Download The Biology of Striga, Orobanche, and other Root

ANNUAL
REVIEWS
Further
Quick links to online content
Ann. Rep. Phytopathol 198a 18:463�9
Copyright ® 1980 by Annual Repiews Inc. All rights reserved
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
THE BIOLOGY OF STRIGA�
.3743
OROBANCHE� AND OTHER
ROOT-PARASITIC WEEDS
Lytton J. Musselman
Department of Biological Sciences, Old Dominion University, Norfolk,
Virginia 23508
INTRODUCTION
This review deals with higher plants that are parasitic on the roots of other
higher plants. These unique organisms in the genera Striga and Orbanche,
are both weeds and parasites. As weeds they show great phenotypic plas­
ticity, wide environmental tolerance, prefer permanently disturbed habitats,
and are part of a plant guild associated with colonizing or crop complex
species. As parasites, they depend upon another vascular plant for food or
water, which flows from host to parasites through haustoria. These struc­
tures form a morphological and physiological graft with the roots or other
underground parts of the host. The remainder of the root system of these
parasites is usually condensed and lacks typical root hairs and root caps.
All species of Orobanche and most Striga are obligate parasites-they will
not develop at all without a host. Facultative parasites such as most of the
parasitic species in the Scrophulariaceae are not nutritionally dependent on
a host plant but they are invariably attached to one in nature.
Root parasitism is found in the following diverse dicotyledon families of
seed plants: Hydnoraceae, Balanophoraceae, Krameriaceae, Lennoaceae,
Santalaceae (and segregate and allied families), Scrophulariaceae, and Oro­
banchaceae (88, 176). No parasitic monocots are known and there is only
one parasitic gymnosperm,
Parasitaxus ustus; this organism is endemic to
New Caledonia-it has an unique host-parasite interface involving a graft­
like union of tissue (L. J. Musselman, unpublished).
463
0066-4286/80/0901-0463$01.00
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
464
MUSSELMAN
Inclusion of a review on parasitic weeds in Annual Review of Phytopa­
thology attests to a growing awareness among plant pathologists of these
important plant pathogens. I attribute this increased awareness to three
primary factors. First, the discovery of a witchweed (Striga asiatica ) in
the Carolinas in the late 1950s followed by the characterization and synthe­
sis of a germination stimulant, strigol, as well as the use of ethylene as a
tool in witchweed management. Second, the disastrous drought of 19681973 in Sub-Saharan Africa brought attention to the Striga problem be­
cause S. hermonthica is a serious pathogen on grains cultivated by
subsistence farmers in that region. Third, more books on parasites have
appeared within the past two decades than ever befo�e (10,67,88,176,182).
As a result,parasitic higher plants are being considered in basic studies of
cell recognition (22,63),population biology (148),and crop breeding (154).
Except for the book by Beilin (10), the literature on parasites of agricul­
tural importance is immersed in the general body of work on parasitic
angiosperms. Danger's book,written in the 17th century,is perhaps the first
treatment of parasitic weeds as agricultural pests (29) although earlier in
the same century they were recognized as pathogens (179). More recently,
Parker reviewed the overall Striga problem (122). A comprehensive bibliog­
raphy of Striga including lists of hosts was prepared by McGrath et al (102).
Reviews on Orobanche (79) and the Orobanchaceae (135), have been pub­
lished in recent years. In addition, a series of bibliographies on Striga,
Orobanche, and other parasitic weeds is being produced by the Weed
Research Organization at Oxford, England. Two volumes based on sym­
posia have been published (46, 110). Other useful bibliographic sources are
contained in references (67, 81). Illustrations of most species discussed in
this paper may be found in (10, 53, 67, 81, 88, 108, 109, 186).
STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
I am departing from convention in treating these two genera together, but
in doing so I hope to emphasize similarities in their biology,recent research
findings,and some areas that need more research. When relevant,references
to other root parasites are incl�ded.
The name Orobanche is from the Greek, orobos, meaning vetch and
anchein, meaning to strangle. The modern Arabic name for Orobanche is
similar, el halouk, the strangler. This seems to be a more sensible common
name than broomrape, a historically sound but misleading common name
when applied to the entire genus, since only some species attack broom
(Genista ). In ancient Greece Orobanche was known as a parasite of crops.
Dioscorides (34) described an Orobanche that "chokes pulse," probably a
reference to O. crenata, a widespread species that attacks legumes in the
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
BIOLOGY OF STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
465
Mediterranean area. According to him, the stalks can be eaten as a potherb
similar to asparagus, a fact not widely appreciated by asparagus fanciers.
Striga is from the Latin, striga, a witch, and most species are known by
the common name witchweed although that name is also applied to the
related genus Alectra. This is a logical name because the parasite "bewit­
ches" its host before it emerges and becomes visible above ground. The
Latin word striga also refers to a row of grain that has been cut down,
likewise an appropriate term in view of its damage to grains.
Striga is often described as a genus of 50-60 species but a figure of 25
may be more realistic. All species that I have examined are annual plants
although sometimes they are referred to as perennial. The genus is charac­
terized by opposite leaves and irregular flowers with a pronounced bend in
the corolla tube. The flowers are pink, red, white, purple, or yellow. There
is considerable variation in flower color in both S. asiatica and S. gesneri­
oides.
The most studied species of Striga are those of greatest economic im­
portance: S. hermonthica, S. asiatica, and S. gesnerioides. Table 1 con­
tains a list of synonyms, the geographical range, and some hosts of Striga
species.
Unlike Striga, Orobanche plants lack chlorophyll and are fleshy with
scale-like leaves and less colorful flowers. Striga is entirely Old World and
tropical whereas Orobanche is more widespread-occurring in both tem­
perate and semitropical regions. The taxonomy of the broomrapes is more
confused than that of the witchweeds with estimates of the number of
Orobanche species as high as 150. Species of Orobanche that attack eco­
nomic host plants are also listed in Table 1.
Because broomrape species are widely distributed in the north temperate
regions of the developed world, a greater number of Orobanche species have
been studied than of Striga. On the other hand, Striga is a more serious
agricultural problem because it attacks grain crops in areas where few other
food crops can be grown. There appears to be little basis for the suggestion
that infestations of Striga are correlated with exhaustion of the soil (9).
Seeds and Germination
The life history of Striga and Orobanche reflects the specialization of the
parasitic mode, e. g. host recognition, early penetration. The first stage is
commonly called after-ripening or post-harvest ripening. Little precise data
on after-ripening are available. This ripening is the period of time between
shedding of the seeds of witchweeds and broomrapes and the second stage
conditioning. Necessary time for conditioning is several weeks following
after-ripening, during which certain environmental conditions involving
water and temperature must prevail before the seeds will respond to a
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
�
0\
�
Table 1 Striga and Orobanche species of economic importance
Geographic area
Name and synonym
Striga hermon thica
(Del.) Benth.3,b
Africac
Major crop host (s)
Millet, sorghum, rice,
Selected reference
(36,6 7 , 102)
maize
S. senegalensis Benth.
S. asiatica (1.) Kuntzed,e
en
Africa; Arabia through the Indian subcontinent
S. lutea Lour.
to China, Indonesia, and the Philippines; USA
S. hirsuta Benth.
(Carolinas)
Millet, sorghum, rice,
(67,102,159)
maize, sugarcane
S. coccinea Benth.
S. gesnerioides (Willd.)
Africa, India; USA (Florida)
Cowpea, tobacco,
(12,102,109)
sweet potato
Vatke
S. orobanchoides Benth.
S. curviflora Benth.
Australia
Sugarcane
(11, 102)
S. parviflora Benth.
Australia
Sugarcane
(11,102)
S. latericea Vatke
Ethiopia
Sugarcane
(49)
S. densiflora Benth.
India
Sorghum, sugarcane
(67)
S. forbesii Benth.
East Africa
Maize
(186)
S. aspera (Willd.) Benth.
Africa
Sorghum
(136)
S. euphrasioides Benth.
India
Sorghum, sugarcane
(146)
S. angustifolia (Don)
Saldhana
�
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
S. barteri Engl.
West Africa
Rice
S. brachycalyx Skan.
West Africa
Sorghum
Orobanche ramosa L.
Southern and Central Europe; introduced else­
Tomato, tobacco,
O. mutelii F. W. Schultz
w here, e.g. France, Cuba, Mexico, USA
Phelypaea ramosa L.
(California )
(136)
(136)
(70 )
potato, hemp
C. A. Mey
O. cernua Loefl.
Southern Europe and Western Asia
Sunflower, tobacco
(l0 , 79, 8 4 , 90)
O. cumana Wallr.
O. brassicae Novopokr.
0. crenata Forsk.
Southern Europe; Mediterranean region
Broadbeans, peas,
(19,51, 184)
O. speciosa DC.
O. minor Smithf,g
O. picridis F. W. Schultz
0. aegyptiaca Pers.
lentils
Europe; introduced in New Zealand, US, East
Central southwestern Asia, Middle East
B roadbeans, melons
(l0 , 72, 79)
tobacco
(Pers.) Walp.
O. ludoviciana Nutt.h
United States
Tomato, tobacco
(23)
aThe correct spelling as first published by DeIiIe, not hermontheca.
bMany species of this gen us were first described as species of Buchnera.
cReference to this species as introduced (40) and to other species (26) as indigenous to the United States is fallacious.
dThe correct name (62) but not universally accepted (e. . 67).
g
eReports of this species from Australia (163) need verification.
f
The correct author for this species is Smith, not Sutton as is frequently cited. Orobanche minor Smith takes priority.
gThis is a most variable taxon broken into 10 taxa in a recent treatment (20).
h
Collins (23) has recently described (but apparently not validly p ublished) a new species, O. riparia, that appears to be a segregate of O. ludo·
viciana.
�
�
Clover, tobacco
Africa, and perhaps elsewhere
Phelypea aegyptiaca
t:C
�
�
�
I
�
-..I
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
468
MUSSELMAN
chemical stimulant from the host. At this time inhibitors may be removed
from the seeds (68, 130). This second stage is also known as pretreatment
(129). The time necessary for conditioning is remarkably uniform for the
various species studied-two weeks for S. hermonthica, S. densijlora, S.
gesnerioides (149), Orobanche minor, and O. crenata (40). After condition­
ing, seeds germinate in response to a host stimulant (terminal treatment;
130) and the radicle (sometimes referred to as a "germtube" in the Oroban­
che literature) emerges. Germination is followed by haustorial initiation
and development, attachment to the host root and, lastly, penetration of the
vascular tissue. In this chapter emphasis is placed on conditioning and
germination.
There are phenolic compounds in the seeds of 11 species of Orobanche
that may play a role in seed dormancy (16). Seeds of the host may also
contain growth inhibitors that produce differential growth on one side of
the parasite radicle, directing growth toward the host (185). On the other
hand, some facultative parasites have a negative influence on host root
growth (33).
Although some spontaneous germination has been reported in S. asiatica
(68), s. hermonthica (128). O. ramosa (53). and O. cernua (84). most
species of Striga and Orobanche require a host root within a few millimeters
for germination. O. ludoviciana (187), Aeginetia indica [Orobanchaceae,
(92) but see (50)], s. densiflora (67), and S. euphrasioides (181) apparently
do not need any host root exudate for germination. Light may inhibit
germination of O. ramosa (65).
Determining the chemical makeup of the stimulant has involved numer­
ous researchers and laboratories during the past 30 years. With the discov­
ery of S. asiatica in the United States a new urgency in this regard was
realized. Worsham and others at North Carolina State University discov­
ered that several substances, including kinetin and coumarin derivatives,
(189) and certain other substituted purines would stimulate germination
(189). In 1972 the structure of a stimulant exuded from cotton roots was
finally determined (24) and given the name "strigo1." In 1974 the compound
was synthesized (61). Strigo1 is extremely active biologically-it promotes
germination of seeds of S. asiatica at concentrations as low as
Hr16M (61). Johnson began his early investigations of the chemical makeup
of the stimulant of O. minor and S. hermonthica in the 194Os. In 1976 he,
his colleagues at the University of Sussex began to produce chemical ana­
logs of strigol. They reported (75) that several showed great potency in
stimulating germination of both Striga and Orobanche at extremely low
concentrations. Strigol and the strigol analogs (sometimes known as "GR
compounds" after Rosebery who worked in Johnson's laboratory) are char­
acterized by one or more unsaturated lactone rings.
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
BIOLOGY OF STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
469
We know considerably less about the compounds that stimulate germina­
tion of Orobanche although strigol and strigol analogs may effect germina­
tion. For example, concentrations of 0. 1 to 1 ppm of GR will cause
germination of O. ramosa at 25° C (155). Kumar (91) has shown that strigol
induces unipolar germination in O. aegyptiaca but in general the relation­
ship between radicle morphology, haustorial development, and these stimu­
lants remains obscure. The chemical structure of the Orobanche stimulant
has not been determined although some evidence suggests that it may be
a benzopyran derivative (30, 31).
Other compounds may play a role in stimulating germination of Striga.
The most important of these from the standpoint of control is ethylene (43).
Ethylene has also been reported to induce germination of Orobanche (21).
Reports that various plant tissues and pond and stream water will induce
germination of S. asiatica (27) need to be reconsidered in light of the
common occurrence of ethylene gas in laboratory situations (167) as well
as its release from damaged plant tissues.
Worsham has shown that kinetin will induce germination of S. asiatica
without a conditioning period. Van Stadan (180) suggests that Striga germi­
nation is mediated by release of cytokinins from maize roots although the
interaction of strigol and cytokinins under field conditions has not been in­
vestigated. Kinetin inhibits germiniation of Orobanche (1). Gibberellins alone
apparently do not stimulate germination of seeds of S. asiatica (191), but will
stimulate Orobanche at least in the presence of a host (65, 152). Abdel­
Halim et al (1) found that maximum germination of Orobanche takes place
in the vegetative phase of the host when gibberellin production is highest.
Still another group of chemicals, coumarin and its derivatives, induce
germination. Worsham et al (189) obtained 100% germination in S. asiatica
with scopoletin. This is of particular interest since these compounds are
well-known allelochemics (140, 150). I know of no evidence that species of
Striga and Orobanche might be allelopathic to their hosts-their relation­
ship with other plants is usually perceived as simple and direct parasitism.
There is a recent report of a very pronounced allelopathic effect by the
facultative root parasite Bartsia odontites [Scrophulariaceae (37)].
It is not yet known how these various compounds function in the seeds
of root parasites. Much research remains to be done in this regard. Perhaps
there is a role for the well-developed aleurone layer in these processes. Egley
(42) has shown that puncture of the aleurone layer will induce germination
in S. asiatica. A careful histochemical study of this layer during after­
ripening and conditioning might elucidate the fate of stimulants within the
seed.
The influence of temperature on several species of Striga has been inves­
tigated recently. Highest germination was obtained when S. hermonthica was
470
MUSSELMAN
conditioned at 23° C and for S. asiatica and S. gesnerioides at 34° C. Mter
conditioning, S. hermonthica and S. asiatica genninated best at 33° C
(149).
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
Some Host-Parasite Interactions
The effect of the parasite upon the host is both direct and indirect. Water
and foodstuffs are removed and stunting and yield reduction occur (17,25).
For example, o. cernua in Hungary reduced yield of sunflower by 30%
and also lowered the oil content of seeds (172). In sugarcane the stem is
weakened (96) and the quality of the juice is reduced by root-parasitic
weeds. Similar results have been obtained for fiber crops (53).
Movement of photosynthate from host to parasite is well documented
(119, 153). In essence, the parasite becomes a metabolic sink for carbohy­
drates produced in the host (96). In a similar study of facultative root
parasites, Munteanu (107) found that host plants contained more starch and
nonreducing sugars than parasites.
Nitrogen metabolism has also been studied. Younis & Agabawi (192)
showed that S. hermonthica growing on Sorghum vulgare contained 10.5%
of the total weight of host and parasite tissue but 24.9% of the total
nitrogen. Orobanche cernua and o. aegyptiaca lack threonine/Serine dehy­
dratase and are therefore incapable of L-isoleucine synthesis (76, 111).
There is a similar report for a hemiparasite (77) and it could be interesting
to know if the same is true of Striga. Such a lack would put an additional
strain on the nitrogen economy of the parasite and may account, in part,
for the apparent nitrogen sink of the parasite. Parasitism by Orobanche also
reduces the level of nucleoprotein in the host stem but not root (164) as
well as lowering chlorophyll content (165). Application of nitrogen will
reduce the production of gennination stimulant in the host (126) and also
compensate for lack of gibberellic acids in the host plant (38), again indicat­
ing a stress on host nitrogen resources.
Apparently there is a direct relationship between the sugar sink caused
by the parasite and nitrogen starvation in the host (83). Nitrogen is usually
carried from the roots to the aerial portion of plants in the phloem, but with
a drain on sugars less nitrogen can be translocated. As a result, there is a
reduction in amino acid synthesis and growth and consequently in sugar
production in the host. This in tum means less sugar for the roots, and the
cycle is repeated.
Evidence is now available for a more insidious indirect effect of the
parasite upon the host. Field observations had long supported the belief that
the effect of Striga upon its host involved more than just the removal of
water and other nutrients, because the small Striga plant had such a pro-
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
BIOLOGY OF STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
471
found effect on the much larger host (179). Experimental evidence for this
indirect effect is now available. Working with S. hermonthica on Sorghum
vulgare. Drennan & EI-Hiweris (3S) demonstrated that parasitized plants
had 90-95% fewer cytokinins and 30-S0% fewer gibberellins than control
plants while the concentration of inhibitors (abscissic acid and farnesol) was
somewhat increased in parasitized plants. Varieties of sorghum that exhib­
ited resistance had higher concentrations of cytokinins than more suscepti­
ble varieties. Application of nitrogen partially compensated for lack of
gibberellic acids in the sorghum cultivar 'Dobbs'.
Other direct effects of Striga and Orobanche may include the differential
absorption of minerals including P, K, S, and Fe (101). Striga hermonthica
and O. ramosa can absorb minerals directly into the nonhaustorial portion
of their roots (69). Rhinanthus (Scrophulariaceae), a hemiparasite, has
been shown to be the most mineral efficient of a group of pasture plants
(171).
A strong transpirational pull from host to parasite has been well docu­
mented (SS, 144). High humidity will inhibit growth in S. asiatica (41)
perhaps due to a reduced flow of materials from host to parasite. Ecologi­
cally, Striga and Orobanche (15) and most root parasitic weeds are found
in open, sunny habitats that would favor increased transpiration.
The Haustorium and Its Development
Kuijt (S9) was correct in his assertion that the haustorium must be at the
center of our thinking in parasitic plants. The haustorium is in fact the
salient feature of parasitic weeds for it is through this organ that all transfer
between host and parasite is achieved as there is no evidence of indirect
transfer. A recent review summarizes our knowledge, mainly descriptive,
of haustoria (S9). In the short time since that review appeared considerable
advances have been made in understanding various physiological aspects of
haustoria.
Okonkwo ( lIS) noted that no haustoria were produced by S. hermonthica
in sterile culture and cited this as indirect evidence that the stimulus for
initiation comes from the host root. That a definite chemical factor might
be involved was first recorded by Edwards (40) who termed it a postgermi­
nation factor. Recent work on haustorial initiation has centered on faculta­
tive parasites but has direct relevance, I believe, for Striga and Orobanche.
Atsatt and his students have studied chemical factors in haustorial initia­
tion, repression, and haustorial development in terms of whole plant nutri­
tion (6). Riopel's work involves the elucidation of the chemical nature of
natural host exudates and other compounds that elicit the initiation re­
sponse in the root of the parasite. As an experimental organism, Riopel
chose a common, somewhat weedy species of facultative parasite, Aga/inis
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
472
MUSSELMAN
purpurea (Scrophulariaceae). When this plant was grown in sterile culture,
he noted that radicles near the seed coats developed haustoria. Since one
of the major components of seed coats are gums he began a search of
common vegetable gums for a haustorial initiating factor and found high
activity in gum tragacanth. Further work has shed light on the type of
chemical involved. Flavonoid compounds such as quercitin, rutin (151),
and vanillin (J. Riopels, personal communication) show considerable activ­
ity. Gum tragacanth applied to S. asiatica seedlings may elicit a similar
response although further work is necessary to document this (115).
As with germination, compounds that show considerable activity are
those for which an allelochemic role has been demonstrated (150). Initiation
is an exceptionally rapid process. Exposure to the stimulant causes notice­
able swelling of cortical cells within 30 min (152).
