Advertisement

Plant Growth Regulation

, Volume 41, Issue 2, pp 139–148 | Cite as

Allelopathic competence of Tamarindus indica L. root involved in plant growth regulation

  • Syeda Shahnaz Parvez
  • Mohammad Masud Parvez
  • Yoshiharu Fujii
  • Hiroshi Gemma
Article

Abstract

The allelopathic competence of tamarind root was evaluated using several weed and edible crop species under both laboratory and greenhouse conditions. Bio-assay guided studies using agar and soil medium revealed that the growth of both radicle and hypocotyl were strongly inhibited under both conditions. Accelerated root exudation observed with an increase in the age of tamarind seedlings caused a high magnitude of growth inhibition of the plant species tested by the plant-box method. Tamarind seedlings at 21-DAG (days after germination) exerted the strongest inhibitory effect (85.0–95.1%) on the growth of the plant species tested. Root dry weight of tamarind seedlings in the plant-box method experiment was highly correlated (R2 values more than 0.92) with the percentage of growth inhibition. The growth of species grown in the soil under the tamarind tree was inhibited by 85.3–97.1% in the greenhouse. The percentage of growth inhibition declined by 18.4–22.0% (as compared to the natural soil condition) when autoclaved soil of the same trees was used for bio-assay of plant species by the soil-agar sandwich method. This indicates that ca. a 20% increase in response was associated with the allelopathic activity of tamarind root exuded into the natural soil and was due to the effects of soil microbes and soil texture. In terms of growth inhibition of the plant species tested, the root zone soil of the tamarind tree showed stronger inhibitory effects (80.1–94.2%) than the rhizosphere soil, as determined by the soil-agar sandwich method. In all cases, growth inhibition especially in the radicle was higher in the weed species than the edible crop species. Our observations clearly indicate that tamarind root exudate has allelochemical competence and this contributes to a weed free environment around the tamarind tree.

Growth inhibition Hypocotyl Plant-box method Radicle Root allelopathy Soil-agar sandwich method Tamarind 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Altieri M.A. and Doll J.D.1978. The potential of Allelopathy as a tool for weed management in field crops. Pest Artic. News Summ. (PANS)24:495-502.Google Scholar
  2. An M., Pratley J.E. and Haig T.1998. Allelopathy:from concept to reality. In:Michalk D.L. and Pratley J.E. (eds), The Proceedings of the Ninth Australian Agronomy Conference, Australian Agronomy Society, Wagga Wagga, Australia, pp. 563-566.Google Scholar
  3. Bonner J.1950. The role of toxic substances in the interaction of higher plants. Bot. Rev.16:51-65.Google Scholar
  4. Drost D.C. and Doll J.D.1980. The allelopathic effect of yellow nutsedge (Cyperus esculentus) on corn (Zea mays) and soybeans (Glycine max). Weed Sci.28:229-233.Google Scholar
  5. Fujii Y.1992. The potential biological control of paddy weeds with Allelopathy (allelopathic effects of some rice varieties). In:Proc. Int. Symp. Biological Control and Integrated Management of Paddy and Aquatic Weeds in Asia, Natl. Agric. Res. Cent., Tsukuba, Japan, Food and Fert. Tech. Cent. for the Asian and Pacific Region, China, pp. 305-320.Google Scholar
  6. Fujii Y., Shibuya T. and Yasuda T.1992. Allelopathy of velvetbean:its discrimination and identification of l-DOPA as a candidate of allelopathic substances. JARQ25:238-247.Google Scholar
  7. Hall M.H. and Henderlong P.R.1989. Alfalfa autotoxic fraction characterization and initial separation. Crop Sci.29:425-428.Google Scholar
  8. Hamidi B.A., Inderjit S., Olofsdotter M. and Streibig J.C.2001. Laboratory bioassay for phytotoxicity:An example from wheatstraw. Agron. J.93:43-48.Google Scholar
  9. Horsley S.B.1977. Allelopathic interference among plants. II. Physiological modes of action. In:Proceedings of the Fourth North American Forestry Biology Workshop, Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, New York, USA, pp. 39-136.Google Scholar
  10. Harttung A.C., Putnam A.R. and Stephens C.T.1989. Inhibitory activity of asparagus root tissue and extracts on asparagus seedlings. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci.114:144-148.Google Scholar
  11. Huang P.M., Wang M.C. and Wang M.K.1999. Catalytic transformation of phenolic compounds in the soil. In:Inderjit S.et al (eds), Principles and Practice in Plant Ecology:Allelochemical Interactions, CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, USA, pp. 287-306.Google Scholar
  12. Yu J.Q., Shou S.Y., Qian Y.R., Zhu Z.J. and Hu W.H.2000. Autotoxic potential of cucurbit crops. Plant Soil223:147-151.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Syeda Shahnaz Parvez
    • 1
  • Mohammad Masud Parvez
    • 2
  • Yoshiharu Fujii
    • 2
  • Hiroshi Gemma
    • 1
  1. 1.Laboratory of Pomology, Institute of Agriculture and ForestryUniversity of TsukubaTsukuba Science CityJapan
  2. 2.Chemical Ecology UnitNational Institute for Agro-Environmental SciencesTsukuba Science CityJapan

Personalised recommendations