Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-25wd4 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-26T05:13:03.165Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Weed seed mortality in soils with contrasting agricultural management histories

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Adam S. Davis ,
Kathleen I. Anderson ,
Steven G. Hallett  and
Karen A. Renner
Kathleen I. Anderson
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Steven G. Hallett
Affiliation:
Department of Botany and Plant Pathology, Purdue University, 915 West State Street, West Lafayette, IN 47907
Karen A. Renner
Affiliation:
Department of Crop and Soil Sciences, Michigan State University, East Lansing, MI 48824
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

It has been proposed that cropping systems can be managed to promote the development of soil microbial communities that accelerate weed seed mortality. We examined soil fungal and bacterial communities, soil C:N ratio, soil particle size fractions, and weed seed mortality in soil from fields with over 10 yr of five contrasting management histories with the objective of determining if seed mortality could be explained by differences in soil properties. Seed mortality of giant foxtail and velvetleaf were greatest in soil from the conventionally managed systems and lowest in soil from a reduced input system. Principal-components analysis of soil microbial communities, as determined through denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of polymerase chain reaction–amplified ribosomal RNA genes (PCR-DGGE), showed distinct differences in the composition of fungal and bacterial communities among the study soils. The first principal component of the 18S rDNA PCR-DGGE analysis of fungal community composition showed a strong negative correlation with both giant foxtail (− 0.52, P < 0.05) and velvetleaf (− 0.57, P < 0.01) seed mortality, as did ordination with nonmetric multidimensional scaling (NMS) [giant foxtail (− 0.54, P < 0.01) and velvetleaf (− 0.60, P < 0.01)], suggesting that seeds of the two species were affected similarly by changes in the soil fungal community. For giant foxtail, weed seed mortality was also positively correlated (r = 0.48, P < 0.05) with the first NMS axis of the bacterial 16S rDNA analysis. None of the other measured soil properties were significantly correlated with weed seed mortality. Thus, for the soils tested here, management history, microbial community composition, and weed seed mortality were linked. To extend these results to the field, more work is needed to identify components of the fungal and bacterial communities that are active in seed degradation, and to develop conservation biocontrol recommendations for these species.

Keywords

Giant foxtail, Setaria faberi Herrm., SETFAvelvetleaf, Abutilon theophrasti Medik., ABUTHSoil propertiesPCR-DGGEsoil microbial communityfungibacteriaprincipal-components analysisnonmetric multidimensional scalingweed seedbank
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 2 , April 2006 , pp. 291 - 297
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.)

Footnotes

Current address: USDA-ARS Invasive Weeds Management Unit, 1102 South Goodwin Avenue, Urbana, IL 61801; asdavis1@uiuc.edu

References

Literature Cited

Bossio, D. A., Scow, K. M., Gunapala, N., and Graham, K. J. 1998. Determinants of soil microbial communities: effects of agricultural management, season, and soil type on phospholipid fatty acid profiles. Microb. Ecol 36:1–12.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brady, N. C. and Weil, R. W. 1996. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice-Hall. Pp. 372–373.Google Scholar
Buhler, D. D., Hartzler, R. G., and Forcella, F. 1997. Implications of weed seedbank dynamics to weed management. Weed Sci 45:329–336.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.CrossRefGoogle 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Clark, K. R. 1993. Non-parametric multivariate analysis of changes in community structure. Aust. J. Ecol 18:117–143.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cromar, H. E., Murphy, S. D., and Swanton, C. J. 1999. Influence of tillage and crop residue on postdispersal predators of weed seeds. Weed Sci 47:184–194.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S., Renner, K. A., and Gross, K. L. 2005a. Weed seedbank and community shifts in a long-term cropping systems experiment. Weed Sci 53:296–306.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Davis, A. S., Cardina, J., Forcella, F., Johnson, G. A., Kegode, G., Lindquist, J. L., Luschei, E. C., Renner, K. A., Sprague, C. L., and Williams, M. M. II. 2005b. Environmental factors affecting seed persistence of annual weeds across the U. S. corn belt. Weed Sci. In press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Day, P. R. 1965. Particle fractionation and particle-size analysis. in Black, C. A., ed. Methods of Soil Analysis. Part I. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.Google Scholar
Don, R. H., Cox, P. T., Wainwright, B. J., Baker, K., and Mattick, J. S. 1991. Touchdown PCR to circumvent spurious priming during gene amplification. Nucl. Acids Res 19:4008.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Fenner, M. and Thompson, K. 2005. The Ecology of Seeds. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press. P. 250.Google Scholar
Fortuna, A. M., Paul, E. A., and Harwood, R. R. 2003. The effects of compost and crop rotations on carbon turnover and the particulate organic matter fraction. Soil Sci 168:434–444.Google Scholar
Gallandt, E. R., Liebman, M., and Huggins, D. R. 1999. Improving soil quality: implications for weed management. J. Crop Prod 2:95–121.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garbeva, P., van Veen, J. A., and van Elsas, J. D. 2004. Microbial diversity in soil: selection of microbial populations by plant and soil type and implications for disease suppressiveness. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol 42:243–270.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hallett, S. G. 2005. Where are the bioherbicides? Weed Sci 53:404–415.Google Scholar
Harrison, S. K., Regnier, E. E., and Schmoll, J. T. 2003. Postdispersal predation of giant ragweed (Ambrosia trifida) in no-tillage corn. Weed Sci 51:955–964.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Héraux, F. M. D., Hallett, S. G., and Weller, S. C. 2005a. Combining Trichoderma virens-inoculated compost and a rye cover crop for weed control in transplanted vegetables. Biol. Cont 34:21–26.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Héraux, F. M. D., Hallett, S. G., and Weller, S. C. 2005b. Composted chicken manure as a medium for the production and delivery of Trichoderma virens for weed control. HortScience 40:1394–1397.Google Scholar
Hutchinson, C. M. 1999. Trichoderma virens-inoculated composted chicken manure for biological weed control. Biol. Cont 16:217–222.Google Scholar
Johnsen, K., Jacobsen, C. S., and Torsvik, V. 2001. Pesticide effects on bacterial diversity in agricultural soils—a review. Biol. Fertil. Soils 33:443–453.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kennedy, A. C. and Smith, K. L. 1995. Soil microbial diversity and the sustainability of agricultural soils. Pages 75–86 in Robertson, G. P. and Klug, M. J. eds. The significance and regulation of soil biodiversity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Klute, A. 1982. Water retention: laboratory methods. Pages 635–662 in Klute, A. ed. Methods of Soil Analysis: Part 1. Physical and Mineralogical Methods. Madison, WI: Soil Science Society of America.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
Liebman, M. and Davis, A. S. 2000. Integration of soil, crop and weed management in low-external-input farming systems. Weed Res 40:27–47.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCune, B. and Mefford, M. J. 1999. PC-ORD. Multivariate analysis of ecological data. Version 4. Gleneden Beach, OR. P. 237.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Lee, J. C., and Landis, D. A. 2001. Herbaceous filter strips in agroecosystems: implications for ground beetle (Coleoptera: Carabidae) conservation and invertebrate weed seed predation. Great Lakes Entom 34:77–91.Google Scholar
Menalled, F. D., Marino, P. C., Renner, K. A., and Landis, D. A. 2000. Post-dispersal weed seed predation in Michigan crop fields as a function of agricultural landscape structure. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ 77:193–202.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Muyzer, G., Hottentrager, S., Teske, A., and Wawer, S. 1996. Denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of PCR-amplified 16S rDNA—a new molecular approach to analyze the genetic diversity of mixed microbial communities. Pages 1–23 in Akkermans, A., van Elsas, J. D., and de Bruijn, F. J. eds. Molecular Microbial Ecology Manual. Lowell, MA: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Neter, J., Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., and Wasserman, W. 1996. Applied linear statistical models. Chicago: Irwin. P. 1408.Google Scholar
Peters, J. ed. 2000. Tetrazolium testing handbook. Contrib. No. 29 to the handbook on seed testing. Lincoln, NE: Association of Official Seed Analysts.Google Scholar
Rees, G. N., Baldwin, D. S., Watson, G. O., Perryman, S., and Nielsen, D. L. 2004. Ordination and significance of microbial community composition derived from terminal restriction fragment length polymorphisms: application of multivariate statistics. Antonie van Leeuwenhoek;. J. Microbiol. Serol 86:339–347.Google Scholar
Robertson, G. P., Klingensmith, K. M., Klug, M. J., Paul, E. A., Crum, J. R., and Ellis, B. G. 1997. Soil resources, microbial activity, and primary production across an agricultural ecosystem. Ecol. Appl 7:158–170.Google Scholar
Sheffield, V. C., Cox, D. R., Lerman, L. S., and Meyers, R. M. 1989. Attachment of a 40 base-pair G + C-rich sequence (GC clamp) to genomic DNA fragments by the polymerase chain reaction results in improved detection of single-base changes. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 86:232–236.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Shem-Tov, S., Klose, S., Ajwa, H. A., and Fennimore, S. A. 2005. Effect of carbon:nitrogen ratio and organic amendments on seedbank longevity. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Abstracts 45:97.Google Scholar
Vainio, E. J. and Hantula, J. 2000. Direct analysis of wood-inhabiting fungi using denaturing gradient gel electrophoresis of amplified ribosomal DNA. Mycol. Res 104:927–936.Google Scholar
Wander, M. M., Hedrick, D. S., Kaufman, D., Traina, S. J., Stinner, B. R., Kehrmeyer, S. R., and White, D. C. 1995. The functional significance of the microbial biomass in organic and conventionally managed soils. Pages 87–97 in Robertson, G. P. and Klug, M. J. eds. The Significance and Regulation of Soil Biodiversity. Dordrecht: Kluwer Academic.Google Scholar
Westerman, P. R., Wes, J. S., Kropff, M. J., and van der Werf, W. 2003. Annual weed seed losses due to predation in organic cereal fields. J. Appl. Ecol 40:824–836.Google Scholar
White, T. J., Bruns, T., Lee, S., and Taylor, J. 1990. Amplification and direct sequencing of fungal ribosomal RNA genes for phylogenetics. in Innis, M. A., Gelfand, D. H., Sninsky, J. J., and White, T. J., eds. PCR Protocols: A Guide to Methods and Applications. San Diego, CA: Academic.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