Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-s2hrs Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-17T15:11:43.711Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Chemical and Physical Defense of Weed Seeds in Relation to Soil Seedbank Persistence

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Adam S. Davis ,
Brian J. Schutte ,
James Iannuzzi  and
Karen A. Renner
Adam S. Davis*
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Unit, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
Brian J. Schutte
Affiliation:
United States Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service, Invasive Weed Management Unit, 1102 S. Goodwin Ave., Urbana, IL 61801
James Iannuzzi
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 68824
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 68824
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: [email protected]
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Effective weed seedbank management requires mechanistic understanding of ecological determinants of seed persistence in the soil seedbank. Chemical and physical defense of common lambsquarters, field pennycress, giant foxtail, kochia, velvetleaf, and yellow foxtail seeds were quantified in relation to short- and long-term seedbank persistence. Seed content of ortho-dihydroxyphenols (o-DHP), a class of putative seed defense compounds, varied more than threefold between the least protected species (common lambsquarters, 9.2 µg g seed−1) and the most protected species (kochia, 34.1 µg g seed−1). Seed o-DHP was inversely related (r = −0.77, P < 0.001) to seed half-life in the soil and to short-term seed persistence in burial assays (r = −0.82, P < 0.05). The relative importance of chemical seed protection in comparison to physical seed protection, as represented by the ratio of seed o-DHP concentration to seed coat thickness, decreased linearly with increasing short-term seed persistence (r = −0.96, P < 0.01) and nonlinearly with increasing long-term seed persistence in the soil seedbank (y = 0.16 + 0.21/(0.0432 + x), R2 = 0.99, P < 0.001). Mechanical damage to the seed coat, via piercing, slicing, or grinding treatments, increased short-term mortality during burial for all six species. Mortality of pierced seeds was negatively associated (r = −0.35, P < 0.05) with seed phenol concentration and positively associated with seed half-life (r = 0.42, P < 0.01) and seed coat thickness (r = 0.36, P < 0.05). Seed phenolics, as a class, supported the results for o-DHPs. Overall, these findings suggest a potential weakness, with respect to seedbank management, in the way weed seed defenses are constructed. Weed species with transient seedbanks appear to invest more in chemical defense than those species with highly persistent seedbanks. As a result, seeds in the latter category are relatively more dependent upon physical seed protection for persistence in the soil seedbank, and more vulnerable to management tactics that reduce the physical integrity of the weed seed coat.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L.field pennycress, Thlaspi arvense L.giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm.kochia, Kochia scoparia (L.) Schrad.velvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik.yellow foxtail, Setaria glauca (L.) Beauv.Seed coatphysical protectionmechanical damageortho-dihydroxyphenolsphenolic compoundsseed longevitydecayhalf-life
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 5 , October 2008 , pp. 676 - 684
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

AOSA 2000. Tetrazolium Testing Handbook. Contribution No. 29 to the Handbook on Seed Testing. 302.Google Scholar
Baruah, D. C. and Panesar, B. S. 2005. Energy requirement model for a combine harvester, part I: Development of component models. Biosyst. Eng. 90:9–25.Google Scholar
Baskin, C. C. and Baskin, J. M. 2001. Seeds: Ecology, Biogeography, and Evolution of Dormancy and Germination. 2nd ed. San Diego, CA Academic Press. 666.Google Scholar
Benech-Arnold, R. L., Sanchez, R. A., Forcella, F., Kruck, B. C., and Ghersa, C. M. 2000. Environmental control of dormancy in weed seed banks in soil. Field Crops Res. 67:105–122.CrossRefGoogle 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. 2002. Challenges and opportunities for integrated weed management. Weed Sci. 50:273–280.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D. and Hartzler, R. G. 2001. Emergence and persistence of seed of velvetleaf, common waterhemp, wooly cupgrass, and giant foxtail. Weed Sci. 49:230–235.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Kohler, K. A., and Thompson, R. L. 2001. Weed seed bank dynamics during a five-year crop rotation. Weed Technol. 15:170–176.Google Scholar
Burnside, O. C., Wilson, R. G., Weisberg, 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
Cardina, J., Norquay, H., Stinner, B. R., and McCartney, D. A. 1996. Postdispersal predation of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 44:534–539.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carmona, D. M., Menalled, F. D., and Landis, D. A. 1999. Gryllus pensylvanicus (Orthopera: Gryllidae): laboratory weed seed predation and within field activity-density. J. Econ. Entomol. 92:825–829.Google Scholar
Chee-Sanford, J. C., Williams, M. M. II, Davis, A. S., and Sims, G. K. 2006. Do microorganisms influence seed-bank dynamics. Weed Sci. 54:575–587.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conn, J. S., Beattie, K. L., and Blanchard, A. 2006. Seed viability and dormancy of 17 weed species after 19.7 years of burial in Alaska. Weed Sci. 54:464–470.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. 2006. When does it make sense to target the weed seed bank. Weed Sci. 54:558–565.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S., Renner, K. A., and Gross, K. L. 2005. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci. 53:296–306.Google Scholar
DeSousa, N., Griffiths, J. T., and Swanton, C. J. 2003. Predispersal seed predation of redroot pigweed (Amaranthus retroflexus). Weed Sci. 51:60–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Donald, W. W. 1993. Models and sampling for studying weed seed survival with wild mustard (Sinapis arvensis) as a case study. Can. J. Plant Sci. 73:637–645.Google Scholar
Fellows, G. M. and Roeth, F. W. 1992. Factors influencing shattercane (Sorghum bicolor) seed survival. Weed Sci. 40:434–440.Google Scholar
Fenner, M. and Thompson, K. 2005. The Ecology of Seeds. Cambridge, England Cambridge University Press. 250.Google Scholar
Froud-Williams, R. J. 1987. Survival and fate of weed seed populations: interaction with cultural practice. Pages 1132. Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds, Brighton, United Kingdom British Crop Protection Council.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R. 2006. How can we target the weed seedbank. Weed Sci. 54:588–596.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Halloin, J. M. 1983. Deterioration resistance mechanisms in seeds. Phytopath. 73:335–339.Google Scholar
Harborne, J. B. 1991. The chemical basis of plant defense. in Palo, R. T. and Robbins, C. T. Plant Defenses Against Mammalian Herbivores. Boca Raton, FL CRC. 45–60.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., Schmoll, J. T., and Harrison, J. M. 2007. Seed size and burial effects on giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) emergence and seed demise. Weed Sci. 55:16–22.Google Scholar
Hartke, A., Drummond, F. A., and Liebman, M. 1998. Seed feeding, seed caching, and burrowing behaviors of Harpalus rufipes De Geer larvae (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in the Maine potato agroecosystem. Biol. Control. 13:91–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Heggenstaller, A. H., Menalled, F. D., Liebman, M., and Westerman, P. R. 2006. Seasonal patterns in post-dispersal seed predation of Abutilon theophrasti and Setaria faberi in three cropping systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 43:999–1010.Google Scholar
Hendry, G. A. F. and Grime, J. P. 1993. Methods in Comparative Plant Ecology. London, United Kingdom Chapman & Hall. 252.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
Kremer, R. J. 1993. Management of weed seed banks with microorganisms. Ecol. Appl. 3:42–52.Google Scholar
Kremer, R. J., Hughes, J. 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
Kremer, R. J. and Spencer, N. R. 1989. Interaction of insects, fungi and burial on velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed viability. Weed Technol. 3:322–328.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Leeson, J. Y. and Thomas, A. G. 2001. Weed population dynamics: chaff collection. Pages 14–11 through 14–19 (Chapter 14). in Thomas, A. G. and Brandt, S. A. Scott Alternative Cropping Systems Project Review: The First Six Years. Saskatoon, Saskatchewan, Canada Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.Google Scholar
