Next Article in Journal
Assessment of Spatial and Temporal Variations in Runoff Potential under Changing Climatic Scenarios in Northern Part of Karnataka in India Using Geospatial Techniques
Next Article in Special Issue
Enhanced Treatment of Decentralized Domestic Sewage Using Gravity-Flow Multi-Soil-Layering Systems Coupled with Iron-Carbon Microelectrolysis
Previous Article in Journal
Pursuing Consultant Performance: The Roles of Sustainable Leadership Styles, Sustainable Human Resource Management Practices, and Consultant Job Satisfaction
Previous Article in Special Issue
Decomposition Behavior of Biodegradable and Single-Use Tableware Items in the Warnow Estuary (Baltic Sea)
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Screening of Plant Species Response and Performance for Green Belt Development: Implications for Semi-Urban Ecosystem Restoration

by
Winifred U. Anake
1,*,
Faith O. Bayode
1,
Hassana O. Jonathan
1,
Conrad A. Omonhinmin
2,
Oluwole A. Odetunmibi
3 and
Timothy A. Anake
3
1
Department of Chemistry, College of Science & Technology, Covenant University, Ota 112233, Nigeria
2
Department of Biological Sciences, College of Science & Technology, Covenant University, Ota 112233, Nigeria
3
Department of Mathematics, College of Science & Technology, Covenant University, Ota 112233, Nigeria
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2022, 14(7), 3968; https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073968
Submission received: 15 December 2021 / Revised: 7 February 2022 / Accepted: 8 February 2022 / Published: 28 March 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Sustainable Ecological Environment Restoration)

Abstract

:
Screened plant species with potential for green belt development can act as eco-sustainable tools for restoring the polluted ecosystem. Eight plant species from two study locations in Ado-Odo, Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria, were examined to identify their air pollution response and performance by deploying two air pollution indices, namely air pollution tolerance index (APTI) and anticipated performance index (API). APTI results identified all screened plants as sensitive species suitable as bio-indicators of air pollution, with Ficus auriculata (2.42) common to the non-industrial location being the most sensitive. API scores categorized Ficus auriculata (56.25%) as a moderate performer, while Syzygium malaccense (75%) and Mangifera indica (75%) were identified as very good performers, suitable for green belt development. The relationship between each biochemical parameter with APTI was investigated using regression analysis and two-way analysis of variance. The model result showed a significant relationship between each biochemical parameter with APTI, and relative water content had the highest influence on APTI (R2 = 0.99436). Both indices (APTI and API) are suitable for screening and recommending native plant species for cultivation in the polluted environment, thus promoting ecological restoration. Hence, Syzygium malaccense, Mangifera indica and Ficus auriculata, respectively, were recommended for green belts design. Further intensive screening to identify tolerant species and best to excellent performer’s trees suitable for restoring the ecosystem is advised.

1. Introduction

Air pollution introduces chemical substances, particles, and other biological materials into the air around us in amounts toxic to human beings, plants, animals, and the entire environment [1,2]. The significant sources of airborne pollutants that have caused deterioration in the quality of air include an increase in vehicular and industrial emissions as well as rapid urbanization leading to declining vegetation growth in such environment [3,4,5]. Airborne pollutants such as dust, the particulate matter having an aerodynamic diameter of less than 0.1 µm to 10 µm (PM0.1–PM10), gaseous pollutants (nitrogen dioxide, sulphur dioxide, ozone, carbon monoxide, volatile organic compounds, etc.) and toxic metals, reduce the ambient air quality. They are also dangerous to human health and alter the atmosphere and plant ecosystem [6,7,8,9,10]. To mitigate the dangerous impact of these toxic pollutants, environmental analysts emphasize the use of recurring green belts adaptive to the native surrounding of the polluted areas to promote ecological restoration [11,12,13,14,15]. Cultivating greenbelt identified vegetation in urban environmental stressed areas improves the quality of air by absorbing and accumulating dust pollutants on leaf surfaces, reduces noise, regulates atmospheric temperature, thus reducing urban heat island effect in addition to other ecosystem benefits [11,16,17,18]. Plants can get rid of particulate matter in several ways: absorbing the pollutants on the leaves, depositing it on the upper part of the leaves, and falling out of pollutants (particles) on the downward portion of the green belt [19,20]. On the contrary, some tree species in the urban area can negatively affect human health and air quality through pollen emission and biogenic volatile organic compounds [12,21,22]. Also, depending on the meteorological and climatic condition of the urban environment, tree spacing, and characteristics (thickness, height etc.) [23,24], trees can obstruct airflow, thus resulting in decreased air exchange and accumulation of larger pollutant concentrations [22,25].
Therefore, the effectiveness of different plant cultivation patterns and screening of specific adaptable plant species further enhances their pollutants abatement capacity [12,26,27]. The literature has explained the effects of particulate and gaseous pollutants on the biological and chemical parameters of plant leaves, such as the relative water content, chlorophyll content, ascorbic acid content, and leaf extract pH [10,28,29]. Using these various parameters provides different outputs of similar plants. As a result, just one criterion will likely not give an acceptable result of the changes caused by pollution prevalent in plants. This is due to the fact that plants exhibit different responses to different pollutants [28,30,31]. According to Singh and Rao [31], the air pollution tolerance index (APTI) indicates the ability of plant leaves to act as air pollution tolerant and sensitive species [32,33]. Plants perceptivity and reaction to toxic pollutants vary, and susceptible plant types are used as bio-indicators to detect the biochemical changes in plants. In contrast, resistant types act as sinks of air pollutants [34,35,36]. APTI is excellent in determining the impact of toxic air pollutants on the biological and chemical parameters of the plants only [37,38,39]. Thus, to choose plants with potentials for green belt development, several factors contributing to the performance of plant species, such as biological characteristics and socio-economic in combination with biochemical parameters obtained from APTI, are also examined. Hence, the anticipated performance index (API) was developed [40,41]. API applies the obtained APTI value along with its own generated biological characteristics (plant size, hardiness, texture, canopy structure, habit) and socio-economic importance to predict the effectiveness of a given plant species to abate pollution. Based on the earlier characters, different grade points are allotted to the plant species. Generally, all plants are allotted a maximum of 16-grade points (positives). API is obtained by dividing the grade point of different plant species with the maximum 16 fixed points and scaled to percentages. With the resultant points, plants are grouped into different assessment formats ranging from best (91–100) to not recommended (<30) [17,37,38,41].
Investigating the significance and effect of the variables under consideration on air pollution requires statistical methods and models [42,43]. Regression models help establish the independent variable’s influence and effect on the dependent variable by obtaining the slope and the intercept of the investigated variables. Analysis of variance shows the changes in the average quantitative variables with respect to the levels of categorical variables, as illustrated in several studies [44,45,46,47]. This study is significant since it promotes the use of cost-effective and eco-friendly use of passive bio-indicators to complement the physico-chemical approaches for air quality valuation [11,12,48], in line with the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 3, 7, 11, and 13 for the substantial reduction of air pollution. This is apt, especially in environments devoid of air quality monitoring stations such as in the current study [49]. In this work, eight common plant species from two locations (industrial and non-industrial) in Ado-Odo Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria, have been screened to (a) determine their tolerance/sensitive potentials in polluted air (b) examine the significance of the plants biochemical variables, and (c) ascertain the plant’s performance ability for green belt design.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Sites

