Quality assessment of pea (Pisum sativum L.) seeds using the controlled deterioration technique

Lutfor Rahman, Mahfuzar Rahman, Mahmudul Hasan, Ahsan Habib, Motiur Rahman, Abdullahil Baque

Article ID: 718
Vol 2, Issue 1, 2019

VIEWS - 687 (Abstract) 495 (PDF)

Abstract


A three-factor experiment was set at the Horticulture Laboratory, Hajee Mohammad Danesh Science and Technology University, Dinajpur, to study the effects of the controlled deterioration (CD) on the pea seeds at the constant temperature of 35 ℃. The 3 factors considered were: 3 pea seed sources (Rangpur Local/RL, Dinajpur Local/DL and Thakurgaon Local/TL); 3 ageing periods (0, 8 and 16 days); and 3 seed moisture contents (12, 16 and 20% MC). The 27 treatment combinations compared in the CRD with the 3 repetitions for the 8 arenas were: % germination, % abnormal seedlings, % dead seeds, % soil emergence and seedling evaluation test for the root and shoot lengths as well as their dry matter contents. Identical prototypes of notable (5–1% level) degradations were recorded everywhere. But the disparities were lucid under the extreme stresses. Moreover, highly noteworthy (1% level) relations were traced amid all the traits ranging from -0.9847 (soil emergence × abnormal seedling) to 0.9623 (soil emergence × normal seedling). So, the CD technique was very effectual in judging the physiological statuses of the seed sources studied. Thus, the germination test might be add-on by a vigor test, the latter of which could be assessed by quantifying the seedlings’ root and shoot lengths and/or their dry matter accumulations. Moreover, in the seed quality certification, the suitable limits of vigor for the chosen traits could also be got by this technique. But the seeds of several pea varieties should be exploited to fix-up the agreeable limits of the traits. Furthermore, to save time, the ageing period could be squeezed by raising the seed MC.


Keywords


Pea; Moisture Content; Germination; Abnormal Seedlings; Dead Seeds

Full Text:

PDF


References


1. Purseglove JW. Tropical crops: Dicotyledons. The English Language Book Society and Longman Group Limited; 1977. p. 89–99.

2. Roberts EH, Osei-Bonsu K. Seed and seedling vigor. In: Summerfield RJ (editor). World crops: Cool season food legumes. London: Kluwer Academic Publishers; 1988. p. 898–910.

3. Roberts EE. Qualifying seed deterioration. In: McDona MB, Nelson CJ (editors). Physiology of seed deterioration. USA: Crop Science Society of America (CSSA), Special Pub No.11; 1986. p. 101–123.

4. Keefe PD, Draper SR. The isolation of carrot embryos and their measurement by machine vision for the prediction of crop uniformity. Journal of Horticultural Science 1986; 61(4): 497–502.

5. Ellis R H. Seed and seedling vigor in relation to crop growth and yield. Plant Growth Regulation 1992; 11(3): 249–255.

6. ISTA (International Seed Testing Association). Handbook of vigor test methods. 3rd ed. Zurich, Switzerland: ISTA; 1999.

7. Pourhadian H, Khajehpour MR. Relationship between germination tests and field emergence of wheat. Asian Journal of Applied Sciences 2010; 3(2): 160–165.

8. Wang Y, Yu L, Nan Z, et al. Vigor tests used to rank seed lot quality and predict field emergence in four forage species. Crop Science 2004; 44(2): 535–541.

9. Kolasinska K, Szyrmer J, Dul S. Relationship between laboratory seed quality tests and field emergence of common bean seed. Crop Science 2000; 40(2): 470–475.

10. Kulik MM, Yaklich RW. Evaluation of vigor tests in soybean seeds: Relationship of accelerated aging, cold, sand bench, and speed of germination test to field performance. Crop Science 1982; 22(4): 766–770.

11. Borba CS. Some relationship of seed quality and planting date to development and seed production of soybean. Dissertation abstracts international. B (The sciences and engineering) 1987; 47: 3167B–3168B.

12. Perry DA. Seed vigor and seedling establishment. Advances in Research and Technology of Seeds 1982; 5: 25–40.

13. Hampton JG, Scott DJ. Effect of seed vigor on garden pea production. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 1982; 25(3): 289–294.

14. Perry DA. Report of the vigor test committee 1974–1977. Science and Technology 1978; 6: 159–181.

15. Brown RF, Mayer DG. A critical analysis of Maguire’s germination rate index. Journal of Seed Technology 1986; 10(2): 101–110.

16. Ranal MA, Santana DG. How and why to measure the germination process? Brazilian Journal of Botany 2006; 29(1): 1–11.

17. Khan AM, Khan H, Khan R, et al. Vigor tests used to rank seed lot quality and predict field emergence in wheat. American Journal of Plant Physiology 2007; 2: 311–317.

18. Hill HJ, Cunningham JD, Bradford KJ, et al. Primed lettuce seeds exhibit increased sensitivity to moisture content during controlled deterioration. HortScience 2007; 42(6): 1436–1439.

19. Kibinza S, Vinel D, Côme D, et al. Sunflower seed deterioration as related to moisture content during ageing, energy metabolism and active oxygen species scavenging. Physiologia Plantarum 2006; 128(3): 496–506.

20. Kruse M. Application of the normal distribution for testing the potential of the controlled deterioration test. Crop Science 1999; 39(4): 1125–1129.

21. Roberts EE. Qualifying seed deterioration 1972; 91-94.

22. Khan MM, Iqbal J, Abbas M, et al. Loss of vigor and viability in aged onion (Allium cepa L.) seeds. International Journal of Agriculture & Biology 2004; 6(4): 242–251.

23. Iqbal TMT, Smith ML. Physiological changes of pea seed quality due to ageing. Annals of Bangladesh Agriculture 1996; 6(1): 27–34.

24. Bahadur MM, Kabir MA, Iqbal TMT, et al. Changes of groundnut seed quality due to controlled deterioration. International Journal of Sustainable Agricultural Technology 2005; 1: 59–64.

25. Kabir MA, Iqbal TMT, Bahadur MM, et al. Assessment of chick pea seed quality. Bangladesh Journal of Seed Science and Technology 2005; 9: 133–135.

26. Kapoor N, Arya A, Siddiqui MA, et al. Seed deterioration in chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) under accelerated ageing. Asian Journal of Plant Sciences 2010; 9(3): 158–162.

27. Patricia P, Gerardo RR, Miller BM, et al. Lettuce seed quality evaluation using seed physical attributes, saturated salt aging and seed vigor imaging system. Journal of Plant Biotechnology 2005; 8: 312–318.

28. Siddique MA, Somerset G, Goodwin PB. Time of harvest, pre-threshing treatment and quality in snap bean (Phaseolus vulgaris) seed crops. Australian Journal of Experimental Agriculture 1987; 27(1): 179–187.

29. Ellis RH, Roberts EH. The quantification of ageing and survival in orthodox seeds. Seed Science and Technology (Netherlands) 1981; 9(2): 373–409.

30. Osei-Bonsu K. Storage and vigor problems in grain legume seeds [PhD thesis]. England: Department of Agriculture and Horticulture, University of Reading; 1981.

31. Ellis RH, Roberts EH. Towards a rational basis for testing seed quality. In: Hebblethwailte PD (editor). Seed Production. London: Butterworths; 1980. p. 605–635.

32. Heydecker W. Vigor. In: Roberts EH (editor). Viability of seeds. London: Chapman and Hall Ltd.; 1972. p. 209–282.

33. Iqbal TMT. Evaluation of pea seed quality using the controlled deterioration technique [Master’s thesis]. UK: University of Edinburgh; 1989. p. 114.




DOI: https://doi.org/10.24294/th.v2i1.718

Refbacks

  • There are currently no refbacks.


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.

This site is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.