Hostname: page-component-848d4c4894-jbqgn Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-06-29T06:33:17.797Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Role of Allelopathy in Buckwheat (Fagopyrum sagittatum) Inhibition of Canada Thistle (Cirsium arvense)

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Steven R. Eskelsen  and
Garvin D. Crabtree
Steven R. Eskelsen
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hort., ALS 4017, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR, 97331-7304
Garvin D. Crabtree
Affiliation:
Dep. of Hort., ALS 4017, Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR, 97331-7304
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A replacement series experiment was conducted in the field to quantify the interaction between Canada thistle and buckwheat, and to determine if allelopathy was the mechanism of interference. Plant biomass data indicated that buckwheat only responded to intraspecific competition and not interspecific competition from Canada thistle. Canada thistle responded to interspecific competition from buckwheat plants but not to intraspecific competition. The absence of one of the interspecific competition components (no measurable effect of Canada thistle density on buckwheat) indicates that the value for niche differentiation is probably greater than unity, signifying that there is no mutual antagonism between buckwheat and Canada thistle. Because allelopathy is one mechanism that causes mutual inhibition, data do not support the hypothesis that buckwheat interferes with Canada thistle by allelopathy.

Keywords

Canada thistle, Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop. #3 CIRARbuckwheat, Fagopyrum sagittatum Gilib. (F. esculentum Moench)CompetitionCIRAR
Type
Weed Biology and Ecology
Information
Weed Science , Volume 43 , Issue 1 , March 1995 , pp. 70 - 74
Copyright
Copyright © 1995 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. Auld, D. L., Mahler, R. L., and Kephart, K. D. 1986. Production of buckwheat in Northern Idaho. Current information series no. 780, Coop. Ext. Serv. Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. Idaho. 4 pp.Google Scholar
2. Cook, J. 1989. Wiping out witchgrass. Horticulture. 67:34–35.Google Scholar
3. Haderlie, L. C., Dewey, S., and Kidder, D. 1987. Canada thistle biology and control. Bull. No. 666, Coop. Ext. Serv., Univ. Idaho.Google Scholar
4. Harper, J. L. 1977. Pages 260–262 in Population biology of plants. Academic Press, London.Google Scholar
5. Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, J. P. 1977. Pages 217–224 in The Worlds Worst Weeds, Distribution and Biology. Univ. Press of Hawaii, Honolulu.Google Scholar
6. Martin, J. H., Leonard, W. H., and Stamp, D. L. 1976. Pages 789–796 in Principles of Field Crop Production, Third Edition. Macmillan Publishing Company, New York.Google Scholar
7. Neustruyeva, S. N. and Dobretsova, T. N. 1972. Influence of some summer crops on white goosefoot. Pages 68–73 in Grodzinsky, A. M., ed. Physiological-Biochemical Basis of Plant Interactions in Phytocenoses. Naukova dumka, Kiev (In Russian). As interpreted by E. L. Rice. 1974. Page 206 in Allelopathy. Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar
8. Oplinger, E. S., Oelke, E. A., Brinkman, M. A., and Kelling, K. A. 1989. Buckwheat. Chapter 4 in Oplinger, E. S. and Oelke, E. A., eds. Alternative Field Crops Manual. Univ. Wis. Ext., Madison, WI 53706.Google Scholar
9. Primavesi, A. M. and Machado, S. A. 1968. Influence of trophic microflora of preceding crop of wheat (Triticum aestivum). Page 469–474 in Congresso Latino-Americano de Biologia do Solo ‘Progress in biodynamics and productivity of the soil.’ Papers presented at the 2nd Congress held at the Universidade Federal de Santa Maria, Rio Grande do Sol, Brazil.Google Scholar
10. Putnam, A. R. and Tang, C. S., eds. 1986. Allelopathy: state of the science. Page 1–19 in The Science of Allelopathy. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
11. Robinson, R. G. 1980. The buckwheat crop in Minnesota. Stn. Bull. 539–1980, Agric. Exp. Stn., Univ. Minn. 14 pp.Google Scholar
12. Roush, M. L., Radosevich, S. R., Wagner, R. G., Maxwell, B. D., and Peterson, T. D. 1989. A comparison of methods for measuring effects of density and proportion in plant competition experiments. Weed Sci. 37:268–275.Google Scholar
13. Schreiber, M. M. 1967. Effects of density and control of Canada thistle on production and utilization of alfalfa pasture. Weed Sci. 15:138–142.Google Scholar
14. Spitters, C.J.T. 1983. An alternative approach to the analysis of mixed cropping experiments. 1. Estimation of competition effects. Neth. J. Agric. Sci. 31:1–11.Google Scholar
15. Tang, C. S. 1986. Continuous trapping techniques for the study of allelochemicals from higher plants. Pages 113–131 in Putnam, A. R. and Tang, C. S., eds. The Science of Allelopathy. John Wiley & Sons, New York.Google Scholar
16. Tsuzuki, E., Datsuki, A., Shida, S., and Nagatomo, T. 1977. On the growth inhibitors contained in buckwheat plants, II. The effects of water and organic solvent extracts on the growth of rice seedlings. Bull. Fac. Agric., Univ. Miyazaki 24:41–46.Google Scholar
17. Tsuzuki, E. A. and Yamamoto, Y. 1983. Studies on allelopathy among higher plants. V. Isolation and identification of phenolic substances from wild perennial buckwheat (Fagopyrum cymosum M.). Bull. Fac. Ag., Univ. Miyazaki 34:289–295.Google Scholar
18. Tsuzuki, E. A., Yamamoto, Y., and Shimizu, T. 1987. Fatty acids in buckwheat are growth inhibitors. Ann. of Bot. 60:69–70.Google Scholar