Chenopodiastrum murale (nettle-leaf goosefoot)
Datasheet Types: Pest, Invasive species, Host plant
Abstract
This datasheet on Chenopodiastrum murale covers Identity, Overview, Distribution, Dispersal, Hosts/Species Affected, Diagnosis, Biology & Ecology, Environmental Requirements, Natural Enemies, Impacts, Uses, Prevention/Control, Further Information.
Identity
- Preferred Scientific Name
- Chenopodiastrum murale (L.) S. Fuentes, Uotila & Borsch
- Preferred Common Name
- nettle-leaf goosefoot
- Other Scientific Names
- Anserina muralis (L.) Montandon
- Atriplex muralis (L.) Crantz
- Chenopodium biforme Nees
- Chenopodium carthagenense Zuccagni
- Chenopodium congestum Hook.f.
- Chenopodium flavum Forssk.
- Chenopodium guineense Jacq.
- Chenopodium laterale Aiton
- Chenopodium longidjawense Peter
- Chenopodium lucidum Gilib.
- Chenopodium maroccanum Pau
- Chenopodium murale L.
- Chenopodium triangulare Forssk.
- Rhagodia baccata (Labill.) Moq.
- Rhagodia congesta (Hook. f.) Moq.
- Vulvaria trachisperma Bubani
- International Common Names
- EnglishAustralian spinachgoosefootgreen fat hennettle goosefootnettle-leaved fat-hennettle-leaved goosefootpigweedsalt-greensowbanesow-baneswine-banewall goosefoot
- Spanishcardo rusocenizochenopodio des murschualchualhierba de perrohierba del gallinazopie de gansoquelite cenizoquelite de perro
- Frenchansérine des murschenópode des murailleschénopode des murssénille
- Arabicabu-efeinmentabmuntinabrumramsentarzurbaih
- Local Common Names
- ‘āheaheamerlík zednípé de gançopé de gansope-de-gansopedegoso
- Albaniaminueri i murit
- Argentinaquinoa negrayuyo negro
- AzerbaijanДивар тәрә
- Bahamasgreens
- Boliviaakarakhachi yulluyerba del sustoyuyo negro
- Croatialoboda kamenjarka
- Denmarkmur-gåsefod
- Dominican Republicceledoniacorraleratullida
- Estoniamüür-hanemalts
- Ethiopiahamedmadohamlikebbo
- Finlandrauniosavikka
- GermanyMauer-Gänsefuß
- Greecexηνοπόδιον το επιτοίχιον
- Guatemalahediondahediondillapaletilla
- Hungarykőfali libatop
- Indiabahubarellogoyalokhad-bathodkhartuakurunal
- Irelandpraiseach an bhalla
- Italychenopodio dei murifarinello muralepiè d’ocapiede anserino
- Italy/Sardiniacadoni
- Latviamūru balanda
- Lesser Antillesépinard bord de mer, sprainbush
- Lithuaniamūrinė balanda
- Mexicocatzúgedeondillahediondillaquelite de puerco
- Netherlandsmuurganzevoet
- Norwaygatemelde
- Polandkomosa murowa
- Qatarabu ’affeynkhaisaweraqzarbeeh
- Romaniafrunză de potcă
- Saudi Arabiaharef al-deekkhubaisalissan et-teirruguluwaijjiman
- Slovakiamrlík múrový
- Sloveniapozidna metlika
- South Africagansevoetkoringbossiemisbrediemuurhondebossieseruathumanatjuana-seepumdongabatwa
- Spainbletblet de paretceñiglocenizo negropata de ganso dos valosquenopodiosabiasalaillosalaosalao verde
- Sudandorora hamraa
- Swedengattmaalla
- SyriarRamram, zarbykh
- EPPO Code
- CHEMU (Chenopodium murale)
Pictures
Habit
Chenopodiastrum murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Habit. Großjedlersdorf, Floridsdorf, Vienna. August 2018.
©Stefan Lefnaer (Stefan.lefnaer)/via Wikimedia Commons - CC BY-SA 4.0
Habit
Chenopodiastrum murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Habit. Stockerau, Korneuburg, Lower Austria. October 2016.
©Stefan Lefnaer (Stefan.lefnaer)/via Wikimedia Commons - CC BY-SA 4.0
Seedheads
Chenopodiastrum murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Seedheads. Kula, Maui, Hawaii. May 2011.
©Forest and Kim Starr/via Starr Environmental - CC BY 4.0
Foliage
Chenopodiastrum murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Stipe with leaves. Zwingendorfer, Lower Austria. October 2016.
©Stefan Lefnaer (Stefan.lefnaer)/via Wikimedia Commons - CC BY-SA 4.0
Habit
Chenopodiastrum murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Habit. Stockerau, Korneuburg, Lower Austria. October 2016.
©Stefan Lefnaer (Stefan.lefnaer)/via Wikimedia Commons - CC BY-SA 4.0
Plant
Chenopodiastrum murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Plant. Zwingendorfer, Lower Austria. October 2016.
©Stefan Lefnaer (Stefan.lefnaer)/via Wikimedia Commons - CC BY-SA 4.0
Leaf
Chenopodiastrum murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Leaf, dorsal side. Stockerau, Korneuburg, Lower Austria. October 2016.
©Stefan Lefnaer (Stefan.lefnaer)/via Wikimedia Commons - CC BY-SA 4.0
Leaf
Chenopodiastrum murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Leaf, ventral side. Stockerau, Korneuburg, Lower Austria. October 2016.
©Stefan Lefnaer (Stefan.lefnaer)/via Wikimedia Commons - CC BY-SA 4.0
Inflorescence
Chenopodiastrum murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Inflorescence. Stockerau, Korneuburg, Lower Austria. October 2016.
©Stefan Lefnaer (Stefan.lefnaer)/via Wikimedia Commons - CC BY-SA 4.0
Inflorescence
Chenopodiastrum murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Inflorescence. Stockerau, Korneuburg, Lower Austria. October 2016.
©Stefan Lefnaer (Stefan.lefnaer)/via Wikimedia Commons - CC BY-SA 4.0
Seeds
Chenopodiastrum murale (nettleleaf goosefoot); Seeds (without shell). Stockerau, Korneuburg, Lower Austria. October 2016.
©Stefan Lefnaer (Stefan.lefnaer)/via Wikimedia Commons - CC BY-SA 4.0
Summary of Invasiveness
Chenopodiastrum murale is a widespread noxious weed reported in more than 100 countries. It is a nitrophilous species that can cause substantial yield losses in vegetable crops through both competition and allelopathy, and exhibits invasive traits in many areas like high phenotypic plasticity, resource utilization capability, high reproductive potential, and seeds that remain viable in the soil for many years. It has been listed as invasive in Mexico, USA, Puerto Rico, Czech Republic and Japan.
Taxonomic Tree
Notes on Taxonomy and Nomenclature
Chenopodiastrum murale was previously known as Chenopodium murale. It was recently segregated from this heterogeneous genus as a result of a molecular phylogenetic study (Fuentes-Bazan et al., 2012).
At present, Chenopodiastrum includes eight species, all segregated from Chenopodium: Chenopodiastrum badachschanicum, Chenopodiastrum coronopus, Chenopodiastrum erosum, Chenopodiastrum fasciculosum, Chenopodiastrum gracilispicum, Chenopodiastrum hybridum, Chenopodiastrum murale and Chenopodiastrum simplex. Although morphologically very similar to Chenopodium, the two genera differ in the type of trichomes on young stems and leaves, the venation of perianth segments and the features of the seeds (Fuentes-Bazan et al., 2012; Uotila, 2017). The generic name means ‘false Chenopodium’.
Chenopodium, in the broad sense, had been considered one of the largest genera of Chenopodiaceae (now Amaranthaceae), with an estimated number of 150 species (Fuentes-Bazan et al., 2012). Some species traditionally placed in this genus are used as pot herbs, pseudocereals (e.g. quinoa), condiments and in traditional medicine (Duke, 1961). The generic name is derived from the Greek Chen or khen (= goose) and podion (= foot), and alludes to the shape of the leaves of some species.
Chenopodiastrum murale is a widespread, highly variable species with numerous varieties described (Maire, 1962).
Plant Type
Annual
Seed / spore propagated
Broadleaved
Herbaceous
Description
Annual green herb, up to 70-90 cm tall, erect or spreading, usually much-branched, the branches often deeply sulcate or angular, more or less farinose especially on young parts. Leaves with petioles 3-7 cm long, sometimes quite as long as the blades; blade 1.5-9 x 1-5 cm, deltoid to rhombic-ovate, cuneate to truncate at base, acute to acuminate at apex and often mucronate, the margin irregular, coarsely and acutely dentate, somewhat lustrous and occasionally bullate above, glabrous to rather densely farinose below. Inflorescences leafy, composed of divaricately branching cymes up to 5 cm long, terminal and from upper and sometimes median axils. Flowers hermaphrodite, small, ca. 1-1.5 mm in diameter, greenish, irregularly disposed in sessile glomerules along the rhachises. Sepals five, subequal, 1-1.5 mm long, ovate, obtuse, cucullate, bluntly keeled above, basally connate; petals absent; stamens five, caducous, the filaments flattened, the anthers orbicular, exserted; ovary subglobose, the style quite short, the 2 (-3) stigmata ca. twice as long, spreading, irregularly glandular. Fruit an indehiscent utricle partially enclosed by the sepals, the pericarp hardly separable from the single seed. Seed round, 1.2-1.5 mm in diameter, horizontal, lenticular, acutely keeled, black, slightly shining; testa marked with minute rounded pits.
