Photoperiod Influence on Development in Sunflower Genotypes¹

Abstract

Synchronization of anthesis of male and female inbred sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) lines to be crossed in either breeding nurseries or seed production fields is important. Research was conducted to determine the influence of photoperiod on phenological development in a diverse group of sunflower genotypes. An understanding of this response would allow the development of a model to predict sunflower anthesis. Sixteen sunflower genotypes, including hybrid and inbred lines, were classified for photoperiod response in greenhouse plantings carried out over a 2-yr period at Fargo, ND (latitude 46°54'N, elevation 183 m). Plantings were made so that emergence occurted each time natural photoperiod changed by about 1 h. Although some genotypes displayed long-day, short-day, or insensitive photoperiodic reactions for the period from emergence to floral bud development, many of the genotypes appeared to be ambiphotoperiodic, with 11 through 13 h at emergence being the photoperiods delaying time to flower bud development. This delay could be of consequence to breeding programs in those latitudes where planting dates may result in emergence and early growth of the sunflower coinciding with these intermediate photoperiods.

Mega‐Environment Differences Affecting Genetic Progress for Yield and Relative Value of Component Traits

“…However, their relative responses for time to flowering showed a strong hybrid group × subregion crossover interaction; the striped‐seed hybrids (group 1) showing intermediate‐early, intermediate‐late, and late maturities in the northern, central, and southern subregions, respectively. These relative responses for time to flowering are consistent with the findings of Goyne and Schneiter (1987) and Leon et al (2001) for the sunflower inbred lines ZENB8 and HA 89, female parents of some hybrids representative of group 1 and 2, respectively. According to these authors, HA 89, as well as other lines representative of group 2 like HA 300 (Goyne and Schneiter, 1987), exhibit an ambiphotoperiodic response (short‐ or long‐day response depending on photoperiod); it shows its longest relative maturity when the photoperiod at emergence is about 11 to 13 h and a long‐day response at longer daylengths.…”

“…These relative responses for time to flowering are consistent with the findings of Goyne and Schneiter (1987) and Leon et al (2001) for the sunflower inbred lines ZENB8 and HA 89, female parents of some hybrids representative of group 1 and 2, respectively. According to these authors, HA 89, as well as other lines representative of group 2 like HA 300 (Goyne and Schneiter, 1987), exhibit an ambiphotoperiodic response (short‐ or long‐day response depending on photoperiod); it shows its longest relative maturity when the photoperiod at emergence is about 11 to 13 h and a long‐day response at longer daylengths. Relative to ZENB8, these HA 89 line types require more growing degree days to flower when the photoperiod during emergence is equal to or less than 14 h. This type of response reflects that of group 2 hybrids, which are relatively late in the northern subregion, where emergence and vegetative period occur under short photoperiods, and relatively early in the central and southern subregions, where later plantings and higher latitudes are associated with longer photoperiods for the same crop phase.…”

“…Relative to ZENB8, these HA 89 line types require more growing degree days to flower when the photoperiod during emergence is equal to or less than 14 h. This type of response reflects that of group 2 hybrids, which are relatively late in the northern subregion, where emergence and vegetative period occur under short photoperiods, and relatively early in the central and southern subregions, where later plantings and higher latitudes are associated with longer photoperiods for the same crop phase. The line ZENB8 exhibits a day‐neutral to short‐day response, like HA 124 (Goyne and Schneiter, 1987), and takes more days to flower than HA 89 under photoperiods longer than 14 h; this type of response being representative of that of group 1 hybrids.…”

Transitions in photoperiodic flowering are common and involve few loci in wild sunflowers (Helianthus; Asteraceae)

“…Moreover, Texan populations, known to have established during a relatively recent southward range expansion (Rieseberg et al, 1990; Whitney et al, 2006), exhibit a facultative long‐day response. Similar variation in photoperiod response is also observed among cultivated accessions, and cultivars with additional, more complex responses have been reported as well (Allard and Garner, 1940; Dyer et al, 1959; Goyne and Schneiter, 1987; Leon et al, 2001; Yanez et al, 2005; Blackman et al, 2010). However, with the exception of the Jerusalem artichoke, H. tuberosus , another taxon of agronomic interest in the genus (Hackbarth, 1937; Kays and Nottingham, 2008), the diversity of photoperiod response within and between Helianthus species has not been extensively surveyed.…”

Effects of climate change on Europe-wide winter wheat and sunflower productivity

“…comm.) although it has been reported that both short and long days can accelerate sunflower development (Doyle 1975, Hammer et al 1982, Goyne & Schneiter 1987. Flowering can occur over a wide range of daylengths and, hence, photoperiod was assumed to be inconsequential when predicting development over a wide range of locations (Kiniry et al 1992).…”