Phytotoxicity of Two Bauhinia Species on Four Triticum aestivum Varieties in Laboratory Bioassay
Department of Forestry, College of Forestry, V.C.S.G. Uttarakhand University of Horticulture and Forestry, Ranichauri Campus, Tehri Garhwal 249 199, Uttarakhand, India
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Int. J. Plant Biol. 2024, 15(3), 599-606; https://doi.org/10.3390/ijpb15030045
Submission received: 3 May 2024
/
Revised: 27 June 2024
/
Accepted: 28 June 2024
/
Published: 1 July 2024
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Physiology)
Abstract
:Tree–crop interaction studies help to determine the effects of trees on the production and yield of agricultural crops and could help indecisions on suitable crops and tree combinations to increase the overall production from agroforestry systems. Different varieties of agricultural crops might show different responses against the phytotoxic effects of Bauhinia species. This study was conducted to observe the phytotoxicity of two Bauhinia spp., i.e., Bauhinia retusa and Bauhinia variegata, on some Triticum aestivum varieties, i.e., VL-892, VI-829, VL-616, UP-2572, and UP-1109.The leaves and bark of these two species were harvested from the natural population for these experiments. On average, germination and radicle and plumule length of wheat varieties were significantly (p > 0.05) reduced by the leaf and bark extracts of both Bauhinia species. The effect of leaf and bark extracts of both Bauhinia species on seed germination percent of different wheat varieties revealed that the bark and leaf extracts showed maximum toxicity for germination percentage, and minimum influence was observed in radicle and plumule length. However, bark extracts were more toxic as compared to leaf extracts. Under leaf and bark extract concentrations, the VL 829 wheat variety showed stimulatory effects in germination and radicle and plumule growth under both Bauhinia species. On average, radicle and plumule growth of the test crop was increased with an increasing concentration of leaf and bark extract of B. variegata up to 50%, and thereafter, a decrease in radicle and plumule length was recorded. The VL 829 and UP 1109 varieties showed the lowest allelopathic effects and could be grown under both Bauhinia species with minimum yield loss.
1. Introduction
The Bauhinia species (family Fabaceae) is found in tropical and subtropical regions of the Himalayas [1]. Bauhinia is an important species, and it is represented by about 15 species in India in the form of trees, shrubs, and climbers. Among these species, Bauhinia retusa Roxb. and Bauhinia variegata L. are species that are ecologically and economically important. Both Bauhinia species are used for fodder during the scarcity of fodder, particularly in the summer months [2]. Due to its importance, it needs to be included in different agroforestry systems [3].
For this purpose, a tree–crop interaction study should be conducted to assess the phytotoxicity of both Bauhinia species on different wheat varieties. Very little systematic and organized information is available on these agroforestry species concerning their phytotoxic effect. Allelopathy is the compound alteration of a site to help improve tree growth and control ecological volume and important wealth [4]. This modification is conveyed through biomolecules known as allelochemicals, which come to the soil from plant parts by leaching in rainwater, root exudation, volatilization, decomposition of leaf litter, and other processes in both natural and agricultural systems [5].
The reduction/stimulation in germination and growth of recipient crops is due to different secondary metabolites, i.e., terpenoids, flavonoids, tannins, saponins, reducing sugars, steroids, and cardiac glycosides [6]. In Leucaena leucocephala, phenolic acids, flavonoids, and mimosine were found to be efficient allelopathic agents [7]. The bark and leaf extracts of Ficus auriculata and F. semicordata provided a rich supply of flavonoids and polyphenolic compounds, which had inhibitory and stimulatory effects on Eleusine coracana L., Echinochloa frumentacea L., Amaranthus caudatus L., and Vigna umbellata Thunb. [8]. In the leaves and bark of both Bauhunia species, secondary metabolites, i.e., water-soluble saponins, hormones, saponins, enzymes, terpenoids, alkaloids, flavonoids, and polyphenols, may be potent sources of phytotoxicity and showed inhibitory and stimulatory effects on test crops. The occurrence of bioactive secondary metabolites such as L-tryptophan, syringing, (-) lariciersinol, and phenolics in Prosopis juliflora demonstrated inhibitory effects on weeds, and these were used as organized herbicides [9,10,11]. Nowadays, phytotoxic effects are being studied to discover both stimulatory and inhibitory effects by assessing the interactions between crops and crops, weeds and crops, and trees and crops [12,13,14]. Kee** these facts in view, the present study has been undertaken to assess the allelopathic effect of two Bauhinia species, i.e., B. retusa and B. variegata, on different seeds germination and the initial growth of Triticum aestivum varieties in an in-vitro condition.
2. Materials and Methods
The experiments were conducted at the Department of Forestry, Ranichauri, Tehri Garhwal (Uttarakhand). The leaves and bark of B. retusa and B. variegata were collected from five selected trees in Nagni, Tehri Garhwal to evaluate phytotoxicity. Five T. aestivum L. (wheat) varieties, viz., VL-892, VI-829, VL-616, UP-2572, and UP-1109, were collected from Gaja Research Farm of V.C.S.G. Uttarakhand University of Horticulture and Forestry.
The leaves and bark of both Bauhinia species were shade-dried and ground separately with the help of a mechanical grinder. Forty-gram samples of bark and leaves of each species were weighed with the help of an electronic weighing machine, mixed with 400 mL of double-distilled water separately, and left for 24 h at room temperature [15]. After 24 h, the brownish and dark extract was filtered through three layers of Whatman no.1 filter paper and stored in conical flasks. The extract was further diluted to 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100% concentrations and stored in a refrigerator (5 °C) in a dark bottle for one week. To examine the toxic effects of leaf and bark extracts on seed germination and radicle and plumule length of T. aestivum varieties, in October 2015, 30 seeds (three replicates of 10 seeds each) were placed in Petridishes (9 cm) containing two layers of Whatman no.1 filter paper saturated with a particular extract, and in the control, distilled water was used at room temperature (16 ± 3 °C). Petri dishes were moistened by adding extract or distilled water as needed. The germination of the seed was counted daily for up to 7 days. After that, the observations were stopped, since radicles in petri dishes normally start shriveling at their tips, and any further reading thereafter could introduce errors to the data. The germination percent was calculated by the standard formula, and data were analyzed statistically. The reduction and stimulation were calculated as per the formula by [16]. The data obtained arcsine for normality, and two-way analysis of variance (significance level at p < 0.05, and p < 0.01) was computed using ICAR Goa online software (V1.0). Duncan’s multiple range tests (DMRT) were computed to estimate significance (p < 0.05) for numerous comparison means among the varieties.
3. Results
Data represented in Figure 1 depict the stimulation and reduction in the germination of T. aestivum variety seeds under B. retusa leaf and bark extracts. Maximum (8.11%) stimulation in germination was determined in variety UP 1109 at a 25% bark concentration of B. retusa, and minimum (5.26%) stimulation was seen in variety UP 2572 at a 25% concentration. In leaf extract, maximum (3.61%) stimulation was recorded in T. aestivum variety UP 2572 at a 25% concentration of B. retusa, and minimum (2.56%) stimulation was seen in variety VL 616 at a 25% concentration. A maximum (35.71%) reduction was noticed in variety VL 892 at 100% bark concentration of B. retusa, and a minimum (2.63%) reduction was recorded in variety VL 829 at a 50% bark concentration of B. retusa. Meanwhile, leaf extracts had a reduced maximum (26.19%) germination at 25% in VL 892 and a minimum (2.56%) reduction in germination at 50% in VL 616 (Figure 1).
Leaf extract concentration was recorded as maximum (8.11%) stimulation in variety UP 1109 at a 75% concentration of B. variegata, and minimum (3.61%) stimulation in germination was observed in T. aestivum variety UP1109 at a 50% concentration of B. variegata. The bark extracts at 25% showed maximum (5.41%) stimulation in UP 1109 and minimum (2.56%) stimulation in VL 616 at 25% concentration. A maximum (38.10%) reduction in germination was recorded for VL 892 in a 75% bark concentration of B. variegata, and a minimum (2.63%) was observed at UP 2572 in a 25% bark concentration of B. variegata. Maximum (30.59%) reductions were noted in variety VL 892 in a 100% leaf concentration of B. variegata, and minimum (3.51%) reductions were recorded in UP 2572 at a 50% leaf concentration of B. variegata (Figure 2).
Different bark extract concentrations resulted in the maximum (64.13%) stimulation in radicle growth recorded in T. aestivum variety VL 829 at a 50% concentration of B. retusa, and minimum (6.39%) stimulation was seen in variety VL 892 at 25% bark extracts of B. retusa. A maximum (−64.05%) reduction in radicle growth was found in variety VL 616 at 100% concentration of B. retusa, and a minimum (13.02%) reduction was seen in variety VL 892 at a 50% concentration of B. retusa. On average, maximum radicle growth was recorded at 25% concentration; after that, increasing the concentration of bark extract, radicle growth was decreased as compared to the control (Table 1).
