Figure 1.
Developing the ground in two steps-place arrangement, 2018 (A), and planting the seedlings (B,C).
Figure 1.
Developing the ground in two steps-place arrangement, 2018 (A), and planting the seedlings (B,C).
Scheme 1.
Rutoside curve.
Scheme 1.
Rutoside curve.
Scheme 2.
Chlorogenic acid curve.
Scheme 2.
Chlorogenic acid curve.
Scheme 3.
Total phenolic curve.
Scheme 3.
Total phenolic curve.
Figure 2.
Evolutionary stages of Mentha piperita L. and Melissa officinalis L. growth in common crops compared with control ones during 2020–2021 (a–p); Legend: h—height; MM—peppermint control crop; MF—peppermint phytosociological (common) crop; MLM—lemon balm control crop; and MLF—lemon balm phytosociological (common) crop. (a) MM; h = 32 cm; (b) MF; h = 44 cm; (c) MLM; h = 34 cm; (d) MLF; h = 51 cm; (e) MM; h = 48 cm; (f) MF; h = 52 cm; (g) MLM; h = 55 cm; (h) MLF; h = 74 cm; (i) MM; h = 57 cm; (j) ML; h = 43 cm; (k) MLM; h = 50 cm; (l) MLF; h= 47 cm; (m) MM; h = 80 cm; (n) ML; h = 57 cm; (o) MLM; h = 70 cm; (p) MLF; h = 59 cm.
Figure 2.
Evolutionary stages of Mentha piperita L. and Melissa officinalis L. growth in common crops compared with control ones during 2020–2021 (a–p); Legend: h—height; MM—peppermint control crop; MF—peppermint phytosociological (common) crop; MLM—lemon balm control crop; and MLF—lemon balm phytosociological (common) crop. (a) MM; h = 32 cm; (b) MF; h = 44 cm; (c) MLM; h = 34 cm; (d) MLF; h = 51 cm; (e) MM; h = 48 cm; (f) MF; h = 52 cm; (g) MLM; h = 55 cm; (h) MLF; h = 74 cm; (i) MM; h = 57 cm; (j) ML; h = 43 cm; (k) MLM; h = 50 cm; (l) MLF; h= 47 cm; (m) MM; h = 80 cm; (n) ML; h = 57 cm; (o) MLM; h = 70 cm; (p) MLF; h = 59 cm.
Figure 3.
The horizontal evolution of peppermint and lemon balm phytosociological crops during 2018–2021 (a–h). (a) Phytosociological crop, May 2018; (b) Phytosociological crop, June 2018; (c) Phytosociological crop, May 2019; (d) Phytosociological crop, June 2019; (e) Phytosociological crop, May 2020; (f) Phytosociological crop, June 2020; (g) Phytosociological crop, May 2021; (h) Phytosociological crop, June 2021.
Figure 3.
The horizontal evolution of peppermint and lemon balm phytosociological crops during 2018–2021 (a–h). (a) Phytosociological crop, May 2018; (b) Phytosociological crop, June 2018; (c) Phytosociological crop, May 2019; (d) Phytosociological crop, June 2019; (e) Phytosociological crop, May 2020; (f) Phytosociological crop, June 2020; (g) Phytosociological crop, May 2021; (h) Phytosociological crop, June 2021.
Figure 4.
Evolutionary stages of
Mentha ×
piperita L. and
Melissa officinalis L. growth in common crops [
23] compared with control ones during 2018–2021; Legend: MM—peppermint control crop; MF—peppermint phytosociological (common) crop; MLM—lemon balm control crop; and MLF—lemon balm phytosociological (common) crop; evolution of heights—y axis.
Figure 4.
Evolutionary stages of
Mentha ×
piperita L. and
Melissa officinalis L. growth in common crops [
23] compared with control ones during 2018–2021; Legend: MM—peppermint control crop; MF—peppermint phytosociological (common) crop; MLM—lemon balm control crop; and MLF—lemon balm phytosociological (common) crop; evolution of heights—y axis.
Figure 5.
The horizontal evolution of Thymus vulgaris L. and Calendula officinalis L. phytosociological crops during 2018–2021 (a–f), where h—height. (a) Phytosociological crop thyme (h-23 cm) and marigolds (h-29 cm), May 2018; (b) Phytosocio-logical crop thyme (h-29 cm) and marigolds (h-37 cm), June 2018; (c) Phytosociological crop thyme (h-16 cm) and marigolds (h-33 cm), May 2019; (d) Control group marigolds (h-22 cm) May 2020; (e) Phytosociological crop thyme (h-30 cm) and marigolds (h-41 cm), June 2020; (f) Phytosociolog-ical crop thyme (h-14 cm) and marigolds (h-16 cm), May 2021.
Figure 5.
The horizontal evolution of Thymus vulgaris L. and Calendula officinalis L. phytosociological crops during 2018–2021 (a–f), where h—height. (a) Phytosociological crop thyme (h-23 cm) and marigolds (h-29 cm), May 2018; (b) Phytosocio-logical crop thyme (h-29 cm) and marigolds (h-37 cm), June 2018; (c) Phytosociological crop thyme (h-16 cm) and marigolds (h-33 cm), May 2019; (d) Control group marigolds (h-22 cm) May 2020; (e) Phytosociological crop thyme (h-30 cm) and marigolds (h-41 cm), June 2020; (f) Phytosociolog-ical crop thyme (h-14 cm) and marigolds (h-16 cm), May 2021.
Figure 6.
The horizontal evolution of Rosmarinus officinalis L. and Matricaria chamomilla L. phytosociological crops during 2018–2019, changed with Rosmarinus officinalis L. and Thymus vulgaris L. during 2020–2021 (a–f), where h—height. (a) Phytosociological crop rosemary (h-44 cm) and chamomile (h-24 cm), May 2018; (b) Phytoso-ciological crop rosemary (h-49 cm) and chamomile (h-54 cm), May 2019; (c) Phytosociological crop rosemary (h-53 cm) and chamomile (h-62 cm), June 2019; (d) Phytosociological crop rosemary (h-98 cm) and thyme (h-18 cm), May 2020; (e) Phytosociological crop rosemary (h-120 cm) and thyme (h-30 cm), June 2020; (f) Phytosociological crop rosemary (h-130 cm) and thyme (h-24 cm), June 2021.
Figure 6.
The horizontal evolution of Rosmarinus officinalis L. and Matricaria chamomilla L. phytosociological crops during 2018–2019, changed with Rosmarinus officinalis L. and Thymus vulgaris L. during 2020–2021 (a–f), where h—height. (a) Phytosociological crop rosemary (h-44 cm) and chamomile (h-24 cm), May 2018; (b) Phytoso-ciological crop rosemary (h-49 cm) and chamomile (h-54 cm), May 2019; (c) Phytosociological crop rosemary (h-53 cm) and chamomile (h-62 cm), June 2019; (d) Phytosociological crop rosemary (h-98 cm) and thyme (h-18 cm), May 2020; (e) Phytosociological crop rosemary (h-120 cm) and thyme (h-30 cm), June 2020; (f) Phytosociological crop rosemary (h-130 cm) and thyme (h-24 cm), June 2021.
Figure 7.
The horizontal evolution of Hypericum perforatum L. and Chelidonium majus L. phytosociological crops during 2018–2019 (a–f), changed with Hypericum perforatum L. and Melissa officinalis L. during 2020–2021, where h—height. (a) Phytosociological crop St. John’s Wort (h-60 cm) and celandine (h-25 cm), May 2018; (b) Phy-tosociological crop St. John’s Wort (h-73 cm) and celandine (h-52 cm), May 2019; (c) Phytosocio-logical crop St. John’s Wort (h-93 cm) and celandine (h-58 cm) June 2019; (d) Phytosociological crop St. John’s Wort (h-74 cm) and lemon balm (h-28 cm), May 2020; (e) Phytosociological crop St. John’s Wort (h-78 cm) and lemon balm (h-52 cm), June 2020; (f) Phytosociological crop St. John’s Wort (h-82 cm) and lemon balm (h-56 cm), June 2021.
Figure 7.
The horizontal evolution of Hypericum perforatum L. and Chelidonium majus L. phytosociological crops during 2018–2019 (a–f), changed with Hypericum perforatum L. and Melissa officinalis L. during 2020–2021, where h—height. (a) Phytosociological crop St. John’s Wort (h-60 cm) and celandine (h-25 cm), May 2018; (b) Phy-tosociological crop St. John’s Wort (h-73 cm) and celandine (h-52 cm), May 2019; (c) Phytosocio-logical crop St. John’s Wort (h-93 cm) and celandine (h-58 cm) June 2019; (d) Phytosociological crop St. John’s Wort (h-74 cm) and lemon balm (h-28 cm), May 2020; (e) Phytosociological crop St. John’s Wort (h-78 cm) and lemon balm (h-52 cm), June 2020; (f) Phytosociological crop St. John’s Wort (h-82 cm) and lemon balm (h-56 cm), June 2021.
Figure 8.
The evolution and dynamics of the whole culture during our study.
Figure 8.
The evolution and dynamics of the whole culture during our study.
Figure 9.
Evolutionary stages of the phytosociological culture; Legend: Thyme and Marigold (TM)—Thymus vulgaris L.–Calendula officinalis L. crop, Rosemary and Chamomile (RC)—Rosmarinus officinalis L.–Matricaria chamomilla L. crop, Rosemary and Thyme (RT)—Rosmarinus officinalis L–Thymus vulgaris L. crop, St. John’s and Celadine (SC)—Hypericum perforatum L.–Chelidonium majus L. crop, St. John’s and Lemon Balm (SL)—Hypericum perforatum L.–Melissa officinalis L. crop; evolution of heights—y axis.
Figure 9.
Evolutionary stages of the phytosociological culture; Legend: Thyme and Marigold (TM)—Thymus vulgaris L.–Calendula officinalis L. crop, Rosemary and Chamomile (RC)—Rosmarinus officinalis L.–Matricaria chamomilla L. crop, Rosemary and Thyme (RT)—Rosmarinus officinalis L–Thymus vulgaris L. crop, St. John’s and Celadine (SC)—Hypericum perforatum L.–Chelidonium majus L. crop, St. John’s and Lemon Balm (SL)—Hypericum perforatum L.–Melissa officinalis L. crop; evolution of heights—y axis.
Figure 10.
Mint—Lemon balm.
Figure 10.
Mint—Lemon balm.
Figure 11.
Thyme—Marigold.
Figure 11.
Thyme—Marigold.
Figure 12.
Rosemary—Thyme.
Figure 12.
Rosemary—Thyme.
Figure 13.
St. John’s Wort—Lemon Balm.
Figure 13.
St. John’s Wort—Lemon Balm.
Figure 15.
Graphic representation of vegetable products’ mass in 2020.
Figure 15.
Graphic representation of vegetable products’ mass in 2020.
Figure 16.
Graphic representation of vegetable products mass in 2021.
Figure 16.
Graphic representation of vegetable products mass in 2021.
Figure 17.
Graphic representation of total flavones content.
Figure 17.
Graphic representation of total flavones content.
Figure 18.
Graphic representation of total PACs (phenolcarboxylic acids) content.
Figure 18.
Graphic representation of total PACs (phenolcarboxylic acids) content.
Figure 19.
Graphic representation of total phenolic content. As we highlight in the figures for the each Plant product (
Figure 20a–
j) there is a statistically significant interaction (
p value < 0.05) between the effects of Compound and Sample on value of concentration except four cases: MT, TM, ML and YC. Simple main effects analysis showed that the common crop is statistically different from control crop (
p value < 0.05), except YC and between FL, PCA’s and TPC there are statistical differences, except TR, TM, ML and YC where PCA’s and TPC behave similarly statistically.
Figure 19.
Graphic representation of total phenolic content. As we highlight in the figures for the each Plant product (
Figure 20a–
j) there is a statistically significant interaction (
p value < 0.05) between the effects of Compound and Sample on value of concentration except four cases: MT, TM, ML and YC. Simple main effects analysis showed that the common crop is statistically different from control crop (
p value < 0.05), except YC and between FL, PCA’s and TPC there are statistical differences, except TR, TM, ML and YC where PCA’s and TPC behave similarly statistically.
Figure 20.
