Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-m6dg7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-01T00:14:52.214Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

An Assessment of Allelopathic Potential in Avena Germ Plasm

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

P.K. Fay  and
W.B. Duke
P.K. Fay
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853
W.B. Duke
Affiliation:
Dep. Agron., Cornell Univ., Ithaca, NY 14853
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Three thousand accessions of the U.S. Dep. Agric. World Collection of Avena sp. germ plasm were screened for their ability to exude scopoletin (6-methoxy-7-hydroxy coumarin), a naturally occurring compound shown to have root growth inhibiting properties. Twenty-five accessions exuded more blue-fluorescing materials than a standard oat cultivar (Avena sativa L. ‘Garry’). Analysis of the exuded materials revealed that four accessions exuded up to three times as much scopoletin as ‘Garry’. When PI 266281 was grown with wild mustard [Brassica kaber (D.C.) L.C. Wheeler var. pinnatifida (Stokes) L.C. Wheeler] for 16 days in sand culture, the growth of the wild mustard was significantly less than that obtained when the weed was grown with ‘Garry’. Wild mustard plants grown in close association with PI 266281 exhibited severe chlorosis, stunting, and twisting which appeared indicative of chemical or allelopathic effects rather than simple competition. Analysis of the culture solution indicated that levels of scopoletin were too low to cause the observed effects and it is postulated that the final toxic effects were possibly due to the exudation of scopoletin and other allelopathic compounds.

Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 25 , Issue 3 , May 1977 , pp. 224 - 228
Copyright
Copyright © 1977 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. Austin, D.J. and Clark, D.D. 1966. Production of coumarins by Nature 210:1165–1166.Google Scholar
2. Borner, H. 1960. Liberation of organic substances from higher plants and their role in the soil sickness problem. Bot. Rev. 26:393–424.Google Scholar
3. Einhellig, F.A., Rice, E.L., Risser, P.G., and Wender, S.H. 1970. Effects of scopoletin on growth, CO2 exchange rates, and concentration of scopoletin, scopolin and chlorogenic acids in tobacco, sunflower and pigweed. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 97:22–23.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
4. Gentner, G. 1928. Uber die Verwendbarkeit von Ultra Violetten Strahlen beider samen Prufung. Prak. Bl. Pflanzenbau Pflanzenhutz 6:166–172.Google Scholar
5. Gressel, J.B. and Holm, L.G. 1964. Chemical inhibition of crop germination by weed seed and the nature of the inhibition by Abutilon theophrasti . Weed Res. 4:44–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
6. Hoagland, D.R. and Arnon, D.I. 1950. The water culture method for growing plants without soil. Calif. Agric. Exp. Stn. Cir. 347. 32 pp.Google Scholar
7. Bell, D.T. and Koeppe, D.E. 1972. Non competitive effects of giant foxtail on the growth of corn. Agron. J. 64:321–325.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
8. Korableva, N.P., Morozova, E.V., Popova, L.V., and Metlitskii, L.V. 1969. Specific growth inhibitors in connection with dormancy and immunity in plants. Dok. Akad. Nauk SSSR. 184:979–981.Google Scholar
9. Kuc, J. 1972. Compounds accumulating in plants after infection. Pages 211–247 in Kadis, S., Ciegler, A., Aji, S.J., eds. Microbial Toxins. Academic Press, NY.Google Scholar
10. Martin, P. 1957. The secretion of organic compounds, especially scopoletin, from the roots of oat seedlings. Z. Bot. 45:475–506.Google Scholar
11. Martin, P. and Rademacher, B. 1960. Studies on the mutual effects of weeds and crops. Br. Ecol. Soc. Symp. 1:143–152.Google Scholar
12. McCalla, T.M. and Haskins, F.A. 1964. Phytotoxic substances from soil microorganisms and crop residues. Bacteriol. Rev. 28:181–207.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Patrick, Z.A. and Koch, L.W. 1958. Inhibition of respiration germination and growth by substances arising during the decomposition of certain plant residues in the soil. Can. J. Bot. 36:621–647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
14. Patrick, Z.A., Toussoun, T.A., and Snyder, A. 1963. Phytotoxic substances in arable soils associated with decomposition of plant residues. Phytopathology 53:152–161.Google Scholar
15. Pollock, B.M., Goodwin, R.H., and Greene, Susan. 1954. Studies on roots. II. Effects of coumarin, scopoletin and other substances on growth. Am. J. Bot. 41:521–529.Google Scholar
16. Putnam, A.R. and Duke, W.B. 1974. Biological suppression of weeds: Evidence for allelopathy in accessions of cucumber. Science 185:370–372.Google Scholar
17. Putnam, A.R., Duke, W.B., and Lockerman, R.L. 1975. Allelopathy and differential competitive ability in cucumber accessions. Abstr. Weed Sci. Soc. Am. Page 58.Google Scholar
18. Rademacher, B. 1941. Uber den antogonistischen Einfluss, von Roggen und Weizen auf Keimung and Entwicklung macher. Unkrauter. Pflanzenbau 17:131–143.Google Scholar
19. Rice, E.L. 1974. Alleopathy. Academic Press, NY. 353 pp.Google Scholar
20. Rovira, A.D. 1969. Plant root exudates. Bot. Rev. 35:35–53.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
21. Tryon, K. 1956. Scopoletin in differentiating and non-differentiating cultured tobacco tissue. Science 123:590.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Whittaker, R.H. and Feeny, P.P. 1971. Allelochemics: Chemical interactions between species. Science 171:757–770.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed