Next Article in Journal
FGF23 Controls Myocardial Fibrosis Progression via Promoting Cardiac Fibroblast Proliferation and Activation in Mice
Previous Article in Journal
Long Non-Coding RNA–Derived Peptides as a Novel Source of Tumor Neoantigens: Expanding the Immunopeptidome Beyond Canonical Coding Regions
 
 
Due to scheduled maintenance work on our servers, there may be short service disruptions on this website between 11:00 and 12:00 CEST on March 28th.
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Asparagus Decline and Replant Problem: Autotoxicity, Autotoxic Substances, and Their Biological Functions

Department of Applied Biological Science, Faculty of Agriculture, Kagawa University, Miki, Kagawa 761-0795, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2026, 15(7), 537; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology15070537
Submission received: 25 February 2026 / Revised: 22 March 2026 / Accepted: 24 March 2026 / Published: 27 March 2026
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Science)

Simple Summary

The cultivation of asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) is plagued by two serious issues: “asparagus decline” and “asparagus replant problem”. These issues are characterized by the low vigor, growth, and productivity. It is believed that these issues result from a combination of a Fusarium infection and asparagus autotoxicity. Over the past four decades, evidence of asparagus autotoxicity has been published. However, no review has focused specifically on this autotoxicity. This paper provides an overview of the literature on asparagus autotoxicity, including the substances and mechanisms involved. The growth of asparagus has been reported to be inhibited by asparagus root residues, leachates, root exudates, and rhizosphere soils. Several phenylpropanoids, including trans-cinnamic acid, p-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, and ferulic acid, have been identified as autotoxic substances in asparagus root residues, root exudates, rhizosphere soils, growth media, and/or plant tissues. Tryptophan, 3,4-methylenedioxycinnamic acid, and iso-agatharesinol were also identified as its autotoxic substances. These substances may cause autotoxicity by disrupting phytohormone levels, cellular metabolism, membrane function, and by inducing oxidative stress. These substances also weaken the defense mechanisms of asparagus against pathogen infection, and enhance Fusarium pathogenicity. Therefore, these substances may be responsible for asparagus autotoxicity.

Abstract

The cultivation of asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) is plagued by two serious issues: “asparagus decline” and “asparagus replant problem”. The average lifespan of an asparagus plant is 15 to 20 years. However, its productivity decreases after a few years (asparagus decline). Even when these asparagus plants are replaced with new ones, the new plants remain unproductive (asparagus replant problem). The main causes of these problems are a Fusarium infection and asparagus autotoxicity. Several reviews have been conducted on Fusarium. Despite the accumulation of evidence on asparagus autotoxicity in the literature over the past four decades, no review has focused specifically on asparagus autotoxicity. It has been reported that asparagus growth is inhibited by asparagus root residues, leachates, root exudates, and rhizosphere soils. Several phenylpropanoids, including trans-cinnamic acid, p-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, and ferulic acid, have been identified as asparagus autotoxic substances in these root residues, root exudates, rhizosphere soils, growth media, and/or plant tissues. Tryptophan, 3,4-methylenedioxycinnamic acid, and iso-agatharesinol were also identified as asparagus autotoxic substances. These substances may cause autotoxicity by disrupting phytohormone levels, cellular metabolism, impairing membrane function, and by inducing oxidative stress. Although cinnamic, p-coumaric, caffeic, and ferulic acids have been reported to act as antibiotics, these compounds have also been shown to weaken the defense mechanisms of asparagus against pathogen infection, and enhance the Fusarium pathogenicity. The presence of these autotoxic substances, coupled with a Fusarium infection, may create a vicious cycle that worsens “asparagus decline” and “asparagus replant problem”. This is the first review to focus on the asparagus autotoxicity.

1. Introduction

Asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.), formerly classified in the Liliaceae family, is a perennial herb that now belongs to the Asparagaceae family [1]. It grows to a height of 1–2 m and has glabrous and erect stems that branch well and bear feathery foliage called a fern. Its leaves have degenerated into needle-like cladodes. These cladodes are 5–40 mm long, 1 mm wide, and clustered in whorls of 2–15 cladodes. Bell-shaped flowers are produced at the bases of the cladodes. These yellowish-green flowers are approximately 5 mm long. They consist of six petals. This species is dioecious. Male flowers have six stamens, while female flowers have a pistil and vestigial stamens. The fruit is 6–9 mm in diameter, turns red when ripe, and contains 2–4 seeds. Its underground parts consist of rhizomes and roots, known as crowns. Crowns are usually planted instead of seeds to grow new plants for cultivation. Green young shoots, known as spears, arise from the rhizomes and are harvested as a vegetable. White asparagus is not a variety of A. officinalis. It is produced by keeping the spears in the dark [1,2,3,4,5,6,7] (Figure 1 and Figure 2).
Asparagus is native to the Mediterranean region and Western Asia [1,2]. It has been harvested for thousands of years by several ancient civilizations, including the Egyptians, Greeks, and Romans, for use as both a vegetable and a medicine [8]. It is currently widely cultivated as a vegetable crop in well-drained soils in temperate and subtropical climates. Its global production has steadily increased due to the growing demand for nutritious vegetables. It also contains various functional ingredients, including dietary fibers, polyphenols, saponins, and anthocyanins [9,10,11,12]. Global production of asparagus reached 8.6 million tons in 2023. China accounted for 88% of the total production, followed by Peru (5.5%), Mexico (3.9%), Germany (1.3%), and Spain (0.5%) [13,14,15].
The average lifespan of an asparagus plant is 15 to 20 years, and its spears can be harvested for over 10 of those years. However, a major problem in asparagus cultivation is the gradual decrease in productivity known as the “asparagus decline”, as defined by Grogan and Kimble [16]. Asparagus reaches its peak production several years after cultivation begins, and then gradually decreases year by year. Typical symptoms include smaller spears and fewer sprouts. The above-ground parts, including the stems, branches, and cladodes, become chlorotic and stunted. The roots often shrivel or disappear [17,18,19,20]. Even when old asparagus plants in a field are replaced with new asparagus plants, the vigor, spear quality, and productivity of the replaced new asparagus plants remain relatively low compared to plants in areas where asparagus has never been cultivated. This phenomenon is known as the “asparagus replant problem” [17,21,22,23].
The “asparagus decline” and “asparagus replant problem” are thought to be caused by a combination of biotic and abiotic stress factors. Biotic factors include pathogenic fungi and viruses. The primary biotic factor is Fusarium infection [17,18,19,20,23,24,25]. There are at least 300 species of Fusarium taxa [26], but the most commonly isolated species from asparagus is Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. asparagi (thereafter Fusarium oxysporum), followed by Fusarium proliferatum. These Fusarium infestations cause diseases such as rot, wilt, and blight in asparagus plants, including its seedlings [22,27,28,29,30,31]. These diseases reduce the vigor, spear quality, productivity, and lifespan of asparagus plants [32,33,34]. These Fusarium species produce spores in humid conditions. These spores are then distributed throughout entire asparagus fields. Fusarium oxysporum can survive in soil containing asparagus residue for over 25 years, even in the absence of asparagus plants [35,36]. These Fusarium species also form chlamydospores, which are thick-walled spores that survive much longer than regular spores [37,38]. The asparagus miner (Ophiomyia simplex, Agromyzidae family) is a stem-mining fly that specializes in asparagus and is widely distributed. It acts as a vector for Fusarium infection in asparagus and is responsible for the development of Fusarium diseases [39,40].
The Fusarium infection process begins when spores and chlamydospores germinate in the soil and form hyphae [41]. These hyphae adhere to the root surfaces of their hosts. The hyphae recognize their hosts through compounds in the plant cutin layers, such as dihydroxy-C16 and trihydroxy-C18 acids. These compounds, which are unique to suitable hosts, stimulate Fusarium to produce cell wall-degrading enzymes, including cutinase, pectinase, cellulase, lipase, and xylanase. These induced enzymes break down the plant cell wall, enabling Fusarium to enter the root epidermis. The fungus then spreads into the cortex and xylem of the host plant roots. From there, it spreads further to the storage roots, crowns, and stems [36]. These cell wall-degrading enzymes are also involved in the pathogenesis. The infected fungi destroy plant tissue and absorb nutrients from their host plants [42,43,44,45,46,47].
Fusarium species secrete several types of effector proteins, into host plant cells, including SIX effector proteins, small secreted effector proteins (SSP), and FOLD effectors. Effector proteins are cysteine-rich proteins consisting of 50 to 300 amino acid residues [46,48,49]. Effector proteins act as molecular probes that inhibit the production of host plant proteins involved in defense mechanisms against pathogen infection. They also alter the expression of host plant genes. These altered genes enable Fusarium to plunder nutrients from host plants and prevent the apoptosis in host plant cells during infection [50,51]. Therefore, effector proteins interfere with the defense mechanisms and alter metabolism of host plants, thereby facilitating Fusarium pathogenicity.
Pathogenic Fusarium species also produce several mycotoxins, including moniliformin, fumonisins, enniatins, and beauvericin. The production of these mycotoxins depends on the intrinsic and extrinsic conditions [52,53,54,55]. Moniliformin, enniatins A1 and B, beauvericin, and fumonisins B1, B2, and B3 were found in asparagus infected by F. oxysporum and F. proliferatum [31,47,56,57,58]. Moniliformin has been shown to suppress plant growth by reducing photosynthetic pigments [59]. It also suppresses leaf development and seedling growth [60]. The toxicity of enniatins and beauvericin is related to their ionophoric properties, which increase cellular membrane permeability to ions. These compounds induce oxidative stress. They also cause DNA fragmentation and chromosomal aberrations, resulting in apoptosis [61,62,63]. Beauvericin reduces ascorbic acid metabolism and disrupts the ascorbate system, ultimately resulting in cell death [64]. Over 15 different structures of fumonisins have been identified and classified into groups A, B, C and P. Fumonisin B1 is the most abundant [65,66]. It blocks the biosynthesis of sphingolipids by inhibiting ceramide synthase, which is a key enzyme in lipid metabolism. Sphingolipids play important roles in signal transduction and cell recognition. Therefore, fumonisin B1 interferes with these functions by inhibiting sphingolipid biosynthesis [67,68,69]. Fumonisin B1 induces toxicity by causing oxidative stress, apoptosis, and alterations in cytokine expression [70]. Fumonisins degrade the endosperm and reduce the protein matrix surrounding the starch granules [71]. They also significantly inhibit the growth of maize roots [72]. These mycotoxins often contaminate grains of crops, such as maize, wheat, and barley, that have been infected by Fusarium. Mycotoxins can also cause disease and death in animals and humans [61,73,74].
As described above, Fusarium alters the metabolism and defense mechanisms of host plants against pathogen infection by producing effector proteins and mycotoxins. It can also destroy their plant tissue by producing several cell wall-degrading enzymes. These enzymes, effector proteins, and mycotoxins enhance Fusarium pathogenicity, resulting in the reduced asparagus quality and production (Figure 3). Several reviews have summarized the effects of a Fusarium infection as a biotic factor that suppresses asparagus production [36,39,47,75,76].
Abiotic stress factors that contribute to the “asparagus decline” and “asparagus replant problem” include autotoxicity, climate, water availability, overharvesting, and soil conditions such as nutrient and pH levels, and soil compaction. Of these factors, autotoxicity of asparagus is considered the primary abiotic stress factor [17,19,77]. Other factors, such as climate, water availability, overharvesting, and soil conditions affect not only asparagus, but also the growth and productivity of many other plants.
Over time, autotoxic substances accumulate in the soil of the asparagus rhizosphere. Excessive accumulation of these substances suppresses the asparagus growth and vigor, resulting in the “asparagus decline” and “asparagus replant problem”. Over the past four decades, evidence of asparagus autotoxicity has been published. However, no review has specifically focused on this phenomenon. This paper provides an overview of the literature on asparagus autotoxicity, including the substances and mechanisms involved, and the areas in which more information is needed. A combination of online search engines was used to search the literature: Scopus, PubMed, Springer Link, ScienceDirect, and Google Scholar. The following terms relating to asparagus were searched: autotoxicity, allelopathy, Fusarium, mycotoxin, secondary metabolite, residues, root exudate, growth inhibition, and agriculture. We included these research papers in our analysis as thoroughly as possible. However, we excluded publications with unclear methods or no statistical analysis. It begins by discussing autotoxicity and its ecological significance.

2. Autotoxicity and Its Ecological Significance

Autotoxicity is an example of intraspecific allelopathy. Allelopathy is the chemical interaction between a donor species and another species. The donor species produces allelochemicals, that are released into the surrounding environment, including the soil of the rhizosphere. These allelochemicals are released through volatilization from the plants and leaching from their aerial parts by rainfall. They are also released through root exudation and the decomposition process of plant residues in the soil [78,79,80,81,82,83]. Allelopathy has also been demonstrated in fern and moss species [84,85,86]. These allelochemicals can suppress the germination, growth, physiological processes, and reproduction of other plant species. Autotoxic substances, or autotoxins, act like allelochemicals. However, unlike allelochemicals, they suppress the germination, growth, physiological processes, and reproduction of the same species of donor plants, as well as the donor plants themselves [78,87,88].
Allelopathy gives donor plants a competitive advantage over neighboring plants. Plants compete with neighboring plants for light, nutrients, and water. Allelopathy provides an advantage in this resource competition by suppressing the germination and growth of other plant species [78,79,89]. Some invasive plant species, such as Pueraria montana var. lobata, Acacia mearnsii, Sphagneticola trilobata, and Ulex europaeus, which are listed among the world’s 100 worst invasive alien species [90], exhibit significant allelopathic activity. This allelopathy contributes to their invasive characteristics [91,92,93,94].
Autotoxicity has been observed in many crop plants, including alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), sugarcane (Saccharum officinarum L.), and mung bean (Vigna radiata (L.) Wilczek). Several autotoxic substances, including p-coumaric acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, salicylic acid, ferulic acid, vanillic acid, and/or syringic acid have been identified in these herbaceous plants [78,87,95,96,97,98]. Declines in production and replanting issues have been observed during the cultivation of apple (Malus pumila Mill.), peach (Prunus persica (L.) Batsch), citrus (Citrus spp.), and kiwifruit (Actinidia deliciosa (A.Chev.) A.Chev.). Amygdalin, abscisic acid-β-D-glucopyranoside, phlorizin, phloretin, epicatechin, p-coumaric acid, and/or benzoic acid have been identified as autotoxic substances in these woody plants [99,100,101,102,103]. Most of these autotoxic substances have also been identified as allelochemicals in many other plant species [78,79,80,103]. This has provided insight into their role in plant biology. Unlike allelopathy, however, autotoxicity acts as a form of self-regulation. It controls population density to prevent intense competition for resources within the same species, and suppresses germination during adverse environmental conditions. It influences the migration of species from one habitat to another. It also increases species diversity by reducing the population density of host plant species within specific habitats [78,87,88,104]. However, more information is needed to understand the ecological significance of plant autotoxicity.

3. Asparagus Autotoxicity

Similar to allelochemicals, autotoxic substances are released into the surrounding environment through volatilization, leaching, root exudation and the decomposition process of plant residues [78,82,85,99,100,101]. Asparagus autotoxicity has been identified in plant residues, leachate from the plants, root exudates, and soil in which asparagus has previously grown.

3.1. Autotoxicity of Asparagus Residues

The biomass of asparagus root residues in the soil was 4180–11,060 and 420–1140 kg of dry weight per hectare after one year and 10 years, respectively, following the termination of asparagus cultivation [21]. Therefore, a significant amount of residue remained in the soil even after 10 years. Soil mixed with fumigated asparagus roots suppressed the germination of asparagus seeds [105]. In a laboratory setting, sterilized asparagus root fragments also exhibited an inhibitory effect [21]. Under greenhouse conditions, root amendments of asparagus suppressed the growth and its nutrient uptake of asparagus, including its uptake of phosphorus, nitrogen, potassium, calcium, and magnesium [106]. These inhibitory effects were caused by the sterilized asparagus residues. Therefore, the inhibitory effects of root residues are caused by more than just the presence of pathogen in the residues. One possible cause of the inhibition may be the presence of compounds in the residues. These compounds may be released into the soil during the decomposition process of residues, and suppress the growth and nutrient uptake of asparagus. These findings suggest that the “asparagus decline” may also be caused by the accumulation of root residues in asparagus fields.
Three-month-old asparagus plants were transplanted into the soil mixed with sterilized asparagus roots and crowns. This treatment inhibited the growth of the transplanted asparagus. The inhibitory effect of root residues was greater than that of crown residues [107,108]. Asparagus seedlings were transplanted into a sandy soil mixture containing asparagus root and stem residues. This resulted in inhibition of growth of the transplanted seedlings. The inhibitory effect of the root residues was greater than that of the shoot residues [109]. These investigations suggest that asparagus root, crown, and stem residues can suppress the growth of transplanted asparagus. Root residues were more effective than shoot and crown residues. Therefore, these residues may also contribute to the “asparagus replant problem”. The inhibitory effects of root residues are greater than those of shoot and crown residues.

3.2. Autotoxicity of Asparagus Leachates and Root Exudates

After applying the nutrient solution, the resulting leachates were collected from the asparagus plants. Then, these leachates were applied to another batch of asparagus plants. This resulted in growth suppression of the asparagus plants [110]. The nutrient solution previously used for hydroponic asparagus cultivation hindered the growth of the roots and shoots of new asparagus seedlings. These experimental conditions rule out nutrient deficiency as the cause [111]. Root exudates were collected from one-year-old asparagus plants grown in a vermiculite medium, and applied to other one-year-old asparagus plants. This treatment suppressed the root and shoot growth of asparagus seedlings under greenhouse conditions [112]. These findings suggest that asparagus may release autotoxic substances into the soil through root exudation and leaching.
Additionally, the first group of asparagus seeds was germinated and grown in an agar medium for 56 days. After harvesting all of the seedlings from the first group, the second group of asparagus seeds was sown on the same medium and grown for 56 days. This treatment suppressed the fresh and dry mass growth of the second group of seedlings. The nutrient uptake of the second group of seedlings, including phosphorus, nitrogen, potassium, calcium, and magnesium, was also suppressed [113]. This observation suggests that the first group of asparagus seedlings releases autotoxic substances, which accumulate in the growth medium. These substances then inhibit the growth of the second group of the seedlings by suppressing their nutrient uptake.

3.3. Autotoxicity of Asparagus Rhizosphere Soil

Rhizosphere soils, in which asparagus had been cultivated for over 10 years, inhibited the root and shoot growth of asparagus seedlings. However, the pH, electrical conductivity, and concentrations of nitrogen, phosphorus, potassium, magnesium, and calcium in these soils were not significantly different from those in soils that did not exhibit inhibitory effects on growth [114]. Rhizosphere soils were collected from asparagus fields, sieved to remove plant residues, and then extracted using an aqueous methanol solution. These extracts inhibited the root and shoot growth of asparagus seedlings [23]. Acetone and methanol extracts of asparagus soil inhibited root and shoot growth of asparagus seedlings in a concentration dependent manner. The inhibitory effects of the acetone and methanol extracts were similar [109]. These findings suggest that asparagus rhizosphere soils may contain autotoxic substances, and these compounds are exactable.

