Abstract
We aimed to evaluate the bioherbicide potential of Eucalyptus saligna leaf litter essential oil, its fractions and major compounds. Six essential oil fractions were obtained by preparative thin-layer chromatography and analyzed by gas chromatography/mass spectrometry. Effects of the oil, its fractions and major compounds (1,8-cineole and/or α-pinene) diluted in aqueous solution were assessed on germination and seedling growth. Recipient species were Lactuca sativa (model), Amaranthus viridis (weed), Eragrostis plana (weed), and Paspalum notatum (forage). The essential oil was more phytotoxic on A. viridis and L. sativa, followed by E. plana, and caused no effects on P. notatum. Amaranthus viridis was inhibited by all treatments, mainly the essential oil, α-pinene and fraction 6, whereas E. plana was more affected by the oil fractions. Results revealed the species-specific phytotoxic effects of E. saligna essential oil, indicating its potential use for controlling A. viridis and E. plana. Phytotoxic effects of essential oils or their components should not be generalized, as effects may change according to recipient species.
Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record, shown for indexing and research. Copyright remains with the authors or the publisher. Read at the source ↗
The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.
Claims 5
Claim · model-written summary
Essential oil was most phytotoxic to A. viridis and L. sativa.
- Taxon
- A. viridis and L. sativa
Lactuca sativa
Amaranthus viridise0 - Treatment
- essential oile0
- Outcome
- phytotoxice0
- Direction
- moree0
- Comparator
- E. planae0
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“The essential oil was more phytotoxic on A. viridis and L. sativa, followed by E. plana, and caused no effects on P. notatum.”
Claim · model-written summary
Essential oil was less phytotoxic to E. plana than to A. viridis and L. sativa.
Verbatim
e0“The essential oil was more phytotoxic on A. viridis and L. sativa, followed by E. plana, and caused no effects on P. notatum.”
Claim · model-written summary
Essential oil had no effect on P. notatum.
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“The essential oil was more phytotoxic on A. viridis and L. sativa, followed by E. plana, and caused no effects on P. notatum.”
Claim · model-written summary
All treatments inhibited A. viridis, particularly the oil, α-pinene and fraction 6.
- Taxon
- Amaranthus viridisAmaranthus viridise0
- Treatment
- all treatmentse0
- Outcome
- Amaranthus viridis was inhibitede0
- Direction
- inhibitede0
- Qualifier
- mainly the essential oil, α-pinene and fraction 6e0
Not reportedComparator
Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.
Verbatim
e0“Amaranthus viridis was inhibited by all treatments, mainly the essential oil, α-pinene and fraction 6”
Claim · model-written summary
Oil fractions affected E. plana more strongly.
- Taxon
- E. planaEragrostis planae0
- Treatment
- oil fractionse0
- Outcome
- affectede0
- Direction
- moree0
Not reportedComparator
Verbatim
e0“E. plana was more affected by the oil fractions.”
The same questions in other papers
botanical · crop injury · Lactuca sativa (garden lettuce)Positive and negative results
5 papers in the same direction as this paper · 15 in the opposite direction
- negative
- negative
- no effect
17 papers more in this group
See all 21 papers →Claims are grouped by organism, treatment and what was measured or targeted. A paper counts as positive when any of its claims in the group is positive.