4.7 Article

Biological effects of airborne pollutants released during cement production assessed with lichens (SW Slovakia)

期刊

ECOLOGICAL INDICATORS
卷 40, 期 -, 页码 127-135

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE BV
DOI: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.01.011

关键词

Bioindicators; Bioaccumulation; Cement; Dust; Lichens; Xanthoria parietina

资金

  1. [VEGA 2/0034/13]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In this paper we investigated the biological effects of airborne pollutants released during cement production by means of epiphytic lichens (SW Slovakia). We assessed the effects of dust pollution on lichen diversity around a limestone quarry (on the quarry-facing and the opposite side of Fagus sylvatica boles) and the content of selected elements in samples of the lichen Xanthoria parietina collected around a cement mill, two quarries and urban and rural sites at increasing distance from the sources of pollution. Dust contamination from limestone quarrying affected lichen diversity within a distance of 350 m from the source. Approaching the quarry, the diffusion of basi-nitrophilous species, the decrease of acidophilous species and the asymmetrical distribution of lichens on the tree boles, with a higher coverage of basiphilous species in the side facing the source of dust were observed. These responses, based on the functional traits of the lichen diversity, are helpful in monitoring studies around similar sources of pollution. In samples of X. parietina collected around the quarries and the cement mill, Ca, Ti, Fe, V, Al and Ni were significantly higher than in the surrounding environment. Calcium was a good tracer for dust contamination around the quarries and the cement plant and a clear decrease in its content with increasing distance from the source was found, with normal values reached within 1700 m from the cement mill. Lichens can be successfully used as indicators to integrate instrumental monitoring networks, when air pollution from cement factories is concerned. (C) 2014 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据