Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-25T16:51:06.822Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Variation in photoperiod response of different isogenic lines of wild oats (Avena fatua)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Leisa J. Armstrong  and
Stephen W. Adkins
Leisa J. Armstrong*
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Queensland, St. Lucia Qld 4072
Stephen W. Adkins
Affiliation:
Department of Agriculture, University of Queensland, St. Lucia 4072, Australia
*
Corresponding author.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

For wild oats, persistence characters such as seed production and seed dormancy may be affected by genetic variation and several environmental factors during the development of the parental plant. However, the effect of varying photoperiods on such characters is unclear. Previous studies have concentrated on natural populations and have not studied the genetic variability within the population. Consequently, a study was conducted to examine how photoperiod (10, 12, 14, 16, and 18 h at 20 C) influenced the persistence of different members of a synthetic population of wild oats. This synthetic population consisted of several isogenic lines with differing degrees of seed dormancy that originated from one region in North America. All lines were photoperiod sensitive, quantitative long day plants, with an increase in time to maturity for all lines (about 78 to 213 d) when photoperiod was reduced from 18 to 10 h. The lines within this synthetic population (with the exception of one, M73) showed a similar degree of photoperiod sensitivity. This may be expected, as the lines are from one region with the same photoperiod environment. It could be concluded that such a photoperiod sensitivity is a beneficial character that has allowed persistence of these lines in this region. When photoperiod was reduced from 18 to 10 h, plants produced fewer seeds (about 141 to 61 primary seeds per plant) with a higher degree of seed dormancy (about 88 to 54% germination in 10−4 M gibberellic acid; GA3). The reduced seed production under the shortest photoperiod (10 h) was due to poor panicle exsertion, which resulted in poor development of basal florets. There was no consistent relationship between photoperiod and other plant characters such as tiller production, caryopsis weight, and water content. However, significant relationships were found between seed dormancy characters and other plant characters such as maturity time, caryopsis weight, and water content under certain photoperiod treatments.

Keywords

Wild oats, Avena fatua L. AVEFAGA3, gibberellic acidGenetic variationplant charactersreproductionseed dormancyAVEFA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 46 , Issue 1 , February 1998 , pp. 39 - 47
Copyright
Copyright © 1998 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

Present address: Agriculture Western Australia, Avon Districts Agriculture Centre, P.O. Box 483, Northam, WA. 6401. Australia; [email protected]

References

Literature Cited

Adkins, S. W., Gosling, P. G., and Ross, J. D. 1980. Glucose-6-phosphate dehydrogenase and 6-phosphogluconic acid dehydrogenase of wild oat seeds. Phytochemistry 19: 2523–2525.Google Scholar
Adkins, S. W., Loewen, M., and Symons, S. J. 1986. Variation within pure lines of wild oats (Avena fatua) in relation to degree of primary dormancy. Weed Sci. 34: 859–864.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Adkins, S. W., Loewen, M., and Symons, S. J. 1987. Variation within pure lines of wild oats (Avena fatua) in relation to temperature of development. Weed Sci. 35: 169–172.Google Scholar
Adkins, S. W. and Simpson, G. M. 1988. The physiological basis of seed dormancy in Avena fatua . IX. Characterization of two dormancy states. Physiol. Plant. 73: 15–20.Google Scholar
Allard, R. W. 1960. Principles of Plant Breeding. New York: J. Wiley. 485 p.Google Scholar
Atherton, J. G. 1987. Manipulation of Flowering. London: Butterworths. 483 p.Google Scholar
Banting, J. D. 1966. Factors affecting the persistence of Avena fatua . Can. J. Plant Sci. 46: 469–478.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baum, B. R. 1977. Oats: Wild and Cultivated. A Monograph of the Genus Avenae (Poaceae). Monograph No. 14. Biosystematics Research Institute. Ottawa, Canada: Canada Department of Agriculture, Research Branch. 463 p.Google Scholar
Coffman, F. A. 1961. Oats and Oat Improvement. Madison, WI: American Society of Agronomy. 650 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cousens, R. D., Johnson, M. P., Weaver, S. E., Martin, T. D., and Blair, A. M. 1992. Comparative rates of emergence and leaf appearance in wild oats (Avena fatua), winter barley (Hordeum sativum) and winter wheat (Triticum aestivum). J. Agric. Sci. (Camb.) 118: 149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Evenari, M., Koller, D., and Gutterman, Y. 1966. Effects of the environment of the mother plant on the germination by control of seed coat permeability to water in Ononis sicula Guss. Aust. J. Biol. Sci. 19: 1007–1016.Google Scholar
Griffiths, D. J. 1961. The influence of different daylengths on ear emergence and seed setting in oats. J. Agric. Sci. 57: 279–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gutterman, Y. 1982. Phenotypic maternal effect of photoperiod on seed germination. Pages 67–79 in Khan, A. A., ed. The Physiology and Biochemistry of Seed Development, Dormancy and Germination. Amsterdam: Elsevier.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1991. The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and Biology. Honolulu: The University Press of Hawaii. 609 p.Google Scholar
Jana, S. and Naylor, J. M. 1980. Dormancy studies in seed of Avena fatua . Heritability for seed dormancy. Can. J. Bot. 60: 1611–1617.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karssen, C. M. 1970. The light promoted germination of the seeds of Chenopodium album . III. Effect of the photoperiod during growth and development of the plants on the dormancy of the produced seeds. Acta. Bot. Nerl. 19: 81–94.Google Scholar
Kaul, V. 1971. Physiological ecology of Xanthium strumarium Linn. IV. Effect of climate factors on growth and distribution. New Phytol. 70: 799–812.Google Scholar
Kigel, J. 1985. Amaranthus . Pages 427–433 in Halevy, A. H., A. ed. Handbook of Flowering. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Knight, R. 1979. Hybridization and the breeding of self pollinated crops. Pages 23–25 in Halloran, G. M. and Knight, R., eds. Plant Breeding. Brisbane: Vice Chancellors Committee.Google Scholar
Law, C. N. 1987. The genetic control of daylength tesponse in wheat. Pages 225–240 in Atherton, J. G., ed. Manipulation of Flowering. New York: Butterworths.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Major, D. J. 1980. Photoperiod response characteristics controlling flowering in nine crop species. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60: 777–784.Google Scholar
Naylor, J. M. 1983. Studies on the genetic control of some physiological processes in seeds. Can. J. Bot. 61: 3561–3567.Google Scholar
Naylor, J. M. and Jana, S. 1976. Genetic adaption for seed dormancy in Avena fatua . Can. J. Bot. 54: 306–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Osbourne, D. J. 1981. Dormancy as a survival stratagem. Ann. Appl. Biol. 98: 525–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Paterson, J. G., Boyd, W.J.R., and Goodchild, N. A. 1976. Vernalization and photoperiod requirement of naturalized Avena fatua and Avena barbata pott. ex link in Western Australia. Aust. J. Appl. Ecol. 13: 265–272.Google Scholar
Rajhathy, T. and Thomas, H. 1974. Cytogenetics of oats (Avena L.) Misc. Publ. Genet. Soc. Can. 2: 5–90.Google Scholar
Ramakrishnan, P. S. and Kapoor, P. 1974. Photoperiod requirements of seasonal populations of Chenopodium album L. J. Ecol. 62: 67–73.Google Scholar
Richardson, S. G. 1979. Factors influencing the development of primary dormancy in wild oat seeds. Can. J. Plant Sci. 59: 777–784.Google Scholar
Sampson, D. R. and Burrows, V. D. 1972. Influence of photoperiod, short-day vernalization and cold vernalization on days to heading in Avena spp. and cultivars. Can. J. Plant Sci. 52: 471–482.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[SAS] Statistical Analysis Systems. 1987. SAS Procedures Guide. Version 6. Cary, NC: Statistical Analysis Systems Institute.Google Scholar
Sawhney, R. and Naylor, J. M. 1980. Dormancy studies in seed of Avena fatua. 12. Influence of temperature on germination behaviour of nondormant families. Can. J. Bot. 58: 578–581.Google Scholar
Sawhney, R. and Naylor, J. M. 1982. Dormancy studies in seed of Avena fatua. 13. Influence of drought stress during seed development on duration of seed dormancy. Can. J. Bot. 60: 1016–1020.Google Scholar
Sexsmith, J. J. and Pitman, U. T. 1963. Effects of nitrogen fertilizers on germination in a stand of wild oats. Weeds 11: 99–101.Google Scholar
Shands, H. L. and Cisar, G. L. 1985. Avena . Pages 523–535 in Halevy, A. H., ed. Handbook of Flowering. Volume 1. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.Google Scholar
Somody, C. N., Nalewaja, J. D., and Millet, S. D. 1984. The response of wild oat (Avena fatua and Avena sterilis) accessions to photoperiod and temperature. Weed Sci. 32: 206–213.Google Scholar
Steele, R.G.D. and Torrie, J. H. 1981. Principles and Procedures of Statistics. New York: McGraw-Hill. 633 p.Google Scholar
Vince-Prue, D. 1975. Photoperiodism in Plants. London: McGraw-Hill. 444 p.Google Scholar
Wiggans, S. C. and Frey, K. J. 1957. Tillering studies in oats. II. Effects of photoperiod and date of planting. Agron. J. 49: 215–217.Google Scholar
Wilson, B.J. 1981. Effect of time of seedling emergence on seed production and time to flowering of eight weeds. Pages 35–38 in Wilson, B. J. and Swarbrick, J. T., eds. Proceedings of the 6th Australian Weeds Conference. Volume 1. Gold Coast, Queensland. Brisbane: Qld Weed Society for the Australian Council of Weed Science Societies Publishers.Google Scholar