4.3 Review

Validation of quality tests for forest seed species

Journal

SEED SCIENCE RESEARCH
Volume 22, Issue -, Pages S74-S79

Publisher

CAMBRIDGE UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1017/S096025851100033X

Keywords

abnormal seedlings; Brazilian Official Rules; statistical assumptions; tropical forest species

Categories

Funding

  1. Ministry of Agriculture/National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (MAPA/CNPq)
  2. Research Foundation of the State of Minas Gerais (FAPEMIG)

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The Brazilian literature on seed germination testing of tropical forest species, although still insufficient, is extensive for species with economical potential. However, this information is still fragmented and often reported in scientific communications of modest circulation. In this summary, we present the results of a validation process for germination tests on Brazilian forest species, which had as a starting point the ample reviewing of current methods, besides exhaustive pre-testing in certified laboratories. Specific protocols were created for each species, including substrate, temperature, seed disinfection, breaking of dormancy, seedling classification and other information. These protocols were sent to research laboratories and accredited by the Ministry of Agriculture, together with seed lots of three distinct qualities. The presuppositions of normality of the residuals and homoscedasticity of the variations were previously tested and the completely randomized factorial design statistical model was applied to the normal seedlings of each species. After this analysis, germination test methods for seeds of Astronium fraxinifolium, Ceiba speciosa, Cybistax antisyphilitica, Enterolobium contortisiliquum, Guazuma ulmifolia, Lafoensia pacari, Mimosa caesalpiniaefolia, Peltophorum dubium, Pseudobombax tomentosum and Pterogyne nitens, all forest species of different Brazilian biomes, were considered to be validated.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available