This study was carried out in Ogun State, the southwestern part of Nigeria as depicted in Figure 1. The industrial location (Ota Industrial Estate), denoted as ILO, has over thirty-five functioning industries which are the primary sources of air pollutants emissions. The surrounding roads within these locations are untarred, thus adding to the emitted dust particles. The non-industrial community (Canaanland), denoted as NIC, comprises the church, schools, residential areas, commercial activities, and has tarred roads. It is surrounded by green vegetation and reduced traffic density. The daily mean measurement of the meteorological conditions at the study area was as follows: wind speed (3.69 ± 0.768 m/s), relative humidity (74.1 ± 14.8%), temperature min (24.40 ± 2.48 °C), max (35.1 ± 1.23 °C), and sunshine (6.14 ± 2.21 h), as provided by the Nigerian Meteorological Agency (NIMET).

2.2. Sample Collection

Eight matured trees species, including Terminalia catappa, Syzygium malaccense, Anacardium occidentale, Theobroma cacao, Citrus sinensis, Mangifera indica, Mussaenda erythrophylla, and Ficus auriculata, were selected and collected from ILO and NIC locations in Ado-Odo Ota, Ogun State, Nigeria. Triplicate plants samples were taken randomly during the month of January–March 2016 and assembled in an aluminum foil to prevent the loss of moisture. It was immediately transported to the laboratory for identification by a molecular plant systematist in their fresh form (Table 1), processed and stored in the refrigerator. All of the leaves were sampled within twenty-four hours to avoid variations in the results. To the best of our knowledge, this study is the first to screen Theobroma cacao, Mussaenda erythrophylla, and Ficus auriculata, for their APTI and API potentials in Nigeria.

2.3. Estimation of Biochemical Parameters

The four biochemical parameters employed in evaluating plants response or tolerance towards air pollution includes relative water content, pH of leaf extract, total chlorophyll content, and ascorbic acid content. A total of 5 g of fresh ground leaves was homogenized in 50 mL distilled water, the leaf extract was filtered and measured for pH using a calibrated glass electrode pH meter following Pandey et al. [40]. The relative water content was determined by first weighing the fresh leaves, then it was immediately soaked in water for a period of 24 h, blotted dry, and re-weighed to obtain the turgid weight. After which, the turgid leaves were oven dried at 70 °C for 12 h, and weighed again to determine the dry weight according to Pathak et al. [50]. The ascorbic acid content of leaves was analyzed using an ultraviolet spectrophotometer according to Prajapati and Tripathi method and the ascorbic acid levels in the sample was extrapolated from a standard ascorbic acid curve [51]. Total chlorophyll content was determined by adding 1 g of powdered fresh leaves sample to 10 mL of freshly prepared 80% acetone in a 15 mL centrifuge tube. The leaf extract was afterwards centrifuged at 2500 rpm for 180 s to achieve thorough separation and poured into test tubes using Whatman filter paper. The solutions absorbance was then measured at 645 nm and 663 nm with an ultraviolet spectrophotometer after calibration with 80% acetone as the reagent blank. Modified method of Arnon and Singh was used in the computation of total chlorophyll content as shown in Equation (1) [31,41,52].
Total   chlorophyll     mg / g = 20.2 A 645 + 8.02 A 663 × V W × 1000
where, A 645 is the absorbance at 645 nm, A 663 is the absorbance at 663 nm, V is the volume of the sample extract (mL), and W is the weight of the extracted leaf (g).

2.4. Air Pollution Tolerance Index (APTI)

The formula for computing plants APTI is as shown in Equation (2)
APTI = A T + P + R 10
From Equation (2), A and T refers to the ascorbic acid content (mg/g), and the total chlorophyll content (mg/g), respectively, while P refers to the pH of the leaf extract, and R is the relative water content expressed in percentage (%). The APTI results obtained are further grouped as tolerant (≥17), intermediate tolerant or sensitive (12–16), and sensitive (1–11) [53,54] in order to evaluate the susceptibility and resistivity of different plants species to air pollution.

2.5. Anticipated Performance Index (API)

API combines the obtained APTI results with plants biological parameters (plant size, hardiness, texture, canopy structure, habit) and socio-economic importance to ascertain individual plants performance. Plants’ performance capacity is determined from their allotted sixteen (16) points, scaled to 100 per cent [16,55,56,57]. The API score is assigned to each plant species according to Prajapati [51] and Ogunkunle [54]. Based on API scores, plants are grouped in different assessment formats as follows: not recommended <30; very poor, from 31 to 40; poor, from 41 to 50; moderate, from 51 to 60; good, from 61 to 70; very good, from 71 to 80; excellent, from 81 to 90; and best, from 91 to 100 [16,55,56,57]. API is further calculated as depicted in Equation (3).
API = No .     of   +   obtained     Total     No .     of   + × 100

2.6. Statistical Analysis

The results were statistically analyzed using Microsoft Excel 2013 and Statistical Packages for Social Sciences (SPSS) software version 23.0. Individual samples were analyzed in triplicates and expressed as mean. The biochemical parameters were compared with APTI using multiple regression and two-way analysis of variance. R-square values for the data were obtained to investigate the variability level of the data under investigation.

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. APTI Biochemical Parameters

3.1.1. pH of Leaf Extract (P)

The pH of leaf extracts ranged from 2.88 to 5.96 in the acidic category both at the industrial (ILO) and non-industrial sites (NIC). Plants from NIC location had a higher range of pH (4.53–5.72) when compared with those from ILO (2.88–5.96) (Table 2). The pH is a sensitive indicator of airborne pollution as such a higher or lower pH value is an indication of the state of the environmental pollution. As a result of the influence of ambient air pollution on pH levels, investigated plants showed the following increasing trend: Theobroma cacao > Terminalia catappa > Anacardium occidentale > Syzygium malaccense, in the ILO site and Citrus sinensis > Mussaenda erythrophylla > Mangifera indica > Ficus auriculata in the NIC site. Reduced pH content of the leaves triggers changes in the stomatal activities, including respiration and transpiration. The outcome is a reduction in the photosynthetic capacity of the plants [18,19]. Also, the lower pH content of the leaves is associated with acidic pollutants, with the significant effect being more visible in sensitive plant species [17,58,59]. Several studies have confirmed a positive correlation between lower pH concentrations in plants and their sensitivity to air pollutants [41,60]. On the contrary, higher pH concentration in plants increases their ability to convert hexose sugar (glucose and galactose) into ascorbic acid. Thus, increasing their tolerance capacity to withstand atmospheric environmental pollutants such as sulphur dioxide and nitrogen oxides [18,61].

