Paper · 2013 · JOURNAL OF WEED SCIENCE RESEARCH

Influence of combinations of allelopathic water extracts of different plants on wheat and wild oat.

Ali Ahsan Bajwa; Shahida Khalid; Sehrish Sadia; et al.

15
claims
29
verbatim quotes
15
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Allelopathy is pragmatic approach for sustainable weed management in agro-ecosystems. A laboratory bioassay experiment was conducted to evaluate the allelopathic potential of combinations of water extracts of six plants against wheat (Triticum aestivum L.) and wild oat (Avena fatua L.). In case of Avena fatua L., Cuscuta reflexa (T3) and C. reflexa+ Parthenium hysterophorus (T18) extracts totally inhibited the germination whereas Salvia moocraftiana (T2) extract completely inhibited the plumule growth. The rest of the treatments significantly reduced the plumule length of it. All treatments significantly decreased the radical length of Avena fatua L. except Euphorbia helioscopia (T1) extract. A gradual reduction in fresh and dry weight was observed. In case of Triticum aestivum L., E. helioscopia+ S. moocraftiana (T8), E. helioscopia+ P. hysterophorus (T11) and S. moocraftiana+ P. hysterophorus (T15) extracts had no effect on germination. But all the treatments significantly reduced the plumule and radical length of Wheat. S. moocraftiana (T2) extract increased while C. papaya (T4), C. reflexa+ R. dentatus (T17) and C. papaya+ R. dentatus (T19) extracts decreased the fresh weight of Triticum aestivum L. It is concluded that different combinations of plant extracts can be used as bioherbicide against Avena fatua L. without damaging Triticum aestivum L. Further investigation is proposed to optimize the suitable concentrations of plant extracts in such combinations.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 15

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Cuscuta reflexa (T3) extract totally inhibited germination of wild oat.

Taxon
wild oatt0
Treatment
Cuscuta reflexa (T3)e1
Outcome
germinatione1
Direction
totally inhibitede1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e1

“Cuscuta reflexa (T3) and C. reflexa+ Parthenium hysterophorus (T18) extracts totally inhibited the germination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 315–425 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Combined extract C. reflexa+ Parthenium hysterophorus (T18) totally inhibited germination of wild oat.

Taxon
wild oatt0
Treatment
C. reflexa+ Parthenium hysterophorus (T18)e1
Outcome
germinatione1
Direction
totally inhibitede1

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e1

“Cuscuta reflexa (T3) and C. reflexa+ Parthenium hysterophorus (T18) extracts totally inhibited the germination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 315–425 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Salvia moocraftiana (T2) extract completely inhibited plumule growth of wild oat.

Taxon
wild oatt0
Treatment
Salvia moocraftiana (T2) extracte2
Outcome
plumule growthe2
Direction
completely inhibitede2

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e2

“Salvia moocraftiana (T2) extract completely inhibited the plumule growth”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 434–506 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

The rest of the treatments significantly reduced plumule length of wild oat.

Taxon
wild oatt0
Treatment
rest of the treatmentse3
Outcome
plumule lengthe3
Direction
significantly reducede3

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e3

“The rest of the treatments significantly reduced the plumule length of it”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 508–581 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All treatments except Euphorbia helioscopia (T1) extract significantly decreased radical length of wild oat.

Taxon
wild oatt0
Treatment
All treatmentse4
Outcome
radical lengthe4
Direction
significantly decreasede4
Qualifier
except Euphorbia helioscopia (T1) extracte4

Not reportedComparator

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e4

“All treatments significantly decreased the radical length of Avena fatua L. except Euphorbia helioscopia (T1) extract”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 583–700 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Fresh and dry weight of wild oat showed a gradual reduction under the extract treatments.

Taxon
wild oatt0
Outcome
fresh and dry weighte5
Direction
reductione5
Qualifier
graduale5

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e5

“A gradual reduction in fresh and dry weight was observed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 702–758 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Extract combination E. helioscopia+ S. moocraftiana (T8) had no effect on wheat germination.

Treatment
E. helioscopia+ S. moocraftiana (T8)e6
Outcome
germinatione6
Direction
no effecte6

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e6

“E. helioscopia+ S. moocraftiana (T8), E. helioscopia+ P. hysterophorus (T11) and S. moocraftiana+ P. hysterophorus (T15) extracts had no effect on germination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 793–951 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Extract combination E. helioscopia+ P. hysterophorus (T11) had no effect on wheat germination.

Treatment
E. helioscopia+ P. hysterophorus (T11)e6
Outcome
germinatione6
Direction
no effecte6

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e6

“E. helioscopia+ S. moocraftiana (T8), E. helioscopia+ P. hysterophorus (T11) and S. moocraftiana+ P. hysterophorus (T15) extracts had no effect on germination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 793–951 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Extract combination S. moocraftiana+ P. hysterophorus (T15) had no effect on wheat germination.

Treatment
S. moocraftiana+ P. hysterophorus (T15)e6
Outcome
germinatione6
Direction
no effecte6

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e6

“E. helioscopia+ S. moocraftiana (T8), E. helioscopia+ P. hysterophorus (T11) and S. moocraftiana+ P. hysterophorus (T15) extracts had no effect on germination”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 793–951 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

All treatments significantly reduced plumule and radical length of wheat.

Treatment
all the treatmentse7
Outcome
plumule and radical lengthe7
Direction
significantly reducede7

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e7

“But all the treatments significantly reduced the plumule and radical length of Wheat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 953–1037 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultpositivemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Salvia moocraftiana (T2) extract increased fresh weight of wheat.

Treatment
S. moocraftiana (T2) extracte0
Outcome
fresh weighte0
Direction
increasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e0

“S. moocraftiana (T2) extract increased while C. papaya (T4), C. reflexa+ R. dentatus (T17) and C. papaya+ R. dentatus (T19) extracts decreased the fresh weight of Triticum aestivum L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1039–1222 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Extract C. papaya (T4) decreased fresh weight of wheat.

Treatment
C. papaya (T4)e0
Outcome
fresh weighte0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e0

“S. moocraftiana (T2) extract increased while C. papaya (T4), C. reflexa+ R. dentatus (T17) and C. papaya+ R. dentatus (T19) extracts decreased the fresh weight of Triticum aestivum L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1039–1222 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Extract C. reflexa+ R. dentatus (T17) decreased fresh weight of wheat.

Treatment
C. reflexa+ R. dentatus (T17)e0
Outcome
fresh weighte0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e0

“S. moocraftiana (T2) extract increased while C. papaya (T4), C. reflexa+ R. dentatus (T17) and C. papaya+ R. dentatus (T19) extracts decreased the fresh weight of Triticum aestivum L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1039–1222 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Extract C. papaya+ R. dentatus (T19) decreased fresh weight of wheat.

Treatment
C. papaya+ R. dentatus (T19)e0
Outcome
fresh weighte0
Direction
decreasede0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Triticum aestivum
Triticum aestivum · TaxonRasbak · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

t0

“wheat and wild oat”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 80–98 · show in text ↑
e0

“S. moocraftiana (T2) extract increased while C. papaya (T4), C. reflexa+ R. dentatus (T17) and C. papaya+ R. dentatus (T19) extracts decreased the fresh weight of Triticum aestivum L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1039–1222 · show in text ↑
Recommendationauthor interpretationoriginal resultpositivebasis n/a

Claim · model-written summary

Different combinations of plant extracts can be used as a bioherbicide against wild oat without damaging wheat.

Taxon
Avena fatua L.Avena fatuae0
Treatment
different combinations of plant extractse0
Outcome
bioherbicidee0
Qualifier
without damaging Triticum aestivum Le0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Avena fatua
Avena fatua · TaxonHelge Oskarsen · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“It is concluded that different combinations of plant extracts can be used as bioherbicide against Avena fatua L. without damaging Triticum aestivum L”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1223–1372 · show in text ↑

Euphorbia helioscopia · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

3 papers: 1 positive, 2 negative or no effect

1 paper in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. positive
See all 3 papers →

Parthenium hysterophorus · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Results agree

9 papers: 0 positive, 9 negative or no effect

8 papers in the same direction as this paper

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

5 papers more in this group

See all 9 papers →

botanical · growth · Avena sativa (oats)Positive and negative results

22 papers: 15 positive, 7 negative or no effect

14 papers in the same direction as this paper · 7 in the opposite direction

  1. negative
  2. negative
  3. negative

18 papers more in this group

See all 22 papers →

botanical · growth · Triticum aestivum (wheat)Positive and negative results

435 papers: 206 positive, 229 negative or no effect

205 papers in the same direction as this paper · 228 in the opposite direction · 1 reporting no difference from an alternative

  1. negative
  2. no effect
  3. negative

431 papers more in this group

See all 435 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.