orva mis EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AND/OR OZONE ON TWO OAT VARIETIES By Walter W. Heck & John A. Dunning Terrestrial Ecology Branch CERL-029 nvironmental esearch aboratory ------- EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AND/OR OZONE ON TWO OAT VARIETIES By Walter W. Heck & John A. Dunning Terrestrial Ecology Branch CERL-029 Agricultural Research Service, USDA North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 Interagency Agreement No. EPA-IAG-D6-0416 Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory August 1976 ------- EFFECTS OF SULFUR DIOXIDE AND/OR OZONE ON TWO OAT VARIETIES 1976 Annual Report by Walter W. Heck a^id John A. Dunning USDA - ARS North Carolina State University Raleigh, North Carolina 27607 Project Officer Dr. Lawrence C. Raniere National Ecological Research Laboratory Corvallis, Oregon 97330 Prepared for OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY WASHINGTON, D. C. 20460 [INTERIM REPORT - NOT FOR GENERAL DISTRIBUTION] ------- ABSTRACTS Six experimental designs were run to determine the effects of sulfur dioxide on the important Southeastern oat varieties - Carolee and Coker 227. The designs were run under controlled conditions and looked at sulfur dioxide (St^) concentrations from 20-160 pphm, SO2- ozone interactions, growth and exposure light, exposure humidities, growth temperature and exposure humidities, growth and exposure humidities, and sulfur and potassium nutrient levels. Plants were grown to 49 days for final harvest. Top dry wt, root dry wt, number of tillers, number of heads and injury were determined for all experi- mental designs. There were indications that 0^ and S02 could interact to give pro- tection or additive responses. Coker 227 produced fewer tillers than Carolee and started to head sooner. The heading was generally reflected in greater TDW for Coker 227. In all comparable cases injury was more severe in Coker 227 and in most cases RDW was affected more than TDW. A positive correlation was shown between injury, TDW and exposure humidity. Generally high intensity exposure light and low intensity growth light pro- duced a more sensitive plant. The effects of growth temperature are not clear but generally plants are more resistant at the cooler temperatures. Generally 40 pphm SO2 for 3 hr is about threshold. This report was submitted in partial fulfillment of an Interagency Agreement by the Agricultural Research Service (ARS) under the sponsor- ship of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The research included in the report was cooperatively sponsored by ARS, EPA and the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. Work was completed as of June 30, 1976. ii ------- CONTENTS Page Abstract ii List of Tables iv Acknowledgements vi Sections I. Conclusions 1 II. Recommendations 2 III. Introduction 3 IV. Experimental Work 4 V. References 12 iii ------- LIST OF TABLES No. Page 1. Analysis of Variance - Oat #14 13 2. Effect of Two Control Exposure on Several Plant Responses - Oat #14 14 3. Effect of Variety on Several Plant Responses of Two Control Groups of Oats - Oat #14 15 4. Analysis of Variance - Oat #14 16 5. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #14 17 6. Effect of Variety by Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #14 18 7. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Ozone on Top and Root Dry Weights - Oat #14 19 8. Effect of Variety by Sulfur Dioxide by Ozone on Plant Injury - Oat #14 20 9. Analysis of Variance - Oat #14 21 10. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #14 22 11. Effect of Ozone by Sulfur Dioxide on Root Dry Weight - Oat #14 23 12. Analysis of Variance - Oat #14 24 13. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #14 25 14. Effect of Variety by Sulfur Dioxide Concentration on Several Plant Responses - Oat #14 26 15. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Ozone on Top and Root Dry Weights - Oat #14 27 16. Analysis of Variance - Oat #15 28 17. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #15 29 18. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #15 30 19. Effect of Replication by Variety on Several Plant Responses - Oat #15 31 20. Effect of Variety by Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #15 32 21. Effect of Variety by Nutrient S on Several Plant Responses - Oat #15 33 22. Effect of Variety by Nutrient K on Plant Biomass - Oat #15 34 23. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Nutrient K and by Nutrient S on Plant Biomass - Oat #15 35 24. Effect of Nutrient S by Nutrient K on Plant Biomass - Oat #15 36 25. Effect of Replication by Variety by Nutrient K on Root Dry Weight - Oat #15 37 iv ------- No. Page 26. Analysis of Variance - Oat # 16 38 27. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #16 39 28. Effect of Variety by Growth Light on Plant Biomass - Oat #16 40 29. Effect of Variety by Exposure Light by Growth Light on 41 Plant Injury - Oat #16 30. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Growth Light on Root Dry Weight - Oat #16 42 31. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Growth Light by Exposure 43 Light on Several Plant Responses - Oat #16 32. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Variety by Exposure Light on 44 Several Plant Responses - Oat #16 33. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Growth Light by Variety on 45 Plant Injury - Oat #16 34. Analysis of Variance - Oat #17 46 35. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #17 47 36. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide, Variety and Exposure Humidity on 48 Several Plant Responses - Oat #17 37. Effect of Variety by Exposure Humidity by Sulfur Dioxide on 49 Several Plant Responses - Oat #17 38. Analysis of Variance - Oat #18 50 39. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #18 51 40. Effect of Growth Temperature, Exposure Humidity, and Sulfur 52 Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #18 41. Effect of Growth Temperature by Sulfur Dioxide on Root Dry 53 Weight - Oat #18 42. Effect of Growth Temperature by Exposure Humidity by Sulfur 54 Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #18 43. Effect of Variety by Exposure Humidity by Sulfur Dioxide on 55 Several Plant Responses - Oat #18 44. Analysis of Variance - Oat #19 56 45. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #19 57 46. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide, Growth Humidity, Exposure Humidity and 58 Variety on Several Plant Responses - Oat #19 47. Effect of Variety by Growth Humidity by Sulfur Dioxide on Several 59 Plant Responses - Oat #19 48. Effect of Growth Humidity by Exposure Humidity by Sulfur Dioxide 60 on Several Plant Responses - Oat #19 V ------- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS This research was conducted in the North Carolina State University Unit of the Southeastern Plant Environment Laboratories. The assistance of the staff of this unit is much appreciated. The assistance of Mr. Hans Hamann in statistical design and analysis is gratefully acknowledged. vi ------- SECTION I CONCLUSIONS Growth reductions were found in two oat varieties above 40 pphm SO2 for multiple 3 hr exposures. These reductions did not always occur at either 40 or 80 pphm, but were always found at 160 pphm. The 40 pphm for 3 hr is probably close to threshold (probably + 10 pphm) for the most sensitive conditions used. There was no evidence that low SO2 concen- trations enhanced growth. Coker 227 produced fewer tillers but headed out sooner than Carolee. RDW was generally more responsive to SO2 than TDW. Coker 227 was more sensitive than Carolee, had greater TDW and less RDW. The gas mixes (SO2 by 0^) should be repeated at the most sensitive growth and exposure conditions. Evidence of interactions were noted but no definitive results were obtained. There was some indication that ratios of the two gases were important. The nutrient study was in conclusive. It needs to be redone using a sand culture. The soil mixture used must have had Ca and Mg sulfate and possibly some forms of K present. No growth promotion was found for SO^ in this design. There was a strong correlation between exposure humidity and the various response measures(i.e. injury % and TDW reductions). Growth humidity was not as important as exposure humidity. This may reflect the relative short time period of prior growth humidity change before exposure began. Growth light intensity and temperature both affected the response of the two oat varieties to SO2. Plants were more sensitive was exposed at low light intensities. 1 ------- SECTION II RECOMMENDATIONS Carolee and Coker I'll are widely grown oat cultivars in the Southeast. They are both sensitive to biomass reductions at SO2 levels around the secondary air quality standards. The present studies report only episodic exposures. It is necessary that this work be carried on to include more extensive chronic exposures over some time period. The past data should be worked into response models for use in a predictive sense. During model development information gaps should be filled. The model(s) developed should be verified under phytotron, greenhouse and field conditions. These cultivars are sensitive to ozone. The sensitivity levels are not clear, although for acute exposures they are above the oxidant standard (0.08 ppm for 1 hr). The importance of O2-SO2 mixtures needs to be further explored using chronic exposures. Preliminary exposures to NO and combinations of N0_ plus SO^ should be Initiated. All of these experiments should be vertified under both greenhouse and field conditions. 2 ------- SECTION III INTRODUCTION The research presented in this report is part of a continuing cooper- ative project between the Agricultural Research Service, the Environmental Protection Agency and the North Carolina Agricultural Experiment Station. The title of the overall project is, "Effects,fates and transformations of selected air pollutants in plants, microorganisms and soils." The primary objectives of this cooperative program are to understand the impact of air pollutants on plants, microorganisms and soils that are of importance to agriculture, and to assist other agences in relation to their mission of protecting the agricultural segment of the environment. The research thrust is directed at comparative studies on vegetation effects under phytotron, greenhouse and field conditions. Emphasis Is on: (1) dose-response curves; (2) the interaction of various factors on the response of the whole plant to air pollutants; (3) assessing the impact of controlled pollutant additions and ambient pollution on plant biomass, yield and quality In the greenhouse and field, and on pollutant uptake and transformations in the greenhouse; (A) acute and chronic screens; and, (5) varietal responses. Research reported here contains, as its major thrust, part of the phyto- tron (controlled environment} portion of the foregoing cooperative program. It was determined that Carolee and Coker 121 oat should be intensively studied under carefully controlled conditions. Once this is accomplished the results should be verified under greenhouse and field conditions and using selected other plant species. These oat varieties were chosen as important oat cultivars of the Southeast. Oat cultivars have generally been sensitive to several of the pollutants. It is a member of the monocotyledonous plants and Is a grass. Thus, it represents a major plant group. The specific objectives for this research are given In Section IV. 3 ------- SECTION IV EXPERIMENTAL WORK Plants are subjected to many environmental fluctuations during their life cycle. These include but are not limited to temperature, light (intensity, duration and quality) humidity, soil moisture and soil nutrient. These factors, singly and in various combinations, are known to affect the response of plants to pollutant stress (1-3,7,9). Under greenhouse and field conditions it is not possible to separate the respective importance of these individual factors on the response of plants to pollutants. If the response is to be understood and corrected for pollutant models, it is necessary that these studies be done under con- trolled conditions. Such studies have been reported for some plants (4,5,7) but most have not been used for growth and yield data. It is also necessary to understand the effects of environmental stresses that occur at various times in the developmental stages of plant growth and how these stresses affect the response of plants to air pollutants. We have reported on the effects of SO2 singly and with a mixture of ozone on several varieties of oat when grown under carefully controlled cultural and enviromental conditions (4,5). The objectives of the present research were to further explore the effects of light intensity, temperature, humidity, nutritional sulfur and potassium, and ozone on the response of two oat varieties to SO2. Biomass, injury head and tiller formation were the responses measured. The exposures were multiple and episodic to chronic. MATERIALS AND METHODS Six experimental designs are reported. The same basic procedures were used in all designs. These are discussed and then each design is presented separately. Results and discussion are also handled by design. 4 ------- Plant growth, exposure and post-exposure were conducted in the facilities of the Southeastern Plant Environment Laboratories. Two oat varieties (Avena sativa, L. varieties Caroiee and Coker 227) were used in these designs. The varieties were seeded (3-5 seed/cup) in 5 cm styrofoam cups containing a 2:1 (V/V) mixture of gravel and buffered Jiffy mix. Plants were thinned to one plant per pot at 7 days from seeding and were transplanted into 15 cm pots after 21 days. Standard environmental conditions during growth were: seeding to 14 days at 18°C day, 14°C night, 9 hr photoperiod (3500 ft-c.J; days 15-21 were at 22°C day, 18°C night, 9 hr photoperiod plus a 3 hr incandescent night interruption; days 22—28 and 43-49 were at 26°C day, 18UC night, 9 hr photoperiod plus a 3 hr incandescent night interruption; days 29-42 were designed for special treatments as des- cribed in each experimental design. The relative humidity (RH) was 55-65% during the day and 75-85% at night. Plants were watered twice a day: in the morning with dionized water and in the afternoon with the standard phytotron nutrient solution. Plants were harvested after 49 days from seed and both root and shoot dry weights were determined along with number of tillers. Exposures to sulfur dioxide and ozone were carried out using the basic chamber concepts as in earlier research (6). However, new exposure chambers utilizing the circular design and concepts of the constant stirred tank reactor ICSTR) of Roger's thesis (8) were used in these experimental designs. The chambers are 32" diameter, 54" high with a 135 rpm impeller located in the top of the chamber. Chamber SO^ concentrations are more uniform than in the older chambers. Light is furnished by 1U00 W high intensity lamps and intensities up to 3600 f't-c are possible at plant height in the chambers. Temperature and humidity are controllable. Plants were generally placed in the exposure chambers for a 30 min con- ditioning period prior to exposure and were left in the chambers 30 min after exposure for a brief post-exposure period. Plants were exposed at 26°C, 70X RH and 3000 ft-c unless otherwise stated under each specific design. Chambers were continuously monitored with a Heloy Sl^ analyzer and/or a Monitor ozone analyzer. Visual injury was determined on a 0-100% subjective scale 3 days after exposure. All data was subjected to an analysis of variance. 5 ------- Design ff!4: Determine the interactions between multiple episodic SC^ and 0^ exposures on the response of the oat varieties. Plants were grown and exposed as described. ihe data was analysed separately for each time period and results are so shown. Exposure humidity in this design was about 45% RH + 10x. This was one apparent reason for the reduced sensitivity of the oat varieties to SO2 and probably to These treatments had a 60 min conditioning period prior to exposures and the 0.75 and 1.5 hr exposures has a 60 min post-conditioning period. Basic Experimental design: Gas: 0^ and/or SO Exposures: 4, on- M and W or Tu and Th of the 2 test weeks. Pollutant Combinations: 30 (See Table) Duplicates: 4 Exposure Design: Duration (hrs) Control (pphm) so2 (pphm) (ppiim) so^/o^ (pphm) 0.75 0,0 lbO 40 4 combinations 80 20 1.50 0,0 80 20 4 40 10 3.00 0,0 40 10 4 20 5 One control was placed in an e^iposure chamber, the second control was left in the growth chamber. Design 15: Determine the effects of chronic SO2 exposure on the response of the oat varieties grown under 3 sulfur and 3 potassium nutrient levels. Plants were grown and exposed as described. Plants were watered with the special nutrient on M-W-F and with deionized water the other four days. When plants were 4 weeks old they were given a second daily watering with deionized water. The two reps were exposed at different times of day - rep //I in the AM (9 AM-noon)., rep #2. in the PM (1-4 PM) . Basic Experimental design: Duration of exposure: 3 hr Exposures: 14, each day of the 2 wk test period S02» Concentration: 0, 20, 40 80 pphm S nutrition: 5, 45, 135 ppm K nutrition: ppm Replication: 2 - AM and PM & ------- Design #16: Determine the interaction of growth and exposure light on the oat varieties after multiple (episodic) exposures to SC^. Plants were grown and exposed as described. During the 2 wk test period growth light conditions were changed as shown. During exposure, light conditions were as shown. The replications were run sequentially. The 2X4 exposure light X SC>2 treatments (8) were run during four AM and four PM exposures. Two chambers were set for low intensity and two for high. The four concentrations were run each time and those receiving low light in the AM were given high light in the PM. The AM and PM treatments were reversed for exposures 2 and 4. Basic experimental design: Duration of exposure: 3 hr Exposures: 4, on M and W of the 2 test weeks SOg, Concentration: 0, 40, 80, 160 pphm Growth light: 800, 1600, 2400, 3200 ft-C Exposure light: 800, 3200 ft-C Duplicates: 2 Replication: 3 - sequential Design #17: Determine the effects of exposure humidity on the oat varieties after multiple (episodic) exposures to SO2. Plants were grown and exposed as described. During exposure RH was as shown. The 4X4 exposure humidity X SO„ treatments (16) were carried out using AM and PM exposures on successive days. The 4 chamber humidities were kept constant during a given exposure time and all SO2 concentrations were used each time. The AM and PM treatments were reversed for exposures 2 and 4. Basic experimental design: Duration of exposure: 3 hr Exposures: 4, on M and W or Tu. and Th. of the 2 test weeks S0^, Concentration: 0, 40, 80, 160 pphm Exposure humidity: 40, 55, 70, 85% Duplicates: 4 Design #18: Determine the interaction of growth temperature and exposure humidity on the oat varieties after multiple (episodic) exposure to SO2. Plants were grown and exposed as described. During the 2 wk test period growth temperatures were changed as shown. The atmospheric moisture potential was held uniform across the 4 temp, treatments so the results would reflect temperature and not RH effects. The 2X4 exposure humidity X SO2 treatments (8) were run as in design #17 (using only one day since only two RH values were used). The AM and PM treatments were reversed for exposures 2 and 4. 7 ------- Basic experimental design: Duration of exposure: 3 hr Exposures: 4, on M and W of the 2 test weeks SOConcentration: 0, 40, 80, 160 pphm Growth temperature: 18, 22, 26, 30°C day with a 4°C drop at night Exposure humidity: 55, 85% RH Duplicates: 2 Replicates: 2 - sequential Design #19: Determine the interactions of growth and exposure humidity on the oat varieties after multiple (episodic) exposures to SO2. Plants were grown and exposed as described. During the 2 wk test period growth humidity conditions were changed as shown. The 2X4 exposure humidity X SO2 treatments (8) were run as in design //18. Basic experimental design: Duration of exposure: 3 hr Exposures: 4, on M and W of the 2 test weeks SOp, Concentration: 0, 40, 80, 160 pphm Growth humidity: 40, 53, 66, 79% RH Exposure humidity: 55, 85% RH Duplicates: 2 Replicates: 2 - sequential 8 ------- RESULTS AND DISCUSSION The results are detailed in Tables 1-48. The results are presented through the Tables with a brief discussion of each experimental design. The Tables are placed in order following the discussion of results. Design #14; The analysis of variance (Table 1) and Tables 2-3 are from two groups of control plants that were run with this oat design. They were used to determine whether control plants needed to be placed in a control exposure chamber during exposure periods. The analysis of variance shows a varietal effect for each of the four parameters at 2 or 3 of the exposure durations. These effects are generally found throughout the experimental design. Carolee always forms more tillers than Coker 227 but did not start to head during the 7 weeks of growth. Generally TDW of Carolee is less and EDW is greater than for the Coker 227. The trend in TDW and RDW was there for all three exposure durations and was significant in 2 of the three. The location treatment was not significant for the 0.75 hrs (except tillers) or for the 1.5 hrs. It was at the 0.05 significance level or close to it for all four parameters after the 3 hr duration. The variety by exposure location was significant in the 3 hr duration only for head. This inter- action was noted routinely in all designs whenever a treatment affected Coker 227 heading because Carolee never headed. Thus heading was not a parameter that could be tested for both varieties. The analysis of variance (Table 4) shows the significance levels of the three main factors and their interactions. Correlation coefficients that appear to have a high correlation ( > 0.95) are shown for injury, TDW and RDW comparisons in Table 5. Interactions are shown in Tables 6-8. The variety by SO2 interaction in Table 6 is not biologically important. The SO2 by 0^ interaction in Table 7 is interesting and suggests both antag- onistic and additive responses. The analysis of variance (Table 9) is for the 1.5 hr exposure duration. Table 10 shows the correlation coefficient and Table 11 shows the inter- action between 0^ and S0» for RDW. None of the injury data is of value because injury was seen for only the 80 pphm SO^ on Coker 227 (4%). In this case the 10 and 20 pphm 0^ additions may have been protective. The analysis of variance (Table 12) is for the 3.0 hr exposure duration. Table 13 shows the correlation coefficients and Tables 14, 15 show several interactions. The variety by SO2 interactions (Table 14) are shown primarily because the effects on the two varieties are often different in magnitude. The SO2 by 0^ interactions, (Table 15) are significant but the results are not compatible with our existing understanding of single pollutant effects. These need to be repeated. 9 ------- This series of experiments was disappointing in terms of responses noted. The higher concentrations were threshold or below for effects under the conditions used. The exposure humidities were about 40% instead of 70%. The entire SO2 by 0^ interaction needs to be explored in greater depth using the most sensitive cultural conditions and a broader span of both 0^ and SO^ concentrations. We found some evidence for a ratio, less- than-aaditive, an additive and a greater-than-additive effects. Design #15: The analysis of variance (Table 16) shows the significant levels of the five main factors and their interactions (to three). Correlation coefficients are shown in Table 17. The effects of SO2 are shown in Table 18 and follow the known con- centration progression. This suggests a threshold of around 40 pphm SO^ for multiple 3 hr exposures. Tables 19-22 show the interactions of variety with each of the other four variables for different response measures. These are shown, even though many interactions are significant, to show the effects on each variety. The SO- by variety interaction shows that roots are more responsive than tops ana that Coker 227 is more sensitive than Carolee. The SO2 by nutrient interactions are shown in Table 23. The nutrient interactions are shown in Table 24 and the only three factor inter- action for RDW is found in Table 25. The importance of both nutrient S and K will be easier to interpret when the tissue analyses are returned. Design It 16: The analysis of variance (Table 26) shows the significance levels of the five main factors and their interactions (to three). Correlation coefficients are shown in Table 27. Variety by growth light and variety by growth light by exposure light are shown in Tables 28 and 29. The effects of SO^ interactions with other variables are shown in Tables 30-33. RDW is more severely affected by SO2 at the higher growth lights but this might reflect a major effect of biomass reduction at the lower light intensity (Table 30). The 40 pphm SO^ treatment caused a re- duction in TDW only for the high intensity exposure + growth combination. No visible injury was reported for this treatment (Table 31). Table 32 shows a close correlation between injury and both TDW and RDW. The roots are more severely affected than the tops. Coker 227 is the most sensitive variety and plants exposed at 3200 ft-C are more sensitive than those exposed at 800 ft-C. The threshold for SO^ is probably around 45 pphm for RDW of Coker 227 exposed at 3200 ft-C. Carolee showed a mixed response to growth light but Coker 227 was more sensitive under the low growth light conditions (Table 33). 10 ------- Design //17: The analysis of variance (Table 34) shows the significance levels of the three main factors and their interactions. Correlation coefficients are shown in Table 35. Single factor effects are shown in Table 36 and although interactions do occur (Table 37) the progression for the three responses shown are expected. The three way interaction shown in Table 37 clearly shows the importance of exposure humidity on the response of both oat varieties to SC^. Although not significant the threshold for effects is probably around or slightly below AO pphm SC^. Design //18; The analysis of variance (Table 38) shows the significance levels of the five main factors and their interactions (to three). Correlation coefficients are shown in Table 39. Single factor effects are shown in Table 40. These show that high exposure humidity increases sensitivity and that 40 pphm is around the threshold for effects. The interactions on RDW for S0„ and growth temperature are not clear (Table 41). However, generally at the lower temperatures the plant is more resistant. The RDW for 26° and zero SO2 is probably not a valid value since past experience suggests that the greatest biomass should occur at the 26°C value. The three way interaction shown in Table 42 for injury and TDW suggests a good correlation between injury and TDW. It shows the expected response to S0_ concentration with a threshold in the vicinity of 40 pphm, greater sensitivity at an exposure humidity of 80%, and some increase in sensitivity with increase in growth temperature. The three way interaction for SO2, variety and exposure humidity is shown in Table 43. Although some aberations are found under TDW and RDW the general trends are similar to what we have reported in other designs. Design #19: The analysis of variance (Table 44) shows the significance levels of the five main factors and their interactions (to three). Correlation coefficients are shown in Table 45. Single factor effects are shown in Table 46 although growth humidity and variety are so confounded by the interactions that trends do not show. Two of the three factor interactions are shown in Tables 47 and 48. Generally the lower growth humidity tends to make the plants more sensitive but the results are not clear cut. The effects of exposure humidity and variety followed earlier patterns. 11 ------- SECTION V REFERENCES 1. Dunning, J. A., and W. W. Heck. 1973. Response of pinto bean and tobacco to ozone as conditioned by light intensity and/or humidity. Environ. Sci. Tech. !.'• 824-826. 2. Dunning, J. A., W. W. Heck, and D. T. Tingey. 1974. Foliar sensitivity of pinto bean and'soybean to ozone as affected by temperature, potassium nutrition and ozone dose. Air, Soil, Water Pollut. 3: 305-313. 3. Heck, W. W. 1968. Factors influencing expression of oxidant damage to plants. Ann. Rev. Phytopath. 6t 165-188. 4. Heck, W. W., U. Blum, and J. A. Dunning. 1974." Effects of Sulfur dioxide on carolee oat and ozone on ladino clover." In-house report to the Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. 5. Heck, W. W., and J. A. Dunning. 1975. "Effects of sulfur dioxide and/or ozone on several oat varieties." In-house report to the Environmental Protection Agency, Corvallis, Oregon. 6. Heck, W. W., J. A. Dunning, and H. Johnson. 1968. Design of a simple plant exposure chamber. NAPCA Publ. APTD-68-6, U. S. Dept. of HEW, 24 pp. 7. Heck, W. W., J. B. Mudd, and P. R. Miller. 1976. Plants and microorganisms. In: "Ozone and Other Photochemical Oxidants" Vol. 2., National Academy of Sciences, Washington, D. C. (In Press). 8. Rogers, H.H. 1975. Uptake of nitrogen dioxide by selected plant species. Ph.D. Thesis. Dept. Environ. Sci., Univ., N. C. 128 pp. I 12 ------- Table 1. Analysis of Variance - Oat #14—^ Duration (Hrs) Tiller Head TDW RDW Source DF Prob >F LSD (0.05) Prob >F LSD (0.05) Prob >F LSD (0.05) Prob >F LSD (0.05) 0.75 Variety 1 0.01 1.75 0.01 0 .83 0.74 1.43 0.01 0.65 Expose 1 0 .02 1.75 0 .53 0 .83 0 .95 1.43 0.71 0 .65 1.5 Variety 1 0 .01 2 .23 0 .01 0.52 0.01 1.31 0.14 0 .92 3 .0 Variety 1 0 .01 1.85 0 .01 0 .44 0 .01 0 .84 0 .01 0 .68 Expose 1 0.05 1.85 0 .03 0.44 0.05 0 .84 0.07 0 .68 Var x Exp 1 0.52 2 .62 0 .03 0 .63 0.06 1.18 C .85 0 .96 Data are from two groups of control plants. The first group was left in the growth chamber. The second group was moved to the control exposure chamber for the indicated duration - 4 times. ------- Table 2. Effect of Two Control Exposures on Several Plant Responses - Oat #14.-/ Plant Response Duration CHrs) 2/ Exposure- Tiller CO Head cn TDW (gm) RDW (gm) 0.75 1 13.5 3.0 8.18 2.91 2 11.3 3.3 8.14 2.80 LSD - 0.05 1.8 0.8 1.43 0.65 1.50 1 11.1 3.6 7.96 3.31 2 10.3 4.0 7.97 3.70 LSD 0.05 2.2 0.5 1.310.92 3.00 1 12.0 4.3 8.64 2.88 2 10.1 3.8 7.79 3.50 LSD - 0.05 1.9 0.4 0.84 0.68 —/ Data are taken from two groups of control plants that were handled in different ways. 2/ — Group #1 was left in the growth chamber. Group #2 was placed in the control exposure chamber 4 times for each duration. 14 ------- T ab 1 e 3 . Effect of Variety on Several Control Groups of Oats - Oat Plant Responses #14. y of Two Plant Response Duration Variety Tiller Head TDW RDW (Hrs) (#) (#) Cgm) (gm) 0.75 Carolee 16.8 0 8.05 3.76 Coker 227 8.0 6.3 8.27 1.95 LSD-0.05 1.8 0.8 1.43 0.65 1.50 Carolee 12.4 0 6.33 3.84 Coker 227 9.0 7.6 9.59 3.18 LSD-0.05 2.2 0.5 1.31 0.92 3.00 Carolee 13.3 0 7,03 3.93 Coker 227 8.9 8.0 9.40 2.45 LSD-0.05 1.9 0.4 0.84 0.68 y Data are taken from two groups of control plants that were handled in different ways. 15 ------- Table 4. Analysis of Variance - Oat #14— Inj Tiller TDW RDW Source DF Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) Var 1 0 .01 0 .95 0 .01 0.75 0 .01 0.50 0 .01 0 .26 so2 2 0 .01 1.16 0.01 0 .92 0.57 0.61 0 .03 0.31 Var X so2 2 0 .01 1.65 0 .01 1.30 0 .03 0.87 0 .52 0 .44 °3 2 0 .01 1.16 0 .53 0.92 0 .02 0.61 0.61 0.31 Var X °3 2 0 .01 1.65 0 .22 1.30 0 .23 0.87 0 .74 0.44 S02 X °3 4 0 .01 2.02 0 .21 1.60 0 .20 1.06 0 .01 0.54 Var X S09 x 0_ 4 0.01 2.85 0 .14 2.26 0 .23 1.50 0 .13 0.77 — Data came from plants exposed for 0.75 hrs - 4 times. 2/ — The design used 3 0^ concentrations, 3 SO^ concentrations, 2 oat varieties and 2 replications. ------- Table 5. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #14.—^ Correlation Coefficient Source DF Inj x TDW Inj x RDW TDW x RDW S02 2 -0 .92 -0.98 0.97 °3 2 -0 .66 -0 .69 0 .99 Var x Oj 2 -0.27 -0 . 23 -0 .99 Res idual 54 -0.27 -0 .23 0 .47 Corr. Total 71 i o o 00 -0 .40 -0.01 —^ Data came from an analysis of SC^-O^ exposures of 0.75 hrs duration - 4 times . ------- Table 6. Effect of Variety by Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #14.—^ Plant Responses Variety so7 (pphm) Inj-' C%) Tiller-7 (#) Head (#) TDW—7 (gm) RDW (gm) Carolee 0 0 16 .7 0 7 .60 3.39 80 0 14 .3 0 6.72 3 .14 160 2 13 .2 0 7 .22 2 .83 Coker 0 0 8.8 6.7 8.18 1 .80 80 0 8.3 6.7 8 .74 1.89 160 18 8 .6 7.3 7.77 1.54 LSD - 0.05 2 1.3 1.1 0.87 0 .44 —7 Plants were exposed 4 times - 0.75 hrs each time. 2 / — Interactions are significant. 18 ------- Table 7. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Ozone on Top and Root Dry Weights - Oat #14 Plant Response o3 (pphm) S02 0 Concentration 80 (pphm) 160 TDW (gm) 0 8 .18 7 .66 7.17 20 8 .53 7*. 81 8.21 40 6.97 7.73 7 .10 (LSD - 0.05 = 1.06) RDW (gm)-^ 0 2.91 2 . 29 2 .08 20 2 .47 2.51 2 .65 40 2 .40 2.75 1 .83 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.54) U Plants were exposed 4 times - 0.7S hrs each time. 2/ . - — Interactions are significant. 19 ------- Table 8. Effect of Variety by Sulfur Dioxide by Ozone on Plant Injury - Oat #14^ Varie ty 0 ($phm) SO2 Concentration (pphm) 80 160 Carolee Coker 2 27 CLSD - 0.05 = 3) 0 20 40 0 20 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 4 6 14 33 1/ Plants were exposed 4 times - 0.75 hrs each time. Interactions are significant. 20 ------- Table 9. Analysis of Variance - Oat #14—^—^ Inj Tiller TDW RDW Source DF Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD (0 .05) (0 .05) (0.05) (0 .05) Var 1 0 .01 0.28 0.01 0 .79 0.01 0.49 i—i o o 0 .32 so2 2 0 .01 0.34 0 .26 0 .97 0 .05 0 .59 0 .92 0 .40 Var X so2 2 0 .01 0 .48 0.99 1.37 0 .59 0 .84 0 .15 0 .56 °3 2 0 .01 0.34 0.59 0.97 0.07 0.59 0.29 0 .40 Var X °3 2 0 .01 0 .48 0.27 1.37 0 .80 0.84 0.26 0 .56 S02 X °3 4 0 .01 0 .59 0.17 1.68 0 .35 1.03 0.02 0 .69 Var X SCL x 0- 4 0 .01 0.84 0.15 2 .38 0.51 1.46 0 .93 0.97 —^ Data came from plants exposed for 1.5 hrs - 4 times. 2 / — The design used 3 0^ concentrations, 3 SC^ concentrations, 2 oat varieties and 2 replications. ------- Table 10. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #14.—^ Correlation Coefficient Source DF Inj x TDW Inj x RDW TDW x RDW Var x SO2 2 -0.98 -0 .59 0 .42 °3 2 • O 1 -0.77 0 .98 Var x Og 2 -0 .03 -0 .99 -0 .04 Residual 54 0.21 0 .11 0 .23 Corr. Total 71 0.08 -0 .24 -0 .25 —^ Data came from an analysis of SC^-O^ exposures of 1.5 hrs duration - - 4 times • 99 ------- Table 11. Effect of Ozone by Sulfur Dioxide on Root Dry Weight Oat #14.-^ SO^ Concentration (pphm) 0 40 80 0 3.31 3.14 2,92 10 3.66 3.55 3.11 20 2.93 2.98 3.81 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.69) —/ Plants were exposed 4 times -1.5 hrs each time. Interactions are significant. 0 (Jphm) 23 ------- Table 12. Analysis of Variance - Oat #14— Inj Tiller TDW RDW Source DF Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD (0.05) CO.05) (0.05) (0.05) Var 1 0.01 0 .90 0.01 0.74 0.01 0.40 0.01 0 .29 S°2 2 0 .01 1.10 0.31 0 .90 0 .01 0.49 0.03 0 .36 Var X s°2 2 0.01 1.55 0.90 1.28 0 .30 0.70 0.62 0 .50 °3 2 0 .90 1.10 0.07 0 .90 0 .01 0.49 0.98 0 .36 Var X °3 2 0.57 1.55 0.66 1.28 0.57 0.70 0.86 0 .50 SO- X o, 4 0 .98 1.90 0.32 1.57 0 .03 0.85 0.04 0 .62 —^ Data from plants exposed for 3.0 hrs - 4 times. 2 / — The design used 3 0^ concentrations, 3 S0^ concentrations, 2 oat varieties and 2 replications. ------- Table 13. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #14.—^ Correlation Coefficient Source DF Inj x TDW Inj x RDW TDW x RDW so2 2 0.11 -0 .10 0 .99 Var x SO2 2 -0.99 -0.99 0.79 Residual 54 -0 .24 -0 .30 0 .51 Corr. Total 71 0 .11 -0.41 -0 .20 —^ Data came from an analysis of SC^-O^ exposures of 3 hrs duration - 4 times . 25 ------- Table 14. Effect of Variety by Sulfur Dioxide Concentration on Several Plant Responses - Oat #14.—^ Plant Responses Variety SO t -2/ Inj — Tiller He ad TDW RDW (pphm) (%) CO C#) (gm) (gm) Carolee 0 0 13 . 2 0 6 .95 3 .62 20 0 12 .3 0 6.17 3 .05 40 1 13 .0 0 6.97 3 .42 Coker 227 0 0 8.9 7.2 8.81 2 .34 20 0 8.5 7 .3 7 .99 1.97 40 9 9.0 7.8 8 .14 1.98 (LSD - 0.05) 1.6 1.3 1.0 0.70 0 .50 —^ Plants were exposed 4 times - 3 hrs each time. 2 / — Interactions are significant, but not important. ------- Table 15. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Ozone on Top and Root Dry Weights - Oat #14.—^ Plant Response (fSphm) S°2 0 Concentration (pphm) 20 40 TDW (gm) 0 8 .64 7 .10 7 .92 5 7 .76 7 .62 7.14 10 7 .24 6.52 7 .59 (LSD - 0.05 = = 0.85) RDW (gm) 0 2 .88 2 .56 2.71 5 2 .83 2.87 2 . 47 10 3 .23 2 .09 2.92 (LSD - 0.05 = = 0.62) —^ Plants were exposed 4 times - 3 hrs each time. Interactions are significant. 27 ------- Table 16. Analysis of Variance - Oat #15—^ Inj Head TDW RDW Source DF Prob > F LSD (0.05) Prob > F LSD (0 .05) Prob > F LSD (0.05) Prob >F LSD (0 .05; Rep 1 0 .01 0.61 0 .01 0 .28 0 .01 0 .18 0 .01 0 .17 Var 1 0 .01 0 .61 0.01 0.28 0 .01 0 .18 0 .01 0 .22 S 2 0.01 0.75 0 .84 0 .35 0 .05 0.23 0 .01 0 .20 K 2 0 .05 0 .75 0.51 0.35 0.02 0 .23 0 .59 0.20 S02 3 0.01 0 .87 0 .01 0 .40 0 .01 0 .26 0 .01 0.24 Rep x Var 1 0 .01 0,87 0 .01 0 .40 0 .96 0.26 0 .61 0 .24 Rep x SO2 3 0 .01 1.06 0 .90 0.57 0.77 0.37 0.11 0 .33 Var x SC>2 3 0 .01 1.06 0.01 0.57 0 .01 0 .37 0.53 0.33 S x K 4 0.11 1.30 0 .06 0 .60 0 .04 0 .39 0.17 0 .35 S x SC>2 6 0 .01 1.50 0 .15 0.70 0.55 0.45 0.65 0 .41 K x S02 6 0.01 1.50 0.61 0 .70 0 .72 0 .45 0.78 0 .41 Rep x Var X K 2 0 .64 1.50 0 .77 0.70 0 .99 0 .45 0.04 0.41 Rep x Var X S02 3 0 .01 1.73 0 .90 0 .80 0 .20 0.52 0 .38 0.47 Rep x K x SO 2 6 0 .01 2 .12 0 .50 0 .99 0 .70 0 .64 0.87 0.58 S x K x SO '2 12 0 .01 2 .60 0.21 1.21 0 .99 0 . 78 0 .52 0.71 — The design used 4 S02 concentrations, 3 sulfur nutrient levels, 3 potassium nutrient levels, 2 replications, and 2 oat varieties. Plants were exposed 3 hrs each day for 14 consecutive days. Reps were AM and PM exposures . ------- Table 17. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #15.i^ Source DF Correlation Coefficient Inj x TDW Inj x RDW TDW x RDW Sulfur 2 - 0.92 -0 .99 0.94 K 2 - 0.47 -0 .45 0.99 so2 3 - 0 .99 -0 .97 0.98 Var x Sulfur 2 - 0.62 -0 .99 0.57 Var x SC>2 3 - 0 .99 0 00 t O 1 0 .78 Residual 52 0 .03 -0.01 0.52 Corr. Total 143 0 .60 -0.63 0 .34 —^ Data came from an analysis 14 consecutive days. of SO2 exposures of 3 hrs duration ------- Table 18 Effect of Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #15 1/ • Plant Responses SCL (pphm) Inj (%) Tiller CO Head (#) TDW (gm) RDW (gm) 0 0 8.4 2.3 4 .84 2 .44 20 0 8.1 2.6 4.74 2.37 40 1 8.3 2 . 2 4.67 2 .12 80 29 7.6 1.8 3.58 1.38 (LSD - 0 .05) 1.0 0.6 0.4 0.26 0 . 24 Exposures were 3 hr/day for 14 consecutive days. 30 ------- Table 19. Effect of Replication by Variety on Several Plant Responses - Oat #15.—^ Plant Response Variety Rep t -2/ Inj — Tillers—7' Head^ TDW RDW m (#) cn (gm) (gm) Carolee 1 2 9.6 0 4.37 2.77 2 4 10 .1 0 3 .99 2 .39 Coker 227 1 9 6.5 4.0 4 .93 1 .80 2 16 6 .3 4 .9 4.54 1.34 (LSD - 0.05) 1 0 .6 0.4 0 .26 0 .24 —^ Exposures were 3 hrs/day for 14 consecutive days. 2 / — Interactions were significant 31 ------- Table 20. Effect of Variety by Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oats #15.—^ SC>2 Concentration (pphrn) Variety S0? Cone Cpphm) t -2/ Inj — m Tillers-/ (#) He ad—7 (#) TDW—/ (gm) RDW (gm) Carolee 0 0 9.8 0 4 .31 2.97 20 0 9.6 0 4.22 2.80 40 0 10 .3 0 4.28 2.58 80 12 9 .6 0 3 .90 1.98 Coker 22 7 0 0 7 .1 4.6 5.37 1 .91 20 0 6 .7 5.1 5 .26 1.94 40 3 6.2 4.4 5.07 1.65 80 47 5 .7 3.5 3.25 0.78 (LSD - 0.05) 1 0 .9 0.6 0.37 0.33 —f Exposures were 3 hrs/day for 14 consecutive days. 2 / — Interactions were significant but of no meaning for head # . 32 ------- Table 21. Effect of Variety by Nutrient S on Several Plant Responses - Oat #15.—^ Nutrient Sulfur (ppm) Plant Response Variety 0 45 135 Inj (3) Carolee 2 3 3 Coker 227 11 12 14 (LSD - 0.05 = 1) TDW (gm) Carolee 4 .12 4.28 4 .13 Coker 227 4 .95 4 .80 4 .47 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.32) RDW (gm) Carolee 2.73 2 .59 2 .43 Coker 227 1.74 1.64 1 .33 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.29) —^ Exposures were 3 hrs/day for 14 consecutive days. Interactions are not significant. 33 ------- Table 22. Effect of Variety by Nutrient K on Plant Biomass Oat #15M Nutrient Potassium (ppm) Plant Response Variety 6 30 90 TDW (gm) Carolee 4.25 4.10 4.18 Coker 227 4.66 4.50 5.06 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.32) RDW (gm) Carolee 2.70 2.52 2.53 Coker 227 1.45 1.53 1.73 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.29) —^ Exposures were 3 hr/day for 14 consecutive days . Interactions are not significant. 34 ------- Table 23. Effect of,Sulfur Dioxide by Nutrient K and by Nutrient S on Plant Biomass Oat #15. If Plant Response Nutrient Potassium (ppm) S°2 Concentration (pphm) Nutrient Sulfur (ppm) so2 Concentration (pphm) 0 20 40 80 0 20 40 80 TDW (gm) 6 4.81 4.75 4.84 3 .41 0 4.85 4.82 4.98 3.50 30 4.71 4.56 4.47 3.46 45 4.99 4.89 4.55 3.74 90 5 .00 4.90 4.70 3.86 135 4.68 4.52 4.49 3.50 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.45) (LSD - 0.05 = 0. 45) RDW (gm) 6 2 .45 2 .46 2 .16 1.23 0 2.58 2.61 2.37 1.36 30 2 .43 2.21 2 .08 1.36 45 2 .47 2 .35 2.18 1.46 90 2 .44 2 .44 2 .10 1.54 135 2.27 2 .15 1.79 1.32 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.41) (LSD - 0.05 = 0.41) —^ Exposures were 3 hrs/day for 14 consecutive days. No significant interactions were found in the above 2 variable comparisons. ------- Table 24. Effect of Nutrient S by Nutrient K on Plant Biomass - Oat #15 y Plant Response Nutrient Sulfur (ppm) Nutrient 6 Potassium 30 (ppm) 90 TDW (gm)y 0 4.41 4.21 4 .99 45 4.66 4.38 4.57 135 4 .28 4.31 4 .30 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.39) RDW (gm) 0 2 .41 2 .00 2 .29 45 2.04 2 .11 2 .19 135 1.78 1.96 1 .90 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.35) y Exposures were 2 / — Interaction was 3 hrs/day for 14 significant. consecutive days . 36 ------- Table 25. Effect of Replication by Variety by Nutrient K on Root Dry Weight - Oat #15.—^ Nutrient Potassium (ppm) Rep Variety 6 30 90 1 Carolee 3.04 2.77 2.50 Coker 227 1.57 1.84 2.00 2 Carolee 2.35 2.26 2.56 Coker 227 1.34 1.22 1.45 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.41) —^ Exposures were 3 hrs/day for 14 consecutive days. The interaction was significant. 37 ------- Table 26. Analysis of Variance - Oat #16.—^ Inj Tiller TDW RDW Source DF Prob > F LSD (0.05) Prob >F LSD (0.05) Prob > F LSD (0.05) Prob > F LSD (0.0! Rep 2 0.01 1.31 0.01 0.29 0.01 0.09 0.01 0.08 S02 3 0.01 1.51 0.01 0.34 0.01 0.10 0 .01 0 .09 Var 1 0.01 1.07 0.01 0 .24 0.01 0.07 0.01 0 .06 S02 x Var 3 0.01 2 .14 0.01 0 .48 0.01 0.14 0.01 0 .13 EL 1 0.01 1.07 0.65 0.24 0.17 0.07 0 .63 0 .06 SC>2 x EL 3 0.01 2.14 0.07 0.48 0.01 0.14 0 .01 0.13 Var x EL 1 0 .01 1.51 0.03 0 .34 0.01 0.10 0 .21 0.09 S02 x Var x EL 3 0.01 3.02 0 .33 0 .68 0.01 0,20 0.29 0 .18 GL 3 0.01 1.51 0.01 0 .34 0 .01 0.10 0.01 0.09 S°2 X GL 9 0 .01 3 .02 0.01 0 .68 0.01 0.20 0.01 0 .18 Var x GL 3 0.01 2 .14 0.01 0 .48 0 .01 0.14 0.01 0.13 S02 x Var x GL 9 0 .01 4 .28 0.01 0 .96 0 .15 0.28 0 .32 0.25 EL x GL 3 0 .04 2 .14 0.55 0 .48 0 .10 0 .14 0 .07 0.13 S02 x EL x GL 9 0 .01 4.28 0.10 0 .96 0 .01 0.28 0 .19 0.25 Var x EL x GL 3 0.02 3 .02 0 .10 0 .68 0 .39 0.20 0.54 0 .18 The design used 4 S02 concentrations, 2 exposure light intensities (EL), 4 growth light intensities (GL), 3 replications and 2 oat varieties. ------- Table 27. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #16.—^ Correlation Coefficient Source—^ DF Inj x TDW Inj x RDW TDW x TDW S02 3 -0 .99 -0.99 0.99 SO2 x Var 3 -0 .99 -0.78 0 .82 SO2 x EL 3 -0 .94 -0.99 0 .96 GL 3 -0 .97 -0 .99 0 .98 Var x GL 3 0 .13 0.97 0 .18 EL x GL 3 -0 .94 -0.38 0 .64 Res idual 192 -0 .00 -0.01 0 .36 Corr. Total 383 -0 .63 -0.59 0 .85 —^ Data came from an analysis of SC>2 exposures of 3 hrs duration - 4 times. 2 / — EL = exposure light, GL = growth light. 39 ------- Table 28. Effect of Variety by Growth Light on Plant Biomass - Oat #16.-/ Growth Light (ft-c) Plant Response Variety 800 1600 2400 3200 TDW (gm) Carolee 2.28 3.43 3.99 4.17 Coker 227 1.97 2.80 3.44 3.81 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.14) RDW (gm) Carolee 0.67 1.25 1.78 2.21 Coker 227 0.52 0.78 1.14 1.34 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.13) —^ Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time. The interactions are significant. 40 ------- Table 29. Effect of Variety by Exposure Light by Growth Light on Plant Injury - Oat #16.—^ Growth Light (ft-c) Variety Exposure Light (ft-c) 800 1600 2400 3200 Carolee Coker 2 27 800 3200 800 3200 11 14 28 35 8 15 25 33 (LSD - 0.05 = 3) 8 16 21 31 8 13 17 31 —^ Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time. Interaction is signi ficant. 41 ------- Table 30. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Growth Light on Root Dry Weight - Oat 16 Plant Response Growth (ft Light -c) S°2 0 Concentration (pphm) 40 80 160 RDW (gm) 800 0 .68 0 .85 0 .54 0 .32 1600 1.30 1.29 0 .94 0 .54 2400 1.96 1.90 1.17 0 .79 3200 2 .27 2 .23 1.58 1.02 LSD - 0.05 = 0.18) Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time. Interaction is s igni ficant. 42 ------- Table 31. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Growth Light by Exposure Light on Several Plant Responses - Oat #16.—^ Plant Response Exposure Light (ft-c) Growth Light (ft-c) so2 Concentration (pphm) 0 40 80 160 Inj (%) 800 800 0 1 19 57 1600 0 1 20 47 2400 0 0 18 41 3200 0 0 10 40 3200 800 0 0 37 62 1600 0 1 35 60 2400 0 0 33 61 (LSD - 0.05 = 4) 3200 0 0 30 59 TDW (gm) 800 800 2.28 2 .40 2 .06 1 .45 1600 3 .48 3 .44 2.95 2 .42 2400 4.03 4.12 3.67 2 .99 3200 4.27 4 .58 4 .03 3 .25 3200 800 2 .69 2 .65 1.90 1.60 1600 3 .67 3.67 2.95 2.33 2400 4 .42 4.51 3.53 2.48 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.28) 3200 4 .89 4 .52 3.59 2.80 —^ Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time . Interactions are significant. ------- Table 32. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Variety by Exposure Light on Several Plant Responses - Oat #16.—^ SC>2 Concentration (pphm) Plant Response Variety Exposure Li ght (ft-c) 0 40 80 160 Inj (S3 Carolee 800 0 0 7 29 3200 0 0 15 43 Coker 227 800 0 1 26 64 3200 0 1 53 78 (LSD - 0.05 = 3) TDW Cgm)-/ Carolee 800 3.53 3 .64 3 .49 2 .90 3200 3 .90 3 .78 3.58 2.92 Coker 227 800 3 .50 3 .63 2 ,86 2.16 3200 3.94 3.89 2.40 1.68 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.20) RDW (gin) Carolee 800 1.69 1.61 1.45 1.01 3200 1 .85 1.86 1.46 0 .87 Coker 227 800 1 .24 1.34 0 .78 0 .44 3200 1.44 1 .46 0.53 0 .33 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.18) —^ Plants were exposed 2/ — Interactions are si 4 times, 3 gni ficant. hrs each time. 44 ------- Table 33. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide by Growth Light by Variety on Plant Injury - Oat #16.—^ SC>2 Concentration (pphm) Variety Growth Light 0 40 80 160 (ft-c) Carolee 800 0 0 9 41 1600 0 0 11 36 2400 0 0 14 34 3200 0 0 9 34 Coker 227 800 0 1 47 78 1600 0 1 44 70 2400 0 0 36 68 3200 0 0 31 65 (LSD - 0.05 = 4) —^ Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time. Interactions are significant. 45 ------- Table 34. Analysis of Variance - Oat #17.—^ Inj Head TDW RDW Source DF Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD (0.05) (0,05) (0.05) (0.0 S) Var 1 0,01 1.30 0.01 1.85 0 .01 0.23 0.01 0.20 EH 3 0 .01 1.84 0 .01 0.26 0.01 0.32 0.01 0.28 Var x EH 3 0 .01 1.84 0.01 0.26 0.01 0 .32 0.04 0.28 S02 3 0.01 2 .61 0.01 0.37 0.01 0 .45 0.01 0.40 Var x SC>2 3 0.01 2 .61 0.01 0.37 0.01 0 .45 0 .95 0.40 EH x S02 9 0 .01 3 .69 0 .01 0.52 0.01 0 .64 0 .04 0 .57 Var x EH x SO^ 9 0.01 5.21 0.01 0 .74 0.01 0.91 0 .05 0 .80 The design used 4 S02 concentrations, 4 exposure humidities (EH), two oat varieties and 4 duplications. ------- Table 35. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #17.—^ Correlation Coefficient Source DF Inj x TDW Inj x RDW TDW x RDW EH 3 ¦ 0 • 10 -0 .97 0 .99 so2 3 -0 .99 -0 .99 0 .99 Var x SO2 3 -0 .99 1 0 . C7\ -J 0 .73 Residual 96 -0 .30 0 .66 0 .36 Corr. Total 127 -0.84 1 O • 0 .60 —^ Data came from an analysis of SO^ exposures of 3 hrs duration - 4 times. 2 / — EH = exposure humidity. 47 ------- Table 36. Effect on Sulfur Dioxide, Variety and Exposure Humidity on Several Plant Responses - Oat #17. Plant Response Variable Inj (%) TDW (gm) RDW (gm) Cone (pphm) 0 0 7 .24 2 .91 40 2 6 .95 2.73 80 28 5 .40 1.89 160 57 3.78 1.25 (LSD - 0.05) 2 0 .32 0.28 Var Carolee 12 5.62 2.74 Coker 227 32 6 .06 1.65 (LSD - 0.05) 2 0.23 0 .20 Exp Hum (ft-c) 40 8 6.76 2 .56 55 18 6 .17 2 . 28 70 27 5 .62 2 .17 85 35 4.82 1.78 (LSD - 0.05) 2 0.32 0.28 —^ Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time. 48 ------- Table 37. Effect of Variety by Exposure Humidity by Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #17.±/ Plant Response Exposure Humidity W SC>2 Concentration (pphm) Variety 0 40 80 160 Inj (%) 40 Carolee 0 0 0 9 55 0 0 5 20 70 0 0 10 40 85 0 4 30 70 40 Coker 2 27 0 0 4 54 55 0 0 35 80 70 0 4 68 91 85 0 6 71 95 (LSD - 0.05 = = 5) TDW (gm) 40 Carolee 6.57 6 .36 6.05 5 .29 55 6 .35 6.07 6 .38 5.61 70 6.54 5 .85 5.12 4.67 85 6 .10 5.69 4.87 2.46 40 Coker 227 8 .84 8.38 8.22 4 .37 55 8.08 7 .65 5.29 3.90 70 8 .47 7.95 4.14 2.21 85 7 .00 7.62 3.12 1.72 (LSD - 0.05 = = 0.91) RDW (gm) 40 Carolee 3 .22 3.48 2 .62 2.51 55 3.27 3.64 2.80 2 .59 70 3 .61 2 .85 2.51 1.62 85 3.77 2.95 1.83 0 .62 40 Coker 227 2 .72 2 .36 2 .33 1.17 55 2 .22 2.15 0 .89 0.67 70 2 .48 2 .49 1.37 0 .45 85 2 .01 1.93 0 .76 0 .42 (LSD - 0.05 = = 0.80) Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time. Interactions are significant. 49 ------- Table 38. Analysis of Variance - Oat #18.—^ Inj Tiller TDW RDW Source DF Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) Rep 1 0.01 1.28 0.63 0.42 0.19 0.11 0 .01 0 .10 Var 1 0.01 1.28 0.01 0.42 0.10 0 .11 0.01 0 .10 GT 3 0 .01 1.81 0.01 0 .60 0.10 0 .16 0.01 0 .14 EH 1 0.01 1.28 0.01 0.42 0.10 0.11 0.01 0 .10 S02 3 0,01 1.81 0 .01 0.60 0.10 0.16 0 .01 0 .10 Var x GT 3 0.20 2 .56 0.65 0 .85 0.69 0.23 0.12 0.20 Var x EH 1 0.01 1.81 0 .12 0 .60 0 .02 0.16 0 .01 0 .14 Var x SO^ 3 0.01 2 .56 0.01 0 .85 0.01 0 .23 0.01 0.20 GT x EH 3 0 .01 2 .56 0.16 0 .85 0.88 0.23 0.67 0.20 GT x S02 9 0 .01 3 .62 0.01 1.20 0 .01 0.32 0.01 0 .29 EH x S02 3 0 .01 2 .56 0.01 0 .85 0.01 0 .23 0.01 0 .20 Var x GT x SO^ 9 0 .01 5 .12 0 .02 1.70 0.58 0.45 0 .79 0 .41 Var x EH x S02 3 0.01 3 .62 0 .06 1.20 0.01 0.32 0.01 0 .29 GT x EH x S02 9 0.01 5 .12 0.53 1.70 0.04 0 .45 0 .34 0 .41 —^ The design used 4 S02 concentrations, 4 growth temperatures (GT), 2 exposure humidities (EH), 2 oat varieties and 2 replications. ------- Table 39. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #18.—^ Correlation Coefficient Source— DF Inj x TDW Inj x RDW TDW x RDW S02 3 -0 .99 -0 .99 0.97 Var x SC>2 3 -0.98 -0 .79 0 .82 GT x EH 3 -0 .89 -0 .99 0.91 EH x S02 3 -0 .99 -0 .86 0 .90 Var x EH x SC^ 3 -0 .94 -0 .40 0 .41 Res idual 170 -0 .19 -0 .07 0.49 Corr. Total 255 -0 .85 -0.74 0.78 —! Data came from an analysis of SO2 exposures of 3 hrs duration - 4 times. 2 / — EH = exposure humidity, GT = growth temperature. 51 ------- Table 40, Effect of Growth Temperature, Exposure Humidity, and Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #18.—^ Plant Response Variable Inj (%) TDW (gm) RDW (gm) Growth Temperature (°C) 18 20 2 .99 1.53 22 23 2.98 1 .63 26 21 3.61 1.68 30 29 2.96 1.39 (LSD - 0.05) 2 0.16 0 .14 Exposure Humidity (%) 55 17 3.45 1.79 80 29 2.81 1.32 (LSD - 0.05) 1 0 .11 0 .10 Sulfur Dioxide (pphm) 0 0 3 .76 2.21 40 1 3.81 1.95 80 28 3.08 1 .37 160 65 1.88 0.69 (LSD - 0.05) 2 0.16 0 .14 —^ Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time. 52 ------- Table 41. Effect of Growth Temperature by Sulfur Dioxide on Root Dry Weight - Oat #18.—^ SC>2 Concentration (pphm) Plant Response Growth Temperature (SC) 0 40 80 160 RDW (gm) 18 2 .05 1.84 1 .43 0.81 22 2 .64 1.92 1.19 0 .76 26 1.95 2 .32 1.71 0 .75 30 2 .19 1.74 1 .18 0 .45 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.29) —^ Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time. Interaction is significant. 53 ------- Table 42. Effect of Growth Temperature by Exposure Humidity by Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #18.—'^ Plant Response Inj m Growth Temperature Exposure Humidi ty so2 Concentration (pphm) 0 40 80 160 18 55 0 0 11 53 80 0 1 27 66 22 55 0 0 15 53 80 0 0 44 73 26 55 0 0 15 41 80 0 0 31 81 30 55 0 1 24 63 80 0 3 53 90 (LSD - 0.05 = 5) TDW (gm) 18 55 3 .49 3.84 3 .64 2 .15 80 3.21 3.45 2 .73 1.42 22 55 3.54 3.80 3 .40 2 .38 80 3 .45 3.51 2 .40 1.34 26 55 4.19 4.20 4.34 3.08 80 4.38 4.39 2.82 1.46 30 55 3 .90 3.70 3 .37 2 .24 80 3 .89 3.62 1.97 1.00 (LSD - 0.05 = 0.45) —^ Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time. The interactions are significant. 54 ------- Table 43. Effect of Variety by Exposure Humidity by Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #18 1/ • Plant Response Exposure Humidity (%) SC>2 Concentration (pphm) Varie ty 0 40 80 160 Inj m Carolee 55 0 1 5 33 80 0 1 25 68 Coker 227 55 0 1 28 72 80 0 2 53 87 (LSD - 0.05 = 4) TDW (gm) Carolee 55 3.87 3.71 4. 16 3.28 80 3 .66 3.67 3. 03 1.57 Coker 227 55 3 .69 4 .06 3. 21 1.64 80 3.80 3.81 1. 93 1.03 (LSD - 0.05 = 0 .32) RDW (gm) Carolee 55 2.48 2.14 2. 72 1.53 80 2 .35 2 .11 1. 15 0.51 Coker 22 7 55 2 .05 1.81 1. 16 0 .43 80 1.95 1.76 0. 47 0.29 (LSD - 0.05 = 0 .29) —^ Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time. The interactions are significant. ------- Table 44. Analysis of Variance - Oat #19.—^ Inj Tiller TDW RDW Source DF Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD Prob >F LSD (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) (0.05) Rep 1 0.01 1.39 0 .58 0.35 0.02 0 .12 0.06 0 .12 Var 1 0 .01 1.39 0.01 0.35 0.01 0.12 0.01 0.12 GH 3 0.01 1.96 0.01 0.50 0 .01 0 .17 0 .19 0.17 EH 1 0.01 1.39 0.01 0.35 0.01 0.12 0.08 0.12 so2 3 0.01 1.96 0.01 0.50 0 .01 0.17 0 .01 0.17 GH x S02 9 0 .01 3.92 0.01 1.00 0.01 0.35 0.01 0.33 EH x S02 3 0.01 2,77 0.01 0.71 0.01 0.25 0.19 0.23 Var x GH x EH 3 0 .64 3 .92 0.13 1.00 0.05 0.35 0.15 0.33 Var x GH x S02 9 0 .05 3.92 0 .01 1.41 0.05 0.49 0 .31 0.47 Var x EH x S02 3 0 .09 3.92 0.01 1.00 0.01 0 .35 0 .01 0.33 GH x EH x S02 9 0.05 5.55 0.42 1.41 0 .01 0.49 0 .02 0.47 —^ The design used 4 S02 concentrations, 4 growth humidities (GH), 2 exposure humidities (EH), 2 oat varieties and 2 replications. ------- Table 45. Cross Products Analysis - Oat #19.— 1/ Source 2/ DF Correlation Coefficient Inj x TDW Inj x RDW TDW x RDW GH 3 S02 3 Var x SC>2 3 EH x S02 3 Var x EH x SC^ 9 Residual 170 Corr. Total 255 0 .95 ¦0.99 0 .99 ¦0 .99 •0.87 ¦0 .19 ¦0 .87 -0.99 -0.98 -0.73 -0.91 -0 .76 -0 .13 -0.67 0 .97 0 .98 0 .80 0.94 0.98 0.59 0.73 —^ Data came from an analysis of SC^ exposures of 3 hrs duration - 4 times. 2 / — GH - growth humidity, EH - exposure humidity. 57 ------- Table 46. Effect of Sulfur Dioxide, Growth Humidity, Exposure Humidity and Variety on Several Plant Responses - Oat #19 y Plant Responses Variable Inj m Tiller (#) TDW (gm) RDW Cgm) SO2 (pphm) 0 0 9.0 4 .19 2 .27 40 1 10 .2 4.23 2 .07 80 26 8.3 3.40 1.79 160 60 6.1 2.08 0 .82 LSD - 0.05 2 0.5 0.17 0 .17 Growth Humidity (!) 40 24 9.1 3.42 1.63 52 22 8.8 3 .47 1.77 64 24 7 .8 3.23 1.57 76 17 8 .0 3 .77 1.98 LSD - 0.05 2 0 . 5 0 .17 0.17 .Exposure Humidity (%) 55 17 9.0 3 .74 1.94 80 27 7 .8 3.21 1.53 LSD - 0.05 1 0.4 0.12 0.12 Variety Carolee 16 10.2 3 .80 2.09 Coker 22 7 27 6.6 3.15 1.40 LSD - 0.05 2 0 .4 0 .12 0.12 y Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time. sfi ------- Table 47. Effect of Variety by Growth Humidity by Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #19.i/ SC>2 Concentration (pphm) Plant Response Variety Growth Humidity (%) 0 40 80 160 Inj (%) Carolee 40 0 0 14 53 52 0 0 16 49 64 0 0 18 56 76 0 0 10 39 Coker 227 40 0 2 44 76 52 0 1 37 71 64 0 2 42 74 76 0 0 23 63 LSD - 0.05 = 6 TDW (gm) Carolee 40 4 .19 4 .44 3.95 2.47 52 4 .24 4.34 4 .02 2.51 64 3 .99 4 .15 4.02 2 .45 76 4.30 4.27 4.34 3.18 Coker 227 40 4 .02 4.27 2 .41 1.64 52 4.74 3 .79 2 .77 1.37 64 3.65 4 .09 2.24 1.24 76 4.35 4.47 3.48 1.79 LSD - 0.05 = 0.49 —^ Plants were exposed are significant. 4 times, 3 hrs each time . Interact ions ------- Table 48. Effect of Growth Humidity by Exposure Humidity ,by Sulfur Dioxide on Several Plant Responses - Oat #19.±/ SO- Concentration (pphm) Plant Growth Exposure Response Humidity Humidity 0 40 80 160 m (%) Inj (%) 40 55 0 1 19 54 80 0 1 39 75 52 55 0 0 16 49 80 0 1 38 71 64 55 0 0 18 59 80 0 2 41 72 76 55 0 0 11 39 80 0 0 23 63 LSD - 0.05 = 5 TDW (gm) 40 55 3 .93 4.28 3.84 2.58 80 4 .29 4.43 2.51 1.53 52 55 4.72 3 .88 3.93 2 .50 80 4 .26 4.26 2.86 1.37 64 55 3 .88 4 .18 3.86 2 . 10 80 3.77 4.05 2.40 1.59 76 55 4 . 23 4.52 4.22 3 . 22 80 4 .42 4.21 3.60 1.76 LSD - 0.05 = 0 .49 RDW (gm) 40 55 1.86 1.61 2.44 1.21 80 2.07 1.61 1.44 0 .80 52 55 3 .33 1.85 2 .27 0 .68 80 2 .42 2.28 1.10 0 .19 64 55 1.59 2.25 2.00 1.34 80 1.67 1.96 1.08 0 .68 76 55 2 .59 2 .56 2.29 1.17 80 2.64 2.40 1.68 0 .50 LSD - 0.05 = 0.47 1/ Plants were exposed 4 times, 3 hrs each time. Interactions are significant. 60 ------- |