Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T17:24:43.203Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The assessment of the quality of sugar-beet seed

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

M. J. Durrant ,
S. J. Brown  and
A. Bould
M. J. Durrant
Affiliation:
Broom's Barn Experimental Station, Higham, Bury St Edmunds, Suffolk
S. J. Brown
Affiliation:
Plant Breeding Institute, Trumpington, Cambridge
A. Bould
Affiliation:
National Institute of Agricultural Botany, Cambridge
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The accurate prediction of the performance of individual lots of sugar-beet seed in the field is critical when constituting blends of seed for commercial use. Previous studies indicated a need for ‘vigour tests’ to supplement the standard germination test. In many of the studies emphasis was placed on evaluation of tests in the laboratory, whereas in this study equal emphasis was placed on the determination of the values to be predicted. The performance of 20 seed lots with a range of germination between 75 and 95% was assessed in field and laboratory studies in 1981. Further investigations of ten seed lots were made in 1982 and in 1983.

The results in 1981 showed little evidence of agronomically important differences in the relative performance of seed lots with respect to establishment in the field at different sites. Similarly, most seed lots showed consistent differences over a range of tests under controlled conditions. However, use of the experiment mean as a measure of stress revealed marked differences in the range of performance between the best and poorest lota in both the field and laboratory. There were clear indications that performance in the field could be modified by non-random factors that tended to reduce the magnitude of differences among seed lots. In 1982 grazing of seedlings by birds was identified as a factor that could cause greater reduction in the establishment of seed lots with high viability relative to those with low viability. Thus, under some circumstances, a single count of seedlings in non-protected field experiments can give misleading estimates of the differences among seed lots (and probably among other treatments which affect the rate of emergence). Correlation coefficients (γ) were about 0·88 for relationships between establishment from pelleted seed in plots protected from birds and germination or emergence under controlled conditions. These results reduced the need for additional vigour tests. However, the studies emphasized that small differences in germination percentage are important as they can be associated with much larger differences in establishment, particularly under adverse seed-bed conditions. The average standard error for the mean viability of individual seed lots was ±1·89 in germination tests with four replicates of 100 seeds at each of six centres. Although inincreased accuracy may not be possible without much greater replication, we found that the distinction between normal and abnormal seedlings was an important source of experimental error. A less subjective measurement, based on hypocotyl height, warrants further study.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 104 , Issue 1 , February 1985 , pp. 71 - 84
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1985

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Akeson, W. R. & Widner, J. N. (1980). Laboratory packed sand test for measuring vigour of sugar beet seed. Crop Science 20, 641–644.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bakewell, D. (1979). The drill testing service: some observations. British Sugar Beet Review 47 (4), 56.Google Scholar
Bugg, R. (1981). Group study area. Rothamsted Experimental Station Report for 1980. Part I, pp. 65–66.Google Scholar
Durrant, M. J. (1981). Some causes of the variations in plant establishment. Proceedings of the iith Winter Congress, Institut International de Recherches Betteravieres, Brussels, pp. 7–20.Google Scholar
Durrant, M. J., Dunning, R. A. & Jaggard, K. W. (1981). Establishment survey in 1980. Rothamsted Experimental Station Report for 1980, Part I, pp. 66–67.Google Scholar
Durrant, M. J., Jaggard, K. W. & Scott, R. K. (1984). Meeting the challenge for sugar beet: magnitude and origin of the problem and possible solutions. In Crop Establishment – Biological Requirements and Engineering Solutions (ed. Carr, M. K. V.). London: Pitman (in the Press).Google Scholar
Durrant, M. J., Payne, P. A. & Mclaren, J. S. (1983). The use of water and some inorganic Bait solutions to advance sugar beet seed. Annals of Applied Biology 103, 507–526.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Durrant, M. J. & Scott, R. K. (1982). Prospects for improving plant establishment. British Sugar Beet Review 49 (4), 25–29.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. H. & Roberts, E. H. (1980). Towards a rational basis for testing seed quality. In Seed Production (ed. Hebblethwaite, P. D.), pp. 605–635. London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Gibson, M. S. & Watkins, R. E. (1981). The value of various tests for assessing the vigour of sugar beet seed. Proceedings American Society of Sugar Beet Technologists General Meeting. Minnesota, U.S.A.: American Crystal Sugar Company.Google Scholar
Green, R. (1978). Factors affecting the diet of farmland skylarks, Alauda arvensis. Journal of Animal Ecology 47, 913–928.Google Scholar
Halmer, P. & Bewley, J. D. (1984). A physiological perspective on seed vigour testing. Seed Science and Technology (in the Press).Google Scholar
Heydecker, W. (1972). Vigour. In Viability of Seeds (ed. Roberts, E. H.), pp. 209–252. London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heydecker, W. & Coolbear, P. (1977). Seed treatments for improved performance – survey and attempted prognosis. Seed Science and Technology 5, 353–425.Google Scholar
Inteenational Seed Testing Association (1976). International rules for seed testing. Seed Science and Technology 4, 1–177.Google Scholar
Jaggard, K. W., Wickens, R., Webb, D. J. & Scott, R. K. (1983). Effects of sowing date on plant establishment and bolting and the influence of these factors on yields of sugar beet. Journal of Agricultural Science, Cambridge 101, 147–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Knight, R. (1970). The measurement and interpretation of genotype-environment interactions. Euphytica 19, 225–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kraak, H. L., Vos, J., Peery, D. A. & Beckendam, J. (1984). Studies on field emergence and vigour of sugar beet and onion seeds. Seed Science and Technology (in the Press).Google Scholar
Lexander, K. (1981). Physical and physiological seed characteristics influencing field emergence of sugar beet. Proceedings of the 44th Winter Congress, Institut International de Recherches Belteravieres, Brussels, pp. 21–36.Google Scholar
Longden, P. C. (1973). Washing sugar beet seed. Institut International de Recherches Betteravieres, Brussels 6 (3), 154–162.Google Scholar
Mcdonald, M. B. (1975). A review and evaluation of seed vigour tests. Proceedings of the Association of Seed Analysts of North America 65, 109–139.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. (1981). Evaluation of techniques for germination and vigour studies. Seed Science and Technology 9, 543–551.Google Scholar
Perry, D. A. (1978 a). Report of the vigour test committee 1974–1977. Seed Science and Technology 6, 159–181.Google Scholar
Peery, D. A. (1978 b). Problems of the development and application of vigour tests to vegetable seeds. Ada Horticulture 83, 141–147.Google Scholar
Sperlingsson, C. (1981). The influence of the seed soil physical environment on seedling growth and establishment. Proceedings of the 44th Winter Congress, Institut International de Recherches Betteravieres, Brussels, pp. 59–77.Google Scholar