Next Article in Journal
Warm and Wet Autumns Favour Yield Losses of Oilseed Rape Caused by Phoma Stem Canker
Next Article in Special Issue
Cultivar and Phenological Stage Effects on the Success of In Vitro Meristem Culture and GLRaV-3 Elimination of Croatian Autochthonous Grapevine Cultivars
Previous Article in Journal
Plant Growth-Promoting Bacteria as Bioinoculants: Attributes and Challenges for Sustainable Crop Improvement
Previous Article in Special Issue
Threatened Woody Plants of Georgia and Micropropagation as a Tool for In Vitro Conservation
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 11
Issue 6
10.3390/agronomy11061169
agronomy-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

Micropropagation Supports Reintroduction of an Apulian Artichoke Landrace in Sustainable Cropping Systems

by
Simona Ancona
1,
Giuseppe De Mastro
1,
Maria M. Jenderek
2 and
Claudia Ruta
1,*
1
Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science, Università degli Studi di Bari Aldo Moro, via Amendola 165/a, 70125 Bari, Italy
2
National Laboratory for Genetic Resources Preservation, USDA, ARS, Fort Collins, CO 80521, USA
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Agronomy 2021, 11(6), 1169; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061169
Submission received: 22 April 2021 / Revised: 3 June 2021 / Accepted: 4 June 2021 / Published: 8 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue New Frontiers in Micropropagation)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Artichoke (Cynara cardunculus L. var. scolymus (L.) Fiori) is a perennial plant of the Asteraceae’s family native to the Mediterranean basin. Italy has rich artichoke biodiversity, but many landraces are subjected to genetic erosion caused by increasing use of commercial varieties that are more homogenous in production. An Apulian landrace ‘Troianella’ was established in vitro to valorize and provide high-quality material for propagation in nurseries and, subsequently, for cultivation in production fields. The shoot proliferation was tested on four different growth media, adding cytokinin (-6-benzylamminopurine (BAP-0.05 mg L−1). Among these, the best results were achieved on MS519-A and BM media in which MS macronutrients were supplemented with additional doses of CaCl2 and MgSO4 (plus 120 mg L−1 and 190 mg L−1, respectively). In vitro root induction was obtained with 10 mg L−1 of Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) and 30 g L−1 of sucrose. Plants derived from tissue culture were acclimatized in greenhouse using mycorrhizal symbiosis to increase survival during the acclimatization phase and to improve their performance after transplanting in field. Three arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi (Septoglomus viscosum, Funelliformis mosseae, and Symbivit, a commercial mix) were added to a sterile substrate and compared to a sterile control without any AM fungal inocula. After 3 months, the best growth and plant appearance were on substrates with S. viscosum fungus or the commercial mycorrhizal fungi mix. The results supported a development of an efficient micropropagation protocol and a production of high quality plant material for sustainable farming of the endangered ’Troianella’ landrace.

1. Introduction

Artichoke (Cynara cardunculus L. var. scolymus (L.) Fiori) is a perennial plant of the Asteraceae’s family, mainly used for consumption of its edible immature flower heads. Of interest are also the leaves, stems, and roots for possible uses in dietary and pharmaceutical products due to their bioactive compounds, such as inulin from the roots, oil for biodiesel production from the seeds, as well as energy from plant biomass [1]. It is native to the Mediterranean basin, where Italy and Spain are the world’s leading producers, followed by Egypt [2]. In Italy, its production is important for the economy and social development, especially in the South districts and the Puglia region, traditionally rich in artichoke biodiversity. During recent years, the use of few commercial varieties, more productive and homogenous, increased genetic erosion of the landraces and globe artichoke was included in the regional list as one of the vegetable species recognized at risk of genetic depletion [3]. The key role of agrobiodiversity to support modern agriculture is universally recognized [4]. In this context, the exploitation of artichoke biodiversity can be fundamental for maintaining and increasing food security [5] and improving the varietal range enhancing of the local germplasm. The reintroduction of the landraces in the modern cultivation should be considered under different points of view aiming improvement of the cropping system sustainability under low inputs [6]. Indeed, the starting point is a production of high quality propagative plant material to be transferred in the field.
Typically, the artichoke landraces are propagated vegetatively by offshoots (basal shoots), underground dormant axillary buds (commonly called “ovoli”) or by a division of mature plants. The effectiveness of these propagation techniques can be very limited if not performed in nurseries producing artichoke plantlets [7].
To increase the number of produced plants maintaining a sanitary status, the nursery sector depends more and more on a tissue culture propagation system. In vitro cloning of artichoke tissue culture is the key to a rapid, large, and homogenous propagation of material on a mass scale, in limited space, producing healthy and genetically uniform plants [8,9]. Once the material is micropropagated to the desired level and established ex vitro, the nursery might produce plants fast and in a sustainable way using mycorrhizal infection of the roots. The mycorrhiza (from Greek μύκης mýkēs, “fungus”, and ῥίζα rhiza, “root”) is a symbiotic association between a fungus and the roots of a vascular host plant. The fungus colonizes the plant’s root system either intracellularly as in arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungi, or extracellularly in ectomycorrhizal fungi [10]. The former is mainly used in nurseries, providing a prompt mutualistic association that is maintained by the plants even after transplantation in the field [11]. The fungus has constant and direct access to carbohydrates, such as glucose and sucrose, from the plant, while the plants benefit from the mycelium’s higher absorptive capacity for water and mineral nutrients. This happens partly due to the large surface area of fungal hyphae, which are much longer and finer than plant root hairs, and partly as such fungi can mobilize minerals unavailable to the plant’s roots from the soil [11,12]. Thus, the effect improves the plant mineral absorption capabilities, so mycorrhizas play essential roles in soil biology and soil chemistry [13]. Another role of the mycorrhiza could be a competition with fungal diseases due to the fungi mutualistic association; in artichoke, e.g., with Verticilium dahalie, [14]. The advantages of the symbiosis are also in improving the productivity and quality of field crops [15], that is particularly visible in artichoke [9,16].
The objective of the study was to establish an efficient propagation protocol using in vitro culture and arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis for ‘Troianella’ landrace that is a typical spring artichoke from the countryside of Troia (Foggia province) located in the North of the Puglia region in Italy. This local variety is endangered; today only a few plants are maintained in old family farms for its organoleptic characteristics. The technology may enhance the autochthonous genetic resource of the ‘Troianella’ landrace and supply high quality plants to nurseries, making the artichoke production chain modern and sustainable.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Introduction of Explants in In Vitro Culture

During the spring, selected offshoots of the ‘Troianella’ landrace (Cynara cardunculus L. var. scolymus (L.) Fiori) were taken from a field in the Troia countryside (41°21′51; 15°19′2 E) (Puglia Region, Italy), where the landrace was maintained in situ, to initiate in vitro tissue culture.
The offshoots were cleaned from residual soil, reduced to 7 mm, and surface sterilized (Figure 1). Shoot tips were washed under running water for a few minutes, sterilized under laminar flow hood in 70% (v/v) ethyl alcohol for 30 seconds, and then rinsed with sterile distilled water. Sterilization continued with 0.05% (w/v) mercuric chloride (HgCl2) solution for 15 min followed by four rinses in sterile distilled water. The cultures were initiated on a basal medium (BM: Murashige and Skoog (MS) [17] macro nutrients modified, Nitsch and Nitsch (NN) [18] micro nutrients, FeNaEDTA (40 mg L−1), thiamine HCl (0.4 mg L−1) (Table 1)) enriched with sucrose (20 g L−1), agar (7 g L−1), N6-(2-Isopentenyl) adenine (2iP 1 mg L−1), Indole-3-acetic acid (IAA 1 mg L−1) and Gibberellic acid (GA3 0.025 mg L−1) [19].
After 3 weeks, plantlets were ready for induction to proliferation (Figure 2).
Four growth media were tested (Table 1):
  • BM, regularly used at the Laboratory of Micropropagation and Microscopy-Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science-University of Bari Aldo Moro (Puglia, Italy), for routine culture produced by stocks [19];
  • Linsmaier & Skoog Modified Basal Medium (commercial product LS452-PhytoTech Labs, Inc. 14610 W. 106th St, Lenexa KS 66215) [20];
  • Murashige and Skoog basal medium (commercial product MS519-PhytoTech Labs, Inc. 14610 W. 106th St, Lenexa KS 66215) [17];
  • MS519 modified by the authors increasing calcium chloride and magnesium sulphate content (plus 120 mg L−1 and 190 mg L−1 respectively) and named by the authors MS519-A (A as artichoke).
These three last media were chosen based on some similarities to the BM medium. All the media were enriched with 6-benzylamminopurine (BAP 0.05 mg L−1), and agar (7 g L−1 (Agar No. 1) Oxoid Agar Bacteriological). Sucrose (20 g L−1) was added to BM, MS519 and MS519-A while LS452 already included sucrose (30 g L−1).
The multiplication was implemented with three subcultures each lasting 3 weeks. At the end of each subculture, the length of the shoots, including the leaves, and the number of newly formed axillary shoots was observed on each growth media.
The pH of the media was adjusted to 5.6–5.8 before to autoclaving. During the trial, artichoke explants were maintained in a growth chamber at 22 ± 1 °C with a photoperiod of 16 h light under a light intensity of 50 µE s−1 m−2.

2.2. Rooting and Acclimatization with Mycorrhizal Fungi Inoculation

After three micropropagation cycles, 1000 shoots were transferred to solidified BM rooting induction medium with a higher sucrose concentration (30 g L−1) and supplemented with IAA 10 mg L−1 [19].
During the root induction, artichoke shoots were maintained in a growth chamber with similar parameters used for shoot proliferation (22 ± 1 °C with a photoperiod of 16 h light under a light intensity of 50 µE s−1 m−2). After 5 weeks, a sample of 200 rooted microplants (Figure 3) was transplanted in a climatic greenhouse at the Department of Agricultural and Environmental Science-University of Bari Aldo Moro, Puglia, Italy (41°7′31″ N, 16°52′0″ E).
Acclimatization conditions in the greenhouse were 18–25 °C and a reduced humidity from 85–90% to 50–60% for over 20 days. At the time of transplanting to the greenhouse, roots were inoculated with different arbuscular mycorrhizal (AM) fungus species: Septoglomus viscosum (syn. Glomus viscosum) (H.T. Nicolson) C. Walker, D. Redecker, Stiller and A. Schüßler, Funelliformis mosseae (syn. Glomus mosseae) (T.H. Nicolson and Gerd.) C. Walker and A. Schüßler, and a commercial mix of mycorrhizas (Symbivit purchased from MYBATEC srl-Novara-Italy) consisting of six species of Glomus fungi (G. etunicatum, G. microaggregatum, G. intraradices, G. claroideum, G. mosseae, and G. geosporum). The plants were then transplanted in organic Jiffypots® square planting pots (8 cm2) filled with a substrate composed of sterile peat (46% organic carbon, 1–2% organic nitrogen, and 80% organic matter; pH 6.5) and perlite (2:1, v/v ratio). For each pot, about 300 spores of S. viscosum (30 g), F. mosseae (30 g), or Symbivit (3 g) were distributed immediately below the roots [21] (Figure 4). For this experiment, 50 plants for each mycorrhizal treatment were used, while 50 plants not inoculated were used as control.
Before transplanting the rooted plantlets, pure inocula of S. viscosum and F. mosseae were multiplied on onion (Allium cepa L.) plants selected as a host crop due to their high mycotrophy, according to Dalpè and Monreal [22]. These inocula contained sand, soil, spores, external mycelium, and infected root fragments.
To evaluate the mycorrhizal effect, the substrate was sterilized before transplanting, and only tap water was used to keep the substrate moist.
At the time of planting in a greenhouse, and after 3 months from this time, the length and the number of the leaves and the root length were measured. At this time, survival (percent) of plants, ratio between root and leaf total length (calculated as sum of the length of the leaves) and mycorrhizal colonization were also evaluated.

2.3. Evaluation of the Mycorrhizal Infection

After 1 month of acclimatization in the greenhouse, mycorrhizal plants, originating from the in vitro culture and inoculated with three AM fungi, were progressively transferred outside. Plants from the peat pots were transplanted to bigger pots (28 cm × 28 cm) (Figure 5). The pots were filled with new peat and inert soil to reach the pot volume. Outside, the plants were evaluated for biometrical parameters at 1 and 3 months.
After 3 months, plants were transplanted from the pots to the field. At the transplanting time, samples of roots from control and for each mycorrhizal treatment were evaluated for a colonization index. Roots from each treatment were cleaned from residual soil under running water, treated with a base (KOH 10%) in warm water for 10 min, and then exposed to an acid (HCl 3%) for 5 min. At this point roots were stained with Trypan Blue 0.05% in lactic acid. The staining with Trypan Blue was performed in warm water for 2 min, then roots were washed with clean lactic acid and stored at 4 °C in the dark [23] (Figure 6a). The following day, in order to evaluate the colonization rate (expressed in percentage), roots from each mycorrhizal treatment were cut into 100 samples, 10 per slide, each 1 cm long (Figure 6b), and checked under a microscope (Leica DMLB100, Milan, Italy) equipped with an imaging system program (X-PRO Analysis Image X-Pro analytical software (Alexasoft, Florence, Italy) designed to optimize image capture with Nikon DXM 1200 Digital Camera (Tokyo, Japan).

2.4. Statistical Analysis

Data were subjected to analysis of variance (ANOVA), using the CoStat software. The Student Newman Keuls (SNK) test (p ≤ 0.001) was used to compare the means of the different treatments. Before ANOVA analysis, percentage data were subjected to the angular transformation.

3. Results

3.1. Introduction of Explants in In Vitro Culture

The percentage of surviving shoot tips after the sterilization and establishment in the in vitro condition during 3 weeks was 70%.
Shoot proliferation on MS519, MS519-A, and LS452, in comparison to the BM medium used as a control, was performed in 3 week cycles, and three subcultures were considered for each medium. No significant differences were observed in the length of shoots between the control (BM medium) and the other three proliferation media. The higher shoot number was observed on the MS519-A medium; however, the value was not significantly different from the control (BM). The recorded number of shoots grown on the two other media (MS519 and LS452) was significantly lower than in the MS519-A and the control media (Figure 7).

3.2. Rooting

Rooting of shoots on BM medium with IAA 10 mg L−1 and sucrose 30 g L−1 was linear over time. At 4 weeks, 61.5% of cultures were rooted (Figure 8).
Observations on the rooting induction showed that 31% of the plantlets already had roots after 2 weeks (Figure 8). The number of the rooted plants doubled after the next 2 weeks (61.5%) (Figure 8). Plants were cultivated additional 15 days for root elongation.
At the time of planting in a greenhouse, the average length of transplants was approximately 8 cm, with 8.5 leaves, and a total root length of approximately 4.5 cm.
Data for the percentage of survival and the biometric parameters (length of leaves, number of leaves, length of roots, ratio between root and leaf length, and mycorrhizal colonization rate) were taken at 3 months (Table 2).
Significant differences between the mycorrhizal treatments in terms of number of leaves were observed, while a significant positive effect of mycorrhiza on the plant growth was visible in the length of the leaves. The best results were observed with S. viscosum and the commercial mix (more than 15.00 cm longer than control) followed by F. mosseae.
After 3 months of inoculation S. viscosum seemed to induce also the highest length of the roots, reaching about 104.00 cm, but not significantly different from the root length inoculated with the commercial mix (89.53 cm), while lower values were observed for F. mosseae and the control (61.86 and 35.73 cm, respectively). It is interesting to underline that the symbiosis between ‘Troianella’ roots and S. viscosum resulted in a length three times longer than in the control. The ratio root/leaf length confirmed the increase in the roots due to the S. viscosum infection. On the other hand, even with differences in absolute values, the ratio root/leaf length remained almost constant in all the treatments.
The highest mycorrhiza colonization rate in root samples was observed for S. viscosum and the commercial mix (90% of roots with hyphae colonization) (Figure 9; Table 2); however, the rate was not statistically different between the three inoculates.
The positive role of mycorrhizal symbiosis on the growth of ‘Troianella’ artichoke plantlets was validated by the high percentage of colonization evaluated by the root analyses (Table 2).

