Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T07:33:24.587Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

On the Significance of Field Studies in Allelopathy

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Inderjit ,
Manjit Kaur  and
C. L. Foy
Inderjit
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
Manjit Kaur
Affiliation:
Department of Botany, Panjab University, Chandigarh 160014, India
C. L. Foy*
Affiliation:
Department of Plant Pathology, Physiology, and Weed Science, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA 24061
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: cfoy@vt.edu.
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Allelopathy has been suggested as a mechanism of interference in several weed species. Allelochemicals released from certain weed species influence the growth and yield of crop species. Several laboratory studies present circumstantial evidence of the occurrence of allelopathy as a causative agent in weed–crop agroecosystems. Field evidence, however, is still lacking. In this paper, the significance of field studies is argued in terms of a multifaceted approach to allelopathy, and mugwort is used as an example. Previous research demonstrated the allelopathic potential of mugwort; however, experiments were not carried out in a natural environment. Inderjit and Foy (1999) have demonstrated that chemical characteristics (pH, inorganic ions, and phenolics) of soil amended with mugwort leaf leachate were altered when compared to unamended soil. We have analyzed the mugwort-infested field soil and compared its chemical characteristics with those of amended soils. No definite trend, in terms of influence of mugwort on soil chemistry, was observed. Results indicate the importance of field studies in order to obtain ecologically relevant data from laboratory studies. Field situations are often complex in terms of the presence of interfering flora. Cyanobacteria, for example, play an important role in weed–crop interactions in rice paddy soils. Allelochemicals released from weed species present in the paddy field may influence nitrogen-fixing cyanobacteria in addition to their phytotoxic effects to the paddy crop. Significance of phytotoxic effects of weed species on crop growth, and N2-fixing potential of cyanobacteria in paddy soils is discussed.

Keywords

Cyanobacteriamugwort, Artemisia vulgaris L. # ARTVUrice, Orzya sativa L.Phenolicssoil characteristicsTrifolium pratense
Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 15 , Issue 4 , December 2001 , pp. 792 - 797
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Blum, U. 1999. Designing laboratory plant debris-soil bioassays: some reflections. In Inderjit, K.M.M. Dakshini, and Foy, C. L., eds. Principles and Practices in Plant Ecology: Allelochemical Interactions. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 17–23.Google Scholar
Blum, U., Gerig, T. M., Worsham, A. D., and King, L. D. 1993. Modification of allelopathic effects of p-coumaric acid on morningglory seedling biomass by glucose, methionine, and nitrate. J. Chem. Ecol. 19: 2791–2811.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brady, N. C. 1996. The Nature and Properties of Soils. 10th ed. New Delhi: Prentice Hall of India. 621 p.Google Scholar
Broadbent, F. E. and Tyler, K. B. 1962. Laboratory and greenhouse investigations of nitrogen mobilization. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 27: 459–462.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Cheremisinoff, P. N. and Ellerbusch, F. 1978. Carbon Adsorption Handbook. Ann Arbor, MI: Ann Arbor Science Publishers. 1063 p.Google Scholar
Eviner, V. T. and Chapin, F. S. III. 1997. Plant-microbial interactions. Nature 385: 26–27.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gleason, F. K. and Case, D. E. 1986. Activity of the natural algicide, cyanobacterin, on angiosperm. Plant Physiol. 80: 834–837.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Harper, J. L. 1977. Population Biology of Plants. London: Academic Press. 892 p.Google Scholar
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York: J. Wiley. 1129 p.Google Scholar
Inderjit, . 1998. Influence of Pluchea lanceolata (Asteraceae) on selected soil properties. Am. J. Bot. 85: 64–69.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inderjit, and Dakshini, K.M.M. 1994a. Allelopathic potential of phenolics from the roots of Pluchea lanceolata . Physiol. Plant. 92: 571–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inderjit, and Dakshini, K.M.M. 1994b. Allelopathic effects on Pluchea lanceolata (Asteraceae) on characteristics of four soils and growth of mustard and tomato. Am. J. Bot. 81: 799–804.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inderjit, and Dakshini, K.M.M. 1994c. Algal allelopathy. Bot. Rev. 60: 182–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inderjit, and Dakshini, K.M.M. 1997. Effects of cyanobacterial inoculum on soil characteristics and cereal growth. Can. J. Bot. 75: 1267–1272.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inderjit, and Del Moral, R. 1997. Is separating resource competition from allelopathy realistic? Bot. Rev. 63: 221–230.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inderjit, and Foy, C. L. 1999. Nature of the interference mechanism of mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris). Weed Technol. 13: 176–182.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inderjit, and Keating, K. I. 1999. Allelopathy: principles, procedures, processes, and promises for biological control. Adv. Agron. 67: 141–231.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inderjit, and Weston, L. A. 2000. Are laboratory bioassays for allelopathy suitable for prediction of field responses? J. Chem. Ecol. 20: 2111–2118.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Inderjit, C. L. Foy, and Dakshini, K.M.M. 1998. Pluchea Lanceolata: a noxious perennial weed. Weed Technol. 12: 190–193.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Lambers, H., Chapin, F. S. III, and Pons, T. L. 1998. Plant Physiological Ecology. Berlin: Springer-Verlag. 540 p.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
McCarty, G. W. and Bremner, J. M. 1986. Effects of phenolic compounds on nitrification in soil. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 50: 920–923.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Michelsen, A., Schmidt, I. K., Jonasson, S., Dighton, J., Jones, H. E., and Callaghan, T. V. 1995. Inhibition of growth, and effects on nutrient uptake of arctic graminoids by leaf extracts—allelopathy or resource competition between plant and microbes? Oecologia 103: 407–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Olofsdotter, M., ed. 1998. Allelopathy in Rice. Manila: International Rice Research Institute. 154 p.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1986. Allelopathy. In Camper, N. D., ed. Research Methods in Weed Science, Champaign, IL: Southern Weed Science Society. pp. 111–134.Google Scholar
Putnam, A. R. 1985. Weed allelopathy. In Duke, S. O., ed. Weed Physiology. Volume 1: Reproduction and Ecophysiology. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. pp. 131–155.Google Scholar
Rice, E. L. 1984. Allelopathy. Orlando, FL: Academic Press. 422 p.Google Scholar
Rice, E. L. and Pancholy, S. K. 1973. Inhibition of nitrification by climax ecosystems. II. Additional evidence and possible role of tannins. Am. J. Bot. 60: 691–702.Google Scholar
Rice, E. L. and Pancholy, S. K. 1974. Inhibition of nitrification by climax ecosystems. III. Inhibitors other than tannins. Am. J. Bot. 61: 1095–1103.Google Scholar
Stark, J. M. and Hart, S. C. 1997. High rates of nitrification and nitrate turnover in undisturbed coniferous forests. Nature 385: 61–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Wardle, D. A. and Nilsson, M.-C. 1997. Microbe-plant competition, allelopathy in arctic plants. Oecologia 109: 291–293.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wardle, D. A., Nilsson, M. C., Gallet, C., and Zackrisson, O. 1998. An ecosystem level perspective of allelopathy. Biol. Rev. 73: 305–319.Google Scholar
Wu, H., Pratley, T., Lemerle, D., and Haig, T. 1999. Crop cultivars with allelopathic activity. Weed Res. 39: 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar