Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-j824f Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T11:10:49.980Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postdispersal Weed Seed Predation and Invertebrate Activity Density in Three Tillage Regimes

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rocio van der Laat ,
Micheal D. K. Owen ,
Matt Liebman  and
Ramon G. Leon
Rocio van der Laat
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Micheal D. K. Owen*
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Matt Liebman
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
Ramon G. Leon
Affiliation:
Department of Agronomy, Iowa State University, Ames, IA 50011
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: mdowen@iastate.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Field experiments were conducted near Boone, IA, to quantify postdispersal seed predation of common lambsquarters and common waterhemp in corn (2003) and soybean (2004) managed with conventional, reduced, and zero-tillage systems. Seed predation in each tillage regime was quantified using selective exclusion treatments during July through September 2003 and June through October 2004. In addition, the activity density of ground-dwelling invertebrates was estimated with pitfall traps. Choice and no-choice feeding trials were conducted in the laboratory using the most abundant weed seed predators found in the field to determine seed preferences of the potential predator organisms. The greatest seed loss occurred during July and August. In 2003, seed predation was lower in zero tillage than in conventional and reduced tillages, but no differences in seed predation between tillage regimes were observed in 2004. Maximum seed predation for common lambsquarters was 53% in 2003 and 64% in 2004. Common waterhemp seed predation reached 80% in 2003 and 85% in 2004. The majority of seed predation was by invertebrate organisms. The most common invertebrate species captured with pitfall traps were field crickets (Gryllus pennsylvanicus De Geer [Gryllidae, Orthoptera]) and ground beetles (Harpalus pensylvanicus Burmeister [Coleoptera, Carabidae]). In 2003, field crickets were relatively more abundant in conventional and reduced tillage than in zero-tillage plots. In 2004, field crickets were more abundant in the reduced tillage than in the other two tillage regimes. No differences were detected for ground beetles among tillage regimes (P = 0.57). Choice and no-choice feeding experiments confirmed the preferences of field crickets and ground beetles for common lambsquarters and common waterhemp seeds over the larger seeds of giant foxtail and velvetleaf. Under field conditions, the activity density of field crickets was a significant predictor of common lambsquarters (r2 = 0.47) and common waterhemp (r2 = 0.53) seed predation. Positive relationships were also detected between the activity density of ground beetles and common lambsquarters (r2 = 0.30) and common waterhemp (r2 = 0.30) seed predation. This research demonstrated that weed seed predation is an important component affecting weed seedbanks and that crop management practices that favor the activity of predators such as field crickets or ground beetles could influence weed populations. Also, the results suggested that tillage is more important in determining the number of weed seeds available on the soil surface to predators than directly affecting predator activity density.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.common waterhemp, Amaranthus tuberculatus (Moq.) Sauer.giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm.velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik.corn, Zea mays L.soybean, Glycine max (L.) Merr.Biological controlfield cricketsground beetlesintegrated weed managementseedbank
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 63 , Issue 4 , December 2015 , pp. 828 - 838
Copyright
Copyright © 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.)

Footnotes

Current address: West Florida Research and Education Center, University of Florida, Jay, FL 32565.

Associate Editor for this paper: John L. Lindquist, University of Nebraska.