4. Autotoxic Substances in Asparagus Plants and Residues

As discussed in Section 3, asparagus root residues, leachates, root exudates, and rhizosphere soils exhibited autotoxicity, which suggests the presence of autotoxic substances. These substances can be extracted from plant tissues and residues because they are produced and stored in the plant tissues until they are released [78,82,85,99,100,101].
Aqueous extracts obtained from the stems, crowns and roots of field-grown and tissue-cultured asparagus plants inhibited the germination and growth of asparagus. The field-grown asparagus were collected from 4–5 year-old asparagus fields. The tissue-cultured asparagus were grown on a Murashige and Skoog medium for two years and remained uninfected by pathogens during incubation. The inhibitory effects were greater in the extracts from the tissue-cultured asparagus than in the extracts from the field-grown asparagus. Both root extracts were more effective than other extracts [115]. These results suggest that the inhibitory effects are not caused by pathogen contamination in the extracts. Asparagus plants may contain autotoxic substances in their stems, crowns and roots. The roots likely contain more of these autotoxic substances than the stems and crowns.
Aqueous extracts from root residues have been shown to inhibit the growth of asparagus seedlings [21]. Aqueous extracts and aqueous methanol extracts of asparagus roots and shoots also inhibited the growth of asparagus seedling in a concentration dependent manner [23,109]. Aqueous extracts of asparagus roots increased membrane electrolyte efflux and inhibited the peroxidase activity of asparagus seedlings [108]. These findings suggest that fresh asparagus roots and shoots, and residues, may contain autotoxic substances, and some of them increase electrolyte efflux and inhibit the peroxidase activity. These substances can be extractable with water and aqueous methanol.
Asparagusic acid and its related compounds have been isolated from asparagus shoots [116,117]. These compounds have demonstrated fungicidal, antibacterial, nematocidal, insecticidal, and herbicidal activity [118]. However, the role of asparagusic acid and related compounds in asparagus autotoxicity remains unclear.
Phytotoxic substances, including ferulic acid, isoferulic acid, malic acid, fumaric acid, and 3,4-methylenedioxycinnamic acid, were isolated from the aqueous extracts of asparagus roots. Although the autotoxic activity of these compounds on asparagus was not determined, 3,4-methylenedioxycinnamic acid was the most active against the seedling growth of cress (Lepidium sativum L.). It inhibited over 50% of cress roots and shoots at a concentration of 50 ppm (260 μM) [119]. 3,4-Methylenedioxycinnamic acid is a derivative of cinnamic acid. It effectively inhibits 4-coumarate-CoA ligase (4CL) in the phenylpropanoid pathway. This pathway is a vital metabolic process in plants [120,121,122]. The growth inhibitory activity of ferulic acid on asparagus was reported later. Exogenously applied ferulic acid was found to suppress the growth of asparagus plants [123]. Its action mechanisms have also been reported as follows: Ferulic acid increases cell membrane permeability by stimulating lipid peroxidation, which leads to electrolyte leakage. It also suppresses photosynthesis by reducing chlorophyll content. Ferulic acid esterifies cell wall polysaccharides and interferes with lignin synthesis, making the cell wall inflexible. This physically restricts cell expansion [124,125]. Ferulic acid also suppressed the spore germination and growth of the arbuscular mycorrhizal fungus Glomus fasciculatum in vitro. It also inhibited the colonization of G. fasciculatum in asparagus roots [126]. Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi contribute to many aspects of plant growth and development, particularly by improving nutritional conditions, increasing stress tolerance, and enhancing disease resistance [127,128]. Consequently, inhibition of colonization of G. fasciculatum causes the growth suppression of host plants. Therefore, ferulic acid may suppress the growth of asparagus by disrupting cell membrane function, lignin synthesis, and photosynthesis. It may also inhibit the colonization of G. fasciculatum. Ferulic acid and 3,4-methylenedioxycinnamic acid may act as autotoxic substances in asparagus (Figure 4).
Aqueous root extracts of asparagus plants inhibited the roots and shoot growth of asparagus seedlings. Caffeic acid and tryptophan were identified as the active components in the extracts. The concentrations of caffeic acid and tryptophan were 160 and 180 mg/kg of fresh root weight, respectively. The inhibitory effect of tryptophan on the root and shoot growth of asparagus was greater than that of caffeic acid [23]. The inhibitory effects of tryptophan have also been reported in several other plant species [129,130]. Tryptophan is a precursor to the phytohormone indole acetic acid (IAA; auxin). Therefore, adding exogenous tryptophan may interrupt auxin biosynthesis [129,131]. However, the mechanism by which tryptophan inhibits growth remains unclear.
Caffeic acid has also been isolated from methanol extracts of asparagus roots. In laboratory experiments, it suppressed the germination of asparagus seeds both under sterile conditions and under conditions with Fusarium inoculation. It also suppressed asparagus germination in pots filled with pre-moistened peat-lite mix under greenhouse conditions [132]. The concentration of caffeic acid was determined to be 1.7–3.0 mg/g in dry roots [133], and 0.26–3.2 mg/g in dry asparagus rhizomes [134]. Caffeic acid induces an oxidative stress condition [135]. It also interrupts gibberellic acid biosynthesis and downregulates the MAPK signaling pathway [136]. Gibberellic acid is a phytohormone and involved in many essential physiological processes in plants [137,138]. The MAPK signaling pathway is involved in recognizing and responding to stress factors, including adverse environmental conditions, pathogen infection, and herbivore attacks [139,140]. Therefore, caffeic acid may act as an autotoxic substance, causing oxidative stress, and inhibiting the synthesis of gibberellic acid and the MAPK signaling pathway.
Aqueous methanol extracts of asparagus rhizomes inhibited the root and shoot growth of asparagus seedlings in a concentration dependent manner. The extract obtained from 7.4 and 21.5 mg of dry asparagus rhizomes produced 50% inhibition of root and shoot growth of asparagus seedlings, respectively [141]. The extracts were purified using a bioassay-guided purification process that monitored the autotoxic activity of each separated fraction at every step of the purification process. The most active fraction was then used for the next separation. This process resulted in the isolation of two autotoxic substances: p-coumaric acid and iso-agatharesinol (Figure 4). p-Coumaric acid and iso-agatharesinol inhibited the root and shoot growth of asparagus seedlings in a concentration dependent manner at concentrations greater than 0.1 mM. The IC50 values, indicating 50% growth inhibition, for p-coumaric acid were 0.36 and 0.53 mM for the roots and shoots of asparagus seedlings, respectively. The IC50 values for iso-agatharesinol were 0.62 and 0.72 mM for the roots and shoots of asparagus seedlings, respectively. p-Coumaric acid causes cellular membrane damage, inhibits photosynthesis, and induces oxidative stress conditions [135,142]. p-Coumaric acid has also been reported to be involved in the autotoxicity of tobacco (Nicotiana spp.) [143]. Iso-agatharesinol, a nor-lignan, is synthesized via the phenylpropanoid pathway [144]. It has also been isolated from Asparagus cochinchinensis [145], and exhibits allelopathic activity against several other plant species [141]. However, the mechanism of action of iso-agatharesinol on growth inhibition remains unclear.
Several flavonoids, including quercetin, rutin, and kaempferol, and saponins, have been identified in asparagus spears [146,147,148]. These studies examined the nutritional value and Functional ingredients of asparagus as a food source. Some flavonoids have also been reported to exhibit allelopathic activity [149]. However, growth inhibitory activity of these flavonoids on asparagus has not yet been determined. Therefore, their role in asparagus autotoxicity remains unclear.
As discussed in this section, p-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, ferulic acid, tryptophan, and iso-agatharesinol inhibited the germination and/or growth of asparagus. Ferulic acid also suppressed arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization, and 3,4-methylenedioxycinnamic acid inhibited the phenylpropanoid pathway. Therefore, these compounds may be involved in asparagus autotoxicity (Figure 4). However, the concentrations of these compounds in asparagus root exudates, residues, and rhizosphere soils remain unknown. They only act as autotoxic substances after being released into the environment from plants and residues. Further research on this process in these compounds is necessary to better understand asparagus autotoxicity.

5. An Autotoxic Substance in Asparagus Rhizosphere Soil and Root Exudation

The soil was obtained from the rhizosphere of 10-year-old asparagus plants that were cultivated in a greenhouse. Aqueous methanol extracts of these rhizosphere soils inhibited the root and shoot growth of asparagus seedlings. The extracts obtained from 148 and 218 mg of soil produced 50% growth inhibition of the asparagus roots and shoots, respectively [150]. These extracts were purified using a bioassay-guided process. The purification process resulted in the isolation of trans-cinnamic acid (Figure 5), which inhibited the root and shoot growth of asparagus seedlings at concentrations greater than 10 μM. The IC50 values for trans-cinnamic acid were 24.1 and 41.6 μM for asparagus roots and shoots, respectively. The concentration of trans-cinnamic acid in the rhizosphere soil of 10-year-old asparagus plants was 7.5 mg/kg of soil [150]. This is equivalent to 51 μmol/kg of soil, considering the molecular mass of trans-cinnamic acid is 148.161 g/mol. The moisture content of the soil obtained from the rhizosphere of 10-year-old asparagus plants was 29.7% (v/w), equivalent to 297 mL of water per kg of soil [150]. Therefore, the concentration of trans-cinnamic acid in soil water is estimated to be 172 μM. This concentration of trans-cinnamic acid in the soil water exceeds the IC50 value required for 50% growth inhibition. Therefore, the accumulation of trans-cinnamic acid in the rhizosphere soil of 10-year-old asparagus plants can cause the growth inhibition of asparagus.
The asparagus seeds were germinated and grown on a Murashige and Skoog medium. On day 20, trans-cinnamic acid was found in the medium at a rate of 36 μg per plant [150]. This finding suggests that the asparagus releases trans-cinnamic acid into the medium. Plants can release a wide range of compounds from their root cells into the rhizosphere through the mechanisms involving plasmalemma-derived, endoplasmic-derived, and proton-pumping exudation [79]. Additionally, 10-year-old asparagus plants contained 5.7 and 4.2 g of trans-cinnamic acid per kg of roots and shoots, respectively [150], which suggests that asparagus produces and stores trans-cinnamic acid in its tissues. Therefore, asparagus plants may produce trans-cinnamic acid and release it into the growth medium, as well as rhizosphere soil, where it accumulates. trans-Cinnamic acid may also be released into the soil from asparagus residues during decomposition because it is present in the asparagus roots and shoots.
trans-Cinnamic acid increases the disruption of phytohormone indole-3-acetic acid (IAA) levels in plants due to increased IAA oxidase activity [151,152]. It inhibits plasma membrane H+-ATPases, which results in the suppression of proton transport and nutrient uptake [153,154]. trans-Cinnamic acid also induced oxidative stress conditions by increasing levels of reactive oxygen species and caused cellular damage [155,156].
Cinnamic acid primarily exists in plants as the stable form of trans-cinnamic acid. However, UV and sunlight irradiation cause it to isomerize into cis-cinnamic acid [157,158]. cis-Cinnamic acid exhibited over 10 times the growth inhibitory activity of trans-cinnamic acid [157]. cis-Cinnamic acid suppresses IAA biosynthesis and disturbs IAA transport in plants, causing growth inhibition [158]. trans-Cinnamic acid in soil can be converted to cis-cinnamic acid through isomerization when it is exposed to UV light from sunlight during certain cultivation practices. This process enhances the autotoxicity of asparagus by increasing the inhibitory activity of trans-cinnamic acid (Figure 5).
trans-Cinnamic acid is the first intermediate in the phenylpropanoid pathway. The pathway primarily begins in the cytoplasm, with the conversion of the amino acid L-phenylalanine into trans-cinnamic acid by phenylalanine ammonia-lyase (PAL). trans-Cinnamic acid is converted into p-coumaric acid by cinnamate 4-hydroxylase (C4H). p-Coumaric acid is then converted into p-coumaroyl-CoA by 4-coumarate-CoA ligase (4CL). p-Coumaroyl-CoA is a key precursor in the biosynthesis of essential plant compounds, such as phenolic acids, coumarins, stilbenes, lignins, flavonoids, and other phenylpropanoids. Caffeic acid (3,4-dihydroxycinnamic acid) is synthesized from p-coumaric acid by p-coumarate 3-hydroxylase (C3H). It is then converted into ferulic acid by caffeic acid O-methyltransferase (COMT) [159,160,161]. Therefore, these phenylpropanoids and/or their biosynthesis pathway may play an important role in asparagus autotoxicity (Figure 6).
3,4-Methylenedioxycinnamic acid is an effective inhibitor of 4-coumarate-CoA ligase [120,121,122]. It was identified in asparagus roots [119]. However, it is unlikely that endogenous 3,4-methylenedioxycinnamic acid interferes with the phenylpropanoid pathway in asparagus. This is because plants separate toxic substances from metabolism in the cytoplasmic matrix and store them in vacuoles [162,163]. To understand its role in asparagus autotoxicity, the presence of 3,4-methylenedioxycinnamic acid in asparagus rhizosphere soils should be determined.
As described in this section, trans-cinnamic acid was identified in asparagus plants and in the soil of their rhizosphere. It was also released form asparagus into their growth medium. trans-Cinnamic acid inhibited the growth of asparagus roots and shoots. Therefore, trans-cinnamic acid may be involved in asparagus autotoxicity. Additionally, sunlight causes the isomerization of trans-cinnamic acid into cis-cinnamic acid, which increases its inhibitory activity 10-fold. To better understand these processes, including microbial degradation, future research should examine asparagus autotoxicity and the subsequent fate of trans-cinnamic acid exuded by asparagus plants in a field setting.

6. Interaction of Autotoxicity and Fusarium Infection

Plants have developed complex defense mechanisms to protect themselves, including constitutive and inducible defenses. Constitutive defenses include physical barriers, such as thick cell walls and waxy cuticles, as well as pre-existing compounds and enzymes that prevent infection by pathogens. Inducible defenses include cell wall modification, production of antibiotic compounds and reactive oxygen species, and the hypersensitive response (apoptosis). Phenylpropanoids, such as cinnamic acid, p-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, and ferulic acid, are reported to be inducible antibiotic compounds that serve as defense mechanisms in many plant species [164,165,166,167].
It has also been reported that asparagus produces these antibiotic compounds. Aqueous and organic solvent extracts of asparagus aerial parts and roots have been shown to suppress the growth of F. oxysporum [168,169]. Exudates from the surface of asparagus roots have also been shown to inhibit the spore germination and growth of F. oxysporum [170]. Among the potential asparagus autotoxic substances, p-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, and ferulic acid inhibited the spore germination and growth of F. oxysporum [171,172]. Ferulic acid also suppressed the expression of FUM genes, which are related to fumonisin biosynthesis, in F. proliferatum [173]. These findings suggest that p-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, and ferulic acid act as antibiotics by suppressing the spore germination, growth, and mycotoxin production of Fusarium species. However, it is unclear whether these compounds accumulated in the rhizosphere soil act as antibiotics in a defense mechanism of asparagus.
Both aqueous and organic solvent extracts of asparagus spears have been reported to stimulate fumonisin biosynthesis in F. oxysporum [174,175]. Fusarium pathogenicity increased significantly when sterilized asparagus crowns and roots were added to the soil during field cultivation [107]. Under greenhouse conditions, extracts from decaying asparagus roots increased Fusarium activity and exacerbated disease symptoms in asparagus plants [176]. These findings suggest that certain compounds in the asparagus increase the Fusarium pathogenicity.
Sterilizing asparagus crowns and roots did not affect the growth of these pathogenic Fusarium species. However, the crowns and roots were toxic to other fungi and soil microorganisms [107]. Based on this finding, it can be concluded that autotoxic substances may suppress beneficial soil microbes, but do not significantly impact these Fusarium species. This results in the dominance of pathogenic Fusarium species in asparagus rhizosphere soils, thereby exacerbating disease symptoms. However, the information on the effects of autotoxic substances on beneficial soil microbes and Fusarium is limited. Further investigation of this topic is necessary.
Both caffeic acid and ferulic acid have been reported to inhibit the growth of asparagus. This growth inhibition exacerbates the disease symptoms of Fusarium root rot in asparagus seedlings [171]. Cinnamic acid increased the production of cell wall-degrading enzymes, including cellulase, by F. oxysporum during pathogenesis [177,178]. Plant cell walls play an important role in defense mechanisms against pathogen infection [179,180]. Cinnamic acid also inhibited the induction of plant defense enzymes such as chitinase [177]. Plant chitinase, induced by a pathogenic infection, breaks down the glycosidic linkage in chitin. Chitin is a primary component of the cell walls of pathogenic fungi. Therefore, plant chitinase protects against fungal infection [181,182]. Inhibiting chitinase induction by cinnamic acid reduced the defense mechanism of plants, resulting in enhanced Fusarium pathogenicity [177]. These authors did not distinguish between cis- and trans-cinnamic acids. However, based on their research practices, it could be trans-cinnamic acid.
Although cinnamic, p-coumaric, caffeic, and ferulic acids have been reported to act as antibiotics, these compounds can also increase the pathogenicity of Fusarium. Cinnamic acid disrupts the defense mechanisms of host plants and stimulates the production of cell wall-degrading enzymes in pathogenic fungi. This makes host plants more susceptible to Fusarium infection. Thus, the presence of Fusarium and autotoxic substances creates a vicious cycle that exacerbates the “asparagus decline” and “asparagus replant problem”. Replanting young asparagus plants in an old asparagus field results in high mortality due to the presence of Fusarium and autotoxic substances existed in the old asparagus field. However, conflicting information exists regarding the effectiveness of these autotoxic substances in stimulating pathogenesis or protecting against Fusarium infection. Therefore, further research is needed to investigate the interaction of these autotoxic substances in the defense mechanism and pathogenesis of Fusarium under field conditions. Table 1 summarizes the substances that cause asparagus autotoxicity and their mechanisms of action.

7. Management of Autotoxicity and Fusarium Infection

Many researchers have investigated the effectiveness of activated carbon and biochar in reducing asparagus autotoxicity. Mixing activated carbon or biochar into the asparagus-cultivating soil or injecting flowable activated carbon into the soil increased the growth and productivity of asparagus compared to the control group [183,184,185,186,187]. Under hydroponic conditions, titanium dioxide (TiO2) with UV light irradiation reduced the autotoxicity of asparagus. This may be due to the photocatalytic decomposition of toxic substances [188]. However, these treatments only partially recovered the asparagus autotoxicity.
Various management strategies have also been employed to mitigate Fusarium infections and diseases. These strategies include inoculating nonpathogenic Fusarium species into soil [189], inoculating arbuscular mycorrhizae [190,191], incorporating asparagus root residues into the soil [192], mixing sodium chloride into the soil [193,194], and performing biofumigation [195,196,197,198]. These treatments have exhibited varying levels of efficiency, with some being labor-intensive [39]. Several fungicides, including benomyl, thiophanate-methyl, and fludioxonil, were insufficiently effective at overcoming diseases caused by F. oxysporum and F. proliferatum under growth chamber, greenhouse, and/or field conditions [189,190,199,200]. Herbicides are often applied to asparagus fields to control weeds. However, these herbicide treatments increase the risk of Fusarium infection in asparagus [39], Breeding Fusarium-resistant cultivars may be an efficient way to reduce the infection [201,202]. However, commercially viable, resistant cultivars have not yet been produced. Consequently, there is currently no single, effective control measure available to combat Fusarium infection. Fusarium infection and autotoxic substances may work together to suppress the growth and productivity of asparagus. One solution is to rotate asparagus crops with other crops [111,203,204].
As described in Section 2, autotoxicity generally acts as a form of self-regulation. Examples include adjusting population density to prevent intense intraspecific competition, suppressing germination during adverse environmental conditions, and promoting species migration to new habitats. Autotoxicity also increases species diversity by suppressing host plant species [78,87,88,104]. However, the ecological significance of asparagus autotoxicity is still unknown. This phenomenon should be investigated in wild asparagus populations in their natural habitats. Such research could provide valuable insight into addressing the “asparagus decline” and “asparagus replant problem”.

8. Conclusions

Based on the literature review, asparagus is autotoxic and autotoxic substances may be released into the soil through leaching, root exudation, and the decomposition process of asparagus residues. Several phenylpropanoids, including trans-cinnamic acid, p-coumaric acid, caffeic acid, and ferulic acid, have been identified as autotoxic substances by different research. Tryptophan, 3,4-methylenedioxycinnamic acid, and iso-agatharesinol were also identified as autotoxic substances in asparagus. Among them, trans-cinnamic acid was found in asparagus tissues, root exudates, rhizosphere soils, and growth medium. When exposed to UV light in sunlight, trans-Cinnamic acid undergoes photoisomerization, converting it into cis-cinnamic acid. This isomerization increases its growth inhibitory activity by over 10-fold. These substances may cause autotoxicity by disrupting phytohormone levels and cellular metabolism, and by impairing membrane function and inducing oxidative stress. They also weaken the defense mechanisms of asparagus against pathogen infection, and enhance Fusarium pathogenicity. The presence of these autotoxic substances and Fusarium infection creates a vicious cycle that worsens the “asparagus decline” and “asparagus replant problem”. To better understand asparagus autotoxicity, however, the concentrations of these compounds in asparagus root exudates, residues, and rhizosphere soils in fields should be determined. Additionally, the ecological significance of asparagus autotoxicity should be investigated in the future.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

No new data were created or analyzed in this study.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Royal Botanical Gardens Kew. Asparagus officinalis L. Available online: https://powo.science.kew.org/taxon/urn:lsid:ipni.org:names:531229-1 (accessed on 10 February 2026).
  2. World Flora Online. Asparagus officinalis L. Available online: https://stage.worldfloraonline.org/taxon/wfo-0000634022;jsessionid=8E91A4C5DC72B2A26BD39630FF925749 (accessed on 10 February 2026).
  3. Feller, C.; Richter, E.; Smolders, T.; Wichura, A. Phenological growth stages of edible asparagus (Asparagus officinalis): Codification and description according to the BBCH scale. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2012, 160, 174–180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Lazarte, J.E.; Palser, B.F. Morphology, vascular anatomy and embryology of pistillate and staminate flowers of Asparagus officinalis. Am. J. Bot. 1979, 66, 753–764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Harb, R.K.; El-Kobisy, O.S.; Desoukey, S.F. Botanical investigations on Asparagus officinalis L. plant (Asparagaceae). Egypt. J. Agric. Sci. 2015, 66, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Fayvush, G.; Aleksanyan, A.; Mehdiyeva, N.; Alizade, V.; Batsatsashvili, K.; Kikvidze, Z.; Khutsishvili, M.; Maisaia, I.; Sikharulidze, S.; Tchelidze, D.; et al. Asparagus officinalis L. Asparagus verticillatus L. Asparagaceae. In Ethnobotany of the Caucasus, European Ethnobotany; Bussmann, R.W., Ed.; Springer International Publishing: Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 123–127. [Google Scholar]
  7. Gritsenko, V. Statistical characteristics and correlations of morphometric traits of Asparagus officinalis L. fruits in the MM Gryshko National Botanical Garden of the NAS of Ukraine. Plant Introd. 2024, 101–102, 44–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Pitrat, M. Asparagus officinalis L. In Vegetable Crops in the Mediterranean Basin with an Overview of Virus Resistance, Advances in Virus Research; Loebenstein, G., Hervé Lecoq, H., Eds.; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2012; Volume 84, pp. 1–29. [Google Scholar]
  9. PlantNet, Asparagus officinalis L. Available online: https://identify.plantnet.org/k-world-flora/species/Asparagus%20officinalis%20L./data (accessed on 10 February 2026).
  10. Pegiou, E.; Mumm, R.; Acharya, P.; de Vos, R.C.; Hall, R.D. Green and white asparagus (Asparagus officinalis): A source of developmental, chemical and urinary intrigue. Metabolites 2019, 10, 17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Guo, Q.; Wang, N.; Liu, H.; Li, Z.; Lu, L.; Wang, C. The bioactive compounds and biological functions of Asparagus officinalis L.—A review. J. Funct. Foods 2020, 65, 103727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Hamdi, A.; Viera-Alcaide, I.; Jimenez-Araujo, A.; Rodriguez-Arcos, R.; Guillen-Bejarano, R. Applications of saponin extract from asparagus roots as functional ingredient. Foods 2024, 13, 274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Top Asparagus Producing Countries in the World. Available online: https://www.worldatlas.com/articles/top-asparagus-producing-countries-in-the-world.html (accessed on 10 February 2026).
  14. Top 10 Asparagus-Producing Countries in 2025. Available online: https://statranker.org/agriculture/top-10-asparagus-producing-countries-in-2025/ (accessed on 10 February 2026).
  15. Global Leading Asparagus Producing Countries 2023. Available online: https://www.statista.com/statistics/279556/global-top-asparagus-producing-countries/?srsltid=AfmBOoriFbLjd_q3gHsuXQ7UZy_p0cuRibdXmS_-3jQfQqtiY5M2BwJ8 (accessed on 10 February 2026).
  16. Grogan, R.G.; Kimble, K.A. The association of Fusarium wilt with the asparagus decline and replant problem in California. Phytopathology 1959, 49, 122–125. [Google Scholar]
  17. Schofield, P.E. Asparagus decline and replant problem in New Zealand. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 1991, 19, 213–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
  18. Elmer, W.H.; Johnson, D.A.; Mink, G.I. Epidemiology and management of the diseases causal to asparagus decline. Plant Dis. 1996, 80, 117–125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Elmer, W. Asparagus decline and replant problem: A look back and a look forward at strategies for mitigating losses. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1223, 195–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Keulder, P.C. Asparagus decline and replant problem: A review of the current situation and approaches for future research. Acta Hortic. 1999, 479, 253–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Blok, W.J.; Bollen, G.J. The role of autotoxins from root residues of the previous crop in the replant disease of asparagus. Neth. J. Plant Pathol. 1993, 99, 29–40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Blok, W.J.; Bollen, G.J. Etiology of asparagus replant-bound early decline. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 1996, 102, 87–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Lake, R.J.; Falloon, P.G.; Cook, D.W.M. Replant problem and chemical components of asparagus roots. N. Z. J. Crop Hortic. Sci. 1993, 21, 53–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Yergeau, E.; Vujanovic, V.; St-Arnaud, M. Changes in communities of Fusarium and arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi as related to different asparagus cultural factors. Microb. Ecol. 2006, 52, 104–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Molinero-Ruiz, L.; Rubio-Pérez, E.; González-Domínguez, E.; Basallote-Ureba, E.; José, M. Alternative hosts for Fusarium spp. causing crown and root rot of asparagus in Spain. J. Phytopathol. 2011, 159, 114–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Aoki, T.; O’Donnell, K.; Geiser, D.M. Systematics of key phytopathogenic Fusarium species: Current status and future challenges. J. Gen. Plant Pathol. 2014, 80, 189–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Vujanovic, V.; Hamel, C.; Yergeau, E.; St-Arnaud, M. Biodiversity and biogeography of Fusarium species from northeastern North American asparagus fields based on microbiological and molecular approaches. Microb. Ecol. 2006, 51, 242–255. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Wong, J.Y.; Jeffries, P. Diversity of pathogenic Fusarium populations associated with asparagus roots in decline soils in Spain and the UK. Plant Pathol. 2006, 55, 331–342. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Nahiyan, A.S.M.; Boyer, L.R.; Jeffries, P.; Matsubara, Y.I. PCR-SSCP analysis of Fusarium diversity in asparagus decline in Japan. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2011, 130, 197–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Waśkiewicz, A.; Irzykowska, L.; Drzewiecka, K.; Bocianowski, J.; Dobosz, B.; Weber, Z.; Karolewski, Z.; Krzyminiewski, R.; Goliński, P. Plant-pathogen interactions during infection process of asparagus with Fusarium spp. Cent. Eur. J. Biol. 2013, 8, 1065–1076. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Stępień, Ł.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Urbaniak, M. Wildly growing asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) hosts pathogenic Fusarium species and accumulates their mycotoxins. Microb. Ecol. 2016, 71, 927–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Brizuela, A.M.; De la Lastra, E.; Marín-Guirao, J.I.; Gálvez, L.; de Cara-García, M.; Capote, N.; Palmero, D. Fusarium consortium populations associated with asparagus crop in Spain and their role on field decline syndrome. J. Fungi 2020, 6, 336. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. de la Lastra, E.; Camacho, M.; Capote, N. Soil bacteria as potential biological control agents of Fusarium species associated with asparagus decline syndrome. Appl. Sci. 2021, 11, 8356. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Lori, G.; Wolcan, S.; Mónaco, C. Fusarium moniliforme and F. proliferatum isolated from crown and root rot of asparagus and their association with asparagus decline in Argentina. Plant Dis. 1998, 82, 1405. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Blok, W.J.; Bollen, G.J. Inoculum sources of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. asparagi in asparagus production. Ann. Appl. Biol. 1996, 128, 219–231. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Elena, K. Asparagus diseases. Eur. J. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 2007, 1, 76–83. [Google Scholar]
  37. Klotz, L.V.; Nelson, P.E.; Toussoun, T.A. A medium for enhancement of chlamydospore formation in Fusarium species. Mycologia 1988, 80, 108–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Peng, H.X.; Sivasithamparam, K.; Turner, D.W. Chlamydospore germination and Fusarium wilt of banana plantlets in suppressive and conducive soils are affected by physical and chemical factors. Soil Biol. Biochem. 1999, 31, 1363–1374. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Morrison, W.R., III; Tuell, J.K.; Hausbeck, M.K.; Szendrei, Z. Constraints on asparagus production: The association of Ophiomyia simplex (Diptera: Agromyzidae) and Fusarium spp. Crop Sci. 2011, 51, 1414–1423. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Gilbertson, R.L.; Manning, W.J.; Ferro, D.N. Association of the asparagus miner with stem rot caused in asparagus by Fusarium species. Phytopathology 1985, 75, 1188–1191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Brizuela, A.M.; Lalak-Kańczugowska, J.; Koczyk, G.; Stępień, Ł.; Kawaliło, M.; Palmero, D. Geographical origin does not modulate pathogenicity or response to climatic variables of Fusarium oxysporum associated with vascular wilt on asparagus. J. Fungi 2021, 7, 1056. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Woloshuk, C.P.; Kolattukudy, P.E. Mechanism by which contact with plant cuticle triggers cutinase gene expression in the spores of Fusarium solani f. sp. pisi. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 1986, 83, 1704–1708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Michielse, C.B.; van Wijk, R.; Reijnen, L.; Cornelissen, B.J.; Rep, M. Insight into the molecular requirements for pathogenicity of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici through large-scale insertional mutagenesis. Genome Biol. 2009, 10, R4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kubicek, C.P.; Starr, T.L.; Glass, N.L. Plant cell wall-degrading enzymes and their secretion in plant-pathogenic fungi. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2014, 52, 427–451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Husaini, A.M.; Sakina, A.; Cambay, S.R. Host-pathogen interaction in Fusarium oxysporum infections: Where do we stand? Mol. Plant-Microbe Interact. 2018, 31, 889–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Jangir, P.; Mehra, N.; Sharma, K.; Singh, N.; Rani, M.; Kapoor, R. Secreted in xylem genes: Drivers of host adaptation in Fusarium oxysporum. Front. Plant Sci. 2021, 12, 628611. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Enow, E.A.; Urbaniak, M.; Stępień, Ł. Host metabolites in AsparagusFusarium interaction: Mechanisms and regulation. Plant Pathol. 2025, 74, 923–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Wang, Y.; Zhang, X.; Wang, T.; Zhou, S.; Liang, X.; Xie, C.; Kang, Z.; Chen, D.; Zheng, L. The small secreted protein FoSsp1 elicits plant defenses and negatively regulates pathogenesis in Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. cubense (Foc4). Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 873451. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Yu, D.Y.; Outram, M.A.; Smith, A.; McCombe, C.L.; Khambalkar, P.B.; Rima, S.A.; Sun, X.; Ma, L.; Ericsson, D.J.; Jones, D.A.; et al. The structural repertoire of Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. lycopersici effectors revealed by experimental and computational studies. eLife 2024, 12, RP89280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Cai, J.; Jiang, Y.; Ritchie, E.S.; Macho, A.P.; Yu, F.; Wu, D. Manipulation of plant metabolism by pathogen effectors: More than just food. FEMS Microbiol. Rev. 2023, 47, fuad007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Srivastava, V.; Patra, K.; Pai, H.; Aguilar-Pontes, M.V.; Berasategui, A.; Kamble, A.; Pietro, A.D.; Redkar, A. Molecular dialogue during host manipulation by the vascular wilt fungus Fusarium oxysporum. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2024, 62, 97–126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Richard, J.L. Some major mycotoxins and their mycotoxicoses—An overview. Int. J. Food Microbiol. 2007, 119, 3–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Ma, L.J.; Geiser, D.M.; Proctor, R.H.; Rooney, A.P.; O’Donnell, K.; Trail, F.; Gardiner, D.M.; Manners, J.M.; Kazan, K. Fusarium pathogenomics. Annu. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 67, 399–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Ji, F.; He, D.; Olaniran, A.O.; Mokoena, M.P.; Xu, J.; Shi, J. Occurrence, toxicity, production and detection of Fusarium mycotoxin: A review. Food Prod. Process. Nutr. 2019, 1, 1–14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Perincherry, L.; Lalak-Kańczugowska, J.; Stępień, Ł. Fusarium-produced mycotoxins in plant-pathogen interactions. Toxins 2019, 11, 664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Logrieco, A.; Moretti, A.; Castella, G.; Kostecki, M.; Golinski, P.; Ritieni, A.; Chelkowski, J. Beauvericin production by Fusarium species. Appl. Environ. Microb. 1998, 64, 3084–3088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Seefelder, W.; Gossmann, M.; Humpf, H.U. Analysis of fumonisin B1 in Fusarium proliferatum-infected asparagus spears and garlic bulbs from Germany by liquid chromatography−electrospray ionization mass spectrometry. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2002, 50, 2778–2781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  58. Weber, Z.; Kostecki, M.; Von Bargen, S.; Gossmann, M.; Waskiewicz, A.; Bocianowski, J.; Knaflewski, M.; Büttner, C.; Golinski, P. Fusarium species colonizing spears and forming mycotoxins in field samples of asparagus from Germany and Poland. J. Phytopathol. 2006, 154, 209–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Vesonder, R.F.; Labeda, D.P.; Peterson, R.E. Phytotoxic activity of selected water-soluble metabolites of Fusarium against Lemna minor L. (duckweed). Mycopathologia 1992, 118, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Wakuliński, W. Phytotoxicity of the secondary metabolites of fungi causing wheat head fusariosis (head blight). Acta Physiol. Plant. 1989, 11, 301–306. [Google Scholar]
  61. Prosperini, A.; Berrada, H.; Ruiz, M.J.; Caloni, F.; Coccini, T.; Spicer, L.J.; Perego, M.C.; Lafranconi, A. A review of the mycotoxin enniatin B. Front. Public Health 2017, 5, 304. [Google Scholar]
  62. Mallebrera, B.; Prosperini, A.; Font, G.; Ruiz, M.J. In vitro mechanisms of beauvericin toxicity: A review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2018, 111, 537–545. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Urbaniak, M.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Stępień, Ł. Fusarium cyclodepsipeptide mycotoxins: Chemistry, biosynthesis, and occurrence. Toxins 2020, 12, 765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  64. Paciolla, C.; Dipierro, N.; Mule, G.; Logrieco, A.; Dipierro, S. The mycotoxins beauvericin and T-2 induce cell death and alteration to the ascorbate metabolism in tomato protoplasts. Physiol. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2004, 65, 49–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Proctor, R.H.; Plattner, R.D.; Desjardins, A.E.; Busman, M.; Butchko, R.A. Fumonisin production in the maize pathogen Fusarium verticillioides: Genetic basis of naturally occurring chemical variation. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2006, 54, 2424–2430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Stockmann-Juvala, H.; Savolainen, K. A review of the toxic effects and mechanisms of action of fumonisin B1. Hum. Exp. Toxicol. 2008, 27, 799–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Abbas, H.K.; Duke, S.O.; Tanaka, T. Phytotoxicity of fumonisins and related compounds. J. Toxicol. Toxin Rev. 1993, 12, 225–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Merrill, A.H.; Van Echten, G.; Wang, E.; Sandhoff, K. Fumonisin B1 inhibits sphingosine (sphinganine) N-acyltransferase and de novo sphingolipid biosynthesis in cultured neurons in situ. J. Biol. Chem. 1993, 268, 27299–27306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Schmelz, E.M.; Dombrink-Kurtzman, M.A.; Roberts, P.C.; Kozutsumi, Y.; Kawasaki, T.; Merrill, A.H., Jr. Induction of apoptosis by Fumonisin B1 in HT29 cells is mediated by the accumulation of endogenous free sphingoid bases. Toxicol. Appl. Pharmacol. 1998, 148, 252–260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Merrill, A.H., Jr.; Sullards, M.C.; Wang, E.; Voss, K.A.; Riley, R.T. Sphingolipid metabolism: Roles in signal transduction and disruption by fumonisins. Environ. Health Perspect. 2001, 109, 283–289. [Google Scholar]
  71. Pekkarinen, A.; Mannonen, L.; Jones, B.L.; Niku-Paavola, M.L. Production of proteases by Fusarium species grown on barley grains and in media containing cereal proteins. J. Cereal Sci. 2000, 31, 253–261. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Doehlert, D.C.; Knutson, C.A.; Vesonder, R.F. Phytotoxic effects of fumonisin B1 on maize seedling growth. Mycopathologia 1994, 127, 117–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Logrieco, A.; Doko, B.; Moretti, A.; Frisullo, S.; Visconti, A. Occurrence of fumonisin B1 and B2 in Fusarium proliferatum infected asparagus plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1998, 46, 5201–5204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Marroquín-Cardona, A.G.; Johnson, N.M.; Phillips, T.D.; Hayes, A.W. Mycotoxins in a changing global environment—A review. Food Chem. Toxicol. 2014, 69, 220–230. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Borrego-Benjumea, A.; Basallote-Ureba, M.J.; Melero-Vara, J.M. Etiology and management of asparagus crown and root rot. In Fusarium Epidemiology Environmental Sources and Prevention; Rios, T.F., Ortega, E.R., Eds.; Nova Science: Hauppauge, NY, USA, 2012; pp. 145–159. [Google Scholar]
  76. Elmer, W.H. Management of Fusarium crown and root rot of asparagus. Crop Prot. 2015, 73, 2–6. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. López-Moreno, F.J.; Atero-Calvo, S.; Navarro-León, E.; Blasco, B.; Soriano, T.; Ruiz, J.M. Evaluation of physiological and quality parameters of green asparagus spears subjected to three treatments against the decline syndrome. Agronomy 2021, 11, 937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Rice, E.L. Allelopathy, 2nd ed.; Academic Press: Orlando, FL, USA, 1984; pp. 1–422. [Google Scholar]
  79. Bais, H.P.; Weir, T.L.; Perry, L.G.; Gilroy, S.; Vivanco, J.M. The role of root exudates in rhizosphere interactions with plants and other organisms. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2006, 57, 233–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Belz, R.G. Allelopathy in crop/weed interactions—An update. Pest. Manag. Sci. 2007, 63, 308–326. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  81. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Tanaka, Y.; Murakami, T.; Yamamura, S.; Fujihara, S. Isolation and identification of an allelopathic substance from peel of Citrus junos. Phytochemistry 2002, 61, 849–853. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  82. Kato-Noguchi, H. Defensive molecules momilactones A and B: Function, biosynthesis, induction and occurrence. Toxins 2023, 15, 241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Kato, M. Pesticidal activity of citrus fruits for the development of sustainable fruit-processing waste management and agricultural production. Plants 2025, 14, 754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  84. de Jesus Jatoba, L.; Varela, R.M.; Molinillo, J.M.G.; Ud Din, Z.; Juliano Gualtieri, S.C.; Rodrigues-Filho, E.; Macías, F.A. Allelopathy of bracken fern (Pteridium arachnoideum): New evidence from green fronds, litter, and soil. PLoS ONE 2016, 11, e0161670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Kato-Noguchi, H. Convergent or parallel molecular evolution of momilactone A and B: Potent allelochemicals, momilactones have been found only in rice and the moss Hypnum plumaeforme. J. Plant Physiol. 2011, 168, 1511–1516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  86. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Saito, Y.; Suenaga, K. Involvement of allelopathy in the establishment of pure colony of Dicranopteris linearis. Plant Ecol. 2012, 213, 1937–1944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Singh, H.P.; Batish, D.R.; Kohli, R.K. Autotoxicity: Concept, organisms, and ecological significance. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 1999, 18, 757–772. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Friedman, J. Allelopathy, autotoxicity, and germination. In Seed Development and Germination; Kigel, J., Ed.; Marcel Dekker Inc.: New York, NY, USA, 2017; pp. 629–644. [Google Scholar]
  89. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Kobayashi, A.; Ohno, O.; Kimura, F.; Fujii, Y.; Suenaga, K. Phytotoxic substances with allelopathic activity may be central to the strong invasive potential of Brachiaria brizantha. J. Plant Physiol. 2014, 171, 525–530. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. IUCN, 100 of the World’s Worst Invasive Alien Species. Available online: https://portals.iucn.org/library/sites/library/files/documents/2000-126.pdf (accessed on 10 February 2026).
  91. Kato-Noguchi, H. The impact and invasive mechanisms of Pueraria montana var. lobata, one of the world’s worst alien species. Plants 2023, 12, 3066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Kato, M. Mechanisms and impact of Acacia mearnsii invasion. Diversity 2025, 17, 553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Midori, K. The mechanisms of Sphagneticola trilobata invasion as one of the most aggressive invasive plant species. Diversity 2025, 17, 698. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Kato, M. The impact of life history traits and defensive abilities on the invasiveness of Ulex europaeus L. Diversity 2025, 17, 805. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Chon, S.U.; Jennings, J.A.; Nelson, C.J. Alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.) autotoxicity: Current status. Allelopath. J. 2006, 18, 57. [Google Scholar]
  96. Wu, B.; Shi, S.; Zhang, H.; Du, Y.; Jing, F. Study on the key autotoxic substances of alfalfa and their effects. Plants 2023, 12, 3263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Ghimire, B.K.; Ghimire, B.; Yu, C.Y.; Chung, I.M. Allelopathic and autotoxic effects of Medicago sativa—Derived allelochemicals. Plants 2019, 8, 233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Wang, T.S.C.; Kao, M.M.; Li, S.W. The exploration and improvement of the yield decline of monoculture sugarcane in Taiwan. In Tropical Plants; Chou, C.H., Ed.; Academia Sinica: Taipei, Taiwan, 1984; pp. 1–9. [Google Scholar]
  99. Chen, R.; Jiang, W.; Liu, Y.; Wang, Y.; Fan, H.; Chen, X.; Yin, C.; Mao, Z. Amygdalin and benzoic acid on the influences of the soil environment and growth of Malus hupehensis Rehd. seedlings. ACS Omega 2021, 6, 12522–12529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  100. Nicola, L.; Vrhovsek, U.; Soini, E.; Insam, H.; Pertot, I. Phlorizin released by apple root debris is related to apple replant disease. Phytopathol. Mediterr. 2016, 55, 432–437. [Google Scholar]
  101. Okada, S.; Iwasaki, A.; Kataoka, I.; Suenaga, K.; Kato-Noguchi, H. Phytotoxic activity of kiwifruit leaves and isolation of a phytotoxic substance. Sci. Hortic. 2019, 250, 243–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Tanaka, Y. Allelopathic potential of citrus fruit peel and abscisic acid-glucose ester. Plant Growth Regul. 2003, 40, 117–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Tanaka, Y. Allelopathic potential of Citrus junos fruit waste from food processing industry. Bioresour. Technol. 2004, 94, 211–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  104. Iuorio, A.; Veerman, F. The influence of autotoxicity on the dynamics of vegetation spots. Phys. D Nonlinear Phenom. 2021, 427, 133015. [Google Scholar]
  105. Shafer, W.E.; Garrison, S.A. Allelopathic effects of soil incorporated asparagus roots on lettuce, tomato, and asparagus seedling emergence. HortScience 1986, 21, 82–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Yeasmin, R.; Kalemelawa, F.; Motoki, S.; Matsumoto, H.; Nakamatsu, K.; Yamamoto, S.; Nishihara, E. Root residue amendment on varietal allelopathy and autotoxicity of replanted asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.). Exp. Agric. Hortic. 2013, 2, 31–44. [Google Scholar]
  107. Hartung, A.C.; Stephens, C.T. Effects of allelopathic substances produced by asparagus on incidence and severity of asparagus decline due to Fusarium crown rot. J. Chem. Ecol. 1983, 9, 1163–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Hartung, A.C.; Putnam, A.R.; Stephens, C.T. Inhibitory activity of asparagus root tissue and extracts on asparagus seedlings. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1989, 114, 144–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Young, C.C.; Chou, T.C. Autointoxication in residues of Asparagus officinalis L. Plant Soil 1985, 85, 385–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Benson, B.L. Effect of autotoxicity on the growth of cloned asparagus plants. Acta Hortic. 2002, 589, 373–376. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Asaduzzaman, M.; Mondal, M.F.; Ban, T.; Asao, T. Selection of ideal succeeding crops after asparagus, taro and beans replanting field in seedling growth bioassay. Allelopath. J. 2013, 32, 1–22. [Google Scholar]
  112. Young, C.C. Autointoxication in root exudates of Asparagus officinalis L. Plant Soil 1984, 82, 247–253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Yeasmin, R.; Nakamatsu, K.; Matsumoto, H.; Motoki, S.; Nishihara, E.; Yamamoto, S. Inference of allelopathy and autotoxicity to varietal resistance of asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.). Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2014, 8, 251–256. [Google Scholar]
  114. Motoki, S.; Nishihara, E.; Kitazawa, H.; Hiradate, S.; Shinohara, Y. Participation of allelopathy in injury due to continuous cropping of asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) in alluvial soil. Hort. Res. Jpn. 2006, 5, 431–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Yang, H.J. Autotoxicity of Asparagus officinalis L. J. Am. Soc. Hortic. Sci. 1982, 107, 860–862. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Kitahara, Y.; Yanagawa, H.; Kato, T.; Takahashi, N. Asparagusic acid, a new plant growth inhibitor in etiolated young asparagus shoots. Plant Cell Physiol. 1972, 13, 923–925. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Yanagawa, H.; Kato, T.; Kitahara, Y.; Takahashi, N.; Kato, Y. Asparagusic acid, dihydroasparagusic acid and S-acetyldihydroasparagusic acid, a new plant growth inhibitor in etiolated young asparagus officinalis. Tetrahedron Lett. 1972, 13, 2549–2552. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Mitchell, S.C.; Waring, R.H. Asparagusic acid. Phytochemistry 2014, 97, 5–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Hartung, A.C.; Nair, M.G.; Putnam, A.R. Isolation and characterization of phytotoxic compounds from asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) roots. J. Chem. Ecol. 1990, 16, 1707–1718. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  120. Funk, C.; Brodelius, P.E. Phenylpropanoid metabolism in suspension cultures of Vanilla planifolia Andr. II. Effects of precursor feeding and metabolic inhibitors. Plant Physiol. 1990, 94, 95–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  121. Schalk, M.; Cabello-Hurtado, F.; Pierrel, M.A.; Atanassova, R.; Saindrenan, P.; Werck-Reichhart, D. Piperonylic acid, a selective, mechanism-based inactivator of the trans-cinnamate 4-hydroxylase: A new tool to control the flux of metabolites in the phenylpropanoid pathway. Plant Physiol. 1998, 118, 209–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Chakraborty, M.; Karun, A.; Mitra, A. Accumulation of phenylpropanoid derivatives in chitosan-induced cell suspension culture of Cocos nucifera. J. Plant Physiol. 2009, 166, 63–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  123. Liu, J.; Matsubara, Y.I. Interaction between allelochemicals and Fusarium root rot in asparagus seedlings cultured in vitro. Am. J. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 543–551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. dos Santos, W.D.; Ferrarese, M.L.L.; Ferrarese-Filho, O. Ferulic acid: An allelochemical troublemaker. Funct. Plant Sci. Biotechnol. 2008, 2, 47–55. [Google Scholar]
  125. Wang, R.; Hua, M.; Yu, Y.; Zhang, M.; Xian, Q.M.; Yin, D.Q. Evaluating the effects of allelochemical ferulic acid on Microcystis aeruginosa by pulse-amplitude-modulated (PAM) fluorometry and flow cytometry. Chemosphere 2016, 147, 264–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Wacker, T.L.; Safir, G.R.; Stephens, C.T. Effects of ferulic acid on Glomus fasciculatum and associated effects on phosphorus uptake and growth of asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.). J. Chem. Ecol. 1990, 16, 901–909. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Hodge, A.; Helgason, T.; Fitter, A.H. Nutritional ecology of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi. Fungal Ecol. 2010, 3, 267–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Chen, M.; Arato, M.; Borghi, L.; Nouri, E.; Reinhardt, D. Beneficial services of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi—From ecology to application. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Mizutani, J.; Hasegawa, K. Allelopathy of oats. II. Allelochemical effect of L-tryptophan and its concentration in oat root exudates. J. Chem. Ecol. 1994, 20, 315–319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Nakano, H.; Nakajima, E.; Fujii, Y.; Yamada, K.; Shigemori, H.; Hasegawa, K. Leaching of the allelopathic substance—Tryptophan from the foliage of mesquite (Prosopis juliflora (Sw.) DC.) plants by water spraying. Plant Growth Regul. 2003, 40, 49–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Corpas, F.J.; Gupta, D.K.; Palma, J.M. Tryptophan: A precursor of signaling molecules in higher plants. In Hormones and Plant Response; Gupta, D.K., Corpas, F.J., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2021; pp. 273–289. [Google Scholar]
  132. Miller, H.G.; Ikawa, M.; Peirce, L.C. Caffeic acid identified as an inhibitory compound in asparagus root filtrate. HortScience 1991, 26, 1525–1527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Symes, A.; Shavandi, A.; Zhang, H.; Mohamed Ahmed, I.A.M.; Al-Juhaimi, F.Y.; Bekhit, A.E.D.A. Antioxidant activities and caffeic acid content in New Zealand asparagus (Asparagus officinalis) roots extracts. Antioxidants 2018, 7, 52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Noperi-Mosqueda, L.C.; López-Moreno, F.J.; Navarro-León, E.; Sánchez, E.; Blasco, B.; Moreno, D.A.; Soriano, T.; Ruiz, J.M. Effects of asparagus decline on nutrients and phenolic compounds, spear quality, and allelopathy. Sci. Hortic. 2020, 261, 109029. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  135. Li, Z.H.; Wang, Q.; Ruan, X.; Pan, C.D.; Jiang, D.A. Phenolics and plant allelopathy. Molecules 2010, 15, 8933–8952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  136. Chen, L.; Li, J.; Zhu, Y.; Guo, L.; Ji, R.; Miao, Y.; Guo, L.; Du, H.; Liu, D. Caffeic acid, an allelochemical in Artemisia argyi, inhibits weed growth via suppression of mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway and the biosynthesis of gibberellin and phytoalexin. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 12, 802198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Gupta, R.; Chakrabarty, S.K. Gibberellic acid in plant: Still a mystery unresolved. Plant Signal. Behav. 2013, 8, e25504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Hedden, P.; Sponsel, V. A century of gibberellin research. J. Plant Growth Regul. 2015, 34, 740–760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. Zhang, S.; Klessig, D.F. MAPK cascades in plant defense signaling. Trends Plant Sci. 2001, 6, 520–527. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  140. Meng, X.; Zhang, S. MAPK cascades in plant disease resistance signaling. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2013, 51, 245–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Nakamura, K.; Ohno, O.; Suenaga, K.; Okuda, N. Asparagus decline: Autotoxicity and autotoxic compounds in asparagus rhizomes. J. Plant Physiol. 2017, 213, 23–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. Wu, L.; Li, L.; Dong, P.; Zhang, L.; Tang, H.; Han, Y.; Xie, G. Allelopathy of p-coumaric acid on Limnothrix sp., a bloom-forming cyanobacteria. Algal Res. 2003, 75, 103268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Jia, M.; Wang, X.; Zhu, X.; Du, Y.; Zhou, P.; Wang, G.; Wang, N.; Bai, Y. Accumulation of coumaric acid is a key factor in tobacco continuous cropping obstacles. Front. Plant Sci. 2024, 15, 1477324. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Imai, T.; Nomura, M.; Fukushima, K. Evidence for involvement of the phenylpropanoid pathway in the biosynthesis of the norlignan agatharesinol. J. Plant Physiol. 2006, 163, 483–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  145. Li, X.N.; Chu, C.; Cheng, D.P.; Tong, S.Q.; Yan, J.Z. Norlignans from Asparagus cochinchinensis. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2012, 7, 1934578X1200701027. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Fuentes-Alventosa, J.M.; Jaramillo, S.; Rodríguez-Gutiérrez, G.; Cermeño, P.; Espejo, J.A.; Jiménez-Araujo, A.; Guillén-Bejarano, R.; Fernández-Bolaños, J.; Rodríguez-Arcos, R. Flavonoid profile of green asparagus genotypes. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 6977–6984. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  147. Zhang, M.; Zhao, G.H.; Zhang, G.S.; Wei, X.Y.; Shen, M.X.; Liu, L.P.; Ding, X.; Liu, Y. A targeted analysis of flavonoids in asparagus using the UPLC-MS technique. Czech J. Food Sci. 2020, 38, 77–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Sobhy, Y.; Mady, M.; Mina, S.; Abo-zeid, Y. Phytochemical and pharmacological values of two major constituents of Asparagus species and their nano formulations: A review. J. Adv. Pharm. Res. 2022, 6, 94–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  149. Weston, L.A.; Mathesius, U. Flavonoids: Their structure, biosynthesis and role in the rhizosphere, including allelopathy. J. Chem. Ecol. 2013, 39, 283–297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Nakamura, K.; Okuda, N. Involvement of an autotoxic compound in asparagus decline. J. Plant Physiol. 2018, 224, 49–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Salvador, V.H.; Lima, R.B.; dos Santos, W.D.; Soares, A.R.; Böhm, P.A.F.; Marchiosi, R.; de Lourdes Lucio Ferrarese, M.; Ferrarese-Filho, O. Cinnamic acid increases lignin production and inhibits soybean root growth. PLoS ONE 2013, 8, e69105. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  152. López-González, D.; Bruno, L.; Díaz-Tielas, C.; Lupini, A.; Aci, M.M.; Talarico, E.; Madeo, M.L.; Muto, A.; Sánchez-Moreiras, A.M.; Araniti, F. Short-term effects of trans-cinnamic acid on the metabolism of Zea mays L. roots. Plants 2023, 12, 189. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  153. Fujita, K.I.; Kubo, I. Synergism of polygodial and trans-cinnamic acid on inhibition of root elongation in lettuce seedling growth bioassays. J. Chem. Ecol. 2003, 29, 2253–2262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Abenavoli, M.R.; Lupini, A.; Oliva, S.; Sorgonà, A. Allelochemical effects on net nitrate uptake and plasma membrane H+-ATPase activity in maize seedlings. Biol. Plant. 2010, 54, 149–153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Ye, S.F.; Zhou, Y.H.; Sun, Y.; Zou, L.Y.; Yu, J.Q. Cinnamic acid causes oxidative stress in cucumber roots, and promotes incidence of Fusarium wilt. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2006, 56, 255–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Jităreanu, A.; Tătărîngă, G.; Zbancioc, A.M.; Stănescu, U. Toxicity of some cinnamic acid derivatives to common bean (Phaseolus vulgaris). Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj-Napoca 2011, 39, 130–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Wong, W.S.; Guo, D.; Wang, X.L.; Yin, Z.Q.; Xia, B.; Ning Li, N. Study of cis-cinnamic acid in Arabidopsis thaliana. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2005, 43, 929–937. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  158. Steenackers, W.; Klíma, P.; Quareshy, M.; Cesarino, I.; Kumpf, R.P.; Corneillie, S.; Araújo, P.; Viaene, T.; Goeminne, G.; Nowack, M.K.; et al. cis-Cinnamic acid is a novel, natural auxin efflux inhibitor that promotes lateral root formation. Plant Physiol. 2017, 173, 552–565. [Google Scholar]
  159. Dixon, R.A.; Achnine, L.; Kota, P.; Liu, C.J.; Reddy, M.S.; Wang, L. The phenylpropanoid pathway and plant defense—A genomics perspective. Mol. Plant Pathol. 2002, 3, 371–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Vogt, T. Phenylpropanoid biosynthesis. Mol. Plant 2010, 3, 2–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  161. Yu, J.; Xie, J.; Sun, M.; Xiong, S.; Xu, C.; Zhang, Z.; Li, M.; Li, C.; Lin, L. Plant-derived caffeic acid and its derivatives: An overview of their NMR data and biosynthetic pathways. Molecules 2024, 29, 1625. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  162. Marty, F. Plant vacuoles. Plant Cell 1999, 11, 587–599. [Google Scholar]
  163. Shimada, T.; Takagi, J.; Ichino, T.; Shirakawa, M.; Hara-Nishimura, I. Plant vacuoles. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2018, 69, 123–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  164. Bennett, R.N.; Wallsgrove, R.M. Secondary metabolites in plant defence mechanisms. New Phytol. 1994, 127, 617–633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  165. Dangl, J.L.; Jones, J.D. Plant pathogens and integrated defence responses to infection. Nature 2001, 411, 826–833. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  166. Iriti, M.; Faoro, F. Chemical diversity and defence metabolism: How plants cope with pathogens and ozone pollution. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2009, 10, 3371–3399. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  167. Muthamilarasan, M.; Prasad, M. Plant innate immunity: An updated insight into defense mechanism. J. Biosci. 2013, 38, 433–449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  168. Rosado-Álvarez, C.; Molinero-Ruiz, L.; Rodríguez-Arcos, R.; Basallote-Ureba, M.J. Antifungal activity of asparagus extracts against phytopathogenic Fusarium oxysporum. Sci. Hortic. 2014, 171, 51–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  169. Desoukey, S.F.; El-Nahas, S.E.; Sabh, A.Z.; Taha, Z.K.; El-Shabrawi, H.M. Antimicrobial effect of Asparagus officinalis L. extracts. Plant Arch. 2020, 20, 9253–9264. [Google Scholar]
