We determined feeding preferences of invertebrate seed predators and the effect of seed predation on weed emergence. Feeding choice studies were completed with three species of common ground beetles: (Amara aeneaDeGeer,Anisodactylus sanctaecrucisF., andHarpalus pensylvanicusDeGeer) (Coleoptera: Carabidae) and the northern field cricket (Gryllus pennsylvanicusDeGeer) (Orthoptera: Gryllidae).Anisodactylus sanctaecrucis,H. pensylvanicus, and the female and maleG. pennsylvanicusconsumed more redroot pigweed seeds compared with giant foxtail seeds;A. aeneaseed consumption did not differ between these two weed species. All invertebrates consumed fewer velvetleaf seeds compared with redroot pigweed and giant foxtail seeds; however, when seed biomass was compared,A. aeneaconsumed similar biomass of velvetleaf, giant foxtail, and redroot pigweed, whereasA. sanctaecrucisandH. pensylvanicusconsumed greater biomass of velvetleaf compared with giant foxtail seed. Seed burial depths of 0.5 or 1.0 cm reduced redroot pigweed and giant foxtail seed consumption byA. aeneaandA. sanctaecrucisbut not by the larger carabid beetle,H. pensylvanicus. In a greenhouse study,A. sanctaecrucisdecreased total weed emergence by 15%, andG. pennsylvanicusfemales and males decreased weed emergence by 16 and 5%, respectively. Emergence of redroot pigweed, but not velvetleaf or giant foxtail, decreased whenA. sanctaecrucisand the maleG. pennsylvanicuswere present, whereas the emergence of all three weed species decreased in the presence of the femaleG. pennsylvanicus. In field experiments, vertebrate access to velvetleaf seeds reduced emergence from 4 to 9% across field sites; invertebrate access reduced emergence 4 to 6%. Vertebrate access to giant foxtail seeds reduced emergence 3 to 7%, and invertebrate access reduced emergence 4 to 13%. These results suggest that predation of weed seeds by both vertebrates and invertebrates may reduce weed emergence and influence the weed community.

This Legal Reconnaissance Paper on Municipal Bond F'inancing of Solar Energy Facilities was prepared by the Solar Energy Research Institute (SERI) to fulfill, in part, SERrs solar information dissemination function. This paper is part of the Market Development Branch Law Program, which in turn is a part of the overall program of the Commercialization Division. This is the fourth of five Legal Reconnaissance Papers sponsored by the SERI Law Program. The other four address (1) legal issues surrounding the commercialization of OTEC, (2) legal issues pertaining to the commercialization of WECS, (3) regulated utilities and solar energy, and (4) legal issues raised by the commercialization of solar heating and cooling (SHAC) devices. These five st4dies are meant to broadly survey the legal •questions that are raised by either a specific solar technology (i.e., OTEC, SHAC, and WECS) or a potential barrier or incentive to the general commercialization of solar technologies (i.e., utilities and municipai bonds). It is hoped that these reconnaissance papers will be springboards for further, more detailed studies of some aspect of the general topic• covered. • Sharon Stanton White is a partner in the San Francisco law firm of Jones, Hall, Hill, and White, where she practices in the area of municipal bonds.