Next Article in Journal
Improvement in Essential Oil Quantity and Quality of Thyme (Thymus vulgaris L.) by Integrative Application of Chitosan Nanoparticles and Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi under Water Stress Conditions
Next Article in Special Issue
Toxicity and Anti-Inflammatory Effects of Agave sisalana Extract Derived from Agroindustrial Residue
Previous Article in Journal
Functional Dissection of the Physiological Traits Promoting Durum Wheat (Triticum durum Desf.) Tolerance to Drought Stress
Previous Article in Special Issue
Unveiling Chemical, Antioxidant and Antibacterial Properties of Fagonia indica Grown in the Hail Mountains, Saudi Arabia
 
 
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 7
10.3390/plants12071421
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

Allelopathic Activity of Canadian Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis L.) Extracts on Seed Germination and Growth of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Garden Pepper Cress (Lepidium sativum L.)

by
Asta Judžentienė
1,*,
Jurga Būdienė
1,
Linas Labanauskas
1,
Donata Stancelytė
2 and
Irena Nedveckytė
2
1
Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Department of Organic Chemistry, Sauletekio Avenue 3, LT-10257 Vilnius, Lithuania
2
Life Sciences Center, Institute of Biosciences, Vilnius University, Sauletekio Avenue 7, LT-10257 Vilnius, Lithuania
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(7), 1421; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12071421
Submission received: 9 February 2023 / Revised: 10 March 2023 / Accepted: 17 March 2023 / Published: 23 March 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Structural and Functional Analysis of Extracts in Plants III)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
Native to N. America, Canadian goldenrod (Solidago canadensis L.) was introduced to Europe as an ornamental plant and quickly spread here and in other parts of the world. The rapid spread of the plant is due to several reasons: phenotypic plasticity, broad climatic tolerance, propagation via underground rhizomes and seeds that mature in large numbers, etc. Additionally, the success of Canadian goldenrod’s invasion is determined by its allelochemicals that affect seed germination, root formation and whole growth of nearby plants. Allelopathy of various extracts and essential oils (EOs) of S. canadensis on seed germination and growth of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and garden pepper cress (Lepidium sativum L.) was evaluated and compared with other Solidago species (S. virgaurea, S. × niederederi) collected from the same growing locality in Lithuania. Soil characteristics (conductivity, pH and major elements) of the collecting site were determined. Aqueous flower extracts of all studied Solidago species showed the highest inhibitory effect on model plants. Canadian goldenrod leaf water/diethyl ether extract showed highest inhibitory effect in all relative concentrations (1.0; 0.1; 0.01) suppressing growth of L. sativa (from 0 to 2.3 mm compared with 22.7 mm for control samples) and L. sativum (from 0.5 to 16.8 mm compared with 35.3 mm in control). It was noticed that garden pepper cress was more susceptible to Solidago spp. inhibitory effects than lettuce. S. canadensis root EOs comprised mainly of limonene (35.0%) and β-pinene (26.2%) and inflorescence oils containing α-pinene (21.6%), germacrene D (15.1%), limonene (10.2%) and lupenyl acetate (9.8%) exhibited the highest inhibitory effect on lettuce and garden pepper cress growth. Relative germination and vigor index of model plants was conducted. Chemical composition of extracts and EOs was determined by HPLC/DAD/TOF and GC/MS techniques.

1. Introduction

There are about 140 species of Solidago L. (Asteraceae) in the world, of which 115 are native to North America, around 8 species originate from Mexico, and about 13 species are indigenous to South America, the Azores, Europe and Asia [1]. All Solidago species found in local flora or cultivated as ornamentals are herbaceous and rhizomatous perennials (up to 2.5 m in height) with yellow ray florets.
Solidago canadensis L., commonly known as Canadian goldenrod, native to N. America is widely spread throughout Europe, Asia (China, Russia, Japan, and Taiwan), Australia and N. Zealand, where it is considered an aggressive invasive weed [2,3,4]. The taxon is highly diverse, prone to hybridization, and therefore characterized by extensive polyploidy [1,2,5,6,7,8]. It is known that two N. American invasive species, S. canadensis and S. gigantea Aiton, can hybridize with the European native S. virgaurea L. producing the hybrids S. × niederederi Khek (hybrid between S. canadensis and S. virgaurea) and S. × snarskisii (hybrid between S. gigantea and S. virgaurea) [5,6,7,8,9]. In 2004, S. canadensis, together with 17 other plant species was recorded as an invasive weed in Lithuania [10]. Canadian goldenrod is considered to be one of the greatest threats to biodiversity and native species communities increasing the negative impact on natural ecosystems along with factors such as habitat degradation, change in landscape, pollution, exploitation and climate change [11,12].
S. canadensis contains a wide range of bioactive secondary metabolites, viz. flavonoids, saponins, polyacetylenes, (poly)phenolic acids, phenolic glycosides, terpenoids, etc. [3,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30,31,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. It is an essential-oil bearing plant. The chemical composition of the essential oils (EOs) and extracts of Canadian goldenrod has been relatively poorly studied. Previous studies have confirmed α-, β-pinene, sabinene, limonene, β-myrcene, trans-verbenol, bornyl acetate, thymol, germacrene D, various cadinene isomers, β-elemene, cyclocolorenone, caryophyllene oxide and 6-epi-β-cubebene, among major constituents in the EOs of fresh or dried S. canadensis inflorescences, leaves and stems [13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. A very limited number of publications are related to the Canadian goldenrod root EOs [31]. In the aforementioned study [31], it was shown that the root EO containing major compounds thymol, α-copaene and carvacrol, exhibited significant antibacterial activity against Enterococcus faecalis and Escherichia coli whereas it demonstrated moderate antifungal activity against Candida albicans.
Essential oils of aerial parts Canadian goldenrod exhibited cytotoxic [18,19,20], antiproliferative [29], antimicrobial [21,22,25] and insecticidal properties against Culex quinquefasciatus, Spodoptera littoralis and Musca domestica [28]. The vapor of the EOs of this plant effectively inhibits Botrytis cinerea growth and preserves the postharvest quality of strawberries [23]. Additionally, it was evaluated that EOs of S. canadensis had an impact on the germination of four weed species, i.e., Amaranthus retroflexus L., Avena fatua L., Bromus secalinus L. and Centaurea cyanus L.; influenced the germination of three crops, i.e., Avena sativa L., Brassica napus L. and Zea mays L. [25], and showed phytotoxic activity on radish (Raphanus sativa L.) and garden cress (Lepidium sativum L.) [24]. As we know, there are no studies to date on allelopathic activity of S. canadensis root EOs.
Several studies have focused on evaluation of the chemical composition and biological properties of various S. canadensis extracts [3,32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39,40,41,42,43,44,45,46,47,48,49]. The leaves and flowers of the plant contain a wide range of bioactive constituents that are responsible for its antioxidant, antimicrobial, antibacterial, antimutagenic, cytotoxic, anti-inflammatory, spasmolytic and diuretic properties [38,40,41,42,43,44,45,46]. Polyphenolic-polysaccharide-protein complex isolated from flowers of S. canadensis showed strong antitussive and anti-asthmatic activity [3].
Some studies were undertaken to elucidate the role of Canadian goldenrod allelopathy. The crude extracts from both underground and aerial parts of S. canadensis (growing in its native area in the USA and in an invaded area in China) showed allelopathic effects on seed germination of Kummerowia striata (Thunb.) Schindl., which is a native Chinese plant [50]. The crude extracts of roots of S. canadensis from five American native populations (from the east coast of the United States) and eight invasive European populations (from different sites in Austria, Czech Republic, France, Germany and Switzerland) were tested on the growth of seven competing native European plant species [51]. The allelopathic effects of S. canadensis (using leaf extracts) were evaluated on seed germination and growth of Lactuca sativa treated with five types of acid deposition using different sulfuric and nitric acid ratio [52]. Three types of aqueous extracts (decoction, infusion, and macerate) from the Canadian goldenrod leaves were used to examine the germination and early stages of development of Trifolium pratense L. and Raphanus sativus L. var. radicula Pers.; all the extracts had a negative influence on germination [53,54]. The allelopathic effects of various extracts from S. canadensis against seed germination and seedling growth of some plants, such as mulberry (Morus alba L.), morning glory (Pharbitis nil (L.) Roth), wheat (Triticum aestivum L.), setaria (Setaria viridis (L.) Beauv.), rape (Brassica campestris L.), indica rice (Oryza sativa L.), oilseed rape (Brassica napus L.), B. campestris subsp. chinensis (L.) Makino [B. chinensis], tomato (Lycopersicon esculentum L.), false daisy (Eclipta prostrata L.), lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), radish (Raphanus sativus var. radicula Per), soybean (Glycine max (L.) Merr.) and barley (Hordeum vulgare L.); and on the rhizogenesis processes of freshly cut chrysanthemums (Chrysanthemum × koreanum Makai) shoots were assessed [49,55,56,57,58].
Additionally, several research studies have focused on the autoallelopathic effect of S. canadensis extracts [59,60]. The aqueous extracts prepared from various parts of Canadian goldenrod and giant goldenrod were tested on both goldenrods [59]. The most effective were extracts from rhizomes against the growth and development of Canadian goldenrod and giant goldenrod, which caused a reduction of fresh biomass of goldenrods up to 42%, compared to water-treated control in the above study. Another paper verified allelopathic and autotoxic effects of aqueous leaf extracts of S. virgaurea, S. canadensis, S. gigantea and S. × niederederi on two congeneric pairs of species Festuca pratensis Huds. and F. rubra L., and Solidago occurring naturally in communities with the tested Solidago species [60]. Germination and seedling growth of F. rubra were inhibited by all Solidago extracts more than were those characteristics of F. pratensis, while S. canadensis was more sensitive to its own and congeneric extracts than was S. × niederederi [60].
It must be mentioned that the allelopathic effect of S. canadensis on other plants has not been studied sufficiently [49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. To the best of our knowledge, there are very few studies on the allelopathy of Canadian goldenrod EOs, especially root oils. The aim of the present study is to evaluate allelopathic properties of various extracts and EOs obtained from different parts (inflorescences, leaves and roots) of invasive S. canadensis on the seed germination and growth of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and garden pepper cress (Lepidium sativum L.); and compare this activity with other Solidago species S. virgaurea (native species in Lithuania) and hybrid S. × niederederi Khek (S. canadensis and S. virgaurea) collected from the same growing locality.

2. Results

2.1. Soil Characteristics (Conductivity, pH and Major Elements)

Soil parameters, such as conductivity and pH of Solidago species (S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi) growing locality presented in Table 1. The data of the elemental analysis of the soil is shown in Table 2.

2.2. Chemical Composition of Solidago canadensis Methanol/Water Extracts

Twenty-two compounds were identified tentatively in the leaf, inflorescence and root methanol/water (70:30 v/v) extracts of Canadian goldenrod (Table 3). All constituents were detected by DAD and TOF in positive or negative ionization mode. Some compounds provided m/z ions by both (positive and negative) ionizations.

2.3. Chemical Composition of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs) in Solidago canadensis Water/Diethyl Ether Extracts

The main compositional data of chemical analysis performed by GC/FID and GC/MS of S. canadensis extracts of different acidity obtained from various plant organs are presented in Table 4.

2.4. Chemical Composition of Solidago canadensis Essential Oils (EOs)

A gas chromatography (GC) analysis equipped with FID and GC/MS techniques (respectively for quantitative and qualitative purposes) was applied for chemical analysis of S. canadensis EOs obtained from various plant parts such as inflorescences, leaves and roots. The principal compositional data are presented in Table 5. In total, up to 98 compounds were identified in the EOs, comprising up to 95.4%.

2.5. Allelopathic Effects of Solidago canadensis Water/Diethyl Ether Extracts

The allelopathic effect of leaf, inflorescence and root etheric extracts of S. canadensis on seed germination and growth of Lactuca sativa and Lepidium sativum is presented in Figure 1.

2.6. Relative Germination (RG) and Vigor Index (VI) of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Garden Pepper Cress (Lepidium sativum L.) Affected by S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi Extracts

Extracts of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi Khek (hybrid between S. canadensis and S. virgaurea) significantly affected seed germination and growth of tested lettuce (Lactuca sativa) (Figure 2) and garden pepper cress (Lepidium sativum) (Figure 3). The root extracts of S. virgaurea showed the highest effect on lettuce and pepper cress’s relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI).
Data of inhibitory effects of root, leaf and inflorescence aqueous extracts of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi on germination rate (GR), relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI) of lettuce and garden pepper cress seeds are presented in Tables S2–S4.

2.7. Allelopathic Effects of Water Extracts of Various Solidago Species: S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi

The allelopathic effect of leaf, inflorescence and root aqueous extracts of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi on the seed germination and growth of Lactuca sativa and Lepidium sativum is presented in Figure 4.

2.8. Inhibitory Effect of Solidago canadensis EOs on Seed Germination and Seedling Growth of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and Garden Pepper Cress (Lepidium sativum)

The essential oils of S. canadensis significantly affected seed germination and growth of tested lettuce and garden pepper cress (Figure 5). The EOs of Canadian goldenrod roots and inflorescences showed the highest effect on lettuce and garden pepper cress growth (Figure 5A,C).

3. Discussion

It is known that S. canadensis L., being an expansive perennial weed, forms persistent, species-poor plant communities. According to the European habitat classification system (EUNIS), the growing sites (Lithuania, Vilnius, Trakai municipality, Lentvaris) of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and hybrid S. × niederederi plants can be attributed to the category of anthropogenic herb stands with dry perennial anthropogenic herbaceous vegetation (EUNIS2020 code V38 and E5.1) [62]. Diagnostic species of the growing locality was mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.); and characteristic species are the following: couch grass (Elytrigia repens (L.) Gould), mugwort (Artemisia vulgaris L.), common yarrow (Achillea millefolium L.), field bindweed (Convolvulus arvensis L.), cat grass (Dactylis glomerata L.), meadow-grass (Poa pratensis L.), creeping thistle (Cirsium arvense (L.) Scop), common nettle (Urtica dioica L.), narrowleaf plantain (Plantago lanceolata L.), wild carrot (Daucus carota L.), common dandelion (Taraxacum sect. Taraxacum F.H.Wig.), Canadian horseweed (Erigeron canadensis L.), blueweed (Echium vulgare L.), hop clover (Medicago lupulina L.), common chicory (Cichorium intybus L.), common tansy (Tanacetum vulgare L.), wood small-reed (Calamagrostis epigejos (L.) Roth ), white campion (Silene latifolia Poir.), St. John’s wort (Hypericum perforatum L.) and false mayweed (Tripleurospermum maritimum (L.) W.D.J. Koch) in this habitat.
Around 50% of this territory was occupied by S. canadensis plants, distributed almost evenly over the area (Figure S1 in Supplementary Materials). The rapid spread of the herb is due to several reasons. Canadian goldenrod plant has broad climatic tolerance; also it is tolerant to a wide range of soil nature and fertility, texture conditions and soil pH [63,64,65]. Another important aspect is plant lifecycle and dispersion. S. canadensis is a perennial rhizomatous hemicryptophyte and spreads both via seeds and underground rhizomes. The plant has a relatively long flowering time (from late July to mid-September or October). Individual clones are long-lived (can reach up to 100 years) and spread fast with each year. One sprout of Canadian goldenrod can mature up to 20 000 seeds per season. Seeds are responsible for long-distance dispersal and the colonization of unoccupied sites. However, rhizomatous growth is significant for the expansion of S. canadensis populations.
The soil of the growing habitat was investigated and characterized by some main parameters. Soil pH values ranged from 6.15 ± 0.07 to 6.65 ± 0.27 and conductivity was from 92.33 ± 0.55 to 125.63 ± 6.04 µS/cm (Table 1). According to the soil map of the National Atlas of Lithuania (the new FAO classification of Lithuanian soils (LTDK-99) has been adopted), typical alluvial soils have been found in this area. The elemental composition of the soil was typical (Table 2) and concentrations of hazardous and heavy metals were below limitary values according to the Lithuanian health regulations (V-114 HN60:2004) [66].
The success of the Canadian goldenrod invasion may be explained by its allelopathic compounds. It is known that allelochemicals can be obtained from different parts of the plant (leaves, stems, flowers, buds, fruits and roots) and can affect seed germination and root formation on neighboring plants, as well as the growth of the whole plant. The allelopathic effect of S. canadensis on other plants has not been studied very widely. Thus, it is important to identify allelopathic compounds and their role in the spread of invasive species. Mainly polyphenolic acids and flavonoids were identified in the methanol/water extracts from S. canadensis inflorescences, leaves and roots (Table 3). The identity of some compounds was confirmed by matching of chromatographic data with corresponding reference compounds. Most of the determined constituents were identified formerly in Canadian goldenrod extracts [32,35,36,46,47,48,49]. The retention times of compounds varied slightly for each sample. Three compounds with a molecular mass of 354 were identified by both positive and negative ionization and by DAD as neochlorogenic, chlorogenic and 4-O-caffeoylquinic acid in Canadian goldenrod leaf and inflorescence extracts. Feruloylquinic acid and narcissin were found only in the leaf extract, while caffeoylshikimic acid and its glucoside, cinnamic and ferulic acids were determined purely in the root extract. In addition, two saponins and cinnamtannin A2 were identified in the Canadian goldenrod root extract. No one constituent was determined in extracts from all plant parts. It should be mentioned that some common compounds such as afzelin, astragalin, kaempferol, nicotiflorin, quercetin, quercitrin and some others previously identified in S. canadensis extracts [32,35,36,46,48,49] were determined in the present study in small amounts or even under detection limits.
The compositional data of VOCs in Canadian goldenrod extracts prepared according to the method described in Chapter 4.3.2 are presented in Table 4. The percentage of individual compounds varied slightly depending on the pH of solutions. Leaf extracts contained major compounds trans-verbenol (≤24.8%), verbenone (≤9.4%) and trans-pinocarveol (≤6.0%). The main volatile composition of S. canadensis inflorescence water/diethyl ether extract was the following: eugenol (≤16.1%), 4-vinyl-guaiacol (≤11.5%) and 7,8-dihydro-3-oxo-α-ionol (≤8.7%). Root extracts were characterized by the main constituents α-terpineol (≤23.3%), 1,8-cineole (≤16.1%) and α-pinene (≤10.2%).
α-Pinene (21.6%), germacrene D (15.1%), limonene (10.2%) and lupenyl acetate (9.8%) were found to be major constituents in the inflorescence EOs of S. canadensis (Table 5). These compounds were determined as principal constituents in previous studies of Canadian golden EOs [14,17,19,26,27,28,29,30]. The investigated leaf EOs were characterized by trans-verbenol (21.3%) and verbenone (12.5%). The following compounds are not as commonly found in Canadian goldenrod EOs. To date, the number of studies on S. canadensis root EOs is very limited. The investigated oil, containing limonene (35.0%) and β-pinene (26.2%) as predominant constituents differed drastically from the root EO obtained by steam distillation and comprised the major compounds thymol (20.3%), α-copaene (6.3%) and carvacrol (5.5%) of Indian origin (Bhimtal) [31].
The inhibitory effects of S. canadensis leaf, inflorescence and root exudates on seed germination and growth of lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and garden pepper cress (Lepidium sativum) differed slightly. Canadian goldenrod leaf (Figure 1B) and inflorescence (Figure 1C) extracts were found to be the most active and seed germination of lettuce and garden pepper cress was inhibited up to 100% at a relative concentration of 1.0. However, the neutral leaf extract showed the highest inhibitory effect in all relative concentrations (1.0; 0.1; 0.01) suppressing growth of Lactuca sativa (from 0 to 2.3 mm compared with 22.7 mm for control samples) and Lepidium sativum (from 0.5 to 16.8 mm compared with 35.3 mm in the control group) (Figure 1).
For comparison, different extracts of various Solidago species were tested in order to evaluate allelopathic properties. Solidago canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi extracts significantly affected seed germination and growth of tested lettuce (Figure 2) and garden pepper cress (Figure 3). Solidago virgaurea root extracts have shown the highest effect on lettuce and pepper cress relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI). At a relative concentration of 0.5, the RG of lettuce reached 53.57% (Figure 2A); pepper cress (65.52%) (Figure 3A) (G test, p < 0.05) and VI were 390.83 and 2829.79, respectively. At the highest tested concentration (1.0), germination RG was 0% for lettuce and 8.62% for pepper cress. Aqueous root extracts of S. × niederederi significantly affected only garden pepper cress RG at 1.0 concentration and seed germination was totally suppressed (Figure 3, A). Leaf extracts from S. × niederederi had an effect only on pepper cress’s RG and were 67.86% and 73.21% at 0.5 and 1.0 relative concentrations (G test, p < 0.05) (Figure 3B). Solidago canadensis and S. × niederederi inflorescence extracts affected lettuce (Figure 2C) and pepper cress’s RG and VI (Figure 3C). However, S. × niederederi inflorescence extract (at relative concentrations 0.5 and 1.0) suppressed garden pepper cress seed RG completely (Figure 3C) (G test, p < 0.05).
For comparative purposes, aqueous extracts of native and invasive Solidago species growing at the same locality were tested under laboratory conditions (Figure 4). Solidago canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi extracts significantly affected the seed germination and growth of lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and garden pepper cress (Lepidium sativum). It is evident that Solidago’s inhibitory effects differed on species. In the case of S. virgaurea, root and inflorescence extracts indicated the highest allelopathic activity, while for S. canadensis and S. × niederederi both leaf and flower extracts demonstrated similar inhibitory effects on model plants (Figure 4). The strongest inhibitory effects were caused by aqueous extracts of inflorescences of all tested Solidago species at 1.0 and 0.5 of relative concentration. In this case, seed germination and growth was reduced from 81.2 to 94.8% for lettuce (L. sativa); and 100% for garden pepper cress (L. sativum).
The allelopathic effects of the plant extracts are implemented usually by using the whole plant or leaves only [49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58]. Contrary to this, our research confirmed the importance of studying individual morphological parts (leaves, flowering tops and roots) and the effects of their aqueous/etheric extracts. To the best of our knowledge, allelopathy of Solidago spp. root extracts were investigated for the first time. Aqueous extract of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi inflorescences showed the highest inhibitory effect on seed germination and growth of model plants (Lactuca sativa and Lepidium sativum). In comparison to parental plant species hybrid (S. × niederederi) also effectively suppressed germination and growth of the tested plants. Comparing model plants, it was noticed that garden pepper cress (Lepidium sativum) was more susceptible to Solidago sp. inhibitory effects than lettuce (Lactuca sativa).
A comparison of our results on allelopathy of Solidago spp. extracts with previously published data [49,50,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58] is complicated for several reasons: different preparation of extracts, their chemical composition is not always known and various model plant species have been used for the tests.
The experimental data evaluated that S. canadensis EOs significantly affected seed germination and growth of lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and garden pepper cress (Lepidium sativum) (Figure 5). Root EOs, comprised mainly of limonene (35.0%) and β-pinene (26.2%) and inflorescence oils, containing main components α-pinene (21.6%), germacrene D (15.1%), limonene (10.2%) and lupenyl acetate (9.8%) exhibited the highest inhibitory effect on lettuce and garden pepper cress growth (Figure 5A). Root EOs at the highest concentrations (1.0 and 10 ppm) suppressed lettuce seed germination completely. Garden pepper cress seed growth was affected at all concentrations and plant lengths were from 24.85 ± 5.36 mm (at an EO concentration 0.1 ppm) to 21.63 ± 6.98 mm (at EO 1.0 ppm), and 0 mm (at EO 10 ppm) in comparison to 56.33 ± 8.08 mm for the control samples. Inflorescence EOs at the highest concentrations (1.0 and 10 ppm) suppressed lettuce seed germination and growth almost completely (plant lengths from 0.85 ± 0.81 mm to 0 mm, respectively) (Figure 5C). Garden pepper cress seeds growth was affected at all concentrations and plant lengths were from 22.97 ± 8.20 mm (at EO concentration 0.1 ppm) to 15.98 ± 7.35 mm (at EO 1.0 ppm), and 0.15 mm ± 0.13 mm (at EO 10 ppm) in comparison to 56.33 ± 8.08 mm for the control samples. From this experiment, we can state that root and inflorescence EOs showed the highest inhibitory effects on model plant seed germination and growth. It is noticed that lettuce seeds were more susceptible to S. canadensis EO’s inhibitory effects than garden pepper cress seeds. Our data are in correlation with allelopathy of EOs of aerial parts of S. canadensis collected from natural populations in Slovakia [24] and Poland [25]. The oils of different chemical composition (containing α- or β-pinene, germacrene D, limonene, thymol, epi-bicyclosesquiphellandrene, β-cadinene, γ-cadinene, δ-cadinene, α-or γ-muurolene, α-cubebene or β-elemene as main components) significantly inhibited seed germination and growth of garden pepper cress and other model plant species [24,25].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Soil Analysis

Preparation of soil samples for elemental analysis, conductivity and pH measurements was done in such way: all samples of the soil were dried at room temperature, later ground and sieved through a bolt (2.0–2.5 mm of perforation).
A mixture of 20 mL of sifted soil and 40 mL of deionized water was rested for 1 h in an ultrasonic bath; later the mixture was filtered and the conductivity of aliquots was measured using the conductivity and temperature meter AD3000 EC/TDC (Adwa, Szeged, Hungary).
Sample preparation for pH measurements was as follows: a mixture of 5 mL of soil and 25 mL of deionized water was shaken for 1 h in an ultrasonic bath, stored for 2 h and filtered; measurements of the aliquots were performed by pH-meter Orion 3 Star (Thermo Fisher Scientific, Waltham, MA, USA), calibrated using buffer solutions of pH 4.01, 7.00 and 10.04.
Elemental analyses were undertaken with the inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectroscopy (ICP-OES) method. Procedure of sample preparation: 5 g of soil and 50 mL of 1 M HCl was stirred for 30 s, and then rested for 24 h. The mixtures were filtered and analysis was performed using the Optima 700 DV spectrometer (Perkin Elmer, Waltham, MA, USA).

4.2. Plant Material

Solidago canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi plants (up to 2.5–3.0 kg) were collected at full flowering stage (in August 2020 and 2021) in a derelict field (Eastern Lithuania, Vilnius, Trakai municipality, Lentvaris, 54°38′53.5° N 25°07′37.9° E). The habitat is depicted on the geographic information system map (Figure 6). The area of the investigated populations was up to 150 m2. Plants were collected randomly from four different sampling sites at full flowering stage. Raw material (above- and below-ground plant parts) was taken immediately to the laboratory and dried at room temperature (20–25 °C) under shade conditions for 2 weeks. Leaves, inflorescences and roots were separated before drying.
Plant material was identified by Dr. M. Rasimavičius, and voucher specimens of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi were deposited at the Vilnius University Herbarium (WI, Vilnius, Lithuania) with code numbers P33666, P33663 and P33664, respectively.
Lactuca sativa and Lepidium sativum seeds were selected as the model plants. Seeds were bought from a local vegetable market.

4.3. Preparation of Various Plant Extracts

4.3.1. Essential Oil Isolation

The essential oils from S. canadensis were isolated by hydrodistillation of dried material (up to 100 g each) in a Clevenger-type apparatus for 2 h according to the European Pharmacopoeia. The ratio of plant material to water was 1:20. A yellow-gray, greasy mass with a sweet characteristic odor was obtained. Hydrodistillation yielded 1.25, 1.11 and 0.95% (v/w, on a dry weight basis) of EO from S. canadensis inflorescences, leaves and roots, respectively. Yields of the EOs slightly ranged according to the collection time (2020 and 2021). The obtained oils were dried over anhydrous sodium sulfate, kept in closed dark vials and stored in a refrigerator; the samples were diluted with a mixture of pentane and diethyl ether (1:1) before analysis.

4.3.2. Preparation of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea, S. × niederederi Extracts for Allelopathic Tests

Thirty g of crushed herbal material (separately: flowers, leaves and roots) and 500 mL of distilled water were kept at 40 °C for 24 h, then filtered and three portions of 25 mL were prepared. In order to obtain acidic (pH ca. 3) and alkaline (pH ca. 11) solutions, 0.1 M HCl and 0.5 M KOH were applied. An amount of 1.5 mL of the solution used for allelopathic tests was considered as 1.0 of relative concentration.
Then, each portion was extracted with 5 mL of diethyl ether for 5 min. Diethyl ether was evaporated. The dry residues were dissolved in deionized water before germination assay.

4.3.3. Preparation of S. canadensis Extracts for HPLC-DAD-TOF Analysis

Samples of air-dried flowers, leaves and roots of S. canadensis were ground into a homogenous powder and protected from light and humidity until analysis. Up to 1 g of crushed herbal material and 15 mL of solvent (mixture of methanol and water (70:30, v/v)) were used for extraction. The extraction procedure was performed in an ultrasonic bath at room temperature for 50 min. The mixture was filtered through a filter paper for qualitative analysis (pore size 11 µm) using nylon syringe filters (0.22 mm).

4.4. Gas Chromatographic Analysis of Solidago canadensis EOs and Extracts (Water/Diethyl Ether)

4.4.1. GC (Flame-Ionization Detector FID) Analysis

Quantitative analyses of the EOs and extracts were carried out on HP 5890II chromatograph equipped with an FID (Hewlett Packard, Palo Alto, CA, USA), using DB-5 ((5%-phenyl)-methylpolysiloxane; 50 m × 0.32 mm × 0.25 μm) and HP-FFAP (polyethylene glycol 30 m × 0.25 mm i.d., film thickness 0.25 μm) capillary columns (Agilent, J&W Scientific, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The GC oven temperature was programmed as follows: from 50 °C (isothermal for 1 min) increased to 160 °C (isothermal for 2 min) at a rate of 5 °C/min, then increased to 250 °C at a rate of 10 °C/min, and the final temperature was kept for 4 min. The temperature of the injector and detector was maintained at 250 °C. The flow rate of carrier gas (hydrogen) was 1 mL/min. At least 3 replicates per analysis were performed.

4.4.2. GC-MS Analysis

Analyses were performed on a chromatograph Shimadzu GC-2010 PLUS (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) interfaced to a Shimadzu GC-MS-QP2010 ULTRA mass spectrometer (Shimadzu, Kyoto, Japan) and fitted with a capillary column Rxi-5 MS (Restek, Bellefonte, PA, USA), (5%-phenyl)-methylpolysiloxane 33 m × 0.25 mm i.d., film thickness 0.25 µm).
The conditions of chromatographic separation were the same as for GC (FID) analysis. The temperature of the injector and detector was 250 °C. The flow rate of carrier gas (helium) was 1 mL/min, split 1:20. At least 2 replicates per analysis were performed. The temperature of ion source was 220 °C. Mass spectra in electron mode were generated at 70 eV, 0.97 scans/second, mass range 33–400 m/z.

4.4.3. Identification of Individual Components

The percentage composition of the EOs and VOCs was computed from GC peak areas without correction factors. Qualitative analysis was based on comparison of retention indexes on both columns (polar and nonpolar), co-injection of some reference terpenoids (α-, β-pinene, 1,8-cineole, linalool, camphor, β-caryophyllene, α-humulene and caryophyllene oxide) and C8–C28 n-alkane series; and mass spectra with corresponding data in the literature [61] and computer mass spectra libraries (Flavors and Fragrance of Natural and Synthetic Compounds 2 (FFNSC 2), Wiley and NIST). Identification was approved when computer matching with the mass spectral libraries showed a probability above 90%. The relative proportions of the oils and extracts constituents were expressed as percentages obtained by peak area normalization, all relative-response factors being taken as one.

4.5. HPLC-DAD-MS (TOF) Analysis Solidago canadensis Extracts

Methanol/water (70:30, v/v) extracts from inflorescences, leaves and roots were analyzed by an HPLC technique using a system HPLC/Diode Array Detector (DAD)/Time of Flight (TOF) (Agilent 1260 Infinity (Agilent Technologies, Waldbronn, Germany) and Agilent 6224 TOF (Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA) equipped with a reverse phase column ZORBAX Eclipse XDB (C18, 5 μm particle size, 150 × 4.6 mm, Agilent Technologies, Santa Clara, CA, USA). The column temperature was maintained at 25 °C. A gradient system was applied: A (deionized water, containing 0.1% of formic acid) and B (acetonitrile, containing 0.1% of formic acid). Chromatographic separation was performed at a flow rate of 0.8 mL/min in the HPLC system by the following stepwise gradient elution method: initial 95% (A)/5% (B); from 0 to 25 min from initial ratio to 0% (A)/100% (B); from 25 to 30 min: isocratic mode at 0% (A)/100% (B), from 30 to 35 min; from 0% (A)/100% (B) to 95% (A)/5% (B) and from 35 to 38 min isocratic mode at 95% (A)/5% (B). Ionization was performed by electrospray ionization interface (ESI) in positive and negative mode. Sample volume from 4 to 10 μL was injected by auto-sampler.
The MS (TOF) acquisition parameters were as follows: mass range 100–1700 m/z, rate 1.42 spectra/s, time 704.2 ms/spectrum. Ionization source conditions were drying gas temperature 300 °C, drying gas flow rate 3 L/min, nebulizer 15 psig, fragmentor voltage 125 V, skimmer 65 V. To ensure the mass accuracy of recorded data, continuous internal calibration with reference masses m/z: 121.050873, 149.02332, 322.048121, 922.009798, 1221.990637 and 1521.971475 (as per instrument standards, ref. nebulizer 5 psig) was performed.

4.6. Allelopathy of Solidago canadensis EOs

Allelopathic activity of S. canadensis EOs (from roots, leaves and inflorescences, separately) was tested in vivo, using model plant seeds (Lactuca sativa and Lepidium sativum). Different concentrations of S. canadensis EOs dissolved in dimethyl sulfoxide (DMSO) were added. Control tests were performed with DMSO in deionized water (1 μL/mL).

4.7. Bioassay for Seed Germination

Lactuca sativa and Lepidium sativum seeds were surface sterilized (by 70% ethanol for approximately 2 min) and then thoroughly washed thrice with deionized water. The seeds (20 per dish) were maintained in the dark at 25 °C in glass Petri dishes (Ø 9 cm) containing a sheet of Whatman filter paper and 1.5 mL of test or control (DMSO 1 μL/mL in deionized water) solution for 5 days. Three replicates were performed for each concentration. The number of germinated seeds was counted after 5 days of incubation time, and each seed was considered to have germinated when the radicle emerged (Figure S2 in Supplementary Materials). The plant root length and seedling height were measured with a caliper (Mitutoyo, Aurora, IL, USA) for comparisons among treatments.

4.8. Seedling Root Length (RL), Seedling Height (H), Germination Rate (GR), Relative Germination (RG), and Vigor Index (VI) Measurements

Twenty seedlings per Petri dish were measured after 5 days of incubation. Seedling root length (RL) and seedling height (H) were measured and are presented as plant length (PL). Germination rate (GR), relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI) of L. sativa and L. sativum were determined according to the literature [67] (Table 6).

4.9. Statistical Data Analysis

The obtained results were statistically processed by calculating the Pearson correlation coefficient (r); the results were expressed as mean values, range intervals, and standard deviation (SD) values, using XLSTAT (trial version, Addinsoft 2014, Paris, France).
The PAST version 4.03 was applied for data statistical analysis, to determine reliability and significant differences. The comparison of independent groups was performed by one-way ANOVA test. Differences between the control and treatment groups were compared using Tukey test, applying a significance level of α = 0.05. The G test was used to determine statistically significant differences in the assessment of germination rate and relative germination. Statistically significant differences were set at p values equal to or lower than 0.05.

5. Conclusions

The ecosystem of invasive Solidago canadensis native to Lithuania and Solidago virgaurea and their hybrid S. × niederederi was investigated. Soil parameters and population characteristics of investigated area where three Solidago species grow collectively are defined in detail.
Allelopathic effects of the plant aqueous extract are usually implemented by using the whole plant or leaves only. However, our research confirmed the importance of studying individual morphological parts and the effects of their extracts and EOs. Aqueous extracts of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi flowers showed the highest inhibitory effect on model plants (Lactuca sativa and Lepidium sativum) seed germination and growth. In comparison to parental plant species, the hybrid (S. × niederederi) also effectively suppressed tested plants’ germination and growth. When comparing model plants it was noticed that garden pepper cress was more susceptible to Solidago inhibitory effects than lettuce.
Root and inflorescence EOs of S. canadensis showed the highest inhibitory effects on model plant seed germination and growth. It was noticed that lettuce seeds were more susceptible to Canadian goldenrod EO inhibitory effects than garden pepper cress seeds. Allelopathic properties of S. canadensis are related with the chemical composition of various extracts and EOs.
This study revealed that it is important to investigate allelopathic mechanisms and to improve our understanding about its role in the spread of invasive species. Furthermore, we recommend to control non-native goldenrods before the flowering period and not leave removed biomass during the restoration process of territories which are colonized by these plants. Obtained data could be important for further regulation and monitoring of the spread of invasive Solidago species.

