Advertisement

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 88, Issue 1–2, pp 189–201 | Cite as

Effect of industrial emissions on membrane permeability of epiphytic lichens in Northern Finland and the Kola Peninsula industrial areas

  • S. Tarhanen
  • T. Holopaineni
  • J. Poikolainen
  • J. Oksanen
Article
  • 53 Downloads

Abstract

The impact of air pollution on membrane permeability of the epiphytic lichens Hypogymnia physodes and Bryoria fuscescens was studied in northern Finland and the Kola Peninsula to assess the effects of the Kola industrial emissions. The conductivity and quantity of K+ in leachates of the lichens were determined both as absolute and relative leakage. The K+ leakage from the lichens was the most sensitive indicator of membrane disturbance. Positive relationships between K+ leakage and decreasing distance from pollution sources and modelled atmospheric SO2 concentrations were found and the K+ leakage and Cu and Ni concentrations of Scots pine bark were also highly correlated. The relative conductivity of leachates was inversely related to distance from sources, while the absolute conductivity of leachates from lichens was positively correlated with bark S. The ion leakage was higher in fruticose Bryoria fuscescens than in foliose Hypogymnia physodes, but the overall response to pollution was similar in both species. The methods used were able to identify areas of disturbed membrane function around the Kola industrial areas and local point sources in northern Finland. However, the majority of the studied sites in Finnish Lapland can be regarded as undisturbed background areas with respect to these sensitive lichens.

Key words

Air pollution epiphytic lichens membrane permeability potassium conductivity 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Alebic-Juretic, A., and Arko-Pijevac, M.: 1989, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 47, 25.Google Scholar
  2. Buck, G. W., and Brown, D. H.: 1979, Ann. Bot. 44, 51.Google Scholar
  3. Crawley, M. J.: 1993, GLIM for Ecologists, Blackwell, Oxford, pp. 165–177.Google Scholar
  4. Efron, B., and Tibshirani, R.: 1986, Statistical Science 1, 54.Google Scholar
  5. Fields, R., and St. Clair, L.: 1984, Bryologist 87, 297.Google Scholar
  6. Gorshkov, V. V.: 1993, ‘Epiphytic lichens in polluted and unpolluted pine forests of the Kola Peninsula’, in M. V. Kozlov, E. Haukioja, and V. T. Yarmishkov (eds.), Aerial Pollution in Kola Peninsula. Kola Scientific Centre, Apatity, pp. 279–289.Google Scholar
  7. Holopainen, T.: 1984, Ann. Bot. Fennici 21, 213.Google Scholar
  8. Holopainen, T., and Kauppi, M.: 1989, Lichenologist 21, 119.Google Scholar
  9. Kubin, E.: 1990, ‘A survey of element concentrations in the epiphytic lichen Hypogymnia physodes in Finland in 1985–86’, in P. Kauppi, P. Anttila, and K. Kenttämies (eds.), Acidification in Finland. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, pp. 421–446.Google Scholar
  10. Kubin, E.: 1991, Metsäntutkimuslaitoksen Tiedonantoja 373, 86.Google Scholar
  11. Larson, D. W.: 1989, Oecologia 78, 87.Google Scholar
  12. Nash T. H., III, Kappen, L., Lösch, R., Matthes-Sears, U., and Larson, D. W.: 1987, ‘Cold resistance of lichens’, in E. Peveling (ed.), Progress and Problems in Lichenology in the Eighties. J. Cramer, Berlin/Stuttgart, pp. 313–317.Google Scholar
  13. Nieboer, E., Richardson, D. H. S., Lavoie, P., and Padovan, D.: 1979, New Phytol. 82, 621.Google Scholar
  14. Ojansuu, R., and Henttonen, H.: 1983, Silva Fennica 17, 143.Google Scholar
  15. Pearson, L. C.: 1985, Atmos. Environ 19, 209.Google Scholar
  16. Pearson, L. C., and Henriksson, E.: 1981, Bryologist 4, 515.Google Scholar
  17. Pearson, L. C., and Rodgers, G. A.: 1982, Phyton (Austria) 22, 329.Google Scholar
  18. Puckett, K. J., Nieboer, E., Flora, W. P., and Richardson, D. H. S.: 1973, New Phytol. 72, 141.Google Scholar
  19. Puckett, K.J.: 1976, Can.J.Bot. 54, 2695.Google Scholar
  20. Puckett, K. J., Tomassini, F. D., Nieboer E., and Richardson, D. H. S.: 1977, New Phytol. 79, 135.Google Scholar
  21. Rühling, Å., Brumelis, G., Goltsova, N., Kvietkus, K., Kubin, E., Liiv, S., Magnússon, S., Mäkinen, A., Pilegaard, K., Rasmussen, L., Sander, E., and Steinnes, E.: 1992, Nord 12, 1.Google Scholar
  22. Tomassini, R D., Lavoie, P., Puckett, K. J., Nieboer, E., and Richardson, D. H. S.: 1977, New Phytol. 79, 147.Google Scholar
  23. Tikkanen, E., and Mikkola, K.: 1991, Metsüntutkimuslaitoksen Tiedonantoja 373, 86.Google Scholar
  24. Tuovinen, J.-P., Laurila, T., Lättilä, H., Ryaboshapko, A., Brukhanov, P., and Korolev, S.: 1993, Atmos. Environ. 27A, 1379.Google Scholar
  25. Türk, R.: 1975, Flora 164, 133.Google Scholar
  26. Virkkula, A., Mäkinen, M., Pakkanen, T., and Hillamo, R.: 1992. ‘Air pollutants in Sevettijärvi summary of the measurements in 1992’. Paper Presented on Seminar: Air Pollution Problems in the Northern Region of Fennoscandia included Kola. Svanvik, Norway, 1–3 June, 1993.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Tarhanen
    • 1
  • T. Holopaineni
    • 1
  • J. Poikolainen
    • 2
  • J. Oksanen
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Environmental SciencesUniversity of KuopioKuopioFinland
  2. 2.Muhos Research StationFinnish Forest Research InstituteMuhosFinland
  3. 3.Department of Plant Ecology, Institute of Biology and GeologyUniversity of TromsøTromsøNorway

Personalised recommendations