Tolerance of tomato varieties to lespedeza dodder

Weed Science

Volumn 49, Issue 4, 2001, Pages 520-523

  Goldwasser, Yaakov ^a,b   Lanini, W Thomas ^a   Wrobel, Russell L ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA   (United States)

^b VOLCANI CENTER   (Israel)

Author keywords

Parasitic plants; Tolerance; Weed control

Indexed keywords

EID: 23044467862     PISSN: 00431745     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1614/0043-1745(2001)049[0520:TOTVTL]2.0.CO;2     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Al-Menoufi, O. A. and F. M. Ashton. 1991. Studies on the parasitism of Cuscuta spp. series 8: susceptibility and resistance of some Lycopersicon species to Cuscuta pentagona infection. Pages 293-297 in J. K. Ransom, L. J. Musselman, A. D. Worsham, and C. Parker, eds. Proceedings of the 5th Int. Symp. on Parasitic Weeds. Nairobi, Kenya: CIM-MYT (International Maize and Wheat Improvement Center).
2. Ashton, F. M. and D. Santana. 1976. Cuscuta spp. (Dodder): A Literature Review of its Biology and Control. Berkeley, CA: University of California Division of Agricultural Science Cooperative Extension Bull. 1880. 22 p.
3. Bringmann, G., J. Schlauer, M. Ruckert, B. Wiesen, K. Ehrenfeld, P. Proksch, and F.-C. Czygan. 1999. Host derived acetogenins involved in the incompatible parasitic relationship between Cuscuta reflexa (Convolvulaceae) and Ancistrocladus heyneanus (Ancistrocladaceae). Plant Biol. 1:581-584.
4. Dawson, J. H., L. J. Musselman, P. Wolswinkel, and I. Dorr. 1994. Biology and control of Cuscuta. Rev. Weed Sci. 6:265-317.
5. Fer, A. 1984. Physiological approach to the chemical control of Cuscuta: experiments with 14C-labelled herbicides. Pages 164-174 in C. Parker, L. J. Musselman, R. M. Polhill, and A. K. Wilson, eds. Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Parasitic Weeds. Allepo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in Dry Areas.
6. Hembree, K. J., W. T. Lanini, and N. Va. 1999. Tomato varieties show promise of dodder control. Proc. Calif. Weed Sci. Soc. 51:205-206.
7. Holm, L., J. Doll, E. Holm, J. Panch, and J. Herberger. 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and Distribution. New York: J. Wiley. pp. 249-265.
8. Hutchison, J. M. 1977. Control of dodder in tomato. Proc. Calif. Weed Conf. 29:48-50.
9. Hutchison, J. M. and F. M. Ashton. 1979. Effect of desiccation and scarification on the permeability and structure of the seed coat of Cuscuta campestris. Am. J. Bot. 66:40-46.
10. Ihl, B. and I. Miersch. 1996. Susceptibility and resistance of Lycopersicon to infection by Cuscuta. Pages 600-605 in M. T. Moreno, J. I. Cubero, D. Berner, D. Joel, L. J. Musselman, and C. Parker, eds. Advances in Parasitic Plant Research. Proceedings of the 6th International Parasitic Weed Symposium. Cordoba, Spain: Junta de Andalucia.
11. King, L. J. 1966. Weeds of the World, Biology and Control. New York: Interscience, pp. 49-51.
12. Lanini, W. T. and E. M. Miyao. 1993. Influence of Field Dodder on Tomato Production. Tucson, AZ: Western Society of Weed Science Research Progress Report VI-7-8.
13. Loffler, C., A. J. Sahm, V. Wray, F. C. Czygan, and P. Proksch. 1995. Soluble phenolic constituents from Cuscuta reflexa and Cuscuta platyloba. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 23:121-128.
14. Nemli, Y. 1987. Preliminary studies on the resistance of some crops to Cuscuta campestris Yunck. Pages 591-596 in Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Parasitic Flowering Plants. Marburg, Germany: Philipps Universität.
15. Parker, C. and C. R. Riches. 1993. Parasitic Weeds of the World: Biology and Control. Walligford, Great Britain: CAB International, pp. 183-223.
16. Sahm, A. J., H. Pflanz, M. Grunsfelder, F. C. Czygan, and P. Proksch. 1995. Anatomy and phenylpropanoid metabolism in the incompatible interaction of Lycopersicon esculentum and Cuscuta reflexa. Bot. Acta 108:358-364.
17. Tsivion, Y. 1979. The Regulation of the Association of the Parasitic Plant Cuscuta campestris with its Hosts. Ph.D. thesis. The Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Israel. 49 p.