Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Plants logoLink to Plants
. 2021 Jul 15;10(7):1445. doi: 10.3390/plants10071445

Phytochemical Constituents and Allelopathic Potential of Parthenium hysterophorus L. in Comparison to Commercial Herbicides to Control Weeds

Mst Motmainna 1, Abdul Shukor Juraimi 1,*, Md Kamal Uddin 2, Norhayu Binti Asib 3, A K M Mominul Islam 4, Muhammad Saiful Ahmad-Hamdani 1, Mahmudul Hasan 1
Editors: Alessia Restuccia, Aurelio Scavo
PMCID: PMC8309427  PMID: 34371648

Abstract

The allelopathic effect of various concentrations (0, 6.25, 12.5, 50 and 100 g L−1) of Parthenium hysterophorus methanol extract on Cyperus iria was investigated under laboratory and glasshouse conditions. No seed germination was recorded in the laboratory when P. hysterophorus extract was applied at 50 g L−1. In the glasshouse, C. iria was mostly injured by P. hysterophorus extract at 100 g L−1. The phytochemical constituents of the methanol extract of P. hysterophorus were analyzed by LC-ESI-QTOF-MS=MS. The results indicated the presence of phenolic compounds, terpenoids, alkaloids, amino acids, fatty acids, piperazines, benzofuran, indole, amines, azoles, sulfonic acid and other unknown compounds in P. hysterophorus methanol extract. A comparative study was also conducted between P. hysterophorus extract (20, 40 and 80 g L−1) with a synthetic herbicide (glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium at 2 L ha−1) as a positive control and no treatment (negative control) on Ageratum conyzoides, Oryza sativa and C. iria. The growth and biomass of test weeds were remarkably inhibited by P. hysterophorus extract. Nevertheless, no significant difference was obtained when P. hysterophorus extract (80 g L−1) and synthetic herbicides (glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium) were applied on A. conyzoides.

Keywords: allelopathy, phytochemicals, P. hysterophorus, germination, growth

1. Introduction

Cyperus iria L. (family: Cyperaceae) is a smooth, tufted sedge weed of lowland rice worldwide and is also a common weed in upland fields of 22 countries [1]. This weed is also reported to appear in dry, direct-seeded rice fields in 21 countries and wet-seeded rice in 11 countries [2]. The roots of C. iria are numerous, yellowish-red, short and fibrous. The leaves are usually shorter than culm, 1–8 mm wide and the inflorescence is simple or compound. A prolific nature (5000 seeds from a single plant) and a very short life cycle of C. iria help it to establish a second generation in the same growing season [3,4]. It is estimated that approximately 64% of rice yield reduction occurs due to this weed [5].

Weed management in the crop field is a challenging task in agriculture. Chemical herbicides are mainly preferred by the farmers to control weeds due to their higher efficacy, affordable cost and more rapid out return. The migration of labor away from agriculture to industries or other countries for employment is also a major concern for dependence in some countries [6]. However, the excessive use of synthetic herbicides can lead to an increase in the number of herbicide-resistant biotypes [7], low agricultural production, environmental pollution and health hazards [8,9]. On the other hand, the introduction of allelopathic plants or bio-herbicide develop from allelochemicals can play an important role as a substitute for the chemical dependence on synthetic chemical herbicides to control weeds in sustainable agriculture [10].

Invasive weed species have the potential to release allelopathic substances to the surrounding environments to suppress their neighboring competing plants [11,12,13,14,15]. Parthenium hysterophorus L. has taken the shape of a noxious weed and is becoming a threat to crop production, animal husbandry and human health due to its strong allelopathic effects [16,17,18,19]. The isolation and identification of the allelopathic substances from P. hysterophorus could be used as a tool for the development of a natural-product-based herbicide for weed control.

Bioassays are generally designed to test the allelopathic properties of a plant species. However, a plant that shows strong phytotoxicity on the target plant species in laboratory conditions might not be so strong in the field condition due to the influence of several environmental factors [20,21]. In this context, two experiments were conducted in both laboratory and glasshouse conditions to evaluate the allelopathic properties of P. hysterophorus with a view to developing natural-product-based bioherbicides. The identification of its phytochemical constituents was analyzed by using LC-ESI-QTOF-MS=MS.

2. Results

2.1. Laboratory Experiment

Effect of Methanol Extracts on Germination and Initial Growth of C. iria

The results showed that P. hysterophorus extracts significantly (p ≤ 0.05) reduced the germination percentage as well as coleoptile and radicle length of C. iria (Table 1). The inhibitory activity was concentration-dependent. By the application of methanol extracts, the seed germination was significantly (p ≤ 0.05) reduced. No seed germination was recorded when P. hysterophorus extract was applied at 50 g L−1.

Table 1.

Effects of P. hysterophorus on germination, coleoptile and radicle length of C. iria.

Dose (g L−1) Germination (%) Coleoptile Length (cm) Radicle Length (cm)
0.00 100.00a (0) 1.51a (0) 1.66a (0)
6.25 80.00b (20) 1.20b (20.72) 1.10b (33.68)
12.5 47.00c (53) 0.86c (43.14) 0.60c (64.02)
25 19.00d (81) 0.36d (76.24) 0.24d (85.65)
50 0.00e (100) 0.00e (100) 0.00e (100)
100 0.00e (100) 0.00e (100) 0.00e (100)
Open in a new tab

Data are expressed as means. Means with same letters in the column for concentrations are not significantly different at p > 0.05. Values inside the parenthesis are inhibition percentages relative to the control.

Parthenium hysterophorus extract decreased the coleoptile and radicle elongation of C. iria. The magnitude of inhibition increased with an increase in extract concentration. At a concentration of 50 g L−1 or above, P. hysterophorus extract reduced the coleoptile and radicle length of C. iria by 100%.

2.2. Glasshouse Experiment

2.2.1. Effect of Methanol Extract on Plant Height, Leaf Area and Dry Weight of C. iria

Table 2 showed the effect of P. hysterophorus methanol extract on the plant height, leaf area and dry weight of tested weeds. Dose-dependent inhibitory activity was also observed here. Parthenium hysterophorus showed significant inhibition on plant height at the highest concentration (100 g L−1). At the concentration of 100 g L−1, P. hysterophorus extract 44.40% inhibition was observed on the plant height of C. iria. A decline in leaf area of the tested weed was also observed with an increase in P. hysterophorus methanol extract concentration. The leaf area inhibition of C. iria ranged from 7.63 to 52.03% from 6.25 g L−1 to 100 g L−1 concentrations of P. hysterophorus extract. The control obtained the highest dry weight. The extract reduced 60.81% of the dry weight of C. iria at 100 g L−1 compared to the control.

Table 2.

Effect of P. hysterophorus methanol extracts on the plant height (cm), leaf area (cm2) and dry weight (g pot−1) of C. iria.

Dose (g L−1) Plant Height Leaf Area Dry Weight
0 64.75a (0) 151.05a (0) 5.12a (0)
6.25 63.37ab (2.13) 139.52b (7.63) 4.89ab (4.46)
12.5 62.02ab (4.20) 132.24c (12.44) 4.53b (11.44)
25 57.42b (11.29) 115.22d (23.70) 3.86c (24.55)
50 50.31c (22.31) 91.15e (39.63) 3.00d (41.20)
100 36.00d (44.40) 72.45f (52.03) 2.00e (60.81)
Open in a new tab

Data are expressed as means. Means with same letters in the column for each extract concentrations are not significantly different at p > 0.05. Values inside the parenthesis are inhibition percentages relative to the control.

2.2.2. Effect of Methanol Extract on Fv/Fm, Photosynthesis Rate, Stomatal Conductance and Transpiration Rate of C. iria

No significant difference was observed when C. iria was treated with 6.25 and 12.5 g L−1 of P. hysterophorus extract (Table 3). The extract reduced the Fv/Fm value by 46.32% at 100 g L−1. The significant effect of extracts concentrations was observed on the photosynthesis, stomatal conductance and transpiration rate of C. iria. The photosynthesis rate of C. iria was inhibited by 44.41% when treated with the highest concentrations (100 g L−1) of P. hysterophorus extract. The lowest stomatal conductance (0.25 mol m−2 s−1) was recorded at 100 g L−1, and the inhibition value was 39.63% (Table 4). The lowest transpiration rate was observed at the highest concentration (100 g L−1), and the inhibition value was 40.98%.

Table 3.

Effects of P. hysterophorus methanol extract on Fv/Fm, photosynthesis rate (µmol m−2 s−1), stomatal conductance (mol m−2 s−1) and transpiration rate (mmol m−2 s−1) of C. iria.

Dose
(g L−1)		 Fv/Fm Photosynthesis Rate Stomatal Conductance Transpiration Rate
0 1.47a (0) 45.14a (0) 0.42a (0) 11.50a (0)
6.25 1.41a (3.90) 43.50ab (3.64) 0.41ab (3.43) 10.83b (5.82)
12.5 1.34a (8.56) 42.50ab (5.86) 0.40ab (6.04) 10.41c (9.52)
25 1.20ab (17.84) 40.00b (11.37) 0.38b (10.07) 9.35d (18.69)
50 1.08ab (26.19) 35.29c (21.86) 0.34c (20.31) 8.20e (28.67)
100 0.79b (46.32) 25.13d (44.41) 0.25d (39.63) 6.79f (40.98)
Open in a new tab

Data are expressed as means. Means with same letters in the column for each extract concentrations are not significantly different at p > 0.05. Values inside the parenthesis are inhibition percentages relative to the control.

Table 4.

LC-MS profile of methanol extract of P. hysterophorus.

Sl.
No		 RT (min) Proposed Compound Molecular Formula Mass Fragment (m/z) Polarity
1 1.436 Valine C5H11NO2 117.0802 Positive
2 1.418 Glyceryl sulfoquinovoside C9H18O10S 318.063 Negative
3 1.575 Lotaustralin C11H19NO6 261.1215 Positive
4 3.162 Trazolopride C20H23N5O2 365.1851 Positive
5 3.571 Pirenzepine C19H21N5O2 351.1694 Positive
6 3.92 1-Cyclopropyl-3-[[1-(4-hydroxybutyl)benzimidazol-2-yl]methyl]imidazo [4,5-c]pyridin-2-one C21H23N5O2 377.1848 Positive
7 4.239 Umbelliferone C9H6O3 162.0317 Positive
8 4.244 Quinic Acid C7H12O6 192.0638 Negative
9 4.941 Atevirdine C21H25N5O2 379.2002 Positive
10 5.253 Dihydrophaseic acid 4-O-beta-D-glucoside C21H32O10 444.1998 Negative
11 5.536 2-(2-Ethoxyethoxy)ethanol;4-methylbenzenesulfonic acid C13H22O6S 306.1136 Negative
12 5.475 4-Azidobenzyl benzyl 1,4-butanediylbiscarbamate C20H23N5O4 397.175 Positive
13 5.823 4-(N-hydroxyamino)-2r-isobutyl-2S-(2-Thienylthiomethyl)succinyl-L-Phenylalanine-N-Methylamide C20H31NO3S2 397.176 Positive
14 6.08 Branaplam C22H27N5O2 393.2162 Positive
15 6.257 Pulchellamine G C21H31N O6 393.2151 Positive
16 6.503 Hymenoxynin C21H34O9 430.2208 Negative
17 6.939 Chlorogenic acid C16H18O9 354.0957 Negative
18 7.006 Parthenin C15H18O4 262.1202 Positive
19 7.006 Gaillardilin C17H22O6 322.1415 Positive
20 7.006 Dehydroleucodine C15H16O3 244.1095 Positive
21 7.264 N-Propyl-3-(1,3-thiazol-2-yl)thian-3-amine C11H18N2S2 242.0928 Positive
22 7.266 Oleacein C17H20O6 320.1252 Positive
23 7.49 Bendazac lysine C22H28N4O5 428.2053 Negative
24 7.641 Lajollamide A C30H55N5O5 565.4206 Positive
25 7.673 Isochlorogenic acid A C25H24O12 516.127 Negative
26 7.673 Chlorogenic acid C16H18O9 354.0958 Negative
27 7.897 4-[(6-Chloro-2-naphthalenyl)sulfonyl]-1-[[1-(4-pyridinyl)-4-piperidinyl]methyl]-2 piperazinecarboxylic acid C27H41ClN4O6 552.2699 Positive
28 7.905 N-Chloro-9-(diaminomethylideneamino)-3-hydroxynonanamide C10H21ClN4O2 264.1358 Positive
29 7.908 1-(N-6-Amino-n-hexyl)carbamoylimidazole C10H19ClN4O 246.1253 Positive
30 8.042 2,4-Toluene Diisocyanate Dimer C18H12N4O4 348.0862 Positive
31 8.044 Alaptide C9H14N2O2 182.1063 Positive
32 8.05 Carbocyclic-3′-amino-ara-adenosine C11H16N6O2 264.1339 Positive
33 8.054 Tris(pyrazolyl)ethane C11H12N6 228.1118 Positive
34 8.055 Descyclopropyl Abacavir C11H14N6O 246.1225 Positive
35 8.058 1-Boc-3-oxopiperazine C9H16N2O3 200.1162 Positive
36 8.13 Teroxalene hydrochloride C28H42Cl2N2OS 524.2364 Positive
37 8.132 Ethane;(3-oxo-6′-sulfanylcarbonyloxyspiro [2 -benzofuran-1,9′-xanthene]-3′-yl)oxymethanethioicS-acid;propane C31H38O7S2 586.206 Positive
38 8.133 (2-Aminoethylamino) 2,2-diaminooxyacetate C4H12N4O4 180.0845 Positive
39 8.134 N-[(S)-2-Benzo[1,3]dioxol-5-yl-4-(4-phenyl-piperidin-1-yl)-butyl]-N-methyl-benzenesulfonamide C29H34N2O4S 506.2237 Positive
40 8.135 3-Diazo-1-hexylsulfanyl-1-methylurea C8H16N4OS 216.1055 Positive
41 8.135 Ethylene oxide-b-maleic hydrazide C6H12N8O3 244.103 Positive
42 8.136 N-[3-(1H-Imidazol-4-yl)propyl]-N′-methylthiourea C8H14N4S 198.0952 Positive
43 8.136 1-Methylpiperazine-1,4-Diium Bis C5H14N4O6 226.0914 Positive
44 8.136 3-(2-Methylpropylthio)-1H-1,2,4-triazol-5-amine C6 H12N4S 172.0801 Positive
45 8.136 Benzylamidinoisothiourea C9H12N4S 208.0792 Positive
46 8.136 1-Amino-3-(propylamino)thiourea C4H12N4S 148.0798 Positive
47 8.136 9-hydroxyellipticine C17H14N2O 262.1122 Positive
48 8.136 4-Phenylamino-3-quinolinecarbonitrile deriv. 28 C27H30Cl2N4O4 544.16 Positive
49 8.136 1-(3-ethyl-1,2,4-thiadiazol-5-yl)azetidin-3-amine C7H12N4S 184.0793 Positive
50 8.413 1,8,15,22,29,36-Hexaazacyclodotetracontane-2,7,16,21,30,35-hexone C36H66N6O6 678.504 Positive
51 8.415 2,4,6-tris(3-methylbutoxy)-1,3,5-triazine C18H33N3O3 339.2522 Positive
52 8.435 Arginyl-tyrosyl-aspartic acid C19H28N6O7 452.2022 Positive
53 8.636 8-(2,4,6-Trimethoxyphenyl)-9H-purine-2,6-diamine C14H16N6O3 316.1282 Positive
54 8.818 Dimethyl 2-(heptane-1-sulfonyl)butanedioate C13H24O6S 308.1298 Negative
55 8.721 AC-Ala-gln-ala-pna C19H26 N6O7 450.1864 Positive
56 9.065 Laciniatin C17H14O8 346.0693 Positive
57 9.067 2-[(3,5-Dinitrobenzoyl)amino]benzoic acid C14H9N3O7 331.0461 Negative
58 9.243 3-Ethyl-1-propyl-8-(1H-pyrazol-4-yl)-1H-purine-2,6(3H,7H)-dione C13H16N6O2 288.134 Positive
59 11.645 Apnea C18H22N6O4 386.1696 Positive
60 11.844 Thyroliberin N-ethylamide C18H26N6O4 390.2011 Positive
61 11.996 Hexadecasphinganine C16H35NO2 273.2672 Positive
62 12.034 Phytosphingosine C18H39NO3 317.2935 Positive
63 12.176 Dihydroxyethyllauramine oxide C16H35NO3 289.262 Positive
64 12.193 Lauramine oxide C14H31NO 229.2405 Positive
65 12.308 Rishitin C14H22O2 222.161 Negative
66 12.316 Dioctylnitrosamine C16H34N2O 270.2673 Positive
67 12.343 Dodecylacrylamide C15H29NO 239.2251 Positive
68 12.349 Tetrabutylurea C17H36N2O 284.2832 Positive
69 12.703 Aminopregnane C21H37N 303.2934 Positive
70 12.778 Tridecylglycerol C16H34O3 274.2512 Positive
71 13.164 2,3,3-Tris(1,2-diaminoethyl)-2-ethylhexanoic acid C14H34N6O2 318.2769 Positive
72 13.633 4-dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid C18H30O3S 326.1916 Negative
73 14.691 Angoletin C18H20O4 300.1357 Positive
74 14.694 Phthalic anhydride C8H4O3 148.069 Positive
75 15.406 Eicosasphinganine C20H43NO2 329.3298 Positive
76 16.483 Lauryl sulfate C12H26O4S 266.1551 Negative
77 16.957 Dodecandial-disemicarbazon C14H28N6O2 312.2282 Positive
78 18.267 Benzenesulfonic acid, tridecyl- C19H32O3S 340.2072 Negative
79 19.135 3-[5-(3-Dimethylamino-1,2,4-thiadiazol)-yl] quinuclidine C11H18N4S 238.125 Positive
80 19.496 Benzenesulfonic acid, undecyl- C17H28O3S 312.176 Negative
81 19.918 N,N-bis(2-hydroxyethyl)stearylamine C22H47NO2 357.3609 Positive
82 20.245 Benzoyl benzenecarboperoxoate;dodecane-1-thiol;toluene C33H44O4S 536.2965 Positive
Open in a new tab

2.3. Identification of Phytotoxic Components from Methanol Extract of P. hysterophorus

LC-MS analyses of P. hysterophorus methanol extract revealed the presence of 82 known compounds that appeared between 1 and 20 mins. The list of proposed compounds with their retention times, molecular formula, polarity and mass fragment (m/z) is shown in Table 4. For most of the constituents, [M-H]+ and [M-H]− ions were observed. The total ion current chromatography in positive and negative ESI mode is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2. Eight amino acids (Valine, Lajollamide A, Alaptide, Arginyl-tyrosyl-aspartic acid, Thyroliberin N-ethylamide, Hexadecasphinganine, Phytosphingosine and Eicosasphinganine) were identified, which usually provides [M-H]+ ions as the best peak positive ESI mode. The amino acids were identified at 1.436, 7.641, 8.004, 8.435, 11.844, 11.996, 12.034, 15.406 min, with 117.0802, 565.4206, 182.1063, 452.2022, 390.2011, 273.2672, 317.2935, 329.3298 m/z, respectively, in the positive ionization mode. A total of seven phenolic compounds (Umbelliferone, Quinic Acid, Chlorogenic acid, Oleacein, Isochlorogenic acid A, Laciniatinand Phthalic anhydride) and three terpenoids (Parthenin, Dehydroleucodine and Rishitin) were also identified. Among the phenolic compounds, chlorogenic acid (C16H18O9) was detected with its [M-H]− ion at 6.939 min with 354.0957 m/z. In positive ionization mode, parthenin (C15H18O4) was detected at 7.006 min with 262.1202 m/z. A fragment ion at 262.1122 m/z was displayed for 9-hydroxyellipticine (alkaloid) in positive ionization mode at 8.136 min. A number of other organic compounds were also detected in P. hysterophorus (Table 4). Descyclopropyl Abacavir (C11H14N6O) is a carbohydrate and was detected from the extract at 8.055 min 246.1225 m/z. At 229.24 m/z, Lauramine oxide (C14H31NO) was identified as a detergent at 12.193 min. Glycolipid (Glyceryl sulfoquinovoside, C9H18O10S) and glycoside (Dihydrophaseic acid 4-O-beta-D-glucoside, C21H32O10) were identified at 1.418 and 5.253 min with 318.063 and 444.1998 m/z, respectively in the negative ionization mode. One ketone (Angoletin, C18H20O4) was also identified in the positive ionization mode at 14.691 with 300.1357 m/z. Two sulfonic acids, namely, 4-dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid (C18H30O3S) and Benzenesulfonic acid, tridecyl- (C19H32O3S) at 13.633 and 18.267 min with 326.1916 and 312.2282 m/z in negative and positive ionization modes, respectively.

Figure 1.

Figure 1

Open in a new tab

LC-MS chromatograms chemical compounds of P. hysterophorus in the positive ion mode (1. Valine, 2. umbelliferone, 3. parthenin, 4. 9-hydroxyellipticine, 5. laciniatin, 6. phytosphingosine, 7. tridecylglycerol, 8. phthalic anhydride, 9. eicosasphinganine, 10. N,N-bis (2-hydroxyethyl) stearylamine).

Figure 2.

Figure 2

Open in a new tab

LC-MS chromatograms chemical compounds of P. hysterophorus in the negative ion mode (1. Quinic acid, 2. hymonoxynin, 3. chlorogenic acid, 4. isochlorogenic acid, 5. laciniatin, 6. Rishitin, 7. 4-dodecylbenzenesulfonic acid, 8. lauryl sulfate, 9. tridecyl-benzenesulfonic acid, 10. 4-undecyl benzene sulfonic acid).

2.4. Efficacy of P. hysterophorus Extract in Comparison with Commercial Herbicides

All treatments had significant effects (p ≤ 0.05) on plant height and fresh and dry weight (Table 5). The phytotoxicity effects of P. hysterophorus and synthetic herbicide on A. conyzoides, C. iria and O. sativa were evaluated based on visual observation at 21 days after spray (Table 5). The visual injury of A. conyzoides was higher compared to C. iria and O. sativa at the applied concentrations of P. hysterophorus methanol extract. At the highest concentration (80 g L−1), A. conyzoides, C. iria and O. sativa were injured severely with an injury rating scale of 9.00, 5.25 and 4.50, respectively. Cyperus iria and O. sativa were alive and showed either green foliage or minor chlorosis or minor leaf curling at the lowest concentration (20 g L−1). All tested weeds died after treated with synthetic herbicide (glyphosate and glufosinate ammonium). However, only A. conyzoides died when P. hysterophorus was sprayed at 80 g L−1 (Figure 3 and Figure 4).

Table 5.

Effect of P. hysterophorus on the visual injury, plant height, fresh weight and dry weight of A. conyzoides, C. iria and O. sativa.