Among all varieties, maximum (77.60%) stimulation of plumule growth was recorded in variety VL 829 at a 25% concentration of B. retusa, and minimum (0.23%) stimulation was seen in UP 1109 at a 100% concentration of B. retusa. A maximum (45.95%) reduction in plumule growth was observed in VL 616 at a 100%concentration of B. retusa, and a minimum (2.46%) reduction was seen in VL 892 at a 100% concentration of B. retusa. On average, maximum plumule growth was recorded in lower concentrations, whereas when increasing the concentration, plumule growth was lower as compared to the control (Table 1).
Different concentrations of leaf extract of B. retusa had a consequence on radicle growth. The upper limit (97.79%) of radicle growth was stimulated at 75% in variety VL 829, and the lower limit (1.97%) was stimulated at 25% concentration in variety VL 892. In radicle growth, a maximum (39.31%) reduction was observed at 100% concentration in variety VL 892, and a lower (27.92%) reduction was recorded at variety VL 616 in a 25% concentration of B. retusa. On average, the radicle growth of test crops increased when increasing the leaf extract concentration of B. retusa to a 75% concentration, and after that, the radicle growth of test crops declined (Table 1).
Different concentrations of B. retusa leaf extract also influenced the plumule growth of different varieties. Higher (87.43%) stimulation of plumule growth was shown at 50% concentration in variety VL 829, and lower (6.98%) stimulation was recorded in variety VL 616 at 100% concentration. Reduction in plumule growth was recorded to be the maximum (12.34%) in variety UP 2572 at a 100% concentration of B. retusa leaf extract, and a minimum (3.73%) reduction was recorded at 100% concentration in variety UP 1107 (Table 1).
The effects of different concentrations of B. variegata bark extract are presented in Table 1. The results indicated that the radicle growth of different varieties was influenced by the different bark concentration treatments. Between different varieties and concentrations, maximum (64.13%) stimulation of radicle growth was recorded at 50% concentration in variety VL 892, and minimum (1.72%) stimulation was recorded at 25% concentration in variety VL 892. Maximum reduction (19.90%) in variety VL 616 and minimum reduction (2.70%) in variety VL 829 were recorded at 25% and 75% concentrations, respectively. Among all the varieties, higher radicle growth was recorded in VL 829 as compared to other varieties (Table 1).
Data represented in Table 1 depict the fact that plumule development and stimulation were determined to be the maximum (61.48%) in T. aestivum variety VL 829 at 50% concentration and the minimum (1.26%) at 25% concentration in variety UP 2572. A maximum (22.14%) reduction was seen in variety UP 1109 at 100% concentration, and a minimum (1.91%) reduction was recorded in variety VL 892 at 25%. The most prominent growth was recorded in VL 829 as compared to other T. aestivum varieties (Table 1).
Different concentrations of leaf and bark extracts of B. retusa significantly (p < 0.01) affected the germination, radicle, and plumule growth of different wheat varieties. Similarly, different concentrations of leaf and bark extracts of Bauhinia retusa species significantly (p < 0.01) affected the germination and radicle and plumule growth of different wheat varieties. Among the varieties, radicle and plumule growth was significantly (p < 0.01) influenced (Table 2).
4. Discussion
In the present study, a series of different concentrations (0%, 25%, 50%, 75%, and 100%) of B. retusa and B. variegata leaf and bark extracts were applied to investigate their allelopathic effects on the germination percentage and plumule and radicle lengths of five T. aestivum varieties. For all cultivars, germination percent, plumule length, and radicle length were significantly affected by different concentrations of leaf and bark extracts of Bauhinia species. The present study results indicated that the leaves of both Bauhinia species release phytotoxic substances and negatively affect the germination percent and seedling length of the studied wheat cultivars. Similar studies were conducted to evaluate the allelopathic effects of different concentrations of aqueous extract of Zygophyllum album on T. aestivum and Bromus tectorum. These revealed that the maximum inhibition was recorded in germination percentage and radicle and plumule growth of the test crops [17].
The results of our investigation reveal that different concentrations of leaf and bark extracts of both Bauhinia species have different effects (inhibitory/stimulatory) on germination and radicle and plumule length of different T. aestivum varieties. These stimulatory or inhibitory influences in germination by different concentrations of leaf and bark extracts may be due to the occurrence of different metabolic substances, i.e., tannins, flavonoids, reducing sugars, terpenoids, saponins, steroids, and cardiac glycosides [6]. These findings revealed that germination was more affected as compared to the radicle and plumule growth. Among the tested wheat varieties, VL 829 had more resistance in germination percent and radicle and plumule length, followed by UP 1109. However, higher concentrations (100%) exhibited higher toxicity as compared to the other studied concentrations of leaf and bark extracts of both Bauhinia species.
