segment of the basal and middle stems at the tasseling stage showed the best plantlet regeneration performance. Briefly, use of stem propagation can enhance the propagation opportunities for perennial forage maize, and increase the success rate of establishment without compromising forage production performance. The most effective propagation methodology was the raising of plantlets from the longer stem segments of perennial forage maize at the tasseling stage. Adoption of this methodology could increase the popularity and use of perennial forage maize.

Key words: perennial forage maize, field performance, stem division, ramet division, multiplication rate

YAN Xu, WU Zi-zhou, LI Ying-zheng, LI Xiao-feng, HE Ru-yu, YANG Chun-yan, LI Yang, ZHOU Yang, SHI Jian-zhong, EBENEZER Kofi Sam, HE Jian-mei, RONG Ting-zhao, TANG Qi-lin. Unlocking the potential of nodal propagation by raising plantlets from the longer stem segments of perennial forage maize at the tasseling stage[J]. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2020, 29(6): 204-213.

References

[1] Li H X, Cheng M J, Su Y G, et al. Chromosomal composition and forage production potential of Yuqilin 58. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2015, 24(4): 157-163.
李华雄, 程明军, 苏月贵, 等. 新型饲草玉淇淋58的性状、遗传及饲草潜力. 草业学报, 2015, 24(4): 157-163.
[2] Li Y Z, Yan X, Wu Z Z, et al. Forage maize type and growth stage effects on biomass yield and silage quality. Acta Prataculturae Sinica, 2019, 28(7): 82-91.
李影正, 严旭, 吴子周, 等. 饲草玉米不同生育期的产量、品质和青贮利用研究. 草业学报, 2019, 28(7): 82-91.
[3] Scordia D, Zanetti F, Varga S S. New insights into the propagation methods of switchgrass, Miscanthus and giant reed. Bioenergy Research, 2015, 8(4): 1480-1491.
[4] Gubišová M, Gubiš J, Žofajová A. Biomass production of gigantic grasses Arundo donax and Miscanthus×giganteus in the dependence on plant multiplication method. Agriculture, 2016, 62(2): 43-51.
[5] Bai S Q, Li D X, Zhang C B, et al. Asexual cultivation method of Phalaris arundiacea cv. Chuancaoyin No.3. China, CN102763554. 2012-11-07.
白史且, 李达旭, 张昌兵, 等. 川草引3号虉草无性繁殖栽培方法. 中国专利, CN102763554.2012-11-07.
[6] Boersma N N, Heaton E A. Propagation method affects Miscanthus×giganteus developmental morphology. Industrial Crops and Products, 2014, 57: 59-68.
[7] Lewandowski I. Combustion quality of biomass: Practical relevance and experiments to modify the biomass quality of Miscanthus×giganteus. European Journal of Agronomy, 1997, 6(3/4): 163-177.
[8] Lewandowski I. Propagation method as an important factor in the growth and development of Miscanthus×giganteus. Industrial Crops and Products, 1998, 8(3): 229-245.
[9] Boersma N N, Heaton E A. Does propagation method affect yield and survival? The potential of Miscanthus×giganteus in Iowa, USA. Industrial Crops and Products, 2014, 57: 43-51.
[10] Płazek A, Dubert F, Kopec P. In vitro-propagated Miscanthus×giganteus plants can be a source of diversity in terms of their chemical composition. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2015, 75: 142-149.
[11] Weaver J M, Sujo L S M, Feldmann K A. A simplified technique for the propagation of shoots from nodes of switchgrass (Panicum virgatum L.) genotypes. Bioenergy Research, 2014, 7(4): 1351-1357.
[12] Chen R Y, Chen J, Tang Q L, et al. Study on propagation by cuttings of forage maize. Agricultural Science and Technology, 2008, 9(5): 74-77.
[13] O'loughlin J, McDonnell K, Finnan J. Establishing Miscanthus×giganteus crops in Ireland through nodal propagation by harvesting stems in autumn and sowing them immediately into a field. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2017, 107: 1466-1470.
[14] Meyer M H, Hong J. Miscanthus×giganteus can be propagated from stem cuttings. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 2011, 29(4): 193-196.
[15] Mann J J, Kyser G B, Barney J N. Assessment of aboveground and belowground vegetative fragments as propagules in the bioenergy crops Arundo donax and Miscanthus×giganteus. Bioenergy Research, 2012, 6(2): 688-698.
[16] Boersma N N, Heaton E A. Effects of temperature, illumination and node position on stem propagation of Miscanthus×giganteus. Global Change Biology Bioenergy, 2012, 4(6): 680-687.
[17] Atkinson C J. Establishing perennial grass energy crops in the UK: A review of current propagation options for Miscanthus. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2009, 33(5): 752-759.
[18] Zale J, Ohnoutková L, Sams C. Micropropagation of field-grown perennial teosinte from node culture. Crop Science, 2008, 48(2): 651-655.
[19] Pyter R J, Dohleman F G, Voigt T B. Effects of rhizome size, depth of planting and cold storage on Miscanthus×giganteus establishment in the Midwestern USA. Biomass and Bioenergy, 2010, 34(10): 1466-1470.
[20] Tang Q L, Lü G H, Yang X Y, et al. Study on introgression of Zea perennis genome into maize. Scientia Agricultura Sinica, 2008, 41(8): 2480-2484.
唐祈林, 吕桂华, 杨秀燕, 等. 玉米×四倍体多年生玉米杂种F₂非整倍体研究. 中国农业科学, 2008, 41(8): 2480-2484.
[21] Jatimliansky J R, Garcia M D, Molina M C. Response to chilling of Zea mays, Tripsacum dactyloides and their hybrid. Biologia Plantarum, 2004, 48(4): 561-567.
[22] Farrell A D, Clifton-Brown J C, Lewandowski I. Genotypic variation in cold tolerance influences yield of Miscanthus. Annals of Applied Biology, 2010, 149(3): 337-345.
[23] Ray J D, Sinclair T R C G, Dewald C L. Preliminary survey of root aerenchyma in Tripsacum. Maydica, 1998, 43(1): 49-53.
[24] Sollenberger L, Williams M, Jones C. Vegetative establishment of dwarf elephantgrass: Effect of planting date, density, and location. Soil and Cropence Society of Florida Proceedings, 1991, 50: 47-51.
[25] Cunliffe B A, Meyer M H, Ascher P D. Propagation of Pennisetum setaceum ‘Rubrum’ from cuttings. Journal of Environmental Horticulture, 2001, 19(1): 1-3.
[26] Xue S, Kalinina O, Lewandowski I. Present and future options for Miscanthus propagation and establishment. Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews, 2015, 49: 1233-1246.
[27] Hirimburegama K, Gamage N. Propagation of Bambusa vulgaris (yellow bamboo) through nodal bud culture. Journal of Horticultural Science, 1995, 70(3): 469-475.