Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T10:59:22.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Experimental Substrate Affects Rate of Seed Removal in Assays of Invertebrate Seed Predation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Eric R. Gallandt
Eric R. Gallandt*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant, Soil and Environmental Sciences, University of Maine, Orono, ME 04469-5722
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: gallandt@maine.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Postdispersal seed predation by ground beetles may be an important form of biological weed control. Field experiments conducted in 2002 and 2003 determined invertebrate seed predators' ability to detect and remove seeds from different experimental substrates. Predation of wild mustard and common lambsquarters was greater when seeds were presented on sand compared with the two types of synthetic finishing pads; however, predation of velvetleaf, redroot pigweed, and hairy galinsoga was unaffected by substrate. Predation rates were not consistent across all experimental substrates. Estimates of invertebrate predation of common lambsquarters, yellow foxtail, and velvetleaf were greater for seeds offered on sand or synthetic pads than for seeds offered on soil or double-sided tape covered with soil. Although each substrate would be useful to estimate treatment effects on relative predation rates, the weed species by substrate interaction should be considered when comparing predation rates across experiments or when the absolute rate predation is of critical importance.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. # CHEALhairy galinsoga, Galinsoga ciliata (Raf.) Blake # GALCIredroot pigweed, Amaranthus retroflexus L. # AMAREvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medicus # ABUTHwild mustard, Brassica kaber (DC.) L.C. Wheeler #BRAKAyellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv. #SETLUBiological controlbiocontrolCarabidaeground beetleinvertebrate seed predatorsmethods in weed ecologyseed bank dynamicsseed predation
Type
Note
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 19 , Issue 2 , June 2005 , pp. 481 - 485
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.)

References

Literature Cited

Brust, G. E. and House, G. J. 1988. Weed seed destruction by arthropods and rodents in low-input soybean agroecosystems. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 3:19–25.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Norquay, H. M., Stinner, B. A., and McCartney, D. A. 1996. Postdispersal predation of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 44:534–539.Google Scholar
Cromar, H. E., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Influence of tillage and crop residue on postdispersal predation of weed seeds. Weed Sci. 47:184–194.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. and 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
Malone, C. R. 1967. A rapid method for enumeration of viable seeds in soil. Weeds 15:381–382.Google Scholar
Marino, P. C., Gross, K. L., and Landis, D. A. 1997. Weed seed loss to predation in Michigan maize fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 66:189–196.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Marino, P. C., Renner, K. A., and Landis, D. A. 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
von Ende, C. N. 2001. Repeated-measures analysis. in Scheiner, S. M. and Gurevitch, J., eds. Design and Analysis of Ecological Experiments, 2nd ed. New York: Oxford University Press. Pp. 134–157.Google Scholar
Westerman, P. R., Hofman, A., Vet, L. E. M., and 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