Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5d6d958fb5-27v8q Total loading time: 0.859 Render date: 2022-11-29T16:07:34.988Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "useRatesEcommerce": false, "displayNetworkTab": true, "displayNetworkMapGraph": false, "useSa": true } hasContentIssue true

Mechanical scarification technique breaks seed coat-mediated dormancy in wild oat (Avena fatua)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 November 2021

Roberto Lujan Rocha*
Affiliation:
Senior Research Officer, Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
Yaseen Khalil
Affiliation:
Research Associate, Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
Aniruddha Maity
Affiliation:
Researcher, Department of Soil and Crop Sciences, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX, USA; Division of Seed Technology, ICAR-Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi, Uttar Pradesh, India
Hugh J. Beckie
Affiliation:
Professor and Director, Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
Michael B. Ashworth
Affiliation:
Research Fellow, Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative, School of Agriculture and Environment, University of Western Australia, Crawley, WA, Australia
*
Author for correspondence. Roberto Lujan Rocha, University of Western Australia M086, 35 Stirling Highway, Crawley, Western Australia6009, Australia Email: roberto.lujanrocha@uwa.edu.au
Rights & Permissions[Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Wild oat is a herbicide resistance-prone global weed species that causes significant economic losses in dryland and horticultural agriculture. As a result, there has been a significant research effort to control this species. A major impediment to this research is the seed coat-mediated dormancy of wild oat, which requires a labor-intensive incision or puncturing of the seed coat to initiate seed germination. This study defines the most efficient settings of a mechanical thresher to overcome wild oat seed dormancy and then validates these settings using multiple populations collected from the Western Australian grain belt. We also compare the effects of rapid mechanical scarification and known germination stimulus tactics such as scarification with sulfuric acid (H2SO4), partial endosperm removal, sandpaper scarification of the seed coat, and immersion in sodium nitroprusside (NO donor SNP) solution on wild oat seedling growth rate. Threshing treatment of 1,500 rpm for 5 s provides equivalent germination compared with manually puncturing individual wild oat seeds, with no difference in seedling relative growth rate. The mechanical scarification of seeds using the thresher resulted in greater germination (66%) than H2SO4 scarification (0%), partial endosperm removal (10%), sandpaper seed coat scarification (25%), and exposure to NO donor SNP (34%). This study demonstrates that the physical dormancy of wild oat can be rapidly overcome using a commercially available mechanical thresher.

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press on behalf of the Weed Science Society of America

Introduction

Wild oat is a problematic global weed species causing crop yield reductions in agronomic crops and horticultural cropping systems (Beckie et al. Reference Beckie, Francis and Hall2012; Llewellyn et al. Reference Llewellyn, Ronning, Clarke, Mayfield and Walker2016). The intensive and continual use of herbicides to control wild oat has led to the widespread evolution of herbicide resistance (Beckie et al. Reference Beckie, Hall, Meers, Laslo and Stevenson2004; Broster et al. Reference Broster, Koetz and Wu2013; Mengistu et al. Reference Mengistu, Messersmith and Christoffers2003) and associated pleiotropic effects such as altered temperature requirements for seed germination and phenology of seed production initiation (Lehnhoff et al. Reference Lehnhoff, Keith, Dyer, Peterson and Menalled2013a). In Australia, wild oat is the third most economically damaging weed species, costing grain growers US$20.8 million in annual revenue loss (Llewellyn et al. Reference Llewellyn, Ronning, Clarke, Mayfield and Walker2016). The widespread and diverse adaptations within wild oat populations highlight the need to monitor the evolution and spread of herbicide resistance and identify effective means of control. One major impediment to conducting research on wild oat is seed coat-mediated dormancy (Atwood Reference Atwood1914; Hsiao et al. Reference Hsiao, McIntyre and Hanes1983).

Wild oat seed can exhibit combinational dormancy type 1: physical (PY) plus physiological (PD; Baskin and Baskin Reference Baskin and Baskin2004; Soltani et al. Reference Soltani, Baskin and Baskin2017). The PY dormancy occurs when the embryo is constrained by its surrounding structures and a water-impermeable seed coat impedes imbibition (Baskin and Baskin Reference Baskin and Baskin2004; Bewley Reference Bewley1997; Finch-Savage and Leubner-Metzger Reference Finch-Savage and Leubner-Metzger2006). When the embryos are removed from the seed coat, they are not dormant. In contrast, PD is a more complex type of dormancy, which is classified as deep, intermediate and non-deep; moreover, these different categories are classified into different types (Baskin and Baskin Reference Baskin and Baskin2004; Finch-Savage and Leubner-Metzger Reference Finch-Savage and Leubner-Metzger2006). In deep dormancy, embryos excised from the seeds do not grow or may produce abnormal growth and several months of stratified cold or warm temperature exposure is required for germination. In non-deep dormancy, embryos excised from the seeds produce normal seedlings; giberellic acid (GA) treatment can break this dormancy as well as scarification, after-ripening in dry storage, and cold or warm stratification depending on species (Baskin and Baskin Reference Baskin and Baskin2004). In non-deep PD type 1 dormancy, seeds can germinate initially only at low temperatures, but the maximum temperature at which seeds will germinate increases as dormancy break progresses (Soltani et al. Reference Soltani, Baskin and Baskin2017).

