Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-18T20:12:49.808Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postdispersal predation of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) seed in no-tillage corn

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

S. Kent Harrison ,
Emilie E. Regnier  and
Jerron T. Schmoll
Jerron T. Schmoll
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, Ohio State University, Columbus, OH 43210
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Giant ragweed seeds have high nutritional value, consisting of 47% crude protein and 38% crude fat, and may be an important food source for rodent and invertebrate populations in agricultural and early successional ecosystems. We investigated temporal patterns of postdispersal giant ragweed seed predation on the soil surface of a no-tillage cornfield as affected by involucre (seed dispersal unit) size and presence or absence of crop residue. Cage exclusion experiments indicated that rodents and invertebrates were the principal predators of giant ragweed seed, and total predation of involucres over a 12-mo period beginning in November was 88%. Rodents were the greatest predators of giant ragweed involucres during fall and winter, and cumulative predation by February 1 in treatments with rodent access ranged from 39 to 43%. In contrast, giant ragweed involucre predation by invertebrates occurred mainly from May 1 to November 1. When rodent access to involucres was prevented, total involucre predation by invertebrates over a 12-mo period ranged from 57 to 78%. Rodents showed an initial preference for large involucres (> 4.8-mm diameter), and invertebrates preferred small involucres (< 4.8-mm diameter). Involucres covered with corn plant residue underwent less predation by rodents from November to February than uncovered involucres, but residue cover had no effect on seed predation by invertebrates. In a laboratory feeding trial, the carabid Harpalus pensylvanicus preferred seed of smooth pigweed and yellow foxtail to giant ragweed seed, suggesting that giant ragweed seed is an incidental rather than a preferred food source for some carabids. Because giant ragweed exhibits relatively low fecundity and short seed bank persistence, results of this study suggest that postdispersal predation may directly reduce giant ragweed recruitment the next year by reducing new seed bank inputs. However, seed losses from predation alone may be insufficient to maintain giant ragweed populations below economic threshold levels in no-tillage cornfields.

Keywords

Giant ragweed, Ambrosia trifida L. AMBTRsmooth pigweed, Amaranthus hybridus L. AMACHyellow foxtail, Setaria glauca L. Beauv. SETLUcorn, Zea mays L. ‘DK 595’Biological controlHarpalus pensylvanicusintegrated weed managementinvolucrePeromyscus spp.seed granivoryseed predation
Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 6 , December 2003 , pp. 955 - 964
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

