Abstract
Abstract Plants of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri [Regel] Moran ‘Crimson Giant’ were given continuous 14-hr long-days (LD), provided by 8-hr daylight plus 6-hr incandescent (Inc) irradiation; continuous 8-hr short-days (SD), provided by daylight; 2, 4, 6, or 8 weeks SD, then LD; or 2, 4, 6, 8 weeks LD, then SD. All plants receiving continuous LD or 2, 4, 6, or 8 weeks SD then LD flowered, whereas some or all plants in other photoperiod regimes failed to flower. Earliest and most prolific flowering occurred in response to 4, 6, or 8 weeks SD then LD. In a second experiment, plants previously given 8 weeks of 8-hr daylight (SD) were transferred to one of the following photoperiods: 12-, 14-, 16-, or 20-hr (8 hr daylight plus = to 12-hr Inc irradiation); 8-hr daylight plus 4-hr Inc night interruption (NI); or 8-hr daylight (SD). All plants receiving photoperiods of 12 to 20 hr or 4-hr NI flowered. Days from start of photoperiod treatments to visible flower buds was inversely related to duration of the Inc irradiation period, with a 4-hr NI comparable to 16-hr day. Days required for visible flower buds to complete development (flower expansion) were largely unaffected by duration or timing of Inc irradiation. Application of BA delayed flowering but more than doubled the number of flower buds per flowering apical phylloclade. Flower bud abortion was increased and both flower fresh weight and flower diameter were diminished by BA. Application of STS did not reduce flower bud abortion on BA-treated plants, but increased the percentage of apical phylloclades flowering. Chemical name used: N -(phenylmethyl)-l H -purin-6-amine (BA), silver thiosulfate (STS).
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc-nd. 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 14
Claim · model-written summary
Continuous long days and short days followed by long days induced flowering.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri
Rhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0 - Treatment
- continuous LD or 2, 4, 6, or 8 weeks SD then LDe0
- Outcome
- flowerede0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All plants receiving continuous LD or 2, 4, 6, or 8 weeks SD then LD flowered”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
Other photoperiod regimes sometimes failed to induce flowering.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- other photoperiod regimese0
- Outcome
- failed to flowere0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“some or all plants in other photoperiod regimes failed to flower”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
Four, six, or eight weeks of short days followed by long days gave earliest flowering.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- 4, 6, or 8 weeks SD then LDe0
- Outcome
- floweringe0
- Direction
- Earlieste0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Earliest and most prolific flowering occurred in response to 4, 6, or 8 weeks SD then LD”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
Four, six, or eight weeks of short days followed by long days gave most prolific flowering.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- 4, 6, or 8 weeks SD then LDe0
- Outcome
- floweringe0
- Direction
- most prolifice0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Earliest and most prolific flowering occurred in response to 4, 6, or 8 weeks SD then LD”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
Photoperiods of 12 to 20 hours or four-hour night interruption induced flowering.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- photoperiods of 12 to 20 hr or 4-hr NIe0
- Outcome
- flowerede0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“All plants receiving photoperiods of 12 to 20 hr or 4-hr NI flowered”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
Longer incandescent irradiation was associated with fewer days to visible flower buds.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- duration of the Inc irradiation periode0
- Outcome
- Days from start of photoperiod treatments to visible flower budse0
- Direction
- inversely relatede0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Days from start of photoperiod treatments to visible flower buds was inversely related to duration of the Inc irradiation period”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
A four-hour night interruption was comparable to a 16-hour day for time to visible buds.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- 4-hr NIe0
- Outcome
- comparable to 16-hr daye0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“with a 4-hr NI comparable to 16-hr day”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
Irradiation duration or timing largely did not affect flower bud development time.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- duration or timing of Inc irradiatione0
- Outcome
- Days required for visible flower buds to complete development (flower expansion)e0
- Direction
- largely unaffectede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Days required for visible flower buds to complete development (flower expansion) were largely unaffected by duration or timing of Inc irradiation”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
BA delayed flowering.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- BAe0
- Outcome
- floweringe0
- Direction
- delayede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of BA delayed flowering”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
BA more than doubled flower buds per flowering apical phylloclade.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- BAe0
- Outcome
- number of flower buds per flowering apical phyllocladee0
- Direction
- more than doublede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of BA delayed flowering but more than doubled the number of flower buds per flowering apical phylloclade”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
BA increased flower bud abortion.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- BAe0
- Outcome
- Flower bud abortione0
- Direction
- increasede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flower bud abortion was increased and both flower fresh weight and flower diameter were diminished by BA”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
BA diminished flower fresh weight and diameter.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- BAe0
- Outcome
- flower fresh weight and flower diametere0
- Direction
- diminishede0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Flower bud abortion was increased and both flower fresh weight and flower diameter were diminished by BA”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
STS did not reduce bud abortion in BA-treated plants.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- STSe0
- Outcome
- flower bud abortione0
- Direction
- did not reducee0
- Qualifier
- BA-treated plantse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of STS did not reduce flower bud abortion on BA-treated plants”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
Claim · model-written summary
STS increased the percentage of apical phylloclades flowering.
- Taxon
- Rhipsalidopsis gaertneriRhipsalidopsis gaertnerit0
- Treatment
- STSe0
- Outcome
- percentage of apical phylloclades floweringe0
- Direction
- increasede0
- Qualifier
- BA-treated plantse0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Application of STS did not reduce flower bud abortion on BA-treated plants, but increased the percentage of apical phylloclades flowering”
t0“Influence of Photoperiod and Growth Regulators on Flowering of Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri”
The same questions in other papers
N-benzyladenine · growth · Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri (Easter cactus)Positive and negative results
1 in the opposite direction
- positive
light · phenology · Rhipsalidopsis gaertneri (Easter cactus)Results agree
1 paper in the same direction as this paper
- 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.