4. Discussion

The disadvantages of conventional propagation methods have highly constrained the development of effective procedures for producing artichoke plantlets in nurseries. The application of the micropropagation technique for its large-scale propagation has been extensively utilized from the beginning of 1980 [24,25], being the most promising way to overcome these limits.
In recent years, there have been several varieties of globe artichoke multiplied by micropropagation from commercial laboratories; nevertheless, there are still many studies regarding the different steps of artichoke micropropagation.
Based on the previous experiences raised on the in vitro culture of autumn artichoke varieties [19], in this study a protocol in sustaining the micropropagation of the ‘Troianella’ spring landrace was tested.
As suggested by Harbaoui and Debergh [26], adding a mix of growth regulators (IAA, 2ip, and GA3) to the nutrient medium in the first phase, to establish the in vitro conditions, allowed us to obtain elongated explants very suitable and very reactive to the in vitro multiplication. A very low concentration of cytokinin (BAP 0.05 mg L−1) was sufficient to raise a mean of 5–6 shoots for each subculture, avoiding the formation of adventitious buds that could be expression of somaclonal variation. This becomes highly significant when considering the reintroduction of endangered plants.
During the multiplication cycles, corresponding to the most extended phase of in vitro culture, three different growth media (MS519, MS519-A, and LS452) were tested as an alternative to the BM, already successfully used on several autumn Apulian landraces [9,19,27]. Among them, the most effective for the shoot proliferation index was MS519-A, despite the fact that the results obtained with BM were not statistically different. With the increase in the amount of calcium chloride and magnesium sulfate, MS519-A has the same concentration of the macroelements of BM, which in turn is different from the two commercial growth media tested (MS519 and LS452).
However, the most difficulties underlined by researchers for applying micropropagation to the artichoke arise during the root induction, strictly depending on the different genotypes, where the rooting percentage may range from 1 to 92% [28,29,30].
In order to improve in vitro artichoke rooting, various investigations were done on the use of different types and concentrations of growth regulators [26,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36], the addition of supplements such as activated charcoal [36,37,38], cyclodextrin [39], or pretreatments (darkness, two-phase) [30] have been carried out. In the present research, such as already tested in several different artichoke genotypes [9,19,40,41], the addition of IAA at high concentration (10 mg L−1), in combination with the increase in sucrose concentration from 20 to 30 g L−1 allowed us to achieve a satisfactory percentage of rooting and a root system characterized by a strong root length of 4.5 cm at the moment of plantlet transplanting into greenhouse. The same concentration of IAA was also applied to induce rooting by Ozsan and Onus [38,42] on open-pollinated cultivars and F1 hybrids and Tavazza et al. [43] on cv. Spinoso Sardo.
Moreover, through mycorrhizal inoculation with S. viscosum and the commercial mix, the percentage of survival in a greenhouse was very high. The acclimatization phase of micropropagated artichoke plantlets is particularly stressful [39,44]. The success of this phase strictly depends on the quality of the material coming from the in vitro culture in terms of well-developed plants (3–4 cm in height) than with a good root system. In this research, the well-developed and rooted plantlets were also supported by AM fungi inocula. Concerning ex vitro survival, all the mycorrhizal treatments showed higher ex vitro survival than the control plantlets, which is in line with earlier findings [45,46,47]. Adding AM fungi during the acclimatization stage of micropropagation enhances the growth and development of micropropagated plantlets [48,49]. The AM fungi help the host plants to overcome transplanting stress, ensuring greater survival, better development of the roots, and a more rapid growth, due to the improvement of the nutrient uptake, the water conducting capacity, and photosynthetic rates, as well as protecting the plant from root diseases [50]. In this study, among the different treatments, S. viscosum and the commercial mix were found to sustain ex vitro establishment more than F. mosseae (Table 2). The positive effect of the pure mycorrhizal inoculum S. viscosum on the growth of the leaves and the roots of ‘Troianella‘ landrace, measured after 3 months, was in agreement with previous research on ‘Catanese’ landrace [19,27]. At the same time, the good results obtained using commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculants in promoting mycorrhizal colonization and in increasing plant growth during the phase of acclimatization in nursery conditions confirmed the effectiveness of these products readily available on the market, as reported from previous studies on other cultivars [51,52]. This aspect is particularly interesting considering that, although AM fungi do not have a strict host specificity, fungus and plant can show a functional specificity that influences the symbiotic interaction [53]. Therefore, to find the affinity between commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculants and this species may be a great opportunity to raise higher productivity from the reintroduction of artichoke landraces under a sustainable cropping system.

