| Literature DB >> 35270143 |
Kwame Sarpong Appiah1,2, Richard Ansong Omari3,4, Siaw Onwona-Agyeman5, Christiana Adukwei Amoatey2, John Ofosu-Anim6, Abderrazak Smaoui7, Abdelkarim Ben Arfa8, Yoko Suzuki9, Yosei Oikawa1, Shin Okazaki1, Keisuke Katsura1, Hiroko Isoda10, Kiyokazu Kawada10, Yoshiharu Fujii1.
Abstract
Plant biodiversity has been studied to explore allelopathic species for the sustainable management of weeds to reduce the reliance on synthetic herbicides. Rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L., syn Salvia rosmarinus Spenn.), was found to have plant growth-inhibitory effects, and carnosic acid was reported as an allelochemical in the plant. In this study, the effects of seasonal variation (2011-2012) on the carnosic acid concentration and phytotoxicity of rosemary leaves from two locations in Tunisia (Fahs and Matmata) were investigated. The carnosic acid concentration in rosemary leaves was determined by HPLC, and lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) was used as the receptor plant in the phytotoxicity bioassay. The highest carnosic acid concentration was found in rosemary samples collected in June 2011, which also had the highest inhibitory activity. Furthermore, a significant inverse correlation (r = -0.529; p < 0.01) was found between the inhibitory activity on lettuce hypocotyl and the carnosic acid concentration in rosemary leaves. Both temperature and elevation had a significant positive correlation with carnosic acid concentration, while rainfall showed a negative correlation. The results showed that the inhibitory effects of rosemary leaf samples collected in summer was highest due to their high carnosic acid concentration. The phytotoxicity of rosemary needs to be studied over time to determine if it varies by season under field conditions.Entities:
Keywords: Mediterranean climate; allelochemicals; elongation; phytotoxicity; specific activity
Year: 2022 PMID: 35270143 PMCID: PMC8912698 DOI: 10.3390/plants11050673
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Figure 1Map of sampling areas in Tunisia.
Figure 2The monthly mean precipitation (bar graph: gray bar is Fahs; white bar is Matmata) and monthly mean temperature (line graph: the solid line is Fahs; the dotted line is Matmata) at the two sampling locations.
Description of rosemary sampling sites (dates, areas, elevation) and specimen codes.
| No. | Collection Date | Geographical Area | Elevation (m) | Sample Codes |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | June 2011 | Fahs | 430 | UT-ARENA 00327 |
| 2 | June 2011 | Fahs | 320 | UT-ARENA 00334 |
| 3 | June 2011 | Fahs | 300 | UT-ARENA 00340 |
| 4 | June 2011 | Fahs | 430 | UT-ARENA 00349 |
| 5 | June 2011 | Fahs | 420 | UT-ARENA 00357 |
| 6 | June 2011 | Matmata | 620 | UT-ARENA 00364 |
| 7 | June 2011 | Matmata | 585 | UT-ARENA 00371 |
| 8 | June 2011 | Matmata | 575 | UT-ARENA 00379 |
| 9 | June 2011 | Matmata | 535 | UT-ARENA 00387 |
| 10 | June 2011 | Matmata | 555 | UT-ARENA 00395 |
| 11 | September 2011 | Fahs | 430 | UT-ARENA 00402 |
| 12 | September 2011 | Fahs | 320 | UT-ARENA 00411 |
| 13 | September 2011 | Fahs | 300 | UT-ARENA 00417 |
| 14 | September 2011 | Fahs | 430 | UT-ARENA 00426 |
| 15 | September 2011 | Fahs | 420 | UT-ARENA 00434 |
| 16 | September 2011 | Matmata | 620 | UT-ARENA 00442 |
| 17 | September 2011 | Matmata | 585 | UT-ARENA 00453 |
| 18 | September 2011 | Matmata | 575 | UT-ARENA 00460 |
| 19 | September 2011 | Matmata | 535 | UT-ARENA 00469 |
| 20 | September 2011 | Matmata | 555 | UT-ARENA 00478 |
| 21 | November 2011 | Fahs | 430 | UT-ARENA 00515 |
| 22 | November 2011 | Fahs | 320 | UT-ARENA 00523 |
| 23 | November 2011 | Fahs | 300 | UT-ARENA 00535 |
| 24 | November 2011 | Fahs | 430 | UT-ARENA 00543 |
| 25 | November 2011 | Fahs | 420 | UT-ARENA 00550 |
| 26 | November 2011 | Matmata | 620 | UT-ARENA 00559 |
| 27 | November 2011 | Matmata | 585 | UT-ARENA 00565 |
| 28 | November 2011 | Matmata | 575 | UT-ARENA 00574 |
| 29 | November 2011 | Matmata | 535 | UT-ARENA 00583 |
| 30 | November 2011 | Matmata | 555 | UT-ARENA 00587 |
| 31 | February 2012 | Fahs | 430 | UT-ARENA 00617 |
| 32 | February 2012 | Fahs | 320 | UT-ARENA 00622 |
| 33 | February 2012 | Fahs | 300 | UT-ARENA 00628 |
| 34 | February 2012 | Fahs | 430 | UT-ARENA 00633 |
| 35 | February 2012 | Fahs | 420 | UT-ARENA 00638 |
| 36 | February 2012 | Matmata | 620 | UT-ARENA 00647 |
| 37 | February 2012 | Matmata | 585 | UT-ARENA 00652 |
| 38 | February 2012 | Matmata | 575 | UT-ARENA 00657 |
| 39 | February 2012 | Matmata | 535 | UT-ARENA 00662 |
| 40 | February 2012 | Matmata | 555 | UT-ARENA 00667 |
UT-ARENA: the University of Tsukuba Alliance for Research on the Mediterranean and North Africa.
Figure 3Chromatograph of an ethanol extract from rosemary leaves (a) and synthetic carnosic acid (b).
Figure 4Distribution of carnosic acid concentration in the crude extracts of rosemary leaf samples collected from Tunisia (June 2011–February 2012). Values are the means of three replicates ± SD. CA: carnosic acid (expressed on a dry weight basis).
Figure 5The effect of the sampling time and location on the concentration of carnosic acid in rosemary leaves. Data are expressed as mg·g−1 dry weight. Different letters (a, b, location for each month; A–C, sampling month during the season) above the error bars show treatments with significant differences throughout the season (p < 0.05). CA: carnosic acid.
Pearson correlation analysis for carnosic acid concentration, precipitation, elevation, and temperature.
| Attribute | Elevation | Precipitation | Temperature | CA Concentration |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Elevation | 1.00 | |||
| Precipitation | −0.61 ** | 1.00 | ||
| Temperature | 0.19 | −0.71 ** | 1.00 | |
| CA amt | 0.33 * | −0.49 * | 0.30 * | 1.00 |
CA: carnosic acid. Significance level: * p < 0.05, ** p < 0.01.
Figure 6Effect of the sampling period and location on the growth-inhibitory activity of rosemary leaves on lettuce (a) hypocotyl and (b) radicle elongation. Different letters (a, b, location for each month; A–C, sampling month during the season) above the error bars show treatments with significant differences throughout the season (p < 0.05). Values are means ± SD (n = 5).
Summary of the analysis of variance (ANOVA) for carnosic acid concentration, growth elongations, sampling location, and period.
| Source of Variation | DF | CA Concentration | Hypocotyl Growth | Radicle Growth | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| MS | MS | MS | |||||
| Location | 1 | 167.4 | <0.001 ** | 0.02 | >0.05 | 0.52 | >0.05 |
| Month | 3 | 61.9 | <0.001 ** | 12.7 | <0.001 ** | 1.6 | <0.05 * |
| Location × Month | 3 | 8.9 | <0.05 * | 0.9 | <0.05 * | 4.5 | <0.001 ** |
| Error | 24 | 2.2 | 0.3 | 0.5 | |||
| Total | 31 | ||||||
| R2 | 0.88 | 0.85 | 0.63 | ||||
* Significant at the 0.05 level of probability. ** Significant at the 0.01 level of probability. p > 0.05: not significant. CA: Carnosic acid. Growth is expressed as a percentage of the control. MS: means of squares.
Figure 7Relationship between carnosic acid concentration and phytotoxicity (expressed as EC50) of the leaf extract of rosemary on lettuce (a) hypocotyl and (b) radicle elongations.