Evaluation of the allelopathic potential of water-soluble compounds of barley (Hordeum vulgare L. subsp. vulgare) and great brome (Bromus diandrus Roth.) using a modified bioassay
Allelopathy; Hordeum vulgare; Bromus diandrus; pH; root exudates; root systems
Abstract :
[en] Description of the subject. The present study focuses on the description of the allelopathic interactions between wild and crop species that may occur in a given ecosystem.
Objectives. The objective is the evaluation of the allo- and autoinhibition activity of root exudates of barley (Hordeum vulgare L. subsp. vulgare) and great brome (Bromus diandrus Roth.) seedlings by water-soluble allelochemicals.
Method. The allelopathic activities of five Tunisian barley genotypes (modern varieties and landraces), one Saudi Arabian barley landrace and great brome were assessed using a modified laboratory bioassay named “seedling-after-seedling agar method”.
Results. The barley or the great brome reduced, to a greater extent, the root growth compared to the shoot growth of receiver species. The response of the root system architecture of the great brome towards barley root exudates was studied in detail. All the measured root traits were highly sensitive to the presence of barley. In our conditions, the allelopathic activity of barley root exudates had no apparent relationship with the size of the root and a prominent action of genetic determinants in the allelopathic potential between genotypes is proposed. The alloinhibitory activity of barley or great brome root exudates deferred between
the receiver species but was always higher than the autoinhibition potential. The autoinhibition in barley proved to depend on whether the genotypes used as donor and receiver are identical or different, suggesting a specific interaction of allelochemicals with the receiver plant. These molecules seem to be the main actors in the allelopathic barley potential as external factors such variations of pH have no evident relevance in the inhibition process.
Conclusions. Barley and great brome exude molecules in their surroundings. This affects the growth of the receiver plants, suggesting that these compounds might contribute to the plant community dynamics.
Fauconnier, Marie-Laure ; Université de Liège > Agronomie, Bio-ingénierie et Chimie (AgroBioChem) > Chimie générale et organique
Delory, Benjamin ; Université de Liège - ULiège > Doct. sc. agro. & ingé. biol.
Amara, Hajer Slim
du Jardin, Patrick ; Université de Liège > Agronomie, Bio-ingénierie et Chimie (AgroBioChem) > Biologie végétale
Language :
English
Title :
Evaluation of the allelopathic potential of water-soluble compounds of barley (Hordeum vulgare L. subsp. vulgare) and great brome (Bromus diandrus Roth.) using a modified bioassay
Publication date :
2016
Journal title :
Biotechnologie, Agronomie, Société et Environnement
ISSN :
1370-6233
eISSN :
1780-4507
Publisher :
Presses Agronomiques de Gembloux, Gembloux, Belgium
Asaduzzaman M. et al., 2014. Laboratory bioassay for canola (Brassica napus) allelopathy. J. Crop Sci. Biotechnol., 17, 267-272.
Baerson S.R. et al., 2005. Detoxification and transcriptome response in Arabidopsis seedlings exposed to the allelochemical benzoxazolin-2(3H)-one. J. Biol. Chem., 280, 21867-21881.
Baghestani A., Lemieux C., Leroux G.D. & Baziramakenga R., 1999. Determination of allelochemicals in spring cereal cultivars of different competitiveness. Weed Sci., 47, 498-504.
Belz R.G., 2007. Allelopathy in crop/weed interactions-an update. Pest Manage. Sci., 63, 308-326.
Ben-Hammouda M., Ghorbal H., Kremer R.J. & Oueslati O., 2001. Allelopathic effects of barley extracts on germination and seedlings growth of bread and durum wheat. Agronomie, 21, 65-71.
Bertholdsson N.O., 2004. Variation in allelopathic activity over 100 years of barley selection and breeding. Weed Res., 44, 78-86.
Blum U., Dalton B.R. & Shann J.R., 1985. Effects of ferulic and p-coumaric acids in nutrient culture of cucumber leaf expansion as influenced by pH. J. Chem. Ecol., 11, 1567-1582.
Bouhaouel I. et al., 2015. Allelopathic and autotoxicity effects of barley (Hordeum vulgare L. ssp. vulgare) root exudates. BioControl, 60, 425-436.
Brix H., Dyhr-Jensen K. & Lorenzen B., 2002. Root-zone acidity and nitrogen source affects Typha latifolia L. growth and uptake kinetics of ammonium and nitrate. J. Exp. Bot., 53, 2441-2450.
Caffaro M.M., Vivanco J.M., Botto J. & Rubio G., 2013. Root architecture of Arabidopsis is affected by competition with neighbouring plants. Plant Growth Regul., 70, 141-147.
Chon S.U., Jennings J.A. & Nelson C.J., 2006. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) autotoxicity: Current status. Allelopath. J., 18, 57-80.
Chon S.U. & Nelson C.J., 2010. Allelopathy in compositae plants. A review. Agron. Sustain. Dev., 30, 349-358.
Chou C.H., 1999. Roles of allelopathy in plant biodiversity and sustainable agriculture. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci., 18, 609-636.
Darrah P.R., 1993. The rhizosphere and plant nutrition: a quantitative approach. Plant Soil, 155/156, 1-20.
Delory B.M. et al., 2016. archiDART: an R package for the automated computation of plant root architectural traits. Plant Soil, 398, 351-365.
Ding J. et al., 2007. Physiological basis of different allelopathic reactions of cucumber and figleaf gourd plants to cinnamic acid. J. Exp. Bot., 58, 3765-3773.
Duke M.V. et al., 1994. Localization of artemisinin and artemisitene in foliar tissues of glanded and glandless biotypes of Artemisia annua. Int. J. Plant Sci., 155, 365-373.
El Faleh M., Maamouri A., Deghais M. & El Ahmed A., 1985. Three new barley cultivars from Tunisia. Rachis, 4, 50-51.
El Felah M., 2011. L’orge en Tunisie: historique, état actuel et perspectives. Ann. INRAT, 84, 7-34.
Fageria N.K., Baligar V.C. & Wright R.J., 1989. Growth and nutrient concentrations of alfalfa and common bean as influenced by soil acidity. Plant Soil, 119, 331-333.
Gfeller A. et al., 2013. Characterization of volatile organic compounds emitted by barley (Hordeum vulgare L.) roots and their attractiveness to wireworms. J. Chem. Ecol., 39, 1129-1139.
Gharbi M.S. & El Felah M., 2013. Les céréales en Tunisie: plus d’un siècle de recherche variétale. Ann. INRAT, 86, 45-68.
Gubbels G.H. & Kenaschuk E.O., 1989. Agronomic performance of flax grown on canola, barley and flax stubble with and without tillage prior to seeding. Can. J. Plant Sci., 69, 31-38.
Hammami Z. et al., 2016. Evaluation of performance of different barley genotypes irrigated with saline water in South Tunisian Saharan conditions. Environ. Exp. Biol., 14, 15-21.
Hinsinger P., Plassard C., Tang C. & Jaillard B., 2003. Origins of root-mediated pH changes in the rhizosphere and their responses to environmental constraints: A review. Plant Soil, 248, 43-59.
Hue N.V., Vega S. & Silva J.A., 2001. Manganese toxicity in a Hawaiian oxisol affected by soil pH and organic amendments. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J., 65, 153-160.
Inderjit S., 2005. Soil microorganisms: An important determinant of allelopathic activity. Plant Soil, 274, 227-236.
Jensen L.B. et al., 2001. Locating genes controlling allelopathic effects against barnyardgrass in upland rice. Agron. J., 93, 21-26.
Kellermeier F., Chardon F. & Amtmann A., 2013. Natural variation of Arabidopsis root architecture reveals complementing adaptive strategies to potassium starvation. Plant Physiol., 161, 1421-1432.
Kremer R. & Ben-Hammouda M., 2009. Allelopathic plants. 19. Barley (Hordeum vulgare L.). Allelopath. J., 24, 225-242.
Lanoue A. et al., 2010. De novo biosynthesis of defense root exudates in response to Fusarium attack in barley. New Phytol., 185, 577-588.
Nilsson M.C., 1994. Separation of allelopathy and resource competition by the boreal dwarf shrub Empetrum hermaphroditum Hagerup. Oecologia, 98, 1-7.
Ninkovic V., 2003. Volatile communication between barley plants affects biomass allocation. J. Exp. Bot., 54, 1931-1939.
Olofsdotter M., Jensen L.B. & Courtois B., 2002. Improving crop competitive ability using allelopathy-an example from rice. Plant Breed., 121, 1-9.
Orman-Ligeza B. et al., 2013. Post-embryonic root organogenesis in cereals: branching out from model plants. Trends Plant Sci., 18, 459-467.
Oueslati O. et al., 2005. Barley autotoxicity as influenced by varietal and seasonal variation. J. Agron. Crop Sci., 191, 249-254.
Oveisi M. et al., 2008. Assessment of the allelopathic potential of 17 Iranian barley cultivars in different development stages and their variations over 60 years of selection. Weed Biol. Manage., 8, 225-232.
Overland L., 1966. The role of allelopathic substances in the ‘smother crop’ barley. Am. J. Bot., 53, 423-432.
Putnam A.R., 1985. Allelopathic research in agriculture: Past highlights and potential. In: Thompson A.C., ed. The chemistry of allelopathy: Biochemical interactions among plants. Washington: American Chemical Society, 1-8.
Rajan S.S.S. & Ghani A., 1997. Differential influence of soil pH on the availability of partially sulphuric and phosphoric acidulated phosphate rocks II. Chemical and scanning electron microscopic studies. Nutr. Cycling Agroecosyst., 48, 171-178.
Rich S.M. & Watt M., 2013. Soil conditions and cereal root system architecture: review and considerations for linking Darwin and Weaver. J. Exp. Bot., 64, 1193-1208.
Shamsi I.H., Wei K., Jilani G. & Zhang G.P., 2007. Interactions of cadmium and aluminum toxicity in their effect on growth and physiological parameters in soybean. J. Zhejiang Univ. Sci. B, 8, 181-188.
Singh K. & Kayastha A.M., 2014. α-amylase from wheat (Triticum aestivum) seeds: its purification, biochemical attributes and active site studies. Food Chem., 162, 1-9.
Souissi T., Belhadj Salah H. & Latiri K., 2001. Brome in cereal crops: infestations and management. Invest. Agric., 42, 29-32.
Viard-Crétat F., Gallet C., Lefebvre M. & Lavorel S., 2009. A leachate a day keeps the seedlings away: mowing and the inhibitory effects of Festuca paniculata in subalpine grasslands. Ann. Bot., 103, 1271-1278.
Wu H., Pratley J., Lemerle D. & Haig T., 2000. Laboratory screening for allelopathic potential of wheat (Triticum aestivum) accessions against annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum). Aust. J. Agric. Res., 51, 259-266.
Wu H. et al., 2007. Autotoxicity of wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) as determined by laboratory bioassays. Plant Soil, 296, 85-93.
