Hostname: page-component-77f85d65b8-zzw9c Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-03-28T11:28:34.945Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Physical seed dormancy in Abrus precatorious (Ratti): a scientific validation of indigenous technique

Subject: Life Science and Biomedicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  04 February 2021

Rajender Kumar Sharma*
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Deshbandhu College, University of Delhi, Delhi 110019, India
*
Corresponding author. E-mail: rksharmabio@yahoo.co.in

Abstract

Seeds of Abrus precatorius L. (Fabaceae) were used as weight measure by Indigenous people. Where, the seeds were referred as Ratti; a traditional Indian unit of mass measurement. Seed weight fluctuates depending upon age, moisture, storage-period/conditions. Therefore, use of seeds as a weighing unit become dubious and need to be validated. For this purpose, seeds of A. precatorious were subjected to different moisture conditions and periodically monitored. Surprisingly, there was no change in seed weight was observed, indicating the impermeability of seed coat. The later was confirmed by scarification of seed coat which resulted in 53% increase in seed weight against 0% in control. Further, presence of a potent toxin (abrin) in the seed coat protects it from pests and microbes, and contributes to the maintenance of impermeability for longer period of time. The data validates the use of A. precatorious seeds as a weighing unit (ratti) by the indigenous people and discussed.

Information

Type
Research Article
Creative Commons
Creative Common License - CCCreative Common License - BY
This is an Open Access article, distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted re-use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.
Copyright
© The Author(s), 2021. Published by Cambridge University Press
Figure 0

Figure 1. Abrus precatorious (Ratti) seeds.

Figure 1

Table 1. Effect of acid- (concentrated H2SO4) and mechanical-scarification of seeds on seed coat permeability in Abrus precatorious L. Data are average of 100 seeds each, all the differences are significant at p ≤ 0.01.

Figure 2

Table 2. Comparison of change in seed weight of Abrus precatorious L and Cicer arietinum L as affected by different relative humidity. Data are average of 100 seeds each. All the differences are significant at p ≤ 0.01.

Reviewing editor:  Ali Bajwa NSW Department of Industry, Wagga Wagga, New South Wales, Australia, 2650
This article has been accepted because it is deemed to be scientifically sound, has the correct controls, has appropriate methodology and is statistically valid, and has been sent for additional statistical evaluation and met required revisions.

Review 1: Physical seed dormancy in Abrus precatorious (Ratti): a scientific validation of indigenous technique

Conflict of interest statement

I declared that I have no conflict of interest with this paper

Comments

Comments to the Author: Overall, a very well written paper on an important subject. The study was well designed and executed taken into account all important parameters. Results were appropriately described and discussion was up to the mark. However, it needs some improvement in introduction section. Goals/objectives are not clearly defined and followed throughout the manuscript. Also, abstract should indicate data from results and discussion section.

Presentation

Overall score 4.7 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
4 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
5 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
5 out of 5

Context

Overall score 4.8 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
5 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
4 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
5 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 4.6 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
4 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
5 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
5 out of 5

Review 2: Physical seed dormancy in Abrus precatorious (Ratti): a scientific validation of indigenous technique

Conflict of interest statement

Reviewer declares none

Comments

Comments to the Author: This is a paper which reviews the role of seed dormancy in Abrus precatorious. The author has done good work. However, the actual text needs a lot of work I feel. I have the following comments, but they are not exhaustive, I could have pointed out more. However, I hope my comments will help the overall feel of the paper.

1. Title should be modified.

2. English should improve by a native person. The paper suffers from a poor English structure throughout and cannot be published or reviewed properly in the current format. The manuscript requires a thorough proofread by a native person whose first language is English. The instances of the problem are numerous and this reviewer cannot individually mention them. It is the responsibility of the author(s) to present their work in an acceptable format. Unless the paper is in a reasonable format, it should not have been submitted.

3. The novelty of the study needs to be highlighted compare to other similar studies.

4. Discussion is weak. The discussion needs enhancement with real explanations not only agreements and disagreements. Authors should improve it by the demonstration of biochemical/physiological causes of obtained results. Instead of just justifying results, results should be interpreted, explained to appropriately elaborate inferences. Discussion seems to be poor, didn’t give good explanations of the results obtained. I think that it must be really improved. Where possible please discuss potential mechanisms behind your observations. You should also expand the links with prior publications in the area, but try to be careful to not over-reach. For the latter, you should highlight potential areas of future study.

5. The scientific background of the topic is poor. In “Introduction” and “Discussion”, the authors should cite recent references between 2016-2020 from JCR journals (with impact factor) about recent achievements on the other factors affects on Physical seed dormancy in Abrus precatorious (Ratti): a scientific validation of indigenous technique.

6. A detailed “Conclusion” should be provided to state the final result that the authors have reached. Please note you only need to place your conclusion and not keep putting results, because these have already been presented in the manuscript.

Presentation

Overall score 1 out of 5
Is the article written in clear and proper English? (30%)
1 out of 5
Is the data presented in the most useful manner? (40%)
1 out of 5
Does the paper cite relevant and related articles appropriately? (30%)
1 out of 5

Context

Overall score 1 out of 5
Does the title suitably represent the article? (25%)
1 out of 5
Does the abstract correctly embody the content of the article? (25%)
1 out of 5
Does the introduction give appropriate context? (25%)
1 out of 5
Is the objective of the experiment clearly defined? (25%)
1 out of 5

Analysis

Overall score 1 out of 5
Does the discussion adequately interpret the results presented? (40%)
1 out of 5
Is the conclusion consistent with the results and discussion? (40%)
1 out of 5
Are the limitations of the experiment as well as the contributions of the experiment clearly outlined? (20%)
1 out of 5