Open Access
How to translate text using browser tools
13 May 2021 The Biology of Canadian Weeds: 158. Galega officinalis L.
Stephen J. Darbyshire, Ardath Francis, Eden S.P. Bromfield, Subbaiah Mechanda
Author Affiliations +
Abstract

The biology of the weed goat’s-rue, Galega officinalis (Fabaceae), is reviewed. Introduced to Canada in the late 19th Century as an ornamental, it has become established at scattered localities and is spreading locally in southern Ontario. The plant is considered a noxious weed and is legally regulated in many jurisdictions due to the production of toxic alkaloids and its invasive characteristics. Primarily a weed of pastures, grasslands and perennial crops, it also displaces native vegetation in areas where it becomes established. Originally endemic in the Black Sea region, it was spread by humans through Europe and eastward to Pakistan as a herbal medicine. More recently it has been introduced widely as a forage and ornamental plant. As a folk remedy it has been used primarily to treat diabetes in humans and to enhance milk production in both humans and livestock. The plant has also been used as a forage by limiting consumption to early growth stages and the quantity ingested. Effective control has been achieved with 2,4-D, dicamba, tryclopyr, metsulfuron methyl and other herbicides. Goat’s-rue forms a highly specific nitrogen-fixing symbiosis with the soil bacterium Neorhizobium galegae symbiovar officinalis. Successful establishment of Goat’s rue in new regions depends on the co-introduction of plant and bacterium. The lack of long-distance dispersal adaptations, soil pH requirements and its symbiont dependency, reduces the ability of G. officinalis to spread into novel areas without anthropogenic activities. These constraints to establishment may facilitate management and eradication strategies.

1. Species Name and Taxonomic Relationships

Galega officinalis L. — Synonyms: Accorombona tricolor (G. Don) Benth. ex Walp., Callotropis tricolor G. Don, Galega bicolor Boiss. & Hausskn. ex Regel, Galega coronilloides Freyn & Sint., Galega patula Steven, Galega persica Pers., Galega vulgaris Lam. Common names: goat’s-rue, catgut, common milkpea, French honeysuckle, French-lilac, galega, goat’s rue, goatsrue, Italian fitch, professor weed; galéga officinal, rue des chèvres, lilas d’Espagne (Darbyshire et al. 2000; Darbyshire 2003). European and Mediterranean Plant Protection Organization Code: GAGOF. Fabaceae (Leguminosae); legume family; Fabacées (Legumineuses).

The genus Galega is an Old Word group of herbaceous plants with 5–6 species. Two species are of economic importance, G. officinalis L. and G. orientalis Lam. The former is usually considered a weed, but is also used as a medicinal plant or forage and the latter is used as a livestock forage plant. Classification of the tribes in Fabaceae (Leguminosae) has been controversial and circumscribed in many ways (Polhill 1981, 1994; Endo and Ohashi 1997; Wojciechowski et al. 2000, 2004; Doyle and Luchow 2003).

2. Description and Account of Variation

(a) Species description

The following description is based on the literature (Stebler and Schröter 1889; Lubbock 1892; Knuth 1908; Gams 1924; Ball 1968; Gorshkova 1971; Polhill 1981; Kirkbride et al. 2003; Lasseigne 2003) and supplemented with observations of Canadian populations. Measurements are given as the usual range with extremes in parentheses. Many of the characteristics described are illustrated in Figs. 13.

Fig. 1.

Goat’s-rue, Galega officinalis. (A) Upper stem with inflorescences and immature fruits; (B) stipules; (C) flower. Scales bars = 1 cm.

cjps-2020-0327f1.tif

Fig. 2.

Goat’s-rue, Galega officinalis. (A) Dense population at a disturbed site along the Ottawa River; (B) flowers. [Colour online.]

cjps-2020-0327f2.tif

Fig. 3.

Goat’s-rue, Galega officinalis. (A) Stipule; (B) seeds; (C) seedling showing narrowly ovate cotyledons and first three true leaves, the later with one, two and three leaflets, respectively; (D) Craspedodromous leaflet venation of G. officinalis; (E) Camptodromous leaflet venation of Astragalus cicer. [Colour online.]

cjps-2020-0327f3.tif

A perennial herbaceous plant from a stout caudex (root crown). Tap root long, fleshy, whitish, with fibrous rootlets; rhizomes absent. Stems hollow, 40–150 (–200) cm tall, more or less erect or sprawling, branched, glabrous to sparsely pubescent, slightly ribbed. Leaves alternate, petiolate, (3–) 8–30 (–40) cm long, more or less glabrous to sparsely hairy, once pinnate; stipules herbaceous, 0.5–1.6 cm long, broadly lanceolate to sagittate with (1–) 2–4 (–6) basal teeth or acute lobes; leaflets (9–) 11–19 (–21), sessile (or rarely a petiolule to 0.5 mm), in opposite pairs (except the terminal one), (7–) 15–50 ×4–17 mm, lanceolate to narrowly ovate, sometimes sparsely pubescent on the margins and (or) veins of the lower surface, apices acute to obtuse, often emarginate, and usually mucronate. Inflorescences on long peduncles, elongate, 8–27 (–30) cm long (including peduncle), axillary, densely to loosely flowered racemes; pedicels filiform, about as long as or shorter than the calyx, with a subtending lanceolate bract 5–7 mm long; calyx of fused sepals with 5 linear subequal teeth about as long as the tube, 4–6 mm long, glabrous or puberulent on teeth; corollas papilionaceous; petals 5 (lower two fused into a keel), (7–) 10–15 mm long, white, bluish, lilac to reddish purple, the banner (standard or vexillum) oblanceolate to obovate, more or less reflexed, the wings (alae) slightly shorter than to about as long as the keel, narrowly obovate, clawed (i.e., with a basal process or auricle), the keel (carina) broad and rounded, not auriculate. Stamens 10, monadelphous (the upper filament fused basally but partly free distally), included in the keel; anthers dimorphic (Endo and Ohashi 1997). Ovaries enclosed in the stamineal sheath. Style filiform, curved upwards, with a small capitate stigma protruding beyond the anthers. Fruits elongate, 2-valved, cylindric pods, (20–) 20–45 (–50) × 2–3 mm, glabrous, striate, erect to spreading at maturity, shallowly torulose (slightly constricted between the seeds), tardily dehiscent along sutures. Seeds (1–) 2–6 (–9), in one series, 2.5–4.5 ×1–2.5 mm, narrowly ellipsoid to somewhat reniform (slightly constricted at the hilum), greyish to yellowish-brown, dull. Seed coat microscopically rugose, with a thin layer of wax (Pandey and Jha 1988). The fruits and seeds of G. officinalis are described in detail and illustrated by Kirkbride et al. (2003).

Cotyledons are obovate-oblong, about 18–27 × 5–8 mm, smooth, entire. The first leaf of a seedling consists of one leaflet, the second leaf has a pair of leaflets, and the third leaf consists of a pair of leaflets and a terminal leaflet (Fig. 3C).

Details of root, stem and leaf anatomy were studied in populations from Turkey by Özbucak et al. (2005) who provide detailed descriptions and illustrations.

In their phylogenetic analysis of some Fabaceae tribes related to Galega, Endo and Ohashi (1997) reviewed various character states reported in the literature for Galega and provided unique observations on pollen grains and embryos of G. officinalis and G. orientalis.

In Canada, Gervais (1979) reported a chromosome count of 2n = 16 from an introduced population at Quebec City. Counts, n = 8 (Kreuter 1930; Senn 1938; Ruíz de Clavijo Jiménez 1990) and 2n = 16 (Tschechow 1930; Polhill 1981; Izmaiłow 1990) have been reported for Eurasian plants.

The entire chloroplast genome of G. officinalis was sequenced and characterized by Du et al. (2021). They reported it to be 125 086 base pairs in length, with a GC content of 34.18% and containing 112 genes.

(b) Distinguishing features

The gross morphology and habitus of Galega officinalis are illustrated in Figs. 1 and 2. The similar species, G. orientalis, which is often cultivated as a forage (Varis 1986; Fairey et al. 2000; Raig et al. 2001), occupies cooler temperate habitats which partly overlap those of G. officinalis in Eurasia (Baležentienė 2011), however, it is not known to occur outside of cultivation in North America. This species differs from G. officinalis in: horizontal rhizomes present (versus rhizomes lacking); reflexed mature pods (versus erect or spreading fruits) which are pubescent (versus glabrous); oval to orbicular stipules (versus deltoid to sagittate); distinctly pubescent calyx (versus glabrous or sparsely pubescent); calyx teeth shorter than the tube (versus about as long as the tube); and, the somewhat larger, more broadly ovate leaflets (30–60 × 10–25, versus 7–50 × 4–17 mm in G. officinalis). The seeds of G. orientalis tend to be more yellowish and lustrous.

The two Galega species can also be readily distinguished by differences in DNA nucleotide sequences at several nuclear and chloroplast loci. Particularly useful genes include the Nod-factor receptor 5 (nfr5) and nodulation receptor kinase (NORK) (Österman et al. 2011; S. Mechanda, (unpublished data); Appendix A).

The genus Astragalus is closely related and usually placed in the tribe Galegeae. With more than 2000 species, it is one of the largest angiosperm genera making morphological generalizations difficult. Species of Galega differ from Astragalus species in the following ways: the primary lateral veins of the leaflets extend to the leaflet margins (craspedodromous venation), while in Astragalus the primary lateral veins join each other and do not reach the leaflet margin (camptodromous venation) (Figs. 3D, 3E); the stamens are more or less monadelphous (versus usually didelphous); and, the pods have prominent oblique veins (versus transverse veins). In a vegetative state G. officinalis can be confused with cicer milk-vetch (Astragalus cicer L.), but the latter species has long rhizomes. In a reproductive state the yellowish flowers and rounded pods easily distinguish A. cicer. Weedy species of Vicia and Lathyrus in Canada are readily distinguished as climbing plants with tendrils present in place of the terminal leaflet. Crown vetch [Securigera varia (L.) Lassen, = Coronilla varia L.] may also be confused with G. officinalis, but the former has smaller flowers that are usually pink in colour in a globose umbel rather than a raceme, and the leaflets are smaller and broadly rounded at the tips without a mucro. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) is also somewhat similar in growth habit, but in this species the pods are coiled, curled or falcate (rather than terete), the seeds are much smaller, and the leaves have only 3 leaflets. In central to western North America, the species might be confused with the native wild licorice (Glycyrrhiza lepidota Pursh), but the latter has solid (not hollow) stems, white to yellowish flowers with a strap-like standard and bur-like seed pods with hooked bristles.

In a survey by Lersten and Horner (2007), leaflets of G. officinalis were found to have calcium oxalate crystals in prisms along the vascular bundles, whereas crystals were lacking in the majority of examined species in the tribe Galegeae, including Astragalus spp. and Oxytropis spp. Peters et al. (2010) suggested that the absence of forisomes (spindle-shaped crystalline P-proteins that regulate phloem transport in the sieve tubes) in G. officinalis and some related species, might be related to the similarly unusual presence of calcium oxalate crystals in those species, both suggesting an unusual mechanism of calcium management in the leaves.

(c) Intraspecific variation

Variation within G. officinalis can be found in the flower colour, which ranges from bluish-purple to white, and in the number and shapes of leaflets in the leaves (see Section 1). Garden cultivars have been bred to intensify colour differences and nurseries offer plants with large white or deep purple racemes. An unusual sport with a simple leaf (not pinnate) has been described from Essex, UK (Mullin 1983).

In Turkey, six naturally occurring populations from the Middle Black Sea region differed significantly in number of flowers, flower nitrogen levels, above-ground biomass, flower biomass, leaf width, leaf length, root biomass, and reproductive effort, suggesting the importance of genotype as well as local environmental conditions on phenotypic plasticity (Özbucak et al. 2005).

Genetic variability was assessed by Wang et al. (2012) in 35 populations of G. officinalis from Europe and Russia using inter-simple sequence repeat (ISSR) and sequence-related amplified polymorphism (SRAP) DNA markers. Considerable variation was detected between the sampled populations. Ten ISSR primers produced a total of 100 bands which were an average of 77% polymorphic (expected heterozygosity = 0.292). Seven SRAP primes produced 88 bands which were an average of 67% polymorphic (expected heterozygosity = 0.257). Similarly, high levels of variability have also been found in morphological characteristics (Wang et al. 2008).

(d) Illustrations

The whole mature plant of Galega officinalis is illustrated in Fig. 1, along with details of a stipule and flower. A dense population at a disturbed site along the Ottawa River (Ontario, Canada) (Fig. 2) shows the competitive nature of the goat’s-rue symbiosis in a disturbed habitat. Morphological details of a stipule, seeds, seedling and leaf venation are illustrated in Fig. 3. Other illustrations of G. officinalis may be found in Stebler and Schröter (1889), Vasey (1893), Step (1896), Gams (1924), Gorshkova (1971), Barneby (1989), Eckel (2004), CFIA (2012) and CABI (2019). An accurate colour plate of morphological characteristics was published in Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz, and there are several copies available at different Internet websites (Thomé 1905).

3. Economic Importance and Environmental Impact

(a) Detrimental

While Galega officinalis has a long history of economic uses in Europe, it is considered a noxious weed in most areas where it has been introduced. As a weed, it can form dense thickets and monocultures in pastures and meadows, reduce yields of better forage plants, contaminate pedigree seed crops, cause toxic injury to livestock, and can compete with and crowd out native flora (Evans et al. 1997; Wiersema and León 1999; Guitart et al. 2010; Fraiture 2014 ; Oregon Department of Agriculture 2015; CABI 2019). Its weediness and toxicity has been considered a particular problem in the United States, Argentina, Chile and New Zealand (Holm et al. 1991).

In the United States, where it was introduced as a trial forage plant, medicinal plant, and ornamental, the plant has escaped and become weedy, particularly in Utah (Evans 1984) and sporadically in other states (see Section 6). It has been reported as infesting irrigated pastures, roadways, ditch banks, fence lines, wet areas and alfalfa crops (Evans 1984; Patterson 1992, 1993). The species is not only subject to U.S. federal legislation but has also been targeted in state programs for prohibition or eradication (see Section 3c). In Great Britain, G. officinalis is among alien plants listed as persistent, weedy, garden escapes (Salisbury 1961). It is listed as a noxious invasive weed in eastern France with a moderately negative economic impact on local biodiversity and agriculture (EPPO 2008). In Argentina the plant is considered a weed in pastures and vegetable crops where it can be a host to insects that attack crops (Liljeström and Rabinovich 2004). In Chile, where it was introduced as a forage in 1872, it has become a weed of pastures and crops (Oehrens and González 1975; Ellison and Barreto 2004), including vineyards (Longone et al. 2011).

A major concern is the potential for poisoning of livestock due to the toxic properties of alkaloids (Williams 1978, 1980; DiTomaso 1994), including guanidine, galegine (isoamylene guanidine), hydroxygalegin and galuteolin (Barger and White 1923a, 1923b; Pufahl and Schreiber 1961). Galegine is synthesized in seedlings, leaves, flowers and fruit with highest levels occurring in the seed and the levels in plants increasing through the flowering, fruiting and seed maturation stages (Reuter 1962; Oldham 2009; Oldham et al. 2011). However, because of the bitter alkaloids, mature plants are generally unpalatable to livestock (Tingey 1971; Williams 1978, 1980), and intoxication is largely restricted to times of drought or under other conditions which limit the availability of alternative forage, such as when contaminated fodder has been fed to animals (Durieux 1968; Williams 1978; Puyt et al. 1980; Poulet-Wolgust et al. 2012; Fraiture 2014). Poisoning generally occurs when the plant is at flowering or fruiting stages (Parton and Bruere 2002; De Otazúa et al. 2009), with young plants being much less toxic. Similarly, mature seed was more toxic to sheep than semi-mature seed in feeding trials by Keeler et al. (1986).

Observed clinical manifestations after consumption of G. officinalis include dyspnea, anoxia, foaming nasal discharge, vomiting, pulmonary congestion, edema and hydrothorax lesions (Keeler et al. 1988; Lasseigne 2003; Roch et al. 2007). Mortality can occur 24 h or less after ingestion (Durieux 1968; Puyt et al. 1981). Clinical signs were observed at 0.8 g G. officinalis per kg of sheep body weight, and mortality was observed at 10 g G. officinalis per kg of sheep body weight (Keeler et al. 1986, 1988). Mortality was observed in sheep fed approximately 0.7% of body weight of G. officinalis dry matter by De Otazúa et al. (2009), depending on individual plant toxin levels and animal sensitivity. Dried aerial parts fed to rats at a rate of 5 g·kg−1 did not result in any mortalities or any clinical signs of toxicity although there was evidence that significant liver and lung alterations had occurred suggesting these organs are the target of G. officinalis toxicosis (Rasekh et al. 2008). In German tests, alcoholic extracts from seeds and leaves were poisonous to mice, the average lethal dose of galegine sulphate amounting to 77.5 mg·kg−1 body weight (Köhler 1969). Susceptibility of animals to experimental poisoning has shown considerable variation and the reasons for this remain unclear (Keeler et al. 1988).

Confirmed reports of livestock poisoning by G. officinalis are relatively rare. Most cases have been reported from southern and central France, where such reports go back to the late 19th Century (Faliu et al. 1981, 1985). Sheep are the primary victims of poisoning, and mortality rates from 10%–50% have been reported (Faliu et al. 1981; Puyt et al. 1981; Gresham and Booth 1991; Guitart et al. 2010). Severe outbreaks with numerous deaths following consumption of contaminated fodder have been reported in sheep (Durieux 1968; Puyt et al. 1980, 1981; Bézard et al. 2002; Poulet-Wolgust et al. 2012; Fraiture 2014), goats (Lasseigne 2003) and cattle (Roch et al. 2007). In the United Kingdom, a number of sheep died with symptoms of goat’s-rue poisoning when put to graze in a newly-seeded pasture adjacent to an embankment infested with G. officinalis (Gresham and Booth 1991). Poisoning in sheep has also been reported from New Zealand (West 1982). In Canada and the United States, toxicity of the plant has been of little significance to date, because of its limited and scattered distribution (Burrows and Tyrl 2013).

(b) Beneficial

As a folk remedy, G. officinalis has been used for centuries in Europe for a variety of purposes. It has been suggested that it was a plant known to Dioscorides and Pliny the Elder, although it has not been unambiguously identified in their works. Traditional uses include as a poison antidote, mild astringent, vermifuge, plague treatment, anti-convulsive, anti-inflammatory compress, pot or salad herb, egg production stimulant for hens, and galactagogue to increase lactation (Gerard 1597; Culpeper 1650; Loudon 1849; Rasekh et al. 2008). Actual and potential medicinal uses of various secondary metabolites of G. officinalis were reported by Karakaş et al. (2016a, 2016b), Nagalievska et al. (2018) and Atanasov et al. (2019). The common practice of using the plant in livestock feed to increase milk production led to the ancient common name galega (see, for example, Gerard 1597) and to the Linnaean generic name Galega, from the Greek “gala” for milk. Extracts have also been used to treat reproductive disorders and enhance reproduction in goats and sheep (Viegi et al. 2003). As a fodder containing phytoestrogens (see Section 7c), it appears to promote the estrogenic receptors and increase both the length of lactation and milk volume in ewes (González-Andrés et al. 2004; Tabares et al. 2014). A similar effect has also been reported for cows (Hanelt 2001; Witters 2001; González-Andrés et al. 2004) and rabbits (Pałka et al. 2019).

