American Journal of Botany 84(9): 10641069. 1997.

CONCEPTS

AND TERMINOLOGY OF APICAL DOMINANCE1

MORRIS G. CLINE
Department of Plant Biology, Ohio State University, Columbus, Ohio 43210 Apical dominance is the control exerted by the shoot apex over lateral bud outgrowth. The concepts and terminology associated with apical dominance as used by various plant scientists sometimes differ, which may lead to signicant misconceptions. Apical dominance and its release may be divided into four developmental stages: (I) lateral bud formation, (II) imposition of inhibition on lateral bud growth, (III) release of apical dominance following decapitation, and (IV) branch shoot development. Particular emphasis is given to discriminating between Stage III, which is accompanied by initial bud outgrowth during the rst few hours of release and may be promoted by cytokinin and inhibited by auxin, and Stage IV, which is accompanied by subsequent bud outgrowth occurring days or weeks after decapitation and which may be promoted by auxin and gibberellin. The importance of not interpreting data measured in Stage IV on the basis of conditions and processes occurring in Stage III is discussed as well as the correlation between degree of branching and endogenous auxin content, branching mutants, the quantication of apical dominance in various species (including Arabidopsis), and apical control in trees. Key words: apex. apical control; apical dominance; Arabidopsis; auxin; branching; cytokinin; lateral bud outgrowth; shoot

Apical dominance may be dened as the control exerted by the shoot apex over the outgrowth of the lateral buds (Cline, 1994). This is a classical example of a developmental correlation where one organ of a plant affects another organ (Sachs, 1991). Apical dominance is also referred to as correlative inhibition (Hillman, 1984) or in the dormancy literature as paradormancy, a type of growth control involving a biochemical signal from another structure (Lang, 1990). The terminology and concepts associated with apical dominance as used by molecular biologists, geneticists, ecologists, foresters, agronomists, botanists, horticulturists, and plant physiologists often vary in meaning. For instance, do release of apical dominance, bud initiation, sprouting, tillering, regrowth, compensatory growth, release of meristems, branching, feathering, lateral shoot development, axillary bud outgrowth, activation of dormant buds, and branch induction all have precisely the same meaning? There is generally little difculty as long as there is understanding as to the context with which the terms are used. However, in some cases signicant misconceptions may arise. It is the objective of the present essay to explore some of these misconceptions and their implications and to offer some suggestions on the quantication of apical dominance that may be helpful. Although the scope here is general, specic discussions on Arabidopsis branching and apical control in trees are also included. As an apical shoot meristem of a herbaceous plant develops, axillary buds arise exogenously from supercial cell layers in the axils of leaf primordia (Fahn, 1990). These embryonic lateral buds may have inhibition imposed upon them shortly after their formation or after a brief period of growth. As Steeves and Sussex (1989)
1 Manuscript received 13 August 1996; revision accepted 24 January 1997. The author thanks Carl Leopold, Carolyn Napoli, and Joel Strafstrom for their critical and very helpful comments on the manuscript.

describe, . . .commonly at this time [after bud formation] the dominance of the main apex is expressed in the inhibition of further development of the lateral apices and they remain as axillary buds, often for long periods and sometimes permanently unless the main apex is removed. Although the elongation of the buds may be essentially inhibited, they remain metabolically active (Stafstrom, 1995). As Hillman (1984) points out, In some species, inhibited or quiescent buds may be fairly rudimentary whereas in others the buds may be well formed. . . . If the shoot apex is subsequently decapitated (also sometimes referred to by such terms as apex removal or excision, clipping, topping, defoliation, pruning, trimming, tipping, shearing, heading, herbivory, browsing, meristem destruction, and pinching), apical dominance is released and one or more of these lower axillary buds begins to grow out. Within a few hours after apex removal, measurable increases in the length of the emerging lateral bud can be detected in some species. In other species the lag period may be longer depending upon the degree of inhibition and the stage of the cell cycle at the time of inhibition (Tamas, 1987). In the days and weeks following decapitation, subsequent elongation and development of the lateral bud into a branch shoot occur. These foregoing developmental steps, which will vary with species and will apply more to dicotelydons than to monocotyledons, may be conveniently divided into four stages (Fig. 1): lateral bud formation (Stage I), imposition of inhibition (apical dominance) (Stage II), initiation of lateral bud outgrowth following decapitation (Stage III), and subsequent elongation and development of the lateral bud into a branch (Stage IV). Even though there is some overlap between the four stages, they each involve some different processes and are affected differently by plant hormones. Hence, each stage should be considered more or less separately. The degree of inhibition imposed in

