Seed viability testing for research and conservation of epiphytic and terrestrial orchids.

IF 3.4 3区 生物学 Q1 Agricultural and Biological Sciences Botanical Studies Pub Date : 2022-02-10 DOI:10.1186/s40529-022-00333-0
Namrata Pradhan, Xuli Fan, Francesco Martini, Huayang Chen, Hong Liu, Jiangyun Gao, Uromi Manage Goodale
{"title":"Seed viability testing for research and conservation of epiphytic and terrestrial orchids.","authors":"Namrata Pradhan,&nbsp;Xuli Fan,&nbsp;Francesco Martini,&nbsp;Huayang Chen,&nbsp;Hong Liu,&nbsp;Jiangyun Gao,&nbsp;Uromi Manage Goodale","doi":"10.1186/s40529-022-00333-0","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Seed viability testing is essential in plant conservation and research. Seed viability testing determines the success of ex-situ conservation efforts, such as seed banking but commonly testing protocols of orchids lack consistency and accuracy, therefore, there is a need to select an appropriate and reliable viability test, especially when conducting comparative studies. Here, we evaluated the suitability of three seed viability tests, Evans blue test (EB), Fluorescein diacetate test (FDA) and Tetrazolium test (TTC), with and without sterilization, on seeds of 20 orchid species, which included five epiphytes and fifteen terrestrials, using both fresh seeds and seeds stored at - 18 ºC for 6 to 8 years.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We found that sterilization and lifeform of seeds affected seed viability across all tests but the storage time was not an influential factor. Sterilization negatively affected seed viability under EB and FDA test conditions but increased the detection of viable seeds in the TTC test in both epiphytic and terrestrial species. The EB test, when administered without sterilization provided the highest viability results. Being non-enzymatic unlike TTC and FDA tests, as expected, the EB test was the most reliable with similar results between sterilized and not sterilized seeds for most epiphytic and terrestrial species as well as when compared between groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>The lifeform of the species and seed sterilization prior to testing are important influential factors in orchid seed viability testing. Since EB test was found to be reliable we recommend the EB test for seed viability assessment in orchids rather than the less reliable but commonly used TTC test, or the FDA test, which require more expensive and sophisticated instrumentation. Since storage time was not an influential factor in orchid seed viability testing, the recommendations of this study can be used for both fresh as well as long-term stored orchid seeds. This is helpful for research and especially for conservation measures such as seed banking. However, due to the species specificity of the bio-physiology of orchids, we call for comprehensive viability test assessment in the hyper diverse orchid family to be extended to a greater number of species to facilitate efficient conservation and research.</p>","PeriodicalId":9185,"journal":{"name":"Botanical Studies","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":3.4000,"publicationDate":"2022-02-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8831675/pdf/","citationCount":"6","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Botanical Studies","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s40529-022-00333-0","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"Agricultural and Biological Sciences","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 6

Abstract

Background: Seed viability testing is essential in plant conservation and research. Seed viability testing determines the success of ex-situ conservation efforts, such as seed banking but commonly testing protocols of orchids lack consistency and accuracy, therefore, there is a need to select an appropriate and reliable viability test, especially when conducting comparative studies. Here, we evaluated the suitability of three seed viability tests, Evans blue test (EB), Fluorescein diacetate test (FDA) and Tetrazolium test (TTC), with and without sterilization, on seeds of 20 orchid species, which included five epiphytes and fifteen terrestrials, using both fresh seeds and seeds stored at - 18 ºC for 6 to 8 years.

Results: We found that sterilization and lifeform of seeds affected seed viability across all tests but the storage time was not an influential factor. Sterilization negatively affected seed viability under EB and FDA test conditions but increased the detection of viable seeds in the TTC test in both epiphytic and terrestrial species. The EB test, when administered without sterilization provided the highest viability results. Being non-enzymatic unlike TTC and FDA tests, as expected, the EB test was the most reliable with similar results between sterilized and not sterilized seeds for most epiphytic and terrestrial species as well as when compared between groups.

Conclusions: The lifeform of the species and seed sterilization prior to testing are important influential factors in orchid seed viability testing. Since EB test was found to be reliable we recommend the EB test for seed viability assessment in orchids rather than the less reliable but commonly used TTC test, or the FDA test, which require more expensive and sophisticated instrumentation. Since storage time was not an influential factor in orchid seed viability testing, the recommendations of this study can be used for both fresh as well as long-term stored orchid seeds. This is helpful for research and especially for conservation measures such as seed banking. However, due to the species specificity of the bio-physiology of orchids, we call for comprehensive viability test assessment in the hyper diverse orchid family to be extended to a greater number of species to facilitate efficient conservation and research.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
附生和陆生兰花种子活力试验研究与保护。
背景:种子活力测试在植物保护和研究中是必不可少的。种子活力测试决定了兰科植物种子库等迁地保护工作的成功与否,但通常兰科植物的测试方案缺乏一致性和准确性,因此,需要选择合适且可靠的活力测试,特别是在进行比较研究时。本研究对20种兰科植物(包括5种附生植物和15种陆生植物)种子进行了灭菌和不灭菌的Evans蓝试验(EB)、双醋酸荧光素试验(FDA)和四氮唑试验(TTC),分别采用新鲜种子和- 18ºC保存6 ~ 8年的种子进行了适宜性评价。结果:种子的灭菌和生命形式对种子活力均有影响,但贮藏时间不受影响。在EB和FDA试验条件下,灭菌对种子活力有负面影响,但在TTC试验中,附生植物和陆生植物的种子活力都有所增加。在不进行灭菌的情况下,EB试验提供了最高的活力结果。与TTC和FDA测试不同,EB测试是非酶的,正如预期的那样,EB测试是最可靠的,对于大多数附生和陆生物种,在灭菌和未灭菌的种子之间以及在组之间进行比较时,结果相似。结论:兰科植物种子活力检测的重要影响因素是物种的生活方式和检测前种子的灭菌。由于EB测试被发现是可靠的,我们建议用EB测试来评估兰花的种子活力,而不是不太可靠但常用的TTC测试或FDA测试,这些测试需要更昂贵和复杂的仪器。由于保存时间不是影响兰花种子活力测试的因素,因此本研究的建议既适用于新鲜的兰花种子,也适用于长期保存的兰花种子。这有助于研究,特别是保护措施,如种子库。然而,由于兰科植物生物生理的特殊性,我们呼吁将兰科植物的综合生存力测试评估扩展到更多的物种,以促进有效的保护和研究。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Botanical Studies
Botanical Studies 生物-植物科学
CiteScore
5.50
自引率
2.90%
发文量
32
审稿时长
2.4 months
期刊介绍: Botanical Studies is an open access journal that encompasses all aspects of botany, including but not limited to taxonomy, morphology, development, genetics, evolution, reproduction, systematics, and biodiversity of all plant groups, algae, and fungi. The journal is affiliated with the Institute of Plant and Microbial Biology, Academia Sinica, Taiwan.
期刊最新文献
Plant-derived saponins and their prospective for cosmetic and personal care products. Identification of powdery mildew resistance quantitative trait loci in melon and development of resistant near-isogenic lines through marker-assisted backcrossing. An efficient and easy-to-use protocol for induction of haploids in cucumber through parthenogenic embryo development. Pollinator behaviour and prevalence of the anther smut Antherospora vindobonensis in its host, the Hungarian two-leaf squill (Scilla vindobonensis). Recent biotechnological applications of value-added bioactive compounds from microalgae and seaweeds.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1