Paper · 1979 · Weed Research

Effets non compétitifs entre le chénopode blanc (Chenopodium album L.) et le mais (INRA 258)

J. P. CAUSSANEL

5
claims
6
verbatim quotes
14
citations
1
research areas
—
Not open access

Abstract

Summary: Non‐competitive effects between lamb's quarters (Chenopodium album L.) and maize (INRA 25H ) Maize is extremely sensitive to competition from weeds, lamb's quarters ( C.alhum ) often being particularly competitive, Under controlled conditions in a growth chamber short term bioassay methods techniques have shown that lamb's quarters exerted inhibiting influences on maize growth which were not attributable to competition alone. These non‐compctitive, specific influences became apparent mainly from the early flowering stage of lamb's quarters both in soil and in nutrient solution. With an identical concentration of lamb's quarters roots, the growth‐inhibiting effects are more marked when the soil structure is modified than when it is not, similarly when the aqueous extract is obtained by placing soils in suspension, the inhibiting effects are more marked than when it is obtained by percolation. Finally, water leached from the leaves, roots or seeds of lamb's quaners shows inhibiting effects proport ional to the concentration on root growth of maize. The presence of phytotoxins in the culture media of lamb's quarters is discussed.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Lamb's quarters exerted inhibiting influences on maize growth in a growth chamber that were not attributable to competition alone.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
lamb's quarterse0
Interactor
lamb's quartersChenopodium albume0weed
Outcome
maize growthe0
Direction
inhibitinge0
Setting
growth chambere1

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗
Chenopodium album
Chenopodium album · InteractorOlivier Pichard · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“lamb's quarters exerted inhibiting influences on maize growth which were not attributable to competition alone”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 327–437 · show in text ↑
e1

“Under controlled conditions in a growth chamber”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 224–271 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

The non-competitive influences of lamb's quarters became apparent mainly from its early flowering stage, both in soil and in nutrient solution.

Taxon
lamb's quartersChenopodium albume0
Organ / stage
early flowering stagee0
Outcome
became apparent mainly from the early flowering stagee0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Chenopodium album
Chenopodium album · TaxonOlivier Pichard · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“became apparent mainly from the early flowering stage of lamb's quarters both in soil and in nutrient solution”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 482–592 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

At an identical concentration of lamb's quarters roots, growth-inhibiting effects were more marked when soil structure was modified than when it was not.

Taxon
lamb's quartersChenopodium albume0
Organ / stage
rootse0
Treatment
soil structure is modifiede0
Outcome
growth‐inhibiting effectse0
Direction
more markede0
Comparator
when it is note0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Chenopodium album
Chenopodium album · TaxonOlivier Pichard · CC BY-SA 3.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“With an identical concentration of lamb's quarters roots, the growth‐inhibiting effects are more marked when the soil structure is modified than when it is not”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 594–753 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Inhibiting effects were more marked when the aqueous extract was obtained by placing soils in suspension than by percolation.

Treatment
aqueous extract is obtained by placing soils in suspensione0
Outcome
inhibiting effectse0
Direction
more markede0
Comparator
percolatione0

Not reportedTaxon

Verbatim

e0

“similarly when the aqueous extract is obtained by placing soils in suspension, the inhibiting effects are more marked than when it is obtained by percolation”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 755–912 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativemeasured

Claim · model-written summary

Water leached from leaves, roots or seeds of lamb's quarters showed inhibiting effects on maize root growth proportional to the concentration.

Taxon
maizeZea mayse0
Treatment
water leached from the leaves, roots or seeds of lamb's quanerse0
Outcome
root growth of maizee0
Direction
inhibitinge0
Qualifier
proport ional to the concentratione0

Not reportedComparator

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Zea mays
Zea mays · TaxonAkwugo · CC BY-SA 4.0 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“water leached from the leaves, roots or seeds of lamb's quaners shows inhibiting effects proport ional to the concentration on root growth of maize”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 923–1070 · show in text ↑

Chenopodium album · growth · Zea mays (maize)Positive and negative results

4 papers: 1 positive, 3 negative or no effect

2 papers in the same direction as this paper · 1 in the opposite direction

  1. positive
  2. negative
  3. negative
See all 4 papers →

Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.