Hostname: page-component-7b7567c8c-kwt9d Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2026-11-14T09:05:28.771Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Allelopathic Potential of Pluchea lanceolata: Comparative Studies of Cultivated Fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Inderjit and
K. M. M. Dakshini
Inderjit
Affiliation:
Bio. Dep., Lakehead University, Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada P7B 5E1
K. M. M. Dakshini
Affiliation:
Bot. Dep., Univ. Delhi, Delhi-110007, India
Get accessRights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The study was undertaken to compare the level of total phenolics and the allelopathic potential of Pluchea lanceolata in soils cultivated once or twice a year. Thirty-five cultivated fields were sampled from seven sites in three different seasons. The leaf area, leaf weight, height, and density of P. lanceolata plants were measured. Leaves of P. lanceolata were analyzed for nine chemical characteristics: leaf ash, total phenolics, phosphate, Cu, Zn, Na, K, Mg, and Ca. Weed-infested topsoil and subsoil were analyzed for pH, electrical conductivity, organic carbon, chloride, bicarbonate, total carbonate, phosphate, total phenolics, Zn, Na, K, Mg, and Ca. Fields cultivated twice a year were designated as Group I, while those cultivated once a year were designated as Group II. Biotic and chemical characteristics of plants of Group I and II were not different. Topsoil and subsoil of Group II had higher values for Ca, while topsoil of Group I had higher values for total phenolics. The higher phenolic content of Group I topsoil was probably due to greater incorporation of weed plant parts into the soils as compared to Group II fields. Seedling growth of crop plants such as radish, carrot, maize, mustard, tomato, turnip, and wheat was affected more by soil from P. lanceolata-infested fields that were cultivated twice a year than those cultivated only once. A correlation between higher total phenolic content of P. lanceolata-infested topsoil with two cultivations, and growth response of crop plants was recorded.

Keywords

Pluchea lanceolata (DC.) C. B. Clarke ♯ PLULAwheat, Triticum aestivum L.radish, Raphanus sativus L.mustard, Brassica juncea (L.) Czern. & Cosschick pea, Cicer arietinum L.tomato, Lycopersicon esculentum Mill.carrot, Daucus carota L.turnip, Brassica rapa L.corn, Zea mays L.Allelopathyinterferencephenolics

Information

Type
Special Topics
Information
Weed Science , Volume 44 , Issue 2 , June 1996, pp. 393 - 396
Copyright
Copyright © 1996 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.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Bard, G. E. 1945. The mineral nutrient content of the foliage trees on three soil types of varying limestone content. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. Proc. 10: 419–422.Google Scholar
2. Bhandari, M. M. 1979. Flora of Indian Deserts. Pages 207–208. Scientific Publishers, Jodhpur, India.Google Scholar
3. Bhowmik, P. C. and Doll, J. D. 1984. Allelopathic effects of the annual weed residues on growth and nutrient uptake of corn and soybean. Agron. J. 76: 383–388.Google Scholar
4. Blum, U., Worsham, A. D., King, L. D., and Gerig, T. M. 1994. Use of water and EDTA extractions to estimate available (free and reversibly bound) phenolic acids in Cecil soils. J. Chem. Ecol. 20: 341–359.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Brady, N. C. 1990. The Nature and Properties of Soils. Pages 1–21. Maxwell McMillan International, New York.Google Scholar
6. Dakshini, K. M. M. and Sabina, C. A. 1981. Ecological strategies of the weed, Pluchea lanceolata (DC.) C. B. Clarke (Asteraceae). Proc. Indian Natr. Sci. Acad. B. 47: 907–911.Google Scholar
7. Daubenmire, R. 1968. Plant Communities: A Textbook of Plant Synecology. Pages 39–89. John Wiley and Sons, New York.Google Scholar
8. Del Moral, R. and Muller, C. H. 1970. The allelopathic effects of Eucalyptus camaldulensis . Am. Midl. Natur. 83: 254–282.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
9. Ehrendorfer, F. 1968. Geographical and ecological aspects of interspecific differentiation. Pages 261–296 in Heywood, V. H., ed. Modern Methods in Plant Taxonomy. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
10. Garten, C. T. Jr. 1978. Multivariate perspectives on the ecology of plant mineral composition. Am. Natr. 112: 533–544.Google Scholar
11. Grimshaw, H.M., Allen, S. E., and Parkinson, J. A. 1989. Nutrient elements. Pages 81–159 in Allen, S. E., ed. Chemical Analysis of Ecological Materials. Blackwell Scientific Publications, Oxford.Google Scholar
12. Heisey, R. M. 1990. Evidence for allelopathy by tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima). J. Chem. Ecol. 16: 2039–2055.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Inderjit, and Dakshini, K. M. M. 1990. The nature of interference potential of Pluchea lanceolata (DC.) C. B. Clarke (Asteraceae). Plant Soil 122: 298–302.Google Scholar
14. Inderjit, and Dakshini, K. M. M. 1991. Hesperetin 7-rutinoside (hesperidin) and taxifolin 3-arabinoside as germination and growth inhibitors in soils associated with the weed, Pluchea lanceolata (DC.) C. B. Clarke (Asteraceae). J. Chem. Ecol. 17: 1585–1591.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
15. Inderjit, and Dakshini, K. M. M. 1992. Formononetin 7-0-glucoside (ononin) an additional growth inhibitor in soils associated with the weed, Pluchea lanceolata (DC.) C. B. Clarke (Asteraceae). J. Chem. Ecol. 18: 713–718.Google Scholar
16. Inderjit, and Dakshini, K. M. M. 1992. Interference potential of Pluchea lanceolata (Asteraceae): Growth and physiological responses of asparagus bean, Vigna unguiculata var. sesquipedalis. Am. J. Bot. 79: 977–981.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
17. Inderjit, and Dakshini, K. M. M. 1994. Effect of cultivation on interference success of the weed, Pluchea lanceolata . J. Chem. Ecol. 20: 1179–1188.Google Scholar
18. Inderjit, and Dakshini, K. M. M. 1994. Allelopathic effects of Pluchea lanceolata (Asteraceae) on characteristics of four soils and tomato and mustard growth. Am. J. Bot. 81: 799–804.Google Scholar
19. Inderjit, and Dakshini, K. M. M. 1994. Allelopathic potential of the phenolics from the roots of Pluchea lanceolata . Physiol. Plant. 92: 571–576.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
20. Inderjit, and Dakshini, K. M. M. 1995. Quercetin and quercitrin from Pluchea lanceolata and their effects on growth of asparagus bean. Pages 86–95 in Inderjit, , Dakshini, K. M. M., and Einhellig, F. A., eds. Allelopathy: Organisms, Processes, and Applications. American Chemical Society, Washington, DC.Google Scholar
21. Inderjit, and Dakshini, K. M. M. 1995. On laboratory bioassays in allelopathy. Bot. Rev. 61: 28–44.Google Scholar
22. Piper, C. S. 1966. Soil and Plant Analysis. Pages 7–229 Hans Publishers, Bombay.Google Scholar
23. Rice, E. L. 1986. Allelopathic growth stimulation. Pages 23–42 in Putnam, A. R. and Tang, C. S., eds. The Science of Allelopathy. John Wiley and Sons. New York.Google Scholar
24. SPSSPC. 1986. SPSSX. User's Guide. Pages 451–476 and 689–712. McGraw Hill, Chicago.Google Scholar
25. Swain, T. and Hillis, W. E. 1959. The phenolic constituents of Primus domestica. I. The quantitative analysis of phenolic constituents. J. Sci. Food Agric. 10: 63–68.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
26. Thomas, W. A. 1969. Accumulation and cycling of calcium by Dogwood trees. Ecol. Monogr. 39: 101–120.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
27. Walkley, A. and Black, T. A. 1934. An examination of the Degtjareff method for determining soil organic matter, and a proposed modification of the chromic acid titration method. Soil Sci. 37: 29–38.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Whitehead, D. C., Dibbs, H. and Hartley, R. D. 1981. Extractant pH and the release of phenolic compounds form soil, plant roots and leaf litter. Soil Biol. Biochem. 13: 343–348.Google Scholar
29. Williams, B. K. 1983. Some observations on the use of discriminant analysis in ecology. Ecology 64: 1283–1291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Williams, R. D. and Hoagland, R. E. 1982. The effects of naturally occurring phenolic compounds on seed germination. Weed Sci. 30: 206–212.CrossRefGoogle Scholar