Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-x24gv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-05-27T07:07:29.035Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seed morphology and physical dormancy of several North American Rhus species (Anacardiaceae)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 February 2007

Xiaojie Li ,
Jerry M. Baskin  and
Carol C. Baskin
Xiaojie Li
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506–0225, USA
Jerry M. Baskin*
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506–0225, USA
Carol C. Baskin
Affiliation:
School of Biological Sciences, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40506–0225, USA Department of Agronomy, University of Kentucky, Lexington, Kentucky 40546–l0091, USA
*
*Correspondence Fax: 606–257–1717 Email: jmbask0@ukcc.uky.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Seed (= seed plus endocarp) morphology and physical dormancy were studied in seven North American Rhus species: R. copallina, R. glabra, R. typhina, R. aromatica (var. aromatica), R. microphylla, R. trilobata, and R. virens (var. virens). Seeds of Rhus glabra and R. typhina, of subgenus Rhus, were gray, approx. 3 mm long, 2 mm wide, and weighed approx. 7 mg, whereas those of R. aromatica, R. trilobata, and R. virens, of subgenus Lobadium, were brown, >4 mm long, approx. 4 mm wide, and weighed approx. 14.5 mg (R. trilobata) to approx. 23 mg (R. aromaticaand R. virens). Dormancy in all seeds was due to a water-impermeable endocarp, but depth of dormancy varied greatly among species and seedlots. After 4 weeks, 29–34% of the seeds from all five seedlots of R. trilobata, R. microphylla, and R. virens incubated on moist substrate had imbibed, compared to 0–14% of the seeds of all 16 seedlots of R. aromatica, R. copallina, R. glabra, and R. typhina. After 1 yr, imbibition among seedlots of R. aromaticavaried from 28 ± 2% to 69 ± 5%, whereas 93 ±2% to 100 ± 0% of the seeds from all seedlots of R. microphylla, R. trilobata, and R. virens did so. Neither dry laboratory storage for up to 4 yr (even 29 yr in R. aromatica) nor dry heating at 100oC or at 120oC effectively broke dormancy in any of the species tested (R. aromatica, R. glabra, R. trilobata, R. virens). Immersion in boiling water was the best method to render seeds of R. glabra and R. typhinapermeable, yet it was ineffective for those of R. aromatica, R. trilobata, and R. virens. In contrast, a 1 h-soaking in concentrated H2SO4 led to complete loss of endocarp impermeability in the latter three species, but mostly was ineffective in R. glabra and R. typhina. Thus, there seems to be a tendency for seeds of subgenus Rhusto respond well to boiling in water, but not to soaking in H2SO4, whereas the opposite is true for those of subgenus Lobadium.

Keywords

acid scarificationendocarp impermeabilityhot-water scarificationphysical dormancyRhus suppseed lot variation
Type
Research Article
Information
Seed Science Research , Volume 9 , Issue 3 , March 1999 , pp. 247 - 258
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 1999

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

Alkon, P. and Schierbaum, D.L. (1962) Germination of staghorn sumac seeds. New York Fish and Game Journal 9, 69–71.Google Scholar
Barkley, F.A. (1937) A monographic study of Rhus and its immediate allies in North and Central America, including the West Indies. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden 24, 263–460.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barkley, F.A. (1940) Schmaltzia. The American Midland Naturalist 24, 647–665.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, C.C. and Baskin, J.M. (1998) Seeds: ecology, biogeography, and evolution of dormancy and germination. San Diego, California, Academic Press.Google Scholar
Baskin, J.M. and Baskin, C.C. (1985) Does seed dormancy play a role in the germination ecology of Rumex crispus? Weed Science 33, 340–343.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baskin, J.M. and Baskin, C.C. (1997) Methods of breaking seed dormancy in the endangered species Iliamna corei (Sherff) Sherff (Malvaceae), with special attention to heating. Natural Areas Journal 17, 313–323.Google Scholar
Boyd, I.L. (1943) Germination tests on four species of Sumac. Transactions of the Kansas Academy of Science 46, 85–86.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brinkman, K.A. (1974) Rhus L. Sumac. pp 715–719 in Schopmeyer, C.S. (Technical Coordinator) Seeds of woody plants in the United States. USDA Forest Service Agriculture Handbook 450.Google Scholar
Brizicky, R.K. (1962) The genera of Anacardiaceae in the southeastern United States. Journal of the Arnold Arboretum 43, 359–375.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown, J.E., Maddox, J.B. and Splittstoesser, W.E. (1983) The use of trees, shrubs, and forbs for reclamation of mine spoils. Proceedings of the 3rd Annual Better Reclamation with trees Conference pp 129–139, Indiana, Terre Haute.Google Scholar
Corner, E.J.H. (1976) The seeds of dicotyledons. Vols 1 & 2. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Doussi, M.A. and Thanos, C.A. (1994) Post-fire regeneration of hardseeded plants: ecophysiology of seed germination. Proceedings of 2nd International Conference on Fire Research Vol II, D25, pp 1035–1044, Coimbra.Google Scholar
Farmer, R.E., Lockley, G.C. and Cunningham, M. (1982) Germination patterns of the sumacs, Rhus glabra and R. copallina: effects of scarification time, temperature and genotype. Seed Science and Technology 10, 223–231.Google Scholar
Hall, L.K. (1977) Southern fruit-producing woody plants used by wild life. USDA Forest Service General Technical Report SO-16.Google Scholar
Heit, C.E. (1967) Propagation from seed. Part 7: Germinating six hardseeded groups. American Nurseryman 125 (12), 10–12, 37, 43–44.Google Scholar
Heit, C.E. (1970) Germinative characteristics and optimum testing methods for twelve western shrub species. Proceedings of the Association of Official Seed Analysts 60, 197–205.Google Scholar
Howard, W.L. (1915) An experimental study of the rest period in plants: seed. University of Missouri College of Agriculture Research Bulletin Number 17.Google Scholar
Huss, D.L. (1954) Factors influencing plant succession following fire in Ashe Juniper woodland types in Real County, Texas. MS Thesis. College Station, Texas, Texas A & M.Google Scholar
Johnson, A.G., Foote, L.E. and Smithberg, M.H. (1966) Smooth sumac seed germination. The Plant Propagator 12 (3), 5–8.Google Scholar
Keeley, J.E. (1987) Role of fire in seed germination of woody taxa in California chaparral. Ecology 68, 434–443.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keeley, J.E. (1991) Seed germination and life history syndromes in the California Chaparral. The Botanical Review 57, 81–116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X., Baskin, J.M. and Baskin, C.C. (1999a) Physiological dormancy and germination requirements of seeds of several North American Rhus species (Anacardiaceae). Seed Science Research 9, 237–245.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Li, X., Baskin, J.M. and Baskin, C.C. (1999b) Comparative morphology and physiology of fruit and seed development in the two shrubs, Rhus aromatica and R. glabra (Anacardiaceae). American Journal of Botany (in press).Google Scholar
Li, X., Baskin, J.M. and Baskin, C.C. (1999c) Anatomy of two mechanisms of breaking physical dormancy by experimental treatments in seeds of two North American Rhus species (Anacardiaceae). American Journal of Botany (in press)CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Little, E.L. Jr. (1977) Atlas of United States trees. Vol.4. Minor eastern hardwoods. USDA Miscellaneous Publication 1342.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lloret, F. and Zedler, P.H. (1991) Recruitment pattern of Rhus integrifolia populations in periods between fire in chaparral. Journal of Vegetation Science 2, 217–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lovell, J.F. (1964) An ecological study of Rhus glabra. PhD Dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan.Google Scholar
Marks, P.L. (1979) Apparent fire-stimulated germination of Rhus typhina seeds. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 106, 41–42.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Martin, R.E., Miller, R.L. and Cushwa, C.T. (1975) Germination response of legume seeds subjected to moist and dry heat. Ecology 56, 1441–1445.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Norton, C.R. (1985) The use of gibberellic acid, ethephon, and cold treatment to promote germination of Rhus typhina L. seeds. Scientia Horticulturae 27, 163–169.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peterson, C.J. and Facelli, J.M. (1992) Contrasting germination and seedling growth of Betula alleghaniensis and Rhus typhina subjected to various amounts and types of plant litter. American Journal of Botany 79, 1209–1216.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rasmussen, G.A. and Wright, H. A. (1988) Germination requirements of flameleaf sumac. Journal of Range Management 41, 48–52.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sampson, A.W. (1944) Plant succession on burned chaparral lands in northern California. California Agricultural Experiment Station Bulletin 635.Google Scholar
SAS Institute. (1989) SAS/STAT User's Guide. Version 6, fourth edition, vol. 2, SAS Institute, Incorporated, Cary, North Carolina.Google Scholar
Smith, H.K. (1970) The biology, wildlife use and management of sumac in the Lower Peninsula of Michigan. PhD Dissertation, Michigan State University, East Lansing.Google Scholar
Smith, L.B. (1981) An SEM study of the effects of avian digestion on the seed coats of three common angiosperms. Scanning Electron Microscopy III, 545–552.Google Scholar
Stone, E.C. and Juhren, G. (1951) The effect of fire on the germination of the seed of Rhus ovata Wats. American Journal of Botany 38, 368–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Takahashi, M. and Kikuchi, T. (1986) The heat effect on seed germination of some species in the initial stage of a post-fire vegetation. Ecological Review 21, 11–14.Google Scholar
Thanos, C.L. and Georghiou, K. (1988) Ecophysiology of fire-stimulated seed germination in Cistus anciens ssp. creticus (L.) Heywood and C. salvifolius L. Plant, Cell and Environment 11, 841–849.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tipton, J.L. (1992) Requirements for seed germination of Mexican redbud, evergreen sumac, and mealy sage. HortScience 27, 313–316.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
van Staden, J., Kelly, K.M. and Bell, W.E. (1994) The role of natural agents in the removal of coat-imposed dormancy in Dichrostachys cinerea (L.) Wight et Arn. seeds. Plant Growth Regulation 14, 51–59.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vines, R.A. (1960) Trees, shrubs, and woody vines of the southwest. Austin, University of Texas Press.Google Scholar
Washitani, I. (1988) Effects of high temperatures on the permeability and germinability of the hard seeds of Rhus javanica L. Annals of Botany 62, 13–16.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Went, F.W., Juhren, G. and Juhren, M.C. (1952) Fire and biotic factors affecting germination. Ecology 33, 351–364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wright, E. (1931) The effects of high temperatures on seed germination. Journal of Forestry 29, 679–687Google Scholar
Young, D.A. (1979) Heartwood flavonoids and the infrageneric relationships of Rhus (Anacardiaceae). American Journal of Botany 66, 502–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Young, J.A. and Young, C.G. (1992) Seeds of woody plants of North America. Revised and enlarged edition. Portland, Oregon, Dioscorides Press.Google Scholar
Zedler, P.H. (1981) Vegetation change in chaparral and desert communities in San Diego County, California. pp 406–430 in West, D.C., Shugart, H.H., Botkin, D.B. (Eds) Forest succession: concepts and applications. New York, Springer-Verlag.CrossRefGoogle Scholar