Abstract
Heat stress on roses (Rosa spp.) negatively affects the plantRSQUOs performance and reduces the market value of the crop. The effect of heat on flower size was assessed through petal number in the field during the cool (~20°C) and warm (~30°C) seasons during 2013-2014 and through flower diameter and weight during 2015 for 9 interrelated diploid rose families, respectively. The elevated temperature caused a decrease in flower size for flower diameter (~16-18%), petal number (~23-17%), and flower weight (~17-32%). Flower size showed low to moderate (flower diameter, 0.24-0.38; petal number, 0.12-0.26; flower weight, 0.34-0.53) narrow sense heritability and moderate (flower diameter, 0.62-0.70; petal number, 0.74-0.91; flower weight, 0.76-0.88) broad sense heritability inferring a major non-additive genetic component for flower size. Differences in heat tolerance would indicate that roses respond differentially to the environment (heat stress). Thus in a genetic variance analysis, a high G×E variance would indicate genetic differences in heat stress. Among the three size parameters, flower diameter showed the largest G×E genetic variance. However, the G×E variance for flower diameter in the heat shock experiment explained less (6.3%) genetic variance as compared to the field experiment (37%) indicating that selection would be more effective under field conditions. We are now investigating the use of FlexQTL to analyze the phenotypic and genotypic data from these interrelated families to identify important QTL conditioning the changes in flower size and heat tolerance.
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 12
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated temperature decreased rose flower diameter by about 16-18%.
- Taxon
- rosest0
- Treatment
- elevated temperaturee0
- Outcome
- flower diametere0
- Direction
- decreasee0
- Value
- ~16-18%e0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The elevated temperature caused a decrease in flower size for flower diameter (~16-18%)”
t0“roses”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated temperature decreased rose petal number by about 23-17%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“petal number (~23-17%)”
t0“roses”
e1“The elevated temperature caused a decrease in flower size”
Claim · model-written summary
Elevated temperature decreased rose flower weight by about 17-32%.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“flower weight (~17-32%)”
t0“roses”
e1“The elevated temperature caused a decrease in flower size”
Claim · model-written summary
Rose flower diameter showed low to moderate narrow sense heritability.
Verbatim
e0“flower diameter, 0.24-0.38”
t0“roses”
e1“narrow sense heritability”
Claim · model-written summary
Rose petal number showed low to moderate narrow sense heritability.
Verbatim
e0“petal number, 0.12-0.26”
t0“roses”
e1“narrow sense heritability”
Claim · model-written summary
Rose flower weight showed low to moderate narrow sense heritability.
Verbatim
e0“flower weight, 0.34-0.53”
t0“roses”
e1“narrow sense heritability”
Claim · model-written summary
Rose flower diameter showed moderate broad sense heritability.
Verbatim
e0“flower diameter, 0.62-0.70”
t0“roses”
Claim · model-written summary
Rose petal number showed moderate broad sense heritability.
Verbatim
e0“petal number, 0.74-0.91”
t0“roses”
Claim · model-written summary
Rose flower weight showed moderate broad sense heritability.
Verbatim
e0“flower weight, 0.76-0.88”
t0“roses”
Claim · model-written summary
Flower diameter had the largest genotype by environment variance among size parameters.
Verbatim
e0“flower diameter showed the largest G×E genetic variance”
t0“roses”
Claim · model-written summary
The heat shock experiment explained 6.3% of flower diameter genetic variance, less than the field experiment at 37%.
Verbatim
e0“G×E variance for flower diameter in the heat shock experiment explained less (6.3%) genetic variance as compared to the field experiment (37%)”
t0“roses”
Claim · model-written summary
The authors inferred that selection for flower diameter would be more effective in field conditions.
Verbatim
e0“selection would be more effective under field conditions”
t0“roses”
The same questions in other papers
heat · growth · RosaPositive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 2 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
4 papers more in this group
See all 8 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.