Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-m9kch Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-14T18:28:12.927Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Evaluating Seed Viability by an Unimbibed Seed Crush Test in Comparison with the Tetrazolium Test

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jeremiah T. Sawma  and
Charles L. Mohler
Jeremiah T. Sawma
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Corson Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Charles L. Mohler*
Affiliation:
Department of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, Corson Hall, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: clm11@cornell.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The unimbibed crush test, in which seed viability is evaluated by crushing and visual inspection of dry seeds, was compared with tetrazolium staining, an established method of testing seed viability. The unimbibed crush test potentially provides an immediate and rapid method for determining seed viability. Six sets of seed lots, involving the four weed species, velvetleaf, common lambsquarters, redroot pigweed, and smooth pigweed, were tested by each method. For four of the six sets, results from the crush test were statistically indistinguishable from those of the tetrazolium test. For the other two sets of seed lots, the crush test indicated higher viability than did the tetrazolium test. The crush test may be most useful for seed bank surveys in which many samples are typically processed, and most of the variation in density of viable seeds is associated with number of seeds present rather than percentage viability. Its use in more exacting circumstances like seed survival studies requires caution.

Keywords

Tetrazolium, 2,3,5 triphenyl tetrazolium chloridecommon lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. #3 CHEALredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. # AMACHvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Med. # ABUTH
Type
Research
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 16 , Issue 4 , December 2002 , pp. 781 - 786
Copyright
Copyright © Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

Ashton, P. M. S., Harris, P. G., and Thadani, R. 1998. Soil seed bank dynamics in relation to topographic position of a mixed-deciduous forest in southern New England, USA. For. Ecol. Manag. 111: 15–22.Google Scholar
Bertiller, M. B. and Aloia, D. A. 1997. Seed bank strategies in Patagonian semi-arid grasslands in relation to their management and conservation. Biodivers. Conserv. 6: 639–650.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Moomaw, R. S., Roeth, F. W., Wicks, G. A., and Wilson, R. G. 1986. Weed seed demise in weed-free corn (Zea mays) production across Nebraska. Weed Sci. 34: 248–251.Google Scholar
Dalling, J. W. and Denslow, J. S. 1998. Soil seed bank composition along a forest chronosequence in seasonally moist tropical forest. J. Veg. Sci. 9: 669–678.Google Scholar
Fischer, M. and Matthies, D. 1998. Experimental demography of the rare Gentianella germanica: seed bank formation and microsite effects on seedling establishment. Ecography 21: 269–278.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. and Lindstrom, M. J. 1988. Weed seed populations in ridge and conventional tillage. Weed Sci. 36: 500–503.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D. S. H. 1983. The influence of buried weed seeds in arable cropping systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 20: 199–208.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J., Chancellor, R. J., and Drennan, D. S. H. 1984. The effects of seed burial and soil disturbance on emergence and survival of arable weeds in relation to minimal cultivation. J. Appl. Ecol. 21: 629–641.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goss, W. L. 1985. The vitality of buried seeds. J. Agric. Res. 29: 349–362.Google Scholar
Gross, K. L. 1990. A comparison of methods for estimating seed numbers in the soil. J. Ecol. 78: 1079–1093.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gross, K. L. and Renner, K. A. 1989. A new method for estimating seed numbers in the soil. Weed Sci. 37: 836–839.Google Scholar
Harradine, A. R. 1986. Seed longevity and seedling establishment of Bromus diandrus Roth. Weed Res. 26: 173–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harris, G. S. 1959. The significance of buried seeds in agriculture. In Proceedings of the 12th New Zealand Weed Control Conference. pp. 85–92. [The New Zealand Weed Control Conference].Google Scholar
International Seed Testing Association. 1985. International rules for seed testing 1985. Seed Sci. Technol. 13: 300–520.Google Scholar
Leguizamón, E. S. 1986. Seed survival and patterns of seedling emergence in Sorghum halepense (L.) Pers. Weed Res. 26: 397–403.Google Scholar
Leuschen, W. E. and Anderson, R. N. 1980. Longevity of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds in soil under agricultural practices. Weed Sci. 28: 341–346.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lewis, J. 1958. Longevity of crop and weed seeds. 1. First Interim Report. Proc. Int. Seed Test Assoc. 23: 340–354.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 1999. Effects of planting depth and simulated crop residue on seed survival of three annual broadleaf weeds. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstr. 39: 27–28.Google Scholar
Morgan, J. W. 1998. Composition and seasonal flux of the soil seed bank of species-rich Themeda triandra grasslands in relation to burning history. J. Veg. Sci. 9: 145–156.Google Scholar
Moss, S. R. 1985. The survival of Alopecurus myosuroides Huds. seeds in soil. Weed Res. 25: 201–211.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Chancellor, R. J. 1986. Seed banks of some arable soils in the English midlands. Weed Res. 26: 251–257.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Dawkins, P. A. 1967. Effect of cultivation on the numbers of viable weed seeds in soil. Weed Res. 7: 290–301.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Feast, P. M. 1973. Changes in the numbers of viable weed seeds in soil under different regimes. Weed Res. 13: 298–303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Snedecor, G. W. and Cochran, W. G. 1967. Statistical Methods. 6th ed. Ames, IA: The Iowa State University Press. 593 p.Google Scholar
Warnes, D. D. and Anderson, R. N. 1984. Decline of wild mustard (Brassica kaber) seeds in soil under various cultural and chemical practices. Weed Sci. 32: 214–217.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whittle, C. A., Duchesne, L. C., and Needham, T. 1998. Soil seed bank of a jack pine (Pinus banksiana) ecosystem. Int. J. Wildland Fire 8: 67–71.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, B. J. 1985. Effect of seed age and cultivation on seedling emergence and seed decline of Avena fatua L. in winter barley. Weed Res. 25: 213–219.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wilson, B. J. and Lawson, H. M. 1992. Seedbank persistence and seedling emergence of seven weed species in autumn-sown crops following a single year's seeding. Ann. Appl. Biol. 120: 105–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zanin, G., Mosca, G., and Catizone, P. 1992. A profile of the potential flora in maize fields of the Po valley. Weed Res. 32: 407–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar