A Rhythmic Gene Entrained to Midnight May Regulate Photoperiod-Controlled Flowering in Arabidopsis.

The widely held explanation for photoperiod-controlled flowering in long-day plants is largely embodied in the External Coincidence Hypothesis which posits that flowering is induced when activity of a rhythmic gene that regulates it (a putative "flowering gene") occurs in the presence of light. Nevertheless, re-examination of the Arabidopsis flowering data from non 24-hour cycles of Roden et al. suggests that External Coincidence is not tenable if the circadian rhythm of the "flowering gene" were entrained to sunrise as commonly accepted. On the other hand, the hypothesis is supported if circadian cycling of the gene conforms to a solar rhythm, and its entrainment is to midnight on the solar clock. Data available point to flowering being induced by the gene which peaks in its expression between 16 to 19 h after midnight. In the normal 24 h cycle, that would be between 4 p.m. and 7 p.m., regardless of the photoperiod. Such timing of the "flowering gene" expression allows for variable coincidence between gene activity and light, depending on the photoperiod and cycle period. A correlation is found between earliness of flowering and the degree of coincidence of "flowering gene" expression with light (r = 0.88, p<0.01).

Flowering and Runnering of Seasonal Strawberry under Different Photoperiods Are Affected by Intensity of Supplemental or Night-Interrupting Blue Light.

The strawberry (Fragaria × ananassa Duch.) "Sulhyang" is a typical seasonal flowering (SF) strawberry that produces flower buds in day lengths shorter than a critical limit (variable, but often defined as <12 h). There is a trade-off between photoperiod-controlled flowering and gibberellin (GA) signaling pathway-mediated runnering. Some related genes (such as CO, FT1, SOC1, and TFL1) participating in light signaling and circadian rhythm in plants are altered under blue light (BL). Sugars for flowering and runnering are mainly produced by photosynthetic carbon assimilation. The intensity of light could affect photosynthesis, thereby regulating flowering and runnering. Here, we investigated the effect of the intensity of supplemental blue light (S-BL) or night-interrupting blue light (NI-BL) in photoperiodic flowering and runnering regulation by applying 4 h of S-BL or NI-BL with either 0, 10, 20, 30, or 40 µmol·m-2·s-1 photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) in a 10 h short-day (SD10) (SD10 + S-BL4 or + NI-BL4 (0, 10, 20, 30, or 40)) or 14 h long-day (LD14) conditions (LD14 + S-BL4 or + NI-BL4 (0, 10, 20, 30, or 40)). Approximately 45 days after the photoperiodic light treatment, generally, whether S-BL or NI-BL, BL (20) was the most promotive in runnering, leading to more runners in both the LD and SD conditions. For flowering, except the treatment LD14 + S-BL, BL (20) was still the key light, either from BL (20) or BL (40), promoting flowering, especially when BL acted as the night-interrupting light, regardless of the photoperiod. At the harvest stage, larger numbers of inflorescences and runners were observed in the LD14 + NI-BL4 treatment, and the most were observed in the LD14 + NI-BL (20). Moreover, the SD10 + NI-BL4 was slightly inferior to the LD14 + NI-BL4 in increasing the numbers of inflorescences and runners, but it caused earlier flowering. Additionally, the circadian rhythm expression of flowering-related genes was affected differently by the S-BL and NI-BL. After the application of BL in LD conditions, the expression of an LD-specific floral activator FaFT1 was stimulated, while that of a flowering suppressor FaTFL1 was inhibited, resetting the balance of expression between these two opposite flowering regulators. The SD runnering was caused by BL in non-runnering SD conditions associated with the stimulation of two key genes that regulate runner formation in the GA pathway, FaGRAS32 and FaGA20ox4. In addition, the positive effects of BL on enhancing photosynthesis and carbohydrate production also provided an abundant energy supply for the flowering and runnering processes.

Solar rhythm in the regulation of photoperiodic flowering of long-day and short-day plants.

In photoperiodic flowering, long-day (LD) plants are induced to flower seasonally when the daylight hours are long, whereas flowering in short-day (SD) plants is promoted under short photoperiods. According to the widely accepted external coincidence model, flowering occurs in LD Arabidopsis when the circadian rhythm of the gene CONSTANS (CO) peaks in the afternoon, when it is light during long days but dark when the days are short. Nevertheless, extending this explanation to SD flowering in rice, Oriza sativa, requires LD and SD plants to have 'opposite light requirements' as the CO orthologue in rice, HEADING-DATE1 (Hd1), promotes flowering only under short photoperiods. This report proposes a role of the plant's solar rhythm in promoting seasonal flowering. The interaction between rhythmic genes entrained to the solar clock and those entrained to the circadian clock form the basis of an internal coincidence model that explains both LD and SD flowering equally well. The model invokes no presumption of opposite light requirements between LD and SD plants, and further argues against any specific requirement of either light or darkness for SD flowering. Internal coincidence predicts the inhibition of SD flowering of the rice plant by a night break (a brief interruption of light), while it also provides a plausible explanation for how a judiciously timed night break promotes Arabidopsis flowering even on short days. It is the timing of the light transitions (sunrise and sunset) rather than the duration of light or darkness per se that regulates photoperiod-controlled flowering.

Is seasonal flowering time of Paphiopedilum species caused by differences in initial time of floral bud differentiation?

Members of the genus Paphiopedilum are world-famous for their large, colourful flowers, unique floral morphology and long floral lifespan. Most Paphiopedilum species bloom in spring or autumn. The control of flowering time is of great significance to the commercial production of floral crops, because it affects the sales and prices of flowers. However, the mechanism that regulates when Paphiopedilum species bloom is unclear. In the present study, floral bud initiation and development of P. micranthum (spring-flowering species with one flower per stalk), P. dianthum (autumn-flowering species with multiple flowers per stalk) and P. henryanum (autumn-flowering species with one flower per stalk) were investigated by morphological and anatomical methods. We divided Paphiopedilum floral bud differentiation into six phases: the initiation of differentiation, inflorescence primordium differentiation, flower primordium differentiation, sepal primordium differentiation, petal primordium differentiation and column primordium differentiation. We found that the timing of floral bud differentiation for the three species was synchronized when experiencing the same environment, while the period from initiation to flowering largely differed. In addition, initiation of floral bud differentiation in P. dianthum was earlier at a warmer environment. The difference in flowering time of three species was mainly caused by the duration of floral bud development, rather than the initiation time. The findings were of great significance for the cultivation and flowering regulation of Paphiopedilum species.

Photoperiodic flowering: time measurement mechanisms in leaves.

Many plants use information about changing day length (photoperiod) to align their flowering time with seasonal changes to increase reproductive success. A mechanism for photoperiodic time measurement is present in leaves, and the day-length-specific induction of the FLOWERING LOCUS T (FT) gene, which encodes florigen, is a major final output of the pathway. Here, we summarize the current understanding of the molecular mechanisms by which photoperiodic information is perceived in order to trigger FT expression in Arabidopsis as well as in the primary cereals wheat, barley, and rice. In these plants, the differences in photoperiod are measured by interactions between circadian-clock-regulated components, such as CONSTANS (CO), and light signaling. The interactions happen under certain day-length conditions, as previously predicted by the external coincidence model. In these plants, the coincidence mechanisms are governed by multilayered regulation with numerous conserved as well as unique regulatory components, highlighting the breadth of photoperiodic regulation across plant species.