Int. J. Biosci.

2016

International Journal of Biosciences | IJB |

ISSN: 2220-6655 (Print), 2222-5234 (Online)
http://www.innspub.net
Vol. 8, No. 2, p. 115-123, 2016

RESEARCH PAPER OPEN ACCESS

Influence of various photoperiods on enhancing the flowering

time in chrysanthemum (Chrysanthemum morifolium)

Muhammad Sajid1*, Noor Ul Amin2, Hakim Khan1, Asif Rehman3, Ijaz Hussain4

1
Department of Genetics, Hazara University, Mansehra, Pakistan
2
Department of Horticulture, University of Agriculture, Peshawar, Pakistan
3
Hazara Agriculture Research Station, Abbottabad, Pakistan
4
Department of Agriculture, University of Haripur, Pakistan

Key words: Flowering time, Photoperiod, Chrysanthemum, Off season flowering.

http://dx.doi.org/10.12692/ijb/8.2.115-123 Article published on February 20, 2016

Abstract
The experiment was conducted to evaluate the impact of various photoperiods on plant height, number of
branches, leaves, suckers, flowers per plant, leaf area, days to flowering, flower size, flower fresh weight and
blooming period. The photoperiods studied include control (natural light hours), 12 hour, 10.5 hour, 9 hour and
7.5 hour. Terminal cuttings were planted in 28 cm pots individually on 5th March. On 2nd May, plants were
covered with black cotton cloth fixed on boxes (each box having 240 cm length, 120 cm width and 120 cm height)
to create dark effect. All the pots were placed in the greenhouse where temperature ranging 20 to 25 oC under the
cloth boxes to create different regimes of photoperiods. Data indicated that 9 hour photoperiod was superior
with days to flowering (121 days), and flower size (4.8 cm), than the rest of photoperiods. Moreover 9 hour
photoperiod produced less branches (6.5), suckers (3.7), number of flowers (8), number of leaves (24) and
blooming period (27 days). Amongst the other photoperiods, 10.5 hour daily light interval performed well and
was close to 9 hour daily light interval with days to flowering (129 days), flower size (4.9 cm) and flower fresh
weight (3.3 g). It was concluded that 9 hour photoperiod was superior closely followed by 10.5 hour photoperiod
which produced flowers off season with prolonged flowering time.
* Corresponding Author: Muhammad Sajid  [email protected]

115 Sajid et al.

 Int. J. Biosci. 2016

Introduction reacts quickly to changes in R:FR ratio that are

Chrysanthemum is one the leading cut flowers in the sensed by the phytochrome (Franklin and Whitelam,
international market. Chrysanthemums are 2005). Plants grown under low light etiolate and
herbaceous perennial plants grown mainly as cut subsequently accelerate flowering time (Cerda and
flowers, but also used as potted flowering plants or Chory, 2003; Pieriket al., 2004).
bedding plants. Modern cultivars are available in a
range of colour combinations and petal styles (spider, Flowering is controlled by the reduction of day length
incurved etc). Their demand is at peak during in chrysanthemum (Dole and Wilkins, 2005). Twelve
Christmas, Easter, holidays (Biondo and Noland, hour or less photoperiod is required for flowering and
2000; Dole and Wilkins, 2005). It is a short-day 14 hours or more for vegetative growth (Larson, 1992;
plant. Dole and Wilkins, 2005). The day length should be
Flowering is the end result of physiological processes, changed in a timely manner depending on the season.
biochemical sequences and gene action responding to In summer short days are created artificially by
the influence of environmental stimuli (photoperiod, covering the plants for part of each day with a black
temperature) and the passage of time (Munir et al., cloth to promote flowering (Wieland, 1998; Janick,
2004; Zhenget al., 2006). The processes offlower 2008). Chrysanthemums can be grown during
induction takes place in the leaf (O’Neil, 1992) and autumn to initiate flowering. When nights get longer
result in floral initiation in which the apical meristem than nine hours, they begin to set flower buds
changes towards floral development (McDaniel et al., (Nxumalo and Wahome, 2010). Greenhill (2008)
1992). It is also believed that flowering is induced by a reported that the minimum number of continuous
stimulus (florigen), which is produced within the leaf short days required to produce quality blooms is
(Turck et al., 2008), but this hormone has not yet been cultivar dependent.
identified (Baloch et al., 2009). When the apical
meristem of the plant is committed to flowering, its Keeping in view the above facts an experiment was
fate becomes irreversible (Bernier, 1988), although designed to evaluate a suitable artificial photoperiod
flower or inflorescence reversion to vegetative growth interval which can initiate flowering even in the long
can occur spontaneously in some species. This days with the objectives to evaluate suitable
condition can be caused if plants are transferred to photoperiod to achieve off season flowering in
certain specific photoperiod or temperature regimes, chrysanthemum and to make the flower available for
which favour vegetative development (Batteyand maximum duration of the year.
Lyndon, 1990).
Materials and methods
Light requirement for a plant or photoperiod is Experiment was performed at Hazara Agriculture
measured by the biological clock (circadian rhythm) Research Station, Abbottabad, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa,
within the leaves (O’Neil, 1992) and in response Pakistan during 2010-11 to evaluate the effect
release a stimulus to the apex to induce flowering different photoperiods on chrysanthemum flowering
(McDaniel, 1996; Corbesier and Coupland, 2005). and related plant characters. The experiment was
Under natural conditions, however, plants under leaf conducted as a Completely randomized block design
canopy experience not only reduction in light but also with five treatments replicated 4 times.
alter spectral light quality due to the selective filtering
of blue and red wavelengths by chlorophyll (Schmitt Plant materials
and Wulff, 1993). Plants grow in dense stands in non Terminal cuttings of chrysanthemum were taken from
shaded location use R:FR signal to compete with the the stock and were planted in 28 cm diameter pots
neighbors for light (Vandenbusscheet al., individually on 5th March. The pots were filled with 2
2005).Shade avoiding plants have mechanism that parts leaf mold and one part silt. Fertilizer NPK was

116 Sajid et al.

 Int. J. Biosci. 2016

applied at the rate of 1.5 g per pot. On 2nd May, four Flowering characters Days taken to flowering were
boxes were made of wooden bars and covered with counted from date of planting of cuttings (5th March)
black cotton cloth to create dark effect, each having to the date of flower bud opening.
240 cmlength,120 cm width and 120 cm height.
The number of flowers, flower size (diameter) and
The black cloth was fixed on the structures to create fresh weight were then taken after harvest. All flowers
dark effect. All the pots of different treatments were grown on the main stalk and the side branches were
placed in the greenhouse in temperature ranging 20 counted up to the last flower harvested. For blooming
to 25oC at day under the black cloth boxes to create period number of days from flower bud break till its
different regimes of photoperiods. petal fadding were counted. The flower size was
recorded by measuring the diameter of the flower in
The greenhouse at Hazara Agriculture Research cm. Full bloomed flowers were excised and weighed
Station is equipped with heating and cooling systems. on electronic balance individually.
The covers were applied every day in the evening with
1.5 hour difference except in control. The covers were Results and discussion
removed from all treatments at 6: 00 am to start Vegetative characteristics
photoperiod. Five pots were placed in each treatment Plant height (cm)
and were rotated continuously after every five days. Various photoperiods (control, 12, 10.5, 9 and 7.5
hour) showed significant effect on plant height, while
Treatments year and photoperiod interaction did not affect the
The photoperiods applied on plants werecontrol plant height. Plant height reduced with the decrease
(Natural conditions), 12 hour light 12 hour dark, 10.5 in photoperiod. Maximum plant height (83.3 cm)was
hour light 13.5 hour dark, 9 hour light 15 hour dark achieved with 12 hour light, and control (81.2cm)
and 7.5 hour light and 16.5 hour dark respectively, while it was lower (64.4cm) in 10.5 hour
photoperiod. Photoperiod of 7.5 hour had
Data analysis significantly different effect as compared to other
All the cultural practices were kept uniform for each treatments (Table 1).
treatment. The experiment was repeated in 2011 and
average data of both years were analyzed at the end The higher plant height achieved by the plants that
providing year wise detail and interaction between were not covered might be the result of higher light
year and photoperiod was calculated using computer intensity. The high light intensity could have
statistical software “Statistix 9.0”. contributed to the higher photosynthetic activity of
(www.statistix.com). Statistical significance is given the plants. Long days help to maintain vegetative
at p < 0.05. growth of stock plants and cuttings prior to placing
young plants under short-day conditions for flowering
Vegetative characters (Larson, 1992; Dole and Wilkins, 2005). In contrast
The physical traits considered included plant height plants treated with the shorter photoperiod (due to
which was the measure of stem length from the crown less light duration) might have converted food
to the top of the stem. The number of branches plant-1 reserves to flower bud initiation and had significantly
grown on plant were counted and recorded after the lowered the height. These findings have been
last flower harvested. All the leaves grown on plant confirmed by Nxumalo and Wahome (2010) who
were counted and recorded after the last flower recorded maximum height in control in
harvested. Leaf area was measured with the help of an chrysanthemum and Vrseket al. (2006) in aster
automatic Leaf Area meter (Model, Delta- T Devices where they noticed taller plants under longer
Ltd., Burwell Bs, UK). photoperiods.

