Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-wq2xx Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-24T11:17:52.269Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Molecular Techniques for Discrimination of Late Watergrass (Echinochloa oryzicola) and Early Watergrass (Echinochloa oryzoides) Species in Turkish Rice Production

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  20 January 2017

Husrev Mennan  and
Emine Kaya-Altop
Husrev Mennan*
Affiliation:
Ondokuz Mayıs University, Agriculture Faculty, Department of Plant Protection, 55139 Samsun, Turkey
Emine Kaya-Altop
Affiliation:
Ondokuz Mayıs University, Agriculture Faculty, Department of Plant Protection, 55139 Samsun, Turkey
*
Corresponding author's E-mail: hmennan@omu.edu.tr
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Molecular techniques are useful tools for solving taxonomic confusion among species. Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) and polymerase chain reaction restriction fragment length polymorphism (PCR-RFLP) methods were applied for the identification of barnyardgrass, early watergrass, and late watergrass. Total DNA was extracted from 266 accessions, which were collected from different rice growing areas of Turkey. The two primer sets (trn-a and trn-b1, and trn-c and trn-d) specific to a target region of the intergenic spacer between trnT (UGU) and trnL (UAA) and the entire intron region of trnL (UAA), respectively, were used in PCR amplifications. Of the 266 accessions of Echinochloa spp., only eight accessions gave a similar fragment size, which was slightly shorter than 495 bp. The PCR product obtained with the primers trn-a and trn-b1 gave two fragments when EcoRI restriction enzyme was used in barnyardgrass and early watergrass. However, not all accessions of late watergrass were digested with this enzyme. In contrast to EcoRI, the PCR product obtained using the trn-c and trn-d primer set was digested into two fragments by using AluI restriction enzyme in all accessions of late watergrass; whereas, it was not digested in barnyardgrass and early watergrass. This molecular differentiation among barnyardgrass, early watergrass, and late watergrass supports the hypothesis that late watergrass is not a synonym of early watergrass in Turkish accessions.

Keywords

Barnyardgrass, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv., early watergrass, Echinochloa oryzoides (Ard.) Fritsch., late watergrass, Echinochloa oryzicola (Vasing.) Vasing., rice, Oryza sativa LMolecular identificationPCR-RFLPrestriction enzymerice
Type
Physiology, Chemistry, and Biochemistry
Information
Weed Science , Volume 60 , Issue 4 , December 2012 , pp. 525 - 530
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

Aoki, D. and Yamaguchi, H. 2008. Genetic relationships among Echinochloa crus-galli and E. oryzicola accessions inferred from ITS and chloroplast DNA sequences. Weed Biol. Manag. 8:233–242.Google Scholar
Barrett, S. C. H. 1983. Crop mimicry in weeds. Eco. Bot. 37:255–282.Google Scholar
Carretero, J. L. 1981. El género Echinochloa en el suroeste de Europa. An. Jard. Bot. Madrid. 38:91–108 [Spanish].Google Scholar
Costea, M. and Tardif, F. J. 2002. Taxonomy of the most common weedy European Echinochloa species (Poaceae: Panicoideae) with special emphasis on characters of the lemma and caryopsis. Sida. 20:525–548.Google Scholar
Damalas, C. A., Dhima, K. V., and Eleftherohorinos, I. G. 2008. Bispyribac-sodium efficacy on early watergrass (Echinochloa oryzoides) and late watergrass (Echinochloa phyllopogon) as affected by co application of selected rice herbicides and insecticides. Weed Technol. 22:622–627.Google Scholar
Danquash, E. T., 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'lvoire. Weed Res. 42:394.Google Scholar
Davis, P. H., ed. 1985. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands, Vol. 9. Edinburgh Edinburgh University Press.Google Scholar
Holm, L. G., Plucknett, D. L., Pancho, J. V., and Herberger, P. 1977. Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. Pages 32–40 in The World's Worst Weeds. Honolulu University Press of Hawaii.Google Scholar
Işık, D. and Mennan, H. 2001. Çeltikte darıcan (Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv), Kurbağa kaşığı (Alisma plantago-aquatica L.) ve sandalye sazının (Scirpus mucronatus L.) rekabet yeteneklerinin araştırılması. Türkiye Herboloji Dergisi. 2:47–57 [Turkish].Google Scholar
Koyama, T. 1987. Grasses of Japan and its Neighbouring Regions. Tokyo Kodansha. 570 p.Google Scholar
Mennan, H., Doğan, M. N., Kutluk-Yılmaz, N. D., Çankaya, S., and Gönen, O. 2012. Çeltik EkimAlanlarında Sorun Olan Önemli Bazı Yabancı Otların Genetik Çeşitliliklerinin Belirlenmesive ALS-ACCase İnhibitörü Herbisitlere Dayanıklı Biotiplerinin Moleküler ve Bioassay Yöntemlerle Saptanması. TÜBİTAK-TOVAG 1080371 proje kesin sonuç raporu, 132 p, Samsun [Turkish].Google Scholar
Michael, P. 1994. Distribution and taxonomy of Echinochloa a world view with a key to the species occurring in China. Pages 161–166 in Proceedings of the 5th Weed Science Conference of China. Kunming, China Weed Science Society of China.Google Scholar
Nakayama, Y., Umemoto, S., and Yamaguchi, H. 1999. Identification of polyploidy groups in the genus Echinochloa . J. Weed Sci. Technol. 44:205–217.Google Scholar
Ohwi, J. 1982. Poaceae (Gramineae). Pages 85–126 in Satake, Y., Ohwi, J., Kitamura, S., Watari, S., and Tominari, T., eds. Wild Flowers of Japan I: Herbaceous Plants (including Dwarf Subshrubs). Tokyo Heibonsha.Google Scholar
Osada, T. 1989. Illustrated Grasses of Japan. Tokyo Heibonsha. Pp. 566–577.Google Scholar
Pignatti, S. 1982. Flora d'Italia. Vol. 3. Bologna Edagricole.Google Scholar
Pirie, M. D., Vargas, M. P. B., Botermans, M., Bakker, F. T., and Chatrou, L. W. 2007. Ancient paralogy in the cpDNA trnL-F region in Annonaceae: implications for plant molecular systematics. Am. J. Bot. 6:1003–1016.Google Scholar
Ruiz-Santaella, J. P., Bastida, F., Franco, A. R., and De Prado, R. 2006. Morphological and molecular characterization of different Echinochloa spp. and Oryza sativa populations. J. Agric. Food Chem. 54:1166–1172.Google Scholar
Tabacchi, M., Mantegazza, R., Spada, A., and Ferrero, A. 2006. Morphological traits and molecular markers for classification of Echinochloa species from Italian rice fields. Weed Sci. 54:1086–1093.Google Scholar
Taberlet, P., Gielly, L., Pautou, G., and Bouvet, J. 1991. Universal primers for amplification of three non-coding regions of chloroplast DNA. Plant Mol. Biol. 17:1105–1109.Google Scholar
Utano, A., Michishita, Y., and Yamaguchi, H. 1999. A barnyard grass mimic to rice plant belongs to Echinochloa oryzicola, which is clearly distinguished from related taxa based on RAPD analysis. Abstract 125 in Proceedings of the 17th APWSS Conference. Bangkok The Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society.Google Scholar
Warwick, S. I. and Weaver, S. E. 1980. Atrazine resistance in Amaranthus retroflexus (redroot pigweed) and A. powellii (green pigweed) from southern Ontario. Can. J. Plant Sci. 60:1485–1488.Google Scholar
Yabuno, T. 1975. The classification and geographical distribution of genus Echinochloa. Weed Res. Japan. 20:97–104.Google Scholar
Yabuno, T. 1996. Taxonomy and phylogeny of the genus Echinochloa. Pages 16–28 in Yabuno, T., and Yamaguchi, H., eds. Natural History of Genus Echinochloa Tokyo. Daw Elanco/Dow Chemical Company.Google Scholar
Yamaguchi, H., Utano, A., Yasuda, K., Yano, A., and Soejima, A. 2005. A molecular phylogeny of wild and cultivated Echinochloa in East Asia inferred from non-coding region sequences of trn T-L-F. Weed Biol. Manag. 5:210–218.Google Scholar
Yasuda, K., Yano, A., Nakayama, Y., and Yamaguchi, H. 2002. Molecular identification of Echinochloa oryzicola and E. crus-galli using a polymerase chain reaction–restriction fragment length polymorphism technique. Weed Biol. Manag. 2:11–17.Google Scholar