Next Article in Journal
Modifying Carbohydrate Supply to Fruit during Development Changes the Composition and Flavour of Actinidia chinensis var. chinensis ‘Zesy002’ Kiwifruit
Next Article in Special Issue
Interactive Impacts of Beneficial Microbes and Si-Zn Nanocomposite on Growth and Productivity of Soybean Subjected to Water Deficit under Salt-Affected Soil Conditions
Previous Article in Journal
Progesterone Promotes Mitochondrial Respiration at the Biochemical and Molecular Level in Germinating Maize Seeds
Previous Article in Special Issue
Impact of Ecklonia maxima Seaweed Extract and Mo Foliar Treatments on Biofortification, Spinach Yield, Quality and NUE
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 10
Issue 7
10.3390/plants10071327
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Communication

Biopriming with Seaweed Extract and Microbial-Based Commercial Biostimulants Influences Seed Germination of Five Abelmoschus esculentus Genotypes

by
Gugulethu Makhaye
1,2,
Adeyemi O. Aremu
3,4,*,
Abe Shegro Gerrano
1,5,
Samson Tesfay
2,
Christian P. Du Plooy
1 and
Stephen O. Amoo
1,3,*
1
Agricultural Research Council–Vegetables, Industrial and Medicinal Plants, Private Bag X293, Pretoria 0001, South Africa
2
Discipline of Horticultural Science, School of Agricultural, Earth and Environmental Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa
3
Indigenous Knowledge Systems Centre, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Private Bag X2046, Mmabatho 2790, South Africa
4
School of Life Sciences, University of KwaZulu-Natal, Private Bag X01, Scottsville, Pietermaritzburg 3209, South Africa
5
Crop Science Department, Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, School of Agricultural Sciences, North-West University, Private Bag X2046, Mmabatho 2790, South Africa
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2021, 10(7), 1327; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10071327
Submission received: 4 June 2021 / Revised: 16 June 2021 / Accepted: 24 June 2021 / Published: 29 June 2021
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Biostimulants as Growth Promoting and Stress Protecting Compounds)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Seed germination is a crucial step in plant propagation, as it controls seedling production, stand establishment and ultimately crop yield. Approaches that can promote seed germination of valuable crops remain of great interest globally. The current study evaluated the effect of biostimulant (Kelpak® and plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria—PGPR) biopriming on the seed germination of five (VI037996, VI046567, VI055421, VI050956, and VI033796) Abelmoschus esculentus genotypes. The germination responses of the bio-primed seeds were measured using six parameters, including final germination percentage (FGP), mean germination time (MGT), germination index (GI), coefficient of velocity of germination (CVG), germination rate index (GRI), and time spread of germination (TSG). Biostimulant application significantly affected MGT (1.1–2.2 days), CVG (1.4–5.9), and TSG (1.2–3.0 days). Genotype also significantly influenced the TSG (1–3 days). Significant interaction effect of biostimulant treatment and genotype was evident on the FGP, GI, and GRI of the germinated seeds. The most noteworthy effect was demonstrated by Kelpak® (1:100) applied to genotype VI037996, with significantly improved FGP (82%), GI (238), and GRI (77%/day) when compared to the control. Overall, the current findings suggest the potential stimulatory effect of biostimulants (especially Kelpak®) on the germination of Abelmoschus esculentus seeds. However, this influence was strongly dependent on the type of genotype.

1. Introduction

The increasing world population has resulted in an increasing demand for food, especially in developing countries. This increase has led to the promotion of multipurpose plant cultivation. However, the cultivation of these plants is largely dependent on seed germination, which in turn is influenced by several factors [1]. Seed germination is the initial step in a plant’s life and refers to the protrusion of the radicle from the seed coat [2]. Germination is an internal process that is facilitated by signalling pathways required to activate α-amylase and commence the breakdown of the starchy endosperm into simpler sugars to provide energy for the growing embryo [3].
Seeds of various plant species have different responses that are entirely based on the genetic make-up of that species [4,5]. Currently, the cultivation of many economically important plants is faced with poor seed germination rate, inadequate seedling emergence, and poor stand establishment, which negatively affects their yield [5]. As a result, it is pertinent to explore strategies to improve and synchronize seed germination as well as resultant field performance [6,7]. Recently, diverse novel technologies such as high-pressure processing, pulsed electric field, ultrasound, ozone processing, ultraviolet, magnetic field, microwave radiation, non-thermal plasma, electrolyzed oxidizing water, and plasma-activated water have been explored [7]. As a sustainable approach, researchers have investigated the effect of seed soaking and/or priming with various compounds that can promote germination [8,9,10,11]. Particularly, the application of biostimulants in the form of seed coatings that serve as a suitable delivery system has the potential to enhance germination rate and subsequent seedling establishment [12,13].
The stimulatory effect of biostimulants, such as seaweed extracts and plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR), on seed germination has been widely recognized [14,15]. Seaweed extracts are predominantly high in phytohormones, which tend to play a major role in seed germination [16,17]. Application of Sargassum liebmannii extracts significantly enhanced the germination percentage of Trigonella foenum-graecum seeds [18]. Furthermore, Ascophylum nodosum extract significantly enhanced the germination percentage and germination speed index of Phaseolus vulgaris [19]. Likewise, PGPR can synthesize phytohormones through their secondary metabolism [20]. Bacillus subtilis enhanced the germination percentage of Sorghum bicolor seeds, while Panax schinseng had no significant effect on the germination parameters of Lactuca sativa seeds [21,22].
Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench (family: Malvaceae) is a rich source of important nutrients and phytochemicals, which makes it a valuable crop for combating nutrient deficiencies and promoting good health and well-being in humans [23,24,25]. However, low production and productivity of this species which has been attributed to several biotic and abiotic factors that may affect seed germination currently exists in sub-Saharan Africa [24]. Timely and uniform seed emergence has the potential to mitigate these biotic and abiotic challenges [6,26]. Sharma et al. [26] explored the effects of hydropriming, osmopriming, halopriming and solid matrix priming on Abelmoschus esculentus seeds as an approach for improving seed germination. Furthermore, organic amendments affect the germination and seedling vigour of Abelmoschus esculentus [27], while the potential of liquid-seaweed fertilizer, applied as a foliar spray, on the yield and nutritional quality of Abelmoschus esculentus was investigated by Zodape et al. [28]. Even though these aforementioned studies are laudable, the critical effects linked to different genotypes and biostimulants remain poorly understood. Thus, the current study was aimed at determining the effect of seed priming with Kelpak® (a seaweed-based commercial biostimulant) and PGPR (a microbial-based biostimulant) on the various germination parameters of five Abelmoschus esculentus genotypes.

2. Results

2.1. Effect of Hydropriming Duration on Seed Germination

Final germination percentage, GI, and GRI increased with an increase in soaking duration (Table 1). The highest germination percentage was recorded in seeds soaked for 24 h. Mean germination time decreased with an increase in soaking duration. The lower the MGT, the faster the germination of a seed lot. Seeds soaked for 24 h had the lowest MGT, implying a faster germination in comparison to other soaking treatments. This soaking treatment also had the highest GI and GRI values. There was no significant difference in the TSG. On this basis, the 24 h soaking duration was used for the seed biopriming study.

2.2. Effect of Biopriming Treatments on Seed Germination of Abelmoschus esculentus Genotypes

Biostimulant biopriming treatments significantly affected all germination parameters, while the influence of genotype was evident only on FGP, GI, GRI, and TSG (Table 2). Biopriming with PGPR 1:5 (v/v) dilution significantly increased MGT, while other treatments had no significant influence when compared to the control (Figure 1). However, for both Kelpak® and PGPR treatments, MGT decreased with an increase in dilution. Although the CVG increased with an increase in PGPR dilution, both biostimulants did not significantly increase CVG in comparison to the control (Figure 2). The lower the TSG value, the smaller the difference in germination speed of seeds within a seed lot [2]. Seeds primed with Kelpak® 1:100 (v/v) had the lowest TSG value (Figure 3), implying a higher homogeneity in germination speed resulting from this treatment. The TSG value was also significantly influenced by genotype, with VI050956 having the highest homogeneity (Figure 4).
Table 3 presents the interaction effect of genotype and seed biopriming treatments on FGP, GI and GRI values. Generally, the FGP, GI, and GRI increased with an increase in biostimulant dilution, particularly for PGPR treatments. Seed priming with PGPR 1:5 (v/v) had a significantly negative effect on FGP, GI, and GRI. Kelpak® 1:100 (v/v) significantly increased FGP, GI, and GRI in genotype VI037996, in comparison to the control.

3. Discussion

The benefits associated with the use of various priming agents, especially biostimulants, for enhancing seed germination cannot be over-emphasized in efforts geared towards improving food security and sustainability [6,29]. In particular, enhancing germination in a timely and uniform manner often exerts a beneficial effect on the seedling vigour and subsequent development of many plants with nutritional and medicinal values [8,9,10,11]. In the current study, a dose–response effect was evident in the evaluated germination parameters. The efficacy of seaweed extracts was affected by their concentration and in most cases, it enhanced plant growth attributes at low concentrations [30]. This study revealed the most noteworthy response in Kelpak®-treated (1:100, v/v) Abelmoschus esculentus seeds. This aforementioned treatment had a significantly positive effect on the FGP, GI, and GRI of genotype VI037996 when compared to the control. However, Kelpak® (all dilutions) did not improve the MGT of Abelmoschus esculentus seeds. Kelpak® is produced from Ecklonia maxima, which is one of the most commonly utilized seaweeds [17]. The positive effect of seaweed extract was demonstrated with the priming of Phaseolus vulgaris seeds using Ascophyllum nodosum, which resulted in a significantly increased germination speed index [19]. Furthermore, Sargassum vulgare, Colpomenia sinuosa, and Padina pavonica (all at 5% v/v) positively influenced the germination percentage of Trigonella foenum-graecum relative to the control [18]. The application of Sargassum tenerrimum (0.8% v/v) to Solanum lycopersicum seeds resulted in 100% germination, which was significantly higher than the control [29]. Brown seaweed (Cystoseira barbata) extracts significantly increased the germination percentage of Solanum lycopersicum and Solanum melongena seeds when compared to the control [31]. Seaweed extracts often stimulate and accelerate cell division, elongation, differentiation and protein synthesis [18], which likely explains the stimulatory effect of Kelpak® on seed germination. In addition, the beneficial effects of seaweed extracts on seed germination have been attributed to the presence of phytohormones such as gibberellic acid and auxins [30,32,33]. Even though auxins do not directly affect seed germination, they facilitate gibberellic acid biosynthesis [5]. Gibberellic acid promotes germination, while auxins promote the biosynthesis of gibberellic acid, which therefore triggers the activities of ∝-amylase [34]. As postulated by Zulfiqar [6], improved germination of primed seeds may also be attributed to a solution–retention effect in the pre-germination phase that subsequently influences vital metabolic processes.
In this study, PGPR treatments did not significantly improve germination. Particularly, FGP, GI, and GRI in PGPR (1:5) treatment was significantly lower relative to the control. Several authors have documented varied germination responses in relation to the application of different rhizobacteria. The application of Azospirillum brasilense (Sp7, Sp7-S, and Sp245) to tomato seeds increased germination value, while in lettuce only the Sp7 strain promoted germination value relative to the control [34]. In Allium cepa seeds, Bacillus sp. and Pseudomonas sp. reduced germination (%), while Azotobacter sp. had no significant effect when compared to the control [35]. The authors elucidated that Bacillus sp. and Pseudomonas sp. produce hydrogen cyanide gas, which when available in larger quantities becomes toxic to the seeds and hence inhibits germination. Treatment of Cuscuta campestris seeds with Bacillus sp. had no significant effect on seed germination when measured against the control [36]. Bacillus subtilis promoted the germination (%) of sorghum var. CSH-14 and Proagro compared to the control [22]. Brevibacillus brevis significantly increased both the germination percentage and rate of Gossypium hirsutum seeds [37].
Plant genes play a major role in the germination process, particularly in the repair and synthesis of DNA during phase II of germination [5]. The genetic differences among cultivars cause different cultivar responses during this stage. While some cultivars complete phase II within a short period, some may require an extended period to complete it [38,39,40]. Similarly to the current study, varying germination responses among genotypes of different plants such as Glycine max [38], sugar beet [40] and Jatropha curcas [41] have been demonstrated. On the other hand, all 12 genotypes of Triticum aestevium had similar seed germination responses [39]. Contrary to the current study, the gene expression of these genotypes is almost similar (especially at the initial stages of growth), and all the phases of germination (imbibition, mobilization of food reserves, and radicle emergence) were in sync, with a high likelihood that seedling growth and stand establishment would be synchronised.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Source of Biostimulants and Seeds

Kelpak® was obtained from Kelp Products (Pty) Ltd., Simon’s Town, South Africa. It is a commercial product that is made from Ecklonia maxima and known to contain diverse compounds such as polyamines, plant growth regulators, and phlorotannins [17]. Plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria commercial solution (a mixture of organic acids, Bacillus sp., amino/fulvic acid, and soil bacteria) was purchased from Agriman (Pty) Ltd., Pretoria, South Africa. Five genotypes (VI037996, VI046567, VI055421, VI050956, and VI033796) of Abelmoschus esculentus seeds were obtained from the Agricultural Research Council–Vegetables, Industrial and Medicinal Plants (ARC-VIMP) gene bank, Pretoria, South Africa, which were previously imported from the World Vegetables Center, Taiwan, and conserved in the ARC-VIMP gene bank.

4.2. Hydropriming Duration Determination

The seeds of genotype VI037996 were surface-sterilized with a 1% sodium hypochlorite solution for 5 min and rinsed thoroughly with distilled water. Thereafter, they were soaked in distilled water for 0, 6, 12, and 24 h. For each soaking duration, 25 seeds were placed in 90 mm Petri dishes lined with two layers of filter paper (Whatman No. 1) and moistened with 10 mL distilled water. This was replicated three times. The Petri dishes were incubated in a growth chamber set at 25 °C with a 12/12 h light and dark regime. Germination was considered to be complete when the radicle had protruded at least 2 mm. Germination was monitored and recorded daily. Six germination parameters (final germination percentage (FGP), mean germination time (MGT), germination index (GI), coefficient of velocity of germination (CVG), germination rate index (GRI), and time spread of germination (TSG)) were calculated according to Kader [2] as follows:
FGP = (Final number of seeds germinated in a seed lot/total number of seeds in a lot) × 100
MGT = Σf.x/Σf
CVG = N1 + N2 + · · · + Nx/100 × N1T1 + · · · + NxTx
GRI = G1/1 + G2/2 +· · ·+ Gx/x
GI = (10 × n1) + (9 × n2) + · · · + (1 × n10)
TSG = the time in days between the first and last germination events occurring in a seed lot
where
  • f = seeds germinated on day x,
  • N = number of seeds germinated each day,
  • T = number of days from seeding corresponding to N,
  • G1 = germination percentage on the first day after sowing,
  • G2 = germination percentage on the second day after sowing,
  • n1, n2 … n10 = number of germinated seeds on the first, second and subsequent days until the 10th day; 10, 9… and 1 are weights given to the number of germinated seeds on the first, second, and subsequent days, respectively.

4.3. Seed Priming with Biostimulants

Seeds of different genotypes were soaked for 24 h (based on the seed soaking experiment) in biostimulants at varying dilutions (Kelpak® solution (1:20, 1:40 and 1:100, v/v) and PGPR (1:5, 1:10 and 1:15, v/v)), while distilled water was included as the control. For each treatment, 25 seeds were placed in 90 mm Petri dishes lined with two layers of Whatman No. 1 filter paper. The seeds were incubated at 25 °C with a 12/12 h light and dark regime for 14 days. The Petri dishes were laid out in a completely randomised design in triplicates. Seed germination was monitored and recorded daily.

4.4. Data Analysis

Bartlett’s Test as well as Levene’s Test of Equality of Variances was used to assess statistical assumption, and the Normtest procedure in Genstat software was used to assess the normality of the residuals for each variate in turn. The residuals were acceptably normal, but with some heterogeneous treatment variances. However, the analysis of variance (ANOVA) utilised the t and F statistics respectively, which are generally robust to violations of this assumption as long as group sizes are equal. Glass et al. [42] also indicated that the consequences on inference after ANOVA are not serious. Thus, data were subjected to a two-way ANOVA using Genstat 64-bit Release 18.2 (PC/Windows 8). Mean values were separated using Fishers’ protected t-test least significant difference (LSD) at the 5% level of significance [43].

5. Conclusions

In the absence of biostimulants, genotypes V1046567 and V1050956 demonstrated the most noteworthy germination responses. In relatively low-germinating genotypes, Kelpak® application (1:100 dilution) significantly influenced the germination parameters of Abelmoschus esculentus genotype VI037996 when compared to the control (lacking biostimulants). It was evident that the efficacy of biostimulants depended on the genotype in addition to biostimulant concentrations. Diverse responses including stimulatory, inhibitory, and neutral effects were demonstrated for the different treatments. Overall, this study demonstrated the importance and contribution of biostimulant type and concentration on seed germination of Abelmoschus esculentus. Given that seed biopriming may potentially exert a carry-over effect on the seedling growth and yield as well as on biochemical parameters, further investigation focused on these aspects remains pertinent.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, G.M., A.O.A. and S.O.A.; formal analysis, G.M. and S.O.A.; investigation, G.M.; resources, A.S.G., C.P.D.P. and S.O.A.; writing—original draft preparation, G.M., A.O.A. and S.O.A.; writing—review and editing, A.O.A., S.T., A.S.G., C.P.D.P. and S.O.A.; supervision, A.O.A., S.T. and S.O.A.; project administration, C.P.D.P. and S.O.A.; funding acquisition, S.O.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the National Research Foundation, grant number UID: 114065 and the APC was funded by the Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, North-West University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data associated with the current study are presented in the manuscript.

Acknowledgments

We sincerely thank Liesl Morey (ARC-Biometry) for assistance with statistical analysis. We appreciated institutional support from the Agricultural Research Council, North-West University and University of KwaZulu-Natal, South Africa.

Conflicts of Interest

We declare no conflict of interest. The funders had no role in the design of the study; in the collection, analyses, or interpretation of data; in the writing of the manuscript, or in the decision to publish the results.

