Next Article in Journal
CPSF1 Is Co-Amplified with MYC but Is Independently Associated with Alternative Polyadenylation in Cancer
Previous Article in Journal
COP9 Signalosome Subunit SlCSN5-3 Positively Regulates Resistance to Gray Mold Disease in Tomato (Solanum lycopersicum) Through Jasmonic Acid Pathway
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Biology
Volume 14
Issue 12
10.3390/biology14121636
biology-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

Anthelmintic Activity of Traditional Medicinal Plants Used in Europe

by
Olexandra Boyko
1,* and
Viktor Brygadyrenko
2,*
1
Department of Parasitology and Veterinary Expertise, Examination, Faculty of Veterinary Medicine, Dnipro State Agrarian and Economic University, Sergiy Efremov St., 25, 49000 Dnipro, Ukraine
2
Department of Biodiversity and Ecology, Faculty of Biology and Ecology, Oles Honchar Dnipro National University, Nauky Av., 72, 49010 Dnipro, Ukraine
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Biology 2025, 14(12), 1636; https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14121636
Submission received: 25 October 2025 / Revised: 15 November 2025 / Accepted: 19 November 2025 / Published: 21 November 2025
Versions Notes

Simple Summary

Each year, large and small animal-farming complexes and farms suffer significant economic losses due to parasitic diseases of agricultural animals. Losses include reduced meat and dairy productivity, as well as expenses for animal treatment. The intensification of the use of synthetic anthelmintic drugs promotes not only the development of resistance in the pathogens but also a large-scale contamination of the environment with those drugs. All this underlines the necessity of developing new, alternative, natural-origin means of combating parasites that do not accumulate in the environment and contaminate food chains. In our experiment, we evaluated the in vitro survivability of the noninvasive and invasive larvae of Strongyloides papillosus and Haemonchus contortus subject to aqueous solutions of ethanolic tinctures of traditional medicinal plants (46 species). We determined the representatives of the families Asteraceae (Artemisia absinthium, Inula helenium, Matricaria chamomilla), Lamiaceae (Salvia officinalis), and Salicaceae (Populus nigra), whose aqueous solutions of alcohol tinctures demonstrated nematocidal properties.

Abstract

Synthetic anthelmintic drugs not only contribute to the development of pathogen resistance and environmental pollution but also to the development of pathogen resistance. Therefore, identifying the anthelmintic properties of widely used medicinal plants could be of great practical interest to veterinary and human medicine. In our experiment, we evaluated the in vitro survivability of the noninvasive and invasive (L1–2 and L3, respectively) larvae of Strongyloides papillosus and Haemonchus contortus subject to aqueous solutions of ethanolic tinctures of traditional medicinal plants (46 species). Most of the plant species we studied belonged to the families Asteraceae (Achillea millefolium, Arctium lappa, Artemisia absinthium, Bidens tripartita, Calendula officinalis, Cynara cardunculus var. scolymus, Echinacea purpurea, Helichrysum arenarium, Inula helenium, Matricaria chamomilla, Silybum marianum, Tanacetum vulgare, Taraxacum officinale, Tragopogon porrifolius), Rosaceae (Agrimonia eupatoria, Fragaria vesca, Sanguisorba officinalis), and Lamiaceae (Leonurus cardiaca, Mentha × piperita, Origanum vulgare, Salvia officinalis, Thymus vulgaris). Other plant families were represented by 1–3 species: Fabaceae (Glycyrrhiza glabra, Hedysarum alpinum, Trifolium pratense), Salicaceae (Populus nigra, P. tremula, Salix alba), Fagaceae (Quercus robur), Betulaceae (Betula pendula), Juglandaceae (Juglans regia), Rhamnaceae (Frangula alnus), Acoraceae (Acorus calamus), Apiaceae (Foeniculum vulgare), Caprifoliaceae (Valeriana officinalis), Cucurbitaceae (Cucurbita pepo), Equisetaceae (Equisetum arvense), Ericaceae (Vaccinium vitis-idaea), Gentianaceae (Centaurium erythraea), Hypericaceae (Hypericum perforatum), Malvaceae (Althaea officinalis), Plantaginaceae (Linaria vulgaris, Plantago major), Poaceae (Zea mays), Polygonaceae (Polygonum aviculare), and Ranunculaceae (Nigella sativa). We determined Artemisia absinthium, Inula helenium, Matricaria chamomilla, Salvia officinalis, and Populus nigra, whose aqueous solutions of alcohol tinctures demonstrated nematocidal properties. The other plants we studied did not affect the viability of parasitic nematode larvae.

1. Introduction

For many centuries, Europeans have been using various plants in the traditional treatment of a broad spectrum of ailments. Parasitic diseases, including helminthiasis, cause significant economic losses to livestock farms. Some of the most common nematodes of the ruminant digestive tract are Strongyloides papillosus (Wedl, 1856) Ransom, 1911 (Strongyloididae) and Haemonchus contortus (Rudolphi, 1803) Cobb, 1898 (Trichostrongylidae) [1,2]. As of now, the resistance of pathogens of parasitic diseases to synthetic drugs is growing, including pathogens of gastrointestinal nematodes [3,4], and therefore natural compounds garner great interest as alternatives [5,6,7].
Thus, over recent years, the search for effective means against parasitic diseases has been concentrated on evaluating properties of medicinal plants and their compounds as alternative antiparasitic drugs [8,9,10]. Thus, Artemisia absinthium L. has antifungal, fungicidal, antimicrobial, insecticidal, acaricidal, and antiprotozoal properties against Leishmania aethiopica and L. donovani [11,12,13]. Bidens tripartita L. also has antimalarial and other antiparasitic properties [14,15]. Matricaria chamomilla L. plants have various medicinal properties, including antiparasitic ones [16,17]. Baranauskienė et al. [18] write about the anthelmintic properties of Tanacetum vulgare L. Other species of this genus also have many useful medicinal properties, including antiparasitic properties [19,20].
The plant species Silybum marianum (L.) has many medicinal properties, as well as antiparasitic activity [21,22]. The medicinal properties, including antiparasitic, of the bark of Quercus robur L. are reported in the works of Moharram et al. [23], Fakour & Meshgi [24], and Şöhretoğlu & Renda [25]. Many other scientific works have been published to date, devoted to the medicinal properties of plants, including their antiparasitic activity [26,27,28].
Therefore, one alternative to anthelmintics, including those treating nematodiases of ruminants, is the use of traditional medicinal plants that contain bioactive compounds. The objective of our study was to explore 46 species of medicinal plants that are common in the steppe and forest-steppe zones of Ukraine, as well as Central Europe, by testing their ethanolic extracts for in vitro effects on the survival of the nematodes S. papillosus and H. contortus.

2. Materials and Methods

For the experiment, we purchased the aboveground and underground parts of medicinal plants (Liktravy Ltd., Zhytomyr, Ukraine): roots, rhizomes, bark, aboveground parts, buds, leaves, inflorescences, pericarp, stamens, fruits, and seeds. A total of 46 traditional medicinal plants were used in the experiment. In 30 days, we prepared 10% alcoholic tinctures (2.7 g of ethanol + 0.3 g of dry, fragmented parts of plants) stored at room temperature in the absence of light, periodically shaking them. To do this, the required part of the plant was chopped to 2 mm with scissors and filled with ethanol.
The survival of the nematodes subject to medicinal plants was determined using 0.01%, 0.1%, and 1.0% concentrations of ethanolic tinctures: to 0.01, 0.1, or 1.0 mL of 10% ethanolic tincture, we added 9.99, 9.9, or 9.0 mL of H2O. Negative (distilled water) and positive controls (Albendazole 10%, Ukrvetbiopharm, Kharkiv, Ukraine) were also used.
Feces were collected from goats naturally infected by the nematodes S. papillosus and H. contortus. The study used various larval stages of nematodes that develop in the environment, outside the host organism. This choice was based on the different sensitivities of larvae at different ages to environmental factors. The nematode larvae were cultivated for 10 days at a temperature of 18–22 °C. Cultivation was carried out according to the method of Zajac & Conboy [29]. For this purpose, fresh (1 day) goat feces in their original form, without grinding, were placed in regularly aerated Petri dishes and moistened daily with 3 mL of water at room temperature. The larvae were detected with the generally accepted Baermann’s Method [29] using a centrifuge (1500 rpm for four minutes, 252 g). The larvae of the nematodes S. papillosus and H. contortus of different ages were identified according to the morphological traits [30,31,32,33].
After centrifugation, 0.1 mL of the sediment with nematode larvae was placed in 1.5 mL plastic test tubes. To 0.1 mL of the sediment with nematode larvae, we added 1 mL of an aqueous solution of ethanolic tincture of plants in five repetitions at 22 °C. The exposure lasted for 24 h. Afterward, the sediment (0.1 mL from each test tube) was placed on a microscope slide to count live and dead larvae (immobile, with signs of damaged intestines).
According to the results of the experiment, we calculated the mean and standard deviation (x ± SD). Statistically significant differences were considered to be p ˂ 0.05. Significance of the differences between the samples was evaluated using the ANOVA. To determine the differences between the samples within one line in tables, we used Tukey’s Test.

3. Results

The studies of the effects of the medicinal plants on the survival of the nematode larvae revealed the representatives of the families Asteraceae, Lamiaceae, and Salicaceae, whose alcoholic tinctures demonstrated nematocidal properties. Such plants representing the Asteraceae family included Artemisia absinthium L., Inula helenium L., and Matricaria chamomilla L. (Table 1). Over 65% of the noninvasive larvae of S. papillosus died within a day when exposed to the alcoholic tinctures of these plants. Meanwhile, the invasive larvae of these nematodes (L3 S. papillosus and H. contortus) were more resistant to these tinctures. Only I. helenium displayed a nematocidal activity toward H. contortus: around 57% dead larvae were recorded.
Pronounced nematocidal properties against the free-living (nonparasitic) forms of S. papillosus were also exerted by a representative of the Lamiaceae family—Salvia officinalis L. At the same time, the alcoholic tinctures of the plants belonging to this family exhibited no nematocidal effects in relation to the invasive nematode larvae (Table 2). The ethanolic tinctures of medicinal plants of the Rosaceae and Fabaceae families had no effect on the vitality of the nematode larvae.
The strongest negative effect on the vitality of the larval stages of the ruminant nematodes in the in vitro conditions was recorded for Populus nigra L. (Salicaceae). Over 90% of the L1–2 specimens of S. papillosus died within a day when subject to the alcohol tincture of this plant (even at 1% concentration of the solution, Table 3). The invasive stages of the nematodes were resistant to the ethanolic tinctures of the plants belonging to the families Salicaceae, Fagaceae, Betulaceae, Juglandaceae, and Rhamnaceae at the same concentrations.
No notable changes in the vitality of the larvae of S. papillosus and H. contortus in the in vitro conditions were produced by the alcoholic tinctures of the medicinal plants from the families Acoraceae, Apiaceae, Caprifoliaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Equisetaceae, Ericaceae, Gentianaceae, Hypericaceae, Malvaceae, Plantaginaceae, Poaceae, Polygonaceae, and Ranunculaceae (Table 4). Over 50% of the larvae at various stages of development remained vital for 24 h. Only when exposed to Althaea officinalis L. (Malvaceae) rhizomes was a slight anthelmintic effect observed: the death of more than 44% of L1–2 of S. papillosus (non-infection larvae).

