Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-dk4vv Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T14:17:55.078Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

The Germination and Viability of Excreted Common Crupina (Crupina vulgaris) Achenes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Donald C. Thill
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, and Entomol. Sci., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
David L. Zamora
Affiliation:
Dep. Plant, Soil, and Entomol. Sci., Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID 83843
Donald L. Kambitsch
Affiliation:
E. I. DuPont Co., Inc., Kennewick, WA

Abstract

Research was conducted to determine percentage excretion and germination or viability of common crupina (Crupina vulgaris Cass. # CJNVU) achenes fed to sheep (Ovis aries), cattle (Bos taurus), deer (Odocoileus hemionus), horses (Equus cabullus), and Chinese pheasants (Phasianus colchicus). No achenes were found in the feces of sheep. Horses (nonruminant), deer, and cows (both ruminant animals) excreted 5, 3, and 25%, respectively, of the achenes consumed. The mean percentage achene excretion for pheasants was 23%; however, excretion was highly variable among individuals. All achenes excreted by any test species were detected within 5 days after consumption. The percentage germination or viability of excreted achenes ranged from 29% (cows) to 81% (deer). The percentage of consumed achenes that were excreted and viable ranged from 2 to 7% for large animals, whereas it was 17% for pheasants.

Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Copyright
Copyright © 1986 by the 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.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Balgooyen, T. G. and Moe, L. M. 1973. Dispersal of grass fruits –An example of endornithochory. Amer. Midl. Nat. 90:454455.Google Scholar
2. Belles, W. S., Wattenbarger, D. W., and Lee, G. A. 1981. Chemical control of Crupina vulgaris, a new range weed in Idaho and the United States. J. Range Manage. 34:368372.Google Scholar
3. Church, D. C. 1976. Ingestion and mastication of feed. Pages 4660. in Digestive Physiology and Nutrition of Ruminants, vol. 1. Digestive Physiology. O and B Books, Inc., Corvallis, OR.Google Scholar
4. Gorski, J., Blosser, T. H., Murdock, F. R., Hodgson, A. J., Soni, B. K., and Erb, R. E. 1957. A urine and feces collecting apparatus for heifers and cows. J. Anim. Sci. 16:100109.Google Scholar
5. Harmon, G. W. and Keim, F. D. 1934. The percentage and viability of weed seeds recovered in the feces of farm animals and their longevity when buried in manure. Agron. J. 26:762767.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hitchcock, D. L. and Cronquist, A. 1976. Flora of the Pacific Northwest. Univ. Washington Press, Seattle and London. 730 pp.Google Scholar
7. Janzen, D. H. 1981. Enterolobium cyclocarpum seed passage rate and survival in horses, Costa Rican pleistocene seed dispersal agents. Ecology. 62:593601.Google Scholar
8. Lee, G. A., Wattenbarger, D. W., Miller, T. L., and Schumacher, W. J. 1980. Common crupina. Current Information Series. No. 542, Univ. Idaho, Moscow, ID.Google Scholar
9. Patterson, D. T. 1985. Effects of temperature and photoperiod on common crupina (Crupina vulgaris Cass.). Weed Sci. 33: 333339.Google Scholar
10. Pijl, L. van der. 1969. Principles of dispersal in higher plants. Second ed. Springer-Verlag, Berlin. 153 pp.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Tetrazolium Committee of Association of Official Seed Analysis. 1970. Grabe, D. F., ed. Tetrazolium Testing, Handb. for Agric. Seed. No. 29. 62 pp.Google Scholar
12. U.S. Dep. Agric. 1973. Economically important foreign weeds. Potential problems in the United States. U.S. Dep. Agric. Handb. No. 498. 629 pp.Google Scholar