Premium
The effects of SO 2 and O 3 fumigation on acid deposition and foliar leaching in the Liphook forest fumigation experiment
Author(s) -
SKEFFINGTON R. A.,
SUTHERLAND P. M.
Publication year - 1995
Publication title -
plant, cell and environment
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 2.646
H-Index - 200
eISSN - 1365-3040
pISSN - 0140-7791
DOI - 10.1111/j.1365-3040.1995.tb00360.x
Subject(s) - fumigation , leaching (pedology) , throughfall , deposition (geology) , lysimeter , scots pine , chemistry , cycling , environmental chemistry , environmental science , ozone , agronomy , soil water , botany , soil science , biology , pinus <genus> , history , paleontology , archaeology , organic chemistry , sediment
The ambient pollution climate at the Liphook forest fumigation site, where coniferous trees were fumigated with SO 2 and O 3 , for 4 years under field conditions, was characteristic of the fringes of the areas where pollutant effects are a problem. Experimental treatments increased SO 2 concentrations to levels more characteristic of Eastern Europe, and summer O 3 concentrations by 30%. Deposition of SO 2 to the soil between the trees (inferred from shallow lysimeters) was significant, the deposition velocity being 2–1 mms −1 . Deposition to Scots pine and Sitka spruce canopies was greater, deposition velocities being 8.5 and 9.4 mm s −1 , respectively. These high values may perhaps be explained by co‐deposition with NH 3 . Calculations assume that dry deposition was the sole source of SO 4 2− gain in throughfall, and that there was no significant retention by the trees. There was a trend for O 3 to enhance SO 2 deposition to both soil and trees. Fumigation with SO 2 led to a significant increase in leaching of cations from foliage. Each species neutralized about 63% of the dry‐deposited SO 2 , predominantly by ion exchange for Ca and K. Equations are provided which allow calculation of foliar leaching given SO 2 concentrations or SO 4 2− deposition. Fumigation increased the rate of nutrient cycling considerably, without affecting foliar concentrations or damaging the trees. Ozone treatments did not enhance foliar leaching, calling into question some suggested mechanisms for the causes of forest decline.