Next Article in Journal
A Compendium for Novel Marker-Based Breeding Strategies in Eggplant
Next Article in Special Issue
Effects of Coumarin on Rhizosphere Microbiome and Metabolome of Lolium multiflorum
Previous Article in Journal
Salicylic Acid and Mobile Regulators of Systemic Immunity in Plants: Transport and Metabolism
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The First Evidence of Gibberellic Acid’s Ability to Modulate Target Species’ Sensitivity to Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) Allelochemicals

by
Csengele Éva Barta
1,*,
Brian Colby Jenkins
1,
Devon Shay Lindstrom
1,
Alyka Kay Zahnd
1 and
Gyöngyi Székely
2,3,4,*
1
Department of Biology, Missouri Western State University, 4525 Downs Drive, Agenstein-Remington Halls, St. Joseph, MO 64507, USA
2
Hungarian Department of Biology and Ecology, Faculty of Biology and Geology, Babeș-Bolyai University, 5-7 Clinicilor St., 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
3
Institute for Research-Development-Innovation in Applied Natural Sciences, Babeș-Bolyai University, 30 Fântânele St., 400294 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
4
Centre for Systems Biology, Biodiversity and Bioresources (3B), Babeș-Bolyai University, 5-7 Clinicilor St., 400006 Cluj-Napoca, Romania
*
Authors to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2023, 12(5), 1014; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12051014
Submission received: 6 December 2022 / Revised: 20 January 2023 / Accepted: 20 February 2023 / Published: 23 February 2023
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Plant–Plant Allelopathic Interactions—The Second Edition)

Abstract

:
Invasive species employ competitive strategies such as releasing allelopathic chemicals into the environment that negatively impact native species. Decomposing Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) leaves leach various allelopathic phenolics into the soil, decreasing the vigor of several native species. Notable differences in the net negative impacts of L. maackii metabolites on target species were argued to depend on soil properties, the microbiome, the proximity to the allelochemical source, the allelochemical concentration, or environmental conditions. This study is the first to address the role of target species’ metabolic properties in determining their net sensitivity to allelopathic inhibition by L. maackii. Gibberellic acid (GA3) is a critical regulator of seed germination and early development. We hypothesized that GA3 levels might affect the target sensitivity to allelopathic inhibitors and evaluated differences in the response of a standard (control, Rbr), a GA3-overproducing (ein), and a GA3-deficient (ros) Brassica rapa variety to L. maackii allelochemicals. Our results demonstrate that high GA3 concentrations substantially alleviate the inhibitory effects of L. maackii allelochemicals. A better understanding of the importance of target species’ metabolic properties in their responses to allelochemicals will contribute to developing novel invasive species control and biodiversity conservation protocols and may contribute to applications in agriculture.

1. Introduction

Invasive plant species are significant threats to biodiversity, negatively impacting native species, altering the community structure and dynamics, and affecting the ecosystem health and functions, regionally and globally [1,2,3,4]. A better understanding of the eco-physiological and molecular impacts that the invasives exert on native species and communities is essential for cost-effective and successful invasive species management, native species conservation, restoration, and agricultural weed management practices [5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14].
Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder), a deciduous, highly successful invasive shrub, was introduced to the U.S. in the 18th century from Asia for its ornamental value [15,16]. In Asia, extracts from Lonicera spp. have traditionally been used as medicinal supplements to combat colds and influenza [17,18,19] and have been exploited for their anti-inflammatory [20,21], antioxidant, and anti-mutagenic properties [22,23,24].
L. maackii was a species recommended by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service for soil erosion control and habitat restoration. Its use for such applications likely contributed to the rapid spread and broad expansion of its habitat. Its invasive success was not recognized until the 1950s [15,25]. Today, L. maackii aggressively invades the deciduous forest-populated eastern and mid-North American regions. Infestations have been reported and cataloged from North Dakota to Texas in the South and in Massachusetts and Georgia in the North and Southeast [16,25,26]. The invasive success and widespread distribution of this species prompted intense scientific interest over the past decades, with studies revealing its complex, multitrophic impacts on native populations, communities, landscapes, and ecosystems. The complexity and varying impacts of L. maackii across ecosystems at multiple ecological scales make this species of high interest in serving as a model of invasion impacts [16]. The recent sequencing of the L. maackii genome [27] further emphasizes the increasing scientific interest in this species and the molecular traits underlying its high invasive success.
L. maackii’s widespread invasive ability is underpinned by a suite of invasive traits [28,29,30,31,32]. These include rapid growth and phenotypic plasticity [31,33,34,35,36,37,38,39], phenological differences from native species in the invaded habitat, resistance to environmental stresses [37,40,41,42], and long-range seed dispersal facilitated by birds, deer, or others [29,30,43,44,45]. L. maackii also synthesizes a variety of secondary metabolites, some of which act as herbivore deterrents or toxins [46,47,48,49,50].
Some of the metabolites synthesized in the roots, leaves, and fruits of L. maackii have also been reported to exert negative allelopathic activity, suppressing the germination, growth, survival, or reproduction of native plant species without auto-toxic impacts, possibly further enhancing L. maackii’s competitive ability [51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. Cipollini et al. (2008) [47] attributed these adverse effects to phenolic molecules and their derivatives isolated from L. maackii tissue extracts.
Studies found L. maackii fruit extracts to suppress or delay the germination of grass species (e.g., tall fescue, Festuca arundinacea, and Kentucky bluegrass, Poa pratensis), garden coreopsis (Coreopsis lanceolata), or a dwarf impatiens hybrid (Impatiens walleriana) [55]. On the other hand, leaf extracts only affected the latter negatively [55]. The negative impacts of L. maackii leaf extracts were also documented in woody species, with Trisel (1997) and Gorchov and Trisel (2003) showing a reduced germination of green ash (Fraxinus pennsylvanica) and sugar maple (Acer saccharum) [58,59]. The adverse allelopathic effects are not limited to L. maackii. Leaf extracts of another species, L. japonica (Japanese honeysuckle), reduced the growth of loblolly and shortleaf pine (Pinus taeda and P. echinata), an effect ascribed to the secondary phenolic metabolites identified from the leaf tissue [60]. Furthermore, L. maackii root and shoot extracts reduced the germination of several midwestern species’ seeds, such as jewelweed (Impatiens capensis Meerb.), tall thimbleweed (Anemone virginiana L.), and the model Arabidopsis thaliana [47,51,52,53,54,55,56,57]. Other studies reported no apparent allelopathic impacts of L. maackii on native herbaceous species [61]. Cipollini and Dorning (2008) also attributed confounding effects to L. maackii leaf extracts, reporting a decrease in the survival and a delay in the flowering of A. thaliana; however, this was associated with the increased seed production and leaf size at maturity [52]. These observations highlight a potentially complex phytochemical interaction between L. maackii and other species. It is also feasible for the described interactions between L. maackii and other species to be affected by the targets’ endogenous characteristics and, possibly, biotic or environmental factors, which may enhance or attenuate the allelopathic effects in a context-dependent manner [62]. Recent work also emphasizes that environmental pressures, such as stress conditions, may lower L. maackii performance; however, this is likely to be offset by the benefits gained in plant–plant competition by an increasing allelopathic potential [63].
Despite a good understanding of L. maackii’s impacts on ecosystems [6,16,30,33,52,59,61,64,65,66,67,68,69,70], the complex and potentially context-dependent direct chemical interactions between L. maackii and target plant species are not understood.
In the current work, we sought to evaluate the potentially fundamental role of the seed germination stimulator gibberellic acid (GA3) [71,72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79] in determining target sensitivity to L. maackii allelochemicals. We used a model system that allowed for the comparative evaluation of the impacts of L. maackii leaf metabolites on the germination and growth of control, GA3-overproducing, and GA3-deficient Brassica rapa varieties [80,81,82].
A better understanding of the physiological and biochemical controls modulating the sensitivity of target species to allelopathic influences is expected to contribute to developing innovative invasive species management approaches and novel applications in agriculture and weed management under current and future climatic conditions.

2. Results

2.1. Lonicera maackii Leaf Extracts Inhibit Brassica rapa Seed Germination

L. maackii extracts, prepared from late-season harvested leaves, significantly decreased B. rapa seed germination rates in a range from 20 to 95% compared to controls (Standard variety, Rbr, Wisconsin Fast Plants®) in Petri dish assays in a concentration range of 0.5–2 g (leaf tissue) mL−1. The effects were concentration-dependent, with lower germination rates associated with higher concentrations of the applied extract. All control B. rapa seeds, treated with sterile distilled water, germinated within 24 h. The germination rates of seeds treated with 0.5, 0.75, 1, and 1.5 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 L. maackii extracts were reduced by 20, 50, 85, and 95%, respectively. Treatments with 2 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 extracts fully inhibited B. rapa seed germination (Figure 1).
L. maackii extracts of a 1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 concentration, prepared from mature leaves in different moments of the season, from early spring to late fall, had varying effects on B. rapa var. Rbr germination. Early-season leaves (harvested between March and June) did not inhibit the germination of B. rapa seeds. Leaves harvested later, from mid-summer to late fall, had a progressively increasing negative impact on Rbr seed germination. Germination rates declined by 10, 20, 50, 85, and 95% in response to L. maackii extracts prepared from leaves harvested monthly between July and November, respectively (Figure 2).

2.2. Gibberellic Acid Influences Brassica rapa’s Sensitivity to Lonicera maackii Allelopathic Effects

The germination success in seeds treated with L. maackii extracts varied substantially in the function of the endogenous gibberellin production capacity of the tested B. rapa varieties. Significant differences were observed between the response of the GA3-overproducing, tall (ein, elongated internode) variant, the gibberellin-deficient, rosette-dwarf (ros) B. rapa variant, and the standard, Rbr variety, producing physiological levels of gibberellins (Figure 3A and Figure 4A). The control seeds of all three varieties, treated with sterile water, germinated within 72 h after imbibition, with the seeds of the Rbr and ein varieties germinating after 24 h. The ros variety control germination rate was 92, 95, and 100% after 24, 48, and 72 h, respectively. After twenty-four hours of imbibition with 1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 L. maackii extracts prepared from leaves harvested in October, Rbr and ein seed germination significantly decreased in both varieties by over 85%. After 48 h, 55% of the L. maackii-treated Rbr and 75% of the ein seeds germinated, while after 72 h, 80% of the Rbr and 95% of the ein seeds germinated. Imbibition with the L. maackii leaf extract completely inhibited the germination of the gibberellin-deficient ros seeds; no seedlings germinated within 72 h. The statistical analysis revealed a significant impact of the applied L. maackii leaf extract on the germination success of all varieties when compared to the corresponding controls; this effect was particularly enhanced at the beginning of the treatment after 24 and 48 h. While L. maackii leaf extracts negatively affected the germination success of all varieties, delaying the germination of both Rbr and ein varieties, ein seeds showed a lower sensitivity to L. maackii-derived inhibitors than Rbr. In contrast, the germination of the ros seeds was fully inhibited by the L. maackii leaf extract (Figure 3A and Figure 4A). Further statistical evaluation of these data with two-way ANOVA analysis of variance also supports that the variety responses to L. maackii allelochemicals are significantly different. However, these differences become less accentuated over time (Figure 3A inset), except for the ros variety, whose seeds did not germinate within our observation window.
The response of B. rapa varieties revealed a similar trend when L. maackii extracts were administered in conjunction with a supplemental exogenous 100 µmol GA3 solution (Figure 3B and Figure 4B). The controls of all three varieties, treated with sterile water supplemented with exogenous GA3, germinated after 24 h, including the GA3-deficient dwarf variety. After 24 h, 75 and 65% of Rbr and ein seeds imbibed with the combination of GA3 + L. maackii leaf extracts germinated. Supplementation with exogenous GA3 enhanced the germination rates of L. maackii-treated Rbr and ein seeds and, after 48 h, ros seeds as well, as compared to the rates recorded without the supplement (Figure 3A and Figure 4A). Exogenous GA3 enhanced the germination of Rbr and ein seeds treated with the L. maackii extract after 24 h (Figure 3B), as compared to the Rbr and ein seed germination rates without exogenous GA3 (Figure 3A). At later timepoints, a further stimulation of Rbr and ein was detected in the presence of exogenous GA3 (Figure 3A,B). After 48 h, 90 and 95% of Rbr and ein seeds germinated, respectively. The complete germination of the Rbr and ein seeds treated with GA3 + L. maackii leaf extract was recorded by the 72 h timepoint.
Finally, in the presence of exogenous GA3, the seeds of the rosette-dwarf, gibberellin-deficient variety were also able to partially overcome the harmful effects of L. maackii inhibitors, and, albeit with a delay compared to the other varieties and controls, 80% of the ros seeds germinated within 72 h. Two-way ANOVA analysis of variance revealed that the variety dependence of the response of B. rapa seeds to L. maackii allelochemicals is still significant in the presence of exogenous GA3; however, the differences are attenuated on a longer timescale (Figure 3B and inset).
Within the first 72 h after exposure to L. maackii leaf extracts, we detected significant differences in the growth and development of seedlings with differing capacities to produce GA3. Similar differences were recorded when seedlings were treated with exogenous GA3 in conjunction with the L. maackii extract (Figure 5). The growth pattern of the control Rbr, ein, and ros varieties, treated with sterile water, showed the typical response expected from varieties synthesizing physiological amounts of GA3, overproducing and showing deficiencies in GA3 synthesis. The ein variety seedlings reached 5 cm in length, the Rbr seedlings reached 4.5 cm, and the ros seedlings reached 1.3 cm. Imbibition with L. maackii extracts significantly suppressed the growth of both Rbr and ein varieties, with the average seedling length not exceeding 0.5 cm for either variety. Ros seedlings did not germinate within the timeframe of our observation window; therefore, their length was considered 0 cm.
Exogenous GA3 supplementation benefitted, in particular, the Rbr and ros seedlings under control conditions in sterile water supplemented with GA3. The average seedling length was 5.7, 5.45, and 1.95 cm in the Rbr, ein, and ros varieties. While the exogenous GA3 did not fully compensate for the inhibitory effects of L. maackii leaf extracts, the seedling lengths recorded 72 h after the exposure to the combination of L. maackii extract + GA3 were more extensive for each variety compared to those of the same variety exposed to L. maackii extracts alone. Rbr, ein, and ros seedlings reached an average length of 1.5, 1.4, and 0.4 cm when treated with L. maackii, extracts supplemented with exogenous GA3. Two-way ANOVA was used to test for differences in the growth of control and L. maackii extract-treated (with or without exogenous GA3) B. rapa varieties. Analyses revealed a significant, variety-dependent growth response to the L. maackii leaf extract treatment and supported significant differences between the control and L. maackii extract-treated samples both in the presence and absence of exogenous GA3 (Figure 5 inset).

2.3. Apigenin, Luteolin, and Their Combination Exert Varying Effects on the Germination and Growth of B. rapa Seeds

Apigenin (API) and luteolin (LUT) have been previously identified from aqueous extracts of L. maackii leaves as dominant flavones with potential allelochemical properties [47]. In seed assays, 50 µg mL−1 solutions of API, LUT, and their combination triggered various responses in the germination and development of B. rapa var. Rbr (Figure 6 and Figure 7). The allelochemical concentration for this test was selected to represent concentrations likely occurring under field conditions due to L. maackii leaf decomposition at the end of the growing season in the soil [47]. API stimulated the germination of Rbr seeds, especially in the early stages of the treatment, with higher germination rates observed, particularly after 24 and 36 h, when compared to the controls. After 48 h, this effect was lost, with all of the control and API-treated seeds germinating.
On the other hand, API had a significant suppressive impact on the seedlings’ growth compared to untreated controls. The average API-treated seedling length was 1.5 cm compared to untreated controls, whose average size reached 4.7 cm within 48 h. LUT suppressed germination and growth, although its effects on growth were weaker than those of API. Only about 60% of LUT-treated seeds germinated after 48 h, and the seedling size averaged 2.8 cm. The combination of API + LUT had a strong inhibitory effect on germination, similar to that of LUT, inhibiting germination by 35%.
Moreover, it had a highly significant suppressive impact on growth compared to API or LUT alone. The average seedling lengths did not exceed 0.7 cm when treated with API + LUT. The representative photographs of seedlings in Figure 7 also indicate that while API, LUT, and their combination suppress seedling growth, combining the two flavones affects root and hypocotyl development the strongest.