Distribution
Chenopodiastrum murale is a nearly cosmopolitan species. It is presumably native to central and southern Europe, northern Africa and southwestern Asia, but has naturalized as a weed elsewhere, including the Americas, central and southern Africa and Australia. It can be found as far north as Canada and Sweden, and as far south as New Zealand (Holm et al., 1997; Freitag et al., 2001; Clemants and Mosyakin, 2003).
This species is mainly regarded as a summer weed in the Mediterranean region. It is generally less frequent in cooler temperatures.
Distribution Map
Distribution Table
History of Introduction and Spread
Chenopodiastrum murale has made its way into many areas across the world as a contaminant in imported grains, packing material and ship’s ballast. According to Uotila and Suominen (1976), this species may have reached Northern Europe in the 19th century on ballast soil. In Finland, it is largely confined to harbours, some of which were ballast localities; other occurrences have been attributed to the import of Moroccan cork, timber and grains. This species was found in Finnish mill dumps in the 70s and may have been introduced several times between 1960 and 1975 with American maize (Uotila and Suominen, 1976).
The presence of C. murale in the Tampere (Finland) railway station yards suggests that it may have also been introduced by train, particularly by “USSR railway wagons which were unloaded and switched there” (Uotila and Suominen, 1976).
The oldest records for some New World countries are 1859-1860 for USA, 1786 for Mexico, 1850 for Colombia, 1815 for Brazil (GBIF, 2018), 1849 for Chile (Ugarte et al., 2011) and 1885 for Puerto Rico (Rojas-Sandoval and Acevedo-Rodríguez, 2015). The earliest collection from Australia is from 1803 (GBIF, 2018).
Risk of Introduction
The risk of introduction of C. murale into new areas is high. Besides being a very widely distributed weed of anthropogenic habitats, this species is a prolific seed producer. The tiny seeds can be transported inadvertently through many different means.
Means of Movement and Dispersal
Natural Dispersal
Chenopodiastrum murale spreads by seed. It is a prolific seed producer that can form persistent propagule banks within a short period of time (Gupta and Narayan, 2012). The seeds have no obvious mechanism for dispersal, although they have been reported to be consumed by birds including the common house sparrow (Passer domesticus) and the Eurasian collared dove (Streptopelia decaocto) (Sharma, 1977; Tomar and Singh, 1980).
Accidental Introduction
The spread of C. murale is favoured by agricultural practices and soil movement, among others. The tiny seeds can remain in the soil for a long time. They are also often harvested in the field with the grain crop with which it coexists (e.g. wheat) (Holm et al., 1997) and so they can be transported accidentally as a contaminant.
Uotila and Suominen (1976) discuss several ways by which this species reached Northern Europe which include the import of grains, cork and timber, and ship ballast.
Pathway Causes
| Pathway cause | Notes | Long distance | Local | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crop production (pathway cause) | A weed of cultivated fields. Seeds can be unintentionally harvested with grain crops. e.g. wheat | Yes | Yes | |
| Disturbance (pathway cause) | A weed of disturbed habitats | Yes | Yes | |
| Hitchhiker (pathway cause) | Seeds can be transported as a contaminant with imported grain | Yes | Yes | |
| Timber trade (pathway cause) | Introduced to Finland with oak timber | Yes | Yes |
Pathway Vectors
| Pathway vector | Notes | Long distance | Local | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Containers and packaging - wood (pathway vector) | This species may have arrived in Finland with material used for packing and insulating Mediterranean food | Yes | Yes | |
| Debris and waste associated with human activities (pathway vector) | Found in the vicinity of mill dumps | Yes | Yes | |
| Ship ballast water and sediment (pathway vector) | Likely introduced into Northern Europe in ship ballast | Yes | Yes | |
| Soil, sand and gravel (pathway vector) | A prolific seed producer; seeds can remain viable in the soil for many years | Yes | Yes |
Hosts/Species Affected
Chenopodiastrum murale has been reported to affect more than 35 crops (Holm et al., 1997; Villaseñor and Espinosa, 1998). These include a wide range of plants of diverse botanical affiliation and economic importance, which reflects the adaptability of this weed to different habitats and environmental conditions. It competes with relatively weakly (onions, cumin, fenugreek) and also strongly competitive crops (brassicas, potato, sorghum) of different habits and at varying planting densities. C. murale is also able to invade orchards of fruit trees and colonize the space available between rows and/or around trunks and, therefore, it may become dominant under suitable levels of irrigation and high fertilization.
Host Plants and Other Plants Affected
Similarities to Other Species/Conditions
Chenopodiastrum murale resembles the cosmopolitan Chenopodium album (‘fat hen’), but can be distinguished by the rhombic-ovate leaves with more or less numerous jagged teeth, clearly cymose inflorescences, and the sharply keeled seeds with the testa surface closely pitted (Brenan, 1988; Jansen, 2004). Chenopodium ambrosioides [Dysphania ambrosioides], another widely distributed Chenopodium, differs in being highly aromatic when crushed.
Chenopodiastrum murale is sister to Chenopodiastrum coronopus, but this species is restricted to the Macaronesian islands (Fuentes-Bazan et al., 2012; Uotila, 2017).
Chenopodiastrum fasciculosum, the East African and Arabian relative of C. murale can be distinguished by its seeds with obtuse margins and irregularly sinuous pits (Al-Turki and Ghafoor, 1996).
Ivens (1967) provides a useful table indicating the differences among East African species of Chenopodium.
Habitat
Chenopodiastrum murale occurs as a weed in gardens, lawns, cultivated fields, waste places, roadsides, railways and pastures; it is also found along banks of rivers, on clay mounds, open woods, rocky hillsides, sandy fields and open disturbed coastal areas. It can be found from sea level to over 2000 m, in both open and shaded sites (Brenan, 1988; Holm et al., 1997; Clemants and Mosyakin, 2003).
Habitat List
| Category | Sub category | Habitat | Presence | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial – Managed | Cultivated / agricultural land | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial – Managed | Cultivated / agricultural land | Principal habitat | Natural |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial – Managed | Managed forests, plantations and orchards | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial – Managed | Managed forests, plantations and orchards | Present, no further details | Natural |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial – Managed | Disturbed areas | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial – Managed | Disturbed areas | Principal habitat | Natural |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial – Managed | Rail / roadsides | Principal habitat | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial – Managed | Rail / roadsides | Principal habitat | Natural |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial – Managed | Urban / peri-urban areas | Present, no further details | Harmful (pest or invasive) |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial – Managed | Urban / peri-urban areas | Present, no further details | Natural |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural | Riverbanks | Present, no further details | Natural |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural | Scrub / shrublands | Present, no further details | Natural |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural | Deserts | Present, no further details | Natural |
| Terrestrial | Terrestrial ‑ Natural / Semi-natural | Arid regions | Present, no further details | Natural |
| Littoral | Coastal areas | Present, no further details | Natural | |
| Littoral | Coastal dunes | Present, no further details | Natural |
Biology and Ecology
Genetics
The chromosome number of C. murale is 2n = 18 (Bhargava et al., 2007).
Reproductive Biology
The small flowers of C. murale are perfect, possess five exserted stamens, and are likely wind-pollinated (Blackwell and Powell, 1981). No studies on the pollination biology of this species have been conducted. However, other weedy annual species of Chenopodium have been reported to be self-compatible and able to reproduce both by self- and cross-pollination (Bassett and Crompton, 1978).
A single plant of C. murale can produce over 24,000 seeds with an average weight of 0.68 mg each (Herron, 1953). The tiny seeds exhibit dormancy and can remain viable for many years. Dry storage at room temperature for 2 years resulted in 92% germination (Holm et al., 1997). Spira and Wagner (1983) reported the germination of 183-year-old seeds of C. murale recovered from adobe walls of a historic building in the USA.
Physiology and Phenology
Chenopodiastrum murale is a long-day, C3 annual and early flowering species (Holm et al., 1997; Živanović et al., 2010). Flowering and fruiting occur from July to September in Europe (Holm et al., 1997) and from August to March in India (Paul, 2012).
In exposed dry sites, and under stress, plants of C. murale may be much reduced in size and can set seed when only 10-15 cm tall. Conversely, under favourable conditions, they may grow over 1 m tall before flowering (Holm et al., 1997).
In the laboratory, 5 days of continuous day light induced flowering in the majority of plants as early as at the phase of the first pair of leaves (Pavlova et al., 1989).
Photoperiodic flower induction is not correlated with changes in cytokinin level in the plant (Macháčková et al., 1993), and flowering can be induced by aminoethoxy vinyl glycine (AVG) and silver thiosulphate, which completely reverse flowering inhibition imposed by indole acetic acid (IAA) (Macháčková et al., 1985).
Plants cultured in vitro on optimal medium composition, and under an adequate photoperiodic regime, produce seeds in 18 weeks (Živanović et al., 2010).
Seed germination is induced by nitrate (Kasera and Sen, 1992), and weed growth is greatly favoured by a high level of fertilization (Walter, 1981). It is a nutrient accumulator, and better at accumulating N, P, K and Mg than associated vegetable crops and many other weed species with which it coexists in the field (Qasem, 1992). C. murale is a comparatively better accumulator of N and P than fenugreek (Maliwal and Gupta, 1988) and has been reported to accumulate appreciable levels of selenium (Abuereish and Lahham, 1987).
Longevity
Chenopodiastrum murale is an annual species (Holm et al., 1997).
Environmental Requirements
Chenopodiastrum murale can be found under many different climatic conditions but is best adapted to the subtropics and warm-temperate regions. In the Mediterranean and other temperate regions, it is regarded as a summer weed.
This species is adapted to many ecological conditions, although it grows most vigorously on substrates with a high level of fertilization, especially nitrogen-rich soils (Walter, 1981; Holm et al., 1997). It has been regarded as a nutrient accumulator with a high demand for potassium and nitrogen (Qasem, 1992). Animal manure is a major cause of weed establishment in newly reclaimed land (Bloomfield, 1975).
In certain parts of the world, it is a weed of arid zones and may be found growing in heavy clay soil types of varying salinity (Bhati et al., 1979).
Climate
| Climate type | Description | Preferred or tolerated | Remarks |
|---|---|---|---|
| Af - Tropical rainforest climate | > 60mm precipitation per month | Tolerated | |
| Am - Tropical monsoon climate | Tropical monsoon climate ( < 60mm precipitation driest month but > (100 - [total annual precipitation(mm}/25])) | Tolerated | |
| As - Tropical savanna climate with dry summer | < 60mm precipitation driest month (in summer) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25]) | Tolerated | |
| Aw - Tropical wet and dry savanna climate | < 60mm precipitation driest month (in winter) and < (100 - [total annual precipitation{mm}/25]) | Tolerated | |
| BS - Steppe climate | > 430mm and < 860mm annual precipitation | Preferred | |
| BW - Desert climate | < 430mm annual precipitation | Preferred | |
| Cs - Warm temperate climate with dry summer | Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry summers | Preferred | |
| Cw - Warm temperate climate with dry winter | Warm temperate climate with dry winter (Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, dry winters) | Preferred | |
| Cf - Warm temperate climate, wet all year | Warm average temp. > 10°C, Cold average temp. > 0°C, wet all year | Preferred | |
| Ds - Continental climate with dry summer | Continental climate with dry summer (Warm average temp. > 10°C, coldest month < 0°C, dry summers) | Tolerated |
Latitude/Altitude Ranges
| Latitude North (°N) | Latitude South (°S) | Altitude lower (m) | Altitude upper (m) |
|---|---|---|---|
| 64 | 44 |
Air Temperature
| Parameter | Lower limit (°C) | Upper limit (°C) |
|---|---|---|
| Mean annual temperature | 4 | 30 |
Rainfall
| Parameter | Lower limit | Upper limit | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Dry season duration | number of consecutive months with <40 mm rainfall | ||
| Mean annual rainfall | 30 | 2000 | mm; lower/upper limits |
Rainfall Regime
Summer
Winter
Bimodal
Uniform
Soil Tolerances
Soil texture > Light
Soil texture > Medium
Soil texture > Heavy
Soil reaction > Acid
Soil reaction > Neutral
Soil reaction > Alkaline
Soil drainage > Free
Special soil tolerances > Saline
List of Pests
Notes on Natural Enemies
Large numbers of natural enemies have been reported for C. murale, including species of fungi, nematodes and insects of economic importance.
Some of the fungal diseases include leaf spots (Ascochyta caulina, Ascochyta chenopodii, Cercospora beticola, Cercospora dubia, Stagonospora atriplicis, Septoria chenopodii, Septoria undilospora), blight (Camarosporium atriplicus), powdery mildew (Leveillula taurica, Leveillula cylindrospora), downy mildew (Peronospora farinosa, Peronospora effusa, Peronospora chenopodii, Peronospora variabilis), and the rusts (Puccinia aristidae, Puccinia subnitens, Uromyces peckianus) (Farr and Rossman, 2018).
Among the insects that feed on this species are: the cotton mealybug Phenacoccus solenopsis (Hemiptera: Pseudococcidae) (Arif et al., 2009), the cotton leafhopper Amrasca devastans [Amrasca biguttula biguttula] (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) (Saeed et al., 2015), the beet leafhopper Circulifer tenellus (Hemiptera: Cicadellidae) (Cook, 1967), the beet armyworm Spodoptera exigua (Lepidoptera: Noctuidae) (Berdegue and Trumble, 1996), the whitefly Bemisia tabaci (Hemiptera: Aleyrodidae) (Attique et al., 2003), the aphids Myzus persicae and Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Hemiptera: Aphididae) (Sánchez et al., 2010), and the plant bugs Lygus elisus and Lygus hesperus (Hemiptera: Miridae) (Clancy, 1968).
Chenopodiastrum murale also serves as a host or indicator for a wide range of serious viral diseases which affect a number of crops of economic importance. Some of these viruses include: the Tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV) (Cho et al., 1987), the Pepino mosaic virus (PepMV) (Córdoba et al., 2004), and the Beet yellows virus (BYV) (Bennett, 1960).
Natural enemies
| Natural enemy | Type | Life stages | Specificity | References | Biological control in | Biological control on |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Amrasca devastans [Amrasca biguttula biguttula] | Herbivore | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Ascochyta caulina | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Ascochyta chenopodii | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Beet yellows virus (beet yellows) | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Bemisia tabaci (tobacco whitefly) | Herbivore | Plants|Stems Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Camarosporium atriplicis | Pathogen | not specific | ||||
| Cercospora beticola (cercospora leaf spot of beets) | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Cercospora dubia | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Circulifer tenellus (beet leafhopper) | Herbivore | Plants|Stems Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Hendersonia chenopodiicola | Pathogen | not specific | ||||
| Leveillula cylindrospora | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Leveillula taurica (powdery mildew of cotton) | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Lygus elisus (lucerne plant bug) | Herbivore | Plants|Inflorescence | not specific | |||
| Lygus hesperus (western plant bug) | Herbivore | Plants|Inflorescence | not specific | |||
| Macrosiphum euphorbiae (potato aphid) | Herbivore | Plants|Stems Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Myzus persicae (green peach aphid) | Herbivore | Plants|Stems Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Odium | Pathogen | not specific | ||||
| Pepino mosaic virus | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Peronospora chenopodii | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Peronospora effusa | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Peronospora farinosa (downy mildew: Chenopodiaceae) | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Peronospora variabilis | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | to genus | |||
| Phenacoccus solenopsis (cotton mealybug) | Herbivore | Plants|Stems Plants|Leaves Plants|Inflorescence | not specific | |||
| Phomopsis desmazieri | Pathogen | |||||
| Puccinia aristidae | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Puccinia subnitens | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Septoria chenopodii | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | ||||
| Septoria undilospora | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | to genus | |||
| Spodoptera exigua (beet armyworm) | Herbivore | Plants|Stems Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Stagonospora atriplicus | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Tomato spotted wilt virus | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific | |||
| Uromyces peckianus | Pathogen | Plants|Leaves | not specific |
Impact Summary
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Cultural/amenity | Negative |
| Economic/livelihood | Positive and negative |
| Environment (generally) | Negative |
| Human health | Positive |
Impact
Chenopodiastrum murale is a widespread noxious weed infesting more than 25 crop species (mainly field crops) and tree orchards in at least 57 countries around the world (Holm et al., 1997). These include carrots in Egypt, cereals and vegetables in Italy, cotton in Mexico, dates in Arabia, flax and safflower in Mexico, lucerne in Canada and USA, millets in India, orchards and vines in South Africa, sugarcane in Iran, wheat in several different parts of the world. It causes considerable yield losses, especially in vegetables, through both competition and allelopathy.
This species has a high phenotypic plasticity and is found under different climatic conditions including temperate and cool climates. It harbours economically important insects and serves as a host for many fungal and viral diseases and for some plant parasitic nematodes. This increases the negative impact of this weed on different crops. It is regarded as a nutrient accumulator (Qasem, 1992), strongly competing with other species under various conditions (Qasem, 1997).
It is highly competitive in wheat (Singh, 1973) and exerts its effect through both competition and allelopathy. A density of 248 plants/m² of C. murale (and C. album) caused 16% loss of wheat yield in Pakistan (Holm et al., 1997).
In garlic, when C. murale was a dominant weed species occurring at a density of 50 plants/m², bulb yield reduction reached 78% (Qasem, 1996). In tomato, a pot experiment with two C. murale and one tomato plant/pot resulted in a 33% reduction in tomato shoot dry weight compared with the control (weed-free tomato) (Qasem, 1997).
Extracts of C. murale show pesticidal properties and affected a wide range of living organisms. They have antifungal activity against Penicillium digitatum and Alternaria solani (Qasem and Abu-Blan, 1995); nematicidal effects on Melodogyne incognita; antiviral activity against tobacco mosaic tobamovirus and sunn-hemp mosaic tobamovirus and induced resistance to these viruses in tobacco and Crotalaria juncea (Neeta and Verna, 1995). The extracts of this weed inhibited tobacco mosaic tobamovirus and cucumber mosaic cucumovirus (Allam et al., 1978). Herbicidal activity of this species has also been reported against Cuscuta campestris (Habib and Rahman, 1988), mustard (Brassica juncea) seeds (Datta and Ghosh, 1987) and some weed species (Saeed et al., 1977). However, the negative impact of its allelopathic influence is mainly due to the harmful effect that the weed imposes on different crop species including wheat, barley and a number of vegetable crops through extracts, leachates and/or its residues in the soil (Qasem, 1993a, b, 1995), and also on Abutilon indicum and Evolvulus numularius (Datta and Ghosh, 1987). Allelopathic agents were also detected in the pericarp and perianth associated with seeds of this species (Qasem, 1990).
Impact: Economic
Chenopodiastrum murale is a widespread agricultural weed that affects more than 35 crop species (mainly field crops) and tree orchards in at least 57 countries around the world (Holm et al., 1997; Villaseñor and Espinosa, 1998). These include carrots in Egypt, cereals and vegetables in Italy, cotton in Mexico, dates in Arabia, flax and safflower in Mexico, lucerne in Canada and the USA, millets in India, orchards and vines in South Africa, sugarcane in Iran, and wheat in several different parts of the world. It causes considerable yield losses, especially in vegetables, through both competition and allelopathy.
Chenopodiastrum murale is a nutrient accumulator (Qasem, 1992), strongly competing with other species under various conditions (Qasem, 1997). For example, it is highly competitive in wheat (Singh, 1973); a density of 248 plants/m² of C. murale (and C. album) caused 16% loss of wheat yield in Pakistan (Holm et al., 1997). In garlic, when C. murale was a dominant weed species occurring at a density of 50 plants/m², bulb yield reduction reached 78% (Qasem, 1996). In tomato, a pot experiment with two C. murale and one tomato plant/pot resulted in a 33% reduction in tomato shoot dry weight compared with the control (weed-free tomato) (Qasem, 1997).
Chenopodiastrum murale also exerts allelopathic effects on neighbouring species. Soil collected from the rhizosphere of this plant had a strong inhibitory effect on the emergence and growth of seedlings of economically important species such as wheat, tomato, cucumber and Egyptian clover (El-Khatib et al., 2004). The root exudate was also shown to inhibit growth and induce oxidative stress in collard greens (Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala [Brassica oleracea var. viridis]) (Mitić et al., 2015). Allelopathic agents have also been detected in the pericarp and perianth associated with seeds of C. murale (Qasem, 1990).
Chenopodiastrum murale harbours economically important insects and serves as a host for many fungal and viral diseases which increases its negative impact on different crops.
Impact: Environmental
Impact on Habitats
Chenopodiastrum murale is a species of disturbed habitats usually found in association with other weeds, but can also exert a negative impact on native plants through both competition and allelopathy. It releases toxic allelochemicals through the root and other parts of the plants which can inhibit the growth of other species (El-Khatib et al., 2004; Mitić et al., 2015). It has been cited among the competitive weeds threatening the endangered Sesbania tomentosa and Scaevola coriacea in Hawaii (USA) (US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010a, b).
Threatened Species
| Threatened species | Where threatened | Mechanisms | References | Notes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Scaevola coriacea (dwarf naupaka) | Hawaii | Competition (unspecified) | ||
| Sesbania tomentosa | Hawaii | Competition - monopolizing resources |
Impact: Social
Pollen of C. murale causes allergy (Paul, 2012).
Risk and Impact Factors
Invasiveness
Proved invasive outside its native range
Has a broad native range
Abundant in its native range
Highly adaptable to different environments
Is a habitat generalist
Tolerates, or benefits from, cultivation, browsing pressure, mutilation, fire etc
Pioneering in disturbed areas
Tolerant of shade
Fast growing
Has high reproductive potential
Has propagules that can remain viable for more than one year
Impact outcomes
Modification of nutrient regime
Negatively impacts agriculture
Negatively impacts animal health
Negatively impacts livelihoods
Reduced native biodiversity
Threat to/ loss of endangered species
Threat to/ loss of native species
Impact mechanisms
Allelopathic
Competition - monopolizing resources
Competition (unspecified)
Pest and disease transmission
Rapid growth
Likelihood of entry/control
Highly likely to be transported internationally accidentally
Difficult to identify/detect as a commodity contaminant
Uses
Economic Value
Extracts of C. murale show pesticidal properties and affect a wide range of living organisms. They have antifungal activity against Penicillium digitatum and Sclerotinia sclerotiorum (Qasem and Abu-Blan, 1995); nematicidal effects on Steinernema feltiae, bactericidal activity against Staphylococcus carnosus and Escherichia coli (Al-Marby et al., 2016), and antiviral activity against Tobacco mosaic virus, Sunn-hemp mosaic virus and Cucumber mosaic virus (Allam et al., 1978; Srivastava and Verma, 1995).
Herbicidal activity of extracts of this species has been reported against the weeds Cuscuta campestris (Habib and Rahman, 1988), Abutilon indicum and Evolvulus nummularius (Datta and Ghosh, 1987). This pesticidal and herbicide activity is due to the presence of phytotoxins which include terpenes, tannins and oxalic acid (Datta and Ghosh, 1987).
Social Benefit
The social value of C. murale is very limited. It is sometimes eaten in Africa and Asia as a vegetable and the seeds used as cereal (Jansen, 2004; Paul, 2012). The plant is said to be good forage although in Australia poisoning of livestock has been reported (Jansen, 2004). The crushed leaves are used in Ethiopia as a topical remedy to treat tetanus and vitiligo (Araya et al., 2015).
Phytochemical analysis revealed the presence of cyanogenic glycosides, saponins, tannins and naphthoquinones, alkaloids, flavonoids (Verma and Agarwal, 1985) and oxalic acid (Datta and Ghosh, 1987). The presence of many toxic compounds in this plant greatly restricts its value as a feed or fodder species. In contrast, there is good potential for this weed to be used as a source of natural chemical compounds with pesticidal and antimicrobial activity, and for use in medicine. The aqueous methanolic extract exhibited hepatoprotective activity against paracetamol-induced liver damage in mice (Saleem et al., 2014).
Uses List
Environmental > Host of pest
Materials > Pesticide
Medicinal, pharmaceutical > Source of medicine/pharmaceutical
Medicinal, pharmaceutical > Traditional/folklore
Human food and beverage > Cereal
Human food and beverage > Emergency (famine) food
Human food and beverage > Vegetable
Animal feed, fodder, forage > Forage
Prevention and Control
Due to the variable regulations around (de)registration of pesticides, your national list of registered pesticides or relevant authority should be consulted to determine which products are legally allowed for use in your country when considering chemical control. Pesticides should always be used in a lawful manner, consistent with the product's label.
Cultural Control and Sanitary Measures
Cultural control methods depend on the crop species and the growing system adopted. Among these is hand weeding. Where this method is used, it should be carried out during early growth stages before the weed starts flowering and seeding.
Physical/Mechanical Control
Hand weeding is widely practised in fruit tree and vegetable crop cultivation where labour costs are reasonable. Sometimes herbicide application may be necessary in combination with hand weeding. Hoeing is an alternative mechanical method of weed control, but it is more effective when accompanied by herbicides. Hoeing twice with pendimethalin was recommended for weed control in fenugreek (Maliwal and Gupta, 1989).
Effective control of C. murale and other weed species in onion and tomato crops was also achieved by soil solarization (Satour et al., 1991).
Biological Control
The common house sparrow (Passer domesticus) feeds on seeds of C. murale. In India, an adult male consumes an average of 8.6 g of seeds per day, and thus this species might contribute to the control of this weed by reducing the seed reservoir (Sharma, 1977).
Chemical Control
Different herbicides have been recommended for the effective control of C. murale in different crop species, for example, fluchloralin in chickpea (incorporated pre-sowing), onion (post-emergence), radish, potato (pre-planting), fenugreek and Cucumis (incorporated immediately after sowing). Other herbicides are also effective and selective in different crop species including oxadiazon and fluorodifen applied post-emergence in onion; bromoxynil and oxyfluorfen as a pre-emergence application were also highly effective in this crop (Porwal and Singh, 1993; Farag and Koriem, 1995); and pendimethalin, which ensured the greatest yield of onion (Iqbal et al., 1990). In garlic, Qasem (1996) reported that post-emergence application of oxyfluorfen and oxadiazon at the 3- to 4-leaf stage controlled weeds effectively and resulted in garlic yields comparable with a weed-free crop. Pendimethalin in pre-emergence treatment, was the best for weed control in fenugreek and gave the highest crude protein content in grains (Maliwal and Gupta, 1988).
In potato, different herbicides have been recommended including methabenzthiazuron which was highly effective and gave the highest benefit cost value (Randhawa and Sandhu, 1981; Maliwal and Jain, 1991), trifluralin, metribuzin (pre-emergence) and dinitramine (Ahmed et al., 1988) were also useful. For weed control in transplanted tomato, Trabulsi and Abu-Hayja (1982) reported metobromuron, diphenamid and dinitramine as effective herbicides against C. murale. They found that diphenamid was the most promising for its control and tomato yield. For radish weeds, nitrofen was effective (Gambhir et al., 1983), while in sugarbeet, cycloate may be used. Pendimethalin is used prior to sowing in cotton (Nielsen, 1974), and terbutryn is used in cumin (Chaudhary and Gupta, 1991).
For effective and selective control of C. murale in wheat, triasulfuron is highly recommended (Biljon et al., 1988). In addition, bentazone + dichlorprop, bromoxynil + MCPA (Tag-El-Din et al., 1989) or a mixture of isoproturon and 2,4-D ester have been used (Bhan et al., 1985). Chlorotoluron applied at the 4- to 5-leaf stage resulted in 90% weed control and increased yield by 29-71% (Subhan-I and Khan, 1991).
