Variability of leaves of Betula pendula Roth during the growing season in the recreation area in the industrial center

Cover Page

Cite item

Abstract

Research was carried out at the Ufa Industrial Center on the territory of recreational zone. Morphological changes in birch leaves (Betula pendula Roth) during the growing season of 2019 are shown. Model birch trees grow on a permanent trial plot. On the trees, 10 leaves were numbered. During the growing season (June - September) photographs of each leaf were taken. The integral indicator of the stability of leaf development is calculated on five grounds. Statistical processing of the data obtained. It has been established that there are deviations in the morphological development of birch leaves. It is shown that an individual trajectory of morphological development is characteristic of leaves. The phenomenon of adaptive polymorphism of birch leaves is noted. Moreover, the morphological and functional features of the leaf are inextricably linked.

Full Text

Introduction The features of leaf growth [1] during the growing season are not well understood. Peculiarities of morphological changes in leaves during the growing season should be taken into account when organizing monitoring studies [2]. In assessing the resistance of plants, depending on the conditions of their growth, the method of assessing the development stability and asymmetry is used [3-10]. The aim of the work was to study the morphological changes in Betula pendula Roth leaves under environmental pollution. The subject of the research is Betula pendula plantations. Materials and methods The studies were conducted in the recreation area on the territory of the Ufa Industrial Center. A general description of the stands has been presented previously [2]. Objects of study - model trees Betula pendula Roth. One tree is large-leaved, the other is small-leaved. In the crown of each tree, 10 leaves are numbered. Each leaf was photographed during the growing season (June - September). In August, reconstruction activities were carried out in the park. Small-leaved tree was cut down. Therefore, data on small-leaved tree are presented for June, July and August. Used a Nikon D40 digital camera. Photographs of the leaves were computer processed using standard programs. A method was used to study the morphological characters of leaves [11; 12]. The stability of the development of leaves of tree stands is estimated. The studies were carried out in 2019, which was characterized by average values of weather and climatic conditions. The actual material for assessing the stability of development of birch leaves is the morphological characteristics of the right and left halves of the leaf according to 5 signs [13]: 1) the width of the left and right halves of the sheet; 2) the length of the vein of the second order from the base of the leaf; 3) the distance between the bases of the first and second veins of the second order; 4) the distance between the ends of these veins; 5) the angle between the main vein and the second vein of the second order from the base of the sheet. Statistical processing of the research results was carried out in the programs: STATISTICA, GraphPad Prism, Microsoft Excel. Results Shown are changes in birch leaves during the growing season [14]. The integral indicator of the stability of leaf development (small-leaved tree and large-leaved tree) was calculated according to five criteria [15] (Figures 1-5). The obtained data were statistically processed, 1-way ANOVA, ANOVA (Tables 1-15). a b Figure 1. Integral index of stability of leaf development (the 1st sign): а - large-leaved tree; b - small-leaved tree Table 1 Column statistics (the 1st sign) Month June July August September Тree Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Number of values 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 - Minimum 0.005 0.012 0.003 0.011 0.006 0.011 0.009 - Maximum 0.132 0.117 0.061 0.092 0.080 0.154 0.116 - Mean 0.063 0.042 0.032 0.034 0.038 0.061 0.056 - Std. Deviation 0.043 0.034 0.024 0.026 0.029 0.060 0.036 - Std. Error 0.014 0.012 0.008 0.009 0.010 0.021 0.012 - Lower 95% CI of mean 0.030 0.014 0.014 0.013 0.016 0.011 0.029 - Upper 95% CI of mean 0.096 0.071 0.050 0.055 0.060 0.111 0.083 - Coefficient of variation 68.28% 80.93% 74.00% 75.48% 75.69% 98.86% 63.48% - Sum 0.569 0.338 0.289 0.272 0.340 0.488 0.505 - Table 2 1-way ANOVA (the 1st sign) Parameter Value Large-leaved tree Small-leaved tree P value 0.180 0.445 P value summary ns ns Are means signif. different? (P < 0,05) No No Number of groups 4 3 F 1.735 0.841 R squared 0.140 0.074 Table 3 ANOVA (the 1st sign) ANOVA Table SS df MS Large-leaved tree Treatment (between columns) 0.00587 3 0.00196 Residual (within columns) 0.03611 32 0.00113 Total 0.04199 35 Small-leaved tree Treatment (between columns) 0.00306 2 0.00153 Residual (within columns) 0.03825 21 0.00182 Total 0.04131 23 a b Figure 2. Integral index of stability of leaf development (the 2nd sign): a - large-leaved tree; b - small-leaved tree Table 4 Column statistics (the 2nd sign) Month June July August September Тree Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Number of values 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 - Minimum 0.001 0.007 0.005 0.004 0.003 0.001 0.002 - Maximum 0.033 0.039 0.088 0.041 0.030 0.051 0.039 - Mean 0.016 0.022 0.028 0.021 0.013 0.016 0.017 - Std. Deviation 0.012 0.012 0.025 0.011 0.009 0.018 0.013 - Std. Error 0.004 0.004 0.008 0.004 0.003 0.007 0.004 - Lower 95% CI of mean 0.007 0.012 0.009 0.012 0.006 0.000 0.007 - Upper 95% CI of mean 0.025 0.033 0.047 0.030 0.019 0.031 0.027 - Coefficient of variation 75.32% 55.30% 90.32% 50.51% 69.22% 117.91% 78.57% - Sum 0.140 0.179 0.252 0.171 0.113 0.125 0.150 - Table 5 1-way ANOVA (the 2nd sign) Parameter Value Large-leaved tree Small-leaved tree P value 0.207 0.600 P value summary ns ns Are means signif. different? (P < 0,05) No No Number of groups 4 3 F 1.609 0.523 R squared 0.131 0.047 Table 6 ANOVA (the 2nd sign) ANOVA Table SS df MS Large-leaved tree Treatment (between columns) 0.00124 3 0.00041 Residual (within columns) 0.00819 32 0.00026 Total 0.00943 35 Small-leaved tree Treatment (between columns) 0.00021 2 0.00011 Residual (within columns) 0.00426 21 0.00020 Total 0.00448 23 1st sign - the width of the left and right halves of the leaf. Bartlett’s test for equal variances. Large-leaved tree: bartlett’s statistic (corrected) 3.014; P value 0.389; P value summary “ns”; Do the variances differ signif. (P < 0.05) - “No”. Small-leaved tree: bartlett’s statistic (corrected) 5.063; P value 0.080; P value summary “ns”; Do the variances differ signif. (P < 0.05) - “No”. 2nd sign - the length of the vein of the second order from the base of the leaf. Bartlett’s test for equal variances. Large-leaved tree: bartlett’s statistic (corrected) 10.1; P value 0.018; P value summary “ns”; Do the variances differ signif. (P < 0.05) - “Yes”. Small-leaved tree: bartlett’s statistic (corrected) 2.128; P value 0.345; P value summary “ns”; Do the variances differ signif. (P < 0.05) - “No”. 3rd sign - the distance between the bases of the first and second veins of the second order of the leaf. Bartlett’s test for equal variances. Large-leaved tree: bartlett’s statistic (corrected) 1.746; P value 0.627; P value summary “ns”; Do the variances differ signif. (P < 0.05) - “No”. Small-leaved tree: bartlett’s statistic (corrected) 0.086; P value 0.958; P value summary “ns”; Do the variances differ signif. (P < 0.05) - “No”. 4th sign - the distance between the ends of the first and second veins of the second order of the leaf. Bartlett’s test for equal variances. Large-leaved tree: bartlett’s statistic (corrected) 2.054; P value 0.561; P value summary “ns”; Do the variances differ signif. (P < 0.05) - “No”. Small-leaved tree: bartlett’s statistic (corrected) 0.158; P value 0.924; P value summary “ns”; Do the variances differ signif. (P < 0.05) - “No”. 5th sign - the angle between the main vein and the second vein of the second order from the base of the leaf. Bartlett’s test for equal variances. Large-leaved tree: bartlett’s statistic (corrected) 0.808; P value 0.848; P value summary “ns”; Do the variances differ signif. (P < 0.05) - “No”. Small-leaved tree: bartlett’s statistic (corrected) 2.52; P value 0.284; P value summary “ns”; Do the variances differ signif. (P < 0.05) - “No”. а b Figure 3. Integral index of stability of leaf development (the 3rd sign): а - large-leaved tree; b - small-leaved tree Table 7 Column statistics (the 3rd feature) Month June July August September Тree Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Number of values 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 - Minimum 0.008 0.036 0.017 0.008 0.016 0.014 0.010 - Maximum 0.130 0.214 0.101 0.188 0.127 0.195 0.128 - Mean 0.060 0.106 0.052 0.064 0.068 0.060 0.070 - Std. Deviation 0.039 0.068 0.029 0.064 0.035 0.060 0.046 - Std. Error 0.013 0.024 0.010 0.022 0.012 0.021 0.015 - Lower 95% CI of mean 0.030 0.049 0.030 0.011 0.041 0.010 0.034 - Upper 95% CI of mean 0.090 0.162 0.074 0.117 0.095 0.111 0.105 - Coefficient of variation 64.24% 63.97% 55.21% 99.23% 51.41% 99.83% 66.29% - Sum 0.541 0.845 0.470 0.512 0.612 0.483 0.628 - Table 8 1-way ANOVA (the 3rd feature) Parameter Value Large-leaved tree Small-leaved tree P value 0.746 0.310 P value summary ns ns Are means signif. different? (P < 0.05) No No Number of groups 4 3 F 0.411 1.241 R squared 0.037 0.106 Table 9 ANOVA (the 3rd feature) ANOVA Table SS df MS Large-leaved tree Treatment (between columns) 0.00175 3 0.00058 Residual (within columns) 0.04547 32 0.00142 Total 0.04722 35 Small-leaved tree Treatment (between columns) 0.01012 2 0.00506 Residual (within columns) 0.08562 21 0.00408 Total 0.09573 23 а b Figure 4. Integral index of stability of leaf development (the 4th sign): а - large-leaved tree; b - small-leaved tree Table 10 Column statistics (the 4th sign) Month June July August September Тree Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Number of values 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 - Minimum 0.022 0.010 0.007 0.022 0.016 0.010 0.004 - Maximum 0.136 0.175 0.086 0.171 0.119 0.175 0.099 - Mean 0.083 0.072 0.056 0.062 0.065 0.060 0.061 - Std. Deviation 0.041 0.059 0.027 0.052 0.034 0.060 0.026 - Std. Error 0.014 0.021 0.009 0.018 0.011 0.021 0.009 - Lower 95% CI of mean 0.051 0.022 0.036 0.018 0.039 0.010 0.041 - Upper 95% CI of mean 0.115 0.121 0.077 0.105 0.091 0.110 0.081 - Coefficient of variation 49.68% 82.85% 48.02% 83.99% 52.01% 99.89% 43.46% - Sum 0.748 0.574 0.508 0.495 0.582 0.478 0.548 - Table 11 1-way ANOVA (the 4th sign) Parameter Value Large-leaved tree Small-leaved tree P value 0.341 0.905 P value summary ns ns Are means signif. different? (P < 0,05) No No Number of groups 4 3 F 1.157 0.101 R squared 0.098 0.009 Table 12 ANOVA (the 4th sign) ANOVA Table SS df MS Large-leaved tree Treatment (between columns) 0.00371 3 0.00124 Residual (within columns) 0.03417 32 0.00107 Total 0.03787 35 Small-leaved tree Treatment (between columns) 0.00066 2 0.00033 Residual (within columns) 0.06858 21 0.00327 Total 0.06923 23 а b Figure 5. Integral index of stability of leaf development (the 5th sign): а - large-leaved tree; b - small-leaved tree Table 13 Column statistics (the 5th feature) Month June July August September Тree Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Large-leaved Small-leaved Number of values 9 8 9 8 9 8 9 - Minimum 0.015 0.014 0.005 0.001 0.015 0.003 0.010 - Maximum 0.150 0.193 0.129 0.113 0.158 0.085 0.119 - Mean 0.052 0.049 0.050 0.035 0.046 0.035 0.039 - Std. Deviation 0.041 0.059 0.046 0.040 0.046 0.032 0.034 - Std. Error 0.014 0.021 0.015 0.014 0.015 0.011 0.011 - Lower 95% CI of mean 0.020 0.000 0.014 0.002 0.011 0.008 0.012 - Upper 95% CI of mean 0.084 0.098 0.085 0.068 0.081 0.062 0.065 - Coefficient of variation 79.04% 119.82% 93.14% 113.74% 99.09% 92.32% 88.61% - Sum 0.470 0.393 0.447 0.278 0.415 0.280 0.349 - Table 14 1-way ANOVA (the 5th feature) Parameter Value Large-leaved tree Small-leaved tree P value 0.914 0.768 P value summary ns ns Are means signif. different? (P < 0,05) No No Number of groups 4 3 F 0.173 0.268 R squared 0.016 0.025 Table 15 ANOVA (the 5th feature) ANOVA Table SS df MS Large-leaved tree Treatment (between columns) 0.00092 3 0.00031 Residual (within columns) 0.05690 32 0.00178 Total 0.05780 35 Small-leaved tree Treatment (between columns) 0.00108 2 0.00054 Residual (within columns) 0.04250 21 0.00202 Total 0.04358 23 Discussion ANOVA analysis of variance showed that there are no differences between the average values of the compared groups on five grounds. Using the Bartlett test, an approximate criterion was determined to assess the uniformity of variance for equal deviations on five grounds. To the question whether these deviations differ significantly between large leaves (according to the first, third, fourth and fifth characteristics), the answer is received - there are no differences. According to the second criterion (the length of the vein of the second order from the base of the leaf), these deviations differ. To the question whether these deviations differ significantly in small leaves, the answer is received - there are no differences. The formation of an individual development trajectory occurs at each leaf. This can be seen in the figures presented. It is associated with growing conditions - a recreation area in an industrial center with a high recreational load. Under extreme growing conditions, an adaptive reaction of the leaves is manifested. The phenomenon of adaptive polymorphism was noted in birch leaves. However, the morphological and functional features of the leaf are inextricably linked. Conclusion During the growing season on the territory of the recreation zone in the Ufa industrial center, deviations in the development of Betula pendula leaves were noted. It was noted that leaf asymmetry indices can be used to characterize the state of Betula pendula trees. The need to monitor the state of the stands, as well as the timely detection of violations and changes in the condition of individual trees, is associated with the development of measures for the care of the stands and for the reconstruction of the stands.

×

About the authors

Olesya V. Tagirova

Bashkir State Pedagogical University named after M. Akmulla

Author for correspondence.
Email: olecyi@mail.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0003-1615-7005

Candidate of Biological Sciences, Associate Professor, Associate Professor of the Department of Ecology, Geography and Nature Management

3A Oktyabr'skoi Revolyutsii St, Ufa, 450008, Russian Federation

Alexsei Yu. Kulagin

Ufa Federal Research Center of the Russian Academy of Sciences

Email: coolagin@list.ru
ORCID iD: 0000-0002-6617-1027

Doctor of Biological Sciences, Professor, Head of the Forestry Laboratory

69 Prospekt Oktyabrya, Ufa, 450054, Russian Federation

References

  1. Konstantinov EL. Analysis of the stability of warty birch (Betula pendula Roth.) as a method of bioindication of environmental quality. Problems of General Biology and Applied Ecology. 1997;(1):107-108. (In Russ.)
  2. Kulagin AYu, Tagirova OV. Forest stands of the Ufa industrial center: current state in the conditions of anthropogenic influences. Ufa: Gilem Publ.; Bashkirskaya entsiklopediya Publ.; 2015. (In Russ.)
  3. Musketeers AB, Shestakov GA, Shpynov AV, Garkunov MI, Konstantinov EL. Bioindicating assessment of the landfill site 3. Anthropogenic Impacts and Human Health: All-Russian Scientific-Practical Conference. Kaluga; 1996. p. 242-244. (In Russ.)
  4. Palmer AR, Strobeck C. Fluctuating asymmetry as a measure of developmental stability: implications of nonnormal distributions and power of statistical tests. Acta Zool. Fennica. 1992;191:57-72.
  5. Chippindale A, Palmer R. Persistance of subtle departures from symmetry over mutiple molts in individual brachyuran crabs: relevance to developmental stability. Genetica. 1993;89(1-3):185-199.
  6. Cowart NM, Graham JH. Within- and among-individual variation in fluctuating asymmetry of leaves in the fig (Ficus carica l.). Int. J. Plant Sci. 1999;160(1):116-121.
  7. Graham JH, Shimizu K, Emlen JM, et al. Growth models and the expected distribution of fluctuating asymmetry. Biol. J. Lin. Soc. 2003;80:57-65.
  8. Kulagin AA. (ed.) Monitor the state of the environment and health of city district city of Ufa Bashkortostan. Ufa: BSPU Publ.; 2014. (In Russ.)
  9. Graham JH, Whitesell MJ, Fleming M, Hel-Or H, Nevo E, Raz Sh. Fluctuating asymmetry of plant leaves: batch processing with LAMINA and continuous symmetry measures. Symmetry. 2015;7:255-268. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym7010255
  10. Kozlov M, Zverev V, Sandner TM. photosynthetic efficiency is higher in asymmetric leaves than in symmetric leaves of the same plant. Symmetry. 2019;11(6):834. https://doi.org/10.3390/sym11060834
  11. Zakharov VM. The asymmetry of animals (population-phenogenetically approach). Moscow: Nauka Publ.; 1987. (In Russ.)
  12. Shestakova GA, Streltsov AB, Konstantinov EL. Methodology for collecting and processing the material to assess the stability of Betula pendula. Materials for Additional Environmental Education of Students: Collection of Articles. 2004;1:187-195. (In Russ.)
  13. Zakharov VM, Baranov AS, Borisov VI, et al. Environmental health: methods of evaluation. Moscow: Center for Russian Environmental Policy; 2000. (In Russ.)
  14. Tagirova OV, Kulagin AYu. Seasonal variability of hanging birch leaves (Betula pendula Roth) in extreme forest-growing conditions. Bulletin of the Orenburg State University. 2017;11(211):115-117. (In Russ.)
  15. Tagirova OV, Kulagin AYu, Zaitsev GA. Seasonal dynamics of changes in some parameters of birch leaves hanging (Betula pendula Roth) in the conditions of industrial impact (Ufa, Republic of Bashkortostan). Principles of Ecology. 2019;8(2);110-118. (In Russ.)

Copyright (c) 2021 Tagirova O.V., Kulagin A.Y.

Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.

This website uses cookies

You consent to our cookies if you continue to use our website.

About Cookies