title: Root distribution and potential interactions between allelopathic rice, sprangletop (Leptochloa spp.), and barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) based on ¹³C isotope discrimination analysis.
abstract: Weed-suppressive rice cultivars hold promise for improved and more economical weed management in rice. Interactions between roots of rice and weeds are thought to be modulated by the weed-suppressive activity of some rice cultivars, but these phenomena are difficult to measure and not well understood. Thus, above-ground productivity, weed suppression, and root distribution of 11 rice cultivars and two weed species were evaluated in a drill-seeded, flood-irrigated system at Stuttgart, Arkansas, USA in a two-year study. The allelopathic cultivars, PI 312777 and Taichung Native 1 (TN-1), three other weed-suppressive cultivars, three indica-derived breeding selections, and three non-suppressive commercial cultivars were evaluated in field plots infested with barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv.) or bearded sprangletop (sprangletop, Leptochloa fusca (L.) Kunth var. fascicularis (Lam.) N. Snow). The allelopathic cultivars produced more tillers and suppressed both weed species to a greater extent than did the breeding selections or the non-suppressive cultivars. (13)C isotope discrimination analysis of mixed root samples to a depth of 15 cm revealed that the allelopathic cultivars typically produced a greater fraction of their total root mass in the surface 0-5 cm of soil depth compared to the breeding selections or the non-suppressive cultivars, which tended to distribute their roots more evenly throughout the soil profile. These trends in root mass distribution were apparent at both early (pre-flood) and late-season stages in weed-free and weed-infested plots. Cultivar productivity and root distribution generally responded similarly to competition with the two weed species, but barnyardgrass reduced rice yield and root mass more than did sprangletop. These findings demonstrate for the first time that roots of the allelopathic cultivars PI 312777 and TN-1 explore the upper soil profile more thoroughly than do non-suppressive cultivars under weed-infested and weed-free conditions in flood-irrigated U.S. rice production systems. They raise the interesting prospect that root proliferation near the soil surface might enhance the weed-suppressive activity of allelochemical exudates released from roots. Plant architectural design for weed suppressive activity should take these traits into consideration along with other proven agronomic traits such as high tillering and yield.
authors: Research Plant Physiologist, Dale Bumpers National Rice Research Center, USDA-ARS, Stuttgart, AR 72160, USA. david.gealy@ars.usda.gov
authors: David
authors: D
authors: Gealy
authors: Karen
authors: K
authors: Moldenhauer
authors: Sara
authors: S
authors: Duke
mesh_terms: D031747:Echinochloa / Q000254:growth & development / Q000502:physiology*; D012275:Oryza / Q000502:physiology*; D010675:Pheromones / Q000378:metabolism*; D018517:Plant Roots / Q000254:growth & development / Q000502:physiology*; D006109:Poaceae / Q000502:physiology*; D058728:Weed Control
chemical_list: D010675:Pheromones
references: Oecologia. 1985 Sep;67(2):205-208
references: 28311309
references: Pest Manag Sci. 2008 Mar;64(3):276-82
references: 18172879
references: Phytochemistry. 2004 Apr;65(8):1123-8
references: 15110693
references: J Plant Physiol. 2007 Nov;164(11):1548-51
references: 17498837
references: Theor Appl Genet. 2009 Apr;118(6):1065-81
references: 19224195
references: J Plant Physiol. 2011 Jul 1;168(10):1016-20
references: 21392842
references: Pest Manag Sci. 2011 Sep;67(9):1100-6
references: 21520392
references: J Agric Food Chem. 2004 May 19;52(10):2861-5
references: 15137826
references: Plant Physiol. 2010 Mar;152(3):1148-57
references: 20107024
references: Plant Physiol. 2011 Jun;156(2):455-65
references: 21454799
references: J Chem Ecol. 2013 Feb;39(2):175-85
references: 23385366
references: J Agric Food Chem. 2006 Apr 5;54(7):2527-36
references: 16569039
references: J Chem Ecol. 2013 Feb;39(2):213-31
references: 23385368
references: Oecologia. 1988 Dec;77(4):453-456
references: 28311263