dikl ¼xkWlhfi;e fglqZVe ,y-½ esa cht vkstrk dk ewY;kadu
,oa mUu;u
ASSESSMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF SEED VIGOUR IN COTTON [Gossypium
hirsutum (L.)]
GIRISH KADDI
DIVISION OF SEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY INDIAN AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE
NEW DELHI -110012
2009
ASSESSMENT AND ENHANCEMENT OF SEED VIGOUR IN COTTON [Gossypium hirsutum (L.)]
By
GIRISH KADDI
A thesis submitted to the faculty of Post Graduate School,
Indian Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi In partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the award of degree of
MASTER OF SCIENCE IN
SEED SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY 2009
Approved by: Chairperson :…………………………………… (Dr. Shiv Kumar Yadav) Co-chairperson :……………………………………
(Dr. M. Dadlani)
Members :…………………………………… (Dr. S. Nagarajan)
:…………………………………….
(Dr. Jagmail Singh)
:……………………………………. (Dr. N. A. Shakil)
:…………………………………….
(Dr. Seema Jaggi)
DR.S. K.YADAV Division of Seed Science and Technology Sr. Scientist Indian Agricultural Research Institute New Delhi -110012 CERTIFICATE This is to certified that the thesis entitled “Assessment and enhancement of seed vigour
in Cotton [Gossypium hirsutum (L.)]” submitted to the post-graduate school, Indian
Agricultural Research Institute, New Delhi, in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the award of the degree of Master of Science in Seed Science and Technology,
embodies the results of bonafide work carried out by Mr. Girish Kaddi under my
supervision and guidance and no part of thesis has been submitted for any other degree or
diploma.
The assistance and help availed during the course of investigation as well as source of
information have been dually acknowledged
Date: 03-07-09 (Shiv K. Yadav) Place: New Delhi Chairperson, Advisory committee
Dedicated to
My beloved Parents
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
It is a matter of great privilege for me to work under the able and highly
exceptional guidance of Dr. Shiv K. Yadav, Senior Scientist, Division of Seed Science
and Technology, IARI, who nurtured my capabilities. His dynamic personality, scientific
temperament, critical judgments were in themselves an education for me.
I extend my heartfelt gratitude to Dr. (Mrs.) Malavika Dadlani, Head, Division of
Seed Science and Technology, IARI, her immense help, whole hearted cooperation,
experienced words of wisdom that contributed for the timely completion of my work..
I have no words to thank Drs. (Mrs.) Shantha Nagarajan, Principal Scientist,
Nuclear Research Labrotory, Dr. Jagmail Singh, Principal Scientist, Division of
Genetics, Dr. N. A. Shakil, Senior Scientist, Division of Agricultural Chemicals and Dr.
seema Jaggi, Senior Scientist, IASRI, the members of my advisory committee for their
incessant help, scholarly guidance and practical tips which helped me immensely and
encouraged me to plan my work in systematic manner.
I cordially thank Dr. S. S. Parihar, Professor, Division of Seed Science and
Technology, IARI, for his valuable suggestions and encouragement during the course of
research.
I take immense pride to express my sincere thanks to all the scientists, teachers
and technical staff of the Division of Seed Science and Technology, who have contributed
enormously to instill scientific thinking and meticulous planning in me.
I express my heartfelt thanks to my seniors, classmates and juniors Prabhu, Vijay
kumar, Vishwanath, Harish, Dinesh, Pandyaraj, Mukesh, Menka, Niharika, Jagdish,
Santosh and Rajesh for their help and support during the course of study.
Words to limited to express my feelings for my all weather friends whose great
company, unconditional support, timely humour made my stay in IARI a wonderful and
cherishable experience.
No words will be sufficient to express my gratitude to my parents Shri. Basavaraj
Kaddi and Smt. Shakuntala and my sister Geeta. Their infinite love, support and
motivation is the greatest driving force of my life and their very presence makes life more
beautiful.
The wealth of information provided by IARI library and the financial assistance
provided by ICAR in the form of Junior Research Fellowship is duly acknowledged.
Many a souls have contributed for my work directly and indirectly. It is not
possible to take all the names, still they are all duly acknowledged.
(Girish Kaddi)
Place: New Delhi
Date: 3rd
July, 2009
CONTENTS
CHAPTER TITLE
PAGE NO.
1.
INTRODUCTION 1-5
2.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE 6-26
3.
METHODOLOGY 27-36
4.
RESULTS 37-47
5.
DISCUSSIONS 48-53
6.
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
54-55
ABSTRACT 56-58
BIBLIOGRAPHY
i-xxi
LIST OF TABLES
Table
No.
Title Between
Pages
1. List of chemicals with doses used for various seed
enhancement treatments in cotton
On 28
2. Details of treatments given for standardization of static magnetic field
On 29
3. Detail of seed enhancement treatments On 31
4. Mean values of seed vigour (initial) parameters of cotton
varieties
37-38
5. Standard germination (%) of cotton varieties after Accelerated
Ageing (AA) Tests for variable time
37-38
6. Effect of different strengths of Magnetic field (Gauss) for
variable period of exposure on Root length (cm) of Cotton
seedlings
38-39
7. Effect of different strengths of Magnetic field (Gauss) for
variable period of exposure on Shoot length (cm) of Cotton
seedlings
38-39
8. Effect of different strengths of Magnetic field (Gauss) for
variable period of exposure on Total length (cm) of Cotton
seedlings
38-39
9. Effect of seed enhancement treatments on First count (%) and
Germination (%) in Cotton varieties
39-40
10. Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Seedling length
(cm) and Seedling dry weight (gm) in Cotton varieties
40-41
11. Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Vigour Index (VI) I
and II in Cotton varieties
40-41
12. Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Field Emergence 41-42
Index (FEI) and Speed of Emergence (SoE) in Cotton
varieties
13. Effect of seed enhancement treatments Field Emergence (%) in
Cotton varieties
42-43
14. Moisture status of seeds after enhancement treatments and
effect of treatments on yield in Cotton varieties
42-43
15. Effect of seed enhancement treatments on First count (%) and
Germination (%) in Cotton varieties after 3 months of storage
43-44
16. Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Seedling length and
Seedling dry weight in Cotton varieties after 3 months of
storage
43-44
17. Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Vigor Index (VI) I
and II in Cotton varieties after 3 months of storage
43-44
18. Effect of seed enhancement treatments on First count (%) and
Germination (%) in Cotton varieties after 6 months of storage
45-46
19. Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Seedling length
(cm) and Seedling dry weight (g) in Cotton varieties after 6
months of storage
45-46
20. Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Vigor Index (VI) I
and II in Cotton varieties after 6 months of storage
45-46
21. Correlation matrix of vigour parameters in Cotton varieties 45-46
LIST OF FIGURES
Fig.
No.
Title After
page
1. Standard germination (%) of Cotton varieties after Accelerated
Ageing (AA) Tests for variable time.
37-38
2. Different strengths of Magnetic field (Gauss) for variable period
of exposure on Total length (cm) of Cotton seedlings
37-38
1. INTRODUCTION
Cotton is a soft and staple fiber that grows around the seeds of the cotton plant, a
shrub native to tropical and subtropical regions of the world. It is called as “king” of the
fiber and also known as the “white gold” because of its global importance in commercial,
economic, political and social affairs. Cotton belongs to family, Malvaceae and genus,
Gossypium. It comprises of 42 different species distributed in 8 genomes, among them
only 4 species are cultivated and rest are wild. Gossypium arborium and Gossypium
herbaceum are diploid (2n=26) and belong to the old world cotton group whereas,
Gossypium hirsutum and Gossypium barbadense are tetraploid (2n=52) and belong to
new world cotton. Diploid cultivated species are also known as Desi cottons or Asiatic
cottons. The G. hirsutum is known as American cotton or upland cotton and G.
barbadense is also called as Sea Island cotton or Tanguish cotton.
Gossypium hirsustum is the predominant cultivated species of cotton, which alone
contributes about 90% to the global production. It is cultivated in about 60 countries of
the world and 10 countries, viz. the China, India, USA, former USSR, Pakistan,
Uzbekistan, Brazil, Turkey, Mexico, Egypt and Sudan account for nearly 85 percent of
total production. The five leading exporting countries of cotton are; (1) United States, (2)
Uzbekistan, (3) India, (4) Brazil, and (5) Burkina Faso and the largest non-producing
importers are Bangladesh, Indonesia, Thailand, Russia, and Taiwan (Anonymous, 2008).
World cotton production for 2007-08 has been projected at 120.939 million bales, 480 lb.
each, as against 121.99 million bales of 480 lb. each in 2006-07 i.e. 6.36% drop from the
previous year. The highest production for 2007-08 has been estimated in China at 37.00
million bales, followed by India with the production of 31.00 million bales, showing a
1.62% increase over last year (Anonymous, 2007).
Cotton is a major crop of commercial importance in India and it is the only
country in the world where all the four cultivated species of cotton are cultivated in
commercial scale, beside hybrids. Cotton is cultivated in almost all states of India, though
9 states; Punjab, Haryana, Rajasthan, Gujarat, Maharashtra, Madhya Pradesh, Andhra
Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Karnataka account for more than 95 percent of the total area
and production. These states are also the major producers of cottonseed as well. The
2
maximum area is covered by hybrids (45%), followed by G. hirsutum (34%), G.
arborium (15%) and G. herbaceum (6%). The area under G. barbadense is negligible
(Anonymous, 2005).
Cotton provides, directly or indirectly, livelihood to around 60 millions of people
in India. In 2008-09 it was cultivated in an area of 93.73 lakh ha and produced 290 lakh
bales. Cotton productivity in India is 526 kg/ha, while the world productivity is
~700kg/ha (Anonymous, 2009). It is low as compared to world but, we are the second
largest producer of cotton in world after China. Indian cotton exports are good source of
revenue generation in India. The cotton exports in 2006-07 were 58.00 lakh bales which
accounted for 5232.00 crores of rupees and in 2007-08 it was 85.00 lakh bales which
accounted for 8365.00 crores of rupees (Anonymous, 2009). Cotton contributes about
three per cent to the national GDP and 29.8 per cent in agricultural GDP (Anonymous,
2008).
Cotton is a semi-xerophyte, is grown in tropical and subtropical conditions. For
the successful germination of seeds a minimum temperature of 150C is required. The
optimum temperature for vegetative growth is 21-270C. It can tolerate as high as 430C
but, does not do well if it falls below 210
The cotton crop faces several biotic and abiotic constraints during its production.
The cotton seedling damping-off is a worldwide problem caused by a complex of soil-
borne and seed-borne fungi, occurring separately or in combination, and cause pre- or
post-emergence damping-off. The main etiological agents causing the damping-off are
Rhizoctonia solani (Khun), Colletotrichum gossypii (South) and Colletotrichum gossypii
var. cephalosporioides (Chittara, 2009). The insect-pest attacks the crop from
germination till harvesting. The cotton crop is reported to be damaged by as many 130
different species of insects and mites in India (Agarwal et al., 1984). The early sucking
pests are the major problem viz. leaf hopper (Amarasca biguttula), thrips (Thrips tabaci),
aphids (Aphis gossypii) and white fly (Bamicia tabaci) responsible for lower yields.
Cotton it is planted in the month of May and the germinating seedlings die/burn due to
exposure to high temperatures (45-48
C. In rainfed cotton, which occupies 65% of the
area, a minimum rainfall of 50 cm is required for good yields (Anonymous, 2005).
0C) and or hot winds/soil in the Northern and North-
Western parts of India. Similarly the crust formation, in cotton growing soils of Northern
3
and North-Western India, prevents the cotton seedlings to emerge, because of untimely
rains. Very often, hot and dry or wet soil conditions result in poor stands and make gap
filling necessary which becomes expensive and unaffordable to the poor farmers,
particularly when they have to buy the high value Bt. and other hybrid seeds and the extra
cost of sowing/cultivation when the farmer has to resow it again and again. The issue is
further complicated by late maturity caused due to delayed sowing/s. Hence the planting
value of seed needs to be assessed and assured before sowing. Moreover, for better
economic results solution must be found for better germination and establishment of this
crop under unfavorable environmental conditions.
Considering that cotton is grown in a wide range of agro-ecological conditions,
both rainfed and irrigated, it is also important that the seeds not only meet the minimum
standards of germination, but also exhibit high planting value (vigour) to ensure a
successful field emergence and stand establishment. This can be achieved by providing
high vigour seeds, as well as by developing suitable seed enhancement technologies.
Seed quality enhancement technologies which are available and have worked well
in other crops to raise the healthy seedling and ultimately production need to assess for
cotton as well. Seed enhancement is defined as “Post harvest treatments that improve
germination or seedling growth or facilitates the delivery of seeds and other material
required at the time of sowing” (Taylor et al., 1998). Priming enhances the speed and
uniformity of germination, when the seed is planted subsequently. During seed priming
the process of hydration initiates the earliest physiological stages of germination and
perhaps physiological repair of membranes and organelles damaged during seed storage
(Copeland and McDonald, 1995) resulting in more rapid and uniform seedling
emergence. However, primed seeds often exhibit poorer longevity upon storage,
particularly under less favourable conditions (Tarquis and Bradford, 1992) In some
species, even a shorter period of hydration, that does not advance germination, can
dramatically reduce its longevity on subsequent storage (Gurushinghe and Bradford,
2001). Certain post-priming (pre-drying) treatments have shown improvement in
longevity of primed seed suggesting that a rapid dehydration of primed seed is
detrimental to its longevity. Under moisture stress conditions the root growth plays an
important role in plant establishment. Magnetic fields are considered as an environmental
4
factor that has significant effects on function and growth of plants. The seeds of Lentil
(Lens culinaris L.), exhibited more root growth than shoot under effect of magnetic
fields. Leaf size and stem thickness were increased too. These seedlings were more
resistant to drought stress (Shabrangi and Majd, 2009). The chickpea root characteristics
of the plants showed dramatic increase in root length, root surface area and root volume.
The improved functional root parameters suggest that magnetically treated chickpea
seeds may perform better under rainfed (un-irrigated) conditions where there is a
restrictive soil moisture regime (Vashisth and Nagarajan, 2008).
Polymer coating is one of the methods to get good germination. The film coating
consists of mixture of polymer, plasticizer and colorant (Halmer, 1988) that are
commercially available as ready to use liquids or as dry powders (Ni., 1997). The film
formed around seed act as a physical barrier which have been reported to reduce leaching
of inhibitors from the seed covering and may restrict oxygen diffusion to embryo (Duan
and Burris, 1997). Chachalis and Smith (2001) reported that application of hydrophobic
polymer to soybean seeds regulated the rate of water uptake, reduced imbibitions’
damage and improved percentage germination and seedling emergence. In cotton, seeds
coated with Landec polymer or a Daran polymer resulted in higher percentage of normal
seedling and lower EC values. These reduce the cellular damages and improve the water
imbibition at chilling temperature. The effects of film-coating polymers used as a seed
treatment in combination with captan has improved field emergence and final stand of
either high or low vigorous maize seed (Wang et al.,2003).
Among the several factors, seed borne fungi are one of the factors responsible for
low yields (Tripathi and Singh, 1991). Seed treatment with fungicide has a long history
and is practiced for cotton seeds to protect the seeds from seed mycoflora in germinating
seeds and in storage as well. Treating the seed before sowing can often protect young
seedlings, which are particularly susceptible to fungus attack, with a fungicidal
compound that prevents fungal invasion (Das et al., 1975). The insect infestation occurs
in field and also in storage causing significant loss in germination and other quality
parameters. Hence seeds must be protected by applying insecticide. The technique of
protecting seeds through surface dressing with different insecticides to control storage
5
infestation effectively for longer period without impairing viability and vigour with cost
effective and eco friendly.
Hence high priority has to be accorded for enhancing the quality of cotton seed
with high vigour and viability even under sub-optimal condition. Therefore, with this
background, the following objectives were identified for the present investigation:
Objectives
1. To assess the initial vigor of cotton varieties.
2. To standardize the magnetic energy treatment for seed quality enhancement in
cotton.
3. To evaluate the effect of seed quality enhancement treatments on vigor in cotton.
4. To assess the storability of treated seeds.
ABBREVIATIONS
AA : Accelerated aging
RH : Relative humidity 0
cm : centimeter
C : Degree centigrade
m : meter
g : gram
ha : hectare
% : per cent
mm : milli meter
ml : milli litre
ISTA : International Seed testing Association
viz. : namely
etc. : et cetera
et al. : and other workers
EC : Electrical conductivity
G% : Germination percent
SOE : Speed of emergence
FE : Field emergence
FEI : Field Emergence index
VI-I : Vigour index-1
VI-II : Vigour index-II
CRD : Complete randomized design
RBD : Randomized block design
FC : First count
2. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Cotton is an important fiber crop, it is grown almost in all the states but primarily
grown in northern and northwestern part of India. It faces several biotic and abiotic
constraints during germination and crop growth. Seed enhancement treatments have
worked well in many crops for improving the planting value of the seed by alleviating the
stress related ill effects. The present study focuses on assessment and enhancement of
seed vigour. The earlier works done on this topic are briefly described under appropriate
headings.
2.1 Seed vigour
Seed vigour, as an indicator of quality is relatively new, as compared to
germination and purity. Seed viability and vigour are highest at the time of physiological
maturity. After physiological maturity seeds begin to deteriorate at varying rates
depending on the conditions of storage environment (Roberts and Ellis, 1980). There are
several causes of seed deterioration and is a progressive process which has for reaching
consequences (Ellis and Roberts, 1981). Seed vigour is not a single measurable property
like germination, but a concept describing several characteristics associated with various
aspects of performance of the seed (Perry, 1981), both in field (Perry, 1978) and in
storage (Hampton and Coolbear, 1990).
Seed lots having similar laboratory germination showed large differences in their
ability to emerge in the field (Perry, 1970; Matthews, 1980). The laboratory germination
is not a true indicator of field emergence potential. Seed lots with high laboratory
germination which emerge poorly in the field are referred as low vigour lots while high
vigour lots emerge well. Vigour is positively related to the ability of a seed population to
establish an optimum plant stand in both optimum and suboptimum soil environments
and therefore to maximize yield. Seed vigour test data would be expected to predict more
accurately than viability tests actual field performance of a seed lot. This concept also
would suggest that the more closely the stress imposed in the vigour test approximates
the actual stress encountered under actual field planting conditions, the more accurate the
test would be in predicting field performance of the seed lot. Therefore, the test selected
for use should be somewhat reflective of actual field conditions.
7
Seed vigour comprises of those properties, which determine the potential for rapid
and uniform emergence and development of normal seedlings under a wide range of field
conditions. Vigour is defined by ISTA as the “sum total of the properties of the seed
which determine the level of activity and performance of seed or seed lot during
germination and seedling emergence”.
2.1.1 Seed vigour assessment
Seed vigour assessment provides important seed quality information regarding
potential field performance (Powell, 1988; Egli and Tekrony, 1995). More recent
investigations have focused on the physiological causes of vigour differences, especially
the role of seed ageing and membrane integrity (Powell, 1988). Various seed and
seedling attributes have been examined to assess seed vigour in different crops.
2.1.1.1 1000 Seed weight
Tupper et al. (1971) reported that of the physical parameters, seed weight was
most closely related to early seedling growth. However, Carrol and Krieg (1974)
reported that seed weight had no effect on seedling growth rate at lower or minimal
temperatures. Maiya et al. (2001) reported a highly significant correlation between 1000-
seed weight with field emergence in colour cotton. The 1000-seed weight also showed
positive relationship with shoot length, root length and seedling dry weight.
2.1.1.2 First count
Seedling growth has two main components, seedling evaluation (Perry, 1969;
Yaklich and Kulik, 1979) and seedling measurement (Woodstock, 1969; Perry, 1977).
Shenoy et al. (1990) studied first count, final count and rate of germination in rice and
found that mean values for final count were higher than that of field emergence. Narwal
et al. (2004) reported that standard germination in okra seed significantly correlated with
germination rate, first count and accelerated ageing for 72 hrs at 410C. Sudhershen et al.
(2004) reported that first count of germination gave reproducible results than all other
tests in four popular hybrids (viz., NHH-44, Savitha, PKVHY-2, and H-8) of different
aged seed lots. For maize seed, laboratory germination (First and Final count) had
8
positive and highly significant correlation with field emergence (Lovato et al., 2005) and
can be utilized for vigour determination in maize seed lots.
2.1.1.3 Germination percentage
The objective of seed germination test is to determine the maximum germination
potential of a seed lot, which can then in turn be used to compare the quality of different
lots and to estimate the field planting value (ISTA, 2004). Germination tests are
successful in two respects (Matthews, 1981), they are repeatable and they provide
information about the potential of a seed lot to germinate under optimum condition.
The germination test reports the percentage of normal seedlings, abnormal
seedlings and dead seed in a seed lot. When maximum viability is achieved, a seed lot
should theoretically have a germination of nearly 100%, provided dormancy is not a
factor (Powell, 1988). When a germination test result is less than a standard germination
test, it indicates that the quality of the seed lot is in suspect i.e. deterioration has occurred
(Hampton and Coolbear, 1990).
Delouche (1972) compared laboratory germination with field emergence of 94
soybean seed lots and found that lower the germination, poorer the performance in the
field. Bishnoi and Delouche (1980) reported that the standard germination test had a non-
significant correlation with field emergence in cotton. A small difference in percentage
germination represents large differences in the progress of deterioration (Ellis and
Roberts, 1980). In pigeon pea, significant positive correlation of standard germination
was noted with field emergence (r = 0.944). A major limitation of the germination test as
an assessment of seed lot potential performance is its inability to detect quality
differences among high germinating seed lots (Roberts, 1984).
Ram et al. (1988) showed that the standard germination test had positive and
significant correlation (r = 0. 92**) with seedling emergence after 14 days. Ram and
Wiesner (1988) recorded that vigour tests were more sensitive indices of seed quality
than the standard germination test in wheat. Kumar et al. (1988) reported that standard
germination test for green gram showed positive and significant correlation with
accelerated ageing test, which was negatively correlated with electrical conductivity test.
9
Verma et al. (1989) suggested that standard germination and other vigour tests
may be used as the laboratory tests in cotton. Standard germination was positively
correlated with field seedling emergence in chickpea (Ram et al., 1989). Castillo et al.
(1993) found that the coefficients of correlation between germination and field
emergence of 82 garden pea seed lots with germination from 44 to 98% were highly
significant at two separate sowings at the same site, but when low germination (< 85%)
seed lots were excluded from the analysis, low or non-significant correlations were
obtained. Zade et al. (1994) studied the relationship of vigour tests with field emergence
in 10 seed lots of cotton cultivar DHY-286. The germination test had positive and
significant correlation with field emergence (0.81).
The standard germination percentage in sorghum seed has positive and significant
correlation with seedling length, vigour index and number of normal seedling after
accelerated ageing but it had a negative association with conductivity (Verma et al.,
2003). Shridhar & Nagaraja et al. (2004) reported that the standard germination test in
cotton had a positive significant correlation with field emergence (r = 0.943**). Tayal
(2006) concluded that the standard germination test showed a positive correlation with
the seedling establishment in twelve genotypes of cotton.
2.1.1.4 Seedling length and dry weight
The linear measurement of plumule growth was first suggested as a vigour test by
Germ (1949). Edje and Burris (1970) found that in soybean the seedling dry weight
(excluding the cotyledons) was good index of seed vigour. Yaklich and Kulik (1979)
worked out positive correlation between the root length and total shoot plus root length
and field emergence in soybean. Verma and Singh (1979) studied germination percentage
in 21 rice cultivars and showed positive and significant correlation with root length of 14
day old seedling. The shoot length showed significant positive correlation with seedling
weight but root length had non-significant correlation with dry seedling weight. Bishnoi
and Delouche (1980) reported that root length of 3 day old seedlings in cotton can
differentiate seed lots better than the standard germination test. It has a strong positive
correlation with the field establishment. Reddy et al. (1996) studied the relationship
between vigour of seedling, seedling length and initial germination levels of rice. They
10
found that seedling length, early seedling vigour, speed of germination and dry matter
production decrease with decreasing initial germination percentage. Padma and Reddy
(2002) reported that seedling length and hypocotyls length have not given consistent
results over years and among varieties as per as the correlation with field emergence is
concerned in rice. Thasni (2003) observed positive correlation of seedling vigour with
field emergence in maize. Ashok Kumar (2005) reported positive correlation between
total seedling length (r = 0.61**) and dry seedling weight (r = 0.55**) with the field
emergence in soybean.
2.1.1.5 Vigour index
Abdul Baki and Anderson (1973) correlated vigour of soybean from the product
of mean germination percentage and the total seedling length. Seedling vigour measured
as seedling length or seedling dry weight reduces during storage both under natural and
accelerated ageing condition (Heydecker, 1972; Dey and Basu, 1982; Agrawal and
Kharlukhi, 1985; Yadav et al., 1987; Dharmalingam and Basu, 1990). The relative
growth rate of seedlings showed significant correlation with the results of seed vigour
tests. Thus this parameter was suggested as an index for the evaluation of the vigour of
soybean seeds (Schuab et al., 2002).
2.1.1.6 Accelerated ageing
Accelerated ageing was initially developed as a test to estimate the longevity of
seed in commercial storage (Delouche and Baskin, 1973) and has been used to predict the
lifespan of a number of different species. The test has subsequently been evaluated as an
indicator of seed vigour in a wide range of crop species and has been successfully related
to field emergence and stand establishment (Clark et al., 1980). Bishonoi and Delouche
(1980) reported positive significant correlation between seedling establishment and the
results of accelerated ageing test in cotton. The accelerated ageing test exposes seed for
short periods to the two environmental variables which causes rapid seed deterioration,
high temperature and high relative humidity. But this artificial ageing process might be
(and probably is) physiologically different from natural seed deterioration. Priestly and
Leopold (1983) and Priestly et al. (1985) reported little increase in the free radical levels
of naturally aged soybean seeds but a doubling of free radicals in accelerated aged seeds.
11
Bird and Reyes (1967) and Bird (1997) used accelerated ageing method (100%
relative humidity and 500C) to develop a seed quality curve in cotton. They observed that
exposing seed to 2-3 days of these conditions increased the germination percent. Further
exposure resulted in a decrease in germination. They proposed three categories of seed
quality based on their work. Seed exposed to these conditions for 0-2 days were referred
to as ‘quality-unconditioned’. Seed receiving 2-3 days of high temperature and high
humidity treatment were labeled as ‘quality conditioned’ while seed receiving 3 or more
days were referred to as ‘deteriorated’. They concluded that high quality seed can be
conditioned to improve its germination. They also observed that velocity of germination
improved by conditioning. However, they reported that conditioning resulted in decrease
in field seedling emergence and a decrease in final field stand. This suggests that some
deterioration was occurring with the conditioning.
Powell and Harman (1985) questioned whether the physiological events occurring
during accelerated ageing reflected those found during natural ageing. In contrast,
Likhlatchev et al. (1984) concluded that physiological changes in seeds subjected to
accelerated ageing were the same as natural ageing with the only difference being the rate
at which they occur. High vigour seed lots will withstand these extreme stress conditions
and deteriorate at a slower rate than low vigour seed lots (Hampton and Tekrony, 1995).
Under accelerated ageing conditions, there was decrease in radical and plumule
elongation in cotton seed (Khan et al., 1998), reduction in seedling height, fresh weight
and dry weight in tomato seed (Alsadon et al., 1995; Nargis and Thiagrajan,1996). In
maize decrease in vigour index and seedling dry weight was reported by Kudrikeri et al.
(1998). Accelerated ageing resulted in a rapid loss of quality in maize seed. Germination
percentage decreased with increasing temperature and duration of treatment (Sampaio et
al., 1996). Germination percentage, vigour index and seedling dry weight of maize
decreased but electrical conductivity increased as period of accelerated ageing increased
(Kudrikeri et al., 1998). Increase in germination percentage immediately after accelerated
ageing for a brief period is recorded by Veselora et al. (1999) in pea, Verma et al. (1999)
in wheat, Singh and Singh (1997) in splash pine seed , but it reduced in seeds aged for
longer period.
12
Simic et al. (2004) reported that in maize seed subjected to accelerated ageing test
at 440
Ram et al. (1988) reported that in cotton the electrical conductivity had a
significant and positive association with 100 seed weight indicating thereby that heavier
seeds had more seed exudates during leaching. The electrical conductivity test seems to
be of little importance in relation to field emergence potential of cotton seed. Electrical
conductivity recorded highest levels of positive correlation with field emergence in
maize. Torres et al. (1998). Electrical conductivity showed a negative correlation with
C and 100% RH, after 5 days of treatment, there was significant decrease in
germination and increase in content of total phenolics in exudates which was a rapid
indicator of seed quality. Delayed sowing had only small effects on seed viability, but
affected seed vigour as assessed by germination and field emergence tests following
controlled deterioration test. (Siddique and Wright, 2004).
2.1.1.7 Electrical conductivity
The conductivity test provides a measurement of electrolyte leakage from plant
tissues and was first recognized for seeds of several crop species. It was later developed
into a vigour test to predict field emergence of garden pea (Matthews and Bradnock,
1967). Electrical conductivity measurements have also been used for seeds of many other
species especially the large seeded legumes, soybeans, French beans, mungbean and field
bean.
Flentje and Saksena (1964) were the first to reveal a clear relationship between
the solute leakage from the seed and mortality under field conditions. This correlation
between leakage and pre-emergence mortality was confirmed for cotton (Hayman, 1969).
Similar correlation was observed for different crops such as peas and french bean
(Matthews and Bradnock, 1967), soybean (Parrish and Leopold, 1977; Yaklich and
Kulik, 1979). Studies by Hopper and Hinton (1987) and Hyer et al. (1980) in cotton
indicated that low quality seed did result in higher EC readings than high quality seed.
Their studies indicated that low EC readings were characteristics of high quality seed and
intermediate qualities of seed were difficult to quantify using this method. Bishnoi and
Delouche (1980) reported a better correlation of electrical conductivity test (than the
standard germination test) with the field emergence percentage in cotton.
13
standard germination percentage in various crops such as chickpea, (Ram et al., 1989),
cowpea (Beighley and Hopper, 1981), soybean (Casini et al., 1999), lentil (Makkawi,
1999), rice (Kim et al., 1998; Shenoy et al., 1990).
Dahiya (1996) reported a significant negative correlation between EC and
standard germination(-0.69**) test in cotton seed. A negative correlation between
electrical conductivity and percentage germination, hypocotyls length and seed vigour in
soybean is reported by Alizaga et al. (1987) and by Vanniarajan (2004) in black gram.
Shridhar and Nagaraja (2004) also reported similar result in cotton. Similar negative
correlation between electrical conductivity with field establishment were observed by
Tayal (2006) in cotton.
2.1.1.8 Field emergence
Field emergence is a significant indicator of yield performance of direct seeded
crops. Sherf (1953) reported a close association between standard germination and field
emergence in soybean. However, Johanson and Wax (1978), Yaklich and Kulik (1979)
reported that standard germination consistently overestimates field emergence in
soybean. Seshu et al. (1988) reported that ageing, cultivars, time of harvest, weather
during maturity, nutrition, position of seeds in the panicle and specific gravity of the seed
are the principal causes of variation in rice seed vigour.
In rice, number of agronomic traits, including yield is reported to be significantly
affected by seed vigour (Seshu and Dadlani, 1993). Raj et al. (1994) reported that a
significant positive correlation exist between standard germination and field emergence,
dry weight of seedlings, vigour index and seedling vigour in the hybrids of pearlmillet
(1994). Fiala (1979) and Milosevic et al. (1994) assessed viability of maize hybrids by
vigour test and reported that field emergence was mostly closely related with the results
of the cold test and accelerated ageing test. Field emergence was not closely correlated
with the standard germination test, vigour index and was negatively correlated with
electrical conductivity and was reported by Krishnappa et al. (1999) in ground nut and
Makkawi et al. (1999) in lentil.
14
2.1.1.9 Seed vigour and yield
The relationship between the seed vigour and yield is mediated through the effects
of seed vigour on stand establishment. Within certain limits, better stands resulting from
the use of higher quality seeds resulted in higher yields. Wheeler et al. (1997) reported
significant stepwise yield increases in cotton from the use of medium and high quality
seeds. The average yield increased by 35% from the use of medium quality seed over low
quality seed and 13% from the use of high quality seed as compared to medium quality
seed. This was associated with the emergence percentage increase of 117% and 62%
respectively when counted 21 days after planting.
2.2 Seed enhancement
Seed quality enhancement has been defined as post harvest treatments that
improve germination or seedling growth or facilitate the delivery of seeds and other
materials required at the time of sowing (Taylor et al., 1998). It includes priming
(controlling the hydration level within the seeds so that metabolic activity necessary for
germination can occur but radicle emergence is prevented), pelleting (addition of inert
materials to seed to change the size and shape resulting in substantial weight increase for
improved plantablity), pellet loading (applying plant protectant within the pellet) and
seed treatment with insecticide / fungicide / or botanicals. It also includes various seed
processing techniques enhancing seed quality. Modern seed technology provides a wide
range of treatments, which helps in enhancing/realizing the full genetic potential into
improved harvest in terms of yield and quality. Such treatments can be applied to seed
during processing/before sowing so as to refine the seed characteristics. The treatments
are of three kinds:
1) Physiological enhancement to make germination rapid and synchronous.
2) Seed protective treatments, which should be in active proportion and evenly
distributed.
3) Seed coating so as to enable the seeds to be sown in well defined pattern.
The purpose of these treatments is to shorten the time between planting and
emergence and to protect the seed from biotic and abiotic factors during critical stage of
seedling establishment. These treatments synchronize the emergence which leads to
15
uniform stand and improved yield. In the present review the seed enhancement with
priming, enhancement with exposure to magnetic field and application of polymer /
insecticides / fungicides to the seeds are presented.
2.2.1 Priming
Seed priming is a process in which seed is hydrated and maintained at designated
moisture content under defined temperature and aeration conditions. Priming involves
either hydro-priming (soking of the seeds followed by drying to the normal soil moisture)
or osmo-priming (treating the seeds with some osmaticum such as polyethylene glycol).
Seed priming has been used extensively to improve germination of many species. Seed
priming is a controlled hydration process that involves exposing seeds to low water
potentials that restrict germination but permits pre-germinative physiological and
biochemical changes to occur (Bradford, 1986; Khan, 1992; Heydecker and Coolbear,
1977). Upon rehydration, primed seeds may exhibit faster rates of germination, more
uniform emergence, greater tolerance to environmental stress, and reduced dormancy in
many species (Khan, 1992). Prehydration in water has emerged as a useful and effective
priming technique that is cheaper and manageable in comparison to osmotic and matric
treatments.
Evanari (1980) reported that the ancient Greek farmers soaked cucumber seeds in
water or milk and honey before sowing to increase germination and rate of emergence.
Wilkinson (1918) has recommended the placement of seeds of radish, bean, corn,
cucumber and squash in luke warm water overnight to increase germination velocity. The
successful attempt reported of scaling up of priming was carried out on celery seeds by
Darby and Salter (1976) using salt solution in bubble column. Savino et al. (1979)
investigated the effect of presoaking upon the maintenance of seed vigour and viability
using seeds of pea, carrot and tomato. They concluded that presoaking had an improving
influence upon vigour of low quality pea seeds before ageing and treated. Seeds
maintained viability and vigour for a low quality pea seeds before ageing and treated
maintained viability and vigour for a longer period than the control. Priming encourages
faster and even higher germination and delays ageing (Dearman et al., 1986).
16
However, it appears that prevention of damaging oxidative reactions especially
free radicals induced lipid peroxidation reactions, involving unsaturated lipid molecular
of lipoprotein, bio-membranes and repair of age induced damage to vital bio-organelles
by the cellular repair system associated with the invigoration (Basu, 1990). This is based
on the incomplete hydration of seeds to a level that enhances the metabolic activity
during pre-germination leading to enhanced seedling emergence (Parera and Cantifee,
1995; Bradford, 1995). It is reported that when the seed hydration and germination
process reacts to an advanced stage, the subsequent dehydration leads to the death of the
embryo (Bradford, 1995; Taylor et al., 1998). For each species, the duration of the
different phases depends on the water availability and the manipulation of the factor
(Bradford, 1986; Bray, 1995).
Toselli and Casenave (2003) evaluated cotton seed germination in water and
under water stress (PEG -0.8 MPa) at 250
Sivasubramanian and Ganeshkumar (2004) observed the use of Vermiwash
increased the yield in marigold. Hydropriming also proved to enhance the vigour in both
japonica and indica rice, however, priming for 48 hr was found to be more effective
(Farroq et al., 2005). Hydropriming of cotton seed (soaking the seeds in water followed
by drying at room temperature) is found effective in improving seedling vigour in 12
cotton hybrids. Maiti et al. (2006) observed that 20 hr priming improved the seedling
vigour in all the cotton hybrids. Kazem et al.,(2008) studied different priming treatment
viz. hydropriming, halopriming and osmopriming on seedling vigour and field
C and 16 hr photoperiod. Hydropriming did not
affect germination in water or under water stress. Osmoticum priming reduced
germination by increasing the length of the treatments and the concentrations of
osmoticum used. They recommended that for cotton seeds osmoticum priming with PEG
was not desirable. In another study, Toselli and Casenave (2005) investigated the effect
of hydropriming in cotton seed germination under favourable conditions. The parameters
of the model for cotton seed subjected to 16 hr hydropriming were determined.
Hydropriming significantly increased germination of cotton seeds in favourable
conditions of salinity and temperatures.
17
establishment of lentil. They observed the hydropriming is comparatively superior than
other treatments.
2.2.2 Seed coating
Seed coating is employed for facilitating mechanical sowing to achieve
uniformity of plant spacing, to improve field emergence and to protect seed and seedling
from pest and diseases. Apart from improving physical properties of seeds, it acts as an
efficient corner of nutrients, fungicides and insecticides, thus reducing the cost and
hazards of chemical applications. There are two seed coating methods, pelleting and film
coasting. Pelleting is deified as the deposition of layer of inert material that may obscure
the original shape and size of the seed, resulting in a substantial weight increase and
improved plantability, while film coating retains the shape and general size of the raw
seed with a minimal of weight gain (Butler, 1993).
Polymer coated cotton seeds initially inhibited the activity of catalase, peroxidase
and rate of seedling growth, but stimulated them at later stages (Ruban et al., 1983).
Soyabean seeds coated with a hydrophilic polymer regulated the rate of water uptake,
reduced imbibitional damage and improved the field emergence (Hwang and Sung,
1991). Polymer seed coting in rice seeds recorded higher root length, shoot length and
dry weight of seedling as compared to control (Dadlani et al., 1992).
The effect of polymer coating on seed imbibition, electrical conductivity,
germination and emergence was studied by Struve and Hopper (1996). Seed coating and
pelleting have successfully been used in many crops for better crop establishment and to
improve the efficiency of chemical applications. Film coating is used for uniform
application of materials to seeds. This film forming formulation consists of mixture of
polymer, plasticizer and colourants (Halmer, 1988; Taylor and Harman, 1990; Robani,
1994; Taylor et al., 1994) and formulations are commercially available that are ready to
use liquid or prepared as dung powder (Ni, 1997).
Polymer coating of seed and/or soil application reported to increase the seed yield
in safflower (Kumar et al., 1998). Similarly, in sorghum seed treatment resulted in
improved germination, emergence rate at lowest available soil moisture level (Joshi et al.
, 1998). Colourants provides an aesthetic appeal to the seeds. In addition, it serves to
18
colour code different varieties and increase the viability of seeds after sowing. Coating
seeds with liquid based polymeric adhesives either slightly or in combination with the
active ingredients has been reported to be very effective in improving the performance of
the seed (Horner, 1985; Maude and Suett, 1986; Sauve and Shiel, 1980; Tonkin, 1984).
Polymer coating protects seeds from imbibitional damage during hydration
through regulating the water uptake leading to the membrane damage and reduced seed
leakage (Ni, 2001) and improves the percent germination and seedling emergence
(Cchhalis and Smith, 2001). Muturaj et al. (2002) recorded higher field emergence in
polycoated soybean seeds due to increase in the rate of imbibition where the fine particles
in the coating act as a moisture attracting material which improves seed soil interface.
As hydrophilic polymer helps in absorption and retention of moisture by seed it
could be effective in dry and saline soils in improving germination and seedling
emergence (Wang et al., 2003). Pandey et al. (2005) reported the effect of polymer
coating on soybean and maize seed for seed quality enhancement. Brenton and Russell
(2008) also reported that the coating of seed with a temperature activated polymer may
circumvent the adverse effects of exposing seeds to cold and wet soil, by causing delay in
germination and emergence of corn and soybean.
2.2.2.1 Polymer + fungicide coating
The efficiency of polymer and fungicide is more when used in combination than
alone. Comparative studies on application of fungicide in single and multiple polymer
layers were carried out by Petch et al. (1991). Williams& Hopper (1997) showed
reduction in loss of fungicides as dusting off from seeds when film coated with polymer.
Rivas et al. (1998) reported polymers in combination with captan were as effective as
captan alone in increasing the rate of emergence and improving seedling height at early
planting. Taylor et al. (2001) reported that film coating and pelleting with cytozime and
fungicide recorded higher germination as compared to control. Vanangamudi et al.
(2003) noticed that in maize polykote @ 3.00 g per kg of seed + (fungicide + insecticide)
was found to be best in registering higher germination (98.00%) and vigour index (82.91)
compared to control (93.00% and 60.54, respectively).
19
Wang et al. (2003) noticed polymer in combination with fungicide (captan) was
found significantly effective in enhancing seed vigour rather than polymer coating alone.
Larissa et al. (2004) found that in bean the polymer coated and fungicide treated seeds
maintained higher germination compared to control after two months of storage.
Kenganal et al. (2004) studied the influence of hydrophilic polymers on seed germination
and vigour index of chilli seeds during storage. The results showed that the combination
of polymers and seed treatment chemicals enhanced both germination and vigour index
as compared to control and reduced the wastage of chemicals while handling, packaging
and storage.
The efficiency of film coating in combination with fungicide treatment on the
physiological and sanitary quality of seeds was determined in a field experiment
conducted in Brazil. The treatments comprised film-coating of seeds in combination with
the fungicide Tegram, (17 g a.i. thiabendazole + 70 g a.i. thiram) at 1 and 2 ml/kg. Film-
coating with AGL 205 and fungicide treatment had no significant effects on the
physiological and sanitary quality of the harvested seeds (Trentini et al., 2005). The
higher germination percentage, field emergence, root length, shoot length, seedling
vigour index, dry matter, lower electrical conductivity were recorded in the seeds treated
with thiram and imidacloprid and followed by seed coating with polymer @ 5 gm/kg of
seed (Vijay Kumar, 2007).
ROYALFLO 42S was leaded in "List of chemical and biological resources for
pest control, disease control, weed control.” This preparation was recommended to use
for disinfection of seeds of corn, lupine, bean, fiber flax, rape, pea, sugar beet and other
cultures. (Shikalchik et al., 2000). The most widely spread and harmful pathogens viz.
Colletotrichum, Fusarium, Mycosphaerella in flax are controlled by royalflo and
carboxin + thiram. (Starostina and Gutkovskaya, 2003).
2.3 Fungicide coating
The cotton seedling damping-off is a worldwide problem caused by a complex of
soil-borne and seed-borne fungi, occurring separately or in combination, and cause pre-
or post-emergence damping-off. The main etiological agents causing the damping-off are
Rhizoctonia solani Khun, Colletotrichum gossypii South and Colletotrichum gossypii
20
var. cephalosporioides (Chittara, 2009). Seed treatment with fungicide helps in reducing
fungal invasion, controls the seed borne infection and protect from attack of soil borne
pathogens. Fungicides enhance the vigour and storage life of seeds mainly through
checking the growth and invasion of pathogenic fungi on seed during storage as well as
in the field during seed germination.
Mahendrapal and Grewal (1985) reported that in pigeon pea seed treatment with
bavistin recorded higher germination compared to control. Martinez and Ramirez (1985)
noticed that maize seeds treated with benomyl, captan, captafol, chlorothalanil,
carbendazim and thiobendazole recorded higher germination compared to control. Pawar
et al. (1985) reported that paddy seeds treated with carbendazim recorded higher
germination(93%), root length(10.89cm) and shoot length(9.82cm) compared to control
(60.50%, 10.45cm and 8.62cm, respectively).
Padmini N. and Mallikarjunaradhya (1985) found that bavistin was effective
against most of the seed borne fungi in groundnut and improved the storability of the
seeds. According to Singh and Agarwal (1986) dry seed treatment with captan, thiram,
baviatin+Thiram against Cercospora kikuchii improved seed germination. Sunderash et
al. (1987) reported significant improvement in germination of soybean under in-vitro (18-
28%) and in-vivo (22-25%) conditions when the soybean seeds were treated with Thiram
@ 4.00g per kg or dithane M-45 @ 3.00g per kg of seeds as compared to control.
Singh et al.. (1988) reported the soybean seeds treated with dithane M-45,
Thiram+bavistin, Thiram+captan @ 2.00 g per kg of seeds, thirm+bavistin found to be
more effective and reduced the post mortality. Gupta and Dharamsingh (1990) recorded
that seed treated with Thiram recorded higher germination(75.00%) compared to control
(72.00%) after 28 months of storage in cowpea. Savitri et al. (1994) also noticed that the
sorghum seeds treated with Thiram and stored for 18 months recorded higher
germination(52.50%) compared to control (41.50%).
In cotton, Mukewar (1994) reported that combination of compatible fungicides
carbendazim and Thiram (1:2) was found to be very effective not only eliminating seed
mycroflora, but also improved vigour of the seedling. Also, Sudheer Reddy and
Muralimohan Reddy (1994) reported that the okra seed treated with Thiram @ 2.50 g per
21
kg of seeds and stored for 18 months recorded higher germination (87.00%) compared to
control (84.00%).
Asalmol and Zade (1994) recorded pre storage seed treatment with Thiram was
found to give protection against fast deterioration of seed quality as well as development
of seed borne fungi during storage. Solanke and Kore (1994) noticed that sorghum
parental line CS-3541 treated with Thiram+carbendazim recorded higher germination,
less seed microflora compared to other fungicidal seed treatments.
Solenke et al. (1996) found that cotton seeds treated with Thiram + carbendazim
(1:1) recorded higher germination (83.00%) compared to control (72.00%). Solenke et al.
(1997a) noticed that sunflower cv. CSH-1 seed treated with Thiram + carbendazim
recorded higher germination and less seed microflora compared to control. Solenke et al.
(1997b) reported that Thiram alone and in combination with carbendazim (2.5g/kg of
seed) were found to be more effective in improving the germination and reducing pre and
post mortality as compared to control.
Manojkumar and Agarwal (1998) reported maize seeds treated with fungicides
viz. Thiram, rovral, dithane M-45, ridomil MZ and bavistin + Thiram (1:1) considerably
reduced seed borne pathogens like Bipolaris maydis, Botryodiplodia theobromae,
Curularia lunata and Fusarium moniliformae. Savitri et al. (1998) noticed in groundnut
seed treated with Thiram @ 3.00g per kg of seed recorded higher germination and vigour
index over control.
Ashok Guar et al.. (2000) found that the pearlmillet seed treated with Thiram @
0.30% considerably reduced the seed born fungi Cularia trifoli, Cularia pallescens,
Fusarium moniliformae and Pencillium spp. Gupta and Aneja (2000) reported that
soybean seeds treated with thiram recorded higher field emergence and seed yield
compared to control. Zorato and Henningh (2001) soybean seeds treated with various
fungicides treatment (carboxin+thiram @ 2.00 g/kg of seed) resulted significant higher
field emergence (83.02%) over control (74.00%). Muthuraj et al. (2002) niticed in
soybean seeds treated with Thiram (2.00g/kg of seeds) improved germination and field
emergence compared to control. Gupta and Aneja (2004) found in soybean seeds treated
22
with Thiram @ 2.50g per kg of seeds significantly maintained higher germination
compared to control after 15 months of storage.
Gupta (2004) indicated that bleaching powder is most effective for maintaining
vigour and viability of cotton seeds preventing peroxidation of membrane lipids. Neighp
and Gaur (2005) showed that the seed treatment of rice with vitavax, thiram and
mancozeb maintained germination above Minimum Seed Certification Standards after six
months of storage. Punum Xylalo et al. (2007) observed thiram treated chickpea seeds
shown good field emergence compared to control. Bittencourt et al. (2007) noticed
groundnut seeds treated with carboxin+thiram significantly reduced dead seeds and pre-
emergent damping off. Tylor et al. (2008) reported onion seed treatment with Thiram +
carboxin effectively controlled the onion seed borne disease onion smut caused by
Urocystis colchici.
Chitara et al. (2009) reported cotton seeds treated with Thiram + carboxin have
effectively overcome the pre and post emergent damping off and also increased field
emergence.
2.4 Insecticide coating
Cotton crop in early growth stages affected by sucking pests like white fly, aphid,
thrips etc which not only affect the crop directly but also responsible for transmitting
viral diseases in cotton. Pest attack is also a major problem in stored seeds. The control of
early sucking pest is very important in cotton to get good crop stand and good yield.
These pests can be controlled by spraying insecticide at early crop growth stages which is
costly and environmental polluting. These pests can also be controlled effectively both in
field and storage by seed treatment which is eco friendly and cheap method of pest
control.
Seed treatment of cotton with imidachloprid improved the seed germination, root
and shoot length compared to untreated control (Mote et al., 1993). Mustard seed treated
with aidrin 30EC @ 20 ml per kg of seed recorded higher germination (96.00%)
compared to control (91.30%) (Bhanot et al., 1994). Sorghum seeds treated with
imidachloprid @ 2.00 per cent recorded higher germination (84.00%), root length (15.00
23
cm) and shoot length (6.73 cm) compared to control (78.00%, 12 cm and 5.08cm,
respectively) (Mote et al., 1995a).
It was reported that there was no reduction in germination capacity and field
emergence of sugarbeet seeds treated with imidachloprid even after storage of one year
(Schaufele et al., 1996). Insecticide seed treatment s were proved better in maintaining
storability of greengram seeds than control (Laxminarayan et al., 1998). Seed treatment
in okra with imidachloprid were shown higher germination of seeds compared to control
(Dhanot and Shama, 1998). Cotton seeds treated with imidachloprid @ 7.00 g per kg of
seed recorded higher germination after 180 days of storage (Kumar and Santharam,
2000). Maize and sunflower treated with thiamethoxam resulted in 80% increased
production (Popov et al., 2001). Seed treatment with higher doses of thiamethoxam and
longer exposure resulted in higher mortality of most of the storage beetles (Bisong et al.,
2002).
Chickpea seeds treated with endosulfan, monocrotophos and chloropyriphos
provided maximum protection against storage pests. Endosulfan and chloropyriphos had
no adverse effect on germination (Choudhary and Dashad, 2002). Black gram seeds
treated with malathion 50 EC @ 0.50 per cent recorded significantly higher germination
(87.66%) over control (70.04%) after 180 days of storage (Deshpande et al., 2004). In
case of rice seed treated with imidachloprid shown good germination and also the
imidachloprid treatment can be given to the pre germinated rice seeds it will have no
adverse effect on plant growth (Stevens et al., 2008).
2.4.1 Influence of insecticide treatment on early sucking pests
In cotton seed treated with Gaucho 480 significantly reduced both adult and
immature thrips and thrips damage compare to control (Graham et al., 1995). Sorghum
seeds treated with imidachloprid @ 50.00 per cent recorded lowest dead heart (47.20%)
as compared to control (87.28%) after 28 days after sowing (Mote et al., 1995c). In
cotton seed treatment with imidachloprid six per cent recorded higher plant height
(24.80cm) and number of leaves ( 20.80) and taken less days to 50 per cent flowering (57
days) compared to control (16.00cm, 10.00 and 60 days, respectively) (Mote et al.,
1995b). when cotton seeds treated with imidachloprid @ 3.00 g and 5.00 g per kg of seed
24
controlled cicadellides up to 61 to 76 days and significantly increases the yield (136.70%)
compared to control (Gupta et al., 1998).
Cotton seeds treated with imidachloprid and aldicarb applied in furrows
significantly reduced the incidence of Apis gossypii for up to 20 days after plant
emergence and imidachloprid as a foliar spray controlled the pest up to 10 days after
application (Lucas et al., 1999). Cotton seeds treated with imidachloprid @ 7.00 g per kg
of seed recorded 100 per cent mortality up to 10 and 26 days after sowing against Apis
gossypii and Amrasca devastans, respectively (Kumar and Santharam, 1999).
Cotton seeds treated with imidachloprid 70 WS @ 10.00 g per kg seed recorded
leaf hopper and white fly below ETL up to 35 days on DCH-32 and up to 40 days on
NHH-44 cotton hybrids (Patil et al., 1999). Similarly, when cotton seeds treated with
imidachloprid @ 7.00 g per kg of seeds maintained higher germination (80.00%) and
treated seeds stored up to 90 days without loss of bioefficacy against Apis gossypii
(Kumar and Santharam, 2000).
Cotton seeds treated with imidachloprid @ 10.00 g per kg recorded higher plant
height (83.25cm), more number of fruiting branches per plant (27.00) and highest number
of bolls (32.50) compared to control (37.75cm, 6.25 and 4.00, respectively) (Dandale et
al., 2001). Cotton seeds treated with thiamethoxam 70 WS and stored for four months at
all the dosage, the persistence was up to 40 days against thrips, leaf hoppers and aphids
and up to 30 days against whiteflies without loss of viability and efficacy (Prasanna et al.,
2003).
In cabbage and cauliflower the cabbage root fly larvae (Delia radicum), flea
beetle (Phyllotreta nemorum and P. undulata), cabbage aphid (Brevicoryne brassicae)
and caterpillars were effectively controlled by filmcoating the seeds with spinosad and
imidachloprid (Ester et al., 2003). The bean leaf beetle, Cerotoma trifurcata (Forster), on
early-growth-stage snap beans, Phaseolus vulgaris L. was effectively controlled by
insecticidal seed treatments, imidacloprid (Gaucho®) and thiamethoxam (Cruiser®)
(Koch et al., 2005).
Experiment with winter wheat, imidacloprid seed treatments (0.7 and 1.4 g a.i./kg
seed) reduced slug damage to a lower level than that achieved by conventional bait
25
pellets (Simms et al., 2006). In case of onion the insecticide seed treatments, fipronil,
spinosad and clothianidin reduced onion maggot damage by 76 to 97% (Taylor et al.,
2008).
2.5 Seed treatment using static magnetic field
The effects of magnetic field on living systems, particularly the effect on growth
of plants have been the object of numerous researchers. The first studies were conducted
by Savostin (1930) who reported 100% increase in the rate of elongation of seedlings
under the influence of magnetic condition. Audus (1960) reported a strong magneto
tropic affection on root development. Ananta and Nagarajan (2007) observed the effect
of pre-sowing exposure of maize seeds to static magnetic field and found increased early
growth characteristics especially root length.
Ananta and Nagarajan (2008) reported that chickpea seeds exposed to magnetic
field shown increased laboratory germination, speed of germination, seedling length and
seedling dry weight as compared to untreated seeds. Azita and Ahmad (2009) observed
that lentil seeds treated with magnetic field shown increased root length and increased
activity of antioxidant enzymes
2.6 Influence of seed treatments on storage of seeds
The cowpea seeds treated with BHC + Dithane M-45 recorded higher germination
(99.0%) and dry weight of seedlings (0.690g) compared to control (43% and 0.613g,
respectively) after six months of storage (Hunje et al., 1990). The pearl millet seeds
treated with fungicide, insecticide and their combination could effectively controls
Asprgillus spp and the combination treatment proved to be superior in controlling all
fungi associated during storage (Dhakshinamurthy and Sivaprakashan, 1992).
The wheat seeds treated with captan @ 2.00 g per kg and BHC @ 10 per cent dust
was best protectant in maintaining viability and vigour of seeds (Paul et al., 1992). The
sorghum seeds treated with Thiram + malathion recorded higher germination (51.35%)
and inhibited the activity of Rhizopertha domonica (90.00%) compared to control
(40.98% and 28.3%) after 18 months of storage (Savitri et al., 1994). The mungbean
seeds treated with malathion @ 2.00 g per kg + captan @ 5.00 g per kg of seed proved
26
better with respect to germination percentage, seedling length and vigour index after nine
months of storage (Paul et al., 1996).
The wheat seeds treated with malathion + carboxin recorded lowest insect
infestation over control after six months of storage period (Sinha and Singh, 1998). The
mungbean seeds treated with deltamethrin + Thiram and stored in polybag for 18 months
recorded higher germination compared to control (Gupta et al., 1998). The pearl millet
seeds treated with Thiram + malathion and stored for 18 months recorded higher
germination compared to control (Srimathi et al., 2001). The maize seeds treated with
captan + deltamethrin (1:1) reduce the activity of Rhizopertha dominica over a periode of
18 months of storage (Sunil et al., 2004).
2.7 Influence of hydro priming on storage of seeds
One of the most critical aspect of seed priming is determining as to how long the
benefit of priming lasts during storage (McDonald, 1999). In some studies, priming
treatments adversely affected the storage life of tomato (Alvarado & Bradford, 1988) and
wheat (Nath et al., 1991) seeds but it did not adversely affect the storage life of carrot and
leek seeds (Dearman et al., 1987). The response of primed seeds to storage is species and
variety dependant.
Dearman, Brocklehurst and Dew (1986) observed that priming delayed the
loss of viability of onion seeds, however the same authors found that loss of viability in
leek and carrot seeds was dramatically faster in primed seeds compared to control.
Alvarado and Bradford (1988) reported that reduction in storage life of lettuce and
tomato seeds after priming treatment. The short duration treatment (2-24 hr imbibition)
followed by redrying have been reported to increase vigour and extend longevity under
adverse storage or controlled deterioration conditions in tomato and other species
(Burgass and Powell, 1984; Mitra and Basu, 1979).
4. RESULTS
The results presented in this chapter are based upon various vigour parameters
assessed and observed the effect after seed enhancement treatments viz; priming (hydro,
ceolomic fluid, vermiwash and nutriwash), fungicidal, insecticide and bactericide and
polymer coatings alone or in combination on cotton for improving the field emergence
and maintaining vigour of seeds under storage. The data generated were analyzed by
using computer software SPSS (version 10) and SAS. The parameter wise results
obtained have been depicted in the respective Tables.
4.1 Assessment of seed vigour
The objective of the vigour test is to provide reliable information about the
planting value of a seed lot under a range of environments and/or its storage potential.
The test should be able to differentiate between the seed lots having acceptable
germination i.e. germination above the minimum standard of germination (i.e. 75% for
hybrids and 65% for open pollinated cotton varieties). As vigour can be manifested by
various direct or indirect performance criteria such as the size of seeds, first count,
germination, seedling growth, vigour indexes, field emergence, electrical conductance,
storage potential etc., Assessment of vigour was made on two varieties i.e. H-1226 and
H-1117 of cotton.
4.1.1 Initial status of vigour
The mean values for various vigour parameters viz.; 1000 seed weight, moisture
content, germination, seedling length, seedling dry weight, vigour index I, vigour index
II, electrical conductivity and field emergence were 59.00 gm, 9.65 %, 66.00 %, 25.56
cm, 0.167 gm, 1690.0, 10.99, 0.0128 µ mhoscm-1g-1 and 52.00 % respectively (Table 1).
Higher values for 1000 seed weight (60.00 gm), germination (67.00 %), seedling length
(25.74 cm), seedling dry weight (0.168 gm), vigour index I (1725), vigour index II
(11.26) and field emergence (53 %) were observed in variety H-1226 while H-1117
showed higher values for moisture content (9.75 %) and electrical conductivity (0.0138 µ
38
mhoscm-1g-1
4.1.2 Accelerated ageing test
). Therefore, it was revealed that the cotton variety H-1226 was relatively
vigourous than the H-1117 variety.
The standard germination of both the cotton varieties were tested after exposing
them to accelerated ageing tests for variable time. There was no significant effect of
varieties and interaction between variety and exposure time on germination. However,
the exposure from 24 hrs to 120 hrs resulted in significant decrease in germination
percent (Table 5 and fig. 1). The germination percent after 120hrs in varieties H-1226 and
H-1117 decreased from 67.00 to 6.00 and 65.00 to 1.00, respectively. The decreasing
trend was stepper after 72hrs of exposure to the accelerated ageing conditions.
4.2 Standardization of static magnetic field for seed enhancement
Magnetic field exposure is a pre-sowing treatment to enhance the performance of
the plants in the field. In present study, the effect of magnetic field of different strengths
(Gauss) for variable period of exposure were observed on root length, shoot length and
total length of cotton seedlings. The exposure period did not affect the root length, shoot
length and total seedling length significantly. The strengths of magnetic field viz.; 1500,
2000 and 2500G increased root lengths by 10.10, 10.90 and 10.81cm, respectively,
compared to control (7.97cm). Highest increase in root length was observed in 2500G for
1hr (11.91cm) followed by 11.65cm in 2000G for 2hr (Table 6). Numerically highest
values for shoot length were observed in 1500G for 2hr (8.88cm) and 2500G for 1hr
(8.83cm) (Table 7). The interactions between exposure period and strengths were non
significant on root length and shoot length, but significant for total seedling length.
Significantly higher values (20.74, 20.35, 19.66 and 19.53 cm) for total seedling length
(Table 8 and fig. 2) were recorded in 2500G for 1hr, 2500G for 2hr, 1500G for 2hr and
2000G for 2hr treatments, respectively. None of the treatment combinations adversely
affected the seedling growth hence under moisture stress conditions exposure of cotton
seed to 2500G for 1hr that resulted in highest (20.74cm) increase over control (15.91cm)
in total seedling length could play an important role in plant establishment.
39
4.3 Seed quality enhancement treatments
4.3.1 First count and germination
Two cotton varieties i.e. H-1226 and H-1117 were given 24 seed enhancement
treatments and tested against the control. The data recorded for first count (%) and
germination (%) have been depicted in Table 9. The first count of germination is
considered a good indicator of seed vigour, as it reflects the rapidity of germination. The
observation on first count was taken after 4 days in the standard germination test. Both
between the papers (BP) and sand media are recommended for the conduct of
germination test of cotton (ISTA, 2004). An evaluation of germination in BP revealed the
utility of simple and less expensive test to assess the seed vigour of seed lots on the basis
of germination after 12 days at 250C. Both the varieties were significantly different for
first count and germination. Variety H-1226 was found to have higher first count
(61.56%) and germination (69.08%) than the variety H-1117 with 60.24 % first count and
67.48 % germination. Treatments viz.; T3 (65.00), T6 (64.50), T12 (64.00) and T20 (64.50)
significantly increased the first count% over T0 (60.00). Germination was significantly
improved over T0 (66.00) by T5 (72.00), T6 (72.50), T10 (70.00), T11 (70.00), T15 (70.00)
and T20 (71.50) treatments. The first count was significantly reduced in T4 (54.50) while
none of the treatments were found to be detrimental to germination. Out of 24 seed
enhancement treatments, 18 were found at par with control in both first count and
germination. The T1, T2, T6, T7, T8, T9, T13, T14, T16, T17, T18, T19, T20, T21, T22, T23,
and T24 treatments were found to have similar effects on first count and germination. The
treatments T6 and T20 were best for enhancing the first count and germination. The
highest values for first count in variety H-1226 were observed in T6 (66.00) and T20
(66.00), however, for variety H-1117 it was maximum (65.00) in T3 treatment. The
treatments T5 and T6 resulted in highest germination (73.00%) in variety H-1226, while
in variety H-1117, T6 treatment gave best results (72.00%). No interaction between
variety and treatments was observed for both first count and germination. The first count
values for variety H-1226 ranged from 55.00% to 66.00% where as the values were
ranging from 54.00% to 64.00% in case of variety H-1117. The germination ranged
between 64.00% to 73.00% for variety H-1226 and for variety H-1117 it was between
59.00% to 72.00%. Numerically lowest values for first count and germination in varieties
40
H-1226 (55.00 and 64.00 %) and H-1117 (54.00 and 59.00 %) were recorded in T4
4.3.2 Seedling length and dry weight
treatment.
Seedling length and dry weight were observed on 10 seedlings after final count of
germination. The data for seedling length (cm) and dry weight (gm) have been shown in
Table 10. The significant difference for seedling length between H-1226 and H-1117
were observed, however, the varieties showed no significant difference for dry weight.
Variety H-1226 was having longer seedling length (27.31cm) than variety H-1117
(25.45cm). Significant increase in seedling length was observed in T3 (27.45), T4
(26.60), T5 (28.53), T6 (28.19), T8 (27.20), T12 (27.24), T14 (25.84), T15 (26.28), T16
(27.32), T17 (29.66), T18 (29.26), T20 (26.76) and T22 (26.62) treatments over T0 (25.56)
where as significant decrease in seedling length was noticed in T9 (23.32), T10 (22.80)
and T13 (24.45) treatments. Seedling length was maximum T17 for both the varieties. Dry
weight was significantly increased over T0 (0.167) by T1 (0.211), T2 (0.201), T5 (0.193),
T6 (0.190), T14 (0.190), T23 (0.196) and T24 (0.195) treatments. The treatments T1 (0.215)
and T2 (0.204) gave highest dry weight in variety H-1226, while in variety H-1117, T1
4.3.3 Vigour index I and II
treatment showed best results (0.206). The interaction between variety and treatments
was non significant for seedling dry weight, but significant for seedling length. The dry
weight values for H-1226 ranged from 0.155 to 0.215 and H-1117 ranged from 0.167 to
0.206.
The vigour index I and II are considered good indicators of seed vigour, as they
reflect the performance of seed lot in the field. The data recorded for vigour index (VI) I
and II revealed that the varieties were significantly different for vigour index I but they
were at par for vigour index II (Table 11). Variety H-1226 gave in higher VI-I (1887) and
VI- II (12.58) than the variety H-1117 with 1651 (VI-I) and 11.14 (VI-II). Significant
increase in VI-I was observed in T3 (1935), T5 (2023), T6 (2040), T11 (1815), T12 (1919),
T15 (1797), T16 (1914), T17 (1936), T18 (1993), and T20 (1829) treatments over T0 (1690).
Significant decrease in VI-I was observed in T9 (1524) and T10 (1456) while other
treatments were at par with the control. VI-II was significantly improved over T0 (10.99)
41
by T1 (13.29), T2 (12.84), T5 (13.40), T6 (13.34), T11 (12.71), T12 (13.02) and T16
(13.07) treatments. VI-I and VI-II behaved similarly in T4, T5, T6, T7, T8, T11, T12, T13,
T14, T16, T19, T21, T22, T23, and T24 treatments. The interaction between variety and
treatment was significant for VI I, but it was non significant for VI II. Maximum values
for VI-I in variety H-1226 was observed in T5 (2145) and T18 (2150), however, for
variety H-1117 it was maximum (1950) in T6 treatment. The treatment T1 gave highest
VI-II (15.27) in variety H-1226, while in variety H-1117, T16
4.3.4 Field emergence index and Speed of emergence
treatment revealed the best
results (13.39). The interaction between variety and treatments was significant for VI I,
and non significant for VI II. The VI-I values for variety H-1226 ranged from 1647 to
2150 where as in H-1117, it ranged from 1230 to 1950. The VI-II ranged between 10.08
to 15.27 for variety H-1226 and for variety H-1117 it was between 7.94 to 13.39.
The data recorded for Field emergence index (FEI) and Speed of emergence
(SoE) have been depicted in Table 12. The FEI and SoE are considered a good indicator
of seed vigour, as they reflect the rapidity of germination. The varieties were significantly
different for SoE but they were at par for FEI. Variety H-1226 resulted in higher FEI
(18.16) and SoE (41.59) than the variety H-1117 which showed FEI (80.34) and SoE
(37.16). Significant increase in FEI was observed in T4 (84.59), T5 (92.68), T6 (94.13), T8
(85.74), T9 (83.85), T10 (87.42), T15 (85.69) and T16 (85.55), over T0 (78.78) after seed
enhancement treatments and significant decrease in FEI was observed in T21 (72.80) and
other treatments are on par with the control. SoE was significantly improved over T0
(37.72) by T1 (43.44), T2 (41.91), T5 (48.05), T6 (49.12), T7 (41.68), T8 (42.76), T9
(43.26), T10 (45.05), T11 (44.39), T12 (44.94), T15 (47.31), T16 (49.56) and T20 (40.65)
treatments and significant decrease in SoE was observed in T17 (29.21), T21 (23.10), T22
(27.29), T23 (26.80), and T24 (34.07) and other treatments are on par with the control.
Similar trends for both FEI and SoE were noticed in T3, T5, T6, T8, T9, T10, T13, T14,
T15, T16, T18, T19, and T21 treatments. The highest values for FEI in variety H-1226
were observed in T6 (95.20), however, for variety H-1117 it was maximum (93.05) in T6
treatment. The treatment T6 highest SoE (56.63) in variety H-1226, while in variety H-
1117, T16 treatment revealed best results (48.89). The interaction between variety and
treatments was significant for both FEI and SoE. The FEI values for variety H-1226
42
ranged from 74.26 to 95.20 where as the values were ranging from 73.13 to 93.05 in case
of variety H-1117. The SoE ranged between 24.07 to 56.63 for variety H-1226 and for
variety H-1117 it was between 16.98 to 48.89.
4.3.5 Field emergence
The field emergence is the ultimate test for seed vigour determining the plant
population in the field. The data recorded for field emergence have been shown in Table
13. The field emergence are considered a good indicator of seed vigour, as it reflects the
potential of seed lot. The varieties differed significantly different for field emergence.
Variety H-1226 was having higher field emergence (56.12) than the variety H-1117
(54.22). Significant increase in field emergence was observed in T5 (66.75) and T6
(68.25) over T0 (52.00) after seed enhancement and other treatments were at par with the
control. The higher values for field emergence in variety H-1226 were observed in T6
(69.50), T5 (69.00) and T10 (66.00), however, for variety H-1117 it was greater in T6
(67.00), T5 (64.50) and T16
4.3.6 Moisture content
(62.00) treatment. The interaction between variety and
treatments was non significant. The field emergence values for variety H-1226 ranged
from 50.00 to 69.50 where as the values were ranging from 48.00 to 67.00 in case of
variety H-1117.
The data for moisture content (%) have been shown in Table 14. The moisture
content a good indicator of seed storage. The varieties showed non significant difference
for moisture content. Significant increase in moisture content was observed in T1 (10.15),
T2 (10.10) and T21 (9.78) over T0
4.4 Storability studies after seed enhancement treatments
(9.65) after seed enhancement treatments, where as in
other treatments, it decreased significantly.
4.4.1 First count and germination (after 3 months of storage)
Two cotton varieties i.e. H-1226 and H-1117 with 24 seed enhancement treatments
and were tested for all the above characters after 3 months of storage. The data recorded
for first count (%) and germination (%) have been shown in Table 15. The first count was
taken after 4 days in the standard germination test, which was concluded on 12th day after
observing final count. Both the varieties were shown significant difference for first count
43
as well as germination percent. Variety H-1226 resulted in higher first count (56.64%)
and germination (58.28%) than the variety H-1117 (53.88% first count and 55.20%
germination). Significant decrease in first count% was observed in T1 (48.00), T2 (48.00),
T9 (47.00), T10 (40.00), T22 (50.50) and T23 (49.00) over T0 (58.50). Germination was
also significantly decreased over T0 (59.50) by T1 (49.50), T2 (47.00), T9 (48.00), T10
(42.50), T21 (52.50) and T22 (52.50) treatments. For first count and germination, out of 24
seed enhancement treatments 18 were found at par with control. Similar trends for both
first count and germination were noticed in all the treatments. The treatments T5 and T6
were found better for enhancing the first count and germination. The highest values for
first count in variety H-1226 were observed in T0 (62.00) and T6 (62.00), however, for
variety H-1117 it was maximum (64.00) in T5 treatment. The treatments T5, T6 and T12
resulted in highest germination (64.00%) in variety H-1226, while in variety H-1117, T6
4.4.2 Seedling length and dry weight (after 3 months of storage)
treatment revealed best results (65.00%). The interaction between variety and treatments
was non significant for both first count and germination. The first count values for variety
H-1226 ranged from 46.00% to 62.00% where as the values were ranging from 34.00%
to 64.00% in case of variety H-1117. The germination ranged between 49.00% to 64.00%
for variety H-1226 and for variety H-1117 it was between 36.00% to 65.00%.
The data recorded for seedling length (cm) and dry weight (gm) after 3 months of
storage have been shown in Table 16. The varieties showed significant difference for
seedling length but were at par for dry weight. Variety H-1226 was having higher
seedling length (26.23cm) than the variety H-1117 (24.69cm). Significant increase in
seedling length was observed in T5 (27.69), T6 (27.25), T17 (29.30) and T18 (28.58) over
T0 (25.47) after seed enhancement treatments, were as significant decrease in seedling
length was seen in T1 (22.49), T2 (23.35), T9 (22.52), T10 (20.13) and T13 (23.36). Dry
weight was significantly increased over T0 (0.148) by T3 (0.174), T4 (0.184), T5 (0.188),
T6 (0.188), T9 (0.166), T12 (0.171), T13 (0.165), T14 (0.183), T15 (0.165), T16 (0.162), T17
(0.159), T18 (0.171), T19 (0.177), T20 (0.174), T21 (0.163), T22 (0.182), T23 (0.167) and
T24 (0.163) treatments. The highest values for seedling length in variety H-1226 were
observed in T17 (30.22) and T18 (29.77) however, for variety H-1117 it was maximum
(28.38) in T17 treatment. The treatments T5 (0.191) in highest dry weight in variety H-
44
1226, while in variety H-1117, T22
4.4.3 Vigour index I and II (after 3 months of storage)
treatment revealed best results (0.194). The
interaction between variety and treatments was significant for both seedling length and
dry weight.
The data recorded for vigour index I and II after 3 months of storage have been
depicted in Table 17. The varieties were significantly different for vigour index I as well
as vigour index II. Variety H-1226 was having higher VI I (1532) and VI II (9.70) than
the variety H-1117 (1374 and 9.06, respectively). Significant increase in VI I was
observed in T5 (1761) and T6 (1757), over T0 (1518) after seed enhancement treatments
and significant decrease in VI I was observed in T1 (1114), T2 (1101), T9 (1088), T10
(869) and T23 (1302) and other treatments are on par with the control. VI II was
significantly improved over T0 (8.84) by T3 (10.62), T4 (10.03), T5 (11.96), T6 (12.11),
T12 (10.93), T14 (10.78), T18 (10.29), T19 (10.70), and T20 (10.75) treatments and
significant decrease in VI II was observed in T1 (7.44), T2 (7.08) and T10 (6.25) and other
treatments are on par with the control. . Similar trends for both VI I and VI II were
noticed in T1, T2, T5, T6, T7, T8, T10, T11, T13, T15, T16, T17, T21, T22, and T24
treatments. The highest values for VI I in variety H-1226 were observed in T18 (1875),
however, for variety H-1117 it was maximum (1762) in T6 treatment. The treatment T5
highest VI II (12.22) in variety H-1226, while in variety H-1117, T6
4.4.4 First count and germination (after 6 months of storage)
treatment revealed
best results (12.18). The interaction between variety and treatments was non significant
for VI I, but significant for VI II. The VI I values for variety H-1226 ranged from 1082 to
1875 where as the values were ranging from 657 to 1762 in case of variety H-1117. The
VI II ranged between 6.74 to 12.22 for variety H-1226 and for variety H-1117 it was
between 4.44 to 12.18.
The data recorded for first count (%) and germination (%) after 6 months of
storage have been shown in Table 18. The first count was taken after 4 days in the
standard germination test, which was concluded on 12th day after observing final count.
The varieties were significantly different for first count as well as germination percent.
Variety H-1226 resulted in higher first count (51.20%) and germination (53.08%) than
45
the variety H-1117 which showed 44.84% first count and 45.52% germination.
Significant decrease in first count% was observed in T1 (32.00), T2 (32.50), T4 (44.50),
T9 (43.00), T10 (31.00), T13 (43.50), T17 (43.50), T21 (42.50) and T23 (43.00) over T0
(52.00) after seed enhancement treatments were as significant increase in first count%
was seen in T5 (59.50) and T6 (62.00). Germination was significantly decreased over T0
(53.00) by T1 (36.00), T2 (35.00), T4 (45.50), T9 (42.50), T10 (31.50), T13 (44.00), T17
(45.50), T19 (47.00), T21 (42.00) and T23 (42.00) treatments. For first count and
germination, out of 24 seed enhancement treatments 18 were found at par with control.
Similar trends for both first count and germination were noticed in all the treatments. The
treatments T5 and T6 were found best for enhancing the first count and germination. The
highest values for first count in variety H-1226 were observed in T8 (64.00) and T6
(63.00), however, for variety H-1117 it was maximum (61.00) in T6 treatment. The
treatments T5 (63.00), T6 (65.00) and T8 (64.00) resulted in highest germination in
variety H-1226, while in variety H-1117, T6
4.4.5 Seedling length and dry weight (after 6 months of storage)
treatment revealed best results (62.00%).
The interaction between variety and treatments was significant for both first count and
germination. The first count values for variety H-1226 ranged from 34.00% to 64.00%
where as the values were ranging from 11.00% to 61.00% in case of variety H-1117.
The germination ranged between 39.00% to 65.00% for variety H-1226 and for variety
H-1117 it was between 11.00% to 62.00%.
Two cotton varieties i.e. H-1226 and H-1117 were given 24 seed enhancement
treatments and tested against the control after 6 months of storage. The data recorded for
seedling length (cm) and dry weight (gm) have been shown in Table 19. Seedling length
and dry weight were observed on 10 seedlings after final count of germination. The
varieties were shown significant difference for seedling length but were non significant
for dry weight. Variety H-1226 resulted in higher seedling length (26.30cm) than the
variety H-1117 (24.46cm). Significant increase in seedling length was observed in T5
(27.85), T6 (27.70), T17 (29.55) and T18 (28.51) over T0 (25.31) after seed enhancement
treatments, were as significant decrease in seedling length was seen in T2 (22.36), T9
(21.53) and T10 (20.46). Dry weight was significantly increased over T0 (0.161) by T4
(0.178), T11 (0.178), T13 (0.178), T17 (0.178) and T22 (0.174) treatments. The highest
46
values for seedling length in variety H-1226 were observed in T17 (31.15) and T18
(29.62) however, for variety H-1117 it was maximum (27.95) in T17 treatment. The
treatments T13 (0.190) in highest dry weight in variety H-1226, while in variety H-1117,
T16
4.4.6 Vigour index I and II (after 6 months of storage)
treatment revealed best results (0.186). The interaction between variety and
treatments was significant for both seedling length and dry weight.
The data recorded for vigour index I and II after 6 months of storage have been
shown in Table 20. The varieties were significantly different for vigour index I as well as
vigour index II. Variety H-1226 resulted in higher VI I (1405) and VI II (8.80) than the
variety H-1117 which showed VI I (1130) and VI II (7.58). Significant increase in VI I
was observed in T5 (1717), T6 (1760) and T18 (1543) over T0 (1340) after seed
enhancement treatments and significant decrease in VI I was observed in T1 (842), T2
(784), T9 (924), T10 (698), T19 (1105), T21 (1053) and T23 (1047) and other treatments are
on par with the control. VI II was significantly improved over T0 (8.55) by T5 (11.00)
and T6 (10.83) treatments and significant decrease in VI II was observed in T1 (6.13), T2
(5.97), T4 (7.08), T9 (6.88), T10 (4.78), T19 (7.06) and T23 (6.87) and other treatments are
on par with the control. Similar trends for both VI I and VI II were noticed in T1, T2, T3,
T5, T6, T7, T8, T9, T10, T11, T12, T13, T14, T15, T16, T17, T19, T20, T22, T23, and T24
treatments. The highest values for VI I in variety H-1226 were observed in T6 (1842),
however, for variety H-1117 it was maximum (1678) in T6 treatment. The treatment T5
highest VI II (11.55) in variety H-1226, while in variety H-1117, T6
4.5 Relative efficacy of vigour tests
treatment revealed
best results (11.19). The interaction between variety and treatments was significant for
both VI I and VI II. The VI I values for variety H-1226 ranged from 928 to 1842 where
as the values were ranging from 196 to 1678 in case of variety H-1117. The VI II ranged
between 6.45 to 11.55 for variety H-1226 and for variety H-1117 it was between 1.25 to
11.19.
The correlation matrix of vigour parameters in cotton varieties have been given in
Table 18. From the above data, it is concluded that to predict the planting value of cotton
47
seed lots (field emergence %), under optimum field conditions, the following vigour tests
can be adopted i.e.
i. First count (initial) of the standard germination test (r = 0.402*)
ii. Standard germination (initial) (r = 0.511**)
ii. Vigour index I (initial) (r = 0.431*)
iii. Vigour index II (initial) (r = 0.421*)
iv. Accelerate ageing test (r = 0.526**)
v. Electrical conductance (r = -0.697**)
For the prediction of the storability of cotton seed after 6 months of storage, the
following vigour tests can be used as:
On the basis of correlation with germination after 6 months of storage
i. First count (after 3m) (r = 0.623**)
ii. Germination (after 3m) (r = 0.679**)
iii. First count (after 6m) (r = 0.977**)
iv. Vigour index I (initial) (r = 0.611**)
v. Vigour index I (after 3m) (r = 0.730**)
vi. Vigour index II (after 3m) (r = 0.655**)
vii. Vigour index I (after 6m) (r = 0.954**)
viii. Vigour index II (after 6m) (r = 0.922**)
ix. Accelerated ageing test (r = 0.754**)
x. Electrical conductance (r = - 0.904**)
5. DISCUSSION
Seed is an important, basic and crucial input in agriculture. It is a well established
fact that only high quality seed responds better to all inputs and management practices.
Cotton is an important fiber crop, it is grown almost in all the states but primarily grown
in northern and northwestern part of India. The standards for germination of cotton seeds
as per IMSCS are 65% for varieties and 75% for hybrids. Field emergence is also very
low in cotton under field conditions. In addition it is planted in the month of May and the
germinating seedlings die/burn due to exposure to high temperatures (45-480
Keeping this in view an experiment was conducted in order to assess the seed
quality of cotton varieties viz. H-1226 and H-1117. The effect of seed vigour
enhancement treatments on these varieties were evaluated. The different treatments to
enhance the vigour of seeds were tried on two varieties of cotton. The vigour parameters
assessed and observed for the effect of seed enhancement treatment viz; priming
(hydropriming) and priming with ceolomic fluid, vermiwash and nutriwash; fungicidal,
insecticide and bactericide and polymer coatings alone or in combination with others
treatments on cotton for improving the field emergence and maintaining vigour of seeds
under storage.
C), hot
winds and high soil temperature in the northern and north-western parts of India.
Similarly the crust formation in cotton growing soils of northern and north-western India,
prevents the cotton seedlings to emerge, because of untimely rains. Very often, hot and
dry or wet soil conditions results in poor stands and make gap filling necessary which
becomes expensive and unaffordable to the poor farmers. Hence, it is also important that
the cotton seeds should not only meet the minimum standards of germination, but also
exhibit high planting value (vigour) to ensure a successful field emergence and optimum
plant stand establishment. Seed vigour broadly refers to ability of the seed lot to emerge
well in the field. Germination test alone does not reflect the potential of seed lot in field
conditions. Thus, use of vigour tests helps in predicting the performance of seeds under
field conditions and can be efficiently used as alternative to field emergence.
Based on the initial observations on both the varieties for various vigour
parameters viz.; 1000 seed weight, moisture content, germination, seedling length,
49
seedling dry weight, vigour index I, vigour index II, electrical conductivity and field
emergence, H-1226 showed relatively higher vigour compared to H-1117.
The standardization of magnetic energy treatment for cotton is a new treatment
for enhancing seed vigour. The standardization revealed that exposure of cotton seeds to
2500G for 1hr has shown highest root length and seedling length compared to all other
treatments. The similar finding was reported by Ananta and Nagarajan (2007) as they
observed the effect of pre-sowing exposure of maize seeds to static magnetic field and
found increased early growth characteristics especially root length. And Azita and
Ahmad (2009) observed that lentil seeds treated with magnetic field showed increased
root length and increased activity of antioxidant enzymes.
Traditional vigour tests, such as the accelerated ageing (AA) test were developed
especially to determine storage potential (ISTA, 1995). In the AA test, relative humidity
in the ageing chamber is nearly 100% and temperature above 400
The conductivity test provides a measurement of electrolyte leakage from plant
tissues and was recognized for seeds of several crop species. Studies by Hopper and
Hinton (1987) and Hyer et al (1980) in cotton indicated that low quality seed resulted in
higher EC readings than high quality seed. The mean EC value in variety H-1226 was
0.0118 µ mhos/cm/g and in variety H-1117 was 0.0138 µ mhos/cm/g, which revealed that
seed lot of variety H-1226 was better in quality than that of H-1117. The electrical
conductivity showed significant negative correlation with most of the vigour parameters
studied. The same observations has been reported by Dahiya (1996) and a significant
negative correlation between EC and standard germination(-0.69**) test in cotton seed
was observed. A negative correlation between electrical conductivity and percentage
C under which the seeds
are aged. The exposure from 24 hrs to 120 hrs resulted in significant decrease in
germination percent. The germination percent after 120hrs in varieties H-1226 and H-
1117 decreased from 67.00 to 6.00 and 65.00 to 1.00, respectively. The decreasing trend
was steeper after 72hrs of exposure to the accelerated ageing conditions. The similar
results were observed by Kudrikeri et al., 1998 as they have also reported that the
germination percentage, vigour index and seedling dry weight of maize decreased but
electrical conductivity increased as period of accelerated ageing increased.
50
germination, hypocotyls length and seed vigour was reported by Alizaga et al (1987) in
soybean and by Vanniarajan (2004) in black gram. Shridhar and Nagaraja (2004) also
reported similar results in cotton. The negative correlation between electrical
conductivity and field establishment was observed by Tayal (2006) in cotton.
Seed quality enhancement has been defined as post harvest treatments that
improve germination or seedling growth or facilitate the delivery of seeds and other
materials required at the time of sowing (Taylor et al., 1998). For quality enhancement 25
different seed treatments were studied. Among the treatments hydro priming significantly
increased seedling dry weight and vigour index II. The similar results were observed by
Maiti et al (2006) and reported that 20 hr priming improved the seedling vigour in all the
cotton hybrids. Kazem et al.,(2008) studied different priming treatment viz.
hydropriming, halopriming and osmopriming on seedling vigour and field establishment
of lentil.
The new priming treatment for quality enhancement of cotton seeds was studied
by using ceolomic fluid, vermiwash and nutriwash. In these treatments ceolomic fluid has
shown higher first count and germination percentage. The ceolomic fluid + thiram +
imidachloprid revealed highest first count, whereas vermiwash showed better
germination than the nutriwash. Sivasubramanian and Ganeshkumar (2004) have reported
that use of Vermiwash seed treatment increased the yield in marigold which that supports
the present finding.
Seed coating is employed for facilitating mechanical sowing to achieve
uniformity of plant spacing, to improve field emergence and to protect seed and seedling
from pests and diseases. Apart from improving physical properties of seeds, it acts as an
efficient corner of nutrients, fungicides and insecticides, thus reducing the cost and
hazards of chemical applications. Polymer coating protects seeds from imbibitional
damage during hydration by regulating the water uptake leading to the membrane damage
and reduced seed leakage (Ni, 2001) and improves the percent germination and seedling
emergence (Cchhalis and Smith, 2001). In the present experiment the polymer alone and
along with priming, fungicide, bactericide and insecticide were studied. The result has
shown that polymer along with thiram or imidachloprid gave good results than polymer
51
alone. These results were supported by a study by Wang et al. (2003) where polymer in
combination with fungicide (captan) was found significantly effective in enhancing seed
vigour rather than polymer coating alone. The higher germination percentage, field
emergence, root length, shoot length, seedling vigour index, dry matter, lower electrical
conductivity were recorded in the seeds treated with thiram and imidacloprid and
followed by seed coating with polymer @ 5 gm/kg of seed (Vijay Kumar, 2007).
Seed treatment with fungicide helps in reducing fungal invasion, controls the seed
borne infection and protect the seed from attack of soil borne pathogens. Fungicides
enhance the vigour and storage life of seeds mainly through checking the growth and
invasion of pathogenic fungi on seed during storage as well as in the field during seed
germination. In the present study thiram alone and in combination with other treatments
used for seed treatment was also studied. Thiram alone increased the germination
percentage to 71.00% which was significantly higher compared to control (66.00%).
Whereas highest germination was observed in thiram + imidachloprid (72.50%). similar
results were observed by Gupta and Dharamsingh (1990) and they reported that seed
treated with Thiram recorded higher germination(75.00%) compared to control (72.00%)
after 28 months of storage in cowpea. Solenke et al. (1997b) reported that thiram alone
and in combination with carbendazim (2.5g/kg of seed) were found to be more effective
in improving the germination and reducing pre and post mortality as compared to control
in cotton. Savitri et al. (1998) recorded higher germination and vigour index in groundnut
seed treated with Thiram @ 3.00g per kg of seed over control. Chitara et al. (2009) have
also reported that cotton seeds treated with thiram + carboxin have effectively overcome
the pre and post emergent damping off and also increased field emergence.
The control of early sucking pests is very important in cotton to get optimum crop
stand and good yield. These pests can also be controlled effectively both in field and
storage by seed treatment which is eco friendly and cheap method of pest control. In the
present study imidachloprid alone and imidachloprid along with other seed treatments
was also studied. The imidachloprid alone has also significantly increased the different
vigor parameter but thiram @ 2gm/kg + imidachloprid @ 7.5ml/kg showed the highest
first count, germination (%), vigour index I, field emergence, field emergence index and
52
speed of emergence compared to other treatments. The present finding is supported by
seed treatment studies of cotton with imidachloprid which improved the seed
germination, root and shoot length compared to untreated control (Mote et al., 1993).
Mustard seed treated with aidrin 30EC @ 20 ml per kg of seed recorded higher
germination (96.00%) compared to control (91.30%) (Bhanot et al., 1994). Sorghum
seeds treated with imidachloprid @ 2.00 per cent recorded higher germination (84.00%),
root length (15.00 cm) and shoot length (6.73 cm) compared to control (78.00%, 12 cm
and 5.08cm, respectively) (Mote et al., 1995a). In case of rice seed treated with
imidachloprid showed good germination and also the imidachloprid treatment can be
given to the pre germinated rice seeds without any adverse effect on plant growth
(Stevens et al., 2008).
In the present experiment also included the storage study of different seed
treatments on cotton seeds. Among all the treatments thiram @ 2gm/kg + imidachloprid
@ 7.5ml/kg treatments were maintained higher first count, germination (%), vigour index
I, and vigour index II after 6 months of storage also. The same types of result were
observed in experiments with wheat seeds treated with malathion + carboxin and
recorded lowest insect infestation over control after six months of storage period (Sinha
and Singh, 1998). The mungbean seeds treated with deltamethrin + thiram and stored in
polybag for 18 months recorded higher germination compared to control (Gupta et al.,
1998). The pearl millet seeds treated with thiram + malathion and stored for 18 months
recorded higher germination compared to control (Srimathi et al., 2001). The maize seeds
treated with captan + deltamethrin (1:1) reduce the activity of Rhizopertha dominica over
a periode of 18 months of storage (Sunil et al., 2004).
In the present study it was noticed that germination of seed treated with
hydropriming was significantly reduced after 3 and 6 months of storage. The same
observations were made in experiments, where priming treatments adversely affected the
storage life of tomato (Alvarado & Bradford, 1988) and wheat (Nath et al., 1991) seeds.
Dearman, Brocklehurst and Dew (1986) observed that priming delayed the loss of
viability of onion seeds, but the same authors found that loss of viability in leek and
carrot seeds was dramatically faster in primed seeds compared to control.
53
The correlation martrix worked out between various vigour parameters measured
both at initial period and after storage of three and six months respectively along with
field emergence (%) identified some of the important inter relationships. The emergence
percent in the field was correlated significantly with first and last count of lab
germination and the corresponding vigour indexes. Similarly Shridhar & Nagaraja et al.
(2004) reported that the standard germination test in cotton had a positive significant
correlation with field emergence (r = 0.943**). Tayal (2006) concluded that the standard
germination test showed a positive correlation with the seedling establishment in twelve
genotypes of cotton.
The electrical conductance of seed leachates also showed significant negative
correlation with field emergence value. Therefore, these easily measurable parameters in
the laboratory can be used to predict the planting value of cotton seeds in the field. The
similar results were reported by Tayal (2006) in cotton negative correlation between
electrical conductivity with field establishment was observed. Also germination after six
months showed a significant correlation with electrical conductance of seed leachates and
with the initial VI I. Therefore, these two parameters can be used to predict the storability
of the cotton seed lots.
6. SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
Studies on various vigour parameters including accelerated ageing and electrical
conductivity of seed leachate in relation to field emergence and storability were
conducted in cotton during kharif 2008. The material for the study consisted two varieties
of cotton viz. H-1226 and H-1117. Both the varieties were subjected to laboratory as well
as field test to assess the initial vigour. Magnetic energy treatment for seed quality
enhancement for cotton by exposing seeds to different energy levels and period of
exposure was standardized. In addition, other seed treatments were tried to enhance the
vigour parameters. The treated seeds were evaluated for first count, germination (%),
seedling length, seedling dry weight, vigour index I and II, field emergence, field
emergence index and speed of emergence. The treated seeds were stored for six months
under ambient conditions to study the effect of seed enhancement treatments on
storability.
The important findings of studies are summarized as under:
1. The initial seed quality assessment revealed that there were differences in both the
varieties and the materials were diverse in nature for various vigour parameters
studied.
2. The effect of seed quality enhancement treatments on variety H1226 showed
significantly higher improvement for vigour parameters over H 1117.
3. Accelerated ageing test conducted at 420
4. Among all seed quality enhancement treatments royal flo @ 5ml/kg and thiram @
2gm/kg + imidachloprid @ 7.5ml/kg were revealed best results both in field and
laboratory. These treatments can be effectively used for getting good plant stand
in cotton crop.
C and 100% RH for different period of
time has shown decrease in germination after every ageing test and steep decline
after 72 hr of ageing test.
5. The new seed quality enhancement treatment that is by exposing seeds to
magnetic energy fields (2500G for 1hr), showed improved early vigour characters
in cotton seedlings.
55
6. The new type of priming treatments using ceolomic fluid, Nutriwash and
Vermiwash, showed increased vigour characters. Among three ceolomic fluid is
best compare to other two priming treatments.
7. Among polymer seed coatings for quality enhancement, polymer along with
fungicide or insecticide had shown better results than polymer alone.
8. In the storage studies the treatment thiram @ 2gm/kg + imidachloprid @ 7.5ml/kg
was maintained higher vigour characters after six months of storage than any
other treatments.
Conclusions:
• Cotton varieties differ in their vigor levels because of their diverse origins.
The planting value of cotton could be improved by treatment with royal flo
@ 5ml/kg or thiram @ 2gm/kg + imidachloprid @ 7.5ml/kg and or by
priming with vermin based fluid (ceolomic). The fungicidal treatments in
combination with polymers could still give the better results for quality
enhancement.
• The exposure of cotton seeds to magnetic energy fields (2500G) for 1hr
resulted in increased seedling length, specially root length and hence could
be used to enhance seed quality for planting cotton under rainfed
conditions.
• The first and final count of laboratory germination, their corresponding
vigour indices and electrical conductance of seed leachates could be used
to predict the storability and planting value of cotton seeds in the field.
Assessment and enhancement of seed vigour in cotton [Gossypium hirsutum (l.)]
Studies on various vigour parameters including accelerated ageing and electrical
conductivity of seed leachate in relation to field emergence and storability were
conducted in cotton during kharif 2008. The material for the study consisted two varieties
of cotton viz. H-1226 and H-1117. Both the varieties were subjected to laboratory as well
as field test to assess the initial vigour. Magnetic energy treatment for seed quality
enhancement for cotton by exposing seeds to different energy levels and period of
exposure was standardized. In addition, other seed treatments were tried to enhance the
vigour parameters. The treated seeds were evaluated for first count, germination (%),
seedling length, seedling dry weight, vigour index I and II, field emergence, field
emergence index and speed of emergence. The treated seeds were stored for six months
under ambient conditions to study the effect of seed enhancement treatments on
storability.
ABSTRACT
The above studies revealed that the H-1226 was having relatively higher vigour
compare to H-1117. The standardization of magnetic energy treatment for seed quality
enhancement for cotton revealed that 2500G for 1 hr exposure treatment gave higher root
length and seedling length. Among all the seed enhancement treatments, the best
treatments were royalflo @ 5ml/kg and thiram @ 2gm/kg + imidachloprid @ 7.5ml/kg as
they significantly increased the first count, germination (%), vigour index I, field
emergence, field emergence index and speed of emergence compared to control. They
also maintained higher first count, germination (%), vigour index I, and vigour index II
after 6 months of storage. The hydro priming treatment significantly increased seedling
dry weight and vigour index II and priming treatment with ceolomic fluid + thiram +
imidachloprid revealed higher first count. Among different polymer treatments, polymer
along with thiram or imidachloprid have shown good results than polymer alone.
Electrical conductivity showed significant negative correlation with most of the vigour
parameters studied. Hence it is suggested that seeds treated either with royal flo or thiram
+ imidachloprid can be used for enhancing the planting value in cotton.
dikl ¼xkWlhfi;e fglqZVe ,y-½ esa cht vkstrk dk ewY;kadu ,oa mUu;u
dikl esa [ksr vkfoHkkZo ,oa Hk.Mkj.k {kerk ds laca/k esa cht fjlko dh fo|qr
pkydrk vkSj rsth ls c<+rh vk;q lfgr fofHkUu vkst vo;oksa ij [kjhQ 2008 ds
nkSjku v/;;u fd;k x;k A v/;;u lkexzh esa dikl dh nks fdLesa ;Fkk H&1226
rFkk H&1117 'kkfey dh xbZaA nksuksa gh fdLeksa ds izkjafHkd vkst dk ewY;kadu djus
ds mn~ns'; ls iz;ksx'kkyk ijh{k.k ds lkFk lkFk [ksr ijh{k.k Hkh fd, x,A dikl esa
cht xq.koRrk mUu;u gsrq pqEcdh; mtkZ ds fofHkUu Lrjksa dks vyx&vyx le;
vof/k ds lkFk ekudhdj.k ds fy, tkWapk x;k A blds vfrfjDr vkst vo;oksa esa
o`f} ds fy, vU; cht mipkjksa ds Hkh iz;kl fd;s x,A igyh x.kuk] vadqj.k ¼%½
uoikSn yEckbZ] uoikSn 'kq"d Hkkj] vkst lwpdkad I ,ao II [ksr] vkfoHkkZo] [ksr
vkfoHkkZo lwpdkad rFkk vkfoHkkZo xfr ds fy, mipkfjr chtksa dk ewY;kadu fd;k
x;k A mipkfjr chtksa dks ifjos'kh ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa 6 ekg rd Hk.Mkfjr fd;k x;k
rkfd Hk.Mkj.k {kerk ij cht mUu;u mipkjksa ds izHkko dk v/;;u fd;k tk lds
A
mijksDr v/;;u ls irk pyk fd ,p&1226 esa ,p&1117 fdLe dh rqyuk
esa T;knk vkst vFkok izcyrk FkhA tM+ ,oa uoikSn yEckbZ c<+kus ds fy;s 2500 th
dh pqEcdh; mtkZ dk ,d ?kaVs rd cht mipkj loksZRre ik;k x;k A lHkh cht
mUu;u mipkjksa esa ls loZJs"B mipkj jkW;y¶~yksa @ 5 ml/kg rFkk fFkjke @ 2 mg/kg
+ behMkDyksfizM @ 7.5 ml/kg Fks D;ksafd buls fu;a=.k dh rqyuk esa [ksr vkfoHkkZo]
[ksr vkfoHkkZo lwpdkad] xfr vkfoHkkZo] izFke x.kuk] vadqj.k (%) rFkk vkst lwpdkad
I esa mYys[kuh; o`f) ik;h xbZ Abuesa Hk.Mkj.k ds 6 ekg i'pkr rd T;knk izFke
x.kuk] vadqj.k ¼%½] vkst lwpdkad I ,oa vkst lwpdkad II Hkh cuk jgk A
gkbMªksizkbfeax mipkj ls tgka uoikSn 'kq"d Hkkj rFkk vkst lwpdkad II eas
mYys[kuh; o`f) ns[kh x;h ogha fl;ksykWfed rjy $ fFkjke $ behMkDyksfizM ds
lkFk izkbfeax mipkj ls T;knk izFke x.kuk ik;h x;h A pqEcdh; mtkZ ds lkFk
mipkfjr fd, x, chtksa esa uoikSn yEckbZ esa mYys[kuh; o`f) ns[kh x;hA vdsys
ikWyhej mipkj dh rqyuk esa ikWyhej mipkjksa ds lkFk fFkjke ;k behMkDyksfizM
mipkj ds csgrj ifj.kke ns[ks x,A fo|qr pkydrk esa v/;;u fd, x, vf/kdka'k
vkst vo;oksa esa mYys[kuh; udkjkRed lg&lEca/k ik;k A vr% ;g lq>ko gS fd
jkW;y¶~yksa vFkok fFkjke $ behMkDykfizM ds lkFk mipkfjr fd, x, chtksa dk
bLrseky dikl esa cht ikS/k ewY; c<+kus esa fd;k tk ldrk gS A
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Abdul- Baki, A. A. and Anderson, J. D. (1973). Vigour determination in soybean seed by
multiple criteria. Crop Sci., 13: 630-632.
Agarwal, R. A., Gupta, G. P. and Garg, D. O. (1984). Cotton pest management in India,
Delhi, pp: 1-19.
Agrawal, P. K. and Kharlukhi, L. (1985). Germination, vigour and leaching of water
soluble sugars from seeds of three species during storage under controlled
conditions. Seed Res., 13: 99-114.
Anonymous (2005). Handbook of Agriculture, ICAR, pp:1018-1019.
Anonymous (2007). Statistics of cotton under Kapasindia.com
Anonymous (2008). Technology Mission on cotton. Indian Cotton Scenario, 2008
Ministry of Agriculture, Government of India.
Anonymous (2008a). Handbook of ISTA, Zurich, Switzerland.
Anonymous (2009). Cotton corporation of India. GOI, 2009.
Ananta Vashisth and Shantha Nagarajan (2007). Effect of pre-sowing exposure to static
magnetic field of maize seeds on germination and early growth characters. Pusa
Agri. Sci., 30: 48-56.
Ananta Vashisth and Shantha Nagarajan (2008). Exposure of seeds to static magnetic
field enhances germination and early growth characteristics in chickpea (Cicer
arietinum L.). Bioelectromagnetics, pp:1-8.
Alizaga, G., Alizaga, R. and Herrera, J. (1987). Evaluation of soybean (Glycine max L.
Merr.) seed vigour and its relationship with emergence and yield.
Agronomia-Costarricense, 11(2) : 195-203.
Alsadon, A., Yule, L.J. and Powell, A.A. (1995). Influence of seed ageing on the
germination, vigour and emergence in module trays of tomato and
cucumber seeds. Seed Sci. and Technol., 23(3) : 665-672.
Alvarado, A.D. and Bradford, K.J. (1988). Priming and storage of tomato (Lycopersicon
esculentum) seeds. 1. Effects of storage temperature on germinate rate and
viability. Seed Sci. and Technol., 16 : 601-612.
ii
AOSA (1983). Seed vigour testing hand book. Association of Official Seed Analy Sts,
Contribution 32, NE, USA, pp: 88.
Asalmol, M. N. and Zade, V. R. (1994). Effect of seed treatment on storability of seeds of
different crops. Seed Tech News, 24: 66.
Ashok Gaur, S. N., Sinha, S. N. and Omkar Sharma (2000). Effect of pre storage seed
treatment on the storability of seeds of pearlmillet hybrid Bk-560. Seed
Res., 28(1): 68-73.
Ashok Kumar (2005). Studies on storability and vigour parameters in soybean (Glycine
max L. Merrill). M.Sc. Thesis, Division of Seed Science and Technology,
IARI, New Delhi.
Audus L. J. (1960). Magnetotropism: A new plant growth response, Nature, 185: 132-
134.
Azita Shabrangi and Ahmad Majd (2009). Effect of magnetic fields on growth and
antioxidant systems in agricultural plants, PIERS Proceedings, Beijing,
China, pp: 1142-1147.
Basu, R.N. (1990). Seed invigoration for extended storability. Inter. Conf. Seed Sci.
Technol., New Delhi. Abstract P. No. 38.
Beighley, D.H. and Hopper, N.W. (1981). The relationship of chemical composition and
electrical conductivity of cowpea seed to field performance. Agronomy
Abstracts, 73rd Annual Meeting, American Society of Agronomy, 117.
Bhanot, J. P., Batra, G. R., Kashyap, R. K. and Verma, A. N. (1994). Effect of seed
treatment with insecticides on germination in mustard (Brassica juncea).
Seed Res., 22(2): 179-180.
Bird, L.S. and Reyes, A.A. (1967). Effects of cotton seed quality on seed and seedling
characteristics. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., pp: 199-206.
Bird, L.S. (1997). Total biology of cotton planting seed quality relative to obtaining
production plant populations. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Conf., pp: 438-442.
Bishnoi, V.R. and Delouche, J.C. (1980). Relationship of seed vigour tests and seed lots
to cotton seedling establishment. Seed Sci. & Technol., 8 : 341-346.
iii
Bisong, Y., Fangdong, Z., Liu, X., Yue, B. S. and Zou, F. D. (2002). Adage a new seed
treatment with insecticide for controlling stored grain beetles. J. of Agric.
Sciences, 15(1): 46-49.
Bittencourt, Sonia Regina Mudrovitsch de and Menten, José Otavio Machado (2007).
Eficiency of the fungicide carboxin + thiram in peanut seed treatment.
Revista Brasileira de Sementes, 29(2): 214-222.
Bradford, K.J. (1986). Manipulation of seed water relations via osmotic priming to
improve germination under stress conditions. Hort. Sciences, 21 : 1105-
1112.
Bradford, K.J. (1995). Water relations in seed germination. In Seed Development and
Germination (eds.J. Kigel and G. Galili), pp. 351-396, Marcel Dekker,
Inc., New York.
Bray, C.M. (1995). Biochemical processes during the osmopriming of seeds. Pp. 767-789
in Kigel. J. Galili, G. (Eds.). Seed Development and Germination. New
York, Marcel Dekker Inc., New York..
Brenton, S. Sharratt and Russell, W. Gesch (2008). Emergence of polymer-coated corn
and soybean influenced by tillage and sowing date. Agron. J., 100 : 585-
590.
Bruggink, G. T. (2004). Update on priming: from priming to pre-germination and back.
Seed Technol, 26 (1): 86-91.
Burgess, R. W. and Powell, A. A. (1984). Evidence of repair process in invigoration of
seeds by hydration-dehydration. Annals of Botany, 53: 753-757.
Butler, R. (1993). Coatings, films and treatments. Seed world, October, 19-24.
Carroll, J.D. and Krieg, D.R. (1974). Cotton seed density : Associated seedling vigour of
four cultivars of two temperature regimes. Proc. Beltwide Cotton Prod.
Res. Conf., : 53-55.
Casini, C., Rolando, R., Araoz., B., Arguello, I. and Yacci, M. (1999). Evaluation of a
method of analysis of soybean (Glycine max (L) Merr.) seed quality in
order to select genotypes resistant to deterioration. Agriscientia, 15 : 11-
18.
iv
Castillo, A.G., Hampton, J.G. and Coolbear. P. (1993). Influence of seed quality
characters on field emergence of garden peas under various sowing
conditions. New Zealand J. of Hort. Sci., 21: 197-205.
Chachalis, D. and Smith, M.L. (2001). Hydrophobic polymer application reduces
imbibition rate and partially improves germination or emergence of
soybean seedlings. Seed Sci. & Technol., 29(1): 91-98.
Chitarra, Luiz Gonzaga; Goulart, Augusto César Pereira and Zorato, Maria de Fátima
(2009). Cottonseeds treatment with fungicides for the control of seedling
damping-off pathogens. Revista Brasileira de Sementes, 31(1): 168-176.
Clark, G.E., Harman, T.J. Kenny, and Waters, Jr. (1980). Relationship between the
results of certain laboratory tests and the field germination of soybean
seeds. Newsl. AOSA, 54 : 36-43.
Copeland, L.O. and McDonald, M.B. (1995). Principles of Seed Science and
Technology, 3rd edn. New York, Chapman and Hall.
Choudhary, O. P. and Dashad, S. S. (2002). Cultivar sensitivity to insecticide used in
seed treatment to control storage pests in chickpea. Annuals of Agric. Res.
23(2): 259-262.
Dadlani, M., Shenoy, V. V. and Seshu, V. (1992). Seed coating to improve stand
establishment in rice. Seed Sci. and Technol., 20: 307-313.
Dahiya, B.S. Dahiya, O.S. and Punia, R.C. (1999). Quick and reliable prediction of seed
viability in cotton (G. hirsutum). J. Cotton Res. Dev., 13(2): 97-100.
Dandale, H. G., Thakare, A. Y., Tikare, S. N., Rao, N. G. and Nimbalkar, S. A. (2001).
Effect of seed treatment on sucking pest of cotton and yield of seed cotton.
Pestology, 25(3): 21-22.
Darby, R.J. and Salter, P.J. (1976). A technique for osmotically pre-treating and
germinating quantities of small seeds. Ann. Appl. Biol., 83 : 313-315.
Das, N. D., Babu, D. V. N. and Setty, P. T. (1975). Seed treatment and its effect on
storage, germination and seedling height. Pesticides, 9: 47-49.
v
Delouche, J.C. (1972). Harvesting, handling and storage of soybean seed. Short courses
for seeds men, 15 : 17-22.
Dearman, J., Brocklehurst, P.A. and Drew, R.L. (1986). Effect of osmotic priming and
ageing on onion seed germination. Annal. Appl. Biol., 108 : 639-648.
Dey, G. and Basu, R.N. (1982). Studies on the maintenance of seed viability of sunflower
(Helianthus annus. L.) by physico chemical treatment. Indian J. Plant
Physiol., 25: 87-97.
Deshpande, V. K., Sibi, V. G. and Vyakarnahal, B. S. (2004). Effect of botanical seed
treatment against Collosobruchus chinensis on viability and vigour of
blackgram seeds during storage. Seed Res., 32(2): 193-196.
Dhakshinamurthy, J. and Sivaprakashan, K. (1992). Assessment of seed mycoflora of
pearl millet and their control. Madras Agricultural Journal, 79: 347-351.
Dharmalingam, C. and Basu, R.N. (1990). Maintenance of viability and vigour in
sunflower (Helianthus annus. L.). Seed Res., 18: 15-24.
Dhanot, J. P. and Shama, S. S. (1998). Effect of seed treatment with different insecticides
on the germination of okra seeds. Seed Tech News, 28: 68-69.
Duan, X. and Burris, J. S. (1997). Film coating impairs leaching of germination inhibitors
in sugarbeet seeds. Crop Science, 37: 515-520.
Edje, O.T. and Burris, J.S. (1970). Effects of soybean seed vigour on field performance.
Agron. J., 63: 536-538.
Egli, D.B. and Tekrony, D.M. (1995). Soybean seed germination, vigour and field
emergence. Seed Sci. & Technol., 23: 595-607.
Ellis, R.H. and Roberts, E.H. (1980). Improved equations for the prediction of seed
longevity. Ann. Bot., 45 : 13-30.
Ellis, R. H. and Roberts, E. H. (1981). The quantification of ageing and survival in
orthodox seeds. Seed Sci. & Technol., 9: 373-409.
Ester, A., Putter, H. and J. G. P. M. van Bilsen. (2003). Filmcoating the seed of cabbage
(Brassica oleracea L. Convar. Capitata L.) and cauliflower (Brassica
vi
oleracea L. Var. Botrytis L.) with imidacloprid and spinosad to control
insect pests. Crop Protection, 22(5): 761-768.
Evanari, M. (1980). The history of germination research and the lesson it contains for
today. Israel Jr. Botany, 29: 4-21.
Farooq, M., Basra, S.M.A., Tabossum, R. and Ahmad, N. (2005). Thermal hardening : a
new seed vigour enhancement tool in rice. Journal of Integrative Plant
Biology, 47(2) : 187-193.
Fiala, F. (1979). Comparative laboratory and field trials with maize seed of different size
grades and cold test value. Land wirts chaftliche Forschung, Sondertett,
36 : 219-234.
Flentje, N.J. and Saksena, H.K. (1964). Pre-emergence rotting of peas in south Australia.
III. Host-pathogen interaction. Aust. J. of Biological Sci., 17 : 665.
Graham, C. T., Jenkins, J. N. and MC Carty, J. C. (1995). Performance of Gaucho seed
treatment insecticide against early season cotton pests. Proceedings of
Beltwide Cotton Conference, USA, 2: 917-918.
Gupta, A. and Aneja, K. R. (2000). Field efficacy of seed dressing chemicals on seedling
emergence, seed yield and seed weight in soybean. Seed Res., 28(1): 54-
58.
Gupta, A. and Aneja, K. R. (2004). Seed deterioration in soybean varieties during storage
physiological attributes. Seed Res., 32(1): 26-32.
Gupta, A. and Dharamsingh (1990). Viability of fungicide treated seeds of mungbean and
cowpea in storage. Seed Res., 18(1): 70-76.
Gupta, G. P., Agniotri, N. P., Sharma, K., Gajbhiye, V. T. and Sharma, K. (1998).
Bioefficacy and residue of imidachloprid in cotton. Pesticide Res. Journal,
10(2): 149-154.
Gupta, H. C., Sharma, S. K., Gupta, I. J., Goyal, K. C. and Sharma, S. N. (1998). Effect
of pesticides and packaging material on bruchid control and viability of
mungbean seeds. Seed Res., 26(2): 168-173.
vii
Gupta, S.D. (2004). Maintenance of seed vigour and viability of salt tolerant and
susceptible cotton varieties using preservation and chemicals. Indian J.
Plant Physiol., 9(2) : 169-175.
Halmer, P. (1988). Technical and commercial aspects of seed pelleting and film-coating.
In : Application to seeds and soil (ed.) Martin. Journal of British Crop
Protection Council, pp. 191-204.
Hampton. J.G. and Coolbear. P. (1990). Potential versus actual seed performance - can
vigour testing provide an answer? Seed Sci. & Technol., 18: 215-228.
Hampton, J.G. and Tekrony, D.M. (1995). Hand Book Of Vigour Test Methods. ISTA,
Zurich, Switzerland.
Hayman, D.S. (1969). The influence of temperature on the exudation of nutrients from
cotton seeds and on emergence damping off by Rhizoctonia solani. Can. J.
of Bot., 47 : 1163.
Heydecker, W. (1972). Vigour in viability of seeds (Ed.) E.H. Roberts pp: 209-252.
Chapman and Hall London.
Heydecker, W. and Coolbear, P. (1977). Seed treatment for improved performance.
Survey and attempted prognosis. Seed Sci. and Technol., 5: 353-425.
Heydecker, W., Higgis, T. and Gulliver, R.L. (1973). Accelerated germination by asmotic
treatment. Nature, 246: 42-46.
Hopper, N.W. and Hinton, H.R. (1987). Electrical conductivity as a measure of planting
seed quality cotton. Agron. J., 79 : 147-152.
Horner, E.L. (1985). SHR – a new technology for seed processing. International Agro
Physics, 1 : 141-145.
Hunje, R. V., Kulkarni, G. N., Shashidhara, S. D. and Vyakaranahal, B. S. (1990). Effect
of insecticide and fungicide treatment on cowpea seed quality. Seed Res.,
18: 90-92.
Hwang, W. D. and Sung, F. J. M. (1991). Prevention of soaking injury in edible soybean
seeds by ethyl cellulose coating. Seed Sci. and Technol., 19: 269-278.
viii
Hyer, A.H., Carter, L.M., Garber, R.. and Ferguson, D.L. (1980). Cottonseed germination
evaluation by measuring electrical conduction of seed leachate. Proc.
Beltwide Cotton Conf., : 80.
Johnson, R.R. and Wax, L.M. (1978). Relationship of soybean germination and vigour
test to field performance. Agron. J., 70: 273-278.
Joshi, V.R., Panchal, Y.C. and Mutanal, S.M. (1998). Effect of hydrophilic polymer on
the germination and seedling growth of rabi sorghum (Sorghum bicolor
(L.) Moench). Karnataka Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 11(1): 216-
219.
Kazem Ghassemi-Golezani, Ali Asghar Aliloo, Mustafa Valizadeh and Mohammad
Moghaddam (2008). Effects of different priming techniques on seed
invigoration and seedling establishment of lentil. Journal of Food,
Agriculture & Environment, 6(2): 222-226.
Kenganal, M.Y., Deshpande, V.K. and Hallikeri, A. (2004). Influence of hydrophilic
polymers on seed germination and vigour index of chilli seeds during
storage. National Seminar on Emerging Trends in Applied Botany, Seed
Science & Technology, Nov. 4-6, 2004, New Delhi, pp.121.
Khan, A. A. (1992). Preplant physiological seed conditioning. Horticultural Reviews, 14:
131-181.
Khan, A.Z., Mehmood, T., Ahmed, N. and Shah, P. (1998). Determination of cotton seed
vigour. Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 14(3) : 187-192.
Kim, Jinho., Lee, Sheong Chun., Song Dong Seog., Kim, J.H., Lee, S.C. and Song, D.S.
(1998). Relationship between seed vigour and electrolyte leakage in rice
seed with different grain filling period. Korean Journal of Crop Science,
43(3) : 147-151.
Koch, R. L., Burkness, E. C., Hutchison, W. D. and Rabaey, T. L. (2005). Efficacy of
systemic insecticide seed treatments for protection of early-growth-stage
snap beans from bean leaf beetle (Coleoptera: Chrysomelidae) foliar
feeding. Crop Protection, 24(8): 734-742.
ix
Kumar, R., Tyagi, C.S. and Ram, C. (1988). Association between laboratory seed vigour
tests and field performance in green gram (Vigna radiate cc.) wilezek cv.
Pusa Baishki. Seeds and Farms, 14(5) : 26-31.
Kumar, B.N.A., Ballatagi, G., Khader, S. and Desai, B.K. (1998). Effect of hydrophilic
polymer-Jalashakti on the growth and yield of safflower. Karnataka
Journal of Agricultural Sciences. 11(3): 792-793.
Kumar, K. and Santharam, G. (1999). Effect of imidachloprid against aphid and leaf
hoppers on cotton. Annuals of Plant Protection Sciences, 7(2): 248-250.
Kumar, K. and Santharam, G. (2000). Effect of storage on imidachloprid treated with
cotton seeds against aphids (Aphis gosypii). International J. of Tropical
Agric. 18(4): 335-342.
Kumar, J., Nisar, K., Kumar, A.M.B., Walia, S., Shakil, N. A., Prasad, R. and Balraj, S.
Parmar (2007). Development of polymeric seed coats for seed quality
enhancement of soybean. Indian Journal of Agric. Science, November,
2007.
Kudrikeri, M.B., Aswathiah, B., Mahadevappa, M. and Aswathanarayana, S.C. (1998).
Influence of seed vigour on seed quality attributes and seed rate
compensation on yield in maize. Karnataka Journal of Agricultural
Sciences, 11(4) : 1071-1073.
Krishnappa, N., Narayanaswamy, S., Sreerama, R. and Amaranjan Jundeswara, H.
(1999). Correlations between vigour tests and field emergence in
groundnut. Current Research, University of Agricultural Sciences,
Bangalore, 28(11/12) : 160-161.
Larissa, L. P., Cladio, B. and Jeferson L. S. C. (2004). Storage of dry bean seeds coated
with polymer and treated with fungicides. Pesqagropee Brass, 39(7): 2-10.
Laxminarayan, Chillar, B. S. and kashyap, R. K. (1998). Efficacy of some insecticides
against Collosobruchus chinesis damaging green gram. Seed Tech News,
28: 68-69.
x
Likhlatchev, B.S., Zelensky, G.V., Kiashko, G.Y. and Schevchenko, Z.N. (1984).
Modelling of seed ageing. Seed Sci. & Technol., 12 : 37-53.
Lovato, A., and Balbiani, N. (2005). Seed vigour in maize (Zea mays L.) : two year
laboratory and field test compared. Italian Journal of Agronomy, 1(1) :
1-6.
Lucas, M. B., Silveira, C. A., Rezende, A. C., Lucas, R. V. and Rezende, A. C. (1999).
Study of agronomic efficacy of the insecticide imidachloprid for the
control of initial pest of cotton. Anais II Congresso Brasileiro de Algodao,
pp: 149-151.
Mc Donald, M. B. (1999). Seed deterioration: Phtsiology, repair and assessment. Seed
Sci. and Technol., 27: 177-237.
Maguire, J. D. (1962). Speed of germination aid in selection and evaluation for seedling
emergence and vigour. Crop Sci. 2: 176-177.
Mahendrapal and Grewal, J. S. (1985). Effect of fungicide seed treatment on emergence
and seedling mortality of pigeonpea. Seed Res., 13(1): 204-205.
Maiti, R.K., Vidyasagar, P. and Hari Prasad, K. (2006). Effect of hydro-priming on seed
and seedling vigour traits in cotton hybrids. Crop Res., 31(3) : 460-463.
Maiya, M.R., Basav, G., Gowla, M.S., Khadi, B.M. and Gowada, B. (2001). Effect of
size grading on recovery and quality in naturally coloured cotton. Seed
Res., 299 (20) : 248-250.
Makkawi, M., El, Balla, M., Bishwa, Z., Gastel, A.J.G., Van and Van Gastel, A.J.G.
(1999). The relationship between seed vigour tests and field emergence in
lentil. 27(2) : 657-668.
Martinez, M. E. and Ramirez, (1985). Protective effect of fungicides on corn seed stored
with low and high moisture content. Seed Sci. & Technol., 13: 285-290.
Matthews,S.(1980) Controlled deterioration : a new vigour test for Crop seed In: Seedx
production ,ed P.D. Hebblethwide,Butterworth,London, pp 647-660.
Matthews, S.(1981). Evaluation of techniques for germination and vigour studies. Seed
Sci. and Technol., 9 : 543-551.
xi
Matthews, S. and Bradnock, W.T. (1967). The detection of seed samples of wrinkled
seeded peas of potentially low planting value. Proceedings of
International Seed Testing Association, 32 : 553-563.
Maude, R.B. and Suett, D.L. (1986). Application of fungicide to brassica seeds using a
film-coating technique. Proc. BCPC,1 : 237-242.
Milosevic, M., Rajnpreht, J., Cirovic, M. and Zlokolica, M. (1994). Methods of testing
seed viability in maize. Selekcija-i-semenarstro, 1(1) : 179-182.
Mitra, R. and Basu, R. N. (1979). Seed treatment for viability, vigour and productivity of
tomato. Scientea Horticulturae, 11: 365-369.
Mote, V. N. (1993). A new insecticide, imidachloprid as a seed dresser for the control of
sucking pest of cotton. Pestology, 17: 23-26.
Mote, V. N., Mohite, A. P. and Lolage, G. R. (1995a). Effect of storage periods and
storage containers of imidachloprid treated sorghum seeds against shoot
fly and seed germination. Pestology, 19: 10-13.
Mote, V. N., Dawkhar, R. V. and Lolage, G. R. (1995b). Efficacy of imidacloprid as seed
treatment against initial sucking pests of cotton. Pestology, 19(1): 5-9.
Mote, V. N., Mohite, A. P. and Lolage, G. R. (1995c). Seed treatment of imidachloprid
against sorghum shoot fly. Pestology, 19(8): 37-41.
Mukewar, P. M. (1994). Seed borne diseases of cotton in India and the application of
seed treatments. Seed Res., 22: 586-594.
Muminov, T. G. (1975). The effect of presowing seed treatment on yield and disease
Muthuraj, R., Kant, K. and Kulshrestha (2002). Screening soybean cultivars for seed
mycoflora and effect of Thiram treatment there on. Seed Res., 30(1): 118-
121.
Nargis, S. and Thiagarajan, C.P. (1996). Pattern of seed deterioration under accelerated
ageing conditions of tomato cv. PKM-1. South Indian Horticulture,
44(3-4): 75-78.
xii
Narwal, A.K., Pandita, M.L., Malik, Y.S. and Khurana, S.C. (2004). Correlation studies
with respect to seed vigour and viability in okra. Haryana Journal of
Horticultural Sciences, 33(1/2) : 113-115.
Nath, S., Coolbear, P. and Hampton, J. G. (1991). Hydration – dehydration treatments to
protect and repair stored Karamu wheat seeds. Crop Sci., 31: 822-826.
Ni, B.R. (1997). Seed coating, film coating and pelleting. Pp. 737-747 in Chinese
Association of Agricultural Sciences. DOA, Ministry of Agriculture, PR
China and China National Seed Group Corporation (Ed.) Seed Industry
and agricultural development. Beijing, China agricultural press.
Ni, B. R. and Biddle, A. L. (2001). Allivation of seed imbibition chilling injury using
polymer coating. Seed Treatment Challenges and opportunities.
Proceedings of international symposium, UK, 13: 73-80.
Neighp Huynh van and Ashok Gaur (2005). Efficacy of seed treatment on improving
seed quality in rice (Oryza sativa L.). Omonrice, 13 : 42-51.
Padma, V. and Murali Mohan Reddy, B. (2002). Standardization of laboratory vigour
tests for rice. Seed Res., 30(1): 74-78.
Padmini Nagaraj and Mallikarjuna Radhya (1985). Invitro evaluation of some fungicides
against groundnut seed mycoflora. Pesticides, 19: 51-52.
Pandey, S., Kumar, J. and Pawar, B. S. (2005). Polymer seed coating on soybean and
maize for seed quality enhancement and better emergence. Ann. Agric.
Res. New. Series, 26(4): 509-513.
Panse, V. G. and Sukhatme, P. V. (1985). Statistical methods for agricultural works,
I.C.A.R. pub., New Delhi.
Parera, C.A. and Cantiffe, J.D. (1995). Pre-sowing seed priming. Horticultural Reviews,
16 : 109-141.
Parrish, D.J. and Leopold, A.C. (1977). Transient changes during soybean imbibition.
Plant Physiol., 59 : 1111-1115.
Patil, B. V., Sreenivas, A. G., Mujibar, S. R. and Bheemanna, M. (1999). Imidachloprid
70WS seed treatment against early cotton sucking pests. Pestology, 23(4):
15-18.
xiii
Paul, S. R., Choudary, A. K. and Dey, S. C. (1992). Effect of different containers, seed
protectants and periods of storage on viability and vigour of stored wheat
seeds. Seed Res., 20(1): 14-17.
Paul, S. R., Sharma, N. N., Sharma, D., Borah, R. K. and Nath, P. D. (1996).
Maintenance of viability and vigour of stored mungbean seeds under
ambient conditions in the hills zone of Assam. Annuals of Agric. Res.,
17(2): 196-198.
Pawar, V. M., Shirshikar, S. P. and Jadhav, G. D. (1985). Effect of some fungicides on
seedling emergence and root, shoot length in paddy, Seed Res., 13(2): 10-
12.
Perry, D.A. (1969). A vigour test for peas based seedling evaluation. Proc. Int. Seed Test.
Assoc. 34: 265-270.
Perry, D.A. (1970). Seed vigour and field establishment, Horticulture Abstract, 42 : 334-
342.
Perry, D.A. (1977). A vigour test for seeds of barley (Hordeum vulgare) based on
measurement of plumule growth. Seed Sci. & Technol., 5: 709-719.
Perry. D.A. (1978). Report of Vigour Test Committee 1974-1977, Seed Sci. & Technol.,
6: 159-181.
Perry, D.A. (1981). Introduction In: Handbook of vigour test methods. 3-7. ISTA. Zurich,
Switzerland.
Petch, G.M., Maude, R.B. and White, J.G. (1991). Effect of film coat layering of
metalaxyl on the germination of carrot seeds, their emergence and the
control of cavity spot. Crop Protection, 10(2) : 117-120.
Popov, C., Barbulescu, A., Trotus, E., Vasilescu, S. and Bucurean, E. (2001). Control of
wireworms by seed treatment in Romania. Romanian Agricultural
Research. (15): 69-75.
Powell, A. A. (1988). Seed vigour and field establishment. Adv. in Res. And Tech. Of
Seeds. 11: 29-80.
xiv
Powell, A.A. and Harman, G.E. (1985). Absence of a consistent association of changes in
membranal lipids with the ageing of pea seeds. Seed Sci. & Technol., 13 :
659-667.
Prasanna, A. R., Bhemanna, M. and Patil, B. V. (2003). Effect of storage periods of
thiomethorxam 70WS treated cotton seeds against early sucking pests and
its effect on seed germination. Journal of Indian Society Cotton
Improvement, 12: 137-145.
Priestly, D.A. and Leopold, A.C. (1983). Lipid changes during natural ageing of soybean
seeds. Plant Physiol., 59 : 467-470.
Priestly, D.A., Werner, B.G. and Leopold, A.C. (1985). The susceptibility of soybean
seed lipids of artificially enhanced atmospheric oxidation. J. of Expl. Bot.,
36 : 1653-1659.
Punam Xalxo, Yadav, S. P. and Kuchlan, M. K. (2007). Effect of hydration and thiram
seed treatments on field emergence, harvest index, seed multiplication
ratio and economic yield in desi and kabuli chickpea. Agricultural Science
Digest , 27 (2).
Raj, L. Khariwal, I.S. and Raj, L. (1994). Rate of germination, seedling vigour and field
emergence in pearlmillet hybrids and their parents. Annals, Agrid-Zone,
33 : 121-123.
Ram Chandagi, Chabbra, B.S., Mor B.S. and Tomer, R.P.S. (1988). Correlation among
laboratory tests and field emergence in cotton. Seed Res., 16(1) : 47-50.
Ram, C. and Weisner, L.E. (1988). Effects of artificial ageing on Physiological and
biochemical parameters of seed quality in wheat. Seed Sci. and Technol.,
10(3) : 579-587.
Ram, C., Kumari, P., Singh, O. and Sardana, R.K. (1989). Relationship between seed
vigour tests and field emergence in chickpea. Seed Sci. and Technol.,
17(1) : 169-173.
Reddy, S.K.W., Reddy, B.M. and Ankaiah, R. (1996). Effect on initial germination levels
on vigour growth and yield in rice. Seed Res., 22 : 22-25.
xv
Rivas, B.A., McGee, D.C. and Burris, J.S. (1998). Treatment of maize seeds with
polymers for control of Pythium spp. Fitopatologia Venezolana. 11(1):
10-15.
Robani, H. (1994). Film-coating horticultural seed. Hort. Technol., 4 : 104-105.
Roberts, E.H. (1984). The control of seed quality and its relationship to crop productivity.
Proceedings of the Australian Seeds Research Conference. pp. 11-25.
Roberts, E. H. and Ellis, R. H. (1980). Seed physiology and seed quality in soybean.
Advances in Legume Science, U. K., pp: 297-331.
Ruban, I. N., Borodin, G. I. and Rashidova, S. H. (1983). Effect of polymer composition
on some physiological indices of growth and development of cotton
seedlings. Doklady AkademiiNauk Uzbekskoi SR. 11 : 35-37.
Sampaio, N.V., Sampaio, T.G. and Duran, J.M. (1996). Evaluation of the viability and
vigour of maize (Zea mays L.) seed subjected to accelerated ageing.
Revista-Cientifiea-Rural, 1(1) : 42-48.
Savino, G., Haigh, P.M. and Leo, P. De (1979). Effects of presoaking upon seed vigour
and viability during storage. Seed Sci. & Technol., 7 : 57-64.
Savitri, H., Sugunakar Reddy, M. and Murlimohan Reddy, B. (1994). Effect of seed
treatment with fungicides and insecticides on seed borne fungi, storage
insect pest and seed viability and seedling vigour of sorghum. Seed Res.,
22(2): 146-155.
Savitri, H., Sugunakar Reddy, M. and Murlimohan Reddy, B. (1998). Effect of seed
treatment with fungicides and insecticides on seed borne fungi, storage
insect pest and seed viability and seedling vigour of groundnut. Seed Res.,
26(1): 62-72.
Savostin P. W. (1930). Magnetic growth relations in plants, Planta, 12 : 327.
Sauve, E.M. and Shiel, R.S. (1980). Coating seeds with polyvinyl resins. J. Hort. Sc., 55 :
371-373.
xvi
Schaufele, W. R., Henneke, K., Peleiderer, U. F., Lehenerj, T., Schiffener, F. and Abel,
G. (1996). Germination capacity and field emergence of imidachloprid
treated sugarbeet seed after storage for one year. Gesunde-ptlanzen, 48:
206-209.
Schuab, S.R.P, Braccini, A., Franca Neto, J., Scapim, C.A. and Meschede, D.K. (2002).
Use of the relative growth rate of seedlings to evaluate soybean seed
vigor. Revista Brasileira de Sementes. 24(2): 90-95.
Shenoy, V.V., Dadlani, M. and Seshu, D.V. (1990). Association of laboratory assessed
parameter with field emergence in rice. The nonanoic acid stress as a seed
vigour test. Seed Res., 18 : 60-69.
Sherf, A.F. (1953). Correlation of germination data of corn and soybean lots under
laboratory green house and field conditions. Proceedings Association of
Official Seed Analyst, 43 : 127-130.
Seshu, D.V. and Dadlani, M. (1993). Seed vigour in rice (Oryza sativa L.) : Its
assessment and impact on crop performance. Seed Res., Spl.Vol. 2 : 700-
706.
Shridhar, G. and Nagaraja, A. (2004). Studies on relationship between vigour tests and
field emergence. Mysore J. Agric. Sci., 38(4) : 551-553.
Shikalchik, N.V., Starostina, M.A., Gutkovskaya, N.S. and Evsikov, D.O. (2000). Royal
FLO 42S - an effective seed treater. Akhova raslin (Belarus) 1: 27-28.
Siddique, A.B. and Wright, D. (2004). Effects of date of sowing on seed yield, seed
germination and vigour of peas and flax. Seed Sci. & Technol., 32(2): 455-
472.
Simic, A., Sredojevic, S., Todorovic, M., Ukanovic, L. and Radenovic, C.(2004). Studies
on the relationship between the content of total phenolics in exudates and
germination ability of maize seed during accelerated ageing. Seed Sci. &
Technol., 32(1) : 213-218.
xvii
Simms, L. C., Ester, A. and Wilson, M. J. (2006). Control of slug damage to oilseed rape
and wheat with imidacloprid seed dressings in laboratory and field
experiments. Crop Protection, 25(6): 549-555.
Singh, D. P. and Agarwal, V. K. (1986). Purple strain of soybean and seed viability. Seed
Res., 14(1): 126.
Singh, S. N., Srivastava, S. K. and Agarwal, S. C. (1988). Viability and germination of
soybean seeds in relation to pre treatment with fungicides, period of
storage and type of storage container. Tropical Agric. 65: 106-108.
Singh, O. and Singh, P. (1997). Accelerated ageing of Splash pine seed. Van Vigyan, 35 :
17-20.
