Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rdxmf Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-23T11:09:36.288Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Extractable and Germinable Seedbank Methods Provide Different Quantifications of Weed Communities

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  19 September 2018

Theresa Reinhardt
Affiliation:
Graduate Research Assistant, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
Ramon G. Leon*
Affiliation:
Assistant Professor, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, USA
*
Author for correspondence: Ramon G. Leon, Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695. (Email: [email protected])

Abstract

Seedbank sampling and quantification methods vary in their ability to describe weed diversity and density, so proper method selection is critical for studying weed communities. The germinable seedbank (GSB) method is commonly preferred over extractable seedbank method (ESB), because the latter is more time-consuming. However, these two methods have only been compared using a few weed species and a relatively small number of samples. A total of 204 weed seedbank samples were used to compare both methods for weed density, richness, evenness, and Shannon-Weiner diversity using a split-sample approach. The two methods yielded dramatically different results. The ESB had 418% higher density and 35% more species per sample but 11% less evenness than the GSB. Diversity was estimated to be only 9% higher using the extractable compared with the germinable method. While the extractable method had higher density and richness overall, this was not true for every species, with only 7 of 14 common species detected in higher amounts by the extractable method. The results indicate the two methods are not strongly correlated, limiting the possibility of generating a conversion factor between methods. Nevertheless, evenness and Shannon-Weiner diversity might allow comparisons between both methods when the emphasis is on characterizing predominant weed species. The GSB is a practical approach to compare treatments or conditions; however, the ESB is more useful to accurately quantify weed species richness, diversity, and density.

Type
Research Article
Copyright
© Weed Science Society of America, 2018 

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

Abella, SR, Chiquoine, LP Vanier, CH (2013) Characterizing soil seed banks and relationships to plant communities. Plant Ecol 214:703715 Google Scholar
Ball, DA Miller, SD (1989) A comparison of techniques for estimation of arable soil seedbanks and their relationship to weed flora. Weed Res 29:365373 Google Scholar
Buhler, DD Maxwell, BD (1993) Seed separation and enumeration from soil using K2CO3-centrifugation and image analysis. Weed Sci 41:298302 Google Scholar
Cardina, J Sparrow, DH (1996) A comparison of methods to predict weed seedling populations from the soil seedbank. Weed Sci 44:4650 Google Scholar
Espeland, EK, Perkins, LB Leger, EA (2010) Comparison of seed bank estimation techniques using six weed species in two soil types. Rangeland Ecol Manag 63:243247 Google Scholar
Forcella, F (1992) Prediction of weed seedling densities from buried weed reserves. Weed Res 32:2938 Google Scholar
Gonzalez, SL Ghermandi, L (2012) Comparison of methods to estimate soil seed banks: the role of seed size and mass. Community Ecol 13:238242 Google Scholar
Gross, KL (1990) A comparison of methods for estimating seed numbers in the soil. J Ecol 78:10791093 Google Scholar
Gross, KL Renner, KA (1989) A new method for estimating seed numbers in the soil. Weed Sci 37:836839 Google Scholar
Hoffman, ML, Owen, MD Buhler, DD (1998) Effects of crop and weed management on density and vertical distribution of weeds in the soil. Agron J 90:793799 Google Scholar
Koellner, T, Hersperger, AM Wohlgemuth, T (2004) Rarefaction method for assessing plant species diversity on a regional scale. Ecography 27:532544 Google Scholar
Leon, RG Wright, DL (2018) Recurrent changes of weed seed bank density and diversity in crop−livestock systems. Agron J 110:10691078 Google Scholar
Leon, RG, Wright, DL Marois, JJ (2015) Weed seed banks are more dynamic in a sod-based rotation, than in a conventional, peanut−cotton rotation. Weed Sci 63:877–867Google Scholar
Malone, CR (1967) A rapid method for enumeration of viable seeds in soil. Weeds 15:381382 Google Scholar
Marshall, EJP Arnold, GM (1994) Weed seed banks in arable fields under contrasting pesticide regimes. Ann App Biol 125:349360 Google Scholar
Mesgaran, MB, Mashhadi, HR, Zand, E Alizadeh, HM (2007) Comparison of three methodologies for efficient seed extraction in studies of soil weed seedbanks. Weed Res 47:472478 Google Scholar
Price, JN, Wright, BR, Gross, CL Whalley, WRDB (2010) Comparison of seedling emergence and seed extraction techniques for estimating the composition of soil seedbanks. Methods Ecol Evol 1:151157 Google Scholar
Rotches-Ribalta, R, Blanco-Moreno, JM, Armengot, L, Chamorro, L Sans, FX (2015) Both farming practices and landscape characteristics determine the diversity of characteristics and rare arable weeds in organically managed fields. Appl Veg Sci 18:423431 Google Scholar
Sosnoskie, LM, Herms, CP Cardina, J (2006) Weed seed bank community composition in a 35-yr-old tillage and rotation experiment. Weed Sci 54:263273 Google Scholar
Ter Heerdt, GNJ, Verweij, GL, Bekker, RM Bakker, JP (1996) An improved method for seed-bank analysis: seedling emergence after removing the soil by sieving. Funct Ecol 10:144151 Google Scholar
Tsuyuzaki, S (1994) Rapid seed extraction from soils by a floatation method. Weed Res 34:433436 Google Scholar