GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND MINERAL UPTAKE IN TOMATO PLANTS, AS AFFECTED BY MALEIC HYDRAZIDE AND GIBBERELLIN. Thosls for “to Degree of Db. D. MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY Prithwish C. Bose 1958 5015513 This is to certify that the thesis entitled GROWTH, DEVELOPMENT AND MINERAL UPTAKE IN TOMATO PLANTS, AS AFFECTED BY MALEIC HYDRAZIDE AND GIBBERELLIN presented by I Prithwish C. Bose has been accepted towards fulfillment of the requirements for BI: . 'D degree in Horticulture ?,//fl/W\é/14/W( Major professor Date October 31, 1958 ‘7 M LIBRARY Michigan Static University PC”TT TIJTDP EXT AYDI It RKL IPT £23 IE TCr ATO PLATTS: AS Adflw‘ CTEJ) "1' QL‘TF‘ T’TjfirfiL) A ”3 CI TETIEIIITI. "TN .1 _“y A: A ”'YACD Submitted to the dchool for Advanced Graduate Studies of hichivan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of D“CTCR 0r ’HILCSCPIY Department of Forticulture Year 1953 INST”TTTTQ" C 'zccva -“3f?"*'oo .L-s‘_ Loo—7rd. O _;, ‘J-J A- J-fin'LAL‘J-L ato nlents, ve r. John Eaer were grown in quartz sand under Plent Science Greenhouse conditions (av. tennerature 6O derrees F and av. day lenrth 10:42 hours) at lichifan State University, East Lansin", hichijen. Hoeelend and Arnon (1950) so]_ut ion were used as a source of nutrient supply in the exnerirents involvinr the use of two growth reruletors nencly, maleic hydrezide and wibberellin. Tne investirstions were oonduc ted to determine the effect of various concentrations of the two nrowth revnlators, when used as a Tolisr ennliCont on the browth end subsequent develonnent o? nlents. Analyses were 9180 conducted for nitroeen nhosuhorus, notossiur, calcium, mornesium, iron, ’ boron, veneer ose, ocener and zinc content o :nlents. J“ The concentrW ions used were 10, 50 end 100 pnm or meleio twdrezide (1?) end 100, 250 and 500 new of potassium cibberellete. .f'\ rerio odic meeeirenents of height, stem diamet- ,, number of leaves, size of the leroest leaf, and fresh and dry weicnts of tons and roots were mode for treeted and check plants. The nercent mineral cornosition was determined and also the Upfi9Ve of difFerent minerals were cclculeted neriodics lly on the basis of dry weirht per plant. 3-53—21". \ "I “WC“: 31707127 NT." 2 L -r- Marci-4-1 b o .‘3 min 11* "J w-A-V-L- The data indicated that maleic hydrazide treated plants showed growth inhibition in all cases irrespective of the rate of application. However, root growth appeared to be affected more than shoot growth. Treatment produced a greater inhibition with 50 and 100 ppm as compared to low rate applications of 10 ppm which caused only a temporary growth inhibition. Plant analyses indicated highly significant differences between the treatments for percent composition and uptake of various minerals. However, all mineral analyses showed high values in favor of the check plants followed by 10, 50 and 100 ppm treatments indicating the maynitude of the metabolic chances resulting on account of the maleic hydrazide treatment. Foliar applications of gibberellin, on the other hand, affected the growth mechanisms of the plants in such a way that stimulation of growth was observed for the treated plants. The data indicated that the macnitude of elongation of plant parts was related to the concentration of the compound used. These growth differences can be explained by the fact that the high application rates caused the plants to increase their uptake for water and potassium as compared to low rate treatments. However, no significant 3 71"” :‘1'7 {‘1 1'7 “W“- 'T)’JF"‘IT)A"V."1 PT“. i-_..Io:_ v. -4003; Jullrxibi-B differences were found in the size of the largest leaf or the number of flowers between the various treatments. A sirnificant decrease in number of fruits was found in all gibberellin treated plants in comparison with the check plants. Gibberellin treated plants indicated chlorosis and white patches on the lO-l2 lower leaves which may be due to lower percent or total uptane of iron or manganese. The fruits produced by the ribberellin treated plants were malformed, russetted and smaller in size whereas the fruits of the check plants were early and free from th as defects. GROWTH, DEVELOP3LIT AHD EIKJRAL UPTAKE I TOEATO PLAITS, AS AEFECTED BY hALEIC HYDRAZIDE AhD GIBEERTILIN. Submitted to the School for Advanced Graduate Studies of Michigan State University of Agriculture and Applied Science in partial fulfillment of the requirement for the degree of DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY Department of Horticulture 1958 (1’ ACYWoWLEDGBHEKTS The author wishes to express his sincere thanks to Drs. H.C. Beeskow, R.L. Cook, D.H. Dewey, C.L. Hamner, and 0.3. Wildon for their guidance and editing of the manu- script. Sincere thanks are also eXpressed to Drs. M.J. Bukovac and G.S. Rai for their valuable suggestions; to Dr. E.J. Benne and Er. S. Bass and their staff for carrying out the chemical analyses, and to Dr. J.D. Downes for his help on certain aspects of statistical analyses. IIJTRCDCJCT ICJOOOOOOOOOO REVIEI OE‘ L TERA1”UR‘: BIC "YDRAZID< GIBB ERELLIIVOOOOOOOC EXPSRIL SHTAL RjSUITS BIC ’YDR""TDZ.. GIBB:GIZFJLLII;O O O O O O O HYD YAZI JLTIN... m *- 1w" )QLT’J'Lilfo o o o 00 o o. 0 LITERATURE CITCD AP...‘.J.L :)I}:o o o o o o o o o co? mnwrnq .L - A..'. L K) Page .. l INTRODUCTICN Since the very beginning of the history of plant science, man has endeavoured to understand and control plant growth. Discoveries of hormones and growth regulators in recent years have brought a better understanding of plant growth and mechanisms involved and is rapidly becoming a part of our agricultural economy. Although many inorganic and organic compounds applied externally to plants may result in visible growth reSponses, all those physiologically active substances that are recog- nized as having growth regulatory properties are organic. A common characteristic of these compounds is great potency in inducing or repressing some growth process in the plant, which may be manifest in a diversity of responses. Many of these compounds actively induce multiple reSponses though perhaps to different degrees; others are more Specific. Often the effectiveness of the growth regu- lator for inducing a Specific reSponse is conditioned by the degree to which food reserves are available and are mobilized or demobilized in various organs. Since the effects of these chemicals as they alter the metabolism of intact plants and induce changes in composition are frequently pronounced, they deserve more consideration. Visible changes induced in morpholo, ,rowth maturit x.) . L ’ C ’ and color may be accompanied by changes in chemical composition. Two approaches to the mechanism of action of plant regulators have been used. One concerns the changes made by the regulator upon the morphological and anatomical structure of the plant, and the other involves a study of induced changes in the chemical composition of the plant. Kore progress has been made in studying the morphological and anatomical changes and also the changes in carbohydrates, proteins, amino acids, and vitamins induced by growth regu- lators, but very little work has been done on the mineral uptake of plants and as such deserves more attention. It was thought advisable to select two compounds diversically Opposing in their physiological activity in order to determine their influence on growth, develOpment, and mineral uptake. For this eXperiment maleic hydrazide, a potent inhibitor, and gibberellin, which increases growth, were selected to determine their influence on growth, develOpment, and mineral uptake of tomato plants. 3. REVIEW OF LITERATURE l. haleic hydrazide (RH): The inhibiting effect of maleic hydrazide on plant growth has been known for some time. This material has been successfully used to check Sprouting of potatoes and onions in storage. In high concentrations, this chemical accumulates in the meristem of herbaceous plants and checks growth completely and the plant dies, hence it's use as an herbi- cide. The inhibiting effect of NH on growth of plants has been reported by various workers. Greulach (1951) treated Earliana tomato plants with 10 to 2000 ppm RH and found that dosage of 10 to 1000 ppm did not produce any Signi- ficant inhibition whereas 2000 ppm inhibited growth to about half that of check plants after five weeks. There was no effect of any treatment on leaf develOpment or stem diameter. In another experiment, Greulach (1951) investigated the effect of 0.2 percent RH on various ages of tomato plants and reported that increase in stem diameter of plants 3, 4, and 5 weeks old at the time of treatment was inhibited in prOporticn to age with maximum inhibition being in 3 week old plants. Stems of 6 to 7 weeks old plants were not inhi- bited. Plants treated with 1.3-; had a higher shoot/root ratio and more pronounced in the youngest plants. Shoene, et al. (1949) showed that NH application at 0.2 percent inhibited growth of tomato plants for two months and later the growth resumed from lateral buds and the plants bloomed. Kaylor and Davis (1950) applied 0.05 to 0.4 percent EH plus wetting agent as a foliar spray to oats, wheat, red tOp grass, corn, peas, peanut, sunflower, cocklebur, tomato, tobacco, and cotton and found the following similar effects: a. Cessation of activity of terminal meristem. b. Cessation of elongation of internodal region. 