5. Conclusions

The present study was aimed to evaluate the possibility of reintroducing the endangered Apulian artichoke ’Troianella‘ in a sustainable cropping system. For this purpose, it was very important to both increase the number of high-quality plantlets through micropropagation technique, and to evaluate the effectiveness of AM fungi in ensuring a higher survival, better development of the roots, a rapid growth during the acclimatization stage, and supporting the subsequent sustainable cultivation in the field.
The results obtained showed a good response of ‘Troianella’ landrace to the in vitro culture. The comparison among different growth media tested revealed that, using the same cytokinin in a very low concentration (BAP 0.05 mg L−1), they could influence the shoot multiplication rate. In this study, the most effective for the shoot proliferation index was MS519-A, despite the fact that the results obtained with BM were not statistically different. Mycorrhizal inoculation of the rooted plantlets at the time of transplanting in the greenhouse confirmed its effectiveness for obtaining high-quality nursery plant materials in comparison with the non-inoculated plants. Among the three inoculants tested, the most effective ones were the pure inoculum S. viscosum and the commercial mix Symbivit.
In conclusion, the micropropagation technique, combined with mycorrhizal symbiosis, can support the reintroduction of the ’Troianella‘ artichoke under a sustainable cropping system. Further research will focus on the evaluation of the agronomic behavior of the multiplied clones and developing a possible selection program to increase the productivity of this landrace.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.D.M. and C.R.; data curation S.A., M.M.J., C.R., and G.D.M.; investigation, S.A. and C.R.; project administration, G.D.M. and C.R.; resources, S.A., C.R., and G.D.M.; supervision, G.D.M.; validation, C.R., M.M.J., and G.D.M.; writing—original draft, S.A., C.R., and M.M.J.; writing—review and editing, S.A., C.R., M.M.J., and G.D.M. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by Regione Puglia—Avviso pubblico per la presentazione di proposte di Ricerca e Sperimentazione in Agricoltura indetto con determinazione del Dirigente del Servizio Agricoltura n. 175/Agr del 15/04/2013—Project “Risorse a basso ambientale e sistemi colturali innovativi nei processi produttivi della filiera regionale del carciofo rifiorente” (RICAR).

