↓ Skip to main content

Dehiscence method: a seed-saving, quick and simple viability assessment in rice

Overview of attention for article published in Plant Methods, August 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
7 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
30 Mendeley
Title
Dehiscence method: a seed-saving, quick and simple viability assessment in rice
Published in
Plant Methods, August 2018
DOI 10.1186/s13007-018-0334-3
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ling-xiang Xu, Yi-xin Lin, Li-hong Wang, Yuan-chang Zhou

Abstract

Seed viability monitoring is very important in ex situ germplasm preservation to detect germplasm deterioration. This requires seed-, time- and labor- saving methods with high precision to assess seed germination as viability. Although the current non-invasive, rapid, sensing methods (NRSs) are time- and labor-saving, they lack the precision and simplicity which are the virtues of traditional germination. Moreover, they consume a considerable amount of seeds to adjust sensed signals to germination percentage, which disregards the seed-saving objective. This becomes particularly severe for rare or endangered species whose seeds are already scarce. Here we propose a new method that is precise, low-invasive, simple, and quick, which involves analyzing the pattern of dehiscence (seed coat rupture), followed by embryonic protrusion. Dehiscence proved simple to identify. After the trial of 20 treatments from 3 rice varieties, we recognized that dehiscence percentage at the 48th hour of germination (D(48)) correlates significantly with germination rate for tested seed lots. In addition, we found that the final germination percentage corresponded to D(48) plus 5. More than 70% of the seeds survived post-dehiscence desiccation for storage. Hydrogen peroxide (1 mM) as the solution for imbibition could further improve the survival. The method also worked quicker than tetrazolium which is honored as a fast, traditional method, in detecting less vigorous but viable seeds. We demonstrated the comprehensive virtues of dehiscence method in assessing rice seed: it is more precise and easier to use than NRSs and is faster and more seed-saving than traditional methods. We anticipate modifications including artificial intelligence to extend our method to increasingly diverse circumstances and species.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 30 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Unknown 30 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 5 17%
Student > Master 5 17%
Student > Ph. D. Student 4 13%
Professor 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Other 2 7%
Unknown 12 40%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 12 40%
Computer Science 2 7%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 1 3%
Unspecified 1 3%
Nursing and Health Professions 1 3%
Other 1 3%
Unknown 12 40%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 04 September 2018.
All research outputs
#14,422,940
of 23,099,576 outputs
Outputs from Plant Methods
#723
of 1,094 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#186,429
of 331,118 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Plant Methods
#19
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,099,576 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 35th percentile – i.e., 35% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,094 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a little more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 6.4. This one is in the 30th percentile – i.e., 30% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 331,118 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 40th percentile – i.e., 40% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.