4.2 Article

Single count of radicle emergence and mean germination time estimate seed vigour of Chinese milk vetch (Astragalus sinicus)

期刊

SEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
卷 50, 期 1, 页码 47-59

出版社

ISTA-INT SEED TESTING ASSOC
DOI: 10.15258/sst.2022.50.1.06

关键词

Chinese milk vetch; field emergence; mean germination time; radicle emergence; seed vigour; standard germination

资金

  1. China Agricultural Research System [CARS-34]
  2. Start Up Funds for High Level Talents of Qingdao Agricultural University [6631121038]
  3. First-class Grassland Science Discipline Program in Shandong Province, China

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This research found that both radicle emergence (RE) and mean germination time (MGT) are suitable indices for evaluating the vigour of Chinese milk vetch (CMV) seeds. However, RE is more accurate, quick, and convenient.
This research explored the relationship between a single count of radicle emergence (RE) and mean germination time (MGT) with seed vigour for Chinese milk vetch (Astragalus sinicus) (CMV), a globally important legume used as a forage, green manure, and rotation crop. Fourteen seed lots of CMV were used to determine standard germination (SG), RE and MGT in the laboratory. Field experiments were conducted at two sites to measure the emergence performance including field emergence (FE), seedling dry weight (SDW) and simplified vigour index (SVI). The SG ranged from 89.0 to 95.5% and was not significantly correlated with field performance at either of two sites. However, both a single count of RE at 20 hours and MGT were highly predictive of FE, SDW and SVI at both sites (R-2 ranged from 0.612 to 0.897 for RE; 0.604 to 0.870 for MGT). The RE was positively related to field performance while MGT was negatively related. The seed lots with lower RE at 20 hours had lower FE and higher MGT. Overall, both RE at 20 hours and MGT are suitable indices for the vigour evaluation of CMV. However, a single count of RE is more accurate, quick and convenient.

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

4.2
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