Lueschen, W. E., Andersen, R. N., Hoverstad, T. R., and Kanne, B. K. 1993. Seventeen years of cropping systems and tillage affect velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed longevity. Weed Sci. 41:82–86.Google Scholar
McCarty, M. K. and Lamp, W. O. 1982. Effect of a weevil, Rynocyllus conicus, on musk thistle (Carduus theormeri) seed production. Weed Sci. 30:136–140.Google Scholar
Menalled, F., Gross, K., and Hammond, M. 2001. Weed aboveground and seedbank community responses to agricultural management systems. Ecol. Appl. 11:1586–1601.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Liebman, M., and Renner, K. 2006. The ecology of weed seed predation in herbaceous crop systems. Pages 297–327. in Singh, H. P., Batish, D. R., and Kohli, R. K. Handbook of Sustainable Weed Management. Binghamton, NY Haworth.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. 60:426–439.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied linear statistical models. 4th ed. Chicago, IL Irwin. 1408.Google Scholar
Nurse, R. E., Booth, B. D., and Swanton, C. J. 2003. Predispersal seed predation of Amaranthus retroflexus and Chenopodium album growing in soyabean fields. Weed Res. 43:260–268.Google Scholar
Paszkowski, W. L. and Kremer, R. J. 1988. Biological activity and tentative identification of flavonoid components in velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti Medik.) seed coats. J. Chem. Ecol. 14:1573–1582.Google Scholar
Pemberton, R. W. and Irving, D. W. 1990. Elaiosomes on weed seeds and the potential for myrmecochory in naturalized plants. Weed Sci. 38:615–619.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reuss, S. A., Buhler, D. D., and Gonsolus, J. L. 2001. Weed seed associations with soil aggregates: distribution and viability in a silt loam soil. Appl. Soil Ecol. 16:209–217.Google Scholar
Roberts, H. A. and Feast, P. M. 1972. Fate of seeds of some annual weeds in different depths of cultivated and undisturbed soil. Weed Res. 12:316–324.Google Scholar
Rodgerson, L. 1998. Mechanical defense in seeds adapted for ant dispersal. Ecology. 79:1669–1677.Google Scholar
Schafer, D. E. and Chilcote, D. O. 1969. Factors influencing persistence and depletion in buried seed populations. I. A model for analysis of parameters of buried seed persistence and depletion. Crop Sci. 9:417–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Shirtliffe, S. J. and Entz, M. H. 2005. Chaff collection reduces seed dispersal of wild oat (Avena fatua) by a combine harvester. Weed Sci. 53:465–470.Google Scholar
Shulaev, V. 2006. Metabolomics technology and bioinformatics. Brief. Bioinformatics. 7:28–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Slagell-Gossen, R. R., Tyrl, R. J., Hauhouot, M., Peeper, T. F., Claypool, P. L., and Solie, J. B. 1998. Effects of mechanical damage on cheat (Bromus secalinus) caryopsis anatomy and germination. Weed Sci. 46:249–257.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Telewski, F. W. and Zeevaart, J. A. D. 2002. The 120-yr period for Dr. Beal's seed viability experiment. Am. J. Bot. 89:1285–1288.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Bakker, J., and Bekker, R. 1997. The Soil Seed Banks of North West Europe: Methodology, Density and Longevity. Cambridge, United Kingdom Cambridge University Press. 276.Google Scholar
Thompson, K., Band, S. R., and Hogdson, G. 1993. Seed size and shape predict persistence in soil. Funct. Ecol. 7:236–241.Google Scholar
Toole, E. H. and Brown, E. 1946. Final results of the Duvel buried seed experiment. J. Agric. Res. 72:201–210.Google Scholar
Veldman, J. W., Murray, K. G., Hull, A. L., Garcia, J. M., Mungall, W. S., Rotman, G. B., Plosz, M. P., and McNamara, L. K. 2007. Chemical defense and the persistence of pioneer plant seeds in the soil of a tropical cloud forest. Biotropica. 39:87–93.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wagner, M. and Mitschunas, N. 2008. Fungal effects on seed bank persistence and potential applications in weed biocontrol: a review. Basic and Appl. Ecol. 9:191–203.Google Scholar
Westerman, P. R., Liebman, M., Heggenstaller, A. H., and Forcella, F. 2006. Integrating measurements of seed availability and removal to estimate weed seed losses due to predation. Weed Sci. 54:566–574.CrossRefGoogle 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
Yenish, J. P., Doll, J. D., and Buhler, D. D. 1992. Effects of tillage on vertical distribution and viability of weed seed in soil. Weed Sci. 40:429–433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar