1. Parasitic Plants and Agriculture
Parasitic angiosperms represent a broad group of more than 4500 species, distributed into 12 families and approximately 300 genera [1]. Regardless of the degree of parasitism, e.g., full or partial dependence on the host plant, they all share a common feature called the haustoria, the functional physiological link between hosts and parasites [2,3]. Through it, they acquire both mineral nutrients and photosynthates from their hosts, but also bi-directionally exchange signaling molecules, genetic material, and also pathogens [4].
Although overall harmful, not all parasitic plants are equally damaging to their hosts from the perspective of human activity. Most of them have a limited distribution and limited impact and are regarded as exotic, or even endangered species [5,6]. Parasitic plants are also widely employed in traditional medicine [7,8], and largely shape and contribute to the diversity in natural plant communities [7,9]. Interestingly, some can be cultivated on purpose, either as a food source [10], for medicinal purposes [11], or as a bio-restoration tool to increase species diversity [12].
On the other hand, relatively few species of parasitic plants represent some of the most damaging agricultural pests, causing USD billions of annual losses, food insecurity, and ecological threats. They largely belong to the Convolvulaceae family, genus Cuscuta, and the Orobanchaceae family, genera Striga and Orobanche. Cuscuta spp., or dodders, are approximately 200 species of stem holoparasites (e.g., non-photosynthesizing) with worldwide distribution [13]. Relatively few of them, however, are considered damaging to agricultural crops [14], among which Cuscuta campestris Yunck. is the most prominent, with a worldwide distribution. They are reported in numerous crop plants, mostly dicotyledons such as sugar beet, alfalfa, tomato, etc. [15]. Other economically important members of the genus include C. reflexa Roxb., C. monogyna Vahl, C. gronovii Willd. ex Roem. et Schult., C. chinensis Lam., and C. epithymum L. Due to their generalist nature of parasitism, i.e., infecting a wide range of host plants, the impact of Cuscuta spp. may be enormous and unpredictable. For example, C. reflexa is an emerging threat to tea, coffee, and mango production in Eastern Africa [16], C. campestris is a well-known pest on sugar beet in many European countries [17], and C. gronovii is damaging cranberry production in North America [18]. Yield losses may reach 50–70% of the expected [19,20], and the quality of the yield may be also negatively affected [21].
Family Orobanchaceae consists of over 2000 species in more than 100 genera, ranging from non-photosynthetic root holoparasites and photosynthetic root hemiparasites to the non-parasitic Lindenbergia and Rehmannia-Triaenophora clades [22]. The most damaging are members of the Striga, Orobanche, and Phelipanche genera [15]. Witchweeds (Striga spp.) are several species of root hemiparasites, among which Striga asiatica (L.) Kuntze and Striga hermonthica (Delile) Benth. pose the greatest threat, especially in Africa and Asia, where they are severely affecting cereal production. Crop loss may reach 80% yield reduction to complete loss in various staple crops, such as maize, rice, sorghum, and millet, thus representing one of the major food security threats, especially in Africa. Among the root holoparasitic broomrapes (Orobanche and Phelipanche spp.), O. crenata Forssk., O. ramosa L., and O. cernua Loefl., among others, are prominent parasites on various crop plants of the Apiaceae, Fabaceae, and Solanaceae families, causing yield losses of between 5 and 100% [23]. A special case within the broomrapes is O. cumana Wallr., an exclusive parasite on sunflower and a significant agricultural pest in Europe [24], which can also lead to a complete loss of yield. The most damaging parasitic plants are further listed in Table 1.
Table 1List of the most damaging parasitic plants and their main affected crop plants.
| Parasitic Plant Family | Common |
Latin |
Most Affected Crop Plants | References |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Convolvulaceae | Dodder | Cuscuta campestris | Legumes (Fabaceae) |
[17,25,26] |
| Orobanchaceae | Sunflower broomrape |
Orobanche cumana |
Sunflower (Helianthus annuus) |
[24] |
Apart from the well-established parasitic pests, there are also several parasites with apparent restricted influence, but which are also significant to agriculture. Alectra vogelii (Benth.), of the family Orobanchaceae, is affecting mainly legumes in Africa and may cause between 50 and 100% yield loss in crops [32]. Another relative, Rhamphicarpa fistulosa (Hochst.) Benth., is establishing itself as an increasing problem for rice production [33], causing up to 60% yield loss and annual economic losses of USD 175 million. A relatively recent report claimed that Cassytha filiformis L. (Lauraceae), convergently similar in appearance to dodders but not taxonomically related, may cause significant losses in cashew yield in Tanzania [34]. Among the stem hemiparasites in the Viscaceae and Loranthaceae families (mistletoes), there are also economically important species, accounting for serious losses in orchards, or forest plants [15]. Recent reports suggest that the problem is persistent and may be expanding [35,36] or have been underestimated previously.
Control methods on parasitic plants are often ineffective, due to several important features involved in their strategy for ecological success. First of all, the seeds of both Orobanchaceae and Cuscuta spp. are characterized by extreme persistence in soil. They are generally small, thousands are produced by a single plant, and they can stay dormant for decades and germinate only under suitable conditions [37,38,39]. In particular, the seeds of Striga spp. and Orobanche/Phelipanche spp. require the presence of specific germination stimulants, released by potential hosts, called strigolactones in order to emerge [40,41]. Strigolactones are also responsible for the host specificity in the Orobanchaceae family [42,43]. In Cuscuta spp., there are no reports on identified germination stimulants. These seed traits ensure continuous irregular germination of the seed bank over an extended time period and the emergence of the parasite only in the presence of a suitable potential host. Various approaches (Figure 1), including suicidal germination induced by synthetic strigolactone analogs applied before sowing of the crop plants [23,44], or trap crops, which induce germination of the parasite, but are resistant to it [45,46], or application of specific seed germination inhibitors [47,48], are often employed with variable success.
The next obstacle to the successful control of parasitic plants is the questionable effectiveness of common pesticides. Being plants on their own, parasitic weeds are subjected to treatment with various herbicides, which affect their respective hosts equally or even more so [14]. Therefore, there is a need for the use of herbicide-resistant crops [29,49]. Finally, complete eradication through mechanical methods is also widely applied, although labor-intensive [50]. Recently, biocontrol methods, including specific pathogens [51,52] or allelopathic interactions [53,54], are also gaining attention as perspective tools in parasitic weed control. A special case here is the identification and selective breeding of resistant host cultivars, which is also the focus of the present review.
2. Host Resistance—Molecular Mechanisms
Understanding the molecular mechanisms of host resistance is among the keys to successful cultivar selection. Recently, several review papers have summarized the advance in this research field [55,56,57,58]. The best-established mechanisms are summarized in Figure 1 and Table 2. Host resistance can be divided into pre-attachment and post-attachment [58]. Pre-attachment resistance is further defined as a decrease in parasitic plant seed germination and inhibition of functional haustorial connection, while post-attachment resistance is related to an active immune response against the parasite. The effect of host plants on parasitic plant germination is expected mostly in root parasites, dependent on the specific germination stimulants (e.g., strigolactones) to germinate and localize hosts [40] and not so much in facultative parasites, or stem parasites of the genus Cuscuta, for which no such stimulants were proved until now. The differences in the strigolactone synthesis, composition, and release in root exudates were proven as a key element in crop plants’ resistance to Striga [59,60,61] and Orobanche [27,28]. As far as low strigolactone production may interfere negatively with arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis, the selection of cultivars with altered composition instead may be more promising. Furthermore, the exudation of other compounds such as the coumarin scopoletin may contribute to the inhibition of germination, as shown in O. cumana-resistant sunflower genotypes [62].
Recognition of the parasitic plant by the host is of key importance for resistance. Indeed, several specific surface receptor proteins were identified in resistant hosts. One such is the CUSCUTA RECEPTOR 1 (CuRe1) in Solanum lycopersicum, found to be an essential factor, although not the single factor, responsible for host resistance against Cuscuta [63]. Lacking an intracellular kinase domain, CuRe1 is associated with at least two SOBIR1 adaptor kinases to promote its signaling. In sunflower, a putative specific receptor for O. cumana, HaOr7 was also identified and further characterized as a leucine-rich repeat receptor-like kinase [64].
Another mechanism is resistance through inhibition of tissue penetration and haustoria formation. This is mainly achieved through fortification of the cell wall in the site of infection through the deposition of callose, suberin, and lignin. Callose deposition as an effective strategy for haustoria inhibition was reported in sunflower resistance to O. cumana [65,66] and in Faba bean resistance to O. crenata [67]. Lignification of the cell wall was reported in Trifolium resistance to O. minor [68], in Heinz tomato cultivar resistance to C. campestris [69], and in rice resistance to Striga [70]. Furthermore, protein cross-linking, mediated by peroxidases, is also a contributing factor to the establishment of a physical barrier for haustoria penetration in pea resistance to O. crenata [71] and sunflower resistance to O. cumana [65]. Resistant hosts may also express specific inhibitors of haustoria formation, as shown in tomato, expressing specific cysteine protease inhibitor in response to C. campestris infection [72].
Successful parasitic plant infection can be disrupted by a hypersensitive response—necrosis of host cells in the site of infection, thus preventing the successful penetration and feeding of the parasite. The hypersensitive response is a widely reported mechanism of resistance to numerous parasitic plants. It was established in sorghum [73] and cowpea [73] genotypes, resistant to Striga, as well as in Cuscuta-resistant tomato [19,74]. However, such a mechanism was specifically excluded as the basis of resistance, as in resistance to O. crenata legumes [75]. Clearly, host resistance to both root and stem parasitic plants shares some common mechanisms, but there are also species-to-species specificities, which should be addressed case by case.
Post-haustorial resistance seems to be the most enigmatic of all. It was extensively reviewed by Yoder and Sholes [56]. Some possibilities include the accumulation of mucilage substance in the host vascular cells, thus blocking the passage of nutrients to the parasite [76], or the expression of specific toxic proteins and/or small interfering RNAs. In the sunflower–O. cumana interaction, it was proposed that an increase in phenolic compounds may contribute to post-haustorial resistance [77].
Overall, it should be noted that all these resistance factors are not always all-or-nothing. The response in susceptible host genotypes might be similar to tolerant ones, but not at the level needed for resistance. For example, rice varieties resistant to Striga hermonthica do release various strigolactones in root exudates, although in a drastically lower amount than susceptible genotypes [78]. Similarly, strigolactones and scopoletin, found to be involved in sunflower resistance to O. cumana, were found to be in higher concentrations in resistant genotypes but were still found in susceptible genotypes [62]. On the other hand, the development of a successful barrier for haustoria formation seems to be a unique feature of resistant genotypes, as shown in C. campestris-resistant Heinz tomato cultivar [69], guided by lignification and O. crenata-resistant pea cultivars [71], guided by callose accumulation. In all cases, there is a strong genetic basis of resistance [69,78], which can be further used in the selection of parasitic plant-resistant cultivars.
3. Cross-Resistance to Parasitic Plants and Other Stresses
It is a well-established fact that plants often display cross-resistance to multiple stresses. This is defined by the common mechanisms of stress response such as universal plant stress hormones, most notably abscisic acid (ABA), salicylic acid (SA), and jasmonic acid (JA) [79], and common antioxidative mechanisms [80], etc. Therefore, tolerance to multiple stresses, whether abiotic, biotic, or a combination of both, is not uncommon in the plant kingdom [81,82]. Although peculiar in its nature due to the close phylogenetic relation between host plants and parasitic plants, plant parasitism is a biotic stress. As such, the response of the host might share similar mechanisms with the response to other biotic stresses, such as insect herbivores and other pathogens [83], as well as abiotic stresses [84].
Therefore, it is tempting to think that the selection of resistant cultivars against one stress factor would offer a multi-resistant cultivar suitable for cultivation under multiple environmental challenges. To name a few examples, the rice cultivar Nipponbare, exemplary for its post-attachment resistance to Striga hermonthica [31], was also shown to be resistant against Schizotetranychus oryzae (Acari: Tetranychidae) [85], but is salt sensitive [86]. Especially relevant to food securities are several drought-tolerant and Striga-resistant maize [87] and cowpea [88] cultivars. In light of climate change, the development of such genotypes with multiple tolerance is extremely important in developing countries. Unfortunately, this is not always the case. For instance, the Faba bean (Vicia faba L.) cultivars Misr-1 and Misr-3 showed good resistance to Orobanche crenata [89], but high susceptibility to Fusarium wilt [90]. In the same crop plant, a certain correlation between salinity tolerance and resistance to Orobanche was reported [91]. In certain cases, however, the parasitism may inhibit the response of the host to other biotic stresses, such as herbivores, for example [92]. Several studies suggest that different biotic and abiotic stresses may induce differential expression of responsive genes, as shown in sunflower [93,94]. The MYB superfamily showed different expression pattern in response to salinity, drought, and Orobanche cumana infection [93]. Unlike it, at least one bHLH gene was shown to be similarly affected by drought, cadmium stress, and Orobanche [94]. Furthermore, studies in Vicia faba suggest the possibility that identification of QTLs, common for Orobanche crenata and blight (Ascochyta fabae) resistance, is not impossible [95].
At least three common mechanisms could be expected for resistance to both parasitic plants and other stresses. In terms of hormonal control, the SA and JA pathways are good candidates for cross-resistance. They are shown as important regulators of plant response to multiple biotic and abiotic stresses [83,96]. In respect to responses to parasitic plants, they were both shown to be induced in tomato by C. pentagona parasitism [97], while in Trifolium pratense resistance to Orobanche minor, the SA pathway is dominant over the JA pathway [68]. In the plant-to-plant interaction site, the hypersensitive response (HR) of the host, resulting in programmed death of certain cells, was shown as a key mechanism for the prevention of functional haustoria formation in Sorghum-Striga [73] and tomato-Cuscuta [13] host–parasite pairs. This is also a common response to multiple plant pathogens [98], suggesting that cross-resistance might be expected. Finally, the decrease in plant cell wall permeability through lignification is also a key mechanism of multiple resistance. Along with HR, it is an almost universal mechanism against parasitic plant infestation, as well as one of the best-established resistance mechanisms against multiple pathogens [99]. However, the identification, selection, and development of multi-stress-tolerant crop plant varieties seem to be understudied and more data need to be accumulated in the near future in order to address the increasing need in agricultural practice.
What is missing here is a systemic approach of studying the response of a single host to two different (root and stem) parasitic plants. The existing scientific literature is not abundant in such reports [100] and there seems to be a clear differentiation between Orobanchaceae and Cuscuta spp.-affected crop plants. However, the possibility that a single host could be infected by both root and stem parasites simultaneously, and most importantly, that the resistance to one of them would confer resistance to the other, could be of special interest. One such potential model host would be Solanum lycopersicum, which has already been discussed as a model for resistance to Cuscuta, and is also a common host for several Orobanche species. There are numerous studies on tomato resistance to Orobanche, and strigolactone-deficiency-related resistance to broomrapes [27] was not correlated with dodder resistance. There are also reports on lignin-based resistance to Orobanche [101]. However, it will be intriguing, from an evolutionary aspect, to test whether at least some of the resistance traits to one parasitic plant confer resistance to another.
Another aspect of the multi-stress environment is the often unpredictable interaction between different stresses, or more specifically, the influence of a second stress factor on the host resistance. For example, it was reported, that the ability of an O. cumana-resistant genotype to effectively eliminate the infection of the parasite is temperature-dependent and diminishes under lower temperatures [102]. In C. campestris, when the host plant is subjected to salinity, the success of the parasite may be significantly affected, either positively or negatively [103]. The Cuscuta infection itself may decrease the successful response to herbivores; still, it is not sure whether the vice versa is also true [92]. The parasitic plant-resistant genotypes are supposed to be also highly productive and adapted to the specific environment, but this does not necessarily mean they will perform equally well in a changing environment.
4. Selection of Resistant Cultivars
So far, the identification and selection of resistant cultivars of susceptible crop plants appears to be an important strategy by which to decrease the negative impact of parasitic plants on agriculture. In recent years, there have been reports from multiple studies predominantly on crop plants affected by either the root parasites Striga spp. and Orobanche/Phelipanche spp., or stem parasites Cuscuta spp. The most basic approach consists of the large screening of multiple varieties relying on natural resistance. Although a relatively simple approach, it is also laborious, requires large facilities, and there is a high probability of limited success.
Screening for resistance against dodders was conducted in several crop plants with limited success. A single genotype was found to be resistant to Cuscuta campestris in a large-scale greenhouse study of 135 accessions of Vicia sativa L. and 154 accessions of Vicia ervilia (L.) Willd. [26]. In chickpea (Cicer arietinum L.), two C. campestris-resistant genotypes were established within a collection of 52 genotypes [25]. In carrot resistance to C. gronovii some tolerance was observed in four out of ten commercial genotypes [104]. However, this was reported as a lower decrease in biomass of the host, rather than a lack of development of the parasite. Tomato is probably the only crop plant in which Cuscuta-resistant cultivars are not an exception [19,69]. Apparently, the success of such an approach is highly limited in dodders, probably because of the broad host range of these parasites, suggesting little to no specialization in respect to the host species [105]. Conversely, there are relatively many cultivars resistant to root parasites, both in sunflower against O. cumana [65,77] and Striga-resistant cereals [78,88]. This is either because of the more extensive research, the more extensive introduction of resistant varieties in agricultural practice, or because of the higher host specialization of root parasites. However, both Orobanche and Striga tend to overcome resistance by adapting themselves to resistant hosts in the widely accepted term of gene-to-gene “arms race” [106,107].
A much more sophisticated and effective approach is to map resistance-responsible quantitative trait loci (QTLs) and employ them in marker-assisted selection (MAS). This is neither a new nor a complicated approach, but it gives relatively good results, as reported for Striga-resistant sorghum [30], maize [108], and O. cumana-resistant sunflower [109]. Furthermore, wild relatives of crop plants are often screened for resistance and resistance-defining genes with putative application in development of parasite-resistant hybrids [110,111,112] and such approaches are getting more and more efficient with the development of high-throughput analytical technologies. Overall, this topic is extremely wide and extensively studied, especially in crop plants susceptible to root parasitic plants. Just like multiple stress tolerance, however, an important issue here is to combine parasitic-resistant traits with other beneficial features, such as high yield, which is addressed in several studies [111,113].
5. Host Adaptation to Parasitic Plants—Transgenerational Acquired Resistance?
In respect to stress response, plants are known to respond better when challenged for the second time with the same stressor. For example, seed priming with an abiotic stressor is known to improve germination and performance under salinity [114]. On an individual plant level, exposure to a certain pathogen locally leads to a better response to the same pathogen in distant tissue, or during a next infection. This mechanism is known as systemic acquired resistance (SAR) [115]. Systemic acquired resistance is guided by activation of stress-responsive genes and accumulation of pathogenesis-related proteins. It is among the most important components of plant immunity. In terms of plant–pathogen relationships, the term plant immunity is widespread and often used to describe molecular events resulting from infection. These events cover well-known small interfering RNAs [116], pathogen-associated molecular patterns (PAMP)-induced immunity [117] and SAR [118]. It has been suggested that many of these mechanisms are regulated by epigenetic control [119,120]. There is also evidence for transgenerational resistance to various environmental stressors as a result of epigenetic control [121,122,123]. The progeny of plants subjected to a certain type of stress may show a more effective response to the same stress, which is associated with a massive change in the DNA methylation profile and histone modifications (also termed “stress memory” [124]).
An important question here is whether plants are able to be primed to parasitic plant infections and develop at least partial resistance. It is now well established that genotypic resistance to parasitic plants is genetically determined and inherited [69,78,87]. However, little is known about how these resistant genotypes evolved. In most plants, wild varieties and/or relatives are an established source of genes, involved in parasitic plants resistance as in sunflower [110], maize [125], sorghum [111], and tomato [69]. Therefore, it must be expected that the cultivated varieties have lost this specific trait during the selection process. On the other hand, transgenerational SAR against various pathogens has been reported on numerous occasions [126,127]. If crop plants are continuously challenged by a parasitic plant, this may lead to selective survival of genetic variants with partial resistance, but it could also lead to better performance of the progeny due to epigenetic inheritance. There is still much to be done in this respect. Specific responses to parasitic plants should be studied in the progeny of crop plants continuously subjected to plant parasitism. The pattern of DNA methylation, as well as histone modification, should be compared to transcriptomics analyses in order to establish whether specific genes are differentially regulated under continuous parasitic pressure.
6. Conclusions
Parasitic plants, or at least some of them, are among the most damaging pests in agriculture. Accordingly, the application of efficient approaches for control and management is of crucial importance to ensure food security in the light of increasing human population and climate change. Selection of resistant genotypes is an effective, yet not fully exploited, strategy to combat these agricultural pests. Although new data on the genetic and molecular basis of host resistance are accumulating at a significant pace, there are still many knowledge gaps to be filled. Most of the molecular players in host response and resistance to parasitic plants are still unknown. Different host plants display different strategies to combat different parasitic plants, but there are common patterns of response which may be also the key to selecting crop cultivars with multiple stress resistance. There is still also much to be done in terms of understanding the still ongoing co-evolution of parasites and hosts, in order to develop sustainably resistant varieties.
7. Future Perspectives
In light of the current knowledge of host resistance to parasitic plants, there are several important questions which must be addressed in future research. First of all, there is a need to define which parasitic plants are established or potential pests and which are important components of biodiversity and natural plant communities. In terms of molecular mechanisms of host resistance, there is still much to be done. However, one underestimated aspect is the cross-resistance/tolerance to multiple stresses, as well as the interaction between them. Finally, the epigenetic regulation of host response and resistance to parasitic plants is a surprisingly understudied area of research. There is also a need to establish a globally accessible collection of parasitic plant genotypes, available to the scientific community, in terms of biodiversity conservation, but most importantly, to facilitate research on host resistance. Especially in Striga and Orobanche spp., known with their genetic variability, related to significant differences in virulence, it is extremely important to provide the scientific community with the broadest possible parasitic genotypes in order to successfully select for resistant cultivars.
L.I.Z. and V.V.A. conceptualized the manuscript. All authors contributed equally to the writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Not applicable.
Not applicable.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
Footnotes
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.
Enlarge this image.Figure 1. Summary of the most widely applied methods of control and host resistance mechanisms to parasitic plants as dependent on the developmental stages.
