Browse > Article

Photoperiod manipulation in controlling growth and flowering of Chrysanthemum  

Suh, Jeung Keun (Department of Environmental Horticulture, School of Bio-Resources Science, Dankook University)
Kim, Ji Hee (Department of Environmental Horticulture, School of Bio-Resources Science, Dankook University)
Lee, Ae Kyung (Department of Environmental Horticulture, School of Bio-Resources Science, Dankook University)
Publication Information
FLOWER RESEARCH JOURNAL / v.18, no.3, 2010 , pp. 157-164 More about this Journal
Abstract
In Chrysanthemum ${\times}$ morifolium, 30 days of continuous short days (SD) are required for flowering. The effects of alternating short day (SD) - long day (LD) - SD treatments was tested in 5 daisy-like single cultivars, 'Limelight', 'Sunlight', 'Candle Light', 'Firebrand', and 'Twilight', Thee other decorative type cultivars, 'Spirit', 'SunburstSpriit', 'Mandalay', and 'Illini Harvest' was also included. Short day treatment was given for 30 days (control: 30SD) and 5 or 10 LD were interposed following 5 or 10 SD. Different responses were noticed when data from all cultivars were combined, showing that flowering was delayed and the number of ray florets were increased by 5 SD-10 LD-25 SD. The number of ray florets, 40 florets in 'Firebrand' and 60.8 florets in 'Candlelight' was increased significantly by 5 SD-10 LD-25 SD as compared to the control. There were no adverse effects by SD-LD-SD treatment, except for the delay in flowering time from 6 to 7 days. The number of ray florets in 'Illini Harvest' and 'Limelight' were, however, not increased by any SD-LD-SD treatments. Cultivar dependent responses should further be investigated in other newly available cultivars, and this information could be used to breed new cultivars.
Keywords
alternating photoperiod treatment; flower type; ray florets;
Citations & Related Records
연도 인용수 순위
  • Reference
1 Stewart, R. N. and H. Dermen. 1970. Somatic genetics analysis of the apical layers of chimeral sports in Chrysanthemum by experimental production of adventitious shoot. Amer. J. Bot. 57: 1061-1071.   DOI   ScienceOn
2 Wilfret, G. J. 1985. Proc. Fla. State Hort. Soc. 98:124-127.
3 Duffet. W. E. 1956. Interrupted lighting improves winter standards. Ohio Flor. Assn. Bull. 326:3-4.
4 Kofrenek, A.M. and A. H. Halevy. 1974. Minimum number of short days for production of high quality standard chrysanthemums. HortScience 9:543-544.
5 Laurie, A., and L.C. Chadwick. 1943. Commercial flower forcing. P. Blakiston's Son & Co., Inc., Philadelphia, PA, USA. 519p.
6 Post, K. 1947. Chrysanthemum troubles. New York State Flower Growers Bull. 27:4-05. November.
7 Post, K., and D. B. Lacey. 1951. Interrupted short-day improves standard chrysanthemum. New York State Flor. Growers. 70:2-4.
8 Roh, S. M. and H. F. Wilkins. 1977a. Influence of interrupting the long-day inductive treatments on growth and flower numbers of Lilium longiflorum Thunb. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 102:253-255.
9 Roh, S. M. and H. F. Wilkins. 1977b. Comparison of continuous and alternating bulb temperature treatments on growth and flowering in Lilium longiflorum Thunb. J. Amer. Soc. Hort. Sci. 102:242-247.
10 van Veen, J. W. H. 1969. Interrupted bud formation in spray chrysanthemums-shape and quality of the inflorescence. Acta Horti. 14:39-59.
11 SAS/STAT. 1987. Guide for personal computers, Version 6 edition. Cary, NC: SAS Institute Inc., 1028 pp. SAS Institute Inc.