A recent review (83) of how parasitic angiosperms affect their hosts
emphasizes the well-documented phenomenon of xylem-to-xylem linkup of
host and parasite without the involvement of typical phloem tissue. How­
ever, there is now unequivocal evidence of phloem in the haustorium of an
obligate root parasite (35). Although host and parasite phloem exist in close
proximity, parenchyma cells are always interposed. Phloem-like cells have
been reported in the haustorium of O. ramosa ( 132). There is a report of
production of haustoria by leaves of Orobanche (183).
If a suitable chemical influence is present, a primary haustorium will
develop at the tip of the radicle. This haustorium then becomes appressed
to the host root and penetrates it. In S. gesnerioides, the primary haus­
torium enlarges to the size of a small pea and the shoot is very small. The
seedlings of S. hermonthica and S. asiatica on the other hand resemble
more closely the seedlings of a "typical" nonparasitic plant. These three
species of Striga are characterized by the production of adventitious roots
in the internodes of the young stem beneath the scales. These roots may
attach themselves to the same root to which the primary haustorium is
attached or more frequently to a nearby root so that in a short time the
parasite is connected to many roots. Working with S. gesnerioides, Ba (7)
found that the number of adventitious roots and haustoria varies depending
on the species of host plant. It is important to emphasize that Striga (in
particular) does not weaken but actually strengthens the roots that are
parasitized (C. Parker, unpublished). One way in which Striga may accom­
plish this is by the stimulation of lignification in host tissue. Striga asiatica
and S. hermonthica actually stimulate root production. This phenomenon
is particularly evident when attempting to pull up infected and noninfected
hosts in the field. The situation is different in Orobanche where adventitious
roots, if produced at all, are not prolific. Rather, a swollen area sometimes
referred to as a tubercle develops, from which short stubby roots may
develop.
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
BIOLOGY OF STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
473
Data on biochemical needs for shoot development in Striga are equivo­
cal. Striga hermonthica apparently will develop without exogenous hor­
mones (118, 120), but hormones are necessary for development in S. asiatica
(191). Alectra vogelii (an obligate root parasite; Scrophulariaceae) will also
develop in culture without hormones (121). Similar data on Orobanche are
not available although the situation in the related Aeginetia indica (50, 173)
resembles that of S. hermonthica. Work by Nes et al (113) on an indigenous
North American member of the Orobanchaceae, Epifagus virginiana, indi­
cates that this holoparasite is capable of producing its own sterols and does
not depend upon its hosts for these compounds.
A role for micoorganisms has been discovered in the seedling biology of
both Striga and Orobanche. Cezard (17) reported the presence of an endo­
phytic fungus in Orobanche. Petzoldt (133) has shown that O. crenata in
broadbeans is associated with the bacterial root nodules of that host al­
though there is apparently no correlation between germination of broom­
rape and host Rhizobium (1). In some California soils Rhizoctonia solani
inhibits germination of O. ramosa (55). Of special interest is the report by
Zummo (193) of an endogenous bacterium in S. hermonthica that may
protect the subterranean parts of seedlings from attack by other microor­
ganisms. This work needs verification.
Little information is available on induction of flowering in Striga and
Orobanche. It appears that there is no correlation between flowering of the
host and the parasite at least in O. minor (85) despite an earlier report to
the contrary (66). Garman (53) states that o. ramosa flowered all during
the growing season. Striga asiatica and S. gesnerioides will likewise flower
regardless of host flowering (L. J. Musselman, unpublished).
Hosts
A review of the literature on hosts for Striga and Orobanche provided
conflicting data. Most species have a very broad host range, yet there are
physiological races within species of broomrapes and witchweeds that have
extremely narrow host ranges.
Overall, Orobanche has a much broader host range than Striga, although
broomrapes appear to occur most frequently on members of the Fabaceae,
Solanaceae, and Asteraceae. Monocots, especially grains, are rarely at­
tacked although there is a report of O. cernua on wheat (162). Perhaps O.
crenata has the narrowest host range, being restricted more or less to
legumes, but carrots are also parasitized. Both O. ramosa (9) and o.
cernua appear to be very promiscuous; they have been reported on 27 (171)
and 18 different genera (143), respectively. How much these host lists reflect
biological reality is debatable. The point seems to be that although broom­
rapes overall have a broad host range they may show a preference for
certain families.
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
474
MUSSELMAN
With the exception of S. gesnerioides the situation in Striga is different
from that in Orobanche. S. gesnerioides has a broad host range of dicots
and a few monocots (67). Striga hermonthica, S. asiatica, and other less
serious species (Table l) are restricted almost entirely to grasses. This seems
natural because these plants are native to savannas, plant communities
dominated by grasses. A comprehensive host lists for Striga species may be
found in McGrath et al (102).
The existence of strains of witchweed physiologically adapted to certain
hosts was first intimated by Lewin in 1932 (98) who suggested that there
may be "biological strains" of S. asiatica. King & Zummo (82), among
others, recognized a sorghum strain and a millet (Pennisetum american­
um) strain of S. hermonthica. This is also true in the Sahel, where pen­
nisetum millet is grown mainly in the drier and sorghum in the wetter zones.
In the millet zone, this crop is seriously attacked whereas sorghum is
immune. Likewise, in the sorghum zone, millet fields are free while sorghum
is attacked. We now have a basis for this host specificity. Using seed from
both the sorghum and millet strains of S. hermonthica, Parker & Reid (127)
conducted reciprocal germination tests using the different hosts and parasite
strains. Their results clearly indicate that root exudates play a role in these
highly specialized systems. Millet Striga was not stimulated to germinate
by sorghum exudate nor was sorghum exudate effective with the millet
Striga .
Similar specialization has been recorded for S. asiatica (94) relative to
sorghum and millet strains, thus paralleling the situation in S. hermonthica.
There were also differences in the biochemistry and weight of the seeds of
the two strains (94). This specialization may result in the adapative advan­
tage of less intraspecific competition within the speCies (94). Such millet
strains are apparently not present in South Africa where pennisetum millet
is a trap crop (60).
Host-specific strains of S. gesnerioides are also known. Over much of its
range it is best known as a serious parasite of cowpeas. This form is much
branched and has blue flowers (109). Another form parasitizes the weedy
legume Tephrosia pedicel/ata, is sparsely branched, and has pink flowers
(109). It is not known whether these forms, or those of S. hermonthica and
S. asiatica, are interfertile. There is evidence that hosts can influence the
morphology of the parasite, at least in one facultative root parasite (5) and
one wonders whether the same is true in Striga and Orobanche.
There is a parallel host specificity in Orobanche where a turnip strain of
O. cernua would not germinate with mustard, nor a mustard strain with
turnip (166).
Considerable progress has therefore been made in understanding some
mechanisms of host specificity; however, at least one question remains.
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
BIOLOGY OF STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
475
Does host recognition operate at several levels? This would appear to be the
case as it is well known that many plants that produce germination stimu­
lants will not support growth of the parasite. Examples include cotton
which produces strigol but does not support S. asiatica. Likewise, flax is
often used to germinate O. minor but is not a host. Parker et al (126) have
found strains of hosts with both high stimulant production and resistance.
Perhaps both the germination stimulant and the haustorial factor play a role
in host selection.
There are several reports that S. asiatica and S. hermonthica grow,albeit
depauperately,on nongramineous hosts (102,160). This enigma might now
be explained in light of the above work. If host recognition acts at several
levels, i.e. germination, haustorial initiation, attachment and penetration,
physiological compatibility, then some chemical clue may be needed at
each stage. Once over the two hurdles of germination and haustorial initia­
tion the parasite may be able to attach to plants other than grasses. In the
anomalous parasitism of nongraminoids,seeds could have been stimulated
to germinate by widespread soil ethylene (167),or other naturally occurring
germination stimulants,haustoria induced to develop by a grain crop resi­
due with resultant attachment to a surrogate host. Studies of host parasitism
in pot culture cannot be meaningful unless the medium is thoroughly
washed of plant remains that might exert a chemical influence on the
parasite.
Similar evidence is available regarding Orobanche that might support the
theory of multilevel host recognition. Using many different hosts,Racovitza
(143) established five categories of host selectivity in O. cernua that may
represent various steps in host recognition and compatibility: (a) no germi­
nation,no attachment,(b)germination but no attachment,(c) germination
and attachment, no development, ( d) development to the tubercle stage
only, and (e ) parasite maturation.
Biological and OJher Control Means
Control methods include herbicides,and mechanical,cultural,and biologi­
cal means. In its very broadest sense biological control includes germination
stimulants, insects and fungi,trap crops and catch crops, and breeding for
resistance. Catch crops are hosts that both stimulate germination and sup­
port parasitism (122). Trap crops stimulate germination but do not support
parasitism (122). Catch crops are usually plowed under to prevent parasite
maturation; this is not necessary for trap crops. Good examples of trap
crops are Sudan grass for S. hermonthica (67, 95) and Carum ajowan for
O. cernua (142). The latter will induce germination of most of the seeds in
the soil. Trap crops for S. asiatica include cotton and peanut (67). Last (95)
has discussed the relative merits of trap cropping versus herbicidal control.
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
476
MUSSELMAN
Trap cropping for five weeks decreased the incidence of S. hermonthica
but benefits in terms of yield during the first year were greater with
2,4-0.
There is a considerable literature on control with herbicides incorporated
into the soil (155), or applied either before or after emergence (123, 138).
In general, 2,4-0 (45, 95) and related compounds (137) have given very good
results although a variety of materials including kerosene have been used
(87). In Rhodesia, herbicides have reduced Striga to a minor problem (H.
Wild, personal communication). Striga in rice is especially difficult to con­
trol (32). Herbicide can be transported from host to parasite but only with
resultant host damage (157). In small infestations sterilization of the soil
with methyl bromide has proven efficient (187). A novel approach to control
in hot dry areas is solar sterilization of the soil using polyethylene film (72).
There are conflicting reports of control by grazing. For example, O. minor
is controlled by grazing in New Zealand (168), whereas the same species
has been reported to kill goats in Egypt (78). These conflicting results may
be due to difference in the host chemicals or variation in the parasite.
Use of germination stimulants are now being tested under conditions of
peasant farming (117). While ethylene gives excellent control of Striga (45),
it is too expensive and requires mechanization which is not usually available
in developing countries. Thus, areas where root-parasitic weeds have their
greatest impact are the very regions restricted to hand weeding for control.
Careful weeding, however, can give significant increases in yields (36, 73).
The potential for biological control of parasitic weeds with insects and
some other agents has been reviewed recently by Girling et al (54). They
conclude that no effective method of biological control is yet available but
urge surveys of related species of parasites in tropical regions where a wide
range of insects may be present.
Several insects are known to attack Orobanche. These include the dipt­
eran Sciara sp. that eats seedlings and stems of some Orobanche (15). The
agromyzid fly, Phytomyza orobanchiae, has long been known to attack
species of Orobanche (184). It is widespread and apparently occurs in many
locations where Orobanche grows, although not all species are attacked
with equal vigor (97). It has been claimed that Orobanche is less of a
problem in Yugoslavia as a result of a control program involving Phytomyza
(97). Insects that damage tobacco (Spodoptera litura, Heliothes armigera,
Myzus persicae ) infected 50%, 63% and 7% of a random sample of 1000
Orobanche plants (species not identified), respectively (86) perhaps as a
result of tobacco compounds in the parasite.
Differences in predation by insects might be attributable to the chemical
influences of different hosts and/or host strains. Rascol et al (147) found
alkaloids in the parasite similar to those of the host. Host chemical influ­
ences might help explain the lack of uniformity in infestations in contiguous
477
BIOLOGY OF STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
areas reported by Girling et al
(54). The buffering of the chemical makeup
of the parasite by the host must be kept in mind when considering insect
predation for biological control.
Breeding for resistance to witchweed is now being undertaken as a prom­
ising control for Striga because it can be used under conditions of erratic
rainfall, low soil fertility
(145), and primitive agriculture. The factors in­
volved in the resistance are not all known but no doubt include the various
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
stages of host recognition and compatibility discussed earlier. For example,
some strains of sorghum produce little germination stimulant (126) whereas
others produce large quantities of stimulant yet are resistant (36, 126).
Resistance based on low stimulant production was suggested by Williams
(188).
Other factors involved in resistance involve time of maturation of the host
relative to infection. In sunflower it has been demonstrated that maximum
parasitism takes place when the host plant is young (172). This may be
correlated with lignification of the root since older roots are not affected
nearly so severely. A similar situation may occur in
Aeginetia (99). Other
plants that have been screened for resistance include tomatoes [with very
little success (2)] and eggplant (28). Apparently the presence of phenolic
compounds in hosts has little effect on resistance
(80).
Resistance also may be lost as shown by the well documented example
of the breakdown of resistance in sunflower to O. cernua in the Soviet
Union. In the
1920s strains of sunftower were developed that were resistant
O. cernua. but with time resistance was lost and new host strains were
developed. After another 20 years resistance once again was lost as a result
to
of the development of new strains of the parasite which were morphologi­
cally identical with one another (139). A similar situation occurred in
France for O. ramosa on hemp. As early as 1746 Guettard (56) noted that
the parasite damaged hemp. Over two centuries later, Badoy (8) reported
that varieties once resistant in the Anjou region of France had become
susceptible. He attributed this to loss of resistance by the host although we
need not rule out a change in the physiology of the parasite similar to that
reported above.
Introduced Parasites
In the few notable instances where root-parasitic weeds have been spread
globally, they have moved from the Old World to the New. Contrariwise,
no New World root-parasitic weeds of any agricultural importance have
been introduced to the Old World. The only temperate region where
Striga
has been spread is in the United States. Two Old World broomrapes O.
minor and O. ramosa have been dispersed throughout much of the world.
Certainly the most widely distributed root-parasitic weed is S.
asiatica.
It probably has become a problem only in the past century. In South Africa
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
478
MUSSELMAN
where it has proved especially virulent it apparently only became a serious
pest when new land was planted (131) since it never reached high popula­
tions in native grasslands (48). As soon as it became serious in the maize
growing regions of South Africa, the US Department of Agriculture issued
a warning to American maize growers (47). Over half a century passed before
S. asiatica was introduced or, more correctly, discovered in the United
States. Pavlista (129) discussed various ideas regarding the introduction of
this parasite into the United States including my favorite theory, transport
on wool from South Africa.
The witchweed eradication and control program in the United States is
the envy of other nations. Major efforts for control and eradication have
been reviewed recently (45). The cost of the Striga asiatica control program
is estimated at about $6 million per year. When this expense is weighed
against the loss to corn and other crops, however, the cost-benefit ratio
indicates the value of the program (44).
More recently, S. asiatica has been reported as damaging maize in Thai­
land where its spread has been attributed to large-scale mechanized farming
and movement of machinery from infested to new areas (175). As late as
1974 S. asiatica was not a problem in Thailand, but within five years it
infested over lOOO ha in the northeast portion of that country (174).
In January 1979, S. gesnerioides was verified as occurring in a few coun­
ties of central Florida (190). Preliminary tests indicate that it poses little
danger to commercial crops with the possible exception of sunflower and
sweet potatoes (L. J. Musselman, unpublished).
In contrast to Striga, dispersal of broomrapes in the United States has
been over a large geographical and temporal span. The history of O. minor
in this country has recently been discussed (51) and has been compared to
New Zealand where O. minor is now a serious problem on tobacco and
subterranean clover in some areas (71, 168). Orobanche ramosa, a far more
serious pathogen of several important crop plants, has a similarly long
history in the United States. In his classic paper,Garman (53) suggests that
O. ramosa was introduced to Kentucky with hemp although he records it
as parasitizing several other hosts of diverse families with less frequency.
To my knowledge, the species is no longer extant in Kentucky. Later, and
obviously quite independently of the infestation in Kentucky, O. ramosa
was found in New Jersey on tomato (58) and later on coleus in a greenhouse
on Long Island, New York (106). The most serious infestation in the United
States at present is that on tomato in California, which was first reported
in 1928 (171). Orobanche ramosa is a serious pathogen of tobacco in Cuba
(93) and Mexico, but has not spread extensively.
In the United States O. ludoviciana, one of the several native species of
broomrape, robust in habit and widespread, has become a parasite of com-
BIOLOGY OF STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
479
mercial crops. It was first noted as a parasite of tobacco in Ohio in 1931
(134) and later on tomatoes in Wyoming (169) and California (14).
Where possible, standard techniques of phytosanitation may help control
the spread of these parasites. It is known that clean clover seed has re­
stricted the spread of O. minor in some situations (100).
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
OTHER ROOT-PARASITIC WEEDS
Other genera of root-parasitic weeds of agricultural importance are most
commonly obligate parasites. I have listed some of these in Table 2, putting
special emphasis on recent discoveries. This is far from an exhaustive com­
pilation. Perhaps the most damaging is Alectra vogelii, a serious parasite of
cowpeas and some other legumes in Africa (186). Related species of Alectra
can attack tobacco and other crops (186) and sunflower (c. Parker, personal
communication). Two genera of the Orobanchaceae, Aeginetia (92,96) and
Christisonia (141), have been reported to damage sugarcane and other crops.
Aeginetia appears to have the greatest potential as a pathogen because it will
attack several grasses including grain crops such as sorghum, pennisetum
millet, and several finger millets (92). It is fortunate that neither Aeginitia
or Alectra have been spread.
Facultative parasitic species of the Scrophulariaceae have been impli­
cated in localized growth losses but have never reached the importance of
Striga and Orobanche. In the American South, Seymeria cassioides has
caused mortality of pine seedlings under conditions of water stress (57, 108).
Several grassland species reduce yield in grazing meadows. For example,
Rhinanthus serotinus has been reported to cause a 25% reduction in
biomass as well as a decrease in the numbers of important forage species
in Eastern Europe (104). Related genera (e.g. Odontites)are known to cause
similar harm.
Care is needed in equating losses in pot culture with field loss (108, 116),
especially in facultative parasites with broad host ranges.
Only recently have there been reports of pathogenic species in the Balano­
phoraceae,-a tropical family of bizarre obligate holoparasites (88). In
Nigeria, Thonningia sanguinea has caused losses in rubber (125) and cacao
plantations (J. Swarbrick, personal communication). On rubber, one para­
site plant attacked as many as 20 individual host plants. Balanophora indica
will parasitize coffee (112) but apparently with little damage. Species of
Balanophora have a broad host range including commercial species of
Citrus and Ficus (59), but are apparently not serious problems. Only one
member of the Hydnoraceae has been reported on a commercial crop,
cotton (13), again with insignificant damage.
480
MUSSELMAN
Table 2 Some other root parasites known to damage crops
Name
Location
Host
Reference
Santalaceae
Thesium humile Yahl
T. australe R. Br.
T. resedoides A. W. Hill
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
Acanthosyris pauloalvimii
Libya, Spain
Australia
South Africa
Barley
Sugarcane
Sugarcane
Brazil
Cacao
Australia
Yugoslavia
Young eucalyptus
Grapes
(74)
(81)
Nigeria
India
Rubber, Cacao
Coffee
(125)
(59, 112)
Argentina
Cotton
(13)
Africa
South Africa
Peanuts,cowpeas
Sunflower
Rhodesia
Europe
Tobacco
Forage
Southern US
Young pines
(57)
Java, Philippines,
Formosa, Japan
Philippines
Sugarcane, rice,
maize
Sugarcane
(92,96 )
Barr.
Exocarpus bidwillii Labill.
Osyris alba L.
Balanophoraceae
Thonningia sanguinea Yah!
Balanophora indica Wall.
Hydnoraceae
Prosopanche bonacinae Speg.
Scrophulariaceae
Alectra vogelii Benth.a
A. orobanchoides Benth.
A. kirkii Hemsl.
Rhinanthus serotinus
(Schon.) Oborny
Seymeria cassioides
(J. F. Gmet) Blake
Orobanchaceae
Aeginetia indica L.
Christisonia wight;; Elmer
(18, 103)
(68a)
(Fide herbarium specimens, Kew)
(3)
(186)
(C. Parker,
personal communication)
(186)
(104)
(141)
aThis genus is sometimes split into Melasma Berg. and Alectra Thun.
The Santalaceae are a family of facultative hemiparasites. Of the several
species reported to cause significant damage, Thesium is perhaps the most
important,with one species in Australia that damages surgarcane (68a) and
one in the Mediterranean region that parasitizes cereals (l8,103). In Libya,
it is estimated that T. humile reduces barley yield by as much as 10% (M.
A. Abou-Raya, personal communication). This genus reaches its greatest
development in South Africa where over 100 species occur (64). Very
recently T. resedoides has been a problem in sugarcane in South Africa (C.
Parker, personal communication). One seemingly benign species, T. lino­
phyllum, has been introduced into the United States (170).
Considering the large number of plants involved, we should not be sur­
prised to find that other species of parasites, both obligate and facultative,
have pathogenic potential. Factors responsible for new weed problems in­
clude rapid genetic change and a change in cultural practices (124). The
BIOLOGY OF STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
481
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
latter would certainly include the clearance of new land and the introduc­
tion of new crops into areas already occupied by root-parasitic weeds. It is
not hard to find examples of either phenomenon. The pathogenicity of
Seymeria cassioides resulted from the use of peripheral sites for forestry.
Striga latericea on sugarcane in Ethiopia and A canthosyris pauloalvimii in
Brazil are similar examples (Tables 1 and 2). An example involving rapid
genetic change would include the situation of Oro banche cernua on sun­
flower in the Soviet Union and perhaps Striga gesnerioides on tobacco in
Rhodesia.
CONCLUSION
During the past two decades noteworthy progress has been made in under­
standing the biology of parasitic weeds. Perhaps most significant is the
discovery of strigol and related compounds and ethylene gas as germination
stimulants. Although we still do not know how these stimulants effect
germination of the seeds, there will be considerable activity during the
coming years testing these and similar compounds under field conditions in
various regions of the world. In the process we should learn much about
their effects on host plants and the environment.
For the first time now, we are able to investigate the component processes
of germination and infection such as a consideration of the physiology of
haustorial initiation. If it were possible to block development of the first
contact with the host, a new control measure might be available. Likewise,
further investigations into the mechanisms by which these parasitic weeds
affect their host plants may provide means for alleviation of the effects of
parasitism under field conditions. I am optimistic that we are entering a new
era in understanding these pathogens and that increased basic research will
result in new and more effective control measures.
Realistically, however, it will be some time before these methods can be
used where parasites cause the greatest impact, in primitive agriculture
where the strictures of aridity, low soil fertility, and lack of capital for
technological solutions will continue to limit the types of crops and control
measures that can be used by subsistence farmers. Under such conditions,
hand weeding and hoeing will continue to be the chief means of managing
these pathogens.
For these reasons, breeding of resistant varieties of host plants will be the
major objective of the international Striga (145) and Orobanche control
efforts (F. Basler, personal communication). Care is needed here,however,
to avoid the introduction of cultivars of host plants into resistant geograph­
ical regions where more covalent strains of these root parasites may be
present. Perhaps more emphasis needs to be placed upon resistance through
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
482
MUSSELMAN
tolerance, that is, the ability to produce a good yield despite being parasit­
ized.
In addition to consideration of physiological strains, it follows that an
investigation should be made of the sources of genetic variation that pro­
duces such strains and the inheritance of traits related to parasitism as has
been done for some other parasites of pathogens (4). In these two most
important genera of root parasites we are dealing with pathogens that are
spread solely by seed, yet we know little about factors involved in seed
production and dissemination in either Striga or Orobanche. Some prelimi­
nary data are available. The genus Orobanche is probably characterized by
a very high level of self-fertile flowers (23). Variation in O. crenata involves
meiotic aberrations (105). Studies have shown that the American strain of
witchweed is autogamous (114). Preliminary evidence indicates that S.
hermonthica may be an outcrosser (C. Parker, unpublished). Studies on the
floral biology of Striga and Orobanc he are vital to understanding variability
within species. What are the pollen vectors of these plants? This as well as
studies on the interfertility of the various physiological races can be carried
out in developing nations.
Coordinated international effort on these parasites should include field
surveys to determine the geographical extent of infestations as well as some
measure of the economic and human consequences in each nation. This will
prove difficult in less developed countries but is necessary to properly assess
the impact of root-parastic weeds on agriculture. In the few instances where
surveys of any sort have been conducted large losses in yield have been
recorded (158, 161).
Lastly, the plant science community, while recognizing federal quaran­
tines and the danger posed in handling these pathogens, should have more
contact with this group of parasites. Even though these parasites are often
included in plant pathology and weed science texts, little has been done to
educate the botanical and agricultural public to their danger. One effective
way to do this would be by the distribution of specimens (duly devitalized!)
to herbaria so that if one of these parasites should tum up it can be quickly
and accurately identified. It has been my experience that some state and
regional herbaria lack even a single specimen of Striga.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
Comments and suggestions on this manuscript by my fellow strigologists
Professors J. L. Riopel and A. D. Worsham, are appreciated. Appreciation
is also extended to individuals who brought to my attention various refer­
ences. Lastly, I especially value the encouragement and assistance of Mr.
C. Parker, Tropical Weeds Specialist, in preparing this review. He also
freely provided unpublished information incorporated in this review.
BIOLOGY OF STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
483
Literature Cited
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
1. Abdel-Halim, M. A., Arner, M. A.,
Hazem, A., Abdel-Hafeez, S. 1975.
Contributions to the germination of
Orobanche seeds with reference to root
exudates of host. Ann. Ag,.ic. Sci. 20:
1 27-39
2. Abu-Gharbieh, W. I., Makkouk, K. M.,
Saghir, A. R. 1978. Response of differ­
ent tomato cultivars to the root knot
nematode, tomato yellow leaf curl virus,
and Orobanche in Jordan. Plant Dis.
Reptr. 62:263-66
3. Alvim, P. T., Seeschaarf, K. W. 1968.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Dieback and death of cacao trees caused
by a new species of parasitic tree. Na­
ture 219:13"86-87
Atsatt, P. R., Strong, D. R. 1970. The
population biology of annual grassland
parasites. I. The host environment. Evo­
Jution 24:278-91
Atsatt, P. R., Guldberg, L. D. 1978.
Host inftuence on floral variability
in 01"thocarpus densiflorus (Scro­
phulariaceae). Plant Syst. EvoL 1 29:
167-76
Atsatt, P. R., Hansen, I. M. 1978. Cor­
relations between haustoria formation
and parasitic development in Orthocar­
pus purpurascens (Scrophulariaceae).
Ann. Bot. 42:1271-76
Ba, A. T. 1978. Etude d'une phanero­
game parasite africaine Striga gesneri­
oides. Phytomorphology 27:359-68
8. Barloy, J. 1962. Comportement en an­
jou de diverses origines de chanvre vis­
a-vis de l'orobanche (Phelipea ramosa
C. Mey) Acad. Agric. France 48:194201
9. Basinski, J. J. 1955. Witchweed and soil
fertility. Nature 175:431
10. Beilin, I. G. 1968. Tsvetkovye polupara­
zit I phrazity. Moscow: Naukh
1 1. Bell, A. F., Cottrell-Dormer, W. 1931.
The cane killing weed. Queensl. Agric. J.
36:463-73
12. Brain, C. K. 1936. A witchweed on to­
bacco roots (Striga orobanchoides
Benth.). Rhod. Agric. J. 35:345-46
13. Burkart, A. 1963. Nota sobre Prosopan­
che bonacinai Spec. (Hydnoraceae) su
area y parasitismo sobre algodon. Dar­
winiana 12:630-40
14. Carpenter, T. R. 1957. Broomrape on
tomato and other hosts in southern Cal­
ifornia. Phytopathology 47:518
15. Cezard, R. 1973. Quelques remarques
concernant la phytosoclOlogie, l'ecolo­
gie et la biologte de plusiers especes ap­
partenant au genre Orobanche. 4th CoIL
Int Ecol BioL Mauvaises Herbes. pp.
1 60-91
16. Cezard, R. 1973. Orobanchacees. II.
Levee de la dormance de graines d'orc­
banches par suppression d'une inhibi­
tion. Bull Acad. Soc. Lorraines Sci
12:97-120
17. Cezard, R. 1974. Orobanchacees. V. Le
jeune tubercle d'Orobanche rapum­
genistae Thuill. Son interet lors de l'e­
tude de la biologie des Orobanches. Bull
Acad. Soc. Lorraines Sct 1 3:285-307
18. Chabrolin, C. 1935. Le Thesium, para­
site des cerea1es biologie et procedes de
lutte. Tunis. Agric. 35:165-68
19. Chabrolin, C. 1938. Contribution a I'e­
tude de la germination des graines de
l'orobanche de la feve. Ann. Servo Bot.
Agron. Tunis. 14:91-145
20. Chater, A. 0., Webb, D. A. 1972. In
Flora Europea, Vol. 3, ed., T. G. Tutin,
V. H. Heywood, N. A. Burges, D. M.
Moore, D. H. Valentine, S. M. Walters,
D. A. Webb, pp. 256-93. Cambridge:
Cambridge Univ. Press. 370 pp.
21. Chun, D., Wilhelm, S., Sagen, J. E.
1979. Components of record germina­
tion in vitro of branched broomrape.
Orobanche ramosa L. See Ref. 1 10,
Suppl., p. 1 8
22. Clarke, A . E., Knox, R . B . 1978. Cell
recognition in flowering Plants. Q. Rev.
BioI. 53:3-28
23. Collins, L. T. 1973. Systematics o/Oro­
banche section Mycorrhiza (Orobancha­
eae) with emphasis on Orobanche
ludoviciana. PhD thesis. Univ. Wis.,
Milwaukee. 219 pp.
24. Cook, G. E., Whichard, L. P., Wall, M.
E., Egley, G. H., Coggon, P., Luhan, P.
A., McPhail, A. T. 1 972. Germination
stimulants. II. The structure of strigol
-a potent seed germination stimulant
for witchweed (Striga asiatica Lour.). J.
Am. Chern. Soc. 94:6198-99
25. Cordas, D. I. 1973. Effects of branched
broomrape on tomatoes in California.
Plant Dis. Reptr. 57:926-27
26. Crafts, A. S. 1975. Modern Weed Con­
troL Berkeley: Univ. Calif. Press.
440 pp.
27. Dale, J. E., Egley, G. H. 1971. Stimula­
tion of witchweed germination by run­
off water and plant tissues. Weed Sci.
19:678-81
28. Dalela, G. G., Mathur, R. L. 1971. Re­
sistance of varieties of eggplant, tomato
and tobacco to broomrape (Orobanche
cernua Loefl.). PANS 17:482-83
29. Danger, L. 1887. Unkrauter und Pjlan­
zliche Schmarotzer. Hanover: Meyer.
166 pp.
30. DaVls. M., Pettett, M., Scanlon, D. B.,
Ferrito, V. 1977. Synthesis of some ben­
zophyran derivatives related to the seed
484
31.
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
32.
33.
34.
35.
36.
37.
38.
39.
40.
41.
42.
43.
44.
MUSSELMAN
germination stimulant of Orobanche
crenata. I. 3,3A,4,9B-tetrahydro-2H­
furo «3,2-c» «(1» benzopyrans. Ausl. J.
Chem. 30:228-92
Davis, M., Pettett, M., Scanlon, D. B.,
Ferrito, V. 1978. Synthesis of some ben­
zopyran derivatives related to the seed
Orobanche
stimulant
germination
crenata Forsk. 3,4,4A, 106-tetrahydro2H, 5H-pyrano [(2-C)] [(1)] benzopy­
rans. Aust. J. Chem. 3 1 : 1053-59
Delassus, M. 1972. Methodes de lutte
contre les strigas. Agron. Trop. Paris
27:249-54
Deliu, C. M. 1975. Observati asupra
plantelor
semintelor
germinatiei
semiparazite. Stud. Univ. Babes·Bo!yai
Ser. Biol 20:24-27
Dioscorides. 1959. Materia Medica.
New York: Hafner. 701 pp.
DOIT, I., Visser, J. H., Kollmann, R.
1 979. On the parasitism of Alectra voge·
Iii Benth. (Scrophulariaceae). III. The
occurrence of the phloem between host
and parasite. Z Pjlanzenphysiol
94:427-39
Doggett, H. 1965. Striga hermonthiea
on sorghum in East Africa. J. Agrie. Sci
65: 183-94
Donald, W. W., Fawcett, R. S. 1975.
Growth inhibitors from red bartsia
(Bartsia odontites), a minor weed in al·
falfa. Plant Growth Regul Bull 3:37
Drennan, D. S. H., El·Hiweris, S. O.
1979. Changes in growth re�u1ating
substances in Sorghum vulgare infected
by Striga hermonthica. See Ref. 1 10, pp.
144-55
Durbin, R. D. 1953. Hosts of branched
broomrape and its occurrence in Cali­
fornia. Plant. Dis. Reptr. 37:136-37
Edwards, W. G. H. 1972. Orobanche
and other plant parasite factors. In
Phytochemical Ecology, ed. J. B. Har­
borne, pp. 23�8. New York: Aca­
demic
Egley, G. H. 197 1 . Mineral nutrition
and the parasite-h<,?st relationship of
witchweed. Weed. Sci. 19:528-33
Egley, G. H. 1972. Influence ofthe seed
envelope and growth regulators upon
seed dormancy in witchweed (Striga
lutea Lour.). Ann. Bot. 36:755-70
Egley, G. H., Dale, J. E. 1970. Ethyl·
ene, 2-chloro-ethylphosphonic acid,
and witchweed germination. Weed Sci
18:586-89
Emerson, P. M., Plato, G. E. 1978. So­
cial returns to disease and parasite con­
trol in agriculture. Witchweed in the
United States. Agric. Econ. Res. 30:
1 5-22
45. Eplee, R. E., Langston, M. A. 1976. De­
velopments in the control of Striga in
the USA. PANS 22:61-4
46. Eur. Weed Res. Counc. 1973. Symp.
Parasitic Weeds. Malta: Ro. Univ.
285 pp.
47. Fairchild, D. G. 1903. Plant introduc­
tion notes from South Africa. USDA.
Bur. Plant Ind. Bull 25: 1 3-22
48. Farquhar, H. H. 1 937. Witchweed.
New light on the means by which it is
spread. Rhod. Agric. J. 34:563-69
49. Feredegn, T. 1979. A new striga prob·
1em in Ethiopia. Haustorium, No. 3.
p. 5
50. French, R. C., Sherman, L. J. 1976.
Factors affecting dormancy, germina­
tion, and seedling development of Aegi­
netia indica L. (Orobanchaeae). Am. J.
Bot 63:558-70
5 1 . Frost, C. C., Musselman, L. J. 1 980.
Clover broomrape (Orobanche minor)
in the United States. Weed. SCI:
28: 1 19-22
52. Garas, N. A., Karssen, C. M.,
Bruinsma, J. 1974. Effects of growth
regulating substances and root exudates
on the seed germination of Orobanche
crenata Forsk. Z Pjlanzenphysiol
7 1 : 108-14
53. Garman, H. 1903. The broomrapes. Ky.
Agric. Exp. Stn. Bull 105:1-32
54. Girling, D. J., Greathead, D. J., Mo­
hyuddin, A. I., Sankaran, T. 1 979. The
potential for biological control in the
suppression of parasitic weeds. Biocon­
trol News In! 1 :7-16
55. Gold, A. H., Sagen, J. E., Wilhelm, S.
1 979. California soils suppressive to
(Orobanche
broomrape
branched
ramosa L.). See Ref. 1 I0, Supp!., pp.
1-2
56. Guettard, M. 1 746. Second memoire
sur les piantes parasites. Hist. Acad. R.
Sci. 1 746, pp. 1 89-206 + 3 plates.
(pub!, 1751)
57. Gwynn, T. M., Musselman, L. J.,
Mann, W. F. 1978. The !loral and seed
biology of Seymeria cassioides (Scro­
phuJariaceae). Beitr. Biol Pjlanz. 54:
105-24
58. Halsted, B. D. 1901. Branched broom­
rape upon tomato. Rhodora 3:295
59. Hansen, B. H. 1972. The genus Balana­
phora J. R. and G. Forster. A taxo­
nomic monograph. Dansk Bot. Ark.
28:1-188
60. Hattingh, I. D. 1 956. The control of
witchweed demands resourcefulness.
Farming S. Afr. December, 1956, pp.
15-16
.
BIOLOGY OF STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
61. Heather, J. B., Mittal, R. S. D., Sm, C.
J. 1 974. The total synthesis of dl-strigol.
J. Am. Chem. Soc. 96:1976--77
62. Hepper, F. N. 1 974. Parasitic witch­
weed: Striga asiatica versus S. lutea.
Rhodora 76:45-47
63. Heslop-Harrison, J. 1978. Cellular Rec­
ognition systems in Plants. London: AI­
nold. 60 pp.
64. Hill, A. W. 1915. The Thesium in South
Africa, with a key and descriptions of
new species. Kew Bull., pp. 1-43
65. Hiron, R. W. P. 1973. An investigation
into the processes involved in germina­
tion of Orobanche crenata with a new
bio-assay technique. See Ref. 46, pp.
76-87
75. Johnson, A. W., Rosebery, G., Parker,
C. 1976. A novel approach to Striga
and Orobanche control using synthetic
germination stimulants. Weed Res.
16:223-27
76. Kagan, Z. S., Sinelnikova, E. M.,
Kretovich, W. L. 1969. L-Threonine
dehydratases of flowering parasitic and
saprophytic plants. Enzymologica 36:
335-52
77. Kagan, Z. S., Sinel'nikova, E. M.,
Kretovich, W. L. 1969. Some kinetic
78.
66. Holdsworth, M., Nutman, P. S. 1947:
Flowering responses in a strain of Oro­
banche minor. Nature 160:223-34
67. Hosmani, M. M. 1978. Striga-A Nox­
ious Root Parasitic Weed Dharwar:
Pub!. by the author. 165 pp.
68. Hsiao, A. I., Worsham, A. D., More­
land, D. E. 1979. Factors affecting con­
ditioning and germination of witchweed
[Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze] seeds un­
der laboratory conditions. See Ref. 1 10,
pp. 1 93-201
68a. Hughes, C. G. 1961. Flowering plants
parasitizing sugar cane. In Sugar Cane
Diseases of the World Vol 1. ed. J. P.
Martin, E. V. Abbott, C. G. Hughes,
pp. 479-93. Amsterdam: Elsevier
69. Ismail, A. M. A., Obeid, M. 1976. A
study of assimilation and translocation
in Cuscuta hyalina Heyen ex Roth.,
Orobanche ramosa L., and Striga her­
monthica Benth. Weed Res. 16:87-92
70. Izard, C. 1959. L'Orobanche du tabac.
Ann. Inst. Exp. Tabac Bergerac 3 : 1-18
71. James, R. W., Frater, K. C. 1977. The
control of broomrape (Orobanche min­
or) in flue-cured tobacco. II. The results
of experimental work with metham­
sodium in 1976--1977. NZ Tob. Grow.
I., pp. 10-13
72. Jacobsohn, R., Greenberger, A., Katan,
J., Levi, M., Alon, H. 1980. Control of
Egyptian broomrape (Orobanche aegyp­
tiaca) and other weeds by solar heating
of the soil by polyethylene mulching.
Weed Sci In press
73. Jainulabideen, S. 1970. Eradication of
orobanche (Orobanche cemua var.
desertorum) in Dindigul division. Ma­
dras Agric. J. 57: 1 3 1-34
74. Jehne, W. 1972. An instance of associa­
tion between Exocarpus cupressijormis
and dieback of Eucalyptus dives. Aust.
For. Res. 5:5 1-56
485
79.
80.
81.
82.
and allosteric properties of L-threonin
de-hydrase of cow-wheat. Doklady.
Akad. Nauk. SSR 185:1 372-75
Kamel, S. H. 1956. Etude chimique et
toxicologique d'une plante egyptienne:
Orobanche minor Sutton. Rev. Elev.
Med Vet. Pays Trop. 9:43-8
Kasasian, L. 1 971. Orobanche spp.
PANS 17:35-41
Khanna, S. K., Viswanathan, P. N.,
Tewari, C., Krishan, P. S., Sanwal, G.
G. 1968. Biochemical aspects of parasit­
ism by the angiosperm parasites: Phe­
nolics in parasites and hosts. Physiol.
Plant. 2 1 :949-59
King, L. J. 1966. Weeds of the World.
Biology and Control New York: Inter­
science. 526 pp.
King, S. B., Zummo, N. 1977. Physi­
ologic specialization in Striga hermon­
thica in West Africa. Plant Dis. Reptr.
61:770-73
83. Knutson, D. M. 1979. How parasitic
84.
85.
86.
87.
88.
89.
seed plants induce disease in other
plants. In Plant Disease, an Advanced
Treatise, ed. 1. G. Horsfall, E. B. Cowl­
ing, pp. 293-3 12. New York: Academic
Krenner, J. 1958. The natural history of
the sunflower broomrape (Orobanche
cumana Wall.). I. The morphological
anatomy of the sunflower broomrape
seed. Its germination and the infection
mechanism of its germs. Acta Bot. Acad
Sci. Hung. 4: 1 1 3-44
Kribben, F. J. 1 95 1 . Die blutenbildung
von Orobanche in abhangigkeit von der
entwickiungsphase des wirtes. Dtsch.
Bot. Ges. Ber. 64:353-55
Krishnamurty, G. V. G., Sitaramaiah,
S. 1974. Incidence of tobacco pests on
Orobanche. Indian Tob. Bull 6:7
Krishnamurty, G. V. G., Nagarajan,
K., Chandwani, G. H. 1977. Studies on
the control of Orobanche on tobacco.
Tob. Res. 2:58-62
Kuijt, J. 1969. The Biology of Parasitic
Flowering Plants. Berkeley: Univ. Calif.
Press. 246 pp.
Kuijt, J. 1 977. Haustoria of phanero-
486
90.
91.
92.
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
93.
94.
95.
96.
MUSSELMAN
gamic parasites. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol
15:91-1 18
Kumar, L. S. S. 1942. Flowering plants
which attack economic crops. II. Oro­
banche. Indian Farming 3:37-40
Kumar, Y., Rangaswamy, N. S. 1977.
Regulation of seed germination and
polarity in seedling development in Oro­
banche aegyptiaca by growth sub­
stances. Biol Plant. 19:353-59
Kusano, S. 1903. Notes on Aeginetia in­
dica, Linn. Bot. Mag. 17:81-84
Labrada, R. 1975. Some aspects of the
incidence of weeds in Cuba. PANS
21 :308-12
Lakshmi, B., Jayachandra 1979. Physi­
ological variations in Striga asiatica.
See Ref. 1 10, pp. 132-43
Last, F. T. 1961. Direct and residual
effects of Striga control treatments on
sorghum yields. Trop. Agri. Trinidad
38:49-56
Lee, A., Goseco, F. 1932. Studies of the
sugar-cane root parasite Aeginetia in­
dica. Int. Soc. Sugar Cane Tech. Congr.
San Juan Bull 101 : 1-12
97. Lekic, M. B. 1969. Phytophagous in­
98.
99.
100.
101.
102.
sects observed on parasitic phanero­
grams of the genera Orobanche and
Cuscuta in 1968. Proc. 1st Int. Symp.
Biol Control Weeds, Gainesville, pp.
21-24
Lewin, C. J. 1932. Witchweed (Striga
lutea, Lour. var. bicolor O. Kuntze). N.
Rhod. Dep. Agric. Ann. Bull 2:51-54
Lo, T. T. 1935. NC03 10 highly resistant
to the root parasite Bunga. Taiwan
Sugar, April, pp. 1 8-20
Long, H. C. 1932. Broom-rape. Agricul­
ture London 39:31 1-12
Lotti, C., Pardossi, C. 1977. Composiz­
ione minerale ospite-parassita in plante
infestate da Orobanchaceae. Agric. Ital
106:155-65
McGrath, H., Shaw, W. C., Jansen, L.
L., Lipscomb, B. R., Ennis, W. B. 1957.
Witchweed (Striga asiatica)-A new
parositic plant in the United States.
USDA, Crops Res. Div. 142 pp.
103. Mendizabel, M. 1945. Thesium humile
Yah!, SantaJacea parasita de los cultivos
y toxica ara el ganado. Bol Patol Veg.
Entomo . Agric. 14:309-14
104. Mizianty, M. 1975. Influence of Rhi­
nanthus serotinus (Sconheit) Oborny on
106. Muenscher, W. C. 1924. Orobanche
ramosa on a coleus. Rhodora 26:
134-35
107. Munteanu, C. 1972. ContinutuaJ in glu­
cide la unele plante semi-parazite din
familia Scrophulariaceae si la gazdele
lor. Stud. Univ. Babes-Bolyai Ser. Biol
17:57-62
108. Musselman, L. J., Mann, W. F. 1978.
Root Parasites of Southern Forests.
USDA. Forest Ser.. Gen. Tech. Rept.
S0-2o. 78 pp.
109. Musselman, L. J., Nickrent, D. L.,
1 10.
1 1 1.
1 12.
1 13.
1 14.
1 15.
1 16.
1 17.
r
the productivity and floristic composi­
tion of the meadow plant association.
Fragm. Florist. Geo. Bot. Krakow 2 1 :
491-505
105. Moreno, M. T., Cubero, 1. T., Martin,
A. 1979. Meiotic behavior in Orobanche
crenata. See Ref. 1 10, pp. 73-78
1 1 8.
1 19.
Mansfield, R. A., Ogborn, J. E. A. 1980.
Field notes on Nigerian Striga. Sida
8: 196--2 01
Musselman, L. J., Worsham, A. D.,
Eplee, R. E., eds. 1979. Proc. 2nd Int.
Symp. Parasitic Weeds. Raleigh, NC:
North Carolina State Univ. 296 pp. +
48 pp suppl.
Nandakumar, S., Kachru, D. N.,
Krishnan, P. S. 1976. Threonine/serine
dehydratase activity in angiospermous
parasites. New Phytol 77:613-18
Narayanan, C. R., Kulkarni, A. K.,
Quasin, C., Wadia, M. S. 1976. Chemi­
cal examination of the rhizomes of
coffee fungus, Balanophora indica Wall.
Indian J. Chem. l4B:906--7
Nes, W. D., Patterson, G. W., Southall,
M. A., Stanley, J. L. 1979. Sterols and
fatty acids of Epi/agus virginiana, a
non-photosynthetic angiosperm. Lipids
14:274-76
Nickrent, D. L., Musselman, L. J. 1979.
Autogamy in the American strain of
witchweed, Striga asiatica (Scro­
phulariaceae). Brittonia 31:253-56
Nickrent, D. L., Musselman, L. J., Rio­
pel, J. L., Eplee, R. E. 1979. Haustorial
initiation and nonhost penetration in
witchweed (Striga asiatica). Ann. Bot.
43:233-36
Nwoke, F. I. 0., Okonkwo, S. N. C.
1974. Facultative hemiparasitism in
Buchnera hispida Buch. Ham. Ex D.
Don. Ann. Bot. 38:993-1002
Ogborn, J. E. A. 1979. The potential use
of germinators for striga control by
African peasant farmers. See Ref. 1 10,
Suppl., pp. 29-36
Okonkwo, S. N. C. 1966. Studies on
Striga senegalensis. I. In vitro culture of
seedlings. Effect of various sugars and
glutamine. Am. J. Bot. 53:687-93
Okonkwo, S. N. C. 1966. Studies on
Striga senegalensis Benth. II. Translo­
cation of C-14 labelled photosynthate
Urea C-14 and sulphur-35 between host
and parasite. Am. J. Bot. 53:142-48
BIOLOGY OF STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
120. Okonkwo, S. N. C. 1966. Studies on
Striga senegalensis. Ill. In vitro culture
of seedlings. Establishment of cultures.
Am. J. Bot 53:679-87
121. Okonkwo, S. N. C. 1975. In Vitro post­
germination growth and development
(Scro­
Alectra
of
embryos
of
34:
phulariaceae). Physiol Plant
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
378-83
122. Parker, C. 1965. The Striga problem-A
review. PANS 1 1 :99-1 1 1
123. Parker, C. 1974. Pot experiments with
124.
125.
126.
127.
herbicides for the control of Striga spp.
Proc. East Asia Weed Control Conj
20 pp.
Parker, C. 1977. Prediction of new weed
problems, especially in the developing
world. In Origins of Pest, Parasite, Dis­
ease and Weed Problems. Ed. J. M.
Cherrett, G. R. Sagar, pp. 249-64. Ox­
ford: Blackwell
Parker, C. 1978. Thonningia sanguinea.
Haustorium 1:3
Parker, C., Hitchcock, A. M., Ramaiah,
K. V. 1977. The germination of Striga
species by crop root exudates tech­
niques for selecting resistant crop culti­
vars. In Asian-Pacific Weed ScL Soc.
Conj, pp. 67-74
Parker, C., Reid, D. C. 1979. Host spec­
ificity in Striga species-some prelimi­
nary observations. See Ref. 1 10, pp.
79-90
128. Parnell, F. R. 1941. Witchweed. Emp.
129.
130.
131.
132.
Cotton Grow. Corp., Prog. Rpts. Exp.
Stns. pp. 32-39
Pavlista, A. D. 1980. Why hasn't witch­
weed spread in the United States?
Weeds Today. In press
Pavlista, A. D., Worsham, A. D., More­
land, D. E. 1979. Witchweed seed ger­
mination. I. Effects of some chemical
and physical treatments. See Ref. 1 10,
pp. 219-27
Pearson, H. H. W. 1913. The problem
of witchweed. Union S. Afr. Dep. Agric.
Bull 40 34 pp.
Pennypacker, B. W., Nelson, P. E., Wil­
helm, S. 1979. Anatomic changes re­
sulting from the parasitism of tomato by
Orobanehe ramosa. Phytopathology
135. Pieterse, A. H. 1979. The broomrapes
136.
137.
138.
139.
140.
141.
142.
143.
144.
145.
146.
147.
69:741-48
133. Petzoldt, K. 1979. Bacterial nodules of
Rhizobium leguminosarum and Oro­
banche crenata germination and pene­
tration of broadbeans with an inte­
grated control program. See Ref. 1 10,
pp. 26-28
134. Pierstoff, A. L. 193 1 . Tobacco disease
Ohio. Plant Dis. Reptr.
survey;
15:155-56
487
148.
(Orobanchaceae) A review. Abstr. Trop.
Agrie. 5:9-35
Porteres, R. 1948. Les plantes indica­
trices du niveau de fertilt du complexe
cultural edapho-climatique en afrique
tropicale. Rev. Agric. Subtrop. Agron.
Trop. 3:246-57
Porwal, B. L. 1975. An effective control
of Striga in Bajra on farmers field. Ann.
Arid Zone 14:45-48
Porwal, B. L., Mathur, M. K. 1972.
Control of Striga-A review. Indian J.
Weed Sci. 4:129-35
Pustovoit, V. S., ed. 1973. Handbook of
Selection and Seed Growing of 011
Plants. pp. 22-28. Jerusalem: Isr. Pro­
gram Sci. Transl.
Putnam, A. R., Duke, W. B. 1978. AI·
lelopathy in agroecosystems. Ann. Rev.
PhytopathoL 16:431-51
Quisumbing, E. 1940. On Christisonia
wightii, Elmer, A parasite of sugarcane.
Philipp. J. Plant Ind. 1 1 ;397-400
Racovitza, A. 1960. Carum ajowan
Benth. et Hook. Une nouvelle et in­
teressante plante nourriciere de roro­
banche ramosa L. J. Agric. Trop. Bot.
Appl 5:491-96
Racovitza, A. 1962. Contributii la cu­
noasterea plantelor gazda si stimulent
ale lupaiei ramificate (Orobanche
ramosa L.) III. Acad. Repub. Pop. Rom.
FiL Cluj Stud. Cercet. Agron. 12:217-22
Rakhimov, U. K. 1967. Transpiration
and diffusion pressure deficit of broom­
rape and the plant host. Sov. Plant
Physiol 14;631-32
Ramaiah, K. V. 1979. A need for inter­
national effort to control Striga in the
semi-arid tropics. See Ref. 1 10, Suppl.,
pp. 37-40
Rangaswamy, N. S., Rangan, T. S.
1969. Morphogenic investigations on
parasitic angiosperms. II. Striga angus­
(Scro­
Saldhana
(Don)
tifolia
phulariaceae). Flora-A. 160. 448-56
Rascol, J. P., Andary, C., Roussel, J. L.,
Privat, G. 1978. Les alfaloides d'Oro­
banche rafum-genistae. I. Isolement et
identification des trois alcaloides ma­
jeurs (-) sparteine (±) lupanine et (+)
hydroxy-lelupanine. Plant. Med. Phyto­
ther. 12:287-95
Raven, P. H. 1976. Systematics and
plant population biology. Syst. Bot.
1:284-3 16
149. Reid, D. C., Parker, C. 1979. Germina·
tion requirements in Striga species. See
Ref. 1 10, pp. 201-10
150. Rice, E. L. 1979. Allelopathy-an up­
date. Bot Rev. 45:1 5-109
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
488
MUSSELMAN
151. Riopel, J. L. 1979. Experimental studies
on induction of haustoria in Agalinis
purpurea. See Ref. 1 10, pp. 165-73
152. Riopel, J. L., Musselman, L. J. 1979.
Experimental initiation of Haustoria in
Agalinis purpurea (Scrophulariaceae).
Am. J. Bot. 66:570-75
153. Rogers, W. E., Nelson, R. R. 1962. Pen­
etration and nutrition of Striga asiatica.
Phytopathology 52: 1064-70
154. Russell, O. E. 1978. Plant Breedingfor
Pest and Disease Resistance. London:
Butterworths. 485 pp.
155. Saghir, A. R. 1979. Different chemicals
and their potential for Orobanche con­
tro!. See Ref. 1 10, Supp!., pp. 4107
156. Saghir, A. R., Foy, C. L., Hameed, K.
M. 1973. Herbicide effects on parasit­
ism of tomato by hemp broomrape.
Weed Sci. 21:253-58
157. Sand, P. F., Egley, G. H., Gould, W. L.,
Kust, C. A. 1971. Witchweed control
by herbicides translocated through host
plants. Weed Sci. 19:2490-94
158. Sasser, J. N., Reynolds, H. T., Megitt,
W. F., Herbert, T. T. 1972. Crop protec­
tion in Senegal, Niger, Mali, Ghana, Ni­
geria, Tanzania and Ethiopia.' A Multi­
disciplinary Team Report. Washington,
159.
160.
161.
162.
163.
164.
165.
166.
167.
DC: US Agency Int. Dev. 61 pp.
Saunders, A. R. 1933. Studies in
phanerogamic parasitism with particu­
lar reference to Striga lutea Lour. Dep.
Agric. S. Afr. Bull 128: 1-57
Sawyer, A. M. 1922. Extent of the dam­
age caused by a parasitic plant known in
Burmese as "Pwinbyu" (Striga lutea).
Bull Dep. Agric. Burma 18:1-7
Schmitt, U. 1979. Distribution and im­
portance of Orobanche crenata on
broad beans in Morocco. See Ref. 1 10,
pp. 103-8
Sharma, S. L. 1953. Orobanche on
wheat. CU". Sci. 22:56-57
Shaw, W. C., Shepherd, D. R., Robin­
son, E. L., Sand, P. F. 1962. Advances
in witchweed control. Weeds 10: 182-92
Singh, D. V. 1971. Biochemical changes
observed in the metabolism of Petunia
during infection singly and in combina­
tion by Cuscuta and Orobanche. II. Nu­
cleic acid metabolism. Ind. J. Biochem.
Biophys. 8:187-90
Singh, P., Krishnan, P. S. 1971. Effect
of root parasitism by Orobanche on the
respiration and chlorophyll content of
Petunia. Phytochemistry 10:315-18
Singh, S. L., Pavgi, M. S. 1975. Obser­
vations on seed germination in Oroban­
che. Sci. Cult. 41:296-98
Smith, A. M. 1976. Ethylene in soil
168.
169.
170.
171.
172.
173.
174.
biology. Ann. Rev. Phytopathol 14:
53-73
Southwood, O. R. 1971. The effect of
superphosphate application 2-4,-DB
and grazing on broomrape (Orobanche
minor Sm.) in a subterranean clover
pasture. Weed Res. 1 1 :240-46
Starr, O. H. 1943. New parasite on
tomatoes. Phytopathology 33:257-58
Stevens, O. A. 1975. Thesium linophyl­
lum. Weeds Today 6:20
Stout, G. L., Wagnon, H. K. 1953.
Branched
broomrape,
Orobanche
ramosa, L., a pest of tomato and certain
other crops. Bull Calif. Dep. Agric.
42:45-5 1
Szoko, O. 1973. Investigations on the
effect of Orobanche cumana on sun­
flower. Acta Phytopathol Acad. Sci.
Hung. 8:375-80
Tashima, Y., Matsumoto, M., Kuroki,
S. 1974. Flower initiation of holopara­
site, Aeginetia indica L. under nonpara­
sitic condition of sterile culture. Proc.
lpn. Acad. 50:493-96
Teerawatsakul, M., Kanjanajirawong,
S., Prakongvongs, C., Chaimanid, E.,
Supaponhemin, P. 1976. Discovery of
witch weed (Striga futea Lour.), A root
parasite of com in Thailand. Il Studies
on witch weed control. Presented at 7th
Nat. Com Sorghum Rept. Sess.
175. Teerawatsakul, M., Kanjanajirawong,
S. 1978. Progress report on witch weed
«Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze» , A root
parasitic weed ofcom in Thailand, 1977.
Presented at 8th Nat. Com Sorghum
Rept. Sess.
176. Teryokhin, E. S. 1977. Parasitic Flower­
ing Plants. Evolution ofOntogenesis and
Life Form. Leningrad: Naukh. 220 pp.
177. Thomas, B., Thompson, A. 1944. The
ash-content of some grasses and herbs
on the palace leas hay plot at Cockle
Park. Emp. J. Exp. Agric. 16:221-30
178. Toohey, C. L. 1953, Cane-killing weed
in the Mackay District. Cane Growers
Q. Bull pp. 7-10
179. Unger, F. 1 840. Beitrage zur kenntness
der parasitischen ptlanzen. Hal Natur.
Cab. Ann. Wien. Mus. Naturges. 2
180. Van Staden, 1. 1976. The release of
cytokinins by maize roots. 7:279-83
Plant Sci. Lett.
181. Verma, J. K., Bajpai, M. R. 1963.
Witchweed in India. FAO Plant Prot.
BulL 1 1 :4-7
182. Weber, H. C. 1978. Schmarotzer­
Pflanzen die von Anderen Leben. Stutt­
gart: Belser. 208 pp.
183. Weber, H. C. 1979. Die gamander-som­
merwurz, ein dreifacher parasit an
Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 1980.18:463-489. Downloaded from www.annualreviews.org
by Sam Houston State University on 07/30/14. For personal use only.
BIOLOGY OF STRIGA AND OROBANCHE
seinen wirtspllanzen. Naturwissen­
schaften 66:367-68
184. Wenerk, H. L. 1936. Der kleeteufe1
(Orobanche minor S.) in ober Oster­
reich und seine naturlichen feinde.
Staaat Planzenschutz. 6:226-27
185. Whitney, P. J. 1979. Broomrape seed
germination stimulants from host roots;
See Ref. 1 1 0, pp. 182-92
186. Wild, H. 1954. IDlodesian witchweeds.
Rhod. Agric. J. 5 1 :330-42
187. Wilhelm, S. 1962. History of broom­
rapes (Orobanche ramosa and Q
ludoviciana) and their control by pre­
plant soil injection with methyl bromide
solutions. Int. Hortic. Congr. 2:392-99
1 88. Williams, C. N. 1959. Resistance ofsor­
ghum to witchweed. Nature 1 84:
1 5 1 1-12
189. Worsham, A. D., Klingman, G. C.,
Moreland, D. E. 1962. Promotion of
germination of Striga asiatica seed by
190.
191.
192.
193.
489
coumarin derivatives and effects on
seedling development. Nature 195: 199201
Wunderlin, R. P., Musselman, L. J.,
Shuey, A. G. 1979 Striga gesnerioides
(Scrophulariaceae) first record of the
species in the new world. Plant Dis.
Reptr. 63:251-52
Yoshikawa, F., Worsham, A. D., More­
land, D. E., Eplee, R. E. 1978. Bio­
chemical requirements for seed germi­
nation and shoot development of witch­
weed (Striga asiatica) Weed Sci.
26: 1 19-22
Younis, A. E., Agabawi, K. A. 1965.
Effect of Striga hermontMca Benth. and
nitrogen application on the growth and
nitrogen content of Sorghum vulgare L.
Acta Diol Hung. 15:361-69
Zummo, N. 1977. Diseases of giant
witchweed, S. hermonthica. Plant Dis.
Reptr. 61 :428-30