EPA-600/3-76-102
September 1976
Ecological Research Series
SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WOODY PLANTS TO
SULFUR DIOXIDE AND PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
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 cha'nges 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-600/3-76-102
September 1976
SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WOODY PLANTS TO SULFUR
DIOXIDE AND PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
A Literature Review
by
Donald D. Davis
Department of Plant Pathology
Center for Air Environment Studies
The Pennsylvania State University
University Park, Pennsylvania 16802
and
Raymond 6. Wilhour
Terrestrial Ecology Branch
Ecological Effects Research Division
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
CORVALLIS ENVIRONMENTAL RESEARCH LABORATORY
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
CORVALLIS, OREGON 97330
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report has been reviewed by the Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and approved for publica-
tion. 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
-------
FOREWORD
Effective regulatory and enforcement actions by the Environmental
Protection Agency would be virtually impossible without sound scien-
tific data on pollutants and their impact on environmental stability
and human health. Responsibility for building this data base has
been assigned to EPA's Office of Research and Development and its 15
major field installations, one of which is the Corvallis Environmental
Research Laboratory.
The primary mission of the Corvallis Laboratory is research on the
effects of environmental pollutants on terrestrial, freshwater, and
marine ecosystems; the behavior, effects and control of pollutants
in lake systems; and the development of predictive models on the
movement of pollutants in the biosphere.
Evidence of great diversity in the effect of gaseous air pollutants
on woody vegetation motivated the development of this report. The
intent was to summarize the scientific literature regarding species
sensitivity to major air pollutants. It is becoming more apparent
that species sensitivity to air pollutants is a significant character-
istic in the selection of species for planting in pollution-stressed
areas. This document should be a valuable reference for scientists,
foresters, horticulturists, city planners and others concerned with
the culture of woody vegetation.
A. F. Bartsch
Di rector-
Co rvall is Environmental Research
Laboratory
m
-------
ABSTRACT
This report presents the result of a detailed review of European
and United States literature regarding the sensitivity of woody vegetation
to sulfur dioxide, ozone, peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN), and nitrogen
oxides. Reference is made to Russian, Japanese and Australian literature
only when species examined are commercially important in the United
States.
The manner in which the original sensitivity data were collected
may influence the relative position of a species in a composite sensiti-
vity table. Therefore, many original tables are presented as cited by
specific authors for individual interpretation. Composite summary sensiti-
vity tables are presented for each pollutant.
Relative sensitivity compilations should be used with caution and
with an understanding of inherent limitations. The sensitivity categories
of "very sensitive" and "very tolerant" should be of great assistance in
selecting woody vegetation for planting in areas of high air pollution
potential. However, for species found in the "intermediate" sensitivity
category, greater emphasis should be placed on predominant local environmental
conditions and economic factors than on air pollution sensitivity.
iv
-------
CONTENTS
Page
Abstract iv
List of Tables vi
SECTIONS
I. Introduction 1
Selection of Criteria 1
Collection of Original data 1
Compilation of Lists 4
Geographic Location 4
II. Conclusions 6
III. Recommendations 7
IV. Sulfur Dioxide 8
North America 8
Summary Table (Table 17) 25
Europe - Russia 28
Summary Table (Table 26) 41
V. Photochemical Oxidants 47
Introduction 47
Ozone 47
Summary Table (Table 30) 58
Peroxyacetyl Nitrate (PAN) 55
Summary Table (Table 31) 61
Oxides of Nitrogen 55
Summary Table (Table 32) 63
VI. References 64
-------
LIST OF TABLES
No. Page
1 Suitable Criteria for Injury Caused by Air Pollution
to Forest Trees and Forests 2
2 Some Suitable Criteria of Fume Damage to Forest Trees
and Forests 3
3 Relative Susceptibility of Western Coniferous Trees
to S02 9
4 Relative Susceptibility of Western Broad!eaved Trees
to S02 10
5 Relative Susceptibility of Western Woody Shrubs to SO,,. . 11
6 Approximate Order of Susceptibility, Beginning with the
Most Susceptible, of Trees in the Upper Columbia River
Valley to Acute Sulfur Dioxide Injury 12
7 Approximate Order of Susceptibility, Beginning with the
Most Susceptible, of Forest Shrubs in the Upper Columbia
River Valley to Acute Sulfur Dioxide Injury 13
8 Approximate Order of S02 Susceptibility of Trees Growing
Near a Smelter in Montana 14
9 Relative Sensitivity of Selected Woody Plants to Injury by
S02 15
10 Susceptibility of Selected Native Woody Desert Vegetation
to S02 17
11 Relative S02 Susceptibility of Forest Tree Species
Growing Near Sudbury, Ontario 19
12 Sensitivity of Trees to S02 20
13 Observed Sensitivity of Woody Plants to S0? in
Vicinity of Sulphite Pulp and Paper Mill in Ontario .... 21
14 Relative Susceptibility of Woody Plants Growing Near a
Source of S09 in Southern Quebec 22
VI
-------
No. Page
15 Selected Woody Plants That Are Relatively Susceptible
to S02 23
16 Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations Causing Threshold Injury
to Various Sensitivity Groups of Vegetation 24
17 The Relative SCL Sensitivity of Woody Plants Grown
in North America [Compilation of previously listed species] 25
18 The Relative SCL Susceptibility of European Deciduous
Woody plants . 29
19 The Relative S02 Susceptibility of European Coniferous
Woody plants . 7 31
20 Susceptibility of Hardwoods to "Smoke" Damage from a Copper
Smelter in Turkey 33
21 Susceptibility to S02 of 30 - to 40-Year Old Woody Species
Planted Near a Zinc Plant Emitting S02 in Germany 34
22 Relative S02 Sensitivity of Woody Plants Grown in
Containers and Placed in an Industrial Area of Norway
Having High S02 Levels 35
23 Preliminary Ranking of Woody Species Exposed to S02
in Chambers or in the Field Using the "Fumigation
Cannon" in The Netherlands 36
24 Relative Susceptibility of Forest Conifers Determined
After 2 Years of Fumigations in Germany 37
25 Percent Foliar Injury Produced by S02 on Plants, Based on
3 Years of Experimental Exposures in Russia 38
26 Sequence List According to Leaf Damage as a Result of
S02 Test Exposure from 1967 to 1969 in Germany 41
27 Relative Ozone Susceptibility of Shrubs, Trees, and
Ornamentals Exposed to Ozone Applied at Bi-Weekly
Intervals Throughout the Growing Season in Chambers 43
28 Threshold Concentration of Ozone Needed to Cause Injury
on Plants Growing in Native Habitat in Utah 53
vi i
-------
No. Page
29 Daily Dose of Ozone Needed to Cause Injury to Various
Plant Species for Time Periods Up to 2 Weeks 55
30 Relative Sensitivity of Woody Plants Grown in North
America to Ozone [Compilation of previously listed
species] 58
31 Relative Sensitivity of Woody Plants Grown in North
America to PAN [Artificial exposures; compilation but
mainly from (9)] 61
32 Relative Susceptibility of Woody Plants to NO 63
X
vm
-------
SECTION I
INTRODUCTION
SELECTION OF CRITERIA
The placement of a plant species or variety as to its susceptibility
or tolerance to a given air pollutant is often influenced by the specific
criteria used for ranking. Criteria may range from cellular or physio-
logical effects to changes in species composition or plant community
succession. The same species may be ranked differently depending upon
the criterion used.
Criteria used to assess susceptibility are sometimes based upon the
ultimate use of the plants. Timber species or fruit trees may be rated
by direct yield loss; ornamentals or Christmas trees by foliar discolor-
ation. Trees used for wildlife management, recreation, or watershed
stabilization may require more complex rating schemes since they can
tolerate different amounts of injury and still fulfill their primary
functions. Regenerative capacity, regardless of degree of foliar injury,
is very important and must also be considered.
Foliar injury is often one of the early manifestations which leads
to other more significant effects. It is an obvious response, easy to
quantify, and most universally used measure of plant response. Thus,
the majority of the species listed in this review were ranked into
sensitivity categories by percentage of foliar injury induced by a given
air pollutant.
Knabe (20) summarized specific criteria for measuring the impact of
air pollution on forest trees (Table 1). In addition, Guderian, as
cited in (20), discussed the more general criteria which also influence
the ultimate impact of air pollution on forest stands (Table 2). The
tables also indicate the usefulness of each criterion in ranking injury,
from the specific plant organ level to general ecosystem effects.
COLLECTION OF ORIGINAL DATA
A critical aspect which must be considered when compiling relative
sensitivity tables is the manner in which the original data were collected.
Data may have originated from: field observations of injury on native
vegetation; symptoms on vegetation purposely transplanted into an area
exposed to air pollution; artificial exposure in chambers in the laboratory
or in the field; and artificial exposure of plants in the field without
use of chambers.
Each method has its advantages and limitations. Field observations
and rankings may be complicated by the presence of other air pollutants,
especially in industrial regions. Symptom intensity may vary with pheno-
-------
TABLE 1. SOME SUITABLE CRITERIA OF INJURY CAUSED BY AIR POLLUTION TO FOREST TREES AND FORESTS (20)
Part of
Criteria of Effect a Plant
Changes in cell components xa
Changes in metabolism x
Changes in cell structure x
Degree of chlorosis or necrosis x
Premature leaf abscission or
needle cast x
Decreased growth (x)
Percentage of plants injured
to a certain degree
Percentage of dead plants
Decreased production of organic
matter or decreased increment
per area
Changes in number of species
Changes in abundance
Changes in coverage
Changes in general health
conditions
Subject of Investigation
Individual Number of
Plant Individuals
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x x
x
x
•
-
-
-
-
X
Population
(Stand)
-
-
-
(x)
(x)
X
X
X
X
(x)
(x)
(x)
X
Ecosystem
-
-
-
-
-
(x)
(x)
X
X
X
X
X
x = useful criterion.
(x) = possible criterion.
(Reprinted from "Air Quality Criteria and Their Importance for Forests," 1971 by W. Knabe with permission
from Forstliche Bundesversuchsanstalt)
-------
TABLE 2. SOME SUITABLE CRITERIA OF FUME DAMAGE TO FOREST TREES AND FORESTS (20)
Criteria of Effect
Part of
a Plant
Individual Number of Population
Plant Individuals (Stand) Ecosystem
GJ
Impairment in Economic Value:
By reduced yields
By reduced quality (constit-
uent value, external
appearance)
By impact on soil and
surrounding
By decreased resistance to
biotic and abiotic
influences (e.g. bark
beetles, frost)
By increase of forest pests
Impairment in Welfare Functions:
By reduced recreational value
By alterations in forest
influences (e.g. filter
capacity)
Impairment in Ideal Value:
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x
x = useful criterion.
(Reprinted from "Air Quality Criteria and Their Importance for Forests," 1971 by W. Knabe with permission
from Forstliche Bundesversuchsanstalt)
-------
type, as well as with local environmental factors. In addition, field
observations near a long-established source of air pollution may only
reflect the relative sensitivity of a residual, tolerant plant population,
since highly sensitive individuals or species would have long since been
replaced. Transplanting species into an area overcomes this latter
problem, but results are still confounded by local environmental factors.
Artificial exposure of trees in fumigation chambers is usually
restricted to small seedlings. Due to age difference, the results from
such studies are not necessarily valid to predict the response of mature
stands of the same species to the test pollutant. Environmental conditions
within the exposure chamber may also bias the results, since it is
difficult to duplicate ambient environmental parameters in artificial
exposure facilities. Fumigation techniques also vary among researchers,
further complicating resulting sensitivity ratings. Also, it is imperative
that each plant species and/or variety be identified as clearly as
possible, since definite interspecific as well as intraspecific differences
in sensitivity occur within the same genus.
COMPILATION OF LISTS
In spite of the above limitations, a listing of the relative sensitivity
of various plant species to specific air pollutants can be reasonably
derived. Field observations have supported results obtained from artifical
fumigations, and vice versa, especially at the extremes of sensitivity
or tolerance. Species found to be extremely tolerant in artifical
exposures seldom develop injury from that specific air pollutant under
ambient fumigation conditions. Likewise, artificial exposures usually
produce injury on species known to be very sensitive to ambient levels
of a specific air pollutant. However, the broad category of "intermediate
sensitivity" is of less value, since sensitivity of these species to a
given pollutant may vary with phenotype or environmental conditions.
GEOGRAPHICAL LOCATION
Many of the following lists were derived in various countries of
the world. This is an important consideration when compiling composite
sensitivity tables, since phenotypic characteristics and environmental
parameters may differ radically from country to country. These differences
may in turn drastically affect relative sensitivity. Thus, separate
tables are given for studies conducted in North America and Europe-
Russia. This separation is not intended to suggest that similar pheno-
typic and environmental differences do not exist between research results
reported within a particular country. It is, however, reasonable to
assume that the magnitude of difference in sensitivity attributed to
phenotypic and environmental factors is directly related to distance
between investigations.
In summary, compilations or lists of relative sensitivity of plant
species to air pollution must be used with caution and understanding.
-------
Although rankings at the extremes of sensitivity or tolerance are most
useful, those in the intermediate category are still of considerable
value. Tables from individual reports are included in this text. The
table format is generally the same as presented by the original author,
except when adapted slightly to improve clariety or continuity. These
original tables are valuable in affording the reader the ability to
compare the relative sensitivity of species within the-same study area.
Scientific and common names are generally as supplied by the original
author.
-------
SECTION II
CONCLUSIONS
Woody plant species differ widely in susceptibility to given air
pollutants. This characteristic is useful in selecting species for
culture in areas of moderate to high air pollution potential.
Species sensitivity to air pollution along with ambient environ-
mental conditions and economic considerations should dominate the selec-
tion process leading to the culture of superior vegetation in areas
experiencing atmospheric pollution.
The knowledge of relative sensitivity would also be of great value
in utilizing woody plants as biological monitors. Field surveys for air
pollutant effects should be aided significantly by reliable information
on relative sensitivity.
-------
SECTION III
RECOMMENDATIONS
The relative susceptibility tables presented should provide great
assistance to landscape architects, nurserymen, foresters, and others in
selecting woody plant species for culture in areas prone to air pollution
exposure. The susceptibility tables should be used with a degree of
caution and with an understanding of their inherent limitations. Very
tolerant species should be selected and very susceptible ones avoided.
The usefulness of species listed as intermediate in sensitivity will
depend on local conditions. In fact, air pollution sensitivity, local
environmental conditions, and economic factors should have significant
influence on selection of vegetation suitable for areas with high air
pollution potential.
-------
SECTION IV
SULFUR DIOXIDE
NORTH AMERICA
One of the earliest listings of the SO,, sensitivity of North
American woody plants was compiled by Katz et al_. (17, 18, 19) in 1939.
The reports were based on studies conducted during the mid-thirties near
a smelter at Trail, British Columbia. In addition to years of field
observation, Katz and associates exposed numerous species in outdoor
plastic chambers to varying concentrations of S02 at different times of
the year. Sulfur dioxide doses of 0.1 to 0.8 ppm for 6 to 151 hours or
0.25 to 5.0 ppm for 165-1656 hours were utilized and one study plot was
exposed to 20 ppm S02 for a short time. Foliar injury and growth loss
data were recorded along with length of time needed to initiate injury.
A summary of the results is presented in Tables 3, 4 and 5.
In 1955 Scheffer and Hedgcock (32) reported on the relative SOp
sensitivity of northwestern forest trees and shrubs. The report was
based on observations made near smelters in Stevens County, Washington,
during 1928 to 1936, and on observations 20 years earlier near a smelter
at Anaconda, Montana. The bulk of the data was based on field observation,
but artificial fumigations were also conducted in portable exposure
chambers. In the artificial fumigation experiments a small number of
trees and shrubs were exposed to 0.5 and 1.0 ppm S02 for 4 to 7 hours.
Results of field observations and artifical exposures in Washington are
shown in Tables 6-8. The order of sensitivity does not agree with the
earlier work of Katz et al. (17, 18, 19). According to the authors,
this is due "...partly to a difference in the criterion of susceptibility
and partly to the fact that the relative amounts of injury to many
species tended to differ considerably with location, year, and injury
zone." Scheffer and Hedgcock (32) made less detailed observations in
the Montana study. The only sensitivity list that they published was
based on the amounts and frequency of foliage thinning at different
distances from the smelter (Table 8).
Thomas (35) published a list of the relative S02 sensitivity of
numerous plant species based on a numerical rating system (O'Gara factor).
The ratings were actually determined by O'Gara, who exposed each species
for one hour to different concentrations of S02 until a concentration
was reached that caused traces of visible injury. The concentration
needed to injure each species was divided by 1.25. This value was used
since it took 1.25 ppm S02 for one hour to injure alfalfa, the most
sensitive species. Thus 511 ratings were compared to alfalfa as unity.
Table 9 was adapted from Thomas (35) and illustrates the relative S02
sensitivity of woody plants as determined by O'Gara.
8
-------
TABLE 3. RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WESTERN CONIFEROUS TREES TO S02a (17)
Western larch (Larix occidental is)
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga taxi folia)
Yellow pine (Pinus ponderosa)
Engelman spruce (Picea engelmanni)
Western white pine (Pinus monticola)
Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)
Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta)
Si 1ver fir (Abies amabilis)
White fir (Abies concolor)
Western red cedar (Thuja plicata)0
aField observations and exposures.
Most susceptible (especially in Spring).
cMost tolerant.
(Reprinted from "Symptoms of Injury on Forests and Crop Plants," 1939 by
M. Katz, 6. A. Ledingham, and A. W. McCallum with permission of National
Research Council of Canada)
-------
TABLE 4. RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WESTERN BROADLEAVED TREES TO S0/'b (17),
Very Sensitive:
n
Birch (Betula papyrifera)
Bitter Cherry (Prunus elnarginata)
Aspen (Populus tremuloides)
Sensitive to Intermediate:
Apple (Maius sp. - cultivated)
Mountain maple (Acer glabrum)
Red hawthorn (Craetaegus columbiana)
Willow (Salix sp.)
Black cottonwood (Populus trichocarpa)
Western mountain ash (Sorbus scopulina)
Locust (Robinia (?))
Mountain alder (Alnus tenuifolia)
Intermediate:
Chokecherry (Prunus demissa)
Elder (Sambucus glauca)
Plum (Prunus sp. - cultivated)
Elder (Sambucus glauca)
Plum (Prunus sp. - cult
Pear (Pyrus sp. - cultivated)
Cherry (Pfuhus sp. - cultivated)
Peach (Prunus sp. - cultivated)
Apr icot~( Prunus sp. - cultivated)
Tolerant:
Elm (Ulmus sp.) .
Horse chestnut (Aesculus sp.)
aField observations and exposures.
In order of increasing resistance within each group.
cMost sensitive.
Most tolerant.
(Reprinted from "Symptoms of Injury on Forests and Crop Plants," 1939 by
M. Katz, G. A. Ledingham, and A. W. McCallum with permission of National
Research Council of Canada)
10
-------
a,b
TABLE 5. RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WESTERN WOODY SHRUBS TO SOg '° (17)
Very Sensitive:
Ninebark (Opulaster malveceus)
Ocean spray (Holodiscus ariaefolius)
Serviceberry (Amelanchier aim'folia)
Sensitive to Intermediate:
Mountain laurel (Ceanothus sanguineus)
Hazel (Cory!us rostrata)
Grape (Vitis spT)
CurrentTRibes sp.)
Gooseberry (Ribes sp.)
Intermediate:
Mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii)
Snow berry (Symphoricarpos racemosus)
Thimbl eberry (Bossekia parvi flora")
Elderberry (Sambucus spT)
Tolerant:
Lilan (Syringa sp.)
Spiraea (Spiraea sp.)
Oregon grape (Od'ostemon aquifolium)
Buck brush (Ceanothus velutinus)
Buffalo berry (Lepargyrea canadensia)
Dogwood (Cornus sto!onfferal
Sumac (Rhus glabra")
Kinnikinm'ck (Arctbstaphylos uva-ursi)
aField observations and exposure.
In order of increasing resistance within each group.
(Reprinted from "Symptoms of Injury on Forests and Crop Plants," 1939 by
M. Katz, G. A. Ledingham, and A. W. McCallum with permission of National
Research Council of Canada)
1.1
-------
TABLE 6. APPROXIMATE ORDER OF SUSCEPTIBILITY, BEGINNING WITH THE MOST
SUSCEPTIBLE, OF TREES IN THE UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER VALLEY TO
ACUTE SULFUR DIOXIDE INJURY (32)
Conifers
Broadleaf Trees
Grand fird
Abies grandis (Dougl.) Lindl.
Subalpine fir
Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.
Western redcedar
Thuja piicata Donn.
Western hemlock
Tsugaheterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.
Douglas-fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.)
Franco.
Western white pine
Pinus monticola Dougl.
Ponderosa pine
Pinus ponderos Laws.
Lodgepole pine
Pinus contorta Dougl.
Western larch
Larix occidental is Nutt.
Engelmann spruce
Picea engelmannii Parry.
Western juniper
Juniperus occidental is Hook.
Pacific yew ,
Tarus brevifolia Nutt.
Thinleaf alder
Alnus tehuifolia Nutt.
Western paper birch
Betula papyrifera var.
commutata (Reg.) Fern
Sitka mountain-ash
Sorbus sitchensis Roem.
Water birch
Betula occidental is Hook.
Douglas maple
Acer glabrum var. douglasii
(Hook)D'ipp.
Bitter cherry
Prunus emarginata Dougl.
Common chokecherry
Prunus virginiana L.
Blueberry elder
Sambucus glauca Nutt.
Willow
Salix spp.
Columbia hawthorn
Crataegus columbiana Howel1.
Black cottonwood
Populus trichocarpa Torr. &
Gray.
Black hawthorn
Crataegus douglasii Lindl.
Quaking aspen .
Populus tremuloides Michx.
•Most susceptible.
Most tolerant.
(Adapted from Sheffer, T. C. and G. C. Hedgcock. 1955. Injury to northwestern
trees by sulfur dioxide from smelters. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Tech. Bull.
No. 1117, 49 pp.)
12
-------
TABLE 7. APPROXIMATE ORDER OF SUSCEPTIBILITY, BEGINNING WITH THE MOST
SUSCEPTIBLE, OF FOREST SHRUBS IN THE UPPER COLUMBIA RIVER VALLEY
TO ACUTE SULFUR DIOXIDE INJURY (32)
Pacific ninebark9
Physocarpus capitatus(Pursh) Kuntze
Creambush rockspirea
Holodi'scus discolor (Pursh) Maxim.
Lewis mockorange
Philadelphus lewisii Pursh
Wild rose
Rosa spp.
Saskatoon serviceberry
Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt.
California hazel
Cory!us cornuta var. californica Sharp
Shinyleaf spirea
Spiraea lucida Dougl.
Sticky currant
Ribes viscosissimum Pursh
Columbia snowberry
Symphoricarpos rivularis Suksd.
Redstem ceanothus
Ceanothus sanguineus Pursh.
Snowbrush ceanothus
Ceanothus velutinus Doubl.
Redosier dogwood
Cornus stolonifera Michx.
Smooth sumac
Rhus glabra L.
Western poisonivy
Toxicodendron radicans var. rydbergii (Small)
Kelsey & Dayton
?Most susceptible.
Most tolerant.
(Adapted from Sheffer, T. C. and G. C. Hedgcock. 1955. Injury to northwestern
trees by sulfur dioxide from smelters. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Tech. Bull.
No. 1117, 49 pp.)
13
-------
TABLE 8. APPROXIMATE ORDER OF S02 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF TREES GROWING NEAR
A SMELTER IN MONTANA3 (32)
Subalpine fir (Abies laslocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.)
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.)
Franco.)
Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Dougl.)
Engelman spruce (Picea engeltnannii Parry.)
Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Laws.)
Limber pine (Pinus f1exi1is James)
Rocky mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum Sarge)
^H
Common juniper (Juniperus communis L.)
Field observations.
Most susceptible.
cMost resistant.
(Adapted from Sheffer, T. C. and G. C. Hedgcock. 1955. Injury to northwestern
trees by sulfur dioxide from smelters. U.S.D.A. Forest Service Tech. Bull.
No. 1117, 49 pp.)
14
-------
TABLE 9. RELATIVE SENSITIVITY OF SELECTED WOODY PLANTS TO INJURY BY SO,
(AS DETERMINED BY 0'GARA)a (35)
Species
Alfalfa
Apple
Catalpa
Gooseberry
Grape
Linden
Peach
Apricot
Elm
Birch
Plum
Poplar
Sumac
Maple
Boxelder
Mockorange
Snowbal 1
Ci trus
Arborvitae
Live oak
Privet
O'Gara Factor5
1.0C
1.8
1.9
2.1
2.2-3.0
2.3
2.3
2.3
2.4
2.4
2.5
2.5
2.8
3.3
3.3
3.5
5.8
6.5-6.9
7.8
14.0
15.0d
Artificial exposure.
Based on 1.0 for alfalfa, the most sensitive species studied.
cMost sensitive.
Most tolerant.
(Reprinted from "Air Pollution Handbook," 1956 by M. D. Thomas and R. H.
Hendricks with permission of McGraw-Hill Book Company)
15
-------
Hill et al. (15) recently examined the S02 sensitivity of native
desert species by exposing plants in portable exposure chambers. Plants
were subjected to S02 concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 11.0 ppm for 2
hours. Concentrations above 2.0 ppm were required to injure all but a
few of the 87 species examined. This generally high degree of tolerance
was probably due to an inherent tolerance of desert plants to sulfur
dioxide. The results are adapted and summarized in Table 10. A concen-
tration of 6 ppm was selected from Hill's table and used to compare
relative sensitivity of woody species except where otherwise noted,
since this data set was most complete.
Recent comprehensive listings of plants sensitive to SO, were
developed in eastern Canada. Linzon and co-workers conducted field
observations for a number of years around the large smelter complex at
Sudbury, Ontario (8,22). They developed lists in which the relative
sensitivity of numerous plants was given a numerical value based on the
pollutant concentration and time required to cause injury in the field
(8). This table is based on years of observations and is probably very
accurate for woody species of the Northeast (Table 11). Linzon also
compiled a general list (Table 12) of the sensitivity of trees to S02
based mainly on his own experience, but with some input from other
studies (22). In addition, a recent publication (23) listed the relative
S02 sensitivity of species growing near a pulp and paper mill (Table 13).
Temple (34) determined the dosage of S02 needed to injure four
trees commonly planted in urban areas of the Northeast. Trees were
exposed to 0.5 to 8.0 ppm S02 for 2 hours to 30 days. Results indicated
that tolerance to S02 increased in the following order: Chinese elm
(Ulmus parvifolia Jacq.), Norway maple (Acer platanoides L.), ginkgo
(Ginkgo biloba L.), and pin oak (Quercus palustris munechh.).
Pellisier (29) ranked the relative sensitivity of plants growing
near a source of S02 in southern Quebec. Table 14 summarizes his findings
based on field observations.
A very general compilation was presented in the Air Pollution
Control Association Atlas (4). The list indicated only sensitive plants
and was quite restricted (Table 15). Another general list which included
significant dosage values was recently presented by Jones et al. (16).
Although only a few general species or groups of plants are listed,
Table 16 is quite useful in evaluating the dosage of S02 needed to
injure different groups of woody plants.
Table 17 was compiled from data in Tables 3-16. Whenever the
sensitivity rating of a species did not obviously fit one of the three
sensitivity categories, the original reference was searched for the
author's personal comments and observations which might help categorize
the species. If a species was rated differently in various reports, the
original reports were compared to ascertain which listing was likely to
16
-------
TABLE 10. SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SELECTED NATIVE WOODY DESERT VEGETATION TO S02a (15)
Species
Percent Foliar Injury After
Exposure to 6 ppm
S02 for 2 hrs
Rocky mountain maple
(Acer glabrum)
River birch
(Betula occidental is)
Utah serviceberry
(Amelanchier utahensis)
Snowberry
(Symphoricarpos oreophilus)
Narrow!eaf cottonwood
(Populus angustifolia)
Big sagebrush
(Artemisia tridentata)
Quaking aspen
(Populas tremuloides)
Mountain mahogany
(Cercocarpus montanus)
Douglas fir
(Pseudotsuga taxi folia)
Curl-leaf mountain mahogany
(Cercocarpus ledifolius)
Squawbush
(Rhus trilobata)
Pinyon pine
(Pinus edulis)
Alpine fir
(Abies lasiocarpa)
Blue spruce
(Picea pungens)
Gambel oak
(Quercus gambelii)
60
50b
33
32
20
9
7
5a
0.8
0.4
0.3
0.06
0.0
0.0
0.0
17
-------
TABLE 10. Continued.
Percent Foliar Injury After
Exposure to 6 ppm
Species SOp for 2 hrs
Oregon grape 0.0
(Mahonia repens)
Ponderosa pine 0.0
(Pinus ponderosa)
Rocky Mountain juniper 0.0
(Juniperus scopulorum)
Utah juniper 0.0
(Juniperus osteosperma)
White fir 0.0
(Abies concolor)
aField exposure.
Based on 4 ppm exposure for 2 hr.
(Reprinted from "Sensitivity of Native Vegetation to S0? and to NCL Combined,"
1974 by A. C. Hill, S. Hill, C. Lamb, and T. W. Barrett with permission of the
Air Pollution Control Association)
18
-------
TABLE 11. RELATIVE S02 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF FOREST TREE SPECIES GROWING
NEAR SUDBURY, ONTARIO3 (8)
Species Intensity Factor
Trempling aspen
Jack pine
White birch
White pine
Larch
Large-toothed aspen
Willow
Alder
Red pine
Balsam poplar
Austrian pine
Witch hazel
Red oak
Sugar maple
White spruce
Cedar
74C
83
84
84
104
106
120
123
126
129
132
136
175
184
200
e
aField exposure.
Intensity factor based on S02 concentration and time needed to cause injury.
cMost sensitive.
Will not tolerate repeated exposures as well as trembling aspen or white
birch (poorer regenerative capacity).
eMost tolerant, never injured.
(Reprinted from "Monitoring Atmospheric Sulfur Dioxide and Correlating Its
Effects on Crops and Forests in the Sudbury Area," 1973 by B. R. Dreisinger
and P. C. McGovern with permission of the Air Pollution Control Association)
19
-------
TABLE 12. SENSITIVITY OF TREES TO SOg (22)
Sensitive
Intermediate
Tolerant
Black Willow
Chinese Elm
Douglas-Fir
Eastern White Pine
Jack Pine
Largetooth Aspen
Manitoba Maple
Trembling Aspen
Western Larch
Western Yellow Pine
White Ash
White Birch
Austrian Pine
Balsam Fir
Basswood
Catalpa
Choke Cherry
Eastern Cottonwood
Englemann Spruce
Mountain Maple
Red Pine
Western Hemlock
Western White Pine
White Elm
Balsam Poplar
Carolina Poplar
Grand Fir
Little-leaf Linden
Lodgepole Pine
London Plane
Red Oak
Silver Maple
Sugar Maple
Western Red Cedar
White Cedar
White Spruce
Field observations.
(Reprinted from "Effects of Sulfur Oxides on Vegetation," 1972 by S. N. Linzon
with permission of the Canadian Institute of Forestry)
2Q
-------
TABLE 13. OBSERVED SENSITIVITY OF WOODY PLANTS TO S02 IN VICINITY OF
SULFITE PULP AND PAPER MILL IN ONTARIO9 (23)
Sensitive:
Ash, Red
Birch, European
Birch, White
Birch, Yellow
Cottonwood
Mahonia
Maple, Manitoba
Fraxinus pennsylvam'ca Marsh.
Betula pendula Roth
Betula papyrifera Marsh.
Betula lutea Michx.
Populus del toides Marsh.
Mahonia sp.
Acer negundo L.
Intermediate:
Apple
Basswood
Catalpa
Currant, Red
Dogwood, Red
Elm, Chinese
Grape, Wild
Honeysuckle,
Hydrangea
Lilac
Mock Orange
Mock Orange
Mountain Ash
Oak, White
Spiraea
Spruce, White
Wei gel a
Osier
Tatarian
Pyrus malus L.
Tilia americana L.
Warder
Catalpa speciosa
Ribes sp.
Cornus stolonifera Michx.
Ulmus parvifolia Jacq.
Vitis riparia Michx.
Lonicera tatarica L.
Hydrangea paniculata Sieb.
Syringa vulgaris L.
Philadelphus coronarius L.
Philadelphus virginal is Rehd.
Pyrus (Sorbus) aucuparia (L.) Gaertn.
Pyrus
Querci
uercus alba L.
Spiraea Vanhouttei label.
Picea glauca (Moench.) Voss.
Wei gel a sp.
Tolerant:
Forsythia
Linden, Little-leaved
Maple, Norway
Forsythia viridissima Lindl
Tilia cordata Mill.
L.
\cer platanoides
Maple, Silver
Maple, Sugar
Spruce, Blue
Acer saccharinum L.
Acer saccharum Marsh.
Picea pungens Engelm.
Field observations.
(Reprinted from "Sulfur Dioxide Injury to Vegetation in the Vicinity of a
Sulphite Pulp and Paper Mill," 1973 by S. N. Linzon, W. D. Mcllveen, and
P. J. Temple with permission of D. Reidel Publishing Company)
21
-------
TABLE 14. RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WOODY PLANTS GROWING NEAR A SOURCE
OF S02 IN SOUTHERN QUEBEC9 (29)
Very Sensitive:
Birch, gray (Betula populifolia)
Birch, paper (Betula papyrifera)
Hazel (Cory!us cornuta)
Pine, jack (Pinus divaricata)
Pine, red (Pinus resi'nosa)
Pine, white (PiTTus strobus)
Serviceberry (AmeTanchier stolonifera)
Sumac, staghorn (Rhus typ~hina)
Vaccinium, blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium)
Sensitive:
Boxelder (Acer negundo)
Maple, red (Acer riibrum)
Tolerant:
Aspen, bigtooth (Populus grandidentata)
Aspen, quaking (Populus trenuiloides)
Maple, silver (Acer saccharinum)
Spruce, white (Picea~g~lauca)
aField observations.
(Adapted from Pellissier, M. 1972. [Atmospheric pollution and its effects
on vegetation]. Unnumbered pub. of the Queb. Gov't. and Univ. of Quebec at
Trois-Rivieres, 40 pp. (Trans!. from French).
22
-------
TABLE 15. SELECTED WOODY PLANTS THAT ARE RELATIVELY SUSCEPTIBLE TO S02a (4)
Apple (Maius sp.)
Birch (Betula sp.)
Catalpa (Catalpa speci'osa Warder)
Elm, American (Ulmus americana L.)
Larch (Larlx sp.)
Mulberry (Morus microphylla Buck!.)
Pear (Pyrus communis L.)
Pine, eastern white (Pinus strobus L.)
Pine, ponderosa (Pinus ponderosa Laws.)
Poplar, Lombardy (Populus nigra L.)
aA compilation.
(Reprinted from "Sulfur Dioxide," 1970 by T. W. Barrett and H. M. Benedict
with permission of the Air Pollution Control Association)
23
-------
TABLE 16. SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS CAUSING THRESHOLD INJURY TO
VARIOUS SENSITIVITY GROUPINGS OF VEGETATION
a,b
(16)
Maximum
Average Sensitive
Concentration (ppm $02)
Peak 1.0-1.5
1-Hour 0.5-1.0
3-Hour 0.3-0.6
Southern Pines
Red and Black Oaks
White Ash
Sumacs
Sensitivity Grouping
Intermediate
(ppm S02)
1.5-2.0
1.0-2.0
0.6-0.8
Maples
Locust
Sweetgum
Cherry
Elms
Tul i ptree
Tolerant
(ppm S02)
> 2.0
> 2.0
> 0.8
White Oaks
Dogwood
Peach
Based on observations over a 20-year period of visible injury occurring on
over 120 species growing in the vicinities of coal-fired power plants in
the southeastern United States.
Field observations.
(Adapted from Jones, H. C., D. Weber, and D. Basillie. 1974. Acceptable
limits for air pollution dosages and vegetation effects: sulfur dioxide.
Proc. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. Annu. Meet. 67: Paper No. 74-225, 31 pp.)
24
-------
TABLE 17. THE RELATIVE S02 SENSITIVITY OF WOODY PLANTS GROWN IN NORTH
AMERICA9
SENSITIVE
v Alder, thinleaf (Alnus tenulfolia)
Aspen, large-toothed (Populus grandidentata)
Aspen, trembling (Populus tremuloides]
Ash, red (green) (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
Birch, European (Betula pendula)
Birch, gray (Betula populifolia)
Birch, western paper (Betula papyrifera commutata)
Birch, white (paper) (Betula papyrifera)
Birch, yellow (Betula alleghanensis (lutea))
Blueberry, lowbush (Vaccinium angustifolium)
Cherry, bitter (Prunus emarginata)
Elm, Chinese (Ulmus parvifolia)
Hazel, beaked (Cory!us cornuta (rostrata))
Hazel, Cal iform'a (Cory!us cornuta californica)
Larch, western (Larix occidental is)
Maple, Manitoba (Acer negundo interius)
Maple, Rocky Mountain (Acer glabrum)
Mock-orange, Lewis (Philadelphus lewisi)
Mountain-ash, Sitka (Sorbus sitchensis)
Mulberry, Texas (Morus microphylla^)
Ninebark, Pacific~(Physcocarpus capitatus)
Ocean-spray (Holodiscus arieafolius)
Pine, eastern white (Pinus strobus)
Pine, jack (Pinus banksianal
Pine, red (Pinus resinosa)
Poplar, Lombardy (Populus nigra hybrid)
Rockspirea, creambush (Holodiscus discolor)
Serviceberry, low (Amelanchier spicata (stolonifera))
Serviceberry, Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia)
Serviceberry, Utah (Amelanchier utahensis)
Sumac, staghorn (Rhus typhina)
Willow, black (Salix nigra^)
25
-------
TABLE 17. Continued
INTERMEDIATE
Alder, mountain (Alnus tenuifolia)
Apricot, ChineseTPrunus armeniaca var. Chinese)
Basswood (Tilia americanal
Birch, water (Betula occidentalis (fontinalisj)
Boxelder (Acer negundol
Cherry, bitter "(Primus emarginata)
Chokecherry (Prunus demissa)
Cottonwood, black (Populus trichocarpa)
Cottonwood, eastern"! Populus deltoides)
Cottonwood, narrowleaf (Populus angustifolia)
Currant, sticky (Ribes viscosissimum)
Dogwood, red osier (Co'rnus stolonifera)
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
Elder, blueberry (Sambucus cerulea)
Elm, American (white) (Ulmus americana)
Fir, balsam (Abies balsamea)
Fir, grand (Abies grandis)
Grape, wild (VitTs riparia)
Hawthorn, red (Crataequs columbiana)
Hazel, witch (Hamamelis virginiana)
Hemlock, western (Tsuga heterophylla)
Honeysuckle, tatarian (Lonicera tatarica)
Hydrangea (Hydrangea paniculata)
Lilac, common (Syringa vulgariT)
Mahogany, mountain CCercocarpus montanus)
Maple, Douglas (Acer glabrum douglassi)
Maple, Rocky Mountain (Acer glabrum)
Maple, red (Acer rubruin)
Mock-orange, coronarius (Philadelphus coronarius)
Mock-orange, virgfnalis (Phi 1adelphus virginalis)
Mountain-ash, European (Sorbus aucuparia)
Mountain-ash, western (Sorbus scopulina)
Mountain-laurel (Ceanothus sanguineus)
Oak, white (Quercus alba)
Pine, Austrian (Pinus nigra)
Pine, lodgepole (Pinus contorta)
Pine, ponderosa (Pinus pdhderosa)
Pine, western white (Pinus monticola)
Poplar, balsam (Populus balsamifera)
Sagebrush, big (Artemsia tridentata)
Snowberry, mountain (Symphoricarpos oreophilus)
Snowberry, Columbia (Symphdricarpos rivulanTs)
Spirea, Van Houts (Spiraea vanhouttei)
Spirea, shineyleaf (Spiraea lucida)
Spruce, Engleman (Picea engelmanni)
Spruce, white (Picea glauca)
26
-------
TABLE 17. Continued.
TOLERANT
Arborvitae (white cedar) (Thuja occidental is)
Buck-brush (Ceanothus velutinus)
Buffalo-berry (Lepargyraea canadensis
Ceanothus, redstem (Ceanothus sangulneus)
Cedar, western red (Thuja plicata)
Fir, silver (Abies amabilis")
Fir, white (Abies concolor)
Forsythia (Forsythia yiridissima)
Ginkgo (Ginkgo bilobal
Hawthorn, black (Crataequs douglasii)
Juniper, common (Juniperus communis)
Juniper, Rocky Mountain (Juniperus scopulorum)
Juniper, Utah (Juniperus osteosperma)
Juniper, western (Juniperus occidental!s)
Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphy1os~uva-ursi)
Linden, littleleaf (Ti1ia~cordata)
Mahogany, curl-leaf mtn. (Cercocarpus ledifolius)
Maple, Norway (Acer platanoides)
Maple, silver (Acer saccharinum)
Maple, sugar (Acer saccharum)
Oak, Gambel (Quercus gambelii)
Oak, pin (Quercus palustris)
Oak, (northern red) (Quercus rubra)
Oregon grape
Pine, Limber
Pine, pinyon . .
Plane, LondonTPIatanus acerifolia)
Poison-ivy, western (Toxicodendron radicans rydbergii)
Poplar, Carolina (Populus canadensisl
Spruce, blue (Picea pungensl
Squawbush (Rhus trilobata)
Sumac, smooth (Rhus glabra)
Yew, pacific (Taxus brevifolia)
aCompiled from previously listed species.
Odostemon aquifol
Pinus flexilis)
Pinus edulis)
27
-------
be more accurate or included the largest number of observations. Of
course, a certain amount of subjectivity is inherent in any such compil-
ation. However, plants in the "sensitive" category should show injury
at ambient levels of S02. Those species in the intermediate category
may or may not be injured, depending upon local environmental factors,
phenotype, etc. Tolerant plants should generally tolerate ambient
levels of S02.
EUROPE-RUSSIA
Differential species sensitivity to S02 has been recognized for
nearly a century in Europe. In 1883 von Scnroeder and Reuss (33) reported
that oaks were very tolerant to SO? under field conditions. They
ranked several other tree species Tn the following order of increasing
sensitivity: maple, ash, elm, poplar, white beech, red beech, and
birch.
Haselfhoff and Lindau (14) also cited birch as most sensitive to
"smoke" (mainly S02) in 1903, and included red and white beech as sensi-
tive. Plum was listed as the most sensitive of the cultivated fruit
trees while cherry was given a more tolerant rating. Mulberry was
observed to be very tolerant.
In 1924, Neger (26) ranked both coniferous and broadleaved trees as
to their sensitivity or tolerance to S02. He rated the conifers in the
following order of decreasing sensitivity: fir, spruce, Scotch pine,
white pine, Douglas fir, larch, black pine, and yew. He also observed
that chronic S02 exposures caused conifers to prematurely shed several
years of older needles. Broadleaved species were ranked in order of
decreasing sensitivity as: red beech, oak, maple, linden, ash, mountain
ash, and birch.
Since 1924, numerous European scientists have studied various
aspects of S02 effects on vegetation. The more modern literature is of
primary concern in this review. For a more extensive review of the
historical aspects of S02 injury to vegetation see references 17, 18, 19
and 35. Russian literature was reviewed in references 2 and 3.
One of the most useful general European publications dealing with
S02 and vegetation is a color-plate atlas (37). It contains excellent
photographs as well as significant text material published in German,
French, and English. The text also summarizes many important aspects of
the relative sensitivity of woody plants which cannot be tabulated. The
authors also include tables (Tables 18 and 19) listing the relative S02
sensitivity of European deciduous and coniferous trees. These tables
are based on years of field observations and artificial exposures and
should be relatively accurate.
Many European reports are based on the sensitivity of plants to
"smoke" "industrial fumes," or "city air pollution." Sulfur dioxide may
28
-------
TABLE 18. THE RELATIVE S02 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF EUROPEAN DECIDUOUS WOODY PLANTS (37)
ro
10
Most Sensitive
Juglans regia
English walnut
Ribe^ grossularia
Sensitive
Sorbus intermedia
Rowan tree
Prunus persica
Less Sensitive
Pyrus communis var.
Pear
Acer campestre
sativa
Gooseberry
Ribes rubrum
Red currant
Acer palmatum
Japanese maple
Ti 1i a grandifolia
Lime, Linden or Basswood
Tilia cordata
Small leaved linden
Peach
Acer platanoides
Norway maple
Betula pendula
European birch
Aesculus hippocastanum
Horse chestnut
Mai us communis, sylvestris
apple
Prunus cerasus
Sour cherry
Prunus avium
Sweet cherry
Prunus domestica
Plum
Cory!us avellana
Hazel nut
Fagus silvatica
hagus
Red
ed or European beech
Hedge maple
Quercus pedunculata
English oak
Syringa vulgaris
Lilac
Caprinus betulus
Hornbeam
Ulmus gjabra
Wych elm
Salix caprea
Goat willow
Populus tremula
European aspen
Rhamnus frangula
Alder buckthorn
Sambucus racemosa
European red elder
Gingko biloba
Gingko
-------
TABLE 18. Continued.
Most Sensitive Sensitive Less Sensitive
Fagus silv. atropurpurea Robinia pseudoacacia
Copper beech Locust
Quercus rubra Ilex aquifolium
Red oak Holly
Alnus glutinosa
Black alder
Populus robusta
Poplar
(Adapted from van Haut, H. and H. Stratman. 1969. Color-plate atlas of the effects of sulfur dioxide on
plants. Verlag W. Gidardet, Essen. 206 pp.)
-------
TABLE 19. THE RELATIVE S02 SUSCEPTIBILITY OF EUROPEAN CONIFEROUS WOODY PLANTS (37)
Most Sensitive
Sensitive
Less Sensitive
CO
Larix europea
European larch
Larix 1eptolepi s
Japanese Larch
Picea abies
Norway spruce
Pseudotsuga menziesii
Douglas fir
Abies alba
Silver fir
Picea alba
White spruce
Abies homo!epis
Nikko fir
Picea pungens
Blue spruce
Picea sitchensis
Sitka spruce
Abies normanniana
Nordman's fir
Pinus silvestris
Scotch pine
Pinus ponderosa
Ponderosa pine
Pinus strobus
White pine
Pinus m'gra austriaca
Austrian pine
Pinus concorta var. latifolia
Lodgepole pine
Pinus mugo
Mugho pine
Chamaecyparis lawsoniana
Lawson cypress
Juniperus communis
Juniper
Thuja occidental is
Thuja or white cedar
Taxus baccata
English yew
(Adapted from van Haut, H. and H. Stratman. 1969. Color-plate atlas of the effects of sulfur dioxide
on plants. Verlag W. Gidardet, Essen. 206 pp.)
-------
have been the major pollutant in many instances, but such emissions in
industralized areas also frequently contain fluorides, chlorides,
oxides of nitrogens, particulates, etc. Thus, many such reports were
not included in this review, since the specific sensitivity or tolerance
to SO, was not evaluated. However, certain studies were selected which
contain useful listings, based primarily on S02 toxicity.
Acatay (1) determined the relative sensitivity of hardwoods growing
adjacent to a copper smelter in Turkey and listed them in order of
sensitivity. Table 20 is adapted from an abstract of his report. It is
assumed that S02 is the major phytotoxic pollutant emitted.
Ranft (30) evaluated the S02 susceptibility of a 40-year old planting
experiment near a zinc smelter in Germany. The smelter released about
41 tons of S02 daily; maximum ground level concentrations of 1.2 mg S02
per m air were measured 400 m from the smelter. The smelter also
released arsenic dust and HC1, but Ranft stated that these did not
affect the stand. However, these emissions must be considered when
evaluting his report. Sensitivity ratings are given in Table 21.
Habj0rg (13) established a number of woody species in containers
and maintained them near a source of S02 in Norway. The source was the
industrialized area of Sorpsborg, and it was implied that the major air
pollutant was S02- His findings are given in Table 22.
In the Netherlands, Mooi (24) published preliminary results regarding
the sensitivity of woody plants. Vegetation was exposed in chambers
located in greenhouses or in the field using a "fumigation gun" or
"cannon" which directs a stream of diluted S0? at the desired tree or
branch. Table 23 illustrates his findings.
Dassler and Enderlein (6) and Enderlein and Vogl (9) summarized two
years of data from artificially exposing conifers to 0.8 to 3.0 ppm S02
in chambers. These were presented in a very general form. Table 24 is
adapted from the text of the abstracts.
In Russia, Nikolayeskiy et al. (27) related various anatomical-
morphological and physiological-biochemical characteristics to plant
sensitivity to S02. Characteristics such as duration of phenophase,
flowering, stomatal characteristics, cuticle and epidermis thickness,
accumulation of 35-S02 in various organs, and vascular bundle diameter
were studied. These characteristics were correlated with the S02
sensitivity of numerous wild grasses, weeds, higher flowering plants,
and woody species. This publication also contained a table which listed
the relative sensitivity of woody plants. This modified table is presented
as Table 25.
32
-------
TABLE 20. SUSCEPTIBILITY OF HARDWOODS TO "SMOKE" DAMAGE FROM A COPPER
SMELTER IN TURKEY3 (1)
Juglans regia
Ostrya carpinifolia
Castanea sativa
Cory!us aveil ana
Surbus aucupan'a
Fraxinus spp.
Carpinus spp.
Alnus glabra
Betula verrucosa
Populus tremula
Tilia sp.
Diospyros lotus
Fagus ori entali s
Robinia pseudoacacia
Ulmus campestris
Quercus sessiliflora
Buxus sempervirens0
Field observations.
Most sensitive.
GMost tolerant.
(Adapted from Acatay, A. 1968. [Smoke damage from the copper-smelting works
in Murgulj. Instanbul Univ. Orman Fak. Derg. Seri A 18:1-17. 1969.
For. Abstr. 30:4104 (Turkish).
33
-------
TABLE 21. SUSCEPTIBILITY TO S02 OF 30- TO 40-YEAR OLD WOODY SPECIES PLANTED
NEAR A ZINC PLANT EMITTING SO, IN GERMANY3 (30)
Trees
Shrubs
Extremely Sensitive:
Larix decidua
Very Sensitive:
Pi cea abies
PTnuT banksiana
Pinus silvestris
Alnus incana
Intermediate:
Mai us pumi1 a
Prunus avium
Tilia platyphyllos
Populus alba
Pinus strobus
Pinus montana
Picea pungens
Carpinus betulus
Populus nigra italica
Fagus sylvatica
Ulmus glabra
Pinus nigra austr.
Pinus cembra
Larix dahurica
Populus marilandica
Populus brabantica
Populus grandis
Betula pendula
Sorbus aucuparia
Sorbus intermedia
Salix caprea
Salix alba
Viburnum opulus
Rhamnus frangula
Crataegus monogyna
Tolerant:
Quercus petraea
Acer pseudoplatanus
Acer platanoides
Populus candicans
Populus tremula
Robinia pseudoacacia
Alnus glIutinosa
Quercus boreal is
Ligustrum vulgare
Salix purpurea
Sambucus nigrum
Sambucus racemosa
Field exposure.
(Adapted from Ranft, H. 1966. [Evaluation of a previous planting experiment
within the range of the zinc smelter at Freiberg] Int. Symp. Forest Fume
Damage Experts Proc. 5:154-165. (Held Janske Lazne, Czech. 11-14 Oct, 1966)
(Trans 1. from Slovak). „.
-------
TABLE 22. RELATIVE S02 SENSITIVITY OF WOODY PLANTS GROWN IN CONTAINERS AND
PLACED IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA OF NORWAY HAVING HIGH S02 LEVELS3 (13)
Sensitive:
Alnus incana
Cytisus purgans
Lonicera morrowii
Pinus sylvestris
Rosa "Moje Hammarberg"
Sorbus aucuparia
Intermediate:
Amelanchier sp.
Betula pubescens
Cotoneaster lucidus
Crataegus sanguinea
Hippophae rhamnoides
Picea abies
Potentilla "Longacre"
Ulrnus glabra
Tolerant:
Berberis thunbergii
Cornus "Sibirica"
Elaeagnus comnutata
Picea pungens "Glauca"
Syringa vulgaris
Wei gel a "Eva Rathke"
aField exposure.
(Adapted from Hobjorg, A. 1973. [Air pollution and vegetation. II. Effects
of fertilization on growth and development of twenty woody plants grown in
industrial areas] Meld. Nor. Landbrukshoegsk. 52:1-14 (Trans!. from Norwegian)
35
-------
TABLE 23. PRELIMINARY RANKING OF WOODY SPECIES EXPOSED TO S02 IN CHAMBERS
OR IN THE FIELD USING THE "FUMIGATION CANNON" IN THE NETHERLANDS3
(24)
Sensitive:
Alnus incana
Corylus avellana
Populus canescens
(Witte van Haamstede")
Sal ix alba (Liempde")
Salix caprea
Crataegus monogyna
Crataegus oxyacantha
Alnus glutinosa
Sorbus aucuparla
Amelanchier canadensis
Populus tHchocarpa
Betula pendula
Tilia cordata
Rosa rubiginosa
Corpus mas
Rosa rugosa
Rosa canina
Populus euramericana
("ZeelancF)
Fraxinus excelsior
Intermediate:
Ulmus carpinifolia
Castanea sativa
Ulmus hollandica
\cer campestre
'runus padus
Prunus spinosa
Prunus mahalej)
Robinia pseudoacacia
Fagus sylvatica
Tolerant:
Quercus robur
Acer pseudoplatanus
Jasminurn fruticans
Ligustrum ovalifolium
Ligustrum vulgare
Artificial exposure.
(Adapted from Mooi, J. 1972. Investigation of the susceptibility of woody
plants to S09 and HF. Inst. Plantenziektenkd. Onderz. Wageningen Meded. 602.
12 PP. *
36
-------
TABLE 24. RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF FOREST CONIFERS DETERMINED AFTER
TWO YEARS OF FUMIGATIONS IN GERMANY3 (6,9)
Spruces
Pines
Larches
Picea abies
• b
P. omorica
P. pungensc
P. sitchensis0
Pinus sylvestris
P. rigidab
P. ponderosa
P. strobusb
P. montana
P. nlgra0
P. peucec
P. contorta(
Larix decidua
L. leptolepis0
aAritficial exposure.
Most sensitive within the genus.
cLess sensitive.
(Adapted from Dassler, H. G. and H. Enderlein. 1965. [Experimental gassing
experiments: a possibility for reducing smoke damage to forests in our
republic]. Sozial. Forst. 15:367-368 (German) and Enderlein, H. and M. Vogl
1966. [Experimental investigations of S02 sensitivity of the needles of
various conifers]. Arch. Forstw. 15:1207-1224 (German)).
37
-------
TABLE 25. PERCENT FOLIAR INJURY PRODUCED BY S02 ON PLANTS, BASED ON
THREE YEARS OF EXPERIMENTAL EXPOSURES IN RUSSIA (27)
Species
Percent
Foliar Injury
Susceptible:
English oak
Japanese barberry
Prickly rose
Hazel nut
White willow
Juneberry
Rugosa rose
Aspen
Ussurian pear
European barberry
Siberian peatree
Mountain-ash leafed spiraea
European mountain ash
Small -leafed linden
White birch
Cranberry-leafed spiraea
Moderately Tolerant:
Siberian crab apple
Forest pear
Redhaw hawthorn
Common buckthorn
White poplar
Golden currant
European cranberry bush
Silver maple
European black currant
Plum
Tatarian maple
Norway maple
Hedge cotoneaster
Goat willow
Black chokeberry
Shaggy lilac
Sweet mockorange
-
78.0
66.5
62.5
62.0
61.1
61.1
60.1
59.8
59.3
59.0
56.5
54.6
54.5
51.8
50.6
49.6
49.0
48.6
45.5
44.5
43.3
42.6
42.0
41.2
35.8
35.6
35.0
34.3
33.2
31.0
31.1
31.1
38
-------
TABLE 25. Continued.
Percent
Species Foliar Injury
Tatarian dogwood
Balsam poplar
Black poplar
Black cotoneaster
Cherry
Birdcherry
Common lilac
Red-berried elder
Common sea buckthorn
Snowberry
Pennsylvania ash
29.0
29.0
28.6
26.8
26.3
26.2
25.9
24.2
23.0
22.5
21.0
Tolerant:
Ash-leaved maple 26.6
European euonymus 11.9
Tatarian honeysuckle 8.2
Common elm 8.2
Artificial exposure.
(Adapted from Nikolayevskiy, V. S., V. N. Tsodikova, V. V. Firger, A. T.
Miroshnikova, V. V. Suslova and V. P. Galeeva. 1971. [Effect of the anat-
omical-morphological structure of leaves and biological features or ornamental
plants on the absorption of sulfur-35 dioxide and on the gas stability]. Uch.
Zap. Perm. Gos. Uvin. 256:5-23 (Trans!. from Russian)).
39
-------
One of the most comprehensive listings of the S02 sensitivity of
woody plants was presented by Ranft and Dassler (31) flable 26). Their
report was based on a series of artificial S02 chamber exposures conducted
by 1967 to 1969 in Germany. Species were ranRed on a 20-point basis as
to their sensitivity or tolerance. Concentrations of SCL during exposures
ranged from 0.5-1.2 ppm (authors note 1 ppm = 2.6 mg), 1.5-2.0 ppm, or a
higher dose to differentiate the very hardy species (apparently up to at
least 4.5 ppm). Exposure durations were not succinctly stated, but
examples of damage after 60 hours at 1.5 ppm were given.
Table 26 will serve as a summary of the European literature, since
many of the various species examined by different researchers were also
included in these experiments.
Several reports which were not included in this review should be
brought to the readers attention. These references (5, 7, 10, 11, 12,
21) are listed in the reference section and provide additional bibliogra-
phic material.
40
-------
TABLE 26. SEQUENCE LIST ACCORDING TO LEAF DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF SO,
TEST EXPOSURE FROM 1967 TO 1969 IN GERMANY3 (31)
Species
Points
Very Susceptible:
Pi nus sylvestri s
Hypericum calycinum
Pi nus rigida
Lan'x decidua
Salix purpurea
Pinus ponderosa
Picea abies
4.3U
4.5
4.7
4.8
4.8
5.0
5.1
Susceptible:
Salix fragilis
Salix pentandra
Berberis vulgaris
Amelanchier floribunda
Abies concolor
Rubus idacus
Pinus griffithii
Tilia cordata
Chenomeles japonica
Clemail's montana rubens
Picea omorika
Pinus Jeffreyi
Pinus montana
Salix viminalis
Vitis vinifera
Potentilla fruticosa
Salix a Iba7 fragilis
Syringa Mrs. E. Harding
Cory!us colurna
Hydrangea paniculata
Pinus nigra
Spiraea arguta
Cotoneaster bullata
Larix leptolepis
Physocarpus opulifolius
5.2
5.2
5.3
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.5
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.7
6.8
6.8
6.8
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.0
7.1
7.1
41
-------
TABLE 26. Continued.
Species Points
Moderately Tolerant:
Cornus stolonifera 7.2
3 Poplar varieties 7.4
Rhus typhina 7.4
Cotoneaster dammeri 7.5
Cotoneaster divaricata 7.7
Kolkwitzia amabilis 7.7
Ribes a1 pinurn 7.7
Caragena arborescens 8.0
Cotoneaster dielsiana 8.0
Rhamnus cathartica 8.0
Lyeium ha1imifo1iurn 8.1
Cory!us aveil. atrop. 8.3
Polygonurn aubertii 8.3
Rosa rubrifolia 8.3
Salix americana/hastala 8.5
Spiraea vanhouttei 8.5
Buddleia alternifolia 8.7
Colutea arborescens 8.7
Cytisus praecox 8.7
Tilia tomentosa 8.7
Vitis vinifera 8.7
Sarothamnus scoparius 8.8
Buddleia variabilis 9.0
Continus coggygria 9.0
Viburnum lantana 9.0
Cornus alba 9.2
Juglans regia 9.3
Rosa Baccus 9.3
Salix caprea 9.4
Juniperus communis hib. 9.5
Kerria japonica 9.5
Ribes sanguinea atr. 9.5
Crataegus monogyna 9.6
Crataegus oxyacantha 9.7
Betula pendula 9.7
Morus alba 9.7
Parthenocissus quinquefolia 9.7
42
-------
TABLE 26. Continued.
Species
Rosa Gabriele privat
Elaeagnus angusti folia
Cornus sanguinea
Spiraea tnenziesii
Syringa vulgaris
Picea pungens glauca
Coryopteris claudonensis
Rosa canina
Fraxinus excelsior
Hamatnelis jajDonica
Laburnum anagyroides
Ribes aureum
Ulmus campestre
Vi burnum rhytidopjiyl 1 um
Halesia diptera
Hippophae rhamnoides
Rhododendron japonicum
Rubus fruticosa
Sambucus nigra
Sorbus aucuparia
Alnus glutinosa
Acer incana
Berberis thunbergi
Syringa japonica
Chamaecypari s lawsoniana
Cory! us avellana
Cydonia vulgaris
Forsythia intermedia
Aesculus hippocastanum
Rosa rugosa
Philadelphus coronarius
Pyracantha cocci nea
Fagus silvaticus
Deutzia sea bra
Cercidiphyllum japom'cum
Prunus avium
Prunus serrulata
Sorbaria chinensis
Tamarix tetrandra
Cornus mas
Pinus peuce
Points
9.7
9.9
10.0
10.0
10.0
10.3
10.5
10.5
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
10.7
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.0
11.3
11.3
11.5
11.7
11.7
12.0
12.0
12.0
12.2
12.3
12.3
12.4
12.5
12.7
12.8
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.0
13.3
13.3
43
-------
TABLE 26. Continued.
Species Points
Mahonia aquifoliufn 13.3
Wei gelia fTori da 13.3
Juniperus chinensis pfitz. 13.5
Robinia pseudoacacia 13.5
Wistaria chinensis 13.5
Primus cerasif. Pissardi 13.7
Primus mahaleb 13.8
Rather Tolerant:
Amorpha fruticosa 14.0
Berberis gagnepainii 14.0
Ginkgo biloba 14.0
Sambucus nigra 14.0
Thuja plicata 14.0
Quercus boreal is 14.1
Sambucus racemosa 14.2
Symphoricarpus orbiculatus 14.2
Acer rubrum 14.3
Genista tinctoria 14.3
Magnolia obovata 14.3
Prunus padus 14.3
Prunus spinosa 14.3
Symphoricarpus rac. 14.3
Ilex aquifolium 14.5
Li ri odendron tuli pi fera 14.5
Viburnum opulus 14.5
Ailanthus altissima 14.7
Andromeda" floribunda 14.7
Pinus cembra 14.7
Daphne mezereum 15.0
Humulus lupulus 15.0
Juniperus tamariscifolia 15.0
Rhododendron catawb. 15.0
Acer campestre 15.4
Berberis verruculosa 15.5
Taxodium distichum 15.5
Calycanthus floridus 15.7
Chamaecyparis nootkat. 15.7
Hedera helix 15.7
Prunus cerasifera 15.9
44
-------
TABLE 26. Continued.
Species
Tamarix odessana
Taxus baccata
Castanea sativa
Metasequoia glyptostr.
Sorbus aria
Catalpa speciosa
Prunus serotina
Euonymus europaeus
Lonicera tatarica
Tsuga diver si folia
Elaeagnus commute ta Z.
Catalpa bignonioides
Cryptomeria japonica
Erica carnea
Halimodendron argent.
Rhodotypus scandens
Juniperus squama ta meyeri
Acer negundo
Pinus parvi flora
Acer ginnala
Erica mediteraneum
Thuja occidental is
Points
16.0
16.0
16.3
16.3
16.3
16.5
16.5
16.5
16.7
16.8
16.9
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.0
17.1
17.2
17.3
17.7
17.7
17.7
Very Tolerant:
Juniperus sabina 18.0
Lonicera periclymenum 18.0
Ptelea trifoliata 18.0
Quercus petraea 18.0
Celtis austral is 18.2
Aesculus parviflora 18.3
Spiraea bum. A. Waterer 18.3
Juniperus virgineana 18.5
Buxus sempervirens 18.6
Staphylea pinnata 18.7
Ligustrum vulgare atr. 18.9
Jasminum fruticans 19-0
Gleditsia triacanthos 19-3
45
-------
TABLE 26. Continued.
Species Points
Prunus virgineana
Thuja oriental is
Chamaecyparis pisifera
Celastrus orbicularis
Platanus aceri folia
Sophora japonica
19.3
19.3
19.9
20.0
20.0
20.0
Artificial exposures.
Maximum resistance equals 20 points.
(Reprinted from "Smoke-Hardiness Test Carried Out on Woods in an S02 Chamber
Test," 1970 by H. Ranft and H. G. Dassler with permission from VEB Gustav
Fisher Verlag Jena).
46
-------
SECTION V
PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS
INTRODUCTION
The most important phytotoxic components of photochemical smog are
ozone (Oj, peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN), and oxides of nitrogen (NO }.
Ozone causes significantly more injury to woody plants growing undir
ambient environmental conditions than does NO or PAN. Ozone injury has
been reported on shrubs, conifers and deciduous trees in rural as well
as urban areas. NO causes very little injury to trees and shrubs,
except occasionally when they are adjacent to large point sources.
Woody plants exposed to PAN have shown a high degree of tolerance. Most
of the research regarding the influence of photochemical oxidants on
woody vegetation has been conducted in the United States. Therefore,
unless otherwise noted, references in this section are from the United
States.
OZONE
In 1958, Richards et^ al_. (23) published the first report specifically
identifying ozone as the cause of injury to a woody plant. The plant
species was grape and the symptom was referred to as "grape stipple."
Hill et al. (15), published a list in 1961, relating the relative sensi-
tivity of a number of plant species. The only woody plants included
were grape (Vitis vinifera L. var. Mission), and peach (Prunus persica
L. var. Elberta), both listed as intermediate in sensitivity. Since
these early reports, numerous others have dealt with the ozone sensitivity
of trees and shrubs. Ozone injury has been observed in the field in
urban areas, downwind from urban centers, and in rural regions. This
area of research was reviewed in 1964 (22), 1965 (24), 1968 (11), 1970
(14, 33, 34), and 1974 (12).
Wood, Davis, and associates (5, 6, 7,37, 38, 30) exposed numerous
woody plant species to ozone in laboratory chambers. Plants were subjected
to 0.10 to 0.25 ppm ozone for 2 to 8 hours throughout the growing season.
They reported differential sensitivity of coniferous trees (6), deciduous
trees (39), and woody ornamentals (38). The information from these
reports has been compiled and is presented in Table 27.
Treshow and others (10, 33, 34, 35) studied the ozone sensitivity
of numerous woody species native to Utah. Their studies included arti-
ficial laboratory exposures, field exposures, and field observations.
In one study, 70 plant species were exposed in portable field chambers
to 0.15 to 0.40 ppm ozone for 2 hours (35). The portion of their report
dealing with woody plants is shown in Table 28. Treshow (34) also
reported on the results of a study conducted by Harper (unpublished) in
which various plant species were exposed to 0.25, 0.40, 0.55, or 0.60 ppm
ozone for 4 hours daily during extended time periods up to 2 weeks.
47
-------
TABLE 27. RELATIVE OZONE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SHRUBS, TREES AND ORNAMENTALS
EXPOSED TO OZONE (APPLIED AT BI-WEEKLY INTERVALS THROUGHOUT THE
GROWING SEASON IN CHAMBERS3' b' c) (5,6,38,39)
Sensitive:
Ailanthus, tree-of-heaven
Ailanthus altissima, Swingle)
Ash, green
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.)
Ash, white
(Fraxinus americana L.)
Azalea, campfire
(Rhododendron kaempheri 'campfire' (Planch) Wils. Hort.)
Azalea, Hinodegiri
(R. obtubsum Planch. 'Hinodegiri1)
Azalea, Korean
(R_. poukhanensis Leville)
Azalea, snow
(IR. kurume 'snow' [Rehd.] Hort.)
Cotoneaster, rock
(Cotoneaster horizontal is Decne.)
Cotoneaster, spreading
(C. divaricata Rehd. & Wils.)
Honey locust (thornless)
(Gleditsia triacanthos inermis [L.] Zabel.)
Larch, European
(Larix decidua Mill.)
Oak, white
(Quercus alba L.)
Pine, Austrian
(Pinus nigra Arnold)
48
-------
TABLE 27. Continued.
Sensitive:
Pine, jack
(Pinus banksiana Lamb.)
Pine, ponderosa
(Pinus ponderosa Laws.)
Pine, Virginia
(Pinus virginiana Mi 11.)
Poplar, Hybrid - mixed
[Populus maximowiczii x trichocarpa Clone #388)
[Populus maximowiczii x cv berolinensis Clone #48)
Poplar, tulip
(Liriodendron tulipifera L.)
Sycamore, American
(Platanus occidentalis L.)
Intermediate:
Ash, European mountain
(Sorbus aucuparia L.)
Elm, Chinese
(Ulmus parvifolia Jacq.)
Forsythia, Lynwood gold
(Forsythia intermedia spectabilis 'Lynwood Gold' Koehn)
Gum, sweet
(Liquidambar styraciflua L.)
Hemlock, eastern
(Tsuqa canadensis [L.] Carr.)
Larch, Japanese
(Larix leptolepis [Sieb. & Fucc.] Gord.)
Mock Orange, sweet
(Philadelphus coronarius. L.)
Oak, pin
(Quercus palustris Muenchh.)
49
-------
TABLE 27. Continued.
Intermediate:
Oak, scarlet
(Quercus coccinea Muenchh.)
Pine, eastern white
(Pinus strobus L.)
Pine, pitch
(Pinus rigida Mill.)
Pine, Scotch
(Pinus sylvestris L.)
Redbud, eastern
(Cereis canadensis L.)
Rhododendron
(Rhododendron catawbiense album [Michx.] Hort.)
Rhododendron
(Rhododendron nova zembla Hort.)
Rhododendron
(Rhododendron roseum elegans Hort.)
Viburnum, linden
(Viburnum dilatatum Thunb.)
Viburnum, Tea
(Viburnum setigerum Hance.)
Tolerant:
Arborvitae
(Thuja occidental is L.)
Azalea, Chinese
(Rhododendron moll is Bl.)
Birch, European white
(Betula pendula Roth.)
Dogwood, gray
(Cornus racemosa Lam.)
50
-------
TABLE 27. Continued.
Tolerant:
Dogwood, white
(Cornus fTorida L.)
Euonymus, dwarf winged
(Euonymus alatus compactus [Sieb.] Bailey)
Fir, balsam
(Abies balsamea [L.] Mill.)
Fir, Douglas
(Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco.)
Fir, White
(Abies concoloi* [6ord. & Clend.] Lindl.)
Firethorne, Laland's
(Pyracantha coccinea la_1and_ Depp.)
Gum, black
(Nyssa sylvatica [Marsh.] Pepperidge)
Holly, American (female)
(Ilex opaca Ait.)
Holly, American (male)
(Ilex opaca Ait.)
Holly, Hetz Japanese
(Ilex crenata Hetzi [Thunb.] Hetzii.)
Laurel, mountain
(Kalmia latifolia L.)
Linden, American
(Tilia americana L.)
Linden, little-leaf
(Tilia cordata Mill.)
Maple, Norway
(Acer platanoides L.)
Maple, sugar
(Acer saccharum Marsh.)
51
-------
TABLE 27. Continued.
Tolerant:
Oak, English
(Quercus robur L.)
Oak, northern red
(Quercus rubra L.)
Oak, shingle
(Quercus imbricaria Michx.)
Pieris, Japanese
(Pien's Japonica [Thunb.] D. Don)
Pine, red
(Pinus resinpsa Ait.)
Privet, Amur north
(Ligustrum amurense Carr.)
Rhododendron, Carolina
(Rhododendron carolinianum Redh.)
Spruce, Black Hills
(Picea glauca var. densata Bailey)
Spruce, Colorado blue
(Picea pungens Engelm.)
Spruce, Norway
(Picea abies [L.] Karst.)
Spruce, white
(Picea glauca [Moench] Voss.)
Viburnum, Korean spice
(Viburnum carlesi Hems!.)
Yew, dense
(Taxus densiform's Hort.)
Yew, Hatifield's pyramidal
(Taxus media hatfieldi Rend.)
Artificial exposures.
Compilation of several tables.
GSome sensitivity ratings were modified based on recent, unpublished research.
52
-------
TABLE 28. THRESHOLD CONCENTRATION OF OZONE NEEDED TO CAUSE INJURY ON PLANTS
GROWING IN NATIVE HABITAT IN UTAH3 (35)
Concentration (2-hr Exposure)
0.15 ppm
Quaking aspen
(Populus trenailoides Michx.)
0.20 ppm
Saskatoon serviceberry
(Amelanchier aim'folia Nutt.)
0.25 ppm
Gambel oak
(Quercus gambelii Nutt.)
White frr
(Aibes concolor [Gord. & Glend.] Lindl.)
Over 0.25 ppm
Boxelder
(Acer negundo L.)
Blackbead elder
(Sambucus melanocarp A. Gray)
0.30 ppm
Northern black currant
(Ribes hudsonianum Richards.)
Snowberry
(Symphoricarpos vaccinioides Rydb.)
Over 0.30 ppm
Pachystima
(Pachystima myrsim'tes [Pursh.] Raf.)
Poison-ivy
(Toxicodendron radicans [L.] Kuntze)
Wood's rose
(Rosa woodsii Lindl.)
53
-------
TABLE 28. Continued.
Concentration (2-hr Exposure)
0.40 ppm
Sagebrush
(Artemesia tridentata Nutt.)
Over 0.40 ppm
Big-tooth maple
(Acer grandidentatum Nutt.
Trailing mahonia
(Mahonia repens G. Don.)
Artificial exposure.
(Reprinted from "Ozone Sensitivity of Plants in Natural Communities," 1973 by
M. Treshow and D. Stewart with permission from Applied Science Publishers Ltd),
54
-------
Table 29 is adapted from the text of this report (34). Unfortunately,
the exact length of the extended time periods was not given.
One of the most extensive studies to determine the impact of ozone
on an ecosystem is being conducted in the San Bernardino Mountains of
California. Miller and co-workers (19, 20, 21) are studying the influence
of ozone on the vegetative compartment of the ecosystem and conducted
extensive studies on the high ozone sensitivity of ponderosa pine (21)
and other woody plants (19, 20). These reports are based on field
observations as well as artificial exposures. Results from these studies
are incorporated into Table 30.
Other researchers studied the effect of ozone on specific woody
species or varieties. Eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.) populations
contain certain individuals which are extremely sensitive to ozone (1,
2, 3, 8, 18) but as a whole, the species population may not be extremely
sensitive (6). White ash (Fraxinus americana L.) (27), Virginia pine
(Pinus virginiana mill.) (7), slash (Pinus el'liottii engelm.), shortleaf
(Pinus echinata mill.), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) seedlings (2)
and certain clones of hybrid poplar (Populus del toides Bartr. x Populus
trichocarpa Torr. and Gray) (16) have been shown to be very susceptible.
Sugar maple (Acer saceharum marsh.) (13), red maple (Acer rubrum L.)
(32), sycamore (Platanus spp.) and American elm (Ulmus americana L.)
(25), and grape (Vitis vinifera L.) (26) may also be injured by ozone.
In California, both citrus (lemons and oranges) (30) and zinfandel
grape (29) yields have declined because of ozone. English holly (Ilex
aquifolium) (4) has been reported to be very resistant to ozone.
PEROXYACETYL NITRATE (PAN)
This secondary, urban air pollutant has been an important problem
on leafy vegetables grown in the Los Angeles basin. Also, PAN is a
suspected phytotoxicant on vegetables in New Jersey and on tomatoes in
southern Canada. However, woody plants are apparently very tolerant of
PAN. Drummond (9) exposed numerous woody species to high levels of PAN,
but failed to induce symptoms on most species. Kohut (17) and Davis
(unpublished) exposed hybrid poplar and ponderosa pine, respectively, to
very high levels of PAN, but could not induce symptoms. Table 31 illus-
trates these findings. General aspects of PAN phytotoxicity have been
reviewed (27, 28).
OXIDES OF NITROGEN (NO )
J\
Nitrogen oxide levels in urban air seldom reach phytotoxic concen-
trations, but concentrations adjacent to large point sources may cause
plant injury. Taylor and MacLean (28) listed the following woody plants
and sensitivity classes in their review: Azalea (Rhododendron sp.)
(sensitive), brittlewood (Melaleuca leucadendra) (sensitive), orange
'Citrus sinensis osbeck) (intermediate) and heath (Erica sp.) (resistant).
very comprehensive listing was presented by Van Haut and Stratmenn
55
-------
TABLE 29. DAILY DOSE OF OZONE NEEDED TO CAUSE INJURY TO VARIOUS PLANT SPECIES,
FOR TIME PERIODS UP TO 2 WEEKS3 (34)
0.25 ppm/4 hrs - Very Sensitive:
Snowberry
(Sytnphoricarpus alba L.)
Sumac
(Rhus canadensis Marsh.)
Aspen
(Populus tremuloides Michx.)
Bridalwreath
(Spireae vanhoutii Zab.)
Chinese lilac
(Syringa chinensis Willd.)
0.25 ppm/4 hrs - Sensitive:
Concord grape
(Vitis vinifera L.)
Cherry
(Prunus avium L. var. Lambert)
Privet
(Ligustrum vulgare L.)
Green ash
(Fraxinus pennsylvanica lanceolata Sarg.)
Honeylocust
(Gleditsia triacanthos L.)
English walnut
(Juglans regia L.)
56
-------
TABLE 29. Continued.
0.40 ppm/4 hrs. - Fairly Tolerant:
Arborvitae
(Thuja oriental is L.)
Blue spruce
(Picea pungens Engelm.)
Japanese box
(Buxus sjempervirens L.)
Red oak
(Quercus rubra L.)
Japanese pagoda
(Sophora japonica L.)
0.55 ppm/4 hrs. - Very Tolerant:
Littleleaf linden
(Tilia cordata Mi 11.)
European beech
(Fagus sylvatica L.)
European birch
(Betula pendula Roth)
Pear
(Pyrus communis L.)
Apricot
(Prunus armeniaca L.)
Black locust
(Robinia pseudoacacia L.)
Viburnum
(Viburnum burkwoodii Burk)
Artificial exposure.
(Adapted from Treshow, M. 1970. Ozone damage to plants. Environ. Pollut.
1:155-161).
57
-------
TABLE 30. RELATIVE SENSITIVITY OF WOODY PLANTS GROWN IN NORTH AMERICA
TO OZONE3' b
SENSITIVE
Ailanthus, tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima)
Ash, green (Fraxinus pennsylvanica lanceolata)
Ash, white (Fraxinus" americanal
Aspen, quaking (Populus tremuloides)
Azalea, campfire (Rhododendron kaempheri)
Azalea, hinodegiri (Rhododendron hinodegiri)
Azalea, Korean (Rhododendron poukhanensis)
Azalea, snow Rhododendron kurume)
Bridalwreath (Spiraea vanhoutii)
Cherry, Bing (Prunus avium var. Bing)
Cotoneaster, rock (Cotoneaster horizontal is)
Cotoneaster, spreading (Cotoneaster divaricata)
Grape, concord (Vitis vinifera)
Honey 1ocust (Gleditsia triacanthos)
Larch, European (Larix d'ecidua)
Lilac, Chinese (Syringa chinensis)
Mountain-ash, European (Sorbus aucuparia)
Oak, Gambel (Quercus gambelii)
Oak, white (Quercus alba)
Pine, Austrian (Pinus nigra)
Pine, Coulter (Pinus coulteri)
Pine, Jack (Pinus banksiana)
Pine, Jeffery (PTnus jeffreyi)
Pine, Loblolly"TPinus taeda)
Pine, Monterey (Pinus radiata)
Pine, ponderosa (Pinus ponderosa)
Pine, Virginia (Pinus virginiana)
Poplar, hybrid (Populus maximowiezii x trichocarpa)
Poplar, tulip (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Privet, londense (Ligustrum'vulgare var. pyramidale)
Serviceberry, Saskatoon (Amelanchier alnifolia)
Snowberry, alba (Symphoricarpos alba)
Sumac, fragrant (Rhus aromatica)
Sycamore, AmericanTFlatanus occidental is)
Walnut, English (Juglans regial
58
-------
TABLE 30. Continued.
INTERMEDIATE
Apricot, Chinese (Prunus armeniaca var. Chinese)
Boxelder (Acer negundo)
Cedar, incense Tlibocedrus decurrens)
Cherry, Lambert (Prunus av"iuni var. Lambert)
Currant, northern black (RTbes hudsom'anum)
Elder, black bead (Sambucus melanocarpa)
Elm, Chinese (Ulmus parvifolTa")
Forsythia, Lynwood gold (Forsythia intermedia spectabilis)
Gum, sweet (Liquidambar styraciflual
Honeysuckle, blue-leaf (Lonicera korolkowi)
Larch, Japanese (Larix leptolepisl
Lilac, common (Syringa vulgarisj"
Mock-orange, sweet (Philadelphus coronarius)
Oak, black (Quercus velutiniaj
Oak, pin ((Quercus palustris)
Oak, scarlet (Quercus coccinea)
Pine, eastern white (Pinus strubus)
Pine, knobcone (Pinus attenuate)
Pine, lodgepole (Pinus contorta)
Pine, pitch (Pinus rigidal
Pine, Scotch IPinus sylvestris)
Pine, short!eaf (Pinus echinata)
Pine, slash (Pinus elliottii)
Pine, sugar (Pinus lambertiana)
Pine, Torrey (Pinus torreyana)
Privet, common (iTgustrum vulgare)
Redbud, eastern (Cercis canadensis)
Rhododendron (Rhododendron catawbiense album)
Rhododendron (Rhododendron nova zembla)
Rhododendron (Rhododendron roseum elegans)
Snowberry, vaccinioides (Symphoricarpos vaccinioides)
Viburnum, linden (Viburnum dilatatumj
Viburnum, tea (Viburnum setigerum)
59
-------
TABLE 30. Continued.
TOLERANT (Continued)
Spruce, Black Hills (Picea glauca densata)
Spruce, Colorado blue (Picea pungenT]
Spruce, Norway (Picea abies)
Spruce, white (Picea glauca)
Viburnum, Korean spice (Viburnum carelsi)
Viburnum, burkwoodii (Viburnum burkwoodii)
Walnut, black (Juglans nigra)
Yew, dense (Taxus dens if prim's)
Yew, Hatifield's pyramidal (Taxus media hatfieldi)
aCompilation of previously listed species plus new, unpublished data.
Sensitivity ratings of some species were modified to reflect new, unpublished
results.
60
-------
TABLE 31. RELATIVE SENSITIVITY OF WOODY PLANTS GROWN IN NORTH AMERICA
TO PANa>b
SENSITIVE
None reported
INTERMEDIATE
None reported
TOLERANT
Thuja oriental is)
Fraxinus pennsylvanica lanceolata)
Fraxinus americana)
Arborvitae
Ash, green
Ash, white _=
Basswood (Tilia americana)
Birch, European white (Be'tula/ pendula)
Dogwood, white (Cornus~florida)
Fir, balsam (Abies balsamea)
Fir, Douglas (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
Fir, white (Abies concolorl
Gum, sweet (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Hemlock, eastern (Tsuga canadensisT
Honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos)
Larch, European (Latrix decidua)
Larch, Japanese (Larix leptolepis)
Lilac, common (Syringia vulgarisT
Maple, Norway (Acer pla~tanoides)
Maple, silver (Acer saccharinum)
Maple, sugar (Acer saccharum)
Mountain-ash, American (Sorbus americana)
Oak, English (Quercus robur)
Oak, northern red (Quercus rubra)
Oak, pin (Quercus palustrisl
Oak, white (Quercus alba]
Pine, Austrian (Pinus nigra)
Pine, eastern white (Pinus strobus)
Pine, pitch (Pinus rigida)
Pine, ponderosa (Pinus ponderosa)
Pine, red (Pinus resinosaT)
Pine, Scotch (Pfnus sylvestris)
Pine, Virginia (Pinus virginiana)
Poplar, hybrid (Populus maximowiezii x trichocarpa)
Poplar, Tulip (Liriodendron tulipifera)
Spruce, Black Hills (Picea glauca densata)
Spruce, blue (Picea pungens)
Spruce, Norway (PTcea abies)
Spruce, white (Picea glauca)
Artificial exposures. 61
A Compilation but mainly from (9).
-------
(36). They exposed monocots, dicots, and conifers to NOX (NO and NCL)
under carefully controlled conditions in small chambers. Table 32 is
adapted from their results. In their review, Thompson et al. (31)
listed the sensitivity of 14 additional ornamental plants to N02-
Woody species from this list are indicated in Table 32.
62
-------
TABLE 32. RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WOODY PLANTS TO NO (PRIMARILY N0ja (36)
/\ C.
Sensitive:
Weeping birch (Betula pendula)
Showy apple (Maius specT)
Wild pear tree
European larch
Japanese larch
Pyrus spec.)
Larix euro pea)
Larix leptolepis)
Rose (Rosa sp.)~
Azaela (RTTododendron canescens)
Pyracantah (Pyracalitha coccinea)
Intermediate:
Norway map!e (Acer platanoides)
Fan maple (Acer palrnatum)
Winter 1 ime (Tilia parvifolia)
Summer 1ime (Tilia grandifolia)
Rhododendron (Rhododendron catawbiense)
Blue spruce (Picea pungens glauca)
White spruceTPicea alba)
Lawson's cypress fChamaecyparis lawsom'ana)
Nikko or Japanese fir (Abies homo!epi s)
Common silver fir (Abies pectinate)
Ligustrum (Ligustrum lucidum)
To!erant:
Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)
Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus~J~
'
Common beech (Fa'gus sylvatjca)
Common elder (Sambucus nigra
Gingko tree (Gingko ETloba)
''
Mountain elm (Ulmu's' montana^)
Purple-leaved beech (Fagus sylvatica atropurpurea)
Common oak (Quercus pendunculata)
Common yew tree (Taxus baccata)
Black pine (Pinus austriaca)
Shore juniper Quhiperus conferta)
aArtificial exposures.
63
-------
SECTION VI
REFERENCES
(Reference Section is divided into two sections;
the numbering sequence begins at (1) in each section)
Sulfur Dioxide
1. Acatay, A. 1968. [Smoke damage from the copper-smelting works in
Murgul]. Instanbul Univ. Orman Fak. Derg. Seri A 18:1-17. 1969.
For. Abstr. 30:4104 (Turkish).
2. American Institute of Crop Ecology. 1969. AICE survey of USSR air
pollution literature. Vol. II. Effects and symptoms of air pollu-
tants on vegetation; resistance and susceptibility of different
plant species in various habitats, in relation to plant utilization
for shelter belts and as biological indicators. AICE Publ. No. 45.
M. Y. Nuttonson, ed. Silver Springs, MD. 95 pp.
3. American Institute of Crop Ecology. 1970. AICE survey of USSR air
pollution literature. Vol. III. The susceptibility or resistance
to gas and smoke of various arboreal species grown under diverse
environmental conditions in a number of industrial regions of the
Soviet Union. AICE Publ. No. 46. N. Y. Nuttonson, ed. Silver Springs,
Md. 114 pp.
4. Barrett, T. W. and H. M. Benedict. 1970. Sulfur dioxide. In:
Recognition of Air Pollution Injury to Vegetation. A Pictorial
Atlas. J. S. Jacobson and A. C. Hill, eds. Air Pollut. Control
Assoc., Pittsburgh, p. C1-C17.
5. Berge, H. 1959. [Injury to fruit and forest trees from sulfur
dioxide emission.] Gartenbauwissenschaft 24:220-228. (German).
6. Dassler, H. G. and H. Enderlein. 1965. [Experimental gassing
experiments: a possibility for reducing smoke damage to forests in
our republic]. Sozial. Forst. 15:367-368 (German).
7. Dochinger, L. S., A. M. Townsend, D. W. Seegrist, and F. W. Bender.
1972. Responses of hybrid poplar trees to sulfur dioxide fumigation.
J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 22:369-371.
8. Dreisinger, B. R. and P. C. McGovern. 1973. Monitoring atmospheric
sulfur dioxide and correlating its effects on crops and forests in
the Sudbury area. In: Proc. Impact Air Pollut. Veg. Spec. Conf.
(April 7-9, 1970, Toronto). Air Pollut. Control. Assoc., Pittsburgh.
2nd Printing, pp. 11-28.
64
-------
9. Enderlein, H. and M. Vogl. 1966. [Experimental investigations of
S0? sensitivity of the needles of various conifers]. Arch. Forstw.
1571207-1224 (German).
10. Greszta, J., J. Olszowski, and S. Godzik. 1969. The effect of air
pollution on wood volume increment in the common pine (Pinus silvestris
L.) Ekol. Pol. Ser. A 17:828-846.
11. Guderian, R. and H. Stratmann. 1962. [Field experiments to determine
the effects of S02 in vegetation. Part I. Survey of method and
evaluation of results] Forschungsber. Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen,
No.. 1118, 102 pp. (C. E. Trans. 4369). (German).
12. Guderian, R. and H. Stratmann. 1968. [Field experiments for
determining effects of sulfur dioxide on vegetation. Part III.
Threshold values of harmful SO, emissions for fruit and forest
trees for agricultural and garaen plant species.] Forschungsber.
Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen No. 1920. 114 pp. (Trans!. from German).
13. Hobjtfrg, A. 1973. [Air pollution and vegetation. II. Effects of
fertilization on growth and development of twenty woody plants
grown in industrial areas] Meld. Nor. Landbrukshoegsk. 52:1-14
(Trans!. from Norwegian).
14. Haselhoff, E. and G. Lindau. 1903. Die Beschcldigung der Vegetation
durch Rauch. Leipzig, Gerbrtleder Borntraeger. 412 pp. (German).
15. Hill, A. C., S. Hill, C. Lamb, and T. W. Barrett. Sensitivity of native
vegetation to S09 and to N0? combined. J. Air Pollut. Control. Assoc.
24:153-157. c L
16. Jones, H. C., D. Weber, and D. Basillie. 1974. Acceptable limits for
air pollution dosages and vegetation effects: sulfur dioxide. Proc.
Air Pollut. Control. Assoc. Annu. Meet. 67: Paper No. 74-225, 31 pp.
17. Katz, M., G. A. Ledingham, and A. W. McCallum. 1939. Symptoms of in-
jury on forests and crop plants. In: Effects of Sulfur Dioxide on
Vegetation. Nat. Res. Council of Canada. N.R.C. No. 815, pp. 51-103.
18. Katz, M. and A. W. McCallum. 1939. Fumigation experiments on trans-
planted conifers. In: Effect of Sulfur Dioxide on Vegetation. Nat.
Res. Council of Canada, N.R.C. No. 815, pp. 244-261.
19. Katz, M. and A. W. McCallum. 1939. Fumigation experiments on conifers
in their natural habitat. In: Effect of Sulfur Dioxide on Vegetation.
Nat. Res. Council of Canada, N.R.C. No. 815, pp. 218-243.
65
-------
20. Knabe, W. 1971. Air quality criteria and their importance for forests.
Mitt. Forstl. Bundes-Versuchsanst. Wien 92:129-150.
21. Lampadius, F., E. Pelz, and E. Pohl. 1970. The problem of estimating
and demonstrating the resistance of forest trees to emissions. Biol.
Zentralbl. 89:301-326 (Trans!. from German).
22. Linzon, S. N. 1972. Effects of sulphur oxides on vegetation. For.
Chron. 48:182-186.
23. Linzon, S. N., W. D. Mcllveen, and P. J. Temple. 1973. Sulphur dioxide
injury to vegetation in the vicinity of a sulphite pulp and paper mill.
Water, Air, Soil Pollut. 2:129-134.
24. Mooi, J. 1972. Investigation of the susceptibility of woody plants
to S09 and HF. Inst. Plantenziektenkd. Onderz. Wageningen Meded. 602.
12 ppf
25. Nakashima, Y., Y. Hagihara, S. Ogawa, and T. Kawashima. 1970. [Studies
on the smoke damage of trees. I. On the acute damage symptoms by the
S02] Bull. Fukuoka-ken Forest Exp. Sta. No. 21:23-50 (Japanese).
26. Neger, F. W. 1924. Die Krankheiten unserer WaldbSume und der wichtigsten
GartengehOlze. Ferdinand Enke. Stuttgart (2nd edition). 246 pp. (German),
27. Nikolayevskiy, V. S., V. N. Tsodikova, V. V. Firger, A. T. Miroshnikova,
V. V. Suslova and V. P. Galeeva. 1971. [Effect of the anatomical-
morphological structure of leaves and biological features or ornamental
plants on the absorption of sulfur-35 dioxide and on the gas stability].
Uch. Zap. Perm. Gos. Uvin. 256:5-23 (Trans!. from Russian).
28. O'Connor, J. A., D. G. Parbery, and W. Strauss. 1974. The effects of
phytotoxic gases on native Australian plant species: Part I. Acute
effects of sulphur dioxide. Environ. Pollut. 7:7-23.
29. Pellissier, M. 1972. [Atmospheric pollution and its effects on vege-
tation]. Unnumbered pub. of the Queb. Gov't and Univ. of Quebec at
Trois-Rivieres, 40 pp. (Transl. from French).
30. Ranft, H. 1966. [Evaluation of a previous planting experiment
within the range of the zinc smelter at Freiberg] Int. Symp. Forest
Fume Damage Experts Proc. 5:154-165. (Held Janske Lazne, Czech.
11-14 Oct. 1966) (Transl. from Slovak).
31. Ranft, H. and H. G. Dossier. 1970. [Smoke-hardiness test carried
out on woods in an SOg chamber test] Flora 159:573-588 (Transl. from
German).
66
-------
32. Scheffer, T. C. and G. C. Hedgcock. 1955. Injury to northwestern
trees by sulfur dioxide from smelters. U.S.D.A. Forest Service
Tech. Bull. No. 1117, 49 pp.
33. Schroeder, J. von and C. Reuss. 1883. Die BeschMdigung der Vegetation
durch Rauch und die Oberharzer Huttenrauchschaden. Paul Parey, Berlin
(333 pp) (German).
34. Temple, P. J. 1972. Dose-response of urban trees to sulfur dioxide.
J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 22:271-274.
35. Thomas, M. D. and R. H. Hendricks. 1956. Air Pollution Handbook
(P. L. Magill, F. R. Holden and C. Ackley, ed.) McGraw Hill Book Co.,
New York, p. 9/1 - 9/44).
36. van Haut, H. and H. Stratman. 1960. [Experimental studies on the effects
of sulfur dioxide upon vegetation] Forschungsber. Landes Nordrhein-
Westfalen No. 884, 63 pp (German).
37. van Haut, H. and H. Stratman. 1969. Color-plate atlas of the effects
of sulfur dioxide on plants. Verlag W. Gidardet, Essen. 206 pp.
38. Wentzel, K. F. 1968. [Sensitivity and differences in the resistance of
plants to air pollution.] Forstarchiv 29:189-194 (German).
67
-------
REFERENCES
Photochemical Oxidants
1. Berry, C. R. 1971. Relative sensitivity of red, jack, and white
pine seedlings to ozone and sulfur dioxide. Phytopathology 61:231-
232.
2. Berry, C. R. 1974. Age of pine seedlings with primary needles
affects sensitivity to ozone and sulfur dioxide. Phytopathology
64:207-209.
3. Berry, C. R. and L. A. Ripperton. 1963. Ozone, a possible cause
of white pine emergence tipburn. Phytopathology 53:552-557.
4. Brennan, E. and I. Leone. 1970. The response of English holly
selections to ozone and sulfur dioxide. Holly Letter 37:6-8.
5. Davis, D. D. and J. B. Coppolino. 1974. Relative ozone suscepti-
bility of selected woody ornamentals. HortScience 9:537-539.
6. Davis, D. D. and F. A. Wood. 1972. The relative susceptibility of
eighteen coniferous species to ozone. Phytopathology 62:14-19.
7. Davis, D. D. and F. A. Wood. 1973. The influence of environmental
factors on the sensitivity of Virginia pine to ozone. Phytopathology
63:371-376.
8. Dochinger, L. S. and C. E. Seliskar. 1970. Air pollution and the
chlorotic dwarf disease of eastern White Pine. For. Sci. 16:46-
55.
9. Drummond, D. B. 1971. Influence of high concentrations of peroxy-
acetylnitrate on woody plants. Phytopathology 61:128 (Abstract).
10. Harward, M. R. and M. Treshow. 1971. The impact of ozone on
understory plants of the aspen zone. Proc. Air Pollut. Control
Assoc. Annu. Meet. 64: Paper No. 71-98. 18 pp.
11. Heggestad, H. E. 1968. Diseases of crops and ornamentals incited
by air pollutants. Phytopathology 58:1089-1097.
12. Heggestad, H. E., C. E. Anderson and W. A. Feder. 1974. Determining
acceptable limits for air pollution dosages and vegetation effects:
ozone. Proc. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. Annu. Meet. 67:
68
-------
13. Hibben, C. R. 1969. Ozone toxicity to sugar maple. Phytopathology
59:1423-1428.
14. Hill, A. C., H. E. Heggestad, and S. N. Linzon. 1970. Ozone. In;
Recognition of Air Pollution Injury to Vegetation. A Pictorial
Atlas. J. S. Jacobson and A. C. Hill, eds. Air Pollut. Control
Assoc., Pittsburgh, pp. B1-B22.
15. Hill, A. C., M. R. Pack, M. Treshow, R. J. Downs and L. G. Transtrum.
1961. Plant injury induced by ozone. Phytopathology 51:356-363.
16. Jensen, K. F. and L. S. Dochinger. 1974. Responses of hybrid
poplar cuttings to chronic and acute levels of ozone. Environ.
Pollut. 6:289-295.
17. Kohut, R. 1975. The interaction of ozone and PAN on hybrid poplar.
Proc. 1974 Annu. Meet. Am. Phytopathol. Soc. 1:76.
18. Linzon, S. N. 1967. Ozone damage and semimature-tissue needle
blight of eastern white pine. Can. J. Bot. 45:2047-2061.
19. Miller, P. R. 1973. Oxidant Induced community change in a mixed
conifer forest. Adv. Chem. Ser. 122:101-117.
20. Miller, P. R. and A. A. Millecan. 1971. Extent of oxidant air
pollution damage to some pines and other conifers in California.
Plant Dis. Rep. 55:555-559.
21. Miller, P. R., J. R. Parmeter, 0. C. Taylor, and E. A. Cardiff.
1963. Ozone injury to the foliage of Pinus ponderosa. Phytopathology
53:1072-1076.
22. Rich, S. 1964. Ozone damage to plants. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.
2:253-266.
23. Richards, B. L., J. T. Middleton, and W. B. Hewitt. 1958. Air
pollution with relation to agronomic crops: V. Oxidant stipple of
grape. Agron. J. 50:559-561.
24. Richards, B. L, and 0. C. Taylor. 1965. Significance of atmospheric
ozone as a phytotoxicant. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 15:191-
193.
25. Santamour, F. S. 1969. Air pollution studies on platanus and
American elm seedlings. Plant Dis. Rep. 53:482-484.
69
-------
26. Shaulis, N. J., W. J. Kender, C. Pratt, and W. A. Sinclair. 1972.
Evidence for injury by ozone in New York vineyards. HortScience
7:570-572.
27. Taylor, 0. C. 1969. Importance of peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) as a
phytotoxic air pollutant. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 19:247-
351.
28. Taylor, 0. C. and D. C. Maclean. 1970. Nitrogen oxides and the
peroxyacyl nitrates. In: Recognition of Air Pollution Injury to
Vegetation. A Pictorial Atlas. J. S. Jacobson and A. C. Hill,
eds. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., Pittsburgh, p. E1-E14.
29. Thompson, C. R., E. Hensel, and G. Kats. 1969. Effects of photo-
chemical air pollutants on Zinfandel grapes. HortScience 4:222-
224.
30. Thompson, C. R. and 0. C. Taylor. 1969. Effects of air pollutants
on growth, leaf drop, fruit drop, and yield of citrus trees.
Environ. Sci. Technol. 3:934-940.
31. Thompson, C. R., D. T. Tingey, and R. A. Reinert. 1974. Acceptable
limits for air pollution dosages and vegetation effects: Nitrogen
dioxide. Proc. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. Annu. Meet. 67: Paper No.
74-227. 21 pp.
32. Townsend, A. M. and L. S. Dochinger. 1974. Relationship of seed
source and developmental stage of the ozone to tolerance of Acer
rubrum seedlings. Atmos. Environ. 8:957-964.
33. Treshow, M. 1970. Environment and plant response. McGraw Hill
Pub., N.Y. 422 pp.
34. Treshow, M. 1970. Ozone damage to plants. Environ. Pollut.
1:155-161.
35. Treshow, M. and D. Stewart. 1973. Ozone sensitivity of plants in
natural communities. Biol. Conserv. 5:209-214.
36. van Haut, H. and H. Stratmann. 1967. Experimental investigation
of the effect of nitrogen dioxide on plants. Schriftenr. Landesanst.
Immissions Bodennutzungssch. Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen Essen 7:50-
70 (Trans1. from German).
70
-------
37. Wilhour, R. G. 1970. Influence of ozone on white ash (Fraxlnus
amerlcana L.). Pa. State Univ. Center Air Environ. Studies Pub.
No. 188-71. 86 pp.
38. Wood, F. A. and J. B. Coppolino. 1971. The influence of ozone on
selected woody ornamentals. Phytopathology 61:133 (Abstract).
39. Wood, F. A. and J. B. Coppolino. 1972. The influence of ozone on
deciduous forest tree species. Mitt. Forstl. Bundes-Versuchanst.
Wien 97:233-253 (Int. Symp. Forest Fume Damage Experts Proc. 7th,
Essen, 7-11 Sept 1970).
71
-------
TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)
1. REPORT NO.
EPA-600/3-76-102
3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSION-NO.
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE
Susceptibility of Woody Plants to Sulfur Dioxide and
Photochemical Oxidants
5. REPORT DATE
September 1976
6. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION CODE
7. AUTHOR(S)
Donald D. Davis and Raymond G. Wilhour
8. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO,
9. PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory
200 SW 35th St.
Corvallis, Oregon 97330
10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
1AA006 ROAP 21 ALS Task 08
11. CONTRACT/GRANT NO.
12. SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADDRESS
13. TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
final
same as above
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE
EPA/ORD
15. SUPPLEMENTARY NOTES
16. ABSTRACT
This report presents the result of a detailed review of European and United States
literature regarding the sensitivity of woody vegetation to sulfur dioxide, ozone,
peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN), or nitrogen oxides. Reference is made to Russian, Japanese
and Austrian literature only when species examined are commercially important in the
United States.
The manner in which the original susceptibility data were collected may influence
the relative position of a species in a composite susceptibility table. Therefore,
many original tables are presented for individual interpretation of susceptibility.
Composite summary susceptibility tables are also presented for each pollutant.
Relative sensitivity compilations should be used with caution and with an
understanding of inherent limitations. The sensitivity categories of "very
susceptible" and "very tolerant" should be of great assistance in selecting woody
vegetation for planting in areas of high air pollution potential. However, for
species found in the "intermediate" sensitivity category, greater emphasis should
be placed on local environmental condition and economic factors than on air pollution
sensitivity.
17.
KEY WORDS AND DOCUMENT ANALYSIS
DESCRIPTORS
b.lDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS
c. COSATI Field/Group
woody plants
sulfur dioxide
ozone
PAN
nitrogen oxides
woody vegetation and
air pollution
susceptibility to
photochemical oxidants
51
8. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT
Release to public
19. SECURITY CLASS (ThisReport)
Unclassified
21. NO. OF PAGES
80
20. SECURITY CLASS (This page)
TTnr
22. PRICE
EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73)
72
ft U. S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OPFIC6: 1976-698-165 / H REGION 10
------- |