4. Discussion

All the species we analyzed in this study are traditional medicinal plants, used in folk medicine from ancient times. Most of them exert anti-inflammatory, antiseptic, antimicrobial, and other therapeutic properties that benefit humans and vertebrates [34,35,36]. Due to their bioactive compounds, almost all those plants are used to treat various ailments, including respiratory diseases caused by pathogenic microorganisms and parasitic diseases [37,38].
However, not all of our studies confirmed the results reported by other researchers. According to Tariq et al. [34], aqueous and ethanolic extracts from Achillea millifolium exerted notable anthelmintic properties against nematodes of the gastrointestinal tract of ruminants, particularly the mature specimens of Haemonchus contortus, in both in vitro and in vivo conditions. According to the in vitro studies, LC50 equaled 0.05 and 0.11 mg/mL for aqueous and ethanolic extracts, respectively. The experiments of other researchers testing A. millifolium against gastrointestinal nematodes of donkeys confirmed an anthelmintic effect of an aqueous extract of this plant in in vitro conditions, with ovicidal and larvicidal activities [39]. However, our experiment with ethanolic tincture in studied concentrations revealed no negative effect on the nematode larvae of ruminants.
A notable anthelmintic effect was exhibited by the ethanolic tincture of Artemisia absinthium on the L1–2 larvae of S. papillosus. The results of our experiments partially confirmed Tariq et al. [40], who studied the effects of ethanolic extract from A. absinthium on the survival of adult nematodes of H. contortus in in vitro conditions, and also their egg output in feces. Although this tincture had no effect on the larvae of H. contortus, it exhibited a nematocidal effect against the pathogens of strongyloidiasis in ruminants. Our previous studies of anthelmintic properties of ethanolic extracts of plants of the Asteraceae family, including the Artemisia genus, revealed no notable effect of a 0.1% concentration, as also evidenced in the experiment conducted by Zazharskyi et al. [41].
In in vitro conditions, the ethanolic tincture of Calendula officinalis had no negative effect on the survival of the nematode larvae of ruminants. By contrast, the experiment by Băieş et al. [10], conducted in vivo, revealed a pronounced anthelmintic effect against the eggs of swine nematodes.
According to Buza et al. [42], Inula helenium had a significant effect (p < 0.01) on the egg output and the development of nematode larvae of donkeys, reporting its anthelmintic activity (LC50 0.041 mg/mL for egg mortality and 0.41 mg/mL for larval mortality). Our findings align with theirs, as the ethanolic extract of I. helenium killed over 65% of the first- and second-stage larvae of S. papillosus in 24 h.
Thanks to phenols, some species of chamomile have anthelmintic properties [43]. According to our studies, the chamomile Matricaria chamomilla produced a negative effect on the nematode larvae of S. papillosus. The leaves and flowers of another representative of Asteraceae—Tanacetum vulgare—displayed a notable larvicidal action toward the nematode larvae targeting sheep [44]. Their ethanolic extracts at concentrations of 500, 200, 100, 50, 20, and 10 mg/mL exerted larvicidal activity against Trichostrongylidae helminths infecting sheep. The aqueous solutions of the 10% ethanolic tincture at concentrations of 0.1%, 1.0%, and 10% had no effect on different development stages of H. contortus and S. papillosus in the environment. Compared with the results of our previous studies, the 3% aqueous extracts of Taraxacum officinale and Sanguisorba officinalis had a stronger negative effect on the survival of nematode larvae of ruminants than the 1% aqueous solutions of ethanolic tinctures [32].
Bioactive compounds of essential oils of Mentha × piperita, Origanum vulgare, and Salvia officinalis have manifested anthelmintic properties against intestinal larvae of ruminants [45,46,47]. However, the alcoholic tinctures of Mentha × piperita and Origanum vulgare at a 1% concentration had no effect on the nematode larvae of ruminants. Meanwhile, the tincture of Salvia officinalis exerted a considerable effect on the larvae of S. papillosus. Ferreira et al. [48] confirmed the effect of the essential oil of Thymus vulgaris on H. contortus. The main component of the essential oil of this plant is thymol. The results of our previous studies [49,50] of plant components on the survival of nematode larvae in in vitro conditions also corroborated that thymol, and its mixtures with other plant components at various concentrations (0.01–1.0%), exhibit negative effects on the larvae of H. contortus. However, in the form of 1% aqueous tincture, this plant had no negative effect on the larvae of the studied nematode. In our previous studies of nematocidal activities of alcoholic extracts from medicinal plants, an insignificant effect on the vitality of nematode larvae was produced by plants of the Lamiaceae family, particularly Stachys recta at a 0.1% concentration. However, the mortality of the larvae of S. papillosus after 24 h exposure to this extract did not exceed 46.9% on average [51].
The root of Glycyrrhiza glabra in the form of aqueous extract manifested a negative effect on nematodes of the gastrointestinal tract of sheep [52], as revealed by the egg hatch and development tests on the larvae of Trichostrongylus spp. and Teladorsagia/Ostertagia spp. (LC50 measured 12.25 mg/mL). However, the 1% ethanolic tincture of the root demonstrated no effect on any of the studied nematodes.
The aqueous extract of Quercus robur in a dose of 3.75 g/kg reduced the fecal egg count of alimentary-canal nematodes from sheep [24]. However, in the in vitro experiment, the 1% ethanolic extract of this plant showed no effect on the nematode larvae.
The in vitro studies revealed a considerable anthelmintic activity of unpurified ethanolic extract of Juglans regia on the locomotor activity of adult nematodes of Ascaridia galli. At a 100 mg/mL concentration, this extract caused a 96.5% inhibition of the nematodes’ locomotor activity in 24 h [53]. The ethanolic tincture at a 1% concentration, according to our studies, had no notable anthelmintic effect on the nematode larvae.
At a 1% concentration, the ethanolic tinctures of medicinal plants of the Acoraceae, Apiaceae, Caprifoliaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Equisetaceae, Ericaceae, Gentianaceae, Hypericaceae, Malvaceae, Plantaginaceae, Poaceae, Polygonaceae, and Ranunculaceae families demonstrated no notable anthelmintic properties. Nonetheless, there is scientific evidence of their efficacy in other therapeutic forms and concentrations against nematodes parasitizing ruminants. In the in vitro studies, aqueous and ethanolic extracts of the seeds of Nigella sativa L. at concentrations of 3.12, 6.3, 12.5, 25.0, and 50.0 mg/mL exhibited an ovicidal effect (p < 0.05) on the eggs of gastrointestinal nematodes of ruminants [54].

5. Conclusions

The effects of plants on nematodes depend on a number of factors, including the medical form (aqueous tincture, ethanolic extract, etc.), the part of the plant that is used for the preparation of extract or tincture, the base of medical form (water, ethyl acetate, methanol, and other), its concentration, and the target species of parasite and stage of its development (egg, larvae, mature individual). Our studies revealed notable anthelmintic effects of 1% aqueous tinctures of Artemisia absinthium, Inula helenium, Matricaria chamomilla, Salvia officinalis, and Populus nigra against noninvasive larvae of S. papillosus. Over 65% of those larvae died during a 24 h exposure to alcoholic tinctures of these plants. Further in vitro and in vivo studies are needed to determine optimal concentrations of these solutions for future applications for the treatment of animals with gastrointestinal nematodes, including strongyloidiasis.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research was funded by the Ministry of Education and Science of Ukraine, grant number 0124U000567 “Assessment of the Biological Hazard in the Territories of the Dnipro Basin after the Destruction of the Kakhova HPP” (2024-2026).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

References

  1. Tumusiime, M.; Ndayisenga, F.; Ntampaka, P. Prevalence of gastrointestinal nematodes, cestodes, and protozoans of goats in Nyagatare District, Rwanda. Vet. Med. Res. Rep. 2022, 13, 339–349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Opeto, C.D.; Angwech, H.; Ongwech, A.; Abola, B.; Odongo, S.; Malinga, G.M. Haemonchosis in small ruminants under traditional husbandry systems in Apac District, Northern Uganda. J. Parasitol. Res. 2024, 2024, 8812142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Arsenopoulos, K.V.; Fthenakis, G.C.; Katsarou, E.I.; Papadopoulos, E. Haemonchosis: A challenging parasitic infection of sheep and goats. Animals 2021, 11, 363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Chan, A.H.E.; Kaenkaew, C.; Pakdee, W.; Sungpradit, S.; Thaenkham, U. Emergence of dual drug-resistant strongylids in goats: First phenotypic and genotypic evidence from Ratchaburi Province, Central Thailand. BMC Vet. Res. 2025, 21, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Boyko, O.O.; Brygadyrenko, V.V. The viability of Haemonchus contortus (Nematoda, Strongylida) and Strongyloides papillosus (Nematoda, Rhabditida) larvae exposed to various flavourings and source materials used in food production. Zoodiversity 2019, 53, 433–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Boyko, O.O.; Brygadyrenko, V.V. Nematicidal activity of aqueous tinctures of plants against larvae of the nematode Strongyloides papillosus. Trop. Biomed. 2021, 38, 85–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Boyko, O.; Brygadyrenko, V. Nematicidal activity of organic food additives. Diversity 2022, 14, 615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Váradyová, Z.; Pisarčíková, J.; Babják, M.; Hodges, A.; Mravčáková, D.; Kišidayová, S.; Königová, A.; Vadlejch, J.; Várady, M. Ovicidal and larvicidal activity of extracts from medicinal-plants against Haemonchus contortus. Exp. Parasitol. 2018, 195, 71–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Dhingra, G.; Dhakad, P.; Tanwar, S. Review on phytochemical constituents and pharmacological activities of plant Calendula officinalis Linn. Biol. Sci. 2022, 2, 216–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Băieş, M.-H.; Cotuţiu, V.-D.; Spînu, M.; Mathe, A.; Cozma-Petruț, A.; Bocǎneţ, V.I.; Cozma, V. Satureja hortensis L. and Calendula officinalis L., two Romanian plants, with in vivo antiparasitic potential against digestive parasites of swine. Microorganisms 2023, 11, 2980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  11. Msaada, K.; Salem, N.; Bachrouch, O.; Bousselmi, S.; Tammar, S.; Alfaify, A.; Al Sane, K.; Ben Ammar, W.; Azeiz, S.; Haj Brahim, A.; et al. Chemical composition and antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of wormwood (Artemisia absinthium L.) essential oils and phenolics. J. Chem. 2015, 2015, 804658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Beshay, E.V.N. Therapeutic efficacy of Artemisia absinthium against Hymenolepis nana: In vitro and in vivo studies in comparison with the anthelmintic Praziquantel. J. Helminthol. 2017, 92, 298–308. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Bhat, R.R.; Rehman, M.U.; Shabir, A.; Rahman Mir, M.U.; Ahmad, A.; Khan, R.; Masoodi, M.H.; Madkhali, H.; Ganaie, M.A. Chemical composition and biological uses of Artemisia absinthium (wormwood). In Plant and Human Health. Volume 3. Pharmacology and Therapeutic Uses; Ozturk, M., Hakeem, K.R., Eds.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2019; pp. 37–63. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Al-Snafi, A.E. Antiparasitic, antiprotozoal, molluscicidal and insecticidal activity of medicinal plants (Part 2)—Plant based review. Sch. Acad. J. Pharm. 2016, 5, 194–207. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Shawon, S.I.; Reyda, R.N.; Qais, N. Traditional uses and modern pharmacological investigations of Bidens frondosa and Bidens tripartita. In The Genus Bidens. Chemistry and Pharmacology; Bibi, Y., Zahara, K., Qayyum, A., Jenks, M.A., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2025; pp. 275–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Romero, M.D.C.; Valero, A.; Martín-Sánchez, J.; Navarro-Moll, M.C. Activity of Matricaria chamomilla essential oil against anisakiasis. Phytomedicine 2012, 19, 520–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Akram, W.; Ahmed, S.; Rihan, M.; Arora, S.; Khalid, M.; Ahmad, S.; Ahmad, F.; Haque, S.; Vashishth, R. An updated comprehensive review of the therapeutic properties of chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.). Int. J. Food Prop. 2023, 27, 133–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Baranauskienė, R.; Kazernavičiūtė, R.; Pukalskienė, M.; Maždžierienė, R.; Venskutonis, P.R. Agrorefinery of Tanacetum vulgare L. into valuable products and evaluation of their antioxidant properties and phytochemical composition. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 60, 113–122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Di Napoli, A.; Zucchetti, P. A comprehensive review of the benefits of Taraxacum officinale on human health. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2021, 45, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Atwa, M.T.M.; Abd-Elrazek, A.M.; Salem, N.I.S. Dandelion (Taraxacum officinale) improves the therapeutic efficiency of Praziquantel in experimental schistosomiasis. Acta Parasitol. 2022, 67, 773–783. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  21. Wang, X.; Zhang, Z.; Wu, S.-C. Health benefits of Silybum marianum: Phytochemistry, pharmacology, and applications. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 11644–11664. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Taghipour, A.; Ghaffarifar, F.; Horton, J.; Dalimi, A.; Sharifi, Z. Silybum marianum ethanolic extract: In vitro effects on protoscolices of Echinococcus granulosus G1 strain with emphasis on other Iranian medicinal plants. Trop. Med. Health 2021, 49, 71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Moharram, F.A.-E.; Marzouk, M.S.; El Dib, R.A.M.; El-Shenawy, S.M.; Abdel-Rahman, R.F.; Ibrahim, R.R. Hepatoprotective, gastroprotective, antioxidant activity and phenolic constituents of Quercus robur leaves. J. Pharm. Sci. Res. 2015, 7, 1055–1065. [Google Scholar]
