HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Major, D. J. Articles by Anderson, I. C. Search for Related Content PubMed Articles by Major, D. J. Articles by Anderson, I. C. Agricola Articles by Major, D. J. Articles by Anderson, I. C.

Effects of Daylength and Temperature on Soybean Development¹

Dates of emergence, flowering, beginning pod fill, termination of flowering, and physiological maturity were recorded for two soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars from each of the maturity groups I to V. The cultivars were planted in five dates at three Missouri locations in 1971–73; at weekly intervals from April to August at Columbia, Mo., in 1972 and 1973; and at weekly intervals from May to July at Ames, Iowa and Elora, Ont. in 1973. An iterative regression analysis (IRA) technique was used to develop mathematical equations relating the rate of development to daylength and temperature. The IRA equations predicted development more accurately than calendar days or "growing degree days" at all of the locations studied.

The IRA equations were also used to assess the relative effects of daylength and temperature on soybean development. Cooler temperatures and longer daylengths encountered at northern latitudes were additive in their delaying effects on flowering. The effects of cool spring temperatures on flowering predominated in the early part of the season whereas daylength predominated in plantings after June 1. Hastening effects of short days on maturity were greater than delaying effects of cool autumn temperatures. The most obvious difference among genotypes was found for sensitivity to daylength in the flowering period; later maturing cultivars were more sensitive than early cultivars.

Key Words: Photoperiod • Flowering • Maturity • Heat units • "Growing degree days"

² Research scientist, Canada Agr. Res. Stn., Lethbridge, Alta., 41J 4B1, Canada; assistant professor of agron., U. of Mo.- Columbia, Columbia, MO 65201; professor of crop sci., U. of Guelph, Guelph, Ont., Canada; and professor of agron., Iowa State U., Ames IA 50010, respectively.

Received for publication August 12, 1974.

This article has been cited by other articles:

				B. S. Sharratt and R. W. Gesch Emergence of Polymer-Coated Corn and Soybean Influenced by Tillage and Sowing Date Agron. J., May 7, 2008; 100(3): 585 - 590. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				J. T. Edwards and L. C. Purcell Soybean Yield and Biomass Responses to Increasing Plant Population Among Diverse Maturity Groups: I. Agronomic Characteristics Crop Sci., August 1, 2005; 45(5): 1770 - 1777. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				D. W. Stewart, E. R. Cober, and R. L. Bernard Modeling Genetic Effects on the Photothermal Response of Soybean Phenological Development Agron. J., January 1, 2003; 95(1): 65 - 70. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

				E. R. Cober, D. W. Stewart, and H. D. Voldeng Photoperiod and Temperature Responses in Early-Maturing, Near-Isogenic Soybean Lines Crop Sci., May 1, 2001; 41(3): 721 - 727. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]