References

Literature Cited

Alexander, RD (1957) The taxonomy of the field crickets of eastern United States (Orthoptera: Gryllidae: Acheta). Ann Entomol Soc Am 50:584–602 Google Scholar
Baguette, M, Hance, T (1997) Carabid beetles and agricultural practices: influence of soil ploughing. Biol Agric Hortic 15:185–190 Google Scholar
Baskin, CC, Baskin, JM (2001) Seeds: Ecology, Biogeography, and Evolution of Dormancy and Germination. San Diego Academic Press. 666 pGoogle Scholar
Bensch, CN, Horak, MJ, Peterson, D (2003) Interference of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus), Palmer amaranth (A. palmeri), and common waterhemp (A. rudis) in soybean. Weed Sci 51:37–43 Google Scholar
Brust, GE, House, GJ (1988) Weed seed destruction by arthropods and rodents in low-input soybean agroecosystems. Am J Altern Agric 3:19–25 Google Scholar
Buhler, DB, Hartzler, RG, Forcella, F (1997) Implications of weed seedbank dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci 45:329–336 Google Scholar
Cardina, J, Norquay, HM, Stinner, BR, McCartney, DA (1996) Postdispersal predation of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci 44:534–539 Google Scholar
Carmona, DM, Menalled, FD, Landis, DA (1999) Field crickets (Orthoptera: Gryllidae): laboratory weed seed predation and within field activity-density. J Econ Entomol 92:825–829 Google Scholar
Crawley, MJ (2000) Seed predators and plant population dynamics. Pages 167–182 in Fenner, M, ed. Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. Wallingford, UK CAB International Google Scholar
Cromar, HE, Murphy, SD, Swanton, CJ (1999) Influence of tillage and crop residue on postdispersal predation of weed seeds. Weed Sci 47:184–194 Google Scholar
Crook, TM, Renner, KA (1990) Common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album) competition and time of removal in soybeans. Weed Sci 38:358–364 Google Scholar
Davis, AS, Liebman, M (2003) Cropping system effects on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) demography: I. Green manure and tillage timing. Weed Sci 51:919–929 Google Scholar
Dixon, PL, McKinlay, RG (1992) Pitfall trap catches of and aphid predation by Pterostichus melanarius and Pterostichus madidus in insecticide treated and untreated potatoes. Entomol Exp Appl 64:63–72 Google Scholar
Forcella, F, Peterson, DH, Barbour, JC (1996) Timing and measurement of weed seed shed in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol 10:535–543 Google Scholar
Gallandt, ER, Molloy, T, Lynch, RP, Drummond, FA (2005) Effect of cover-cropping systems on invertebrate seed predation. Weed Sci 53:69–76 Google Scholar
Hager, AG, Wax, LM, Stoller, EW, Bollero, GA (2002) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in soybean. Weed Sci 50:607–610 Google Scholar
Harrison, SK, Regnier, EE, Schmoll, JT (2003) Postdispersal predation of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) seed in no-tillage corn. Weed Sci 51:955–964 Google Scholar
Heggenstaller, AH, Menalled, FD, Liebman, M, Westerman, PR (2006) Seasonal patterns in post-dispersal seed predation of Abutilon theophrasti and Setaria faberi in three cropping systems. J Appl Ecol 43:999–1010 Google Scholar
Holland, JM, Luff, ML (2000) The effects of agricultural practices on Carabidae in temperate agroecosystems. Integrated Pest Manag Rev 5:109–129 Google Scholar
Holmes, RJ, Froud-Williams, RJ (2005) Post-dispersal weed seed predation by avian and non-avian predators. Agric Ecosyst Environ 105:23–27 Google Scholar
Hulme, PE, Hunt, MK (1999) Rodent post-dispersal seed predation in deciduous woodland: predator response to absolute and relative abundance of prey. J Anim Ecol 68:417–428 Google Scholar
Landis, DA, Wratten, SD, Gurr, GM (2000) Habitat management to conserve natural enemies of arthropods pests in agriculture. Annu Rev Entomol 45:175–201 Google Scholar
Leon, RG, Owen, MDK (2006) Tillage systems and seed dormancy effects on common waterhemp (Amaranthus tuberculatur) seedling emergence. Weed Sci 54:1037–1044 Google Scholar
Louda, SM (1989) Predation in the dynamics of seed generation. Pages 25–51 in Leck, MA, Parker, VT, Simpson, RL eds. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. New York Academic Press Google Scholar
Mauchline, AL, Watson, SJ, Brown, VK, Froud-Williams, RJ (2005) Post-dispersal seed predation of non-target weeds in arable crops. Weed Res 45:157–164 Google Scholar
Menalled, FD, Marino, PC, Renner, KA, Landis, DA (2000) Post-dispersal weed seed predation in Michigan crop fields as a function of agricultural landscape structure. Agric Ecosyst Environ 77:193–202 Google Scholar
Menalled, FD, Smith, RG, Dauer, JT, Fox, TB (2007) Impact of agricultural management on carabid communities and weed seed predation. Agric Ecosyst Environ 118:49–54 Google Scholar
Norris, RF, Kogan, M (2000) Interactions between weeds, arthropod pests, and their natural enemies in managed ecosystems. Weed Sci 48:94–158 Google Scholar
O'Rourke, ME, Heggenstaller, AH, Liebman M Rice, MR (2006) Post-dispersal weed seed predation by invertebrates in conventional and low-external-input crop rotation systems. Agric Ecosyst Environ 116:280–288 Google Scholar
Parker, VT, Simpson, RL, Leck, MA (1989) Pattern and process in the dynamics of seed banks. Pages 367–384 in Leck, MA, Parker, VT, Simpson, RL, eds. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. New York Academic Press Google Scholar
Rahman, A, James, TK, Grbavac, N (2001) Potential of weed seedbanks for managing weeds: a review of recent New Zealand research. Weed Biol Manag 1:89–95 Google Scholar
Ramsey, FL, Shafer, DW (2002) The Statistical Sleuth. A Course in Methods of Data Analysis. 2nd edn. Pacific Grove, CA Duxbury. 100 pGoogle Scholar
Rey, PJ, Garrido, JL, Alcántara, JM, Ramírez, JM, Aguilera, A, García, L, Manzaneda, AJ, Fernández, R (2002) Spatial variation in ant and rodent post-dispersal predation of vertebrate-dispersed seeds. Funct Ecol 16:773–781 Google Scholar
Sanguankeo, PP, Leon, RG (2011) Weed management practices determine plant and arthropod diversity and seed predation in vineyards. Weed Res 51:404–412 Google Scholar
Sellers, BA, Smeda, RJ, Johnson, WG, Kendig, JA, Ellersieck, MR (2003) Comparative growth of six Amaranthus species in Missouri. Weed Sci 51:329–333 Google Scholar
Simpson, RL, Leck, MA, Parker, VT (1989) Seed banks: general concepts and methodological issues. Pages 3–8 in Leck, MA, Parker, VT, Simpson, RL, eds. Ecology of Soil Seed Banks. New York Academic Press Google Scholar
Steckel, LE, Sprague, CL (2004) Common waterhemp (Amaranthus rudis) interference in corn. Weed Sci 52:359–364 Google Scholar
Thomas, CFG, Brown, NJ, Kendall, DA (2006) Carabid movement and vegetation density: implications for interpreting pitfall trap data from split-field trials. Agric Ecosyst Environ 113:51–61 Google Scholar
Trichard, A, Alignier, A, Biju-Duval, L, Petit, S (2013) The relative effects of local management and landscape context on weed seed predation and carabid functional groups. Basic Appl Ecol 14:235–245 Google Scholar
Westerman, PR, Hofman, A, Vet, LEM, van der Werf, W (2003) Relative importance of vertebrates and invertebrates in epigeaic weed seed predation in organic cereal fields. Agric Ecosyst Environ 95:417–425 Google Scholar
Yenish, JP, Doll, JD, Buhler, DD (1992) Effects of tillage on vertical distribution and viability of weed seed in soil. Weed Sci 40:429–433 Google Scholar