Accordingly, the following methods have been identified as being effective techniques for overcoming dormancy in wild oat seeds. Methods that overcome PD dormancy include altering temperature and photoperiod regimes for germination (Somody et al. Reference Somody, Nalewaja and Miller1984), adjusting the osmotic potential of the seed and light conditions (Boyd and Van Acker Reference Boyd and Van Acker2004), exposing the seed to ammonia gas (Cairns and De Villiers Reference Cairns and De Villiers1986), presoaking the seed in potassium nitrate solution (Hilton Reference Hilton1985), application of sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide in combination with GA; (Hsiao and Quick Reference Hsiao and Quick1984), application of a variety of soluble sugars and GA (Foley Reference Foley1992), as well as other reagents (Beckie et al. Reference Beckie, Francis and Hall2012; Kępczyński et al. Reference Kępczyński, Wójcik and Dziurka2021; Saini et al. Reference Saini, Bassi and Spencer1986). Methods that overcome PY dormancy include exposure of the seed to high-pressure gas (Hoffmann Reference Hoffmann1961), manual removal of lemma and palea (Kommedahl et al. Reference Kommedahl, DeVay and Christensen1958), seed dipping in diluted sulfuric acid, and cold stratification treatment (Shahvand et al. Reference Shahvand, Miri and Bagheri2015). Overall, these studies described variable germination outcomes depending on the level of PD plus PY dormancy, efficacy of the treatment applied, and the wild oat population.

Wild oat seed can remain dormant in the soil seedbank for up to 4 yr, although most of the population germinates within the first 2 yr (Conn et al. Reference Conn, Beattie and Blanchard2006; Mahajan and Chauhan Reference Mahajan and Chauhan2021). Additionally, wild oat dormancy in the field can be affected by abiotic and biotic stresses such as crop competition, moisture availability, temperature, and seed pathogens (Lehnhoff et al. Reference Lehnhoff, Miller, Brelsford, White and Maxwell2013b; Mahajan and Chauhan Reference Mahajan and Chauhan2021; Maqbool et al. Reference Maqbool, Naz, Ahmad, Nisar, Mehmood, Alwahibi and Alkahtani2020; Ņečajeva et al. Reference Ņečajeva, Bleidere, Jansone, Gailīte and Ruņģis2021; Peters Reference Peters1982; Sahil et al. Reference Sahil, Loura, Raymont and Chauhan2020). Lehnhoff et al. (Reference Lehnhoff, Miller, Brelsford, White and Maxwell2013b) found that the maternal environment of wild oat had a negative effect on the viability of the seed located below the crop canopy; these effects were potentially driven by a combination of crop competition and changes in seed pathogens. Additionally, Peters (Reference Peters1982) showed that temperature and soil moisture conditions affected dormancy; the seeds from plants grown under no water-stressed environments at 15C were more likely to have more dormancy compared with seeds from plants grown under water-stressed conditions at 20 C.

Multiple studies had demonstrated that aeration and moisture need to be available to the seed embryo for wild oat germination, with puncturing of the seed coat effectively overcoming PY dormancy in wild oat (Foley Reference Foley1987; Hay Reference Hay1962; Hsiao et al. Reference Hsiao, McIntyre and Hanes1983; Raju et al. Reference Raju, Hsiao and McIntyre1988). As a result, the puncturing of the mid-dorsal side of the seed is a highly effective and most common method used for breaking seed coat dormancy in wild oat studies (Bourgeois et al. Reference Bourgeois, Kenkel and Morrison1997; Cruz-Hipolito et al. Reference Cruz-Hipolito, Osuna, Dominguez-Valenzuela, Espinoza and De Prado2011; Mansooji et al. Reference Mansooji, Holtum, Boutsalis, Matthews and Powles1992; Ņečajeva et al. Reference Ņečajeva, Bleidere, Jansone, Gailīte and Ruņģis2021; Owen and Powles Reference Owen and Powles2009). However, puncturing individual seeds is time-consuming, making wild oat research less efficient. For example, wild oat resistance testing using classical pot assays demand consistent germinable seed populations. Accordingly, this study aims to develop an efficient and effective mechanical scarification technique to break seed dormancy and induce wild oat germination using a commercially available seed thresher.

Materials and Methods

Seed Collection and Multiplication

At maturity (November 2017), eight wild oat populations were collected from commercial dryland agricultural farms in the Western Australian grain belt (Table 1). To eliminate maternal effects that can affect seed dormancy, 20 seeds from each population were germinated in May 2018 in plastic trays containing 1% (wt/vol) agar dissolved in deionized water. Each seed was hand-punctured to aid germination (Ian and Leonard Reference Ian and Leonard1982). Trays were transferred to a growth cabinet at optimal germination conditions of 11 C (Naylor and Fedec Reference Naylor and Fedec1978) with no light. At the four-leaf stage, 20 seedlings were transplanted at the University Western Australia Shenton Park Field Station, Perth, WA, Australia (31.95030556°S, 115.79375000°E) at 1-m intervals in the center of 1.5-m-wide plastic-lined rows to eliminate weed competition. Seedlings were fertilized with 6 g of NPK Blue Special™ (N 12% [NH2 8%, NH4 1.9%, NO3 2.1%], P 5.2%, K 14.1%, S 6%, Mg 1.2%, Ca 4.3%, B 0.02%, and Fe 0.08%; CSBP Ltd, Kwinana, WA, Australia) and 2 g Yates Flowtrace™ (Fe 24%, Cu 0.75%, Mn 0.5%, Zn 0.2%, Mo 0.04%, and B 0.033%; Yates Australia, Padstow, NSW, Australia). Six weeks after emergence, all plants were fertilized with 4 g of ammonium sulphate (N 21%, S 24%) to maintain growth. In November 2018, the mature seed was hand-collected and stored in a laboratory at room temperature (21 ± 3 C) until the start of the first experiment.

Table 1. Location of wild oat populations used in this study collected from the Western Australian grain belt in 2017.

Experiment 1: Mechanical Scarification

The aim of this experiment was to identify the most effective mechanical settings to break physical dormancy in a randomly selected population of wild oat (population ‘e’, Table 1). Seed germination was assessed after three manual treatments and four threshing treatments (varying in revolutions per minute [rpm]) and duration [s]). The treatments applied are outlined in Table 2. The thresher used in this study was the Haldrup LT-15 laboratory benchtop thresher (Haldrup, Germany). As per the manual specifications, the LT-15 thresher has a drum diameter of 200 mm containing three blades of 70-mm width. The drum rotational speed can be regulated from 150 rpm to 1,500 rpm. The rotational speed was verified and set with a laser tachometer (Nidec-SHIMPO DT-2100). Most laboratories have a similar mechanical thresher that can be used for the same purpose. There were three replicates of 50 seeds each per treatment. The experiment was initially conducted in January 2020 and repeated in July 2020. The condition of the seeds as affected by the treatments is shown in Figure 1.

Table 2. Treatments used for determining the most appropriate settings for the mechanical scarification of wild oat.

a Abbreviation: rpm, revolutions per minute.

Figure 1. Wild oat seed after scarification. T1 is intact seed with husk (lemma and palea), T2 is punctured seed with husk, T3 is manual extraction of caryopsis plus needle puncture, and T4 is manual extraction of caryopsis. Mechanical scarification treatments are T5: 1,350 rpm for 5 s, T6: 1,500 rpm for 5 s, T7: 1,350 rpm for 10 s, T8: 1,500 rpm for 10 s.

Following mechanical scarification treatment (Table 2), all wild oat seeds were surface-sterilized by individually immersing each seed in a 1:16 ratio of 12.5% NaOCl solution for 2 s, followed by rinsing with deionized water. Immediately after sterilization, the seeds were placed in rectangular plastic trays containing 1% (wt/vol) agar dissolved in deionized water (three replicates of 50 seeds each) for germination. The trays were placed in a growth cabinet at optimal germination conditions of 11 C (Naylor and Fedec Reference Naylor and Fedec1978) with no light for 15 d. Seeds were then assessed for germination, with the criterion being visible protrusion of the radicle from the seed. To ensure the nongerminated seed was viable, all nongerminated seeds were incubated in 1% (wt/vol) solution 2,3,5-triphenyl tetrazolium chloride for 48 h at 30 C. Evidence of pink staining indicated that the seed was viable (Verma and Majee Reference Verma and Majee2013); nonviable seeds were omitted from the calculations.

Experiment 2: Replication of Mechanical Scarification Results on Multiple Wild Oat Populations

To verify the value of using mechanical scarification to break physical dormancy, the most effective treatment from Experiment 1 (T6) was repeated using eight wild oat populations collected from the Western Australian grain belt (Table 1). These populations came from fields with different cropping rotations and management practices. Each population was scarified in the LT-15 Haldrup thresher as previously described at 1,500 rpm for 5 s (i.e., T6, Table 2). This treatment was replicated three times per population (50 seeds each). To serve as a comparative control, each population (three replicates) was also manually punctured as previously described (50 seeds each; T2). Immediately after applying the mechanical scarification treatment, the frequency of embryo damage was assessed for each population by visual inspection of a fragmented or missing embryo (Figure 2). Treated seeds were placed on agar to assess germination responses of each treated population and assessed 15 d after imbibition as previously described. This experiment was conducted immediately after Experiment 1 in January 2020 and repeated in July 2020. The seeds that did not germinate were evaluated using 2,3,5-triphenyl tetrazolium chloride, with nonviable seed omitted from the calculations as previously indicated.

Figure 2. Caryopsis at different levels of seed coat and embryo damage can be observed: (A) intact caryopsis; (B) caryopsis with ideal damage to the seed coat located on the distal part to the embryo where the endosperm is slightly exposed, allowing for water movement to the embryo to trigger germination; (C) the embryo has been destroyed; (D) successful germination after the application of treatment T6 (1,500 rpm for 5 s); (E) imbibed caryopsis which failed to germinate after the application of treatment T8 (1,500 rpm for 10 s).

Experiment 3: Effect of Mechanical Scarification on Wild Oat Growth

To quantify the effect of mechanical scarification on wild oat seedling growth, the mechanical scarification technique (T6) was compared with the manual puncturing technique (T2; Table 2). Seeds of similar size in each population (Table 1) were germinated in agar medium as previously described. Six germinated seedlings for each population, harvest date and treatment were transplanted into seedling trays that contained potting mix (50% fine composted pine-bark, 20% coco peat, 30% brown washed river sand). Seedlings were maintained in a controlled-environment cabinet (Conviron A-1000) set at a 12-h photoperiod of cool white fluorescent light (30 to 60 μmol m−2 s−1), at temperatures of 20 C day and 12 C night with 70% relative humidity. At 3 and 24 d after emergence, all six plants per treatment were cut at the soil surface and dried for 72 h at 65 C to assess dry biomass. The relative growth rate (RGR) was calculated as follows (Hunt 1982):

([1]) $$RGR = {{{\rm{ln}}\left( {{M_2}} \right) - {\rm{ln}}\left( {{M_1}} \right)} \over {{t_2} - {t_1}}}$$

where M1 and M2 are the dry biomass of the sample at times 1 and 2, respectively, and T1 and T2 are the harvest times. The experiment was initially conducted in February 2020 and repeated in August 2020.

Experiment 4: Comparing Mechanical Threshing and Known Methods of Increasing Wild Oat Germination

The mechanical scarification of wild oat was compared with other known seed germination methods to quantify its effectiveness, including chemical scarification with H2SO4, partial endosperm removal, sandpaper scarification, immersion of the seed in sodium nitroprusside (NO donor SNP) solution, and untreated control (Table 3). These seed germination techniques were applied to population ‘e’ (Table 1) using the methodology outlined in Table 3. There were three replicates for each treatment (50 seeds each). The experiment was conducted in parallel to Experiment 3 in February 2020 and repeated in August 2020. To validate the germination results, all ungerminated seeds were treated with 2,3,5-triphenyl tetrazolium chloride to assess viability as previously described.

Table 3. Methods used to compare the mechanical scarification technique and other commonly used methods to break the dormancy of wild oat. a

a Abbreviation: SNP, sodium nitroprusside.

b All treated seeds were surface-sterilized by individually immersing each seed in a 1:16 ratio of 12.5% sodium hypochlorite (NaOCl) solution for 2 s, followed by rinsing with deionized water. Immediately after sterilization, the seeds were placed in rectangular plastic trays containing 1% (wt/vol) agar dissolved in deionized water (three replicates of 50 seeds each) for germination, then the trays were placed in a growth cabinet at optimal germination conditions of 11 C (Naylor and Fedec Reference Naylor and Fedec1978) with no light for 15 d.

Data Analysis

All experiments were arranged in a completely randomized design. To determine the most suitable thresher settings for germination and to compare the germination using the mechanical thresher versus other commonly used treatments, germination percentages between treatments were analyzed through a one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s test. ANOVA tests were also carried out between the first and second repetition of the experiments; there were no significant differences (P > 0.05) and therefore the results were pooled across repetitions. Additionally, an ANOVA test was conducted between the three times of exposure tested for the H2SO4 treatment. There was no significant difference (P > 0.05), and therefore pooled results are presented. To examine the effect of the mechanical thresher (T6) in comparison to the manual puncturing technique (T2) on the germination of each individual population, each population was compared for total germination against a control treatment via a two-tailed t-test. The RGR was analyzed by comparing the averages between treatments for each population (six seedlings for each treatment) at 3 and 24 d after germination according to Equation 1 described above. Normality was tested through a Shapiro-Wilk test and homogeneity of variance was tested through the Brown-Forsythe test. The analyses were performed at the 0.05 significance level with SigmaPlot v13.0 (Systat Software, San Jose, CA, USA).

Results and Discussion

Experiments 1 and 2: Mechanical Scarification and Replication of Results on Multiple Wild Oat Populations

Using the Haldrup LT-15 thresher, it was determined that the most efficient setting for breaking seed coat-mediated dormancy of wild oat seed (population e; Figure 3) was 1,500 rpm for 5 s (T6), which resulted in a mean germination rate of 65%. The untreated control treatment did not germinate (0%). These results support previous studies suggesting that overcoming physical barriers to facilitate water movement to the embryo is essential in germinating wild oat seed (Foley Reference Foley1987; Hsiao et al. Reference Hsiao, McIntyre and Hanes1983; Raju et al. Reference Raju, Hsiao and McIntyre1988).

Figure 3. Boxplot for the comparison of germination between multiple treatments. T1 is intact seed with husk (lemma and palea), T2 is punctured seed with husk, T3 is manual extraction of caryopsis plus needle puncture, and T4 is manual extraction of caryopsis. Mechanical scarification treatments are T5: 1,350 rpm for 5 s, T6: 1,500 rpm for 5 s, T7: 1,350 rpm for 10 s, and T8: 1,500 rpm for 10 s (3 replicates, 50 seeds each). The significance of results as assessed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test are denoted by letters. In the boxplot, the ends of the box represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, the bars inside the box represent the 50th percentile or median, and the ends of the whiskers represent minimum and maximum values. Means are represented by solid circles.

The highest germination percentage observed in this experiment occurred following the extraction of the caryopsis from the seed coat plus the manual puncturing of caryopsis (87% germination, T3). Needle puncturing of the seed husk (T2) resulted in 60% germination (Figure 3), which is the most common technique for alleviating seed coat-mediated dormancy in weed management studies (Bourgeois et al. Reference Bourgeois, Kenkel and Morrison1997; Cruz-Hipolito et al. Reference Cruz-Hipolito, Osuna, Dominguez-Valenzuela, Espinoza and De Prado2011; Mansooji et al. Reference Mansooji, Holtum, Boutsalis, Matthews and Powles1992; Ņečajeva et al. Reference Ņečajeva, Bleidere, Jansone, Gailīte and Ruņģis2021; Owen and Powles Reference Owen and Powles2009). When the caryopsis was manually extracted from the husk but not manually punctured (T4), germination was reduced to 17%.

When comparing the duration of mechanical scarification at 1,500 rpm, it was found that increasing the time of seed exposure from 5 s (T6) to 10 s (T8) reduced wild oat germination by 28% (Figure 3). When these seeds were visually assessed, treatment T8 had a greater number of wild oat seeds with damaged embryos, rendering the seed nonviable (Figure 2). The threshing intensity was also found to affect wild oat germination. Threshing the wild oat seeds at 1,350 rpm for 5 s (T5) was found to be ineffective, resulting in only 2% germination (Figure 3). However, when the duration was increased to 10 s (1,350 rpm, T7), wild oat germination was increased to 30%. Thus, a longer period of threshing is required to alleviate dormancy at a lower speed.

The most effective mechanical scarification method T6 (1,500 rpm for 5 s) was compared against the widely used technique of manually puncturing individual seeds through the husk (T2; Mansooji et al. Reference Mansooji, Holtum, Boutsalis, Matthews and Powles1992; Ņečajeva et al. Reference Ņečajeva, Bleidere, Jansone, Gailīte and Ruņģis2021; Owen and Powles Reference Owen and Powles2009) using eight populations of wild oat collected from the Western Australian grainbelt. There was no difference (P > 0.05) in germination between the mechanical scarification (T6) and the manual puncturing of the seed coat (T2) for the eight populations tested (Table 4). The mechanical scarification (T6) technique caused mean embryo damage of 1% (range between 0% to 3%) of the total seeds scarified (Table 4). Overall, mechanical scarification can achieve the same level of seed germination as the most commonly used manual method in a fraction of the time for diverse wild oat populations from different habitats and exposed to different cropping systems.

Table 4. Comparison of the effect of mechanical scarification on embryo damage and the germination of eight wild oat populations from the grain belt of Western Australia. a

a Note: T2 indicates manually punctured seed with husk (control); T6 indicates mechanical thresher Haldrup LT-15 at 1,500 rpm for 5 s. The experiment was repeated twice (January and July 2020); data are averages with SE in parentheses (three replicates per population of 50 seeds each).

b Assessed visually and not assessed for T2 as no embryo damage from manual puncturing is expected.

c Due to insufficient seed, population ‘d’ was omitted from this experiment.

Experiment 3: Effect of Mechanical Scarification on Wild Oat Growth

This experiment found that the mechanical scarification of wild oat seeds at 1,500 rpm for 5 s was effective at alleviating seed coat–mediated dormancy without affecting seedling growth. The RGR of seedlings was assessed following mechanical scarification (T6: 1,500 rpm for 5 s) and manual puncturing (T2). There was no effect of these seed treatments (P > 0.05) on subsequent seedling growth rates (Table 5).

Table 5. Assessment of relative growth rate of seven wild oat populations comparing two treatments. a

a Note: T2 indicates manually punctured seed with husk (control); T6 indicates mechanical thresher Haldrup LT-15 at 1,500 rpm for 5 s. The experiment was repeated twice (February and August 2020).

b Abbreviation: RGR, relative growth rate.

c Due to insufficient seed, population ‘d’ was omitted from this experiment.

Experiment 4: Comparing Mechanical Threshing with Preexisting Methods to Break Seed Coat-mediated Dormancy of Wild Oat Seed

The mechanical scarification of the seed provided greater germination (P < 0.001) than scarification with H2SO4, partial endosperm removal, sandpaper scarification, and exposure to NO donor SNP (Figure 4). The germination percentage following mechanical scarification was significantly greater than the treatment with SNP solution (66% and 34%, respectively; Figure 4). The application of concentrated H2SO4 resulted in no germination, which contradicted the findings of Shahvand et al. (Reference Shahvand, Miri and Bagheri2015) who reported 42% germination after 15 min of exposure to diluted H2SO4 (15%). However, in this experiment we tested H2SO4 at 50% concentration for 1, 2, and 5 min, which likely accounts for the discrepancy. Previous studies found that the effectiveness of this treatment depends on duration and concentration (Brito et al. Reference Brito, Guevara and Gelabert2010; Martin and De la Cuadra Reference Martin and De la Cuadra2004; Patanè and Gresta Reference Patanè and Gresta2006; Shahvand et al. Reference Shahvand, Miri and Bagheri2015). The sandpaper method provided variable germination results (median of 25%). Other studies have demonstrated that this method is very effective on Medicago, Trifolium, and Acacia species (Kimua and Islam 2012; Martin and De la Cuadra Reference Martin and De la Cuadra2004; Shoobridge Reference Shoobridge1970). Exposure to KNO3 and NH3 have also been found to provide a similar germination percentage as the manual puncturing technique (Cairns and De Villiers Reference Cairns and De Villiers1986; Hilton Reference Hilton1985).

Figure 4. Boxplot for the comparison of germination between common treatments used to break the dormancy of wild oat. Tukey’s multiple comparison test found a statistically significant difference between the mechanical scarification of the seed with the thresher and all other treatments (P < 0.001). The significance of results as assessed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test are denoted by letters. In the boxplot, the ends of the box represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, the bars inside the box represent the 50th percentile or median, and the ends of the whiskers represent minimum and maximum values. Means are represented by solid circles.

The mechanical scarification technique was found to be effective on all eight populations of wild oat evaluated in this study (Tables 1 and 4). Previous studies have identified effective techniques at alleviating wild oat seed coat-imposed dormancy, however, they are all laborious and time-consuming to perform. These highly effective germination techniques include the removal of lemma and palea (90% germination following 10 d) (Kommedahl et al. Reference Kommedahl, DeVay and Christensen1958); the removal of lemma and palea plus needle puncture as demonstrated in this study (Figure 3, T3: 87% germination); and a combination of soluble sugars and GA (100% germination after 7 d with 0.1 µM GA, 88 mM sucrose, and surgical separation of the embryo; Foley Reference Foley1992).

The results of this study confirm that mechanical threshing of wild oat seed is an effective and more efficient method of breaking seed coat-induced dormancy than the current common technique of manually puncturing individual seeds to facilitate germination and plant growth (Mansooji et al. Reference Mansooji, Holtum, Boutsalis, Matthews and Powles1992; Ņečajeva et al. Reference Ņečajeva, Bleidere, Jansone, Gailīte and Ruņģis2021; Owen and Powles Reference Owen and Powles2009). The results further support previous research indicating that a physical pathway for water movement from the seed husk to the seed embryo is required for imbibition and germination of wild oat (Foley Reference Foley1987; Hay Reference Hay1962; Hsiao et al. Reference Hsiao, McIntyre and Hanes1983; Morrison and Dushnicky Reference Morrison and Dushnicky1982; Raju et al. Reference Raju, Hsiao and McIntyre1988). The time of exposure to mechanical threshing is a critical factor in this technique’s effectiveness, with a longer time of exposure required for germination of wild oat seed at 1,350 rpm compared with 1,500 rpm. Studies have previously reported using purpose-built mechanical scarifiers to break seed dormancy on legumes and native seeds with variable degrees of success (Kimura and Islam Reference Kimura and Islam2012). Carleton et al. (Reference Carleton, Austin, Stroh, Wiesner and Scheetz1971) achieved 78% germination of Astragalus cicer L. seeds when exposed to 1,400 rpm using a Model 2 huller (Foresbergs Inc., Thief River Falls, MN, USA); Shoobridge (Reference Shoobridge1970) reported successful germination of multiple species (Fabaceae and Acacia species) when seeds were scarified in a compressed air-powered rotating drum lined with sandpaper.

While an economic analysis was not performed in this study, the mechanical scarification treatment we propose took 5 s to break the dormancy of 50 seeds compared with more than 6 min to manually puncture the same number of seeds. The results obtained for the thresher investigated in this study can be used as indicators of the rotational speed (rpm) and time of exposure required to break the dormancy of wild oat in other threshers.

In summary, the mechanical scarification of wild oat seed is a novel technique for researchers to germinate seeds efficiently and effectively to expedite research. For example, the use of a mechanical thresher can greatly enhance the ability to conduct pot studies in which uniform and sufficiently high germination and emergence of wild oat seedlings are needed. This requirement is desirable for studies ranging from screening weed accessions for herbicide resistance to assessing ecological growth, development, and fitness of different populations.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the Grains Research and Development Corporation through the base funding of the Australian Herbicide Resistance Initiative. We thank Mr. Shane Baxter and Dr. Shaghayegh Mehravi for their technical assistance in conducting the experiments. No conflicts of interest have been declared.

Footnotes

Associate Editor: Michael Walsh, University of Sydney

References

Atwood, WM (1914) A physiological study of the germination of Avena fatua . Bot Gaz 57:386414 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baes, PO, de Viana, ML, Sühring, S (2002) Germination in Prosopis ferox seeds: effects of mechanical, chemical and biological scarificators. J Arid Environ 50:185189 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, JM, Baskin, CC (2004) A classification system for seed dormancy. Seed Sci Res 14:116 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Francis, A, Hall, LM (2012) The Biology of Canadian Weeds. 27. Avena fatua L. (updated). Can J Plant Sci 92:13291357 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Beckie, HJ, Hall, LM, Meers, S, Laslo, JJ, Stevenson, FC (2004) Management practices influencing herbicide resistance in wild oat. Weed Technol 18:853859 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bethke, PC, Libourel, IGL, Reinöhl, V, Jones, RL (2006) Sodium nitroprusside, cyanide, nitrite, and nitrate break Arabidopsis seed dormancy in a nitric oxide-dependent manner. Planta 223:805812 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bewley, JD (1997) Seed germination and dormancy. Plant Cell 9:1055 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bourgeois, L, Kenkel, NC, Morrison, IN (1997) Characterization of cross-resistance patterns in acetyl-CoA carboxylase inhibitor resistant wild oat (Avena fatua). Weed Sci 45:750755 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boyd, N, Van Acker, R (2004) Seed germination of common weed species as affected by oxygen concentration, light, and osmotic potential. Weed Sci 52:589596 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brito, R, Guevara, E, Gelabert, R (2010) Effects of scarification chemical treatments on the germination of Crotalaria retusa L. Seeds. J Biol Sci 10:541544 Google Scholar
Broster, JC, Koetz, EA, Wu, H (2013) Herbicide resistance levels in annual ryegrass (ʼLolium rigidum’ Gaud.) and wild oat (Avena spp.) in southwestern New South Wales. Plant Prot 28:126Google Scholar
Cairns, ALP, De Villiers, OT (1986) Breaking dormancy of Avena fatua L. seed by treatment with ammonia. Weed Res 26:191198 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carleton, AE, Austin, RD, Stroh, JR, Wiesner, LE, Scheetz, JG (1971) Cicer milkvetch (Astragalus cicer L.): seed germination, scarification and field emergence studies. Mont Agr Exp Sta Bull 655:21 Google Scholar
Conn, JS, Beattie, KL, Blanchard, A (2006) Seed viability and dormancy of 17 weed species after 19.7 years of burial in Alaska. Weed Sci 54:464470 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cruz-Hipolito, H, Osuna, MD, Dominguez-Valenzuela, JA, Espinoza, N, De Prado, R (2011) Mechanism of resistance to ACCase-inhibiting herbicides in wild oat (Avena fatua) from Latin America. J Agric Food Chem 59:72617267 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Finch-Savage, WE, Leubner-Metzger, G (2006) Seed dormancy and the control of germination. New Phytol 171:501523 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Foley, ME (1987) The effect of wounding on primary dormancy in wild oat (Avena fatua) caryopses. Weed Sci 35:180184 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Foley, ME (1992) Effect of soluble sugars and gibberellic acid in breaking dormancy of excised wild oat (Avena fatua) embryos. Weed Sci 40:208214 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, JR (1962) Experiments on the mechanism of induced dormancy in wild oats, Avena fatua L. Can J Bot 40:191202 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hilton, JR (1985) The influence of light and potassium nitrate on the dormancy and germination of Avena fatua L. (wild oat) seed stored buried under natural conditions. J Exp Bot 36:974979 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hoffmann, OL (1961) Breaking wild oat dormancy with gases at high pressure. Weed Sci 9:493493 Google Scholar
Hsiao, AI, McIntyre, GI, Hanes, JA (1983) Seed dormancy in Avena fatua. I. Induction of germination by mechanical injury. Int J Plant Sci 144:217222 Google Scholar
Hsiao, AI, Quick, WA (1984) Actions of sodium hypochlorite and hydrogen peroxide on seed dormancy and germination of wild oats, Avena fatua L. Weed Res 24:411419 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ian, NM, Leonard, D (1982) Structure of the covering layers of the wild oat (Avena fatua) caryopsis. Weed Sci 30:352359 Google Scholar
Kępczyński, J, Wójcik, A, Dziurka, M (2021) Avena fatua caryopsis dormancy release is associated with changes in KAR1 and ABA sensitivity as well as with ABA reduction in coleorhiza and radicle. Planta 253:52 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kimura, E, Islam, MA (2012) Seed scarification methods and their use in forage legumes. J Seed Sci 5:3850 Google Scholar
Kommedahl, T, DeVay, JE, Christensen, CM (1958) Factors affecting dormancy and seedling development in wild oats. Weed Sci 6:1218 Google Scholar
Lehnhoff, EA, Keith, BK, Dyer, WE, Peterson, RK, Menalled, F (2013a) Multiple herbicide resistance in wild oat and impacts on physiology, germinability, and seed production. Agron J 105:854862 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lehnhoff, EA, Miller, ZJ, Brelsford, MJ, White, S, Maxwell, BD (2013b) Relative canopy height influences wild oat (Avena fatua) seed viability, dormancy, and germination. Weed Sci 61:564569 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Llewellyn, R, Ronning, D, Clarke, M, Mayfield, A, Walker, S (2016) Impact of weeds in Australian grain production. Kingston, ACT, Australia: Grains Research and Development Corporation. 21 pGoogle Scholar
Mahajan, G, Chauhan, BS (2021) Seed longevity and seedling emergence behavior of wild oat (Avena fatua) and sterile oat (Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana) in response to burial depth in eastern Australia. Weed Sci 69:362371 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mansooji, AM, Holtum, JA, Boutsalis, P, Matthews, JM, Powles, SB (1992) Resistance to aryloxyphenoxypropionate herbicides in two wild oat species (Avena fatua and Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana). Weed Sci 40:599605 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Maqbool, MM, Naz, S, Ahmad, T, Nisar, MS, Mehmood, H, Alwahibi, MS, Alkahtani, J (2020) The impact of seed burial depths and post-emergence herbicides on seedling emergence and biomass production of wild oat (Avena fatua L.): Implications for management. PLoS One 15:e0240944 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Martin, I, De la Cuadra, C (2004) Evaluation of different scarification methods to remove hardseededness in Trifolium subterraneum and Medicago polymorpha accessions of the Spanish base genebank. Seed Sci Technol 32:671681 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mengistu, LW, Messersmith, CG, Christoffers, MJ (2003) Diversity of herbicide resistance among wild oat sampled 36 yr apart. Weed Sci 51:764773 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Morrison, IN, Dushnicky, L (1982) Structure of the covering layers of the wild oat (Avena fatua) caryopsis. Weed Sci 30:352359 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Naylor, JM, Fedec, P (1978) Dormancy studies in seed of Avena fatua. 8. Genetic diversity affecting response to temperature. Can J Bot 56:22242229 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ņečajeva, J, Bleidere, M, Jansone, Z, Gailīte, A, Ruņģis, D (2021) Variability of seed germination and dormancy characteristics and genetic analysis of Latvian Avena fatua populations. Plants 10:235 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Owen, MJ, Powles, SB (2009) Distribution and frequency of herbicide-resistant wild oat (Avena spp.) across the Western Australian grain belt. Crop Pasture Sci 60:2531 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patanè, C, Gresta, F (2006) Germination of Astragalus hamosus and Medicago orbicularis as affected by seed-coat dormancy breaking techniques. J Arid Environ 67:165173 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, NC (1982) The dormancy of wild oat seed (Avena fatua L.) from plants grown under various temperature and soil moisture conditions. Weed Res 22:205212 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Raju, MVS, Hsiao, AI, McIntyre, GI (1988) Seed dormancy in Avena fatua. IV. Further observations on the effect of mechanical injury on water uptake and germination in different pure lines. Int J Plant Sci 149:419426 Google Scholar
Sahil, GM, Loura, D, Raymont, K, Chauhan, BS (2020) Influence of soil moisture levels on the growth and reproductive behaviour of Avena fatua and Avena ludoviciana . PLoS One 15:e0234648 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Saini, HS, Bassi, PK, Spencer, MS (1986) Interactions among ethephon, nitrate, and after-ripening in the release of dormancy of wild oat (Avena fatua) seed. Weed Sci 34:4347 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shahvand, B, Miri, HR, Bagheri, AR (2015) Effect of different treatments on dormancy breaking of wild oat (Avena fatua). Int J Biosci 6:6167 Google Scholar
Shoobridge, DW (1970) Propagation methods used at the Canberra botanic gardens for raising Australian native plants. Archives Canberra, Australia: Canberra Botanic Gardens.Google Scholar
Soltani, E, Baskin, CC, Baskin, JM (2017) A graphical method for identifying the six types of non-deep physiological dormancy in seeds. Plant Biol 19:673682 CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Somody, CN, Nalewaja, JD, Miller, SD (1984) The response of wild oat (Avena fatua) and Avena sterilis accessions to photoperiod and temperature. Weed Sci 32:206213 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Verma, P, Majee, M (2013) Seed germination and viability test in tetrazolium (TZ) assay. Bio-Protocol 3:e884 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yan, J, Wang, Y, Nevo, E, Gutterman, Y, Cheng, J (2012) Effects of partial endosperm removal on embryo dormancy breaking and salt tolerance of Hordeum spontaneum seeds. Russ J Plant Physiol 59:423427 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Location of wild oat populations used in this study collected from the Western Australian grain belt in 2017.

Figure 1

Table 2. Treatments used for determining the most appropriate settings for the mechanical scarification of wild oat.

Figure 2

Figure 1. Wild oat seed after scarification. T1 is intact seed with husk (lemma and palea), T2 is punctured seed with husk, T3 is manual extraction of caryopsis plus needle puncture, and T4 is manual extraction of caryopsis. Mechanical scarification treatments are T5: 1,350 rpm for 5 s, T6: 1,500 rpm for 5 s, T7: 1,350 rpm for 10 s, T8: 1,500 rpm for 10 s.

Figure 3

Figure 2. Caryopsis at different levels of seed coat and embryo damage can be observed: (A) intact caryopsis; (B) caryopsis with ideal damage to the seed coat located on the distal part to the embryo where the endosperm is slightly exposed, allowing for water movement to the embryo to trigger germination; (C) the embryo has been destroyed; (D) successful germination after the application of treatment T6 (1,500 rpm for 5 s); (E) imbibed caryopsis which failed to germinate after the application of treatment T8 (1,500 rpm for 10 s).

Figure 4

Table 3. Methods used to compare the mechanical scarification technique and other commonly used methods to break the dormancy of wild oat.a

Figure 5

Figure 3. Boxplot for the comparison of germination between multiple treatments. T1 is intact seed with husk (lemma and palea), T2 is punctured seed with husk, T3 is manual extraction of caryopsis plus needle puncture, and T4 is manual extraction of caryopsis. Mechanical scarification treatments are T5: 1,350 rpm for 5 s, T6: 1,500 rpm for 5 s, T7: 1,350 rpm for 10 s, and T8: 1,500 rpm for 10 s (3 replicates, 50 seeds each). The significance of results as assessed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test are denoted by letters. In the boxplot, the ends of the box represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, the bars inside the box represent the 50th percentile or median, and the ends of the whiskers represent minimum and maximum values. Means are represented by solid circles.

Figure 6

Table 4. Comparison of the effect of mechanical scarification on embryo damage and the germination of eight wild oat populations from the grain belt of Western Australia.a

Figure 7

Table 5. Assessment of relative growth rate of seven wild oat populations comparing two treatments.a

Figure 8

Figure 4. Boxplot for the comparison of germination between common treatments used to break the dormancy of wild oat. Tukey’s multiple comparison test found a statistically significant difference between the mechanical scarification of the seed with the thresher and all other treatments (P < 0.001). The significance of results as assessed by Tukey’s multiple comparison test are denoted by letters. In the boxplot, the ends of the box represent the 25th and 75th percentiles, the bars inside the box represent the 50th percentile or median, and the ends of the whiskers represent minimum and maximum values. Means are represented by solid circles.

You have Access Open access

Save article to Kindle

To save this article to your Kindle, first ensure coreplatform@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Mechanical scarification technique breaks seed coat-mediated dormancy in wild oat (Avena fatua)
Available formats
×

Save article to Dropbox

To save this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Dropbox account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Mechanical scarification technique breaks seed coat-mediated dormancy in wild oat (Avena fatua)
Available formats
×

Save article to Google Drive

To save this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you used this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your Google Drive account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Mechanical scarification technique breaks seed coat-mediated dormancy in wild oat (Avena fatua)
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response

Please enter your response.

Your details

Please enter a valid email address.

Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *