Minnesota Regional Roadside Seed Bank Analysis
1
Minnesota Regional Roadside Seed Bank Analysis Dominic Christensen 1 , Joshua Friell 1 , Jacob Jungers 2 , Jon Trappe 1 and Eric Watkins 1 (1) Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, St. Paul, MN (2) Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities, St. Paul, MN Introduction • Persistence of vegetation planted along roadsides in cold climates is often limited because of salt, prolonged ice encasement, poor management, poor soil quality, and weed competition among other stresses in the northern United States 123 . • Seed banks at different sites could be a major driver influencing the type of coverage with turfgrasses commonly growing immediately adjacent to roadsides. • This study was conducted in conjunction with a multi-site roadside trial assessing the performance of seeded turfgrass species and mixtures. Materials and Methods • Soil samples were obtained from the seven field trial locations throughout Minnesota (Fig. 1) • Field treatments were arranged in a randomized complete block design with three repetitions, three, 200-g soil subsamples were collected from each replicate block. • Soil subsamples were screened using a 4-mm mesh sieve and then transferred to pots in the greenhouse to evaluate seedling emergence over a 12-week period 4 . • The greenhouse had an average high of 27.7 C an average low of 18.7 C and a global average of 22.7 C. Photosynthetic light consisted of natural and supplemental totaling 16 hours of light per day. • The 63 soil subsamples were arranged in a completely randomized design in the greenhouse (Fig. 2) • A 10-18-22 fertilizer 5 was applied at a rate of 49 kg P 2 O 5 ha -1 • Weekly data were collected to evaluate soil seed banks for weed species, weed type, and weed life cycle from each subsample. Results and Discussion • Of the plants that emerged: 70% grasses, 26% broadleaf, 3% cattail, and the remaining 1% were a rush, sedge, or tree (Fig. 3). • 46 species were identified: 10 grasses, 32 broadleafs, and four trees (Fig. 4) • 83% of identified plants were annuals and 13% were perennials. The high percentage of annuals illustrate the amount of disturbance that roadsides experience (Fig. 5) • 63% of the grasses were identified as Digitaria sanguinalis and Digitaria ischaemum. Some subsamples contained nearly 70 seedlings (Fig. 6). • If plants could not be identified as seedlings they were transplanted and allowed to flower (Fig. 7). • Most D. sanguinalis plants were identified from Marshall and Roseville and most D. ischaemum plants were identified from Fergus Falls. • D. sanguinalis was present in field testing plots throughout the summer at the Marshall location and several other (Fig. 8). Implications and Conclusions • The high percentage of warm-season annual grasses suggests that roadside turfgrass installers should avoid a late spring establishment • A pre-emergent herbicide application in the spring may be important for dormant seedings • Seed bank seems to be influencing the type of coverage in the field plots • This study enhanced the characterization of each individual roadside research testing location References (1) Brown, R. N., and H. Gorres, 2011. “The use of soil amendments to improve survival of roadside grasses.” HortScience 46(10): 1404–10. (2) Dunifon, N., G. K., Evanylo, R. O. Maguire, and J. M. Goatley Jr. 2011. “Soil nutrient and fescue (Festuca Spp.) responses to compost and hydroseed on a disturbed roadside.” Compost Science & Utilization 19(3): 147–51. (3) Friell J., E. Watkins, and B. Horgan. 2013. “Salt tolerance of 74 turfgrass cultivars in nutrient solution culture.” Crop Science 53(4): 1743–49. (4) Thompson, K., and J. P. Grime. 1979. “Seasonal variation in the seed banks of herbaceous species in ten contrasting habitats.” Journal of Ecology 67(3): 893–921. (5) EC Grow Prolinks, EC Grow, Eau Claire, WI Research Objective Identify, quantify, and characterize seed bank pressure between and among individual sites. Figure 3. The total number of plants grouped by plant type per location. Figure 6 and 7. Photo on the left shows a subsample from Roseville with numerous grasses that germinated within one week. Right shows secondary transplant containers. Figure 8. Plot on the left contained a treatment of 100% slender creeping red fescue and 100% alkaligrass on the right. Large crabgrass is invading the alkaligrass plot. Figure 1. Seven field testing locations Figure 5. Total number of plants grouped by plant life cycle per location. Figure 2. Seed bank analysis setup in the greenhouse contained 63 total samples: 7 locations x 3 reps x 3 subsamples. Figure 6 Figure 7 Acknowledgements We would like to acknowledge support from the Minnesota Department of Transportation and the Minnesota Local Road Research Board for funding our Regional Optimization of Roadside Turfgrass Seed Mixtures Phase 2: Regional Field Trials and Economic Analysis project. Figure 4. The total number of plants square root transformed by species and grouped by plant type.
Transcript of Minnesota Regional Roadside Seed Bank Analysis
Minnesota Regional Roadside Seed Bank AnalysisDominic Christensen1, Joshua Friell1, Jacob Jungers2, Jon Trappe1 and Eric Watkins1
(1) Department of Horticultural Science, University of Minnesota-Twin Cities, St. Paul, MN (2) Department of Agronomy and Plant Genetics, University of Minnesota- Twin Cities, St. Paul, MN
Introduction• Persistence of vegetation planted along roadsides in cold
climates is often limited because of salt, prolonged iceencasement, poor management, poor soil quality, and weedcompetition among other stresses in the northern UnitedStates123.
• Seed banks at different sites could be a major driverinfluencing the type of coverage with turfgrasses commonlygrowing immediately adjacent to roadsides.
• This study was conducted in conjunction with a multi-siteroadside trial assessing the performance of seededturfgrass species and mixtures.
Materials and Methods• Soil samples were obtained from the seven field trial
locations throughout Minnesota (Fig. 1)• Field treatments were arranged in a randomized complete
block design with three repetitions, three, 200-g soilsubsamples were collected from each replicate block.
• Soil subsamples were screened using a 4-mm mesh sieveand then transferred to pots in the greenhouse to evaluateseedling emergence over a 12-week period4.
• The greenhouse had an average high of 27.7 C an averagelow of 18.7 C and a global average of 22.7 C.Photosynthetic light consisted of natural and supplementaltotaling 16 hours of light per day.
• The 63 soil subsamples were arranged in a completelyrandomized design in the greenhouse (Fig. 2)
• A 10-18-22 fertilizer5 was applied at a rate of 49 kg P2O5ha-1
• Weekly data were collected to evaluate soil seed banks forweed species, weed type, and weed life cycle from eachsubsample.
Results and Discussion• Of the plants that emerged: 70% grasses, 26% broadleaf, 3%
cattail, and the remaining 1% were a rush, sedge, or tree (Fig.3).
• 46 species were identified: 10 grasses, 32 broadleafs, and fourtrees (Fig. 4)
• 83% of identified plants were annuals and 13% wereperennials. The high percentage of annuals illustrate theamount of disturbance that roadsides experience (Fig. 5)
• 63% of the grasses were identified as Digitaria sanguinalis andDigitaria ischaemum. Some subsamples contained nearly 70seedlings (Fig. 6).
• If plants could not be identified as seedlings they weretransplanted and allowed to flower (Fig. 7).
• Most D. sanguinalis plants were identified from Marshall andRoseville and most D. ischaemum plants were identified fromFergus Falls.
• D. sanguinalis was present in field testing plots throughout thesummer at the Marshall location and several other (Fig. 8).
Implications and Conclusions• The high percentage of warm-season annual grasses suggests
that roadside turfgrass installers should avoid a late springestablishment
• A pre-emergent herbicide application in the spring may beimportant for dormant seedings
• Seed bank seems to be influencing the type of coverage in thefield plots
• This study enhanced the characterization of each individualroadside research testing location
References(1) Brown, R. N., and H. Gorres, 2011. “The use of soil amendments to improve survival of
roadside grasses.” HortScience 46(10): 1404–10.(2) Dunifon, N., G. K., Evanylo, R. O. Maguire, and J. M. Goatley Jr. 2011. “Soil nutrient and fescue
(Festuca Spp.) responses to compost and hydroseed on a disturbed roadside.” CompostScience & Utilization 19(3): 147–51.
(3) Friell J., E. Watkins, and B. Horgan. 2013. “Salt tolerance of 74 turfgrass cultivars in nutrientsolution culture.” Crop Science 53(4): 1743–49.
(4) Thompson, K., and J. P. Grime. 1979. “Seasonal variation in the seed banks of herbaceousspecies in ten contrasting habitats.” Journal of Ecology 67(3): 893–921.
(5) EC Grow Prolinks, EC Grow, Eau Claire, WI
Research ObjectiveIdentify, quantify, and characterize seed bank pressurebetween and among individual sites.
Figure 3. The total number of plants grouped by plant type per location.
Figure 6 and 7. Photo on the left shows a subsample from Roseville with numerous grasses that germinated within one week. Right shows secondary transplant containers.
Figure 8. Plot on the left contained a treatment of 100% slender creeping red fescue and 100% alkaligrass on the right. Large crabgrass is invading the alkaligrass plot.
Figure 1. Seven field testing locations
Figure 5. Total number of plants grouped by plant life cycle per location.
Figure 2. Seed bank analysis setup in the greenhouse contained 63 total samples: 7 locations x 3 reps x 3 subsamples.
Figure 6 Figure 7
AcknowledgementsWe would like to acknowledge support from the MinnesotaDepartment of Transportation and the Minnesota Local RoadResearch Board for funding our Regional Optimization of RoadsideTurfgrass Seed Mixtures Phase 2: Regional Field Trials andEconomic Analysis project.
Figure 4. The total number of plants square root transformed by species and grouped by plant type.
