Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-c47g7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-20T00:08:09.861Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The effects of treatments with selected pesticides on viability and vigour of maize (Zea mays) seeds and seedling emergence in the presence of Fusarium graminearum

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  16 May 2012

T. A. S. AVELING ,
V. GOVENDER ,
D. S. KANDOLO  and
Q. KRITZINGER
T. A. S. AVELING*
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Plant Pathology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute, South Africa
V. GOVENDER
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Plant Pathology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute, South Africa
D. S. KANDOLO
Affiliation:
Department of Microbiology and Plant Pathology, Forestry and Agricultural Biotechnology Institute, South Africa
Q. KRITZINGER
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Science, University of Pretoria, Pretoria 0002, South Africa
*
*To whom all correspondence should be addressed. Email: terry.aveling@fabi.up.ac.za
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Summary

The quality of seed is dependent on two very broad aspects: how healthy (disease-free) a seed is and its field performance (germination and vigour). The objective of the present study was to evaluate the effect of pesticidal seed treatments of maize (Zea mays L.) on seed germination and vigour, and on greenhouse emergence in the presence of Fusarium graminearum Schw. Maize seeds were treated with four pesticides: Apron® XL (metalaxyl), Thiram (thiram), Celest® XL (fludioxonil, metalaxyl) and Apron® Star 42 WS (thiamethoxam, metalaxyl, difenoconazole). Viability and vigour of the treated seeds were determined. Thereafter, seeds were planted under greenhouse conditions. The control consisted of water-treated seeds. None of the pesticides reduced the standard germination under laboratory conditions and none had any effect on the quantity of leachate (measured as conductivity) or moisture content of the seeds. The different treatments also had no effect on germination or on seedling weight increase among treatments after rapid imbibition and there was no difference in germination among treatments following the cold test. The proportion of diseased plants harvested from F. graminearum inoculated soil was significantly reduced by Apron® Star 42 WS and Celest® XL. The vigour tests indicated that none of the pesticides tested affected the seeds negatively and that plant biomass in the presence of the pathogen, F. graminearum, was increased after the application of the pesticides to the seeds, with the exception of seeds treated with Apron® XL.

Type
Crops and Soils Research Papers
Information
The Journal of Agricultural Science , Volume 151 , Issue 4 , August 2013 , pp. 474 - 481
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2012 

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

REFERENCES

Abba, E. J. & Lovato, A. (1999). Effect of seed storage temperature and relative humidity on maize (Zea mays L.) seed viability and vigour. Seed Science and Technology 27, 101–114.Google Scholar
Agrios, G. N. (2005). Plant Pathology 4th edn, pp. 209–2011. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Anaso, A. B., Tyagi, P. D., Emechebe, A. M. & Manzo, S. K. (1989). Control of sorghum downy mildew (Peronosclerospora sorghi) of maize by seed treatment in Nigeria. Crop Protection 8, 82–85.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Anon. (2010). Seed Care. Basel, Switzerland: Syngenta. Available from: http://www.syngenta.com/global/corporate/en/products-and-innovation/product-brands/crop-protection/seed-care/Pages/seed-care.aspx (verified 21 March 2012).Google Scholar
Chen, Y. & Burris, J. S. (1993). Effect of seed treatment emulsifiers on seed quality and membrane function in maize. Postharvest Biology and Technology 2, 231–239.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Copeland, L. O. & Mcdonald, M. B. (2001). Principles of Seed Science and Technology 4th edn, pp. 124–128. Massachusetts: Kluwer Academic Publishers.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Csinos, A. S. (2004). Efficacy of fungicides on tobacco blackshank (abstract). Phytopathology 94, S144.Google Scholar
Devries, M. & Goggi, A. S. (2006). Determining the extent of frost damage in maize seed using the tetrazolium test. Crop Management (Online journal). doi:10.1094/CM-2006-0414-01-RS.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hampton, J. G. (1995). Methods of viability and vigour testing – a critical appraisal. In Seed Quality – Basic Mechanisms and Agricultural Implications (Ed. Basra, A. S.), pp. 81–117. New York: The Haworth Press.Google Scholar
International Seed Testing Association. (2011). International Rules for Seed Testing Edition 2011. Basserdorf, Zurich: The International Seed Testing Association.Google Scholar
Kommedahl, T. & Windels, C. E. (1986). Treatment of maize seeds. In Seed Treatment 2nd edn (Ed. Jeffs, K. A.), pp. 163–182. Lavenham, UK: British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Lovato, A., Noli, E. & Lovato, A. F. S. (2005). The relationship between three cold test temperatures, accelerated ageing test and field emergence of maize seed. Seed Science and Technology 33, 249–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maienfisch, P., Angst, M., Brandl, F., Fischer, W., Hofer, D., Kayser, H., Kobel, W., Rindlisbacher, A., Senn, R., Steinemann, A. & Widmer, H. (2001). Chemistry and biology of thiamethoxam: a second generation neonicotinoid. Pest Management Science 57, 906–913.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Marchi, J. L. & Cicero, S. M. (2003). Influence of chemical treatment of maize seeds with different levels of mechanical damage on electrical conductivity values. Seed Science and Technology 31, 481–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Munkvold, G. P. & O'Mara, J. K. (2002). Laboratory and growth chamber evaluation of fungicidal seed treatments for maize seedling blight caused by Fusarium species. Plant Disease 86, 143–150.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nijënstein, J. H. & Kruse, M. (2000). The potential for standardisation in cold testing of maize (Zea mays L.). Seed Science and Technology 28, 837–851.Google Scholar
Noli, E., Casarini, E., Urso, G. & Conti, S. (2008). Suitability of three vigour test procedures to predict field performance of early sown maize. Seed Science and Technology 36, 168–176.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pereira, L. M. A., Vieira, R. D., Panizzi, R. DE C. & Gotrado, M. (2008). Fungicide treatment of corn seeds and procedure for the cold test. Revista Ceres 55, 210–217.Google Scholar
Pinto, N. F. J. DE A. (1997). Efficiency of fungicides in the treatment of maize seeds to control Fusarium moniliforme and Pythium sp. Pesquisa Agropecuria Brasileira 32, 797–801.Google Scholar
Rane, K. & Ruhl, G. (2002). Crop Diseases in Corn, Soybean and Wheat. West Lafayette, IN: Purdue University. Available from: http://www.btny.purdue.edu/Extension/Pathology/CropDiseases/index.html (verified 21 March 2012).Google Scholar
Shah, F. S., Watson, C. E. & Cabrera, E. R. (2002). Seed Vigour Testing of Subtropical Maize Hybrids. Research Report 23. Starkville, MS: Mississippi State University.Google Scholar
Shurtleff, M. C. (1980). Compendium of Corn Diseases, 2nd edn.St. Paul, MN: The American Phytopathology Society.Google Scholar
Smith, A. M. (1969). Effect of fungicides on the germination of maize seed after storage. Plant Disease Reporter 43, 174–175.Google Scholar
Systat. (1990). Statistical Software (version 12·0). Evanston, IL: Systat, Inc.Google Scholar
Tort, N., Dereboylu, A. E. & Turkyilmaz, B. (2006). Morphological and physiological effects of a fungicide with a thiram agent on some corn culture forms. Journal of the Faculty of Science 29, 67–79.Google Scholar
Zhang, T. & Hampton, J. G. (1999). Does fungicide seed treatment affect bulk conductivity test results? Seed Science and Technology 27, 1041–1045.Google Scholar