Next Article in Journal
Closing the Loop in Opuntia Cultivation: Opportunities and Challenges in Residue Valorization
Previous Article in Journal
Prediction of Winter Wheat Cultivar Performance Using Mixed Models and Environmental Mean Regression from Multi-Environment Trials for Cultivar Recommendation to Reduce Yield Gap in Poland
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Agronomy
Volume 15
Issue 10
10.3390/agronomy15102310
agronomy-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Analysis of Morphological Traits, Essential Oil Yield, and Secondary Metabolites in Seven Lavandins and Lavenders Grown in Two Pedoclimatic Areas in Tuscany (Italy)

by
Michele Moretta
1,†,
Lorenzo Brilli
2,†,
Luisa Leolini
1,*,
Riccardo Rossi
1 and
Enrico Palchetti
1
1
Department of Agriculture, Food, Environment and Forestry, University of Florence, Piazzale delle Cascine 18, 50144 Firenze, Italy
2
National Research Council, Institute of BioEconomy (CNR-IBE), Via Giovanni Caproni, 8, 50145 Firenze, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
†
These authors contributed equally to this work.
Agronomy 2025, 15(10), 2310; https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15102310
Submission received: 12 September 2025 / Revised: 24 September 2025 / Accepted: 28 September 2025 / Published: 30 September 2025
(This article belongs to the Section Plant-Crop Biology and Biochemistry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

Plants of the genus Lavandula are widely studied for their pharmaceutical and food relevance. The composition of lavender essential oil is primarily genotype-dependent but also influenced by environment, developmental stage, and morphology. This study assessed biomass, morphology, oil yield, and chemical composition of seven cultivars (L. angustifolia Boston Blue, L. angustifolia Dwarf Blue, L. Abrialis, L. Super A, L. Super Z, L. Maime, and L. sumiens) cultivated in Tuscany (Italy) over two growing seasons years (2019–2020 and 2020–2021) at two sites (IT and VR). Most morphological traits were significantly affected by cultivar, site, and year, with IT and lavandin cultivars outperforming VR and true lavender. Cultivar strongly influenced compound concentrations, confirming genetic control. True lavender oils showed distinctive profiles compared to ISO 3515:2002/Cor 1:2004 and the literature: lower linalool (~12.8% vs. 25–38%), higher linalyl acetate (~22.7% vs. 25–45%), negligible camphor (~0%), and very low 1,8-cineole (0.7%). Lavandin oils matched ISO 8902:2009 and the literature for major compounds (1,8-cineole 7%, camphor 8.9%, and linalool 23.4%), except for linalyl acetate (14.2%), below the standard range (20–38%). Overall, cultivar choice significantly shaped essential oil yield and chemical profiles, highlighting genetic and environmental interactions that are crucial for lavender breeding and industrial applications.

1. Introduction

The genus Lavandula, part of the family Lamiaceae, includes around 39 species of perennial flowering plants found across the Western Mediterranean, Atlantic islands, North Africa, and Southwest Asia [1,2]. These plants are mainly grown for ornamental purposes, essential oil (EO) extraction, and traditional medicine. They vary significantly in their appearance, scent, and EO makeup [3]. Lavandula angustifolia Mill., known as true lavender, is the most valued species due to its pleasant scent and high-quality EO. Lavandula × intermedia, or lavandin, is a hybrid of L. angustifolia and L. latifolia; it generally produces more EO, which is often rich in camphor, making it less suited for high-end perfume production. Other species like L. dentata, L. stoechas, and L. multifida are mainly ornamental because their EO quality is lower [4].
The lavender plant is usually a small- to medium-sized evergreen shrub characterized by green-gray, woolly leaves with a leathery texture and flowers that vary in color, mostly purple-violet, arranged in spikes approximately 3–8 cm long [5]. This species is very hardy and adaptable to different soil and climate conditions, although it prefers light, well-drained soils with a neutral (pH 6.4) to slightly alkaline (pH 8.2) range and is resistant to abiotic stresses [6,7,8]. In terms of its growth cycle, planting typically happens in spring (March–April). It is mainly propagated through vegetative cuttings to ensure uniformity and constantly high-quality EO, while seed propagation is uncommon due to variability and lower oil quality [9]. The usual planting density is about 0.3–0.4 m apart within rows and 1–1.2 m between rows, leading to roughly 20,000–25,000 plants per hectare. Most flowering occurs in the second year, with flowers harvested at full bloom (July–August), when the EO content and quality are at their peak.
Many species of the genus are extensively cultivated for medicinal purposes [3,10] and to produce EOs with applications in fragrance, cosmetics, aromatherapy, and the food industry [11]. Although accurate trade figures are elusive, it is currently estimated that between 500 and 1500 tons of lavender EO are produced annually from various Lavandula species and hybrids [3,6,11]. Although EO of lavender is globally produced, key productive areas are Spain, United Kingdom, France, and Bulgaria [12], with the latter becoming the leading EO producer with an annual yield of up to 100 tons cultivated over 3700 ha [3]. As reported by Persistence Market Research [13], the global lavender oil market has witnessed significant growth in the historical period 2019–2024, registering a mean annual growth rate of 4.80% and reaching US$ 120.6 million in 2025. In addition, the report indicated that the global market for lavender oil is estimated to reach an approximate valuation of US$ 287.3 Mn in the period 2025–2032.
According to the data from the Italian National Institute of Statistics (ISTAT), in 2021, the area cultivated with lavender and lavandins in Italy was approximately 2500 hectares (ha), of which L. angustifolia accounted for only 137 ha of marginal and abandoned lands [14], mainly concentrated in the region of Tuscany, Liguria, Piedmont, Abruzzo, and Lazio [15]. This cultivation is typically managed by smallholder farms (1–5 ha each) rather than big farms, often established on marginal lands unsuitable for intensive agriculture or intercropped with olive groves [16,17]. The lavender and lavandins products provide farmers with additional income through the sale of EOs and herbal products, as well as through agri-tourism activities, generating added value for the tourism [18,19,20,21].
Given the increasing importance of lavender cultivation from both agronomic and economic perspectives, recent studies have investigated the effects of environment [22], agronomic practices [23], genetic factors, and biotechnological approaches [24] on plant growth and development, and their related impact on the chemical composition of lavender EO. For instance, Hassiotis et al. [25] observed that the EO content of L. angustifolia cv. Etherio was positively influenced by temperature and flowering stage development but negatively affected by rainfall during flowering. Najar et al. [16], analyzing the influence of three different substrate compositions on L. angustifolia Mill., reported higher yields and better quality of EOs under a mixture of peat, compost, and demolition aggregates. Mavandi et al. [26], in a field study comparing different organic fertilizers, indicated that cow manure increased lavender EO yield by 70%, particularly oxygenated monoterpenes like 1,8-cineole, borneol, and camphor. Eldeghedy et al. [27], analyzing the chemical profiles of six Lavandula species grown in Egypt, French, and Australia, indicated that genetic factors mainly drive the composition of lavender EO. Similarly, Detar et al. [28], analyzing six L. angustifolia and two L. × intermedia (LI) cultivars during two harvest years, observed that the EO content was mostly dependent on the varieties rather than the growth year. Najar et al. [14], in a four-year study on organic L. angustifolia, confirmed that ontogenetic development has a significant influence on EO composition. Similarly, Pistelli et al. [29] reported ontogenetic effects in L. angustifolia and three hybrids (L. × intermedia cv. Reverchon), with cold sensitivity decreasing with age and EO yield slightly increasing in hybrids and slightly decreasing in lavender during the second year of the experiment. Concerning biotechnological research, Wainer et al. [30] compared different EO extraction methods for commercial-scale L. × intermedia production, finding that cellulase-assisted hydro-distillation outperforms simple hydro-distillation in yielding higher-quality oils; while Kirkinci et al. [31], investigating the impact of traditional and microwave-assisted hydrodistillation, reported that both the EO and the wastewater obtained by either method exhibit considerable bioactive potential, with the microwave-assisted approach potentially offering advantages.
The present work aims to evaluate biomass production, morphological traits, EO yield, and aromatic compounds of two lavender cultivars (Lavandula angustifolia Boston Blue and Lavandula angustifolia Dwarf Blue) and five Lavandula × intermedia (Abrialis, Super A, Super Z, Maime, and Sumiens) cultivated across two experimental sites in Tuscany (Italy) over two growing seasons (2019–2020 and 2020–2021) under contrasting pedoclimatic conditions, to identify high-yield, high-quality genotypes that can support farm diversification and strengthen regional value chains in the growing Tuscan and Italian aromatic and cosmetic markets.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Areas

The experiment was carried out at two distinct sites in Tuscany: (i) Fattoria Vecchia Rocca (VR; 43°30′44″ N, 11°07′12″ E) and (ii) Istituto Tecnico Agrario di Firenze (IT; 43°47′07″ N, 11°13′04″ E) (Figure 1).
The soil texture differed significantly between these sites. Fattoria Vecchia Rocca (VR) reported a more balanced composition with 19% clay and 26% silt, whereas the soil at Istituto Tecnico Agrario di Firenze (IT) was notably sandier, comprising 74.9% sand, with lower proportions of clay (8.2%) and silt (16.8%) (Table S1). Both sites shared a neutral pH of 8.0, but Fattoria VR exhibited higher levels of active limestone (7.1%) and electrical conductivity (1.7 mS/cm) compared to IT (4.8% limestone and 1.0 mS/cm conductivity). Regarding cation exchange capacity (CSC), VR showed a lower value (4.4) compared to IT (15), indicating that IT retained more essential nutrients. Organic matter content was higher at VR (1.5%) than at IT (0.5%) (Table S1).
The long-term climate conditions (2012–2021) of both areas were sourced from the SIR (Hydrological Service of Tuscany Region, https://www.sir.toscana.it/, accessed on 20 August 2025) database. The data indicated both areas had a typical Mediterranean climate, characterized by distinct seasonal temperature variations and spring−autumn precipitation peaks (Table S2). Maximum air temperatures were highest in August (29.8 ± 2.1 and 32.7 ± 1.9 °C), while minimum temperatures occurred in January (4.3 ± 1.5 and 2.9 ± 1.9 °C) at VR and IT, respectively. Both sites experienced rainfall peaks in November (114.8 ± 69.3 and 129.1 ± 79.1 mm) and the lowest rainfall in June (32 ± 24.4 and 35.2 ± 19.6 mm), with significant variability observed between years (Table S2). The analysis of air temperature and precipitation patterns at VR and IT during the period 2019–2021 did not reveal notable variations (Figure 2). Specifically, minimum air temperature remained relatively stable across years and sites, while maximum air temperature was slightly higher at the IT site, resulting in about 1.5 °C warmer on a 1-year basis and about +2 °C during warmer months. Precipitation patterns and magnitude were consistent across seasons and years (Figure 2), with a total cumulative precipitation over the three-year period of 2473 mm at IT and 2535 mm at VR. Major differences occurred in summertime, where IT sites resulted drier than VR in July 2019 (−57.8 mm) and August 2020 (−67.8 mm).

2.2. Experimental Design

The experimental design included two true lavender (L. angustifolia) cultivars, Boston Blue (LBB) and Dwarf Blue (LDB), and five lavandin hybrids (L. × intermedia), Abrialis (Lab), Super A (LsA), Super Z (LsZ), Maime (Lmm), and Sumiens (Lsu). All cultivars were selected and purchased as bare-root plants, transported in refrigerated containers at 4 °C and stored under the same conditions until transplanting, which took place on 3 April 2019. Before transplanting, soil refinement was carried out. The experimental design, which was consistent across both study areas, involved the establishment of a rectangular plot measuring 361.76 m2, subdivided into 4 blocks (Figure 3). Each block contained one row of lavender plants and another row of aromatic plants. Each row comprised 7 plots, each measuring 3.2 × 1 m, with corridors separating them (Figure 3). In each plot, 8 plants were arranged in a quincunx pattern, a geometric arrangement where plants were positioned in a five-pointed pattern. Both the aromatic plants, which included lemon balm (Melissa officinalis L.), common thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.), clary sage (Salvia sclarea L.), common sage (Salvia officinalis L.), peppermint (Mentha piperita L.), and pale iris (Iris pallida Lam.), as well as the seven cultivars of lavender, were arranged so that each block contained one row entirely dedicated to a single cultivar (1, 4, 6, 7) (Figure 3). The layout of different species within the plots was designed to minimize interaction effects between the plants. Throughout the study period, maintenance interventions such as hoeing, shredding of plant residues, manual removal of weeds, and tractor tilling were conducted to promote the natural vegetative development of the plants and control weed growth.

2.3. Morphological Data Collection and Analysis of Secondary Metabolites

Morphological data for lavender and lavandin were collected in 2020 and 2021. Specifically, measurements were taken on plant samples for five variables: canopy height, canopy diameters, fresh and dry biomass, and flower number for each lavender cultivar. Data collection was performed manually using pruning shears. In total, 2240 samples per year were collected (4480 overall), corresponding to 160 samples per cultivar per year. Fresh biomass variables were measured immediately after harvesting, while dry weight was determined following oven drying (Binder, ED 400 with natural convection) at 40 °C for 72 h.
EOs were then obtained by hydrodistilled for approximately 2 h using a commercial stainless-steel essential-oil distiller (Spring 12 L, Albrigi Luigi S.r.l., Grezzana, Italy) equipped with a 1600 W induction plate (HA-INDUC-11, Konig, Ruhr area, Germany). For each batch, 3 L of water was placed in a base vessel. The harvested stems were cut and arranged evenly on a perforated plate to avoid preferential steam flow, and a second plate was placed on top to keep the biomass compact. Distillation lasted for 2 h, with temperature and essential-oil yield monitored periodically. The oil was treated with anhydrous sodium sulfate and stored in transparent glass vials under refrigeration to prevent degradation and volatilization. Finally, 1 µL of water-free essential oil was taken from each sample collected in 2021 and diluted in 1 mL of n-heptane (C7H16, ≥99% purity, Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, MO, USA) containing 20 ppm tridecane (C13H28, ≥99% purity, Sigma-Aldrich) as the internal standard. This solution was finally injected into an Agilent 7820A (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) GC-MS system interfaced with an Agilent 5977E single-quadrupole mass spectrometer using electron ionization for the identification of oil constituents.

2.4. Statistical Analysis

All data were analyzed using analysis of variance (i.e., two-way ANOVA) on the morphological parameters of the two lavender cultivars and five hybrids to evaluate the effects of site, year, and cultivar. Statistically significant differences in EO yield and composition due to site, year, and cultivar were also assessed. A significant threshold of p < 0.05 was applied. Percentage variations (Δ%) between years and linear regression analyses were performed to investigate relationships among variables, with goodness of fit expressed as R2. All statistical analyses and data visualizations were conducted using MATLAB (R2022b, The MathWorks Inc., Natick, MA, USA).

3. Results

3.1. Biomass and Morphological Traits

The two-way ANOVA (Table S3, Figure S1) showed that most morphological traits were significantly influenced by cultivar, year, and site. Canopy height was mainly affected by cultivar and year (p < 0.001), with no significant site effect (p = ns). Canopy diameter, fresh weight, dry weight, and floral numbers were also significantly affected by all factors (p < 0.001). However, no significant two-way interactions were detected.
In 2020, lavender at IT showed a fresh weight of 73.9 ± 48.6 g and a corresponding dry weight of 22.5 ± 16.8 g, almost three times higher than the values observed at VR (26.2 ± 22.5 and 10.9 ± 9.4 g, respectively). In 2021, both fresh and dry weights increased substantially at both sites, reaching 256.9 ± 133.2 g and 102.2 ± 53.1 g at IT, respectively, and 84.3 ± 51.7 g and 33.9 ± 21 g at VR, respectively. In 2020, the mean canopy height at IT was 58.8 ± 11.4 cm with a mean diameter of 23.8 ± 9.2 cm, slightly higher than at VR, where height and diameter were 57.6 ± 16.6 cm and 20.2 ± 8.1 cm, respectively. By 2021, both height and diameter had increased at both sites, reaching 70.7 ± 9.1 cm and 84.3 ± 19 cm at IT, and 68.7 ± 10.9 cm and 44.4 ± 12.3 cm at VR, respectively. The average number of flowers strongly increased over time, resulting 28 ± 24 at IT and 20.4 ± 18.7 at VR in 2020 and 152.3 ± 87.2 at IT and 96.8 ± 62.2 at VR in 2021 (Figure 4).
Overall, the comparison of data across sites and years highlighted considerable growth and developmental differences between the two sites, with IT generally showing higher values for most variables across both years.
Over the two-year period from 2020 to 2021, lavender species exhibited substantial site- and species-specific variation in both vegetative growth and reproductive traits. At the IT site, canopy height in 2020 ranged from 37.3 cm in LBB to 90.8 cm in LsZ (average: 58.8 m), whereas in 2021 heights increased across most species, ranging from 44.1 cm in LBB to 88.5 cm in LsA (average: 70.7 m). Correspondingly, percentage changes in canopy height between the two years averaged 22.8% (Table S4), with the most pronounced increase observed in Lmm (38.3%) and LDB (33.2%), while LsZ showed a slight decrease of 3.9% (Table S4). Canopy diameter also expanded markedly, from 21.0 cm in Lmm to 29.9 cm in LsZ in 2020 (average: 23.8 cm), to 47.5 cm in LBB and 126.9 cm in LsZ in 2021 (average: 84.3 cm), corresponding to an average increase of 249.3%. The greatest gains were observed in LsA (333.7%), LsZ (325.1%), and Lab (310.7%) (Table S4). Fresh weight increased from a 2020 range of 22.5 g in LDB to 151.4 g in LsZ (average: 73.9 g) to a 2021 range of 68.8 g in LBB to 469.5 g in LsZ (average: 256.9 g), representing an average relative increase of 254.6% (Table S4). Dry weight exhibited even larger relative increases, from 5.8–48.8 g in 2020 (average: 22.5 g) to 23.4–192.8 g in 2021 (average: 102.2 g), corresponding to a 362.2% mean increase, with the highest values observed in Lmm (529.7%) and Lsu (470.2%). Flower production similarly escalated, from 11.5 in LBB to 69.8 in LsZ in 2020 (average: 28.0) to 63.1 in Lmm to 285.5 in LsZ in 2021 (average: 152.3), representing an average relative increase of 515.1% (Table S4). Notably, the most dramatic flowering responses were recorded in LBB (868.6%), LDB (770.8%), and LsA (542.8%) (Table S4).
At the VR site, the overall pattern was broadly similar, though the magnitude of change was generally smaller than at IT. Canopy height in 2020 ranged from 52.0 cm in LsA to 64.3 cm in Lsu (average: 57.6 m), increasing in 2021 to 47.8 cm in LBB and 90.2 cm in LsZ (average: 68.7 cm). Height changes averaged 19.7%, with the greatest gains in LsA (50.8%) and LsZ (46.6%), while LBB and LDB showed slight decreases (−11.7% and −2.7%, respectively) (Table S4). Canopy diameter exhibited moderate increases, from 18.9–22.8 cm in 2020 (average: 20.1 m) to 35.7–54.2 cm in 2021 (average: 44.4 cm), with an average percentage change of 120.4%. The highest increases occurred in LDB (151.3%) and Lmm/LsA (137.7%), while Lsu increased more modestly (77.2%) (Table S4). Biomass and reproductive traits at VR also increased, but to a lesser extent than at IT. Fresh weight rose from 17.3–40.2 g in 2020 (average: 26.2 g) to 32.8–121.7 g in 2021 (average: 84.3 g), corresponding to an average relative increase of 234.3%, with the most pronounced gains in LsA (482.7%), LsZ (333.4%), and Lab (271.9%) (Table S4). Dry weight increased on average by 222.6%, ranging from 12.2 to 58.3 g, with LsA (396.5%) and LsZ (390.2%) exhibiting the highest increases. Flower production increased by 423.6% on average, with the largest gains observed in Lab (840.6%), Lmm (725.0%), and LsA (734.9%), whereas Lsu showed only a modest increase (39.7%) (Table S4).

3.2. Essential Oil Production

Essential oil yield, expressed as oil content (%), varied markedly among cultivars, sites, and years (Table 1; Figure 5).
At the IT site, most cultivars increased their oil content from 2020 to 2021, with particularly strong gains in LDB (≈+393%) and LBB (+74%). Moderate increases were observed for Lmm and LsA (≈+14% each), while LsZ remained nearly stable (+4%). Only Lab showed a moderate decrease (≈−31%). At the VR site, cultivar responses were more heterogeneous and overall weaker: Lab rose slightly (+10%) and LBB increased moderately (+31%), whereas LsA remained stable (~0.3%) and Lsu and LsZ declined moderately (≈−17% and −19%, respectively). LDB and Lmm exhibited the most severe reductions (≈−61% and −77%). Comparing sites, IT showed a predominantly positive pattern (five of seven cultivars increased, including two with large to very large gains), whereas VR was characterized by flat or negative changes (five of seven cultivars remaining stable or declining, with two marked decreases). Averaged across sites and years, Lmm and Lsu confirmed the highest and most stable oil yields, whereas LDB consistently showed the lowest performance.
Lmm exhibited the highest oil content, averaging 3.45 ± 0.43%, closely followed by Lsu at 3.35 ± 0.38%. Conversely, LDB showed the lowest oil content (1.46 ± 1.27%), while intermediate values were observed for Lab (2.96 ± 0.77%), LsA (2.69 ± 0.31%), LsZ (2.3 ± 0.93%), and LBB (1.96 ± 0.74%) (Figure 5a).
Analysis of average oil content across the two years revealed distinct differences among the lavender cultivars (Figure 5b). Lmm consistently exhibited the highest oil content, increasing from 3.26 ± 0.32% in 2020 to 3.64 ± 0.44% in 2021, closely followed by Lsu, which maintained high levels around 3.35% across both years (Figure 5b). Lab showed a moderate increase from 2.74 ± 0.57% to 3.18 ± 0.88%, while LsA displayed relatively stable oil content (2.77 ± 0.42% in 2020 and 2.61 ± 0.09% in 2021). Conversely, LDB consistently produced the lowest oil content, declining from 1.92 ± 1.64% in 2020 to 1.01 ± 0.32% in 2021, highlighting its poor performance in EO accumulation (Figure 5b). LBB also showed a decrease over time (2.16 ± 0.93% to 1.76 ± 0.38%), while LsZ remained relatively stable, slightly increasing from 2.28 ± 1.31% to 2.32 ± 0.07%. Overall, the data indicated that Lmm and Lsu were the most stable productive cultivars across years, whereas LDB represented the least efficient producer (Figure 5b).
When considering the average oil content across both 2020 and 2021 for each site, at IT, the Lmm and Lsu consistently showed the highest oil contents (3.83 ± 0.25% and 3.72 ± 0.08%, respectively) (Figure 5c). Lab and LsA reported moderate values (2.81 ± 0.5% and 2.53 ± 0.17%), while LBB, LDB, and LsZ exhibited the lowest performance, with LDB performing particularly poorly (0.80 ± 0.52%) (Figure 5c). In the VR site, overall oil contents were slightly more balanced among cultivars (Figure 5c). Lmm and Lsu remained among the top performers (3.07 ± 0.13% and 2.98 ± 0.08%, respectively), but other cultivars such as LsZ (2.92 ± 0.67%), LsA (2.86 ± 0.33%), and Lab (3.11 ± 0.95%) also achieved high values (Figure 5c). The lowest performers in VR were observed in LDB (2.13 ± 1.43%) and LBB (2.23 ± 0.86%), although their oil content was still substantially higher than at IT (Figure 5c). Overall, these results indicated that Lmm and Lsu were the most reliable cultivars for high oil content across sites, whereas LDB consistently underperformed, particularly in IT. Additional details on the yearly and site-to-site variations in essential-oil yield are provided in Figures S3 and S4.

3.3. Essential Oil Composition

The two-way ANOVA analysis (Table S5, Figure S2) revealed that cultivar significantly influenced the concentrations (p < 0.001) of all analyzed compounds, indicating a strong genetic control over chemical profiles. Site effects were significant (p < 0.01) for a subset of compounds, including α-pinene, camphene, and β-pinene, while slightly significant (p < 0.05) for myrcene, trans-β-ocimene, and linalyl (Table S6, Figure S1). Cultivar × site interactions were generally non-significant, except for camphene (p < 0.01), β-pinene, trans-β-ocimene, and 1,8-cineole (p < 0.05) (Table S6, Figure S1). Overall, these results indicate that differences among cultivars are the major determinant of compound composition, while site effects and interactions contribute more modestly (Table S6, Figure S1).
The EO composition was then characterized for all monoterpenes in the seven lavender cultivars cultivated at the two experimental sites (IT and VR) in 2021 (Tables S6 and S7). To improve clarity for readers, results were first subsequently averaged across cultivars within each site and presented according to monoterpene class (hydrocarbon vs. oxygenated; Figure 6). Analysis of hydrocarbon monoterpenes revealed marked compositional differences between the IT and VR sites (Figure 6a).
On average, the IT site exhibited higher concentrations across most compounds, particularly for myrcene (50.5 ± 3.6 μg/mL), α-phellandrene (15.8 ± 1.6 μg/mL), and α-terpinene (41.6 ± 4.2 μg/mL), compared to VR, which showed lower levels of 44 ± 2.9 μg/mL, 13.6 ± 2.6 μg/mL, and 35.3 ± 5.9 μg/mL, respectively (Figure 6a). Similarly, monoterpenes such as β-ocimene (trans and cis) and terpinolene were slightly higher at IT (116.8 ± 9.3 μg/mL, 55.3 ± 3.2 μg/mL, and 8.6 ± 1.1 μg/mL) than at VR (101.3 ± 9.5 μg/mL, 53.9 ± 8 μg/mL, and 7.5 ± 1.1 μg/mL) (Figure 6a). Minor components, including α-pinene, β-pinene, camphene, and limonene, also followed this trend, although differences were less pronounced. Overall, the IT site consistently produced EOs richer in hydrocarbon monoterpenes (Figure 6a).
The analysis of oxygenated monoterpenes revealed clear site-dependent differences in EO composition (Figure 6b). At the IT site, 1,8-cineole (52.5 ± 2.5 μg/mL) and camphor (58.5 ± 4.6 μg/mL) were slightly higher than at VR (46.2 ± 5.7 μg/mL and 57.9 ± 5.5 μg/mL, respectively), while linalool was marginally lower at IT (185.9 ± 10.1 μg/mL) compared to at VR (192 ± 12.4 μg/mL) (Figure 6b). Conversely, linalyl acetate was notably more abundant at VR (163.4 ± 9.4 μg/mL) than at IT (145.5 ± 13.2 μg/mL). Other compounds showed mixed trends: 4-terpinen-ol and geranyl acetate were higher at VR (23.7 ± 6.6 μg/mL and 17.7 ± 1.5 μg/mL) than at IT (17.9 ± 4.6 μg/mL and 19 ± 2 μg/mL), while α-terpineol and borneol were comparable between sites (Figure 6b).
Considering the complete EO profile, trans-β-ocimene was the most abundant hydrocarbon monoterpene (116.8 ± 9.3 μg/mL at IT and 101.3 ± 9.5 μg/mL at VR), while among oxygenated monoterpenes, linalool dominated the composition (185.9 ± 10.1 μg/mL at IT and 192 ± 12.4 μg/mL at VR). Conversely, minor components were consistently low across sites; α-pinene (1.2 ± 0.2 μg/mL at IT and 0.3 ± 0.3 μg/mL at VR) and camphene (1.4 ± 0.3 μg/mL at VR) represented the lowest hydrocarbon monoterpenes, whereas α-terpineol (9.7 ± 2 μg/mL at IT, 9.4 ± 2.1 μg/mL at VR) and geranyl acetate (19 ± 2 μg/mL at IT, 17.7 ± 1.5 μg/mL at VR) were among the least abundant oxygenated monoterpenes.
The EO composition was then accounted for each cultivar averaging both sites (IT and VR) (Figure 7). When averaging hydrocarbon monoterpene concentrations across the two cultivation sites (IT and VR), differences among the seven lavender cultivars were observed (Figure 7a).
LDB exhibited the highest overall production of several major compounds, most notably β-phellandrene (205.6 ± 12.4 μg/mL) and trans-β-ocimene (183.1 ± 17 μg/mL), marking it as the dominant cultivar for these constituents (Figure 7a). LBB also showed elevated levels of myrcene (68.2 ± 5.9 μg/mL) and α-terpinene (55.2 ± 15.7 μg/mL), although several compounds were absent (α-pinene, β-pinene, and camphene) (Figure 7a). Lsu reported consistently high concentrations across multiple compounds, including β-phellandrene (157.8 ± 4.8 μg/mL) and trans-β-ocimene (122.7 ± 3.3 μg/mL), while maintaining notable amounts of terpinolene (11.1 ± 0.5 μg/mL) (Figure 7a). Conversely, Lmm and LsA reported more moderate overall concentrations, with Lmm showing particularly low levels in several components (e.g., α- and β-pinene absent) and LsA producing relatively modest cis-β-ocimene (39.9 ± 9.2 μg/mL) despite higher myrcene content (Figure 7a). Lab and LsZ generally exhibited intermediate profiles, with Lab distinguished by a high trans-β-ocimene content (100.6 ± 10.5 μg/mL) but lower levels of other hydrocarbon monoterpenes, whereas LsZ displayed a balanced yet lower overall hydrocarbon output, with terpinolene (11.9 ± 1.4 μg/mL) among the highest for that compound (Figure 7a). Overall, these results highlight that LDB and Lsu were the most prolific cultivars in terms of hydrocarbon monoterpene production, Lmm and LsA exhibited more modest profiles, and the abundance of specific compounds varied markedly among all cultivars (Figure 7a).
Looking at oxygenated monoterpene concentrations (Figure 7b), Lsu consistently exhibited the highest levels of several key compounds, including cineole (100.8 ± 1.7 μg/mL) and borneol (153 ± 17.9 μg/mL), indicating its strong overall performance in oxygenated monoterpene accumulation (Figure 7b). Lmm and Lab also performed well for certain constituents, with Lmm showing elevated linalool (254.8 ± 13.3 μg/mL) and borneol (57.4 ± 6.6 μg/mL) and Lab presenting substantial linalool (210.3 ± 20.7 μg/mL) and cineole (94.2 ± 11.3 μg/mL) (Figure 7b). LsA and LsZ demonstrated intermediate performance, with LsA showing particularly high borneol content (97.4 ± 8.8 μg/mL) and LsZ high in camphor (108 ± 7.5 μg/mL), although other compounds were lower. In contrast, LBB and LDB displayed more uneven profiles; LBB accumulated significant linalyl acetate (242.4 ± 9.6 μg/mL) and 4-terpinen-ol (46.9 ± 28.9 μg/mL) but was nearly absent in camphor (0 μg/mL), while LDB similarly had 4-terpinen-ol (96.5 ± 9 μg/mL) but low levels of 1,8-cineole and camphor (Figure 7b). Overall, Lsu emerged as the top-performing cultivar for oxygenated monoterpenes, combining high levels across multiple compounds, whereas LBB and LDB showed the most uneven profiles, with some compounds virtually absent despite high concentrations in others (Figure 7b).
Overall, considering both hydrocarbon and oxygenated monoterpenes, Lsu emerged as the most consistently high-performing cultivar, showing substantial content across almost all major monoterpenes. Lmm and Lab also demonstrated strong and balanced profiles, while LBB and LDB exhibited highly specialized compositions with extreme variability between compounds. LsA and LsZ displayed intermediate performances, with a few specific compounds reaching high levels but overall moderate total monoterpene content.

4. Discussion

4.1. Biomass and Morphological Parameters

Biomass, morphological traits, and reproductive traits for true lavender (L. angustifolia Mill.) and hybrids differed in our study. Lavandin exhibited substantially greater vegetative growth and biomass than true lavender, with higher canopy height (69.4 vs. 50.4 cm), canopy diameter (46.3 vs. 35.4 cm), fresh weight (136.9 vs. 44.0 g), and dry weight (53.5 vs. 14.5 g). In contrast, differences in reproductive output were smaller, with only a moderate increase in flower number (84.1 vs. 65.1). These results confirm that lavandin is more robust and productive with respect to vegetative growth and biomass accumulation, whereas reproductive traits show only moderate enhancements. This pattern is largely consistent with the literature, which recognizes lavandin as yielding higher biomass per hectare with a greater EO content [32], primarily attributed to a higher density of secretory structures and, consequently, an increased storage capacity compared to true lavender [33,34].
Lavender and lavandins showed substantial growth and yield improvements between 2020 and 2021, with stronger performances generally observed in the IT site compared to in VR. The two-way ANOVA (Table S3, Figure S1) clearly indicated as these morphological traits were significantly influenced by cultivar, year, and site. The significant effect of cultivar can be primarily associated with both intra-specific differences between species (i.e., true lavender vs. lavandin) and cultivars. Lavender and lavandin differ markedly in their morphological traits, with lavandin cultivars generally exhibiting greater biomass compared to true lavender. Specifically, lavandins tend to produce larger canopy diameters and heights [35], which can enhance EO yield per plant [36], whereas lavender displays a more compact growth habit with lower overall biomass, consistent with its typical cultivation under more restrictive or marginal conditions [29,37]. This pattern was also observed in our study, where the morphological traits of true lavender were consistently lower than those of hybrids. Nevertheless, notable differences also emerged among hybrid cultivars. For example, Pistelli et al. [29], in an organic cultivation trial in Central Italy, reported that the lavandin cultivar Super A consistently outperformed Sumiens and Grosso in terms of yield. Similarly, in our study, LsA exhibited markedly higher productive traits compared to Lsu, ranking as the most productive cultivar after LsZ.
In addition to the significant effect of cultivar, the effect of the year was corroborated by the superior performances between the first and the second growing seasons. This significance was clearly associated with plant development [38], which is well recognized with the perennial growth habit of lavender and the progressive establishment of its root system. During the first year, plants invest heavily in root development and anatomical adaptations that enable plant survival and acclimation to the local pedo-climatic conditions [39]. This resource investment often constrains above-ground growth, whereas in the second year the improved efficiency of water and nutrient uptake provided by the well-established root system promotes greater biomass accumulation, taller canopy height, and wider canopy diameter. This pattern, clearly observed in our study for both lavender and lavandins, is commonly reported in perennial aromatic species, where ontogenetic development strongly influences morphological traits in early years [16,29].
A further contribution likely arose from the pedoclimatic conditions of the two sites, which may have favored the generally higher morphological performance observed at IT compared to at VR. Concerning meteorological conditions, the two sites experienced similar air temperature and precipitation regimes. However, while no drought conditions were observed during the first production year (2020), a dry period occurred in the second year during summer (i.e., June, July, and August), when less than 50 mm of precipitation was recorded at both sites. Although such conditions would be expected to reduce biomass production at both locations, this was not observed. Most lavender varieties responded to water stress with a drought-tolerant strategy including stomata closure under leaf water potential decline, thus limiting gas exchange and constraining floral and foliar biomass production [40]. Nevertheless, IT exhibited higher overall production. This was likely related to different soil characteristics, which could have played a major role in determining the observed variations in morphological traits between sites. Specifically, IT showed a higher cation exchange capacity (15 vs. 4.4 meq/100 g) and lower active limestone content (4.8% vs. 7.1%) compared to VR, which may have likely promoted greater nutrient availability and root development compared to VR [41,42,43]. By contrast, the more calcareous and sandy soil texture may have limited water retention and nutrient uptake due to rapid water loss and nutrient leaching and a low capacity for holding nutrients [44].

4.2. Extracted and Essential Oil Content

Essential oil yield proved to be strongly genotype-dependent and was further modulated by local environmental conditions. Genetic variation among cultivars can influence the biosynthesis of terpenes, affecting both the quantity and the qualitative profile of the EO [37,45,46]. Pedological characteristics such as soil texture, nutrient availability, and water status are known to impact glandular trichome development and the metabolic activity of secondary metabolites, thereby shaping oil yield and composition [47,48]. In our study, the slightly higher EO content recorded at VR in 2020 is most plausibly related to local soil and climate interactions. The VR field has a more calcareous soil and slightly different water-holding capacity, which, combined with the specific rainfall pattern of 2020, may have induced a mild water-stress effect. Such moderate stress is known to enhance EO concentration even when overall growth is less vigorous. Temporal factors may also play a role: phenological stage and the precise timing of harvest can influence the accumulation of key aromatic compounds, as previously reported for lavender [49]. Consequently, the observed variability in oil yield among cultivars and between sites can be attributed to a combination of genetic traits and environmental conditions rather than to plant size or total biomass.

4.3. Essential Oil Composition of L. angustifolia

The essential oil composition of L. angustifolia was primarily shaped by varietal identity, as confirmed by the strong statistical significance of most compounds (p < 0.001 for almost all monoterpenes; Table S5). True lavenders (LBB and LDB) displayed a chemical profile consistent with L. angustifolia at both sites, characterized by higher proportions of linalyl acetate (22.7% on average) and linalool (12.8% on average), coupled with reduced levels of 1,8-cineole (0.7% on average), camphor (0% on average), and borneol (2.4% on average). Comparing our results with oil composition limits for true lavender described by the International Organization for Standardization [50], however, the oils from both fields were slightly lower in linalool (IT: ~11.3%; VR: ~14.3%; ISO: 25–38%) and linalyl acetate (IT: ~21.9%; VR: ~23.5%; ISO: 25–45%), while other compounds remained largely compliant. Between cultivars, LBB showed higher levels of myrcene (7.8 vs. 4.4), linalool (14.4 vs. 11.1), linalyl acetate (27.6 vs. 17.7), and borneol (3.0 vs. 1.7) compared to LDB. In contrast, LDB contained higher amounts of β-phellandrene (18.9 vs. 3.8) and 4-terpinen-ol (8.9 vs. 5.2).
For understanding peculiarity of our lavender EO composition, this latter was firstly averaged between sites and cultivars (i.e., LBB and LDB) and then compared to individual studies conducted on cultivars grown in Italy (Table S8). Concerning the main quality indicators for high quality lavender oils, linalool (12.8%) was considerably lower than the literature average (31.9%, 21 studies) and well below the wide range reported across individual studies, with extremes reaching as high as 46.9% [51] and as low as 20.4% [16]. By contrast, linalyl acetate was notably higher in our EO (22.7%) than the literature means (15.2%), but within the broad range of the Italian literature (7.5–35.4%, 20 studies), resulting lower only compared to the studies of Pistelli et al., [29], Caprari et al. [51], and Capetti et al. [52]. Both camphor (~0%) and 1,8-cineole (0.7%) were present at very low levels, well below the literature ranges (0.3–11.76% for camphor; 0–13.5% for 1,8-cineole), indicating that our cultivars produced mild, soft EOs with minimal sharpness and low-eucalyptol character, consistent with high-quality standards. Examining the remaining components, our oils reported elevated levels of hydrocarbon monoterpenes, including myrcene (6.1%) and α-terpinene (6.5%), which were significantly higher than the literature ranges (0.1–3.1% and 0.1–0.2%, respectively). This suggested a characteristic fingerprint of our cultivars, particularly for myrcene, which in some individual studies was reported as low as 0.1% [53] or as high as 3.09% [54]. Similarly, the trans- and cis-β-ocimenes were abundant in our samples (16 ± 2.2% and 8.1 ± 0.9%, respectively), markedly exceeding the literature range (0.4–6.1% and 0.4–3.8%, respectively), with extremes in individual values achieving above 6% [55] and 3% [14,51], respectively. Minor components such as α-pinene, β-pinene, camphene, and limonene were generally lower or in agreement with the literature averages. Oxygenated monoterpenes beyond the main linalool and linalyl acetate, including 4-terpinen-ol, α-terpineol, borneol, and geranyl acetate, generally fell within the range reported in literature, although our oils had a moderately elevated 4-terpinen-ol level (7.1% vs. 4.8% of the literature average) and a slightly lower α-terpineol level (0.5% vs. 2.7% of the literature average). Borneol and geranyl acetate were in agreement with the mean reported in the literature, reflecting typical profiles for Italian lavender cultivars, with higher borneol (>10%) observed only in three individual studies [51,55]. Compared with additional international studies, the four key indicators of lavender oil quality (i.e., linalool, linalyl acetate, camphor, and 1,8-cineole) were consistently at the lower end of, or below, the ranges reported by the literature.
Compared with international studies, the four key indicators of lavender oil quality—linalool, linalyl acetate, camphor, and 1,8-cineole—were consistently at the lower end of, or below, the ranges reported in the literature. For example, linalool (12.8%) was markedly lower compared to higher values reported by Shellie et al. [56] and Danh et al. [57] in Australia (23.3–57.4%), by Cong et al. [58] in China (44.5%), and by Turgut et al. [59] in Turkey (42.2%). Similarly, linalyl acetate (22.7%) was consistently at the lower end of, or below, the ranges reported in studies from Tunisia (34.5%; [60]), Greece (26.9–43.1%; [49,61]), Croatia (22.1–32.2%; [62]), and Turkey (23.1%; [61]). A comparable trend was observed for the undesirable compounds. Specifically, camphor was substantially lower than the values reported by Belhadj Mostefa et al. [63,64] in Algeria (24%), Danh et al. [57] in Australia (8%), and Mantovani et al. [65] in Brazil (3.5%), while 1,8-cineole remained below the ranges observed in Greece (5–15%; [61]), Algeria (37.8% and 29.4%, [63,64], and France (4.26 ± 0.1%; [51]). Interestingly, the minor compounds such as β-ocimenes (trans and cis) and myrcene were still consistently higher (6.1–16%) than those reported in the studies (0–2%), a distinctive chemical signature of our EOs.
Overall, the comparison of the L. angustifolia oils analyzed in this study with the literature indicated a high-quality profile, characterized by a desirable combination of high linalyl acetate, moderate linalool, and very low camphor and 1,8-cineole. At the same time, the elevated levels of certain hydrocarbon monoterpenes, particularly β-phellandrene and β-ocimenes (trans and cis), and myrcene provide a distinctive chemotypic fingerprint that differentiates our oils from the most previously published literature.

4.4. Essential Oil Composition of L. × intermedia

Distinct compositional differences emerged between lavandin and lavender EOs, based on EO composition averaged across sites and cultivars (Table S9). Lavandin was characterized by significantly higher levels of 1,8-cineole (7 ± 2.3 vs. 0.7 ± 0.1%), camphor (8.9 vs. 0%), borneol (8.7 ± 3.2 vs. 2.4 ± 0.7%), and a greater amounts of linalool (23.4 vs. 12.8%), while it contained lower level of trans-β-ocimene (9.6% vs. 16), cis-β-ocimene (4.8% vs. 8.1), linalyl acetate (14.2 ± 4.8% vs. 22.7), and 4-terpinen-ol (0.1% vs. 7.1). The average EO composition of the lavandins analyzed in our sites generally matched the profiles reported in [66], which establishes reference ranges for key aromatic compounds in cultivars such as Grosso and Abrialis, with the exception for linalyl acetate (14.2%) found below the ISO standard (20–38%).
In order to evaluate the distinct chemical features of the lavandin cultivars analyzed in this study (Lab, Lmm, LsZ, Lsu, and LsA), their EO composition was compared with values reported in the international literature for the same genotypes (Table S9). Lavandin Abrialis (Lab) was one of the most studied lavandin cultivars [54,67,68,69,70]. Its major compounds generally fell within the expected literature ranges, although some deviations were evident. For instance, linalool (23.2–23.6%) aligned with the lower end of reported values (19.6%; [70,71], while linalyl acetate (10.5–13.2%) was at the bottom limit of the literature range (10.3%; [54]) but far from the highest values (35.4%) detected in the study of Steltenkamp and Casazza [67]. Camphor (9.0–10.5%) and 1,8-cineole (9.3–11.8%) showed similar values, with both well falling within the published values (7.5–12.2% and 6.9–10.3%, respectively) [68,69,72]. Among the minor constituents, α-pinene (0.1–0.2%), β-pinene (0.2–0.5%), and camphene (0.2–0.3%) were in line with most recent studies [68,69], while Myrcene (4.5–4.8%) was higher than values reported in the literature, with the closest value (3.5%) reported by Maietti et al. [54]. Finally, borneol (4.5–5.4%) was consistent with reference values (1.15–10%) [54,70].
In lavandin Maime (Lmm), linalool (29.4–30.8%) and linalyl acetate (29.4–30.8%) were consistent with the ISO standard for lavandin but well below the values reported by Steltenkamp and Casazza [67] (52.4% and 23.7%, respectively), while camphor (10.5–10.6%) was found slightly higher than the same reference study (7.6%). In lavandin Super Z (LsZ), linalool (22.1%) was clearly lower than the value reported by Maietti et al. ([54]; 34.4%), while linalyl acetate (15.6–21.1%) was also slightly below the reference (24.4%). In contrast, camphor (12.3–12.6%) was higher than the literature (8.8%), and 1,8-cineole (5.2–5.5%) was very close to the reported level (5.1%). Among the minor compounds, α-pinene (0–0.1%) and β-pinene (0–0.03%) were lower than in the study of Maietti et al. ([54]; 0.32% each), whereas myrcene (5.4–6.2% vs. 2.4%) and borneol (7.0–7.5% vs. 1.6%) were markedly higher. Limonene (0.8–1.3%) was slightly lower than the reference (1.6%).
In lavandin Sumiens (Lsu), linalool (20.2–21.2%) was much lower than the values reported by Pistelli et al. ([29]; 40.4%) and D’Addabbo et al. ([68]; 48.0%). Linalyl acetate (8.5–10.8%) was close to the value reported by Pistelli et al. ([29]; 9.9%) but clearly lower than the value reported by D’Addabbo et al. ([68]; 14.9%). Camphor (6.5–7.4%) was consistent with both references (7.1% and 6.8%), while 1,8-cineole (8.3–9.4%) was below the levels reported by Pistelli et al. [29] and D’Addabbo et al. [68] (11.9% and 12.1%, respectively). Among the minor compounds, α-pinene (0.03–0.2%) and β-pinene (0.2–0.4%) were lower than in both studies (0.5–0.7%), while myrcene (3.2%) was markedly higher than the value reported by Pistelli et al. ([29]; 0.75%). Limonene (0.8–1%) and camphene (0.23–0.35) were almost in the literature range. Finally, borneol (12.5–14.8%) was higher than the values reported by Pistelli et al. ([29]; 10.3%) and especially D’Addabbo et al. ([68]; 4.3%).
In lavandin Super A (LsA), linalool (20.1–21.9%) was clearly lower than the values reported by Pistelli et al. ([29]; 36.2%) and Kara and Baydar ([73]; 39.1%). Linalyl acetate (20.7–21.2%) was slightly higher than the value reported by Pistelli et al. ([29]; 18.4%) but considerably lower than the value reported by Kara and Baydar ([73]; 29.5%). Camphor (4.7%) was consistent with the value reported by Kara and Baydar ([73]; 4.3%) and slightly lower than the value reported by Pistelli et al. ([29]; 6.6%). In contrast, 1,8-cineole (5.0–5.7%) was close to the value reported by Kara and Baydar ([73]; 3.9%) yet below the value reported by Pistelli et al. ([29]; 6.9%). Among the minor constituents, myrcene (5.6–6.0%) was higher than in both studies of Pistelli et al. ([29]; 1.2%) and Kara and Baydar ([73]; 1.0%), limonene (0.8–0.9%) was consistent with the values reported by both references (0.55% and 0.49%), while borneol (10.8–11.0%) was much higher than the values reported by Pistelli et al. ([29]; 3.7%) and Kara and Baydar ([73]; 4.6%).
Across lavandin cultivars, linalool confirmed its central role as the predominant constituent, with the highest levels observed in Lmm (29.4–30.8%) and Lab (23.2–23.6%), followed by linalyl acetate, which reached its maximum in LsA (20.6–21.1%). Camphor and 1,8-cineole emerged as discriminant traits for LsA, where their combined content was approximately 10%, roughly 30–40% lower than in the other cultivars. From an aromatic perspective, these patterns indicated that LsA tended toward a sweeter and more floral profile, driven by its higher linalyl acetate and lower camphor content, whereas Lab, Lmm, and LsZ showed a sharper, more camphoraceous character, due to higher camphor and relatively lower linalyl acetate. Lab and Lsu were further distinguished by their more elevated 1,8-cineole content compared to the other cultivars, contributing a fresher, slightly eucalyptol-like nuance.

5. Conclusions

Lavender and lavandin are increasingly recognized as promising plants to diversify marginal agriculture for smallholder farms, such as those typical of Tuscany, while generating added value through herbal and EO products. In this study, we evaluated biomass production, morphological traits, EO yield, and aromatic compound profiles of two Lavandula angustifolia cultivars (L. Boston Blue and L. Dwarf Blue) and five Lavandula × intermedia hybrids (Abrialis, Super A, Super Z, Maime, and Sumiens) cultivated across two experimental sites in Tuscany over a two-year period (2019–2021) under contrasting pedoclimatic conditions.
Results indicated cultivar type, harvest year, and site characteristics influenced morphological traits. Specifically, the IT site provided the best performances for both lavender and lavandin, with the latter resulting in greater morphological traits agreeing with the international literature.
The essential oil of the two L. angustifolia cultivars showed a chemical profile consistent with high-quality true lavender, while lavandin oils largely matched international standards. Both groups displayed site- and cultivar-specific differences in the proportions of key aromatic compounds, defining distinctive chemotypes. These findings provided robust agronomic and chemical evidence to support farm diversification through the expansion of lavender and lavandins cultivation in Tuscany and comparable Mediterranean areas. They suggest that true lavenders could be suited for high-end perfumery and aromatherapy, where low camphor and cineole are essential for quality, while lavandins could be cultivated for industrial, cosmetic, and functional uses, thanks to their higher biomass and oil yields.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/agronomy15102310/s1, Figure S1: ANOVA heatmap for Variety, Site, Year and their interaction on the five investigated morphological traits (flowers number, fresh and dry weights, canopy diameter and length) for the seven lavender cultivars. Significance thresholds are indicated by stars (p < 0.05 = *, p < 0.01 = **, p < 0.001 = ***), allowing a rapid assessment of the relative importance of each factor across compounds; Figure S2: ANOVA heatmap for Variety, Site, and their interaction on the composition of essential oil compounds. Significance is represented on a –log10(p) scale, such that smaller p-values (i.e., stronger effects) appear in darker red. Significance thresholds are further indicated by stars (p < 0.05 = *, p < 0.01 = **, p < 0.001 = ***), allowing a rapid assessment of the relative importance of each factor across compounds; Figure S3: Essential-oil yield (%) of Lavandula cultivars grown at the two Tuscan experimental sites-Istituto Tecnico Agrario di Firenze (IT) and Fattoria Vecchia Rocca (VR)-during the two harvest years (2019–2020 and 2020–2021). Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical significance was evaluated by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD multiple-comparison test (p < 0.05); Figure S4: Interannual variation of essential-oil yield (%) of Lavandula cultivars at the two Tuscan experimental sites-Istituto Tecnico Agrario di Firenze (IT) and Fattoria Vecchia Rocca (VR)-across the two harvest years (2019–2020 and 2020–2021). Data are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Statistical significance was evaluated by one-way ANOVA followed by Tukey’s HSD multiple-comparison test (p < 0.05); Table S1: Soil properties at VR and IT; Table S2: Long-term (2012-2021) monthly climate conditions (mean maximum and minimum air temperature and cumulated precipitation) for the study areas (IT and VR) sourced from the SIR (Hydrological Service of Tuscany Region, https://www.sir.toscana.it/) database; Table S3. Two-way ANOVA results for the effects of site, cultivar, year, and their interactions on morphological traits of lavender and lavandin. p-values are reported, with significance indicated as: ns = not significant, *** = p < 0.001. Interactions marked as NaN were not applicable or could not be calculated; Table S4: Biomass (fresh and dry weight, g), morphological traits (canopy height and diameter, cm), and reproductive traits (number of flowers) measured in the two sites (IT and VR) for each of the seven lavender cultivars in 2020 and 2021, and the corresponding changes (%) between years; Table S5: Two-way ANOVA results showing the effects of cultivar, site, and their interaction on lavender essential oil composition. p-values (pVariety, pSite, pInteraction) and corresponding significance levels (sigVariety, sigSite, sigInteraction) are reported for hydrocarbon monoterpenes (HM) and oxygenated monoterpenes (OM). Significance codes: *** p < 0.001; ** p < 0.01; * p < 0.05; ns = not significant; Table S6: Concentrations (mean ± standard deviation) of hydrocarbon monoterpenes (HM) in essential oils of seven lavender cultivars grown at two sites (IT and VR). Reported compounds include α-pinene, β-pinene, camphene, myrcene, α-phellandrene, α-terpinene, limonene, β-phellandrene, β-ocimene (trans and cis isomers), and terpinolene. Values are expressed as µg/mL; Table S7: Concentrations (mean ± standard deviation) of oxygenated monoterpenes (OM) in essential oils of seven lavender cultivars grown at two sites (IT and VR). Reported compounds include cineole, linalool, camphor, linalyl acetate, 4-terpinen-ol, 4-terpineol, borneol, and geranyl acetate. Values are expressed as µg/mL; Table S8: Comparative chemical composition of Lavandula angustifolia essential oils from this and other studies carried out in Italy over different regions and province, and the average EO values reported for Italian sites. Values (mean ± SD) are expressed as relative percentages of major monoterpene hydrocarbons (α -pinene, β -pinene, camphene, myrcene, α -phellandrene, α -terpinene, limonene, β -phellandrene, trans- β -ocimene, cis- β -ocimene, terpinolene) and oxygenated monoterpenes (1,8-cineole, linalool, camphor, linalyl acetate, 4-terpinen-ol, α-terpineol, borneol, geranyl acetate). The table highlights site- and region-specific variability in essential oil profiles across Tuscany, Piedmont, Emilia-Romagna, Abruzzo, Molise, Campania, and Lombardy; Table S9: Comparative chemical composition of Lavandula × intermedia essential oils from this and international literature. Values are expressed as relative percentages of major monoterpene hydrocarbons (α-pinene, β-pinene, camphene, myrcene, α-phellandrene, α-terpinene, limonene, β-phellandrene, trans- β-ocimene, cis- β-ocimene, terpinolene) and oxygenated monoterpenes (1,8-cineole, linalool, camphor, linalyl acetate, 4-terpinen-ol, α-terpineol, borneol, geranyl acetate); Table S10. Number of compounds identified in the essential oils of seven Lavandula angustifolia cultivars harvested at the Istituto Tecnico Agrario di Firenze (IT) and Fattoria Vecchia Rocca (VR) sites. Data report, for each cultivar and location, the total number of chromatographic peaks positively identified by GC–MS. Identified compounds accounted for essentially 100% of the total chromatogram (total ion current) area in every sample.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, M.M. and L.B.; methodology, M.M., L.B., L.L. and E.P.; software, M.M. and L.B.; validation, L.L., R.R. and E.P.; formal analysis, M.M.; investigation, M.M. and L.B.; resources, L.L.; data curation, M.M. and L.B.; writing—original draft preparation, M.M. and L.B.; writing—review and editing, L.L., R.R. and E.P.; visualization, L.L. and R.R.; supervision, L.L. and E.P.; project administration, E.P.; funding acquisition, E.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Data are contained within the article and Supplementary Materials.

Acknowledgments

We gratefully acknowledge the support of the farms of Vecchia Rocca and ITAS for their collaboration on the experimentation set-up. We also sincerely express our gratitude to Gabriele Vecchietti Poltri and Matilde Sacconi for their technical and practical support. The authors utilized the ChatGPT AI tool (https://openai.com/it-IT/) for language polishing and editing of the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Abbreviations

The following abbreviations are used in this manuscript:
EOessential oil
ISOInternational Organization for Standardization
ITIstituto Tecnico Agrario di Firenze
VRFattoria Vecchia Rocca
LBBL. Boston Blue
LDBL. Dwarf Blue
LabL. Abrialis
LsZL. Super Z
LmmL. Maime
LsuL. Sumiens

References

  1. Moja, S.; Guitton, Y.; Nicolè, F.; Legendre, L.; Pasquier, B.; Upson, T.; Jullien, F. Genome size and plastid trnK-matK markers give new insights into the evolutionary history of the genus Lavandula L. Plant Biosyst. 2016, 150, 1216–1224. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Passalacqua, N.G.; Tundis, R.; Upson, T.M. A new species of Lavandula sect. Lavandula (Lamiaceae) and review of species boundaries in Lavandula angustifolia. Phytotaxa 2017, 292, 161–170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Lesage-Meessen, L.; Bou, M.; Sigoillot, J.C.; Faulds, C.B.; Lomascolo, A. Essential oils and distilled straws of lavender and lavandin: A review of current use and potential application in white biotechnology. Appl. Microbiol. Biotechnol. 2015, 99, 3375–3385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Elmakaoui, A.; Bourais, I.; Oubihi, A.; Nassif, A.; Bezhinar, T.; Shariati, M.A.; Blinov, A.V.; Hleba, L.; El Hajjaji, S. Chemical composition and antibacterial activity of essential oil of Lavandula multifida. J. Microbiol. Biotechnol. Food Sci. 2022, 11, e7559. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lis-Balchin, M. Lavender: The Genus Lavandula (Medicinal and Aromatic Plants-Industrial Profiles); CRC Press: London, UK, 2002; p. 296. ISBN 9780429218590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Muntean, L.S.; Tamas, M.; Muntean, S.; Muntean, L.; Duda, M.; Vârban, D.; Florian, S. Treatise of Cultivated and Spontaneous Medicinal Plants, 2nd ed.; Risoprint publishing House: Cluj-Napoca, Romania, 2016; p. 1078. ISBN 978-973-53-1873-4. [Google Scholar]
  7. Cáceres-Cevallos, G.J.; Quílez, M.; Ortiz de Elguea-Culebras, G.; Melero-Bravo, E.; Sánchez-Vioque, R.; Jordán, M.J. Agronomic Evaluation and Chemical Characterization of Lavandula latifolia Medik. under the Semiarid Conditions of the Spanish Southeast. Plants 2023, 12, 1986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  8. Crișan, I.; Ona, A.; Vârban, D.; Muntean, L.; Vârban, R.; Stoie, A.; Mihăiescu, T.; Morea, A. Current Trends for Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill.) Crops and Products with Emphasis on Essential Oil Quality. Plants 2023, 12, 357. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. de Bona, C.M.; Biasi, L.A. Influence of leaf retention on cutting propagation of Lavandula dentata L. Rev. Ceres 2010, 57, 526–529. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. López, V.; Nielsen, B.; Solas, M.; Ramírez, M.J.; Jäger, A.K. Exploring Pharmacological Mechanisms of Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia) Essential Oil on Central Nervous System Targets. Front. Pharmacol. 2017, 8, 280. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wells, R.; Truong, F.; Adal, A.M.; Sarker, L.S.; Mahmoud, S.S. Lavandula essential oils: A current review of applications in medicinal, food, and cosmetic industries of lavender. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2018, 13, 1403–1417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Giray, F.H. An Analysis of World Lavender Oil Markets and Lessons for Turkey. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2018, 21, 1612–1623. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Persistence Market Research. Lavender Oil Market Size, Share & Trends Analysis (2025–2032). Report. 2025. Available online: https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/market-research/lavender-oil-market.asp (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  14. Najar, B.; Pistelli, L.; Fratini, F. Exploitation of marginal hilly land in Tuscany through the cultivation of Lavandula angustifolia Mill.: Characterization of its essential oil and antibacterial activity. Molecules 2022, 27, 3216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Istituto Nazionale di Statistica (ISTAT). Superfici e Produzioni Agricole–Lavanda, Anno 2021; ISTAT: Roma, Italy, 2021; Available online: https://www.istat.it (accessed on 20 August 2025).
  16. Najar, B.; Demasi, S.; Caser, M.; Gaino, W.; Cioni, P.L.; Pistelli, L.; Scariot, V. Cultivation substrate composition influences morphology, volatilome and essential oil of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. Agronomy 2019, 9, 411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Vijulie, I.; Lequeux-Dincă, A.-I.; Preda, M.; Mareci, A.; Matei, E. Could Lavender Farming Go from a Niche Crop to a Suitable Solution for Romanian Small Farms? Land 2022, 11, 662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Gül, M.; Kart, M.C.O.; Sirikci, B.S. Determining Costs and Profitability of Lavender Farms in Isparta Province of Turkey. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2016, 19, 686–692. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Giray, F.H.; Kadakoğlu, B.; Çetin, F.; Bamoi, A.G.A. Rural tourism marketing: Lavender tourism in Turkey. Cienc. Rural. 2019, 49, e20180651. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ramírez-García, S.; Gago-García, C.; Serrano-Cabronero, M.M.; Babinger, F.; Santander-Del-Amo, F. Lavender fields in Spain. Tourism articulation of imaginaries from a Provençal Mediterranean oneiric. Rev. Tur. Desenvolv. 2023, 43, 77–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Martinelli, E.; Tagliazucchi, G. Improving the Small Farmers’ Agribusiness Orientation in the Lavender Industry: An Empirical Study in the Emilia-Romagna Apennines. In Agribusiness Innovation and Contextual Evolution, Volume I; Galati, A., Fiore, M., Thrassou, A., Vrontis, D., Eds.; Palgrave Intersections of Business and the Sciences, in association with Gnosis Mediterranean Institute for Management Science; Palgrave Macmillan: Cham, Switzerland, 2024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Hassiotis, C.N.; Vlachonasios, K.E. How biological and environmental factors affect the quality of lavender essential oils. Physiologia 2025, 5, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Matysiak, B.; Nogowska, A. Impact of fertilization strategies on the growth of lavender and nitrates leaching to the environment. Hortic. Sci. 2016, 43, 76–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Perović, A.B.; Karabegović, I.T.; Krstić, M.S.; Veličković, A.V.; Avramović, J.M.; Danilović, B.R.; Veljković, V.B. Novel hydrodistillation and steam distillation methods of essential oil recovery from lavender: A comprehensive review. Ind. Crops Prod. 2024, 211, 118244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hassiotis, C.N.; Ntana, F.; Lazari, D.M.; Poulios, S.; Vlachonasios, K.E. Environmental and developmental factors affect essential oil production and quality of Lavandula angustifolia during the flowering period. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 62, 359–366. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Mavandi, P.; Abbaszadeh, B.; Emami Bistgani, Z.; Barker, A.V.; Hashemi, M. Biomass, nutrient concentration and the essential oil composition of lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill.) grown with organic fertilizers. J. Plant Nutr. 2021, 44, 3061–3071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Eldeghedy, H.I.; El Gendy, A.E.N.G.; Nassrallah, A.A.; Aboul Enein, A.M.; Omer, E.A. Comparative chemical profiles of Lavandula species essential oils grown in Egypt and others from France and Australia: Evidence from chemometric analysis. J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2022, 25, 52–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Détár, E.; Németh, É.Z.; Gosztola, B.; Demján, I.; Pluhár, Z. Effects of variety and growth year on the essential oil properties of lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill.) and lavandin (Lavandula × intermedia Emeric ex Loisel.). Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2020, 90, 104020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Pistelli, L.; Najar, B.; Giovanelli, S.; Lorenzini, L.; Tavarini, S.; Angelini, L.G. Agronomic and phytochemical evaluation of lavandin and lavender cultivars cultivated in the Tyrrhenian area of Tuscany (Italy). Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 109, 37–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Wainer, J.; Thomas, A.; Chimhau, T.; Harding, K.G. Extraction of essential oils from Lavandula × intermedia ‘Margaret Roberts’ using steam distillation, hydrodistillation, and cellulase-assisted hydrodistillation: Experimentation and cost analysis. Plants 2022, 11, 3479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kırkıncı, S.; Gercek, Y.C.; Baştürk, F.N.; Bayram, N.E.; Gıdık, B. Evaluation of lavender essential oils and by-products using microwave hydrodistillation and conventional hydrodistillation. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 20922. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Denys, J.C.; Renaud, E.N.C.; Simon, J.E. Comparative study of essential oil quantity and composition from ten cultivars of organically grown lavender and lavandin. In Lavender: The Genus Lavandula. Medicinal and Aromatic Plants—Industrial Profiles, 1st ed.; Lis-Balchin, M., Ed.; Taylor & Francis Inc.: London, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 232–242. [Google Scholar]
  33. Aprotosoaie, A.C.; Gille, E.; Trifan, A.; Luca, V.S.; Miron, A. Essential oils of Lavandula genus: A systematic review of their chemistry. Phytochem. Rev. 2017, 16, 761–799. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Baydar, H.; Kineci, S. Scent composition of essential oil, concrete, absolute and hydrosol from lavandin (Lavandula × intermedia Emeric ex Loisel.). J. Essent. Oil Bear. Plants 2009, 12, 131–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Kotsiris, G.; Nektarios, P.A.; Paraskevopoulou, A.T. Lavandula angustifolia growth and physiology is affected by substrate type and depth when grown under Mediterranean semi intensive green roof conditions. HortScience 2012, 47, 311–317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Pokajewicz, K.; Czarniecka-Wiera, M.; Krajewska, A.; Maciejczyk, E.; Wieczorek, P.P. Lavandula × intermedia—A Bastard Lavender or a Plant of Many Values? Part I. Biology and Chemical Composition of Lavandin. Molecules 2023, 28, 2943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cavanagh, H.M.A.; Wilkinson, J.M. Biological activities of lavender essential oil. Phytother. Res. 2002, 16, 301–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  38. Manushkina, T.; Kachanova, T.; Samoilenko, M. The effect of plant growth regulators on productivity of lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill.) in the conditions of the Southern Steppe of Ukraine. Agron. Res. 2023, 21, 834–845. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Ramachandran, P.; Ramirez, A.; Dinneny, J.R. Rooting for survival: How plants tackle a challenging environment through a diversity of root forms and functions. Plant Physiol. 2024, 197, kiae586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Saunier, A.; Ormeño, E.; Moja, S.; Fernandez, C.; Robert, E.; Dupouyet, S.; Despinasse, Y.; Baudino, S.; Nicolè, F.; Bousquet-Mélou, A. Lavender sensitivity to water stress: Comparison between eleven varieties across two phenological stages. Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 182, 114531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Yang, M.; Zhou, D.; Hang, H.; Chen, S.; Liu, H.; Su, J.; Lv, H.; Jia, H.; Zhao, G. Effects of balancing exchangeable cations Ca, Mg, and K on the growth of tomato seedlings (Solanum lycopersicum L.) based on increased soil cation exchange capacity. Agronomy 2024, 14, 629. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Crusciol, C.A.C.; Marques, R.R.; Carmeis Filho, A.C.A.; Soratto, R.P.; Costa, C.H.M.; Ferrari Neto, J.; Castro, G.S.A.; Pariz, C.M.; Castilhos, A.M.; Franzluebbers, A.J. Lime and gypsum combination improves crop and forage yields and estimated meat production and revenue in a variable charge tropical soil. Nutr. Cycl. Agroecosyst. 2019, 115, 347–372. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bossolani, J.W.; Crusciol, C.A.C.; Merloti, L.F.; Moretti, L.G.; Costa, N.R.; Tsai, S.M.; Kuramae, E.E. Long-term lime and gypsum amendment increase nitrogen fixation and decrease nitrification and denitrification gene abundances in the rhizosphere and soil in a tropical no-till intercropping system. Geoderma 2020, 375, 114476. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Jaggard, K.W.; Qi, A.; Ober, E.S. Possible changes to arable crop yields by 2050. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. B Biol. Sci. 2010, 365, 2835–2851. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Despinasse, Y.; Moja, S.; Soler, C.; Jullien, F.; Pasquier, B.; Bessière, J.-M.; Noûs, C.; Baudino, S.; Nicolè, F. Structure of the Chemical and Genetic Diversity of the True Lavender over Its Natural Range. Plants 2020, 9, 1640. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [PubMed Central]
  46. Chalvin, C.; Drevensek, S.; Chollet, C.; Gilard, F.; Šolić, E.M.; Dron, M.; Bendahmane, A.; Boualem, A.; Cornille, A. Study of the genetic and phenotypic variation among wild and cultivated clary sages provides interesting avenues for breeding programs of a perfume, medicinal and aromatic plant. PLoS ONE 2021, 16, e0248954. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Bustamante, M.Á.; Michelozzi, M.; Barra Caracciolo, A.; Grenni, P.; Verbokkem, J.; Geerdink, P.; Safi, C.; Nogues, I. Effects of soil fertilization on terpenoids and other carbon-based secondary metabolites in Rosmarinus officinalis plants: A comparative study. Plants 2020, 9, 830. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Liao, Z.; Liu, L.; Rennenberg, H.; Du, B. Water deprivation modifies the metabolic profile of lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill.) leaves. Physiol. Plant. 2024, 176, e14365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Seira, E.; Poulaki, S.; Hassiotis, C.; Poulios, S.; Vlachonasios, K.E. Gene expression of monoterpene synthases is affected rhythmically during the day in Lavandula angustifolia flowers. Physiologia 2023, 3, 433–441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. ISO 3515:2002/Cor 1:2004; Oil of Lavender (Lavandula angustifolia Mill.). International Organization for Standardization (ISO): Geneva, Switzerland, 2004.
  51. Caprari, C.; Fantasma, F.; Monaco, P.; Divino, F.; Iorizzi, M.; Ranalli, G.; Fasano, F.; Saviano, G. Chemical Profiles, In Vitro Antioxidant and Antifungal Activity of Four Different Lavandula angustifolia L. EOs. Molecules 2023, 28, 392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Capetti, F.; Marengo, A.; Cagliero, C.; Liberto, E.; Bicchi, C.; Rubiolo, P.; Sgorbini, B. Adulteration of Essential Oils: A Multitask Issue for Quality Control. Three Case Studies: Lavandula angustifolia Mill., Citrus limon (L.) Osbeck and Melaleuca alternifolia (Maiden & Betche) Cheel. Molecules 2021, 26, 5610. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Da Porto, C.; Decorti, D.; Kikic, I. Flavour compounds of Lavandula angustifolia L. to use in food manufacturing: Comparison of three different extraction methods. Food Chem. 2009, 112, 1072–1078. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Maietti, S.; Rossi, D.; Guerrini, A.; Useli, C.; Romagnoli, C.; Poli, F.; Bruni, R.; Sacchetti, G. A multivariate analysis approach to the study of chemical and functional properties of chemo-diverse plant derivatives: Lavender essential oils. Flavour Fragr. J. 2013, 28, 144–154. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Germinara, G.S.; Di Stefano, M.G.; De Acutis, L.; Rotundo, G. Bioactivities of Lavandula angustifolia essential oil against the stored grain pest Sitophilus granarius. Bull. Insectology 2017, 70, 129–138. [Google Scholar]
  56. Shellie, R.; Mondello, L.; Marriott, P.; Dugo, G. Characterisation of lavender essential oils by using gas chromatography–mass spectrometry with correlation of linear retention indices and comparison with comprehensive two-dimensional gas chromatography. J. Chromatogr. A 2002, 970, 225–234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Danh, L.T.; Han, L.N.; Triet, N.D.A.; Zhao, J.; Mammucari, R.; Foster, N. Comparison of chemical composition, antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of lavender (Lavandula angustifolia L.) essential oils extracted by supercritical CO2, hexane and hydrodistillation. Food Bioprocess Technol. 2013, 6, 3481–3489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Cong, Y.; Abulizi, P.; Zhi, L.; Wang, X. Chemical composition of the essential oil of Lavandula angustifolia from Xinjiang, China. Chem. Nat. Compd. 2008, 44, 810–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Turgut, A.C.; Emen, F.M.; Canbay, H.S.; Demirdöğen, R.E.; Çam, N.; Kılıç, D.; Yeşilkaynak, T. Chemical characterization of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. as a phytocosmetic species and investigation of its antimicrobial effect in cosmetic products. JOTCSA 2017, 4, 283–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Errafiy, N.; Ammar, E.; Soukri, A. Protective effect of some essential oils against oxidative and nitrosative stress on Tetrahymena thermophila growth. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2013, 25, 339–347. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Hassiotis, C.N.; Tarantilis, P.A.; Daferera, D.; Polissiou, M.G. Etherio, a new variety of Lavandula angustifolia with improved essential oil production and composition from naturally selected genotypes growing in Greece. Ind. Crops Prod. 2010, 32, 77–82. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Kiprovski, B.; Zeremski, T.; Varga, A.; Čabarkapa, I.; Filipović, J.; Lončar, B.; Aćimović, M. Essential Oil Quality of Lavender Grown Outside Its Native Distribution Range: A Study from Serbia. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Belhadj Mostefa, M.; Kabouche, A.; Abaza, I.; Aburjai, T.; Touzani, R.; Kabouche, Z. Chemotypes investigation of Lavandula essential oils growing at different North African soils. J. Mater. Environ. Sci. 2014, 5, 1896–1901. [Google Scholar]
  64. Djenane, D.; Lefsih, K.; Yangüela, Y.; Roncalès, P. Composition chimique et activité anti-Salmonella enteritidis CECT 4300 des huiles essentielles d’Eucalyptus globulus, de Lavandula angustifolia et de Satureja hortensis: Tests in vitro et efficacité sur les œufs entiers liquides conservés à 7 ± 1 °C. Phytotherapie 2011, 9, 343–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Mantovani, A.L.L.; Vieira, G.P.G.; Cunha, W.R.; Groppo, M.; Santos, R.A.; Rodrigues, V.; Magalhães, L.G.; Crotti, A.E.M. Chemical composition, antischistosomal and cytotoxic effects of the essential oil of Lavandula angustifolia grown in Southeastern Brazil. Rev. Bras. Farm. 2013, 23, 877–884. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. ISO 8902:2009; Essential oil of Lavandin (Lavandula × intermedia Emeric ex Loisel.)—Specifications. International Organization for Standardization: Geneva, Switzerland, 2009.
  67. Steltenkamp, R.J.; Casazza, W.T. Composition of the essential oil of lavandin. J. Agric. Food Chem. 1967, 15, 1063–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. D’Addabbo, T.; Laquale, S.; Argentieri, M.P.; Bellardi, M.G.; Avato, P. Nematicidal Activity of Essential Oil from Lavandin (Lavandula × intermedia Emeric ex Loisel.) as Related to Chemical Profile. Molecules 2021, 26, 6448. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Tardugno, R.; Serio, A.; Pellati, F.; D’Amato, S.; Chaves López, C.; Bellardi, M.G.; Di Vito, M.; Savini, V.; Paparella, A.; Benvenuti, S. Lavandula × intermedia and Lavandula angustifolia essential oils: Phytochemical composition and antimicrobial activity against foodborne pathogens. Nat. Prod. Res. 2019, 33, 3330–3335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  70. Radi, M.; Eddardar, Z.; Drioiche, A.; Remok, F.; Hosen, M.E.; Zibouh, K.; Ed-Damsyry, B.; Bouatkiout, A.; Amine, S.; Touijer, H.; et al. Comparative study of the chemical composition, antioxidant, and antimicrobial activity of the essential oils extracted from Lavandula abrialis and Lavandula stoechas: In vitro and in silico analysis. Front. Chem. 2024, 12, 1353385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Carrasco, A.; Martinez-Gutierrez, R.; Tomas, V.; Tudela, J. Lavandin (Lavandula × intermedia Emeric ex Loiseleur) essential oil from Spain: Determination of aromatic profile by gas chromatography–mass spectrometry, antioxidant and lipoxygenase inhibitory bioactivities. Nat. Prod. Res. 2016, 30, 1123–1130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  72. Renaud, E.N.C.; Charles, D.J.; Simon, J.E. Essential oil quantity and composition from 10 cultivars of organically grown lavender and lavandin. J. Essent. Oil Res. 2001, 13, 269–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Kara, N.; Baydar, H. Determination of lavender and lavandin cultivars (Lavandula sp.) containing high quality essential oil in Isparta, Turkey. Turk. J. Field Crops 2013, 18, 58–65. [Google Scholar]
Agronomy 15 02310 g001
Figure 1. Overview of the study: (a) location of the experimental areas within the Tuscany region (Italy); (b) soil preparation and field data collection at the VR site; (c) experimental design during the flowering phenological phase at the IT site.
Figure 1. Overview of the study: (a) location of the experimental areas within the Tuscany region (Italy); (b) soil preparation and field data collection at the VR site; (c) experimental design during the flowering phenological phase at the IT site.
Agronomy 15 02310 g001
Agronomy 15 02310 g002
Figure 2. Monthly maximum (red line) and minimum (blue line) air temperatures and precipitation (cyan-blue histograms) at VR and IT during the period 2019–2021.
Figure 2. Monthly maximum (red line) and minimum (blue line) air temperatures and precipitation (cyan-blue histograms) at VR and IT during the period 2019–2021.
Agronomy 15 02310 g002
Agronomy 15 02310 g003
Figure 3. Representation of the experimental design, comprising four blocks, each consisting of two rows: one row containing seven plots of different lavender cultivars (purple plots) and the other row containing seven plots of aromatic plants (green plots).
Figure 3. Representation of the experimental design, comprising four blocks, each consisting of two rows: one row containing seven plots of different lavender cultivars (purple plots) and the other row containing seven plots of aromatic plants (green plots).
Agronomy 15 02310 g003
Agronomy 15 02310 g004
Figure 4. Biomass (fresh and dry weight, g), morphological traits (canopy height and diameter, cm), and reproductive traits (number of flowers) measured in the two sites (IT and VR) for each of the seven lavender cultivars in 2020 (green filled histograms), along with the corresponding changes (Δ) observed in 2021 (green hatched histograms).
Figure 4. Biomass (fresh and dry weight, g), morphological traits (canopy height and diameter, cm), and reproductive traits (number of flowers) measured in the two sites (IT and VR) for each of the seven lavender cultivars in 2020 (green filled histograms), along with the corresponding changes (Δ) observed in 2021 (green hatched histograms).
Agronomy 15 02310 g004
Agronomy 15 02310 g005
Figure 5. Total essential oil content (%) of the seven lavender cultivars, averaged across the two sites (IT and VR) and years (2020–2021) (a), most productive cultivars, averaged across sites (IT and VR), in relation to the year of analysis (2020 vs. 2021) (b), and most productive cultivars, averaged across years (2020–2021), in relation to the site of investigation (IT vs. VR) (c). Asterisks indicate significant differences between sites according to Tukey’s multiple-comparison test (p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Total essential oil content (%) of the seven lavender cultivars, averaged across the two sites (IT and VR) and years (2020–2021) (a), most productive cultivars, averaged across sites (IT and VR), in relation to the year of analysis (2020 vs. 2021) (b), and most productive cultivars, averaged across years (2020–2021), in relation to the site of investigation (IT vs. VR) (c). Asterisks indicate significant differences between sites according to Tukey’s multiple-comparison test (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 15 02310 g005
Agronomy 15 02310 g006
Figure 6. Essential oil hydrocarbon (a) and oxygenated (b) monoterpene composition at IT and VR sites. Asterisks indicate significant differences between sites according to Tukey’s multiple-comparison test (p < 0.05).
Figure 6. Essential oil hydrocarbon (a) and oxygenated (b) monoterpene composition at IT and VR sites. Asterisks indicate significant differences between sites according to Tukey’s multiple-comparison test (p < 0.05).
Agronomy 15 02310 g006
Agronomy 15 02310 g007
Figure 7. Essential oil hydrocarbon (a) and oxygenated (b) monoterpene composition for each of the seven lavender cultivars in the two sites.
Figure 7. Essential oil hydrocarbon (a) and oxygenated (b) monoterpene composition for each of the seven lavender cultivars in the two sites.
Agronomy 15 02310 g007
Table 1. Oil content of lavender cultivars grown at two sites (IT and VR) in 2020 and 2021, with percentage changes (Δ%).
Table 1. Oil content of lavender cultivars grown at two sites (IT and VR) in 2020 and 2021, with percentage changes (Δ%).
SiteCultivarOil Content (%)Δ%
NameName202020212020–2021
ITLab3.32.3−30.5
LBB1.22.173.9
LDB0.31.3393
Lmm3.64.114.1
LsA2.32.714.9
Lsu3.63.84.4
LsZ1.32.4146.1
VRLab2.24.187.3
LBB3.11.4−55.5
LDB3.60.7−80.6
Lmm2.93.28.7
LsA3.22.5−20.7
Lsu3.12.9−5
LsZ3.62.3−37.1
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

Moretta, M.; Brilli, L.; Leolini, L.; Rossi, R.; Palchetti, E. Analysis of Morphological Traits, Essential Oil Yield, and Secondary Metabolites in Seven Lavandins and Lavenders Grown in Two Pedoclimatic Areas in Tuscany (Italy). Agronomy 2025, 15, 2310. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15102310

AMA Style

Moretta M, Brilli L, Leolini L, Rossi R, Palchetti E. Analysis of Morphological Traits, Essential Oil Yield, and Secondary Metabolites in Seven Lavandins and Lavenders Grown in Two Pedoclimatic Areas in Tuscany (Italy). Agronomy. 2025; 15(10):2310. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15102310

Chicago/Turabian Style

Moretta, Michele, Lorenzo Brilli, Luisa Leolini, Riccardo Rossi, and Enrico Palchetti. 2025. "Analysis of Morphological Traits, Essential Oil Yield, and Secondary Metabolites in Seven Lavandins and Lavenders Grown in Two Pedoclimatic Areas in Tuscany (Italy)" Agronomy 15, no. 10: 2310. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15102310

APA Style

Moretta, M., Brilli, L., Leolini, L., Rossi, R., & Palchetti, E. (2025). Analysis of Morphological Traits, Essential Oil Yield, and Secondary Metabolites in Seven Lavandins and Lavenders Grown in Two Pedoclimatic Areas in Tuscany (Italy). Agronomy, 15(10), 2310. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy15102310

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