Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-mnklg Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-12T10:16:26.467Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Postdispersal Weed Seed Predation Is Affected by Experimental Substrate

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Rachel E. Shuler,
Antonio DiTommaso,
John E. Losey and
Charles L. Mohler
Rachel E. Shuler
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Antonio DiTommaso*
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
John E. Losey
Affiliation:
Department of Entomology, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
Charles L. Mohler
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY 14853
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: ad97@cornell.edu
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A standard method for evaluating weed seed predation is needed to facilitate generalizations across studies. Identification of general trends could allow practical recommendations for enhancing weed seed predation in agricultural systems. The objective of this study was to compare the commonly used sandpaper and soil substrate methods for offering weed seeds when assessing seed predation rates. Invertebrate seed predators and associated weed seed predation levels were measured in June to July, August, and September of 2005 and 2006 within a conventionally managed corn system. Seed predation levels of three common weed species, velvetleaf, giant foxtail, and common lambsquarters, were estimated using feeding trials in which 40 seeds of each species were offered over a 48 h period using the two substrates. Exclosures were used to distinguish total predation from predation by invertebrates alone. In addition, we investigated the use of geospatial analysis to estimate spatial autocorrelation of invertebrate populations and seed removal rates. Results suggest caution in using synthetic substrates, such as sandpaper, when assessing seed predation, especially when investigating small-seeded species (< 1 mg seed−1) or when seed predators are predominantly invertebrates. By contrast, predation of the larger-seeded species, velvetleaf, was less affected by substrate, perhaps because of removal predominately by vertebrates. One way to overcome problems with the sandpaper substrate method is for studies to include some soil substrate samples for on-site calibration of the sandpaper substrate. If necessary, data could then be corrected by multiplying by the ratio of soil substrate measured-predation rate to sandpaper measured-predation rate. Spatial autocorrelation explained between 6 and 9% of the variation in giant foxtail and common lambsquarters removal rates attributed to invertebrates alone. Researchers should, therefore, be careful not to neglect the impact of clustered invertebrate populations and associated seed removal rates.

Keywords

Common lambsquarters, Chenopodium album L. CHEALgiant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm. SETFAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik. ABUTHcorn, Zea mays L.Biological controlBt-cornCarabidaeecological weed managementground beetlesgeospatial analysisseedbankseed predatorsspatial autocorrelation

Information

Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 6 , December 2008, pp. 889 - 895
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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

Bridges, D. C. and Baumann, P. A. 1992. Weeds causing losses in the United States. Pages 75–47. in Bauman, P. A. Crop Losses Due to Weeds in Canada and the United States. Champaign, IL Weed Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Brust, G. E. and House, G. J. 1988. Weed seed destruction by arthropods and rodents in low-input soybean agroecosystems. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 3:19–25.Google Scholar
Brust, G. E., Stinner, B. R., and McCartney, D. 1986. Predator activity and predation in corn agroecosystems. Environ. Entomol. 15:1017–1021.Google Scholar
Cardina, J., Norquay, H. M., Stinner, B. R., and McCartney, D. A. 1996. Postdispersal predation of velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 44:534–539.Google Scholar
Carmona, D. M. and Landis, D. A. 1999. Influence of refuge habitats and cover crops on seasonal activity-density of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in field crops. Environ. Entomol. 28:1145–1153.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Carroll, C. R. and Risch, S. J. 1984. The dynamics of seed harvesting in early successional communities by a tropical ant, Solenopsis geminata . Oecologia. 61:388–392.Google Scholar
Crawley, M. J. 1990. The relative importance of vertebrate and invertebrate herbivores in plant population dynamics. Pages 45–71. in Bernays, E. A. Insect–Plant Interactions. Boca Raton, FL CRC.Google Scholar
Cromar, H. E., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Influence of tillage and crop residue on postdispersal predation of weed seeds. Weed Sci. 47:184–194.Google Scholar
Davis, A. S. and Liebman, M. 2003. Cropping system effects on giant foxtail (Setaria faberi) demography: I. green manure and tillage timing. Weed Sci. 51:919–929.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S., Dixon, P. M., and Liebman, M. 2003. Cropping system effects on giant foxtail demography: II. Retrospective perturbation analysis. Weed Sci. 51:930–939.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R. 2005. Note: Experimental substrate affects rate of seed removal in assays of invertebrate seed predation. Weed Technol. 19:481–485.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Molloy, T., Lynch, R. P., and Drummond, F. A. 2005. Effect of cover-cropping systems on invertebrate seed predation. Weed Sci. 53:69–76.Google Scholar
Gonzales-Andujar, J. L. and Fernandez-Quintanilla, C. 1991. Modeling the population dynamics of Avena sterilis under dry-land cereal cropping systems. J. Appl. Ecol. 28:16–27.Google Scholar
Hartzler, R. G., van Kooten, B. D., Stoltenberg, D. E., Hall, E. M., and Fawcett, R. S. 1993. On-farm evaluation of mechanical and chemical weed management practices in corn (Zea mays). Weed Technol. 7:1001–1004.Google Scholar
Honek, A., Martinkova, Z., and Jarosik, V. 2003. Ground beetles (Carabidae) as seed predators. Eur. J. Entomol. 100:531–544.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hulme, P. D. 1998. Post-dispersal seed predation: consequences for plant demography and evolution. Perspect. Plant Ecol. 1:32–46.Google Scholar
Jordan, N., Mortensen, D. A., Prenzlow, D. M., and Cox, K. C. 1995. Simulation analysis of crop rotation effects on weed seedbank. Am. J. Bot. 82:390–398.Google Scholar
Landis, D., Menalled, F., Costamagna, A., and Wilkinson, T. 2005. Symposium: Manipulating plant resources to enhance beneficial arthropods in agricultural landscapes. Weed Sci. 53:902–908.Google Scholar
Lesiewicz, D. S., Van-duyn, J. W., and Bradley, J. R. 1984. Mid season response of 3 carabids to soil insecticides applied to field corn plots at planting. J. Ga. Entomol. Soc. 19:271–275.Google Scholar
Liebman, M., Westerman, P. R., Menalled, F. D., and Heggenstaller, A. H. 2003. Weed responses to diversified cropping systems. in. Proceedings of the Symposium on Beyond Thresholds: Applying Multiple Control Tactics in Integrated Weed Management. Champaign, IL North. Central Weed Sci. Soc. [Abstract 58]. 142.Google Scholar
Marino, P. C., Gross, K. L., and Landis, D. A. 1997. Weed seed loss to predation in Michigan maize fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 66:189–196.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Marino, P. C., Renner, K., and Landis, D. A. 2000. Postdispersal weed seed predation in Michigan crop fields as a function of agricultural landscape structure. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 77:193–202.Google Scholar
Noordhuis, R., Thomas, S. R., and Goulson, D. 2001. Overwintering populations of beetle larvae (Coleoptera) in cereal fields and their contribution to adult populations in the spring. Pedobiologia. 45:84–95.Google Scholar
O'Rourke, M. E., Heggenstaller, A. H., Liebman, M., and Rice, M. E. 2006. Post-dispersal weed seed predation by invertebrates in conventional and low-external-input rotation systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 116:280–288.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Reed, P., Hall, F. R., and Krueger, H. R. 1992. Contact and volatile toxicity of insecticides to black cutworm larvae (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) and carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in soil. J. Econ. Entomol. 85:256–261.Google Scholar
Singer, J. W., Cox, W. J., Hahn, R. R., and Shields, E. J. 2000. Cropping system effects on weed emergence and densities in corn. Agron. J. 92:754–760.Google Scholar
Thomas, C. F. G., Parkinson, L., and Marshall, E. J. P. 1998. Isolating the components of activity-density for the carabid beetle Pterostichus melanarius in farmland. Oecologia. 116:103–112.Google Scholar
Tooley, J. and Brust, G. 2002. Weed seed predation by carabid beetles. Pages 215–229. in Holland, J. M. The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles. Andover, UK Intercept.Google Scholar
Westerman, P. R., Hofman, A., Vet, L. E. M., and van der Werf, W. 2003. Relative importance of vertebrates and invertebrates in epigeaic weed seed predation in organic cereal fields. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 95:417–425.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.Google Scholar