Paper · 2023 · Journal of Forest Science

Responses in leaf water status of Quercus castaneifolia C.A.Mey and Carpinus betulus L. exposed to cement dust pollution in Northern Iran

Jamshid Eslamdoust; Seyed Mohsen Hosseini; Fatemeh Kardel

5
claims
26
verbatim quotes
1
citations
2
research areas
✓
Open access · cc-by-nc

Abstract

Industrial air pollution, particularly cement dust, affects the leaf water status and resource utilisation and finally decreases primary production. Evaluating the relative water content (RWC), leaf mass per unit area (LMA), specific leaf area (SLA), and leaf water per unit area (LWA) helps selecting more tolerant species for dusty polluted areas. In this study, we compare two species of Quercus castaneifolia C.A.Mey and Carpinus betulus L. in a polluted site (PL) around a cement factory, and a unpolluted site (UPL) in Mazandaran province, Northern Iran. Ten individual trees of each species were tagged at each site, and twenty fully developed leaves were collected for further analysis and calculation. Based on the results, RWC and LWA were significantly lower in the PL site (61.0% and 0.0075 g·cm–2, respectively) compared to the UPL site (71.1% and 0.0114 g·cm–2, respectively) for Q. castaneifolia. However, no significant differences were observed in selected variables between PL and UPL sites for C. betulus. Among the studied variables, SLA was significantly higher in C. betulus (259.1 cm2·g–1) compared to Q. castaneifolia (189.8 cm2·g–1). Our results indicated that C. betulus responds better to dust pollution in terms of leaf water variables.

Abstract from the paper’s OpenAlex record; open copy licensed cc-by-nc. Read at the source ↗

The text the model read, with the source record’s inline markup (italics, sub- and superscripts) rendered and its character entities decoded; quote offsets refer to the raw text.

Claims 5

Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Relative water content of Q. castaneifolia was significantly lower at the polluted site (61.0%) than the unpolluted site (71.1%).

Taxon
Quercus castaneifolia C.A.MeyQuercus castaneifoliat0
Treatment
polluted site (PL)e2
Outcome
relative water content (RWC)e4
Direction
lowere0
Value
61.0%e1
Qualifier
71.1%e5
Comparator
unpolluted site (UPL)e3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus castaneifolia
Quercus castaneifolia · TaxonUser:Mmparedes · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significantly lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 750–769 · show in text ↑
e1

“61.0%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 786–791 · show in text ↑
e2

“polluted site (PL)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 450–468 · show in text ↑
e3

“unpolluted site (UPL)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 500–521 · show in text ↑
e4

“relative water content (RWC)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 164–192 · show in text ↑
e5

“71.1%”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 851–856 · show in text ↑
t0

“Quercus castaneifolia C.A.Mey”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–63 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultnegativesignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Leaf water per unit area of Q. castaneifolia was significantly lower at the polluted site (0.0075 g/cm2) than the unpolluted site.

Taxon
Quercus castaneifolia C.A.MeyQuercus castaneifoliat0
Treatment
polluted site (PL)e2
Outcome
leaf water per unit area (LWA)e4
Direction
lowere0
Value
0.0075e1
Comparator
unpolluted site (UPL)e3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Quercus castaneifolia
Quercus castaneifolia · TaxonUser:Mmparedes · CC BY-SA 2.5 · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significantly lower”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 750–769 · show in text ↑
e1

“0.0075”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 796–802 · show in text ↑
e2

“polluted site (PL)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 450–468 · show in text ↑
e3

“unpolluted site (UPL)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 500–521 · show in text ↑
e4

“leaf water per unit area (LWA)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 255–285 · show in text ↑
t0

“Quercus castaneifolia C.A.Mey”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–63 · show in text ↑
Intervention effectobservedoriginal resultno effectnot significant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

No significant differences in the selected variables were observed between polluted and unpolluted sites for C. betulus.

Taxon
Carpinus betulus L.Carpinus betulust1
Treatment
polluted site (PL)e2
Outcome
selected variablese1
Direction
no_changeinferrede0
Comparator
unpolluted site (UPL)e3

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carpinus betulus
Carpinus betulus · TaxonBotaurus · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significant differences were observed”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 924–961 · show in text ↑
e1

“selected variables”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 965–983 · show in text ↑
e2

“polluted site (PL)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 450–468 · show in text ↑
e3

“unpolluted site (UPL)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 500–521 · show in text ↑
t1

“Carpinus betulus L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–87 · show in text ↑
Observationobservedoriginal resultsignificant (as stated)measured

Claim · model-written summary

Specific leaf area was significantly higher in C. betulus (259.1) than in Q. castaneifolia (189.8).

Taxon
Carpinus betulus L.Carpinus betulust1
Outcome
specific leaf area (SLA)e2
Direction
highere0
Value
259.1e1
Qualifier
189.8e3
Comparator
Quercus castaneifolia C.A.Meyt0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carpinus betulus
Carpinus betulus · TaxonBotaurus · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“significantly higher”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1062–1082 · show in text ↑
e1

“259.1”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1098–1103 · show in text ↑
e2

“specific leaf area (SLA)”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 225–249 · show in text ↑
e3

“189.8”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1143–1148 · show in text ↑
t0

“Quercus castaneifolia C.A.Mey”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 34–63 · show in text ↑
t1

“Carpinus betulus L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–87 · show in text ↑
Observationauthor interpretationoriginal resultmeasured

Claim · model-written summary

C. betulus responds better to dust pollution than Q. castaneifolia in terms of leaf water variables.

Taxon
Carpinus betulus L.Carpinus betulust1
Outcome
responds bettere0

Organisms pictured · Representative pictures of the matched species, not figures from the paper.

Carpinus betulus
Carpinus betulus · TaxonBotaurus · Public domain · Wikimedia Commons ↗

Verbatim

e0

“responds better”

✓ located verbatim in the source · abstract, characters 1197–1212 · show in text ↑
t1

“Carpinus betulus L.”

✓ located verbatim in the source · title, characters 68–87 · show in text ↑