Next Article in Journal
Evaluation of Tire Footprint in Soil Using an Innovative 3D Scanning Method
Next Article in Special Issue
Development of SSR Molecular Markers and Genetic Diversity Analysis of TPS Gene Family in Chimonanthus praecox
Previous Article in Journal
Unravelling the Recent Developments in the Production Technology and Efficient Applications of Biochar for Agro-Ecosystems
Previous Article in Special Issue
Strigolactone (GR24) Application Positively Regulates Photosynthetic Attributes, Stress-Related Metabolites and Antioxidant Enzymatic Activities of Ornamental Sunflower (Helianthus annuus cv. Vincent’s Choice) under Salinity Stress
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agriculture
Volume 13
Issue 3
10.3390/agriculture13030513
agriculture-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Different Responses to Adventitious Rhizogenesis under Indole-3-Butyric Acid and Seaweed Extracts in Ornamental’s Cuttings: First Results in Photinia x fraseri ‘Red Robin’

by
Danilo Loconsole
*,
Anna Elisa Sdao
,
Giuseppe Cristiano
and
Barbara De Lucia
Department of Soil, Plant and Food Sciences (Di.S.S.P.A.), University of Bari, “Aldo Moro”, Via Amendola 165/A, 70126 Bari, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agriculture 2023, 13(3), 513; https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030513
Submission received: 29 December 2022 / Revised: 16 February 2023 / Accepted: 18 February 2023 / Published: 21 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Better Ornamental Plants for Our Green Industry)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Fraser’s photinia ‘Red Robin’ (Photinia x fraseri Dress, Rosaceae family) is an important primary ornamental landscaping species with optimal hedge or screen effects and low maintenance, but it is difficult to root when propagated by cuttings, although high concentrations of phytohormones are used to optimize rhizogenesis. To our knowledge, there is currently no feasible enhanced method for photinia vegetative propagation through stem cuttings, using seaweed extract-based biostimulants as root promoters. Given the economic importance of the species, this research aims to assess the effects of indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) and seaweed extract-based stimulators on the quality of photinia ‘Red Robin’ cuttings, in terms of rooting indicators and ground and aboveground agronomic features. The treatments applied were different concentrations of commercial rooting stimulators compared to an untreated control: C0: distilled water; Rhizopon AA: 1% IBA (R1); Kelpak®: 2 mL L−1 (K2); Kelpak®: 3 mL L−1 (K3); Goteo®: 2 mL L−1 (G2); Goteo®: 3 mL L−1 (G3). The first results showed different responses to adventitious rhizogenesis under IBA and both seaweed extract treatments. At 70 DAC (days after cutting), the seaweed extract stimulated the production of over 80% of cuttings with callus; at 240 DAC, the percentage of rooted cuttings treated under R1 was the highest = 34.3%; the worst results were obtained by both biostimulant treatments at the highest doses: K3 = 21.3% and G3 = 20.7%. Furthermore, R1 produced 3.07 roots per cutting, which was 50% higher than the average of all other treatments. The applications of Kelpak® and Goteo® biostimulants, at both concentrations, resulted in an inhibition of root length with values below the untreated control. Rooted cuttings under R1 showed the highest ground (0.35 g) and aboveground (0.47) dry value. Neither seaweed extract, Kelpak® or Goteo®, at different concentrations, improved both the ground and above-ground weights of rooted cutting, compared to the untreated control, indicating that these natural products are not suitable for Fraser’s photinia ‘Red Robin’ propagation using this methodology. The overall quality of cuttings in IBA treatment was the strongest, with 1%, being the optimum concentration. Further research must be conducted to propose effective agronomic protocols by investigating application methods, doses and number of applications, and to clarify the biochemical and molecular mechanisms of action of these seaweed extracts.

1. Introduction

Nowadays, one of the critical challenges to address is increasing global agricultural production and crop quality, through reducing the impact of agriculture on ecosystems [1,2]. Increasing the quality and yield of crops, maintaining agroecosystems, reducing chemical substances, increasing nutrient uptake and use efficiencies, and stimulating the plant’s natural defense, must be the major goals [3,4,5]. The quality of propagation material is one of the most important factors for increasing the productivity of any ornamental crop. Several authors have dealt with defining the quality of the propagation material from a genetic, sanitary and agronomic point of view. From a genetic point of view, quality is related to the endogenous content of auxins [6]. Sanitary quality is characterized by the absence of parasites and pathogens [7]; the agronomic quality of a rooted cutting is based on the morphological features of the aerial parts and adventitious roots, which influence health, vigor and uniformity [8,9]. A high number of very fine roots, which are essential for continuous access to water and nutrients, can help the plant withstand transplant shock, increasing survival and plant growth [10]. A multitude of internal and environmental factors affect the production of adventitious roots. Among the internal components, phytohormones, particularly auxins, have the most significant impact. Natural (indole-3-butyric acid, IBA) and synthetic auxins (naphthalene acetic acid, NAA), applied exogenously to cuttings [11], play a key role in generating adventitious roots [12,13] and balanced shoots in ornamental species that are recalcitrant to clonal propagation, due to a low concentration of endogenous auxins [10,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22]. Commercial products based on indole-3-butyric acid (IBA), such as Rhizopon, are one of the most widely used exogenous sources of auxin and they can be delivered to cuttings in talc or dissolved in alcohol to be used as a quick dip [23]. The most recent literature has expanded the research on other natural substances with rooting activity such as biostimulants [24,25,26]. Biostimulants are defined as “product stimulating plant nutrition processes, independently of the product’s nutrient content, with the sole aim of improving one or more of the following characteristics of the plant or the plant rhizosphere: (a) nutrient use efficiency; (b) tolerance to abiotic stress; (c) quality traits; (d) availability of confined nutrients in soil or rhizosphere” [27].
Seaweed-extract based biostimulants [28], particularly from the brown alga Ascophyllum nodosum (L.) Le Jolis [29,30], commonly used in the agriculture industry, have been observed to be beneficial for plants because of the cell signaling activity of some molecules, such as polysaccharides [24,31,32], polyphenols, peptides, carotenoids [33], betaines [34], and macro- and micronutrients. Moreover, phytohormones (e.g., auxins, gibberellins and cytokinins), found in seaweed extracts, accelerate metabolism and development [35,36], as well as other hormone-like substances [37,38,39]. Among the numerous commercial biostimulants, Goteo® (Goteo—Goactiv, UPL, Cesena, Italy), a biologically active filtrate called GA142, from the seaweed A. nodosum, is a source of polysaccharides, vitamins, auxins and cytokinins [40,41]. A previous study carried out by Loconsole et al. [42] proved that Goteo® improved the aerial and root quality traits of ornamental cuttings at a dose of 3 mL L−1 in wild sage, with a greater number of roots, better growth traits, root morphologies and carbohydrate content compared to IBA. Moreover, in glossy Abelia, the same authors [42] suggested the application of a 1 mL L−1 concentration of Goteo® to obtain high-quality rooted stem cuttings.
The biostimulant Kelpak® (Kelp Products Ltd., Cape Town, South Africa), an extract of brown seaweed, in particular Ecklonia maxima (Osbeck) Papenfuss, stimulates the growth and enlargement of the root system, due to the very high auxin-to-cytokinin ratio. This leads to a better absorption and translocation of macro- and microelements [43]. Moreover, the research carried out by Szabớ et al. [44] on Prunus ‘Marianna’ showed that application of the Kelpak® biostimulant resulted in the highest rooting rate and increased the fresh weight of cuttings during rooting compared to the control. Finally, Traversari et al. [45] observed that the application of Kelpak® improved both rooting percentage and root biometric parameters on two rose cultivar cuttings, proving that a sustainable replacement of synthetic products used for rooting promotion is possible and desirable.
Red-tip photinia (Photinia x fraseri Dress.), a hybrid from P. serrulata Lindl. x P. glabra Thunb. Maxim., belonging to the Rosaceae family and discovered at the Fraser Nursery in Birmingham (AL, USA) around 1940, is an evergreen shrub. It is probably the most popular hedging plant of the last 20 years with great ornamental value; it has young red foliage and heads of long-lasting creamy flowers in late spring [46] and is widely used in the design of green areas [47]. Used by landscape designers as a low maintenance hedge or screen that provides spring interest, it attracts pollinating insects with its nectar and the larvae of some species of Lepidoptera feed on its leaves. However, despite its important role in floriculture, this species is considered difficult to propagate [48]; although high concentrations of phytohormones are used to optimize rhizogenesis [49], limiting its commercial use [47]. P. x Fraseri ‘Red Robin’ differs from the species in that the young shoots are a particularly strong red color and it is particularly robust.
Despite many studies having illustrated the value of seaweed extracts in promoting growth, quality and yield when applied to the plant or rhizosphere in the production of cereals, fruit, vegetables and ornamental plants [50,51,52], their use in vegetative propagation by cutting has not been thoroughly investigated in terms of the current bibliography [53,54,55,56]. To our knowledge, there is currently no feasible enhanced method for vegetative propagation of P. x fraseri ‘Red Robin’ through stem cuttings by applying algae extracts as root promoters.
Given the economic importance of the species, this research aims to assess the effects of IBA and seaweed extract-based stimulators on the quality of photinia cuttings, in terms of rooting indicators and ground and aboveground agronomic features.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Rooting Environment

The experiment was conducted in a commercial greenhouse for propagation, located in Apulia, southern Italy (4054′19.1″ N, 1718′21.4″ E; 66 m a.s.l.), covered in an ethylene-vinyl acetate film with a net that provided 50% shading, from 4 March to 30 October 2021 (240 days after cutting, DAC). The greenhouse’s environmental conditions during the experiment included: air temperatures that ranged from 12 °C at night to 27 °C during the day; seedbeds heated from the bottom during the winter; and misting for 60 s every 20 min (with droplets of an average size of 100 μm) from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. during the summer period. The mist duration and interval varied in spring-autumn-winter months 2021.

2.2. Mother Plants and Cuttings

P. x fraseri ‘Red Robin’ stock mother plants were grown in open fields and regularly pruned to prevent flowering. Twenty mother plants were randomly selected. From each mother plant, ninety median and semi-hardwood stem cuttings were taken. Each cutting was selected for its uniformity, vigor, lack of disease, trueness to type, and a length of 4 cm with three nodes, removing the basal leaves and maintaining two leaves per cutting, with an average above-ground fresh mass of 0.73 g and an average total leaf area of 4.63 cm2.

2.3. Rooting Promoters and Cutting Propagation

Cuttings were rooted using three different commercial rooting promoters: auxins were applied in the form of commercially available rooting powder: Rhizopon AA (identified as R), at 1% IBA (Sigma, St. Louis, MO, USA), directly to the bases of cuttings; the concentration was chosen according to previous studies that observed how high doses of IBA improve the quality of rooted cuttings. For example, refs. [57,58], have achieved the best results with 0.8%, while Bonamino and Blazich [49] have applied IBA at 1%. Kelpak® (identified as K), is composed of 34% (w/w) E. maxima extract 11.16 mg L−1 auxin and 0.031 mg L−1 cytokinin (with a auxin:cytokinin ratio of 360:1), alginates (1.5 L−1), amino acids (total 441.3 mg 100 g−1), mannitol (2261 mg L−1), neutral sugars (1.08 g L−1), and small amounts of macroelements (N 0.09%, P 90.7 mg kg−1, K 7163.3 mg kg−1, Ca 190.4 mg kg−1, Mg 337.2 mg kg−1, Na 1623.7 mg kg−1) and microelements (mean composition: Mn 17.3 mg kg−1, Fe 40.7 mg kg−1, Cu 13.5 mg kg−1, Zn 17.0 mg kg−1, B 33.0 mg kg−1) [43,59]. The (producer’s) recommended dose is 10 mL L−1 before transplanting and the same dose three times after transplanting (7 days between each treatment); the dose chosen in our experiment was 2 and 3 mL L−1 respectively because they were applied by foliar application and not by drenching. Goteo® (Goteo—Goactiv, UPL, Italy) (identified as G) is a liquid formulation used as a source of auxins, cytokinins, polysaccharides and vitamins. GA142 is supplemented by the company with organic mineral fertilizers (w/v): 13% P2O5, 5% K2O and 1.3–2.4% organic matter. In terms of concentration, the company recommends a 0.1% solution (1 mL L−1) for vegetable crops, while ornamental plants are not specified. Previous experiments, from Gajc-Wolska [60] and Matysiak [61], suggested 3 to 4 treatments with 0.2% solution (2 mL L−1) every 2 weeks to accelerate root regeneration.
On 4 March 2021, plastic trays with 100 holes and a diameter of 3.5 cm were sanitized using a fresh chlorine solution, which consisted of one part bleach (5.25 percent sodium hypochlorite) to nine parts water for a final strength of 0.5%. They were then stuffed with paper tubes that contained the substrate, a combination of brown and blonde peat and perlite (v:v = 80:20; pH 5.0–6.0; organic carbon, 35%; organic nitrogen, 0.8%; organic matter, 85%) (Jiffy® Products International BV, Toul, France). They were then saturated with water and cuttings were put two centimeters deep into the substrate.

2.4. Experimental Design

The experiment, started on 4 March, consisted of six treatments, each in three replications, each replication containing 100 cuttings.
The treatments applied were different concentrations of rooting stimulators compared to an untreated control:
  • C0: distilled water;
  • R1: Rhizopon AA, 1% IBA;
  • K2: 2 mL L−1;
  • K3: 3 mL L−1;
  • G2: 2 mL L−1;
  • G3: 3 mL L−1.
IBA was applied directly to the bases of cuttings (10 mm) in the form of Rhizopon AA, the commercially available rooting powder. Before the application, the cutting base was wetted with distilled water.
Starting from 4 March, the Kelpak® and Goteo® solutions were sprayed with a hand sprayer every two weeks until they ran off the leaves of the cuttings, a total of 4 times. The treatment was always applied at the same time (9 a.m.) and the mist system stopped before the application, to prevent the solution being washed out by water.
The treatment design was a randomized complete block design of 18 experimental units (6 concentrations × 3 replicates).
Experimental analysis was conducted at the Floriculture and ornamental plants laboratory of the Department of Soil, Plant and Food Sciences, at the University of Bari.

2.5. Callus Initiation and Rooting Formation

At 70 DAC (13 May), callus initiation and rooting formation was investigated, sampling 24 cuttings per treatment (eight cuttings per replicate). The counting method was used to quantify the callus production rate and rooting percentage; gross morphological changes in the base of the stem cutting were captured using a Nikon SMZ800N microscope with a Nikon DS-Fi1 camera (Nikon Corporation, Tokyo, Japan) and Nis Elements 4.0 digital software at a resolution of 96 dpi. A cutting was considered rooted if it had at least one primary root ≥ 1 mm long; the unrooted cutting percentage was also evaluated.
On 13 May, 12 June (at 100 DAC) and 30 October (at 240 DAC), the callused (number of cuttings that produced calli/total number of cuttings × 100%) cuttings and rooted (number of rooted cuttings/total number of cuttings tested × 100%) cuttings percentages were recorded for twelve randomly chosen cuttings per treatment (four cuttings per replicate). At 240 DAC, the cutting survival percentage was also monitored. Percentage data were subjected to arcsine square root transformation before ANOVA analysis. At 240 DAC, the number of cuttings with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 roots and the average root number per cutting for each treatment were recorded.

2.6. Roots Architecture

Twelve rooted cuttings from each treatment (four cuttings per replicate) at 240 DAC were sampled, and the morphology of the adventitious rooting system was examined. Each rooted cutting was cleaned, and the roots, leaves, and stems were separated. Water and a soft brush were used to gently wash out the rooting substrate. An Epson v700 Perfection (Japan) scanner was used to scan the roots at a resolution of 400 dpi. For the evaluation of total root length, root surface area, root diameter, number of root tips, forks, and crossings, the images were subsequently analyzed using image analysis software (WinRHIZO v. 2005b, Regent Instruments Inc., Québec, QC, Canada, www.regentinstruments.com accessed on 29 December 2022).

2.7. Ground Biomass

At 240 DAC, root fresh and dry weights (g) were measured on twelve rooted cuttings per treatment (four cuttings per replicate): fresh samples were dried in a thermo-ventilated oven at 70 °C until it reached a constant mass.

