* QNITTV& Gqfifidfl 4-! 'D <: H 3:): l r H .l l 33:65: IIIHHHIIW THE EFFECT OF TEMPERATURE, SEED TREATMENT AND KEERNEL 512E ON THE GERMINATION GP CORN Thesis foe: fha Degreo cf M. S. MICHIGAN STATE CQLLEGE Donald M Walling 1949 IIIIIII|IIII|I‘ N $TiAT1NIVElfiR l B. A IES I II III ITI‘FII I II | I |II II IIIII I I IIIIIIIIIII |II |.II III IIIII 31293 01102 7939 THESIS I This is to Trcrtifg that the Thesis entitled rD "T“e Tffect fif T ”per TL re. Seed t sné Kernel Size on Th of Corn." 5 :3 T FJI ‘ 1“ Cf :3 k.) U IOFCSL‘IHCTI In] Donrli M. Walling has hT-cn :TT‘T‘Trlmrd towards Iullillmcul of tlw requirements {nr KS dogl‘T-P in FQFI‘I Cry-IS “539W ‘lflif'lll TI‘T'TICSSTTI “ale 119;? 75, 3.349 M-TS'S PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this Checkout from your record. TO AVOID FINES return on or before date due. DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE 44:3,. ¢. 1598 c_’CIRCDateDue.0654)M THE EFFECT OF TELEPERATUPE, SEED TIEATI-‘EEEIT AND KERNEL SIZE ON Ter GERMINATION OF CORN by DONALD M. WALLING A MSIS Submitted to the Graduate School of Michigan State College of Agriculture and. Applied Science in partial fulfilment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF SCIENCE Department of Farm Craps 1949 THESIS ACKNOTT'LL’DGTENT The writer wishes to express his appreciation to Dr. E.E. Down for his guidance throughout the eXperiments and preparation of this thesis; to Mr. C.A. Stahl of the Michigan State Seed Laboratory for the use of germination facilities; and to Dr. L. Katz and Mr. H.M. Brown for their assistance and constructive criticisms with the statistical analysis.‘ 2.18008 TABLE OF COHTENTS INTRODUCTION REVIEW or LITERATURE mesons AND murmurs PRESEZIIATION AND DISCUSSION or DATA SUTTMANI APPENDIX Page 12-18 INTRODUCTION The grading and treatment of seed corn by processors, coupled with the planting of such seed under variable soil temperature con- ditions, has led to many diverse opinions as to the value of seed size or grade, seed treatment and present day germination tests on the sub- sequent behavior of the growing crop. Germination tests under warm conditions of 70 - 85°F. have been used for years to determine the viability of seed corn. Although such tests are of value it is doubtful whether they give a true indication of field performance. Where low soil temperatures are common at planting time, the use of lower temperatures for germination tests might more nearly simulate actual field conditions. Likewise, the use of fungicides and varying kernel sizes may influence directly the stand and vigor of the corn in tne field. In order to arrive at some of the problems inherent in present day seed corn handling, the present paper provides comparisons between the warm and cold test methods of germination; the influence of a re- presentative fungicide, Arasan, when compared to no treatment; and a comparison between several of the common seed—size grades as to ger- mination and field behavior. REVIEW OF LITERATURE Munn (6), working with garden peas, obtained only 45% germination in the field with seed which germinated 79% in the laboratory. Working with damaged seed coats, Tatum and Zuber (11) observed a close re- lationsnip between cold tests and Stands in tne field, whereas warm germination tests failed to indicate weaknesses which showed up in the cold tests. Vander Meulen and Henke (12) found that seeds which ger- minated well in cold tests gave good stands under field conditions. Likewise. Haskell and Singleton (2), using a severe cold test, found positive correlation between cold tests and field trials. Field trials, on the effects of seed treatment, in Illinois and Iowa (3, 7, 8,) have given better stands and increased yields when seed treatments were used. However. similar tests in Nebraska and Arkansas ( 4, 5 ) have failed to show benefit from seed treatment. Tatum and Zuber (11) presented evidence that cold tests conduCted in steamed soil did not result in decreased germination, indicating that soil pathogens are responsible for low germination in cold tests and in the field. Schmidt (9) found medium weight kernels of sweet corn germinated approximately 8% better than very heavy or very light seeds under green house conditions. Working with wheat, Whitcomb (13) obtained higher germinations from heavier seeds in the field while laboratory and green house germinations did not indicate differences due to seed size. Erickson (1) reports that germination of alfalfa is directly associated with seed site. -3... METHODS AND MATERIALS For the present study five lots of corn, including two inbreds, one single cross and two double crosses, were selected. In each of these lots, four of the most common seed grades, large round, large flatsu medium round and medium flat were used. Each grade of corn was divided into two parts, one being treated with Arasan and the other not. The treated and untreated parts were germinated separately using samples of 100 seeds. Four eXperiments were conducted to test these corns for germin- ation under warm and cold conditions. The germination methods employed were as follows: 1. Corn was placed on blotters in a germinator held at 75°F. Germination counts were made at the end of seven days. 2. Plantings were made in sand in the green house where the temperature was about 75° F. Germination counts were made after 14 days. 3. Corn was placed on blotters in the germinator with 50 grams of pathogen infested soil added to each blotter. The temperature was held at 50°F. for the first six days and then raised to 75°F. for the second six days. Counts were made at the end of this time. 4. Plantings were made in the field on May 25, 1948. The soil contained sufficient moisture for rapid.germination and the soil temper- ature for tne first and second weeks after planting averaged 57° and 64°F.. respectively. Germination counts were made at the end of 30 days. Figure 1. Showing design used in the field III VII 4132 3142 III VI 2431 2134 Main plots I - Double II - Single III - Double IV - Inbred V - Inbred VI - Double VII - Double VIII - Inbred IX - Single X - Inbred Replication 1 II I IX X VI VIII IV V 2341 1243 4312 4231 2413 3214 2143 3124 Replication 2 X VIII VII I V II II IV 1234 2314 4213 3241 1243 3412 4321 2413 Key to treatments and grades Subplots Cross 1. treated I - Large Round Cross, treated 2 - Large Flat Cross 2. treated 3 - Medium Round 1, treated 4 - Medium Flat 2, treated Cross 1. Untreated Cross 2. Untreated 1. Untreated Cross,‘Untreated 2,‘Untreated -5- Methods 1 and 2 were considered to be warm tests and methods 3 and 4 were used as cold tests. The experimental design used in this Study was a split-plot with two replications. The combinations of treatments and lots were used as the main plots with grades as the subplots. The design, as it appeared in the field, is presented in Figure 1. All results were recorded as percentages. Since these percentages formed a skewed frequency distribution, as shown in Table 2, conversion to are sine values (10) was made. This was necessary before analysis of variance could be applied to the data. Analysis of variance was run on each of the four experiments and Bartlett's test of homogeneity (10) was applied to the four error variances. The four experiments were found to be homogeneous and, therefore, were combined into a total analysis of variance. Signifi- cance was determined by use of the F test. The general error term was used for testing methods and grades. The combined r x t and r x l x t interactions were used as the error term for testing treat- ments.' All tables can be found in the Appendix. PRESENTATION'AND DISCUSSION OF DATA The germination percentages for all samples are presented in Table 1. Tables 3, 4, 5, and 6 give the arc sine values for each of the experiments with their reSpective analyses of variance. The analysis of variance for the combined experiments is presented in Table 7. It is apparent from Table 1 that corn germinated higher under warm conditions than it did under cold conditions. Warm tests averaged 87.9% while cold tests averaged only 77.7%; this difference was highly significant. The germinations in the warm germinator were significantly higher than those ontained in the greenhouse, but there was no signifi- cant difference between the germinations obtained in the cold germinator and those in the field. Differences in germination due to seed size were ooserved in the cold tests while the warm tests failed to indicate these differences. Comparisons between warm and cold tests in this experiment gave results quite similar to those reported by Other workers / (2, 6. 11. 12). The warm tests tend to give maximum potential germinations which are not necessarily suggestive of field performance, while the cold tests give germinations which are similar to those obtained in the field. It seems, therefore, that cold tests are necessary to predict field results. The question arises as to whether the cold test should replace the present-day system of warm testing. Information available indicates that itwould be better to use the cold test as a supplement to the warm test rather than as a replacement. Since cold test germinations -7- are likely to be quite low, they would present a sales hazard, if used as the only test for seed. If both warm and cold tests were conducted on a given lot of seed, a seedsman could then label the lot of seed giving the warm germination percentage and use the cold test to deter- mine whether that lot of seed would jeOpardize his reputation, if the seed were placed on the market. It is obvious, from Table 1, that the use of Arasan dust greatly increased germination in certain cases. Treated seed germinated 89..fi while untreated seed tested 76.0% in the combined experiments. This difference was highly significant. The greatest increase in germination due to seed treatment was observed in inbred I, a corn which germinated 74.8% in the field when treated and only 28.5% when not treated. In- creased field stands obtained in the present study correSponded to re- sults in Illinois and Iowa tests (3, 7, 8). Treatment of seed corn is of value where low soil temperatures prevail at planting time. Even though seed treatment may not always materially increase germination, it is a good form of insurance against poor stands. When a weak lot of seed, such as inbred l. is the only seed available for planting, seed treatment is mandatory if a reasonably good stand is desired. The effect of seed size upon germination, while less obvious than temperature and treatment, nevertheless, is shown in the analyses of variance. Highly significant differences in germination due to seed size were found in the cold tests while warm tests failed to show these differences. Large seeds germinated higher than medium sized seeds and the large flat grade germinated better than any other grade tested. In the cold germinator large rounds tested higher than medium rounds and the combined flat grades germinated better than the combined round grades. No differences between the two medium sized grades were observed. Results in this study agreed with those obtained by Whitcomb (13) in his work with wheat and those reported by Erickson (1) on alfalfa. Schmidt's (9) finding that medium weight kernels germinated better than heavy kernels conflicts with results obtained in the present study. SUMMARY In this study the effects of temperature, seed treatment and kernel size on the germination of corn were studied using five lots of corn. The data are summarized in the present paper and from the results, the following conclusions may be drawn: 1. Warm tests gave higher germination percentages than cold tests. 2. The cold germinator test gave results which were similiar to those obtained in field plantings and may be of value in pre- dicting field performance. 3. Seed treatment increased germination under both warm and cold conditions. 4. Differences in germination due to seed size manifest themselves p in cold tests, but not in warm tests. 5. Large seeds germinated better than medium sized seeds and the large flat grade of corn germinated higher than any of the other grades tested. -10- LITERATURE CITED 1. Erickson, L.C. The effect of alfalfa seed size and depth of seeding upon tne subsequent procurement of stand. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 38:964-973. 1946. 2. Haskell, G. and Singleton, W.R. ‘Use of controlled low temperature v” in evaluating the cold hardiness of inbred and hybrid maize. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 41:34-40. 1949. 3. Holbert. 3.3. and Koehler, B. Results of seed-treatment exper- 9’ iments with yellow dent corn. U.S.D.A. Tech. Bul. 260. 1931. 4. Kiesselbach, T.A. and Culbertson, J.O. An analySis of the effects of diplodia infection and treatment of seed corn. Jour. Agr. Res. 22:723-749. 1931. 5. McClelland. C.K. and Young, V.H. Seed corn treatment in Arkansas. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 26:189-195. 1934. 6. Munn, M.T. Comparing laboratory and field viability tests of seed V“ of garden peas. Assoc. Off. Seed Anal. No. Amer. Proc., 18:55. 1926. 7. Reddy, 0.8. Chemical treatments of seed corn. Iowa Agr. Exp. Sta. Ann. Rept. 1930-31. p. 40. 1931. 8. Relation of rate of planting of tne effect of corn seed treatment. Iowa Corn Res. Inst. Contrio., 1:119-130. 1935. 9. Schmidt, D. The effect of the weight of the seed on the growth of the plant. N.J. Agr. Exp. Sta. Bul. 404. 1924. 10. Snedecor, G.W. Statistical Methods. 1946. 11. Tatum, L.A. and Zuber. M.S. Germination of maize under adverse V” conditions. Jour. Amer. Soc. Agron. 35:48-59. 1943. 12. Vander Meulen, E. and Banks, F. “Cold testing" of seed corn. V’ "The Canner", Jul 31 1948. 13. Whitcomo, W.O. Weight per bushel of wheat in relation of its seed value. Aesoc. Off. Seed Anal. No. Amer. Proc. 28:59-61. 1936. APPENDIX -19- Table 1. The actual percentages obtained from samples of 100 seeds LR LF MR MF LR LF MR MF Lot M R1 R2 R1 R2 31 22 R1 32 R1 R2 21 32 R1 R2 21 22 1-1 we 87 95 86 85 88 87 77 78 45 56 49 43 67 56 48 58 Gr 89 87 82 86 91 87 76 79 46 37 39 34 53 4o 34 26 cs 79 73 71 65 76 76 67 61 18 21 30 16 17 19 9 17 r 78 72 72 76 83 1 69 b7 26 32 32 22 22 36 28 so I-2 HG 94 89 95 97 93 97 9O 94 91 88 95 92 88 91 87 88 Gr 95 92 94 95 92 93 93 91 93 87 93 9O 9O 87 84 91 CG 88 86 92 95 86 89 88 86 82 72 9O 84 78 77 72 78 F 87 86 94 91 91 83 82 83 73 79 82 86 73 8O 83 79 SC HG 94 93 96 98 98 91 94 97 92 95 97 94 95 89 94 92 Gr 95 97 96 97 97 99 97 98 96 92 95 95 93 93 97 95 CG 86 92 95 95 78 74 84 87 78 75 92 89 72 69 7O 81 3041 MG 99 98 93 96 96 94 97 95 93 96 95 95 93 95 98 94 Gr 97 92 97 91 93 95 93 93 96 93 91 93 88 92 93 95 CG 97 96 94 94 91 94 92 98 84 81 95 89 73 63 87 83 F 89 87 92 93 93 96 94 89 82 78 80 77 66 63 71 78 DC-2 LG 96 94 96 95 95 95 96 92 91 88 96 92 91 91 91 97 Gr 92 93 93 94 93 94 97 88 95 89 89 93 94 9O 95 91 CG 95 94 90 83 91 94 97 93 73 82 76 89 9O 9O 88 83 F 93 9O 88 87 9O 95 91 86 87 91 84 89 87 9O 92 88 KEY I-l Inbred 1 LR - Large Round R2 - Replication 2 I-2 Inbred 2 LF - Large Flat HG - Warm Germinator SC Single Cross MR - Medium Round Gr - Greenhouse DC-l Double Cross 1 NF - Medium Flat CG - Cold Germinator DC-2 Double CrOSS 2 R1 - Replication 1 F - Field -13- Table 2. Frequency distribution of germination percentages obtained in combined experiments Germination Germination Percentage Frequency Percentage Frequency 99 2 69 3 98 6 67 4 97 16 55 1 96 13 65 1 95 28 63 2 94 20 61 l 93 26 58 1 92 20 56 2 91 20 53 1 9o 12 49 1 89 12 48 1 88 12 45 1 87 14 45 1 86 10 ”3 1 85 1 40 1 84: 5 39 l 83 7 37 l 82 7 36 1 81 4 34 2 80 3 32 2 79 4 30 2 78 11 28 1 77 3 26 2 76 5 22 ‘2 75 1 21 1 74 1 19 1 73 5 18 l 72 5 17 2 71 2 16 1 7o 2 9 1 -14- Table 3. Arc sine conversions with analysis of variance for warm germinator Treated Untreated LR LF MR MF LR LF MR MF Lot R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 I-l 69 77 68 67 70 69 61 62 42 48 44 41 55 48 44 50 I-2 76 71 77 80 75 80 72 76 73 70 77 74 7O 73 69 70 SC 76 75 78 82 82 73 76 80 74 77 80 76 77 71 76 74 DC—l 84 82 75 78 78 76 80 77 75 78 77 77 75 77 82 76 DC—2 78 76 78 77 77 77 78 74 73 70 78 74 73 73 73 80 Analysis of variance Source of variation Total Lots Treatment 1 x t Replication r x 1 D.F. 79 4 12 3 12 30 Sum of squares 7391.49 4683.80 800.11 1143.70 1.01 17.80 13.32 20.54 232.40 44.34 142.10 292.37 Mean square * Significance at 1% level ** Significance at 53 level 1170.95** 800.11** 285.92“I 1.01 4.45 6.85 19.37 14.78 11.84 9.74 -15- Table 4. Are sine conversions with analysis of variance for greenhouse Treated Untreated LR LF MR MI LR LF MR MR Lot R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 I-l 71 69 65 68 73 69 61 63 43 37 39 36 47 39 36 31 I-2 77 74 76 77 74 75 75 73 75 69 75 72 72 69 66 73 SC 77 80 78 80 80 84 80 82 78 74 77 77 75 75 8O 77 DC-l 80 74 80 73 75 77 75 75 78 75 73 75 7O 74 75 77 DC-2 74 75 75 76 75 76 80 7O 77 71 71 75 76 72 77 73 Analysis of variance Source of variation D.F. Sum of squares Mean Square Total 79 10747.20 Lots 4 6679.82 1669.96“l Treatment 1 1201.25 1201.25** 1 x t 4 2253.13 563.29** Replication 1 31.25 31.25* r x 1 4 27.13 6.78 r x t r x 1 x t 5 64.62 12.92 Grades 3 27.10 9.03 g x 1 12 221.78 18.48"l g x t 3 10.85 3.62 g x 1 x t 12 27.27 2.27 Error 30 203.00 6.77 * Significance at 5% level ** Significance at 12 level -15- Table 5. Arc sine conversions with analysis of variance for cold germinator Treated Untreated LR LF MR MF LR LF MR MF Lot R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 ‘R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 I-l 63 59 57 54 61 61 55 51 25 28 33 24 24 26 17 24 I—2 70 68 74 77 68 71 70 68 65 58 72 66 62 61 58 62 SC 68 74 77 77 62 59 66 69 62 60 74 71 58 56 57 64 DC—l 80 78 76 76 73 76 74 82 66 64 77 71 59 53 69 66 DC-2 77 76 72 66 73 76 80 75 59 65 61 71 72 72 70 66 Analysis of variance Source of variation D.F. Sum of squares Mean squares Total 79 17071.39 Lots 4 9885.70 2471.42 ** Treatment 1 3393.01 3393.01 *7 1 x t 4 1952.30 488.08 ** Replication 1 2. 81 2.81 r x l 4 12.00 3.00 r x t r x l x t 5 93.32 18.66 Grades 3 298.34 99.45 *7 LR vs LP 1 93.03 93.03 ** MR vs MF 1 10.00 10.00 Rd. vs Flat 1 82.01 82.01 ** LR vs MR 1 44.10 44.10 * LF vs MF 1 172.23 172.23 *7 g x l 12 814.10 67.84 ** g x t 3 149.74 49.91 ** g x 1 x t 12 169.70 14.14 Error 30 300.37 10.01 l"Significance at 5% level **Significance at 1% level * Significance at 5% level 7* Significance at 1% level Table 6. Are sine conversions with analysis of variance for field plantings Treated Untreated LR LF MR MF LR LF MR MF Lot R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 R1 R2 I-l 62 58 58 61 66 64 5o 55 31 34 34 28 28 37 32 33 I-2 69 68 76 73 73 66 65 66 59 03 65 68 59 63 66 63 SC 72 74 75 74 65 63 68 64 62 62 73 74 55 57 62 59 DC-l 71 69 74 75 75 78 76 71 65 62 63 61 54 53 57 62 DC-2 75 72 70 69 72 77 73 68 69 73 66 71 69 72 74 70 Analysis of variance Source of variation D.F. Sum of squares Mean square Total 79 11624.80 Lots 4 6226.92 1556.73 ** Treatment 1 2508.80 2508.80 ** 1 x t 4 1711.08 427.77 ’* Replication 1 0.20 .20 r x 1 4 4.18 1.04 r x t r x 1 x t 5 38.62 7.72 Grades 3 142.80 47.60 ** Lg. vs. Med. 1 105.80 105.80 ** LR vs LF 1 36.10 36.10 * MR vs MF 1 .90 .90 Rd. vs Flat 1 12.80 12.80 LR vs MR 1 14.40 14.40 LF vs MF 1 115.60 115.60** g x l 12 487.58 40.63 ** g x t 3 124.40 41.47 ** g x l x t 12 168.22 14.02 Error 30 212.00 7.07 Table 7. Analysis of variance for the combined experiments Source of variation D.F. Total 319 Methods 3 Warm vs Cold 1 HG vs Gr 1 CG vs F 1 Lot 4 1 x m 12 Treatment 1 t x m 3 t x 1 9 4 t x 1 x m 12 Grades 3 Comparisons (a) Lg. vs Med. 1 LR vs LF 1 MR vs MR 1 Comparisons (b) Rd. vs Flat 1 LR vs MR 1 LF vs MF 1 m x'g 9 1 x g 12 t x g 3 1 x t x g 12 m x 1 x g 36 m x t x g 9 m x 1 x t x g 36 Replication 4 r x 1 16 r x t r x 1 x t 20 Error 120 *Significance at 5% level Sum of squares 52453.89 5619.01 5544.45 74.26 .30 26338.14 1138.12 7334.45 568.73 6668.68 391.51 284.37 211.25 66.31 6.81 15.31 24.03 245.03 204.41 1163.63 141.77 122.60 592.21 187.55 384.71 35.27 61.11 209.88 1007.74 **Significance at 1% level 1873.00 5544.45 74.26 .30 6584.54 94.84 7334.45 189.58 1667.17 32.62 94.79 211.25 66.31 6.81 15.31 24.03 245.03 22.71 96.97 Mean square it it it *¢ ** it it *t *0 0‘ t. .t fit so in! as 10.22 16.45 ** 20.84 * 10.69 8.82 3.82 7 10.49 8.40 .l!< Ill ‘11 HICHIGQN STQTE UNIV. LIBRRRIES 3129301 1027939