1 / 21

The role of allelopathy in host-virus relations

The role of allelopathy in host-virus relations. G.Kazinczi 1 , J.Horvath 2 , A.Takacs 1 , I.Béres 2 , R.Gáborjányi 2 , M.Nádasy 2 1 Office for Academy Research Groups Attached to Universities and Other Institutions, University of Veszprém, Georgikon Faculty of Agricultural Sciences

michelle-briggs
Download Presentation

The role of allelopathy in host-virus relations

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The role of allelopathy in host-virus relations G.Kazinczi1, J.Horvath2, A.Takacs1, I.Béres2, R.Gáborjányi2, M.Nádasy2 1Office for Academy Research Groups Attached to Universities and Other Institutions, University of Veszprém, Georgikon Faculty of Agricultural Sciences 2University of Veszprém, Georgikon Faculty of Agricultural Sciences

  2. Allelopathy (Molish 1937) • A type of interference among higher plants, where products of secondary metabolism inhibit (less promote) the development of neighbourhood plant • Earlier only plant-plant, today plant-microorganism interactions • It is considered as a new alternative way for biological control

  3. Plant viruses make up about 15-30% out of the whole plant diseasesVirus particles create close biologial unit with the plant cellChemical plant protection against viruses is unsuccesfull in vivoSome natural substances are known to inhibit replication and cell- to cell movement of viruses and reduce virus concentration

  4. It is not yet known exactly, but it can be presumed that natural inhibitors may modify special receptor places on the plant cell surface, therefore adhesion of virus particles can not be happened Mode of action

  5. The aim of the study • To examine the effect of allelopathic weed extracts on some host-virus relations

  6. MATERIALS AND METHODS

  7. DONOR SPECIES Cirsium arvense Asclepias syriaca Convolvulus arvensis Abutilon theophrasti Chelidonium majus Fresh plant parts were collected and grinding

  8. Plant water extracts were made using 25 g fress biomass/100 ml distilled water • Extracts were used to spray daily test plants from their 2-4 leaf stages until the end of experiments

  9. Host-virus relations (recipient species)

  10. Chenopodium amaranticolor-Alfalfa mosaic virus

  11. Chenopodium quinoa-Sowbane mosaic virus

  12. Cucumis sativus’Delicatesse’ -Zucchini yellow mosaic virus

  13. Solanum nigrum- Obuda pepper virus

  14. Virus infection (DAS ELISA) From the extinction values we can conclude from the virus concentration; samples are considered resistant to virus infection: if extinction values do not exceed two times those of the negative control • Fresh weight (five weeks after inoculations)

  15. RESULTS

  16. The effect of C. majus extracts on the virus concentration in test plants (a, C. majus root extract; b, C. majus shoot extract; c, positive control; d, negative control) • Slight, significant reduction in AMV concentration due to C. majus root extract • Enhanced virus concentration in S. nigrum • No difference in virus concentration in C. quinoa and C. sativus

  17. The effect of C. majus extracts on the fresh weight of test plants (a, C. majus root extract; b, C. majus shoot extract; c, positive control; d, negative control) 1st column, C. majus root extract; 2nd, C. majus shoot extract; 3rd, positive control; 4th, LSD5%)

  18. The effect of water extract on the ObPV concentration in S. nigrum (1, A. syriaca root; 2, A. syriaca shoot; 3, C. arvense shoot; 4, C. arvensis shoot; 5, A. theophrasti shoot; 6, positive control; 7, negative control)

  19. The effect of water extracts on the fresh weight of S. nigrum 1, A. syriaca root; 2, A. syriaca shoot; 3, C. arvense shoot; 4, C. arvensis shoot; 5, A. theophrasti shoot; 6, positive control

  20. Conclusions • Sprayed plant extracts did not inhibit virus infection • Allelopathic plant extracts have different effect on the development and virus concentration in hosts • One exception was in case of C. majus root extracts, which reduced significantly not only AMV concentration but also fresh weight of C.amaranticolor • It seems that there is no relation between allelopathic inhibitory effect of weeds on the development of test plants and virus inhibitory effect in the hosts

  21. Thank you for the attention!

More Related