A Contribution to the Experimental Quantification of Dry Deposition to the Canopy of Coniferous Trees

  • S. Barth
  • D. Klockow


A field method is presented, which allows to determine dry deposition rates to the canopy of a spruce tree for some atmospheric constitutents such as Ca2+, Mg2+Na+, Cl- and total sulfur. The determination is based on the fact, that substances deposited through dry processes on needle surfaces, are washed off by subsequent rainfall and therefore are accumulated and can be measured in precipitation collected below the canopy. First results of this mass flux balance model, which directly includes the receiving surface, are discussed. The calculations carried out under neglection of source and sink terms indicate reasonable results for chloride and total sulfur, which are not subjected to considerable leaching or immobilization. For lead, which is immobilized on plant surfaces, the method presented underestimates the dry mass fluxes; for manganese, which is washed out of the needles to a great extent, it clearly overestimates them.


Mass Flux Total Sulfur Sink Term Sulfate Particle Sulfur Sulfur 
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. Fowler, D. (1978) ‘Dry deposition of SO2 on agricultural crops’, Atmos. Environ. 12, 369–373.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Fowler, D. (1980) ‘Removal of sulphur and nitrogen compounds from the atmosphere in rain and by dry deposition’, in Drabløs, D. and A. Tollan (eds.), Proc. Int. Conf. Ecol. Impact of Acid Precip., Sanderford, Norway, March 11–14, 22–32.Google Scholar
  3. Fowler, D., and I.D. Leith (1985) ‘Biophysical mechanisms in the uptake of air pollutants’, Staub Reinhalt. Luft 45, 253–256.Google Scholar
  4. Garland, J.A. (1983) ‘Principles of dry deposition; application to acidic species and ozone’, in VDI-Berichte Nr. 500, VDI-Verlag, Düsseldorf, 83–95.Google Scholar
  5. Lindberg, S.E., and G.M. Lovett (1983) ‘Application of surrogate surface and leaf extraction methods to estimation of dry deposition to plant canopies’, in Pruppacher, H.R., Semonin, R.G., and W.C.N. Slinn (eds.), Precipitation Scavenging, Dry Deposition and Resuspension, Elsevier, New York-Amsterdam-Oxford, Vol. 2, 837–848.Google Scholar
  6. Mayer (1983) ‘Interaction of forest canopies with atmospheric constituents: aluminium and heavy metals’, in Ulrich, B., and J. Pankrath (eds.), Effects of Accumulation of Air Pollutants in Forest Ecosystems, Reidel, Dordrecht, 47–55.Google Scholar
  7. Mitterhuber, E., Pfanz, H. and W.M. Kaiser (1989) ‘Leaching of solutes by the action of acidic rain: a comparison of efflux from twigs and single needles of Picea abies (L. Karst.)’, Plant, Cell and Environment 12, 93–100.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Sehmel, G.A. (1980) ‘Particle and gas dry deposition - a review’, Atmos. Environ. 14, 983–1011.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Seufert, G. (1988) ‘Untersuchungen zum Einfluβ von Luftverunreinigungen auf den wassergebundenen Stofftransport in Modellökosystemen mit jungen Waldbäumen’, Berichte des Forschungszentrums Waldökosysteme, Univ. Göttingen, Reihe A, Bd. 44.Google Scholar
  10. Ulrich, B. (1983) ‘Interaction of forest canopies with atmospheric constituents: SO2, alkali and earth alkali cations and chloride’, in Ulrich, B., and J. Pankrath (eds.), Effects of Accumulation of Air Pollutants in Forest Ecosystems, Reidel, Dordrecht, 33–45.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1989

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Barth
    • 1
  • D. Klockow
    • 1
  1. 1.Fachbereich ChemieUniversität DortmundDortmund 50Germany

Personalised recommendations