117 Sajid et al.

 Int. J. Biosci. 2016

Total number of branches plant-1 significantly different from plants placed under 7.5, 9
Higher number of branches (8) were recorded in and 10.5hour photoperiods. Plants placed under 7.5,
untreated plants compared to (6) in plants placed 9 and 10.5 hour photoperiods produced same number
under (7.5, 9 and 10.5) hour photoperiods. Effects on of branches per plant (Table 1).
plants in control and those treated with 12hour were

Table 1. Effect of photoperiods on plant height, number of branches/plant and number of suckers/plant in
Chrysanthemum for year 1 (2010) and year 2 (2011).
Photo – period Plant height (cm) Number of branches/plant Number of suckers/plant
(hour)
2010 2011 Mean 2010 2011 Mean 2010 2011 Mean

Control 83.6 a 78.9 ab 81.2 a 7.8 8.1 a 8.0 a 7.3 a 7.0 a 7.2 a
12 84.1 a 82.6 a 83.3 a 7.0 7.6 ab 7.3 a 5.4 b 6.0 b 5.7 b
10.5 66.5 b 62.3 c 64.4 c 6.7 6.3cd 6.5 b 3.8 d 4.1 c 4.0 c
9 67.3 b 69.4 bc 68.3 c 6.0 6.9 bc 6.5 b 3.9 d 3.4 c 3.7 c
7.5 71.7 b 77.3 ab 74.5 b 6.2 5.8 d 6.0 b 5.0 c 6.5 ab 5.7 b
LSD 5.8(**) 10.4(**) 5.7(**) NS 1.0(**)0.8(**) 0.4(**) 0.9(**) 0.5(**)

(p=0.05)
Year
2010 ---- 74.6 -- -- 7 -- -- 5
2011 -- -- 74.1 -- -- 7 -- -- 5
LSD(p=0.05) -- -- NS -- -- NS -- -- NS
Photoperiod xYear
LSD(p=0.05) NS NS NS

Least significant differences (LSD) are used to compare treatment means within the column for the data pooled
over two growing years 2010 and 2011; while LSD given in italics are used to compare treatment means within
the columns for individual year.
NS = Non significant: * p < 0.05.

The decreased photoperiod could have contributed to hour produced similar results as in 7.5 hour light
the decreased photosynthetic activity and reduced (Table 1).
carbohydrates formation, resulting in lower number
of branches per plant. It also helped in stimulation of The production of suckers may be attributed to the
more lateral bud sprouting. Furthermore, the light duration and intensity. Birk (2010); Van de
decrease in photoperiod reduced light to less than Hoeven (1987) reported that the more sunlight a
required amount for photosynthesis which ultimately plant receives the better capacity it has to produce
would have reduced branches formation. Similar food through photosynthesis. So the plants in control
results were recorded by Hlatshwayo and Wahome and with 12 hour photoperiod received more light
(2010) in carnation where they recorded an increase than utilized their photo-assimilates for producing
in number of lateral Shoots in control and 20% more suckers. On the other hand the plants receiving
shading. 10.5 and 9 hour photoperiod could have converted
their food to flower buds initiation under less
Total number of suckersplant-1 photoperiod. Balajiet al. (2010) reported that the
Higher number of suckers per plant(7.2) were plants which experienced congenial long day
recorded in untreated plants or control, while less conditions during vegetative growth resulted in
number of suckers (3.7) were recorded in plants vigorous growth which enabled them to produce more
subjected to 9 hour photoperiod. Photoperiod for 12 suckers.

