Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-cfpbc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T06:56:04.463Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Physical seed dormancy in Abrus precatorious (Ratti): a scientific validation of indigenous technique

Subject: Life Science and Biomedicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2021

Rajender Kumar Sharma*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Deshbandhu College, University of Delhi, Delhi110019, India
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: rksharmabio@yahoo.co.in

Abstract

Seeds of Abrus precatorius L. (Fabaceae) were used as weight measure by Indigenous people. Where, the seeds were referred as Ratti; a traditional Indian unit of mass measurement. Seed weight fluctuates depending upon age, moisture, storage-period/conditions. Therefore, use of seeds as a weighing unit become dubious and need to be validated. For this purpose, seeds of A. precatorious were subjected to different moisture conditions and periodically monitored. Surprisingly, there was no change in seed weight was observed, indicating the impermeability of seed coat. The later was confirmed by scarification of seed coat which resulted in 53% increase in seed weight against 0% in control. Further, presence of a potent toxin (abrin) in the seed coat protects it from pests and microbes, and contributes to the maintenance of impermeability for longer period of time. The data validates the use of A. precatorious seeds as a weighing unit (ratti) by the indigenous people and discussed.

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 (http://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

1. Introduction

Indigenous techniques (ITKs) are treasure troves of ancient wisdom and developed through trial-and-error, experiences gained over the centuries, and are time tested (Mohapatra, Reference Mohapatra2018) but, generally not substantiated by any scientific evidences. Seeds of Abrus precatorius L. (Fabaceae) an indigenous medicinal plant commonly known as Rosary pea, Ratti or Gunja are very attractive, uniform in size and shape (Fig. 1) and are used as weight measure by indigenous people including Indian gold smiths. Where, the seeds were referred as Ratti, a traditional Indian unit of mass measurement (Shrivastava, Reference Shrivastava2017). Generally, seed weight changes or fluctuate with change in environmental conditions (temperature, relative humidity), storage-period and storage-conditions (McGilp et al., Reference McGilp, Duquette, Braaten, Kimball and Porter2020). Further, seeds weight generally decline with the progression of storage/ageing due to metabolic breakdown of stored food, microbial degradation, pest infestation, and also due to bear-and-tear (Baskin & Baskin, Reference Baskin and Baskin2000). Therefore, the use of A. precatorious seeds as a weighing unit especially, where precious metals (gold, silver, platinum), stones and gems have to weigh become dubious and need to be scientifically validated. The later has never been doubted nor scientifically validated ever.

Figure 1. Abrus precatorious (Ratti) seeds.

2. Objective

The objective of the present study was to find out the rationale behind the use of A. precatorious seeds as a weighing unit by Indigenous people and to scientifically validate the indigenous technique.

3. Methods

Fully ripened and viable seeds of A. precatorious collected from Kangra, Himachal Pradesh, India were used in this experiment. Seed viability was determined through TTC (2,3,5-triphenyl tetrazolium chloride) reduction test. To monitor the change in seed weight, Seeds were subjected to different moisture conditions (soaked in distilled water, placed on moist substratum, kept in a container with high relative humidity, kept in desiccator) and also acid scarified with concentrated H2SO4 for different durations i.e. 0, 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 min., washed thoroughly and soaked in distilled water for 24 h and periodically monitored for any change in weight. In another set of seeds were mechanically scarified at chalazal end with the help of sand paper were also monitored. Further, seeds were transferred to petri-plates lined with moist substratum for germination. Data are presented as arithmetic mean of 100 seeds each. The significance of difference was assessed based on the Student’s t-test.

4. Results and discussion

The seeds of A. precatorious showed 100% viability. The later was confirmed by both TTC reduction test and seed germination (98% germination). To evaluate the validity of ITK, seeds were subjected to different moisture conditions. Surprisingly, there was no change in seed weight was observed even after 48 h of exposure to the above conditions (Tables 1, 2). The seed weight remains constant, indicating the complete impermeability of seed coat towards water and air. In contrast, the seed weight of Cicer arietinum L. (used for comparison purpose, procured from IARI, New Delhi, India) increased significantly with increase in relative humidity/moisture (Table 2). The findings strongly supported the use of A. precatorious seeds as a weighing unit. To confirm the impermeability of seed coat toward water the seeds were mechanically (through sand-paper) as well as chemically (conc. H2SO4) scarified. The treatments effectively removed the impermeability of seed coat and resulted in significant increase in seed weight and of course resulted in further germination (Table 1). Seed dormancy in A. precatorious is known (Nautiyal & Singh, Reference Nautiyal and Singh2015) but, the type of dormancy has never been classified. According to the new seed dormancy classification by Baskin and Baskin (Reference Baskin and Baskin2004), the type of dormancy exhibited by A. precatorious seeds in present study should be classified as physical dormancy (PY). Physical dormancy is caused by water-impermeable seed coat due to the presence of one or more palisade layers of lignified malphigian cells (macrosclereids) tightly packed together and impregnated with water-repellant chemicals and known to occur in some 15 plant families including the Fabaceae (Baskin et al., Reference Baskin, Baskin and Li2000). In nature, seeds with physical dormancy remain dormant until some factors (high temperature, widely fluctuating temperature, fire, drying, freezing and passage through the digestive tracts of animals) render the covering layers permeable to water (Baskin, Reference Baskin2003). In the present study, the seeds of A. precatorious required more than 2 hours of acid (conc. H2SO4) scarification to achieve maximum water uptake and seed germination (Table 1). The later indicates the depth of physical dormancy in A. precatorious. Physical seed dormancy can also be affected by microbial action and abrasion by soil particles (Baskin & Baskin, Reference Baskin and Baskin2000). However, the presence of abrin, a potent toxin similar to ricin but even more poisonous, in the seed coat of A. precatorious (Dickers et al., Reference Dickers, Bradberry, Rice, Griffith and Vale2003; Zhang et al., Reference Zhang, Ma and Wang2019) protects the seed from pests and microbes, which eventually contribute to the maintenance of impermeability of seed coat/physical dormancy (thereof constant seed weight) for longer period of time. In addition, the smooth, glossy and shiny seed coat significantly reduces the chances of bear and tear/abrasion by soil particles during long run, which further strengthen and validates the ITK. Thus, the present study strongly confirms and validates the use of A. precatorious seeds as a weighing unit (ratti) by indigenous people and is reported first time.

Table 1. Effect of acid- (concentrated H2SO4) and mechanical-scarification of seeds on seed coat permeability in Abrus precatorious L. Data are average of 100 seeds each, all the differences are significant at p ≤ 0.01.

Table 2. Comparison of change in seed weight of Abrus precatorious L and Cicer arietinum L as affected by different relative humidity. Data are average of 100 seeds each. All the differences are significant at p ≤ 0.01.

Acknowledgements

The financial support by Department of Biotechnology, Government of India under DBT-Star-College scheme is thankfully acknowledged.

Conflicts of interest

None.

Data Availability

Data will be provided whenever requested.

References

Baskin, C. C. (2003). Breaking physical dormancy in seeds-focusing on the lens. New Phytologist, 158, 229232.10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00751.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, J. M., & Baskin, C. C. (2000). Evolutionary considerations of claims for physical dormancy-break by microbial action and abrasion by soil particles. Seed Science Research, 10, 409413.10.1017/S0960258500000453CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, J. M., & Baskin, C. C. (2004). A classification system for seed dormancy. Seed Science Research, 14, 116.10.1079/SSR2003150CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, J. M., Baskin, C. C., & Li, X. (2000). Taxonomy, anatomy and evolution of physical dormancy in seed. Plant Species Biology, 15, 139152.10.1046/j.1442-1984.2000.00034.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dickers, K. L., Bradberry, S. M., Rice, P., Griffith, G. D., & Vale, J. A. (2003). Abrin poisoning. Toxicological Review, 22, 137142.10.2165/00139709-200322030-00002CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
McGilp, L., Duquette, J., Braaten, D., Kimball, J., & Porter, R. (2020). Investigation of variable storage conditions for cultivated northern wild rice and their effects on seed viability and dormancy. Seed Science Research, 30, 2128.10.1017/S0960258520000033CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohapatra, L. N. (2018). Field evaluation of ITKs against insect pests of rice. Indian Journal of Traditional Knowledge, 17, 360364.Google Scholar
Nautiyal, M., & Singh, B. (2015). Effect of some pre-sowing scarification treatment on water uptake and germination of Abrus precatorius L. (Ratti). Indian Journal of Drugs, 3, 8389.Google Scholar
Shrivastava, S. K. (2017). Measurement units of length, mass and time in India through the ages. International Journal of Physical and Social Sciences, 7, 3948.Google Scholar
Zhang, J., Ma, X., & Wang, Z. (2019). Real-time and in-situ monitoring of Abrin induced cell apoptosis by using SERS spectroscopy. Talanta, 195, 816.10.1016/j.talanta.2018.11.015CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Figure 0

