Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-19T12:29:11.518Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maize seed response to successive imbibition/dryback cycles: viability and vigour

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2008

K. G. V. Davidson ,
S. Sowa ,
F. D. Moore III  and
E. E. Roos
K. G. V. Davidson*
Affiliation:
Horticulture Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
S. Sowa
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Seed Storage Laboratory, 1111 South Mason St., Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
F. D. Moore III
Affiliation:
Horticulture Department, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
E. E. Roos
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, National Seed Storage Laboratory, 1111 South Mason St., Fort Collins, CO 80523, USA
*
*Correspondence
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Electroconductivity tests are currently used for seed vigour assessment. They are rapid and simple and after further development, they may yet provide the seed industry with a non-destructive alternative to the standard germination test, which is thoroughly destructive to the sample, time consuming, and expensive. Seed injury, a result of soaking required by the electroconductivity test, was evaluated using high quality Zea mays L. seeds responding to successive imbibition/dryback cycles. If the soaking time is brief, injury to the seeds should be minimal, thus permitting successive tests on the same sample. We tested 5 imbibition/dryback cycles (C) and 5 imbibition periods, or cycle durations (CD) of 2, 4, 6, 7 and 8 h. Dryback periods lasted 5–7 d at room temperature. Seeds were permitted to dry back to 10% moisture. Electroconductivity readings were obtained at the end of each CD for each C. Each treatment (C × CD) sample, n=100 seeds, was germinated at 25°C for 7 d; radicle lengths were measured after 3 d. The experiment was repeated yielding a total of 50 observations. Viability and vigour losses were measured in response to successive C and increasing CD. Five cycles of 6 h each resulted in only a 10% loss of viability, but a 20% loss of relative vigour, confirming that vigour is more sensitive to the testing procedure. Cycles had the greatest effect on loss of seed quality since 45% of the readily leachable electrolytes were lost from the seeds during the first soaking period. There was no interaction between C and CD.

Keywords

Zea mays L.electroconductivity testsoaking injuryviabilityvigour.
Type
Research Papers
Information
Seed Science Research , Volume 4 , Issue 4 , December 1994 , pp. 431 - 437
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1994

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

Association of Official Seed Analysts. (1988) Rules for testing seeds. Journal of Seed Technology 12,(3), 1–109.Google Scholar
Berrie, A.M.M. and Drennan, D.S.H. (1971) The effect of hydration-dehydration on seed germination. New Phytologist 70, 135–142.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bewley, J.D. (1986) Membrane changes in seeds as related to germination and the perturbations resulting from deterioration in storage. pp 27–45 in Physiology of seed deterioration, CSSA Special Publication No. 11.Google Scholar
Bondie, J., Limperis, T. and Steere, W.C. (1979) The automatic seed analyzer. pp 72–75 in Brown, J.M. (Ed.) Proceedings of the 1979 Beltwide Cotton Production—Mechanization Conference. Phoenix, Arizona USA. 7–11 January, 1979.Google Scholar
Bruggink, H., Kraak, H.L., Dijkema, M.H.G.E. and Bekendam, J. (1991) Some factors influencing electrolyte leakage from maize (Zea mays L.) kernels. Seed Science Research 1, 15–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ching, T.M. and Schoolcraft, I. (1968) Physiological and chemical differences in aged seeds. Crop Science 8, 407–409.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Daniel, C. and Wood, F.S. (1980) Fitting equations to data. Wiley and Sons. pp, 87–88.Google Scholar
Davidson, K.G.V., Moore, F.D. III, Roos, E.E., Nath, S. and Sowa, S. (1994) Comparison of seed-quality indices resulting from single-seed electroconductivity measurements. HortScience 29, 1158–1163.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Delouche, J.C. and Baskin, C.C. (1973) Accelerated aging techniques for predicting the relative storability of seed lots. Seed Science and Technology 1, 427–452.Google Scholar
Dixon, W.J. (Ed.) (1981) BMDP Statistical software 1981. Los Angeles, University of California Press. pp 264–277.Google Scholar
Draper, N.R. and Smith, H. (1981) Applied regression analysis. New York, Wiley and Sons. pp 294–305.Google Scholar
Duke, S.H., Kakefuda, G. and Harvey, T.M. (1983) Differential leakage of intracellular substances from imbibing soybean seeds. Plant Physiology 72, 919–924.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Freed, R., Eisensmith, S.P., Goetz, S., Reicosky, D., Smail, V.W. and Wolberg, P. (1987) Userg's guide to MSTAT. Crop and Soil Sciences and Agricultural Economics; Michigan State University.Google Scholar
Furman, K.C., Woodstock, L.W. and Solomos, T. (1987) Interfacing the ASAC-1000 seed analyzer with an IBM-PC microcomputer using the basic program ASACSTAT. Journal of Seed Technology 11, (1), 79–87.Google Scholar
Keys, R.D. (1982) Dynamic conductrometric analysis of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.) seed leachate using the CASAS (computerized automated seed analysis system). Journal of Seed Technology 7, (1), 36–59.Google Scholar
Kleinbaum, D.G., Kupper, L.L. and Muller, K.E. (1988) Applied regression analysis and other multivariable methods. 2nd Ed. Boston, Massachussetts, PWS-Kent Publishing Co. pp 320–324.Google Scholar
Matthews, S. and Bradnock, W.T. (1968) Relationship between seed exudation and field emergence in peas and French beans. Horticultural Research 8, 89–93.Google Scholar
McDonald, M.B. Jr. and Wilson, D.O. (1979) An assessment of the standardization and ability of the ASA-610 to rapidly predict potential soybean germination. Journal of Seed Technology 4, (2), 1–11.Google Scholar
McKersie, B.D. and Stinson, R.H. (1980) Effect of dehydration on leakage and membrane structure in Lotus corniculatus L. seeds. Plant Physiology 66, 316–320.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Moore, F.D. III, Jolliffe, P.A., Stanwood, P.C. and Roos, E.E. (1988) Use of the Richards function to interpret single seed conductivity data. HortScience 23, 396–398.Google Scholar
Mullet, J.H. and Wilkinson, R.I. (1979) The relationship between amounts of electrolyte lost on leaching seeds of Pisum sativum and some parameters of plant growth. Seed Science and Technology 7, 393–398.Google Scholar
Nath, S., Coolbear, P. and Hampton, J.G. (1991) Hydration-dehydration treatments to protect or repair stored ‘Karamu’ wheat seeds. Crop Science 31, 822–826.Google Scholar
Pammenter, N.W., Adamson, J.H. and Berjak, P. (1974) Viability of stored seeds: extension by cathodic protection. Science 186, 1123–1124.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Roberts, E.H. (1981) Physiology of ageing and it's application to drying and storage. Seed Science and Technology 9, 359–372.Google Scholar
Roos, E.E. and Pollock, B.M. (1971) Soaking injury in lima beans. Crop Science 11, 78–81.Google Scholar
Rowland, G.G. and Gusta, L.V. (1977) Effect of soaking, seed moisture content, temperature and seed leakage on germination of faba beans (Vicia faba) and peas (Pisum sativum). Canadian Journal of Plant Science 57, 401–406.Google Scholar
Savino, G., Haigh, P.M. and De Leo, P. (1979) Effects of presoaking upon seed vigour and viability during storage. Seed Science and Technology 7, 57–64.Google Scholar
Saxena, O.P., Pakeeraiah, T. and Lakshmi, P. (1985) Studies on accelerated ageing in Sesamum. Indian Journal of Plant Physiology 28,(1), 35–42.Google Scholar
Simon, E.W. (1978) Membranes in dry and imbibing seeds. pp 205–224 in Crowe, J.H.;, Clegg, J.S. (Eds) Dry biological systems. New York, Academic Press Inc.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Simon, E.W. and Mills, L.K. (1982) Imbibition, leakage and membranes. pp 9–27 in Nozzolillo, C.;, Lea, P.J.;, Loewus, F.A. Mobilization of reserves in germination. New York, Plenum Press.Google Scholar
Simon, E.W. and Raja Harun, R.M. (1972) Leakage during seed imbibition. Journal of Experimental Botany 23, 1076–1085.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Steere, W.C., Levengood, W.C. and Bondie, J.M. (1981) An electronic analyzer for evaluating seed germination and vigor. Seed Science and Technology 9, 567–576.Google Scholar
Tao, K.L. (1978) Factors causing variations in the conductivity test for soybean seeds. Journal of Seed Technology 3,(1), 10–18.Google Scholar
Thomson, W.W. and Platt-Aloia, K. (1982) Ultrastructure and membrane permeability in cowpea seeds. Plant, Cell and Environment 5, 367–373.Google Scholar
Tracy, W.F. and Juvik, J.A. (1988) Electrolyte leakage and seed quality in a shrunken-2 maize selected for improved field emergence. HortScience 23, 391–392.Google Scholar
Villiers, T.A. and Edgcumbe, D.J. (1975) On the cause of seed deterioration in dry storage. Seed Science and Technology 3, 761–774.Google Scholar
Weges, R. and Karssen, C.M. (1990) The influence of redesiccation on dormancy and K+ leakage of primed lettuce seeds. Israel Journal of Botany 39, 327–336.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.O. Jr., (1992) A unified approach to interpretation of single seed conductivity data. Seed Science and Technology 20, 155–163.Google Scholar
Woodstock, L.W. (1988) Seed imbibition: a critical period for successful germination. Journal of Seed Technology 12,(1), 1–15.Google Scholar
Younis, S.A., Shahatha, H.A., Al-Rawi, F.I. and Hagop, E.G. (1991) Effects of hydration-dehydration pretreatment on vigour and viability of rice seeds (Oryza sativa). Arab Gulf Journal of Scientific Research 9,(2), 45–53.Google Scholar