Next Article in Journal
Parental Reconstruction from a Half-Sib Population of Stoneless Jujube Ziziphus jujuba Mill. Based on Individual Specific SNP Markers Using Multiplex PCR
Previous Article in Journal
The Effect of Vegetation Ecological Restoration by Integrating Multispectral Remote Sensing and Laser Point Cloud Monitoring Technology
Previous Article in Special Issue
Factors Influencing the Variation of Plants’ Cardinal Temperature: A Case Study in Iran
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Review

Understanding the Influence of Secondary Metabolites in Plant Invasion Strategies: A Comprehensive Review

by
Rasheed Akbar
1,2,
Jianfan Sun
1,3,*,
Yanwen Bo
1,
Wajid Ali Khattak
4,
Amir Abdullah Khan
1,
Cheng Jin
1,
Umar Zeb
5,
Najeeb Ullah
6,
Adeel Abbas
1,
Wei Liu
7,
Xiaoyan Wang
7,
Shah Masaud Khan
8 and
Daolin Du
1,9
1
Institute of Environment and Ecology, School of Environment and Safety Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China
2
Department of Entomology, Faculty of Physical and Applied Sciences, The University of Haripur, Haripur 22062, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
3
Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Technology and Material of Water Treatment, Suzhou University of Science and Technology, Suzhou 215009, China
4
College of Life Sciences and Oceanography, Shenzhen University, Shenzhen 518060, China
5
School of Food and Biological Engineering, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China
6
Department of Chemical and Biomolecular Engineering, University of Tennessee, Knoxville, TN 37996, USA
7
College of Optical, Mechanical and Electrical Engineering, Zhejiang A&F University, Hangzhou 311300, China
8
Department of Horticulture, Faculty of Physical and Applied Sciences, The University of Haripur, Haripur 22062, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, Pakistan
9
Jingjiang College, Jiangsu University, Zhenjiang 212013, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2024, 13(22), 3162; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13223162
Submission received: 20 September 2024 / Revised: 6 November 2024 / Accepted: 6 November 2024 / Published: 11 November 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Ecology and Management of Invasive Plants—2nd Edition)

Abstract

:
The invasion of non-native plant species presents a significant ecological challenge worldwide, impacting native ecosystems and biodiversity. These invasive plant species significantly affect the native ecosystem. The threat of invasive plant species having harmful effects on the natural ecosystem is a serious concern. Invasive plant species produce secondary metabolites, which not only help in growth and development but are also essential for the spread of these plant species. This review highlights the important functions of secondary metabolites in plant invasion, particularly their effect on allelopathy, defense system, interaction with micro soil biota, and competitive advantages. Secondary metabolites produced by invasive plant species play an important role by affecting allelopathic interactions and herbivory. They sometimes change the soil chemistry to make a viable condition for their proliferation. The secondary metabolites of invasive plant species inhibit the growth of native plant species by changing the resources available to them. Therefore, it is necessary to understand this complicated interaction between secondary metabolites and plant invasion. This review mainly summarizes all the known secondary metabolites of non-native plant species, emphasizing their significance for integrated weed management and research.

1. Introduction

In recent years, along with the development of traffic networks, the increase of human activity and the strengthening of international trade, the interaction among biological species from diverse habitats has significantly increased. Some of these species have shown a high ability to adapt to their new environments, allowing them to flourish and spread quickly. This trend has adversely affected the local economy, ecology, and society [1]. Plant species have been unintentionally or purposefully brought to other continents for ornamental purposes. Due to climate change, species distributions have shifted over the last few decades [2]. Biological invasions are caused by species reorganization and climate change, which allow exotic species to grow progressively in native ecosystems [3]. Plant invasion is a primary threat to natural ecosystems and causes global issues [4]. As plants invade new areas, the introduction of invasive species may have a significant negative impact on local plant species. Decreasing the richness or diversity of native plants potentially leads to limited diversity in numerous portions of the invaded range [5]. In fact, similar ecological effects have been seen in invaded communities by invasive species, including Centaurea maculosa, Solidago canadensis, Mikania micrantha, Alternanthera philoxeroides, Eupatorium odoratum, and Fallopia japonica [6]. However, the specific mechanisms that lead to this dominance remain elusive and require further investigation for clarification [7].

1.1. Invasion Mechanism

Several theories exist on the potential for exotic plants to become invasive [8]. Plant invasions are major mechanisms described in the literature, such as:

1.1.1. The Enemy Release Hypothesis

The enemy release hypothesis is known as the predator escape or ecological release. The herbivore escape hypothesis refers to the absence of competitors, predators and pathogens in the introduced range as the main advantage for an introduced species [9]. The absence of predators allows the plant to allocate energy and resources towards competitive traits [10]. The enemy escape hypothesis suggests that: (a) natural enemies play a crucial role in shaping and controlling plant populations; (b) native plant species are generally more susceptible to biocontrol agents than non-native species; and (c) the reduced presence or absence of natural enemies contributes to the accelerated growth and proliferation of exotic species [11]. Based on these assumptions, the main method for controlling exotics was the introduction of biocontrol agents, which has not always been successful [12].

1.1.2. The Novel Weapons Hypothesis

The novel weapons hypothesis suggests that plants use biochemical mechanisms to conquer new environments [13]. Invasive species not only escaped from their natural enemies but also brought novel mechanisms of interaction to invade plant communities [14]. These exotics possessed phytochemicals, unique metabolites, and biochemical mechanisms that recipient communities have not previously encountered. Invasive plant secondary metabolites (chemical weapons) have interfered with native plants and were successfully established in the native range [15]. Nowadays, recent research has shown a diversity of phytochemical differences between native and invasive plant species [14], and these differences can be distinguished by metabolomics and metabolic profiling. Allelopathy is also an important phenomenon in which the invasive plant releases some phytochemicals and retard the growth and development of neighboring plants [16]. Most invasive plant species release allelochemicals (phenolic compounds, alkaloids, and terpheniods) into the nearby environment by litter or root exudation [15]. These phytochemicals influence the growth attributes of nearby plants, such as root growth, germination, and nutrient intake. It is necessary to figure out why invasive plant species spread quickly in an area and how to manage them. We need to know how allelopathy works.

1.1.3. Resistance Against Herbivores

The main factor in the success of invasive plant species is the resistance against herbivores. Invasive plant species use different strategies to compete with native plants and protect themselves from herbivores [17]. These defense mechanisms against herbivores are the production of secondary metabolites (phenolic compounds, terpheniods, and alkaloids) that might be poisonous or repel herbivores [18]. In a new environment, the invasive plant species can decrease the herbivory attack and focus on more resources to grow and reproduce by becoming dominant over the native plant species.

1.1.4. Secondary Metabolites

Invasive plant species utilize various secondary metabolites, which enhance their competitive ability over native plants and help in nutrient uptake. Malic acid and citric acid are the organic acids produced in invasive plant species’ rhizosphere. The function of these compounds is to solubilize nutrients, such as phosphorous, so that it is easy for the plant roots to absorb [19].

1.1.5. Antimicrobial Abilities

Antimicrobial abilities are another mechanism of invasive plant species that enables them to invade successfully [20]. Invasive plant species produce secondary metabolites such as phytoalexins, alkaloids, and essential oils, which are rich in compounds like limonene, pinene, terpinene, and caryophyllene [21]. These metabolites possess antimicrobial properties that alter the microbial ecosystem, creating favorable environmental conditions that support the growth and establishment of invasive plants while inhibiting the growth of native plant species [22].

1.1.6. Mutualistic Interactions

During the invasion process of invasive plants, secondary metabolites played important mutualistic interactions and served different functions. According to [23], flavonoids, such as kaempferol and quercetin, are important signaling molecules that promote mutualistic relationships with mycorrhizal fungi. These flavonoids act as chemo attractants, facilitating the growth and development of mycorrhizal hyphae and enhancing the invasive plant’s nutrition intake. Isoflavonoids, like genistein and daidzein, are produced by leguminous invasive species and play a key signaling role in attracting and forming symbiotic relationships with nitrogen-fixing bacteria in root nodules [24]. The precise role of these secondary metabolites facilitates the beneficial interactions that sustenance the growth of invasive plant species.
In invasive plant species, the production of secondary metabolites is important and gives advantages over native flora, aiding in establishment within new habitats. These phytochemical compounds are used by the invasive plant as a defense against the herbivory. Also, they inhibit the germination, growth, root development, and intake of nutrients of native plant species. Alkaloids and phenolic compounds are examples of these compounds [25]. This enables invasive plant species to invade and grow quickly, making the environment unsuitable for the native plant species. Secondary metabolites from the invasive plant species affect the soil microbial population by preventing beneficial microorganisms and enhancing pathogenic growth [26]. These interruptions in the microbial balance in the soil further strengthen the ability of invasive plant species to control the resources, and the competition they face from native plant species decreases. Invasive plant species produce secondary metabolites that play an important role in determining the ecological interactions within invaded ecosystems, supporting the plant establishment. The generation and discharge of secondary metabolites by invasive plants are crucial in determining the nature of ecological interactions in invaded ecosystems, which, in turn, help these plants establish and proliferate successfully.
Investigating the mechanisms and functions of phytochemical compounds in the invasion of invasive plant species is an important and significant field, highlighting a notable research gap. Much research has provided valuable insights into specific functions, like defense mechanisms, stress tolerance, and allelopathy [27]. It has also been reported that secondary metabolites in the invasive plant species strengthen the plant against herbivory and infection [28]. There is a clear gap in the literature where a comprehensive review combines and explores all these results across various invasive plant species. A comprehensive review is necessary to scientifically evaluate the diversity of secondary metabolites and their complex roles in assisting invasion success. A comprehensive review designed within an integrated framework would reveal both shared and different elements among invasive species, contributing to more integrated interpretations of secondary metabolites’ roles in plant invasion dynamics. The current literature commonly focuses on the biochemical roles of secondary metabolites, but there is a scientific gap about the physiological and essential molecular mechanisms regulating these roles. A comprehensive review should not only collect the existing research studies but also focus on the functions of these aspects. This will guide future research and provide a better understanding of the role of secondary metabolites in plant invasions. Filling this gap will greatly improve our knowledge and help construct effective management strategies.

2. Secondary Metabolites in Invasive Plants

Plants released secondary metabolites, which may have affected the growth and development of nearby plant species. When organic matter breaks down in plants, secondary metabolites are produced and released, which may be reached by precipitation and influence interactions between soil microbes and plants [29]. Phytochemical compounds may be divided into defense compounds and signal substances [30]. Signal substances facilitate allelobiosis, while defense compounds, i.e., allelochemicals, facilitate allelopathy. A maximum of the secondary metabolites is made up of various organic compounds, which may be volatile or non-volatile. The phytochemicals include alkaloids, glycosides, organic acids, phenols, and terpeniods [30]; these compounds are important for regulating the rhizosphere microbiota, proper plant growth, and defense systems [31]. It is essential to understand what makes a plant invasion successful [8,32]. Research in the past showed that to improve their effectiveness, invasive plants produce secondary metabolites [33]. These secondary metabolites have influenced the cycling of nutrients, native plants, and soil microbe [34]. To mediate these effects, both direct and indirect routes can be used. Observing how chemicals from invasive plants affect plant competition—by limiting the growth of nearby plants—provides a straightforward way to understand their effects [35]. According to [36], the growth of the native plants is inhibited immediately by the chemical phytotoxin (2)-catechin emitted from the roots of the invading Centaurea maculosa. Also, the seeds of native plants are prevented from germination due to the secondary metabolites produced by invaded invasive plant species [37]. It is clear that the increase in competitiveness of the invasive plant may be due to the inhibition of these direct impacts [34]. Invasive plant species release some phytochemicals, such as alkaloids, phenols, terpeniods, and volatile compounds, which indirectly affect the competition. By changing the cycling nutrients—specifically, soil inorganic and organic nutrients flows and pools—these metabolites might unintentionally promote the growth of invaders [38]. Additionally, invasive plants may compete indirectly by using natural soil microbe. Plant pathogens and symbionts, along with secondary metabolites, have the ability to change the soil’s microbial community [39]. These microbes ensure the survival of plants in challenging environments [40]. The reason behind the success of invasive plant invasion over the native plant is the presence of secondary metabolites. Secondary compounds include many substances like growth inhibitors, poisons, and allelopathic chemicals [41]. The following are several secondary metabolites that are mostly present in invasive plants and can harm native plant species.

2.1. Phenolic Compounds

Among the phenolic compounds are tannins, phenolic acids, flavonoids, and coumarins (Figure 1). When present in high concentrations, they can prevent seeds’ α-amylase from working, which reduces germination by 18% [14]. Phenolics, which are oxygen radical producers and feeding deterrents, can have adverse effects. It has been discovered that the creation of hydrogen or covalent connections between phenolic chemicals in herbivores’ intestinal tracts and food proteins or digestive enzymes inhibits digestion [42]. Fall webworm (Hyphantria cunea Drury) digestion and food consumption can be greatly impacted by tannic acid [43]. According to [44], flavonoids not only prevent weed growth and fungal pathogen spore germination but also serve as chemical cues for legumes to modulate, and the root exudates of barley (Hordeum vulgare L. cv. ‘Barke’) contain phenylpropanoids that have antifungal properties. When discharged in high quantities, phenolic compounds can have negative impacts on animals, soil, and groundwater, even if low concentrations of the same chemicals may discourage pests, prevent infections, or promote beneficial species [45].
Eucalyptus species, such as E. microtheca, E. polycarpa, E. tereticornis, and E. camaldulensis, have been found to contain some of the possible phenolic allelochemicals in new leaves, bark, and leaf litter leachates. Studies revealed the existence of catechol, p-coumaric, gallic, and p-hydroxybenzoic, which have detrimental effects on crops in the ecosystem, such as black gram (Phaseolus mungo L.), by reducing and delaying germination, seedling mortality, and growth and yield reduction [46]. Black walnuts (Juglans nigra L.) produce a phenolic chemical called juglone (5-hydroxy-1,4-naphthalenedione) (Figure 1). It is widely recognized to have a detrimental effect on the growth of other plants. The primary enzyme in the manufacture of plastoquinone, hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD), is strongly inhibited by juglone. It also affects the respiratory and photosynthetic electron transport systems [47]. The natural triketone leptospermone (1-hydroxy-2-isovaloryl-4,4,6,6-tetramethyl cyclohexen-3,5-dione) (Figure 1), produced by the roots of the bottlebrush (Callistemon citrinus Curtis), inhibits p-hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase, contributing to its herbicidal properties. This inhibition causes chlorophyll loss and disrupts carotenoid production. Because of its strong herbicidal effects, commercial development of leptospermone is not possible. Nonetheless, the structure of leptospermone served as a foundation for the creation of synthetic analogs that were utilized to suppress broadleaved weeds in maize. For example, [46] highlight manuka oil, which contains leptospermone as its main active ingredient, can enhance the herbicidal effects of other essential oils. Redroot pigweed, barnyard grass, velvet leaf, and hairy crabgrass showed markedly reduced growth and dry weight when manuka oil (1%) was sprayed on them after they emerged. This type of application offers an additional avenue for using this allelopathic molecule without modifying its chemical structure [48].

2.2. Alkaloids

Alkaloids are vital secondary chemicals in plants with significant physiological and biological effects. Citronella (Cymbopogon nardus (L.) Rendle) root extract includes N-octanoyl tyramine, which can prevent Italian ryegrass (Lolium multiflorum Lam.), lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), barnyard grass (Echinochloa crus-galli L.), and cress (Lepidium sativum L.) from maturing [49]. Caffeine (1,3,7-trimethixanthine) is a purine alkaloid found in about 100 plant species. It can be utilized directly as an allelopathic toxin or indirectly as an activator of plant defense systems. It can also strengthen a plant’s capacity for defense. Additionally, caffeine can be excreted actively through primary roots, influencing nearby microbial populations [50]. Echium plantagineum L. produces harmful pyrrolidine alkaloids to defend against herbivores; naphthoquinone has an effect on insects and livestock and can reduce competition among weeds, insects, and pathogens [51]. Several gramineous species release benzoxazinoids into the rhizosphere to change the bacterial and fungal populations linked with roots and inhibit nearby plants’ growth [52]. Moreover, gramineous species’ roots may release benzoxazinoids to prevent nearby plants from growing [53].
Still, it has been established that certain alkaloids, such as quinine, colchicine, morphine, berberine, ergotamine, and allyl isothiocyanate, demonstrate phytotoxicity and prevent neighboring plants’ seeds from germinating or growing into seedlings. An investigation was carried out in which the alkaloid fraction of Crotalaria retusa was gathered and examined for Phaseolus vulgaris allelopathic potential at different concentrations. Allelochemicals caused oxidative stress and prevented bean seed germination as concentrations increased [54]. Their phytotoxicity and allelopathic efficacy on weeds have been extensively investigated. Cereals create a variety of benzoxazinoids and hydroxamic acids, which are then exuded into the surrounding soil solution from plant tissues and residues during decomposition and root exudation (from root hairs or secondary roots). These compounds include benzoxazolin-2(3H)-one (BOA), benzoxazinones 2,4-dihydroxy-7-methoxy-(2H)-1,4-benzoxazin-3(4H)-one (DIMBOA), 2-hydroxy7-methoxy-1,4-benzoxazin-3-one (HMBOA), 2-hydroxy-1,4-benzoxazin-3-one (HBOA), 6-methoxy-benzoxazolin-2-one (MBOA), and 2,4-dihydroxy-(2H)-1,4-benzoxazin-3(4H)-one (DIBOA (Figure 1) [52]. It has been demonstrated that they exhibit physicochemical and microbiological changes after release, which results in modifications to phytotoxicity mediated by microbes [55]. When external stimuli are released into the cytoplasm, benzoxazinones are retained in vacuoles in the glucosidic form, where they are digested by β-glucosidases to increase their reactivity and biological activity [56]. While the benzoxazolinone breakdown products, MBOA and BOA, are thought to be less bioactive than the initial molecules, the unstable benzoxazinone aglucones, DIBOA and DIMBOA, are poisonous. Nevertheless, research has demonstrated that the glucosides of DIBOA and DIMBOA, along with their corresponding aglycones and degradation products, control weeds such as redroot pigweed, barnyard grass, and crabgrass [57]. Alkaloids, such as pyrrolizidine alkaloids in Chromolaena odorata, act as deterrents to herbivores and other natural enemies, reducing the impact of predation and facilitating the plant’s establishment in new environments [58]. Also, these compounds exhibit allelopathic properties, inhibiting the germination and growth of surrounding plant species, which helps invasive plants like Chromolaena and E. adenophorum dominate native flora [59]. In essence, alkaloids and other allelopathic substances give invasive species a competitive edge by suppressing native plants and enhancing their resilience against herbivory and other environmental stresses, contributing to their successful spread and establishment [60]. Understanding the specific mechanisms and concentrations of these compounds in the environment is crucial for developing strategies to manage invasive plant species effectively

