MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4200165973 · doi:10.3390/plants10122728

Allelopathic Effects of Essential Oils on Seed Germination of Barley and Wheat

2021· article· en· W4200165973 on OpenAlexaff
Valtcho D. Zheljazkov, Ekaterina A. Jeliazkova, Tess Astatkie

Bibliographic record

VenuePlants · 2021
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldAgricultural and Biological Sciences
TopicAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactions
Canadian institutionsDalhousie University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsCuminumAllelopathyGerminationRadicleSeedlingCampheneLavandulaCamphorThymus vulgarisHorticultureOfficinalisBotanyBiologyLinaloolThymolEssential oilChemistryLavender

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

In this study, we evaluated the allelopathic effects of essential oils (EOs) from six different plant species, namely, lavender (Lavandula angustifolia), hyssop (Hyssopus officinalis), English thyme (Thymus vulgaris), lovage (Levisticum officinale), costmary (Chrysanthemum balsamita), and cumin (Cuminum cyminum), on seed germination and seedling growth of barley (Hordeum vulgare) and wheat (Triticum aestivum). The main constituents of the EOs of L. angustifolia were 47.0% linalool acetate and 28.4% linalool; H. officinalis’ main constituents were 39.8% cis-pinocamphone, 9.8% trans-pinocamphone, 11.4% β-pinene, and 7.5% β-phellandrene; T. vulgaris’ were 38.2% para-cymene, 25.6% thymol, and 13.6% γ-terpinene; L. officinale’s were 64.8% α-terpinyl acetate and 14.7% β-phellandrene; C. balsamita’s were 43.7% camphor, 32.4% trans-thujone, and 11.6% camphene; C. cyminum’s were 49.6% cumin aldehyde, 10.4% para-cymene, 11.6% α-terpinen-7-al, and 9.1% β-pinene. All six EOs exhibited an allelopathic effect and suppressed the seed germination and seedling development of wheat and barley; however, the concentrations that exhibited a suppressing effect were different among the plants. C. cyminum EO completely suppressed both barley and wheat germination at 10-, 30-, and 90-µL application rates, making it the most effective treatment among the tested EOs. C. balsamita’s and H. officinalis’ EOs at 30 and 90 µL application rates completely suppressed barley and wheat radicles per seed, radicle length (mm), seedling height (mm), and germination (%). L. angustifolia’s EOs at 30- and 90-µL and T. vulgaris’ EO at 90 µL application rates also completely suppressed barley and wheat radicles per seed, radicle length (mm), seedling height (mm), and germination (%). C. balsamita’s, H. officinalis’, L. angustifolia’s, and T. vulgaris’ EOs at a 10 µL application rate reduced barley radicle length, seedling height, and % germination relative to the control. Wheat seed germination % was completely suppressed by the application of L. angustifolia’s and T. vulgaris’ EOs at 30 and 90 µL, while T. vulgaris’ EO at 10 µL rate reduced the germination relative to the control. Interestingly, C. balsamita and H. officinalis at 10 µL did not reduce wheat germination; however, they did reduce the number of radicles per seed, radicle length (mm), seedling height (mm), germination (%), and vigor index. Furthermore, L. officinale’s EO reduced the measured indices (radicles per seed, radicle length, seedling height, and vigor index) at the 10, 30, and 90 µL application rates relative to the non-treated control; however, none of the application rates of L. officinale’s EO had a suppression effect on wheat germination. This study demonstrated the allelopathic effects of the EOs of six different herbal plant species on seed germination of barley and winter wheat. The results can be utilized in the development of commercial products for controlling pre-harvest sprouting of wheat and barley. Further research is needed to verify the results under field conditions.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.005

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0010.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.008
GPT teacher head0.217
Teacher spread0.209 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations40
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePlantsSame topicAllelopathy and phytotoxic interactionsFrench-language works237,207