Movatterモバイル変換


[0]ホーム

URL:


Jump to content
WikipediaThe Free Encyclopedia
Search

Chenopodium berlandieri

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Species of edible flowering plant

Chenopodium berlandieri

Secure (NatureServe)
Scientific classificationEdit this classification
Kingdom:Plantae
Clade:Tracheophytes
Clade:Angiosperms
Clade:Eudicots
Order:Caryophyllales
Family:Amaranthaceae
Genus:Chenopodium
Species:
C. berlandieri
Binomial name
Chenopodium berlandieri

Chenopodium berlandieri, also known by the common namespitseed goosefoot,[1]lamb's quarters (orlambsquarters), andhuauzontle (Nahuatl), is anannualherbaceous plant in the familyAmaranthaceae.

The species is widespread inNorth America, where itsrange extends fromCanada south toMichoacán,Mexico. It is found in everyU.S. state exceptHawaii.[2] The fast-growing, upright plant can reach heights of more than 3 m. It can be differentiated from most of the other members of its large genus by its honeycomb-pitted seeds, and further separated by its serrated, evenly lobed (more or less) lower leaves.[3]

Although widely regarded as aweed, this species was once one of several plants cultivated byNative Americans inprehistoric North America as part of theEastern Agricultural Complex.C. berlandieri was adomesticatedpseudocereal crop, similar to the closely relatedquinoaC. quinoa.[4][5] It continues to be cultivated in Mexico as apseudocereal, as aleaf vegetable, and for itsbroccoli-likeflowering shoots.

Description

[edit]
The leaf ofC. berlandieri

Leaves and stems

[edit]

Theleaves are alternate, 13 to 152 millimetres (12 to 6 in) long and up to89 millimetres (3+12 in) wide. The leaves are variable in shape: diamond to triangular to egg-shaped to lance-elliptic in outline. The tips may be pointed or blunt, while wedge-shaped or straight across at the base tapering to a stalk up to89 millimetres (3+12 in) long. The lower leaves are largest, irregularly toothed,1+12 to 2 or more times as long as wide and usually with a pair of shallow lobes near the base. Leaves become smaller and less toothy as they ascend the stem with the uppermost leaves often much narrower, proportionately longer and toothless.[6]

Surfaces are green, hairless and moderately to densely white-mealy, especially when young. The upper surface usually becomes smooth, while the lower surface usually remains white-mealy. Stems are also highly variable: erect to ascending, unbranched to much branched and sparsely to densely white-mealy, especially on the upper stem. The stem color may vary from green to purple-striped to red.[6]

Flowers

[edit]

Very small flowers are tightly packed in small round clusters (glomerules) in spike-like and branching arrangements at the top of the stem, at the tips of branching stems and arising from upper leaf axils. The glomerules usually crowd on the branch. Within a glomerule, flowers may be at different stages of development: some just budding and others with maturing fruit.[6] Flowers lack petals, have 5stamens and a round, greenovary with a 2-parted style at the tip that is not divided all the way to the base. Cupping the flower is a green calyx with 5 lobes 0.5 to 1.5 mm long and variable shape: triangular or egg-shaped, strongly keeled, blunt to rounded at the tip and thin and papery around the edges. Bracts are leaf-like or sometimes absent. The calyx, stalks and branches are moderately to densely white-mealy.[6]

Seeds

[edit]
Chenopodium berlandieri seeds

Chenopodium seeds vary in shape between lenticular andcylindrical.[7] The lenticular shape is more typical of wild members of the species while cylindrical seeds (said to have a "truncated margin") predominate in domesticated varieties.[7][8]

The nutritiveperisperm tissue is encircled by theembryo along the seed margin. Theradicle protrudes slightly, producing a visible bump in thecircumference of the seed (called the "beak").[9] Surrounding the perisperm and embryo are three layers: theinner epiderm, theouter epiderm, and thepericarp. The inner epiderm is also called ategmen. The outer epiderm is synonymous withtesta. Together, the outer and inner epiderm make up theseed coat. InChenopodium literature, the terms outer epiderm, testa, and seed coat are often used interchangeably.[7]

The pericarp is oftendehiscent, but is non-dehiscent in some varieties.[10] In domesticated varieties, the seed coat may be reduced or absent.[7] Uniform seed assemblages with seed coats less than 20 μm thick are considered to represent domesticated population.[8][9][7] Conversely, wild populations tend to produce seeds with seed coat thicker than 20 μm.[8][9]

Taxonomy

[edit]

The species includes twosubspecies: thetype subspecies (i.e.C. b. ssp.berlandieri) andC. b. ssp.nuttalliae.[11] The latter, which also goes by the common nameshuauzontle,huauthili andNuttall's goosefoot,[12] is a domesticated variety cultivated in Mexico.

As many as sixextantvarieties ofC. b. ssp.berlandieri have been identified:[3]

  • C. b. subsp.berlandierivar.berlandieri
  • C. b. subsp.berlandieri var.boscianum
  • C. b. subsp.berlandieri var.bushianum (Bush's goosefoot)
  • C. b. subsp.berlandieri var.macrocalycium
  • C. b. subsp.berlandieri var.sinuatum
  • C. b. subsp.berlandieri var.zschackii (Zschack's goosefoot)

The extinct variety is well-documented, though it may represent more than one taxon:[13]

  • C. b. subsp.jonesianum

Additionally, thecultivars of theC. b. nuttalliae subspecies are:[11][14]

  • 'Huauzontle' - This cultivar is a more recent selection used in commercial cultivation for abroccoli-like crop. It is a "naked" variety and has a testa only 2-7 μm thick (cf. human hair, which is about 100 μm wide).
  • 'Chia' - Grown as a grain crop, this cultivar is declining and is cultivated only on a local level. It also has a very thin testa, though slightly thicker than the previous at 10-20 μm.
  • 'Quelite' - This cultivar is cultivated for itsspinach-like leaves.

The species is capable ofhybridizing with the related introducedEuropeanChenopodium album, which it resembles, giving the hybridC. × variabile Aellen.[15]

Domestication

[edit]

C. berlandieri is theprogenitor of alldomesticatedChenopodium varieties in North and South America.[4][16][17][2] In prehistoric eastern North America it was a part of the Eastern Agricultural Complex, a set of cultivated and domesticated species which supportedsedentary and migrant populations for thousands of years.[18][19] Archaeological evidence shows the species was extensively foraged as a wild plant in eastern North America as early as 6,500 BC.[7] By 1700 BC, the plant had clearly been domesticated as a pseudocereal crop.[20] The name given to the domesticated variety isC. b. ssp. jonesianum.[13] The oldest evidence for domestication comes fromcaches of thin-testa seeds fromrock shelters in theOzark Plateaus andOhio River basin.[10][20] The only known potential historic record ofC. b. ssp. jonesianum is a ca. 1720 account byAntoine Simon Le Page du Pratz.[7] According to Le Page,the Natchez people cultivated agrain-like crop calledChoupichoul that was delicious, nutritious, highly productive, and required minimal human labor.[21] Multiple lines of evidence suggest that the crop was a domesticated variety ofC. berlandieri.[7]

Chenopodium berlandieri was cultivated alongside three other starchy, seed-bearing plants, namelymaygrass,little barley andknotweed, providing an important nutritional basis for indigenous groups at the time.[8] Around approximately 1600 BC, another annual starchy seed crop,maize, appeared in theEastern Woodlands.[22]Maize would later on come to dominate much of North American agriculture, but for about 3000 years,maize formed only a minor component of garden or field plots.[23] By approximately 1150 AD,maize became a major dietary constituent ofprehistoric populations in theEastern Woodlands.[22] This led to a substantial decrease inChenopodium berlandieri cultivation.[22] Nonetheless, pitseed goosefoot remained important up until the point of European contact, after which it virtually disappeared.[24]

Indigenous people used pitseed goosefoot not only forsubsistence, but also for medicinal andpreservative reasons.[25]Chenopodium berlandieri preventsintestinal parasites and has the capacity of preserving foods.[25] These qualities may explain why indigenous people kept cultivatingChenopodium berlandieri despite the large effort of harvesting its minuscule seeds.[25] It is the raw leaves that were used medicinally, rather than the seeds.[26]

Although cultivation disappeared in eastern North America,C. b. subsp. nuttalliae continues to be cultivated as a domesticated crop in Mexico.[2] Three varieties of the subspecies are grown as a pseudocereal, as aleaf vegetable, and for itsbroccoli-like flowering shoots, respectively.[11][14]

The principal difference between wild and domesticated forms of Chenopodium is the thickness of the seed coat. In the domesticated varieties, due toselective pressures during domestication, the testas are less than 20microns thick; the testas of wild chenopods are 40 to 60 microns thick.[7][27] This morphological characteristic is shared by the modern cultivated chenopodC. b. subsp. nuttalliae and the archaeological specimens ofC. b. ssp. jonesianum.[28] Genetic studies have shown that eastern North American and Mexican cultivated forms have considerablegenetic distance between them.[16] Despite the initial assumption of a single domestication event, consensus in the field now supports at least two independent domestication events in North America.[11] Similarly,C. berlandieri's South American branch likely experienced at least two independent domestication events, both of which are calledC. quinoa.[29][4][30]

Chenopodium berlandieri growing near a pile of wood in Ontario, Canada.
Chenopodium berlandieri growing near a pile of wood in Ontario, Canada.

Weed status

[edit]

Members of theChenopodium species have been implicated among the greatestweed threats to agriculture in North America and globally.[31] This success can be attributed to their ability to survive across a range of environmental conditions due to a high reproductive capacity, variation in their dormancy and germination requirements, and abiotic stress tolerance.[32][33]

Importantly, theAmaranthaceae family is one of five weed families (along withPoaceae,Asteraceae,Brassicaceae, andChenopodiaceae) that represent only 50% of the world's principal weeds but account for approximately 70% of all cases ofherbicide resistance.[31] Most research identifies European speciesC. album as a prime candidate for resistance to multiple herbicides, in particular totriazines andglyphosates. The weed status and herbicide tolerance ofC. berlandieri is less researched and less clear due to its many wild and semi-domesticated forms resulting from frequent hybridization and polyploidy.[34][35]

The spread and sporadic domestication ofC. berlandieri across easternNorth andCentral America has resulted in a complex network of domesticated and wild sub-species known to co-exist and interact in shared ecosystems. Humanpaleofeces collected fromSalts Cave inKentucky andBig Bone Cave inTennessee were found to contain both seeds from weed and crop forms of the plant seemingly consumed within hours of each other, suggesting close spatial proximity and a potential for hybridization between populations.[36]

Morphological studies identified that seeds from weedy varieties ofC. berlandieri tend to have a thicker testa (seed coat), a more rounded or biconvex margin configuration, more prominent testa patterning, a less developed beak, and a smaller overall size when compared to their domesticated counterparts. However, intermediate morphologies were also identified, indicating genetic interaction (crossing over) between these groups.[36]

This cross-compatibility and hybridization leads to the formation of crop-weed complexes, betweenC. berlandieri plants as well as with other members of theChenopodium species.[37] For example, following the spread ofC. quinoa across North America as a novel crop, one study found that up to 30% of wildC. berlandieri grown along the periphery of quinoa fields were crop/weed hybrids.Gene flow was observed to be asymmetric (from crop to weed), due to a preferential flow of pollen from high-density populations of domesticatedC. quinoa to dispersed populations of wildC. berlandieri.[38] This directional crop-weed interaction has implications for the future of introgressive change in wildC. berlandieri varieties. Whilegenetic introgression is often degenerative for both crops and wild plants,[39][40][41] it may also promote greater biodiversity in conventional cropping systems and present research opportunities for new crop varieties.

Cultivation

[edit]

Climate & soil requirements

[edit]

Chenopodium berlandieri is an extremely versatile plant; it can handle a variety of elevations, commonly found growing at sea level and at 10,000 feet (3,000 m) elevation, such as in theSan Juan mountains ofColorado. In theAndes ofSouth America, there are varieties of lambsquarter that grow at over 12,000 feet (3,700 m).[42] It is very cold hardy and therefore one of the later weeds to be killed byfrost. It dislikes shade. When exposed to full sun conditions, the plants tend to be robust with many lateral branches producing high quantities of seed. Plants growing in shaded conditions tend to be more gracile, taller, with fewer lateral branches and produce less seed.[43]

