THE EFFECT OF DODDER WEED ON FIELD CROPS AND ITS

MANAGEMENT PRACTICES

BY:

SINIDU MOLLA

ID NO. DBUR/1945/09

ASENIOR SEMINAR PEPER SUBMITTED TO DEPARTMENT

PLANTSCIENCES, COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND NATURAL
RESOURCES SCIENCE, DEBRE BERHAN UNIVERSITY

IN PARTIAL FULFILLMENT OF THE REQUIREMENTS FOR THE DEGREE

OF BACHELOR OF SCIENCE IN PLANT SCIENCE

ADVISOR: Dr.ESTIFANOS TEGAYE (PhD)

JANUARY 2019

DEBRE BERHAN UNIVERSITY, ETHIOPIA

i
 Acknowledgements

All above, I would like to thank my god a depth of praise for his presence with me in all ups and
downs. It feels a pleasure to extend my sincere thanks to my advisors Dr. Estifanos for his advice
and help throughout the writing of these seminar papers. I would also like to express my
gratitude to Debre Berhan University College of agriculture and computer center for their help
when I find the materials for this seminar paper.

ii
 TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. Acknowledgements ................................................................................................................. ii
1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................... 1
1.1. Objective .............................................................................................................................. 2
2. LITRATURE REVIEW .............................................................................................................. 3
2.1. Taxonomy and Nomenclature .............................................................................................. 3
2.2. Description ........................................................................................................................... 3
2.3. Biology and Ecology ............................................................................................................ 4
2.3.1. Reproduction ................................................................................................................. 4
2.3.2. Physiology and Phenology ............................................................................................ 5
2.3.3. Effects on Hosts ............................................................................................................. 5
2.3.4. Means of Movement and Dispersal ............................................................................... 6
2.4. Effect of dodder weed on field crops in Ethiopia................................................................. 6
2.4.1 Parasitic effect of dodder weeds on crops ...................................................................... 6
2.4.2 .Potential as a disease vector .......................................................................................... 7
2.5 Economic significance of Dodder ......................................................................................... 7
2.6. Management practice of dodder weed ................................................................................. 8
2.6.1. Prevention ...................................................................................................................... 8
2.6.2. Cultural Control and Sanitary Measures ....................................................................... 9
2.6.3. Physical/Mechanical Control ......................................................................................... 9
2.6.4. BiologicalControl .......................................................................................................... 9
2.6.5. Chemical Control ......................................................................................................... 10
3. Summary and Conclusion ......................................................................................................... 13
4. References ................................................................................................................................. 14

iii
 1. INTRODUCTION
Dodder (Cascuta campestris) is a parasite plant classified in the family cuscutaceae. it is genus
of about 100-170 species , resent it is genetic research by the angiosperm phylogeny group has
shown that it is correctly placed in the family convolvulaceous. (Welsh et al 1986) report twelve
species of Cucuta in Utah while separate these family in to two genera with one species in
Cucuta and five species in the genus grammica have a very distinct appearance, consisting
mainly of leafless, glabrous, yellow or orange twining stems and tendrils, bearing inconspicuous
scales in the place of leaves.

Most of the damage caused by these parasitic flowering plants results from the fact that
parasitism is the most acute form of negative interaction between vascular plants in which one of
the partners becomes a heterotrophy living at the expense of the other, its host Plants infested
with field dodder gradually weaken, their lush growth dwindles and they have very small
vegetative and generative yield (Koskela et al., 2001; Fathoulla & Duhoky, 2008).Weber sepion
is based on shape of stigma. The genus is found throughout the temperate to tropical region of
the world, with the greatest species diversity in sub-tropical and tropical region. Cucuta is an
annual stem parasite. It reproduces by seed and emerges along with the germinating crop
seedling and parasitizes it by attaching itself to the host plant and remains parasite until harvest.
Dodder is said to contain some chlorophyll in the bud, fruit and stem but the amount food
manufactured in this tissue is of little significance to the survival of the plant (V.S Rao, 1983)

The host range of C. campestris is extremely wide. Several hundred crop and weed species have
been listed as hosts, though some of these may only be acting as secondary hosts after the
parasite is established on a more favoured primary host (e.g. Gaertner, 1950; Kuijt, 1969). Most
are dicotyledonous, though the monocot onion can be seriously attacked. The plant is most
important as a pest of lucerne and other legumes. Grasses sometimes appear to be acting as hosts
but are not normally penetrated. Crops commonly parasitized, include asparagus, chickpea,
lentil, grape, citrus, melon, Lespedeza and flower crops including chrysanthemum. Not all hosts
are consistently attacked, for example tomato is susceptible when young but becomes resistant
with age (Gaertner, 1950). In Ethiopia, it especially the most important parasite of nug plant.

1
It is native to North America, but has become a wide spread weed in many country. Problem
caused by these weed are aggravated by lack of seed legislation in Ethiopia. Large area of cereal
crops and vegetable has had to be abandoned every year in the Ethiopia mainly because of heavy
Cuscuta infestation (parker and fessehaie, 1988).); they are primarily dispersed by humans
(Dawson et al. 1994). Seeds are also easily dispersed through contaminated crop seed and travels
by water along irrigation ditches, moist soil and sun light is required for germination, its seed can
germinate with the host plants unlike the seeds of the most parasite plants. The most rapid form
of spread occurs as a result of the movement of seed in water. Mature dodder seed does not float
and cannot be transported over a long distance, but seeds is often carried on trash or in the seed
cases that can float in running water (Dawson et al. 1984).

The seed can also be spread in fodder and pastured seed and can survive the digestive track of
birds, cows, sheep and goats. It can also be spread when stem fragment are moved on farm
machinery (such as hay making equipments), on live stock or in water. It contact with host plant
by false roots, called haustoria’s. Stems are twine around the host, branching to form a tangled
mass which can spread from the initial host to adjacent plant. The haustoria’s penetrate the tissue
of the host plant and remove nutrient, thereby reducing crop or pasture yield, preventing host
development and even killing it. Dodder grows rapidly and can flower with two week of
germination .The risk of introduction arises mainly from contaminated crop seed. It is extremely
difficult to separate dodder seed from certain crop seeds, especially the important host species,
lucerne, and niger seed. Many other crop seeds may incidentally be contaminated as a result of
occurrence of C. campestris on weeds in the crop. It has almost certainly also occurred in the
past as a contaminant of dried forage of lucerne and clovers. Strict quarantine regulations now in
place in most countries should ensure that there is little further spread from these sources, but
enforcement may be insufficiently effective and vigilance will continue to be needed.

1.1. Objective

The main objective of this seminar paper is to review on the effect dodder weed on field crops
and its management practices in Ethiopia

2
 2. LITRATURE REVIEW

2.1. Taxonomy and Nomenclature

The genus Cuscuta has widely been placed in its own family Cuscutaceae, but most authorities
(e.g. Flora Europaea, Missouri Botanic Gardens) now merge Cuscutaceae into Convolvulaceae.
Pérez-Amador et al. (1996) considered this was supported by evidence of taxonomic markers,
typical of Convolvulaceae, also occurring in Cuscuta spp., and Stefanovic and Olmstead (2004)
present further evidence from phylogenetic studies.

The name Cuscutacampestris was created by Yuncker in 1932, for the plant commonly known as
Cuscutaarvensis. The latter name was regarded as unsatisfactory as it had originally been
applied, by Beyrich, to a specimen now more strictly known as Cuscutapentagona. According to
(Yuncker 1932), C. campestris differs from C. pentagona in having no prominent angles at the
sinuses of the calyx, and in larger flowers, broader corolla lobes and shorter pedicels (2-3 mm
versus 1.5 mm in C. pentagona). Some authorities in the USA (e.g. Beliz, 1986) treat the two as
one species and apply the earlier name of C. pentagona Engelm. For the purposes of this
datasheet, C. campestris is treated as a distinct species, but it is assumed for purposes of
geographical distribution that records of ‘C. pentagona’ and ‘C. arvensis’ are equivalent to C.
campestris.

2.2. Description

Cuscuta species have a very distinct appearance, consisting mainly of leafless, glabrous, yellow
or orange twining stems and tendrils, bearing inconspicuous scales in the place of leaves. In C.
campestris, the yellow to pale orange true stems, about 0.3 mm in diameter, generally do not
twine and attach to the host, but produce tendrils of similar appearance, arising opposite the scale
leaves, which do form coils and haustoria (Dawson, 1984). The seedling has only a rudimentary
root for anchorage, while the shoot circumnutates, i.e. swings round anti-clockwise about once
per hour, until it makes contact with any stem or leaf, round which it will coil before growing on
to make further contacts. The root and shoot below this initial attachment soon die, leaving no
direct contact with the soil. Haustoria form on the inside of the coils and penetrate to the vascular
bundles of susceptible hosts. Flowers, each about 2 mm across, occur in compact clusters 1-2 cm

3
across. There is a calyx of 5 fused sepals with obtuse or somewhat acute lobes, and 5 corolla
lobes, triangular, acute, often turned up at the end, equalling the length of the tube. Stamens
alternate with the corolla lobes, each with a fringed scale below. The ovary is almost spherical
with a pair of styles with globose tips. The capsule reaches 2-3 mm across when mature, with a
depression between the two styles. The capsule does not dehisce and seeds remain on the plant
long after maturity. Seeds are irregular in shape, rough-surfaced, about 1 mm across.

2.3. Biology and Ecology

2.3.1. Reproduction

Reproduction is primarily by seed, although vegetative spread can be important on a local basis.
Pollination is apparently autogamous in this species and a single plant can produce up to 16,000
seeds (Costea and Tardif, 2006). There is some evidence that it is influenced by the host, e.g. by
transfer of a flowering inhibitor from host to parasite under daylength conditions which are non-
inductive for the host (Fratianne, 1965), but flowering can occur on non-flowering hosts, and it is
thought most often to depend more on general nutrient status (Dawson et al., 1994; Wolswinkel,
1989). There also appears to be less flowering under very humid, high rainfall conditions. In
contrast, flowering of C. reflexa is induced by short days (Wolswinkel, 1989).

Unlike the root parasites Striga and Orobanche, which require a germination stimulant provided
by host roots, Cuscuta species have no specialized germination requirement to ensure that there
is a host present on which to grow. This is less necessary for species such as C.campestris, which
has a very wide host range, but a proportion of the seeds do have a hard coat requiring gradual
degradation or scarification, which reduces the danger of all seeds germinating at once in the
absence of a host. Germination occurs regardless of light or darkness, at temperatures above
10°C, and optimally at 30°C. The seed reserves can support growth of the shoot to 5-10 cm,
supported by a short stubby root only 1-2 cm long. Seeds are believed to persist for up to 10
years in the soil, much longer than this in dry storage (Benvenuti et al., 2005), but seedlings fail
to emerge from deeper than 5 cm burial.

Vegetative spread can occur through the extensive growth of stems which can reach up to 5 m in
just 2 months, but regeneration can also occur from stem fragments which are detached and
distributed intentionally or otherwise by man, animals or machinery.

4
2.3.2. Physiology and Phenology

Once germinated, light, and a relatively high temperature of 25°C, are needed for the
characteristic circumnutation (anti-clockwise), coiling and haustorium formation (Parker and
Riches, 1993; Dawson et al., 1994; Holm et al., 1997; Costea and Tardif, 2006). Benvenuti et al.
(2005) have demonstrated tropism towards sugar beet plants due to their dark green colour, being
a function of the lower red/far red ratio of transmitted light. Insertion of a transparent glass sheet
between host leaves and parasite seedlings did not modify this response. This phototropism
permits Cuscuta to identify host plants with high chlorophyll content. A different type of tropism
has also been demonstrated by Runyon et al. (2006), being a chemotropism mediated by a
volatile signal from the host plants tomato and wheat. This was prevented by an interposed glass
plate: the relative importance of these two tropisms is not known.

Coiling is reduced under deep shade. In the absence of a live plant host, the seedling may coil
around any dead stem or inanimate object, but development of haustoria depends on a supply of
cytokinin which derives at least partly from the host. Once haustoria have penetrated, searching
hyphae ramify into the stem or leaf tissue, both through and between host cells, making
connections in due course with the host phloem via plasmodesmata (Dorr, 1987). Although most
often behaving as an annual plant, C.campestris can persist as a perennial on a perennial host.
Even when all visible stems have been killed by winter frost, it is capable of regeneration from
the embedded haustoria.

2.3.3. Effects on Hosts

Once contact is established with the host phloem, Cuscuta becomes a powerful sink for
metabolites, causing a severe drain on host resources and often completely preventing normal
fruit development, as shown by Wolswinkel (1979) in faba bean. Cuscuta species do contain
functional chlorophyll, but numbers of chloroplasts are very low and photosynthesis is only 1-
2% of that in a normal green plant, i.e. C.campestris is almost totally dependent on the host for
growth and survival.

The very destructive effects of C. campestris on its host are well illustrated in the work of (Shen
et al. 2005; 2007 and Lian et al. 2006), with the weed on another invasive species, Mikania

5
micrantha in China. A range of physiological effects are described which resulted in a complete
prevention of flowering, and almost complete death of the host plant after 70 days.

2.3.4. Means of Movement and Dispersal

C.campestris commonly occurs as a contaminant of crop seed, especially lucerne, red clover and
niger seed (Guizoltia abyssinica) which have similarly sized seeds. As seeds do not shatter from
the capsules, they are harvested with the crop and are then difficult to separate.

Contamination of crop seed with any Cuscuta species can result in preclusion from importation
into countries with quarantine regulations. Holm et al. (1997) indicate that 25 countries have
declared Cuscuta spp. as noxious, and that the movement of Cuscuta-infested material is
prohibited in every single state of the USA.

2.4. Effect of dodder weed on field crops in Ethiopia

In most area survey observation indicates that the twinning vines of this parasite not only deprive
the host plant of nutrient but also inhibit growth and root formation. It is evident that cuscuta is a
new weed in most farmer field in which most farmer reported seeing it for the time only 10 -15
years ago. In Wollega and illubabor, Cuscuta may have come either from the western low land,
or small pocket of this parasite may have existed for a long time (parker and fessehaie, 1988).
Problem caused by this weed are aggravate by lack of seed legislation in Ethiopia. Large area of
cereal crops and vegetable has had to be abandoned every year in the Ethiopia mainly because of
heavy cuscuta infestation. Dodder range in severity based on its species and the species of the
host, the time of attack, and whether only any viruses are also present in a host plant (parker and
fessehaie, 1988).

2.4.1 Parasitic effect of dodder weeds on crops

Dodder is a parasitic flowering plants on a very wide variety of plants, including the number of
agricultural and horticultural speices, alfalfa, lespedeza, flax, clover, potatoes, chrysanthemum,
dahlia, helenium, ivy, and petunias, among others (vs. Rao,1983). Dodder is a unique plant
because it a true obligate parasite. That is, dodder host receives no benefit what so ever from
dodder and dodder must have its host to survives. It does not have any leaf of any chroloplly to
produce its own food. It leaves by attaching to the host with in small appendage (called

6
“haustoria’s”) and extracting the host plant carbohydrate. Although neither toxic nor unpalatable
to some livestock, dodder can weaken host plant enough to reduce yield, quality and stands. A
parasite receives no advantage from a dead host, thus dodder generally will not kill its host. But
its infestation are severing enough, dodder may kill host plants. A study in south California
found that alfalfa yield dropped from 2,235 Ibs/A to 1,576Ibs /A when un treated for dodder .the
same study also found that alfalfa stand was reduced from five plant per squares feet to two plant
per square feet.(cudney et al.,1992).

2.4.2. Potential as a disease vector

Phytoplasma, the cause of more than 200 so called yellow diseases (previously thought to be
caused by viruses) are spread by several different vectors to include leaf hopper and dodder.
Dodder have shown to spread the yellow disease pear declines, aster yellow ,tomato big bud,
Inca virescence and elm phloem necrosis. In addition, phloem, in habiting rickettsia like bacteria
has been found to be present in dodder (mount and lacy, 1987). Allowing dodder to spread in a
field or garden area is asking for an increase in the plant disease this parasite is capable of
spreading. By debilitating the host plant, dodder decrease the ability of the plant to resist virus
disease and dodder can also spread plant disease from one host to other if it is attaches to more
than one plant. Cuscuta species can transmit some photogenic virus such as leaf roll and fleck
virus of grape vine, rickettsia, and mycoplasma like pathogen from the pollen of one host to
other host (Cooke and black, 1987).Generally, dodder infestation can cause several yield
reduction by parasite on host plant.

2.5. Economic significance of Dodder

In agriculture dodder cause considerable economic damage in pasture farming with alfalfa and
clover. Dodder parasitization leads to large losses in soybean yield. They wanted to know
whether the parasite is not only tapping the plants supply system but also playing a role in plant
plant communication through volatile causes an underground mycorrhizal network. We therefore
were to know whether dodder can transmit insect feeding induce signals among different hosts
and can even activate defense against insect. (Christian Hetthausen, et al. (2017).

7
2.6. Management practice of dodder weed

The most successful control of dodder involves a systematic approach that combines several
methods; dodder usually cannot be eliminated with a single treatment or in a single year. When
dodder is detected infesting land escape and garden plant, immediate action is needed to
eliminate or reduce the infestation in this locations. Effective management requires control of the
current population, the prevention of dodder seed production and suppression of new seedling in
subsequent years. Where extensive infestation exists, remove the infected host plant and replant
with non-host crops for several years. Once a host crop is planted again, a new dodder plants
must be removed as soon as possible. The use of dodder free planting seed are long been a
primary way of preventing the spread of dodder infestation. Clean and inspect clothing and
equipment before moving from infected to clean area. Once you know an area is infected, you
must it to prevent the further production of dodder weed seed. Isolate small infestation and
remove them by hands before plant produce seed. Monitoring large infestation and mow, prune,
burn or spray herbicide to prevent seed production .Control of Cuscuta spp. is very difficult,
with the best method being exclusion ,i.e., not to introduce it into a farm or field. Mechanical
removal by seed machines is an option, but these devices are often slow and they do not always
remove all of the Cuscuta spp. seed and sometimes remove the crop seed. Tillage can be useful
because the seedlings are easily dislodged from the soil or die when buried, but if they are not
buried completely, they can resurface. Physically removing Cuscuta spp. by hand is time
consuming and although Cuscuta spp. generally grow as annuals, they can survive in the tissue
of perennial host plants under some conditions (Dawson et al. 1984).Crop rotations with cereal
grains or forage grasses for two or more years can significantly decrease Cuscuta spp. seed banks
(Dawson et al. 1984). Seedlings emerge and die because they rarely will parasitize plants in the
family Gramineae. Another cultural method that can be used to control Cuscuta spp. is shade.
Formation of a canopy from heavy crop cover can suppress seedling emergence (Dawson 1966).

2.6.1. Prevention

Use of clean crop seed is vital, and seed should be inspected and cleaned if necessary, or
obtained from a source known to be reliable. Separation of Cuscuta seeds from lucerne is quite
successfully achieved by equipment comprising felt- or velvet-covered rollers to which the rough
seeds of Cuscuta stick while the smoother crop seeds pass over (Dawson et al., 1994). Removal

8
of highly favoured hosts such as Convolvulus arvensis from around field edges is also
recommended. According to (Holm et al. 1997), legislation in 25 countries lists Cuscuta spp. as
‘declared noxious weeds’ with seeds and plant material denied entrance. There must by now be
many more.

2.6.2. Cultural Control and Sanitary Measures

Rotation with non-susceptible crops can be helpful. Cereals are virtually immune from attack,
and some broad-leaved crops may also be sufficiently resistant, including soyabean, kidney bean,
squash, cucumber and cotton (see Parker and Riches, 1993). Guar bean (Cyamopsis psoraloides)
is not immune, but it causes gross deformity and reduces the vigour of the parasite to the extent
that it helps to protect a susceptible crop, mung bean (Vigna radiata), when they are grown in
mixture (Rao and Reddy, 1987).There are no known resistant varieties of susceptible crop
species, but Mishra et al. (2006) showed variations in response to different varieties of linseed,
with damage varying from 7% to 44% in terms of reduced seed yield. Similarly ( Goldwasser et
al. 2001) showed considerable variation in the susceptibility of tomato varieties to ‘C.
pentagona’ in California, USA, with less susceptible varieties were less readily penetrated by the
parasite. Deep shade suppresses the coiling and attachment of Cuscuta; hence encouraging a
dense crop canopy is a valuable component of any integrated control programme. (Rao and
Reddy, 1987).

2.6.3. Physical/Mechanical Control

The young seedlings with rudimentary roots are readily destroyed by shallow tillage before or
after crop establishment. Hand-pulling is suitable only for scattered infestations as the infested
crop plants have to be removed with the parasite. Scattered infestations can also be controlled by
heat, using a hand-held flame gun. More extensive infestations in lucerne are also sometimes
treated with overall flaming, as the crop is able to recover. Close mowing is an alternative means
of control in lucerne and clovers. Similarly, grazing by sheep can result in significant
suppression (Nicol et al., 2007).

2.6.4. Biological Control

The use of herbicides to control and manage weed populations may not be conducive to all
situations. Therefore, other means of control are necessary, such as biological control. Biological