Overview of the established host plant resistance mechanisms.
| Trait | Effect on Parasitic Plants | Affected Parasitic Plants |
|---|---|---|
| Altered concentration/composition of strigolactones | Reduced seed germination | Root parasitic plants |
| Fortification of cell walls by deposition of polymeric substances |
Inhibition of tissue penetration |
Root and stem parasitic plants |
| Release of specific compounds | Reduced seed germination/inhibition of haustoria formation/inhibition of further development of the parasite | Root and stem parasitic plants, specific to particular species |
References
1. Nickrent, D.L. Parasitic angiosperms: How often and how many?. Taxon; 2020; 69, pp. 5-27. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tax.12195]
2. Yoshida, S.; Cui, S.; Ichihashi, Y.; Shirasu, K. The haustorium, a specialized invasive organ in parasitic plants. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol.; 2016; 67, pp. 643-667. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-arplant-043015-111702] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27128469]
3. Kokla, A.; Melnyk, C.W. Developing a thief: Haustoria formation in parasitic plants. Dev. Biol.; 2018; 442, pp. 53-59. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ydbio.2018.06.013] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29935146]
4. Kim, G.; Westwood, J.H. Macromolecule exchange in Cuscuta–host plant interactions. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.; 2015; 26, pp. 20-25. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2015.05.012] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26051214]
5. Sharma, S.K.; Patil, A.; Agnihotri, A.K.; Mehrotra, S. In vitro conservation of Alectra chitrakutensis: A critically endangered root parasitic plant of high medicinal importance. Acta Physiol. Plant.; 2018; 40, pp. 1-10. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11738-018-2606-y]
6. Piwowarczyk, R. Seed productivity in relation to other shoot features for endangered parasitic plant Orobanche picridis FW Schultz (Orobanchaceae). Pol. J. Ecol.; 2013; 61, pp. 55-64.
7. Těšitel, J.; Li, A.-R.; Knotková, K.; McLellan, R.; Bandaranayake, P.C.; Watson, D.M. The bright side of parasitic plants: What are they good for?. Plant Physiol.; 2021; 185, pp. 1309-1324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiaa069]
8. Kwanda, N.; Noikotr, K.; Sudmoon, R.; Tanee, T.; Chaveerach, A. Medicinal parasitic plants on diverse hosts with their usages and barcodes. J. Nat. Med.; 2013; 67, pp. 438-445. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11418-012-0695-2]
9. Press, M.C.; Phoenix, G.K. Impacts of parasitic plants on natural communities. New Phytol.; 2005; 166, pp. 737-751. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2005.01358.x]
10. Pignone, D.; Hammer, K. Parasitic angiosperms as cultivated plants?. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol.; 2016; 63, pp. 1273-1284. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10722-016-0416-x]
11. Wang, Y.; Zhang, L.; Du, Z.; Pei, J.; Huang, L. Chemical diversity and prediction of potential cultivation areas of Cistanche herbs. Sci. Rep.; 2019; 9, pp. 1-13. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41598-019-56379-x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31875048]
12. Bullock, J.M.; Pywell, R.F. Rhinanthus: A tool for restoring diverse grassland?. Folia Geobot.; 2005; 40, pp. 273-288. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/BF02803240]
13. Kaiser, B.; Vogg, G.; Fürst, U.B.; Albert, M. Parasitic plants of the genus Cuscuta and their interaction with susceptible and resistant host plants. Front. Plant Sci.; 2015; 6, 45. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2015.00045] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25699071]
14. Lanini, W.; Kogan, M. Biology and management of Cuscuta in crops. Int. J. Agric. Nat. Resour.; 2005; 32, pp. 127-141. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.7764/rcia.v32i3.317]
15. Parker, C. Parasitic weeds: A world challenge. Weed Sci.; 2012; 60, pp. 269-276. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WS-D-11-00068.1]
16. Masanga, J.; Mwangi, B.N.; Kibet, W.; Sagero, P.; Wamalwa, M.; Oduor, R.; Ngugi, M.; Alakonya, A.; Ojola, P.; Bellis, E.S. Physiological and ecological warnings that dodders pose an exigent threat to farmlands in Eastern Africa. Plant Physiol.; 2021; 185, pp. 1457-1467. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab034]
17. Saric-Krsmanovic, M.; Bozic, D.; Radivojevic, L.; Gajic Umiljendic, J.; Vrbnicanin, S. Response of alfalfa and sugar beet to field dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yunck.) parasitism: A physiological and anatomical approach. Can. J. Plant Sci.; 2018; 99, pp. 199-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1139/cjps-2018-0050]
18. Sandler, H.A. Managing Cuscuta gronovii (swamp dodder) in cranberry requires an integrated approach. Sustainability; 2010; 2, pp. 660-683. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/su2020660]
19. Goldwasser, Y.; Lanini, W.T.; Wrobel, R.L. Tolerance of tomato varieties to lespedeza dodder. Weed Sci.; 2001; 49, pp. 520-523. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1614/0043-1745(2001)049[0520:TOTVTL]2.0.CO;2]
20. Marambe, B.; Wijesundara, S.; Tennakoon, K.; Pindeniya, D.; Jayasinghe, C. Growth and development of Cuscuta chinensis Lam. and its impact on selected crops. Weed Biol. Manag.; 2002; 2, pp. 79-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1445-6664.2002.00051.x]
21. Tóth, P.; Tancik, J.J. Distribution and harmfulness of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yuncker) at sugar beet fields in Slovakia. Zb. Matice Srp. Za Prir. Nauk.; 2006; 110, pp. 179-185.
22. Albach, D.C.; Yan, K.; Jensen, S.R.; Li, H.-Q. Phylogenetic placement of Triaenophora (formerly Scrophulariaceae) with some implications for the phylogeny of Lamiales. Taxon; 2009; 58, pp. 749-756. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/tax.583005]
23. Habimana, S.; Nduwumuremyi, A.; Chinama, R.J. Management of orobanche in field crops: A review. J. Soil Sci. Plant Nutr.; 2014; 14, pp. 43-62.
24. Fernández-Martínez, J.M.; Pérez-Vich, B.; Velasco, L. Sunflower broomrape (Orobanche cumana Wallr.). Sunflower; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2015; pp. 129-155.
25. Goldwasser, Y.; Miryamchik, H.; Sibony, M.; Rubin, B. Detection of resistant chickpea (Cicer arietinum) genotypes to Cuscuta campestris (field dodder). Weed Res.; 2012; 52, pp. 122-130. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2012.00904.x]
26. Córdoba, E.M.; Fernández-Aparicio, M.; González-Verdejo, C.I.; López-Grau, C.; del Valle Muñoz-Muñoz, M.; Nadal, S. Search for resistant genotypes to Cuscuta campestris infection in two legume species, Vicia sativa and Vicia ervilia. Plants; 2021; 10, 738. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants10040738]
27. Dor, E.; Yoneyama, K.; Wininger, S.; Kapulnik, Y.; Yoneyama, K.; Koltai, H.; Xie, X.; Hershenhorn, J. Strigolactone deficiency confers resistance in tomato line SL-ORT1 to the parasitic weeds Phelipanche and Orobanche spp. Phytopathology; 2011; 101, pp. 213-222. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/PHYTO-07-10-0184] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20942651]
28. Pavan, S.; Schiavulli, A.; Marcotrigiano, A.R.; Bardaro, N.; Bracuto, V.; Ricciardi, F.; Charnikhova, T.; Lotti, C.; Bouwmeester, H.; Ricciardi, L. Characterization of low-strigolactone germplasm in pea (Pisum sativum L.) resistant to crenate broomrape (Orobanche crenata Forsk.). Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.; 2016; 29, pp. 743-749. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-07-16-0134-R]
29. De Groote, H.; Wangare, L.; Kanampiu, F.; Odendo, M.; Diallo, A.; Karaya, H.; Friesen, D. The potential of a herbicide resistant maize technology for Striga control in Africa. Agric. Syst.; 2008; 97, pp. 83-94. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2007.12.003]
30. Grenier, C.; Ibrahim, Y.; Haussmann, B.I.; Kiambi, D.; Ejeta, G. Marker-assisted selection for Striga resistance in sorghum. Integrating New Technologies for Striga Control: Towards Ending the Witch-Hunt; World Scientific: Singapore, 2007; pp. 159-171.