1064

August 1997]

CLINECONCEPTS

AND TERMINOLOGY OF APICAL DOMINANCE

1065

Fig. 1.

Developmental stages of apical dominance before and after release by decapitation of the shoot apex.

Stage II may vary. If it is negligible as with Arabidopsis or greenhouse-grown Coleus (Cline, 1996), then apical dominance is essentially nonexistent and the lateral bud continues to grow out from the time of its formation into Stage IV without the necessity of release via decapitation. This is similar to sylleptic growth, which occurs in many tropical woody species and in a few temperate trees (Halle, Oldeman, and Tomlinson, 1978; Wheat, 1980) and in some young fruit trees (Barlow, 1970; Tromp, 1996) where there is no rest or dormancy period between bud formation and outgrowth. If the imposition of inhibition is partial as in bean or petunia, then the apical dominance could be termed as intermediate with a certain level of lateral bud outgrowth occurring even without decapitation. If the imposition of inhibition is complete as with Helianthus, Tradescantia, or indoor-grown Ipomoea, then apical dominance is strong and no release occurs without decapitation or some drastic restriction of apical shoot growth. Sachs (1991) describes this as the most extreme form of apical dominance and that the norm involves some lateral outgrowth even in the intact plant. Speaking more generally he states: Many physiological studies stress an all-or-none approach, but this is a result of a careful choice of experimental systems which is dictated by good reasons of experimental design, not an expression of the common reality of plant development. It is probably true that among herbaceous species there is a wide spectrum of degree of inhibition imposed by apical dominance and the example that is being portrayed here (Fig. 1) in the four stages is one with relatively strong apical dominance. STAGES OF BRANCH INITIATION AND BRANCH DEVELOPMENT Considerable confusion in the literature could be averted if the uniqueness of these four stages could be recognized and some terminology agreed upon. This is particularly true with respect to discriminating between the third and fourth stages, the initial release of apical dominance (Stage III), which occurs in the rst few minutes or hours after decapitation and the subsequent or continued elongation of the lateral bud (Stage IV), which occurs

during the following days or weeks after decapitation and results in the development of a branch shoot. It should also be emphasized that these developmental states are, under appropriate conditions, reversible (i.e., III to II and IV to II) (J. Stafstrom, personal communication, Department of Biological Sciences, Northern Illinois University). The release of apical dominance (Stage III) may be promoted by direct application of cytokinin to the lateral bud (Pillay and Railton, 1983) and is often repressed by auxin treatment of the decapitated stump just above the lateral bud (Thimann and Skoog, 1934). In contrast, soon after apical dominance has been released and lateral bud elongation is underway (Stage IV), this developing lateral shoot or branch may begin to produce its own auxin, which may enhance elongation (Thimann and Skoog, 1934) as may gibberellic acid at this time (Prochazka and Jacobs, 1984), although Isbell and Morgan (1982) have reported gibberellin repression of tiller growth in sorghum. Any treatment given to a plant 24 h after apex removal (Stage IV) will have a much different effect on lateral bud outgrowth than if it is given immediately following decapitation (Stage III). Wickson and Thimann (1958) found only a small repression of outgrowth of isolated pea buds when auxin was added after a 24-h delay. Several workers (Shein and Jackson, 1971; Stimart, 1983) have pointed out a disturbing aspect of the apical dominance literature is that a distinction is usually not made between the initiation of axillary bud growth and the subsequent axillary shoot elongation, which may be under the control of different hormone factors as demonstrated by Sachs and Thimann (1967). With respect to hormone effects, the differences in stages may be tentatively dened as follows: I (Cytokinin promoted), II (Auxin repressed), III (Cytokinin released), and IV (Auxin and gibberellin promoted). When considering the mechanism of apical dominance, the physiologist is particularly interested in the processes involved in the imposition and release of apical dominance (Stages II and III). A common mistake is to attempt to interpret data measured several days or weeks after decapitation (during Stage IV when branch development

1066

AMERICAN JOURNAL

OF

BOTANY

[Vol. 84

is well under way) on the bases of physiological processes occurring within the rst few hours (during Stage III at apical dominance release when the lateral bud rst begins to grow out). Branch development involves much more than apical dominance release and is affected differently by hormones as mentioned above. What happens in Stage IV is important and valuable to know, but it should not be confused with what happens in Stage III during apical dominance release. The perspective taken in this essay is physiological. There certainly are other valid and useful perspectives, e.g., genetic, ecological, etc. Whereas the physiologist focuses directly on the processes (i.e., the imposition/release of inhibition in stages II and III), the developmental geneticist may begin by dening the branching gene in Stage IV and then work back toward the earlier stages in order to understand the mechanisms involved (e.g., Napolis work on petunia, 1996). BRANCHING AND AUXIN CONTENT Workers will often use the relative amount of branching (Stage IV) not only as an indicator of the degree of apical dominance release but also as a suggestive indicator of endogenous auxin content. There is nothing wrong with using branching as an indicator of the strength of apical dominance as long as it is realized in the case of branching released by decapitation that the hormonal and other conditions necessary for this release are present only during Stage III. Even though low auxin content in a shoot is correlated with the release of apical dominance in Stage III and the release of apical dominance is a prerequisite for branching, it does not follow that the presence of heavy branching in Stage IV is necessarily accompanied by low auxin content. In fact, as the developing branches produce their own auxin (Thimann and Skoog, 1934), the auxin content in Stage IV may well approach normal levels. That transgenic iaaL tobacco plants decient in auxin exhibit reduced apical dominance (Romano, Cooper, and Klee, 1991) probably can be attributed to the low auxin content at the very early stages of bud formation. The same misconception can occur with the employment of nondecapitated branching mutants (including their use in grafting experiments) for the same reasons as noted above. Beveridge, Ross, and Murfet (1994) found that branching pea mutants had consistently higher endogenous free IAA levels than the nonbranching wild types. Heavily branching plants should not necessarily be expected to reect low endogenous auxin levels. Also, the relative concentration of cytokinins and other plant hormones as well as the sensitivity of tissues to them cannot be ignored. QUANTIFICATION OF APICAL DOMINANCE AND ITS RELEASE In many journal papers (particularly those in molecular biology) that in some way involve apical dominance research, no actual quantitative data on lateral bud outgrowth are given. A photograph showing branched and unbranched plants side by side may be included or, more often, the degree of dominance or branching under various conditions are verbally described with such terms as

increased branching, lateral growth, lateral shoot formation, bushy, shooty phenotype, reduced or decreased apical dominance, nonbranching, unbranched growth habit, strong apical dominance, or restored apical dominance. Such qualitative visual or verbal evidence may be sufcient for many purposes. But in some cases, more quantitative and denitive evidence may be required. When comparing two plants, what does it mean to say that one plant has more branching than another? It is probably meant that one plant has more branches than the other. As experience in Christmas tree selection can attest, outward appearance of bushiness can be deceiving. A short plant with the same number of branches as a tall plant will appear bushy because of shorter internodes. A plant with long branches, particularly if they are oppy, may appear bushier than a plant with the same number of shorter branches. Secondary and inorescence branching will further complicate the analysis. One plant could have more branches than another plant if the one plant had more nodes, assuming all buds at all nodes on both plants grew out. Or, one plant could have more branches if a greater percentage of its buds had sprouted. Probably the most common way of detecting apical dominance release is to measure the outgrowth (i.e., bud length or fresh mass) of lateral shoots following decapitation or other restrictive treatments of the shoot apex. In the case of many herbaceous plants, measurable elongation of the lateral bud begins within 310 h following decapitation. The determination of whether or not apical dominance release at the morphological level has occurred depends upon whether or not the lateral bud begins to grow out. If the lateral bud has not begun to grow out, then it would be presumed that the release of apical dominance had not occurred. It is understood, of course, that earlier molecular and mitotic events associated with the release must occur before bud elongation can begin. Since studies on the mechanisms of apical dominance release are aimed at understanding these underlying cellular, biochemical, and molecular events, it is critical that the appropriate determinations and measurements of these processes be made both before decapitation in Stage II and within minutes and hours after decapitation during Stage III. Continuous measurements of these processes and bud growth can be carried out during the following days (Stage IV), but it must be recognized that these data may not have strict correlation with the mechanisms of apical dominance release. EVALUATING APICAL DOMINANCE IN ARABIDOPSIS Arabidopsis is a difcult plant for apical dominance analysis for two reasons: Firstly, its shoot is an inorescence with extremely weak apical dominance (i.e., very early branching in the intact bolting shoot). Secondly, there are two types of branches: (1) the inorescence lateral branches, which begin to grow out at the same time as the main shoot bolts from a rosette base and (2) secondary or axillary inorescences, which emerge shortly after the bolting of the main shoot. Can the release of apical dominance even be detected following decapitation of the main shoot? The answer to this question is yes, if

August 1997]

CLINECONCEPTS

AND TERMINOLOGY OF APICAL DOMINANCE

1067

the decapitation is carried out immediately after bolting begins. There are, of course, quite a range of branching types among the various mutants and lines of Arabidopsis. The vast genetic data available on Arabidopsis certainly constitute a major advantage for the use of this system in branching studies. Mutants with relatively strong apical dominance include the strain 2100 (Torii and Komeda, 1993) and the CS 1072 Chi-O (Ohio State University Arabidopsis Biological Resource Center), whereas those with extremely weak apical dominance include the auxin resistant axr112 (Lincoln, Britton, and Estelle, 1990), the trp11 (Last and Fink, 1988), and the amp1 (Chaudhury et al. 1993). Branching from the main shoot is not much affected by decapitation in strain CS 1072 Chi-O (Cline, 1996) because of the extremely early lateral bud outgrowth in the intact plant. However, the lateral buds below the point of decapitation grow out longer than those of the controls. Nevertheless, the effect of decapitation of the main shoot on hastening the bolting of and increasing the number of bolting secondary inorescences is signicant and can be detected in this line. These results probably have general application to many other lines of Arabidopsis. However, Lincoln, Britton, and Estelle (1990) reported little difference in the total number of inorescences between the bushy auxin-resistant ax1 mutant and the wild type, although there is an increase in the number of lateral shoots in the former. In most plant species apical dominance release or lateral bud outgrowth are usually dened by periodic measurements of bud length. In the case of Arabidopsis, such measurements could become cumbersome because of the large number of secondary inorescences that could be encountered. Romano, Cooper, and Klee (1993) used total fresh mass of secondary inorescences which may be a viable alternative, although it does not distinguish between inorescence number and branch length. Although Romano, Cooper, and Klee (1993) did report inhibition of branching in transgenic iaaM auxin-overproducing plants, Cline (1996) was not able to restore apical dominance in Arabidopsis by exogenous auxin in lanolin treatment via the classical Thimann-Skoog experiment or by aqueous spray. There is concern about the general health of such high auxin-level transgenic plants, which exhibit severe leaf epinasty. Likewise, C. Lincoln (personal communication, Biology Department, Indiana University) was unable to restore apical dominance via exogenous auxin treatments in Arabidopsis. For future apical dominance studies with Arabidopsis, the availability of mutants or lines with strong apical dominance (e.g., NAB 1, Bohmert and Benning, 1996) would be helpful. CRITERIA FOR APICAL DOMINANCE ANALYSIS The ideal plant for analyzing apical dominance release with respect to carrying out measurements of lateral bud elongation is one with a rapidly growing shoot, moderately strong apical dominance (i.e., with inhibited lateral buds that will respond immediately to decapitation), lateral buds that are widely separated by large internodes so as to be easily observed and measured, and a shoot in which only the highest lateral bud will grow out follow-

ing decapitation (providing for more uniformity in treatments and for a shorter transport distance for chemicals applied to the decapitated stump). Pisum sativum probably has been the most widely used species in apical dominance studies (Wickson and Thimann, 1958; Beveridge, Ross, and Murfet, 1994; Stafstrom 1995). These plants are rapidly growing and offer many advantages. Japanese Morning Glory (Ipomoea nil) is also an excellent system (Cline, 1996). The shoot elongates at the rate of 10 cm/d in constant light. The lateral buds in a 20- to 25-d-old plant average 23 mm in length at the rst through the fth nodes (counting from the base). Following decapitation just above the fourth or fth node, the beginning of elongation can be detected within 58 h (Yang and Cline, unpublished data). The lateral bud at the fourth node (which is similar to that of the fth node) will have increased in length by 1, 5, 17, and 329 mm after the lst, 2nd, 3rd and 7th d, respectively (Cline and Riley, 1984). Plants with weak apical dominance, like Coleus, are difcult to study because buds on the intact plant are only slightly inhibited and, hence, are continually growing out. Decapitation only slightly hastens bud outgrowth and exogenous auxin added to the shoot stump of greenhouse-grown Coleus plants has no repressive effect (Jacobs et al., 1959; Cline, 1996). An ideal branching mutant would be one that is exactly the same as the wild type in height, node number, and other characteristics, except that all the lateral buds of intact mutant would grow out, whereas all the lateral buds of the intact wild type would remain inhibited and could only be released by decapitation or by some other denitive treatment. If the hormone content or some type of molecular/cellular activity is to be compared between the branching mutant and the wild type plants, it must be remembered that in most situations the branching mutant will be similar in many respects to the Stage IV plants, which are far beyond the apical dominance release stage (III). APICAL DOMINANCE VS. APICAL CONTROL Although there is some disagreement in distinguishing between the meaning of the terms apical dominance and apical control (Martin, 1987; Loreti and Pisani, 1990; Wilson, 1990), the former is usually used in a narrow sense with respect to herbaceous plants to specify control (or correlative inuence) by the shoot apex over axillary bud outgrowth and in a broader sense also to include control over orientation of lateral branches and leaves as well as over the growth of branches, rhizomes, stolons, and tubers and, nally, correlative inuence over leaf abscission (Hillman, 1984). Brown, McAlpine, and Kormanik (1967) introduced the use of the term apical control for woody plants because of the complex branching associated with periodic sprouting of buds from year to year. Wareing (1970) has stated, . . .the classical theory of apical dominance does not seem applicable to shoot systems of woody plants beyond the rst year. Brown used apical control to describe the physiological conditions that give rise to the overall shape and form of the tree crown via various branching patterns. The excurrent conifer (e.g.,

1068

AMERICAN JOURNAL

OF

BOTANY

[Vol. 84

pine) has a single dominant central leader shoot and strong apical control, giving an attenuated-shaped crown. The individual shoots have weak apical dominance and the lateral buds of the current year grow out to varying degrees during the rst season. If the growing point is somehow destroyed, then one of the remaining upper branches, in a Stage IV type response, replaces it by bending more vertically via processes in the reaction wood and by elongating. Ethylene, gibberellins, and auxin (Blake, Pharis, and Reid, 1980) may play a role here. In the decurrent hardwoods (e.g., oak) with no dominant leader shoot and with weak apical control (except when very young), the lateral shoots outgrow the weak leader shoot to give a crown with a round shape. The individual shoots presumably have strong apical dominance and the lateral buds of the current season do not grow out until the following spring. Hence, when used with respect to trees, apical dominance is thought to refer to the control of lateral bud outgrowth by the apex in an individual branch during the current seasons growth (associated with the Stage III response), whereas apical control refers to the control over branch elongation and orientation (Stage IV events) and is concerned with the inuence of the main growing point on all branches of a perennial plant (Martin, 1987) or as Bollmark et al. (1995) describe it, the inuence of the top of the tree on the branches lower down. . .. However, as Davidson and Remphrey (1990) have pointed out, The architecture of tree crowns may be more complex than the excurrentdecurrent dichotomy and its relationship to apical control. CONCLUSION In their historical evaluation of adventitious rooting research, Haissig and Davis (1994) point out that . . .there are no rewards, and often criticisms for those who attempt to develop terminologies. In the present essay there has been no presentation of new terms. The perspective has been physiological and the attempt has been to redene some of the old terms that relate to apical dominance such as apical dominance release and branching along with methods of quantication and to elucidate their usage in a way that, hopefully, will help generate discussion for the future and to avoid misconceptions. LITERATURE CITED
BARLOW, H. 1970. Some aspects of morphogenesis in fruit trees. In L. Luckwill and C. Cutting [eds.], Physiology of tree crops, 2543. Academic Press, New York, NY. BEVERIDGE, C., J. ROSS, AND I. MURFET. 1994. Branching mutant rms2 in Pisum sativum: grafting studies and endogenous indole-3-acetic acid levels. Plant Physiology 104: 953959. BLAKE, T., R. PHARIS, AND D. REID. 1980. Ethylene, gibberellins, auxin and apical control of branch angle in conifer, Cupressus arizonica. Planta 148: 6468. BOHMERT, K., AND C. BENNNING. 1996. Characterization of a T-DNA tagged leaf development mutant of Arabidopsis thaliana. Seventh International Conference on Arabidopsis Research (Abstract, p. 229). BOLLMARK, M., H. CHEN, T. MORITZ, AND L. ELIASSON. 1995. Relations between cytokinin level, bud development and apical control in Norway spruce, Picea abies. Physiologia Plantarum 95: 563568. BROWN, C., R. MCALPINE, AND P. KORMANIK. 1967. Apical dominance

and form in woody plants: a reappraisal. American Journal of Botany 54: 153162. CHAUDHURY, A., S. LETHAM, C. CRAIG, AND E. DENNIS. 1993. amp1 a mutant with high cytokinin levels and altered embryonic pattern, faster vegetative growth, constitutive photomorpho-genesis and precocious owering. Plant Journal 4: 907916. CLINE, M. 1994. The role of hormones in apical dominance. New approaches to an old problem in plant development. Physiologia Plantarum 90: 230237. . 1996. Exogenous auxin effects on lateral bud outgrowth in decapitated shoots. Annals of Botany 78: 255266. , AND L. RILEY. 1984. The presentation time for shoot inversion release of apical dominance in Pharbitis nil. Annals of Botany 53: 897900. DAVIDSON, C., AND W. REMPHREY. 1990. An analysis of architectural parameters of male and female Fraxinus pennsylvanica in relation to crown shape and crown location. Canadian Journal of Botany 68: 20352043. FAHN, A. 1990. Plant anatomy, ed 4. Pergamon Press, New York, NY. HALLE, F., R. OLDEMAN, AND P. TOMLINSON. 1978. Tropical trees and forests: an architectural analysis. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg. HASSIG, B., AND T. DAVIS. 1994. A Historical evaluation of adventitious rooting research to 1993. In T. Davis and B. Hassig [eds.], Biology of adventitious root formation, 275331. Plenum Press, New York, NY. HILLMAN, J. 1984. Apical dominance. In M. Wilkins [ed.], Advanced plant physiology, 127148. Pitman, London. ISBELL, V., AND P. MORGAN. 1982. Manipulation of apical dominance in sorghum with growth regulators. Crop Science 22: 3034. JACOBS, W., J. DANIELS, V. HURST, AND P. ADAMS. 1959. What substance normally controls a given biological process? II. The relation of auxin to apical dominance. Developmental Biology 1: 534554. LANG, G. 1990. Dormancy: a new universal terminology. HortScience 22: 817820. LAST, R., AND G. FINK. 1988. Tryptophan-requiring mutants of the plant Arabidopsis thaliana. Science 240: 305310. LINCOLN, C., J. BRITTON, AND M. ESTELLE. 1990. Growth and development of the axr1 mutants of Arabidopsis. Plant Cell 2: 1071 1080. LORETI, F., AND P. PISANI. 1990. Structural manipulation for improved performance in woody plants. HortScience 25: 6470. MARTIN, G. 1987. Apical dominance. HortScience 22: 8244833. NAPOLI, C. 1996. Highly branched phenotype of the petunia dad11 mutant is reversed by grafting. Plant Physiology 111: 2737. PILLAY, I., AND I. RAILTON. 1983. Complete release of axillary buds from apical dominance in intact, light-grown seedlings of Pisum sativum L. following a single application of cytokinin. Plant Physiology 71: 972974. PROCHASKA, S., AND W. JACOBS. 1984. Transport of benzyladenine and gibberellic acid from roots in relation to the dominance between axillary buds of pea (Pisum sativum L.) cotyledons. Plant Physiology 76: 224227. ROMANO, C., M. COOPER, AND H. KLEE. 1993. Uncoupling auxin and ethylene effects in transgenic tobacco and Arabidopsis plants. Plant Cell 5: 181189. SACHS, T. 1991. Pattern formation in plant tissues. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. , AND K. THIMANN. 1967. The role of auxins and cytokinins in the release of buds from dominance. American Journal of Botany 54: 136144. SHEIN, T., AND D. JACKSON. 1971. Hormone interaction in apical dominance in Phaseolus vulgaris L. Annals of Botany 35: 555564. STEEVES, T., AND I. SUSSEX. 1989. Patterns in plant development. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY. STAFSTROM, J. 1995. Developmental potential of shoot buds. In B. Gartner [ed.], Plant stems: physiology and functional morphology, 257 279. Academic Press, San Diego, CA. STIMART, D. 1983. Promotion and inhibition of branching in poinsettia in grafts between self-branching and non-branching cultivars. Journal of the American Society of Horticultural Science 108: 419 422. TAMAS, I. 1987. Hormonal regulation of apical dominance. In P. Davies

August 1997]

CLINECONCEPTS

AND TERMINOLOGY OF APICAL DOMINANCE

1069

[ed.], Plant hormones and their role in plant growth and development, 393410. Martinus Nijhoff, Boston, MA. THIMANN, K., AND F. SKOOG. 1934. On the inhibition of bud development and other functions of growth substance in Vicia faba. Proceedings of the Royal Society of Botany 114: 317339. TORII, K., AND Y. KOMEDA. 1993. A novel mutant of Arabidopsis which shows strong apical dominance and extreme fasciation. XV International Botanical Congress Abstracts, Yokohama, Japan (p. 437). TROMP, J. 1996. Sylleptic shoot formation in young apple trees exposed to various soil temperatures and air humidity regimes in three successive periods of growing season. Annals of Botany 77: 6370.

WAREING, P. 1970. Growth and its co-ordination in trees. In L. Luckwill and C. Cutting [eds.], Physiology of tree crops, 121. Academic Press, New York, NY. WHEAT, D. 1980. Sylleptic branching in Myrsine oridana (Myrsinceae). American Journal of Botany 67: 490499. WICKSON, M., AND K. THIMANN. 1958. The antagonism of auxin and kinetin in apical dominance. Physiologia Plantarum 11: 6274. WILSON, B. 1990. The development of tree form. HortScience 25: 52 54.