Hostname: page-component-745bb68f8f-hvd4g Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-01-27T06:11:26.077Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Seed Persistence in the Field May Be Predicted by Laboratory-Controlled Aging

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rowena L. Long ,
F. Dane Panetta ,
Kathryn J. Steadman ,
Robin Probert ,
Renée M. Bekker ,
Simon Brooks  and
Steve W. Adkins
Rowena L. Long
Affiliation:
School of Land, Crop and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4102, Australia Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management
F. Dane Panetta*
Affiliation:
Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management Alan Fletcher Research Station, Biosecurity Queensland, Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries, Sherwood, Queensland 4075, Australia
Kathryn J. Steadman
Affiliation:
School of Pharmacy, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4102, Australia
Robin Probert
Affiliation:
Seed Conservation Department, Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, Wakehurst Place, Ardingly, West Sussex, RH17 6TN, U.K.
Renée M. Bekker
Affiliation:
Community and Conservation Ecology Group, The University of Groningen, Groningen, The Netherlands
Simon Brooks
Affiliation:
Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management Tropical Weeds Research Centre, Biosecurity Queensland, Charters Towers, Queensland 4820, Australia
Steve W. Adkins
Affiliation:
School of Land, Crop and Food Sciences, The University of Queensland, St. Lucia, Queensland 4102, Australia Cooperative Research Centre for Australian Weed Management
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Weed management is complicated by the presence of soil seed banks. The complexity of soil–seed interactions means that seed persistence in the field is often difficult to measure, let alone predict. Field trials, although accurate in their context, are time-consuming and expensive to conduct for individual species. Some ex situ techniques for estimating seed life expectancy have been proposed, but these fail to simulate the environmental complexity of the field. Also, it has been questioned whether techniques such as the controlled aging test (CAT) are useful indicators of field persistence. This study aimed to test the validity of the standard CAT (seed aging at 45 C and 60% relative humidity) in use at the Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, U.K., for predicting field seed-persistence. Comparison of seed persistence and CAT data for 27 northwest European species suggested a significant positive correlation of 0.31. Subsequently, 13 species of emerging and common weeds of Queensland were assessed for their seed longevity using the CAT. The seed longevity data of these species in the CAT were linked with field seed-persistence data according to three broad seed-persistence categories: < 1 yr, 1 to 3 yr, and > 3 yr. We discuss the scope for using the CAT as a tool for rapid assignment of species to these categories. There is a need for further studies that compare predictions of seed persistence based on the CAT with seed persistence in the field for a larger range of species and environments.

Keywords

Weed eradicationseed longevitycontrolled aging test
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 4 , August 2008 , pp. 523 - 528
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

Bekker, R. M., Bakker, J. P., Grandin, U., Kalamees, R., Milberg, P., Poschlod, P., Thompson, K., and Willems, J. 1998a. Seed size, shape and vertical distribution in the soil: indicators of seed longevity. Funct. Ecol. 12:834–842.Google Scholar
Bekker, R. M., Bakker, J. P., Ozinga, W. A., and Thompson, K. 2003. Seed traits: essential for understanding seed longevity. Asp. Appl. Biol. 69:1–9.Google Scholar
Bekker, R. M., Knevel, I., Tallowin, J., Troost, E., and Bakker, J. P. 1998b. Soil nutrient input effects on seed longevity: a burial experiment with fen meadow species. Funct. Ecol. 12:673–682.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bekker, R. M., Oomes, M., and Bakker, J. P. 1998c. The impact of groundwater level on soil seed bank survival. Seed Sci. Res. 8:399–404.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wilson, R. G., Weisbert, S., and Hubbard, K. G. 1996. Seed longevity of 41 weed species buried 17 years in eastern and western Nebraska. Weed Sci. 44:74–86.Google Scholar
Cacho, O. J., Spring, D., Pheloung, P., and Hester, S. 2006. Evaluating the feasibility of eradicating an invasion. Biol. Invasions. 8:903–917.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carpenter, W. J. and Ostmark, E. R. 1990. Handling, storage, and germination of Formosan Lily seed. Proc. Fla. State Hortic. Soc. 103:209–212.Google Scholar
Davies, H. and Probert, R. J. 2004. Protocol for comparative seed longevity testing. The Millennium Seed Bank. Kew, West Sussex, UK The Royal Botanic Gardens.Google Scholar
Forcella, F. 2003. Debiting the seedbank: priorities and predictions. Asp. Appl. Biol. 69:151–162.Google Scholar
Funes, G., Basconcelo, S., Diaz, S., and Cabido, M. 1999. Seed size and shape are good predictors of seed persistence in soil in temperate mountain grasslands of Argentina. Seed Sci. Res. 9:341–345.Google Scholar
Ghersa, C. M. and Martinez-Ghersa, M. 2000. Ecological correlates of weed seed size and persistence in the soil under different tilling systems: implications for weed management. Field Crops Res. 67:141–148.Google Scholar
Gonzalez-Zertuche, L., Vazquez-Yanes, C., Gamboa, A., Sanchez-Coronado, M. E., Aguilera, P., and Orozco-Sergovia, A. 2001. Natural priming of Wigandia urens seeds during burial: effects on germination, growth and protein expression. Seed Sci. Res. 11:27–34.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hay, F. R., Klin, J., and Probert, R. J. 2006. Can a post-harvest ripening treatment extend the longevity of Rhododendron L. seeds. Sci. Hortic. (Amst.) 111:80–83.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hendry, G. A. F., Thompson, K., Moss, C. J., Edwards, E., and Thorpe, P. C. 1994. Seed persistence: a correlation between seed longevity in the soil and ortho-dihydroxyphenol concentration. Funct. Ecol. 8:658–664.Google Scholar
Hodkinson, D., Askew, A., Thompson, K., Hodgson, J. G., Bakker, J. P., and Bekker, R. M. 1998. Ecological correlates of seed size in the British flora. Funct. Ecol. 12:762–766.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
International Seed Testing Association 1999. International rules for seed testing. Seed Sci. Technol. 27 (Suppl):333.Google Scholar
Ishikawa-Goto, M. and Tsuyuzaki, S. 2004. Methods of estimating seed banks with reference to long-term seed burial. J. Plant Res. 117:245–248.Google Scholar
James, T. and Rahman, A. 2003. Survival of scotch thistle seed buried at three depths in four New Zealand soils. N. Z. Plant Protect. 56:113–117.Google Scholar
Long, R. L. 2007. Predicting Weed Seed Persistence: Towards a Technique for Rapid and Reliable Assessment. . Brisbane, Australia The University of Queensland. 198.Google Scholar
Miller, S. D. and Nalewaja, J. D. 1990. Influence of burial depth on wild oat (Avena fatua) seed longevity. Weed Technol. 4:514–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moles, A. T., Warton, D. I., and Westoby, M. 2003. Seed size and survival in the soil in arid Australia. Aust. Ecol. 28:575–585.Google Scholar
Moles, A. T. and Westoby, M. 2006. Seed size and plant strategy across the whole life cycle. Oikos. 113:91–105.Google Scholar
Navie, S. 2002. Biology of Parthenium hysterophorus L. in Australia. . Brisbane, Australia The University of Queensland. 232.Google Scholar
Panetta, F. D. 2000. Fates of fruits and seeds of Ligustrum lucidum W. T. Ait. and L. sinense Lour. maintained under natural rainfall or irrigation. Aust. J. Bot. 48:701–705.Google Scholar
Panetta, F. D. 2007. Evaluation of weed eradication programs: containment and extirpation. Divers. Distrib. 13:33–41.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Panetta, F. D. and Lawes, R. 2005. Evaluation of weed eradication programs: the delimitation of extent. Divers. Distrib. 11:435–442.Google Scholar
Panetta, F. D. and Timmins, S. M. 2004. Evaluating the feasibility of eradication for terrestrial weed incursions. Plant Prot. Q. 19:5–11.Google Scholar
Regan, T. J., McCarthy, M. A., Baxter, P. W. J., Panetta, F. D., and Possingham, H. P. 2006. Optimal eradication: when to stop looking for an invasive plant. Ecol. Lett. 9:759–766.Google Scholar
Sanchez Del Arco, M. J., Torner, C., and Fernandez Quintanilla, C. 1995. Seed dynamics in populations of Avena sterilis ssp. ludoviciana . Weed Res. 35:477–487.Google Scholar
Simberloff, D. 2003. Eradication—preventing invasions at the outset. Weed Sci. 51:247–253.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Smith, R. D., Dickie, J. B., Linington, S. H., Pritchard, H. W., and Probert, R. J. 2003. Seed Conservation—Turning Science into Practice. Kew, UK Royal Botanic Gardens.Google Scholar
Tamado, T., Schutz, W., and Milberg, P. 2002. Germination ecology of the weed Parthenium hysterophorus in eastern Ethiopia. Ann. Appl. Biol. 140:263–270.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, I. N., Walker, S. R., and Adkins, S. W. 2005. Burial depth and cultivation influence emergence and persistence of Phalaris paradoxa seed in an Australian sub-tropical environment. Weed Res. 45:33–40.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Bakker, J. P., Bekker, R. M., and Hodgson, J. G. 1998. Ecological correlates of seed persistence in soil in the north-west European flora. J. Ecol. 86:163–169.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Jalili, A., Hodgson, J. G., Hamzeh'ee, B., Asri, Y., Shaw, S., Shirvany, A., Yazdani, S., Khoshnevis, M., Zarrinkamar, F., Ghahramani, M-A., and Safavi, R. 2001. Seed size, shape and persistence in the soil in an Iranian flora. Seed Sci. Res. 11:345–355.Google Scholar
Traba, J., Azcarate, F. M., and Peco, B. 2006. The fate of seeds in Mediterranean soil seed banks in relation to their traits. J. Veg. Sci. 17:5–10.Google Scholar
van Klinken, R. and Flack, L. 2005. Wet heat as a mechanism for dormancy release and germination of seeds with physical dormancy. Weed Sci. 53:663–669.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Van, T. K., Rayamajhi, M. B., and Center, T. D. 2005. Seed longevity of Melaleuca quinquenervia: A burial experiment in South Florida. J. Aquat. Plant Manag. 43:39–42.Google Scholar
Vivian-Smith, G. and Panetta, F. D. 2005. Seedling recruitment, seed persistence and aspects of dispersal ecology of the invasive moth vine, Araujia sericifera (Asclepiadaceae). Aust. J. Bot. 53:225–230.Google Scholar
Vogler, W. D. 2002. Autoecology of Sporobolus pyramidalis with Emphasis on Seed Ecology. . St. Lucia, Australia University of Queensland. 201.Google Scholar
Walters, C. 1998. Understanding the mechanisms and kinetics of seed aging. Seed Sci. Res. 8:223–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walters, C., Wheeler, L. M., and Grotenhuis, J. M. 2005. Longevity of seeds stored in a genebank: species characteristics. Seed Sci. Res. 15:1–20.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Woldendorp, G. and Bomford, M. 2004. Weed Eradication: Strategies, Timeframes and Costs. Canberra, Australia Bureau of Resource Sciences, Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry.Google Scholar