Supplementary Materials

The following supporting information can be downloaded at: https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/plants12071421/s1. Table S1. Minor constituents (<3.0%) identified in inflorescence, leaf and root EOs of S. canadensis. Table S2. The effect of root aqueous extracts of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi on germination rate (GR), relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI) of lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and garden pepper cress (Lepidium sativum L.) seeds. Table S3. The effect of leaf aqueous extracts of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi on germination rate (GR), relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI) of lettuce and garden pepper cress seeds. Table S4. The effect of inflorescence aqueous extracts of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi on germination rate (GR), relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI) of lettuce and garden pepper cress seeds. Figure S1. Sampling site of plant material of Solidago species (S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi) in Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius, Trakai municipality, Lentvaris). Figure S2. Control samples of Lactuca sativa L. seeds (A) and L. sativa seeds after treatment of aqueous S. canadensis root extract (B). Control samples of Lepidium sativum L. seeds (C) and L. sativum seeds after treatment of aqueous S. canadensis root extract (D).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization and design of experiments, A.J., I.N., L.L. and J.B.; GC/MS analysis, J.B. and A.J.; HPLC-DAD-TOF and soil analysis, A.J.; allelopathy experiments, D.S. and I.N.; resources, J.B. and L.L.; supervision, A.J.; writing—original draft preparation, A.J. and I.N.; writing—review and editing, A.J., J.B. and I.N. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors thank Jūratė Vaičiūnienė (Department of Catalysis, Center for Physical Sciences and Technology, Vilnius, Lithuania) for assistance in analysis using inductively coupled plasma–optical emission spectroscopy.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Semple, J.C.; Beck, J.B. A revised infrageneric classification of Solidago (Asteraceae: Astereae). Phytoneuron 2021, 10, 1–6. [Google Scholar]
  2. Walck, J.L.; Baskin, J.M.; Baskin, C.C. Relative competitive abilities and growth characteristics of a narrowly endemic and a geographically widespread Solidago species (Asteraceae). Am. J. Bot. 1999, 86, 820–828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  3. Šutovská, M.; Capek, P.; Kocmálová, M.; Fraňová, S.; Pawlaczyk, L.; Gancarz, R. Characterization and biological activity of Solidago canadensis complex. Int. J. Biol. Macromol. 2013, 52, 192–197. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Grul’ová, D.; Pl’uchtová, M.; Fejér, J.; De Martino, L.; Caputo, L.; Sedlák, V.; De Feo, V. Influence of the six essential oils on invasive Solidago canadensis L. seed germination. Nat. Prod. Res. 2020, 34, 3231–3233. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Pliszko, A.; Zalewska-Gałosz, J. Molecular evidence for hybridization between invasive Solidago canadensis and native S. virgaurea. Biol. Invasions 2016, 18, 3103–3108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Skokanová, K.; Mereďa, P.; Šingliarová, B.; Španiel, S. Lectotype of Solidago × niederederi (Asteraceae) selected from recently rediscovered original material. Phytotaxa 2020, 438, 62–64. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Gudžinskas, Z.; Žalneravičius, E. Solidago × snarskisii nothosp. nov. (Asteraceae) from Lithuania and its position in the infrageneric classification of the genus. Phytotaxa 2016, 253, 147–155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Karpavičienė, B.; Radušienė, J. Morphological and anatomical characterization of Solidago × niederederi and other sympatric Solidago species. Weed Sci. 2016, 64, 61–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Musiał, K.; Pagitz, K.; Gudžinskas, Z.; Łazarski, G.; Pliszko, A. Chromosome numbers in hybrids between invasive and native Solidago (Asteraceae) species in Europe. Phytotaxa 2020, 471, 267–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Anonymous. Regarding the Amendment of the Minister of the Environment of the Republic of Lithuania “Regarding the Approval of the List of Species of Invasive Organisms in Lithuania and the Recognition of Some Orders of the Minister of the Environment as Having Lost Their Validity”. Available online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/0754e1b0b56011e6a3e9de0fc8d85cd8 (accessed on 16 August 2004).
  11. Królak, E. Negative and positive aspects of the presence of Canadian goldenrod in the environment. Environ. Prot. Nat. Resour. 2021, 32, 6–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Li, G.; Wang, J.; Zhang, J.; Li, Y.; Liu, E.; Yu, Y.; Iqbal, B.; Dai, Z.; Jia, H.; Li, J.; et al. Effects of experimental warming and Canada goldenrod invasion on the diversity and function of the soil nematode community. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Kalemba, D.; Góra, J.; Kurowska, A. Analysis of the essential oil of Solidago canadensis. Planta Med. 1990, 56, 222–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Weyerstahl, P.; Marschall, H.; Christiansen, C.; Kalemba, D.; Góra, J. Constituents of the essential oil of Solidago canadensis (“Goldenrod”) from Poland—A correction. Planta Med. 1993, 59, 281–282. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Xia, W.X.; He, W.; Wen, G.Y. The constituents of essential oil from Solidago canadensis. Chin. Bull. Bot. 1999, 16, 178–180. [Google Scholar]
  16. Kalemba, D.; Thiem, B. Constituents of the essential oils of four micropropagated Solidago species. Flavour Fragr. J. 2004, 19, 40–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kasalia, A.A.; Ekundayo, O.; Paul, C.; König, W.A. epi-Cubebanes from Solidago canadensis. Phytochemistry 2002, 59, 805–810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Li, D.Q.; Pan, S.H.; Zhu, X.W.; Tan, L.; Cao, Y.F. Anticancer activity and chemical composition of leaf essential oil from Solidago canadensis L. in China. Adv. Mat. Res. 2012, 347, 1584–1589. [Google Scholar]
  19. Huang, B.K.; Lei, Y.L.; Qin, L.P.; Liu, J. Chemical composition and cytotoxic activities of the essential oil from inflorescences of Solidago canadensis L., an invasive weed in Southeastern China. J. Essent. Oil-Bear. Plants 2012, 15, 667–671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. El-Sherei, M.; Khaleel, A.; Motaal, A.A.; Abd-Elbaki, P. Effect of seasonal variation on the composition of the essential oil of Solidago canadensis cultivated in Egypt. J. Essent. Oil-Bear. Plants 2014, 17, 891–898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Xiwu, Z.; Peng, X.; Yuefen, C.; Jicai, T.; Haimin, C.; Jishuang, C. Comparison of chemical constituents and antimicrobial activities of volatile oil from Solidago decurrens and S. canadensis. Sci. Silvae Sin. 2009, 12, 167. [Google Scholar]
  22. Zhang, J.; Li, B.; Chen, J.; Zhout, T. Chemical constituents and antimicrobial activity of volatile oil from Solidago canadensis L. J. Fudan Univ. Nat. Sci. 2006, 3, 412–416. [Google Scholar]
  23. Liu, S.; Shao, X.; Wei, Y.; Li, Y.; Xu, F.; Wang, H. Solidago canadensis L. essential oil vapor effectively inhibits Botrytis cinerea growth and preserves postharvest quality of strawberry as a food model system. Front Microbiol. 2016, 7, 1179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Grul’ová, D.; Baranová, B.; Ivanova, V.; De Martino, L.; Mancini, E.; De Feo, V. Composition and bioactivity of EOs of Solidago spp. and their impact on radish and garden cress. Allelopath. J. 2016, 39, 129–142. [Google Scholar]
  25. Synowiec, A.; Kalemba, D.; Drozdek, E.; Bocianowski, J. Phytotoxic potential of EOs from temperate climate plants against the germination of selected weeds and crops. J. Pest Sci. 2017, 90, 407–419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Shelepova, O.; Vinogradova, Y.; Zaitchik, B.; Ruzhitsky, A.; Grygorieva, O.; Brindza, J. Constituents of the essential oil in Solidago canadensis L. from Eurasia. Potravin. Slovak J. Food Sci. 2018, 12, 20–25. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  27. Elshafie, H.S.; Grul’ová, D.; Baranová, B.; Caputo, L.; De Martino, L.; Sedlák, V.; Camele, I.; De Feo, V. Antimicrobial activity and chemical composition of essential oil extracted from Solidago canadensis L. growing wild in Slovakia. Molecules 2019, 24, 1206. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  28. Benelli, G.; Pavela, R.; Cianfaglione, K.; Nagy, D.U.; Canale, A.; Maggi, F. Evaluation of two invasive plant invaders in Europe (Solidago canadensis and Solidago gigantea) as possible sources of botanical insecticides. J. Pest Sci. 2019, 92, 805–821. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Wandjou, J.G.N.; Quassinti, L.; Gudžinskas, Z.; Nagy, D.U.; Cianfaglione, K.; Bramucci, M.; Maggi, F. Chemical composition and antiproliferative effect of EOs of four Solidago species (S. canadensis, S. gigantea, S. virgaurea and S. niederederi). Chem. Biodivers. 2020, 17, e2000685. [Google Scholar]
  30. Radušienė, J.; Karpavičienė, B.; Marksa, M.; Ivanauskas, L.; Raudonė, L. Distribution patterns of essential oil terpenes in native and invasive Solidago species and their comparative assessment. Plants 2022, 11, 1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Mishra, D.; Joshi, S.; Bisht, G.; Pilkhwal, S. Chemical composition and antimicrobial activity of Solidago canadensis Linn. root essential oil. J. Basic Clin. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2010, 1, 187–190. [Google Scholar]
  32. Apati, P.; Szentmihalyi, K.; Balazs, A.; Baumann, D.; Hamburger, M.; Kristo, T.S.; Szoke, E.; Kery, A. HPLC analysis of the flavonoids in pharmaceutical preparations from Canadian goldenrod (Solidago canadensis). Chromatographia 2002, 56, 65–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Reznicek, G.; Jurenitsch, J.; Kubelka, W.; Korhammer, S.; Haslinger, E.; Hiller, K. The first spectroscopically confirmed saponins from Solidago canadensis. Planta Med. 1990, 56, 554. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Reznicek, G.; Jurenitsch, J.; Plasun, M.; Korhammer, S.; Haslinger, E.; Hiller, K.; Kubelka, W. Four major saponins from Solidago canadensis. Phytochemistry 1991, 30, 1629–1633. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Radušienė, J.; Marksa, M.; Karpavičienė, B. Assessment of Solidago × niederederi origin based on the accumulation of phenolic compounds in plant raw materials. Weed Sci. 2018, 66, 324–330. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Radušienė, J.; Marksa, M.; Ivanauskas, L.; Jakstas, V.; Karpavičienė, B. Assessment of phenolic compound accumulation in two widespread goldenrods. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 63, 158–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lu, T.; Menelaou, M.A.; Vargas, D.; Fronczek, F.R.; Fischer, N.H. Polyacetylenes and diterpenes from Solidago canadensis. Phytochemistry 1993, 32, 1483–1488. [Google Scholar]
  38. Bradette-Hebert, M.-E.; Legault, J.; Lavoie, S.; Pichette, A. A new labdane diterpene from the flowers of Solidago canadensis. Chem. Pharm. Bull. 2008, 56, 82–84. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  39. Zhang, J.; Zhang, X.; Lei, G.; Li, B.; Chen, J.; Zhout, T. A new phenolic glycoside from the aerial parts of Solidago canadensis. Fitoterapia 2007, 78, 69–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Marksa, M.; Zymone, K.; Ivanauskas, L.; Radušienė, J.; Pukalskas, A.; Raudonė, L. Antioxidant profiles of leaves and inflorescences of native, invasive and hybrid Solidago species. Ind. Crops Prod. 2020, 145, 112123. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Kołodziej, B.; Kowalski, R.; Kędzia, B. Antibacterial and antimutagenic activity of extracts above ground parts of three Solidago species: Solidago virgaurea L., Solidago canadensis L. and Solidago gigantean Ait. J. Med. Plant Res. 2011, 5, 6770–6779. [Google Scholar]
  42. Chaturvedula, V.S.P.; Zhou, B.N.; Gao, Z.; Thomas, S.J.; Hecht, S.M.; Kingston, D.G.I. New lupane triterpenoids from Solidago canadensis that inhibit the lease activity of DNA polymerase β. Bioorg. Med. Chem. 2004, 12, 6271–6275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Baki, P.M.A.; El-Sherei, M.M.; Khaleel, A.E.; Motaal, A.A.A.; Abdallahc, H.M.I. Aquaretic activity of Solidago canadensis L. cultivated in Egypt and determination of the most bioactive fraction. Iran. J. Pharm. Res. 2019, 18, 922–937. [Google Scholar] [PubMed]
  44. Ravichandiran, V.; Deepa, N. In-vitro anticancer activity of Solidago canadensis L. Int. J. Res. Pharm. Sci. 2012, 3, 158–162. [Google Scholar]
  45. Deng, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Padilla-Zakourc, O.; Yanga, G. Polyphenols, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of leaf and bark extracts of Solidago canadensis L. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 74, 803–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Apáti, P.; Kéry, Á.; Houghton, P.J.; Steventon, G.B.; Kite, G. In-vitro effect of flavonoids from Solidago canadensis extract on glutathione S-transferase. J. Pharmacol. Pharm. 2006, 58, 251–256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  47. Kelly, A.M.; de Oliveira, T.B.; Valverde, S.S. Determination of the metabolic profile of Solidago canadensis using UFLC-PDA-ESI-TOF. Rodriguésia 2020, 71, e01062019. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Zekič, J.; Vovk, I.; Glavnik, V. Extraction and analyses of flavonoids and phenolic acids from Canadian goldenrod and Giant goldenrod. Forests 2021, 12, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Likhanov, A.; Oliinyk, M.; Pashkevych, N.; Churilov, A.; Kozyr, M. The role of flavonoids in invasion strategy of Solidago canadensis L. Plants 2021, 10, 1748. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Yuan, Y.; Wang, B.; Zhang, S.; Tang, J.; Tu, C.; Hu, S.; Yong, J.W.H.; Chen, X. Enhanced allelopathy and competitive ability of invasive plant Solidago canadensis in its introduced range. J. Plant Ecol. 2013, 6, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  51. Abhilasha, D.; Quintana, N.; Vivanco, J.; Joshi, J. Do allelopathic compounds in invasive Solidago canadensis s. l. restrain the native European flora? J. Ecol. 2008, 96, 993–1001. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Wang, C.; Xiao, H.; Zhao, L.; Liu, J.; Wang, L.; Zhang, F.; Shi, Y.; Du, D. The allelopathic effects of invasive plant Solidago canadensis on seed germination and growth of Lactuca sativa enhanced by different types of acid deposition. Ecotoxicology 2016, 25, 555–562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  53. Zandi, P.; Barabasz-Krasny, B.; Stachurska-Swakńo, A.; Puła, J.; Możdżeń, K. Allelopathic effect of invasive Canadian goldenrod (Solidago canadensis L.) on early growth of red clover (Trifolium pratense L.). Not. Bot. Horti Agrobot. Cluj Napoca 2020, 48, 2060–2071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Możdżeń, K.; Barabasz-Krasny, B.; Zandi, P.; Kliszcz, A.; Puła, J. Effect of aqueous extracts from Solidago canadensis L. leaves on germination and early growth stages of three cultivars of Raphanus sativus L. var. radicula Pers. Plants 2020, 9, 1549. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  55. Sun, B.; Tan, J.; Wan, Z.; Gu, F.; Zhu, M. Allelopathic effects of extracts from Solidago canadensis L. against seed germination and seedling growth of some plants. J. Environ. Sci. 2006, 18, 304–309. [Google Scholar]
  56. Li, S.L.; Li, Z.H.; Wang, Y.F.; Ruan, X.; Pan, C.D.; Wang, Q. Preliminary study for the allelopathic effect of water extracts from Solidago canadensis leaves. Adv. Mat. Res. 2013, 699, 340–349. [Google Scholar]
  57. Wang, K.J.; Chen, L.Z.; Yu, X.P. Preliminary study of allelopathy of Solidago canadensis L. Acta Agric. Zhejiangensis 2006, 18, 299–303. [Google Scholar]
  58. Baležentienė, L. Secondary metabolite accumulation and phytotoxicity of invasive species Solidago canadensis L. during the growth period. Allelopath. J. 2015, 35, 217–226. [Google Scholar]
  59. Gala-Czekaj, D.; Dziurka, M.; Bocianowski, J.; Synowiec, A. Autoallelopathic potential of aqueous extracts from Canadian goldenrod (Solidago canadensis L.) and giant goldenrod (S. gigantea Aiton). Acta Physiol. Plant. 2022, 44, 1. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Karpavičienė, B.; Danilovienė, J.; Vykertaitė, R. Congeneric comparison of allelopathic and autotoxic effects of four Solidago species. Bot. Serb. 2019, 43, 175–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  61. Adams, R.P. Essential Oil Components by Quadrupole Gas Chromatography/Mass Spectrometry, 3rd ed.; Allured Publishing Corp.: Carol Stream, IL, USA, 2001. [Google Scholar]
  62. Chytrý, M.; Tichý, L.; Hennekens, S.M.; Knollová, I.; Janssen, J.A.M.; Rodwell, J.S.; Peterka, T.; Marcenò, C.; Landucci, F.; Danihelka, J.; et al. ·EUNIS Habitat Classification: Expert system, characteristic species combinations and distribution maps of European habitats. Appl. Veg. Sci. 2020, 23, 648–675. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Dong, L.J.; Wei-Ming, H. The relative contributions of climate, soil, diversity and interactions to leaf trait variation and spectrum of invasive Solidago canadensis. BMC Ecol. 2019, 19, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Dong, L.J.; Sun, Z.K.; Gao, Y.; He, W.M. Two-year interactions between invasive Solidago canadensis and soil decrease its subsequent growth and competitive ability. J. Plant Ecol. 2015, 8, 617–622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Baranová, B.; Troščáková-Kerpčárová, E.; Grul’ová, D. Survey of the Solidago canadensis L. morphological traits and essential oil production: Aboveground biomass growth and abundance of the invasive goldenrod appears to be reciprocally enhanced within the invaded stands. Plants 2022, 11, 535. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Anonymous. Regarding the Approval of the Lithuanian Hygiene Norm HN 60:2004 “Maximum Permissible Concentration of Dangerous Chemical Substances in Soil”. Available online: https://e-seimas.lrs.lt/portal/legalAct/lt/TAD/TAIS.228693/asr (accessed on 8 March 2004).
  67. Sako, Y.; McDonald, M.B.; Fujimura, K.; Rvans, A.F.; Bennett, M.M. A system for automated seed vigour assessment. Seed Sci. Technol. 2001, 29, 625–636. [Google Scholar]
Plants 12 01421 g001 550
Figure 1. Inhibitory effect of S. canadensis water/diethyl ether extracts (acidic, neutral and alkaline fractions at 0.01, 0.1 and 1.0 relative concentration ranges) of roots (A), leaves (B) and inflorescence (C) on germination and growth (mm) of lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and garden pepper cress (Lepidium sativum) (one-way ANOVA test, df = 9, p < 0.05). Data are presented as means of treatments (n = 60) ± SD (bars); asterix (*) indicates statistically significant difference compared to the control; letters (a, b and c) denote statistically significant difference between fractions (Tukey’s test, df = 2, p < 0.05).
Figure 1. Inhibitory effect of S. canadensis water/diethyl ether extracts (acidic, neutral and alkaline fractions at 0.01, 0.1 and 1.0 relative concentration ranges) of roots (A), leaves (B) and inflorescence (C) on germination and growth (mm) of lettuce (Lactuca sativa) and garden pepper cress (Lepidium sativum) (one-way ANOVA test, df = 9, p < 0.05). Data are presented as means of treatments (n = 60) ± SD (bars); asterix (*) indicates statistically significant difference compared to the control; letters (a, b and c) denote statistically significant difference between fractions (Tukey’s test, df = 2, p < 0.05).
Plants 12 01421 g001
Plants 12 01421 g002 550
Figure 2. Inhibitory effect of aqueous extracts from S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi roots (A), leaves (B) and inflorescences (C) on relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI) of lettuce seeds (G test, p < 0.05). Data are presented as the mean of treatments (n = 60) ± SD (bars); asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference compared to the control samples.
Figure 2. Inhibitory effect of aqueous extracts from S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi roots (A), leaves (B) and inflorescences (C) on relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI) of lettuce seeds (G test, p < 0.05). Data are presented as the mean of treatments (n = 60) ± SD (bars); asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference compared to the control samples.
Plants 12 01421 g002
Plants 12 01421 g003 550
Figure 3. Effect of aqueous extracts from S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi roots (A), leaves (B) and inflorescences (C) on relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI) of garden pepper cress seeds (G test, p < 0.05). Data are presented as the mean of treatments (n = 60) ± SD (bars); asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference compared to the control.
Figure 3. Effect of aqueous extracts from S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi roots (A), leaves (B) and inflorescences (C) on relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI) of garden pepper cress seeds (G test, p < 0.05). Data are presented as the mean of treatments (n = 60) ± SD (bars); asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference compared to the control.
Plants 12 01421 g003
Plants 12 01421 g004 550
Figure 4. Effect of aqueous extracts from roots (A), leaves (B) and inflorescences (C) of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi on the seed germination and growth of lettuce and garden pepper cress at 0.1, 0.5 and 1.0 relative concentration (one-way ANOVA test, df = 3, p < 0.05). Data are presented as mean of treatments (n = 60) ± SD (bars); asterix (*) indicates statistically significant differences compared to the control; letters (a, b and c) denote statistically significant differences between various species (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Figure 4. Effect of aqueous extracts from roots (A), leaves (B) and inflorescences (C) of S. canadensis, S. virgaurea and S. × niederederi on the seed germination and growth of lettuce and garden pepper cress at 0.1, 0.5 and 1.0 relative concentration (one-way ANOVA test, df = 3, p < 0.05). Data are presented as mean of treatments (n = 60) ± SD (bars); asterix (*) indicates statistically significant differences compared to the control; letters (a, b and c) denote statistically significant differences between various species (Tukey’s test, p < 0.05).
Plants 12 01421 g004
Plants 12 01421 g005 550
Figure 5. Inhibitory effect of S. canadensis essential oils (roots—(A), leaves—(B) and inflorescences—(C)) on germination and growth of lettuce and garden pepper cress (one-way ANOVA test, df = 3, p < 0.05). Data are presented as the mean of treatments (n = 60) ± SD (bars); asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference compared to the control.
Figure 5. Inhibitory effect of S. canadensis essential oils (roots—(A), leaves—(B) and inflorescences—(C)) on germination and growth of lettuce and garden pepper cress (one-way ANOVA test, df = 3, p < 0.05). Data are presented as the mean of treatments (n = 60) ± SD (bars); asterisk (*) indicates a statistically significant difference compared to the control.
Plants 12 01421 g005
Plants 12 01421 g006 550
Figure 6. Geographical indication of sampling site in Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius, Trakai municipality, Lentvaris). Photo of S. canadensis (courtesy D. Stancelytė) from the investigated population.
Figure 6. Geographical indication of sampling site in Eastern Lithuania (Vilnius, Trakai municipality, Lentvaris). Photo of S. canadensis (courtesy D. Stancelytė) from the investigated population.
Plants 12 01421 g006
Table
Table 1. Conductivity and pH values of soil (n = 3, average mean ± SD, four different sampling sites, I–IV) of Solidago spp. growing locality.
Table 1. Conductivity and pH values of soil (n = 3, average mean ± SD, four different sampling sites, I–IV) of Solidago spp. growing locality.
Sampling SiteConductivity, µS/cmpH Values
I99.03 ± 0.40–103.83 ± 1.116.15 ± 0.07
II99.07 ± 2.82–116.57 ± 10.106.48 ± 0.19
III92.33 ± 0.55–125.63 ± 6.046.65 ± 0.27
IV95.02 ± 0.55–115.50 ± 2.026.45 ± 0.11
Table
Table 2. Main elements (weight %, n = 3, standard deviation (SD)) in the soil (four different sampling sites, I–IV) of Solidago spp. growing habitat.
Table 2. Main elements (weight %, n = 3, standard deviation (SD)) in the soil (four different sampling sites, I–IV) of Solidago spp. growing habitat.
Sampling SitesCaMgKNaAlMnCuCdCrNiPbZnFeMoP
λ, nm317.93285.21766.49589.59396.15257.61327.39228.80267.72231.60220.35213.86238.20202.03231.67
I1.2320.3910.1320.0092.2570.5770.0230.0030.0030.0010.0070.0333.5130.0020.412
SD0.1300.0440.0250.0070.2270.1190.0050.0010.0020.0000.0010.0010.4830.0020.039
II3.0980.5870.1520.0012.1480.4890.0200.0000.0030.0020.0070.0383.6330.0000.400
SD0.0590.0460.0070.0010.0850.0720.0040.0000.0010.0010.0020.0130.2600.0000.007
III1.4090.4280.1520.0052.0380.4120.0210.0010.0050.0030.0060.0242.7500.0010.300
SD0.0870.0330.0130.0030.1000.0410.0020.0000.0030.0010.0010.0020.1470.0000.018
IV1.8290.4210.1500.0082.1280.4420.0200.0020.0040.0010.0060.0343.1500.0010.350
SD0.0670.0130.0110.0040.1020.0510.0010.0010.0010.0010.0020.0020.2470.0010.022
Table
Table 3. Tentative identification of main compounds in methanol/water (MeOH:H2O, 70:30 v/v) Solidago canadensis inflorescence, leaf and root extracts analyzed by HPLC-DAD-TOF.
Table 3. Tentative identification of main compounds in methanol/water (MeOH:H2O, 70:30 v/v) Solidago canadensis inflorescence, leaf and root extracts analyzed by HPLC-DAD-TOF.
IdentitytR, minMolecular FormulaMolecular
Mass		Observed m/z [M + H]+, DaObserved m/z [M − H]−, Da
Neochlorogenic acid L,F7.7C16H18O9354.31355.12352.97
Chlorogenic acid L,F8.2C16H18O9354.31355.12352.96
4-O-Caffeoylquinic acid L,F8.3C16H18O9354.10355.10353.02
Caffeoylshikimic acid R8.8C16H16O8336.29 335.00
Cinnamic acid R8.9C9H8O2148.16149.02147.31
Feruloylquinic acid L9.7C17H20O6368.30 366.99
Rutin L,F10.0C27H30O16610.52611.16608.96
Quercetin 4′-(E-6-O-caffeoyl)glucoside L,F10.6C30H26O15626.50627.16625.39
3,5-Dicaffeoylquinic acid L,F10.7C25H24O12516.45517.13514.96
Narcissin L10.9C28H32O16624.50 622.99
Quercetin-3-O-(6′′-acetyl glucoside) L,F11.5C23H22O13506.4507.11504.94
6′′-O-Acetylglycitin? L11.7C24H24O11488.40488.95
Ferulic acid R12.5C10H10O4194.18 193.97
Erythrodiol-3-acetate R13.0C32H52O3484.8485.05
Isoquercetin (quercetin-3-O-glucoside) L,F14.1C21H20O12464.096468.98466.93
Caffeoylshikimic acid glucoside R14.5 499.12500.93498.51
Hyperoside (quercetin-3-O-galactoside) L,F15.6C21H20O12464.38465.07463.25
Cyanidin 3-O-glucosyl rutinoside F,R22.6C33H41O20+757.77758.57756.01
Quercetin caffeoyl hexoside F,R24.8C35H34O19758.2759.05757.13
Saponin 1 R27.9 894.76
Saponin 2 R29.9 1112.88
Cinnamtannin A2 R35.4C60H50O241155.021156.91
L,F,R Compounds identified in S. canadensis leaf, flowers and root extracts, respectively.
Table
Table 4. Major (≥3.0%) volatile organic compounds determined in water/diethyl ether Solidago canadensis inflorescence, leaf and root extracts of different acidity (n = 3, average mean ± SD, plants collected from four sites of the investigated area).
Table 4. Major (≥3.0%) volatile organic compounds determined in water/diethyl ether Solidago canadensis inflorescence, leaf and root extracts of different acidity (n = 3, average mean ± SD, plants collected from four sites of the investigated area).
Compound (RI Exp) Flowers Leaves Roots
pH = 3.0pH = 5.9pH = 11.0pH = 3.1pH = 5.4pH = 11.1pH = 3.2pH = 6.3pH = 11.2
α-Pinene * (935)0.8 ± 0.110.5 ± 0.111.5 ± 0.470.3 ± 0.222.5 ± 0.720.3 ± 0.219.7 ± 1.229.5 ± 2.0410.2 ± 1.41
β-Pinene * (978)0.6 ± 0.281.4 ± 0.201.5 ± 0.100.9 ± 0.611.7 ± 0.330.5 ± 0.105.5 ± 0.453.7 ± 0.222.0 ± 0.24
p-Cymene (1018)0.6 ± 0.100.7 ± 0.330.9 ± 0.094.4 ± 0.211.6 ± 0.180.3 ± 0.012.3 ± 1.722.0 ± 0.371.2 ± 0.12
Limonene (1027) 0.5 ± 0.253.2 ± 0.440.2 ± 0.145.2 ± 1.023.5 ± 0.721.3 ± 0.33
1,8-Cineole * (1033)0.2 ± 0.010.5 ± 0.150.7 ± 0.121.1 ± 0.011.1 ± 3.230.3 ± 0.1211.2 ± 1.3313.4 ± 0.7816.1 ± 1.71
trans-Pinocarveol (1135)0.4 ± 0.170.3 ± 0.150.4 ± 0.125.0 ± 0.505.5 ± 0.956.0 ± 0.704.1 ± 1.604.2 ± 0.914.6 ± 1.46
trans-Verbenol (1143)0.2 ± 0.090.9 ± 0.241.3 ± 0.549.1 ± 1.1820.0 ± 1.5524.8 ± 1.69
p-Mentha-1,5-dien-8-ol (1164) 5.9 ± 1.450.5 ± 0.150.6 ± 0.05
Borneol (1165)6.4 ± 0.724.5 ± 1.514.5 ± 1.781.2 ± 1.022.2 ± 0.512.2 ± 1.53
Terpinen-4-ol (1174)0.4 ± 0.110.3 ± 0.010.1 ± 0.011.0 ± 0.500.4 ± 0.220.6 ± 0.186.5 ± 0.757.2 ± 1.518.8 ± 1.81
p-Cymen-8-ol (1183) 0.7 ± 0.273.4 ± 0.410.5 ± 0.274.2 ± 0.954.1 ± 1.584.0 ± 0.83
α-Terpineol 11890.8 ± 0.610.9 ± 0.331.1 ± 0.210.4 ± 0.020.5 ± 0.030.3 ± 0.0117.6 ± 1.6319.2 ± 2.3023.3 ± 2.41
Verbenone (1205)0.4 ± 0.090.3 ± 0.040.4 ± 0.117.6 ± 1.328.7 ± 0.679.4 ± 1.13
trans-Carveol (1219) 3.0 ± 1.373.4 ± 0.054.2 ± 0.73
4-vinyl-Guaiacol (1310)11.5 ± 0.198.9 ± 0.863.0 ± 0.950.7 ± 0.091.5 ± 0.760.7 ± 0.04
1,2-Limonene-diol (1321) 2.1 ± 0.332.1 ± 0.271.9 ± 1.113.9 ± 0.674.0 ± 0.186.5 ± 1.07
Eugenol (1359)16.1 ± 1.5311.9 ± 1.9412.2 ± 0.332.2 ± 0.271.7 ± 0.631.8 ± 0.98
trans-Myrtanol acetate (1381) 2.0 ± 1.044.7 ± 1.785.4 ± 1.43
7,8-Dihydro-3-oxo-α-ionol (1704)8.7 ± 1.647.1 ± 1.797.8 ± 1.33
RI Exp: Retention indices determined experimentally on the nonpolar column Rxi-5 MS; * Additional identification with reference compound.
Table
Table 5. Main chemical composition (≥3.0%) of Solidago canadensis inflorescence, leaf and root essential oils (n = 3, average mean ± SD, plants collected from four sites of the investigated area).
Table 5. Main chemical composition (≥3.0%) of Solidago canadensis inflorescence, leaf and root essential oils (n = 3, average mean ± SD, plants collected from four sites of the investigated area).
Compound ab RI Litc RI ExpFlowersLeavesRoots
α-Pinene *93993821.6 ± 3.251.2 ± 0.152.6 ± 0.75
β-Pinene *9809843.2 ± 0.250.2 ± 0.1326.2 ± 2.23
β-Myrcene9919903.0 ± 0.550.1 ± 0.014.1 ± 0.92
Limonene1029103010.2 ± 1.550.6 ± 0.1035.0 ± 2.60
trans-Pinocarveol113911361.1 ± 0.354.4 ± 1.500.2 ± 0.11
cis-Verbenol114011450.4 ± 0.232.7 ± 0.200.1 ± 0.01
trans-Verbenol114411464.5 ± 1.6121.3 ± 1.040.1 ± 0.04
o-Mentha-1,5-dien-8-ol116411652.2 ± 1.043.0 ± 0.410.1 ± 0.01
p-Mentha-1,5-dien-8-ol116611700.1 ± 0.014.3 ± 1.550.1 ± 0.01
Borneol116511680.1 ± 0.014.4 ± 1.010.1 ± 0.02
Verbenone120412061.7 ± 0.6212.5 ± 1.530.7 ± 0.35
trans-Carveol121712151.6 ± 0.844.5 ± 1.100.2 ± 0.15
Bornyl acetate128512906.6 ± 0.836.0 ± 0.700.1 ± 0.01
β-Elemene139113932.9 ± 0.440.5 ± 0.243.6 ± 1.01
Germacrene D1480148515.1 ± 5.352.0 ± 1.552.0 ± 0.25
Viridiflorol159015940.5 ± 0.213.0 ± 0.750.1 ± 0.02
Germacra-4(15),5,10(14)-trien-1-α-ol168616850.5 ± 0.144.3 ± 1.100.2 ± 0.15
Curlone (Turmerone)1701?16983.1 ± 1.35
Lupenyl acetate 2145?9.8 ± 2.35
Average Total 96.2 ± 1.5294.1 ± 2.4489.7 ± 0.95
a Constituents are listed in order of their elution from a nonpolar DB-5 (which is identical to a Rxi-5 MS) column and compounds are identified by their mass spectra and retention indices on both (polar HP-FFAP and nonpolar Rxi-5 MS) columns; b RI Lit: Kovat’s indices for the nonpolar column DB-5 are taken from the literature [61]; c RI Exp: Retention indices determined experimentally on the nonpolar column Rxi-5 MS; *Additional identification with reference compound; a list of minor (<3.0%) constituents identified in inflorescence, leaf and root EOs of S. canadensis is presented in Table S1, Supplementary Materials.
Table
Table 6. Calculation of germination rate (GR), relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI) of L. sativa and L. sativum.
Table 6. Calculation of germination rate (GR), relative germination (RG) and vigor index (VI) of L. sativa and L. sativum.
IndexEquation
Germination rate (GR), %GR = final number of germinated seeds after 5 days of incubation/20 × 100%
Relative germination (RG), %RG = GRtr (%)/GRcn (%) × 100
GRtr—mean seed germination for each treatment
GRcn—mean seed germination for control
Vigor index (VI)VI = PL (mm) × GR (%)
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

Judžentienė, A.; Būdienė, J.; Labanauskas, L.; Stancelytė, D.; Nedveckytė, I. Allelopathic Activity of Canadian Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis L.) Extracts on Seed Germination and Growth of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Garden Pepper Cress (Lepidium sativum L.). Plants 2023, 12, 1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12071421

AMA Style

Judžentienė A, Būdienė J, Labanauskas L, Stancelytė D, Nedveckytė I. Allelopathic Activity of Canadian Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis L.) Extracts on Seed Germination and Growth of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Garden Pepper Cress (Lepidium sativum L.). Plants. 2023; 12(7):1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12071421

Chicago/Turabian Style

Judžentienė, Asta, Jurga Būdienė, Linas Labanauskas, Donata Stancelytė, and Irena Nedveckytė. 2023. "Allelopathic Activity of Canadian Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis L.) Extracts on Seed Germination and Growth of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Garden Pepper Cress (Lepidium sativum L.)" Plants 12, no. 7: 1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12071421

APA Style

Judžentienė, A., Būdienė, J., Labanauskas, L., Stancelytė, D., & Nedveckytė, I. (2023). Allelopathic Activity of Canadian Goldenrod (Solidago canadensis L.) Extracts on Seed Germination and Growth of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.) and Garden Pepper Cress (Lepidium sativum L.). Plants, 12(7), 1421. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12071421

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