Abramsky, Z. 1983. Experiments on seed predation by rodent and ants in the Israeli desert. Oecologia 57:328–332.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Alexander, H. M., Cummings, C. L., Kahn, L., and Snow, A. A. 2001. Seed size variation and predation of seed produced by wild and crop-wild sunflowers. Am. J. Bot 88:623–627.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Amatangelo, J. 1974. Infestation of seeds of Ambrosia trifida, giant ragweed, by larval insects. Bios 45– 47:15–18.Google Scholar
Barry, W. J. 1976. Environmental effects of food hoarding in deer mice (Peromyscus). J. Mammal 57:731–746.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bazzaz, F. A. 1984. Demographic consequences of plant physiological traits: some case studies. Pages 324–346 in Dirzo, R. and Saraukhan, J. eds. Perspectives in Plant Population Ecology. Sunderland, MA: Sinauer.Google Scholar
Best, R. L. and Beegle, C. C. 1977. Food preferences of five species of carabids commonly found in Iowa cornfields. Environ. Entomol 6:9–12.Google Scholar
Brust, G. 1994. Seed-predators reduce broadleaf weed growth and competitive ability. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 48:27–34.Google Scholar
Brust, G. and House, G. J. 1988. Weed seed destruction by arthropods and rodents in low-input soybean agroecosystems. Am. J. Alternative Agric 3:19–25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cardina, J., Norquay, H. M., Stinner, B. R., and McCartney, D. A. 1996. Postdispersal predation of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed. Weed Sci 44:534–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 2000. Seed predators and plant population dynamics. Pages 167–182 in Fenner, M., ed. Seeds: The Ecology of Renegeration in Plant Communities, 2nd ed. Wallingford, UK: CAB International.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
Dritschilo, W. and Wanner, D. 1980. Ground beetle abundance in organic and conventional corn fields. Environ. Entomol 9:629–631.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. The Population Biology of Plants. San Diego, CA: Academic. Pp. 123–132.Google Scholar
Harrison, K., Regnier, E., and Schmoll, J. 2003. Tillage effects on emergence and longevity of giant ragweed seeds. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am 43:49.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., Schmoll, J. T., and Webb, J. 2001. Competition and fecundity of Ambrosia trifida in Zea mays . Weed Sci 49:224–229.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartnett, D. C., Hartnett, B. B., and Bazzaz, F. A. 1987. Persistence of Ambrosia trifida populations in old fields and responses to successional changes. Am. J. Bot 74:1239–1248.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Howard, W. E., Marsh, R. E., and Cole, R. E. 1968. Food detection by deer mice using olfactory rather than visual cues. Anim. Behav 16:13–17.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hulme, P. E. 1998. Post-dispersal predation and seed bank persistence. Seed Sci. Res 8:513–519.Google Scholar
Hulme, P. E. and Borelli, T. 1999. Variability in post-dispersal seed predation in deciduous woodland: relative importance of location, seed species, burial and density. Plant Ecol 145:149–156.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kerley, G. I. H. and Erasmus, T. 1991. What do mice select for in seeds? Oecologia 86:261–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Leadem, C. L., Gillies, S. L., Yearsley, H. K., Sit, V., Spittlehouse, D. L., and Burton, P. J. 1997. Field Studies of Seed Biology. Land Management Handbook 40. Victoria, BC, Canada: British Columbia Ministry of Forests. p. 94.Google Scholar
Lund, R. D. and Turpin, F. T. 1977. Carabid damage to weed seeds found in Indiana corn fields. Environ. Entomol 6:695–698.Google Scholar
Marino, P. C., Gross, K. L., and Landis, D. A. 1997. Weed seed loss due to predation in Michigan maize fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 66:189–196.Google Scholar
Maron, J. L. and Gardner, S. N. 2000. Consumer pressure, seed versus safe-site limitation, and plant population dynamics. Oecologia 124:260–269.Google Scholar
Martin, A. C., Zim, H. S., and Nelson, A. L. 1961. Small mammals. Pages 260–263 in American Wildlife and Plants. A Guide to Wildlife Food Habits. New York: Dover.Google Scholar
McFadyen, R. E. C. 1998. Biological control of weeds. Annu. Rev. Entomol 43:369–393.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Menalled, F. D., Marino, P. C., Renner, K. A., and Landis, D. A. 2000. Postdispersal weed seed predation in Michigan crop fields as a function of agricultural landscape structure. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 77:193–202.Google Scholar
Mittelbach, G. G. and Gross, K. L. 1984. Experimental studies of seed predation in old fields. Oecologia 65:7–13.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Patzoldt, W. L. and Tranel, P. J. 2002. Molecular analysis of cloransulam resistance in a population of giant ragweed. Weed Sci 50:299–305.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Peters, J. ed. 2000. Section A–B, “Asteraceae.”. in Tetrazolium Testing Handbook. 2nd ed. Contribution No. 29. Lincoln, NE: Association of Official Seed Analysts. Pp. 40–41.Google Scholar
Povey, F. D., Smith, H., and Watt, T. A. 1993. Predation of annual grass weed seeds in arable field margins. Ann. Appl. Biol 122:323–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Price, M. V. 1983. Laboratory studies of seed size and seed species selection by heteromyid rodents. Oecologia 60:259–263.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reader, R. J. 1991. Control of seedling emergence by ground cover: a potential mechanism involving seed predation. Can. J. Bot 69:2084–2087.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sako, Y., Fujimura, K., Daoust, T., Regnier, E. E., Harrison, S. K., and McDonald, M. B. 2001. A computer imaging technique to classify polymorphic seeds of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida). Weed Sci 49:738–745.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Stoller, E. W. and Wax, L. M. 1974. Periodicity of germination and emergence of some annual weeds. Weed Sci 21:574–580.Google Scholar
Traveset, A. 1993. Deceptive fruits reduce seed predation by insects in Pistacia terebinthus L. (Anacardiaceae). Evol. Ecol 7:357–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
[USDA-ARS]. 2001. USDA Nutrient Database for Standard Reference. Release 14. http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/foodcomp (Nutrient Data Laboratory home page).Google Scholar
Vander Wall, S. B. 1998. Foraging success of granivorous rodents: effects of variation in seed and soil water on olfaction. Ecology 70:233–241.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Washitani, I. and Nishiyama, S. 1992. Effects of seed size and seedling emergence time on the fitness components of Ambrosia trifida and A. artemisiaefolia var. elatior in competition with grass perennials. Plant Species Biol 7:11–19.Google Scholar
Webster, T. M., Loux, M. M., Regnier, E. E., and Harrison, S. K. 1994. Giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) canopy architecture and interference studies in soybean (Glycine max). Weed Technol 8:559–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whelan, C. J., Willson, M. F., Tuma, C. A., and Souza-Pinto, I. 1991. Spatial and temporal patterns of postdispersal seed predation. Can. J. Bot 69:428–436.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Whitaker, J. O. 1966. Food of Mus musculus, Peromyscus maniculatus bairdi and Peromyscus leucopus in Vigo county, Indiana. J. Mammal 47:473–486.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Zangerl, A. R., Berenbaum, M. R., and Nitao, J. K. 1991. Parthenocarpic fruits in wild parsnip: decoy defence against a specialist herbivore. Evol. Ecol 5:136–145.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1996. Biostatistical Analysis. 3rd ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall. Pp. 503–561.Google Scholar