118 Sajid et al.

 Int. J. Biosci. 2016

Total number of leaves plant-1 treated with 9 hours photoperiod. Control,

Data indicated that the number of leaves in photoperiod interval of 12, 10.5, 9 and 7.5 hour were
chrysanthemum were significantly affected in significantly different from each other, while
response to various photoperiods. Higher number of photoperiods of 10.5 and 9 hours influenced the
leaves (54) were recorded in control, while the number of leaves per plant in a similar way (Table 2).
number of leaves were less (24) in those plants

Table 2. Effect of photoperiods on number of leaves/plant and leaf area in Chrysanthemum for year 1 (2010) and
year 2 (2011).
Photoperiod (hour) Number of leaves/plant Leaf area (cm2)
2010 2011 Mean 2010 2011 Mean
Control 62 a 47 a 54 a 145.1 b 158.5 a 151.8 a
12 49 b 42 a 45 b 151.6 ab 143.9 b 147.7 a
10.5 29 cd 24c 26 d 125.8 c 131.0 c 128.4 bc
9 26 d 22 c 24 d 110.3 d 132.5 bc 121.4 c
7.5 35 c 31 b 33 c 160.1 a 107.0 d 133.6 b
LSD(p=0.05) 6.3(**) 5.2(**) 3.9(**) 11.1(**) 11.6(**) 7.7(**)
Year
2010 -- -- 37 -- -- 137.2
2011 -- -- 36 -- -- 136.0
LSD(p=0.05) -- -- NS -- -- NS
PhotoperiodxYear
LSD(p=0.05) NS NS
Least significant differences (LSD) are used to compare treatment means within the column for the data pooled over two
growing years 2010 and 2011; while LSD given in italics are used to compare treatment means within the columns for individual
year.
NS = Non significant: * p < 0.05.

Higher number of leaves were recorded in uncovered intervals for 12 hours, 10.5 hours, 9 hours and 7.5
plants that might be due to higher light intensity and hour exhibited significantly different effect on leaf
photosynthesis, which increased vegetative growth. area. The effect of photoperiod on untreated plants
Duration of light and assimilation by plants enhances and 12 hour duration was similar (Table 2).
photosynthetic activity, which affects other plant
characters (Vrseket al., 2006). Nxumalo and Wahome The maximum light duration due to high light
(2010) counted maximum leaves in uncovered plants intensity might have increased the rate of
in chrysanthemum. Hlatshwayo and Wahome (2010) photosynthesis that increased the vegetative growth
reported increase in number of leaves under as well as leaf area in this study. Similar results were
prolonged photoperiods in carnation. reported by Nxumalo and Wahome (2010) in
chrysanthemum, where they found greater leaf area
Average leaf area (cm2) in untreated plants as compared to those plants
The leaf area in chrysanthemum was significantly subjected to shading.
affected by various photoperiods. Higher leaf area
(151.8 cm2) was recorded in control, while it was Similar findings were reported by Medanyet al.
(121.4 cm2) in plants treated with 9 hour photoperiod. (2009) in weeping fig (Ficus benjamina L) and
Control plants and those treated with photoperiod croton, which confirm the results of this study.

