Literature DB >> 33211739

Evaluation of coatings for application in raffia big bags in conditioned storage of soybean cultivars in seed processing units.

Paulo Carteri Coradi1,2,3, Roney Eloy Lima2, Charline Zaratin Alves2, Paulo Eduardo Teodoro2, Ana Carina da Silva Cândido2.   

Abstract

Different regions have different environmental conditions, which may be unfavorable for the preservation of the quality of stored soybean seeds over time. Thus, it is necessary to adopt specific technologies to control the storage environment conditions. Big raffia bags are widely used for the storage of soybean seeds, however these consist of a porous, permeable material that allows the exchange of gases between the packaging and the storage environment. In an effort to find a solution to this problem, in this study we evaluated low cost big bag coating alternatives, in order to minimize the effects of temperature and intergranular humidity on stored seeds. Thus, the aim of this work was to evaluate the quality of soybean cultivars subjected to different temperature and storage duration conditions and stored in raffia bags with or without internal coating. We used a completely randomized, three-factor (10 × 6 × 5) experimental design. We assessed 10 soybean cultivars, six storage environments, and five evaluation periods. Our results showed that seeds of the M-SOY 8866, M7110 IPRO, CD 2737 RR, and BMX DESAFIO 8473 RSF soybean cultivars preserved their physiological quality better in different storage environments. The storage duration had a cumulative effect on the negative factors that favor the deterioration of the quality of the stored seeds. The storage temperature was the main factor that affected the physiological quality of the stored seeds. The use of coated packaging was beneficial in preserving the physiological quality of stored soybean seeds; however, its effect was greater at ambient temperature than in a cold environment. The best storage environment for the preservation of the quality of the seeds was characterized by 10°C temperature conditions and the use of coated packaging, while the worst storage environment was characterized by ambient temperature conditions without the use of coated packaging. Thus, it was concluded that the use of coatings in raffia big bags can be an alternative for maintaining the quality of seeds of different soybean cultivars during storage in seed processing units.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Substances:

Year:  2020        PMID: 33211739      PMCID: PMC7676663          DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0242522

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  PLoS One        ISSN: 1932-6203            Impact factor:   3.240


1. Introduction

The expansion of soybean cultivation in the world necessitates the improvement of agricultural production processes with the use of precision technologies, which are associated with genetic improvements and seed conservation, thereby creating the need for the production of seeds with better physiological and sanitary qualities [1]. Among other factors, the physiological quality of the seeds depends on production management and the conduct of post-harvest operations [2]. Storage is an important post-harvest stage, the main objective of which is to conserve seed quality by reducing the speed and intensity of the deterioration process as much as possible [2-5]. When storage conditions are not adequate, soybean seeds suffer viability losses owing to the increased metabolic activity that promotes a reduction in their physiological quality [6,7]. According to Zuchi et al. [8], some soy producing areas are located in regions with tropical climate and high average temperatures, which are considered unfavorable for the preservation of the physiological quality of soybean seeds. Under these conditions, cooling the seeds can contribute to the preservation of stored seed quality. Artificial cooling is a technique efficient in reducing metabolic activity and, consequently, preserving seed quality in storage [9,10]. This process can take place either during bagging or during the storage period [11]. Mbofung et al. [12] verified the negative effects of ambient temperature on seed deterioration during storage compared to refrigerated environments. Another factor that interferes with physiological quality is the packaging material used for seed storage. On a commercial scale, soybean seeds are stored and transported from the processing units to rural producers in big, semi-permeable raffia bags. According to Santos et al. [13], the storage of seeds in permeable packaging without water content control facilitates the exchange of humidity with the environment. In turn, this causes an increase in the water content owing to the alteration of the hygroscopic balance of the seeds during storage, which deteriorate more and have reduced vigor and batch viability. The storage duration of the seeds can intensify their deterioration; one of the techniques employed to minimize this problem is the artificial cooling of the seed mass [14]. Zuchi et al. [8] observed that artificially cooled stored seed lots preserved their physiological quality compared to uncooled stored seeds. According to Ferreira et al. [15], storing seeds at low temperatures reduces their metabolism and the chances of attack by pathogenic microorganisms, thereby preserving the vigor and viability of seed germination. In view of the unfavorable climatic diversities that occur when it comes to storing soybean seeds in different producing regions, this work aimed to evaluate the effect of temperature and storage duration on the quality and physical and physiological characteristics of different soybean seed cultivars. To this end, we used raffia packaging, which was either coated or not coated with polyethylene material.

2. Material and methods

2.1 Characterization of the experiments

The research work was carried out at the Seed Laboratory of the Federal University of Mato Grosso do Sul (UFMS), Chapadão do Sul Campus (CPCS), in partnership with the Post-Harvest Laboratory (LAPOS) of the Federal University of Santa Maria (UFSM). We used a completely randomized, three-factor (10 × 6 × 5) experiment experimental design. We assessed 10 soybean cultivars: (CD 2737 RR, BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF, NS 7209 IPRO, BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO, DM 75I76 RSF IPRO, ST 797 IPRO, BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF, BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO, M7110 IPRO, and M-SOY 8866) and six storage environments (ambient temperature in the raffia bag, ambient temperature in the polyethylene coated raffia bag, cooled to 15°C in the raffia bag, cooled to 15°C in the polyethylene coated raffia bag, cooled to 10°C in the raffia bag, and cooled to 10°C in the polyethylene coated raffia bag) at five evaluation time points (0, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months). Every three months, three packages (i.e., three repetitions) of each treatment were sampled to make quality assessments. After this procedure, the packaging was discarded. The raffia bags were made of 20 cm (wide) x 30 cm (height) x 0.25 cm polypropylene material. The polyethylene coating used to store the seeds in the raffia bags had dimensions of 20 cm (wide) x 30 cm (height) x 0.1 cm (thick of high density) being produced by the company specialized in food packaging (Videplast Company). The polyethylene packages were constituted by partially crystalline and flexible thermoplastic resin material obtained through the ethylene polymerization, having low density, high tenacity, good impact resistance, flexibility, easy processability, electrical properties and stability, and low permeability to water. It is formed by polar organic compounds and can be changed by temperature environment. To assess the effects of the storage environments on the physical and physiological quality of the soybean seeds, the three conditions (packaging, temperatures conditions, and storage time) were grouped to define the storage environments (Table 1).
Table 1

Experimental design and grouping of storage environments.

PackagingTemperature Storage (°C)Storage time (months)Environments
With coatingAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)0E1
With coatingAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)3E2
With coatingAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)6E3
With coatingAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)9E4
With coatingAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)12E5
With coating150E6
With coating153E7
With coating156E8
With coating159E9
With coating1512E10
With coating100E11
With coating103E12
With coating106E13
With coating109E14
With coating1012E15
UncoatingAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)0E16
UncoatingAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)3E17
UncoatingAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)6E18
UncoatingAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)9E19
UncoatingAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)12E20
Uncoating150E21
Uncoating153E22
Uncoating156E23
Uncoating159E24
Uncoating1512E25
Uncoating100E26
Uncoating103E27
Uncoating106E28
Uncoating109E29
Uncoating1012E30
The agronomic characteristics of the soybean cultivars are shown in Table 2.
Table 2

Cultivars and their main characteristics.

CultivarsCycle (days)Maturity groupProductivity (bags/hectare)
CD2737RR (1)127–1327.369.5
BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF IPRO (2)100–1126.6106.3
NS 7209 IPRO (3)105–1157.381.8
BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4)108–1147.288
DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5)100–1137.590.5
ST 797 IPRO (6)118–1207.958.3
BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7)105–1147.494.7
BMX BÔNUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8)118–1207.993
M7110 IPRO (9)102–1126.277
M-SOY 8866 (10)125–1308.876

2.2 Sampling and quality analysis of soybean seeds

The soybean seeds were obtained from the production fields of a rural property in the municipality of Chapadão do Céu-GO and were cleaned to remove impurities and foreign matter (LC 160 machine, Kepler Weber). Then, they were dried in drying silos with radial airflow (Rome Silos Company). The dryer is built in modulated wooden panels (2.11 m x 0.60 m) with treated boards interspersed with aluminum shutters, fixed by galvanized wire and structured with laminated angle arches, mounted overlapping on a self-draining metallic background. Radial ventilation through central tube and centrifugal fan. The temperature of the seed drying air, up to 12% (w.b.) of water content, was 40°C. Then, the seeds were processed using spiral equipment (brand Rota, model Rota II) and a dissymmetric table (brand Silomax, model SDS-80), in order to standardize their size and weight. The seed lots were stored in raffia bags (polypropylene) in air-conditioned warehouses with temperature control. Nine-kilogram seed samples were collected from the bags containing each cultivar, with the aid of a manual presser (EAGRI Equipments), in order to be stored experimentally in different storage environments. During the storage period, the temperature of the seed mass was monitored weekly with the aid of a digital thermohygrometer (Novus®, model Logbox-RHT-LCD), and every three months, the seed samples were collected for quality assessment. The water content of the seeds was determined in a forced air circulation oven (220 L, Tecnal Company) at 105°C ± 1°C, for 24 h, with four repetitions. Then, the samples were removed and placed in a desiccator for cooling (5 L, Tecnal Company) and subsequent weighing (Shimadzu, model B13200H), according to the recommendations of the Rule for Seed Analysis [16]. The water content was determined by the mass difference of the initial and the final sample, and the results were expressed as a percentage (w.b.). The apparent specific mass of the seeds was determined with the aid of a 150 mL beaker and a precision scale, using the mass/volume ratio, with four repetitions [16]. The electrical conductivity evaluation was carried out with four sub-samples, each containing 25 seeds per experimental unit, weighed on a precision scale of 0.001 g, and placed in plastic cups with 75 mL of distilled water, and was undertaken in a incubator at 25°C, for 24 h. After imbibition, the electrical conductivity of the immersion solution was obtained with the aid of a digital conductivity meter (Digimed CD-21) and the results were expressed in μS cm-1 g-1 according to the methodology proposed by Brasil [16]. For the germination test, four sub-samples of 50 seeds from each experimental unit were used, distributed in paper towel rolls (Germitest), and moistened with distilled water in an amount that was 2.5 times the dry paper mass. Then, the rolls with the seeds were placed in a germinator (Mangesdorf), set at a temperature of 25°C ± 2°C. The evaluations were carried out on the fifth and eighth days after the test was installed, by counting normal and abnormal seedlings as well as dead seeds, according to the criteria established in the Rules for Seed Analysis [16]. In the tetrazolium test, four sub-samples of 50 seeds from each experimental unit were used. These were pre-moistened on Germitest paper for 16 h at 25°C and then immersed in a 0.075% tetrazolium solution, in which they were kept for 3 h at 35°C in the dark. After this period, the seeds were washed in running water and their vigor, viability, and moisture damage [6-8] were evaluated according to the methodology established by França-Neto [17].

2.3 Statistical analysis

We used analysis of variance, and the treatments and significant interactions were analyzed by the Scott-Knott average test at 5% probability with SK.nest package of R software. Subsequently, data values (storage time and cultivars) were pooled out and compare for each packaging and temperature storage environments for linear regression analysis. We built two heatmap using an average Euclidean distance. The first to demonstrate the differences between storage environments and the second to demonstrate the differences between soybean cultivars. Principal component analysis was also performed to verify the similarity between storage environments and soybean cultivars with ellipses with confidence interval for groups. These analyzes were performed with R software.

3. Results

3.1 Temperature of stored seed mass

Under ambient conditions, we observed that the temperature of the stored soybean mass increased, and had greater variation than that of the soybean seed mass stored at 10°C and 15°C (Fig 1). For soybean seeds stored at ambient temperature, the average temperature was 26.7°C, the maximum and minimum temperatures were 32°C and 22°C, respectively, and the thermal range was 10°C. In the 15°C storage conditions, the average temperature was 15.25°C, the maximum and minimum temperatures were 17°C and 14°C, respectively, and the thermal range was 3°C. In the 10°C storage conditions, the average temperature was 9.98°C, the maximum and minimum temperatures were 11°C and 9°C, respectively, and the thermal range was 2°C.
Fig 1

Temperature of seed mass in storage environments.

In the analysis of variance (Table 3), it was found that the treatments and interactions were significant at 5% probability, for all seed quality tests.
Table 3

Analysis of variance (Mean Squares) of soybean cultivars in storage environments.

FVTAME1ªCGG
A72.22*4991.0*12755.37*7856.17*
C1.3*4153.67*18609.09*13677.49*
A x C0.52*438.45*341.87*274.64*
RES0.09363.1632.4417.69
CV (%)2.962.787.444.76
Average10.36684.3676.5688.41
FVCEVG TZVB TZDU TZ
A36710.43*9391.36*4808.68*5269.43*
C85227.55*9717.86*1685.65*692.26*
A x C596.25*344.23*157.09*161.99*
RES127.6316.967.452.61
CV (%)10.465.463.0232.72
Average108.0575.4390.444.94

FV—source of variation. A—environments. C—cultivars. RES—residue. CV (%)—coefficient of variation. TA—water content. ME—apparent specific mass. 1st CG—first germination count. G—germination. CE—electrical conductivity. VG TZ—tetrazolium vigor. VB TZ—tetrazolium viability. DU TZ—tetrazolium moisture damage.

*Significant at 5% probability by the F test.

FV—source of variation. A—environments. C—cultivars. RES—residue. CV (%)—coefficient of variation. TA—water content. ME—apparent specific mass. 1st CG—first germination count. G—germination. CE—electrical conductivity. VG TZ—tetrazolium vigor. VB TZ—tetrazolium viability. DU TZtetrazolium moisture damage. *Significant at 5% probability by the F test. The results of the linear regression analyses (Table 4) of the seed and soybean quality tests showed that the determination coefficients ranged from 60.13% to 98.98%, while the lines behaved similarly and this was indicative of the seed quality throughout the storage period.
Table 4

Regression equations and coefficients of determination.

AnalyzesCoatingsEnvironmentsEquationsR2
Water contentWCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = -0.3171x + 11.61788.15
WC15°Cy = -0.8189x + 12.6992.12
WC10°Cy = -0.557x + 12.25292.15
UCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = 0.041x + 10.53278.13
UC15°Cy = -1.1029x + 12.48685.15
UC10°Cy = -0.4704x + 12.26178.13
Apparent specific massWCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = -1.061x + 672.7360.13
WC15°Cy = -5.4076x + 701.269.14
WC10°Cy = -6.0881x + 702.5271.13
UCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = -7.084x + 707.6278.16
UC15°Cy = -4.8283x + 697.8472.68
UC10°Cy = -6.096x + 702.1275.43
GerminationWCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = -9.03x + 108.783.32
WC15°Cy = -0.71x + 94.1686.73
WC10°Cy = 0.03x + 93.8598.13
UCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = -11.205x + 113.8882.14
UC15°Cy = -0.08x + 90.4176.20
UC10°Cy = 0.3x + 93.3484.54
Electric conductivityWCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = 20.215x + 61.37890.21
WC15°Cy = 6.1505x + 81.87478.92
WC10°Cy = 2.8927x + 84.08388.76
UCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = 31.346x + 38.80179.54
UC15°Cy = 10.52x + 73.57688.68
UC10°Cy = 2.6684x + 85.21892.58
VigorWCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = -14.065x + 108.3783.76
WC15°Cy = -1.515x + 85.41588.74
WC10°Cy = -0.395x + 85.85591.45
UCAmbient (average at 24°C)y = -16.61x + 114.6879.42
UC15°Cy = -6.27x + 95.688.93
UC10°Cy = -0.41x + 87.292.14
Mechanical damageWCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = 0.942x - 0.49496.45
WC15°Cy = 0.84x - 0.3893.65
WC10°Cy = 0.64x + 0.1897.89
UCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = 0.83x - 0.0791.78
UC15°Cy = 1.51x - 1.6394.56
UC10°Cy = 0.55x + 0.0395.67
Damage mechanical vigor testWCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = -9.4x + 95.9892.35
WC15°Cy = 0.04x + 81.293.21
WC10°Cy = 2.04x + 75.3696.78
UCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = -14.23x + 105.8597.89
UC15°Cy = -0.96x + 81.8698.98
UC10°Cy = 2.56x + 7194.61
Mechanical damage viability testWCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = -6.27x + 104.1396.54
WC15°Cy = -0.05x + 92.9596.79
WC10°Cy = 0.35x + 90.8797.32
UCAmbient (range 20 to 30°C)y = -9.63x + 111.9398.69
UC15°Cy = 0.46x + 89.0695.71
UC10°Cy = 0.11x + 93.6397.48

WC–With coating, UC–Uncoating.

WC–With coating, UC–Uncoating. Fig 2 shows the results of the quality analysis of soybean seeds over the storage period.
Fig 2

Water content (A), Apparent specific mass (B), Germination (C), Electrical conductivity (D), Vigor (E), Mechanical damage (F), Vigor test–tetrazolium (G), Viability test–tetrazolium (H) of soybean seeds stored in different environments over time. WC–With Coating, UC–Uncoated.

Water content (A), Apparent specific mass (B), Germination (C), Electrical conductivity (D), Vigor (E), Mechanical damage (F), Vigor test–tetrazolium (G), Viability test–tetrazolium (H) of soybean seeds stored in different environments over time. WC–With Coating, UC–Uncoated.

3.2 Water content of stored soybean seeds

According to the results shown in Table 5, the average water contents of the seeds varied depending on the different conditions and storage durations. During the storage period, the water contents of the cultivars ranged from 7% (w.b.) to 13% (w.b.). Our results showed that during storage, the relative humidity influenced the water contents of the hygroscopic materials of the seeds stored in the permeable packaging, which allowed greater water vapor exchanges with the environment. The use of coated packaging preserved a greater balance in terms of the exchange of humidity between the seeds and the storage environment.
Table 5

Breakdown of the interaction between storage environments and soybean cultivars for water content (%).

E/Cultivars12345678910
E112.15 aA11.75 aB12.10 aA12.53 aA11.93 aA11.77 aB12.13 aA12.16 aA11.04 cC11.61 aC
E210.40 eB10.79 cA11.14 cA10.49 dB9.85 eC10.15 dC10.40 cB9.76 eC10.56 cB10.04 cC
E310.61 dA10.28 cA9.50 eB10.60 dA10.75 cA10.60 cA10.61 cA10.86 cA10.84 cA10.32 bA
E49.70 fB10.12 cA10.05 dB9.96 eB10.23 dA10.63 cA10.45 cA10.25 dA9.68 eB9.84 cB
E510.61 dA10.32 cB10.15 dB10.51 dA10.57 cA10.30 dB10.17 dB10.56 dA10.75 cA10.71 bA
E612.15 aA11.75 aB12.10 aA12.53 aA11.93 aA11.77 aB12.13 aA12.16 aA11.04 cC11.61 aB
E711.13 cA11.47 bA11.30 bA11.43 bA10.51 cB11.48 bA10.19 dC11.56 bA11.07 cA10.82 bB
E810.53 dB10.48 cB10.59 dB8.53 hC11.25 bA10.66 cB10.39 cB10.47 dB10.73 cB10.11 cB
E98.84 gA8.81 eA8.63 bA8.97 gA8.92 fA8.70 fA8.79 fA8.67 fA9.07 fA8.79 eA
E108.91 gB9.10 eA8.83 bB9.26 fA8.82 fB9.11 fA8.76 fB8.72 fB8.90 fB9.20 dA
E1112.15 aA11.75 aB12.10 aA12.53 aA11.93 aA11.77 aB12.13 aA12.16 aA11.04 cC11.61 aB
E1210.76 dB11.10 bA11.16 cA10.51 dB11.37 bA11.48 bA11.26 bA11.41 bA10.73 cB10.64 bB
E1310.27 eC10.57 cB10.24 dC11.04 cA10.49 cB10.78 cA10.47 cB11.31 bA10.06 dC10.67 bB
E149.41 fA9.49 dA9.48 eA9.70 eA9.54 eA9.49 eA9.37 eA9.67 eA8.45 gB9.42 dA
E1510.16 eA9.84 dB10.26 dA9.98 eA9.81 eB10.18 dA9.61 eB10.03 dA9.83 eB9.82 cB
E1612.15 aA11.75 aB12.10 aA12.53 aA11.93 aA11.77 aB12.13 aA12.16 aA11.04 cC11.61 aB
E178.82 gA9.06 eA7.70 gD8.09 hC8.16 gC8.06 gC7.33 hD8.12 gC8.51 gB8.16 fC
E1810.26 eC11.43 Bb10.93 cB11.47 bB11.22 bB11.30 bB10.24 dC11.84 bA11.43 bB11.71 aA
E1910.77 dD11.48 bC11.72 bB11.55 bB11.59 bB12.11 aA11.89 aA11.56 bB11.05 cD11.31 aC
E2010.64 dA10.63 cA10.24 dB10.45 dA10.58 cA10.05 dB9.97 dB10.57 dA10.92 cA10.66 bA
E2112.15 aA11.75 aB12.10 aA12.53 aA11.93 aA11.77 aB12.13 aA12.16 aA11.04 cC11.61 aB
E2210.06 eB10.53 cA10.49 dB10.15 dB10.11 dB10.74 cA10.23 dB10.33 dB10.26 dB10.38 bB
E238.04 hB8.63 eA8.85 bA8.41 hA8.02 gB8.88 fA7.87 gB8.25 gB8.46 gA8.19 fB
E247.00 jB7.40 gB7.53 gB7.39 iB7.32 hB7.92 gA8.00 gA7.26 hB7.37 hB7.12 gB
E257.49 iA7.93 fA7.53 gA7.50 iA7.00 hB7.49 hA7.09 hB7.19 hB7.33 hB11.61 aA
E2612.15 aA11.75 aB12.10 aA12.53 aA11.93 aA11.77 aB12.13 aA12.16 aA11.04 cC7.47 gB
E2711.42 bB12.05 aA12.00 aA12.24 aA11.73 aB11.65 aB11.45 bB11.09 cC12.02 aA11.94 aA
E2811.06 cB11.50 bA11.03 cB11.59 bA11.54 bA10.79 cB10.73 cB11.34 bA11.49 bA10.67 bB
E299.57 fA9.81 dA9.56 eA9.45 fA9.65 eA9.53 eA9.29 eA9.54 eA9.74 eA9.55 dA
E3010.32 eA10.51 cA10.06 dA10.26 dA10.29 dA10.23 dA9.92 dA10.32 dA10.23 dA10.32 bA

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The increase in the storage duration reduced the water content of the seeds, regardless of packaging or storage temperatures (Fig 2A). The results obtained indicated that coated packaging had a beneficial effect on seed quality, as it allowed for better conservation of the water contents and low heat and mass transfers between the atmospheric air and the seeds in the storage environments. After nine months of storage, the soybean seeds stored at 10°C reached a hygroscopic balance with water levels similar to those of the initial storage conditions. The same pattern was observed in 15°C storage environments. However, in ambient temperature environments, the seeds reached a hygroscopic balance with water contents lower than those achieved in the 15°C and 10°C environment. The air-conditioned environment stabilized the water content of the seeds during storage.

3.3 Apparent specific mass of stored soybean seeds

A reduction was observed in the apparent specific mass of the seeds (Table 6), regardless of the storage environment. However, there was no significant difference among the different storage environments in terms of the apparent specific mass (kg m-3) of the cultivars. Seeds stored in coated packaging and at ambient temperature had the lowest apparent density values, which remained constant over time (Fig 2B).
Table 6

Breakdown of the interaction between storage environments and soybean cultivars for the apparent specific mass (kg m-3).

E/Cultivars12345678910
E1698.2 aA701.4 aA703.9 aA685.2 aA710.3 aA703.6 aA704.8 aA704.9 aA701.3 aA724.9 aA
E2692.5 aA678.4 bB689.3 aB685.0 aB682.6 bB676.1 bB668.0 bB700.8 aA704.0 aA713.0 aA
E3676.7 aA676.7 bA682.3 bA673.4 aA674.1 bA677.8 bA684.0 bA682.0 bA687.7 aA703.4 bA
E4690.9 aA535.6 cB677.8 bA671.3 aA674.5 bA687.0 bA687.2 bA682.8 bA683.9 aA689.3 bA
E5681.8 aA672.7 bA662.1 bA669.2 aA666.2 bA670.1 bA672.2 bA680.1 bA688.6 aA680.7 bA
E6698.2 aA701.4 aA703.9 aA685.2 aA710.3 aA703.6 aA704.8 aA704.9 aA701.3 aA724.9 aA
E7683.4 aA668.9 bA674.7 bA664.9 aA680.6 bA678.6 bA671.9 bA689.5 aA686.2 aA694.9 bA
E8689.4 aA683.0 bA676.8 bA674.4 aA672.2 bA664.7 bA684.2 bA690.0 aA703.0 aA702.0 bA
E9676.1 aA682.9 bA675.0 bA678.7 aA675.1 bA684.2 bA681.6 bA684.1 bA689.3 aA696.3 bA
E10674.7 aA679.0 bA677.7 bA669.2 aA675.8 bA670.7 bA671.2 bA678.1 bA677.4 aA679.8 bA
E11698.2 aA701.4 aA703.9 aA685.2 aA710.3 aA703.6 aA704.8 aA704.9 aA701.3 aA724.9 aA
E12682.7 aA672.6 bA674.6 bA670.4 aA684.0 bA680.6 bA688.6 bA672.2 bA680.8 aA687.9 bA
E13692.9 aA680.0 bA677.8 bA679.8 aA678.7 bA682.0 bA670.6 bA699.2 aA694.8 aA701.1 bA
E14678.0 aA672.4 bA674.9 bA669.6 aA670.0 bA684.2 bA686.7 bA679.3 bA678.4 aA690.1 bA
E15674.2 aA670.1 bA670.8 bA671.4 aA671.8 bA668.9 bA674.6 bA677.5 bA677.7 aA682.7 bA
E16698.2 aA701.4 aA703.9 aA685.2 aA710.3 aA703.6 aA704.8 aA704.9 aA701.3 aA724.9 aA
E17692.4 aA696.1 aA688.8 aA683.4 aA685.6 bA685.5 bA683.5 bA679.5 bA687.6 aA699.6 bA
E18693.7 aA686.5 aA679.1 bA674.1 aA683.1 bA666.8 bA678.9 bA693.8 aA694.8 aA680.9 bA
E19681.7 aA691.8 aA693.2 aA684.2 aA679.7 bA688.2 bA684.2 bA694.4 aA683.5 aA700.3 bA
E20674.4 aA664.6 bA662.9 bA656.4 aA655.4 bA670.4 bA670.8 bA672.6 bA680.4 aA677.0 bA
E21698.2 aA701.4 aA703.9 aA685.2 aA710.3 aA703.6 aA704.8 aA704.9 aA701.3 aA724.9 aA
E22685.5 aA672.6 bA672.0 bA666.3 aA675.8 bA668.4 bA671.0 bA671.4 bA679.9 aA677.3 bA
E23676.9 aA689.7 aA681.0 bA668.7 aA678.0 bA677.4 bA681.6 bA691.5 aA685.6 aA693.2 bA
E24674.5 aA687.9 aA673.9 bA683.7 aA678.9 bA679.7 bA675.5 bA677.9 bA680.1 aA684.1 bA
E25680.7 aA680.4 bA673.7 bA671.7 aA672.9 bA673.3 bA672.3 bA677.1 bA680.7 aA686.6 bA
E26698.2 aA701.4 aA703.9 aA685.2 aA710.3 aA703.6 aA704.8 aA704.9 aA701.3 aA724.9 aA
E27687.1 aA669.8 bA667.7 bA672.2 aA668.8 bA675.5 bA679.1 bA688.9 aA686.1 aA690.9 bA
E28690.5 aA688.8 aA686.1 bA673.7 aA693.5 aA686.9 bA689.2 bA667.7 bA684.4 aA693.1 bA
E29675.4 aA686.6 aA672.4 bA676.3 aA675.0 bA678.5 bA674.6 bA678.5 bA675.6 aA679.4 bA
E30677.8 aA673.7 bA670.9 bA667.7 aA669.5 bA672.1 bA674.7 bA674.3 bA675.8 aA684.2 bA

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

3.4 Germination of stored soybean seeds

As is shown in Table 7, the germination percentages of seeds stored in uncoated packaging were reduced, mainly at ambient temperature storage conditions. Similar results were obtained for seeds stored at 10°C and 15°C temperatures, for up to six months. After the six-month period, the seeds stored at 10°C, both in coated and uncoated packaging, had better germination quality than the seeds stored at 15°C. The worst seed germination results were obtained after nine months of storage (Fig 2C). Coated packaging was efficient in preserving the quality of the stored seeds, as it reduced the effects of temperature and humidity variations. Among the cultivars, NS 7209 IPRO had the lowest germination percentage over the storage period.
Table 7

Breakdown of the interaction between storage environments and soybean cultivars for germination (%).

E/Cultivars12345678910
E1100 aA99 aA64 cC90 bB94 aB99 aA99 aA92 bB99 aA96 aA
E299 aA96 aA80 aB94 aA94 aA100 aA95 aA98 aA97 aA97 aA
E393 aA91 aA41 fC86 bB81 bB93 bA98 aA85 cB96 aA92 bA
E497 aA86 bB38 fE86 bB76 bC99 aA98 aA78 dC66 bD75 dC
E569 bB34 dD20 hE66 dB50 dC92 bA92 aA67 eB17 cE49 fC
E6100 aA99 aA64 cC90 bB94 aB99 aA99 aA92 bB99 aA96 aA
E799 aA100 aA61 cC90 bB87 aB99 aA96 aA99 aA97 aA93 aB
E8100 aA99 aA75 bD98 aA98 aA87 bC100 aA93 bB98 aA93 aB
E999 aA98 aA57 dC93 aB93 aB98 aA100 aA96 aA99 aA91 bB
E1099 aA96 aA48 eD95 aA89 aB100 aA98 aA91 bB97 aA82 cC
E11100 aA99 aA64 cC90 bB94 aB99 aA99 aA92 bB99 aA96 aA
E1297 aA99 aA83 aB92 bA91 aA95 bA97 aA96 aA97 aA94 aA
E1399 aA100 aA78 bB96 aA99 aA99 aA100 aA98 aA99 aA97 aA
E1499 aA97 aA56 dB97 aA97 aA100 aA100 aA98 aA99 aA96 aA
E1594 aB96 aA73 bC88 bB93 aB99 aA98 aA98 aA100 aA96 aA
E16100 aA99 aA64 cC90 bB94 aB99 aA99 aA92 bB99 aA96 aA
E1799 aA99 aA60 cB97 aA96 aA100 aA98 aA98 aA95 aA98 aA
E1899 aA96 aB69 cC93 aB92 aB99 aA99 aA99 aA95 aB99 aA
E1993 aA75 cC29 gG49 eF69 cD93 bA97 aA83 cB61 bE95 aA
E2069 bB7 eE0 if10 fE13 eE37 cD77 bA4 fF1 dF62 eC
E21100 aA99 aA64 cC90 bB94 aB99 aA99 aA92 bB99 aA96 aA
E2298 aA97 aA81 aC90 bB93 aB100 aA94 aB99 aA99 aA95 aB
E2397 aA98 aA62 cC95 aA89 aB100 aA99 aA95 aA95 aA96 aA
E2498 aA95 aA60 cB97 aA93 aA99 aA99 aA94 bA95 aA91 bA
E2597 aA95 aA53 dC88 bB92 aB98 aA99 aA92 bB90 aB87 cB
E26100 aA99 aA64 cC90 bB94 aB99 aA99 aA92 bB99 aA96 aA
E27100 aA100 aA87 aB79 cC93 aA100 aA97 aA97 aA94 aA96 aA
E28100 aA99 aA73 bC99 aA97 aA99 aA100 aA99 aA97 aA99 aA
E2999 aA96 aA62 cB99 aA95 aA99 aA99 aA94 bA99 aA97 aA
E3098 aA98 aA75 bB95 aA93 aA99 aA100 aA96 aA98 aA98 aA

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

3.5 Electrical conductivity test on stored soybean seeds

The electrical conductivity results are shown in Table 8. Higher electrical conductivity values and, consequently, greater deterioration were obtained in soybean seeds stored in ambient temperature environments, when compared to the 10°C and 15°C environments (Table 7). Refrigerated environments reduced the deterioration of soybean seeds during the storage period (Fig 2D). Soybean seeds stored in uncoated packaging had the highest electrical conductivity values compared to seeds belonging to the same cultivar and stored under the same temperature in coated packaging and duration, thereby demonstrating the benefit of the latter packaging type in preserving seed quality. The 10°C environment helped preserve soybean seed quality better, and resulted in a solute leaching increase only after six months of storage, with emphasis on the NS 7209 IPRO and M-SOY 8866 cultivars.
Table 8

Breakdown of the interaction between storage environments and soybean cultivars for electrical conductivity (μS cm-1 of sample).

E/Cultivars12345678910
E182.5 dC81.2 eC145.5 gA79.0 eC90.6 fC87.3 dC73.2 cC83.6 fC89.1 fC107.7 dB
E276.9 dC84.3 eC153.6 gA83.5 eC89.6 fC76.2 dC75.9 cC112.5 dB120.8 eB114.6 cB
E384.8 dD98.1 dC189.3 eA96.1 eC105.3 eC91.6 dD80.9 cD104.8 dC128.5 dB104.8 dC
E497.4 cD131.2 cC238.5 cA127.2 cC152.2 cB106.8 cD98.5 bD131.2 cC161.7 cB125.4 cC
E5116.4 bF184.2 bC281.4 bA182.4 bC191.9 bC134.2 bE111.6 bF172.7 bC207.9 bB156.8 bD
E682.5 dC81.2 eC145.5 gA79.0 eC90.6 fC87.3 dC73.2 cC83.6 fC89.1 fC107.7 dB
E772.0 dC74.7 eC136.9 hA77.6 eC79.6 fC76.8 dC65.5 cC81.5 fC92.3 fB95.4 dB
E887.9 dC99.6 dC167.3 fA92.4 eC108.6 eB93.7 dC83.9 cC93.4 eC115.6 eB121.6 cB
E981.4 dC99.3 dC164.1 fA99.8 eC105.7 eC86.9 dD80.9 cD97.8 eC116.4 eB122.4 cB
E1080.6 dC100.5 dD190.2 eA110.2 dC109.1 eC94.7 dD87.1 cD106.6 dC129.9 dB117.1 cC
E1182.5 dC81.2 eC145.5 gA79.0 eC90.6 fC87.3 dC73.2 cC83.6 fC89.1 fC107.7 dB
E1263.8 dC71.2 eC132.5 hA76.8 eC89.4 fB69.4 dC72.7 cC74.7 fC94.8 fB88.9 dB
E1386.8 dC88.3 eC167.7 fA90.8 eC100.6 eB86.3 dC79.1 cC94.8 eC108.4 eB106.7 dB
E1476.8 dC87.2 eC160.0 fA85.4 eC103.3 eB82.9 dC76.5 cC93.9 eC106.5 eB112.1 dB
E1579.6 dC89.7 eC166.9 fA86.4 eC101.3 eB87.5 dC80.3 cC88.7 eC101.8 fB107.1 dB
E1682.5 dC81.2 eC145.5 gA79.0 eC90.6 fC87.3 dC73.2 cC83.6 fC89.1 fC107.7 dB
E1781.5 dC91.1 eC182.1 eA92.9 eC102.7 eB77.3 dC82.1 cC103.9 dB118.3 eB107.7 dB
E1878.2 dC79.9 eC178.3 eA82.4 eC105.9 eB82.3 dC75.5 cC93.1 eC114.3 eB102.1 db
E1997.1 cD105.2 dD239.7 cA123.2 cC139.1 dC119.0 bC95.5 bD130.5 cC193.4 bB125.3 cC
E20193.0 aD258.6 aB313.5 aA220.7 aC246.3 aB223.4 aC160.2 aE214.0 aC303.5 aA189.5 aD
E2182.5 dC81.2 eC145.5 gA79.0 eC90.6 fC87.3 dC73.2 cC83.6 fC89.1 fC107.7 dB
E2272.3 dC78.8 eC148.6 gA77.7 eC81.6 fC82.2 dC68.6 cC73.4 fC95.6 fB104.3 dB
E2374.2 dC88.9 eC157.3 gA89.6 eC104.9 eB85.7 dC82.6 cC90.8 eC100.5 fB112.0 dB
E2488.6 dE93.5 dE190.8 eA105.1 dD113.2 eD94.1 dE87.6 cE106.5 dD155.6 cB125.6 cC
E25100.5 cD105.1 dD215.9 dA126.3 cC131.2 dC102.9 cD99.5 bD123.9 cC151.6 cB150.1 bB
E2682.5 dC81.2 eC145.5 gA79.0 eC90.6 fC87.3 dC73.2 cC83.6 fC89.1 fC107.7 dB
E2769.4 dD72.0 eD126.6 hA78.0 eC83.9 fC70.1 dD66.7 cD72.3 fD88.5 fC97.9 dB
E2872.9 dC79.8 eC155.0 gA82.7 eC106.9 eB82.9 dC80.9 cC79.6 fC109.9 eB117.6 cB
E2975.8 dC79.0 eC164.4 fA85.8 eC86.8 fC80.1 dC75.8 cC88.5 eC118.6 eB109.2 dB
E3074.6 dC81.0 eC163.6 fA87.9 eC104.0 eB89.9 dC81.5 cC91.5 eC94.5 fC115.2 cB

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

3.6 First germination count (vigor) of stored soybean seeds

The first germination count of soybean seeds was better in the 15°C and 10°C storage environments than in the ambient temperature environments. These results were similar to those obtained from the electrical conductivity and germination assessments, which were favorable in the 15°C and 10°C storage environments and with the use of coated packaging (Table 9). Over the storage period, we observed reductions in the percentage of the first count of germinated seeds, with greater emphasis on storage at ambient temperature (Fig 2E).
Table 9

Breakdown of the interaction between storage environments and soybean cultivars for the 1st germination count (%).

E/Cultivars12345678910
E199 aA95 aA50 cC84 bB87 aB94 aA97 aA84 bB93 aA95 aA
E297 aA89 bB76 aC93 aB83 aC98 aA88 bB97aA90 aB95 aA
E372 cB56 dC18 fE45 fD49 dD67 cB88 bA43 eD48 dD66 cB
E497 aA85 bB38 dE86 bB56 cC99 aA97 aA47 eD53 dC56 dC
E547 dB14 eD11 fD23 gC18 eC50 dB58 dA12 fD10 fD26 fC
E699 aA95 aA50 cC84 bB87 aB94 aA97 aA84 bB93 aA95 aA
E796 aA98 aA48 cF63 dE62 cE99 aA72 cD88 aB82 bC77 bC
E895 aA69 cC44 cD78 cB88 aA73 cC94 aA69 cC79 bB77 bB
E998 aA97 aA50 cC86 bB82 aB97 aA97 aA91 aB86 aB85 bB
E1095 aA83 bB39 dE73 cC67 bD90 aA82 bB78 cC86 aB66 cD
E1199 aA95 aA50 cC84 bB87 aB94 aA97 aA84 bB93 aA95 aA
E1289 bA97 aA73 aC86 bB51 dD85 bB93 aA83 bB88 aA94 aA
E1392 aA88 bA56 cC80 bB84 aB84 bB89 bA79 bB76 bB83 bB
E1499 aA94 aB48 cC91 aB90 aB99 aA93 aB91 aB90 aB89 aB
E1587 bB88 bB58 cD69 dC82 aB97 aA86 bB92 aA85 aB91 aA
E1699 aA95 aA50 cC84 bB87 aB94 aA97 aA84 bB93 aA95 aA
E1798 aA95 aA44 cC96 aA90 aA96 aA95 aA92 aA81 bB93 aA
E1879 cB71 cB38 dD58 eC61 cC71 cB86 bA73 cB57 cC90 aA
E1985 bA63 dC28 eF40 fE60 cC83 bA88 bA74 cB49 dD87 bA
E2030 eC0 fD0 gD4 hD4 fD11 eD60 dA1 gD0 gD47 eB
E2199 aA95 aA50 cC84 bB87 aB94 aA97 aA84 bB93 aA95 aA
E2297 aA91 aB75 aC70 dC86 aB98 aA90 bB95 aA93 aB90 aB
E2390 bA74 cB32 eE50 eD64 cC85 bA88 bA50 eD62 cC78 bB
E2493 aA83 bB49 cC76 cB82 aB95 aA95 aA80 bB85 aB82 bB
E2555 dC57 dC34 eD54 eC75 bB85 bA92 aA56 dC29 eD59 cC
E2699 aA95 aA50 cC84 bB87 aB94 aA97 aA84 bB93 aA95 aA
E2798 aA100 aA82 aB64 dC87 aB97 aA90 bB93 aA89 aB96 aA
E2890 bA85 bA49 cD68 dC80 aB90 aA88 bA76 cB74 bB82 bB
E2998 aA95 aA54 cB95 aA89 aA97 aA96 aA90 aA91 aA94 aA
E3089 bA84 bB63 bC82 bB88 aA97 aA94 aA79 bB90 aA91 aA

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

3.7 Mechanical damage from moisture in stored soybean seeds

The tetrazolium test is based on the activity of the dehydrogenase enzymes, particularly malic acid dehydrogenase, which reduces the 2,3,5 triphenyl tetrazolium chloride salt in the living tissue of the seed, where hydrogen ions are transferred to the said salt. When the seed is immersed in the tetrazolium solution, it diffuses through the tissues, occurring in the living cells, the reduction reaction, resulting in the formation of a red, non-diffusible compound, known as triphenylformazan, indicating that there is respiratory activity in the mitochondria and, consequently, that the tissue is viable (alive). Dead tissues (not viable) do not react with the solution preserving its natural color. Moisture damage caused by the tetrazolium test was related to the death of soybean seeds and the consequent loss of viability, which were greater at nine months of storage at ambient temperature compared to the other storage duration and packaging conditions applied to the same cultivar. During the storage period, the moisture damage percentage of the soybean cultivars increased (Table 10). Storage at ambient temperature and in uncoated packaging resulted in the greatest moisture and heat exchange between the seed mass and the intergranular storage air over time, thereby intensifying seed deterioration.
Table 10

Breakdown of the interaction between storage environments and soybean cultivars on moisture damage (%) obtained by analyzing the tetrazolium test.

E/Cultivars12345678910
E13 cA3 eA5 gH0 hB2 dB1 eB2 cB1 eB2 eB0 dB
E22 cA0 fA0 hA0 hA0 eA0 eA0 dA1 eA0 fA0 dA
E30 dA2 eA1 hA0 hA0 eA0 eA2 cA0 eA0 fA0 dA
E412 bB15 cA7 fC0 hD0 eD0 eD0 dD2 eD7 cC1 dD
E510 bG35 bC56 bB65 aA35 bC18 bE15 bF54 bB34 bC24 aD
E63 cA3 eA5 gA0 hB2 dB1 eB2 cB1 eB2 eB0 dB
E70 dA0 fA1 hA1 hA2 dA1 eA0 dA1 eA0 fA1 dA
E80 dB1 fB4 gA1 hB1 eB2 eA0 dB2 eA0 fB1 dB
E90 dB0 fB5 gA0 hB2 dB0 eB0 dB1 eB0 fB1 dB
E103 cD6 dC9 eB14 dA0 eE6 cC2 cD12 cA4 dC4 cC
E113 cA3 eA5 gA0 hB2 dB1 eB2 cB1 eB2 eB0 dB
E120 dB0 fB4 gA1 hB1 eB0 eB0 dB0 eB0 fB0 dB
E131 dB0 fB1 hB3 gA1 eB0 eB0 dB3 eA0 fB5 cA
E140 dC1 fC14 dA4 gB1 eC1 eC1 cC2 eC0 fC0 dC
E151 dE0 fE19 cA8 eB5 dC3 dC0 dE2 eD1 eE3 cD
E163 cA3 eA5 gA0 hB2 dB1 eB2 cB1 eB2 eB0 dB
E170 dB0 fB0 hB5 fA0 eB0 eB0 dB5 dA1 eB0 dB
E180 dB1 fB5 gA2 gB0 eB1 eB0 dB3 eA2 eB1 dB
E193 cB3 eB8 fA0 hC2 dB0 eC0 dC1 eC1 eC2 cB
E2030 aG85 aA87 aA40 bE76 aB33 aF49 aD77 aB72 aC11 bH
E213 cA3 eA5 gA0 hB2 dB1 eB2 cB1 eB2 eB0 dB
E220 dB0 fB5 gA0 hB2 db0 eB0 dB0 eB0 fB0 dB
E230 dA1 fA4 gA1 hA1 eA2 eA1 cA1 eA2 eA1 dA
E240 dB2 eB5 gA1 hB3 dA0 eB0 dB1 eB1 eB1 dB
E250 dE16 cB11 eC35 cA10 cC3 dD1 cE5 dD0 fE10 bC
E263 cA3 eA5 gA0 hB2 dB1 eB2 cB1 eB2 eB0 dB
E270 dA1 fA0 hA2 gA0 eA0 eA0 dA0 eA0 fA0 dA
E280 dA0 fA1 hB0 hA0 eA0 eA0 dA1 eA2 eA2 cA
E290 dB0 fB2 hB6 fA2 dB0 eB0 dB5 dA0 fB1 dB
E300 dE2 eD13 dA4 gD10 cB0 eE0 dE7 dC1 eE3 cD

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The package coating contributed to the reduction of the moisture damage percentage of soybean seeds after nine months in ambient temperature and 15°C storage conditions, compared to the same cultivar, with the same storage duration, and the use of uncoated packaging. However, the best storage conditions were at 10°C, as these resulted in reduced moisture damage. The water content and temperature influenced the respiratory activity of the stored seeds and their effects on the deterioration process, an effect that became more evident with the storage duration increase (Fig 2F). The desorption or sorption of water depending on the storage conditions caused a variation in the seeds water content reaching different humidity levels of hygroscopic balance between the seeds and the storage environment. This variation of the moisture led a disruption of cellular tissues causing physical damage and deterioration of the seeds. The damage caused by the variation of humidity interfered in the physiological quality of the seeds during the storage time. The tetrazolium test characterized the damage caused by moisture. The seed genotypes influenced the sorption and desorption of water content and, consequently, physical damage.

3.8 Tetrazolium vigor test on stored soybean seeds

The best results in terms of preserving vigor during storage were obtained at the 10°C storage environment; similar results were obtained at the 15°C storage environment (Table 11). The worst results were obtained under ambient temperature storage conditions, regardless of the use of package coating. Package coating helped slow down the deterioration progress and preserve seed vigor in the 15°C and 10°C storage environments, for the same cultivar and storage duration. The cold storage contributed to the preservation of the physiological quality of soybean seeds, with the difference between this and the ambient temperature storage being clearer after six months of storage (Fig 2G).
Table 11

Breakdown of the interaction between storage environments and soybean cultivars on the vigor test (%) obtained by analyzing the tetrazolium test.

E/Cultivars12345678910
E189 cA83 cA75 bB63 fC85 bA81 cB87 bA58 eC77 cB85 cA
E291 cA70 eC29 gD86 cB70 cC92 aA83 cB76 cC73 dC86 cB
E392 bA90 bA57 dD86 cB64 dC90 bA95 aA81 bB84 bB87 cB
E468 fB55 fD29 gE84 cA61 dC85 cA82 cA50 fD66 eB86 cA
E552 gC20 gE16 hE34 gD33 eD71 eA61 eB5 gF31 gD35 hD
E689 cA83 cA75 bB63 fC85 bA81 cB87 bA58 eC77 cB85 cA
E794 bA91 bA62 cC87 cA92 aA92 aA90 bA61 dC69 dB95 aA
E886 cB95 aA55 dD86 cB93 aA94 aA93 aA91 aA64 eC90 bA
E986 cA86 cA56 dD92 bA86 bA84 cA89 bA64 dC74 dB86 cA
E1091 cB80 cC74 bC72 eD96 aA75 dC78 dC66 dE79 cC89 bB
E1189 cA83 cA75 bB63 fC85 bA81 cB87 bA58 eC77 cB85 cA
E1283 dA76 dB52 dD90 bA68 cC87 bA73 dB54 fD64 eC88 cA
E1398 aA83 cC74 bD97 aA86 bC93 aB99 aA96 aA84 bC91 bB
E1482 dC98 aA59 dE74 eD85 bC90 bB84 cC74 cD82 bC77 dD
E1598 aA88 cB58 dD79 dC86 bB88 bB82 cC91 aA86 bB94 aA
E1689 cA83 cA75 bB63 fC85 bA81 cB87 bA58 eC77 cB85 cA
E1793 bA87 cB44 fF78 dC73 cD88 bB83 cC54 fE74 dD97 aA
E1886 cC85 cC42 fE98 aA74 cD84 cC75 dD82 bC90 aB96 aA
E1974 eB68 eC43 fE84 cA75 cB76 dB76 dB60 eD42 fE72 eB
E2028 hB0 hD1 iD13 hC1 fD13 fC13 fC0 gD0 hD53 gA
E2189 cA83 cA75 bB63 fC85 bA81 cB87 bA58 eC77 cB85 cA
E2277 dC69 eD76 bC81 dB81 bB88 bA88 bA82 bB74 cC87 cA
E2392 bA88 cA87 aA91 bA89 aA96 aA79 dB73 cC62 eD89 bA
E2480 dB81 cB49 eE91 bA74 cC83 cB80 dB67 dD76 cC80 dB
E2593 bA74 dC64 cD63 fD70 cC84 cB86 bB75 cC80 cB67 fD
E2689 cA83 cA75 bB63 fC85 bA81 cB87 bA58 eC77 cB85 cA
E2785 cB67 eC40 fE62 fD71 cC66 eC92 aA62 dD65 eD94 aA
E2898 aA97 aA75 bC97 aA92 aB94 aB96 aA80 bC90 aB93 aB
E2987 cA87 cA58 dD76 eB80 bB81 cB83 cB71 cC73 dC81 dB
E3092 bA85 cB59 dC86 cB63 dC89 bA88 bA80 bB83 bB91 bA

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

3.9 Viability test with tetrazolium in stored soybean seeds

The tetrazolium test performed to evaluate the viability percentage of the seeds produced similar results in all treatments, over the storage period (Table 12). The best results regarding the viability of the seeds were obtained from the 10°C and 15°C seed storage conditions up to twelve months (Fig 2H). The package coating contributed to the preservation of the viability percentage of the seeds.
Table 12

Breakdown of the interaction between storage environments and soybean cultivars on the viability test (%) obtained by analyzing the tetrazolium test.

E/Cultivars12345678910
E193 bA95 bA85 cB91 bA94 bA93 bA93 bA91 cA88 cB91 bA
E295 bB93 bB87 cC98 aA96 aB100 aA95 bB90 cC83 dD94 aB
E397 aB94 bB94 aB99 aA96 aB100 aA95 bB99 aA86 cC96 aB
E485 cB85 dB87 cB97 aA95 bA99 aA94 bA98 aA82 dB96 aA
E584 cA64 fC40 fF34 fG62 eC81 cA75 eB46 dE63 eC58 cD
E693 bA95 bA85 cB91 bA94 bA93 bA93 bA91 cA88 cB91 bA
E799 aA94 bA85 cB96 aA93 bA96 bA95 bA95 bA81 dC95 aA
E896 bA99 aA79 dC97 aA97 aA97 aA96 bA98 aA86 cB100 aA
E998 aA99 aA89 bC99 aA95 bB98 aA96 bB94 bB89 cC95 aB
E1097 aA89 cC88 bC81 cE100 aA91 bC85 dD88 cC87 cC94 aB
E1193 bA95 bA85 cB91 bA94 bA93 bA93 bA91 cA88 cB91 bA
E1298 aA97 aA90 bB97 aA95 bA95 bA94 bA87 cB94 bA95 aA
E1399 aA97 aA94 aB97 aA96 aA100 aA99 aA97 aA91 bB91 bB
E1498 aA100 aA86 cC96 aA95 bA98 aA93 bB97 aA92 bB96 aA
E1599 aA100 aA76 eD89 bC94 bB95 bB91 cC98 aA89 cC96 aB
E1693 bA95 bA85 cB91 bA94 bA93 bA93 bA91 cA88 cB91 bA
E1796 bA96 bA82 dD94 aA96 aA95 bA91 cB90 cB86 cC99 aA
E1898 aA96 bA88 bC98 aA97 aA99 aA91 cB94 bB93 bB96 aA
E1996 bA92 bB87 cC95 aB96 aA99 aA86 dC98 aA93 bB94 aB
E2066 dB15 gG13 gG58 eC24 fF64 dB50 fD23 eF28 fE86 bA
E2193 bA95 bA85 cB91 bA94 bA93 bA93 bA91 cA88 cB91 bA
E2296 bA95 bA86 cB96 aA92 bA93 bA100 aA96 bA83 dB96 aA
E2399 aA97 aA94 aA97 aA95 bA98 aA89 cB97 aA90 bB95 aA
E2496 bA94 bA86 cB96 aA94 bA99 aA93 bA96 bA88 cB96 aA
E2599 aA79 eD88 bC64 dE87 cC95 bB91 cC95 bB98 aA89 bC
E2693 bA95 bA85 cB91 bA94 bA93 bA93 bA91 cA88 cB91 bA
E2794 bB93 bB88 bC94 aB95 bA98 aA96 bA99 aA92 bB97 aA
E2899 aA98 aA91 bB98 aA99 aA100 aA99 aA97 aA94 bB97 aA
E2999 aA99 aA91 bB93 bB93 bB99 aA93 bB94 bB90 bB96 aA
E30100 aA95 bB81 dD95 aB80 dD97 aA94 bB93 cB89 cC95 aB

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

Environments (E) according to the schema proposed by Table 1. Cultivars: CD 2737 RR (1), BMX FLECHA 6266 RSF (2), NS 7209 IPRO (3), BMX FOCO 74I77 RSF IPRO (4), DM 75I76 RSF IPRO (5), ST 797 IPRO (6), BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF (7), BMX BONUS 8579 RSF IPRO (8), M7110 IPRO (9) and M-SOY 8866 (10). The averages followed by the same lower case letters in the column and upper case letters in the row did not differ statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test. The averages followed by the different lowercase letters in the column and uppercase letters in the row differed statistically at 5% probability by the Scott Knott test.

3.10 Cluster and principal component analysis of the environments, storage time, and soybean cultivars

In the cluster analysis, values close to red and blue indicated higher and lower means, respectively, for the germination, water content, and specific mass in the environment (Fig 3) or in the cultivar variables (Fig 4).
Fig 3

Cluster analysis of storage environments on the effects of physical and physiological quality of soybean seeds.

Fig 4

Cluster analysis of soybean cultivars on the effects of physical and physiological seed quality.

As is shown in Fig 3, the group formed by the E5 and E20 environments had the lowest germination values and intermediate water content and specific mass values. These results were confirmed by the principal component analysis (Fig 5), in which the environments were arranged in cluster 3.
Fig 5

Principal component analysis of soybean seed storage environments.

Greater deterioration was observed in seeds stored at ambient temperature than in cooled environments, with all the other variables remaining the same (same cultivar, package coating, and storage duration). The E5 (ambient temperature, with the use of package coating, and twelve months of storage) and E20 (ambient temperature, without the use of package coating, and twelve months of storage) environments stood out as the worst in terms of the physiological quality results obtained (Fig 3). The use of coated packaging was beneficial in preserving the physiological quality of stored soybean seeds, however, its effect was significant only in ambient temperature environments for the same cultivar, type of package coating, and storage duration (Fig 3). Among the storage environments allocated in group 2 (Fig 3), E1, E6, E11, E16, E21, and E26 stood out for resulting in the highest germination, water content, and specific mass averages. These environments were also allocated to group 2 of the principal component analysis (Fig 6), thereby confirming their similarity in terms of resulting in the highest averages for soybean cultivars for the initial storage conditions (time point 0).
Fig 6

Principal component analysis of soybean cultivars in storage environments.

There was agreement regarding the formation of groups in the cluster (Fig 4) and main component (Fig 6) analyses applied to soybean cultivars. The M-SOY8866, M7110IPRO, CD 2737 RR, and BMX DESAFIO 8473 RSF cultivars were allocated to the group and stood out for resulting in the highest apparent specific mass and germination values as well as in the lower water content values. The other cultivars were allocated to group 2. In the storage environment grouping in the assessment of the physiological quality of soybean seed cultivars, the best results were obtained from environments E1, E6, E11, E16, E21, and E26 that represented time point 0 of storage (Fig 5). The worst storage environment results were obtained from E5 and E20, which represented twelve months of storage in ambient temperature with and without the use of coating, respectively, thereby indicating that the longest storage duration and the ambient temperature were the factors that affected the physiological quality of soybean seeds in the most negative manner (Fig 5). The performance of stored soybean cultivars may differ under some conditions owing to genetic diversity; however, storage conditions can preserve the physiological quality of seeds (Fig 5). The thermal stability of seeds in the 10°C and 15°C storage environments was similar (Fig 5). Different results were obtained depending on the storage conditions of soybean seed lots. However, depending on the cultivar, this difference was more evident in terms of the storage duration. The cultivars were subjected to different temperature and packaging conditions during twelve months of storage and, despite responding similarly to unfavorable conditions, owing to their specific characteristics, the soybean seeds of the M-SOY 8866, M7110 IPRO, CD 2737 RR, and BMX CHALLENGE 8473 RSF cultivars had the best performances in the physiological quality tests, which were performed in different storage environments (Fig 6). The identification of the behavioral patterns of different cultivars in different storage environments facilitated our understanding of which of these environments were the most appropriate for storage (Fig 6). Our results allowed us to observe that the genetic characteristics of the cultivars and the environmental effects during the different storage stages, influenced seed viability (Fig 6).

4. Discussion

4.1 Water content of stored soybean seeds

In a study by Hartmann Filho et al. [18], the storage of soybeans in an uncontrolled environment resulted in an increase in their water content at 45 days and six months; however, a water content reduction was observed between three and five months [8]. Smaniotto et al. [19] observed a reduction in the water content of soybean seeds stored for six months at an average temperature of 27°C. Zuffo et al. [20] found a reduction in the water content of soybean seeds stored for eight months in a non-conditioned environment. According to Conceição et al. [21], the water content of soybean seeds stored in a non-conditioned environment decreases from 11.1% (w.b.) to 10.0% (w.b.). A similar behavior has been observed in crambe seeds stored for nine months, during which period it was possible to contain water within the metallic packaging, while this was not possible with braided polypropylene, polyethylene terephthalate (PET), bottle, and styrofoam box packaging [22]. Another study showed that within three months of storage in an air-conditioned environment, big bag packaging allowed greater water and temperature conservation in soybean seeds, compared to Kraft paper packaging [23]. The storage of soybean seeds with a water content of 11% allowed for better preservation of their physiological quality, however the best results were obtained at lower temperatures. According to Alencar et al. [24], the association of higher temperatures and water content may increase the deterioration rate of soybeans. Zuffo et al. [20] found a reduction in the water content of soybean seeds stored for eight months in a non-climatized environment. In the work carried out by Juvino et al. [25], the soybean seeds that were stored for nine months showed greater amplitude in terms of their water content variation in the non-climatized environment than in the ambient environment (18°C) owing to the greater influence of the temperature and relative humidity changes. Zucarelli et al. [26] found higher water contents in bean seeds stored for 18 months in a non-climatized than in a climatized environment.

4.2 Changes in the apparent specific mass of stored soybean seeds

The storage environments influenced the increase in the respiration of the seeds, resulting in a high consumption of dry matter and reducing the apparent specific mass of the seeds during storage. Storage in natural environment conditions reduced the specific mass of soybean seeds in the first months, which remained below that obtained from other storage conditions and was constant over time. Increases in the water content and seed mass temperature as well as in the water activity and intergranular relative humidity can result in increases in the seed respiration rates and, consequently, in higher CO2 concentrations, thereby resulting in greater loss of matter drought and the deterioration and reduction of the apparent specific mass of seeds stored over time [27-31].

4.3 Storage effects on the germination of soybean seeds

According to Hartmann Filho et al. [18], the germination capacity of soybean seeds stored for six months in a non-conditioned environment is above 80%, which is considered the minimum standard for commercial soybean seeds. However, the performance of soybean cultivars under uncontrolled conditions reduced in a germination test after three months of storage, with greater performance reductions after six months [32]. Non-climatized environments were inefficient in preserving the quality of soybean seeds during storage. According to Neve et al. [33], the performance of soybean seeds stored for six months in a non-conditioned warehouse is reduced. Carvalho et al. [34] evaluated soybean seeds stored in an uncontrolled environment for eight months and observed a reduction in their germination performance after the fourth month of storage. Zuffo et al. [20] discovered losses, below the 80% minimum quality standard that is required for commercial seeds, in soybean seeds stored in a non-climatized environment for eight months. According to Conceição et al. [21], soybean seeds stored in a non-conditioned environment with a 92% germination rate, showed had 85%, 69%, and 55% germination rates after being stored for four, six and nine months, respectively. According to Carvalho et al. [32], the germination capacity of soybean seeds stored for seven months in a non-conditioned environment decreases below the commercial standard. Storage in climatized environments at lower temperatures is a favorable alternative for preserving seed quality. According to Zuchi et al. [8], refrigeration is beneficial for stored soybean seeds, as it improves their germination performance. Soybean seeds stored for six months preserve the same germination pattern when stored at 20°C; however, at 27°C, their germination rate decreases and falls below the commercial standard rate [19]. Soybean seeds with a 94% germination rate stored for seven and a half months in an air-conditioned environment at 20°C reach a 91% germination rate, while in an non-conditioned environment they reach an 84% germination rate [15]. Soybean seeds stored for eight months perform superiorly in terms of their germination rate in an air-conditioned environment at 10°C than seeds that are kept at ambient temperature [32]. High storage temperatures were detrimental to preserving the quality of soybean seeds. In a study conducted by Sarath et al. [35] on peanut seeds, the authors verified a 96% germination rate after five months of storage and an 83% germination rate in seeds stored in an uncontrolled environment. Paraginski et al. [36] who studied corn seeds stored for twelve months, observed lower decreases in the germination percentage of seeds stored at 5°C and 15°C than in that of seeds stored at 25°C and 35°C. Bessa et al. [37] stored crambe seeds and obtained better germination rates in PET packaging, compared to laminated and high density polyethylene packaging in an air-conditioned environment at 10°C and in a non-conditioned environment [38]. Seed deterioration is a natural process and seeds are prone to losing vigor more quickly when they are stored in environments with elevated temperatures than in refrigerated environments. Likewise, Smaniotto et al. [19] reported a reduction in the quality of soybean seeds stored for six months under a high temperature (27°C), as the germination rates decreased dramatically, even for seeds with low water content, owing to the direct influence of storage time and temperature.

4.4 Changes in the electrical conductivity of stored soybean seeds

According to Neve et al. [33], the electrical conductivity of many soybean seeds that have high vigor is below 80 μS cm-1 g-1, while these values may vary depending on the cultivar. Thus, Zuchi et al. [8] found that soybean seeds stored in a refrigerated environment have lower electrical conductivity than seeds stored in a non-conditioned environment, thus indicating a better organization of the cellular tissues of the former seeds. In bean seed evaluations, Zucarelli et al. [29] detected deterioration when they obtained higher electrical conductivity values in seeds stored in a non-refrigerated environment (58.56 μS cm-1 g-1) than in those stored in an air-conditioned environment (55.90 μS cm-1 g-1) for forty five months. Additionally, seeds stored for six months in a refrigerated environment at 20°C had more favorable electrical conductivity results than seeds stored at ambient temperature [19]. Storing soybean seeds in environments with ambient temperatures accelerates their deterioration rate over the storage period. Virgolino et al. [23] obtained lower electrical conductivity values for chilled seeds stored in kraft paper packaging than for seeds stored in uncooled conditions in big bags. Paraginski et al. [36] and Coradi et al. [39] found that corn seeds stored in a refrigerated environment had increased electrical conductivity values; however, the electrical conductivity values of seeds stored at ambient temperature doubled and, consequently, they suffered greater deterioration. The longer the storage time and the higher the packaging permeability, the greater the seed deterioration of the seeds. Carvalho et al. [34] observed that after six months of storage, soybean seeds had higher electrical conductivity values over time. While Carvalho et al. [32] who evaluated soybean seeds stored for seven months in a non-refrigerated environment, obtained higher electrical conductivity values and reduced seed quality at the end of the storage time.

4.5 Influence on the first germination count (vigor) of stored soybean seeds

The seeds that were stored in artificially refrigerated environments deteriorated less; these results verified that the temperature of the seed mass became uniform faster, thereby reducing the water vapor exchanges and the effect of the heat sources and regulating the humidity that resulted in a hygroscopic equilibrium condition that was favorable for storage. According to Berbert et al. [40] and Zhang et al. [41], water content is the most significant factor that should be controlled in order to prevent seed deterioration during storage. Smaniotto et al. [19] found that the initial water content influenced the quality of soybean seeds during storage, and seeds stored with a higher initial water content of 14% (w.b.) suffered greater quality loss during storage. Smaniotto et al. [19], who studied the biochemical changes and the physiological potential of soybean seeds, observed that storing seeds under adverse conditions reduced their physiological potential and damaged their structure; additionally, soybean seeds harvested at different times and with high physiological potential showed differences in their izoenzymatic patterns over the storage period. There are no significant variations in the results of the first germination count of soybean seeds stored at ambient temperature for three months [23]. However, Carvalho et al. [34] observed a reduction in the germination rate and the first germination count of soybean seeds stored for eight months differing only between the storage times. No reductions have been observed in the first germination count of soybean seeds stored for two months in a non-climatized environment [42]. However, after six months of storage, such a reduction occurred owing to the increased deterioration of soybean seeds, especially in these stored at ambient temperature. Cardoso et al. [22] observed that crambe seeds stored for six months in metallic packaging performed better in terms of the first germination count; these results were not different from those obtained from seeds stored in PET packaging. According to Sarath et al. [35], the first germination count of peanut seeds stored at ambient temperature for five months decreased from 94% to 63%. After twelve months of storage, the best first germination count results were obtained from carioca bean seeds stored in an air-conditioned environment at 20°C [26].

4.6 Mechanical damage from moisture in stored soybean seeds

According to Afonso Junior et al. [43], the high water activity incurred by the storage environment causes an increase in the respiratory rate of seeds and an increase in their water content, thereby leading to an increase in the metabolic rate and the temperature of the seed mass. According to Carvalho and Nakagawa [44,45], the seed coat is the main water absorber, which, when subjected to different temperature, time, and storage package conditions, influences the water level variations in the respiratory process, in metabolic activities, and in seed germination, thereby increasing mechanical damage.

4.7 Soybean seed vigor based on the results of the tetrazolium test

The germination and vigor test results of Forti et al. [46] suggest that uncontrolled storage environments cause a greater reduction in the physiological potential of soybean seeds compared to the dry (50% RH and 20°C) and cold (90% RH and 10°C) chambers. According to Neve et al. [33], soybean seeds stored for six months in a non-air-conditioned warehouse lose their vigor and viability. On the other hand, Ferreira et al. [15] observed that soybean seeds stored for seven and a half months in an air-conditioned environment at 20°C preserved their vigor and viability better compared to seeds stored in a non-conditioned environment with the use of the tetrazolium test. Ferreira et al. [15] observed that soybean seeds kept under cold storage at 20°C had better vigor than uncooled seeds or seeds cooled to 17°C and stored in uncooled environments for seven and a half months. Zuchi et al. [8] found that there was no significant difference in terms of vigor and viability, according to the tetrazolium test results, between chilled and non-chilled soybean seed batches stored for four months.

4.8 Soybean seed viability the tetrazolium test

The use of soybean seeds with high physical, genetic, physiological, and sanitary quality standards is the main contributing factor in the successful establishment of cultures in the field [47-50]. Mechanical damages seriously impair soybean seed quality, and they can influence negatively the viability and vigor of the seeds during storage [47-49]. According to Cunha et al. [51], soybean seeds lose their viability after six months of storage in tropical conditions, but in artificial cooling conditions, they can preserve their physiological quality during twelve months of storage. Demito and Afonso [11] found that seeds cooled artificially from 15°C to 12°C preserve their germinative power during five months of storage. However, owing to the morphological arrangement of soybean seeds that provides little protection to the embryonic axis, as this is surrounded by a thin coat [52,53], the seeds become more susceptible to mechanical damage which is considered an important cause of decreased seed quality.

4.9 Cluster and main component analyses of the environments, storage time, and soybean cultivars

According to Zuffo et al. [20], the longer the storage time, the lower the seed quality. The storekeeper can mitigate the process of seed deterioration only by controlling the biotic and abiotic factors. The soybean seeds that were stored in a non-conditioned environment for eight months, had reduced water content, germination, total dry mass, electrical conductivity, vigor, and tetrazolium viability. Virgolino et al. [23] observed that artificial cooling, ambient temperature, and different types of packaging had similar effects on the physiological quality of seeds. However, “big bag packaging” being the raffia bag with a capacity of one ton of seeds is more efficient in preserving the water content of chilled seeds, while the authors did not observe any direct effects of cooling on the germination and the vigor of soybean seeds. Filho [54] stated that ambient temperature and relative humidity are the main factors that preserve seed quality during storage. Seeds stored in high temperatures and with high water content have high respiratory rates, which accelerate their deterioration by speeding up the consumption of their reserves, generating physiological wear, and decreasing their germination rates and their vigor [55,56]. Rosa et al. [57] observed that the physiological quality of seeds was superior in cold storage compared to storage under ambient conditions; additionally, the lots of cultivars FPS Jupiter, FPS Urano, FPS Antares, FPS Neptune, and CD 250 showed high twinning and vigor, with variations in their germination results, germination speed index, first count of the germination test, and electrical conductivity. Demito and Afonso [11] observed that the physiological quality of artificially cooled soybean seeds was preserved over five months of storage and they had a higher germination percentage than uncooled seeds. According to Villela and Menezes [9] the main objectives of storage are to preserve the viability and vigor of the seeds. According to the authors, the associations between temperature and humidity influence seed longevity during storage and every 5.5°C temperature decrease during this stage may double seed longevity, while also allowing a reduction in the consumption of seed reserves by pathogens or by your own breathing process. Carvalho et al. [32] reported that the aim of current research is to facilitate the selection of soybean genotypes whose seeds have greater storage capacity; however, there are currently few studies that examine the effect of genetic diversity on the physiological quality of soybean seeds in the post-harvest period. Mengarda et al. [58] who tested parental genotypes, identified some with higher performance in terms of seed quality. Gris et al. [59] also found dissimilarities in relation to the physiological quality of seeds. According to VanUtrecht et al. [60], seeds subjected to unfavorable conditions suffer physiological damages that impair the performance and quality of the seed lot, at different intensity levels, owing to the genetic and intrinsic factors of each cultivar.

5. Conclusions

The seeds of the M-SOY 8866, M7110 IPRO, CD 2737 RR, and BMX DESAFIO 8473 RSF soybean cultivars performed better in the physiological quality tests conducted in different storage environments. The storage duration had a cumulative effect on the negative factors that favor the deterioration of the quality of the stored seeds. The storage temperature was the main factor that affected the physiological quality of the stored seeds. Seed storage at ambient temperature resulted in the worst physiological quality of the seeds, especially in the last month of storage. The use of coated packaging was beneficial in preserving the physiological quality of stored soybean seeds; however, its effect was greater in ambient temperature conditions than in cold environments. The best storage environment for preserving the physiological quality of the seeds was at 10°C with the use of coated packaging, while the worst was at ambient temperature without the use of coated packaging. It was concluded that the use of coatings in raffia big bags can be an alternative for maintaining the quality of seeds of different soybean cultivars during storage in seed processing units.

Data set as a supporting information.

(XLS) Click here for additional data file.
  6 in total

1.  Influence of storage environment on maize grain: CO2 production, dry matter losses and aflatoxins contamination.

Authors:  E Garcia-Cela; E Kiaitsi; M Sulyok; R Krska; A Medina; I Petit Damico; N Magan
Journal:  Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess       Date:  2019-01-14

2.  Relationship between environmental factors, dry matter loss and mycotoxin levels in stored wheat and maize infected with Fusarium species.

Authors:  Kalliopi Mylona; Michael Sulyok; Naresh Magan
Journal:  Food Addit Contam Part A Chem Anal Control Expo Risk Assess       Date:  2012-04-11

3.  Changes of soybean quality during storage as related to soymilk and tofu making.

Authors:  F Kong; S K C Chang; Z Liu; L A Wilson
Journal:  J Food Sci       Date:  2008-04       Impact factor: 3.167

4.  Development of a threshold model to predict germination of Populus tomentosa seeds after harvest and storage under ambient condition.

Authors:  Wei-Qing Wang; Hong-Yan Cheng; Song-Quan Song
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2013-04-26       Impact factor: 3.240

5.  QTLs for seed vigor-related traits identified in maize seeds germinated under artificial aging conditions.

Authors:  Zanping Han; Lixia Ku; Zhenzhen Zhang; Jun Zhang; Shulei Guo; Haiying Liu; Ruifang Zhao; Zhenzhen Ren; Liangkun Zhang; Huihui Su; Lei Dong; Yanhui Chen
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2014-03-20       Impact factor: 3.240

6.  Moisture adsorption isotherms and quality of seeds stored in conventional packaging materials and hermetic Super Bag.

Authors:  Muhammad Amir Bakhtavar; Irfan Afzal; Shahzad Maqsood Ahmed Basra
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2019-02-15       Impact factor: 3.240

  6 in total
  3 in total

1.  Predicting the quality of soybean seeds stored in different environments and packaging using machine learning.

Authors:  Geovane da Silva André; Paulo Carteri Coradi; Larissa Pereira Ribeiro Teodoro; Paulo Eduardo Teodoro
Journal:  Sci Rep       Date:  2022-05-25       Impact factor: 4.996

2.  Hermetic bags maintain soybean seed quality under high relative humidity environments.

Authors:  Dieudonne Baributsa; Ibrahim B Baoua
Journal:  J Stored Prod Res       Date:  2022-03       Impact factor: 2.643

3.  Development and validation of a heated drying air diffusion system to optimize rotary dryers and final coffee quality.

Authors:  Paulo Carteri Coradi; Samuel Martens; Henrique Eguilhor Rodrigues; Andressa Fernandes Leal; Douglas Romeu da Costa; Reni Saath; Flávio Meira Borém
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2021-06-22       Impact factor: 3.240

  3 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.