Proceedings of the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the Northeastern ...
Proceedings of the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the Northeastern ... Proceedings of the Sixty-first Annual Meeting of the Northeastern ...
82 A UNIFYING FRAMEWORK FOR SPECIES INTRODUCTIONS: THE STATE FACTOR MODEL. J.N. Barney, Cornell Univ., Ithaca and T.H. Whitlow, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY. ABSTRACT Synthetic quantitative models are valuable aids for predicting the behavior of complex ecosystems. Hans Jenny formed the first such model in the 1940s to describe any quantifiable soil property (s) as a function of five simple state factors: climate (cl), organisms (o), relief (r), parent material (p), and time (t). This simple 'clorpt' model allowed researchers to examine the effect of each state factor independently on any quantifiable soil property. Jack Major later adapted the ‘clorpt’ model to describe entire plant communities (V), and any property of vegetation (v). These state factor models are simple, generalizable, and amenable to empirical investigation. We have taken the concept of the state factor model and applied it to the study of incipient species introductions. The model contains five independent state factors that determine if an incipient introduction will become established, and subsequently, properties of the introduction once established. The state factors are invader autoecology (i), source habitat (s), introduced habitat (h), propagule pressure (p), and time elapsed since introduction (t). This novel model can be used to understand the enigma of introduced population success or failure in any habitat and time frame. Additionally, through manipulation of state factor variance this model can be used as a framework to explore any quantifiable property of a population (or meta-population) at any scale. We will discuss each state factor in detail, demonstrate independence among state factors, and explore uses. 64
83 GERMINATION PATTERNS OF SWAMP DODDER SEEDS PLANTED NEAR A COMMERCIAL CRANBERRY FARM. H.A. Sandler and K. Ghantous, Univ. of Massachusetts-Amherst Cranberry Station, East Wareham. ABSTRACT Dodder (Cuscuta gronovii) is a serious weed pest in commercial cranberry that is typically controlled with preemergence herbicides, such as Casoron (dichlobenil) or Kerb (pronamide). Successful management is tied to proper timing of herbicide to recently germinated seedlings. This study was initiated to gather information on the germination patterns of dodder to facilitate timely applications. Utilizing a simple system of simulated bogs constructed in plastic containers, the germination pattern of MA dodder seed has been monitored for 9 years. In 1997, 8 cm of peat was placed in the bottom of a 5-gallon container, covered by 10 cm of sand, which was then covered with 13 cm of 50:50 sand:peat mix. In the fall of 1997 and 1998, one set of 10 containers was prepared in this fashion. On 8 Dec. 1997, 150 cc of unscarified dodder seed was placed on the top layer and incorporated into the top 1 cm of mixture. The containers were randomly arranged outside near a greenhouse, approximately 15 m from the cranberry production area. Based on the large number of germinated seedlings generated from this initial set, the seed amount was reduced to 15 cc for inoculation of the second set. The second set of containers was inoculated on 7 Dec. 1998. Pots were monitored twice weekly starting in early April until the first seedling germinated. Seedlings were counted and removed daily and less frequently during high and low germination periods, respectively. The containers were watered and weeded as needed. In 1998, over 50,000 seedlings germinated from the first set of containers, with a peak 2-week period in early May (Julian date 121-134) that generated an average of approximately 1,700 seedlings per container each wk. A second peak occurred in mid- June (Julian date 163-169) that tallied an average of 372 seedlings per container. Even in early July (Julian date 184-190), an average of 30 seedlings were germinating per container. Germination was still robust for the next 3 yr, (44-66% of Year 1). By 2006, germination was ~10% of Year 1, (3,700 seedlings). Numbers were lower in the second set, but followed a similar trend. Dodder seeds apparently have a definitive peak of germination in the initial year after planting. Peaks can still be seen in subsequent years, but they are less definitive and much lower in absolute numbers. Over the course of this 9-year study, the peak germination period occurred later each year. The delay of peak germination may contribute to the difficulties growers have in managing dodder. As new seed is introduced into the system each year, its peak germination period may be different from dodder germinating from the seedbank. Since most herbicides targeting dodder can only be efficacious for a specific window of time, a portion of the population may always escape preemergence control and provide enough viable seedlings to cause substantial infestations in the vine canopy. 65
- Page 32 and 33: 32 CARFENTRAZONE AND QUINCLORAC FOR
- Page 34 and 35: 34 2006 NEWSS SUMMER WEED CONTEST R
- Page 36 and 37: 36 INVASIVE AQUATIC WEEDS IN NORTH
- Page 38 and 39: 38 AMMONIUM PELARGONATE AS A BIOHER
- Page 40 and 41: 40 TRINEXAPAC-ETHYL INFLUENCES EFFI
- Page 42 and 43: 42 Table 1. Insect feeding damage,
- Page 44 and 45: 44 WEED CONTROL WITH TOPRAMEZONE PR
- Page 46 and 47: 46 ROTARY HOE EFFICACY IN CORN: INF
- Page 48 and 49: 48 ALFALFA/GRASS FORAGE MIXTURES US
- Page 50 and 51: 50 CONTROL OF NEW WEED SPECIES IN T
- Page 52 and 53: 52 Table 1. Results of 2006 contain
- Page 54 and 55: 54 TOLERANCES OF ORNAMENTAL SHRUBS
- Page 56 and 57: 56 2006 WEED MANAGEMENT TRIALS IN C
- Page 58 and 59: 58 THE RESPONSE OF FIELD AND CONTAI
- Page 60 and 61: 60 THE EFFICACY AND CROP TOLERANCE
- Page 62 and 63: 62 Table 2. Plant quality ratings o
- Page 64 and 65: 64 EVALUATION OF PROLINE-LINKED PEN
- Page 66 and 67: 66 ANNUAL BLUEGRASS AND DOLLAR SPOT
- Page 68 and 69: 68 Table 1. Autumn 2005 versus spri
- Page 70 and 71: 70 A PRELIMINARY STUDY OF THE NON-N
- Page 72 and 73: 72 native species, covering and smo
- Page 74 and 75: 74 EFFECTS OF BUCKWHEAT RESIDUE ON
- Page 76 and 77: 76 Japanese knotweed control 28 DAT
- Page 78 and 79: 78 ENHANCED TOLERANCE TO WEED COMPE
- Page 80 and 81: 80 EFFECTS OF PLANTING AND TERMINAT
- Page 84 and 85: 84 BIOLOGY OF MULTIFLORA ROSE: AN I
- Page 86 and 87: 86 AN OUNCE OF PREVENTION. M.J. Van
- Page 88 and 89: 88 HERBICIDE COMPARISON IN WET BLAD
- Page 90 and 91: 90 Table 1. Morrow's honeysuckle (L
- Page 92 and 93: 92 EVALUATION OF HERBICIDES FOR CON
- Page 94 and 95: 94 EVALUATION OF HERBICIDES FOR CON
- Page 96 and 97: 96 HOT WATER SYSTEMS FOR VEGETATION
- Page 98 and 99: 98 SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION OF ANNUAL B
- Page 100 and 101: 100 ROUGHSTALK BLUEGRASS CONTROL WI
- Page 102 and 103: 102 EFFECT OF DEW AND GRANULAR FORM
- Page 104 and 105: 104 USE OF TRICLOPYR TO REDUCE ANTI
- Page 106 and 107: 106 YELLOW NUTSEDGE CONTROL WITH SU
- Page 108 and 109: 108 PRE AND POST EMERGENT ANNUAL BL
- Page 110 and 111: 110 PUMPKIN RESPONSE TO HALOSUFSULF
- Page 112 and 113: 112 Figure 1. Grass cover following
- Page 114 and 115: 114 CHEMICAL CONTROL OF APPLE ROOT
- Page 116 and 117: 116 STRAWBERRY PLANTING YEAR WEED C
- Page 118 and 119: 118 WEED CONTROL IN NO-TILL PUMPKIN
- Page 120 and 121: 120 NATURAL PRODUCT POTENTIAL FOR W
- Page 122 and 123: 122 THE IR-4 PROJECT: UPDATE ON HER
- Page 124 and 125: 124 PEDIGREE OF A PESTICIDE. D.R. S
- Page 126 and 127: 126 SEEDHEAD SUPPRESSION OF ANNUAL
- Page 128 and 129: 128 APPLICATIONS FOR SULFENTRAZONE
- Page 130 and 131: 130 HORSEWEED: FROM OBSCURITY TO TH
82<br />
A UNIFYING FRAMEWORK FOR SPECIES INTRODUCTIONS: THE STATE FACTOR<br />
MODEL. J.N. Barney, Cornell Univ., Ithaca and T.H. Whitlow, Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY.<br />
ABSTRACT<br />
Syn<strong>the</strong>tic quantitative models are valuable aids for predicting <strong>the</strong> behavior <strong>of</strong><br />
complex ecosystems. Hans Jenny formed <strong>the</strong> <strong>first</strong> such model in <strong>the</strong> 1940s to describe<br />
any quantifiable soil property (s) as a function <strong>of</strong> five simple state factors: climate (cl),<br />
organisms (o), relief (r), parent material (p), and time (t). This simple 'clorpt' model<br />
allowed researchers to examine <strong>the</strong> effect <strong>of</strong> each state factor independently on any<br />
quantifiable soil property. Jack Major later adapted <strong>the</strong> ‘clorpt’ model to describe entire<br />
plant communities (V), and any property <strong>of</strong> vegetation (v). These state factor models are<br />
simple, generalizable, and amenable to empirical investigation. We have taken <strong>the</strong><br />
concept <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong> state factor model and applied it to <strong>the</strong> study <strong>of</strong> incipient species<br />
introductions. The model contains five independent state factors that determine if an<br />
incipient introduction will become established, and subsequently, properties <strong>of</strong> <strong>the</strong><br />
introduction once established. The state factors are invader autoecology (i), source<br />
habitat (s), introduced habitat (h), propagule pressure (p), and time elapsed since<br />
introduction (t). This novel model can be used to understand <strong>the</strong> enigma <strong>of</strong> introduced<br />
population success or failure in any habitat and time frame. Additionally, through<br />
manipulation <strong>of</strong> state factor variance this model can be used as a framework to explore<br />
any quantifiable property <strong>of</strong> a population (or meta-population) at any scale. We will<br />
discuss each state factor in detail, demonstrate independence among state factors, and<br />
explore uses.<br />
64
Change language