3.1.2. Total Chlorophyll Content (T)

Chlorophyll performs a major function in plant metabolism. The extent of plants’ growth and developmental processes depends on the amount of plants chlorophyll content [18,19]. All of the studied plants exhibited low concentrations of chlorophyll content, which varied between 1.03–2.93 mg/g amongst all of the studied sites (Table 2). Plants from ILO locations exhibited a higher range of leaf chlorophyll content (1.09–2.93 mg/g) when compared with those from NIC (1.03–2.25 mg/g) (Table 2). Anacardium occidentale (2.93 mg/g) and Ficus auriculata (2.25 mg/g) from industrial and non-industrial sites had the highest chlorophyll content. Variation in the chlorophyll content of the plant is a function of the type of species, nature of environmental pollution, age of leaves, amongst others [62,63]. Also, the levels of the synthesized chlorophyll content in the plant are directly influenced by the levels of particulate deposited on the leaves, which clogs the stomatal pores and reduces the rates of carbon dioxide transfer, carbon assimilation and transpiration [64,65]. This agrees with the research conducted by Karmakar et al. [19], Karmakar and Padhy [38], Mukhopadhyay et al. [46], and Timilsina et al. [47]. Since, chlorophyll content is sensitive to pollutants, it was conferred that reduced chlorophyll content is an indication of increased ambient pollution [34,40,47]. However, plants seen with increased chlorophyll content in the same environment are tolerant to airborne pollutants prevalent in that investigated location [55,66].

3.1.3. Relative Water Content (R)

The relative water content of the selected plant species across the study sites ranged from 19.30% in leaves of Ficus auriculata to 98.90% in leaves of Anacardium occidentale (Table 2). The industrial sites (71–98.90%), recorded the highest value compared to the non-industrial site (19.30–69.50%). Relative water content is a reflection of the transpiration capacity of the plant [35]. Seven out of the eight plant species recorded relative water content higher than 40% in this study. Depending on plant species, fully turgid transpiring leaves can retain very high relative water content above 98%, it can also reduce below 40% in severe drought conditions [11]. Increased R maintains plants physiological balance and increases their tolerance capacity towards ambient pollutants, while decreased R below 40% reduces stomatal conductance and carbon dioxide assimilation pollutants [41,57,67,68].
Manjunath and Reddy [2] reported that plants with higher R had better air pollution tolerance. In their work, V. rosea with a higher R of 88.59% from the non-polluted area reflected the highest APTI of 27.44. Similarly, in this study, Anacardium occidentale from the industrial site with the highest R of 98.90% had the highest APTI of 11.10. In comparison, Mangifera indica from the non-industrial site with the highest R of 84.4% showed the highest APTI of 9.61. Generally, relative water content was higher in all plant species at the industrial sites. The plant species in the industrial sites can be recommended for cultivation in polluted areas with similar climatic conditions and pollutant stress [47,57].

3.1.4. Ascorbic Acid Contents (A)

As indicated from the results in Table 2, ascorbic acid contents ranged from 0.22 mg/g (Terminalia catappa) to 2.89 mg/g (Citrus sinensis) across both study locations. Increased in the ascorbic acid content of plants due to air pollution stress observed highest at NIC site than those of the ILO. This finding indicates a correlation between pH and ascorbic acid. Theobroma cacao and Citrus sinensis with an ascorbic acid content of 1.86 and 2.89 showed the highest pH of 5.96 and 5.72 in ILO and NIC sites, respectively. Ascorbic acid acts as strong anti-oxidant in plants by inducing their defense mechanisms in diverse environmental stressed conditions against the formation of reactive oxygen species (ROS), which is induced in plants from the absorbed pollutants [69,70,71,72,73]. Hence, a higher concentration of ascorbic acid in leaves increases their tolerance ability towards air pollution [68]. The increased in the ascorbic acid content of plants as a function of their physiological response to air pollution stress indicated in this work supports the findings of Shreatha et al. [11] (0.975 to 30.2 mg/g); Timilsina et al. [47] (0.07 to 1.41 mg/g); Sen et al. [60] (2.220 to 23.400 mg/g) in the pre-monsoon season and (1.313 to 24.434 mg/g) in the post-monsoon; Rai. [73] (0.20 ± 0.02 to 0.72 ± 0.05 mg g−1); Uka et al. [74] (10.91 to 19.81 mg/g); Aasawari et al. [75] (0.93 ± 0.1 mg/g to 8.24 ± 0.3605 mg/g); and Correa-Ochoa et al. [76] (1.11 to 12.33 mg/g).

3.2. Air Pollution Tolerance Index (APTI)

Table 2 presents the APTI results for all of the eight (8) plant species. Across both study locations, APTI ranged from 2.42 to 11.1. APTI results ranged from 7.25 to 11.1 and 2.42 to 9.61 for ILO and NIC, respectively. Plants with lower values of APTI can act as bio-indicators, while those with higher values act as sinks of atmospheric pollution in polluted environments [77,78,79]. Following the APTI classification, as described in Section 2.4, low APTI values in the range of 1–11 were recorded in this study. This implies that the plant species in both study sites are sensitive species. As such, these plant species can be assigned air pollution bio-indicators status [74,75,80]. Similarly, Ficus auriculata with a 2.42 APTI value was the most sensitive amongst the screened species, and the plant was common in NLO. On the contrary, when higher APTI values are obtained, the plants are tolerant of air pollutants. Previous studies reveals low APTI values recorded by Bui et al. [35] (<10.0); Kwak et al. [45] (<10.0); Ogunkunle et al. [54] (<13.0); and Karmakar et al. [19] (<24.0) for non-industrial study sites. The industrial locations had APTI values in the range of (<47) [5] to (<9.0) [80]. According to Ogunkunle et al. [54], the low APTI value results (<13.0) recorded for tree species is indicative of the moderate level of air pollutants within the investigated location. Similarly, this study APTI value (<12.0) implies a moderate level of air pollutants present in the study area.
Several authors have confirmed the importance of APTI in determining plants response regarding sensitivity or tolerance to atmospheric pollution. The plant species classified as sensitive with APTI score of 1–11 acts as bio-indicators of air quality, whereas those classified as tolerant with APTI score of (≥17), acts as sinks of air pollutants to alleviate deteriorated air quality [10,16,35,45,66,72].

3.3. Anticipated Performance Index (API)

Table 3 and Table 4 categorizes ILO and NIC plant species according to their APTI, socio-economic importance and, biological parameters. Based on these characters, different grades (+ or −) were assigned to each plant species following the criteria in Table S1 and S2 as documented by Prajapati [51]. In ILO, Syzygium malaccense showed the highest grade (75%), denoted as a very good performer (Table 4). Mangifera indica (75%) and Ficus auriculata (56.25%) from NIC were identified as very good and moderate performers, respectively. The other five tree species ranged from not recommended (25%) to poor (50%) performers in both locations and were not recommended for cultivation due to their low API grades. Those with higher API grades from best to moderate are usually recommended for setting up green belts in polluted areas [51,75,76].
In this work, Anacardium occidentale from ILO recorded the highest APTI value (11.1), but it is categorized as a poor performer when assessed along with its biological and socio-economic parameters. On the contrary, Ficus auriculata from NIC with the lowest APTI value (2.42) was categorized as a moderate performer when assessed along with its biological and socio-economic parameters. This result corroborates with other research findings [40,51,57,81], which emphasizes that the overall plant performance is not a function of only the APTI but a combination of both indices (APTI and API).
Table 5 compares this study APTI and API results with similar study sites carried out in other countries of the world. Amongst the various screened plant species, Mangifera indica L has been identified as a tolerant species and scored best to very good performer following the API assessment category.

3.4. Statistical Modeling of Bio-Indicators Responses

Figure 2 shows a significant positive correlation between APTI and relative water content (R2 = 0.9436). An insignificant and low correlation was between total chlorophyll content (R2 = 0.0052), pH of plant leaf extract (R2 = 0.0512), ascorbic acid content (R2 = 0.0366), and the APTI. This implies that relative water content is the most significant factor when considering the plant’s tolerance potential in the study location.
A multiple regression analysis model was developed to investigate and establish the relationship between biochemical parameters and APTI. The overall model presented in Table 6 reveals that the model is significant with a p-value of 0.0001 against the 0.05 significance level. The result implies that the biochemical parameters have a significant influence on APTI.
The effect and the relationship of individual biochemical parameters on APTI were investigated, and the model coefficient results are presented in Table 7. The result reveals that relative water content and ascorbic acid are significantly related to APTI. At the same time, the relationship of chlorophyll and pH with APTI is not significant although the relationship is positive.
Table 8 showed that the obtained taxon parameters were not significant with a p-value of 0.481, while biochemical parameters were significant, with a p-value of 0.000. In addition, the model R-square value was 0.915, implying a high level of variability among the analyzed data and the fitness of the data with the model.

4. Conclusions

This study has screened common native plant species capable of acting as air pollution indicators and green belt development plants for restoring polluted ecosystem. This was achieved using two significant indices: the air pollution tolerance index (APTI) and the anticipated performance index (API). The results from the present study identified all of the studied plant species as bio indicators of air pollution with Ficus auriculata common to non-industrial sites being the most sensitive. Regression analysis and two-way analysis of variance indicated a significant relationship between each biochemical parameter with APTI, with relative water content showing the highest influence on APTI. API grading indicated three native tree species in the range of very good to moderate performers suitable for green belt development. Therefore, Syzygium malaccense from the industrial location, Mangifera indica and Ficus auriculata from the non-industrial location, respectively, are recommended based on API categorization for green belts purposes in the study locations.

Supplementary Materials

The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10.3390/su14073968/s1, Table S1: Grade distribution of plant species based on APTI, biological parameters and socioeconomic importance, Table S2: Anticipated performance index (API) of plant species.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, W.U.A.; methodology, W.U.A.; validation, W.U.A., O.A.O., C.A.O. and T.A.A.; formal analysis, W.U.A., C.A.O., T.A.A. and O.A.O.; investigation, W.U.A., F.O.B. and H.O.J.; resources, W.U.A. and F.O.B.; data curation, W.U.A., T.A.A. and O.A.O.; writing—original draft preparation, W.U.A., F.O.B., H.O.J., O.A.O. and C.A.O.; writing—review and editing, W.U.A., O.A.O. and T.A.A.; supervision, W.U.A.; project administration, W.U.A. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research received no external funding. The APC was funded by Covenant University.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Acknowledgments

The authors appreciate the Covenant University Management for providing a conducive research platform for this work, Moses O. Ogunleye for instrumental analysis assistance and the anonymous reviewers’ constructive and insightful contributions to this paper.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Anake, W.U.; Eimanehi, J.E.; Omonhinmin, C.A. Evaluation of air pollution tolerance index and anticipated performance index of selected plant species. Indones J. Chem. 2019, 19, 239–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Manjunath, B.T.; Reddy, J. Comparative evaluation of air pollution tolerance of plants from polluted and non-polluted regions of Bengaluru. J. App. Biol. Biotechnol. 2019, 7, 63–68. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  3. Kumar, P.; Druckman, A.; Gallagher, J.; Gatersleben, B.; Allison, S.; Eisenman, T.S.; Hoang, U.; Hama, S.; Tiwari, A.; Sharma, A.; et al. The nexus between air pollution, green infrastructure and human health. Environ. Int. 2019, 133 Pt A, 105181. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  4. Huang, Y.; Lei, C.; Liu, C.H.; Perez, P.; Forehead, H.; Kong, S.; Zhou, J.L. A review of strategies for mitigating roadside air pollution in urban street canyons. Environ. Pollut. 2021, 280, 116971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  5. Ozdemir, H. Mitigation impact of roadside trees on fine particle pollution. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 659, 1176–1185. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bharti, S.K.; Trivedi, A.; Kumar, N. Air pollution tolerance index of plants growing near an industrial site. Urban Clim. 2018, 24, 820–829. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Manisalidis, I.; Stavropoulou, E.; Stavropoulos, A.; Bezirtzoglou, E. Environmental and Health Impacts of Air Pollution: A Review. Public Health Front. 2020, 8, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  8. Dass, A.; Srivastava, S.; Chaudhary, G. Air pollution: A review and analysis using fuzzy techniques in Indian scenario. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 22, 101441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Perini, K.; Ottelé, M.; Giulini, S.; Magliocco, A.; Roccotiello, E. Quantification of fine dust deposition on different plant species in a vertical greening system. Ecol. Eng. 2017, 100, 268–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Wadlow, C.; Paton-Walsh, H.; Forehead, P.; Perez, M.; Amirghasemi, É.A.; Guérette, O.; Gendek, P.K. Understanding spatial variability of air quality in Sydney: Part 2–A roadside case study. Atmosphere 2019, 10, 217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Shrestha, S.; Baral, B.; Dhital, N.B.; Yang, H. Assessing air pollution tolerance of plant species in vegetation traffic barriers in Kathmandu Valley, NepaL. Sustain. Environ. Res. 2021, 31, 3. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Barwise, Y.; Kumar, P. Designing vegetation barriers for urban air pollution abatement: A practical review for appropriate plant species selection. Clim. Atmos. Sci. 2020, 3, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  13. Chen, J.; Yu, X.; Bi, H.; Fu, Y. Indoor simulations reveal differences among plant species in capturing particulate matter. PLoS ONE 2017, 12, e0177539. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  14. Shao, F.; Dong, L.; Sun, F.; Wang, L.; Yu, L.; Bao, Z.; Zeng, X.; Yan, H.; Wang, Y.; Li, G. Study on different particulate matter retention capacities of the leaf surfaces of eight common garden plants in Hangzhou China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 652, 939–951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Przybysz, A.; Popek, R.; Stankiewicz-Kosyl, M.; Zhu, C.Y.; Małecka-Przybysz, M.; Maulidyawati, T.; Mikowska, K.; Deluga, D.; Griżuk, K.; Sokalski-Wieczorek, J.; et al. Where trees cannot grow—Particulate matter accumulation by urban meadows. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 785, 147310. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Han, D.; Shen, H.; Duan, W.; Chen, L. A review on particulate matter removal capacity by urban forests at different scales. Urban For. Urban Green 2020, 48, 126565. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Kaur, M.; Nagpal, A. Evaluation of air pollutiontolerance index and anticipated performanceindex of plants and their application indevelopment of green space along the urban areas. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2017, 24, 18881–18895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Khanoranga, S.K. Phytomonitoring of air pollution around brick kilns in Balochistan province Pakistan through air pollution index and metal accumulation index. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 229, 727–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Karmakar, D.; Deb, K.; Padhy, P.K. Ecophysiological responses of tree species due to air pollution for biomonitoring of environmental health in urban area. Urban Clim. 2021, 35, 100741. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Liu, J.; Cao, Z.; Zou, S.; Liu, H.; Hai, X.; Wang, S.; Duan, J.; Xi, B.; Yan, G.; Zhang, S.; et al. An investigation of the leaf retention capacity, efficiency and mechanism for atmospheric particulate matter of five greening tree species in Beijing China. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 616–617, 417–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Baldauf, R. Roadside vegetation design characteristics that can improve local, near-road air quality. Transp. Res. Part D 2017, 52, 354–361. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Diener, A.; Mudu, P. How can vegetation protect us from air pollution? A critical review on green spaces’ mitigation abilities for air-borne particles from a public health perspective—With implications for urban planning. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 796, 148605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Ferrini, F.; Fini, A.; Mori, J.; Gori, A. Role of Vegetation as a Mitigating Factor in the Urban Context. Sustainability 2020, 12, 4247. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Di Sabatino, S.; Barbano, F.; Brattich, E.; Pulvirenti, B. The Multiple-Scale Nature of Urban Heat Island and Its Footprint on Air Quality in Real Urban Environment. Atmosphere 2020, 11, 1186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Jeanjean, A.P.R.; Buccolieri, R.; Eddy, J.; Monks, P.S.; Leigh, R.J. Air quality affected by trees in real street canyons: The case of Marylebone neighbourhood in central London. Urban For. Urban Green 2017, 22, 41–53. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Abhijith, K.V.; Kumar, P.; Gallagher, J.; McNabola, A.; Baldauf, R.; Pilla, F.; Broderick, B.; Di Sabatino, S.; Pulvirenti, B. Air pollution abatement performances of green infrastructure in open road and built-up street canyon environments—A review. Atmos. Environ. 2017, 162, 71–86. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Tomson, M.; Kumar, P.; Barwise, Y.; Perez, P.; Forehead, H.; French, K.; Morawska, L.; Watts, J.F. Green infrastructure for air quality improvement in street canyons. Environ. Int. 2021, 146, 106288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Nadgorska-Socha, A.; Kandziora-Ciupa, M.; Trzęsicki, M.; Barczyk, G. Air pollution tolerance index and heavy metal bioaccumulation in selected plant species from urban biotopes. Chemosphere 2017, 183, 471–482. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Sadia, H.E.; Jeba, F.; Uddin, M.Z.; Salam, A. Sensitivity study of plant species due to traffic emitted air pollutants (NO2 and PM2.5) during different seasons in Dhaka, Bangladesh. SN Appl. Sci. 2019, 1, 1377. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  30. Anake, W.U.; Bayode, F.O.; Omonhinmin, C.A.; Williams, A.B. Ambient air Pollution Control using Air Pollution Tolerance Index and Anticipated Performance Index of Trees. Int. J. Civ. Eng. 2018, 9, 417–425. [Google Scholar]
  31. Singh, S.K.; Rao, D.N. Evaluation of plants for their tolerance to air pollution. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Air Pollution Control, New Delhi, India, 23–25 November 1983; pp. 218–224. [Google Scholar]
  32. Correa-Ochoa, M.; Mejia-Sepulveda, J.; Saldarriaga-Molina, J.; Castro-Jiménez, C.; Aguiar-Gil, D. Evaluation of air pollution tolerance index and anticipated performance index of six plant species, in an urban tropical valley: Medellin, Colombia. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2021, 29, 7952–7971. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Ghafari, S.; Kaviani, B.; Sedaghathoor, S.; Allahyari, M.S. Assessment of air pollution tolerance index (APTI) for some ornamental woody species in green space of humid temperate region (Rasht, Iran). Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2020, 23, 1579–1600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Bandara, W.A.R.T.W.; Dissanayake, C.T.M. Most tolerant roadside tree species for urban settings in humid tropics based on Air Pollution Tolerance Index. Urban Clim 2021, 37, 100848. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  35. Bui, H.T.; Odsuren, U.; Kwon, K.J.; Kim, S.Y.; Yang, J.C.; Jeong, N.R.; Park, B.J. Assessment of Air Pollution Tolerance and Particulate Matter Accumulation of 11 Woody Plant Species. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 1067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Sarkar, S.; Mondal, K.; Sanyal, S.; Chakrabarty, M. Study of biochemical factors in assessing air pollution tolerance index of selected plant species in and around Durgapur industrial belt, India. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2021, 193, 474. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Irshad, M.A.; Nawaz, R.; Ahmad, S.; Arshad, M.; Rizwan, M.; Ahmad, N. Evaluation of anticipated performance index of tree species for air pollution mitigation in Islamabad, Pakistan. JASEM 2020, 23, 50–59. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Karmakar, D.; Padhy, P.K. Air pollution tolerance, anticipated performance, and metal accumulation indices of plant species for green-belt development in urban industrial area. Chemosphere 2019, 237, 124522. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Molnár, V.E.; Simon, E.; Tóthmérész, B.; Ninsawat, S.; Szabó, S. Air pollution induced vegetation stress–The Air Pollution Tolerance Index as a quick tool for city health evaluation. Ecol. Indic. 2020, 113, 106234. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Pandey, A.K.; Pandey, M.; Mishra, A.; Tiwary, S.M.; Tripathib, B.D. Air pollution tolerance index and anticipated performance index of some plant species for development of urban forest. Urban For. Urban Green 2015, 14, 866–871. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Roy, A.; Bhattacharya, T.; Kumari, M. Air pollution tolerance, metal accumulation and dust capturing capacity of common tropical trees in commercial and industrial sites. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 722, 137622. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Dominici, F.; Sheppard, L.; Clyde, M. Health effects of air pollution: A statistical review. Int. Stat. Rev. 2003, 71, 243–276. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Ibe, F.C.; Opara, A.I.; Duru, C.E.; Obinna, I.B.; Enedoh, M.C. Statistical analysis of atmospheric pollutant concentrations in parts of Imo State, Southeastern Nigeria. Sci. Afr. 2020, 7, e00237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Alotaibi, M.D.; Alharbi, B.H.; Al-Shamsi, M.A.; Alshahrani, T.S.; Al-Namazi, A.A.; Alharbui, S.F.; Alotaibi, F.S.; Qian, Y. Assessing the response of five tree species to air pollution in Riyadh City, Saudi Arabia, for potential green belt application. Environ. Sci. Pollut. Res. Int. 2020, 27, 29156–29170. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Kwak, M.J.; Lee, J.K.; Park, S.; Lim, Y.J.; Kim, H.; Kim, K.N.; Je, S.M.; Park, C.R.; Woo, S.Y. Evaluation of the importance of some East Asian tree species for refinement of air quality by estimating air pollution tolerance index, anticipated Performance index, and air pollutant uptake. Sustainability 2020, 12, 3067. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  46. Mukhopadhyay, S.; Dutta, R.; Dhara, A. Assessment of air pollution tolerance index of Murraya paniculata (L.) Jack in Kolkata metro city, West Bengal, India. Urban Clim. 2021, 39, 100977. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Timilsina, S.; Sudarshana., S.; Chaudhary, S.; Magar, G.T.; Munankarmi, N.N. Evaluation of air pollution tolerance index (APTI) of plants growing alongside inner ring road of Kathmandu, Nepal. Int. J. Environ. 2021, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Khairallah, Y.; Houri, T.; Osta, B.; Romanos, D.; Haddad, G. Biomonitoring airborne pollution: A case study of “Urginea maritima” species in Bentael natural reserve—Lebanon. J. Taibah Univ. Sci. 2018, 12, 723–729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  49. UNICEF. A Discussion Paper Children’s Environment and Health in East Asia and the Pacific. United Nations Children’s Fund. Available online: https://www.unicef.org/eap/media/6731/file/Children’sEnvironmentandHealthinEastAsiaandthePacific.pdf (accessed on 16 June 2021).
  50. Pathak, V.; Tripathi, B.D.; Mishra, V.K. Evaluation of Anticipated Performance Index of some tree species for green belt development to mitigate traffic generated noise. Urban For. Urban Green 2011, 10, 61–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Prajapati, S.K.; Tripathi, B.D. Anticipated performance index of some tree species considered for green belt development in and around an urban area: A case study of Varaasi city, India. J. Environ. Manag. 2008, 88, 1343–1349. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Arnon, D.I. Copper enzymes in isolated chloroplasts: Polyphenol oxidise in Beta vulgaris. Plant. Physiol. 1949, 2, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  53. Mukherjee, A.; Agrawal, S.B.; Agrawal, M. Responses of tropical tree species to urban air pollutants: ROS/RNS formation and scavenging. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 710, 136363. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  54. Ogunkunle, C.O.; Suleiman, L.B.; Oyedeji, S.; Awotoye, O.O.; Fatoba, P.O. Assessing the air pollution tolerance index and anticipated the performance index of some tree species for biomonitoring environmental health. Agrofor. Syst. 2015, 89, 447–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  55. Kashyap, R.; Sharma, R.; Uniyal, S.K. Bioindicator responses and performance of plant species along a vehicular pollution gradient in western Himalaya. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2018, 190, 302. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  56. Patel, D.; Kumar, J.I.N. An Evaluation of Air Pollution Tolerance Index and Anticipated Performance Index of Some Tree Species Considered for Green Belt Development: A Case Study of Nandesari Industrial Area, Vadodara, Gujarat, India. Open J. Air Pollut. 2018, 7, 81589. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  57. Jain, S.; Bhattacharya, T.; Chakraborty, S. Comparison of plant tolerance towards air pollution of rural, urban and mine sites of Jharkhand: A biochemical approach to identify air pollutant sink. In Advances in Waste Management; Kalamdhad, A., Singh, J., Dhamodharan, K., Eds.; Springer: Singapore, 2019; pp. 123–142. [Google Scholar]
  58. Singh, H.; Yadav, M.; Kumar, N.; Kumar, A.; Kumar, M. Assessing adaptation and mitigation potential of roadside trees under the influence of vehicular emissions: A case study of Grevillea robusta and Mangifera indica planted in an urban city of India. PLoS ONE 2020, 15, e0227380. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  59. Banerjee, S.; Banerjee, A.; Palit, D.; Roy, P. Assessment of vegetation under air pollution stress in urban industrial area for greenbelt development. Int. J. Environ. Sci. Technol. 2018, 16, 5857–5870. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  60. Sen, A.; Khan, I.; Kundu, D.; Das, K.; Datta, J.K. Ecophysiological evaluation of tree species for biomonitoring of air quality and identification of air pollution tolerant species. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2017, 189, 262. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Achakzai, K.; Khalid, S.; Adrees, M.; Bibi, A.; Ali, S.; Nawaz, R.; Rizwan, M. Air pollution tolerance index of plants around brick kilns in Rawalpindi, Pakistan. J. Environ. Manag. 2017, 190, 252–258. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  62. Bahadoran, M.; Mortazavi, S.N.; Hajizadeh, Y. Evaluation of Anticipated Performance Index, biochemical, and physiological parameters of Cupressus arizonica Greene and Juniperus excelsa Bieb for greenbelt development and biomonitoring of air pollution. Int. J. Phytoremed. 2019, 21, 496–502. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Peng, Y.Y.; Liao, L.L.; Liu, S.; Nie, M.M.; Li, J.; Zhang, L.D.; Ma, J.F.; Chen, Z.C. Magnesium deficiency triggers SGR–mediated chlorophyll degradation for magnesium remobilization. Plant Physiol. 2019, 181, 262–275. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  64. Sett, R. Responses in plants exposed to dust pollution. Hortic. Int. J. 2017, 1, 53–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Chaudhary, I.J.; Rathore, D. Dust pollution: Its removal and effect on foliage physiology of urban trees. Sustain. Cities Soc. 2019, 51, 101696. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Singh, S.K.; Rao, D.N.; Agrawal, M.; Pandey, J.; Narayan, D. Air-pollution tolerance index of plants. J. Environ. Manag. 1991, 32, 45–55. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. Pathak, J.; Ahmed, H.; Singh, D.K.; Singh, P.R.; Kumar, D.; Kannaujiya, V.K.; Singh, S.P.; Sinha, R.P. Oxidative stress and antioxidant defense in plants exposed to ultraviolet radiation. In Reactive Oxygen, Nitrogen and Sulfur Species in Plants: Production, Metabolism, Signaling and Defense Mechanisms; Hasanuzzaman, M., Fotopoulos, V., Nahar, K., Fujita, M., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons, Inc.: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2019; pp. 371–420. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  68. Punit, S.; Rai, A. Evaluating Air Pollution Tolerance Index (APTI) of Two Plant Species from Industrial Area of Jodhpur. Int. J. Energy Environ. Sci. 2021, 6, 11–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Zhang, P.Q.; Liu, Y.J.; Chen, X.; Yang, Z.; Zhu, M.H.; Li, Y.P. Pollution resistance assessment of existing landscape plants on Beijing streets based on air pollution tolerance index method. Ecotoxicol. Environ. Saf. 2016, 132, 212–223. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  70. Hatamimanesh, M.; Mortazavi, S.; Solgi, E.; Mohtadi, A. Assessment of Tolerance of Some Tree Species to Air Contamination Using Air Pollution Tolerance and Anticipated Performance Indices in Isfahan City, Iran. J. Adv. Environ. Health Res. 2021, 9, 31–44. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  71. Torbati, S.; Kangarloei, A.B.; Khataee, A. Bioconcentration of heavy metals by three plant species growing in Golmarz wetland, in northwestern Iran: The plants antioxidant responses to metal pollutions. Environ. Technol. Innov. 2021, 24, 101804. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  72. Khalid, N.; Masood, A.; Noman, A.; Aqeel, M.; Qasim, M. Study of the responses of two biomonitor plant species (Datura alba & Ricinus communis) to roadside air pollution. Chemosphere 2019, 235, 832–841. [Google Scholar]
  73. Rai, P.K. Particulate matter tolerance of plants (APTI and API) in a biodiversity hotspot located in a tropical region: Implications for eco-control. Part. Sci. Technol. 2019, 38, 193–202. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Uka, U.N.; Belford, E.J.D.; Hogarh, J.N. Roadside air pollution in a tropical city: Physiological and biochemical response from trees. Bull. Natl. Res. Cent. 2019, 43, 90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  75. Aasawari, A.T.; Umesh, B.K. Assessment of air pollution tolerance index of plants a comparative study. Int. J. Pharm. Pharm. Sci. 2017, 9, 83–89. [Google Scholar]
  76. Sahu, C.; Basti, S.; Sahu, S.K. Air pollution tolerance index (APTI) and expected performance index (EPI) of trees in sambalpur town of India. SN Appl. Sci. 2020, 2, 1327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  77. Acharya, S.; Jena, R.C.; Das, S.J.; Pradhan, C.; Chand, P.K. Assessment of air pollution tolerance index of some selected roadside plants of Bhubaneswar city of Odisha State in India. J. Environ. Biol. 2017, 38, 1397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  78. Kour, N.; Adak, P. A Review on the Effects of Environmental Factors on Plants Tolerance to Air Pollution. J. Environ. Treat. Tech. 2021, 9, 839–848. [Google Scholar]
  79. Simon, E.; Molnár, V.É.; Lajtos, D.; Bibi, D.; Tóthmérész, B.; Szabó, S. Usefulness of Tree Species as Urban Health Indicators. Plants 2021, 10, 2797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  80. Amin, S.A.; Meganid, A.S.; Emam, M.H.; Al-Zahrani, A.A. The Tolerance Index for Different Growing Tree Plant Species in Jubail Industrial City, a Polluted Area, KSA. Biomed. J. Sci. Tech. Res. 2021, 36, 28957–28965. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  81. Leghari, S.K.; Akbar, A.; Qasim, S.; Ullah, S.; Asrar, M.; Rohail, H.; Ahmed, S.; Mehmood, K.; Ali, I. Estimating Anticipated Performance Index and Air Pollution Tolerance Index of Some Trees and Ornamental Plant Species for the Construction of Green Belts. Pol. J. Environ. Stud. 2019, 28, 1759–1769. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Map of the study sites.