Tested Weeds P. hysterophorus Synthetic Herbicides
0 g L−1 20 g L−1 40 g L−1 80 g L−1 Glyphosate Glufosinate-Ammonium
A. conyzoides 1.00d 2.75c 5.50b 9.00a 9.00a 9.00a
Visual injury (Scale) C. iria 1.00e 2.50d 4.00c 5.25b 9.00a 9.00a
O. sativa 1.00e 2.25d 3.00c 4.50b 9.00a 9.00a
A. conyzoides 32.00a
(0)		 24.62b
(23.02)		 14.62c
(54.32)		 0.00d
(100)		 0.00d
(100)		 0.00d
(100)
Plant height (cm) C. iria 64.75a
(0)		 55.75b
(13.58)		 44.25c
(37.71)		 37.00d
(42.97)		 0.00e
(100)		 0.00e
(100)
O. sativa 67.00a
(0)		 58.50b
(12.68)		 49.50c
(26.08)		 39.53d
(41.02)		 0.00e
(100)		 0.00e
(100)
A. conyzoides 26.45a
(0)		 18.34b
(30.66)		 3.14c
(88.10)		 0.45d
(98.28)		 0.22d
(99.17)		 0.27d
(98.96)
Fresh weight (g pot−1) C. iria 25.95a
(0)		 20.21b
(22.10)		 15.70c
(39.45)		 12.80d
(50.60)		 0.30e
(98.86)		 0.50e
(98.08)
O. sativa 12.70a
(0)		 8.89b
(29.97)		 6.99c
(44.93)		 5.44d
(57.13)		 0.14e
(98.92)		 0.19e
(98.48)
A. conyzoides 5.13a
(0)		 3.04b
(40.78)		 0.50c
(90.36)		 0.07c
(98.63)		 0.03c
(99.42)		 0.05c
(99.08)
Dry weight (g pot−1) C. iria 6.29a
(0)		 4.95b
(21.12)		 3.98c
(36.53)		 2.28d
(63.80)		 0.06e
(98.97)		 0.10e
(98.43)
O. sativa 3.36a
(0)		 2.25b
(32.27)		 1.75bc
(47.49)		 1.24c
(62.76)		 0.03d
(99.05)		 0.04d
(98.77)
Open in a new tab

Data are expressed as means. Means with same letters in the row are not significantly different at p < 0.05. Values inside the parenthesis are inhibition percentages relative to the control.

Figure 3.

Figure 3

Open in a new tab

Effect of P. hysterophorus extract on A. conyzoides at 24 h after spray.

Figure 4.

Figure 4

Open in a new tab

Effect of P. hysterophorus extract at 80 g L−1 concentration on A. conyzoides at 24 h after spray compared with glufosinate-ammonium and glyphosate herbicides.

The plant height of A. conyzoides, C. iria and O. sativa was inhibited by 54.32%, 37.71% and 26.08%, respectively, when treated with P. hysterophorus extract at 40 g L−1. The complete inhibition of plant height of A. conyzoides was observed on those pots where 80 g L−1 of P. hysterophorus extract was sprayed, whereas 42.97% and 41.02% plant height inhibitions were observed for C. iria and O. sativa, respectively, at the same concentration. In general, there was a reduction in the fresh and dry weights of treated weeds in pots receiving P. hysterophorus extract. The differences in inhibitory activity among the three doses, viz. 20, 40 and 80 g L−1 of P. hysterophorus, on the fresh and dry weight of weeds, were significant. The dry weights of A. conyzoides, C. iria and O. sativa were inhibited by 98.63%, 63.80% and 62.76%, respectively, when P. hysterophorus extract was sprayed at 80 g L−1. This result exhibited that there is no significant difference between the foliar spray of P. hysterophorus at 80 g L−1 and positive control when applied on A. conyzoides, whereas C. iria and O. sativa were less sensitive to P. hysterophorus extract compared to the positive control.

3. Discussion

The allelopathic potential of P. hysterophorus on C. iria was studied in this study. The methanol extract of P. hysterophorus influenced C. iria seedling growth and germination percentages. The extracts had a dose-dependent effect on the germination percentage, coleoptile and radicle growth of the tested weed. Plant extracts are hypothesized to impede the germination process due to the osmotic effects on the fate of imbibition, which in turn reduce the commencement of germination and, in particular, cell elongation [22]. C. iria seed germination and seedling growth were completely suppressed by 50 g L−1 of P. hysterophorus extract. Batish et al. [23], Singh et al. [24] and Mersie and Singh [25] all observed that P. hysterophorus extract or its residues inhibited the growth and development of several field crops. Furthermore, when compared to germination percentage and the coleoptile length, the radicle length of the test species was more sensitive to extracts. As radicles are the first organ to be exposed to phytochemicals and have more permeable tissue than other organs [21,26,27], and/or low mitotic division in the root apical meristem [28], radicle growth is more sensitive to allelopathic plant extract. Furthermore, phytochemicals can inhibit the development of radicle tissues and endoderm by affecting genes involved in cellular characterization [29].

The glasshouse experiment gave more support for the high allelopathic potential of P. hysterophorus extract seen in the lab. The results revealed that extracts of P. hysterophorus at 50 and 100 g L−1 greatly showed the growth of 21-day-old C. iria. At the mature stage of C. iria, the maximum concentration (100 g L−1) of P. hysterophorus extract resulted in the greatest decrease. Many researchers from all around the world have demonstrated dose-dependent inhibitory activity [21,27,30,31]. Only untreated C. iria continued flowering 21 days after spray, indicating that allelochemicals stress may have suppressed the other treated plants. Aslam et al. [32] investigated the phytotoxic effect of Calatropis procera, Peganum harmala and Tamarix aphylla on mustard and wheat shoot and root length, finding that wheat was susceptible to all three extracts at all dosages.

As the concentration of P. hysterophorus extract was raised, reduced dry weights and leaf area were reduced. The reduction in plant height and leaf area was discovered to be associated with a reduction in total dry weight. Several studies show that different extracts reduce the leaf area of plant species [33,34]. The dry weight of soybeans was greatly changed by the castor beans leaf aqueous extract, according to Da Silva et al. [35].

Foliar spray of P. hysterophorus extract reduced the Fv/Fm, photosynthesis rate, stomatal conductance and transpiration of C. iria. The value of Fv/Fm was significantly decreased by the foliar spray of P. hysterophorus extract. Thylakoid membrane damage and inhibition of energy transfer from antenna molecules to reaction centers can lead to photo-inhibition damage and lower Fv/Fm [36]. Allelochemicals can significantly affect the performance of thylakoid electron transport during light reactions, stomatal control of carbon dioxide and the carbon cycle in dark reactions [37].

The reduction in leaf photosynthesis was attributed to a decrease in photosynthetic metabolites, carboxylation efficiency, impairment of chloroplast activity, increase in enzyme activities [38] and production of ROS caused impediment of photosynthetic mechanism [39]. Stomatal control is a vital property through which the plants limit water loss and gas exchange. These features are influenced by several determinants, including stress [40], and indicate the lower photosynthetic efficiency of plants. The carboxylation and water-use efficiency was also reduced in the plants subjected to P. hysterophorus extract.

The reduction in the transpiration rate is certainly associated with stomatal conductance. This study reveals that P. hysterophorus extract played a notable role in decreasing the transpiration rate for test plants at different exposure times. The concentration of phenolic acids resulted in a decline in overall water utilization and transpiration of cucumber seedlings in a linear manner [41]. The solution of cinnamic acid and benzoic acids decreased the stomatal conductance and transpiration of cucumber seedlings [42].

It was also observed in the present study that the application of plant extracts in laboratory conditions caused more inhibition compared to glasshouse as a foliar spray. Al-Humaid and El-Mergawi [43] also reported the same. The inhibition by foliar spray may occur through various mechanisms, such as a decreased rate of ion absorption, hormone and enzyme activity, cell membrane permeability and certain physiological processes, e.g., photosynthesis, respiration and protein formation [44]. Thus, the seedling and mature stage of target plants may vary in their sensitivities to plant extracts.

In this research, the methanol extract of P. hysterophorus was also investigated for the identification of active phytochemical constituents using LC-MS QTOF and also for their allelopathic potentiality on C. iria. Methanol was reported to be an efficient extraction solvent of lower molecular weight polyphenols [45] and a highly efficient solvent for extracting phenolic compounds compared to ethanol [46]. The results indicated the presence of phenolic compounds (flavonoids, phenols, coumarins, carboxylic acids, benzoic acids), terpenoids, alkaloids, amino acids, fatty acids, piperazines, benzofuran, indole, amines, azoles, sulfonic acid and other unknown compounds in P. hysterophorus. Among the proposed compounds, some of them have been reported as toxins in different studies. The hydroxyl group of phenolic compounds is directly attached to an aromatic ring. Phenolic allelochemicals are major allelochemicals that inhibited photosynthesis in plants [42] and modified the permeability of root cell membranes, decreased energy metabolism and inhibited cell division and root branching [47]. Research studies revealed that phenolic compounds from Chenopodium murale L. affect the growth and macromolecule content in chickpeas and peas [48].

Umbelliferone, a coumarin derivative, was found in P. hysterophorus, and, as Pan et al. [49] reported, it shows strong inhibition on lettuce and two field weeds, Setaria viridis and Amaranthus retroflexus. Phthalic anhydride, another compound of P. hysterophorus, formed Phthalic acid in the presence of water, which inhibited the fruit germination of Lactuca sativa L. [50]. Three terpenoids (Parthenin, Dehydroleucodine, Rishitin) and one alkaloid (9-hydroxyellipticine) were also found in P. hysterophorus extract. Many past and recent research reports revealed that terpenoids and alkaloids are also known for their allelopathic effect. Parthenin reduced the germination and growth of Avena fatua L. and Bidens pilosa L. and a dose–response relationship was observed by Batish et al. [51]. Valine is an amino acid found in P. hysterophorus, which significantly inhibited peach seedling growth [52]. Some fatty acids, amines and sulfonic acids were also observed in the LC-MS analysis of P. hysterophorus.

The efficacy of P. hysterophorus extract was increased with an increasing application rate. Similarly, the extract phytotoxicity level of Zingiber officinale increased with increasing concentration [53]. At 80 g L−1, P. hysterophorus extract produced similar efficacy to glyphosate and glufosinate on A. conyzoides. Many researchers found the efficacy of bioherbicide for weed control. For instance, Aglaia odorata leaf extract has bioherbicide properties that can hinder the growth and development of weeds [54].

Furthermore, the results also indicated that the inhibition magnitude of applied methanol extract of P. hysterophorus was species-dependent. The selectivity of an herbicide depends on application rate, the growth stage and morphological characteristics of the target plants and other environmental factors, which might affect the absorption, translocation and metabolism of the herbicide [55].

4. Materials and Methods

Graphical scheme of experimental design was presented in Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Figure 5

Open in a new tab

Graphical scheme of study design.

4.1. Test Plants

Cyperus iria L. (Rice flatsedge) (voucher specimen#UPMWS019), Ageratum conyzoides L. (Billygoat-weed) (voucher specimen#UPMWS001), Oryza sativa f. spontanea Roshev (Weedy rice) (voucher specimen#UPMWS025) were collected from the rice field of Sekinchan, Kuala Selangor, Selangor, Malaysia.

4.2. Extraction Procedure

The extraction was carried out conducted at Universiti Putra Malaysia’s Weed Science Laboratory, which is a part of the Department of Crop Science. Methanol extracts were prepared using the method reported by Aslani et al. [56]. Parthenium hysterophorus (voucher specimen#UPMWS0031) was obtained at its matured stage in Ladang Infoternak, Sungai Siput, Perak, Malaysia. The plants were properly washed under running tap water to remove dust particles and other debris, and then air-dried for 3 weeks in open trays under shaded conditions at room temperature (25 ± 1 °C). In a Willey mill, the plants were then chopped and crashed. An amount of 100 g powder of P. hysterophorus was soaked in a conical flask with 1000 mL methanol: distilled water (80:20, v/v%) and the flask was wrapped in paraffin. An Orbital shaker was used to shake the flask for 48 h at room temperature (25 ± 1 °C). The solution was filtered through four layers of cheesecloth before being centrifuged at 3000 rpm for 1 hour. Then, a 0.2 mm Nalgene filter was used (Becton Dickinson Labware, Lincoln Park, NJ) to re-filter the solution. A rotary evaporator was used at 40 °C to evaporate the methanol from the extract. The mean extraction yield was 18.56 g from 100 g powdered sample of P. hysterophorus.

Extraction percentage = [Extract weight (g)/powder weight (g)] × 100 (1)

The crude sample (20 mg) was diluted into 100% HPLC GRADE methanol (20 mL) and filtered with 0.2-μm, 15-mm syringe filters (Phenex, Non-sterile, Luer/Slip, LT Resources, Malaysia) for LC-QTOF-MS/MS analysis.

4.3. Laboratory Bioassay

From January to March 2019, the experiment was carried out in a growth chamber at the Seed Technology Laboratory, Department of Crop Science, Universiti Putra Malaysia (3°02′ N, 101°42′ E, 31 m elevation). Seeds were gathered that were healthy and uniform, then soaked for 24 h in 0.2 percent potassium nitrate (KNO3), rinsed with distilled water and incubated at room (24–26 °C) temperature until the radicle emerged for about 1 mm. Twenty uniform pre-germinated C. iria seeds were inserted in disposable plastic Petri dishes with a 9.0-cm-diameter and two sheets of Whatman No. 1 filter paper. After that, the filter paper on the Petri dishes was wetted and soaked with 10 mL of P. hysterophorus methanol extracts at six different concentrations: 0 (distilled water only), 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50 and 100 g L−1. The treatment was replicated 5 times in a completely randomized design. The Petri dishes were then incubated under fluorescent light (8500 lux) in a growth chamber at 30/20 °C (day/night) with a 12 h/12 h (day/night cycle). The relative humidity ranged from 30% to 50%. To facilitate gas exchange and avoid anaerobic conditions, the lids of the Petri dishes were not sealed.

All seedlings germination %, coleoptile and radicle length were assessed after 7 days. Image J software [57] was used to measure the length of the coleoptile and radicle, and the inhibitory effect was calculated using the equation below [56]:

I = 100 (C−A)/C (2)

where “I” represents the percent inhibition, “C” represents the mean length of coleoptile and radicle of the control and “A” is the mean length of coleoptile and radicle of the methanol extracts treated seeds.

4.4. Glasshouse Experiment

The glasshouse experiment took place at Universiti Putra Malaysia’s Faculty of Agriculture in Ladang 15 from April to June 2020. The effects of foliar application of P. hysterophorus methanol extracts on the growth and development of C. iria were investigated. Pre-germinated seeds were placed in each pot (15 cm diameter × 12 cm height) and covered with 1 cm soil, then moistened with water. Only five healthy seedlings of equal size were maintained in each pot after germination. With four replications, the pots were arranged in a randomized complete block design. Methanol extracts of P. hysterophorus were sprayed on examined plants (2–3 leaf stage) at doses of 6.25, 12.5, 25, 50 and 100 g L−1 concentrations on tested plants (2–3 leaf stage) using a 1 L multipurpose sprayer (Deluxe pressure sprayer). Water was used to make spray volume (100 mL m−2) [22]. At two-day intervals or when the soil became dry, plants in the control treatment were sprayed with 200 mL water without extract. Three weeks after spray, plant height, leaf area, dry weight, Fv/Fm, photosynthesis rate, transpiration and stomatal conductance were determined. Plant height was measured using 1 m ruler from the ground level in the pot. The leaf area was determined using leaf area meter (LI-3000, Li-COR, USA) and expressed as cm2 plant−1. Samples were dried in an oven at 60 °C for 72 h; then, dry weights were determined using a digital balance. The efficiency of photosystem II in each leaf was measured with a Multi-Function Plant Efficiency Analyser (Hansatech Instruments, King’s Lynn, United Kingdom). The Fv parameter (variable fluorescence) was calculated as the difference between the Fm (maximum fluorescence) and Fo (minimum fluorescence). The rate of photosynthesis, transpiration and stomatal conductance were measured from randomly selected four leaves from each test weed species using LICOR (LI-6400XT) portable photosynthesis system, (LI-COR-Inc Lincoln, Nebraska, USA) between 9:00 am to 11:00 am under bright daylight. The measurements were taken on the abaxial surface at CO2 flow rate of 400 μmol m−2 s−1 and the saturating photosynthetic photon flux density (PPFD) was 1000 mmol m−2 s−1 [58].

Another experiment was conducted to compare the phytotoxicity level of P. hysterophorus with synthetic herbicides. Therefore, the seeds of A. conyzoides, C. iria and O. sativa were seeded in the pots (15 cm diameter) and moistened with tap water. After germination, five equal-sized healthy seedlings were kept in each pot. The pots were arranged in a randomized complete block design with four replications. Methanol extracts of P. hysterophorus were sprayed with 20, 40 and 80 g L−1 concentration on tested plants (4–6 leaf stage for broadleaf and 2–3 for grasses and sedges). Plants in the negative control treatment were sprayed with 200 mL water without extract at 2 day intervals or when the soil became dry. Plants in the positive control treatment were sprayed with glyphosate 41% a.i. (Roundup®) and glufosinate-ammonium 13.5% a.i. (Basta®) without extract (2 L ha−1/4.4 mL L−1) at the same time when P. hysterophorus was sprayed.

Injury symptoms, plant height (cm) and fresh and dry weights (g pot−1) were measured 3 weeks after spray. Injury symptoms were visually evaluated on test weeds using the European Weed Control and Crop Injury Evaluation scale (Table 6).

Table 6.

Injury rating scale [59].

Scale Injury (%) Effects on Weeds
1 0 No effect (all foliage green and alive)
2 1–10 Very light symptoms
3 11–30 Light symptoms
4 31–49 Symptoms not reflected in yield
5 50 Medium
6 51–70 Fairly heavy damage
7 71–90 Heavy damage
8 91–99 Very heavy damage
9 100 Complete kill (dead)
Open in a new tab

4.5. LC-QTOF-MS/MS Analysis

Agilent 1290 Infinity LC system coupled to Agilent 6520 Accurate-Mass Q-TOF mass spectrometer with dual ESI source was used for analyzing chemical constituents from the methanol extract of P. hysterophorus. The types of the column, solvent systems and MS parameters were optimized for better analysis of the chemical profiling. ACQUITY UPLC BEH C18 column (150 mm × 2.1 mm × 3.5 μm) was selected and held at 50 °C with a constant flow rate of 0.4 mL min−1 for providing fast and efficient separations at lower column pressures [60] and total LC run time was 26 min. Sample elution was performed in a gradient manner using a mobile phase comprised of water (LC-MS Grade) containing 0.1% Formic acid (solvent A) and acetonitrile (LC-MS Grade) containing 0.1% Formic acid (solvent B). Nebulizer pressure was 40 psi, drying gas flow and temperature was set at 10 L min−1 and 325 °C, respectively, to perform the MS/MS experiments. In order to obtain the most sensitive ionization effect for analytes, positive and negative ion modes were investigated at different collision energy (CE) to optimize the signals and obtain maximal structure information from the ions for the mass range of 100–3200 m/z. Data processing was performed by Mass Hunter Qualitative Analysis software and peak identification was carried out based on comparison with literature values and online database [61].

4.6. Statistical Analysis

For all trials, a one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) was used to see if there were any significant differences between the treatments and the control. The Tukey test with a 0.05 probability level was used to pool the differences between the treatment means. The analysis was carried out using SAS (Statistical Analysis System) software (version 9.4).

5. Conclusions

The current study reveals that the P. hysterophorus extract was capable of inhibiting the germination and growth of weeds and also confirmed the herbicidal potential compared with synthetic herbicides. The presence of 82 known compounds was also confirmed in the extract of P. hysterophorus and some of them have been reported as toxins in different studies. The great efficacy and selectivity of this weed could be characterized as a natural product to control weeds. The use of plant-based bioherbicide for weed management can increase crop yields as well as provide an alternative method of sustainable weed management. The most phytotoxic compounds from P. hysterophorus can be synthesize to develop new natural herbicides with novel modes of action. Metabolomics identification and the isolation of the major potential allelopathins, coupled with formulation techniques via multiple surfactants/nano-formulation, are also required to enhance the penetration and absorption of active compounds.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS), Malaysia (FRGS/1/2013/STWN03/UPM/01/1 and FRGS/1/2017/WAB01/UPM/01/2), Putra Grant UPM (GP-IPB/2017/9523400) and also sincerely acknowledge the University Putra Malaysia for providing facilities.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, A.S.J. and N.B.A.; methodology, A.S.J., N.B.A. and A.K.M.M.I.; validation, A.S.J., M.K.U. and M.M.; formal analysis, M.M., M.H. and M.S.A.-H.; investigation, M.M. and M.H.; resources, A.S.J.; data curation, A.K.M.M.I., M.M. and M.H.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M. and M.H.; writing—review and editing, A.K.M.M.I., A.S.J. and M.S.A.-H.; visualization, M.K.U., M.M. and M.H.; supervision, A.S.J., M.K.U., N.B.A., A.K.M.M.I. and M.S.A.-H.; project administration, A.S.J.; funding acquisition, A.S.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received funding from the Fundamental Research Grant Scheme (FRGS), Malaysia (FRGS/1/2013/STWN03/UPM/01/1 and FRGS/1/2017/WAB01/UPM/01/2), Putra Grant UPM (GP-IPB/2017/9523400).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Footnotes

Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

  • 1.Holm L.G., Plucknett D.L., Pancho J.V., Herberger J.P. The World’s Worst Weeds: Distribution and Biology. The University Press of Hawaii; Malabar, FL, USA: 1991. p. 609. [Google Scholar]
  • 2.Rao A., Johnson D., Sivaprasad B., Ladha J., Mortimer A. Weed Management in Direct-Seeded Rice. Adv. Agron. 2007;93:153–255. doi: 10.1016/s0065-2113(06)93004-1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 3.Chauhan B.S., Johnson D. Ecological studies on Cyperus difformis, Cyperus iria and Fimbristylis miliacea: Three troublesome annual sedge weeds of rice. Ann. Appl. Biol. 2009;155:103–112. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2009.00325.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 4.Chauhan B.S., Johnson D.E. Responses of Rice Flatsedge (Cyperus iria) and Barnyardgrass (Echinochloa crus-galli) to Rice Interference. Weed Sci. 2010;58:204–208. doi: 10.1614/WS-D-09-00050.1. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 5.Dhammu H.S., Sandhu K.S. Critical period of Cyperus iria L. competition in transplanted rice; Proceedings of the 13th Australian Weeds Con-ference: Weeds “Threats now and forever?”; Perth, Western Australia. 8–13 September 2002. [Google Scholar]
  • 6.Shrestha A. Weed science as a new discipline and its status in some South Asian universities and colleges: Examples from Bangladesh, Bhutan, Nepal and Pakistan. CAB Rev. 2021;16:1–14. doi: 10.1079/PAVSNNR202116017. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 7.Heap I. Integrated Pest Management. Springer Science and Business Media LLC; Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany: 2014. Herbicide Resistant Weeds; pp. 281–301. [Google Scholar]
  • 8.Hussain M.I., Reigosa M.J. Higher peroxidase activity, leaf nutrient contents and carbon isotope composition changes in Arabidopsis thaliana are related to rutin stress. J. Plant Physiol. 2014;171:1325–1333. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2014.05.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 9.Islam A.K.M.M., Yeasmin S., Qasem J.R.S., Juraimi A.S., Anwar P. Allelopathy of Medicinal Plants: Current Status and Future Prospects in Weed Management. Agric. Sci. 2018;9:1569–1588. doi: 10.4236/as.2018.912110. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 10.Motmainna M., Juraimi A.S., Uddin M.K., Asib N.B., Islam A.K.M.M., Hasan M. Assessment of allelopathic compounds to develop new natural herbicides: A review. Allelopathy J. 2021;52:19–37. doi: 10.26651/allelo.j/2021-52-1-1305. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 11.Ridenour W.M., Callaway R.M. The relative importance of allelopathy in interference: The effects of an invasive weed on a native bunchgrass. Oecologia. 2001;126:444–450. doi: 10.1007/s004420000533. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 12.Kato-Noguchi H. Involvement of Allelopathy in the Invasive Potential of Tithonia diversifolia. Plants. 2020;9:766. doi: 10.3390/plants9060766. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 13.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. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2013.11.010. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 14.Motmainna M., Juraimi A.S.B., Uddin K., Asib N.B., Islam A.M., Hasan M. Allelopathic potential of Malaysian invasive weed species to control weedy rice (Oryza sativa f. spontanea Roshev) Allelopath. J. 2021;53:53–68. doi: 10.26651/allelo.j/2021-53-1-1327. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 15.Qu T., Du X., Peng Y., Guo W., Zhao C., Losapio G. Invasive species allelopathy decreases plant growth and soil microbial activity. PLoS ONE. 2021;16:e0246685. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0246685. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 16.Gnanavel I., Natarajan S.K. Parthenium hysterophorus L.: A major threat to natural and agro eco-systems in India. Int. J. Agric. Environ. Biotech. 2013;6:261–269. [Google Scholar]
  • 17.Masum S.M., Hasanuzzaman M., Ali M.H. Threats of Parthenium hysterophorus on agro-ecosystems and its management: A review. Int. J. Agric. Crop Sci. 2013;6:684. [Google Scholar]
  • 18.Mekonnen G. Threats and Management Options of Parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) in Ethiopia. Agric. Res. Technol. Open Access J. 2017;10:1–7. doi: 10.19080/ARTOAJ.2017.10.555798. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 19.Motmainna M., Juraimi A.S., Uddin M.K., Asib N.B., Islam A.K.M.M., Hasan M. Bioherbicidal Properties of Parthenium hysterophorus, Cleome rutidosperma and Borreria alata Extracts on Selected Crop and Weed Species. Agronomy. 2021;11:643. doi: 10.3390/agronomy11040643. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 20.Qasem J.R. Differences in the allelopathy results from field observations to laboratory and glasshouse experiments. Allelopath. J. 2010;26:45–58. [Google Scholar]
  • 21.Islam A.H., Yeasmin S., Kader R.A. Bioassay screening of sawdust obtained from selected tropical tree species for allelopathic properties and their field performance against paddy weeds. Fundam. Appl. Agric. 2019;4:906–915. doi: 10.5455/faa.54326. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 22.El-Mergawi R.A., Al-Humaid A.I. Searching for natural herbicides in methanol extracts of eight plant species. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2019;43:22. doi: 10.1186/s42269-019-0063-4. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 23.Batish D. Allelopathic effects of parthenin against two weedy species, Avena fatua and Bidens pilosa. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2002;47:149–155. doi: 10.1016/S0098-8472(01)00122-8. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 24.Singh H.P., Batish D.R., Pandher J.K., Kohli R. Phytotoxic effects of Parthenium hysterophorus residues on three Brassica species. Weed Biol. Manag. 2005;5:105–109. doi: 10.1111/j.1445-6664.2005.00172.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 25.Mersie W., Singh M. Allelopathic effect of parthenium (Parthenium hysterophorus L.) extract and residue on some agronomic crops and weeds. J. Chem. Ecol. 1987;13:1739–1747. doi: 10.1007/BF00980214. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 26.Nishida N., Tamotsu S., Nagata N., Saito C., Sakai A. Allelopathic Effects of Volatile Monoterpenoids Produced by Salvia leucophylla: Inhibition of Cell Proliferation and DNA Synthesis in the Root Apical Meristem of Brassica campestris Seedlings. J. Chem. Ecol. 2005;31:1187–1203. doi: 10.1007/s10886-005-4256-y. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 27.Islam A.M., Hasan M., Musha M.H., Uddin K., Juraimi A.S., Anwar P. Exploring 55 tropical medicinal plant species available in Bangladesh for their possible allelopathic potentiality. Ann. Agric. Sci. 2018;63:99–107. doi: 10.1016/j.aoas.2018.05.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 28.Levizou E., Karageorgou P., Psaras G.K., Manetas Y. Inhibitory effects of water soluble leaf leachates from Dittrichia viscosa on lettuce root growth, statocyte development and graviperception. Flora-Morphol. Distrib. Funct. Ecol. Plants. 2002;197:152–157. doi: 10.1078/0367-2530-00025. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 29.Franco D.M., Silva E.M., Saldanha L.L., Adachi S.A., Schley T.R., Rodrigues T.M., Dokkedal A.L., Nogueira F.T.S., De Almeida L.F.R. Flavonoids modify root growth and modulate expression of SHORT-ROOT and HD-ZIP III. J. Plant Physiol. 2015;188:89–95. doi: 10.1016/j.jplph.2015.09.009. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 30.Mousavi S.S., Karami A., Haghighi T.M., Alizadeh S., Maggi F. Phytotoxic Potential and Phenolic Profile of Extracts from Scrophularia striata. Plants. 2021;10:135. doi: 10.3390/plants10010135. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 31.Abd-Elgawad A.M., El Gendy A.E.-N.G., Assaeed A.M., Al-Rowaily S.L., Alharthi A.S., Mohamed T.A., Nassar M.I., Dewir Y.H., ElShamy A.I. Phytotoxic Effects of Plant Essential Oils: A Systematic Review and Structure-Activity Relationship Based on Chemometric Analyses. Plants. 2020;10:36. doi: 10.3390/plants10010036. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 32.Alam A., Juraimi A.S., Rafii M.Y., Hamid A.A., Aslani F., Hakim M.A. Salinity-induced changes in the morphology and major mineral nutrient composition of purslane (Portulaca oleracea L.) accessions. Biol. Res. 2016;49:1–19. doi: 10.1186/s40659-016-0084-5. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar] [Retracted]
  • 33.Jabran K., Mahajan G., Sardana V., Chauhan B.S. Allelopathy for weed control in agricultural systems. Crop. Prot. 2015;72:57–65. doi: 10.1016/j.cropro.2015.03.004. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 34.Algandaby M.M., El-Darier S.M. Management of the noxious weed; Medicago polymorpha L. via allelopathy of some medicinal plants from Taif region, Saudi Arabia. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2018;25:1339–1347. doi: 10.1016/j.sjbs.2016.02.013. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 35.Renathielly F.D.S., Rodrigo T.B., Bruno M.Z., Maurício A.P., Samuel N.M.D.S., Reginaldo F.S., Da Silva R.F., Bressan R.T., Zilli B.M., Pilatti M.A., et al. Allelopathic effect of aqueous extract of fresh leaf castor beans (Ricinus communis L.) applied to the beginning stage of soy (Glycine max L.) and safflower (Carthamus tinctorius L.) Afr. J. Biotechnol. 2016;15:2787–2793. doi: 10.5897/AJB2016.15707. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 36.Dalal V.K., Tripathy B.C. Water-stress induced downsizing of light-harvesting antenna complex protects developing rice seedlings from photo-oxidative damage. Sci. Rep. 2018;8:1–16. doi: 10.1038/s41598-017-14419-4. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 37.Zhou Y., Yu J. Allelopathy. Springer Science and Business Media LLC; Berlin, Germany: 2006. Allelochemicals and photosynthesis; pp. 127–139. [Google Scholar]
  • 38.Lawlor D.W. Limitation to Photosynthesis in Water-stressed Leaves: Stomata vs. Metabolism and the Role of ATP. Ann. Bot. 2002;89:871–885. doi: 10.1093/aob/mcf110. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 39.Foyer C.H., Shigeoka S. Understanding Oxidative Stress and Antioxidant Functions to Enhance Photosynthesis. Plant Physiol. 2011;155:93–100. doi: 10.1104/pp.110.166181. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 40.Casson S., Gray J.E. Influence of environmental factors on stomatal development. New Phytol. 2008;178:9–23. doi: 10.1111/j.1469-8137.2007.02351.x. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 41.Blum U., Gerig T.M. Relationships between Phenolic Acid Concentrations, Transpiration, Water Utilization, Leaf Area Expansion, and Uptake of Phenolic Acids: Nutrient Culture Studies. J. Chem. Ecol. 2005;31:1907–1932. doi: 10.1007/s10886-005-5934-5. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 42.Li Z.-H., Wang Q., Ruan X., Pan C.-D., Jiang D.-A. Phenolics and Plant Allelopathy. Molecules. 2010;15:8933–8952. doi: 10.3390/molecules15128933. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 43.Al-Humaid A., El-Mergawi R.A. Herbicidal activities of seven native plants on the germination and growth of Phalaris minor, Echinochloa crus-galli, Portulaca oleracea and Lactuca sativa. J. Agric. Sci. Technol. 2014;4:843–852. [Google Scholar]
  • 44.Scognamiglio M., D’Abrosca B., Esposito A., Pacifico S., Monaco P., Fiorentino A. Plant growth inhibitors: Allelopathic role or phytotoxic effects? Focus on Mediterranean biomes. Phytochem. Rev. 2013;12:803–830. doi: 10.1007/s11101-013-9281-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 45.Do Q.-D., Angkawijaya A.E., Tran-Nguyen P.L., Huynh L.H., Soetaredjo F.E., Ismadji S., Ju Y.-H. Effect of extraction solvent on total phenol content, total flavonoid content, and antioxidant activity of Limnophila aromatica. J. Food Drug Anal. 2014;22:296–302. doi: 10.1016/j.jfda.2013.11.001. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 46.Pérez M.B., Calderón N.L., Croci C.A. Radiation-induced enhancement of antioxidant activity in extracts of rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis L.) Food Chem. 2007;104:585–592. doi: 10.1016/j.foodchem.2006.12.009. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 47.Marchiosi R., Dos Santos W.D., Constantin R.P., De Lima R.B., Soares A.R., Finger-Teixeira A., Mota T.R., De Oliveira D.M., Foletto-Felipe M.D.P., Abrahão J., et al. Biosynthesis and metabolic actions of simple phenolic acids in plants. Phytochem. Rev. 2020;19:865–906. doi: 10.1007/s11101-020-09689-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 48.Batish D.R., Lavanya K., Singh H.P., Kohli R.K. Phenolic allelochemicals released by Chenopodium murale affect the growth, nodulation and macromolecule content in chickpea and pea. Plant Growth Regul. 2007;51:119–128. doi: 10.1007/s10725-006-9153-z. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 49.Pan L., Li X.-Z., Yan Z.-Q., Guo H.-R., Qin B. Phytotoxicity of umbelliferone and its analogs: Structure–activity relationships and action mechanisms. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2015;97:272–277. doi: 10.1016/j.plaphy.2015.10.020. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 50.Ma T., Zhou W., Chen L., Wu L., Christie P., Liu W. Toxicity of phthalate esters to lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and the soil microbial community under different soil conditions. PLoS ONE. 2018;13:e0208111. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0208111. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 51.Batish D.R., Singh H.P., Pandher J.K., Arora V., Kohli R. Phytotoxic effect of Parthenium residues on the selected soil properties and growth of chickpea and radish. Weed Biol. Manag. 2002;2:73–78. doi: 10.1046/j.1445-6664.2002.00050.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 52.Li S., Peng F., Xiao Y., Gong Q., Bao Z., Li Y., Wu X. Mechanisms of High Concentration Valine-Mediated Inhibition of Peach Tree Shoot Growth. Front. Plant Sci. 2020;11:603067. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2020.603067. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 53.Han C.-M., Pan K.-W., Wu N., Wang J.-C., Li W. Allelopathic effect of ginger on seed germination and seedling growth of soybean and chive. Sci. Hortic. 2008;116:330–336. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2008.01.005. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 54.Kato-Noguchi H., Suzuki M., Noguchi K., Ohno O., Suenaga K., Laosinwattana C. A Potent Phytotoxic Substance in Aglaia odorata Lour. Chem. Biodivers. 2016;13:549–554. doi: 10.1002/cbdv.201500175. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 55.Blanco F.M.G., Ramos Y.G., Scarso M.F., Jorge M.F.S.A.L.A.D.C. Determining the Selectivity of Herbicides and Assessing Their Effect on Plant Roots-A Case Study with Indaziflam and Glyphosate Herbicides. IntechOpen; London, UK: 2015. pp. 275–297. [Google Scholar]
  • 56.Aslani F., Juraimi A.S., Ahmad-Hamdani M.S., Omar D., Alam A., Hashemi F.S.G., Hakim A., Uddin M.K. Allelopathic effect of methanol extracts from Tinospora tuberculata on selected crops and rice weeds. Acta Agric. Scand. Sect. B-Plant Soil Sci. 2014;64:165–177. doi: 10.1080/09064710.2014.898784. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 57.Mirmostafaee S., Azizi M., Fujii Y. Study of Allelopathic Interaction of Essential Oils from Medicinal and Aromatic Plants on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Lettuce. Agronomy. 2020;10:163. doi: 10.3390/agronomy10020163. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 58.Wani A., Hayat S., Ahmad A., Tahir I. Efficacy of brassinosteroid analogues in the mitigation of toxic effects of salt stress in Brassica juncea plants. J. Environ. Biol. 2017;38:27–36. doi: 10.22438/jeb/38/1/MS-196. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  • 59.Burrill L.C., Cárdenas J., Locatelli E. Field Manual for Weed Control Research. International Plant Protetion Center, Oregon State University; Corvallis, OR, USA: 1976. [Google Scholar]
  • 60.Guiochon G., Gritti F. Shell particles, trials, tribulations and triumphs. J. Chromatogr. A. 2011;1218:1915–1938. doi: 10.1016/j.chroma.2011.01.080. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  • 61.Abu Bakar F.I., Abu Bakar M.F., Abdullah N., Endrini S., Fatmawati S. Optimization of Extraction Conditions of Phyto-chemical Compounds and Anti-Gout Activity of Euphorbia hirta L. (Ara Tanah) Using Response Surface Methodology and Liquid Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (LC-MS) Analysis. Evid. Based Complementary Altern. Med. 2020;2020 doi: 10.1155/2020/4501261. [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Articles from Plants are provided here courtesy of Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)

RESOURCES