Next Article in Journal
Disentangling Relationships among the Alpine Species of Luzula Sect. Luzula (Juncaceae) in the Eastern Alps
Previous Article in Journal
First Report of Colletotrichum fructicola Causing Fruit Rot and Leaf-Tip Dieback on Pineapple in Northern Thailand
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 12
Issue 4
10.3390/plants12040972
plants-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 thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Comparison of the Allelopathic Potential of Non-Native and Native Species of Mediterranean Ecosystems

by
Natividad Chaves Lobón
*,
Marisa González Félix
and
Juan Carlos Alías Gallego
Department of Plant Biology, Ecology and Earth Sciences, Faculty of Science, University of Extremadura, 06006 Badajoz, Spain
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(4), 972; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12040972
Submission received: 19 December 2022 / Revised: 13 February 2023 / Accepted: 17 February 2023 / Published: 20 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Section Plant Ecology)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Allelopathy is a frequent interaction between species in Mediterranean ecosystems and it is also one of the proposed strategies to explain the colonisation of invasive species. To confirm the importance of allelopathic potential as a mechanism of invasion of non-native species in Mediterranean ecosystems, it would be advisable to compare the allelopathic effects of non-native plants with native plants on the same target species and thus avoid overestimating the role of phytotoxicity in the invasion process. The main objective of this work was to compare the allelopathic activity of native species typical of Mediterranean ecosystems, classified as allelopathic, with the allelopathic activity of non-native species that may have an invasive character in these ecosystems. To this end, we selected three native species (Cistus ladanifer, Pistacia lentiscus, and Pistacia terebithus) and three non-native species (Acacia dealbata, Acer negundo, and Salix babylonica), and we analysed their effect on the species Lactuca sativa and the native species Lavandula stoechas and Echium plantagineum. The tests on L. sativa showed that all species have allelopathic activity. The tests on L. stoechas and E. plantagineum revealed that P. terebinthus exerted the greatest effect, being the only species that maintained an inhibitory effect at extract concentrations of 50% and 25% in all the analysed parameters, except in germination and cotyledon emergence for E. plantagineum. There were no significant differences in the effect on germination between non-native and native species, although significant differences were found in the effect on root size in the three analysed concentrations, with the native species producing greater inhibition. In conclusion, these species exert a negative effect on the selected native target species, but the negative effect of the native species is greater than that of the non-native species. These results indicate that it is important to compare the allelopathic effects of invasive and native species to correctly estimate the phytotoxic effect of invasive species on their invasiveness

1. Introduction

Mediterranean ecosystems are characterised by an important biodiversity pool derived from specific climatic conditions, different origins of the flora, and the heterogeneity in the habitat [1]. Species in these ecosystems are subjected to stressful conditions such as fire, high temperatures, herbivory, and water stress [2], and they have developed diverse strategies for protection against these stressors such as the production of secondary metabolites. These compounds have a variety of roles in the life of plants: they act as a defence against predators and pathogens [3,4,5], provide protection against ultraviolet radiation [6,7], enhance the attraction of pollinators [8,9], and acts as allelopathic agents [10,11,12]. Allelopathy is defined as a process of plant–plant chemical interaction with either positive or negative effects [13]; it is not an isolated event in nature and allelopathy can be regarded as a natural strategy protecting plants against environmental ‘‘enemies’’ and competing plants [14]. It is known that stress factors stimulate the production of allelochemicals [15,16], and thus the typical species of Mediterranean ecosystems show an abundant production of these compounds [17,18,19], which are responsible for the allelopathic activity attributed to many of the species of these ecosystems [20,21,22,23,24,25].
On the other hand, allelopathy has been proposed as an interaction involved in the colonisation processes of invasive species [26], in which the allelochemicals released by the invasive species have a negative effect on the germination, growth, and/or reproduction of native species of the invaded community [27]. The relationship between allelopathy and the invasive capacity of species has been the focus of different studies [28], among which it is worth highlighting the meta-analysis conducted by Kalisz et al. [29], who reviewed the allelopathic capacity of 524 different invasive species. The results of the mentioned meta-analysis revealed that 51.4% of the invasive species considered were allelopathic, and that this capacity was not phylogenetically preserved, but it was widely distributed among the different families of invasive species. This phenomenon of invasion attributed to allelopathy is particularly defended when the invaders produce evolutionarily novel chemicals [30,31], which is the basis of the novel weapons hypothesis (NWH). This hypothesis, formulated by Callaway and Ridenour [32], proposes the relationship between invasiveness and allelopathy since invasive plants can release chemical compounds that are new to the autochthonous species, as they did not coexist before; therefore, native species did not co-evolve or develop adequate defense mechanisms to the chemical compounds of non-native species [29,30,31]. Different studies have shown native species suffered more negative effects from invasive species (due to the concentration or proportion of allelochemicals) than from native species [33,34,35,36,37,38].
However, there are other studies that did not find differences in the allelopathic behaviour between invasive and native species [39,40,41,42], suggesting that it depends on the invasive species and on the characteristics of the native species that are present in the invaded habitat. The characteristics of the different ecosystems determine the more or less allelopathic nature of the species that constitute it, and this could influence the displacement of native species by invasive species.
In ecosystems such as the Mediterranean, with an abundance of species classified as allelopathic [20,21,22,23,24,25], the native plants may also interact with other plants through allelopathy. To confirm the importance of allelopathic potential as a mechanism of invasion of non-native species in these ecosystems, it would be advisable to compare the allelopathic effects of non-native plants with native plants on the same target species and thus avoid overestimating the role of phytotoxicity in the invasion process [41]. Therefore, the main objective of this work was to compare the allelopathic activity of native species that are typical of and widely distributed in Mediterranean ecosystems with the allelopathic activity of non-native species that may have an invasive character in these ecosystems, quantifying their phytotoxicity on the target species. To this end, three native species (Cistus ladanifer, Pistacea lentiscus, and Pistacea terebinthus) and three non-native species (Acacia dealbata, Acer negundo, and Salix babylonica) were selected.
Cistus ladanifer is a shrub species of the family Cistaceae. It is distributed in the Western Mediterranean region, from Portugal and Morocco to the French Riviera and Algeria [43]. This species is rich in phenols and terpenes, and it is classified as an allelopathic species [25,44]. The other two native species selected for this study belong to the genus Pistacea (P. lentiscus and P. terebinthus) and they are shrubs of the family Anacardiaceae that live in the Mediterranean region [45]. These species are rich in phenols [46,47,48] and have been attributed to a high allelopathic potential [49,50,51]. The non-native species were selected based on the list of invasive species published by Blanco et al. [52]. Acacia dealbata is an evergreen tree of the family Fabaceae. It is from Southeastern Australia and Tasmania [53] and has been widely distributed in the Iberian Peninsula [54]. Different studies have demonstrated that this species exerts a negative effect on the germination of other plants, with its allelopathic activity being considered a mechanism of its invasive capacity [55,56,57,58]. Another non-native species selected was Acer negundo, which is a tree of the family Sapindaceae. This species comes from Central and North America [59]. In the Iberian Peninsula, as in other parts of the world, it has become an invasive [60] or potentially invasive species [51]. Other studies have shown its negative effect on the germination and growth of other species, thus regarding allelopathy as a possible mechanism of its invasive capacity [60,61]. The third species selected was Salix babylonica. This is a deciduous tree of the family Salicaceae, which comes from Central and Southern Asia [62]. In Europe, it has become an ornamental plant and, more recently, it is also being used for riverbank fixation, becoming a potentially invasive species in many regions [63]. It has been demonstrated that the phenolic compounds of its leaves could have a negative effect on the soil microbiome [64].
The two native species used as target species were Lavandula stoechas (woody species) and Echium plantagineum (herbaceous species) which share their habitat with the selected species [65,66].

2. Results

2.1. Total Phenol and Flavonoid Amount

The quantification of total phenols and flavonoids in each of the analysed species are expressed in mg of GAE or QE per mg of dry weight, as appropriate (Table 1).
The species with the greatest content of total phenols were A. dealbata and the two native species of the genus Pistacea (P. lenticus and P. terebinthus), showing double the amount of these compounds compared with S. babylonica, A. negundo, and C. ladanifer. Regarding flavonoids, S. babylonica showed the lowest amount of flavonoids, and A. dealbata obtained the greatest amount of these compounds. It is worth highlighting that there were significant differences in the quantified amount of flavonoids between the non-native species.

2.2. Bioactivity Test on Lactuca sativa

The effect of the selected species on the percentage of germination and root size of L. sativa are shown in Figure 1A,B. The aqueous extracts of all 6 species significantly inhibited germination, except those from A. negundo and A. dealbata at 25%. Moreover, with the solutions at 100% and 75%, there were differences between species. At the maximum concentration, C. ladanifer showed the greatest negative effect, whereas at 75%, the most significant inhibition was exerted by the 3 native species.
The effect of the different extracts was more heterogeneous on the root size (Figure 1B) than on germination. With the solutions at 100% and 75%, the species that most significantly affected root size were A. negundo, C. ladanifer, and P. terebinthus, as well as P. lentiscus at 75% extract concentration. In the tests with the extracts at 50% and 25%, the inhibition exerted by each of the species was very similar, except for that of S. babylonica, which did not exert significant inhibition at these concentrations, as well as C. ladanifer at 25%. It is worth noting that the extract of S. babylonica only showed significant inhibition at the maximum concentration.

2.3. Bioactivity Test on Lavandula stoechas and Echium plantagineum

The results derived from the germination test with L. stoechas and E. plantagineum are shown in Figure 2A,B. As can be observed, the effect on the germination of the extracts of the six analysed species differed between L. stoechas and E. plantagineum, with the seeds of target species L. stoechas being more sensitive to all species. The species with the greatest effect on L. stoechas was P. terebinthus, which significantly inhibited this parameter at all three concentrations tested (Figure 2A). The extracts of A. negundo and P. lentiscus exerted significant inhibition at 100% and 50%. Lastly, species C. ladanifer and A. dealbata only showed significant inhibition at the maximum concentration.
Regarding the effect on the germination of E. plantagineum (Figure 2B), the extracts of species P. lentiscus, A. dealbata, and C. ladanifer did not exert significant inhibition at any concentration; A. negundo and S. babylonica only showed significant inhibition at the maximum concentration, and P. terebinthus exerted significant inhibition at 100% and 50%.
The quantification of the effect on root size (Figure 3A,B) revealed that both L. stoechas and E. plantagineum were negatively affected by all species at all extract concentrations, although there were significant differences between species. The root size of L. stoechas was significantly inhibited by A. negundo, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus, and that of E. planagineum was significantly inhibited by the extracts of A. negundo, C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus. It is worth highlighting that P. terebinthus was the species that most negatively affected both target species, whereas S. babylonica and A. dealbata showed the lowest inhibition.
With respect to the effect caused by the extracts of these species on cotyledon emergence (Figure 4A,B), once again, L. stoechas was the most negatively affected, with C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus maintaining a significant negative effect at the lowest concentration. On the other hand, A. negundo and P. terebinthus exerted the most negative effect on E. plantagineum at 100% and 50%. The lowest concentration (25%) of none of these species exerted significant inhibition on this parameter in E. plantagineum, and the extract of A. dealbata did not show significant effects at any of the analysed concentrations.
Another morphological parameter quantified was cotyledon size (Figure 5A,B). As can be observed, these species exerted a negative effect on the growth of L. stoechas and E. plantagineum. In L. stoechas, the significant negative effect was maintained for A. negundo, C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus at the lowest concentration, with the extracts of S. babylonica and A. dealbata showing no activity at this concentration. It is important to mention that P. terebinthus had the greatest negative effect, and S. babylonica and A. dealbata were the species with the lowest negative effect. The negative effect observed on cotyledon size in E. plantaginum, as well as for the rest of the parameters, was lower than that produced in L. stoechas. At the lowest extract concentration, only P. terebinthus maintained the negative effect. It is worth pointing out that A. dealbata did not have a negative effect at any of the analysed concentrations.
Comparing the effect of the native species, as a group, with that of the non-native species (Table 2), the group of native species produced the greatest percentages of inhibition in the four parameters analysed in both target species. However, no significant differences were observed in germination, but differences were observed in root size, cotyledon emergence, and cotyledon size. For L. stoechas, there were significant differences between these 2 groups of species in root size and cotyledon emergence with extracts at 50% and 25%, and with 25% in cotyledon size. In E. plantagineum, the native species exerted a more significant inhibition on root size at all 3 concentrations, on cotyledon emergence at maximum concentration, and on cotyledon size at 100% and 25%.

3. Discussion

To better understand the process of the invasive species, it is fundamental to analyse their colonisation strategies, especially their allelopathic potential [26]. Allelopathy is an interaction that involves secondary metabolites, mostly phenols, thus knowing the amount of total phenols and flavonoids present in these species is an initial and necessary process [37].
Great variability was observed in the amount of total phenols and flavonoids among the selected species in the present study, ranging from 0.026 to 0.010 mg QE/mg of dry weight for phenols, and from 0.016 to 0.004 mg QE/mg of dry weight for flavonoids. The species with the greatest amounts of total phenols and flavonoids were P. terebinthus, A. dealbata, and P. lentiscus, which have been classified as phytotoxic by other authors [48,49,50,51,58,67].
The bioassays with L. sativa showed that both the non-native and native species exerted allelopathic activity, although the effect on germination and root development was different between them. Among the native species, the greatest negative effect, for both germination and root size, was shown by P. lentiscus and P. terebinthus, and among the non-native species, Salix babylonica exhibited the greatest negative effect on germination; on the other hand, root size was most significantly affected by A. negundo and A. dealbata. It was observed that the native species with the greatest phenol content were the ones with the greatest allelopathic potential; however, in the non-native species, this only applied to the effect of A. dealbata on root size. It is important to mention that the phytotoxicity of A. negundo quantified in previous studies [61] depends on the extract concentration, with the negative effect on germination and root size disappearing at lower concentrations. In our study, this behaviour was observed on germination, but not on root size.
Therefore, both the non-native species and the native species show allelopathic potential, although their effects may differ when acting on native species. In the bioassays conducted with E. plantagineum and L. stoechas, it was revealed that, firstly, the sensitivity to the extracts of different species is different in the two target species, with a more significant negative effect on the germination, cotyledon emergence, and cotyledon size of L. stoechas than on those of E. plantagineum. The different behaviour of the extracts based on the target species has been reported in previous studies [68,69,70], with our results confirming the need to use different target species to study the allelopathic behaviour of a specific species. Secondly, our study also corroborates that root size is the most sensitive morphological parameter in the evaluation of the allelopathic activity of a species [71]. As can be observed, root size was negatively affected in L. stoechas and E. plantagineum by the native species, and not the non-native species, at all three concentrations.
The results also show that P. terebinthus exerted the greatest negative effect. This was the only species that maintained a significant effect at 50% and 25% in all the quantified parameters, except on germination and cotyledon emergence in E. plantagineum at the lowest concentration. Moreover, the comparison between the group of native species and the group of non-native species (Table 2) revealed that there were no significant differences in the effect on germination, although there were significant differences in the effect on root size at all three concentrations, with the native species exerting the greatest inhibition. It is worth highlighting that, although all species significantly inhibited root size, P. lentiscus and P. terebinthus produced the greatest negative effect on both target species. These results show that the inhibitory effect of the non-native species was significant but native species had a greater effect. This indicates that the non-native species do not have allelopathic compounds that are more active on the native species than the autochthonous species of this community, as opposed to the NWH [32]. Similar results were found in other studies such as those conducted by Corina Del Fabbro [72], who analysed and compared the allelopathic activity of invasive species of Central Europe with that of native species of these communities, concluding that the effect on the target species selected was similar in both groups. Similarly, De las Heras et al. [73] studied the phytotoxicity of invasive species Ailanthus altissima, Robinia pseudoacacia, and Ulmus pumila, and native species Populus alba, Populus nigra, and Ulmus minor, finding that the negative effect on the three target species selected was similar.
On the other hand, there are studies that report that the effect produced by invasive species is greater than that of native species [35,36,37,38,74]. The study conducted by Kim and Lee [37] with invasive plants from Eastern Asia shows that the invasive species produced more phenols and were more allelopathic than the native species of Korea.
These controversial and apparently contradicting results may be dependent on habitat and characteristics of the ecosystems. For example, the arid and semiarid climatic conditions of Mediterranean ecosystems subject native species to great abiotic stress [75], leading these species to exhibit a great diversity of secondary metabolites that are potentially allelopathic [76]. In these ecosystems, allelopathy is a frequent interaction between species [22,75,76,77], which would explain the absence of differences between invasive and non-invasive species, as well as the greater effect shown by the native species in our study. On the contrary, in other ecosystems in which the environmental conditions are less stressful, native species have a smaller amount of allelopathic compounds, as in the study conducted by Kim and Lee [37] in Korea. It would be interesting to carry out further studies to compare the allelopathic activity of native and non-native species from different types of ecosystems, in order to determine whether the characteristics of the ecosystem influence the greater or lesser activity that non-native species may show compared with native species.
It should be noted that the results of this work are derived from bioassays and that a better understanding of the allelopathic effect of natives and non-natives species will require further studies in the field. In addition, it would be interesting to study whether non-native species are sensitive to native allelopathic species, which could contribute to a natural method of invasive species control [78,79]. These studies can help to understand the integrative role of allelopathy in plant invasion.

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Gathering of Materials and Sample Treatment

The samples were gathered in the province of Badajoz (Spain) (38°52′43” N, 6°58′13” W), except for P. terebinthus, which was obtained in the mountain range of Montánchez, in the province of Cáceres (Spain) (39°15′ N, 5°58′ O). In September 2021, approximately 500 g of leaves of each of the species were gathered. Samples were collected from different individuals, which were randomly selected.
The samples were taken to the laboratory on the same day as the sampling was conducted, and they were left to dry at room temperature.
When the leaves were dry enough, they were ground by hand until pieces of 1–2 cm2 were obtained and were then kept in the dark at room temperature.

4.2. Preparation of the Aqueous Extracts

Aqueous solutions were prepared to carry out the allelopathic analyses. Dry leaves were mixed with distilled water (1:10 w/v) and were left stirring at room temperature for 24 h. Then, the samples were filtered with filter paper and 4 concentrations of the aqueous extracts of each species were prepared. To this end, the original solution (100%) was diluted with distilled water to obtain concentrations of 75%, 50%, and 25%.

4.3. Extraction and Quantification of Total Phenols

For the extraction of total phenols, the leaves were ground in a mechanic grinder until a fine power was obtained, and then methanol was added (1:10 w/v). It was left stirring for 24 h at room temperature. After that, they were centrifuged at 4500 rpm for 15 min and, once the supernatant was evaporated, it was re-suspended in methanol at a concentration of 1 mg/mL [80].
The total phenolic content was calculated through the Folin–Ciocalteu reagent test, following the method of Singleton and Rossi [81]. A 1 mL aliquot of the extract diluted in methanol (1 mg/mL, 3 replicates per sample) was taken, to which 500 μL of Folin–Ciocalteu reagent and 6 mL of distilled water were added. The mix was left stirring for 5 min and, after that time, 1.5 mL of Na2CO3 (20%) and 1.9 mL of distilled water were added while stirring to homogenise the dilution. After incubation in the dark for 2 h, absorbance was measured at 760 nm in a UV-30 spectrophotometer. The blank was obtained by replacing the amount of diluted extract with methanol.
The results are expressed in mg of gallic acid equivalents (GAE) per mg of dry weight and mg of quercetin equivalents (QE) per mg of dry weight.

