Effect of Different Concentrations of Tartaric Acid on Sugar Beet Seeds

doi:10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2023-0253

Abstract

Abstract:

To study the effect of different concentrations of tartaric acid on germination of sugar beet seeds and to provide a basis for screening sugar beet seed coating, a total of nine sets of treatments were carried out and indexes were measured using three different concentration gradients of tartaric acid at 5, 7.5 and 10 mmol/L and three gradients of time at 8, 16 and 24 h. Sugar beet crop seed 'TD801' was used as the test material. Compared to the control CK, the germination potential of the treatments increased by a minimum of 0.83 percentage points and a maximum of 6.67 percentage points; germination increased by a minimum of 0.66 percentage points and a maximum of 9.67 percentage points; germination index increased by a minimum of 15.39% and a maximum of 31.71%; the vigor index increased by a minimum of 30.09% and a maximum of 82.83%; relative conductivity was reduced in all cases compared to control CK, with a minimum decrease of 68.96 percentage points and a maximum decrease of 100.93 percentage points. When the concentration was 10 mmol/L for 16 h, the effect on germination potential and germination rate was better. When the concentration was 7.5 mmol/L for 16 h, the effect on germination index and vigor index was better; a concentration of 7.5 mmol/L for 24 h was more effective on relative conductivity. All nine treatments promoted seed initiation of sugar beet, and tartaric acid solutions at concentrations of 7.5 mmol/L and 10 mmol/L for 16 h were more effective in seed germination of sugar beet.

Key words: sugar beet, seeds, tartaric acid, seed germination, seed coating agency

SU Yang, HU Huabing, WANG Ronghua, WANG Maoqian. Effect of Different Concentrations of Tartaric Acid on Sugar Beet Seeds[J]. Chinese Agricultural Science Bulletin, 2023, 39(30): 21-27.

Figures/Tables 8

References 27

[1]	张鑫瑞, 李政, 孙哲, 等. 不同引发剂对柴胡种子萌发的影响[J]. 贵州农业科学, 2022, 50(2):85-91.
[2]	姚露花, 綦才, 杨建峰, 等. 种子引发对甜高粱角质层蜡质及其抗性的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2022, 31(7):185-196. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2021487
[3]	胡亚丽, 聂靖芝, 吴霞, 等. 水杨酸引发对红麻幼苗耐盐性的影响[J]. 中国农业科学 2022, 55(14):2696-2708. doi: 10.3864/j.issn.0578-1752.2022.14.002
[4]	王勃, 王聪聪, 夏方山, 等. 硒引发对不同品种紫花苜蓿种子抗氧化特性的影响[J]. 草地学报, 2022, 30(8):2037-2044. doi: 10.11733/j.issn.1007-0435.2022.08.013
[5]	李玉祥, 林海荣, 梁倩, 等. 多巴胺引发对盐胁迫下水稻种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 中国水稻科学, 2021, 35(5):487-494. doi: 10.16819/j.1001-7216.2021.200808
[6]	闫月, 卢艳, 崔程程, 等. 聚乙二醇引发处理对水曲柳种子在高温下萌发的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报 2020, 48(6):13-16.
[7]	苏昀, 王建军, 邢烨, 等. 食盐溶液对青稞种子的引发效果[J]. 云南农业大学学报(自然科学), 2020, 35(2):366-370.
[8]	张玉, 石晓晨, 马云, 等. 甘露醇引发处理对丹参种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 天津中医药 2018, 35(8):631-633.
[9]	吴俭, 潘伟斌, 林瑞聪, 等. 用酒石酸等有机酸清晰镉锌、镉镍复合污染土壤[J]. 农业环境科学学报, 2015, 34(6):1076-1081.
[10]	李世杰, 曹园城, 刘超, 等. 酒石酸协同草酸淋洗镍污染土壤[J]. 化工环保, 2023, 43(1):87-93.
[11]	王茂芊, 王维成, 吴则东, 等. 我国甜菜种子引发研究进展[J]. 中国糖料, 2018, 40(5):70-72.
[12]	刘天丽, 付炳堃, 李晓. 引发对干旱胁迫下菠菜种子萌发的影响[J]. 种子, 2019, 38(1):86-89.
[13]	刘小越, 王荣华, 王维成, 等. 不同浓度细胞分裂素对甜菜种子引发的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(11):9-14. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0532
[14]	刘晓晗, 王荣华, 王维成, 等. 硫酸钾与氯化镁组合对甜菜种子萌发的影响[J]. 中国糖料, 2021, 43(3):61-65.
[15]	GHOLAMALI A. Effect of auxin and salt stress (NaCl) on seed germination of wheat cultivars[J]. Pakistan journal of biological sciences, 2007, 10(15):2557-2561. doi: 10.3923/pjbs.2007.2557.2561 URL
[16]	RADOMIRKA N. Cytokinins and urea derivatives stimulate seed germination in Lotus corniculatus L.[J]. Belgrade, 2007, 59(2):125-128.
[17]	邢燕, 王吉庆, 管广宇. 不同引发剂处理对西瓜种子萌发及生理特性的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2009, 25(11):133-136.
[18]	HU J, DENG Z H, WANG B. Influence of heavy metals on seed germination and early seedling growth in Crambe abyssinica, a potential industrial oil crop for phytoremediation[J]. American journal of plant sciences, 2015, 6:150-156. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2015.61017 URL
[19]	朱佳鹏, 罗超, 李洋, 等. 铜胁迫对滇水金凤种子萌发及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 生物学杂志, 2023, 20(1):64-68.
[20]	LADISLAV B L, JIRI H. Changes of seed germination during the year[J]. Agricultural sciences, 2016, 7:164-174. doi: 10.4236/as.2016.73016 URL
[21]	刘朝阳, 王荣华, 王维成, 等. 硝酸钙和硫酸镁组合对甜菜种子萌发的影响[J]. 中国农学通报, 2021, 37(14):21-26. doi: 10.11924/j.issn.1000-6850.casb2020-0529
[22]	杨振亚, 邹景泉, 倪惠菁, 等. 芝麻浸提液对毛竹种子萌发及幼苗生理特性的影响[J]. 东北林业大学学报, 2023, 51(1):11-17.
[23]	宁书菊, 曾夏安, 魏道智. 不同引发处理对朝天椒种子活力的影响[J]. 福建农林大学学报(自然科学版), 2012, 41(5):469-474.
[24]	NOHA F A. Effect of seeds size on germination of faba bean plant[J]. Agricultural sciences, 2020, 11:465-471.
[25]	IRASEMA P P. Phytotoxic effects of 4-chlorophenol and 2,4-dichlorophenol in the germination of deeds of Phaseolus vulgaris and Zea mayz[J]. American journal of plant sciences, 2021, 12:614-623. doi: 10.4236/ajps.2021.124041 URL
[26]	肖卓琳, 孟繁祎, 刘艳芬, 等. 不同处理对蓝花棘豆种子萌发的影响[J]. 安徽农业科学, 2023, 51(2):115-118.
[27]	孙铭, 王思琪, 艾尔肯·达吾提, 等. 抗氧化剂引发对无芒雀麦老化种子发芽及幼苗生长的影响[J]. 草业学报, 2019, 28(11):105-113. doi: 10.11686/cyxb2018788

编号	引发组合	时间/h	编号	引发组合	时间/h	编号	引发组合	时间/h
处理1	5mmol/L酒石酸	8	处理4	7.5mmol/L酒石酸	8	处理7	10mmol/L酒石酸	8
处理2	5mmol/L酒石酸	16	处理5	7.5mmol/L酒石酸	16	处理8	10mmol/L酒石酸	16
处理3	5mmol/L酒石酸	24	处理6	7.5mmol/L酒石酸	24	处理9	10mmol/L酒石酸	24

编号	引发组合	时间/h	编号	引发组合	时间/h	编号	引发组合	时间/h
处理1	5mmol/L酒石酸	8	处理4	7.5mmol/L酒石酸	8	处理7	10mmol/L酒石酸	8
处理2	5mmol/L酒石酸	16	处理5	7.5mmol/L酒石酸	16	处理8	10mmol/L酒石酸	16
处理3	5mmol/L酒石酸	24	处理6	7.5mmol/L酒石酸	24	处理9	10mmol/L酒石酸	24

编号	引发组合	时间/h	5d发芽势/%	7d发芽率/%	发芽指数	活力指数
处理1	5 mmol/L酒石酸	8	83.00±1.53a	84.67±2.33a	37.85±0.93ab	440.51±18.84ab
处理2	5 mmol/L酒石酸	16	77.16±0.88a	81.33±0.88a	34.11±1.93abc	425.25±31.18ab
处理3	5 mmol/L酒石酸	24	83.00±1.53a	84.33±1.67a	37.46±1.73ab	408.70±34.46ab
CK	TD801	0	76.33±1.20a	80.67±2.19a	28.98±0.32c	260.93±2.49c

编号	引发组合	时间/h	5d发芽势/%	7d发芽率/%	发芽指数	活力指数
处理1	5 mmol/L酒石酸	8	83.00±1.53a	84.67±2.33a	37.85±0.93ab	440.51±18.84ab
处理2	5 mmol/L酒石酸	16	77.16±0.88a	81.33±0.88a	34.11±1.93abc	425.25±31.18ab
处理3	5 mmol/L酒石酸	24	83.00±1.53a	84.33±1.67a	37.46±1.73ab	408.70±34.46ab
CK	TD801	0	76.33±1.20a	80.67±2.19a	28.98±0.32c	260.93±2.49c

编号	引发组合	时间/h	5d发芽势/%	7d发芽率/%	发芽指数	活力指数
处理4	7.5 mmol/L酒石酸	8	80.00±3.61a	85.67±0.88a	34.39±1.68abc	404.93±31.18ab
处理5	7.5 mmol/L酒石酸	16	81.33±5.24a	87.00±1.00a	38.17±1.25a	477.05±40.59ab
处理6	7.5 mmol/L酒石酸	24	81.33±3.34a	81.67±3.18a	33.44±1.12abc	366.89±32.51b
CK	TD801	0	76.33±1.20a	80.67±2.19a	28.98±0.32c	260.93±2.49c