Ecological Research Series
EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AND/OR
OZONE ON SEVERAL OAT VARIETIES
1975 Annual Report
Environmental Research Laboratory
Office of Research and Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
-------
RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES
Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously
planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:
1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research
4. Environmental Monitoring
5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH series. This series
describes research on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and animal
species, and materials. Problems are assessed for their long- and short-term
influences. Investigations include formation, transport, and pathway studies to
determine the fate of pollutants and their effects. This work provides the technical
basis for setting standards to minimize undesirable changes in living organisms
in the aquatic, terrestrial, and atmospheric environments.
This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.
-------
EPA-600/3-76-032
March 1976
EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AND/OR OZONE
ON SEVERAL OAT VARIETIES
1975 Annual Report
by
Walter W. Heck and John A. Dunning
North Carolina State University
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
EPA-IAG-D.5-0416
Project Officer
Dr. L. C. Rani ere
Ecological Effects Research Division
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97330
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for pub-
lication. Approval does not signify that the contents necessarily reflect
the views and policies of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, nor
does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
11
-------
ABSTRACT
Nine experimental designs were run to determine the effect of
sulfur dioxide on the important Southeastern oat variety - CarOlee.
The designs were run under controlled conditions and looked at sul-
fur dioxide concentration (25-300 pphm), ozone interactions, growth
and exposure temperatures, growth and exposure humidities, growth
and exposure light intensities, nutrient sulfur levels, number of
exposures and exposure ages, and a screen for growth conditions.
Plants were grown to from 28 days to 84 days before final harvest.
Top dry wt, root dry wt, number of tillers and injury were determined
for all experimental designs except #5 and #8. The fifth design also
included yield measurements and the eighth did not include the biomass
data. The 75 pphm treatments for 1.5 hrs were close to a threshold
dose. Growth environmental factors affected the response of the plants
and in some cases exposure conditions caused an effect. Sulfur nutri-
tion was a significant factor and showed an interaction with SOp con-
centration on several response measures. Foliar injury was hignly
correlated with growth reductions. Several designs studied the effects
of ozone alone (#6, 7, 8) or in combination with sulfur dioxide (#13).
Two designs utilized 2 additional oat varieties, Salem and Coker 227
(#8, 9).
This report was submitted for limited distribution in partial
fulfillment on an Interagency Agreement by the Agricultural Research
Service (ARS) under the sponsorship of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA). The research included in the report was cooperatively
sponsored by ARS, EPA and the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment
Station. Work was completed as of June 30, 1975.
m
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
This research was conducted in the North Carolina State Unit of the
Southeastern Plant Environment Laboratories. The assistance of the staff
of this Unit is much appreciated.
The assistance of Dr. Charles Murphy (Crop Science Department) in
understanding the growth and development needs of the oat varieties and in
furnishing seed; of Mr. Hans Hamann in statistical design and analysis;
and, of Dr. Frances Griesbrecht for statistical analysis are gratefully
acknowledged.
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract HnT
Acknowledgements iv
List of Tables vi
I Introduction 1
II Conclusions 2
III Recommendations 3
IV Experimental Work 4-70
V Bibliography 71
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
1. Analysis of Variance - Oat #4 17
2. Cross Products Analysts - Oat #4 18
3. Effects of Sulfur Di^xtde on Concentration and Duration on
Several Plant Responses - Oat #4 19
4. Effects of Nutrient Sulfur Levels on Several Plant Responses
Oat #4 20
5. Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration and Duration by Sulfur
Level on Several Plant Responses of Carolee Oat - Oat #4 21
6. Analysis of Variance - Oat #5. 22
7. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #5 23
8. Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration on Several Responses of
Carolee Oat - Oat #5 23
9. Analysis of Variance - Oat #5. * ' 24
10. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #5 25
11. Effects of Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses as Affected
by Exposure Age and Number of Exposures - Oat #5 26
12. Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration on Several Plant
Responses - Oat #5 27
13. Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration by Exposure Age on the
Responses of Carolee Oat - Oat #5 28
14. Dry Weights of Tops and Roots at Several Harvest Ages - Oat #5 29
15. Analysis of Variance - Oat #6 30
16. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #6 31
17. Effects of Ozone Concentration and Harvest Age on Several Plant
Responses - Oat #6 32
18. Effects of Ozone Concentration, Harvest Age and Exposure Age on
Several Plant Responses - Oat. #6 33
19. Analysis of Variance - Oat #6 34
20. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #6 34
21. Effects of Exposure Age and Harvest Age on Several Plant
Responses - Oat #6 35
22. Analysis of Variance - Oat #7 36
23. Cross Product Analysis - Oat #7 36
24. Effects of Ozone Concentration, Harvest Age and Chamber on
Several Plant Responses - Oat #7 37
25. Effect of Ozone Concentration by Chamber on Several Responses
of Carolee Oat - Oat #7 38
26. Effect of Harvest Age by Chamber on Several Plant Responses-Oat #7-39
27. Analysis of Variance - Oat #7 39
28. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #7 40
29. Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration, Harvest Age and Chamber
on Several Plant Responses - Oat #7 41
30. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration by Harvest Age on Several
Responses of Carolee Oat - Oat #7 42
VI
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
No. Page
31. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration by Chamber on Several
Responses of Carolee Oat - Oat #7 43
32. Analysts of Variance - Oat #8 44
33. Foliar Response (% Injury) of Three Oat Varieties Grown Under
Six Environmental Conditions and Exposed to Acute Doses of
Sulfur Dioxide or Ozone 45
34. Foliar Response of Oat as Affected by Environmental Conditions,
Pollutantsand Variety - Oat #8 ,. ,46
35. Foliar Response of Three Oat Varieties to Six Environmental
Conditions or Four Pollutant Exposures - Oat #8 -.47
36. Foliar Response of Oat Varieties to Environmental Conditions
by Pollutant Exposures - Oat #8 48
37. Analysis of Variance - Oat #9 , 48
38. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #9 49
39. Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration, S-Level, Variety and
Replication on Several Plant Responses - Oat #9 50
40. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration by Replication and by
Sulfur Level on Growth of Three Oat Varieties - Oat #9 51
41. Effect of Variety by Sulfur Dioxide Concentration and by
Replication on Growth and Injury to Oat - Oat #9 52
42. Analysis of Variance - Oat #10 53
43. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #10 53
44. Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration, Temperature and
Replication on Several Plant Responses - Oat #10 54
45. Effects of Growth Temperature by Sulfur Dioxide Concentration
and by Replication on the Growth of Carolee Oat - Oat #10 55
46. Analysis of Variance - Oat #10 55
47. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #10 56
48. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration, Exposure Temperature
and Growth temperature on Several Plant Responses - Oat #1057
49. Effects of Exposure Temperature by Sulfur Dioxide Concentration
and by Growth Temperature on Top Dry Weight and Injury to
Carolee Oat - Oat #10 58
50. Analysis of Variance - Oat #1-1 59
51. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #11 59
52. Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration and Humidity on
Several Plant Responses - Oat #11 60
53. Effects of Concentration by Exposure Humidity on Several
Responses of Carolee Oat to Sulfur Dioxide - Oat #11 61
54. Analysis of Variance - Oat #12 62
55. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #12 62
56. Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration, Light Intensity and
Repllation on Several Plant Responses - Oat #12 63
57. Effects of Sulfur Dioxide Concentration by Growth Light and by
Exposure Light on Th.e Growth of Carol ee Oat - Oat #12 64
58, Analysis of Variance - Oat #13 65
vi i
-------
LIST OF TABLES
(Continued)
No. Page
59. Cross Products Analysts - Oat #13 65
60. Effects of Harvest Age by Exposure Treatment on Growth and
Injury to Carolee Oat from Sulfur Dioxide and Ozone - Oat
# 13 66
61. Analyses of Variance - Oat #13 67
62. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #13 68
63. Effects of Ozone by Sulfur Dioxide on The Response of Carolee
Oat - Oat #13 69
64. Effects of Ozone by Harvest Age on The Response of Carolee
Oat - Oat #13 70
vi 11
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
The research presented in this report is part of a continuing cooper-
ative project Between the Agricultural Research Service, the Environmental
Protection Agency and the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station.
The title of the overall project is, "Effects,fates and transformations of
selected air pollutants in plants, microorganisms and soils."
The primary objectives of this cooperative program are to understand
the impact of air pollutants on plants, microorganisms and soils that are
of importance to agriculture, and to assist other agencies in relation to
their mission of protecting the agricultural segment of the environment. The
research thrust is directed at comparative studies on vegetation effects under
phytotron, greenhouse and field conditions. Emphasis is on: (1) dose-response
curves; (2) the interaction of various factors on the response of the whole
plant to air pollutants; (3) assessing the impact of controlled pollutant addi-
tions and ambient pollution on plant biomass, yield and quality in the green-
house and field, and on pollutant uptake and transformations in the greenhouse;
(4) acute and chronic screens; and, (5) varietal responses.
Research reported here contains, as its major thrust, part of the phyto-
tron (controlled environment) portion of the foregoing cooperative program.
It was determined that Carolee oat should be intensively studied under care-
fully controlled conditions. Once this is accomplished the results should be
verified under greenhouse and field conditions and using selected other plant
species. Carolee oat was chosen as an important oat cultivar of the Southeast.
Oat cultivars have generally been sensitive to several of the pollutants. It
is a member of the monocotyledonous plants and is a grass. Thus it represents
a major plant group.
The specific objectives for this research are given in Section IV.
-------
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
Growth reductions were found in oat at 36, 50, and 75 pphm S02 for 1.5 or
3 hr exposures. These reductions did not always occur and the concentrations
are probably close to threshold for acute exposures. In general there was no
indication that low S02 tended to enhance growth.
Sulfur nutrition affected growth of oat and interacted with S02 concen-
tration. Plants receiving the high S-nutrient (135 ppm) were more resistant to
S02 but the 45 ppm of S-nutrient made the plants sensitive to 36 pphm of S02.
Generally ROW was affected more than TDW. Generally the second harvest
showed recovery from S02 exposure but showed an increase effect from 03 exposure.
Oat threshold for 0~ was 10-20 pphm for 1.5 to 3 hr.
Generally oat - Coker 227 was most sensitive to both pollutants and was
less affected by varied environmental conditions.
Oat was more sensitive to 22 and 26°C growth temp than to 18 and 30°C.
There was a general inverse correlation between exposure temperature and TDW
at S02 concentrations of 150 and 300 pphm.
There was an indication that humidity during either growth or exposure
correlated positively with pollutant effect.
A growth light of 2400 ft-c seemed to give the greatest response of both
TDW and TDW and ROW to S0?. The 2100 ft-c exposure light gave the greatest
reduction.
Sulfur dioxide-ozone interactions were primarily additive or less-than-
additive. These results are tentative and require confirmation.
-------
SECTION III
RECOMMENDATIONS
Carolee and Coker 227 are widely grown oat cultivars in the Southeast.
They are both sensitive to biomass reductions at SOp levels around the
secondary air quality standards. The present studies report only acute ex-
posures. It is necessary that this work be carried on to include chronic
exposures over some time period.
These cultivars are sensitive to ozone. The sensitivity levels are not
clear, although for acute exposures they are above the oxidant standard (0.08
ppm for 1 hr). The importance of 03-S02 mixtures needs to be further explored
using chronic exposures.
i
The influence of environmental factors needs to be further developed.
Critical studies on temperature, humidity and light should be completed. If
possible, preliminary work with SOg plus 0^ should be included.
Preliminary exposures to N0« and combinations of N09 plus S09 should be
initiated. c t <.
All of these experiments should be verified under both greenhouse and
field conditions.
-------
SECTION IV
EXPERIMENTAL WORK
Plants are subjected to many environmental fluctuations during their
life cycle. These tnclude But are not limited to temperature, light (inten-
sity, duration and quality) humidity, sot! moisture. These factors, singly
and in various combinations, are known to affect the response of plants to
pollutant stress (1-3, 5).
Under greenhouse and field conditions it is not possible to separate the
respective importance of these individual factors on the response of plants to
pollutants. If the response is to be understood and corrected for pollutant
models, it is necessary that these studies be done under controlled conditions.
Such studies have been reported for some plants but most have not used growth
and yield data.
It is also necessary to understand the effects of environmental stresses
that occur at various times in the developmental stages of plant growth and how
these stresses affect the response of plants to air pollutants.
Little research has been done on the effects of sulfur dioxide singly or
with a mixture of ozone on an important crop plant under carefully controlled
and known cultural conditions. The objectives of the present' research were to
determine the effects of several environmental factors (light intensity, temp-
erature, humidity), nutritional sulfur levels, and sulfur dioxide and/or ozone
dose on biomass and foliar injury to oat. The exposures were acute to chronic
and single or multiple. Usually the designs included two harvests.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Nine experimental designs are reported plus elemental analyses for oat
#4 from the 1974 Annual Report. Some basic procedures are similar. These are
discussed and then each design is presented separately. Results and discussion
are handled in the same fashion.
Plant growth, exposure and post exposure were conducted in the facilities
of the Southeastern Plant Environment Laboratories. Three oat cultivars (Avena
sativa, L. cvs. Carolee, Salem and Coker 227) were used in these designs with
cy_ Carolee as the main test plant. The oat varieties were seeded (5 seed per
container) in 5 cm styrofoam cups, 10 cm pots, or 15 cm pots containing a 2:1
(V/V) mixture of gravel and buffered Jiffy mix. Plants were thinned to one
plant per pot at 14 days after seeding. When not noted, standard environmental
conditions were: first 2 wks. at 18°C day and 14°C night, with a 9 hr photo-
period (3000-4000 ft-C); third wk. at 22°C day and 18°C night, with a 9 hr photo-
period (3000-4000 ft-C) plus a 3 hr incandescent night interruption; the rest of
the experiment at 26°C day and 22°C night with the latter light conditions. The
RH was @ 50% day and 80% night. Plants received the standard phytotron nutrient
solution 3 days a week and distilled water the other 4 days. Treatments were
replicated and/or duplicated 2-4 times.
Exposures to sulfur dioxide and ozone were carried out in our standard ex-
posure chambers (4). Plants were placed in the chambers 30 mins prior to exposure
4
-------
and were removed 30 mins after the exposure terminated. Chambers were
continuously monitored with a Davis sulfur dioxide analyzer and/or a Mast
ozone meter.
Plant responses Included: visual injury (0 to 100% determined 3 days after
each exposure), top dry wt in gms (TDW), root dry wt in gms (ROW), tillers-#,
some elemental analyses (ppm) and some yield measures. All data was subjected
to an analysis of variance.
Design #4: Dose, S-Nutrition and Harvest relating to Carolee oat-
exposure to S02.
This design was in the 1974 Annual Report. Twelve time-concentration
treatments of S02 were used with 4 nutrient sulfur levels. The S02 treat-
ments, S-levels and interactions were all significant for top wts, only treat-
ment was significant for root wts and treatment plus interactions were signi-
ficant for injury. This design was originally intended to look at various
element concentrations within the plant tissues as a function of S02 treat-
ment and S-level, and to determine correlations with growth phenomena.
The tops and roots of six exposure treatments (control; 3 hr at 50, 100
and 200 pphm S02; and, 6 hr at 25 and 50 pphm S02). over the 4 levels of sul-
fur in the nutrient, for the 35 day harvest (3 duplicates), were ground in a
Wiley mill and send to the analytical laboratory in Athens, Ga. The laboratory
performed an emission spectrographic analysis for 14 elements (P, K, Ca, Mg, Mn,
Fe, B, Cu, Zn, Al, Mo, Sr, Ba, Na) and a standard analysis for £ on 72 top and
72 root samples. Results were carefully reviewed and an analysTs of variance
was run on the above treatments for the following: tops (P, K, Ca, Mg, Fe, Na,
S), roots (P, K, Ca, Mg, S), TFW, TDW, RFW, ROW and Injury.
The pH of the potting medium was determined prior to exposure and after
exposure for the control and the 6 hr treatments. A complete analysis of these
3 treatment over S-level was run using the above plant responses and elemental
values.
Design #5: Effects of concentration, exposure age and harvest age on yield,
biomass and plant injury to Carolee oat exposed to S02.
Plants were seeded in 15 cm pots and held at 18°C/14°C-day/night temperatures
for 3 wks using a 12 hr photoperiod. After 3 wks the temperatures were slowly
raised to 26°C/22°C over the next two wks utilizing a 12 hr photoperiod with a
3 hr interrupted night. The plants were grown to harvest at these latter con-
ditions.
The basic experimental design was:
Exposure duration - 3 hrs
SOp Concentration - 0, 50, 100, 200 pphm (4)
Exposure Age - see following table (6)
Harvest Age - see following table (3)
Duplicates - (3)
5
-------
The exposure and harvest ages are shown in the following table:
Exposure Age Harvest Age (wks)
(wks)
3 4 5 - - - 9 10 11 12
2 XX
2+3 X X
8
8+9
3+5+7+9
2+4+6+8
X X
X X
X X
X X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Injury was determined 4 days after the last exposure and at final harvest
(injury I and II). Plants harvested 1 week after the final exposure used the
initial injury data for both injury I and II. TDW, ROW and tillers were taken
at all harvests. Yield data was gathered for the final harvest. All data was
analyzed using an analysis of variance. The first 2^ harvests of each exposure
age were analyzed as a separate design from the final harvest. Exposure varia-
tion for the first 2_ harvests was not obtained.
Design 16: Preliminary concentration, exposure time, exposure number, and
harvest age experiments on Carolee Oat - exposed to 0,.
j ' • ,3
Plants were seeded in 10 cm pots and held at an 18°C/14°C-day/night temper-
atures for 2 wks with a 12 hr photoperiod. After 2 wks the temperatures were
adjusted to 22°C/18°C with a 20 hr photoperiod (1+18+1). After 3 wks the
temperatures were adjusted to 26°C/22°C for the remainder of the experiment.
The basic experimental design was:
Exposure duration - 1.5 hrs
03 Concentration - 0, 25, 50, 100 pphm (4)
Exposure age - 2, 3, 4 wks from seed and all combinations (7)
Harvest age -.weekly 1-6 wks (6)
Duplicates - (3)
-------
The exposure age and harvest age were not a complete design. The design
is shown below:
Exposure Age Harvest Age (wks)
VWK.S;
2
3
4
2+3
2+4
3+4
2+3+4
Control X
234
X X
X
X
X X ! X
5
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
6
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Each of the harvest age by exposure age treatments were complete over Oo
concentration and replication.
The data were analyzed using a regression analysis, and an analysis of
variance on the complete factorial design for the 5 and 6 wk harvests - without
the controls in the analysis.
Design #7: Compare the effects of 0, and SCL on Carolee oat grown under
2_ growth conditions.
Plants were seeded in 10 cm pots and grown under j? conditions to harvest.
Condition 1: as for oat designs 1-4.. Plants were grown at 26°C/22°C-day/night
temperatures on a straight 12 hr day; at 22°C/18°C-day/night temperatures for
1 wk on a 20 hr day (design #6); and, at 26°C/22°C for-day/night temperatures
for the remainder of the experiment on a 20 hr day.
The basic experimental design was:
Exposure duration - 1.5 hrs
Exposure age - 2+3 wks
Harvests - 4, 5, 6 wks (3)
Duplicates - (3)
Growth Conditions - (2)
Concentrations = Oj-0, 25, 50 pphm (4)
or S02 - 0, 75, 150, 300 pphm (4)
Each factorial design was analyzed using an analysis of variation.
-------
Design #8: Screen of 3_ varieties grown under £ growth conditions and
exposed to 03 of S02.
Plants were seeded in 10 cm pots and grown under j5 different conditions.
They were exposed to 0, or S02 at 3 wks from seed and injury was read 3^ days
later. No Bfomass data were taken from this screen.
The basic experimental design was:
Exposure duration - 1.5 hrs
Exposure age - 3 wks
Varieties - Carolee, Salem, Coker 227 (3)
Pups - (3)
Growth conditions: 26°C/22°C-day/night; 9 hrs day + 3 hr
26°C/22°C-day/night-, 9 hr day
26°C/22°C-day/night; 1+18+1 hr day
26°C/22°C-day/night; 12 hr day
22°C/18°C-day/night; 9 hr day + 3 hr
22°C/18°C-day/night; 9 hr day
Concentrations: CL - 50, 75 pphm
or SOg - 200, 300 pphm
The complete factorial design was analyzed using an analysis of variance.
Design #9: Effects of SO, on ,3 oat varieties as conditioned by concentration
and nutrient 5-level.
Plants were seeded in 5 cm cups and grown for 2 wks at 18°C/14°C-day/m'ght
temperatures with a 9 hr day; 1 wk at 22°C/18°C-day/night temperatures with a 9
hr day + 3 hr. At 3 wks the plants were transplanted to 15 cm pots and grown at
26°C/22°C-day/night temperatures with a 9 hr day + 3 hr till harvest at 7 wks of
age.
The basic experimental design was:
Exposure duration - 3 hrs (1)
Harvest - 7 wks (1)
Exposures - every other day for 2 wks (7 exposures) during weeks 5 and 6 (1)
Concentration - 0, 36, 75, 150 pphm (4)
S-nutrition - 5, 15, 45, 135 ppm (4)
Varieties - Carolee, Salem, Coker 227 (3)
Replications - (4)
-------
The replications were run in the morning and afternoon of 2 consecutive
days. Thus some idea of day and time-of-day can be obtained. The complete
factorial design was analyzed using an analysts of variance. TDW, ROW, injury,
and # of tillers were determined. Top and root elemental analyses were made for
Coker 227.
Design #10: Determine the effects of growth and exposure temperatures on
the response of Carolee oat - exposed to SC^.
Plant and growth conditions were as Design #9. At week 5 the experimental
growth conditions were initiated. On days 4_ and £ of this week the plants were
exposed under the experimental exposure conditions. At week 6^ they were returned
to the 4th week growth conditions. All plants were harvested at end of week 6.
The basic experimental design was:
Exposure duration - 1.5 hrs
Exposures - day 4 and 6 of week 5
Harvest - 6 wks
Concentration - 0, 75, 150, 300 pphm (4)
Growth temperature (day)-18, 22, 26, 30°C (4)
(night was always 4°C cooler than day)
Exposure temperature - 18+30, 24+18, 30+24°C (3)
Duplicates - (2)
Replicates - (2)
The entire experiment was replicated a 3rd time using 18, 24 and 30°C ex-
posure temperatures. This replicate was analyzed separately due to the difference
in exposure temperatures. Each design was analyzed using an analysis of variance.
Design #11: Determine the effects of growth and exposure humidity on the res-
ponse of Carolee oat - exposed to SOp.
, This design was carried out as design #10 except that humidity conditions were
varied. Only one replication was run because the chamber humidity control systems
did not function well. Growth humidty was 48, 56, 63, or 65% RH.Exposure humidity
was 70 and 84% RH. The highest exposure humidity was discarded due to equipment
malfunction. The single replication was analyzed using an analysis of variance.
Design #12: Determine the effects of growth and exposure light intensity on
the response of Carolee oat - exposed to S02-
This design was carried out as design #10 except that light conditions were
varied. Growth light was 800, 1600, 2400, or 3200 ft-c. Exposure light was 700,
1400, or 2100 ft-c.
The complete factorial design was analyzed using an analysis of variance.
-------
Design #13: Determine the effects of S02 and/or 03 on the response of
Carolee oat over 2 harvests.
Plants were grown as for design #9 and exposed as shown in the Exposure
Design.
Time
0.75
1.5
3.0
The basic experimental design was:
Harvests - 6 and 7 wks (2)
Duplicates - (3)
Exposures - twice, 4 and 5 wks (1)
Combinations of 00 and S00 (30)
•3 c.
Exposure Design -
(hrs.) Control (pphm) S02 (pphm)
0 100
400
0 75
300
0 50
03 (pphm)
20
40
80
15
30
60
10
20
40
so2/o3
50/20
50/40
100/20
100/40
38/15
38/30
75/15
75/30
25/10
25/20
50/10
50/20
The complete design was analyzed using an analysis of variance. Then the
S02 by 03 combinations for each time period were analyzed to determine additive,
less-than-additive, or greater-than-additive effects.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
The results are detailed in Tables 1-64. The results are presented through
the Tables with a brief discussion of each experimental design. The Tables are
placed in order following the discussion of results.
Design #4:
The analysis of variance (Table 1) shows the significance levels of the two
main factors and their interaction. Correlation coefficients that are signi-
ficant (residual or corrected total) and others that appear to have a high correl-
ation when considering treatment or S-level are shown in Table 2.
10
-------
Tables 3 and 4 show the effects of the single parameters. The threshold
for SOo effects on growth appears to be about 1 pphm for 3 hrs in this series.
Root weights are increased by 50 pphm for 6 hrs. Most of the stem elements
tend to increase with increasing SOg at the 3 hr exposure but are unaffected
by the 6 hr exposures. Stem-S is affected by the longer exposures and root-
S decreases with increasing S02 at the 3 hr exposure. The stem elements are
unaffected by nutrient S-levef (Table 4) except for the 135 ppm treatment when
they are reduced. Stem-Na and -S increase with increasing nutrient sulfur.
Root-Mg decreases while root-S increases with increasing nutrient sulfur.
The interactions shown in Table 5 are not easy to interpret. Generally
S0? adds to S-S only at the lower levels of nutrient sulfur. Biomass is affected
more by SO* at the higher nutrient sulfur levels than at the lower. The changes
show no readily discernible pattern and thus are not easy to interpret.
This design suggests that SOp can be used as a sulfur source for S-deficient
plants and that S02 has a greater effect on plant biomass when nutrient sulfur
is adequate.
Design #5:
The analysis of variance (Table 6) shows that all four response measures
were significant for the 2 treatments. The interaction was significant only for
injury II and this was not of real importance. The biomass measurements correlated
well with injury when concentration was used (Table 7). The two biomass measures
were highly correlated.
These results came from an analysis of the first two harvests when exposure
ages were not comparable. The harvest ages were expected to be different and are
not shown. The effects of sulfur dioxide concentration are shown in Table 8.
The 50 pphm treatment for the 3 hr exposure is just significant for TDW but not
for RDM. In this experiment the TDW generally was more responsive than the RDM,
possibly due to the roots being pot bound.
*
The analysis of variance for the,final harvest (Table 9) shows that 5 of 9
responses were significant for exposure age, 7 of 9 for concentration, and 4 of 9
for the interactions. Again the major biomass measurements correlated well with
injury (Table 10).
The exposure age effects (Table 11) could be grouped. Plants exposed at the
younger ages were less affected, the plants receiving the 4 exposures were the
most affected, and the plants receiving late exposures were between. A close look
at the data shows that the plants had recovered from the early exposures and the
multiple exposures were probably most affected by exposures from weeks 4-9. The
concentration effects (Table 12) are not significant until the 100 pphm treatment.
This is probably because the final harvest represented complete recovery for the
plants exposed at an early age.
The interactions shown in Table 13 are not easy to explain unless one tends
to ignore the results for the 2 wk exposure. The rest show no effect for the
2+3 wk and a decreased growth (TDW and ROW) for the other 5 exposure age treat-
ments with increasing S02 concentration. One of the reason's for a reduced signi-
ficance in the ROW is shown in Table 14. From 9 to 14 wks there is little change
11
-------
in ROW while TDW almost doubles. We believe the roots are becoming pot bound
and thus tend to show a reduced effect from the SCL exposure. In spite of
this the 100 and 200 pphm concentrations have a marked effect on RDM.
