Library

Notes: Abstract Flowering of Pharbitis nil after an inductive dark period is greatly influenced by far-red (FR) irradiation during the preceding light period. The response to FR is rhythmic in otherwise constant conditions, and the period of the oscillation is approximately 12 h (i.e. semidian). The rhythm also appears to operate under daily light-dark cycles. The expression of this novel rhythm depends on the time from the beginning of FR pretreatment to the onset of the inductive dark period. The cotyledons are the site of response to both the pretreatment and inductive darkness, and both these conditions must be perceived by the same cotyledon.

Notes: The relative growth rate of pot-grown plants of Poa pratensis L. cv. Holt, origin 69s°N, was increased by 20–40% by photoperiod extension with low intensity incandescent light from 8 to 24 h at 9–21°C. The main increase occurred over the 14 to 18 h photoperiod range. The true photoperiodic nature of the response was demonstrated by the effectiveness of night interruption in stimulating growth. Fortnightly sprayings with gibberellic acid (GA3) (3 × 10-6 to 3 × 10-5M) mimicked all the effects of long days, whereas (2-chloroethyl)-trimethylammonium chloride (CCC) counteracted the effects of long days. Both growth substances exhibited pronounced interactions with photoperiod, GA3 being most effective in short days and CCC in long days. The growth stimulation, whether caused by long days or GA3, was exerted mainly through increases in individual and total leaf area. This was associated with a reduction in CO2, exchange rate and a parallel fall in specific leaf weight. Proportionally, however, the increase in leaf area was greater than the fall in CO2 exchange rate, resulting in a 38 to 118% increase in photosynthesis per leaf. No evidence was found of any direct and promotive effect of transition to long days on the CO2 exchange rate of already expanded leaves.

Notes: Plants of Poa pratensis cv. Holt initiate inflorescence primordia when exposed to short days (SD) and low temperature, but require a secondary induction by at least 4 long days (LD) for further inflorescence development and stem elongation. Single or double applications of 10 µg per plant of gibberellins A1, A3, A5 and 16,17-dihydro A5 (DHGA5) induced inflorescence development in a high proportion of plants in SD, but only if the plants were detillered to a single stem. Exposure to 2 LD cycles did not cause heading and flowering alone but enhanced the effect of exogenous gibberellins (GAs), bringing flowering to 100%. GA5 and DHGA5 were less effective than GA1 and GA3 in SD, especially with double applications, but were more effective than GA1 and GA3 when given together with 2 LD. The GAs had differential effects on vegetative growth and flowering, GA5 and DHGA5 causing much less leaf and stem growth than the other two GAs. Marginal induction, whether by LD or GA application, resulted in a high proportion of spikelets with viviparous proliferation. Thus, whereas GAs are inhibitory to the primary induction by SD, they can replace secondary induction by LD when vegetative growth is limited.

Notes: [Auszug] AT the time of establishment 50 years ago of the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), the agricultural and pastoral industries were predominant in Australia's economy. The most pressing research problems were in the field of agriculture, and these were the concern of all the first ...

Notes: [Auszug] The plants used were derived from the selfed progeny of a single Canadian plant, and were grown under controlled environmental conditions in the Earhart Laboratory, Pasadena. After seedling establishment in 8-hr, photoperiods, groups of plants were distributed to a series of photoperiod regimes at ...

Notes: Flowering in Poa pratensis L. cv. Holt and Bromus inermis Leyss. cv. Manchar requires exposure to short days (SD) for primary induction to occur, followed by long days (LD) to allow the inflorescence to develop. Weekly sprays with gibberellic acid (GA3) during primary induction inhibited flower initiation in both P. pratensis and B. inermis. With 10−4M GA3 flowering of P. pratensis was suppressed even after an induction period of 10 weeks. Since both GA3 and non-inductive LD conditions greatly stimulate leaf elongation, the degree of primary induction was closely negatively correlated with plant height (leaf sheath and blade length) at the end of the induction period. GA3 application or the interpolation of LD during SD induction were most inhibitory during the later middle part of the SD period, whereas they were stimulatory near the beginning or immediately before the SD period. We suggest that changes in the portfolio or levels of endogenous gibberellins mediate photoperiodic control of growth and floral initiation in these plants. However, GA3 sprays could not substitute for LD in causing heading and culm elongation in SD induced plants of the two species. The results are discussed in the light of results with other plants with dual floral induction requirements.