2.3. Terpenes

Terpenoids are vital substances found in nature that are divided into four groups according to the number of isoprene units in their carbon structure: monoterpenes, sesquiterpenes, diterpenes, and triterpenes [61]. These two distinct mechanisms produce isopentenyl diphosphate (IDP) and dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMADP), essential for the synthesis of terpenoid compounds. Figure 1 shows the pathways for mevalonic acid in the cytosol, endoplasmic reticulum, peroxisomes, and methylerythritol phosphate (MEP) in plastids. Learning these complex systems and how they function in biological processes helps us better understand how these compounds are made [62]. Terpeniods function not only as allelochemicals and reproductive hormones but also provide photoprotection, which is vital to plants because they mediate polysaccharide assembly. The literature has highlighted the inhibitory effect of seedling germination and growth, exhibiting an autotoxic and allelopathic nature. These changes are the results of complex interactions relating ATP (Adenosine triphosphate) production alteration, endocrine activity, protein complexation, and respiratory blockage. According to [46], terpenoids are important not only for plants’ environment but also for defense and communication. Terpeniods have tremendous characteristics that help invasive plants attract pollinators and protect the plant from herbivores and microbes. A lot of research work was conducted on how certain chemicals from invasive plants can affect other plants, revealing compelling results. There is one chemical called β-caryophyllene, which is mainly found in plant aromas. It can hinder the seeds from growing into plants in Brassica napus L. and Raphanus sativus L. [63]. Researchers have thoroughly examined how certain plant compounds, i.e., monoterpenes and sesquiterpenes, have phytotoxic effects against other plant species. In many cases, invasive species produce higher concentrations of terpenes, which can deter generalist herbivores commonly found in new environments, making the invaders less vulnerable to predation compared to native plants [64]. Terpenes can have allelopathic effects, releasing chemicals into the soil to inhibit the growth of neighboring plants. This can significantly alter the composition of native plant communities, providing invasive species with more access to critical resources like nutrients, light, and space [65]. Beyond their defensive role, terpenes also enable invasive species to adapt to a range of abiotic stresses, such as temperature extremes, drought, and salinity. These compounds help maintain the plant physiological functions under challenging conditions, allowing them to thrive in diverse environments where native species may struggle [25]. Many invasive plants adopt a strategy of producing low-cost chemical defenses, like terpenes, which allows them to allocate more energy toward growth and reproduction. This balance between rapid growth and effective chemical defense often results in higher reproductive success and faster spread of invasive species in new habitats [66]. The ecological impact of terpenes extends beyond direct competition, as their presence can modify interactions within the ecosystem, influencing pollinators, herbivores, and soil microbial communities. These alterations can lead to shifts in biodiversity and ecosystem function, often disadvantaging native species. Understanding the role of terpenes in plant invasions is thus essential for developing strategies to manage invasive populations and protect native ecosystems [67]. By shedding light on these biochemical mechanisms, research can inform more effective management practices aimed at mitigating the ecological impacts of invasive species.

2.4. Volatile Organic Compounds

The compounds in the air are volatile organic compounds (VOCs), which may be ethylene, methyl jasmonate, methyl salicylate, and indole (Figure 1). These VOCs help the plant species interact with the environment comprising other plant species, herbivores, natural enemies, pollinators, and microbes [68]. Ethylene activates genes through air diffusion, which helps plants defend themselves. In tobacco (Nicotiana tabacum L.), small quantities of ethylene can cause characteristics associated with shade avoidance [69]. According to [70], methyl jasmonate in Artemisia tridentate activates the defense genes, as shown in Table 1. Moreover, defense genes can be activated by methyl jasmonate via spreading through the environment [71]. An excellent way to attract the green lacewing (Chrysopa nigricornis Burmeister) is with methyl salicylate [72]. Indole acetic acid functions as a quick and efficient aerial priming agent to prime neighboring plants’ tissues for defense [53].

2.5. Phytochemicals Reported in Invasion Mechanisms

One of the most economically damaging alien invaders in North America is the Centaurea species, which is suspected of displacing native species Catechins quickly through allelopathic mechanisms [77]. (−)-catechin (Figure 2) from C. maculosa (Asteraceae), often known as spotted knapweed, was found to be a phytotoxic root exudate, while (+)-catechin (Figure 2) exhibited antibacterial qualities. The idea that C. maculosa invasiveness is enabled by (−)-catechin release is supported by the abundance of racemic catechin found in soil extracts from fields where the plant has invaded. In soils sustaining invasive C. maculosa in North America, the natural content of (−)-catechin was more than double that in Europe. The findings offer compelling evidence that C. maculosa root exudation of (−)-catechin is responsible for the displacement of native plant communities, at least partially. Additionally, they used an integration of ecological, physiological, biochemical, cellular, and genetic techniques to show the allelopathic effects of C. maculosa. The findings demonstrated that natural field soil conditions inhibited the growth and germination of native species [78]. The natural content of 8-hydroxyquinoline (8HQ, Figure 2), an allelochemical that has never before been described as a natural product, varies biogeographically from C. diffusa (Asteraceae) root exudates [79]. It has larger phytotoxic effects on North American grass species than on Eurasian grass species, and it is at least three times more concentrated in soils invaded by C. diffusa in North America than in the native Eurasian soils of this plant. Moreover, regardless of the biogeographical origin of the soil biota, experimental communities constructed from North American plant species are considerably more vulnerable to invasion by C. diffusa than communities constructed from Eurasian species. More so than Eurasian soils, North American soil biota sterilization inhibited C. diffusa, suggesting that the latter may be encouraged to invade North American soils. Since North American plants have not developed a natural resistance to 8-HQ, it is possible that Eurasian plants and soil microbes have. This suggests a remarkable potential for evolutionary compatibility and homeostasis among plants within natural communities, as well as a mechanism by which exotic weeds ruin these communities. C. maculosa (Asteraceae) was shown to have a phytotoxic chemical called cnicin (Figure 2), a sesquiterpene lactone (spotted knapweed) [80]. It can hinder larval growth and development [81]. M. micrantha (Asteraceae), commonly known as Mile-a-Minute, is one of the top 100 worst invasive alien species in the world. Deoxymikanolide (Figure 2) and other sesquiterpene lactones were identified from this plant [82], revealing a high level of phytotoxicity to the family Brassica (Brassicaceae). These compounds might significantly impact how well the weed invades [83]. Throughout the plant’s life cycle in a natural population, ocimenones (Figure 2), the predominant terpenes in the essential oils of the leaves and reproductive structures of Tagetes minuta L. (Asteraceae) were investigated. Ocimenones’ phytotoxic impact on germination was assessed. According to bioassays, T. minuta fruit material and pure ocimenones slowed and prevented coexisting species from germinating. Regarding T. minuta’s chemical ecology, a connection between allelopathy, biosynthesis, catabolism, and terpene release is suggested [84]. In field conditions, it was discovered that methyl jasmonate (Figure 2), a trace amount exuded by sagebrush (Artemisia tridentate ssp. tridentate, Asteraceae), inhibited Nicotiana attenuata seed germination [85,86]. Anthraquinones: in a recirculating system, the root exudates of Polygonum sachalinense F. Schmidt ex Maxim. (Polygonaceae) considerably slowed down the growth of lettuce seedlings. Emodin (Figure 2) and physcion’s (Figure 2) inhibitory effects on the growth of seedlings of various tested plant species were demonstrated using TLC agar plates [87]. Emodin and physcion were present in the rhizome, roots, and fallen leaves in comparatively high proportions. This plant community’s soil also contains emodin, with autumnal effective concentrations being the highest. These powerful allelopathic compounds, known as anthraquinones, are therefore likely responsible for the interference seen [16]. The plant parthenium yields a wide range of allelochemicals, which can be classified into many chemical classes. A thorough description of these kinds of allelochemicals emitted by parthenium weed and its residues was provided by [88]. Perthenin (Figure 2) is a sesquiterpene lactone secondary metabolite released from parthenium plants, and this compound affects other plant species [89]. Besides perthenin, parthenium plants also produced a variety of hydrophilic phenols comprising ferulic, anicic, fumaric, vanillic, and caffeic acids. These phenolic compounds exhibit phytotoxicity in water extracts from parthenium species [90]. According to [91], several additional sesquiterpene lactones, flavonoids, and tannins are possible allelochemicals produced by parthenium plant species.

3. Functions of Secondary Metabolites

3.1. Allelopathy of Invasive Plants

Allelopathy is the chemical exchange of allelochemicals between recipient and donor plants. Certain plant components produce allelochemicals, which are then released into the soil around donor plants, including their rhizosphere, through a variety of mechanisms such as root exudation, rainfall leachates, volatilization of plant parts, or plant residue decomposition [92]. Plant allelopathy has significantly impacted how scarce resources are used and how competition for them exists. The chemical makeup, mechanism of action, and effects of plant root exudates differ, and plants appear to be largely resistant to the allelochemicals they generate. Aqueous extracts from the above-ground portions of S. canadensis inhibited the development and germination of Digitaria sanguinalis (L.), Amaranthus retroflexus L., and Lactuca sativa L. [93]. The germination and growth of Zoysia japonica (Steud) were suppressed by water-based extracts of S. canadensis roots and above-ground parts, while the above-ground parts’ extracts markedly increased malondialdehyde and peroxidase activity [94]. Raphanus sativus L. germination was also postponed, and growth was inhibited by preparations of Japanese and Bohemian knotweed using aqueous rhizome. R. sativus roots exhibited signs of oxidative stress, including aberrant nuclear, plasma membrane, mitochondrial, and endoplasmic reticulum shapes [95]. The finding suggests that some allelochemicals may infiltrate the seeds and prevent the germination and growth of the seeds. Aqueous extracts of C. odorata inhibit the germination of Ageratum conyzoides L., Crassocephalum crepidioides (Benth.) S. Moore, and Cynodon dactylon L. [96], and the growth of Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn., Cyperus iria L., and Ageratum conyzoides L. [97]. According to [98], the growth and germinations of Amaranthus viridis L. and Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv was inhibited when exposed to aqueous extracts of C. odorata. Also, the plant height, leaf area, root length, and plant masses of Amaranthus spinosus L. and Amaranthus spinosus were decreased when methanol extract of C. odorata was sprayed on them [99].
Methanolic extracts of Mimosa pigra used against Ruellia tuberosa, Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) P. Beauv., and Lactuca sativa L. affects their growth and development. M. pigra extracts are concentration dependent; they interrupt the root mitosis and decrease their cell viability. The allelochemicals from M. pigra prevented the native plants from regenerating in the area where these invasive plant species spread [100]. P. hysterophorus extract inhibited the germination and growth of Cyperus iria L. and showed the same toxic potency as the glyphosate and glufosinate-ammonium synthetic insecticides [101]. Parthenium leaf extracts and residues inhibit the early seedling development and germination of Phalaris minor Retz and wild oats (Avena fatua L.) in the Petri dish and soil bioassays [102]. The seedling growth and germination of seeds in Oryza sativa, Raphanus sativus, and Triticum aestivum were also delayed by aqueous leaf extract of M. micrantha [103]. Aqueous leachates of M. micrantha exhibited allelophatic effect against Aphanus sativus, Lactuca sativa, Trifolium repens, and Lolium multiforum [104]. The allelochemicals found in M. micrantha leaf extracts include vanillic acid, resorcinol, caffeic acid, and p-hydroxybenzaldehyde [105]. Biden pilosa L. and L. perenne were likewise inhibited from germinating when applying aqueous extracts of Pueraria montana’s litter. B. pilosa and L. perenne’s root and shoot growth was suppressed by the mixture of pure soil and P. montana extracts. When compared to the non-infested soil, in the soil infested with P. montana, the total phenolic concentration was 30- to 50-fold greater [106]. The results of the experiments point to the possibility that these phenolics are responsible for the inhibition brought on by P. montana soils and litter is a new agrochemical tool that has gained recognition for its ability to manage weeds. Growth of Amaranthus caudatus, Amaranthus spinosus, Digitaria sanguinalis, Lactuca sativa, Echinochloa crus-galli, and Monochoria vaginalis was inhibited by plant extracts [107]. When intercropped in citrus orchards, A. conyzoides greatly suppressed weeds, including Cyperus difformis, B. pilosa, and Digitaria sanguinalis, [108]. Table 2 summarizes the biological properties of invasive plant species and their allelopathic effect.

3.1.1. Plants Interspecific Allelochemicals

Utilization and competition for scarce resources have been significantly impacted by plant allelopathy and allelobiosis. The chemical makeup, mechanism of action, and effects of plant root exudates differ, and plants appear to be comparatively resistant to the allelochemicals they generate. Furthermore, certain non-allelopathic plants are resistant to the allelochemicals that allelopathic plants produce. The allelochemicals of spotted knapweed (Centaurea maculosa Lam.) do not harm eight of the twenty-three grassland species as much as the plant itself does [53]. Strong allelochemicals secreted by certain Asteraceae species can be utilized as “novel weapons” to encroach on new environments, such as Parthenium hysterophorus L. [125], Ambrosia trifida L. [126], and C. diffusa Lam. [127]. However, plants can also use their root exudates to decrease the allelopathy of other plants. Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hook., for example, inhibits its growth by releasing cyclic dipeptides (6-hydroxy-1,3-dimethyl-8-nonadecyl-[1,4]-diazocane2,5-diketone) into the soil [128]. By reducing these cyclic dipeptides and lowering their autotoxicity, M. macclurei provides chemical signals in a mixed system of C. lanceolata and Michelia macclurei [129]. The parasite Striga asiatica (L.) O. Kuntze’s seeds can undergo allelobiosis for years without finding a host plant. S. asiatica parasitizes a host when it recognizes strigolactone released by the host’s roots [130].
The development of two Asian original plant species, namely Gnaphalium affine D. Don and Xanthium sibiricum Patrin ex Widder, as well as two tropical species, Aster subulatus Michx. and Sesbania cannabina (Renz.) Poir., and a cosmopolitan species, Eclipta prostrata (L.), was significantly suppressed by root exudates of S. canadensis gathered from its aeroponic culture. Moreover, Arabidopsis thaliana (L.) Heynh’s growth was inhibited by S. canadensis root exudates [131]. These data indicated that some allelochemicals that may restrict growth would be released into the rhizosphere soil as S. canadensis root exudates and that the amount of these released allelochemicals may be higher in invading ranges than in native ranges. It is well-recognized that Ageratina adenophora negatively affects natural vegetation [132]. It influences species diversity, abundance, and the composition of plant communities. This plant is responsible for the decline in the diversity of native species in Nepal’s overrun areas [133]. Allelopathy is one of the ways that A. adenophora affects other plants. A. adenophora’s allelopathy occurred by leachates; three compounds were isolated and determined to be the primary allelochemicals: 6-hydroxy-5-isopropyl-3, 8-dimethyl-4a, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 8a-hexahydronaphthalen2(1H)-one (HHO), 4,7-dimethyl-1-(propan-2-ylidene)-1, 4,4a, and 8a tetrahydronaphthalene-2, 6(1H, 7H)-dione (DTD) [134,135].
Under field conditions, bohemian knotweed decreased the growth and survival rate of native plants, such as Acer saccharinum L. and Eupatorium perfoliatum L. Although the knotweed’s inhibitory effects were partially reversed, only a small amount of the native plants’ development conditions were improved with additional nutrients and light. Thus, bohemian knotweed’s allelopathy may partially account for the decline in the growth and survival rate of native plant species [136]. Centaurea stoebe L., an invasive plant species, was thought to use (−)-catechin as an allelochemical to continue its invasion of North America because its inhibitory activity was greater than that of (+)-catechin. According to their theory [137], this substance may be released into the soil from the roots of C. stoebe, inhibiting the germination and growth of native plant species and disrupting their regeneration. Nonetheless, considerably less catechin was discovered in the field soil to prevent the establishment of local plant species [138]. Cuscuta chinensis Lam. seedlings have the ability to discriminate between volatile compounds emitted by the host tomato and non-host wheat. They also grow more selectively toward the tomato plant and successfully parasitize it [53].

3.1.2. Plants Intraspecific Allelochemicals

Plants of the same species have the ability to poison surrounding individuals by producing autotoxic allelochemicals [53]. This phenomenon inside the natural ecosystem is self-thinning. Furthermore, plants have the ability to suppress their own seed germination and seedling growth in order to control the population in both space and time. This allows them to avoid internal competition and increase their geographic range [139]. Autotoxicity is also found in agroecosystems [140] and medicinal plants [141], resulting in a drop in output, inadequate seedling growth, and lower-quality leaves. Chinese fir roots release autotoxic compounds that inhibit the plant’s ability to regenerate [43]. Kin recognition is the ability of plants to recognize and react to their neighbors thanks to intraspecific allelobiosis [142], as shown in Figure 3. Plants identify their relations by subterranean chemical signals, which helps them control community competitiveness and growth [143]. According to evolutionary theory, kin selection will favor individuals with the same genes, providing a higher chance of survival in a changing environment when relatives are recognized [144]. Furthermore, to ensure that outcrossing plants can effectively complete pollination, Brassica para L. var nipposinica (L. H. Bailey) Hanelt’s root exudates can control both aboveground flowering time and flowering duration [53]. Chemical signals from plants that evaporate into the atmosphere also trigger chemical defense responses in nearby plants or the evaporating plants themselves, regulating population density [145]. Higher levels of tetradecane are released by Holotrichia parallela-infested maize roots. In order to create protective jasmonic acid and BX in the roots of maize plants, Motschulsky sends a chemical signal to nearby uninfected plants [146].
Certain plant parts manufacture allelochemicals, which are then released into the environment around the plants through leachates from rainfall, volatilization from the plants, exudation of roots, or the breakdown of plant debris and litter [100]. Allelochemicals, the byproducts of secondary metabolism, are found in every part of the plant, including the leaves, stems, flowers, seeds, fruits, and/or roots. There are various ways in which the producing plant can release these products: plant waste volatilization, foliar leaching, root exudations, and decomposition (Figure 4). VOCs are widely distributed plant allelochemicals and secondary metabolites that plants volatilize [147]. Mevalonic acid (MVA), methylerythritol phosphate (MEP), lipoxygenase (LOX), and shikimate/phenylalanine are the four basic mechanisms for the production of volatile organic compounds (VOCs). Terpenoids, phenylpropanoids/benzenoids, and fatty acid derivatives are among the VOCs that plants can create and release [148]. According to [149], these plants release volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that serve a variety of ecological purposes, including chemical communication, kin recognition, insect attraction or repulsion, and many more. While most studies on volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in plants focus on aboveground chemical signals, an increasing body of research indicates that VOCs are also crucial for belowground plant-plant interactions [150]. Volatile oil of C. odoratum at 800 mg/L inhibits the growth of Pyricularia grisea, Phytophthora nicotianae, and Fusarium axysporum.
Table 3 summarizes studies during the last decade reporting VOC-mediated allelopathic effects of invasive plants. According to these findings, invading species may have a significant negative impact on native plants’ chemical habitats by releasing volatile allelochemicals into the environment that prevent or lessen native species’ ability to germinate and flourish. Allelopathic substances can accomplish this by lowering the photosynthetic efficiency of recipient plants or interfering with the mechanisms involved in cell division (mitosis) [53]. The release of allelochemicals appears to be the fundamental mechanism, causing the receiver to emit reactive oxygen species, which set off a chain of signals and ultimately alter gene expression across the entire genome [151]. To clarify the mechanism(s) of action of volatile allelochemicals, more research is required. Litter is another way that volatile allelochemicals from invasive species might enter the rhizosphere. It is well known that litter volatile chemicals are tenacious and can be found years after litter deposition [152]. A pioneering study outside the scope of this review [27] indicates that an invasive species’ ability to spread is greatly influenced by volatile chemicals found in its litter. We therefore recommend further research to ascertain the allelopathic potential of the volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that invasive plants leave behind on native species and the length of time that residues remain bioactive after invasive plants have been removed.

3.2. Herbivory and Invasive Plant Species Interactions

3.2.1. Insects

Invasive plant species have a major impact on the insect ecosystem due to the actions of secondary metabolites. These compounds perform different roles in influencing insect ecology, behavior, and community dynamics. Secondary metabolites have defensive functions. For example, invasive plant species produce phytochemical compounds that work as feeding deterrents and stimulants for herbivores, influencing their choice of host and foraging [157]. Invasive plant compounds change the nutritional quality, affecting herbivore performance and fitness [158]. These secondary metabolites also affect the interactions between invasive plants and their mutualistic or antagonistic insect companions, including pollinators or natural enemies [159,160]. Actually, invasive plants use these secondary metabolites as defense strategies against herbivory. This may include direct avoidance of feeding or toxicity to herbivores [158], as shown in Figure 5. These might change in the abundance and distribution of insects and modification in the tropic relationships that exist within the ecosystem. The chemical signals facilitated by secondary metabolites affect the mutualistic relationship between the herbivores, pollinators, or predators and invasive plant species, which may affect the reproductive rate and spread the invasive plant population [146]. In order to improve management and conservation strategies for invasive species, researchers can gain a better understanding of the mechanisms underlying the success of invasive plants and their ecological impacts on insect communities by clarifying the roles that secondary metabolites play in mediating plant-insect interactions in natural settings. Table 4 lists the invasive plant species utilized to control insect infestations. Cotton aphids are poisoned by E. adenophorum chloroform extracts. The primary allelochemicals found to be harmful were Aphis gossypii and eupatorin A. Within 48 h, eupatorin A at 2 mg/mL can eliminate 81% of cotton aphids [161,162]. This compound also inhibits the enzymatic activity of AChE and NaK-ATPase of the cotton aphids in vitro and in vivo. A-1, P-1, Zi-2, and the leachates of E. adenophorum had anti-feeding activity to the fourth instars of Pieris rapae, as reported by [163]. The weed extracts have strong insecticidal activity against four stored grain insects: rice weevil, maize weevil, Chinese bean weevil, and European bean weevil [164]. Epifriedelinol, stigmasterol, octacosanoic acid, 8-daucos tero1, 2-isopropeny1-5-acetyl-6-hydrxybenzofuran aceate, and o-hydroxy einnamic acid were isolated from the E. adenophorum [165]. The ethanolic extract from Alternanthera brasiliana (L.) Kuntze’s leaves was evaluated for its insecticidal activity against the Hamburg strain of Drosophila melanogaster [166]. After exposed for 24 to 48 h, researchers discovered that the ethanolic extract at the studied quantities had a slight insecticidal impact. Phytomolecules like kaempferol and kaempferol analogs [167], quercetin and quercetin analogs [168], stigmasterol [169], β-sitosterol [170], spinasterol [171], and ferulic acid [172], which were isolated earlier from Alternanthera brasiliana (L.) Kuntze, might be in charge of this insecticidal characteristic. When A. adenophora was extracted in methanol, it showed a significant toxic effect against mites, Sarcoptes scabiei and Psoroptes cuniculi [173].
When the leaves of A. adenophora were extracted in ethyl acetate, the compounds were identified using gas chromatography-mass spectrometry. 5,6-dihydroxycadinan-3-ene-2,7-dione was found to be most effective against Meloidogyne incognita [174]. The essential oils called precocenes from A. conyzoides affect the digestive system, and the anti-juvenile hormones of the oil caused abnormalities in metamorphosis [175]. According to [176], the oil extracts also exhibited genotypic or phenotypic abnormalities in the immature Aedes, Anopheles, and Culex species. Also, the secondary metabolites in this invasive plant showed promising results against many insect pests, such as Helicoverpa armigera, Phytophthora megakarya, Rhipicephalus microplus, Tribolium castaneum, Diaphania hyalinata, and Plutella xylostella [177]. The methanolic extracts of M. micrantha significantly repelled Oriental fruit flies in the field [135,178]. According to [179], Plutella xylostella, Phyllotretast riolata, and Phaedon brassicae showed oviposition deterrence when volatile oils of M. micrantha were used at a dose of 5–10 µL/plant. The antecedent effects of crude extract of M. micrantha on l–2 instars of Pieris rapae and 2–3 instars of Plutella xylostella were 80% and 70%, respectively [180]. Allelochemicals such as mikanin, eupalitin, eupafolin, (3,4′,5,7-tetra-hydroxy 6- methoxyflavone 3-O-β-D-glucopyranoside, luteolin, 3,5-di-O-caffeoylquinic acid n-butyl ester, and 3,4-di-O-caffeoylquinic acid n-butyl ester were identified from M. micrantha [105]. β-cubebene, terpinolene, β-caryophyllene, 1imonene, β-farnesene, ocimene, δcadino1, γ-terpinene, ethylnaphthalene, a-caryophy11ene, β-cadinene + isocaryophyllene, δ-bisabolene, and β-bisabolene+cubebo1 were determined as the main compounds in essential oil of M. micrantha [180]. The volatile oil of Chromolaena odoratum is a strong oviposition deterrent of striped flea beetle (Phyllotreta striolata) and diamondback moth (DBM) (Plutella xylostella) at dose of 10–20 µL/plant [181]. The alcohol extract and its chloroform fraction exhibited strong repellent effects (80%) against DBM [182]. The alcohol extracts of C. odoratum effectively deterred the oviposition of DBM, and the active compounds were identified as chalcones and flavonols [183].
Table 4. List of invasive plants used against Insects.
Table 4. List of invasive plants used against Insects.
Invasive PlantExtractPhytochemicalTarget InsectMode of ActionReferences
Ageratina adenophora (Spreng).AqueousEpifriedelinol, stigmasterol, octacosanoic acid, 8-daucos tero1, 2- isopropeny1-5- acetyl-6-hydrxybenzofuran aceate and o-hydroxy einnamic acidRice weevil, maize weevil, Chinese bean weevil and European bean weevilToxicity[161]
Alternanthera brasiliana (L.) KuntzeEthanolic extractKaempferol and kaempferol analogs, quercetin and quercetin analogs, stigmasterol, β-sitosterol, spinasterol and ferulic acidDrosophila melanogasterToxicity[184]
Ageratina adenophora (Spreng).Ethyl acetateCadinene sesquiterpenes, 5,6-dihydroxycadinan-3-ene-2,7-dioneMeloidogyne incognitaAntinemic activity[174]
Ageratum conyzoides L.
Lemmon grass
Crude extractsPONNEEMAedes, Anopheles, Culex spp.Affects the oviposition rate and increases the deterrence percentage[176,185]
Methanol extracts6-demethyoxyageratochromene (precocene I) and ageratochromene (precocene II)Preris rapae and Plutella xyloaellaAntifeeding effects[125]
Mikania micrantha Kunth.Methonal extractMikanin, eupalitin, eupafolin, (3,4′,5,7-tetra-hydroxy 6- methoxyflavone 3-O-β-D-glucopyranoside, luteolin, 3,5-di-O-caffeoylquinic acid n-butyl ester and 3,4-di-O-caffeoylquinic acid n-butyl ester were identified from M. micranthaOriental fruit flyRepellent effects[105]
EOsβ-cubebene, terpinolene, β-caryophyllene, 1imonene, β-farnesene, ocimene, δcadino1, γ-terpinene, ethylnaphthalene, a-caryophy11ene,Plutella xylostella, Phyllotretast riolata and Phaedon brassicaeOviposition deterrent[179,180]
Chromolaena
odoratum L.
Alcohol extractsChalcones and flavonolsPlutella xylostellaRepellent[183]
Crude extractsHelicoverpa armigeraAntifeeding effects[181]
EOsTrans-caryophyllene, β-cadinene, a-copaene, caryophyllene oxide, germacrene-D and n-humuhnePhyllotreta striolataOviposition deterrent[186]
Parthenium hysterophorus L.Flower, leaf stem powdersParthenin ageratochromene, precocene I, and precocene II have strong insecticidal effects, endo-borneol, farnesol, quercetin, kaempferol, and its glucosidesCallosobruchus chinensisRepellency, inhibit cholinesterase[187]
Aqueous
leaf and stem
Aedes aegypti, Sitophious oryzaeToxic and oviposition deterrent[188,189]
Melia azedarach L.Aqueous extract
Fruits
AzadirachtinCallosobruchus maculatusToxicity and repellency[190]

3.2.2. Soil Microorganism

Invasive plant species often produce secondary metabolites—organic compounds not directly involved in the primary metabolic processes of growth, development, and reproduction but play important roles in interactions with other organisms. These secondary metabolites not only modulate soil microbial populations but also defend against herbivores, pathogens, and allelopathy. Invasive plant species, plant-soil microbes, and secondary metabolites, there is a complex interaction among them, which impacts ecosystem dynamics. When invasive plant species invade an area, the interaction between the native below-ground and above-ground plant species changes. These interactions affect not only the structure of soil inputs derived from plants but also the quality, quantity, and timing [191]. In this situation, invasive plant species invasion may change the timing of litter formation, types, quantities, and the nutrients that are absorbed by the soil. Sometimes, the frequency and intensity of fire increase due to the increased litter production from some invasive plant species [192]. When invasive plants excrete unknown exudates (roots of plant species exude secondary metabolites), they may change the composition and role of the soil community [193]. Invasive plant species produce allelochemicals from the roots, primarily affecting plant-to-plant interactions, which describes the success of invasive plants [194]. However, recently studies suggest that allelochemicals change the interaction between native plant species and soil ecosystems. For example, in Western North America, Centaurea diffusa spreads extensively in its environment, with the roots of C. diffusa releasing the allelochemicals 8-hydroxyquinoline, which functions as an anti-bacterial agent [195]. According to [196], C. diffusa alters the soil microbial community due to these allelochemicals. Invasive plant species also release some novel chemicals which can change the soil microbial community. There is a diverse research gap in this case. For example, in Hawaii, Myrica faya invaded nitrogen-limited areas along with its nitrogen-fixing root symbionts (Frankia spp.), affecting nitrogen cycling and changing the composition of the plant community [197]. Invasive plant species directly change the physical properties of the soil environment, initiating ecosystem modifications that lead to control of soil functions and composition. For example, in the western United States, Halogeton glomeratus, a plant species that invades rangeland, accumulates sodium from the below soil to its biomass. In the invaded soils, this invasive plant species increases the sodium concentrations, which creates problems and modifications in microbial communities [197]. Invasive plant species produce some chemicals in the soil that prevent the growth of nearby plants and microbes. The compositions and activity of soil microbial communities changed due to the ability of allelochemicals, which selectively promote the growth of some microbial taxa while inhibiting others [28]. Nitrogen-fixing bacteria or mycorrhizal fungi might be prevented from growing by the phenolic compounds from invasive plant species, which alter the plant and microbial interactions and the mechanisms involved in the cycling of nutrients [36]. Also, Ref. [198] studied that some invasive plant species produced allelochemicals that affected the rhizosphere microbiome by serving as nutrient sources or signaling molecules for specific microbial populations. Some invasive plant species produced flavonoids, which change the functions and structure of the soil microbial community. The growth of rhizobacteria is influenced by these flavonoids, which promote the growth of plants or suppress diseases [199]. Some invasive plant species directly inhibit the growth of soil-borne pathogens or competing microorganisms through secondary metabolites with antimicrobial properties [73]. The presence or activity of harmful microbes is decreased by the invasive plant species, allowing them to outcompete the native plants, further exacerbating their impact on ecosystem structure and function. Table 5 summarizes the impacts of invasive plant species on native soil microbe communities.

3.3. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi (AMF)

Arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi (AMF) form symbiotic relationships with a diverse range of plant species and are important and prevalent soil microorganisms in terrestrial environments [205]. The competition of invasive plant species is influenced by AMF [206]. The invasive plant species Centaurea maculosa in North America utilize the mycorrhizal network that connects the roots of native plants [137]. In a new environment, an invasive plant, S. canadensis, in China has the ability to change AMF composition, making it more successful in invaded areas than native plant species [207]. Invasive plant species disrupt the symbiotic relationship between native plant species and AMF through secondary metabolites. For example, the invasive plant Alliaria petiolate cannot form symbiosis with AMF due to the secondary metabolites, which cannot develop symbiosis with AMF [208]. The specific flavonoids from A. petiolate cause invaded soil to have a significantly larger inhibitory action on AMF compared to its native soil [209]. Furthermore, secondary compounds derived from A. petiolata change the AMF community linked to native sugar maple seedlings and inhibit AMF hyphal and spore germination [210], despite abundance research showing invasive plants can disrupt local hosts’ AMF symbioses through secondary metabolites [207].

3.3.1. Symbiotic Relationship Between Invasive/Native Plants and AMF Communities

Plant and fungal metabolites mediate the plant–AMF symbiosis. Primary, specific, and phytohormone metabolites facilitate partner recognition, colonization, and the development of a symbiotic relationship in the plant–AMF symbiosis. Root-released quercetin and 2-hydroxy fatty acids trigger compound-specific morphological AM fungal responses during pre-symbiotic communication. Next, hyphopodium formation on the root surface is triggered by strigolactone and cutin monomers (1,16-hexadecanediol and 16-hydroxyhexadecanoic acid). It is known that the pre-symbiotic phase of the association between AMF colonies and plants determines the specificity of such a relationship [211,212]. Phytohormones play an important role between AMF and plant species as a signaling molecule. According to [212,213], strigolactones, auxins, abscisic acid, brassinosteroids, and gibberellic acid are involved in their function from the first detection of AMF in the soil to the ultimate development of mycorrhiza. Auxin is necessary for both the early stage of fungal development and the differentiation of arbuscules, while the synthesis of arbuscules is controlled by gibberellic acids [213]. During the early colonization stage, plant–AMF interactions are facilitated by carotenoid pathways and control of signaling. Phytohormones boost gibberellic acid production by varying the ratio of the salicylic acid and jasmonate signaling pathways and affect plant immunity. Through the symbiotic relationship, plants produce maximum sugar and metabolites for the tricarboxylic acid cycle, boosting photosynthetic sharing. Changes in the primary metabolites also influence arbuscular mycorrhiza growth, affecting the synthesis of specialized metabolites [214]. AM has a beneficial impact on the synthesis of specialized metabolites by boosting metabolite biosynthesis pathways or increasing plant biomass. According to [215], changing plant immunity through plant hormones enables mycorrhizal fungi to influence key plant chemicals that deter pests. For example, Senecio genus plants produce pyrrolizidine alkaloids, their primary defense compounds, in response to AMF invasion.

3.3.2. Mechanisms by Which Invasive Plants Affect Native Plant Mycorrhizal Fungi

Ecological Mechanisms

Invasive plants can affect native plants through a variety of ecological mechanisms. At present, relevant research mainly focuses on species competition, soil nutrient changes, and allelopathy. As shown in Table 6, invasive plants tend to compete for resources (light and nutrients, etc.). For example, Solanum carolinense has a strong ability to reproduce asexually and can spread rapidly [216]. Invasive plants can also inhibit photosynthesis in native plants; reduced photosynthates may inhibit native plant mycorrhizal fungal infection [217] (Figure 6). Invasive plants tend to have strong nutrient competitiveness and a large amount of root exudates [218]. Invasive plants can also improve and enhance soil nutrients through litter and root exudates, forming a positive feedback loop between plant and soil [219]. This process reduces the infection rate of mycorrhizal fungi in native plants (such as Solidago decurrens and Andropogon gerardii) and alters the community composition of mycorrhizal fungi [220] (Figure 6). Invasive plants can also direct affect native plant mycorrhizal fungi through allelopathy [221] (Figure 6). Allelopathic substances produced by invasive plants (such as flavonoids and glucosides, etc.) inhibit the germination, growth, and infection of mycorrhizal fungi spores, thereby inhibiting the growth of native plants dependent on these fungi [222]. These allelopathic substances may also inhibit mycorrhizal fungal infection by inhibiting the growth of native plants, thereby reducing the carbon supply of plants to mycorrhizal fungi [223]. In addition, allelopathic substances secreted by foreign plants may also affect the non-mycorrhizal fungi of native plants, thereby indirectly affecting the mycorrhizal fungi of native plants (Figure 6). In fact, changes in native plant mycorrhizal fungi may result from a combination of mechanisms [224]. The influence of different invasive plants on native plant mycorrhizal fungi may be different, and the response of native plant mycorrhizal fungi to each mechanism may also be different, resulting in varied trends in the influence of foreign plant invasion on different native mycorrhizal fungi.

Molecular Mechanism

The symbiotic relationship between plants and mycorrhizal fungi is a complex signal transduction process. In the creation of arbuscular mycorrhizal fungi, signal exchange between the root system and AMF is the first step [231]. According to [232], strigolactones are signaling molecules secreted by the root system (e.g., Lotus japonicus) that not only encourage the AMF spore germination but also enhance the chance of hyphae contact with the root system. Mycorrhizal fungi secreted an array of signaling molecules (i.e., mycorrhizal factors, like LCOs, CO4/CO5, and PsMiSSP10b). As shown in Figure 7, corresponding receptors in the root system recognize these molecules and activate the calcium ion signaling pathway, which in turn produces an infection line and initiates the mycorrhizal fungi’s infection process [233]. For example, short chitosan oligosaccharide (CO4/CO5) and lipochitosaccharide (LCOs) secreted by rice AMF are recognized by heteromers of LysM receptor-like kinases in rice, including OsMYR1/OsLYK2 and OsCERK1 [234]. LCOs and CO4/CO5 factors released by AMF are recognized by NFR1/LYK3H in leguminous plants [235]. Mycorrhizal fungi also produce plant cell wall decomposition enzymes (PCWDEs) by producing small secreted proteins (MiSSPs) to recognize hosts [127], disrupting the cell wall of the host plant and removing the “barrier” to the establishment of symbiotic relationships. The important relationship between the mycorrhizal fungi and roots lies in the exchange of nutrients and carbon (lipids and sugars) [234], which comprises a sequence of lipid synthases and nutrient transporters. Mitogen-activated protein kinases (MAPKs) are key pillars in AMF and plant signaling. According to [236], it is the STR transporters that carry fatty acids through alfalfa Medicago truncatula. Invasive plant species inhibit native plant mycorrhizal fungal infections by changing these transport enzymes, ultimately impacting native plant growth. For example, lipid synthase (FatM and RAM2) mutations in alfalfa roots, which control the supply of lipids needed by mycorrhizal fungi in plants, were found to reduce the infection rate of AMF [236].

4. Management of Invasive Plant Species

In order to manage the invasive plant species, we should focus on the secondary metabolites responsible for their invasiveness. Here are a few methods to elaborate specific secondary metabolites that significantly enhance the plant species’ invasiveness. According to [237], there should be a focus on plant species which exhibit allelopathic effects or competitive advantages. Biological control refers to managing invasive plant species by introducing another living organism, such as insects, diseases, or herbivores, to prevent invasive plant species from spreading and growing. Introducing natural enemies from the exotic plant species’ habitat can reduce the growth and reproduction of specific plant species. Weed scientists and entomologists carefully select those natural enemies from exotic habitats to ensure they target only the invasive plant species without causing harm to other living organisms. According to [238], biological control of invasive weeds offers environmentally friendly and sustainable strategies through careful observation and adaptive management. To reduce the impact of invasive plant species, biological control is often combined with other control techniques. To stop the production or release of harmful secondary metabolites from invasive plant species, targeted chemical management strategies are needed [239]. To reduce the effectiveness of secondary metabolites of invasive plant species, land management strategies can be used to change the soil properties and microbial population [237]. Reducing soil-borne allelopathic chemicals’ effects use cover crops or targeted plant techniques [240]. Developing native cultivar plant species through genetic modification or selective breeding can enhance tolerance or resistance to secondary metabolites of invasive plant species. Additionally, exploring options to modify invasive plants to produce fewer secondary metabolites that confer invasiveness may be beneficial [241].
To reduce the impact of invasive plant species’ secondary metabolites in invaded ecosystems, integrated pest management (IPM) strategies should be used to decrease dependence on a single control method and enhance the diversity of native plant species. While taking the ecological environment into consideration, IPM approaches combine different control methods [242]. According to [243], IPM concentrates on identifying invasive plant species and their secondary metabolites in newly invaded area. Before invasive plant species establish dominance, IPM strategy can manage them effectively. Educating stakeholders, land managers, and the general public regarding stopping the introduction and spread of invasive plant species, as well as selecting appropriate plant species for gardening and landscaping, is essential [242]. Efficient and quick management strategies for invasive plant species should incorporate multiple tactics to minimize their negative effects on ecosystems. A good management strategy integrates methods for early detection and quick response. Strict biosecurity protocols and public awareness campaigns can prevent the introduction and spread of invasive plant species. Early detection and timely identification enable immediate actions to prevent the invasive plant species from growing and spreading. Management strategies may include biological control through the introduction of natural enemies, mechanical control (e.g., manual removal or mowing), chemical control with weedicides, culture control through vegetation with native plant species, and microbial control. Implementing a combination of these available techniques can open new avenues for managing invasive plant species, preserving biodiversity, and promoting ecosystem health. Regular monitoring to evaluate the efficacy of these measures is also crucial.

5. Conclusions and Future Perspectives

Plant invasions highlight the significant impact of non-native species on ecosystems, biodiversity, and human activities. Understanding the mechanisms of plant invasions is essential for effective management and conservation efforts. Secondary metabolites in invasive plant species play a pivotal role in facilitating plant invasions by influencing various stages of the invasion process. Phenolic compounds, alkaloids, terpeniods, and other phytochemicals are important volatile organic compounds that serve as major contributors to the success of invasive plants. Invasive plants outcompete native ones due to their diverse chemical properties, alter soil composition, and modify ecological interactions. Due to the presence of secondary metabolites, invasive plants possess chemical defense mechanisms against herbivores, pathogens, and competing vegetation. The complex functions of these compounds not only support the establishment and spread of invasive species but also impact ecosystem dynamics and functions. In the future, biological control methods for invasive plant species will involve harnessing living organisms such as insects, pathogens, or herbivores to effectively manage the proliferation and spread of invasive plant species. In the context of secondary metabolites and plant invasion, future research will likely focus on clarifying the molecular process controlling the production, release, and ecological functions of these compounds. Understanding secondary metabolites in plant invasion is pivotal for shaping the dynamics of invasive species and their interactions with native flora and fauna. By elucidating the mechanisms underlying the production and function of these metabolites, we can develop targeted management strategies to mitigate the impact of invasive plants on ecosystems. Future developments in omics technology will offer deeper insights into the intricate interactions between secondary metabolites and plant invasion, opening the door for more successful conservation and management initiatives. These insights will be paired with ecological modeling and field research.

Author Contributions

R.A. and J.S.: Investigation; Conceptualization; writing—original draft; Y.B., W.A.K. and S.M.K.: Contents, writing-original draft, review & editing; A.A.K. and C.J.: Investigation; review & editing, methodology; J.S.: Writing—review & editing; U.Z., X.W. and N.U.: Investigation and conceptualization, writing—original draft, review & editing, project administration, funding acquisition; D.D., A.A. and W.L. Conceptualization, funding acquisition. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (31971427), the Priority Academic Program Development of Jiangsu Higher Education Institutions (PAPD), Special Research Project of School of Emergency Management, Jiangsu University (KY-A-07), and Jiangsu Collaborative Innovation Center of Technology and Material of Water Treatment.

Data Availability Statement

All the data discussed in the article.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Wang, C.; Zhu, M.; Chen, X.Q.B. Review on Allelopathy of Exotic Invasive Plants. In Procedia Engineering; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2011; Volume 18, pp. 240–246. [Google Scholar]
  2. Krogsgaard Svendsen, I. The Effects That the Current Climate Crisis Have on the Biogeography and Environment, Needed Adaptations and Conservation. Am. J. Biosci. 2020, 8, 20. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Didham, R.K.; Tylianakis, J.M.; Gemmell, N.J.; Rand, T.A.; Ewers, R.M. Interactive Effects of Habitat Modification and Species Invasion on Native Species Decline. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2007, 22, 489–496. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Nicolosi, G.; Mammola, S.; Verbrugge, L.; Isaia, M. Aliens in Caves: The Global Dimension of Biological Invasions in Subterranean Ecosystems. Biol. Rev. 2023, 98, 849–867. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wu, J.-W.; Li, F.-L.; Yao, S.-K.; Zhao, Z.-Y.; Feng, X.; Chen, R.-Z.; Xu, Y.-Q. Iva xanthiifolia Leaf Extract Reduced the Diversity of Indigenous Plant Rhizosphere Bacteria. BMC Plant Biol. 2023, 23, 297. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Wang, X.; Wang, X.; Wang, W.; Wang, J.; Yu, F. Effects of Invasive Plant Diversity on Soil Microbial Communities. Diversity 2022, 14, 992. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Yang, B.; Li, J. Phytotoxicity of Root Exudates of Invasive Solidago canadensis on Co-occurring Native and Invasive Plant Species. Pakistan J. Bot. 2022, 54, 1019–1024. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Gioria, M.; Hulme, P.E.; Richardson, D.M.; Pyšek, P. Why Are Invasive Plants Successful? Annu. Rev. Plant Biol. 2023, 74, 635–670. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  9. Costan, C.A.; Godsoe, W.K.; Bufford, J.L.; Marris, J.W.M.; Hulme, P.E. Can the Enemy Release Hypothesis Explain the Success of Rumex (Polygonaceae) Species in an Introduced Range? Biol. Invasions 2022, 24, 2665–2677. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Sokol, N.W.; Slessarev, E.; Marschmann, G.L.; Nicolas, A.; Blazewicz, S.J.; Brodie, E.L. Life and Death in the Soil Microbiome: How Ecological Processes Influence Biogeochemistry. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2022, 20, 415–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Fischbein, D.; Corley, J.C. Population Ecology and Classical Biological Control of Forest Insect Pests in a Changing World. For. Ecol. Manag. 2022, 520, 120400. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Sanderson, C.H.; Zonneveld, R.; Smith, M.C.; Minteer, C.R.; Purcell, M.F. Life History of the Leaf-Feeding Beetle Calomela intemerata, a Potential Biocontrol Agent against Acacia auriculiformis. Entomol. Exp. Appl. 2023, 171, 902–912. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Liu, Y.; Zheng, Y.-L.; Jahn, L.V.; Burns, J.H. Invaders Responded More Positively to Soil Biota than Native or Noninvasive Introduced Species, Consistent with Enemy Escape. Biol. Invasions 2023, 25, 351–364. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Liu, L.; Fang, X.; Ren, S.; Jia, R.; Liu, Q.; Liu, H.; Xiu, L.; Yaqoob, S.; Cai, D.; Liu, J. Targeted Metabolic Reveals Different Part of Maize in Polyphenolic Metabolites during Germination and Hypoglycemic Activity Analysis. Food Chem. X 2023, 19, 100848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  15. Latif, S.; Gurusinghe, S.; Weston, L.A. The Potential Role of Allelopathy in the Persistence of Invasive Weeds. In Persistence Strategies of Weeds; Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2022; pp. 271–301. [Google Scholar]
  16. Khamare, Y.; Chen, J.; Marble, S.C. Allelopathy and Its Application as a Weed Management Tool: A Review. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 1034649. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  17. Harvey, J.A.; Bukovinszky, T.; van der Putten, W.H. Interactions between Invasive Plants and Insect Herbivores: A Plea for a Multitrophic Perspective. Biol. Conserv. 2010, 143, 2251–2259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Divekar, P.A.; Narayana, S.; Divekar, B.A.; Kumar, R.; Gadratagi, B.G.; Ray, A.; Singh, A.K.; Rani, V.; Singh, V.; Singh, A.K.; et al. Plant Secondary Metabolites as Defense Tools against Herbivores for Sustainable Crop Protection. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2022, 23, 2690. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Daehler, C.C. Performance Comparisons of Co-Occurring Native and Alien Invasive Plants: Implications for Conservation and Restoration. Annu. Rev. Ecol. Evol. Syst. 2003, 34, 183–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Bajwa, A.A.; Chauhan, B.S.; Farooq, M.; Shabbir, A.; Adkins, S.W. What Do We Really Know about Alien Plant Invasion? A Review of the Invasion Mechanism of One of the World’s Worst Weeds. Planta 2016, 244, 39–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Savoia, D. Plant-Derived Antimicrobial Compounds: Alternatives to Antibiotics. Future Microbiol. 2012, 7, 979–990. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shahrtash, M.; Brown, S.P. A Path Forward: Promoting Microbial-Based Methods in the Control of Invasive Plant Species. Plants 2021, 10, 943. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Besserer, A.; Puech-Pagès, V.; Kiefer, P.; Gomez-Roldan, V.; Jauneau, A.; Roy, S.; Portais, J.C.; Roux, C.; Bécard, G.; Séjalon-Delmas, N. Strigolactones Stimulate Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi by Activating Mitochondria. PLoS Biol. 2006, 4, e226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  24. Oldroyd, G.E.D. Speak, Friend, and Enter: Signalling Systems That Promote Beneficial Symbiotic Associations in Plants. Nat. Rev. Microbiol. 2013, 11, 252–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  25. Khattak, W.A.; Sun, J.; Hameed, R.; Zaman, F.; Abbas, A.; Khan, K.A.; Elboughdiri, N.; Akbar, R.; He, F.; Ullah, M.W.; et al. Unveiling the Resistance of Native Weed Communities: Insights for Managing Invasive Weed Species in Disturbed Environments. Biol. Rev. 2024, 99, 753–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Elsheikh, E.A.E.; El-Keblawy, A.; Mosa, K.A.; Okoh, A.I.; Saadoun, I. Role of Endophytes and Rhizosphere Microbes in Promoting the Invasion of Exotic Plants in Arid and Semi-Arid Areas: A Review. Sustainability 2021, 13, 13081. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Inderjit; Callaway, R.M. Experimental Designs for the Study of Allelopathy. Plant Soil 2003, 256, 1–11. [Google Scholar]
  28. Bais, H.P.; Walker, T.S.; Kennan, A.J.; Stermitz, F.R.; Vivanco, J.M. Structure-Dependent Phytotoxicity of Catechins and Other Flavonoids: Flavonoid Conversions by Cell-Free Protein Extracts of Centaurea maculosa (Spotted Knapweed) Roots. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2003, 51, 897–901. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Castaldi, S.; Carfora, A.; Fiorentino, A.; Natale, A.; Messere, A.; Miglietta, F.; Cotrufo, M.F. Inhibition of Net Nitrification Activity in a Mediterranean Woodland: Possible Role of Chemicals Produced by Arbutus Unedo. Plant Soil 2009, 315, 273–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Elshafie, H.S.; Camele, I.; Mohamed, A.A. A Comprehensive Review on the Biological, Agricultural and Pharmaceutical Properties of Secondary Metabolites Based-Plant Origin. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 3266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Kushwaha, A.; Hans, N.; Giri, B.S.; Rene, E.R.; Rani, R. Uncovering the Phytochemicals of Root Exudates and Extracts of Lead (Pb) Tolerant Chrysopogon zizanioides (L.) Roberty in Response to Lead Contamination and Their Effect on the Chemotactic Behavior of Rhizospheric Bacteria. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2022, 29, 44998–45012. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Khan, A.A.; Wang, T.; Hussain, T.; Amna Ali, F.; Shi, F.; Chaudhary, H.J. Halotolerant-Koccuria rhizophila (14asp)-induced amendment of salt stress in pea plants by limiting Na+ uptake and elevating production of antioxidants. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1907. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Graff, P.; Gundel, P.E.; Salvat, A.; Cristos, D.; Chaneton, E.J. Protection Offered by Leaf Fungal Endophytes to an Invasive Species against Native Herbivores Depends on Soil Nutrients. J. Ecol. 2020, 108, 1592–1604. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Yuan, Y.; Wang, B.; Zhang, S.; Tang, J.; Tu, C.; Hu, S.; Yong, J.W.H.; Chen, X. Enhanced Allelopathy and Competitive Ability of Invasive Plant Solidago canadensis in Its Introduced. J. Plant Ecol. 2013, 6, 253–263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Ens, E.J.; Bremner, J.B.; French, K.; Korth, J. Identification of Volatile Compounds Released by Roots of an Invasive Plant, Bitou Bush (Chrysanthemoides monilifera Spp. Rotundata), and Their Inhibition of Native Seedling Growth. Biol. Invasions 2009, 11, 275–287. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Thorpe, A.S.; Thelen, G.C.; Diaconu, A.; Callaway, R.M. Root Exudate Is Allelopathic in Invaded Community but Not in Native Community: Field Evidence for the Novel Weapons Hypothesis. J. Ecol. 2009, 97, 641–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Cappuccino, N.; Arnason, J.T. Novel Chemistry of Invasive Exotic Plants. Biol. Lett. 2006, 2, 189–193. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Afzal, M.R.; Naz, M.; Ashraf, W.; Du, D. The Legacy of Plant Invasion: Impacts on Soil Nitrification and Management Implications. Plants 2023, 12, 2980. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Liu, S.; Wu, F.; Wen, X. Allelopathic Effects of Root Exudates of Chinese Onion on Tomato Growth and the Pathogen Fusarium oxysporum(Sch1) f.Sp. Lycopersici. Allelopath. J. 2013, 31, 387–404. [Google Scholar]
  40. Singh, A.A.; Ghosh, A.; Agrawal, M.; Agrawal, S.B. Secondary Metabolites Responses of Plants Exposed to Ozone: An Update. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2023, 30, 88281–88312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Ramawat, K.G.; Goyal, S. Co-Evolution of Secondary Metabolites During Biological Competition for Survival and Advantage: An Overview; Reference Series in Phytochemistry; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 3–17. [Google Scholar]
  42. Melzig, M.F. Plant Polyphenols as Inhibitors of Hydrolases Are Regulators of Digestion. Complement. Med. Res. 2023, 30, 453–459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Zhang, R.; Qu, S.; Zhang, B.; Gao, Y.; Xing, F. Interactive Effects between the Invasive Weed Stellera chamaejasme and Grass: Can Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and Fungal Pathogens Coregulate Interspecific Relationships? Front. Microbiol. 2023, 14, 1236891. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Xu, J.; Yang, H.; Nie, C.; Wang, T.; Qin, X.; Yang, J.; Chang, Y.; Nie, S.; Fu, Y. Comprehensive Phytochemical Analysis of Lingonberry (Vaccinium vitisidaea L.) from Different Regions of China and Their Potential Antioxidant and Antiproliferative Activities. RSC Adv. 2023, 13, 29438–29449. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  45. Košćak, L.; Lamovšek, J.; Đermić, E.; Prgomet, I.; Godena, S. Microbial and Plant-Based Compounds as Alternatives for the Control of Phytopathogenic Bacteria. Horticulturae 2023, 9, 1124. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Kostina-Bednarz, M.; Płonka, J.; Barchanska, H. Allelopathy as a Source of Bioherbicides: Challenges and Prospects for Sustainable Agriculture. Rev. Environ. Sci. Biotechnol. 2023, 22, 471–504. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Yu, J.W.; Lee, J.H.; Song, M.H.; Keum, Y.S. Metabolomic Responses of Lettuce (Lactuca sativa) to Allelopathic Benzoquinones from Iris sanguinea Seeds. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2023, 71, 5143–5153. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  48. Michalczyk, A.; Ostrowska, P. Essential Oils and Their Components in Combating Fungal Pathogens of Animal and Human Skin. J. Med. Mycol. 2021, 31, 101118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Suwitchayanon, P.; Kunasakdakul, K.; Kato-Noguchi, H. Screening the Allelopathic Activity of 14 Medicinal Plants from Northern Thailand. Environ. Control Biol. 2017, 55, 143–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ulbrich, T.C.; Rivas-Ubach, A.; Tiemann, L.K.; Friesen, M.L.; Evans, S.E. Plant Root Exudates and Rhizosphere Bacterial Communities Shift with Neighbor Context. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2022, 172, 108753. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Shan, Z.; Zhou, S.; Shah, A.; Arafat, Y.; Arif Hussain Rizvi, S.; Shao, H. Plant Allelopathy in Response to Biotic and Abiotic Factors. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Reiss, A.; Fomsgaard, I.S.; Mathiassen, S.K.; Kudsk, P. Weed Suppressive Traits of Winter Cereals: Allelopathy and Competition. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2018, 76, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Han, M.; Yang, H.; Huang, H.; Du, J.; Zhang, S.; Fu, Y. Allelopathy and Allelobiosis: Efficient and Economical Alternatives in Agroecosystems. Plant Biol. 2023, 26, 11–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Bachheti, A.; Sharma, A.; Bachheti, R.K.; Husen, A.; Pandey, D.P. Plant Allelochemicals and Their Various Applications BT—Co-Evolution of Secondary Metabolites. In Co-Evolution of Secondary Metabolites; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 441–465. [Google Scholar]
  55. Hussain, M.I.; Araniti, F.; Schulz, M.; Baerson, S.; Vieites-Álvarez, Y.; Rempelos, L.; Bilsborrow, P.; Chinchilla, N.; Macías, F.A.; Weston, L.A.; et al. Benzoxazinoids in Wheat Allelopathy—From Discovery to Application for Sustainable Weed Management. Environ. Exp. Bot. 2022, 202, 104997. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Pedrol, N.; González, L.; Reigosa, M.J. Allelopathy and Abiotic Stress. In Allelopathy: A Physiological Process with Ecological Implicartion; Reigosa, M.J., Pedrol, N., Gonzales, L., Eds.; Springer: Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 211–227. [Google Scholar]
  57. Berdy, J. Contribution on the Study of Allelopathic Interactions Between Amaranthus retroflexus L. and Secale cereale L. Master’s Thesis, University of Liège, Gembloux, Belgium, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  58. Rai, P.K.; Singh, J.S. Ecological Insights and Environmental Threats of Invasive Alien Plant Chromolaena odorata: Prospects for Sustainable Management. Weed Biol. Manag. 2024, 24, 15–37. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Yadav, S.P.S.; Mehata, D.K.; Pokhrel, S.; Ghimire, N.P. A Comprehensive Study of Banmara (Invasive Alien Plant Species): Understanding the Invasive Potential and Ecological Consequences for Biodiversity. J. Agric. 2024, 15, 101030. [Google Scholar]
  60. Ali, J.; Chen, R.Z. Chemical Ecology: Insect-Plant Interactions; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2024; pp. 1–182. [Google Scholar]
  61. Nair, A.; Mallya, R.; Suvarna, V.; Khan, T.A.; Momin, M.; Omri, A. Nanoparticles—Attractive Carriers of Antimicrobial Essential Oils. Antibiotics 2022, 11, 108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  62. Corso, M.; Perreau, F.; Rajjou, L.; Ben Malek, R.; Lepiniec, L.; Mouille, G. Specialized Metabolites in Seeds. Adv. Bot. Res. 2021, 98, 35–70. [Google Scholar]
  63. Ait Elallem, K.; Sobeh, M.; Boularbah, A.; Yasri, A. Chemically Degraded Soil Rehabilitation Process Using Medicinal and Aromatic Plants: Review. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 73–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Adams, B.; Yusuf, A.A.; Torto, B.; Khamis, F.M. Non-Host Plant Odors Influence the Tritrophic Interaction between Tomato, Its Foliar Herbivore Tuta absoluta and Mirid Predator Nesidiocoris tenuis. Front. Plant Sci. 2023, 14, 1014865. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Guo, X.; Hu, Y.; Ma, J.Y.; Wang, H.; Wang, K.L.; Wang, T.; Jiang, S.Y.; Jiao, J.B.; Sun, Y.K.; Jiang, X.L.; et al. Nitrogen Deposition Effects on Invasive and Native Plant Competition: Implications for Future Invasions. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2023, 259, 1150299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Korpelainen, H.; Pietiläinen, M. What Makes a Good Plant Invader? Life 2023, 13, 1596. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Poljuha, D.; Sladonja, B.; Uzelac Božac, M.; Šola, I.; Damijanić, D.; Weber, T. The Invasive Alien Plant Solidago canadensis: Phytochemical Composition, Ecosystem Service Potential, and Application in Bioeconomy. Plants 2024, 13, 1745. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Abbas, F.; O’Neill Rothenberg, D.; Zhou, Y.; Ke, Y.; Wang, H.C. Volatile Organic Compounds as Mediators of Plant Communication and Adaptation to Climate Change. Physiol. Plant. 2022, 174, e13840. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  69. Hua, J.; Liu, J.; Zhou, W.; Ma, C.; Luo, S. A New Perspective on Plant Defense against Foliar Gall-Forming Aphids through Activation of the Fruit Abscission Pathway. Plant Physiol. Biochem. 2023, 196, 1046–1054. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Asif, A.; Baig, M.A.; Siddiqui, M.B. Role of Jasmonates and Salicylates in Plant Allelopathy; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2021; pp. 115–127. [Google Scholar]
  71. Reglinski, T.; Wurms, K.V.; Vanneste, J.L.; Ah Chee, A.; Schipper, M.; Cornish, D.; Yu, J.; McAlinden, J.; Hedderley, D. Kiwifruit Resistance to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Pseudomonas syringae Pv. Actinidiae and Defence Induction by Acibenzolar-S-Methyl and Methyl Jasmonate Are Cultivar Dependent. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2023, 24, 15952. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Okosun, O.O.; George, J.; Reddy, G.V.P. Role of Kairomones in Biological Control of Pests: Commercial Potential. In Development and Commercialization of Biopesticides; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2023; pp. 57–80. [Google Scholar]
  73. Lankau, R.A. Coevolution between Invasive and Native Plants Driven by Chemical Competition and Soil Biota. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 11240–11245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Batish, D.R.; Kaur, S.; Singh, H.P.; Kohli, R.K. Role of Root-Mediated Interactions in Phytotoxic Interference of Ageratum conyzoides with Rice (Oryza sativa). Flora Morphol. Distrib. Funct. Ecol. Plants 2009, 204, 388–395. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Hazrati, H.; Fomsgaard, I.S.; Kudsk, P. Root-Exuded Benzoxazinoids: Uptake and Translocation in Neighboring Plants. J. Agric. Food Chem. 2020, 68, 10609–10617. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  76. Cerdeira, A.L.; Cantrell, C.L.; Dayan, F.E.; Byrd, J.D.; Duke, S.O. Tabanone, a New Phytotoxic Constituent of Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica). Weed Sci. 2012, 60, 212–218. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Fraser, L.H.; Carlyle, C.N. Is Spotted Knapweed (Centaurea stoebe L.) Patch Size Related to the Effect on Soil and Vegetation Properties? Plant Ecol. 2011, 212, 975–983. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Yadav, V.; Singh, N.B.; Singh, H.; Singh, A.; Hussain, I. Allelopathic Invasion of Alien Plant Species in India and Their Management Strategies: A Review. Trop. plant Res. 2016, 3, 87–101. [Google Scholar]
  79. Vivanco, J.M.; Bais, H.P.; Stermitz, F.R.; Thelen, G.C.; Callaway, R.M. Biogeographical Variation in Community Response to Root Allelochemistry: Novel Weapons and Exotic Invasion. Ecol. Lett. 2004, 7, 285–292. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  80. Irimia, R.E.; Lopes, S.M.M.; Sotes, G.; Cavieres, L.A.; Eren, Ö.; Lortie, C.J.; French, K.; Hierro, J.L.; Rosche, C.; Callaway, R.M.; et al. Biogeographic Differences in the Allelopathy of Leaf Surface Extracts of an Invasive Weed. Biol. Invasions 2019, 21, 3151–3168. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Landau, I.; Müller-Schärer, H.; Ward, P.I. Influence of Cnicin, a Sesquiterpene Lactone of Centaurea maculosa (Asteraceae), on Specialist and Generalist Insect Herbivores. J. Chem. Ecol. 1994, 20, 929–942. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  82. Liu, B.; Yan, J.; Li, W.; Yin, L.; Li, P.; Yu, H.; Xing, L.; Cai, M.; Wang, H.; Zhao, M.; et al. Mikania micrantha Genome Provides Insights into the Molecular Mechanism of Rapid Growth. Nat. Commun. 2020, 11, 340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  83. Huang, H.; Ye, W.; Wei, X.; Zhang, C. Allelopathic Potential of Sesquiterpene Lactones and Phenolic Constituents from Mikania micrantha H. B. K. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2008, 36, 867–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  84. López, M.L.; Bonzani, N.E.; Zygadlo, J.A. Allelopathic Potential of Tagetes Minuta Terpenes by a Chemical, Anatomical and Phytotoxic Approach. Biochem. Syst. Ecol. 2008, 36, 882–890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  85. Zhou, S.; Zokir, T.; Mei, Y.; Lei, L.; Shi, K.; Zou, T.; Zhang, C.; Shao, H. Allelopathic Effect of Serphidium kaschgaricum (Krasch.) Poljak. Volatiles on Selected Species. Plants 2021, 10, 495. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  86. Preston, C.A.; Betts, H.; Baldwin, I.T. Methyl Jasmonate as an Allelopathic Agent: Sagebrush Inhibits Germination of a Neighboring Tobacco, Nicotiana attenuata. J. Chem. Ecol. 2002, 28, 2343–2369. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  87. Berillo, D.; Kozhahmetova, M.; Lebedeva, L. Overview of the Biological Activity of Anthraquinons and Flavanoids of the Plant Rumex Species. Molecules 2022, 27, 1204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  88. Bashar, H.M.K.; Juraimi, A.S.; Ahmad-Hamdani, M.S.; Uddin, M.K.; Asib, N.; Anwar, M.P.; Rahaman, F. A Mystic Weed, Parthenium hysterophorus: Threats, Potentials and Management. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  89. Kaur, A.; Kaur, S.; Singh, H.P.; Batish, D.R. Alterations in Phytotoxicity and Allelochemistry in Response to Intraspecific Variation in Parthenium hysterophorus. Ecol. Complex. 2022, 50, 100999. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  90. Nimal Chandrasena, N.C.; Rao, A.N. Parthenium Weed: Uses and Abuses. In Parthenium Weed: Biology, Ecology and Management; CABI Digital Library: Wallingford, UK, 2018; pp. 190–211. [Google Scholar]
  91. Kaur, L.; Malhi, D.S.; Cooper, R.; Kaur, M.; Sohal, H.S.; Mutreja, V.; Sharma, A. Comprehensive Review on Ethnobotanical Uses, Phytochemistry, Biological Potential and Toxicology of Parthenium hysterophorus L.: A Journey from Noxious Weed to a Therapeutic Medicinal Plant. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2021, 281, 114525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  92. Scavo, A.; Abbate, C.; Mauromicale, G. Plant Allelochemicals: Agronomic, Nutritional and Ecological Relevance in the Soil System. Plant Soil 2019, 442, 23–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  93. Pan, L.; He, F.; Liang, Q.; Bo, Y.; Lin, X.; Javed, Q.; Sun, J. Allelopathic Effects of Caffeic Acid and Its Derivatives on Seed Germination and Growth Competitiveness of Native Plants (Lantana indica) and Invasive Plants (Solidago canadensis). Agriculture 2023, 13, 1719. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  94. Wang, L.; Liu, Y.; Zhu, X.; Zhang, Z.; Huang, X. Identify Potential Allelochemicals from Humulus scandens (Lour.) Merr. Root Extracts That Induce Allelopathy on Alternanthera philoxeroides (Mart.) Griseb. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 7068. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  95. Šoln, K.; Žnidaršič, N.; Dolenc Koce, J. Root Growth Inhibition and Ultrastructural Changes in Radish Root Tips after Treatment with Aqueous Extracts of Fallopia japonica and F. ×bohemica Rhizomes. Protoplasma 2022, 259, 343–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  96. Nakamura, N.; Nemoto, M. Allelopathic Potential of Eupatorium odoratum in Abandoned Shifting Cultivation Fields in the Tropics. J. Weed Sci. Technol. 1993, 38, 103–108. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  97. Sahid, I.; Yusoff, N. Allelopathic Effects of Chromolaena odorata (L.) King and Robinson and Mikania micrantha H.B.K. on Three Selected Weed Species. Aust. J. Crop Sci. 2014, 8, 1024–1028. [Google Scholar]
  98. Poonpaiboonpipat, T.; Krumsri, R.; Kato-noguchi, H. Allelopathic and Herbicidal Effects of Crude Extract from Chromolaena odorata (L.) R.M.King and H.Rob. on Echinochloa crus-galli and Amaranthus viridis. Plants 2021, 10, 1609. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  99. Erida, G.; Saidi, N.; Syafruddin, H. Allelopathic Screening of Several Weed Species as Potential Bioherbicides. IOP Conf. Ser. Earth Environ. Sci. 2019, 334, 012034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  100. Kato-Noguchi, H. Allelopathy and Allelochemicals of Imperata cylindrica as an Invasive Plant Species. Plants 2022, 11, 2551. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  101. Motmainna, M.; Juraimi, A.S.; Uddin, M.K.; Asib, N.B.; Islam, A.K.M.M.; Ahmad-Hamdani, M.S.; Hasan, M. Phytochemical Constituents and Allelopathic Potential of Parthenium hysterophorus L. in Comparison to Commercial Herbicides to Control Weeds. Plants 2021, 10, 1445. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  102. Bajwa, A.A.; Weston, P.A.; Gurusinghe, S.; Latif, S.; Adkins, S.W.; Weston, L.A. Toxic Potential and Metabolic Profiling of Two Australian Biotypes of the Invasive Plant Parthenium Weed (Parthenium hysterophorus L.). Toxins 2020, 12, 447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  103. Bora, A.R.; Babu, D.S.; Kalita, S.; Chetry, S. Harmful Effect of the Invasive Weed Mikania Micrantha with Special Reference to India: A Review. Agric. Rev. 2021, 44, 380–384. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  104. Shao, H.; Peng, S.; Wei, X.; Zhang, D.; Zhang, C. Potential Allelochemicals from an Invasive Weed Mikania micrantha H.B.K. J. Chem. Ecol. 2005, 31, 1657–1668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  105. Syngkli, R.B.L.; Lallianpuii, S.; Rai, P.K. Microcosm Investigation on the Allelochemical Potential of Mikania micrantha to the Selected Food Crop. Int. J. Plant Environ. 2022, 8, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  106. Rashid, M.H.; Asaeda, T.; Uddin, M.N. The Allelopathic Potential of Kudzu (Pueraria montana). Weed Sci. 2010, 58, 47–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  107. Erida, G.; Saidi, N.; Hasanuddin, H.; Syafruddin, S. Herbicidal Effects of Ethyl Acetate Extracts of Billygoat Weed (Ageratum conyzoides L.) on Spiny Amaranth (Amaranthus spinosus L.) Growth. Agronomy 2021, 11, 1991. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  108. Kong, C.; Liang, W.; Hu, F.; Xu, X.; Wang, P.; Jiang, Y.; Xing, B. Allelochemicals and Their Transformations in the Ageratum conyzoides Intercropped Citrus Orchard Soils. Plant Soil 2004, 264, 149–157. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  109. Darji, T.B.; Adhikari, B.; Pathak, S.; Neupane, S.; Thapa, L.B.; Bhatt, T.D.; Pant, R.R.; Pant, G.; Pal, K.B.; Bishwakarma, K. Phytotoxic Effects of Invasive Ageratina adenophora on Two Native Subtropical Shrubs in Nepal. Sci. Rep. 2021, 11, 13663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  110. Wan, F.H.; Liu, W.X.; Guo, J.Y.; Qiang, S.; Li, B.P.; Wang, J.J.; Yang, G.Q.; Niu, H.B.; Gui, F.R.; Huang, W.K.; et al. Invasive Mechanism and Control Strategy of Ageratina adenophora (Sprengel). Sci. China Life Sci. 2010, 53, 1291–1298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  111. Khan, I.U.; Qi, S.S.; Gul, F.; Manan, S.; Rono, J.K.; Naz, M.; Shi, X.N. A Green Approach Used for Heavy Metals ‘Phytoremediation’ Via Invasive Plant Species to Mitigate Environmental Pollution: A Review. Plants 2023, 12, 725. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  112. Hall, R.M.; Wagentristl, H.; Renner-Martin, K.; Urban, B.; Durec, N.; Kaul, H.P. Extracts and Residues of Common Ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.) Cause Alterations in Root and Shoot Growth of Crops. Plants 2023, 12, 1768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  113. Javaid, N.; Javaid, A.; Shah, M.H.; Khan, I.H.; Waleed, S.M. Herbicidal activity of Ageratum conyzoides against Parthenium. J. Weed Sci. Res. 2020, 27, 137–146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  114. Fernández-Aparicio, M.; Soriano, G.; Masi, M.; Carretero, P.; Vilariño-Rodríguez, S.; Cimmino, A. (4Z)-Lachnophyllum Lactone, an Acetylenic Furanone from Conyza bonariensis, Identified for the First Time with Allelopathic Activity against Cuscuta campestris. Agric. 2022, 12, 790. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  115. Puig, C.G.; Reigosa, M.J.; Valentão, P.; Andrade, P.B.; Pedrol, N. Unravelling the Bioherbicide Potential of Eucalyptus globulus Labill: Biochemistry and Effects of Its Aqueous Extract. PLoS ONE 2018, 13, e0192872. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  116. Das, M.; Sharma, R.; Nath, N. Invasive Alien Herbaceous Species in Terrestrial and Swampland Habitats in India: A Review. Int. J. Bot. Stud. 2021, 6, 661–668. [Google Scholar]
  117. Suzuki, M.; Chozin, M.A.; Iwasaki, A.; Suenaga, K.; Kato-Noguchi, H. Phytotoxic Activity of Chinese Violet (Asystasia gangetica (L.) T. Anderson) and Two Phytotoxic Substances. Weed Biol. Manag. 2019, 19, 3–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  118. Maurya, P.; Mazeed, A.; Kumar, D.; Ahmad, I.Z.; Suryavanshi, P. Medicinal and Aromatic Plants as an Emerging Source of Bioherbicides. Curr. Sci. 2022, 122, 258–266. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  119. Daniela Lopes, A.; Graciela Iecher Faria Nunes, M.; Paulo Francisco, J.; Henrique dos Santos, E. Potential Allelopathic Effect of Species of the Asteraceae Family and Its Use in Agriculture. In Vegetation Dynamics, Changing Ecosystems and Human Responsibility; IntechOpen: London, UK, 2023. [Google Scholar]
  120. Motmainna, M.; Juraimi, A.S.; Ahmad-Hamdani, M.S.; Hasan, M.; Yeasmin, S.; Anwar, M.P.; Islam, A.K.M.M. Allelopathic Potential of Tropical Plants—A Review. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2063. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  121. Bezerra, J.J.; do Nascimento, T.G.; Kamiya, R.U.; do Nascimento Prata, A.P.; de Medeiros, P.M.; de MendonÃ, C.N. Phytochemical Screening, Chromatographic Profile and Evaluation of Antimicrobial and Antioxidant Activities of Three Species of the Cyperaceae Juss. Family. J. Med. Plants Res. 2019, 13, 312–320. [Google Scholar]
  122. Silva, M.P.; Piazza, L.A.; López, D.; López Rivilli, M.J.; Turco, M.D.; Cantero, J.J.; Tourn, M.G.; Scopel, A.L. Phytotoxic Activity in Flourensia campestris and Isolation of (-)-Hamanasic Acid A as Its Active Principle Compound. Phytochemistry 2012, 77, 140–148. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  123. Nyasha, S.; Innocent, P.; Simbarashe, M.; Ronald, M.; Kasirayi, M. Herbicidal Effects of Datura Stramonium (L.) Leaf Extracts on Amaranthus hybridus (L.) and Tagetes minuta (L.). African J. Agric. Res. 2018, 13, 1754–1760. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  124. Webb, M. Biological Control of Weeds. A World Catalogue of Agents and Their Target Weeds. Plant Pathol. 1999, 48, 836–837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  125. Kumar, D.; Thakur, C.; Bhardwaj, D.R.; Sharma, H.; Sharma, N.; Sharma, P.; Sharma, A. Key Factor of Invasion and Control Measures of Major Exotic Weed Species in Subtropical and Temperate Forest of North Western Himalaya. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2021, 10, 2529–2541. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  126. Hodgins, K.A.; Bock, D.G.; Rieseberg, L.H. Trait Evolution in Invasive Species. Annu. Plant Rev. Online 2018, 1, 459–496. [Google Scholar]
  127. Ehlers, B.K.; Berg, M.P.; Staudt, M.; Holmstrup, M.; Glasius, M.; Ellers, J.; Tomiolo, S.; Madsen, R.B.; Slotsbo, S.; Penuelas, J. Plant Secondary Compounds in Soil and Their Role in Belowground Species Interactions. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2020, 35, 716–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  128. Adomako, M.O.; Xue, W.; Du, D.L.; Yu, F.H. Soil biota and soil substrates influence responses of the rhizomatous clonal grass Leymus chinensis to nutrient heterogeneity. Plant Soil 2021, 465, 19–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  129. Xia, Z.; Yu, L.; He, Y.; Korpelainen, H.; Li, C. Broadleaf Trees Mediate Chemically the Growth of Chinese Fir through Root Exudates. Biol. Fertil. Soils 2019, 55, 737–749. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  130. Clarke, C.R.; Timko, M.P.; Yoder, J.I.; Axtell, M.J.; Westwood, J.H. Molecular Dialog between Parasitic Plants and Their Hosts. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol. 2019, 57, 279–299. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  131. Zhang, H.Y.; Goncalves, P.; Copeland, E.; Qi, S.S.; Dai, Z.C.; Li, G.L.; Thomas, T. Invasion by the weed Conyza canadensis alters soil nutrient supply and shifts microbiota structure. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2020, 143, 107739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  132. Thapa, L.B.; Kaewchumnong, K.; Sinkkonen, A.; Sridith, K. Airborne and Belowground Phytotoxicity of Invasive Ageratina adenophora on Native Species in Nepal. Plant Ecol. 2020, 221, 883–892. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  133. Fu, D.; Wu, X.; Huang, N.; Duan, C. Effects of the Invasive Herb Ageratina adenophora on Understory Plant Communities and Tree Seedling Growth in Pinus yunnanensis Forests in Yunnan, China. J. For. Res. 2018, 23, 112–119. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  134. Lithashabin, P.K.; Kumar, P.N.S.; Rajagopal, P.L.; Arthi, I.; Anjana, A.K.; Yamuna, C.V. An Updated Review on Various Pharmacological Activity of Biophytum sensitivum. Lithashabinal. World J. Pharm. Res. 2020, 9, 2510–2520. [Google Scholar]
  135. Akbar, R.; Khan, I.A. Toxicity of Five Plant Extracts against Callosobruchus maculatus Fab. (Coleoptera Bruchidae) a Major Insect Pest of Stored Pulses. Fresenius Environ. Bull. 2021, 30, 5098–5107. [Google Scholar]
  136. Adomako, M.O.; Ning, L.; Tang, M.; Du, D.L.; van Kleunen, M.Y.F.H. Diversity-and density-mediated allelopathic effects of resident plant communities on invasion by an exotic plant. Plant Soil 2019, 440, 581–592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  137. Xu, Y.; Chen, X.; Ding, L.; Kong, C.H. Allelopathy and Allelochemicals in Grasslands and Forests. Forests 2023, 14, 562. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  138. Aguilera, N.; Guedes, L.M.; Alvarado, U.; Sáez-Carrillo, K. Teline Monspessulana Can Harm the Chilean Native Tree Nothofagus obliqua: Effects on Germination and Initial Growth. Plants 2023, 12, 3419. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  139. McNichol, B.H.; Russo, S.E. Plant Species’ Capacity for Range Shifts at the Habitat and Geographic Scales: A Trade-Off-Based Framework. Plants 2023, 12, 1248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  140. 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]
  141. Zhou, N.; Mu, M.; Yang, M.; Zhou, Y.; Ma, M. The Effect of Microbial Fertilizer on the Growth, Rhizospheric Environment and Medicinal Quality of Fritillaria taipaiensis. Horticulturae 2021, 7, 500. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  142. 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]
  143. Chautá, A.; Kessler, A. Metabolic Integration of Spectral and Chemical Cues Mediating Plant Responses to Competitors and Herbivores. Plants 2022, 11, 2768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  144. Anten, N.P.R.; Chen, B.J.W. Detect Thy Family: Mechanisms, Ecology and Agricultural Aspects of Kin Recognition in Plants. Plant Cell Environ. 2021, 44, 1059–1071. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  145. Mofikoya, A.O.; Bui, T.N.T.; Kivimäenpää, M.; Holopainen, J.K.; Himanen, S.J.; Blande, J.D. Foliar Behaviour of Biogenic Semi-Volatiles: Potential Applications in Sustainable Pest Management. Arthropod. Plant. Interact. 2019, 13, 193–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  146. Pan, Y.; Wang, Z.; Zhao, S.W.; Wang, X.; Li, Y.S.; Liu, J.N.; Wang, S.; Xi, J.H. The Herbivore-Induced Plant Volatile Tetradecane Enhances Plant Resistance to Holotrichia parallela Larvae in Maize Roots. Pest Manag. Sci. 2022, 78, 550–560. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  147. Adebesin, F.; Widhalm, J.R.; Boachon, B.; Lefèvre, F.; Pierman, B.; Lynch, J.H.S.; Porter, J.A.; Yanagisawa, M.; Wetzstein, H.Y.; Morgan, J.A.; et al. Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds from Petunia Flowers Is Facilitated by an ABC Transporter. Science 2017, 356, 1386–1388. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  148. Dudareva, N.; Klempien, A.; Muhlemann, J.K.; Kaplan, I. Biosynthesis, Function and Metabolic Engineering of Plant Volatile Organic Compounds. New Phytol. 2013, 198, 16–32. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  149. Erb, M.; Veyrat, N.; Robert, C.A.M.; Xu, H.; Frey, M.; Ton, J.; Turlings, T.C.J. Indole Is an Essential Herbivore-Induced Volatile Priming Signal in Maize. Nat. Commun. 2015, 6, 6273. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  150. Gfeller, V.; Huber, M.; Förster, C.; Huang, W.; Köllner, T.G.; Erb, M. Root Volatiles in Plant–Plant Interactions I: High Root Sesquiterpene Release Is Associated with Increased Germination and Growth of Plant Neighbours. Plant Cell Environ. 2019, 42, 1950–1963. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  151. Bais, H.P.; Vepachedu, R.; Gilroy, S.; Callaway, R.M.; Vivanco, J.M. Allelopathy and Exotic Plant Invasion: From Molecules and Genes to Species Interactions. Science 2003, 301, 1377–1380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  152. Rezaie, N.; Pallozzi, E.; Ciccioli, P.; Calfapietra, C.; Fares, S. Temperature Dependence of Emission of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOC) from Litters Collected in Two Mediterranean Ecosystems Determined before the Flaming Phase of Biomass Burning. Environ. Pollut. 2023, 338, 122703. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  153. Liu, D.; Chen, L.; Chen, C.; Zhou, Y.; Xiao, F.; Wang, Y.; Li, Q. Effect of Plant VOCs and Light Intensity on Growth and Reproduction Performance of an Invasive and a Native Phytolacca Species in China. Ecol. Evol. 2022, 12, e8522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  154. Halarewicz, A.; Szumny, A.; Bączek, P. Effect of Prunus Serotina Ehrh. Volatile Compounds on Germination and Seedling Growth of Pinus Sylvestris L. Forests 2021, 12, 846. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  155. Ma, H.; Chen, Y.; Chen, J.; Ji, J.; He, H. Identification and Comparison of Allelopathic Effects from Leaf and Flower Volatiles of the Invasive Plants Mikania micrantha. Chemoecology 2021, 31, 355–365. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  156. Souza-Alonso, P.; González, L.; López-Nogueira, A.; Cavaleiro, C.; Pedrol, N. Volatile organic compounds of Acacia longifolia and Their Effects on Germination and Early Growth of Species from Invaded Habitats. Chem. Ecol. 2018, 34, 126–145. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  157. Akbar, R.; Khan, I.A. Population dynamics of insect pests on six okra varieties in Peshawar. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2015, 3, 91–94. [Google Scholar]
  158. Akbar, R.; Khan, I.A.; Alajmi, R.A.; Ali, A.; Faheem, B.; Usman, A.; Aboul-Soud, M.A. Evaluation of insecticidal potentials of five plant extracts against the stored grain pest, Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Insects 2022, 13, 1047. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  159. Wang, R.; Yang, Y.; Jing, Y.; Segar, S.T.; Zhang, Y.; Wang, G.; Chen, J.; Liu, Q.F.; Chen, S.; Chen, Y.; et al. Molecular Mechanisms of Mutualistic and Antagonistic Interactions in a Plant–Pollinator Association. Nat. Ecol. Evol. 2021, 5, 974–986. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  160. Khan, I.A.; Rasheed, A. Population Dynamics of Natural Enemies Ladybird Beetle Coccinella septumpunctata L. (Coccinellidae: Coleoptera) and Syrphid Fly Episyrphus balteatus Degeer (Syrphidae: Diptera) on Six Okra Cultivars in Peshawar. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2015, 3, 24–26. [Google Scholar]
  161. Xie, L.J.; Zeng, R.S.; Bi, H.H.; Song, Y.Y.; Wang, R.L.; Su, Y.J.; Chen, M.; Chen, S.; Liu, Y.H. Allelochemical Mediated Invasion of Exotic Plants in China. Allelopath. J. 2010, 25, 31–50. [Google Scholar]
  162. Saeed, R.; Hassan, M.W.U.; Jaleel, W.; Ikhlaq, M.; Ali Shah, S.I.; Niaz, S.; Azad, R.; Akbar, R.; Mahmood, Z.; Mukhtar, A.; et al. Influence of Natural and Non-Natural Diets on the Fitness and Rearing of Pectinophora gossypiella Saunders. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 13666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  163. Zhou, T.X.; Yang, M.L.; Gu, F. Antifeeding Activity Determination of Eupatorium Adenophorum Extracts on Pieris Rapae Larvae. J. Yunnan Agric. Univ. 2003, 18, 259–263. [Google Scholar]
  164. Sintim, H.O.; Ansah, K.D. Effects of Biopesticides Extracted with a Homemade Solvent on Stored Maize Protection. Agric. Trop. Subtrop. 2023, 56, 125–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  165. Zhu, Z.; Yang, G.; Li, G. Studies on the Chemical Constituents of Eupatorium Adenophorum Spreng. Nat. Prod. Res. Dev. 1997, 9, 35–39. [Google Scholar]
  166. Coutinho, H.D.M.; de Morais Oliveira-Tintino, C.D.; dos Santos, J.F.S. Toxicity against Drosophila melanogaster and Antiedematogenic and Antimicrobial Activities of Alternanthera brasiliana (L.) Kuntze (Amaranthaceae). Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2018, 25, 10353–10361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  167. Zhang, Q.; Fan, Z.; Xue, W.; Sun, F.; Zhu, H.; Huang, D.; Wang, Z.; Dong, L. Vitexin Regulates Epac and Nlrp3 and Ameliorates Chronic Cerebral Hypoperfusion Injury. Can. J. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2021, 99, 1079–1087. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  168. Mesbah, H.A.; Saad, A.S.; Mourad, A.K.; Taman, F.A.; Mohamed, I.B. Joint Action of Quercetin with Four Insecticides on the Cotton Leaf-Worm Larvae, Spodoptera littoralis Boisd. (Lep.: Noctuidae) in Egypt. Commun. Agric. Appl. Biol. Sci. 2007, 72, 445–457. [Google Scholar]
  169. Gade, S.; Rajamanikyam, M.; Vadlapudi, V.; Nukala, K.M.; Aluvala, R.; Upadhyayula, S.M. Acetylcholinesterase Inhibitory Activity of Stigmasterol & Hexacosanol Is Responsible for Larvicidal and Repellent Properties of Chromolaena odorata. Biochim. Biophys. Acta Gen. Subj. 2017, 1861, 541–550. [Google Scholar]
  170. Zolotar’, R.M.; Bykhovets, A.I.; Sokolov, S.N.; Kovganko, N.V. Structure-Activity Relationship of Insecticidal Steroids. IV. 3β-Chlorosubstituted Derivatives of Cholesterol and β-Sitosterol. Chem. Nat. Compd. 2002, 38, 70–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  171. Ahmed, M.; Qin, P.; Ji, M.; An, R.; Guo, H.; Shafi, J. Spinasterol, 22,23-Dihydrospinasterol and Fernenol from Citrullus Colocynthis L. With Aphicidal Activity against Cabbage Aphid Brevicoryne brassicae L. Molecules 2020, 25, 2184. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  172. Yang, J.; Sun, X.Q.; Yan, S.Y.; Pan, W.J.; Zhang, M.X.; Cai, Q.N. Interaction of Ferulic Acid with Glutathione S-Transferase and Carboxylesterase Genes in the Brown Planthopper, Nilaparvata Lugens. J. Chem. Ecol. 2017, 43, 693–702. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  173. Liu, B.; Dong, B.; Yuan, X.; Guo, Y.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, B. Simultaneous Detoxification and Preparative Separation of Chlorogenic Acid from Eupatorium adenophorum by Combined Column Chromatography. Sep. Sci. Technol. 2017, 52, 1114–1121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  174. Kundu, A.; Saha, S.; Walia, S.; Dutta, T.K. Antinemic Potentiality of Chemical Constituents of Eupatorium adenophorum Spreng Leaves Against Meloidogyne incognita. Natl. Acad. Sci. Lett. 2016, 39, 145–149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  175. Okunade, A.L. Ageratum Conyzoides, L. (Asteraceae). Fitoterapia 2002, 73, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  176. Ramasamy, V.; Karthi, S.; Ganesan, R.; Prakash, P.; Senthil-Nathan, S.; Umavathi, S.; Krutmuang, P.; Vasantha-Srinivasan, P. Chemical Characterization of Billy Goat Weed Extracts Ageratum conyzoides (Asteraceae) and Their Mosquitocidal Activity against Three Blood-Sucking Pests and Their Non-Toxicity against Aquatic Predators. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. 2021, 28, 28456–28469. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  177. Kumar, S.; Sharma, A.K.; Kumar, B.; Shakya, M.; Patel, J.A.; Kumar, B.; Bisht, N.; Chigure, G.M.; Singh, K.; Kumar, R.; et al. Characterization of Deltamethrin, Cypermethrin, Coumaphos and Ivermectin Resistance in Populations of Rhipicephalus Microplus in India and Efficacy of an Antitick Natural Formulation Prepared from Ageratum conyzoides. Ticks Tick. Borne. Dis. 2021, 12, 101818. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  178. Kathare, J.M.; Mbaria, J.M.; Nguta, J.M.; Moriasi, G.A.; Mainga, A.O. Antimicrobial Efficacy, Cytotoxicity, Acute Oral Toxicity, and Phytochemical Investigation of the Aqueous and Methanolic Stem Bark Extracts of Bridellia Micrantha (Hochst.) Baill. Pharmacogn. J. 2021, 13, 1248–1256. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  179. Zhang, M.; Ling, B.; Kong, C.; Pang, X.; Liang, G. Chemical Components of Volatile Oil from Mikania Micrantha and Its Biological Activity on Insects. Chin. J. Appl. Ecol. 2003, 14, 93–96. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  180. Feng, H.L.; Yang, C.J.; Zhang, X.; Ye, W.H. Preliminary Studies on the Bioactivity of Crude Extract from Mikania Micrantha on Insect and Plant, Pathogen. Acta Sci. Nat. Univ. Sunyatseni 2004, 43, 82–85. [Google Scholar]
  181. Gorawade, V.; Attar, U.; Shiragave, P. Bioefficacy and GC-MS Analysis of Chromolaena Odorata and Leonotis Nepetifolia Leaf Extracts against Spodoptera Litura. J. Crop Prot. 2022, 11, 361–375. [Google Scholar]
  182. Qasim, M.; Islam, W.; Ashraf, H.J.; Ali, I.; Wang, L. Saponins in Insect Pest Control BT—Co-Evolution of Secondary Metabolites; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2020; pp. 897–924. [Google Scholar]
  183. Olawale, F.; Olofinsan, K.; Iwaloye, O. Biological Activities of Chromolaena Odorata: A Mechanistic Review. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2022, 144, 44–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  184. Gomes, L.d.C.M.; Prado, J.C.S. Survey of Species Cultivated in Brazil and Their Biological Applications: A Review. S. Asian J. Res. Microbiol. 2023, 16, 38–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  185. Ali Khan, I.; Khan, H.; Khan, I.; Akbar, R.; Alam, M.; Saeed, M.; Farid, A.; Ali, I.; Habib, K.; Fayaz, W. Efficacy of Some Plant Extracts on Larval Mortality of Culex quinquefasciatus (Say) (Diptera: Culicidae) in Peshawar. J. Entomol. Zool. Stud. 2015, 3, 331–333. [Google Scholar]
  186. Gorawade, V.B.; Attar, U.A.; Shiragave, P.D. Insecticidal Potential and Thin Layer Chromatographic Profiling of Chromolaena odorata L. and Leonotis nepetifolia (L.) R.Br. Leaf Extracts against Helicoverpa armigera (Hubner). Int. J. Entomol. Res. 2021, 6, 46–51. [Google Scholar]
  187. Gautam, S.; Khanal, S.; Khanal, D.; Mishra, S.R.; Ghimire, S. Phytochemical Screening of Selected Botanicals and Their Effectiveness Against Maize Weevil (Sitophilus zeamais Motsch.) at Paklihawa, Rupandehi, Nepal. Adv. J. Grad. Res. 2021, 11, 34–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  188. Chinnathambi, A.; Ali Alharbi, S.; Lavarti, R.; Jhanani, G.K.; On-uma, R.; Jutamas, K.; Anupong, W. Larvicidal and Pupicidal Activity of Phyto-Synthesized Zinc Oxide Nanoparticles against Dengue Vector Aedes aegypti. Environ. Res. 2023, 216, 114574. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  189. Akbar, R.; Afzal, S.; Sun, J.; Faheem, B.; Bibi, R.; Azad, R.; Farid, A.; Ahmad, H.I.; Ataya, F.S.; Khan, M.A.; et al. Efficacy of Various Plant Extracts and Synergism Against Domestic Species of Rice Weevil Sitophilous oryzae (Curculionidae: Coleoptera). Polish J. Environ. Stud. 2024, 33, 3033–3044. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  190. Akbar, R.; Faheem, B.; Aziz, T.; Ali, A.; Ullah, A.; Khan, I.A.; Sun, J. Evaluating the Efficacy of Plant Extracts in Managing the Bruchid Beetle, Callosobruchus maculatus (Coleoptera: Bruchidae). Insects 2024, 15, 691. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  191. Kardol, P.; Wardle, D.A. How Understanding Aboveground-Belowground Linkages Can Assist Restoration Ecology. Trends Ecol. Evol. 2010, 25, 670–679. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  192. Mandle, L.; Bufford, J.L.; Schmidt, I.B.; Daehler, C.C. Woody Exotic Plant Invasions and Fire: Reciprocal Impacts and Consequences for Native Ecosystems. Biol. Invasions 2011, 13, 1815–1827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  193. More, S.; Shinde, S.; Kasture, M. Root Exudates a Key Factor for Soil and Plant: An Overview. Pharma Innov. J. 2019, 8, 449–459. [Google Scholar]
  194. Kato-Noguchi, H.; Kurniadie, D. Allelopathy and Allelochemicals of Leucaena leucocephala as an Invasive Plant Species. Plants 2022, 11, 1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  195. Abeydeera, N.; Benin, B.M.; Mudarmah, K.; Pant, B.D.; Chen, G.; Shin, W.S.; Kim, M.H.; Huang, S.D. Harnessing the Dual Antimicrobial Mechanism of Action with Fe(8-Hydroxyquinoline)3 to Develop a Topical Ointment for Mupirocin-Resistant MRSA Infections. Antibiotics 2023, 12, 886. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  196. McLeod, M.L.; Bullington, L.; Cleveland, C.C.; Rousk, J.; Lekberg, Y. Invasive Plant-Derived Dissolved Organic Matter Alters Microbial Communities and Carbon Cycling in Soils. Soil Biol. Biochem. 2021, 156, 108191. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  197. Wolfe, B.E.; Klironomos, J.N. Breaking New Ground: Soil Communities and Exotic Plant Invasion. Bioscience 2005, 55, 477–487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  198. Yu, L.Q.; Fu, Y.; Zhou, Y.J.; Zhang, J.P.; Lu, Y.L.; Xuan, S.N. Comparison of Allelopathy Potential between an Exotic Invasive Weed Alternanthera philoxeroides and a Local Weed Alternanthera Sessilis. Chin. J. Rice Sci. 2007, 21, 84–89. [Google Scholar]
  199. Vishwakarma, K.; Sharma, S.; Kumar, V.; Upadhyay, N.; Kumar, N.; Mishra, R.; Yadav, G.; Verma, R.K.; Tripathi, D.K. Current Scenario of Root Exudate-Mediated Plant-Microbe Interaction and Promotion of Plant Growth. In Probiotics Agroecosystem; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 349–369. [Google Scholar]
  200. El-Kamali, H.H. Acute Toxicity of Lantana camara Leaves in Goats. Small Rumin. Res. 2005, 58, 107–110. [Google Scholar]
  201. Caplan, J.S.; Yeakley, J.A. Rubus armeniacus (Himalayan Blackberry) Occurrence and Growth in Relation to Soil and Light Conditions in Western Oregon. Northwest Sci. 2006, 80, 9–17. [Google Scholar]
  202. Frost, C.M.; Callaway, R.M. The Palatability and Competition of a Toxic Plant, Centaurea maculosa, to Generalist and Specialist Herbivores. Ecology 2007, 88, 943–950. [Google Scholar]
  203. Fletcher, R.A.; Callaway, R.M.; Atwater, D.Z. An Exotic Invasive Plant Selects for Increased Competitive Tolerance, but Not Competitive Suppression, in a Native Grass. Oecologia 2016, 181, 499–505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  204. Li, W.; Zheng, Y.; Zhang, L.; Lei, Y.; Li, Y.; Liao, Z.; Li, Z.; Feng, Y. Postintroduction Evolution Contributes to the Successful Invasion of Chromolaena odorata. Ecol. Evol. 2020, 10, 1252–1263. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  205. Moreno Jiménez, E.; Ferrol, N.; Corradi, N.; Peñalosa, J.M.; Rillig, M.C. The Potential of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi to Enhance Metallic Micronutrient Uptake and Mitigate Food Contamination in Agriculture: Prospects and Challenges. New Phytol. 2023, 242, 1441–1447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  206. Zhang, Y.; Xie, H.; He, Z.; Zhang, F.; Li, L.; Wang, N.; Mao, D. Medical Therapy of Hearing Impairment and Tinnitus with Chinese Medicine: An Overview. Chin. J. Integr. Med. 2023, 29, 761–768. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  207. Wang, W.; Zhu, Q.; Dai, S.; Meng, L.; He, M.; Chen, S.; Zhao, C.; Dan, X.; Cai, Z.; Zhang, J.; et al. Effects of Solidago canadensis L. on Mineralization-Immobilization Turnover Enhance Its Nitrogen Competitiveness and Invasiveness. Sci. Total Environ. 2023, 882, 163641. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  208. Roche, M.D.; Pearse, I.S.; Sofaer, H.R.; Kivlin, S.N.; Spyreas, G.; Zaya, D.N.; Kalisz, S. Invasion-Mediated Mutualism Disruption Is Evident across Heterogeneous Environmental Conditions and Varying Invasion Intensities. Ecography 2023, 2023, e06434. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  209. Honor, R.; Marcellus, M.; Colautti, R.I. Direct and Indirect Fitness Effects of Competition Limit Evolution of Allelopathy in an Invading Plant. bioRxiv 2023, 6, 2023-06. [Google Scholar]