The radicle and plumule lengths of the studied wheat varieties were significantly stimulated by the lower concentration. However, by increasing the leaf and bark concentrations, the reduction was also increased in the radicle and plumule length of the wheat varieties. On average, the bark extract of B. variegata was more toxic to the radicle and plumule length of the wheat varieties compared to leaf extract. The leaf extracts are persuasive sources of phytotoxic chemicals, and their properties are concentration-dependent and species-specific [18,19]. The allelochemicals found in plants have a large diversity and are leached from plants to the soil by organic and inorganic compounds [20].
Additionally, Tanveer et al. [21] obtained a significant reduction regarding the effect of Euphorbia helioscopia leaf aqueous extract on the seedling growth of Triticum aestivum, Lens culinaris, and Cicer arietinum. The significant reduction in seedling growth in the present study may be due to the inhibitory effect of allelochemicals found in leaves of both Bauhinia species, which could affect growth directly or by altering the mobilization of storage compounds during germination. The secondary metabolites present in different concentrations of aqueous extracts of different donor plant species have been influenced by various physiological activities by the effects of enzymes accountable for synthesizing different phytohormones. These allelochemicals also inhibited the absorption of nutrients and ions and affected the plasma membrane permeability [22,23]. The inhibition percentage (IP) of the plant’s effects may be due to interruptions in the actions of peroxidase, alpha-amylase, and acid phosphates [24]. The reduction and stimulation in germination and growth of the seedling may depend on the concentrations of secondary metabolite compounds or plant metabolites present in the extracts [25]. The diterpene steviol glycoside stevioside, obtained from Stevia rebaudiana, has an inhibitory action against gibberellins, a plant hormone that regulates growth [26].
The data of seed germination and seedling growth in the control were higher and aqueous leachates of leaves and bark of both Bauhinia species inhibited the germination efficiency and growth characteristics of the selected wheat varieties. However, long-term field experiments are needed to examine the allelopathic effects, especially under natural conditions. The phytochemical characteristics of the soil and the effect of microbial activity in mitigating or intensifying this effect also need to be evaluated [27]. The allelopathic potential of Bauhinia species’ root and rhizosphere soils and the irrelative importance in the inhibition of crop growth also need to be examined in the future.
5. Conclusions
The results of the present study showed that the allelopathic effects of leaves and bark of both Bauhinia species were different in different wheat varieties. The stimulation in germination and seedling growth were higher with lower concentrations, and maximum reduction was recorded at higher concentrations. The allelopathic effect of leaf and bark extracts of agroforestry trees should be examined before considering plantation in the agroforestry system to make these systems more profitable for farmers. In addition, the different crops were also tested to evaluate the allelopathic potential of donor plants on receiver plants. These two Bauhinia species are a good source of fodder, and they are helpful in providing monetary benefits to the poor rural farmers of the region. Therefore, Bauhinia species are very important in improving farmers’ incomes and the sustainable development of the agroforestry system of Garhwal Himalayas. The allelopathic effects of trees that promote plantation in this system should be examined, and a resistant variety of different crops also needs to be found. Both Bauhinia species are economically beneficial to poor farmers of the region and must be planted on a large scale. Varieties like UP 1109 and VL 829 might be grown.
Author Contributions
Conceptualization, V.P.K. and B.S.; methodology, V.P.K. and B.S.; software, M.K.R.; validation, N.Y., V.P.K. and B.S.; formal analysis, N.Y.; investigation, N.Y.; resources, V.P.K.; data curation, B.S.; writing—original draft preparation, N.Y.; writing—review and editing, B.S., V.P.K. and D.R.; visualization, B.S.; supervision, V.P.K. and B.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding
This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement
Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement
Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement
The data presented in this study are available on request.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
- Nagar, A.; Khanduri, V.P.; Singh, B.; Riyal, M.K.; Singh, I. Altitudinal variation in morphometric traits of pod, seed, and seedling growth of Bauhinia variegata L. in Garhwal Himalaya. Ann. Silvic. Res. 2022, 47, 84–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, N.; Singh, B.; Khanduri, V.P. Seasonal variation in nutrient composition in the leaves of two Bauhinia species. Folia For. Polonica. Ser. A For. 2023, 65, 173–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yadav, N.; Khanduri, V.P.; Singh, B.; Dhanai, C.S.; Riyal, M.K.; Rawat, D.; Ahmad, T.; Kumar, M. Effect of temperature, seed size, sowing depth, and position on seed germination and seedling growth of Bauhinia retusa Roxb. and Bauhinia variegata L. Forest 2023, 14, 1664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Coder, K.D. Allelopathy in Trees and Forests: A Selected Bibliography; University of Georgia: Athens, GA, USA, 1999; p. 7. [Google Scholar]
