Abstract

BackgroundSeed 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.ResultsWe 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.ConclusionsThe 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.

Highlights

  • Seed viability testing is essential in plant conservation and research

  • Study species, seed collection and dehydration We investigated the reliability of three seed viability tests performed with and without seed sterilization on five epiphytic and 15 terrestrial orchid species collected in Guangxi and Yunnan, Southern China, between 2012 to 2020 (Table 1)

  • Sterilization significantly reduced the viability detection probability in the Evans blue test (EB) and Fluorescein diacetate test (FDA) tests but the effect was the opposite for the tetrazolium chloride (TTC) test, with Probability of finding viable seeds (PSV) being greater for sterilized seeds compared to the non-sterilized seeds (P < 0.001)

Read more

Summary

Introduction

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, there is a need to select an appropriate and reliable viability test, especially when conducting comparative studies. A seed viability test is defined as any technique used to determine whether individual seeds appear to be Pradhan et al Botanical Studies (2022) 63:3 dead or alive within a sample, which enables the proportion of live seeds in a population to be estimated (Gosling 2003). Conservation in their natural habitat, in situ, is the best option for safeguarding diminishing species numbers, owing to increased habitat loss, fragmentation and habitat degradation, ex situ conservation efforts, such as seed banking (Pant 2013; Schofield et al 2018). Selection of a fast, appropriate and reliable test, especially for comparative assessment can be a challenge in conservation and research (Hay and Whitehouse 2017)

Methods
Results
Discussion
Conclusion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call