2.8. Aboveground Quality Features

At 240 DAC, the same samples analyzed for root parameters were recorded for aerial growth traits. Three new and fully opened leaves were sampled for analyzing the chlorophyll index (SPAD) (Konica Minolta Chlorophyll Meter SPAD-502 Plus, Solna, Sweden). The number of leaves per cutting was counted and the total leaf area per rooted cutting was measured with a leaf area meter (Delta-T; Decagon Devices, Pullman, WA, USA). Aboveground (leaves + stems) fresh and dry weights (g) were measured: samples were dried in a thermo-ventilated oven at 70 °C until it reached a constant mass.

2.9. Statistical Analysis

The effects of various rooting promoters doses on rooting performance and morphological features were examined using a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA).
All the above data analyses were performed using SAS version 9.3 statistical software (SAS, 1999); treatment means were separated by the SNK (Student-Newman–Keuls) test (p ≤ 0.05).

3. Results

Table 1 shows the percentage values of callus, rooted and unrooted cuttings at 70 DAC. A higher percentage of callused cuttings was observed with both seaweed extracts (K and G) at different concentrations compared to the IBA—Rhizopon treatment (R1) and the control. The percentage of callused cuttings was 84.3% on average in both the seaweed extracts, greater than 1.3 and 1.4 times compared to the control and the R treatment. The rooted cutting percentage was significantly higher in the R1 treatment (29.2%) followed by the G3 treatment (16.7%); the C0, K2, K3 and G2 treatments recorded the lowest rooted cutting percentage values, with no differences between them. The same table shows that the highest value of unrooted cuttings was found in the control (average 33.3%), while the cuttings treated with G3 all had calli or roots.
Figure 1 is a microscope image: we can see, on the left (a), the production of callous tissue in the G2 treated cutting; on the right (b), the adventitious root in the R1 treated cutting. Table 2 shows the callused and rooted cutting percentage at 100 and 240 DAC. At 100 DAC, the greatest callused cutting percentage values were obtained in the untreated control and Goteo® at the highest dose. The R1 application resulted in 51% fewer callused cuttings compared to the control; the same trend was found at 240 DAC. Furthermore, K3 and G3 showed a lower production of callused cuttings, compared to the corresponding lower dose of the same biostimulant (K3: 11.3%; G3: 10.3%; K2: 18.0%; G2: 15.3%). The same Table 2 shows that, at 100 and 240 DAC, the percentage of rooted cuttings treated under R1 was statistically the highest (25% at 100 DAC and 34.3% at 240 DAC), with an increase of 15.5% compared to the control at 240 DAC. At 100 DAC, treatments with biostimulants showed the lowest values of rooting compared to IBA. At 240 DAC, the worst results were obtained by both biostimulant treatments at the highest doses, with no statistically significant differences between them (K3 = 21.3% and G3 = 20.7%).
Table 3 shows, at 240 DAC, the number of rooted cuttings per treatment with a different number of roots, between 1 and 6. Treatment with IBA positively influenced the number of cuttings with 3, 4, 5 and 6 roots.
Data on root morphological features are provided in Table 4 and Table 5. In Table 4, at 240 DAC, the statistically highest value of number of roots per cutting was obtained in the treatment carried out with the R1 application (3.07 roots per cutting). This was 50% higher than the average of all other treatments, which do not have statistically significant differences between them. The same table shows that the greatest root length development was obtained in cuttings treated with Rhizopon, compared to the other treatments; the applications of Kelpak® and Goteo® biostimulants at both concentrations resulted in an inhibition of root length with values below the untreated control. The same trend was recorded for the surface area.
Table 5 shows the average number of tips, forks and crossings at 240 DAC. Cuttings treated with R1 showed a 105% increase in tips compared to the untreated control and G3. The K2, K3 and G2 treatments were equal to each other and below the control, by an average of 32%. Regarding the number of forks and crossings (Table 5), the highest value was obtained with cuttings treated with Rhizopon, +61% forks and +15% crossings compared to the control; the cuttings treated with the biostimulants at the different concentrations obtained lower values than the control.
Data on fresh and dry ground weights are provided in Table 6: rooted cuttings under R1 show the highest, and statistically different, dry value (0.35 g) compared to the other treatments, resulting in +40% in comparison to the control.
Table 7 shows the aboveground morpho-biometric features: no statistically significant differences were found between the treatments, in terms of the number of leaves per cutting and chlorophyll index. At 240 DAC, the statistically highest value of leaf area per cutting was obtained in the treatment carried out with the R1 application (27.9 cm2); K3 and G3 were similar to the control, with lower values compared to R1. The worst performances were observed in the K2 and G2 treatments.
Table 8 showed that the aboveground dry weight was significantly influenced by treatments: the rooting effect under IBA (R1) was higher than that under the control and K3.

4. Discussion

Calkins [62] reported that Fraser’s photinia is an important primary ornamental landscaping species with optimal hedge or screen effects and low maintenance, but it is difficult to root when propagated by cuttings. Given the economic importance of the species in the ornamental industry, this research aims to assess the effects of IBA and algae extract-based stimulators on the quality of photinia cuttings, in terms of rooting indicators and ground and aboveground agronomic features. Vegetative propagation by cuttings has numerous advantages, one of which is to provide more uniform and agronomically superior commercial plantlets than those obtained by heterozygous seeds [63]. First results show different responses to adventitious rhizogenesis under in-dole-3-butyric acid and seaweed extract treatments. The application of exogenous auxin and cytokinin stimulates callus differentiation in various species [64]. Several studies showed that an intermediate ratio of auxin and cytokinin promotes callus induction, while a high ratio of auxin-to-cytokinin or cytokinin-to-auxin induces root and shoot regeneration, respectively [65]. Plants of Arabidopsis thaliana treated with a biostimulant extracted from A. nodosum showed an increase in cytokinin-like responses, suggesting a contribution in the cytokinin-like activity of the extracts’s compounds [66]. From our results obtained at 70 DAC, it would appear that the seaweed extracts stimulated the production of over 80% of cuttings with callus (Figure 1, Table 1). Comparing this result to IBA (R1), it can be observed that this, in contrast, obtained the highest rooting percentage (Table 1). Furthermore, it would appear that the conspicuous production of callus tissue prevents the adventitious rooting of photinia cuttings, representing a structural obstacle to the emission of adventitious roots. Our preliminary results agree with Monder et al. [67]: in the rhizogenesis of the ‘Hurdal’ rose, the authors showed that an increase in rooting percentage was only strictly connected to a decrease in the percentage of cuttings with calli only. Callus overgrowth in photinia could be an unfavorable phenomenon for fast rhizogenesis. Conversely, Costa et al. [68] in Rosa ‘Madelon’ and Fouda and Schmidt [69] in Rosa rugosa stem cuttings found that the new parenchyma tissue (callus) precedes root initiation. Martins et al. [70] showed an inverse relationship between rooting and callus formation for olive tree cuttings. In our study, the application of IBA (R1) improved the rooting percentage at 240 DAC (Table 2) and the number of cuttings with six roots (Table 3), as compared to the untreated control and seaweed extracts. In our experimental conditions, the application of IBA at the concentration of 1 gL−1 produced 33% of rooted cuttings, while Bonaminio and Blazich, [49] in 1983, found that 5000 and 10,000 mg L−1 of IBA solutions applied to the terminal, semi-hardwood cuttings of Fraser’s photinia, promoted rooting more effectively than the control, and increased rooting percentage significantly (100 and 93%). Cutting success, entailing quality AR formation with high rooting percentage, depends on numerous factors, such as cutting type, environmental conditions, nutritional levels of the stock plant, rooting medium and phytohormone application [17,71,72]. IBA has been reported to increase in vivo adventitious root formation, overall quality and uniformity of roots in many ornamental species [73,74,75,76,77,78,79,80,81,82]. Untreated stem cuttings (C0) were also able to root, but with a lower rooting percentage, in comparison to IBA-treated cuttings, possibly due to the presence of stored carbohydrates and endogenous auxin contents in the cuttings [83]. Until now, no research has compared the morphological quality of adventitious roots treated with different IBA and seaweed extract concentrations in Fraser’s Photinia cuttings. To improve plant performance and provide protection against the deleterious effects of numerous abiotic stressors, several amendments such as biostimulators and bioelicitors have been used [84]. The favourable impact of using seaweed extracts as natural regulators has resulted in better crop growth and production [85,86]. In our experimental conditions, neither K nor G biostimulants, at different concentrations, increased the rooting percentage (Table 2) and the root architecture (Figure 2, Table 4 and Table 5) compared to the IBA treatment. On the contrary, previous studies have shown the efficacy of biostimulants in promoting rhizogenesis. For example, the use of a 40% concentrated A. nodosum extract increased the rooting of Passiflora actinia by about 10% [87]. Even if unsuccessful, our results in the treatments with biostimulants agree with those of Traversari et al. [45] on rose rhyzogenesis: cuttings treated with Phylgreen, a commercial biostimulant made from A. nodosum, through a low temperature mechanical extraction, had low values of both survival rate and root biometric parameters. Since biostimulating effects are clearly species-specific and product-specific, results regarding one biostimulant or one species only do not directly apply to another biostimulant or another plant species [51,88,89]. In our study, both Kelpak® and Goteo® negatively affected root length, surface area and diameter compared to IBA and the control (Table 4). On the contrary, positive effects of Goteo® on rooting were reported for Physocarpus opulifolius [75], Hydrangea paniculata [90], Ornithogalum arabicum [91] and rose [58]. In Fraser’s Photinia, both Kelpak® and Goteo® at different concentrations decreased the number of root tips, forks and crossings compared to the IBA treatment (Table 5). Based on these findings, the overall development and morphology of Photinia cuttings treated with Kelpak® and Goteo® were inhibited.
Seaweed extracts often stimulate and accelerate cell division, elongation, differentiation and protein synthesis [37,92]; Makhaye et al. [93] have verified the potential stimulatory effect of biostimulants (especially Kelpak®) on the germination of A. esculentus seeds. The application of biostimulants based on seaweed extracts in our experiment did not positively influence the number of leaves, chlorophyll index (SPAD) and leaf area index (Table 7). These results are in disagreement with that found in Lantana camara, Abelia x grandiflora [42] and Cornus alba ‘Aurea’ and ‘Elegantissima’ [94]. Our preliminary results (Table 6 and Table 8) disagree with Ratore et al. [95], Kocira et al. [96], Gajc-Wolska et al. [60] and Caccialupi et al. [97] who obtained a positive effect, by applying seaweed extracts, on plant growth, development and yield. Our results agree with Francke et al. [41], who exhibited a lower yield of shallots than that of the control (4%) by applying Goteo biostimulant. The limited information available in the literature does not allow further discussion of this biostimulant since contrasting results were observed in Fraser’s photinia ‘Red Robin’ cuttings with respect to other investigated species. The overall quality of cuttings in the IBA treatment was the strongest, with 1000 mg L−1 being the optimum concentration, according to studies by Quan et. al. [98].

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, the main outcomes of this study can be summarized as follows: we suggest that the use of 1% IBA (Rhizopon AA), compared to an untreated control, may be beneficial to ornamental nursery farmers wishing to produce Fraser’s photinia ‘Red Robin’ quality cuttings with a well-developed root system and, therefore, capable of achieving rapid establishment at transplantation. On the contrary, neither seaweed extract, Kelpak® or Goteo®, at different concentrations, improved root percentage and architecture, and ground and above ground weights of rooted cutting, compared to the untreated control. This result indicates that these natural products are not suitable for Fraser’s photinia ‘Red Robin’ propagation using this methodology. Further research must be conducted to propose effective agronomic protocols by investigating application methods, doses and number of applications, and to clarify the biochemical and molecular mechanisms of action of these seaweed extracts.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, B.D.L. and G.C.; methodology, B.D.L., G.C. and D.L.; software, G.C.; data curation, B.D.L., G.C. and D.L.; writing—original draft preparation, B.D.L., G.C., D.L. and A.E.S.; writing—review and editing, B.D.L., G.C., D.L. and A.E.S.; funding acquisition, B.D.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Regione Puglia (Italy) MIS. 16—Cooperazione—sottomisura 16.2—Sostegno a progetti pilota e allo sviluppo di nuovi prodotti, pratiche, processi e tecnologie. Grant number B79J20000140009. Agreement “Transfer of protocols for quarantine and harmful organisms and for the selection of sanitary materials improved for the Apulian nursery-ProDiQuaVi” project (“Trasferimento di protocolli per organismi da quarantena e nocivi e per la selezione di materiali sanitariamente migliorati per il vivaismo pugliese (B79J20000140009)” realizzato nell’ambito del PSR 2014–2020—Regione Puglia MIS. 16—Cooperazione—sottomisura 16.2—Sostegno a progetti pilota e allo sviluppo di nuovi prodotti, pratiche, processi e tecnologie—Avviso pubblico approvato con DAG n. 194 del 12/09/2018, in Italian). Paper no. 3.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study. Data sharing is not applicable to this article.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Vivai Capitanio (Monopoli, BA, Italy) and Giovanni Fanizzi for technical support in the field and the materials used in the experiments. The authors thanks Claudia Ruta and Patrick Angelo Guarini for providing huge help in microscope image acquisition.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Del Buono, D. Can biostimulants be used to mitigate the effect of anthropogenic climate change on agriculture? It is time to respond. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 751, 141763. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  2. Davydov, R.; Sokolov, M.; Hogland, W.; Glinushkin, A.; Markaryan, A. The application of pesticides and mineral fertilizers in agriculture. In MATEC Web of Conferences; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2018; Volume 245, p. 11003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Costa, J.A.V.; Freitas, B.C.B.; Cruz, C.G.; Silveira, J.; Morais, M.G. Potential of micro algae as biopesticides to contribute to sustainable agriculture and environmental development. J. Environ. Sci. Health B 2019, 54, 366–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Singh, N.; Joshi, E.; Sasode, D.S.; Dangi, R.S.; Chouhan, N. Soil fertility, macro and micro nutrient uptake and their use efficiencies under integrated nutrient management in groundnut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Int. J. Chem. Stud. 2020, 8, 1983–1987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Neely, C.; Bourne, M.; Chesterman, S.; Kouplevatskaya-Buttoud, I.; Bojic, D.; Vallée, D. Implementing Agenda 2030 in Food and Agriculture: Accelerating Policy Impact through Cross-Sectoral Coordination at the Country Level; Food and Agricultural Organization of The United Nations: Rome, Italy, 2017. [Google Scholar]
  6. Blakesley, D.; Chaldecott, M.A. The role of endogenous auxin in root initiation: Part II. Sensitivity and evidence from studies on transgenic plant tissues. Plant Growth Regul. 1993, 13, 77–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gidoin, Y. Innovation to quality in the horticulture industry: Feedback from a CEO. Acta Hortic. 2019, 1245, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Song, S.J.; Ko, C.H.; Shin, U.S.; Oh, H.J.; Kim, S.Y.; Lee, S.Y. Successful stem cutting propagation of Patrinia rupestris for horticulture. Rhizosphere 2019, 9, 90–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Gallegos-Cedillo, V.M.; Diánez, F.; Nájera, C.; Santos, M. Plant Agronomic Features Can Predict Quality and Field Performance: A Bibliometric Analysis. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2305. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Loconsole, D.; Cristiano, G.; De Lucia, B. Image Analysis of Adventitious Root Quality in Wild Sage and Glossy Abelia Cuttings after Application of Different Indole-3-Butyric Acid Concentrations. Plants 2022, 11, 290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Hąc-Wydro, K.; Flasiński, M. The studies on the toxicity mechanism of environmentally hazardous natural (IAA) and synthetic (NAA) auxin—The experiments on model Arabidopsis thaliana and rat liver plasma membranes. Colloids Surf. B Biointerfaces 2015, 130, 53–60. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Gonin, M.; Bergougnoux, V.; Nguyen, T.D.; Gantet, P.; Champion, A. What Makes Adventitious Roots? Plants 2019, 8, 240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Abu-Zahra, T.R.; Al-Shadaideh, A.N.; Abubaker, S.M.; Qrunfleh, I.M. Influence of auxin concentrations on different ornamental plants rooting. Int. J. Bot. 2013, 9, 96–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Zheng, L.; Xiao, Z.B.; Song, W.T. Effects of substrate and exogenous auxin on the adventitious rooting of Dianthus caryophyllus L. Hortic. Sci. 2020, 55, 170–173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Babaie, H.; Zarei, H.; Nikdel, K.; Firoozjai, M.N. Effect of different concentrations of IBA and time of taking cutting on rooting, growth and survival of Ficus binnendijkii ‘Amstel Queen’ cuttings. Not. Sci. Biol. 2014, 6, 163–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Bryant, P.H.; Trueman, S.J. Stem anatomy and adventitious root formation in cuttings of Angophora, Corymbia and Eucalyptus. Forests 2015, 6, 1227–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Lei, C.; Fan, S.; Li, K.; Meng, Y.; Mao, J.; Han, M.; Zhao, C.; Bao, L.; Zhang, D. iTRAQ-based proteomic analysis reveals potential regulation networks of IBA-induced adventitious root formation in apple. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 667. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  18. Hartmann, H.T.; Kester, D.E.; Davies, F.T.; Geneve, R.L. Plant Propagation: Principles and Practices; Prentice Hall: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2002. [Google Scholar]
  19. Ercişli, S.; Eşitken, A.; Anapali, O.; Şahin, U. Effects of substrate and iba-concentration on adventitious root formation on hardwood cuttings of rosa dumalis. Acta Hortic. 2005, 690, 149–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ribeiro, M.M.; Collado, L.M.; Antunes, M.A. The influence of indole-3-butyric-acid in Prunus laurocerasus vegetative propagation. Acta Hortic. 2008, 885, 277–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Grigoriadou, K.; Sarropoulou, V.; Krigas, N.; Maloupa, E. Vegetative and in vitro propagation of the medicinal and ornamental plant Astragalus suberosus subsp. Haarbachii (Fabaceae). Eur. J. Hortic. Sci. 2022, 87, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Cano, A.; Sánchez-García, A.B.; Albacete, A.; González-Bayón, R.; Justamante, M.S.; Ibáñez, S.; Pérez-Pérez, J.M. Enhanced conjugation of auxin by GH3 enzymes leads to poor adventitious rooting in carnation stem cuttings. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  23. Shiri, M.; Mudyiwa, R.M.; Takawira, M.; Musara, C.; Gama, T. Effects of rooting media and indole-3-butyric acid (IBA) concentration on rooting and shoot development of Duranta erecta tip cuttings. Afr. J. Plant Sci. 2019, 13, 279–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Bulgari, R.; Franzoni, G.; Ferrante, A. Biostimulants application in horticultural crops under abiotic stress conditions. Agronomy 2019, 9, 306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  25. Cuadrado, C.J.L.; Pinillos, E.O.; Tito, R.; Mirones, C.S.; Gamarra Mendoza, N.N. Insecticidal properties of capsaicinoids and glucosinolates extracted from Capsicum chinense and Tropaeolum tuberosum. Insects 2019, 10, 132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  26. Campobenedetto, C.; Mannino, G.; Beekwilder, J.; Contartese, V.; Karlova, R.; Bertea, C.M. The application of a biostimulant based on tannins affects root architecture and improves tolerance to salinity in tomato plants. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. EU. Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council Laying Down Rules on the Making Available on the Market of EU Fertilising Products and Amending Regulations (EC) No 1069/2009 and (EC) No 1107/2009 and Repealing Regulation (EC) No 2003/2003. Off. J. Eur. Union 2019, 62, 1–114. Available online: https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=OJ:L:2019:170:TOC (accessed on 3 June 2022).
  28. Ali, O.; Ramsubhag, A.; Jayaraman, J. Biostimulant properties of seaweed extracts in plants: Implications towards sustainable crop production. Plants 2021, 10, 531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ertani, A.; Francioso, O.; Tinti, A.; Schiavon, M.; Pizzeghello, D.; Nardi, S. Evaluation of seaweed extracts from Laminaria and Ascophyllum nodosum spp. As biostimulants in Zea mays L. using a combination of chemical, biochemical and morphological approaches. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Shukla, P.S.; Mantin, E.G.; Adil, M.; Bajpai, S.; Critchley, A.T.; Prithiviraj, B. Ascophyllum nodosum-based biostimulants: Sustainable applications in agriculture for the stimulation of plant growth, stress tolerance, and disease management. Front. Plant Sci. 2019, 10, 655. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Afonso, N.C.; Catarino, M.D.; Silva, A.; Cardoso, S.M. Brown macroalgae as valuable food ingredients. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Franzoni, G.; Cocetta, G.; Prinsi, B.; Ferrante, A.; Espen, L. Biostimulants on Crops: Their Impact under Abiotic Stress Conditions. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Hrólfsdóttir, A.Þ.; Arason, S.; Sveinsdóttir, H.I.; Gudjónsdóttir, M. Added Value of Ascophyllum nodosum Side Stream Utilization during Seaweed Meal Processing. Mar. Drugs 2022, 20, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Battacharyya, D.; Babgohari, M.Z.; Rathor, P.; Prithiviraj, B. Seaweed extracts as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Zhang, X.; Ervin, E.H. Impact of seaweed extract-based cytokinins and zeatin riboside on creeping bent grass heat tolerance. Crop Sci. 2008, 48, 364–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wang, Y.; Fu, F.; Li, J.; Wang, G.; Wu, M.; Zhan, J.; Chen, X.; Mao, Z. Effects of seaweed fertilizer on the growth of Malus hupehensis Rehd. Seedlings, soil enzyme activities and fungal communities under replant condition. Eur. J. Soil Biol. 2016, 75, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Stirk, W.A.; Rengasamy, K.R.R.; Kulkarni, M.G.; van Staden, J. Plant Biostimulants from Seaweed. In The Chemical Biology of Plant Biostimulants; John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2020; pp. 31–55. ISBN 978-1-119-35725-4. [Google Scholar]
  38. Kulkarni, M.G.; Rengasamy, K.R.R.; Pendota, S.C.; Gruz, J.; Plačková, L.; Novák, O.; Doležal, K.; Van Staden, J. Bioactive molecules derived from smoke and seaweed Ecklonia maxima showing phytohormone-like activity in Spinacia oleracea L. New Biotechnol. 2019, 48, 83–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Petropoulos, S.A. Practical Applications of Plant Biostimulants in Greenhouse Vegetable Crop Production. Agronomy 2020, 10, 1569. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Stepowska, A. Effects of GA 142 (Goëmar Goteo) and GA 14 (Goëmar BM86) extracts on sweet pepper yield in non-heated tunnels. In Solanaceous Crops; Zbigniew, T.D., Ed.; Editorial House Wie’s Jutra: Warsaw, Poland, 2008; p. 45. [Google Scholar]
  41. Francke, A.; Majkowska-Gadomska, J.; Kaliniewicz, Z.; Jadwisie´nczak, K. No Effect of Biostimulants on the Growth, Yield and Nutritional Value of Shallots Grown for Bunch Harvest. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Loconsole, D.; Cristiano, G.; De Lucia, B. Improving Aerial and Root Quality Traits of Two Landscaping Shrubs Stem Cuttings by Applying a Commercial Brown Seaweed Extract. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Lötze, E.; Hoffman, E.W. Nutrient composition and content of various biological active compounds of three south African-based commercial seaweed biostimulants. J. Appl. Phycol. 2016, 28, 1379–1386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Szabó, V.; Sárvári, A.; Hrotkó, K. Treatment of stockplants with biostimulators and their effects on cutting propagation of Prunus marianna‘GF 8-1’. Acta Hortic. 2011, 923, 277–281. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Traversari, S.; Cacini, S.; Nesi, B. Seaweed Extracts as Substitutes of Synthetic Hormones for Rooting Promotion in Rose Cuttings. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Gilman, G.F.; Watson, D.G. Photinia × fraseri—Fraser Photinia. Fact Sheet ST-447. 1994. Available online: https://hort.ufl.edu/trees/PHOFRAA.pdf (accessed on 1 November 2022).
  47. Larraburu, E.E.; Apóstolo, N.M.; Llorente, B.E. Anatomy and morphology of photinia (Photinia × fraseri Dress) in vitro plants inoculated with rhizobacteria. Trees 2010, 24, 635–642. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Dirr, M.A. Tolerance of Leyland Cypress and Red-Tip Photinia to Soil and Foliar Applied Sodium Chloride. J. Environ. Hortic. 1990, 8, 154–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Bonaminio, V.P.; Blazich, F.A. Response of Fraser’s photinia stem cuttings to selected rooting compounds. J. Environ. Hortic. 1983, 1, 9–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Khan, W.; Rayirath, U.P.; Subramanian, S.; Jithesh, M.N.; Rayorath, P.; Hodges, D.M. Seaweed extracts as biostimulants of plant growth and development. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2009, 28, 386–399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Paradiković, N.; Teklić, T.; Zeljković, S.; Lisjak, M.; Špoljarević, M. Biostimulants research in some horticultural plant species—A review. Food Energy Secur. 2019, 8, e00162. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Kisvarga, S.; Farkas, D.; Boronkay, G.; Neményi, A.; Orlóci, L. Effects of Biostimulants in Horticulture, with Emphasis on Ornamental Plant. Agronomy 2022, 12, 1043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cardoso, J.C.; Vendrame, W.A. Innovation in Propagation and Cultivation of Ornamental Plants. Horticulturae 2022, 8, 229. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Monder, M.J.; Kozakiewicz, P.; Jankowska, A. Anatomical structure changes in stem cuttings of rambler roses induced with plant origin preparations. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 255, 242–254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Pacholczak, A.; Nowakowska, K.; Mika, N.; Borkowska, M. The effect of the biostimulator Goteo on the rooting of ninebark stem cuttings. Folia Hortic. 2016, 28, 109–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Pacholczak, A.; Nowakowska, K. The Effect of Biostimulators and Indole-3-Butyric Acid on Rooting of Stem Cuttings of Two Ground Cover Roses. Acta Agrobot. 2020, 73, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Hammo, Y.H.; Kareem, B.A.; Salih, M.I. Effect of planting date and IBA concentration on rooting ability of stem cutting of Fraser’s Photinia (Photinia x fraseri). IOSR J. Agr. Vet. Sci. 2013, 5, 51–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Hasan, N.S.; Hammo, Y.H. Influence of IBA and media on rooting percentage and growth of semi-hardwood cuttings of red-tip Photinia plant (Photinia x fraseri). J. Duhok Univ. 2021, 24, 114–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Stirk, W.A.; Tarkowská, D.; Turečová, V.; Strnad, M.; Van Staden, J. Abscisic acid, gibberellins and brassinosteroids in Kelpak®, a commercial seaweed extract made from Ecklonia maxima. J. Appl. Phycol. 2014, 26, 561–567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Gajc-Wolska, J.; Kowalczyk, K.; Nowecka, M.; Mazur, K.; Metera, A. Effect of organic-mineral fertilizers on the yield and quality of endive (Cichorium endivia L.). Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2012, 11, 189–200. [Google Scholar]
  61. Matysiak, K.; Kaczmarek, S.; Kierzek, R.; Kardasz, P. Effect of seaweeds extracts and humic and fulvic acids on the germination and early growth of winter oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.). J. Agric. Eng. Res. 2010, 55, 28–32. [Google Scholar]
  62. Calkins, M. The Sustainable Sites Handbook: A Complete Guide to the Principles, Strategies, and Best Practices for Sustainable Landscapes; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; Volume 39. [Google Scholar]
  63. Lustosa Sobrinho, R.; Zoz, T.; Finato, T.; Oliveira, C.E.d.S.; Neto, S.S.d.O.; Zoz, A.; Alaraidh, I.A.; Okla, M.K.; Alwasel, Y.A.; Beemster, G.; et al. Jatropha curcas L. as a Plant Model for Studies on Vegetative Propagation of Native Forest Plants. Plants 2022, 11, 2457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Ikeuchi, M.; Sugimoto, K.; Iwase, A. Plant Callus: Mechanisms of Induction and Repression. Plant Cell 2013, 25, 3159–3173. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Skoog, F.; Miller, C.O. Chemical regulation of growth and organ formation in plant tissues cultured in vitro. Symp. Soc. Exp. Biol. 1957, 11, 118–130. [Google Scholar]
  66. Khan, W.; Hiltz, D.; Critchley, A.T.; Prithiviraj, B. Bioassay to detect Ascophyllum nodosum extract-induced cytokinin-like activity in Arabidopsis thaliana. J. Appl. Phycol. 2011, 23, 409–414. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Monder, M.J.; Kozakiewicz, P.; Jankowska, A. The Role of Plant Origin Preparations and Phenological Stage in Anatomy Structure Changes in the Rhizogenesis of Rosa “Hurdal”. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 7, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Costa, J.M.; Heuvelink, E.; Pol, P.A.; Put, H.M.C. Anatomy and morphology of rooting in leafy rose stem cuttings and starch dynamics following severance. Acta Hortic. 2007, 751, 495–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  69. Fouda, R.A.; Schmidt, G. Histological changes in the stems of some Rosa species propagated by leafy cuttings as affected by IBA treatments. Acta Agron. Hungar. 1994, 43, 265–275. [Google Scholar]
  70. Martins, M.; Gomes, A.F.G.; da Silva, É.M.; da Silva, D.F.; Peche, P.M.; Magalhães, T.A.; Pio, R. Effects of anatomical structures and phenolic compound deposition on the rooting of olive cuttings. Rhizosphere 2022, 23, 100557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Li, S.W.; Xue, L.; Xu, S.; Feng, H.; An, L. Mediators, genes and signaling in adventitious rooting. Bot. Rev. 2009, 75, 230–247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Della Rovere, F.; Fattorini, L.; D’Angeli, S.; Veloccia, A.; Falasca, G.; Altamura, M.M. Auxin and cytokinin control formation of the quiescent centre in the adventitious root apex of Arabidopsis. Ann. Bot. 2013, 112, 1395–1407. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  73. Blazich, F.A. Chemicals and Formulations Used to Promote Adventitious Rooting. In Adventitious Root Formation in Cuttings; Davis, T.D., Haissig, B.E., Sankhla, N., Eds.; Dioscorides Press: Portland, OR, USA, 1988; pp. 132–149. [Google Scholar]
  74. Carpenter, W.J.; Cornell, J.A. Auxin application duration and concentration govern rooting of Hibiscus stem cuttings. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci. 1992, 117, 68–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Iapichino, G.; Arnone, C.; Bertolino, M.; AmicoRoxas, U. Propagation of three Thymus species by stem cuttings. Acta Hort. 2006, 723, 411–413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Sabatino, L.; D’anna, F.; Iapichino, G. Cutting type and IBA treatment duration affect Teucrium fruticans adventitious root quality. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj Napoca 2014, 42, 478–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  77. Kashefi, M.; Zarei, H.; Bahadori, F. The Effect of Indole Butyric Acid and the Time of Stem Cutting Preparation on Propagation of Damask Rose Ornamental Shrub. JOP 2014, 4, 237–243. [Google Scholar]
  78. Pacholczak, A. The effect of the auxin application methods on rooting of Physocarpus opulifolius Maxim. cuttings. Propag. Ornam. Plants 2015, 15, 147–153. [Google Scholar]
  79. Zhang, L.; Wang, S.; Guo, W.; Zhang, Y.; Shan, W.; Wang, K. Effect of Indole-3-Butyric Acid and rooting substrates on rooting response of hardwood cuttings of Rhododendron fortune Lindl. Propag. Ornam. Plants 2015, 15, 79–86. [Google Scholar]
  80. Kaviani, B.; Gholami, S. Improvement of Rooting in Forsythia×intermedia Cuttings by Plant Growth Regulators. JOP 2016, 6, 125–131. [Google Scholar]
  81. Sabatino, L.; D’Anna, F.; Iapichino, G. Improved Propagation and Growing Techniques for Oleander Nursery Production. Horticulturae 2019, 5, 55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  82. Kashyap, U.; Chandel, A.; Sharma, D.; Bhardwaj, S.; Bhargava, B. Propagation of Jasminum parkeri: A Critically Endangered Wild Ornamental Woody Shrub from Western Himalaya. Agronomy 2021, 11, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Dick, J.M.; Leakey, R.R.B. Differentiation of the dynamic variables affecting rooting ability in juvenile and mature cuttings of cherry (Prunus avium). J. Hortic. Sci. Biotechnol. 2006, 81, 296–302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Sikorska, A.; Gugała, M.; Zarzecka, K.; Domański, Ł.; Mystkowska, I. Morphological Features of Winter Rape Cultivars Depending on the Applied Growth Stimulators. Agriculture 2022, 12, 1747. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Chanthini, K.M.-P.; Senthil-Nathan, S.; Pavithra, G.-S.; Asahel, A.-S.; Malarvizhi, P.; Murugan, P.; Deva-Andrews, A.; Sivanesh, H.; Stanley-Raja, V.; Ramasubramanian, R.; et al. The Macroalgal Biostimulant Improves the Functional Quality of Tomato Fruits Produced from Plants Grown under Salt Stress. Agriculture 2023, 13, 6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Sujeeth, N.; Petrov, V.; Guinan, K.J.; Rasul, F.; O’Sullivan, J.T.; Gechev, T.S. Current Insights into the Molecular Mode of Action of Seaweed-Based Biostimulants and the Sustainability of Seaweeds as Raw Material Resources. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 7654. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Gomes, E.N.; Vieira, L.M.; Tomasi, J.D.C.; Tomazzoli, M.M.; Grunennvaldt, R.L.; Fagundes, C.D.M.; Machado, R.C.B. Brown seaweed extract enhances rooting and roots growth on Passiflora actinia Hook stem cuttings. Ornam. Hortic. 2018, 24, 269–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  88. Toscano, S.; Ferrante, A.; Branca, F.; Romano, D. Enhancing the Quality of Two Species of Baby Leaves Sprayed with Moringa Leaf Extract as Biostimulant. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kapczyńska, A.; Kowalska, I.; Prokopiuk, B.; Pawłowska, B. Rooting Media and Biostimulator Goteo Treatment Effect the Adventitious Root Formation of Pennisetum ‘Vertigo’ Cuttings and the Quality of the Final Product. Agriculture 2020, 10, 570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nowakowska, K.; Pacholczak, A. Effect of the biopreparation “Goteo” on rooting of Hydrangea stem cuttings (Hydrangea paniculata siebold Limelight and Vanille Freise®Renhy). Propag. Ornam. Plants 2017, 17, 126–133. [Google Scholar]
  91. Salachna, P.; Zawadzinska, A.; Piechocki, R.; Wilas, J. Propagation of arabian star flower (Ornithogalum arabicum L.) by twin scales using seaweed extracts. Folia Pomeranae Univ. Technol. Stetin. 2014, 310, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  92. Aremu, A.O.; Makhaye, G.; Tesfay, S.Z.; Gerrano, A.S.; Du Plooy, C.P.; Amoo, S.O. Influence of Commercial Seaweed Extract and Microbial Biostimulant on Growth, Yield, Phytochemical Content, and Nutritional Quality of Five Abelmoschus esculentus Genotypes. Agronomy 2022, 12, 428. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Makhaye, G.; Aremu, A.O.; Gerrano, A.S.; Tesfay, S.; Du Plooy, C.P.; Amoo, S.O. Biopriming with seaweed extract and microbial-based commercial biostimulants influences seed germination of five Abelmoschus esculentus genotypes. Plants 2021, 10, 1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Pacholczak, A.; Szydło, W.; Jacygrad, E.; Federowicz, M. Effect of auxins and the biostimulator AlgaminoPlant on rhizogenesis in stem cuttings of two dogwood cultivars (Cornus alba ‘Aurea’ and ‘Elegantissima’). Acta Sci. Pol. Hortorum Cultus 2012, 11, 93–103. [Google Scholar]
  95. Rathore, S.; Chaudhary, D.; Boricha, G.; Ghosh, A.; Bhatt, B.; Zodape, S.; Patolia, J. Effect of seaweed extract on the growth, yield and nutrient uptake of soybean (Glycine max) under rainfed conditions. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2009, 75, 351–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  96. Kocira, A.; Lamorska, J.; Kornas, R.; Nowosad, N.; Tomaszewska, M.; Leszczyńska, D.; Kozłowicz, K.; Tabor, S. Changes in biochemistry and yield in response to biostimulants applied in bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.). Agronomy 2020, 10, 189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  97. Caccialupi, G.; Caradonia, F.; Ronga, D.; Ben Hassine, M.; Truzzi, E.; Benvenuti, S.; Francia, E. Plant Biostimulants Increase the Agronomic Performance of Lavandin (Lavandula x intermedia) in Northern Apennine Range. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Quan, J.; Ni, R.; Wang, Y.; Sun, J.; Ma, M.; Bi, H. Effects of Different Growth Regulators on the Rooting of Catalpa bignonioides Softwood Cuttings. Life 2022, 12, 1231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Agriculture 13 00513 g001 550
Figure 1. On the left (a) the production of callous tissue in G2 treated cutting; on the right (b) the adventitious root in R1 treated cutting.
Figure 1. On the left (a) the production of callous tissue in G2 treated cutting; on the right (b) the adventitious root in R1 treated cutting.
Agriculture 13 00513 g001
Agriculture 13 00513 g002 550
Figure 2. Root architecture in P. x fraseri ‘Red Robin’ influenced by application of rooting promoters concentration.
Figure 2. Root architecture in P. x fraseri ‘Red Robin’ influenced by application of rooting promoters concentration.
Agriculture 13 00513 g002
Table
Table 1. Callused, rooted and unrooted cutting (%) at 70 DAC in P. x fraseri ‘Red Robin’ influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
Table 1. Callused, rooted and unrooted cutting (%) at 70 DAC in P. x fraseri ‘Red Robin’ influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
RPC Cuttings (%)
CallusedRootedUnrooted
C066.7 ± 4.2 b0.0 ± 0.0 c33.3 ± 4.2 a
R158.3 ± 4.0 c29.2 ± 3.0 a12.5 ± 0.0 b
K287.5 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 c12.5 ± 0.0 b
K383.3 ± 4.2 a0.0 ± 0.0 c16.7 ± 4.2 b
G283.3 ± 4.2 a0.0± 0.0 c16.7 ± 4.2 b
G383.3 ± 4.2 a16.7 ± 4.2 b0.0 ± 0.0 c
In columns, different letters indicate significant differences within parameters (S.N.K. test, p ≤ 0.05; mean ± SD, n = 3) C0: untreated control; R1: Rhizopon AA (1% IBA); K: Kelpak®; G: Goteo®; K2: 2 mL L−1; K3: 3 mL L−1; G2: 2 mL L−1; G3: 3 mL L−1.
Table
Table 2. Callused and rooted cutting (%) at 100 and 240 DAC in P. x fraseri ‘Red Robin’ influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
Table 2. Callused and rooted cutting (%) at 100 and 240 DAC in P. x fraseri ‘Red Robin’ influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
RPCCuttings (%)
CallusedRooted
100 DAC240 DAC100 DAC240 DAC
C033.0 ± 1.1 a13.7 ± 0.7 bc7.7 ± 0.7 d29.7 ± 1.4 b
R116.0 ± 1.0 d3.3 ± 0.3 e25.0 ± 1.0 a34.3 ± 0.9 a
K230.0 ± 1.0 b18.0 ± 1.1 a12.0 ± 1.0 bc25.0 ± 0.6 c
K329.0 ± 1.0 bc11.3 ± 0.7 cd13.3 ± 1.3 b21.3 ± 0.7 d
G227.3 ± 0.9 c15.3 ± 0.9 b14.3 ± 1.3 b27.0 ± 1.0 bc
G334.0 ± 0.6 a10.3 ± 0.9 d9.0 ± 1.6 cd20.7 ± 0.9 d
In columns, different letters indicate significant differences within parameters (S.N.K. test, p ≤ 0.05; mean ± SD, n = 3) C0: untreated control; R1: Rhizopon AA (1% IBA); K: Kelpak®; G: Goteo®; K2: 2 mL L−1; K3: 3 mL L−1; G2: 2 mL L−1; G3: 3 mL L−1.
Table
Table 3. Cuttings (no.) with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 roots at 240 DAC in P. x fraseri ‘Red Robin’ influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
Table 3. Cuttings (no.) with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6 roots at 240 DAC in P. x fraseri ‘Red Robin’ influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
RPCRooted Cuttings (No.)
1 Root2 Roots3 Roots4 Roots5 Roots6 Roots
C013.7 ± 0.7 a7.0 ± 0.6 a4.3 ± 0.3 b3.7 ± 0.3 a1.0 ± 0.0 b0.0 ± 0.0 c
R17.0 ± 0.6 c7.0 ± 1.0 a8.7 ± 0.3 a4.3 ± 0.3 a3.0 ± 0.6 a4.3 ± 0.3 a
K210.3 ± 0.7 b7.3 ± 0.3 a4.3 ± 0.3 b1.7 ± 0.3 b1.0 ± 0.0 b0.4 ± 0.3 bc
K39.7 ± 0.3 b5.3 ± 0.3 a2.7 ± 0.3 c2.0 ± 0.0 b1.0 ± 0.0 b0.7 ± 0.3 bc
G214.0 ± 0.6 a6.3 ± 0.3 a2.0 ± 0.6 c4.0 ± 0.6 a0.7 ± 0.3 b0.0 ± 0.0 c
G310.4 ± 0.7 b5.7 ± 0.7 a2.3 ± 0.3 c1.3 ± 0.3 b0.0 ± 0.0 b1.3 ± 0.3 b
In columns, different letters indicate significant differences within parameters (S.N.K. test, p ≤ 0.05; mean ± SD, n = 3) C0: untreated control; R1: Rhizopon AA (1% IBA); K: Kelpak®; G: Goteo®; K2: 2 mL L−1; K3: 3 mL L−1; G2: 2 mL L−1; G3: 3 mL L−1.
Table
Table 4. Root morphological traits: roots number (no.), length (mm), surface area (mm2) and average diameter (mm), at 240 DAC in P. x fraseri influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
Table 4. Root morphological traits: roots number (no.), length (mm), surface area (mm2) and average diameter (mm), at 240 DAC in P. x fraseri influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
RPCRoots (No.)Length (mm)Surface Area (mm2)Diameter (mm)
C02.0 ± 0.04 b133.0 ± 1.1 b23.8 ± 0.9 b0.60 ± 0.01 a
R13.1 ± 0.07 a162.1 ± 7.1 a33.9 ± 0.9 a0.73 ± 0.02 a
K22.1 ± 0.10 b54.9 ± 3.0 cd12.5 ± 0.4 c0.67 ± 0.02 a
K32.1 ± 0.05 b51.1 ± 2.3 d11.8 ± 0.6 c0.66 ± 0.01 a
G21.9 ± 0.08 b67.6 ± 4.0 cd14.5 ± 0.1 c0.70 ± 0.02 a
G32.0 ± 0.07 b72.2 ± 7.0 c16.3 ± 0.2 c0.73 ± 0.01 a
In columns, different letters indicate significant differences within parameters (S.N.K. test, p ≤ 0.05; mean ± SD, n = 3) C0: untreated control; R1: Rhizopon AA (1% IBA); K: Kelpak®; G: Goteo®; K2: 2 mL L−1; K3: 3 mL L−1; G2: 2 mL L−1; G3: 3 mL L−1.
Table
Table 5. Root morphological traits: root tips (no.), forks (no.) and crossing (no.), at 240 DAC in P. x fraseri influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
Table 5. Root morphological traits: root tips (no.), forks (no.) and crossing (no.), at 240 DAC in P. x fraseri influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
RPCRoot
Tips (No.)Forks (No.)Crossings (No.)
C0330 ± 7.0 b755 ± 12.5 b99 ± 1.8 b
R1677 ± 5.6 a1215 ± 7.7 a114 ± 3.8 a
K2217 ± 1.1 c326 ± 6.3 e25 ± 1.1 e
K3225 ± 6.7 c298 ± 5.5 e30 ± 1.5 e
G2226 ± 3.8 c459 ± 7.9 d38 ± 0.6 d
G3340 ± 8.7 b621 ± 13.3 c49 ± 1.7 c
In columns, different letters indicate significant differences within parameters (S.N.K. test, p ≤ 0.05; mean ± SD, n = 3) C0: untreated control; R1: Rhizopon AA (1% IBA); K: Kelpak®; G: Goteo®; K2: 2 mL L−1; K3: 3 mL L−1; G2: 2 mL L−1; G3: 3 mL L−1.
Table
Table 6. Ground fresh and dry weights (g) per cutting, at 240 DAC in P. x fraseri influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
Table 6. Ground fresh and dry weights (g) per cutting, at 240 DAC in P. x fraseri influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
RPCGround Weights (g)
FreshDry
C00.81 ± 0.07 ab0.25 ± 0.09 b
R10.97 ± 0.02 a0.35 ± 0.01 a
K20.47 ± 0.02 c0.15 ± 0.01 c
K30.72 ± 0.02 b0.23 ± 0.01 b
G20.81 ± 0.07 ab0.24 ± 0.01 b
G30.65 ± 0.03 b0.18 ± 0.01 c
In columns, different letters indicate significant differences within parameters (S.N.K. test, p ≤ 0.05; mean ± SD, n = 3) C0: untreated control; R1: Rhizopon AA (1% IBA); K: Kelpak®; G: Goteo®; K2: 2 mL L−1; K3: 3 mL L−1; G2: 2 mL L−1; G3: 3 mL L−1.
Table
Table 7. Above-ground morpho-biometric traits: leaves per cutting (no.), leaf area (mm2) and chlorophyll index (SPAD), at 240 DAC in P. x fraseri influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
Table 7. Above-ground morpho-biometric traits: leaves per cutting (no.), leaf area (mm2) and chlorophyll index (SPAD), at 240 DAC in P. x fraseri influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
RPCLeaves per Cutting
(No.)		Chlorophyll Index (SPAD)Leaf Area per Cutting (cm2)
C03.7 ± 0.7 a570 ± 13.7 a22.0 ± 1.2 b
R14.7 ± 0.3 a530 ± 11.9 a27.9 ± 0.8 a
K23.3 ± 0.3 a533 ± 15.0 a18.1 ± 0.3 c
K34.0 ± 0.6 a554 ± 2.91 a21.9 ± 0.9 b
G23.3 ± 0.3 a529 ± 20.4 a18.4 ± 0.4 c
G34.0 ± 0.6 a582 ± 11.6 a22.3 ± 1.4 b
In columns, different letters indicate significant differences within parameters (S.N.K. test, p ≤ 0.05; mean ± SD, n = 3) C0: untreated control; R1: Rhizopon AA (1% IBA); K: Kelpak®; G: Goteo®; K2: 2 mL L−1; K3: 3 mL L−1; G2: 2 mL L−1; G3: 3 mL L−1.
Table
Table 8. Aboveground fresh and dry weights (g) per cutting, at 240 DAC in P. x fraseri influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
Table 8. Aboveground fresh and dry weights (g) per cutting, at 240 DAC in P. x fraseri influenced by rooting promoters concentration (RPC).
RPCAbove-Ground Weights (g)
FreshDry
C01.11 ± 0.14 a0.40 ± 0.09 b
R11.29 ± 0.13 a0.47 ± 0.11 a
K20.99 ± 0.11 a0.35 ± 0.04 bc
K31.11 ± 0.09 a0.39 ± 0.08 b
G20.96 ± 0.08 a0.33 ± 0.08 c
G31.04 ± 0.06 a0.35 ± 0.03 bc
In columns, different letters indicate significant differences within parameters (S.N.K. test, p ≤ 0.05; mean ± SD, n = 3) C0: untreated control; R1: Rhizopon AA (1% IBA); K: Kelpak®; G: Goteo®; K2: 2 mL L−1; K3: 3 mL L−1; G2: 2 mL L−1; G3: 3 mL L−1.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Loconsole, D.; Sdao, A.E.; Cristiano, G.; De Lucia, B. Different Responses to Adventitious Rhizogenesis under Indole-3-Butyric Acid and Seaweed Extracts in Ornamental’s Cuttings: First Results in Photinia x fraseri ‘Red Robin’. Agriculture 2023, 13, 513. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030513

AMA Style

Loconsole D, Sdao AE, Cristiano G, De Lucia B. Different Responses to Adventitious Rhizogenesis under Indole-3-Butyric Acid and Seaweed Extracts in Ornamental’s Cuttings: First Results in Photinia x fraseri ‘Red Robin’. Agriculture. 2023; 13(3):513. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030513

Chicago/Turabian Style

Loconsole, Danilo, Anna Elisa Sdao, Giuseppe Cristiano, and Barbara De Lucia. 2023. "Different Responses to Adventitious Rhizogenesis under Indole-3-Butyric Acid and Seaweed Extracts in Ornamental’s Cuttings: First Results in Photinia x fraseri ‘Red Robin’" Agriculture 13, no. 3: 513. https://doi.org/10.3390/agriculture13030513

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop