Open Access
Open Peer Review

This article has Open Peer Review reports available.

How does Open Peer Review work?

Enhancement of Calibrachoa growth, secondary metabolites and bioactivity using seaweed extracts

  • Hosam O. Elansary1, 2Email author,
  • Jeff Norrie3,
  • Hayssam M. Ali4, 5,
  • Mohamed Z. M. Salem6,
  • Eman A. Mahmoud7 and
  • Kowiyou Yessoufou8
BMC Complementary and Alternative MedicineBMC series – open, inclusive and trusted201616:341

https://doi.org/10.1186/s12906-016-1332-5

Received: 15 February 2016

Accepted: 31 August 2016

Published: 2 September 2016

Abstract

Background

Calibrachoa x hybrida (Solanaceae) cultivars are widely used in North and South America as ornamental plants. Their potential as a source of antimicrobial compounds might be enhanced by seaweed extract (SWE) applications.

Methods

SWE of Ascophyllum nodosum were applied at 5 and 7 ml/L as a soil drench or foliar spray on Calibrachoa cultivars of Superbells® ‘Dreamsicle’ (CHSD) and Superbells® ‘Frost Fireʼ (CHSF). The total phenolics, tannins and antioxidants composition as well as specific flavonols in leaf extracts were determined. Further, the chemical composition of SWE was assessed.

Results

The drench and foliar SWE treatments significantly enhanced Calibrachoa cultivars leaf number and area, dry weight, plant height, antioxidant capacity as well as phenolic, flavonols and tannin content. The increased growth and composition of phenols, flavonols and tannins was attributed to the stimulatory effects of SWE mineral composition. The antifungal activity of Calibrachoa cultivars was significantly enhanced following SWE treatments and the minimum inhibitory concentration (MIC) and minimum fungicidal concentration (MFC) were in the range of 0.07–0.31 mg/ml and from 0.16 to 0.56 mg/ml, respectively. Moreover, antibacterial activity was significantly increased and the MIC and minimum bactericidal concentration (MBC) measurements were in the range of 0.06–0.23 mg/ml and from 0.10 to 0.44 mg/ml, respectively. The most sensitive fungus to SWE treatments was C. albicans and the most sensitive bacterium was E. cloacae.

Conclusion

The results suggest that enhanced antifungal and antibacterial activities might be attributed to significant increases of phenolic, flavonols and tannin contents, which ultimately enhance the potential of Calibrachoa as a natural source of alternative antibiotics.

Keywords

Calibrachoa Seaweed extract Antifungal Antibacterial Antioxidants

Background

Phytopathogens such as fungi and bacteria can cause serious diseases to humans and lead to large losses in agricultural crops production [13]. Recent studies show that natural plant products are safer alternatives to antibiotics and commercial pesticides that are commonly used to control these pests [4, 5]. Enhancing the plant’s natural photochemistry might therefore serve as a useful technique to increase the production of natural defensive compounds and safely control diseases. In this respect, seaweed extracts (SWE) which are obtained from algal species growing along coastal regions around the world, might be used as natural plant biostimulants [6]. These extracts are usually associated with enhanced plant growth following foliar or drench application [7, 8]. However, horticultural crops exhibit a range of diverse responses following different application methods and doses of SWE [7, 9]. Few reports on vegetable crops indicate that SWE treatment may affect the crop nutritional composition by means of increasing phenolics, flavonoids, and antioxidant capacity [10, 11]. Antioxidant activities are commonly associated with phenolic and flavonoid content in medicinal shrubs [12] and in plants in general [13, 14]. Furthermore, little attention has been given to ornamental medicinal plants [15, 16].

In addition, the antifungal and antibacterial activities of SWEs are widely demonstrated and these activities are mostly linked to the presence of thermo-stable lipophilic compounds [1720]. For example, some SWEs have bactericidal effects [18] associated with the presence of terpenes and phenolic compounds [17, 19]. Other reports indicate that seaweeds might stimulate the production of plant defense elicitors (e.g. oligosaccharides) against pathogens [21]. SWE foliar spray may also stimulate microbes antagonistic to Pythium ultimum [22]. Further, SWE foliar sprays on turfgrasses may enhance resistance to dollar spot [6, 17]. Many investigations also indicate that plant extracts have useful value in controlling microorganisms [4, 5] which may allow for a reduction in the application of fungicides and bactericides, and consequently minimize their potential side effects on human health and the environment. Nevertheless, how to use SWE as a biostimulant of natural phytochemistry production to enhance the medicinal values of plants is a poorly investigated question. To our knowledge, the effects of SWE on plant extract activities against microorganisms had not been investigated in vitro.

Solanaceae is a large plant family that contains many horticultural crops that are of economic and medicinal importance such as the Petunia and the recently delimited genus Calibrachoa [2325]. Calibrachoa cultivars are widely grown by seed in North and South America from hybrid cultivars [26]. Some Calibrachoa cultivars vary in their content of phenolic, flavonoid and tannin compounds and their leaf extracts may exhibit antifungal and antibacterial activities against a wide spectrum of pathogenic microorganisms [27], further, close genera to Calibrachoa such as Petunia had shown obvious flavonoid composition [28] and antimicrobial activities [29], however little is known about Solanaceae members such as Calibrachoa responses to SWE from the point of chemical composition.

In the current study, we investigate the effects of SWE of Ascophyllum nodosum on enhancing Calibrachoa plants medicinal value by way of increasing the phenolic, flavonoid and tannin contents as well as their antioxidant capacity. Further, we examined the use of SWE technologies to enhance antifungal and antibacterial activities of plants against a selected spectrum of microorganisms. This research may represent an important methodology towards enhancing the quantity and quality of natural products obtained from promising sources of natural products such as Calibrachoa; it could also lead to reducing the use of antibiotics and commercial reagents in agricultural crop disease and pest control programs, thereby minimizing their impact on human health and our environment.

Methods

Chemicals and cell cultures

Analytical/HPLC grade chemicals were obtained from Sigma Aldrich, Canada. Fungi and bacteria were obtained from Henry farms Laboratories, Guelph, Canada.

Plant material and SWE treatments

Uniform 2 weeks old plants of Calibrachoa x hybrida of ʻSuperbells® Dreamsicleʼ (CHSD) and ʻSuperbells® Frost Fireʼ (CHSF) were obtained from local nurseries, identified by Dr. Hosam Elansary, University of Guelph, and vouchered at the Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph, Guelph, Canada. The plants were subjected to a weekly treatment of the commercially available liquid extract of the marine plant Ascophyllum nodosum (Stella MarisTM, Acadian Seaplants, Canada) at 5 and 7 ml/L per plant as a soil drench or foliar spray. Untreated plants were considered as controls. SWE treatments continued for 8 weeks before sampling plant leaves. Ascophyllum nodosum was harvested from the intertidal zone along the North Atlantic coastline of Canada and then hydrolyzed under atmospheric pressure using KOH. The liquid extract was evaporated under vacuum to a concentration of 29 % solids.

Plant material, growing conditions and morphological parameters

The plants were transplanted into a simulated green roof pot system in commercial 4-in. pots measuring 13 cm in height and equipped with a filter (fabricated non-woven geotextile of polypropylene) and 4 cm drainage layers of gravel (0.5 ml). Pots were arranged during April 2015 in a controlled greenhouse environment located in Guelph, Ontario, Canada (43° 30′ 18.24″ N 80° 22′ 15.86″ W). The substrate used for the green roof system was black peat and perlite (3:1 w/w) and was supplemented with Osmocote Plus® (14:13:13 N, P, K + microelements) (2 g/l media). The experiment was conducted under the following conditions: Temperatures ranged between 19.6 °C and 27.4 °C; relative humidity ranged between 55 and 62 %; photosynthetically active radiation was maintained at 1000 μmol/m2/s at 10.00 am, and plants were maintained at 12 h light conditions for 1 week before starting treatments. A daily watering (25–40 ml) was applied to allow for 100 % evapotranspiration rate (ET). ET was determined for 5 plants per cultivar by watering with enough water and leaving them to dry for 1 h, then weighing each representative, reweighing every 24 h, and the daily changes in weight represent the daily ET. The volumetric water content was calculated for 5 pots before and during the experiment by determining the weight before and after irrigation by allowing free draining for 1 h. The difference between the fresh weight and oven-dry weight (at 70 °C until constant weight at the end of the experiment) was calculated to provide the volumetric water content. Plants were grouped into three blocks/repetitions (n = 3) containing 4 replicates per treatment in the experiment and totaling 120 plants per cultivar distributed on three plots. After 8 weeks of treatments, the plants were harvested and plant height and leaf number were calculated. A WinDIAS Leaf Area Measurement System (Delta-T Devices Ltd., Cambridge, UK) was used to calculate the leaf area. Total dry weight was determined by drying cleaned plants in an oven at 70 °C to reach constant weight.

Preparation of leaf extracts

Leaf samples of Calibrachoa cultivars were collected in June 2015 and leaves’ extracts were obtained using methanol as per Pérez-Tortosa et al. [30] with some modifications [31]. Dried leaves (0.25 g) were ground then dissolved in 3 ml methanol (99 %). The solution was shaken on a magnetic agitator at minimal speed under darkness (to maintain the activity of bioactive compounds), for 24 h at room temperature. The solution was centrifuged for 5 min (4°C) at 10000 RPM (7000 × g) and the supernatant (~2.6 ml) was stored in sealed vials at −20 °C. The preparation was evaporated in a rotary evaporator to produce a semisolid extract that was kept for further analyses.

Antioxidant capacity

The 2,2′-diphenypicrylhydrazyl (DPPH) method was employed to determine the free radical scavenging activity of the samples [32]. The absorbance was measured at 517 nm and experiments were repeated twice in triplicate. The β-carotene-linoleic acid assay was conducted using the method described by Tepe et al. [32] with modifications [27]. The mixture of β-carotene-linoleic acid was prepared by dissolving 0.5 mg β-carotene in 1 ml of chloroform, 25 μl linoleic acid and 200 mg Tween 40. Chloroform was removed by vacuum evaporation then 100 ml of distilled water saturated with oxygen were added and shaken vigorously. 2.5 mL of the mixture was mixed with 350 μl of the liquid extracts, incubated for 48 h at room temperature and the absorbance was measured at 470 nm. The BHT was used as positive control and a blank was prepared in the same manner and the antioxidant capacities of each sample were compared to the BHT and the blank. Antioxidant activity was expressed as the concentration of the sample required to inhibit 50 % of DPPH or β-carotene-linoleic acid (IC50).

Calibrachoa total phenolic, tannin and major flavonols contents quantification

The Folin-Ciocalteau colorimetric method using gallic acid as the reference was employed to determine the phenolic contents of leaf extracts with results expressed as gallic acid equivalents (mg GAE/g ext.) [33, 34]. Flavonoids were determined in plant leaves by extracting 100 mg ground leaf tissues in 2.1 ml methanol:acetic acid:water (70:4:29, v/v) for 72 h at 4 °C, then the supernatant was removed and the pellet was re-extractred in 2 ml methanol:acetic acid:water (90:1:9, v/v) for 24 h at 4 °C. The combined supernatants were dried (under vacuum) and completed to 0.5 ml with a mixture of methanol:acetic acid:water (80:2:17 v/v) [35]. The samples were subjected to HPLC analysis of flavonoids. The HPLC analysis was performed using liquid chromatographic system equipped with a Waters Alliance 2695 separations module (Waters, Milford, MA, USA). A LiChrosphera RP-18 reversed-phase column (119 mm 4 mm) supplied by Merck (Quebec, Canada) was employed. A gradient solvent system of A [HOAc:CH3CN:H3PO4:H2O (20:24:1.5:54.5)] and B [1.5 % H3PO4] was used starting with 80 % A, decreasing to 30 % A at 30 min, 15 % A at 34 min and 0 % A at 40 min. The flavonoids were determined as quercetin-3-O-rutinoside equivalents by integrating areas and the absorbance was monitored at 352 nm. Tannins were determined following the gravimetric method [36] with modifications [37]. All experiments were repeated twice in triplicate.

Chemical composition of SWE

Inductively Coupled Plasma Spectroscopic Analysis (ICPSA) was used for SWE to determine the mineral compositions in Optima 4300DV (Perkin-Elmer, USA). The nitrogen content (N) was determined using AOAC method No. 990.03 in the LECO FP-528 analyzer. Phosphorous pentoxide (P2O5) was determined using the ammonium citrate in AOAC method No. 960.08 by ICP-OES. Potassium oxide (K2O) was determined using the ammonium oxalate in AOAC method No. 960.08 by ICP-OES. Heavy metals quantification followed the AOAC method No. 6020A using the Atomic Absorption -Hydride Generation. Experiments were repeated twice in triplicates.

Antifungal activities

Four fungi were used: Aspergillus flavus (ATCC (American type culture collection) 9643), Candida albicans (ATCC 26555), Penicillium funiculosum (ATCC 56755), and Penicillium ochrochloron (ATCC 48663). Cultures were kept on malt agar at 4 °C then sub-cultured monthly. Spore suspension concentration of (1.0 × 105) was maintained and the minimum inhibitory (MIC) and minimum fungicidal (MFC) concentration assays were performed using the microdilution method [38]. Leaf extracts were diluted in 5 % DMSO (1 mg/ml and 10 mg/ml), then added (2 μl) to microplates containing broth Malt medium with inoculum and incubated for 72 h at 28 °C on a rotary shaker. MIC was determined by serial sub-cultivations of 2 μl of leaf extract and isolated compounds dissolved in a medium. The sub-cultivations were incubated for 72 h in microtiter plates that contain 100 μl broth and inoculum, then incubated for 72 h at 28 °C. MIC was defined as the lowest concentration that inhibits fungi growth at the bionocular microscope level. To determine the MFC a serial dilutions of the inoculum was prepared in 96-well microtiter plates and the MFC was defined as the lowest concentration with no visible growth indicating 99.5 % killing of the original inoculum. Triplicate samples were used in all experiments and each experiment was repeated twice. The fungicides fluconazole (FLZ) and ketoconazole (KLZ) were used as positive controls (1–3500 μg/ml).

Antibacterial activities

Experiments were performed using Gram + Bacillus cereus (clinical isolate), Staphylococcus aureus (ATCC 6538) and Micrococcus flavus (ATCC 10240) and Gram-bacteria Enterobacter cloacae (ATCC 35030). The microdilution method [38] was used to determine the minimum inhibitory (MIC) and minimum bactericidal (MBC) concentrations. Bacterial suspensions were adjusted with sterile saline to a concentration of 1.0 × 105 CFU/ml and stored at 4 °C. Inocula were screened for contamination by culturing on a solid medium. Leaf extract were added (1 and 10 mg/ml) to 100 μl Triptic Soy broth (TSB) with a bacteria inoculum (1.0 × 104 CFU/well), reaching the desired concentration in a microtitre plate to measure the MICs and MBCs. The mixtures in microplates were incubated for 24 h at 37 °C in a rotary shaker. After incubation of the microplates, the lowest concentration that completely inhibited bacterial growth (at the binocular microscope) was defined as the MIC. To determine the MBC, a serial sub-cultivations of 2 μL into microtitre plates containing 100 μL of TSB for each well and incubated for 24 h. The MBC was defined as the lowest concentration indicating killing of 99.5 % of the original inoculum. To determine the optical density a microplate manager was used at 655 nm and experiments were in triplicates and repeated three times. The results was compared to positive controls (streptomycin and ampicillin, 1 mg/ml), and negative control (5 % DMSO).

Statistical analysis

The results were expressed as means ± standard deviation (SD). Further, the data was subjected to the Least significant differences (LSD) one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) implemented in SPSS (PASW Ver. 21) at a level of significance of P ≤ 0.05.

Results

Growth, antioxidants, total phenolic, flavonols and tannin contents in Calibrachoa and chemical composition of SWE

Foliar and drench SWE treatments significantly enhanced growth parameters (leaf number and area, dry weight and plant height) compared to control plants (Table 1). Treated plants showed higher antioxidant capacity in both Calibrachoa cultivars compared to control plants as determined from both DPPH and linoleic acid assays (Table 2). In the DPPH assay, the IC50 ranged from 27.3 to 33 ug/ml and from 29.4 to 37.9 ug/ml in CHSD and CHSF, respectively. The drench application of SWE showed higher antioxidant activity than the foliar ones; also the 7 ml doses of SWE had higher antioxidant activity in leaf extracts than the 5 ml dose. The linoleic acid assay followed a parallel pattern to that found in the DPPH assay. The phenolic content ranged from 4.6 to 5.2 mg GAE/g ext. and from 4.4 to 5 mg GAE/g ext. in CHSD and CHSF, respectively. The total phenolic content significantly increased when increasing SWE dose as well as when using the drench application. However, the 5 and 7 ml drench doses of SWE did not show significant differences in the phenolic content in the CHSF cultivar only.
Table 1

Calibrachoa cultivars leaf number (leaf/plant), leaf area (cm2/plant), plant dry weight (g/plant) and plant height (cm) at the end of the experiment following SWE Foliar (Fol) and Drench (Dre) treatments with 5 or 7 mL/plant. Values are expressed as mean of triplicate determinations ± sd

  

Leaf number (leaf/plant)

Leaf area (cm2/plant)

Plant dry weight (g/plant)

Plant height (cm)

CHSD

CONTROL

34.6 ± 0.9ba

173 ± 2.1b

4.11 ± 0.1 b

21.5 ± 0.1 b

(5 ml) Fol

35.1 ± 0.5b

178.6 ± 3.1b

4.18 ± 0.3 b

21.8 ± 0.1 a

(7 ml)Fol

37.3 ± 0.3a

184.3 ± 4.2ab

4.23 ± 0.1 ab

21.9 ± 0.3a

(5 ml)Dre

36.7 ± 0.7a

183.1 ± 3.5ab

4.31 ± 0.1 ab

22.4 ± 0.5 a

(7 ml)Dre

37.9 ± 0.4a

193.5 ± 3.7a

4.42 ± 0.3 a

22.7 ± 0.3 a

CHSF

CONTROL

32.7 ± 0.5c

161 ± 1.7c

3.81 ± 0.2 b

19.7 ± 0.4 b

(5 ml) Fol

33.3 ± 0.1bc

169 ± 3.2b

3.98 ± 0.1 b

20.3 ± 0.3 b

(7 ml)Fol

34.9 ± 0.6bc

171.1 ± 2.5b

4.19 ± 0.1 ab

20.7 ± 0.2 b

(5 ml)Dre

35.1 ± 0.2b

179 ± 1.7a

4.23 ± 0.2 a

21.1 ± 0.4 ab

(7 ml)Dre

37.1 ± 0.3a

181.7 ± 3.3a

4.31 ± 0.1 a

21.9 ± 0.5 a

Notes: CHSD C. h. ʻ Superbells® Dreamsicleʼ, CHSF C. h. ʻSuperbells® Frost Fireʼ, Dre Drench treatment, Fol Foliar treatment

aMeans followed by different letters within a column indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (P ≤ 0.05)

Table 2

Calibrachoa cultivars leaves methanolic extracts DPPH and β-carotene-linoleic acid assay results as well as total phenolics, major flavonols and tannins contents following SWE Foliar (Fol) and Drench (Dre) treatments with 5 or 7 mL/plant. Values are expressed as mean of triplicate determinations ± sd

 

DPPH free radical scavenging activity (IC50, ug/ml)

β-Carotenelinoleic acid assay (IC50, ug/ml)

Total phenolic content (mg GAE g-1 ext.)

Flavonols (mg g-1)

Tannins

 

quercetin-3-O-(caffeoyl diglucoside)

quercetin-3-O-(2-Ocaffeoyl6-Omalonyl diglucoside)

kaempferol 3-O-(feruloyl diglucoside)

(mg/ g-1 ext.)

CHSD

CONTROL

33 ± 0.5ca

31.1 ± 0.5c

4.6 ± 0.2 c

0.04 ± 0.01 c

NDb

0.30 ± 0.03 c

0.21 ± 0.004 c

(5 ml) Fol

30.3 ± 0.7b

29.7 ± 0.3c

4.8 ± 0.2 c

0.09 ± 0.01 b

0.13 ± 0.01 b

0.42 ± 0.01 b

0.23 ± 0.001 c

(7 ml)Fol

29.5 ± 0.6b

28.9 ± 0.5bc

4.9 ± 0.1 b

0.10 ± 0.01 b

0.12 ± 0.02 b

0.43 ± 0.03 b

0.25 ± 0.005 b

(5 ml)Dre

28.5 ± 0.9ab

27.3 ± 0.5b

5 ± 0.3 b

0.14 ± 0.01 a

0.21 ± 0.02 a

0.52 ± 0.03 a

0.27 ± 0.01 ab

(7 ml)Dre

27.3 ± 0.3a

25.5 ± 0.3a

5.2 ± 0.1 a

0.15 ± 0.02 a

0.22 ± 0.03 a

0.53 ± 0.01 a

0.29 ± 0.01 a

CHSF

CONTROL

37.9 ± 0.3c

34.3 ± 0.3c

4.4 ± 0.1 c

0.07 ± 0.01 d

0.11 ± 0.01 e

0.24 ± 0.01 d

0.10 ± 0.001 c

(5 ml) Fol

34.9 ± 0.3bc

31 ± 0.1b

4.6 ± 0.08 bc

0.12 ± 0.02 c

0.14 ± 0.02 d

0.27 ± 0.01 c

0.12 ± 0.001 bc

(7 ml)Fol

33.6 ± 0.5bc

30.5 ± 0.3b

4.8 ± 0.1 b

0.15 ± 0.01 b

0.16 ± 0.01 c

0.32 ± 0.02 b

0.14 ± 0.01 b

(5 ml)Dre

32.2 ± 0.5b

28.9 ± 0.7ab

5 ± 0.1 a

0.22 ± 0.02 a

0.19 ± 0.01 b

0.34 ± 0.01 ab

0.16 ± 0.01 ab

(7 ml)Dre

29.4 ± 0.1a

27.1 ± .5a

5 ± 0.2 a

0.23 ± 0.01 a

0.22 ± 0.01 a

0.35 ± 0.02 a

0.18 ± 0.01 a

BHT

19.2 ± 0.1

17.3 ± 0.2

     

Notes: CHSD C. h. ʻ Superbells® Dreamsicleʼ, CHSF C. h. ʻSuperbells® Frost Fireʼ, Dre Drench treatment, Fol Foliar treatment. Flavonols were expressed as mg/ g-1 ext

aMeans followed by different letters within a column indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (P ≤ 0.05)

bND: not detected

Compared to untreated plants, SWE treatments significantly enhanced the flavonoid content of the leaves of both cultivars (Table 2). Increasing foliar SWE doses from 5 to 7 ml did not enhance the flavonoid content of leaf extracts in the CHSD cultivar. In CHSF, there were significant increases in the flavonoid contents with increasing SWE rates from 5 to 7 ml. In both cultivars, the drench application of SWE significantly enhanced the flavonoid content compared to the foliar application. Generally, increases were observed in tannin content of plants treated with SWE with different doses. Increasing SWE significantly enhanced the tannin content of the plants. Drench applications also resulted in higher tannin content. The mineral chemical analyses of SWE showed the presence of moderate percentage of nitrogen (N, 0.5 %) and phosphorus (P2O5, 0.19 %) and relatively high ratio of potassium (K2O, 0.7 %). Other important minerals were found such as magnesium (0.1 %), calcium (0.9 %). The heavy metals including iron, copper, zinc, manganese and boron were in trace ratios (1–5 × 10−4).

Antifungal activities of leaf extracts

The two Calibrachoa cultivars showed significant antifungal activities when treated with SWEs compared to commercial fungicides (Table 3). Moreover, the application of SWE significantly enhanced leaf extract antifungal activities against different fungi. In CHSD, the control treatment showed higher antifungal activity than one of the fungicides used in this study. The MIC and MFC of the methanolic extracts were in the range of 0.07–0.29 mg/ml and from 0.16 to 0.42 mg/ml, respectively. SWE treatments significantly reduced the MIC values in leaf extracts against A. flavus from 0.16 mg/ml in the control to 0.08 mg/ml in the 7 ml drench treatment. Similar trends were found in C. albicans, P. funiculosum and P. ochrochloron. In addition, the MFC values were significantly reduced following SWE treatments and the MFC values following drench 7 ml treatments were the significantly lowest in all fungi. The foliar SWE treatments did not show significant differences against C. albicans, P. funiculosum and P. ochrochloron. The antifungal activities of the leaf extracts of CHSD plants treated with drench 7 ml SWE were higher than commercial fungicides.
Table 3

Minimum inhibitory (MIC) and fungicidal concentration (MFC) of the methanolic extract (mg/mL) of Calibrachoa cultivars contents following SWE foliar (Fol) and Drench (Dre) treatments with 5 or 7 mL/plant. Values are expressed as mean of triplicate determinations ± sd

 

SWE treatments

Aspergillus flavus

Candida albicans

Penicillium funiculosum

Penicillium ochrochloron

CHSD

MIC

FLZ

0.16 ± 0.03b

0.11 ± 0.06c

0.15 ± 0.04c

0.19 ± 0.08c

KTZ

0.20 ± 0.02a

0.23 ± 0.04a

2.00 ± 0.03a

0.20 ± 0.02c

CONTROL

0.16 ± 0.002b

0.14 ± 0.007b

0.21 ± 0.002b

0.29 ± 0.001a

(5 ml) Fol

0.15 ± 0.006bc

0.14 ± 0.003bc

0.21 ± 0.005b

0.29 ± 0.003a

(7 ml)Fol

0.13 ± 0.002c

0.12 ± 0.003c

0.19 ± 0.006bc

0.25 ± 0.003b

(5 ml)Dre

0.10 ± 0.001 cd

0.1 ± 0.004 cd

0.16 ± 0.005c

0.21 ± 0.002c

(7 ml)Dre

0.08 ± 0.004d

0.07 ± 0.001d

0.14 ± 0.001c

0.18 ± 0.001c

MFC

FLZ

0.21 ± 0.06c

0.16 ± 0.07d

0.24 ± 0.02d

0.25 ± 0.01d

KTZ

0.40 ± 0.05a

0.40 ± 0.01a

3.45 ± 0.04a

0.39 ± 0.02a

CONTROL

0.26 ± 0.001b

0.30 ± 0.001b

0.36 ± 0.001b

0.42 ± 0.001a

(5 ml) Fol

0.25 ± 0.001b

0.30 ± 0.001b

0.36 ± 0.001b

0.42 ± 0.001a

(7 ml)Fol

0.22 ± 0.001c

0.27 ± 0.001b

0.33 ± 0.001b

0.40 ± 0.001a

(5 ml)Dre

0.19 ± 0.001 cd

0.22 ± 0.001c

0.29 ± 0.001c

0.34 ± 0.001b

(7 ml)Dre

0.16 ± 0.001d

0.16 ± 0.001d

0.24 ± 0.001d

0.29 ± 0.001c

CHSF

MIC

FLZ

0.16 ± 0.03c

0.11 ± 0.06d

0.15 ± 0.04f

0.19 ± 0.08c

KTZ

0.20 ± 0.02b

0.23 ± 0.04a

2.00 ± 0.03a

0.20 ± 0.02c

CONTROL

0.25 ± 0.001a

0.23 ± 0.001a

0.31 ± 0.001b

0.31 ± 0.001a

(5 ml) Fol

0.21 ± 0.001b

0.20 ± 0.001b

0.24 ± 0.001c

0.27 ± 0.001b

(7 ml)Fol

0.19 ± 0.001bc

0.19 ± 0.001b

0.21 ± 0.001d

0.24 ± 0.001b

(5 ml)Dre

0.17 ± 0.001c

0.16 ± 0.001c

0.18 ± 0.001e

0.20 ± 0.001c

(7 ml)Dre

0.13 ± 0.001d

0.13 ± 0.001d

0.14 ± 0.001f

0.16 ± 0.001d

MFC

FLZ

0.21 ± 0.06d

0.16 ± 0.07e

0.24 ± 0.02

0.25 ± 0.01f

KTZ

0.40 ± 0.05a

0.40 ± 0.01b

3.45 ± 0.04a

0.39 ± 0.02d

CONTROL

0.35 ± 0.001b

0.45 ± 0.001a

0.50 ± 0.001b

0.56 ± 0.001a

(5 ml) Fol

0.29 ± 0.001c

0.36 ± 0.001bc

0.43 ± 0.001c

0.50 ± 0.001b

(7 ml)Fol

0.28 ± 0.001c

0.33 ± 0.001c

0.39 ± 0.001d

0.46 ± 0.001c

(5 ml)Dre

0.24 ± 0.001d

0.29 ± 0.001 cd

0.36 ± 0.001d

0.38 ± 0.001d

(7 ml)Dre

0.22 ± 0.001d

0.26 ± 0.001d

0.30 ± 0.001e

0.29 ± 0.001e

Notes: CHSD C. h. ʻ Superbells® Dreamsicleʼ, CHSF C. h. ʻSuperbells® Frost Fireʼ, Dre Drench treatment, Fol Foliar treatment

*Means followed by different letters within a column indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (P ≤ 0.05). The fungicides fluconazole (FLZ) and ketoconazole (KLZ) were used as positive controls

In CHSF, following SWE treatments there were significant reductions in MIC and MBC values and the values ranged from 0.13 to 0.31 mg/ml and from 0.22 to 0.56 mg/ml, respectively. In A. flavus, there were reductions in the MIC and MBC values from 0.25 to 0.13 mg/ml and from 0.35 to 0.22 mg/ml, respectively when treating the plants with 7 ml SWE as drench application compared to control plants. A similar trend was found in all fungi examined. Interestingly, the foliar treatments of SWE had significant antifungal effects compared to control treatments, but drench treatments generally had higher antifungal activities.

Antibacterial activities of leaf extracts

Leaf extracts showed moderate to high antibacterial activities in both cultivars following SWE treatments (Table 4). In CHSD, the MIC and MBC of the methanolic extracts ranged from 0.06 to 0.18 mg/ml and from 0.10 mg/ml to 0.32 mg/ml, respectively. In B. cereus, SWE treatments significantly reduced the MIC values with increasing the amount from 5 to 7 ml in the foliar and drench treatments. The lowest MIC values were 0.07 mg/ml and 0.065 mg/ml in the plants treated with drench SWE applications with 5 and 7 ml, respectively. The drench 5 and 7 ml treatments reduced the MIC values lower than antibiotics. In S. aureus, M. flavus and E cloacae, there were reductions in the MIC values when increasing SWE rates from 5 to 7 ml and when using the drench SWE treatments. The MIC values in S. aureus, M. flavus and E cloacae were similar or slightly higher than antibiotics. The MBC values followed similar trend for that found in the MIC regarding the significant reduction in in the MBC values in plants treated with SWE compared to the control and the reduction of the MBC values when using drench SWE treatments.
Table 4

Minimum inhibitory (MIC) and bactericidal concentration (MBC) of the methanolic extract (mg/mL) of Calibrachoa cultivars contents following SWE foliar (Fol) and Drench (Dre) treatments with 5 or 7 mL/plant. Values are expressed as mean of triplicate determinations ± sd

 

SWE treatments

Bacillus cereus

Staphylococcus aureus

Micrococcus flavus

Enterobacter cloacae

CHSD

MIC

Streptomycin

0.08 ± 0.004b

0.20 ± 0.01a

0.11 ± 0.01c

0.06 ± 0.001e

Ampicillin

0.08 ± 0.003b

0.11 ± 0.01e

0.10 ± 0.02 cd

0.15 ± 0.03ab

CONTROL

0.10 ± 0.001a

0.18 ± 0.002b

0.18 ± 0.001a

0.17 ± 0.002a

(5 ml) Fol

0.09 ± 0.003ab

0.17 ± 0.007bc

0.17 ± 0.002ab

0.16 ± 0.001a

(7 ml)Fol

0.08 ± 0.002b

0.16 ± 0.005c

0.15 ± 0.005b

0.14 ± 0.001b

(5 ml)Dre

0.07 ± 0.001bc

0.14 ± 0.005d

0.12 ± 0.004c

0.10 ± 0.004c

(7 ml)Dre

0.065 ± 0.003c

0.1 ± 0.02e

0.08 ± 0.002d

0.08 ± 0.002d

MBC

Streptomycin

0.11 ± 0.002de

0.40 ± 0.003a

0.21 ± 0.01c

0.10 ± 0.03d

Ampicillin

0.19 ± 0.003a

0.17 ± 0.002 g

0.20 ± 0.01c

0.21 ± 0.002c

CONTROL

0.17 ± 0.005b

0.30 ± 0.001b

0.30 ± 0.001a

0.32 ± 0.001a

(5 ml) Fol

0.15 ± 0.001c

0.28 ± 0.003c

0.28 ± 0.004ab

0.31 ± 0.005a

(7 ml)Fol

0.14 ± 0.004c

0.26 ± 0.004d

0.25 ± 0.001b

0.27 ± 0.004b

(5 ml)Dre

0.12 ± 0.005d

0.23 ± 0.005e

0.22 ± 0.002c

0.22 ± 0.003c

(7 ml)Dre

0.10 ± 0.002e

0.21 ± 0.001f

0.16 ± 0.005d

0.19 ± 0.001c

CHSF

MIC

Streptomycin

0.08 ± 0.004c

0.20 ± 0.01c

0.11 ± 0.01e

0.06 ± 0.001e

Ampicillin

0.08 ± 0.003c

0.11 ± 0.01e

0.10 ± 0.02e

0.15 ± 0.003d

CONTROL

0.14 ± 0.001a

0.26 ± 0.004a

0.25 ± 0.001a

0.28 ± 0.001a

(5 ml) Fol

0.13 ± 0.002a

0.23 ± 0.005b

0.22 ± 0.002b

0.25 ± 0.005b

(7 ml)Fol

0.11 ± 0.000b

0.19 ± 0.001c

0.19 ± 0.001c

0.22 ± 0.004c

(5 ml)Dre

0.10 ± 0.002b

0.17 ± 0.001 cd

0.18 ± 0.005 cd

0.20 ± 0.002c

(7 ml)Dre

0.08 ± 0.005c

0.15 ± 0.002d

0.15 ± 0.001d

0.16 ± 0.001d

MBC

Streptomycin

0.11 ± 0.002f

0.40 ± 0.003b

0.21 ± 0.01d

0.10 ± 0.03e

Ampicillin

0.19 ± 0.003d

0.17 ± 0.002e

0.20 ± 0.01d

0.21 ± 0.002d

CONTROL

0.31 ± 0.001a

0.45 ± 0.002a

0.47 ± 0.002a

0.45 ± 0.001a

(5 ml) Fol

0.27 ± 0.002b

0.40 ± 0.001b

0.44 ± 0.001a

0.43 ± 0.002a

(7 ml)Fol

0.24 ± 0.001c

0.38 ± 0.001b

0.39 ± 0.006b

0.37 ± 0.005b

(5 ml)Dre

0.19 ± 0.002d

0.32 ± 0.002c

0.33 ± 0.001c

0.34 ± 0.001b

(7 ml)Dre

0.16 ± 0.003e

0.29 ± 0.001d

0.30 ± 0.003c

0.28 ± 0.002c

Notes: CHSD C. h. ʻ Superbells® Dreamsicleʼ, CHSF C. h. ʻSuperbells® Frost Fireʼ, Dre Drench treatment, Fol Foliar treatment

*Means followed by different letters within a column indicate significant differences between treatments based on LSD test (P ≤ 0.05)

In CHSF, there were reductions in the MIC and MBC values when using the leaf extracts of SWE-treated plants. In B. cereus, the reduction in the MIC value was not significant when using 5 ml foliar SWE compared to the control. However, significant reductions were found when increasing SWE rate from 5 to 7 ml and when using drench SWE treatments. In S. aureus, M. flavus and E cloacae, there were significant reductions when using SWE foliar or drench treatments compared to the control. The MIC values in the plants treated with SWE matched those found in the antibiotics or were slightly higher. The MBC values followed similar trend for that found in the MIC values in CHSF. SWE treatments significantly reduced the MBC values compared to the control treatment. In addition, values for SWE treatments were close to those from the antibiotics treatments used in the experiment.

Discussion

The improved growth in Calibrachoa plants following SWE treatments concord previous results on other plants [8, 9, 11]. In both cultivars, increases found in phenolic and flavonols contents following SWE treatments were associated with concurrent increases in antioxidant activity. These results are in agreement with previous studies on vegetable crops [8, 10, 11]. The chemical analyses of SWE showed some important major and minor nutrients available in SWE for the treated plants that might enhance their growth and secondary metabolite compositions. Several reports indicated that organic fertilizers [39], NPK mineral fertilizers [40], higher supplementation of potassium [41] enhance overall plant growth, the phenolic and flavonoid composition as well as the antioxidant activities. The increased phenolic and flavonoid content associated with increased antioxidant activities following SWE treatment of Sargassum johnstonii Setchell & Gardner [8] and Ascophyllum nodosum [10, 11]. In this study, SWE significantly enhanced plant leaf total phenolic, flavonols and tannin content that consequently increased the antioxidant activity of leaf extracts. Further, increases in the phenolic content of the leaves of the cuttings of Pelargonium were observed following SWE treatment [42]. However, one report found that the phenolic and flavonoid content might not increase following SWE treatment [43]. It is well documented that phenolic compounds are the main secondary metabolites in plants that are considered as the major antioxidant resource in horticultural crops [44]. In addition, the flavonoids as polyphenolic compounds are secondary metabolites that exhibit strong antioxidant activities [4547]. The increased antioxidant activities associated with increased tannins in leaf extracts is in agreement with previous reports that highlighted the role of tannins in enhancing the overall antioxidant values of plant extracts [48, 49]. The drench applications of SWE enhanced the secondary metabolite composition of both Calibrachoa cultivars compared to foliar application and control plants. This finding is in agreement with previous reports showing that foliar and drench applications of SWE may result in diverse effects on crops [79]. Positive differences were found in this study in almost all parameters among plants treated with different doses of SWE. Mattner et al. [50] found that soil drench application of SWE enhanced the vegetative growth of broccoli; also, it was found that SWE soil drench doses increased the leaf area in one orange cultivar but had no effect on dry weight and stem dry weight compared to foliar applications [7].

We found that the increase in the phenolic, flavonols and tannin content was associated with enhanced antifungal and antibacterial activities. The enhanced antifungal activities against A. flavus, C albicans, P. funiculosum and P. ochrochloron were observed following treatment with extracts of plants sprayed or soil drenched with SWE; this may be attributed to the increased contents of phenols [51, 52]. Yazdani et al. [53] reported that certain phenolic compounds isolated from the methanolic extracts of Piper betle L. (Piperaceae) could inhibit the growth of A. flavus. Phenolics isolated from the root bark of Lycium chinense Miller (Solanaceae) [54], the leaves of Baseonema acuminatum (Apocynaceae) [55], and the leaves of Hyssopus officinalis [56] have been associated with the antifungal and antioxidant activities. The bioactivity of phenolic compounds might be attributed to the interferece with proteins and forming non-covalent bonds leading to conformation changes and protein inactivation in microbes [57]. Hussin et al. [58] reported that Barringtonia racemosa L. (Lecythidaceae) leaf extracts have strong antifungal activities against Aspergillus sp. and Penicillium sp. as well as other fungi which they explained by the presence of four different flavonoids and two phenolic acids. In the current study, increased specific flavonols associated with increased antifungal activities which may agree with previous reports that specific phenolic compounds were responsible for antifungal activity [59]. Some reports even indicate that tannins might be responsible for the antifungal activity of plant extract such as that reported from the fruit peels of Punica granatum which mainly contains tannins and was efficient against Aspergillus niger and Penicillium citrinum [60]. The tannins in the current study significantly increased in SWE treated plants, which support previous investigations.

Observed antibacterial activities following SWE treatments might be attributed to increases in phenolic compounds which are commonly reported in antibacterial plant extracts [61, 62]. A wide range of studies have provided support for this. For example, Stanković et al. [63] found that phenolic and flavonoids compounds found in leaf extracts of Teucrium sp. have strong antibacterial activities against Staphyllococcus aureus, Pseudomonas aeroginosa and E. coli, with S. aureus being the most sensitive. Similarly, Nitiema et al. [64] found that specific phenolics such as coumarins have antibacterial activities against a wide spectrum of organisms such as Enterobacter aerogens. Also Vaquero et al. [65] reported that the antimicrobial property of different wines depends on the presence of pure phenolic compounds and polyphenols, and that clarified wines were inactive against all bacteria. What’s more, Edziri et al. [59] found that two flavonoids were responsible for antibacterial activity against Pseudomonas aeruginosa and Escherichia coli (7.81–15.62 μg/ml). Furtheremore, Dahham et al. [60] reported that pomegranate fruit peelings, which mainly contain tannins, have strong antibacterial activity against S. aureus and moderate antibacterial activity against Bacillus cereus. Finally, Saravanakumar et al. [66] reported that Thespesia populnea flower extracts showed strong antibacterial activity against wide spectrum of species including Micrococcus flavus due to the presence of flavonoids and phenols in the extracts.

In the present study, SWE as biostimulant that contain important nutrient composition might boost the vegetative growth and secondary metabolite composition of Calibrachoa plants that might enhance their respective bioactivity against microorganisms. Diverse responses were found among fungi and bacteria. The most sensitive fungus was C. albicans and the most sensitive bacterium was E. cloacae while the most resistant fungus was P. ochrochloron and the most resistant bacterium was S. aureus. CHSD showed higher antioxidant activities than CHSF due to higher phenols, flavonols and tannins content. The antioxidant activities found in this study matches those found in Petunia [67, 68] and also are in agreement with recent studies as response to SWE [69, 70]. The cultivars CHSD and CHSF showed enhanced antibacterial and antifungal activities following SWE treatments, and this implies that SWE treatments might be used to enhance the medicinal values of these plants and their use as potential alternatives for antibiotics and commercial reagents to protect human health and the environment.

Conclusion

Ascophyllum nodosum SWE treatments significantly enhanced plant’s vegetative growth as well as production of bioactive molecules such as the phenolics and flavonoids, which ultimately enhanced the antifungal and antibacterial activities of the leaf extracts. Hence, the application of SWE on Calibrachoa cultivars might be useful in increasing the medicinal value of these plants and help produce a natural alternative to antibiotics and fungicides. Finally, the application of SWE as a drench at 7 ml/L showed significant differences in the improvement of chemical composition and bioactivity when compared to the foliar application, suggesting that the method of application can alter the composition of natural products within plants.

Declarations

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at king Saud University for its funding this Research Group NO. (RG 1435-011).

Funding

The authors would like to extend their sincere appreciation to the Deanship of Scientific Research at king Saud University for its funding this Research Group NO. (RG 1435–011). This study was also supported by Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, Canada and the Faculty of Agriculture, Alexandria University, Egypt (2014–2015).

Availability of data and materials

The datasets supporting the conclusions of this article are included within the article.

Authors’ contributions

HOE, EAM and MZMS performed the in-vitro experiments, morphological data as well as HPLC experiments. All authors performed the statistical analysis, participated in writing, read and approved the final manuscript.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Consent for publication

This information is not relevant.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This information is not relevant.

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

Authors’ Affiliations

(1)
Biodiversity Institute of Ontario, University of Guelph
(2)
Department of Floriculture, Ornamental Horticulture and Garden Design, Faculty of Agriculture (El-Shatby), Alexandria University
(3)
Acadian Seaplants Limited
(4)
Botany and Microbiology Department, College of Science, King Saud University
(5)
Timber Trees Research Department, Sabahia Horticulture Research Station, Agriculture Research Center, Horticulture Research Institute
(6)
Forestry and Wood Technology Department, Faculty of Agriculture (EL-Shatby), Alexandria University
(7)
Department of Food Technology, Damietta University
(8)
Department of Environmental Sciences, University of South Africa

References

  1. Agrios GN. Plant Pathology. Fifthth ed. Burlington: Elsevier Academic Press; 2005. p. 922.Google Scholar
  2. Ryan KJ, Ray CG. Sherris medical microbiology. 4th ed. New York: McGraw Hill; 2004.Google Scholar
  3. Ramaswamy V, Cresence VM, Rejitha JS, Lekshmi MU, Dharsana KS, Prasad SP, Vijila HM. Listeria – review of epidemiology and pathogenesis. J Microbiol Immunol Infect. 2007;40:4–13.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. Derbalah AS, Elkot GAE, Hamza AM. Laboratory evaluation of botanical extracts, microbial culture filtrates and silver nanoparticles against Botrytis cinerea. Ann Microbiol. 2012;62:1331–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  5. Yessoufou K, Elansary HO, Mahmoud EA, Skalicka-Woźniak K. Antifungal, antibacterial and anticancer activities of Ficus drupacea L. stem bark extract and biologically active isolated compounds. Ind Crops Prod. 2015;74:752–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  6. Khan W, Rayirath UP, Subramanian S, Jithesh MN, Rayorath P, Hodges DM, Critchley AT, Craigie JS, Norrie J, Prithiviraj B. Seaweed extracts as biostimulants of plant growth and development. J Plant Growth Regul. 2009;28:386–99.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  7. Spann TM, Little HA. Applications of a commercial extract of the brown seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum increases drought tolerance in container-grown ‘Hamlin’ sweet orange nursery trees. Horticulture Sci. 2011;46:577–82.Google Scholar
  8. Kumari R, Kaur I, Bhatnagar AK. Effect of aqueous extract of Sargassum johnstonii Setchell & Gardner on growth, yield and quality of Lycopersicon esculentum Mill. J App Phycol. 2011;23:623–33.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  9. Hernández-Herrera RM, Santacruz-Ruvalcaba F, Ruiz-López MA, Norrie J, Hernández-Carmona G. Effect of liquid seaweed extracts on growth of tomato seedlings (Solanum lycopersicum L.). J App Phycol. 2014;26:619–28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  10. Fan D, Hodges M, Zhang J, Kirby CW, Ji X, Locke SJ, Critchley AT, Prithiviraj B. Commercial extract of the brown seaweed Ascophyllum nodosum enhances phenolic antioxidant content of spinach (Spinacia oleracea L.) which protects Caenorhabditis elegans against oxidative and thermal stress. Food Chem. 2011;124:195–202.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  11. Lola-Luz T, Hennequart F, Gaffney M. Effect on health promoting phytochemicals following seaweed application, in potato and onion crops grown under a low input agricultural system. Sci Hortic. 2014;170:224–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  12. Borrás-Linares I, Fernández-Arroyo S, Arráez-Roman D, Palmeros-Suárez PA, Del Val-Díaz R, Andrade-Gonzáles I, Fernández-Gutiérrez A, Gómez-Leyva JF, Segura-Carretero A. Characterization of phenolic compounds, anthocyanidin, antioxidant and antimicrobial activity of 25 varieties of Mexican Roselle (Hibiscus sabdariffa). Ind Crops Prod. 2015;69:385–94.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  13. Jiménez N, Carrillo-Hormaza L, Pujol A, Álzate F, Osorio E, Lara-Guzman O. Antioxidant capacity and phenolic content of commonly used anti-inflammatory medicinal plants in Colombia. Ind Crops Prod. 2015;70:272–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  14. Attree R, Du B, Xu B. Distribution of phenolic compounds in seed coat and contyledon, and their contribution to antioxidant capacities of red and black seed coat peanuts (Arachis hypogaea L.). Ind Crops Prod. 2015;6:448–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  15. Van Staden J, Upfold SJ, Drewes EE. Effect of seaweed concentrate on growth and development of the marigold Tagetes patula. J App Phycol. 1994;6:427–8.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaoaua ME, Chernane H, Benaliat A, Neamallah L. Seaweed liquid extracts effect on Salvia officinalis growth, biochemical compounds and water deficit tolerance. Afri J Biotechnol. 2013;12:4481–589.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  17. Zhang Q, Zhang J, Shen J, Silva A, Dennis DA, Barrow CJ. A simple 96-well microplate method for estimation of total polyphenol content in seaweeds. J Appl Phycol. 2006;18:445–50.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  18. Shanmughapriya S, Manilal A, Sujith S, Selvin J, Kiran GS, Natarajaseenivasan K. Antimicrobial activity of seaweeds extracts against multiresistant pathogens. Ann Microbiol. 2008;58:535–41.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  19. Peres JCF, de Carvalho LR, Gonçalez E, Berian LOS, Felicio JD. Evaluation of antifungal activity of seaweed extracts. Ciênc agrotec Lavras. 2012;36:294–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  20. Ambika S, Sujatha K. Antifungal activity of aqueous and ethanol extract of seaweeds against sugarcane red rot pathogen (Collectotrichum falcatum). Sci Res Essay. 2015;10:232–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  21. Cluzet S, Torregrosa C, Jacquet C, Lafitte C, Fournier J, Mercier L, Salamagne S, Briand X, Esquerre-Tugaye MT, Dumas B. Gene expression profiling and protection of Medicago truncatula against a fungal infection in response to an elicitor from the green alga Ulva spp. Plant Cell Environ. 2004;27:917–28.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  22. Dixon GR, Walsh UF. Suppressing Pythium ultimum induced damping-off in cabbage seedlings by biostimulation with proprietary liquid seaweed extracts managing soil-borne pathogens: a sound rhizosphere to improve productivity in intensive horticultural systems, Proceedings of the XXVIth International Horticultural Congress, Toronto, Canada, 11–17 August 2002. 2012.Google Scholar
  23. Wijsman HJW. On the inte-relationships of certain species of Petunia VI. New names for the species of Calibrachoa formely included into Petunia (Solanaceae). Acta Bot Neerlandica. 1990;39:101–2.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  24. Stehmann JR, Semir J. A new species and new combinations in Calibrachoa (Solanaceae). Novon. 1997;7:417–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  25. Reis C, Sajo MG, Stehmann JR. Leaf Structure and Taxonomy of Petunia and Calibrachoa (Solanaceae). Braz Arch biotechnol. 2002;45:59–66.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  26. Arnold MA. Landscape plants for Texas and environs. 3rd ed. Champaign: Stipes Pub Llc; 2008.Google Scholar
  27. Elansary HO, Yessoufou K. In vitro antioxidant, antifungal, and antibacterial activities of five international Calibrachoa cultivars. Nat Prod Res. 2016;30:1339–42.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. Albert NW, Lewis DH, Zhang H, Irving LJ, Jameson PE, Davies KM. Light-induced vegetative anthocyanin pigmentation in Petunia. J Experimen Bot. 2009;60:2191–202.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  29. Thenmozhi M, Sivaraj R. In Vitro evaluation of the antibacterial activity of Petunia leaf and callus extracts. Agric Tech. 2011;7:321–30.Google Scholar
  30. Pérez-Tortosa V, López-Orenes A, Martínez-Pérez A, Ferrer MA, Calderón AA. Antioxidant activity and rosmarinic acid changes in salicylic acid-treated Thymus membranaceus shoots. Food Chem. 2012;130:362–9.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  31. Elansary HO, Mahmoud EA. Egyptian herbal tea infusions antioxidants and their antiproliferative and cytotoxic activities against cancer cells. Nat Prod Res. 2014;21:1–6.Google Scholar
  32. Tepe B, Daferera D, Sokmen A, Sokmen M, Polissiou A. Antimicrobial and antioxidant activities of the essential oil and various extracts of Salvia tomentosa Miller (Lamiaceae). Food Chem. 2005;90:333–40.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  33. Singleton VL, Rossi JA. Colorimetry of total phenolics with phosphomolybdic-phosphotungstic acid reagents. Am J Enol Viti. 1965;16:144–58.Google Scholar
  34. Amerine MA, Ough CS. Phenolic compounds. In: Methods for analysis of musts and wines. New York: John Wiley and Sons; 1988. p. 196–219.Google Scholar
  35. Bradley JM, Davies KM, Deroles SC, Bloor SJ, Lewis DH. The maize Lc regulatory gene up-regulates the flavonoid biosynthetic pathway of Petunia. Plant J. 1998;13:381–92.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  36. Makkar HPS, Blummel M, Borowy NK, Becker K. Gravimetric determination of tannins and their correlations with chemical and protein precipitation methods. Sci Food Agric. 1993;61:161–5.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  37. Elansary HO, Mahmoud EA. In vitro antioxidant and antiproliferative activities of six international basil cultivars. Nat Prod Res. 2015;29:2149–54.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  38. Espinel-Ingroff A. Comparation of the E-test with the NCCLS M38-P method for antifungal susceptibility testing of common and emerging pathogenic filamentous fungi. J Clin Microb. 2001;39:1360–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  39. Naguib AM, El-Baz FK, Salama ZA, Hanna HAEB, Ali HF, Gaafar AA. Enhancement of phenolics, flavonoids and glucosinolates of broccoli (Brassica oleracea, var. Italica) as antioxidants in response to organic and bio-organic fertilizers. J Saudi Soc Agric Sc. 2012;11:135–42.Google Scholar
  40. Mudau FN, Soundy P, du Toit ES. Effects of Nitrogen, phosphorus and potassium nutrition on total polyphenols content of bush tea (Athrixia phylicoides) in a shaded nursery environment. HortSci. 2007;42:334–8.Google Scholar
  41. Ibrahim MH, Jaafar HZ, Karimi E, Ghasemzadeh A. Primary, secondary metabolites, photosynthetic capacity and antioxidant activity of the Malaysian Herb Kacip Fatimah (Labisia Pumila Benth) exposed to potassium fertilization under greenhouse conditions. Int J Mol Sci. 2012;13:15321–42.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  42. Krajnc AU, Ivanus A, Kristl J, Susek A. Seaweed extract elicits the metabolic responses in leaves and enhances growth of Pelargonium cuttings. Eur J Hortic Sci. 2012;77:170–81.Google Scholar
  43. Xu C, Leskovar DI. Effects of A. nodosum seaweed extracts on spinach growth, physiology and nutrition value under drought stress. Sci Hortic. 2015;183:39–47.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  44. Stalikas CD. Phenolic acids and flavonoids: Occurrence and analytical methods. In: Upuu RM, editor. Free radicals and antioxidant protocols. New Jersey: John Wiley & Sons; 2013. p. 65–70.Google Scholar
  45. Nijveldt RJ, van Nood E, van Hoorn DE, Boelens PG, van Norren K, van Leeuwen PA. Flavonoids: a review of probable mechanisms of action and potential applications. Am J Clin Nut. 2001;74:418–25.Google Scholar
  46. Boscaiu M, Sánchez M, Bautista I, Donat P, Lidón A, Llinares J, Llul C, Mayoral O, Vicente O. Phenolic compounds as stress markers in plants from gypsum habitats. Bull Univ Agric Sci Vet Med Cluj-Napoca. 2010;67:44–9.Google Scholar
  47. Wang Y, Chen S, Yu O. Metabolic engineering of flavonoids in plants and microorganisms. App Microbiol Biotechnol. 2011;91:949–56.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  48. Karamać M, Kosinska A, Amarowicz R. Chelating of Fe(II), Zn(II) and Cu(II) by tannin fractions separated from hazelnuts, walnuts and almonds. Bromat Chem Toksykol. 2006;39:257–60.Google Scholar
  49. Zhang S-J, Lin Y-M, Zhou H-C, Wei S-D, Lin G-H, Ye G-F. Antioxidant Tannins from stem bark and fine root of Casuarina equisetifolia. Molecules. 2010;15:5658–70.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  50. Mattner SW, Wite D, Riches DA, Porter IJ, Arioli T. The effect of kelp extract on seedling establishment of broccoli on contrasting soil types in southern Victoria. Australia Biol Agric Hortic. 2013;29:258–70.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  51. Ansari M, Anurag A, Fatima Z, Hameed S. Natural phenolic compounds: a potential antifungal agent. Microb. Pathog Strateg Combat them Sci Technol Educ. 2013;1:189–95.Google Scholar
  52. Chen F, Long X, Yu M, Liu Z, Liu L, Shao H. Phenolics and antifungal activities analysis in industrial crop Jerusalem artichoke (Helianthus tuberosus L.) leaves. Ind Crops Prod. 2013;47:339–45.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  53. Yazdani D, Ahmad ZAM, How TY, Jaganath IB, Shahnazi S. Inhibition of aflatoxin biosynthesis in Aspergillus flavus by phenolic compounds extracted of Piper betle L. Iran J Microbiol. 2013;5:428–33.PubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  54. Lee DG, Park Y, Kim MR, Jung HJ, Seu YB, Hahm KS, Woo ER. Anti-fungal effects of phenolic amides isolated from the root bark of Lycium chinense. Biotechnol Lett. 2004;26:1125.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  55. De Leo M, Braca A, De TN, Norscia I, Morelli I, Battinelli L, Mazzanti G. Phenolic compounds from Baseonema acuminatum leaves: isolation and antimicrobial activity. Planta Med. 2004;70:841–6.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  56. Džamić AM, Soković MD, Novaković M, Jadranin M, Ristić MS, Tešević V, Marin PD. Composition, antifungal and antioxidant properties of Hyssopus officinalis L. subsp. pilifer (Pant.) Murb. essential oil and deodorized extracts. Ind Crops Prod. 2013;51:401–7.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  57. Wink M. Importance of plant secondary 32. metabolites for protection against insect and microbial infections. In: Rai M, Carpinella MC, editors. Naturally occurring bioactive compounds. 1st ed. Maryland Heights: Elsevier Science Ltd; 2006. p. 251–68.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  58. Hussin NM, Muse R, Ahmad S, Ramli J, Mahmood M, Sulaiman MR, Shukor MYA, Rahman MFA, Aziz KNK. Antifungal activity of extracts and phenolic compounds from Barringtonia racemosa L. (Lecythidaceae). Afr J Biotechnol. 2009;8:2835–42.Google Scholar
  59. Edziri H, Mastouri M, Mahjoub MA, Mighri Z, Mahjoub A, Verschaeve L. Antibacterial, Antifungal and Cytotoxic Activities of two Flavonoids from Retama raetam Flowers. Molecules. 2012;17:72–84.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  60. Dahham SS, Ali MN, Tabassum H, Mazharuddin K. Studies on antibacterial and antifungal activity of pomegranate (Punica granatum L.). Am-Euras J Agric Environ Sci. 2010;9:273–81.Google Scholar
  61. Maddox CE, Laur LM, Tian L. Antibacterial activity of phenolic compounds against the phytopathogen xylella fastidiosa. Curr Microbiol. 2010;60:53–8.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  62. Chan EW, Soh EY, Tie PP, Law YP. Antioxidant and antibacterial properties of green, black, and herbal teas of Camellia sinensis. Pharmacognosy Res. 2011;3:266–72.View ArticlePubMedPubMed CentralGoogle Scholar
  63. Stanković MS, Stefanović O, Čomić L, Topuzović M, Radojević I, Solujić S. Antimicrobial activity, total phenolic content and flavonoid concentrations of Teucrium species. Cent Eur J Biol. 2012;7:664–71.Google Scholar
  64. Nitiema LW, Savadogo A, Simpore J, Dianou D, Traore SA. In vitro antimicrobial activity of some phenolic compounds (Coumarin and Quercetin) against gastroenteritis bacterial strains. Int J Microbiol Res. 2012;3:183–7.Google Scholar
  65. Vaquero MIR, Alberto MR, de Nadra MCM. Antibacterial effect of phenolic compounds from different wines. Food Cont. 2007;18:93–101.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  66. Saravanakumar A, Aran KV, Vanitha J, Ganesh M, Vasudevan M, Sivakumar T. Evaluation of antibacterial activity, phenol and flavonoid contents of Thespesia populnea flower extracts. Pak J Pharm Sci. 2009;22:282–6.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  67. Repka V, Fischerová I. Serologically-related anionic peroxidases from petunia and cucumber can substitute flavonoid antioxidants. Biol Plant. 2000;43:105–12.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  68. Pennycooke JC, Coxm S, Stushnoff C. Relationship of cold acclimation, total phenolic content and antioxidant capacity with chilling tolerance in petunia (Petunia × hybrida). Environ Exp Bot. 2005;53:225–32.View ArticleGoogle Scholar
  69. Elansary HO, Skalicka-Woźniakc K, King IW. Enhancing stress growth traits as well as phytochemical and antioxidant contents of Spiraea and Pittosporum under seaweed extract treatments. Plant Physiol Biochem. 2016;105:310–20.View ArticlePubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Elansary HO, Yessoufou K, Shokralla S, Mahmoud EA, Skalicka-Woźniakc K. Enhancing mint and basil oil composition and antibacterial activity using seaweed extracts. Indust Crops Prod. 2016;92:50–6.View ArticleGoogle Scholar

Copyright

© The Author(s). 2016

Advertisement