Author(s)

Maria Letícia G. Melloni¹, Maria Natália G. Melloni¹, Maximiliano S. Scarpari², Júlio César Garcia², Marcos G. A. Landell¹, Luciana R. Pinto^1*

¹Faculdade de Ciências Agrárias e Veterinárias, Universidade Estadual Paulista, Jaboticabal, Brazil.
²Sugarcane Research Center, Instituto Agronômico de Campinas (IAC), Ribeirão Preto, Brazil.

Flowering is essential in any breeding programme, particularly in genetic introgression programmes in which flowering synchronism is required. In this work, 16 sugarcane genotypes were evaluated using three different flowering-inductive photoperiod treatments (30 s, 45 s, and 1 min of a daily photoperiod decrease from 12 h 55 of light). Each genotype was planted in 43 L pots (equal proportion of soil, sand, and substrate) with three tillers per pot. Plants with 4 to 6 internodes were placed in a photoperiod facility with three controlled chambers, each chamber containing all 16 genotypes (one treatment per chamber). The temperature range (21°C to 32°C) and humidity were the same for all of the treatments. The flower induction started in September 2010 and ended in April 2011. The plant elongation and flag leaf and inflorescence emergence were recorded and the pollen viability was evaluated by using the iodine staining method. The photoperiod facility provided suitable conditions for flowering, as the plants in the three treatments successfully flowered. The genotypes in the three treatments behaved differently in relation to the date of panicle emergence, with the treatment of 45 s showing better results. The results here presented contribute to synchronise flowering for desired sugarcane crosses, particularly those from introgression programmes between commercial cultivars and species from the Saccharum complex.

Artificial Induction, Leaf Flag, Photoperiod Facilities, Physiologic Flowering, Pollen

Melloni, M. , Melloni, M. , Scarpari, M. , Garcia, J. , Landell, M. and Pinto, L. (2015) Flowering of Sugarcane Genotypes under Different Artificial Photoperiod Conditions. American Journal of Plant Sciences, 6, 456-463. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2015.63051.