Sinha, S. N. and Singh, P. B. (1998). Effect of containers and joint action of insecticides
and fungicides on insect infestation and viability of wheat seeds. Seed
Res., 26(2): 161-167.
Sivasubramanian, K. and Ganeshkumar, M. (2004). Influence of vermiwash on the
biological productivity of marigold. Madras Agricultural Journal, 91(4-6): 221-
225.
Solanke, R. B. and Kore, S. S. (1994). Effects of fungicidal seed treatment on seed
viability and mycoflora during storage of parental lines of CSH-5. J. of
Maharashtra Argic. Uni., 19(1): 51-54.
Solanke, R. B., Kore, S. S. and Jawale, L. N. (1996). Effect of seed treatment with
fungicides on viability and mycoflora during storage of cotton seeds. J. of
Maharashtra Argic. Uni., 21(1): 164-165.
Solanke, R. B., Kore, S. S. and Hussaini, M. M. (1997b). seed borne fungi of rapeseed
(mustard) and tolerance of fusarium moniliformae to various seed
diseases. J. of Maharashtra Argic. Uni., 22(2): 171-173.
Srimathi, P., Malarkodi, K. and Sasthri, G. (2001). Influence of fungicides and
insecticides on storability of pearl millet seeds. Madras Agric. Journal,
88(1-3): 16-21.
xviii
Starostina, M. and Gutkovskaya, N. (2003). Comparative evaluation of seed dressing
efficiency for fiber flax. Zashichita Rastenii. 27: 239-247.
Stevens, M., Russell F., Neil E., Stuart H. and Jianhua M. (2008). Influence of
imidacloprid seed treatments on rice germination and early seedling
growth. Pest Management Science, 64 (3): 215-222.
Struve, T. H. and Hopper, W. T. (1996). The effect of polymer film coating on cotton
seed imbibition, EC, germination and emergence. Procedings Beltwide
Cotton Conference, USA. 2: 1167-1170.
Sudhershen, M., Meena Kumari, K.V.S., Reddy, Manohar, N., Ankaiah, R., Reddy
Gopal, B. and Ganesh, M. (2004). Effect of seed vigour and invigoration
treatments on seedling vigour and storability in cotton hybrids.
International Symposium on “Strategies for sustainable cotton production
– A Global Vision” 1. Crop Improvement 23-25 November, 2004.
University of Agricultural Sciences, Dharwad, Karnataka, pp.470.
Sudhir Reddy, V. and Muralimohan Reddy. (1994). Effect of seed protectants on
storability of egg plant (Solanum melongena L.) seed. Seed Res., 22(2):
181-183.
Sunderesh, H. N., Ranganathan, K. J., Janaradhan, A. and Vishwanatha, S. R. (1987).
Chemical seed treatment against seed borne fungi in soybean. Current
Res., 16: 110-111.
Sunil, S. M., Ashok, G., Singh, S. N., Madhuban, G., Sinha, J. P. and Sharma, O. K.
(2004). Persistence and efficacy of seed protectants on maize seed stored
ambient and controlled conditions. Seed Res., 32(1): 76-83.
Tarquis, A.M. and Bradford, K.J. (1992). Pre-hydration and priming treatments that
advance germination also increase the rate of deterioration of lettuce
seeds. Journal of Experimental Botany, 43: 307-317.
Tayal, A., Dahiya, O.S. and Siwaeh, S.S. (2006). Cotton seed quality evaluation. J. India.
Soc. Cotton Improve., pp: 45-50.
xix
Taylor, A.G. and Harman, G.E. (1990). Concepts and technology of selected seed
treatments. In : Annual Review of Phytopathology (ed.) Cook, R.J., p. 1-
36.
Taylor, A.G., Harman, G.E. and Nielsen, P.A. (1994). Biological seed treatments
using Trichoderma harezianum for horticultural crops. Horticulture
Technology, 4 : 15-109.
Taylor, A.G., Allen, P.S., Bennet, M.A., Bradford, K.J. and Misra, M.K. (1998). Seed
enhancements. Seed Sci. Res., 8: 245-256.
Taylor, A.G., Eckenrode, C. J. and Straub, R. W. (2001). Seed coating technologies and
treatments for onion. Challenges and Progress Horticultural Sciences,
36(2): 199-205.
Taylor, A. G., Hoepting, C. A., Nault, B. A., Lorbeer, J. W. and McDonald, M. R.
(2008). Onion seed treatment and coating technologies. Acta
Horticulturae, pp: 782.
Tekrony, D.M. and Egli, D.B. (1977). Relationship between laboratory indices of
soybean seed vigour and field emergence. Crop Sci., 17 : 573-577.
Thasni, K.A. (2003). Seed quality attributes and their enhancement in quality protein
maize (QPM). M.Sc. Thesis, Division of Seed Science and Technology,
IARI, New Delhi.
Tonkin, J.M.B. (1984). Pelleting and other pre-sowing treatments. Advances in Research
and Technology of Seeds, 9 : 94-127.
Torres, S.B. (1998). Vigour tests to evaluate physiological quality of corn seeds. Revista
Brasileira de Sementes, 20(1) : 55-59.
Toselli, M.E. and Casenave, E.C. (2003). Water content and the effectiveness of hydro-
and osmotic priming of cotton seeds. Seed Sci. & Technol., 31 : 727-735.
Toselli, M.E. and Casenave, E.C. (2005). Hydropriming and cottonseed germination
under unfavourable conditions : modifications in hydrotime model
parameters. Seed Sci. & Technol., 33 : 87-96.
xx
Trentini, P., Vieira, M., Das, G.G.C., Carvalho, M., Oliveira, J. and Machado, J. (2005).
Film coating: performance in the establishment of soybean crop in the
field in Alto Garcas, MT. Ciencia e Agrotecnologia. 29(1): 84-92.
Tripathi, D.P. and Singh, B.R. (1991). Mycoflora of soybean seed and their control.
Madras Agricultural Journal. 78(1-4): 130-132.
Tupper, G..R., Kunze, O.R. and Wilkes, L.H. (1971). Physical characteristics of
cottonseed related to seedling vigour and design parameters for seed
selection. Trans. ASAE, 14(5) : 890-893.
Vanangamudi, K., Srimati, P., Natarajan, N. and Bhaskaran, M. (2003). ICAR- short
course on seed hardening and pelleting technologies for rainfed land eco
systems. Current scenario of seed coating polymer, pp: 80-100.
Vanniarajan, C., Saxena, Sanjeev and Nepolean, T. (2004). Accelerated ageing in rice
fallow black gram varieties. Legume Research, 27(2) : 119-122.
Verma, O.P. and Singh, P.V. (1979). Path analysis for seedling characters in rice.
Narendra Deva Journal of Agricultural Research, 4 : 12-14.
Verma, S.S., Mehha, A.S., Verma, U. and Lather, B.P.S. (1989). A Note on the
comparative germination and seed vigour of different cotton genotypes. J.
Cotton Res., & Dev., 3(1) : 100-102.
Verma, S.S., Verma, Urmil., Tomar, R.P.S., Kumar, Naresh., Verma, U. and Kumar, N.
(1999). Relationship between seed vigour tests and field emergence in
triticale (Serale cereale L.). Crop Research, Hisar, 18(1) : 131-136.
Verma, S.S., Luthra, Y.P., Verma, Urmil., Tomer, R.,P.S. and Verma, U. (2003).
Physiological indices of seed vigour in sorghum (Sorghum bicolor).
Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 73(3) : 164-166.
Veselora, T.V., Veselovskii, V.A. and Leonova, E.A. (1999). What are the implications
of changes in heterogeneity of a seed population upon accelerated ageing.
Russian Journal of Plant Physiology, 46(3) : 409-415.
Vijaykumar, K., Ravi H., Bradar Patil, N.K. and Vyakarnval, B.S. (2007). Effect of seed
coating with polymer, fungicide and insecticide on seed quality in cotton
during storage. Karnataka J. Agric. Sci., 20(1) : 137-139.
xxi
Wang, X.B., Cai, D. and Zhang, S. (2003). Effects of some water retention materials as
soil conditioners on improving emergence of grass seedlings under dry
and saline soil conditions. Plant Nutrition and Fertilizer Science. 9(4):
462-466.
Williams, K.D. and Hopper, N.W. (1997). Effectiveness of polymer film coating of
cotton seed in reducing dust-off. Proceedings Beltwide Cotton
Conferences, L.A. USA, 2 : 1456-1458.
Wheeler, T.A., Gannaway, J.R., Kaufman, H.W., Dever, J.K., Mertley, J.C. and Kelling,
J.W. (1997). Influence of tillage, seed quality and fungicide and treatments
on cotton emergence and yield. J. Prod. Agric., 10 : 394-400.
Woodstock, L.W. (1969). Seedling growth as a measure of seed vigour. Proc. Int. Seed
Test. Assoc. 34: 273-280.
Yadav, R.S., Dadlani, M. and Agrawal, P.K. (1987). Storability of seeds of two F:
pearlmillet hybrids and their parents under controlled conditions. Indian J.
Agric. Res., 57: 821-824.
Yaklich, R. W. and Kulik, M. M. (1979). Evaluation of vigour tests in soybean seeds :
Relationship of the standard germination test, seedling vigour
classification, seedling length and tetrazolium staining to field
performance. Crop Sci., 19: 247-252.
Zade, V.R., Dighe, R.S., Zode, N.G., Changade, S.P. (1994). Relationship of some seed
vigour tests with field emergence in cotton. PKV Research Journal, 18 :
23-25.
Zorato, M. F. and Henningh, A. A. (2001). Effect of fungicide seed treatment applied at
different storage times on soybean quality. Reviat-Brasiletura de senates,
23(2): 236-244.
Figure 1 : Standard germination (%) of Cotton varieties after Accelerated Ageing (AA) Tests for variable time.
Figure 2 : Different strengths of Magnetic field (Gauss) for variable period of exposure on Total length (cm) of Cotton seedlings
0
5
10
15
20
25
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500
1hr2hr3hr
Different Gauss of exposure
Different hrs of exposure
Table 4: Mean values of seed vigour (initial) parameters of Cotton varieties.
Sl. No. Vigour Parameters Variety Mean H-1226 H-1117
1. 1000 seed weight (gm) 60.00 58.00 59.00 2. Moisture content (%) 9.55 9.75 9.65 3. Germination (%) 67.00
(54.97) 65.00
(53.76) 66.00
(54.36) 4. Seedling length (cm) 25.74 25.38 25.56 5. Seedling dry weight (gm) 0.168 0.166 0.167 6. Vigour index I 1725.0 1656.0 1690.0 7. Vigour index II 11.26 10.73 10.99 8. Electrical conductivity
(µ mhoscm-1g-10.0118
) 0.0138 0.0128
9. Field Emergence (%) 53.00 (46.74)
51.00 (45.60)
52.00 (46.17)
* Figures in parenthesis are the arc sign transformed values Table 5: Standard germination (%) of Cotton varieties after Accelerated Ageing
(AA) Tests for variable time. Variety GAA1
(0hr) GAA2 (24hr)
GAA3 (48hr)
GAA4 (72hr)
GAA5 (96hr)
GAA6 (120hr)
Mean
H-1226 67.00 (54.97)
55.00 (47.90)
41.00 (39.83)
40.00 (39.23)
23.00 (28.62)
6.00 (13.99)
38.67 (37.42)
H-1117 65.00 (53.76)
51.00 (45.60)
41.00 (39.83)
34.00 (35.65)
17.00 (24.28)
1.00 (4.06)
34.83 (33.86)
Mean 66.00 (54.36)
53.00 (46.75)
41.00 (39.83)
37.00 (37.44)
20.00 (26.45)
3.50 (9.02)
C. D (0.05%)
Variety (V): NS Treatment (T): 5.32
Interaction (TXV) : NS * Figures in parenthesis are the arc sign transformed values
Table 6: Effect of different strengths of Magnetic field (Gauss) for variable period of exposure on Root length (cm) of Cotton seedlings.
Exposure
Period
Control 500G 1000G 1500G 2000G 2500G Mean
1hr 7.97 7.94 7.97 9.67 10.06 11.91 9.26
2hr 7.97 7.77 6.64 10.78 11.65 11.58 9.40
3hr 7.97 7.13 8.07 9.85 10.99 8.95 8.83
Mean 7.97 7.60 7.56 10.10 10.90 10.81
C.D (0.05%) Exposure period: NS, Strength : 1.13, Interaction : NS
Table 7: Effect of different strengths of Magnetic field (Gauss) for variable period of
exposure on Shoot length (cm) of Cotton seedlings.
Exposure
period
Control 500G 1000G 1500G 2000G 2500G Mean
1hr 7.95 7.44 8.46 8.77 7.92 8.83 8.23
2hr 7.95 6.95 6.32 8.88 7.88 8.77 7.79
3hr 7.95 7.18 7.47 8.33 7.65 6.45 7.50
Mean 7.95 7.19 7.42 8.66 7.82 8.02
C.D (0.05%) Exposure period: NS, Strength : 0.87, Interaction : NS
Table 8: Effect of different strengths of Magnetic field (Gauss) for variable period of
exposure on Total length (cm) of Cotton seedlings.
Exposure
period
Control 500G 1000G 1500G 2000G 2500G Mean
1hr 15.91 15.38 16.44 18.44 17.98 20.74 17.48
2hr 15.91 14.72 12.96 19.66 19.53 20.35 17.19
3hr 15.91 14.28 15.55 18.18 18.64 15.40 16.33
Mean 15.91 14.79 14.98 18.76 18.72 18.83
C.D (0.05%) Exposure period: NS, Strength : 1.74, Interaction : 3.02
Table 9: Effect of seed enhancement treatments on First count (%) and Germination (%) in Cotton varieties.
Treatments First count (%) Germination (%) H-1226 H-1117 Mean H-1226 H-1117 Mean
T 60.00 0
60.00 60.00 67.00 65.00 66.00 (50.79) (50.79) (50.79) (54.97) (53.76) (54.36)
T 64.00 1
58.00 61.00 71.00 67.00 69.00 (53.16) (49.63) (51.39) (57.45) (54.97) (56.20)
T 63.00 2
60.00 61.50 71.00 67.00 69.00 (52.56) (50.80) (51.68) (57.45) (54.97) (56.20)
T 65.00 3
65.00 65.00 71.00 71.00 71.00 (53.76) (53.76) (53.76) (57.45) (57.45) (57.45)
T 55.00 4
54.00 54.50 64.00 59.00 61.50 (47.89) (47.33) (47.61) (53.16) (50.21) (51.67)
T 63.00 5
64.00 63.50 73.00 71.00 72.00 (52.56) (53.16) (52.86) (58.72) (57.45) (58.08)
T 66.00 6
63.00 64.50 73.00 72.00 72.50 (54.37) (52.58) (53.47) (58.72) (58.08) (58.40)
T 61.00 7
59.00 60.00 68.00 65.00 66.50 (51.39) (50.21) (50.80) (55.58) (53.76) (54.66)
T 63.00 8
56.00 59.50 69.00 63.00 66.00 (52.56) (48.47) (50.52) (56.20) (52.56) (54.36)
T 62.00 9
57.00 59.50 68.00 65.00 66.50 (51.98) (49.06) (50.52) (55.58) (53.76) (54.66)
T 61.00 10
63.00 62.00 71.00 69.00 70.00 (51.38) (52.56) (51.97) (57.45) (56.20) (56.82)
T 60.00 11
62.00 61.00 70.00 70.00 70.00 (50.81) (51.98) (51.39) (56.82) (56.82) (56.82)
T 64.00 12
64.00 64.00 72.00 71.00 71.50 (53.16) (53.16) (53.16) (58.08) (57.45) (57.76)
T 61.00 13
57.00 59.00 69.00 66.00 67.50 (51.38) (49.06) (50.22) (56.20) (54.36) (55.27)
T 64.00 14
61.00 62.50 70.00 69.00 69.50 (53.16) (51.38) (52.27) (56.82) (56.20) (56.51)
T 61.00 15
61.00 61.00 69.00 71.00 70.00 (51.38) (51.38) (51.38) (56.20) (57.45) (56.82)
T 61.00 16
64.00 62.50 70.00 72.00 71.00 (51.41) (53.16) (52.29) (56.82) (58.08) (57.45)
T 60.00 17
57.00 58.50 68.00 64.00 66.00 (50.80) (49.05) (49.92) (55.58) (53.16) (54.36)
T 62.00 18
60.00 61.00 70.00 67.00 68.50 (51.98) (50.79) (51.38) (56.82) (54.97) (55.89)
T 65.00 19
59.00 62.00 71.00 66.00 68.50 (53.77) (50.21) (51.99) (57.45) (54.36) (55.89)
T 66.00 20
63.00 64.50 72.00 71.00 71.50 (54.37) (52.58) (53.47) (58.08) (57.45) (57.76)
T 58.00 21
60.00 59.00 65.00 67.00 66.00 (49.63) (50.80) (50.21) (53.76) (54.97) (54.36)
T 59.00 22
59.00 59.00 66.00 67.00 66.50 (50.21) (50.22) (50.22) (54.36) (54.97) (54.66)
T 57.00 23
59.00 58.00 64.00 65.00 64.50 (49.05) (50.21) (49.63) (53.16) (53.76) (53.46)
T 58.00 24
61.00 59.50 65.00 67.00 66.00 (49.63) (51.38) (50.51) (53.76) (54.97) (54.36)
Mean 61.56 60.24 69.08 67.48 (51.71) (50.93) (56.26) (55.28) C.D. (0.05%) V: 0.69, T: 2.28, V X T: NS V: 0.67, T: 2.36, V X T: NS
* Figures in parenthesis are the arc sign transformed values
Table 10: Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Seedling length (cm) and Seedling dry weight (gm) in Cotton varieties.
Treatments Seedling length (cm) Seedling dry weight (gm)
H-1226 H-1117 Mean H-1226 H-1117 Mean T 25.74 0 25.38 25.56 0.168 0.166 0.167 T 25.70 1 24.32 25.01 0.215 0.206 0.211 T 27.12 2 26.06 26.59 0.204 0.197 0.201 T 27.08 3 27.82 27.45 0.179 0.183 0.181 T 27.38 4 25.83 26.60 0.165 0.183 0.174 T 29.38 5 27.68 28.53 0.198 0.187 0.193 T 29.17 6 27.21 28.19 0.188 0.191 0.190 T 27.58 7 24.93 26.25 0.189 0.179 0.184 T 28.10 8 26.31 27.20 0.173 0.170 0.171 T 25.80 9 20.84 23.32 0.177 0.167 0.172 T 23.70 10 21.91 22.80 0.187 0.180 0.183 T 27.11 11 25.93 26.52 0.179 0.184 0.182 T 28.53 12 25.95 27.24 0.195 0.174 0.184 T 23.92 13 24.99 24.45 0.178 0.175 0.176 T 25.93 14 25.74 25.84 0.201 0.179 0.190 T 27.75 15 24.80 26.28 0.169 0.179 0.174 T 26.85 16 27.78 27.32 0.182 0.190 0.186 T 30.63 17 28.69 29.66 0.155 0.174 0.164 T 30.71 18 27.82 29.26 0.178 0.177 0.177 T 26.44 19 23.07 24.75 0.171 0.182 0.176 T 28.41 20 25.11 26.76 0.180 0.172 0.176 T 27.98 21 24.73 26.35 0.155 0.176 0.166 T 28.09 22 25.15 26.62 0.167 0.190 0.179 T 25.74 23 23.42 24.58 0.196 0.195 0.196 T 27.84 24 24.84 26.34 0.198 0.192 0.195 Mean 27.31 25.45 0.18 0.18 C.D. (0.05%) V: 0.29, T: 1.03, V X T: 1.46 V: NS, T: 0.02, V X T: NS
Table 11: Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Vigour Index (VI) I and II in Cotton varieties.
Treatments VI-I VI-II H-1226 H-1117 Mean H-1226 H-1117 Mean
T 1725 0 1656 1690 11.26 10.73 10.99 T 1825 1 1531 1678 15.27 11.32 13.29 T 1926 2 1477 1701 14.48 11.19 12.84 T 1923 3 1948 1935 12.71 11.93 12.32 T 1752 4 1471 1612 10.56 8.85 9.71 T 2145 5 1901 2023 14.45 12.35 13.40 T 2129 6 1950 2040 13.72 12.96 13.34 T 1875 7 1553 1714 12.85 10.34 11.59 T 1939 8 1603 1771 11.94 9.77 10.85 T 1754 9 1293 1524 12.04 10.14 11.09 T 1683 10 1230 1456 13.28 7.94 10.61 T 1898 11 1733 1815 12.53 12.88 12.71 T 2054 12 1784 1919 14.04 12.00 13.02 T 1650 13 1596 1623 12.28 10.89 11.59 T 1815 14 1705 1760 14.07 10.63 12.35 T 1915 15 1680 1797 11.66 12.14 11.90 T 1880 16 1948 1914 12.74 13.39 13.07 T 2083 17 1789 1936 10.54 11.33 10.93 T 2150 18 1836 1993 12.46 8.58 10.52 T 1877 19 1429 1653 12.14 10.96 11.55 T 2046 20 1612 1829 12.96 12.14 12.55 T 1819 21 1613 1716 10.08 11.19 10.63 T 1854 22 1684 1769 11.02 12.06 11.54 T 1647 23 1620 1634 12.54 11.57 12.06 T 1810 24 1640 1725 12.87 11.32 12.10 Mean 1887 1651 12.58 11.14 C.D. (0.05%) V: 30, T: 106, V X T: 150 V: NS, T: 1.64, V X T: NS
Table 12: Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Field Emergence Index (FEI)
and Speed of Emergence (SoE) in Cotton varieties.
Treatments FEI SoE H-1226 H-1117 Mean H-1226 H-1117 Mean
T 79.10 0 78.46 78.78 41.24 34.20 37.72 T 78.87 1 81.34 80.10 44.56 42.32 43.44 T 76.76 2 82.08 79.42 41.66 42.17 41.91 T 76.76 3 73.23 75.00 38.78 36.82 37.80 T 83.59 4 85.59 84.59 41.00 33.81 37.40 T 94.52 5 90.84 92.68 55.38 40.72 48.05 T 95.20 6 93.05 94.13 56.63 41.60 49.12 T 80.14 7 84.61 82.38 44.28 39.08 41.68 T 82.60 8 88.88 85.74 44.04 41.48 42.76 T 83.08 9 84.61 83.85 44.48 42.04 43.26 T 92.95 10 81.88 87.42 45.37 44.72 45.05 T 83.57 11 79.28 81.42 47.21 41.57 44.39 T 81.94 12 78.87 80.40 46.62 43.26 44.94 T 74.63 13 77.27 75.95 39.53 34.63 37.08 T 80.71 14 74.63 77.67 42.67 33.51 38.09 T 84.05 15 87.32 85.69 46.45 48.17 47.31 T 85.00 16 86.11 85.55 50.23 48.89 49.56 T 74.26 17 82.03 78.14 24.07 34.36 29.21 T 75.00 18 79.10 77.05 31.80 40.82 36.31 T 75.35 19 76.51 75.93 40.48 34.25 37.37 T 77.08 20 73.94 75.51 42.26 39.04 40.65 T 77.69 21 67.91 72.80 29.22 16.98 23.10 T 77.27 22 73.13 75.20 27.10 27.48 27.29 T 78.12 23 73.84 75.98 32.98 20.63 26.80 T 80.76 24 73.88 77.32 41.77 26.38 34.07 Mean 81.16 80.34 41.59 37.16 C.D. (0.05%) V:NS, T: 4.49, V X T: 6.35 V: 0.75, T: 2.66, V X T: 3.76
Table 13: Effect of seed enhancement treatments Field Emergence (%) in Cotton varieties.
Treatments Field Emergence (%) H-1226 H-1117 Mean
T 53.00 (46.74) 0 51.00 (45.60) 52.00 (46.17)
T 56.00 (48.47) 1 54.50 (47.61) 55.25 (48.04)
T 54.50 (47.61) 2 55.00 (47.89) 54.75 (47.75)
T 54.50 (47.61) 3 52.00 (46.17) 53.25 (46.89)
T 53.50 (47.03) 4 50.50 (45.31) 52.00 (46.17)
T 69.00 (56.20) 5 64.50 (53.46) 66.75 (54.81)
T 69.50 (56.51) 6 67.00 (54.97) 68.25 (55.73)
T 54.50 (47.61) 7 55.00 (47.89) 54.75 (47.75)
T 57.00 (49.05) 8 56.00 (48.47) 56.50 (48.76)
T 56.50 (48.76) 9 55.00 (47.89) 55.75 (48.33)
T 66.00 (54.36) 10 56.50 (48.76) 61.25 (51.53)
T 58.50 (49.92) 11 55.50 (48.18) 57.00 (49.05)
T 59.00 (50.21) 12 56.00 (48.47) 57.50 (49.34)
T 51.50 (45.88) 13 51.00 (45.60) 51.25 (45.74)
T 56.50 (48.76) 14 51.50 (45.88) 54.00 (47.32)
T 58.00 (49.63) 15 62.00 (51.97) 60.00 (50.79)
T 59.50 (50.50) 16 62.00 (51.97) 60.75 (51.23)
T 50.50 (45.31) 17 52.50 (46.46) 51.50 (45.88)
T 52.50 (46.46) 18 53.00 (46.74) 52.75 (46.60)
T 53.50 (47.03) 19 50.50 (45.31) 52.00 (46.17)
T 55.50 (48.18) 20 52.50 (46.46) 54.00 (47.32)
T 50.50 (45.31) 21 45.50 (42.44) 48.00 (43.88)
T 51.00 (45.60) 22 49.00 (44.45) 50.00 (45.02)
T 50.00 (45.02) 23 48.00 (43.88) 49.00 (44.45)
T 52.50 (46.46) 24 49.50 (44.74) 51.00 (45.60)
Mean 56.12 (48.54) 54.22 (47.44)
C.D. (0.05%) V: 1.56, T: 5.53, V X T: N.S
* Figures in parenthesis are the arc sign transformed values
Table 14: Moisture status of seeds after enhancement treatments in Cotton varieties.
Treatments Moisture (%)
H-1226 H-1117 Mean T 9.55 0 9.75 9.65 T 10.15 1 10.15 10.15 T 10.05 2 10.15 10.10 T 9.75 3 9.35 9.55 T 9.55 4 9.50 9.53 T 9.30 5 9.35 9.33 T 9.55 6 9.45 9.50 T 9.35 7 9.45 9.40 T 9.25 8 9.25 9.25 T 9.45 9 9.60 9.53 T 9.55 10 9.55 9.55 T 9.35 11 9.15 9.25 T 9.35 12 9.20 9.28 T 9.30 13 9.35 9.33 T 9.25 14 9.25 9.25 T 9.25 15 9.55 9.40 T 9.15 16 9.45 9.30 T 9.85 17 9.45 9.65 T 9.40 18 9.25 9.33 T 9.75 19 9.55 9.65 T 9.35 20 9.75 9.55 T 9.75 21 9.80 9.78 T 9.60 22 9.65 9.63 T 9.75 23 9.55 9.65 T 9.35 24 9.50 9.43 Mean 9.52 9.52 C.D. (0.05%) V: NS, T:0.09, V X T: 0.13
Table 15: Effect of seed enhancement treatments on First count (%) and Germination (%) in Cotton varieties after 3 months of storage.
Treatments First count (%) Germination (%) H-1226 H-1117 Mean H-1226 H-1117 Mean
T 62.00 0 55.00 58.50 63.00 56.00 59.50 (51.98) (47.91) (49.94) (52.56) (48.48) (50.52)
T 51.00 1 45.00 48.00 52.00 47.00 49.50 (45.60) (42.14) (43.87) (46.17) (43.29) (44.73)
T 54.00 2 42.00 48.00 53.00 41.00 47.00 (47.32) (40.41) (43.87) (46.74) (39.83) (43.28)
T 61.00 3 58.00 59.50 62.00 60.00 61.00 (51.38) (49.63) (50.51) (51.98) (50.80) (51.39)
T 58.00 4 50.00 54.00 58.00 51.00 54.50 (49.63) (45.02) (47.33) (49.63) (45.60) (47.61)
T 61.00 5 64.00 62.50 64.00 63.00 63.50 (51.38) (53.19) (52.28) (53.16) (52.60) (52.88)
T 62.00 6 63.00 62.50 64.00 65.00 64.50 (51.99) (52.58) (52.29) (53.19) (53.77) (53.48)
T 58.00 7 51.00 54.50 59.00 54.00 56.50 (49.63) (45.60) (47.61) (50.21) (47.32) (48.77)
T 58.00 8 57.00 57.50 60.00 59.00 59.50 (49.64) (49.06) (49.35) (50.81) (50.21) (50.51)
T 51.00 9 43.00 47.00 51.00 45.00 48.00 (45.60) (40.99) (43.29) (45.60) (42.15) (43.87)
T 46.00 10 34.00 40.00 49.00 36.00 42.50 (42.73) (35.61) (39.17) (44.45) (36.82) (40.64)
T 58.00 11 60.00 59.00 61.00 63.00 62.00 (49.64) (50.79) (50.22) (51.39) (52.56) (51.98)
T 60.00 12 63.00 61.50 64.00 64.00 64.00 (50.81) (52.56) (51.69) (53.19) (53.16) (53.18)
T 59.00 13 56.00 57.50 59.00 57.00 58.00 (50.21) (48.50) (49.35) (50.22) (49.06) (49.64)
T 55.00 14 59.00 57.00 57.00 61.00 59.00 (47.91) (50.21) (49.06) (49.07) (51.38) (50.23)
T 54.00 15 55.00 54.50 58.00 57.00 57.50 (47.32) (47.89) (47.61) (49.63) (49.05) (49.34)
T 56.00 16 54.00 55.00 57.00 56.00 56.50 (48.50) (47.33) (47.91) (49.07) (48.48) (48.78)
T 54.00 17 54.00 54.00 57.00 55.00 56.00 (47.32) (47.32) (47.32) (49.05) (47.90) (48.47)
T 61.00 18 55.00 58.00 63.00 57.00 60.00 (51.38) (47.91) (49.65) (52.56) (49.06) (50.81)
T 59.00 19 58.00 58.50 62.00 59.00 60.50 (50.21) (49.63) (49.92) (51.98) (50.21) (51.09)
T 60.00 20 59.00 59.50 62.00 62.00 62.00 (50.80) (50.22) (50.51) (51.99) (51.99) (51.99)
T 54.00 21 56.00 55.00 53.00 52.00 52.50 (47.34) (48.50) (47.92) (46.75) (46.17) (46.46)
T 51.00 22 50.00 50.50 54.00 51.00 52.50 (45.60) (45.02) (45.31) (47.33) (45.60) (46.46)
T 52.00 23 46.00 49.00 56.00 51.00 53.50 (46.17) (42.72) (44.45) (48.48) (45.60) (47.04)
T 61.00 24 60.00 60.50 59.00 58.00 58.50 (51.38) (50.79) (51.09) (50.21) (49.63) (49.92)
Mean 56.64 53.88 58.28 55.20 (48.84) (47.25) (49.82) (49.63)
C.D. (0.05%) V: 1.05, T: 3.72, V X T: NS V: 1.04, T: 3.67, V X T: NS
* Figures in parenthesis are the arc sign transformed values
Table 16: Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Seedling length and Seedling dry weight in Cotton varieties after 3 months of storage .
Treatments Seedling length (3m) Seedling dry weight(3m)
H-1226 H-1117 Mean H-1226 H-1117 Mean T 25.98 0 24.97 25.47 0.162 0.135 0.148 T 21.99 1 22.99 22.49 0.130 0.173 0.151 T 24.31 2 22.39 23.35 0.143 0.161 0.152 T 25.57 3 27.64 26.60 0.167 0.181 0.174 T 27.42 4 25.06 26.24 0.190 0.178 0.184 T 28.09 5 27.30 27.69 0.191 0.185 0.188 T 27.40 6 27.11 27.25 0.188 0.188 0.188 T 25.46 7 24.37 24.91 0.141 0.157 0.149 T 26.42 8 23.65 25.03 0.151 0.161 0.156 T 24.83 9 20.21 22.52 0.176 0.157 0.166 T 22.09 10 18.17 20.13 0.164 0.121 0.143 T 26.72 11 24.97 25.85 0.161 0.140 0.151 T 26.64 12 25.53 26.09 0.181 0.161 0.171 T 22.08 13 24.65 23.36 0.162 0.168 0.165 T 25.58 14 25.21 25.39 0.178 0.188 0.183 T 27.27 15 23.92 25.60 0.156 0.175 0.165 T 25.94 16 27.01 26.47 0.147 0.176 0.162 T 30.22 17 28.38 29.30 0.169 0.149 0.159 T 29.77 18 27.38 28.58 0.173 0.169 0.171 T 26.21 19 22.62 24.41 0.181 0.173 0.177 T 27.56 20 25.71 26.64 0.180 0.167 0.174 T 28.43 21 24.31 26.37 0.168 0.159 0.163 T 28.04 22 25.23 26.64 0.170 0.194 0.182 T 24.60 23 24.20 24.40 0.157 0.177 0.167 T 27.23 24 24.20 25.72 0.171 0.156 0.163 Mean 26.23 24.69 0.17 0.17 C.D. (0.05%) V: 0.44, T: 1.57, V X T: 2.22 V: NS, T: 0.01, V X T: 0.02
Table 17: Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Vigor Index (VI) I and II in
Cotton varieties after 3 months of storage.
Treatments VI-I (3m) VI-II (3m) H-1226 H-1117 Mean H-1226 H-1117 Mean
T 1636 0 1399 1518 10.18 7.51 8.84 T 1144 1 1084 1114 6.74 8.15 7.44 T 1286 2 917 1101 7.57 6.58 7.08 T 1585 3 1658 1622 10.39 10.85 10.62 T 1587 4 1276 1431 10.99 9.08 10.03 T 1797 5 1724 1761 12.22 11.69 11.96 T 1753 6 1762 1757 12.04 12.18 12.11 T 1503 7 1316 1410 8.33 8.45 8.39 T 1592 8 1395 1493 8.96 9.47 9.22 T 1266 9 911 1088 8.94 7.07 8.01 T 1082 10 657 869 8.06 4.44 6.25 T 1628 11 1574 1601 9.83 8.84 9.33 T 1702 12 1632 1667 11.54 10.32 10.93 T 1301 13 1406 1354 9.53 9.56 9.54 T 1455 14 1538 1497 10.11 11.44 10.78 T 1580 15 1364 1472 9.02 9.95 9.48 T 1479 16 1512 1495 8.40 9.85 9.13 T 1723 17 1562 1642 9.63 8.21 8.92 T 1875 18 1563 1719 10.91 9.66 10.29 T 1624 19 1334 1479 11.19 10.21 10.70 T 1704 20 1592 1648 11.13 10.36 10.75 T 1502 21 1266 1384 8.86 8.30 8.58 T 1513 22 1286 1399 9.19 9.90 9.54 T 1379 23 1226 1302 8.75 9.04 8.90 T 1607 24 1400 1504 10.08 9.06 9.57 Mean 1532 1374 9.70 9.21 C.D. (0.05%) V: 47, T: 166, V X T: NS V: 0.32, T: 1.15, V X T: 1.63
Table 18: Effect of seed enhancement treatments on First count (%) and Germination (%) in Cotton varieties after 6 months of storage.
Treatments First count (%) (6m) Germination (%)(6m) H-1226 H-1117 Mean H-1226 H-1117 Mean
T 55.00 0 49.00 52.00 56.00 50.00 53.00 (47.91) (44.45) (46.18) (48.50) (45.02) (46.76)
T 34.00 1 30.00 32.00 39.00 33.00 36.00 (35.65) (33.22) (34.43) (38.66) (35.06) (36.86)
T 37.00 2 28.00 32.50 41.00 29.00 35.00 (37.47) (31.95) (34.71) (39.83) (32.60) (36.22)
T 55.00 3 51.00 53.00 59.00 53.00 56.00 (47.91) (45.60) (46.75) (50.26) (46.74) (48.50)
T 40.00 4 49.00 44.50 41.00 50.00 45.50 (39.25) (44.45) (41.85) (39.83) (45.02) (42.43)
T 60.00 5 59.00 59.50 63.00 60.00 61.50 (50.81) (50.22) (50.52) (52.58) (50.80) (51.69)
T 63.00 6 61.00 62.00 65.00 62.00 63.50 (52.58) (51.45) (52.01) (53.77) (52.02) (52.90)
T 56.00 7 41.00 48.50 58.00 44.00 51.00 (48.48) (39.83) (44.16) (49.64) (41.57) (45.61)
T 64.00 8 49.00 56.50 64.00 50.00 57.00 (53.19) (44.45) (48.82) (53.19) (45.02) (49.10)
T 48.00 9 38.00 43.00 48.00 37.00 42.50 (43.88) (38.07) (40.97) (43.88) (37.48) (40.68)
T 51.00 10 11.00 31.00 52.00 11.00 31.50 (45.60) (19.36) (32.48) (46.17) (19.36) (32.77)
T 49.00 11 50.00 49.50 54.00 52.00 53.00 (44.45) (45.02) (44.74) (47.32) (46.17) (46.75)
T 56.00 12 49.00 52.50 55.00 48.00 51.50 (48.50) (44.45) (46.47) (47.91) (43.88) (45.89)
T 44.00 13 43.00 43.50 45.00 43.00 44.00 (41.56) (41.00) (41.28) (42.15) (41.00) (41.57)
T 46.00 14 56.00 51.00 50.00 58.00 54.00 (42.71) (48.48) (45.60) (45.02) (49.63) (47.33)
T 49.00 15 46.00 47.50 54.00 47.00 50.50 (44.45) (42.72) (43.58) (47.33) (43.29) (45.31)
T 51.00 16 58.00 54.50 53.00 57.00 55.00 (45.60) (49.63) (47.61) (46.74) (49.06) (47.90)
T 50.00 17 37.00 43.50 55.00 36.00 45.50 (45.02) (37.48) (41.25) (47.89) (36.88) (42.39)
T 58.00 18 47.00 52.50 58.00 50.00 54.00 (49.63) (43.30) (46.47) (49.63) (45.02) (47.33)
T 47.00 19 46.00 46.50 48.00 46.00 47.00 (43.30) (42.72) (43.01) (43.88) (42.72) (43.30)
T 58.00 20 55.00 56.50 59.00 55.00 57.00 (49.63) (47.89) (48.76) (50.21) (47.90) (49.06)
T 46.00 21 39.00 42.50 45.00 39.00 42.00 (42.73) (38.66) (40.69) (42.15) (38.66) (40.41)
T 58.00 22 48.00 53.00 60.00 48.00 54.00 (49.64) (43.88) (46.76) (50.81) (43.88) (47.34)
T 50.00 23 36.00 43.00 49.00 35.00 42.00 (45.02) (36.88) (40.95) (44.45) (36.29) (40.37)
T 55.00 24 45.00 50.00 56.00 45.00 50.50 (47.91) (42.15) (45.03) (48.48) (42.15) (45.31)
Mean 51.20 44.84 53.08 45.52 (47.72) (41.89) (46.82) (42.29)
C.D. (0.05%) V: 1.02, T: 3.63, V X T: 5.14 V: 0.96, T: 3.40, V X T: 4.81
* Figures in parenthesis are the arc sign transformed values
Table 19: Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Seedling length (cm) and
Seedling dry weight (g) in Cotton varieties after 6 months of storage.
Treatments Seedling length (6m) Seedling dry wt (6m) H-1226 H-1117 Mean H-1226 H-1117 Mean
T 25.13 0 25.48 25.31 0.157 0.165 0.161 T 23.78 1 22.85 23.31 0.170 0.169 0.170 T 22.68 2 22.04 22.36 0.174 0.167 0.170 T 26.22 3 27.44 26.83 0.170 0.168 0.169 T 26.68 4 24.94 25.81 0.163 0.150 0.156 T 28.92 5 26.77 27.85 0.183 0.174 0.178 T 28.30 6 27.09 27.70 0.161 0.180 0.170 T 26.89 7 23.89 25.39 0.181 0.159 0.170 T 27.19 8 25.44 26.31 0.175 0.155 0.165 T 23.17 9 19.89 21.53 0.167 0.156 0.161 T 23.09 10 17.83 20.46 0.160 0.115 0.137 T 25.34 11 24.76 25.05 0.172 0.184 0.178 T 26.12 12 25.12 25.62 0.166 0.169 0.167 T 27.34 13 24.18 25.76 0.190 0.165 0.178 T 24.78 14 24.71 24.74 0.173 0.154 0.163 T 27.44 15 23.66 25.55 0.166 0.171 0.168 T 26.17 16 27.05 26.61 0.155 0.186 0.170 T 31.15 17 27.95 29.55 0.180 0.177 0.178 T 29.62 18 27.40 28.51 0.152 0.128 0.140 T 25.33 19 21.65 23.49 0.134 0.166 0.150 T 27.26 20 22.71 24.98 0.142 0.171 0.156 T 25.93 21 24.07 25.00 0.172 0.167 0.170 T 27.15 22 25.13 26.14 0.168 0.180 0.174 T 24.92 23 24.93 24.92 0.153 0.178 0.166 T 26.86 24 24.48 25.67 0.164 0.169 0.166 Mean 26.30 24.46 0.17 0.16 C.D. (0.05%) V: 0.47, T: 1.69, V X T: 2.39 V: NS, T: 0.01, V X T: 0.02
Table 20: Effect of seed enhancement treatments on Vigor Index (VI) I and II in Cotton varieties after 6 months of storage.
Treatments VI-I (6m) VI-II (6m)
H-1226 H-1117 Mean H-1226 H-1117 Mean T 1408 0 1271 1340 8.84 8.26 8.55 T 928 1 756 842 6.66 5.60 6.13 T 930 2 639 784 7.10 4.84 5.97 T 1545 3 1454 1500 10.11 8.92 9.51 T 1094 4 1246 1170 6.66 7.50 7.08 T 1827 5 1607 1717 11.55 10.46 11.00 T 1842 6 1678 1760 10.47 11.19 10.83 T 1563 7 1053 1308 10.47 7.00 8.74 T 1745 8 1269 1507 11.20 7.73 9.47 T 1112 9 736 924 8.00 5.75 6.88 T 1200 10 196 698 8.30 1.25 4.78 T 1368 11 1284 1326 9.33 9.55 9.44 T 1439 12 1203 1321 9.08 8.12 8.60 T 1236 13 1040 1138 8.52 7.11 7.82 T 1240 14 1432 1336 8.66 8.91 8.78 T 1486 15 1110 1298 8.89 8.01 8.45 T 1386 16 1544 1465 8.21 10.59 9.40 T 1714 17 1006 1360 9.88 6.37 8.12 T 1717 18 1369 1543 8.81 6.38 7.59 T 1216 19 993 1105 6.45 7.68 7.06 T 1607 20 1242 1425 8.39 9.40 8.90 T 1167 21 939 1053 7.74 6.51 7.12 T 1630 22 1205 1418 10.11 8.62 9.37 T 1220 23 874 1047 7.50 6.24 6.87 T 1503 24 1102 1302 9.16 7.59 8.37 Mean 1405 1130 8.80 7.58 C.D. (0.05%) V: 51, T: 180, V X T: 255 V: 0.41, T: 1.45, V X T: 2.05
Table 21: Correlation matrix of vigour parameters in Cotton varieties.
Para. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 1 1.000
2 0.873** 1.000
3 0.245 0.269 1.000
4 0.289 0.318 0.924** 1.000
5 0.281 0.292 0.609** 0.659** 1.000
6 0.297 0.324 0.623** 0.679** 0.977** 1.000
7 0.620** 0.687** 0.475* 0.499* 0.569** 0.611** 1.000
8 0.604** 0.706** 0.089 0.100 0.060 0.096 0.400* 1.000
9 0.248 0.277 0.836** 0.896** 0.712** 0.730** 0.683** 0.021 1.000
10 0.217 0.278 0.731** 0.805** 0.655** 0.655** 0.496* 0.080 0.800** 1.000
11 0.280 0.308 0.601** 0.651** 0.929** 0.954** 0.705** 0.048 0.772** 0.657** 1.000
12 0.287 0.332 0.575** 0.613** 0.897** 0.922** 0.579** 0.168 0.655** 0.574** 0.888** 1.000
13 0.402* 0.511** 0.121 0.189 0.277 0.297 0.431* 0.421* 0.190 0.225 0.283 0.296 1.000
14 0.532** 0.585** 0.661** 0.672** 0.747** 0.754** 0.582** 0.631** 0.684** 0.699** 0.713** 0.739** 0.526** 1.000
15 -0.784** -0.696** -0.848** -0.863** -0.897** -0.904** -0.711** -0.809** -0.901** -0.914** -0.948** -0.968** -0.697** -0.681** 1.000
**Correlation is significant at 1% * Correlation is significant at 5% 1-Ist count (initial), 2- Germination (initial), 3- Ist count (after 3m), 4- Germination (after 3m), 5- Ist count (after 6m), 6- Germination (after 6m), 7- Vigour index I (initial), 8- Vigour index II (initial), 9- Vigour index I (after 3m), 10- Vigour index II (after 3m), 11- Vigour index I (after 6m), 12- Vigour index II (after 6m), 13- Field emergence, 14- Accelerated Ageing Test after 24 hrs. 15- Electrical conductance.
