EFFECT OF GROWTH REGULATORS, LIGHT, HUMIDITY AND GROWTH STIMULANTS ON PHYSIOLOGICAL AND MORPHOLOGICAL PARAMETERS OF TISSUE CULTURED ORCHID PHALAENOPSIS SP. DURING EX VITRO ESTABLISHMENT

S. SAYOOJ¹*, M.M. VIJI², R.V. MANJU³, R. STEPHEN⁴, R. BEENA^5
1Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
²Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
³Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
⁴Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
⁵Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
* Corresponding Author : sanamsayooj@gmail.com

Received : 01-07-2020     Accepted : 13-07-2020     Published : 15-07-2020
Volume : 12     Issue : 13       Pages : 10028 - 10030
Int J Agr Sci 12.13 (2020):10028-10030

Keywords : Phalaenopsis, Ex vitro establishment, Physiological, Morphological characters
Academic Editor : Tanweer Ahmed
Conflict of Interest : None declared
Acknowledgements/Funding : Authors are thankful to Kerala Agricultural University for providing the financial support for this research. Authors are also thankful to Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani, Kerala Agricultural University, Thiruvananthapuram, 695522, India
Author Contribution : All authors equally contributed

A pot culture experiment was conducted during 2018 November to 2019 January at the Department of Plant Physiology, College of Agriculture, Vellayani to study the physiological and morphological changes that occur during ex vitro establishment of orchid (Phalaenopsis sp.) and to find out measures to overcome the field mortality rate and improve the propagation efficiency. The orchid used for the experiment was Phalaenopsis sp. The results revealed that physiological parameters like specific leaf area and photosynthetic rate were significantly higher at all the four stages of observation, in the treatment provided with 40-50% light intensity and 80-90% humidity (T6) and the transpiration rate was lowest in T3 (plantlet dip with triazole @ 5 ppm + foliar application of triazole @ 5ppm, after 15 days of planting). At 45 and 60 days after planting (DAP), the plantlets which were provided with 40-50% light intensity and 80-90% humidity (T6) recorded the highest plant height. Number of leaves per plantlet and survival percentage were also found higher in T6. But in the treatment, T3 (plantlet dip with triazole @ 5 ppm + foliar application of triazole @ 5ppm) maximum number of roots was observed at all the four stages of observation. Among the different treatments, T6 (plantlets provided with 40-50% light intensity and 80-90% humidity) recorded the highest plantlet survival percentage at 15,30,45 and 60th day of observation (80, 76, 72, 66 percentage respectively) compared to control.

1. Davis T.D., Steffens G.L. and Sankhla N. (1988) Hortic. Rev., 10, 63-105.
2. Fila G., Ghashghaie J. and Hoarau J. (1998) Physiologia Plant, 102, 411-418.
3. Fletcher R.A., Gilley A., Davis T.D. and Sankhla N. (200) Hort Rev, 24, 55-138
4. Gao J., Hofstra G. and Fletcher R.A. (1988) Canadian J. Bot. 66 (6), 1178-1185.
5. Gopi R., Sridharan R., Somasundaram R., Lakshmanan G. A. and Panneerselvam R. (2005) General Appl. Plant Physiol., 31(1), 3-4.
6. Gupta S.K., Raghava R.P. and Raghava N. (2004) J Ind Bot Soc., 83, 116-119.
7. Jaizme-Vega M.C. and Pinochet J. (1997) Nematropica, 27(1), 69-76.
8. James S.A. and Bell D.T. (2000) Tree Physiol., 20(12), 815-823.
9. Juraimi, Donald S.H. Drennan and Anuar N. (2004) J. Biol. Sci., 4 (6), 756-762.
10. Mageed K.J.A., Sharma B. and Balakrishnan K.A. (1988) Indian J. Agric. Sci., 55(6), 406-408.
11. Matsoukis A., Gasparatos D. and Chronopoulou?Sereli A. (2007) Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal., 38(18), 2323-2331.
12. Moraes L.M., Cavalcante L.C.D. and de Faria R.T. (2002) Agron., 24, 1397-1400.
13. Salisbury E.J. (1927) Phyl. Trans. R. Soc. Ser., 21 (6), 1-65.
14. Samasya K. S. (2000) M.Sc. (Ag) thesis, Kerala Agricultural University, Thrissur, 140.
15. Steffens G.L., Wang S.Y., Faust M. and Byun J.K. (1985) J. American Soc. Hortic. Sci., 110 (6), 850-855.
16. Sunitibala H. and Kishor R. (2009) Indian J. Biotechnol., 8, 448-452.
17. Sun, Zhi-hong, Qin-ping, Chao-xuan, Yan-hong, Zhong-fu and Xiao-wei (2008) J. Fruit Sci., 1, 13-17.
18. Yano-Melo A.M., Maia L.C., Saggin Jr O.J., Lima-Filho J.M. and Melo N.F. (1999) Mycorrhiza, 9 (2), 119-123.