Next Article in Journal
Optimization of Management Zone Delineation for Precision Crop Management in an Intensive Farming System
Previous Article in Journal
Beneficial Effect and Potential Risk of Pantoea on Rice Production
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Plants
Volume 11
Issue 19
10.3390/plants11192609
plants-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Evaluation of Factors Affecting Tree and Shrub Bark’s Antioxidant Status

by
Nadezhda Golubkina
1,*,
Ulyana Plotnikova
1,
Vladimir Lapchenko
2,
Helene Lapchenko
2,
Sergey Sheshnitsan
3,
Zarema Amagova
4,
Visita Matsadze
4,
Tatiana Naumenko
5,
Natalia Bagrikova
5,
Lidia Logvinenko
5,
Tatiana Sakhno
5,
Oksana Shevchuk
5,
Nikolay Pirogov
6 and
Gianluca Caruso
7
1
Analytical Laboratory Department, Federal Scientific Vegetable Center, 143072 Moscow, Russia
2
T.I. Vyazemsky Karadag Scientific Station, Nature Reserve of RAS, 298188 Feodosia, Russia
3
Department of Landscape Architecture and Soil Science, Voronezh State University of Forestry and Technologies, 394036 Voronezh, Russia
4
Chechen Scientific Institute of Agriculture, 366021 Gikalo, Grozny Region, Russia
5
Nikitsky Botanic Gardens, National Scientific Center of RAS, 298648 Yalta, Russia
6
Bogdinsko-Baskunchak Nature Reserve, 416532 Akhtubinsk, Russia
7
Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Naples Federico II, Portici, 80055 Naples, Italy
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Plants 2022, 11(19), 2609; https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11192609
Submission received: 10 September 2022 / Revised: 30 September 2022 / Accepted: 30 September 2022 / Published: 4 October 2022
(This article belongs to the Section Phytochemistry)
Browse Figures
Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The importance of using the barks of trees and shrubs as powerful natural antioxidants suggests the necessity to evaluate the effect of different environmental factors on bark extracts’ quality. The determination of total antioxidant activity (AOA) and polyphenol content (TP) in the bark of 58 tree and shrub species from 7 regions differing in mean annual temperature, insolation, humidity, salinity level, and altitude was performed. The above stress factors positively affected bark AOA but did not have a statistically significant effect on TP. The bark of trees grown in the seashore proximity was characterized by significantly higher AOA than samples gathered in other areas, similarly to the trees grown at high altitude. The bark antioxidant status of 18 species was described for the first time. New sources of powerful antioxidants were represented by the ornamental shrubs Cornus sanguinea and Cornus alba, which showed the highest AOA (169–171 mg GAE g−1 d.w.). Among the typical halophytes, Calligonum and Tamarix had high AOA (172 and 85 mg GAE g−1 d.w.), while in the bark of tamarisk, an Se accumulator, an Se concentration of about 900 µg kg−1 d.w. was recorded. A significant positive correlation was found between leaves and bark AOA in the Karadag Nature Reserve’s deciduous trees (r = 0.898, p < 0.01). The relationship between bark AOA and TP was highly significant (r = 0.809; p < 0.001) for all samples except the mountainous ones. The results of the present research revealed new opportunities in successive bark utilization.

1. Introduction

Looking for new natural sources of powerful antioxidants, researchers have begun to pay more and more attention to tree wastes [1], and especially bark known to be byproducts of the wood processing industry. Bark wastes rich in polyphenols including tannins, lignin, and polysaccharides [2] compose about 20% of tree dry weight. Indeed, beech (Fagus sylvatica L., Fagaceae) contains up to 57 mg GAE g−1 d.w. of polyphenols in its bark [3,4,5], black poplar bark (Populus nigra L., Salicaceae) may accumulate up to 96.69–334.87 mg GAE g−1 of polyphenols [6], and willow bark is a well-known source of salicin [7].
A high polyphenols content suggests the prospects of bark utilization in the food industry, cosmetics, and herbal medicine [8]. The medicinal importance of tree bark is well documented for many tree species, revealing its antiinflammatory, chemopreventive, neuroprotective, cardioprotective, anticarcinogenic, antiviral, antibacterial, and antidiabetic effects [9,10,11]. Nevertheless, from a practical point of view it seems highly important to reveal factors affecting bark’s antioxidant quality. Nowadays, extremely scant information is available regarding factors affecting the accumulation of antioxidants in general and particularly polyphenols in tree bark. The age effect is an exception. Indeed, investigations relevant to the quantitative and qualitative composition of Abies alba Mill bark extracts revealed an increase in the total polyphenol extract yield and a significant decrease in phenolics diversity from the base to the top of the tree [12]. The relationship between tree age and bark antioxidant status was also reported for Acacia confuse [13] and Cinnamomum loureirii [14]. Special investigations were devoted to the effect of bark storage duration on antioxidants’ stability [15].
On the other hand, it is worth highlighting that a comparison of literature data is rather difficult due to the different solvents and duration related to the extraction, temperature regime, and variations in calculation methods, i.e., per dry weight of bark or dried extract.
The present investigation summarizes the data relevant to total antioxidant activity and polyphenol content in tree and shrub bark collected in seven different climatic regions varying by insolation, mean temperature, humidity, salinity level, and altitude.

2. Results and Discussion

2.1. Peculiarities of Antioxidants’ Distribution in Bark

Metabolic processes determine plants’ antioxidant content to a large extent. Moreover, bark has a complicated anatomical structure and consists of different types of plant tissues [16]. An external part of bark is the periderm, a secondary protective tissue, which contains commonly protective cork (phellem) with nonliving cells heavily suberized at maturity. A middle part is the phloem with abundant sieve elements, which are a food conduit, and they must remain alive to provide their function. Moreover, bast fibers and sclereids with a lack of protoplast in cells at maturity as well as living parenchymal cells for temporal nutrient storage are included in the phloem. Finally, the internal part of bark is made up of immature phloem cells with a thin layer of meristematic tissue (cambium). All cells in the inner part of bark are actively metabolized to provide continuous cell division (cambium) or cell differentiation (immature phloem). Therefore, there should be significant differences in the antioxidant content between the three structural parts of bark. Figure 1 indicates willow antioxidants’ distribution, with the highest total antioxidant activity in the immature vascular tissue and cambium as well as significantly lower values in the phloem and periderm, while the total polyphenol content is similar in all three tissues.
This regularity of AOA decreasing from inner to external bark definitely corresponds with the metabolic activity of tissues and the proportion of live cells in them.
On the other hand, attention should be paid to the fact that even the lowest bark AOA values are higher or not different from the correspondent parameters recorded in popular vegetables such as parsley (AOA 44–68 mg GAE g−1 d.w.) [17], tomatoes (18–23 mg GAE g−1 d.w.) [18], and onion bulbs (34–58 mg GAE g−1 d.w.) [19], which proves the expedience of tree bark utilization as a significant source of natural antioxidants. The results presented below are mean values of antioxidant status for bark overall, including the cambium, phloem, and periderm due to difficulties separating these components from rather small tree branches.

2.2. Genetic Peculiarities of Antioxidants’ Accumulation in Bark

Experimental data of the total antioxidant activity (AOA) and phenolic content (TP) determination of tree and shrub bark from seven investigated regions indicated great differences in the parameters within a habitat (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6), which presents the first adequate comparison of 58 species’ antioxidant status due to similar conditions of extraction and analysis. Furthermore, despite numerous investigations of bark’s biological activity and antioxidant composition presented in citations (Table 1, Table 2, Table 3, Table 4, Table 5 and Table 6), it may indicate the lack of appropriate data for certain groups of species, which is expected for collection of trees in the Nikitsky Botanic Gardens (Table 4). Indeed, according to the monitoring results, special investigations are desirable regarding the bark biological activity and utilization of Cornus sanguinea and Cornus alba, Picea pungens, Calligonum, Zanthoxylum americanum, Schinus lentiscifolius and molle, Laurus nobilis, Pinus gerardiena and bungeana, Vitex angus castus, Passilora caerulea, Platycladus orientalism, Styphnolobium japonicum, Ziziphus jujube, Morus alba, Ficus carica, and Prunus cerarifera.
According to the received data, the coefficient of ecological variation varied from 25.5 to 48.2% for AOA and from 12.9 to 34.9% for TP data, indicating high genetic variability in the tree barks’ antioxidant status (Figure 2).
The highest bark AOA levels were recorded for Cornus sanguinea, Cornus alba, and Populus tremula (162.5–170.0 mg GAE g−1 d.w.) in the Moscow region (Table 1); Salix alba, Larix sibirica, Aesculus hippocastranum, and Corylus (78–92 mg GAE g−1 d.w.) in the Voronezh region (Table 2); Calligonum (172 mg GAE g−1 d.w.) in the Bogdinsko-Baskunchak Nature Reserve (Table 3); Zanthoxylum americanum, Schinus lentiscifolius, Schinus molle, and Myrtus communis (98–115 mg GAE g−1 d.w.) in the Nikitsky Botanic Gardens (Table 4); Armeniaca vulgaris, Cornus mas, Cotinus coggygria, Juglans nigra, and Aesculus hippocastanum (100–119 mg GAE g−1 d.w.) in the Karadag Nature Reserve (Table 5), and Acer campestre and Alnus (102–118 mg GAE g−1 d.w.) in the Chechen republic (Table 6). Among the above-mentioned species, Cornus sanguinea, Cornus alba, Calligonum, Zanthoxylum americanum, Schinus lentiscifolius, and Schinus molle have never been characterized for bark antioxidant activity previously.
Cornus sanguinea and Cornus alba are of special interest and they are well-known decorative shrubs, the fruits of which are considered to be valuable tools as antidiabetic and hypoglycemic agents [67,68]. The quick growth and the practice of regular trimming make the bark utilization of these shrubs especially attractive.
As far as juzgun is concerned, its high content of p-coumaric acid in the stem [69] is in agreement with the present results, indicating the high prospects of its stem/bark utilization.
The wide collection of the Nikitsky Botanic Gardens’ plants gives the opportunity to reveal new natural sources of powerful antioxidants. In this respect, the high bark AOA of aromatic trees Zanthoxylum americanum, Schinus lentiscifolius, and Schinus molle may be considered as a good example of plants’ biodiversity. While Zanthoxylum americanum inhabits mostly Central and Eastern parts of the USA and Canada, Schinus lentiscifolius and Schinus molle are common to South America, Peru’s Andean deserts, Argentina, and Chile. Their quick growth, high tolerance to drought, and significant longevity have resulted in their fast distribution worldwide, and also as a serious invasive weed. To date, the bark of these trees has never attracted the attention of researchers and the present results indicate new approaches in terms of these trees’ utilization. The same situation is clear for myrtle bark, which has been used only for food and wine flavoring so far [49,70], and, therefore, its wider utilization should be developed.
Twice the lower variability of bark polyphenol content, compared to the AOA data, makes it more difficult to indicate the most valuable bark sources of these compounds. Nevertheless, there are high phenolics accumulations in the barks of Armeniaca vulgaris, Cornus mas L., Cotinus coggygria, Zanthoxylum americanum, Schinus lentiscifolius, Salix, Populus tremula, and Alnus (29–37 mg GAE g−1 d.w.). The latter characteristic is of great significance, taking into account the participation of phenolic compounds in regulating the immune system, and their several effects: antiinflammatory, chemoprevention, neuroprotection, cardio-protection, antidiabetes, Parkinson’s disease and cancer, and antibacterial [9,10] and as antivirals [11]. Variations in the phenolic and especially the flavonoid composition of bark is highly valuable for optimal bark extract utilization, such as in medicine, as preservatives in the food industry, in cosmetics, etc. [71,72,73], and it should be considered as the necessary step for further practice.
AOA and TP histograms of all species tested (Figure 3) show the normal distributions of these parameters with the median values reaching 72 and 23 mg GAE g−1 d.w., respectively.
Many plant species demonstrate a significant positive correlation between their leaves’ total antioxidant activity and their polyphenol content [74], but, to date, this information has not been available for tree bark. The results of the present investigation indicate the existence of a linear significant relationship between these parameters for samples gathered in all regions, except the Chechen Republic (Figure 4). Obviously, the total antioxidant activity of bark is mainly determined by the polyphenol content not only in plant leaves but also in tree bark.

2.3. Effect of Altitude on Bark Antioxidant Status

Bark sampling in the Chechen republic, situated in the northern part of Caucasus, gave an excellent opportunity to evaluate the altitude effect on bark AOA. In fact, differently from the other regions investigated, which were not so much affected by the altitude of bark sampling, the insignificance of the AOA/TP correlation in the Chechen Republic is supposedly connected to the altitude of bark sampling. Indeed, the mean bark AOA values for the plants of Grozny (103 m above sea level), Kharagol settlement (1008 m above sea level), and in the vicinity of the mountainous Kezenoyam lake (1800 m above sea level) differ significantly between each other, demonstrating that AOA increases with the altitude’s increase (Figure 5).
A similar relationship was described previously only for grasses [75] whose metabolism in general is quicker than bark’s biochemical changes. This phenomenon may be valuable in the production of bark extracts for the pharmaceutical industry in mountainous regions.

2.4. Salinity Effect on Bark AOA

Among the regions investigated, the Bogdinsko-Baskunchak Nature Reserve is characterized by high salinity due to the presence of a large salty lake (with the industrial production of salt), water deficiency, drought, and high solar insulation. These unfavorable conditions restrict flora diversity predominantly to grasses in most of the Reserve area. However, there is an area of experimental afforestation in a so-called ‘Green Garden’ with high soil permeability and significantly lower salt stress. Nevertheless, among the halophytes-residing areas with high salinity, two species, juzgun and tamarisk, are the most interesting (Table 3).
Both plant species are well known for their tolerance to salinity. All parts of tamarisk (leaves, florets, and bark) are widely used in the food industry and traditional medicine [43,76]. This species has previously been recorded as a powerful accumulator of selenium, a microelement with high antioxidant properties [74]. The determination of Se concentration in tamarisk bark revealed values up to 900 µg kg−1 d.w. The high biological activity of this plant may be partly related with the high levels of Se, a well-known natural antioxidant. Furthermore, investigations in the last years have indicated that the supplementation of food with tamarisk bark not only increases the antioxidant activity of products but during meat frying prevents the formation of toxic heterocyclic amines [77].
The literature data indicate the high prospects of juzgun utilization both in traditional medicine and the food industry due to its extremely high antioxidant activity [78]. The results of the present work are in agreement with the above data, indicating for the first time the antioxidant status not only of the whole aboveground shrub biomass but also of bark.

2.5. Effect of Seashore Vicinity

The comparison of the mean bark antioxidant status of trees for the seven regions investigated resulted in a lack of statistically significant differences between both the AOA and TP data (Table 7). On the other hand, reliable differences between the AOA parameters were recorded for median values between regions neighboring the seashore (Karadag Nature Reserve, Nikitsky Botanic Gardens, Sovetskaya Gavan) and intercontinental regions. Less pronounced differences in median values were recorded for TP values, indicating the Nikitsky Botanic Gardens’ plants as the most powerful sources of polyphenols.
Despite the small sample size in the Sovetskaya Gavan territory, associated with the presence of exclusively birch and separate apple trees on the coast of the Tatar Strait, the positive effect of seashore proximity on AOA was also confirmed by significantly higher levels of antioxidant activity in coastal grasses from Sovetskaya Gavan compared to similar data for the intercontinental region (Moscow region) (Figure 6).
The detected phenomenon of high bark AOA in the vicinity of the seashore has a complex character including the multiple effect of different stress factors: high levels of insolation, salinity, temperature, and humidity (in the case of the Sovetskaya Gavan coast). The intensive transfer of macro- and micro-elements from the sea surface supposes the possibility of additional stresses, which may stimulate the production of bark antioxidants. In any case, additional investigations are necessary to reveal the mechanism of the seashore proximity beneficial effect.
Separate AOA data of bark samples gathered in regions with different temperature regimes support the beneficial effect of environmental stress (Figure 6). Indeed, willow bark showed the highest antioxidant activity in Astrakhan compared to the Moscow and Voronezh regions characterized by much lower mean annual temperatures (Figure 7).

2.6. Relationship between Leaves and Bark AOA

Taking into account the incomparably higher life expectancy of the tree bark compared to the leaves of deciduous trees and the more intensive metabolism of leaves, a lack of correlation between the barks’ and leaves’ AOA can be expected. Nevertheless, we found a positive correlation between these parameters for seven species of the Karadag Nature Reserve (Figure 8). The results imply the prospects for leaves’ AOA determination for a quick search of trees with powerful bark AOA due to the significantly easier sampling of leaves.
In this respect, it may be supposed that there is a high bark AOA of Vitis vinifera, Prunus armeniaca, and Quercus pubescens grown in the Karadag Nature Reserve, with their leaves’ AOA values being in the range 81–86 mg GAE g−1 d.w. [74].
On the other hand, the lack of appropriate data for coniferous trees, greatly differing from the deciduous plants in terms of metabolism intensity, seed production methods, morphological peculiarities, and the existence of year-round photosynthesis, implies the necessity of further investigations, which may provide important information about the plants’ biology. Intermediate groups of species may be of special interest, such as larch and tamarack (Larix spp.), having needles and cones but also losing their leaves in the fall, or deciduous coniferous pond cypress (Taxodium ascends) and evergreen Rhododendron (Rhododendron spp.). Trees’ and shrubs’ diversity indicates multiple methods of plant adaptability, varying from the clear affiliation of trees to deciduous and coniferous groups to transitional forms combining the properties of both.

3. Materials and Methods

3.1. Object of Investigation

Bark sampling of 58 tree and shrub species was carried out in May–July 2022 (Table 8), using tree/shrub branches of 1–3 cm diameter. Bark samples were dried in an oven at 70 °C to constant weight and homogenized. Dry bark powder was used for the determination of total antioxidant activity (AOA) and total polyphenol content (TP).

3.2. Total Polyphenols (TP)

Total polyphenols in bark powder were determined in 70% ethanol (7:3, v/v) and water using the Folin–Ciocalteu colorimetric method as previously described [79]. One gram of dry homogenates was extracted with 20 mL of 70% ethanol/water (7:3, v/v) at 80 °C for 1 h. The mixture was cooled down and quantitatively transferred to a volumetric flask, and the volume was adjusted to 25 mL. The mixture was filtered through filter paper, and 1 mL of the resulting solution was transferred to a 25 mL volumetric flask, to which 2.5 mL of saturated Na2CO3 solution and 0.25 mL of diluted (1:1) Folin–Ciocalteu reagent (AppliChem Panceae, Darmstadt, Germany) were added. The volume was brought to 25 mL with distilled water. One hour later the solutions were analyzed on a spectrophotometer (Unico 2804 UV, Suite E Dayton, NJ, USA), and the concentration of polyphenols was calculated according to the absorption of the reaction mixture at 730 nm. As an external standard, 0.02% gallic acid (w/w) (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA) was used. The results were expressed as mg of Gallic Acid Equivalent per g of dry weight (mg GAE g−1 d.w.).

3.3. Antioxidant Activity (AOA)

The antioxidant activity of samples was assessed using a redox titration method via titration of 0.01 N KMnO4 (analytical grade, Chimmed, Moscow, Rassia) solution with ethanolic/water extracts of dry samples [79], produced as described above. The reduction of KMnO4 to colorless Mn2+ in this process reflects the quantity of antioxidants dissolvable in 70% ethanol/water (7:3, v/v). The values were expressed in mg Gallic Acid Equivalents (mg GAE g−1 d.w.).

3.4. Selenium

Selenium in tamarisk was analyzed using the fluorometric method previously described for tissues and biological fluids [80]. Dried homogenized samples were digested via heating with a mixture of nitric and perchloric acids (analytical grade, Chimmed, Moscow, Russia), subsequent reduction of selenate (Se+6) to selenite (Se+4) with a solution of 6 N HCl, and formation of a complex between Se+4 and 2,3-diaminonaphtalene (Sigma-Aldrich, St. Louis, USA). Calculation of the Se concentration was achieved by recording the piazoselenol fluorescence value in hexane (analytical grade, Chimmed, Moscow, Russia) at λ = 519 nm emission and λ = 376 nm excitation. Each determination was performed in triplicate. The precision of the results was verified using a reference standard of Se-fortified chervil stem powder in each determination with an Se concentration of 1865 µg kg−1 (Federal Scientific Vegetable Center, Moscow, Russia).

3.5. Statistical Analysis

The data were processed by analysis of variance, and mean separations were performed through the Duncan’s multiple range test with reference to 0.05 probability level using SPSS software version 21. Data expressed as percentage were subjected to angular transformation before processing.

4. Conclusions

The present investigation reports for the first time the antioxidant statuses of 18 out of 58 studied trees and shrub species (Cornus sanguinea and Cornus alba, Picea pungens, Calligonum, Zanthoxylum americanum, Schinus lentiscifolius and molle, Laurus nobilis, Pinus gerardiena and bungeana, Vitex angus castus, Passilora caerulea, Platycladus orientalism, Styphnolobium japonicum, Ziziphus jujube, Morus alba, Ficus carica, and Prunus cerarifera), and indicate the significant genetic differences in the accumulation of polyphenols and total antioxidant activity of bark. Increased bark AOA has been recorded in areas close to the seashore and trees grown at high altitude. Other stress factors such as high salinity and temperature may also stimulate the accumulation of antioxidants in bark. Moreover, regardless of the habitat and species peculiarities, there exists a positive correlation between bark AOA and TP for trees grown at the same altitude. Furthermore, a positive correlation between leaf and bark AOA opens wide possibilities to valorize the quality of tree parts such as leaves and bark. Monitoring tree bark AOA allowed new powerful antioxidant-rich bark sources to be indicated: Calligonum, Cornus sanguinea and Cornus alba. Tamarisk bark showed not only high AOA but also high selenium accumulation. Further investigations are necessary to reveal other significant factors affecting the medicinal and nutritional qualities of tree bark.

Author Contributions

N.G., G.C., and S.S. conceived the experimental protocol, and were involved in data statistical processing, and in writing the draft and revised version of the manuscript. N.G., U.P., V.M., and O.S. were involved in laboratory determinations; S.S., U.P., V.L., H.L., Z.A., V.M., T.N., N.B., L.L., T.S., O.S., and N.P. collected the samples and contributed to manuscript writing. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was carried out according to the State assignment №121032300023-7 “Investigation of peculiarities of terrestrial ecosystems structure and dynamics in different ecological zones”.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interests.

References

  1. Smailagić, A.; Ristivojević, P.; Dimkić, I.; Pavlović, T.; Zagorac, D.D.; Veljović, S.; Akšić, M.F.; Meland, M.; Natić, M. Radical Scavenging and Antimicrobial Properties of Polyphenol Rich Waste Wood Extracts. Foods 2020, 9, 319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  2. Feng, S.; Cheng, S.; Yuan, Z.; Leitch, M.; Xu, C.C. Valorization of bark for chemicals and materials: A review. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2013, 26, 560–578. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Hofmann, T.; Tálos-Nebehaj, E.; Albert, L.; Németh, L. Antioxidant efficiency of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) bark polyphenols assessed by chemometric methods. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 108, 26–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Hofmann, T.; Nebehaj, E.; Stefanovits-Bányai, É.; Albert, L. Antioxidant capacity and total phenol content of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) bark extracts. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 77, 375–381. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Tanase, C.; Mocan, A.; Coșarcă, S.; Gavan, A.; Nicolescu, A.; Gheldiu, A.-M.; Vodnar, D.C.; Muntean, D.-L.; Crișan, O. Biological and chemical insights of beech (Fagus sylvatica L.) Bark: A source of bioactive compounds with functional properties. Antioxidants 2019, 8, 417. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  6. Todaro, L.; Russo, D.; Cetera, P.; Milella, L. Effects of thermo-vacuum treatment on secondary metabolite content and antioxidant activity of poplar (Populus nigra L.) wood extracts. Ind. Crops Prod. 2017, 109, 384–390. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Piątczak, E.M.; Dybowska, E.; Płuciennik, K.; Kośla, J.; Kolniak-Ostek, U.; Kalinowska-Lis, U. Identification and Accumulation of Phenolic Compounds in the Leaves and Bark of Salix alba (L.) and Their Biological Potential. Biomolecules 2020, 10, 1391. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Tanase, C.; Coșarcă, S.; Muntean, D.-L. A Critical Review of Phenolic Compounds Extracted from the Bark of Woody Vascular Plants and Their Potential Biological Activity. Molecules 2019, 24, 1182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  9. Salih, E.; Kanninen, M.; Sipi, M.; Luukkanen, O.; Hiltunen, R.; Vuorela, H.; Julkunen-Tiitto, R.; Fyhrquist, P. Tannins, flavonoids and stilbenes in extracts of african savanna woodland trees Terminalia brownii, Terminalia laxiflora and Anogeissus leiocarpus showing promising antibacterial potential. S. Afr. J. Bot. 2017, 108, 370–386. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Deng, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Padilla-Zakour, O.; Yang, G. Polyphenols, antioxidant and antimicrobial activities of leaf and bark extracts of Solidago canadensis L. Ind. Crops Prod. 2015, 74, 803–809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Enkhtaivan, G.; John, K.M.; Ayyanar, M.; Sekar, T.; Jin, K.-J.; Kim, D.H. Anti-Influenza (H1N1) potential of leaf and stem bark extracts of selected medicinal plants of south India. Saudi J. Biol. Sci. 2015, 22, 532–538. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  12. Brennan, M.; Fritsch, C.; Cosgun, S.; Dumarcay, S.; Colin, F.; Gérardin, P. Quantitative and qualitative composition of bark polyphenols changes longitudinally with bark maturity in Abies alba Mill. Ann. For. Sci. 2020, 77, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Tung, Y.-T.; Chang, S.-T. Variation in Antioxidant Activity of Extracts of Acacia confusa of Different Ages. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2010, 5, 73–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  14. Li, Y.; Tan, B.; Cen, Z.; Fu, Y.; Zhu, X.; He, H.; Kong, D.; Wu, H. The variation in essential oils composition, phenolic acids and flavonoids is correlated with changes in antioxidant activity during Cinnamomum loureirii bark growth. Arab. J. Chem. 2021, 14, 1032149. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Jyske, T.; Brännström, H.; Sarjala, T.; Hellström, J.; Halmemies, E.; Raitanen, J.-E.; Kaseva, J.; Lagerquist, L.; Eklund, P.; Nurmi, J. Fate of Antioxidative Compounds within Bark during Storage: A Case of Norway Spruce Logs. Molecules 2020, 25, 4228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Evert, R.F.; Eichhorn, S.E. Raven Biology of Plants, 8th ed.; W.H. Freeman and Company Publishers: New York, NY, USA, 2013; 900p. [Google Scholar]
  17. Kharchenko, V.A.; Moldovan, A.I.; Amagova, Z.A.; Matsadze, V.K.; Golubkina, N.A.; Caruso, G. Effect of sodium selenate foliar supplementation on Cryptotaenia japonica and Petroselinum crispum nutritional characteristics and seed quality. Veg. Crops Russ. 2022, 4, 65–72. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Dzhos, E.; Golubkina, N.; Antoshkina, M.; Kondratyeva, I.; Koshevarov, A.; Shkaplerov, A.; Zavarkina, T.; Nechitailo, G.; Caruso, G. Effect of Spaceflight on Tomato Seed quality and Biochemical Characteristics of Mature Plants. Horticulture 2021, 7, 89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Golubkina, N.; Amalfitano, C.; Sekara, A.; Tallarita, A.; Pokluda, R.; Stoleru, V.; Cuciniello, A.; Agafonov, A.F.; Kalisz, A.; Hamburd, S.B.; et al. Yield and bulb quality of storage onion cultivars as affected by farming system and nitrogen dose. Sci. Hortic. 2021, 293, 110751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. St-Pierre, A.; Blondeau, D.; Lajeunesse, A.; Bley, J.; Bourdeau, N.; Desgagné-Penix, I. Phytochemical Screening of Quaking Aspen (Populus tremuloides) Extracts by UPLC-QTOF-MS and Evaluation of their Antimicrobial Activity. Molecules 2018, 23, 1739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  21. Diouf, P.N.; Stevanovic, T.; Cloutier, A. Antioxidant properties and polyphenol contents of trembling aspen bark extracts. Wood Sci. Technol. 2009, 43, 457–470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kushner, M.A.; Seliverstova, T.S. The development of approaches for integrated processing and utilization of alder bark. Chem. Plant Raw Mater. 2020, 3, 171–178. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Omar, R. Compounds from A. Platanoides Bark, V. Corymbosum Roots and Topical Formulations Using Maple Syrup. Ph.D. Thesis, University of Rhode Island, Kingston, RI, USA, 2013. [Google Scholar]
  24. Nazhand, A.; Lucarini, M.; Durazzo, A.; Zaccardelli, M.; Cristarella, S.; Souto, S.; Silva, A.; Severino, P.; Souto, E.B.; Santini, A. Hawthorn (Crataegus spp.): An A, M Updated Overview on Its Beneficial Properties. Forests 2020, 11, 564. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Hanganu, D.; Niculae, M.; Ielciu, I.; Olah, N.-K.; Munteanu, M.-F.; Flava, C.R.; Stefan, R.; Olar, L.E.; Pall, E.; Andrei, S.; et al. Chemical Profile, Cytotoxic Activity and Oxidative Stress Reduction of Different Syringa vulgaris L. Extracts. Molecules 2021, 26, 3104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  26. Antoniadou, K.; Herz, C.; Le, N.P.K.; Mittermeier-Kleßinger, V.K.; Förster, M.; Zander, C.; Ulrichs, C.; Mewis, I.; Hofmann, T.; Dawid, C.; et al. Identification of Salicylates in Willow Bark (Salix Cortex) for Targeting Peripheral Inflammation. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 1138. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Caruntu, S.; Ciceu, A.; Olah, N.K.; Don, I.; Hermenean, A.; Cotoraci, C. Thuja occidentalis L. (Cupressaceae): Ethnobotany, Phytochemistry and Biological Activity. Molecules 2020, 25, 5416. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Tebrencu, E.; Cretu, R.; Mitroi, G.R.; Jacob, E.; Ionescu, E. Phytochemical evaluation and HPTLC investigation of bark and extracts of Rhamnus Frangula Linn. Phytochem. Rev. 2015, 14, 613–621. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Raal, A.; Püssa, T.; Nguyen, H.T.; Ho, D.V.; Thao, D.T.P. Polyphenol composition and cytotoxic activity of Sorbus aucuparia L. bark extract on human cancer cells Conference: Plants in Pharmacy and Nutrition. In Proceedings of the 2nd International Young Scientists Conference, Wroclaw, Poland, 15–17 September 2016. [Google Scholar]
  30. Kajszczak, D.; Anna, P.; Koziołkiewicz, M. Comparison of Chemical Composition and Antioxidant Capacity of Fruit, Flower and Bark of Viburnum opulus. Plant Foods Hum. Nutr. 2019, 74, 436–442. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  31. Sarfraz, I.; Rasulm, A.; Jabeen, F.; Younis, T.; Zahoor, M.K.; Arshad, M.; Ali, M. Fraxinus: A Plant with Versatile Pharmacological and Biological Activities. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2017, 2017, 4269868. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  32. Kusiak, W.; Majka, J.; Zborowska, M.; Ratajczak, I. Chemical Composition and Related Properties of Lime (Tilia cordata Mill.) Bark and Woods Affected by Tree Growth Conditions. Materials 2022, 15, 4033. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Batsatsashvili, K.; Mehdiyeva, N.P.; Fayvush, G.; Kikvidze, Z.; Khutsishvili, M.; Maisaia, I.; Sikharulidze, S.; Tchelidze, D.; Aleksanyan, A.; Alizade, V.M.; et al. Corylus avellana L. Corylus colurna L. Betulaceae. In Ethnobotany of the Caucasus. European Ethnobotany; Bussmann, R., Ed.; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2017; pp. 225–232. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Idris, S.; Mishra, A.; Khushtar, M. Phytochemical, ethanomedicinal and pharmacological applications of escin from Aesculus hippocastanum L. towards future medicine. J. Basic Clin. Physiol. Pharmacol. 2020, 31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Khadhri, A.; Aouadhi, C.; Husein, N.; Masson, E.; Pizzi, A. Characterization of essential oil composition of Juglans regia bark, comparison of secondary metabolites and biological activities of its extracts. J. Biol. Pharm. 2022, 4, 60–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Nisca, A.; Ștefănescu, R.; Stegăruș, D.I.; Mare, A.D.; Farczadi, L.; Tanase, C. Comparative Study Regarding the Chemical Composition and Biological Activity of Pine (Pinus nigra and P. sylvestris) Bark Extracts. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  37. Zveryachenko, T.S.; Zveryachenko, A.S. Antibacterial Remedies Based on the Flora of Northern Kazakhstan. Int. J. Pharmacol. Pharm. Technol. 2017, 1, 35–41. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Taib, M.; Rezzak, Y.; Bouyazza, L.; Lyoussi, B. Medicinal Uses, Phytochemistry, and Pharmacological Activities of Quercus Species. Evid. Based Complement. Alternat. Med. 2020, 2020, 1920683. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  39. Hosseinihashemi, S.K.; Hossein Ashrafi, S.K.; Goldeh, A.J.; Salem, M.Z.M. Antifungal and antioxidant activities of heartwood, bark, and leaf extracts of Robinia pseudoacacia. BioResources 2016, 11, 1634–1646. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Dehelean, C.A.; Şoica, C.; Ledeţi, I.; Aluaş, M.; Zupko, I.; Gǎluşcan, A.; Cinta-Pinzaru, S.; Munteanu, M. Study of the betulin enriched birch bark extracts effects on human carcinoma cells and ear inflammation. Chem. Cent. J. 2012, 6, 137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  41. Rastogi, S.; Pandey, M.M.; Rawat, A.K.S. Medicinal plants of the genus Betula—Traditional uses and a phytochemical–pharmacological review. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2015, 159, 62–83. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Watts, C.R.; Rousseau, B. Slippery Elm, its Biochemistry, and use as a Complementary and Alternative Treatment for Laryngeal Irritation. J. Invest. Biochem. 2012, 1, 17–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ullah, S.; Rashi Khan, M.; Ali Shah, N.; Afzal Shah, S.; Majid, M.; Asad Farooq, M. Ethnomedicinal plant use value in the Lakki Marwat District of Pakistan. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2014, 158, 412–422. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Abdelgawad, A.A.M. Tamarix nilotica (Ehrenb) Bunge: A Review of Phytochemistry and Pharmacology. J. Microb. Biochem. Technol. 2017, 9, 544–553. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  45. Yazaki, Y. Utilization of Flavonoid Compounds from Bark and Wood: A Review. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2015, 10, 513–520. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  46. Jove, P.; Olivella, A.; Cano, L. Study of the variability in chemical composition of bark layers of cork from different production areas. BioResources 2011, 6, 1806–1915. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Movahedi, A.; Yaghuti, A.A.Z.; Wei, H.; Rutland, P.; Sun, W.; Mousavi, M.; Li, D.; Zhuge, Q. Plant Secondary Metabolites with an Overview of Populus. Int. J. Mol. Sci. 2021, 22, 6890. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Olennikov, D.; Tankhaeva, L.M.; Partilkhaev, V.V. Chemical Investigation of Caragana arborescens Shoots. Nat. Prod. Commun. 2013, 8, 585–586. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. Alipour, G.; Dashti, S.; Hosseinzadeh, H. Review of pharmacological effects of Myrtus communis L. and its active constituents. Phytother. Res. 2014, 28, 1125–1136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  50. Erdogan-Orhan, I.; Kartal, M. Insights into research on phytochemistry and biological activities of Prunus armeniaca L. (apricot). Food Res. Int. 2011, 44, 1238–1243. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Yue, X.; Li, X.; Chen, X.; Ashraf, M.A.; Liu, Z.; Bi, H.; Zheng, D.; Zhao, Y.; Peng, W. Molecules and functions of Cornus officinalis bark volatiles. Emir. J. Food Agric. 2018, 30, 828–838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Matić, S.; Stanić, S.; Mihailović, M.; Bogojević, D. Cotinus coggygria Scop.: An overview of its chemical constituents, pharmacological and toxicological potential. Saudi. J. Biol. Sci. 2016, 23, 452–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Owczarek, A.; Kolodziejczyk-Czepas, J.; Woźniak-Serwata, J.; Magiera, A.; Kobiela, N.; Wąsowicz, K.; Olszewska, M.A. Potential Activity Mechanisms of Aesculus hippocastanum Bark: Antioxidant Effects in Chemical and Biological In Vitro Models. Antioxidants 2021, 10, 995. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Morgado, S.; Morgado, M.; Plácido, A.I.; Roque, F.; Duarte, A.P. From traditional medicine to potential uses in modern pharmacotherapy. J. Ethnopharmacol. 2018, 225, 90–102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Tahir, N.A.; Azeez, H.; Amin, H.H.; Rashids, J.; Omer, D. Antibacterial activity and allelopathic effects of extracts from leaf, stem and bark of Mt. Atlas mastic tree (Pistacia atlantica subsp. kurdica) on crops and weeds. Allelopath. J. 2018, 46, 121–132. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Katz, G.L.; Shafroth, P. Biology, ecology and management of Elaeagnus angustifolia L. (Russian olive) in western North America. Wetlands 2003, 23, 763–777. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Andreicut, A.-D.; Pârvu, A.E.; Mot, A.C.; Parvu, M.; Fischer-Fodor, E.; Feldrihan, V.; Catol, A.F.; Cecan, M.; Irimie, A. Anti-inflammatory and antioxidant effects of Mahonia aquifolium leaves and bark extracts. Farmacia 2018, 66, 49–58. [Google Scholar]
  58. Thomas, P.A.; El-Barghathi, M.; Polwart, A. Biological Flora of the British Isles: Juniperus communis L. J. Ecol. 2007, 95, 1404–1440. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Zakavi, F.; Hagh, L.G.; Daraeighadikolaei, A.; Sheikh, A.F.; Daraeighadikolaei, A.; Shooshtari, Z.L. Antibacterial Effect of Juglans Regia Bark against Oral Pathologic Bacteria. Int. J. Dent. 2013, 2013, 854765. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  60. Tang, J.; Wei, X.; Li, Y.; Jiang, L.; Feng, T.; Zhu, H.; Li, M.; Chen, G.; Yu, X.; Zhang, J.; et al. Poplar bark lipids enhance mouse immunity by inducing T cell proliferation and differentiation. J. Vet. Med. Sci. 2020, 82, 1187–1196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Knudsen, B.F.; Kaack, K.V. A review of traditional herbal medicinal products with disease claims for elder (Sambucus nigra) flower. Acta Hortic. 2015, 1061, 109–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Mohammad, R.; Shariq, S.; Roohi, Z.; Malik, I. Bark of Acacia Arabica—A Nature’s Gift: An Overview. Int. Res. J. Med. Sci. 2014, 2, 20–24. [Google Scholar]
  63. Bibalani, G.H.; Mosazadeh-Sayadmahaleh, F. Medicinal benefit and usage of medlar (Mespilus germanica) in Gilan Province (Roudsar District), Iran. J. Med. Plant Res. 2012, 6, 1155–1159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Prakash, O.M.; Chauhan, A.S.; Kudachikar, V.B. Traditional uses, nutrition, phytochemistry and various pharmacological properties of Indian wild pear (Review). Int. J. Funct. Nutr. 2021, 2, 9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  65. Táborský, J.; Sus, J.; Lachman, J.; Šebková, B.; Adamcová, A.; Šatínský, D. Dynamics of Phloridzin and Related Compounds in Four Cultivars of Apple Trees during the Vegetation Period. Molecules 2021, 26, 3816. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  66. Ortega-Vidal, J.; Cobo, A.; Ortega-Morente, E.; Gálvez, A.; Martínez-Bailén, M.; Salido, S.; Altarejo, J. Antimicrobial activity of phenolics isolated from the pruning wood residue of European plum (Prunus domestica L.). Ind. Crops Prod. 2022, 176, 114296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Truba, J.; Stanisławska, I.; Walasek, M.; Wieczorkowska, W.; Woliński, K.; Buchholz, T.; Melzig, M.F.; Czerwińska, M.E. Inhibition of Digestive Enzymes and Antioxidant Activity of Extracts from Fruits of Cornus alba, Cornus sanguinea subsp. hungarica and Cornus florida–A Comparative Study. Plants 2020, 9, 122. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  68. Bjorøy, Ø.T.; Fossen, Ø.; Andersen, M. Anthocyanin 3-galactosides from Cornus alba ‘Sibirica’ with glucosidation of the B-ring. Phytochemistry 2007, 68, 640–645. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Samejo, M.Q.; Memon, S.; Khan, K.M.; Rajput, S.M.; Gul, S.; Memon, G.Z.; Panhwar, Q.K. Phenolic compounds and antioxidant activity of Calligonum polygonoides stem and buds. Pak. J. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 30, 467–471. [Google Scholar]
  70. Sumbul, S.; Ahmad, M.A.; Asif, M.; Akhta, M. Myrtus communis Linn. A review. Ind. J. Nat. Prod. Resour. 2011, 2, 395–402. [Google Scholar]
  71. Shen, N.; Wang, T.; Gan, Q.; Liu, S.; Wang, L.; Jin, B. Plant flavonoids: Classification, distribution, biosynthesis, and antioxidant activity. Food Chem. 2022, 383, 132531. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Agarwal, C.; Hofmann, T.; Visi-Rajczi, E.; Pasztory, Z. Low-frequency, Green Sonoextraction of Antioxidants from Tree Barks of Hungarian Woodlands for Potential Food Applications. Chem. Eng. Process. Process Intensif. 2020, 159, 108221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Sousa, V.; Ferreira, J.P.A.; Miranda, I.; Quilhó, T.; Pereira, H. Quercus rotundifolia Bark as a Source of Polar Extracts: Structural and Chemical Characterization. Forests 2021, 12, 1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Golubkina, N.; Lapchenko, V.; Ruff, L.; Lapchenko, L.; Naumenko, T.; Bagrikova, N.; Krainuk, K.; Kosheleva, O.; Caruso, G. Medicinal plants as sources of selenium and natural antioxidants. Banats J. Biotechnol. 2020, 11, 48–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  75. Rana, P.S.; Saklani, P.; Chandel, C. Influence of Altitude on Secondary Metabolites and Antioxidant Activity of Coleus forskohlii Root Extracts. Res. J. Med. Plants 2020, 14, 43–52. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  76. Alshehri, S.A.; Wahab, S.; Abullais, S.S.; Das, G.; Hani, U.; Ahmad, W.; Amir, M.; Ahmad, A.; Kandasamy, G.; Vasudevan, R. Pharmacological Efficacy of Tamarix aphylla: A Comprehensive Review. Plants 2022, 11, 118. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  77. Ren, X.; Li, M.; Wang, W.; Niu, X.; Xu, Q.; Zhang, R. Inhibitory Effect of Tamarix ramosissima Extract on the Formation of Heterocyclic Amines in Roast Lamb Patties by Retarding the Consumption of Precursors and Preventing Free Radicals. Foods 2022, 11, 1000. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  78. Amzeyeva, U.M.; Bexeitova, K.S.; Yeszhanova, G.T.; Busquets, R. Research of chemical and biological composition of the medicinal plant juzgun white for further obtaining antibacterial veterinary preparation. Exp. Biol. 2021, 4, 97–107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  79. Golubkina, N.A.; Kekina, H.G.; Molchanova, A.V.; Antoshkina, M.S.; Nadezhkin, S.M.; Soldatenko, A.V. Plants Antioxidants and Methods of Their Determination; Infra-M: Moscow, Russia, 2020; pp. 155–164. (In Russian) [Google Scholar]
  80. Alfthan, G.V. A micromethod for the determination of selenium in tissues and biological fluids by single-test-tube fluorimetry. Anal. Chim. Acta 1984, 165, 187–194. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Plants 11 02609 g001 550
Figure 1. Antioxidants’ distribution between willow bark components. Values with the same letters do not differ statistically according to Duncan test at p < 0.05.
Figure 1. Antioxidants’ distribution between willow bark components. Values with the same letters do not differ statistically according to Duncan test at p < 0.05.
Plants 11 02609 g001
Plants 11 02609 g002 550
Figure 2. Coefficients of ecological variations (AOA and TP) calculated for tree bark.
Figure 2. Coefficients of ecological variations (AOA and TP) calculated for tree bark.
Plants 11 02609 g002
Plants 11 02609 g003 550
Figure 3. Histogram of total antioxidant activity (AOA) (a) and total polyphenols content (TP) (b) in tree bark of all species tested from all investigated regions (Nikitsky Botanic Gardens, Karadag Nature Reserve, Bogdinsko-Baskunchak Nature Reserve, Moscow region, Chechen republic, Voronezh region, Sovetskaya Gavan).
Figure 3. Histogram of total antioxidant activity (AOA) (a) and total polyphenols content (TP) (b) in tree bark of all species tested from all investigated regions (Nikitsky Botanic Gardens, Karadag Nature Reserve, Bogdinsko-Baskunchak Nature Reserve, Moscow region, Chechen republic, Voronezh region, Sovetskaya Gavan).
Plants 11 02609 g003
Plants 11 02609 g004 550
Figure 4. Relationship between AOA and TP in tree bark for all investigated regions except for Chechen Republic (r = 0.809; p < 0.001).
Figure 4. Relationship between AOA and TP in tree bark for all investigated regions except for Chechen Republic (r = 0.809; p < 0.001).
Plants 11 02609 g004
Plants 11 02609 g005 550
Figure 5. Effect of altitude on bark AOA status.
Figure 5. Effect of altitude on bark AOA status.
Plants 11 02609 g005
Plants 11 02609 g006 550
Figure 6. AOA of quinoa (Atriplex), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), and wormwood (Artemisia vulgaris). Values with the same letters do not differ statistically according to Duncan test at p < 0.05.
Figure 6. AOA of quinoa (Atriplex), yarrow (Achillea millefolium), tansy (Tanacetum vulgare), and wormwood (Artemisia vulgaris). Values with the same letters do not differ statistically according to Duncan test at p < 0.05.
Plants 11 02609 g006
Plants 11 02609 g007 550
Figure 7. Geographical differences in AOA of willow bark.
Figure 7. Geographical differences in AOA of willow bark.
Plants 11 02609 g007
Plants 11 02609 g008 550
Figure 8. Leaves–bark AOA correlation for separate Karadag trees. (r = 0.898; p < 0.01).
Figure 8. Leaves–bark AOA correlation for separate Karadag trees. (r = 0.898; p < 0.01).
Plants 11 02609 g008
Table
Table 1. Total antioxidant activity and phenolics content of tree and shrub bark in Moscow region.
Table 1. Total antioxidant activity and phenolics content of tree and shrub bark in Moscow region.
Tree/Shrub SpeciesAOA, mg GAE g−1 d.w.TP, mg GAE g−1 d.w.References *
Deren, Cornus sanguinea170.0 a25.8 bNo data
Red Deren, Cornus alba165.0 a26.5 bNo data
Aspen, Populus tremula162.5 a35.7 a[20,21]
Alder, Alnus glutinosa119.0 b37.2 a[22]
Marple, Acer platanoides94.2 b16.0 d[23]
Howthorn, Crataegus sp.81.1 b22.2 bc[24]
Lilac, Syringa vulgaris80.0 b15.6 d[25]
White willow, Salix alba68.2 bc33.1 a[26]
Thuja, Thuja occidentalis67.5 c20.0 c[27]
Joster, Rhamnus sp.63.9 c15.0 d[28]
Rowan, Sorbus sp.61.0 c22.2 bc[29]
Viburnum, Viburnum sp.61.0 c16.2 d[30]
Ash-tree, Fraxinus excelsior41.8 d12.4 e[31]
Linden, Tilia cordata36.7 d22.4 bc[32]
* Citations devoted to bark’s biological activity; within each column, values with the same letters do not differ statistically according to Duncan test at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 2. Total antioxidant activity and phenolics content of tree and shrub bark in Voronezh region.
Table 2. Total antioxidant activity and phenolics content of tree and shrub bark in Voronezh region.
Tree/Shrub SpeciesAOA, mg GAE g−1 d.w.TP, mg GAE g−1 d.w.References *
White willow, Salix alba92.0 a22.3 b[26]
Larch, Larix sibirica83.0 ab30.0 a[33]
Horse chestnut, Aesculus hippocastranum79.0 ab18.0 cd[34]
Hazel, Corylus avellana78.0 ab17.2 cd[35]
Prickly spruce, Picea pungens74.0 b18.2 cdNo data
Marple, Acer campestre70.0 bc24.7 ab[23]
Ash, Fraxinus excelsior69.1 c16.8 d[31]
Walnut, Juglans regia68.0 cd21.6 bc[35]
Pine, Pinus sylvestris65.0 cd23.8 b[36]
Poplar balsamic, Populus balsamifera59.0 de23.2 b[37]
Oak, Quercus robur59.2 de20.1 bc[38]
Black locust, Robinia pseudoacacia53.0 e20.9 bc[39]
Marple, Acer platanoides53.0 e22.8 b[23]
Birch, Betula pendula42.0 f24.4 ab[40,41]
Small-leaved linden, Tilia cordata40.0 f19.2 cd[32]
Elm, Ulmus laevis36.1 f20.9 bc[32]
* Citations devoted to bark’s biological activity; within each column, values with the same letters do not differ statistically according to Duncan test at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 3. Total antioxidant activity and phenolics content of tree and shrub bark in Bogdinsko-Baskunchak Nature Reserve.
Table 3. Total antioxidant activity and phenolics content of tree and shrub bark in Bogdinsko-Baskunchak Nature Reserve.
Tree/Shrub SpeciesAOA, mg GAE g−1 d.w.TP, mg GAE g−1 d.w.References *
Juzgun, Calligonum172.0 a26.6 abNo data
Willow, Salix alba **134.0 b26.5 ab[25]
Siberian elm, Ulmus pumila81.5 c25.1 b[42]
Tamarisk, Tamarix76.0 cd24.0 b[43,44]
Lilac, Syringa vulgaris73.6 cd22.3 bc[25]
Black pine, Pinus nigra62.9 de22.5 bc[45]
Common oak, Quercus robur60.5 e21.9 bc[46]
White poplar, Populus alba47.5 f19.0 c[47]
Siberian peashrub, Caragana arborescens43.8 f31.9 a[48]
Common ash, Fraxinus excelsior20.0 g20.2 c[31]
* Citations devoted to bark’s biological activity; within each column, values with the same letters do not differ statistically according to Duncan test at p < 0.05. ** The sampling was performed in Astrakhan.
Table
Table 4. Total antioxidant activity and phenolics content of tree and shrub bark in Nikitsky Botanic Gardens.
Table 4. Total antioxidant activity and phenolics content of tree and shrub bark in Nikitsky Botanic Gardens.
Tree/Shrub SpeciesAOA, mg GAE g−1 d.w.TP, mg GAE g−1 d.w.References *
Common pricklyash, Zanthoxylum americanum115.0 a28.4 aNo data
Schinus, Schinus lentiscifolius115.0 a29.0 aNo data
Schinus soft, Schinus molle111.0 a27.5 aNo data
Myrtle, Myrtus communis98.0 a29.7 a[49]
Tamarisk, Tamarix88.2 bc22.3 b[43,44]
Laurel noble, Laurus nobilis71.1 cd23.4 bNo data
Gerard’s pine, Pinus gerardiana66.0 d22.7 bNo data
Vitex sacred, Vitex angus castus L.61.7 d24.7 abNo data
Bunge pine, Pinus bungeana36.0 e18.1 cNo data
Blue passionflower, Passiflora caerulea33.9 e28.7 aNo data
* Citations devoted to bark’s biological activity; within each column, values with the same letters do not differ statistically according to Duncan test at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 5. Total antioxidant activity and phenolics content of tree and shrub bark in Karadag Nature Reserve.
Table 5. Total antioxidant activity and phenolics content of tree and shrub bark in Karadag Nature Reserve.
Tree/Shrub SpeciesAOA, mg GAE g−1 d.w.TP, mg GAE g−1 d.w.References *
Common apricot, Armeniaca vulgaris119.0 a28.7 a[50]
Common dogwood, Cornus mas111.0 a30.1 a[51]
Tannery skumpia, Cotinus coggygria107.0 ab29.0 a[52]
Black walnut, Juglans nigra101.0 ab25.1 ab[35]
Horse chestnut, Aesculus hippocastanum100.0 abc24.2 b[53]
Tamarisk, Tamarix tetrandra92.1 bcd25.9 ab[43]
Strawberry tree, Arbutus andrachne82.0 cde27.9 ab[54]
Pistachio, Pistacia mutica79.0 de19.6 c[55]
Wolf-willow, Elaeagnus commutata70.0 ef22.6 c[56]
Arbor vitae, Platycladus orientalis70.2 ef24.7 bNo data
Magnolia, Mahonia aquifolium62.0 fg22.4 c[57]
High juniper, Juniperus excelsa54.0 g24.2 bc[58]
Walnut, Juglans regia43.0 h23.3 c[59]
Sophora japonica, Styphnolobium japonicum34.1 j20.0 cNo data
* Citations devoted to bark’s biological activity; within each column, values with the same letters do not differ statistically according to Duncan test at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 6. Total antioxidant activity and phenolics content of tree and shrubs bark in the Chechen Republic.
Table 6. Total antioxidant activity and phenolics content of tree and shrubs bark in the Chechen Republic.
Tree/Shrub SpeciesAOA, mg GAE g−1 d.w.TP, mg GAE g−1 d.w.References
Marple, Acer campestre ***118.0 a21.1 ab[23]
Walnut, Juglans regia ***83.3 bc18.5 bc[59]
Poplar, Populus sp. ***64.6 d18.6 bc[60]
Birch, Betula sp. ***63.2 d17.5 bcd[40,41]
Elder, Sambucus sp. ***69.4 d23.0 ab[61]
Oak, Quercus sp. ***67.1 d21.2 ab[38]
Willow, Salix sp. ***59.3 de21.2 ab[26]
Unabi, Ziziphus jujube ***57.0 def20.2 bcNo data
Mulberry, Morus alba ***49.1 f17.3 bcdNo data
Linden, Tilia sp. ***36.3 g19.4 bc[32]
Black locus, Robinia pseudacacia ***29.6 h21.1 a[62]
Figs, Ficus carica ***19.9 j13.1 eNo data
Alder, Alnus sp. **102.4 ab25.8 a[22]
Willow, Salix sp. **89.5 b21.4 a[26]
Scots pine, Pinus sylvestris **71.6 cd25.0 a[36]
Birch Radde, Betula raddeana **67.9 d18.9 bcd[40,41]
Poplar, Populus sp. **58.9 de20.8 b[60]
Wild medlar, Mespilus germanica *86.6 b24.5 a[63]
Wild pear tree, Pyrus sp. *79.3 d17.0 cd[64]
Wild apples tree, Malus *73.3 bcd17.4 bcd[65]
Aspen, Populus tremula *57.2 de16.0 de[20,21]
Wild walnut, Juglans regia *56.3 ef15.6 de[59]
Wild prunes, Prunus domestica L. *48.3 f21.3 a[66]
Wild cherry plum, Prunus cerasifera *36.0 g23.2 aNo data
* Kharagoi settlement: 1040 m above sea level; ** Kezenoiam lake: 1870 m above sea level; *** Grozny: 130 m above sea level; within each column, values with the same letters do not differ statistically according to Duncan test at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 7. Geographical differences in AOA and TP of tree and shrub bark.
Table 7. Geographical differences in AOA and TP of tree and shrub bark.
RegionAOA, mg GAE g−1 d.w.TP, mg GAE g−1 d.w.
M ± SDConc. RangeMedianM ± SDConc. RangeMedian
Nikitsky Botanic Gardens76.7 ± 31.2 ab24.2–11582.025.5 ± 3.8 a18.1–29.726.1
Karadag Nature Reserve80.3 ± 26.1 ab34.0–119.080.524.8 ± 3.2 a20.0–30.124.5
Sovetskaya Gavan, Far East89.2 ± 6.8 a82.4–96.089.221.2 ± 0.7 a20.4–21.921.2
Moscow region84.8 ± 40.9 ab36.7–170.068.222.9 ± 8.0 a12.4–35.722.2
Bogdinsko-Baskunchak Nature Reserve66.6 ± 31.6 ab20.0–134.062.924.0 ± 3.7 a19.0–31.923.3
Chechen Republic64.3 ± 22.6 ab19.9–118.063.920.0 ± 3.1 a13.1–25.820.5
Voronezh region60.1 ± 15.3 a27.0–92.062.021.1 ± 2.7 a16.8–30.020.9
Within each column, values with the same letters do not differ statistically according to Duncan test at p < 0.05.
Table
Table 8. Tree species and places of bark sampling.
Table 8. Tree species and places of bark sampling.
RegionGeographical Coordinatesn *Tree/Shrub Species
Moscow region55°39.51′ N, 37°12.23′ E14Tilia cordata, Fraxinus excelsior, Viburnum sp., Sorbus sp., Rhamnus sp., Thuja occidentalis, Salix alba, Syringa vulgaris, Crataegus sanguinea, Acer platanoides, Alnus glutinosa, Populus tremula, Cornus alba, Cornus sanguinea
Yalta, Nikitsky Botanic Gardens44°30′73″ N, 34°14′09″ E13Zanthoxylum americanum, Schinus lentiscifolius, Schinus molle, Myrtus communis, Tamarix tetrandra, Laurus nobilis, Pinus gerardiana, Pinus bungeana, Vitex agnus castus, Passiflora caerulea
Karadag Nature Reserve44°55′55″ N, 35°13′44″ E14Armeniaca vulgaris, Cornus mas, Cotinus coggygria, Juglans nigra, Aesculus hippocastanum, Tamarix tetrandra, Arbutus andrachne, Pistacia mutica, Elaeagnus commutata, Platycladus orientalis, Mahonia aquifolium, Juniperus excelsa, Juglans regia, Styphnolobium japonicum
Bogdinsko-Baskunchak Nature Reserve48°11′00″ N, 46°53′00″ E10Salix alba, Ulmus pumila, Tamarix ramosissima, Syringa vulgaris, Pinus nigra, Quercus robur, Populus alba, Caragana arborescens, Fraxinus excelsior, Calligonum aphyllum
Chechen Rep. Kharachoy **42°54′15″ N; 46°08′19″ E6Mespilus, Pyrus sp., Malus sp., Prunus domestica, Prunus cerasifera, Juglans regia
Chechen Rep. Kezenoiam lake ***42°46′38″ N; 46°09′11″ E6Alnus sp., Salix sp., Pinus sylvestris, Betula raddeana, Populus sp., Populus tremula
Chechen Rep. Grozny ****43°18′43″ N; 45°41′20″ E12Acer campestre, Juglans regia, Populus sp., Betula sp., Sambucus sp., Quercus sp., Salix sp., Ziziphus jujube, Morus alba, Tilia sp., Robinia pseudacacia, Ficus carica
Sovetskaya Gavan48°57′59″ N 140°17′07″ E2Malus sp., Betula sp.
Voronezh region51°40′18″ N 39°12′38″ E18Salix alba, Larix sibirica, Aesculus hippocastanum, Corylus avellana, Picea pungens, Acer campestre, Fraxinus excelsior, Juglans regia, Pinus sylvestris, Populus balsamifera, Quercus robur, Robinia pseudoacacia, Acer platanoides, Tilia cordata, Ulmus laevis, Populus tremula, Betula pendula
* n: number of species; ** height above sea level: 1008 m; *** height above sea level: 1800 m; ****—height above sea level: 103 m.
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Golubkina, N.; Plotnikova, U.; Lapchenko, V.; Lapchenko, H.; Sheshnitsan, S.; Amagova, Z.; Matsadze, V.; Naumenko, T.; Bagrikova, N.; Logvinenko, L.; et al. Evaluation of Factors Affecting Tree and Shrub Bark’s Antioxidant Status. Plants 2022, 11, 2609. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11192609

AMA Style

Golubkina N, Plotnikova U, Lapchenko V, Lapchenko H, Sheshnitsan S, Amagova Z, Matsadze V, Naumenko T, Bagrikova N, Logvinenko L, et al. Evaluation of Factors Affecting Tree and Shrub Bark’s Antioxidant Status. Plants. 2022; 11(19):2609. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11192609

Chicago/Turabian Style

Golubkina, Nadezhda, Ulyana Plotnikova, Vladimir Lapchenko, Helene Lapchenko, Sergey Sheshnitsan, Zarema Amagova, Visita Matsadze, Tatiana Naumenko, Natalia Bagrikova, Lidia Logvinenko, and et al. 2022. "Evaluation of Factors Affecting Tree and Shrub Bark’s Antioxidant Status" Plants 11, no. 19: 2609. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants11192609

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