3. Discussion

In the Midwestern U.S., L. maackii has been recognized to have an aggressive invasive success and devastating multitrophic impacts on ecosystems, rapidly invading forests and disturbed landscapes across N. America [15,25,26]. Its invasive success relies on several competitive mechanisms, which make this species a good candidate for an invasive model [16]. One of the numerous strategies employed by invasive plant species is the synthesis of secondary metabolites with allelopathic properties. When released into the environment, these chemicals may influence their neighbor’s germination, growth, development, reproduction, and overall survival [8,83,84,85,86,87,88,89,90,91,92]. Allelopathic invasives, including L. maackii, have raised numerous concerns for species conservation and restoration, with further challenges posed by a warming climate. Climate change is likely to enhance the competitive relevance of allelochemistry in the biological invasion strategies of this species [63]. Therefore, a better understanding of these interactions is pivotal for biodiversity conservation, landscape and weed management, as well as potential applications in agriculture and forestry.
Lonicera spp. synthesize and release various bioactive phytochemicals from their live or degrading root, shoot, leaf, and fruit tissues [16,17,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,60,61,62]. These metabolites may play essential roles in plant defense against abiotic stressors, such as high-intensity and ultraviolet radiation [47,51], and protection against herbivores [46,47,48,49,50]. It is likely that their early recognized medicinal properties may also be attributed to their specialized phytochemistry [17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24]. Nevertheless, L. maackii phytochemicals may also be released into the soil through roots or leaf litter decomposition, negatively affecting the germination, growth, and development of native species [47,51].
Notably, most studies evaluated the phytochemical composition and allelopathic impacts of L. maackii in extracts prepared in organic solvents [47,85,93], with few exceptions [51,54,55,56,94]. However, in realistic field settings, the metabolites that are most likely effective in inhibiting other plant species must be water-soluble. In our study, we used a passive extraction method mimicking the progressive, gradual leaching of water-soluble phytochemicals from dense L. maackii leaf litter into the soil water at the end of its growing season. Leachates derived from late-season leaf litter inhibited the germination of B. rapa seeds in a concentration-dependent manner, with the more concentrated extracts exerting the highest inhibitory effects and a 2 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 concentration being lethal to the tested seeds (Figure 1). Even though the net impact of allelochemical products may also be affected by other factors [53,54,95,96,97,98,99,100,101], possibly attenuating their effects, they may substantially alter germination success and plant development [47,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,94]. Concentrations similar to those used in this study were detected in the soil for various phenolics [99,100,101,102].
These data are in good agreement with earlier descriptions of the inhibitory impacts of L. maackii leaf extracts on a variety of other species, including Arabidopsis spp., green ash, sugar maple, or an impatiens hybrid [47,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61], and provide additional support for the L. maackii leaf litter inhibitory effects on yet another species. We chose B. rapa, a member of the Brassicaceae family, as the model species for our studies, as its wild varieties are widespread across the U.S., including areas affected by L. maackii infestations [26]. Moreover, B. rapa is sensitive to water-soluble allelochemicals released from various other allelopathic species [103,104,105,106,107,108,109].
Ontogeny and seasonal variations in environmental conditions control the synthesis of constitutive secondary metabolites in plant tissues [110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117,118,119,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127]. Age-dependent and seasonal variations in the synthesis of terpenoids, phenolics, and alkaloids in leaf tissue have been commonly described and frequently attributed to, among other factors, the availability of metabolic precursors for their synthesis, deriving from primary metabolism [115,116,117,118,120,121,122,123,124,125,126,127]. The duration of L. maackii’s life cycle and period of photosynthetic competency exceeds that of the native vegetation in the invaded regions. L. maackii defoliation was recorded very late in the fall, sometimes retaining leaves until early in the following spring [16,40]. We hypothesized that leaf ontogeny also affects the synthesis and accumulation of metabolites with allelopathic properties in L. maackii. Extracts prepared from L. maackii leaves at non-lethal concentrations (1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1, Figure 1) inhibited B. rapa germination most significantly, and increasingly, only when prepared from tissue harvested in the late season, from September to November (Figure 2). Such seasonal variation in the inhibitory potential of L. maackii leaf extracts was not unexpected. Our data also support an earlier assessment provided by Cipollini and coworkers on specific variations in the synthesis of some phenolic metabolites in L. maackii leaves in summer versus fall months [47]. Some of those metabolites are also hypothesized to be responsible for the species’ allelopathic impacts. Like most other secondary metabolites, phenolics are versatile molecules and play various roles in plants [47]. Cipollini and coworkers ascribed the differential accumulation of select phenolics from among the 13 metabolites identified from L. maackii leaf extracts to their potentially varied functions [47]. They suggested that synthesizing phenolics that protect leaves from ultraviolet radiation-induced damages may peak during the summer months. Other metabolites, which are deterrents for herbivore activity, may be synthesized to best fit the herbivore activity cycle during each season [47].
Nevertheless, Cipollini and coworkers [47] did not address the net inhibitory potential of whole aqueous leaf extracts, as the current work does. One of the novelties in our results is the evidence that the strength of L. maackii leaf extracts in inhibiting B. rapa germination increases during the fall. We suggest the progressive inhibitory capacity of seasonal L. maackii extracts to be a proxy for the variations in the biosynthesis of allelopathic inhibitors in this species’ leaves. It is also likely that leaf litter forming in the fall breaks down during the wet season, leaching into soil water, with expected inhibitory effects exerted in early spring, when conditions become favorable for seed germination.
Today, allelochemicals are frequently argued to serve as “novel chemical weapons” against naïve native species that have not yet been exposed to them. Consequently, native species may be expected to have a higher sensitivity to allelochemical inhibition than species cohabiting the environment from which the invasive originated [8,83,128]. Several metabolic candidates were isolated from Lonicera spp., such as phenolics, flavones, flavonoids, their glucoside derivatives, phenolic acids, and iridoids as likely allelopathic inhibitors [47,58,59,60,129]. Nevertheless, the net allelopathic impacts varied substantially in studies using different plant species and variable controlled or field conditions [47,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,60,61,62]. When considering the context-dependency of allelopathic effects, under field conditions, soil properties, the microbiome, the proximity to the allelochemical source, or other environmental conditions were suggested to affect the net negative impact of L. maackii metabolites on target species [16,51,52,62,98,99,130].
Surprisingly, however, to date, no study has considered the possibility that the confounding effects reported earlier regarding L. maackii’s net impact on different species might also be influenced by endogenous recipient-dependent factors.
Allelochemicals affect various physiological and metabolic processes in plants. These include alterations in the cellular ultrastructure; the inhibition of cell division and elongation; imbalances in the antioxidant system; increases in cell membrane permeability; and alterations in enzyme activities, respiration, photosynthesis, water and nutrient uptakes, and plant growth regulation (reviewed by [89]). A target species’ sensitivity to allelochemical-induced effects may also depend on their metabolic properties. Phenolics and their derivatives are some of plant tissues’ most prevalent and extensively studied allelochemical groups [131,132,133,134,135,136,137]. Phenolics were also suggested to be the predominant allelochemical molecules in L. maackii leaves [16,47,58,59,60,138].
Substantial evidence supports that some plant species can counteract allelopathic phenolics through direct counter-allelopathic defense or other metabolic strategies. For example, Weir and coworkers showed that oxalate synthesized and excreted by Gaillardia grandiflora and Lupinus sericeus could neutralize catechin, an allelopathic substance released by Centaurea maculosa [139]. Exogenous oxalate could also protect Arabidopsis spp. from catechin-induced allelopathy [139]. Species such as Lolium perenne, Trifolium repens, Rumex aquaticus, and others were stimulated by concentrated allelochemical solutions, making use of them as fertilizers [84,85,140,141]. Legumes and species with larger seeds are speculated to be more likely to resist allelopathy due to their abundant nutrition and energy, which can be invested into resistance [142]. Garlic root allelochemicals altered the tomato seedling transcriptome, oxidant–antioxidant, and growth-regulating phytohormone balance, inducing resistance [143].
Phytohormones are critical regulators of plants’ vegetative and reproductive cycles. Environmental factors affect the transition from dormancy to germination competency in seeds. However, germination is tightly regulated by the balance between two phytohormones. Abscisic acid (ABA) sustains dormancy, while gibberellic acid (GA3) is required in high amounts, along with low ABA/GA3 ratios, to alleviate dormancy in order to permit germination [71,73,79]. GA3 stimulates seed germination, enhancing imbibition, weakening the seed coat, and activating hydrolytic enzymes. Germination involves bidirectional interactions between the embryo and the endosperm. The endosperm senses the appropriate conditions for germination, hence regulating the embryo’s growth. The embryo controls amylase release and endosperm degradation. Amylases break down the storage nutrients required for the nutrition and development of the embryo [72,73,74,75,76,77,78,79]. GA3 also stimulates the expression of genes responsible for embryonic cell expansion in the early stages of germination and seedling development [77].
The biosynthesis of GA3 was previously shown to be significantly inhibited by phenolic allelochemicals [137,143]. Cheng and coworkers also suggested that the allelochemical-induced alteration in phytohormone levels might increase plant resistance [143].
Here, we demonstrated that a standard (Rbr) B. rapa variety is sensitive to L. maackii aqueous extracts, supporting earlier sensitivity studies by Cipollini and colleagues [47]. These extracts inhibited B. rapa seed germination in a concentration-dependent manner (Figure 1), also controlled by L. maackii leaf ontogeny (Figure 2). In addition to the standard variety, using other B. rapa varieties with capacities to synthesize GA3 differing from that of the Rbr, we also tested the hypothesis that elevated endogenous GA3 levels may provide resistance against L. maackii allelochemicals.
We assessed the germination success and early-stage growth and development of a GA3-overproducing (ein) and a GA3-deficient (ros) B. rapa variety [81,82] treated with concentrations of L. maackii leaf extracts that are non-lethal to the Rbr variety (1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1, Figure 1). Compared to the sensitivity of the Rbr, seeds of the ein variety were less sensitive to inhibition. At the same time, ros proved to be the most inhibited by L. maackii allelopathic metabolites, with no germination recorded up to 72 h after treatment. By that time, most seeds of the other varieties and all of the water-treated controls germinated (Figure 3A and Figure 4A). In addition, exogenous GA3, in physiologically relevant concentrations (100 µmol, [144]), further decreased the sensitivity of all three tested B. rapa varieties to L. maackii inhibitors. The exogenous GA3 supplement was sufficient to substantially compensate for the diminished endogenous GA3 synthesis in the ros variety, with 78% of ros seeds exposed to L. maackii allelochemicals germinating within 72 h (Figure 3B and Figure 4B). We also noted a similar trend in the early seedling growth, with both elevated endo- and exogenous GA3 compensating for the inhibitory effects of L. maackii extracts (Figure 5). The highly significant differences in the sensitivity of B. rapa varieties and the impact of exogenous hormone supplements (Figure 3 and Figure 5, and insets) suggest that GA3 plays a substantial role in determining a species’ sensitivity and response to L. maackii allelochemicals. The observed differences between the growth and development of seedlings could be a consequence of the direct effects of GA3 on seed germination, and not a direct effect of GA3 on growth. We stipulate that the earlier-reported differences in the sensitivity of various species to L. maackii allelopathic inhibition [47,51,52,53,54,55,56,57,58,59,61,62] may, at least in part, be attributable to potential differences in the GA3 synthetic ability of the species. However, further studies are needed to ascertain these differences in various native species cohabiting with L. maackii to identify candidates with the highest capacity for resistance.
To our knowledge, the current work is the first to examine the role of a target species’ metabolic properties in determining their net sensitivity to allelopathic inhibition by L. maackii.
Earlier, Cipollini and coworkers [47] identified 13 phenolic metabolites from degrading L. maackii leaves. They suggested that API, LUT, and their glycosidic derivatives are likely allelopathic candidates. Flavones and flavonoids are phenolic metabolites commonly synthesized by many plant species, with demonstrated bioactivity [145]. The molecules isolated from L. maackii by Cipollini and colleagues [47] were also detected in other species such as Cistus ladanifer and Matricaria chamomilla. These species are also allelopathic [102,110,146]. From the metabolites analyzed by Cipollini and coworkers [47], we tested the effects of API, LUT, and their combination on B. rapa germination success and development. We focused on these two flavones, as the concentration of their glycosidic derivatives was reported to be low during the fall [47]. The chemical properties and the solubility of both API and LUT have been amply characterized in a variety of solvents, including water [147,148,149,150]. The water solubility of API is as low as 183 µg mL−1 [147,148], while LUT’s is 387.5 µg mL−1 at 25 °C [149,150]. Compared to their solubility in other solvents, API and LUT’s solubility in water is low [147,148,149,150]. The poor solubility of these substances implies that the bioactive concentrations of API and LUT cannot exceed 183 µg mL−1 and 387.5 µg mL−1, respectively, under field conditions and in the soil. These values also reflect the likely maximum extractable amounts of API and LUT from leaves in an aqueous extract, under ideal conditions. However, under field conditions, it is likely that the water-soluble API and LUT amounts released from degrading leaves are significantly lower, considering that leaf degradation occurs at relatively low temperatures in the fall, which may further decrease API and LUT solubility in the aqueous environment [147,148,149,150]. Thus, they are likely to be present in fully aqueous extracts at low concentrations compared to the amount extractable using organic solvents, in which their solubility is higher [47,146]. However, these flavones can still accumulate in the soil at bioactive concentrations that are relevant for allelopathic interactions [102].
In this study, we treated standard B. rapa seeds with 50 µg mL−1 API, LUT, and a 1:1 ratio combination of the two. These concentrations are lower than those used in prior studies [47] and represent a concentration range that plants are more likely to be exposed to under field conditions. We found that the two metabolites have different effects on B. rapa. Surprisingly, API stimulated B. rapa seed germination. Other studies also observed similar stimulating effects triggered by different members of the phenylpropanoid family, the group of metabolites to which API belongs. For example, Bi et al. (2017) [151] documented that sinapic acid stimulates the germination of wild-type Arabidopsis seeds in a concentration-dependent manner in the range of 0.1 to 1 mM.
On the other hand, API significantly inhibited seedling growth. LUT repressed both germination and growth. The combination of apigenin and luteolin decreased germination to a similar extent as LUT alone. However, the combination had a much stronger effect on seedling growth than either of the two flavones alone, suggesting that the simultaneous occurrence of multiple metabolites in degrading leaves may result in enhanced allelopathic effects (Figure 6). In addition, stereomicroscopic examination revealed aberrant morphology and deficiency in the root development of seedlings treated with API and LUT combined (Figure 7).
From the obtained data, we conclude that the net allelopathic impacts of degrading L. maackii leaves on B. rapa are controlled by complex chemistry and the combined effects of multiple metabolites. In particular, the described effects of aqueous L. maackii extracts are similar to those triggered by the combination of API and LUT (Figure 3, Figure 4, Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7), supporting earlier assumptions made by Cipollini and colleagues [47]. Nevertheless, we do not exclude the possibility of different metabolites also playing a role in the net allelopathic effects of L. maackii, on which our study did not focus.
To better understand the mechanisms at the basis of our observations, future work will test for GA3 recovery effects on the allelopathic inhibition by API, LUT, and their combination, will test for potential synergistic or antagonistic effects of the API + LUT combination, and will be complemented with a comparative analysis of responses to API, LUT and API + LUT of the varieties differing in their ability to synthesize GA3.
In conclusion, this study demonstrated that the net allelopathic potential of L. maackii leaves is defined by complex chemistry and the interactive effects of multiple metabolites on the target species. For the first time, we showed that the target’s metabolic properties might also influence the net allelopathic impacts of invasives, in addition to environmental factors and the proximity to the source. In particular, high GA3 concentrations may substantially alleviate the inhibitory effects of L. maackii allelochemicals. The mechanism responsible for this effect will be further investigated in the future. A better understanding of the direct impacts of allelochemicals on target species will contribute to developing novel invasive species control and biodiversity conservation protocols. In addition, this knowledge may also contribute to additional applications in other fields—for example, to support applications employing allelopathic species in agriculture [11,89,92,152,153,154], in water recycling [155], and as substitutes for synthetic herbicides [136,156].

