4.6 Article

A race for survival:: Can Bromus tectorum seeds escape Pyrenophora semeniperda-caused mortality by germinating quickly?

期刊

ANNALS OF BOTANY
卷 99, 期 5, 页码 907-914

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS
DOI: 10.1093/aob/mcm028

关键词

biocontrol; biotic resistance; cheatgrass; Drechslera campanulata; invasive species; mycoherbicide; pathogen; seed bank; seed-borne

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background and Aims Pathogen-seed interactions may involve a race for seed resources, so that seeds that germinate more quickly, mobilizing reserves, will be more likely to escape seed death than slow-germinating seeds. This race-for-survival hypothesis was tested for the North American seed pathogen Pyrenophora semeniperda on seeds of the annual grass Bromus tectorum, an invasive plant in North America. In this species, the seed germination rate varies as a function of dormancy status; dormant seeds germinate slowly if at all, whereas non-dormant seeds germinate quickly. Methods Three experimental approaches were utilized: (a) artificial inoculations of mature seeds that varied in primary dormancy status and wounding treatment; (b) naturally inoculated undispersed seeds that varied in primary dormancy status; and (c) naturally inoculated seeds from the carry-over seed bank that varied in degree of secondary dormancy, habitat of origin and seed age. Key Results In all three approaches, seeds that germinated slowly were usually killed by the pathogen, whereas seeds that germinated quickly frequently escaped. Pyrenophora semeniperda reduced B. tectorum seed banks. Populations in drier habitats sustained 50 times more seed mortality than a population in a mesic habitat. Older carry-over seeds experienced 30 % more mortality than younger seeds. Conclusions Given the dramatic levels of seed death and the ability of this pathogen to reduce seed carry-over, it is intriguing to consider whether P. semeniperda could be used to control B. tectorum through direct reduction of its seed bank.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据