4.7 Article

Photoperiodic effects on short-pulse 14C assimilation and overall carbon and nitrogen allocation patterns in contrasting quinoa cultivars

期刊

ENVIRONMENTAL AND EXPERIMENTAL BOTANY
卷 104, 期 -, 页码 9-15

出版社

PERGAMON-ELSEVIER SCIENCE LTD
DOI: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2014.03.002

关键词

Chenopodium; Crop adaptation; Source-sink relationship; Resource allocation; Day length; Yield potential

资金

  1. University of Copenhagen Faculty of Science

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Further understanding of the range of environmental influence on source-sink relationships in quinoa is important to streamlining future crop improvement and efforts concerning geographic expansion of cultivation areas. In the present study a photoperiod sensitive quinoa cv. 'Achachino' and photoperiod neutral cv. 'Titicaca' were studied under short (10 h) and long (17.5 h) days, with respect to C and N distribution as well as partitioning of newly assimilated C to plant organs. An extended photoperiod resulted in C-14 decreasingly being allocated to stem growth and lower leaves in 'Titicaca', but increasingly in 'Achachino'. Both cultivars increased biomass accumulation under extended photoperiod, but in the short day cultivar 'Achachino' the extension mostly favoured stem and lower leaf growth and resulted in deteriorated seed development. In contrast, 'Titicaca' responded to extended photoperiod with an immediate increase in carbon allocation to upper leaves, and over time to the reproductive structures, resulting in a more than 50% increase in final yield. Collectively the results indicate that even though the photoperiod sensitive cultivar flowered under long photoperiod it did not develop seeds, whereas the photoperiod neutral cultivar in comparison has a wider range in photoperiod plasticity and ability to specifically utilize additional light towards reproductive growth, resulting in an increased yield potential in regions outside of the tropical zone. (C) 2014 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据