- Putnam, A.R.; Tang, C.S. The Science of Allelopathy; John Wiley: NewYork, NY, USA, 1986; pp. 1–22. [Google Scholar]
- Al-Snafi, A.E. The pharmaceutical importance of Althaea officinalis and Althaea rosea: A review. Int. J. Pharm. Tech. Res. 2013, 5, 1378–1385. [Google Scholar]
- Kato-Noguchi, H.; Kurniadie, D. Allelopathy and Allelochemicals of Leucaena leucocephala as an Invasive Plant Species. Plants 2022, 11, 1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Satapathy, S.R.; Khnaduri, V.P.; Singh, B.; Riyal, M.K.; Kumar, S.; Kumar, P.; Rawat, D. Allelopathic potential of Ficus auriculata and Ficus semicordata on the growth of four traditional food crops of Garhwal Himalaya. J. Agric. Food Res. 2022, 9, 100352. [Google Scholar]
- Nakano, H.; Fujii, Y.; Yamada, K.; Kosemura, S.; Yamamura, S.; Hasegawa, K.; Suzuki, T. Isolation and identification of plant growth inhibitors as candidate(s) for allelopathic substance(s), from aqueous leachate from mesquite (Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC.) leaves. Plant Growth Regul. 2002, 37, 113–117. [Google Scholar]
- Nakano, H.; Nakajima, E.; Fujii, Y.; Yamada, K.; Shigemori, H.; Hasegawa, K. Leaching of the allelopathic substance,-tryptophan from the foliage of mesquite (Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC.) plants by water spraying. Plant Growth Regul. 2003, 40, 49–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Inderjit; Seastedt, T.R.; Callaway, R.M.; Pollock, J.L.; Kaur, J. Allelopathy and plant invasions: Traditional, congeneric, and bio-geographical approaches. Biol. Invasions 2008, 10, 875–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hemada, M.; Youssef, R.; El-Darier, S. Allelopathic potential of Eucalyptus litter on some ecophysiological parameters of Vicia faba L. seedlings. El-Minia Sci. Bull. 2004, 15, 411–427. [Google Scholar]
- Abou-Zeid, H.M.; EL-Darier, S.M. Allelotoxic activity of Eucalyptus rostrata Schlecht. On seed germination and seedling growth of Chenopodium album L. and Portulaca oleracea L. Int. J. Agron. Agric. Res. 2014, 4, 39–50. [Google Scholar]
- Padu, K.; Khanduri, V.P.; Singh, B.; Rawat, D.; Riyal, M.K.; Kumar, K.S. Phytotoxicity of common weeds on germination, seedling growth, NPK uptake and chlorophyll content of four hill crops of Garhwal Himalaya. J. Agric. Food Res. 2023, 12, 100539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Amoo, I.A.; Adebayo, O.T.; Oyeleye, A.O. Chemical evaluation of winged beans (Psophocarpus tetragonolobus), Pitanga Cherries (Eugenia uniflora) and orchid fruit (Orchid fruit myristica). Afr. J. Food Agric. Nutr. Dev. 2006, 6, 2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Šourková, M.; Adamcová, D.; Zloch, J.; Skutnik, Z.; Vaverková, M.D. Evaluation of the phytotoxicity of leachate from a Municipal solid waste Landfill: The case study of Bukov Landfill. Environments 2020, 7, 111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Nesrine, S.; El-Darier, S.M.; Taher, H.M. The allelochemicals effect of Zygophyllum album on control of Bromus tectorum. J. Life Sci. 2012, 6, 182–186. [Google Scholar]
- Singh, B.; Uniyal, A.K.; Todaria, N.P. Studies on the allelopathic influence of Zanthoxylum armatum D.C. on important field crops seeking its sustainable domestication in existing agroforestry systems of Garhwal Himalaya, India. J. Sustain. Agric. 2007, 30, 87–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Thapaliyal, A.; Bali, R.S.; Singh, B.; Todarai, N.P. Allelopathic effects of trees of economic importance on germination and growth of food crops. J. Herbs Spices Med. Plants 2007, 13, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tukey, H.B. The leaching of substance from plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Physiol. 1970, 21, 305–324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tanveer, A.; Rehman, A.; Javaid, M.M.; Abbas, R.N.; Sibtain, M.; Ahmad, A.; Ibin-I-Zamir, M.S.; Chaudhary, K.M.; Aziz, A. Allelopathic potential of Euphorbia helioscopia L. against wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.) and lentil (Lens culinaris Medic.). Turk. J. Agric. For. 2010, 34, 75–81. [Google Scholar]
- Zzet, K.L.; Yusuf, Y. Allelopathic effects of plants extracts against seed germination of some weeds. Asian J. Plant Sci. 2004, 3, 472–475. [Google Scholar]
- Fujii, Y.; Furukawa, M.; Hayakawa, Y.; Sugahara, K.; Shibuya, T. Survey of Japanese medicinal plants for the detection of allelopathic properties. Weed Res. Tokyo 1991, 36, 36–42. [Google Scholar]
- Alam, S.M.; Islam, E.U. Effect of aqueous extract of leaf, stem and root of nettleleaf goosefoot and NaCl on germination and seedling growth of rice. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 2002, 1, 47–52. [Google Scholar]
- Khailov, K.M. The Biochemical Trophodynamics in Coastal Sea Ecosystems; Naukova Dumka: Kiev, USSR, 1974. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
- Wickens, G.E. Economic Botany: Principles and Practices; Springer Kluwer Publishers: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Kamara, A.K.; Akobunda, I.O.; Sanginga, N.; Jutzi, S.C. Effect of mulch from 14 multipurpose tree species (MPTs) on early growth and nodulation of cowpea (Vigna unguiculata L.). J. Agron. Crop Sci. 1999, 182, 127–138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1.
Effect of leaf and bark extracts of B. retusa on reduction in and stimulation of germination percent in different T. aestivum varieties (vertical bar indicates SD).
Figure 1.
Effect of leaf and bark extracts of B. retusa on reduction in and stimulation of germination percent in different T. aestivum varieties (vertical bar indicates SD).
Figure 2.
Effect of leaf and bark extracts of B. variegata on reduction in and stimulation of germination percent in different T. aestivum varieties (vertical bar indicates SD).
Figure 2.
Effect of leaf and bark extracts of B. variegata on reduction in and stimulation of germination percent in different T. aestivum varieties (vertical bar indicates SD).
Table 1.
Effect of leaf and bark extracts of Bauhinia species on the radicle and plumule growth (cm) (mean ± SD) of different T. aestivum varieties.
Table 1.
Effect of leaf and bark extracts of Bauhinia species on the radicle and plumule growth (cm) (mean ± SD) of different T. aestivum varieties.
| Variety | Plant Parts | Tree Crops | B. retusa | B. variegata | B. retusa | B. variegata | B. retusa | B. variegata | B. retusa | B. variegata | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Extract Concentrations | |||||||||||
| 0% | 25% | 25% | 50% | 50% | 75% | 75% | 100% | 100% | |||
| VL 892 | Bark | R | 4.1 ± 0.40 | 4.3 ± 0.39 (+6.39) | 4.2 ± 1.06 (+1.97) | 3.5 ± 0.62 (−13.02) | 6.5 ± 0.50 (+59.71) | 2.9 ± 0.6 (−29.48) | 3.5 ± 0.1 (−14.74) | 3.2 ± 0.64 (−20.24) | 4.5 ± 0.0 (11.30) |
| P | 3.7 ± 0.22 | 3.4 ± 0.45 (−6.28) | 3.6 ± 0.36 (−1.91) | 2.8 ± 0.58 (−24.04) | 5.4 ± 1.03 (+47.54) | 2.6 ± 0.5 (−29.78) | 4.7 ± 0.2 (+27.60) | 3.6 ± 0.21 (−2.46) | 4.0 ± 0.7 (+9.56) | ||
| Leaves | R | 4.1 ± 0.40 | 4.2 ± 1.04 (+1.97) | 4.9 ± 0.49 (+23.83) | 4.3 ± 0.60 (+4.67) | 4.9 ± 0.58 (+22.60) | 5.4 ± 0.2 (+33.17) | 4.9 ± 0.8 (+20.39) | 2.5 ± 2.46 (−39.31) | 4.1 ± 1.7 (+5.16) | |
| P | 3.7 ± 0.22 | 4.3 ± 0.63 (+16.94) | 5.4 ± 1.68 (+48.91) | 4.8 ± 0.85 (+31.15) | 4.5 ± 1.05 (+23.22) | 6.2 ± 1.0 (+69.95) | 3.7 ± 0.8 (+2.73) | 4.9 ± 1.57 (+36.34) | 3.1 ± 0.1 (−14.21) | ||
| VL 616 | Bark | R | 5.7 ± 0.44 | 4.5 ± 0.51 (−20.94) | 4.6 ± 0.63 (−19.90) | 2.4 ± 0.17 (−58.81) | 7.1 ± 0.84 (+23.56) | 3.5 ± 0.9 (−39.44) | 5.2 ± 1.6 (−8.73) | 2.1 ± 0.60 (−64.05) | 5.2 ± 0.9 (−9.42) |
| P | 4.4 ± 0.82 | 4.2 ± 0.94 (−5.18) | 3.9 ± 1.20 (−11.26) | 2.5 ± 0.70 (−43.92) | 6.9 ± 0.68 (+55.86) | 3.3 ± 0.0 (−25.00) | 5.6 ± 0.4 (+25.23) | 2.4 ± 1 (−45.95) | 4.0 ± 0.7 (−9.68) | ||
| Leaves | R | 5.7 ± 0.44 | 4.1 ± 0.11 (−27.92) | 4.6 ± 0.50 (−19.37) | 6.8 ± 0.61 (+19.02) | 6.9 ± 0.43 (+22.16) | 7.5 ± 0.7 (+30.89) | 4.5 ± 0.8 (−21.82) | 5.6 ± 1.25 (−1.40) | 5.3 ± 0.3 (−6.98) | |
| P | 4.4 ± 0.82 | 5.4 ± 0.74 (+22.30) | 4.6 ± 1.18 (+4.50) | 6.4 ± 0.64 (+44.37) | 7.9 ± 0.66 (+79.95) | 7.2 ± 0.4 (+61.71) | 3.6 ± 0.7 (−18.92) | 4.7 ± 0.45 (+6.98) | 5.1 ± 0.0 (+15.32) | ||
| VL 829 | Bark | R | 4.1 ± 0.40 | 5.3 ± 0.78 (+54.79) | 5.5 ± 1.30 (+34.89) | 4.9 ± 0.54 (−19.90) | 6.7 ± 0.52 (+64.13) | 4.5 ± 1.8 (−41.77) | 3.9 ± 0.5 (−2.70) | 2.2 ± 0.57 (-45.21) | 4.9 ± 0.4 (21.62) |
| P | 3.7 ± 0.22 | 6.5 ± 1.12 (+77.60) | 5.1 ± 0.54 (+39.07) | 2.9 ± 0.32 (-19.95) | 5.9 ± 1.21 (+61.48) | 3.1 ± 1.5 (−15.85) | 5.4 ± 0.6 (+48.36) | 2.3 ± 0.67 (−36.07) | 3.7 ± 0.8 (+2.19) | ||
| Leaves | R | 4.1 ± 0.40 | 5.7 ± 0.48 (+39.56) | 4.9 ± 0.32 (+20.15) | 7 ± 0.51 (+71.99) | 5.4 ± 0.91 (+31.45) | 8.0 ± 0.0 (+97.79) | 5.8 ± 0.0 (+43.98) | 4.6 ± 1.43 (+13.76) | 4.7 ± 0.9 (+17.69) | |
| P | 3.7 ± 0.22 | 6.2 ± 0.91 (+68.85) | 5.7 ± 054 (+55.74) | 6.8 ± 0.72 (+87.43) | 5.3 ± 0.97 (+43.72) | 6.8 ± 0.1 (+84.97) | 4.7 ± 0.2 (+29.23) | 6.2 ± 1.87 (+68.58) | 3.7 ± 0.2 (+3.55) | ||
| UP 1109 | Bark | R | 4.6 ± 0.63 | 4.9 ± 0.40 (+8.28) | 5.3 ± 1.06 (+14.38) | 2.9 ± 0.34 (−35.73) | 5.3 ± 1.01 (+15.25) | 3.2 ± 0.7 (−31.37) | 5.0 ± 0.3 (+9.80) | 3.5 ± 0.10 (−23.75) | 4.2 ± 0.6 (−8.28) |
| P | 4.3 ± 0.75 | 6.7 ± 0.52 (+56.88) | 3.7 ± 0.73 (−12.82) | 3.1 ± 0.84 (−23.81) | 4.2 ± 0.59 (−3.03) | 2.6 ± 0.2 (−38.23) | 4.2 ± 0.6 (−3.03) | 4.3 ± 0.40 (+0.23) | 3.3 ± 0.8 (−22.14) | ||
| Leaves | R | 4.6 ± 0.63 | 4.3 ± 0.32 (−6.32) | 5.1 ± 0.95 (+11.33) | 5.7 ± 2.28 (+23.53) | 5.4 ± 0.89 (+17.43) | 6.2 ± 1.5 (+34.64) | 4.9 ± 0.4 (−4.58) | 5.3 ± 0.86 (+15.90) | 4.9 ± 0.9 (+7.19) | |
| P | 4.3 ± 0.75 | 5.1 ± 1.46 (+19.35) | 5.9 ± 1.01 (+38.69) | 5.6 ± 1.03 (+30.77) | 6.4 ± 0.98 (+48.48) | 7.5 ± 1 (+75.76) | 3.8 ± 0.2 (−10.96) | 4.1 ± 0.21 (−3.73) | 3.8 ± 0.7 (−10.26) | ||
| UP 2572 | Bark | R | 4.7 ± 0.44 | 5.1 ± 0.14 (+7.91) | 4.3 ± 0.83 (+7.48) | 3.7 ± 0.19 (−20.09) | 5.8 ± 1.50 (+25.00) | 2.9 ± 0.5 (−38.03) | 4.5 ± 1.4 (−3.42) | 2.6 ± 0.57 (−43.80) | 4.5 ± 0.59 (−4.27) |
| P | 3.9 ± 0.53 | 4.5 ± 0.54 (+13.35) | 4.0 ± 1.05 (+1.26) | 2.8 ± 0.35 (−28.21) | 5.9 ± 0.47 (+50.88) | 2.8 ± 0.1 (−29.22) | 4.4 ± 1.5 (+10.08) | 2.9 ± 0.17 (−29.95) | 3.7 ± 0.48 (−5.29) | ||
| Leaves | R | 4.7 ± 0.44 | 5.5 ± 0.96 (−4.56) | 4.9 ± 0.86 (+4.91) | 4.6 ± 0.15 (−2.56) | 6.8 ± 0.47 (+45.73) | 5.5 ± 0.5 (+17.74) | 4.9 ± 0.2 (+5.56) | 4.2 ± 0.24 (−9.62) | 5.2 ± 0.93 (+11.11) | |
