, Volume 52, Issue 1, pp 16–21 | Cite as

Ecology of SO2 resistance

IV. Predicting metabolic responses of fumigated shrubs and trees
  • W. E. Winner
  • G. W. Koch
  • H. A. Mooney


10 broadleafed trees and shrubs native to the mediterranean climactic zone in California were surveyed for their photosynthetic and stomatal responses to SO2. These species ranged from drought deciduous to evergreen and had diverse responses to SO2. These results suggest an approach for predicting SO2 resistances of plants.

We found that conductance values of plants in SO2-free air can be used to estimate the quantity of SO2 which plants absorb. These estimates are based on conductance values for plants in non-limiting environmental conditions. SO2 absorption quantities are then used to predict relative photosynthesis following the fumigation. Thus, relative photosynthesis of plants following fumigation can be predicted on the basis of conductance in SO2-free air. This approach to predicting SO2 resistances of plants includes analysis of their stomatal responses to fumigation, their characteristics of SO2 adsorption and absorption, and their change in photosynthesis resulting from SO2 stress.


Photosynthesis Stomatal Response Broadleafed Tree Diverse Response Absorption Quantity 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Anderson LE, Duggan JX (1977) Inhibition of light modulation of chloroplastic enzyme activity by sulfite. Oecologia (Berl) 28:147–151Google Scholar
  2. Black VJ, Unsworth MH (1979) Effects of low concentrations of sulphur dioxide on net photosynthesis and dark respiration of Vicia faba. J Exp Bot 30:473–483Google Scholar
  3. Bressan RA, Wilson LG, Filner P (1978) Mechanism of resistance to sulfur dioxide in the cucurbitaceae. Plant Physiol 61:761–767Google Scholar
  4. Elkiey T, Ormrod DP (1980) Sorption of ozone and sulfur dioxide by petunia leaves. J Environ Qual 9:93–95Google Scholar
  5. Elkiey T, Ormrod DP, Pelletier RL (1979) Stomatal and leaf surface features as related to ozone sensitivity of petunia cultivars. J Amer Soc Hort Sci 104:510–514Google Scholar
  6. Gulmon SL, Chu CC (1981) The effects of light and nitrogen on photosynthesis, leaf characteristics, and dry matter allocation in the chaparral shrub, Diplacus aurantiacus. Oecologia (Berl) 49:207–212Google Scholar
  7. Hallgren J-E (1978) Physiological and biochemical effects of sulfur dioxide on plants. In: Nriagu JO (ed), Sulfur in the environment. Part II: Ecological impacts. J Wiley, NYGoogle Scholar
  8. Harrison AT, Small E, Mooney HA (1971) Drought relationships and distribution of two mediterranean-climate California plant communities. Ecology 52:869–875Google Scholar
  9. Malhotra SS (1979) Effects of aqueous sulphur dioxide on chlorophyll destruction in Pinus contorta. New Phytol 78:101–109Google Scholar
  10. McLaughlin SB, Shriner DS, McConathy RK, Mann LK (1979) The effects of SO2 dosage kinetics and exposure frequency on photosynthesis and transpiration of kidney beans (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) Environ and Exp Bot 19:179–191Google Scholar
  11. Miller PC, Stoner WA (1979). Canopy structure and environmental interactions. In: Solbrig OT, et al. (eds), Topics in plant population biology. Columbia Univ Press, NYGoogle Scholar
  12. Mooney HA, Dunn EL (1970) Photosynthetic systems of mediterranean-climate shrubs and trees of California and Chile. Amer Nat 104:447–453Google Scholar
  13. Mooney HA, Ferrar PJ, Slatyer RO (1978) Photosynthetic capacity and carbon allocation patterns in diverse growth forms of Eucalyptus. Oecologia (Berl) 36:103–111Google Scholar
  14. Muller Rn, Miller JE, Sprugel DG (1979) Photosynthetic response of fieldgrown soybeans to fumigations with sulfur dioxide. J Appl Ecol 16:567–576Google Scholar
  15. Ryrie IJ, Jogendorf AT (1971) Inhibition of photophosphorylation in spinach chloroplasts by inorganic sulfate. J Biol Chem 246:582–588Google Scholar
  16. Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1969) Biometry. WH Freeman, San FranciscoGoogle Scholar
  17. Winner WE, Mooney HA (1980a) Ecology of SO2 resistance: I. Effects of fumigations on gas exchange of deciduous and evergreen shrubs. Oecologia (Berl) 44:290–295Google Scholar
  18. Winner WE, Mooney HA (1980b) Ecology of SO2 resistance: II. Photosynthetic changes of shrubs in relation to SO2 absorption and stomatal behavior. Oecologia (Berl) 44:296–302Google Scholar
  19. Winner WE, Mooney HA (1980c) Ecology of SO2 resistance: III. Metabolic changes of C3 and C4 Atriplex species due to SO2 fumigations. Oecologia (Berl) 46:49–54Google Scholar
  20. Winner WE, Mooney HA (1980d) Responses of Hawaiian plants to volcanic sulfur dioxide: Stomatal behavior and foliar injury. Science 210:789–791Google Scholar
  21. Ziegler I (1975) The effect of SO2 pollution on plant metabolism. Residue Rev 56:79–104Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 1982

Authors and Affiliations

  • W. E. Winner
    • 1
  • G. W. Koch
    • 1
  • H. A. Mooney
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Biological SciencesStanford UniversityStanfordUSA

Personalised recommendations