Preview

Safety of Technogenic and Natural Systems

Advanced search

Assessment of the Potential Risk of Poisonous Plants in Rostov-on-Don

https://doi.org/10.23947/2541-9129-2025-9-2-102-111

EDN: IJSTIP

Contents

Scroll to:

Abstract

Introduction. The flora of most urban areas has received scant attention regarding toxicity, resulting in the potential for humans and animals to encounter poisonous plants. Furthermore, there is an influx of new potentially hazardous species into populated areas. It is evident that there are two primary mechanisms through which their propagation occurs. The first of these is natural population increase. The second is the introduction of ornamental species in landscape projects. The presence of poisonous plants in urban areas is frequently identified solely on the basis of symptoms including poisoning, dermal and eye burns. Children are the most vulnerable in this regard. The situation in Russia has been examined using the example of several urban ecosystems; however, the distribution of toxic flora in Rostov-on-Don remains unstudied. The aim of this research is to evaluate the potential hazard posed by poisonous plants in Rostov-on-Don.

Materials and Methods. The research focused on species of poisonous vascular plants growing within the city limits of Rostov-on-Don. The data was collected during fieldwork in 2023–2024 using the route method. Information on the presence of poisonous plants on the territory of the city in 2007–2022 was also taken into account. The names of the plant species are given according to the Plant List database. The toxicity class was determined according to the A. Filmer scale.

Results. In the urban context of Rostov-on-Don, a total of 66 species of poisonous plants were identified (8% of the city's total floral biodiversity). They belonged to diverse hazard categories according to their potential impact on human and animal health. A thorough analysis of taxonomic structure of the toxic flora revealed the most prominent orders: Ranunculales (14 species) and Solanales (6 species). The potentially lethal plants within the city limits included Hyoscyamus niger, Conium maculatum, Aristolochia clematitis, Convallaria majalis, Ricinus communis, and others (21 species). The ecological and cenotic analysis demonstrated that almost one third of the detected toxic plant species (30%) were associated with ruderal habitats, i.e. roadsides and abandoned areas. The majority of species (41%) were found to be associated with artificial phytocenoses that were created for ornamentation. Of particular concern were plants bearing poisonous fruits of high ornamental value. This group comprised 14 species, including Parthenocissus sp., Phytolacca americana, and Wisteria sinensis. A biomorphological analysis of the toxic flora revealed the predominance of perennial and annual grasses (66%). Shrubbery, conversely, exhibited a lower level of diversity (16%), yet demonstrated a more extensive geographical distribution.

Discussion and Conclusions. This is the first study to assess the potential threat posed by poisonous plants in urban ecosystems within the southern Russian region. The identification of toxic plant species, their role in the urban landscape and ways of their further development will help to minimize poisoning by poisonous plants. Uncontrollably spreading ruderal toxic plants, among which particularly dangerous species have been found, require special attention. During landscaping and green construction, the toxicity of each specimen should be taken into account.

For citations:


Sereda M.M. Assessment of the Potential Risk of Poisonous Plants in Rostov-on-Don. Safety of Technogenic and Natural Systems. 2025;(2):102-111. https://doi.org/10.23947/2541-9129-2025-9-2-102-111. EDN: IJSTIP

Introduction. Poisonous plants in urban environments pose a threat to humans and animals. Incidents of poisoning by weeds, wild plants, as well as those used in landscape design have been reported. In Germany, for example, between 2001 and 2010, approximately 13,000 incidents were recorded, with children accounting for 85% of victims [1]. According to the American Association of Poison Control Centers, from 2000 to 2008, plants were responsible for 3.4% of all poisonings in the United States, and children under the age of six accounted for almost 70% of cases [2]. The analysis of various Poison Control Centers in Australia, Germany [3], Morocco [4], New Zealand [5], Thailand [6], and the United Kingdom found that plant exposure was the cause of 1.8–8% of all referrals [7]. In most cases, significant
intoxication was not recorded, but there were reports of severe and life-threatening poisoning. The risk of poisoning in urban areas remains high. A study of the urban flora in Hong Kong revealed 26 species of poisonous plants, which were associated with 65 cases of poisoning ranging in severity from 2003 to 2017 [8]. The flora in Novi Sad (Serbia) included 22 species of poisonous plants, and the authors [9] noted their dangerous proximity to children's institutions.

Poisonous plants are those that, when touched or ingested, can cause harm or even death. They also include plants that may cause a toxic or fatal reaction [10].

Poisonous plants are related to allergenic plants, which have been previously studied in Rostov-on-Don [11]. While allergenic plants can cause allergies, poisonous ones can be much more dangerous.

According to statistics, more than 15,000 cases of poisoning from poisonous plants are reported annually in Russia. Typically, plant toxins affect the body through the digestive system, eyes, and skin. Of these cases, 80% involve children under the age of six [12].

The analysis of literary sources has revealed a lack of knowledge about the distribution and species composition of poisonous plants in cities of the Russian Federation. The most comprehensive information is available for Saratov. The authors [13] mention 46 species of poisonous plants from 29 families found within the city. Poisonous flora of Voronezh, Buinaksk, and Makhachkala has also been studied insufficiently and separately [14].

Poisonous plants in Rostov-on-Don have not been studied specifically. There is little information available about the Lower Don region [15].

The aim of the presented work was to assess the potential threat posed by poisonous plants growing in Rostov-on-Don.

Materials and Methods. The species of poisonous vascular plants in Rostov-on-Don were studied. The primary data was collected by the route method during field work in 2023–2024.

The toxicity class of plants was determined in accordance with the modified classification proposed by A. Filmer [16].

– A — strong toxic effect, may cause serious illness or death;

– B — minor toxic effect, vomiting or diarrhea occurs if the plant is swallowed;

– C — effect is caused by oxalate crystals (irritation of the mouth, tongue and throat, can lead to swelling of the throat, difficulty breathing, burning pain and upset stomach);

– D — juice or thorns can cause skin rash or irritation.

Rostov-on-Don has a temperate continental climate with mild winters and hot, dry summers. According to long-term weather observations, the average air temperature is +11.0°C. January is the coldest month with an average temperature of –2.0°C, and July is the warmest month with an average of +23.4°C. The annual average precipitation in Rostov-on-Don is 618 millimeters. The surrounding vegetation is mainly steppe [17].

Results. As a result of research in Rostov-on-Don, 66 species of poisonous vascular plants belonging to 23 orders of flowering plants have been identified. According to D.V. Vakhnenko [18], the entire flora of the Rostov urban agglomeration consisted of 848 species. Thus, the share of registered toxic flora species was about 8% of the total number of species of the Rostov flora.

The order Ranunculales was found to be the largest, with 14 toxic plant species (21%). The order Solanaceae included 6 species (9%). The Asparagales order was in third place (5 species, 8%). The remaining 20 orders were relatively small and included from 1 to 4 species.

According to Ya.M. Golovanov [19], 67 species of poisonous plants were found in the flora of the city of Meleuz (Bashkortostan), which was close to the Rostov number.

For comparison, the flora of poisonous plants in Saratov was 30% smaller than in Rostov. It had 46 species [13]. Obviously, the greater diversity was due to the Rostov climate, which was more favorable for plants such as Hedera helix, Toxicodendron radicans, Wisteria sinensis, etc. They were often used in landscape design.

The studied toxic flora included various families, some of which were not typical for this region (Phytolaccaceae, Anacardiaceae, Hydrangeaceae). Most of the poisonous plants belonged to the Ranunculaceae and Solanaceae families, which was expected, as representatives of these families were generally toxic to varying degrees. Most of the poisonous plants in Rostov-on-Don were represented by 1–2 species. The intraspecific diversity of the toxic flora was very heterogeneous, since cultural forms also belonged to poisonous ones. Ornamental crops such as Hosta, Hydrangea, and Paeonia had a significant number of varieties, but all of them contained certain toxic substances.

Table 1 provides a complete list of poisonous plants found in Rostov-on-Don.

Table 1

Poisonous plants growing in Rostov-on-Don

Name

Order

Biotope¹

Localization²

LF³

Toxicity

Class

Substance

Hosta sp.

Asparagales

Fg

Everywhere

P

B, D

Saponin

Adonis aestivalis

Ranunculales

Rh

Everywhere

A

A

Cardiac glycosides

Alstroemeria aurea

Liliales

Fg

Everywhere

P

B, D

Glycoside

Ambrosia artemisiifolia

Asterales

Rh

Everywhere, seeds

A

B

Allergenic proteins

Amorpha fruticosa

Fabales

Ud

Seeds

S

B

Glycoside amorphin

Anemonoides sylvestris

Ranunculales

Fg

Aerial parts of plants

P

A

Anemonin

Aquilegia vulgaris

Ranunculales

Fg

Everywhere

P

A

Cyanide

Aristolochia clematitis

Piperales

Rh

Everywhere

P

A

Alkaloid aristolokhin

Bryonia alba

Cucurbitales

Rh, Ud

Everywhere, especially fruits

P

A, B

Bryonin glycoside

Buxus sempervirens

Buxales

Ud, Ra

Everywhere

S

B, D

Alkaloids

Cannabis sativa

Rosales

Rh

Everywhere

A

B

Cannabinoids

Catharanthus roseus

Gentianales

Fg

Everywhere

A

B

Alkaloids

Chelidonium majus

Ranunculales

Rh

Everywhere, especially roots

P

B, D

Alkaloids

Clematis sp.

Ranunculales

Ra

Everywhere

L

D

Alkaloid clematin, anemonol

Colchicum autumnale

Liliales

Fg

Bulbs

P

B, D

Colchicine alkaloids

Coleus scutellarioides

Lamiales

Fg

Everywhere

P

B, D

Diterpene coleonol

Conium maculatum

Apiales

Rh

Everywhere

B

A

Alkaloid coniine, conhydrin, pseudoconhydrin

Consolida regalis

Ranunculales

Rh

Everywhere, especially seeds

A

A

Triterpene alkaloids

Convallaria majalis

Asparagales

Fg, Ud

Everywhere

P

A

Saponin convallin and cardiac glycosides (convallamarin, convallatoxin, etc.)

