Potential Sulphur Gas Emissions from a Tropical Rainforest and a Southern Appalachian Deciduous Forest

  • B. Haines
  • M. Black
  • J. FailJr.
  • L. McHargue
  • G. Howell
Conference paper
Part of the NATO ASI Series book series (volume 16)

Abstract

Potential emission rates of reduced sulphur gases were estimated for a tropical rainforest and a southern Appalachian deciduous forest. Potential emissions were sampled by using cuvettes placed on the forest floor, by incubating samples of leaf litter and soil in closed containers, by incubating living plant material in closed containers, and by pumping air from around plant canopies enclosed in transparent Tedlar bags. A gas Chromatograph fitted with a sulphur specific detector identified and quantified sulphur gases from cuvette sampling and incubations. Quantification of potential H2S emissions from plant canopies was attempted by Zn+Na acetate trapping followed by colorimetry. Sulphur emissions were not detected with cuvette sampling. Potential sulphur emission rates (± standard deviation) from the litter of the tropical rainforest at La Selva, Costa Rica estimated iy ipcubations were 5.9 (29.11, 8.4 (16.7) and 5.1 (12.9) g S.ha−1.y−1 for mature, secondary, and flooded stands, respectively. Potentiai rates from soil were 0.6 (3.2), 42 (184) and 1.2 (6.1) g S.ha−1.y−l for the same stands. Relative to the 11.7 kg S.ha−1.y−l SO4-S input-output discrepancy that volatile sulphur loss was hypothesized to explain, the observed potential emission rates are at least 200 times too small. Potential emission rates from the leaf litter of the southern Appalachian deciduous forest at Coweet ranged from 0.4 to 2.1 g S.ha−1.y~l and were less than 1 × l0−5 g S.ha−l.y−1 for soil. These rates are too low to account for the SO4-S input-output discrepancy at Coweeta. Potential emissions may be underestimated due to surface adsorption in sampling devices.

Some rainforest legumes emitted sulphur gases from seeds, wood samples, roots, or leaves, or from all these organs. The sulphur gases are ethyl mercaptan and carbon disulphide. These emissions, which are new to plant physiology research, may have community implications as anti-microbial or anti-herbivore agents and, as point sources in a rainforest, may create a sampling problem for ecosystem level studies. Sampling for H2S emissions from plant canopies in the rainforest and at Coweetahas yet to detect this sulphur gas.

Quantifying the contribution of natural sulphur emissions to the atmospheric sulphur burden and to acid rain on a global scale is hampered by the great diversity of habitats, the temporal and spatial variability of sulphur emissions within habitats, and by analytical problems. Sulphur gases exist at low concentrations in nature, consist of numerous chemical species, are transformed from one species to another, and react with analytical surfaces. Quantification of the contribution of natural sulphur emissions to acid rain on a global basis is challenging.

Keywords

Biomass Sulphide Rubber Glycine Syringe 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Adams, DF, Farwell SO (1984) A study of error sources in natural sulfur emission measurements - a preliminary examination. In: Aneja VP (ed) Environmental impact of natural emissions. Air Pollution Control Association, Pittsburgh, PA, p 54Google Scholar
  2. Adams DF, Farwell SO, Pack MR, Bamesberger WL (1979) Preliminary measurement of biogenic sulfur-containing gas emissions from soils. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 29(4): 380–383Google Scholar
  3. Adams DF, Farwell SO, Pack MR, Robinson E (1981) Biogenic sulfur gas emissions from soils in eastern and southeastern United States. J Air Pollut Control Assoc 31(10): 1083–1089Google Scholar
  4. Aneja VP (1984) The role of tidal and diurnal variations on the release of biogenic sulfur compounds from Coastal Marine sediments. In: Aneja VP (ed). Environmental impact of natural emissions. Air Pollution Control Association, Pittsburgh, PA, p 1–20Google Scholar
  5. Anon (1972) Regenwasseranalysen aus Zentralamazonien ausgeführt in Manaus, Amazonas, Brasilien, von Dr. Harald Ungemach. Amazoniana (Kiel) 3: 186–198Google Scholar
  6. Bailey SD, Bazinet ML, Driscoll JL, McCarthy AJ (1961) The volatile sulfur components of Cabbage. J Food Sci 26: 163–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Black MW, Herbst RP, Hitchcock DR (1978) Solid adsorbent preconcentration and gas chromatographie analysis of sulfur gases. Anal Chem 50: 848–851CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Bolin B, Degens ET, Kempe S, Ketner P (eds) (1979) The global carbon cycle, Scope 13. John Wiley and Sons, New York, p 491Google Scholar
  9. Callahan JT (1984) Long-term ecological research. Bioscience 34(6): 363–367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Clark HL, Clark KE, Haines BL (1980) Acid rain in Venezuelan Amazon. In: Furtado JI (ed). Tropical Ecology and Development. Proc of the Vth Int Symp of Tropical Ecology, International Society of Tropical Ecology, Kuala Lumpur, p 633Google Scholar
  11. Daly JM, Deverall BJ (eds) (1983) Toxins and plant pathogenesis. Academic Press, New York, p 181Google Scholar
  12. Filner P, Rennenberg H, Sekiya J, Bressan RA, Wilson LG, Le Cureux, Shimei T (1984) Biosynthesis and emission of hydrogen sulfide by higher plants. In: Koziol MJ, Whatley FR (ed) Gaseous air pollutants and plant metabolism. Butterworths, London, p 291Google Scholar
  13. Galloway JN, Likens GE, Keene WC, Miller JM (1982) The composition of precipitation in remote areas of the world. J Geophys Res 87(11): 8771–8786CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Haines BL (1983) Forest ecosystem SO4-S input-output discrepancies and acid rain: are they related? Oikos 41: 139–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Haines BL, Jordan C, Clark H, Clark K (1983) Acid rain in an Amazon rainforest. Tellus 35B: 77–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Hallgren J, Fredriksson S (1982) Emission of hydrogen sulfide from sulfur dioxide-fumigated pine trees. Plant Physiol 70: 456–459PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Hendry CD, Berish CW, Edgerton ES (1984) Precipitation chemistry at Turrialba, Costa Rica. Water Resources Research 20: 1677–1684CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Ivanov MV (1983) Major fluxes of the global biogeochemical cycle of sulphur. In: Ivanov MV, Freney JR (eds) The global biogeochemcal sulphur cycle. John Wiley and Sons, New York, p 449Google Scholar
  19. Johnson CM, Nishita H (1952) Microestimation of sulfur in plant materials, soil and irrigation waters. Anal Chem 24(4): 736–742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Johnson DW, Cole DW, Gessel SP (1979) Acid precipitation and soil sulfate absorption properties in a tropical and in a temperate forest soil. Biotropica 11: 38–42CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Kinraide TB, Staley TE (1985) Cysteine-induced H2S emission, ATP depletion, and membrane electrical responses in oat coleoptiles. Physiol Plant 64: 217–222CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lemon ER (ed) (1983) CO2 and plants: The response of plants to rising levels of atmospsheric carbon dioxide. Amer Assoc Adv Science. Selected Symposia Series, Westview Press, Inc., Boulder, ColoradoGoogle Scholar
  23. Lewis JA, Papavizas GC (1971) Effects of sulfur-containing volatile compounds and vapors from cabbage decomposition on Aphanomyces euteiches. Phytopath 61: 208–214CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Misaghi IJ (1982) Physiology and biochemistry of plant-pathogen interactions. Plenum Press, New York, p 287CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Moller D (1984) On the global natural sulphur emission. Atmos Environ 18(1): 29–39CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. National Research Council (1983) Toward an international geosphere-biosphere program: a study of global change. National Academy Press, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  27. Nicholas HJ (1973) Miscellaneous volatile plant products. In: Miller LP (ed) Phytochemistry, vol II. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York, p 381Google Scholar
  28. Rennenberg H (1984) The fate of excess sulfur in higher plants. Ann Rev Plant Physiol 35: 121–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Richmond DV (1973) Sulfur compounds. In: Miller LP (ed) Phytochemistry vol III. Van Nostrand Reinhold Co., New York p 41Google Scholar
  30. Schönbeck F, Schlösser E (1976) Preformed substances as potential protectants. In: Heitefuss R, Williams PH (eds) Encyclopedia of plant physiology, New Series vol 4. Physiological Plant Pathology, Springer-Verlag, Berlin p 653Google Scholar
  31. Sekiya J, Schmidt A, Wilson LG, Filner P (1982) Emission of hydrogen sulfide by leaf tissue in response to L-cysteine. Plant Physiol 70: 430–436PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Souza de TLC, Lane DC, Bhatia SP (1975) Analysis of sulfur-containing gases by gas-solid chromatography on a specially treated Porapak QS Column packing. Anal Chem 47(3): 543–545CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Spaleny J (1977) Sulphate transformation to hydrogen sulphide in spruce seedlings. Plant and Soil 48: 557–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Steudler PA, Kijowski W (1984) Determination of reduced sulfur gases in air by solid adsorbent preconcentration and gas chromatography. Anal Chem 56: 1432–1436CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Swank WT, Douglass JE (1977) Nutrient budgets for undisturbed and manipulated hardwood forest ecosystems in the mountains of North Carolina. In: Correll DL (ed) Watershed research in Eastern North America: A Workshop to compare results. Chesapeake Bay Center for Environmental Studies, Smithsonian Institution, Edgewater, Maryland, p 343Google Scholar
  36. Westberg H, Lamb B (1984) Estimation of biogenic sulfur emissions from the continental U.S. In: Aneja VP (ed) Environmental impact of natural emissions. Air Pollution Control Association, Pittsburgh, PA, p 41Google Scholar
  37. Wilson LG, Bressan RA, Filner P (1978) Light-dependent emission of hydrogen sulfide fom plants. Plant Physiol 61: 184–189PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Winner WE, Smith CL, Koch GW, Mooney HA, Bewley JD, Krouse HR (1981) Rates of emission of H2S from plants and patterns of stable sulphur isotope fractionation. Nature 289(5799): 672–673CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Woodwell GM (ed) (1984) The role of terrestrial vegetation in the global carbon cycle: Measurement by remote sensing, Scope 23. John Wiley and Sons, New York, p 247Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1987

Authors and Affiliations

  • B. Haines
    • 1
  • M. Black
    • 2
  • J. FailJr.
    • 1
  • L. McHargue
    • 3
  • G. Howell
    • 1
  1. 1.Botany DepartmentUniversity of GeorgiaAthensUSA
  2. 2.Environmental Health and Safety Lab., Georgia Tech Research InstituteGeorgia Institute of TechnologyAtlantaUSA
  3. 3.Department of BiologyUniversity of MiamiCoral GablesUSA

Personalised recommendations