Statistical analysis a two-way interaction boxplot for medicinal plant. (a) A two-way interaction boxplot for TR; (b) A two-way interaction boxplot for RT; (c) A two-way interaction boxplot for SL; (d) A two-way interaction boxplot for LS; (e) A two-way in-teraction boxplot for MT; (f) A two-way interaction boxplot for TM; (g) A two-way interaction boxplot for ML; (h) A two-way interaction boxplot for LM; (i) A two-way interaction boxplot for CY; (j) A two-way interaction boxplot for YC.
Figure 20.
Statistical analysis a two-way interaction boxplot for medicinal plant. (a) A two-way interaction boxplot for TR; (b) A two-way interaction boxplot for RT; (c) A two-way interaction boxplot for SL; (d) A two-way interaction boxplot for LS; (e) A two-way in-teraction boxplot for MT; (f) A two-way interaction boxplot for TM; (g) A two-way interaction boxplot for ML; (h) A two-way interaction boxplot for LM; (i) A two-way interaction boxplot for CY; (j) A two-way interaction boxplot for YC.
Table 1.
Climatic conditions in Turnu Magurele town (Romania) during 2018–2019 according to ANM (National Weather Service) [
27].
Table 1.
Climatic conditions in Turnu Magurele town (Romania) during 2018–2019 according to ANM (National Weather Service) [
27].
Turnu Magurele | Period | Medium Value | Minim Value (Date) | Maxim Value (Date) | Number of Observations |
---|
T air (°C) at altitudes of 2 m above the ground | 01.05–30.06.2018 | +20.9 | +8.8 (13.05.2018) | +34.4 (13.06.2018) | 1452 |
01.05–30.06.2019 | +20.1 | +5.6 (09.05.2019) | +33.1 (23.06.2019) | 1461 |
P0, atmospheric pressure at the station level (mmHg) | 01.05–30.06.2018 | 756.9 | 747.5 (30.06.2018) | 764.0 (28.05.2018) | 1452 |
01.05–30.06.2019 | 757.3 | 747.8 (05.05.2019) | 765.5 (26.06.2019) | 1461 |
U, relative humidity (%), 2 m above the ground | 01.05–30.06.2018 | 72 | 24 (29.05.2018) | | 1452 |
01.05–30.06.2019 | 72 | 25 (03.05.2019) | | 1461 |
| | The amount of precipitation | Maxim Value (date) | The proportion of days with precipitation | Number of observations |
RRR, the amount of precipitation (milimeters) | 01.05–30.06.2018 | 209 | 50.0 in 12 h (28.06.2018) | 31 | 121 |
01.05–30.06.2019 | 215 | 42.0 in 12 h (25.06.2019) | 24 | 122 |
Table 2.
Climatic conditions in Turnu Magurele town (Romania) during 2020–2021 according to ANM (National Weather Service) [
27].
Table 2.
Climatic conditions in Turnu Magurele town (Romania) during 2020–2021 according to ANM (National Weather Service) [
27].
Turnu Magurele | Period | Medium Value | Minim Value (Date) | Maxim Value (Date) | Number of Observations |
---|
T air (°C) at altitudes of 2 m above the ground | 01.05–30.06.2020 | +19.2 | +6.5 (09.05.2020) | +33.5 (29.06.2020) | 1464 |
01.05–30.06.2021 | +19.5 | +4.5 (09.05.2021) | +36.8 (25.06.2021) | 1464 |
P0, atmospheric pressure at the station level (mmHg) | 01.05–30.06.2020 | 756.7 | 749.2 (02.05.2020) | 765.6 (23.05.2020) | 1464 |
01.05–30.06.2021 | 757.8 | 750.6 (13.05.2021) | 767.5 (09.05.2021) | 1464 |
U, relative humidity (%), 2 m above the ground | 01.05–30.06.2020 | 68 | 22 (28.06.2020) | | 1464 |
01.05–30.06.2021 | 69 | 23 (12.05.2021) | | 1464 |
| | The amount of precipitation | Maxim Value (date) | The proportion of days with precipitation | Number of observations |
RRR, the amount of precipitation (milimeters) | 01.05–30.06.2020 | 163 | 35.0 in 12 h (16.06.2020) | 23 | 122 |
01.05–30.06.2021 | 135 | 22.0 in 12 h (25.06.2019) | 25 | 122 |
Table 3.
Representation of vegetable products’ mass in 2020.
Table 3.
Representation of vegetable products’ mass in 2020.
Plant Products | Control Crop | Common Crop |
---|
g Harvested | g Dry | g Harvested | g Dry |
---|
thyme (thyme-rosemary) | 540 | 283 | 730 | 302 |
rosemary (thyme-rosemary) | 3524 | 1200 | 4920 | 2107 |
St. John’s Wort (St. John’s Wort—lemon balm) | 1423 | 697 | 1934 | 895 |
lemon balm (St. John’s Wort—lemon balm) | 480 | 193 | 228 | 102 |
marigold (marigold-thyme) | 208 | 96 | 300 | 123 |
thyme (marigold-thyme) | 540 | 283 | 789 | 325 |
mint (mint-lemon balm) | 1200 | 543 | 2492 | 982 |
lemon balm (mint-lemon balm) | 480 | 193 | 2430 | 1010 |
chamomile (yarrow-chamomile) | 356 | 152 | 543 | 267 |
yarrow (yarrow-chamomile) | 324 | 146 | 403 | 185 |
Table 4.
Representation of vegetable products’ mass in 2021.
Table 4.
Representation of vegetable products’ mass in 2021.
Plant Products | Control Crop | Common Crop |
---|
g Harvested | g Dry | g Harvested | g Dry |
---|
thyme (thyme-rosemary) | 970 | 403 | 1230 | 450 |
rosemary (thyme-rosemary) | 4409 | 1878 | 6830 | 3104 |
St. John’s Wort (St. John’s Wort—lemon balm) | 1800 | 823 | 2700 | 1094 |
lemon balm (St. John’s Wort—lemon balm) | 595 | 223 | 480 | 150 |
marigold (marigold-thyme) | 700 | 350 | 700 | 350 |
thyme (marigold-thyme) | 970 | 403 | 1300 | 518 |
mint (mint-lemon balm) | 4360 | 1800 | 4075 | 1650 |
lemon balm(mint-lemon balm) | 595 | 223 | 810 | 314 |
chamomile (yarrow-chamomile) | 469 | 210 | 470 | 125 |
yarrow (yarrow-chamomile) | 570 | 200 | 740 | 305 |
Table 5.
Determining the amount of essential oil in certain vegetable products.
Table 5.
Determining the amount of essential oil in certain vegetable products.
mL Essential Oil/100 g Dry Herbal Product |
---|
| Control Crop | Common Crop |
---|
rosemary (thyme-rosemary) | 3.6 | 4 |
thyme (thyme-rosemary) | 3.6 | 6.6 |
thyme (marigold-thyme) | 3.6 | 5 |
mint (mint-lemon balm) | 1.16 | 1.25 |
lemon balm (mint-lemon balm) | 0.6 | 2 |
yarrow (yarrow-chamomile) | 0.4 | 0.6 |
chamomile (yarrow-chamomile) | 0.2 | 0.3 |
Table 6.
Results for spectrophotometric and volumetric assay for every medicinal plant in the culture.
Table 6.
Results for spectrophotometric and volumetric assay for every medicinal plant in the culture.
g FL Expressed in Rutin/100 g Dried Leaves | g PCAs Expressed in Chlorogenic Acid/100 g Dried Leaves | g TPC Expressed in Tannic Acid/100 g Dried Leaves |
---|
Plant Product | Solvent | Control Crop | Common Crop | Control Crop | Common Crop | Control Crop | Common Crop |
| Alcohol | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 | 2019 | 2020 |
TR | 70% | - | 1.9317 ± 0.0947 | - | 2.4413 ± 0.1858 | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
50% | - | - | - | - | - | 6.9709 ± 1.4921 | - | 9.9461 ± 0.8385 | - | 6.0393 ± 0.3204 | - | 11.1911 ± 0.7959 |
RT | 70% | 1.2555 ± 0.3082 | 1.3469 ± 0.1941 | 1.5908 ± 0.1292 | 1.7616 ± 0.1322 | 9.7633 ± 0.3391 | 10.0288 ± 0.4307 | 11.659 ± 1.1725 | 13.0085 ± 0.5305 | 10.0337 ± 0.2470 | 10.2605 ± 0.4612 | 13.6982 ± 3.4303 | 14.3533 ± 3.4511 |
50% | 1.6612 ± 0.2336 | - | 1.7626±0.2195 | - | 10.312 ± 1.4714 | - | 11.2637 ± 1.4027 | - | 9.2616 ± 0.3351 | - | 11.0854 ± 0.2787 | - |
SL | 70% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
50% | - | 4.3646 ± 1.4447 | - | 6.1703 ± 1.1658 | - | 16.6146 ± 1.0430 | - | 20.9229 ± 0.9239 | - | 6.7989 ± 0.3940 | - | 8.1598 ± 0.4262 |
LS | 70% | - | 1.6432 ± 0.2505 | - | 2.1422 ± 0.5379 | - | 11.8405 ± 0.7671 | - | 22.0896 ± 1.5231 | - | 3.614 ± 0.421 | - | 5.9761 ± 0.0938 |
50% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
MT | 70% | 0.787 ± 0.1351 | 0.6944 ± 0.0805 | 1.1311 ± 0.0578 | 1.1504 ± 0.0643 | - | - | - | - | 4.0237 ± 0.8222 | - | 4.2247 ± 1.6928 | - |
50% | 0.6376 ± 0.0505 | - | 1.0759 ± 0.0951 | - | 1.3438 ± 0.0999 | 1.4104 ± 0.1216 | 1.5514 ± 0.1935 | 2.0048 ± 0.2633 | 3.1223 ± 0.2800 | 3.3329 ± 0.4030 | 3.4311 ± 0.7578 | 4.1516 ± 0.5974 |
TM | 70% | 2.0462 ± 0.5865 | 1.9317 ± 0.0947 | 2.6249 ± 1.1390 | 2.3134 ± 0.4572 | 8.3479 ± 1.3352 | - | 8.9926 ± 1.0686 | - | 10.556 ± 1.3394 | - | 11.639 ± 2.2604 | - |
50% | 2.0646 ± 0.2753 | - | 2.5947 ± 0.0961 | - | 6.2302 ± 0.9905 | 6.9709 ± 1.4921 | 7.5046 ± 0.2743 | 8.2233 ± 0.5946 | 5.8147 ± 1.0630 | 6,0393 ± 0.3204 | 9.2512 ± 1.3221 | 10.3147 ± 1.2546 |
ML | 70% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | 9.1505 ± 1.9447 | - | 12.041 ± 1.9260 |
50% | - | 1.024 ± 0.2407 | - | 2.2621 ± 0.1475 | - | 9.5829 ± 1.0670 | - | 12.0579 ± 0.7928 | - | - | - | - |
LM | 70% | - | 1.6432 ± 0.2505 | - | 2.2951 ± 0.7055 | - | 11.8405 ± 0.7671 | - | 19.6639 ± 2.6681 | - | 3.614 ± 0.421 | - | 6.4694 ± 0.5147 |
50% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
CY | 70% | 1.7606 ± 0.1229 | - | 1.8712 ± 0.1004 | - | 1.7185 ± 0.2359 | - | 2.1868 ± 0.2834 | - | 4.7869 ± 0.6933 | | 4.8703 ± 1.1159 | |
50% | 1.8272 ± 0.5233 | 1.8057 ± 0.5497 | 2.0404 ± 0.6936 | 2.4074 ± 1.3468 | 1.629 ± 0.2360 | 1.682 ± 0.2470 | 1.9253 ± 0.1624 | 2.6278 ± 0.3760 | 2.8405 ± 0.2988 | 2.8963 ± 0.3025 | 2.9047 ± 0.2621 | 3.5099 ± 0.2954 |
YC | 70% | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
50% | - | 1.5354 ± 0.1772 | - | 2.5909 ± 0.4796 | - | 12.4033 ± 4.5895 | - | 13.8511 ± 4.3555 | - | 11.1061 ± 0.8620 | - | 13.7817 ± 2.9323 |