Back to all available

Effects of ⁶⁰co-γ irradiation on seed germination and seedling growth in five cultivars of hibiscus syriacus L.

plant-science
plant-physiology
horticulture

Abstract

To investigate the mutagenic effects of ⁶⁰Co-γ irradiation on Hibiscus syriacus seeds, five cultivars (“Starlight Chiffon”, “China Chiffon”, “Purple Pillar”, “Heart of Beauty”, and “Bridesmaid”) were irradiated at doses of 40, 80, 120, 160, and 200 Gy. The effects on seed germination and seedling growth were systematically studied. The results revealed significant varietal differences in radiosensitivity. A low dose of 40 Gy promoted germination in “Purple Pillar” by 46.28%, demonstrating a stimulatory hormesis effect. In contrast, germination was significantly suppressed in ‘Starlight Chiffon’ and ‘China Chiffon’ at the same dose. The highest germination rate for “Starlight Chiffon” (60.71%) occurred at 120 Gy, which also corresponded with the peak seedling mortality for “Bridesmaid” (40.59%). Irradiation markedly inhibited seedling growth; at 200 Gy, plant height in “China Chiffon” and “Bridesmaid” was reduced to 57.5% and 62.44% of the control, respectively. All doses significantly affected internode development and induced leaf malformation, with the highest number of malformed leaves observed at 120 Gy, particularly in “Purple Pillar” (16 leaves per plant). This study identifies cultivar-specific optimal irradiation ranges and provides a theoretical basis for mutation breeding in H. syriacus.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].