Advertisement

Methods for Controlled and Field Ozone Exposures of Forest Tree Species in North America

  • R. C. Musselman
  • B. A. Hale
Chapter
Part of the Ecological Studies book series (ECOLSTUD, volume 127)

Abstract

Research on the effects of pollutants on vegetation has concentrated primarily on agricultural crops. Pollutant effects on crops have been examined since the 1950s, after initial observations of oxidant stipple injury to field crops which were attributed to O3 (Richards et al. 1958; Heggestad and Middleton 1959). Research began with field observation and description of leaf injury, and duplication of injury symptoms with laboratory O3 fumigations. Early research examined cultivar differences in response to O3, and effects of O3-free (charcoal-filtered) air and antioxidant chemicals on the prevention of oxidant injury. Research on O3 effects on plants matured to studies of mechanisms of injury, and dose-response studies of pollutant effects on productivity. These studies often used chambers to control fumigation. Specific methodologies have been developed to study air pollution effects in laboratory, greenhouse, or field experimental settings. Experiments have been conducted on numerous crop species. Recent research has examined the effects of specific components of O3 exposure (peak concentration, duration, respite times [intervals when plants are not exposed to O3]) on plants during different stages of development. Research is continuing to determine the best way to characterize the O3 exposure parameter. Results of O3 fumigation-plant response studies, as well as the methods used to obtain them, have been recently reviewed (Lefohn 1992b).

Keywords

Continuous Stir Tank Reactor Ozone Exposure Forest Tree Species Forest Response Branch Chamber 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams RM, Crocker TD (1989) The agricultural economics of environmental change: some lessons from air pollution. J Environ Manage 28:295–307Google Scholar
  2. Adams MB, Edwards NT, Taylor GE Jr, Skaggs BL (1990) Whole-plant 14C-photosynthate allocation in Pinus taeda: seasonal patterns at ambient and elevated ozone levels. Can J For Res 20:152–158Google Scholar
  3. Albaugh TJ, Mowry FL, Kress LW (1992) A field chamber for testing air pollution effects on mature trees. J Environ Qual 21:476–485Google Scholar
  4. Allen OB, Marie BA, Ormrod DP (1987) Relative efficiency of factorial designs for estimating response surfaces with references to gaseous pollutant mixtures. J Environ Qual 16:316–320Google Scholar
  5. Amundson RG, Kohut RJ, Laurence JA (1995) Influence of foliar N on foliar soluble sugars and starch of red spruce saplings exposed to ambient and elevated ozone. Tree Physiol 15:167–174Google Scholar
  6. Andersen CP, Hogsett WE, Wessling R, Plocher M (1991) Ozone decreases spring root growth and root carbohydrate content in ponderosa pine the year following exposure. Can J For Res 21:1288–1291Google Scholar
  7. Ashmore MR, Bell JNB, Mimmack A (1988) Crop growth along a gradient of ambient air pollution. Environ Pollut 53:99–121PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. Barnes JD, Davison AW, Booth TA (1988) Ozone accelerates structural degradation of epicuticular wax on Norway spruce needles. New Phytol 110:309–318Google Scholar
  9. Bennett JP, Anderson RL, Mielke ML, Ebersole JJ (1994) Foliar injury air pollution surveys of eastern white pine (Pinus strobus L.): a review. Environ Monit Assess 30:247–274Google Scholar
  10. Berrang P, Karnosky DF, Bennett JP (1991) Natural selection for ozone tolerance in Populus tremuloides: an evaluation of nationwide trends. Can J For Res 21:1091–1097Google Scholar
  11. Berry CR, Riperton LA (1963) Ozone: a possible cause of white pine emergence tipburn. Phytopathology 53:552–557,239–251Google Scholar
  12. Billen N, Schätzle H, Seufert G, Arndt U (1990) Performance of some growth variables. Environ Pollut 68:419–434PubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. Brown KA, Roberts TM (1988) Effects of ozone on foliar leaching in Norway spruce (Picea abies L. Karst): Confounding factors due to NOx production during ozone generation. Environ Pollut 55:55–73Google Scholar
  14. Byres DP, Johnson JD, Dean TJ (1992) Seasonal response of slash pine (Pinus elliottii var elliottii Engelm.) photosynthesis to long-term exposure to ozone and acidic precipitation. New Phytol 122:91–96Google Scholar
  15. Bytnerowicz A, Tran M, Anderson P (1995) Effects of charcoal air filtration and ozone generation on concentrations of some N and S compounds in open-top field chambers. Atmos Environ 29:1355–1358Google Scholar
  16. Chappelka AH, Kush JS, Meldahl RS, Lockaby BG (1990) An ozone-low temperature interaction in loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.). New Phytol 114:721–726Google Scholar
  17. Chappelka AH, Hildebrand E, Skelly JM, Mangis D, Renfro JR (1992) Effects of ambient ozone concentrations on mature eastern hardwood trees growing in Great Smoky Mountains National Park and Shenandoah National Park. Paper 92–150.04 presented at 85th Annu Meet June 21–26, 1992, Kansas City, Missouri, Air and Waste Management Association, 12 ppGoogle Scholar
  18. Clark CS, Weber JA, Lee EH, Hogsett WE (1995) Accentuation of gas exchange gradients in flushes of ponderosa pine exposed to ozone. Tree Physiol 15:181–189PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. Colis JJ, Unsworth MH (1992) Air pollution interactions with natural stressors. In: Barker JR, Tingey DT (eds) Air pollution effects on biodiversity. Van Nostrand Reinhold, New York, pp 93–108Google Scholar
  20. Commission of the European Communities (CEC) (1987) Microclimate and plant growth in open-top chambers. Air Pollution Research Report 5, EUR 11257. Proc Worksh organized by the Commission of the European Communities and the Kernforschungszentrum Karlsuhe, Freiburg, 17–19 Sept 1986Google Scholar
  21. Dean TJ, Johnson JD (1992) Growth response of young slash pine trees to stimulated acid rain and ozone stress. Can J For Res 22:839–848Google Scholar
  22. Dochinger LS, Seliskar CE (1970) Air pollution and the chlorotic dwarf disease of Eastern White Pine. For Sci 16:46–55Google Scholar
  23. Edwards GS, Friend AL, O’Neill EG, Tomlinson PT (1992) Seasonal patterns of biomass accumulation and carbon allocation in Pinus taeda seedlings exposed to ozone, acidic precipitation, and reduced soil Mg. Can J For Res 22:640–646Google Scholar
  24. Edwards NT (1991) Root and soil respiration responses to ozone in Pinus teada L. seedlings New Phytol 118:315–321Google Scholar
  25. Eissenstat DM, Syvertsen JP, Dean TJ, Yelenosky G, Johnson JD (1991) Sensitivity of frost resistance and growth in citrus and avocado to chronic ozone exposure. New Phytol 118:139–146Google Scholar
  26. Ennis CA, Lazrus AL, Kok GL, Zimmerman PR (1990) A branch chamber system and techniques for simultaneous pollutant exposure experiments and gaseous flux determinations. Tellus 42B:170–182Google Scholar
  27. Evans LS, Dougherty P (1986) Exposure systems and physiological measurements. Forest response program quality assurance methods manual EPA/600/86/193a Raleigh, NCGoogle Scholar
  28. Fredericksen TS, Joyce BJ, Skelly JM, Steiner KC, Kolb TE, Kouterick KB, Savage JE, Snyder KR (1995) Physiology, morphology, and ozone uptake of leaves of black cherry seedlings, saplings, and canopy trees. Environ Pollut 89:273–283PubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. Friend AL, Tomlinson PT (1992) Mild ozone exposure alters 14C dynamics in foliage of Pinus taeda L. Tree Physiol 11:215–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. Fuhrer J (1994) Effects of ozone on managed pasture; I. Effects of open-top chambers on microclimate, ozone flux, and plant growth. Environ Pollut 86:297–305PubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. Gabelman WH (1970) Alleviating the effects of pollution by modifying the plant. HortScience 5:250–252Google Scholar
  32. Gilbert MD, Maylin GA, Elfving DC, Edgerton LJ, Gutenmann WH, Lisk DJ (1975) The use of diphenylamine to protect plants against ozone injury. HortScience 10:228–231Google Scholar
  33. Grulke NE, Miller PR (1994) Changes in gas exchange characteristics during the life span of giant sequoia: implications for response to current and future concentrations of atmospheric ozone. Tree Physiol 14:659–668PubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. Grünhage L, Dämmgen U, Haenel H-D, Jäger H-J, Holl A, Schmitt J, Hanewald K (1993) A new potential air-quality criterion derived from vertical flux densities of ozone and from plant response. Angew Bot 67:9–13Google Scholar
  35. Hanson PJ, Samuelson LJ, Wullschleger SD, Tabberer TA, Edwards GS (1994) Seasonal patterns of light-saturated photosynthesis and leaf conductance for mature and seedling Quercus rubra L. foliage: differential sensitivity to ozone exposure. Tree Physiol 14:1351–1366PubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. Heagle AS (1989) Ozone and crop yield. Annu Rev Phytopathol 27:397–423Google Scholar
  37. Heagle AS, Philbeck RB (1979) Exposure techniques. In: Heck WW, Krupa SV, Linzon SN (eds) Methodology for the assessment of air pollution effects on vegetation, Chapt 6, pp 6–1 to 6–19. Air Pollution Control Association, PittsburgGoogle Scholar
  38. Heagle AS, Philbeck RB, Heck WW (1973) An open-top chamber to assess the impact of air pollution on plants. J Environ Qual 2:365–368Google Scholar
  39. Heagle AS, Philbeck RB, Rogers HH, Letchworth MB (1979) Dispensing and monitoring ozone in open-top field chambers for plant effects studies. Phytopathology 69:15–20Google Scholar
  40. Heagle AS, Kress LW, Temple PJ, Kohut RJ, Miller JE, Heggestad HE (1988) Factors influencing ozone dose-yield response relationships in open-top field chamber studies. In: Heck WW, Taylor OC, Tingey DT (eds) Assessment of crop loss from air pollutants. Elsevier London, pp 141–180Google Scholar
  41. Heagle AS, McLaughlin MR, Miller JE, Joyner RL (1992) Response of two white clover clones to peanut stunt virus and ozone. Phytopathology 82:254–258Google Scholar
  42. Heck WW, Krupa SV, Linzon SN (1979) Handbook of methodology for the assessment of air pollution effects on vegetation. Air Pollution Control Association, Pittsburgh.Google Scholar
  43. Heck WW, Heagle AS, Miller JE, Rawlings JO (1990) A national program (NCLAN) to assess the impact of ozone on agricultural resources. In: Berglund RL, Lawson DR, McKee DJ (eds) Tropospheric ozone and the environment: papers from an international conference, March 1990, Los Angeles, pp 224–254Google Scholar
  44. Heck WW, Heagle AS, Miller JE (1994) Factors affecting plant response to ozone - an overview. In: Kuttler W, Jochimsen M (eds) Immissionsökologische Forschung im Wandel der Zeit. Festschrift für Robert Guderian. Westarp Wissenschaften, Uhlichstrasse pp 113–130Google Scholar
  45. Heggestad HE (1991) Origin of Bel-W3, Bel-C and Bel-B tobacco varieties and their use as indicators of ozone. Environ Pollut 74:264–291PubMedGoogle Scholar
  46. Heggestad HE, Middleton JT (1959) Ozone in high concentrations as cause of tobacco leaf injury. Science 129:208–210PubMedGoogle Scholar
  47. Hendrey GR, Kimball BA (1994) The FACE Program. Agricult For Meteorol 70:3–14Google Scholar
  48. Hendrey GR, Lewin KF, Kolber Z, Evans LS (1992) Controlled enrichment system for experimental fumigation of plants in the field with sulfur dioxide. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 42:1324–1327Google Scholar
  49. Hernandez TT, deBaurer LI, Delgado MLO (1986) Identification y determinacion de los principales pigmentos fotosinteticos de hojas de Pinus hartwegii affectadas por gases oxidantes. Agrosciencia 66:71–82Google Scholar
  50. Hogsett WE, Tingey DT, Holman SR (1985) A programmable exposure control system for determination of the effects of pollutant exposure regimes on plant growth. Atmos Environ 19:1135–1145Google Scholar
  51. Hogsett WE, Tingey DT, Hendricks C, Rossi D (1989) Sensitivity of western conifers to SO2 and seasonal interaction of acid fog and ozone. In: Olson RK, Lefohn AS (eds) Effects of air pollution on western forests. Air and Waste Management Association. Pittsburg, pp 469–491Google Scholar
  52. Houpis JL, Costella MP, Cowles S (1991) A branch exposure chamber for fumigating ponderosa pine to atmospheric pollution. J Environ Qual 20:467–474Google Scholar
  53. Houston DB (1974) Response of selected Pinus strobus L. clones to fumigations with sulfur dioxide and ozone. Can J For Res 4:65–68Google Scholar
  54. Jones P, Jones JW, Allen LH Jr, Mishoe JW (1984) Dynamic computer control of closed environmental plant growth chambers. Design and verification. Trans ASAE 27(3): 879–888Google Scholar
  55. Karnosky DF, Gagnon ZE, Reed DD, Witter JA 1992a Growth and biomass allocation of symptomatic and asymptomatic Populus tremuloides clones in response to seasonal ozone exposures. Can J For Res 22:1785–1788Google Scholar
  56. Karnosky DF, Gagnon ZE, Reed DD, Witter JA (1992b) Effects of genotype on the response of Populus tremuloides Michx. to ozone and nitrogen deposition. Water Air Soil Pollut 62:189–199Google Scholar
  57. Karnosky DF, Gagnon ZE, Dickson RE, Coleman MD, Lee EH, Isebrands JG (1995) Changes in growth, leaf abscission, and biomass associated with seasonal tropospheric ozone exposures of populus tremuloides clones and seedlings. Can J For Res 26:23–37Google Scholar
  58. Kerstiens G, Lendzian KJ (1989a) Interactions between ozone and plant cuticles. I. Ozone deposition and permeability. New Phytol 112:13–19Google Scholar
  59. Kerstiens G, Lendzian KJ (1989b) Interactions between ozone and plant cuticles. II. Water permeability. New Phytol 112:21–27Google Scholar
  60. Kats G, Olszyk DM, Thompson CR (1985) Open-top experimental chambers for trees. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 26:1298–1301Google Scholar
  61. Kilz E (1987) Microclimate and plant growth in open-top chambers. Air Pollution Reports 5. Commission of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  62. Kostka-Rick R, Manning WJ (1992) Partitioning of biomass and carbohydrates in field-grown radish under ambient concentrations of ozone, and treated with the anti-ozonant ethylene-diurea. New Phytol 121:187–200Google Scholar
  63. Kress LW, Miller JE (1985) Impact of ozone on field corn yield. Can J Bot 63:2408–2415Google Scholar
  64. Kress LW, Allen HL, Mudano JE, Stow TK (1992) Impact of ozone on loblolly pine seedling foliage production and retention. Environ Toxicol Chem 11:1115–1128Google Scholar
  65. Krizek DT, McFarlane JC (1983) Controlled-environment guidelines. HortScience 18:662664Google Scholar
  66. Krupa SV (1984) Field exposure methodology for assessing the effects of photochemical oxidants on crops. In: Proc 77th Annu Meet Air Pollution Control Association. Preprint no 88–1042. Air Pollution Control Association. PittsburghGoogle Scholar
  67. Krupa SV, Manning WJ, Nosal M (1993) Use of tobacco cultivars as biological indicators of ambient ozone pollution: an analysis of exposure-response relationships. Environ Pollut 81:137–146PubMedGoogle Scholar
  68. Krupa SV, Nosal M, Legge AH (1994) Ambient ozone and crop loss: establishing a cause-effect relationship. Environ Pollut 83:269–276PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Krupa SV, Grünhage L, Jäger H-J, Nosal M, Manning WJ, Legge AH, Hanewald K (1995) Ambient ozone (03) and adverse crop response: a unified view of cause and effect. Environ Pollut 87:119–126PubMedGoogle Scholar
  70. Laurence JA, MacLean DC, Mandl RH, Schneider RE, Hansen KW (1982) Field tests of a linear gradient system for exposure of row crops to SO2 and HF. Water Air Soil Pollut 17:399–407Google Scholar
  71. Laurence JA, Kohut RJ, Amundson RG (1989) Response of red spruce seedlings exposed to ozone and simulated acidic precipitation in the field. Arch Environ Contam Toxicol 18:285–290Google Scholar
  72. Laurence JA, Amundson RG, Friend AL, Pell EJ, Temple PJ (1994) Allocation of carbon in plants under stress: an analysis of the ROPIS experiments. J Environ Qual 23:412–417Google Scholar
  73. Lee JJ, Lewis RA (1978) Zonal air pollution system: design and performance. US EPA Publ No 600/3–78–021, Corvallis, OregonGoogle Scholar
  74. Lefohn AS 1992a The characterization of ambient ozone exposures. In: Lefohn AS (ed) Surface level ozone exposures and their effects on vegetation. Lewis Publ Chelsea, Michigan, pp 93–156Google Scholar
  75. Lefohn AS (1992b) Surface level ozone exposures and their effects on vegetation. Lewis Publ, Chelsea, Michigan, 366 ppGoogle Scholar
  76. Lefohn AS, Edwards PJ, Adams MB (1994) The characterization of ozone exposures in rural West Virginia and Virginia. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 44:1276–1283Google Scholar
  77. Lewin KF, Hendrey GR, Nagy J, LaMorte RL (1994) Design and application of a free-air carbon dioxide enrichment facility. Agric For Meteorol 70:15–29Google Scholar
  78. Livingston NJ, Davies GJ, Eby BM, Filek G, Fuchs EE, Pepin S, Percy RE (1994) A whole-plant cuvette system to measure short-term responses to conifer seedlings to environmental change. Tree Physiol 14:759–768PubMedGoogle Scholar
  79. Mandl RH, Weinstein LH, McCune DC, Keveny M (1973) A cylindrical, open-top chamber for the exposure of plants to air pollutants in the field. J Environ Qual 2:371–376Google Scholar
  80. Mandl RH, Laurence JA, Kohut RJ (1989) Development and testing of open-top chambers for exposing large, perennial plants to air pollutants. J Environ Qual 18:534–540Google Scholar
  81. Manning WJ (1988) EDU: a research tool for assessment of the effects of ozone on vegetation. Paper 88/69.2 presented at the 81st Air Pollution Control Assoc Annu Meet, Dallas, 8ppGoogle Scholar
  82. Manning WJ (1992) Assessing the effects of ozone on plants: use and misuse of ethylenediurea (EDU), Paper presented at the 85th Annu Meet and Exhibit June 21–26, 1992, Kansas City, Air and Waste Management Association, Pittsburg, Pap No 92–150.02. 11ppGoogle Scholar
  83. Manning WJ, Krupa SV (1992) Experimental methodology for studying the effects of ozone on crops and trees. In: Lefohn AS (ed) Surface level ozone exposures and their effects on vegetation. Lewis Publ Chelsea, Michigam, pp 93–156Google Scholar
  84. McCool PM, Younglove T, Musselman RC, Teso RR (1986) Plant injury analysis: contingency tables as an alternative to analysis of variance. Plant Dis 70:357–360Google Scholar
  85. McLeod AR, Baker CK (1988) The use of open field systems to assess yield response to gaseous pollutants. In: Heck WW, Taylor OC, Tingey DT (eds) Assessment of crop loss from air pollutants. Elsevier, London, pp 181–210Google Scholar
  86. McLeod AR, Fackrell JE, Alexander K (1985) Open-air fumigation of field crops: criteria and design for a new experimental system. Atmos Environ 19:1639–1649Google Scholar
  87. McLeod AR, Shaw PJA, Holland MR (1992) The Liphook forest fumigation project: studies of sulphur dioxide and ozone effects on coniferous trees. For Ecol Manage 51:121–127Google Scholar
  88. Miller PR, Yoshiyama RM (1973) Self-ventilated chambers for identification of oxidant damage to vegetation at remote sites. Environ Sci Technol 7:66–68Google Scholar
  89. Miller PR, Parmeter JR Jr, Taylor OC, Cardiff EA (1963) Ozone injury to the foliage of ponderosa pine. Phytophathology 53:1072–1076Google Scholar
  90. Mooney HA, Drake BG, Luxmoore RJ, Oechel WC, Pitelka LF (1991) Predicting ecosystem responses to elevated CO2 concentrations. BioScience 41: 96–104Google Scholar
  91. Mudano JE, Allen HL, Kress LW (1992) Ozone impacts on seasonal foliage dynamics of young loblolly pine. For Sci 38:324–335Google Scholar
  92. Musselman RC (1985) Protecting grapevines from ozone injury with ethylenediurea and benomyl. Am J Enol Vitic 36 (1):38–42Google Scholar
  93. Musselman RC, Tashenberg EF (1985) Usefulness of vineyard fungicides as antioxidants for grapevines. Pant Dis 69:406–408Google Scholar
  94. Musselman RC, Oshima RI, Gallavan RE (1983) Significance of pollutant concentration distribution in the response of `red kidney’ beans to ozone. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 108: 347–351Google Scholar
  95. Musselman RC, Huerta AJ, McCool PM, Oshima RJ (1986a) Response of beans to simulated ambient and uniform ozone distributions with equal peak concentrations. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 111:470–473Google Scholar