Links to Websites
| Name | URL | Comment |
|---|---|---|
| GISD/IASPMR: Invasive Alien Species Pathway Management Resource and DAISIE European Invasive Alien Species Gateway | https://doi.org/10.5061/dryad.m93f6 | Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list. |
| Global register of Introduced and Invasive species (GRIIS) | http://griis.org/ | Data source for updated system data added to species habitat list. |
| Pacific Island Ecosystems at Risk (PIER) | http://www.hear.org/pier/species/chenopodium_murale.htm | |
| US National Plant Germplasm System | https://npgsweb.ars-grin.gov/gringlobal/taxon/taxonomydetail?id=466031 |
.png)
References
Abuereish, G.M., Lahham, J.N., 1987. Selenium in soils and plants of the Jordan Valley.Journal of Arid Environments, 12(1) 1-7.
Acebes Ginovés, J.R., León Arencibia, M.C., Rodríguez Navarro, M.L., Arco Aguilar, M. del, García Gallo, A., Pérez de Paz, P.L., Rodríguez Delgado, O., Martín Osorio, V.E., Wildpret de la Torre, W., 2010. Spermatophyta.Lista de especies silvestres de Canarias. Hongos, plantas y animales terrestres., 2009 [ed. by Arechavaleta, M., Rodríguez, S., Zurita, N., García, A.]. Gobierno de Canarias. 122-172.
Acevedo-Rodríguez, P., Strong, M.T., 2012. Catalogue of seed plants of the West Indies.Smithsonian Contributions to Botany, 981-1192.
Agamalian, H.S., 1988. Weed control in crucifer crops with nitrogen fertilizers.California Agriculture, 42(6) 16-17.
Aheer, G.M., Akbar, S., Chaudhri, W.M., 1997. New species of the genera Cheletomorpha and Ker (Acarina: Cheyletidae) from Pakistan.Acarologia, 38(2) 117-121.
Ahmed, S.A., Ali, A.W.M., Salman, A.M., 1988. Effect of weed control on the diversity and abundance of insects in potatoes.Acta Horticulturae, (220) 417-424.
Al-Marby, A., Ejike, C.E., Nasim, M.J., Awadh-Ali, N.A., Al-Badani, R.A., Alghamdi, G.M., Jacob, C., 2016. Nematicidal and antimicrobial activities of methanol extracts of 17 plants of importance in ethnopharmacology obtained from the Arabian Peninsula.Journal of Intercultural Ethnopharmacology, 5(2) 114-121.
Al-Oudat, M., Qadir, M., 2011. The halophytic flora of Syria.Aleppo, Syria: International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA). 186 pp.
Al-Turki, T.A., Ghafoor, A., 1996. The genus Chenopodium L. in Saudi Arabia.Feddes Repertorium, 107(3/4) 189-208.
Allam, E.K., Morsy, A.A., Ali, M.D.H., Abo-El-Ghar, A.I., 1978. Inhibitors from some higher plants inhibiting TMV and CMV infection.Egyptian Journal of Phytopathology, 10(1) 9-20.
Amerson, A.B., Shelton, P.C., 1976. The natural history of Johnston Atoll.Atoll Research Bulletin No. 192. Washington, USA: Smithsonian Institution. 479 pp.
Anaya, A.L., Ramos, L., Cruz, R., Hernandez, J.G., Nava, V., 1987. Perspectives on allelopathy in Mexican traditional agroecosystems: a case study in Tlaxcala.Journal of Chemical Ecology, 13(11) 2083-2101.
Aragón, L., Gutiérrez, W., 1992. Downy mildew on four Chenopodium species. (El mildiu en cuatro especies de Chenopodium.) Fitopatologia, 27(2) 104-109.
Araya, S., Abera, B., Giday, M., 2015. Study of plants traditionally used in public and animal health management in Seharti Samre District, Southern Tigray, Ethiopia.Journal of Ethnobiology and Ethnomedicine, 11(22) 1-25. http://www.ethnobiomed.com/content/11/1/22
Arif, M.I., Rafiq, M., Ghaffar, A., 2009. Host plants of cotton mealybug (Phenacoccus solenopsis): a new menace to cotton agroecosystem of Punjab, Pakistan.International Journal of Agriculture and Biology, 11(2) 163-167. http://www.fspublishers.org/
Attique, M.R., Rafiq, M., Ghaffar, A., Ahmad, Z., Mohyuddin, A.I., 2003. Hosts of Bemisia tabaci (Genn.) (Homoptera: Aleyrodidae) in cotton areas of Punjab, Pakistan.Crop protection, 22(5) 715-720.
Backer, C.A., 1949. Chenopodiaceae.Flora Malesiana, 4(2) [ed. by Steenis, C.G.G.J. van]]. Batavia, Indonesia: Noordhoff-Kolff N.V.99-106.
Bassett, I.J., Crompton, C.W., 1978. The biology of Canadian weeds. 32. Chenopodium album L.Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 58(4) 1061-1072.
Bennett, C.W., 1960. Sugar beet yellows disease in the United States.Technical Bulletin No. 1218. Washington D.C., USA: Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. 63 pp.
Berdegue, M., Trumble, J.T., 1996. Effects of plant chemical extracts and physical characteristics of Apium graveolens and Chenopodium murale on host choice by Spodoptera exigua larvae.Entomologia Experimentalis et Applicata, 78(3) 253-262.
Bhan, V.M., Yadav, S.K., Panwar, R.S., Singh, S.P., 1985. The influence of substituted urea herbicides alone and in combination with 2,4-D on the control of weeds in wheat.Beiträge zur Tropischen Landwirtschaft und Veterinärmedizin, 23(2) 177-181.
Bhargava, A., Shukla, S., Ohri, D., 2007. Genome size variation in some cultivated and wild species of Chenopodium (Chenopodiaceae).Caryologia, 60(3) 245-250.
Bhati, P.R., Ashraf, N., Sen, D.N., 1979. Ecology of Indian arid zone weeds- VII Chenopodium spp.Geobios, 6(1) 20-27.
Bhattacharyya, G., Pandya, S.M., 1996. Ecological assessment on agroecosystems of Saurashtra with special reference to weeds.Advances in Plant Sciences, 9(1) 153-158.
Biljon, J.J. van, Hugo, K.J., Iwanzik, W., 1988. Triasulfuron: a new broadleaf herbicide in wheat and barley.Applied Plant Science, 2(2) 49-52.
Blackwell, W.H., Powell, M.J., 1981. A preliminary note on pollination in the Chenopodiaceae.Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 68(4) 524-526.
Bloomfield, J.R.G., 1975. The effect of farmyard manure on weed introduction and crop establishment during land reclamation in arid land agriculture (Saudi Arabia). 1. Initial effects. In: Joint Agricultural Research and Development Project, University College of North Wales, Bangor, UK [and] Ministry of Agriculture and Water, Saudi Arabia, (Publication 58)Saudi Arabia: Ministry of Agriculture and Water. 14 pp.
Boulos, L., 1991. A synopsis of Chenopodium L. Studies in the Chenopodiaceae of Arabia: 4.Kew Bulletin, 46(2) 301-305.
Boulos, L., 1995. Chenopodiaceae.A revised handbook to the flora of Ceylon, 9 [ed. by Dassanayake, M.D., Fosberg, F.R., Clayton, W.D.]. Rotterdam, Netherlands: A. Balkema.14-24.
Brako, L., Zarucchi, J.L., 1993. Catalogue of the flowering plants and gymnosperms of Peru.Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden, 451-1286.
Brenan, J.P.M., 1954. Chenopodiaceae.Flora of Tropical East Africa, [ed. by Turrill, W.B., Milne-Redhead, E.]. London, UK: Crown Agents for Oversea Governments and Administrations. 26 pp.
Brenan, J.P.M., 1988. Chenopodiaceae.Flora Zambesiaca, 9(1) [ed. by Launert, E.]. London, UK: Flora Zambesiaca Managing Committee. 133-161. http://apps.kew.org/efloras/namedetail.do;jsessionid=FB170EBAF9A55605A947C037354AC435?flora=fz&qry=key&taxon=6655&keyid=1518
Brenan, J.P.M., Akeroyd, J.R., 1993. Chenopodium.Flora Europaea, Vol. 1: Psilotaceae to Platanaceae, 2nd edn [ed. by Tutin, T.G., Burges, N.A., Chater, A.O., Edmondson, J.R., Heywood, V.H., Moore, D.M., Valentine, D.H., Walters, S.M, Webb, D.A.]. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. 111-114.
Brundu, G., Camarda, I., 2013. The flora of Chad: a checklist and brief analysis.PhytoKeys, 231-17. http://www.pensoft.net/journals/phytokeys/article/4752/the-flora-of-chad-a-checklist-and-brief-analysis
Burkill, H.M., 1985. The useful plants of West Tropical Africa. Vol. 1. Families A-D, 2nd ednKew, UK: Royal Botanic Gardens. xvi + 960 pp.
Carnero, A., Castillo, R.T. del, 1989. Note on the Berlese-Tullgren funnel, an efficient method for extracting Frankliniella occidentalis Pergande (Thysanoptera: Thripidae). (Nota sobre el embudo de Berlesse-Tullgren, un metodo eficaz para la extraccion de Frankliniella occidentalis Pergande (Thysanoptera: Thripidae).) Investigación Agraria, Producción y Protección Vegetales, 4(3) 429-432.
Carrillo, M.M. de, Alfonso, W.P., 2003. Most important weed species in vegetable crop plantings at Quíbor valley, Lara State, Venezuela. (Especies de malezas más importantes en siembras hortícolas del valle de Quíbor, Estado Lara, Venezuela.) Bioagro, 15(2) 91-96.
Chandra, S.K., 2012. Invasive alien plants of Indian Himalayan region- diversity and implication.American Journal of Plant Sciences, 3177-184.
Chaudhary, G.R., Gupta, O.P., 1991. Response of cumin (Cuminum cyminum) to nitrogen application, weed control and sowing methods.Indian Journal of Agronomy, 36212-216.
Chaudhary, S.A., Parker, C., Kasasian, L., 1981. Weeds of central, southern and eastern Arabian Peninsula.Tropical Pest Management, 27(2) 181-190.
Cho, J.J., Mau, R.F.L., Mitchell, W.C., Gonsalves, D., Yudin, L.S., 1987. Host list of plants susceptible to tomato spotted wilt virus (TSWV). In: Research Extension Series, Hawaii Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. Honololu, Hawaii: Institute of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources. 10 pp.
Clancy, D.W., 1968. Distribution and parasitization of some Lygus spp. in western United States and central Mexico.Journal of Economic Entomology, 61(2) 443-445.
Clemants, S.E., Mosyakin, S.L., 2003. Chenopodium.Flora of North America North of Mexico, vol. 4: Magnoliophyta: Caryophyllidae, [ed. by Flora of North America Editorial Committee]. Oxford and New York, USA: Oxford University Press. 275-300.
CONABIO, 2018. Gedeondilla (Chenopodium murale).Especies exóticas invasoras de Mexico. http://www.enciclovida.mx/especies/6033190
Cook, W.C., 1967. Life history, host plants and migrations of the beet leafhopper in the western United States.Technical Bulletin No. 1365. Washington D.C., USA: Agricultural Research Service, US Department of Agriculture. 122 pp.
Cordero, M., 1983. Parthenium hysterophorus (bitter broom), undesirable plant, natural reservoir of potato viruses X and Y. (Parthenium hysterophorus (escoba amarga), planta indeseable, reservorio natural de los virus X y Y de la papa.) Ciencia y Técnica en la Agricultura, Hortalizas, Papa, Granos y Fibras, 2(2) 23-32.
Córdoba, M.C., Martínez-Priego, L., Jordá, C., 2004. New natural hosts of Pepino mosaic virus in Spain.Plant Disease, 88(8) 906.
Danin, A., 1981. Weeds of eastern Sinai coastal area.Willdenowia, 11291-300.
Datta, S.C., Ghosh, K.N., 1987. Allelopathy in two species of Chenopodium- inhibition of germination and seedling growth of certain weeds.Acta Societatis Botanicorum Poloniae, 56(2) 257-270.
Duke, J.A., 1961. Chenopodiaceae.Flora of Panama, Part IV, Fascicle IV. Annals of the Missouri Botanical Garden, 48(1) [ed. by Woodson, R.E.]. 1-6.
El-Khatib, A.A., Hegazy, A.K., Galal, H.K., 2004. Allelopathy in the rhizosphere and amended soil of Chenopodium murale L.Weed Biology and Management, 4(1) 35-42.
Engstrand, L., Gustafsson, M., 1973. Drawings of Scandinavian plants 89-90.Botaniska Notiser, 126(3) 273-276.
Fabregues, B.P. de, Lebrun, J.P., 1976. Catalogue des Plantes Vascularies du Niger. Maisons Alfort, France: Institut d'élevage et de médecine vétérinaire des pays tropicaux. 433 pp.
Farag, I.A., Koriem, S.O., 1995. Chemical weed control in onion nursery grown for dry onion sets.Assiut Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 26(1) 101-113.
Farr, D.F., Rossman, A.Y., 2018. Fungal databases, systematic mycology and microbiology laboratory, ARS, USDA.https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabases/new_allView.cfm?whichone=all&thisName=Chenopodium%20murale&organismtype=Host&fromAllCount=yes
FCD, 2017. Chenopodium murale.Flora Croatica Database. Department of Botany, Faculty of Science, FER-ZPR, University of Zagreb. https://hirc.botanic.hr/fcd/DetaljiFrame.aspx?IdVrste=2908
Freitag, H., 1989. Contributions to the Chenopod flora of Egypt.Flora, 183149-173.
Freitag, H., Hedge, I.C., Jaffri, S.M.H., Kothe-Heinrich, G., Omer, S., Uotila, P., 2001. Chenopodiaceae. Flora of Pakistan, No. 204Karachi: University of Karachi and St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden. 217 pp.
Fuentes-Bazan, S., Uotila, P., Borsch, T., 2012. A novel phylogeny-based generic classification for Chenopodium sensu lato, and a tribal rearrangement of Chenopodioideae (Chenopodiaceae).Willdenowia, 42(1) 5-24.
Gabali, S.A., Al-Gifri, A.N., 1990. Flora of South Yemen- angiospermae: a provisional checklist.Feddes Repertorium, 101373-383.
Gambhir, O.P., Malik, Y.S., Pandita, M.L., 1983. Chemical weed control in seed crop of radish.Indian Journal of Weed Science, 15(1) 74-76.
GBIF, 2018. Chenopodiastrum murale.GBIF data portal. Copenhagen, Denmark: Global Biodiversity Information Facility (GBIF). https://www.gbif.org/species/3083851
Gereau, R.E., 2001. Chenopodiaceae.Flora de Nicaragua. Monographs in Systematic Botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden, 85 [ed. by Stevens, W.D., Ulloa Ulloa, C., Pool, A., Montiel, O.M.]. 603-604.
Gudžinskas, Z., 2000. Conspectus of alien plant species of Lithuania. 13. Chenopodiaceae.Botanica Lithuanica, 6(1) 3-16.
Gupta, S., Narayan, R., 2012. Phenotypic plasticity of Chenopodium murale across contrasting habitat conditions in peri-urban areas in Indian dry tropics: is it indicative of its invasiveness?Plant Ecology, 213(3) 493-503.
Habib, S.A., Rahman, A.A.A., 1988. Evaluation of some weed extracts against field dodder on alfalfa (Medicago sativa).Journal of Chemical Ecology, 14(2) 443-452.
Hand, R., Hadjikyriakou, G.N., Christodoulou, C.S., 2011. Flora of Cyprus- a dynamic checklist. http://www.flora-of-cyprus.eu/cdm_dataportal/taxon/70592e1d-1579-490b-8ea3-e256884c1f41
Hepper, F.N., 1983. The phytogeography of Mount Kulal, Kenya, with special reference to Compositae, Leguminosae and Gramineae. In: Bothalia, 14(3/4) 543-551.
Herron, J.W., 1953. Study of seed production, seed identification and seed germination of Chenopodium spp.Memoir 320. Ithaca, New York, USA: Cornell University Agricultural Experiment Station. 24 pp.
Holm, L., Doll, J., Holm, E., Pancho, J., Herberger, J., 1997. World weeds: natural histories and distribution.New York, USA: John Wiley and Sons. xv + 1129 pp.
Holm, L.G., Pancho, J.V., Herberger, J.P., Plucknett, D.L., 1991. A geographic atlas of world weeds. Malabar, Florida, USA: Krieger Publishing Company. 391 pp.
Huber, J.T., 1988. The species groups of Gonatocerus Nees in North America with a revision of the sulphuripes and ater groups (Hymenoptera: Mymaridae). In: Memoirs of the Entomological Society of Canada, (141) 109 pp.
Imada, C.T., 2012. Hawaiian native and naturalized vascular plants checklist. In: Hawaiian native and naturalized vascular plants checklist (December 2012 update). Honolulu, Hawaii, USA: Bishop Museum. 380 pp. http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/publications/pdf/tr60.pdf
Instituto de Botánica Darwinion, 2018. Chenopodiastrum murale.Catálogo de las plantas vasculares de la Flora del Cono Sur. http://www.darwin.edu.ar/Proyectos/FloraArgentina/DetalleEspecie.asp?forma=&variedad=&subespecie=&especie=murale&genero=Chenopodiastrum&espcod=193534
Iqbal, J., Shah, S.M.L., Ramzan, M., Shafi, M., 1990. Chemical weed control in onion (Allium cepa).Journal of Agricultural Research (Lahore), 28(1) 23-28.
Ivens, G.W., 1967. East African weeds and their control.Nairobi, Kenya: Oxford University Press. xiv + 244 pp.
Jansen, P.C.M., 2004. Chenopodium album.Plant resources of tropical Africa, No. 2: vegetables, [ed. by Grubben, G.J.H., Denton, O.A.]. Wageningen, Netherlands: PROTA Foundation/Backhuys Publishers/CTA. 178-180.
Jaramillo Díaz, P., Guézou, A., Mauchamp, A., Tye, A., 2018. CDF checklist of Galapagos flowering plants.Charles Darwin Foundation Galapagos Species Checklist, [ed. by Bungartz, F., Herrera, H., Jaramillo, P., Tirado, N., Jiménez-Uzcátegui, G., Ruiz, D., Guézou, A., Ziemmeck, F.]. Puerto Ayora, Galapagos: Darwin Foundation. https://www.darwinfoundation.org/media/pdf/checklist/2018Jan10_Jaramillo-Diaz_et_al_Galapagos_Magnoliophyta_Checklist.pdf
Jardim, R., Menezes de Sequeira, M., 2008. List of vascular plants (Pteridophyta and Spermatophyta).A list of the terrestrial fungi, flora and fauna of Madeira and Selvagens archipelagos., [ed. by Borges, P.A.V., Abreu, C., Aguiar, A.M.F., Carvalho, P., Jardim, R., Melo, I., Oliveira, P., Sérgio, C., Serrano, A.R.M., Vieira, P.]. Funchal and Angra do Heroísmo: Direcção Regional do Ambiente da Madeira and Universidade dos Açores. 181-207.
Jørgensen, P.M., León-Yánez, S., 1999. Catalogue of the vascular plants of Ecuador. Monographs in systematic botany from the Missouri botanical garden.75Missouri, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. 1-1181.
Kasera, P.K., Sen, D.N., 1992. Effect of different nitrates on seed germination of Chenopodium spp. (Linn.).Annals of Arid Zone, 31(1) 75-76.
Lazarides, M., Cowley, K., Hohnen, P., 1997. CSIRO handbook of Australian weeds.Collingwood, Vic., Australia: CSIRO Publishing. vii + 264 pp.
Linares, L., 1993. Checklist of the Gibraltar flora.Alectoris, 830-48.
Lockhart, B.E.L., Jebbour, F., Lennon, A.M., 1985. Seed transmission of squash mosaic virus in Chenopodium spp.Plant Disease, 69(11) 946-947.
Lomonosova, M.N., 2018. Records of Chenopodiaceae in Asian Russia.Turczaninowia, 21(1) 31-34. http://turczaninowia.asu.ru/article/view/3825/3002
Macháčková, I., Krekule, J., Eder, J., Seidlová, F., Strnad, M., 1993. Cytokinins in photoperiodic induction of flowering in Chenopodium species.Physiologia Plantarum, 87(2) 160-166.
Macháčková, I., Ullmann, J., Přikryl, Z., Krekule, J., Součková, D., 1985. Possible role of ethylene in the regulation of flowering in Chenopodium species.Acta Universitatis Agriculturae Brno, A (Facultas Agronomica), 33(3) 503-508.
MacKee, H.S., 1994. Catalogue des plantes introduites et cultivées en Nouvelle-Calédonie. Flore de Nouvelle-Calédonie et Dépendances.Paris, France: Muséum National d'Histoire Naturelle. 164 pp.
Madagascar Catalogue, 2018. Chenopodium murale.Catalogue of the vascular plants of Madagascar. St. Louis, USA and Antananarivo, Madagascar: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.tropicos.org/Name/7200166?projectid=17
Maire, R., 1962. Flore de L’Afrique du Nord.8Paris, France: Éditions Paul Lechevalier. 303 pp.
Makgakga, M.C., 2003. Chenopodiaceae.Plants of southern Africa: an annotated checklist. Strelitzia, 14 [ed. by Germishuizen, G., Meyer, N.L.]. Pretoria, South Africa: National Botanical Institute. 362-369.
Maliwal, P.L., Gupta, O.P., 1988. Effect of herbicides and phosphorus on nutrient uptake in fenugreek and associated weeds.Indian Journal of Weed Science, 20(3) 48-54.
Maliwal, P.L., Gupta, O.P., 1989. Study on the effect of four herbicides with and without applied phosphorus on weed control and seed yield of fenugreek (Trigonella foenum-graecum L.).Tropical Pest Management, 35(3) 307-310.
Maliwal, P.L., Jain, G.L., 1991. Efficacy of fluchloralin and methabenzthiazuron for selective weed control in potato.Indian Journal of Agronomy, 36(2) 258-260.
Mitić, N., Stanišić, M., Savić, J., Zdravković-Korać, S., Ninković, S., 2015. Chenopodium murale hairy root exudates inhibit growth and induce oxidative stress in collard greens (Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala).Botanica Serbica, 39(2) 187-195.
Mito, T., Uesugi, T., 2004. Invasive alien species in Japan: the status quo and the new regulation for prevention of their adverse effects.Global Environmental Research, 8(2) 171-193.
Mohamed, M.A.A., Mohammed, A.A., Nasur, A.A.H., 2018. A survey of the weed flora in garlic (Allium sativum L.) and onion (Allium cepa L.) in Dongola area, Northern State, Sudan.International Journal of Scientific and Technology Research, 7(3) 28-36.
Múlgara, M.E., Galarza, I., 2014. Chenopodiastrum.Catálogo de las Plantas Vasculares de Bolivia. Monographs in systematic botany from the Missouri Botanical Garden., [ed. by Jørgensen, P.M., Nee, M.H., Beck, S.G.]. St. Louis: Missouri Botanical Garden Press. 204-205. http://tropicos.org/docs/BoliviaCat/Amaranthaceae.pdf
Nielsen, R.S., 1974. Prowl: herbicide for field corn and cotton. In: Proceedings of the Western Society of Weed Science, 2766.
Nobile, R.A., Lujan, V.S., 1989. Description and illustration of the seeds of prescribed agricultural weeds in Argentina. (Descripcíon e ilustración de las semillas de las malezas declaradas plagas de la agricultura en la Argentina.) Malezas, 17(1) 63-70.
Norton, J., Majid, S.A., Allan, D., Al Safran, M., Böer, B., Richer, R., 2009. An illustrated checklist of the flora of Qatar.Gosport, UK: Browndown Publications. 96 pp.
Paul, T.K., 2012. A synopsis of the family Chenopodiaceae in India.Pleione, 6(2) 273-297.
Pavlova, L., Souckova, D., Ullmann, J., Krekule, J., 1989. The transition to reproductive phase in Chenopodium murale L, ecotype 197- early flowering long-day plant.Biologia Plantarum (Praha), 31(5) 386-391.
Pickard, J., 1984. Exotic plants on Lord Howe Island: distribution in space and time, 1853-1981.Journal of Biogeography, 11(3) 181-208.
Podlech, D., 2012. Checklist of the flowering plants of Afghanistan.Munich, Germany: Ludwig Maximilians University. 301 pp.
Porwal, M.K., Singh, M.M., 1993. Effect of nitrogen and weed management on onion (Allium cepa).Indian Journal of Agronomy, 38(1) 74-77.
Pyšek, P., Danihelka, J., Sádlo, J., Chrtek, J., Jr., Chytrý, M., Jarošík, V., Kaplan, Z., Krahulec, F., Moravcová, L., Pergl, J., Štajerová, K., Tichý, L., 2012. Catalogue of alien plants of the Czech Republic (2nd edition): checklist update, taxonomic diversity and invasion patterns.Preslia, 84(2) 155-255. http://www.ibot.cas.cz/preslia/P122Pysek.pdf
Qasem, J.R., 1990. Aqueous extract of nettle-leaved goosefoot (Chenopodium murale) on wheat and barley.Research Journal of Aleppo University, 1437-53.
Qasem, J.R., 1992. Nutrient accumulation by weeds and their associated vegetable crops.Journal of Horticultural Science, 67(2) 189-195.
Qasem, J.R., 1996. Chemical weed control in garlic (Allium sativum L.) in Jordan.Crop Protection, 1521-26.
Qasem, J.R., 1997. Competitive ability of Amaranthus retroflexus, and Chenopodium murale and its effect on tomato growth.Dirasat. Agricultural Sciences, 24(1) 96-112.
Qasem, J.R., 2002. Allelopathic effects of selected medicinal plants on Amaranthus retroflexus and Chenopodium murale.Allelopathy Journal, 10(2) 105-122.
Qasem, J.R., Abu-Blan, H.A., 1995. Antifungal activity of aqueous extracts from some common weed species.Annals of Applied Biology, 127(1) 215-219.
Ramírez-Padilla, B.R., Macías-Pinto, D.J., Varona-Balcazar, G., 2015. Annotated list of vascular plants of the dry valley of the Patía River, southwestern Colombia. (Lista comentada de plantas vasculares del valle seco del río Patía, suroccidente de Colombia.) Biota Colombiana, 16(2) 1-50.
Randhawa, K.S., Sandhu, K.S., 1981. Efficacy of different herbicides in potato in Punjab, India.Tropical Pest Management, 27(2) 277-278.
Reimann, C., Breckle, S.W., 1988. Salt secretion in some Chenopodium species.Flora, German Democratic Republic, 180(3-4) 289-296.
Reynolds, S.C.P., 2002. A catalogue of alien plants in Ireland. Occasional Papers.14Glasnevin, Ireland: National Botanic Gardens. 414 pp.
Rivas-Martinez, S., 1978. Chenopodium muralis in nitrogen-rich ecosystems. (Sobre la vegetacion nitrofila del Chenopodium muralis.) Acta Botanica Malacitana, 471-78.
Rojas-Sandoval, J., Acevedo-Rodríguez, P., 2015. Naturalization and invasion of alien plants in Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.Biological Invasions, 17(1) 149-163.
Saeed, R., Razaq, M., Hardy, I.C.W., 2015. The importance of alternative host plants as reservoirs of the cotton leaf hopper, Amrasca devastans, and its natural enemies.Journal of Pest Science, 88(3) 517-531. http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs10340-014-0638-7
Sahile, G., Tanner, D.G., Zewdie, L., 1992. A study of weed emergence patterns in the bread wheat producing agro-ecological zones of southeastern Ethiopia. In: The seventh regional wheat workshop for eastern, central and southern Africa, [ed. by Tanner, D.G., Mwangi, W.]. Mexico: CIMMYT. 503-509.
Saleem, M., Ahmed, B., Qadir, M.I., Rafiq, M., Ahmad, M., Ahmad, B., 2014. Hepatoprotective effect of Chenopodium murale in mice.Bangladesh Journal of Pharmacology, 9(1) 124-128. http://banglajol.info/index.php/BJP/article/view/17785/12810
Sánchez, J.A., Spina, M. la, Michelena, J.M., Lacasa, A., Mendoza, A.H. de, 2010. Ecology of the aphid pests of protected pepper crops and their parasitoids.Biocontrol Science and Technology, 21(2) 171-188.
Satour, M.M., El-Sherif, E.M., El-Ghareeb, L., El-Hadad, S.A., El-Wakil, H.R., 1991. Achievements of soil solarization in Egypt. In: FAO Plant Production and Protection Paper, (109) 200-212.
Schratt-Ehrendorfer, L., 2012. Occurrence of Chenopodium-taxa in Zillertal (Northern Tyrol, Austria). (Zu Vorkommen von Chenopodium-Sippen im Zillertal (Tirol, Österreich).) In: Verhandlungen der Zoologisch-Botanischen Gesellschaft in Österreich, 148/149Wien, Austria: Zoologisch-Botanische Gesellschaft in Österreich. 133-136.
Senna, L., 2015. Chenopodium murale.Lista de Espécies da Flora do Brasil. Jardim Botânico do Rio de Janeiro.http://floradobrasil.jbrj.gov.br/jabot/floradobrasil/FB25098
Sharma, M.B., 1977. Role of the common house-sparrow in the control of weeds of major crops in Meerut district.Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 47(5) 224-225.
Silva, L., Moura, M., Schaefer, H., Rumsey, F., Dias, E.F., 2010. List of vascular plants (Tracheobionta). (Lista das plantas vasculares (Tracheobionta).) A list of the terrestrial and marine biota from the Azores, [ed. by Borges, P.A.V., Costa, A., Cunha, R., Gabriel, R., Gonçalves, V., Martins, A.F., Melo, I., Parente, M., Raposeiro, P., Rodrigues, P., Santos, R.S., Silva, L., Vieira, P., Vieira, V.]. Cascais: Princípia. 117-146.
Singh, H.G., 1973. In: Final report of the PL-480 scheme. Studies on the physiology of weeds. Under grant no. FG-IN-373 (A7-CR-252) covering the period June 22, 1968 to June 21, 1973.Udaipur, India: College of Agriculture. 99 + 6 pp.
Space, J.C., Flynn, T., 2001. Report to the Kingdom of Tonga on invasive plant species of environmental concern.Honolulu, Hawaii: USDA Forest Service, Pacific Southwest Research Station, Institute of Pacific Islands Forestry. 78 pp.
Spira, T.P., Wagner, L.K., 1983. Viability of seeds up to 211 years old extracted from adobe brick buildings of California and northern Mexico.American Journal of Botany, 70(2) 303-307.
Srivastava, N., Verma, H.N., 1995. Chenopodium murale leaf extract, a potent virus inhibitor.Indian Phytopathology, 48(2) 177-179.
Standley, P.C., Steyermark, J.A., 1946. Chenopodiaceae.Flora of Guatemala, Part IV. Fieldiana., 24137-143.
Stephan, Z.A., 1988. Newly reported hosts of root-knot nematodes in Iraq.International Nematology Network Newsletter, 5(3) 36-43.
Subhan-I, F., Khan, M., 1991. Effects of Dicuran MA-60 on weed control and wheat yield in irrigated farmer's fields of Peshawar valley.Sarhad Journal of Agriculture, 7(1) 69-74.
Sukhorukov, A.P., Aellen, P., Edmonson, J.R., Townsend, C.C., 2016. Chenopodiaceae.Flora of Iraq, 5(1): Elatinaceae to Spenocleaceae, [ed. by Ghazanfar, S.A., Edmondson, J.R.]. Kew, UK: Ministry of Agriculture, Iraq and the Board of Trustees of the Royal Botanic Gardens. 164-255.
Sukhorukov, A.P., Kushunina, M., 2014. Taxonomic revision of Chenopodiaceae in Nepal.Phytotaxa, 191(1) 10-44.
Tag-El-Din, A., Ghandorah, M.O., Al-Rajhi, D., Meneesy, F., 1989. Evaluation of herbicides for weed control in irrigated wheat in Saudi Arabia.Tropical Pest Management, 35(3) 321-325.
Tomar, I.S., Singh, O.P., 1980. Note on the contribution of the Indian ring dove in the control of winter weeds of major crops in Meerut district of Uttar Pradesh.Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 50(9) 728-729.
Trabulsi, I.Y., Abul-Hayja, Z., 1982. Chemical control of weeds in transplanted tomatoes in Saudi Arabia.Crop Protection, 1(4) 465-471.
Tropicos.org, 2018. Chenopodium murale.IPCN chromosome reports. St. Louis, Missouri, USA: Missouri Botanical Garden. http://www.tropicos.org/Name/7200166?projectid=9
Tsror, L., Lebiush, S., Erlich, O., Galilov, I., Chalupowicz, L., Reuven, M., Dror, O., Manulis-Sasson, S., 2019. First report of latent infection of Malva nicaeensis caused by Pectobacterium carotovorum subsp. brasiliense in Israel.New Disease Reports, 39
Ugarte, E., Lira, F., Fuentes, N., Klotz, S., 2011. Vascular alien flora, Chile.Check List, 7(3) 365-382.
Uotila, P., 2001. Chenopodium.Flora Nordica, 2 [ed. by Jonsell, B.]. Stockholm, Sweden: Bergius Foundation, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences. 4-31.
Uotila, P., 2011. Chenopodiaceae (pro parte majore).Euro+Med plantbase-the information resource for Euro-Mediterranean plant diversity. http://ww2.bgbm.org/EuroPlusMed/PTaxonDetail.asp?UUID=3581515B-B1FB-4F11-A3A1-2104FD380D99
Uotila, P., 2017. Notes on the morphology and taxonomy of Chenopodiastrum (Chenopodiaceae/Amaranthaceae s. lato), with two new combinations, C. erosum from Australia and C. gracilispicum from China.Annales Botanici Fennici, 54(4/6) 345-352.
Uotila, P., Suominen, J., 1976. The Chenopodium species in Finland, their occurrence and means of immigration.Annales Botanici Fennici, 131-25.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. In: Scaevola coriacea (dwarf naupaka). 5-year review: summary and evaluation.USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service. 19 pp.
US Fish and Wildlife Service, 2010. In: Sesbania tomentosa (ohai). 5-year review: summary and evaluation.USA: US Fish and Wildlife Service. 24 pp.
USDA NRCS, 2018. Weeds of the US.https://plants.usda.gov/java/invasiveOne
Verma, S., Agarwal, P., 1985. Phytochemical investigation of Chenopodium album Linn. and C. murale Linn.National Academy of Sciences, Science Letters, 8(5) 137-138.
Villaseñor, J.L., Espinosa, G.F.J., 1998. Catálogo de malezas de México.Mexico: Universidad Nacional Autónoma de México. Consejo Nacional Consultivo Fitosanitario. Fondo de Cultura Económica.
Walter, H., 1981. Investigations into the nature and importance of weeds in sorghum in Yemen.Plant Protection Bulletin, Department of Plant Protection, Ministry of Agriculture, Yemen Arab Republic, 213-17.
Webb, C.J., Sykes, W.R., Garnock-Jones, P.J., 1988. Flora of New Zealand Volume IV: Naturalized Pteridophytes, Gymnosperms, Dicotyledons.Christchurch, New Zealand: Department of Scientific and Industrial Research. 1365 pp.
Wells, M.J., Balsinhas, A.A., Joffe, H., Engelbrecht, V.M., Harding, G., Stirton, C.H., 1986. A catalogue of problem plants in South Africa. Memoirs of the botanical survey of South Africa No. 53.Pretoria, South Africa: Botanical Research Institute.
Živanović, B., Mitrović, A., Pristov, J.B., Hadži-Manić, K.R., Ćulafić, L., 2010. Chenopodium murale L., a long-day plant as a model for physiological and biochemical research.Biologica Nyssana, 1(1-2) 71-75.
Abdelhakim, H., 2019. Ecological study for groups of citrus weeds in the Skikda region, Algeria.Journal of Research in Weed Science, 2(3) 216-223.
Information & Authors
Information
Published In
Copyright
Copyright © CABI. CABI is a registered EU trademark. This article is published under a Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0)
History
Published online: 26 July 2022
Language
English
Authors
Metrics & Citations
Metrics
SCITE_
Citations
Export citation
Select the format you want to export the citations of this publication.
EXPORT CITATIONSExport Citation
Citing Literature
- Slavica Ninković, Václav Motyka, Mariana Stanišić, Dijana Smailagić, Branka Živanović, Petre I. Dobrev, Nevena Banjac, Phytohormone Profiling of Malus domestica and Chenopodium murale Hairy Root Exudate: Association with Allelopathic Effects, Journal of Plant Growth Regulation, 10.1007/s00344-024-11328-5, 43, 10, (3580-3593), (2024).
View Options
View options
Login Options
Check if you access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.