Abstract
A model has been developed that can be used to determine the phases of sensitivity to photoperiod for seedlings subjected to reciprocal transfers at regular intervals between long (LD) and short day (SD) conditions. The novel feature of this approach is that it enables the simultaneous analysis of the time to flower and number of leaves below the inflorescence. A range of antirrhinum cultivars were grown, all of which were shown to be quantitative long-day plants. Seedlings were effectively insensitive to photoperiod when very young (juvenile). However, after the end of the juvenile phase, SD delayed flowering and increased the number of leaves below the inflorescence. Plants transferred from LD to SD showed a sudden hastening of flowering and a decrease in leaf number once sufficient LD had been received for flower commitment. Photoperiod had little effect on the rate of flower development. The analysis clearly identified major cultivar differences in the length of the juvenile phase and the photoperiod-sensitive inductive phase in both LD and SD.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Very young Antirrhinum seedlings were effectively insensitive to photoperiod.
- Taxon
- Antirrhinum majus
Antirrhinum majust0 - Organ / stage
- Seedlingse1
- Treatment
- photoperiode1
- Outcome
- insensitive to photoperiode1
- Qualifier
- when very young (juvenile)e1
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Antirrhinum majus L.”
e1“Seedlings were effectively insensitive to photoperiod when very young (juvenile)”
Claim · model-written summary
Short-day conditions delayed flowering of Antirrhinum seedlings after the juvenile phase.
- Taxon
- Antirrhinum majusAntirrhinum majust0
- Treatment
- SDe2
- Outcome
- floweringe2
- Direction
- delayede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Antirrhinum majus L.”
e2“after the end of the juvenile phase, SD delayed flowering and increased the number of leaves below the inflorescence”
Claim · model-written summary
Short-day conditions increased the number of leaves below the inflorescence after the juvenile phase.
- Taxon
- Antirrhinum majusAntirrhinum majust0
- Treatment
- SDe2
- Outcome
- number of leaves below the inflorescencee2
- Direction
- increasede2
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Antirrhinum majus L.”
e2“after the end of the juvenile phase, SD delayed flowering and increased the number of leaves below the inflorescence”
Claim · model-written summary
Transfer from long days to short days hastened flowering of Antirrhinum once flower commitment was reached.
- Taxon
- Antirrhinum majusAntirrhinum majust0
- Treatment
- transferred from LD to SDe3
- Outcome
- floweringe3
- Direction
- hasteninge3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Antirrhinum majus L.”
e3“Plants transferred from LD to SD showed a sudden hastening of flowering and a decrease in leaf number once sufficient LD had been received for flower commitment”
Claim · model-written summary
Transfer from long days to short days decreased leaf number of Antirrhinum once flower commitment was reached.
- Taxon
- Antirrhinum majusAntirrhinum majust0
- Treatment
- transferred from LD to SDe3
- Outcome
- leaf numbere3
- Direction
- decreasee3
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Antirrhinum majus L.”
e3“Plants transferred from LD to SD showed a sudden hastening of flowering and a decrease in leaf number once sufficient LD had been received for flower commitment”
Claim · model-written summary
Photoperiod had little effect on the rate of flower development in Antirrhinum.
- Taxon
- Antirrhinum majusAntirrhinum majust0
- Treatment
- Photoperiode4
- Outcome
- rate of flower developmente4
- Direction
- little effecte4
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Antirrhinum majus L.”
e4“Photoperiod had little effect on the rate of flower development”
Claim · model-written summary
Antirrhinum cultivars differed in the length of the juvenile phase and the photoperiod-sensitive inductive phase.
- Taxon
- Antirrhinum majusAntirrhinum majust0
- Material
- antirrhinum cultivarse0
- Outcome
- the length of the juvenile phase and the photoperiod-sensitive inductive phasee5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Antirrhinum majus L.”
e0“A range of antirrhinum cultivars were grown, all of which were shown to be quantitative long-day plants”
e5“The analysis clearly identified major cultivar differences in the length of the juvenile phase and the photoperiod-sensitive inductive phase in both LD and SD”
Claim · model-written summary
All Antirrhinum cultivars tested were quantitative long-day plants.
- Taxon
- Antirrhinum majusAntirrhinum majust0
- Material
- antirrhinum cultivarse0
- Outcome
- quantitative long-day plantse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
t0“Antirrhinum majus L.”
e0“A range of antirrhinum cultivars were grown, all of which were shown to be quantitative long-day plants”
The same questions in other papers
light · growth · Antirrhinum majus (snapdragon)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 4 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
2 papers more in this group
See all 6 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.