Used in traditional herbal medicine, and now widely available on the Internet as a herbal remedy, there is doubt concerning the safety of extracts of G. officinalis as a galactagogue or hypoglycaemic for human use (Duke et al. 2002; Zuppa et al. 2010; Zecca et al. 2016). Secondary metabolite production has been shown to vary greatly with abiotic stress, indicating that appropriate dosage levels may be difficult to determine in crude plant preparations (Karakaş and Bozat 2020).

Extracts of G. officinalis have been shown to have a significant impact on glucose transport (Neef et al. 1996), although physiological actions are poorly known. In Bulgaria (where G. officinalis is endemic) and Chile (where it is introduced), the aerial parts of the plant have been traditionally used as a hypoglycemic and diuretic (Muñoz et al. 1981; Lemus et al. 1999; Kiselova et al. 2006; Atanasov et al. 2019). A concoction derived from this species had been used in mediaeval Europe to treat symptoms including frequent urination, a symptom of diabetes (Witters 2001). Such practices led to studies early in the 20th Century of potentially useful compounds in the species to treat type 2 diabetes focusing on guanidine and galegine. Subsequently, various new anti-hyperglycaemic compounds were synthesized, including the much less toxic dimethylbiguanide, also known as Metformin or Glucophage (Bailey et al. 1996; Witters 2001; Bailey and Day 2004; Howlett and Bailey 2007). Metformin was introduced into clinical practice in Europe as a treatment for hyperglycemia in the late 1950s (Bailey and Day 2004; Goetz 2007; Goetz and Le Jeune 2008). The drug was introduced to Canada in 1972 and to the United States in 1995 (Bailey et al. 1996; Dowling et al. 2011) and has been prescribed world-wide (Hadden 2005; Mentreddy 2007; Dowling et al. 2011). Metformin has also been studied in the treatment of obesity (Campbell and Howlett 1995; Witters 2001) and polycystic ovary syndrome, as well as showing antiviral and anticancer activity (Dowling et al. 2011). Galegine in G. officinalis has been found to cause weight reduction in mice (Palit et al. 1999; Mooney et al. 2008), but, as with guanidine, subsequent studies have synthesized more effective analogues (Coxon et al. 2009).

In addition to the alkaloids, some of the 48 detected phenolic compounds may contribute to the hypoglycemic activity observed in G. officinalis (Barchuk et al. 2017). Experiments on rats with induced hyperglycemia showed that blood glucose concentration was significantly reduced when treated with saponins, tannins and glycosides extracted from G. officinalis (Luka and Omoniwa 2012).

Galega officinalis has reportedly been used medicinally in hand and foot baths, and to improve skin healing through antibacterial and antifungal activity (Pundarikakshudu et al. 2001; Özbucak et al. 2005; Ertürk 2010; Karakaş et al. 2012). A widely used biguanide compound, chlorhexidine, is a useful germicide and disinfectant (Hadden 2005). Anti-microbiological properties of G. officinalis have been investigated in Turkey, where extracts of leaves and shoots have been found to be effective against bacteria and to a lesser extent against fungi (Özbucak et al. 2005; Karakaş et al. 2012, 2016a, 2016b). Extracts from the plant were found to be inhibitory on both gram-positive and gram-negative bacteria; and, significant tumour inhibition (98% with aqueous extract) was obtained in assays with Agrobacterium tumefaciens-induced potato disk tumors (Karakaş et al. 2012).

An aqueous extract of compounds from G. officinalis was found to have an anti-coagulation effect (Atanasov 1994; Atanasov and Spasov 2000). The fraction inhibiting platelet aggregation contained 19%–23% protein and about 74% polysaccharides, with the high biological activity being attributed to its protein component (Atanasov et al. 2003).

Aqueous extracts (1:4 weight to volume) of G. officinalis were tested on the dagger nematode Xiphinema index in Chile for nematicidal activity (Insunza et al. 2001). Extracts of leaves and flowers killed 100% of the nematodes after 24 h exposure, while root extracts killed 91.7% of the nematodes.

In Europe G. officinalis has been cultivated as forage and green manure (Whyte et al. 1953; Ball 1968; Uphof 1968; Hanelt 2001) as well as for soil amelioration (Našinec and Nĕmcová 1990). Cultivars have been developed that are adapted to acid soils (see Section 5b) and cold climates (Našinec and Nĕmcová 1990). It has been used as a forage crop in Switzerland (Stebler and Schröter 1889), Italy (Peiretti and Gai 2006; Peiretti 2009), Spain (González-Andrés et al. 2004), Finland (Laakso et al. 1990), and China (Xu et al. 2010). As a crop, it is highly productive and might be improved with modern breeding techniques designed to reduce toxicity (Našinec and Nĕmcová 1990). Forage and cutting for fodder are currently best done prior to flowering when alkaloid and phenolic content is low and plants are most palatable and nutritious (Stebler and Schröter 1889; Parton and Bruere 2002; De Otazúa et al. 2009; Oldham et al. 2011; Section 7c).

In Europe and Russia, G. officinalis has been investigated for potential bioremediation of hydrocarbon contaminated soils (Našinec and Nĕmcová 1990; Lyubun and Tychinin 2007).

Pollen of G. officinalis has been a valuable source of food for bee colonies in several areas. It has been grown as bee forage in southern Europe, Germany and Switzerland (Whyte et al. 1953; Hanelt 2001). In Ankara province of north-central Turkey, it was among the top preferred plant species of bumblebees (Apidae: Hymenoptera) (Aytekin et al. 2002). Pollen of G. officinalis has been identified as a component in honey from a few sites in Chile (Montenegro et al. 2004; Montenegro et al. 2010), in one small district (Maniwatu) in New Zealand (Moar 1985), and in Italy (Mercuri and Porrini 1991; Canini et al. 2009).

Various other uses of G. officinalis have been reported. The leaves have been cooked like spinach (Gerard 1597) and plant extracts have been used as a substitute for rennet in the manufacture of curdled milk products (Facciola 1990). An extract claimed to inhibit tyrosinase activity in the production of melanin has been promoted as a skin whitener (Lee et al. 2012) and skin conditioner products containing “galega officinalis extract” (Chemical Abstracts Service registry number 84650-07-7) are available for sale.

In Europe, G. officinalis has been used as a garden ornamental plant for centuries (Gerard 1597; Loudon 1849; Stebler and Schröter 1889; Step 1896; Hedrick 1919; Gams 1924; Hellyer 1955; Salisbury 1961; Polunin 1969) and horticultural trade may have been a significant pathway in its establishment to other countries prior to widespread soil quarantine regulations (see Section 6). Various cultivars have been previously imported for North American gardens (Macoun 1908; Bailey and Bailey 1976), although regulations now prevent such trade.

(c) Legislation

In Canada, G. officinalis is listed as a class 2 primary noxious weed under the Weed Seeds Order (CFIA 2018; Canada Gazette Vol. 150, No. 10 — May 18, 2016) where tolerance levels are set for contamination in traded seed commodities. Its import is also regulated under the Plant Protection Act (CFIA 2018). It is, however, not listed on any provincial weed legislation.

In the United States, it is listed on the U.S. Plant Protection Act and Federal Seed Act (USDA-APHIS 2020). It is also considered a noxious or quarantine weed under State regulations in Alabama, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Vermont and Washington (USDA-NRCS 2020). In 1981 a program was established by the United States Department of Agriculture providing funding for the eradication of goat’s-rue. In Cache County, Utah, the population size was reduced by as much as 95%, but the species has not yet been eliminated (Westbrooks 1993; Evans et al. 1997).

In New Zealand, G. officinalis is a regionally regulated weed. To reduce the occurrence and impact in the Hawke’s Bay region, G. officinalis has been designated as a “total control” pest where land occupiers must destroy all plants before the production of mature seed (Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 2004). In the Auckland region it has been designated a “surveillance pest plant”, where it is banned from sale, propagation, distribution and exhibition (Auckland Council 2020).

4. Geographical Distribution

The native range of G. officinalis is centred around the Black Sea region (Österman et al. 2011) extending from southeastern Europe through the Caucasus to western Asia, and is now extensively naturalized in western and northern Europe and eastwards to Pakistan (Gams 1924; Clapham et al. 1987; Ball 1968; Varis 1986; CABI 2019). It is reported as a native plant in Algeria and Morocco, but this status is uncertain (CABI 2019). The species has been introduced to Argentina, Chile, Ecuador (CABI 2019; Jørgensen and Léon-Yanez 1999), New Zealand (Webb et al. 1988), China (Xu et al. 2010) and at scattered locations in North America (CABI 2019). It was reported to have been introduced to the island of Mauritius prior to 1837 (Bojer 1837).

In Canada, G. officinalis has been recorded as a naturalized plant at sites in the provinces of Quebec, Ontario and British Columbia (herbarium specimen records plotted in Fig. 4). All known sites are at disturbed, urban or semi-rural places. In Quebec, it is known from one site at Quebec City (Gervais 1979). In Ontario, it has become established in several areas including around Ottawa, Toronto, Sault Ste. Marie, St. Catharines and the Niagara region. In British Columbia, it has been collected at one site in Vancouver, but, in spite of the large population documented to have persisted for more than 25 yr, Klinkenberg (2020) considered it “A non-established species not considered to be part of the BC flora.”

Fig. 4.

Distribution of goat’s-rue, Galega officinalis, in Canada based on data from herbarium specimens (DAO, QFA, TRT and UBC). Plots near Niagara, Ottawa and Toronto (indicated with a box) represent multiple known locations. Outline map based on Coastline and Boundaries of Canada map, Atlas of Canada, 6th edition, Natural Resources of Canada.

cjps-2020-0327f4.tif

In the United States, the species is currently established or naturalized in California, Colorado, Connecticut, Massachusetts, Maryland, Maine, Nebraska, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Utah and Washington (Kartesz 2015; USDA-NRCS 2020; Calflora 2020). In Utah and Pennsylvania, where the species is well established and spreading, control measures have reduced its presence (Oldham and Ransom 2011; Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2011). Originally reported from New York City area in 1948 (Ahles 1951), it was considered rare in the state until recently reported in the Niagara region (Eckel 2004). In Michigan, it was collected from a well-established stand in a marsh in 1985 (Reznicek et al. 2011). In Oregon, where the species was thought to have been eradicated following a brief appearance in 2007, it remained a target invasive species subject to the state’s Early Detection and Rapid Response (EDDR) program, and a later reassessment (Oregon Department of Agriculture 2015) noted that new sites had been located around Portland.

Originally distributed in southeastern Europe, its introduction westward, before or during the medieval period, expanded the range throughout the southern part of the continent and into northwest Africa (Roskov et al. 2006). In recent times populations have continued to spread locally, such as in the United Kingdom (Biological Records Centre 2014b), eastern France (EPPO 2008) and the Czech Republic (Moravcová et al. 2010).

5. Habitat

(a) Climatic requirements

It is reported that Galega officinalis has a low winter-hardiness (Whyte et al. 1953) which should tend to restrict its spread into and within colder climate zones. In Canada, the species has naturalized in continental climate zones in eastern Canada between 43° and 47° N latitude, and was found at 49° in the Pacific maritime zone of British Columbia. This suggests that it can tolerate an annual minimum temperature of at least –35 °C, which would include most of the important agricultural production areas in southern Canada.

In the United States, the plant has spread widely in Utah in a mid-latitude desert zone (Evans 1984). In greenhouse studies in that state, growth of G. officinalis was favoured by a long photoperiod for flowering (16–18 h), daily temperatures of 26–29 °C and was poorly adapted to large diurnal temperature fluctuations (Patterson 1992, 1993). Growth increased with elevated daytime temperatures from 15 to 29 °C but declined at 36 °C (Patterson 1993). In Pennsylvania it is established (Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2011) in a mid-latitude temperate climate. In Oregon and Washington, the plant grows in a Pacific climate zone similar to southern British Columbia.

Using observed growth responses of G. officinalis to temperature and diurnal fluctuations, Patterson (1993) generated a model to predict growth rates at various locations in the United States based on day/night temperature normals from May to September. His model predicts that optimal growth would be achieved in areas with a daytime average of 23 °C or greater and a diurnal change of 7 °C or less, geographically corresponding largely to areas in the southeastern United States. Since this model was formulated from observations of plants reared from surface-sterilized seed established in growth chambers, it is not clear whether effectively nodulating symbionts (see Section 7e) were present or whether their presence would affect growth responses and alter the model predictions.

In Europe, G. officinalis is widespread along river valleys, such as the Rhine, Danube, Thaya and Volga (Gams 1924). Further east, near the Black and Caspian Seas, as in northern Turkey (Özbucak et al. 2005), southern Russia, Ukraine and the Caucasus (Dzyubenko and Dzyubenko 2003), it is found in temperate to mild temperate lowland and sub-montane areas. It is rare in the Mediterranean climate of south-west Turkey (Bennett et al. 1998). It is rare in the United Kingdom outside of central and southeastern England (Biological Records Centre 2014b) and in Switzerland it is naturalized in temperate areas on low-lying lands sheltered from extreme cold (Stebler and Schröter 1889). In Spain, it has been successfully grown in regions with an average annual rainfall 440 mm and average daily maximum and minimum temperatures of 18.8 °C and 6.1 °C (González-Andrés et al. 2004). Through much of Italy it commonly occurs in natural pastures mostly below 1000 m elevation (Peiretti 2009). It is cultivated in areas of northern Italy with high precipitation in April, May and October and little rainfall in summer and winter with mean daily temperatures of 0.5 °C in January and 22 °C in July (Peiretti and Gai 2006). In Argentina, plants are found in areas which are humid and warm with an annual precipitation of 950 mm and maximum daily summer temperature of 22 °C (Ansín 2001). In tropical Ecuador, it is found only at 2500–3500 m asl. (metres above sea level) in the Andes (Jørgensen and Léon-Yanez 1999).

(b) Substratum

In Canada, G. officinalis has been reported from clay soils and rocky landfill in the Ottawa area (Reddoch and Reddoch 2000). Analysis of soil samples from five sites harbouring G. officinalis populations in Ontario, showed a pH of 7.4–7.8 (Bromfield et al. 2019), 140–360 parts per million (ppm) potassium, 120–320 ppm magnesium, 10–37 ppm phosphorus, 1–34 ppm nitrate (NO3-) and negligible amounts of nitrite (NO2-); and, the carbon/nitrogen ratio ranged from 7.2–17.0% [Eden Bromfield, (unpublished data)].

In Cache County, Utah, G. officinalis is found in clay loam and loam soil pH 7.3–7.5 with 3.3–5.7% organic matter (Oldham 2009). In New York, it was growing at dumps covered with gritty soil with a high percentage of chert in the form of pebbles (Ahles 1951). In Switzerland, the plant was observed to satisfy its nutritive requirements from the subsoil, so that the quality of the topsoil was deemed of little importance; however, it grew best in deep humus soil where moisture was available to its deep taproots (Stebler and Schröter 1889). Naturalized populations in Spain have been found on solonetzic soils (alfisol typic rhodoxeralf) of pH 7.7, and plants have been cultivated in experimental field plots on regosolic soil (entisol typic xerorthent) of pH 8.0 and solonetzic soil (alfisol typic palexeralf) of pH 8.2 (González-Andrés et al. 2004). In the Black Sea region of Turkey, G. officinalis is a glycophyte usually found in weakly acidic to alkaline soils rich in nitrogen (Özbucak et al. 2005), but around the northern and eastern shores of the Black Sea, the plant is tolerant of saline soils (Dzyubenko and Dzyubenko 2003). Plants thrive in mesic habitats with deep soil in the Czech republic (Kubešová et al. 2010). Along the walls of the upper tidal Thames River in the United Kingdom, plants are commonly found in waste-ground among boulders (Francis and Hoggart 2012), where the underlying soil is of alluvial deposits. In Argentina and central Chile, the plant has spread in rich and humid soils (Whyte et al. 1953).

In Canada, populations of G. officinalis were found at sites with soils above pH 7.0 (Bromfield et al. 2019) which is consistent with reports from the United States (Oldham and Ransom 2009) and Spain (González-Andrés et al. 2004) of plants growing in soils with pH ranges of 7.3–7.5 and 7.7–8.2, respectively. This suggests that the apparent adaptation of G. officinalis to soils above pH 7.0 may act in concert with the high level of specificity between host plant and symbiotic bacterium (see Section 7e) to limit the spread of the plant in new environments (Bromfield et al. 2019).

To assess the adaptation of G. officinalis as a fodder crop to saline soils in northeastern Europe, Egamberdieva et al. (2013) established a greenhouse experiment which involved inoculation of salt-stressed plants either with the symbiotic bacterium Neorhizobium galegae symbiovar officinalis (see Section 7e) alone, or co-inoculation with two growth-promoting bacteria, Pseudomonas extremorientalis and P. trivialis. Increasing salt concentrations decreased the ability of N. galegae alone to colonize the roots, whereas co-inoculation significantly alleviated the effects of salt stress, increasing nodulation and the nitrogen content of the shoots and, to a lesser extent, the roots.

(c) Communities in which the species occurs

In Canada, G. officinalis has naturalized along riverbanks, ditches, channels and other waterways and sometimes along roadsides, abandoned fields or landfill sites, usually not far from waterways (herbarium specimen label data). It can form dense patches (Fig. 2) in communities which are usually open or partly shaded and consist primarily of introduced grasses and herbaceous plants.

In the United States, G. officinalis has also been found mostly near waterways. In Utah, it spread from the forage testing fields into natural seepage areas, ditch-banks, marshes, irrigated pastures, high line canals and drainage systems (Tingey 1971; Evans 1984; Patterson 1992; Welsh et al. 1993). In Philadelphia, it was first detected along roadsides and floodplains in and around the Morris Arboretum (Stokes 1964; Klugh 1998), but has subsequently spread to other parts of Pennsylvania (Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2011). In New York, G. officinalis was first seen along river banks in Bronx County, with such plants as Lotus corniculatus L., Coriandrum sativum L., Diplotaxis sp., Artemisia annua L. and Matricaria inodora L. (Ahles 1951).

In its native range, the species occurs in a variety of habitats. In Turkey, it is found on mountain sides, roadsides, edge of lakes, beside fields and streams and in scrub woodlands at low elevations between 5–550 m asl (Davis 1970; Özbucak et al. 2005). In the former USSR (including the southern Russian Federation, southern Ukraine, Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia and western Kazakhstan) it occurs on riverbanks and in river valleys, meadows, scrub, beech woods, roadsides and ravines (Gorshkova 1971). It is among pioneer flora in disturbed sites in the western Caucasus, generally present at lower latitudes than G. orientalis (Andronov et al. 2003) and is among native species of closed communities along shoals of western Caucasian rivers at elevations ranging from 70–80 m asl., where occurrence was relatively low, to 800–900 m asl., where occurrence was considerably greater (Akatov and Akatova 2010). In the Italian Alps, G. officinalis is found in grazed natural pastures (Peiretti 2009) at elevations of 260–523 m asl. (Siniscalco et al. 2011). In Tuscany, it occurs primarily in wetlands and is common in pastures, along with hemp-agrimony (Eupatorium cannabinum L.) and field horsetail (Equisetum arvense L.), less frequent along canals and watercourses dominated by galingale (Cyperus longus L.) and rare in deciduous oak-dominated woods and inland swamps dominated by devil’s beggarticks (Bidens frondosa L.) and climbing nightshade (Solanum dulcamara L.) (Giallonardo et al. 2011). In New Zealand it is found mostly along waterways and in wetlands (Webb et al. 1988; Parton and Bruere 2002).

6. History

Introduced to Canada in the late 19th Century as an ornamental, Galega officinalis was cultivated in Ottawa as early as 1897 (Macoun 1908) and herbarium records show that the species continued to be grown in gardens through the first half of the 20th Century. Established populations of plants found in the Ottawa area since 1973 have probably originated as garden escapes (Macoun 1908). Populations at other sites in Ontario (Toronto, 1964; St. Catherines, 1974; Sault Ste. Marie, 2007) may also have arisen as garden escapes rather than through cultivation as forage. Herbarium specimens at Université Laval (QFA) indicate the plant was cultivated at Ste.-Anne-de-la-Pocatière (1940) and at Sainte-Foy (1960–1975), and was found established in Quebec City as early as 1974. A herbarium specimen at the University of British Columbia (UBC) documents the garden cultivation of G. officinalis in Vancouver, BC, as early as 1964 and a well-established population along the Fraser River in Vancouver has been known since 1998. While escape from ornamental or forage cultivation seems the most likely introduction pathway, it likely has also spread through association with transportation systems as an unintentional hitchhiker.

In the United States, G. officinalis was imported in small quantities as a trial green forage soiling crop at several localities in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, but was not adopted for agricultural use (Piper 1916; Evans 1984). Material imported from France was trialed for forage in Garden City, Kansas, in 1892, but the crop was destroyed by grasshoppers (J.A. Sewall in Vasey 1893). At the Utah Agricultural Experimental Station in Cache Valley County trials assessing its value as a forage crop were conducted from 1891–1893 until it was determined that the plant was unpalatable and toxic and the fields were subsequently abandoned (Tingey 1971). By the 1980s the plant had spread from the trial plots and become weedy over an area of about 155 km2 (Evans 1984). A specimen at the New York Botanical Garden (NY 505379) documents G. officinalis cultivation in San Francisco, California, as early as 1927. In Pennsylvania, the seeds were among those of traditional medicinal plants sown experimentally near the Morris Arboretum in the 1950s where the plant became naturalized along floodplains and riverbanks (Stokes 1964). The species also became naturalized at scattered temperate and tropical montane locations elsewhere in the Americas (Barneby 1989; see Section 4).

The plant’s introduction to northern and western Europe was probably driven by its medicinal attributes and galactagogue properties. Loudon (1849) states that its introduction to the United Kingdom occurred prior to 1598 at which time it was growing in John Gerard’s physic garden (Gerard 1597). The English naturalist and physician William Turner did not mention the plant in his 1538 Libellus de re herbaria novus, however, after his medical studies in Italy (1540–1542) where he saw it naturalized, he mentioned its cultivation and medical properties in subsequent publications (Britten 1881; Chapman et al. 1995).

7. Growth and Development

(a) Morphology

The plant’s strong taproot provides access to deep soil moisture under drought conditions and to nutrients in the subsoil when growing in disturbed and nutrient-poor soils. The lax stem bases reduce the impact of mowing for fodder production or control. After cutting, axillary buds at the base of the stem quickly form a new set of stems. Lateral branches originating from buds in the axils of the radical leaves will develop into lateral branches in the first or second year (Stebler and Schröter 1889).

(b) Perennation

A long-lived perennial. Unless killed by frost, the large tap roots (see illustration in King County 2018) over-winter and sprout new stems from the caudex each spring.

(c) Physiology and biochemistry

An early nutritional analysis of G. officinalis as a fodder plant noted that prior to flowering, plants contained 78.7% organic matter, 17.1% nitrogen, 1.4% fat, and 34.4% fibre (Stebler and Schröter 1889). A more recent Italian study simulating forage production have shown a decline in nutritional quality and digestibility through the growth stages of rosette, shooting and budding, although some components were partially restored in the post-cut regrowth stage (Peiretti and Gai 2006; Peiretti 2009). Palmitic, linoleic and α-linolenic represented 82%–85% of the fatty acid content during the mid-season growth stage and in late-season regrowth. These percentages changed little during development; however, α-linolenic proportion was significantly higher at the regrowth stage. Organic matter, neutral detergent fibre, acid detergent fibre, lignin and gross energy increased during maturation, while crude protein, ether extract, ash and organic matter digestibility declined with plant maturation. Amino acid proportions did not vary significantly across growth stages, with only serine showing a significant change with development (highest at shooting and regrowth stages). In overall dry matter and chemical content, dry matter content increased from 111–157 g·kg−1 during first growth stages, and to 180 g·kg−1 at the regrowth stage; total nitrogen decreased from 31.6 g·kg−1 to 20.2 g·kg−1 (dry matter) from vegetative to budding stages, but increased to 33.5 g·kg−1 during the regrowth stage; soluble nitrogen decreased during growth from 5.9 g·kg−1 to 4.8 g·kg−1 and then increased to 5.4 g·kg−1 at regrowth. No significant changes were noted in water soluble carbohydrates (74–82 g·kg−1) or pH (5.6–5.7). The fermentation and quality of ensiled G. officinalis fodder varied with harvest growth stage and post-harvest wilting time.

The free amino acid canavanine is present in seeds of the genus Galega (Turner and Harborne 1967), perhaps functioning as both an anti-herbivore defense and nitrogen source for the embryo.

The most toxic molecules in G. officinalis include the guanidine alkaloids galegine (dimethylallylguanidine), hydroxygalegin and peganine (= vasicine) (Schäfer and Stein 1969). Galegine is found in increasing concentrations from the stem to leaves to the immature pod stage, with no storage in the roots and with some decrease at the ripe seed stage (Reuter 1962; Oldham et al. 2011). The quinazoline alkaloid, vasicine, was once believed to be responsible for the bitter taste avoided by animals, but later analysis suggested that the vasicine content (0.1%–0.35%) was too low to be responsible for reducing the fodder acceptability to livestock (Laakso et al. 1990).

In France, a rare norterpenoid glucoside, dearabinosyl pneumonanthoside, and several phytoestrogens (flavonol triglycosides), were isolated from the vegetative parts of G. officinalis by Champavier et al. (1999, 2000). Flavonoids absorbing UV radiation, isorhamnetin, kaempherol and quercetin, were reported by Kay (1987) in the flowers of G. officinalis. Luka and Omoniwa (2012) identified alkaloids, flavonoids, saponins, tannins, cardiac glycosides, phenols, resins, terpens and steroids from aqueous extracts of whole plants. A number of compounds extracted with methanol were identified by Fukunaga et al. (1987). In a study by Kiselova et al. (2006), aqueous extracts of G. officinalis had a total phenol content of 361.48 (± 1.30) μM (quercetin equivalent), indicating a moderate antioxidant capacity.

In a comparative study of plants grown from seed and nodal explants, Karakaş et al. (2016a) found 25% less total phenolic content (methanol extract) present in explants than in plants grown from seed. Although the total phenolic content was lower, observed levels of apigenin, luteolin and chlorogenic acid were higher in explants (10×, 100× and 2×, respectively). Shymanska et al. (2020) found that phenolic compounds were at the highest concentrations in flower buds and flowers.

Galega officinalis is one of the Fabaceae species with an attenuated extended bundle sheath (EBS) system (paraveinal mesophyll), consisting of digitated cells positioned between the palisade and spongy mesophyll of the leaf. The EBS tissue cells mainly join the spongy mesophyll cells lying between the veins rather than bridging between all of the vein islets, as occurs in species with a continuous EBS system (Franceschi and Giaquinta 1983a, 1983b; Kevekordes et al. 1988). The species is somewhat anomalous in having two layers of bridging cells, but these do not appear to extend throughout the large interveinal regions of the leaf. These specialized cells may act as routes for phloem loading of photosynthesis assimilates (Franceschi and Giaquinta 1983a) or as an EBS recovery system for concentrated amino acid solutes in the transpiration stream (Canny 1988, 1990).

(d) Phenology

The embryo of G. officinalis develops entirely from the apical cell of the zygote, while the basal cell remains part of the suspensor enabling nutrients to reach the developing embryo (Souèges 1949; Packa 2001).

Leaflets of emerging leaves are initially folded along the midrib, and unfurl as they develop (Klugh 1998). Cauline leaves develop alternately on each stem and flowering racemes emerge successively from leaf axils. Flowers and fruits develop acropetally along the racemes. In a laboratory experiment using different temperature regimes (Patterson 1992), the first flower buds appeared at an average 86, 46 and 40 d after seedling emergence at photoperiods of 14, 16 and 18 h, respectively, indicating a large variation in development times depending upon climate and light conditions. Fruits remain attached as they mature and dehisce (Stebler and Schröter 1889). At senescence, which may not occur until first-frost, pods dehisce along both sutures with the valves twisting to release the seeds (Kirkbride et al. 2003). The indeterminant development pattern results in plants bearing flowers and fruits at various stages of development throughout much of the growing season.

Plants in eastern Canadian populations are in flower by late June with fruits developing from early July into September; plant senescence commences in early fall and becomes complete with the first hard frost (herbarium specimen label data). In Pennsylvania, flowering was reported as beginning in June and continuing throughout the growing season (Klugh 1998) and although the upper parts of plants senesced in September, late-season new growth was sometimes observed at plant bases (Stokes 1964). In the Intermountain region of the western United States, the growing season was reported as late April to August (Barneby 1989) and from June to October in Washington State (King County 2018). Two fodder cuttings per season were obtained from plants grown for ensilage in Virginia (Piper 1916).

The flowering season for Europe as a whole was given as June to August by Polunin (1969) and in England, plants were reported to flower from July to August by Gerard (1597). In Switzerland, plants sown in early spring began flowering between the end of June and late July and, after cutting at the early flowering stage, quickly produced new stems from the base and began flowering again in late summer (Stebler and Schröter 1889). In Italy, plants sown in early spring were in full leaf by late June, began to shoot one week later, and began to bud two weeks later (Peiretti and Gai 2006).

Seedling relative growth rate as calculated in Czech trials (Moravcová et al. 2010) was 0.160 g g–1 day−1. In growth chamber trials (Patterson 1992, 1993), vegetative growth patterns (resource allocation) were significantly affected by variations in day and night temperatures. After 89 d plants attained maximum dry weight at day/night temperatures of 26/22 °C, while plants grown in regimes with greater day/night fluctuation (12–20 °C) or a higher day temperature (34 °C) were smaller. Root biomass, averaged over a period from 14 to 89 d after emergence, was highest at 26/14 °C, and least at 34/22 °C. In a comparison of the root weight ratio with that of alfalfa, G. officinalis tended to partition more biomass into roots than the latter at night temperatures of 18 °C or less, with a tendency for proportional root biomass to increase with decreasing night temperature. The greatest period of root growth was between 28 and 60 d after emergence. Given the response to temperature, photoperiod and moisture, Patterson (1992, 1993) predicted that G. officinalis could potentially flourish in large areas of North America, especially where conditions are suitable for alfalfa production.

(e) Mycorrhizal and bacterial symbioses

Mycorrhiza are fungi that form a symbiotic associations with plant roots and facilitate the uptake of nutrients (Bolan 1991). Mycorrhizal relationships of Galega species have not been well studied, although Palta et al. (2016) reported that roots of G. officinalis were colonized by mycorrhizal fungi and Püschel et al. (2011) reported that the growth of G. orientalis responded positively to soil inoculation with mycorrhizae.

Like most of the Fabaceae, species of Galega form a symbiotic association with soil bacteria (rhizobia) which stimulate the formation of swellings called nodules on the roots of the plant and convert atmospheric nitrogen (N2) into forms of ammonia (NH3) that are used by the host plant. In exchange, the bacteria receive energy in the form of fixed carbon from the plant host (Proctor and Moustafa 1962, 1963).

The two most studied species of Galega, G. officinalis and G. orientalis, form a highly specific symbiotic association only with the bacterial species Neorhizobium galegae which consists of two distinct symbiotic varieties (symbiovars): orientalis and officinalis. Both of these symbiovars form nodules on the two plant species but fix nitrogen only on their respective Galega host species (Lindström et al. 1983; Lipsanen and Lindström 1988; Lindström 1989; Kaijalainen and Lindström 1989; Räsänen et al. 1991; Mousavi et al. 2014; Österman et al. 2014; Karasev et al. 2019). The mechanisms controlling the specific interaction between Galega plants and their respective bacterial symbiont are poorly understood (Franche et al. 2009; Österman et al. 2011). Genome sequencing of several strains of N. galegae indicated few differences between the symbiovars officinalis and orientalis, although a single symbiosis related gene was found to be specific for symbiovar orientalis; the function of this gene remains to be determined (Österman et al. 2014, 2015).

In New Zealand, Liu et al. (2012) identified 2 strains of N. galegae isolated from root nodules of G. officinalis. Phylogenetic analyses of four housekeeping (16S rRNA, atpD, glnII, and recA) and two symbiosis gene (nodC and nifH) sequences indicated that 50 bacterial isolates from root-nodules of G. officinalis plants at five Canadian sites were identical to strains of N. galegae symbiovar officinalis originating either from Europe or the Caucasus (Bromfield et al. 2019). Moreover, plant tests with G. officinalis indicated that soils collected from four Canadian sites without a history of agriculture or presence of G. officinalis were deficient in symbiotic bacteria capable of eliciting nodules on this plant. In this connection, it is noteworthy that strains of the species, N. galegae, were not represented in culture collections of rhizobia isolated from diverse sites across Canada (Prévost and Bromfield 2003). Collectively, these data suggest that anthropogenic activities are responsible for the co-introduction of G. officinalis and its specific bacterial symbiont (N. galegae symbiovar officinalis) into Canada from the Old World.

Although G. officinalis can grow and reproduce under cultivation without its effective bacterial symbiont (González-Andrés et al. 2004), establishment and persistence in natural vegetation communities is highly unlikely. Cultivation trials in Estonia showed biomass production of the related G. orientalis was increased by 80% when plants were inoculated with the appropriate bacterial symbiont, but by only 35% when fertilized with supplemental nitrogen in the absence of symbionts (Raig et al. 2001). At sites in Spain, where G. officinalis and its symbiont, N. galegae, are naturalized, 5.9 × 104 infective bacterial cells per gram of soil were found (González-Andrés et al. 2004).

The establishment of G. officinalis populations in Canada outside of cultivation requires the co-introduction of both the plant host and its symbiotic bacterium. This is most likely accomplished through human transport of soil containing both seeds and bacteria (Bromfield et al. 2019).

8. Reproduction

(a) Floral biology

The flowers, like those of all Fabaceae, are hermaphrodite, however, plants are not able to self-pollinate as enclosed plants do not produce fruits (Fruwirth 1906). Details of floral anatomy and the pollination mechanism are described by Knuth (1908). Plants are pollinated by bees which are attracted to the reddish-yellow pollen grains (Knuth 1908) and nectar is not produced (Knuth 1908; Rodríguez-Riaño et al. 1999). Flowers possess a monadelphous androecium in which the lower part of the filaments are fused to form a tube of ten stamens surrounding the ovary. The stigma protrudes beyond the staminal tube and the anthers dehisce before the flower opens (Knuth 1908).

This species was determined to be a preferred plant species for bumblebees in Turkey (Aytekin et al. 2002) and G. officinalis pollen has been identified in honey from Chile (Montenegro et al. 2004; Montenegro et al. 2010), New Zealand (Moar 1985) and Italy (Mercuri and Porrini 1991; Canini et al. 2009). The plant has been deliberately grown as a bee forage in Switzerland (Hanelt 2001). The plant was listed as being economically important for honey production by Wiersema and León (1999), but is only significant as a pollen source for sustaining colonies and not honey production itself.

(b) Seed production and dispersal

Goat’s-rue is a prolific seed producer. Plants collected in Canada averaged seven racemes per stem, with about 25 flowers per raceme, and 4–6 seeds per pod (approximately 1000 seeds per stem), and an average seed weight of 6.07 mg (S.J. Darbyshire, (unpublished data)). From cultivated plants in Switzerland, Stebler and Schröter (1889) estimated an average seed weight of 7.32 mg. In Pennsylvania, Klugh (1998) reported 20–50 flowers per raceme, producing pods with up to nine seeds. In Utah, Oldham and Ransom (2009) observed seed production ranging from 174–1230 seeds per stem (depending on stem density), while Evans (1984) reported of up to 25 000 seeds per plant averaging six per pod. In the Czech Republic, the average seed weight was reported as 6.56 mg, with 1652 seeds per stem (Moravcová et al. 2010).

Seeds initially fall close to the plant. An experiment to measure speed of seed fall showed a very low capacity for wind dispersal (Moravcová et al. 2010). The spread of the species along waterways or in wetlands (see Section 5c), suggests that water is the main natural dispersal mechanism for seeds (Faliu et al. 1985), individually, in pods, or perhaps occasionally whole plants. In Utah, seeds spread primarily through irrigation systems were subsequently found in nearly all fields downstream of the original infestation (Evans 1984; Keeler et al. 1986). Irrigation channels were also reported to be the main dispersal pathway in Chile (Oehrens and González 1975). This suggests that, although the seeds are not buoyant and have been observed to sink quickly (Klugh 1998; Moravcová et al. 2010), they could be carried in stages by fast-moving water which follows the opening of sluice gates or sudden flooding. Moravcová et al. (2010) reported that some of the seeds in an experimental test remained floating for up to 24 min before sinking. Although seeds do not float for long, they may still approach neutral buoyancy when submerged and be readily transported by moving water.

Seeds of plants not growing near flowing water are likely to remain near the plant, which, together with regrowth from, and expansion of the caudex, may account for the scattered and localized patterns in which many colonies continue to be found in North America.

Soil transport from sites with established G. officinalis populations appears to have contributed to seed dispersal over short to medium distances. In Canada, movement of contaminated soil by excavators and vehicles is believed to have led to the spread of the species in the Ottawa area away from original garden plantings or other locations. In Pennsylvania, dredging equipment at a lake led to dispersal of seed in the sediments, as well as transport of aggregate construction material (Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture 2011). In New York, the species was found where ballast had been dumped (Ahles 1951). In the United Kingdom, plants growing along a roadside in Essex were apparently the source of seed transferred via construction equipment to an embankment which was then converted to pasture for sheep (Gresham and Booth 1991; see Section 3a). Seed can be dispersed by farm equipment or as commodity contaminants (Patterson 1992), but there is little evidence that these are important factors. The plant is not common in arable crops (Evans 1984), with the exception of alfalfa (Patterson 1993) where mowing is usually done before the plants are mature and contamination of alfalfa seed can be prevented by sieving because of the different seed sizes (Tingey 1971). The likelihood of animal dispersal is speculative, however, in a laboratory experiment in the Czech Republic, 51% of seeds scattered over a wild boar pelt remained embedded in the fur following agitation (Moravcová et al. 2010). Mature seeds, which are the most toxic part of the plant, could possibly be eaten by livestock and passed in feces.

The absence of N. galegae in native soils has been implicated in the slow spread of G. officinalis in both Canada (Bromfield et al. 2019) and New Zealand (Proctor 1963). The co-dispersal of G. officinalis seed with the bacterial symbiont would seem most effectively accomplished through soil transport either by water or human actions. Apart from deliberate soil inoculation, the intentional spread of the plant and its symbiont can be achieved by transplanting from gardens where N. galegae is already present or by illegally importing soil containing the bacterium. Inadvertent co-dispersal may occur through the movement of soil or construction aggregate, or on contaminated vehicles from areas with previously established plant-bacteria populations.

(c) Seed banks, seed viability and germination

The continued annual emergence of seedlings following strenuous attempts to eradicate the species indicated the presence of seed banks in infested areas of Utah (Evans et al. 1997), where 15 000–75 000 seeds m−2 have been observed (Oldham 2009). Seeds germinate rapidly in 1–3 d when scarified and moistened in the laboratory [Patterson 1992; S. Mechanda, (unpublished data)], but germination may take several weeks under natural conditions. Seeds are known to remain viable in the soil for at least 5–10 yr (Evans and Ashcroft 1982). Seed dormancy, as with many Fabaceae, is primarily physical, with seeds germinating rapidly after physical or chemical scarification. Oldham and Ransom (2009) found nearly 100% seed germination after sulfuric acid scarification, but only 8% of un-scarified seeds germinated.

In Utah, greenhouse germination trials used seeds collected from the soil surface as well as seeds collected 26 yr earlier and placed in dry storage (Oldham and Ransom 2009). Seeds were planted at different depths from near-surface to 14 cm. The seeds exhibited dormancy of 80–93%, viability of 91%–100%, and were capable of remaining viable in dry storage for at least 26 y. Dormancy was estimated by comparing germination of the old and new seed with and without sulphuric acid scarification. Of the untreated 26 yr old seed, 61% germinated, while maximum germination (99%) was achieved with a scarification time of 10 min. Only 23% germination occurred in untreated 6 mo seed, but reached 89% germination after 50 min of scarification treatment. These results indicated that dormancy was lower in old seed, although viability was similar in both age classes. Similar observations by Stebler and Schröter (1889) on the germination of “old” and “new” seeds planted for crops in Switzerland found that 12% of new seed and 21% of old seed (age and storage conditions not given) germinated; 88% of the new seed and 21% of the old seed remained hard (i.e., dormant) while the remainder of the old seed (58%) rotted. In Spain, a germination rate of 50% was observed after sandpaper scarified seed was sown (González-Andrés et al. 2004). Other factors have been shown to affect the germination of G. officinalis. In the Czech Republic (Moravcová et al. 2010), germination of freshly harvested seed was tested under three temperature regimes (25/10, 20/5 and 15/5 °C), and dry-stored plus cold-stratified (1–4 °C, 3–5 mo) seed at 25/10 °C (12 h light 12 h dark). Although details of the results were not given, germination under these various conditions ranged from 12%–56%. Testing the effect of temperature on germination in the laboratory, Patterson (1992) observed germination of scarified seeds was 47%–68% one day after planting, with lower germination rates occurring in the 26/14 and 34/14 °C regimes, but after three days, germination was 75%–81%, regardless of temperature conditions. Higher night temperature resulted in high germination rates. In Utah, seedling emergence was inversely related to burial depths; emergence was 93% at 0.5 cm soil depth, 87%–90% at 1–3 cm depth, 56% at 8 cm, and 21% at 10 cm, while no emergence occurred at depths below 12 cm (Oldham and Ransom 2009).

(d) Vegetative reproduction

Roots that survive winter temperatures will send up new shoots in the spring from buds on the caudex (base of the stem). In vitro experiments by Našinec and Nĕmcová (1990) were able to regenerate plants from both callus formation and re-growth from node-bearing stem segments.

9. Hybrids

Naturally occurring hybrids between G. officinalis and G. orientalis have been reported in the Caucasus region where the two species are sympatric (Raig et al. 2001). Artificial hybrids between Galega species have been reported in the nursery trade; for example, the popular cultivars referred to as G. hartlandii or G. officinalis var. hartlandii (both are illegitimate scientific names) are reputed to be a hybrid cross between G. officinalis and G. patula Steven (although G. patula is usually considered a synonym of G. officinalis).

10. Population Dynamics

As a perennial, G. officinalis is not successful in annual crops of arable fields, but does well in un-cropped areas (including field margins) and uncut pastures where animals tend to avoid the species and more desirable fodder plants are overgrazed, leaving G. officinalis to spread as a result of the reduced competition (Tingey 1971; Evans 1984; Keeler et al. 1986). In a 4 yr study of horse grazing areas in Argentina, G. officinalis increased from 1% to 30% plant cover in improved pastures and from 15% to 47% in native grasslands under continuous grazing. Under controlled grazing intended to increase the use of bird’s-foot trefoil (Lotus tenuis Willd.) as forage, the levels of G. officinalis remained at 1% in pastures and decreased from 15% to 5% in grasslands (Ansín 2001). Stebler and Schröter (1889) recommended that, as a forage crop, G. officinalis should be sown without a protective crop and would not survive if sown with grasses.

In Majella National Park of central Italy, G. officinalis was among dominant herbaceous species that appeared in a post-fire montane beech forests but was not detected in un-burned forests (Odoi 2009). It responded as a pioneer species after disturbance and prior to forest canopy maturation.

11. Response to Herbicides and Other Chemicals

Herbicide control has been used in a few regions where G. officinalis is considered particularly invasive or dangerous to animals. In parts of Europe there is little information on the use of herbicide controls to mitigate its spread. In southwestern France, where poisoning of livestock is a more serious problem, eradication of the species in pasturelands with the use of herbicides such as 2,4-D, bentazon, dicamba and MCPA has been recommended (Faliu et al. 1985). In Italy (Peiretti 2009, Peiretti and Gai 2006) and Spain (González-Andrés et al., 2004), where the species is valued for livestock feed and other uses, control has been limited to cutting or mowing before the flowering stage to limit accumulation of toxins (see Section 12). In the Hawke’s Bay region of New Zealand, control of the species is required and the use of herbicides triclorpyr or metsulfuron methyl in the spring or prior to flowering is recommended (Hawke’s Bay Regional Council 2004). Since the caudex of herbicide-treated plants can remain viable for up to 7 yr, full control usually requires either re-treatment or uprooting (Miller 2003).

The most extensive use of herbicides to control G. officinalis has been in parts of the United States where control or eradication have become priorities. Various formulations of 2, 4-D were tested in Utah in the 1960s at various rates at different growth stages, but while 2,4,5-T was the most effective, 2, 4-D sprayed at relatively low rates was found to be effective enough (Tingey 1971). Spraying 2, 4-D, dicamba or a combination after cutting and repeating the treatment was found to be effective in Utah trials, although it did not prevent new cohorts of seedlings emerging from the seed bank (Evans 1984). Effective control of plants was achieved with a mixture of these herbicides, applied twice a year for two years after mowing, at application rates of 565–568 g a.i. h−1 of 2,4-D and 272–282 g a.i. h−1 of dicamba (Evans 1984; Miller 2003). Further experiments with a number of herbicides were conducted in Utah (Oldham and Ransom 2011). Herbicides tested in a greenhouse were 2,4-D amine, dicamba, chlorsulfuron, picloram, imazapyr, imazamox, aminopyralid and triclopyr, applied at gradually increasing doses from 0.125× to 2.0× typical field use rates. The species was most sensitive to the ALS inhibitors chlorsulfuron (at 3.7 g a.i. ha−1) and imazapyr (at 90 g a.i. ha−1). In field trials at two infested pasture sites, the same herbicides were tested except that imazamox was replaced by metsulfuron methyl. On average, all tested herbicides, excluding 2,4-D and imazapyr, had greater than 93% control at both sites, and at one site, treatments not only controlled established G. officinalis, but also resulted in increased perennial grass cover. All treatments at one site decreased seedling cover, while aminopyralid and picloram also decreased seedling cover at the other site 11 mo after treatment.

In Pennsylvania, mechanical measures to prevent flowering in combination with herbicide treatment is recommended (Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources n.d.). In Washington State, a combination of manual, mechanical and herbicide methods was recommended for control of the species, the most effective herbicides being 2,4-D, aminopyralid and dicamba, alone or in combination, applied in the early summer before the bud stage, and repeated again in the fall (King County 2018).

In Utah, Evans and Peitersen (1987) assessed the field use of sodium methyldithiocarbamate as a soil fumigation to inhibit G. officinalis seed germination. Scarified seed was placed at various depths and retrieved 48 h after treatment and tested for germination in the laboratory. Germination from untreated plots was reduced by 16%–72% with seeds buried at greater depths showing less germination. The fumigation treatment reduced germination by about 50%, but was not sufficiently effective to decrease the field population.

12. Response to Other Human Manipulation

Galega officinalis is unlikely to become a serious weed on tillable land if good agronomic practices, such as row cropping and crop rotation, are used. Although the species can spread rapidly in heavily-grazed pastures, regular mowing can keep the plants from producing seed and spreading (Tingey 1971). Mowing will limit its spread in alfalfa fields by preventing seed production, and will reduce plant vigour. However, mowing alone is unlikely to eradicate the species as seed can remain viable in soil for many years providing annual recruitment after mature plants have been eliminated (Evans 1984; Evans et al. 1997). Crop rotation, mowing, clipping, cutting, digging and cultivation are most effective when used in an integrated approach including herbicides (Evans et al. 1997). Deep tillage to 12 cm or deeper can help to limit emergence from the seed bank, but the development of effective methods of seed bank control remains a challenge (Oldham and Ransom 2009). Alternate cropping and row crop systems can reduce the population size since cultivation interrupts the life cycle as well as depleting the seed bank by inducing germination.

In a production study in Spain, seedlings for transplanting were inoculated with strains of N. galegae isolated from root nodules of plants growing in a naturalized population, presumably symbiovar officinalis (González-Andrés et al. 2004). Both inoculated plants and non-inoculated plants receiving supplemental nitrogen, produced significantly more above-ground dry matter than plants inoculated with various Rhizobium or Bradyrhizobium strains that did not form effective nodules. The highest crop yields were obtained at a plant density of 160 000 plants ha−1 (direct sowing) and a cutting height of 10 cm above ground. The lowest yields were from plants transplanted at 10 000 ha−1 with a cutting height of 2 cm above ground level.

The rust fungus Uromyces galegae (Opiz) Sacc. was introduced from France to Chile in 1973 as a biological control agent against G. officinalis (Oehrens and González 1975) and has spread to Argentina (Ellison and Barreto 2004). Although the fungus successfully established in Chile, it did not reduce seed production (Ellison and Barreto 2004) and after a promising start, appears to have had no long-term impact on the weed (Barreto 2008).

13. Response to Herbivory, Disease and Higher Plant Parasites

(a) Herbivory

(i) Mammals, including both domestic and wild animals

Horses, cattle and sheep may graze on young G. officinalis plants, but tend to avoid mature plants because of the bitter taste of the alkaloids (Reuter 1962; Oldham et al. 2011). However, animals may consume the plant when other forage is scarce, or when it is present as a contaminant in alfalfa or other fodder fed to animals as hay (Tingey 1971).

(ii) Birds and (or) other vertebrates

No information was located.

(iii) Insects

In 1892, Galega officinalis was grown in Kansas to test its forage potential. However, J.A. Sewall (in Vasey 1893) reported that the plants were eaten by grasshoppers.

Lepidoptera

In Argentina G. officinalis is one of a number of host plants for the neotropical soybean bud borer (Crocidosema aporema Walsingham) (Liljeström and Rojas-Fajardo 2005). Galega officinalis is among food plants of the larvae of Coleophora vicinella Zeller, which also feeds on Astragalus, Securigera, and Gypsophila fastigiate L. It is also a host of the pea blue butterfly Lampides boeticus L. in the United Kingdom (Biological Records Centre 2014a).

Hymenoptera

In Utah, G. officinalis is a forage plant for the alfalfa leafcutter bee (Megachile rotundata Fabr.) (Guirguis and Brindley 1974). Throughout its range G. officinalis is a pollen forage plant for various types of medium and large sized bees, including Bombus spp., M. rotundata (Knuth 1908; Guirguis and Brindley 1974). It has been planted as forage for honeybees, Apis mellifera L. (see Section 3b.).

Thysanoptera

In Croatia, G. officinalis has been found as a host plant for the Western flower thrips (Frankliniella occidentalis Pergande) (Raspudić et al. 2009).

Coleoptera

Galega officinalis is a host plant for the seed beetle Bruchidius imbricornis Panz. in Hungary (Jermy and Szentesi 2003). In Romania, B. imbricornis, B. varius Olivier and other Bruchidius spp. have been found to infest 40%–80% of seeds of G. officinalis, with damaged seeds showing readily visible emergence holes (Perju and Moldovan 1981). In the former Czechoslovakia, Kocourek (1989) found 25% of seeds of G. officinalis were infested by B. varius. In the United Kingdom, G. officinalis has been reported as a host for the clover weevil (Sitona hispidulus Fabr.), the clover root weevil (Sitona lepidus Gyll.) and the alfalfa weevil (Hypera postica Gyll.) (Biological Records Centre 2014a).

Hemiptera

Galega officinalis is a reported host plant for the potato aphid [Macrosiphum euphorbiae (Thomas)] in Serbia and Montenegro (Tomanović et al. 2003; Holman 2009); and, the pea aphid (Acyrthosiphon pisum Harris) in eastern and central Europe (Holman 2009) and Great Britain (Biological Records Centre 2014a). The green peach aphid, Myzus persicae Sulzer, an insect vector of viruses, has been reported on G. officinalis in Chile [Apablaza et al. 2003; Section 13b (iii) Viruses]. It is also among the hosts of the cosmopolitan southern stink bug (Nezara viridula L.), a pest of soybean crops in Argentina (Liljeström and Rabinovich 2004).

In the state of Maryland, G. officinalis was reported as a host for the potato leafhopper (Empoasca fabae Harris) (Poos and Wheeler 1949; Lamp et al. 1994).

Diptera

In Great Britain, G. officinalis is a host of the leaf miner Liriomyza congesta Becker (Biological Records Centre 2014a).

(iv)Nematodes and (or) other non-vertebrates

No information was located.

(b) Diseases

(i) Fungi

The rust fungus Uromyces galegae (Opiz) Sacc. is reported widespread on G. officinalis from France to Turkey (Tunali et al. 2006; Farr and Rossman 2018) and was released in Chile as a biological control agent (Oehrens and González 1975). Other rusts that have been reported on G. officinalis in eastern Europe and Turkey include U. galegicola Woron. and U. pisi-sativa (Pers.) Liro (Farr and Rossman 2018). Galega officinalis is reported as a host for Ramularia galegae Sacc., a disease transmitted by air-borne conidia that causes leaf spot lesions (Ingham 1986). The disease has been found on G. officinalis in much of Europe from Great Britain east to the Caucasus, in South America and in Asia (Baker et al. 1950; Ingham 1986; Jones and Baker 2007; Farr and Rossman 2018). The plant is one of many hosts for the powdery mildew fungus Erysiphe trifolii Grev. in eastern Europe and western Asia as well as in Argentina and Chile (Havrylenko and Takamatsu 2005; Nagy and Kiss 2006; Farr and Rossman 2018). Other powdery mildews that have been reported on G. officinalis in eastern Europe include E. cruciferarum Opiz ex L. Junell and E. pisi DC. (Farr and Rossman 2018). Farr and Rossman (2018) cite references to ten other fungi reported on G. officinalis: Ascochyta galegae Hollós (Romania); A. phaseolorum Sacc. (Bulgaria); Cercospora galegae Sacc. (Bulgaria); C. radiata Fuckel (Italy); Oidium sp. (Hungary); Peronospora galegae Săvul. & Rayss; Phoma galegae Thüm. (New Zealand); Phomopsis tulasnei Sacc. (Portugal); Phyllosticta galegae Garb. (Greece and Ukraine); and Septoria galegae-orientalis Lobik (Bulgaria).

(ii) Bacteria

The species was not susceptible to crown gall disease following inoculation with the bacterium Agrobacterium tumefaciens by De Cleene and De Ley (1976).

(iii) Viruses

Galega officinalis was among weeds in Chile found to be susceptible to viruses attacking field crops such as the alfalfa (alfalfa mosaic virus), capsicum (cucumber mosaic virus) and tomato (tomato mosaic tobamovirus) (Apablaza et al. 2003).

(iv) Other diseases

Phytoplasmas, the pathogenic organisms found primarily in the sieve elements of infected plants and usually spread by sap-sucking insect vectors (Lee et al. 2000), have been reported from South America. In Chilean vineyards, the phytoplasma subgroup 16SrVII was found in both the weed G. officinalis and its insect vector, the leaf-hopper Paratanus exitiosus (Beamer) (Cicadellidae) (Longone et al. 2011). The phytoplasma subgroup 16SrIII-J, transmitted by the same leafhopper vector, was recently found on G. officinalis in a pear orchard in Chile (Zamorano et al. 2015).

(c) Higher plant parasites

No information has been located.

Competing Interests

The authors declare there are no competing interests.

Funding Statement

This research was supported by Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.

Author Contribution

S.D.: Investigation, Writing, Visualization, Project management. A.F.: Data curation, Writing. E.S.P.B.: Investigation, Writing. S.M.: Investigation, Data curation.

Acknowledgements

Sylvie Cloutier, Margo Murray, Catherine Robidas and Thu Van Tran Thi of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Ottawa, are thanked for their assistance. Barry Flahey of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada provided the drawings in Fig. 1. Frank Lomer and Michael Oldham provided information on populations in British Columbia and Ontario, respectively. Amy Kehoe and Ken Allison of the Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa, are thanked for their input and advice. Franck Stefani of Agriculture and Agri-food Canada, Ottawa, provided useful information on mycorrhizae. The curators and staff of the herbaria: DAO (Agriculture and Agri-Food, Ottawa); QFA (Université Laval, Québec); TRT (University of Toronto); and, UBC (University of British Columbia, Vancouver), kindly provided access to specimens in their care.

References

1.

Ahles, H.E. 1951. Interesting weeds in New York City. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 78: 266–270. https://doi.org/10.2307/2481982Google Scholar

2.

Akatov, V.V., and Akatova, T.V. 2010. Saturation and invasion resistance of non-interactive plant communities. Russ. J. Ecol. 41: 229–236. https://doi.org/10.1134/s1067413610030069Google Scholar

3.

Andronov, E.E., Terefework, Z., Roumiantseva, M.L., Dzyubenko, N.I., Onichtchouk, O.P., Kurchak, O.N., et al. 2003. Symbiotic and genetic diversity of Rhizobium galegae isolates collected from the Galega orientalis gene center in the Caucasus. Appl. Env. Microbiol. 69: 1067–1074. https://doi.org/10.1128/aem.69.2.1067-1074.2003Google Scholar

4.

Ansín, O.E. 2001. Horses grazing management to promote distribution of Lotus tenuis (Waldst. et Kit) in a temperate grassland. Proc. of the XIX International Grassland Congress 2001, Sao Paulo, Brazil, pp. 814–815. Google Scholar

5.

Apablaza, H.G., Apablaza, H.J., Reyes, P., and Moya, E. 2003. Determinacion de virosis e insectos vectores en malezas aledañas a cultivos horticolas. Cien. Inv. Agr. 30: 175–186. https://doi.org/10.7764/rcia.v30i3.1312Google Scholar

6.

Atanasov, A.T. 1994. Effect of the water extract of Galega officinalis L. on human platelet aggregation in vitro. Phytotherapy Res. 8: 314–316. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.2650080514Google Scholar

7.

Atanasov, A.T., Petrova-Tacheva, V.H., and Todorova, R.T. 2019. Biologically active substances with antioxidant activity isolated from the medicinal plant Galega officinalis L. Bulg. Chem. Comm. 51(SI A): 161–166. Google Scholar

8.

Atanasov, A.T., and Spasov, V. 2000. Inhibiting and disaggregating effect of gel-filtered Galega officinalis L. herbal extract on platelet aggregation. J. Ethnopharmacol. 69: 235–240. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8741(99)00144-0. pmid:10722205Google Scholar

9.

Atanasov, A.T., Tchorbanov, B., Tzokeva, Zh, and Spasov, V. 2003. Isolation of a Galega officinalis L. fraction and a tentative evaluation of the chemical structure of biologically active substances, inhibiting platelet aggregation. Bulg. J. Vet. Med. 6: 203–208. Google Scholar

11.

Aytekin, A.M., Çağatay, N., and Hazir, S. 2002. Floral choices, parasites and micro-organisms in natural populations of bumblebees (Apidae: Hymenoptera) in Ankara Province. Turk. J. Zool. 26: 149–155. Google Scholar

12.

Bailey, C.J., and Day, C. 2004. Metformin: its botanical background. Pract. Diab. Int. 21: 115–117. https://doi.org/10.1002/pdi.606Google Scholar

13.

Bailey, C.J., Path, M.R.C., and Turner, R.C. 1996. Metformin. New Engl. J. Med. 334: 574–579. https://doi.org/10.1056/nejm1996022 93340906. pmid:8569826Google Scholar

14.

Bailey, L.G., and Bailey, E.Z. 1976. Hortus Third. A concise dictionary of plants cultivated in the United States and Canada. Macmillan Publishing Co., New York, NY. 1290 p. Google Scholar

15.

Baker, K.F., Snyder, W.C., and Davis, L.H. 1950. Ramularia leaf spots of Lathyrus odoratus and L. latifolius. Mycologia 42: 403–422. https://doi.org/10.1080/00275514.1950.12017846Google Scholar

16.

Baležentienė, L. 2011. Introduction and agro-economical value of Galega orientalis Lam. 3rd International Symposium on Weeds and Invasive Plants, 2–7 Oct. 2011, Ascona, Switzerland. Google Scholar

17.

Ball, P.W. 1968. Galega L. Page 107 in T.G. Tutin, V.H. Heywood, N.A. Burges, D.M. Moore, D.H. Valentine, S.M. Walters, and D.A. Webb, eds. Flora Europaea. Vol. 2. Rosaceae to Umbelliferae. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. Google Scholar

18.

Barchuk, O.Z., Lysiuk, R.M., Denys, A.I., Zaliska, O.M., Smalyuh, O.G., and Nester, M.I. 2017. Experimental study of goat's-rue (Galega officinalis L.) herb and its liquid extracts. Pharma Innovation J. 6: 393–397. Google Scholar

19.

Barger, G., and White, F.D. 1923a. C. The constitution of galegine. Biochem. J. 17: 827–835. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0170827Google Scholar

20.

Barger, G., and White, F.D. 1923b. CI. Galuteolin, a new glucoside from Galega officinalis. Biochem. J. 17: 836–838. https://doi.org/10.1042/bj0170836Google Scholar

21.

Barneby, R.C. 1989. Galega. Fabales. Page 186 in A. Cronquist, A.H. Holmgren, N.H. Holmgren, and J.L. Reveal, eds. Intermountain flora. Vascular plants of the intermountain West, U. S. A., Volume 3, part B. Columbia University Press for New York Botanical Garden, Bronx, NY. Google Scholar

22.

Barreto, R.W. 2008. Latin American weed biological control science at the crossroads. Proc. XII International Symposium on Biological Control of Weeds. La Grande Motte, France, 22–27 April 2007. pp. 109–121. Google Scholar

23.

Bennett, S.J., Maxted, N., and Olcayto Sabanci, C. 1998. The ecogeography and collection of grain, forage and pasture legumes in south-west Turkey. Genet. Res. Crop Evol. 45: 253–262. https://doi.org/10.1023/a:1008657530563Google Scholar

24.

Bézard, M., Grancher, D., Vialard, J., and Debarnot, P. 2002. Un troupeau ovin intoxiqué par le galéga officinal. Point Vét. 227: 66–67. Google Scholar

25.

Biological Records Centre. 2014a. Database of insects and their food plants. [Online]. Available from https://www.brc.ac.uk/DBIF/hostsresults.aspx?hostid=2365Google Scholar

26.

Biological Records Centre. 2014b. Online atlas of the British and Irish flora. Galega officinalis (Goat's-rue). [Online]. Available from https://www.brc.ac.uk/Plantatlas/plant/galega-officinalisGoogle Scholar

27.

Bojer, W. 1837. Hortus Mauritianus: ou énumération des plantes, exotiques et indigènes, qui croissent à l'île Maurice, disposées d'aprés la méthode naturelle. Mamarot et Companie, Mauritius, 456. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.47Google Scholar

28.

Bolan, N.S. 1991. A critical review of the role of mycorrhizal fungi in the uptake of phosphorus by plants. Plant and Soil. 134: 189–207. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00012037Google Scholar

29.

Britten, J., (ed.). 1881. The names of herbes. By William Turner A.D. 1548. N. Trübner & Co. London, UK. 134 p. Google Scholar

30.

Bromfield, E.S.P., Cloutier, S., Robidas, C., Tran Thi, T.V., and Darbyshire, S.J. 2019. Invasive Galega officinalis (Goat's rue) plants in Canada form a symbiotic association with strains of Neorhizobium galegae sv. officinalis originating from the Old World. Ecol. Evol. 9: 6999–7004. https://doi.org/10.1002/ece3.5266. pmid:31380028Google Scholar

31.

Burrows, G.E., and Tyrl, R.J. 2013. Toxic plants of North America. 2nd ed. Wiley-Blackwell, Hoboken, NY. 1390 p. Google Scholar

32.

CABI 2019. Galega officinalis. Invasive Species Compendium. CAB International, Wallingford, UK. [Online]. Available from http://www.cabi.org/isc/datasheet/24756Google Scholar

33.

Calflora. 2020. Calflora: Information on wild California plants. The Calflora Database, Berkeley, California. [Online]. Available from https://www.calflora.org/app/taxon?crn=12523Google Scholar

34.

Campbell, I.W., and Howlett, H.C.S. 1995. Worldwide experience of metformin as an effective glucose-lowering agent: a meta-analysis. Diabetes Metab. Rev. 11(S1): S57–S62. https://doi.org/10.1002/dmr.5610110509Google Scholar

35.

Canini, A., Pichichero, E., Alesian, D., Canuti, L., and Leonardi, D. 2009. Nutritional and botanical interest of honey collected from protected natural areas. Plant Biosyst. 143: 62–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263500802633543Google Scholar

36.

Canny, M.J. 1988. Bundle sheath tissues of legume leaves as a site of recovery of solutes from the transpiration stream. Physiol. Plant. 73: 457–464. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1399-3054.1988. tb05426.xGoogle Scholar

37.

Canny, M.J. 1990. Fine veins of dicotyledon leaves as sites for enrichment of solutes of the xylem sap. New Phytol. 115: 511–516. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1469-8137.1990.tb00478.x. pmid:33874287Google Scholar

38.

CFIA. 2012. Invasive plant field guide. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa, ON. [Online].Available from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2014/acia-cfia/A104-97-2012-eng.pdfGoogle Scholar

39.

CFIA. 2018. Automated import reference system. Canadian Food Inspection Agency, Ottawa, ON. [Online]. Available from https://airs-sari.inspection.gc.ca/airs_external/english/decisions-eng.aspxGoogle Scholar

40.

Champavier, Y., Allais, D.P., Chulia, A.J., and Kaouadji, M. 2000. Acetylated and non-acetylated flavonol triglycosides from Galega officinalis. Chem. Pharm. Bull. (Tokyo), 48: 281–282. https://doi.org/10.1248/cpb.48.281Google Scholar

41.

Champavier, Y., Comte, G., Vercauteren, J., Allais, D.P., and Chulia, A.J. 1999. Norterpenoid and sesquiterpenoid glucosides from Juniperus phoenicea and Galega officinalis. Phytochemistry, 50: 1219–1223. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031-9422(98) 00697-9Google Scholar

42.

Chapman, G.T.L., McCombie, F., and Wesencraft, A.U. (eds.). 1995. A new herbal by William Turner. Parts II and III. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 833 p. Google Scholar

43.

Clapham, A.R., Tutin, T.G., and Moore, D.M. 1987. Flora of the British Isles. 3rd ed. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK. 688 p. Google Scholar

44.

Coxon, G.D., Furman, B.L., Harvey, A.L., McTavish, J., Mooney, M.H., Arastoo, M., et al. 2009. Benzylguanidines and other galegine analogues inducing weight loss in mice. J. Med. Chem. 52: 3457–3463. https://doi.org/10.1021/jm8011933. pmid:19422230Google Scholar

45.

Culpeper, N. 1650. A physical directory, or, a translation of the London dispensatory made by the College of Physicians of London. Peter Cole, London, UK. 252 p. [Online]. Available from https://archive.org/details/b3032418xGoogle Scholar

46.

Darbyshire, S.J. 2003. Inventory of Canadian agricultural weeds. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON. 396 p. [Online]. Available from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/Collection/A42-100-2003E.pdfGoogle Scholar

47.

Darbyshire, S.J., Favreau, J.M., and Murray, M. 2000. Common and scientific names of weeds in Canada. Noms populaires et scientifiques des plantes nuisibles du Canada. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada, Ottawa, ON. Publ. 1397B.76 p. [Online]. Available from http://publications.gc.ca/collections/collection_2016/aac-aafc/agrhist/A53-1397-2000.pdfGoogle Scholar

48.

Davis, P.H., (ed.). 1970. Flora of Turkey and the East Aegean Islands. Vol. 3. University Press, Edinburgh, UK. 628 p. Google Scholar

49.

De Cleene, M., and De Ley, J. 1976. The host range of crown gall. Bot. Rev. 42: 389–466. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02860827Google Scholar

50.

De Otazúa, O.A., Lauge, M.V., Moore, D.P., Cantón, G.J., and Odriozola, E.R. 2009. Intoxicación experimental con Galega officinalis en dos estadios morfológicos distintos en ovinos consumiéndola. Vet. Argentina 26: 258. [English summary]. Google Scholar

51.

DiTomaso, J.M. 1994. Plants reported to be poisonous to animals in the United States. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 36: 49–52. Google Scholar

52.

Dowling, R.J.O., Goodwin, P.J., and Stambolic, V. 2011. Understanding the benefit of metformin use in cancer treatment. BMC Medicine 9 (33): 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-9-33Google Scholar

53.

Doyle, J.J., and Luchow, M.A. 2003. The rest of the iceberg. Legume diversity and evolution in a phylogenetic context. Plant Physiol. 131: 900–910. https://doi.org/10.1104/pp.102.018150. pmid:12644643Google Scholar

54.

Du, W., Jiang, W., Yi, D., and Pang, Y. 2021. The complete chloroplast genome of Galega officinalis L., Mitochondrial DNA Part B 6: 663–665. https://doi.org/10.1080/23802359.2021.1878961. pmid:33763542Google Scholar

55.

Duke, J.A., Bogenschutz-Godwin, M.J., duCellier, J., and Duke, P.K. 2002. Handbook of medicinal herbs. 2nd ed. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. 896 p. Google Scholar

56.

Durieux, M. 1968. Intoxication de moutons par « Galega officinalis ». Bull. Mens. Soc. Vet. Pratique France, 52: 383–385. Google Scholar

57.

Dzyubenko, N.I., and Dzyubenko, E.A. 2003. Interactive agricultural ecological atlas of Russia and neighbouring countries. Economic plants and their diseases, pests and weeds. [Online]. Available from http://www.agroatlas.ru/en/content/related/Galega_officinalis/mapGoogle Scholar

58.

Eckel, P.M. 2004. Goat's-rue (Galega officinalis) in the Niagara Area of western New York State. Res Botanica. Missouri Botanical Garden, St. Louis, MO. [Online]. Available from https://www.mobot.org/plantscience/ResBot/Flor/GalegaNiagara.htmGoogle Scholar

59.

Egamberdieva, D., Berg, G., Lindström, K., and Räsänen, L.A. 2013. Alleviation of salt stress of symbiotic Galega officinalis L. (goat's-rue) by co-inoculation of Rhizobium with root-colonizing Pseudomonas. Plant Soil, 369: 453–465. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-013-1586-3Google Scholar

60.

Ellison, C.A., and Barreto, R.W. 2004. Prospects for the management of invasive alien weeds using co-evolved fungal pathogens: a Latin American perspective. Biol. Inv. 6: 23–45. https://doi.org/10.1023/b:binv.0000010118.36571.efGoogle Scholar

61.

Endo, Y., and Ohashi, H. 1997. Cladistic analysis of phylogenetic relationships among tribes Cicereae, Trifolieae, and Vicieae (Leguminosae). Am. J. Bot. 84: 523–529. https://doi.org/10.2307/2446028. pmid:21708604Google Scholar

62.

EPPO. 2008. Prioritized lists of invasive alien plants for Franche-Comté (France). European plant protection organization reporting service 2008 No. 7: 2008/149. [Online]. Available from https://gd.eppo.int/reporting/article-772Google Scholar

63.

Ertürk, Ö. 2010. Antibacterial and antifungal effects of alcoholic extracts of 41 medicinal plants growing in Turkey. Czech J. Food Sci. 28: 53–60. https://doi.org/10.17221/144/2008-cjfsGoogle Scholar

64.

Evans, J.O. 1984. Goatsrue eradication: A realistic goal. Utah Sci. 45: 8–11. Google Scholar

65.

Evans, J.O., and Ashcroft, M.L. 1982. Goatsrue. Utah agricultural experimental station. Research Report, 79 (15). Google Scholar

66.

Evans, J.O., and Peitersen, B.G. 1987. Evaluation of sodium methyldithiocarbamate as a fumigant to decrease viability of goatsrue seed in the field. West. Soc. Weed Sci. Res. Progr. Rep. 1987: 353. Google Scholar

67.

Evans, J.O., Dalley, C.D., and Larson, M.R. 1997. Prospects and challenges for goatsrue eradication. Proc. West. Soc. Weed Sci. 50: 25–26. Google Scholar

68.

Facciola, S. 1990. Cornucopia – a source book of edible plants. Kampong Publications, Vista, CA. 677 p. Google Scholar

69.

Fairey, N.A., Lefkovitch, L.P., Coulman, B.E., Fairey, D.T., Kunelius, T., McKenzie, D.B., et al. 2000. Cross-Canada comparison of the productivity of fodder galega (Galega orientalis Lam.) with traditional herbage legumes. Can. J. Plant Sci. 80: 793–800. https://doi.org/10.4141/p99-162Google Scholar

70.

Faliu, L., Puyt, J.D., and Jean-Blain, C. 1985. Intoxication végétale: galega officinal. Point Vet. 17: 453–455. Google Scholar

71.

Faliu, L., Puyt, J.D., and Tainturier, D. 1981. Le galega (Galega officinalis L.) une légumineuse très dangereuse pour les ovins. Rec. Méd. Vét. (France), 157: 419–426. Google Scholar

72.

Farr, D.F., and Rossman, A.Y. 2018. Fungal databases, Systematic Mycology and Microbiology. [Online]. Available from https://nt.ars-grin.gov/fungaldatabasesGoogle Scholar

73.

Fraiture, A. 2014. Toxicité pour le bétail et usages médicineaux de Galega officinalis (Leguminosae) et de la galégine. Ann. Méd. Vet. 158: 99–108. [English summary]. Google Scholar

74.

Franceschi, V.R., and Giaquinta, R.T. 1983a. The paraveinal mesophyll of soybean leaves in relation to assimilate transfer and compartmentation. II. Structural, metabolic and compartmental changes during reproductive growth. Planta, 157: 422–431. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00397199Google Scholar

75.

Franceschi, V.R., and Giaquinta, R.T. 1983b. Specialized cellular arrangements in legume leaves in relation to assimilate transport and compartmentation: comparison of the paraveinal mesophyll. Planta, 159: 415–422. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00392077Google Scholar

76.

Franche, C., Lindström, K., and Elmerich, C. 2009. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria associated with leguminous and non-leguminous plants. Plant Soil, 321: 35–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11104-008-9833-8Google Scholar

77.

Francis, R.A., and Hoggart, S.P.G. 2012. The flora of urban river wallscapes. River Res. Appl. 28: 1200–1216. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.1497Google Scholar

78.

Fruwirth, C. 1906. Enclosing single plants and its effects on a large number of important agricultural species. J. Heredity, os-2: 197–198. https://doi.org/10.1093/jhered/os-2.1.197Google Scholar

79.

Fukunaga, T., Nishiya, K., Takeya, K., and Itokawa, H. 1987. Studies on the constituents of goat's rue (Galega officinalis L.). Chem. Pharm. Bull. 35: 1610–1614. https://doi.org/10.1248/cpb.35.1610Google Scholar

80.

Gams, H. 1924. Leguminosae. Pages 1113–1642 in G. Hegi, ed. Illustrierte Flora von Mittel-Europa. Volume IV, Part 3. J.F. Lehmanns Verlag, Munich, Germany. [In German]. Google Scholar

81.

Gerard, J. 1597. The herball or generall historie of plantes. John Norton, London, UK. 1482 p. [Online]. Available from https://archive.org/details/mobot31753000817749Google Scholar

82.

Gervais, C. 1979. List annotée de nombres chromosomiques de la flore vasculaire du nord-est de l'Amérique. Nat. Can. (Que.) 106: 451–461. Google Scholar

83.

Giallonardo, T., Landi, M., Frignani, F., Geri, F., Lastrucci, L., and Angiolini, C. 2011. CORINE land cover and floristic variation in a Mediterranean wetland. Environ. Monit. Assess. 182: 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-010-1865-x. pmid:21229303Google Scholar

84.

Goetz, P. 2007. Phytothérapie du diabète. Phytothérapie, 5: 212–217. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10298-007-0255-1Google Scholar

85.

Goetz, P., and Le Jeune, R. 2008. Galega officinalis. Phytothérapie, 6: 39–41. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10298-008-0284-4Google Scholar

86.

González-Andrés, F., Redondo, P.A., Pescador, R., and Urbano, B. 2004. Management of Galega officinalis L. and preliminary results on its potential for milk production improvement in sheep. N. Z. J. Agr. Res. 47: 233–245. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233. 2004.9513591Google Scholar

87.

Gorshkova, S.G. 1971. Genus 799. Galega. Pages 227–228 in B.K. Shishkin, ed. Flora of the USSR. Volume XI Papilionatae, Caesalpinoideae, Mimosoideae. Translation of 1945 original by N. Landau. Israel Program for Scientific Translation, Jerusalem, Israel. Google Scholar

88.

Gresham, A.C.J., and Booth, K. 1991. Poisoning of sheep by goat's rue. Vet. Record, 129: 197–198. https://doi.org/10.1136/vr.129.9.197. pmid:1957472Google Scholar

89.

Guirguis, G.N., and Brindley, W.A. 1974. Insecticide susceptibility and response to selected pollens of larval alfalfa leafcutting bees, Megachile pacifica (Panzer) (Hymenoptera: Megachilidae). Env. Entomol. 3: 691–694. https://doi.org/10.1093/ee/3.4.691Google Scholar

90.

Guitart, R., Croubels, S., Caloni, F., Sachana, M., Davanzo, F., Vandenbroucke, V., and Berny, P. 2010. Animal poisoning in Europe. Part 1: Farm livestock and poultry. Vet. J. 183: 249–254. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tvjl.2009.03.002. pmid:19359202Google Scholar

91.

Hadden, D.R. 2005. Goat's rue – French lilac – Italian fitch – Spanish sainfoin: gallega officinalis and metformin: The Edinburgh connection. J. R. Coll. Physicians Edinb. 35: 258–260. PMID:16402501. Google Scholar

92.

Hanelt, P. (ed.). 2001. Mansfeld's encyclopedia of agricultural and horticultural crops. Vol. 2. Institute of Plant Genetics and Crop Plant Research. Springer, New York, NY. pp. 542–1131. Google Scholar

93.

Havrylenko, M., and Takamatsu, S. 2005. Notes on Erysiphales (Ascomycetes) from Patagonia, Argentina. Mycoscience, 46: 32–38. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10267-004-0209-5Google Scholar

94.

Hawke's Bay Regional Council. 2004. Plant pest control. Land plant pests. Goat's rue: Galega officinalis. Hawke's Bay Regional Council, New Zealand. [Online]. Available from https://www.hbrc.govt.nz/assets/Document-Library/Information-Sheets/Plant-Pests/PCPP2.pdfGoogle Scholar

95.

Hedrick, U.P. (ed.). 1919. Sturtevant's notes on edible plants. New York State Department of Agriculture 27th Annual Report, Vol. 2. Part II. J.B. Lyon, Albany, NY. 686 p. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl. title.24577Google Scholar

96.

Hellyer, A.G.L. 1955. Flowers in colour: an amateur gardening encyclopaedia. W&L. Collingridge, London, UK. 128 p. [Online]. Available from https://archive.org/details/flowersincoloura00hellGoogle Scholar

97.

Holm, L.G., Pancho, J.V., Herberger, J.P., and Plucknett, D.L. 1991. A geographical atlas of world weeds. Krieger Publishing Company, Malabar, FL. 391 p. Google Scholar

98.

Holman, J. 2009. Host plant catalog of aphids. Palaearctic Region. Springer, New York, NY. 1216 p. Google Scholar

99.

Howlett, H.C.S., and Bailey, C.J. 2007. Galegine and antidiabetic plants. Pages 1–7 in C.J. Bailey, I.W. Campbell, J.C.N. Chan, J.A. Davidson, Howlett, H.C.S., and P. Ritz, eds. Metformin: the gold standard. A scientific handbook. John Wiley & Sons, Chichester, UK. Google Scholar

100.

Ingham, J. 1986. CMI Descriptions of pathogenic fungi and bacteria No. 864: Ramularia galegae. Mycopathologia, 95: 109–128. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf00437170Google Scholar

101.

Insunza, V., Aballay, E., and Macaya, J. 2001. Nematicidal activity of aqueous plant extracts on Xiphinema index. Nematol. Medit. 29: 35–40. Google Scholar

102.

Izmaiłow, R. 1990. Galega officinalis. Biological Commission of the Polish Academy of Sciences – Krakow Branch and the Jagiellonian University in Krakow. Acta Biol. Cracov. Ser. Bot. 32: 175–176. Google Scholar

103.

Jermy, T., and Szentesi, Á. 2003. Evolutionary aspects of host plant specialisation – a study on bruchids (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). OIKOS, 101: 196–204. https://doi.org/10.1034/j.1600-0706. 2003.11918.xGoogle Scholar

104.

Jones, D.R., and Baker, R.H.A. 2007. Introductions of non-native plant pathogens into Great Britain, 1970–2004. Plant Pathol. 56: 891–910. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-3059.2007.01619.xGoogle Scholar

105.

Jørgensen, P.M., and Léon-Yanez, S., (eds.). 1999. Catalogue of the vascular plants of Ecuador. Monogr. Syst. Bot. Mo. Bot. Gard. 75: 1–1182. Google Scholar

106.

Kaijalainen, S., and Lindström, K. 1989. Restriction fragment length polymorphism analysis of Rhizobium galegae strains. J. Bacteriol. 171: 5561–5566. https://doi.org/10.1128/jb.171.10.5561-5566.1989. pmid:2571610Google Scholar

107.

Karakaş, F.P., and Borzat, B.G. 2020. Fluctuation in secondary metabolite production and antioxidant defense enzymes in in vitro callus cultures of goat's rue (Galega officinalis) under different abiotic stress treatments. Plant Cell Tiss. Organ Cult. 142: 401–414. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11240-020-01870-xGoogle Scholar

108.

Karakaş, F.P., Şahin, G., and Türker, A. 2016a. Enhancement of direct shoot regeneration and determination of bioactive secondary metabolites in leaves of Galega officinalis L. Turk. J. Biol. 40: 1311–1319. https://doi.org/10.3906/biy-1603-70Google Scholar

109.

Karakaş, F.P., Turker, A.U., Karakaş, A., and Mshvildadze, V. 2016b. Cytotoxic, anti-inflammatory and antioxidant activities of four different extracts of Galega officinalis L. (Goat's rue). Trop. J. Pharm. Res. 15: 751–757. https://doi.org/10.4314/tjpr.v15i4.12Google Scholar

110.

Karakaş, F.P., Yildirim, A., and Türker, A. 2012. Biological screening of various medicinal extracts for antibacterial and antitumor activities. Turk. J. Biol. 36: 641–652. https://doi.org/10.3906/biy-1203-16Google Scholar

111.

Kartesz, J.T. 2015. The Biota of North America Program (BONAP). North American Plant Atlas. Chapel Hill, NC. [Online]. Available from http://www.bonap.orgGoogle Scholar

112.

Karasev, E.S., Andronov, E.E., Aksenova, T.S., Chizhevskaya, E.P., Tupikin, A.E., and Provorov, N.A. 2019. Evolution of goat's rue rhizobia (Neorhizobium galegae): analysis of polymorphism of the nitrogen fixation and nodule formation genes. Russ. J. Genet. 55: 263–266. https://doi.org/10.1134/s1022795419020078Google Scholar

113.

Kay, Q.O.N. 1987. Ultraviolet patterning and ultraviolet-absorbing pigments in flowers of the Leguminosae. Pages 317–353 in C.H. Stirton, ed. Advances in Legume Systematics, Part 3. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. Google Scholar

114.

Keeler, R.F., Baker, D.C., and Evans, J.O. 1988. Individual animal susceptibility and its relationship to induced adaptation or tolerance in sheep to Galega officinalis L. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 30: 420–423. PMID:3188360. Google Scholar

115.

Keeler, R.F., Johnson, A.E., Stuart, L.D., and Evans, J.O. 1986. Toxicosis from and possible adaptation to Galega officinalis in sheep and the relationship to Verbesina encelioides toxicosis. Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 28: 309–315. PMID:3750812. Google Scholar

116.

Kevekordes, K.G, McCully, M.E., and Canny, M.J. 1988. The occurrence of an extended bundle sheath system (paraveinal mesophyll) in the legumes. Can. J. Bot. 66: 94–100. https://doi.org/10.1139/b88-014Google Scholar

117.

King County. 2018. Goatsrue. Noxious weed control program weed alert. King County, Washington. [Online]. Available from https://your.kingcounty.gov/dnrp/library/water-andland/weeds/Brochures/Goatsrue_factsheet.pdfGoogle Scholar

118.

Kirkbride, J.H., Jr., Gunn, C.R., and Weitzman, A.L. 2003. Fruits and seeds of genera in the subfamily Faboideae (Fabaceae). Vol. II. United States Department of Agriculture, Technical Bulletin 1890. [Online]. Available from https://www.ars.usda.gov/is/np/FruitsSeeds/FS2-11Desmodieae.pdfGoogle Scholar

119.

Kiselova, Y., Ivanova, D., Chervenkov, T., Gerova, D., Galunska, B., and Yankova, T. 2006. Correlation between the in vitro antioxidant activity and polyphenol content of aqueous extracts from Bulgarian herbs. Phytother. Res. 20: 961–965. https://doi.org/10.1002/ptr.1985. pmid:16906640Google Scholar

120.

Klinkenberg, B., (ed.). 2020. E-Flora BC: Electronic Atlas of the Flora of British Columbia. Lab for advanced spatial analysis, Department of Geography, University of British Columbia. [Online]. Available from https://www.geog.ubc.ca/biodiversity/efloraGoogle Scholar

121.

Klugh, K. 1998. Goatsrue, Galega officinalis, in Pennsylvania. Weed Circular No. 22. Regul. Hort. 24: 25–28. [Online]. Available from https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/NIPPP/Documents/goatsrue% 20article.pdfGoogle Scholar

122.

Knuth, P. 1908. Handbook of flower pollination. Translation of 1898 original by J.R.A. Davis. Vol. 2. Clarendon Press, Oxford, UK. 703 p. https://doi.org/10.5962/bhl.title.54973Google Scholar

123.

Kocourek, F. 1989. Harmful incidence of bruchid weevil in goat's rue. Sbornik UVTIZ Ochrana Rostlin, 25: 234–236. Google Scholar

124.

Köhler, H. 1969. Die Prüfung von Galega-Arten auf ihren Gehalt an giftstoffen mit Hilfe biologischer Methoden. I. Die giftigheit der Geissraute (Galega officinalis L.) für Warmblüter. Biol. Zentralbl. 88: 165–177. [English summary]. Google Scholar

125.

Kreuter, E. 1930. Beitrag zu karyologisch-systematischen studien an Galegeen. Planta (Berlin), 11: 1–44. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01912516Google Scholar

126.

Kubešová, M., Moravcová, L., Suda, J., Jarošík, V., and Pyšek, P. 2010. Naturalized plants have smaller genomes than their non-invading relatives: a flow cytometric analysis of the Czech alien flora. Preslia, 82: 81–96. Google Scholar

127.

Laakso, I., Virkajärvi, P., Airaksinen, H., and Varis, E. 1990. Determination of vasicine and related alkaloids by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. J. Chromatography, 505: 424–428. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0021-9673(01)93059-6Google Scholar

128.

Lamp, W.O., Nielsen, G.R., and Danielson, S.D. 1994. Patterns among host plants of potato leafhopper, Empoasca fabae (Homoptera: Cicadellidae). J. Kansas Entomol. Soc. 67: 354–368. Google Scholar

129.

Lasseigne, A. 2003. Invasive plants of the eastern United States: Galega sp. Center for Invasive Species and Ecosystem Health. The University of Georgia, Warnell School of Forest Resources and College of Agricultural and Environmental Sciences, Dept. of Entomology. [Online]. Available from https://www.invasive.org/eastern/other/Galega.htmlGoogle Scholar

130.

Lee, I.M., Davis, R.E., and Gunderson-Rindal, D.E. 2000. Phytoplasma: phytopathogenic mollicutes. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 54: 221–255. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.micro.54.1.221. pmid:11018129Google Scholar

131.

Lee, J.-S., Kim, W.-S., Kim, J.-J., Chin, Y.-W., Jeong, H.-C., Choi, J.-S., Min, H.-G., and Cha, H.-J. 2012. Identification of antimelanogenic natural compounds from Galega officinalis and further drug repositioning. J. Dermatol. Sci. 67: 61–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jdermsci.2012.03.003. pmid:22608214Google Scholar

132.

Lemus, I., García, R., Delvillar, E., and Knop, G. 1999. Hypoglycaemic activity of four plants used in Chilean popular medicine. Phytother. Res. 13: 91–94. https://doi.org/10.1002/(sici)1099-1573(199903)13:2<91::aid-ptr350>3.0.co;2-8. pmid:10190178Google Scholar

133.

Lersten, N.R., and Horner, H.T. 2007. Calcium oxalate crystals in tribe Galegeae (Leguminosae) including foliar crystal macropattern development in Caragana frutex. Can. J. Bot. 85: 394–403. https://doi.org/10.1139/b07-032Google Scholar

134.

Liljeström, G., and Rabinovich, J. 2004. Modeling biological control: the population regulation of Nezara viridula by Trichopoda giacomellii. Ecol. Appl. 14: 254–267. https://doi.org/10.1890/02-5353Google Scholar

135.

Liljeström, G., and Rojas-Fajardo, G. 2005. Parasitismo larval de Crocidosema (=Epinotia) aporema (Lepidoptera: Tortricidae) en el noreste de la provincia de Buenos Aires (Argentina). Rev. Soc. Entomol. Argent. 64: 37–44. [English abstract]. Google Scholar

136.

Lindström, K. 1989. Rhizobium galegae, a new species of legume root nodule bacteria. Int. J. Syst. Bacteriol. 39: 365–367. https://doi.org/10.1099/00207713-39-3-365Google Scholar

137.

Lindström, K., Jarvis, B.D.W., Lindström, P.E., and Patel, J.J. 1983. DNA homology, phage-typing, and cross-nodulation studies of rhizobia infecting Galega species. Can. J. Microbiol. 29: 781–789. https://doi.org/10.1139/m83-127Google Scholar

138.

Lipsanen, P., and Lindström, K. 1988. Infection and root nodule structure in the Rhizobium galegae sp. nov.- Galega sp. symbiosis. Symbiosis, 6: 81–96. Google Scholar

139.

Liu, W.Y.Y., Ridgeway, H.J., James, T.K., Premaratne, M., and Andrews, M. 2012. Characterisation of rhizobia nodulating Galega officinalis (goat's rue) and Hedysarum coronarium (sulla). N. Z. Plant Prot. 65: 192–196. Google Scholar

140.

Longone, V., González, F., Zamorano, A., Pino, A.M., Araya, J., Diaz, V., et al. 2011. Epidemiological aspects of phytoplasmas in Chilean grapevines. Bull. Insectol. 64 (Suppl.): S91–S92. Google Scholar

141.

Loudon, J.W. 1849. The ladies' flower-garden of ornamental perennials. 2nd ed. William S. Orr, London, UK. 341 p. [Online]. Available from https://archive.org/details/flowergardladies-00loudrichGoogle Scholar

142.

Lubbock, J. 1892. A contribution to our knowledge of seedlings. Vol. 1. Kegan Paul, Trench, Trübner & Co., London, UK. 646 p. [Online]. Available from https://archive.org/details/b21703267Google Scholar

143.

Luka, C.D., and Omoniwa, B.P. 2012. Effect of some phytochemicals extracted from goat's rue (Galega officinalis) on some biochemical parameters in normal and alloxan-induced diabetic rats. J. Nat. Prod. Plant Resour. 2: 628–632. [Online]. Available from https://www.scholarsresearchlibrary.com/articles/effect-of-some-phytochemicals-extracted-from-goatsrue-galega-officinalis-on-somebiochemical-parameters-innormal-and-al.pdfGoogle Scholar

144.

Lyubun, Y.V., and Tychinin, D.N. 2007. Phytoremediation in Russia. Pages 423–434 in N. Willey, ed. Phytoremediation, methods and reviews. Methods in biotechnology. Vol. 23. Humana Press Inc., Totowa, NJ. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-59745-098-0Google Scholar

145.

Macoun, W.T. 1908. List of herbaceous perennials tested in the arboretum and botanic garden: Central Experimental Farm, Ottawa, Canada, with descriptions of flowers, and other notes. Can. Dep. Agric. Bull. 5, Second Series. [Online]. Available from https://archive.org/details/listofherbaceous-00macorichGoogle Scholar

146.

Mentreddy, S.R. 2007. Medicinal plant species with potential antidiabetic properties. J. Sci. Food Agric. 87: 743–750. https://doi.org/10.1002/jsfa.2811Google Scholar

147.

Mercuri, A.M., and Porrini, C. 1991. Melissopalynological analysis applied to air pollution studies in urban areas of Modena and Reggio Emilia (Italy). Aerobiologia, 7: 38–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf02450016Google Scholar

148.

Miller, A.E. 2003. Domestic programs pest evaluation. USDA-APHIS-PPQ, AERO. [Online]. Available from https://www.invasive.org/eastern/other/goatsrue.htmlGoogle Scholar

149.

Moar, N.T. 1985. Pollen analysis of New Zealand honey. N. Z. J. Agric. Res. 28: 39–70. https://doi.org/10.1080/00288233.1985.10426997Google Scholar

150.

Montenegro, G., Mujica, A.M., Peña, R.C., Gómez, M., Serey, I., and Timmermann, B.N. 2004. Similitude pattern and botanical origin of the Chilean propolis. Phyton (Buenos Aires) 73: 145–154. [Online]. Available from http://www.scielo.org.ar/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1851-56572004000100018Google Scholar

151.

Montenegro, G., Peña, R.C., and Pizarro, R. 2010. Multivariate analysis of pollen frequency of the native species Escallonia pulverulenta (Saxifragaceae) in Chilean honeys. Revista Brasil. Bot. 33: 615–630. [Online]. Available from https://www.scielo.br/pdf/rbb/v33n4/10.pdfGoogle Scholar

152.

Mooney, M.H., Fogarty, S., Stevenson, C., Gallagher, A.M., Palit, P., Hawley, S.A., et al. 2008. Mechanisms underlying the metabolic actions of galegine that contribute to weight loss in mice. Br. J. Pharmacol. 153: 1669–1677. https://doi.org/10.1038/bjp. 2008.37. pmid:18297106Google Scholar

153.

Moravcová, L., Pyšek, P., Jarošík, V., Havlíčková, V., and Zákravský, P. 2010. Reproductive characteristics of neophytes in the Czech Republic: traits of invasive and non-invasive species. Preslia, 82: 365–390. Google Scholar

154.

Mousavi, S.A., Österman, J., Wahlberg, N., Nesme, X., Lavire, C., Vial, L., et al. 2014. Phylogeny of the Rhizobium-Allorhizobium-Agrobacterium clade supports the delineation of Neorhizobium gen. nov. Syst. Appl. Microbiol. 37: 208–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.syapm.2013.12.007. pmid:24581678Google Scholar

155.

Mullin, J.M. 1983. An usual form of Galega officinalis L. Watsonia, 14: 455. Google Scholar

156.

Muñoz, M., Barrera, E., and Meza, L. 1981. El uso medicinal y alimenticio de plantas nativas y naturalizadas en Chile. Publicación Ocasional No. 33. Museo Nacional de Historia Natural, Santiago, Chile. 150 p. [Online]. Available from https://fundacionphilippi.cl/artculo/el-uso-medicinal-yalimenticio-de-plantas-nativas-y-naturalizadas-en-chileGoogle Scholar

157.

Nagalievska, M., Sabadashka, M., Hachkova, H., and Sybirna, N. 2018. Galega officinalis extract regulate the diabetes mellitus related violations of proliferation, functions and apoptosis of leukocytes. BMC Complement. Altern. Med. 18:4. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-017-2079-3. pmid:29310643Google Scholar

158.

Nagy, G.S., and Kiss, L. 2006. A check-list of powdery mildew fungi of Hungary. Acta Phytopathol. Entomol. Hung. 41: 79–91. https://doi.org/10.1556/aphyt.41.2006.1-2.8Google Scholar

159.

Našinec, V., and Nĕmcová, B. 1990. Goat's rue (Galega officinalis L.). Pages 355–363 in Y.P.S. Bajaj, ed. Legumes and Oilseed Crops I. Biotechnology in Agriculture and Forestry, Vol. 10. Springer, Berlin, Germany. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-74448-8_16Google Scholar

160.

Neef, H., Augustijns, P., Declercq, P., Declerck, P., and Laekeman, G. 1996. Inhibitory effects of Galega officinalis on glucose transport across monolayers of human intestinal epithelial cells (Caco-2). Pharm. Pharmacol. Lett. 6: 86–89. Google Scholar

161.

Odoi, J.O. 2009. Montane forest fire detection and post-fire forest development (a case study in the Majella National Park, Italy). M.Sc. thesis, Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation for Environmental Modelling and Management, International Institute for Geo-Information Science and Earth Observation, Enschede, The Netherlands. 73 p. [Online]. Available from https://webapps.itc.utwente.nl/librarywww/papers_2009/msc/gem/odoi.pdfGoogle Scholar

162.

Oehrens, E., and González, S. 1975. Introduccion de Uromyces galegae (Opiz) Saccardo como factor de control biologico de galega (Galega officinalis L.). Agro. Sur. 3: 87–91. [English summary]. Google Scholar

163.

Oldham, M. 2009. Goatsrue (Galega officinalis) seed biology, control, and toxicity. M.Sc. thesis. Plants, Soils, and Climate, Utah State University, Logan, Utah. 65 p. [Online]. Available from https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/etd/235/Google Scholar

164.

Oldham, M., and Ransom, C.V. 2009. Goatsrue (Galega officinalis) seed biology. Weed Sci. 57: 149–154. https://doi.org/10.1614/ws-08-105.1Google Scholar

165.

Oldham, M., and Ransom, C.V. 2011. Goatsrue (Galega officinalis) response to herbicides. Weed Technol. 25: 70–76. https://doi.org/10.1614/wt-d-10-00003.1Google Scholar

166.

Oldham, M., Ransom, C.V., Ralphs, M.H., and Gardner, D.R. 2011. Galegine content in goats' rue (Galega officinalis) varies by plant part and phenological growth stage. Weed Sci. 59: 349–352. https://doi.org/10.1614/ws-d-10-00169.1Google Scholar

167.

Oregon Department of Agriculture. 2015. Oregon Department of Agriculture plant pest risk assessment for goatsrue, Galega officinalis 2008 (revised 2015). [Online]. Available from https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Weeds/GoatsruePlantPestRiskAssessment.pdfGoogle Scholar

168.

Österman, J., Chizhevskaja, E.P., Andronov, E.E., Fewer, D.P., Terefework, Z., Roumiantseva, M.L., et al. 2011. Galega orientalis is more diverse than Galega officinalis in Caucasus—whole-genome AFLP analysis and phylogenetics of symbiosis-related genes. Mol. Ecol. 20: 4808–4821. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05291.x. pmid:21980996Google Scholar

169.

Österman, J., Marsh, J., Laine, P.K., Zeng, Z., Alatalo, E., Sullivan, J.T., et al. 2014. Genome sequencing of two Neorhizobium galegae strains reveals a noeT gene responsible for the unusual acetylation of the nodulating factors. BMC Genomics, 15: 500. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2164-15-500. pmid:24948393Google Scholar

170.

Österman, J., Mousavi, S.A., Koskinen, P., Paulin, L., and Lindström, K. 2015. Genomic features separating ten strains of Neorhizobium galegae with different symbiotic phenotypes. BMC Genomics, 16: 348. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12864-015-1576-3. pmid:25933608Google Scholar

171.

Özbucak, T.B., Ertürk, Ö., and Akçin, Ö.E. 2005. An ecological, anatomical and microbiological investigation on the species Galega officinalis L. (Leguminosae) in some localities of Turkey. Pak. J. Biol. Sci. 8: 1215–1220. https://doi.org/10.3923/pjbs.2005. 1215.1220Google Scholar

172.

Packa, D. 2001. Cytoembryological studies on eastern galega (Galega orientalis Lam.) — A new papilionaceous plant. Plant Breed. Seed Sci. 45: 87–98. Google Scholar

173.

Palit, P., Furman, B.L., and Gray, A.I. 1999. Novel weight-reducing activity of Galega officinalis in mice. J. Pharm. Pharmacol. 51: 1313–1319. https://doi.org/10.1211/0022357991776895. pmid:10632090Google Scholar

174.

Pałka, S., Kmiecik, M., Migdał, Ł., and Siudak, Z. 2019. The effect of a diet containing fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill.) and goat's-rue (Galega officinalis L.) on litter size and milk yield in rabbits. Sci. Ann. Pol. Soc. Anim. Prod. 15: 73–78. https://doi.org/10.5604/01.3001.0013.6484Google Scholar

175.

Palta, Ş., Lermi, A.G., and Beki, R. 2016. The effect of different land uses on arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi in the northwestern Black Sea Region. Environ. Monit. Assess. 188: 350. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-016-5350-z. pmid:27178052Google Scholar

176.

Pandey, A.K., and Jha, S.S. 1988. SEM studies on spermoderm of some Galegeae (Fabaceae). Curr. Sci. 57: 1008–1009. Google Scholar

177.

Parton, K., and Bruere, A.N. 2002. Plant poisoning of livestock in New Zealand. N. Z. Vet. J. 50 (Suppl.): 22–27. https://doi.org/10.1080/00480169.2002.36262Google Scholar

178.

Patterson, D.T. 1992. Effect of temperature and photoperiod on growth and reproductive development of goatsrue. J. Range Manag. 45: 449–453. [Online]. Available from https://journals.uair.arizona.edu/index.php/jrm/article/viewFile/8758/8370. https://doi.org/10.2307/4002901Google Scholar

179.

Patterson, D.T. 1993. Effects of day and night temperature on goatsrue (Galega officinalis) and alfalfa (Medicago sativa) growth. Weed Sci. 41: 38–45. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043174500057556Google Scholar

180.

Peiretti, P.G. 2009. Ensilability characteristics and silage fermentation of Galega (Galega officinalis L.). Agric. J. 4: 41–45.  https://medwelljournals.com/abstract/?doi=aj.2009.41.45Google Scholar

181.

Peiretti, P.G., and Gai, F. 2006. Chemical composition, nutritive value, fatty acid and amino acid contents of Galega officinalis L. during its growth stage and in regrowth. Animal Feed Sci. Tech. 130: 257–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.anifeedsci.2006.01.007Google Scholar

182.

Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture. 2011. Goatsrue, Galega officinalis. Noxious Weed Alerts. [Online]. Available from https://www.agriculture.pa.gov/Plants_Land_Water/PlantIndustry/NIPPP/Documents/Goatsrue%20Noxious% 20Weed%20Alert%202011.pdfGoogle Scholar

183.

Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. n.d.. Invasive Plants in Pennsylvania. Goat's-rue. Galega officinalis L. [Online]. Available from http://elibrary.dcnr.pa.gov/GetDocument?docId=3642950&DocName=Goatsrue.pdfGoogle Scholar

184.

Perju, T., and Moldovan, I. 1981. Leguminous host-plants for seminiphagous insects (I). Not. Bot. Hort. Agrobot. Cluj 11: 83–91. https://doi.org/10.15835/nbha111132Google Scholar

185.

Peters, W.S., Haffer, D., Hanakam, C.B., Aart, J.E. van Bel, and Knoblauch, M. 2010. Legume phylogeny and the evolution of a unique contractile apparatus that regulates phloem transport. Am. J. Bot. 97: 797–808. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.0900328. pmid:21622445Google Scholar

186.

Piper, C.V. 1916. Forage plants and their culture. The Macmillan Co., New York, NY. 618 p. [Online]. Available from https://archive.org/details/forageplantsthei00piperichGoogle Scholar

187.

Polhill, R.M. 1981. Tribe 16. Galegeae. Pages 357–363 in R.M. Polhill, and P.H. Raven, eds. Advances in Legume Systematics, part 1. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, U.K. Google Scholar

188.

Polhill, R.M. 1994. Classification of the Leguminosae. Pages xxxv–xlviii in F.A. Bisby, J. Buckingham, and J.B. Harborne, eds. Phytochemical dictionary of the Leguminosae. Chapman and Hall, New York, NY. Google Scholar

189.

Polunin, O. 1969. Flowers of Europe: a field guide. Oxford University Press, London, UK. 662 p. Google Scholar

190.

Poos, F.W., and Wheeler, N.H. 1949. Some additional host plants of three species of leafhoppers of the genus Empoasca. Proc. Entom. Soc. Wash. 51: 35–38. Google Scholar

191.

Poulet-Wolgust, V., Peretz, G., Haffar, A., Gerbi, P., Benoit-Valiergue, H., and Adjou, K.T. 2012. Intoxication végétale de brebis par le galéga officinal. Point Vét. 325. Google Scholar

192.

Prévost, D., and Bromfield, E.S.P. 2003. Diversity and symbiotic rhizobia resident in Canadian soils. Can. J. Soil Sci. 83: 311–319. https://doi.org/10.4141/s01-066Google Scholar

193.

Proctor, M.H. 1963. Cross-inoculation group relationships of Galega officinalis. N. Z. J. Bot. 1: 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1080/0028825x.1963.10428698Google Scholar

194.

Proctor, M.H., and Moustafa, E. 1962. Root nodules of Galega officinalis (Linn.). N.Z. J. Sci. 5: 184–190. Google Scholar

195.

Proctor, M.H., and Moustafa, E. 1963. Incorporation of amino-acid by root nodules of Galega officinalis. Nature, 197: 262–263. https://doi.org/10.1038/197262a0Google Scholar

196.

Pufahl, K., and Schreiber, K. 1961. Isolierung eines neuen guanidine-derivates aus der Geissraute, Galega officinalis L. Experientia, 17: 302–303. [English summary]. https://doi.org/10.1007/ bf02158164.pmid:13738405Google Scholar

197.

Pundarikakshudu, K., Patel, J.K., Bodar, M.S., and Deans, S.G. 2001. Anti-bacterial activity of Galega officinalis L. (goat's rue). J. Ethnopharmacol. 77: 111–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0378-8741(01) 00250-1. pmid:11483386Google Scholar

198.

Püschel, D., Rydlová, J., Sudová, R., Gryndler, M., and Vosátka, M. 2011. The potential of mycorrhizal inoculation and organic amendment to increase yields of Galega orientalis and Helianthus tuberosus in a spoil-bank substrate. J. Plant Nutr. Soil Sci. 174: 664–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201000307Google Scholar

199.

Puyt, J.D., Faliu, L., Godfrain, J.C., and Keck, G. 1980. Three outbreaks of poisoning by Galega officinalis L. in sheep. Notes Toxicol. Vet. 9: 550–555. Google Scholar

200.

Puyt, J.D., Faliu, L., Keck, G., Godfrain, J.C., Pinault, L., and Tainturier, D. 1981. Fatal poisoning of sheep by Galega officinalis (French honeysuckle). Vet. Hum. Toxicol. 23: 410–412. PMID:7336561. Google Scholar

201.

Raig, H., Nõmmsalu, H., Meripõld, H., and Metlitskaja, J. 2001. Fodder Galega. H. Nõmmsalu, ed., Estonian Research Institute of Agriculture, Saku, Estonia. 141 p. Google Scholar

202.

Räsänen, L.A., Heikkilä-Kallio, U., Suominen, L., Lipsanen, P., and Lindström, K. 1991. Expression of Rhizobium galegae common nod clones in various backgrounds. Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 4: 535–544. https://doi.org/10.1094/mpmi-4-535. pmid:1804401Google Scholar

203.

Rasekh, H., Nazari, P., Kamli-Nejad, M., and Hosseinzadeh, L. 2008. Acute and subchronic oral toxicity of Galega officinalis in rats. J. Ethnopharmacol. 116: 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2007.10.030. pmid:18055147Google Scholar

204.

Raspudić, E., Ivezić, M., Brmež, M., and Trdan, S. 2009. Distribution of Thysanoptera species and their host plants in Croatia. Acta Agric. Sloven. 93: 275–283. https://doi.org/10.2478/v10014-009-0016-yGoogle Scholar

205.

Reddoch, J.M., and Reddoch, A.H. 2000. A third colony of goats' rue in the Ottawa district. Trail & Landscape, 34: 148. Google Scholar

206.

Reuter, G. 1962. On guanidine metabolism in Galega officinalis. Phytochemistry, 1: 63–65. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031-9422(00)88001-2Google Scholar

207.

Reznicek, A.A., Voss, E.G., and Walters, B.S. 2011. Galega officinalis L. Michigan Flora Online. University of Michigan. [Online]. Available from https://michiganflora.net/species.aspx?id=1301Google Scholar

208.

Roch, N., Buronfosse, F., and Grancher, D. 2007. Intoxication par le galéga officinal (Galega officinalis L.) chez la vache. Revue Méd. Vét. 158: 3–6. Google Scholar

209.

Rodríguez-Riaño, Y., Ortega-Olivencia, A., and Devesa, J.A. 1999. Types of androecium in the Fabaceae of SW Europe. Ann. Bot. 83: 109–116. https://doi.org/10.1006/anbo.1998.0808Google Scholar

210.

Roskov, Y.R., Bisby, F.A., Zarucchi, J.L., Schrire, B.D., and White, R.J., eds. 2006. ILDIS World Database of Legumes: draft checklist, version 10. ILDIS, Reading, UK. [Online]. Available from https://ildis.orgGoogle Scholar

211.

Ruíz de Clavijo Jiménez, E. 1990. Números cromosomáticos de plantas occidentales. 619–630. Anal. Jard. Bot. Madrid, 47: 431–437. Google Scholar

212.

Salisbury, E. 1961. Weeds and aliens. Collins, London, UK. 384 p. Google Scholar

213.

Schäfer, J., and Stein, M. 1969. Untersuchungen über toxische inhaltsstoffe bei Galega officinalis L. Biol. Zentralbl. 88: 755–768. [English summary]. Google Scholar

214.

Senn, H.A. 1938. Chromosome number relationships in the Leguminosae. Bibliogr. Genet. 12: 175–336. Google Scholar

215.

Shymanska, O., Vergun, O., Rakhmetov, D., Brindza, J., and Ivanišová, E. 2020. Total content of phenolic compounds in the ethanol extracts of Galega officinalis L. and G. orientalis Lam. Agrobiodiversity for Improving Nutrition, Health and Life Quality, 2018: 140–145. https://doi.org/10.15414/agrobiodiversity. 2018.2585-8246.140-145Google Scholar

216.

Siniscalco, C., Barni, E., and Bacaro, G. 2011. Non-native species distribution along the elevation gradient in the western Italian Alps. Plant Biosyst. 145: 150–158. https://doi.org/10.1080/11263504.2010.540786Google Scholar

217.

Souèges, R. 1949. Embryogénie des Papilionacées. Développement de l'embryon chez le Galega officinalis L. Compt. Rend. Hebd. Seances Acad. Sci. 229: 1540–1542. Google Scholar

218.

Stebler, F.G., and Schröter, C. 1889. The best forage plants: fully described and figured, with a complete account of their cultivation, economic value, adulterants, &c. David Nutt, London, UK. 171 p. + 30 pl. Google Scholar

219.

Step, E. 1896. Favourite flowers of garden and greenhouse. Vol. 1. Frederick Warne & Co., London, UK. 163 p. Google Scholar

220.

Stokes, J.S., Jr. 1964. Galega officinalis: an adventure in plant naturalization. Morris Arboretum Bull. 15: 65–69. Google Scholar

221.

Tabares, F.P., Jaramillo, J.V.B., and Ruiz-Cortés, Z.T. 2014. Pharmacological overview of galactogogues. Vet. Med. Int. 2014: 602894. https://doi.org/10.1155/2014/602894Google Scholar

222.

Thomé, O.W. 1905. Flora von Deutschland, Österreich und der Schweiz. Band III. 2nd ed. Friedrich von Zezschwitz, Gera, Germany. Google Scholar

223.

Tingey, D.C. 1971. Goatsrue, a potential forage crop, turned out to be a weed. Utah Sci. 32: 25–28. [Online]. Available from https://digitalcommons.usu.edu/utscience/vol32/iss1/1/Google Scholar

224.

Tomanović, Ž., Kavallieratos, N.G., Stary, P., Athanassiou, C.G., Žikić, V., Petrović-Obradović, O., and Sarlis, G.P. 2003. Aphidius Nees aphid parasitoids (Hymenoptera, Braconidae, Aphidiinae) in Serbia and Montenegro: Tritrophic Associations and Key. Acta Entomol. Serb. 8: 15–39. Google Scholar

225.

Tschechow, W. 1930. Karyologisch-systematische untersuchung des Tribus Galegeae, Fam. Leguminosae. (Vorläufige Mitteilung.). Planta (Berlin), 9: 673–680. https://doi.org/10.1007/bf01913443Google Scholar

226.

Tunali, B., Yildirim, A., Aime, M.C., and Hernández, J.R. 2006. First report of rust disease caused by Uromyces galegae on Galega officinalis in Turkey. Plant Dis. 90: 525. https://doi.org/10.1094/pd-90-0525b. pmid:30786612Google Scholar

227.

Turner, B.L., and Harborne, J.B. 1967. Distribution of canavanine in the plant kingdom. Phytochemistry, 6: 863–866. https://doi.org/10.1016/s0031-9422(00)86033-1Google Scholar

228.

Uphof, J.C.T. 1968. Dictionary of economic plants. 2nd ed. J. Cramer, Lehre, Germany. 591 p. Google Scholar

229.

USDA-APHIS 2020. Federal Noxious Weed List. [Online]. Available from https://www.aphis.usda.gov/plant_health/plant_pest_info/weeds/downloads/weedlist.pdfGoogle Scholar

230.

USDA-NRCS 2020. The PLANTS Database. National Plant Data Center. [Online]. Available from https://plants.usda.govGoogle Scholar

231.

Varis, E. 1986. Goat's rue (Galega orientalis Lam.), a potential pasture legume for temperate conditions. J. Agric. Sci. Finland 58: 83–101. Google Scholar

232.

Vasey, G. 1893. Report of the botanist. Pages 201–208 in J.M. Rusk, ed. Report of the Secretary of Agriculture 1892. Washington, DC. [Online]. Available from https://ia800507.us.archive.org/1/items/CAT10268363004/ros1892.pdfGoogle Scholar

233.

Viegi, L., Pieroni, A., Guarrera, P.M., and Vangelisti, R. 2003. A review of plants used in folk veterinary medicine in Italy as basis for a databank. J. Ethnopharmacol. 89: 221–244. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jep.2003.08.003. pmid:14611886Google Scholar

234.

Wang, J.E., Wang, Z., Wang, Y.Q, Gao, H.W., and Chapurin, V.F. 2008. Morphological diversity of Galega officinalis L. germplasm resources. J. Plant Genet. Resour. 9: 201–205. Google Scholar

235.

Wang, Z., Wang, J.-E., Wang, X.-M, Gao, H.-W., Dzyubenko, N.I., and Chapurain, V.F. 2012. Assessment of genetic diversity in Galega officinalis L. using ISSR and SRAP markers. Genet. Resour. Crop Evol. 59: 865–873. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10722-011-9727-0Google Scholar

236.

Webb, C.J., Sykes, W.R., and Garnock-Jones, P.J. 1988. Flora of New Zealand. Volume IV. Naturalized pteridophytes, gymnosperms, dicotyledons. Botany division, Department of Scientific and Industrial Research, Christchurch, New Zealand. 1365 p. Google Scholar

237.

Welsh, S.L., Atwood, N.D., Goodrich, S., and Higgins, L.C. (eds.). 1993. A Utah Flora. 2nd ed. Brigham Young University, Provo, UT. 986 p. Google Scholar

238.

West, D.M. 1982. A case of plant poisoning of sheep. Proc. 12th Seminar of the Society of Sheep and Beef Cattle Veterinarians of the New Zealand Veterinary Association. New Zealand, January 1982. pp. 346–347. [Online]. Available from http://www.sciquest.org.nz/node/144836Google Scholar

239.

Westbrooks, R.G. 1993. Exclusion and eradication of foreign weeds from the United States by USDA APHIS. Pages 225–241 in B.N. McKnight, ed. Biological pollution: the control and impact of invasive exotic species. Proceedings of a Google Scholar

240.

symposium held at Indianapolis, Indiana, USA, 25–26 Oct. 1991. Indiana Academy of Science, Indianapolis, IN. Google Scholar

241.

Whyte, R.O., Nilsson-Leissner, G., and Trumble, H.C. 1953. Legumes in agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations, Rome, Italy. xiii + 367 pp. Google Scholar

242.

Wiersema, J.H., and León, B. 1999. World economic plants: A standard reference. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL. 749 p. Google Scholar

243.

Williams, M.C. 1978. Toxicological investigations on goatsrue. Proc.Western Soc.Weed Sci. 31: 156–157. [Online]. Available from https://www.wsweedscience.org//wp-content/uploads/proceedings-archive/1978%20Proceedings%20Western% 20Society%20of%20Weed%20Science.pdfGoogle Scholar

244.

Williams, M. 1980. Purposefully introduced plants that have become noxious or poisonous weeds. Weed Sci. 28: 300–305. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0043174500055338Google Scholar

245.

Witters, L.A. 2001. The blooming of the French lilac. J. Clin. Investig. 108: 1105–1107. https://doi.org/10.1172/jci14178. pmid:11602616Google Scholar

246.

Wojciechowski, M.F., Lavin, M., and Sanderson, M.J. 2004. A phylogeny of legumes (Leguminosae) based on analysis of the plastid matK gene resolves many well-supported subclades within the family. Amer. J. Bot. 91: 1846–1862. https://doi.org/10.3732/ajb.91.11.1846Google Scholar

247.

Wojciechowski, M.F., Sanderson, M.J., Steele, K.P., and Liston, A. 2000. Molecular phylogeny of the “temperate herbaceous tribes” of papilionoid legumes: a supertree approach. Pages 277–298 in P.S. Herendeen, and A. Bruneau, eds. Advances in legume systematics. Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew, UK. Google Scholar

248.

Xu, L., Zhu, X., Bao, B., Zhang, M., Sun, H., Podlech, D., et al. 2010. 25. Tribe Galegeae. Pages 322–511 in W. Zhengyi, and P.H. Raven, eds. Flora of China. Vol. 10. Fabaceae. Missouri Botanical Garden Press, St. Louis, MO. Google Scholar

249.

Zamorano, A., Ximena, G., Pino, A.M., Quiroga, N., and Fiore, N. 2015. Detection of 16SrIII-J phytoplasma in Galega officinalis L., a weed commonly associated to pome fruit orchards in Chile. Phytopathogenic Mollicutes, 5 (S1): S115–116. https://doi.org/10.5958/2249-4677.2015.00049.3Google Scholar

250.

Zecca, E., Zuppa, A.A., D'Antuono, A., Tiberi, E., Giordano, L., Pianini, T., and Romagnoli, C. 2016. Efficacy of a galactogogue containing silymarin-phosphatidylserine and galaga in mothers of preterm infants: a randomized controlled trial. Euro. J. Clin. Nutr. 70: 1151–1154. https://doi.org/10.1038/ejcn.2016.86Google Scholar

251.

Zuppa, A.A., Sindico, P., Orchi, C., Caraducci, C., Cardiello, V., Romagnoli, C., and Catenazzi, P. 2010. Safety and efficacy of galactogogues: substances that induce, maintain and increase breast milk production. J. Pharm. Pharmaceut. Sci. 13: 162–174. Google Scholar

252.

Österman, J., Chizhevskaja, E.P., Andronov, E.E., Fewer, D.P., Terefework, Z., Roumiantseva, M.L., et al. 2011. Galega orientalis is more diverse than Galega officinalis in Caucasus — whole-genome AFLP analysis and phylogenetics of symbiosis-related genes. Mol. Ecol. 20: 4808–4821. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05291.xGoogle Scholar

Appendices

Appendix A

DNA sequences from Galega spp. for nod factor 5 (Nfr5) and 2 fragments (positions 1–492 and 508–980 of 2522 bp) of the symbiotic gene nodulation receptor kinase (NORK); see Österman et al. (2011). Aligned consensus sequences of 11 individuals from each of G. officinalis and G. orientalis. Grey shading indicates unique species–specific markers. Lower case letters indicate nucleotide versus indel polymorphisms where the alternate state is a deletion.

NORK, 494 bp Fragment (Positions 1–492)

G. officinalis

TTGTCAATCC CTTCATTTCT CAGCTTGAAT TGAGGCCACT ACCTGAAGAA TACCTTCATG 60

ATTTTGCTAA CAGTGTTTTA AAACTGATAA GCAGAAATAA TCTTGGGGAC TTAAAGAATG 120

ACATCAGGTA TGTGATCTAT TTTATTTTGA CAGAGAGAGT GTATCTCTCA GCAAACCTAT 180

AAAGGCTTAG GGGTTGATAT TATCTA––AA GATCAACATA TTTTTCTGTA AGGGATACAA 240

ATTGTAATTC ATGTGTTATA TCAAACATAT TTAAACCAAA AATGAATTTG AGCAGCAAGC 300

ATGATGCATG AACCTTTTCA ACAAATGCAT GACATAACCT ATGTTTCACT TTATAGAAAG 360

AACTATAAGA TGTGTGTGCA CCTTAATATT AATTTTTATC TTTGTGATAC ATTGAGATGC 420

ACCTGAATTT AATTAACATA TAGAGAAGCA AGAATCCATA ATCCTACCGT TCaATCCATG 480

ATAaTATGCA TCTCACT 497

G. orientalis

TTGTCAATCC CTTCATTTCT CAGCTTGAAT TAAGGCCATT GCCTGAAGAA TACCTACATG 60

ATTTTGCTAA CAGTGTTTTA AAACTGATAA GCAGAAATAA TCTTGGGGAC TTAAAGAATG 120

ACATCAGGTA TGTGATCTTT TTTATTTTGA CAGAGAGAGT GTATCTCTCA GCAAACCTAT 180

AAAGGCTTAG GGTTGATAT TATCTAAAAA GATCAACATC TTTTTCTGTA ACGAATACAA 240

ATTGTAATTC A––TGTTATA TCAAACATAT TTAAAACAAA AATGAATTTG AGCAGCAAGC 300

ATTATGCATG AACCTTTTCT ACAAATGTAT GACATAACCT ATGTTTCACT TTATAGAAAG 360

AACTAAAAGA TGTGTGTGCA CCTTAATATT AATTTATATC TTTGTGATGC ATTGAGATGC 420

ACCTGAATTT AATTAACAAA TAGAGAAGCA AGAATCCaGA ATCGTACCGT TCAATCCATA 480

ATARTATGCA TCTCACT 497

NORK, 474 bp Fragment (Positions 508–980)

G. officinalis

TCTAGTATAG CCTTAGtTTT CTTTTtAAGT GATCTGTGCT TAGTGTTTAG TCTGCAACTT 60

TGTTTTGTTA TTCTGATACC ATGGACTATG TA––AATAGG CAGAAAGGTC TCATAATATC 120

GGTATCTATC AATTTTAGGT ACCCTGTTGA CCAAAATGAT AGAATCTGGA AAGCAATTTC 180

AACTCCATCA TCTGCTCTTC CGCTGTCTTT CAACGTCAGC AATGTCGACC TCGAAGGCAA 240

AGTGACACCT CCTATACAAG TCTTAAAAAC AGCTCTTACT CACCCTGAGC GATTGGAGTT 300

CATCCACAAC GGTCTCGAGA CCAACGATTA TGAATACTCT GTGTTTCTCT ACTTTCTTGA 360

ATTAAATAGC ACTCTCAAAG CAGGTCAAAG GGTGTTTGAC ATATATCTAA ACAATGAGAT 420

TAAACAGGAG AAGTTTGATG TATTGGCTGG AGGGTCCAAG TACAGTTACA TTGT 474

G. orientalis

TCTAGTATAG CCTTAGTTTT CTTTTGAAGT GATTTGTGCT TAGTGTTTAG TCTGCAACTT 60

TGTTTTGTTG TTCTGATGCC ATGGACTATG TAaaAATGGG AAGAAAGGTC TCATAATATC 120

GGTATCTATC AATTTTAGGT ACCCAGTTGA CCAAAATGAT AGAATCTGGA AAGCAACTTC 180

AACTCCATCA TCTGCTCTTC CACTGTCTTT CAACGTCAGC AATGTCGACC TCGAAGGCAA 240

AGTGACACCT CCTATACAAG TCCTACAAAC AGCTCTTACT CACCCTGAGC GATTGGAGTT 300

CATCCACAAC GGTCTCGAGA CCGAGGATTA TGAATACTCT GTGTTTCTGT ACTTTCTTGA 360

ATTAAATAGC ACTCTCAAAG CAGGTCAAAG GGTGTTTGAC ATATATCTAA ACAATGAGAT 420

TAAACAGGAG AAGTTTGATG TATTGGCTGG AGGGTCCAAG TACAGTTACA TWGT 474

Nfr5

Primers:

nfr5_G_for2 5′-CGATCTTTCGCCAATATATCCTA-3′

nfr5_G_rev2 5′-AACTGATTCTTTGAAGGGCACC-3′

G. officinalis

ATGGCTGTGT TCTTTYTTCC CTCTAGTTCT CAATGTCTTT TTCTTGCACT CATGCTGtTT 60

CTCACTAATA TCTCAGCTCA ATCACAACAG CTCAGTAGAA CMAACTTTAC ATGCCCAGTG 120

GATTCGCCTC CTTCATGTAA AACCTATGTT ACATATATTG CACAGTCTCC AAATTTTTTG 180

AGTCTAACAA ACATATCTAA TCTATTTGAT ATCAGTTCTT TATCCATTTC AAAAGCCAGT 240

AACATAGACG AGGATAGCAA GCTGATCCCA AACCAAGTCT TACTAGTACC TGTAACTTGT 300

GGTTGCACTG GTAATCGATC TTTCGCCAAT ATATCCTACT CAATCAAGAC TGACGATTAC 360

TACAAATTAA TTTCAGCCAC TTTATTTCAG AATCTCACCA ATTATCTGGA AATGGAAGCT 420

GCCAACCCAA GTCTAAATCC AAATCTATTG CCACTAGATG CCAAAGTTGT AGTCCCTTTA 480

TTCTGCAGGT GCCCTTCAAA GAATCAGTTG AACAAAGGAA TCAAGTATCT GATTACTTAT 540

GTGTGGAAGG CTAATGACAA TGTTACTCTT GTAAGTTCCA AGTTTGGTGC ATCACAAGGA 600

GACATGTTAA CCCAAAATAA CTTCACTGCT GCAGCCAACC TTTCAATTTT GATCCCAGTG 660

ACAAATTTAC CAAAACTTAA TCAACCACCT TCAAATGGAA GTAAAAGCAG CAGAAAAAAA 720

YTTCCTGTTA TAATTGGTAT TAGCCTAGGA AGTACTTTTT TCATTGTCGT GTTAACTCTA 780

TCACTTGTTT ATGTTTATTG TCTGAAAATG AAGAGATTGA ATAGGAGTAC TTCATTAGCT 840

G. orientalis

ATGGCTGTGC TCTTTCTTCC CTCTAGTTCT CAATGTCTTT TTCTTGCACT CATGCTGTTT 60

CTCACTAATA TCTCAGCTCA AACACAACAG CTCAGTAGAA CCAACTTTAC ATGCCCAGTG 120

GATTCGCCTC CTTCATGTGA AACCTATGTT ACATATATTG CACAATCTCC GAATTTTTTG 180

AGCCTAACTA ATATAGCTAA TCTATTTGAT ATCAGTTCTT TATCCATTTC AAAAGCCAGT 240

AACATAGACG AGGATAGCAA GCTGATCCCA AACCAAGTCT TACTAGTACC TGTAACTTGT 300

GGTTGCACTG AAAATCGATC TTTCGCCAAT ATATCCTACT CAATCAAGAC TGACGATTAC 360

TACAAATTAA TTTCAGCCAC TTTATTCCAG AACCTCACCA ATTATCTGGA AATGGAAGAT 420

GCCAATCCAA GTCTAAATCC AAATCTATTG CCACTAGATG CCAAAGTTGT AGCCCCTTTA 480

TTCTGCAGGT GCCCTTCAAA GAATCAGTTG AACAAAGGAA TCAAGTATCT GATTACTTAT 540

GTGTGGAAGG CTAATGACAA TGTTACTATT GTAAGTTCCA AGTTTGGTGC ATCACAAGGA 600

GACATGTTAA CCCAAAATAA CTTCACTGAT GCGGCCAACC TTCCAATTTT GATCCCAGTG 660

ACAAATTTAC CAAAACTTGA TCAACCATCT TCAAGTGgaa gtaTAAGCAG TAGTAAAAAA 720

CTTCCTGTTA TAATTGGTAT TAGCCTAGGA AGTGCTTTTT TCATTGTAGT GTTAACACTA 780

TCACTTGTKT ATGTATATTG TCTGAAAATG AAGAGATTGA ATAGGAGTAC TTCATTAGCT 840

Reference

253.

ÖstermanJ.ChizhevskajaE.P.AndronovE.E.FewerD.P.TerefeworkZ.RoumiantsevaM.L.et al. 2011. Galega orientalis is more diverse than Galega officinalis in Caucasus — whole-genome AFLP analysis and phylogenetics of symbiosis-related genes. Mol. Ecol. 20: 4808–4821. doi: https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-294x.2011.05291.xGoogle Scholar
© 2021 Her Majesty the Queen in Right of Canada, as represented by the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada.
Stephen J. Darbyshire, Ardath Francis, Eden S.P. Bromfield, and Subbaiah Mechanda "The Biology of Canadian Weeds: 158. Galega officinalis L.," Canadian Journal of Plant Science 102(1), 160-185, (13 May 2021). https://doi.org/10.1139/CJPS-2020-0327
Received: 15 December 2020; Accepted: 8 May 2021; Published: 13 May 2021
KEYWORDS
adventice nuisible
biologie des mauvaises herbes
common milkpea
galéga officinal
galéga officinal
Galega officinalis
Galega officinalis
Back to Top