Environmental Monitoring and Assessment

, Volume 184, Issue 7, pp 4049–4065 | Cite as

Ambient ozone injury to forest plants in Northeast and North Central USA: 16 years of biomonitoring

  • Gretchen Smith


The US Forest Service administers a long-term, nationwide ozone biomonitoring program in partnership with other state and federal agencies to address national concerns about ozone impacts on forest health. Biomonitoring surveys begun in 1994 in the East and 1998 in the West provide important regional information on ozone air quality and a field-based record of ozone injury unavailable from any other data source. Surveys in the Northeast and North Central subregions cover 450 field sites in 24 states where ozone-sensitive plants are evaluated for ozone-induced foliar injury every year. Sites are typically large, undisturbed openings (>3 acres in size) close to forested areas where >3 bioindicator species are available for evaluation. Over the 16-year sampling period, injury indices have fluctuated annually in response to seasonal ozone concentrations and site moisture conditions. Sites with and without injury occur at all ozone exposures but when ambient concentrations are relatively low, the percentage of uninjured sites is much greater than the percentage of injured sites; and regardless of ozone exposure, when drought conditions prevail, the percentage of uninjured sites is much greater than the percentage of injured sites. Results indicate a declining trend in foliar injury especially after 2002 when peak ozone concentrations declined across the entire region.


Air quality Forest health Bioindicator SUM06 N100 



John Coulston, USFS National Ozone Advisor and lead analyst for the ozone biomonitoring program, provided ozone air quality and site moisture estimates for this report using a variety of external data bases and peer-reviewed techniques. Dr. Robert Brooks, USFS Research Wildlife Biologist, provided invaluable statistical support and editorial feedback on the manuscript. The work is funded wholly or in part by the Forest Inventory and Analysis (FIA) and Forest Health Monitoring (FHM) programs of the US Forest Service. We thank the many state forest health specialists, regional trainers, field crews, and quality assurance staff who work in partnership with the USFS to collect and verify the ozone data.


  1. Anonymous. (1995). Sustaining the world’s forests: the Santiago agreement. Journal of Forestry, 93, 18–21.Google Scholar
  2. Campbell, S. J, Wanek, R., & Coulston, J. W. (2007). Ozone injury in west coast forests: 6 years of monitoring. Gen. Tech. Rep. PNW-722. Portland, OR: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Pacific Northwest Research Station. pp. 53.Google Scholar
  3. Coulston, J. W. (2011). Modeling ozone bioindicator injury with microscale and landscape-scale explanatory variables: A logistic regression approach. chapter 6. In: B. L. Conkling (Ed.) Forest health monitoring 2007 national technical report. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-XXX (pp. 13). Asheville, NC: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station.Google Scholar
  4. Coulston, J. W., Smith, G. C., & Smith, W. D. (2003). Regional assessment of ozone sensitive tree species using bioindicator plants. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment, 83, 113–127.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Davis, D. D. (2007). Ozone injury to plants within the Seney National Wildlife Refuge in northern Michigan. Northeastern Naturalist, 14, 415–424.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Davis, D. D., & Orendovici, T. (2006). Incidence of ozone symptoms on vegetation within a National Wildlife Refuge in New Jersey, USA. Environmental Pollution, 143, 555–564.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Eckert, R. T., Kohut, R., Lee, T., & Staplefeldt, K. (1999). Foliar ozone injury on native vegetation at Acadia National Park: results from a six-year (1992–1997) field survey. Denver, CO: US Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Air Resources Division, pp. 42.Google Scholar
  8. Heck, W. W. (1968). Factors influencing expression of oxidant damage to plants. Annual Review of Phytopathology, 6, 165–187.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. J. G. Horsfall & E. B. Cowling (Eds.) (1978). Plant disease, an advanced treatise, vol. II (pp. 436). New York, NY: Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Karnosky, D. F., Skelly, J. M., Percy, K. E., & Chappelka, A. H. (2007). Perspectives regarding 50 years of research on effects of tropospheric ozone air pollution on US forests. Environmental Pollution, 147, 489–506.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Kohut, R. (2005). Handbook for the assessment of foliar ozone injury on vegetation in the National Parks.
  12. Lefohn, A. S., & Jackson, B. (2009). Assessing ozone exposures and vegetation effects. Unpublished document. pp. 5.Google Scholar
  13. McLaughlin, S. B., Nosal, M., Wullschleger, S. D., & Sun, G. (2007). Interactive effects of ozone and climate on tree growth and water use in a southern Appalachian forest in the USA. The New Phytologist, 174, 109–124.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Percy, K. E., Legge, A. H., & Krupa, S. V. (2003). Tropospheric ozone: A continuing threat to global forests? In D. F. Karnosky et al. (Eds.), Air pollution, global change and forests in the new millennium (pp. 85–118). New York: Elsevier.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Rose, A., & Coulston, J. W. (2009). Ozone injury across the Southern United States, 2002–06. Gen. Tech. Rep. SRS-118. Asheville, N.C.: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Southern Research Station, pp. 25.Google Scholar
  16. Showman, R. E. (1991). A comparison of ozone injury to vegetation during moist and drought years. Journal of the Air & Waste Management Association, 41, 63–64.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Smith, G. C. (2009). Improving the interpretability of the biosite index for trend analysis in areas with low, moderate, and high ozone exposure regimes. Newton Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station. Forest Health Monitoring Project. pp. 46.Google Scholar
  18. Smith, G., Coulston, J., Jepsen, E., & Prichard, T. (2003). A national ozone biomonitoring program-results from field surveys of ozone sensitive plants in Northeastern forests (1994–2000). Environmental Monitoring and Assessment, 87, 271–291.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Smith, G. C., Smith W. D., & Coulston, J. W. (2007). Ozone biomonitoring sampling and estimation. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-20. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, pp. 34.Google Scholar
  20. Smith, G. C., Coulston, J. W., & O’Connell, B. M. (2008). Ozone bioindicators and forest health: A guide to the evaluation, analysis, and interpretation of ozone injury data in the Forest Inventory and Analysis Program. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-34. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, pp. 34.Google Scholar
  21. US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service. (2006). FIA field methods for phase 3 measurements.
  22. US Environmental Protection Agency. (2007). Review of the national ambient air quality standards for ozone: Policy assessment of scientific and technical information. OAQPS Staff Paper. Section EPA 452/R-07-007. Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards. Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.Google Scholar
  23. Wang, P., Baines, A., Levine, M., & Smith, G. (2010). Modeling ozone injury to US forests. Submitted to Environmental and Ecological Statistics. pp. 10.Google Scholar
  24. White, D., Kimerling, A. J., & Overton, W. S. (1992). Cartographic and geometric component of a global sampling design for environmental monitoring. Cartography and Geographic Information Systems, 19, 5–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Woodhall, C. W., Conkling, B. L., Coulston, J. W., Jovan, S., Perry, C. H., Schulz, B., et al. (2010). The forest inventory and analysis database version 4.0: Database description and user’s manual for phase 3. Gen. Tech. Rep. NRS-61. Newtown Square, PA: US Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Northern Research Station, pp. 180.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Environmental ConservationUniversity of MassachusettsAmherstUSA

Personalised recommendations