Yale University

although the best performance was obtained ~y tne treated plants receiving 50% of fertIlizer. The best treatment for all the variables was the low fertilizer rate plus ROOTS® as can be observed in Table 2. Plotting all the biomnass variables against plant ‘total weight, the regression analysis showed that the best fit was for shoot weight with a R—squared 0.977, followed by leaf weight with a R—squared 0.919 (Figures 2 to 4). Plotting against leaf weight, which is an easy to measure variable, the best fit was for shoot weight (R2=0.97). -It is evident that having changed the heigth and the number of leaves also changed the plastochron index in the low fertilized ROOTS® treated plants. The ways in which a leaf adapts to changes as a response to a tretnient can be expressed at several different levels of the leaf’s organization. For instance, a treatment given to the plant might affect both the size and especific activity of its photosynthetic apparatus. Essentially, the size of the leaf’s photosyntheitc apparatus is priiarilly determined during growth and development, but the arrangement of the same unit could be different. So, specific leaf area (leaf area per unit of leaf weight) or specific weight area (weight area per unit of leaf area) might be better indicators than leaf weight. As shown in Table 2~ both variables- were significantly responsive to treatments. Although the full fertilized control showed plants similar tothose of half fertilizer treated with ROOTS®, the later were- greener in appearance and in chlorophyll content as shown in Table 3. The fact that the high fertilizer plus RQOTS® showed no differences in the values of. chlorophyll content with the plants with low fertilizer plus ROOTS® did not mean more growth. The full fertilizer plus ROOTS® produced smaller, thicker, and. denser leaves. This appeared similar to a halophitic response in leaf morphology. The burn symptoms on the leaves are another indication of excess salt concentration. Carbon allocation to different plant parts are presented in Table 4. It is concluded that more carbon is allocated to root and stem in the low fertilizer plus ROOTS®’~ treatment éompared with the highly fertilized control. Cacco and Civelli (1973) hypothesized that the effect on root~ growth could be due to influences of HA on the ion transport system in the roots. On the other hand, Vaughamn (1974) attributed the effect on root growth to an action of HA on cell elongation. Additional research in tissue culture with the, isolated components might be interesting because it’ would permit to elucidate the effects and the interaction of these physiologically active substances.

although the best performance was obtained ~y tne treated plants receiving 50% of fertIlizer.

The best treatment for all the variables was the low fertilizer rate plus ROOTS® as can be observed in Table 2.

Plotting all the biomnass variables against plant ‘total weight, the regression analysis showed that the best fit was for shoot weight with a R—squared 0.977, followed by leaf weight with a R—squared 0.919 (Figures 2 to 4). Plotting against leaf weight, which is an easy to measure variable, the best fit was for shoot weight (R2=0.97).

-It is evident that having changed the heigth and the number of leaves also changed the plastochron index in the low fertilized ROOTS® treated plants.

The ways in which a leaf adapts to changes as a response to a tretnient can be expressed at several different levels of the leaf’s organization. For instance, a treatment given to the plant might affect both the size and especific activity of its photosynthetic apparatus. Essentially, the size of the leaf’s photosyntheitc apparatus is priiarilly determined during growth and development, but the arrangement of the same unit could be different. So, specific leaf area (leaf area per unit of leaf weight) or specific weight area (weight area per unit of leaf area) might be better indicators than leaf weight. As shown in Table 2~ both variables- were significantly responsive to treatments.

Although the full fertilized control showed plants similar tothose of half fertilizer treated with ROOTS®, the later were- greener in appearance and in chlorophyll content as shown in Table 3. The fact that the high fertilizer plus RQOTS® showed no differences in the values of. chlorophyll content with the plants with low fertilizer plus ROOTS® did not mean more growth. The full fertilizer plus ROOTS® produced smaller, thicker, and. denser leaves. This appeared similar to a halophitic response in leaf morphology. The burn symptoms on the leaves are another indication of excess salt concentration.

Carbon allocation to different plant parts are presented in Table 4. It is concluded that more carbon is allocated to root and stem in the low fertilizer plus ROOTS®’~ treatment éompared with the highly fertilized control. Cacco and Civelli (1973) hypothesized that the effect on root~ growth could be due to influences of HA on the ion transport system in the roots. On the other hand, Vaughamn (1974) attributed the effect on root growth to an action of HA on cell elongation. Additional research in tissue culture with the, isolated components might be interesting because it’ would permit to elucidate the effects and the interaction of these physiologically active substances.