Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T08:25:34.581Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Assessment of soil sampling methods to estimate wild oat (Avena fatua) seed bank populations

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

James A. Mickelson  and
Robert N. Stougaard
Robert N. Stougaard
Affiliation:
Northwestern Agricultural Research Center, Montana State University, 4570 Montana 35, Kalispell, MT 59901
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Accurate and precise estimation of weed seed bank populations is critical to studying weed seed bank demographics. Research was conducted over 3 site-years in Montana to (1) examine the spatial distribution of wild oat seed banks on a small scale (1 m2 plots), (2) compare wild oat seed bank density sample means and precision between two soil samplers, and (3) predict the sample area needed to quantify a range of wild oat seed bank densities at several levels of precision. Seed bank sample means obtained with a large sampler (10- by 10-cm box) were greater than means obtained with a small sampler (4.4- or 3.8-cm-diam cylinder) for 15 of 18 seed banks. There was no clear advantage in precision (SE/mean) when sampling seed banks using a large number of small soil samples rather than using a small number of large soil samples. Furthermore, at very low seed bank densities, using a small number of large samples gave better precision. Precision improved as sample number increased for each seed bank at each site-year. High-density seed banks tended to have better precision than low-density seed banks at any given sample number. Seed banks had an aggregated spatial distribution when sampled with either soil sampler. As the desired precision level decreases (becomes more precise), the predicted sample area required increases greatly. A seed bank containing 6,000 seeds m−2 has a predicted sample area of 0.5, 0.7, 1.3, and 2.9% of the total area to obtain precision levels of 0.5, 0.4, 0.3, and 0.2, respectively.

Keywords

Wild oatAvena fatua L. AVEFAWeed seed spatial distributionTaylor's Power Law
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 51 , Issue 2 , April 2003 , pp. 226 - 230
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

Ambrosio, L., Dorado, J., and Del Monte, J. P. 1997. Assessment of sample size to estimate the weed seedbank in soil. Weed Res. 37:129–137.Google Scholar
Ball, D. A. and Miller, S. D. 1990. Weed seed population response to tillage and herbicide use in three irrigated cropping sequences. Weed Sci. 38:511–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Barralis, G., Chadoeuf, R., and Gouet, J. P. 1986. Essay on the determination of sample size for the study of the buried seed bank. Weed Res. 26:291–297.Google Scholar
Benoit, D. L., Kenkel, N. C., and Cavers, P. B. 1989. Factors influencing the precision of soil seed bank estimates. Can. J. Bot. 67:2833–2840.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bigwood, D. W. and Inouye, D. W. 1988. Spatial pattern analysis of seed banks: an improved method and optimized sampling. Ecology 69:497–507.Google Scholar
Chauvel, B., Gasquez, J., and Darmency, H. 1989. Changes of weed seed bank parameters according to species, time and environment. Weed Res. 29:213–219.Google Scholar
Dessaint, F., Barralis, G., Caixinhas, M. L., Mayor, J. P., Recasens, J., and Zanin, G. 1996. Precision of soil seedbank sampling: how many soil cores? Weed Res. 36:143–151.Google Scholar
Forcella, F., Wilson, R. G., Dekker, J., et al. 1997. Weed seed bank emergence across the Corn Belt. Weed Sci. 45:67–76.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gerard, G. and Berthet, P. 1971. Sampling strategy in censusing patchy populations. Pages 59–67 In Patil, G. P., Pielou, E. C., and Waters, W. E., eds. Statistical Ecology. Volume 1. University Park, Pennsylvania: Pennsylvania State University Press.Google Scholar
Goyeau, H. and Fablet, G. 1982. Study of the buried weed seed bank: the sampling problem. Agronomie 2:545–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karandinos, M. G. 1976. Optimum sample size and comments on some published formulae. Bull. Entomol. Soc. Am. 22:417–421.Google Scholar
Kovach, D. A., Thill, D. C., and Young, F. Y. 1988. A water-spray system for removing seed from soil. Weed Technol. 2:338–341.Google Scholar
Mulugeta, D. and Boerboom, C. M. 1999. Seasonal abundance and spatial pattern of Setaria faberi, Chenopodium album, and Abutilon theophrasti in reduced-tillage soybeans. Weed Sci. 47:95–106.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. R. 1961. Aggregation, variance and the mean. Nature 189:732–735.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, L. R. 1984. Assessing and interpreting the spatial distributions of insect populations. Annu. Rev. Entomol. 29:321–357.Google Scholar
Taylor, L. R., Woiwod, I. P., and Perry, J. N. 1979. The negative binomial as a dynamic ecological model for aggregation and the density dependence of k. J. Anim. Ecol. 48:289–304.Google Scholar