119 Sajid et al.

 Int. J. Biosci. 2016

Table 3. Effect of photoperiods on days to flowering, number of flowers/plant and blooming period in
Chrysanthemum for year 1 (2010) and year 2 (2011).
Photo-period Days to flowering Number of flowers/plant Blooming period
(hour)
2010 2011 Mean 2010 2011 Mean 2010 2011 Mean
Control 225 a 232 a 228 a 19 a 17 a 18 a 36 33 34 a
12 211 b 219 a 215 b 10 bc 10 b 10 b 29 30 30 ab
10.5 126 d 132 c 129 d 8c 8c 8c 29 25 27 b
9 114 d 127 c 121 d 9 bc 7 cd 8c 28 26 27 b
7.5 163 c 150 b 156 c 10 b 6d 8c 29 29 29 b
LSD 13.5(**) 13.6(**) 9.2(**) 1.8(**) 1.4(**) 1.1(**) NS NS 4.9(*)
(p=0.05)
Year
2010 -- -- 168 -- -- 11 -- -- 30
2011 -- -- 172 -- -- 10 -- -- 29
LSD(p=0.05) -- -- NS -- -- NS -- -- NS
PhotoperiodxYear
LSD(p=0.05) NS NS NS
Least significant differences (LSD) are used to compare treatment means within the column for the data pooled
over two growing years 2010 and 2011; while LSD given in italics are used to compare treatment means within
the columns for individual year.
NS = Non significant: * p < 0.05.

Flowering Characteristics hour photoperiod provided less light duration than

Number of days to flowering required for flower initiation. It was observed that the
The number of days to flowering showed significant time to flowering significantly decreased with
difference between all treatments influenced by decrease in photoperiod. Plants under low irradiance
various photoperiods (Table 3), while year wise and (Less light) took less time to flower whereas days to
interaction of photoperiod and year had non- flower increased significantly in control and under
significant effect on number of days to flowering. less shade levels. Wieland (1998); Janick (2008)
Higher number of days to flowering (228 days) were reported that short days are created by covering the
resulted in untreated plants, whereas less number of plants with a black cloth to initiate flowering. Similar
days (121days) were recorded when plants were results were reported by Balochet al. (2009) who
exposed to 9 hour photoperiod, and 10.5 hour recorded a decrease in days to flowering with increase
photoperiod (129days). All the photoperiods except 9 in shade levels in short day ornamental annuals.
and 10.5 hour were significantly different from each
other. Total number of flowers plant-1
Number of flowers per plantwere significantly
Being a short day plant, chrysanthemum responded affected under the influence of different photoperiod
to the less light conditions. Untreated and those regimes. Number of flowers were significantly higher
treated with 12 hour photoperiod, the dark period was (18) in control, compared to plants exposed to 9 hours
far less than required for flower initiation and they photoperiod (8).Plants exposed to 10.5, 9 and 7.5
could not triggered the stimulus to initiate flowering. hour photoperiods had similar effect(Table 3).
That is why control and 12 hour photoperiod took
more number of days to flower. On the other hand The plants subjected to less photoperiod produced
when photoperiod was shortened further to 7.5 hour, early flowering, while they had less food production
the days to flower again increased to 156 days as 7.5 due to shading. Hence they could not increase the

120 Sajid et al.

 Int. J. Biosci. 2016

number of flowers due to less food reserves. The blooming period was significantly longer in
Hlatshwayo and wahome, (2010) recorded highest plants that were not covered with black cloth and was
number of flowers in carnations grown without shorter when plants were exposed to shorter
shading. Less number of flowers per plant were photoperiods created artificially in long days. The
reported by Cermeno et al. (2001) in chrysanthemum reduction in blooming period in plants under 10.5
under less light duration. A reduction in number of and 9 hour photoperiods might be attributed to the
inflorescence produced in begonia as a result of flowering in warm season, due to which drying and
increased shading intensities has been reported by desiccation occurred early, while in control and 12
Jeong et al. (2007). hour photoperiod, the flowers opened in cool
environment. That might be the reason, they bloomed
Blooming period (Days) for longer period.
Blooming period in chrysanthemum flowers indicated
significant difference for photoperiods. Significantly Flower Size (cm)
longer blooming period (34 days) was recorded in The flower size showed significant difference for
untreated plants compared to 9 hour photoperiod (27 different photoperiods. Large flower size (5.3 cm) was
days). Control recorded significant difference with recorded in control followed by 12 hour photoperiod
10.5, 9 and 7.5 hour photoperiod, while 10.5, 9 and (5.2 cm). The smaller flower size (4.8 cm) was
7.5 hour photoperiods were statistically similar in recorded in plants treated with 9and 7.5 hour
their effect (Table 3). photoperiod (Table 4).

