Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-r5fsc Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-28T01:08:02.107Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Genetic Uniformity in an Introduced Population of Witchweed (Striga asiatica) in the United States

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Charles R. Werth ,
James L. Riopel  and
Nan W. Gillespie
Charles R. Werth
Affiliation:
Mountain Lake Biol. Stn., Univ. of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 24136
James L. Riopel
Affiliation:
Dep. Biol., Univ. of Virginia, Charlottesville, VA 22901
Nan W. Gillespie
Affiliation:
Dep. Biol., Princeton Univ., Princeton, NJ 08450
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Witchweed, [Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze5 STRLU], an important parasitic weed throughout much of the old world, occurs as a recent (30 yr) introduction in a limited region in North and South Carolina. Reproduction in this population has been shown to occur primarily through self-pollination of flowers. Genetic diversity in two populations from this region was assessed, utilizing starch gel electrophoresis and staining of enzymes. An average of 64 individuals was observed to be monomorphic at an estimated minimum of 32 genetic loci coding 18 enzyme systems. This lack of polymorphism is attributable to the probable founding of the population by one or a few individuals coupled with the predominantly autogamous breeding system.

Keywords

Parasitic weedisozymeenzyme polymorphismScrophulariaceaeautogamySTRLU
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 32 , Issue 5 , September 1984 , pp. 645 - 648
Copyright
Copyright © 1984 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Literature Cited

1. Eplee, R. E. 1981. Striga status as a plant parasite in the United States. Plant Dis. 65(12):951–954.Google Scholar
2. Garris, H. R. and Wells, J. C. 1956. Parasitic herbaceous annual associated with corn disease in North Carolina. Plant Dis. Rep. 40:837–839.Google Scholar
3. Gottlieb, L. D. 1977. Electrophoretic evidence and plant systematics. Annu. M. Bot. Gar. 65:164–180.Google Scholar
4. Gottlieb, L. D. 1982. Conservation and duplication of isozymes in plants. Science 216:373–380.Google Scholar
5. Hamrick, J. L., Linhart, Y. B., and Milton, J. B. 1979. Relationships between life history characteristics and electrophoretically detectable genetic variation in plants. Ann. Rev. Ecol. Syst. 10:173–200.Google Scholar
6. Harris, H. and Hopkinson, D. A. 1976. Handbook of enzyme electrophoresis in human genetics. American Elsevier Publ. Co., Inc., New York.Google Scholar
7. Lakshmi, B. and Jayachandra, . 1979. Physiological variations in Striga asiatica . Pages 132–143 in Musselman, L. J., Worsham, A. D., and Eplee, R. E., eds. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Parasitic Weeds. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
8. Musselman, L. J. 1982. Parasitic weeds of arable land. Pages 175–185 in Holzner, W., and Numata, N. (eds.), Biology and ecology of weeds. Dr. W. Junk Publishers, The Hague.Google Scholar
9. Nickrent, D. L. and Musselman, L. J. 1979. Autogamy in the American strain of witchweed, Striga asiatica (Scrophulariaceae). Brittonia 31:253–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
10. Patterson, D. T., Musser, R. L., Flint, E. P., and Eplee, R. E. 1982. Temperature responses and potential for spread of witchweed (Striga lutea) in the United States. Weed Sci. 30:87–93.Google Scholar
11. Reid, D. C. and Parker, C. 1979. Germination requirements of Striga species. Pages 202–210 in Musselman, L. J., Worsham, A. D., and Eplee, R. E., eds. Proc. 2nd Int. Symp. Parasitic Weeds. North Carolina State Univ., Raleigh, NC.Google Scholar
12. Sand, P. F. 1979. Witchweed–will it invade the midwest? Weeds Today 10(1):5–6.Google Scholar
13. Selander, R. K., Smith, M. H., Yang, S. Y., Johnson, W. E. and Gentry, J. B. 1971. Biochemical polymorphism in the genus Peromyscus. 1. Variation in the old-field mouse (Peromyscus polionotus). Studies in genetics. VI. Univ. Texas Publ. 7103:49–90.Google Scholar
14. Shaw, C. R. and Prasad, R. 1970. Starch gel electrophoresis of enzymes – a compilation of recipes. Biochem. Genet. 4:297–320.Google Scholar
15. Soltis, D. E., Haufler, C. H., Darrow, D. C., and Gastony, J. G. 1983. Starch gel electrophoresis of ferns: A compilation of grinding buffers, gel and electrode buffers, and staining schedules. Am. Fern. J. 73:9–27.Google Scholar
16. Wendel, J. F. 1980. Enzyme extraction from a tannin rich plant. Isozyme Bull. 13:116.Google Scholar
17. Werth, C. R., Karlin, A. A., and Guttman, S. I. 1982. Enzyme extraction from phenolic-containing plant tissues using caffeine. Isozyme Bull. 15:139.Google Scholar