4.5 Article

Scanning Electron Microscopy Applied to Seed-Borne Fungi Examination

Journal

MICROSCOPY RESEARCH AND TECHNIQUE
Volume 72, Issue 7, Pages 482-488

Publisher

WILEY-LISS
DOI: 10.1002/jemt.20695

Keywords

seed health analysis; seed pathology; electron microscopy; inoculation; water restriction

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The aim of this study was to test the standard scanning electron microscopy (SEM) as a potential alternative to study seed-borne fungi in seeds, by two different conditions of blotter test and water restriction treatment. In the blotter test, seeds were subjected to conditions that enabled pathogen growth and expression, whereas the water restriction method consisted in preventing seed germination during the incubation period, resulting in the artificial inoculation of fungi. In the first condition, seeds of common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L.), maize (Zea mays L.), and cotton (Gossypium hirsutum L.) were submitted to the standard blotter test and then prepared and observed with SEM. In the second condition, seeds of cotton (G. hirsutum), soybean (Glycine max L.), and common bean (R vulgaris L.) were, respectively, inoculated with Colletotrichum gossypii var. cephalosporioides, Colletotrichum truncatum, and Colletotrichum lindemuthianum by the water restriction technique, followed by preparation and observation with SEM. The standard SEM methodology was adopted to prepare the specimens. Considering the seeds submitted to the blotter test, it was possible to identify Fusarium sp. on maize, C. gossypii var. cephalosporioides, and Fusarium oxysporum on cotton, Aspergillus flavus, Penicillium sp., Rhizopus sp., and Mucor sp. on common bean. Structures of C. gossypii var. cephalosporioides, C. truncatum, and C. lindemuthianum were observed in the surface of inoculated seeds. Microsc. Res. Tech. 72.-482-488, 2009. (C) 2009 Wiley-Liss. Inc.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available