Skip to main content An official website of the United States government Here's how you know Here's how you know Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States. Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock Locked padlock icon ) or https:// means you've safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites. Search Log in Dashboard Publications Account settings Log out Search… Search NCBI Primary site navigation Search Logged in as: Dashboard Publications Account settings Log in Search PMC Full-Text Archive Search in PMC Journal List User Guide PERMALINK Copy As a library, NLM provides access to scientific literature. Inclusion in an NLM database does not imply endorsement of, or agreement with, the contents by NLM or the National Institutes of Health. Learn more: PMC Disclaimer | PMC Copyright Notice PeerJ . 2026 Apr 8;14:e20717. doi: 10.7717/peerj.20717 Search in PMC Search in PubMed View in NLM Catalog Add to search Seed priming with lavender essential oil increases germination and seedling growth in saline and potentially toxic elements-contaminated soils Giovanni Kamal Piga Giovanni Kamal Piga 1 Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Sardinia, Italy Find articles by Giovanni Kamal Piga 1 , Marco Cossu Marco Cossu 1 Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Sardinia, Italy 2 Innovative Agriculture Interdepartmental Center, Alghero, Sardinia, Italy Find articles by Marco Cossu 1, 2, ✉ , Vittoria Giannini Vittoria Giannini 3 Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padua, Legnaro, Italy 4 Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padua, Legnaro, Italy Find articles by Vittoria Giannini 3, 4 , Laura Frabboni Laura Frabboni 5 Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy Find articles by Laura Frabboni 5 , Grazia Disciglio Grazia Disciglio 5 Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy Find articles by Grazia Disciglio 5 , Annalisa Tarantino Annalisa Tarantino 5 Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy Find articles by Annalisa Tarantino 5 , Onofrio Marco Pistillo Onofrio Marco Pistillo 5 Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy Find articles by Onofrio Marco Pistillo 5 , Angela Racioppo Angela Racioppo 5 Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy Find articles by Angela Racioppo 5 , Matteo Garau Matteo Garau 1 Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Sardinia, Italy Find articles by Matteo Garau 1 , Giovanni Garau Giovanni Garau 1 Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Sardinia, Italy Find articles by Giovanni Garau 1 , Sara Melito Sara Melito 1 Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Sardinia, Italy Find articles by Sara Melito 1 Editor: Ahmet Tansel Serim Author information Article notes Copyright and License information 1 Department of Agricultural Sciences, University of Sassari, Sassari, Sardinia, Italy 2 Innovative Agriculture Interdepartmental Center, Alghero, Sardinia, Italy 3 Department of Agronomy, Food, Natural Resources, Animals and Environment, University of Padua, Legnaro, Italy 4 Department of Land, Environment, Agriculture and Forestry, University of Padua, Legnaro, Italy 5 Department of Agricultural, Food and Environmental Sciences, University of Foggia, Foggia, Italy ✉ Corresponding author. Received 2025 Sep 23; Accepted 2025 Dec 11; Collection date 2026. ©2026 Piga et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License , which permits unrestricted use, distribution, reproduction and adaptation in any medium and for any purpose provided that it is properly attributed. For attribution, the original author(s), title, publication source (PeerJ) and either DOI or URL of the article must be cited. PMC Copyright notice PMCID: PMC13069936 PMID: 41970263 Abstract Background Seed priming with natural compounds has emerged as a promising strategy to enhance plant tolerance to abiotic stresses. Among these, essential oils may mitigate the adverse effects of potentially toxic elements (PTEs) and salinity on seed germination and early growth. This study aimed to investigate the priming effects of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. essential oil on germination and seedling development of 3 Mediterranean aromatic species: Achillea millefolium L., Ocimum basilicum L., and Thymus vulgaris L. Methods Priming treatments were performed using different essential oil concentration (0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4%, 0.8%) with H 2 O and polysorbate P80 controls. Seed were grown on two heavy metal-polluted soils collected from abandoned mining sites (Montevecchio, HM1; Su Suergiu, HM2; Sardinia, Italy), a saline soil from Arborea in Sardinia (Sal) and an unpolluted sandy control soil. HM1 and HM2 soils were contaminated with arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), lead (Pb), antimony (Sb) and zinc (Zn). Results Soil type, plant species, and priming conditions significantly affected germination rate, seedling vigor index, and fresh weight. Notably, 0.2% essential oil priming did not markedly enhance germination compared to controls, except for A. millefolium grown on the contaminated HM1 soil and T. vulgaris on control soil. Both A. millefolium and T. vulgaris showed significant higher soil tolerance indices in contaminated soils under 0.2% priming, while T. vulgaris also exhibited further improvement under 0.2–0.8% priming in control soil. Moreover, in Sal soil, germination and seedling development were generally inhibited across all species; however, L. angustifolia essential oil at 0.2% occasionally alleviated these negative effects. Conclusions Low-dose Lavandula angustifolia essential oil priming can improve germination and stress tolerance in certain aromatic species, representing a sustainable approach for the valorization of marginal and degraded lands. Keywords: Pollution, Heavy metals, Soil tolerance, Aromatic plants, Marginal areas, Abiotic stress Introduction Land marginality, affecting wide portions of world land, could be related to different causes, among which soil salinity and contamination by potentially toxic elements (PTEs) are the most significant ( Mali et al., 2024 ). Soil salinization impacts more than 8.0% of global land while approximatly 14–17% of cropland is affected by heavy metals pollutions ( Hou et al., 2025 ), with severe consequences for food production and human health ( Roy et al., 2022 ; FAO, 2021 ). In the European Union 6.24% of agricultural land requires remediation due to pollution by PTEs such as arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), lead (Pb) and zinc (Zn) ( Tóth et al., 2016 ). To prevent further abandonment and underuse of marginal lands, aromatic plants can be cultivated on soils affected by salinity and PTEs contamination, thereby restoring productivity and economic value to these areas. Globally, more than 60,000 plant species are recognized for medicinal and aromatic uses, and several thousand are commercially exploited for essential oil (EO) production. Most belong to the Lamiaceae , Asteraceae , and Apiaceae families, which include many species naturally adapted to arid, saline, nutrient-poor, and even heavy-metal-contaminated environments ( Schippmann, Leaman & Cunningham, 2006 ; FAO, 2019 ; Gupta et al., 2021 ; Pandey, Verma & Singh, 2019 ). This ecological versatility is closely linked to their metabolic specialization: medicinal and aromatic plants produce a wide array of EOs and bioactive compounds, and their adaptive success under stress is often associated with complex physiological and biochemical mechanisms—such as osmolyte accumulation, enhanced antioxidant activity, and modifications of root system architecture—that sustain growth and metabolic efficiency under adverse conditions ( Figueiredo & Barroso, 2015 ; Yadav, Verma & Singh, 2023 ). Indeed, previous studies have shown that aromatic plants can grow in degraded soils, while simultaneously improving soils structure, enhancing beneficial microbes activity and stabilizing the land thereby increasing its productivity and long term sustainable ( Aishwath & Lal, 2016 ; Pradhan et al., 2017 ; Poschenrieder et al., 2012 ; Licata et al., 2022 ; Gupta et al., 2021 ). Moreover, their biomass can be used for EO extraction and the residual by-products can be valorized for bioenergy production ( e.g. , biogas) ( Jisha, Bauddh & Shukla, 2017 ). From this perspective, cultivating aromatic plants on marginal soils offers a dual opportunity: it enables the recovery of otherwise unproductive lands and provides high-value products such as EOs. Globally, the EOs world market was valuated around 7.51 billion USD in 2018 and is projected to reach 15 billion USD by 2026 with a 9% compound annual growth rate between 2019 and 2026 ( Ahuja & Singh, 2019 ). EOs are recognized as safe and possess antimicrobial, antifungal, and antioxidant properties, making them valuable in medical, cosmetic, food, and agricultural sectors ( Abu-Darwish & Abu-Dieyeh, 2009 ; Kumar, Malik & Atri, 2021 ; Vora et al., 2024 ; Aljaafari et al., 2021 ). Beyond their commercial importance, their rich composition in bioactive compounds has encouraged their agricultural use as sustainable natural inputs. Specifically, EOs are employed as natural pesticides, fungicides and herbicides ( Xie et al., 2017 ; Tanhaeian, Sekhavati & Moghaddam, 2020 ; Giannini et al., 2022 ). Interestingly, beyond their protective roles, few studies have reported biostimulant effects of EO sand plant extracts on seed germination and early seedling development ( Ben-Jabeur et al., 2019 ; Kisiriko et al., 2021 ; Souri & Bakhtiarizade, 2019 ). These beneficial effects are largely attributed to the bioactive compounds of EOs, such as terpenes, sesquiterpenes, and oxygenated molecules, which can enhance nutrient uptake, biomass accumulation, and oxidative stress mitigation ( Licata et al., 2022 ; Ben Saad et al., 2024 ; Bakkali et al., 2008 ; Souri & Bakhtiarizade, 2019 ). Such bioactivity has led to growing interest in using EO to improve germination and seedling vigor, even under abiotic stress ( Ella, Dionisio-Sese & Ismail, 2011 ). In this context, EOs from rosemary, eucalyptus, thyme and tansy have shown particularly promising results, supporting plant development and stress tolerance ( Souri & Bakhtiarizade, 2019 ; Chrysargyris et al., 2020 ; Ben-Jabeur et al., 2019 ; Beni et al., 2020 ); more recently they have been also investigated as potential seed-priming agents ( Soudani et al., 2022 ; Oğuz, Oğuz & Güler, 2023 ). Seed priming is a pre-sowing treatment that hydrates seeds to trigger metabolic processes necessary for germination, without allowing radicle emergence, enhancing seed vigor and stress tolerance under abiotic stress conditions, particularly salinity and PTEs ( Paparella et al., 2015 ; Khan et al., 2022 ; Prajapati, Kataria & Jain, 2020 ; Jisha, Vijayakumari & Puthur, 2013 ). Recently, the use of EOs as seed priming agents has emerged as an innovative strategy, showing promising effects in reducing agricultural inputs and improving plant performance under saline conditions, especially in edible crops ( Devika et al., 2021 ; Ben Saad et al., 2024 ; Kesraoui et al., 2022 ; Oğuz, Oğuz & Güler, 2023 ). Although only few studies have investigated EO-based priming in aromatic plant seeds, reporting positive effects on germination and early seedling growth ( Terzić et al., 2023 ), this approach remains scarcely investigated. To the best of our knowledge, no previous studies have examined the effects of EO-based seed priming on aromatic plant species grown in saline and PTEs-contaminated soils. Addressing this gap is relevant for two main reasons: (i) to explore how EO seed priming influences different aromatic plant species under extreme conditions, thereby contributing to a broader understanding of its biostimulant mechanisms and applications; (ii) to enhance the establishment of aromatic plants on marginal lands which are often underutilized for food/feed crop cultivation. In saline soils, this may support EO production with high economic value ( Dagar, 2018 ), while in metal-contaminated soils, it could enable phytoremediation efforts to produce of metal-free EOs ( Angelova et al., 2015 ). The present study aims to investigate the priming effect of Lavandula angustifolia Mill. EO on the seeds of three Mediterranean aromatic plants ( Achillea millefolium L., Ocimum basilicum L. and Thymus vulgaris L.), which are potentially suitable for cultivation on marginal lands affected by salinity and PTEs contamination. These species exhibit varying degree of tolerance (low, medium or high) to salinity and PTEs stress ( Niu & Rodriguez, 2006 ; Angelova & Ihtyarova, 2023 ) and are well known for their commercial applications in the pharmaceutical, cosmetic, and food industries. The experiments were conducted under controlled laboratory conditions and represent the first step toward developing future application under open field conditions. Materials & Methods Essential oil extraction and characterization Lavender ( Lavandula angustifolia Mill.) plants were transplanted in 2022 and cultivated within a dynamic agrivoltaic system (M2 Energia Srl company field) located in the marginal rural area of San Severo (Foggia, Italy; 41°4′58″N, 15°8′33″E). This system features photovoltaic solar panels positioned 2.50 m above the crops. An electronic unit controls the solar-tracking mechanism, ensuring that the panels consistently align with the sun while preventing mutual shading. The system is designed to optimize and enhance light accessibility for the underlying crops. Throughout the growing season, drip irrigation and standard agronomic practices were applied. During the balsamic phase, the lavender plants were manually harvested. The flowers were then homogenized and used for EO extraction. The freshly collected flowers of Lavender were used for hydrodistillation using a Clevenger-type apparatus ( Clevenger, 1928 ) following the European Pharmacopoeia ( Council of Europe, 2023 ). Lavender essential oil (LEO) composition was determined through Gas Chromatography-Mass Spectrometry (GC-MS) ( Table 1 ). In particular, one µl of EO (Diluted samples 1:100 (v/v) in Hexane) was analysed by an Agilent 7890B series gas chromatograph (Agilent Technologies) coupled with an Agilent 5977A mass selective detector (MSD) and equipped with a HP-5MS capillary column (30 m × 0.25 mm ID, 0.5 µm film thickness, J&W Scientific Inc., Folsom, CA, USA). The carrier gas was helium at a flow rate of 1.25 mL/min. The injection was made in splitless mode, and the injector temperature was 250 °C. The column oven temperature was programmed from 60 °C to 250 °C at 3 °C/min, with a final holding time of 10 min. Spectra were recorded in the electron impact mode (ionization energy, 70 eV) in a range of 15–550 amu at 2.9 scans/s. The identification of volatile compounds was achieved by comparing mass spectra with those of the data system library (NIST11, p > 90%) and wherever possible by comparing retention times and mass spectra with those of commercially available standards. Moreover, a mixture of a continuous series of straight-chain hydrocarbons, C7-C30 (Alkane Standard Solution; Sigma Aldrich, Milan, Italy) was injected under the same conditions previously described to obtain the linear retention indices (RIs) ( Van Den Dool & Kratz, 1963 ). Component relative percentages were calculated based on GC peak areas. Table 1. Chemical composition of L. angustifolia essential oil as identified by GC-MS. Peak No. Compound R.T. RI Lit 2 RI Exp 3 Area (%) ± S.D. 1 1 α-Pinene 12.276 939 934 0.22 ± 0.01 2 Camphene 12.933 953 951 0.14 ± 0.01 3 β-Pinene 14.202 980 976 0.34 ± 0.02 4 3-Octanone 14.545 985 983 0.52 ± 0.03 5 β-Myrcene 14.741 992 989 1.49 ± 0.07 6 p -Cymene 16.375 1,021 1,019 0.63 ± 0.03 7 Limonene 16.582 1,029 1,031 2.34 ± 0.12 8 Eucalyptol 16.718 1,031 1,032 1.58 ± 0.08 9 cis-β-Ocimene 16.923 1,038 1,036 0.35 ± 0.02 10 trans-β-Ocimene 17.425 1,054 1,051 0.64 ± 0.03 11 Linalool oxide II (pyranoid) 18.656 1,072 1,071 0.58 ± 0.03 12 Linalool 20.127 1,099 1,097 36.81 ± 1.84 13 1-Octen-3-ol, acetate 20.430 1,112 1,111 0.10 ± 0.01 14 6,8-Epoxy-menth-1-ene 21.124 1,114 1,121 0.23 ± 0.01 15 Terpinen-1-ol 21.533 1,144 1,141 1.91 ± 0.10 16 Camphor 22.097 1,160 1,158 1.71 ± 0.09 17 endo-Borneol 23.073 1,172 1,169 0.10 ± 0.01 18 Terpinen-4-ol 23.574 1,177 1,175 0.51 ± 0.03 19 α-Terpineol 24.180 1,182 1,185 1.46 ± 0.07 20 Geraniol 25.830 1,240 1,231 0.13 ± 0.01 21 Linalyl acetate 27.205 1,247 1,251 41.01 ± 2.05 22 Geranial 27.686 1,268 1,274 0.10 ± 0.01 23 Bornyl acetate 28.432 1,287 1,285 0.56 ± 0.03 24 Lavandulyl acetate 28.512 1,292 1,291 0.52 ± 0.03 25 Neryl acetate 31.636 1,361 1,365 0.63 ± 0.03 26 α-Copaene 32.293 1,372 1,376 0.10 ± 0.01 27 Geranyl acetate 32.436 1,381 1,384 1.11 ± 0.06 28 β-Caryophyllene 34.121 1,414 1,411 0.31 ± 0.02 29 Germacrene D 37.787 1,575 1,571 0.10 ± 0.01 30 Caryophyllene oxide 40.500 1,583 1,581 0.98 ± 0.05 31 Humulene-1,2-epoxide 41.434 1,602 1,606 0.10 ± 0.01 32 α-Bisabolol 43.956 1,685 1,682 0.10 ± 0.01 Open in a new tab Notes. 1 N = 3 replicates. 2 RI Lit = Linear retention index from literature. 3 RI Exp = Determined linear retention index against mixture of n-alkanes (C5–C40) on HP-5MS column. Soil sampling and analysis Soil samples were collected from three different locations in Sardinia (Italy) and the soil was analysied for physico-chemical characteristics: the abandoned mining sites of Montevecchio (HM1, 39°′3′36.3″N, 8°′5′29.1″E), Su Suergiu (HM2, 39°′9′53.7″N, 9°′2′35.2″E) and the intensive agricultural area of Arborea (Sal, 39°5′23.5″N, 8°34′45.9″E). HM1 and HM2 were sampled in areas known to be polluted with PTEs ( e.g. , Zn, Pb, antimony (Sb); Garau et al., 2023 ; Garau et al., 2024 ), whereas Sal was a saline soil with electrical conductivity (EC) of 4.99 dS m −2 ( Table 2 ). Topsoil samples ( n = 10, upper 20 cm) were collected randomly on each site and pooled together, air-dried, and sieved to less than two mm for physical-chemical characterization; pH and EC were measured in 1:5 (w/v) solid-to-water suspensions (ISO 10390:2021). Total carbon and nitrogen were measured using a CHN analyzer (Leco CHN628) with Soil LCRM Leco part number 502–697 as the calibration sample. Dissolved organic carbon (DOC) was quantified in the filtered liquid phase of a 1:10 (w/v) soil/water suspension after 24 h of agitation ( Silvetti et al., 2014 ). Cation exchange capacity (CEC), and the concentration of exchangeable bases were determined using the BaCl2-triethanolamine method (ISO 11260:2018). The available phosphorus was quantified following Olsen method (ISO 11263:1994). The pseudo-total PTEs concentration in soils was determined by an Inductively Coupled Plasma Optical Emission Spectrometry (Perkin Elmer Optima 7300 DV ICP-OES) after microwave-assisted digestion using the US EPA Method 3051A. Table 2. Physico-chemical characterization of Montevecchio (HM1) Su suergiu (HM2) and Arborea (Sal) soils. Parameters HM1 HM2 Sal Texture Sandy-clay Sandy Sandy pH 6.01 ± 0.04 7.31 ± 0.06 6.9 Electrical Conductivity (dS m −1 ) 0.39 ± 0.03 2.23 ± 0.06 4.99 Soil Organic Matter (%) 3.60 ± 0.11 6.31 ± 0.02 10 Carbon/Nitrogen ratio 13.06 12.62 6 Total Organic Carbon (%) 2.09 ± 0.06 3.66 ± 0.01 6 Total Nitrogen (%) 0.16 ± 0.01 0.29 ± 0.01 1 Dissolved Organic Carbon (mg g −1 ) 0.23 ± 0.02 3.49 ± 0.15 0.35 ± 0.01 Phosphorus Available (mg kg −1 ) 22.25 ± 0.04 7.23 ± 0.67 306 Cation Exchange Capacity (cmol(+) kg −1 ) 22.78 ± 0.10 16.72 ± 0.02 11 Excangeable Na (cmol(+) kg −1 ) 0.48 ± 0.08 0.97 ± 0.22 0.05 Excangeable K (cmol(+) kg −1 ) 1.39 ± 0.05 1.72 ± 0.02 1.18 Excangeable Ca (cmol(+) kg −1 ) 19.55 ± 0.67 14.53 ± 0.95 3.37 Excangeable Mg (cmol(+) kg −1 ) 1.15 ± 0.01 2.25 ± 0.18 6.38 As (mg kg −1 ) 27.85 ± 0.23 343.15 ± 17.85 n.d Cd (mg kg −1 ) 28.62 ± 0.10 11.91 ± 1.33 n.d. Pb (mg kg −1 ) 10,942 ± 432.00 402.96 ± 6.34 8.86 ± 0.52 Sb (mg kg −1 ) 62.14 ± 5.15 2174 ± 122.48 n.d. Zn (mg kg −1 ) 2,853 ± 7.00 3,148 ± 177.00 48.40 ± 0.46 Open in a new tab Experimental set up A germination pot experiment was conducted to evaluate the effect of seed priming with different concentrations of LEO in different soils. The experimental design was factorial, combining four soils and six priming treatments for a total of 24 treatment combinations and three replicates as follows: Priming treatments: • H 2 O: distilled water (Control) • P80: 0.18 mL of polysorbate 80 in 10 mL distilled water (Control) • EO1: 0.1% LEO • EO2: 0.2% LEO • EO4: 0.4% LEO • EO8: 0.8% LEO Soils: • HM1: PTEs-contaminated soil from Montevecchio • HM2: PTEs -contaminated soil from Su Suergiu • Sal: saline soil from Arborea • C: control substrate (sand) P80 was used as an emulsifier at 15% (v/v) of the EO dose to solubilize it in distilled water. EO4 was used as a stock solution to prepare the other treatment dilutions. The priming treatment was performed by imbibing approximately 150 seeds in 10 mL of solution for 2 h, followed by washing with sterile water. This duration was selected based on preliminary tests conducted for all species, which showed complete seed imbibition within 2 h without visible signs of overhydration. The preparation of these experimental solutions is detailed in Table S1 . Three aromatic species were selected for the experiment: A. millefolium L., O. basilicum L. and T. vulgaris L. The seeds (Magic Garden Seeds GmbH ® ) were planted in plastic containers (40 × 20 × 16 cm 3 ) containing 700 g of soil. For each treatment, a total of 90 seeds per species (30 seeds × 3 replicates) were sown for each soil type and irrigated with sterile distilled water. Germination was monitored daily for 7 days, considering a seed germinated when the radicle reached a length of ≥2 mm. The experiment was conducted twice. The following germination parameters were derived from the daily records: germination percentage (G), cumulative germination (CG), mean germination time (MGT), and synchrony of the germination process (Z). Moreover, at the end of the germination period, seedling vigor index (SVI), soil stress tolerance index (SSTI), hypocotyl length (HL) and hypocotyl biomass (FW) were determined. The equations used to determine these parameters are provided in Table S3 . Statistical analysis The experiment was conducted as a complete randomized design. Data was checked for normality distribution and homoscedasticity within species using the Anderson-Darling and Levene test, respectively. The statistical analysis was performed using ANOVA with the general linear model (GLM) function with three factors (species × substrate × priming treatment) and three replicates. The Tukey’s test was used to determine the statistical differences between factors and treatments, at p ≤ 0.05 significance level. All tests were conducted using Minitab statistical software (Minitab LLC, State College, PA, USA). Results Essential oil composition A total of 32 volatile compounds were identified in the EO of L. angustifolia through GC-MS analysis ( Table 1 ). The major constituents were linalyl acetate (41.01 ± 2.05) and linalool (36.81 ± 1.84%), which together accounted for nearly 78% of the total composition, characterizing the typical aroma profile of lavender oil. Other relevant compounds included limonene (2.34 ± 0.12%), terpinen-1-ol (1.91 ± 0.10), camphor (1.71 ± 0.09), eucalyptol (1.58 ± 0.08), β-myrcene (1.49 ± 0.07), α-terpineol (1.46 ± 0.07) and geranyl acetate (1.11 ± 0.06). General effects of treatment The germination parameters G, SVI and SSTI were significantly influenced by all factors and their interactions, whereas MGT and Z were not significantly affected by soil type ( Table 3A ). Furthermore, the biometric parameters were influenced by all factors, except for the hypocotyl length (HL), which was not affected by their interactions ( Table 3A ; Table S2 ). Moreover, P80 and H 2 O treatments did not differ significantly, consequently H 2 O was used as a unique control. Table 3. Significance of the effects of species, soils, treatments, and their interaction on germination parameters and seedling biometric data. Germination parameters: G, Germination percentage; MGT, Mean germination time; Z, Synchronization index; SVI, Seedling vigor index; SSTI, Soil stress tolerance index (A). Seedling biometric data: F.W., Fresh weight; H.L., Hypocotyl length (B) according to ANOVA analysis. Significance levels are indicated by asterisks: p ≤ 0.05 (*), p ≤ 0.01 (**), p ≤ 0.001 (***), not significant (ns). A ANOVA G% MGT Z SVI SSTI Species (A) *** *** *** ** *** Treatment (B) *** *** *** *** *** Soil (C) *** ns ns *** *** A × B *** ** *** *** *** A × C *** ns ns *** *** B × C *** ns * * *** A × B × C *** ns ** *** *** B ANOVA F.W. H.L. Specie (A) *** *** Treatment (B) *** *** Soil (C) *** * A × B *** *** A × C *** ns B × C * ns A × B × C ** ns Open in a new tab Germination parameters Table 4 reported germination percentage (G), mean germination time (MGT), synchronization index (Z), and seedling vigor index (SVI) of the three aromatic species used, under different soils. G was significantly affected by both the EO treatments and the soil types, ranging from 40.00% (Sal-EO8) to 86.67% (C-EO1) ( Table 4 ). The priming treatment on A. millefolium revealed a EO dose dependent response based on the soil type. Interestingly, EO2 induced a significant increase (11%) of G in HM1, while in the other substrates the results were comparable to the control. In O. basilicum the EO treatment did not improve G in all soil types, revealing a general decrease in Sal. Overall, in both species the EO8 treatment showed a significant reduction of G in all substrates. Finally, in T. vulgaris the most interesting results were found in HM2, where the treatment with EO2 significantly increased G compared to the H 2 O control, reaching its maximum of 80.00%, representing the optimum LEO concentration to increase germination. Furthermore, in C the seed primed with EO2-EO8 increased G compared to H 2 O control. The seedling vigor index (SVI) ranged from 84.85 ( A. millefolium , HM1-EO8) to 168.93 (in A. millefolium, C-EO1). A. millefolium and O. basilicum showed the same G trend with an increase of its value under EO2 in HM1 soil. In addition, all treatments with EO4 and EO8 presented a significant reduction of SVI ( Table 3 ). MGT and Z differed between EO treatments only on A. millefolium and T. vulgaris of the C and Sal soils. MGT showed a significant highest value under EO1 (4.53) in C, while Z revealed the highest T. vulgaris seed germination synchrony under EO8 of the Sal soil (0.51). Table 4. Germination percentage G (%), mean germination time (MGT), synchronization index (Z), and seedling vigor index (SVI) of A. millefolium , O. basilicum and T. vulgaris under seed priming with L. angustifolia essential oil. Concentrations were 0.1% (EO1), 0.2% (EO2), 0.4% (EO4), 0.8% (EO8) and water (H 2 O) control, across four soils: HM1, HM2 (contaminated), Sal (saline), and C (control). Values are means ± SD. Different letters indicate significant differences within soil ( p ≤ 0.05). Species Soil Treatment G MGT Z SVI A. millefolium HM1 EO1 71.67 ± 6.94 b 3.42 ± 0.30 0.68 ± 0.18 133.61 ± 6.56 ab EO2 82.67 ± 4.35 a 3.55 ± 0.29 0.56 ± 0.10 144.92 ± 10.36 a EO4 58.89 ± 1.92 c 3.80 ± 0.67 0.56 ± 0.14 99.84 ± 7.25 c EO8 47.50 ± 4.19 d 3.38 ± 0.46 0.72 ± 0.27 84.85 ± 8.59 c H 2 O 71.67 ± 1.92 b 3.33 ± 0.11 0.66 ± 0.11 128.00 ± 5.55 b HM2 EO1 81.11 ± 1.92 a 3.36 ± 0.27 0.73 ± 0.10 152.04 ± 10.93 ab EO2 83.33 ± 3.33 a 3.44 ± 0.23 0.70 ± 0.12 155.90 ± 7.26 a EO4 80.00 ± 0.00 a 3.60 ± 0.10 0.57 ± 0.04 141.96 ± 5.34 ab EO8 71.11 ± 3.85 b 3.37 ± 0.24 0.75 ± 0.13 132.72 ± 7.50 b H 2 O 82.50 ± 3.19 a 3.50 ± 0.15 0.62 ± 0.13 147.32 ± 6.53 ab Sal EO1 61.67 ± 2.36 a 4.30 ± 0.20 0.35 ± 0.10 104.8 ± 7.14 ab EO2 61.11 ± 1.92 a 3.83 ± 0.28 0.55 ± 0.14 106.64 ± 6.06 ab EO4 46.67 ± 3.33 b 3.15 ± 0.08 0.66 ± 0.06 83.50 ± 4.71 bc EO8 40.00 ± 6.67 b 4.03 ± 0.64 0.44 ± 0.16 71.19 ± 17.37 c H 2 O 71.67 ± 5.77 a 3.66 ± 0.51 0.53 ± 0.12 121.23 ± 8.69 a C EO1 86.67 ± 0.00 a 4.53 ± 0.09 a 0.50 ± 0.09 168.93 ± 3.51 a EO2 63.33 ± 3.33 b 3.66 ± 0.30 bc 0.57 ± 0.08 105.38 ± 8.45 b EO4 55.56 ± 1.92 c 3.44 ± 0.08 c 0.60 ± 0.01 99.91 ± 7.17 b EO8 53.33 ± 2.72 c 3.34 ± 0.18 c 0.64 ± 0.07 93.94 ± 12.97 b H 2 O 83.33 ± 2.72 a 4.09 ± 0.23 ab 0.41 ± 0.09 150.6 ± 2.20 a O. basilicum HM1 EO1 63.33 ± 3.33 ab 2.63 ± 0.37 0.46 ± 0.17 147.12 ± 11.66 ab EO2 63.33 ± 9.43 ab 2.72 ± 0.52 0.45 ± 0.12 142.14 ± 23.98 ab EO4 57.33 ± 6.41 b 2.76 ± 0.08 0.46 ± 0.10 144.72 ± 16.06 ab EO8 55.56 ± 1.92 b 2.26 ± 0.06 0.62 ± 0.05 129.52 ± 7.51 b H 2 O 70.00 ± 0.00 a 2.87 ± 0.05 0.39 ± 0.06 170.88 ± 4.52 a HM2 EO1 57.78 ± 5.09 b 2.94 ± 0.86 0.49 ± 0.19 143.98 ± 14.67 ab EO2 60.00 ± 3.33 ab 3.11 ± 0.68 0.37 ± 0.04 146.40 ± 9.99 ab EO4 55.00 ± 1.92 bc 3.39 ± 0.91 0.35 ± 0.04 134.59 ± 3.64 b EO8 48.33 ± 4.30 c 3.34 ± 0.27 0.35 ± 0.10 117.62 ± 11.15 b H 2 O 67.78 ± 1.92 a 2.99 ± 0.23 0.40 ± 0.13 167.87 ± 19.48 a Sal EO1 46.67 ± 5.77 2.87 ± 0.85 0.48 ± 0.02 108.42 ± 16.01 EO2 45.56 ± 1.92 3.66 ± 1.14 0.49 ± 0.04 103.9 ± 7.39 EO4 48.89 ± 5.09 3.51 ± 0.60 0.44 ± 0.04 99.03 ± 10.29 EO8 41.67 ± 1.92 3.25 ± 0.45 0.39 ± 0.12 90.69 ± 5.27 H 2 O 46.67 ± 0.00 2.86 ± 0.00 0.38 ± 0.00 99.54 ± 4.95 C EO1 56.67 ± 5.77 a 2.97 ± 0.80 0.42 ± 0.22 142.36 ± 21.12 a EO2 58.89 ± 1.92 a 3.18 ± 1.20 0.42 ± 0.05 142.21 ± 2.37 a EO4 46.67 ± 3.33 b 2.94 ± 0.45 0.36 ± 0.09 112.94 ± 8.44 ab EO8 41.11 ± 1.92 b 3.32 ± 0.01 0.26 ± 0.04 101.89 ± 7.31 b H 2 O 60.00 ± 3.33 a 2.88 ± 0.25 0.41 ± 0.05 135.66 ± 13.35 a T. vulgaris HM1 EO1 68.89 ± 1.92 ab 3.08 ± 0.29 0.38 ± 0.15 131.21 ± 13.85 EO2 68.89 ± 3.85 ab 3.01 ± 0.20 0.66 ± 0.20 119.08 ± 24.60 EO4 60.00 ± 6.67 bc 3.33 ± 0.52 0.39 ± 0.15 111.99 ± 22.13 EO8 56.67 ± 3.33 c 3.01 ± 0.23 0.70 ± 0.09 99.45 ± 9.46 H 2 O 75.00 ± 1.92 a 3.05 ± 0.09 0.69 ± 0.19 139.03 ± 4.78 HM2 EO1 71.33 ± 3.80 b 3.73 ± 0.26 0.37 ± 0.13 137.49 ± 16.63 ab EO2 80.00 ± 2.72 a 3.20 ± 0.18 0.29 ± 0.06 138.05 ± 13.29 ab EO4 63.33 ± 3.33 c 3.53 ± 0.46 0.41 ± 0.07 109.29 ± 9.30 b EO8 64.17 ± 3.19 c 3.56 ± 0.78 0.33 ± 0.09 118.82 ± 15.57 ab H 2 O 73.33 ± 2.72 ab 3.21 ± 0.40 0.45 ± 0.05 141.30 ± 6.81 a Sal EO1 54.44 ± 5.09 c 3.77 ± 0.77 0.45 ± 0.07 ab 80.14 ± 9.24 b EO2 66.67 ± 3.33 b 4.21 ± 1.23 0.34 ± 0.11 ab 92.06 ± 4.14 ab EO4 83.33 ± 0.00 a 4.15 ± 0.05 0.29 ± 0.03 b 104.80 ± 1.14 a EO8 68.33 ± 7.07 b 3.14 ± 0.77 0.51 ± 0.01 a 103.55 ± 10.60 ab H 2 O 83.33 ± 3.33 a 3.90 ± 0.35 0.37 ± 0.07 ab 110.89 ± 11.70 a C EO1 72.22 ± 1.92 b 2.79 ± 0.23 0.49 ± 0.14 150.50 ± 20.43 EO2 83.33 ± 0.00 a 2.57 ± 0.10 0.54 ± 0.10 174.24 ± 23.08 EO4 83.33 ± 3.33 a 3.14 ± 0.80 0.50 ± 0.08 157.81 ± 15.75 EO8 79.33 ± 2.79 a 3.31 ± 0.42 0.38 ± 0.10 165.98 ± 17.88 H 2 O 70.67 ± 4.35 b 3.32 ± 0.74 0.43 ± 0.13 143.97 ± 16.19 Open in a new tab Cumulative germination Table 5 presents the effects of soil type, treatment and their interaction on cumulative germination (CG). Soil type had a significant impact in all species since day 1. Treatments with LEO significantly affected the CG for A. millefolium and O. basilicum from day 3 onward but not that in T. vulgaris . The interaction between soil and treatment was significant only in A. millefolium from day 4 ( p < 0.01) and for T. vulgaris on day 2 ( p < 0.05), indicating limited combined effects and a species-specific response. Table 5. Results of the ANOVA analysis showing the effects of soil type (A), treatment (B), and their interaction (A × B) on cumulative germination CG (%) over seven days for A. millefolium , O. basilicum , and T. vulgaris . Significance levels are indicated by asterisks: p ≤ 0.05 (*), p ≤ 0.01 (**), p ≤ 0.001 (***), not significant (ns). Species Soil and treatment Significance of cumulative germination (CG) Day 1 Day 2 Day 3 Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 A. millefolium Soil (A) *** *** *** *** *** *** *** Treatment (B) ns ns *** *** *** *** *** A × B ns ns ns ** *** *** *** O. basilicum Soil (A) *** ** *** *** *** *** *** Treatment (B) ns ns *** *** *** *** *** A × B ns ns ns ns ns ns ns T. vulgaris Soil (A) *** ** *** *** ** ** ** Treatment (B) * ns ns ns ns ns ns A x B ns * ns ns ns ns ns Open in a new tab The CG results are presented in Figs. 1 and 2 . A. millefolium showed strong variations across treatments and time. In HM1 and Sal soil the EO4 and EO8 treatments had negative effects compared to the other treatments. Interestingly, in HM1 EO2 significantly increased CG from day 3 till the end of the experiment. In C soil, seeds treated with EO1 recorded a significant improvement of CG from day 5 to 7. Similar to the pattern observed in HM1, EO4 and EO8 treatments markedly reduced CG in the control soil. In O. basilicum, EO treatments in HM2 and Sal did not improve GC compared to the H 2 O control. Finally, under C soil H 2 O, EO1 and EO2 showed significant difference with EO4 and EO8, which induced a loss of GC. In T. vulgaris GC was significantly higher in Sal soil at day 7 under both H 2 O and EO4 treatments. In the HM1 soil, a similar pattern was observed revealing again that H 2 O, as well EO1 and EO2, significantly increased the GC from day 4 to the end of the trial. Figure 1. (A–C) Impact of essential oil treatment on cumulative germination of the tested aromatic species in the heavy metal-contaminated soils. Open in a new tab Effect of 0.1%; 0.2%; 0.4% and 0.8% concentration of LEO (EO1, EO2, EO4, EO8) in A. millefolium , O. basilicum and T. vulgaris in the heavy metal-contaminated soils (HM1 and HM2) on the cumulative germination percentage. Significance levels are indicated by asterisks: p ≤ 0.05 (*), p ≤ 0.01 (**), p ≤ 0.001 (***) (Tukey test). Figure 2. (A–C) Impact of essential oil treatment on cumulative germination of the tested aromatic species in the saline and control soil. Open in a new tab Effect of 0.1%; 0.2%; 0.4% and 0.8% concentration of LEO (EO1, EO2, EO4, EO8) in A. millefolium , O. basilicum and T. vulgaris in saline soil (Sal) and control soil (C) on the cumulative germination percentage. Significance levels are indicated by asterisks: p ≤ 0.05 (*), p ≤ 0.01 (**), p ≤ 0.001 (***) (Tukey test). Stress tolerance and biomass SSTI revealed clear species-specific responses to priming, with a marked reduction at higher EO concentrations (EO4 and EO8) in A. millefolium and O. basilicum ( Fig. 3 ; Table 3A ). SSTI also significantly varied as a function of the soil type, with the lowest tolerance observed in A. millefolium and T. vulgaris grown in Sal soil. In A. millefolium the EO1 and EO2 priming treatments produced comparable results to the H 2 O control across all soil types. Interestingly, EO2 induced the highest SSTI value, indicating improved performance across treatments and soils. O. basilicum EO primed seeds showed results similar to the H 2 O treatment in all soils except HM2, which showed the worst response. In addition, in both A. millefolium and O. basilicum a significant decrement of SSTI was observed under a high level of EO (EO4 and EO8). A different trend emerged in T. vulgaris . Overall, in Sal, HM1, and HM2 soils, EO treatments did not significantly enhance SSTI compared to the H 2 O control. However, under control soil (C), treatments from EO2 to EO8 led to a significant increase in SSTI, with the highest value recorded under EO4. Figure 3. (A–C) Impact of essential oil treatment on soil stress tolerance index of tested aromatic plants in marginal soils. Open in a new tab Effect of L. angustifolia essential oil at 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4% and 0.8% concentration (EO1, EO2, EO4 and EO8) and H 2 O in A. millefolium , O. basilicum and T. vulgaris . The experiment was conducted in saline soil (Sal), heavy metal-contaminated soils (HM1 and HM2), and control soil with sand (C), evaluating the Soil Stress Tolerance Index (SSTI). Error bar data shows SD in each treatment. Different letters within the same soil indicate significant differences between treatments (Tukey test, p -value ≤0.05). A. millefolium showed the lowest seedling biomass (FW) under Sal soil, while the highest were observed under HM1 and C ( Fig. 4 ). Across all soils, the EO treatment did not significantly improve the FW and no significant difference was observed compared to control H 2 O priming. In O. basilicum EO2 represent the most effective priming treatment in all soil types, although its effects were statistically comparable to H 2 O priming. In addition, in A. millefolium and O. basilicum the lowest FW was detected in all soil types at EO4 and EO8 with the exception of C, where EO1 had the lowest FW value. For T. vulgaris , FW values under EO2 and H 2 O priming were similar across all soils; however, in Sal and C soils, FW increased progressively from EO1 to EO4, followed by a decline at EO8. Figure 4. (A–C) Impact of essential oil treatment on biomass of tested aromatic plants in marginal soils. Open in a new tab Effect of L. angustifolia essential oil at 0.1%, 0.2%, 0.4% and 0.8% concentration (EO1, EO2, EO4 and EO8) and H 2 O in A. millefolium , O. basilicum and T. vulgaris . The experiment was conducted in saline soil (Sal), heavy metal-contaminated soils (HM1 and HM2), and control soil with sand (C), evaluating the fresh weight (F.W) of tested aromatic plants. Error bar data shows SD in each treatment. Different letters within the same soil indicate significant differences between treatments (Tukey test, p -value ≤0.05). Discussion In the present study, seed priming with LEO was applied to the seeds of three Mediterranean aromatic plant species seeds, that could be profitably used for the requalification of marginal land such as abandoned mine sites and saline soils. Although seeds are considered tolerant to abiotic stress, this resilience may be only partial in PTE-polluted soils, where germination can be negatively affected ( Kranner & Colville, 2011 ). General toxicity and inhibition of water uptake may significantly reduce germination, and similar inhibitory mechanisms also occur in saline environments due to high electrical conductivity ( Munns & Tester, 2008 ). Seed priming represents a useful strategy to enhance tolerance and improve germination performance under adverse difficult environmental conditions ( Oguz et al., 2022 ; Ben-Jabeur et al., 2019 ), thereby mitigating the risk of delayed or non-uniform emergence, which can strongly compromise crop establishment and productivity ( Jisha, Vijayakumari & Puthur, 2013 ; Galhaut et al., 2014 ). Although aromatic plants are generally resilient to abiotic stresses, early developmental stages remain highly sensitive to environmental constraints. Enhancing seed vigor through priming may therefore represent a key agronomic step to improve establishment in salt or contaminated soils, where germination uniformity is often limited. Among the tested species, A. millefolium and T. vulgaris , showed an increased G depending on both soil type and priming dose. The dose-dependent response observed in these two species is consistent with the findings of Oğuz, Oğuz & Güler (2023) in wheat seeds coated with a mixture of aromatic plant EOs (including lavender). Those authors reported a significant increase of G at 0.05% EO, followed by a progressive decrease at 0.10% and 0.25%, suggesting a narrow optimal concentration range. This pattern aligns with our results, where seed priming with LEO at 0.1% and 0.2% led to the highest G, while higher concentrations (0.4% and 0.8%) resulted in reduced germination. However, this stimulatory effect was not consistent across all species or soils. In several cases, germination under LEO priming was comparable to, or even lower than the water control, indicating the biostimulant response species- and soil-specific. To the best of our knowledge, EO seed priming treatment with LEO has not been previously tested in aromatic species in order to improve their germination performance under abiotic stress; prior EO applications on aromatic crops mainly addressed seed sanitation or allelopathic and bioherbicidal effects rather than priming sensu stricto ( Konstantinović et al., 2022 ; Rahimi et al., 2013 ; Terzić et al., 2023 ). Overall, these findings suggest that EO-based treatments exhibit a threshold-dependent effect, where lower doses stimulate germination, whereas higher doses may exert phytotoxic effects. Galhaut et al. (2014) also reported that priming treatments with gibberellic acid, in presence of Cu and Zn as soil contaminants, induce an increase of G with the increasing of the treatment time reaching the maximum of G at 18 h and 12 h respectively, and after that, a further decrease of germination. These results also support the idea that seed priming could increase G by stimulating the production of a wide range of temporary signals i.e., reactive oxygen species (ROS) and its scavenging antioxidant metabolites ( Maffei, Mithöfer & Boland, 2007 ). Although the involvement of ROS and hormone-related signaling pathways is plausible, this interpretation remains hypothetical since these parameters were not measured in the present study. This mechanism could be applied to several abiotic stress inductors associated with soil (excessive salt as well as chemical pollutants). Lutts et al. (2016) suggested that this “stress activator mechanism” induced a sort of stress memory in seeds that is responsible for a more efficient adaptation to subsequent episodes of abiotic stress. We cannot exclude that this type of “stress memory” involves all the early-stage development of seeds, including the seedling development. These considerations are further supported by our experimental data, particularly for A. millefolium , which showed increased SVI and FW under EO priming treatments, especially at 0.1–0.2% concentrations ( Table 4 and Fig. 4 ). As expected, each plant species responded differently to soil and priming treatment. In our study, O. basilicum showed a limited response in terms of G and SVI to the priming treatment compared to H 2 O (control). Specifically, in basil grown in the HM2 substrate, a significant decrease of G was observed under EO1 compared to H 2 O and no significant increase of G or SVI in any of the tested treatment and soils was found. This highlights a possible negative effect of priming in this species, soil, and their interaction ( Table 4 ). Soil type and LEO treatment significantly affected CG of A. millefolium , O. basilicum and T. vulgaris , with species-specific and dose-dependent responses. Rahimi, Bidarnamani & Shabanipoor (2015) , investigated the effect of different concentrations of Lavandula vera DC. EOs (0.025%, 0.050%, 0.075%, and 0.1%) on Cynodon dactylon L. Pers. weeds, observed a concentration-dependent reduction in germination rate. In our study, the general reduction of CG in all species observed at 0.4% and 0.8% doses can be explained by the presence of oxygenated monoterpenes and other compounds (linalool, linalyl acetate, limonene) known as high inhibitors of seed germination and seedling growth ( Singh et al., 2002 ; Abrahim et al., 2000 ). Moreover, Ibáñez & Blázquez (2019) reported that L. angustifolia EO affects seed germination and development of L. multiflorum Lam., Echinochloa crus-galli (L.) Beauv. and Nicotiana glauca Graham for its herbicidal proprieties. However, in A. millefolium and O. basilicum at HM1 or C and HM2 or C soils respectively, doses between 0.1% and 0.2% had no repressive effect on germination performance. In fact, although not significant, in some cases germination was higher. In fact, low levels of ROS and their controlled accumulation positively affects germination, as it allows for increased activation of genes involved in water uptake ( Oğuz, Oğuz & Güler, 2023 ). Improving the abiotic stress tolerance at the seed germination stage represents an important agronomic trait that increases crop productivity and could be extremely useful in the recovery of marginal, degraded, and abandoned areas. Our results indicate that species priming treatment as well as the soil type significantly affect the soil tolerance index of the plants. The priming treatment indicated an increase of tolerance in A. millefolium and T. vulgaris in the presence of HM1 and HM2 soils with ∼0.2% significant increase of tolerance to heavy metals. In our case, these two aromatic species showed (in the presence of the EO priming) different tolerance indexes. Similarly, Kranner & Colville (2011) reported that Arabidospis thaliana (L.) Heynh., Bowiea volubilis Harv. ex Hook.f. , Eucomis autumnalis (Mill.) Chitt ., Merwilla natalensis (Planch.) Speta and Eruca sativa Mill., have a different tolerance to a wide range of soil metals and contaminants. In our data the EO2 treatment induced an increase of tolerance in HM1 and HM2 soils compared to the control (H 2 O) in A. millefolium and T. vulgaris . Under stress conditions due to heavy metals or salinity, the production of ROS is probably induced, causing the activation of oxidative stress pathways that include molecular, biochemical and morphological responses. High level of ROS can cause many physiological alterations including the germination and seedling development ( Oğuz, Oğuz & Güler, 2023 ). The seed germination is highly regulated by ROS. Indeed, ROS activate gene expression and hormone production ( i.e., auxin, gibberellin, ethylene) that are responsible for the chain of events that induce germination activation ( Bailly & Merendino, 2021 ). If ROS are too high, the oxidative damage occurs in cells causing an inhibition of germination; conversely, low ROS level has a positive effect in seed germination ( Bailly, 2019 ; Kurek, Plitta-Michalak & Ratajczak, 2019 ). As reported by Oguz et al. (2022) , phenolic compounds, plant extracts and EOs can have a biostimulant effect on seed, root and shoot. EOs are rich in organic compounds that have shown antioxidant activity protecting plant tissue from oxidative stress and hormone degradation (auxin) ( Amorati, Foti & Valgimigli, 2013 ; De Klerk et al., 2011 ). Basically, the organic compounds in the EO protect the plant from oxidative stress, keeping the ROS at a low level and reducing hormone unbalance, improving the plant’s physiological activities such as germination and seedling development ( De Klerk et al., 2011 ). Finally, we observed that under C substrate, only T. vulgaris showed a significant increase in Seedling Stress Tolerance Index at 0.2%, 0.4%, and 0.8% treatments compared to the untreated seeds (H 2 O). These results are likely related to the general low level of ROS and oxidative state associated with the priming solutions. Although sand itself does not represent a source of stress, however, the presence of LEO induced a positive effect. In this case, the organic compounds present in LEO can positively interact with the endogenous hormones, balancing their content and preventing auxin degradation ( Oğuz, Oğuz & Güler, 2023 ). All these events induce an increase in germination and tolerance index. The integration of LEO priming at low concentration (0.1–0.2%) improved germination performance, early seedling development and reduced seedling stress, in some species and soils; while higher doses showed inhibitory effects. This highlights a dose, soil, and species-dependent biostimulant potential rather than a consistent enhancement. This combined approach, on the same contaminated soils, strengthens the potential of already tolerant aromatic species by boosting their resilience under stress conditions with respect to unprimed seeds ( Piga et al., 2025 ). These findings support a sustainable strategy for recovery and valorization of marginal lands. Conclusions This study showed that seed priming with lavender essential oil (LEO) affects germination, growth and stress tolerance in three aromatic plants ( A. millefolium , O. basilicum , and T. vulgaris) , with species- and dose-dependent responses. Trials were conducted on four Sardinian soils: two potentially toxic elements (PTEs) polluted (HM1, HM2), one saline (Sal), and a sandy control (C). Low EO concentrations enhanced germination percentage (G), seedling vigor index (SVI), and fresh weight (FW) particularly in A. millefolium and T. vulgaris even in the presence of heavy metals and salinity, suggesting species-specific resilience and adaptability. Compared to the water control, EO priming at low concentrations also improved cumulative germination in A. millefolium and O. basilicum , leading to earlier and faster seedling emergence. In contrast, higher doses (≥0.4%) delayed or reduced cumulative germination compared to the water control. However, T. vulgaris maintained comparable or slightly improved performance across treatments. The Soil Stress Tolerance Index confirmed that EO priming—especially at 0.2%—increased the stress tolerance to PTEs-polluted soils in A. millefolium and T. vulgaris , while limited responsiveness to LEO was observed in O. basilicum across all soil types, suggesting its lower suitability in degraded environments. These results confirmed the potential of LEO as a natural priming agent to enhance seedling establishment under abiotic stresses induced by saline and PTEs soils, with potential applications to support their recovery through the cultivation of aromatic species for EO extraction. Further studies under open field conditions are needed to validate these findings and assess their effectiveness in land reclamation efforts. Supplemental Information Supplemental Information 1. Supplementary material on the materials and methods. LEO dilutions used in the experiments, biometric data and Formulas to calculate germination related variables. peerj-14-20717-s001.pdf (189.5KB, pdf) DOI: 10.7717/peerj.20717/supp-1 Supplemental Information 2. Raw germination data of the aromatic species. peerj-14-20717-s002.xlsx (38.8KB, xlsx) DOI: 10.7717/peerj.20717/supp-2 Acknowledgments We thank Michele Saba for his help in collecting the data. Funding Statement This study was carried out within the Agritech National Research Center and received funding from the European Union Next-GenerationEU (PIANO NAZIONALE DI RIPRESA E RESILIENZA (PNRR) – MISSIONE 4 COMPONENTE 2, INVESTIMENTO 1.4 – D.D. 1032 17/06/2022, CN00000022) and supported by Project RESTART FSC 2014-2020 (CUP D66C18000260002) and Project ATLANTIDE (CUPJ88D2000007000202) of the Autonomous Region of Sardinia (Italy), PROGETTI DI RICERCA INTERDISCIPLINARE - DM 737/2021RISORSE 2021-2022 “conoscenza e gestione sostenibile dei sistemi agricoli e forestali con il miglioramento sostenibile delle produzioni primarie: il caso dell’allevamento bovino in Sardegna. The funders had no role in study design, data collection and analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Additional Information and Declarations Competing Interests The authors declare there are no competing interests. Author Contributions Giovanni Kamal Piga conceived and designed the experiments, performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft. Marco Cossu analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft. Vittoria Giannini analyzed the data, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft. Laura Frabboni performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft. Grazia Disciglio performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft. Annalisa Tarantino performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft. Onofrio Marco Pistillo performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft. Angela Racioppo performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft. Matteo Garau performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft. Giovanni Garau performed the experiments, prepared figures and/or tables, and approved the final draft. Sara Melito conceived and designed the experiments, analyzed the data, prepared figures and/or tables, authored or reviewed drafts of the article, and approved the final draft. Data Availability The following information was supplied regarding data availability: The raw data is available in the Supplemental File . References Abrahim et al. (2000). Abrahim D, Braguini WL, Kelmer-Bracht AM, Ishii-Iwamoto EL. Effects of four monoterpenes on germination, primary root growth, and mitochondrial respiration of maize. Journal of Chemical Ecology. 2000;26(3):611–624. doi: 10.1023/A:1005467903297. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Abu-Darwish & Abu-Dieyeh (2009). Abu-Darwish MS, Abu-Dieyeh ZHM. Essential oil content and heavy metals composition of Thymus vulgaris cultivated in various climatic regions of Jordan. International Journal of Agriculture and Biology. 2009;11(1):59–63. [ Google Scholar ] Ahuja & Singh (2019). Ahuja K, Singh S. Essential oils market size by product (Orange oil, Lemon oil, Eucalyptus oil, Clove oil, Peppermint oil, Jasmine oil, Rosemary oil, Corn mint oil, Citronella oil, Geranium oil, Spearmint oil, Lavender oil, Tea tree oil) https://www.gminsights.com/industry-analysis/essential-oil-market . [10 July 2025];Application & forecast. 2019 :2023–2032. Aishwath & Lal (2016). Aishwath OP, Lal R. Resilience of spices, medicinal and aromatic plants with climate change induced abiotic stresses. Annals of Plant and Soil Research. 2016;18(2):91–109. [ Google Scholar ] Aljaafari et al. (2021). Aljaafari MN, AlAli AO, Baqais L, Alqubaisy M, AlAli M, Molouki A, Ong-Abdullah J, Abushelaibi Lai KS, Lim SHE. An overview of the potential therapeutic applications of essential oils. Molecules. 2021;26(3):628. doi: 10.3390/molecules26030628. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Amorati, Foti & Valgimigli (2013). Amorati R, Foti MC, Valgimigli L. Antioxidant activity of essential oils. Journal of Agricultural and Food Chemistry. 2013;61(46):10835–10847. doi: 10.1021/jf403496k. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Angelova et al. (2015). Angelova VR, Grekov DF, Kisyov VK, Ivanov KI. Potential of lavender (Lavandula vera L.) for phytoremediation of soils contaminated with heavy metals. International Journal of Agricultural and Biosystems Engineering. 2015;9(5):522–529. doi: 10.5281/zenodo.1105651. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Angelova & Ihtyarova (2023). Angelova V, Ihtyarova M. Heavy metal accumulation and chemical composition of the essential oils of yarrow (Achillea millefolium L.) cultivated on heavy metal-contaminated soils. Agricultural Sciences (Plovdiv) 2023;15(36):67–76. doi: 10.22620/agrisci.2023.36.006. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Bailly (2019). Bailly C. The signalling role of ROS in the regulation of seed germination and dormancy. Biochemical Journal. 2019;476(20):3019–3032. doi: 10.1042/BCJ20190159. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Bailly & Merendino (2021). Bailly C, Merendino L. Oxidative signalling in seed germination and early seedling growth: an emerging role for ROS trafficking and inter-organelle communication. Biochemical Journal. 2021;478(10):1977–1984. doi: 10.1042/BCJ20200934. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Bakkali et al. (2008). Bakkali F, Averbeck S, Averbeck D, Idaomar M. Biological effects of essential oils—a review. Food and Chemical Toxicology. 2008;46(2):446–475. doi: 10.1016/j.fct.2007.09.106. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ben-Jabeur et al. (2019). Ben-Jabeur M, Vicente R, López-Cristoffanini C, Alesami N, Djébali N, Gracia-Romero A, Serret MD, López-Carbonell M, Araus JL, Hamada W. A novel aspect of essential oils: coating seeds with thyme essential oil induces drought resistance in wheat. Plants. 2019;8(10):371. doi: 10.3390/plants8100371. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ben Saad et al. (2024). Ben Saad R, Ben Romdhane W, Wiszniewska A, Baazaoui N, Taieb Bouteraa M, Chouaibi Y, Alfaifi MY, Kačániová M, Čmiková N, Hsouna AB, Garzoli S. Rosmarinus officinalis L. essential oil enhances salt stress tolerance of durum wheat seedlings through ROS detoxification and stimulation of antioxidant defense. Protoplasma. 2024;261(6):1207–1220. doi: 10.1007/s00709-024-01965-8. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Beni et al. (2020). Beni C, Casorri L, Masciarelli E, Ficociello B, Masetti O, Neri U, Aromolo R, Rinaldi S, Papetti P, Cichelli A. Characterization of thyme and tansy extracts used as basic substances in zucchini crop protection. Journal of Agricultural Studies. 2020;8(4):95–110. doi: 10.5296/jas.v8i4.17314. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Chrysargyris et al. (2020). Chrysargyris A, Charalambous S, Xylia P, Litskas V, Stavrinides M, Tzortzakis N. Assessing the biostimulant effects of a novel plant-based formulation on tomato crop. Sustainability. 2020;12(20):8432. doi: 10.3390/su12208432. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Clevenger (1928). Clevenger JF. Apparatus for the determination of volatile oil. Journal of the American Pharmacists Association. 1928;17:345–349. doi: 10.1002/jps.3080170407. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Council of Europe (2023). Council of Europe Strasbourg: European Directorate for the Quality of Medicines & HealthCare (EDQM) https://www.edqm.eu/en/european-pharmacopoeia-ph.-eur.-11th-edition . [1 July 2025];European Pharmacopoeia (Ph. Eur.) (11th Edition). 2023 Dagar (2018). Dagar JC. Utilization of degraded saline habitats and poor-quality waters for livelihood security. Scholar Journal of Food and Nutrition. 2018;1(3):2018. doi: 10.32474/SJFN.2018.01.000115. SJFN. MS. ID, 115. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] De Klerk et al. (2011). De Klerk GJ, Guan H, Huisman P, Marinova S. Effects of phenolic compounds on adventitious root formation and oxidative decarboxylation of applied indoleacetic acid in Malus ‘Jork 9’. Plant Growth Regulation. 2011;63(2):175–185. doi: 10.1007/s10725-010-9555-9. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Devika et al. (2021). Devika OS, Singh S, Sarkar D, Barnwal P, Suman J, Rakshit A. Seed priming: a potential supplement in integrated resource management under fragile intensive ecosystems. Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems. 2021;5:654001. doi: 10.3389/fsufs.2021.654001. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Ella, Dionisio-Sese & Ismail (2011). Ella ES, Dionisio-Sese ML, Ismail AM. Seed pre-treatment in rice reduces damage, enhances carbohydrate mobilization and improves emergence and seedling establishment under flooded conditions. AoB Plants. 2011;2011:plr007. doi: 10.1093/aobpla/plr007. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] FAO (2019). FAO . Medicinal and aromatic plants: summary of the 18th session of the intergovernmental group on hard fibres and medicinal plants. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; Rome: 2019. [ Google Scholar ] FAO (2021). FAO Soil salinization as a global major challenge. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations https://www.fao.org/global-soil-partnership/resources/highlights/detail/en/c/1412475/ [23 August 2025];ITPS Soil Letter #3. 2021 Figueiredo & Barroso (2015). Figueiredo AC, Barroso JG. Medicinal and Aromatic Plants (MAP): How do they adapt to the environment? In: Máthé Á, editor. Medicinal and aromatic plants of the world: scientific, production, commercial and utilization aspects. Springer; Dordrecht, Berlin: 2015. pp. 89–107. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Galhaut et al. (2014). Galhaut L, de Lespinay A, Walker DJ, Bernal MP, Correal E, Lutts S. Seed priming of Trifolium repens L. improved germination and early seedling growth on heavy metal-contaminated soil. Water, Air, & Soil Pollution. 2014;225(4):1905. doi: 10.1007/s11270-014-1905-1. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Garau et al. (2023). Garau M, Castaldi P, Pinna MV, Diquattro S, Cesarani A, Mangia NP, Vasileiadis S, Garau G. Sustainable restoration of soil functionality in PTE-affected environments: biochar impact on soil chemistry, microbiology, biochemistry, and plant growth. Soil Systems. 2023;7(4):96. doi: 10.3390/soilsystems7040096. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Garau et al. (2024). Garau M, Pinna MV, Nieddu M, Castaldi P, Garau G. Mixing compost and biochar can enhance the chemical and biological recovery of soils contaminated by potentially toxic elements. Plants. 2024;13(2):284. doi: 10.3390/plants13020284. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Giannini et al. (2022). Giannini V, Harris JR, Todde P, McElroy JS. Concurrent weed growth suppression with essential oils and species-specific response to fractionated coconut oil. Industrial Crops and Products. 2022;182:114850. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2022.114850. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Gupta et al. (2021). Gupta AK, Tomar JMS, Kaushal R, Kadam DM, Rathore AC, Mehta H, Ojasvi PR. Aromatic plants based environmental sustainability with special reference to degraded land management. Journal of Applied Research on Medicinal and Aromatic Plants. 2021;22:100298. doi: 10.1016/j.jarmap.2021.100298. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Hou et al. (2025). Hou D, Jia X, Wang L, McGrath SP, Zhu YG, Hu Q, Zhao FJ, Bank MS, O’Connor D, Nriagu J. Global soil pollution by toxic metals threatens agriculture and human health. Science. 2025;379:316–321. doi: 10.1126/science.adr5214. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Ibáñez & Blázquez (2019). Ibáñez MD, Blázquez MA. Phytotoxic effects of commercial Eucalyptus citriodora, Lavandula angustifolia, and Pinus sylvestris essential oils on weeds, crops, and invasive species. Molecules. 2019;24(15):2847. doi: 10.3390/molecules24152847. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Jisha, Bauddh & Shukla (2017). Jisha CK, Bauddh K, Shukla SK. Phytoremediation potential of bioenergy plants. Springer; Singapore: 2017. Phytoremediation and bioenergy production efficiency of medicinal and aromatic plants; pp. 287–304. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Jisha, Vijayakumari & Puthur (2013). Jisha KC, Vijayakumari K, Puthur JT. Seed priming for abiotic stress tolerance: an overview. Acta Physiologiae Plantarum. 2013;35:1381–1396. doi: 10.1007/s11738-012-1186-5. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Kesraoui et al. (2022). Kesraoui S, Andrés MF, Berrocal-Lobo M, Soudani S, Gonzalez-Coloma A. Direct and indirect effects of essential oils for sustainable crop protection. Plants. 2022;11(16):2144. doi: 10.3390/plants11162144. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Khan et al. (2022). Khan MO, Irfan M, Muhammad A, Ullah I, Nawaz S, Khalil MK, Ahmad M. A practical and economical strategy to mitigate salinity stress through seed priming. Frontiers in Environmental Science. 2022;10:991997. doi: 10.3389/fenvs.2022.991977. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Kisiriko et al. (2021). Kisiriko M, Anastasiadi M, Terry LA, Yasri A, Beale MH, Ward JL. Phenolics from medicinal and aromatic plants: characterisation and potential as biostimulants and bioprotectants. Molecules. 2021;26(21):6343. doi: 10.3390/molecules26216343. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Konstantinović et al. (2022). Konstantinović B, Popov M, Samardžić N, Aćimović M, Šućur Elez J, Stojanović T, Crnković M, Rajković M. The effect of Thymus vulgaris L. hydrolate solutions on the seed germination, seedling length, and oxidative stress of some cultivated and weed species. Plants. 2022;11(13):1782. doi: 10.3390/plants11131782. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Kranner & Colville (2011). Kranner I, Colville L. Metals and seeds: biochemical and molecular implications and their significance for seed germination. Environmental and Experimental Botany. 2011;72(1):93–105. doi: 10.1016/j.envexpbot.2010.05.005. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Kumar, Malik & Atri (2021). Kumar J, Malik NA, Atri NS. Medicinal and aromatic plants: healthcare industry applications. Springer; Cham: 2021. Aromatic and medicinal plants for phytoremediation: a sustainable approach; pp. 485–543. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Kurek, Plitta-Michalak & Ratajczak (2019). Kurek K, Plitta-Michalak B, Ratajczak E. Reactive oxygen species as potential drivers of the seed aging process. Plants. 2019;8(6):174. doi: 10.3390/plants8060174. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Licata et al. (2022). Licata M, Maggio AM, La Bella S, Tuttolomondo T. Medicinal and aromatic plants in agricultural research, when considering criteria of multifunctionality and sustainability. Agriculture. 2022;12(4):529. doi: 10.3390/agriculture12040529. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Lutts et al. (2016). Lutts S, Benincasa P, Wojtyla Ł, Kubala S, Pace R, Lechowska K, Quinet M, Garnczarska M. Seed Priming: New Comprehensive Approaches for an Old Empirical Technique. New Challenges in Seed Biology-Basic and Translational Research Driving Seed Technology. 2016;46.10.5772:64420 doi: 10.5772/64420. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Maffei, Mithöfer & Boland (2007). Maffei ME, Mithöfer A, Boland W. Before gene expression: early events in plant–insect interaction. Trends in Plant Science. 2007;12(7):310–316. doi: 10.1016/j.tplants.2007.06.001. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Mali et al. (2024). Mali M, Alfio MR, Balacco G, Ranieri G, Specchio V, Fidelibus MD. Mobility of trace elements in a coastal contaminated site under groundwater salinization dynamics. Scientific Reports. 2024;14:24859. doi: 10.1038/s41598-024-75974-1. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Munns & Tester (2008). Munns R, Tester M. Mechanisms of salinity tolerance. Annual Review of Plant Biology. 2008;59(1):651–681. doi: 10.1146/annurev.arplant.59.032607.092911. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Niu & Rodriguez (2006). Niu G, Rodriguez DS. Relative salt tolerance of five herbaceous perennials. HortScience. 2006;41(6):1493–1497. doi: 10.21273/HORTSCI.41.6.1493. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Oguz et al. (2022). Oguz MC, Aycan M, Oguz E, Poyraz I, Yildiz M. Drought stress tolerance in plants: interplay of molecular, biochemical and physiological responses in important development stages. Physiologia. 2022;2(4):180–197. doi: 10.3390/physiologia2040015. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Oğuz, Oğuz & Güler (2023). Oğuz MÇ, Oğuz E, Güler M. Seed priming with essential oils for sustainable wheat agriculture in semi-arid region. PeerJ. 2023;11:e15126. doi: 10.7717/peerj.15126. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Pandey, Verma & Singh (2019). Pandey J, Verma RK, Singh S. Suitability of aromatic plants for phytoremediation of heavy metal contaminated areas: a review. International Journal of Phytoremediation. 2019;21(5):405–418. doi: 10.1080/15226514.2018.1540546. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Paparella et al. (2015). Paparella S, Araújo SS, Rossi G, Wijayasinghe MALA, Carbonera D, Balestrazzi A. Seed priming: state of the art and new perspectives. Plant Cell Reports. 2015;34:1281–1293. doi: 10.1007/s00299-015-1784-y. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Piga et al. (2025). Piga GK, Cossu M, Garau G, Garau M, Melito S. Germination and seedling development of selected Mediterranean aromatic plants in heavy metal contaminated soils: a preliminary study for the recovery of mining sites in Sardinia. Italian Journal of Agronomy. 2025;20(2):100041. doi: 10.1016/j.ijagro.2025.100041. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Poschenrieder et al. (2012). Poschenrieder C, Llugany M, Lombini A, Dinelli E, Bech J, Barceló J. Smilax aspera L. an evergreen Mediterranean climber for phytoremediation. Journal of Geochemical Exploration. 2012;123:41–44. doi: 10.1016/j.gexplo.2012.07.012. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Pradhan et al. (2017). Pradhan J, Sahoo SK, Lalotra S, Sarma RS. Positive impact of abiotic stress on medicinal and aromatic plants. International Journal of Plant Sciences. 2017;12(2):309–313. doi: 10.15740/HAS/IJPS/12.2/309-313. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Prajapati, Kataria & Jain (2020). Prajapati R, Kataria S, Jain M. Seed priming for alleviation of heavy metal toxicity in plants: an overview. Plant Science Today. 2020;7(3):308–313. doi: 10.14719/pst.2020.7.3.751. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Rahimi, Bidarnamani & Shabanipoor (2015). Rahimi M, Bidarnamani F, Shabanipoor M. Effects of allelopathic three medicinal plants on germination and seeding growth of Portulaca oleracea. http://researchtrend.net/bf12/239%20F . [23 August 2025];Forum. 2015 7:1520–1523. [ Google Scholar ] Rahimi et al. (2013). Rahimi AR, Mousavizadeh SJ, Mohammadi H, Rokhzadi A. Allelopathic effect of some essential oils on seed germination of Lathyrus annuus and Vicia villosa. Journal of Biodiversity and Environmental Sciences. 2013;3(4):67–73. [ Google Scholar ] Roy et al. (2022). Roy S, Gupta SK, Prakash J, Habib G, Kumar P. A global perspective of the current state of heavy metal contamination in road dust. Environmental Science and Pollution Research. 2022;29(22):33230–33251. doi: 10.1007/s11356-022-18583-7. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Schippmann, Leaman & Cunningham (2006). Schippmann U, Leaman DJ, Cunningham AB. A comparison of cultivation and wild collection of medicinal and aromatic plants under sustainability aspects. Bundesamt für Naturschutz (BfN-Skripten 146); Bonn, Germany: 2006. [ Google Scholar ] Silvetti et al. (2014). Silvetti M, Castaldi P, Holm PE, Deiana S, Lombi E. Leachability, bioaccessibility and plant availability of trace elements in contaminated soils treated with industrial by-products and subjected to oxidative/reductive conditions. Geoderma. 2014;214:204–212. doi: 10.1016/j.geoderma.2013.09.010. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Singh et al. (2002). Singh HP, Batish DR, Kaur S, Ramezani H, Kohli RK. Comparative phytotoxicity of four monoterpenes against Cassia occidentalis. Annals of Applied Biology. 2002;141(2):111–116. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-7348.2002.tb00202.x. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Soudani et al. (2022). Soudani S, Poza-Carrión C, De la Cruz Gómez N, González-Coloma A, Andrés MF, Berrocal-Lobo M. Essential oils prime epigenetic and metabolomic changes in tomato defense against Fusarium oxysporum. Frontiers in Plant Science. 2022;13:804104. doi: 10.3389/fpls.2022.804104. [ DOI ] [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Souri & Bakhtiarizade (2019). Souri MK, Bakhtiarizade M. Biostimulation effects of rosemary essential oil on growth and nutrient uptake of tomato seedlings. Scientia Horticulturae. 2019;243:472–476. doi: 10.1016/j.scienta.2018.08.056. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Tanhaeian, Sekhavati & Moghaddam (2020). Tanhaeian A, Sekhavati MH, Moghaddam M. Antimicrobial activity of some plant essential oils and an antimicrobial-peptide against some clinically isolated pathogens. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture. 2020;7:13. doi: 10.1186/s40538-020-00181-9. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Terzić et al. (2023). Terzić D, Tabaković M, Oro V, Poštić D, Štrbanović R, Filipović V, Stanisavljević R. Impact of essential oils on seed quality and seed-borne pathogens of Althea officinalis seeds of different ages. Chemical and Biological Technologies in Agriculture. 2023;10(1):33. doi: 10.1186/s40538-023-00405-8. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Tóth et al. (2016). Tóth G, Hermann T, Da Silva MR, Montanarella L. Heavy metals in agricultural soils of the European Union with implications for food safety. Environment International. 2016;88:299–309. doi: 10.1016/j.envint.2015.12.017. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Van Den Dool & Kratz (1963). Van Den Dool H, Kratz PD. A generalization of the retention index system including linear temperature programmed gas-liquid partition chromatography. Journal of Chromatography. 1963;11:463–471. doi: 10.1016/S0021-9673(01)80947-X. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Vora et al. (2024). Vora LK, Gholap AD, Hatvate NT, Naren P, Khan S, Chavda VP, Balar PC, Gandhi J, Khatri DK. Essential oils for clinical aromatherapy: a comprehensive review. Journal of Ethnopharmacology. 2024;330:118180. doi: 10.1016/j.jep.2024.118180. [ DOI ] [ PubMed ] [ Google Scholar ] Xie et al. (2017). Xie Y, Wang Z, Huang Q, Zhang D. Antifungal activity of several essential oils and major components against wood-rot fungi. Industrial Crops and Products. 2017;108:278–285. doi: 10.1016/j.indcrop.2017.06.041. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Yadav, Verma & Singh (2023). Yadav P, Verma RK, Singh S. Review and future prospects on the impact of abiotic stresses and tolerance strategies in medicinal and aromatic plants. Environmental and Experimental Biology. 2023;21(4):233–249. doi: 10.1007/s40415-024-01004-z. [ DOI ] [ Google Scholar ] Associated Data This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article. Supplementary Materials Supplemental Information 1. Supplementary material on the materials and methods. LEO dilutions used in the experiments, biometric data and Formulas to calculate germination related variables. peerj-14-20717-s001.pdf (189.5KB, pdf) DOI: 10.7717/peerj.20717/supp-1 Supplemental Information 2. Raw germination data of the aromatic species. peerj-14-20717-s002.xlsx (38.8KB, xlsx) DOI: 10.7717/peerj.20717/supp-2 Data Availability Statement The following information was supplied regarding data availability: The raw data is available in the Supplemental File . Articles from PeerJ are provided here courtesy of PeerJ, Inc ACTIONS View on publisher site PDF (3.2 MB) Cite Collections Permalink PERMALINK Copy RESOURCES Similar articles Cited by other articles Links to NCBI Databases Cite Copy Download .nbib .nbib Format: AMA APA MLA NLM Add to Collections Create a new collection Add to an existing collection Name your collection * Choose a collection Unable to load your collection due to an error Please try again Add Cancel Follow NCBI NCBI on X (formerly known as Twitter) NCBI on Facebook NCBI on LinkedIn NCBI on GitHub NCBI RSS feed Connect with NLM NLM on X (formerly known as Twitter) NLM on Facebook NLM on YouTube National Library of Medicine 8600 Rockville Pike Bethesda, MD 20894 Web Policies FOIA HHS Vulnerability Disclosure Help Accessibility Careers NLM NIH HHS USA.gov Back to Top