The plants tn this design were grown especially to obtain seed production
data. However, no seed were produced by the plants. Florets were plentiful
but they were not fertile. Subsequently two major designs were developed to
try and answer the question of no fertility. No answer was found but it seemed
to relate to infertility in the anther and thus a lack of viable pollen. The
second possibility is that the anthers failed to open at the time when the
stigma was receptive. In spite of trying many different growth conditions we
were not able to produce seed. Thus in future experimental wwk we will not
attempt to study seed yield.
Design #6:
This design was developed before it was determined that the longer day
length made the plants much less sensitive to ozone effects. It was expected
that some reduction might occur because of the effect of photoperiod on the
response of pinto bean and tobacco to ozone. It is evident from the results
that the Carolee oat was not sensitive to ozone under the growth and/or ex-
posure conditions used. Even where significance is shown, the lack of basic
trends suggests that the significance values are misleading. Results are shown
in Tables 15-21.
Design #7:
This design included a scan for both ozone and sulfur dioxide. These
were run at the same time and were meant as a comparison for use between the
early sulfur dioxide experiments (Designs 1-4) and design #6 for ozone. The
data for the two gases was kept separate and is presented separately.
The analyses of variance (Tables 22, 27) show that the chamber effect was
significant for all responses except for injury II-SO?. «The correlation co-
efficients are shown in Tables 23 and 28.
Although concentration is not significant (Table 22) the 100 pphm ozone is
almost significant for TDW increasing concentration causes a reduction in ROW
(Table 24). Although interactions are not shown (Table 22) the concentration by
chamber effect appears to interact (Table 25), since concentration affects the
response in chamber 1 but not in chamber 2. The threshold effect for ROW appears
to be about 25 pphm for 1.5 hrs. The harvest age by chamber interactions are
shown in Table 26.
The individual variables as affected by SO, are shown in Table 29. Over
the total design the 300 pphm is required for a significant effect. Tables 30
and 31 suggest that 150 pphm may produce a significant effect in chamber 1. The
interactions in these tables are clearly shown. The concentration by chamber
interactions appear similar to those shown for the ozone effects. Why,the ozone
interactions were not significant is unclear.
12
-------
This design clearly demonstrated the importance of chamber conditions
and was a major reason for developing design #8 as a scan of conditions by
variety,
Destgn #8:
This destgn was set up as a screen to determine the effects of SCL or 03
on variety as affected by environmental growth conditions. Based on past designs
It is known that a good correlation exists between foliar effects and biomass.
Thus only injury readings were determined. The analysis of variance showed signi-
ficance for the three main factors and all the interactions (Table 32). .The
three-way interaction is shown in Table 33. This Table also shows the 2-way inter-
actions and the effects on individual factors. However, these are more readily
seen in Tables 34-36.
Although the 3-way interaction is of interest, from a practical viewpoint
the results for the individual factors (Table 34) holds true as a general rule
and have been used as a guide to further experimental work. The pol-exp by cond
(Table 36) shows a major difference between the 2 gases. The oat appear to be
equally sensitive to SCL under 26/22°C - 9+3 hr and 26/22°C - 9 hr. For ozone
the oat are more sensitive when grown under the 26/22°C - 9 hr conditions. How-
ever, these conditions are not those normally found for growth of oat in the field
(except for early growth). Thus we went to the 26/22-9+3 hr conditions for the
remaining experimental designs. In general the Coker 227 is less affected by the
environmental conditions than the other 2 varieties (Table 35).
Design #9:
The analysis of variance (Table 37) shows that the four main factors were
significant for the biomass measures and three of four were significant for injury
and number of tillers. Four 2-way interactions were important for some of the
factors. Correlation coefficients are shown in Table 38.
The individual factors are shown in Table 39. The replications were set up
so that the odd were all morning exposures and the even were afternoon. The
results suggest that oat were more severely affected during afternoon exposures.
The results in Table 39-41 are all suggestive of this and significance levels
are found in several places. The interactions of cone by rep (Table 40) shows
the effect to hold for ROW at 75 and 150 pphm, for RDM the response is not as
pronounced but it does show well at 150 pphm. The var by rep interaction for
injury (Table 41) shows a strong afternoon response for Carolee oat, a weak res-
ponse for Salem and no significant response for Coker 227.
The oats are more sensitive to S02 at a sulfur level of 45 ppm and more
resistant at 135 ppm (Tables 39 and 407 for TDW. Otherwide nutrient sulfur seemed
to have little affect on the response of the oat to SOo. TDW appears little
affected by 36 pphm of S02 but RDM is reduced in both Carolee and Salem (Tables
40 and 41). This reduction in RDM is found in all but one replication (Table 40)
and occurs at about 5% injury to the top. All factors are strongly affected by
the 2 higher S02 concentration (Tables 39-41). The var by cone interaction
\
13
-------
(Table 41) ts so strong that the variety results In Table 39 are not Indicative.
Coker 227, although, not significantly affected by 36 pphm S0?, is more strongly
depressed at 75 and 150 pphm S0? than either of the other varieties. At 150 pphm
the TDW growth depression for CSrolee ts 49%, Salem is 66% and Coker 227 is 80%.
These results suggest that Coker may be overall the most sensitive of the
3 oat varieties but that the threshold might be a little higher. Carolee appears
to have more of a linear response curve. Their differences are sufficiently pro-
nounced that we are considering using these 2 varieties in subsequent studies.
Design #10:
The analysis of variance for the first two reps is shown in Table 42. The
3rd rep was handed separately and is shown in Table 46. It was handled separa-
tely because the exposure temperature was not run as originally designed. The
3rd rep permitted one run at the designated exposure temperatures. Correlation
coefficients are shown in Tables 43 and 47.
Concentration effects in both designs were similar with 75 pphm being close
to the threshold for ROW in the first design (Tables 44 and 48). This effect of
75 pphm on RDM is more clearly shown at growth temperatures of 22 and 26°C in
Table 45.
Generally results in the two designs are similar. Several interactions
shown in design #1 were attributed to rep #2 at the 24+18°C exposure. It is
possible that some malfunction occurred in the exposure for that run. This does
not change the basic results shown in Table 44. The growth temp by rep inter-
actions (Table 45) for tillers is interesting but the ave pattern (Table 44) is
the same for both designs (Table 48).
i
Additional research needs to be done for temperature effects. Two varieties
should be covered.
Design #11:
i
The first rep of this design was run. Neither growth nor exposure humidity
controls were functioning properly. Thus the results are suggestive at best
and are shown in Tables 50-53. The second rep was included as part of design #10.
The system is being re-worked and humidity will be re-studied during the next pro-
ject year.
Design #12:
The analysis of variance (Table 54) showed that three of the main factors
were significant for the 4 measured responses, but only injury was affected by
EL. Rep interactions were considered but no real differences were found. The
cone interactions with 61 and El light were found for most of the factors and are
shown in Table 57. The correlation coefficients are shown in Table 55.
14
-------
The results for individual factors are shown in Table 56, A concentration
of 75 pphm S0? caused both TDW and ROW reductions and only 1% visible injury.
Btomass increased with growth light as did injury and tiller #, Plants were
more sensitive at a 2100 ft-c exp light but the increased injury did not affect
the btomass parameters. TDW was affected by replication but rep interactions
were not Important.
The GL by Cone Interaction (Table 57) shows that 75 pphm S07 will reduce
both TDW and ROW at a 2400 ft-c GL. The EL suggests that 75 pphffl is about the
threshold for growth reduction of TDW and ROW for the 700 ft-c EL. It also
shows that at 75 and 150 pphm the effects are more severe at the lower exposure
light intensity but at 300 pphm the response is greater at the high exposure
intensity.
This design leaves many unanswered questions in terms of light intensity
that will be addressed during the next project year.
Design #13:
The analysis of variance (Table 58) shows the two main factors are signi-
ficant for the measured parameters except for harvest age for tillers. The inter-
action is significant for TDW, ROW and injury. The correlation coefficient are
shown in Table 59.
The interactions are shown in Table 60. Since this experiment was designed
to include some treatments that would cause severe injury from each pollutant
for each time period, the design could not be analyzed for pollutant interactions.
However, if each harvest date is scanned there is a consistent trend suggesting
that effects are more striking at the 49 day harvest than at the 42 day. When
specific comparisions are made, most cases suggest antagonistic effects rather
than additive or greater-than-additive.
In order to develop a better understanding of these interactions the speci-
fic combinations of 0,. S0« and control treatments were removed for each time
period and analyzed separately (Table 61 shows the analyses of variance and Table
62 the correlation coefficients for these sub analyses). In most cases the inter-
actions were not significant, but the analyses included 2 possible combinations
of interactions each with a difference in the SOp/O, ratio. They also included
an averaging of the harvest effects because no interactions with SOp-O^-Har Age
were noted. If each set of data (Table 63) is viewed separately, tne case for
antagonism becomes fairly strong. At least the trends are there. In several
cases the effects are more nearly additivd or great-than-additive (i.e. ROW for
the 0.75 hr: compare control + mix of 40 Ov-lOO S02 with 100 S02+40 Q^' The
significant interaction for injury suggests a greater-than-additive effect (for
the 0.75 hr). The significant ROW at 1.5 hr is a clear antagonism for both ozone
concentrations. The TDW for 30 pphm 03 is in agreement with the root data but the
injury data suggests an additive effect.
15
-------
The ozone by harvest age interactions are shown in Table 64. Generally
these results show that the ozone treatment does not affect growth until the
second harvest (49 day), Thus it might be necessary to re-ran out Interaction
analyses considering only the 49 day harvest.
Thts design was set-up to cover many different SOj-Og combinations and
has not received an exhaustive analysis. The design wilt be further analyzed
before a continuation of the studies are made. These results suggest that
threshold 0, concentration for Carolee oat may lie between 10-15 pphm, for an
acute response.
16
-------
TABLE 1. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #4.
Source
S-P
S-K
S-Ca
S-Mg
S-Fe
S-Na
S-S
R-Mg
R-S
TFW
TDW
RFW
RDM
Injury
TMT
Prob>
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.41
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
(DF=5)
F LSD
(0.05)
174
2834
224
198
9
131
111
551
177
1.51
0.21
1.05
0.17
2.05
S-Level
Prob > F
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.86
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.29
0.38
0.04
(DF=3)
LSD
(0.05)
142
2314
183
162
7
107
• 91
450
144
1.23
0.18
0.86
0.14
1.68
TMT S-Level (DF=15)
Prob> F
0.58
0.35
0.93
0.53
0.30
0.29
0.03
0.96
0.31
0.04
0.01
0.02
0.10
0.01
LSD
(0.05)
347
5668
447
397
18
262
222
1103
354
3.02
0.43
2.11
0.35
4.10
!_/ Data came from an elemental analysis of tissue from experiment #4 in the
1974 Annual Report. Above ANOV utilized only £ treatments from the 35
day harvest. Only variables showing significance are included in the
table. This is from an exposure of Carolee oat to SOg.
2_/ Tmt (treatment), S-level (sulfur level), S (stem), R (root), TFW (top
fresh wt), TDW (top dry wt), RFW ( root fresh wt), ROW (root dry wt).
The £, JC, Ca, Mg, Fe, Na, and S_ are the elements of interest.
17
-------
TABLE 2. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #4.
i/
Variable
S-P x S-K
S-P x S-Ca
S-P x S-Mg
S-P x S-Fe
S-P x R-P
S-P x R-S
S-P x TFW
S-P x TDW
S-P x RFW ,
S-P x Injury
S-K x S-Ca
S-K x S-Mg
S-K x R-P
S-K x R-Ca
S-K x R-S
S-K x TFW
S-K x TDW
S-K x RFW
S-K x ROW
S-K x Inj.
S-Ca x S-Mg
S-Ca x S-Fe
S-Ca x S-Na
S-Ca x S-S
S-Ca x R-Mg
S-Ca x R-S
S-Ca x TFW
S-Ca x TDW
S-Ca x ROW
S-Ca x Inj.
S-Mg x S-Fe
S-Mg x S-Na
S-Mg x S-S
S-Mg x R-S
S-Mg x TDW
S-Mg x Inj.
TMT (5)
0.99
0.84
0.58
0.62
0.67
-0.94
-0.86
-0.89
-0.86
0.90
0.78
0.50
0.69
0.23
-0.97
-0.88
-0.92
-0.91
-0.90
0.92
0.88
0.90
0.86
0.17
-0.10
-0.63 '"'•
-0.63
-0.65
-0.60
0.68
0.89
0.93
-0.14
-0.35
-0.24
0.28
Correlation
S-Level (3)
0.83
0. 91
0.92
0.60
0.14
-0.92
-0.99
-0.93
0.34
-0.89
0.86
0.94
0.26
0.95
-0.81
-0.83
-0.98
0.09
-0.66
-0.99
0.98
0.86
-0.86
-0.96
0.95
-0.99
-0.88
-0.92
-0.18
-0.91
0,87
-0.75
-0.89
-0.96
-0.97
-0.97
Coefficients (DF)
Residual (48}2/Cor.
0.70
0.35
0.51
0.31
0.15
0.07
-0.07
-0.27
-0.04
0.30
0.22
0.43
0.19
-0.04
-0.06
0.12
-0.28
0.15
-0.03
0.27
0.75
0.30
0.46
0.20
-0.17
-0.02
-0.04
-0.20
-0.05
0.27
0.22
0.37
0.10
0.07
-0.13
0.39
o /
Total (71F
0.85
0.62
0.62
0.41
0.31
-0.41
-0.49
-0.59
-0.45
0.56
0.56
0.57
0.33
-0.13
-0.41
-0.44
-0.60
-0.44
-0.47
0.55
0.83
0.40
-0.48
-0.54
0.36
-0.66
-0.43
-0.50
-0.31
0.38
0.42
-0.29
-0.40
-0.46
-0.23
0.15
18
-------
TABLE 2. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #4.
I/
(Continued)
Variable
S-Fe x R-K
S-Fe x R-Ca
S-Na x S-S
S-Na x R-Mg
S-Na x R-S
S-S x"R-Mg
S-S x R-S
R-P x R-K
R-P x R-Ca
R-P x R-Mg
R-P x Inj.
R-K x R-Ca
R-K x R-Mg
R-K x RFW
R-Ca x R-Mg
R-Ca x TFW
R-Ca x TDW
R-Ca x Inj.
R-Mg x R-S
R-S x TDW
TFW x TDW
TFW x RFW
TFW x ROW
TFW x Inj.
TDW x RFW
TDW x ROW
TDW x Inj.
ROW x RFW
RFW x Inj.
ROW x Inj.
TMT (5)
0.89
0.66
-0.28
-0.40
-0.39
0.22
-0.69
0.54
0.68
0.31
0.90
0.86
0.58
-0.23
0.84
-0.40
-0.31
0.41
0.39
0.88
0.99
0.96
0.97
-0.99
0.99
0.99
-0.99
0.99
-0.97
-0.98
Correl atton
S-Level (3)
-0.75
0.65
0.97
-0.98
0.91
-0.99
0.98
0.75
0.37
-0.38
-0.19
-0.34
-0.88
-0.94
0.70
-0.95
-0.98
-0.96
-0.98
0.89
0.93
-0.28
0.25
0.88
-0.20
0.51
0.99
0.64
-0.19
0.56
Coefficients (D
Residual. (48)
0.24
0.31
0.14
-0.03
0.09
-0.06
-0.03
0.89
0.71
0.52
0.06
0.70
0.45
0.26
0.77
0.23
0.32
0.03
0.07
0.01
0.81
0.76
0.53
0.01
0.67
0.55
-0.08
0.66
0.17
0.02
^Cor, Total (71)-^
0.31
0.40
0.87
-0.63
0.78
-0.58
0.76
0.77
0.68
0.31
0.38
0.64
0.14
0.02
0.63
0.05
0.06
0.08
-0.53
0.35
0.96
0.88
0.85
-0.84
0.90
0.88
-0.87
0.91
-0.84
-0.80
]_/ Data came from 6> treatments of the 35 day harvest from Oat #4 reported in the
1974 Annual Report. This included a series of elemental analyses. It is from
an exposure of Carolee oat to SO.
2/ All values >
3/ All values >
0.35 are significant at the 0.01 level.
0.30 are significant at the 0.01 level.
19
-------
TABLE 3. EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE ON CONCENTRATION AND DURATION ON
SEVERAL PLANT RESPONSES - OAT #4. ]/
Plant y
Responses
S-P (ppm)
S-K (ppm)
S-Ca (ppm)
S-Mg (ppm)
S-Fe (ppm)
S-Na (ppm)
S-S (ppm)
R-S (ppm)
TFW (gm)
TDW (gm)
RFW (gm)
ROW (gm)
Inj. (%)
Time (hrs. )/Concentration (pphm)
Q
2763
36100
2250
1783
65
1424
1850
1593
19.58
3.15
13.71
1.40
0
3/5C
2950
38833
2817
2350
80
1553
1930
1503
20.27
3.18
13.92
1.39
5
3/100
3100
41850
2825
2267
72
1618
1839
1362
17.90
2.59
10.39
1.05
13
3/200
3300
45283
2925
2075
76
1497
2223
1229
11.11
1.53
6. 40
0.52
43
6/25
2917
38942
2216
1875
65
1428
2044
1421
20.74
3.18
13.56
1.39
1
6/50
2783
37483
2125
1767
64
1388
2012
1489
20.02
3.04
12.04
1.20
5.0
LSD-0. 05
e 174
2834
224
198
69
131
111
177
1.51
0.21
1.05
0.17
2.05
I/ Data from £ treatments of the 35 day harvest from Oat #4 reported in the 1974
Annual Report - Carolee Oat.
2/ Elemental analyses are reported as ppm on a dry wt. basis.
20
-------
TABLE 4. EFFECTS OF NUTRIENT SULFUR LEVELS ON SEVERAL PLANT RESPONSES
OAT #4. I/
Plant &
Responses
S-P (ppm)
S-K (ppm)
S-Ca (ppm)
S-Mg (ppm)
S-Na (ppm)
S-S (ppm)
R-Mg (ppm)
R-S (ppm)
TDW (gm)
INJ. (%)
S-Level (ppm)
5
3092
40278
2833
2150
467
1469
3583
1008
2.69
11
15
2972
40567
2806
2144
946
1714
3361
1123
2.73
11
45
3006
41461
2556
2100
2086
2132
2772
1462
2.68
10
135
2806
36689
1911
1683
2440
2617
2250
2139
3.01
13
LSD-0.05
142
2314
183
162
107
91
450
144
0.18
1.68
]_/ Data from 6_ treatments of the 35 day harvest from Oat #4 reported in the
1974 Annual Report - Carolee Oat.
2/ Elemental analyses are reported as ppm on a dry wt. basis.
21
-------
TABLE 5. EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION AND DURATION BY SULFUR
LEVEL ON SEVERAL PLANT RESPONSES OF CAROLEE OAT - OAT #4. !_/
Plant 2/
Response
S-Level
(ppm)
S-S
5
(ppm) 15
TFW
(gm)
TDW
RFW
INJ.
45
135
(LSD-0. 05=222)
5
15
45
135
(LSD-0. 05=3. 02)
5
15
45
135
(LSD-0. 05=0. 43)
5
15
45
135
(LSD-0. 05=2. 11)
5
15
45
135
Time (hr. )/Concentration (pphm)
0
1250
1560
1990
2600
18.36
19.99
19.77
20.20
2.86
3.06
3.16
3.54
13.22
13.41
13.46
14.74
0
0
0
0
3/50
1353
1490
2170
2707
18.60
17.76
20.47
24.24
3.02
2.72
3.11
3.86
14.49
13.07
14.47
13.63
5
5
3
5
3/100
1287
1577
2013
2480
16.35
18.95
17.60
18.70
2.37
2.73
2.51
2.75
9.57
11.56
10.38
10.07
13
12
13
13
3/200
1887
1960
2333
2710
11.56
10.70
11.86
10.30
1.55
1.54
1.58
1.44
7.15
6.09
6.55
5.81
40
42
38
52
6/25
1487
1940
2137
2613
21.69
21.67
19.28
20.31
3.39
3.25
2.89
3.20
15.15
15.17
12.14
11.79
0
0
2
0
6/50
1553
1757
2147
2590
18.71
20.79
19.05
21.53
2.96
3.10
2.82
3.27
11.87
12.67
10.59
13.02
5
5
5
5
(LSD-0. 05=4.1)
pH-i &
(units)
5
15
45
135
(LSD-0.05=0.32)
6.22
6.50
6.37
6.28
6.31
6.32
5.94
6.18
5.92
6.52
6.03
6.08
J/ Data from j5 treatments of the 35 day harvest from Oat #4 reported in the 1974
Annual Report - Carol ee Oat.
2/ Elemental analyses are reported as ppm on a dry wt. basis.
3/ Data from 13 treatments of the 35 day harvest from Oat #4 reported in the 1974
Annual Report - Carolee Oat.
22
-------
TABLE 6. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #5 I/
Source
DF
Har-Age
Cone.
Har-Age
Cone.
1
3
3
Ini.
Prob > F
0.04
0.01
0.31
I
LSD
(0.05)
1.30
1.84
2.60
Inj II
Prob > F LSD
0.01
0.01
0.01
(0.
0.
1.
1.
05)
96
35
91
TDW
Prob'
LSD
RDW
Prob> F LSD
(0.05)
0.01
0.01
0.26
0.44
0.62
0.88
0.01
0.01
0.52
(o.
0-
0.
0.
05)
25
36
51
]_/ Data came from an analysis of harvest 1 and 2 in this design with
Carolee Oat exposed to SOp.
21 Har-Age (harvest age), Inj (injury), TDW (top dry wt.), RDM (root dry wt.).
23
-------
TABLE 7. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #5.
I/
Correlation Coefficients (DF)
Variable
Inj. I x Inj. II
Inj. I x TDK
Inj. I x RON
Inj. IIx TDW
Inj. IIx ROW
TDW x RDW
Cone. (3)
0.99
-0.99
-0.98
-0.99
-0.97
0.99
Residual (96)
0.54
-0.12
-0.03
0.01
-0.02
0,36
Cor. Total
0.93
0.06
0.15
0.09
0.20
0.92
(143)
I/ Data came from an analysis of harvest 1 and 2 in this design with Carolee
Oat exposed to S02-
TABLE 8. EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION ON SEVERAL RESPONSES OF
CAROLEE OAT - OAT #5. ]_/
Concentration.
(pphm)
Plant Responses over Two Harvest Ages
0
50
100
200
(LSD-0.05)
TDW (gms)
10.40
9.78
8.01
i 6.34
0.62
RDW (gms)
4.4
4.31
3.92
3.21
0.35
Inj. 1 (%) Inj. II (X
0
7
18
30
2
0
6
16
25
1
I/ Data came from an analysis of harvest 1 and 2 in this design.
24
-------
TABLE 9. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #5. -1 -1
Source
Exp-Age
Cone.
Exp-Age *Conc.
Exp-Age
Cone.
Exp-Age *Conc.
Exp-Age
Cone.
Exp-Age *Conc.
DF
5
3
15
5
3
15
5
3
15
Inj. I
Prot»F LSD
(0.05)
0.01
0.01
0.01
Prob»
0.01
0.01
0.01
Prob>
0.20
0.11
0.12
2.56
2.09'
5.12
RDM
F LSD
(0.05)
0.89
0.73
1.78
F-HD
F LSD v
(0.05)
2.89
2.36
5.78
Prob? F
0.01
0.01
0.01
Prob>F
0.31
0.01
0.70
Prob>
0.01
0.09
0.68
Inj. II
LSD
(0.05)
1.81
1.48
3.62
HD-DW
LSD
(0.05)
0.73
0.60
1.46
#-TIL
F LSD %
(0.05)
2.42
1.97
4.84
TDW
Prob> F LSD
(0.05)
0.01
0.01
0.01
#HD
Prob> F
0.19
0.01
0.97
#H-TIL
Prob" F
0.08
0.01
0.23
1.88
1.53
3.75
LSD
(0.05)
2.77
2.26
5.55
LSD
(0.05
2.13
1.74
4.25
]_/ Data came from an analysis of the final harvest in this design with Carolee
Oat exposed to S02-
2/ Exp-Age (exposure-age), Cone. (S02 concentration), Inj, (injury), TDW (top
dry wt.) RDM (root dry wt.) Hd-DW (dry wt. of heads), #Hd (number of heads),
F-Hd (number of florets per head), #-til (number of tillers), #H-Til (number
of heading tillers).
25
-------
TABLE 10. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #5. -'
V
Variable
Inj. I x Inj. II
Inj. I x TDW
Inj. I x ROW
Inj. II x TDW
Inj. II x ROW
TDW x RDM
TDW x HdrDW
TDW x F-Hd
ROW x F-Hd
RDW x Hd-DW
Hd-DW x F-Hd
# Til X # H-Til
Exp. Age (5)
0.91
-0.86
-0.89
-0.92
-0.92
0.98
0.78
-0.56
-0.69
0.82
-0.79
0,75
Correlation
Cone. (3)
0.99
-0.98
-0.94
-0.96
-0.92
0.98
0.94
0.98
0.99
0.86
0.85
0.89
Coefficients (DF)
Residual (48)
0.13
0.02
-0.24
-0.04
0.03
0.51
0.20
0.13
0.23
-0.09
-0.20
0.08
Cor. Tot. (71)
0.90
-0.68
-0.61
-0.72
-0.58
0.81
0.56
0.25
0.16
0.37
-0.01
0.27
26
-------
TABLE 11. EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE ON SEVERAL PLANT RESPONSES,AS
AFFECTED BY EXPOSURE AGE AND NUMBER OF EXPOSURES - OAT #5. !_/
Exposure
Age
2
2+3
2+4+6+8
3+5+7+9
8
8+9
(LSD-0.05)
2
2+3
2+4+6+8
3+5+7+9
8
8+9
(LSD-0.05)
TDW
(pi)
22.45
23.29
21.31
19.10
20.74
19.80
1.88
Hd
(f)
8.8
8.8
5.9
6.4
7.6
8.0
2.8 -
Plant
ROW
(gm)
7.08
7.22
6.19
5.16
5.91
5.77
0.89
F-Hd
(#)
30.6
30.8
32.6
33.4
32.4
30.5
2.9
Responses
Inj. I
lo/\
\'°)
5
10
15
19
15
20
2.66
Til
(#)
16.2
15.6
12.7
12.5
13.4
13.0
2.,4
Inj. II
(%)
5
6
10
13
8
12
1.8
Hd-Til
(I)
8.8
8.8
7.2
6.0
8.0
8.4
2.1
.
Hd-DW
i (gm)
2.60
2.73
2.12
1'.98
2.49
2.39
0.73
I/ Data came from an analysis of the final harvest in this design for Carolee Oat.
27
-------
TABLE 12. EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION ON SEVERAL PLANT
RESPONSES - OAT #5. !_/
Concentration
(pphm)
0
50
100
200
(LSD-0.05)
0
50
100
200
Plant Responses
TDW
(ps)
23.65
22.97
20.13
17.70
1.53
Hd
(f)
8.9
7.8
8.4
5.2
(LSD-0.05)
2.3
ROW
(gms)
6.88
6.88
5.77
5.35
0.73
F-Hd
(#)
33
33
31
30
2.4
INJ. I
(*)
0
9
18
30
2.1
Hd-Til
(#)
9.4
7.9
7.6
6.4
1.7
INJ. II
(«
0
7
11
18
1.5
Till
(#)
14.8
14.7
13.6
12.6
2.0
Hd-DW
(gms)
3.07
2.54
2.39
1.54
0.60
]_/ Data came from an analysis of the final harvest in this design with
Carolee Oat.
28
-------
TABLE 13. EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION BY EXPOSURE AGE
ON THE RESPONSE OF CAROLEE OAT - OAT #5, !_/
Kiant
Responses
f
TDW
(gm)
(LSD-0.
TDW
(gm)
(LSD-0.
Inj. I
(X)
(LSD-0.
Inj. II
(%)
(LSD-0.
Exposure Age Jwks)
Cone
0
50
100
200
05=3.75)
0
50
100
200
05=1.78)
0
50
100
200
05=5.12)
0
50
100
200
05=3.62)
2
21.36
25.99
19.53
22.91
6.26
8.19
5.89
7.98
0
0
3
15
0
5
5
12
2+3
22.37
22.24
23.51
25.02
7.15
7.03
7.26
7.44
0
5
8
27
0
5
7
12
2+4+6+8
26.38
25.32
18.60
14.93
8.17
7.62
5.20
3.77
0
7
23
30
0
5
15
20
3+5+7+9
24.05
20.94
18.57
12.85
6.48
6.34
4.73
3.10
0
13
25
37
0
12
17
23
8
23.23
21.57
20.50
17.65
6.43
6.24
5.85
5.10
0
8
22
32
0
7
10
15
v8+9
24.53
21.78
20.08
12.80
6.81
5.89
5.66
4.72
0
18
23
38
0
7
15
25
]_/ Data came from an analysis of the final harvest in this design with Carolee
Oat.
29
-------
TABLE 14. DRY WEIGHTS OF TOPS AND ROOTS AT SEVERAL HARVEST AGES-
OAT #5. I/
Harvest
Age (wks)
3
4
5
9
10
11
12
# Plant
3
6
3
6
12
6
18
TDW
(gms)
0.25
0.90
2.34
12.20
14.70
18.50
23.65
ROW
(gms)
0.15
0.75
2.22
5.95
6.31
6.07
6.88
TDW/ RDM
1.5
1.1
1.1
2.0
2.3
3.0
3.4
]_/ Data came from control plants and is given to show normal growth
rates in the pots we used (15 cm).
30
-------
Source
Cone.
Exp-Age
Har-Age
Cone *Har-Age
Conc.*Exp-Age
Cone.
Exp-Age
Har-Age
Cone *Har-Age
Cone *Exp-Age
TABLE
DF
2
6
1
2
12
2
6
1
2
12
15. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE
TDW
Prob> F
0.98
0.02
0.01
0.62
0.09
INJ. I
Prob> F
0.01
0.01
1.00
0.99
0.01
LSD
(0.05)
0.21
0.33
0.17
0.30
0.57
LSD
(0.05)
0.39
0.59
0.32
0.55
1.02
ROW
Prob> F
0.30
0.02
0.01
0.89
0.63
INJ.
Prob>
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.15
0.35
- OAT #6. ±! &
Tillers
LSD Prob>F
(0.05)
0.18 0.01
0.28 0.01
0.15 0.01
0.26 0.01
0.49 0.52
II
F LSD
(0.05)
0.86
1.32
0.71
1.22
2.29
LSD
(0.05)
1.03
1.57
0.84
1.46
2.73
]_/ Analysis using the 5 and 6 wk harvests only for Carolee oat exposed to
four ozone concentrations at 7 exposure ages.
2J Exp-Age (exposure-age), Cone, (concentration), Har-Age (harvesit-age),
TDW (top .dry wt.), RDM (root dry wt.), Inj. (injury).
31
-------
TABLE 16. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #6.
Variable
Cone. (2)
TDW
TDW
ROW
Inj
x ROW
x Inj. II
x Inj. II
. I x Inj. II
-0.11
-0.62
0.85
0.97
Correlation Coefficients (DF)
Residual (84) Cor. Total (125)
0.36
0.12
0.20
0.34
0.73
0.53
0.51
0.11
]_/ Data came from an analysis of the 5 and 6 wk harvests in this design
with Carolee Oat exposed to 0.
32
-------
TABLE 17. EFFECTS OF OZONE CONCENTRATION AND HARVEST AGE ON SEVERAL
PLANT RESPONSE - OAT #6. ]_/ 2_/
Treatment
Cone, (pphm)
25
50
100
Harvest Age
(wks)
3
4
5
6
Plant Responses
TDW
(gm)
3.66
3.66
3.66
0.62
1.52
3.05
5.62
ROW
(gm)
2.09
2.00
2.12
0.27
1.19
1.98
2.80
TILLERS
(#)
13.1
14.7
14.1
5.1
10.6
14.5
16.1
INJ. I
(*)
i
5
5
6
7
6
5
5
INJ. 2
(*)
8
8
9
7
6
8
11
I/ Data came from the complete design using a regression analysis for Carolee
Oat.
27 Concentration effects were not significant but harvest age was except for
Injury #1.
33
-------
TABLE 18. EFFECTS OF OZONE CONCENTRATION, HARVEST AGE AND EXPOSURE AGE
ON SEVERAL PLANT RESPONSES - OAT #6. ]/
Treatment
Harvest Age
(wks)
5
6
(LSD-0.05)
Exp-Age
(wks)
2
3
4
2+3
2+4
3+4
2+3+4
(LSD-0.05)
Cone, (pphm)
25
50
TOO
(LSD-0.05)
Control-''
Plant Resonses
TDW
(gms)
3.05
5.62
0.17
4.35
4.47
4.36
4.67
4.18
4.10
4.24
0.33
4.35
4.34
4.33
0.21
4.43
ROW
(gms)
1.98
2.80
0.15
2.45
2.33
2.33
2.70
2.35
2.18
2.36
0.28
2.41
2.31
2.45
0.18
2.06
Tillers
(*)
14.5
16.0
1.0
17.4
14.2
14.9
16.9
14.1
14.6
15.1
1.6
14.1
16.3
15.6
0.8
16.8
Inj. I
(*)
5
5
0.4
7
5
5
5
6
5
5
0.6
5
5
6
0.3
5
Inj. 2
(%)
8
11
0.9
11
9
8
13
7
9
8
1.3
9
9
10
0.7
10
I/ Data came from an analysis of the 5 and 6 wk harvest of Carolee Oat.
N.
2J The control values are shown but were not part of the analysis of variance.
34
-------
TABLE 19. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #6.
Source
Exp Age
Har Age
Exp Age x
Har Age
DF TDW ROW TILLERS INJ. I INJ.II
Prob > F LSD Prob > F LSD Prob >
(0.05) (0.05)
6 0.06 0.57 0.51 l 0.43 0.02
/
1 0.01 0.31 0.01 0.23 0.62
6 0.72 0.81 0.32 0.61 0.32
F LSD Prob > F LSD Prob-F LSD
(0.05) (0.05)
3.48 0.01 1.82 0.01
1.86 1.00 0.98 0.01
4.92 0.74 2.58 0.02
(0.05)
2.89
1.54
4.08
I/ Analysis using the 5 and 6 wk harvests, and the 100 pphm 03 for Carolee Oat.
TABLE 20. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #6.
Variables
TDW x ROW
TDW x INJ. II
ROW x INJ. II
INJ. I x INJ. II
•VBHWOH^P-MO^^M^HWI^WIPMHIW—IIB—
Residual
0.29
0.48
0.10
0.47
Correlation Coefficient
(DF)
(28) Cor. Total (41)
0.76
0.65
0.53
0.06
]_/ Analysis using the 5 and 6 wk harvests, and the 100 pphm 03 for
Carolee Oat.
35
-------
TABLE 21. EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE AGE AND HARVEST AGE ON SEVERAL PLANT
RESPONSES - OAT #6. ]/
Variable
TDW
Plant Responses
ROW
TILLERS
1NJ. I
INJ. II
Har Age c
o
(wks)
6
(LSD-0.05)
Ex. Age
(wks)
2
2+3
2+3+4
2+4
3
3+4
4
(LSD-0.05)
Control -1
3.08
5.58
0.31
4.35
4.59
4.21
3.76
4.37
4.30
4.71
0.57
4.43
2.01
2.88
0.23
-2.46
2.73
2.43
2.46
2.33
2.27
2.44
0.43
2.06
15.19
16.00
1.86
18.00
18.33
16.00
13.33
13.00
15.33
15.17
3.48
16.8
6
6
0.98
10
5
5
7
5
6
6
1.82
5
8
12
1.54
10
14
9
8
10
10
9
2.89
10
_]_/ Analysis using the 5 and 6 wk harvests, and the 100 pphm 0, for Carolee Oat.
2/ The control values are shown but were not part of the analysis of variance.
36
-------
TABLE 22. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #7.
Source DF
Cham 1
Cone 3
Har-Age 2
Cham*Har-
Age 2
Cham*Conc3
Conc*Har-
Age 6
TDW
Prob?-F
0.01
0.28
0.01
0.01
0.39
0.56
ROW
TILLERS
LSD ProbxF LSD Prob? F
(0.05) (0.05)
0.20
0.28
0.24
0.34
0.40
0.49
0.01
0.20
0.01
0.62
0.15
0.24
0.18
0.25
0.21
0.30
0.35
0.43
0.01
0.35
0.01
0.01
0.29
0.27
LSD
(0.05)
0.97
1.37
1.19
1.68
1.94
2.37
INJURY I
Prob> F LSD
(0.05)
0.01
0.01
0.23
0.23
0.01
0.20
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
39
56
48
68
79
97
INJURY II
Prob> F
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.07
0.01
0.01
LSD
(0.05)
0.93
1.31
1.13
1.60
1.85
2.27
iy Design utilized four 0- concentrations from £ chambers over 3_ harvest ages for
Carolee Oat. J
2/ Cham (chamber), Conc(concentration), Har-Age (harvest age), TDW (top dry wt.),
and ROW (root dry wt.).
TABLE 23. CROSS PRODUCT ANALYSIS - OAT #7.
Correlation Coefficient (DF)
Source
Cone.
(3)
TDW x
TDW x
TDW x
TDW x
ROW x
ROW x
RDW x
INJ.
RDW
Till
INJ.
INJ.
Till
INJ.
INJ.
I
II
I
II
I x INJ.
0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
II 0.
62
72
94
97
66
54
67
98
Cham * Cone
(3)
0.
0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
-0.
0.
61
65
87
77
20
37
07
95
Har-Age
(2)
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
-0.
99
85
99
97
84
99
97
94
Residual
(48)
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
-0.
0.
0.
57
52
15
20
34
30
12
32
Cor. Total
(71)
0.88
0.65
-0.19
0.45
0.59
-0.21
0.44
0.50
]_/ Data came from an analysis of an exposure of Carolee Oat to ozone.
37
-------
TABLE 24. EFFECTS OF OZONE CONCENTRATION, HARVEST AGE AND CHAMBER ON SEVERAL
PLANT RESPONSES - OAT #7. I/
Plant Responses
Variable
Harvest Age
(wks)
(LSD-0.05)
•Conc-
(LSD-0.05)
Chamber
(LSD-0.05)
4
5
6
0
25
50
100
1
2
/TDW
(gm)
1.38
2.73
4.53
0.24
3.02
2.86
2.89
2.74
0.28
2.13
3.63
0.20
ROW
(gm)
1.09
1.80
2.79
0.21
2.02
1.95
1.77
1.83
0.25
1.53
2.25
0.18
TILLER
(#)
10.7
13.6
13.8
1.2
11.9
13.1
12.9
12.8
1.4
10.6
14.8
1.0
INJ. I
(%)
4
3
3
0.5
0
2
2
10
0.6
5
2
0.4
INJ. II
(%)
0
1
8
1.1
0
2
3
7
1.3
4
2
0.9
_]/ Data was obtained from a design using Carolee Oat.
38
-------
TABLE 25. EFFECT OF OZONE CONCENTRATION BY CHAMBER ON SEVERAL RESPONSES
OF CAROLEE OAT - OAT #7.
Plant
Responses
TDtf
(gm)
(LSD-0.05=0.
ROW
(gm)
(LSD-0.05=0.
Injury I
(X)
(LSD-0.05=0.
Injury II
m
Cham
1
2
40)
1
2
35)
1
2
8)
1
2
Q
2.39
3.64
1.83
2.21
0
0
0
0
Cone.
25
2.15
3.58
1.49
2.42
5
0
2
2
(pphm)
50
2.10
3.69
1.37
2.17
5
0
3
2
100
1.88
3.60
1.45
2.21
20
0
10
4
(LSD-0.05=1.9)
39
-------
TABLE 26. EFFECT OF HARVEST AGE BY CHAMBER ON SEVERAL PLANT RESPONSES
OAT #7.
Plant
Responses
TDW
(gm)
(LSD-0.05=0.
Tillers
(#)
(LSD-0.05=1.
Cham
1
2
34)
1
2
7)
4
1.17
1.59
9.8
11.5
Harvest Age (WKS)
5
2.13
3.32
10.3
17.0
6
3.08
5.98
11.6
16.0
V Data was obtained from a design using Carolee Oat exposed to 03-
TABLE 27. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #7.
