Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-l7hp2 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-22T20:58:06.888Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Three seedling emergence methods in soil seed bank studies: implications for interpretation of propagule deposition in riparian zones

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 September 2007

Angela Gurnell ,
Joanne Goodson ,
Ken Thompson ,
Owen Mountford  and
Nick Clifford
Angela Gurnell*
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK
Joanne Goodson
Affiliation:
Department of Geography, King's College London, Strand, London WC2R 2LS, UK
Ken Thompson
Affiliation:
Department of Animal and Plant Sciences, University of Sheffield, SheffieldS10 2TN, UK
Owen Mountford
Affiliation:
CEH Monk's Wood, Abbots Rippon, Huntingdon, Cambridgshire PE28 2LS, UK
Nick Clifford
Affiliation:
School of Geography, The University of Nottingham, NottinghamNG7 2RD, UK
*
*Correspondence Fax: 020 7848 1319 Email: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Samples of soil and recently deposited sediments were collected from the river bed, bank face and bank tops of two lengths (reaches) of the River Frome, Dorset, UK and one reach of the River Tern, Shropshire, UK. Soil propagule bank samples were collected in May 2003, and depositional samples were collected subsequently over four consecutive 4-month periods between June 2003 and October 2004. The samples were subjected to three emergence trials under drained, waterlogged and submerged conditions. Significantly more seedlings germinated in the drained than waterlogged trial, and waterlogged than submerged trials. Drained, waterlogged and submerged trials identified 186, 76 and 37 species, respectively. Six species identified in the waterlogged trials were not identified in the drained trials, and five species in the submerged trials were not found in the drained trials. Submerged trials added two species to the drained and waterlogged results. Application of detrended correspondence analysis (DCA) to average species abundance data, for the sampled hydrological habitats (bed, bank face, bank top) within the soil propagule bank and four depositional data sets, generated different results for the three trials. The drained treatment revealed significant differences between sites, seasons and hydrological habitats, whereas the waterlogged and submerged treatments presented an increasingly homogeneous view of the samples. Our results confirm other propagule bank emergence comparisons and extend them to depositional samples, demonstrating that the strong environmental sieves imposed by waterlogging and submergence restrict emergence of numerous terrestrial, wetland and even some aquatic species that were successfully identified using the drained conditions.

Keywords

floodingriparian zoneseed depositionseed submergenceseedling emergencesoil seed bankwaterlogging
Type
Research Article
Information
Seed Science Research , Volume 17 , Issue 3 , September 2007 , pp. 183 - 199
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2007

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

Abernethy, V.J.andWillby, N.J. (1999) Changes along a disturbance gradient in the density and composition of propagule banks in floodplain aquatic habitats. Plant Ecology 140, 177–190.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Andersson, E., Nilsson, C.andJohansson, M.E. (2000) Effects of river fragmentation on plant dispersal and riparian flora. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 16, 83–89.3.0.CO;2-T>CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Baldwin, A.H., Egnotovich, M.S.andClarke, E. (2001) Hydrologic change and vegetation of tidal freshwater marshes: field, greenhouse, and seed-bank experiments. Wetlands 21, 519–531.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Boedeltje, G., ter Heerdt, G.N.J.andBakker, J.P. (2002) Applying the seedling-emergence method under waterlogged conditions to detect the seed bank of aquatic plants in submerged sediments. Aquatic Botany 72, 121–128.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Capon, S.J.andBrock, M.A. (2006) Flooding, soil seed bank dynamics and vegetation resilience of a hydrologically variable desert floodplain. Freshwater Biology 51, 206–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Goodson, J.M., Gurnell, A.M., Angold, P.G.andMorrissey, I.P. (2003) Evidence for hydrochory and the deposition of viable seeds within winter flow-deposited sediments: The River Dove, Derbyshire, UK. River Research and Applications 19, 317–334.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurnell, A.M.andMidgley, P. (1994) Aquatic weed growth and flow resistance: their influence on the relationship between discharge and stage over a 25 year river gauging station record. Hydrological Processes 8, 63–73.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurnell, A.M., van Oosterhout, M.P., de Vlieger, B.andGoodson, J.M. (2006) Reach-scale interactions between aquatic plants and physical habitat: River Frome, Dorset. River Research and Applications 22, 667–680.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gurnell, A.M., Goodson, J., Thompson, K., Clifford, N. andArmitage, P. (2007) The river bed: a dynamic store for plant propagules? Earth Surface Processes and Landforms 32 (in press).CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haukos, D.A.andSmith, L.M. (2001) Temporal emergence patterns of seedlings from Playa wetlands. Wetlands 21, 274–280.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hubbard, C.E. (1992) Grasses: A guide to their structure, identification, uses and distribution in the British Isles. (new edition, revised by J.C.E. Hubbard). London, Penguin.Google Scholar
Hill, M.O.andGauch, H.G. (1980) Detrended correspondence analysis: an improved ordination technique. Vegetatio 42, 47–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Keddy, P.A.andReznicek, A.A. (1982) The role of seed banks in the persistence of Ontario coastal plain flora. American Journal of Botany 69, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leck, M.A. (1996) Germination of macrophytes from a Delaware River tidal freshwater wetland. Bulletin of the Torrey Botanical Club 123, 48–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leck, M.A.andSchutz, W. (2005) Regeneration of Cyperaceae, with particular reference to seed ecology and seed banks. Perspectives in Plant Ecology, Evolution and Systematics 7, 95–133.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leck, M.A.andSimpson, R.L. (1995) Ten-year seed bank and vegetation dynamics of a tidal freshwater marsh. American Journal of Botany 82, 1547–1557.Google Scholar
MacKay, D.B. (1972) The measurement of viability. pp. 172–208in Roberts, E.H. (Ed.) Viability of seeds. London, Chapman & Hall.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rose, F. (1981) The wild flower key: British Isles–N.W. Europe. London, Frederick Warne.Google Scholar
Stace, C. (1999) Field flora of the British Isles. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Tabacchi, E., Planty-Tabacchi, A.M., Roques, L.andNadal, E. (2005) Seed inputs in riparian zones: Implications for plant invasion. River Research and Applications 21, 299–313.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ter Braak, C.J.F.andSmilauer, P. (2002) CANOCO reference manual. Biometris, Wageningen and Ceske Budejovice, Biometris.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Bakker, J.andBekker, J. (1997) The soil seed banks of North West Europe: Methodology, density and longevity. Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Van der Valk, A.G. (1981) Succession in wetlands: a Gleasonian approach. Ecology 62, 688–696.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van der Valk, A.G.andDavis, C.B. (1978) Role of seed banks in vegetation dynamics of prairie glacial marshes. Ecology 59, 322–335.CrossRefGoogle Scholar