  96. Musselman RC, McCool PM, Younglove T, Teso RR, Oshima RJ (1986b) Statistical analysis of differences in response of beans to ozone. Sci Hortic 30:165–176Google Scholar
  97. Musselman RC, McCool PM, Oshima RJ, Teso RR (1986c) Field chambers for assessing crop loss from air pollutants. J Environ Qual 15:152–157Google Scholar
  98. Musselman RC, McCool PM, Lefohn AS (1994a) Ozone descriptors for an air quality standard to protect vegetation. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 44:1383–1390Google Scholar
  99. Musselman RC, Younglove T, McCool PM (1994b) Response of Phaseolus vulgaris L. to differing ozone regimes having identical total exposure. Atmos Environ 28(16):2727–2731Google Scholar
  100. Nast W, Mortensen L, Fischer K, Fitting I (1993) Effects of air pollutants on the growth and antioxidative system of norway spruce exposed in open-top chambers. Environ Pollut 80:85–90PubMedGoogle Scholar
  101. Oechel WC, Riechers G, Lawrence WT, Prudhomme TI, Grulke N, Hastings SJ (1992) `CO2LT’ an automated, null-balance system for studing the effects of elevated CO2 and global climate change on unmanaged ecosystems. Funct Ecol 6:86–100Google Scholar
  102. Oleksyn J, Prus-Giowacki W, Giertych M, Reich PB (1994) Relation between generic diversity and pollution impact in a 1912 experiment with East European Pinus syivestris provenances. Can J For Res 24:2390–2394Google Scholar
  103. Olszyk DM, Tibbitts TW, Hertzberg WM (1980) Environment in open-top field chambers utilized for air pollution studies. J Environ Qual 9:610–615Google Scholar
  104. Olszyk DM, Kats G, Dawson PJ, Bytnerowicz A, Wolf J, Thompson CR (1986a) Characteristics of air exclusion systems vs. chambers for field air pollution studies. J Environ Qual 15:326–334Google Scholar
  105. Olszyk DM, Bytnerowicz A, Kats G, Dawson PJ, Wolf J, Thompson CR (1986b) Effects of sulfur dioxide and ambient ozone on winter wheat and lettuce. J Environ Qual 15:363–369Google Scholar
  106. Olszyk DM, Bytnerowicz A, Kats G, Dawson PJ, Wolf J, Thompson CR (1986c) Crop effects from air pollutants in air exclusion systems vs. field chambers. J Environ Qual 15:417–422Google Scholar
  107. Olszyk DM, Dawson PJ, Morrison CL, Takemoto BK (1990) Plant response to nonfiltered air vs. added ozone generated from dry air or oxygen. J Air Waste Manage Assoc 40:7781Google Scholar
  108. Olszyk DM, Takemoto BK, Kats G, Dawson PJ, Morrison CL, Preston JW, Thompson CR (1992) Effects of open-top chambers on `Valencia’ orange trees. J Environ Qual 21:128–134Google Scholar
  109. Olszyk D, Bytnerowicz A, Kats G, Reagan C, Halce S, Kerby T, Millhouse D, Roberts B, Anderson C, Lee GH (1993) Cotton yield losses and ambient ozone concentrations in California’s San Joaquin Valley. J Environ Qual 22:602–611Google Scholar
  110. Ormrod DP, Marie BA, Allen OB (1988) Research approaches to pollutant crop loss functions. In: Heck WW, Taylor OC, Tingey DT (eds) Assessment of crop loss from air pollutants. Elsevier, London, pp 27–44Google Scholar
  111. Oshima RJ, Poe MP, Braegelmann PK, Baldwin DW, Van Way V (1976) Ozone dosage-crop loss function for alfalfa: a standardized method for assessing crop losses from air pollutants. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 26:861–865Google Scholar
  112. Oshima RJ, Braegelmann PK, Baldwin DW, Van Way V, Taylor OC (1977) Reduction of tomato fruit size and yield by ozone. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 102:289–293Google Scholar
  113. Payer HD, Pfirrmann T, Mathy P (1990) Environmental research with plants in closed chambers. Air Pollution Res Rep 26, Commission of the European Communities, BrusselsGoogle Scholar
  114. Peterson CE Jr, Mickler RA (1994) Considerations for evaluating controlled exposure studies of tree seedlings. J Environ Qual 23:257–267Google Scholar
  115. Preston EM, Tingey DT (1988) The NCLAN program for crop loss assessment. In: Heck WW, Taylor OC, Tingey DT (eds) Assessment of crop loss from air pollutants. Elsevier London, Chapt 3, pp 45–62Google Scholar
  116. Pye J (1988) Impact of ozone on the growth and yield of trees: a review. J Environ Qual 17:347–360Google Scholar
  117. Qui Z, Chappelka AH, Somers GL, Lockaby BG, Meldahl RS (1992) Effects of ozone and simulated acidic precipitation on above-and below-ground growth of loblolly pine (Pinus taeda). Can J For Res 22:582–587Google Scholar
  118. Rafarel CR, Ashenden TW (1991) A facility for large-scale exposure of plants to gaseous atmospheric pollutants. New Phytol 117:345–349Google Scholar
  119. Rawlings JO, Lesser VM, Dassel KA (1988) Statistical approaches to assessing crop losses. In: Heck WW, Taylor OC, Tingey DT (eds) Assessment of crop loss from air pollutants. Elsevier, New York, pp 389–416Google Scholar
  120. Reich PB (1987) Quantifying plant response to ozone: a unifying theory. Tree Physiol 3:63–91PubMedGoogle Scholar
  121. Reynolds JF, Chen J, Harley PC, Hilbert DW, Dougherty RL, Tenhunen JD (1992) Modeling the effects of elevated CO2 on plants: extrapolating leaf response to a canopy. Agric For Meteorol 61:69–94Google Scholar
  122. Richards BL, Middleton JT, Hewitt WB (1958) Air pollution with relation to agronomic crops: V. Oxidant stipple of grape. Agron J 50:559–561Google Scholar
  123. Runeckles VC, Wright EF, White D (1990) A chamberless field exposure system for determining the effect of gaseous air pollutants on crop growth and yield. Environ Pollut 63:61–77PubMedGoogle Scholar
  124. Samuelson LJ, Edwards GS (1993) A comparison of sensitivity to ozone in seedlings and trees of Quercus rubra L. New Phytol 125:373–379Google Scholar
  125. Sasek TW, Richardson CJ (1989) Effects of chronic doses of ozone on loblolly pine: photosynthetic characteristics in the third growing season. For Sci 35:745–755Google Scholar
  126. Saxe H (1991) Photosynthesis and stomatal responses to polluted air, and the use of physiological and biochemical responses for early detection and diagnostic tools. Adv Bot Res 18:1–128Google Scholar
  127. Shafer SR, Heagle AS (1989) Growth responses of field-grown loblolly pine to chronic doses of ozone during multiple growing seasons. Can J For Res 19:821–831Google Scholar
  128. Shafer SR, Heagle AS, Camberato DM (1987) Effects of chronic doses of ozone on field-grown loblolly pine: seedling responses in the first year. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 37:1179–1184Google Scholar
  129. Shafer SR, Reinert RA, Eason G, Spruill SE (1993) Analysis of ozone concentration-biomass response relationships among open-pollinated families of loblolly pine. Can J For Res 23:706–715Google Scholar
  130. Simini M, Skelly JM, Davis DD, Savage JE (1992) Sensitivity of four hardwood species to ambient ozone in north central Pennsylvania. Can J For Res 22:1789–1799Google Scholar
  131. Stow TK, Allen HL, Kress LW (1992) Ozone impacts on seasonal foliage dynamics of young loblolly pine. For Sci 38:102–119Google Scholar
  132. Strain BR, Allen LH Jr, Baldocchi D, Bazzaz F, Burke J, Dahlman R, Denmead T, Hendrey G, McLeod A, Melillo J, Oechel W, Risser P, Rogers H, Rozema J, Wright R (1991) Available technologies for field experimentation with elevated CO2 in global change research. In: Mooney HA, Medina E, Schindler DW, Schulze E-D, Walker BH (eds) Ecosystem experiments, Chapt 15, SCOPE 45. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  133. Taylor GE Jr (1994) Role of genotype in the response of loblolly pine to tropospheric ozone: effects at the whole-tree, stand, and regional level. J Environ Qual 23:63–82Google Scholar
  134. Taylor GE, Pitelka LF (1992) Genetic diversity of plant populations and the role of air pollutants. In: Barker JR, Tingey DT (eds) Air pollution effects on biodiversity. Van Nostrand Reinhold New York, pp 111–130Google Scholar
  135. Taylor GE Jr, Johnson DW, Andersen CP (1994) Air pollution and forest ecosystems: a regional to global perspective. Ecol Applic 4:662–689Google Scholar
  136. Temple PJ, Riechers GH, Miller PR (1993) Growth responses of ponderosa pine to longterm exposure to ozone, wet and dry acidic deposition, and drought. Can J For Res 23:59–66Google Scholar
  137. Teskey RO, Dougherty PM, Wiselogel AE (1991) Design and performance of branch chambers suitable for long-term ozone fumigation of foliage in large trees. J Environ Qual 20:591–595Google Scholar
  138. Thompson CR, Taylor OC (1969) Effects of air pollutants on growth, leaf drop, fruit drop, and yield of citrus trees. Environ Sci Technol 3:934–940Google Scholar
  139. Thornton FC, Pier PA, McDuffie C Jr (1992) Red sprue response to ozone and cloudwater after three years exposure. J Environ Qual 21:196–202Google Scholar
  140. Tingey DT, Wilhour RG, Standley C (1976) The effect of chronic ozone exposures on the metabolite content of ponderosa pine seedlings. For Sci 22:234–241Google Scholar
  141. Tjoelker MG, Luxmoore RI (1991) Soil nitrogen and chronic ozone stress influence physiology, growth, and nutrient status of pinus taeda L. and Liriodendron tulipifera L. seedlings. New Phytol 119:69–81Google Scholar
  142. Tjoelker MG, Volin JC, Oleksyn J, Reich PB (1994) An open-air system for exposing forest-canopy branches to ozone pollution. Plant Cell Environ 17:211–218Google Scholar
  143. Tonneijck AEG, Bugter RJF (1991) Biological monitoring of ozone effects on indicator plants in the Netherlands: initial research on exposure-response functions. VDI Berichte 901:613–624Google Scholar
  144. US EPA (1987a) Air pollution exposure systems and experimental protocols, vol 1. A review and evaluation of performance. EPA/600/3–87/037a, Corvallis, OregonGoogle Scholar
  145. US EPA (1987b) Air pollution exposure systems and experimental protocols. vol 2: De-scription of facilities. EPA/600/3–87/037b, Corvallis, OregonGoogle Scholar
  146. Unsworth MH, Heagle AS, Heck WW (1984) Gas exchange in open-top field chambers. I. Measurement and analysis of atmospheric resistances to gas exchange. Atmos Environ 18:373–380Google Scholar
  147. Walker BH, Attiwill P, Graetz D, MacMahon J, Medina E, H Schulze E-D, Tamm CO, Trillmich F, Wright R (1991) Whole-terrestrial ecosystem experiments in the context of global change: working group report. In: Mooney HA, Medina E, Schindler DW, Schulze E-D, Walker BH (eds) Ecosystem Experiments, Chapt 14. SCOPE 45. John Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  148. Weigel HJ, Colls JJ, Geisser PA (1992) Microclimate in open-top chambers. In: Jager HJ, Unsworth M, De Temmerman L, Mathy P (eds) Effects of air pollution on agricultural crops in Europe: results of the European open-top chambers project, Air Pollution Research Report 46, Commission of the European Communities, Brussels, Belgium, pp 618Google Scholar
  149. Weinstock L, Kender WJ, Musselman RC (1982) Microclimate within open-top air pollution chambers and its relation to grapevine physiology. J Am Soc Hortic Sci 107:923–926Google Scholar
  150. Wiltshire JJ, Wright CJ, Unsworth MH (1992) A new method for exposing mature trees to ozone episodes. For Ecol Manage 51:115–120Google Scholar
  151. Winner WE, Greitner C (1989) Field methods used for air pollution research with plants. In: Pearcy W, Ehleringer J, Mooney HA, Rundel PW (eds) Plant physiological ecology: field methods and instrumentation. Chapman and Hall, New York, pp 399–425Google Scholar
  152. Winner WE, Lefohn AS, Cotter IS, Greitner CS, Nellessen J, McEvoy LR Jr, Olson RL, Atkinson CJ, Moore LD (1989) Plant responses to elevational gradients of 03 exposures in Virginia. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 86:8828–8832PubMedGoogle Scholar
  153. Woodward FI (1992) Predicting plant responses to global environmental change. New Phytol 122:239–251Google Scholar
  154. Woodwell GM, Cook DR, Cowling EB, Johnson AH, Kimmerer TW, Matson PA, McLaughlin SS, Raynal DJ, Swank WT, Waring RH, Winner WE, Woodman JN (1989) Biological markers of air pollution stress and damage in forests. Part I. The committee’s report. National Research Council, National Academy Press Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  155. Younglove T, McCool PM, Musselman RC, Smith E (1988) The use of transfer models to describe the relationship between pollutant exposure and leaf stomatal opening. Environ Exp Bot 28:307–313Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • R. C. Musselman
  • B. A. Hale

There are no affiliations available

Personalised recommendations