Abstract
Eight varieties of the species Oryza sativa L. and two varieties of O. glaberrima Steud. were grown under controlled conditions in combinations of three photo-periods (8½ 10½ and 11½ hours light per day), each giving the same total daily radiant energy, and four temperature régimes (‘night’ and ‘day’ temperatures of 25-35° 30-35° 30-40° and 35-35° respectively). The flowering responses were measured as the number of days from sowing to the first appearance of the panicle. Under the range of conditions investigated, one variety (Kogbati 3) was completely insensitive to both photoperiod and temperature. The remainder were affected by both factors and the optimum photoperiod (i.e. the photoperiod resulting in earliest flowering) varied between 8½ and 10½ hours. In general, the higher the temperature régime, the longer the duration of the vegetative phase. In some varieties, but not all, there was some indication that the value of the optimum photoperiod increased with increasing temperature. No specific effects of night temperatures as opposed to day temperatures on the flowering response could be detected, but there was some evidence that high night temperatures were more deleterious to vegetative growth than high day temperatures. The 8½-hour photoperiod also resulted in particularly poor vegetative growth by comparison with other photoperiodic treatments.
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 7
Claim · model-written summary
Rice variety Kogbati 3 was completely insensitive to photoperiod and temperature.
- Taxon
- Oryza sativa
Oryza sativae0 - Material
- Kogbati 3e1
- Outcome
- completely insensitive to both photoperiod and temperaturee1
- Setting
- controlled conditionse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Eight varieties of the species Oryza sativa L. and two varieties of O. glaberrima Steud. were grown under controlled conditions”
e1“one variety (Kogbati 3) was completely insensitive to both photoperiod and temperature”
Claim · model-written summary
The optimum photoperiod for flowering in the other varieties was between 8½ and 10½ hours.
- Taxon
- Oryza sativaOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- photoperiode2
- Outcome
- optimum photoperiode2
- Value
- between 8½ and 10½ hourse2
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Eight varieties of the species Oryza sativa L. and two varieties of O. glaberrima Steud. were grown under controlled conditions”
e2“the optimum photoperiod (i.e. the photoperiod resulting in earliest flowering) varied between 8½ and 10½ hours”
Claim · model-written summary
A higher temperature regime lengthened the vegetative phase.
- Taxon
- Oryza sativaOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- temperature régimee3
- Outcome
- duration of the vegetative phasee3
- Direction
- longere3
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Eight varieties of the species Oryza sativa L. and two varieties of O. glaberrima Steud. were grown under controlled conditions”
e3“the higher the temperature régime, the longer the duration of the vegetative phase”
Claim · model-written summary
In some varieties the optimum photoperiod tended to increase with temperature.
- Taxon
- Oryza sativaOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- increasing temperaturee4
- Outcome
- the value of the optimum photoperiode4
- Direction
- increasede4
- Qualifier
- some indicatione4
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Eight varieties of the species Oryza sativa L. and two varieties of O. glaberrima Steud. were grown under controlled conditions”
e4“In some varieties, but not all, there was some indication that the value of the optimum photoperiod increased with increasing temperature”
Claim · model-written summary
Night and day temperatures had no specific effect on the flowering response.
- Taxon
- Oryza sativaOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- night temperaturese5
- Outcome
- flowering responsee5
- Direction
- No specific effectse5
- Comparator
- day temperaturese5
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Eight varieties of the species Oryza sativa L. and two varieties of O. glaberrima Steud. were grown under controlled conditions”
e5“No specific effects of night temperatures as opposed to day temperatures on the flowering response could be detected”
Claim · model-written summary
High night temperatures were more deleterious to vegetative growth than high day temperatures.
- Taxon
- Oryza sativaOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- high night temperaturese6
- Outcome
- vegetative growthe6
- Direction
- more deleteriouse6
- Qualifier
- some evidencee6
- Comparator
- high day temperaturese6
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Eight varieties of the species Oryza sativa L. and two varieties of O. glaberrima Steud. were grown under controlled conditions”
e6“there was some evidence that high night temperatures were more deleterious to vegetative growth than high day temperatures”
Claim · model-written summary
The 8½-hour photoperiod gave particularly poor vegetative growth compared with other photoperiodic treatments.
- Taxon
- Oryza sativaOryza sativae0
- Treatment
- 8½-hour photoperiode7
- Outcome
- vegetative growthe7
- Direction
- particularly poore7
- Comparator
- other photoperiodic treatmentse7
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Eight varieties of the species Oryza sativa L. and two varieties of O. glaberrima Steud. were grown under controlled conditions”
e7“The 8½-hour photoperiod also resulted in particularly poor vegetative growth by comparison with other photoperiodic treatments”
The same questions in other papers
light · growth · Oryza sativa (rice)Positive and negative results
39 papers in the same direction as this paper · 55 in the opposite direction
- positive
- positive
- positive
91 papers more in this group
See all 95 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.