Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:24:28.185Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Comparing Estimates of Seed Viability in Three Foxtail (Setaria) Species Using the Imbibed Seed Crush Test with and without Additional Tetrazolium Testing

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Jaclyn K. Borza ,
Paula R. Westerman  and
Matt Liebman
Jaclyn K. Borza*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Paula R. Westerman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Matt Liebman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Agronomy Hall, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: jkborza@iastate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Estimates of seed viability using the imbibed seed crush test, a method performed by applying pressure to imbibed seeds, were compared with estimates obtained from using the imbibed seed crush test supplemented with tetrazolium staining. The seeds of three weed species, giant foxtail, green foxtail, and yellow foxtail, were collected from three different crops and tested by each method. The results from the two approaches were strongly and significantly correlated. The imbibed seed crush test requires considerably less skill and time to perform and is a reasonable alternative to tetrazolium staining to test the seed viability of newly produced foxtail seeds.

Keywords

Tetrazolium, 2,3,5 triphenyl tetrazolium chloridegiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAgreen foxtail, Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv. SETVIyellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. SETLUCRimbibed seed crush testTZtetrazolium test
Type
Notes
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 21 , Issue 2 , June 2007 , pp. 518 - 522
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

Bridges, D. C. and Bauman, P. A. 1992. Weeds causing losses in the United States. Pages 40–98. in Bridges, D.C. ed. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the United States. Champaign, IL: Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Hartzler, R. G. 2001. Emergence and persistence of seed of velvetleaf, common waterhemp, woolly cupgrass, and giant foxtail. Weed Sci. 49:230–235.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Kohler, K. A., and Thompson, R. L. 2001. Weed seed bank dynamics during a five-year crop rotation. Weed Technol. 15:170–176.Google Scholar
Bussan, A. J., Boerboom, C. M., and Stoltenburg, D. E. 2000. Response of Setaria faberi demographic processes to herbicide rates. Weed Sci. 48:445–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dekker, J. 2003. The foxtail (Setaria) species-group. Weed Sci. 51:641–656.Google Scholar
Fenner, M. 1985. Seed Ecology. New York Chapman and Hall. 151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Forcella, F., Peterson, D. H., and Barbour, J. C. 1996. Timing and measurement of weed seed shed in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 10:535–543.Google Scholar
Genstat 5 Committee 1993. Genstat Release 3 Reference Manual. Oxford, U.K. Clarendon. 796.Google Scholar
[ISTA] International Seed Testing Association 1985. International rules for seed testing 1985. Seed Sci. Technol. 13:300–520.Google Scholar
Iowa Environmental Mesonet, , 2006. Climodat Reports. http://mesonet.agron.iastate.edu/climodat/index.phtml. Accessed: September 27, 2006.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Kohler, K. A., Buhler, D. D., and Liebman, M. 2005. Effects of composted swine manure on weed seedbank. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 111:63–69.Google Scholar
Mohamed, A. H., Ejeta, G., Butler, L. G., and Housley, T. L. 1998. Moisture content and dormancy in Striga asiatica seeds. Weed Res. 38:257–265.Google Scholar
Nurse, R. E. and DiTommaso, A. 2005. Corn competition alters germinability of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 53:479–488.Google Scholar
Rothrock, P. E., Squiers, E. R., and Sheeley, S. 1993. Heterogeneity and size of a persistent seedbank of Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. and Setaria faberi Herrm. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 120:417–422.Google Scholar
Sawma, J. T. and Mohler, C. L. 2002. Evaluating seed viability by an unimbibed seed crush test in comparison with the tetrazolium test. Weed Technol. 16:781–786.Google Scholar