0. Increase in stem diameter. Haleic hydrazide may inhibit growth of trees as well as small plants. Bynum (1952) reported that 0.1 to 0.5 percent solution of 13 inhibited growth of CleOpatra manderines and sour oranges. Similar reports have come from Hamner and Rai (1958) who also have shown that high concentration of LH inhibited the growth of various ornamentals and shade trees. Currier and Crafts (1950) reported that NH at 0.2% plus 0.024% Vatsol applied to barley killed the plants in six weeks. Cotton (var. Aoala) 5 weeks old appeared unaffected. Cotton in cotyledon stage was severely inhibited but plants 16 inches high showed no apparent response. Young water grass, Echino- chloa Crus—galli, and Johnson grass treated with MR stOpped growing, develOped anthocyanin pigmentation and died. The age of the plants was suggested critical with young plants 5. most susceptible to maleic hydrazide. By using standard pea growth test, LeOpold and Klein (1951) investifiated the action of NE on growth. They reported, "EH was found to be a growth inhibitor. In absence of auxin it inhibits growth at concentration as low as 0.1 mg./1. Since it is apparently incapable of promoting growth in the absence of auxin, it is not a growth regulator. The inhibition of growth by low concentration of RH is completely relieved by the addition of auxin. Conversely inhibition of growth by high concentration of auxin can be relieved by the addition of NH". Since they could not find any evidence which would indicate that the inhibitor acts directly combining with auxin in vitro they concluded that RH is an anti—auxin and acts in Opposition to auxin in growth. Activity of NH on root growth has also been studied by various workers. It has been reported by Choudhri and Bhatnager (1952) that NH spray at l to 10 ppm stimulated root elongation of corn seedlings and concentrations of 500 ppm and higher were inhibiting. Similar results were also reported by Bertossi (1950) who showed through the Kacht test that NH up to 29 ppm inhibits growth of white lupine seedlings, while 0.226 to 14.5 ppm promotes the growth of lateral roots with Optimum concentration of 5,62 ppm. Carlson (1954) reported that the retardation of shoot and root growth in oats, soybean and maize by foliar application of RH is due to inhibition of mitosis. He also reported that the frequency of mitosis of the growing tissues drOps quickly after RH treatment. This is substantiated by Smith, et al. (1957) who used radio-active EH. They reported that the concentration of UK was highest on growing tips and buds. Compton (1952) working on the effect of EH on growth and cell division in pea plant found that the effect of NH on cell division is not coincident with its effect on total growth. Based on percent mitosis in treated plants as compared to controls, there was a greater percentage mitosis in shoot tips than root tips of all plants. In those plants in which mitosis reappeared after a period of complete inhibition, the greater percent of dividing cells occured in shoot tips, indicating that RH has a pore pronounced effect on cell division in roots than in shoots. The influence of NH on color and shape of leaves is very characteristic. Andersen, et a1. (1950) reported that RH applied to leaves of wild oats six inches high at 12, 24 and 36 pounds per acre darkened the foliage in ten days and killed plants in 5 to 6 weeks. Currier, et al. (1951) found that barley leaves became thicker, more brittle and sticky drops of exudates appeared after treating them with NH. Gifford (1956) found that by the second week after treatment with RH, barley plants were stunted and the leaves which were relatively mature at the time of treatment became much greener in color, thicker and more brittle than those of untreated plants. Barnard, et al. (1950) reported that the higher dosage of LH caused leathery distorted outer leaves in lettuce. Callaghan and Van Norman (1956) working on the effect of NH on photosynthesis, Sprayed 0.0375 grams KH/liter and 5.0 grams hH/liter as amine salt on Swiss chard in the cotyledon stage or in 2-3 leaf stage and tobacco plants in the 5-6 leaf stage. Oxygen evolution was measured mano— metrically. Leaves develOping after treatment were noticeably darker green than checks with fewer chloroplasts per palisade and Spongy parenchyma cell but with a larger diameter. Photosynthetic rates were significantly increased after NH treatment. The increase in photosynthetic rate was Spectacular at the lower rate of treatment although little effect on dry weight, reSpiration rate and chlorOphyll concentration was evident. At the higher rate of NH treat— ment the depressed reSpiration and higher chlorOphyll content may account for a part of the apparent increase in photosyn- thetic rate. At the lower concentration used here, however, there was little obvious morphological change in size or shape of leaves. The measured increase in photosynthetic rate seemed to be a modification of the physiology of the individual leaf cells. They did not suggest as to how the observed changes were brought about. However, the great change in rate per unit of chlorOphyll was suggested as an alteration in the photochemical mechanism of photosynthesis. The low light intensity was used to contribute to that suggestion. As regards the influence of RH on flower formation, Greulach (1951) reported that 100 to 1300 ppm did not pro- duce significant inhibition of tomatoes. The 2000 ppm level inhibited growth about half of check after 5 weeks and caused a reduction in number of flowers. Klein and LeOpold (1953) reported that EH inhibited flower formation in winter barley at a concentration as low as 4 X 10—5M. Similar inhibition of flower formation has also been reported by Struckmeyee (1953) in croft lily and by Burr in sugarcane. Ciferri (1951) reported that flowering of Virginia bright tobacco was retarded for 7.3 days at 100 ppm, 8.7 days at 200 ppm, and 10.7 days at 400 ppm. NH at 800 ppm inhibited flowering. ”he influence of EH on growth of plants has been reported by various workers, as due to inhibition of reSpiration. According to Naylor and Davis (1951) inhibition of growth by application of NH was influenced by inhibition of respiration and they suggested that this may affect the normal function of dehydrogenase. Greulach (1954) has made the same suggestion. Dugnani (1954) studied the effect of ma on dehydrogenase systems in preparations of cauliflower, pea and artichoke and reported that EH at 60-400 ppm inhibited dehydrogenation activity both in the soluble and mitochondrial systems. It was also suggested that NH may act on the -SL group of the enzyme. Differences between EH treated and untreated plants led investigators to believe that there might be some differences in the composition of plants. Petersen and Naylor (1955) studied frenching of tobacco plants and found that RH treated plants had high calcium and manganese, and lor phOSphorus. Paper chromatographic analysis showed that the quantities of free amino acids were greater in treated plants. Treated plants had more reducing sugars and less protein than un- treated plants. Similar results on sugar and protein content have also been reported by Greulach (1954) and Arnaud, et al. (1956). }_1 O o 2. Gibberellin: Kurosawa reported in 1952 that a plant growth-promoting "1 substance was present in the culture filtrate of bibherella- fujikuroi. little attention was given to this comoound at the time. Only, however, within the last few years hav (D intensive studies of practical uses bermn. Recently it has been shown by various workers that eihberellin promotes tie rrowtb of a wide variety of plants including grasoes, vegetables, ornamental plants and fruit trees. it induces rapid lengtLenine of stems or internedes, broadening or elongation of leaves, increase in heirrt, early flowering and fruiting. Earth, et al. (1956) apwlied cihberellin as one percent lanolin paste on young stem tissue resultirg in a 50 to 500 percent increase in hei ht of geranium, noinsettia, rose, selvia, 3”??? dQVlia, “etrnia and aster under greenfonsn V Conditions. 'eiehts of snap beans, soy beans, peanut, neoner, err-"plant, corn, berlej.r and sunflower were doubled or tripled. Srowth op l to 3 year old willow, oak, trlin poplar and meole trees were ereetlv incroosed, while WVito pine and white spruce showed only slivht increase. Similar increase in heieht has been reported by T”arton (1956) in crab ennle seedlinss; Dukovac end Tittwer (1956) in five varieties of tomato; CLardon (1056) in pineapples. T"rian and "coming (1755) working on the effect of rib— ll. berellic acid on shoot growth of pea seedlings showed that the growth rate of shoots of dwarf pea seedling was sig- nificantly increased during the first 4 days by the appli- cation of 0.01 g of gibberellic acid (I) in ETOH solution to a leaflet of the first true leaf. In longer term experiments there was a linear relation between log dose and growth response in the dose range of 0.01 — 0.52 g/plant and a maximum response was obtained at 5.12 g of I. Slow growing varieties of pea respond more to I than fast-growing varieties, with suitable doses of I virtually eliminating the differences in growth rate between dwarf and tall varieties. Indoleacetic acid had a qualitatively similar but quantitatively much smaller effect. Lang (1956) working on stem elongation induced by gib— berellic acid in a rosette plant found that the effect was more pronounced under long day conditions than short days. Various workers have reported earlier flowering, induced by gibberellin treatment. Happaport (1957) reported this in tomato; Lindstrom and Wittwer (1957), and Lindstrom, et al. (1957) on various flower plants; Wittwer, et al. (1957) on beans, tomato, cabbage and lettuce. Haber and Tolbert (1957) working on the photosynthetic activity in gibberellin treated leaves found that gib- berellic acid did not enhance the rate of 00 fixation per 2 unit of leaf tissue and also did not alter the general 12. pathway of short—time metabolism of the newly fixed 002 in the sugars, organic acid and amino acid product. {ato (1951) investigated the effect of gibberellin, extracted from cultured solution of Gibberella fujikuroi, which induces the elongation and light green color in seed- lings of soybean, tomato, and sunflower. With 0.1% lanolin paste the increased elongation of the stem was 2 times or more the growth of the control but the growth of the leaf blade was suppressed. The green color did not become lighter or yellowish as in the case of treating them with nutrient solution containing gibberellin. In the standard Avena and pea tests for gibberellin in comparison with auxin, the concentrations of gibberellin were 1000, 500, 100, 50, 50, 20, 10, and l mg./l. Gibberellin was found inactive in all of the tests and it was suggested that gibberellin is a growth regulating substance of a nature quite different from the auxin. Morgan and Rees (1956) reported that the nitrogen con- tent of grass was lowered by about two percent after treat- ment with gibberellin. The growth was more rapid when treated with gibberellin as compared to nitrogenous fertilizers. Eventually the yield obtained with fertilizers was greater than with gibberellin. Increase in growth obtained after treatment with gibberellin was accompanied by chlorosis. Yield increase resulting from gibberellin and fertilizer applied together was additive. Gray (1956) treated Bonny Best tomato plants with 50 ppm of gibberellic acid spray and found that treated plants developed smooth margined instead of notched or lobed leaf- lets. He also reported a 40 percent increase in yield of tomatoes, peas, runner beans and black currants and in the root crops ( potatoes, turnips, and carrots), the yield was reduced, though an increased vegetative growth was found in all cases. Fukuoka (1941) reported that gibberellin, induced over- growth in rye plant without leading to the development of grains. In one eXperiment Wittwer and Bukovac (1957) reported that application of gibberellin strikingly reduced production of marketable fruits of tomato. The fruits were small and often showed a peculiar russetting. Induction of parthenocarpic fruits in tomato has been reported by Rappaport (1957) and Wittwer, et al. (1957) after application of gibberellin. Effect of gibberellin on elongation, water uptake, and reapiration of pea sections was studied by Kato (1956). He reported that after 24 hours, elongation, water uptake, and oxygen consumption of sections floating in solution containing 10 mg./1 of gibberellin, was markedly increased. It was believed that the behavior of enzymes was 14. changed by the application of gibbercllin. Iayashi, et al. (1956) aralyzcd leaf sheaths of rice plants grown in solution and treated with gibberellin to examine changes in the activity of various enzymes during the period of their growth, in comparison with that of control plants. They found that activities of phOSphatase, alkaliperphosphatase, dipcpti- dase, acetyllesterase, maltase, B—glucoside, X-galactosidase, amylase, urease, ascorbic acid oxydase, and catalase were decreased on extracts of sheaths on a fresh weight basis by treatment with gibberellin. Activities of peroxydase and invertase were markedly increased. Increased growth in plants following application of gibberellin led some investigators to believe that there might be some changes in the composition of plants. Kurosawa (1952) working with culture filtrate of Gibberella fujikuroi reported that potassium is essential element in the production of elongating substance in rice seedlings. Yabuta, et a1. (1943) working on the action of gib- berellin on tea leaves found that tea buds became longer than the control, the total yield of tea leaves was not changed, and the analysis for vitamin C, peroxydase and oxydase, tannin, theine, total nitrogen, crude fiber, and soluble matter were similar to those for the control. On the composition of rice seedlings as affected by l5. gibberellin, Yabuta, et a1. (1952) found that both the controls and treated plants had similar weights, moisture, ash, and total nitrogen but total sugars decreased in treated plants. Similar results were reported by Wittwer, et a1. (1957) in Kentucky bluegrass. Brian, et a1. (1954) found that wheat seedlings grown in nutrient solutions containing 5 g of gibberellin per ml. showed increase in height due to increase in length of both stem and leaves. Leaf—blade width was slightly decreased. Chlorosis and leaf-roll developed, eSpecially in the low nutrient solutions. Concentrations of gibberellin above 10 g./m1. gave no added reSponse, and concentrations of 1000 g./ml. were inhibitory. Under similar conditions, pea plants increased in height 500%. Petioles and internodes were greatly lengthened, but leaves were little affected in size. As in wheat, Chlorosis was observed, and many concentrations decreased the growth promoting powers of gibberellin. In general, fresh and dry weights for both wheat and peas were increased in shoots and decreased in roots, resulting in an overall increase. The carbon content especially was markedly increased, and ash, nitrogen, phos- phorus and potassium were slightly increased. Carbohydrate concentrations, eSpecially glucose, was also increased. .o I. In order to determine the effect of di ferent concen- trations of maleic hydrazide, 0, 50, and 100 ppm, and yibberellin *, 100, 250, and 500 ppm, on the plcnt growth exnerirents were arranced under greenhouse conditions at Lichiwan State Mniversitv, East Lansinr, iichiran. Torato seedlinys, var. John Baer, were selected as test plants. Tomato seeds were sown in flats on October 1, 1957. The seedlings were transplanted, on October 29, 1957, into 5-inch pots filled with a mixture of medium and fine erade quartz sand for maleic hydrazide eXperiment. Another eroup of tomato seedlings, used for ribberellin eXperiments, was transolanted on the some day usinf medium erade quartz sand as the filling material in 9-inch pots. Since the studies were also desirned to determine the effect of the growth rerulators, maleic hydrazide and ribberellin, on the mineral uptake, Toagland and Arnon’s (1950) nutrient solution was used throughout the experi- ment. Each plant, atter transplantation, received a nint of nutrient solution and one quart of water every alternate day rntil January 1, IT5C after which the additions of nutrient solutions were increased to one quart per plant * Used as notassium ribberellete. while the amount or water added was the some for t‘e entire duration of the empcriments. The toroto plants, in 5-inch pots, were srouned into small and larre plants and distributed evenly so that the difference in the physioloeicel meturity of the plants ceosed to he on intlrencine factor in the results. All the treatments ”ere randomized and replicated twice in such a manner that eoch replicate consisted of four plants. "owever, inititiel weibht measurements and mineral analyses were made on 16 plants selected at ran- dom before the application of the compound. ?oliar applications of maleic hydrazide were made on Decemher 12, 1957, takinv due care so that the compound did not drip on the ouartz sand in the pots. In the other experimen s, where aibberellin applications were made, plants in 5-inch pots were classified into three nroups, i.e. laree, medium and small, on the basis of their height. lowever, all the selected plants were so mixed in various combinations that there was no disproportionate uneveness which mieht lead to erroreous results. For that reason the shufflins process was thorouyh in all resnects. Out of these plants, a lot of 52 plants was selected for growth and development studies. Later, a sub-rroup of 8 plants was used for each concentration of gibberellin, i.e. 100, 250 and 500 ppm and check. Periodic observations were recorded for: 1. Height measurements: From the base to the tip of the plants. 2. Stem diameter: In all ten plants the diameter of the stem was measured between the first and leaf with vernier callipers. 3. Kumber of leaves: Counts were made of fully eXpanded leaves in each plant. 4. Size of the largest leaf: Length (in cms. from point of attaciment to the leaf apex) of the largest leaf in each plant. \Jl o Lumber of laterals: shoots which were longer than 5 ems. 6. Number of flowers: on each plant 7. Iumber of fruits: on each plant Another lot of tomato plants, in 8-inch pots, received gibberellin treatments on December 24, 1957, which consisted of three concentrations, and three harvest dates, i.e. 1 week, 5 weeks and 6 weeks period after the application date of the compound. All these treatments were randomized with three replications. The data was recorded for fresh and dry weiyhts of tons and roots, and the analyses of the whole plant were made to determine the mineral content. Nitrogen was determined by the standard Kjeldahl method, 19. and potassium determinations were made by flame-photometer (A.O.A.C. 8th ed. 1955) while phosnhorus, calcium, maenesium, iron, boron, manranese, cepper and zinc were determined Spectrorranhicelly (Bacon, H. A. and S. T. Bass, unpublished). The analytical work was conducted in the laboratories of the Agricultural Chemistry Department, hichigan State University, East Lansine, Lichigan. The mineral accumulation figures for each alement were obtained by the following formula: Total amount of Av. dry wt. per plant X Av. p mineral each mineral = per plant 100 Differences between the mineral content on any two dates was considered to show the amount of mineral taken up during that period. Climatological data was obtained for the period of the investirations, that is, September 1957, to harch 1958. The temperature of the plant science greenhouse room where studies were conducted, ranged from 58 degrees F.to 63 deprees P, with the average temperature being 60 degrees F. for the duration of the experiment. The data relative to day length was calculated from the weather bureau table, "The time of sunrise and sunset for East Lansinv", which is located on 75th meridian. Ca1- culations were limited to the 2lst day of each month. The day length ranged from 9:02 to 12:14 hours, with an average of 10:42 hours. 20. 21. EKPERII-37.77111: RE HITS All the different erowth measurements and mineral deter- minations have been recorded in the Tables aiven in the Appendix. For the purpose of statistical comparison of the individual treatmenis the averares of each treatment for dif— ferent data have been calculated and recorded, Tables I to VIII. Faleic hydrazide: Averaee of growth measurements for each treatment of this cXperiment has been recorded. Tables I and II. Teieht: Statistical comparison of individual treatments showed that the heiehts of plants sprayed with 10 ppm maleic hydrazide was sirnificantly less than the check. The heights of plants sprayed with 50 and 100 ppm were significantly less than those Sprayed with 10 ppm maleic hydrazide, but there was no siynificant difference in heiehts of plants Sprayed with 50 and 100 ppm maleic hydrazide. Heights of plants seem to be inhibited increasingly with increase in concentration of PH Graph—l. Stem Diameter: It was found that all treated plants had sirnificantly smaller diameter than checks; 50 and 100 ppm treated plants also showed a significantly smaller diameter than 10 ppm treated plants and no significant difference between 50 and 100 ppm treated plants. Number of leaves: Individual treatments showed no sipnificant difference in 10 ppm treated plants as compared to AVTDA"“ GQCJTH IEAS ’“CVTY S O? TOIATO PLANTS, AS AEFECTE BY VARIC‘US CONC HTQAEI ‘"S F RALEIC HYDRAZIDE. L.S.D. FOR 1:13:33- * Tntg.unrms TD smashes 1'-;$I?TS . Check 10 ppm 50 ppm 100 ppm 5% 1% a. " CHT (1n ems) 3304 30.5 19.4- 1902 205 405 b. STEM 62 A o 8 o DIAI LTER 5.27 4. r035 4.31 .l .33 (in mm) 0° “Ug3:v 3F 10.5 11.2 6.7 6.8 1.5 2.4 d. SIZE OF THE LAID-£33m (iijéms) 21.5 19.7 15.2 15.4 5.5 6.1 * All measurements are averafies from 5 observations of 2 replicates. TAB 3 — II AVTRAGE FRESH AND DRY WilGHT OF TOPS AND ROOTS 23. OF TORATO PLANTS, AS AFFECTED BY VAEIOUS CONCEHTEATIONS OF FALEIC HYDRAZIDE. KEASURE— * TREATKNNTS L.S.D. FOR I-' :1’IT‘3 TREATMENTS (gm.) Check lOppm 50 ppm 100 ppm 5% 1% TOPS 39.7 27.2 11.2 12.3 7.4 5.6 2.1 2.0 S 3.7 2.6 1.5 1.7 ROOTS 1.35 1.07 0.50 0.37 1.7 2.5 0.7 1.1 0.10 0.29 * All values are averages from two observations of two replicates. 6RA PH 1 BRONTH MEASUREMENTS (To NATO PLANTS) 25. checks. Both 50 and lOO ppm treated plants had a sirnificantly lower number of leaves than checks and 10 ppm treated plants. Number of leaves decreased with increase in concentration of NH applied with the exception of 10 ppm treated plants where number of leaves per plant were more than checks and 50 and 100 ppm treated plants seem to behave in the same manner, Graph-1. Size of the largest leaf: The individual statistical comparison of treatments showed that there was a significant decrease in the size of the largest leaf of 50 and 100 ppm treated plants than check and 10 ppm treated plants. No significant differences were found between 10 ppm treated plants and checks, and also between 50 and 100 ppm treated plants. Size of the largest leaf was decreased by increase in concentration of NH, Graph-l. n iresh and dry weights of tons and roots: In weiahts of fresh tops a significant decrease was found in all treated plants as compared to check. A significant increase was found in 10 ppm treated plants over 50 and 100 ppm treated plants. No significant difference was found between 50 and 100 ppm treated plants. The fresh root weights showed similar differences. Similar statistical differences were found in weights of dry tOps and roots except that dry weight of roots of plants treated with 50 ppm NH was greater than that of roots of plants treated with 100 ppm RH. In all cases checks had greatest weirhts followed by 10, 50 and 100 ppm treated plants, excepting for wei hts of fresh and dry tops where 100 ppm treated plants dad slightly ereater weiehts than 50 ppm treated plants, Graph—2. General observations: One week after treatment, leaves of treated plants started to turn darker green in color. After the second week, leaves of 50 and 100 ppm treated plants appeared very dark green in color and remained the same way whereas 10 ppm treated plants showed slightly darker leaves than checks. From third week onwards leaves of 10 ppm treated plants appeared normal green in color. The stems of all treated plants exhibited color changes. The treated plants appeared inhibited in growth. In— hibition appeared greater with increase in concentration of NH applied, Figure-l. Plants tested with 10 ppm EH showed an abnormal growth, Figure-2, like that of 2, 4-D injury, between second and third week of treatment but later bloomed like check plants whereas 50 and 100 ppm treated plants did not bloom at all. Observation of roots two weeks after treatment with MH showed a great inhibition in roots of treated plants. Treated plants had fewer fine roots. Four weeks after treatment 10 ppm treated plants showed normal rooting system whereas 50 and 100 ppm treated plants had very few roots, Figure-3. It was also observed that smaller plants in general were more affected by RH treatment than large ones. 27 MA PH. -2 AVERAGE HEIGHT OF PLANT 0” DIFFERENT DATES (TOMATO PLANTS) DEC DEC JAN DEC DE 6‘ JAN 12 26 9 12 9 Figure 1. Heights of tomato plants affected by O, 10, 50, and 100 ppm concentrations of maleic hydrzide. Check plant shows normal growth, 10 ppm treated plant shows slight inhibition, 50 and 100 ppm plants show great inhibition. 28. 29. Figure 2. Abnormal terminal growth produced by 10 ppm concentration of maleic hydrazide. Fully expanded leaves of abnormal growth are shorter than the normal. Figure 3. 30. Root growth as affected by various concen— trations of maleic hydrazide. Check shows more vigorous roots followed by 10, 50 and 100 ppm treatments. Kineral composition of plants: The average percent, based on dry weight of ten mineral elements has been recorded, Table-III. Statistical comparisons of individual treatments for each of the mineral elements analyzed shows no significant differences between 10 ppm treated plants and checks except that percent potassium was significantly lower in 10 ppm treated plants. All ten elements were significantly less in 50 ppm treated plants than in 10 ppm treated plants with the exception of magnesium and zinc. Ho significant differences were found between 50 and 100 ppm treated plants, excepting for phosphorus, magnesium and zinc where a significant decrease was found in 100 ppm treated plants over 50 ppm treated plants. Lineral accumulation: The average amount of accumulation for each of 10 mineral elements during the period of experiment have been recorded, Table-IV. Efficiency of mineral intake was calculated on the assumption that checks had 100 percent efficiency. It was found that efficiency of 10 ppm treated plants ranged from 56.7 to 20.6 zercent; for 50 ppm treated plants it ranted from 14.6 to 24.1 percent and for 100 ppm treated plants it ranged from 12.2 to 21.1 percent. Efficiency of mineral intake of tomato plants decreased with increase in concentration of maleic hydrazide applied. Percent minerals for 10 ppm treated plants was higher TABLE — III AVQRAGE nRCETT KIKIEALS PRZSJIT IN TORATO PLAKTS, AS AFFECTED BY VARIOUS CCTCSKTRATIOKD OF LALEIC HYDHAZIDE. IJOSQDQ FOR RINERALS * TREATLLKTS TREATHENTS Check 10 ppm 50 ppm 100 ppm 51 1% NITROGEN 3.67 3.59 5.12 3.11 .19 .28 PhOfiPTORUS .17 .16 .14 .13 .01 .02 POTASSIUN 5.50 4.89 5.81 5.8 .17 .25 CALCIUM 5.37 5.66 2.79 2.51 .56 .54 hAGHfiSILd .67 .67 .62 .55 .06 .08 IRON .0509 .0502 .0200 .0201 .0059 .0058 BOROU .0029 .0027 .0025 .0020 .0005 .0004 hAUGfIESE .0055 .0053 .0026 .0027 .0004 .0005 COPPER .0029 .0025 .0020 .0019 .0005 .0007 ZINC .0057 .0047 .0041 .0057 .0014 .0020 * All values are averages from 2 observations of 2 samples. TAFLE - IV A .33.".33 . -13.37.’J. A33 IAII’“ 3731;335le DAT - S I}.~ TC’IAI‘O P 4.2.53, AS AFFECTED 331’ VATIC‘TIS CCCTCTTfTTLL i‘I’3ZTS 0"1 AIEIC ”’13 -AZIDQ LIYLIALS *Average Accumulation ** Efficiency Check 10 50 100 Check 10 50 100 YITVCGJ. 119.5 81.5 25.6 25.2 100 68.2 21.4 21.1 (me) P M0 ”"0790 6077 3997 1220 993 100 65.7 20.1 16.3 (A?) POT-3o 'n 161.1 115.8 50.1 28.2 100 70.6 18.5 17.5 (me) CIT/I111. 108.5 8705 25.4 20.2 100 80.6 2304 1806 (me) 11:: I Ihm 2255 1528 541 455 100 67.8 24.1 20.2 {T IROE 954 661 156 150 100 70.8 14.6 15.9 (fie) 80203 95 65 19 15 100 68.4 20.0 15.8 048) ITAT‘TGALTQSSI‘J 96 69 16 15 100 71.9 16.7 15.6 (we) CCPPER 90 51 17 11 100 56.7 18.9 12.2 (fie) ZINC 189 115 29 51 100 60.8 15.3 16.3 (ms) * All values are averages from 2 observations. ** Calculated on the basis that checks are 100% efficient. at the end of four weeks than checks excepting for COpper and zinc. Total accumulation for each of ten elements showed checks highest followed by 10, 50 and 100 ppm treated plants, Graphs-5, 4, 5, 6, and 7. Gibberellin: Average readings of growth measurements and weights of tOps and roots for each treatment were recorded, Tables—V & VI. Height: Statistical comparison of individual treatments showed that 250 and 500 treated plants were significantly taller than checks. No significant differences were found between 100 ppm treated plants and checks; 250 and 500 ppm treated plants nor between 100 and 250 ppm treated plants. Treated plants showed increase in height after first week of treatment, Graph-8. Stem Diameter: Statistical comparison of individual treatments showed that diameters of stems of 500 ppm treated plants were greater than checks. No significant differences were found between checks and 100 or 250 ppm treated plants. It could be clearly seen from last stages of growth of different treatments that an increase in diameter of stem was found with increase in concentration of gibberellin applied, Graph—8. Number of leaves: Both 250 and 500 ppm treated plants had significant increase in number of leaves as compared to check. No significant differences were found between checks 35. GRAPH - 3 PLANT ANALYSIS AT DIFFERENT DATES (TOMATO PLANTS) DEC (IA/Y 050 JAN ' 9 12 9 [2 26 26 GRAPH; 4 PLANT ANALYSIS AT DIFFERENT DATES (TOMATO PLANTS) DE C JAN DE C «MN [2 26 9 [2 26 9 37. GRAPH - 5 PLANT ANALYST: AT DIFFERENT DATES (TOMATO PLANTS) DEC DE 6 JAN DEC DEC JAN I2 26 9 I2 26 9 6RA PHI '5 PLANT ANALYSIS AT DIFFERENT DATES (TOMATO PLANTS) DEC dA/Y DEC JAN 9 I2 I2 26 26 7 39. GRAPH ' 7 PLANT ANALYSIS AT DIFFERENT DATES (TOMATO PLANTS) AVERAGE GQLHEi 3A3URLEELTS OE T01ATC PLAITJ, A3 AEFECTAD BY VAfiIC-U'S ”301 .3-3-rT51A1-‘IC‘II’S C1“ " VIM-3:31.11 1.. . I'LEI I12 11?];- m -_ I '3]- 7.“ 1 LOSOD. FOR IiKTS. IAN“ 3 333333 TREATI 533 Check 100 ppm 250 ppm 500 ppm 3 1% a. lit-3103.113 ** (in Cm.) 62.1 65.2 58.6 72.5 4.9 6.6 6.1 22.0 SIZE OF** 135:3 lam 1-1-— 33.31 I». 313.? (in on.) d. 32.5 2.5 OE5 tr-HIJ Lfi :0 * 20.7 6.06 4 25.8 52.4 5 5.17 2107 6.42 6.76 3.30 24.1 2.70 0.43 3.6 1:03. 13.08. 00-87 150.). 250C). IT’S. 0.95 1.26 * All values are **All values are ***All values are avera es averages 3V8T89 .C'- irom 5 observations of 7 observations of Q a-) observations of 8 replicates. 8 replicates. 8 replicates. "A“ 5 VI AW‘P 73 77‘77 AID DYY USICIT 0F TTPS LTD ”0077 C7 TV‘ATO .T T ' 0‘ -5-4 PJ- - —‘ .LV L .L-Q-A.‘ LO 9 AS 113-773 17:“ I77." V'A-‘ZZT7T'7‘3 0:373 LLTl‘L’L-‘T‘ITS C: G177??- TUIZIN. I'N‘AJ‘WRE- ' '3 J 1 A "1 rwr-VV wx "\ D - 7:- ,, ,3 '7- 1: W111-m11113-.71.3 IJogoljo JClL 1' —"" [1’3 . 3 if!“ 777‘s (ms) — — Check 100 pnm 250 pnm 500 ppm 5% 13 '79" VSTT 1 1- .J 1 . , T033 95.93 90.76 109.52 105.65 5.25 9.9/ r5533 30033 ‘1. DRY . _ T‘:'p3 9.23 C7015 10.32 10.710 1.771703. 1:08. 37Y 2 74 2 06 2 ’ " 7 0 0k.) 007 2051 00)} 0045 ROOTS " * All values ere avernée s from 3 observations of 3 reolicates. DEC 24 GROUT” HEASUREHENTS TOMATO PLANTS JAN JAN JAN 7 I4 21 “3 ‘JJ and 100 ppm treated plants and also between 250 and 500 ppm treated plants. Plants treated with 100 ppm gibberellin had fewer leaves than checks in first two weeks of treatment; thereafter number of leaves per plant increased. The 250 and 500 ppm treated plants always showed more leaves than checks with an exception of January 9, 195?, where 500 ppm treated plants had fewer leaves than checks. Iumber of leaves per plant increased with increase in concentration of gibberellin applied, Graph-9. Size of the larrest lea : The statistical analysis -—* showed that there was no significant difference between treatments. T Jumber of laterals: Statistical comparison of individual treatments showed no significant differences existed between treatments exceptine between 500 ppm treated plants and checks, where 500 ppm treated plants showed a significantly hivher number of laterals than checks. Iowever, it could be clearly seen that number of laterals increased with increase in concentration of gibberellin applied, Graph-9. Inwber of flowers: No statistical differences were found between treatments. However, an increase in number of flowers per plant was found in treated plants as compared to chech, Graph-10. N Number of fruits: statistical comparison of individual GRA PH - 9 GROWTH Must/Renews (TOMATO PLANTS) JAN JAN JAN JAN FEB 7 I 4 6stsz -10 AVERAGE ”main or nouns AND FRUITS TOMATO PLANT ; i t' T" JAN FEB MAR 21 28 4 ll 18 25 4 1] 46. treatments for number of fruits per plant showed that treated plants had significantly fewer fruits per plant than checks. No sienificant differences were found between treated plants. The checks showed early fruiting and more fruits per plant ban treated plants, Graph-10. Fresh and dry weiyhts of tons and roots: A significant ,0 .L increase in fresh weight 0 tons was found in both 250 and 500 ppm treated plants as compared to checks and 100 ppm treated plants. Ho sirnificant differences were found between checks and 100 ppm treated plants, and between 250 and 500 ppm treated plants. No sienificant differences were found between treatments in weiehts of fresh roots and dry tops. Statistical comparison of individual treatments for weight of dry roots showed sienificantly hieher weights of roots in treated plants than checks. No significant differ- ences were found between treated plants. Weiehts of fresh and dry tons of 250 ppm treated plants were hither than all other treatments. In case of fresh and dry roots, 100 ppm treated plants showed a higher weight than other treatments. Differences in weights between treatments were more pronounced in case of dry roots than fresh roots, Graph-ll. General observation: After the first week of gibberellin treatment, very small dots appeared in the basal leaves of GRAPH 3'11 AVERAGE HEIGHT or PLANT 0” DIFFERENT DATES (TOMATO PLANTS) ........ DEC JAI‘I F58 Dfl‘ JAN FEB 4 As all treated plants. By the third week these dots became bieger and white in color, Figure-4. The checks did not show these characteristic white patches. Differences in sizes of plants could be clearly seen after the first week of treatment. Plant size increased with increase in concentration of gibberellin applied, Figure-5. The eibberellin treated plants exhibited Chlorosis on the lower 10 to 12 leaves of plants after three weeks of treatment. Chlorosis became progressively more intense with increase of time interval, Figure—6. Fruits set in checks were earlier than in treated plants. Number of fruits set was greater in checks than in treated plants. The fruits ripened earlier in checks than treated plants. Ripened fruits in treated plants showed a peculiar russetting and malformation, Fiaure—7. Fruits of treated plants were smaller than checks but with fewer seeds, Figure-8. Pineral composition: Analysis were made for 10 mineral elements, Table-VII. Significant differences, as a result of treatments occured only for potassium, iron and manranese. There was a significantly greater potassium content in all treated plants as compared to checks. The 100 ppm treated plants were sienificantly lower than 250 ppm treated plants and the 250 ppm treated plants lower than 500 ppm 49. Figure 4. Leaves of check and gibberellin treated plants. The treated plants show lighter green color of leaf with white patches. 50. Heights of check, 100, 250, and 500 ppm treated plants. Increase in height with increased concentrations of gibberellin applied could be clearly seen. Figure 6. Chlorosis in the lower leaves of gibberellin treated plants. Check plant shows normal green color of leaves. 51. Figure 7. Russetted and malformed fruits developed by gibberellin treatments. Fruits on check plants did not show any of these symptoms. 52. 53. Figure 8. Fewer seeds appeared in the fruits produced by gibberellin treated plants whereas check had more seeds in fruits. TAFLE - VII 5A. AIEQAGE P57 JTT LINSFALS PPSSBIT IN TCLATO fLANTS, AS AFFECTED VARIOUS COHCEXTQATICNS 0F GIRSERELLIN. LINER s * TREATh HTS 5:515{“§g§ Check 100 ppm 250 ppm 500 ppm 5% 1% NITEOGiH 3.47 3.45 3.46 3.49 H.S. '.S. PIOSPIGRUS 0.17 0.16 0.16 0.16 H.S. N.S. POTASSIUM 5.07 5.31 5.44 5.67 0.06 0.09 CALCIUM 2.99 2.99 2.92 2.89 N.S. N.S. RAGSLSIUM 0.65 0.66 0.65 0.64 M.S. N.S. IRON 0.0375 0.0271 0.0326 0.0302 0.0023 0.0031 BORON 0.0031 0.0029 0.0033 0.0028 3.8. N.S. NAHGAEESS 0.0033 0.0033 0.0034 0.0032 0.0002 0.0003 COPPER‘ 0.0025 0.0026 0.0029 0.0025 1.8. N.S. ZINC 0.0059 0.0o56 0.0063 0,0067 F.S. N.S. * All values are averajes from 3 observations of 3 replicates. --51 U1 treated plants. From statistical comparison of individual treatments for averaee percent iron, a sienificant decrease in iron resulted from treatment. The 100 ppm treated plants showed a significantly lower percent iron than 500 ppm treated E: / plants. The '00 ppm treated plants showed a sienificantly lower percent iron than 250 ppm treated plants. Statistical comparison of individual treatments for percent manranese showed a significant decrease in all the treated plants as compared to checks. Io sirnificant differences were found between 100 ppm .nd 250 ppm treated plants nor between 100 and 500 ppm treated plants. However, a sirnificant increase was found in 250 ppm treated plants over 500 ppm treated plants. Lineral accumulation: The average accumulation for each of 10 mineral elements durinf the period of eXperiment have been recorded, Table—VIII. Sienificant differences as a result of treatment were found for 5 elements but not for potassium, iron, boron, mantanese, and conper. From the statistical comparison of individual treatments for the amount of potassium accumulated by plants, a significantly higher amount was found in all treated plants as compared to checks, exceptina for 100 ppm treated plants where no sisnificant difference existed. No significant AC7;L.}XJL3 l.Il. A3 A13 m-) A d ”(I I L‘I‘A—L “J J ECELD BY VARIOUS CO? TI"LA11UT BAIT “A.LE 66. * M.AIL«118 L. S. D. FOR LIEHRALS TaHAi 9*”8 Check 100 ppm 250 ppm 500 ppm 5% 1% 'T‘°”“77 127 218 237 224 1.8. N.S. (me ) PZZiOSP'OLUS 10 11 12 11 E.S. E.S. (pr ) POTASSITE 237 341 399 376 45.1 61.5 (me.) CALCIUh 213 218 236 195 L.S. N.S. (m7-) LA34331UR 43 50 50 51 N.S. N.S. (meo) IRON 2.6 1.3 2.1 2.1 0.4 0.6 (ms.) Boat: 272 247 300 238 ”36.8 50.2 V55) LELGA; SS 234 193 247 249 37.3 50.8 CC.D“R 199 207 291 179 62.1 84.6 9H5. ) ZIN 361 296 427 408 N.S. N.S. tHe-) * All values are averages from 3 observations of 3 replicates. differences were found between 100 and 500 ppm treated plants nor between 250 and 500 ppm treated plants. Statistical comparison of individual treatments for iron accumulation showed that all treated plants had sivnificantly lower amounts of iron than checks. No significant differences were found between 250 and 500 ppm treated plants. A sirnificant increase in the amount of iron was found in both 250 and 500 ppm treated plants over 100 ppm treated plants. F0 sianificant differences in boron accumulation were found between treatments excepting for 250 ppm treated plants which showed a sienificantly higher amount of boron than both 100 and 500 ppm treated plants. Statistical comparison of individual treatments for manganese accumulation showed no significant differences between treatments excepting for 100 ppm treated plants which showed a significantly lesser amount. Ho significant differences in accumulation of COpper were found between treatments excepting for 250 ppm treated plants which showed a significantly larger amount of COpper than all the other treatments. Analysis of December 31, 1957, for percent nitrogen showed that 250 and 100 ppm treated plants accumulated less nitrogen than checks and 500 ppm treated plants. The analysis of January 14, 1958, showed that all treated plants had accumulated more nitrocen than checks, and the final analysis of February 4, 1958, showed that all treated plants had lower accumulation of nitrogen than checks. Significant differences were also found between treatments on the analysis of January 14, and February 4, 1958. Total accumulation of nitroaen was greater for 250 ppm treated plants followed by 500, 100 and checks, Graph-12. Percent phOSphorus accumulated was always less in treated plants than in checks. No significant differences were found for percent phOSphorus between treatments, at any date. Total accumulation of phOSphorus showed similar trend to that of nitrogen, Graph-12. Analysis for percent potassium showed 500 ppm treated plants had Fisher values followed by 250, 100 and checks, exceptipe for the analysis of February 4, 1958, where 250 ppm was Liyher. Significant differences between treatments were also found in analysis of each date. Total potassium showed a nreater accumulation in 250 ppm treated plants followed by 580, 180 and checks, Graph-l3. Percent calcium showed significant differences between treatments for the analysis of January 14, and February 4, 1958. The analysis of January 14, showed 500 ppm treated plants had a higher level than 250, 100 and checks, whereas the analysis of February 4, 1958, was reversed. Total accumulation showed small differences between treatments, 59: GRAPH ‘ 12 PLANT ANALYSIS AT DIFFERENT DATES (TOMATO PLANTS) ...... 3'6 2'8 ............. ....... ............. 43 p: . H p . . ,. . ‘ DEC JAN FEB DEC JAN FEB 24 3! ‘ 14 4- 24 3! l4 4 60. GRAPH ‘ 13 PLANT ANALYSIS AT DIFFERENT DATES (TOMATO PLANTS) DEC JAN FEB DE C JAN FEB 24 51 I4 4 24 )1 l4 4 Graph-13. The percent marnesium was not significantly different between treatments for the analysis of January 14, and February 4, 1958. Total accumulation showed only slight differences between treatments. The 500 ppm treated plants had more accumulation followed by 250, 100 and checks, Graph-14. Percent iron showed significant differences between treatments in each analysis. Treated plants had lower values than the checks in each analysis. Similar differences also existed in the total accumulation of iron, Graph-l4. Percent boron exhibited different pattern for different treatments excepting for checks and 250 ppm treated plants. Percent boron showed differences between treatments in each analysis. Total accumulation was greater for 250 ppm treated plants followed by checks, 100 and 500 ppm treated plants, Graph—15. Differences between treatments for percent manganese could be clearly seen from the analysis of December 51, 1957, and February 4, 1958. Both times the treated plants showed lower values than checks, whereas total accumulation showed higher values for 500 ppm treated plants followed by 250, checks and 100 ppm treated plants, Graph-15. The percent cepper showed slight differences between treatments in the analyses of December 31, 1957, and Fm” 62¢! GRAPH -14 PLANT ANALYSIS AT DIFFERENT DATES (Tenn-o PLANTS) 0:45}, «65 121:3: .0”; 1.: :::x::;,;::i:..:, . i ”6 JA” F58 ' DEC JAN FEB 24 51 14 4 24 31 I4 4 63. ,’ GRAPH - 15 PLANT Amara: AT burner/7' DATES (TOMATO PLANTS) '00)? 0035 DEC JAN FEB DEC JAN FEB 24 31 I4 4 24 31 I4 4 January 14, 1958, which were not statistically significant. Only analysis of February 4, 1958, showed significant differences beiween treatments. The 250 ppm treated plants showed hivher percent cepper followed by checks, 100 and 599 ppm treated plants. There was significantly greater accumulation only in 250 ppm treated plants, Graph-16. Differences between treatments for percent zinc content of plants were maximum for December 51, 1957, and these were significant, while all other's were not. Differences in accumulation of zinc between various dates did not show any sisnificant variations. The 250 ppm treated plants showed more accumulation of zinc followed by 500, checks and 100 ppm treated plants, Graph-16. 65. GRAPH - 16 PLANT ANALYSIS AT DIFFERENT DATES (TOMATO PLANTS) DEC JAN FEB DEC JAN FEB 24 31 I4 4 24 3/ I4 4 C\ '3\ O ChLSRAL DISCUSSION raleic hydrazide: In the field of plant growth inhibition maleic hydra— zide (13) has come to occupy an important position. Studies conducted in all parts of the world indicate that this compound has transitory inhibiting effects on bud develOp- ment and growth of various plant Species. When applied in suitable concentrations it slows down the plant metabolism resultine in almost complete stoppage of growth. Such was the case when 50 and 100 ppm applications were made on tomato plants var. John Baer, while the low rate application had a temporary inhibiting effect. The cessation of growth resumed shortly in the plants treated with 10 ppm H3 concentration and these plants had an appearance of a normal plant which did not receive any application of the compound. Such a prowth pattern is entirely possible for, according to LeOpold and Klein (1952), inhibition of growth by low concentrations is completely relieved by the addition of auxin. Since low rate applica- tions failed to induce any outstanding morphological changes it is logical to assume auxin production continued, unin- terupted or after a brief interuption in the meristematic tissue of the plant. These auxin levels which keep on building up in the plant system finally makes it possible 57. for the low rate—treated plant to recommence their growth. According to Callaghan and Van Norman (1956) there is an increase in the photosynthetic rate at low rate hH application in swiss chard and tobacco seedlinvs accompanied by little or no change in dry matter. This type of induced physiological modification may as well, in some way, be responsible for the early renewal of prowth in the plants with 10 ppm concentration. Such an eXplanation for the resumption of growth in low rate treated tomato plants appears logical when mineral uptake is considered to be a factor in the development of plants. The data indicated, Table—III and Graphs-3 to 7, that mineral content of the dry tissue was significantly different for low rate LB treated plents as compared to the plants which received 50 and 100 ppm applications. It is interestins to point out that mineral uptake in the low rate treated plants was approximately similar to the check plants during the last date when the final analysis were made for the mineral content of the plant tissues. However, it may be brought out that these nonexisting differences were nevertheless present after EH treatments during early sarpliny dates. Therefore, it is safe to state that low rate RH appli— cations do not brin? about any changes in the physiological develonments of the plants to any significant level which 68. may tend to shift the natural metabolic balances. According to the data shown in Graph-2, it is evident that root develOpment was inhibited by all concentrations of PH two weeks after treatments. The degree of growth inhibition was sirnificantly different for low rate appli- cation of 10 ppm as compared to 50 and 100 ppm treatments after four weeks from the application date. Roots being more sensitive than the shoots, therefore, there was a wide range of differences in the growth pattern of roots and shoots. These findings are in conformity with the views of Compton (1952). High rate applications of the compound, 50 and 100 ppm, on the other hand, affected the growth processes of the plants to a point of severe growth inhibition. This fact is borne out from the data; Height, stem diameter, number of leaves and size of the largest leaf of the plants; Table-I, Fig. l and Graph-l. The growth suppres- sion, as noticed in these treatments, may be due to resuiration inhibition in the plant tissue resulting from the high rate RH applications. Such a possibility has been mentioned by Naylor and Davis (1951) and Greulach (1954), who observed from their experiments on a wide variety of venetation that the reSpiratory changes exert influence on the normal function of dehydrogenase. However, it is not possible to say how this induced malfunctioning CN "3 in the develOpmental physiology of the plant affect the growth manifesting mechanisms. In recent years there has been a great interest among horticulturists, arronomists and plant physiolosists on the stimulation of arowth resulting from the gibberellin applicatiens. Accordingly, experiments were arranged to find some information on the mineral content of tomato plants as affected by this compound. The data indicated, Table-V, that yrowth of plants increased with an increase in the concentration of gibbere- llin. Such an increase in plant rrowth have also been reported by various research workers. Kato (1956) pointed out that water uptake is increased by ribberellin treat— ment, a fact which is substantiated by the results of this experiment, Table—VT. fresh weichts of the treated plants, tOps only, were significantly different than the check plants. However, no significant differences in their dry weinhts were ob- served. Such an increase in erowth on account of pibberellin treatments has also been reported by Kurosawa (1932) in rice seedlinrs, who surfested potassium as an essential element in it's elonsation. Results of these investirations reported herein, also showed that percent and total accumu- lation of potassium was increased by gibberellin treatments. Similar increase in potassium has also been found by Frian et al (1954) in both wheat and peas. It is surfested that he increased growth in pibberellin-treated plants may possibly be due to a ereater uptake of potassium and water. Periodic observations indicated a decreased number of fruits on eibberellin—treated plants, Table—V, with a peculiar russettins and malformation on the ripe fruits as has been reported by Nittwer and Bukovac (1957) in tomato fruits. It is surgested that deficiency of iron and/or manganese, Table—VII, caused by gibberellin treat- ments may be reSponsible for less fruit set and also for russettine and malformation of ripe tomato fruits. However, when the total dry weight was considered eibberellin-treated plants exhibited an increase over the check plants. These results are in conformity with the findings of Brian et al (1954). Therefore, it is logical to assume that this increased dry weight of the gibberellin- treated plants may be due to higher accumulation of various minerals, Table-VIII and Graphs-12 to 16. Visual observations indicated chlorosis and white patches of the leaves of the gibberellin-treated plants. However, Kato (1954) reported that he could not find this ohlorotic condition on the case of plants grown in nutrient solution containing gibberellin. Althouyh Opposing views have been eXpressed by Korgan and Rees (1956) and various other research workers who described this chlorotic condition of the cibberellin—treated plants due to nitroren deficiency. Under the conditions of this eXperiment no significant differences between treatments, either in the percent or the total accumulation of nitrogen, were found. On the other hand, significant decrease in both percent iron and manganese were found as a result of gibberellin treatments, Table—VII. Therefore it is quite probable that lack of iron and/or manfanese may be involved in the appearance of Chlorosis and white patches on leaves of eibberellin- treated plants. STEi-ARY’ A.-. The experiments were arreneed to determine the response of tom'to plants var. John Peer to different levels of maleic hydrazide, 10, SL and 100 ppm, and potassium pibberellate, 100, 250 and 500 ppm, as foliar applications. The seedlinfs were Frown in a quartz sand under freephouse conditions .1 (av. temperature 60 de rees r arv 3).. av. day leneth 10:42 hours) and hoavland and Arnon (19)O) solution was used as a source 1 of nutrient SUpply. Perieoic observations were made for heieht I , item diameter, punter of leaves, size of the largest leaf, and fresh and drv weiehts of tops and roots of tomato plants, while additional data was recorded for number of laterals, number of flowers and number of fruits in case of nibberellin treatments. Lineral content of the plant tissue was determined for U, P, K, Ca, Lg, Fe, 3, En, Cu and Zn. The followine results were obtained: Laleic hydrazide: l. The first and the most clearly noticeable effect of the EH treatments was the persistant and continued inhibition of growth in plants receiving 50 and 100 ppm foliar appli— T cations. While plants Sprayed with 10 ppm LL concentration exhibited only temporary rrowth inhibition. 2. Visual observations indicated that leaves of the plants bl 73. treated with 50 and 100 ppm to be darker green in color, thicker and more brittle as compared to the leaves of check plants. No such textural differences were observed in the 0 leaves or plants receivins 10 ppm applications. 3. Followine the temporary inhibition of growth, the plants treated with 10 ppm indicated some abnormality in the morphological character, shape and branching, in com- parison with the check lants which had less leaves. . P 4. There was no siens of flower initiation in plants treated with 50 and 100 ppm concentrations. 5. Plants receiving high rate of treatments, 50 and 100 ppm, produced growth of low fresh and dry weights. 5, Root growth was much reduced in the treated plants as compared to tOp growth which indicated roots to be very sensitive to the treatments. 7. Plant tissue analyses indicated that mineral content, percent composition and total accumulation, of all the elements in general, decreased on account of the treatments. Gibberellin: 1. Growth of the plants was increased on account of the aibberellin treatments in all the cases. However the rate _ 9 of erowth in the plants receivins hirh rate of appli- cation of 25? and ,0 ppm was much hirher as compared to the plants receiving the 100 ppm only. This increased growth of the aibberellin treated plants was perhaps due to a areetor accumulation of potassium and water as compared to Check plants. 2. Total dry weirht of qihberellin treated plants was also increased reflectins certain induced metabolic changes by hi~her total accumulation of certain minerals. 3. Visual observations indicated that leaves of “ibberellin treated plants showed Chlorosis and white patc| Such an appearance of the plants was perhaps due to low iron and/or panhanese content of these plants. 4. There were no sianificant differences between the various treatnents so far as the size of the lareest leaf end. runw‘ggv‘ of $10379??? “79,3 CONCGTZ’TQC}. r. ). Treated plants exhibited delayed fruitins and less fruit set. The ripe fruits showed russettinr and abnormal rrowth as a result of the “ibberellin treatments. ~J J"! rot": A ."n “W" *mr' LI LJD_.:L.L R1 .211 OJ. .L LUD Andersen, E.T. and C.A. Shadbolt. 1950. Some effects of maleic hydrazide on plants. North Central heed Control Conference; 179. Arnaud, J. et. al., 1956. Action of maleic hydrazide on the increase in super in tobacco leaves. Rev. Int. Tab. 31: 85-87 \Tobacco Abst. 1: 538). Association of Official Agricultural Chemists. Official Lethods of Analysis. 8th. ed. 1955. Earnard, E. E. and R.L. Warden. 1950. The effects of maleic hydrazide on various vegetable creps. North Central Weed Conference: 145. Bertossi, F. 1950. Laleic hydrazide as a plant growth rerulant. 1st. botan. univ., Lab. crittogam. Pavia, Atti 8: 155—166 (Univ. Pavia, Italy) (Chem. Abst. 45: 10465). Brian, P.W. and H.G. He ming 1955. The effect of gibbe- rellic acid on shoot grow of pea seedlinrs. Physio- loeia Plantarum 8: 669 - 681 (Chem. Abst. 50: 7968). Brian, P.w., G.W. Elson, H.G. Eemminr., and E. Hadley. 1954. The plant-growth promoting prOperties of gibberellic acid, a metabolic product of the fungus Gibberella fujikuroi. J. Sci. Food Aer. 5(12): 602 — 612. Burr, 0.0. 1954. Liflht, temperature and chemical factors affectinn the flowering of suparcane. Congr. Intern. Bot., Paris Rapns et communs. 8: 345 - 347 (Chem. Abst. s: 11, .67). Eynur, w.r. 1952. The effect of maleic hydrazide on the growth of citrus seedlines. Proc. Sixth Annual Rio Grande Valley Hort. Institute : 58 - 59. Callarhan, J.J. and R.fi. Van Horman. 1956. Effect of foliar sprays of maleic hydrazide on photosynthesis. Science 125: 894 — 99' Carlson, J.B. 1954. Cytohistolovical resnonses of plant meristems to maleic hydrazide. Iowa State College, Jour. of Science 29: 105 — 128. Chardon, 3.”. 1956. Cibberellin, a new plant erowth activatine subs .tance. (Paper read at the annual nootjne of the ssociatiop of Spear technicians of F“erto 91cc, San Juan). Technical THIletin 'cibrpl', Published in 1957 bv perch & Co. Inc., Rahway, Hen Jersey. Choudhri, 9.8. and v.s. Phatnasar. 1062 - 53. dffective— ness cf maleic bvcr.zid as a crowth inhibitor. Jonr. Sci. lesearCL ianaras Tindu Nniversity. '7‘. Eff». \n-C ,0 'J - _i,’o Ciferri, R. 1951. Inhibition of flowerina of tomato by raleic hvdrazide. Tobacco 55: 307 — 311; (8101. Abst. 27: 4727). Compton, W. 1952. The effects of L” on crowth and cell division in Fispm sativum. Pnlletin Torrey Wot. Club. 79: 205 — 211. Currier, 5.9. and A.3. Crafts. 1950.1a1eic hydrazide a selective herbcide. 8cie ence ITI: 152 - 15,. Burnani, 6.}. 1954. Inhi oitine effect of antia auxins on some delydracenase enzyme .ystems in the soluble and in the partiCUIate fractions of extracts from plant tissues. Nnovo Siorn. Rot. Ital. 61: 214 — 239; (Biol. Abst. 30: 32756). Fpkno“a, F. 1942. Fffect of cibberellin on tissue culture. Gann. 35 (3): 2o5— o7 (9161. Abst. 16: 14651). Gifford, 5.1. 1956. Some anatomical and cytolonical responses of barley to LU. American Jour. of Bot. 43: 72 - 80. Gray, R. A. 1956. Alteration of leaf size and shape and otner chanres ca used by Fibberellin in plants. (Paper presented at 1956 A.3.{.3. meetinrs). 'L‘ech- nical W11e1:in '9ibre1' Published in 1957 by Lerck a Co. Inc., Rahway, New Jersey. Greulach, V.A. 1951. The effects of various concentrations of L9 on tomato and etiolated bean plants. Texas Jour. of Sci. 3: 322 - 325. Greulach, V.A. 1951. The eff ect of I-TI on tomato plants in relation to their are at the time of the treatment. Plant Physiol. 26 (4): 9.8 - 852. 1, 11-1 77. Greulach, f.A. 1954. Recent work on EH as a plant growth ‘ inhioitor. hitchell Sci. Soc. Jour. 70 : 134 4 135. Haber, A.H. and J.E. Tolbert. 1957. Photosynthesis in gibberellin—treated leaves. Plant Physiol. 32(2) 152 - 153. Hamner, C.L. and G.S. Rai. 1958. Growth inhibition studies with ornamentals and shade trees. The hormolog. 2 (1) April : 11 - l3. Kayashi, T., Y. hurakani and S. hatsunaka. 1956. Bio- chemical studies on Bakanae fundus. Part XKKVI. 1e phys ioloeical action of gibberellin. VIII chanaes in the activities of various enzymes in leaf-sheaths of rice plants treated with laibberellin. Bull. Aer. Chem. Soc. Japan. 20 (4): 159 - 164. Hoagland, D.R. and D.I. Arnon. 1950. The water culture method for {rowing plants without soil. Calif. Aer. Expt. Sta. Circ. 347. Kato, J. 1956. Effects of ribberellin on elongation, water Uptetze and reSpiration of pea stem sections. Science 123 : 1132. Klein, w. TT. and A. C. Leopold. 1955. The effects of maleic hydrazide on flower initiation n. Plant Phys 101. 28 (2): &J3 — 98. Kuros awa, E. 1932. On ce rtca in eXperimental results con- cernine the over elonfation phenomenon of rice plants which owe to the filtrate got from the culture solu- tion of the Wkena ae funri. Rept.”1aiwan Nat. hist. Soc. XXII : 198 - 201. LeOpold, A.C. and W.P.I{1ein. 1952. "aleic hydrazide is as an antiau_xin and acts in Opposition to auxin in erowth. PhV°101Ofla Plantarum. 5 : 91 - 99. Lindstrom, 8.8. and 8.9. Wittwer. 1957. Gibberellin promotes earlier flowerine on some flower plants. kich. Arr. Exp. Sta. Journ. Article Ho. 2046. Lindstrom, R.S., 3.3. Wittwer and L. Pukovac. 1957. Gibberollin and hisher plants; IV. Flowerine responses of some flower crops. Lich. State Univ., Afr. Exp. Sta., euat. Bull. 39 (4) : 673 _ 631. 78. Earth, P.9., T.V. Audia and J.Wo Richell. 1956. Effect of gibberellic acid on growth and development of various species of plants. Plant Physiol. Supp. 31: VITTI 1.. ._.-.... Q Korgan, D.G. and G.C. Fees. 1956. Gibberellic acid and the growth of crOp plants. fature 178: 1356 - 1357. Naylor, A.W. and E.A. Davis. 1950. haleic hydrazide as a plant growth inhibitor. Bot. Gaz. 112 3 112 - 126. Iavlor, A.7. and 8.A. Davis. 1951. ReSpiration response of root tips to KU. Bull. Torrev Bot. Club 78. : 73 - 79. Petersen, E.L. and A.U. Kavlor. 1953. Some metabolic changes in tobacco stem tips accompenving F1 treat- ment and accompanvine the appearance of frenching symptoms. Physiologia Plantarum 6 : 816 - 828. RappOport, L. 1957. Eff fect of gibberellins on growth, flowering and fruit set of tomato. Plant Physiol. Supp. 32. XXXII. Schoene, D.I. and D.L. Hoffman. 1949. Naleic hydrazide a unique growth regulant. Science 109 : 588 — 590. Smith, A.E., G Stone and 1.8. Davies. 1957. Distribu- tion of C maleic hydrazide in the flue cured tobacco plant. Unpublished report Sept. (Haunatuck Chemical Division of United States Rubber Co.). Struckmever, 8.8. 1953. The effects of EH on the anatomical structure of croft Easter lilies. Am. Jour. of Bot. 40 : 25 - 29. Wittwer, 8.8., K.J. Bukovac, H.K. Sell and 1.8. Weller. 1957. Some effects of aibberellin on flowering and fruit setting. Plant Physiol, 32, (1): 39 - 41. Wittwer, 8.5., K.J. 8ukovac and 8.8. Grigsby. 1957. Gibberellin and higher plants: 71. L‘ffects on the composition of Kentucky bluegrass (Poa pratensis) grown under field conditions in early Sprina. Qw..rt.. Bull. Lich. State Arr. Exp. Sta. 40 (1): 203 — 206. Wittwer, 8.8. and L.J. 8ukovac. 1957. Gibberellin and hinher plants: X. Field observations with certain vefetable crOps. Quart. Bull. Kich. Afr. Exp. Sta. 4o (2): 352 - 364. Yabuta, T., Y. 31 aiki, Ii. E‘ukanarja and I. l-Iorinchi. 1952. Biochenical studies of "Bakanae" funrus XXII — chenical composition of rice seedlinrs treated with Cibberellin, dour. .ar. Chem. Soc. Japan 24 : 396 _ 397, (Chem. Ahst. 48 : 5143). Yahuta, T., Y. Sumiki and T. Torii. 1945. Biochemical studies of "Uakanae" funrus XVIII. The effects of ribberellin our special components and Special tissues of plants 6. Actions of pibberellin on tea leaves, Jour. Arr. Chem. Soc. Japan 19 : 396 — 398. Abst. 44 : 10n17, 105 ). (‘11 0118171 . APPENDIX (“‘1' TABIJE "' I a. * Average height (ems) of tomato plants, as affected by various concentrations of maleic hydrazide. Dates Treatments Check 10 ppm 50 ppm 100 ppm Dec. 12, 1957 18.5 18.0 18.0 18.5 " l9, " 24.5 23.0 19.0 19.0 ” 26, " 33.0 31.0 19.5 19.0 Jan. 2, 1958 43.0 37.5 20.0 19.5 " 9, " 48.0 43.0 20.5 20.0 * All values are averages from two replicates of 4 plants. ..- .u. _. um“- 99 TABLE - I b. * Average stem diameter (mm) of tomato plants, as affected by various concentrations of maleic hydrazide. Dates Treatments Check 10 ppm 50 ppm 100 ppm Dec. 12, 1957 4.20 4.15 4.15 4.15 " 19. " 4.65 4.50 4.25 4.25 " 26, " 5.55 4.45 4.55 4.55 Jan. 2, 1958 5.80 4.85 4.45 4.55 " 9, " 6.55 5.55 4.55 4.45 * All values are averages from two replicates of 4 plants. oz. TABLE - I c. * Average number of leaves of tomato plants, as affected by var- ious concentrations of maleic hydrazide. Treatments Dates - Check 10 ppm 50 ppm 100 ppm Dec. 12, 1957 6.5 7.0 7.0 6.5 " 19, " 8.5 7.0 6.5 6.5 " 26, " 9.5 9.0 6.5 7.0 Jan. 2, 1958 12.5 14.5 6.5 7.0 " 9, " 15.5 18.5 7.0 7.0 * All values are averages from two replicates of 4 plants. 9.4. * Average size (cms) of the largest leaf of tomato plants as affected by various concentrations of maleic hydrazide. Treatments Dates Check 10 ppm 50 ppm 100 ppm Dec. 12, 1957 13.0 13.5 13.0 13.0 " 19, " 18.0 16.5 15.0 14.5 " 26, " 22.5 20.5 15.5 16.0 Jan. 2, 1958 26.0 22.5 16.0 16.5 " 9. " 28.0 25.5 16.5 17.0 * All values are averages from two replicates of 4 plants. TABLE - II * Average fresh and dry weights (in gms) of tOps and roots of tomato plants as affected by various concentrations of male— ic hydrazide. m . . Dates $::::_ 1resh weights Dry weights, TOps Roots TOps Roots Dec. 12, Check 5.4 1.3 0.5 0.1 1957. Dec. Check 20.8 5.5 1.5 0.5 26, 10 ppm 11.8 1.6 1.0 0.5 1957. 50 " 9.9 0.8 1.2 0.2 100 " 9.7 1.2 1.4 0.2 Jan. Check 58.7 11.5 5.9 2.2 9, 10 ppm 42.6 9.6 4.2 1.9 1958. 50 " 12.5 5.4 1.9 0.8 100 " 14.9 2.8 2.0 0.5 * All values are averages from two replicates. ~:'~-'-——¥ Kineral composition, based on percent dry weight of tomato plants, as affected by maleic hydrazide. 35::122 * Percent Minerals/Dry weights 8: Treat— . ments N P K Ca 4g Fe B Mn Cu Zn Dec.12, 1957 Check 5.80 .14 5.25 5.61 .71 .0271 .0021 .0045 .0023 .0059 Dec.26, 1957 Check 4.12 .18 6.25 3.80 .74 .0367 .0032 .0043 .0034 .0062 10 ppm 3.82 .15 5.06 3.75 .70 .0335 .0028 .0036 .0029 .0045 50 " 3.48 .15 4.22 2.89 .68 .0239 .0026 .0030 .0022 .0047 100 “ 3.36 .14 4.27 2.60 .58 .0238 .0022 .0032 .0023 .0035 Jan. 9, 1958 Check 5.22 .16 4.55 2.94 .61 .0250 .0025 .0027 .0024 .0051 10 ppm 5.56 .16 4.69 5.56 .65 .0269 .0026 .0030 .0021 .0048 50 " 2.75 .12 5.40 2.69 .56 .0161 .0019 .0022 .0018 .0035 100 ” 2.85 .11 5.41 2.41 .52 .0164 .0017 .0022 .0014 .0038 * All values are averages from two samples. TABLE - IV. Accumulation of various minerals, between certain dates, as affected by various concentrations of EH. Bet- mreat- Amount of minerals accumulated ween Aments dates “ ___N P K Ca Mg, Fe B Kn Cu Zn p__ _ m: J: m: me as as a: at: w: «91!: “9:51 Check 58.5 2705 91.7 53.1 1035 560 50 58 53 87 Dec.26 10 ppm 28.8 1182 57.1 28.9 519 288 25 22 25 26 1957 50 " 27.7 1332 29.9 20.4 561 185 25 17 18 33 100 " 31.5 1417 37.6 20.5 512 222 23 25 22 21 Digggg Check 180.5 9450 230.5 164.0 3471 1309 140 135 123 202 to 10 ppm 134.2 6813 190.6 146.1 2536 1035 106 117 77 204 Jifigeg 50 " 23.6 1056 30.4 30.4 522 as 14 16 17 26 100 " 19.0 569 18.Q 19.9 399 38 9 5 9 41 -.-‘ — -‘d‘ * Average height (cms) of tomato plants, as affected by various concentrations of gibberellin. Dates of Treatments obser- vation Check 100 “pm 250 ppm 500 PDT“ Dec. 24, 1957 26.9 26.6 26.9 26.5 " 31, " 36.7 38.1 44.6 47.4 Jan. 7, 1958 45.4 45.2 55.4 58.2 " l4, " 58.4 60.2 66.9 70.1 " 21, " 74.6 78.7 82.1 87.5 28, " 90.7 97.1 96.0 101.9 Feb. 4, " 102.2 110.2 . 110.1 114.7 * All values are averages of eight replicates. TABLE - V b. * Average diameter (mm) of stem of tomato plants, as affected by various concentrations of gibberellin. Dates of Treatments measure- ments ' Check 100 ‘ppm 250 ppm 500 ppm Dec. 24, 1957 4.9 4.9 5.0 5.0 " 31, " 5.2 5.5 5.6 5.5 Jan. 7, 1958 5.7 5.5 6.0 6.0 " 14, " 6.0 5.9 6.4 6.9 " 21, " 6.7 6.4 6.9 7.6 " 28, " 7.0 6.9 7.3 7.9 Feb. 4, " 7.4 7.5 7.8 8.4 * All values are averages of eight replicates. u..- .- . o-q- .. .__ .— -- CO. TABLE - V c. * Average number of leaves in tomato plants, as affected by various concentrations of gibberellin. Dates of Treatments measure— _ mms' Check 100 ppm 250 ppm 500 ppm Dec. 24, 1957 9.9 9.9 10.2 9.9 " 31, " 12.2 12.0 12.7 12.7 Jan. 7, 1958 16.0 15.6 16.9 15.8 " 14, " 19.6 20.6 22.5 22.4 " 21, " 25.5 29.4 50.5 52.1 " 28, " 33.1 37.7 40.2 41.6 Feb. 4. " 57.7 41.6 47.3 52.4 * All measurements are averages from eight replicates. .v—mvv- ..,.. <91 TABLE — V d. * Average size of the largest leaf of tomato plants, as affected by various concentrations of gibberellin. Dates of Treatments measure- ments Check 100 ppm 250 ppm 500 ppm Dec. 24, 1957 22.8 cm 23.1 cm 24.5 cm 24.1 cm ” 51, " 27.6 " 29.4 " 51.0 " 50.0 " Jan. 7, 1958 50.9 " 51.7 " 52.8 " 52.6 " " l4, " 54.4 " 55.6 " 54.5 " 55.2 " " 21, " 56.2 " 55.2 " 55.9 " 56.9 " " 28, " 57.5 ” 56.7 " 57.1 " 57.8 " Feb. 4, " 57.9 " 57.2 ” 57.5 " 58.1 " * All measurements are averages from eight replicates. 1 i u... q».- TABLE - V e. * Average number of laterals in tomato plants, as affected by various concentrations of gibberellin. Dates of Treatments obser- vation Check 100 ppm 250 ppm 500 ppm Jan. 7, 1958 1.1 1.1 1.1 1.1 " 14, " 1.4 1.7 1.5 1.5 " 21, ” 2.3 2.9 2.7 5.4 " 28, " 3.7 4.7 5.5 6.4 FGb. 4, N 4.3 504 507 701 * All values are averages from eight replicates. TABLE - V f. * Average number of flowers in tomato plants, as affected by various concentrations of gibberellin. Dates of Treatments obser- vation Check 100 ppm 250 ppm 500 ppm Jan. 7’ 1958 605 702 704‘ 801 " l4, " 15.1 14.6 16.0 15.6 " 21, " 21.5 22.1 24.6 23.0 " 28, " 29.3 28.2 31.4 29.6 Feb. 4, ” 31.6 36.2 41.2 42.0 * All values are averages from eight replicates. 61 ,1 TABLE - V g. * Average number of fruits in tomato plants, as affected by various concentrations of gibberellin. Dates of Treatments obser- vation Check 100 ppm 250 ppm 500 ppm Jan. 21, 1958 0.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 " 28, " 0.87 0.00 0.00 0.00 Feb. 4, " 1.62 0.00 0.12 0.12 ” 11, " 5.00 1.00 1.12 0.75 " 18, " 4.25 1.12 1.75 1.12 " 25, " 5.62 2.00 2.50 2.50 Mar. 4, " 9.75 6.62 7.75 7.25 " 11, " 11.50 7.25 8.57 7.87 * All values are averages from eight replicates. * Average Fresh and Dry weights of tOps and roots of tomato plants as affected by various concentrations of gibberellin. Dates Weights in grams ¢ Fresh Dry Treatments T0ps Roots TOps Roots Dec. 24, 1957 Check 18.75 2.98 1.46 0.25 Dec. 51, 1957 Check 31.22 8.43 2.66 0.91 250 " 38.72 7.81 3.03 0.82 500 " 32.12 5.30 2.32 0.69 Jan. 14, 1958 Check 68.99 21.79 6.85 2.54 100 ppm 71.75 21.65 6.42 5.02 250 " 71.41 21.66 6.29 2.85 500 " 66.34 17.51 5.89 2.84 Feb. 4, 1958 Check 181.99 55.94 18.16 5.28 100 ppm 188.02 61.81 18.65 4.92 250 " 218.42 60.45 21.62 4.55 500 " 218.35 57.51 21.20 4.20 * All values are averages from three replicates. * Average TAB 3 - VII. mineral composition of tomato plants, as affected by various concentrations of gibberellin. Percent minerals/Dry weight picking 6c Treat" N P K Ca 1:5; Fe B Mn Cu Zn ments. Dec.24, 1957 Check 5.05 .16 5.52 2.99 .70 .0292 .0025 .0058 .0024 .0052 Dec.31, 1957 Check 4.05 .18 5.75 5.25 .67 .0578 .0050 .0046 .0026 .0058 100 ppm 5.92 .16 6.14 5.16 .66 .0269 .0025 .0055 .0028 .0066 250 " 5.95 .17 6.16 5.01 .66 .0550 .0052 .0056 .0026 .0074 500 " 4.07 .18 6.99 5.09 .72 .0510 .0027 .0052 .0025 .0091 Jan.14, 1958 Check 5.50 .16 4.09 2.50 .59 .0564 .0024 .0052 .0020 .0065 100 ppm 5.5} .16 5.05 2.82 .64 .0560 .0050 .0055 .0022 .0061 250 " 5.47 .16 5.20 2.84 .57 .0560 .0050 .0054 .0026 .0065 500 " 5.49 .15 5.22 5.08 .56 .0522 .0029 .0051 .0025 .0057 Feb. 4, 1958 Check 5.06 .16 4.59 5.25 .69 .0585 .0040 .0056 .0050 .0054 100 ppm 5.05 .15 4.74 2.99 .68 .0185 .0055 .0028 .0028 .0041 250 " 2.99 .14 4.96 2.92 .52 .0267 .0056 .0031 .0055 .0055 500 " 2.90 .14 4.81 2.50 .65 .0275 .0029 .0052 .0025 .0052 * All values are averages from three replicates. ¢§ TABLE - VIII. * Accumulation of various minerals, between certain dates, affected by various concentrations of gibberellin. 8,8 Bet- Amount of minerals accumulated by plants ween Treat- Dates ments N P K Ca Hg Fe B Mn Cu Zn mg. mg. mg. mg. mg. mg. qg. 14g. 7g. ,qg. pee, Check 80 4 111 64 12 0.9 65 100 54 121 fig 100 ppm 54 2 92 45 8 0.3 31 42 45 114 31, 250 " 86 4 144 66 14 0.7 81 75 60 192 1957. 500 " 57 3 117 42 10 0.4 40 33 35 185 31?. Check 165 9 255 120 32 2.1 116 136 90 402 1957 100 ppm 202 10 290 171 41 2.5 209 219 125 578 gin. 250 " 165 8 237 143 27 1.9 154 173 135 294 fig,“ 500 " 183 7 245 176 27 1.8 173 193 146 221 .593. iin° Check 345 18 525 456 91 4.8 634 465 452 561 to 100 ppm 398 20 641 438 100 1.0 501 325 452 395 ifb° 25o " 461 23 816 498 108 3.6 664 492 677 795 1958. 500 " 432 24 767 366 116 4.2 490 52 357 819 * All values are averages from three replicates. 5:90?” I?” CKLY 5430113 Lu:- "1" ' "Axlmt:’:'r :2. 1224!».- 1. ‘-{;égr vt'iJ‘ut v2: flu-.1 .9 “Q. r. P ' 7 r“: 7...... f r r . .- fl. «7 5' ' ‘1 My... .- .1: ‘ér ., ~. ~, ;‘ r " "