Hostname: page-component-76fb5796d-wq484 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-29T09:08:29.241Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Morphological traits and molecular markers for classification of Echinochloa species from Italian rice fields

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Maurizio Tabacchi ,
Raffaella Mantegazza ,
Alberto Spada  and
Aldo Ferrero
Raffaella Mantegazza
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Milano, Dipartimento di Biologia, Sezione Botanica Generale Via Celoria 26, 20133 Milano, Italy
Alberto Spada
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Milano, Dipartimento di Biologia, Sezione Botanica Generale Via Celoria 26, 20133 Milano, Italy
Aldo Ferrero
Affiliation:
Università degli Studi di Torino, Dipartimento di Agronomia, Selvicoltura e Gestione del Territorio, Via Leonardo da Vinci 44, 10095 Grugliasco, Italy
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The relationship among 80 different Echinochloa accessions were studied in 2000–2002 by applying amplified fragment length polymorphism (AFLP) analysis and examining the main morphological traits of these plants. The plants were collected from 40 different areas in which the main rice-growing region of northern Italy was divided on the basis of uniform environmental and agronomical conditions. Echinochloa accessions were grouped in three different species (E. crus-galli, E. erecta, E. phyllopogon) according to Pignatti's classification key and in four different species according to Carretero's taxonomy (E. crus-galli, E. hispidula, E. oryzicola, and E. oryzoides). The E. crus-galli accessions clustered as a specific group under both AFLP analysis and morphological traits analysis carried out according to Pignatti's and Carretero's keys. AFLP analysis revealed a separate group containing two accessions with a green basal stem section. These were classified as E. crus-galli by Pignatti's taxonomy and E. oryzoides according to Carretero's taxonomy. A red basal stem section, a trait not considered by either morphological classification, was the main morphological trait that characterizes all E. crus-galli accessions. All other accessions with green basal stem section clustered in a group that included E. erecta and E. phyllopogon according to Pignatti's taxonomy and E. hispidula and E. oryzicola according to Carretero's taxonomy. All species were evenly distributed in the monitored rice area, except the two E. oryzoides accessions, which were found only in the southwestern zone.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. ECHCGjunglerice, E. colonum (L.) Link ECHCOlate watergrass, E. phyllopogon (Stapf) Vasc. ECHPHgulf cockspur, E. crus-pavonis (H. B. K.) Schultes ECHCVearly watergrass, E. oryzoides (Ard.) Fritsch. ECHORE. hostii (Bieb.) BorosE. erecta (Pollacci) PignE. hispidula (Retz.) Nees ex RoyleE. oryzicola (Vasing.) Vasingrice, Oryza sativa L.Echinochloa taxonomyamplified fragment length polymorphismprincipal coordinate analysis (PCA)cluster analysis
Type
Research Article
Information
Weed Science , Volume 54 , Issue 6 , December 2006 , pp. 1086 - 1093
Copyright
Copyright © 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

Asins, M. J. and Carretero, J. L. 1999. Morphologic and isozyme variation in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa) weed species. Weed Technol. 13:209–215.Google Scholar
Baltazar, A. M. and Smith, R. J. 1994. Propanil-resistant barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) control in rice (Oryza sativa). Weed Technol. 8:576–581.Google Scholar
Benvenuti, S., Macchia, M., and Bonari, E. 1997. Ecofisiologia della germinazione ed emergenza dei semi di Echinochloa crus-galli L. Riv. Agron. 31:925–933.Google Scholar
Bouhache, M. and Bayer, D. E. 1993. Photosynthetic response of flooded rice (Oryza sativa) and three Echinochloa species to changes in environmental factors. Weed Sci. 41:611–614.Google Scholar
Busi, R., Vidotto, F., Tabacchi, M., and Ferrero, A. 2002. A preliminary study on propanil-resistant Echinochloa crus-galli in north-west Italy rice fields. Pages 173 and 174 in VII Congress of European Society for Agronomy, Cordoba, Spain.Google Scholar
Carey, V. F. III. 1990. Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) and bearded sprangletop (Leptochloa fascicularis) interference and control in rice (Oryza sativa). . University of Arkansas, Fayetteville, AR.Google Scholar
Carretero, J. L. 1981. El género Echinochloa en el Grande Suroeste de Europa. An. Jard. Bot. Madrid. 38:91–108.Google Scholar
Carretero, J. L. 1989. Variaciòn en la sensibilidad al propanil del género Echinochloa en los arrozales valencianos (Espana). Pages 407–411 in Proceedings 4th Eur. Weed Res. Soc. Mediterr. Symp. 2, Madrid, Espana.Google Scholar
Carretero, J. L., Gòmez De Barreda, D., Balasch, S., Del Busto, A., and Lladrò, M. A. 1997. Variaciòn en la sensibilidad al propanil del género Echinochloa en los arrozales valencianos. Pages 247–251 in Proceedings 6° Congreso Soc. Esp. Malherbologìa, Valencia, Espana.Google Scholar
Clayton, W. D. and Renvoize, S. A. 1986. Genera Graminum: grasses of the world. Kew Bull. Addit. Ser. XIII:1–389.Google Scholar
Danquah, E. Y., Johnson, D. E., Riches, C., Arnold, G. M., and Karp, A. 2002. Genetic diversity in Echinochloa spp. collected from different geographic origins and within rice fields in Cote d'Ivoire. Weed Res. 42:394–405.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ferrero, A. and Tabacchi, M. 2000. L'ottimizzazione del diserbo nel riso. Pages 111–149 in Proceedings 2000 Atti Convegno SIRFI, Firenze, Italy.Google Scholar
Ferrero, A. and Vidotto, F. 2004. La gestione della vegetazione infestante in risicoltura. Inf. Fitopatol. 3:22–31.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. J., Ateh, C. M., Bayer, D. E., and Hill, J. E. 2000. Herbicide-resistant Echinochloa oryzoides and E. phyllopogon in California Oryza sativa fields. Weed Sci. 48:225–230.Google Scholar
Fischer, A. J., Granados, E., and Trujillo, D. 1993. Propanil resistance in populations of junglerice (Echinochloa colona) in Colombian rice fields. Weed Sci. 41:201–206.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Garro, J. E., Cruz, R.D.L., and Shannon, P. J. 1991. Propanil resistance in Echinochloa colona populations with different herbicides use histories. Pages 1079–1083 in Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference, Weeds.Google Scholar
Gibson, K. D., Foin, T. C., and Hill, J. E. 1999. The relative importance of root and shoot competition between water-seeded rice and Echinochloa phyllopogon . Weed Res. 39:181–190.Google Scholar
Gonzales-Andrés, F., Pita, J. M., and Ortiz, J. M. 1996. Caryopsis isoenzymes of Echinochloa weed species as an aid for taxonomic discrimination. J. Hortic. Sci. 71:187–193.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Pancho, J. V., Herberger, J. P., and Plucknett, D. L. 1977. The World's Worst Weeds. Honolulu, HI: University Press of Hawaii. 1129 p.Google Scholar
Lòpez-Martinez, N., Salva, P. A., Finch, R. B., Marshall, G., and de Prado, R. 1999. Molecular markers indicate intraspecific variation in the control of Echinochloa spp with quinclorac. Weed Sci. 47:310–315.Google Scholar
Mantel, N. 1967. The detection of disease clustering and a generalized regression approach. Cancer Res. 27:209–220.Google Scholar
Maun, M. A. and Barnett, S.C.H. 1986. The biology of Canadian weeds: 77. Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. Can. J. Plant Sci. 66:739–759.Google Scholar
Michael, P. W. 1983. Taxonomy and distribution of Echinochloa species with a special reference to their occurrence as weeds of rice. Pages 291–306 in Weed Control in Rice: International Rice Research Institute, Los Baños, Philippines.Google Scholar
Mitich, L. W. 1990. Barnyardgrass. Weed Technol. 4:918–920.Google Scholar
Nei, M. 1973. Analysis of gene diversity in subdivided populations. Proc. Nat. Acad. Sci. USA. 70:3321–3323.Google Scholar
Norris, R. F. 1996. Morphological and phonological variations in barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in California. Weed Sci. 44:804–814.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Pignatti, S. 1982. Flora d'Italia. Vol. III.), Bologna, Italy: Ed Agricole. 2324 p.Google Scholar
Powell, W., Morgante, M., and Andre, C. 1996. The comparison of RFLP, RAPD, AFLP, and SSR (microsatellite) markers for germoplasm analysis. Mol. Breed. 2:225–238.Google Scholar
Rahn, E. M., Sweet, R. D., Vengris, J., and Dunn, S. 1968. Life history studies as related to weed control in the Northeast. Agric. Exp. St. Univ. Del. Bull. 368:1–46.Google Scholar
Rohlf, F. J. 1990. NTSYS-pc. Numerical Taxonomy and Multivariate Analysis System, Version 2.02. New York: Exeter Software.Google Scholar
Roy, S., Simon, J. P., and Lapointe, F. J. 2000. Determination of the origin of the cold-adapted populations of barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli) in eastern North America: a total evidence approach using RAPD DNA and DNA sequences. Can. J. Bot. 78:1505–1513.Google Scholar
Rutledge, J., Talbert, R. E., and Sneller, C. H. 2000. RAPD analysis of genetic variation among propanil-resistant and -susceptible Echinochloa crus-galli populations in Arkansas. Weed Sci. 48:669–674.Google Scholar
Scarabel, L., Gasparetto, M. A., and Sattin, M. 2002. An Italian population of Echinochloa crus-galli resistant to propanil in paddy rice. Pages 142–143 in Proc. 12th EWRS Symposium, Wageningen.Google Scholar
Sneath, P.H.A. and Sokal, R. R. 1973. Numerical Taxonomy. San Francisco: Freeman. 573 p.Google Scholar
Sparacino, A. C., Ferrero, A., Ferro, R., and Riva, N. 1994. Morphological analysis of the main Echinochloa species in Italian rice fields. Pages 285–292 in Proceedings 1994 5th European Weed Research Society. Mediterranean Symposium on Weed Control In Sustainable Agriculture in the Mediterranean Area, Perugia, Italy.Google Scholar
Tabacchi, M., Sattin, M., and Scarabel, L. 2004. Herbicide resistance in Italian rice crops: a late-developing but fast-evolving story. Pages 227–238 in Proceedings of the conference “Challenges and opportunities for sustainable rice-based production systems,” Torino, Italy, 13–15 September.Google Scholar
Vos, P., Hogers, R., and Bleeker, M. 1995. AFLP a new technique for DNA fingerprinting. Nucl. Acids Res. 23:4407–4414.Google Scholar
Watanabe, Y. 1981. Ecological studies on seed germination and emergence of some summer annual weeds of Hokkaido. Weed Res. Jpn. 26:193–199.Google Scholar
Yabuno, T. 1966. Biosystematic study of the genus Echinochloa . Jpn. J. Bot. 19:277–323.Google Scholar
Yap, I. V. and Nelson, R. J. 1996. Winboot: a program for performing bootstrap analysis of binary data to determine the confidence limits of UMPGA-based dendrograms: IRRI Discussion Paper Series 14, International Rice Research Institute, Manila, Philippines.Google Scholar
Zangheri, P. 1976. Flora Italica 2. Padova, Italy: Cedam. 1636 p.Google Scholar