Effects of Photoperiod and Time of Planting on Rates of Development of the Soybean in Various Stages of the Life Cycle

Johnson, H. W.; Borthwick, H. A.; Leffel, R. C.

doi:10.1086/336090

Cited by 77 publications

(34 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…In crops whose development is not greatly affected by daylength, such as maize, crop coefficients that are based on temperature summation expressed as GDD have been shown to account for variation in plant development that arises as a result of differences in environmental conditions or planting dates (Amos et al, 1989;Sammis et al, 1985;Nielsen andHinkle, 1996, Stegman, 1988;Irmak, 2005). However, development in soybean cannot be adequately predicted by GDD alone because soybean growth and development are dominantly influenced by growing season temperature as well as by daylength (Johnson et al, 1960;Major et al, 1975aMajor et al, , 1975bCregan andHartwig, 1984, Hesketh et al, 1973). Temperature generally increases the rate of soybean development, while longer daylengths slow the development rate.…”

Section: Daily Basal and Normal (Single) Crop Coefficients Based On Gddmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hourly and Daily Single and Basal Evapotranspiration Crop Coefficients as a Function of Growing Degree Days, Days After Emergence, Leaf Area Index, Fractional Green Canopy Cover, and Plant Phenology for Soybean

2013

Trans. ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Daily Basal and Normal (Single) Crop Coefficients Based On Gddmentioning

confidence: 99%

Hourly and Daily Single and Basal Evapotranspiration Crop Coefficients as a Function of Growing Degree Days, Days After Emergence, Leaf Area Index, Fractional Green Canopy Cover, and Plant Phenology for Soybean

2013

Trans. ASABE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…To date, the overwhelming emphasis in research has been on the effect of phototherrnal regime on time to flowering, and with relatively few exceptions (e.g. Johnson et al 1960;Lawn and Byth 1973), photothermal effects on subsequent development have been largely ignored. The present research clearly suggests that, for dry season sowings in the tropics at least, the potential effects of photothermal regime on post-anthesis development can be large.…”

Section: The Duration Of the Reproductive Period (Days From Floweringmentioning

confidence: 99%

Adaptation of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) to the dry season of the tropics. I. Genotypic and environmental effects on phenology

Mayers¹,

Lawn²,

Byth³

1991

Aust. J. Agric. Res.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Eight soybean genotpes were sown at weekly intervals in three tropical dry season enviroments to examine genotypic and environmental effects on phenology. A series of simple linear models was used to test the relationships, for individual genotypes, between rate of development for the vegetative (Rf) and reproductive (R,) phases and photoperiod and temperature. For each genotype, most (> 85%) of the variation across sites, years and sowing dates in Rf and more than half the variation in R, could be accounted for by variation in photoperiod and/or temperature. Rf was generally negatively associted with mean maximum temperature and mean photoperiod, and positively with mean minimum temperature. R, was generally positively associated with either mean, or mean maximum, temperature and negatively with mean photoperiod. It was concluded that variations in photothermal regime across sites, years and sowing dates within the tropical dry season are sufficiently large to induce instability in time to flowering of most present soybean cultivars. Most genotypes are also poorly adapted to the relatively long day-warm temperature conditions experienced by dry season crops during podfilling, presumably because they have been developed as summer crops. Breeding soybeans for the dry season will therefore need to place strong emphasis on photothermal effects during post-flowering as well as pre-flowering development.

show abstract

“…In determinate growth habit soybean, once flower induction has been reached, terminal meristems differentiate a floral raceme (Borthwick and Parker 1938;Johnson et al 1960) and vegetative structure differentiation stops irreversibly; so only elongation processes can continue. Evidently, the delaying of anthesis by continuous long days (Hadley et al 1984) is related to a delayed flower induction and associated with a prolonged vegetative activity of terminal buds.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Photoperiod appears to have regulatory effects on vegetative and reproductive growth (Johnson et al 1960; Thomas and Raper 1977;Guiamtt and Nakayama 1984a, 19846). Short photoperiods induce an early transition to the reproductive stage, so that the vegetative growth of apical buds is rapidly restricted (Caffaro et al 1985).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Vegetative Activity of the Main Stem Terminal Bud Under Photoperiod and Flower Removal Treatments in Soybean

Caffaro¹,

Nakayama²

1988

Functional Plant Biol.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Effects of photoperiod and flower removal on vegetative activity of the main stem apical bud were examined for an indeterminate ('Williams') and a determinate ('Bragg') soybean cultivar.Plants grew under long day conditions until the V2 stage. Then, they were subjected to three photoperiodic treatments: (1) short days of 9 h of solar radiation during all the experiment (SD); (2) 10 short days followed by long days until the end of the experiment (SD + LD); and (3) long days during all the experiment (LD). From the moment anthesis was reached, half of the plants of each photoperiodic treatment were periodically deflowered.Flower removal induced an additional but limited vegetative growth of the main stem apex, due to the elongation of the youngest internodes. This effect was only seen under SD because long day applications (SD+LD and LD) induced a high flower abortion. On the contrary, long days stimulated internode elongation, leaf expansion and, under LD, delayed anthesis which resulted in enhanced vegetative activity of apical buds and a greater production of nodes and branches. Thus, a close but inverse relation was observed between flower induction and vegetative structure differentiation by apical buds. As in Bragg, Williams may stop vegetative activity of buds by their simple transition to a terminal raceme hence, only posterior differentiated internode elongation will be either limited or stimulated depending on SD or LD conditions, respectively.

show abstract

Effects of Photoperiod and Time of Planting on Rates of Development of the Soybean in Various Stages of the Life Cycle

Cited by 77 publications

References 6 publications

Hourly and Daily Single and Basal Evapotranspiration Crop Coefficients as a Function of Growing Degree Days, Days After Emergence, Leaf Area Index, Fractional Green Canopy Cover, and Plant Phenology for Soybean

Hourly and Daily Single and Basal Evapotranspiration Crop Coefficients as a Function of Growing Degree Days, Days After Emergence, Leaf Area Index, Fractional Green Canopy Cover, and Plant Phenology for Soybean

Adaptation of soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merrill) to the dry season of the tropics. I. Genotypic and environmental effects on phenology

Vegetative Activity of the Main Stem Terminal Bud Under Photoperiod and Flower Removal Treatments in Soybean

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About