|Titolo||Geostatistics as a validation tool for setting ozone standards for durum wheat|
|Tipo di pubblicazione||Articolo su Rivista peer-reviewed|
|Anno di Pubblicazione||2010|
|Autori||De Marco, A., Screpanti A., and Paoletti E.|
|Parole chiave||Agriculture, Air Pollutants, article, Biological response, Central Italy, controlled study, Crop yield, Durum wheats, environmental exposure, environmental policy, Environmental policy-making, environmental protection, Europe, Geo-statistics, geostatistical analysis, geostatistics, Italy, meteorological phenomena, multiple regression, Multiple regressions, nonhuman, Nonparametric, Ozone, Ozone standards, Plant response, policy making, precipitation, precipitation (chemistry), Rain, Regression analysis, standard, standard (reference), standards, statistics, stomata, Sustainable development, Triticum, Triticum turgidum subsp. durum, troposphere, Tropospheric ozone, United States, validation process, Validation tools, wheat, Yield loss|
Which is the best standard for protecting plants from ozone? To answer this question, we must validate the standards by testing biological responses vs. ambient data in the field. A validation is missing for European and USA standards, because the networks for ozone, meteorology and plant responses are spatially independent. We proposed geostatistics as validation tool, and used durum wheat in central Italy as a test. The standards summarized ozone impact on yield better than hourly averages. Although USA criteria explained ozone-induced yield losses better than European criteria, USA legal level (75 ppb) protected only 39% of sites. European exposure-based standards protected ≥90%. Reducing the USA level to the Canadian 65 ppb or using W126 protected 91% and 97%, respectively. For a no-threshold accumulated stomatal flux, 22 mmol m-2 was suggested to protect 97% of sites. In a multiple regression, precipitation explained 22% and ozone explained <0.9% of yield variability. © 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
cited By 8