Convolvulus arvensis

Solanales

Rh

Everywhere

A

B

Alkaloids: convolvin, convolamine

Delphinium ajacis

Ranunculales

Rh, Fg

Everywhere, especially seeds

A

A

Triterpene alkaloids

Cynoglossum officinale

Boraginales

Rh

Everywhere

P

A

Glycoside cynoglossin

Datura stramonium

Solanales

Fg

Everywhere

A

A

Alkaloid atropine, hyoscyamine, scopolamine

Delphinium elatum

Ranunculales

Fg

Aerial parts of plants

P

A

Triterpene alkaloids

Digitalis purpurea

Lamiales

Fg

Everywhere

P

A

Cardiac glycosides

Echium vulgare

Boraginales

Rh

Everywhere

P

B, D

Glycoside cynoglossin, consolidin

Ranunculus ficaria

Ranunculales

Fg, Rh

Everywhere

P

A

Protoanemonin, prussic acid

Glaucium corniculatum

Ranunculales

Rh

Everywhere

A

B

Alkaloid protopine

Hedera helix

Apiales

Ra

Everywhere

L

B, D

Saponin gederin

Heliotropium arborescens

Boraginales

Fg

Aerial parts of plants

P

A

Glycoside cynoglossin

Hemerocallis fulva

Asparagales

Fg

Everywhere

P

B

Glycoalkaloid

Hyacinthus orientalis

Asparagales

Fg

Bulbs

P

B, D

Oxalates

Hydrangea macrophylla

Cornales

Fg

Everywhere

P

B

Cyanogenic glycosides

Hyoscyamus niger

Solanales

Rh

Everywhere

P

A

Alkaloid atropine, hyoscyamine, scopolamine

Ipomoea purpurea

Solanales

Fg

Seeds

A

B

Ergine alkaloid

Juniperus virginiana

Pinales

Ud, Ra

Aerial parts of plants, seeds

S

B, D

Alcohol sabinol

Juniperus foetidissima

Pinales

Ud, Ra

Aerial parts of plants, seeds

S

B, D

Alcohol sabinol

Lactuca serriola

Asterales

Rh

Everywhere, in senile period

A

B

Lacturaria resin

Lactuca tatarica

Asterales

Rh

Everywhere

P

B

Coumarin

Ligustrum vulgare

Lamiales

Ud, Ra

Aerial parts of plants, fruits

S

B

Ligustrin glycoside

Lonicera caprifolium

Dipsacales

Ud, Ra

Fruits

S

B, D

Xylostein glycoside

Maclura pomifera

Rosales

Ra

Fruits

T

C, D

Glycosides

Narcissus poeticus

Asparagales

Fg

Everywhere

P

B

Alkaloid lycorin

Paeonia lactiflora

Saxifragales

Fg

Everywhere

P

B

Glycoside salicin, alkaloids

Papaver rhoeas

Ranunculales

Fg

Everywhere

A

A

Alkaloids

Papaver somniferum

Ranunculales

Rh

Everywhere

A

A

Alkaloids

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

Vitales

Ra

Fruits

L

B

Oxalic acid

Parthenocissus tricuspidata

Vitales

Ra, Ud

Fruits

L

B

Oxalic acid

Pelargonium zonale

Geraniales

Fg

Everywhere

P

B, D

Alcohol geraniol, linaliol

Phytolacca americana

Caryophyllales

Ra

Everywhere, especially fruits

S

B

Glycoprotein, saponin, phytolaccotoxin alkaloid

Ranunculus repens

Ranunculales

Fg

Everywhere

P

A

Protoanemonin, prussic acid

Ranunculus sceleratus

Ranunculales

Fg

Everywhere

P

A

Protoanemonin, prussic acid

Rhus typhina

Sapindales

Ra, Ud

Aerial parts of plants

T

D

Urushiol

Ricinus communis

Malpighiáles

Fg

Everywhere, especially fruits

A

A

Ricin, ricinine

Ruta graveolens

Sapindales

Fg

Aerial parts of plants

S

B, D

Alkaloids

Sambucus nigra

Dipsacales

Ra, Ud

Everywhere, especially unripe fruits

S

B

Glycoside d-amygdalin

Sedum sp

Saxifragales

Fg

Everywhere

P

B, D

Alkaloid sedamine

Jacobaea vulgaris

Asterales

Rh

Everywhere

Дв

B

Alkaloid yakonin

Solanum dulcamara

Solanales

Rh

Everywhere

P

B

Alkaloid solanine

Solanum nigrum

Solanales

Rh

Unripe fruits

P

B

Alkaloid solanine

Styphnolobium japonicum

Fabales

Ra, Ud

Fruits

B

B

Alkaloid cytisine

Symphoricarpos albus

Dipsacales

Ra, Ud

Fruits

S

B

Alkaloid chelidonin

Toxicodendron radicans

Sapindales

Ra

Aerial parts of plants

L

D

Urushiol

Vinca minor

Gentianales

Fg

Everywhere

P

B

Alkaloids

Wisteria sinensis

Fabales

Ra

Seeds, fruits

S

B, D

Glycoside vistarin

Aesculus hippocastanum

Sapindales

Ra, Ud

Fruits

T

B

Glycosides, saponins

¹ Fg — communities of herbaceous ornamental plants; Rh — ruderal communities; Ud — urban dendrocenoses; Ra — communities of residential area.

² Part of the plant in which hazardous substances are concentrated.

³ LF — life forms of plants. T — trees, S — shrubs, L — lianas, P — perennials, A — annuals.

Rostov-on-Don ecological and cenotic analysis of the flora of poisonous plants shows the relationship of some species with certain types of habitats and cenoses (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1. Distribution of species of poisonous plants by Rostov-on-Don biotopes

Most poisonous plants were found in flower beds and parterres, that is, in communities of ornamental herbaceous plants (Flower garden) — 27 species (41% of the total number of species). Twenty species (30%) were associated with Ruderal cenoses. Thirteen species (20%) were found in the Residential areas. The least number of species was included in urban dendrocenoses — 6 species (9%).

The resulting distribution was quite natural, considering that artificial communities of flower beds and parterres included a diverse range of plants. However, planning elements of landscape design and green construction did not take into account the risks of poisoning by poisonous ornamental plants. For example, representatives of the buttercup family from the genera Anemone and Aquilegia contain alkaloids and glycosides that are dangerous to life and health, yet they are very popular among flower growers.

Many poisonous plants belonged to the group of ruderals. They grew in littered, unkempt territories, on roadsides, wastelands, etc. Ruderal poisonous plants were characterized by high rates of reproduction, quickly capturing new habitats, that is, they were powerful and uncontrolled sources of toxic substances. The group included such deadly species as poison hemlock (Conium maculatum), black henbane (Hyasciamus niger), European birthwort (Aristolochia clemetitis), and others.

Poisonous plants of residential areas were, as a rule, single specimens or group plantings in the private sector or elements of phytodesign on the territory of residential complexes. With an unqualified selection of the species, only decorative characteristics of the planting material were considered. However, such plants were quite dangerous, even in small numbers.

In recent decades, the American pokeweed (Phytolacca americana) has become widespread in southern Russia, including Rostov-on-Don. Pokeweed is native to North America, but the species is widespread on the Eurasian continent. The decorative qualities of pokeweed have caused it to be cultivated in different countries, and as a result, local ecosystems have suffered from another invasive species. Pokeweed has negatively affected the biocenoses of South Korea [20] and Italy [21]. It spreads due to its unpretentiousness, ability to grow rapidly and reproduce by producing large numbers of seeds. All parts of pokeweed, including attractive berries, contain saponins and alkaloids [22], which can cause serious poisoning when ingested by humans and animals.

Biomorphological analysis of the toxic flora of Rostov-on-Don revealed the predominance of perennial grasses. These included 30 plant species (45% of the total number of studied species). 14 species (21%) of poisonous plants were annual. Shrubs and trees came in third place with 15 species (23%). Lianas and biennials were also found among the poisonous plants, the proportion of which did not exceed the total number of species. The resulting distribution was expected and reflected the proportion of life forms in the flora of the Rostov-on-Don agglomeration, where perennial grasses also predominated, and shrubs and trees were represented in smaller numbers [18]. It is worth noting that the largest number of poisonous plants belonged specifically to families with a predominance of herbaceous forms (Ranunculaceae, Solanaceae). A similar distribution of biomorphs was observed in the toxic flora of Saratov, where perennial grasses and shrubs also played a significant role [13].

Toxicity classes reflect the degree of danger of a particular species to humans and animals (Fig. 2).

Fig. 2. Distribution of species of poisonous plants in Rostov-on-Don by toxicity classes

Some types combined the properties of two classes. As an example, Hedera helix and Hedera colchica ivies were climbing, evergreen vines that were increasingly used in private gardening (Fig. 3). The juice of these plants could cause burns and skin irritation (Class D), and when ingested, ivy caused gastrointestinal disorders (Class B).

Fig. 3. Colchian ivy (Hedera colchica) in the residential area of Rostov-on-Don

Most of the identified poisonous plant species did not have a significant toxic effect, although their use could lead to gastrointestinal discomfort. There were 42 such species, accounting for 64% of all identified species. Of these, 16 caused irritation or skin damage, and were therefore classified as Class D. Plants with the most severe toxic effect from Class A included 21 species (32%). Only one species from Class C was identified (Maclura pomifera). The use of these plants threatened calcium oxalate poisoning with edema of the upper gastrointestinal tract and respiratory organs. Maclura pomifera was rare, but was found in private landscaping. It was chosen because of the interesting shape of its fruits.

Let us focus on ragweed (Ambrosia artemisiifolia) separately. Its allergenic activity in Rostov-on-Don was previously discussed [11]. Some authors pointed to toxic substances in all parts of ragweed, which could lead to negative consequences for the body [23].

Some species, often found in ruderal habitats, had an unconfirmed hazard status, i.e. there was no consensus on their toxicity. These were, for example, Schleicher fumitory (Fumaria schleicheri), chickweed (Stellaria media), and roadside pepperweed (Lepidium ruderale) [19].

The toxicity of plants in all identified cases was due to the presence of alkaloids — 28 species (42% of the total number of species), glycosides — 17 species (26%), saponins — 5 species (7%) and other toxic compounds.

Accessible and attractive plants with noticeable, bright fruits are dangerous (especially for children). In Rostov-on-Don, 14 such species were found (21% of the total number of species). They belonged to the toxicity class B, as a rule, they did not give an acute toxic effect, but they could cause moderate poisoning. Examples included Parthenocissus sp. [24] and Symphoricarpos albus [25].

Discussion and Conclusion. It is necessary to educate the population of Rostov-on-Don about the possible dangers of plants used for landscaping.

The scientific research described in this article revealed the presence of poisonous plants throughout the city. A significant proportion of these plants were found to be associated with ruderal habitats, where they grow freely and are easily accessible to humans and animals. Additionally, the diversity of toxic flora in urban environments is increasing due to the introduction of ornamental grasses and shrubs that contain dangerous compounds. These findings should be taken into consideration in landscape design projects to ensure the safety of both humans and wildlife.

The study of poisonous flora for the cities of southern Russia has been conducted for the first time. It is planned to study the quantitative characteristics of urban plant communities with toxic species. The data collected will be used to develop recommendations for landscaping and landscape design.

References

1. Plenert B, Prasa D, Hentschel H, Deters M. Plant Exposures Reported to the Poisons Information Centre Erfurt from 2001–2010. Planta Medica. 2012;78(5):401–408. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0031-1298253

2. Petersen DD. Common Plant Toxicology: A Comparison of National and Southwest Ohio Data Trends on Plant Poisonings in the 21st Century. Toxicology and Applied Pharmacology. 2011;254(2):148–153. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.taap.2010.10.022

3. Müller D, Desel H. Common Causes of Poisoning: Etiology, Diagnosis and Treatment. Deutsches Ärzteblatt International. 2013;110(41):690–699. https://doi.org/10.3238/arztebl.2013.0690

4. Hanane Benzeid, Fadma Gouaz, Abba Hamadoun Touré, Mustapha Bouatia, Mohamed Oulad Bouyahya Idrissi, Mustapha Draoui. Inventory of Toxic Plants in Morocco: An Overview of the Botanical, Biogeography, and Phytochemistry Studies. Journal of Toxicology. 2018;13:4563735. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/4563735

5. Slaughter RJ, Beasley DMG, Lambie BS, Wilkins GT, Schep LJ. Poisonous Plants in New Zealand: a Review of Those That Are Most Commonly Enquired About to the National Poisons Centre. The New Zealand Medical Journal. 2012;125(1367):87–118. URL: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/23321887/ (accessed: 10.02.2025).

6. Charuwan Sriapha, Achara Tongpoo, Sunun Wongvisavakorn, Panee Rittilert, Satariya Trakulsrichai, Sahaphume Srisuma, et al. Plant Poisoning in Thailand: A 10-Year Analysis from Ramathibodi Poison Center. The Southeast Asian Journal of Tropical Medicine and Public Health. 2015;46(6):1063–1076.

7. Enfield B, Brooks DE, Welch S, Roland M, Klemens J, Greenlief K, et al. Human Plant Exposures Reported to a Regional (Southwestern) Poison Control Center Over 8 Years. Journal of Medical Toxicology. 2018;14:74–78. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13181-017-0643-3

8. Ng WY, Hung LY, Lam YH, Chan SS, Pang KS, Chong YK. Poisoning by Toxic Plants in Hong Kong: A 15-Year Review. Hong Kong Medical Journal. 2019;25(2):102–112. https://doi.org/10.12809/hkmj187745

9. Mrđan S, Ljubojević M, Orlović S, Čukanović J, Dulić J. Poisonous and Allergenic Plant Species in Preschool’s and Primary School’s Yards in the City of Novi Sad. Urban Forestry & Urban Greening. 2017;25:112–119. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.05.007

10. Gupta PK. Illustrated Toxicology. Berkeley: Elsevier; 2018. 609 p.

11. Sereda MM. Assessment of the Allergenic Potential of Urban Woody Flora of Rostov-on-Don. Safety of Technogenic and Natural Systems. 2024;(2):17–25. https://doi.org/10.23947/2541-9129-2024-8-2-17-25

12. Berkal IV, Vasyukova AN. The Problem of Using Poisonous Plants in Urban Landscaping. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Regional Scientific and Practical Conference of Urban Institutions and Enterprises of the Amur Region “Ecology of the City”. Blagoveshchensk: Far Eastern State Agrarian University; 2018. P. 24–29. (In Russ.)

13. Durnova NА, Kuznetsova IA, Potapova AS. Poisonous Vascular Plants of the City of Saratov. Bulletin of Botanic Garden of Saratov State University. 2019;17(1):39–54. (In Russ.) https://doi.org/10.18500/1682-1637-2019-1-39-54

14. Koltyrina MV, Lozhkina AK, Kochergina MV. To the Problem of the Use of Poisonous Plants on the Objects of Landscape Architecture of the City of Voronezh. In: Proceedings of the International Scientific and Practical Conference “Problems of Environmental Organization of Landscapes”. Novocherkassk: Novocherkassk Engineering and Reclamation Institute named after A.K. Kortunov; 2017. P. 192–196. (In Russ.)

15. Zozulin GM, Fedyaeva VV. Flora of the Lower Don (Determinant). Rostov-on-Don: Rostov State University; 1985. 240 p. (In Russ.)

16. Filmer AK. Safe and Poisonous Garden Plants. California Poison Control System. Davis: University of California; 2012. 156 p.

17. Panov VD, Lur'e PM, Larionov YuA. Climate of the Rostov Region: Yesterday, Today, Tomorrow. Rostov-on-Don: Don Publishing House; 2006. 488 p. (In Russ.)

18. Vakhnenko DV. Anthropogenic Transformation of the Flora of the Northeastern Azov Sea Region within the Rostov Urban Agglomeration. Cand.Sci. (Biol.) diss. Rostov-on-Don; 2000. 20 p. (In Russ.)

19. Golovanov YaM, Abramova LM. Flora of the City of Ishimbai (Republic of Bashkortostan). Phytodiversity of Eastern Europe. 2014;8(2):14–56. (In Russ.)

20. Min Byeong-Mee. Distribution of Phytolacca Americana in a Coastal Sand Dune. Journal of Ecology and Environment. 2014;37(2):81–90. https://doi.org/10.5141/ecoenv.2014.010

21. Lazzaro L, Bolpagni R, Buffa G, Gentili R, Lonati M, Stinca A, et al. Impact of Invasive Alien Plants on Native Plant Communities and Natura 2000 Habitats: State of the Art, Gap Analysis and Perspectives in Italy. Journal of Environmental Management. 2020;274:111140. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2020.111140

22. Panero I, Fiorentino F, Montagna DLa, Crocenzi G, Attorre F. Germination Ecology of Phytolacca AmericanaL. in Its Invasive Range. Plant Species Biology. 2024;39(6):351–362. https://doi.org/10.1111/1442-1984.12483

23. Pei Su, Xuelian Liu, Ruili Wang, Tong Liu, Wenxuan Zhao, Mingming Sun, et al. Autotoxicity of Ambrosia Artemisiifolia and Ambrosia Trifida and Its Significance for the Regulation of Intraspecific Populations Density. Scientific Reports. 2022;12:17424 https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-022-21344-8

24. Penrith ML, Vosloo W. Review of African Swine Fever: Transmission, Spread and Control. Journal of the South African Veterinary Association. 2009;80(2):58–62. https://doi.org/10.4102/jsava.v80i2.172

25. Gilbert OL. Symphoricarpos Albus (L.) S. F. Blake (S. Rivularis Suksd., S. Racemosus Michaux). Journal of Ecology. 1995;83(1):159–166. https://doi.org/10.2307/2261160


About the Author

M. M. Sereda
Don State Technical University
Russian Federation

Mikhail M. Sereda, Cand. Sci. (Biol.), Associate Professor, Head of the Department of Botany and Bioresources, Faculty of Bioengineering and Veterinary Medicine

1, Gagarin Sq., Rostov-on-Don, 344003



Review

For citations:


Sereda M.M. Assessment of the Potential Risk of Poisonous Plants in Rostov-on-Don. Safety of Technogenic and Natural Systems. 2025;(2):102-111. https://doi.org/10.23947/2541-9129-2025-9-2-102-111. EDN: IJSTIP

Views: 123


Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.


ISSN 2541-9129 (Online)