Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-vdxz6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T00:05:04.245Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The significance of damage during imbibition to the field emergence of pea (Pisum sativum L.) seeds

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 March 2009

Alison A. Powell  and
S. Matthews
Alison A. Powell
Affiliation:
Wolf son Unit of Seed Technology, Department of Biology, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland
S. Matthews
Affiliation:
Wolf son Unit of Seed Technology, Department of Biology, University of Stirling, Stirling, Scotland
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

Differences in the field emergence of seed lots of vining peas were shown to be largely due to differences in the sensitivity of seeds to imbibition damage caused by the rapid uptake of water. The reduced emergence seen for all lots in wet soil resulted from a faster rate of water uptake and a consequent increase in imbibition damage. This caused both physiological death of low vigour seed lots and enhanced predisposition to pre-emergence mortality in unsterilized soil in all lots. The potential for the chemical protection of seeds against rapid water uptake is discussed.

Type
Research Article
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 95 , Issue 1 , August 1980 , pp. 35 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1980

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

Angell, H. R. (1952). Seedling blight. V. A new soil moisture relationship to the disease in peas. Journal of the Australian Institute of Agricultural Science 18, 99–101.Google Scholar
Baylis, G. T. S., Deshpande, R. S. & Storey, I. F. (1943). Effect of seed treatment on emergence of peas. Annals of Applied Biology 30, 19–26.Google Scholar
Eastham, A. (1925). Report of the Fourth International Seed Testing Congress, p. 12. London: H.M.S.O.Google Scholar
Hull, R. (1937). Effect of environmental conditions and more particularly of soil moisture upon the emergence of peas. Journal of Applied Biology 24, 681–689.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Jacks, H. (1963). Seed disinfection. XVII. Field tests for control of damping off in pea seeds. New Zealand Journal of Agricultural Research 6, 115–117.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, S. (1971). A study of seed lots of peas (Pisum sativum L.) differing in predisposition to pre-emergence mortality in soil. Annals of Applied Biology 68, 177–183.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Matthews, S. & Bradnock, W. T. (1967). The detection of seed samples of wrinkle seeded peas (Pisum sativum L.) of potentially low planting value. Proceedings of the International Seed Testing Association 32, 553–563.Google Scholar
Perry, D. A. (1967). Seed vigour and field establishment of peas. Proceedings of the International Seed Testing Association 32, 3–12.Google Scholar
Perry, D. A. (1973). Infection of seeds of Pisum sativum by Pythium ultimum. Transactions of the British Mycological Society 61, 135–144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Perry, D. A. & Harrison, J. G. (1970). The deleterious effect of water and low temperature on germination of pea seed. Journal of Experimental Botany 21, 504–512.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, A. A. & Matthews, S. (1978). The damaging effect of water on dry pea embryos during imbibition. Journal of Experimental Botany 29, 1215–1229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Powell, A. A. & Matthews, S. (1979). The influence of testa condition on the imbibition and vigour of pea seeds. Journal of Experimental Botany 30, 193–197.CrossRefGoogle Scholar