  24. Fakour, S.; Meshgi, B. Evaluation of the anthelmintic effects of Quercus robur extract against ovine gastrointestinal nematodes. J. Vet. Res. 2016, 71, 389–394. [Google Scholar]
  25. Şöhretoğlu, D.; Renda, G. The polyphenolic profile of oak (Quercus) species: A phytochemical and pharmacological overview. Phytochem. Rev. 2020, 19, 1379–1426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Wakabayashi, K.A.L.; de Melo, N.I.; Aguiar, D.P.; de Oliveira, P.F.; Groppo, M.; da Silva Filho, A.A.; Rodrigues, V.; Cunha, W.R.; Tavares, D.C.; Magalhães, L.G.; et al. Anthelmintic effects of the essential oil of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare Mill., Apiaceae) against Schistosoma mansoni. Chem. Biodivers. 2015, 12, 1105–1114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Selvaraju, A.; Kaviya, S.; Dhanraj, K. Manoj phytochemical analysis and anthelmintic potential of Nigella sativa against the trematode, Cotylophoron cotylophorum. J. Pharmacogn. Phytochem. 2019, 8, 3161–3166. [Google Scholar]
  28. Noreen, S.; Tufail, T.; Badar Ul Ain, H.; Awuchi, C.G. Pharmacological, nutraceutical, functional and therapeutic properties of fennel (Foeniculum vulgare). Int. J. Food Prop. 2023, 26, 915–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Zajac, A.M.; Conboy, G.A. Veterinary Clinical Parasitology, 8th ed.; Willey-Blackwell: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2012; 354p. [Google Scholar]
  30. Van Wyk, A.; Cabaret, J.; Michael, L.M. Morphological identifcation of nematode larvae of small ruminants and cattle simplifed. Vet. Parasitol. 2011, 119, 277–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Van Wyk, J.A.; Mayhew, E. Morphological identifcation of parasitic nematode infective larvae of small ruminants and cattle: A practical lab guide. Onderstepoort J. Vet. Res. 2013, 80, a539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Boyko, O.O.; Brygadyrenko, V.V. Nematocidial activity of aqueous solutions of plants of the families Cupressaceae, Rosaceae, Asteraceae, Fabaceae, Cannabaceae and Apiaceae. Biosyst. Divers. 2019, 27, 227–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Gugosyan, Y.A.; Boyko, O.O.; Brygadyrenko, V.V. Morphological variation of four species of Strongyloides (Nematoda, Rhabditida) parasitising various mammal species. Biosyst. Divers. 2019, 27, 85–98. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Tariq, K.A.; Chishti, M.Z.; Ahmad, F.; Shawl, A.S. Anthelmintic efficacy of Achillea millifolium against gastrointestinal nematodes of sheep: In vitro and in vivo studies. J. Helminthol. 2008, 82, 227–233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ali, S.I.; Gopalakrishnan, B.; Venkatesalu, V. Pharmacognosy, phytochemistry and pharmacological properties of Achillea millefolium L.: A review. Phytother. Res. 2017, 31, 1140–1161. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Bashir, S.; Noor, A.; Zargar, M.I.; Siddiqui, N.A. Ethnopharmacology, phytochemistry, and biological activities of Achillea millefolium: A comprehensive review. In Edible Plants in Health and Diseases. Volume II: Phytochemical and Pharmacological Properties; Masoodi, M.H., Rehman, M.U., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2022; pp. 457–481. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Shyam, M.; Sabina, E.P. Harnessing the power of Arctium lappa root: A review of its pharmacological properties and therapeutic applications. Nat. Prod. Bioprospecting 2024, 14, 49. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Maleki, E.; Yegdaneh, A.; Akbari, S.; Sedigheh, S. Anti-leishmanial effect of the hydroalcoholic extract of the leaves, roots and seeds of Arctium lappa. Avicenna J. Phytomed. 2025, 15, 1030–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Buza, V.; Cătană, L.; Andrei, S.M.; Ștefănuț, L.C.; Răileanu, Ș.; Matei, M.C.; Vlasiuc, I.; Cernea, M. In vitro anthelmintic activity assessment of six medicinal plant aqueous extracts against donkey strongyles. J. Helminthol. 2020, 94, e147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  40. Tariq, K.A.; Chishti, M.Z.; Ahmad, F.; Shawl, A.S. Anthelmintic activity of extracts of Artemisia absinthium against ovine nematodes. Vet. Parasitol. 2008, 160, 83–88. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Zazharskyi, V.V.; Brygadyrenko, V.V.; Zazharska, N.M.; Borovik, I.V.; Boyko, O.O.; Kulishenko, O.M.; Davydenko, P.O. Antibacterial and nematicidal activities of extracts from plants of the Asteraceae family. Regul. Mech. Biosyst. 2024, 15, 587–593. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Buza, V.; Matei, M.-C.; Ștefănuț, L.C. Inula helenium: A literature review on ethnomedical uses, bioactive compounds and pharmacological activities. Lucr. Ştiinţ. Ser. Med. Vet. 2020, 63, 53–59. [Google Scholar]
  43. Hajaji, S.; Alimi, D.; Jabri, M.A.; Abuseir, S.; Gharbi, M.; Akkari, H. Anthelmintic activity of Tunisian chamomile (Matricaria recutita L.) against Haemonchus contortus. J. Helminthol. 2018, 92, 168–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Kļaviņa, A.; Keidāne, D.; Ganola, K.; Lūsis, I.; Šukele, R.; Bandere, D.; Kovalcuka, L. Anthelmintic activity of Tanacetum vulgare L. (leaf and flower) extracts against Trichostrongylidae nematodes in sheep in vitro. Animals 2023, 13, 2176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Gul, V.; Huseynova, A.; Maharramov, S. Anthelmintic effect of essential oil and extract produced from Salvia sclarea L. (Lamiaceae) on nematodes living in gastrointestinal system of sheep. Ann. Med. Res. 2021, 27, 252–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Štrbac, F.; Krnjajić, S.; Stojanović, D.; Ratajac, R.; Simin, N.; Orčić, D.; Rinaldi, L.; Ciccone, E.; Maurelli, M.P.; Cringoli, G.; et al. In vitro and in vivo anthelmintic efficacy of peppermint (Mentha x piperita L.) essential oil against gastrointestinal nematodes of sheep. Front. Vet. Sci. 2023, 10, 1232570. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Štrbac, F.; Krnjajić, S.; Maurelli, M.P.; Stojanović, D.; Simin, N.; Orčić, D.; Ratajac, R.; Petrović, K.; Knežević, G.; Cringoli, G.; et al. A potential anthelmintic phytopharmacological source of Origanum vulgare (L.) essential oil against gastrointestinal nematodes of sheep. Animals 2023, 13, 45. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Ferreira, L.E.; Benincasa, B.I.; Fachin, A.L.; França, S.C.; Contini, S.S.H.T.; Chagas, A.C.S.; Beleboni, R.O. Thymus vulgaris L. essential oil and its main component thymol: Anthelmintic effects against Haemonchus contortus from sheep. Vet. Parasitol. 2016, 228, 70–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  49. Boyko, O.; Brygadyrenko, V. Survival of nematode larvae after treatment with eugenol, isoeugenol, thymol, and carvacrol. Front. Biosci Elite Ed. 2023, 15, 25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Boyko, O.O.; Brygadyrenko, V.V. Sustainability of pasture ecosystems: The use of plant-based mixtures in the fight against helminths. Biosyst. Divers. 2025, 33, e2532. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zazharskyi, V.V.; Brygadyrenko, V.V.; Zazharska, N.M.; Boyko, O.O.; Borovik, I.V.; Kulishenko, O.M.; Davydenko, P.O. Antibacterial and nematocidal activities of extracts of plants of the families Poaceae, Cyperaceae, Asparagaceae, Convolvulaceae, Crassulaceae, Rosaceae, Lamiaceae, and Boraginaceae. Regul. Mech. Biosyst. 2025, 16, e25045. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Maestrini, M.; Molento, M.B.; Forzan, M.; Perrucci, S. In vitro anthelmintic activity of an aqueous extract of Glycyrrhiza glabra and of glycyrrhetinic acid against gastrointestinal nematodes of small ruminants. Parasite 2021, 28, 64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Mir, F.H.; Tanveer, S.; Para, B.A. Evaluation of anthelmintic efficacy of ethanolic leaf extract of Juglans regia L. on Ascaridia galli: A comprehensive in vitro and in vivo study. Vet. Res. Commun. 2024, 48, 2321–2330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Al-Shaibani, I.R.M.; Phulan, M.S.; Arijo, A.; Qureshi, T.A.; Kumbher, A.M. Anthelmintic activity of Nigella sativa L., seeds on gastrointestinal nematodes of sheep. Pak. J. Nematol. 2008, 26, 207–218. [Google Scholar]
Table 1. Mortality of the larvae of S. papillosus and H. contortus (%) during a 24 h laboratory experiment under the influence of aqueous solutions of alcoholic tinctures of plants belonging to the Asteraceae family (x ± SD, n = 5).
Table 1. Mortality of the larvae of S. papillosus and H. contortus (%) during a 24 h laboratory experiment under the influence of aqueous solutions of alcoholic tinctures of plants belonging to the Asteraceae family (x ± SD, n = 5).
PlantNematode
Species		Mortality 1 of Nematode Larvae in Control, %Mortality of Nematode Larvae in 0.01% Solution, %Mortality of Nematode Larvae in 0.1% Solution, %Mortality of Nematode Larvae in 1.0% Solution, %
Achillea millefolium L.L1–2 of S. papillosus18.1 ± 3.3 a18.0 ± 4.2 a20.5 ± 0.9 a33.7 ± 3.3 b
(Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus15.2 ± 3.2 a14.5 ± 2.7 a14.3 ± 2.5 a15.0 ± 4.7 a
InflorescencesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Arctium lappa L.L1–2 of S. papillosus11.3 ± 2.4 a14.2 ± 9.0 a12.3 ± 3.5 a16.4 ± 3.0 a
(Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus11.2 ± 1.3 a11.7 ± 5.2 a11.5 ± 7.1 a12.4 ± 2.0 a
Rhizomes L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a2.4 ± 5.3 a2.0 ± 4.5 a2.5 ± 5.6 a
Artemisia absinthium L.L1–2 of S. papillosus1.5 ± 3.4 a0.0 ± 0.0 a1.8 ± 4.1 a85.5 ± 16.5 b
(Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus14.1 ± 4.1 a15.6 ± 6.7 a14.5 ± 3.2 a19.4 ± 6.7 a
Aboveground partL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Bidens tripartita L.L1–2 of S. papillosus9.4 ± 6.3 a13.8 ± 13.0 a13.6 ± 11.6 a16.7 ± 12.4 a
(Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Aboveground part L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Calendula officinalis L.L1–2 of S. papillosus6.3 ± 0.6 a5.4 ± 2.5 a6.3 ± 0.9 a32.2 ± 11.1 b
(Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus11.7 ± 4.6 a10.4 ± 5.5 a13.9 ± 4.1 a14.3 ± 2.8 a
Inflorescences L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a8.7 ± 8.1 a
Cynara cardunculusL1–2 of S. papillosus17.0 ± 3.3 a18.1 ± 5.8 a18.3 ± 7.2 a17.1 ± 1.4 a
var. scolymus L. (Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus14.1 ± 2.0 a14.1 ± 9.4 a15.7 ± 10.6 a16.1 ± 3.2 a
InflorescencesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a3.3 ± 4.6 a3.8 ± 5.6 a2.9 ± 6.4 a
Echinacea purpurea (L.) L1–2 of S. papillosus6.3 ± 0.6 a7.2 ± 3.3 a31.8 ± 3.5 a55.3 ± 7.7 b
Moench (Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a3.3 ± 7.5 a
InflorescencesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a23.3 ± 13.7 b
Echinacea purpurea (L.) L1–2 of S. papillosus6.3 ± 0.6 a6.5 ± 1.2 a5.2 ± 0.6 a8.3 ± 2.3 a
Moench (Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus2.2 ± 5.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
RhizomesL3 of H. contortus3.3 ± 7.5 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a2.9 ± 6.4 a
Helichrysum arenarium (L.) L1–2 of S. papillosus2.2 ± 5.0 a4.3 ± 6.0 a25.5 ± 12.8 b32.2 ± 13.5 b
Moench (Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Inflorescences L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Inula helenium L.L1–2 of S. papillosus20.7 ± 2.0 a18.5 ± 3.7 a55.5 ± 10.1 b67.7 ± 1.0 c
(Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus20.8 ± 1.8 a21.9 ± 5.4 a22.2 ± 2.9 a42.8 ± 4.3 b
RhizomesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a6.2 ± 9.1 a11.5 ± 11.2 a57.2 ± 19.1 b
Matricaria chamomilla L.L1–2 of S. papillosus2.2 ± 5.0 a33.6 ± 8.0 b40.4 ± 4.4 b77.6 ± 12.8 c
(Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus2.0 ± 4.5 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
InflorescencesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Silybum marianum (L.) L1–2 of S. papillosus17.0 ± 3.3 a16.7 ± 10.1 a16.3 ± 7.3 a16.4 ± 3.6 a
Gaertn. (Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus14.1 ± 2.0 a16.9 ± 7.5 a16.5 ± 3.3 a16.0 ± 2.3 a
SeedsL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Tanacetum vulgare L.L1–2 of S. papillosus15.1 ± 3.9 a19.2 ± 8.3 ab25.5 ± 7.1 ab26.2 ± 2.4 b
(Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus0.0 ± 0.0 a6.6 ± 6.0 ab8.7 ± 5.9 ab10.4 ± 6.4 b
InflorescencesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Taraxacum officinale (L.) Webb ex F.H.Wigg.L1–2 of S. papillosus7.3 ± 1.0 a7.2 ± 1.2 a7.3 ± 1.3 a16.2 ± 4.4 b
(Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus13.3 ± 4.5 a10.2 ± 7.8 a16.9 ± 4.1 a16.4 ± 4.6 a
RootsL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a5.6 ± 7.9 a
Tragopogon porrifolius L.L1–2 of S. papillosus21.5 ± 3.4 ab19.7 ± 6.4 a22.8 ± 12.5 ab30.5 ± 8.7 b
(Asteraceae)L3 of S. papillosus17.0 ± 3.2 a17.7 ± 11.7 a17.4 ± 16.1 a15.0 ± 14.6 a
RhizomesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
1 The following parts were tested: roots, rhizomes, bark, aboveground part, buds, leaves, inflorescences, pericarp, stamens, fruits, and seeds. Albendazole was used as a positive control: in the positive control, larval mortality after 24 h was 100%. Different letters in Table 1 within each line indicate significant (p < 0.05) differences between groups according to Tukey’s test results.
Table 2. Mortality of the larvae of S. papillosus and H. contortus (%) during a 24 h laboratory experiment under the influence of aqueous solutions of alcoholic tinctures of plants belonging to the Rosaceae, Lamiaceae, and Fabaceae families (x ± SD, n = 5).
Table 2. Mortality of the larvae of S. papillosus and H. contortus (%) during a 24 h laboratory experiment under the influence of aqueous solutions of alcoholic tinctures of plants belonging to the Rosaceae, Lamiaceae, and Fabaceae families (x ± SD, n = 5).
PlantNematode
Species		Mortality 1 of Nematode Larvae in Control, %Mortality of Nematode Larvae in 0.01% Solution, %Mortality of Nematode Larvae in 0.1% Solution, %Mortality of Nematode Larvae in 1.0% Solution, %
Agrimonia eupatoria L.L1–2 of S. papillosus24.5 ± 5.6 a23.5 ± 12.5 a23.8 ± 12.7 a27.2 ± 2.7 a
(Rosaceae)L3 of S. papillosus0.0 ± 0.0 a7.4 ± 8.0 a6.7 ± 6.2 a8.3 ± 8.6 a
Aboveground part L3 of H. contortus2.5 ± 5.6 a3.1 ± 4.3 a4.2 ± 5.8 a4.0 ± 8.9 a
Fragaria vesca L.L1–2 of S. papillosus21.9 ± 8.0 a22.1 ± 7.8 a24.6 ± 4.0 a18.1 ± 12.3 a
(Rosaceae)L3 of S. papillosus7.3 ± 10.1 a8.7 ± 8.3 a9.5 ± 10.4 a9.0 ± 12.4 a
LeavesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Sanguisorba officinalis L.L1–2 of S. papillosus17.0 ± 3.3 a17.8 ± 3.9 a17.6 ± 5.2 a15.4 ± 3.3 a
(Rosaceae)L3 of S. papillosus14.1 ± 2.0 a17.8 ± 8.1 a16.8 ± 14.3 a17.8 ± 2.3 a
RhizomesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Leonurus cardiaca L.L1–2 of S. papillosus11.3 ± 2.4 a15.2 ± 8.8 a14.8 ± 6.0 a16.1 ± 3.0 a
(Lamiaceae)L3 of S. papillosus11.2 ± 1.3 a16.4 ± 6.2 ab16.8 ± 11.0 ab19.1 ± 2.5 b
Aboveground partL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a6.3 ± 4.9 a5.5 ± 5.6 a6.7 ± 6.2 a
Mentha × piperita L.L1–2 of S. papillosus8.3 ± 11.8 a0.0 ± 0.0 a7.8 ± 7.5 a39.4 ± 17.1 b
(Lamiaceae)L3 of S. papillosus4.0 ± 8.9 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Aboveground partL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Origanum vulgare L.L1–2 of S. papillosus21.5 ± 3.4 a19.9 ± 12.2 a20.4 ± 12.2 a24.1 ± 6.7 a
(Lamiaceae)L3 of S. papillosus17.0 ± 3.2 a18.9 ± 6.8 a17.9 ± 9.8 a23.5 ± 6.1 a
Aboveground part L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a5.1 ± 7.0 a6.4 ± 7.5 a5.6 ± 7.9 a
Salvia officinalis L.L1–2 of S. papillosus1.8 ± 4.1 a1.5 ± 3.4 a51.4 ± 10.7 b80.4 ± 7.0 c
(Lamiaceae)L3 of S. papillosus12.9 ± 5.1 ab9.6 ± 6.4 ab10.8 ± 3.2 a20.7 ± 4.8 b
Aboveground partL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a17.9 ± 6.0 a
Thymus vulgaris L.L1–2 of S. papillosus2.2 ± 5.0 a2.9 ± 6.4 a6.2 ± 8.5 a5.4 ± 7.4 a
(Lamiaceae)L3 of S. papillosus15.2 ± 2.6 ab11.3 ± 1.8 a12.3 ± 1.4 a23.9 ± 5.6 b
Aboveground part L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Glycyrrhiza glabra L.L1–2 of S. papillosus1.4 ± 3.2 a2.8 ± 4.2 a4.4 ± 4.0 a21.9 ± 9.5 b
(Fabaceae)L3 of S. papillosus4.0 ± 8.9 a8.4 ± 8.5 a9.8 ± 9.4 a6.7 ± 6.2 a
RhizomesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a6.2 ± 8.5 a
Hedysarum alpinum L.L1–2 of S. papillosus15.4 ± 10.2 a19.7 ± 10.1 a25.1 ± 11.9 a25.6 ± 4.7 a
(Fabaceae)L3 of S. papillosus4.7 ± 6.5 a6.8 ± 6.8 a6.7 ± 6.2 a6.9 ± 9.6 a
RhizomesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Trifolium pratense L.L1–2 of S. papillosus15.7 ± 4.3 a20.5 ± 7.5 ab28.7 ± 7.7 b35.0 ± 4.1 b
(Fabaceae)L3 of S. papillosus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
InflorescencesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a1.4 ± 3.2 a1.3 ± 2.8 a1.3 ± 2.8 a
1 See Table 1.
Table 3. Mortality of the larvae of S. papillosus and H. contortus (%) during a 24 h laboratory experiment under the influence of aqueous solutions of alcoholic tinctures of tree plants belonging to the families Salicaceae, Fagaceae, Betulaceae, Juglandaceae, and Rhamnaceae (x ± SD, n = 5).
Table 3. Mortality of the larvae of S. papillosus and H. contortus (%) during a 24 h laboratory experiment under the influence of aqueous solutions of alcoholic tinctures of tree plants belonging to the families Salicaceae, Fagaceae, Betulaceae, Juglandaceae, and Rhamnaceae (x ± SD, n = 5).
PlantNematode
Species		Mortality 1 of Nematode Larvae in Control, %Mortality of Nematode Larvae in 0.01% Solution, %Mortality of Nematode Larvae in 0.1% Solution, %Mortality of Nematode Larvae in 1.0% Solution, %
Populus nigra L.L1–2 of S. papillosus2.4 ± 2.0 a25.2 ± 7.0 b90.0 ± 1.9 c93.2 ± 1.6 c
(Salicaceae)L3 of S. papillosus13.5 ± 3.0 a12.4 ± 3.9 a11.6 ± 3.6 a25.5 ± 5.3 b
BudsL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a2.2 ± 5.0 a
Populus tremula L.L1–2 of S. papillosus11.6 ± 3.4 a15.0 ± 5.1 ab16.6 ± 5.5 ab24.9 ± 5.1 b
(Salicaceae)L3 of S. papillosus9.3 ± 3.1 a9.7 ± 2.4 a9.3 ± 3.6 a20.4 ± 4.4 b
BarkL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a4.8 ± 4.6 a
Salix alba L.L1–2 of S. papillosus7.3 ± 1.0 a7.4 ± 2.1 a5.1 ± 1.0 a7.1 ± 1.3 a
(Salicaceae)L3 of S. papillosus13.6 ± 2.8 a13.1 ± 2.6 a12.7 ± 4.4 a28.3 ± 3.7 b
BarkL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Quercus robur L.L1–2 of S. papillosus6.3 ± 0.6 ab6.2 ± 0.2 ab5.5 ± 1.3 a10.9 ± 3.8 b
(Fagaceae)L3 of S. papillosus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a9.2 ± 5.5 b
BarkL3 of H. contortus2.5 ± 5.6 a2.2 ± 5.0 a2.0 ± 4.5 a2.9 ± 6.4 a
Betula pendula RothL1–2 of S. papillosus17.0 ± 3.3 a17.2 ± 5.2 a17.9 ± 9.0 a17.5 ± 1.9 a
(Betulaceae)L3 of S. papillosus14.1 ± 2.0 a14.9 ± 8.9 a15.7 ± 4.0 a14.9 ± 2.0 a
LeavesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Betula pendula RothL1–2 of S. papillosus10.2 ± 6.1 a8.8 ± 8.4 a10.5 ± 6.4 a11.0 ± 10.1 a
(Betulaceae)L3 of S. papillosus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Buds L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Juglans regia L.L1–2 of S. papillosus21.9 ± 8.0 a19.5 ± 6.3 a19.9 ± 5.7 a19.1 ± 5.7 a
(Juglandaceae)L3 of S. papillosus5.0 ± 7.5 a6.7 ± 6.2 a7.4 ± 9.1 a9.8 ± 9.9 a
Leaves L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Frangula alnus Mill.L1–2 of S. papillosus21.5 ± 3.4 a22.9 ± 12.1 a19.4 ± 4.8 a20.3 ± 2.2 a
(Rhamnaceae)L3 of S. papillosus17.0 ± 3.2 a16.7 ± 8.9 a19.3 ± 12.3 a17.3 ± 5.4 a
Fruits L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a2.6 ± 3.6 a3.5 ± 4.9 a4.3 ± 6.0 a
1 See Table 1.
Table 4. Mortality of the larvae of S. papillosus and H. contortus (%) during 24 h laboratory experiment under the influence of aqueous solutions of alcoholic tinctures of tree plants belonging to the families Acoraceae, Apiaceae, Caprifoliaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Equisetaceae, Ericaceae, Gentianaceae, Hypericaceae, Malvaceae, Plantaginaceae, Poaceae, Polygonaceae, and Ranunculaceae (x ± SD, n = 5).
Table 4. Mortality of the larvae of S. papillosus and H. contortus (%) during 24 h laboratory experiment under the influence of aqueous solutions of alcoholic tinctures of tree plants belonging to the families Acoraceae, Apiaceae, Caprifoliaceae, Cucurbitaceae, Equisetaceae, Ericaceae, Gentianaceae, Hypericaceae, Malvaceae, Plantaginaceae, Poaceae, Polygonaceae, and Ranunculaceae (x ± SD, n = 5).
PlantNematode
Species		Mortality 1 of Nematode Larvae in Control, %Mortality of Nematode Larvae in 0.01% Solution, %Mortality of Nematode Larvae in 0.1% Solution, %Mortality of Nematode Larvae in 1.0% Solution, %
Acorus calamus L.L1–2 of S. papillosus24.5 ± 5.6 a29.5 ± 6.7 a26.8 ± 8.1 a31.2 ± 6.8 a
(Acoraceae)L3 of S. papillosus0.0 ± 0.0 a3.7 ± 5.2 a1.4 ± 3.2 a1.7 ± 3.7 a
Rhizomes L3 of H. contortus2.5 ± 5.6 a5.2 ± 7.1 a9.0 ± 8.5 a6.1 ± 5.8 a
Foeniculum vulgare Mill.L1–2 of S. papillosus21.9 ± 8.0 a20.1 ± 5.9 a22.0 ± 10.5 a19.8 ± 3.4 a
(Apiaceae)L3 of S. papillosus5.3 ± 7.7 a11.7 ± 9.3 a10.2 ± 9.9 a11.7 ± 7.2 a
FruitsL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Valeriana officinalis L.L1–2 of S. papillosus6.3 ± 0.6 a8.1 ± 0.9 a8.9 ± 2.2 a32.4 ± 4.1 b
(Caprifoliaceae)L3 of S. papillosus2.9 ± 6.4 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a10.6 ± 10.1 a
RhizomesL3 of H. contortus10.7 ± 15.3 a2.9 ± 6.4 a2.5 ± 5.6 a12.6 ± 12.6 a
Cucurbita pepo L.L1–2 of S. papillosus1.4 ± 3.2 a0.8 ± 1.9 a1.6 ± 2.2 a11.5 ± 3.4 b
(Cucurbitaceae)L3 of S. papillosus9.3 ± 3.1 ab6.5 ± 5.2 a6.1 ± 5.6 a15.0 ± 3.4 b
SeedsL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Cucurbita pepo L.L1–2 of S. papillosus6.3 ± 0.6 a6.2 ± 1.3 a6.6 ± 1.4 a7.0 ± 1.3 a
(Cucurbitaceae)L3 of S. papillosus9.3 ± 3.1 a9.8 ± 2.9 a11.9 ± 3.3 ab16.1 ± 2.5 b
Pericarp L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a6.4 ± 5.9 a
Equisetum arvense L.L1–2 of S. papillosus21.5 ± 3.4 a20.8 ± 10.2 a23.0 ± 7.1 a22.2 ± 3.4 a
(Equisetaceae)L3 of S. papillosus17.0 ± 3.2 a15.1 ± 9.8 a16.3 ± 11.3 a18.0 ± 6.8 a
Aboveground part L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Vaccinium vitis-idaea L.L1–2 of S. papillosus10.2 ± 6.1 a12.2 ± 8.9 a12.7 ± 7.3 a11.2 ± 6.9 a
(Ericaceae)L3 of S. papillosus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Aboveground partL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Centaurium erythraea RafnL1–2 of S. papillosus1.4 ± 3.2 a3.5 ± 5.2 a4.1 ± 3.9 a22.2 ± 1.7 b
(Gentianaceae)L3 of S. papillosus9.9 ± 4.4 a9.6 ± 4.5 a9.5 ± 3.1 a30.6 ± 2.5 b
Aboveground partL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Hypericum perforatum L.L1–2 of S. papillosus15.2 ± 9.4 a16.7 ± 6.4 a14.4 ± 9.4 a17.5 ± 16.8 a
(Hypericaceae)L3 of S. papillosus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Aboveground part L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Althaea officinalis L.L1–2 of S. papillosus2.2 ± 5.0 a13.5 ± 8.0 ab24.2 ± 16.0 b44.3 ± 26.4 b
(Malvaceae)L3 of S. papillosus21.2 ± 4.3 a18.7 ± 5.8 a20.4 ± 3.9 a22.9 ± 1.9 a
RhizomesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Linaria vulgaris Mill.L1–2 of S. papillosus20.7 ± 2.0 a19.6 ± 4.9 a20.0 ± 5.0 a19.6 ± 2.4 a
(Plantaginaceae)L3 of S. papillosus20.8 ± 1.8 a20.5 ± 4.2 a19.8 ± 6.0 a22.7 ± 4.3 a
Aboveground partL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Plantago major L.L1–2 of S. papillosus20.7 ± 2.0 a22.2 ± 3.5 a19.5 ± 3.5 a21.9 ± 4.2 a
(Plantaginaceae)L3 of S. papillosus20.8 ± 1.8 a20.4 ± 7.0 a21.5 ± 6.9 a20.9 ± 6.7 a
LeavesL3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Zea mays L.L1–2 of S. papillosus13.7 ± 4.7 a13.7 ± 3.7 a11.1 ± 3.5 a11.4 ± 7.6 a
(Poaceae)L3 of S. papillosus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a5.4 ± 7.4 a
Stamens L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Polygonum aviculare L.L1–2 of S. papillosus13.7 ± 4.7 a14.9 ± 2.2 a11.7 ± 2.2 a15.5 ± 3.0 a
(Polygonaceae)L3 of S. papillosus21.0 ± 4.7 a17.5 ± 4.9 a20.3 ± 5.6 a24.1 ± 3.3 a
Aboveground part L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a
Nigella sativa L.L1–2 of S. papillosus2.2 ± 5.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a2.5 ± 5.6 a6.9 ± 9.6 a
(Ranunculaceae)L3 of S. papillosus17.4 ± 2.3 a17.8 ± 5.2 a17.5 ± 5.1 a19.7 ± 2.9 a
Seeds L3 of H. contortus0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a0.0 ± 0.0 a2.5 ± 3.4 a
1 See Table 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

Boyko, O.; Brygadyrenko, V. Anthelmintic Activity of Traditional Medicinal Plants Used in Europe. Biology 2025, 14, 1636. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14121636

AMA Style

Boyko O, Brygadyrenko V. Anthelmintic Activity of Traditional Medicinal Plants Used in Europe. Biology. 2025; 14(12):1636. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14121636

Chicago/Turabian Style

Boyko, Olexandra, and Viktor Brygadyrenko. 2025. "Anthelmintic Activity of Traditional Medicinal Plants Used in Europe" Biology 14, no. 12: 1636. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14121636

APA Style

Boyko, O., & Brygadyrenko, V. (2025). Anthelmintic Activity of Traditional Medicinal Plants Used in Europe. Biology, 14(12), 1636. https://doi.org/10.3390/biology14121636

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Article metric data becomes available approximately 24 hours after publication online.
Back to TopTop