3.8 Article

Evaluation of seedling allelopathy in 453 wheat (Triticum aestivum) accessions against annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) by the equal-compartment-agar method

Journal

AUSTRALIAN JOURNAL OF AGRICULTURAL RESEARCH
Volume 51, Issue 7, Pages 937-944

Publisher

CSIRO PUBLISHING
DOI: 10.1071/AR00017

Keywords

screening bioassay; in vivo; weed suppression; genetics; plant breeding

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Allelopathy has been receiving world-wide attention for its potential in integrated weed management. A newly developed screening bioassay, the 'equal-compartment-agar method' (ECAM), was used to evaluate seedling allelopathy against annual ryegrass in a collection of 453 wheat accessions originating from 50 countries. Significant differences in allelopathic potential were found in this worldwide collection, inhibiting root growth of ryegrass from 9.7% to 90.9%. Wheat seedling allelopathy also varied significantly with accessions from different countries. Wheat allelopathic activity was normally distributed within the collection, indicating the involvement of multiple genes conferring the allelopathic trait. Of the 453 wheat accessions screened, 2 distinct groups were identified. Condor-derivatives were more allelopathic than Pavon-derivatives, with an average inhibition of root growth of ryegrass by 76% and 46%, respectively. Research was further extended to investigate the near isogenic lines derived from Hartog (Pavon-derivative) and Janz (Condor-derivative). Hartog and its backcrossed lines were less allelopathic than Janz and its backcrossed lines, inhibiting root length of ryegrass by 45% and 81%, respectively. These results strongly indicate that wheat allelopathic activity might also be controlled by major genes, depending on the particular populations. The present study demonstrates that there is a considerable genetic variation of allelopathic activity in wheat germplasm. It is possible to breed for cultivars with enhanced allelopathic activity for weed suppression.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

3.8
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available