References

  1. Makena, I.M.; Matsiliza-Mlathi, B.; Kleynhans, R. Seed propagation and seed anatomy of three Eucomis species. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1204, 263–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Kader, M.A. A Comparison of seed germination calculation formulae and the associated interpretation of resulting data. J. Proc. R. Soc. N. S. W. 2005, 138, 65–75. [Google Scholar]
  3. Wang, W.-Q.; Liu, S.-J.; Song, S.-Q.; Møller, I.M. Proteomics of seed development, desiccation tolerance, germination and vigor. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2015, 86, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wakjira, K.; Negash, L. Germination responses of Croton macrostachyus (Euphorbiaceae) to various physico-chemical pretreatment conditions. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2013, 87, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  5. Nonogaki, H.; Bassel, G.W.; Bewley, J.D. Germination—Still a mystery. Plant Sci. 2010, 179, 574–581. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zulfiqar, F. Effect of seed priming on horticultural crops. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 286, 110197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Rifna, E.; Ramanan, K.R.; Mahendran, R. Emerging technology applications for improving seed germination. Trends Food Sci. Technol. 2019, 86, 95–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Khalaki, M.A.; Moameri, M.; Lajayer, B.A.; Astatkie, T. Influence of nano-priming on seed germination and plant growth of forage and medicinal plants. Plant Growth Regul. 2021, 93, 13–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Mzibra, A.; Aasfar, A.; Benhima, R.; Khouloud, M.; Boulif, R.; Douira, A.; Bamouh, A.; Kadmiri, I.M. Biostimulants derived from Moroccan seaweeds: Seed germination metabolomics and growth promotion of tomato plant. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2021, 40, 353–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Ngoroyemoto, N.; Gupta, S.; Kulkarni, M.G.; Finnie, J.F.; Van Staden, J. Effect of organic biostimulants on the growth and biochemical composition of Amaranthus hybridus L. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2019, 124, 87–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Tian, Y.; Guan, B.; Zhou, D.; Yu, J.; Li, G.; Lou, Y. Responses of seed germination, seedling growth, and seed yield traits to seed pretreatment in maize (Zea mays L.). Sci. World J. 2014, 2014, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  12. Ma, Y.; Látr, A.; Rocha, I.; Freitas, H.; Vosátka, M.; Oliveira, R.S. Delivery of inoculum of Rhizophagus irregularis via seed coating in combination with Pseudomonas libanensis for cowpea production. Agronomy 2019, 9, 33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Amirkhani, M.; Mayton, H.S.; Netravali, A.N.; Taylor, A.G. A seed coating delivery system for bio-based biostimulants to enhance plant growth. Sustainability 2019, 11, 5304. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Du Jardin, P. Plant biostimulants: Definition, concept, main categories and regulation. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 3–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  15. Drobek, M.; Frąc, M.; Cybulska, J. Plant Biostimulants: Importance of the quality and yield of horticultural crops and the improvement of plant tolerance to abiotic stress—A review. Agronomy 2019, 9, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  16. Battacharyya, D.; Babgohari, M.Z.; Rathor, P.; Prithiviraj, B. Seaweed extracts as biostimulants in horticulture. Sci. Hortic. 2015, 196, 39–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Stirk, W.A.; Rengasamy, K.R.; Kulkarni, M.G.; van Staden, J. Plant biostimulants from seaweed: An overview. In The Chemical Biology of Plant Biostimulants; Geelen, D., Xu, L., Eds.; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2020; pp. 33–55. [Google Scholar]
  18. El-Sheekh, M.M.; Ismail, M.M.; Hamouda, M.M. Influence of some brown seaweed extracts on germination and cytological responses of Trigonella foenum-graecum L. Biotechnol. Indian J. 2016, 12, 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  19. Carvalho, M.E.A.; Castro, P.R.C.; Novembre, A.D.C.; Chamma, H.M.C.P. Seaweed extract improves the vigor and provides the rapid emergence of dry bean seeds. Am. Eurasian J. Agric. Environ. Sci. 2013, 13, 1104–1107. [Google Scholar]
  20. Mahmood, A.; Turgay, O.C.; Farooq, M.; Hayat, R. Seed biopriming with plant growth promoting rhizobacteria: A review. FEMS Microbiol. Ecol. 2016, 92, fiw112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Hussein, K.A.; Joo, J.H. Plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria improved salinity tolerance of Lactuca sativa and Raphanus sativus. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2018, 28, 938–945. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Prathibha, K.S.; Siddalingeshwara, K.G. Effect of plant growth promoting Bacillus subtilis and Pseudomonas fluorescence as rhizobacteria on seed quality of sorghum. Int. J. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2013, 2, 11–18. [Google Scholar]
  23. Islam, M.T. Phytochemical information and pharmacological activities of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus): A literature-based review. Phytother. Res. 2019, 33, 72–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  24. Mkhabela, S.S.; Shimelis, H.; Gerrano, A.S.; Mashilo, J. Phenotypic and genotypic divergence in okra [Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench] and implications for drought tolerance breeding: A review. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2021. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Benchasri, S. Okra (Abelmoschus esculentus (L.) Moench) as a valuable vegetable of the world. Ratar. Povrt. 2012, 49, 105–112. [Google Scholar]
  26. Sharma, A.; Rathore, S.; Srinivasan, K.; Tyagi, R. Comparison of various seed priming methods for seed germination, seedling vigour and fruit yield in okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L. Moench). Sci. Hortic. 2014, 165, 75–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Sarma, B.; Gogoi, N. Germination and seedling growth of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.) as influenced by organic amendments. Cogent Food Agric. 2015, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zodape, S.; Kawarkhe, V.; Patolia, J.; Warade, A. Effect of liquid seaweed fertilizer on yield and quality of okra (Abelmoschus esculentus L.). J. Sci. Ind. Res. 2008, 67, 1115–1117. [Google Scholar]
  29. Sasikala, M.; Indumathi, E.; Radhika, S.; Sasireka, R. Effect of seaweed extract (Sargassum tenerrimum) on seed germination and growth of tomato plant (Solanum lycopersicum). Int. J. ChemTech Res. 2016, 9, 285–293. [Google Scholar]
  30. Michalak, I.; Dmytryk, A.; Schroeder, G.; Chojnacka, K. The application of homogenate and filtrate from Baltic seaweeds in seedling growth tests. Appl. Sci. 2017, 7, 230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Demir, N.; Dural, B.; Yildirim, K. Effect of seaweed suspensions on seed germination of tomato, pepper and aubergine. J. Biol. Sci. 2006, 6, 1130–1133. [Google Scholar]
  32. Hidangmayum, A.; Sharma, R. Effect of different concentration of commercial seaweed liquid extract of Ascophylum nodosum on germination of onion (Allium cepa L.). Int. J. Sci. Res. 2017, 6, 1488–1491. [Google Scholar]
  33. Altindal, D. Effect of seaweed extracts (SE) applications on seed germination characteristics of wheat in salinity conditions. Int. J. Agric. For. Life Sci. 2019, 3, 115–120. [Google Scholar]
  34. MangMang, J.; Deaker, R.; Rogers, G. Early seedling growth response of lettuce, tomato and cucumber to Azospirillum brasilense inoculated by soaking and drenching. Hortic. Sci. 2016, 42, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  35. Stamenov, D.; Djuric, S.; Jafari, T.H. Effect of PGPR on the germination and early development of onion (Allium cepa). In Proceedings of the ISER 137th International Conference, Paris, France, 7 December 2018; pp. 6–9. [Google Scholar]
  36. Sarić-Krsmanović, M.; Božić, D.; Radivojević, L.; Umiljendić, J.G.; Šantrić, L.; Vrbničanin, S. Effects of plant growth promoting rhizobacteria (PGPR) and cover crops on seed germination and early establishment of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yunk.). J. Pestic. Phytomed. 2017, 32, 105–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Nehra, V.; Saharan, B.S.; Choudhary, M.I. Evaluation of Brevibacillus brevis as a potential plant growth promoting rhizobacteria for cotton (Gossypium hirsutum) crop. SpringerPlus 2016, 5, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Panobianco, M.; Viera, R.D. Electrical conductivity of soybean soaked seeds. Pesqui. Agropecu. Bras. 1996, 31, 621–627. [Google Scholar]
  39. Babiker, W.A.; Abdelmula, A.A.; Eldessougi, H.I.; Gasim, S.E.M. The effect of location, sowing date and genotype on seed quality traits in bread wheat (Triticum aestevium). Asian J. Plant Sci. Res. 2017, 7, 24–28. [Google Scholar]
  40. Khayamim, S.; Afshari, R.T.; YSadeghian, S.; Poustini, K.; Rouzbeh, F.; Abbasi, Z. Seed germination, plant establishment, and yield of sugar beet genotypes under salinity stress. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2014, 16, 779–790. [Google Scholar]
  41. Islam, A.K.M.A.; Anuar, N.; Yaakob, Z. Effect of genotypes and pre sowing treatments on seed germination behaviour of Jatropha. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2009, 8, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Glass, G.V.; Peckham, P.D.; Sanders, J.R. Consequences of failure to meet assumptions underlying the fixed effects analyses of variance and covariance. Rev. Educ. Res. 1972, 42, 237–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Snedecor, G.; Cochran, W. Statistical Methods, 7th ed.; The Iowa State University Press: Iowa City, IA, USA, 1980. [Google Scholar]
Plants 10 01327 g001 550
Figure 1. Effect of seed priming with biostimulants (KLP, Kelpak®; P, plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria) on mean germination time of Abelmoschus esculentus seeds. Bars representing mean values and standard errors with different letters indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences based on Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (Genstat 64-bit Release 18.2).
Figure 1. Effect of seed priming with biostimulants (KLP, Kelpak®; P, plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria) on mean germination time of Abelmoschus esculentus seeds. Bars representing mean values and standard errors with different letters indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences based on Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (Genstat 64-bit Release 18.2).
Plants 10 01327 g001
Plants 10 01327 g002 550
Figure 2. Effect of seed priming with biostimulants (KLP, Kelpak®; P, plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria) on Abelmoschus esculentus seed coefficient of velocity of germination. Bars representing mean values and standard errors with different letters indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences based on Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (Genstat 64-bit Release 18.2).
Figure 2. Effect of seed priming with biostimulants (KLP, Kelpak®; P, plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria) on Abelmoschus esculentus seed coefficient of velocity of germination. Bars representing mean values and standard errors with different letters indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences based on Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (Genstat 64-bit Release 18.2).
Plants 10 01327 g002
Plants 10 01327 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect of seed priming with biostimulants (KLP, Kelpak®; P, plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria) on time spread of Abelmoschus esculentus seed germination. Bars representing mean values and standard errors with different letters indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences based on Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (Genstat 64-bit Release 18.2).
Figure 3. Effect of seed priming with biostimulants (KLP, Kelpak®; P, plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria) on time spread of Abelmoschus esculentus seed germination. Bars representing mean values and standard errors with different letters indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences based on Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (Genstat 64-bit Release 18.2).
Plants 10 01327 g003
Plants 10 01327 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of genotypes on time spread of Abelmoschus esculentus seed germination. Bars representing mean values and standard errors with different letters indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences based on Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (Genstat 64-bit Release 18.2).
Figure 4. Effect of genotypes on time spread of Abelmoschus esculentus seed germination. Bars representing mean values and standard errors with different letters indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences based on Fisher’s protected least significant difference test (Genstat 64-bit Release 18.2).
Plants 10 01327 g004
Table
Table 1. Effect of hydropriming duration on Abelmoschus esculentus (genotype VI037996) seed germination incubated at 25 °C. FGP, final germination percentage; MGT, mean germination time; GI, germination index; CVG, coefficient of velocity of germination; GRI, germination rate index; TSG, time spread of germination. In each column, values (mean ± standard error) followed by different letters indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences. ns, not significant.
Table 1. Effect of hydropriming duration on Abelmoschus esculentus (genotype VI037996) seed germination incubated at 25 °C. FGP, final germination percentage; MGT, mean germination time; GI, germination index; CVG, coefficient of velocity of germination; GRI, germination rate index; TSG, time spread of germination. In each column, values (mean ± standard error) followed by different letters indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences. ns, not significant.
Hydropriming Duration (h)FGP (%)MGT (day)GICVGGRI (%/day)TSG (day)
037.33 ± 7.06 b3.73 ± 0.20 a58.67 ± 11.84 c3.45 ± 1.09 b12.25 ± 2.70 c4.00 ± 0.58
662.67 ± 3.53 a3.61 ± 0.24 a99.67 ± 2.40 b9.05 ± 1.57 a19.25 ± 0.40 bc4.67 ± 0.88
1260.00 ± 2.31 a2.66 ± 0.19 b110.00 ± 3.60 b6.04 ± 0.82 ab26.20 ± 1.89 b3.00 ± 0.58
2472.00 ± 4.00 a2.52 ± 0.09 b134.67 ± 8.29 a8.20 ± 0.84 a38.09 ± 5.65 a5.00 ± 1.00
LSD (p ≤ 0.05)14.910.624324.603.65510.68ns
Table
Table 2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the effect of biostimulant and genotype on Abelmoschus esculentus seed germination. FGP, final germination percentage; MGT, mean germination time; GI, germination index; CVG, coefficient of velocity of germination; GRI, germination rate index; TSG, time spread of germination.
Table 2. Analysis of variance (ANOVA) for the effect of biostimulant and genotype on Abelmoschus esculentus seed germination. FGP, final germination percentage; MGT, mean germination time; GI, germination index; CVG, coefficient of velocity of germination; GRI, germination rate index; TSG, time spread of germination.
Source of VariationdfMS
FGPMGTGICVGGRITSG
Genotype (G)4358.75 ***0.33 ns6189.80 ***0.87 ns1019.47 ***13.32 ***
Biostimulant treatment (B)65963.53 ***2.20 ***75,466.80 ***31.69 ***6540.91 ***5.32 *
G × B24333.31 ***0.18 ns4142.60 ***2.76 ns327.56 ***1.63 ns
Residual7065.980.15757.901.6877.261.99
Total104
* p ≤ 0.05; *** p ≤ 0.001; ns, not significant; df, degrees of freedom; MS, mean squares.
Table
Table 3. Interaction effect of Abelmoschus esculentus genotypes and biostimulant (KLP, Kelpak®; PGPR, plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria) treatments. FGP, final germination percentage; GI, germination index; GRI, germination rate index. In each column, mean values (±standard errors) followed by different letters indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences.
Table 3. Interaction effect of Abelmoschus esculentus genotypes and biostimulant (KLP, Kelpak®; PGPR, plant-growth-promoting rhizobacteria) treatments. FGP, final germination percentage; GI, germination index; GRI, germination rate index. In each column, mean values (±standard errors) followed by different letters indicate statistically significant (p ≤ 0.05) differences.
GenotypeTreatmentFGP (%)GIGRI (%/day)
VI037996Control69.33 ± 7.06 g–j235.00 ± 22.94 g–k57.93 ± 4.56 klm
KLP 1:2074.67 ± 1.33 e–i250.30 ± 7.22 f–j60.95 ± 2.74 i–m
KLP 1:4078.67 ± 3.53 c–h266.30 ± 7.22 d–h68.43 ± 2.35 g–l
KLP 1:10082.67 ± 3.53 a–f286.30 ± 10.81 a–f76.67 ± 3.71 b–h
PGPR 1:564.00 ± 6.11 ij214.70 ± 16.48 ijk50.04 ± 2.07 m
PGPR 1:1072.00 ± 4.62 f–j248.30 ± 14.77 f–j65.56 ± 2.26 h–l
PGPR 1:1572.00 ± 2.31 f–j249.30 ± 7.79 f–j67.11 ± 1.46 h–l
VI046567Control94.67 ± 5.33 a326.70 ± 19.34 a88.22 ± 6.88 abc
KLP 1:2090.67 ± 3.53 abc315.70 ± 12.81 abc88.78 ± 3.91 ab
KLP 1:4082.67 ± 1.33 a–f288.00 ± 4.16 a–f81.60 ± 1.22 a–g
KLP 1:10088.00 ± 4.00 a–d304.70 ± 17.33 a–d83.56 ± 8.44 a–f
PGPR 1:517.33 ± 1.33 k54.70 ± 4.91 l12.00 ± 1.39 n
PGPR 1:1078.67 ± 3.53 c–h270.70 ± 10.68 d–h71.11 ± 3.49 f–l
PGPR 1:1592.00 ± 2.31 ab320.30 ± 8.11 ab89.11 ± 2.48 ab
VI055421Control77.33 ± 4.81 d–h259.30 ± 215.68 e–i65.87 ± 4.73 h–l
KLP 1:2078.67 ± 9.61 c–h268.30 ± 30.56 d–h68.31 ± 6.22 g–l
KLP 1:4081.33 ± 1.33 b–g279.30 ± 6.01 b–g72.55 ± 5.12 d–j
KLP 1:10074.67 ± 2.67 e–i258.30 ± 8.33 e–i71.15 ± 1.82 f–l
PGPR 1:525.33 ± 2.67 k78.70 ± 8.25 l13.53 ± 1.74 n
PGPR 1:1061.33 ± 7.06 j199.70 ± 25.83 k46.89 ± 9.32 m
PGPR 1:1578.67 ± 7.42 c–h270.00 ± 25.94 d–h71.82 ± 8.70 e–k
VI050956Control94.67 ± 2.67 a330.00 ± 9.02 a92.44 ± 2.70 a
KLP 1:2086.67 ± 3.53 a–e303.00 ± 12.29 a–e86.00 ± 3.46 a–e
KLP 1:4088.00 ± 2.31 a–d307.30 ± 8.11 a–d86.67 ± 2.67 a–d
KLP 1:10085.33 ± 1.33 a–e298.30 ± 4.84 a–e84.67 ± 1.77 a–f
PGPR 1:516.00 ± 6.11 k51.00 ± 21.28 l9.04 ± 4.57 n
PGPR 1:1080.00 ± 4.62 b–g277.00 ± 16.19 b–g74.00 ± 5.03 c–i
PGPR 1:1582.67 ± 7.06 a–f286.70 ± 26.77 a–f77.33 ± 11.62 b–h
VI033796Control82.67 ± 1.33 a–f279.70 ± 5.92 b–g68.67 ± 4.70 g–l
KLP 1:2080.00 ± 0.00 b–g275.00 ± 2.00 c–g70.89 ± 3.11 f–l
KLP 1:4066.67 ± 2.67 hij226.70 ± 12.87 h–k59.05 ± 6.48 j–m
KLP 1:10089.33 ± 2.67 a–d307.30 ± 8.19 a–d79.56 ± 5.01 a–h
PGPR 1:521.33 ± 5.33 k66.70 ± 12.68 l14.67 ± 2.15 n
PGPR 1:1061.33 ± 11.39 j212.70 ± 39.40 jk57.33 ± 10.48 lm
PGPR 1:1580.00 ± 2.31 b–g275.00 ± 7.23 c–g72.67 ± 2.52 d–j
LSD (p ≤ 0.05)13.2344.8314.31
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Makhaye, G.; Aremu, A.O.; Gerrano, A.S.; Tesfay, S.; Du Plooy, C.P.; Amoo, S.O. Biopriming with Seaweed Extract and Microbial-Based Commercial Biostimulants Influences Seed Germination of Five Abelmoschus esculentus Genotypes. Plants 2021, 10, 1327. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10071327

AMA Style

Makhaye G, Aremu AO, Gerrano AS, Tesfay S, Du Plooy CP, Amoo SO. Biopriming with Seaweed Extract and Microbial-Based Commercial Biostimulants Influences Seed Germination of Five Abelmoschus esculentus Genotypes. Plants. 2021; 10(7):1327. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10071327

Chicago/Turabian Style

Makhaye, Gugulethu, Adeyemi O. Aremu, Abe Shegro Gerrano, Samson Tesfay, Christian P. Du Plooy, and Stephen O. Amoo. 2021. "Biopriming with Seaweed Extract and Microbial-Based Commercial Biostimulants Influences Seed Germination of Five Abelmoschus esculentus Genotypes" Plants 10, no. 7: 1327. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10071327

APA Style

Makhaye, G., Aremu, A. O., Gerrano, A. S., Tesfay, S., Du Plooy, C. P., & Amoo, S. O. (2021). Biopriming with Seaweed Extract and Microbial-Based Commercial Biostimulants Influences Seed Germination of Five Abelmoschus esculentus Genotypes. Plants, 10(7), 1327. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants10071327

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop