Improved temperature and photoperiod response functions to better link genotype to phenotype prediction for soybean phenology

Clicks: 12
ID: 337598
2026
Free PDF
Article Quality & Performance Metrics
Overall Quality
Not rated
Combines reader engagement with the AI quality analysis. This article has not been analysed, so there is no overall score — reader engagement is measured and shown alongside.
AI Quality Assessment
Not analyzed
Readership in this journal
Emerging

Ranked #381 of 406 articles by views in Journal of experimental botany

Most read Least read

Bar heights use a square-root scale. Only the 120 most-read articles are drawn; the journal has 406 in total.

Mint this article as an NFT
Not yet minted

Create a permanent, verifiable on-chain record of this article on the Scimatic Network. The NFT is held in your Journament account, and you can withdraw it to your own wallet at any time.

5 SUSD one-off · no wallet required
Sign in to mint
Abstract
Gene-to-phenotype modeling requires robust mechanistic frameworks, yet widely used soybean phenology models rely on older datasets with limited genotypic representation and do not explicitly account for twilight effects. We quantified soybean phenology responses to temperature (11-35 °C) and photoperiod (12-16 h) using 20 modern cultivars spanning maturity groups (MG) 0-7, evaluated across 12 controlled-environment experiments and 13 field experiments in the USA. Our objectives were to (1) reconstruct temperature and photoperiod response functions for three developmental phases (emergence - flowering, flowering - beginning seed filling, and beginning seed filling - physiological maturity), (2) determine whether these responses vary among cultivars, and (3) identify the twilight value that maximizes prediction accuracy and evaluate an improved soybean phenology module. Temperature responses were best described by a curvilinear function, with optimum temperature declining from vegetative to reproductive development (30.4 to 22.1 °C). Photoperiod responses followed a bilinear model, with photoperiod sensitivity and minimum phase duration varying systematically with maturity group, whereas no photoperiod response was detected during the seed filling period. Prediction accuracy across independent field experiments was maximized using a twilight angle of -6°, with an uncalibrated multiplicative model achieving a root mean squared error (RMSE) <10 days and an index of agreement (d-index) >0.96. Our results show that variation in photoperiod response is driven primarily by photoperiod sensitivity rather than the critical photoperiod threshold, improving cultivar parameterization, reducing equifinality, and providing a stronger physiological foundation for improving crop model prediction accuracy across diverse genotypes and environments.
Reference Key
openalex_W7224089325 Use this key to autocite in the manuscript while using SciMatic Manuscript Manager or Thesis Manager
Authors Brenda L. Gambín, Graeme Hammer, Issa Coulibaly, Colin R. Cavanagh, Isaiah Huber, Mark Cooper, Sotirios V. Archontoulis
Are you one of these authors? Claim your profile
Journal Journal of experimental botany
Year 2026
DOI
10.1093/jxb/erag552
URL
https://academic.oup.com/jxb/advance-article-pdf/doi/10.1093/jxb/erag552/72551949/erag552.pdf
Keywords Keywords not found

Citations

No citations found. To add a citation, contact the admin at info@scimatic.org

Comments

No comments yet. Be the first to comment on this article.