Phenolic Composition and Allelopathy of Libidibia ferrea Mart. ex Tul. in Weeds
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Considering the need to produce effective bioherbicides to control weeds and thus reduce the contamination of environments through the use of agrochemicals in control of these plants, the scientific community has been studying the allelopathic activity of several species of Caatinga, once studies indicate that some species of this biome presentind to have activity allelopathic about other plants. On this, the present study aimed to evaluate the allelopathic potential and phenolic composition of extracts of Libidibia ferrea Mart. ex Tul. on seed germination and seedling development of Calotropis procera (Aiton) WT Aiton. and Cenchrus echinatus L. For the allelopathy test, leaf, bark and root extracts, both hot (100 °C) and cold (25 °C), were used, followed by a control group (distilled H2O). Phytochemical prospecting was performed by High Performance Liquid Chromatography (HPLC). The results showed that the hot L. ferrea bark extract has allelopathic activity on C. procera and C. echinatus, which was observed in all parameters analyzed. The phytochemical results showed that L. ferrea extracts present several phenolic compounds which are possibly responsible for the results observed against the two weed species studied, with standing out Gallic acid, Catechin, Caffeic acid, Ellagic acid, and Quercetin. It is therefore necessary to isolate these compounds in view of a potential future use for L. ferrea extracts in the production of a bioherbicide.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".