Advertisement

Water, Air, and Soil Pollution

, Volume 85, Issue 2, pp 841–846 | Cite as

Factors affecting the content of heavy metals in bulk atmospheric precipitation, throughfall and stemflow in central Bohemia, Czech Republic

  • P. Skřivan
  • J. Rusek
  • D. Fottová
  • M. Burian
  • L. Minařík
Part IV Acidification and Heavy Metals

Abstract

Content of copper, manganese, lead, and zinc in samples of bulk precipitation, throughfall and stemflow has been studied in a forest area in central Bohemia. The sampling localities are situated on two types of bedrock, granite and cenomaniau sandstones. The content in bulk precipitation reflects the impact of fossil fuel emission sources and the vehicular sources of lead. The deposition rate of elements in throughfall, in comparison with that of the deposition on an open land, exhibits increased values in essential microelements (in Mn approx. 45 times, Zh-5 times, Cu and Cd-2 times), with significant seasonal fluctuations. The value of the same ratio for ecotoxic lead is 0.23. The enhanced flux of elements in throughfall is ascribed mainly to the metabolic processes of the trees. Differences in the chemical composition of throughfall and stemflow collected on stands with different kind of bedrock are ascribed to various degree of accessibility of the micronutrients and various intensity of their vegetation uptake.

Key words

Heavy metals precipitation throughfall stemflow soil metabolic activity trees uptake 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, C.M. and Hutchinson, T.C.: 1984, New Phytologist 97, 463–478.Google Scholar
  2. Arthur, M.A and Fahey, T.J. 1993, Canad. J. Forest Res. 23, 738–742.Google Scholar
  3. Atteia, O. Dambrine, É.: 1993, Ann. Sci. For. 50, 445–459.Google Scholar
  4. Berg, T., Royset, O. Steinnes, E.: 1994, Atmosph. Environ. 21, 3519–3536.Google Scholar
  5. Capellato, R., Peters, N.E. and Ragsdale, H.L.: 1993, Canad. J. Forest Res. 23, (6), 1114–1124.Google Scholar
  6. Fritsche, U.: 1992, Environ. Pottut. 75, 251–257.Google Scholar
  7. Heinrichs, H. and Mayer, R.: 1980, J. Environ. Pottut. 9, 111–118.Google Scholar
  8. Hoffiman, W.A Jr., Lindberg, S.E. and Turner, R.R.: 1980, J. Environ. Qual. 9, 95–100.Google Scholar
  9. Kazda, M. and Glatzel, G.: 1984, Z. Pflanzenernaehr. Bodenk. 147, 743–752.Google Scholar
  10. Kopeszki, H.: 1988, Zool. Am. 221, 368–378.Google Scholar
  11. Kopeszki, H.: 1992, Pedobiologia, 36, 295–305.Google Scholar
  12. Kotková, P., Skřivan, P. and Burian, M.: Ecol. Environ. Statistics (in press).Google Scholar
  13. Morrison, I.K., Foster, N.W. and Nicholson, J.A.: Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 61, 243–252.Google Scholar
  14. Norden, U.: 1991, Water, Air, and Soil Pollut. 60, 209–230.Google Scholar
  15. Novo, A., Buffoni, A. and Tita, M.: 1992, Environ. Pollut. 75, 199–208.Google Scholar
  16. Potter, C.S.: 1991, Canad. J. Forest Res. 21, 222–229.Google Scholar
  17. Potter, C.S.: 1992, Plant and Soil, 140, 249–254.Google Scholar
  18. Rusek, J.: Unpublished data. Google Scholar
  19. Tukey, H.B. Jr.: 1970, In: Ecology of leaf surface micro-organisms, (Ed. T.F. Preece, C.H. Dickinson), pp 68–80, Academic Press, New York.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1995

Authors and Affiliations

  • P. Skřivan
    • 1
  • J. Rusek
    • 2
  • D. Fottová
    • 3
  • M. Burian
    • 1
  • L. Minařík
    • 1
  1. 1.Geological Institute, ASCRPrague 6
  2. 2.Institute of Soil Biology ASCRČeské Budějovice
  3. 3.Czech Geological SurveyPrague 1Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations