Crop Science Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

Published in Crop Sci 21:755-757 (1981)
© 1981 Crop Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow reprints & permissions
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Lawrence, B. K.
Right arrow Articles by Fehr, W. R.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Lawrence, B. K.
Right arrow Articles by Fehr, W. R.
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Lawrence, B. K.
Right arrow Articles by Fehr, W. R.

Reproductive Response of Soybeans to Night Interruption1

B. K. Lawrence and W. R. Fehr2

Artificial lights may be used to delay flowering of soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] cultivars. Previous research has suggested that night interruption imposed every other night would delay flowering as much as every-night interruption. Our objective was to evaluate the reproductive development of cultivars when exposed to night interruption every night compared with exposure every other night. One cultivar of each Maturity Group 00 through V was grown in the field at Ames, Iowa during 1978 and 1979. The four light treatments imposed every night or every other night included illumination with incandescent light from sunset to sunrise, 2300 to 0030 hours, 0030 to 0200 hours, or 0200 to 0330 hours. Control plots were not exposed to artificial light.

The average number of days that reproductive development was delayed beyond the control was twice as great for the every-night treatments as for the every-other-night treatments. Illumination from sunset to sunrise delayed reproductive development significantly more than the treatments of night interruption for 1.5 hours. Night interruption near the end of the dark period (0200 to 0330 hours) delayed reproductive development more than the earlier interruptions.

The results did not support the hypothesis that light treatments every other night would delay reproductive development as much as every-night interruptions. The lighting regime needed to delay reproductive development will depend on the photoperiod requirements of the cultivars and duration of the delay that is desired.

Key Words: Glycine max (L.) Merr. • Reproductive development • Artificial lighting • Breeding

1 Journal Paper No. J-10026 of the Iowa Agric. Home Econ. Exp. Sm., Ames, Iowa, Project No. 2118. Part of a dissertation submitted by the senior author in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the Ph.D. Degree. Supported in part by a grant from the Iowa Soybean Promotion Board.

2 Research associate and professor, Dep. of Agronomy, Iowa State Univ., Ames, IA 50011.

Received for publication October 23, 1980.




HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Vadose Zone Journal
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education		 Soil Science Society of America Journal
Journal of Plant Registrations Journal of
Environmental Quality		 The Plant Genome
Copyright © 1981 by the Crop Science Society of America.