In vitro assessment of elevated soil iron on germinability and germination characteristics of Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench after chemo-priming

  1. Beckley Ikhajiagbe
  2. Owalum Linus Onawo

Reviewed by

Read the full article See related articles

Listed in

Log in to save this article

Abstract

The commercial importance of Sorghum ( Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench) has attracted breeders to increase its seed yield using various breeding approach. Adverse soil factors however hampered progress made in crop development, especially micronutrient toxicity. Plant growth stimulators (PGS) have a significant role in enhancing growth parameters in Sorghum. In the present study, seeds were primed in 50, 150, and 250 ppm of each of gibberellic acid, indole acetic acid, and ascorbic acid respectively for 1 hr before sowing in Petri dishesmoistened with 10 ml of the iron-rich solution obtained as filtrate from a mix of distilled water and ferruginous soil (1:1 v/w). Results showed that although germination percentage in ferruginous medium was significantly reduced, there was enhancement in germination percentagewhen the seeds were primed in gibberellic acid (GA). Germinability in the iron-rich medium was 31.2 hrs; this was significantly reduced to 19.6 to 21.1hrs when these seeds were primed with growth stimulators.Although, shoot length was significantly reduced in plants exposed to ferruginous solutions, the root parameters were however enhanced. They were no significant changes in the total number of root branches regardless of ferrugenic status or use of growth stimulating agents. The utilization of growth stimulators as priming agents is called for to reduce stress impacts imposed by ferruginous soils during germination.

Article activity feed

  1. PeerRef

    Peer review report

    Reviewer: Cristian Malavert Institution: University of Buenos Aires, Argentina email: malavert@agro.uba.ar

    General comments

    Overall, the manuscript is very good. There are some things to improve and revise that will help to make the manuscript clearer.

    Section 1 – Serious concerns

    • Do you have any serious concerns about the manuscript such as fraud, plagiarism, unethical or unsafe practices? No

    • Have authors’ provided the necessary ethics approval (from authors’ institution or an ethics committee)?

    Not applicable

    Section 2 – Language quality

    • How would you rate the English language quality? Low to medium quality, but I understand the content

    Section 3 – validity and reproducibility

    • Does the work cite relevant and sufficient literature? Yes
    • Is the study design appropriate and are the methods used valid? Yes
    • Are the methods documented and analysis provided so that the study can be replicated? Yes
    • Is the source data that underlies the result available so that the study can be replicated? No
    • Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? Yes
    • Is quality of the figures and tables satisfactory? No
    • Are the conclusions adequately supported by the results? Yes
    • Are there any objective errors or fundamental flaws that make the research invalid? No

    Section 4 – Suggestions

    - Based on your answers in section 3 how could the author improve the study?

    The authors could improve the work by redesigning the figures, many of the symbols are not understood. Organizing tables and explaining abbreviations only once, perhaps making a list of abbreviations used throughout the manuscript. Equations, many do not describe what the components correspond to, are not listed.

    Suggested edits and comments have been added to the manuscript. Comments taken from manuscript below:

    Materials and methods

    add location coordinates

    How many samples were used?

    Soil Physiochemical Parameter: can you explain briefly what the APHA method consists of?

    Experimental Procedures: How many replications were used??

    Root and Shoot growth: Where is the germination test?? what does the germination test consist of?

    Median germination time: Explain how T(50) is calculated?

    The GRI equation is not explained

    the SAG equation is not explained

    Please explain component of the equations: Corrected germination rate index, Timson’s Index, Modified Timson’s Index

    Figure 1: are they plants or seeds? also germination of which species?

    Section 5 – Decision

    Verified with reservations: The content is scientifically sound but has shortcomings that could be improved by further studies or minor revisions.

    The content has many errors, which I marked throughout the manuscript. Once these errors are corrected, the manuscript will look great

  2. PeerRef

    Peer review report

    Reviewer: Dr.Debojyoti Moulick Institution: University of Kalyani

    Section 1 – Serious concerns

    • Do you have any serious concerns about the manuscript such as fraud, plagiarism, unethical or unsafe practices? No
    • Have authors’ provided the necessary ethics approval (from authors’ institution or an ethics committee)? No, there is no Institutional affiliation, approval from ethical committee, and other disclosures (like details of chemicals) are missing.

    Section 2 – Language quality

    • How would you rate the English language quality? - low quality, the content is difficult to understand

    Section 3 – validity and reproducibility

    • Does the work cite relevant and sufficient literature? No
    • Is the study design appropriate and are the methods used valid? No
    • Are the methods documented and analysis provided so that the study can be replicated? No
    • Is the source data that underlies the result available so that the study can be replicated? No
    • Is the statistical analysis and its interpretation appropriate? No, Statistical data should be incorporated, contrast and quality can be increased.
    • Is quality of the figures and tables satisfactory? No
    • Are the conclusions adequately supported by the results? No. The research should consider recent literature in this area. The conclusion should contain the vision for the research with honest self-criticism.
    • Are there any objective errors or fundamental flaws that make the research invalid?

    The study does not satisfy ISTA rule. Methods should have references.

    https://www.seedtest.org/en/international-rules-for-seed-testing-_content---1--1083.html

    Section 4 – Suggestions

    • In your opinion how could the author improve the study?

    Introduction:

    “ Soil heavy metal concentrations may not however be totally due to industrial activities as some soils are originally ferruginous and therefore have increasingly high quantities of iron yet some others have increased levels of aluminium which predisposes such soils to more soil acidity (Ikhajiagbe,2016).”

    What about geogenic sources of Fe, Al? Please explain this.

    “Many studies have shown that application of growth regulators enhance plant growth and crop yield (Hernandel, 1997).”

    States many studies, yet there is only one reference which is a decade old. Please provide additional references.

    The introduction should describe the need for selecting Fe stress, role seed priming in synchronizing germination, stress tolerances. The section should also contain the level of Fe toxicity in “Local-Regional-Global” perspective.

    The aim of the study should be clearly presented.

    Materials and methods

    Please describe the selected variety

    “Sand and Iron (Fe) were determined…” The authors are required to disclose the comparison carried out among the obtained result (Fe content) and Fe content of SRMs/CRMs.

    Soil Priming Material

    Which is applicable, Soil or Seed priming?

    Why are only 3 doses selected?

    The number of treatment combinations should be included.

    Which seed priming method did the authors follow?

    Details of chemicals should be included.

    Which chlorophyll meter is used? please disclose with details.

    How many seedlings were considered for taking weight?

    Statistics are not adequate. Factors (GA, AA,IA and Fe stress) 4 factors and their respective interaction and individual effects can be understand if 2-WAY-ANOVA can be used.

    • Do you have any other feedback or comments for the Author?

    Title could be brief, short and attractive.

    Abstract: Punctuation should be improved.

    For Fe, the term ‘essential nutrient’ can be used rather than ‘micronutrient’ Keywords could be expanded

    Section 5 – Decision

    Requires revisions: The manuscript contains objective errors that must be addressed.

  3. PeerRef

    SciScore rigor report

    Sciscore is an AI platform that assesses the rigor of the methods used in the manuscript. SciScore assists expert referees by finding and presenting information scattered throughout a manuscript in a simple format.

    Not required = Field is not applicable to this study

    Not detected = Field is applicable to this study, but not included.

    Ethics

    Field Sample Permit: Seeds of sorghum (Sorghum bicolor) were obtained from the seed collection unit of the Office of the Agricultural Development Programme, Benin City, Edo State, Nigeria. Ferruginous (or iron elevated) soil used in this present study was obtained from around the Life Sciences Faculty environment and pooled to obtain composite sample.

    Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria

    not required.

    Attrition

    not required.

    Sex as a biological variable

    not required.

    Subject Demographics

    Age: not required.

    Weight: not required.

    Randomization

    In order to confirm ferrugenicity, samples were collected from random areas and iron content was first confirmed in the area before more samples were collected and pooled.

    Blinding

    not detected.

    Power Analysis

    not detected.

    Replication

    The experiment was laid out incompletely randomized design in a factorial arrangement and replicated three times per treatment.

    Number: The experiment was laid out incompletely randomized design in a factorial arrangement and replicated three times per treatment .

    Data Information

    Availability: It is made available under aCC-BY 4.0 International license.

    Identifiers: preprint doi: https:// doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.22.469542; this version posted November 22 , 2021 .

    https://doi.org/10.1101/2021.11.22.469542

  4. Version published to 10.1101/2021.11.22.469542v1 on bioRxiv