| Literature DB >> 35406895 |
Marta I Saludes-Zanfaño1, Ana M Vivar-Quintana2, María Remedios Morales-Corts1.
Abstract
The allelopathic effect of pistachios was analyzed by field and laboratory tests. The parameters analyzed in the field trials were the biomass, weed density, weed diversity, and specific richness of the weed community. The studies were carried out in the area under the canopy and in the area beyond the influence of the pistachio tree, and the results obtained were compared. In the laboratory, germination bioassays were carried out on seeds of 11 weed species in root water extract, rhizosphere soil, and leaf water extract. The germination percentage, radicle elongation, epicotyl elongation, and germination index were determined. The results obtained show that significantly less biomass was present in the area under the influence of the trees, and fewer different weed species were detected in that area. In addition, germination bioassays showed that the aqueous leaf extract was a potent inhibitor of germination. The total content of flavonoids and phenols according to the organs (roots or leaves) was also studied. Extracts obtained from leaves showed higher concentrations of total phenols and also of flavones and flavanols than roots. Gallic acid, catechin, myricetin, and quercetin were identified in extracts obtained from both leaves and roots, while naringenin and rutin were identified only in the leaf extract. The presence of phenolic compounds in which allelopathic activity has been previously described and the results obtained in the trials seem to indicate that there is an allelopathic effect of the leaf extract, which could be used for weed control, thus facilitating ecological and/or sustainable management.Entities:
Keywords: allelopathy; germination rate; leaf extract; phenolic compounds; root extract; weed density
Year: 2022 PMID: 35406895 PMCID: PMC9003272 DOI: 10.3390/plants11070916
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Plants (Basel) ISSN: 2223-7747
Weed presence and diversity indices under and beyond the influence of pistachio trees. All values represent the mean and ± SD.
| Place of Sampling | Biomass | Density | N° Species/m2 | Richness of Species |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| >4-year-old trees | 32.6 ± 4.8 c | 100.1 ± 12.9 b | 23.75 ± 1.8 b | 0.71 ± 0.1 b |
| 2–3-year-old trees | 57.5 ± 6.2 b,c | 120.9 ± 20.7.8 b | 25.3 ± 2.4 b | 0.77 ± 0.1 b |
| Beyond influence | 63.7 ± 4.6 a | 241.14 ± 25.8 a | 43.15 ± 3.2 a | 1.45 ± 0.2 a |
ANOVA, analysis of variance; a–c post hoc: Tukey HSD test. Different letters in the same column indicate statistically significant differences; p < 0.05; n = 24.
Presence of different weed species under pistachio trees and beyond their influence. All values represent the mean and ± SD.
| Weed Species | Under Canopy Young Trees (Individuals/m2) | Under Canopy > 4-Year-Old Trees (Individuals/m2) | Beyond Influence |
|---|---|---|---|
|
| 10.00 ± 7.9 b | 22.14 ± 12.2 b | 122.78 ± 18.2 a |
|
| 1.67 ± 1.2 a | 1.00 ± 2.2 a | 5.00 ± 2.1 b |
|
| 24.84 ± 4.2 a,b | 18.24 ± 6.2 b | 37.78 ± 3.2 a |
|
| 8.5 ± 4.5 b | 4.50 ± 2.25 b | 21.2 ± 6.25 a |
|
| 2.00 ± 1.8 b | 1.00 ± 2.3 b | 5.00 ± 1.1 a |
|
| 30.00 ± 6.2 b | 20.65 ± 5.2 b | 45.00 ± 3.2 a |
|
| 7.78 ± 2.2 a,b | 6.11 ± 1.2 b | 12.50 ± 4.2 a |
|
| 7.95 ± 2.95 a,b | 6.74 ± 2.15 b | 12.38 ± 2.31 a |
|
| 62.14 ± 26.2 a,b | 26.05 ± 20.2 b | 75.00 ± 18.2 a |
|
| 7.78 ± 3.2 a | 8.33 ± 2.2 a | 10.50 ± 4.2 a |
|
| 5.71 ± 1.2 b | 5.00 ± 1.6 b | 13.00 ± 3.3 a |
|
| 1.67 ± 2.4 b | 1.00 ± 1.2 b | 7.14 ± 2.2 a |
|
| 2.50 ± 2.2 a | 1.25 ± 2.2 a | 5.00 ± 3.3 a |
|
| 7.00 ± 4.6 a | 6.67 ± 3.2 a | 10.63 ± 5.2 a |
|
| 3.00 ± 1.2 a | 1.00 ± 2.2 a | 2.50 ± 1.7 a |
ANOVA, analysis of variance; a,b post hoc: Tukey HSD test. Different letters in the same row indicate statistically significant differences; p < 0.05; n = 24.
Effect of pistachio root and leaf extracts on germination and seedling parameters of selected weeds. All values represent the mean and ± SD.
| Weeds | Parameters | Water | Root | Rhizosphere Soil | Leaf |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| G (%) | 33.33 ± 10.3 a | 20 ± 10.0 a | 36.67 ± 15.3 a | 33.33 ± 5.8 a |
| Radicle length (mm) | 2.99 ± 1.0 a,b | 4.47 ± 1.3 a | 3.87 ± 3.8 a | 0.72 ± 0.4 b | |
| Epicotyl length (mm) | 0.69 ± 0.5 a | 1.15 ± 0.9 a | 1.02 ± 1.4 a | 0.64 ± 0.5 a | |
| GI (%) | 89.71 | 142.40 | 24.08 | ||
|
| G (%) | 61.67 ± 29.9 a | 20 ± 11.8 a,b | 66.67 ± 20.8 a | 16.67 ± 5.8 b |
| Radicle length (mm) | 1.69 ± 0.7 b | 2.1 ± 0.9 a,b | 3.33 ± 1.3 a | 0.14 ± 0.1 c | |
| Epicotyl length (mm) | 1.18 ± 0.5 c | 2.23 ± 0.7 b | 3.24 ± 1.16 a | 0.12 ± 0.1 d | |
| GI (%) | 40.30 | 213.02 | 2.24 | ||
|
| G (%) | 76.67 ± 8.2 a | 66.67 ± 15.3 a | 86.87 ± 5.8 a | 10 ± 0.8 b |
| Radicle length (mm) | 0.35 ± 0.1 a | 0.32 ± 0.1 a | 0.38 ± 0.1 a | 0.1 ± 0.0 b | |
| Epicotyl length (mm) | 0.35 ± 0.2 ab | 0.57 ± 0.2 b | 0.85 ± 0.3 a | 0.13 ± 0.1 c | |
| GI (%) | 79.50 | 123.02 | 3.73 | ||
|
| G (%) | 23.33 ± 11.1 a | 6.67 ± 4.3 a | 6.67 ± 5.2 a | |
| Radicle length (mm) | 1.52 ± 1.5 ab | 1.85 ± 1.8 a,b | 2.05 ± 1.1 a | N.G. | |
| Epicotyl length (mm) | 0.53 ± 0.5 b | 1.2 ± 1.2 a,b | 2.7 ± 0.5 a | ||
| GI (%) | 35,03 | 38,81 | |||
|
| G (%) | 60.00 ± 26.0 a | 13.33 ± 5.2 a,b | 63.33 ± 13.7 a | 3.33 ± 5.8 b |
| Radicle length (mm) | 1.72 ± 1.3 a | 1.02 ± 1.0 a,b | 1.87 ± 0.6 a | 0.2 ± 0.0 b | |
| Epicotyl length (mm) | 1.11 ± 0.9 b | 0.52 ± 0.5 c | 2.78 ± 0.4 a | 0.4 ± 0.0 c | |
| GI (%) | 13.18 | 114.75 | 0.65 | ||
|
| G (%) | 33.33 ± 23.1 a | 20.00 ± 10.0 a | ||
| Radicle length (mm) | 1.86 ± 2.1 b | 5.02 ± 0.9 a | N.G. | N.G. | |
| Epicotyl length (mm) | 1.13 ± 1.2 b | 3.17 ± 0.5 a | |||
| GI (%) | 161.95 | ||||
|
| G (%) | 56.67 ± 23.5 a | 20.00 ± 10.0 b | 16.67 ± 11.5 b | |
| Radicle length (mm) | 3.18 ± 1.6 a | 1.57 ± 1.1 b | 0.98 ± 1.1 b | N.G. | |
| Epicotyl length (mm) | 1.24 ± 0.6 a | 0.58 ± 0.8 a,b | 1.4 ± 1.0 a | ||
| GI (%) | 17.42 | 9.07 | |||
|
| G (%) | 41.67 ± 27.9 a | 46.67 ± 41.6 a | 26.67 ± 11.5 a | |
| Radicle length (mm) | 1.60 ± 0.7 a | 1.27 ± 0.4 b | 0.95 ± 0.5 b | N.G. | |
| Epicotyl length (mm) | 1.96 ± 0.5 b | 2.52 ± 0.5 a | 1.91 ± 0.8 b | ||
| GI (%) | 88.90 | 38.00 | |||
|
| G (%) | 93.33 ± 10.1 a | 36.67 ± 42.2 a,b | 20 ± 15.5 b | 13.33 ± 11.5 b |
| Radicle length (mm) | 1.43 ± 0.6 a | 1.05 ± 0.3 a,b | 0.55 ± 0.3 b | 0.45 ± 0.17 b | |
| Epicotyl length (mm) | 2.11 ± 2.1 a | 1.33 ± 0.5 a | 0.25 ± 0.2 a | 0.15 ± 0.13 a | |
| GI (%) | 28.85 | 8.24 | 4.49 | ||
|
| G (%) | 43.33 ± 26.0 a,b | 31.67 ± 18.3 b | 26.67 ± 10.3 b | 3.33 ± 5.8 c |
| Radicle length (mm) | 1.93 ± 0.8 a | 1.07 ± 0.3 b | 0.95 ± 0.3 b | 0.90 ± 0.1 b | |
| Epicotyl length (mm) | 1.86 ± 1.0 b | 1.76 ± 0.9 b | 2.65 ± 0.7 a | 2.1 ± 0.1 b | |
| GI (%) | 40.52 | 30.30 | 3.58 | ||
|
| G (%) | 76.67 ± 25.8 a | 93.33 ± 8.2 a | 70 ± 35.2 a | |
| Radicle length (mm) | 0.86 ± 0.5 a | 0.96 ± 0.5 a | 0.82 ± 0.5 a | N.G. | |
| Epicotyl length (mm) | 2.29 ± 1.3 a | 2.66 ± 0.9 a | 2.61 ± 1.3 a | ||
| GI (%) | 135.88 | 87.05 |
ANOVA, analysis of variance; a–c post hoc: Tukey HSD test. Different letters in the same row indicate statistically significant differences; p < 0.05; N.G. = no germination.
Total flavonoid and phenolic contents (mg/g dw) according to the organs (roots or leaves) and extraction methodology (methanol–water extract or water extract). All values represent the mean of duplicate determinations ± SD.
| Methanol–Water Extract | Water Extract | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf | Root | Leaf | Root | |
| Total phenols 1 | 127.85 ± 30.81 a | 68.00 ± 8.72 a,b | 45.28 ± 17.44 b | 13.24 ± 0.02 b |
| Flavones and flavonols 2 | 49.71 ± 1.89 a | 13.72 ± 9.68 b,c | 33.01 ± 0.47 a,b | 1.77 ± 0.79 c |
| Flavanones and dihydroflavonols 3 | 27.44 ± 0.18 a | 25.01 ± 1.24 a | 26.49 ± 4.25 a | 10.79 ± 1.08 b |
ANOVA, analysis of variance; a–c post hoc: Tukey HSD test. Different letters in the same row indicate statistically significant differences; p < 0.05. 1 Expressed as gallic acid equivalent. 2 Expressed as rutin equivalent. 3 Expressed as pinocembrin equivalent.
Concentration of phenolic compounds (expressed as µg/g dw) according to the organs (roots or leaves) and extraction methodology (methanol–water extract or water extract).
| Methanol–Water Extract | Water Extract | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Leaf | Root | Leaf | Root | |
| Gallic acid | 63.03 ± 0.02 b | 30.27 ± 2.63 c | 205.55 ± 2.42 a | 60.61 ± 2.08 b |
| Rutin | 80.73 ± 0.26 a | ND | 85.37 ± 9.87 a | ND |
| Catechin | 91.77 ± 0.75 b | 17.02 ± 9.31 c | 113.95 ± 2.49 a | 27.27 ± 1.71 c |
| Myricetin | 83.23 ± 1.30 b | 1.75 ± 2.42 c | 140.17 ± 1.83 a | ND |
| Quercetin | 263.24 ± 3.57 a | 1.66 ± 2.32 c | 158.76 ± 1.74 b | ND |
| Naringenin | 1.23 ± 0.07 a | ND | 0.86 ± 0.74 a | ND |
ANOVA, analysis of variance; a–c post hoc: Tukey HSD test. Different letters in the same row indicate statistically significant differences; p < 0.05; ND: not detected.