Chenopodium berlandieri thrives in many types ofsoil with varyingpH levels. When the soil is fertile, it will grow large and full in size and form very attractive stands of vegetation. The presence of a stand of healthy lambsquarter is one of the best indicators for vital soil. However, it can also handle the worst of soils and has been known to even survive in disturbed soils such as annual vegetable gardens, neglected fields and coal-pit heaps. Like its close relatives, it can serve as acover crop and naturalfertilizer because of its dense nutrient content.[42]

Sowing

[edit]

C. Berlandieri is a self-seedingannual plant. It grows easily from seed and does not require orderly cultivation.[44] The seeds themselves can stay dormant for many years and take root when the conditions are ideal. The species ishermaphroditic, having both male and female organs on the same plant, which arewind-pollinated. It is known to cross-pollinate withChenopodium album to create a hybrid. The plant is in flower from July to October, with green-hued flowers. From August to October, the seeds ripen.[42]

Harvesting

[edit]

C. berlandieri is an elusive subject for harvest yield experiments; the floodplain weeds with their minuscule seeds are difficult to harvest relative to other species. High costs are associated with its harvesting due to the minute size and oiliness of seeds. Although occurring in vast numbers, seed size makes collecting enough for daily or long-term subsistence needs of an individual or group challenging. The relative cost of procurement and processing in quantities sufficient for a meal has been a limiting factor in their use throughout history and domestication has had little impact on reducing overall handling costs.[25]

Yield

[edit]

The yield of pitseed goosefoot can vary substantially due to the differences in amount of sunlight received by the plants.[8] Moreover,competition with surrounding plants can also influence how much yield is obtained.[8] Studies have recorded yields between 276 and 2854 kg/ha and estimate that theharvest yield of goosefoot inprehistoric times must have been around 750–1500 kg/ha.[8] A yield above 1000 kg/ha must have been necessary to justify its use compared tomaize.[8] Additionally, theharvest rate of pitseed goosefoot is 1 kg/hour.[20]

Nutrition

[edit]

As with otherAmaranthaceae species,C. berlandieri is rich inmacronutrients of proteins, carbohydrates and fats, as well asmicronutrients including vitamins and minerals.[45] Its high nutritional quality has given rise to researching its use forfood security in rural populations.[46]

The leaf nutritional content, expressed per 100 g of fresh weight: 0.2 kJ Fat, 3.45 kJ Protein, 3.17 kJ total dietary fiber (primarily insoluble fiber; 8.3% to 12.8% of therecommended daily intake), 111.8 kJ energy, 2.21 kJ available carbohydrates.[46] The leaves are sources ofphytochemicals and nutritional compounds.[46] They have shown significant contents of protein,inorganic nutrients of Calcium (Ca), Iron (Fe) and Magnesium (Mg).[46] It also has a high percentage ofoleic,linoleic andlinolenic acids, which are essential for human nutrition,[47] and highest totalflavonoids index (TFI) when compared to otherAmaranthacae species.[46]

The plant is a good source of fiber and has highflavonoids concentration, such asquercetin andkaempferol, which have highantioxidant potential.[46] Leaves have been analyzed to contain higherchlorophyll content compared to otherAmaranthacae species, which is nutritionally relevant, as it has been reported to reducereactive oxygen species.[46]

The seeds aregluten free.[45] Like otherquinoa andamaranth species, proteins in the seeds are of particularly high nutritional value due to high concentration ofessential amino acids.[45] Safety concerns have been raised aroundsaponins, which are toxic, though mostly to fish.[48] In the plant, thesaponin quantity is too small to harm humans.[48] Studies have shown that somesaponins may form insoluble complexes with minerals, such as zinc and iron, thus negatively affecting absorption andbioavailability of nutrients in the gut.[45] Saponins are bitter, but break down during the cooking process, rendering them harmless and allowing nutrients to bebioavailable to humans.[48] Cooking also reduces theoxalic acid content, which may also raise concerns.[48]

Uses

[edit]

Chenopodium berlandieri has little presence in the current world food system, especially compared to other plants within its genus, such asChenopodium quinoa orC. ambrosioides. This may be due to a recent Western bias against weedy plants, as well as a manifestation of colonial history which led to a disconnect from the local environment and indigenous knowledge.[25]

Today, the plant is still used as an edible herb and vegetable, primarily inMexico. Edible parts of the plant include leaves, youngshoots and seeds. Like other leafy greens, the leaves and shoots are eaten raw or cooked,[48] though raw leaves are bitter as they contain chemical compounds produced by the plant for defense mechanisms.

The plant can be processed through mechanical and chemical techniques.[20] Mechanical processing techniques includewinnowing to remove non-nutritive components, including possibly toasting the seeds during the winnowing process, followed bymilling to de-husk the plant and separate the seeds.[20]

The seeds can then be ground down into smaller particles to makegrits orbulgur, or ground further into flours to be combined with cerealflours to makebreads orpancakes.[48]

The seeds containsaponins, though in small quantities, which are removed by soaking seeds in water overnight and rinsing thoroughly before further processing.[48] Another method involves chemical processing, whereby gradual, controlled heating of the seeds detoxifies them, allowing nutrients to be bioavailable for digestion.[20] People withgout,arthritis,rheumatism,kidney stones, orhyperacidity should use caution when consuming the plant, as it may aggravate their condition.[48]

Medicinal potential

[edit]

Chenopodium berlandieri is a prime candidate for additional research, especially its prospects for utility in the medicinal model. Long-term use of this plant makes little sense when judged in strict terms of subsistence.C. berlandieri shares some qualities with its medicinally useful relatives such asChenopodium ambrosioides which is a widely knownvermifuge and a potentialfood preservative. This makes its potential medicinal value a possibility. Its chemical constituents and possible medicinal properties have only been briefly examined in theanthropological andbotanical literature. The useful substances in the leaves avoid the problems associated with the inefficiency of harvesting and processing the seeds.[49] Tests for and analyses ofbioactive chemical compounds would likely resolve questions about the use ofChenopodium berlandieri and the medicinal use may be evident in the concentration of these compounds.

See also

[edit]

References

[edit]
  1. ^BSBI List 2007(xls).Botanical Society of Britain and Ireland. Archived fromthe original(xls) on 2015-06-26. Retrieved2014-10-17.
  2. ^abcWilson, Hugh D. (1990-07-01). "Quinua and Relatives (Chenopodium sect.Chenopodium subsect.Celluloid)".Economic Botany.44 (3):92–110.Bibcode:1990EcBot..44S..92W.doi:10.1007/BF02860478.ISSN 0013-0001.S2CID 38936326.
  3. ^abClemants, Steven E.; Mosyakin, Sergei L. (2004),"Chenopodium berlandieri",Flora of North America, vol. 4, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 294
  4. ^abcJarvis, David E.; Ho, Yung Shwen; Lightfoot, Damien J.; Schmöckel, Sandra M.; Li, Bo; Borm, Theo J. A.; Ohyanagi, Hajime; Mineta, Katsuhiko; Michell, Craig T. (February 2017)."The genome of Chenopodium quinoa".Nature.542 (7641):307–312.Bibcode:2017Natur.542..307J.doi:10.1038/nature21370.hdl:10754/622874.ISSN 1476-4687.PMID 28178233.
  5. ^Fritz, Gayle J.; Bruno, Maria C.; Langlie, BrieAnna S.; Smith, Bruce D.; Kistler, Logan (2017). "Cultigen Chenopods in the Americas: A Hemispherical Perspective".Social Perspectives on Ancient Lives from Paleoethnobotanical Data. Springer, Cham. pp. 55–75.doi:10.1007/978-3-319-52849-6_3.ISBN 978-3-319-52847-2.
  6. ^abcd"Chenopodium berlandieri (Pitseed Goosefoot): Minnesota Wildflowers".www.minnesotawildflowers.info. Retrieved2021-11-18.
  7. ^abcdefghiSmith, Bruce D. (2007).Rivers of change: essays on early agriculture in eastern North America. Cowan, C. Wesley, 1951-, Hoffman, Michael P. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press.ISBN 978-0-8173-5425-1.OCLC 712992803.
  8. ^abcdefghSmith, Bruce D. (1987). The economic potential of Chenopodium Berlandieri in prehistoric Eastern North America.J. Ethnobiol. 7(1):29-54.https://ethnobiology.org/sites/default/files/pdfs/JoE/7-1/Smith1987.pdf
  9. ^abcGremillion, Kristen J. (1993). "The evolution of seed morphology in domesticated Chenopodium: an archaeological case study".Journal of Ethnobiology.13:149–169.
  10. ^abAsch, David L; Asch, Nancy B (1977). "Chenopod as cultigen: A re-evaluation of some prehistoric collections from eastern North America".Midcontinental Journal of Archaeology:3–45.
  11. ^abcdSmith, Bruce D. (2006)."Eastern North America as an Independent Center of Plant Domestication".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America.103 (33):12223–12228.Bibcode:2006PNAS..10312223S.doi:10.1073/pnas.0604335103.PMC 1567861.PMID 16894156.
  12. ^"Chenopodium berlandieri Moq".Germplasm Resources Information Network.Agricultural Research Service,United States Department of Agriculture. Retrieved2009-01-03.
  13. ^abSmith, Bruce D. (1985). "Chenopodium Berlandieri SSP. Jonesianum: Evidence for a Hopewellian Domesticate from Ash Cave, Ohio".Southeastern Archaeology.4 (2):107–133.JSTOR 40712807.
  14. ^abWilson, Hugh D.; Heiser, Charles B. Jr (1979), "The Origin and Evolutionary Relationships of 'Huauzontle' (Chenopodium nuttalliae Safford), Domesticated Chenopod of Mexico",American Journal of Botany,66 (2):198–206,doi:10.2307/2442525,JSTOR 2442525
  15. ^Clemants, Steven E.; Mosyakin, Sergei L. (2004),"Chenopodium album",Flora of North America, vol. 4, New York & Oxford: Oxford University Press, p. 296
  16. ^abKistler, Logan; Shapiro, Beth (2011-12-01). "Ancient DNA confirms a local origin of domesticated chenopod in eastern North America".Journal of Archaeological Science.38 (12):3549–3554.Bibcode:2011JArSc..38.3549K.doi:10.1016/j.jas.2011.08.023.
  17. ^Kolano, Bozena; McCann, Jamie; Orzechowska, Maja; Siwinska, Dorota; Temsch, Eva; Weiss-Schneeweiss, Hanna (2016). "Molecular and cytogenetic evidence for an allotetraploid origin of Chenopodium quinoa and C. berlandieri (Amaranthaceae)".Molecular Phylogenetics and Evolution.100:109–123.Bibcode:2016MolPE.100..109K.doi:10.1016/j.ympev.2016.04.009.PMID 27063253.
  18. ^Smith, Bruce D.; Yarnell, Richard A. (2009-04-21)."Initial formation of an indigenous crop complex in eastern North America at 3800 B.P".Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.106 (16):6561–6566.doi:10.1073/pnas.0901846106.ISSN 0027-8424.PMC 2666091.PMID 19366669.
  19. ^Fritz, Gayle J. (2014). "Eastern North America: An Independent Center of Agricultural Origins". In Smith, Claire (ed.).Encyclopedia of Global Archaeology. Springer New York. pp. 2316–2322.doi:10.1007/978-1-4419-0465-2_2194.ISBN 978-1-4419-0426-3.
  20. ^abcdefGremillion, Kristen J. (2004). "Seed Processing and the Origins of Food Production in Eastern North America".American Antiquity.69 (2):215–233.doi:10.2307/4128417.ISSN 0002-7316.JSTOR 4128417.S2CID 144789286.
  21. ^Le Page du Pratz, Antoine S. (1758).Histoire de la Louisiane. Paris.
  22. ^abcSmith, Bruce D. (1985). "The Role of Chenopodium as a Domesticate in Pre-Maize Garden Systems of the Eastern United States".Southeastern Archaeology.4 (1):51–72.ISSN 0734-578X.JSTOR 40712799.
  23. ^Smith, Bruce D. (1989-12-22)."Origins of Agriculture in Eastern North America".Science.246 (4937):1566–1571.Bibcode:1989Sci...246.1566S.doi:10.1126/science.246.4937.1566.PMID 17834420.S2CID 42832687.
  24. ^Halwas, Sara; Worley, Anne C. (December 2019)."Incorporating Chenopodium berlandieri into a Seasonal Subsistence Pattern: Implications of Biological Traits for Cultural Choices".Journal of Ethnobiology.39 (4):510–529.doi:10.2993/0278-0771-39.4.510.ISSN 0278-0771.S2CID 213228415.
  25. ^abcdeRobinson, Daniel Shelton, " Chenopodium berlandieri and the Cultural Origins of Agriculture in the Eastern Woodlands. " Master's Thesis, University of Tennessee, 2012.https://trace.tennessee.edu/utk_gradthes/1198
  26. ^Paul E. Minnis, ed. (2003).People and plants in ancient eastern North America. Washington, D.C.: Smithsonian Institution Press.ISBN 1-58834-133-X.OCLC 50479269.
  27. ^Smith, Bruce D. (1995),The Emergence of Agriculture, New York: Scientific American Library, p. 184
  28. ^Wilson, Hugh D. (1981-04-01). "DomesticatedChenopodium of the Ozark Bluff Dwellers".Economic Botany.35 (2):233–239.Bibcode:1981EcBot..35..233W.doi:10.1007/BF02858690.ISSN 0013-0001.S2CID 23606041.
  29. ^Risi, J. C.; Galwey, N. W. (1989-04-01). "The pattern of genetic diversity in the Andean grain crop quinoa (Chenopodium quinoa Willd). I. Associations between characteristics".Euphytica.41 (1–2):147–162.doi:10.1007/BF00022424.ISSN 0014-2336.S2CID 1338966.
  30. ^Wilson, Hugh D. (1988-10-01). "Quinua biosystematics I: Domesticated populations".Economic Botany.42 (4):461–477.Bibcode:1988EcBot..42..461W.doi:10.1007/BF02862791.ISSN 0013-0001.S2CID 27220986.
  31. ^abHeap, Ian (2014). "Herbicide Resistant Weeds".Integrated Pest Management. pp. 281–314.doi:10.1007/978-94-007-7796-5_12.ISBN 978-94-007-7795-8.
  32. ^Holm, L.G.; Plucknett, D.L.; Pancho, J.V.; Herberger, J.P. (1977).The World's Worst Weeds. Distribution and biology. Honolulu, Hawaii USA: University Press of Hawaii.ISBN 978-0-8248-0295-0.
  33. ^Bajwaa, A.A.; Zulfiqar, U.; Sadia, S.; Bhowmik, P.; Chauhan, B.S. (2019). "A global perspective on the biology, impact and management of Chenopodium album and Chenopodium murale: two troublesome agricultural and environmental weeds".Environ Sci Pollut Res Int.26 (6):5357–5371.Bibcode:2019ESPR...26.5357B.doi:10.1007/s11356-018-04104-y.PMID 30623324.S2CID 58622221.
  34. ^Wilson, Hugh D. (1980). "Artificial Hybridization Among Species of Chenopodium Sect. Chenopodium".Systematic Botany.5 (3):253–263.doi:10.2307/2418372.JSTOR 2418372.
  35. ^Ohri, D. (2015). "The taxonomic riddle of Chenopodium album L. complex (Amaranthaceae)".Nucleus.58 (2):131–134.doi:10.1007/s13237-015-0143-2.S2CID 12855835.
  36. ^abGremillion, Kristen J. (1993). "Crop and Weed in Prehistoric Eastern North America: The Chenopodium Example".American Antiquity.58 (3):496–509.doi:10.2307/282109.JSTOR 282109.S2CID 161993446.
  37. ^Eslami, Seyed Vahid; Ward, Sarah (2021).Biology and Management of Problematic Crop Weed Species: Chenopodium album and Chenopodium murale. Academic Press. pp. 89–112.ISBN 978-0-12-822917-0.
  38. ^Wilson, H.; Manhart, J. (1993). "Crop/weed gene flow: Chenopodium quinoa Willd. and C. berlandieri Moq".Theoretical and Applied Genetics.86 (5):642–648.doi:10.1007/BF00838721.PMID 24193715.S2CID 6123787.
  39. ^Jenczewski, Eric; Ronfort, Joëlle; Chèvre, Anne-Marie (2003)."Crop-to-wild gene flow, introgression and possible fitness effects of transgenes".Environmental Biosafety Research.2 (1):9–24.doi:10.1051/ebr:2003001.PMID 15615064.
  40. ^Darmency, H. (1994). "The impact of hybrids between genetically modified crop plants and their related species: introgression and weediness".Molecular Ecology.3 (1):37–40.Bibcode:1994MolEc...3...37D.doi:10.1111/j.1365-294X.1994.tb00040.x.S2CID 85993512.
  41. ^Mueller, Natalie G. (2017). "Growing the lost crops of eastern North America's original agricultural system".Nature Plants.3 (7): 17092.Bibcode:2017NatPl...317092M.doi:10.1038/nplants.2017.92.PMID 28696428.S2CID 24538022.
  42. ^abcBlair, Katrina (2014).The Wild Wisdom of Weeds: 13 Essential Plants for Human Survival. Chelsea Green Publishing.ISBN 978-1-60358-516-3.
  43. ^Halwas, Sara Jane (2017).Domesticating Chenopodium: Applying Genetic Techniques and Archaeological Data to Understanding Pre-contact Plant Use in Southern Manitoba (AD1000-1500)(PDF) (PhD thesis). University of Manitoba. Retrieved14 November 2021.
  44. ^"Goosefoot | The Office of the State Archaeologist".archaeology.uiowa.edu. Retrieved2021-11-18.
  45. ^abcdTang, Yao; Tsao, Rong (2017)."Phytochemicals in quinoa and amaranth grains and their antioxidant, anti-inflammatory, and potential health beneficial effects: a review".Molecular Nutrition & Food Research.61 (7) 1600767.doi:10.1002/mnfr.201600767.ISSN 1613-4133.PMID 28239982.
  46. ^abcdefgSantiago-Saenz, Yair O.; Hernández-Fuentes, Alma D.; Monroy-Torres, Rebeca; Cariño-Cortés, Raquel; Jiménez-Alvarado, Rubén (2018-12-01). "Physicochemical, nutritional and antioxidant characterization of three vegetables (Amaranthus hybridus L., Chenopodium berlandieri L., Portulaca oleracea L.) as potential sources of phytochemicals and bioactive compounds".Journal of Food Measurement and Characterization.12 (4):2855–2864.doi:10.1007/s11694-018-9900-7.ISSN 2193-4134.S2CID 105289484.
  47. ^de la Cruz Torres, Eulogio; Palomino Hasbach, Guadalupe; García Andrade, Juan Manuel; Mapes Sánchez, Cristina; González Jiménez, Josefina; Falcón Bárcenas, Thelma; Vázquez Arriaga, Octavio (2013), Jain, Shri Mohan; Dutta Gupta, S. (eds.), "The Genus Chenopodium: A Potential Food Source",Biotechnology of Neglected and Underutilized Crops, Dordrecht: Springer Netherlands, pp. 3–31,doi:10.1007/978-94-007-5500-0_1,ISBN 978-94-007-5500-0
  48. ^abcdefgh"Chenopodium berlandieri Southern Huauzontle, Pitseed goosefoot, Nuttall's goosefoot, Bush's goosefoot, Zschack's goosefoot PFAF Plant Database".pfaf.org. Retrieved2021-11-13.
  49. ^Robinson, Daniel Shelton."Chenopodium berlandieri and the Cultural Origins of Agriculture in the Eastern Woodlands".Masters Thesis, University of Tennessee, Knoxville. Retrieved14 November 2021.

Further reading

[edit]
  • Everitt, J.H.; Lonard, R.L.; Little, C.R. (2007),Weeds in South Texas and Northern Mexico, Lubbock: Texas Tech University PressISBN 0-89672-614-2

External links

[edit]
Wikimedia Commons has media related toChenopodium berlandieri.
Cereals
Wheat(Triticum)
Farro
Pseudocereals
Polygonaceae
Amaranthaceae
Amaranth
Lamiaceae
Emerging grain crops
Chenopodium berlandieri
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chenopodium_berlandieri&oldid=1313840066"
Categories:
Hidden categories:

[8]ページ先頭

©2009-2025 Movatter.jp