Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-sjtt6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-30T12:41:44.539Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Galegine Content in Goatsrue (Galega officinalis) Varies by Plant Part and Phenological Growth Stage

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Michelle Oldham ,
Corey V. Ransom ,
Michael H. Ralphs  and
Dale R. Gardner
Michelle Oldham
Affiliation:
Plants, Soils, and Climate Department, Utah State University, 4820 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-4820
Corey V. Ransom*
Affiliation:
Plants, Soils, and Climate Department, Utah State University, 4820 Old Main Hill, Logan, UT 84322-4820
Michael H. Ralphs
Affiliation:
Poisonous Plant Res earch Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1150 E. 1400 N., Logan, UT 84341
Dale R. Gardner
Affiliation:
Poisonous Plant Res earch Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, United States Department of Agriculture, 1150 E. 1400 N., Logan, UT 84341
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: corey.ransom@usu.edu
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Goatsrue is a member of the Fabaceae family, native to Europe and western Asia. It contains the toxic alkaloid galegine. The objective of the study was to describe galegine concentration in aboveground goatsrue plant parts and total galegine pools over phenological growth stages. Twenty goatsrue plants at four locations were selected and a stalk was harvested from each at five stages of phenological development and separated into parts. Plant parts were freeze-dried, ground, and analyzed with liquid chromatography/mass spectrometry. Galegine concentration was significantly different in plant tissues; reproductive tissues had the highest levels of galegine (7 mg g−1), followed by leaf (4 mg g−1) and finally stem (1 mg g−1) tissues. Galegine concentration and pools varied over plant tissues and phenological growth stages. Galegine pools (dry weight by concentration) or the total amount of galegine per stalk were lowest at the vegetative growth stage (2 mg stalk−1) and increased until reaching a maximum at the immature pod stage (91 mg stalk−1). The pools decreased nearly in half (48 mg stalk−1) by the mature seed stage. Like galegine pools, galegine concentration also reached a maximum at the immature pod stage (4 mg g−1), and decreased by nearly half by the mature seed stage (2 mg g−1). The increased levels of galegine pools at immature pod stage corresponds with the time of meadow hay harvest, implying that goatsrue is potentially most toxic at the phenological stage when it is likely to be harvested as a contaminant in meadow hay.

Keywords

Goatsrue, Galega officinalis L. GAGOFgalegine, 2-(3-methylbut-2-enyl)guanidinePlant developmentplant defenseplant tissuepoisonousgaleginealkaloidtoxic compound
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 59 , Issue 3 , September 2011 , pp. 349 - 352
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

Alpert, P., Newell, E. A., Chu, C., Glyphis, J., Gulmon, S. L., Hollinger, D. Y., Johnson, N. D., Mooney, H. A., and Puttick, G. 1985. Allocation to reproduction in the chaparral shrub, Diplacus aurantiacus . Oecologia. 66:309–316.Google Scholar
Barthel, A. and Reuter, G. 1968. Biochemistry and physiology of isoprenoid guanidines, especially (4-hydroxy-3-methyl-2-buten-1-yl) guanidine in Galega officinialis . Pharmazie. 23:26–33.Google Scholar
Boege, K. and Marquis, R. J. 2005. Facing herbivory as you grow up: the ontogeny of resistance in plants. Trends Ecol. Evol. 20:441–448.Google Scholar
Dorling, P. R., Colegate, S. M., and Huxtable, C. R. 2004. Poisonous sedges: The galegine content of Schoenus rigens at various growth stages. Pages 298–303 in Acamovic, T., Stewart, C. S., and Pennycott, T. W., eds. Poisonous Plants and Related Toxins. Cambridge, MA CABI Publishing.Google Scholar
Evans, J. O. 1982. Goatsrue. Utah Agricultural Expereiment Station Research Report. No. 79. Logan, UT Utah State University. 5 p.Google Scholar
Evans, J. O. 1984. Goatsrue eradication—a realistic goal. Utah Sci. 45:9–11.Google Scholar
Evans, J. O., Dalley, C. D., and Larson, M. R. 1997. Prospects and challenges for goatsrue eradication. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 50:25–26.Google Scholar
Fairey, N. A., Lefkovitch, L. P., Coulman, B. E., Fairey, D. T., Kunelius, T., McKenize, D. B., Michaud, R., and Thomas, W. G. 2000. Cross-Canada comparison of the productivity of fodder galega (Galega orientalis Lam.) with traditional herbage legumes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80:793–800.Google Scholar
Ghosh, A. K. and Biswas, A. K. 1995. Regulation of correlative senescence in Arachis hypogaea L. by source-sink alteration through physical and hormonal means. J. Agron. Crop Sci. 175:195–202.Google Scholar
Gresham, A.C.J. and Booth, K. 1991. Poisoning of sheep by goat's rue. Vet. Rec. 129:197–198.Google Scholar
Herms, D. A. and Mattson, W. J. 1992. The dilemma of plants: to grow or defend. Q. Rev. Bot. 67:283–335.Google Scholar
Keeler, R. F., Baker, D. C., and Panter, K. E. 1992. Concentration of galegine in Verbesina encelioides and Galega officinalis and the toxic and pathologic effects induced by the plants. J. Environ. Pathol. Toxicol. Oncol. 11:75–81.Google Scholar
Keeler, R. F., Johnson, A. E., Stuart, L. D., and Evans, J. O. 1986. Toxicosis from and possible adaptation to Galega officinalis in sheep and the relationship to Verbesina encelioides toxicosis. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 28:309–315.Google Scholar
McKey, D. 1974. Adaptive patterns in alkaloid physiology. Am. Nat. 108:305–320.Google Scholar
Nielsen, G. R., Lamp, W. O., and Stutte, G. W. 1990. Potato leafhopper (Homoptera: Cicadellidae) feeding disruption of phloem translocation in alfalfa. J. Econ. Entomol. 83:807–813.Google Scholar
Oehrens, E. and Gonzalez, S. 1975. Introduction of Uromyces galegae (Opiz) as a factor in the biological control of common goatsrue (Galega officinalis L.). Agro Sur. 3:87–91.Google Scholar
Oldham, M. and Ransom, C. V. 2009. Goatsrue (Galega officinalis) seed biology. Weed Sci. 57:149–154.Google Scholar
Oldham, M. and Ransom, C. V. 2011. Goatsrue (Galega officinalis) response to herbicides. Weed Technol. 25:70–76.Google Scholar
Patterson, D. T. 1992. Effect of temperature and photoperiod on growth and reproductive development of goatsrue. J. Range Manage. 45:449–453.Google Scholar
Puyt, J. D., Faliu, L., Keck, G., Gedfrain, J. C., Pinault, L., and Tainturier, D. 1981. Fatal poisoning of sheep by Galega officinalis) (French Honeysuckle). Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 23:410–412.Google Scholar
Ralphs, M. H., Gardner, D. R., and Pfister, J. A. 2000. A functional explanation for patterns of norditerpenoid alkaloid levels in tall larkspur (Delphimium barbeyi). J. Chem. Ecol. 26:1595–1607.Google Scholar
Rauen, H. M. 1964. Biochemisches taschenbuch, Part 1. Berlin Springer-Verlag. 316 p.Google Scholar
SAS. 1999. Statistical Analysis System, V8e. Cary, NC SAS.Google Scholar
Schafer, J. and Stein, M. 1969. Untersuchungen über toxische inhaltsstoffe bei Galega officinalis L. Biol. Zbl. 88:755–768.Google Scholar
Schreiber, K., Pufahl, K., and Braeuniger, H. 1964. New guanidine derivative from Galega officinalis . Justus Liebigs Ann. Chem. 671:147–154.Google Scholar
Thompson, K. and Stewart, A.J.A. 1981. The measurement and meaning of reproductive effort in plants. Am. Nat. 117:205–211.Google Scholar
Tingey, D. C. 1971. Goatsrue, a potential forage crop, turned out to be a weed. Utah Sci. 32:25–28.Google Scholar
[USDA-APHIS] U.S. Department of Agriculture–Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service. 2010. Plants Database, Plants Profile. http://plants.usda.gov/java/nameSearch?keywordquery=galega+officinalis&mode=sciname. Accessed: March 18, 2010.Google Scholar
Varis, E. 1986. Goat's rue (Galega orientalis Lam.) a potential pasture legume for temperate conditions. J. Agric Sci. Finl. 58:83–101.Google Scholar