Next Article in Journal
Sex-Based Differences in Multilocus Heterozygosity in Wild Boar from Spain
Previous Article in Journal
Vertical Stratification of Butterfly Assemblages Persists in Highly Disturbed Forest Fragments of the Brazilian Atlantic Forest
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Diversity
Volume 16
Issue 10
10.3390/d16100609
diversity-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessment of Common Ragweed (Ambrosia Artemisiifolia L.) Seed Predation in Crop Fields and Their Adjacent Semi-Natural Habitats in Hungary

by
Zita Dorner
1,
Mohammed Gaafer Abdelgfar Osman
2,
Ágnes Kukorellyné Szénási
1,* and
Mihály Zalai
1
1
Department of Integrated Plant Protection, Plant Protection Institute, Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE), 2100 Gödöllő, Hungary
2
Weed Research Department, Integrated Agricultural Pests Management Research Centre, Agricultural Research Corporation (ARC), Wad Madani P.O. Box 126, Sudan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Diversity 2024, 16(10), 609; https://doi.org/10.3390/d16100609
Submission received: 18 August 2024 / Revised: 15 September 2024 / Accepted: 18 September 2024 / Published: 1 October 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Animal Diversity)
Browse Figure
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Ambrosia artemisiifolia has turned into a noxious weed species in agricultural fields and landscapes in Europe. Durable control options are still needed to limit the abundance of this species. Weed seed consumption by naturally occurring seed predators is a key ecosystem service in agricultural areas. Seed predation levels of common ragweed were examined in wheat and maize fields and adjacent semi-natural habitats (SNHs). To evaluate the weed seeds’ exposure to invertebrate seed predators, 20 cards each were set on the soil surface inside the crop field and in SNHs with four replications. Twenty seeds of ragweed were attached to sandpaper. Seed removal was assessed every 24 h of exposure for 5 days in June and November 2019, October 2020, and June 2021. The seed consumption level was measured according to the number of removed seeds from the seed cards. High consumption rates of ragweed seeds were found in all sampling rounds in both seasons and habitats. The seed predation rates in 2019 were stronger within crop fields in summer than in autumn with a slight difference between SNHs and inside fields. Our results demonstrate the possibility of seed predation contributing to Integrated Plant Protection (IPM) of common ragweed in rural areas.

1. Introduction

Ambrosia artemisiifolia L., common ragweed, is a serious invasive weed in Central Europe, especially in Hungary. It is originated from North America but widespread in Australia, Africa, Asia, South America, and Europe [1,2]. This annual weed species has been taken into consideration as a harmful weed in Europe since the 1920s. After the First World War, its seed was transferred to Europe with grain shipments, then gradually spread out as a consequence of favorable environmental conditions. It occurs and is spread mainly in Italy, in the Rhône Valley in France, and in the Carpathian Basin, especially Hungary, Serbia, Croatia, and Slovakia. A. artemisiifolia came to Hungary from the southwest in the early 1920s and spread so rapidly that it has become the most common weed in Hungary [3]. A. artemisiifolia can be found throughout the country in different habitats including disturbed soil, especially in arable fields. According to the sixth Hungarian national weed survey (2018–2019), ragweed is the number one weed in cereal stubble and maize [4]. This weed species is common in semi-natural habitats, uncultivated areas, and along linear infrastructure such as roads and railway tracks. In addition to its agricultural importance in Hungary, its impact on human health is equally significant as it produces highly allergenic air-borne pollen [2].
The invasiveness of A. artemisiifolia is due to its numerous characteristics. The plant exhibits broad ecological tolerance, allowing it to colonize a wide scale of disturbed areas. Its invasion is further supported by its persistent seed bank [5], allelopathic effects [6], arbuscular mycorrhizal fungal symbiotic interactions [7], the lack of natural enemies [8], high genetic variability of invasive populations [9], and frequent outcrossing within colonizing populations [10]. The primary means of dispersal for common ragweed are human activities such as agricultural machinery, soil or seed transport, and water dispersal along river corridors; furthermore, the dispersion by birds is also documented [11,12].
A. artemisiifolia, an annual plant, belonging to the family Asteraceae, is an erect 20–200 cm tall branched weed species. Its leaves are short-stalked, hairy, and ovate, with a pinnate structure featuring 2–3 oblong-lanceolate, toothed or lobed segments on each side. The flower heads are dioecious, with male flowers being hemispherical and densely clustered in terminal racemes, while female flowers are numerous and situated in the axils of the upper leaves. Seed production, influenced by biotic and abiotic factors and competition, also varies with plant size: small plants provide a few hundred seeds, medium plants about 3000 seeds, and large plants up to 6000 seeds per plant [13]. The plant produces achenes or burs, with both seed types being obovate. The size of the burs ranges from 1.9 to 3.7 mm in length and 1.5 to 2.8 mm in width, while achenes are 1.5–3.0 mm long and 1.5 mm wide. The achene is brown, and the bur is dark grey with purple streaks. The weight of the seeds varies from 2.4 mg (without the fruit coat) to 4.4 mg (with the fruit coat), or 1.7 to 3.7 mg [14,15]. Considering that it lacks a specific seed dispersal mechanism, ripened seeds fall mostly within a two-meter circle from the parent plant [16].
Semi-natural habitats (SNHs) are well-known elements of the agricultural landscape; they are areas that experience less human intervention compared to cultivated crop fields (such as field margins, shelterbelts, tree groups, pastures, meadows, and grasslands). These areas can provide overwintering and hiding places for herbivores, including pests and their natural enemies and, in addition, alternative food sources for other species (e.g., pollinators). This has been well documented in the context of cereals and their margins for some time [17,18].
Janzen (1971) [19] was the first to use the term “seed predation” or “granivory”, which describes the process by which animals feed on plant seeds, making these seeds their primary nutrient source [20]. Seed consumption does not necessarily mean the actual eating of the seed; hence, it can also be interpreted as “removal” [21]. Seed predation can be divided into two temporally distinct phases. In pre-dispersal predation, the seed is still within the fruit and not necessarily mature. These seeds are primarily consumed by insects (Coleoptera, Lepidoptera, Hemiptera, and Hymenoptera), birds, and rodents. In post-dispersal predation, there is a much greater diversity among species, and most species are generalists, as they consume seeds of various plant species at different stages of maturity [20]. Based on the position of the seed, there are two stages of post-dispersal seed predation. The first stage occurs when the plant is dispersing its mature seeds, meaning the seeds are scattered on the soil surface and are easily accessible to predators. The second stage occurs when the seeds become embedded in the soil, where they are stored until predators find them [20]. To counteract the effects of predation, plants can develop various defense mechanisms. This phenomenon is also called plant compensation, which essentially refers to the level of tolerance that a plant exhibits when subjected to damage [22]. Chemical and physical defense mechanisms can develop, prompting plants to build a more resistant system based on the extent and time of the damage [23]. Examples include the production of large quantities of toxins or the development of hard endosperms in seeds. In dry areas, seeds may be surrounded by mucilaginous seed coats, causing them to adhere to the soil, making them less noticeable to predators [24]. According to Gallandt et al. (2005) [25], quite a number of studies have shown the overwhelming role of invertebrate seed predators in seed predation in comparison with vertebrates. Cromar et al. (1999) [26] and Westerman et al. (2003) [27] found 80 to 90% of seed predation by invertebrates in maize, soybean, and wheat fields.
Among insects, ants and ground beetles (Carabidae) are particularly noteworthy seed predator taxa [28]. Several studies have highlighted that ground beetle species in agricultural areas are responsible for consuming significant quantities of seeds [29,30] and these insects were noted consuming weed seeds in the laboratory [31,32] as well as under field conditions [33,34]. There is still significant uncertainty in accurately determining the diet range, but many Carabid species are known to be polyphagous. The most common ground beetle species in domestic agricultural areas is the large velvet ground beetle (Harpalus rufipes), which primarily consumes seeds of goosefoots, fescues, brome grasses, chickweed, timothy grass, and knotweeds as plant food. Additionally, it collects seeds in its burrows before overwintering [35].
Within plant–animal interactions, the relationship between seed predation and plant population dynamics is quite complex. Over time, the structure and size of plant populations adapt to the characteristics of seed predators, depending on the size of the seed predator population, the percentage of seeds consumed from a given plant, and the characteristics of the habitat where the interaction takes place. Seed predators can be harmful to plants by reducing their chances of survival and spread [36]. However, they can also be beneficial because many predators do not consume the seeds immediately but store them. If the predator does not return to its cache, the seeds can survive predation, thereby aiding the spread of certain plant species [37]. The extent of seed predation is affected by the following factors: (a) kind of weed species: experiments conducted by Shuler et al. (2008) [38] in maize and soybeans showed that seed consumers prefer the seeds of common lambsquarters (Chenopodium album L.); (b) seed size: according to Hulme (1994) [39], smaller seeds are consumed more frequently than larger ones; (c) vegetation period: studies by O’Rourke et al. (2006) [40] in maize, soybeans, and alfalfa found that the rate of seed predation is lower from early July until early August compared to late August to early October; and (d) tillage practices: soil tillage reduces the amount of plant residue available to predators by burying seeds into the deeper layers of the soil, making them inaccessible to most predators [41].
Our hypothesis was that weed seeds are likely to be predated by seed predators; however, predation rates may vary according to habitat. Our research followed the ground-based seed removal approach (seed cards method) to appreciate the significance of A. artemisiifolia seed predation within cereal fields (winter wheat and maize) and in their neighboring semi-natural habitats. The goal of our study was to answer the following questions:
Do habitat and season affect predation? What is the most appropriate length of the observation period for comparison? In addition to seasons, how much influence do weather factors have on predation? Which factors most affect predation? Do changes in weather factors equally affect the predation in different habitats?

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Experimental Site and Experimental Design

Field investigations on invertebrate weed seed predation were carried out in a maize and winter wheat field and their adjacent semi-natural habitats (SNHs) at the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences (MATE) research field (Szárítópuszta), near Gödöllő, Hungary (47.5803 °N, 19.4014 °E). The size of the fields amounted to two hectares each. The soil type was rust-brown forest soil (Chromic Luvisol). The top 40 cm of soil comprises 53% sand, 26% loam, and 20% clay fractions. The climate is continental, with frequent weather extremes. The crop rotation in the study area usually included winter wheat, maize, barley, oil seed rape, pea, and sunflower. The field edge was undisturbed and consisted of small forest patches and herbaceous undergrowth with grasses. The small forest patches are common elements of the agricultural landscape in Hungary and often border intensively cultivated arable lands. They are mainly composed of deciduous tree species, such as oak trees (Quercus spp.), and the invasive Celtis occidentalis L., along with some blackthorn (Prunus spinosa L.) and hawthorn (Crataegus monogyna Jacq.) bushes. Weed species Fallopia convolvulus L., Elymus repens L., Polygonum aviculare L., and Solidago canadensis L. were the most frequent species in the adjacent SNHs, among all weed species, followed by Ambrosia artemisiifolia L., Conyza canadensis L., and Tripleurospermum inodorum L. The lowest species frequency was recorded by Geum urbanum L. and Setaria pumila Poir.
The study used the seed card method as a standard [27,42] to measure seed predation patterns of short-term field exposure. Seed cards were prepared by attaching 20 fresh seeds of Ambrosia artemisiifolia to a sandpaper surface (25 cm long/10 cm wide, P = 60 roughness, kL361 J-Flex Klingspor, POLAND) which was fixed on carton cards by metal clips, using a glue spray adhesive 3M (400 mL/282 g) which was applied first. Then, A. artemisiifolia seeds were glued to the sticky sandpaper. The glue has been used by some EU countries under the research project QUESSA (Quantification of Ecological Services for Sustainable Agriculture, EU FP7). The adhesive glue was assumed to secure the holding of the seeds for (4–5) days without being removed by the rain, while the P = 60 roughness was selected to resemble the soil surface of the study area in color and roughness.
The measurement of seed predation considers the ability of predatory insects to reach and remove the seeds. An exclusion with wire mesh (hexagonal mesh, with holes 25 mm in diameter) was used to secure the seed cards and facilitate easy entering of small invertebrates while preventing access of larger vertebrate predators. The exclusion of vertebrates was assumed and expected to show the contribution of invertebrate seed predators to Ambrosia seed consumption, justifying the assessment of seed consumption levels undertaken by our research. The involvement of invertebrates as seed predators in this work was based on a former study on the activity density of key mixed feeder species and their phenology in a winter wheat field and the neighboring SNHs by Kiss et al. (1993 and 1994) [43,44], where they reported the presence of arthropod seed predators (Carabidae).

2.2. Assessment of Seed Predation

Seed consumption patterns on ragweed were assessed in a winter wheat field during summer (22–27 June 2019 and 24–29 June 2021) and in a maize field during autumn (31 October–5 November 2019 and 21–26 October 2020), as well as in neighboring semi-natural habitats, at the Hungarian University of Agriculture and Life Sciences research field in (Szárítópuszta) Gödöllő, prior to crops harvest. Four rounds of ragweed seed exposure to invertebrate seed predators were conducted using altogether 160 seed cards. In total, 40 seed cards per sampling round/year were set horizontally on the soil surface—20 seed cards within the field and 20 in the semi-natural habitat (SNH)—along 5 transects, with 4 cards per transect, 10 m between transects, and 1 m between cards, at a 10 m distance from the field edge. In the semi-natural habitats, the seed cards were randomly set 1 m from the field edge.
Identifying the optimal exposure period for estimating weed seed consumption proved challenging, particularly since former observations often measured seed predation over long-term exposure periods, ranging from weeks up to a few months [45,46,47]. In this study, the number of remaining seeds on each card was recorded daily between 10:00 and 12:00 on each day (days 1–5) both in the field and SNHs, for seed predation estimations.

2.3. Weather Data Collection

Weather factors such as minimum, maximum, and average air temperature, relative humidity, barometric air pressure, precipitation, and solar radiation were measured continuously during the field studies and the values of weather factors were given for every two-hour period. For statistical analyses, the weather conditions were calculated for 24 h periods (between 12 pm on the previous day and 12 pm on the day of estimation) for each day of the survey periods (Table 1).

2.4. Data Preparation and Statistical Analysis

The proportion of the accumulated seed predation was measured by calculating the seed removal rate 5 days after field exposure. The number of remaining seeds on the cards was converted into a proportion of seed predation relative to the total number of glued seeds using Abbott’s correction formula [48],
Mi = (Ci − Ri)/Ci * 100
where Mi means the proportion of seed predation during exposure, Ci is the number of total glued seeds, and Ri is the number of remaining non-predated seeds on the cards.
The effects of habitat (factorial variable; inside the field as ‘field’ and adjacent semi-natural habitat as ‘SNH’) and survey period (factorial variable; 2019 Summer, 2019 Autumn, 2020 Autumn, and 2021 Summer) on accumulated seed predation were analyzed by two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) and by two-sample T-test for the habitat variable and by Tukey HSD test for the survey period variable in the case of significant (p < 0.05) factors of ANOVA.
To illustrate the timing of seed consumption in the study periods, we also calculated the accumulated seed consumption for each survey period for the given day (1 to 5) separately for fields and SNHs and compared the effect of habitat using a two-sample T-test for each period and day.
To analyze the effect of weather conditions, the 24 h period values of each weather factor were correlated (Pearson correlation) to additional seed predation separately in each survey period. Additional seed predation was calculated by modified Abbott’s correction formula [48],
Mi24 = (Ci24 − Ri24)/Ci24 * 100
where Mi24 means the proportion of seed predation during the last 24 h, Ci24 is the number of non-predated seeds on the cards at the beginning of the 24 h period, and Ri24 is the number of remaining non-predated seeds on the cards at the end of the 24 h period.
The strength of the correlations was assessed using the following range of absolute correlation coefficients: very weak: 0–0.19; weak: 0.20–0.39; moderate: 0.40–0.59; strong: 0.60–0.79; and very strong: 0.80–1.00.
The entire statistical data analysis was conducted by IBM SPSS Statistics 27.0.1.0 software using a p < 0.05 threshold.

3. Results

3.1. The Effects of Habitat and Survey Period on Seed Predation

Based on the first round of statistical evaluation, both habitat and timing of the survey period had a significant effect on the accumulated seed predation. Of the habitats, lower seed consumption was found inside the fields (87.85%) than in SNHs (93.64%). The effect of survey period timing was also detectable, but the effect of season was not clear. In general, lower predation was observed in autumn (72.43 and 97.05%) than in summer (93.00 and 99.13%) but, in contrast, no significant difference was detected between the autumn 2020 and summer 2019 surveys. However, the significance level of the interaction between habitat and season highlights that there is also a relationship between these factors and, therefore, periods with different characteristics should be considered separately (Table 2).
The increased tendency of seed predation showed differences during the four periods studied. Although predation rates exceeded 90% in three out of four study periods (2019 summer, 2020 autumn, and 2021 summer) until the end (day 5), there were large differences in these three cases at the beginning of the survey period, as in summer 2019, 62.5 and 65.5%, in autumn 2020, 19.8 and 20.5%, and in summer 2021, 37.0 and 38.0% predation was measured inside of the fields and on SNHs after the first survey day. Furthermore, predation rates continued to increase as long as sufficient feed was available; however, this increase was limited after day 3 in the summer of 2019 and after day 4 in the autumn of 2020. Comparing the fields and SNHs, significant differences can be found only in two study periods, as seed predation is higher between day 2 and day 3 in summer 2019, and continuously after day 2 in autumn 2019. No significantly higher predation was detected on any day of any period (Figure 1).

3.2. The Effect of Weather Conditions on Seed Predation

The impact of weather factors in different seasons and habitats is summarized in Table 3. In summer (16.1–22.3 °C), minimum temperatures do not affect seed predation, but in autumn (0.9–11.1 °C), higher (milder) minimum temperatures moderately increase predator activity (corr.: 0.43 and 0.49 in crop fields and SNHs, respectively). The effect of minimum temperature was similar in both habitats. The effect of maximum temperature was significant only in summer (26.6–37.0 °C) and in SNHs, where predators were more active at lower maximum temperatures (corr.: −0.25). The average temperature in summer (21.4–28.7 °C) significantly but weakly reduces predation in SNHs (corr.: −0.17) but has no effect inside the fields. Conversely, in autumn (5.4–12.2 °C), an increase in temperature increases seed consumption in both habitats (corr.: 0.40 and 0.37 in crop fields and SNHs, respectively).
The humidity (summer: 59.7–81.7%; autumn: 80.3–93.8%) has a significant positive effect on seed predation in both seasons and in both habitats. Correlations were weak in summer (corr.: 0.25 and 0.40 in crop fields and SNHs, respectively) but moderate according to autumn periods (corr.: 0.46 and 0.55 in crop fields and SNHs, respectively). In summer, air pressure (1011–1023 mbar) and precipitation (0.0–11.8 mm day−1) were significantly positively correlated with seed predation in both habitats. Correlations were moderate and weak for air pressure (corr.: 0.417 and 0.344 in crop fields and SNHs, respectively) but weak and very weak for precipitation (corr.: 0.203 and 0.190 in crop fields and SNHs, respectively). These weather factors had no significant effect during autumn survey periods (997–1025 mbar, 0.0–14.0 mm day−1) in any habitat. Except for surveys in the summer periods in crop fields, solar radiation significantly reduced seed predation. These correlations were weak for the summer periods in SNHs (corr.: −0.31) and for the autumn periods in crop fields (corr.: −0.35), and moderate for the autumn periods in SNHs (corr.: −0.52) (Table 3).

4. Discussion

The significance of seed predation as an ecosystem service is fast increasing among ecosystem ecologists, agroecologists, and plant population ecologists [27,33]. Based on the statistical analysis, we found that both habitat and sampling period have an impact on seed predation, but the effect was not clear for the sampling season. In the case of SNHs, the rate of seed consumption was significantly higher than in the crop fields, and the interaction between habitat and period was also significant, indicating that there must be an interaction between these two factors. Our findings demonstrated temporal patterns of seed predation on ragweed seeds by invertebrate seed predators on the soil surface, confirming identical results found across Europe on seed consumption registered on the soil surface [49,50]. In contrast, in our previous study, no influence of habitat type on weed seed predation was found [51]; however, a significant difference in seed predation level was realized between years [51,52]. Seed predation could be associated with the activity density of ground beetles, and that emphasizes the important role of carabids as ecosystem service providers in agricultural fields. The appearance of seed predation on each ragweed seed card set within wheat and maize fields and in the neighboring SNHs, during the exposure periods of 5 days, in all seasons confirms our hypothesis that A. artemisiifolia seeds could be predated by the abundant seed predators. Nevertheless, Dennis and Fry (1992) [53] found that semi-natural habitats have a beneficial impact on natural enemies. Furthermore, SNHs are advantageous for the abundance of predators and their number strongly depends on the number of non-crop habitats at a landscape scale [54].
Jacob et al. (2006) [55] reported a bigger seed consumption rate in the field edges near the neighboring habitats than those in the field center and within bordering vegetation. Yet, our findings are in contrast with those of González et al. (2020) [56], who observed diverse rates of seed consumption across different habitats. These differences in seed predation levels between different habitats could be linked to the positive relation between ecosystem services and seed consumer activity density. As a result, we consider that our findings show the possible contribution of invertebrate seed predators as their activity density was confirmed in Hungary previously by Kiss et al., 1993 [43], in wheat fields and the adjacent SNHs in the region of our research field. Therefore, our findings could be considered a close approximation of seed consumption ecosystem service.
Based on the results presented in the first analysis (two-way ANOVA), it is questionable whether it is worthwhile to examine the rate of predation in SNHs earlier, or only on the fifth day, and what causes the different effects observed between the periods. Further investigations are needed regarding these issues. The rates of predation measured in the SNHs and crop fields differed from each other by the 2nd and 3rd day in the summer of 2019, then predation “saturated” on the 4th and 5th days, and there was no longer a significant difference in seed predation. In autumn 2019, from the 2nd day, there was a difference in the rate of predation observed in the SNHs and crop fields. Due to lower seed consumption, the system could not saturate, meaning the difference remained significant throughout. The duration and frequency of the survey could likely be decisive factors in the results. In contrast, in the autumn of 2020 and in the summer of 2021, there was no significant effect. Seed consumption was significantly higher in one summer and autumn but not in the other, suggesting that the difference was likely caused by the specificity of the seasons. Therefore, we also examined the effects of weather. Our findings specifically proved a strong seed predation level in the summer seasons, similar to the results obtained by González et al. (2020) [56], who reported that seed consumption levels can grow in the summer. These high levels of seed predation are probably due to the fact that most Carabid beetles are more numerous in the summer season thanks to the seasonality of their life cycles [28], or may be accepted as a direct reaction to a growth in food source availability [57]. For example, seed waste of Lolium multiflorum Lam. could be as high as 32–70% in summer in organic wheat fields in the Netherlands as a consequence of seed consumption [27].
Several researchers have pointed out that climate [30] and weather conditions [27,58] affect seed consumption, but only some observations have directly dealt with the impacts of temperature [55,59]. Noroozi et al. 2016 [60] stated that temperature has a significant impact on post-dispersal seed predation. According to their results, there were significant correlations between the mean temperature and predator activity densities, as well as between consumed seeds and the mean air temperature. Regardless of habitat type, minimum temperature in summer (16.1–22.3 °C) had no effect, but in autumn (0.9–11.1 °C), higher (milder) minimum temperatures increased seed predator activity, indicating that autumn cold could be a limiting factor. Maximum temperature (26.6–37.0 °C) had a negative effect on seed predation only in SNHs and only in summer. The average temperature in summer (21.4–28.7 °C) decreased seed predation in SNHs, while in autumn (5.4–12.2 °C), it increased weed seed consumption in both habitat types (SNH and crop field). Humidity positively affected seed consumption in both seasons (summer: 59.7–81.7%; autumn: 80.3–93.8%) and in both habitats. For both habitats, precipitation in summer (0–11.8 mm day−1) increased seed consumption, but it had no effect in autumn. Summer heat can be moderated by precipitation, which increases seed predator activity. Since the weather is cooler in autumn, precipitation does not have this effect. Sunshine reduced seed consumption only in SNHs during summer (5014–7482 Wh m−2 day−1), but in autumn (580–2402 Wh m−2 day−1), it reduced seed consumption in both habitats. Sunny autumn mornings are likely cooler, which decreases seed predator activity. Comparing the habitats based on when (in which season) and to what extent weather factors affect seed consumers, we can say that there was a difference only in summer. In summer, average and maximum temperatures, as well as sunshine, negatively influenced predator activity in SNH areas, while these weather factors did not have measurable effects inside the crop fields. This difference could be caused by the different vegetation and resulting microclimates of the two habitats.
We found patterns of weed seed consumption on the soil surface because of seed consumption by the abundant seed consumers. This finding could be confirmed by similar local-scale studies undertaken in the European region which reported actual rates of weed seed predation on the soil surface [49,61]. Firstly, the high seed predation levels that were detected (all seed cards were affected and 86% of seeds were predated) confirm our original hypothesis that the investigated weed seeds might be predated when exposed to the relevant seed consumers. Furthermore, our outcomes are in agreement with the findings of some research in rural areas, where seed consumption has been recorded as a major reason for seed losses on the soil surface [62,63].
The effectiveness of seed predation depends on the amount of weed seeds present in the area, which is influenced by the competition of the vegetation in the area against ragweed in previous years, the level of nutrient supply, and the effectiveness of ragweed control [64].
Overall, regardless of the timing of seed predation, it can be stated that it affects plant population dynamics and can lead to significant weed seed losses in agroecosystems, thereby contributing to weed management. It can be considered a specific type of biological control, as the diminution of the weed seed bank by seed consumers can decrease weed density in the subsequent growing season [27].

5. Conclusions

Invertebrate seed predation could be a promising potential ecosystem service contributing to the integrated management programs of A. artemisiifolia in agricultural fields. Our findings revealed high levels of seed consumption on common ragweed in all cards set within the fields and their SNHs. However, seed predation levels differed by seasons, crops, and habitat types, being highest in summer in wheat fields rather than in autumn in maize fields, and stronger in SNHs than in crop field habitats. Weather factors, in most cases, and the timing of the survey period have obviously influenced the accumulated seed predation patterns. Based on our results, the seed card method contributes to preventive weed management.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.G.A.O. and Z.D.; methodology, M.G.A.O. and Z.D.; software, M.Z.; validation, M.Z.; formal analysis, M.Z.; investigation, M.G.A.O. and Z.D.; resources, M.G.A.O.; data curation, M.Z.; writing—original draft preparation, M.G.A.O., Á.K.S., M.Z. and Z.D.; writing—review and editing, M.G.A.O., Á.K.S., M.Z. and Z.D.; visualization, M.Z.; supervision, Z.D.; project administration, Z.D.; funding acquisition, Z.D. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was supported by the Ministry for Innovation and Technology within the framework of the Thematic Excellence Program 2020, the Institutional Excellence program (TKP2020-IKA-12) for research on plant breeding and plant protection, and the financial fund by the Stipendium Hungaricum scholarship program 2018–2022.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article.

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank Márk Szalai, data scientist, Bayer Hungaria, and Kovács Tímea, student, for their contribution to the fieldwork, and István Balla, managing director, MATE Non-profit Ltd. (Szárítópuszta), for providing the study area.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Essl, F.; Biró, K.; Brandes, D.; Broennimann, O.; Bullock, J.M.; Chapman, D.S.; Chauvel, B.; Dullinger, S.; Fumanal, B.; Guisan, A.; et al. Biological Flora of the British Isles: Ambrosia artemisiifolia. J. Ecol. 2015, 103, 1069–1098. [Google Scholar]
  2. Müller-Schärer, H.; Chauvel, B.; Karrer, G.; Kazinczi, G.; Kudsk, P.; AGJM, O.L.; Schaffner, U.; Skjoth, C.; Smith, M.; Sun, Y.; et al. Cross-fertilizing weed science and plant invasion science to improve efficient management: An European challenge. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2018, 33, 1–13. [Google Scholar]
  3. Csontos, P.; Vitalos, M.; Barina, Z.; Kiss, L. Early distribution and spread of Ambrosia artemisiifolia in Central and Eastern Europe. Bot. Helv. 2010, 120, 75–78. [Google Scholar]
  4. Novák, R.; Magyar, M.; Simon, G.; Kadaravek, B.; Kadaravekné Guttyán, A.; Blazsek, K.; Erdélyi, K.; Farkas, G.; Gyulai, B.; Hornyák, A.; et al. Change in the spread of common ragweed in Hungary in the light of the national arable weed surveys (1947–2019). In Proceedings of the Conference of the International Ragweed Society, Budapest, Hungary, 8–9 February 2022. [Google Scholar]
  5. Fumanal, B.; Gaudot, I.; Bretagnolle, F. Seed-bank dynamics in the invasive plant, Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. Seed Sci. Res. 2008, 18, 101–114. [Google Scholar]
  6. Kazinczi, G.; Béres, I.; Pathy, Z.; Novák, R. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.): A review with special regards to the results in Hungary: II. Importance and harmful effect, allergy, habitat, allelopathy and beneficial characteristics. Herbologia 2008, 9, 93–118. [Google Scholar]
  7. Fumanal, B.; Plenchette, C.; Chauvel, B.; Bretagnolle, F. Which role can arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi play in the facilitation of Ambrosia artemisiifolia L. invasion in France? Mycorrhiza 2006, 17, 25–35. [Google Scholar]
  8. MacKay, J.; Kotanen, P.M. Local escape of an invasive plant, common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.), from above-ground and below-ground enemies in its native area. J. Ecol. 2008, 96, 1152–1161. [Google Scholar]
  9. Genton, B.J.; Shykoff, J.A.; Giraud, T. High genetic diversity in French invasive populations of common ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia, as a result of multiple sources of introduction. Mol. Ecol. 2005, 14, 4275–4285. [Google Scholar]
  10. Friedman, J.; Barrett, S.C.H. High outcrossing in the annual colonizing species Ambrosia artemisiifolia (Asteraceae). Ann. Bot. 2008, 101, 1303–1309. [Google Scholar]
  11. Bohren, C.; Mermillod, G.; Delabays, N. Common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) in Switzerland: Development of a nationwide concerted action. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2006, 20, 497–503. [Google Scholar]
  12. Lavoie, C.; Jodoin, Y.; Merlis, A.G. How did common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) spread in Quebec? A historical analysis using herbarium records. J. Biogeogr. 2007, 34, 1751–1761. [Google Scholar]
  13. Hunyadi, K.; Béres, I.; Kazinczi, G. Gyomnövények, Gyomirtás, Gyombiológia, 1st ed.; Mezőgazda Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 2000; pp. 477–585. [Google Scholar]
  14. Shergill, L.S.; Bejleri, K.; Davis, A.; Mirsky, S.B. Fate of weed seeds after impact mill processing in midwestern and mid-Atlantic United States. Weed Sci. 2020, 68, 92–97. [Google Scholar]
  15. Buttenschøn, R.M.; Waldispühl, S.; Bohren, C. Guidelines for Management of Common Ragweed, Ambrosia artemisiifolia; Technical Report; EUPHRESCO, University of Copenhagen: København, Denmark, 2010; p. 47. Available online: https://internationalragweedsociety.org/smarter/wp-content/uploads/Ambrosia-management-guidelines-2009_AMBROSIA-EUPHRESCO_eng.pdf (accessed on 25 July 2024).
  16. Dickerson, C.T. Studies on the Germination, Growth, Development and Control of Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.). Ph.D. Thesis, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA, 1968. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kiss, J.; Penksza, K.; Tóth, F.; Kádár, F. Evaluation of fields and field margins in nature production capacity with special regard to plant protection. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 1997, 63, 227–232. [Google Scholar]
  18. Kádár, F.; Hatvani, A.; Kiss, J.; Tóth, F. Futóbogarak előfordulása őszibúza-táblában és a táblaszegélyben (Coleoptera: Carabidae). Növényvédelem 2004, 40, 53–59. [Google Scholar]
  19. Janzen, D.H. Seed predation by animals. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 1971, 2, 465–492. [Google Scholar]
  20. Hulme, P.E.; Benkman, C.W. Granivory. In Plant-Animal Interactions: An Evolutionary Approach, 1st ed.; Herrera, C.M., Pellmyr, O., Eds.; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2002; Volume 26, pp. 132–154. [Google Scholar]
  21. Tooley, J.; Brust, J. Weed Seed Predation by Carabid beetles. In The Agroecology of Carabid Beetles, 1st ed.; Holland, J.M., Ed.; Intercept: Andover, UK, 2002; pp. 215–230. [Google Scholar]
  22. Begon, M.; Townsend, C.R.; Harper, J.L. Ecology. From Individuals to Ecosystems; Wiley-Blackwell: Oxford, UK, 2006; p. 752. [Google Scholar]
  23. Karban, R.; Agrawal, A.A.; Thaler, J.S.; Adler, L.S. Induced plant responses and information content about risk of herbivory. Trends Ecol. Evol. 1999, 14, 443–447. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  24. Fuller, P.J.; Hay, M.E. Is glue production by seeds of Salvia columbariae deterrent to desert granivores? Ecology 1983, 64, 960–963. [Google Scholar]
  25. Gallandt, E.R.; Molloy, T.; Lynch, R.P.; Drummond, F.A. Effect of cover-cropping systems on invertebrate seed predation. Weed Sci. 2005, 53, 69–76. [Google Scholar]
  26. Cromar, H.E.; Murphy, S.D.; Swanton, C.J. Influence of tillage and crop residue on postdispersal predation of weed seeds. Weed Sci. 1999, 47, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Westerman, P.R.; Wes, J.S.; Kropff, M.J.; van der Werf, W. Annual losses of weed seeds due to predation in organic cereal fields. J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 40, 824–836. [Google Scholar]
  28. Labruyere, S.; Bohan, A.D.; Biju-Duval, L.; Ricci, B.; Petit, S. Local, neighbor and landscape effects on the abundance of weed seed-eating carabids in arable fields: A nationwide analysis. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2016, 17, 230–239. [Google Scholar]
  29. Griffiths, E.; Wratten, S.D.; Vickerman, G.P. Foraging by the carabid Agonum dorsale in the field. Ecol. Entom. 1985, 10, 181–189. [Google Scholar]
  30. Cardina, J.; Noroquay, H.M.; Stinner, B.R.; McCartney, D.A. Post-dispersal predation of velvetleaf (Abutilon threophrasti) seeds. Weed Sci. 1996, 44, 534–539. [Google Scholar]
  31. Petit, S.; Boursault, A.; Bohan, D.A. Weed seed choice by carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae): Linking field measurements with laboratory diet assessments. Eur. J. Entomol. 2014, 111, 615–620. [Google Scholar]
  32. Kulkarni, S.S.; Dosdall, L.M.; Willenborg, C.J. The role of ground beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) in weed seed consumption: A review. Weed Sci. 2015, 63, 335–376. [Google Scholar]
  33. Petit, S.; Trichard, A.; Biju-Duval, L.; Mclaughlin, B.; Bohan, D.A. Interactions between conservation agricultural practice and landscape composition promote weed seed predation by invertebrates. Agricult. Ecosys. Environ. 2017, 240, 45–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Saska, P.; Honěk, A.; Martinková, Z. Preferences of carabid beetles (Coleoptera: Carabidae) for herbaceous seeds. Acta Zool. Acad. Sci. Hung. 2019, 65, 57–76. [Google Scholar]
  35. Kádár, F.; Lövei, G. Bogarak—Coleoptera. In Biológiai Védekezés Természetes Ellenségekkel, 1st ed.; Balázs, K., Mészáros, Z., Eds.; Mezőgazdasági Kiadó: Budapest, Hungary, 1989; pp. 117–125. [Google Scholar]
  36. Brown, P.R.; Singleton, G.R.; Tann, C.R.; Mock, I. Increasing sowing depth to reduce mouse damage to winter crops. Crop Prot. 2003, 22, 653–660. [Google Scholar]
  37. Harper, J.L. Population Biology of Plants; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1977; p. 892. [Google Scholar]
  38. Shuler, R.E.; DiTommaso, A.; Losey, J.E.; Mohler, C.L. Postdispersal Weed Seed Predation Is Affected by Experimental Substrate. Weed Sci. 2008, 56, 889–895. [Google Scholar]
  39. Hulme, P.E. Post-dispersal seed predation in grassland: Its magnitude and sources of variation. J. Ecol. 1994, 82, 645–652. [Google Scholar]
  40. O’Rourke, M.E.; Heggenstaller, A.H.; Liebman, M.; Rice, M.E. Post-dispersal weed seed predation by invertebrates in conventional and low-external-input crop rotation systems. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2006, 116, 280–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Baraivar, B. Seed Predation and Weed Seed Predation for Weed Control in Winter Cereals. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Lleida, Lleida, Spain, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  42. Daedlow, D.; Westerman, P.R.; Baraibar, B.; Rouphael, S.; Gerowitt, B. Weed seed predation rate in cereals as a function of seed density and patch size, under high predation pressure by rodents. Weed Res. 2014, 54, 186–195. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Kiss, J.; Kádár, F.; Kozma, E.; Tóth, I. Importance of various habitats in agricultural landscape related to integrated pest management: A preliminary study. Landsc. Urban Plan. 1993, 27, 191–198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kiss, J.; Kádár, F.; Tóth, I.; Kozma, E.; Tóth, F. Occurrence of predatory arthropods in winter wheat and in the field edge. Ecologie 1994, 25, 127–132. [Google Scholar]
  45. Booman, G.C.; Laterra, P.; Comparatore, V.; Murillo, N. Post-dispersal predation of weed seeds by small vertebrates: Interactive influences of neighbor land use and local environment. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2009, 129, 277–285. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Deroulers, P.; Bretagnolle, V. The consumption pattern of 28 species of carabid beetles (Carabidae) to a weed seed, Viola arvensis. Bull. Entomol. Res. 2019, 109, 229–235. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Ichihara, M.; Maruyama, K.; Yamashita, M.; Sawada, H.; Inagaki, H.; Asai, M. Quantifying the ecosystem service of non-native weed seed predation in traditional terraced paddy fields. Weed Biol. Manag. 2021, 21, 192–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Abbott, W.S. A method of computing the effectiveness of an insecticide. J. Econ. Entomol. 1925, 18, 265–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Trichard, A.; Ricci, B.; Ducourtieux, C.; Petit, S. The spatiotemporal distribution of weed seed predation differs between conservation agriculture and conventional tillage. Agricult. Ecosys. Environ. 2014, 188, 40–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Carbonne, B.; Bohan, D.A.; Petit, S. Key carabid species drive spring weed seed predation of Viola arvensis. Biol. Contr. 2020, 141, 104148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Osman, M.G.A.; Szalai, M.; Zalai, M.; Dorner, Z.; Kiss, J. Measurement of post-dispersal invertebrate seed predation of some relevant weed species in maize fields in Hungary: An ecosystem service provided in crop fields contributing to weed management. Plant Prot. Sci. 2022, 58, 351–359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Osman, M.G.A.; Szalai, M.; Zalai, M.; Dorner, Z.; Kiss, J. Assessing the Importance of natural Regulating Mechanisms in Weed Management: The Case of Weed Seed Predation in a Winter Wheat Field and in Adjacent Semi-Natural Habitat in Northern Hungary. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Dennis, P.; Fry, G.L.A. Field margins: Can they enhance natural enemy population densities and general arthropod diversity on farmland? Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 1992, 40, 95–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Tscharntke, T.; Klein, A.M.; Kruess, A.; Steffan-Dewenter, I.; Thies, C. Landscape perspectives on agricultural intensification and biodiversity-ecosystem service management. Ecol. Lett. 2005, 8, 857–874. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Jacob, S.H.; Minkey, D.M.; Gallagher, R.S.; Borger, C.P. Variation in post-dispersal weed seed predation in a crop field. Weed Sci. 2006, 54, 148–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. González, E.; Seidl, M.; Kadlec, T.; Ferrante, M.; Knapp, M. Distribution of ecosystem services within oilseed rape fields: Effects of field defects on pest and weed seed predation rates. Agric. Ecosys. Environ. 2020, 295, 106894. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Frank, K.; Petrie, B.; Fisher, J.; Leggett, W.C. Transient dynamics of an altered large marine ecosystem. Nature 2011, 477, 86–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Crawley, M.J. Seed predators and population dynamics. In Seeds: The Ecology of Regeneration in Plant Communities; Fenner, M., Ed.; CAB International: Wallingford, UK, 1992; pp. 157–191. [Google Scholar]
  59. Alignier, A.; Meiss, H.; Petit, S.; Reboud, X. Variation of post-dispersal weed seed predation according to weed species, space and time. J. Plant Dis. Prot. 2008, 21, 221–226. [Google Scholar]
  60. Noroozi, S.; Alizadeh, H.; Mashhadi, H.R. Temperature influences postdispersal predation of weed seeds. Weed Biol. Manag. 2016, 16, 24–33. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Westerman, P.R. Are many little hammers effective? Velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) population dynamics in two- and four-year crop rotation systems. Weed Sci. 2005, 53, 382–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Brust, G.E.; House, G.J. Weed seed destruction by arthropods and rodents in low-input soybean agroecosystems. Am. J. Altern. Agric. 1988, 3, 19–25. [Google Scholar]
  63. Swanton, C.J.; Griffith, J.T.; Cromar, H.E.; Booth, B.D. Pre and post-dispersal weed seed predation and its implications to agriculture. In Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Council Conference, Brighton, UK, 15–18 November 1999; pp. 829–834. [Google Scholar]
  64. Leskovsek, R.; Datta, A.; Simoncic, A.; Knezevic, S.Z. Influence of nitrogen and plant density on the growth and seed production of common ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.). J. Pest. Sci. 2012, 85, 527–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Diversity 16 00609 g001
Figure 1. Seed predation affected by different habitats during 5-day survey periods in 2019–2021, Gödöllő, Hungary (p values indicate the significant differences between habitats on the same days based on the accumulated seed predation between day 0 and the given day; blue, crop fields; orange, semi-natural habitat; ns, not significant on 95% confidence level).
Figure 1. Seed predation affected by different habitats during 5-day survey periods in 2019–2021, Gödöllő, Hungary (p values indicate the significant differences between habitats on the same days based on the accumulated seed predation between day 0 and the given day; blue, crop fields; orange, semi-natural habitat; ns, not significant on 95% confidence level).
Diversity 16 00609 g001
Table 1. Weather conditions during the 5-day survey periods in 2019–2021, Gödöllő, Hungary.
Table 1. Weather conditions during the 5-day survey periods in 2019–2021, Gödöllő, Hungary.
Weather Factors [Unit]2019 Summer2019 Autumn2020 Autumn2021 Summer
Avg. (Min–Max)
Minimum temperature [°C]18.7 (17.3–20.5)5.7 (0.9–11.1)7.2 (3.6–10.8)17.8 (16.1–22.3)
Maximum temperature [°C]29.1 (26.6–32.7)11.4 (9.8–14.6)14.9 (13.4–16.7)31.8 (29.7–37.0)
Average temperature [°C]23.9 (21.4–26.9)8.0 (5.4–12.2)10.5 (9.3–12.1)25.1 (23.3–28.7)
Relative humidity [%]77.0 (73.4–81.7)87.5 (80.3–92.2)90.2 (84.8–93.8)62.9 (59.7–64.8)
Air pressure [mbar]1019 (1015–1023)1009 (997–1025)1016 (1012–1020)1013 (1011–1015)
Precipitation [mm]2.4 (0.0–11.8)4.1 (0.0–14.0)1.7 (0.0–7.6)0.0 (0.0–0.0)
Solar radiation [Wh m−2]6199 (5014–7438)1120 (596–2402)1394 (580–2234)6882 (5800–7482)
Table 2. The effects of habitat (crop field vs. semi-natural habitat, SNH) and timing of 5-day survey periods on accumulated seed predation in 2019–2021, Gödöllő, Hungary.
Table 2. The effects of habitat (crop field vs. semi-natural habitat, SNH) and timing of 5-day survey periods on accumulated seed predation in 2019–2021, Gödöllő, Hungary.
Factor Variabled.f.ANOVATukey HSD/T-Test
Fp-ValueGroupAvg. Value (Pred.%)Sign. *
Habitat137.840<0.001Crop field87.85a
SNH93.64b
Period3153.334<0.0012019 Summer99.13C
2019 Autumn72.43A
2020 Autumn97.05C
2021 Summer93.00B
Habitat × Period331.372<0.001
* The different letters indicate significant differences between mean values (p < 0.05).
Table 3. Effect of weather factors on additional (daily) seed predation in crop fields and semi-natural habitats (SNHs) in different seasons, 2019–2021, Gödöllő, Hungary.
Table 3. Effect of weather factors on additional (daily) seed predation in crop fields and semi-natural habitats (SNHs) in different seasons, 2019–2021, Gödöllő, Hungary.
Weather FactorsSummer PeriodsAutumn Periods
Crop FieldSNHCrop FieldSNH
pCorr.pCorr.pCorr.pCorr.
Minimum temperaturens ns <0.0010.43<0.0010.49
Maximum temperaturens 0.001−0.28ns ns
Average temperaturens 0.023−0.17<0.0010.40<0.0010.37
Humidity0.0010.25<0.0010.40<0.0010.46<0.0010.55
Air pressure<0.0010.42<0.0010.34ns ns
Precipitation0.0050.200.0130.19ns ns
Solar radiationns 0.000−0.310.000−0.35<0.001−0.52
Note: Pearson correlation (Corr.); not significant on 95% confidence level (ns).
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Dorner, Z.; Osman, M.G.A.; Kukorellyné Szénási, Á.; Zalai, M. Assessment of Common Ragweed (Ambrosia Artemisiifolia L.) Seed Predation in Crop Fields and Their Adjacent Semi-Natural Habitats in Hungary. Diversity 2024, 16, 609. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16100609

AMA Style

Dorner Z, Osman MGA, Kukorellyné Szénási Á, Zalai M. Assessment of Common Ragweed (Ambrosia Artemisiifolia L.) Seed Predation in Crop Fields and Their Adjacent Semi-Natural Habitats in Hungary. Diversity. 2024; 16(10):609. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16100609

Chicago/Turabian Style

Dorner, Zita, Mohammed Gaafer Abdelgfar Osman, Ágnes Kukorellyné Szénási, and Mihály Zalai. 2024. "Assessment of Common Ragweed (Ambrosia Artemisiifolia L.) Seed Predation in Crop Fields and Their Adjacent Semi-Natural Habitats in Hungary" Diversity 16, no. 10: 609. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16100609

APA Style

Dorner, Z., Osman, M. G. A., Kukorellyné Szénási, Á., & Zalai, M. (2024). Assessment of Common Ragweed (Ambrosia Artemisiifolia L.) Seed Predation in Crop Fields and Their Adjacent Semi-Natural Habitats in Hungary. Diversity, 16(10), 609. https://doi.org/10.3390/d16100609

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop