Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T06:11:49.999Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Water Stress-Induced Germination of Giant Foxtail (Setaria faberi) Seeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Ray B. Taylorson
Ray B. Taylorson*
Affiliation:
U.S. Dep. Agric., Agric. Res. Serv., Weed Sci. Lab., Beltsville, MD 20705
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Giant foxtail (Setaria faberi Herrm. # SETFA) seed germination was about 55% in water but increased to >90% after pretreatment in polyethyleneglycol 8000 (PEG) at water potentials of −0.3 MPa or less. Pretreatment at 20 C required about 24 h exposure to PEG for maximum effect, but at 35 C shorter times (4 to 8 h) gave a partial effect. Treatment with PEG can begin at the time of seed wetting or after the seeds have imbibed water for 24 h. Continuous exposure to a water potential of −0.5 MPa PEG (or less) imhibited germination. Other methods of applying temporary water stress to the seeds, such as slow hydration in a humid atmosphere, or drying after partial hydration, increased germination in a manner similar to PEG treatment. The relatively slow response kinetics with PEG suggest that increased germination was caused by physiological adaptation to water stress, possibly by observed adjustments in seed water potential. It is suggested the water stress mechanism could operate under field conditions where wetting-drying cycles are common.

Keywords

Wetting–dryingseed dormancySETFA
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 34 , Issue 6 , November 1986 , pp. 871 - 875
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by the Weed Science Society of America 

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

Literature Cited

1. Berrie, A.M.M. and Drennan, D.S.H. 1971. The effect of hydration on seed germination. New Phytol. 70:135–142.Google Scholar
2. Carpita, N. C., Sabularse, D., Montezinos, D., and Delmer, D. P. 1979. Determination of the pore size of cell walls of living plant cells. Science 205:1144–1147.Google Scholar
3. Carpita, N. C., Nabors, M. W., Ross, C. W., and Petretic, N. L. 1979. The growth physics and water relations of red-light induced germination in lettuce seeds. III. Changes in the osmotic and pressure potential in the embryonic axes of red- and far-red-treated seeds. Planta 144:217–224.Google Scholar
4. Cavalieri, A. J. and Boyer, J. S. 1982. Water potentials induced by growth in soybean hypocotyls. Plant Physiol. 69:492–496.Google Scholar
5. Curtain, C. C., Looney, F. D., Regan, D. L., and Ivancic, N. M. 1983. Changes in the ordering of lipids in the membrane of Dunaliella in response to osmotic-pressure changes. Biochem. J. 213:131–136.Google Scholar
6. Heydecker, W. and Coolbear, P. 1977. Seed treatments for improved performance – survey and attempted prognosis. Seed Sci. Technol. 5:353–425.Google Scholar
7. Kakefuda, G. and Duke, S. H. 1982. Imbibitional leakage and seed death during germination in soybean cultivars with defective testae. Plant Physiol. 43:255–269.Google Scholar
8. Koller, D. 1972. Environmental control of seed germination. Pages 2–201 in Kozlowski, T. T., ed. Seed Biology. Vol. 2. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
9. Lagerwerff, J. V., Ogata, G., and Eagle, H. E. 1961. Control of osmotic pressure of culture solutions with polyethylene glycol. Science 133:1486–1486.Google Scholar
10. Lush, W. M., Groves, R. H., and Kaye, P. E. 1981. Hydration-dehydration as a presowing seed treatment: Physiology and application. Pages 571–574 in Smith, J. A. and Hays, V. W., eds. Proc. XIV Int. Grassland Cong., Lexington, KY. Westview Press, Boulder, CO.Google Scholar
11. Mazor, L., Perl, M., and Negbi, M. 1984. Changes in some ATP-dependent activities in seeds during treatment with polyethyleneglycol and during the redrying process. J. Exp. Bot. 35:1119–1127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
12. Mexal, J., Fisher, J. T., Osteryoung, J., and Reid, C.P.P. 1975. Oxygen availability in polyethylene glycol solutions and its implications in plant-water relations. Plant Physiol. 55:20–24.Google Scholar
13. Michel, B. E. and Kaufmann, M. R. 1973. The osmotic potential of polyethyleneglycol 6000. Plant Physiol. 51:914–916.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Powell, A. A. and Matthews, S. 1978. The damaging effect of water on dry pea embryos during imbibition. J. Exp. Bot. 29: 1215–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Salisbury, F. B. and Ross, C. W. 1978. Plant Physiology. 2d. ed. Wadsworth Publishing Co., Belmont, CA. Pages 52–77.Google Scholar
16. Simon, E. W. and Harum, R.M.R. 1972. Leakage during seed imbibition. J. Exp. Bot. 23:1076–1085.Google Scholar
17. Taylorson, R. B. 1982. Anesthetic effects on secondary dormancy and phytochrome responses in Setaria faberi seeds. Plant Physiol. 70:882–886.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
18. Vincent, E. M. and Cavers, P. B. 1978. The effect of wetting and drying on the subsequent germination of Rumex crispus . Can. J. Bot. 56:2207–2217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
19. Woodstock, L. W. and Tao, K-L. J. 1981. Prevention of imbibitional injury in low vigor soybean embryonic axes by osmotic control of water uptake. Physiol. Plant. 51:133–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar