| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Eastern Cereal and Oilseed Research Centre (ECORC), Agric. & Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1A 0C6
* Corresponding author (coberer{at}em.agr.ca)
While photoperiod responses have been studied in soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] isolines, identification of temperature and photo–thermal responses are lacking in early-maturing soybean. This study was conducted to quantify photoperiod and temperature responses of early-maturing soybean. Six ‘Harosoy’ isolines with different combinations of alleles at the E1, E3, E4, and E7 loci were grown in growth cabinets with 10-, 12-, 14-, 16-, and 20-h photoperiods and with either 18 or 28°C constant temperature. Under the most inductive conditions (10 and 12 h, 28°C), all isolines flowered in about 26 d. Under the least inductive conditions (20 h, 28°C), there was a 50 d difference in flowering time between the early- and late-flowering isolines. Interestingly, the late-flowering isolines flowered earlier under cool than under warm temperatures. A mathematical model was developed to quantify the effects of temperature and photoperiod on days to first flower. This model related the rate of phenological development from planting to flowering to temperature, photoperiod and the interaction between temperature and photoperiod. The equation was integrated analytically, resulting in an inverse time (1/time) equation, or numerically resulting in the development of a Growing Photothermal Day (GPTD) similar to a heat unit. The model had a base temperature (5.8°C) below which the rate of phenological development was zero, a critical or base photoperiod (13.5 h) below which photoperiod had no effect, and two genetic coefficients, one of which varied with isoline. The isoline photoperiod sensitivity coefficient was linearly related to the number of dominant (late flowering, photoperiod sensitive) alleles. The model fit the observed data well (R2 = 0.96).
Abbreviations: MG, maturity group • SED, standard error of a difference
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. V. Kumudini, P. K. Pallikonda, and C. Steele Photoperiod and E-genes Influence the Duration of the Reproductive Phase in Soybean Crop Sci., July 30, 2007; 47(4): 1510 - 1517. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
C. D. Messina, J. W. Jones, K. J. Boote, and C. E. Vallejos A Gene-Based Model to Simulate Soybean Development and Yield Responses to Environment Crop Sci., January 24, 2006; 46(1): 456 - 466. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 R. P. Viator, R. C. Nuti, K. L. Edmisten, and R. Wells Predicting Cotton Boll Maturation Period Using Degree Days and Other Climatic Factors Agron. J., March 1, 2005; 97(2): 494 - 499. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. R. Cober and D. F. Curtis Both Promoters and Inhibitors Affected Flowering Time in Grafted Soybean Flowering-Time Isolines Crop Sci., May 1, 2003; 43(3): 886 - 891. [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 and H. D. Voldeng Low R:FR Light Quality Delays Flowering of E7E7 Soybean Lines Crop Sci., November 1, 2001; 41(6): 1823 - 1826. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| 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 | |||
