Assessment of ozone effects on five varieties of tobacco via fumigation method

Article
  • 24 Downloads

Abstract

To assess the susceptibility of five varieties of tobacco to ozone, nine rounds of fumigation experiments were performed. These tobacco varieties were exposed to a range of ozone concentrations in a single-pass chamber fumigation system for short periods. A dose of 7.5 pphm did not produce visible injury in any tobacco variety. Tobacco cultivars; Bel-B, Weather Fleck and ZZ100 exhibited no visible injury up to 26 pphm. However, doses in excess of 16 pphm caused visible injury in cultivars Bel-W3 and Dynes. Awareness of the susceptibility levels of these cultivars to ozone assist biological monitoring process in field experiments. Biomonitoring is considered to be a valuable method for ozone assessment for situations where air pollution monitoring by instruments in remote locations is too expensive.

Key words

Biological monitoring fumigation open-chamber system ozone 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Lee, E. H., Chlorophyll fluorescence as an indicator to detect differential tolerance of snapbean cultivars in response to 03 stress. Taiwania, 36: 220–234, 1991Google Scholar
  2. Mandercheid, R., Jager, H. J., Schoeneberger, Dose-response relationship of ozone effects on foliar levels of antioxidants, soluable polyamines and peroxydase activity of Pinus taeda (L.). Assessment of the usefulness as early ozone indicators. Vereinigung fur angewandte botanik, 65: 373–386, 1991Google Scholar
  3. Mooi, J., Practical problems of physical environment of open top chambers, measurement techniques, Microclimate and plant growth in open top chambers. Air pollution research report, Commission of European Communities, 5: 30–43, 1986Google Scholar
  4. Mooi, J. and H. H. W. Jolink, Computer controlled plant growth cabinets for fumigation experiments/ Environmental research with plants in closed chambers. In proceedings of an international symposium, Commission of European Communities, 26: 43–51, 1989Google Scholar
  5. Posthumus, A. C., Experimentelle untersuchungen der wirkung von ozon und peroxyacetylnitrat (PAN) auf pflanzen. VDI-Berichte, 270: 153–161, 1977Google Scholar
  6. Sandermann, H. Jr., Ozone and plant health. Phytopathology, 34: 347–366, 1996CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Schmieden, U. and A. Wild, Changes in levels of atocopherol and ascorbate in spruce needles to Mg2+ deficiency and ozone, Zeitshrift fur Naturforschung, Section G. Biosciences, 49: 171–180, 1994Google Scholar
  8. Sun E. J., Ozone injury to leafy sweet potato and spinach in northern Taiwan. Botanical bulletin of academia sinica Taipei, 35: 165–170, 1994Google Scholar
  9. Tingey, D. T., R. A. Reinert, J. A. Dunning and W. W. Heck, Foliar injury responses of eleven plant species to ozone/sulfur dioxide mixtures. Atmospheric environment, 7: 201–208, 1972Google Scholar
  10. Tonneijck A. E. G., Effects of various ozone exposures on the susceptibility of bean leaves (Phaseolus vulgaris L.) to Botrytis cinerea. Environmental pollution, 85: 59–65, 1994CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Tonneijck A. E. G. and G. Leone, Changes in susceptibility of bean leaves (Phaseolus vulgaris to Sclerotinia sclerotiorum and Botrytis cinerea by preinoculative ozone exposures. Plant Pathology, 9: 313–322, 1993Google Scholar
  12. Treshow M. and N. L. Lacasse, Diagnosing vegetation injury caused by air pollution. Applied science associates INC., U.S.A., (developed for Environmental Protection Agency of the U.S.A.), 1997Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Islamic Azad University 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental ScienceUniversity of QueenslandBrisbaneAustralia

Personalised recommendations