Abstract
Sugarcane does not produce viable pollen in South Africa because flowering occurs in winter when temperatures fluctuate below 20°C, the minimum threshold for pollen survival. Photoperiod treatments are required to enhance pollen survival and induce, synchronise and distribute flowering across the pollination season. At the South African Sugarcane Research Institute (SASRI) six photoperiod treatments are deployed: G1, G2 and G3 in the glasshouse and P1, P2 and P3 in the photoperiod house. In the glasshouse, natural day-length is extended by reducing the rate at which it declines naturally. In the photoperiod house, day-length is reduced by 30 seconds per day and the treatments are started at different times. The aim is to synchronise flowering between G1 and P1, G2 and P3, and G3 and P2. The objective of this study was to evaluate the effect of photoperiod treatment on ‘pollen viability’ and ‘days until flowering’. Analysis over a five-year period showed that genotypes from the photoperiod house produced significantly (P<0.001) more fertile pollen than genotypes from the glasshouse. None of the photoperiod treatments showed synchronised flowering. Genotypes from G1 flowered two days earlier than those from P1 (P<0.001); G2 genotypes flowered 12 days earlier than P3 genotypes (P<0.001); and G3 genotypes flowered three days later than P2 genotypes (P<0.001). Since sugarcane pollen is generally viable for only 20 minutes, female flowers from G1 and G2 could lose receptivity before male flowers from P1 and P3 are fertile. Likewise, males from P2 could shed pollen before females from G3 are receptive. These results emphasise the need for further optimisation of photoperiod treatments at SASRI.
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 6
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypes from the photoperiod house produced significantly more fertile pollen than genotypes from the glasshouse.
- Taxon
- Sugarcanee0
- Treatment
- photoperiod housee1
- Outcome
- fertile pollene1
- Direction
- moree1
- Comparator
- glasshousee1
- Setting
- glasshousee1
Not reportedValue
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane does not produce viable pollen in South Africa”
e1“Analysis over a five-year period showed that genotypes from the photoperiod house produced significantly (P<0.001) more fertile pollen than genotypes from the glasshouse”
Claim · model-written summary
None of the photoperiod treatments synchronised sugarcane flowering.
Not reportedComparatorDirectionValue
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane does not produce viable pollen in South Africa”
e2“None of the photoperiod treatments showed synchronised flowering”
Claim · model-written summary
Genotypes from G1 flowered two days earlier than those from P1.
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane does not produce viable pollen in South Africa”
e3“Genotypes from G1 flowered two days earlier than those from P1 (P<0.001)”
Claim · model-written summary
G2 genotypes flowered 12 days earlier than P3 genotypes.
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane does not produce viable pollen in South Africa”
e4“G2 genotypes flowered 12 days earlier than P3 genotypes (P<0.001)”
Claim · model-written summary
G3 genotypes flowered three days later than P2 genotypes.
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane does not produce viable pollen in South Africa”
e5“G3 genotypes flowered three days later than P2 genotypes (P<0.001)”
Claim · model-written summary
Further optimisation of photoperiod treatments is needed for sugarcane at SASRI (author recommendation).
Verbatim
e0“Sugarcane does not produce viable pollen in South Africa”
e6“These results emphasise the need for further optimisation of photoperiod treatments at SASRI”
The same questions in other papers
light · phenology · Saccharum officinarum (sugarcane)Positive and negative results
2 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
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.