Knowledge Resource Center for Ecological Environment in Arid Area
DOI | 10.1111/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
![]() |
ISSN | 1402-2001 |
EISSN | 1654-109X |
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。 |
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。