Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
Effect of dust load on the leaf attributes of the tree speciesgrowing along the roadside
R. K. Chaturvedi & Shikha Prasad & Savita Rana &
S. M. Obaidullah & Vijay Pandey & Hema Singh
Received: 24 August 2011 /Accepted: 31 January 2012 /Published online: 25 February 2012# Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2012
Abstract Dust is considered as one of the most wide-spread air pollutants. The objective of the study was toanalyse the effect of dust load (DL) on the leaf attributesof the four tree species planted along the roadside at a lowpollution Banaras HinduUniversity (BHU) campus and ahighly polluted industrial area (Chunar, Mirzapur) ofIndia. The studied leaf attributes were: leaf area, specificleaf area (SLA), relative water content (RWC), leaf ni-trogen content (LNC), leaf phosphorus content (LPC),chlorophyll content (Chl), maximum stomatal conduc-tance (Gsmax), maximum photosynthetic rate (Amax) andintrinsic water-use efficiency (WUEi). Results showedsignificant effect of sites and species for DL and the leafattributes. Average DL across the four tree species wasgreater at Chunar, whereas, the average values of leafattributes were greater at the BHU campus. MaximumDL was observed for Tectona grandis at Chunar site andminimum for Syzygium cumini at BHU campus. Acrossthe two sites, maximum value of SLA, Chl and Gsmax
were exhibited by S. cumini, whereas, the greatest valueof RWC, LNC, LPC, Amax and WUEi were observed inAnthocephalus cadamba. A. cadamba and S. cuminiexhibited 28 and 27 times more dust accumulation, re-spectively, at the most polluted Chunar site as comparedto the BHU campus. They also exhibited less reduction in
Amax due to dust deposition as compared to the other twospecies. Therefore, both these species may be promotedfor plantation along the roadside of the sites havinggreater dust deposition.
Keywords Dust load . Leaf attributes . Stomatalconductance . Photosynthetic rate .Water-useefficiency
Introduction
Dust is a collection of the solid particles of natural orindustrial origin, generally formed by disintegrationprocesses (Faith and Atkisson 1972) and is consideredas one of the most widespread air pollutants (Arslanand Boybay 1990). It has been estimated that about 30million tonnes of dust enter the atmosphere each yearworldwide (van Jaarsveld 2008). Sources of dust pol-lution include agriculture related activities, powerplants, cement factories, etc. Also, due to increasedreliance on road transport, roads have become a com-mon source of dusts as driving of heavy vehicles overunpaved roads, loosen soil structure and soil packingdensity. It reduces the soil cohesion and mechanicalstability resulting in accelerated wind erosion andemission of dust particles into the air (Weinan et al.1998). Studies on the plant performance at the pollut-ed sites have shown that the plant growth is reduceddue to air pollution and the extent of reduction ingrowth depends on the plant species, concentration
Environ Monit Assess (2013) 185:383–391DOI 10.1007/s10661-012-2560-x
R. K. Chaturvedi : S. Prasad : S. Rana : S. M. Obaidullah :V. Pandey :H. Singh (*)Ecosystems Analysis Laboratory, Department of Botany,Banaras Hindu University,Varanasi 221005, Indiae-mail: [email protected]
and distribution of pollutants and a number of envi-ronmental factors (see Pandey and Pandey 1994 forreferences). In India, the dust pollutants contributearound 40% of total air pollution problems (Chauhanand Sanjeev 2008).
Various studies have reported a serious setback inplant physiology due to the effect of dust (Anda 1986;Seinfeld 1975). Chemical composition of dust, its par-ticulate size and deposition rate determine its influenceor toxicity on plants (van Jaarsveld 2008). Dust partic-ulates are reported to be absorbed through the outersurface of the plants showing some common effects suchas chlorophyll degradation, necrosis, reduction in photo-synthesis and decline in growth (Davison and Blakemore1976). Dust deposition reduces diffusive resistance andincreases temperature of leaf making the tree more likelyto be susceptible to drought (Farmer 1993). Dustedleaves allow greater penetration of road salt, which fur-ther increases water stress (Fluckiger et al. 1982). Opticalproperties of leaves, particularly the surface reflectancein the visible and shortwave infrared radiation range arealtered due to surface dust deposits (Eller 1977; Hope etal. 1991; Keller and Lamprecht 1995). Cement dustcontains heavy metals like nickel, cobalt, lead, chromi-um and pollutants hazardous to the biotic environment,with adverse impact for vegetation, human and animalhealth and ecosystems (Baby et al. 2008). Alkaline ce-ment dusts (pH≥9) may cause direct injury to leaf tissues(Vardaka et al. 1995) or indirect injury through alterationof soil pH (Hope et al. 1991; Auerbach et al. 1997).
The objective of the study was to analyse the effect ofDL on the leaf attributes of the selected tree speciesplanted along the roadside at a low pollution BanarasHindu University (BHU) campus and a highly pollutedindustrial area (Chunar, Mirzapur). Nine observed leafattributes were: leaf area (LA), specific leaf area (SLA),relative water content (RWC), leaf nitrogen content(LNC), leaf phosphorus content (LPC), chlorophyll con-tent (Chl), maximum stomatal conductance (Gsmax), max-imum photosynthetic rate (Amax) and intrinsic water-useefficiency (WUEi) of the tree species at those sites.
Materials and methods
Study area
The present investigation included two sites, BHUmain campus (25°19′60″N and 83°00′00″E, 76 ma.s.
l.) in Varanasi district and Chunar (25°07′60″N and82°54′00″E, 83 ma.s.l.) in Mirzapur district of UttarPradesh, India. The soils at both sites are fertile, allu-vial type, sandy loam in texture, formed by the depo-sition of sediments of river Ganga. The climate of thearea is tropical monsoon with three distinct seasons,hot and dry summer (April to June), warm and wetrainy (July to September) and cool and dry winterseason (November to February). March and Octoberare the transition months between winter and summerand between rainy and winter, respectively.
The main campus of BHU is located about 5 kmsouth of Varanasi city on the western bank of riverGanga. The campus is spread over 1,350 acres of landarea. Total natural tree species in the campus were 42in number. The tree species planted along the road-sides were Anthocephalus cadamba, Madhuca indica,Mangifera indica, Phyllanthus emblica, Syzygiumcumini and Tectona grandis.
Chunar is an ancient town situated approximately40 km from the BHU campus. The study area at thissite was situated along the busy road side near to acement factory. The tree vegetation of Chunar waslocally dominated by A. cadamba, Azadirachta indica,Delonix regia, Eucalyptus citriodora, M. indica, S.cumini, T. grandis and Zizyphus mauritiana.
According to the report of Central Pollution Con-trol Board, Ministry of Environment and Forests, Gov-ernment of India (2009), the ComprehensiveEnvironmental Pollution Index of Varanasi-Mirzapurindustrial cluster (i.e. 73.8) categorizes the area ascritically polluted. However, in an air quality monitor-ing experiment, BHU showed significantly low con-centration of air pollutants compared to other parts ofVaranasi city (Agrawal et al. 2003).
Species selection
We selected four tree species, viz., A. cadamba Roxb.,M. indica L., S. cumini (L.) Skeels. and T. grandisLinn. belonging to family, Rubiaceae, Anacardiaceae,Myrtaceae and Verbenaceae, respectively. These treespecies were present along the roadside at both thestudy sites.
Sampling design and methodology
At each site, five locations were selected along theroad side separated by distance of approximately
384 Environ Monit Assess (2013) 185:383–391
1 km. Soil samples were collected to a depth of 10 cmat each location for their physico-chemical analysis.Soil moisture content (SMC) was measured by gravi-metric method (Black 1965). The soil samples wereanalysed for bulk density, organic carbon, nitrogen,phosphorus, pH and texture, following the methodadopted by Chaturvedi et al. (2011).
At each location, three individuals of each of thefour tree species were marked for the analysis of DLand the leaf attributes. Three twigs at mid-canopyheight and having full sun exposure for at least partof the day, containing healthy and fully expandedleaves, from each marked tree were sampled andGsmax and Amax were measured in one randomly se-lected leaf from each twig immediately (Chaturvedi etal. 2011) by LC Pro Console Photosynthesis meter(model EN11ODB, ADC Bioscientific Ltd. England)between 9:30 am and 12:30 pm (solar noon). The ratioofAmax and Gsmax was considered asWUEi (Chaturvediet al. 2011). From each twig, ten healthy and fullyexpanded leaves were collected for measuring other leafattributes. One leaf from each twig was kept separatelyin an ice box for the estimation of Chl. DL was mea-sured following the methodology of Prusty et al. (2005).Leaves of each species were placed in beakers separate-ly and washed thoroughly by hairbrush with distilledwater. The dusty water was brought to the laboratoryand completely evaporated in an oven at 100°C andweighed with an electronic balance to record the totaldust quantity trapped. RWC was determined by usingStocker’s method (Anderson and McNaughton 1973).Excess water of the washed leaves was removed withblotting paper. Each leaf was weighed with an electronicbalance to record the fresh weight. Leaf area wasrecorded by leaf area metre (SYSTRONICS Leaf AreaMeter-211, India). These leaves were marked andsealed in plastic bags containing damp paper toweland carried to the laboratory for further analysis.In the laboratory, leaves were saturated with dis-tilled water for 4 h in a saturated atmosphere atroom temperature, and weighed again to obtain thesaturated weight. Chl was analysed according toChaturvedi et al. (2011).
Marked leaves were oven dried at 60°C for 72 h toestimate their dry weights. Using the area and dryweight, SLA was determined. SLA values from theleaves of the three twigs of a tree were averaged toobtain one value per individual tree, i.e. three valuesper species per location at a site. Dried leaf samples
from each twig were ground separately in an electronicgrinder for the analysis of LNC and LPC. The above-mentioned attributes were measured, in general,according to the protocol followed by Chaturvedi etal. (2011). All the above-mentioned analysis was donein the month of November (i.e. winter season) of theyear 2010. There is a marked seasonality of air pollut-ant concentrations in the study area due to the occur-rence of distinctly wet and dry seasons in an annualcycle (Pandey and Agrawal 1992; Pandey et al. 1992).Therefore, we selected the winter season, when theconcentration of pollutants are maximum for the
Table 1 Physico-chemical properties of the two experimentalsites
BHU Chunar
SMC (%) 13.3 (±0.22) 12.4 (±0.24)
Clay (%) 7.79 (±0.28) 6.79 (±0.28)
Silt (%) 30.2 (±0.68) 30.5 (±0.49)
Sand (%) 62.0 (±0.58) 62.8 (±0.55)
pH 6.82 (±0.05) 6.90 (±0.05)
Organic carbon (%) 0.80 (±0.03) 0.76 (±0.02)
Total nitrogen (%) 0.12 (±0.01) 0.10 (±0.01)
Total phosphorus (%) 0.017 (±0.002) 0.014 (±0.002)
Values in parentheses are ±1 S.E.
SMC soil moisture content
Table 2 Summary of ANOVA of dust load (DL) and leaf traitsof four tree species at the two experimental sites
Site (F1, 112) Species (F3, 112) Site×species (F3, 112)
DL 8042*** 267*** 224***
LA 10.4** 2856*** 7.76***
SLA 125*** 492*** 50.0***
RWC 1324*** 286*** 29.9***
LNC 76.2*** 84.5*** 2.07*
LPC 139*** 61.1*** 31.7***
Chl 223*** 325*** 1.90*
Gsmax 192*** 86.4*** 9.76***
Amax 1715*** 270*** 23.7***
WUEi 306*** 37.0*** 26.8***
*P>0.05 (non-significant), **P<0.01, ***P<0.001
LA leaf area, SLA specific leaf area, RWC leaf relative watercontent, LNC leaf nitrogen content, LPC leaf phosphorus con-tent, Chl chlorophyll concentration, Gsmax stomatal conduc-tance, Amax photosynthetic rate, WUEi intrinsic water-useefficiency
Environ Monit Assess (2013) 185:383–391 385
analysis of the effect of DL on the leaf attributes of thetree species growing at the least polluted and the mostpolluted site.
Data of DL and leaf attributes were analysed byANOVA. Differences between the mean values ofDL and leaf attributes at the two sites were testedby Tukey’s post hoc test. Two-tailed Pearson cor-relation coefficients among leaf attributes werecalculated. Relationships of the DL and soilphysico-chemical properties with leaf attributeswere also observed by two-tailed Pearson correla-tion coefficient. All the statistical analyses weredone using SPSS package (ver. 16).
Results
Soil properties
The two sites showed significant difference for SMC(t03.57, P00.003), clay (t03.19, P00.007) and totalnitrogen (t02.22, P00.044), whereas, the differencefor silt (t00.21, P00.840), sand (t00.83, P00.418),pH (t01.45, P00.171), organic carbon (t01.61, P00.131) and total phosphorus (t01.51, P00.155) werestatistically not significant. SMC, clay and total nitro-gen were greater at BHU campus as compared to theChunar site (Table 1).
Dust load and leaf attributes
Results of ANOVA showed significant effect of sitesand species for DL and the leaf attributes (Table 2).The two-way interactions were also significant, exceptfor Chl (F3, 11201.90, P>0.05), where the effect wasstatistically not significant. Average DL across thefour tree species was greater at Chunar, whereas, theaverage values of leaf attributes were greater at theBHU campus, except for LA, where, site-wise differ-ence was not significant (t01.51, P00.149) across allthe four species (Fig. 1). Maximum DL was observedfor T. grandis at Chunar site (7.7 mg cm−2) and min-imum for S. cumini at BHU campus (0.2 mg cm−2).Also at the Chunar site, DL of S. cumini was minimumamong the four species. Average LA of T. grandis wasgreatest (900 cm2) and that of S. cumini, the lowest(58.3 cm2) among the four species. Across the twosites, maximum value of SLA (92.6 cm2 g−1), Chl(2.3 mg g−1) and Gsmax (0.41 mol m−2 s−1) were
exhibited by S. cumini, whereas, the greatest value ofRWC (80.8%), LNC (2.1%), LPC (0.21%), Amax
(17.4 μmol m−2 s−1) and WUEi (43.4 μmolmol−1)were observed in A. cadamba (Fig. 1).
Pearson correlation showed significant relation-ships among the leaf attributes, except for the relation-ship of LA with WUEi, which was not significant(Table 3). All leaf attributes were positively associatedwith each other, except for LA and DL which werenegatively associated with all other attributes. Also,relationship between LA and DL was not significant(Table 4). SMC exhibited significant relationshipswith RWC and Chl, clay with LPC, Gsmax and Amax,whereas, other soil properties showed non-significantcorrelations with the leaf attributes.
Discussion
Study showed greater DL on the tree species present atthe most polluted, Chunar site as compared to the leastpolluted BHU campus. This may be due to significant-ly high air pollution at Chunar site because of thecement factory, brick kilns and the busy road. On theother hand BHU campus is embanked by high bound-ary wall, high tree density and heavy vehicles arerestricted making it a low pollution zone. The DL inthe studied tree species at BHU campus ranged from0.15 to 0.39 mg cm−2 and at Chunar site from 3.9 to7.7 mg cm−2.
The values reported in the present study are withinthe range reported by Pandey and Pandey (1994) forthe plant species growing in the urban environment ofVaranasi. Prusty et al. (2005) have investigated theseasonal variation in dust accumulation on leavesand leaf pigment content of six plant species of mixedhabitats at the side of the National Highway at Sam-balpur, Orissa, India and observed significant differ-ence in dust accumulation among plant species andbetween seasons.
Fig. 1 Mean values of dust load (DL) and leaf attributes acrossthe two sites. BHU Banaras Hindu University campus, LA leafarea, SLA specific leaf area, RWC leaf relative water content,LNC leaf nitrogen content, LPC leaf phosphorus content, Chlchlorophyll concentration, Gsmax stomatal conductance, Amax
photosynthetic rate, WUEi intrinsic water-use efficiency, AncaA. cadamba, Main M. indica, Sycu S. cumini, Tegr T. grandis.Different letters above bars indicate significant differences afterTukey’s post hoc test (α00.05)
b
386 Environ Monit Assess (2013) 185:383–391
RW
C (
%)
65
70
75
80
85
DL
(m
g c
m-2
)
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9BHUChunar
LA
(cm
2 )
0
50
100
150
800
850
900
950
1000
55
60
65
70
75
80
85
90
95
100
LN
C (
%)
1.5
1.6
1.7
1.8
1.9
2.0
2.1
2.2
LP
C (
%)
0.12
0.14
0.16
0.18
0.20
0.22
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
2.5
Gs m
ax (
mo
l m-2
s-1
)
0.25
0.30
0.35
0.40
0.45
aa
aa
a
a
a
a
a
b
b
a a a
b
b
a a
a
b
a
b
a a b
a
a
a
a
b
b
b
a
a
aa
a
b b
b
a
a
a
a
aa
b b
aa
a
a
b
b
b
b
a a a
a
b bb
b
a
aa
ab
b
b
b
a
aa
a
b
b
b
b
SpeciesAnca Main Sycu Tegr
WU
Ei (
mo
l mo
l-1)
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
SpeciesAnca Main Sycu Tegr
4
8
12
16
20
Environ Monit Assess (2013) 185:383–391 387
There is strong correlation among the studied leafattributes. There are plenty of literatures which justifythese relationships. According to Leith et al. (1986),Williams (1987) and Centritto et al. (2000), LA is relatedto canopy light interception and photosynthetic efficiencyand contributes to carbohydrate metabolism, drymatter accumulation, yield and growth rate. Chlprovides information on the physiological adapta-tion of plants (Lichtenthaler et al. 2007). SLAshows strong association with Gsmax, Amax andplant growth rate (Meziane and Shipley 1999).RWC is an indicator for evaluating plant waterstatus (Saura-Mas and Lloret 2007). Since, abouthalf of leaf nitrogen is invested in photosynthetic
apparatus, there is strong positive correlation ofLNC with Amax (Hikosaka and Osone 2009). Phos-phorus is an essential macronutrient for photosyn-thesis, because it is required to produce and exporttriose-P which is the major photosynthetic productexported from the chloroplast (Stitt 1990; Geigerand Servaites 1994). Amax is influenced by struc-ture, LNC, Gsmax and carboxylation capacity ofleaf (Wright et al. 2004). It shows a positivecorrelation with Gsmax and SLA, but the strengthof relationship strongly differs among plant species(Niinemets et al. 2009). Due to variations in thestrength of correlation between net Amax and Gsmax,WUEi differs among plant species (Niinemets et al. 2009).
Table 4 Correlationof dust load (DL) and soil physico-chemical properties with leaf traits of the four tree species at the twoexperimental sites
LA SLA RWC LNC LPC Chl Gsmax Amax WUEi
DL −0.56* −0.90**** −0.99**** −0.80*** −0.93**** −0.93**** −0.93**** −0.99**** −0.94****SMC 0.45* 0.46* 0.69** 0.46* 0.55* 0.64** 0.57* 0.60* 0.58*
Clay 0.28* 0.45* 0.55* 0.62* 0.69** 0.55* 0.74** 0.64** 0.50*
Silt 0.15* 0.13* −0.02* −0.18* −0.08* −0.04* −0.16* −0.03* 0.03*
Sand −0.35* −0.43* −0.30* −0.14* −0.30* −0.28* −0.24* −0.33* −0.33*pH 0.03* 0.02* −0.27* 0.05* −0.34* −0.03* −0.32* −0.31* −0.28*Organic C 0.55* 0.42* 0.23* 0.54* 0.30* 0.51* 0.32* 0.21* 0.11*
Total N 0.00* 0.42* 0.53* 0.24* 0.25* 0.35* 0.32* 0.41* 0.46*
Total P −0.25* 0.26* 0.45* 0.19* 0.31* 0.20* 0.34* 0.42* 0.47*
*P>0.05 (non-significant), **P<0.05, ***P<0.01, ****P<0.001 (n010)
LA leaf area, SLA specific leaf area, RWC leaf relative water content, LNC leaf nitrogen content, LPC leaf phosphorus content, Chlchlorophyll concentration, Gsmax stomatal conductance, Amax photosynthetic rate, WUEi intrinsic water-use efficiency, SMC soilmoisture content
Table 3 Correlation among leaf traits of the four tree species at the two experimental sites
LA SLA RWC LNC LPC Chl Gsmax Amax
SLA −0.72**RWC −0.58** 0.62**
LNC −0.71** 0.60** 0.69**
LPC −0.52** 0.51** 0.78** 0.68**
Chl −0.78** 0.86** 0.79** 0.82** 0.76**
Gsmax −0.64** 0.63** 0.77** 0.77** 0.74** 0.77**
Amax −0.43** 0.59** 0.90** 0.71** 0.75** 0.78** 0.77**
WUEi −0.12* 0.35** 0.68** 0.43** 0.48** 0.51** 0.30** 0.83**
*P>0.05 (non-significant), **P<0.001 (n0120)
LA leaf area, SLA specific leaf area, RWC leaf relative water content, LNC leaf nitrogen content, LPC leaf phosphorus content, Chlchlorophyll concentration, Gsmax stomatal conductance, Amax photosynthetic rate, WUEi intrinsic water-use efficiency
388 Environ Monit Assess (2013) 185:383–391
It has been suggested that the soil nutrients, gener-ally modify leaf trait relationships (Wright et al. 2001;Niinemets and Kull 2003). However, in the presentstudy, Pearson correlation exhibited DL as the stron-gest environmental factor responsible for reductions inthe leaf attributes at the polluted site. For other factors,the significant effect was only observed for SMC onRWC and Chl, and clay on LPC, Gsmax and Amax.Greater reductions in Amax, WUEi, Gsmax and Chl atthe most polluted site depicts that these attributes arehighly affected by the DL. Smaller dust particles enterthe leaf through stomatal openings and the particleslarger than the stomata opening generally pile up onthe pore, affecting gaseous exchange processes whichin turn affects photosynthesis, water retention andoverall plant growth (Rai et al. 2010). Fluckinger etal. (1979) observed that in Populus tremula, while1 mg cm−2 dust was necessary to cause a decrease instomatal diffusive resistance, only 0.5 mg cm−2 wasnecessary to cause an increase in leaf temperature.Thompson et al. (1984) observed a reduction in photo-synthesis due to shading when the upper surface ofleaves was dusted. Singh and Rao (1981) found consid-erable reduction in transpiration rates, chlorophyll con-tents and productivity of wheat plants dusted withcement dust. Czaja (1961) provides a detail description
of injuries to a range of tree species from cement-kiln dust. According to Farmer (1993), a hard crys-talline crust formed on the leaf surface due to dustdeposition dissolves and releases solutions of calci-um hydroxide into the intercellular spaces causingcell plasmolysis and death. It has been suggestedthat heavy cement dust deposition may cause growthreduction for many tree species (Bohne 1963; Brandtand Rhoades 1973).
The foliage of plants filtre numerous solid particlesdue to roughness and large contact area and thus canreduce the damaging effect of particulate pollution(Meusel et al. 1999). Morphological parameters likecuticular ornamentations, raised epidermal cell bound-aries, stomatal ledges, trichomes and overall, the epicu-ticular and cuticular waxes may be responsible forroughness of leaf surface (Pal et al. 2002). Leaf textureof T. grandis is rough and hairy leading to greater dustaccumulation as compared to the other three specieswhich have comparatively smooth leaf texture. LA ofT. grandiswas also greatest among the four species. Thedecline in LA (9%), Chl (26%), Amax (49%) and WUEi(45%) was greatest for T. grandis as compared to otherspecies suggesting that this species is not suitable for thesite having high DL. On the other hand S. cumini,showed least reductions in LA (0.0%), Amax (27%) and
0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
6
8
10
12
14
16
18
Anthocephalus cadambaMangifera indica
Syzygium cuminiTectona grandis
B
C
B
C
B
CB
C
µ
Fig. 2 Dust load and photo-synthetic rate (Amax) of thefour tree species growingalong the roadside at theleast polluted BHU (B) andmost polluted Chunar (C)sites
Environ Monit Assess (2013) 185:383–391 389
WUEi (11%). The decline in Chl was minimum (16%)for A. cadamba.
Trees and shrubs have been reported to be veryefficient at filtering road dust (Farmer 1993). Beckettet al. (1998) reviewed the role of vegetation and urbanwoodlands in reducing the effects of particulate pollu-tion and suggested that trees can act as biologicalfilters, removing large numbers of airborne particlesand hence improving the quality of air in pollutedenvironments. The capacity of a tree species to inter-cept dust depends on its surface geometry, phyllotaxy,leaf external characteristics (such as hairs, cuticles,etc.) and height (Nowak 1994; Singh 2000). Amongthe study species, DL of A. cadamba was 28 timesmore at Chunar site than the BHU campus (Fig. 2). S.cumini exhibited 27 times, T. grandis 20 times and M.indica 17 timesmore dust accumulation at Chunar siteas compared to the BHU campus. Therefore, A.cadamba and S. cumini are more efficient in filteringroad dust as compared to T. grandis and M. indica.Reduction in Amax at the most polluted site was max-imum for T. grandis (17%) followed by M. indica(12%), A. cadamba (10%) and S. cumini (9%)(Fig. 2). This indicates that T. grandis and M. indicaare more sensitive to dust, whereas, S. cumini and A.cadamba are less sensitive. They exhibit lesser reduc-tion in Amax even if higher dust is deposited on theirleaves. Therefore, S. cumini and A. cadamba are moresuitable for plantation along the roadside.
Acknowledgement The authors thank the Ministry of Envi-ronment and Forests, Government of India for the financialsupport.
References
Agrawal, M., Singh, B., Rajput, M., Marshall, F., & Bell, J. N.B. (2003). Effect of air pollution on peri-urban agriculture:a case study. Environmental Pollution, 126(3), 323–329.
Anda, A. (1986). Effect of cement kiln dust on the radiationbalance and yields of plants. Environmental Pollution, 40(3), 249–256.
Anderson, J. E., & McNaughton, S. J. (1973). Effects of low soiltemperature on transpiration, photosynthesis, leaf relativewater content, and growth among elevationally diverseplant populations. Ecology, 54(6), 1220–1233.
Arslan, M., & BoyBay, M. (1990). A study on the characteriza-tion of dust fall. Atmospheric Envrionment, 24(10), 2667–2671.
Auerbach, N. A., Walker, M. D., & Walker, D. A. (1997).Effects of roadside disturbance on substrate and vegetation
properties in arctic tundra. Ecological Applications, 7(1),218–235.
Baby, S., Singh, N. A., Shrivastava, P., Nath, S. R., Kumar, S.S., Singh, D., & Vivek, K. (2008). Impact of dust emissionon plant vegetation of vicinity of cement plant. Environ-mental Engineering and Management Journal, 7(1), 31–35.
Beckett, K. P., Freer-Smith, P. H., & Taylor, G. (1998). Urbanwoodlands: their role in reducing the effects of particulatepollution. Environmental Pollution, 99(3), 347–360.
Black, C. A. (1965). Methods of soil analysis: part I physicaland mineralogical properties. Madison: American Societyof Agronomy.
Bohne, H. (1963). Schadlichkeit von staub aus zementwerkenfur waldbestande. Allgemeine Forst und Jagdzeitung, 18,107–111.
Brandt, C. J., & Rhoades, R. (1973). Effects of limestone dustaccumulation on composition of a forest community. En-vironmental Pollution, 3(3), 217–225.
Centritto, M., Loreto, R., Massacci, A., Pietrini, R., Villani, M.C., & Zacchine, M. (2000). Improved growth and wateruse efficiency of cherry saplings under reduced light inten-sity. Ecological Research, 15(4), 385–392.
Chaturvedi, R. K., Raghubanshi, A. S., & Singh, J. S. (2011).Leaf attributes and tree growth in a tropical dry forest.Journal of Vegetation Science, 22(5), 917–931.
Chauhan, A., & Sanjeev. (2008). Impact of dust pollution onphotosynthetic pigments of some selected trees grown atnearby of stone-crushers. Environment Conservation Jour-nal, 9(3), 11–13.
Czaja, A. T. (1961). Die wirkung von verstaubtem kalk und zementauf pflanzen qual. Plant Matter Vegetables, 8, 184–212.
Davison, A. W., & Blakemore, J. (1976). Effects of air pollu-tions on plants. In: T. A. Mansfield (Ed.), (p. 209). Cam-bridge University Press, Cambridge
Eller, B. M. (1977). Road dust induced increase of leaf temper-ature. Environmental Pollution, 13(2), 99–107.
Faith, W. L., & Atkisson, A. A. (1972). Air pollution. NewYork: Wiley-interscience.
Farmer, A. M. (1993). The effects of dust on vegetation—areview. Environmental Pollution, 79(1), 63–75.
Fluckiger W, Braun S, Fluckiger-Keller H (1982). Effect of theinteraction between road salt and road dust upon waterrelations of young trees. In: R Bornkamm, JA Lee, M. R.D. (Eds.), Seaward Urban Ecology (pp. 331–332). Black-well Scientific Publications, Oxford,
Fluckinger, W., Oertli, J. J., & Fluckiger, W. (1979). Relation-ship between stomatal diffusive resistance and variousapplied particle sizes on leaf surface. Zeitschrift für Pflan-zenphysiologie, 91, 773–775.
Geiger, D. R., & Servaites, J. C. (1994). Diurnal regulation ofphotosynthetic carbon metabolism in C3 plants. AnnualReview of Plant Physiology and Plant Molecular Biology,45, 235–256.
Hikosaka, K., & Osone, Y. (2009). A paradox of leaf-traitconvergence: why is leaf nitrogen concentration higher inspecies with higher photosynthetic capacity? Journal ofPlant Research, 122(3), 245–251.
Hope, A. S., Fleming, J. B., Stow, D. A., & Aguado, E. (1991).Tussock tundra albedos on the north slope of Alaska:effects of illumination, vegetation composition, and dust
390 Environ Monit Assess (2013) 185:383–391
deposition. Journal of Applied Meteorology, 30(8), 1200–1206.
Keller, J., & Lamprecht, R. (1995). Road dust as an indicator for airpollution transport and deposition: an application of SPOTimagery. Remote Sensing of Environment, 54(12), 1–12.
Leith, J. H., Reynolds, J. P., & Rogers, H. H. (1986). Estimationof leaf area of soybeans grown under elevated carbondioxide levels. Field Crops Research, 13(2), 193–203.
Lichtenthaler, H. K., Ač, A., Marek, M., Kalina, J., & Urban, O.(2007). Differences in pigment composition, photosynthet-ic rates and chlorophyll fluorescence images of sun andshade leaves of four tree species. Plant Physiology andBiochemistry, 45(8), 577–588.
Meusel, I., Neinhuis, C., Markstadter, C., & Barthlott, W.(1999). Ultrastructure, chemical composition, and recrys-tallization of epicuticular waxes: transversely ridged rod-lets. Canadian Journal of Botany, 77(5), 706–720.
Meziane, D., & Shipley, B. (1999). Interacting determinants ofspecific leaf area in 22 herbaceous species: effects ofirradiance and nutrient availability. Plant, Cell & Environ-ment, 22(5), 447–459.
Niinemets, U., & Kull, K. (2003). Leaf structure vs. nutrientrelationships vary with soil conditions in temperate shrubsand trees. Acta Oecologica, 24(4), 209–219.
Niinemets, Ü., Diaz-Espejo, A., Flexas, J., Galmes, J., & Warren,C. R. (2009). Role of mesophyll diffusion conductance inconstraining potential photosynthetic productivity in thefield. Journal of Experimental Botany, 60(8), 2249–2270.
Nowak, D. J. (1994). Air pollution removal by Chicago’s urbanforest. In: E. G. McPherson, D. J. Nowak, R. A. Rowntree(Eds.), Chicago’s urban forest ecosystem: Results of theChicago urban forest climate project (pp. 63–81). USDAForest Service General Technical Report NE-186.
Pal, A., Kulshreshtha, K., Ahmad, K. J., & Behl, H. M. (2002).Do leaf surface characters play a role in plant resistance toauto exhaust pollution. Flora, 197(1), 47–55.
Pandey, J., & Agrawal, M. (1992). Ozone concentration varia-bilities in a seasonally dry tropical climate. EnvironmentInternational, 18(5), 515–520.
Pandey, J., & Pandey, U. (1994). Evaluation of air pollutionphytotoxicity in a seasonally dry tropical urban environment.Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 33(3), 195–213.
Pandey, J., Agrawal, M., Khanam, N., Narayan, D., & Rao, D.N. (1992). Air pollutant concentrations in Varanasi, India.Atmospheric Envrionment, 26B(1), 91–98.
Prusty, B. A. K., Mishra, P. C., & Azeez, P. A. (2005). Dustaccumulation and leaf pigment content in vegetation nearthe national highway at Sambalpur, Orissa, India. Ecotox-icology and Environmental Safety, 60(2), 228–235.
Rai, A., Kulshreshtha, K., Srivastava, P. K., & Mohanty, C. S.(2010). Leaf surface structure alterations due to particulate
pollution in some common plants. Environmentalist, 30(1),18–23.
Saura-Mas, S., & Lloret, F. (2007). Leaf and shoot water contentand leaf dry matter content of Mediterranean woody spe-cies with different post-fire regenerative strategies. Annalsof Botany, 99(3), 545–554.
Seinfeld, J. H. (1975). Air pollution: physical and chemicalproperties. McGraw Hill, U. S. A.
Singh, R. B. (2000). Impact of stone crusher dust pollution ontomato (Lycopersicum esculantum) in the Sonbhadra Districtof U.P. Journal of Environmental Pollution, 7(1), 235–239.
Singh, S. N., & Rao, D. N. (1981). Certain responses of wheatplants to cement dust pollution. Environmental Pollution,24(1), 75–81.
Stitt, M. (1990). Fructose-2,6-bisphosphate as a regulatory me-tabolite in plants. Annual Review of Plant Physiology andPlant Molecular Biology, 41(1), 153–185.
Thompson, J. R., Mueller, P. W., Fluckiger, W., & Rutter, A. J.(1984). The effect of dust on photosynthesis and its signif-icance for roadside plants. Environmental Pollution, 34,171–190.
van Jaarsveld, F. (2008). Characterising and mapping of windtransported sediment associated with opencast gypsummining. Thesis for the degree of Master of Science, SouthAfrica: University of Stellenbosch.
Vardaka, E., Cook, C. M., Lanaras, T., Sgardelis, S. P., & Pantis,J. D. (1995). Effect of dust from a limestone quarry on thephotosynthesis of Quercus coccifera, and evergreen scle-rophyllous shrub. Bulletin of Environmental Contamina-tion and Toxicology, 54, 414–419.
Weinan, C., Fryrear, D. W., & Gillette, D. A. (1998). Sedimen-tary characteristics of drifting sediments above erodingloessal sandy loam soil as affected by mechanical distur-bance. Journal of Arid Environment, 39(3), 421–440.
Williams, L. E. (1987). Growth of “Thompson Seedless” grape-vines: I. Leaf area development and dry weight distribu-tion. Journal of the American Society for HorticulturalScience, 112(2), 325–330.
Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B., & Westoby, M. (2001). Strategy-shiftsin leaf physiology, structure and nutrient content betweenspecies of high and low rainfall, and high and low nutrienthabitats. Functional Ecology, 15(4), 423–434.
Wright, I. J., Reich, P. B., Westoby, M., Ackerly, D. D., Baruch,Z., Bongers, F., Cavender-Bares, J., Chapin, T., Cornelissen,J. H. C., Diemer, M., Flexas, J., Garnier, E., Groom, P. K.,Gulias, J., Hikosaka, K., Lamont, B. B., Lee, T., Lee, W.,Lusk, C., Midgley, J. J., Navas, M.-L., Niinemets, U.,Oleksyn, J., Osada, N., Poorter, H., Poot, P., Prior, L.,Pyankov, V. I., Roumet, C., Thomas, S. C., Tjoelker, M.G., Veneklaas, E. J., & Villar, R. (2004). The worldwideleaf economics spectrum. Nature, 428, 821–827.
Environ Monit Assess (2013) 185:383–391 391