9
control is grouped into three strategies: the classical approach, the augmentative approach, and
the inundative approach (Rosskopf et al.1999). The classical approach or inoculative method
involves applying small doses of 18 inoculum over a large weed population to produce a
spreading epidemic (Charudattan1988). This approach is beneficial when exotic plants become
problematic due to the absence of natural enemies and herbicide usage is not cost effective
(Rosskopf et al.1999). In the augmentative approach, a small amount of inoculum is released to
initiate an epidemic (Charudattan 1988). Bioherbicides are based on fungi, bacteria, or viruses
that are industrially developed and registered through the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
to manage or reduce weed populations. The micoherbicide (a fungus used as a herbicide)
approach can be successful when substantial quantities of inoculum are used to help compensate
for natural restrictions to disease development (Bewick et al.1987; Charudattan 1988). Through
manipulation, some fungi that normally cause sporadic or endemic disease levels on their hosts
can be developed into effective bioherbicides. (Charudattan 1988; Rosskopf et al. 1999.Several
disease organisms are known to infect dodder including fusarium tricintum and alternaria
species, which attack swamp dodder (C. gronovii) and (A.alternata) and Geotrichum candidum,
which attack field dodder (C.pentagona)

10
Biological control of field dodder Parker (1991) tried to use certain phytopathogenic fungi,
bacteria and insects for biological control of several Cuscuta species. Bewick et al. (1987) found
several phytopathogenic fungi, including Fusarium tricinctum and Alternaria spp., to cause some
damage to C. gronovii, while A. alternata and Geotrichum candidum were harmful to C.
pentagona. Besides, Li (1987) reported that a conidial suspension of Colletotrichum
gloeosporioides could be used for selective control of the species C. chinensis and C. australis in
soybean crops. Bewick et al., (2000) used Alternaria destruens to control C. gronovii in fields of
cranberry (Vaccinium macrocarpon) and carrot (Daucus carota), and reduced it up to 90%.
However, the results of similar efforts to control C. pentagona in the same crops were not nearly
as successful in the warm and dry climate of California (Lanini, 2004). Sarić and Božić (2009)
and Sarić et al. (2009) tested the influence of soil microorganisms (PGPR- Planth Growth
Promoting Rhizobacteria) on the germination of field dodder (Cuscuta campestris Yunk.) and
used the bacterial cultures of: B. licheniformis, B. pumilus and B. amyloliquefaciens isolated
from manure; B. megatherium ZP6 isolated from maize rhizosphere; and A. chroococcum Ps1
from wheat rhizosphere. The results inferred that bacterial cultures of the genus Bacillus had
different degrees of inhibitory effects on field dodder germination. 141 Pestic. Phytomed.
(Belgrade), 30(3), 2015, 137–145 Conversely, the bacterial culture A. chroococcum Ps1 had a
stimulating effect on seed germination of that flowering parasite.

2.6.5. Chemical Control

A range of soil-acting herbicides are effective in preventing the germination and establishment of
C.campestris (see Parker and Riches, 1993; Dawson et al., 1994). Chlorpropham was one of the
first to be used in lucerne and other crops, but short soil persistence meant that it rarely provided
suppression for long enough. It has been superseded by other compounds such as propyzamide,
chlorthal-dimethyl, trifluralin, pendimethalin, prodiamine, pebulate and ethofumesate, for use
variously in lucerne, clovers, lespedeza, sugarbeet, onion, chickpea, carrot, tomato, vines, niger
seed, etc., but selectivity is rarely perfect and integration with cultural methods is usually needed.
Pendimethalin continues to be the one of the most commonly used herbicides (e.g. Mishra et al.,
2005), also ethofumesate in sugar beet.Herbicides for control of established parasites include
diquat and paraquat, used for non-selective spot spraying of isolated patches. For more selective
control of established C.campestris, glyphosate has shown promise in established lucerne,

11
though selectivity is narrow and repeat treatments may be needed (see Dawson et al., 1994); also
in linseed (Mishra et al., 2005). There are preliminary reports of selective control of C.campestris
in lucerne by imazaquin (Sarpe et al., 1992), and by imazethapyr and glufosinate (Heap, 1992).
(Crocker 1987) suggested glyphosate, clopyralid, diquat and metsulfuron for use in amenity
areas in Australia. The bleaching herbicides, sulcotrione and mesotrione reduce biomass
accumulation, while flurochloridone has only a temporary effect (Weinberg et al., 2003).C.
campestris, in e.g. Israel, has developed resistance to certain herbicides including ALS inhibitors
(chlorsulfuron, and sulfometuron-methyl) and AABI herbicides (e.g. glyphosate) (Costea and
Tardif, 2006).

12
 3. Summary and Conclusion
The parasitic weed C. campestris is native to North America but has been introduced around the
world and become a weed in many countries. It is by far the most important of the dodders,
perhaps because of its wide host range. This ensures that there is a wide range of crop seeds that
may be contaminated, and in which it may be introduced to new areas over both short and long
distances. Once introduced it is almost certain that there will be suitable host plants on which it
can thrive and be damaging, whether they are crops or wild species. Vegetative spread can be
very rapid – up to 5 m in 2 months. It also has a wide tolerance of climatic conditions from warm
temperate to sub-tropical and tropical.

