Efficacy Trial of Chromolaena odorata and Coconut Vinegar as an Alternative Herbicide

This study evaluated the herbicidal efficacy of aqueous extracts from different parts of Chromolaena odorata (L.) enhanced with coconut vinegar for the control of common weeds under field conditions. Specifically, the study aimed to determine which plant part (leaves, roots, or stems) exhibited the greatest weed control efficacy compared with a positive control (sterile distilled water) and a negative control (glyphosate). The experiment was conducted using a Randomized Complete Block Design (RCBD) with five treatments and three replications. The treatments consisted of T1 – Sterile Distilled Water (positive control), T2 – C. odorata leaves + coconut vinegar + sterile distilled water, T3 – C. odorata roots + coconut vinegar + sterile distilled water, T4 – C. odorata stems + coconut vinegar + sterile distilled water, and T5 – Glyphosate (negative control). Results showed that the C. odorata-based formulations significantly suppressed weed growth compared with the untreated control. Seven days after application, Treatment 2 recorded the highest weed control rating among the botanical treatments (7.33 ± 0.58), followed by Treatment 4 (7.00 ± 1.00) and Treatment 3 (6.67 ± 1.15), while glyphosate achieved a mean rating of 8.00 ± 0.00. Fourteen days after application, weed control ratings declined for the botanical treatments, with Treatment 2 recording 5.33 ± 0.58, Treatment 4 recording 5.00 ± 1.00, and Treatment 3 recording 4.67 ± 0.58, whereas glyphosate achieved complete weed control (10.00 ± 0.00). Analysis of variance (ANOVA) revealed highly significant differences among treatments at both evaluation periods (p < 0.001). Tukey's Honestly Significant Difference (HSD) test indicated that all C. odorata-based treatments significantly outperformed the untreated control, while no significant differences were observed among the leaf, root, and stem extracts. However, glyphosate provided significantly greater weed control than the botanical formulations after 14 days. Among the weed species evaluated, Cleome rutidosperma was the most susceptible to the C. odorata extracts, whereas Physalis angulata was the least affected. The findings demonstrate that aqueous extracts of C. odorata enhanced with coconut vinegar possess promising herbicidal activity and can effectively suppress common weeds, particularly during the early stages of weed growth. Although their efficacy was lower than that of glyphosate over time, the comparable performance of the leaf, root, and stem extracts suggests that allelopathic compounds are distributed throughout the plant. These results highlight the potential of C. odorata as a sustainable botanical herbicide and provide a basis for further optimization of formulation, concentration, and application strategies for integrated weed management.

Chromolaena odorata, allelopathy, botanical herbicide, coconut vinegar, weed management, glyphosate, bioherbicide.

1. Akinmoladun, A. C., Ibukun, E. O., Afor, E., Obuotor, E. M., & Farombi, E. O. (2007). Chemical constituents and antioxidant activity of Chromolaena odorata. Scientific Research and Essays, 2(6), 191–194. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

2. Batish, D. R., Kohli, R. K., Singh, H. P., & Saxena, D. B. (2007). Studies on herbicidal activity of parthenin against associated weeds. Agronomy for Sustainable Development, 27(2), 123–127. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

3. Busse, M. D., Ratcliffe, A. W., Shestak, C. J. and Powers, R. F. 2001. Glyphosate toxicity and the effects of long-term vegetation control on soil microbial communities. Soil Biol. Biochem. 33: 1777–1789. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

4. Cantrell CL, Dayan FE, Duke SO. (2012) Natural products as sources for new pesticides. J Nat Prod 75: 1231–1242 [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

5. Chon, S. U., Jang, H. G., Kim, D. K., Kim, Y. M., & Boo, H. O. (2005). Allelopathic potential in lettuce (Lactuca sativa) plants. Scientia Horticulturae, 106(3), 309–317. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

6. Dayan, F. E., Cantrell, C. L., & Duke, S. O. (2009). Natural products in crop protection. Bioorganic & Medicinal Chemistry, 17(12), 4022–4034. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

7. Dayan, F. E., Duke, S. O., Baerson, S. R., Rimando, A. M., & Pan, Z. (2012). Biopesticides: State of the art and future opportunities. Pest Management Science, 68(7), 948–952. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

8. Duke, S. O. (2012). Why have no new herbicide modes of action appeared in recent years? Pest Management Science, 68(4), 505–512. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

9. Duke, S. O., Cantrell, C. L., Meepagala, K. M., Wedge, D. E., & Tabanca, N. (2010). Natural toxins for use in pest management. Toxins, 2(8), 1943–1962. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

10. Haney, R. L., Senseman, S. A., Krutz, L. J. and Hons, F. M. 2002. Soil carbon and nitrogen mineralization as affected by atrazine and glyphosate. Biol. Fertil. Soils 35: 35–40. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

11. Inderjit, & Dakshini, K. M. M. (1995). On laboratory bioassays in allelopathy. The Botanical Review, 61(1), 28–44. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

12. Jabran, K. (2017). Manipulation of allelopathic crops for weed control. Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

13. Jabran, K., Mahmood, K., Melander, B., Bajwa, A. A., & Kudsk, P. (2015). Allelopathy for weed control in agricultural systems. Crop Protection, 72, 57–65. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

14. Phan, T. T., Wang, L., See, P., Grayer, R. J., Chan, S. Y., & Lee, S. T. (2001). Phenolic compounds isolated from Chromolaena odorata and their biological activities. Journal of Ethnopharmacology, 77(2–3), 221–227. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

15. Rice, E. L. (1984). Allelopathy (2nd ed.). Academic Press. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

16. Scavo, A., & Mauromicale, G. (2021). Crop allelopathy for sustainable weed management in agroecosystems: Knowing the present with a view to the future. Agronomy, 11(11), 2104. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

17. Singh, H. P., Batish, D. R., & Kohli, R. K. (2003). Allelopathic interactions and allelochemicals: New possibilities for sustainable weed management. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 22(3–4), 239–311. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

18. Vital, P. G., & Rivera, W. L. (2009). Antimicrobial activity and cytotoxicity of Chromolaena odorata (L.f.) King and Robinson extracts. Journal of Medicinal Plants Research, 3(7), 511–518. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

19. Weston, L. A., & Duke, S. O. (2003). Weed and crop allelopathy. Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences, 22(3–4), 367–389. [Google Scholar] [Crossref]

• Enhancing Formation Control of Multi Agent Systems Using Ann Based Technique
• Improving Sliding Mode Control with Chattering Reduction using Fuzzy Based Technique
• Cooking Quality, Fasting Blood Glucose, Glycemic Index and Load of High–Fiber Noodles Made from Wheat, Tiger Nut Residue and Cassava Flour Blends
• Matrix Rhythm Therapy Versus Interferential Therapy Combined with Lumbar Stabilization Exercises in Chronic Non-Specific Low Back Pain: A Randomized Comparative Trial
• Formulation and Sensory Evaluation of Functional Cake Prepared from Sweet Potato Powder