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. De Falco, B.; Incerti, G.; Amato, M.; Lanzotti, V. Artichoke: Botanical, agronomical, phytochemical, and pharmacological overview. Phytochem. Rev. 2015, 14, 993–1018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. FAO STAT 2019. Available online: http://faostat.fao.org (accessed on 26 January 2021).
  3. Spanò, R.; Bottalico, G.; Corrado, A.; Campanale, A.; Di Franco, A.; Mascia, T. A Protocol for Producing Virus-Free Artichoke Genetic Resources for Conservation, Breeding, and Production. Agriculture 2018, 8, 36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Duelli, P. Concepts of multifunctional agriculture and functional biodiversity. In Bio-Diversity Serving Agriculture; Biala, K., Paracchini, M.L., Terres, J.M., Pointereau, P., Pezet, J., Eds.; Institute for Environment and Sustainability: Ispra, Italy, 2006; p. 44. [Google Scholar]
  5. Pavan, S.; Curci, P.; Zuluaga, D.; Blanco, E.; Sonnante, G. Genotyping-by-sequencing highlights patterns of genetic structure and domestication in artichoke and cardoon. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0205988. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Costanzo, A.; Bàrberi, P. Functional agrobiodiversity and agroecosystem services in sustainable wheat production. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2014, 34, 327–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  7. Mauromicale, G.; Licandro, P.; Ierna, A.; Morello, N.; Santoiemma, G. Planning of Globe Artichoke Plantlets Production in Nursery. Acta Hortic. 2005, 660, 279–284. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Bekheet, S.A. In vitro Preservation of Globe Artichoke Germplasm. Plant Tissue Cult. Biotechnol. 2007, 17, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Ruta, C.; Tagarelli, A.; Campanelli, A.; De Mastro, G. Field performance of micropropagated and mycorrhizal early globe artichoke plants. Eur. J. Agron. 2018, 99, 13–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Martin, F.M.; Perotto, S.; Bonfante, P. Mycorrhizal Fungi: A fungal community at the interface between soil and roots. In The Rhizosphere: Biochemistry and Organic Substances at the Soil-Plant Interface; Pinton, R., Varanini, Z., Nannipieri, P., Eds.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2007; pp. 202–228. [Google Scholar]
  11. Green, J.J.; Baddeley, J.A.; Cortina, J.; Watson, C.A. Root development in the Mediterranean shrub Pistacia lentiscus as affected by nursery treatments. J. Arid Environ. 2005, 61, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Yao, Q.; Wang, L.R.; Zhu, H.H.; Chen, J.Z. Effect of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal inoculation on root system architecture of trifoliate orange (Poncirus trifoliata L. Raf.) seedlings. Sci. Hortic. 2009, 121, 458–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Smith, S.E.; Facelli, E.; Pope, S.; Smith, F.A. Plant performance in stressful environments: Interpreting new and established knowledge of the roles of arbuscular mycorrhizas. Plant Soil 2010, 326, 3–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Ciccarese, F.; Longo, O.; Paciolla, C.; Schiavone, D.; Morone Fortunato, I. Effetto di funghi micorrizici verso la verticillosi del carciofo. In Proceedings of the Il Carciofo: Dal Laboratorio al Mercato, Rome, Italy, 19–21 April, 2006; pp. 82–84. [Google Scholar]
  15. Rouphael, Y.; Franken, P.; Schneider, C.; Schwarz, D.; Giovannetti, M.; Agnolucci, M.; De Pascale, S.; Bonini, P.; Colla, G. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi act as biostimulants in horticultural crops. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 91–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Ceccarelli, N.; Curadi, M.; Martelloni, L.; Sbrana, C.; Picciarelli, P.; Giovannetti, M. Mycorrhizal colonization impacts on phenolic content and antioxidant properties of artichoke leaves and flower heads two years after field transplant. Plant Soil 2010, 335, 311–323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Murashige, T.; Skoog, F. A revised medium for rapid growth and bio assays with tobacco tissue cultures. Physiol. Plant. 1962, 15, 473–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Nitsch, J.P.; Nitsch, C. Haploid plants for pollen grains. Science 1969, 63, 85–87. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  19. Morone Fortunato, I.; Ruta, C.; Castrignanò, A.; Saccardo, F. The effect of mycorrhizal symbiosis on the development of micropropagated artichokes. Sci. Hortic. 2005, 106, 472–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Linsmaier, E.M.; Skoog, F. Organic growth factor requirement of tobacco tissues culture. Physiol. Plant. 1965, 18, 100–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Tarraf, W.; Ruta, C.; Tagarelli, A.; De Cillis, F.; De Mastro, G. Influence of arbuscular mycorrhizae on plant growth, essential oil production and phosphorus uptake of Salvia officinalis L. Ind. Crop. Prod. 2017, 102, 144–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Dalpè, Y.; Monreal, M. Arbuscular mycorrhiza inoculums to support sustainable cropping systems. Crop Manag. 2004, 10, 1094–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Koske, R.E.; Gemma, J.N. A modified procedure for staining roots to detect VA mycorrhizas. Mycol. Res. 1989, 92, 486–488. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Ancora, G.; Belli, M.L.; Cuozzo, L. Globe artichoke plants from shoot apices through rapid in vitro micropropagation. Sci. Hortic. 1981, 14, 207–213. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Ancora, G. Globe artichoke (Cynara scolymus L.). In Biotechnology in Agriculture & Forestry, 2. Crops; Bajai, Y.P.S., Ed.; Springer Verlag: Berlin, Germany, 1986; pp. 471–484. [Google Scholar]
  26. Harbaoui, Y.; Debergh, P. Multiplication in vitro de clones selectionne’s l’artichaut (Cynara scolymus L.). In Application de la Colture In Vitro a L’amelioration des Plantes Potageres; Eucarpia: Wageningen, The Netherlands, 1980; pp. 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  27. Campanelli, A.; Ruta, C.; Tagarelli, A.; Morone-Fortunato, I.; De Mastro, G. Effectiveness of mycorrhizal fungi on globe artichoke (Cynara cardunculus L. var. scolymus) micropropagation. J. Plant Interact. 2014, 9, 100–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Benoit, H.; Ducreux, G. Etude de quelques aspects de la multiplication végétative in vitro de l’artichaut (Cynara scolymus L.). Agronomie 1981, 1, 225–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Morzadec, J.M.; Hourmant, A. In vitro rooting improvement of globe artichoke (cv. Camus de Bretagne) by GA3. Sci. Hortic. 1997, 72, 59–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. López-Pérez, A.J.; Martínez, J.A. In vitro Root Induction Improvement by Culture in Darkness for Different Globe Artichoke Cultivars. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 2015, 51, 160–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Draoui, N.; Ghorbel, A.; Kchouk, M.E. In vitro culture of globe artichoke (Cynara scolymus L.) in Tunisia: Utilization of vitro methods in artichoke improvement. Agric. Mediterr. 1993, 123, 139–145. [Google Scholar]
