| Literature DB >> 34492027 |
Jie Yu1,2,3, Li-Ren Xu4, Chong Liu2, Yong-Tan Li1,2, Xin-Bo Pang5, Zhao-Hua Liu5, Min-Sheng Yang1,2, Yan-Hui Li4.
Abstract
We used fresh leaves of Sophora japonica L. variety 'Qingyun 1' (A0) and 10 superior clones of the same species (A1-A10) to explore leaf morphological characteristics and total particle retention per unit leaf area under natural and artificial simulated dust deposition treatments. Our objectives were to explore the relationship between the two methods and to assess particle size distribution, X-ray fluorescence (XRF) heavy metal content, and scanning electron and atomic force microscopy (SEM and AFM) characteristics of leaf surface microstructure. Using the membership function method, we evaluated the dust retention capacity of each clone based on the mean degree of membership of its dust retention index. Using correlation analysis, we selected leaf morphological and SEM and AFM indices related significantly to dust retention capacity. Sophora japonica showed excellent overall dust retention capacity, although this capacity differed among clones. A5 had the strongest overall retention capacity, A2 had the strongest retention capacity for PM2.5, A9 had the strongest retention capacity for PM2.5-10, A0 had the strongest retention capacity for PM>10, and A2 had the strongest specific surface area (SSA) and heavy metal adsorption capacity. Overall, A1 had the strongest comprehensive dust retention ability, A5 was intermediate, and A7 had the weakest capacity. Certain leaf morphological and SEM and AFM characteristic indices correlated significantly with the dust retention capacity.Entities:
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2021 PMID: 34492027 PMCID: PMC8423301 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0254627
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Clones tested.
| Sample number | Tree height/m | Breast diameter/cm | Ground diameter/cm | Crown width/m | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| East and west | North and South | ||||
| A0 | 5.04±0.46 | 5.06±0.90 | 7.32±1.23 | 1.55±0.64 | 1.44±0.65 |
| A1 | 5.43±0.47 | 5.10±0.89 | 7.30±1.30 | 1.28±0.456 | 1.46±0.63 |
| A2 | 5.14±0.32 | 5.03±0.82 | 7.40±1.03 | 1.71±0.84 | 1.44±0.73 |
| A3 | 5.23±0.53 | 4.98±0.91 | 7.10±1.55 | 1.58±0.53 | 1.61±0.54 |
| A4 | 5.63±0.48 | 4.70±0.42 | 7.05±0.74 | 1.13±0.37 | 1.30±0.53 |
| A5 | 5.34±0.48 | 4.88±0.73 | 6.90±1.10 | 1.40±0.38 | 1.37±0.42 |
| A6 | 4.88±0.38 | 4.24±0.55 | 6.71±1.23 | 0.79±0.32 | 0.74±0.35 |
| A7 | 5.46±0.48 | 5.16±0.51 | 7.65±1.06 | 1.31±0.35 | 1.37±0.32 |
| A8 | 5.70±0.58 | 5.19±0.97 | 7.89±1.53 | 1.68±0.79 | 1.83±0.81 |
| A9 | 5.44±0.36 | 5.25±0.69 | 7.45±1.23 | 2.15±0.60 | 1.91±0.47 |
| A10 | 5.21±0.58 | 4.39±0.63 | 6.28±1.01 | 1.09±0.42 | 1.19±0.50 |
Fig 1Retention capacity of total particulate matter in leaves of different clones of Sophora japonica L.
Data in 2A are means ± standard deviation. Different lowercase letters indicate significant differences among different clones using the same determination method (p < 0.05).
Fig 2Particle size analysis for leaves of different clones of Sophora japonica L.
Fig 3X-ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis of harmful heavy metals in particulate matter found on leaf surfaces.
Fig 4Thermal and cluster map of dust retention indexes (Y1–Y11).
Data in 5A comprise the membership degree () of each sample, total natural and artificial particulate matter per unit leaf area, PM2.5, PM2.5–10, PM > 10, and specific surface area (SSA), and elemental content for chromium (Cr), cobalt (Co), nickel (Ni), and arsenic (As).
Fig 5Unweighted pair group method with arithmetic mean (UPGMA) cluster analysis of the phenotypic traits of different clones of Sophora japonica L.
Fig 6Scanning electron microscopy (SEM) of leaf epidermis micro-configurations in Sophora japonica L. (500×).
Alphanumeric identifiers indicate the clone number and upper or lower epidermis of the leaf.
Characteristics of the epidermis and stomata (500×).
| Clones | Number of gullies | Morphology of stomatal apparatus | Number of pores | Number of epidermal hairs |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| A0 | 86 | Oblong, mostly closed, uneven in size, irregular in arrangement, about 80–150μm in diameter | 23 | 1 |
| A1 | 69 | Oval, mostly closed, uneven in size, irregular in arrangement, about 100–120μm in diameter, a small number of guard cells protruding | 17 | 0 |
| A2 | 62 | Oblong, mostly closed, uneven in size, irregular in arrangement, sunken, about 110–200μm in diameter | 14 | 3 |
| A3 | 60 | Oval, mostly open, uneven in size, irregular in arrangement, sunken, about 100–120μm in diameter | 19 | 2 |
| A4 | 100 | Oval, almost all closed, uneven in size, irregular in arrangement, sunken, about 40–100μm in diameter | 31 | 5 |
| A5 | 77 | Oblong, almost all closed, uneven in size, irregular in arrangement, about 100–170μm in diameter | 11 | 2 |
| A6 | 79 | Oval, small open, uniform size, irregular arrangement, sunken, about 100μm in diameter | 17 | 0 |
| A7 | 63 | Oval, almost all closed, uneven size, irregular arrangement, sunken, diameter about 20–100μm | 3 | 1 |
| A8 | 53 | Oblong, almost all closed, uneven size, irregular arrangement, sunken, about 40–80μm in diameter | 15 | 4 |
| A9 | 93 | Oblong, almost all closed, uniform in size, irregular in arrangement, sunken, about 90–110μm in diameter | 16 | 2 |
| A10 | 65 | Oval, small open, uneven size, irregular arrangement, sunken, about 150–180μm in diameter | 33 | 0 |
Note: Numbers of surface hairs and gullies represent 500 times their sum on the upper and lower surfaces of the visual field of the scanning electron microscope (SEM).
Fig 7Microstructure of a three-dimensional leaf surface from each sample in atomic force microscope (AFM) view.
Alphanumeric identifiers indicate the clone number and upper or lower epidermis of the leaf.
Fig 8Relationship between leaf shape, SEM and AFM characteristics of the leaf surface, and dust retention index.
Data are inter-index correlation coefficients (r). Significant correlations are indicated by *(P < 0.05) and ** (P < 0.01). Leaf shape and surface microtrait indicators include compound leaf length (X1), compound leaf width (X2), compound leaf petiole length (X3), leaflet length (X4), leaflet width (X5), leaflet area (X6), leaflet circumference (X7), number of gullies (X8), stomatal size (X9), number of stomata (X10), epidermal hair number (X11), roughness (X12), peak and valley (X13). Dust blocker indicators (Y–Y) are consistent with Fig 4A.