Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-fbnjt Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-12T09:14:55.305Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Prediction of seed longevity: a modification of the shape of the Ellis and Roberts seed survival curves

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2007

A. Mead  and
D. Gray
A. Mead*
Affiliation:
Biometrics Department, Warwick CV35 9EF, UK
D. Gray
Affiliation:
Crop and Weed Science Department, Horticulture Research International, Wellesbourne, Warwick CV35 9EF, UK
*
* Correspondence Email: andrew.mead@hri.ac.uk
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The prediction of the viability of stored seeds is important both for the management of germplasm collections and for the management of commercial seed production and storage. The Ellis and Roberts model for seed viability during storage is examined, and an inadequacy of the model highlighted. A modification is proposed, based on the ‘control mortality’ probit model developed for insecticide bioassays, to take proper account of variation in initial viability. This new ‘control viability’ model, relating seed viability to storage time, is fitted to data from a carrot seed storage experiment and found to fit well for a range of storage environments. A relationship, similar to that proposed by Ellis and Roberts for the effects of storage conditions on the rate of loss of viability, is fitted to the estimated rates from this new model. Data from a second carrot seed storage experiment are used to validate this relationship.

Keywords

carrotmodelmoistureseed viabilitystoragetemperature
Type
Research Article
Information
Seed Science Research , Volume 9 , Issue 1 , January 1999 , pp. 63 - 73
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

Abbott, W.S. (1925) A method for computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. Journal of Economic Entomology 18, 265–267.Google Scholar
Collett, D. (1991) Modelling Binary Data. London, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.H. and Roberts, E.H. (1977) A revised seed viability nomograph for onion. Seed Research 5, 93–103.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.H. and Roberts, E.H. (1980a) Improved equations for the prediction of seed longevity. Annals of Botany 45, 13–30.Google Scholar
Ellis, R.H. and Roberts, E.H. (1980b) The influence of temperature and moisture on seed period in barley (Hordeum distichum L.). Annals of Botany 45, 31–37.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenlon, J.S. (1995) How can a Statistician improve your interpretation? Pesticide Science 45, 77–82.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Finney, D.J. (1971) Probit Analysis. (3rd edition) London, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
ISTA, (1985) International rules for seed testing. Seed Science and Technology 13, 440–441.Google Scholar
Kraak, H.L. and Vos, J. (1987) Seed viability constants for lettuce. Annals of Botany 59, 343–349.Google Scholar
Morgan, B.J.T. (1992) Analysis of Quantal Response Data. London, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Priestley, D.A., Cullinan, V.I. and Wolfe, J. (1985) Differences in seed longevity at the species level. Plant, Cell and Environment 8, 557–562.Google Scholar
Roberts, E.H. (1960) The viability of cereal seed in relation to temperature and moisture. Annals of Botany 24, 12–31.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, E.H. (1972) Storage environment and the control of viability. In Roberts, E.H. (Ed.) Viability of Seeds. London, Chapman & Hall.Google Scholar
Roberts, E.H. (1973) Predicting the storage life of seeds. Seed Science and Technology 1, 499–514.Google Scholar
Roos, E.E. and Davidson, D.A. (1992) Record longevities of vegetable seeds in storage. HortScience 27, 393–396.Google Scholar
Wilson, D.O. Jr., McDonald, M.B. Jr. and St. Martin, S.K. (1989) A probit planes method for analysing seed deterioration data. Crop Science 29, 471–476.Google Scholar