  32. Iapichino, G. Micropropagation of Globe Artichoke (Cynara scolymus L.) from underground dormant buds (ovoli). In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Plant 1996, 32, 249–252. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Pacifici, S.; Lucchesini, M.; Curadi, M.; Graifenberg, A. Influence of medium composition and vessel ventilation during the micropropagation stages of Cynara scolymus L. cv. Grato 1. Adv. Hortic. Sci. 2007, 21, 83–88. [Google Scholar]
  34. Bedini, L.; Lucchesini, M.; Bertozzi, F.; Graifenberg, A. Plant Tissue Cultures from Four Tuscan Globe Artichoke Cultivars. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2012, 7, 680–689. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. El Boullani, R.; Elmoshli, A.; El Finti, A.; El Mousadik, A.; Serghini, M.A. Improved in vitro Micropropagation of Artichoke (Cynara cardunculus var. scolymus L.). Eur. J. Sci. Res. 2012, 80, 430–436. [Google Scholar]
  36. Ercan, N. Effects of Various Growth Regulators on in vitro Rooting of Globe Artichoke (Cynara scolymus L.). J. Agric. Sci. Technol. A 2016, 6, 335–340. [Google Scholar]
  37. Bigot, C.; Foury, C. In vitro Propagation of Globe Artichoke (Cynara scolymus L.) from Seedlings: Field Comparison of Some Clones with Their Parent Lines. Agronomie 1984, 4, 699–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Ozsan, T.; Onus, A.N. A protocol on in vitro rooting of ‘Bayrampaşa’ artichoke (Cynara scolymus L.). Mediterr. Agric. Sci. 2019, 32, 129–134. [Google Scholar]
  39. Brutti, C.; Apostolo, N.M.; Ferrarotti, S.A.; Llorente, B.E.; Krymkiewicz, N. Micropropagation of Cynara scolymus L. employing cyclodestrins to promote rhizogenesis. Sci. Hort. 2000, 83, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Ruta, C.; Campanelli, A.; Tagarelli, A.; Morone-Fortunato, I. Mantenimento e propagazione in vitro di ecotipi autoctoni di carciofo. Italus Hortus 2011, 1, 82–84. [Google Scholar]
  41. Pandino, G.; Lombardo, S.; Antonino, L.M.; Ruta, C.; Mauromicale, G. In vitro micropropagation and mycorrhizal treatment influences the polyphenols content profile of globe artichoke under field conditions. Food Res. Int. 2017, 99, 385–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Ozsan, T.; Onus, A.N. Comparative study on in vitro micropropagation response of seven globe artichoke (Cynara cardunculus var. scolymus (L.) Fiori) cultivars: Open-pollinated cultivars vs F1 hybrids. Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. 2020, 48, 1210–1220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Tavazza, R.; Papacchioli, V.; Ancora, G. An improved medium for in vitro propagation of globe artichoke (Cynara scolymus L.) cv. Spinoso sardo. Acta Hortic. 2004, 660, 91–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Ordas, R.; Tavazza, R.; Ancora, G. In vitro morphogenesis in the globe artichoke (Cynara scolymus L.). Plant Sci. 1990, 71, 233–237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Binet, M.N.; Lemoine, M.C.; Martin, C.; Chambon, C.; Gianinazzi, S. Micropropagation of olive (Olea europaea L.) and application of mycorrhiza to improve plantlet establishment. In Vitro Cell Dev. Plant. 2007, 43, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Wu, Q.S.; Zou, Y.N.; Wang, G.Y. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi and acclimatization of micropropagated citrus. Comm. Soil Sci. Plant Anal. 2011, 42, 1825–1832. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yadav, K.; Singh, N.; Aggarval, A. Arbuscular mycorrhizal technology for the growth enhancement of micropropagated Spilanthes acmella Murr. Plant Prot. Sci. 2012, 48, 31–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Ruta, C.; Perrini, R.; Tagarelli, A.; Morone-Fortunato, I. Use of arbuscular mycorrhiza for acclimatization of micropropagated plantlets of melon, oregano, artichoke and spanish broom. Acta Hortic. 2009, 812, 473–478. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Yadav, K.; Aggarwal, A.; Singh, N. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi induced acclimatization and growth enhancement of Glycyrrhiza glabra L.: A potential medicinal plant. Agric. Res. 2013, 2, 43–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Kapoor, R.; Sharma, D.; Bhatnagar, A.K. Arbuscular mycorrhizae in micropropagation systems and their potential applications. Sci. Hortic. 2008, 116, 227–239. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Castiglione, V.; Cavallaro, V.; Di Silvestro, I.; Barbera, A.C. Acclimatization of micropropagated globe artichoke (Cynara cardunculus L. subsp. scolymus (L.) Hegi) plantlets as affected by mycorrhizal inoculum, transplantation time and genotype. Acta Hortic. 2009, 812, 461–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Ruta, C.; Tagarelli, A.; Vancini, C.; De Mastro, G. Evaluation of commercial arbuscular mycorrhizal inoculants on micropropagated early globe artichoke during the acclimatization stage. Acta Hortic. 2016, 1147, 369–373. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Finlay, R.D. Ecological aspects of mycorrhizal symbiosis: With special emphasis on the functional diversity of interactions involving the extraradical mycelium. J. Exp. Bot. 2008, 59, 1115–1126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
Agronomy 11 01169 g001 550
Figure 1. (a) Offshoot from the field cleaned from residual soil; (b) reduction of the size of the offshoot; (c) shoot tips ready for surface sterilization.
Figure 1. (a) Offshoot from the field cleaned from residual soil; (b) reduction of the size of the offshoot; (c) shoot tips ready for surface sterilization.
Agronomy 11 01169 g001
Agronomy 11 01169 g002 550
Figure 2. ‘Troianella‘ landrace artichoke: (a) Plantlet on culture initiation medium after 3 weeks; (b) plantlet after 3 weeks on proliferation medium; (c) five (5) new plantlets ready for the second subculture.
Figure 2. ‘Troianella‘ landrace artichoke: (a) Plantlet on culture initiation medium after 3 weeks; (b) plantlet after 3 weeks on proliferation medium; (c) five (5) new plantlets ready for the second subculture.
Agronomy 11 01169 g002
Agronomy 11 01169 g003 550
Figure 3. (a) In vitro roots of artichoke after 5 weeks; (b) plant ready for acclimatization in a greenhouse.
Figure 3. (a) In vitro roots of artichoke after 5 weeks; (b) plant ready for acclimatization in a greenhouse.
Agronomy 11 01169 g003
Agronomy 11 01169 g004 550
Figure 4. Four organic planting pots with progressive phase of transplants of the mycorrhizal treatment: (a) mycorrhizal inoculum; (b) root system in direct contact with the mycorrhizal inoculum; (c) root system covered with peat; and (d) plant from the in vitro culture covered with a plastic cup to keep high relative humidity.
Figure 4. Four organic planting pots with progressive phase of transplants of the mycorrhizal treatment: (a) mycorrhizal inoculum; (b) root system in direct contact with the mycorrhizal inoculum; (c) root system covered with peat; and (d) plant from the in vitro culture covered with a plastic cup to keep high relative humidity.
Agronomy 11 01169 g004
Agronomy 11 01169 g005 550
Figure 5. From the left to the right, a control plant and plants with root system inoculated with spores of F. mosseae, S. viscosum, and a commercial mycorrhiza mix after 1 month of outside cultivation.
Figure 5. From the left to the right, a control plant and plants with root system inoculated with spores of F. mosseae, S. viscosum, and a commercial mycorrhiza mix after 1 month of outside cultivation.
Agronomy 11 01169 g005
Agronomy 11 01169 g006 550
Figure 6. Roots staining for microscopic analysis: (a) roots stained with Trypan Blue stored at 4 °C in dark; (b) 10 samples, 1 cm length on slide ready to be scanned under microscope.
Figure 6. Roots staining for microscopic analysis: (a) roots stained with Trypan Blue stored at 4 °C in dark; (b) 10 samples, 1 cm length on slide ready to be scanned under microscope.
Agronomy 11 01169 g006
Agronomy 11 01169 g007 550
Figure 7. Effects of different media on shoots proliferation and elongation of ‘Troianella’ landrace. Data were recorded 3 weeks after each subculture on multiplication media and were a mean of three subcultures. Different letters for each column indicate significant differences between the different media tested (SNK test at p ≤ 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the shoot length.
Figure 7. Effects of different media on shoots proliferation and elongation of ‘Troianella’ landrace. Data were recorded 3 weeks after each subculture on multiplication media and were a mean of three subcultures. Different letters for each column indicate significant differences between the different media tested (SNK test at p ≤ 0.001). No significant differences were observed in the shoot length.
Agronomy 11 01169 g007
Agronomy 11 01169 g008 550
Figure 8. Linear growth of root system after 2 and 4 weeks on culture medium (BM) with IAA 10 mg L−1 and sucrose 30 g L−1.
Figure 8. Linear growth of root system after 2 and 4 weeks on culture medium (BM) with IAA 10 mg L−1 and sucrose 30 g L−1.
Agronomy 11 01169 g008
Agronomy 11 01169 g009 550
Figure 9. Detail ‘Troianella’ landrace root colonized by AM fungi after 4 weeks from inoculation: (a) S. viscosum; (b) F. mosseae; (c) Commercial mix (Light microscopy images; Bar (a) = 0.1 mm; Bars (b) and (c) = 1.0 mm).
Figure 9. Detail ‘Troianella’ landrace root colonized by AM fungi after 4 weeks from inoculation: (a) S. viscosum; (b) F. mosseae; (c) Commercial mix (Light microscopy images; Bar (a) = 0.1 mm; Bars (b) and (c) = 1.0 mm).
Agronomy 11 01169 g009
Table
Table 1. Composition of growth media tested for shoot multiplication of ‘Troianella’ landrace artichoke.
Table 1. Composition of growth media tested for shoot multiplication of ‘Troianella’ landrace artichoke.
Growth Media (mg L−1)
CompoundsMS519MS519-ALS452BM
Ammonium nitrate1650165016501650
Calcium Chloride, Anhydrous332.2450332.2450
Cobalt Chloride × 6H2O0.0250.0250.025
Cupric Sulfate × 5H2O0.0250.0250.0250.025
FeNaEDTA 40.0
Na2EDTA × 2H2O37.2637.2637.26
Ferrous Sulfate × 7H2O27.827.827.8
Magnesium Sulfate, Anhydrous180.7370180.7370
Manganese Sulfate × H2O16.916.916.925
Molybdic Acid (Sodium Salt) × 2H2O0.250.250.250. 25
Potassium Iodide0.830.830.83
Potassium Nitrate1900190019001900
Potassium Phosphate, Monobasic170170170170
Potassium Hydroxide 100
Zinc Sulfate × 7H2O8.68.68.610
Boric Acid6.26.26.210
Glycine (Free Base)2.02.0
Nicotinic Acid (Free Acid)0.50.5
Pyridoxine × HCl0.50.5
Thiamine × HCl0.10.10.40.4
Myo-Inositol100100100100
MES (Free Acid) 1000
Agar7000700070007000
sucrose20,00020,00030,00020,000
BAP0.050.050.050.05
Table
Table 2. Biometric parameters of ’Troianella‘ landrace plantlets inoculated with different AM fungi (S. viscosum, F. mosseae, and commercial mix) or not inoculated (Control) at transplanting (T) and after 3 months (3M) of inoculation.
Table 2. Biometric parameters of ’Troianella‘ landrace plantlets inoculated with different AM fungi (S. viscosum, F. mosseae, and commercial mix) or not inoculated (Control) at transplanting (T) and after 3 months (3M) of inoculation.
TreatmentEx VitroLeavesRootsRoot/Leaf *
SurvivalNumber (n)Length (cm)Length (cm)Colonization (%)
%T3MT3MT3M3M3M
Control79c8.08a10.75a8.0a17.90c4.60a35.73c0b0.19
S. viscosum95a8.05a13.90a8.3a33.40a4.50a104.25a90a0.22
F. mosseae85b8.09a11.87a7.6a26.50b4.50a61.86bc80a0.20
Comm. mix90ab8.08a13.00a7.7a33.10a4.60a89.53ab90a0.21
* ratio between root and leaf length. Different letters for each row indicate significant differences between different AM fungi tested (SNK test at p ≤ 0.001).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Ancona, S.; De Mastro, G.; Jenderek, M.M.; Ruta, C. Micropropagation Supports Reintroduction of an Apulian Artichoke Landrace in Sustainable Cropping Systems. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061169

AMA Style

Ancona S, De Mastro G, Jenderek MM, Ruta C. Micropropagation Supports Reintroduction of an Apulian Artichoke Landrace in Sustainable Cropping Systems. Agronomy. 2021; 11(6):1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061169

Chicago/Turabian Style

Ancona, Simona, Giuseppe De Mastro, Maria M. Jenderek, and Claudia Ruta. 2021. "Micropropagation Supports Reintroduction of an Apulian Artichoke Landrace in Sustainable Cropping Systems" Agronomy 11, no. 6: 1169. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11061169

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