Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-01T09:13:36.818Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Maternal and Burial Environment Effects on Seed Mortality of Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) and Giant Foxtail (Setaria faberi)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Brian J. Schutte ,
Adam S. Davis ,
Karen A. Renner  and
John Cardina
Brian J. Schutte*
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Unit, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Adam S. Davis
Affiliation:
U.S. Department of Agriculture–Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Unit, 1102 S. Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
John Cardina
Affiliation:
Department of Horticulture and Crop Science, The Ohio State University, Wooster, OH 44691
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The primary defense against seed mortality, the seed coat, is maternally derived. Hence, weed seed mortality in the soil seedbank is likely to be influenced by the maternal environment and genetics. We hypothesized that seed accessions from contrasting maternal environments (seed lots) exhibit different rates of seed mortality and that the relative differences among seed lots remain consistent across burial environments. Velvetleaf and giant foxtail annual seed mortality rates were studied in field experiments in Hickory Corners, MI, and Wooster, OH, using seed lots collected from the same locations. Seeds enclosed within mesh bags and unenclosed seeds (“seeded cores”) exhibited similar levels of seedbank persistence (r = 0.90, P < 0.001) and seed mortality (r = 0.65, P = 0.006). Annual seed mortality rates ranged from 16 to 56% and 27 to 91% for seed lots of velvetleaf and giant foxtail, respectively. Relative differences among velvetleaf seed lots were consistent across burial environments in both years, whereas giant foxtail differences were consistent in only 1 of 2 yr. The relative ranks among velvetleaf seed lots varied between years, indicating that maternal environment may have influenced seed persistence more than seed-lot genetics. Within years, variation in seed mortality was predicted by changes in soil moisture in the burial environment (R2 = 0.47, P < 0.001 for velvetleaf; R2 = 0.34, P = 0.007 for giant foxtail). Accelerated seed mortality was associated with moist soils (soil water potential = −6 kPa for velvetleaf, −7 kPa for giant foxtail). These results suggest that agronomic practices affecting the maternal environment and moisture levels in the soil seedbank may promote weed seed mortality in the soil seedbank.

Keywords

Giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTH.Hydrotimeseed burial methodssoil water potentialseed mortalityseed persistence
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 6 , December 2008 , pp. 834 - 840
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

Benvenuti, S. 2007. Weed seed movement and dispersal strategies in the agricultural environment. Weed Biol. Manag. 7:141–157.Google Scholar
Bewley, J. D. and Black, M. 1994. Seeds Physiology of Development and Germination. New York Plenum. 445 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bradford, K. J. 1996. Population-based models describing seed dormancy behavior: implications for experimental design and interpretation. Pages 313–339. in Lang, G. A. Plant Dormancy: Physiology, Biochemistry and Molecular Biology. New York CABI.Google Scholar
Bridges, D. C. and Baumann, P. A. 1992. Weeds causing losses in the United States. Pages 75–147. in Bridges, D. C. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in the United States. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Hartzler, R. G. 2001. Emergence and persistence of seed of velvetleaf, common waterhemp, woolly cupgrass, and giant foxtail. Weed Sci. 49:230–235.Google Scholar
Cardina, J. and Sparrow, D. H. 1997. Temporal changes in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed dormancy. Weed Sci. 45:61–66.Google Scholar
Chee-Sanford, J. C., Williams, M. M., Davis, A. S., and Sims, G. K. 2006. Do microorganisms influence seed-bank dynamics. Weed Sci. 54:575–587.Google Scholar
Cousens, R. and Mortimer, M. 1995. Dynamics of Weed Populations. New York Cambridge University Press. 332 p.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. 2006. When does it make sense to target the weed seed bank. Weed Sci. 54:558–565.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S. 2007. Nitrogen fertilizer and crop residue effects on seed mortality and germination of eight annual weed species. Weed Sci. 55:123–128.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Cardina, J., Forcella, F., et al. 2005. Environmental factors affecting seed persistence of annual weeds across the U.S. corn belt. Weed Sci. 53:860–868.Google Scholar
Dekker, J. 2003. The foxtail (Setaria) species-group. Weed Sci. 51:641–656.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donohue, K. and Schmitt, J. 1998. Maternal environmental effects in plants: adaptive plasticity. Pages 137–158. in Mousseau, T. A. and Fox, C. W. Maternal Effects as Adaptations. New York Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Dorne, A. J. 1981. Variation in seed germination inhibition of Chenopodium bonus-henricus in relation to altitude of plant growth. Can. J. Bot. 59:1893–1901.Google Scholar
Edwards, L. K. 1993. Applied Analysis of Variance in Behavioral Science. New York Marcel Dekker. 628 p.Google Scholar
Egley, G. H. and Chandler, J. M. 1978. Germination and viability of weed seeds after 2.5 years in a 50-year buried seed study. Weed Sci. 26:230–239.Google Scholar
Ellery, A. J. and Chapman, R. 2000. Embryo and seed coat factors produce seed dormancy in capeweed (Arctotheca calendula). Aust. J. Agric. Res. 51:849–854.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Fenner, M. and Thompson, K. 2005. The Ecology of Seeds. New York Cambridge University Press. 250 p.Google Scholar
Flerchinger, G. N. and Saxton, K. E. 1989. Simultaneous heat and water model of a freezing snow-residue-soil system: I. theory and development. Trans. ASAE. 32:573–578.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Liebman, M., and Huggins, D. R. 1999. Improving soil quality: implications for weed management. Pages 95–122. in Buhler, D. D. Expanding the Context of Weed Management. New York Food Products.Google Scholar
Gummerson, R. J. 1986. The effect of constant temperatures and osmotic potentials on the germination of sugar beet. J. Exp. Bot. 37:729–741.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., Buhler, D. D., and Stoltenberg, D. E. 1999. Emergence characteristics of four annual weed species. Weed Sci. 47:578–584.Google Scholar
Horowitz, M. and Taylorson, R. B. 1985. Behavior of hard and permeable seeds of Abutilon theophrasti Medic (velvetleaf). Weed Res. 25:363–372.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hosmer, D. W. and Lemeshow, S. 2000. Applied Logistic Regression. 2nd ed. New York J. Wiley. 375 p.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J. 1986. Antimicrobial activity of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 34:617–622.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J. 1993. Management of weed seed banks with microorganisms. Ecol. Appl. 3:42–52.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J., Hughes, L. B., and Aldrich, R. J. 1984. Examination of microorganisms and deterioration resistance mechanisms associated with velvetleaf seed. Agron. J. 76:745–749.Google Scholar
Lacroix, L. J. and Staniforth, D. W. 1964. Seed dormancy in velvetleaf. Weeds. 12:171–174.Google Scholar
Lambers, H., Chapin, F. S. III, and Pons, T. L. 1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. New York Springer-Verlag. 540 p.Google Scholar
Mayer, D. G. and Butler, D. G. 1993. Statistical validation. Ecol. Model. 68:21–32.Google Scholar
Mickelson, J. A. and Grey, W. E. 2006. Effect of soil water content on wild oat (Avena fatua) seed mortality and seedling emergence. Weed Sci. 54:255–262.Google Scholar
Mohamed-Yasseen, Y., Barringer, S. A., Splittstoesser, W. E., and Costanza, S. 1994. The role of seed coats in seed viability. Bot. Rev. 60:427–439.Google Scholar
Mohler, C. L. 2001. Mechanical management of weeds. Pages 139–209. in Liebman, M., Mohler, C. L., and Staver, C. P. Ecological Management of Agricultural Weeds. New York Cambridge University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mohler, C. L., Frisch, J. C., and McCulloch, C. E. 2006. Vertical movement of weed seed surrogates by tillage implements and natural processes. Soil Tillage Res. 26:110–122.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mousseau, T. A. and Fox, C. W. 1998. The adaptive significance of maternal effects. Trends Ecol. Evol. 13:403–407.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied Linear Statistical Models. Chicago, IL Irwin. 1408 p.Google Scholar
Nurse, R. E. and DiTommaso, A. 2005. Corn competition alters the germinability of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 53:479–488.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Orozco-Segovia, A., Brechu-Franco, A. E., Zambrano-Polanco, L., Osuna-Fernandez, R., Laguna-Hernandez, G., and Sanchez-Coronado, M. E. 2000. Effects of maternal light environment on germination and morphological characteristics of Sicyos deppei seeds. Weed Res. 40:495–506.Google Scholar
Papi, M., Sabatini, S., Altamura, M. M., Hennig, L., Schafer, E., Costantino, P., and Vittorioso, P. 2002. Inactivation of the phloem-specific Dof zinc finger gene DAG1 affects response to light and integrity of the testa of Arabidopsis seeds. Plant Physiol. 128:411–417.Google Scholar
Peters, J. 2000. Tetrazolium testing handbook. Contribution 29. in. The Handbook on Seed Testing. Lincoln, NE Association of Official Seed Analysts.Google Scholar
Schafer, M. and Kotanen, P. M. 2003. The influence of soil moisture on losses of buried seeds to fungi. Acta Oecol. 24:255–263.Google Scholar
Shumway, D. L. and Koide, R. 1994. Seed preferences of Lumbricus terrestris L. Appl. Soil. Ecol. 1:11–15.Google Scholar
Skoglund, J. and Verwijst, T. 1989. Age structure of woody species populations in relation to seed rain, germination and establishment along the river Dalälven, Sweden. Vegetatio. 82:25–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Teo-Sherrell, C. P. A., Mortensen, D. A., and Keaton, M. E. 1996. Fates of weed seeds in soil: a seeded core method of study. J. Appl. Ecol. 33:1107–1113.Google Scholar
Thompson, K. 2000. The functional ecology of soil seed banks. Pages 215–236. in Fenner, M. Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities. New York CABI.Google Scholar
Van Mourik, T., Stomph, T., and Murdoch, A. 2005. Why high seed densities within buried meshbags may overestimate depletion rates of soil seed banks. J. Appl. Ecol. 42:299–305.Google Scholar
Wiles, L. J., Barlin, D. H., Schweizer, E. E., Duke, H. R., and Whitt, D. E. 1996. A new soil sampler and elutriator for collecting and extracting weed seeds from soil. Weed Technol. 10:35–41.Google Scholar
Winter, D. M. 1960. The development of the seed of Abutilon theophrasti, II: seed coat. Am. J. Bot. 47:157–162.Google Scholar
Zar, J. H. 1999. Biostatistical Analysis. 4th ed. Upper Saddle River, NJ Prentice Hall. 663 p.Google Scholar