4. Materials and Methods

4.1. Plant Material and Growth Conditions

4.1.1. Lonicera maackii Leaf Collection and Extraction

L. maackii (Amur honeysuckle) leaves were collected from honeysuckle-infested forest stands in the Otoe Creek Natural Area on the Missouri Western State University campus (GPS coordinates: 39.7597° N, 94.7845° W) on the third week of each month between March and November 2020 and in 2021, throughout the growing season. Species identification was provided by the Missouri Department of Conservation’s Northwest Regional Office, located on the Missouri Western State University campus. The harvested leaves were rinsed three times with sterile distilled water to remove surface contaminants, blotted, frozen, and stored at −20 °C in a freezer (Frigidaire, Charlotte, NC, USA) until processing.
Aqueous extracts were prepared from whole leaves, modifying a method previously used by Dorning and Cipollini [51]. The leaves were incubated and shaken without disruption in sterile distilled water at a concentration of 2 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 at room temperature for 72 h. The extract stock was decanted and filtered using a Pall Acrodisc® sterile syringe filter with Supor® membrane, with a 0.2 µm pore-size and 32 mm OD (Pall Corp., Port Washington, NY, USA). The filtered extracts were stored at 4 °C until use in a walk-in cooler unit (Amerikooler QC061277FBSC, Hialeah, FL, USA).
For germination and seedling development tests, the stock extract of 2 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 was diluted with sterile distilled water to obtain concentrations of 0; 0.5; 0.75; 1; 1.5; and 2 g (leaf tissue) mL−1.

4.1.2. Brassica rapa Varieties and Growth Conditions

The effects of L. maackii leaf extracts and their chemical components on seed germination and seedling growth were tested on Wisconsin Fast Plants® Brassica rapa varieties in Petri dish seed assays. Wisconsin Fast Plants® Brassica rapa subsp. dichotoma [80] seed stocks were obtained from the University of Wisconsin-Madison, WI, USA and stored at 4 °C until testing in a walk-in cooler.
Standard Wisconsin Fast Plants® seeds (Rbr) were used as controls. The Standard stock characterizes the typical morphology and growth patterns for Fast Plants® [81,82].
The Rosette-Dwarf variety (ros) is a Fast Plants® stock homozygous recessive (ros/ros) for a gene that causes deficiency in the synthesis of the growth hormone gibberellic acid (GA3). Dwarf plants produce 4–10 times less GA3 than Standard (Rbr) plants, resulting in stems that do not elongate after seedlings emerge [81,82].
The Tall Plant (Elongated Internode, ein) variety is a Fast Plants® stock homozygous recessive (ein/ein) for a gene causing the over-production of phytohormones in the gibberellin family, resulting in overly elongated stems and internodes. Tall plants produce up to 12 times more GA3 than Standard (Rbr) Wisconsin Fast Plants®. This stock develops tall plants [81,82].
For each seed assay, 20 Brassica rapa seeds of either variety were placed on wet filter paper in 15 × 100 mm plastic Petri dishes. A 5 mL solution of the selected composition and concentration was added to each Petri dish. The plates were sealed with parafilm to minimize evaporation. The dishes were placed on racks of a climate-controlled growth chamber (Percival, AR36L2, Perry, IA, USA). The plated seeds were kept under a day/night temperature cycle of 27/25 °C and a cycle of 16 h days with 250 µmol m−2 s−1 intensity irradiation and 8 h of dark for the duration of each assay.
Three independent replicates (N = 3) were performed for each treatment and seed variety for all assays, with 60 individual seeds of either type examined under each condition (n = 60).

4.2. Germination and Seedling Development Bioassays

4.2.1. Concentration Dependence and Seasonal Variation in the Effects of Lonicera maackii Extracts on Brassica Seeds

The concentration dependence of the effects of L. maackii leaf extracts on Standard (Rbr) control seeds was tested within the 0–2 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 concentration range. The extracts were prepared from the stock harvested in October 2020. Rbr seed germination rates were recorded at each applied concentration as the percent fraction of water-treated control seeds after 24 h.
Seasonal variations in the inhibitory potential of honeysuckle extracts prepared from leaves harvested throughout the 2020 and 2021 growth seasons, from March to November, were assessed in Petri dish bioassays. Such variations were expected to serve as a proxy for the dynamic synthesis and accumulation of inhibitors in the leaf tissue throughout the plant’s life cycle.
Rbr seeds were treated for 24 h with 1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 extracts of leaves harvested on the third week of each month during the honeysuckle life cycle, combining leaves harvested in the same months of 2020 and 2021. The choice of the extract concentration for this assay was based on preliminary data indicating that, at this concentration, extracts prepared from leaves harvested in October may inhibit seed germination by over 80%, but no lethal effects have been observed in Rbr seeds yet.

4.2.2. The Impact of the Plant Growth Hormones, Gibberellins, on Brassica Seed Responses to Lonicera maackii Leaf Extracts

The Standard (Rbr), Rosette-Dwarf (ros), and Tall (ein) Brassica rapa Fast Plant® varieties differ in their endogenous synthesis and accumulation of gibberellins [80,81,82]. To compare their sensitivity to the L. maackii leaf extracts, the seeds of each variety were treated with 1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 L. maackii extract for 72 h in Petri dishes, in parallel with the water-treated controls for each variety.
For assessing the potential impact of exogenous gibberellin supplementation on Brassica seed responses, Petri dishes with Rbr, ros, and ein seeds, treated with L. maackii extract, were also supplemented with 100 µM sterile aqueous solution of GA3 (Millipore Sigma, Merck KgaA, Darmstadt, Germany). Each seed variety’s control was treated with sterile distilled water instead of the L. maackii extract.
Germination and seedling growth were measured at 24 h intervals for up to 72 h. Germination rates were expressed as a percent (%) fraction of the water-treated controls’ germination under each condition for each variety. The seedling length was measured in centimeters (cm).

4.2.3. Apigenin, Luteolin, and Their Combined Effects on Brassica Seed Germination and Early Seedling Development

To assess the individual or combined effects of these flavones on the germination and early-stage development of Rbr Brassica seedlings, seeds were treated with 50 µg mL−1 solutions of API, LUT, and the combination of 50 µg mL−1 API + 50 µg mL−1 LUT in 0.05% DMSO (Millipore Sigma, Merck KgaA, Darmstadt, Germany). The seed response to the flavones was assayed in Petri dishes, with the treatments lasting up to 48 h. Control seeds were treated with sterile distilled water. Germination rates were expressed as the % change over time, and seedling lengths were established as the average lengths of all germinated seedlings at the time of the measurements for each variety and treatment. Germination and seedling development were assessed at a frequency of 12 h for the 48 h duration of the test.
Representative images of the developing control and treated (API, LUT, or API + LUT combination) Rbr Brassica seedlings were photographed under the lowest magnifying power (1.5×) of a Labomed Luxeo 4Z Stereomicroscope (Labo America Inc., Fremont, CA, USA) fitted with an AmScope CA-CAN-SLRIII adapter (United Scope, Llc., Los Angeles, CA, USA) for a Canon EOS Rebel T7 DSLR Camera (Canon Inc., Melville, NY, USA).

4.3. Statistical Analysis

All statistical analyses were performed using the Statistical Package for the Social Sciences software, version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL, USA). Data were expressed as the means ± standard deviation (SD) of three independent replicates (N = 3, n = 60 seeds total for each treatment and condition). Student’s t-test was used to compare the differences in Brassica seed responses to varying honeysuckle extract concentrations and to analyze the seasonal variation in the L. maackii extracts’ negative allelopathic efficiency. Students’ test was also used to assess the significance of different variety seed germination and growth changes in response to L. maackii-induced inhibition in the presence and absence of exogenous GA3 compared to the corresponding controls. The same test was used to determine the significance of the impact of flavones or their combination on Rbr seed germination and seedling growth after 48 h, as compared to the controls. Analysis of variance (two-way ANOVA) was used to test for differences in the germination and growth of the used B. rapa varieties treated with L. maackii extracts without or in the presence of exogenous GA3 over time. Graphing was performed with Microsoft® Excel® 365 MSO, Version 2210 (Microsoft Corporation, Redmond, WA, USA).

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, C.É.B. and, for some experiments, B.C.J. and A.K.Z.; methodology, C.É.B.; formal analysis, C.É.B. and G.S.; investigation, C.É.B., B.C.J., D.S.L. and A.K.Z.; data curation, C.É.B., B.C.J., D.S.L., A.K.Z. and G.S.; validation, C.É.B. and G.S.; writing—manuscript, C.É.B. and G.S.; writing—review, C.É.B., B.C.J., D.S.L., A.K.Z. and G.S.; visualization, C.É.B. and G.S.; supervision, C.É.B.; project administration, C.É.B.; funding acquisition, C.É.B. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Program of Research, Teaching, and Applied Learning (PORTAL) at Missouri Western State University and the Department of Biology at Missouri Western State University. A.K.Z. received student support and C.É.B. received mentor support via the Summer Undergraduate Research Fellowship program of the American Society of Plant Biologists (ASPB, SURF, 2021).

Data Availability Statement

Data can be made available upon request.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Department of Biology at Missouri Western State University for supporting the undergraduate student authors involved in this project.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Ruesink, J.L.; Parker, I.M.; Groom, M.J.; Kareiva, P.M. Reducing the risks of non-indigenous species introductions. BioScience 1995, 45, 465–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Wilcove, D.S.; Rothstein, D.; Dubow, J.; Phillips, A.; Losos, E. Quantifying threats to imperiled species in the United States. BioScience 1998, 48, 607–615. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Eviner, V.T.; Garbach, K.; Baty, J.H.; Hoskinson, S.A. Measuring the effects of invasive plants on ecosystem services: Challenges and prospects. Invas. Plant Sci. Mana. 2012, 5, 125–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kaushik, P.; Pati, P.K.; Khan, M.L.; Khare, P.K. Plant functional traits best explain invasive species’ performance within a dynamic Ecosystem—A review. Trees People 2022, 8, 100260. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Levine, J.M. Species Diversity and Biological Invasions: Relating local process to community pattern. Science 2000, 288, 852–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  6. Collier, M.H.; Vankat, J.L.; Hughes, M.R. Diminished plant richness and abundance below Lonicera maackii, an invasive shrub. Am. Midl. Nat. 2002, 147, 60–71. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Crooks, J.A. Characterizing ecosystem-level consequences of biological invasions: The role of ecosystem engineers. Oikos 2002, 97, 153–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Callaway, R.M.; Ridenour, W.M. Novel weapons: Invasive success and the evolution of increased competitive ability. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2, 436–443. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Pimentel, D.; Zuniga, R.; Morrison, D. Update on the environmental and economic costs associated with alien-invasive species in the United States. Ecol. Econ. 2005, 52, 273–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hejda, M.; Pyšek, P.; Jarošík, V. Impact of invasive plants on the species richness, diversity, and composition of invaded communities. J. Ecol. 2009, 97, 393–403. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Zeng, R.S. Allelopathy—The solution is indirect. J. Chem. Ecol. 2014, 40, 515–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  12. Tataridas, A.; Jabran, K.; Kanatas, P.; Oliveira, R.S.; Freitas, H.; Travlos, I. Early detection, herbicide resistance screening, and integrated management of invasive plant species: A review. Pest Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 3957–3972. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Forner, W.G.; Zalba, S.M.; Guadagnin, D.L. Methods for prioritizing invasive plants in protected areas: A systematic review. Nat. Areas J. 2022, 42, 69–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Ngondya, I.B.; Munishi, L.K. Managing invasive plants through a nature-based approach in complex landscapes. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2022, 37, 284–288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Vankat, J.L.; Roy, D.G. Landscape invasibility by exotic species. In Applying Landscape Ecology in Biological Conservation; Gutzwiller, K.J., Ed.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2002; pp. 171–191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. McNeish, R.E.; McEwan, R.W. A review on the invasion ecology of Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii, Caprifoliaceae) a case study of ecological impacts at multiple scales. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 2016, 143, 367–385. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Zhang, B.; Yang, R.; Liu, C.-Z. Microwave-assisted extraction of chlorogenic acid from flower buds of Lonicera japonica Thunb. Sep. Purif. Technol. 2008, 62, 480–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Shang, X.; Pan, H.; Li, M.; Miao, X.; Ding, H. Lonicera japonica Thunb.: Ethnopharmacology, phytochemistry and pharmacology of an important traditional Chinese medicine. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2011, 138, 1–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Li, M.; Wang, Y.; Jin, J.; Dou, J.; Guo, Q.; Ke, X.; Zhou, C.; Guo, M. Inhibitory activity of Honeysuckle extracts against influenza a virus in vitro and in vivo. Virol. Sin. 2021, 36, 490–500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Kang, M.; Jung, I.; Hur, J.; Kim, S.H.; Lee, J.H.; Kang, J.-Y.; Jung, K.C.; Kim, K.S.; Yoo, M.C.; Park, D.-S.; et al. The analgesic and anti-inflammatory effect of WIN-34B, a new herbal formula for osteoarthritis composed of Lonicera japonica Thunb and Anemarrhena asphodeloides BUNGE in vivo. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2010, 131, 485–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Nikzad-Langerodi, R.; Ortmann, S.; Pferschy-Wenzig, E.M.; Bochkov, V.; Zhao, Y.M.; Miao, J.H.; Saukel, J.; Ladurner, A.; Heiss, E.H.; Dirsch, V.M.; et al. Assessment of anti-inflammatory properties of extracts from Honeysuckle (Lonicera sp. L., Caprifoliaceae) by ATR-FTIR spectroscopy. Talanta 2017, 175, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shan, J.; Fu, J.; Zhao, Z.; Kong, X.; Huang, H.; Luo, L.; Yin, Z. Chlorogenic acid inhibits lipopolysaccharide-induced cyclooxygenase-2 expression in RAW264.7 cells through suppressing NF-ΚB and JNK/AP-1 activation. Int. Immunopharmacol. 2009, 9, 1042–1048. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  23. Yuan, Y.; Wang, Z.; Jiang, C.; Wang, X.; Huang, L. Exploiting genes and functional diversity of chlorogenic acid and luteolin biosyntheses in Lonicera japonica and their Substitutes. Gene 2014, 534, 408–416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Zhou, X.; He, G.; Ma, J.; Tang, M.; Tian, G.; Gong, X.; Zhang, H.; Kui, L. Protective effect of a novel polysaccharide from Lonicera japonica on cardiomyocytes of mice injured by hydrogen peroxide. BioMed. Res. Int. 2020, 2020, 5279193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Luken, J.O.; Thieret, J.W. Amur honeysuckle, its fall from grace. BioScience 1996, 46, 18–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. USDA, NRCS. The Plants Database; National Plant Data Team: Greensboro, NC, USA, 2022. Available online: http://plants.usda.gov (accessed on 21 November 2022).
  27. National Library of Medicine, National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI-NLM), Genome Assembly RIT_L_maackii_v1.0, GCA_023512865.1. Available online: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/data-hub/genome/GCA_023512865.1/ (accessed on 25 November 2022).
  28. Luken, J.O. Population structure and biomass allocation of the naturalized shrub Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Maxim. in forest and open habitats. Am. Midl. Nat. 1988, 119, 258–267. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Luken, J.O.; Goessling, N. Seedling distribution and potential persistence of the exotic shrub Lonicera maackii in fragmented forests. Am. Midl. Nat. 1995, 133, 124–130. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Hutchinson, T.F.; Vankat, J.L. Landscape structure and spread of the exotic shrub Lonicera maackii (Amur honeysuckle) in southwestern Ohio forests. Am. Midl. Nat. 1998, 139, 383–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Deering, R.H.; Vankat, J.L. Forest colonization and developmental growth of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii. Am. Midl. Nat. 1999, 141, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Gould, A.M.A.; Gorchov, D.L. Effects of the exotic invasive shrub Lonicera maackii on the survival and fecundity of three species of native annuals. Am. Midl. Nat. 2000, 144, 36–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Luken, J.O.; Mattimiro, D.T. Habitat-specific resilience of the invasive shrub Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) during repeated clipping. Ecol. Appl. 1991, 1, 104–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Luken, J.O.; Tholemeier, T.C.; Kunkel, B.A.; Kuddes, L.M. Branch architecture plasticity of Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder): Initial response in extreme light environments. Bull. Torrey Bot. Club 1995, 122, 190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Luken, J.O.; Kuddes, L.M.; Tholemeier, T.C.; Haller, D.M. Comparative responses of Lonicera maackii (Amur honeysuckle) and Lindera benzoin (Spicebush) to increased light. Am. Midl. Nat. 1997, 138, 331. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Lieurance, D.; Landsbergen, K. The influence of light habitat on the physiology, biomass allocation, and fecundity of the invasive shrub Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii, Caprifoliaceae). J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 2016, 143, 415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  37. Schuster, M.J.; Dukes, J.S. Rainfall variability counteracts N addition by promoting invasive Lonicera maackii and extending phenology in prairie. Ecol. Appl. 2017, 27, 1555–1563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Sun, Q.; Lai, L.; Zhou, J.; Liu, X.; Zheng, Y. Eco-physiological leaf traits of forty-seven woody species under long-term acclimation in a botanical garden. Plants 2022, 11, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Fang, X.; Wang, K.; Sun, X.; Wang, Y.; Zheng, P.; Shi, F. Characteristics of chlorophyll fluorescence in ten garden shrub species under flooding stress. Biologia 2022, 77, 339–350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. McEwan, R.W.; Birchfield, M.K.; Schoergendorfer, A.; Arthur, M.A. Leaf phenology and freeze tolerance of the invasive shrub Amur honeysuckle and potential native competitors. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 2009, 136, 212–220. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Smith, L.M. Extended leaf phenology in deciduous forest invaders: Mechanisms of impact on native communities. J. Veg. Sci. 2013, 24, 979–989. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Fridley, J.D.; Craddock, A. Contrasting growth phenology of native and invasive forest shrubs mediated by genome size. New Phytol. 2015, 207, 659–668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Bartuszevige, A.M.; Gorchov, D.L. Avian seed dispersal of an invasive shrub. Biol. Invasions 2006, 8, 1013–1022. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Castellano, S.M.; Gorchov, D.L. White-tailed deer (Odocoileus virginianus) disperse seeds of the invasive shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). Nat. Areas J. 2013, 33, 78–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Guiden, P.; Gorchov, D.L.; Nielsen, C.; Schauber, E. Seed dispersal of an invasive shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii), by white-tailed deer in a fragmented agricultural-forest matrix. Plant Ecol. 2015, 216, 939–950. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. McEwan, R.W.; Rieske, L.K.; Arthur, M.A. Potential interactions between invasive woody shrubs and the gypsy moth (Lymantria dispar), an invasive insect herbivore. Biol. Invasions 2008, 11, 1053–1058. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Cipollini, D.; Stevenson, R.; Enright, S.; Eyles, A.; Bonello, P. Phenolic metabolites in leaves of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, and their potential phytotoxic and anti-herbivore effects. J. Chem. Ecol. 2008, 34, 144–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Lieurance, D.; Cipollini, D. Damage levels from arthropod herbivores on Lonicera maackii suggest enemy release in its introduced range. Biol. Invasions 2011, 14, 863–873. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Lieurance, D.; Cipollini, D. Environmental influences on growth and defence responses of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, to simulated and real herbivory in the juvenile stage. Ann. Bot. 2013, 112, 741–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  50. Lieurance, D.; Cipollini, D. Exotic Lonicera species both escape and resist specialist and generalist herbivores in the introduced range in North America. Biol. Invasions 2013, 15, 1713–1724. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Dorning, M.; Cipollini, D. Leaf and root extracts of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, inhibit seed germination of three herbs with no autotoxic effects. Plant Ecol. 2005, 184, 287–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Cipollini, D.; Dorning, M. Direct and indirect effects of conditioned soils and tissue extracts of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, on target plant performance. Castanea 2008, 73, 166–176. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Cipollini, K.A.; McClain, G.Y.; Cipollini, D. Separating above- and belowground effects of Alliaria petiolata and Lonicera maackii on the performance of Impatiens capensis. Am. Midl. Nat. 2008, 160, 117–128. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Cipollini, D.; Stevenson, R.; Cipollini, K. Contrasting effects of allelochemicals from two invasive plants on the performance of a nonmycorrhizal plant. Int. J. Plant Sci. 2008, 169, 371–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  55. McEwan, R.W.; Arthur-Paratley, L.G.; Rieske, L.K.; Arthur, M.A. A Multi-assay comparison of seed germination inhibition by Lonicera maackii and co-occurring native shrubs. Flora Morphol. Distrib. Funct. Ecol. Plants 2010, 205, 475–483. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Cipollini, K.; Flint, W. Comparing allelopathic effects of root and leaf extracts of invasive Alliaria petiolata, Lonicera maackii and Ranunculus ficaria on germination of three native woodland plants. Ohio J. Sci. 2013, 112, 37–43. Available online: https://kb.osu.edu/bitstream/handle/1811/55690/OJS112N2_37.pdf?sequence=1 (accessed on 25 November 2022).
  57. Cipollini, K.; Greenawalt Bohrer, M. Comparison of allelopathic effects of five invasive species on two native species. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 2016, 143, 427–436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  58. Trisel, D.E. The invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder (Caprifoliaceae): Factors leading to its success and its effect on native species. Ph.D. Thesis, Miami University, Oxford, OH, USA, 1997. Available online: https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C26&q=Trisel+1997+PhD&btnG= (accessed on 1 December 2022).
  59. Gorchov, D.L.; Trisel, D.E. Competitive effects of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii (Rupr.) Herder (Caprifoliaceae), on the growth and survival of native tree seedlings. Plant Ecol. 2003, 166, 13–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Skulman, B.W.; Mattice, J.D.; Cain, M.D.; Gbur, E.E. Evidence for allelopathic interference of Japanese honeysuckle (Lonicera japonica) to Loblolly and shortleaf pine regeneration. Weed Sci. 2004, 52, 433–439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Miller, K.E.; Gorchov, D.L. The invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, reduces growth and fecundity of perennial forest herbs. Oecologia 2004, 139, 359–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bauer, J.T.; Shannon, S.M.; Stoops, R.E.; Reynolds, H.L. Context dependency of the allelopathic effects of Lonicera maackii on seed germination. Plant Ecol. 2012, 213, 1907–1916. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Medina-Villar, S.; Uscola, M.; Pérez-Corona, M.E.; Jacobs, D.F. Environmental stress under climate change reduces plant performance, yet increases allelopathic potential of an invasive shrub. Biol. Invasions 2020, 22, 2859–2881. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Meiners, S.J. Apparent Competition: An impact of exotic shrub invasion on tree Regeneration. Biol. Invasions 2007, 9, 849–855. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Hartman, K.M.; McCarthy, B.C. Changes in forest structure and species composition following invasion by a non-indigenous shrub, Amur honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii). J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 2008, 135, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Rodewald, A.D.; Shustack, D.P.; Hitchcock, L.E. Exotic shrubs as ephemeral ecological traps for nesting birds. Biol. Invasions 2009, 12, 33–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Boyce, R.L.; Durtsche, R.D.; Fugal, S.L. Impact of the invasive shrub Lonicera maackii on stand transpiration and ecosystem hydrology in a wetland forest. Biol. Invasions 2011, 14, 671–680. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Arthur, M.A.; Bray, S.R.; Kuchle, C.R.; McEwan, R.W. The influence of the invasive shrub, Lonicera maackii, on leaf decomposition and microbial community dynamics. Plant Ecol. 2012, 213, 1571–1582. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. McNeish, R.E.; Benbow, M.E.; McEwan, R.W. Riparian invasion of Lonicera maackii influences throughfall chemistry and rainwater availability. Ecol. Res. 2018, 33, 1021–1030. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Robison, A.L.; Berta, J.L.; Mott, C.L.; Regester, K.J. Impacts of invasive Amur honeysuckle, Lonicera maackii, leaf litter on multiple trophic levels of detritus-based experimental wetlands. Freshw. Biol. 2021, 66, 1464–1474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Debeaujon, I.; Koornneef, M. Gibberellin requirement for Arabidopsis seed germination is determined both by testa characteristics and embryonic abscisic acid. Plant Physiol. 2000, 122, 415–424. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  72. Ogawa, M.; Hanada, A.; Yamauchi, Y.; Kuwahara, A.; Kamiya, Y.; Yamaguchi, S. Gibberellin biosynthesis and response during Arabidopsis seed germination. Plant Cell 2003, 15, 1591–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  73. Yamauchi, Y.; Ogawa, M.; Kuwahara, A.; Hanada, A.; Kamiya, Y.; Yamaguchi, S. Activation of gibberellin biosynthesis and response pathways by low temperature during imbibition of Arabidopsis thaliana seeds. Plant Cell 2004, 16, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  74. Kucera, B.; Cohn, M.A.; Leubner-Metzger, G. Plant hormone interactions during seed dormancy release and germination. Seed Sci. Res. 2005, 15, 281–307. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Finch-Savage, W.E.; Leubner-Metzger, G. Seed dormancy and the control of germination. New Phytol. 2006, 171, 501–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Seo, M.; Nambara, E.; Choi, G.; Yamaguchi, S. Interaction of light and hormone signals in germinating seeds. Plant Mol. Biol. 2008, 69, 463–472. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Finkelstein, R.; Reeves, W.; Ariizumi, T.; Steber, C. Molecular aspects of seed dormancy. Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2008, 59, 387–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  78. Yan, D.; Duermeyer, L.; Leoveanu, C.; Nambara, E. The functions of the endosperm during seed germination. Plant Cell Physiol. 2014, 55, 1521–1533. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Reed, R.C.; Bradford, K.J.; Khanday, I. Seed germination and vigor: Ensuring crop sustainability in a changing climate. Heredity 2022, 128, 450–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Williams, P.H.; Hill, C.B. Rapid-cycling populations of Brassica. Science 1986, 232, 1385–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  81. Kelly, M.G.; Terrana, S.A. Method to teach age-specific demography with field grown rapid cycling Brassica rapa (Wisconsin Fast Plants). J. Nat. Resour. Life Sci. Educ. 2004, 33, 40–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Kelly, M.G. Characterizing genotype specific differences in survival, growth, and reproduction for field grown, rapid cycling Brassica rapa. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2006, 55, 61–69. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  83. Callaway, R.M.; Aschehoug, E.T. Invasive plants versus their new and old neighbors: A mechanism for exotic invasion. Science 2000, 290, 521–523. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. Fitter, A. Ecology: Making allelopathy respectable. Science 2003, 301, 1337–1338. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Duke, S.O. Ecophysiological aspects of allelopathy. Planta 2003, 217, 529–539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Bais, H.P. Allelopathy and exotic plant invasion: From molecules and genes to species interactions. Science 2003, 301, 1377–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Weir, T.L.; Park, S.-W.; Vivanco, J.M. Biochemical and physiological mechanisms mediated by allelochemicals. Curr. Opin. Plant Biol. 2004, 7, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  88. Vestergård, M.; Rønn, R.; Ekelund, F. Above–belowground interactions govern the course and impact of biological invasions. AoB Plants 2015, 7, plv025. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  89. Cheng, F.; Cheng, Z. Research progress on the use of plant allelopathy in agriculture and the physiological and ecological mechanisms of allelopathy. Front. Plant Sci. 2015, 6, 1020. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  90. Kong, C.-H.; Xuan, T.D.; Khanh, T.D.; Tran, H.-D.; Trung, N.T. Allelochemicals and signaling chemicals in plants. Molecules 2019, 24, 2737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  91. Šoln, K.; Klemenčič, M.; Koce, J.D. Plant cell responses to allelopathy: From oxidative stress to programmed cell death. Protoplasma 2022, 259, 1111–1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  92. Aci, M.M.; Sidari, R.; Araniti, F.; Lupini, A. Emerging trends in allelopathy: A genetic perspective for sustainable agriculture. Agronomy 2022, 12, 2043. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Yang, Y.; Olatunde, O.; Yang, L.; Olatunde, Y.; Lu, Y. Progress of chemical components and biological activities of Lonicera maackii. Mathews J. Cancer Sci. 2018, 3, 016. Available online: https://www.mathewsopenaccess.com/full-text/progress-of-chemical-components-and-biological-activities-of-lonicera-maackii (accessed on 25 November 2022).
  94. Cipollini, K.; Titus, K.Y.; Wagner, C. Allelopathic effects of invasive species (Alliaria petiolata, Lonicera maackii, Ranunculus ficaria) in the Midwestern United States. Allelopath. J. 2012, 29, 63–76. [Google Scholar]
  95. Kobayashi, K. Factors affecting phytotoxic activity of allelochemicals in soil. Weed Biol. Manag. 2004, 4, 1–7. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Cipollini, D.; Rigsby, C.M.; Barto, E.K. Microbes as targets and mediators of allelopathy in plants. J. Chem. Ecol. 2012, 38, 714–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  97. Shannon-Firestone, S.; Firestone, J. Allelopathic potential of invasive species is determined by plant and soil community context. Plant Ecol. 2015, 216, 491–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  98. Ali, J.; Lieurance, D.; Cipollini, D. Soil biota affect mycorrhizal infection and growth of Impatiens capensis and alter the effects of Lonicera maackii rhizosphere extracts. J. Torrey Bot. Soc. 2015, 142, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Blum, U. Effects of microbial utilization of phenolic acids and their phenolic acid breakdown products on allelopathic interactions. J. Chem. Ecol. 1998, 24, 685–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Blum, U.; Shafer, S.R.; Lehman, M.E. Evidence for inhibitory allelopathic interactions involving phenolic acids in field soils: Concepts vs. an experimental model. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 1999, 18, 673–693. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Ohno, T. Oxidation of phenolic acid derivatives by soil and its relevance to allelopathic activity. J. Environ. Qual. 2001, 30, 1631–1635. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  102. Chaves, N.; Sosa, T.; Escudero, J.C. Plant growth inhibiting flavonoids in the exudate of Cistus ladanifer and in associated soils. J. Chem. Ecol. 2001, 27, 623–631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  103. Elmore, C.D. Inhibition of Turnip (Brassica rapa) seed germination by velvetleaf (Abutilon theophrasti) seed. Weed Sci. 1980, 28, 658–660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Singh, H.P.; Batish, D.R.; Pandher, J.K.; Kohli, R.K. Phytotoxic effects of Parthenium hysterophorus residues on three Brassica species. Weed Biol. Manag. 2005, 5, 105–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Xuan, T.D.; Elzaawely, A.A.; Deba, F.; Tawata, S. Mimosine in Leucaena as a potent bio-herbicide. Agron. Sustain. Dev. 2006, 26, 89–97. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  106. Swapnal, S.; Siddiqui, M.B. Allelopathic effect by aqueous extracts of different parts of Croton bonplandianum Baill. on some crop and weed plants. J. Agric. Ext. Rural Dev. 2010, 2, 022–028. [Google Scholar]
  107. Huang, W.; Hu, T.; Zhang, N.; Xiao, Y.; He, Y.; Li, Z.; Ding, W. Effects of leaf litter of Cinnamomum septentrionale on growth and resistance physiology of Brassica rapa in the decomposition process of litter. Acta Ecol. Sin. 2012, 32, 3883–3891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  108. Cui, C.; Cai, J.; Zhang, S. Allelopathic effects of walnut (Juglans regia L.) rhizospheric soil extracts on germination and seedling growth of turnip (Brassica rapa L.). Allelopath. J. 2013, 32, 37–47. [Google Scholar]
  109. Barnum, K.; Franks, S.J. Seed extracts impede germination in Brassica rapa plants. Int. J. Plant Biol. 2013, 4, e2. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Chaves, N.; Escudero, J.C.; Gutiérrez-Merino, C. Seasonal variation of exudate of Cistus ladanifer. J. Chem. Ecol. 1993, 19, 2577–2591. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Witzell, J.; Gref, R.; Näsholm, T. Plant-part specific and temporal variation in phenolic compounds of boreal bilberry (Vaccinium myrtillus) plants. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2003, 31, 115–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  112. Elger, A.; Lemoine, D.G.; Fenner, M.; Hanley, M.E. Plant ontogeny and chemical defence: Older seedlings are better defended. Oikos 2009, 118, 767–773. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  113. Kong, D.; Li, Y.; Bai, M.; He, H.; Liang, G.; Wu, H. Correlation between the dynamic accumulation of the main effective components and their associated regulatory enzyme activities at different growth stages in Lonicera japonica Thunb. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 96, 16–22. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Li, Y.; Kong, D.; Bai, M.; He, H.; Wang, H.; Wu, H. Correlation of the temporal and spatial expression patterns of HQT with the biosynthesis and accumulation of chlorogenic acid in Lonicera japonica flowers. Hortic. Res. 2019, 6, 73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  115. Loreto, F.; Dicke, M.; Schnitzler, J.-P.; Turlings, T.C.J. Plant volatiles and the environment. Plant Cell Environ. 2014, 37, 1905–1908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Verma, N.; Shukla, S. Impact of various factors responsible for fluctuation in plant secondary metabolites. J. Appl. Res. Med. Aromat. Plants 2015, 2, 105–113. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  117. Blanchard, M.; Bowers, M.D. Critical phenological events affect chemical defense of plant tissues: Iridoid glycosides in a woody shrub. J. Chem. Ecol. 2020, 46, 206–216. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  118. Li, Y.; Kong, D.; Fu, Y.; Sussman, M.R.; Wu, H. The Effect of developmental and environmental factors on secondary metabolites in medicinal plants. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2020, 148, 80–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  119. Ponder, A.; Najman, K.; Aninowski, M.; Leszczyńska, J.; Głowacka, A.; Bielarska, A.M.; Lasinskas, M.; Hallmann, E. Polyphenols content, antioxidant properties and allergenic potency of organic and conventional blue honeysuckle berries. Molecules 2022, 27, 6083. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  120. Prinsloo, G.; Nogemane, N. The Effects of season and water availability on chemical composition, secondary metabolites and biological activity in plants. Phytochem. Rev. 2018, 17, 889–902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Liebelt, D.J.; Jordan, J.T.; Doherty, C.J. Only a matter of time: The impact of daily and seasonal rhythms on phytochemicals. Phytochem. Rev. 2019, 18, 1409–1433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  122. Holopainen, J.K.; Virjamo, V.; Ghimire, R.P.; Blande, J.D.; Julkunen-Tiitto, R.; Kivimäenpää, M. Climate Change effects on secondary compounds of forest trees in the Northern hemisphere. Front. Plant Sci. 2018, 9, 1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  123. Beran, F.; Köllner, T.G.; Gershenzon, J.; Tholl, D. Chemical convergence between plants and insects: Biosynthetic origins and functions of common secondary metabolites. New Phytol. 2019, 223, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  124. Erb, M.; Kliebenstein, D.J. Plant secondary metabolites as defenses, regulators, and primary metabolites: The blurred functional trichotomy. Plant Physiol. 2020, 184, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Landi, M.; Zivcak, M.; Sytar, O.; Brestic, M.; Allakhverdiev, S.I. Plasticity of photosynthetic processes and the accumulation of secondary metabolites in plants in response to monochromatic light environments: A review. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Bioenerg. 2020, 1861, 148131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  126. Monson, R.K.; Trowbridge, A.M.; Lindroth, R.L.; Lerdau, M.T. Coordinated resource allocation to plant growth–defense tradeoffs. New Phytol. 2021, 233, 1051–1066. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  127. Kant, M.R.; Schuurink, R.C. Life stage-dependent genetic traits as drivers of plant–herbivore interactions. Curr. Opin. Biotechnol. 2021, 70, 234–240. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  128. Hierro, J.L.; Callaway, R.M. Allelopathy and exotic plant invasion. Plant Soil 2003, 256, 29–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Flamini, G.; Braca, A.; Cioni, P.J.; Morelli, I. Three new flavonoids and other constituents from Lonicera implexa. J. Nat. Prod. 1997, 60, 449–452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Reigosa, M.J.; Sánchez-Moreiras, A.; González, L. Eco-physiological approach in allelopathy. Crit. Rev. Plant Sci. 1999, 18, 577–608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Patterson, D.T. Effects of allelopathic chemicals on growth and physiological responses of soybean (Glycine max). Weed Sci. 1981, 29, 53–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Li, Z.-H.; Wang, Q.; Ruan, X.; Pan, C.-D.; Jiang, D.-A. Phenolics and plant allelopathy. Molecules 2010, 15, 8933–8952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  133. John, J.; Sarada, S. Role of phenolics in allelopathic interactions. Allelopath. J. 2012, 29, 215–230. [Google Scholar]
  134. Mitrović, M.; Jarić, S.; Djurdjević, L.; Karadžić, B.; Gajić, G.; Kostić, O.; Oberan, L.J.; Pavlović, D.; Pavlović, M.; Pavlović, P. Allelopathic and environmental implications of plant phenolic compounds. Allelopath. J. 2012, 29, 177–197. [Google Scholar]
  135. Lupini, A.; Sorgonà, A.; Princi, M.P.; Sunseri, F.; Abenavoli, M.R. Morphological and physiological effects of trans-cinnamic acid and its hydroxylated derivatives on maize root types. Plant Growth Regul. 2015, 78, 263–273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  136. Macías, F.A.; Mejías, F.J.; Molinillo, J.M. Recent advances in allelopathy for weed control: From knowledge to applications. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 2413–2436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  137. Chen, L.; Li, J.; Zhu, Y.; Guo, L.; Ji, R.; Miao, Y.; Guo, L.; Du, H.; Liu, D. Caffeic acid, an allelochemical in Artemisia argyi, inhibits weed growth via suppression of mitogen-activated protein kinase signaling pathway and the biosynthesis of gibberellin and phytoalexin. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 12, 802198. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  138. Lieurance, D.; Chakraborty, S.; Whitehead, S.R.; Powell, J.R.; Bonello, P.; Bowers, M.D.; Cipollini, D. Comparative herbivory rates and secondary metabolite profiles in the leaves of native and non-native Lonicera species. J. Chem. Ecol. 2015, 41, 1069–1079. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  139. Weir, T.L.; Bais, H.P.; Stull, V.J.; Callaway, R.M.; Thelen, G.C.; Ridenour, W.M.; Bhamidi, S.; Stermitz, F.R.; Vivanco, J.M. Oxalate contributes to the resistance of Gaillardia grandiflora and Lupinus sericeus to a phytotoxin produced by Centaurea maculosa. Planta 2006, 223, 785–795. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. Orr, S.P.; Rudgers, J.A.; Clay, K. Invasive plants can inhibit native tree seedlings: Testing potential allelopathic mechanisms. Plant Ecol. 2005, 181, 153–165. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  141. Wu, A.-P.; Li, Z.-L.; He, F.-F.; Wang, Y.-H.; Dong, M. Screening allelochemical-resistant species of the alien invasive Mikania micrantha for restoration in South China. PLoS ONE 2015, 10, e0132967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  142. Perry, L.G.; Johnson, C.; Alford, E.R.; Vivanco, J.M.; Paschke, M.W. Screening of grassland plants for restoration after spotted knapweed invasion. Restor. Ecol. 2005, 13, 725–735. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  143. Cheng, F.; Cheng, Z.-H.; Meng, H.-W. Transcriptomic insights into the allelopathic effects of the garlic allelochemical diallyl disulfide on tomato roots. Sci. Rep. 2016, 6, 38902. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  144. Rood, S.B.; Pearce, D.; Williams, P.H.; Pharis, R.P. A gibberellin-deficient Brassica mutant-rosette. Plant Physiol. 1989, 89, 482–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  145. Iwashina, T. Flavonoid function and activity to plants and other organisms. Biol. Sci. Space 2003, 17, 24–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  146. El Mihyaoui, A.; Esteves da Silva, J.C.G.; Charfi, S.; Candela Castillo, M.E.; Lamarti, A.; Arnao, M.B. Chamomile (Matricaria chamomilla L.): A review of ethnomedicinal use, phytochemistry and pharmacological Uses. Life 2022, 12, 479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Shakeel, F.; Alshehri, S.; Ibrahim, M.A.; Elzayat, E.M.; Altamimi, M.A.; Mohsin, K.; Alanazi, F.K.; Alsarra, I.A. Solubility and Thermodynamic Parameters of Apigenin in Different Neat Solvents at Different Temperatures. J. Mol. Liq. 2017, 234, 73–80. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 5280443, Apigenin. Available online: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Apigenin (accessed on 13 January 2023).
  149. Shakeel, F.; Haq, N.; Alshehri, S.; Ibrahim, M.A.; Elzayat, E.M.; Altamimi, M.A.; Mohsin, K.; Alanazi, F.K.; Alsarra, I.A. Solubility, Thermodynamic Properties and Solute-Solvent Molecular Interactions of Luteolin in Various Pure Solvents. J. Mol. Liq. 2018, 255, 43–50. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. National Center for Biotechnology Information (NCBI). PubChem Compound Summary for CID 5280445, Luteolin. Available online: https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/Luteolin (accessed on 13 January 2023).
  151. Bi, B.; Tang, J.; Han, S.; Guo, J.; Miao, Y. Sinapic acid or its derivatives interfere with abscisic acid homeostasis during Arabidopsis thaliana seed germination. BMC Plant Biol. 2017, 17, 99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  152. Azim, U.M. Allelopathy in forested ecosystems. In Allelopathy in Sustainable Agriculture and Forestry; Zeng, R.S., Mallik, A.U., Luo, S.M., Eds.; Springer: New York, NY, USA, 2008; pp. 363–377. [Google Scholar]
  153. Scavo, A.; Mauromicale, G. Crop allelopathy for sustainable weed management in agroecosystems: Knowing the present with a view to the future. Agronomy 2021, 11, 2104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  154. Hussain, M.I.; Abideen, Z.; Danish, S.; Asghar, M.A.; Iqbal, K. Integrated weed management for sustainable agriculture. Sustain. Agric. Rev. 2021, 52, 367–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Macías, F.A.; Marín, D.; Oliveros-Bastidas, A.; Varela, R.M.; Simonet, A.M.; Carrera, C.; Molinillo, J.M. Allelopathy as a new strategy for sustainable ecosystems development. Biol. Sci. Space 2003, 17, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  156. Bhadoria, P.B.S. Allelopathy: A natural way towards weed management. Am. J. Exp. Agric. 2011, 1, 7–20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. The impact of Lonicera maackii leaf extracts on Brassica rapa seed germination. Standard, Rbr seeds were treated with L. maackii aqueous leaf extracts for 24 h. The extract concentrations ranged from 0 to 2 g (leaf tissue) mL−1. Bars represent mean values ± SD (n = 60, N = 3). Significantly different means, compared to untreated controls, according to Student’s t-test, are marked with ** p = 0.01–0.001 and *** p < 0.001.
Figure 1. The impact of Lonicera maackii leaf extracts on Brassica rapa seed germination. Standard, Rbr seeds were treated with L. maackii aqueous leaf extracts for 24 h. The extract concentrations ranged from 0 to 2 g (leaf tissue) mL−1. Bars represent mean values ± SD (n = 60, N = 3). Significantly different means, compared to untreated controls, according to Student’s t-test, are marked with ** p = 0.01–0.001 and *** p < 0.001.
Plants 12 01014 g001
Figure 2. Seasonal variations in the impact of Lonicera maackii leaf extracts on Brassica rapa seed germination. Rbr Standard B. rapa seeds were treated for 24 h with 1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 L. maackii extracts prepared from leaves regularly harvested between March and November 2021. Germination rates were compared to Rbr germination under control conditions when treated with sterile water. Control germination was 100% after 24 h. Diamonds represent mean values ± SD (n = 60, N = 3). Significantly different means, with differences compared to controls, according to Student’s t-test, are marked with * p = 0.05–0.01, ** p = 0.01–0.001, and *** p < 0.001; n.s. = not significant.
Figure 2. Seasonal variations in the impact of Lonicera maackii leaf extracts on Brassica rapa seed germination. Rbr Standard B. rapa seeds were treated for 24 h with 1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 L. maackii extracts prepared from leaves regularly harvested between March and November 2021. Germination rates were compared to Rbr germination under control conditions when treated with sterile water. Control germination was 100% after 24 h. Diamonds represent mean values ± SD (n = 60, N = 3). Significantly different means, with differences compared to controls, according to Student’s t-test, are marked with * p = 0.05–0.01, ** p = 0.01–0.001, and *** p < 0.001; n.s. = not significant.
Plants 12 01014 g002
Figure 3. The impact of endo- and exogenous gibberellin on Brassica rapa seed germination exposed to Lonicera maackii leaf extracts. Standard (Rbr), gibberellin-overproducing (ein), and gibberellin-deficient (ros) B. rapa seeds were treated with 1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 L. maackii extracts without (panel A) or in the presence of supplemental exogenous GA3 of 100 µmol (panel B) for 72 h. Corresponding control treatments included Rbr, ein, and ros seeds imbibed with sterile distilled water (panel A) or sterile distilled water supplemented with 100 µmol GA3 (panel B). Bars represent means ± SD (n = 60, N = 3). Significantly different means, compared to control treatments for each variety in each group, according to Student’s t-test, are marked with * p = 0.05–0.01, ** p = 0.01–0.001, and *** p < 0.001; n.s. = not significant. Two-way ANOVA was used to test for differences in the germination of the used varieties treated with L. maackii extracts without (panel A) or in the presence (panel B) of exogenous GA3 over time. p-values for variety responses and their compared changes over time are shown as table insets on (panel A) (for treatments in the absence of exogenous GA3) and (panel B) (for treatments in the presence of exogenous GA3).
Figure 3. The impact of endo- and exogenous gibberellin on Brassica rapa seed germination exposed to Lonicera maackii leaf extracts. Standard (Rbr), gibberellin-overproducing (ein), and gibberellin-deficient (ros) B. rapa seeds were treated with 1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 L. maackii extracts without (panel A) or in the presence of supplemental exogenous GA3 of 100 µmol (panel B) for 72 h. Corresponding control treatments included Rbr, ein, and ros seeds imbibed with sterile distilled water (panel A) or sterile distilled water supplemented with 100 µmol GA3 (panel B). Bars represent means ± SD (n = 60, N = 3). Significantly different means, compared to control treatments for each variety in each group, according to Student’s t-test, are marked with * p = 0.05–0.01, ** p = 0.01–0.001, and *** p < 0.001; n.s. = not significant. Two-way ANOVA was used to test for differences in the germination of the used varieties treated with L. maackii extracts without (panel A) or in the presence (panel B) of exogenous GA3 over time. p-values for variety responses and their compared changes over time are shown as table insets on (panel A) (for treatments in the absence of exogenous GA3) and (panel B) (for treatments in the presence of exogenous GA3).
Plants 12 01014 g003
Figure 4. Representative Petri dish seed assay plates showing the impact of endo- and exogenous gibberellin on Brassica rapa seed germination exposed to Lonicera maackii leaf extracts. Standard (Rbr), gibberellin-overproducing (ein), and gibberellin-deficient (ros) B. rapa seeds were treated with 1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 L. maackii extract without (panel A) or in the presence of 100 µmol exogenous GA3 (panel B) for 72 h. Corresponding control treatments included Rbr, ein, and ros seeds imbibed with sterile distilled water (panel A) or sterile distilled water supplemented with 100 µmol GA3 (panel B).
Figure 4. Representative Petri dish seed assay plates showing the impact of endo- and exogenous gibberellin on Brassica rapa seed germination exposed to Lonicera maackii leaf extracts. Standard (Rbr), gibberellin-overproducing (ein), and gibberellin-deficient (ros) B. rapa seeds were treated with 1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 L. maackii extract without (panel A) or in the presence of 100 µmol exogenous GA3 (panel B) for 72 h. Corresponding control treatments included Rbr, ein, and ros seeds imbibed with sterile distilled water (panel A) or sterile distilled water supplemented with 100 µmol GA3 (panel B).
Plants 12 01014 g004
Figure 5. The impact of endo- and exogenous gibberellin on Lonicera maackii leaf extract-treated Rbr, ein, and ros Brassica rapa seedling growth. Standard (Rbr), gibberellin-overproducing (ein), and gibberellin-deficient (ros) B. rapa seeds were treated with 1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 L. maackii extract without (orange bars) or in the presence of 100 µmol exogenous GA3 (yellow bars) for 72 h. Corresponding control treatments included Rbr, ein, and ros seeds imbibed with sterile distilled water (blue bars) or sterile distilled water supplemented with 100 µmol GA3 (grey bars). Bars represent means ± SD (n = 60, N = 3). Significantly different means, compared to control treatments for each variety in each group, according to Student’s t-test, are marked with *** p < 0.001. Two-way ANOVA was used to test for differences in the growth of control and treated B. rapa varieties in the function of endo- and exogenous GA3 treated with L. maackii extracts. p-values for variety, treatment, and variety x treatment responses are shown in the table inset.
Figure 5. The impact of endo- and exogenous gibberellin on Lonicera maackii leaf extract-treated Rbr, ein, and ros Brassica rapa seedling growth. Standard (Rbr), gibberellin-overproducing (ein), and gibberellin-deficient (ros) B. rapa seeds were treated with 1 g (leaf tissue) mL−1 L. maackii extract without (orange bars) or in the presence of 100 µmol exogenous GA3 (yellow bars) for 72 h. Corresponding control treatments included Rbr, ein, and ros seeds imbibed with sterile distilled water (blue bars) or sterile distilled water supplemented with 100 µmol GA3 (grey bars). Bars represent means ± SD (n = 60, N = 3). Significantly different means, compared to control treatments for each variety in each group, according to Student’s t-test, are marked with *** p < 0.001. Two-way ANOVA was used to test for differences in the growth of control and treated B. rapa varieties in the function of endo- and exogenous GA3 treated with L. maackii extracts. p-values for variety, treatment, and variety x treatment responses are shown in the table inset.
Plants 12 01014 g005
Figure 6. The impact of API, LUT, and their combination on the germination (panel A) and seedling growth (panel B) of Rbr (Standard) Brassica rapa seeds and seedlings. Seeds were treated with 50 µg mL−1 solutions of API (orange triangles), LUT (grey squares), and the combination of API + LUT (yellow circles) in 0.05% DMSO for 48 h in Petri-dish assays. Control seeds were treated with an aqueous solution of 0.05% DMSO. Markers represent mean values ± SD (n = 60, N = 3). Significantly different means, with differences compared to controls, according to Student’s t-test, are marked with ** p = 0.01–0.001 and *** p < 0.001. n.s. = not significant.
Figure 6. The impact of API, LUT, and their combination on the germination (panel A) and seedling growth (panel B) of Rbr (Standard) Brassica rapa seeds and seedlings. Seeds were treated with 50 µg mL−1 solutions of API (orange triangles), LUT (grey squares), and the combination of API + LUT (yellow circles) in 0.05% DMSO for 48 h in Petri-dish assays. Control seeds were treated with an aqueous solution of 0.05% DMSO. Markers represent mean values ± SD (n = 60, N = 3). Significantly different means, with differences compared to controls, according to Student’s t-test, are marked with ** p = 0.01–0.001 and *** p < 0.001. n.s. = not significant.
Plants 12 01014 g006
Figure 7. The impact of API, LUT, and their combination on Rbr (Standard) Brassica rapa seedling development. The figure shows representative example photographs of seedlings developed from seeds treated with 50 µg mL−1 solution of API (B), LUT (C), and the combination of API + LUT (D) in 0.05% DMSO for 48 h. Control seeds (A) were treated with an aqueous solution of 0.05% DMSO.
Figure 7. The impact of API, LUT, and their combination on Rbr (Standard) Brassica rapa seedling development. The figure shows representative example photographs of seedlings developed from seeds treated with 50 µg mL−1 solution of API (B), LUT (C), and the combination of API + LUT (D) in 0.05% DMSO for 48 h. Control seeds (A) were treated with an aqueous solution of 0.05% DMSO.
Plants 12 01014 g007
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

Barta, C.É.; Jenkins, B.C.; Lindstrom, D.S.; Zahnd, A.K.; Székely, G. The First Evidence of Gibberellic Acid’s Ability to Modulate Target Species’ Sensitivity to Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) Allelochemicals. Plants 2023, 12, 1014. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12051014

AMA Style

Barta CÉ, Jenkins BC, Lindstrom DS, Zahnd AK, Székely G. The First Evidence of Gibberellic Acid’s Ability to Modulate Target Species’ Sensitivity to Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) Allelochemicals. Plants. 2023; 12(5):1014. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12051014

Chicago/Turabian Style

Barta, Csengele Éva, Brian Colby Jenkins, Devon Shay Lindstrom, Alyka Kay Zahnd, and Gyöngyi Székely. 2023. "The First Evidence of Gibberellic Acid’s Ability to Modulate Target Species’ Sensitivity to Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) Allelochemicals" Plants 12, no. 5: 1014. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12051014

APA Style

Barta, C. É., Jenkins, B. C., Lindstrom, D. S., Zahnd, A. K., & Székely, G. (2023). The First Evidence of Gibberellic Acid’s Ability to Modulate Target Species’ Sensitivity to Honeysuckle (Lonicera maackii) Allelochemicals. Plants, 12(5), 1014. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants12051014

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