Abstract
Pregermination techniques of osmotic priming and hydropriming have been used to enhance seed performance on planting Osmotic priming and hydropriming method were compared on the basis of germination performance O 2 , N 2 and air were supplied to 500 ml vessels containing seeds with distilled water or -1.31 MPa PEG solution for 10 days On removing seeds from vessels, seeds were dried back to original water content. There were no differences in total germination between osmotic priming and hydropriming treatments t50 was reduced dramatically from 112 to 32 hours, using hydropriming with air and N 2 supply for 1 day, compared to 70 hours of osmotic priming. Solute leakage from O 2 supply of both methods was higher than air or N treatment, Indicating the loss of membrane integrity Hydropriming with O 2 induced radicle emergence and loss of desiccation tolerance around 28 hours after treatment LEA protein levels were not changed in both treatments except for hydropriming with O 2 . The timing of desiccation tolerance loss was correlated with that of degradation of LEA protein. O 2 supply caused the adverse effects on seed performance from both methods 1 day after treatment
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 8
Claim · model-written summary
Total germination did not differ between osmotic and hydropriming.
- Taxon
- MUSKMELON
.jpg?width=60)
Cucumis melot0 - Treatment
- osmotic priminge0
- Outcome
- total germinatione0
- Direction
- no differencese0
- Comparator
- hydropriming treatmentse0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
.jpg?width=500)
Verbatim
e0“There were no differences in total germination between osmotic priming and hydropriming treatments”
t0“MUSKMELON”
Claim · model-written summary
Air and nitrogen hydropriming reduced t50 from 112 to 32 hours, versus 70 hours under osmotic priming.
- Taxon
- MUSKMELONCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- hydropriming with air and N 2 supply for 1 daye0
- Outcome
- t50e0
- Direction
- reducede0
- Value
- 32 hourse0
- Qualifier
- compared to 70 hours of osmotic priminge0
- Comparator
- osmotic priminge0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“t50 was reduced dramatically from 112 to 32 hours, using hydropriming with air and N 2 supply for 1 day, compared to 70 hours of osmotic priming”
t0“MUSKMELON”
Claim · model-written summary
Oxygen supply raised solute leakage relative to air or nitrogen.
- Taxon
- MUSKMELONCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- O 2 supplye0
- Outcome
- Solute leakagee0
- Direction
- highere0
- Comparator
- air or N treatmente0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Solute leakage from O 2 supply of both methods was higher than air or N treatment”
t0“MUSKMELON”
Claim · model-written summary
Oxygen hydropriming induced radicle emergence.
- Taxon
- MUSKMELONCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- Hydropriming with O 2e0
- Outcome
- radicle emergencee0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Hydropriming with O 2 induced radicle emergence and loss of desiccation tolerance around 28 hours after treatment”
t0“MUSKMELON”
Claim · model-written summary
Oxygen hydropriming caused loss of desiccation tolerance around 28 hours.
- Taxon
- MUSKMELONCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- Hydropriming with O 2e0
- Outcome
- loss of desiccation tolerancee0
- Qualifier
- around 28 hours after treatmente0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Hydropriming with O 2 induced radicle emergence and loss of desiccation tolerance around 28 hours after treatment”
t0“MUSKMELON”
Claim · model-written summary
LEA protein levels were unchanged with both priming treatments except oxygen hydropriming.
- Taxon
- MUSKMELONCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- both treatmentse0
- Outcome
- LEA protein levelse0
- Direction
- not changede0
- Qualifier
- except for hydropriming with O 2e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“LEA protein levels were not changed in both treatments except for hydropriming with O 2”
t0“MUSKMELON”
Claim · model-written summary
Loss of desiccation tolerance was correlated with LEA protein degradation timing.
- Taxon
- MUSKMELONCucumis melot0
- Gene
- LEA proteine0
- Outcome
- timing of desiccation tolerance losse0
Not reportedDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The timing of desiccation tolerance loss was correlated with that of degradation of LEA protein”
t0“MUSKMELON”
Claim · model-written summary
Oxygen supply adversely affected seed performance under both priming methods.
- Taxon
- MUSKMELONCucumis melot0
- Treatment
- O 2 supplye0
- Outcome
- seed performancee0
- Qualifier
- 1 day after treatmente0
Not reportedComparatorDirection
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“O 2 supply caused the adverse effects on seed performance from both methods 1 day after treatment”
t0“MUSKMELON”
The same questions in other papers
seed treatment · disease · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results
1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- positive
- negative
seed treatment · growth · Cucumis melo (muskmelon)Positive and negative results
25 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction
- negative
- positive
- positive
23 papers more in this group
See all 27 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.