  210. Mettler, C.A.; Carlson, B.E. Direction of Alliaria petiolata (Garlic Mustard) Leachate’s Effect on Early Litter Mass Loss Is Dependent upon Saprotrophic Community Composition. Bios 2023, 94, 20–29. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  211. Kaur, S.; Campbell, B.J.; Suseela, V. Root Metabolome of Plant–Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis Mirrors the Mutualistic or Parasitic Mycorrhizal Phenotype. New Phytol. 2022, 234, 672–687. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  212. Kaur, S.; Suseela, V. Unraveling Arbuscular Mycorrhiza-Induced Changes in Plant Primary and Secondary Metabolome. Metabolites 2020, 10, 335. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  213. Liao, D.; Wang, S.; Cui, M.; Liu, J.; Chen, A.; Xu, G. Phytohormones Regulate the Development of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiosis. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2018, 19, 3146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  214. Wu, F.; Gao, Y.; Yang, W.; Sui, N.; Zhu, J. Biological Functions of Strigolactones and Their Crosstalk with Other Phytohormones. Front. Plant Sci. 2022, 13, 821563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  215. Jiang, D.; Mingtao, T.; Shuai, W.; Lin, Z.; Qing, W.; Guirong, W.; Shanchun, Y. Defense Responses of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungus-Colonized Poplar Seedlings against Gypsy Moth Larvae: A Multiomics Study. Hortic. Res. 2021, 8, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  216. Nihranz, C.T.; Kolstrom, R.L.; Kariyat, R.R.; Mescher, M.C.; De Moraes, C.M.; Stephenson, A.G. Herbivory and Inbreeding Affect Growth, Reproduction, and Resistance in the Rhizomatous Offshoots of Solanum carolinense (Solanaceae). Evol. Ecol. 2019, 33, 499–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  217. Enebe, M.C.; Erasmus, M. Symbiosis—A Perspective on the Effects of Host Traits and Environmental Parameters in Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungal Richness, Colonization and Ecological Functions. Agriculture 2023, 13, 1899. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  218. Zhang, M.; Otsuki, K.; Li, W. Molecular Networking as a Natural Products Discovery Strategy. Acta Mater. Medica 2023, 2, 126–141. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  219. Afreen, T.; Kumari, S.; Bhadouria, R.; Devi, R.S.; Singh, S.; Tripathi, S. Plant Invasion and Soil Processes: A Mechanistic Understanding. In Plant Invasions and Global Climate Change; Springer: Singapore, 2023; pp. 227–246. [Google Scholar]
  220. Miles, J.; Allen, E.B. The Reconstruction of Disturbed Arid Lands. An Ecological Approach. In The Journal of Applied Ecology; Routledge: London, UK, 1989; Volume 26, p. 1089. [Google Scholar]
  221. 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]
  222. Munakata, R.; Larbat, R.; Duriot, L.; Olry, A.; Gavira, C.; Mignard, B.; Hehn, A.; Bourgaud, F. Polyphenols from Plant Roots: An Expanding Biological Frontier. Recent Adv. Polyphen. Res. 2019, 6, 207–236. [Google Scholar]
  223. Qin, F.; Yu, S. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Protect Native Woody Species from Novel Weapons. Plant Soil 2019, 440, 39–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  224. Bunn, R.A.; Ramsey, P.W.; Lekberg, Y. Do Native and Invasive Plants Differ in Their Interactions with Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi? A Meta-Analysis. J. Ecol. 2015, 103, 1547–1556. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  225. Funk, J.L. The Physiology of Invasive Plants in Low-Resource Environments. Conserv. Physiol. 2013, 1, cot026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  226. Huang, K.; Kong, D.L.; Lu, X.R.; Feng, W.W.; Liu, M.C.; Feng, Y.L. Lesser Leaf Herbivore Damage and Structural Defense and Greater Nutrient Concentrations for Invasive Alien Plants: Evidence from 47 Pairs of Invasive and Non-Invasive Plants. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 723, 137829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  227. Van Kleunen, M.; Weber, E.; Fischer, M. A Meta-Analysis of Trait Differences between Invasive and Non-Invasive Plant Species. Ecol. Lett. 2010, 13, 235–245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  228. Wang, C.; Cheng, H.; Wang, S.; Wei, M.; Du, D. Plant Community and the Influence of Plant Taxonomic Diversity on Community Stability and Invasibility: A Case Study Based on Solidago Canadensis L. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 768, 144518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  229. Zhang, L.; Zhou, J.; George, T.S.; Limpens, E.; Feng, G. Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi Conducting the Hyphosphere Bacterial Orchestra. Trends Plant Sci. 2022, 27, 402–411. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  230. Greer, M.J.; Wilson, G.W.T.; Hickman, K.R.; Wilson, S.M. Experimental Evidence That Invasive Grasses Use Allelopathic Biochemicals as a Potential Mechanism for Invasion: Chemical Warfare in Nature. Plant Soil 2014, 385, 165–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  231. Tian, B.; Pei, Y.; Huang, W.; Ding, J.; Siemann, E. Increasing Flavonoid Concentrations in Root Exudates Enhance Associations between Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Fungi and an Invasive Plant. ISME J. 2021, 15, 1919–1930. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  232. Ozturk, M.; Bhat, R.A.; Ashraf, M.; Tonelli, F.M.P.; Unal, B.T.; Dar, G.H. Phytohormones and Stress Responsive Secondary Metabolites; Nikki Levy: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2023; pp. 1–291. [Google Scholar]
  233. Plett, J.M.; Plett, K.L.; Wong-Bajracharya, J.; de Freitas Pereira, M.; Costa, M.D.; Kohler, A.; Martin, F.; Anderson, I.C. Mycorrhizal Effector PaMiSSP10b Alters Polyamine Biosynthesis in Eucalyptus Root Cells and Promotes Root Colonization. New Phytol. 2020, 228, 712–727. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  234. He, J.; Zhang, C.; Dai, H.; Liu, H.; Zhang, X.; Yang, J.; Wang, E. A LysM Receptor Heteromer Mediates Perception of Arbuscular Mycorrhizal Symbiotic Signal in Rice. Mol. Plant 2019, 12, 1561–1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  235. Zheng, Y.L.; Feng, Y.L.; Zhang, L.K.; Callaway, R.M.; Valiente-Banuet, A.; Luo, D.Q. Integrating Novel Chemical Weapons and Evolutionarily Increased Competitive Ability in Success of a Tropical Invader. New Phytol. 2015, 205, 1350–1359. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  236. Martin, F.M.; Uroz, S.; Barker, D.G. Ancestral alliances: Plant mutualistic symbioses with fungi and bacteria. Science 2017, 356, eaad4501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  237. Hickman, D.T.; Rasmussen, A.; Ritz, K.; Birkett, M.A.; Neve, P. Review: Allelochemicals as Multi-Kingdom Plant Defence Compounds: Towards an Integrated Approach. Pest Manag. Sci. 2021, 77, 1121–1131. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  238. Barrett, D.P.; Fowler, S.V.; Subbaraj, A.K.; Groenteman, R.; Clavijo-McCormick, A. Metabolomic Analysis of Host Plant Biochemistry Could Improve the Effectiveness and Safety of Classical Weed Biocontrol. Biol. Control 2021, 160, 104663. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  239. Macías, F.A.; Mejías, F.J.R.; Molinillo, J.M.G. Recent Advances in Allelopathy for Weed Control: From Knowledge to Applications. Pest Manag. Sci. 2019, 75, 2413–2436. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  240. Ghidoli, M.; Pesenti, M.; Colombo, F.; Nocito, F.F.; Pilu, R.; Araniti, F. Camelina sativa (L.) Crantz as a Promising Cover Crop Species with Allelopathic Potential. Agronomy 2023, 13, 2187. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  241. Lenda, M.; Steudel, B.; Skórka, P.; Zagrodzka, Z.B.; Moroń, D.; Bączek-Kwinta, R. Multiple Invasive Species Affect Germination, Growth, and Photosynthesis of Native Weeds and Crops in Experiments. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 22146. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  242. Rogers, J.G.D.; Plagányi, É.E.; Babcock, R.C.; Fletcher, C.S.; Westcott, D.A. Improving Coral Cover Using an Integrated Pest Management Framework. Ecol. Appl. 2023, 33, e2913. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  243. Siddiqui, J.A.; Fan, R.; Naz, H.; Bamisile, B.S.; Hafeez, M.; Ghani, M.I.; Wei, Y.; Xu, Y.; Chen, X. Insights into Insecticide-Resistance Mechanisms in Invasive Species: Challenges and Control Strategies. Front. Physiol. 2023, 13, 1112278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Secondary metabolites in invasive weeds, for the synthesis of isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP), dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP), methylerythritol phosphate (MEP), and mevalonate (MVA) pathways responsible. Acetoacetyl-CoA, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA), acetyl-CoA, acetoacetyl-CoA, acetyl-CoA, MVA, 5-phosphomevalonate (MVP), and 5-diphosphomevalonate (MVPP) are the intermediaries of the MVA pathway. Acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase (AACT), 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA synthase (HMGS), mevalonate kinase (MK), 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGR), phosphomevalonate kinase (PMK), diphosphomevalonate decarboxylase (MVD), and isopentenyl diphosphate isomerase (IDI) are the enzymes involved in the MVA pathway. Relatively to the MEP pathway, its intermediaries are D-glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate (G3P), pyruvate, 1-deoxy-d-xylulose 5-phosphate (DXP), MEP, 4-(cytidine 5′-diphospho)-2-C-methyl-D-erythritol (CDP-ME), 2-phospho-4-(cytidine 5′-diphospho)-2-C-methyl-D-erythritol (CDP-MEP), 2-C-methyl-D-erythritol-2,4-cyclodiphosphate (MEcPP), and 1-hydroxy-2-methyl-2-butenyl 4-diphosphate (HMBPP). The enzymes involved in the MEP pathway are 1-deoxy-d-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase (DXS), 1-deoxy-d-xylulose-5-phosphate reductoisomerase (DXR), 2-C-methyl-D-erythritol 4-phosphate cytidylyltransferase (MCT), 4-diphosphocyt-idyl-2-C-methyl-D-erythritol kinase (CMK), 2-C-methyl-D-erythritol 2,4-cyclodi-phosphate synthase (MDS), 4-hydroxy-3-methylbut-2-enyl-diphosphate synthase (HDS), and 4-hydroxy-3-methylbut-2-enyl diphosphate reductase (HDR).
Figure 1. Secondary metabolites in invasive weeds, for the synthesis of isopentenyl diphosphate (IPP), dimethylallyl diphosphate (DMAPP), methylerythritol phosphate (MEP), and mevalonate (MVA) pathways responsible. Acetoacetyl-CoA, 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA (HMG-CoA), acetyl-CoA, acetoacetyl-CoA, acetyl-CoA, MVA, 5-phosphomevalonate (MVP), and 5-diphosphomevalonate (MVPP) are the intermediaries of the MVA pathway. Acetyl-CoA acetyltransferase (AACT), 3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl-CoA synthase (HMGS), mevalonate kinase (MK), 3-hydroxy-3-methyl-glutaryl-CoA reductase (HMGR), phosphomevalonate kinase (PMK), diphosphomevalonate decarboxylase (MVD), and isopentenyl diphosphate isomerase (IDI) are the enzymes involved in the MVA pathway. Relatively to the MEP pathway, its intermediaries are D-glyceraldehyde 3-phosphate (G3P), pyruvate, 1-deoxy-d-xylulose 5-phosphate (DXP), MEP, 4-(cytidine 5′-diphospho)-2-C-methyl-D-erythritol (CDP-ME), 2-phospho-4-(cytidine 5′-diphospho)-2-C-methyl-D-erythritol (CDP-MEP), 2-C-methyl-D-erythritol-2,4-cyclodiphosphate (MEcPP), and 1-hydroxy-2-methyl-2-butenyl 4-diphosphate (HMBPP). The enzymes involved in the MEP pathway are 1-deoxy-d-xylulose-5-phosphate synthase (DXS), 1-deoxy-d-xylulose-5-phosphate reductoisomerase (DXR), 2-C-methyl-D-erythritol 4-phosphate cytidylyltransferase (MCT), 4-diphosphocyt-idyl-2-C-methyl-D-erythritol kinase (CMK), 2-C-methyl-D-erythritol 2,4-cyclodi-phosphate synthase (MDS), 4-hydroxy-3-methylbut-2-enyl-diphosphate synthase (HDS), and 4-hydroxy-3-methylbut-2-enyl diphosphate reductase (HDR).
Plants 13 03162 g001
Figure 2. The figure shows a range of secondary metabolites like (−)-catechin, (+)-catechin, cnicin, ocimenones, 8-hydroxyquinoline, deoxymikanolide, emodin, methyl jasmonate, physcion, and parthenin. These compounds are known to play significant roles in plant invasion strategies through allelopathic interactions, where they inhibit native plant growth, disrupt beneficial mycorrhizal fungi associations, and alter the microbial dynamics in the soil. For example, catechins released by invasive species can suppress native vegetation, while methyl jasmonate and emodin may influence plant defense mechanisms and stress responses, enhancing the competitive ability of invasive plants. These biochemical strategies give invasive species a significant ecological advantage.
Figure 2. The figure shows a range of secondary metabolites like (−)-catechin, (+)-catechin, cnicin, ocimenones, 8-hydroxyquinoline, deoxymikanolide, emodin, methyl jasmonate, physcion, and parthenin. These compounds are known to play significant roles in plant invasion strategies through allelopathic interactions, where they inhibit native plant growth, disrupt beneficial mycorrhizal fungi associations, and alter the microbial dynamics in the soil. For example, catechins released by invasive species can suppress native vegetation, while methyl jasmonate and emodin may influence plant defense mechanisms and stress responses, enhancing the competitive ability of invasive plants. These biochemical strategies give invasive species a significant ecological advantage.
Plants 13 03162 g002
Figure 3. Shows the roles of allelopathy and allelobiosis in plant interactions, focusing on interspecific and intraspecific relationships. Allelopathy, represented by chemical signals, affects the growth of nearby plants, either inhibiting or promoting seed germination. This interaction influences interspecific dynamics, as seen in the impact of Cuscuta chinensis on different host species. Allelobiosis involves signaling between plants, including kin recognition, which allows intraspecific regulation of growth and adaptation. Together, these processes shape how plants, both within the same species and among different species, adapt to parasitic pressures and competition.
Figure 3. Shows the roles of allelopathy and allelobiosis in plant interactions, focusing on interspecific and intraspecific relationships. Allelopathy, represented by chemical signals, affects the growth of nearby plants, either inhibiting or promoting seed germination. This interaction influences interspecific dynamics, as seen in the impact of Cuscuta chinensis on different host species. Allelobiosis involves signaling between plants, including kin recognition, which allows intraspecific regulation of growth and adaptation. Together, these processes shape how plants, both within the same species and among different species, adapt to parasitic pressures and competition.
Plants 13 03162 g003
Figure 4. Illustrates the transfer of allelopathic compounds from a donor plant to a receiver plant through various pathways, including leaching, volatilization, root exudation, and decomposition. Compounds are released into the soil via precipitation or root exudation, volatilized into the atmosphere, or deposited through decomposing plant material, where they can be absorbed by neighboring plants. This chemical exchange plays an important role in shaping plant interactions, influencing competitive dynamics and ecosystem structure.
Figure 4. Illustrates the transfer of allelopathic compounds from a donor plant to a receiver plant through various pathways, including leaching, volatilization, root exudation, and decomposition. Compounds are released into the soil via precipitation or root exudation, volatilized into the atmosphere, or deposited through decomposing plant material, where they can be absorbed by neighboring plants. This chemical exchange plays an important role in shaping plant interactions, influencing competitive dynamics and ecosystem structure.
Plants 13 03162 g004
Figure 5. Role of secondary metabolites in plant–insect interactions.
Figure 5. Role of secondary metabolites in plant–insect interactions.
Plants 13 03162 g005
Figure 6. Conceptual illustration showing how invasive plants affect the symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi in native plant roots Solid arrows indicate change; dotted arrows indicate possible relationships.
Figure 6. Conceptual illustration showing how invasive plants affect the symbiotic mycorrhizal fungi in native plant roots Solid arrows indicate change; dotted arrows indicate possible relationships.
Plants 13 03162 g006
Figure 7. Conceptual framework illustrating the symbiotic relationship between plants and mycorrhizal fungi (adapted from Martin et al [236] Roots secrete signaling molecules (1) that enhance AMF spore germinations (2) and mycelium branching in the soil. AMF secretes mycorrhizal factors (3), which are recognized by receptor proteins in root cells (4) and then stimulate the calcium signaling pathway (5) to pledgee creation of invasion lines of the mycorrhizal fungi (6). After that, nutrient and carbon exchange between mycorrhizae also requires a series of enzymes and transport proteins at the root–mycorrhiza interface (7).
Figure 7. Conceptual framework illustrating the symbiotic relationship between plants and mycorrhizal fungi (adapted from Martin et al [236] Roots secrete signaling molecules (1) that enhance AMF spore germinations (2) and mycelium branching in the soil. AMF secretes mycorrhizal factors (3), which are recognized by receptor proteins in root cells (4) and then stimulate the calcium signaling pathway (5) to pledgee creation of invasion lines of the mycorrhizal fungi (6). After that, nutrient and carbon exchange between mycorrhizae also requires a series of enzymes and transport proteins at the root–mycorrhiza interface (7).
Plants 13 03162 g007
Table 1. Secondary metabolites in invasive plant species and their mechanism.
Table 1. Secondary metabolites in invasive plant species and their mechanism.
Plant SpeciesCategoryCompoundsMechanismReferences
Artemisia tridentata Nutt.Volatile organic compoundsMethyl jasmonateActivates expression of defense genes[70]
Alliaria petiolate
(M.Bieb.) Cavara & Grande
Phenolic compoundsGlucosinolates (sinigrin)Mycorrhiza are suppressed by sinigrin, which breaks their mutualistic relationships with native plants.[73]
Ageratum conyzoides L.P-coumaric acid, gallic acid, ferulic acid, p-hydroxybenzoic acid, and anisic aciRice growth was adversely influenced by phytotoxins released into the soil rhizosphere by A. conyzoides residues and root exudates.[74]
Cymbopogon nardus (L.) RendleN-Octanoyl tyramineInhibits ripening of Lepidium sativum, L. sativa, Echinochloa crusgalli, Lolium multiflorum[49]
Juglans nigra L.JugloneInhibitor of the essential enzyme for the formation of plastoquinone, hydroxyphenylpyruvate dioxygenase (HPPD), as well as other plants’ photosynthetic and respiratory electron transport systems[47]
Secale cereale L.Alkaloid compounds BenzoxazinoidBoosts benzoxazinoids’ synthesis and exudation from roots in reaction to nearby plants[75]
Echium plantagineum L.Pyrrolidine and NaphthoquinonesProvide a competitive edge over weeds and protect against livestock and insect herbivory.[75]
Senecio jacobaea L.PyrrolizidineIncreased alkaloids produced in non-native range compared to native range; protection against generalists[75]
Imperata cylindrica (L.) P. Beauv.TarpenesTabanone, 4-(2-butenylidene)-3,5,5-trimethyl-2-cyclohexen-1-one; cogongrass,Impeded the growth of the garden onion’s roots, the lesser duckweed’s frond area, and the garden lettuce’s fresh weight gain.[76]
Table 2. Biological properties of invasive plant species and their allelopathic effect.
Table 2. Biological properties of invasive plant species and their allelopathic effect.
Invasive Plant SpeciesAllelochemicalsMode of ActionEffected PlantsReferences
Solidago canadensis L.Kaempferol-3-O-d-glucosideGrowthArabidopsis thaliana
(L.) Heynh., Echinochloa colona L.
[93]
Ageratina adenophora (Spreng).Propan-2-ylidene (4,7-dimethyl-1-) tetrahydronaphthalene-1,4,4a, 8a, 2(1H, 7H) DTD and 6-hydroxy-5-isopropyl-3Growth and developmentOsbeckia stellate buch. HAM. EX D. DON
and Elsholtzia blanda Benth.) Benth.
[109]
Polygonum cuspidatum Sieb. et Zucc(−)-catechin, (−)-epicatechin, resveratroloside, and piceatannolGrowthLepidium sativum L.[110]
Chromolaena odoratum L.Globulol, α-cadinal, 1-hexadecanol, caryophyllene, (−)-spathulenol, and caryphyllene oxide hexadecaneGrowthEleusine indica (L.) Gaertn, Cyperus iria L., and Ageratum conyzoides L.[111]
Ambrosia artemisiifolia L.α-pinent, β-pinene, cineole, camphene, spanthueolGerminations and root growthZea mays L. (Corn), Triticum aestivum L. and Oryza sativa L.[112]
Ageratum conyzoides L.Precocenes, sesquiterpenes, Gallic acid, proteocatechins acid and coumaric acid,Germination up to 89%Parthenium hysterophorus L.[113]
Conyza bonariensis
(L.) Cronquist
(4Z)-lachnophyllum lactoneSuppression of growthCuscuta campestris L.[114]
Eucalyptus camaldulensis Dehnh.Syringic acid, vanillic acid, gentisic, gallic, p-coumaric, p-hydroxybenzoic, and catecholSuppression of germination and growthPortulaca oleracea L.[46]
Eichhornia colona L.TricinInhibit germination and seedling growthGlycine max L. and Oryzae sativa L.[16]
Eucalyptus globulus Labill.Kaempferol 3-O-glucoside, hyperoside, and shikimic-succinic acidsInhibit germination, growth and physiological parametersAgrostis stolonifera L.[115]
Mikania micrantha Kunth.Dihydromikanolide, deoxymikanolide,
2,3-epoxy-1-hydroxy4,9-germacradiene12,
8:15,6-diolide.
Limit the length of the radicle and shoot.Trifolium repens L., Raphanus sativus L., and Lolium perenne L.[104]
Parthenium hysterophorus L.Caffeic acid, partheninSuppress the growth of seedlings and germinationDigitaria sanguinalis (L.) Scop. and Eleusine indica (L.) Gaertn[116]
Asystasia gangetica L.(6R,9S)-3-oxo-α-ionol and indole-3-carboxaldehydeCause 10% yield reductionCucumis sativus L.[117]
Artemisia annuas L.ArtemisininPrevent development and expansion of the rootsIpomoea lacunose L., Lactuca sativa L., Portulaca oleracea L.[118]
Bidens pilosa L.Terpenes, phenolic acids, polyacetylenes, flavonoids, and fatty acidsInhibit the growthZea mays L., Sorghum bicolor (L.) Moench., Lactuca sativa L, and Vigna radiate (L.) R. Wilczek[119]
Brachiaria mutica (Forssk.) StapfTannin, saponinGermination and growth suppressionMimosa pudica L.[120]
Cyperus rotundus L.Quercetin, luteolin, chrysin, rutin, myricitrin, catechin, apigenin, and chlorogenic acidLowers yield by 93% and 86%Oryza sativa L.[121]
Pueraria montana (Lour.) Merr.12(13)-dien-bisabolene, 7-carboxy-8-hydroxy-1(2), and (-)-hamanasic acid AGermination and GrowthLactuca sativa L. and Raphanus sativa L., Bidens pilosa L. and Lolium perenne L.[122]
Datura stramonium L.Tropane alkaloids, Scopolamine, HyoscyamineGermination and growthTagetes minuta L. and Amaranthus hybridus L.[123]
Juglans nigra L.JugloneHerbicidal activitiesSonchus arvensis L., Cirsium arvense L, Papaver rhoeas L., Lamium amplexicaule L.[124]
Table 3. Research has been performed in the last few decades on the adverse effects of VOCs from invasive plant species on recipient plants.
Table 3. Research has been performed in the last few decades on the adverse effects of VOCs from invasive plant species on recipient plants.
Invasive Plants SpeciesNegative Effect on Receiver Plant SpeciesReceiver Plants SpeciesReferences
Phytolacca americanaAdverse effects on reproductive and morphological featuresPhytolacca acinosa[153]
Prunus serotinaPrevented the elongation of the roots, shoots, and germinationPinus sylvestris[154]
Mikania micranthaDecreased rate of germination reduced levels of chlorophyll and reduced levels of malondialdehyde and reduced activity of superoxide dismutaseAbutilon theophrasti, Bidens pilosa, Chrysanthemum coronarium and Lactuca sativa [155]
Ageratina adenophoraReduced germination rate and limited height of seedlings
reduced biomass of the shoots and roots
Schima wallichii[132]
Acacia longifoliaReduced biomass, shoot length, and root lengthLolium multiflorum, Plantago lanceolata and Trifolium subterraneum [156]
Table 5. Summary of the impacts of invasive plant species on native soil microbe communities.
Table 5. Summary of the impacts of invasive plant species on native soil microbe communities.
Invasive Plant SpeciesNovel CompoundsImpact on Soil MicrobeReferences
Solidago gigantean
Aiton.
Sesquiterpene lactonesAffect soil microbial communities and inhibit microbial activity.[151]
Lantana camara L.Lantadene ADisrupt microbial symbioses and alter soil microbial communities.[200]
Rubus armeniacus Focke.Ellagic acidAllelopathic and antimicrobial effects on soil microbial populations.[201]
Centaurea maculosa L.CnicinAntifungal and antibacterial properties, affecting soil microbial composition.[202]
Alliaria petiolate (M.Bieb.) Cavara & GrandeGlucosinolates (sinigrin)Sinigrin suppresses mycorrhiza, therefore disrupting their mutualistic associations with native plants[73]
Phragmites australis
(Cav.) Trin. ex Steud.
CatechinsInfluence microbial decomposition processes and soil nutrient cycling.[203]
Chromolaena odorata L.Acutellerin-40, 6,7-trimethy ether, 40, 5,6,7- tetramethoxyflavone, isosakuranetinGreater amounts of flavonoids in the non-native range provide competitive advantages and better defense against soil borne pathogens[204]
Table 6. Ecological mechanisms of invasive alien plant species.
Table 6. Ecological mechanisms of invasive alien plant species.
Sr. NoExamplesMechanismReferences
1Parthenium hysterophorus L., an invasive plant, may develop far more quickly than crops like Sorghum bicolor L. Moench) and Zea mays L.Species competition[20]
2When 19 paired invasive and native plants in Hawaii were compared for resource usage efficiency, it was found that invasive plants had better rates of carbon absorption, light use, immediate nitrogen, and energy use.[225]
3Invasive plants have larger leaf nitrogen contents are less damaged by herbivores, according to comparisons between 47 paired invasive and non-invasive species’ leaf herbivore resistance and nutrient content.[226]
4When 125 invasive plants and 196 non-invasive plants are compared physiologically, that invasive plants are more advantageous in terms of growth rate, resource allocation, and stress resistance.[227]
5Plantanum carolinense L., Solanum carolinense L. is an exotic plant with great cold resistance and asexual reproduction.[228]
6Solidago canadensis L. is an invasive plant that can benefit from increasing nitrogen deposition and climate warming by acquiring more leaf resources.[229]
7Leachate of the invasive plant Bothriochloa ischaemum L. Keng prevents native species Schizachyrium scoparium (Michx.) Nash and Andropogon gerardii L. from germinating and growingAllelochemicals[230]
8Lactuca sativa L., a native plant, seed germination and seedling growth inhibited by allelochemicals released by S. canadensis L. invasion[155]
9Crystals of solanine and oxalate are found in the exotic plant Solanum carolinense L.[104]
10To aid in its invasion, P. hysterophorus L. can release parthenin, vanillic acid, caffeic acid, and other allelochemicals[88]
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

Akbar, R.; Sun, J.; Bo, Y.; Khattak, W.A.; Khan, A.A.; Jin, C.; Zeb, U.; Ullah, N.; Abbas, A.; Liu, W.; et al. Understanding the Influence of Secondary Metabolites in Plant Invasion Strategies: A Comprehensive Review. Plants 2024, 13, 3162. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13223162

AMA Style

Akbar R, Sun J, Bo Y, Khattak WA, Khan AA, Jin C, Zeb U, Ullah N, Abbas A, Liu W, et al. Understanding the Influence of Secondary Metabolites in Plant Invasion Strategies: A Comprehensive Review. Plants. 2024; 13(22):3162. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13223162

Chicago/Turabian Style

Akbar, Rasheed, Jianfan Sun, Yanwen Bo, Wajid Ali Khattak, Amir Abdullah Khan, Cheng Jin, Umar Zeb, Najeeb Ullah, Adeel Abbas, Wei Liu, and et al. 2024. "Understanding the Influence of Secondary Metabolites in Plant Invasion Strategies: A Comprehensive Review" Plants 13, no. 22: 3162. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13223162

APA Style

Akbar, R., Sun, J., Bo, Y., Khattak, W. A., Khan, A. A., Jin, C., Zeb, U., Ullah, N., Abbas, A., Liu, W., Wang, X., Khan, S. M., & Du, D. (2024). Understanding the Influence of Secondary Metabolites in Plant Invasion Strategies: A Comprehensive Review. Plants, 13(22), 3162. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13223162

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