Skip to main content Accessibility help
×
Home
Hostname: page-component-5bf98f6d76-gtjl9 Total loading time: 19.889 Render date: 2021-04-20T09:54:52.562Z Has data issue: true Feature Flags: { "shouldUseShareProductTool": true, "shouldUseHypothesis": true, "isUnsiloEnabled": true, "metricsAbstractViews": false, "figures": true, "newCiteModal": false, "newCitedByModal": true }

Article contents

Weed-Suppressing Potential of Dodder (Cuscuta hygrophilae) and its Phytotoxic Constituents

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Tran Dang Khanh
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Life Science, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Republic of Korea
Luong Chi Cong
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Life Science, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Republic of Korea
Tran Dang Xuan
Affiliation:
Department of Bioscience and Biotechnology, Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Ryukyu, Okinawa 903-0213, Japan
Sun Joo Lee
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Life Science, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Republic of Korea
Dong Soo Kong
Affiliation:
Han River Environmental Research Center, National Institute of Environmental Research, Gyeonggi 476-823
Ill Min Chung
Affiliation:
Department of Applied Life Science, College of Life and Environmental Sciences, Konkuk University, Seoul 143-701, Republic of Korea
Corresponding
E-mail address:

Abstract

Dodder is a parasitic weed that is troublesome to the growth of many plants. Our study shows that this invasive species contains strong allelopathic potential, exerting strong inhibition against the growth of indicator plants and noxious paddy weeds in bioassay and pot trials. In a greenhouse, incorporation of 0.5 t ha−1 of dried dodder plants to paddy soil reduced spontaneous growth of paddy weeds by about 50%, whereas the 1.5 to 2 t ha−1 dose suppressed biomass of paddy weeds by more than 75% and completely controlled emergence of barnyardgrass and monochoria. By the use of a separation resin, 22 compounds were separated from dodder and identified by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry as belonging to terpenes, long-chain fatty acids, phenols, phenolic acids, and lactone. Among these compounds, 15 substances were quantified and tested for their herbicidal activity. Quantity of cinnamic acid was the highest (37.3 mg g−1), followed by dihydro-5,6-dehydrokavain (DDK; 6.0 mg g−1), myristic acid (3.2 mg g−1), and methyl cinnamate (2.1 mg g−1), whereas the amounts of other compounds were between 0.01 and 0.1 mg g−1. It is suggested that the content of the terpenes within dodder, which was rather high in amount (0.41–2.1 mg g−1), correlated to its strength of chemical cues to find host plants. Cinnamic acid, DDK, methyl cinnamate, and vanillin exerted the most potent herbicidal activities against radish growth. Findings of this study propose that cinnamic acid, DDK, and methyl cinnamate are responsible for its strong phytotoxic action of dodder plants. However, whether these plant growth inhibitors and other compounds detected from the dodder can suppress emergence of their hosts as well as contributing to its strong invasiveness needs further elucidation.

Type
Weed Management
Information
Weed Science , Volume 56 , Issue 1 , February 2008 , pp. 119 - 127
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.

References

An, M., Pratley, R. E., Haig, T., and Liu, D. L. 2005. Whole-range assessment: a simple method for analyzing allelopathic dose-response data. Nonlinearity Biol. Toxicol. Med. 3:245260.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Angelini, L. G., Carpanese, G., Cioni, P. L., Morelli, I., Macchia, M., and Flamini, G. 2003. Essential oils from Mediterranean Lamiaceae as weed germination inhibitor. J. Agric. Food Chem. 51:61586164.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arimura, G., Ozawa, R., Shomoda, T., Nishioka, T., Boland, W., and Takabayashi, J. 2000. Herbivory-induce volatiles elicit defense genes in lima bean leaves. Nature. 406:512515.Google Scholar
Baldwin, I. T. and Schultz, J. C. 1983. Rapid change in tree leaf chemistry induced by damage: evidence for communication between plants. Science. 221:277279.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Baldwin, L. T., Halitschke, R., Paschold, A., von Dahl, C. C., and Preston, C. A. 2006. Volatile signaling in plant interaction: “talking trees” in the genomics era. Science. 311:812815.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bouwmeester, H. J., Matusova, R., Sun, Z. K., and Beale, M. H. 2003. Secondary metabolite signaling in host parasitic plant interaction. Cur. Opin. Plant Biol. 6:358364.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Dawson, J. H., Musselman, L. J., Wolswinkel, P., and Dorr, I. 1994. Biology and control of Cuscuta . Rev. Weed Sci. 6:265317.Google Scholar
Elzaawely, A. A., Xuan, T. D., and Tawata, S. 2005. Allelopathic activity and identification of allelochemicals from Rumex japonicus Houtt. Allelo J. 16 (2):109216.Google Scholar
Elzaawely, A. A., Xuan, T. D., and Tawata, S. 2006. Changes in essential oil, kava pyrones and total phenolics of Alpinia zerumbet (Pers.) B. L. Burrt. & R.M. Sm. leaves exposed to copper sulphate. Environ. Exp. Bot. 59:347353.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Elzaawely, A. A., Xuan, T. D., and Tawata, S. 2007. Essential oils, kava pyrones and phenolic compounds from leaves and rhizomes of Alpinia zerumbet (Pers.) B. L. Burrt. & R.M. Sm. and their antioxidant activity. Food Chem. 103:486494.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Haidar, M. A., Iskandarani, N., Sidahmed, M., and Baalbaki, R. 1999. Response of field dodder (Cuscuta hygrophilae) seeds to soil solarization and chicken manure. Crop Prot. 18:253258.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Panch, J., and Herberger, J. 1997. World Weeds: Natural History and Distribution. New York J. Wiley & Sons. 1129.Google Scholar
Ihl, B., Jacob, F., and Sembdner, G. 1984. Studies on Cuscuta reflex ROXB. V. The level of endogenous hormones in the parasite, Cuscuta reflexa, and its host, Vicia faba L., and a suggested role in the transfer of nutrients from host to parasite. Plant Growth Reg. 2:7790.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karban, R., Maron, J., Felton, G. W., Ervin, G., and Eichenseer, H. 2003. Herbivore damage to sagebrush induces resistance in wild tobacco: evidence for eavesdropping between plants. Oikos. 100:325332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kelly, C. K. 1992. Resource choice in Cuscuta europaea . Proc Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 89:1219412197.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Khanh, T. D., Chung, I. M., Tawata, S., and Xuan, T. D. 2006a. Weed suppression by Passiflora edulis and its potential allelochemicals. Weed Res. 46:296303.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanh, T. D., Chung, I. M., Xuan, T. D., and Tawata, S. 2005a. The exploitation of crop allelopathy in sustainable agriculture production. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 191:172184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanh, T. D., Elzaawely, A. A., Chung, I. M., Ahn, J. K., Tawata, S., and Xuan, T. D. 2007. Role of allelochemicals for weed management in rice. Allelo. J. 19:8596.Google Scholar
Khanh, T. D., Hong, N. H., Nhan, D. Q., Kim, S. L., Chung, I. M., and Xuan, T. D. 2006b. Herbicidal activity of Stylosanthes guianensis and its phytotoxic components. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 192:427433.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanh, T. D., Hong, N. H., Xuan, T. D., and Chung, I. M. 2005b. Paddy weeds control by medicinal leguminous plants from Southeast Asia. Crop Prot. 24:421431.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Khanh, T. D., Xuan, T. D., Chin, D. V., Chung, I. M., Elzaawely, A. A., and Tawata, S. 2006c. Current status of biological control of paddy weeds in Vietnam. Weed Biol. Manag. 6:19.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Koch, A. M., Binder, C., and Sanders, I. R. 2004. Does the generalist parasitic plant Cuscuta campestris selectively forage in heterogeneous plant communities? New Phytol. 162:147155.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kujit, J. 1969. The biology of parasitic flowering plant. Berkeley University of California Press. 368.Google Scholar
Liu, D. L., An, M., and Wu, H. 2007. Implementation of WESIA: whole-range evaluation of the strength of inhibition in allelopathic-bioassay. Allelo. J. 19:203214.Google Scholar
Malik, C. P. and Singh, M. B. 1979. Physiological and biochemical aspects of parasitism in Cuscuta: a review. Ann. Rev. Plant Sci. 1:67112.Google Scholar
Nadler-Hassar, T. and Rubin, B. 2003. Natural tolerance of Cuscuta campestris to herbicides inhibiting amino acid biosynthesis. Weed Res. 43:341347.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nishida, N., Tamotsu, S., Nagata, N., Saito, C., and Sakai, A. 2005. Allelopathic effects of volatile monoterpenoids produced by Salvia leucophylla: inhibition of cell proliferation and DNA synthesis in the root apical meristem of Brassica campestris seedling. J. Chem. Ecol. 31:11871203.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1981. Effects of allelopathic chemicals on growth and physiological responses of soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 29:5359.Google Scholar
Pennings, S. C. and Callaway, R. M. 2002. Parasitic plants: parallels and contrasts with herbivores. Oecologia. 131:479489.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Reigosa, M. J., Souto, X. C., and Gonzalez, L. 1999. Effect of phenolic compounds on the germination of six weeds species. Plant Growth Regul. 28:8388.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Romagni, J. G., Allen, S. N., and Dayan, F. E. 2000. Allelopathic effect of volatile cineoles on two weedy plant species. J. Chem. Ecol. 26:303–131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Runyon, J. B., Mescher, M. C., and De Moraes, C. M. 2006. Volatile chemical cues guide host location and host selection by parasitic plant. Science. 313:19641967.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sauerborn, J., Muller-Stover, D., and Hershenhorn, J. 2007. The role of biological control in managing parasitic weeds. Crop Prot. 26:246254.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Scharf, M. E., Nguyen, S. N., and Song, C. 2006. Evaluation of volatile low molecular weight insecticides using Drosophila melanogaster as a model. Pest Manag. Sci. 62:655663.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, H. P., Batish, D. R., Kaur, S., Ramezani, H., and Kohli, R. K. 2002a. Comparative phototoxicity of four monoterpenes against Cassia occidentalis . Ann. Appl. Biol. 141:111116.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Singh, H. P., Batish, D. R., and Kohli, R. K. 2002b. Allelopathic effects of two volatile monoterpenes against billy goat weed (Ageratum conyzoides L). Crop Prot. 21:347350.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Thomas, T. 2002. Herbicide effects of essential oils. Weed Sci. 50:425431.Google Scholar
Tsuzuki, E., Yamoto, Y., and Shimizu, T. 1987. Fatty acids in buckwheat are growth inhibitors. Ann. Bot. 60:6970.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vaughn, K. C. 2002. Dodder hyphae invade the host: a structural and immunocytochemical characterization. Protoplasm. 220:189200.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Vokou, D., Douvli, P., Blionis, G. J., and Halley, J. M. 2003. Effects of monoterpenoids, acting alone or in pair, on seed germination and subsequent seedling growth. J. Chem. Ecol. 29:22812301.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Xuan, T. D., Chikara, J., Ogushi, Y., Tsuzuki, E., Terao, H., Khanh, T. D., and Matsuo, M. 2003a. Application of kava (Piper methysticum) root as potential herbicide and fungicide. Crop Prot. 22:873881.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xuan, T. D., Tawata, S., Khanh, T. D., and Chung, I. M. 2005. Biological control of weeds and plant pathogens in paddy rice by exploiting plant allelopathy: an overview. Crop Prot. 24:197206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xuan, T. D., Tsuzuki, E., Terao, H., Matsuo, M., and Khanh, T. D. 2003b. Alfalfa, rice by-products, and their incorporation for weed control in rice. Weed Biol. Manag. 3:137144.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Xuan, T. D., Tsuzuki, E., Terao, H., Matsuo, M., Khanh, T. D., and Chung, I. M. 2004. Evaluation on phytotoxicity of neem (Azadirachta indica. A. Juss) to crops and weeds. Crop Prot. 23:335345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Yoder, J. I. 2001. Host–plant recognition by parasitic Scrophulariaceae. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 4:359365.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yu, J. Q. and Matsui, Y. 1994. Phytotoxic substances in root exudates of cucumber (Cuscumis sativus L). J. Chem. Ecol. 20:2131.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Full text views

Full text views reflects PDF downloads, PDFs sent to Google Drive, Dropbox and Kindle and HTML full text views.

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 8 *
View data table for this chart

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between 20th January 2017 - 20th April 2021. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Send article to Kindle

To send this article to your Kindle, first ensure no-reply@cambridge.org is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about sending to your Kindle. Find out more about sending to your Kindle.

Note you can select to send to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be sent to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Weed-Suppressing Potential of Dodder (Cuscuta hygrophilae) and its Phytotoxic Constituents
Available formats
×

Send article to Dropbox

To send this article to your Dropbox account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Dropbox.

Weed-Suppressing Potential of Dodder (Cuscuta hygrophilae) and its Phytotoxic Constituents
Available formats
×

Send article to Google Drive

To send this article to your Google Drive account, please select one or more formats and confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your <service> account. Find out more about sending content to Google Drive.

Weed-Suppressing Potential of Dodder (Cuscuta hygrophilae) and its Phytotoxic Constituents
Available formats
×
×

Reply to: Submit a response


Your details


Conflicting interests

Do you have any conflicting interests? *