The parasitic weed species of the genus cuscuta that belongs to the family of convolvulaceae are
widely spreads in several parts of the worlds, particularly in Ethiopia. It causes the parasitic
effect on a very wide variety of plants. It is problem may be due to the lack of seed legislation in
Ethiopia. In most area in addition to deprive the host plant nutrient, the dodder weed can reduce
fruit formation of plant, not only this but also the parasite can serve as a poisons plant and
disease vector. Due to this the parasitic weed can cause the loss of agricultural products, so that
control measure must be used before flowering. It is necessary to carefully separate the harvested
seed from any contaminant of dodder weed products. The most successful control of dodder
involves systematic approach that combines several methods. Effective management requires
control of the current population, prevention of dodder seed population and suppression of new
seedling in subsequent year. These managements can be done by cultural, biological, chemical
control and use of resistance variety. Since dodder germinate irrespective of whether a host is
near or not increase or decrease of crop on the land is believed to be have insignificant effect on
germination of dodder and consequently on the level of infestation. Removal of dodder a long or
together with non-parasitic weed has shown a reduce level of dodder infestation.

13
 4. References
Beliz TC, 1986. A revision of Cuscuta section Cleistogrammica using phentic and cladistic
analyses with a comparison of reproductrive mechanisms and host preferences in species
from California, Mexico, and Central America. PhD Dissertation, University of Berkeley,
USA.
Benvenuti S; Dinelli G; Bonetti A; Catizone P, 2005. Germination ecology, emergence and host
detection in Cuscuta campestris. Weed Research (Oxford), 45(4):270-278.
Bewick, T.A., Binning, L.K., Stevenson, W.R., & Stewart, J. (1987). A mycoherbicide for
control of swamp dodder (Cuscuta gronovii Willd) Cuscutaceae. In H.C. Weber & W.
Forstreuter (eds.), Proceedings of 4th International Symosium on Parasitic Flowering
Plants (pp. 93-104). Marburg, Germany: Phillips Universitat.
Charudattan, R. 1988. Inundative control of weeds with indigenous fungal pathogens
Christian Hetthausen.C.. Li.j,Zhuang.H,Xu,Y.,Qi, j., Zhang., Lei, Y,, Qin, Y., Sun, G., Wang, L.,
Baldwin, l.T., Wu, j.(2017) .economic significance of dodder control.
Cooke DA; Black ID, 1987. Biology and control of Cuscuta campestris and other Cuscuta spp.: a
bibliographic review. Technical Paper, Department of Agriculture, South Australia,
No.18:33 pp.
Costea M; Tardif FJ, 2006. The biology of Canadian weeds. 133. Cuscuta campestris Yuncker,
C. gronovii Willd. ex Schult., C. umbrosa Beyr. ex Hook., C. epithymum (L.) L. and C.
epilinum Weihe. Canadian Journal of Plant Science, 86(1):293-316.
Cudney,D.W.,Orloff, S.B. and Reints, J.S. (1992). An integrated weed management for the
control of dodder (Cuscutaindecora) in alfalfa (Medicago sativa). Weed Technol., 6 :
603-606
Dawson JH, 1984. A vegetative character that separates species of Cuscuta. Proceedings of the
Third International Symposium on Parasitic Weeds Aleppo, Syria; International Center
for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas, 184-187
Dawson JH; Musselman LJ; Wolswinkel P; Dorr I, 1994. Biology and control of Cuscuta.
Reviews of Weed Science, 6:265-317
Dawson, J. H., F. M. Ashton, W. V. Welker, J. R. Frank, and G. A. Buchanan. 1984.

14
Dawson, J. H., L. J. Musselman, P. Wolswinkel, and I. Dörr. 1989. Biology and control Dodder
and its control. U. S. Dept. Agric. Farmers’ Bull. 2276. Pp. 24.
Dorr I, 1987. The haustorium of Cuscuta new structural results. Proceedings of the 4th
international symposium on parasitic flowering plants Marburg, German Federal
Republic, 163-170
Fathoulla, C.N., & Duhoky, M.M.S. (2008). Biological and anatomical study of different
Cuscuta species (Kurdistan 1st Conference on Biological Sciences). Journal of Dohuk
University, 11(1), 22-39.
Fratianne DG, 1965. The interrelationship between the flowering of dodder and the flowering of
some long and short day plants. American Journal of Botany, 52:556-562.
Gaertner EE, 1950. Studies of germination, seed identification, and host relationships in dodders.
Cornell University Memoirs, 294:1-56.
Heap JW, 1992. Golden dodder and silverleaf nightshade. Study tour to USA. Technical Report -
Department of Agriculture, South Australia, No. 190:34 pp.
Holm LG; Doll J; Holm E; Pancho JV; Herberger JP, 1997. World Weeds: Natural Histories and
Distribution. New York, USA: John Wiley & Sons Inc.
Koskela, T., Salonen, V., & Mutikainen, P. (2001). Interaction of a host plant and its
holoparasite: effects of previous selection by the parasite. Journal of Evolutionary
Biology, 14(6), 910-917
Lian JY; Ye WH; Cao HL; Lai ZM; Wang ZM; Cai CX, 2006. Influence of obligate parasite
Cuscuta campestris on the community of its host Mikania micrantha. Weed Research
(Oxford), 46(6):441-443.
Mishra JS; Moorthy BTS; Manish Bhan, 2005. Efficacy of herbicides against field dodder
(Cuscuta campestris) in lentil, chickpea and linseed. Indian Journal of Weed Science,
37(3/4):220-224.

15
Nicol J; Muston S; D'Santos P; McCarthy B; Zukowski S, 2007. Impact of sheep grazing on the
soil seed bank of a managed ephemeral wetland: implications for management.
Australian Journal of Botany, 55(2):103-109.
Parker C; Riches CR, 1993. Parasitic weeds of the world: biology and control. Wallingford, UK;
CAB International, 332 pp.
Pérez-Amador MC; Arreola L; Márquez-Guzmán J; García-Argáez A, 1996. Taxonomic markers
of the family Convolvulaceae in four species of Cuscuta. Phyton (Buenos Aires),
58(1/2):115-118.
Rao PN; Reddy ARS, 1987. Effect of china dodder on two pulses: green gram and cluster bean
the latter a possible trap crop to manage china dodder. Proceedings of the 4th
international symposium on parasitic flowering plants Marburg, German Federal
Republic, 665-674
Rosskopf, E. N., R. Charudattan, and J. B. Kadir. 1999. Use of plant pathogens in weed
Runyon JB; Mescher MC; Moraes CMde, 2006. Volatile chemical cues guide host location and
host selection by parasitic plants. Science (Washington), 313(5795):1964-1967.
Sarpe N; Dinu C; Lungulescu I, 1992. Efficacy of the butylate, bentazone and imazethapyr
herbicides in the control of dodder and other weeds in seedling alfalfa, in first year of
vegetation. Mededelingen van de Faculteit Landbouwwetenschappen, Universiteit Gent,
57(3b):1117-1126
Shen Hao; Hong Lan; Ye WanHui; Cao HongLin; Wang ZhangMing, 2007. The influence of the
holoparasitic plant Cuscuta campestris on the growth and photosynthesis of its host
Mikania micrantha. Journal of Experimental Botany, 58(11):2929-2937.
Shen Hao; Ye WanHui; Hong Lan; Cao HongLin; Wang ZhangMing, 2005. Influence of the
obligate parasite Cuscuta campestris on growth and biomass allocation of its host
Mikania micrantha. Journal of Experimental Botany, 56(415):1277-1284.
Stefanovic S; Olmstead RG, 2004. Testing the phylogenetic position of a parasitic plant
(Cuscuta, Convolvulaceae, Asteridae): Bayesian inference and the parametric bootstrap
on data drawn from three genomes. Systematic Biology, 53:384-399.
VS.Rao, 1983, principle of weed science (A reference –cum-text book).
Weinberg T; Lalazar A; Rubin B, 2003. Effects of bleaching herbicides on field dodder (Cuscuta
campestris). Weed Science, 51(5):663-670.

16
Welsh.SL. N.D.Atwood, S.Goodrich, L.c.Higgins, 1986.A Utah Flora, second edition .Brigham
Young University, Provo UT.
Wolswinkel P, 1979. Transport of assimilates and mineral elements at the site of attachment of
Cuscuta. The role of phloem unloading in the parasitic relationship. Proceedings, Second
International Symposium on Parasitic Weeds, North Carolina, 1979., 156-164
Yuncker TG, 1932. The genus Cuscuta. Memoirs of the Torrey Botanical Club, 18:113-331.

17