Arid
DOI10.1111/avsc.12393
Soil seed bank assay methods influence interpretation of non-native plant management
Chiquoine, Lindsay P.; Abella, Scott R.
通讯作者Chiquoine, Lindsay P.
来源期刊APPLIED VEGETATION SCIENCE
ISSN1402-2001
EISSN1654-109X
出版年2018
卷号21期号:4页码:626-635
英文摘要

Questions: In the assessment of a soil seed bank at invaded sites, do sampling at different microsite types and use of different assessment methods yield different results, which may influence interpretation of management effectiveness and potential for native plant restoration?


Location: Saguaro National Park, Arizona, United States.


Methods: Seed bank samples were collected from two microsite types (below-shrub canopies and interspaces between perennial plants) at plots within Pennisetum ciliare-invaded and untreated sites, non-invaded sites and sites with five frequencies of Pennisetum-removal treatments. Seed bank samples were characterized by seedling emergence and seed extraction methods.


Results: Assay method influenced whether we detected a significant Pennisetum-removal treatment response on Pennisetum detected in the seed bank. A treatment response was not observed using the emergence method. Using the extraction method, we found that untreated Pennisetum plots contained significantly more Pennisetum seed than removal treatments. Treatments did not affect detection of native seed banks using either method. Microsite type only had an effect on seed detected using the emergence method, where more perennial species and seed densities were detected below shrubs. Native species richness and estimated seed densities using extraction were correlated with emergence results (r = 0.52, N = 42, p < 0.001 and r = 0.56; N = 42, p < 0.001, respectively).


Conclusions: Results highlight several considerations for how different seed bank methods can influence interpretation of management treatments. Along with vegetation surveys, seed bank observations indicate that removal treatments successfully reduced Pennisetum in soil seed banks at invaded sites relative to invaded untreated sites. Natives were a significant proportion of seed banks, showing potential for native plants to establish after treatments of non-native plants. Results suggest potential to calibrate seed bank methods with each other to reconcile differences. Because viability of extracted seed was uncertain, further analysis may be necessary to test which assay method best predicts future vegetation.


英文关键词buffelgrass invasive species non-native plants Pennisetum ciliare seed bank seed extraction seedling emergence Sonoran Desert
类型Article
语种英语
国家USA
收录类别SCI-E
WOS记录号WOS:000450061000007
WOS关键词MOJAVE-DESERT ECOSYSTEM ; PENNISETUM-CILIARE ; VARIABLE ENVIRONMENTS ; ALIEN PLANTS ; COMMUNITIES ; INVASIONS ; EXTRACTION ; PATTERNS ; DORMANCY ; IMPACT
WOS类目Plant Sciences ; Ecology ; Forestry
WOS研究方向Plant Sciences ; Environmental Sciences & Ecology ; Forestry
资源类型期刊论文
条目标识符http://119.78.100.177/qdio/handle/2XILL650/207681
作者单位Univ Nevada, Sch Life Sci, Las Vegas, NV 89154 USA
推荐引用方式
GB/T 7714
Chiquoine, Lindsay P.,Abella, Scott R.. Soil seed bank assay methods influence interpretation of non-native plant management[J],2018,21(4):626-635.
APA Chiquoine, Lindsay P.,&Abella, Scott R..(2018).Soil seed bank assay methods influence interpretation of non-native plant management.APPLIED VEGETATION SCIENCE,21(4),626-635.
MLA Chiquoine, Lindsay P.,et al."Soil seed bank assay methods influence interpretation of non-native plant management".APPLIED VEGETATION SCIENCE 21.4(2018):626-635.
条目包含的文件
条目无相关文件。
个性服务
推荐该条目
保存到收藏夹
导出为Endnote文件
谷歌学术
谷歌学术中相似的文章
[Chiquoine, Lindsay P.]的文章
[Abella, Scott R.]的文章
百度学术
百度学术中相似的文章
[Chiquoine, Lindsay P.]的文章
[Abella, Scott R.]的文章
必应学术
必应学术中相似的文章
[Chiquoine, Lindsay P.]的文章
[Abella, Scott R.]的文章
相关权益政策
暂无数据
收藏/分享

除非特别说明,本系统中所有内容都受版权保护,并保留所有权利。