  170. He, C.; Hsiang, T.; Wolyn, D.J. Activation of defense responses to Fusarium infection in Asparagus densiflorus. Eur. J. Plant Pathol. 2001, 107, 473–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Wu, H.S.; Luo, J.; Raza, W.; Liu, Y.X.; Gu, M.; Chen, G.; Hu, X.F.; Wang, J.H.; Mao, Z.S.; Shen, Q.R. Effect of exogenously added ferulic acid on in vitro Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum. Sci. Hortic. 2010, 124, 448–453. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Hao, W.Y.; Ren, L.X.; Ran, W.; Shen, Q.R. Allelopathic effects of root exudates from watermelon and rice plants on Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. niveum. Plant Soil 2010, 336, 485–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  173. Lalak-Kańczugowska, J.; Witaszak, N.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Bocianowski, J.; Stępień, Ł. Plant metabolites affect Fusarium proliferatum metabolism and in vitro fumonisin biosynthesis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 3002. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Górna, K.; Pawłowicz, I.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Stępień, Ł. Fusarium proliferatum strains change fumonisin biosynthesis and accumulation when exposed to host plant extracts. Fungal Biol. 2016, 120, 884–893. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  175. Witaszak, N.; Lalak-Kańczugowska, J.; Waśkiewicz, A.; Stępień, Ł. The impacts of asparagus extract fractions on growth and fumonisins biosynthesis in Fusarium proliferatum. Toxins 2020, 12, 95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Peirce, L.C.; Miller, H.G. Interaction of asparagus autotoxin with Fusarium. Acta Hortic. 1990, 271, 305–314. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  177. Guo, Y.; Lv, J.; Zhao, Q.; Dong, Y.; Dong, K. Cinnamic acid increased the incidence of fusarium wilt by increasing the pathogenicity of Fusarium oxysporum and reducing the physiological and biochemical resistance of faba bean, which was alleviated by intercropping with wheat. Front. Plant Sci. 2020, 11, 608389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Yang, W.; Guo, Y.; Li, Y.; Zheng, Y.; Dong, K.; Dong, Y. Cinnamic acid toxicity on the structural resistance and photosynthetic physiology of faba bean promoted the occurrence of fusarium wilt of faba bean, which was alleviated through wheat and faba bean intercropping. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 857780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Miedes, E.; Vanholme, R.; Boerjan, W.; Molina, A. The role of the secondary cell wall in plant resistance to pathogens. Front. Plant Sci. 2014, 5, 358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  180. Bacete, L.; Mélida, H.; Miedes, E.; Molina, A. Plant cell wall-mediated immunity: Cell wall changes trigger disease resistance responses. Plant J. 2018, 93, 614–636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  181. Kumar, M.; Brar, A.; Yadav, M.; Chawade, A.; Vivekanand, V.; Pareek, N. Chitinases—Potential candidates for enhanced plant resistance towards fungal pathogens. Agriculture 2018, 8, 88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  182. Vaghela, B.; Vashi, R.; Rajput, K.; Joshi, R. Plant chitinases and their role in plant defense: A comprehensive review. Enzym. Microb. Technol. 2022, 159, 110055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  183. Ozawa, T.; Hattori, T.; Komura, T.; Oka, J.; Komatsu, K.; Tsukada, M.; Motoki, S. Allelopathy in asparagus 1: Reduction of the allelopathic effect on asparagus by the flowable agent in activated carbon. Acta Hortic. 2002, 589, 381–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Yeasmin, R.; Motoki, S.; Yamamoto, S.; Nishihara, E. Activated carbon and phosphorus application influence the growth of asparagus. Glob. J. Sci. Front. Res. 2013, 13, 1–7. [Google Scholar]
  185. Motoki, S.; Nishihara, E.; Kitazawa, H.; Hiradate, S.; Fujii, Y.; Shinohara, Y. Activated carbon utilization to reduce allelopathy that obstructs the continuous cropping of asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.). Hort. Res. Jpn. 2006, 5, 437–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  186. Motoki, S.; Nishihara, E.; Takahashi, N.; Limbers, H.; Shinohara, Y. Effects of activated carbon to reduce allelopathy during raising the seedling stage. Hort. Res. Jpn. 2007, 6, 603–609. [Google Scholar][Green Version]
  187. Tang, T.L.; Motoki, S. Differences in growth-inhibitory activity among different parts of asparagus and the effects of activated carbon on its reduction. Acta Hortic. 2018, 1223, 257–262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Sunada, K.; Ding, X.G.; Utami, M.S.; Kawashima, Y.; Miyama, Y.; Hashimoto, K. Detoxification of phytotoxic compounds by TiO2 photocatalysis in a recycling hydroponic cultivation system of asparagus. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2008, 56, 4819–4824. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  189. Reid, T.C.; Hausbeck, M.K.; Kizilkaya, K. Use of fungicides and biological controls in the suppression of Fusarium crown and root rot of asparagus under greenhouse and growth chamber conditions. Plant Dis. 2002, 86, 493–498. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Counts, J.W.; Hausbeck, M.K. Strategies for managing Fusarium crown and root rot on asparagus. Acta Hortic. 2008, 776, 167–172. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Yeasmin, R.; Bonser, S.P.; Motoki, S.; Nishihara, E. Arbuscular mycorrhiza influences growth and nutrient uptake of asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.) under heat stress. HortScience 2019, 54, 846–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Blok, W.J.; Bollen, G.J. Interactions of asparagus root tissue with soil microorganisms as a factor in early decline of asparagus. Plant Pathol. 1996, 45, 809–822. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. Reid, T.C.; Hausbeck, M.K.; Kizilkaya, K. Effects of sodium chloride on commercial asparagus and of alternative forms of chloride salt on Fusarium crown and root rot. Plant Dis. 2001, 85, 1271–1274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  194. Elmer, W.H. Combining nonpathogenic strains of Fusarium oxysporum with sodium chloride to suppress fusarium crown rot of asparagus in replanted fields. Plant Pathol. 2004, 53, 751–758. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  195. Blok, W.J.; Coenen, T.C.M.; Termorshuizen, A.J.; Lamers, J.G. The potential of biological soil disinfestation to manage Fusarium foot and root rot in asparagus. Acta Hortic. 2008, 776, 135–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  196. López-Moreno, F.J.; Navarro-León, E.; Soriano, T.; Ruiz, J.M. Physiological characterization of asparagus decline syndrome. Plant Soil 2025, 513, 2757–2768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Lopez-Moreno, F.J.; Navarro-Leon, E.; de Cara, M.; Soriano, T.; Ruiz, J.M. Physiological responses of asparagus plants to soil disinfection strategies targeting asparagus decline syndrome. Plants 2025, 14, 1992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  198. Djalali Farahani-Kofoet, R.; Häfner, F.; Feller, C. Effect of organic and mineral soil additives on asparagus growth and productivity in replant soils. Agronomy 2023, 13, 1464. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  199. Lacy, M.L. Effects of chemicals on stand establishment and yields of asparagus. Plant Dis. Rep. 1979, 63, 612–616. [Google Scholar]
  200. Knaflewski, M.; Weber, Z.; Biniek, A.; Werner, M. Fungicide control of Fusarium infection of asparagus. Meded. Fac. Landbouwwet. Rijksuniv. Gent 1993, 58, 1493–1499. [Google Scholar]
  201. Pontaroli, A.C.; Camadro, E.L. Increasing resistance to Fusarium crown and root rot in asparagus by gametophyte selection. Euphytica 2001, 122, 343–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  202. Kathe, L.; Krämer, R.; Budahn, H.; Pillen, K.; Rabenstein, F.; Nothnagel, T. Development of a bioassay to assess resistance to Fusarium oxysporum (Schlecht.) in asparagus (Asparagus officinalis L.). J. Phytopathol. 2019, 167, 558–566. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  203. Karlen, D.L.; Varvel, G.E.; Bullock, D.G.; Cruse, R.M. Crop rotations for the 21st century. Adv. Agron. 1994, 53, 1–45. [Google Scholar]
  204. Zhou, Y.; Yang, Z.; Liu, J.; Li, X.; Wang, X.; Dai, C.; Zhang, T.; Carrión, V.J.; Wei, Z.; Cao, F.; et al. Crop rotation and native microbiome inoculation restore soil capacity to suppress a root disease. Nat. Commun. 2023, 14, 8126. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Asparagus officinalis. (A) Above grand part (Fern), (B) Branches and cladodes (Leaves), (C) Spears (Young shoots).
Figure 1. Asparagus officinalis. (A) Above grand part (Fern), (B) Branches and cladodes (Leaves), (C) Spears (Young shoots).
Biology 15 00537 g001
Figure 2. Asparagus officinalis. (A) Flowers, (B) Fruits, (C) Roots and rhizomes.
Figure 2. Asparagus officinalis. (A) Flowers, (B) Fruits, (C) Roots and rhizomes.
Biology 15 00537 g002
Figure 3. Fusarium infection and toxicity.
Figure 3. Fusarium infection and toxicity.
Biology 15 00537 g003
Figure 4. Autotoxic substances identified in Asparagus officinalis.
Figure 4. Autotoxic substances identified in Asparagus officinalis.
Biology 15 00537 g004
Figure 5. Asparagus root exudation and photoisomerization. Asparagus exudes trans-cinnamic acid into soil. trans-Cinnamic is photoisomerized by UV light in sunlight into cis-cinnamic acid. This isomerization increases the growth inhibitory activity by over 10-fold.
Figure 5. Asparagus root exudation and photoisomerization. Asparagus exudes trans-cinnamic acid into soil. trans-Cinnamic is photoisomerized by UV light in sunlight into cis-cinnamic acid. This isomerization increases the growth inhibitory activity by over 10-fold.
Biology 15 00537 g005
Figure 6. Metabolic pathway of phenylpropanoids in plants. PAL; Phenylalanine ammonia-lyase, C4H; Cinnamate 4-hydroxylase, 4CL; 4-Coumarate-CoA ligase, C3H; p-Coumarate 3-hydroxylase, COMT; Caffeic acid O-methyltransferase.
Figure 6. Metabolic pathway of phenylpropanoids in plants. PAL; Phenylalanine ammonia-lyase, C4H; Cinnamate 4-hydroxylase, 4CL; 4-Coumarate-CoA ligase, C3H; p-Coumarate 3-hydroxylase, COMT; Caffeic acid O-methyltransferase.
Biology 15 00537 g006
Table 1. Asparagus autotoxic substances and their mechanisms of actions.
Table 1. Asparagus autotoxic substances and their mechanisms of actions.
Autotoxic SubstanceMechanism of ActionReference
trans-Cinnamic acidInduction of oxidative stress. Interruption of auxin biosynthesis. Disruption of cell membranes and defense function. Enhance Fusarium pathogenicity.[151,152,153,154,155,156,177,178]
p-Coumaric acidInduction of oxidative stress. Disruption of cell membranes and photosynthesis.[135,142]
Caffeic acidInduction of oxidative stress. Interruption of gibberellic acid biosynthesis and MAPK signaling pathway. Enhance Fusarium pathogenicity.[135,136,171]
Ferulic acidDisruption of cell membranes and walls, and photosynthesis. Inhibition of arbuscular mycorrhizal colonization. Enhance Fusarium pathogenicity.[124,125,126,171]
TryptophanInterruption of auxin biosynthesis.[129,131]
3.4-Methylenedioxycinnamic acidInhibition of 4-coumarate-CoA ligase[120,121,122]
Iso-agatharesinolunknown---
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Kato-Noguchi, H.; Kato, M. Asparagus Decline and Replant Problem: Autotoxicity, Autotoxic Substances, and Their Biological Functions. Biology 2026, 15, 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology15070537

AMA Style

Kato-Noguchi H, Kato M. Asparagus Decline and Replant Problem: Autotoxicity, Autotoxic Substances, and Their Biological Functions. Biology. 2026; 15(7):537. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology15070537

Chicago/Turabian Style

Kato-Noguchi, Hisashi, and Midori Kato. 2026. "Asparagus Decline and Replant Problem: Autotoxicity, Autotoxic Substances, and Their Biological Functions" Biology 15, no. 7: 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology15070537

APA Style

Kato-Noguchi, H., & Kato, M. (2026). Asparagus Decline and Replant Problem: Autotoxicity, Autotoxic Substances, and Their Biological Functions. Biology, 15(7), 537. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology15070537

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop