## 2 Results
### Effectiveness of EOs in Post-Emergence Conditions
cembra_ provoked moderate and lasting to heavy symptoms (\(\geq\)86.7% damaged seedlings, \(\geq\)76.7% damaged leaves, \(\geq\)59.1% damaged leaf surface). \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Rating**} & **Target Species** & **Description** \\  & **Respenses/Injury** & \\ \hline
0 & 0 & no symptoms \\
1 & 1–10 & very slight symptoms \\
2 & 11–20 & more severe, but not lasting symptoms \\
3 & 21–30 & moderate and more lasting symptoms \\
4 & 31–40 & medium and lasting symptoms \\
5 & 41–50 & moderately heavy symptoms \\
6 & 51–60 & heavy symptoms \\
7 & 61–70 & very heavy symptoms \\
8 & 71–80 & nearly destroyed leaves/seedlings \\
9 & 81–90 & destroyed leaves/seedlings \\
10 & 91–100 & completely destroyed leaves/seedlings \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 6: Visual phytotoxicity rating scale. \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline \multirow{2}{*}{**Target Species**} & **EO** & **Damaged** & **Damaged** & **Damaged Leaf** & **Phytotoxicity** \\  & **(\(\mu\)L/mL)** & **Seedlings (\%)** & **Leaves (\%)** & **Surface (\%)** & **(0–10)** \\ \hline \hline \multirow{8}{*}{_L. multiform_} & 0 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a \\  & 10 & 28.9 \(\pm\) 6.5 b & 18.9 \(\pm\) 3.5 b & 13.3 \(\pm\) 4.7 b & 1 \(\pm\) 0.4 b \\  & 20 & 46.7 \(\pm\) 6.6 c & 41.1 \(\pm\) 5.1 c & 24.8 \(\pm\) 4.1 c & 2 \(\pm\) 0.9 c \\  & 50 & 86.7 \(\pm\) 8.0 d & 76.7 \(\pm\) 9.0 d & 59.1 \(\pm\) 6.7 d & 3 \(\pm\) 1.3 c \\  & 100 & 100.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 e & 91.0 \(\pm\) 5.1 e & 66.1 \(\pm\) 12.7 d & 6 \(\pm\) 1.8 d \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(p\)-value & 0.000 * & 0.000 * & 0.000 * & 0.000 * \\ \hline \hline \multirow{8}{*}{_S. alba_} & 0 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a \\  & 10 & 28.9 \(\pm\) 5.4 b & 21.1 \(\pm\) 5.7 b & 18.5 \(\pm\) 6.2 b & 2 \(\pm\) 0.7 b \\  & 20 & 55.6 \(\pm\) 5.8 c & 54.4 \(\pm\) 7.5 c & 30.5 \(\pm\) 4.0 c & 3 \(\pm\) 0.5 b \\  & 50 & 100.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 d & 83.3 \(\pm\) 4.8 d & 52.0 \(\pm\) 6.8 d & 5 \(\pm\) 1.1 c \\  & 100 & 100.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 d & 97.0 \(\pm\) 5.8 e & 70.6 \(\pm\) 12.7 e & 7 \(\pm\) 1.6 d \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(p\)-value & 0.000 * & 0.000 * & 0.000 * & 0.000 * \\ \hline \hline \multirow{8}{*}{_L. multiform_} & 0 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a \\  & 10 & 20.0 \(\pm\) 4.1 b & 18.9 \(\pm\) 2.9 b & 14.9 \(\pm\) 3.5 b & 1 \(\pm\) 0.0 b \\  & 20 & 55.6 \(\pm\) 7.8 c & 41.1 \(\pm\) 6.9 c & 32.7 \(\pm\) 8.9 c & 3 \(\pm\) 1.0 c \\  & 50 & 100.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 d & 86.7 \(\pm\) 0.0 d & 58.8 \(\pm\) 9.8 d & 5 \(\pm\) 2.2 d \\  & 100 & 100.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 e & 100.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 e & 80.7 \(\pm\) 12.8 e & 8 \(\pm\) 1.1 e \\ \cline{2-6}  & \(p\)-value & 0.000 * & 0.000 * & 0.000 * & 0.000 * \\ \hline \multirow{8}{*}{_S. alba_} & 0 & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a & 0 \(\pm\) 0.0 a \\  & 10 & 26.7 \(\pm\) 7.0 b & 20.0 \(\pm\) 6.1 b & 18.6 \(\pm\) 5.6 b & 2 \(\pm\) 1.0 b \\ \cline{1-1}  & 20 & 57.7 \(\pm\) 8.5 c & 47.7 \(\pm\) 5.5 c & 39.5 \(\pm\) 9.5 c & 4 \(\pm\) 1.0 c \\ \cline{1-1}  & 50 & 75.5 \(\pm\) 6.7 d & 71.1 \(\pm\) 9.3 d & 60.5 \(\pm\) 8.4 d & 7 \(\pm\) 12.2 d \\ \cline{1-1}  & 100 & 100.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 e & 100.0 \(\pm\) 0.0 e & 86.3 \(\pm\) 8.8 e & 9 \(\pm\) 0.9 e \\ \cline{1-1} \cline{2-6}  & \(p\)-value & 0.000 * & 0.000 * & 0.000 * & 0.000 * \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 5: \(Cont.\)S. alba was found to be even more susceptible than L. multiforum to the action of EOs. At 50 and 100 \(\mu\)L/mL, A. alba destroyed its seedlings (100%), starting to hit them heavily at 20 \(\mu\)L/mL (69.4% damaged seedlings, 60.5% damaged leaves, 52.2% damaged leaf surface). At the highest concentration, P. mugo caused similar symptoms affecting 100% of seedlings and their leaves with more than 80% of the surface damaged. At 20 and 50 \(\mu\)L/mL, it caused medium and lasting to very heavy symptoms injuring 57.7-75.5% of seedlings.