Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-4hhp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-13T00:17:47.661Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Factors Influencing Shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) Seed Survival

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Gary M. Fellows  and
Fred W. Roeth
Gary M. Fellows
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE 68583
Fred W. Roeth
Affiliation:
South Central Res. and Ext. Ctr., Clay Center, NE 68933
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Shattercane seed survival during soil burial was highly dependent on attached glumes. Shattercane seed tightly enclosed by glumes averaged 5 and 53% germination after 4 mo of winter burial in 1988 and 1989, respectively. Shattercane caryopses (seed without glumes) survival averaged 0.5 and 17% compared to 17 and 41% when treated with seed fungicides in 1988 and 1989, respectively. Shattercane caryopses tannin and lignin contents were higher than for cultivated sorghum caryopses. Glume tannin was four times higher and glume lignin was five times higher than in the caryopsis. Shattercane seed survival was positively correlated with glume tightness, caryopsis lignin, and glume tannin. Tannin and lignin appear to function as barriers to microbial invasion resulting in higher shattercane seed resistance to overwinter demise. Attempts to isolate fungal inhibitors from shattercane seed were unsuccessful.

Keywords

Shattercane, Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench # SORVUsorghum, Sorghum bicolor (L.)MoenchAntifungalglumesligninseed burialtannin
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 40 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 434 - 440
Copyright
Copyright © 1992 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Akin, D. E. 1989. Histological and physical factors affecting digestibility of forages. Agron. J. 81:17–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
2. Balasurbramanian, A. and Rangaswami, G. 1967. On the chemical inhibitors of fungal spores from the seedcoats of three plant species. Curr. Sci. 36:615–616.Google Scholar
3. Barnett, H. L. and Hunter, B. B. 1987. Illustrated genera of imperfect fungi. The MacMillan Co., New York. 218 pp.Google Scholar
4. Bewley, J. D. and Black, M. 1985. Seeds: Physiology of Development and Germination. Plenum Press, New York. 367 pp.Google Scholar
5. Burnside, O. C. and Robison, L. R. 1967. Shattercane and its control. Nebr. Farm, Ranch, and Home Quart. 8:15–17.Google Scholar
6. Burnside, O. C., Wicks, G. A., and Fenster, C. R. 1977. Longevity of shattercane seed in soil across Nebraska. Weed Res. 17:139–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
7. Casey, J. E. 1947. Apparent dormancy in sorghum seed. Assoc. Off. Seed Anal. News Letter 21:34–36.Google Scholar
8. Fellows, G. M. 1990. Shattercane distribution, interference, and economic impact in Nebraska. Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Nebraska, Lincoln, NE.Google Scholar
9. Goering, H. K. and Van Soest, P. J. 1970. Forage fiber analysis. Agric. Handb. 379, U.S. Dep. Agric. Google Scholar
10. Guiragossian, V. Y., Van Scoyoc, S. W., and Axtell, J. D. 1977. Chemical and biological methods for grain and forage sorghum. Dep. Agron., Agric. Exp. Stn., Purdue Univ., West Lafayette, IN. 232 pp.Google Scholar
11. Gupta, R. K. and Haslam, E. 1979. Vegetable tannins-structure and biosynthesis. In Polyphenols in Cereals and Legumes. Hulse, J. H., ed. Proc. Inst. Food Technol., June 10–13, St. Louis, MO.Google Scholar
12. Harris, H. B. and Burns, R. E. 1970. Influence of tannin content on preharvest seed germination. Agron. J. 62:835–836.Google Scholar
13. Harris, H. B. and Burns, R. E. 1973. Relationship between tannin content of sorghum grain and preharvest seed molding. Agron. J. 65:957–959.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Jacques, G. L., Vesecky, J. F., Feltner, K. C., and Vanderlip, R. L. 1974. Effects of depth and duration of burial on shattercane seed. Crop Sci. 14:787–789.Google Scholar
15. Jambunathan, R., Butler, L. G., Bandyopadhyay, R., and Mughogho, L. K. 1986. Polyphenol concentrations in grain, leaf, and callus tissues of mold-susceptible and mold-resistant sorghum cultivars. J. Agric. Food Chem. 34:425–429.Google Scholar
16. Jambunathan, R., Kherdekar, M., and Bandyopadhyay, R. 1990. Flaven-4-ols concentration in mold-susceptible and mold-resistant sorghum at different stages of grain development. J. Agric. Food. Chem. 1990. Pages 545–548.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Kremer, R. J. 1986. Antimicrobial activity of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 34:617–622.Google Scholar
18. Muthukumar, G. and Mahadevan, A. 1983. Microbial degradation of lignin. J. Sci. and Ind. Res. 42:518–528.Google Scholar
19. Picman, A. K., Giaccone, R., Ivarson, K. C., and Altosaar, I. 1984. Antifungal properties of oat. Phytoprotection 65:9–15.Google Scholar
20. Rice, E. L. 1984. Allelopathy. Academic Press, Orlando, FL. 422 pp.Google Scholar
21. Schaad, N. W. 1980. Initial identification of common genera. Page 1–11 in Laboratory Guide for Identification of Plant Pathogenic Bacteria. Am. Phytopathol. Soc., St Paul, MN.Google Scholar
22. Sinha, A. P., Singh, K., and Mukhopadhyay, A. N. 1988. Soil Fungicides Vol. 1. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 187 pp.Google Scholar
23. Thorton, M. L. 1963. Dormancy and longevity of sorghum seed (Sorghum vulgare Pers.) Proc. Assoc. Off. Seed Anal. 53:107–111.Google Scholar
24. Weed Loss Committee. 1985. Weed Survey of the North Central Weed Control Conference. Thomas N. Jordan, Chairman. NCWCC Res. Rep. 42:344–355.Google Scholar
25. Wilson, R. D. 1972. Characterization of the dormancy of the seed of wild cane (Sorghum bicolor). Ph.D. Dissertation, Univ. Missouri, Columbia, MO.Google Scholar