| P | 3.9 ± 0.53 | 5.3 ± 1.03 (+32.75) | 4.9 ± 1.83 (+24.18) | 4.9 ± 0.43 (+25.69) | 5.9 ± 0.58 (+50.88) | 7.5 ± 0.3 (+89.42) | 3.8 ± 0.4 (−3.78) | 3.5 ± 0.04 (−12.34) | 4.1 ± 0.54 (+2.02) | ||
Values in parenthesis indicate % reduction or stimulation as compared to control, R = radicle; P = plumule.
Table 2.
Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for germination and radicle and plumule growth of different T. aestivum varieties under leaf and bark concentration of Bauhinia species.
Table 2.
Two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) for germination and radicle and plumule growth of different T. aestivum varieties under leaf and bark concentration of Bauhinia species.
| Source of Variation | Degree of Freedom | F-Value | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| B. retusa | B. variegata | ||||||
| Germination | Radical | Plumule | Germination | Radical | Plumule | ||
| Treatments | 1 | 38.64 ** | 110.25 ** | 195.81 ** | 1.41 NS | 2.47 NS | 1.79 NS |
| Concentration | 4 | 12.41 ** | 11.26 ** | 13.28 ** | 26.05 ** | 19.71 ** | 29.28 ** |
| Varieties | 4 | 0.33 NS | 8.20 ** | 10.10 ** | 1.36 NS | 9.65 ** | 7.80** |
| Treatment × Con. | 4 | 21.81 ** | 30.88 ** | 39.62 ** | 0.75 NS | 2.02 NS | 7.48 ** |
| Treatment × varieties | 4 | 0.24 NS | 6.79 ** | 3.16 * | 0.04 NS | 1.59 NS | 1.71 NS |
| Con. × Varieties | 16 | 1.36 NS | 2.41 * | 2.13 * | 0.72 NS | 2.08 * | 2.84 ** |
| Treatment × con. × varieties | 16 | 0.59 NS | 2.90 * | 2.48 * | 0.97 NS | 2.47 ** | 1.49 NS |
* Significant at p < 0.05, ** Significant at p < 0.01, NS = Non-significant value.
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2024 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
MDPI and ACS Style
Yadav, N.; Khanduri, V.P.; Singh, B.; Rawat, D.; Riyal, M.K. Phytotoxicity of Two Bauhinia Species on Four Triticum aestivum Varieties in Laboratory Bioassay. Int. J. Plant Biol. 2024, 15, 599-606. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijpb15030045
AMA Style
Yadav N, Khanduri VP, Singh B, Rawat D, Riyal MK. Phytotoxicity of Two Bauhinia Species on Four Triticum aestivum Varieties in Laboratory Bioassay. International Journal of Plant Biology. 2024; 15(3):599-606. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijpb15030045
Chicago/Turabian StyleYadav, Neeraj, Vinod Prasad Khanduri, Bhupendra Singh, Deepa Rawat, and Manoj Kumar Riyal. 2024. "Phytotoxicity of Two Bauhinia Species on Four Triticum aestivum Varieties in Laboratory Bioassay" International Journal of Plant Biology 15, no. 3: 599-606. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijpb15030045
