Growth and Yield Properties of Near-Isogenic Wheat Lines Carrying Different Photoperiodic Response Genes

Wheat pre-anthesis development as affected by photoperiod sensitivity genes (Ppd-1) under contrasting photoperiods

“…For Ppd-D1a, González et al (2005c) also found effects on all three phases, whilst others reported effects only on duration of ERP or during EM-TS phase (Scarth et al 1985 andFoulkes et al 2004 respectively). Similarly, whilst Ppd-B1a has been found to shorten EM-TS (Whitechurch and Slafer 2002;Matsuyama et al 2015) or even only ERP (Scarth et al 1985;González et al 2005b), no previous reports on it shortening LRP -as it here did-have been found.…”

“…Sources of variation in the ranking mentioned -beyond the stated above-could be different alleles for a given locus, i.e. the functional polymorphism in Ppd-B1 (Tanio and Kato 2007;Nishida et al 2013) or copy number variation in Ppd-B1 as well (Beales et al 2007;Bentley et al 2011;Díaz et al 2012;Shaw et al 2012;Nishida et al 2013;Muterko et al 2015;Matsuyama et al 2015). Ochagavía et al (2017) grew a more comprehensive collection of NILs in the field and in general found similar, though not identical, results on the effects on developmental phases, revealing again that any ranking on effects would be susceptible to the combination of genetic (e.g.…”

“…From physiological studies exposing wheat to contrasting photoperiod environments, it has been suggested that photoperiod sensitivity of each phenophase might be under -at least partially-independent genetic control (Halloran and Pennell 1982;Slafer and Rawson 1994a;González et al 2002); which would allow for manipulating sensitivity to photoperiod of a particular phenophase -and with it, its duration-without significantly affecting duration of other phases. Studies on the differences in rates of development comparing isogenic lines for Photoperiod-1 (Ppd-1, photoperiod sensitivity genes) have been far less common (Foulkes et al 2004;González et al 2005b, Matsuyama et al 2015Ochagavía et al 2017), and cases in which the effects of these alleles included the study of developmental processes in each of these phases -instead of simply time to heading or anthesis-are almost inexistent (González et al 2005b). Such studies are critical to understand the impact that particular Ppd-1 genes have on developmental processes occurring in each phenophase, which is relevant to design the best genetic combination to optimise adaptation and yield potential.…”

“…For instance, Ppd-D1 has been associated with duration of the three pre-anthesis phases (González et al 2005b); or mainly with the early phases, VP+ERP, but without impact on LRP (Foulkes et al 2004), or only during ERP (Scarth et al 1985), or even in the VP and LRP but not in the ERP (Ochagavía et al 2017). Ppd-B1 has been associated with duration of ERP (Scarth et al 1985;González et al 2005b), or VP+ERP with less or no impact on LRP (Whitechurch and Slafer 2002;Matsuyama et al 2015), or with all the phases (Ochagavía et al 2017). Finally, as far as we are aware there has been ony one paper reporting on effects of Ppd-A1 on these different phases, being the VP and ERP affected; Ochagavía et al 2017).…”

“…All in all, considering the few reports available on the effects of Ppd-1a alleles on spikelets per spike, there seem to be a generalised agreement in that the most extreme phenotypes differ by ca. 2 to 3.5 spikelets per spike, regardless of whether the studies were in controlled (Scarth et al 1985) or field conditions (González et al 2005b, Matsuyama et al 2015. Likewise, the impact of Ppd-1 genes on the leaf appearance rate (LAR) seems to have been only exceptionally considered so far (González et al 2005b).…”