Figure 1. Map of the study sites.
Sustainability 14 03968 g001
Figure 2. Linear regression analysis of APTI against individual biochemical parameters.
Figure 2. Linear regression analysis of APTI against individual biochemical parameters.
Sustainability 14 03968 g002
Table 1. Plants species collected from the industrial location and non-industrial community.
Table 1. Plants species collected from the industrial location and non-industrial community.
Ota Industrial Estate (ILO)Non-Industrial Community (NIC)
Botanical NameCommon NamesBotanical NameCommon Names
Terminalia catappaAlmond Citrus sinensisOrange
Syzygium malaccenseMalay appleMangifera indicaMango
Anacardium occidentaleCashewMussaenda erythrophyllaTropical Dogwood
Theobroma cacaoCocoaFicus auriculataRoxburgh Fig
Table 2. Air pollution tolerance indices (APTI) and biochemical parameters of plant species.
Table 2. Air pollution tolerance indices (APTI) and biochemical parameters of plant species.
Site
Code
TaxonA
(mg/g)
T
(mg/g)
P R
(%)
APTI
ILOTerminalia catappa0.221.495.4171.007.25
Syzygium malaccense0.381.092.8890.809.23
Anacardium occidentale1.802.933.8098.9011.10
Theobroma cacao1.861.565.9678.809.28
NICCitrus sinensis2.891.035.7242.306.18
Mangifera indica1.811.574.9284.49.61
Mussaenda erythrophylla1.801.185.1569.508.09
Ficus auriculata0.722.254.5319.302.42
Table 3. Assessment of plant species using the obtained APTI values, socioeconomic importance, and biological parameters.
Table 3. Assessment of plant species using the obtained APTI values, socioeconomic importance, and biological parameters.
Site CodeTaxonAPTITree HabitCanopy StructureType of TreeLaminarEconomic ImportanceHardinessGrade Allotted
TextureSize Total Plus (+)
ILOTerminalia catappa-++++--++++8
Syzygium malaccense++++++++++++12
Anacardium occidentale+++++-+++8
Theobroma cacao++++-++++8
NICCitrus sinensis-++++---+5
Mangifera indica++++++++++++12
Mussaenda erythrophylla+--+++--4
Ficus auriculata-+++++++++9
Table 4. Anticipated Performance index (API) result of investigated plant species.
Table 4. Anticipated Performance index (API) result of investigated plant species.
Site CodeTaxonGrade AllottedScoringAPI ValueAssessment
Total Plus (+)Percentage (%)
ILOTerminalia catappa8502Poor
Syzygium malaccense12755Very good
Anacardium occidentale8502Poor
Theobroma cacao8502Poor
NICCitrus sinensis531.251Very poor
Mangifera indica12755Very good
Mussaenda erythrophylla4250Not recommended
Ficus auriculata956.253Moderate
Table 5. Results of APTI and API of plant species from selected reports.
Table 5. Results of APTI and API of plant species from selected reports.
LocationStudy SiteRange of APTI Value No of Sampled PlantsMost Tolerant
Species
(Season)
Most Sensitive Species (Season)
[Chamber Exposure Experiment]
API Performance Plants
(Scores)
References
Jharkhand, IndiaIndustrial11.42 to 21.28 (M);
11.79 to 28.62 (P)
9Mangifera indica (M)
Azadirachta indica (P)
Tectona grandis (M) & (P)Mangifera indica (E)
Ficus bengalensis(VG)
Azadirachta indica (G)
Ficus religiosa (G)
[36]
Da˛browa Gornicza city, Poland Industrial8.43–46.614Taraxacum officinalePlantago lanceolata-[5]
Jubail city, Saudi Arabia Industrial5.676 to 8.8038-Parkinsonia aculeata-[75]
Isfahan City, IranIndustrial14.43 to 20.273Morus nigra
Ailanthus altissimaMorus nigra
(E);
Platanus orientalis(VG)
[65]
Cheongju city, South Korea. Chungbuk National University (CBNU)7.11 to 9.52.11-Cercis chinensisPinus densiflora (G)[30]
Santiniketan, West Bengal, IndiaNon industrial & Semi Urban9.53–23.9018Mangifera indica, Peltophorum pterocarpum; Ficus benghalensis; Polyalthia longifolia; Saraca asocaZiziphus mauritiana Lam.Mangifera indica,(B)
Polyalthia longifolia; Saraca asoca; Ficus benghalensis (E)
[19]
Ilorin, NigeriaUniversity of Ilorin, 7.80 to 12.30 4Terminalia catappaVitellaria paradoxaVitellaria paradoxa (G)[49]
Seoul, KoreaUniversity of Seoul.7.0 to 9.0 (T); 7.5 to 8.7(C)6-Ginkgo biloba [T];
Chionanthus retusus [C]
Pinus densiflora (G); Prunus × yedoensis (G).[40]
Ado-Odo Ota,
Ogun State,
Nigeria.
Industrial
&
Non industrial, (Canaanland)
7.25 to 11.10
2.42 to 9.61
8-
-
Terminalia catappa
Ficus auriculata
Syzygium malaccense (VG)
Mangifera indica (VG)
Ficus auriculata (G
Present study
Season: M, monsoon; P, post-monsoon/ API Scores: E, excellent; VG, very good; G, good; T, treatment; C, control.
Table 6. Overall model for biochemical parameters and APTI.
Table 6. Overall model for biochemical parameters and APTI.
ModelSum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Regression50.269412.5672407.2300.0001
Residual0.01630.005
Total50.2857
Table 7. Multiple regression (linear function model) of each biochemical parameters on APTI.
Table 7. Multiple regression (linear function model) of each biochemical parameters on APTI.
ModelUnstandardized CoefficientsStandardized CoefficientstSig.
BStd. ErrorBeta
−0.4060.217 −1.8770.157
pH of leaf extract0.0620.0340.0241.8510.161
Total chlorophyll content (mg/g)0.0530.0440.0131.2080.314
Relative water content (%)0.1000.0010.98989.6060.000
Ascorbic acid content (mg/g)0.6650.0350.22619.2740.000
Table 8. Two-way analysis of variance for Taxon and biochemical parameters.
Table 8. Two-way analysis of variance for Taxon and biochemical parameters.
SourceType III Sum of SquaresdfMean SquareFSig.
Model39,919.110 a113629.01020.5370.000
Taxon1194.0277170.5750.9650.481
BioParameter26,791.88838930.62950.5410.000
Error3710.74921176.702
Total43,629.85932
a R Squared = 0.915 (Adjusted R Squared = 0.870).
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Anake, W.U.; Bayode, F.O.; Jonathan, H.O.; Omonhinmin, C.A.; Odetunmibi, O.A.; Anake, T.A. Screening of Plant Species Response and Performance for Green Belt Development: Implications for Semi-Urban Ecosystem Restoration. Sustainability 2022, 14, 3968. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073968

AMA Style

Anake WU, Bayode FO, Jonathan HO, Omonhinmin CA, Odetunmibi OA, Anake TA. Screening of Plant Species Response and Performance for Green Belt Development: Implications for Semi-Urban Ecosystem Restoration. Sustainability. 2022; 14(7):3968. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073968

Chicago/Turabian Style

Anake, Winifred U., Faith O. Bayode, Hassana O. Jonathan, Conrad A. Omonhinmin, Oluwole A. Odetunmibi, and Timothy A. Anake. 2022. "Screening of Plant Species Response and Performance for Green Belt Development: Implications for Semi-Urban Ecosystem Restoration" Sustainability 14, no. 7: 3968. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073968

APA Style

Anake, W. U., Bayode, F. O., Jonathan, H. O., Omonhinmin, C. A., Odetunmibi, O. A., & Anake, T. A. (2022). Screening of Plant Species Response and Performance for Green Belt Development: Implications for Semi-Urban Ecosystem Restoration. Sustainability, 14(7), 3968. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073968

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop