Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-pftt2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-01T01:17:54.827Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Response of Seed Longevity to Moisture Content in Three Genotypes of Soyabean (GLYCINE MAX)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  03 October 2008

G. N. Zanakis ,
R. H. Ellis  and
R. J. Summerfield
G. N. Zanakis
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Cutbush Lane, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AD,England University of Reading, Department of AgricultureSeed Science Laboratory, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 2AT, England
R. H. Ellis
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of Agriculture, Plant Environment Laboratory, Cutbush Lane, Shinfield, Reading RG2 9AD,England University of Reading, Department of AgricultureSeed Science Laboratory, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 2AT, England
R. J. Summerfield
Affiliation:
University of Reading, Department of AgricultureSeed Science Laboratory, Earley Gate, Reading RG6 2AT, England
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Reports that an Indonesian soyabean (Glycine max) line (TGm737p) shows greater seed storage longevity than an American cultivar (Bossier), and that the cross between them (TG×536–02D) is intermediate between the two parents in this regard, were investigated by growing all three genotypes under identical conditions (30°C/20°C, 12 h d-1 photoperiod) in a plastics house. Seeds were harvested when moisture content had declined naturally to 14–15% (wet basis), and then stored hermetically at five different moisture contents at 40°C. Analyses of the resultant seed survival curves revealed that the seed lot constant Ki (a measure of potential longevity) was greatest in TGm737p and least in cv. Bossier, the cross being much closer to the American parent in this regard. The negative logarithmic relation between σ (standard deviation of the frequency distribution of seed deaths in time) and moisture content did not differ (p > 0.10) among the three genotypes. Moreover, this relation was close to that predicted by earlier results for four different genotypes. Similarly, there was no significant difference (p > 0.25) among genotypes in the negative semi-logarithmic relation between σ and seed equilibrium relative humidity (rh): the regression slope was equivalent to a doubling of longevity for each 8.0% reduction in rh. Finally, comparison of the negative logarithmic relation between absolute longevity (50% viability period) and seed moisture content confirmed that TGm737p showed greatest longevity (p > 0.005), but failed to show a difference in absolute longevity between cv. Bossier and the cross (p > 0.25). The results confirm that the seed viability equation of Ellis and Roberts (1980a, b) provides a framework within which the seed longevity of different genotypes can be compared. They suggest too that there is considerable doubt as to whether or not the greater potential longevity of the Indonesian line TGm737p has been incorporated successfully into the cross TG×536–02D.

Longevidad de la semilla de soja

Type
Research Article
Information
Experimental Agriculture , Volume 29 , Issue 4 , October 1993 , pp. 449 - 459
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1993

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

Baker, R. J. & Nelder, J. A. (1978). The GLIM System, Release 3. Oxford: Numerical Algorithms Group.Google Scholar
Camacho, C. M. & Munera, A. E. (1986). Screening soybean germplasm for seed longevity under tropical environments. Soybean Genetics Newsletter 13:63–65.Google Scholar
Dashiell, K. E. & Gumisiriza, G. (1989). Recent advances made in developing soybean cultivars with improved seed storability for the tropics. In World Soybean Research Conference IV, 2295–2302 (Ed. Pascale, A. J.). Actas Proceedings 5. Buenos Aires, Argentina: AASOJA.Google Scholar
Dassou, S. & Kueneman, E. A. (1984). Screening methodology for resistance to field weathering of soybean seed. Crop Science 24:774–779.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickie, J. B., Ellis, R. H., Kraak, H. L., Ryder, K. & Tompsett, P. B. (1990). Temperature and seed storage longevity. Annals of Botany 65:197–204.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. H. (1988). The viability equation, seed viability nomographs and practical advice on seed storage. Seed Science and Technology 16:29–50.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. H. & Roberts, E. H. (1980 a). Improved equations for the prediction of seed longevity. Annals of Botany 45:13–30.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. H. & Roberts, E. H. (1980 b). The influence of temperature and moisture on seed viability period in barley (Hordeum distichum L.). Annals of Botany 45:31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. H. & Roberts, E. H. (1981). The quantification of ageing and survival in orthodox seeds. Seed Science and Technology 9:373–409.Google Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Osei-Bonsu, K. & Roberts, E. H. (1982). The influence of genotype, temperature and moisture on seed longevity in chickpea, cowpea and soyabean. Annals of Botany 50:69–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Hong, T. D. & Roberts, E. H. (1986). Logarithmic relationship between moisture content and longevity in sesame seeds. Annals of Botany 57:499–503.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Hong, T. D. & Roberts, E. H. (1989). A comparison of the low-moisture content limit to the logarithmic relation between seed moisture and longevity in twelve species. Annals of Botany 63:601–611.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Hong, T. D. & Roberts, E. H. (1990 a). Moisture content and the longevity of seeds of Phaseolus vulgaris. Annals of Botany 66:341–348.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Hong, T. D., Roberts, E. H. & Tao, K.-L. (1990 b). Low moisture content limits to relations between seed longevity and moisture. Annals of Botany 65:493–504.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ellis, R. H., Hong, T. D. & Roberts, E. H. (1992). The low-moisture-content limit to the negative logarithmic relation between seed longevity and moisture content in three subspecies of rice. Annals of Botany 69:53–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fehr, W. R. & Caviness, C. E. (1977). Stages of soybean development. Special report 80, pp. 3–11. Iowa State University.Google Scholar
Green, D. E., Pinnell, E. L., Cavanah, L. E. & Williams, L. F. (1965). Effect of planting date and maturity date on soybean seed quality. Agronomy journal 57:165–168.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hadley, P., Richardson, A. C., Dickinson, D., Chivers, K., Gill, S. & Summerfield, R. J. (1982). Research in controlled environments: A versatile inexpensive system for automatic irrigation of plants grown in pots. Laboratory Practice 31:728–732.Google Scholar
IITA (1977). Soybean improvement. Annual Report, 34–36. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture: Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
IITA (1983). Soybean lines for the lowland tropics. Research Highlights, 86–88. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture: Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
IITA (1987). Soybean varieties for tropical Africa and introduction of soybeans in local diets. Annual Report and Research Highlights, 85–92. International Institute of Tropical Agriculture: Ibadan, Nigeria.Google Scholar
ISTA (International Seed Testing Association) (1985 a). International rules for seed testing. Rules 1985. Seed Science and Technology 13:299–355.Google Scholar
ISTA (International Seed Testing Association) (1985 b). International rules for seed testing. Annexes 1985. Seed Science and Technology 13:356–513.Google Scholar
Kraak, H. L. & Vos, J. (1987). Seed viability constants for lettuce. Annals of Botany 59:343–349.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nangju, D., Wien, H. C. & Ndimande, B. (1980). Improved practices of soyabean seed production in the tropics. In Seed Production, 427–448 (Ed. Hebblethwaite, P. D.). London: Butterworth.Google Scholar
Roberts, E. H. (1972). Storage environment and the control of viability. In Viability of Seeds, 14–58 (Ed. Roberts, E. H.). London: Chapman and Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, E. H. & Ellis, R. H. (1989). Water and seed survival. Annals of Botany 63:39–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, S. R. & Rachie, K. O. (1987). Introduction. In Soybeans for the Tropics. Research, Production and Utilization, XV-XX (Eds Singh, S. R., Rachie, K. O. and Dashiell, K. E.). Chichester: John Wiley and Sons.Google Scholar
Summerfield, R. J., Huxley, P. A. & Minchin, F. R. (1977). Plant husbandry and management techniques of growing grain legumes under simulated tropical conditions in controlled environments. Experimental Agriculture 13:81–92.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wien, H. C. & Kueneman, E. A. (1981). Soybean seed deterioration in the tropics. II. Varietal differences and techniques for screening. Field Crops Research 4:123–132.CrossRefGoogle Scholar