TABLE 4. RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WESTERN BROADLEAVED TREES TO $0.2 (17).

Very Sensitive:

Birch (Betula papyrifera)°
Bitter Cherry (Prunus emarginata)
Aspen (Populus tremuloides

Sensitive to Intermediate:

Apple (Malus 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)
= cultivated)

Plum (Prunus sp.

Pear (Pyrus sp. - cultivated)

Cherry (Prunus sp. - cultivated)

Peach (Prunus sp. - cultivated)

Apricot (Prunus sp. - cultivated)
Tolerant:

Elm (Ulmus sp.) d

Horse chestnut (Aesculus sp.)

3Field observations and exposures.

bin order of increasing resistance within each group.

Most sensitive.

Wost 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


w

TABLE 19. THE RELATIVE SO, SUSCEPTIBILITY OF EUROPEAN CONIFEROUS WOODY PLANTS (37)

Most Sensitive Sensitive Less Sensitive
Larix europea Abies alba Pinus nigra austriaca
European larch Silver fir Austrian pine
Picea alba Pinus concorta var. latifolia

Larix leptolepis
Japanese Larc

Picea abies
Norway spruce

Pseudotsuga menziesii

Douglas fir

White spruce

Abies homolepis
Nikko fir

Picea pungens
Blue spruce

Picea sitchensis
Sitka spruce

Abies normanniana
normanniana
Nordman's fir

Pinus silvestris
Scotch pine

Pinus ponderosa
Ponderosa pine

Pinus strobus
White pine

Lodgepole pine

Pinus mugo
Mugho pine

Chamaecyparis lawsoniana
Lawson cypress

Juniperus communis
Juniper

Thuja occidentalis
Thuja or white cedar

Taxus baccata
English yew

(Adapted from van Haut, H. and H. Stratman. 1969. Color-plate atlas
on plants. Verlag W. Gidardet, Essen.

206 pp.)

of the effects of sulfur dioxide


TABLE 17. Continued.

TOLERANT

Arborvitae (white cedar) (Thuja occidentalis)
Buck-brush (Ceanothus velutinus) |

Buf falo-berry eee rgrees canadensis )
Ceanothus, redstem (Ceanothus sanguineus
Cedar, western red (Thuja Teatal

Fir, silver (Abies amab Tis)

Fir, white (Abies concolor

Forsythia (Forsythia viridissima)
Ginkgo (Ginkgo biloba

Hawthorn, black (Crataequs douglasii)

Juniper, common (Juniperus communis) communis )
Juniper, Rocky Mountain (Juniperus scopulorum
Juniper, Utah (Juniperus osteos osteosperma)

Juniper, western (Juniperus us occidentalis)
Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi

Linden, littleleaf mee cordata)

Mahogany, curl-leaf mtn. (Cercocarpus ledifolius)
Maple, Norway nee latanoides)

Maple, silver (Acer saccharinum)

Maple, sugar (Acer seen)

Oak, Gambel ou eee Saree gambelii

Oak, pin (Quercus palustris
Oak, (northern red) (Quercus rubra)

Oregon grape ose aquifolium)
Pine, Limber (Pinus flexilis)

Pine, pinyon (Pinus edulis)
Plane, London (Platanus acerifolia)
Poison-ivy, beers Toxicodendron radicans rydbergii)

Poplar, Carolina (Populus squeals
Spruce, blue (Picea pungens)  ——
Squawbush (Rhus trilobata)
Sumac, smooth (Rhus glabra)

Yew, pacific (Taxus glabra i)

Compiled from previously listed species.

27


TABLE 23. PRELIMINARY RANKING OF WOODY SPECIES EXPOSED T0 SO. IN CHAMBERS
OR IN THE FIELD USING THE "FUMIGATION CANNON” IN THE NETHERLANDS®
(24)

Sensitive:

Alnus incana
Corylus avellana
Populus canescens

(ittte van Haamstede" )
Salix alba (Liempde")
Salix caprea
Crataegus monogyna
rataegus oxyacantha

Inus glutinosa

Sorbus aucuparia
Amelanchier canadensis

Populus trichocarpa
Betula pendula
Tilia cordata

Rosa rubiginosa
Cornus mas

Rosa rugosa
Rosa canina

Populus euramericana
Zeeland

Fraxinus excelsior

Intermediate:

Ulmus carpinifolia

Castanea sativa
Ulmus hollandica

Acer campestre
Prunus padus

Prunus spinosa
Prunus mahaleb

Robinia pseudoacacia
Fagus sylvatica

Tolerant:

Quercus robur

Acer pseudoplatanus
Jasminum fruticans

Cigustrum ovalifolium
Ligustrum vulgare

artificial exposure.
(Adapted from Mooi, J. 1972. Investigation of the susceptibility of woody

plants to S05 and HF. Inst. Plantenziektenkd. Onderz. Wageningen Meded. 602.
12 pp.

36


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.


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).

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.

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.

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.

Berge, H. 1959. [Injury to fruit and forest trees from sulfur
dioxide emission. ] Gartenbauwissenschaft 24:220-228. (German).

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).

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.

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


TABLE 26. Continued.

Species Points
Prunus virgineana 19.3
Thuja orientalis 19.3
Chamaecyparis pisifera 19.9
Celastrus orbicularis 20.0
Platanus acerifolia 20.0
Sophora japonica 20.0

artificial exposures.

Maximum resistance equals 20 points.

(Reprinted from "Smoke-Hardiness Test Carried Out on Woods in an SO, Chamber

Test," 1970 by H. Ranft and H. G. Dassler with permission from VEB éustav
Fisher Verlag Jena).

46


TABLE 26. Continued.

Species Points
Mahonia aquifolium 13.3
Weigelia florida 13.3
Juniperus chinensis pfitz. 13.5
Robinia pseudoacacia 13.5
Wistaria chinensis 13.5
Prunus cerasif. Pissardi 13.7
Prunus mahaleb 13.8

Rather Tolerant:

Ghamaecyparis nootkat. 15.
Hedera helix 15.

Prunus cerasifera 15.

Amorpha fruticosa 14.0
Berberis gagnepainii 14.0
Ginkgo biloba 14.0
Sambucus nigra 14.0
Thuja plicata 14.0
Quercus borealis 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
Tlex aquifolium 14.5
Liriodendron tulipifera 14.5
Viburnum opulus 14.5
Ailanthus altissima 14.7
Andromeda floribunda 14.7
Pinus cembra 14.7
Daphne mezereum 15.0
Humulus Tupulus 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

7

7

9



TABLE 27. Continued.

Intermediate:

Oak, scarlet
(Quercus coccinea Muenchh. )

Pine, eastern white
(Pinus strobus L.)

Pine, pitch
(Pinus rigida Mi11.)

Pine, Scotch
(Pinus sylvestris L.)

Redbud, eastern
(Cercis 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 occidentalis L.)

Azalea, Chinese

(Rhododendron mollis Bl.)

Birch, European white
(Betula pendula Roth. )

Dogwood, gray
(Cornus racemosa Lam.)

50


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.)

8artificial 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 26. Continued.

Species Points

Moderately Tolerant:
Cornus stolonifera

3 Poplar varieties
Rhus typhina
Cotoneaster dammeri
Cotoneaster divaricata
Kolkwitzia amabilis

ibes alpinum
Caragena arborescens
Cotoneaster dielsiana
Rhamnus cathartica
Lycium halimifolium
CoryTus avell. atrop.
olygonum aubertii
Rosa rubrifolia

salix americana/hastala
Spiraea vanhouttei
Buddleia alternifolia
Colutea arborescens
Cytisus Ppraecox

Tilia tomentosa

Vitis vinifera
Sarothamnus scoparius
Buddleia variabilis
Continus coggygria
Viburnum lantana
Cornus alba

duglans regia
Rosa Baccus

Salix caprea

duniperus communis hib.
Kerria japonica

Ribes sanguinea atr.
Crataegus monogyna
Crataegus oxyacantha

Betula pendula
Morus alba

Parthenocissus quinquefolia

WOOODWODOGDOOGOOOD DOO ODDODDMMDMMOMMMONNINNNNN
NNNNO TOTP WWNHODOOYNNNNNOOWWwWHOOOYWUNO BED

42


TABLE 8. APPROXIMATE ORDER OF SO, SUSCEPTIBILITY OF TREES GROWING NEAR
A SMELTER IN MONTANA? (32)

Subalpine fir? (Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.)

Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb. )
ranco.

Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta Doug]. )
Engelman spruce (Picea engelmannii Parry. )

Ponderosa pine (Pinus ponderosa Laws. )
Limber pine (Pinus flexilis James)

Rocky mountain juniper (Juniperus scopulorum Sarge)
Common juniper® (Juniperus communis L.)

3Field observations.
Most susceptible.

Most 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


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
conta¢n useful listings, based primarily on SO, 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 SO, is the major phytotoxic pollutant emitted.

Ranft (30) evaluated the SO, susceptibility of a 40-year old planting
experiment near a zinc smelter if Germany. The smelter released about

41 togs of SO, daily; maximum ground level concentrations of 1.2 mg S05
per m air were measured 400 m from the smelter. The smelter also
released arsenic dust and HCl, 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.

Habjérg (13) established a number of woody species in containers
and maintained them near a source of SO, in Norway. The source was the
industrialized area of Sorpsborg, and if was implied that the major air
pollutant was S05. 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 S05 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 SO,
in chambers. These were presented in a very general form. Table 24 ig
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 SO,. Characteristics such as duration of phenophase,
flowering, stomatal characteristics, cuticle and epidermis thickness,
accumulation of 35-S0, in various organs, and vascular bundle diameter
were studied. These tharacteristics were correlated with the SO
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 32. RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WOODY PLANTS TO NO, (PRIMARILY No, )* (36)

Sensitive:

Weeping birch (Betula pendula)

Showy apple (Malus spec. )

Wild pear tree rus spec.)

European larch (Larix europea)
é€

Japanese larch (Larix Teptolepis)

Rose (Rosa sp.)
Azaela jododendron canescens)
Pyracanta yracantha coccinea)

Intermediate:

Norway maple (Acer platanoides)

Fan maple (Acer palmatum

Winter lime (Tilia parvifolia)

Summer lime (Tilia grandifolia)
Rhododendron (Rhododendron catawbiense)

Blue spruce (Picea pungens glauca)
White spruce (Picea alba)

Lawson's cypress (Chamaecyparis lawsoniana)
Nikko or Japanese fir (Abies homolepis)
Common silver fir (Abies pectinate

Ligustrum (Ligustrum Tucidum

Tolerant:

Locust (Robinia pseudoacacia)

Hornbeam (Carpinus betulus

Common beech (Fagus sylvatica)

Common elder (Sambucus nigra

Gingko tree (Gingko biloba

Mountain elm (UImus montana)

Purple-leaved beech (Fagus sylvatica atropurpurea )

Common oak (Quercus pendunculata)
Common yew tree (Taxus baccata

Black pine (Pinus austriaca)
Shore juniper (Juniperus conferta)

a spss
Artificial exposures.

63


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

Director

Corvallis Environmental Research
Laboratory

iii


20.

21.

22,

23.

24.

25.

26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

Knabe, W. 1971. Air quality criteria and their importance for forests.
Mitt. Forstl. Bundes-Versuchsanst. Wien 92:129-150.

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 (Trans1. from German).

Linzon, S. N. 1972. Effects of sulphur oxides on vegetation. For.
Chron. 48:182-186.

Linzon, S. N., W. D. McIlveen, 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.

Mooi, J. 1972. Investigation of the susceptibility of woody plants
to S05 and HF. Inst. Plantenziektenkd. Onderz. Wageningen Meded. 602.

12 pp.

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
$05] Bull. Fukuoka-ken Forest Exp. Sta. No. 21:23-50 (Japanese).

Neger, F. W. 1924. Die Krankheiten unserer Waldbdume und der wichtigsten
Gartengehblze. Ferdinand Enke. Stuttgart (2nd edition). 246 pp. (German).

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 (Transl. from Russian).

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.

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).

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).

Ranft, H. and H. G. Ddssler. 1970. [Smoke-hardiness test carried

out on woods in an S0, chamber test] Flora 159:573-588 (Transl. from
German).

66


10.

1.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

7.

18.

19,

Enderlein, H. and M. Vogl. 1966. [Experimental investigations of

$0, sensitivity of the needles of various conifers]. Arch. Forstw.
1571207-1224 (German).

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.

Guderian, R. and H. Stratmann. 1962. [Field experiments to determine
the effects of SO, in vegetation. Part I. Survey of method and
evaluation of resdlts] Forschungsber. Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen,
No. 1118, 102 pp. (C. E. Trans. 4369). (German).

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 garden plant species.] Forschungsber.
Landes Nordrhein-Westfalen No. 1920. 114 pp. (Transl. from German).

Hobjgrg, 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
(Trans1. from Norwegian).

Haselhoff, E. and G. Lindau. 1903. Die Beschddigung der Vegetation
durch Rauch. Leipzig, Gerbriieder Borntraeger. 412 pp. (German).

Hill, A. C., S. Hill, C. Lamb, and T. W. Barrett. Sensitivity of native
vegetation to SO, and to NO, combined. J. Air Pollut. Control. Assoc.
24:153-157.

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.

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.

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.

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.


REFERENCES

Photochemical Oxidants

1,

10.

i.

12.

Berry, C. R. 1971. Relative sensitivity of red, jack, and white
pine seedlings to ozone and sulfur dioxide. Phytopathology 61:231-
232.

Berry, C. R. 1974. Age of pine seedlings with primary needles
affects sensitivity to ozone and sulfur dioxide. Phytopathology
64: 207-209.

Berry, C. R. and L. A. Ripperton. 1963. Ozone, a possible cause
of white pine emergence tipburn. Phytopathology 53:552-557.

Brennan, E. and I. Leone. 1970. The response of English holly
selections to ozone and sulfur dioxide. Holly Letter 37:6-8.

Davis, D. D. and J. B. Coppolino. 1974. Relative ozone suscepti-
bility of selected woody ornamentals. HortScience 9:537-539.

Davis, D. D. and F. A. Wood. 1972. The relative susceptibility of
eighteen coniferous species to ozone. Phytopathology 62:14-19.

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.

Dochinger, L. S. and C. E. Seliskar. 1970. Air pollution and the
chlorotic dwarf disease of eastern White Pine. For. Sci. 16:46-
55.

Drummond, D. B. 1971. Influence of high concentrations of peroxy-
acetyInitrate on woody plants. Phytopathology 61:128 (Abstract).

Harward, M. R. and M. Treshow. 1971. The impact of ozone on
understory plants of the aspen zone. Proc. Air Pollut. Contro}
Assoc. Annu. Meet. 64: Paper No. 71-98. 18 pp.

Heggestad, H. E. 1968. Diseases of crops and ornamentals incited
by air pollutants. Phytopathology 58:1089-1097.

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


TABLE 17. THE RELATIVE SO, SENSITIVITY OF WOODY PLANTS GROWN IN NORTH
AMERICA®

SENSITIVE

\ Alder, thinleaf (Alnus tenuifolia)
Aspen, large-toothed (Populus grandidentata)
Aspen, trembling (Populus tremuloides
Ash, red (green) (Fraxinus pennsylvanica)
Birch, Eropean (Betula oa
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 (UImus parvifolia
Hazel, beaked (Corylus cornuta (rostrata) )
Hazel, California (Corylus cornuta californica)
Larch, western (Larix occidentalis)

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 banksiana

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 5. RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WESTERN WOODY SHRUBS TO 50,276 (17).

Very Sensitive:

Ninebark (Opulaster malveceus)
Ocean spray (Holodiscus ariaefolius)
Serviceberry anchier alnifolia

Sensitive to Intermediate:

Mountain laurel (Ceanothus sanguineus)
Hazel pers rostrata

Grape (Vitis sp.)

Current (Ribes sp.)

Gooseberry (Ribes sp.)

Intermediate:

Mock orange (Philadelphus lewisii)
Snow berry (Symphoricarpos racanosus
Thimbleberry (Bossekia parviflora
Elderberry (Sambucus sp.

Tolerant:
Lilan (Syeinga sp.)
Spiraea (Spiraea sp.)
Oregon grape (Odostemon aquifolium)
Buck brush (Ceanothus velutinus)
Buffalo berry (Lepargyrea canadensia)

Dogwood (Cornus stolonifera)
Sumac (Rhus abra)
Kinnikinnick (Arctostaphylos uva-ursi)

3Field observations and exposure.
bin 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)

il


TABLE 10. SUSCEPTIBILITY OF

SELECTED NATIVE WOODY DESERT VEGETATION TO so," (15)

Species

Percent Foliar Injury After
Exposure to 6 ppm
SO, for 2 hrs

Rocky mountain maple
(Acer glabrum)

River birch
(Betula occidentalis)

Utah serviceberry

(Amelanchier utahensis)

Snowberry

60
50?
33

32

(Symphoricarpos oreophilus)

Narrowleaf cottonwood
(Populus angustifolia)

Big sagebrush
(Artemisia tridentata)

Quaking aspen
(Populas tremuloides)

Mountain mahogany
(Cercocarpus montanus )

Douglas fir

(Pseudotsuga taxifolia)

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)

20

0.8

0.4

0.3

0.06

0.0

0.0

0.0

17


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 ninebark®
Physocarpus capitatus(Pursh) Kuntze

Creambush rockspirea
Holodiscus discolor (Pursh) Maxim.

Lewis mockorange
Philadelphus lewisii Pursh

Wild rose
Rosa spp.

Saskatoon serviceberry
Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt.

California hazel
Corylus cornuta var. californica Sharp

Shinyleaf spirea
Spiraea lucida Doug].

Sticky currant
Ribes viscosissimum Pursh

Columbia snowberry
Symphoricarpos rivularis Suksd.

Redstem ceanothus
Ceanothus sanguineus Pursh.

Snowbrush ceanothus
Ceanothus velutinus Doubi.

Redosier dogwood
Cornus stolonifera Michx.

Smooth sumac
Rhus glabra L.

Western poisonivy?
Toxicodendron radicans var. rydbergii (Small)
Kelsey & Dayton

fiost 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 17. Continued

INTERMEDIATE

Alder, mountain (Alnus tenuifolia)

Apricot, Chinese (Prunus armeniaca var. Chinese)
Basswood (Tilia americana

Birch, water (Betula occidentalis (fontinalis))

Boxelder (Acer negundo)

Cherry, bitter (Prunus emarginata)
Chokecherry (Prunus denitssa}

Cottonwood, black (Populus tri Pp

chocarpa)
Cottonwood, eastern (Populus deltoides)
Cottonwood, narrowleaf (Populus angustifolia)
Currant, sticky (Ribes Vv ScoSiss imum)
Dogwood, red osier (Cornus stolonifera)
Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
Elder, blueberry (Sambucus cerulea)

Elm, American (white) (Ulmus americana)
Fir, balsam (Abies balsamea

Fir, grand (Abies grandis)
Grape, wild (Vitis riparia)
Hawthorn, red (Crataequs columbiana)

Hazel, witch (Hamamelis virginiana
Hemlock, western (Tsuga heterophylla)

Honeysuckle, tatarian (Lonicera tatarica)
Hydrangea (Hydrangea paniculata

Lilac, common (Syringa vulgaris)

Mahogany, mountain (Cercocarpus montanus )
Maple, Douglas (Acer glabrum dou lassi)

Maple, Rocky Mountain (Acer glabrum)

Maple, red (Acer rubrum

Mock-orange, coronarius CHES aie coronarius )
Mock-orange, virginalis (Philadelphus 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 pondérosa)

Pine, western white (Pinus monticola)

Poplar, balsam (Populus balsamifera

Sagebrush, big (Artemsia tridentata)
Snowberry, mountain (Symphoricarpos oreophilus)
Snowberry, Columbia (Symphoricarpos rivularis)

Spirea, Van Houts (Spiraea vanhouttei)
Spirea, shineyleaf (Spiraea Tucida)

Spruce, Engleman (Picea engelmanni)
Spruce, white (Picea glauca)

26


SECTION IV
SULFUR DIOXIDE

NORTH AMERICA

One of the earliest listings of the SO, sensitivity of North
American woody plants was compiled by Katz at 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 SO, 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 SO, for a short time. Foliar injury and growth loss
data were recorded atong 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 SO.
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 smal] number of
trees and shrubs were exposed to 0.5 and 1.0 ppm SO, for 4 to 7 hours.
Results of field observations and artifical exposurés 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 SO, 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 SO, until a concentration
was reached that caused traces of visible injuty. The concentration
needed to injure each species was divided by 1.25. This value was used
since it took 1.25 ppm SO, for one hour to injure alfalfa, the most
sensitive species. Thus an ratings were compared to alfalfa as unity.
Table 9 was adapted from Thomas (35) and illustrates the relative $0,
sensitivity of woody plants as determined by O'Gara.


32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

37.

38.

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.

Schroeder, J. von and C. Reuss. 1883. Die Beschddigung der Vegetation
durch Rauch und die Oberharzer Huttenrauchschaden. Paul Parey, Berlin
(333 pp) (German).

Temple, P. J. 1972. Dose-response of urban trees to sulfur dioxide.
J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 22:271-274.

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).

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).

van Haut, H. and H. Stratman. 1969. Color-plate atlas of the effects
of sulfur dioxide on plants. Verlag W. Gidardet, Essen. 206 pp.

Wentzel, K. F. 1968. [Sensitivity and differences in the resistance of
plants to air pollution.] Forstarchiv 29:189-194 (German).

67


TABLE 27. Continued.

Tolerant:

Oak, English
(Quercus robur L.)

Oak, northern red

(Quercus rubra L.)

Oak, shingle
(Quercus imbricaria Michx. )

Pieris, Japanese
(Pieris japonica [Thunb.] D. Don)

Pine, red
(Pinus resinosa 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 Hems1. )

Yew, dense
(Taxus densiformis Hort. )

Yew, Hatifield's pyramidal
(Taxus media hatfieldi Rehd. )

artificial exposures.
Pcompi lation of several tables.
some sensitivity ratings were modified based on recent, unpublished research.

52


No.

29

30

31

32

Daily Dose of Ozone Needed to Cause Injury to Various
Plant Species for Time Periods Up to 2 Weeks. .....

Relative Sensitivity of Woody Plants Grown in North
America to Ozone [Compilation of previously listed
species]. 2... ee ee ee ee
Relative Sensitivity of Woody Plants Grown in North
America to PAN [Artificial exposures; compilation but
mainly from (9)J. 2... ee ee ee ee ee

Relative Susceptibility of Woody Plants to NO, we eee

viii

58


TABLE 15. SELECTED WOODY PLANTS THAT ARE RELATIVELY SUSCEPTIBLE TO $0," (4)

Apple (Malus sp.)

Birch (Betula sp.)

Catalpa (Catalpa speciosa Warder)

Elm, American (Ulmus americana L.)
Larch (Larix sp.)

Mulberry (Morus microphylla Buck1.)
Pear (Pyrus communis L.)

Pine, eastern white (Pinus strobus L.)
Pine, ponderosa (Pinus ponderosa Laws. )
Poplar, Lombardy (Populus nigra L.)

an compilation.

(Reprinted from "Sulfur Dioxide," 1970 by T. W. Barrett and H. M. Benedict
with permission of the Air Pollution Control Association)

23


TABLE 30. Continued.

INTERMEDIATE

Apricot, Chinese (Prunus armeniaca var. Chinese)
Boxelder (Acer negundo

Cedar, incense (Libocedrus decurrens)
Cherry, Lambert (Prunus avium var. Lambert)
Currant, northern blac (Ribes hudsonianum)
Elder, black bead (Sambucus melanocarpa

Elm, Chinese (Ulmus parvifolia

Forsythia, Lynwood gold (Forsythia intermedia spectabilis)
Gum, sweet (Liquidambar styraciflua)
Honeysuckle, blue-leaf (Lonicera korolkowi)
Larch, Japanese (Larix leptolepis

Lilac, common (Syringa vulgaris
Mock-orange, sweet (Philadelphus coronarius)

Oak, black (Quercus velutina)

Oak, pin uercus palustris)
Oak, scarlet (Quercus coccinea)
Pine, eastern white (Pinus strubus

Pine, knobcone (Pinus attenuata
Pine, lodgepole (Pinus contorta)

Pine, pitch (Pinus rigida
Pine, Scotch (Pinus sylvestris)

Pine, shortleaf (Pinus echinata)

Pine, slash (Pinus elliottii)

Pine, sugar Ge Tambertiana )

Pine, Torrey (Pinus torreyana)

Privet, common (Ligustrum vulgare)

Redbud, eastern (Cercis canadensis)
Rhododendron (Rhododendron catawbiense album)
Rhododendron (Rhododendron nova zembla)
Rhododendron (Rhododendron roseum elegans)
Snowberry, vaccinioides (Symphoricarpos vaccinioides)
Viburnum, linden (Viburnum dilatatum)
Viburnum, tea (Viburnum setigerum)

59


TABLE 31. RELATIVE SENSITIVITY OF WOODY PLANTS GROWN IN NORTH AMERICA
TO PAN??

SENSITIVE

None reported

INTERMEDIATE

None reported

TOLERANT

Arborvitae fsa orientalis)

Ash, green (Fraxinus pennsylvanica lanceolata)
Ash, white (Fraxinus americana)

Basswood (Tilia americana)

Birch, European white (Betula pendula)
Dogwood, white (Cornus Florida)

Fir, balsam (Abies balsamea)
Fir, Douglas (Pseudotsuga menziesii)
Fir, white (Abies concolor)

Gum, sweet (Liguidambar styraciflua)
Hemlock, eastern Tsuga Canadensis)

Honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos )
Larch, European (Latrix decidua)
Larch, Japanese (Larix leptolepis)

Lilac, common ee vulgaris)
Maple, Norway (Acer platanoides)
Maple, silver (Acer saccharinum)
Maple, sugar (Acer Saccharum)

Mountain-ash, American (Sorbus americana)

Oak, English (Quercus robur

pak, northern red (Quercus rubra)
lak, pin (Quercus palustris)
Oak. white (Quercus alba)

Pine, Austrian (Pinus nigra)

Pine, eastern white (Pinus strobus)

Pine, pitch (Pinus rigida)

Pine, ponderosa (Pinus ponderosa)

Pine, red (Pinus resinosa)

Pine, Scotch (Pinus sylvestris)

Pine, Virginia (Pinus virginiana)

Poplar, hybrid (Populus maximowiezii x trichocarpa)
Poplar, Tulip (Liriodendron tulipifera)

Spruce, Black Hills (Picea glauca densata)
Spruce, blue (Picea pun ens}
Spruce, Norway (Picea abies)
Spruce, white (Picea glauca)

®artificial exposures. 61

by Compilation but mainly from (9).


(36). They exposed monocots, dicots, and conifers to NO, (NO and NO.)
under carefully controlled conditions in small chambers.” Table 32 i
adapted from their results. In their review, Thompson et al. (31)
listed the sensitivity of 14 additional ornamental plants to NOp-
Woody species from this list are indicated in Table 32.

62


TABLE 12. SENSITIVITY OF TREES TO $0," (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)

20


TECHNICAL REPORT DATA
(Please read Instructions on the reverse before completing)

T. REPORT NO. 2. 3. RECIPIENT'S ACCESSIONNO.
EPA-600/3-76-102
4. TITLE AND SUBTITLE 5. REPORT DATE

September 1976
Susceptibility of Woody Plants to Sulfur Dioxide and [§peRroRMING ORGANIZATION CODE

Photochemical Oxidants

7 AUTHOR(S) 8, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION REPORT NO.

Donald D. Davis and Raymond G, Wilhour

I9, PERFORMING ORGANIZATION NAME AND ADDRESS: 10. PROGRAM ELEMENT NO.
Corvallis Environmental Research Laboratory 144006 ROAP 21 ALS Task 08
200 SW 35th St. 71. CONTRACT/GRANT NO,

Corvallis, Oregon 97330

12, SPONSORING AGENCY NAME AND ADORESS 13, TYPE OF REPORT AND PERIOD COVERED
final
14. SPONSORING AGENCY CODE

EPA/ORD

same as above

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, Japanes4
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:

la. DESCRIPTORS b.1IDENTIFIERS/OPEN ENDED TERMS |c. COSATI Field/Group
woody plants woody vegetation and 51

sulfur dioxide air pollution

ozone susceptibility to

PAN photochemical oxidants

nitrogen oxides

18, DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT 19. SECURITY CLASS (This Report) 21. NO. OF PAGES
Unclassified
Release to public 20. SECURITY CLASS (This page) 22. PRICE

Inclassified.

EPA Form 2220-1 (9-73) 72

4 U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1976~-698-1651 4 REGION 10


Abstract

CONTENTS

List of Tables

SECTIONS

I,

II.

III.

Iv.

VI.

Introduction

Selection of Criteria
Collection of Original data
Compilation of Lists
Geographic Location

Conclusions
Recommendations

Sulfur Dioxide

North America

Summary Table (Table 17)
Europe - Russia

Summary Table (Table 26)

Photochemical Oxidants
Introduction
Ozone
Summary Table (Table 30)
Peroxyacetyl Nitrate (PAN)
Summary Table (Table 31)
Oxides of Nitrogen
Summary Table (Table 32)

References

PPP ER

25
28
41

47
47
47
58
55

61
55

63

64


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.


TABLE 3. RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WESTERN CONIFEROUS TREES TO s0,* (17)

Western larch (Larix occidentalis)?

Douglas fir (Pseudotsuga taxifolia)
Yellow pine (Pinus ponderosa)
Engelman spruce (Picea engelmanni)
Western white pine (Pinus monticola)
Hemlock (Tsuga heterophylla)
Lodgepole pine (Pinus contorta)
Silver fir (Abies amabilis)

White fir (Abies concolor)

Western red cedar (Thuja plicata)°

2Field observations and exposures.

Most susceptible (especially in Spring).

“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)


16

W7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

Page
Selected Woody Plants That Are Relatively Susceptible
to SO, er 23
Sulfur Dioxide Concentrations Causing Threshold Injury
to Various Sensitivity Groups of Vegetation. .......-. 24

The Relative SO, Sensitivity of Woody Plants Grown
in North Americ& [Compilation of previously listed species] 25

The Relative SO, Susceptibility of European Deciduous
Woody plants 2 0 1 1 we ee ee 29

The Relative SO, Susceptibility of European Coniferous
Woody plants . 7. 1. we ee te ee 31

Susceptibility of Hardwoods to "Smoke" Damage from a Copper
Smelter in Turkey. 2... 1 6 eee ee ee ee 33

Susceptibility to SO, of 30 - to 40-Year Old Woody Species
Planted Near a Zinc Plant Emitting S05 in Germany... ... 34

Relative SO, Sensitivity of Woody Plants Grown in
Containers 8nd Placed in an Industrial Area of Norway
Having High S05 Levels... 2. eee ee ee ee te ee 35

Preliminary Ranking of Woody Species Exposed to S05
in Chambers or in the Field Using the "Fumigation
Cannon" in The Netherlands. . 2... 1 ee ee ee eee 36

Relative Susceptibility of Forest Conifers Determined
After 2 Years of Fumigations in Germany. ......-+.- 37

Percent Foliar Injury Produced by SO, on Plants, Based on
3 Years of Experimental Exposures in“Russia. ........ 38

Sequence List According to Leaf Damage as a Result of
SO, Test Exposure from 1967 to 1969 in Germany. ...... 41

Relative Ozone Susceptibility of Shrubs, Trees, and
Ornamentals Exposed to Ozone Applied at Bi-Weekly
Intervals Throughout the Growing Season in Chambers. . . . . 48

Threshold Concentration of Ozone Needed to Cause Injury
on Plants Growing in Native Habitat in Utah... ..... 53

vti


TABLE 9. RELATIVE SENSITIVITY OF SELECTED WOODY PLANTS TO INJURY BY SO,
(AS DETERMINED BY O'GARA)® (35)

Species O'Gara Factor

fo}
rs

Alfalfa
Apple
Catalpa
Gooseberry
Grape
Linden
Peach
Apricot
Elm
Birch
Plum
Poplar

t
w
°o

Sumac
Maple
Boxelder
Mockorange
Snowba11
Citrus
Arborvitae

COManNHwwaann® ww why 4 © ©
a
©

Live oak
Privet

APAYAHWWWNHNNYNNNNNN DN =H = =
[5

f)

Aarti ficial exposure.

Based on 1.0 for alfalfa, the most sensitive species studied.
Most sensitive.

ost tolerant.

(Reprinted from "Air Pollution Handbook," 1956 by M. D. Thomas and R. H.
Hendricks with permission of McGraw-Hill Book Company)

al)


EPA-600/3-76-102
September 1976 Ecological Research Series



TABLE 25. PERCENT FOLIAR INJURY PRODUCED BY SO, ON PLANTS, BASED ON
THREE YEARS OF EXPERIMENTAL EXPOSURES IN RUSSIA (27)

Percent
Species Foliar Injury
Susceptible:
English oak -
Japanese barberry 78.0
Prickly rose 66.5
Hazelnut 62.5
White willow 62.0
Juneberry 61.1
Rugosa rose 61.1
Aspen 60.1
Ussurian pear 59.8
European barberry 59.3
Siberian peatree 59.0
Mountain-ash leafed spiraea 56.5
European mountain ash 54.6
Small-leafed linden 54.5
White birch 51.8
Cranberry-leafed spiraea 50.6
Moderately Tolerant:
Siberian crab apple 49.6
Forest pear 49.0
Redhaw hawthorn 48.6
Common buckthorn 45.5
White poplar 44.5
Golden currant 43.3
European cranberry bush 42.6
Silver maple 42.0
European black currant 41.2
Plum 35.8
Tatarian maple 35.6
Norway maple 35.0
Hedge cotoneaster 34.3
Goat willow 33.2
Black chokeberry 31.0
Shaggy lilac 31.1
Sweet mockorange 31.1

38


TABLE 1. SOME SUITABLE CRITERIA OF INJURY CAUSED BY AIR POLLUTION TO FOREST TREES AND FORESTS (20)

Subject of Investigation

. . Part of Individual Number of Population
Criteria of Effect a Plant Plant Individuals (Stand) Ecosystem
Changes in cell components x? x x - -
Changes in metabolism x x x - -
Changes in cell structure x x x - -
Degree of chlorosis or necrosis x x x (x) -
Premature leaf abscission or

needle cast x x x (x) -
Decreased growth (x)? x x x -
Percentage of plants injured

to a certain degree - - x x (x)
Percentage of dead plants - - x x (x)
Decreased production of organic

matter or decreased increment

per area - - - x x
Changes in number of species - - - (x) x
Changes in abundance - - - (x) x
Changes in coverage - - - (x) x
Changes in general health

conditions - - x x x

ay

b

useful criterion.
possible criterion.

uw

x)

(Reprinted from “Air Quality Criteria and Their Importance for Forests," 1971 by W. Knabe with permission
from Forstliche Bundesversuchsanstalt)


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 27. Continued.

Tolerant:

Dogwood, white
(Cornus florida L.)

Euonymus, dwarf winged
(Euonymus alatus compactus [Sieb.] Bailey)

Fir, balsam
(Abies balsamea [L.] MI11.)

Fir, Douglas

(Pseudotsuga menziesii [Mirb.] Franco. )

Fir, White
{Abies concolor [Gord. & Clend.] Lind]. )

Firethorne, Laland's
(Pyracantha coccinea laland Depp. )

Gum, black
(Nyssa sylvatica [Marsh.] Pepperidge)

Holly, American (female)
(Tlex 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 21. SUSCEPTIBILITY TO S05 OF 30- TO 40-YEAR OLD WOODY SPECIES PLANTED

NEAR A ZINC PLANT EMITTING S0, IN GERMANY® (30)

Trees

Shrubs

Extremely Sensitive:
Larix decidua

Very Sensitive:

Picea abies
Pinus banksiana
Pinus silvestris
Alnus incana

Intermediate:

Prunus avium
Tilia platyphyllos
Populus alba
Pinus strobus
Pinus montana

Picea pungens
Carpinus betulus

Populus nigra italica
Tv.

Fagus sylvatica

Ulmus glabra
Pinus nigra austr.

Pinus cembra
Larix dahurica
Populus marilandica

Populus brabantica
Populus grandis
Betula pendula

Sorbus aucuparia
Sorbus intermedia

Tolerant:

Quercus petraea

Acer pseudoplatanus
Acer platanoides

Populus candicans
Populus tremula

Robinia pseudoacacia
Alnus glutinosa

Quercus borealis

Malus pumila

Salix caprea
Salix alba
Viburnum opulus
Rhamnus frangula
Crataegus monogyna

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)
(Trans1. from Slovak). 34


TABLE 14, RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF WOODY PLANTS GROWING NEAR A SOURCE
OF SO, IN SOUTHERN QUEBEC® (29)

Very Sensitive:

Birch, gray (Betula populifolia)
Birch, paper (Betula papyrifera)

Hazel (Corylus cornuta
Pine, jack (Pinus divaricata)
Pine, red (Pinus resinosa)

Pine, white (Pinus strobus)

Serviceberry (Amelanchier stolonifera)
Sumac, staghorn (Rhus typhina

Vaccinium, blueberry (Vaccinium angustifolium)

Sensitive:

Boxelder (Acer negundo)
Maple, re cer rubrum)

Tolerant:

Aspen, bigtooth (Populus grandidentata)
Aspen, quaking (Populus tremuloides
* Maple, silver (Acer saccharinum

Spruce, white (Picea glauca)

Field 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 25. Continued.

Percent
Species Foliar Injury
Tatarian dogwood 29.0
Balsam poplar 29.0
Black poplar 28.6
Black cotoneaster 26.8
Cherry 26.3
Birdcherry 26.2
Common lilac 25.9
Red-berried elder 24.2
Common sea buckthorn 23.0
Snowberry 22.5
Pennsylvania ash 21.0
Tolerant:
Ash-leaved maple 26.6
European euonymus 11.9
Tatarian honeysuckle 8.2
Common elm 8.2

8artificial 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 (Trans1. from Russian)).

39


TABLE 13. OBSERVED SENSITIVITY OF WOODY PLANTS TO SO, IN VICINITY OF
SULFITE PULP AND PAPER MILL IN ONTARIO® (23)

Sensitive:

Ash, Red
Birch, European
Birch, White
Birch, Yellow
Cottonwood
Mahonia

Maple, Manitoba

Intermediate:

Apple

Basswood

Catalpa

Currant, Red
Dogwood, Red Osier
Elm, Chinese
Grape, Wild
Honeysuckle, Tatarian
Hydrangea

Lilac

Mock Orange

Mock Orange
Mountain Ash

Oak, White

Spiraea

Spruce, White
Weigela

Tolerant:

Forsythia

Linden, Little-leaved
Maple, Norway

Maple, Silver

Maple, Sugar

Spruce, Blue

Fraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh.
Betula pendula Roth

Betula papyrifera Marsh.
Betula lutea Michx.

Populus deltoides Marsh.
Mahonia sp.

Acer negundo L.

Pyrus malus L.

Tilia americana L.
Catalpa speciosa Warder
Ribes sp.

Cornus stolonifera Michx.
Ulmus parvifolia Jacq.
Vitis riparia Michx.
Lonicera tatarica L.
Hydrangea paniculata Sieb.

Syringa vulgaris L.
itadelphus coronarius L.
jladeTphus virginalis Rehd.

Pyrus (Sorbus

Quercus alba L.
Spiraea Vanhouttei Zabel.

Picea glauca (Moench.) Voss.
Weigela sp.

aucuparia (L.) Gaertn.

Forsythia viridissima Lind].
Tilia cordata Mill.

Acer platanoides L.

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 Mil1," 1973 by S. N. Linzon, W. D. McIlveen, and
P. J. Temple with permission of D. Reidel Publishing Company)


TABLE 30. RELATIVE SENSITIVITY OF WOODY PLANTS GROWN IN NORTH AMERICA
To ozone?> >

SENSITIVE

Ailanthus, tree-of-heaven (Ailanthus altissima)
Ash, green (Fraxinus pennsylvanica lanceolata)
Ash, white (Fraxinus americana)

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 horizontalis)

Cotoneaster, spreading (Cotoneaster divaricata)
Grape, concord (Vitis vinifera)
Honey locust (Gleditsia triacanthos)

Larch, European (Larix decidua

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 (Pinus jeffreyi)

Pine, Loblolly (Pinus 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, American atanus occidentalis)
glans regia}

Walnut, English (Juglans regia

58


10

YW

12
13

14

LIST OF TABLES

Page

Suitable Criteria for Injury Caused by Air Pollution

to Forest Trees and Forests... 1... . eee ee eee 2
Some Suitable Criteria of Fume Damage to Forest Trees

and Forests. 2... ee ee eee ee ee eee ee 3
Relative Susceptibility of Western Coniferous Trees

to S05 rr ry 9
Relative Susceptibility of Western Broadleaved Trees

tO SOQ, ee 10
Relative Susceptibility of Western Woody Shrubs to S0,. » dil
Approximate Order of Susceptibility, Beginning with the

Most Susceptible, of Trees in the Upper Columbia River

Valley to Acute Sulfur Dioxide Injury .......... 12
Approximate Order of Susceptibility, Beginning with the

Most Susceptible, of Forest Shrubs in the Upper Columbia

River Valley to Acute Sulfur Dioxide Injury. ....... 13
Approximate Order of SO, Susceptibility of Trees Growing

Near a Smelter in Montaha ee ee 14
Relative Sensitivity of Selected Woody Plants to Injury by

S0g. ee ee 1
Susceptibility of Selected Native Woody Desert Vegetation

tO SOQ, ee ee ee ee 17
Relative SO, Susceptibility of Forest Tree Species

Growing Neat Sudbury, Ontario. .........-2+426- 19
Sensitivity of Trees to S05 se 20
Observed Sensitivity of Woody Plants to SO, in

Vicinity of Sulphite Pulp and Paper Mill ik Ontario... . 21
Relative Susceptibility of Woody Plants Growing Near a

Source of S05 in Southern Quebec... 2... 2. eee eee 22

vi


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 fir?
Abies grandis (Doug].) Lind.

Subalpine fir
Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.

Western redcedar
Thuja plicata Donn.

Western hemlock

Tsuga heterophylla (Raf.) Sarg.

Douglas-fir
Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirb.)
Franco.

Western white pine
Pinus monticola Doug].

Ponderosa pine
Pinus ponderos Laws.

Lodgepole pine
Pinus contorta Doug].

Western larch
Larix occidentalis Nutt.

Engelmann spruce
Picea engelmannii Parry.

Western juniper
Juniperus occidentalis Hook.

Pacific yew b
Tarus brevifolia Nutt.

Thinleaf alder®
Alnus tenuifolia Nutt.

Western paper birch
Betula papyrifera var.
commutata (Reg) Fern

Sitka mountain-ash
Sorbus sitchensis Roem.

Water birch
Betula occidentalis Hook.

Douglas maple
Acer glabrum var. douglasii
(Hook) Dipp.

Bitter cherry
Prunus emarginata Doug].

Common chokecherry
Prunus virginiana L.

Blueberry elder
Sambucus glauca Nutt.

Willow
Salix spp.

Columbia hawthorn
Crataegus columbiana Howell.

Black cottonwood

Populus trichocarpa Torr. &
Gray.

Black hawthorn
Crataegus douglasii Lind].

Quaking aspen b
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 27. Continued.

Sensitive:

Pine, jack
(Pinus banksiana Lamb. )

Pine, ponderosa
(Pinus ponderosa Laws.)

Pine, Virginia
(Pinus virginiana Mi11.)
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
(Tsuga canadensis [L.] Carr.)

Larch, Japanese
(Larix leptolepis [Sieb. & Fucc.] Gord.)

Mock Orange, sweet
(Philadelphus coronarius, L.)

Oak, pin
(Quercus palustris Muenchh. )

49


TABLE 29. DAILY DOSE OF OZONE NEEDED TO CAUSE INJURY TO VARIOUS PLANT SPECIES,
FOR TIME PERIODS UP TO 2 WEEKS® (34)

0.25 ppm/4 hrs - Very Sensitive:

Snowberry

(Symphoricarpus 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 18. THE RELATIVE SO, SUSCEPTIBILITY OF EUROPEAN DECIDUOUS WOODY PLANTS (37)

Most Sensitive

Sensitive

Less Sensitive

dJuglans regia
English walnut

Ribes grossularia
Gooseberry

Ribes rubrum
Red currant

Acer palmatum
Japanese maple

Tilia grandifolia
Lime, Linden or Basswood

Tilia cordata
Small leaved linden

Sorbus intermedia
Rowan tree

Prunus persica
Peach

Acer platanoides
Norway maple

Betula pendula
European birch

Pyrus communis var. sativa
Pea

Acer campestre
Hedge maple

Quercus pedunculata
English oak

Syringa vulgaris

Lilac
Aesculus hippocastanum Caprinus betulus
Horse chestnut Hornbeam
Malus communis, sylvestris Ulmus glabra
apple Wych elm
Prunus cerasus Salix caprea
Sour cherry Goat willow

Prunus avium
Sweet cherry

Prunus domestica
PTum

Corylus avellana
Hazelnut

Fagus silvatica
Red or European beech

Populus tremula
European aspen

Rhamnus frangula
Alder buckthorn

Sambucus racemosa
European red elder

Gingko biloba
Gingko


13.

14.

15.

16.

7.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

Hibben, C. R. 1969. Ozone toxicity to sugar maple. Phytopatholo
59:1423-1428. vor %

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. Hil], eds. Air Pollut. Control
Assoc., Pittsburgh. pp. B1-B22.

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.

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.

Kohut, R. 1975. The interaction of ozone and PAN on hybrid poplar.
Proc. 1974 Annu. Meet. Am. Phytopathol. Soc. 1:76.

Linzon, S. N. 1967. Ozone damage and semimature-tissue needle
blight of eastern white pine. Can. J. Bot. 45:2047-2061.

Miller, P. R. 1973. Oxidant Induced community change in a mixed
conifer forest. Adv. Chem. Ser. 122:101-117.

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.

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.

Rich, S. 1964. Ozone damage to plants. Annu. Rev. Phytopathol.
2:253-266.

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.

Richards, B. L, and 0. C. Taylor. 1965. Significance of atmospheric
ozone as a phytotoxicant. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 15:191-
193.

Santamour, F. S. 1969. Air pollution studies on platanus and
American elm seedlings. Plant Dis. Rep. 53:482-484.

69


0€

TABLE 18. Continued.

Most Sensitive Sensitive

Less Sensitive

Fagus silv. atropurpurea Robinia pseudoacacia

Copper beech Locust

Quercus rubra Ilex aquifolium
Red oak

glutinosa

Black alder

Populus robusta
Poplar

Alnus

Holly

(Adapted from van Haut, H. and H. Stratman.

plants. Verlag W. Gidardet, Essen. 206 pp.)

1969.

Color-plate atlas of the effects of sulfur dioxide on


TABLE 26. Continued.

Species Points
Tamarix odessana 16.0
‘axus baccata 16.0
Castanea sativa 16.3
Metasequoia glyptostr. 16.3
Sorbus aria 16.3
Catalpa speciosa 16.5
runus serotina 16.5
Euonymus europaeus 16.5
Lonicera tatarica 16.7
Tsuga diversifolia 16.8
Elaeagnus commutata Z. 16.9
Catalpa bignonioides 17.0
Cryptomeria japonica 17.0
Erica carnea 17.0
Halimodendron argent. 17.0
Rhodotypus scandens 17.0
Juniperus squamata meyeri 17.1
Acer negundo Wo
Pinus parviflora .
Acer ginnata 7.7
Erica mediteraneum 17.7
Thuja occidentalis 17.7

Very Tolerant:

Juniperus sabina 18.0
Lonicera periclymenum 18.0
Ptelea trifoliata 18.0
Quercus petraea .

Celtis australis 18.2
Aesculus parviflora .

Spiraea bum. A. Waterer 18.3
Juniperus virgineana 18.5
Buxus sempervirens 18.6
Sta ea pinnata 18.7
igustrum vulgare atr. 18.9
Jasminum fruticans 19.0
Gleditsia triacanthos 19.3

45


TABLE 10. Continued.

Percent Foliar Injury After
Exposure to 6 ppm

Species S05 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.

bpased on 4 ppm exposure for 2 hr.

(Reprinted from "Sensitivity of Native Vegetation to SO, and to NO, Combined,"
1974 by A. C. Hill, S. Hill, C. Lamb, and T. W. Barrett°with permis ion of the
Air Pollution Control Association)

18


TABLE 27. RELATIVE OZONE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF SHRUBS, TREES AND ORNAMENTALS
EXPOSED TO OZONE (APPLIED AT BI-WEEKLY INTERVALS THROUGHOUT THE
GROWING SEASON IN CHAMBERS®> >> ©) (5,6,38,39)

Sensitive:

Ailanthus, tree-of-heaven
Ailanthus altissima, Swingle)

Ash, green
, trraxinus pennsylvanica Marsh. )

Ash, white

(Fraxinus americana L.)

Azalea, campfire
(Rhododendron kaempheri ‘campfire' (Planch) Wils. Hort.)

Azalea, Hinodegiri
(R. obtubsum Planch. 'Hinodegiri')

Azalea, Korean
(R. poukhanensis Leville)

Azalea, snow
(R. kurume 'snow' [Rehd.] Hort. )

Cotoneaster, rock
(Cotoneaster horizontalis 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 29. Continued.

0.40

ppm/4 hrs. - Fairly Tolerant:

0.55

Arborvitae

(Thuja orientalis L.)

Blue spruce
(Picea pungens Engelm. )

Japanese box
(Buxus sempervirens L.)

Red oak
(Quercus rubra L.)

Japanese pagoda
(Sophora japonica L.)

ppm/4 hrs. - Very Tolerant:

Littleleaf linden
(Tilia cordata Mill.)

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.

1:155-161).

57

Environ. Pollut.


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.

ii


TABLE 24. RELATIVE SUSCEPTIBILITY OF FOREST CONIFERS DETERMINED AFTER
TWO YEARS OF FUMIGATIONS IN GERMANY? (6,9)

Spruces Pines Larches
Picea. abies? Pinus sylvestris? Larix decidua?
PL omorica? Pe rigida? Le leptolepis®
Pe pungens® PL ponderosa?
P. sitchensis® P. strobus?

PL montana®

P. nigra

P. peuce®

Pe contorta®

Iaritficial exposure.

Dost sensitive within the genus.

“Less 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 SO, sensitivity of the needles of
various conifers]. Arch. Forstw. 15:1209-1224 (German) ) .

37


TABLE 22. RELATIVE SO, SENSITIVITY OF WOODY PLANTS GROWN IN CONTAINERS AND
PLACED IN AN INDUSTRIAL AREA OF NORWAY HAVING HIGH S05 LEVELS? (13)

Sensitive:

Alnus incana

Cytisus purgans
Lonicera morrowii

Pinus sylvestris
Rosa "Moje Hammarberg"

Sorbus aucuparia

Intermediate:

Amelanchier sp.
Betula pubescens
Cotoneaster Tucidus

Crataegus sanguinea

Hippophae rhamnoides
Picea abies

Potentilla "Longacre"
Ulmus glabra

Tolerant:

Berberis thunbergii

Cornus "Sibirica”

ETaeagnus commutata
commutata,

‘icea pungens "Glauca"
Syringa vulgaris
Weigela "Eva Rathke"

*Field 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 (Transl. from Norwegian).

35


TABLE 30. Continued.

TOLERANT (Continued)

Spruce, Black Hills (Picea glauca densata)
Spruce, Colorado blue (Picea pungens
Spruce, Norway (Picea abies

Spruce, white (Picea glauca)

Viburnum, Korean spice (Viburnum carelsi)
Viburnum, burkwoodii (Viburnum burkwoodii )
Walnut, black (Juglans nigra)

Yew, dense (Taxus densiformis)

Yew, Hatifield'’s pyramidal (Taxus media hatfieldi)

3Compilation of previously listed species plus new, unpublished data.

sensitivity ratings of some species were modified to reflect new, unpublished
results.

60


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 V
PHOTOCHEMICAL OXIDANTS

INTRODUCTION

The most important phytotoxic components of photochemical smog are
ozone (0,), peroxyacety] nitrate (PAN), and oxides of nitrogen (NO_).
Ozone cases significantly more injury to woody plants growing undér
ambient environmental conditions than does NO. or PAN. Ozone injury has
been reported on shrubs, conifers and deciduotls 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
ates.

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 28. THRESHOLD CONCENTRATION OF OZONE NEEDED TO CAUSE INJURY ON PLANTS
GROWING IN NATIVE HABITAT IN UTAH* (35)

Concentration (2-hr Exposure)

0.15 ppm

Quaking aspen
(Populus tremuloides Michx. )

0.20 ppm

Saskatoon serviceberry

(Amelanchier alnifolia Nutt.)

0.25 ppm
Gambel oak

(Quercus gambelii Nutt.)
White fir

(Aibes concolor [Gord. & Glend.] Lind1.)
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 myrsinites [Pursh.] Raf.)
Poison-ivy

(Toxicodendron radicans [L.] Kuntze)
Wood's rose

(Rosa woodsii Lind1.)

53


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.


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 G. 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

/


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 SO0,. 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 S0,.

EUROPE-RUSSIA

Differential species sensitivity to SO, has been recognized for
nearly a century in Europe. In 1883 von Schroeder and Reuss (33) reported
that oaks were very tolerant to SO, under field conditions. They
ranked several other tree species on 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 SO.) in 1903, and included red and white beech as sensi-
tive. Plum was 1i8ted 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 SO,. 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 SO, exposures caused conifers to prematurely shed several
years of older fleedles. 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 SO, effects on vegetation. The more modern literature is of
primary concefn in this review. For a more extensive review of the
historical aspects of SO, injury to vegetation see references 17, 18, 19
and 35. Russian literatére was reviewed in references 2 and 3.

One of the most useful general European publications dealing with
SO, 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 SO
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


26.

27.

28.

29.

30.

31.

32.

33.

34.

35.

36.

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.

Taylor, 0. C. 1969. Importance of peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) as a
phytotoxic air pollutant. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc. 19:247-
351.

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.

Thompson, C. R., E. Hensel, and G. Kats. 1969. Effects of photo-
chemical air pollutants on Zinfandel grapes. HortScience 4:222-
224.

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.

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.

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.

Treshow, M. 1970. Environment and plant response. McGraw Hill
Pub., N.Y. 422 pp.

Treshow, M. 1970. Ozone damage to plants. Environ. Pollut.
1:155-161.

Treshow, M. and D. Stewart. 1973. Ozone sensitivity of plants in
natural communities. Biol. Conserv. 5:209-214.

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


Hill et al. (15) recently examined the SO, sensitivity of native
desert species by exposing plants in portable &xposure chambers. Plants
were subjected to SO, concentrations ranging from 0.5 to 11.0 ppm for 2
hours. Concentratiohs 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 SO
based mainly on his own experience, but with some input from other
studies (22). In addition, a recent publication (23) listed the relative
SO, sensitivity of species growing near a pulp and paper mill (Table 13).

Temple (34) determined the dosage of SO, needed to injure four
trees commonly planted in urban areas of the Northeast. Trees were
exposed to 0.5 to 8.0 ppm SO, for 2 hours to 30 days. Results indicated
that tolerance to SO, increaged in the following order: Chinese elm
(aos arvifolia Jaéq.). 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 SO, in southern Quebec. Table 14 summarizes his findings
based on field obsefvations.

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 $0, 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


RESEARCH REPORTING SERIES

Research reports of the Office of Research and Development, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, have been grouped into five series. These five broad
categories were established to facilitate further development and application of
environmental technology. Elimination of traditional grouping was consciously

planned to foster technology transfer and a maximum interface in related fields.
The five series are:

1. Environmental Health Effects Research
2. Environmental Protection Technology
3. Ecological Research

4. Environmental Monitoring

5. Socioeconomic Environmental Studies

This report has been assigned to the ECOLOGICAL RESEARCH series. This series
describes research on the effects of pollution on humans, plant and animal
species, and materials. Problems are assessed for their long- and short-term
influences. Investigations include formation, transport, and pathway studies to
determine the fate of pollutants and their effects. This work provides the technical
basis for setting standards to minimize undesirable changes in living organisms
in the aquatic, terrestrial, and-‘atmospheric environments.

This document is available to the public through the National Technical Informa-
tion Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161.


One of the most comprehensive listings of the SO, sensitivity of
woody plants was presented by Ranft and Dassler (31) ttable 26). Their
report was based on a series of artificial SO, chamber exposures conducted
by 1967 to 1969 in Germany. Species were ranked on a 20-point basis as
to their sensitivity or tolerance. Concentrations of SO, 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 16. SULFUR DIOXIDE CONCENTRATIONS CAUSING THRESHOLD INJURY TO
VARIOUS SENSITIVITY GROUPINGS OF VEGETATION? *> (16)

Maximum Sensitivity Grouping
Average Sensitive Intermediate Tolerant
Concentration (ppm $0) (ppm $05) (ppm $05)
Peak 1.0-1.5 1.5-2.0 > 2.0
1-Hour 0.5-1.0 1.0-2.0 > 2.0
3-Hour 0.3-0.6 0.6-0.8 > 0.8
Southern Pines Maples White Oaks
Red and Black Oaks Locust Dogwood
White Ash Sweetgum Peach
Sumacs Cherry
Elms
Tuliptree

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.

OField 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 20. SUSCEPTIBILITY OF HARDWOODS TO "SMOKE" DAMAGE FROM A COPPER
SMELTER IN TURKEY® (1)

duglans regia?
Ostrya carpinifolia

Castanea sativa
Corylus avellana
Surbus aucuparia
Fraxinus spp.
Carpinus spp.
Alnus. glabra
Betula verrucosa
Populus tremula
Tilia sp.
Diospyros lotus.
Fagus orientalis
Robinia pseudoacacia
Ulmus campestris

Quercus sessiliflora

: c
Buxus sempervirens

Field observations.
Dwost sensitive.
“Most tolerant.

(Adapted from Acatay, A.

1968.

in Murgul]. Instanbul Univ. Orman Fak. Derg. Seri A 18:1-17. 1969.

For. Abstr. 30:4104 (Turkish).

33

[Smoke damage from the copper-smelting works


TABLE 11. RELATIVE SO, SUSCEPTIBILITY OF FOREST TREE SPECIES GROWING
NEAR SUDBURY, ONTARIO® (8)

Species Intensity Factor?
Trempling aspen 74°
Jack pine 83
White birch 84
White pined 84
Larch 104
Large-toothed aspen 106
Willow , 120
Alder 123
Red pine 126
Balsam poplar 129
Austrian pine 132
Witch hazel 136
Red oak 175
Sugar maple 184
White spruce 200
Cedar e

4Field exposure.

bintensity factor based on S05 concentration and time needed to cause injury.

Most sensitive.

Wait not tolerate repeated exposures as well as trembling aspen or white

birch (poorer regenerative capacity).
Most 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 2. SOME SUITABLE CRITERIA OF FUME DAMAGE TO FOREST TREES AND FORESTS (20)

Criteria of Effect

Number of
Individuals

Individual

Population

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:

(Stand) Ecosystem

x -
x -
x x

x

x
x x
x x
x x

4x = useful criterion.

(Reprinted from "Air Quality Criteria and Their Importance for Forests," 1971 by W.
from Forstliche Bundesversuchsanstalt)

Knabe with permission


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 elliottii engelm.), shortleaf
{Pinus echinata mill.), and loblolly pine (Pinus taeda L.) seedlings (2)
ana certain clones of hybrid poplar (Populus deTtoides Bartr. x Populus
trichocarpa Torr. and Gray) (16) have been shown to be very susceptible.
Sugar maple (Acer saccharum 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,)

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 (Hejareu leucadendra) (sensitive), orange
{Citrus sinensis osbeck) (intermediate) and heath (Erica sp.) (resistant).

very comprehensive listing was presented by Van Haut and Stratmenn

55


37.

38.

39.

Wilhour, R. G. 1970. Influence of ozone on white ash (Fraxinus
americana L.). Pa. State Univ. Center Air Environ. Studies Pub.
No. 188-71. 86 pp.

Wood, F. A. and J. B. Coppolino. 1971. The influence of ozone on
selected woody ornamentals. Phytopathology 61:133 (Abstract).

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


TABLE 26. SEQUENCE LIST ACCORDING TO LEAF DAMAGE AS A RESULT OF S0,
TEST EXPOSURE FROM 1967 TO 1969 IN GERMANY? (31)

Species Points

Very Susceptible:

Pinus sylvestris 4.3°
Hypericum calycinum 4.5
Pinus rigida 4.7
Larix decidua 4.8
Salix Panik purpurea 4.8
Pinus ponderosa 5.0
Picea abies 5.1

Susceptible:

Salix fragilis
Salix pentandra

Berberis vulgaris
Amelanchier floribunda
Abies concolor

Rubus idacus

Pinus griffithii
Tilia cordata
Chenomeles japonica
Clemalis montana rubens
Picea om omorika

Pinus deffreyi

Pinus montana

Salix Viminalis
Vitis vinifera
Potentilla fruticosa
Salix alba/fragilis

Syringa Mrs. E. Harding
CoryTus colurna
Hydrangea paniculata
inus nigra

Spiraea arguta

Cotoneaster bullata

Larix Teptolepis
Physocarpus opulifolius

NNN NNN NDAMDAAADAADAAAAAAA MM
BFP BODDDO DAMON TP WNHWNHDY

41


TABLE 26. Continued.

Species Points
Rosa Gabriele privat 9.7
Elaeagnus angustifolia 9.9
Cornus sanguinea 10.0
Spiraea menziesii 10.0

yringa vulgaris 10.0
Picea pungens glauca 10.3
Coryopteris claudonensis 10.5
Rosa canina 10.5
Fraxinus excelsior 10.7
Hamamelis japonica 10.7
Taburnum anagyroides 10.7
Ribes aureum 10.7
Ulmus campestre 10.7
Viburnum rhytidophy11um 10.7
Halesia diptera 11.0
Hippophae rhamnoides 11.0
Rhododendron japonicum 11.0
Rubus fruticosa 11.0
Sambucus nigra 11.0
Sorbus aucuparia 11.3
Alnus glutinosa 11.3
Acer incana 11.5
Berberis thunbergi 11.7
ayringa japonica 11.7
Chamaecyparis Tawsoniana 12.0
oa Tus ave Jana 13-0

ydonia vulgaris .

orsythia intermedia 12.2

esculus hippocastanum v3

Rosa rugosa +3
Phi lade! phus coronarius Ve

racantha coccinea .
Fagus silvaticus 12.7

Deutzia scabra 12.8
Cercidiphytlum japonicum 13.0
Prunus avium 13.0
Prunus Serrulata 13.0
Sorbaria chinensis 13.0
amarix tetrandra 13.0
Cornus mas 13.3
Pinus peuce 13.3

43


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.