Next Article in Journal
Chemical Composition of Aerial Parts Essential Oils from Six Endemic Malagasy Helichrysum Species
Previous Article in Journal
Long-Chain acyl-CoA Synthetase LACS2 Contributes to Submergence Tolerance by Modulating Cuticle Permeability in Arabidopsis
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Plant Growth Inhibitory Activities and Volatile Active Compounds of 53 Spices and Herbs

1
Miyagi Prefectural Agriculture and Horticulture Research Centre, 1, Higashi-kongouji, Kawakami, Takadate, Natori, Miyagi 981-1243, Japan
2
Department of Biological Production Science, United Graduate School of Agriculture, Faculty of Agriculture, Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, Fuchu, Tokyo 183-8509, Japan
3
Department of Horticulture, College of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Mashhad 9177948974, Iran
4
National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences, 3-1-3, Kan-nondai, Tsukuba, Ibaraki 305-8604, Japan
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2020, 9(2), 264; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9020264
Submission received: 30 December 2019 / Revised: 28 January 2020 / Accepted: 9 February 2020 / Published: 18 February 2020
(This article belongs to the Section Phytochemistry)

Abstract

:
The inhibitory activities of the leachates and volatiles from 53 plant species (spices and herbs) were evaluated against lettuce (Lactuca sativa “Great Lakes 366”) seedling growth using the sandwich and dish pack methods, respectively. With the sandwich method, parsley (Petroselinum sativum) showed the strongest inhibitory effect on lettuce radicle growth (77%), followed by tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus) (72%). However, caraway (Carum carvi), dill (Anethum graveolens) (seed), laurel (Laurus nobilis), rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), and sage (Salvia officinalis) were the most inhibitory species (100% inhibition of lettuce radicle and hypocotyl growth inhibition at all distance wells) in the dish pack method. Cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum) and thyme (Thymus vulgaris) also showed strong inhibitory activity (100% for radicle and hypocotyl growth inhibition at all 41 and 58 mm distance wells). The headspace sampling and gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis identified the main inhibitory active compounds as carvone in caraway and dill (seeds), 1,8-cineole in laurel and cardamom, and borneol in thyme. Both camphor and 1,8-cineole were detected in rosemary and sage, and the total activity evaluation showed that camphor was the major inhibitory compound in rosemary, although both compounds played equal roles in sage.

1. Introduction

A range of secondary metabolites is synthesized by plants, with the exact composition varying among species. Application of these compounds as agricultural chemicals has been well investigated, with many of the insecticides and fungicides that are used in recent years originating from natural plants [1]. The inhibitory effects of specific volatiles or essential oils of aromatic plants, including spices and herbs on plant growth have also been investigated in both field and laboratory assays [2,3,4,5]. As a result, many plant growth inhibitory substances (allelochemicals) have been identified. However, only a small number of these allelochemicals are currently being used in commercial herbicide production because their effects are not as strong or long-lasting as synthetic herbicides [1]. Nonetheless, there have been some reports on the direct use of allelopathic plants in agriculture. For example, some plants in the Brassicaceae family are used as bio-fumigation materials to reduce the incidence of soil-borne diseases, nematodes, or weeds [6,7,8,9,10].
Allelochemicals are released from plants into the environment through several routes, including volatilization from the leaf tissues, leaching of non-volatiles from the foliage by rainfall, exudation from living roots, or the decomposition of residues by soil microorganisms [11,12,13]. Several bioassay methods that correspond to each of these routes of allelochemical release have been developed to evaluate the activities of allelochemicals [3,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Among these bioassays, the sandwich method is used to evaluate the allelopathic activities of leachates by placing plant samples between two layers of agar [20,21,22]. The dish pack method is however used to evaluate the growth inhibitory activities of plant volatiles by placing samples in a six-well multi-dish to determine the relationship between the degree of growth inhibition on receptor seedlings and their distance from the donor samples. The speed of diffusion and intensity of activity of the volatiles can be estimated using this bioassay [23,24,25]. Indeed, it was through this method that Sekine et al. [26] found that cuminaldehyde was the main antifungal compound in black Zira (Elwendia persica).
Therefore, in this study, we evaluated the growth inhibitory activities of the leachates and volatiles of 53 plant species (spices and herbs) using the sandwich and dish pack methods, respectively, and determined the active component(s) responsible for any such inhibitory effects.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Screening of Allelopathic Activity

In this study, we examined the plant growth inhibitory activities of 53 species of plants (spices and herbs) against the growth of lettuce seedlings using the sandwich and dish pack methods. The volatile compounds responsible for the activities of the most inhibitory species were also identified. Lettuce was chosen as the test plant because it germinates quickly with high uniformity and has a high sensitivity to allelochemicals [27]. In addition to this, lettuce had previously been used by many researchers to investigate plant allelopathy [18,28,29,30,31]. The inhibitory effects of the leachates and volatiles released by the spices and herbs on the radicle and hypocotyl growth of lettuce seedlings are shown in Table 1. In both the sandwich (36 species) and dish pack (23 species) methods, lettuce radicle growth was inhibited more than hypocotyl growth (Table 1). The stronger inhibition of the radicle that was observed could be the result of the radicle emerging before the hypocotyl, the nutrients stored in the seed being supplied to the hypocotyl, or differences in the actions of the allelopathic substances [27]. The allelopathic activity, in this study, was mainly discussed in terms of the lettuce radicle inhibition because the radicle is likely to be directly affected by the available leachates or volatiles, whereas hypocotyl growth is likely to be influenced by several complex factors.
Itani et al. [27,32] found that Oxalis corniculata, Rumex acetosella, and Begonia spp., showed 90% to 95% inhibition when lettuce was treated with 10 mg of plant samples in the sandwich method. Using the same amount of sample, we found that none of the species tested exhibited > 90% growth inhibition with the sandwich method (Table 1). However, all of the species showed some degree of radicle growth inhibition, with parsley (Petroselinum sativum) showing the strongest inhibition (77%), followed by tarragon (Artemisia dracunculus) (72%). It has previously been reported that parsley contains myristicin and apiole both of which have shown inhibitory activities against the seedling growth of rice [33,34]. In addition, some members of the genus Artemisia, including tarragon, have been reported to be allelopathic [3,35,36]. However, the plant growth-inhibitory substance(s) that are specific to tarragon remain unknown. Furthermore, most of the samples inhibited hypocotyl growth, with clove (Eugenia aromatica) showing the strongest inhibition (72%), followed by oriental mustard (Brassica juncea) (69%). However, seven of the evaluated samples showed a stimulatory growth effect, with seri roots (Oenanthe javanica) and red shiso (Perilla frutescens), in particular, promoting growth by >20%. Sekine et al. [26] previously showed that 500 mg of the test sample was adequate for assessing the allelopathic activity of black Zira against the mycelial growth of Fusarium oxysporum using the dish pack method. Using the same amount of sample, we found that caraway (Carum carvi), dill seeds (Anethum graveolens), laurel (Laurus nobilis), rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), and sage (Salvia officinalis) caused complete inhibition of lettuce seed growth in all five wells (Table 1).
Other species including cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum) and thyme (Thymus vulgaris), also caused 100% inhibition in three of the five wells. Additionally, the pepper tree (Schinus molle) and mace (Myristica fragrans) caused strong inhibition in the two 41 mm distance wells. However, their activity sharply decreased with increasing distance (58, 82, and 92 mm) from the source well, indicating low volatility of the allelopathic compounds produced by these species. By contrast, the green and red varieties of shiso (Perilla frutescens) stimulated the radicle growth of lettuce by two-fold as compared with the control. It has been reported that shiso leaves contain the aromatic compound pellylaldehyde [37], and we observed that 50 μL of authentic pellylaldehyde had a similar promotional effect when tested using the dish pack method (Sekine, unpublished report). However, since this type of effect was not the focus of this study, the presence of pellylaldehyde in shiso was not further investigated in this study. The five species that showed 100% inhibition in all of the wells at a sample weight of 500 mg (excluding laurel) also showed the same level of inhibition at a reduced sample weight of 250 mg. Laurel showed less than 100% inhibition at the two furthest wells from the source well (82 and 92 mm distance wells). Furthermore, caraway, dill (seed), rosemary, and sage also showed 100% inhibition in all of the wells, even 100 mg.

2.2. The GC-MS Analysis of Volatiles Constituents

The volatiles that were produced by the seven most inhibitory species (i.e., caraway, dill (seed), laurel, rosemary, sage, cardamom, and thyme) were determined through headspace sampling and GC-MS analysis. The GC-MS analysis resulted in the detection of 12 compounds (Table 2). Among these species, sage contained the most considerable number of compounds (n = 9). Among the detected compounds, limonene was present in most species (n = 6) in varying amounts, while borneol was only detected in thyme.

2.3. Evaluation of Allelopathic Activities of the Detected Volatiles

Evaluation of allelopathic activities of the authentic samples of the 12 detected compounds showed that borneol, camphor, carvone, and 1,8-cineole resulted in 100% growth inhibition in all of the wells. In addition, 3-carene and β-pinene exhibited high levels of inhibition when 50 μL of the compounds were used (Table 3). Furthermore, growth inhibition remained high for borneol, camphor, and carvone (>50%) when the sample volume was reduced to <50 μL or 50 mg, which equated to a vapour concentration of <1 ppm after 24 h (Table 3). The compound 1,8-cineole also showed high growth inhibition but at a higher vapour concentration than the other three compounds (10.3 ppm in the 41 mm distance well and 9.43 ppm in the 92 mm distance well). There have been several reports on the plant growth inhibitory activities of these four monoterpenoids [2,19,30,38,39,40,41,42]. Abraham et al. [2] estimated that these compounds inhibited the germination of maize (Zea mays) in the order of camphor > 1,8-cineole > α-pinene > limonene.
In another study, Nishida et al. [19] reported that the root growth of Brassica campestris was inhibited by these compounds and β-pinene in the order of camphor > 1,8-cineole > β-pinene > α-pinene > camphene. The inhibition trends reported in both studies are similar to our findings despite the use of different types of receptor plants. Contrary to the results of this study where borneol showed higher activity than carvone, Vokou et al. [30] reported a different inhibition trend (carvone > camphor > 1,8-cineole = borneol) of some of these monoterpenoids against lettuce. This variation could be due to differences in the type of bioassay and method of vapour concentration measurement that was used. Limonene of these top four compounds was detected in six of the seven most inhibitory species, whereas both camphor and 1,8-cineole were found in rosemary and sage (Table 2). To determine which of these two compounds played a significant role in the activity of each of these species, they were further evaluated based on their specific activity (EC50) and total activity. Evaluation of the specific activity (i.e., biological activity per unit weight of the compound) expressed as the EC50 and essential for the development of pesticides, as a compound that exhibits a small EC50 value has a high specific activity. By contrast, the evaluation by total activity (i.e., biological activity per unit weight of the sample containing the bioactive compound) is important for biological use [43,44]. Hiradate et al. [45] isolated novel plant growth inhibitory compounds from Spiraea thunbergii through the concept of total activity. The EC50 values of authentic camphor and 1,8-cineole were 0.0633 ppm and 7.21 ppm, respectively. The total activity, based on these values and the concentration of the compounds, was calculated to be almost 10 times higher for camphor than for 1,8-cineole (23.9 and 2.58, respectively) in rosemary. Almost the same total activity for both compounds in sage (7.93 for 1,8-cineole and 7.49 for camphor) indicates that they play equal roles in the inhibitory activity of this herb.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Screening of Spices and Herbs

Dried samples of 53 species of spices and herbs were tested for their potential allelopathy through leachates and volatiles (Table 1). Thirty-eight of the species were donated by YASUMA Co. Ltd. (Tokyo, Japan), 14 were cultivated in the fields of the Miyagi Prefectural Agriculture and Horticulture Research Centre (Natori, Japan) or the National Institute for Agro-Environment Science (Tsukuba, Japan), and one species was donated by the Ferdowsi University of Misshad (Iran). Each sample was dried in a hot air circulation oven at 60 °C for 4 h and, then, ground finely with a Japanese traditional grinder, “Yagen”, just before the experiment.

3.2. Sandwich Method

The activity of the leachates produced by each plant sample was evaluated following the principles of the sandwich method using six-well multi-dishes (Nunc, external dimensions 128 × 86 mm, 35 mm diameter wells) [22]. Each well was filled with 10 mg of ground sample to which 5 mL of 0.5% agar (w/v) was added. The sample was, then, wholly integrated with the first layer of agar. As soon as the agar had hardened, a second agar layer (5 mL) was added and again allowed to gelatinise. Five lettuce (Lactuca sativa “Great Lakes 366”, Takii Seed, Japan) seeds were placed on top of the gelatinized agar in the well. Three wells of a multi-dish were used as three replications of a single species. In addition, a control multi-dish was set up in the same manner only without the addition of any samples to the wells. The multi-dishes were incubated in a dark growth chamber at 25 °C for three days. The growth rate of the lettuce seedlings relative to the control was then measured to calculate the inhibition rate (control = 100% growth).

3.3. Dish Pack Method

The activity of the volatiles released by each plant sample was evaluated following the dish pack method procedure [24,42] using six-well multi-dishes (Figure 1). A ground sample (500 mg) was placed in the lower-left well (denoted as the 0 mm distance or source well) of a multi-dish, and a filter paper (Advantec, No.1, 33 mm; Toyo) that had been wetted with distilled water (0.75 mL).
Seven lettuce seeds were placed on the surface of each of the remaining wells. The multi-dish was then covered, and the sides were sealed with adhesive tape to prevent volatile losses due to volatilization. In addition, a control dish was set up in the same manner only without the addition of any sample to the source well. The multi-dishes were incubated in a dark growth chamber at 25 °C for three days. The radicle and hypocotyl lengths of the lettuce seedlings in each well were measured. The inhibition rate was, then, calculated in the same manner as for the sandwich method (see Section 3.2). There was a 1 mm headspace between the multi-dish cover and the wells to allow any volatiles produced by the sample to spread throughout the multi-dish. The levels of vapour diffusion and inhibition were estimated by the relationship between the level of seedling growth inhibition and the distance of the seedling from the source well. In this experiment, there were no replications for each species. However, those species that showed strong inhibition were assayed for a second time using a reduced amount of sample (250 mg) and this process was, then, repeated for a third time using a further reduced weight (100 mg).

3.4. Identification and Evaluation of Plant Growth Inhibitory Volatiles

The volatiles that were released by the species showing the highest activities were determined using the headspace method. A finely ground sample (200 mg) of each species was put into a glass vial equipped with aluminium crimp seal cap with a polytetrafluoroethylene (PTFE)/silicone septum and was kept under laboratory conditions for 30 min. A headspace vapour sample (1 mL) was, then, taken from the vial through the septum using a Hamilton gas-tight syringe. The collected gas was then immediately injected into a QP-5050A gas spectrometer (SHIMAZU, Kyoto, Japan) using EQUITY-5 gas chromatography (GC) column (Supelco, 30 m × 0.25 mm, i.d. 0.25 μm). Each compound was identified by comparing its mass spectrum with values recorded in the NIST Mass Spectral Library and the retention time of an authentic sample on the GC. The quantity of each compound from a given plant sample was determined by comparing the peak area of the compound with that of its authentic sample. The operating conditions of the gas chromatographer-mass spectrometer were as follows: Inlet 200 °C and column oven 40 °C for 30 s and, then, programmed to increase by 8 °C/min to 160 °C, which was maintained for 5 min. The split-less injection was applied using 1.0 mL of vapour-phase sample or 2.0 μL of the liquid sample. Headspace sampling and analysis were not replicated.
To evaluate the growth inhibitory activities of authentic samples of compounds that corresponded to the detected compounds, the same procedure was applied for testing the dried samples. The only change was a cup containing 50 μL of the authentic compound (or 50 mg for solid compounds) placed in the source well instead of the dried sample (Figure 1). Authentic samples were purchased from Wako Pure Chemicals Industries, Ltd. (borneol, camphene, camphor, carvone, 1,8-cineole, limonene, α-pinene, β-pinene, and γ-terpinene), Sigma Chemical Co. Ltd. (3-carene and p-cymene), and Tokyo Chemical Industry Co. Ltd. (β-myrcene). The compounds that showed strong inhibition of lettuce seedling growth were re-assayed using a reduced amount of sample (5 μL or 5 mg until amounts of 0.5 μL or 0.05 mg were reached). Since the reduced quantities of the compounds were difficult to measure, the compounds were added to 50 μL of dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO), which has been shown to have no effect on the germination or elongation of lettuce seeds at concentrations of 50 μL and below (Fujii, unpublished report).
To measure the vapour concentration of the authentic compound in each well, separate multi-dishes were set out in the same manner as above but without lettuce seeds. One multi-dish corresponded to a well, and the vapour was collected from the multi-dish only once to avoid any unusual diffusion of vapour during the collection process. The vapour was collected after 24 h using a Hamilton gas-tight syringe (1.0 mL) through a septum located on top of the wells. The gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis was undertaken using the same procedure as in Section 3.4. In addition, the biological activity of the most active commonly detected authentic compound among the tested species was evaluated based on its specific activity and total activity. Specific activity (expressed as EC50), is the effective concentration of the compound that induces half-maximum inhibition. In our study, the EC50 value was calculated using a probit analysis [46], and the total activity was calculated as:
Total activity = (1/EC50) × concentration in the sample (μg/g plant)

4. Conclusions

The leachates from parsley, followed by tarragon showed the strongest inhibitory activity against lettuce seedling growth using the sandwich method. On the other hand, the volatile constituents from caraway, dill seed, laurel, rosemary, and sage followed by cardamom and thyme showed the highest inhibition using the dish pack method. Headspace sampling and GC-MS analysis identified the main inhibitory compounds as carvone in caraway and dill seed, 1,8-cineole in laurel and cardamom, and borneol in thyme. Both camphor and 1,8-cineole were detected in rosemary and sage. Although both compounds played potentially equal roles in the inhibitory activity of sage, the total activity evaluation demonstrated that camphor was the major inhibitory compound in rosemary.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, T.S. and Y.F.; methodology, T.S.; validation, T.S. and M.S.; formal analysis, T.S.; investigation, T.S.; resources, T.S., M.A., and Y.F.; data curation, T.S. and M.S..; writing—original draft preparation, T.S., K.S.A., and M.S.; writing—review and editing, T.S., M.A., K.S.A., and Y.F.; supervision; Y.F.; funding acquisition, Y.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the grant-in-aid for research on Agriculture and Food Science (25029AB) from the Ministry of Agriculture, Forestry, and Fisheries of Japan. JSPS KAKENHI grant number 26304024, MEXT scholarship number 120573, and JST CREST grant number JPMJCR17O2 also supported this work.

Acknowledgments

We would like to show great appreciation to Mami Sugano for her great assistance in the operation and analysis of samples by GC-MS.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors have not declared any conflict of interest.

References

  1. Benner, J.P. Pesticides from nature. Part I: Crop protection agents from higher plants—An overview. In Crop Protection Agents from Nature; Copping, L.G., Ed.; The Royal Society of Chemistry: Cambridge, UK, 1996; pp. 217–229. [Google Scholar]
  2. Abraham, D.; Braguini, W.L.; Kelmer–Bracht, A.M.; Ishii-Iwamoto, E.L. Effects of four monoterpenes of germination, primary root growth, and mitochondrial respiration of maize. J. Chem. Ecol. 2000, 26, 611–624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Barney, J.; Hays, A.; Weston, L.A. Isolation and characterization of allelopathic volatiles from mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris). J. Chem. Ecol. 2005, 31, 247–265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Del Amo, S.; Anaya, A.L. Effect of some sesquiterpene lactones on the growth of certain secondary tropical species. J. Chem. Ecol. 1978, 4, 305–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Dudai, N.; Mayer, A.M.; Poljakoff-Mayber, A.; Putievsky, E.; Lerner, H.R. Essential oils as allelochemicals and their potential use as bioherbicides. J. Chem. Ecol. 1999, 25, 1079–1089. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Al-Khatib, K.; Libbey, C.; Boydston, R. Weed suppression with Brassica green manure crops in green pea. Weed Sci. 1997, 45, 439–445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Mayton, H.S.; Olivier, C.; Vaughn, S.F.; Loria, R. Correlation of fungicidal activity of Brassica species with allyl isothiocyanate production in macerated leaf tissue. Phytopathology 1996, 86, 267–271. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Olivier, C.; Vaughn, S.F.; Mizubuti, E.S.G.; Loria, R. Variation in allyl isothiocyanate production within Brassica species and correlation with fungicidal activity. J. Chem. Ecol. 1998, 25, 2687–2701. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Vaughn, S.F.; Boydston, R.A. Volatile allelochemicals released by crucifer green manures. J. Chem. Ecol. 1997, 23, 2107–2116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Vaughn, S.F.; Isbell, T.A.; Weisleder, D.; Berhow, M.A. Biofumigant compounds released by field pennycress (Thlaspi arvense) seed meal. J. Chem. Ecol. 2005, 31, 167–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Kimura, F.; Ohno, O.; Suenaga, K. Involvement of allelopathy in inhibition of understory growth in red pine forests. J. Plant Physiol. 2017, 218, 66–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Kobayashi, K. Factors affecting phytotoxic activity of allelochemicals in soil. Weed Biol. Manag. 2004, 4, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tukey, H.B., Jr. Implications of allelopathy in agricultural plant science. Bot. Rev. 1969, 35, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Alsaadawi, I.S.; Alrubeaa, A.J. Allelopathic effects of Citrus aurantium L. I. Vegetational patterning. J. Chem. Ecol. 1985, 11, 1527–1534. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Bradow, J.M.; Connick, W.J., Jr. Allelochemicals from Palmer amaranth, Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. J. Chem. Ecol. 1987, 13, 185–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Connick, W.J., Jr.; Bradow, J.M.; Legendre, M.G.; Vail, S.L.; Menges, R.M. Identification of volatile allelochemicals from Amaranthus palmeri S. Wats. J. Chem. Ecol. 1987, 13, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Fujii, Y. Screening of allelopathic candidates by new specific discrimination, and assessment methods for allelopathy, and the identification of L-DOPA as the allelopathic substance from the most promising velvet beans (Mucuna pruriens). Bull. Natl. Inst. Agro-Environ. Sci. 1994, 10, 115–218, (In Japanese with English summary). [Google Scholar]
  18. Haig, T. Application of hyphenated chromatography-mass spectrometry techniques to plant allelopathy research. J. Chem. Ecol. 2001, 27, 2363–2396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Nishida, N.; Tamotsu, S.; Nagata, N.; Saito, C.; Sakai, A. Allelopathic effects of volatile monoterpenoids produced by Salvia leucophylla: Inhibition of cell proliferation and DNA synthesis in the root apical meristem of Brassica campestris seedlings. J. Chem. Ecol. 2005, 31, 1187–1203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Fujii, Y.; Parvez, S.S.; Parves, M.M.; Ohmae, Y.; Iida, O. Screening of 239 medicinal plant species for allelopathic activity using the sandwich method. Weed Biol. Manag. 2003, 3, 233–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Morikawa, C.I.O.; Miyaura, R.; Tapia, Y.; Figueroa, M.D.L.; Rengifo Salgado, E.L.; Fujii, Y. Screening of 170 Peruvian plant species for allelopathic activity by using the Sandwich Method. Weed Biol. Manag. 2012, 12, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shiraishi, S.; Watanabe, I.; Kuno, K.; Fujii, Y. Allelopathic activity of leaching from dry leaves and exudates from roots of groundcover plants assayed on agar. Weed Biol. Manag. 2002, 2, 133–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Amini, S.; Azizi, M.; Joharchi, M.R.; Shafei, M.N.; Moradinezhad, F.; Fujii, Y. Determination of allelopathic potential in some medicinal and wild plant species of Iran by dish pack method. Theor. Exp. Plant Physiol. 2014, 26, 189–199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Fujii, Y.; Matsuyama, M.; Hiradate, S.; Shimozawa, H. Dish Pack Method: A New Bioassay for volatile allelopathy. In Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress on Allelopathy, New South Wales, Australia, 21–26 August 2005; pp. 493–497. [Google Scholar]
  25. Sunohara, Y.; Baba, Y.; Matsuyama, S.; Fujimura, K.; Matsumoto, H. Screening and identification of phytotoxic volatile compounds in medicinal plants and characterizations of a selected compound, eucarvone. Protoplasma 2015, 252, 1047–1059. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Sekine, T.; Sugano, M.; Azizi, M.; Fujii, Y. Antifungal effects of volatile compounds from black zira (Bunium percisum) and other spices and herbs. J. Chem. Ecol. 2007, 33, 2123–2132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  27. Itani, T.; Hirai, K.; Fujii, Y.; Kohda, H.; Tamaki, M. Screening for allelopathic activity among weeds and medical plants using the “sandwich method”. J. Weed Sci. Tech. 1998, 43, 258–266, (In Japanese with English summary). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Hirai, N.; Sakashita, S.; Sano, T.; Inoue, T.; Ohigashi, H.; Premasthira, C.; Asakawa, Y.; Harada, J.; Fujii, Y. Allelochemicals of the tropical weed Sphenoclea zeylanica. Phytochemistry 2000, 55, 131–140. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Takemura, T.; Sakuno, E.; Kamo, T.; Hiradate, S.; Fujii, Y. Screening of the growth-inhibitory effects of 168 plant species against lettuce seedlings. Am. J. Plant. Sci. 2013, 4, 1095–1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Vokou, D.; Douvli, P.; Blionis, G.T.; Halley, J.M. Effects of monoterpenoids, acting alone or in pairs, on seed germination and subsequent seedling growth. J. Chem. Ecol. 2003, 29, 2281–2301. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Weidenhamer, J.D.; Macias, F.A.; Fischer, N.H.; Williamson, G.B. Just how insoluble are monoterpenes? J. Chem. Ecol. 1993, 19, 1799–1807. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Itani, T.; Fujita, T.; Tamaki, M.; Kuroyanagi, M.; Fujii, Y. Allelopathic activity and oxalate content in oxalate-rich plants. J. Weed Sci. Technol. 1999, 44, 316–323, (In Japanese with English summary). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Harada, J. Plant growth-inhibiting substance contained in parsley plants. Jpn. J. Crop. Sci. 1984, 53, 128–129. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  34. Harada, J. Plant growth-inhibiting substances contained in parsley seed oil. Jpn. J. Crop. Sci. 1984, 53, 130–131. (In Japanese) [Google Scholar]
  35. Muller, C.H.; Muller, W.H.; Haines, B.L. Volatile growth inhibitors produced by aromatic shrubs. Science 1964, 143, 471–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  36. Yun, K.W.; Kil, B.-S. Assessment of allelopathic potential in Artemisia princeps var. Orientalis Residues. J. Chem. Ecol. 1992, 18, 1933–1940. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Morinaka, Y.; Fukuda, N.; Takayanagi, K. Evaluation of perilla (Perilla frutescens) aroma–Analysis of volatile aromatic components in fresh perilla leaves by adsorptive column method. J. Jpn. Soc. Hort. Sci. 2002, 71, 411–418, (In Japanese with English summary). [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  38. Asplund, R.O. Monoterpenes: Relationship between structure and inhibition of germination. Phytochemistry 1968, 7, 1995–1997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fischer, N.H.; Williamson, G.B.; Weidenhamer, J.D.; Richardson, D.R. In search of allelopathy in the Florida scrub: The role of terpenoids. J. Chem. Ecol. 1994, 20, 1355–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Halligan, J.P. Toxic terpenes from Artemisia californica. Ecology 1975, 56, 999–1003. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Romagni, J.G.; Allen, S.N.; Dayan, F.E. Allelopathic effects of volatile cineoles on two weedy plants species. J. Chem. Ecol. 2000, 26, 303–313. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Kang, G.; Mishyna, M.; Appiah, K.S.; Yamada, M.; Takano, A.; Prokhorov, V.; Fujii, Y. Screening for plant volatile emissions with allelopathic activity and the identification of L-Fenchone and 1,8-cineole from anise (Illicium verum) leaves. Plants 2019, 8, 457. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  43. Fujii, Y.; Hiradate, S. A critical survey of allelochemicals in action—The importance of total activity and the weed suppression equation. In Proceedings of the Fourth World Congress on Allelopathy, New South Wales, Australia, 21–26 August 2005; pp. 73–76. [Google Scholar]
  44. Hiradate, S. Isolation strategies for finding bioactive compounds: Specific activity vs. total activity. In Natural Products for Pest Management in ACS Symposium Series 927; Rimando, A.M., Duke, S.O., Eds.; ACS Publications: Washington, DC, USA, 2006; pp. 113–126. [Google Scholar]
  45. Hiradate, S.; Morita, S.; Sugie, H.; Fujii, Y.; Harada, J. Phytotoxic cis-cinnamoyl glucosides from Spiraea thunbergii. Phytochemistry 2004, 65, 731–739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  46. Finney, D.J. Probit Analysis; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1971. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Top and side views of the multi-dish that was used for testing the plant growth inhibitory activities of volatile compounds with the dish pack method. (1) Distance from the sample or compound; (2) The source well (or cup in the case of authentic compounds); (3) Septa were attached for headspace vapour sampling, which was undertaken using a Hamilton gas-tight syringe and analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis; (4) Each filter paper was wetted with 0.7 mL of distilled water.
Figure 1. Top and side views of the multi-dish that was used for testing the plant growth inhibitory activities of volatile compounds with the dish pack method. (1) Distance from the sample or compound; (2) The source well (or cup in the case of authentic compounds); (3) Septa were attached for headspace vapour sampling, which was undertaken using a Hamilton gas-tight syringe and analyzed by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry (GC-MS) analysis; (4) Each filter paper was wetted with 0.7 mL of distilled water.
Plants 09 00264 g001
Table 1. Allelopathic activities of 53 spices and herbs based on the sandwich and dish pack methods.
Table 1. Allelopathic activities of 53 spices and herbs based on the sandwich and dish pack methods.
Donor Spice and HerbInhibition (%) 3
Sandwich Method 4Dish Pack Method 5
Common Names (Part Used) 1Scientific Name FamilyRHRadicleHypocotyl
4158829241588292
Onion 2,*Allium cepaLiliaceae38917512−114211613
Scallion (root)Allium fistuiosumLiliaceae2204512−10−511−3−77
Scallion (leaf & stem)Allium fistuiosumLiliaceae5824−29−101611−3−7−5
Chinese pepperZanthoxylum bungeanumRutaceae6862891004469941007281
Chinpi *Citrus unshiuRutaceae381384−24−336−11−23
Clove *Eugenia aromaticaMyrtaceae497269831394761916
Allspice *Pimenta officinalisMyrtaceae352138−27381249364618
Juniper berry *Juniperus communisCupressaceae11−97537203371261829
Mace *Myristica fragransMyristicaceae4446959054−497927151
Nutmeg *Myristica fragransMyristicaceae213124−2−11−958391826
Red pepper *Capsicum annuumSolanaceae49194853432515302510
Houttuynia (root)Houttuynia cordataSaururaceae18−64744−1234434−17
Houttuynia (leaf & stemHouttuynia cordataSaururaceae38−8133262217−54029
Caraway *Carum carviUmbelliferae6044100100100100100100100100
Dill (seed) *Anethum graveolensUmbelliferae5854100100100100100100100100
Dill (leaf & stem)Anethum graveolensUmbelliferae623782234−23536−9
Black ziraBunium persicumUmbelliferae68529385472194907151
Coriander *Coriandrum sativumUmbelliferae68312052302611232121
Funnel (seed) *Foeniculum vulgareUmbelliferae411848107372533436
Parsley *Petroselium sativumUmbelliferae7762203224111925257
Celery (seed) *Apium graveolensUmbelliferae46522122221218161314
Seri (root)Oenanthe javanicaUmbelliferae33−23202691910111−3
Seri (leaf and stem)Oenanthe javanicaUmbelliferae4259617200381311
Cumin *Cuminum cyminumUmbelliferae60315020−3717946832
Anise *Pinpinella anisumUmbelliferae4871735−1−648503628
Ajowan *Trachyspermum ammiUmbelliferae5652−601−53−121629−420
Cardamom *Elettaria cardamomumZingiberaceae29−310010085751001008978
Brown cardamom *Elettaria cardamomumZingiberaceae144581717106338314
Ginger *Zingiber officinaleZingiberaceae36268552254684531648
Turmeric *Curcuma domesticaZingiberaceae1939−22−23−2−29162210−11
Rosemary *Rosemarinus officinalisLabiatae5961100100100100100100100100
Sage *Salvia officinalisLabiatae1420100100100100100100100100
Thyme *Thymus vulgarisLabiatae203310010085641001008563
Lavender (leaf&stem)Lavandula augustifoliaLabiatae436210010067581001005658
Lavender (root)Lavandula augustifoliaLabiatae153775227396113−37
Savory *Satureja hortensisLabiatae2121291324112718257
Basil *Ocimum basilicumLabiatae682151−12−60−106527327
Origan *Origanum vulgareLabiatae1122−7−3730143619314
Shiso (green)Perilla frutescensLabiatae3729−64−96−103−11430201113
Shiso (red)Perilla frutescensLabiatae49−24−122−107−104−116−2−14−20−12
White pepper *Piper nigricumPiperaceae67668516564082166329
Black pepper *Piper nigricumPiperaceae606115−13−10−342533436
Laurel *Laurus nobilisLauraceae2426100100100100100100100100
Cassis *Cinnmomum cassiaLauraceae4229100482032100653821
Cinnamon *Cinnamomum verumLauraceae4221652010−768482010
Tarragon *Artemisia dracunculusCompositae7240843315071652816
Camomile (leaf & stem)Anthemis nobilisCompositae59164020241217311−1
Chamomile (root)Anthemis nobilisCompositae17−85019−1−9131117−3
Chamomile (flower)Anthemis nobilisCompositae6139825−4−1540−55
Pepper tree *Schinus molleAnacardiaceae1301007721−2100913220
Oriental mustard *Brassica junceaBrassicaceae64699997544397964532
Yellow mustard *Brassica albaBrassicaceae46421432171924443334
Brown mustard *Brassica nigraBrassicaceae32324445101033433218
1 Where no specific part(s) are mentioned, the edible parts were used; 2 Spices and herbs with an asterisk (*) were donated by YASUMA Co, Ltd., while the remainder were cultivated at our research sites; 3 Percentage growth as compared with the control, negative values indicate the stimulation of radicle or hypocotyl growth; 4 Amount applied = 10 mg, all values were derived from three replicates; 5 Amount applied = 500 mg, values for the 41 mm distance well are the average of two wells. 41, 58, 82, and 92 indicate the distances (mm) from the source well. R; Radicle, H; Hypocotyl.
Table 2. Volatile compounds identified from the spices and herbs with high growth inhibitory activities.
Table 2. Volatile compounds identified from the spices and herbs with high growth inhibitory activities.
Plant SpeciesConcentration (μg/g Plant) 1
α-PineneCampheneβ-Pineneβ-Myrcene3-Carenep-CymeneLimonene1,8-Cineoleγ-TerpineneCamphorBorneolCarvone
CarawayNDNDNDNDNDND4.85NDNDNDND0.289
Dill (seed)NDNDNDNDNDND57.2ND0.0947NDND6.47
CardamomNDNDND0.04170.424ND0.2888.21NDNDNDND
Rosemary9.592.06ND0.437ND2.660.54318.6ND1.51NDND
Sage7.641.081.281.26ND2.390.41957.20.1360.474NDND
Thyme2.832.800.3080.1100.8534.570.149NDNDND0.968ND
Laurel8.760.7245.78NDND8.56ND155NDNDNDND
LOD0.0080.0050.0070.0060.0120.0560.0040.0100.0030.0070.0070.006
1 Amount of volatile compound produced by finely ground spices and herbs during 30 min of incubation. ND, not detected and <LOD, limit of detection.
Table 3. Plant growth inhibitory activities and vapour phase concentrations of authentic compounds.
Table 3. Plant growth inhibitory activities and vapour phase concentrations of authentic compounds.
Compound 1Amount AddedDistance (mm) 2Inhibition (%) 3Vapour (ppm v/v) 4Compound 1Amount AddedDistance (mm) 2Inhibition (%) 3Vapour (ppm v/v) 4
RHRH
α-pinene γ-terpinene
50 μL4165.2 73.9 861 50 μL4180.0 90.1 101
5856.8 72.6 5835.6 65.5
8284.7 82.6 8238.1 58.9
9261.0 62.7 776 9248.5 67.1 78.9
camphene 5 μL41−14.9 32.2
50 mg4134.9 40.0 950 58−17.3 32.2
5844.6 47.4 82−19.9 20.3
82−4.4 −25.0 92−10.5 27.0
92−54.7−15.1 744 camphor
β-pinene 50 mg41100100
50 μL4191.6 93.3 896 58100 100
5886.5 90.5 82100 100
8277.5 81.0 92100 100
9277.5 88.6 875 5 mg41100 100
5 μL4139.1 16.7 58100 100
5832.7 8.8 82100 100
8236.1 14.0 92100 100
9233.6 7.0 0.5 mg41100 100 1.76
β-myrcene 58100 100
50 μL4121.7 64.9 209 82100 100
5847.8 67.6 9290.6 94.6 0.482
825.7 35.1 0.1 mg4183.2 94.8 0.240
92−1.0 43.2 154 5867.5 86.6
3-carene 8264.4 83.6
50 μL4191.0 89.3 580 9249.7 70.2
5888.0 91.5 0.05 mg4141.4 59.0 0.0472
8272.9 80.8 5819.4 38.9
9289.0 93.6 625 8216.2 34.4
5 μL4138.2 17.5 9233.0 55.3
5849.7 14.0 borneol
8240.4 8.8 50 mg41100 100
9228.4 −8.8 58100 100
p-cymene 82100 100
50 μL4152.9 70.3 103 92100 100
5819.2 51.4 5 mg41100 100
8214.1 40.5 58100 100
927.4 51.4 54.8 82100 100
92100 100
limonene (Borneol)
50 μL413.2 32.8 183 0.5 mg41100 100 5.53
582.5 32.8 58100 100
82−0.3 40.3 8293.4 94.6
9229.0 47.8 167 9296.2 94.6 0.435
1,8-cineole 0.1 mg4181.7 78.9 0.0923
50 μL41100 100 5883.8 75.4
58100 100 8256.6 31.6
82100 100 9252.3 21.1
92100 100 carvone
5 μL41100 100 50 μL41100 100 0.184
58100 100 58100 100
82100 100 82100 100
92100 100 92100 100
2 μL41100 100 5 μL4164.8 84.0 0.0529
58100 100 5895.9 97.3
82100 100 8282.0 89.4
92100 100 34.6 9297.2 100
1 μL4185.5 91.2 10.3 2 μL4128.5 70.5
5890.6 91.2 5827.9 62.0
8276.1 82.5 8233.6 71.5
9282.1 87.7 9.43 9241.4 77.2
0.5 μL419.0 42.9 4.72
5815.1 35.7
8216.0 37.5
9215.1 46.4
1 The 12 compounds that were detected from spices and herbs with high growth inhibitory activities (i.e., caraway (Carum carvi), dill (Anethum graveolens) (seed), cardamom (Elettaria cardamomum), rosemary (Rosmarinus officinalis), sage (Salvia officinalis), thyme (Thymus vulgaris), and laurel (Laurus nobilis)) were used; 2 Distance between the source well and the other wells in a six-well multi-dish; 3 Percentage growth inhibition as compared with the control, 100% indicates complete inhibition, negative values indicate the promotion of radicle (R) or hypocotyl (H) growth, values for the 41 mm distance well are the average of two wells, all values were derived from a single experiment; 4 Vapour-phase concentrations above each well after 24 h.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Sekine, T.; Appiah, K.S.; Azizi, M.; Fujii, Y. Plant Growth Inhibitory Activities and Volatile Active Compounds of 53 Spices and Herbs. Plants 2020, 9, 264. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9020264

AMA Style

Sekine T, Appiah KS, Azizi M, Fujii Y. Plant Growth Inhibitory Activities and Volatile Active Compounds of 53 Spices and Herbs. Plants. 2020; 9(2):264. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9020264

Chicago/Turabian Style

Sekine, Takayuki, Kwame Sarpong Appiah, Majid Azizi, and Yoshiharu Fujii. 2020. "Plant Growth Inhibitory Activities and Volatile Active Compounds of 53 Spices and Herbs" Plants 9, no. 2: 264. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants9020264

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