Potato seed from meristem plants using EVIKA multiplication methods

Figures & data

Table I. Average temperature, precipitation, and total radiation for the period June–August at the experimental site in Saku.

	Mean temperatures (°C)			Precipitation (mm)			Total radiation (MJ m^–2 s^–1)
Month	2005	2006	2007	2005	2006	2007	2005	2006	2007
June	13.6	15.6	15.1	46.6	22.0	22.4	629	675	666
July	17.8	18.3	16.5	51.4	21.4	86.6	623	719	558
August	15.7	17.3	17.3	125.4	51.6	77.0	430	464	533
September	12.4	13.7	11.1	22.2	29.7	71.2	310	307	292
Average	14.9	16.2	15.0
Total				245.6	124.7	257.2	1992	2165	2049

Figure 1.  The number of tubers per plant in 2005 (a), 2006 (b), and 2007 (c), plotted as a moving average over three sample times (over two in the case of the first and the last dates). Multiplication methods: MP – micro plants raised in vitro; TC – tip cuttings; SC – stem cuttings; TP – truncated plants.

Table II. Final differences in examined indicators between plants raised in vitro and those raised from other multiplication methods

		Differences from in vitro micro plants
Year	In vitro micro plants	Tip cuttings	Stem cuttings	Truncated plants
Number of tubers per plant
2005	7.4	−3.2	−2.9	−1.0
2006	5.9	−1.6	−1.6	−1.2
2007	10.2	−6.0	−4.0	−4.2
Average weight of tubers (g)
2005	50.2	102.9	81.8	36.6
2006	45.0	42.5	59.4	32.9
2007	57.8	103.8	46.9	58.9

Figure 2.  Average weight of a tuber in 2005 (a), 2006 (b), and 2007 (c), plotted as a moving average over three sample times (over two in the case of the first and the last dates). Multiplication methods: MP – micro plants raised in vitro; TC – tip cuttings; SC – stem cuttings; TP – truncated plants.

Figure 3.  Differences between multiplication methods in the number of tubers per plant (a) and average weight of a tuber (b) determined relative to in vitro micro plants multiplication method over three experimental years and two varieties. Multiplication methods: MP – micro plants raised in vitro; TC – tip cuttings; SC – stem cuttings; TP – truncated plants. Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between multiplication methods. Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals.

Figure 4.  Differences between years in relative number of tubers per plant (a) and average weight of tuber (b), calculated relative to micro plants raised in vitro (MP), over all multiplication methods and two varieties. Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between years. Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals.

Figure 5.  Differences in the number of tubers per plant (a) and average weight of tubers (b) calculated relative to micro plants in vitro (MP) and averaged over different years and multiplication methods, depending on the variety. Different letters indicate significant differences (p < 0.05) between varieties. Vertical bars denote 0.95 confidence intervals.