| Title |
Allelopathic interference of alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) genotypes to annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum)
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Journal of Plant Research, March 2017
|
| DOI | 10.1007/s10265-017-0921-9 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Hasan Muhammad Zubair, James E. Pratley, G. A. Sandral, A. Humphries |
| Abstract |
Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) genotypes at varying densities were investigated for allelopathic impact using annual ryegrass (Lolium rigidum) as the target species in a laboratory bioassay. Three densities (15, 30, and 50 seedlings/beaker) and 40 alfalfa genotypes were evaluated by the equal compartment agar method (ECAM). Alfalfa genotypes displayed a range of allelopathic interference in ryegrass seedlings, reducing root length from 5 to 65%. The growth of ryegrass decreased in response to increasing density of alfalfa seedlings. At the lowest density, Q75 and Titan9 were the least allelopathic genotypes. An overall inhibition index was calculated to rank each alfalfa genotype. Reduction in seed germination of annual ryegrass occurred in the presence of several alfalfa genotypes including Force 10, Haymaster7 and SARDI Five. A comprehensive metabolomic analysis using Quadruple Time of Flight (Q-TOF), was conducted to compare six alfalfa genotypes. Variation in chemical compounds was found between alfalfa root extracts and exudates and also between genotypes. Further individual compound assessments and quantitative study at greater chemical concentrations are needed to clarify the allelopathic activity. Considerable genetic variation exists among alfalfa genotypes for allelopathic activity creating the opportunity for its use in weed suppression through selection. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 3 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United States | 1 | 33% |
| Unknown | 2 | 67% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 3 | 100% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 28 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 28 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 6 | 21% |
| Student > Master | 5 | 18% |
| Student > Bachelor | 2 | 7% |
| Student > Doctoral Student | 1 | 4% |
| Other | 2 | 7% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 18 | 64% |
| Environmental Science | 2 | 7% |
| Psychology | 1 | 4% |
| Engineering | 1 | 4% |
| Unknown | 6 | 21% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 5. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 12 March 2020.
All research outputs
#6,338,100
of 22,961,203 outputs
Outputs from Journal of Plant Research
#138
of 834 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#102,643
of 309,336 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Journal of Plant Research
#4
of 27 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 22,961,203 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 72nd percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 834 research outputs from this source. They receive a mean Attention Score of 4.4. This one has done well, scoring higher than 83% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 309,336 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 27 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.