Figure 1. Abrus precatorious (Ratti) seeds.

Figure 1

Table 1. Effect of acid- (concentrated H2SO4) and mechanical-scarification of seeds on seed coat permeability in Abrus precatorious L. Data are average of 100 seeds each, all the differences are significant at p ≤ 0.01.

Figure 2

Table 2. Comparison of change in seed weight of Abrus precatorious L and Cicer arietinum L as affected by different relative humidity. Data are average of 100 seeds each. All the differences are significant at p ≤ 0.01.

Reviewing editor:  Ali Bajwa NSW Department of Industry, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia, 2650
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and has been sent for additional statistical evaluation and met required revisions.

Review 1: Physical seed dormancy in Abrus precatorious (Ratti): a scientific validation of indigenous technique

Conflict of interest statement

I declared that I have no conflict of interest with this paper

Comments

Comments to the Author: Overall, a very well written paper on an important subject. The study was well designed and executed taken into account all important parameters. Results were appropriately described and discussion was up to the mark. However, it needs some improvement in introduction section. Goals/objectives are not clearly defined and followed throughout the manuscript. Also, abstract should indicate data from results and discussion section.

Presentation

Overall score 4.7 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
5 out of 5

Review 2: Physical seed dormancy in Abrus precatorious (Ratti): a scientific validation of indigenous technique

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: This is a paper which reviews the role of seed dormancy in Abrus precatorious. The author has done good work. However, the actual text needs a lot of work I feel. I have the following comments, but they are not exhaustive, I could have pointed out more. However, I hope my comments will help the overall feel of the paper.

1. Title should be modified.

2. English should improve by a native person. The paper suffers from a poor English structure throughout and cannot be published or reviewed properly in the current format. The manuscript requires a thorough proofread by a native person whose first language is English. The instances of the problem are numerous and this reviewer cannot individually mention them. It is the responsibility of the author(s) to present their work in an acceptable format. Unless the paper is in a reasonable format, it should not have been submitted.

3. The novelty of the study needs to be highlighted compare to other similar studies.

4. Discussion is weak. The discussion needs enhancement with real explanations not only agreements and disagreements. Authors should improve it by the demonstration of biochemical/physiological causes of obtained results. Instead of just justifying results, results should be interpreted, explained to appropriately elaborate inferences. Discussion seems to be poor, didn’t give good explanations of the results obtained. I think that it must be really improved. Where possible please discuss potential mechanisms behind your observations. You should also expand the links with prior publications in the area, but try to be careful to not over-reach. For the latter, you should highlight potential areas of future study.

5. The scientific background of the topic is poor. In “Introduction” and “Discussion”, the authors should cite recent references between 2016-2020 from JCR journals (with impact factor) about recent achievements on the other factors affects on Physical seed dormancy in Abrus precatorious (Ratti): a scientific validation of indigenous technique.

6. A detailed “Conclusion” should be provided to state the final result that the authors have reached. Please note you only need to place your conclusion and not keep putting results, because these have already been presented in the manuscript.

Presentation

Overall score 1 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
1 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
1 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
1 out of 5

Context

Overall score 1 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
1 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
1 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
1 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
1 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 1 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
1 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
1 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
1 out of 5