4.5 Review

A meta analysis of plant field studies simulating stratospheric ozone depletion

Journal

OECOLOGIA
Volume 127, Issue 1, Pages 1-10

Publisher

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s004420000592

Keywords

ozone depletion; ultraviolet-B; meta-analysis; terrestrial vegetation

Categories

Ask authors/readers for more resources

The potential effects of increased ultraviolet-B radiation (UV-B, 280-320 nm) simulating stratospheric ozone depletion in field studies with vascular plants have previously been summarized only in narrative literature reviews. In this quantitative synthesis, we have assessed the significance of solar UV-B enhancement for ten commonly measured variables involving leaf pigmentation, plant growth and morphology, and photosynthesis using meta-analytic statistical methods. Of 103 papers published between 1976 and mid-1999 from field studies, more than 450 reports from 62 papers were included in the database. Effects of UV-B were most apparent for the case of UV-B-absorbing compounds with an average increase of approximately 10% across all studies when comparing the ambient solar UV-B control to the treatment (involving ambient UV-B plus a UV-B supplement from special UV lamps). Some morphological parameters such as plant height and leaf mass per area showed little or no response to enhanced UV-B. Leaf photosynthetic processes (leaf gas exchange and chlorophyll fluorescence) and the concentration of photosynthetic pigments (total chlorophylls and carotenoids) were also not affected. Shoot biomass and leaf area showed modest decreases under UV-B enhancement. The reduction in shoot biomass occurred only under very high levels of simulated ozone depletion and leaf area was affected only when studies inappropriately used the plant (i.e., the subreplicate) rather than the plot as the experimental replicate. To the best of our knowledge, this review provides the first quantitative estimates of UV-B effects in field-based studies using all suitable published studies as a database.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.5
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available