Table 4. Effect of photoperiods on flower size and flower fresh weight in Chrysanthemum for year 1 (2010) and
year 2 (2011).
Photoperiod (hour) Flower size (cm) Flower fresh weight (g)
2010 2011 Mean 2010 2011 Mean
Control 4.9 ab 5.7 a 5.3 a 3.5 ab 3.8 a 3.6 a
12 5.3 a 5.1 b 5.2 ab 3.6 a 3.5 ab 3.6 a
10.5 4.5 b 5.2 ab 4.9 bc 3.1 c 3.4 b 3.3 b
9 5.2 a 4.3 c 4.8 c 3.4 b 3.0 c 3.2 b
7.5 4.9 ab 4.7 bc 4.8 c 3.4 b 3.3 bc 3.3 b
LSD(p=0.05) 0.5(*) 0.56(**) 0.41(*) 0.22(**) 0.29(**) 0.18(**)
Year
2010 -- -- 5.0 -- -- 3.4
2011 -- -- 5.0 -- -- 3.4
LSD(p=0.05) -- -- NS -- -- NS
Photoperiod xYear
LSD(p=0.05) NS NS
Least significant differences (LSD) are used to compare treatment means within the column for the data pooled
over two growing years 2010 and 2011; while LSD given in italics are used to compare treatment means within
the columns for individual year.
NS = Non significant: * p < 0.05.

The larger size of flower in control and plants treated flowers. Strong light has a decisive effect on correct
with 12 hour photoperiod may be attributed to the and fast growth of flower buds (Jerzy and Borkowska,
improved light and better conversion of food reserves 2004). Nxumalo and Wahome (2010) also reported
to increase flower size as the plant had enough food to greater flower size in untreated plants.
provide it to flower. Higher number of leaves and leaf
area also played their role to produce greater size Flower fresh weight (g)

121 Sajid et al.

 Int. J. Biosci. 2016

Flower fresh weight recorded significant difference and Plant Molecular Biology 39, 175-219.
against various light intervals (Table 4), while the
variable was non significantly affected by year and Biondo RJ, Noland DA. 2000. Floriculture: from
interaction of photoperiod and year. Increased weight Greenhouse Production to Floral Design. Interstate
(3.6 g) was observed in control and 12 hour Publishers, Danville, Illinois.
photoperiod, while reduced flower fresh weight (3.2
g) was recorded in plants treated with 9 hour Birk LA. 2010. The Paphiopendilum Grower’s
photoperiod. Plants treated with 10.5, 9 and 7.5hour Manual: Air and Light-the Correct Balance.
photoperiod were statistically at par regarding flower http://www.lancebirk.com/download/CH_3htm.03/
fresh weight (Table 4). 03/10.

The higher flower fresh weight in control and 12 hour Cerda PD, Chory J. 2003. Regulation of flowering
photoperiod might be due to more leaves, larger leaf time by light quality. Nature 423, 881–885.
area and more branches that contributed in the http://dx.doi.org/10.1038/nature01636
increased fresh flower weight. Similar results have
been reported by Scuderi et al. (2008) in weeping fig Cermeno P, Sotomayor JA, Serrano Z,
(Ficus benjumina L.) and Croton (Coadiaeum Escobar AI. 2001.The effects of solar radiation on
variegatumL.). Dendranthema. Acta Horticulture 559, 339–344.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2001.559.50
Conclusion
This study has highlighted the importance of
Corbesier L, Coupland G. 2005. Photoperiodic
photoperiod for off season flowering in
flowering of Arabidopsis: integrating genetic and
chrysanthemum. Application of photoperiod from 9
physiological approaches to characterization of the
to 10 hours can help to produce flowers in
floral stimulus. Plant, Cell & Environment 28, 54–66.
chrysanthemum earlythan the normal season. This
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2005.01283.x
practice can help producers to get flowering atthe
time of their own choice.
Dole JM, Wilkins HF. 2005.Floriculture:
Principles and Species, 2nd edition. Pearson Prentice
References
Hall, Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.
Balaji S, Kulkarni, Reddy BS. 2010. Effect of date
of planting on yield and quality of chrysanthemum
Franklin KA, Whitelam GC. 2005. Phytochromes
(Chrysanthemum morifolium) cv. Saraval. Karnataka
and shade avoidance responses in plants. Annals of
Journal of Agricultural. Sciences 23(2), 402-403.
Botany 96, 169–175.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mci165
Baloch JD, Khan MQ, Zubair M, Munir M.
2009. Effects of different shade levels (Light
Greenhill TM. 2008. Gardemning in the Tropics.
Integrals) on time to flowering of important
Evans Brothers, Ltd., London.
ornamental annuals.International Journal of.
Agriculture and Biology 11, 138–144.
Hlatshwayo MS, Wahome PK. 2010. Effects of
shading on growth, flowering and cut flower quality
Battey NH, Lyndon RF. 1990. Reversion of
in carnation (Dianthus caryohyllus) Journal of
flowering. Botanical Review 56, 162–189.
Agricultural Society of Science 6, 34-38.