31. Swarbrick, P.; Huang, K.; Liu, G.; Slate, J.; Press, M.; Scholes, J. Global patterns of gene expression in rice cultivars undergoing a susceptible or resistant interaction with the parasitic plant Striga hermonthica. New Phytol.; 2008; 179, pp. 515-529. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2008.02484.x]
32. Kabambe, V.; Tembo, Y.; Kazira, E. Awareness of the parasitic weed Alectra vogelii (Benth.) amongst extension officers in three districts in Malawi. Am. J. Exp. Agric.; 2013; 3, 432. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.9734/AJEA/2013/3111]
33. Rodenburg, J.; Morawetz, J.J.; Bastiaans, L. Rhamphicarpa fistulosa, a widespread facultative hemi-parasitic weed, threatening rice production in Africa. Weed Res.; 2015; 55, pp. 118-131. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/wre.12129]
34. Kidunda, B.R.; Kasuga, L.J.; Alex, G. Assessing the existence spread and control strategies of parasitic weed (Cassytha filiformis) on cashew trees in Tanzania. J. Adv. Agric. Technol.; 2017; 4, pp. 285-289. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.18178/joaat.4.3.285-289]
35. Xiong, D.; Huang, H.; Wang, Z.; Li, Z.; Tian, C. Assessment of dwarf mistletoe (Arceuthobium sichuanense) infection in spruce trees by using hyperspectral data. For. Pathol.; 2021; 51, e12669. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/efp.12669]
36. Mudgal, G.; Kaur, J.; Chand, K.; Parashar, M.; Dhar, S.K.; Singh, G.B.; Gururani, M.A. Mitigating the Mistletoe Menace: Biotechnological and smart management approaches. Biology; 2022; 11, 1645. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/biology11111645]
37. Bebawi, F.F.; Eplee, R.E.; Harris, C.E.; Norris, R.S. Longevity of witchweed (Striga asiatica) seed. Weed Sci.; 1984; 32, pp. 494-497. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500059403]
38. López-Granados, F.; García-Torres, L. Longevity of crenate broomrape (Orobanche crenata) seed under soil and laboratory conditions. Weed Sci.; 1999; 47, pp. 161-166. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500091578]
39. Benvenuti, S.; Dinelli, G.; Bonetti, A.; Catizone, P. Germination ecology, emergence and host detection in Cuscuta campestris. Weed Res.; 2005; 45, pp. 270-278. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2005.00460.x]
40. Yoneyama, K.; Awad, A.A.; Xie, X.; Yoneyama, K.; Takeuchi, Y. Strigolactones as germination stimulants for root parasitic plants. Plant Cell Physiol.; 2010; 51, pp. 1095-1103. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/pcp/pcq055]
41. Nelson, D.C. The mechanism of host-induced germination in root parasitic plants. Plant Physiol.; 2021; 185, pp. 1353-1373. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab043]
42. Fernández-Aparicio, M.; Yoneyama, K.; Rubiales, D. The role of strigolactones in host specificity of Orobanche and Phelipanche seed germination. Seed Sci. Res.; 2011; 21, pp. 55-61. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0960258510000371]
43. Dor, E.; Plakhine, D.; Joel, D.M.; Larose, H.; Westwood, J.H.; Smirnov, E.; Ziadna, H.; Hershenhorn, J. A new race of sunflower broomrape (Orobanche cumana) with a wider host range due to changes in seed response to strigolactones. Weed Sci.; 2020; 68, pp. 134-142. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/wsc.2019.73]
44. Uraguchi, D.; Kuwata, K.; Hijikata, Y.; Yamaguchi, R.; Imaizumi, H.; Am, S.; Rakers, C.; Mori, N.; Akiyama, K.; Irle, S. A femtomolar-range suicide germination stimulant for the parasitic plant Striga hermonthica. Science; 2018; 362, pp. 1301-1305. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aau5445]
45. Lins, R.; Colquhoun, J.; Mallory-Smith, C. Investigation of wheat as a trap crop for control of Orobanche minor. Weed Res.; 2006; 46, pp. 313-318. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3180.2006.00515.x]
46. Hershenhorn, J.; Goldwasser, Y.; Plakhine, D.; Herzlinger, G.; Golan, S.; Russo, R.; Kleifeld, Y. Role of pepper (Capsicum annuum) as a trap and catch crop for control of Orobanche aegyptiaca and O. cernua. Weed Sci.; 1996; 44, pp. 948-951. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1017/S0043174500094972]
47. Zarban, R.A.; Hameed, U.F.S.; Jamil, M.; Ota, T.; Wang, J.Y.; Arold, S.T.; Asami, T.; Al-Babili, S. Rational design of Striga hermonthica-specific seed germination inhibitors. Plant Physiol.; 2022; 188, pp. 1369-1384. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiab547] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34850204]
48. Evidente, A.; Fernández-Aparicio, M.; Andolfi, A.; Rubiales, D.; Motta, A. Trigoxazonane, a monosubstituted trioxazonane from Trigonella foenum-graecum root exudate, inhibits Orobanche crenata seed germination. Phytochemistry; 2007; 68, pp. 2487-2492. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.phytochem.2007.05.016]
49. Nadler-Hassar, T.; Shaner, D.L.; Nissen, S.; Westra, P.; Rubin, B. Are herbicide-resistant crops the answer to controlling Cuscuta?. Pest Manag. Sci. Former. Pestic. Sci.; 2009; 65, pp. 811-816. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.1760]
50. Erdogan, P. Parasitic Plants in Agriculture and Management. Parasitic Plants; Gonzalez, M.A.; Sato, H.A. InTechOpen Limited: London, UK, 2022; Chapter 1 [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5772/intechopen.94795]
51. Nzioki, H.S.; Oyosi, F.; Morris, C.E.; Kaya, E.; Pilgeram, A.L.; Baker, C.S.; Sands, D.C. Striga biocontrol on a toothpick: A readily deployable and inexpensive method for smallholder farmers. Front. Plant Sci.; 2016; 7, 1121. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2016.01121] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27551284]
52. Zarafi, A.; Elzein, A.; Abdulkadir, D.; Beed, F.; Akinola, O. Host range studies of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. strigae meant for the biological control of Striga hermonthica on maize and sorghum. Arch. Phytopathol. Plant Prot.; 2015; 48, pp. 1-9. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/03235408.2014.880580]
53. Moreno-Robles, A.; Cala Peralta, A.; Zorrilla, J.G.; Soriano, G.; Masi, M.; Vilariño-Rodríguez, S.; Cimmino, A.; Fernández-Aparicio, M. Identification of structural features of hydrocinnamic acid related to its allelopathic activity against the parasitic weed Cuscuta campestris. Plants; 2022; 11, 2846. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants11212846]
54. Fernández-Aparicio, M.; Cimmino, A.; Soriano, G.; Masi, M.; Vilariño, S.; Evidente, A. Assessment of weed root extracts for allelopathic activity against Orobanche and Phelipanche species. Phytopathol. Mediterr.; 2021; 60, pp. 455-466. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.36253/phyto-12917]
55. Albert, M.; Axtell, M.J.; Timko, M.P. Mechanisms of resistance and virulence in parasitic plant–host interactions. Plant Physiol.; 2021; 185, pp. 1282-1291. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiaa064] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33793887]
56. Yoder, J.I.; Scholes, J.D. Host plant resistance to parasitic weeds; recent progress and bottlenecks. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.; 2010; 13, pp. 478-484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2010.04.011]
57. Rispail, N.; Dita, M.A.; González-Verdejo, C.; Pérez-de-Luque, A.; Castillejo, M.A.; Prats, E.; Román, B.; Jorrín, J.; Rubiales, D. Plant resistance to parasitic plants: Molecular approaches to an old foe. New Phytol.; 2007; 173, pp. 703-712. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.01980.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17286819]
58. Fishman, M.R.; Shirasu, K. How to resist parasitic plants: Pre-and post-attachment strategies. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.; 2021; 62, 102004. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2021.102004]
59. Li, C.; Dong, L.; Durairaj, J.; Guan, J.-C.; Yoshimura, M.; Quinodoz, P.; Horber, R.; Gaus, K.; Li, J.; Setotaw, Y. Maize resistance to witchweed through changes in strigolactone biosynthesis. Science; 2023; 379, pp. 94-99. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.abq4775]
60. Mohemed, N.; Charnikhova, T.; Bakker, E.J.; van Ast, A.; Babiker, A.G.; Bouwmeester, H.J. Evaluation of field resistance to Striga hermonthica (Del.) Benth. in Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench. The relationship with strigolactones. Pest Manag. Sci.; 2016; 72, pp. 2082-2090. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.4426]
61. Yoneyama, K.; Arakawa, R.; Ishimoto, K.; Kim, H.I.; Kisugi, T.; Xie, X.; Nomura, T.; Kanampiu, F.; Yokota, T.; Ezawa, T. Difference in Striga-susceptibility is reflected in strigolactone secretion profile, but not in compatibility and host preference in arbuscular mycorrhizal symbiosis in two maize cultivars. New Phytol.; 2015; 206, pp. 983-989. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.13375]
62. Rial, C.; Varela, R.M.; Molinillo, J.M.; Peralta, S.; Macías, F.A. Sunflower metabolites involved in resistance mechanisms against broomrape. Agronomy; 2021; 11, 501. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy11030501]
63. Hegenauer, V.; Fürst, U.; Kaiser, B.; Smoker, M.; Zipfel, C.; Felix, G.; Stahl, M.; Albert, M. Detection of the plant parasite Cuscuta reflexa by a tomato cell surface receptor. Science; 2016; 353, pp. 478-481. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf3919]
64. Duriez, P.; Vautrin, S.; Auriac, M.-C.; Bazerque, J.; Boniface, M.-C.; Callot, C.; Carrère, S.; Cauet, S.; Chabaud, M.; Gentou, F. A receptor-like kinase enhances sunflower resistance to Orobanche cumana. Nat. Plants; 2019; 5, pp. 1211-1215. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1038/s41477-019-0556-z]
65. Echevarría-Zomeño, S.; Pérez-de-Luque, A.; Jorrín, J.; Maldonado, A.M. Pre-haustorial resistance to broomrape (Orobanche cumana) in sunflower (Helianthus annuus): Cytochemical studies. J. Exp. Bot.; 2006; 57, pp. 4189-4200. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erl195]
66. Letousey, P.; De Zélicourt, A.; Vieira Dos Santos, C.; Thoiron, S.; Monteau, F.; Simier, P.; Thalouarn, P.; Delavault, P. Molecular analysis of resistance mechanisms to Orobanche cumana in sunflower. Plant Pathol.; 2007; 56, pp. 536-546. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2007.01575.x]
67. Pérez-de-Luque, A.; Lozano, M.D.; Moreno, M.; Testillano, P.; Rubiales, D. Resistance to broomrape (Orobanche crenata) in faba bean (Vicia faba): Cell wall changes associated with prehaustorial defensive mechanisms. Ann. Appl. Biol.; 2007; 151, pp. 89-98. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1744-7348.2007.00164.x]
68. Kusumoto, D.; Goldwasser, Y.; Xie, X.; Yoneyama, K.; Takeuchi, Y.; Yoneyama, K. Resistance of red clover (Trifolium pratense) to the root parasitic plant Orobanche minor is activated by salicylate but not by jasmonate. Ann. Bot.; 2007; 100, pp. 537-544. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mcm148] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17660517]
69. Jhu, M.-Y.; Farhi, M.; Wang, L.; Philbrook, R.N.; Belcher, M.S.; Nakayama, H.; Zumstein, K.S.; Rowland, S.D.; Ron, M.; Shih, P.M. Heinz-resistant tomato cultivars exhibit a lignin-based resistance to field dodder (Cuscuta campestris) parasitism. Plant Physiol.; 2022; 189, pp. 129-151. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/plphys/kiac024] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/35099559]
70. Samejima, H.; Sugimoto, Y. Phenotypic diversity in pre-and post-attachment resistance to Striga hermonthica in a core collection of rice germplasms. Plants; 2023; 12, 19. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants12010019] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/36616148]
71. Pérez-de-Luque, A.; González-Verdejo, C.I.; Lozano, M.D.; Dita, M.A.; Cubero, J.I.; González-Melendi, P.; Risueño, M.C.; Rubiales, D. Protein cross-linking, peroxidase and β-1, 3-endoglucanase involved in resistance of pea against Orobanche crenata. J. Exp. Bot.; 2006; 57, pp. 1461-1469. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erj127] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16556627]
72. Amini, M.; Saify Nabiabad, H.; Deljou, A. Host-synthesized cysteine protease-specific inhibitor disrupts Cuscuta campestris parasitism in tomato. Plant Biotechnol. Rep.; 2017; 11, pp. 289-298. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11816-017-0451-x]
73. Mohamed, A.; Ellicott, A.; Housley, T.; Ejeta, G. Hypersensitive response to Striga infection in sorghum. Crop Sci.; 2003; 43, pp. 1320-1324. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2135/cropsci2003.1320]
74. Krause, K.; Johnsen, H.R.; Pielach, A.; Lund, L.; Fischer, K.; Rose, J.K. Identification of tomato introgression lines with enhanced susceptibility or resistance to infection by parasitic giant dodder (Cuscuta reflexa). Physiol. Plant.; 2018; 162, pp. 205-218. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ppl.12660] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29080211]
75. Perez-De-Luque, A.; Rubiales, D.; Cubero, J.I.; Press, M.; Scholes, J.; Yoneyama, K.; Takeuchi, Y.; Plakhine, D.; Joel, D. Interaction between Orobanche crenata and its host legumes: Unsuccessful haustorial penetration and necrosis of the developing parasite. Ann. Bot.; 2005; 95, pp. 935-942. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/aob/mci105] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15749751]
76. Pérez-de-Luque, A.; Lozano, M.D.; Cubero, J.I.; González-Melendi, P.; Risueno, M.C.; Rubiales, D. Mucilage production during the incompatible interaction between Orobanche crenata and Vicia sativa. J. Exp. Bot.; 2006; 57, pp. 931-942. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erj078] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16473889]
77. Martín-Sanz, A.; Rueda, S.; Lobo García de Vinuesa, T.; Velasco Varo, L. Post-haustorial resistance based in an increase of phenolic compounds provides a powerful tool to control the parasitic weed broomrape in sunflower. Proceedings of the 14th World Congress on Parasitic Plants; Pacific Grove, CA, USA, 25–30 June 2017.
78. Jamil, M.; Charnikhova, T.; Houshyani, B.; van Ast, A.; Bouwmeester, H.J. Genetic variation in strigolactone production and tillering in rice and its effect on Striga hermonthica infection. Planta; 2012; 235, pp. 473-484. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00425-011-1520-y] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21947621]
79. Sonkar, S.; Sharma, L.; Singh, R.K.; Pandey, B.; Rathore, S.S.; Singh, A.K.; Porwal, P.; Singh, S.P. Plant stress hormones nanobiotechnology. Nanobiotechnology; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 349-373.
80. Mittler, R. Oxidative stress, antioxidants and stress tolerance. Trends Plant Sci.; 2002; 7, pp. 405-410. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(02)02312-9]
81. Bartels, D. Targeting detoxification pathways: An efficient approach to obtain plants with multiple stress tolerance?. Trends Plant Sci.; 2001; 6, pp. 284-286. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S1360-1385(01)01983-5]
82. Ali, S.; Ganai, B.A.; Kamili, A.N.; Bhat, A.A.; Mir, Z.A.; Bhat, J.A.; Tyagi, A.; Islam, S.T.; Mushtaq, M.; Yadav, P. Pathogenesis-related proteins and peptides as promising tools for engineering plants with multiple stress tolerance. Microbiol. Res.; 2018; 212, pp. 29-37. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.micres.2018.04.008]
83. Smith, J.L.; De Moraes, C.M.; Mescher, M.C. Jasmonate-and salicylate-mediated plant defense responses to insect herbivores, pathogens and parasitic plants. Pest Manag. Sci. Former. Pestic. Sci.; 2009; 65, pp. 497-503. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ps.1714]
84. Zagorchev, L.; Stöggl, W.; Teofanova, D.; Li, J.; Kranner, I. Plant parasites under pressure: Effects of abiotic stress on the interactions between parasitic plants and their hosts. Int. J. Mol. Sci.; 2021; 22, 7418. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/ijms22147418]
85. Buffon, G.; Blasi, É.A.d.R.; Lamb, T.I.; Adamski, J.M.; Schwambach, J.; Ricachenevsky, F.K.; Bertolazi, A.; Silveira, V.; Lopes, M.C.B.; Sperotto, R.A. Oryza sativa cv. Nipponbare and Oryza barthii as unexpected tolerance and susceptibility sources against Schizotetranychus oryzae (Acari: Tetranychidae) mite infestation. Front. Plant Sci.; 2021; 12, 613568. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.613568]
86. Chang, J.; Cheong, B.E.; Natera, S.; Roessner, U. Morphological and metabolic responses to salt stress of rice (Oryza sativa L.) cultivars which differ in salinity tolerance. Plant Physiol. Biochem.; 2019; 144, pp. 427-435. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.plaphy.2019.10.017] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31639558]
87. Kamara, A.Y.; Ewansiha, S.U.; Tofa, A.I. Yield, N uptake and N utilization of early maturing, drought and striga-tolerant maize varieties under low N conditions. Commun. Soil Sci. Plant Anal.; 2019; 50, pp. 373-387. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00103624.2018.1563095]
88. Ishiyaku, M.; Aliyu, H. Field evaluation of cowpea genotypes for drought tolerance and Striga resistance in the dry savanna of the North-West Nigeria. Int. J. Plant Breed. Genet.; 2013; 7, pp. 47-56. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3923/ijpbg.2013.47.56]
89. Briache, F.Z.; Ennami, M.; Mbasani-Mansi, J.; Gaboun, F.; Abdelwahd, R.; Fatemi, Z.E.A.; El-Rodeny, W.; Amri, M.; Triqui, Z.E.A.; Mentag, R. Field and controlled conditions screenings of some faba bean (Vicia faba L.) genotypes for resistance to the parasitic plant Orobanche crenata Forsk. and investigation of involved resistance mechanisms. J. Plant Dis. Prot.; 2019; 126, pp. 211-224. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s41348-019-00207-x]
90. Mahmoud, A.F.; Abd El-Fatah, B.E. Genetic diversity studies and identification of molecular and biochemical markers associated with fusarium wilt resistance in cultivated faba bean (Vicia faba). Plant Pathol. J.; 2020; 36, 11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5423/PPJ.OA.04.2019.0119]
91. Salem, S.; EI-Shihy, O.; Ghallab, A. Studies on the correlation between resistance against Orobanche and the tolerance to salinity in some Vicia faba cultivars. J. Plant Prod.; 2002; 27, pp. 4643-4669.
92. Runyon, J.B.; Mescher, M.C.; De Moraes, C.M. Parasitism by Cuscuta pentagona attenuates host plant defenses against insect herbivores. Plant Physiol.; 2008; 146, pp. 987-995. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.107.112219]
93. Li, J.; Liu, H.; Yang, C.; Wang, J.; Yan, G.; Si, P.; Bai, Q.; Lu, Z.; Zhou, W.; Xu, L. Genome-wide identification of MYB genes and expression analysis under different biotic and abiotic stresses in Helianthus annuus L. Ind. Crops Prod.; 2020; 143, 111924. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.111924]
94. Li, J.; Li, X.; Han, P.; Liu, H.; Gong, J.; Zhou, W.; Shi, B.; Liu, A.; Xu, L. Genome-wide investigation of bHLH genes and expression analysis under different biotic and abiotic stresses in Helianthus annuus L. Int. J. Biol. Macromol.; 2021; 189, pp. 72-83. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijbiomac.2021.08.072]
95. Gutierrez, N.; Torres, A.M. QTL dissection and mining of candidate genes for Ascochyta fabae and Orobanche crenata resistance in faba bean (Vicia faba L.). BMC Plant Biol.; 2021; 21, pp. 1-12. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12870-021-03335-5]
96. Nguyen, D.; Rieu, I.; Mariani, C.; van Dam, N.M. How plants handle multiple stresses: Hormonal interactions underlying responses to abiotic stress and insect herbivory. Plant Mol. Biol.; 2016; 91, pp. 727-740. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11103-016-0481-8] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27095445]
97. Runyon, J.B.; Mescher, M.C.; Felton, G.W.; De Moraes, C.M. Parasitism by Cuscuta pentagona sequentially induces JA and SA defence pathways in tomato. Plant Cell Environ.; 2010; 33, pp. 290-303. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3040.2009.02082.x]
98. Runyon, J.B.; Mescher, M.C.; De Moraes, C.M. Plant defenses against parasitic plants show similarities to those induced by herbivores and pathogens. Plant Signal. Behav.; 2010; 5, pp. 929-931. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4161/psb.5.8.11772]
99. Lee, M.H.; Jeon, H.S.; Kim, S.H.; Chung, J.H.; Roppolo, D.; Lee, H.J.; Cho, H.J.; Tobimatsu, Y.; Ralph, J.; Park, O.K. Lignin-based barrier restricts pathogens to the infection site and confers resistance in plants. EMBO J.; 2019; 38, e101948. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.15252/embj.2019101948]
100. Setty-Mattoo, P.R.; Mattoo, R.L. Studies on sequential parasitism by Orobanche and Cuscuta on Petunia hybrida: Choline kinase and phospholipid. Plant Physiol.; 1977; 59, pp. 30-32. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1104/pp.59.1.30] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16659782]
101. Avdeyev, Y.; Scherbinin, B.; Ivanova, L.; Avdeyev, A. Studying of tomato resistance to broomrape and breeding varieties for processing. In Proceedings of the VIII International Symposium on the Processing Tomato, Istanbul, Turkey. ISHS Acta Hortic.; 2002; 613, pp. 283-290.
