A amostragem representativa do lote é importante na análise da qualidade das sementes. O objetivo neste trabalho foi verificar se a amostragem durante o fluxo de beneficiamento e a amostragem com o uso de caladores após o acondicionamento das sementes pode interferir na análise da qualidade fisiológica e sanitária de lotes de sementes de soja. O trabalho foi realizado com seis e doze lotes de sementes de soja produzidas nas safras 2017/2018 e 2018/2019, respectivamente. Para a amostragem dos lotes utilizaram-se dois métodos conforme descrito pelas Regras de Análises de Sementes: a) amostragem durante o fluxo de beneficiamento; b) amostragem dos lotes de sementes armazenados em “bags” com o uso de calador. Avaliou-se a qualidade das sementes pelo percentual de germinação, vigor por envelhecimento acelerado, tetrazólio e pela determinação da sanidade das sementes pelo blotter test. A amostragem durante o fluxo do beneficiamento e nos “bags” após o armazenamento, diferiu na expressão do vigor e da qualidade sanitária das sementes. A homogeneidade do lote é preponderante para verificar a diferença dos métodos de amostragem. A amostragem no fluxo do beneficiamento é mais representativa e pode ser indicada para o teste de germinação.

Termos para indexação:
envelhecimento acelerado; teste de blotter; germinação; Glycine max L

Autoria

Paula Folquini

Universidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, Centro de Ciências Agroveterinárias, Laboratório de Análise de Sementes, 88520-000 - Lages, SC, Brasil.Universidade do Estado de Santa CatarinaBrazilLages, SC, BrazilUniversidade do Estado de Santa Catarina, Centro de Ciências Agroveterinárias, Laboratório de Análise de Sementes, 88520-000 - Lages, SC, Brasil.

http://orcid.org/0000-0002-9355-6440

Cileide Maria Medeiros Coelho ^**Corresponding author E-mail: cileide.souza@udesc.br

http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9528-7371

Daniele Nerling

http://orcid.org/0000-0003-3343-8263

*Corresponding author
E-mail: cileide.souza@udesc.br

SCIMAGO INSTITUTIONS RANKINGS

Figuras | Tabelas

Figuras (4)
Tabelas (3)

Thumbnail

Figure 1
Vigor by tetrazolium test (TZ) (A and B) in soybean seed lots sampled during processing and after storage in bags in the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons. *Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05).

Thumbnail

Figure 2
Incidence of Fusarium spp. (A and B), Phomopsis sp. (C and D) and Cercosporora kikuchii (E and F) in soybean seed lots sampled during the processing and after storage in bags in the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons. *Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05).

Thumbnail

Figure 3
Incidence of Aspergillus spp. (A and B) and Penicillium spp. (C and D) in soybean seed lots sampled during processing and after storage in bags in the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons. *Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05).

Thumbnail

Figure 4
Principal components analysis (PCA) of the health and physiological quality of soybean seed lots collected during processing (PF) and after storage in bags (BB) in 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing season. PC1 First principal component; PC2 Second principal component.

Thumbnail

Table 1
Seed lot, growing season, producing region, cultivars, category, representativeness and number of simple soybean samples obtained in bagging spout and after storage in bags.

Thumbnail

Table 2
Percentage of germination in soybean seeds sampled in bagging spout and after storage in bags in the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons.

Thumbnail

Table 3
Percentage of vigor by accelerated aging in soybean seeds sampled in bagging spout and after storage in bags in the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons.

Figure 1 Vigor by tetrazolium test (TZ) (A and B) in soybean seed lots sampled during processing and after storage in bags in the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons. *Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05).

Figure 2 Incidence of Fusarium spp. (A and B), Phomopsis sp. (C and D) and Cercosporora kikuchii (E and F) in soybean seed lots sampled during the processing and after storage in bags in the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons. *Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05).

Figure 3 Incidence of Aspergillus spp. (A and B) and Penicillium spp. (C and D) in soybean seed lots sampled during processing and after storage in bags in the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons. *Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05).

Figure 4 Principal components analysis (PCA) of the health and physiological quality of soybean seed lots collected during processing (PF) and after storage in bags (BB) in 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing season. PC1 First principal component; PC2 Second principal component.

Table 1 Seed lot, growing season, producing region, cultivars, category, representativeness and number of simple soybean samples obtained in bagging spout and after storage in bags.

Lot	Season	Region	Cultivars	Category	Representativeness (kg)	N° of single samples
Lot	Season	Region	Cultivars	Category	Representativeness (kg)	Bags	Bagging spout
1	2017/2018	Xanxerê	58I60RSF IPRO	S1	14.400	29	36
2	2017/2018	Xanxerê	NS 6006 IPRO	S2	14.400	29	36
3	2017/2018	Campo Belo do Sul	SYN1163 RR	S2	24.000	40	60
4	2017/2018	Campo Belo do Sul	SYN1163 RR	S2	24.000	40	60
5	2017/2018	Campos Novos	TMG 7262RR	S1	24.000	40	60
6	2017/2018	Campos Novos	TMG 7262RR	C2	24.000	40	60
1	2018/2019	Campo Belo do Sul	SYN1163 RR	C2	24.000	40	60
2	2018/2019	Campo Belo do Sul	NS 4823	S2	24.000	40	60
3	2018/2019	Campos Novos	TMG 7262RR	S2	24.000	40	60
4	2018/2019	Campos Novos	TMG 7262RR	S2	24.000	40	60
5	2018/2019	Xanxerê	59I60RSF IPRO	C1	14.400	29	36
6	2018/2019	Xanxerê	TMG 7262RR	S2	14.400	29	36
7	2018/2019	Xanxerê	NA 5909 RG	S1	14.400	29	36
8	2018/2019	Xanxerê	TMG7063IPRO	S1	14.400	29	36
9	2018/2019	Canoinhas	M6410IPRO	S2	11.200	23	28
10	2018/2019	Canoinhas	BMX ATIVA RR	S1	11.200	23	28
11	2018/2019	Canoinhas	NS 6209	S1	11.200	23	28
12	2018/2019	Canoinhas	NS 5258	S1	11.200	23	28

Table 2 Percentage of germination in soybean seeds sampled in bagging spout and after storage in bags in the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons.

Lot	After Storage	Bagging Spout	Mean¹ 1 Average percentage of germination of seeds sampled after storage and in the processing flow.	RAS Tolerance	Difference² 2 Difference between the germination percentage of seeds sampled after storage and in the processing flow.
2017/2018 Season
1	90^** * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. **Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.	96	93	4	6^* * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. **Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.
2	94^** * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. **Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.	89	92	4	5^* * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. **Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.
3	91	93	92	4	2
4	88	89	89	5	1
5	85	86	86	5	1
6	90	86	88	5	4
Mean	90	90	-	-	-
CV (%)	3.6
2018/2019 Season
1	85^** * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. **Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.	78	82	6	7^* * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. **Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.
2	84^** * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. **Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.	89	87	5	5
3	95	96	96	3	1
4	95	94	95	3	1
5	88	88	88	5	0
6	93	95	94	4	2
7	96	92	94	4	4
8	90	91	91	4	1
9	94	96	95	3	2
10	94	94	94	4	0
11	85^** * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. **Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.	90	88	5	5
12	91	90	91	4	1
Mean	91	91	-	-	-
CV (%)	2.9

¹
Average percentage of germination of seeds sampled after storage and in the processing flow.
²
Difference between the germination percentage of seeds sampled after storage and in the processing flow.
* Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. **Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.

Table 3 Percentage of vigor by accelerated aging in soybean seeds sampled in bagging spout and after storage in bags in the 2017/2018 and 2018/2019 growing seasons.

Lot	After Storage	Bagging Spout	Mean¹ 1 Average percentage of germination of seeds sampled after storage and in the processing flow.	RAS Tolerance	Difference² 2 Difference between the germination percentage of seeds sampled after storage and in the processing flow.
2017/2018 Season
1	77^** * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. ** Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.	67	72	7	10^* * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. ** Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.
2	87	88	88	5	1
3	83	81	82	6	2
4	85^** * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. ** Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.	71	78	6	14^* * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. ** Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.
5	44^** * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. ** Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.	57	51	8	13^* * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. ** Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.
6	47	40	44	8	7
Mean	71	67	-
CV (%)	7.30
2018/2019 Season
1	92	96	94	4	4
2	94	94	94	4	0
3	89	90	90	4	1
4	88	92	90	4	4
5	89	91	90	4	2
6	86	87	87	5	1
7	87^** * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. ** Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.	82	85	5	5
8	70^** * Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. ** Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.	76	73	7	6
9	90	87	89	5	3
10	93	93	93	4	0
11	86	89	88	5	3
12	88	90	89	5	2
Mean	88	89	-	-	-
CV (%)	3.28

¹
Average percentage of germination of seeds sampled after storage and in the processing flow.
²
Difference between the germination percentage of seeds sampled after storage and in the processing flow.
* Indicates the differences between sampling methods according to RAS table 18.10. ** Indicates the difference between sampling methods according to Tukey’s test (p ≤ 0.05). CV: coefficient of variation.

Como citar

copiar

ABRATES - Associação Brasileira de Tecnologia de Sementes Av. Juscelino Kubitschek, 1400 - 3° Andar, sala 31 - Centro,, CEP 86020-000 Londrina/PR - Londrina - PR - Brazil
E-mail: jss@abrates.org.br

Acompanhe os números deste periódico no seu leitor de RSS

Versão para download de PDF

PDF

Inglês

Versões e tradução automática

Versão original do texto

English

Tradução automática

Google Translator
Microsoft Translator

Como citar

RIS

BIBTEX

Outros formatos de citação e exportação:

SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online
Rua Dr. Diogo de Faria, 1087 – 9º andar – Vila Clementino 04037-003 São Paulo/SP - Brasil
E-mail: scielo@scielo.org

Leia a Declaração de Acesso Aberto

Métricas

Mensagem

[1] *Corresponding author
E-mail: cileide.souza@udesc.br