Search results

Filters

  • Journals
  • Authors
  • Keywords
  • Date
  • Type

Search results

Number of results: 5
items per page: 25 50 75
Sort by:
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Two field experiments were established at the Agricultural Experimental Station of the National Research Centre at Nubaria, Beheira Governorate, Egypt to study the herbicidal potential of the leaf extract of Eucalyptus citriodora at 5, 10, 15, 20 and 25% compared to two hand hoeing, unweeded treatments and the chemical herbicides Bentazon + Clethodium, Bentazon + Fluazifop-P-butyl and Butralin on pea plants and associated weeds. The results indicated that two hand hoeing achieved the maximum weed depression as expressed by the dry matter of total weeds. The dry matter of total weeds decreased by 95.08 to 94.77% as compared with unweeded treatment 50 and 70 days after sowing (DAS) followed by Butraline (93.93–94.65%), Bentazon + Clethodium (93.26–94.07%), Bentazon + Fluazifop--P-butyl (91.82–92.77%) and leaf extract of Eucalyptus at 25% (91.61–91.95%). Furthermore, the reduction in weed development was accompanied by enhanced pea growth and yield. The results revealed that two hand hoeing was the best treatment to increase plant height, shoot dry weight and SPAD value at 50 and 70 DAS. Also, two hand hoeing produced the maximum values of pod length and number of seeds/pod. The results also indicated that Bentazon + Clethodium treatment gave observable values [recorded 72.96% in pod yield (ton ⋅ fed.–1) over that of unweeded control] of number of pod/plant, weight of pod/plant, seed yield/fed and protein percentage. Also, the results revealed great increases in the growth of pea as well as yield due to treatment with E. citriodora dry leaf extract at 25%. [recorded 64.8% in in pod yield (ton ⋅ fed.–1) over that of unweeded control]. So, the results indicated using Bentazon + Clethodium as well as E. citriodora dry leaf extract at 25% to control weeds associated with pea plants. The authors suggested application of E. citriodora dry leaf extract at 25% in controlling weeds associated with pea plants as a safe method that avoids environmental contamination.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Ibrahim Mohamed El-Metwally
Kowthar Gad El-Rokiek
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The aim of this study was to evaluate the antioxidant effect of selenium in Pisum sativum L. plants pre-treated with sodium selenite or sodium selenate at a concentration of 10 and 20 μM, and then colonized by pea aphid Acyrthosiphon pisum (Harris). It has been hypothesized that selenium at low concentrations alleviates oxidative stress caused by aphid feeding on pea leaves. The study focused on the generation of reactive oxygen species (superoxide anion, hydrogen peroxide and hydroxyl radical), the activities of the antioxidant enzymes (superoxide dismutase and ascorbate peroxidase) scavenging the reactive oxygen species levels, as well as on total antioxidant activity in pea leaves. Selenium in pea leaves exposed to aphid feeding affected changes in the levels of reactive oxygen species, the activity of studied antioxidant enzymes, and the total antioxidant capacity. Effects depended on the form and concentration of selenium, as well as on the time after the colonization of pea plants by aphids. Obtained results showed beneficial effects of selenium in alleviating oxidative stress in pea leaves caused by aphid feeding.
Go to article

Bibliography

1. Andrade F.R., da Silva G.N., Guimarães K.C., Barreto H.B.F., de Souza K.R.D., Guilherme L.R.G., Faquin V. Reis A.R. 2018. Selenium protects rice plants from water deficit stress. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 164: 562–570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2018.08.022
2. Apel K., Hirt H. 2004. Reactive oxygen species: metabolism, oxidative stress, and signal transduction. Annual Review of Plant Biology 55: 373–399. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.arplant.55.031903.141701
3. Bartosz G. 2013. Druga twarz tlenu. Wolne rodniki w przyrodzie. [Second Face of Oxygen. Free Radicals in Nature]. Wydawnictwo Naukowe PWN, Warszawa, Poland, 447 pp. (in Polish)
4. Beauchamp C., Fridovich I. 1971. Superoxide dismutase, improved assays and an assay applicable to acrylamide gels. Analytical Biochemistry 44 (1): 276–287. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(71)90370-8
5. Bradford M.M. 1976. A rapid and sensitive method for the quantitation of microgram quantities of protein utilizing the principle of protein-dye binding. Analytical Biochemistry 72 (1–2): 248–254. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-2697(76)90527-3
6. Cartes P., Jara A., Pinilla L., Rosas A., Mora M. 2010. Selenium improves the antioxidant ability against aluminium-induced oxidative stress in ryegrass roots. Annales of Applied Biology 156: 297–307. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2010.00387.x
7. Coppola V., Coppola M., Rocco M., Digilio M.C., D’Ambrosio C., Renzone G., Renzone G., Martinelli R., Scaloni A., Pennacchio F., Rao R., Corrado G. 2013. Transcriptomic and proteomic analysis of a compatible tomato-aphid interaction reveals a predominant salicylic acid-dependent plant response. BMC Genomocs 14: 515–532. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-14-515
8. Czerniewicz P., Sytykiewicz H., Durak R., Borowiak-Sobkowiak B., Chrzanowski G. 2017. Role of phenolic compounds during antioxidative responses of winter triticale to aphid and beetle attack. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 118: 529–540. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2017.07.024
9. Dampc J., Kula-Maximenko M., Molon M., Durak R. 2020. Enzymatic defense response of apple aphid Aphis pomi to increased temperature. Insects 11 (7): 436. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/insects11070436
10. Das K., Roychoudhury A. 2014. Reactive oxygen species (ROS) and response of antioxidants as ROS-scavengers during environmental stress in plants. Frontiers in Environmental Science 2: 53. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fenvs.2014.00053
11. Dat J., Vandenabeele S., Vranová E., Van Montagu M., Inzé D., van Breusegem F. 2000. Dual action of the active oxygen species during plant stress responses. Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences 57: 779–795. DOI: https://doi: 10.1007/s000180050041
12. del Pino A.M., Guiducci M., D’Amato R., Di Michele A., Tosti G., Datti A., Palmerini C.A. 2019. Selenium maintains cytosolic Ca2+ homeostasis and preserves germination rates of maize pollen under H2O2-induced oxidative stress. Scientific Reports 9 (1): 1–9. DOI: https://doi.org/1038/s41598-019-49760-3
13. del Río L.A., Corpas F.J., Sandalio L.M., Palma J.M., Gómez M., Barroso J.B. 2002. Reactive oxygen species, antioxidant systems and nitric oxide in peroxisomes. Journal of Experimental Botany 53: 1255–1272. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jexbot/53.372.1255
14. Doke N. 1983. Involvement of superoxide anion generation in the hypersensitive response of potato tuber tissues to infection with an incompatible race of Phytophthora infestans and to the hyphal wall components. Physiological Plant Pathology 23 (3): 345–357. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-4059(83)90019-X
15. Feng R., Wei C., Tu S. 2013. The roles of selenium in protecting plants against abiotic stresses. Environmental and Experimental Botany 87: 58–68. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envexpbot.2012.09.002
16. Foyer C.H., Rasool B., Davey J.W., Hancock R.D. 2016. Cross-tolerance to biotic and abiotic stresses in plants: a focus on resistance to aphid infestation. Journal of Experimental Botany 67 (7): 2025–2037. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erw079.
17. Gill S.S., Tuteja N. 2010. Reactive oxygen species and antioxidant machinery in abiotic stress tolerance in crop plants. Plant Physiology and Biochemistry 48 (12): 909–930. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2010.08.016
18. Gouveia G.C.C., Galindo F.S., Lanza M.G.D.B., Silva A.C.R., Mateus M.P.B, Silva M.S., Tavanti R.F.R., Tavanti T.R., Lavres J., Reis A.R. 2020. Selenium toxicity stress-induced phenotypical, biochemical and physiological responses in rice plants: Characterization of symptoms and plant metabolic adjustment. Ecotoxicology and Environmental Safety 202: e110916. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoenv.2020.110916
19. Guardado-Félixa D., Serna-Saldivarb S.O., Cuevas-Rodrígueza E.O., Jacobo-Velázquezb D.A., Gutiérrez-Uribeb J.A. 2017. Effect of sodium selenite on isoflavonoid contents and antioxidant capacity of chickpea ( Cicer arietinum L.) sprouts. Food Chemistry 226: 69–74. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodchem.2017.01.046
20. Gupta M., Gupta S. 2017. An overview of plant selenium uptake, metabolism and toxicity in plants. Frontiers in Plant Science 7: e2074. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.02074
21. Habibi G. 2013. Effect of drought stress and selenium spraying on photosynthesis and antioxidant activity of spring barley. Acta Agriculturae Slovenica 101: 31–39. DOI: https://doi.org/10.2478/acas-2013-0004
22. Hartikainen H., Xue H., Piironen V. 2000. Selenium as an antioxidant. Plant and Soil 225: 193–200. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1026512921026
23. He J., Chen F., Chen S., Lv G., Deng Y., Fang W., Guan Z., He C. 2011. Chrysanthemum leaf epidermal surface morphology and antioxidant and defence enzyme activity in response to aphid infestation. Journal of Plant Physiology 168 (7): 687–693. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2010.10.009
24. Holman J. 2009. Host Plant Catalog for Aphids. Palearctic Region. Springer Science + Business Media B.V., Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 1216 pp.
25. Hossain M.A., Bhattacharjee S., Armin S.M., Qian P., Xin W., Li H.Y., Burritt D.J., Fujita M, Tran L.-S.P. 2015. Hydrogen peroxide priming modulates abiotic oxidative stress tolerance: insights from ROS detoxification and scavenging. Frontiers in Plant Science 6: e420. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/ fpls.2015.00420
26. Kasote D.M., Katyare S.S., Hegde M.V., Bae H. 2015. Significance of antioxidant potential of plants and its relevance to therapeutic applications. International Journal of Biological Sciences 11 (8): 982–991. DOI: https://doi:10.7150/ijbs.12096
27. Kuśnierczyk A., Winge P., Jorstad T.S., Troczyńska J., Rossiter J.T., Bunes A.M. 2008. Towards global understanding of plant defence against aphids timing and dynamics of early Arabidopsis defence responses to cabbage aphid ( Brevicoryne brassicae) attack. Plant, Cell and Environment 31 (8): 1097–1115. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2008.01823.x
28. Lehmann S., Serrano M., L’Haridon F., Tjamos S.E., Metraux J P. 2015. Reactive oxygen species and plant resistance to fungal pathogens. Phytochemistry 112: 54–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2014.08.027
29. Łukasik I., Goławska S., Wójcicka A. 2012. Effect of cereal aphid infestation on ascorbate content and ascorbate peroxidase activity in triticale. Polish Journal of Environmental Studies 21 (6): 1937–1941.
30. Łukasik I., Goławska S. 2013. Effect of host plant on levels of reactive oxygen species andantioxidants in the cereal aphids Sitobion avenae and Rhopalosiphum padi. Biochemical Systematic and Ecology 51: 232–239. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.bse.2013.09.001
31. Łukaszewicz S., Politycka B., Smoleń S. 2018. Effect of selenium on the content of essential micronutrients and their translocation in garden pea. Journal of Elementology 23 (4): 1307–1317. DOI: https://doi.org/10.5601/jelem.2017.22.4.1577.
32. Maffei M.E., Mithöfer A., Boland W. 2007. Insects feeding on plants: Rapid signals and responses preceding the induction of phytochemical release. Phytochemistry 68 (22–24): 2946–2959. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2007.07.016
33. Mai V.C., Bednarski W., Borowiak-Sobkowiak B., Wilkaniec B., Samardakiewicz S., Morkunas I. 2013. Oxidative stress in pea seedling leaves in response to Acirthosiphon pisum infestation. Phytochemistry 93: 49–62. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2013.02.011
34. Mai V.C., Tran N.T., Nguyen D.S. 2016. The involvement of peroxidases in soybean seedlings’ defence against infestation of cowpea aphid. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 10: 283–292. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-016-9424-1
35. Marchi-Werle L., Heng-Moss T.M., Hunt T.E., Baldin E.L.L., Baird L.M. 2014. Characterization of peroxidase changes in tolerant and susceptible soybeans challenged by soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Journal of Economic Entomology 107 (5): 1985–1991. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1603/EC14220
36. Mechora Š., Ugrinović K. 2015. Can plant-herbivore interaction be affected by selenium? Austin Journal of Environmental Toxicology 1(1): e5.
37. Messner B., Boll M. 1994. Cell suspension of spruce ( Picea abies): inactivation of extracellular enzymes by fungal elicitor-induced transient release of hydrogen peroxide. Plant Cell Tissue Organ and Culture 39: 69–78. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00037594
38. Moloi M.J., van der Westhuizen A.J. 2008. Antioxidative enzymes and the Russian wheat aphid ( Diuraphis noxia) resistance response in wheat ( Triticum aestivum). Plant Biology 10 (3): 403–407. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1438-8677.2008.00042.x
39. Nakano Y., Asada K. 1981. Hydrogen peroxide is scavenged by ascorbate specific peroxidase in spinach chloroplasts. Plant Cell Physiology 22 (5): 867–880. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/oxfordjournals.pcp.a076232
40. Ni X., Quinsberry S.S. 2003. Possible roles of esterase, glutathione S-transferase, and superoxide dismutase activities in understanding aphid–cereal interactions. Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata 108: 187–195. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1570-7458.2003.00082.x
41. Ni X., Quisenberry S.S., Heng-Moss T.M., Markwell J., Sarath G., Klucas R., Baxendale F. 2001. Oxidative responses of resistant and susceptible cereal leaves to symptomatic and nonsymptomatic cereal aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae) feeding. Journal of Economic Entomology 94: 743–751. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1603/0022-0493-94.3.743
42. Pereira A.S., Dorneles A.O.S., Bernardy K., Sasso V.M., Bernardy D., Possebom G., Rossato L.V., Dressler V.L., Tabaldi L.A. 2018. Selenium and silicon reduce cadmium uptake and mitigate cadmium toxicity in Pfaffia glomerata (Spreng.) Pedersen plants by activation antioxidant enzyme system. Environmental Science and Pollution Research 25: 18548–18558. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-2005-3
43. Pierson L.M., Heng-Moss T.M., Hunt T.E., Reese J. 2011. Physiological responses of resistant and susceptible reproductive stage soybean to soybean aphid ( Aphis glycines Matsumura) feeding. Arthropod-Plant Interactions 5: 49–58. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11829-010-9115-2
44. Prochaska T.J. 2011. Characterization of the Tolerance Response in the Soybean KS4202 to Aphis glycines Matsumura. M.Sc. Thesis, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, USA.
45. Prochaska T.J., Pierson L.M., Baldin E.L.L., Hunt T.E., Heng-Moss T.M., Reese J.C. 2013. Evaluation of late vegetative and reproductive stage soybeans for resistance to soybean aphid (Hemiptera: Aphididae). Journal of Economic Entomology 106 (2): 1036–1044. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1603/EC12320
46. Quan L.J., Zhang B., Shi W.W., Li H.Y. 2008. Hydrogen peroxide in plants: a versatile molecule of the reactive oxygen species network. Journal od Integrative Plant Biology 50: 2–18. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7909.2007.00599.x
47. Re R., Pellegrini N., Proteggente A., Pannala A., Yang M., Rice-Evans C. 1999. Antioxidant activity applying and improved ABTS radical cation decolorization assay. Free Radical Biology and Medicine 26: 1231–1237. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/s0891-5849(98)00315-3
48. Ríos J.J., Blasco B., Cervilla L.M., Rosales M.A., Sanchez-Rodriguez E., Romero L., Ruiz J.M. 2009. Production and detoxification of H2O2 in lettuce plants exposed to selenium. Annals of Applied Biology 154: 107–116. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2008.00276.x
49. Saxena I., Srikanth S., Chen Z. 2016. Cross talk between H2O2 and interacting signal molecules under plant stress response. Frontiers in Plant Science 7: e570. DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.00570
50. Shalaby T., Bayoumi Y., Alshaal T., Elhawat N., Sztrik A., El-Ramady H. 2017. Selenium fortification induces growth, antioxidant activity, yield and nutritional quality of lettuce in salt-affected soil using foliar and soil applications. Plant Soil 421: 245–258. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-017-3458-8
51. Shao Y., Guo M., He X., Fan Q., Wang Z., Jia J., Guo J. 2019. Constitutive H2O2 is involved in sorghum defense against aphids. Brazilian Journal of Botany 42 (2): 271–281. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40415-019-00525-2
52. Sieprawska A., Kornaś A., Filek M. 2015. Involvement of selenium in protective mechanisms of plants under environmental stress conditions – review. Acta Biologica Cracoviensia. Series Botanica 57 (1): 9–20. DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1515/abcsb-2015-0014
53. van Breusegem F., Vranová E., Dat J.F., Inzé D. 2001. The role of active oxygen species in plant signal transduction. Plant Science 161 (3): 405–416. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0168-9452(01)00452-6
54. von Tiedemann A.V. 1997. Evidence for a primary role of active oxygen species in induction of host cell death during infection of bean leaves with Botrytis cinerea. Physiological and Molecular Plant Pathology 50 (3): 151–166. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1006/pmpp.1996.0076
55. Walz C., Juenger M., Schad M., Kehr J. 2002. Evidence for the presence and activity of a complete defence system in mature sieve tubes. The Plant Journal 31 (2): 189–197. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-313X.2002.01348.x
56. Wu J., Baldwin I.T. 2010. New insights into plant responses to the attack from insect herbivores. Annual Review of Genetics 44: 1–24. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-genet-102209-163500
57. Yang T., Poovaiah B. W. 2002. Hydrogen peroxide homeostasis: activation of plant catalase by calcium/calmodulin. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 99 (6): 4097–4102. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.052564899
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Sabina Łukaszewicz
1
Barbara Politycka
1
Beata Borowiak-Sobkowiak
2

  1. Department of Plant Physiology, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Poznań, Poland
  2. Department of Entomology and Environmental Protection, Poznań University of Life Sciences, Poznań, Poland
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Allelopathy is a complex phenomenon which depends on allelochemical concentrations. So, two pot experiments were carried out to investigate the allelopathic effect of alcoholic fresh shoot extract of Eruca sativa (foliar spray) and E. sativa shoot powder (mixed with soil) on Pisum sativum plants and two associated weeds, Phalaris minor and Beta vulgaris. The experiments were conducted in the greenhouse of the National Research Centre, Giza, Egypt during two successive winter seasons (2016–2017 and 2017–2018). Ten treatments were applied in this study. Four treatments were applied before sowing, that E. sativa shoot powder was mixed with the soil at rates of 15, 30, 45 and 60 g ⋅ pot–1. The other four treatments of E. sativa alcoholic fresh shoot extract were sprayed twice on both plants and weeds at 5, 10, 15 and 20% (w/v) concentrations. Additionally, two untreated treatments, healthy (P. sativum only) and unweeded (untreated infested P. sativum plants with weeds) were applied for comparison. The results indicated that both alcoholic extracts and powder reduced growth of both weeds. Moreover, there was a direct relationship between concentration and weed reduction. Eruca sativa alcoholic extracts increased yield parameters of P. sativum plants. The maximum yield attributes were recorded by spraying of E. sativa alcoholic extract at 20%. On the other hand, it was clearly noticed that the high powder rates affected negatively P. sativum yield parameters. But the lowest powder rate (15 g ⋅ pot–1) stimulated P. sativum yield parameters as compared to unweeded treatment. Chemical analysis of E. sativa shoot powder ensured that the abundant amount of glucosinolates (9.6 μmol ⋅ g–1) and phenolic compounds (46.5 mg ⋅ g–1) may be responsible for its allelopathic effect. In conclusion, spraying of alcoholic fresh shoot extract of E. sativa at 20% (w/v) and mixing E. sativa shoot powder at 15 g · pot–1can be applied as natural bioherbicides for controlling weeds.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Mona Adel El-Wakeel
Salah El-Din Abd El-Ghany Ahmed
Ebrahim Roushdi El-Desoki
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

Pea is one of the most important legumes grown in the world. The seeds are used for food production and animal feed. The problem with its cultivation is the low yield and sensitivity to the course of the weather. The important factor is to determine the optimal sowing rate and row spacing, especially for new cultivars of pea. Therefore, research was undertaken to assess the effect of row spacing and sowing density on selected physiological parameters, yielding, and structural elements of peas cv. ‘Batuta’ in Poland. The results of the research showed that the row spacing and sowing density determine the values of plant physiological parameters, yield of pea seeds and protein content. The increase in plant density in the canopy caused a decrease in the measured parameters of chlorophyll fluorescence, such as maximum quantum yield of photosystem II ( Fv/Fm) and maximum quantum yield of primary photochemistry ( Fv/F0) and performance index ( PI). The leaf area index ( LAI) was lower with a wider row spacing. Row spacing and plant density determined yield of pea seeds, number of pods and seeds per plant and weight of seeds per plant. Wider row spacing resulted in a decrease in the protein content in seeds, while an increase in sowing density from 70 to 110 m 2 caused its increase. The course of the weather during the vegetation period of plants significantly influenced the obtained results.
Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Renata E. Tobiasz-Salach
1
ORCID: ORCID
Marta Jańczak-Pieniążek
1
ORCID: ORCID
Dagmara Migut
1
ORCID: ORCID
Dorota Bobrecka-Jamro
1
ORCID: ORCID
Barbara Stadnik
1
ORCID: ORCID
Miroslava Kačániová
2
ORCID: ORCID

  1. University of Rzeszow, Department of Crop Production, Zelwerowicza 4, 35-601 Rzeszów, Poland
  2. Slovak University of Agriculture in Nitra, Department of Fruit Science, Viticulture and Enology, Nitra, Slovakia
Download PDF Download RIS Download Bibtex

Abstract

The study examined changes in lysine decarboxylase (LDC), ornithine decarboxylase (ODC) and tyrosine decarboxylase (TyDC) activity in tissues of pea (Pisum sativum L.) infested by the pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris). The aphid induced increased ODC activity after one day and at two weeks. The effect was clearly systemic. TyDC activity increased after one day and at one week at feeding sites (aerial parts), while LDC activity increased only after one day of infestation and then decreased. Attack by aphids also affected enzyme activity in root tissues not directly damaged by the herbivores. The mechanisms of the response induced by pea aphid infestation in pea are discussed.

Go to article

Authors and Affiliations

Cezary Sempruch
Weronika Marczuk
Bogumił Leszczyński
Agnieszka Kozak
Wiesława Zawadzka
Agnieszka Klewek
Jolanta Jankowska

This page uses 'cookies'. Learn more