Hostname: page-component-74656f9884-npj9w Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-10T09:34:41.621Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Histochemical Studies in Weed Seed Dormancy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

P. K. Biswas ,
A. G. Chakrabarti ,
H. A. Collins  and
R. B. Bettis
P. K. Biswas
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Carver Research Foundation, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama
A. G. Chakrabarti
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Carver Research Foundation, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama
H. A. Collins
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Carver Research Foundation, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama
R. B. Bettis
Affiliation:
Department of Plant and Soil Science, Carver Research Foundation, Tuskegee Institute, Alabama
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Seeds of Pennsylvania smartweed (Polygonum pennsylvanicum L.), quackgrass (Agropyron repens L. Beauv.), yellow foxtail (Setaria lutescens L. Beauv.), and wild mustard (Brassica kaber (DC) L. C. Wheeler) were studied to determine if histochemical differences existed in seeds of dormant and non-dormant weed species. The hulls (seedcoat) of yellow foxtail and seedcoats of wild mustard and quackgrass had distinct inhibitory effects on germination. Endosperm tissue in wild mustard and Pennsylvania smartweed also inhibited embryo growth in these species. Results obtained from specific staining techniques on seed sections 10μ thick for identification and determination of distribution of proteins, lipids, carbohydrates, and lignin in dormant and germinating seeds suggested that possible mechanisms of seed dormancy are: (a) lower protein content in seed tissues of wild mustard; (b) higher lignification in hull of foxtail and endosperm of Pennsylvania smartweed; (c) lower sterol content in embryo of wild mustard and Pennsylvania smartweed; (d) high cellulose content in hull of foxtail and endosperm of Pennsylvania smartweed. Excised embryos from dormant seeds of Pennsylvania smartweed showed a measurable amount of growth in White's standard agarnutrient. Germinating embryos of wild mustard and quackgrass were larger than those in dormant seeds; therefore, immaturity of embryos might contribute to dormancy in these species.

Information

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 18 , Issue 1 , January 1970 , pp. 106 - 109
Copyright
Copyright © 1970 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Barton, L. V. 1961. Biochemical studies of dormancy and after-ripening of seeds. II. Changes in oligobasic organic acids and carbohydrates. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 21:147–161.Google Scholar
2. Bradbury, D., MacMasters, M. M., and Cull, I. M. 1956. Structure of the mature wheat kernel. II. Microscope structure of pericarp, seedcoat, and other coverings of the endosperm and germ of hard red winter wheat. Cereal Chem. 33:332–360.Google Scholar
3. Bradbury, D., MacMasters, M. M., and Cull, I. M. 1956. Structure of the mature wheat kernel. III. Microscopic structure of the endosperm of hard red winter wheat. Cereal Chem. 33:361–373.Google Scholar
4. Chen, S. S. C. and Thimann, K. V. 1966. Nature of seed dormancy in Phacelia tanacetifolia . Science 153:1537–1539.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Conn, H. J. 1953. Biological Stains. 6th ed. Williams and Wilkins Co., Baltimore, Maryland. 150 p.Google Scholar
6. Crocker, W., Thornton, N. C., and Schroeder, E. M. 1946. Internal pressure necessary to break shells of nuts and the role of the shells in delayed germination. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 14:173–201.Google Scholar
7. Degering, E. F. 1957. Organic Chemistry. 6th ed. Barnes and Noble Inc., New York. 575 p.Google Scholar
8. Flemion, F. and Poole, H. 1948. Seed viability tests with 2,3,5-triphenyltetrazolium chloride. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 15:243–258.Google Scholar
9. Glick, D. and Fisher, E. E. 1946. Studies in histochemistry. XVII. Localization of arginine in the wheat grain and in the epicotyl and roots of germinated grain. Arch. Biochem. 11:81–87.Google Scholar
10. Heit, C. E. 1961. Abnormal germination during laboratory testing in coniferous tree seed. Proc. Int. Seed Test Assoc. 26:419–427.Google Scholar
11. Hinton, J. J. C. 1953. The distribution of protein in the maize kernel in comparison with that in wheat. Cereal Chem. 30:441–445.Google Scholar
12. Hubbard, J. E., Hall, H. H., and Earle, F. R. 1950. Composition of the component parts of the sorghum kernel. Cereal Chem. 27:415–420.Google Scholar
13. Hyde, E. O. C. 1954. The function of the hilum in some Papilionaceae in relation to the ripening of the seed and the permeability of the testa. Ann. Bot. 18:241–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Johnansen, D. A. 1940. Plant Microtechnique. McGraw-Hill Book Company, New York. 156 p.Google Scholar
15. Malhotra, R. C. 1934. Chemistry of corn seed germination. Cereal Chem. 11:105–109.Google Scholar
16. Pomeranz, Y. and Shellenberger, J. A. 1961. Histochemical characterization of wheat and wheat products. IV. Mapping the fatty acids in germinating wheat. Cereal Chem. 38: 122–132.Google Scholar
17. Pomeranz, Y. and Shellenberger, J. A. 1961. Histochemical characterization of wheat and wheat products. V. Sulfydryl groups: Their localization in the wheat kernel. Cereal Chem. 38:133–140.Google Scholar
18. Pratt, C. and Wetmore, R. H. 1951. A paraffin method for refractory plant materials. Stain Tech. 26:251–253.Google Scholar
19. Pritchard, H. N. 1964. A cytochemical study of embryo development in Stellaria media . Am. J. Bot. 51:472–479.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Watson, D. 1948. Structure of the testa and its relation to germination in the Papilionaceae tribes Trifoliae and Loteae . Ann. Bot. 12:385–409.Google Scholar
21. White, P. R. 1963. The Cultivation of Animal and Plant Cells. 2d ed. The Ronald Press Company, New York. 202 p.Google Scholar