4.0 Article

Germinability of seeds stored in capsules on plants of two myrtaceous shrubs: differences among age cohorts and between species

期刊

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF BOTANY
卷 57, 期 6, 页码 495-501

出版社

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/BT09088

关键词

-

资金

  1. Korea Government's Overseas Fellowship Program
  2. Australian Research Council's Linkage Projects [LP0455415]
  3. Botanic Gardens and Parks Authority - Alcoa of Australia Limited Seed Conservation Partnership
  4. UK Millennium Commission
  5. Wellcome Trust
  6. Orange plc

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Canopy-stored seed banks are a common trait among members of several plant families in sclerophyllous woodlands of Australia and South Africa, with their fruits usually opening in response to damage or fire. Unknown is whether the degree of dormancy and of germination differs among age cohorts in seeds stored on the mother plant. We examined the extent and speed of germination from two intensely serotinous myrtaceous species, Callistemon glaucus and Calothamnus quadrifidus, for seed held in capsules for up to 9 years. Germination of both species differed significantly among age cohorts (P < 0.0001). However, no consistent increase in germination over a range of temperatures with storage was found, suggesting that no after-ripening occurred and that seeds were non-dormant at maturity. Differences among cohorts may be due to pre-conditioning. Significant (P <= 0.0214) differences occurred between the small-seeded Callistemon and the large-seeded Calothamnus. Germination was (1) optimum at >= 20 degrees C for Callistemon but at < 20 degrees C for Calothamnus, (2) 9-12 days earlier for Callistemon than for Calothamnus, and (3) higher in light than in darkness for Callistemon but equal in both light conditions for Calothamnus. While germination of the species differed in important features, we would expect synchronous germination of all age cohorts to occur following fire and the onset of regular rainfall.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.0
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据