ArticlePloS one2024
Chemical profile of Juniperus excelsa M. Bieb. essential oil within and between populations and its weed seed suppression effect.
Article in PloS one, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 5 citations in OpenAlex.
- Chemical Characterization, In Silico Investigations, In Vitro Evaluation of Allelopathic Potential and Insecticidal Activity of Laurus nobilis L. Essential Oil.Chemistry & biodiversity · 2026Article
- Untargeted metabolomics based on HS- SPME-GC-MS revealing the dynamic evolution of aroma components during cigar aging.Frontiers in plant science · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 7 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The aims of this study were to (1) establish the intrapopulation and seasonal variation of Juniperus excelsа essential oil (EO); (2) compare the J. excelsa concrete and resinoid composition with its EO composition; and (3) investigate the potential herbicidal activity of J. excelsa EO against seeds of Papaver rhoeas L., Consolida orientalis (J.Gay) Schrödinger, Anthemis arvensis L., Avena fatua L., and Agrostemma githago L. Four independent studies were performed to meet these objectives. Twenty-eight individual trees were analyzed from two populations to establish intrapopulation and interpopulation variability of EOs yield and composition. In the seasonal dynamic study of leaf EO, samples from the same three trees and in the same population were collected in January, March, May, July, October, and December and their EO yield and composition determined. The EOs (intrapopulation and seasonal) were extracted by hydrodistillation, while the EO for the herbicidal test was obtained by steam distillation in a semi-commercial (SCom) apparatus. Overall, the EO yield varied significantly from 0.93% to 2.57%. α-Pinene (8.85-35.94%), limonene (11.81-50.08%), and cedrol (3.41-34.29%) were the predominant EO compounds in all samples (intrapopulation variability); however, trans-2,4-decadienol and β-caryophyllene were predominant in some individual trees. Four chemical groups were identified in the samples collected from two natural populations (intrapopulation). This is the first report on the compositions of J. excelsa concrete and resinoid. Cedrol (15.39%), 7-hydroxy-4-methyl-coumarin (17.63%), 1-octacosanol (36.85%), tritriacontane (16.08%), and tiacontanoic acid were the main compounds in the concrete and resinoid. Juniperus excelsa EO suppressed seed germination and seedling growth of P. rhoeas, C. orientalis, A. arvensis, A. fatua, and A. githago, demonstrating its potential to be used for the development of new biopesticides. The highest EO yield with high content of limonene and cedrol was obtained from samples harvested during the winter months (December, January, and March).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.