I/ 2/
Source DP
TDW
ROW
TILLERS
INJURY I
INJURY II
Prob F> LSD Prob>F LSD Prob>F LSD Prob>F LSD Prob? F LSD
(0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05)
Cham 1
Cone 3
Har-Age 2
Cham
*Har-Age 2
Cham*Conc3
Conc*Har-
Age 6
Cham*Conc
*Har-Age 6
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.19
0.27
0.23
0.33
0.38
0.46
0.65
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.61
0.07
0.01
0.13
0.19
0.26
0.23
0.32
0.37
0.45
0.64
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.63
0.84
0.07
0.38
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
1.
2.
69
98
85
20
39
70
40
0.01
0.01
0.32
j
0.54
0.01
0.56
0.95
0.93
1.31
1.13
1.60
1.85
2.27
3.21
0.61
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
1.28
1.81
1.57
2.22
2.56
3.13
4.43
_]_/ Design utilized four S0? concentrations from 2 chambers over 3^ harvest ages for
Carolee Oat.
27 Cham (chamber), Cone (concentration), Har-Age (harvest age), TDW (top dry wt.),
and ROW (root dry wt.).
40
-------
TABLE 28. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #7. I/
Correlation Coefficient (DF)
Source
TDVf x ROW
TDW x TILL
TDW x INJ. I
TDW x INJ. II
RDM x TILL
ROW x INJ. I
RDM x INJ. II
INJ I x INJ. II
Cone (3)
0.98
0.94
-0.91
-0.90
0.88
-0.94
-0.95
0.99
Har-Age (2)
0.99
0.96
0.92
0.99
0.97
0.93
0.99
0.94
Residual (48)
0.54
0.29
0.03
0.25
0.04
0-17
0.25
0.30
Cor. Tot. (71)
0.88
0.79
-0.21
0.19
0.75
-0.26
0.09
0.77
V Data came from an analysis of an exposure of Carolee Oat to sulfur dioxide.
41
-------
TABLE 29. EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION, HARVEST AGE AND CHAMBER ON
SEVERAL PLANT RESPONSES - OAT #7. I/
Plant Responses
Variable
Cone. 0
(pphm) 75
150
300
(LSD-0.05)
Chamber 1
2
(LSD-0.05)
Har-Age 4
(wks) 5
6
(LSD-0.05)
TDW
(gm)
2.94
3.11
2.99
2.36
0.27
2.24
3.46
0.19
1.36
2.65
4.54
0.23
ROW
(gm)
2.06
2.06
2.02
1.52
0.26
1.65
2.18
0.19
1.02
1.82
2.90
0.23
TILLERS
(!)
12.2
13.1
12.1
11.0
1.0
10.1
14.1
0.7
9.6
12.5
14.1
0.9
INJ. I
(*)
0
0
8
20
1.3
9
5
0.9
6
7
7
1.1
INJ. II
(*)
0
2
6
14
1.8
6
5
1.3
2
5
9
1.6
]_/ Data was obtained from a design using Carolee Oat.
42
-------
TABLE 30. EFFECT OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION BY HARVEST AGE ON SEVERAL
RESPONSES OF CAROLEE OAT - OAT #7.
Plant
Response
Variance Har-Age
(wks)
TDW
^^bM«V«^V-*
(gm)
(LSD-0.05=0.46)
ROW
(gin)
(LSD-0.05=0.45)
Inj. II
(«
4
5
6
4
5
6
4
5
6
0
1.49
2.74
4.59
1.29
1.97
2.92
0
0
0
Cone, (pphm)
75
1.42
, 2.89
5.03
0.95
2.17
3.06
0
1
2
150
1.39
2.61
4.96
1.10
1.55
3.42
6
6
4
300
1.15
2.35
3.58
0.75
1.61
2.21
20
9
12
(LSD-0.05=3.1
43
-------
TABLE 31. EFFECT OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION BY CHAMBER ON SEVERAL
RESPONSES OF CAROLEE OAT - OAT #7.
Plant
Response
TDW
(gm)
(LSD-0.05=0
ROW
(gm)
(LSD-0.05=0
Injury I
(%)
(LSD-0.05=1
Injury II
(*)
Cone, (pphm)
Cham
1
2
.38)
1
2
.37)
1
2
.9)
1
2
Q
2.53
3.35
1.94
2.18
0
0
0
0
75
2.56
3.66
1.84
2.28
2
0
1
2
150
2.25
3.72
1.77
2.27
15
2
7
4
300
1.62
3.09
1.06
1.99
30
11
18
10
(LSD-0.05=2.6)
44
-------
TABLE 32. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #8. ^ &
Injury
Tillers
Source DF
Var 2
Cond 5
Pol-Exp 3
Var x Cond 10
Var x Pol-Exp 6
Cond x Pol-Expl5
Var x Cond x
Pol-Exp 30
Prob> F
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
LSD-0.05
1.9
2.7
2.2
4.7
3.9
5.5
9.5
Prob> F
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.06
0.01
LSD-0.05
0.3
0.4
0.4
0.8
0.6
0.9
1.6
!_/ This design used 3_ oat varieties exposed to 2_ concentrations of ozone and
2_ of sulfur dioxide over 6 growth conditions.
2J Var (variety), Cond (condition), Pol-Exp ( pollutant exposures).
45
-------
TABLE 33. FOLIAR RESPONSE (% INJURY) OF THREE OAT VARIETIES GROWN UNDER SIX ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS AND
EXPOSED TO ACUTE DOSES OF SULFUR DIOXIDE OR OZONE.
Pol lutant
(pphm)
Variety
0- (50) Carolee
J Salem
Coker 227
Ave
03 (75) Carolee
Salem
Coker 227
Ave
S02 (200) Carolee
^ Salem
Coker 227
Ave
SO- (300) Carolee
* Salem
Coker 227
Ave
Over Pollutant Carolee
Salem
Coker 227
Ave
Conditions [Temp -°C(day/night); Day Length-Hrs]
26/22
9+3
16.67
25.00
35.00
25.56
20.00
20.00
40.00
26.67
66.67
66.67
68.33
67.22
78.33
78,33
75.00
77.22
45.42
47.50
54.58
49.17
26/22
12
28.33
33.33
35.00
32.22
38.33
46.67
40.00
41.67
45.00
60.00
55.00
53.33
68.33
71.67
71.67
70.56
45.00
52.92
50.42
49.44
26/22
1+18+1
11.67
5.00
16.67
11.11
13.33
13.33
68.33
31.66
28.33
28.33
28.33
28.33
38.33
30.00
68.33
45.55
22.92
19.17
45.42
29.17
26/22
9
33.33
36.67
33.33
34.44
40.00
60.00
60.00
53.33
70.00
71.67
78.33
73.33
66.67
70.00
81.67
72.78
52.50
59.58
63.33
58.47
22/18
9+3
11.67
13.33
23.33
16.11
31.67
21.67
36.67
30.00
48.33
58.33
55.00
53.89
40.00
38.33
63.33
47.22
32.92
32.92
44.58
36.81
22/18 Ave.
9
25.00
30.00
35.00
30.00
35.00
43.33
41.67
40.00
65.00
70.00
61.67
65.56
63.33
68.33
70.00
67.22
47.08
52.92
52.08
50.69
21.11
23.89
29.72
24.91
29.72
34.17
47.78
37.22
53.89
59.17
57.78
56.94
59.17
59.44
71.67
63.43
40.97
44.17
51.74
45.63
]_/ This table shows the original data plus all possible combinations. See the Analysis of Variance table for
significance and LSD values. (LSD for the 3 way interaction is 9.50). All exposures were run for 1.5 hrs.
-------
TABLE 34. FOLIAR RESPONSE OF OAT AS AFFECTED BY ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS,
POLLUTANTS AND VARIETY - OAT #8.
Treatment Response (% Injury)
Pollutant Exposures ^
0, - 50 pphm
0., - 75 pphm
S02 - 200 pphm
S02 - 300 pphm
(LSD-0.05)
Environmental Condition —
26/22 9+3
26/22 12
26/22 1+18+1
26/22 9
22/18 9+3
22/18 9
(LSD-0.05)
Variety
Carol ee
Salem
Coker 227
(LSD-0.05)
25
37
57
63
2
49
49
29
59
37
51
3
41
44
52
2
]/ These were of 1.5 hr duration.
the last are the length of the
2/ The first values are day/night temperatures, the lasl
light periods. The 9+3 is 9 hrs. of full light plus a 3 hr. interrupted
night of incandescent light.
47
-------
TABLE 35. FOLIAR RESPONSE OF THREE OAT VARITIES TO SIX ENVIRONMENTAL
CONDITIONS OR FOUR POLLUTANT EXPOSURES - OAT #8.
Treatment
Environmental
Condi ttons I/
26/22 9+3
26/22 12
26/20 1+18+1
26/22 9
22/18 9+3
22/18 9
(LSD-0.05=5)
Pol 1 utant
Exposures 2/
Oo - 50 pphm
0- - 75 pphm
S02 - 2 ppm
S02 - 3 ppm
(LSD-0.05=4)
Carol ee
45
45
23
53
33
47
21
30
54
59
Variety
Salem
48
53
19
60
33
53
24
34
59
59
Coker 227
55
50
45
63
45
52
30
48
58
72
]_/ The first 2 values are day/night (26/22°C) temperatures - the last are the
length of the light (day) periods. The 9+3 is 9 hrs of full light plus a
3 hr interrrupted night of incandescent light.
2_/ These were all 1.5 hr duration.
48
-------
TABLE 36. FOLIAR RESPONSE OF OAT VARIETIES TO ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS
BY POLLUTANT EXPOSURES - OAT #8.
Environmental Condtttons
Temp °C Light
(D/N) (day length-hr)
Pollutant Exposures (1.5 Hr.)
03-50 pphm
pphm
-2 ppm S02-3 ppm
26/22
26/22
26/22
26/22
22/18
22/18
(LSD-0.05=6)
9+3
12
1+18+1
9
9+3
9
26
32
11
34
16
30
27
42
32
53
30
40
67
53
28
73
54
66
77
71
46
73
47
67
TABLE 37. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #9. -/ -1
Source
Rep
Sulfur
Cone.
Var.
Rep * Cone
Sulfur * Cone
Var * Cone
Rep * Var
DF
3
3
3
2
9
9
6
6
TDW
Prob> F
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
01
01
01
01
01
01
01
12
LSD
(0.05)
0.
0.
0.
<0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
17
17
17
17
34
34
30
30
ROW
INJURY
Prob> F LSD
(0.05)
0.01
0.04
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.01
0.21
0.17
0.17
0.17
<0.17
0.35
0.35
0.30
0.30
Prob> F LSD
(0.05)
0.01
0.15
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
1.91
1.91
1.91
1 .91
3.81
3.81
3.30
3.30
TILLERS
Prob>
0.02
0.28
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.66
0.14
0.11
F LSD
(0.05)
0.39
0.39
0.39
<0.39
0.79
0.79
0.68
0.68
!_/ Design used 3 oat varieties exposed to 4 concentrations of S02 and grown under 4
S-Levels.
2/ Rep (replication), Cone (concentration, Var (variety), TDW (top dry wt.), ROW
(root dry wt.)
49
-------
TABLE 38. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #9.
Correlation Coefficient (DF)
Variable
ROW x ROW
TDW x INJ
TDW x TILL
ROW x INJ
ROW x TILL
INJ x TILL
Rep (3)
0.98
-0.74
0.56
-0.65
0.57
-0.01
Cone (3)
0.97
-0.99
0.96
-0.96
0.88
-0.97
Corr. Tot. (191)
0.71
-0.89
0.45
-0.82
0.57
-0.52
' ]_/ Data came from an analysis of a S02 exposures.
50
-------
TABLE 39. EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION, S-LEVEL, VARIETY AND
REPLICATION ON SEVERAL PLANT RESPONSES - OAT #9. I/
Plant Responses
Variable
Rep.
(LSD-0.05)
Sulfur
(ppm)
(LSD-0.05)
Concentration
(pphm)
(LSD-0.05)
Variety Carol ee
Salem
Coker
(LSD-0.05)
1
2
3
4
5
15
45
135
0
36
75
150
227
TDW
(gins)
4.28
4.11
4.24
3.89
0.17
4.21
4.10
3.95
4.26
0.17
5.43
5.33
3.89
1.87
4.52
3.51
4.36
<0.17
RDM
(gms)
2.03
1.95
2.03
1.73
0.17
2.09
1.87
1.89
1.90 j
0.17
3.19
2.69
1.42
0.44
2.39
2.15
1.26
<0.17
Inj.
(*)
25
32
24
30
1.91
29
27
28
27
1.91
0
5
29
77
19
29
34
<1.91
Tillers
(#)
7.52
7.40
7.04
6.98
0.39
7.35
7.38
7.04
7.17
0.39
7.69
7.94
7.42
5.90
9.47
6.58
5.66
CO. 39
I/ Exposures were 3 hrs long, every other day, for 7 exposures.
51
-------
TABLE 40. EFFECT OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION BY REPLICATION AND BY
SULFUR LEVEL ON GROWTH OF THREE OAT VARIETIES - OAT #9. M
Plant
Responses
TDW Replication
(gm)
(LSD- 0.05=0. 34)
ROW Repl f cation
(LSD-0.05=0.35)
TDW Sulfur Level
(gm)
(LSD-0.05=0.34)
Treatment
1
2
3
4
1
2
3
4
(ppm)
5
15
45
135
Concentration (pphm)
0
5.40
5.77
5.28
5.28
3.16
3.37
3.06
3.16
5.62
5.26
5.51
5.33
36
5.22
5.40
5.26
5.43
3.00
2.81
2.62
2.35
5.60
5.33
4.89
5.50
75
4.14
3.70
4.13
3.60
1.40
1.39
1.68
1.21
3.71
3.96
3.71
4.19
150
2.37
1.55
2.30
1.27
0.57
0.23
0.75
0.21
1.89
1.86
1.70
2.03
!_/ Exposure were 3 hrs long, every other day, for 7 exposures
52
-------
TABLE
AND 8V REPLICA™N
Plant
Responses
TDW
(gm)
*
(LSD-0.05=0.30)
R_PW_
(gm)
(LSD-0.05=0.30)
Injury
(X)
(LSD-0.05=3.3)
Injury
(X)
(LSD-0.05=3.30)
Variety
Carolee
Salem
Coker 227
Carolee
Salem
Coker 227
Carolee
Salem
Coker 227
Carolee
Salem
Coker 227
Concentration (pphm)
0
5.46
4.63
6.20
3.68
3.62
2.26
0
0
0
1
15
27
34
36
5.30
4.26
6.42
3.02
3.06
2.00
4
6
5
2
26
32
37
75
4.49
3.60
3.58
2.02
1.64
0.60
17
27
42
Replication
3
13
27
33
150
2.81
1.57
1.23
0.85
0.28
0.18
57
83
90
4
24
31
35
V Exposures were 3 hrs long, every other day, for 7 exposures.
53
-------
TABLE 42. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #10.
Source
Rep
6T
ET
Cone
Rep * GT
Rep * ET x Cone
GT * ET x Cone
GT * Cone
DF
1
3
2
3
2
6
18
9
TDW
ROW
Prob > F LSD Prob * F
(0.05)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
01
01
53
01
12
01
32
63
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
09
13
11
13
19
32
45
26
0.01
0.01
0.21
0.01
0.82
0.26
0.21
0.02
INJURY
LSD
(0.05)
0.11
0.16
0.14
0.16
0.22
0.38
0.54
0.31
Prob F* LSD
(0.05)
0.03
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.88
1.24
1.07
1.24
1.75
3.04
4.30
2.48
TILLERS
Prob-F LSD
(0.05)
0.63
0.01
0.79
0.01
0.01
0.08
0.42
0.56
0.59
0.83
0.72
0.83
1.18
2.04
2.88
1.66
V The design used 4^ growth temperatures, 3^ temperatures, j_ S0? concentrations and
2_ replications on Carolee Oat.
2/ Rep (replication), GT (growth temperature), ET (exposure temperature), Cone
(concentration), TDW (top dry wt ), and ROW (root dry wt).
TABLE 43. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #10. -1
Correlation Coefficients (DF)
Variable Exp. T (2) Cone (3) Residual (96) Cor. Tot (191)
TDW x ROW
TDW x INJ
ROW x INJ
0.99
-0.82
-0.77
0.91
-0.99
-0.92
0.31
0.06
0.04
0.58
-0.52
-0.42
]_/ Data came from an analysis of a S02 exposure using Carolee Oat.
54
-------
TABLE 44-
Plant Responses
Variable
Cone.
(pphm)
(LSD-0.05)
Growth Temp
(°C)
(LSD-0.05)
Exp Temp
(°c)
(LSD-0.05)
Rep.
(LSD-0.05)
0
75
150
300
18
22
26
30
18+30
24+18
30+24
1
2
TDW
(gm)
2.40
2.38
2.12
1.67
0.13
2.05
2.11
2.32
2.10
0.13
2.13
2.18
2.12
0.11
1.83
2.46
0.09
ROW
(gm)
1.26
0.95
0.86
0.54
0.16
0.72
0.91
1.08
0.91
0.16
0.88
0.97
0.86
0.14
0.74
1.07
0.11
INJ.
(*)
0
2
10
28
1.2
9
13
9
10
1.2
13
7
10
1.1
9.5
10.5
0.9
TILLERS
(#)
11.2
11.4
10.9
9.2
0.8
11.3
10.9
10.5
9.9
0.8
10.5
10.7
10.7
0.7
10.6
10.7
0.6
I/ Data came from work with Carolee Oat.
55
-------
TABLE 45. EFFECTS OF GROWTH TEMPERATURE BY SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION
AND BY REPLICATION ON THE GROWTH OF CAROLEE OAT - OAT #10.
Plant
Response Variable
ROW Cone
(gm) (pphm) 0
75
150
300
(LSD-0.05=0.31)
Ti 1 1 ers Rep
(#) 1
2
(LSD-0.05=1.18)
Growth Temperature (°C)
18 ,
0.86
0.83
0.74
0.43
10.46
12.13
22
1.31
0.97
0.78
0.59
10.63
11.13
26
1.74
0.91
1.03
0.63
10.96
10.08
30
1.13
1.10
0.90
0.52
10.25
9.54
TABLE 46. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #10.
TDW
Source
GT
:ET
Cone
ET x Cone
GT x ET
DF
3
2
3
6
6
Prob > F LSD
(0.05)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
22
35
01
01
07
0.17
0.15
0.17
0.30
0.30
ROW
Prob? F
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
04
05
01
55
08
INJURY
LSD
(0.05)
0.15
0.13
0.15
0.25
0.25
Prob> F LSD
(0.05)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
1.87
1.62
1.87
3.24
3.24
TILLERS
Prob>F LSD
(0.05)
0.01
0.05
0.01
0.31
0.13
0.75
0.65
0.75
1.30
1.30
V Data came from a 3rd temperature replication conducted as part of Oat #11. This
is from an S0£ exposure of Carolee Oat.
2J GT (growth temperature), ET(exposure temperature), Cone (concentration), TDW
(top dry wt), ROW (root dry wt).
56
-------
TABLE 47. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #10. -f
Correlation Coefficients (DF)
Variable Growth Temp (3) S02 (3) Residual (48) Cor. Tot. (95)
TDW x ROW 0.99
TDW x INJ. -0.86
ROW x INJ. -0.78
0.96 0.59 0.74
-0.99 0.06 -0.78
-0.92 -0.11 -0.60
!_/ Data came from a 3rd temperature replication conducted as part of Oat #11. This
is from an SOp exposure of Carolee Oat.
57
-------
TABLE 48. EFFECT OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION, EXPOSURE TEMPERATURE AND
GROWTH TEMPERATURE ON SEVERAL PLANT RESPONSES - OAT #10. I/
Plant Responses
Variable
Cone.
(pphm)
(LSD-0.05)
Exp. Temp
(°C)
(LSD-0.05)
Grow. Temp
(°c )
(LSD-0.05)
0
75
150
300
18+18
24+24
30+30
18
22
26
30
TDW
(gm)
2.41
2.34
1.96
1.40
0.17
1.97
2.05
2.07
0.15
2.00
2.13
2.03
1.95
0.17
ROW
(gm)
0.86
0.78
0.44
0.29
0.15
0.55
0.68
0.54
0.13
0.57
0.71
0.58
0.50
0.15
INJ.
lo/\
\>°>
0
2
16
49
1.87
20
16
15
1.62
19
14
15
20
1.87
TILLER
(#)
11.96
1 1 .58
10.00
8.42
0.75
10.06
10.88
10.53
0.65
12.13
11.08
9.79
8.96
0.75
V Data came from work with Carolee Oat.
58
-------
TABLE 49. EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TEMPERATURE BY SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION
AND BY GROWTH TEMPERATURE ON TOP DRY WEIGHT AND INJURY TO CAROLEE
Urt I — UA1 w IU»
Plant
Response
TDW
•••••••MMBM
(gm)
(LSD-0.
Injury
(X)
(LSD-0.
Injury
(X)
Exp Temp
18+18
24+24
30+30
05=0.30)
18+18
24+24
30+30
05=3.24)
18+18
24+24
30+30
Concentratfon (pphm)
0
2.64
2.30
2.30
0
0
0
18
19
18
19
75
2.23
2.41
2.39
3
2
3
Growth
22
14
15
14
150
1.68
2.09
2.13
26
13
11
Temperature (°C)
26
21
14
9
300
1.33
1.41
1.47
53
49
44
30
27 \
17
15
(LSD-0.05=3.2 )
59
-------
TABLE 50. ANAYLSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #11. - -
Source
GH
EH
Cone
EH x Cone
DF
3
1
3
3
TDW
Prob>
0.01
0.14
0.04
0.01
h L5U
(0.05)
0.20
0.14
0.20
0.29
RDW
Prob? F
0.01
0.06
0.01
0.02
INJURY
LSD
(0.05)
0.43
0.30
0.43
0.60
TrOB>
0.02
0.01
0.01
0.01
T 15U
(0.05)
1.35
0.95
1.35
1.91
]_/ Design used 4_ growth humidities, 2^ exposure humidities and 4 S02 concentrations
using Carolee Oat.
2_/ GH (growth humidity), EH (exposure humidity), Cone (concentration), TDW (top
dry wt). ROW (root dry wt).
TABLE 51. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #11. -
Correlation Coefficients (DF)
GH (3) Cone. (3)
TDW x ROW 0.99 0.76
TDW x INJ. 0.22 -0.95
Residual (32) Cor. Total (63)
0.41 -0.01
0.21 -0.21
T_/ Data came from an exposure of Carol ee Oat to
60
-------
TABLE 52. EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION AND HUMIDITY ON SEVERAL
PLANT RESPONSES - OAT #11. I/
Variable
Concentration
(pphm)
0
75
150
300
(LSD-0.05)
Exp.Hum.
(% RH)
70
84
(LSD-0.05)
Gro. Hum.
(% RH)
48
56
63
65
(LSD-0.05)
TDW fgm)
2.42
2.43
2.37
2.17
0.20
2.40
2.30
0.14
2.04
2.45
2.31
2.59
0.20
Plant Responses
RDM (gm)
1.89
1.56
1.93
1.25
0.43
1.51
1.80
0.30
1.20
1.80
1.62
2.01
0.43
Injury (%)
0
0
7
13
1.4
8
2
1.0
5
6
4
5
1.4
V Data came from work with Carolee Oat ,expos,ures were for 1.5 hrs.
61
-------
TABLE 53. EFFECTS OF CONCENTRATION BY EXPOSURE HUMIDITY ON SEVERAL RESPONSES
OF CAROLEE OAT TO SULFUR DIOXIDE - OAT #11.
Plant
Responses
TDW
(am)
Concentration
Exp Hum.
(% RH)
70
84
0
2.62
2.22
75
2.47
2.39
(pphm)
150
2.50
2.25
300
2.01
2.32
(LSD-0.05=-.29)
RDM 70 2.05 1.59 1.61 0.81
(gm) 84 1.72 1.52 2.25 1.69
(LSD-0.05=0.60)
Injury 70 0 0 10 21
(%) 84 0 0 3 6
(LSD-0.05=1.91)
62
-------
TABLE 54. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #12. I/ %
Source
Rep
GL
EL
Cone
6L*Conc
EL*Conc
DF
1
3
2
3
9
6
TDW
Prob> F LSD
(0.05)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
01
01
24
01
03
01
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
10
14
12
14
29
25
ROW
INJURY
Prob> F LSD
(0.05)
0.05
0.01
0.13
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.11
0.15
0.13
0.15
0.30
0.26
Prob>
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.01
F LSD
(0.05)
1.3
1.8
1.6
1.8
3.7
3.2
TILLERS
Prob>
0.01
0.01
0.63
0.10
0.73
0.01
F LSD
(0.05)
0.49
0.69
0.60
. 0.69
1.38
1.20
I/ Design used 4 growth lights, 3^ exposure lights, <4 S09 concentrations and ^
replications using Carolee Oat.
2/ Rep (replication), GL (growth light), EL (exposure light), Cone (concentration),
TDW (top dry wt), and ROW (root dry wt).
TABLE 55. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #12.
Correlation Coefficients (DF)
Variable
GL (3) EL (2) Cone. (3) Residual (96) Cor.Tot.(191)
TDW x ROW
TDW x INJ.
TDW x TILLERS
ROW x INJ.
ROW x TILLERS
INJ x TILLERS
0.98
0.94
0.94
0.87
0.98
0.76
0.99
0.08
0.62
0.22
0.50
-0.73
0.98
-0.92
0.97
-0.94
0.99
-0.95
0.48
0.04
0.08
-0.08
-0.02
-0.12
0.78
-0.24
0.65
-0.36
0.55
-0.13
I/ Data came from an analysis of a S02 exposure using Carolee Oat,
63
-------
TABLE 56.
EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION, L
REPLICATION ON SEVERAL PLANT RESPONSES - 0,
NTENSITY AND
• i /
Plant Responses
Variable
Cone. 0
(pphm) 75
150
300
(LSD-0.05)
Growth Light
(ft-c) 800
1600
2400
3200
(LSD-0.05)
Exp. Light
(ft-c) 700
1400
2100
(LSD-0.05)
Replication
1
2
(LSD-0.05)
TDW
(gm)
2.89
2.66
2.61
2.26
0.14
1.98
2.39
2.93
3.13
0.14
2.55
2.65
2.62
0.12
2.49
2.72
0.10
RDM
(gm)
1.36
1.21
1.01
0.69
0.15
0.67
0.86
1.24
1.51
0.15
0.99
1.12
1.09
0.13
,
1.02
1.12
0.11
INJURY
(%)
0
1
6
29
1.8
4
9
11
11
1.8
7
7
11
1.6
10
8
1.3
TILLERS
(#)
10.6
10.4
10.1
9.7
0.7
8.7
8.7
11.1
12.3
0.7
10.2
10.4
10.1
0.6
9.8
10.6
0.5
]_/ Data came from work with Carolee Oat,
64
-------
TABLE 57. EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATION BY GROWTH LIGHT AND BY
EXPOSURE LIGHT ON THE GROWTH OF CAROLEE OAT - OAT #12.
Plant Concentratt
Responses (pphm)
JDVL
(gm)
(LSD-0.05=0.29)
RDM
(gm)
(LSD-0.05=0.30)
TDW
(gm)
(LSD-0.05=0.25)
ROW
(gm)
CLSD-0.05=0.26)
0
75
150
300
0
75
150
300
0
75
150
300
0
75
150
300
on Growth Light (Ft-c)
800 1600 2400 3200
2.10 2.70 3.33 3.44
1.99 2.55 2.80 3.29
2.01 2.30 2.93 3.20
1.82 2.02 2.55 2.57
0.76 1.02 1.64 2.01
0.69 1.03 1.31 1.82
0.68 0.84 1.18 1.36
0.56 0.55 0.84 0.83
Exposure Light (Ft-c)
700 1400 2100
2.83 2.84 3.01
2.42 2.77 2.78
2.46 2.67 2.70
2.49 2.33 1.97
1.31 1.46 1.31 ,
1.05 1.21 1.38
0.84 1.04 1.16
0.78 0.77 0.53
65
-------
TABLE 58. ANALYSIS OF VARIANCE - OAT #13.
Source
Treat
Har Age
Treat*Har
DP
29
1
Age 29
TDW
Prob^F
0.
0.
0.
CO
01 0
01 0
01 0
ROW
LSD
.05)
.65
.17
.91
Prob>F
0.01
0.01
0.01
(0
0
0
1
LSD
.05)
.77
.20
.09
INJURY
Prob^F
(0
0.01 2
0.01 0
0.01 3
TILLERS
LSD
.05)
.33
.60
.30
Prob^F
0.01
0.23
0.06
LSD
(0.05)
1.57
0.41
2.22
J_/ Design used 30 combinations of SO/, and 0_ over 2_ harvest ages for Carolee Oat.
C. O
2J Treat (treatment), Har-Age (harvest age), TDW (top dry wt), ROW (root dry wt).
TABLE 59. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #13. ^
Source
TDW x ROW
TDW x INJ.
TDW x TILLERS
RDW x INJ.
ROW x TILLERS
Correlation Coefficients (DF)
Treatment (29)
0.85
-0.84
0.67
-0.80
0.57
Residual (120) Corrected Total (179)
0.43
0.03
0.54
0.08
0.22
0.79
-0.32
0.42
-0.38
0.40
]_/ Data came from an analysis of a S02 - 03 exposure series using Carolee Oat.
66
-------
TABLE 60. EFFECTS OF HARVEST AGE BY EXPOSURE TREATMENT ON GROWTH AND INJURY
TO CAROLEE OATS FROM SULFUR DIOXIDE AND OZONE - OAT #13.
Time
(hrs.)
so2
(pphm)
°3
(pphm,
Plant
) TDW (gm)
42 days 49 days
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
.75
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
1.5
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
3.0
1
0
0
0
0
50
5-
100
100
100
400
0
0
0
0
38
38
75
75
75
300
0
0
0
0
25
25
50
50
50
200
(LSD-0.0
0
20
40
80
20
40
0
20
40
0
0
15
30
60
15
30
0
15
30
0
0
10
20
40
10
20
0
10
20
0
5)
3.89
3.89
4.45
3.24
4.38
3.80
3.73
3.69
3.58
1.84
4.24
3.95
3.89
3.36
4.16
4.16
3.56
3.96
4.29
2.75
3.58
4.19
3.82
3.57
4.00
3.75
3.96
3.87
3.82
3.40
7.23
6.32
5.84
5.75
7.21
6.44
7.25
5.92
6.09
2.35
6.85
6.16
5.74
5.60
6.55
5.57
7.35
6.12
6.42
4.07
7.21
6.68
6.00
6.10
6.85
7.13
7.26
6.94
7.32
7.39
0.91
Responses
RDM (gm)
42 days 49 days
1.78
1.62
1.45
0.70
2.03
1.66
1.11
2.03
1.05
0.28
1.77
1.15
1.04
0.74
2.42
1.74
1.01
2.35
1.65
0.63
1.07
1.28
1.03
0.67
2.24
0.96
1,66
1.63
1.25
0.75
1
4.16
3.27
2.85
2.59
2.57
2.94
3.88
2.03
1.86
0.36
3.49
2.16
1.55
1.89
2.57
1.91
2.53
2.25
2.65
0.67
3.79
3.54
2.44
2.50
2.76
3.01
2.67
2.90
3.41
2.77
.09
INJURY (%)
42 days 49 days
0
0
5
15
2
12
5
17
27
33
0
0
5
17
5
8
8
10
10
25
0
0
5
20
0
3
0
0
3
10
0
0
5
13
5
15
5
15
30
42
0
3
5
10
5
10
5
12
15
40
0
5
5
15
5
5
2
5
5
10
3.3
67
-------
TABLE 61. ANALYSES OF VARIANCE - OAT #13. -f
TDW
Time (Hr) DF
Source
0.75
so2
Age 03
so2*o3
03*Age
1.50
so2
°3
Age
so2*o3
03*Age
3.0
so2
°3
Age
so2*o3
03 * Age
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
1
2
2
1
2
1
2
2
Prob>F LSD
(0.05)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
24
03
84
01
01
32
02
01
15
01
15
54
01
34
30
0.39
0.47
0.67
0.39
0.67
0.29
0.35
0.29
0.50
0.50
0.40
0.49
0.40
0.69
0.69
ROW
Prob>F LSD
(0.05)
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
0.
10
07
93
01
07
15
04
01
01
01
81
60
01
37
99
0
0
1
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.64
.79
.12
.64
.12
.30
.36
.30
.51
.51
.54
.67
.54
.94
.94
INJURY
TILLERS
Prob> F LSD Prob> F LSD
(0.05) (0.05)
0.01
0.01
0.01
0.51
0.05
0.01
0.01
0.03
0.12
0.01
1.00
0.01
0.01
0.24
0.01
0.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
0.
1.
1.
0.
0.
0.
1.
1.
81 0.01 0.85
99 0.57 1.04
40 0.60 1.47
81 0.89 0.85
40 0.04 1.47
•
99
22
99
72
72
81
99
81
40
40
!_/ These tables represent separate ANDVA for 3_ exposure times involving inter-
actions of S02 * 03 on Carolee Oat.
68
-------
TABLE 62. CROSS PRODUCTS ANALYSIS - OAT #13. I/
Time
(hr.J
Variable
03 (2)
Correlation Coefficients (DF)
S02*03 (2) 03*H-Age(21) Residual (24) Cor.Tot.(25)
0.75
TDW x ROW
TDW x INJ.
ROW x INJ.
0.86
-0.76
-0.98
0.36
-0.93
-0.67
0.31
-0.10
0.03
0.71
-0.14
-0.32
TDW x ROW 0.81
TDVTx INJ. -0.85
TDW xTILLERS 0.99
ROW x INJ. -0.99
0.92
-0.99
0.78
-0.97
0.45
0.14
0.56
0.25
0.72
0.05
0.07
0.09
3.0
TDW x ROW 0.91
TDW x INJ. -0.98
TDW x TILLERS -0.20
ROW x INJ. -0.80
0.88
-0.63
0.48
-0.92
0.57
-0.09
0.48
0.14
0.84
0.34
0.40
0.27
]/ These tables represent separate analysis for 3_ exposure times involving inter-
actions of S02*03 on Carolee Oat.
69
-------
TABLE 63. EFFECTS OF OZONE BY SULFUR DIOXIDE ON THE RESPONSE OF CAROLEE OAT-
Tttne Plant S02
(hr.) Response Cone.
(pphm)
0.75 TDW 0
TOO
(LSD-0.05=0.67) (
RDM 0
TOO
(LSD-0.05=1.12)
Injury** 0
100
(LSD-0.05=1.40)
Tillers 0
100
(LSD-0.05=1.47)
1.50 TDW 0
75
(LSD-0.05=0.50)
RDM** 0
75
(LSD-0.05=0.51)
Injury 0
75
(LSD-0.05=1.72)
3.00 TDW 0
50
(LSD-0.05=0.69)
ROW 0
50
(LSD-0.05=0.94)
Injury 0
50
(LSD-0.05=1.40)
Ozone Concentration (pphm) — '
0
5.56 (0)
5.10 (8)
12)
2.97 (6)
2.44 (18)
(38)
0
0
9.50
8.50
0
5.55 (0)
5.45 (2)
(9)
2.63 (0)
1.77 (33)
(19)
0
7
0
5.40 (0)
5.61 (0)
(13)
2.43 (0)
2.17 (11)
(39)
0
1
20
5.14 (8)
5.49 (1)
2.15 (28)
2.50 (16)
5
5
9.67
10.33
15
5.06 (9)
5.04 (9)
1.66 (37)
2.30 (13)
2
11
10
5.44 (0)
5.40 (0)
2.41 (1)
2.26 (7)
3
3
40
4.81 (13)
4.83 (13)
2.03 (22)
1.46 (51)
16
28
10.67
10.83
30
4.81 (13)
5.35 (4)
1.30 (51)
2.15 (18)
5
13
20
4.91 (9)
5.57 (0)
1.74 (28)
2.33 (4)
5
4
jy These tables represent separate ANOVA for 3_ exposure times involving interactions
of S0« and 0,.
eL o
2/ Values in ( ) are % reduction from control values.
** Significant at the 0.01 level. 70
-------
TABLE 64. EFFECTS OF OZONE BY HARVEST AGE ON THE RESPONSE OF CAROLEE OAT -
OAT #13. I/
Ttme
Onr.J
0.75
1.50
3.0
Plant
Response
TDW
(1SD-0
RDM
(LSD-0
Injury*
(LSD-0
Tillers*
(LSD-0
TDW**
(LSD-0
ROW**
(LSD-0
Injury**
(LSD-0
TDW
(LSD-0
RDW
(LSD-0
Injury**
(LSD-0
Harvest
Age
(days)
42
49
.05=0.67)
42
49
.05=1.12)
42
49
.05=1.40)
42
49
.05=1.47)
42
49
.05=0.50)
42
49
.05=0.51)
42
49
.051.72)
42
49
.05=0.69)
42
49
.05=0.94)
42
49
.05=1.41)
Ozone Concentration (pphm)
0
3.81
7.24
1.45
4.02
3
3
9.17
10.67
0
3.90
7.10
-
1.39
3.01
4
3
0
3.77
7.23
1.37
3.23
0
1
20
3.79
6.12
1.83
2.65
8
8
10.17
9.0
15
3.96
6.14
1.75
2.21
5
8
10
4.03
6.81
1.45
3.22
0
5
40
4.01
5.96
1.25
2.36
16
18
10.50
10.00
30
4.09
6.08
1.35
2.10
8
10
20
3.82
6.66
1.14
2.93
4
5
]_/ These Tables Represent separate ANOVA for 3_ exposure times involving inter-
actions of S02 and Og.
** Significant at the 0.01 level.
* Significant at the 0.05 level. j-\
-------
SECTION V
BIBLIOGRAPHY
1. Dunning, J. A. and fef. W. Heck. 1973. Response of pinto bean and tobacco
to ozone as conditioned by Itght intensity and/or humidity. Environ.
Sci. Tech. 7_: 824-826.
2. Dunning, J. A., W. W. Heck, and D. T. Tingey. 1974. Foliar sensitivity of
pinto bean and soybean to ozone as affected by temperature, potassium
nutrition and ozone dose. Air, Soil, Water Pollut. 3; 305-313.
3. Heck, W. W. 1968. Factors influencing expression of oxidant damage to
plants. Ann. Rev. Phytopath. 6; 165-188.
4. Heck, W. W., J. A. Dunning, and H. Johnson. 1968. Design of a simple plant
exposure chamber. NAPCA Pub!. APTD-68-6, U. S. Dept. of HEW, 24 pp.
5. Tingey, D. T. and U. Blum. 1973. Effects of ozone on soybean nodules. J_.
Environ. Qua!. 2: 341-342.
72
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
REPORT NO.
EPA-6QO/3-76-032
TITLE AND SUBTITLE
EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AND/OR OZONE ON SEVERAL
OAT VARIETIES
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
5. REPORT DATE
March 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
AUTHOR(S)
Walter W. Heck and John A. Dunning
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.
PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
USDA-ARS, North Carolina State University,
Raleigh, North Carolina 27607
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AA006
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
EPA-IAG-D5-0416
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
Ecological Effects Research Division
Con/all is Environmental Research Laboratory
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
Final Report
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA-ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
Nine experimental designs were run to determine the effect of sulfur dioxide on the
important Southeastern oat variety - Carolee. The designs were run under controlled
conditions and looked at sulfur dioxide concentration (25-300 pphm), ozone interaction^,
growth and exposure temperatures, growth and exposure humidities, growth and exposure
light intensities, nutrient sulfur levels, number of exposures and exposure ages, and
a screen for growth conditions. Plants were grown to from 28 days to 84 days before
final harvest. Top dry wt, root dry wt, number of tillers and injury were determined
for all experimental designs except #5 and #8. The fifth design also included yield
measurements and the eighth did not include the biomass data. The 75 pphm treatments
for 1.5 hrs were close to a threshold dose. Growth environmental factors affected
the response of the plants and in some cases exposure conditions caused an effect.
Sulfur nutrition was a significant factor and showed an interaction with S0« concen-
tration on several response measures. Foliar injury was highly correlated with
growth reductions. Several designs studied the effects of ozone alone (#6, 7, 8)
or in combination with sulfur dioxide (#13). Two designs utilized 2 additional
oat varieties, Salem and Coker 227 (#8, 9).
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
COS AT I Field/Group
sulfur dioxide
ozone
foliar injury
air pollutants
growth restrictions
humidity
air pollution
agriculture
51
13. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Limited
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
UNCLASSIFIED
21. NO. OF PAGES
80
20. SECURITY CLASS (Thispage)
UNCLASSIFIED
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
73
------- |