4.4. Extraction and Quantification of Total Flavonoids

The extraction of total flavonoids was carried out following the same procedure as for the extraction of phenols, although the sample was re-suspended in ethanol at 80% at a concentration of 1 mg/mL.
The total flavonoids were quantified following the method proposed by Chang et al. [82]. Firstly, 2 mL of ethanol were taken, to which we added 0.5 mL of extract (1 mg/mL re-suspended in 80% ethanol, 3 replicates) and 0.15 mL of NaNO2 (1 M in ethanol). The mixture was stirred and left to settle for 3 min. Then, 0.15 mL of AlCl3 (10%, in ethanol) was added, and the sample was stirred again for 3 min. Subsequently, we added 1 mL of NaOH (1 M in distilled water) and ethanol to 5 mL of total volume.
The solutions were mixed again after the last steps and kept in the dark for 40 min. Then, absorbance was measured at 415 nm using a UV-30 spectrophotometer. The blank was obtained by replacing the amount of diluted extract with ethanol.
The results are expressed in mg of quercetin equivalents (QE) per mg of dry weight.

4.5. Bioassays

4.5.1. Bioassays on Lactuca sativa

The allelopathic potential of the 6 species selected was quantified using L. sativa as the target species. This species is considered a comparable indicator of allelopathy among species due to its rapid germination and for being commonly used in phytotoxic studies [83,84].
A total of 25 seeds were placed in Petri dishes with filter paper (4 replicates for each concentration). Then, to each dish 5 mL of the dilution was added, and the dishes were sealed with Parafilm. A total of 10 dishes were prepared for the control, following the same procedure, although adding distilled water instead of the dilution.
After preparation, the dishes were randomly placed in the culture chamber. They were kept at 20 °C with a photoperiod of 16 h of light and 8 h of darkness for 10 days. After this time, the amount of germinated seeds and seedlings with cotyledons was quantified in each dish. Similarly, 10 seedlings per treatment were randomly selected, and their radicle and cotyledon length was measured.
The results are expressed in percentage with respect to the control.

4.5.2. Bioassays on Echium plantagineum and Lavandula stoechas

Bioassays were conducted on the native species E. plantagineum and L. stoechas with the extracts of the 6 species selected. E. plantagineum and L. stoechas were selected for being common species in the Iberian Peninsula and for sharing the habitat with native species [65,66]. The seeds were purchased from Semillas Silvestres S.L. (http://www.semillassilvestres.com, accessed on 13 February 2023).
For the germination and seedling growth bioassays, the same procedure used with L. sativa was followed, although only 3 concentrations of aqueous extract were used: 100%, 50%, and 25%.
The results of the variables germination, root size, and cotyledon size are expressed in percentage with respect to the control.

4.6. Statistical Analysis

For the data treatment, we used the mean values of the different measured variables. For the data analysis, we used the R programme (with the R Commander package). Firstly, we analysed whether all the measured variables followed a normal distribution, using the Shapiro–Wilk test. The variables flavonoids (p-value = 0.4017), germination in L. sativa (p-value = 0.44), root size in L. sativa (p-value = 0.15), cotyledons in E. plantagineum (p-value = 0.15), germination in E. plantagineum (p-value = 0.925), and cotyledon size in E. plantagineum (p-value = 0.572) showed normal distribution, and their homoscedasticity was determined using Bartlett’s test for homogeneity of variances. The variable flavonoids (p-value = 0.2878) showed homoscedasticity. Since the variable flavonoids followed a normal distribution and its variance was constant, an ANOVA test was used to compare the means of the species, and Tukey’s test was used for the pairwise comparison of means. For the rest of the variables, the Kruskal–Wallis non-parametric test was used to compare the means, and the Mann–Whitney test was used for the pairwise comparison of means. Statistical significance, in all cases, was established at p < 0.05.

5. Conclusions

In conclusion, our results corroborate that both the non-native species and the native species studied here are allelopathic. These species exert a negative effect on the selected native target species, but on some of the measured morphological parameters, the negative effect of the native species is greater than that of the non-native species, in contradiction to the predictions of the novel weapons hypothesis. It highlights the importance of comparing allelopathic effects of invasive and native species to correctly estimate the phytotoxic effect of non-native species on their invasiveness.

Author Contributions

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

Funding

This research was supported by Consejería de Economía, Ciencias y Agenda Digital de la Junta de Extremadura (GR-21086), and the European Regional Development Funds.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to acknowledge José Blanco Salas and Trinidad Ruiz Tellez, researchers of the Botanical area of UEx, for their help in plant collection and identification.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Kutiel, P. Fire and Ecosystem Heterogeneity: A mediterranean Case Study. Earth Surf. Process Landf. 1994, 19, 184–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Reigosa, M.J.; Pedrol, N.; González, L. Allelopathy, a Physiological Process with Ecological Implications; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; ISBN 978-1-4020-4279-9. [Google Scholar]
  3. Gross, J.; Hilker, M. Chemoecological Studies of the Exocrine Glandular Larval Secretions of two Chrysomelid Species: Phaedon cochleariae and Chrysomela lapponica. Chemoecology 1995, 6, 185–189. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Ikonen, A.; Tahvanainen, J.; Roininen, H. Chlorogenic Acid as an Antiherbivore Defence of Willows Against Leaf Beetles. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2001, 99, 47–54. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Lattanzio, V.; Lattanzio, V.M.T.; Cardinali, A. Role of phenolics in the resistance mechanisms of plants against fungal pathogens and insects. In Phytochemistry: Advances in Research. Research Signpost37/661 (2); Imperato, F., Ed.; Fort PO, Trivandrum-695 023: Kerala, India, 2006; pp. 23–67. [Google Scholar]
  6. Zobel, A.M.; Clarke, P.A.; Lynch, J.M. Production of phenolics in response to UV irradiation and heavy metals in seedlings of Acer species. In Recent Advances in Allelopathy; Narwal, S.S., Ed.; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 1999; pp. 1–12. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ryan, K.G.; Swinny, E.E.; Winefield, C.; Markham, K.R. Flavonoids and UV Photoprotection in Arabidopsis mutants. Zeitschrift fur Naturforschung—Section C. J. Biosci. 2001, 56, 745–754. [Google Scholar]
  8. Baas, W.J. Secondary plant compounds, their ecological significance and consequences for the carbon budget. Introduction of the carbon/nutrient cycle theory. In Causes and Consequences of Variation in Growth Rate and Productivity of Higher Plants; Lambers, H., Cambridge, M.L., Konings, H., Pons, T.L., Eds.; SPB Academic Publishing bv: The Hague, The Netherlands, 1989; pp. 313–340. [Google Scholar]
  9. Harborne, J.B. Biochemical plant ecology. In Plant Biochemistry; Dey, P.M., Harborne, J.B., Eds.; Academic Press: London, UK, 1997; pp. 503–516. [Google Scholar]
  10. Chaves, N.; Escudero, J.C. Allelopathic Effect of Cistus Ladanifer on Seed Germination. Funct. Ecol. 1997, 11, 432–440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chaves, N.; Sosa, T.; Escudero, J.C. Plant Growth Inhibiting Flavonoids in Exudate Of Cistus ladanifer and in Associated Soils. J. Chem. Ecol. 2001, 27, 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Chaves, N.; Sosa, T.; Alías, J.C.; Escudero, J.C. Identification and Effects of the Interaction of Phytotoxic Compounds from Exudate of Cistus ladanifer Leaves. J. Chem. Ecol. 2001, 27, 611–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Rice, E.L. Allelopathy; Academic Press: New York, NY, USA, 1984. [Google Scholar]
  14. Prince, E.K.; Pohnert, G. Searching for Signal in the Noise: Metabolomics in Chemical Ecology. Anal. Bioanal. Chem. 2010, 396, 193–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Chaves, N.; Escudero, J.C.; Gutiérrez-Merino, C. Role of Ecological Variables in the Seasonal Variation of Flavonoid Content of Cistus ladanifer Exudate. J. Chem. Ecol. 1997, 23, 579–603. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Bruce, T.J.A.; Pickett, J.A. Plant Defence Signalling Induced By Biotic Attacks. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2007, 10, 387–392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Peñuelas, J.; Munné-Bosch, S. Isoprenoids: An Evolutionary Pool for Photoprotection. Trends Plant Sci. 2005, 10, 166–169. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Scognamiglio, M. Phytochemical Analysis of Mediterranean Plants: Metabolomic Approach to Study Allelopathic Interactions Among Coexisting Species. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Naples: Naples, Italy, 2011. [Google Scholar]
  19. Fernández, C.; Santonja, M.; Gros, R.; Monnier, Y.; Chomel, M.; Baldy, V.; Bousquet-Mélou, A. Allelochemicals of Pinus halepensis as Drivers of Biodiversity in Mediterranean Open Mosaic Habitats During the Colonization Stage of Secondary Succession. J. Chem. Ecol. 2013, 39, 298–311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fiorentino, A.; D’Abrosca, B.; Esposito, A.; Izzo, A.; Pascarella, M.T.; D’Angel, G.; Monaco, P. Potential Allelopathic Effect of Neo-Clerodane Diterpenes from Teucrium chamaedrys (L.) on Stenomediterranean and Weed Cosmopolitan Species. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2009, 37, 349–353. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Rolim de Almeida, L.F.; Frei, F.; Mancini, E.; De Martino, L.; De Feo, V. Phytotoxic Activities of Mediterranean Essential Oils. Molecules 2010, 15, 4309–4323. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  22. Araniti, F.; Sorgona, A.; Lupini, A.; Abenavoli, M.R. Screening of Mediterranean Wild Plant Species for AlleloPathic Activity and Their Use as Bio-Herbicides. Allelopath. J. 2012, 29, 107–124. [Google Scholar]
  23. Scognamiglio, M.; Fiumano, V.; D’Abrosca, B.; Esposito, A.; Choi, Y.H.; Verpoorte, R.; Fiorentino, A. Chemical Interactions Between Plants in Mediterranean Vegetation: The Influence of Selected Plant Extracts on Aegilops geniculata Metabolome. Phytochemistry 2014, 106, 69–85. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Scognamiglio, M.; Graziani, V.; Tsafantakis, N.; Esposito, A.; Fiorentino, A.; D’Abrosca, B. NMR-Based Metabolomics and Bioassays to Study Phytotoxic Extracts and Putative Phytotoxins from Mediterranean Plant Species. Phytochem Anal. 2019, 30, 512–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Chaves, N.; Alías, J.C.; Sosa, T. Phytotoxicity of Cistus ladanifer L.: Role of Allelopathy. Allelopath. J. 2016, 38, 113–131. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chengxu, W.; Mingxing, Z.; Xuhui, C.; Bo, Q. Review on Allelopathy of Exotic Invasive Plants. Procedia Eng. 2011, 18, 240–246. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Hierro, J.L.; Callaway, R.M. Allelopathy and Exotic Plant Invasion. Plant Soil. 2003, 256, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Van Kleunen, M.; Bossdorf, O.; Dawson, W. The Ecology and Evolution of Alien Plants. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2018, 49, 25–47. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  29. Kalisz, S.; Kivlin, S.N.; Bialic-Murphy, L. Allelopathy Is Pervasive in Invasive Plants. Biol. Invasions 2021, 23, 367–371. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Catalán, P.; Vázquez-De-Aldana, B.R.; De Las Heras, P.; Fernández-Seral, A.; Pérez Corona, M.E. Comparing the Allelopathic Potential of Exotic and Native Plant Species on Understory Plants: Are Exotic Plants Better Armed? An. Biol. 2013, 35, 65–74. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Inderjit; Seastedt, T.R.; Callaway, R.M.; Pollock, J.L.; Kaur, J. Allelopathy and Plant Invasions: Traditional, Congeneric, and Bio-Geographical Approaches. Biol. Invasions 2008, 10, 875–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Callaway, R.M.; Ridenour, W.M. Novel Weapons: Invasive Success and the Evolution of Increased Competitive Ability. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2, 436–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Thorpe, A.S.; Thelen, G.C.; Diaconu, A.; Callaway, R.M. Root Exudate Is Allelopathic in Invaded Community But Not in Native Community: Field Evidence for the Novel Weapons Hypothesis. J. Ecol. 2009, 97, 641–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. He, W.M.; Feng, Y.; Ridenour, W.M.; Thelen, G.C.; Pollock, J.L.; Diaconu, A.; Callaway, R.M. Novel Weapons and Invasion: Biogeographic Differences in the Competitive Effects of Centaurea maculosa and its Root Exudate (±)-Catechin. Oecologia 2009, 159, 803–815. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ni, G.Y.; Schaffner, U.; Peng, S.L.; Callaway, R.M. Acroptilon repens, an Asian Invader, Has Stronger Competitive Effects on Species From America than Species From Its Native Range. Biol. Invasions 2010, 12, 3653–3663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Thorpe, A.S.; Callaway, R.M. Biogeographic Differences in the Effects of Centaurea stoebe on the Soil Nitrogen Cycle: Novel Weapons and Soil Microbes. Biol. Invasions 2011, 13, 1435–1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Kim, Y.O.; Lee, E.J. Comparison of Phenolic Compounds and the Effects of Invasive and Native Species in East Asia: Support for the Novel Weapons Hypothesis. Ecol. Res. 2011, 26, 87–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Zheng, Y.L.; Feng, Y.L.; Zhang, L.Q.; Callaway, R.M.; Valiente-Banuet, A.; Lei, Y.B.; Luo, D.Q.; Liao, Z.Y.; Barclay, G.F.; Silva-Pereyra, C. Integrating Novel Chemical Weapons and Evolutionarily Increased Competitive Ability in Success of a Tropical Invader. New Phytol. 2015, 205, 1350–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhu, X.; Zhang, J.; Ma, K. Soil Biota Reduce Allelopathic Effects of the Invasive Eupatorium adenophorum. PLoS ONE 2011, 6, e25393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Lind, E.M.; Parker, J.D. Novel Weapons Testing: Are Invasive Plants More Chemically Defended than Native Plants? PLoS ONE 2010, 5, e10429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Medina-Villar, S.; Alonso, Á.; Castro-Díez, P.; Pérez-Corona, E. Allelopathic Potentials of Exotic Invasive and Native Trees Over Coexisting Understory Species: The Soil as Modulator. Plant Ecol. 2017, 218, 579–594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Oduor, A.M.O.; van Kleunen, M.; Stift, M. Allelopathic Effects of Native And Invasive Brassica Nigra do not Support The Novel-Weapons Hypothesis. Am. J. Bot. 2020, 107, 1106–1113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Castroviejo, S.; Acedo, C.; Cirujano, S.; Laínz, M.; Monserrat, P.; Morales, R.; Soriano, C. Flora Ibérica: Plantas Vasculares de la Península Ibérica e Islas Baleares (Vol. 3); Real Jardín Botánico, CSIC: Madrid, Spain, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  44. Dias, A.S.; Dias, L.S.; Pereira, I.P. Activity of water extracts of Cistus ladanifer and Lavandula stoechas in soil on germination and early growth of wheat and Phalaris minor. Allelopath. J. 2004, 14, 59–64. [Google Scholar]
  45. Castroviejo, S.; Acedo, C.; Cirujano, S.; Laínz, M.; Monserrat, P.; Morales, R.; Soriano, C. Flora Ibérica: Plantas Vasculares de la Península Ibérica e Islas Baleares (Vol. 9); Real Jardín Botánico, CSIC: Madrid, Spain, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  46. Demirbüker Kavak, D.; Altıok, E.; Bayraktar, O.; Ülkü, S. Pistacia terebinthus Extract: As A Potential Antioxidant, Antimicrobial and Possible Β-Glucuronidase Inhibitor. J. Mol. Catal. B Enzym. 2010, 64, 167–171. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  47. Amessis-Ouchemoukh, N.; Madani, K.; Falé, P.L.V.; Serralheiro, M.L.; Araújo, M.E.M. Antioxidant Capacity and Phenolic Contents of Some Mediterranean Medicinal Plants and Their Potential Role in the Inhibition of Cyclooxygenase-1 and Acetylcholinesterase Activities. Ind. Crops Prod. 2014, 53, 6–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Pachi, V.K.; Mikropoulou, E.V.; Gkiouvetidis, P.; Siafakas, K.; Argyropoulou, A.; Angelis, A.; Mitakou, S.; Halabalaki, M. Traditional Uses, Phytochemistry and Pharmacology of Chios Mastic Gum (Pistacia lentiscus var. Chia, Anacardiaceae): A Review. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2020, 254, 112485. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Ismail, A.; Lamia, H.; Mohsen, H.; Bassen, J. Chemical Composition and Herbicidal Effects of Pistacea lentiscus L. Essential Oil Against Weeds. Int. J. Med. Arom. Plants 2012, 2, 558–565. [Google Scholar]
  50. Saludes-Zanfaño, M.I.; Vivar-Quintana, A.M.; Morales-Corts, M.R. Pistacia Root and Leaf Extracts as Potential Bioherbicides. Plants 2022, 11, 916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Bulut, Y.; Atabeyoğlu, Ö.; Kordali, Ş. The Effects of Pistacia terebinthus Leaf Extracts and Giberellic Acid on Plant Height, Inflorescence Survival and Inflorescence Numbers of Pelargonium ‘Ringo Deep Scarlet’. Atatürk Üniversitesi Ziraat Fakültesi Derg. 2011, 39, 123–126. [Google Scholar]
  52. Blanco, J.; Vázquez, F.M.; García, D.; Márquez, F.; Palacios, M.J. Flora of the Spanish List and Catalog of Invasive Alien Species Present in the Extremadura Region. EEI Congr. Nac. Sobre Especies Exóticas Invasoras 2012, 80–82. [Google Scholar]
  53. Lorenzo, P.; González, L.; Reigosa, M.J. The Genus Acacia as Invader: The Characteristic Case of Acacia dealbata Link in Europe. Ann. For. Sci. 2010, 67, 101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  54. Rodríguez-Echeverría, S.; Afonso, C.; Correia, M.; Lorenzo, P.; Roiloa, S.R. The Effect of Soil Legacy on Competition and Invasion by Acacia dealbata Link. Plant Ecol. 2013, 214, 1139–1146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Carballeira, A.; Reigosa, M.J. Effects of Natural Leachates of Acacia dealbata Link in Galicia (NW Spain). Bot. Bull. Acad. Sin. 1999, 40, 87–92. [Google Scholar]
  56. Lorenzo, P.; Pazos-Malvido, E.; González, L.; Reigosa, M.J. Allelopathic Interference of Invasive Acacia dealbata: Physiological Effects. Allelopath. J. 2008, 22, 452–462. [Google Scholar]
  57. Lorenzo, P.; Palomera-Pérez, A.; Reigosa, M.J.; Gónzalez, L. Allelopathic Interference of Invasive Acacia dealbata Link on the Physiological Parameters of Native Understory Species. Plant Ecol. 2011, 212, 403–412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Aguilera, N.; Becerra, J.; Villaseñor-Parada, C.; Lorenzo, P.; González, L.; Hernández, V. Effects and Identification of Chemical Compounds Released from the Invasive Acacia dealbata Link. Chem. Ecol. 2015, 31, 479–493. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dollar, K.E.; Pallardy, S.G.; Garrett, H.G. Composition and Environment of Floodplain Forests of Northern Missouri. Can. J. For. Res. 1992, 22, 1343–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Yeryomenko, Y.A. Allelopathic Activity of Invasive Arboreal Species. Russ. J. Biol. Invasions 2014, 5, 146–150. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Nikolaeva, A.A.; Golosova, E.V.; Shelepova, O.V. Allelopathic Activity of Acer negundo L. Leaf Litter as a Vector of Invasion Species into Plant Communities. BIO Web Conf. 2021, 38, 00088. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Flora of China. Salix Babylonica Linnaeus FOC Vol, 4, 186. Available online: http://www.efloras.org (accessed on 21 November 2022).
  63. Baquero, R.; Falcón, S.; Nicola, G. Guía Didáctica de Educación Ambiental. In Especies Exóticas Invasoras; Universidad de Castillas la Mancha: Cuenca, Spain, 2022. [Google Scholar]
  64. Mutlu-Durak, H.; Yildiz Kutman, B. Seed Treatment with Biostimulants Extracted from Weeping Willow (Salix babylonica) Enhances Early Maize Growth. Plants 2021, 10, 1449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Devesa, J.A.; Arroyo, J.; Herrera, J. Contribución al Conocimiento de la Biología Floral del Género Lavandula L. Anales Jard. Bot. Madrid 1985, 42, 165–186. [Google Scholar]
  66. Valdés, B.; Talavera, S.; Fernández-Galiano, E. Flora Vascular de Andalucía Occidental; Ketres Ed.: Barcelona, Spain, 1987; Volume 2. [Google Scholar]
  67. Luís, A.; Gil, N.; Amaral, M.E.; Duarte, A.P. Antioxidant Activities of Extracts from Acacia melanoxylon, Acacia dealbata and Olea europaea and Alkaloids Estimation. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 4, 225–231. [Google Scholar]
  68. Mcewan, R.W.; Arthur-Paratley, L.G.; Rieske, L.K.; Arthur, M.A. A Multi-Assay Comparison of Seed Germination Inhibition by Lonicera Maackii and Co-Occurring Native Shrubs. Flora 2010, 205, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Cipollini, K.; Titus, K.; Wagner, C. Allelopathic Effects of Invasive Species (Alliaria petiolata, Lonicera maackii and Ranunculus ficaria) in the Midwestern United States. Allelopathy J. 2012, 29, 63–76. [Google Scholar]
  70. Cipollini, K.; Greenawalt, M. Comparison of Allelopathic Effects of Five Invasive Species on two Native Species. J. Torrey Bot. Society 2016, 143, 427–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  71. Chon, S.U.; Nelson, C.J. Allelopathy in Compositae Plants. A Review. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2010, 30, 349–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  72. Del Fabbro, C.; Güsewell, S.; Prati, D. Allelopathic Effects of Three Plant Invaders on Germination of Native Species: A Field Study. Biol. Invasions 2014, 16, 1035–1042. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. De Las Heras, P.; Medina-Villar, S.; Pérez-Corona, M.E.; Vázquez-De- Aldana, B. Leaf Litter Age Regulates the Effect of Native and Exotic Tree Species on Understory Herbaceous Vegetation of Riparian Forests. Basic Appl. Ecol. 2020, 48, 11–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Kurniadie, D. Allelopathy of Lantana Camara as an Invasive Plant. Plants 2021, 10, 1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Arroyo, A.I.; Pueyo, Y.; Saiz, H.; Alados, C.L. Plant-Plant Interactions as a Mechanism Structuring Plant Diversity in a Mediterranean Semi-Arid Ecosystem. Ecol. Evol. 2015, 5, 5305–5317. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Hashoum, H.; Santonja, M.; Gauquelin, T.; Saatkamp, A.; Ganivet, J.; Greff, S.; Lecareux, C.; Fernández, C.; Bousquet-Mélou, A. Biotic Interactions in a Mediterranean Oak Forest: Role of Allelopathy Along Phenological Development of Woody Species. Eur. J. Forest Res. 2017, 136, 699–710. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fernández, C.; Monnier, Y.; Santoja, M.; Gallet, C.; Weston, L.A.; Prévosto, B.; Saunier, A.; Baldy, V.; Bousquet-Mélou, A. The Impact of Competition and Allelopathy on the Trade-Off Between Plant Defense and Growth in two Contrasting Tree Species. Front. Plant Sci. 2016, 7, 594. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  78. Chen, B.; Liao, H.; Chen, W.; Wei, H.; Peng, S. Role of Allelopathy in Plant Invasion and Control of Invasive Plants. Allelopathy J. 2017, 41, 155–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Christina, M.; Rouifed, S.; Puijalon, S.; Vallier, F.; Meiffren, G.; Bellvert, F.; Piola, F. Allelopathic Effect of a Native Species on A Major Plant Invader in Europe. Sci. Nat. 2015, 102, 12–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Chaves, N.; Santiago, A.; Alías, J.C. Quantification of the Antioxidant Activity of Plant Extracts: Analysis of Sensitivity and Hierarchization Based on the Method Used. Antioxidants 2020, 9, 76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Singleton, V.L.; Rossi, J.A. Colorimetry of Total Phenolics with Phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic Acid Reagent. Am. J. Enol. Vitic. 1965, 16, 144–158. [Google Scholar]
  82. Chang, C.; Yang, M.; Wen, H.; Chern, J. Estimation of Total Flavonoid Content in Propolis by two Complementary Colorimetric Methods. J. Food Drug Analaysis 2002, 10, 178–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Macías, F.A.; Simonet, A.M.; Pacheco, P.C.; Barrero, A.F.; Cabrera, E.; Jiménez-González, D. Natural and Synthetic Podolactones with Potential Use as Natural Herbicide Models. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2000, 48, 3003–3007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Qasim, M.; Fujii, Y.; Zaheer, M.; Irfan Aziz, A.; Watanabe, K.N.; Ajmal Khan, M. Phytotoxic Analysis of Coastal Medicinal Plants and Quantification of Phenolic Compounds Using HPLC. Plant Biosyst. Int. J. Deal. All Asp. Plant Biol. 2019, 153, 767–774. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 12 00972 g001 550
Figure 1. Effect of S. babylonica, A. negundo, A. dealbata, C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus extract on germination (A) and root size (B) of L. sativa at 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% concentrations; a, b, c: lowercase letters indicate significant differences between species of the same concentration (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). *: Significant difference of control (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Effect of S. babylonica, A. negundo, A. dealbata, C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus extract on germination (A) and root size (B) of L. sativa at 100%, 75%, 50%, and 25% concentrations; a, b, c: lowercase letters indicate significant differences between species of the same concentration (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). *: Significant difference of control (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05).
Plants 12 00972 g001
Plants 12 00972 g002 550
Figure 2. Effect of S. babylonica, A. negundo, A. dealbata, C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus extract on germination of L. stoechas (A) and E. plantagineum (B) at 100%, 50%, and 25% concentrations; a, b, c, d, e: lowercase letters indicate significant differences between species on the same concentration (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). *: Significant difference of control (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05).
Figure 2. Effect of S. babylonica, A. negundo, A. dealbata, C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus extract on germination of L. stoechas (A) and E. plantagineum (B) at 100%, 50%, and 25% concentrations; a, b, c, d, e: lowercase letters indicate significant differences between species on the same concentration (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). *: Significant difference of control (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05).
Plants 12 00972 g002
Plants 12 00972 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect of S. babylonica, A. negundo, A. dealbata, C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus extract on root size of L. stoechas (A) and E. plantagineum (B) at 100%, 50%, and 25% concentrations; a, b, c, d, e: lowercase letters indicate significant differences between species on the same concentration (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). *: Significant difference of control (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05).
Figure 3. Effect of S. babylonica, A. negundo, A. dealbata, C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus extract on root size of L. stoechas (A) and E. plantagineum (B) at 100%, 50%, and 25% concentrations; a, b, c, d, e: lowercase letters indicate significant differences between species on the same concentration (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). *: Significant difference of control (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05).
Plants 12 00972 g003
Plants 12 00972 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of S. babylonica, A. negundo, A. dealbata, C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus extract on cotyledon of L. stoechas (A) and E. plantagineum (B) at 100%, 50%, and 25% concentrations; a, b, c: lowercase letters indicate significant differences between species on the same concentration (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). *: Significant difference of control (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Effect of S. babylonica, A. negundo, A. dealbata, C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus extract on cotyledon of L. stoechas (A) and E. plantagineum (B) at 100%, 50%, and 25% concentrations; a, b, c: lowercase letters indicate significant differences between species on the same concentration (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). *: Significant difference of control (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05).
Plants 12 00972 g004
Plants 12 00972 g005 550
Figure 5. Effect of S. babylonica, A. negundo, A. dealbata, C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus extract on cotyledon size of L. stoechas (A) and E. plantagineum (B) at 100%, 50%, and 25% concentrations; a, b, c, d: lowercase letters indicate significant differences between species on the same concentration (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). *: Significant difference of control (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05).
Figure 5. Effect of S. babylonica, A. negundo, A. dealbata, C. ladanifer, P. lentiscus, and P. terebinthus extract on cotyledon size of L. stoechas (A) and E. plantagineum (B) at 100%, 50%, and 25% concentrations; a, b, c, d: lowercase letters indicate significant differences between species on the same concentration (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05). *: Significant difference of control (Mann-Whitney test, p < 0.05).
Plants 12 00972 g005
Table
Table 1. Total phenols and flavonoids in the extracts of selected species. n = 3.
Table 1. Total phenols and flavonoids in the extracts of selected species. n = 3.
Phenol TotalFlavonoids
GAE (mg/mg dw)EQ (mg/mg dw)EQ (mg/mg dw)
S. babylonica0.010 a0.008 a0.004 a
A. negundo0.012 a0.010 a0.008 b
A. dealbata0.025 b0.021 b0.016 c
C. ladanifer0.013 a0.012 a0.010 b
P. lentiscus0.024 b0.020 b0.012 c,b
P. terebinthus0.026 b0.022 b0.012 c,b
GAE: gallic acid equivalents; QE: quercetin equivalents; dw: dry weight; a, b, c: lowercase letters indicate significant differences between species (Mann-Whitney test to phenols total, p < 0.05; Tukey test to flavonoids, p < 0.05).
Table
Table 2. Percentage on germination, root size, cotyledon emergence, and cotyledon size according to the group of species and extract concentration in E. plantagineum and L. stoechas. The values are the mean of the species that constituted the native group and the non-native group as an activity function with respect to the control (negative values mean inhibition; positive values mean stimulation).
Table 2. Percentage on germination, root size, cotyledon emergence, and cotyledon size according to the group of species and extract concentration in E. plantagineum and L. stoechas. The values are the mean of the species that constituted the native group and the non-native group as an activity function with respect to the control (negative values mean inhibition; positive values mean stimulation).
Lavandula stoechas
ExtractSpeciesGerminationRoot SizeCotyledonCotyledon Size
100%Native−94.68 a−98.20 a−99.50 a−96.36 a
Non native−88.88 a−92.83 a−95.02 a−89.82 a
50%Native−56.03 a−93.40 a−84.07 a−79.68 a
Non native−34.29 a−73.69 b−62.18 b−57.93 a
25%Native−17.87 a−76.74 a−46.76 a−51.93 a
Non native−6.76 a−43.86 b−17.41 b−11.44 b
Echium plantagineum
GerminationRoot sizeCotyledonCotyledon size
100%Native−56.25 a−96.54 a−82.66 a−83.57 a
Non native−42.70 a−81.47 b−54.00 b−40.14 b
50%Native−20.83 a−90.51 a−34 a−43.42 a
Non native−9.89 a−62.04 b−9.33 a−20.69 a
25%Native1.04 a−77.47 a−6.00 a−17.69 a
Non native−4.16 a−53.9 b−2.66 a3.91 b
a, b: Lowercase letters indicate significant differences between native and non-native species (Mann-Whitney test, p > 0.05).
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

Chaves Lobón, N.; González Félix, M.; Alías Gallego, J.C. Comparison of the Allelopathic Potential of Non-Native and Native Species of Mediterranean Ecosystems. Plants 2023, 12, 972. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12040972

AMA Style

Chaves Lobón N, González Félix M, Alías Gallego JC. Comparison of the Allelopathic Potential of Non-Native and Native Species of Mediterranean Ecosystems. Plants. 2023; 12(4):972. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12040972

Chicago/Turabian Style

Chaves Lobón, Natividad, Marisa González Félix, and Juan Carlos Alías Gallego. 2023. "Comparison of the Allelopathic Potential of Non-Native and Native Species of Mediterranean Ecosystems" Plants 12, no. 4: 972. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12040972

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