Comparative Study of the Diesel Fuel Contamination Effects of Different Types of Soils on the Growth and Germination of Four Plant Species

Abstract

In this work, we studied the effects of different types of soils contaminated with diesel on the germination and early growth of four plant species (Xanthium strumarium, Avena sativa, Daucus carota, and Cerinthe major). We used four potting soils that we contaminated with different levels of diesel: 2.5%, 5%, and the control (0%). The results showed that the effect of the contamination depends on the species. Thus, compared with the three other species, X. strumarium showed the best results. This species showed good germination rates, with a lower rate of 50%. Its root length and weight were stimulated in the contaminated soils, and its shoot growth was less affected than that of the other species. The results depend also on the soil type. X. strumarium showed the best results in the different types of soils; thus, in soil three, at 5% diesel, all species showed a germination rate of 0%, but X. strumarium showed a rate of 50%. Our study demonstrated the variation in diesel effects across different plant species and soil types. The four species showed different levels of tolerance that varied with diesel concentrations, soil types, and parameters. We recommend performing phytoremediation tests in soils contaminated with petroleum products using preferably X. strumarium, but it would be interesting to test the other species. Additionally, it would be interesting to test the tolerance of this species using seeds extracted from the burs, to investigate the role of the X. strumarium burs in its tolerance to diesel contamination.

Keywords:
Plant species; diesel; contamination; germination; growth

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

HIGHLIGHTS

The effects of diesel contamination depend on the species and type of soil.

Xanthium strumarium can tolerate higher levels of diesel contamination than many other species.

Shoots are more affected by diesel contamination than roots.

Root length and weight can increase significantly in diesel-contaminated soils.

INTRODUCTION

The demand for petroleum products is constantly increasing as the world's population grows. These products are widely used for different purposes. This can lead to various types of contamination, and these products can then represent a serious threat to the environment, including the soil and plant species [¹-³]. There is a large variety of petroleum products, and one of those products is diesel fuel, a complex mixture of aliphatic hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons, and olefinic hydrocarbons that can contaminate the environment during its production and use [⁴].

After a contamination, and depending on the type and quantity of the petroleum products involved, the different physical-chemical properties of the soil and its stability can be negatively affected [⁵-⁷]. When these products contaminate soil and alter its quality, the plants will also be exposed to the pollutants, resulting in many potential negative effects. Soil contamination by diesel fuel is generally toxic to plants, affecting, for example, their seed germination, and consequently their weight, their stem lengths, and their root lengths [⁸-¹¹]. These effects can vary according to the type of soil, for example, the soil texture can play a role in the tolerance of plant species to contamination [¹²]. The effects can also vary among the different plant species [¹³]. For example, the plant species of the Umbelliferae family (Apiaceae) are tolerant of some types of oils, while grasses (Poaceae) are intolerant to them [¹⁴]. The investigation of the tolerance of different plant species to petroleum-contaminated soils and assessing their ability to grow and develop in such environments is a very important step in the development of effective phytoremediation techniques [¹⁵]. In addition, it is very important to take into account the climatic conditions and characteristics of a site before choosing the plants that will be used for phytoremediation [¹⁶].

In this study, we compared the effects of diesel fuel contamination of different soils on four plant species (Xanthium strumarium, Avena sativa, Daucus carota, and Cerinthe major). X. strumarium is an annual invasive weed from the Asteraceae family. It is widely distributed throughout the world and can cause some negative impacts as an invasive species [¹⁷,¹⁸]. It has already been studied for its tolerance to diesel fuel contamination by Dib and Sadoudi Ali-Ahmed [¹⁹], and the results of this study indicated good perspectives as it seemed to be a tolerant species to diesel contamination. Thus, it is very interesting to compare the behavior of this plant species in contaminated soils to some other species. A. sativa is an annual plant species from the Poaceae family, it is cultivated as a cereal crop and also as a fodder crop [²⁰], and it is adapted to different types of soils [²¹]. D. carota is a biennial plant of the Apiaceae family. It can be found in many environments, including, for example, roadsides, waste areas, and fields. It can be an invasive plant in some countries [²²]. And finally, C. major, an annual plant from the Boraginaceae family, which can be found in fields, meadows, cultivated land, and wetlands [²³]. These four plant species have been screened for their ability to grow on different diesel-contaminated soils. The main objective is to compare the effects between the different plant species and determine which of these species can better tolerate diesel contamination in different types of soils and, therefore, be recommended for phytoremediation testing.

MATERIAL AND METHODS

The diesel fuel used in the experiment was obtained from a gas station in the region of Tizi-Ouzou (Algeria) to contaminate different soils. Xanthium strumarium mature seeds were collected in the region of Tizi-Ouzou (Algeria) at an altitude of 300 meters. Avena sativa, Daucus carota, and Cerinthe major seeds were purchased respectively from Sativa Rheinau (Germany), Magic Garden Seeds (Germany), and Premier Seeds Direct (United Kingdom). Four different potting soils were used in the experiment. The first potting soil is a universal potting soil composed of peat enriched with finely composted bark and manure (organic matter: 83%, electrical conductivity: 40 mS/m, pH 6.5). The second potting soil consists of compressed coconut fiber waste (organic matter: 80%, electrical conductivity: 25 mS/m, pH 6.5). The third potting soil is a mixture of peat humus, composted manure, and perlite (organic matter: 75%, electrical conductivity: 30 mS/m, pH 5.5). The fourth potting soil is a mixture of peat from high marshes (organic matter: 55%, electrical conductivity: 10 mS/m, pH 6.8). We prepared four soils, mixing each type of the four potting soils with clay soil and sand at a ratio of one-third each, and we added a layer of clay pebbles at the bottom of the plastic pots used for the experiment. Thus, we obtained four soils (soil 1, soil 2, soil 3, and soil 4) corresponding respectively to the potting soil 1, 2, 3, and 4. The prepared soils were then contaminated with different levels of diesel fuel by using the masse/masse method. The control (0 g of diesel in 300 g of soil), 2.5% diesel (by adding 7.5g diesel to 292.5 g of soil), and 5% diesel (by adding 15 g diesel to 285 g of soil). Diesel was mixed with acetone to have a homogeneous distribution in the soil. Acetone was then allowed to evaporate under a fume hood. For each plant species, 10 seeds were sown in each plastic pot, with two repetitions for each level of contamination. The soils were then sprayed with water and watered daily during the experiment. The experiment was conducted in a greenhouse at a temperature of 25 ± 2 °C, a relative humidity between 50 and 70%, and with natural ventilation. The total germination percentage was recorded 23 days after sowing. Shoot and root length and fresh weight were also measured after 23 days. The lengths were measured by a caliper, and the weights by a precision balance of 0.001g precision.

Analysis of variance (ANOVA) and the Newman-Keuls post-hoc test were used to highlight the significant differences (p < 0.05) through the different levels of contamination. The tests were conducted under Statistica 10 (©StatSoft).

RESULTS

Germination

We observed high germination rates with Xanthium strumarium (Table 1). The lowest rate (50%) was recorded at 5% diesel contamination in soil 3, and we observed a rate of 100% in soil 2 at 0% and 5% diesel contamination. For Avena sativa, we observed good germination rates (Table 1), only 3 values were under 50%: soil 3 at 2.5% diesel (20%) and 5% diesel (0%), and soil 4 at 5% diesel (25%). For Daucus carota and Cerinthe major, generally, the germination rates decreased as the contamination increased (Table 1). The lowest values for these two species were generally observed in soil 3 and soil 4 at 2.5% diesel and 5% diesel. Thus, the most important inhibitions were observed in D. carota and C. major. In addition, we observed that soil 3 and soil 4 presented the most important germination inhibitions.

Table 1
Germination rates (%) by plant species and soils through the different levels of contamination.

Species	Diesel level (%)	Soil 1	Soil 2	Soil 3	Soil 4
Xanthium strumarium		P-value = 0.464	P-value = 0.464	P-value = 0.035*	P-value = 0.074
	0	66.67 ± 0.00	100.00 ± 0.00	91.67 ± 11.79a	66.67 ± 0.00
	2.5	83.33 ± 0.00	91.67 ± 11.79	91.67 ± 11.79a	91.67 ± 11.79
	5	83.33 ± 23.57	100.00 ± 0.00	50.00 ± 0.00b	83.33 ± 0.00
Avena sativa		P-value = 0.019*	P-value = 0.306	P-value = 0.030*	P-value = 0.137
	0	90.00 ± 0.00a	90.00 ± 14.14	85.00 ± 7.07a	85.00 ± 21.21
	2.5	100.00 ± 0.00a	75.00 ± 7.07	20.00 ± 28.28b	90.00 ± 14.14
	5	75.00 ± 7.07b	90.00 ± 0.00	0.00 ± 0.00b	25.00 ± 35.36
Daucus carota		P-value = 0.012*	P-value = 0.961	P-value = 0.045	P-value = 0.096
	0	60.00 ± 0.00a	60.00 ± 0.00	55.00 ± 21.21a	75.00 ± 7.07
	2.5	00,00 ± 0,00b	60.00 ± 28.28	45.00 ± 7.07a	40.00 ± 14.14
	5	30.00 ± 14.14c	65.00 ± 21.21	00.00 ± 0.00b	25.00 ± 21.21
Cerinthe major		P-value = 0.012*	P-value = 0.192	P-value = 0.049*	P-value = 0.015*
	0	95.00 ± 7.07a	80.00 ± 14.14	55.00 ± 7.07a	85.00 ± 21.21a
	2.5	85.00 ± 7.07a	70.00 ± 0.00	70.00 ± 28.28ab	55.00 ± 7.07a
	5	30.00 ± 14.14b	60.00 ± 0.00	0.00 ± 0.00b	0.00 ± 0.00b

• *Significant differences (p < 0.05). Different letters indicate statistical differences.

Root growth

Tables 2 and 3 show the mean values for root length and root weight for each species and each soil. For X. strumarium, we observed high root lengths and weights in the contaminated soils (2.5% or 5% diesel). Low values are generally recorded in the control (0% diesel). A root length of 25.7 cm was observed at 5% in soil 1 and a weight of 4.78 g at 5% in soil 2. Concerning A. sativa and D. carota, with a few exceptions, the contamination had negative impacts on the root length and weight; the most important values were observed in the control. C. major could be situated between the two precedent observations. Thus, with some exceptions, the highest values were observed at the level of 2.5%, and in the control, the highest level of contamination (5%) displayed important inhibitions.

Table 2
Root lengths (cm) by plant species and soils through the different levels of contamination.

Species	Diesel level (%)	Soil 1	Soil 2	Soil 3	Soil 4
Xanthium strumarium		P-value = 0.493	P-value = 0.150	P-value = 0.297	P-value = 0.026*
	0	18.23 ± 5.02	19.42 ± 1.70	15.68 ± 0.22	14.81 ± 1.50a
	2.5	18.77 ± 1.82	20.72 ± 1.22	14.67 ± 4.17	22.88 ± 1.87b
	5	25.70 ± 9.33	15.25 ± 2.92	19.35 ± 1.44	16.33 ± 1.14a
Avena sativa		P-value = 0.031*	P-value = 0.003*	P-value = 0.091	P-value = 0.566
	0	15.98 ± 1.73a	19.36 ± 0.04a	11.40 ± 1.86	9.75 ± 10.54
	2.5	15.83 ± 0.06a	13.90 ± 0.39b	3.93 ± 5.55	11.72 ± 1.12
	5	11.33 ± 0.34b	10.12 ± 1.33c	0.00 ± 0.00	3.92 ± 5.54
Daucus carota		P-value = 0.044*	P-value = 0.024*	P-value = 0.036*	P-value = 0.064
	0	10,87±2,31a	13,38±1,08a	7,68±1,77a	11,98±2,78
	2.5	0,00±0,00b	7,40±1,84b	4,73±2,05ab	15,48±3,84
	5	5,78±3,43ab	7,08±0,39b	0,00±0,00b	2,48±3,51
Cerinthe major		P-value = 0.020*	P-value = 0.104	P-value = 0.013*	P-value = 0.042*
	0	13.67 ± 1.80a	7.65 ± 2.64	5.17 ± 0.41a	8.60 ± 3.38a
	2.5	7.08 ± 0.56b	8.66 ± 2.13	8.44 ± 2.04a	10.61 ± 2.50a
	5	6.60 ± 1.20b	13.66 ± 0.55	0.00 ± 0.00b	0.00 ± 0.00b

• *Significant differences (p < 0.05). Different letters indicate statistical differences.

Table 3
Root weight (g) by plant species and soils through the different levels of contamination.

Species	Diesel level (%)	Soil 1	Soil 2	Soil 3	Soil 4
Xanthium strumarium		P-value = 0.110	P-value = 0.512	P-value = 0.067	P-value = 0.003*
	0	2.13 ± 0.14	4.18 ± 0.60	1.98 ± 0.08	1.53 ± 0.08a
	2.5	3.31 ± 0.19	4.66 ± 0.53	3.02 ± 0.59	4.20 ± 0.42b
	5	3.38 ± 0.73	4.78 ± 0.28	1.74 ± 0.10	1.86 ± 0.16a
Avena sativa		P-value = 0.380	P-value = 0.112	P-value = 0.078	P-value = 0.030*
	0	1.59 ± 0.61	3.09 ± 0.28	1.63 ± 0.08	2.26 ± 0.48a
	2.5	2.64 ± 1.53	2.25 ± 0.52	0.55 ± 0.78	2.98 ± 0.26a
	5	1.10 ± 0.09	1.55 ± 0.61	0.00 ± 0.00	0.46 ± 0.65b
Daucus carota		P-value = 0.010*	P-value = 0.421	P-value = 0.043*	P-value = 0.547
	0	0.07 ± 0.01a	0.07 ± 0.01	0.13 ± 0.05a	0.08 ± 0.01
	2.5	0.00 ± 0.00b	0.09 ± 0.01	0.11 ± 0.01a	0.06 ± 0.03
	5	0.05 ± 0.01a	0.10 ± 0.03	0.00 ± 0.00b	0.04 ± 0.05
Cerinthe major		P-value = 0.376	P-value = 0.601	P-value = 0.005*	P-value = 0.019*
	0	0.83 ± 0.52	2.06 ± 0.88	0.17 ± 0.08a	1.03 ± 0.04a
	2.5	1.49 ± 0.07	2.87 ± 0.93	0.89 ± 0.15b	2.27 ± 0.63b
	5	1.06 ± 0.46	2.67 ± 0.35	0.00 ± 0.00a	0.00 ± 0.00a

• *Significant differences (p < 0.05). Different letters indicate statistical differences.

Shoot growth

In general, as the contamination increased, the length and weight of the shoots decreased (Tables 4 and 5). In general, for the four plant species used in this experiment, the most important values were recorded in the control (0% diesel contamination), even if there were some exceptions. Thus, the level of contamination of 5% caused the most important inhibitions of shoot growth in all the species and all the soils, except for some observations.

The significant differences (P < 0.05) indicate many differences between the control (0%) and the level of 2.5% or 5%, but we have some exceptions. Thus, in general, the lowest values were recorded at the level of contamination of 5%. However, we observed some differences between the different plant species. Thus, X. strumarium seemed to be the most tolerant plant species, for example, in soil 3 at the level of 5% diesel contamination, all the values were null, except for X. strumarium, which showed a germination rate of 50%, which was the lowest rate observed for this species. This plant species showed the best performance compared to the three other plant species used in the experiment.

Table 4
Shoot lengths (cm) by plant species and soils through the different levels of contamination.

Species	Diesel level (%)	Soil 1	Soil 2	Soil 3	Soil 4
Xanthium strumarium		P-value = 0.331	P-value = 0.011*	P-value = 0.233	P-value = 0.001*
	0	17.88 ± 0.71	18.89 ± 0.34a	16.31 ± 1.78	17.59 ± 0.27a
	2.5	15.42 ± 0.88	16.27 ± 0.54b	15.07 ± 0.75	15.30 ± 0.59b
	5	17.14 ± 2.14	15.59 ± 0.48b	12.27 ± 2.59	11.40 ± 0.38c
Avena sativa		P-value = 0.020*	P-value = 0.006*	P-value = 0.405	P-value = 0.204
	0	2.16 ± 0.36a	5.72 ± 0.34a	2.53 ± 0.23	3.92 ± 0.15
	2.5	5.77 ± 0.58b	4.49 ± 0.14b	2.10 ± 2.97	5.16 ± 0.25
	5	3.00 ± 0.83a	3.29 ± 0.26c	0.00 ± 0.00	1.76 ± 2.49
Daucus carota		P-value = 0.004*	P-value = 0.225	P-value = 0.040*	P-value = 0.095
	0	1.78 ± 0.11a	2.14 ± 0.37	5.20 ± 1.87a	5.89 ± 2.42
	2.5	0.00 ± 0.00b	1.65 ± 0.16	1.31 ± 0.63b	1.53 ± 0.05
	5	1.68 ± 0.32a	1.71 ± 0.09	0.00 ± 0.00b	0.95 ± 1.34
Cerinthe major		P-value = 0.051	P-value = 0.019*	P-value = 0.0006*	P-value = 0.003*
	0	13.67 ± 1.80	9.44 ± 1.11a	11.00 ± 0.66a	11.67 ± 1.66a
	2.5	4.42 ± 3.20	6.43 ± 0.36b	7.05 ± 0.71b	8.43 ± 0.78a
	5	6.60 ± 1.20	5.36 ± 0.15b	0.00 ± 0.00c	0.00 ± 0.00b

• *Significant differences (p < 0.05). Different letters indicate statistical differences.

Table 5
Shoot weight (g) by plant species and soils through the different levels of contamination.

Species	Diesel level (%)	Soil 1	Soil 2	Soil 3	Soil 4
Xanthium strumarium		P-value = 0.995	P-value = 0.109	P-value = 0.0007*	P-value = 0.001*
	0	6.50 ± 2.55	10.69 ± 1.01	8.61 ± 0.44a	6.22 ± 0.43a
	2.5	6.34 ± 0.45	8.94 ± 1.23	7.07 ± 0.05b	7.62 ± 0.23b
	5	6.44 ± 1.82	6.98 ± 1.24	3.35 ± 0.22c	2.85 ± 0.21c
Avena sativa		P-value = 0.001*	P-value = 0.748	P-value = 0.004*	P-value = 0.045*
	0	5.86 ± 0.06a	2.09 ± 0.29	4.90 ± 0.29a	2.67 ± 0.21ab
	2.5	2.24 ± 0.47b	1.98 ± 0.42	0.58 ± 0.81b	2.50 ± 0.23a
	5	1.35 ± 0.06c	1.80 ± 0.37	0.00 ± 0.00b	0.59 ± 0.83b
Daucus carota		P-value = 0.005*	P-value = 0.562	P-value = 0.028*	P-value = 0.323
	0	0.12 ± 0.01a	0.05 ± 0.00	0.04 ± 0.01a	0.18 ± 0.01
	2.5	0.00 ± 0.00b	0.06 ± 0.01	0.05 ± 0.01a	0.05 ± 0.02
	5	0.10 ± 0.02a	0.07 ± 0.02	0.00 ± 0.00b	0.09 ± 0.13
Cerinthe major		P-value = 0.005*	P-value = 0.015*	P-value = 0.010*	P-value = 0.002*
	0	13.96 ± 1.86a	6.33 ± 0.85a	4.61 ± 0.08a	7.45 ± 0.47a
	2.5	3.95 ± 0.93b	3.46 ± 0.59b	2.62 ± 1.04b	2.89 ± 0.90b
	5	1.55 ± 1.05b	2.43 ± 0.07b	0.00 ± 0.00c	0.00 ± 0.00c

• *Significant differences (p < 0.05). Different letters indicate statistical differences.

DISCUSSION

We know that petroleum products can cause serious damage to plant germination and growth. These effects vary depending on the type of soil and plant species, with tolerance levels varying from one species to another [²⁴,²⁵]. This is what we observed in our study: the germination rates, root and shoot lengths, and weights varied between the different species. Thus, in terms of root growth, Xanthium strumarium and Cerinthe major seemed to be the most tolerant plant species to the contamination. For the shoot length, X. strumarium and Avena sativa were the least affected, and for the shoot weight, we noticed that X. strumarium and Daucus carota were less inhibited. Concerning germination, X. strumarium was the most tolerant of the four plant species.

D. carota has the potential to tolerate and phytoremediate petroleum hydrocarbons [²⁶]. The fact that we used high levels of diesel fuel contamination could explain the negative effects recorded in our study concerning the shoot and root growth of this species. The remediation potential of some species from the Boraginaceae family in oil-contaminated soils has been described in a study by Panchenko and coauthors, [²⁷]; moreover, this study did not report the presence of species from the Cerinthe genus. Concerning A. sativa, it was reported to have the capacity to tolerate petroleum hydrocarbons [²⁶]. On the other hand, Molina‐Barahona and coauthors, [²⁸] have reported the toxic effects of diesel on the weight and the root and stem elongations of A. sativa. In this study, the growth of the roots and shoots of this species was generally negatively affected. But we observed that for the parameter shoot length, A. sativa is less affected than some other species.

X. strumarium showed good germination rates in the contaminated soils; the highest values for root length and weight were recorded in the contaminated substrates, and the shoot length and weight were less affected than the three other species. Similar results were reported by Dib et Sadoudi Ali-Ahmed [¹⁹]. The root growth seemed to be less affected than the shoot growth, especially in X. strumarium. When the roots of a plant develop in completely contaminated soil, the roots will grow and search for clean soil [²⁹]; this could explain why the roots of X. strumarium were longer in the contaminated soils compared to the control. Thus, X. strumarium seemed to be the most tolerant plant species in this experiment, especially at 5% diesel contamination (the highest level of contamination). The seeds of X. strumarium are contained in a bur; therefore, it could act as a protection against contamination [¹⁹]. Thus, the burs could prevent or reduce the possible damage that can be caused by the contact of the seeds with the contaminant.

The effects of diesel contamination on plant species may also depend on the soil type. Thus, according to the germination and growth results, it seemed that soil 1 and soil 2 were better than soil 3 and soil 4. Soils 1 and 2 are more equilibrated. Soil 3 presents a low electrical conductivity (10 mS/m), which indicates a low amount of nutrients, and soil 4 presents the lowest pH (5.5). X. strumarium showed the best adaptation to the different soils. This plant species is able to grow in different soil types [³⁰].

In light of the results obtained, we think that it would be more interesting to study the phytoremediation potential of X. strumarium and its potential resistance mechanisms in sites contaminated with petroleum products, and also to study the detoxifying enzymes in X. strumarium that make this plant species tolerant to diesel.

CONCLUSION

Our results show that the effects of the contamination depends on the species and on the soil type. Xanthium strumarium was the most tolerant plant species compared to the three other species used in this experiment. Moreover, this was also the species that showed the best results in the different types of soils. The three other species were more affected by the contamination, but we noticed some differences between them depending on the different parameters.

We think that X. strumarium should be tested primarily for its potential phytoremediation capacity in oil-contaminated soils. But, even if the three other species are less tolerant, we think that they should also be tested in phytoremediation experiments. It would also be very interesting to perform a diesel phytotoxicity experiment on X. strumarium by using seeds extracted from the burs to compare the tolerance of this species with and without the burs that contain the seeds and can potentially protect them from contamination.

Acknowledgments

The authors are grateful to the PSEMRVC laboratory personnel for all the help provided.

REFERENCES

• ¹
  Ahmed F, Fakhruddin ANM. A review on environmental contamination of petroleum hydrocarbons and its biodegradation. Int J Environ Sci Nat Resour. 2018 May;11(3):63-9.
• ²
  Haider FU, Ejaz M, Cheema SA, Khan MI, Zhao B, Liqun C, et al. Phytotoxicity of petroleum hydrocarbons: Sources, impacts and remediation strategies. Environ Res. 2021 Jun;197:111031.
• ³
  Hunt LJ, Duca D, Dan T, Knopper LD. Petroleum hydrocarbon (PHC) uptake in plants: A literature review. Environ Pollut. 2019 Feb;245:472-84.
• ⁴
  Gad SC. Diesel Fuel. In: Wexler P, editor. Encyclopedia of toxicology. 3rd ed. Oxford: Academic Press; 2014. p. 115-8.
• ⁵
  Brakorenko NN, Korotchenko TV. Impact of petroleum products on soil composition and physical-chemical properties. IOP Conf Ser: Earth Environ Sci. 2016;33(1):012028.
• ⁶
  Kuzhaeva A, Berlinskii I. Effects of oil pollution on the environment. International Multidisciplinary Scientific GeoConference: SGEM. 2018;18(5.1):313-320.
• ⁷
  Tumanyan AF, Tyutyuma NV, Bondarenko AN, Shcherbakova NA. Influence of oil pollution on various types of soil. Chem Technol Fuels Oils. 2017 Aug;53(3):369-76.
• ⁸
  Cruz JM, Corroque NA, Montagnoli RN, Lopes PRM, Morales MAM, Bidoia ED. Comparative study of phytotoxicity and genotoxicity of soil contaminated with biodiesel, diesel fuel and petroleum. Ecotoxicology. 2019 Apr;28(4):449-56.
• ⁹
  Eze MO, George SC, Hose GC. Dose-response analysis of diesel fuel phytotoxicity on selected plant species. Chemosphere. 2021 Jan;263:128382.
• ¹⁰
  Hawrot-Paw M, Wijatkowski A, Mikiciuk M. Influence of diesel and biodiesel fuel-contaminated soil on microorganisms, growth and development of plants. Plant Soil Environ. 2015 May;61(5):189-94.
• ¹¹
  Tran TH, Mayzlish Gati E, Eshel A, Winters G. Germination, physiological and biochemical responses of acacia seedlings (Acacia raddiana and Acacia tortilis) to petroleum contaminated soils. Environ Pollut. 2018 Mar; 234:642-55.
• ¹²
  Bamgbose I, Anderson TA. Phytotoxicity of three plant-based biodiesels, unmodified castor oil, and diesel fuel to alfalfa (Medicago sativa L.), lettuce (Lactuca sativa L.), radish (Raphanus sativus), and wheatgrass (Triticum aestivum). Ecotoxicol Environ Saf. 2015 Dec;122:268-74.
• ¹³
  Mohsenzade F, Nasseri S, Mesdaghinia A, Nabizadeh R, Zafari D, Chehregani A. Phytoremediation of petroleum-contaminated soils: Pre-screening for suitable plants and rhizospheral fungi. Toxicol Environ Chem. 2009 Dec;91(8):1443-53.
• ¹⁴
  Adam G, Duncan H. Influence of diesel fuel on seed germination. Environ Pollut. 2002 Dec;120(2):363-70.
• ¹⁵
  Shirdam R, Zand A, Bidhendi G, Mehrdadi N. Phytoremediation of hydrocarbon-contaminated soils with emphasis on the effect of petroleum hydrocarbons on the growth of plant species. Phytoprotection. 2008 Apr;89(1):21-9.
• ¹⁶
  Saadoun I, Al-Ghazawi Z. Toxicity of diesel fuel towards plant seeds as reflected by seed germination outcomes, sprout length and fresh weight. American-Eurasian J Agric & Environ Sci. 2010;8(2):167-72.
• ¹⁷
  Fan W, Fan L, Peng C, Zhang Q, Wang L, Li L, et al. Traditional uses, botany, phytochemistry, pharmacology, pharmacokinetics and toxicology of Xanthium strumarium L.: A review. Molecules. 2019 Jan;24(2):359.
• ¹⁸
  Ullah R, Khan N, Hewitt N, Ali K, Jones DA, Khan MEH. Invasive species as rivals: Invasive potential and distribution pattern of Xanthium strumarium L. Sustainability. 2022 Jun;14(12):7141.
• ¹⁹
  Dib D, Sadoudi Ali Ahmed D. Influence of diesel fuel contamination on Xanthium strumarium L. germination and growth. Int J Phytoremediation. 2020;22(3):236-40.
• ²⁰
  Wu ZI, Phillips SM. Avena Linnaeus, Sp. Pl. 1: 79. 1753. Flora of China [Internet]. 2006 [cited 2023 Apr 19];22:316-23. Available from: http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=103247
  » http://www.efloras.org/florataxon.aspx?flora_id=2&taxon_id=103247
• ²¹
  Ahmad M, Zaffar G, Dar Z.A, Habib M. A review on Oat (Avena sativa L.) as a dual-purpose crop. Sci Res Essays. 2014 Feb;9(4):52-9.
• ²²
  Xu Z, Chang L. Identification and control of common weeds. Vol 3. Singapore: Springer Singapore; 2017. 944 p.
• ²³
  Bayer E, Buttler KP, Finkenzeller X, Grau J. [Guide to Mediterranean flora: Characteristics, habitat, distribution and particularities of 536 species]. Paris: Delachaux et Niestle; 1990. 287 p.
• ²⁴
  Da Silva Correa H, Blum CT, Galvao F, Maranho LT. Effects of oil contamination on plant growth and development: A review. Environ Sci Pollut Res. 2022 Apr;29(29):43501-15.
• ²⁵
  Al-Ghazawi Z, Saadoun I, AlShak'ah A. Selection of bacteria and plant seeds for potential use in the remediation of diesel contaminated soils. J Basic Microbiol. 2005 Jul;45(4):251-6.
• ²⁶
  Frick CM, Farrell RE, Germida JJ. Assessment of phytoremediation as an in-situ technique for cleaning oil-contaminated sites. Calgary (AB): Petroleum Technology Alliance of Canada (PTAC); 1999 Dec. 82 p.
• ²⁷
  Panchenko L, Muratova A, Biktasheva L, Galitskaya P, Golubev S, Dubrovskaya E, et al. Study of Boraginaceae plants for phytoremediation of oil-contaminated soil. Int J Phytoremediation. 2022;24(2):215-23.
• ²⁸
  Molina-Barahona L, Vega-Loyo L, Guerrero M, Ramirez S, Romero I, Vega-Jarquin C, et al. Ecotoxicological evaluation of diesel-contaminated soil before and after a bioremediation process. Environ Toxicol. 2005 Feb;20(1):100-9.
• ²⁹
  Kechavarzi C, Pettersson K, Leeds-Harrison P, Ritchie L, Ledin S. Root establishment of perennial ryegrass (L. perenne) in diesel contaminated subsurface soil layers. Environ Pollut. 2007 Jan;145(1):68-74.
• ³⁰
  Kaul V. Physiological-ecology of Xanthium strumarium Linn. New Phytol. 1971 Jul;70(4):799-812.

• Funding:

  This research received no external funding.

Edited by

Editor-in-Chief:

Alexandre Rasi Aoki

Associate Editor:

Adriel Ferreira da Fonseca

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  22 Mar 2024
• Date of issue
  2024

History

• Received
  12 July 2023
• Accepted
  29 Sept 2023