Bernier G. 1988. The control of floral evocation and

Janick J. 2008. Chrysanthemum plants. Acta
morphogenesis. Annual Review of Plant Physiology
Horticulture 435, 158–163.

122 Sajid et al.

 Int. J. Biosci. 2016

Jeong KY, Pasian CC, Tay D. 2007.Response of Schmitt J, Wulff RD. 1993. Light spectral quality,
sux Begonia species to different shading levels. Acta phytochrome and plant competition. Trends in
Horticulture 761, 215–220. Ecology and Evolution 8, 47–51.
http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2007.761.27 http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/0169-5347(93)90157-K

Jerzy M, Borkowska J. 2004. Photoperiodic Turck F, Fornara F, Coupland G. 2008.

response of pot chrysanthemums in twelve all year Regulation and identity of florigen: flowering locus
round production cycles. E. Journal of Polish T moves center stage. Annual Review in Plant
Agriculture University 7(2), 7(online). Biology 59, 573–594.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.03260
Larson RA. 1992. Introduction to Floriculture, 2nd 7.092755
edition. Academic Press Inc, San Diego, California.
Van De Hoeven AP. 1987. The influence of
Mc Daniel CN. 1996. Developmental physiology of daylength on the flowering of carnation. Acta
floral initiation in Nicotiana tabacumL. Journal of Horticulture 216, 315-319.
Experimental Botany 47, 465–475. http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.1987.216.42
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/47.4.465
Vandenbussche F, Pierik R, Millenaar FF,
Medany MA, Hassanein MK, Farag AA. 2009. Voesenek LACJ, Straeten DVD. 2005. Reaching
Effect of black and white nets as alternative covers to out of the shade. Current Openion in Plant Biology 8,
sweet pepper production under greenhouses in Egypt. 462–468.
Acta Horticulture 807, 121–126. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2005.07.007
http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2009.807.14
Vrsek I, Zidovec V, Poje M, Coga L. 2006.
Munir M, Jamil M, Baloch J, Khattak KR. Influence of photoperiod and growth retardant on the
2004. Growth and flowering of Antirrhinum growth and flowering of England aster. Acta
majusL. under varying temperatures. International Horticulture 711, 301–306.
Journal of Agriculture and Biology 6, 173–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.17660/ActaHortic.2006.711.41

Nxumalo SS, Wahome PK. 2010. Effects of Wieland CE. 1998. An examination of night length
application of short-days at different periods of the effects on the difference in floral initiation and floral
day on growth and flowering in chrysanthemum development of chrysanthemum cultivars.
(Dendranthemagrandiflorum). Journal of Unpublished Masters Thesis, University of Florida,
Agricultural Society of Science 6, 39-41. Gainesville, Florida.

Neil O. 1992. The photoperiodic control of flowering: Zheng ZL, Yang Z, Jang JC, Metzger JD. 2006.
Progress toward the understanding of the mechanism Phytochromes A1 and B1 have distinct functions in
of induction. Photochemisy and Photobiology 56, the photoperiodic control of flowering in the
789–801. obligate long-day plant Nicotiana sylvestris. Plant
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-1097.1992.tb02235.x Cell Environment 29, 1673–1685.
http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2006.01538.x

123 Sajid et al.