Notes: When seedlings of Pharbitis nil Choisy, cv. Violet, are exposed to a single inductive dark period at 27°C, brief interruptions with red light (R) can be promotive after 2–3 h of darkness but increasingly inhibitory to flowering up to the 8–9th h of darkness. This rhythmic response to R interruptions can be advanced in phase by 〉 1 h when the preceding light period is interrupted with far-red (FR) 2 h before darkness (FR -2 h) or with FR – 15 h, whereas FR –8 h or FR–22 h retard the rhythm. These shifts in the R interruption rhythm are paralleled by equal shifts in the length of the dark period required for flowering. Brief FR interruptions of darkness displayed a similar rhythm which was also advanced by FR –2 h and retarded by FR –8 h. We conclude therefore that the semidian rhythm in the light, which we have previously described, continues through at least the first 12 h of darkness, is manifested in the R interruption rhythm, and determines the critical night length. A circadian rhythm with a marked effect on flowering was also identified, but several lines of evidence suggest that the circadian and semidian rhythms have independent additive effects on flowering and do not appear to show phase interaction.

Notes: Conclusion The central role played by Darwin's analogy between selection under domestication and that under nature has been adequately appreciated, but I have indicated how important the domesticated organisms also were to other elements of Darwin's theory of evolution-his recognition of “the constant principle of change,” for instance, of the imperfection of adaptation, and of the extent of variation in nature. The further development of his theory and its presentation to the public likewise hinged on frequent reference to domesticates. We have seen that Darwin's reliance on the analogy between domesticated varieties and wild species was a bold and original step, in light of contemporary views on the nature of domesticates. However, as Darwin undoubtedly foresaw, his reliance on the analogy created difficulties as well as solving problems, and these began with his Malthusian codiscoverer of the principle of natural selection, Alfred Russel Wallace. Wallace's paper “On the Tendency of Varieties to Depart Indefinitely from the Original Type,” presented to the Linnean Scoiety along with the first public unveiling of Darwin's theory, states: We see, then, that no inferences as to varieties in a state of nature can be deduced from the observation of those occurring among domestic animals. The two are so much opposed to each other in every circumstance of their existence, that what applies to the one is almost sure not to apply to the other. Domestic animals are abnormal, irregular, artificial; they are subject to varieties which never occur and never can occur in a state of nature.62 Much has been made of the similarity of views of Darwin and Wallace, but this quotation surely reveals how utterly different their views were on what to Darwin was an important matter. Several critics of the Origin saw Darwin's reliance on the domesticates as his Achilles heel. As Young has pointed out, Samuel Wilberforce included the following passage in his attack on the Origin: Nor must we pass over unnoticed the transference of the argument from the domesticated to the untamed animals. Assuming that man as the selector can do much in a limited time, Mr. Darwin argues that Nature, a more powerful, a more continuous power, working over vastly extended ranges of time, can do more. But why should Nature, so uniform and persistent in all her operations, tend in this instance to change? Why should she become a selector of varieties?63 Another critic, Fleeming Jenkin, found the analogy a weakness in Darwin's theory because of the limited extent of variation in any one direction in domestic animals and plants.64 We have already seen that Darwin had confided a similar view to his notebook thirty years earlier, but changed his mind as a result of his profound study of domesticates. De Beer's reference to “an English country gentleman's knowledge of domestic plants and animals and their breeding”65 fails totally to recognize the originality and depth of Darwin's knowledge of domesticates. Why did Darwin, against the currents of his time, rely so heavily on mankind's experience with domesticated organisms to shape his theory about species in nature? On reason is that only with domesticates was an approach that came close to experimental verification possible. Darwin fully realized the inadequacies of the experiment, as is emphasized by his repeated contrasting of selection under nature and selection by man. Yet the extensive experience and data of plant and animal breeders offered the only reliable base against which Darwin could continually challenge his views. As he wrote in the introduction to Variation, with domestication, “man ... may be said to have been trying an experiment on a gigantic scale.”66 Given Darwin's high opinion of the quantitative work of Malthus and Quetelet (as emphasized by Schweber),67 and his unremitting efforts to secure data by which to test his theories, it was inevitable that he should attach high significance to domesticated varieties. John Tyndall, in his Belfast address of 1874, said: “The strength of the doctrine of Evolution consists, not in experimental demonstration (for the subject is hardly accessible to this mode of proof), but in its general harmony with scientific thought.”68 Darwin would have agreed with the latter thought, but I think he would have challenged the preceding one on the grounds that long experience with domesticated varieties did provide an element of experimental demonstration. It gave him confidence in his theory, and he used his vast knowledge of artificial selection boldly and creatively.