Field Crops Research 60 (1999) 231-243
Effects of photoperiod on phasic development, leaf appearance and seed growth in two cultivars of quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd.), and of photoperiod*temperature interactions on seed growth in one cultivar, were examined. The cultivars were Kanckolla (an early-Fowering cultivar from the Andean plateau in Southern Peru)) and Blanca de JunõÂn (an intermediate Fowering cultivar from the tropical valleys of central Peru). The main objectives were to establish which developmental phases are sensitive to photoperiod and whether conditions during a particular phase had delayed effects on subsequent development. Plants were grown in naturally lit growth cabinets and photoperiods were given as 10 h of natural daylight followed by extensions with low intensity artificial light giving either a short (SD, 10.25 h) or long (LD, 14 or 16 h) photoperiod. Treatments were constant (SD or LD) photoperiods or involved transfers between photoperiods at different developmental stages. A quantitative SD response was observed for time to anthesis and total number of leaves, and more than 50% of leaf primordia were formed after floral initiation. With transfers effected during the reproductive phase, the maximum number of leaf primordia, total number of leaves and time to anthesis varied by up to 9%, 33% and 24%, respectively, in relation to controls under constant SD; and by up to 8%, 39% and 12%, respectively, in relation to controls under constant LD. Photoperiods applied after leaf primordia initiation had ceased affected duration of the reproductive phase and total number of leaves through effects on the proportion of primordia that remained unexpanded (range 7-33%). Plants grown in SD until anthesis produced seed, measured 66 days after anthesis, four-fold larger in diameter than seed on plants always grown in LD. Seed diameter was also reduced by 24% by LD applied after anthesis, and by 14% by high temperature (28°C cf. 21°C), but the combination of high temperature with LD gave the greatest inhibition of seed growth (73%). Clearly, photoperiod had strong effects on all stages of plant reproduction and often acted indirectly, as shown by delayed responses expressed in later phases of development.