Parasitic flowering plants are a small group of dicotyledons yet among them there exists a great wealth of structural diversity that continues to fascinate

botanists. They cause severe damage to important fruit trees, timber yielding, economic and aesthetic value plants. A total of 106 species belonging to 32 families of dicotyledons are recognized as hosts parasitized by parasitic angiosperms. The range of hosts species recorded were vary from 3-42 per parasitic plants. The highest number of hosts were recorded for Dendrophthoefalcata is 42 species. The present paper enlists the binomials and families of host plants parasitized by particular species of parasitic plants

Rajanna, L.

Ramanaiah, P.

ePrints@Bangalore University

ISSN 2320-5407                             International Journal of Advanced Research (2014), Volume 2, Issue 3 , 424-428  424                                            Journal homepage:http://www.journalijar.com           INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL                                                                                                                       OF ADVANCED RESEARCH  RESEARCH ARTICLE  New Host plants of few parasitic angiosperms in Karnataka  Rajanna, L and Ramanaiah, P*. Department of Botany, Bangalore University.Jnanabharathi.  Manuscript Info Abstract   Manuscript History:  Received: 11 January 2014 Final Accepted: 23 February 2014 Published Online: March 2014  Key words:  Host, Host range, Parasitic angiosperms, Parasitism. *Corresponding Author  Ramanaiah, P  Parasitic flowering plants are a small group of dicotyledons yet among them there exists a great wealth of structural diversity that continues to fascinate botanists. They cause severe damage to important fruit trees, timber yielding, economic and aesthetic value plants. A total of 106 species belonging to 32 families of dicotyledons are recognized as hosts parasitized by parasitic angiosperms. The range of hosts species recorded were vary from 3-42 per parasitic plants. The highest number of hosts were recorded for Dendrophthoefalcata is 42 species. The present paper enlists the binomials and families of host plants parasitized by particular species of parasitic plants. Copy Right, IJAR, 2013,. All rights reserved. Introduction Parasitic Angiosperms have been the subject of assiduous research in recent years not only as object of intrinsic botanical and physiological interest, but also because of increased awareness of their importance as pest of agriculture, horticulture and forestry. A typical plant is an autotrophic organism that obtains its necessary resources such as sunlight, water and minerals from the abiotic environment. This perspective however overlooks large number of plants that depend on other plants, obtaining much or all of their prey (Govier & Harper, 1965; Press, 1988; Press & Graves, 1995). Parasitic plants are common in many natural and semi natural ecosystem from tropical rain forests to high arctic(Press, 1988) accounting for 1% of angiosperm species (~3-4000), within c. 270 genera and more than 20 families (Nickrent et al., 1998; Press et al., 1999). For the first time Mitten (1847) reported parasitism in santalaceae member i.e., Thesiumlinophyllum in which roots attached to those of other plants by means of haustoria.  Water, nitrogen, fixed carbon compounds, and minerals are moved unidirectionally from host to parasite through a physiological and anatomical bridge i.e., the haustorium(Stewart & Press, 1990; Seel et al., 1992). Parasitic plants are present in every major ecosystem(Kuijit, 1969), can alter outcome of competition between species (Gibson & Watkinson, 1991) and have been shown in both experimental studies and theoretical work to play a major role in determining community structure (Gibson & Watkinson, 1991). The hemi parasites studies acquired large amount of nutrients from their hosts, and night time transpiration would allow the parasites to continue to acquire nutrients in the xylem stream, many parasitic plants have ability to deregulate host stomatal control(Press, 1988). Stomatal deregulation may decrease host water-use-efficiency and whole plant water relations(Goldstein et al., 1989; Sala et al., 2001). Parasitic plants can attack a large number of varieties of taxonomically unrelated hosts (Docters van Leeuwen, 1954; Kuijit, 1969).  Material and methods Extensive plant exploration trips were undertaken during 2011-2013 to different parts of Karnataka to collect the parasitic plants. Both the host and parasites were identified by using different floras such as the flora of Madras presidency (Gamble 1969), the flora of Karnataka (Saldanha, 1996)and the flora of shimoga(Ramswamy, 2001). The collected materials were preserved in the form of herbarium using standard herbarium techniques (Forman & Birdson, 1989).   ISSN 2320-5407                             International Journal of Advanced Research (2014), Volume 2, Issue 3 , 424-428  425  Dendropthoefalcata (L. f) Ettingsh 1. Ailanthus excelsa, Roxb. (Simarubaceae) 2. Calycopteris floribunda, Roxb. Lam. (Combretaceae) 3. Carissa carandus, L. (Apocynaceae) 4. Cassia alata, L. (Caesalpinaceae) 5. Cassia montana, Heyne. (Caesalpinaceae) 6. Cassia sophera, L. (Caesalpinaceae) 7. Citrus aurantium, L. (Rutaceae) 8. Citrus maxima, Merr. (Rutaceae) 9. Citrus medica, L. (Rutaceae) 10.  Citrusgrandis(L), Osbeck.(Rutaceae) 11.  Clematis gouriana, Roxb. (Ranuncalaceae) 12.  Croton sparsiflorus, (Mor). (Euphorbiaceae) 13.  Dalbergia latifolia, Roxb. (Papilionaceae) 14. Elaeocarpusganitrus, Roxb.(Elaeocarpaceae) 15. Flacourtiaindica, (Burm) Merr. (Flacourtiaceae) 16. Glochidion arboretum,  HK.f  (Phyllanthaceae) 17. Gmelinaarborea, Roxb.(Verbenaceae) 18. Grewia orientalis, L. (Tiliaceae) 19. Ixoracoccinea, L. (Rubiaceae) 20. Lagestromeamicrocarpa, W.(Lythraceae) 21. Lagestromeaparviflora, Roxb. (Lythraceae) 22.  Lantana camara, L. (Verbenaceae) 23.  Madhuca longifolia. J. F. Macbr (Sapotaceae) 24. Mallettia pinnata, L. (Papilionaceae) 25. Manihotesculenta, Crantz. (Euphorbiaceae) 26.  Melia dubia, Hiern. (Meliaceae) 27. Melilotusparviflora, Desf. (Papilionaceae) 28.  Michelia champaca, L. (Magnoliaceae) 29. Millingtoneahorteens, L.f. (Bignoniaceae) 30. Nathopodytesnimmonia, (J.Graham) Mabb.(Icacinaceae) 31. Peltaphorum pterocarpum (Caesalpinaceae) 32.  Pongamia pinnata (L), Merr. (Fabaceae) 33.  Prosopis juliflora (Sw) DC. (Mimosaceae) 34. Randiaaculeata, L. (Rubiaceae) 35. Sesbaniagrandiflora, Pers. (Fabaceae) 36. Solanumtorvum, Swartz. (Solanaceae) 37. Strychnosnux-vomica, L. (Loganiaceae) 38.  Swetenia mahagonia, L. (Meliaceae) 39. Syzigiumcaryophyllaeum, Gaertn. (Myrtaceae) 40. Thespesiapopulnea,Cav.(Malvaceae) 41. Thevetiaperviana(Pers)K. Schum(Apocynaceae) 42. Xanthophyllumflavescens, Roxb. (Polygalaceae)  Dendropthoetrigona (Wt&Arn) Danser 1. Anogeissuslatifolia ,wall.(Combretaceae) 2. Casuarinaequisetifolia, Frost (casurinaceae) 3. Eugenia jambolana, Lam. (Myrtaceae) 4. Grevillea robusta, A. cunn (Proteaceae) 5. Ficus elastica, Roxb. (Moraceae)  Helicanthuselastica. (Desr) Danser. 1. Ailanthus excelsa, Roxb. (Simarubaceae) 2. Anacardium occidentale, L. (Anacardiaceae) 3. Callistemon lanceolatus, R.Br. (Myrtaceae) 4. Eugenia jambolana, DC. (Myrtaceae) ISSN 2320-5407                             International Journal of Advanced Research (2014), Volume 2, Issue 3 , 424-428  426  5. Ficus hispida, L.f. (Moraceae) 6. Ficus glomerata, Roxb. (Moraceae) 7. Holigarnaarnottiana, Hook. (Anacardiaceae) 8. Hopeaponga, (Dennst.) Mabberly. (Dipterocarpaceae) 9. Garcineagummi-gatta, W. (Clusiaceae) 10.  Lantana camera, L. (Verbenaceae) 11. Memecylonangustifolicum, W. (Combretaceae) 12.  Mangifera indica, L. (Anacardiaceae) 13. Murrayakoenigii, (L) spr. (Rutaceae) 14. Nyctanthus arbor-tristis, L. (Nyctaginaceae) 15. Punicagranatum, Vent. (Punicaceae) 16. Manikarazapota, A. DC. (Sapotaceae) 17. Securinegaleucopyrus, Wild. (Euphorbiaceae) 18. Steriospermumangustifolium, Haines. (Bignoniaceae) 19. Syzigiumcaryophyllaeum, Gaertn. (Myrtaceae) 20. Tectonagrandis, L.f. (Verbenaceae) 21.  Terminalia bellarica, Roxb. (Combretaceae) 22. Vitexnegundo, L. (Verbenaceae)  Macrosollencapitellatus (Wt&Arn) Danser 1. Artocarpushirsuta, Lam. (Moraceae) 2. Bombaxceiba, L. (Bombacaceae) 3. Ceibapentandra, (L) Gaetrn. (Bombacaceae) 4. Ficus glomerata, Roxb. (Moraceae) 5. Glochidionsps (Phyllanthaceae) 6. Grevillea robusta, A.cunn. (Proteaceae) 7. Holoptelea integrifolia, Pl. (Ulmaceae) 8. Muntingiacalabura, L. (Elaeocarpaceae) 9. Manikarazapota, A. DC. (Sapotaceae) 10. Tectonagrandis, L. f. (Verbenaceae) 11. Terminalia arjunaWt.&Arn. (Combretaceae) 12. Terminalia paniculata, Roth. (Combretaceae) 13. Clematis gouriana,Roxb. (Ranunculaceae)  Macrosollenparasiticus. (L.) Danser. 1. Acacia auriculiformis, A. cunn. exBenth. (Mimosaceae) 2. Casuarinaequisetifolia, Forst. (Casuarinaceae) 3. Calycopteris floribunda (Roxb) Lam. (Combretaceae) 4. Ficus glomerata, Roxb. (Moraceae) 5. Ficus religiosa, L. (Moraceae) 6. Makarangapeltata, M.Arg. (Euphorbiaceae) 7. Mallotusphilippinensis, M.Arg. (Euphorbiaceae)  Scrulla cordifolia.(Wall). G. Don. 1. Ficus religiosa, L. (Moraceae) 2. Thespesiapopulnea, (Cav) (Malvaceae) 3. Muntingiacalabura, L. (Elaeocarpaceae) 4. Securinegaleucopyrus, Wild. (Euphorbiaceae) 5. Strychnosnux-vomica, L. (Loganiaceae)  Scrullaparasitica.(Linn.) 1. Buteamonosperma, Roxb. (Papilionaceae) 2. Dalbergia paniculata, Roxb. (Papilionaceae) 3. Dalbergia sissoo, Roxb. (Papilionaceae) 4. Ficus religiosa, L. (Moraceae) 5. Muntingiacalabura, L. (Elaeocarpaceae) ISSN 2320-5407                             International Journal of Advanced Research (2014), Volume 2, Issue 3 , 424-428  427  6. Spathodeacampanulata, P. Beauv. (Bignoniaceae) 7. Tectonagrandis, L. f. (Verbenaceae) 8. Terminalia arjuna Wt. &Arn. (Combretaceae) 9. Terminalia bellarica, Roxb. (Combretaceae) 10. Vitexnegundo, L. (Verbenaceae)  Taxillustomentosus (Roth.) vanTiegh. 1. Buteamonosperma, (Lam.) Taub. (Papilionaceae) 2. Ceibapentandra, (L.) Gaetrn. (Bombacaceae) 3. Madhuca longifolia, J.F. Macbr (Sapotaceae) 4. Tectonagrandis, L.f. (Verbenaceae) 5. Terminalia arjuna, Wt. &Arn. (Combretaceae) Viscumnepalense, spr. 1. Dalbergia sissoo, Roxb. (Papilioaceae) 2. Ficus glomerata, Roxb. (Moraceae) 3. Syzigiumaromaticum (L) Merr. (Myrtaceae) 4. Strychnosnux-vomica, L. (Loganiaceae)  Viscumangulatum.Heyne. 1. Diospyrospaniculata, Dalz. (Ebenaceae) 2. Lophopetalumwightianum, Arn. (Celastraceae) 3. Memecylonangustifolium, W. (Combretaceae)  Results A total of 106 species belonging to 56 genera and 32 families were recorded as hosts of different parasitic angiosperms. Out of 56 genera 1 did not identify to species level e.g. Glochidion. The remaining host genera were determined up to species rank. The number of host species recorded per parasitic angiosperms species ranged from 3 to 42. The highest number of host plants recorded for  Dendrophthoefalcata is 42, the lowest numbers of host plants were recorded for Viscumangulatum 3species and 22 hosts have been recorded for Helicanthuselastica. This parasite was mainly distributed in the coastal region of Karnataka. Two major genera of host species were Ficus and Terminalia. All the recorded host plants were dicotyledonous angiosperms, without even single taxa from the monocotyledons and gymnosperms.  Discussion Dendrophthoefalcata, a widespread hemi parasite belonging to familyLoranthaceae, has been recorded 420 hosts distributed among 227 genera of 77 families and is considered to be one of the most devastating parasitic weed on important timber yielding plants. Thriveni et al reported on 93hosts species of 28 families in Karnataka. In the present investigation recorded 121 host species of 34 families in Karnataka. Among these 42 reported as new hosts for Dendrophthoefalcata. It has been widely recognized as a parasite containing broad host range. The present catalogue of new host species of parasitic angiosperms in Karnataka indicates a great diversity of plant species which are parasitized. A list of the total number of host species attacked by a parasite species is referred to as its host range. However, Shaw (1994) suggests that parasites have a narrow host range when they first arise as distinct species and that the host range may then subsequently expand. Manter’s second rule states that a long association between a parasite and host will result in greater host specificity (Brooks & Mc Lenan, 1993). Parasites exercises some selectivity in the hosts that utilizes, so that some species are more frequently attacked than one might expect by chance, although the selectivity is not consistent between population or between plants from different parts of the same population (Gibson & Watkinson, 1989). The plants which are growing besides the trees highly infested with mistloes need not be its host always due to dissemination of mistletoe seeds (Thriveni et al., 2010). Fruits are often adapted for bird dispersal. Birds act as seed dispersers, and some instances the same species may act as both pollinators and seed dispersers (Kuijit, 1969). Indeed, many of the bird species are highly specialized to consume mistletoe berries(Restrepo et al., 2002). Godschalk (1983) proposed that among mistletoes the loranthaceae family with large, one seeded, highly nutritious fruits (i.e. protein and lipids) dispersed by specialized avian frugivores should follow the high investementstrategy. Whereas the viscaceae with small, many seeded, less nutritive fruits (i.e. water and sugar) dispersed by more generalized avian frugivores should follow the low investment strategy. The seed coat is sticky allowing seeds to adhere to host branches, and seeds can often germinate in the absence of water. ISSN 2320-5407                             International Journal of Advanced Research (2014), Volume 2, Issue 3 , 424-428  428  Why some parasitic plants choose a particular host? and why the performance of the parasitic plant varies between hosts, and combinations of hosts sometimes are superior to a single host and not at other times, require a better understanding of the host traits that matter most to parasitic plants, extensive research on this issue within the context of the parasite-host relations has identified a wide variety of traits, including plant secondary chemistry, toughness and content of nitrogen and sterols, that mediate host choice in particular cases; however, the importance of these factors often varies between different species(Behmer & Elias, 2000; Pennings & Callaway, 2002). Finally, current knowledge on the biology of the parasitic angiosperms is dominated by laboratory studies, and there is a need for more field studies of parasitic plants in the communities on which they naturally occur (host plants) and such list would definitely help us to assess the loss of yielding and to propose best management strategies.    Acknowledgement One of the author L.R is highly thankful to U.G.C. for providing financial assistance. (Godschalk, 1983; Shaw, 1994) References Behmer, S. T., & Elias, D. O. (2000). Sterol metabolic constraints as a factor contributing to the maintenance of diet mixing in grasshoppers (Orthoptera: Acrididae). Physiol Biochem Zool, 73, 219-230.  Brooks, D. R., & Mc Lenan, D. A. (1993). Parascripti parasites and the language of Evolution. Washington and London: Smithsonian institution press. Docters van Leeuwen, W. M. (1954). On the Biology of some Javanese Loranthaceae and role of birds play in their life history. Beaufortia, 4, 105-207.  Forman, L., & Birdson, D. (1989). The herbarium hand book. UK: Royal botanical gardens, Kew. Gibson, C. C., & Watkinson, A. R. (1989). The Host Range and Selectivity of a Parasitic Plant: Rhinanthus minor L. Oecologia, 78(3), 401-406.  Gibson, C. C., & Watkinson, A. R. (1991). Host Selectivity and the Mediation of Competition by the Root Hemiparasite Rhinanthus minor. Oecologia, 86(1), 81-87.  Godschalk, S. K. (1983). The biology of Mistletoe. In M. Calder & P. Bernhardt (Eds.), Mistletoe dispersal by birds in South Africa. Sydney: Academic Press. Goldstein, G., Rada, F., Sternberg, L., Burguera, J., Burguera, M., Orozco, A., . . . Canales, M. (1989). Gas exchange and water balance of a mistletoe species and its mangrove hosts. Oecologia, 78(2), 176-183.  Govier, R. N., & Harper, J. L. (1965). Angiospermous hemi parasites. Nature, 205, 722-723.  Kuijit, J. (1969). The Biology of parasitic flowering plants. Berkeley, Calfornia, U.S.A: University of California press. Nickrent, D. L., Duff, R. J., & Colwell, A. E. (1998). Molecular phylogenitics and evolutionary studies of parasitic plants. In D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis & J. J. Doyle (Eds.), Molecular systematics of plantsII DNA sequencing (pp. 211-241). Boston, USA: Kulwer Academic. Pennings, S. C., & Callaway, R. M. (2002). Parasitic plants: parallels and contrasts with herbivores. Oecologia, 131(4), 479-489.  Press, M. C. (1988). Dracula or Robin Hood? A Functional Role for Root Hemiparasites in Nutrient Poor Ecosystems. Oikos, 82(3), 609-611.  Press, M. C., & Graves, J. D. (1995). Parasitic plans. London: Chapman and Hall. Press, M. C., Scholes, J. D., & Walting, J. R. (1999). Parasitic plants: physiological and ecological interactions with their hosts. In M. C. Press, J. D. Scholes & M. G. Barker (Eds.), Physiological plant Ecology (pp. 175-197). Oxford, UK: Blackwell Science. Ramswamy, S. N. (2001). Flora of Shimoga District, Karnataka. Restrepo, C., Sargant, S., Levey, D. J., & Watson, D. M. (2002). The role of vertebrates in the diversification of New World mistletoes. In D. J. Levery, W. R. Silva & M. Galetti (Eds.), Seed Dispersal andFrugivory: Ecology, Evolution and conservation (pp. 83-98). Oxford, UK: CAB International. Sala, A., Carey, E. V., & Callaway, R. M. (2001). Dwarf mistletoe affects whole-tree water relations of Douglas fir and western larch primarily through changes in leaf to sapwood ratios. Oecologia, 126, 42-45.  Saldanha, C. J. (1996). Calcutta Flora of Karnataka (Vol. 2). New Delhi: Oxford and IBH Publishers Co. Seel, W. E., Cechin, I., Vincent, C. A., & Press, M. C. (1992). Carbon partitioning and transport in parasitic Angiosperms and their hosts. In J. F. a. A. G. C.J Pollock (Ed.), Carbon partitioning within and between organisms (pp. 199-223). Oxford, UK: Bios Scientific. Shaw, M. R. (1994). Parasitoid host range. In B. A. Hawkins & W. Sheehan (Eds.), Parasitoid community Ecology (pp. 111-144. ). New York: Oxford University. ISSN 2320-5407                             International Journal of Advanced Research (2014), Volume 2, Issue 3 , 424-428  429  Stewart, G. R., & Press, M. C. (1990). The physiology and biochemistry of parasitic Angiosperms. Annual Review of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology, 41, 127-151.  Thriveni, M. C., Shivamurthy, G. R., Amuthesh, K. N., Vijay, C. R., & Kavitha, G. R. (2010). Mistletoe  and their hosts in Karnataka. Joun.of American Science, 6(10), 827-835.  

new host plants of few parasitic angiosperms in karnataka

http://eprints-bangaloreuniversity.in/6226/1/510_IJAR-2878.pdf

new host plants of few parasitic angiosperms in karnataka

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

ePrints@Bangalore University