4.3 Article Proceedings Paper

Dormancy breakage and germination are tightly controlled by hypoxic submergence water on Echinochloa crus-galli seeds from an accession resistant to anaerobic germination

期刊

SEED SCIENCE RESEARCH
卷 30, 期 4, 页码 262-267

出版社

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S0960258520000070

关键词

Barnyard grass; diurnally alternating temperature; flooding; hypoxia; phytochrome; seed dormancy; wetlands

资金

  1. Universidad de Buenos Aires [UBACyT 20020170200034BA]
  2. National Scientific and Technical Research Council (CONICET)
  3. PIP [11220150100041CO]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In wetlands, dormancy may be a key functional trait enabling seeds to avoid underwater germination, which could be lethal for seedling establishment. Our objectives were to find out (i) if shallow dormant (i.e. conditionally dormant) Echinochloa crus-galli seeds from an anaerobic germination resistant accession can break dormancy under hypoxic submergence and (ii) if underwater germination can be restored in scarified, non-dormant seeds. Shallow dormant E. crus-galli seeds perceived diurnally alternating temperatures (AT) and red light (R) pulses (i.e. dormancy-breaking cues) under hypoxic submergence; however, an inhibitory far-red light pulse given at the end of the 4-d inundation period demonstrated that most of the seeds (85%) were unable to break dormancy. Scarified E. crus-galli seeds, which did not express dormancy under drained conditions, were unable to germinate under hypoxic submergence, despite being exposed to dormancy-breaking cues (AT + R). Lastly, the temporal window for germination sensitivity to the inhibitory action of hypoxia, once dormancy-breaking signals have been applied, is progressively lost and bounded to approximately 18 h for half of the seed lot. These results highlight the importance of dormancy as a trait enabling E. crus-galli seeds to avoid underwater germination, a risky scenario for seedling emergence and establishment in this facultative hydrophyte.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据