Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-sxzjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T18:52:15.488Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Responses of Intact and Scarified Curly Dock (Rumex crispus) Seeds to Physical and Chemical Stimuli

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Minou Hemmat ,
Guang-Wen Zeng  and
Anwar A. Khan
Minou Hemmat
Affiliation:
New York State Agric. Exp. Stn., Cornell Univ., Geneva, NY 14456
Guang-Wen Zeng
Affiliation:
New York State Agric. Exp. Stn., Cornell Univ., Geneva, NY 14456
Anwar A. Khan
Affiliation:
New York State Agric. Exp. Stn., Cornell Univ., Geneva, NY 14456
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The influence of acid scarification on the responsiveness of curly dock (Rumex crispus L. ♯ RUMCR) seeds to physical and chemical factors was studied. Scarification made the seeds responsive to GA4+7 (a mixture of gibberellin A4 + A7) and markedly improved the responsiveness to light, moist-chilling, and a 1-h 40-C temperature shift. Scarification reduced the mechanical restraint of the seedcoat by 0.4 to 0.8 MPa. Removal of the entire pericarp induced 69% germination in the dark. Moist-chilling treatment of seeds reduced the soaking period needed for maximum response to the high-temperature shift from 24 to 6 h. The embryo growth potential generated by moist-chilling was less in magnitude than that by the reduction in seed coat restraint by scarification. Induction of secondary dormancy was prevented to a marked degree in scarified (chilled or unchilled) seeds during polyethylene glycol-6000 (PEG) treatment in light or in the presence of GA4+7 while intact seeds rapidly became secondarily dormant in light. The ability of scarified seeds to remain germinable or nondormant for a longer period than the intact seed in low water potential imbibing medium may be due to a net reduction (by 0.4 to 0.8 MPa) in the impact on the embryo of germination-preventing forces (low water potential plus mechanical restraint of the seed coat).

Keywords

Gibberellinembryo growth potentialprimary dormancysecondary dormancyRUMCR
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 33 , Issue 5 , September 1985 , pp. 658 - 664
Copyright
Copyright © 1985 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. Barton, L. V. 1965. Dormancy in seeds imposed by the seed coat. Encycl. Plant Physiol. 15/2:727–745.Google Scholar
2. Bewley, J. D. and Black, M. 1982. Physiology and Biochemistry of Seeds, Vol. 2. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 375 pp.Google Scholar
3. Egley, G. H. 1972. Influence of the seed envelope and growth regulators upon seed dormancy in witchweed (Striga lutea Lour.). Ann. Bot. 36:755–770.Google Scholar
4. Evenari, M. and Neumann, G. 1952. The germination of lettuce seeds. II. The influence of fruit coat, seed coat and endosperm on germination. Bull. Res. Counc. Isr., D. 2:15–17.Google Scholar
5. Hsiao, A. I. 1979. The effect of sodium hypochlorite, gibberellic acid and light on seed dormancy and germination of wild buckwheat (Polygonum convolvulus) and corn cockle (Saponaria vaccaria). Can. J. Bot. 57:1735–1739.Google Scholar
6. Hsiao, A. I. 1979. The effect of sodium hypochlorite and gibberellic acid on seed dormancy and germination of wild oats (Avena fatua). Can. J. Bot. 57:1729–1734.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Ikuma, H. and Thimann, K. V. 1963. The role of the seed coats in germination of photosensitive lettuce seeds. Plant Cell Physiol. 4:169–185.Google Scholar
8. Karssen, C. M. 1970. The light-promoted germination of the seeds of Chenopodium album L. VI. Pfr requirements during different stages of the germination process. Acta Bot. Neerl. 19:297–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Khan, A. A. and Samimy, C. 1982. Hormones in relation to primary and secondary seed dormancy. Pages 203–241 in Kahn, A. A., ed. The Physiology and Biochemistry of Seed Development, Dormancy and Germination, Elsevier Biomedical Press, Amsterdam.Google Scholar
10. Martin, A. C. and Barkley, W. D. 1961. Seed Identification Manual, Univ. of California Press, Berkeley. 221 pp.Google Scholar
11. McDonald, M. B. and Khan, A. A. 1977. Factors determining germination of Indian ricegrass seeds. Agron. J. 69:558–563.Google Scholar
12. Metzger, J. D. 1983. Promotion of germination of dormant weed seeds by substituted phthalimides and gibberellic acid. Weed Sci. 31:285–289.Google Scholar
13. Michel, B. E. and Kaufmann, M. R. 1973. The osmotic potential of polyethylene glycol-6000. Plant Physiol. 51:914–916.Google Scholar
14. Samimy, C. and Khan, A. A. 1983. Secondary dormancy, growth regulator effects and embryo growth potential in curly dock (Rumex crispus) seeds. Weed Sci. 31:153–158.Google Scholar
15. Samimy, C. and Khan, A. A. 1983. Effect of field application of growth regulators on secondary dormancy of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) seeds. Weed Sci. 31:299–303.Google Scholar
16. Tao, K. L. and Khan, A. A. 1979. Changes in the strength of lettuce endosperm during germination. Plant Physiol. 63:126–128.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Taylorson, R. B. and Henricks, S. B. 1973. Phytochrome transformation and action of seeds of Rumex crispus L. during secondary dormancy. Plant Physiol. 52:475–479.Google Scholar
18. Taylorson, R. B. and Hendricks, S. B. 1976. Interactions of phytochrome and exogenous gibberellic acid on germination of Lamium amplexicule L. seeds. Planta 132:65–70.Google Scholar
19. Totterdell, S. and Roberts, E. H. 1979. Effect of low temperatures on the loss of innate dormancy and the development of induced dormancy in seeds of Rumex obtusifolius L. and Rumex crispus L. Plant Cell Environ. 2:131–137.Google Scholar