102. Eizenberg, H.; Plakhine, D.; Hershenhorn, J.; Kleifeld, Y.; Rubin, B. Resistance to broomrape (Orobanche spp.) in sunflower (Helianthus annuus L.) is temperature dependent. J. Exp. Bot.; 2003; 54, pp. 1305-1311. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1093/jxb/erg129]
103. Zagorchev, L.I.; Petrova, V.P.; Albanova, I.; Georgieva, K.P.; Sarić-Krsmanović, M.; Muscolo, A.; Teofanova, D.R. Salinity modulates crop plants suitability as hosts for Cuscuta campestris parasitism. J. Saudi Soc. Agric. Sci.; 2022; 21, pp. 324-330. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jssas.2021.10.008]
104. Konieczka, C.M.; Colquhoun, J.B.; Rittmeyer, R.A. Swamp dodder (Cuscuta gronovii) applied ecology in carrot production. Weed Technol.; 2009; 23, pp. 175-178. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1614/WT-08-130.1]
105. Barath, K.; Csiky, J. Host range and host choice of Cuscuta species in Hungary. Acta Bot. Croat.; 2012; 71, pp. 215-227. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.2478/v10184-012-0002-z]
106. Sisou, D.; Tadmor, Y.; Plakhine, D.; Ziadna, H.; Hübner, S.; Eizenberg, H. Biological and transcriptomic characterization of pre-haustorial resistance to sunflower broomrape (Orobanche cumana W.) in sunflowers (Helianthus annuus). Plants; 2021; 10, 1810. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/plants10091810]
107. Su, C.; Liu, H.; Wafula, E.K.; Honaas, L.; de Pamphilis, C.W.; Timko, M.P. SHR4z, a novel decoy effector from the haustorium of the parasitic weed Striga gesnerioides, suppresses host plant immunity. New Phytol.; 2020; 226, pp. 891-908. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/nph.16351] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31788811]
108. Badu-Apraku, B.; Adewale, S.; Paterne, A.; Gedil, M.; Asiedu, R. Identification of QTLs controlling resistance/tolerance to Striga hermonthica in an extra-early maturing yellow maize population. Agronomy; 2020; 10, 1168. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/agronomy10081168]
109. Pérez-Vich, B.; Akhtouch, B.; Knapp, S.; Leon, A.; Velasco, L.; Fernández-Martínez, J.; Berry, S. Quantitative trait loci for broomrape (Orobanche cumana Wallr.) resistance in sunflower. Theor. Appl. Genet.; 2004; 109, pp. 92-102. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s00122-004-1599-7]
110. Cvejić, S.; Radanović, A.; Dedić, B.; Jocković, M.; Jocić, S.; Miladinović, D. Genetic and genomic tools in sunflower breeding for broomrape resistance. Genes; 2020; 11, 152. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/genes11020152]
111. Ngugi, K.; Muchira, N.; Ochieng, G.; Odeny, D.; Manyasa, E. Genotypic yield stability of wild and landrace sorghum species under drought stress and Striga infestation. J. Agric. Sci.; 2022; 14, pp. 1-16. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.5539/jas.v14n12p37]
112. Rubiales, D. Parasitic plants, wild relatives and the nature of resistance. New Phytol.; 2003; 160, pp. 459-461. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1469-8137.2003.00929.x] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33873650]
113. Badu-Apraku, B.; Adewale, S.; Paterne, A.A.; Gedil, M.; Toyinbo, J.; Asiedu, R. Identification of QTLs for grain yield and other traits in tropical maize under Striga infestation. PLoS ONE; 2020; 15, e0239205. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0239205]
114. Ibrahim, E.A. Seed priming to alleviate salinity stress in germinating seeds. J. Plant Physiol.; 2016; 192, pp. 38-46. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jplph.2015.12.011]
115. Durrant, W.E.; Dong, X. Systemic acquired resistance. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.; 2004; 42, pp. 185-209. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.phyto.42.040803.140421]
116. Mlotshwa, S.; Pruss, G.J.; Vance, V. Small RNAs in viral infection and host defense. Trends Plant Sci.; 2008; 13, pp. 375-382. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2008.04.009] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18550416]
117. Schwessinger, B.; Zipfel, C. News from the frontline: Recent insights into PAMP-triggered immunity in plants. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol.; 2008; 11, pp. 389-395. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.pbi.2008.06.001]
118. Klessig, D.F.; Choi, H.W.; Dempsey, D.M.A. Systemic acquired resistance and salicylic acid: Past, present, and future. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact.; 2018; 31, pp. 871-888. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1094/MPMI-03-18-0067-CR] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29781762]
119. Ramirez-Prado, J.S.; Abulfaraj, A.A.; Rayapuram, N.; Benhamed, M.; Hirt, H. Plant immunity: From signaling to epigenetic control of defense. Trends Plant Sci.; 2018; 23, pp. 833-844. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tplants.2018.06.004]
120. Deleris, A.; Halter, T.; Navarro, L. DNA methylation and demethylation in plant immunity. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol; 2016; 54, pp. 579-603. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev-phyto-080615-100308]
121. Rasmann, S.; De Vos, M.; Jander, G. Ecological role of transgenerational resistance against biotic threats. Plant Signal. Behav.; 2012; 7, pp. 447-449. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.4161/psb.19525]
122. Holeski, L.M.; Jander, G.; Agrawal, A.A. Transgenerational defense induction and epigenetic inheritance in plants. Trends Ecol. Evol.; 2012; 27, pp. 618-626. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.tree.2012.07.011] [PubMed: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22940222]
123. López Sánchez, A.; Pascual-Pardo, D.; Furci, L.; Roberts, M.R.; Ton, J. Costs and benefits of transgenerational induced resistance in Arabidopsis. Front. Plant Sci.; 2021; 12, 644999. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fpls.2021.644999]
124. Lämke, J.; Bäurle, I. Epigenetic and chromatin-based mechanisms in environmental stress adaptation and stress memory in plants. Genome Biol.; 2017; 18, pp. 1-11. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13059-017-1263-6]
125. Yacoubou, A.M.; Zoumarou Wallis, N.; Menkir, A.; Zinsou, V.A.; Onzo, A.; Garcia-Oliveira, A.L.; Meseka, S.; Wende, M.; Gedil, M.; Agre, P. Breeding maize (Zea mays) for Striga resistance: Past, current and prospects in Sub-Saharan Africa. Plant Breed.; 2021; 140, pp. 195-210. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/pbr.12896]
126. Vivas, M.; Hernández, J.; Corcobado, T.; Cubera, E.; Solla, A. Transgenerational induction of resistance to Phytophthora cinnamomi in Holm Oak. Forests; 2021; 12, 100. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.3390/f12010100]
127. Joseph, J.T.; Shah, J.M. Biotic stress-induced epigenetic changes and transgenerational memory in plants. Biologia; 2022; 77, pp. 2007-2021. [DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11756-022-01053-3]
© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). Notwithstanding the ProQuest Terms and Conditions, you may use this content in accordance with the terms of the License.
Details
; Teofanova, Denitsa R 1 ; Odjakova, Mariela K 1 ; Kutueva, Lyudmila I 2 ; Ashapkin, Vasily V 2
1 Faculty of Biology, Sofia University “St. Kliment Ohridski”, 8 Dragan Tsankov Blvd., 1164 Sofia, Bulgaria
2 Belozersky Institute of Physico-Chemical Biology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow 119234, Russia