Germination responses of wild-type (MM), abscisic acid (ABA)-deficient (sitw), and gibberellin (GA)-deficient (gib-1) mutant tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. cv Moneymaker) seeds to ABA, GA4+7, reduced water potential ([psi]), and their combinations were analyzed using a population-based threshold model (B.R. Ni and K.J. Bradford [1992] Plant Physiol 98: 1057-1068). Among the three genotypes, sitw seeds germinated rapidly and completely in water, MM seeds germinated more slowly and were partially dormant, and gib-1 seeds did not germinate without exogenous GA4+7. Times to germination were inversely proportional to the differences between the external osmoticum, ABA, or GA4+7 concentrations and the corresponding threshold levels that would either prevent ([psi]b, log[ABAb]) or promote (log[GAb]) germination. The sensitivity of germination to ABA, GA4+7, and [psi] varied widely among individual seeds in the population, resulting in a distribution of germination times. The rapid germination rate of sitw seeds was attributable to their low mean [psi]b (-1.17 MPa). Postharvest dormancy in MM seeds was due to a high mean [psi]b (-0.35 MPa) and a distribution of [psi]b among seeds such that some seeds were unable to germinate even on water. GA4+7 (100 [mu]M) stimulated germination of MM and gib-1 seeds by lowering the mean [psi]b to -0.75 MPa, whereas ABA inhibited germination of MM and sitw seeds by increasing the mean [psi]b. The changes in [psi]b were not due to changes in embryo osmotic potential. Rather, hormonal effects on endosperm weakening opposite the radicle tip apparently determine the threshold [psi] for germination. The analysis demonstrates that ABA- and GA-dependent changes in seed dormancy and germination rates, whether due to endogenous or exogenous growth regulators, are based primarily upon corresponding shifts in the [psi] thresholds for radicle emergence. The [psi] thresholds, in turn, determine both the rate and final extent of germination within the seed population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Ni et al. (1993) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: