£2^- 3^2-
Environmental Pollution by Fluorides
in FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST and GLACIER NATIONAL PARK
By
Clinton E. Carlson, Plant Pathologist and
Jerald E. Dewey, Entomologist
^55. 1.6AAVS. mow***
U«tA*T
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE FOREST SERVICE
Division of State and Private Forestry Forest Insect and Disease Branch Missoula, Montana
Cover Photographs
Top — Plume created by the Anaconda Aluminum Company Plant at Colum- bia Falls, Montana. Teakettle Mountain is in background.
Bottom — Fluoride injury on lodgepole pine caused by emissions from the Anaconda Aluminum Company Plant.
October, 1971
AFPS / OGDEN, UTAH / 72-203
/\//C-P5 # s~a/
PROPER' DEPARTMENT CP
STATE OF
LAN
u:
A A
ik
Environmental Pollution by Fluorides
in FLATHEAD NATIONAL FOREST
and GLACIER NATIONAL PARK
By
Clinton E. Carlson, Plant Pathologist and
Jerald E. Dewey, Entomologist
U. S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE - FOREST SERVICE Northern Region Headquarters Division of State and Private Forestry Forest Insect and Disease Branch Missoula, Montana
Digitized by the Internet Archive
in 2016
https://archive.org/details/environmentalpol1971carl
Table of Contents
Page
Summary i
Introduction 1
Literature Review 2
Origin of fluorides 2
Effects on vegetation 2
Accumulation and symptoms on plants 3
Entomological effects 3
Environmental effects 3
Methods, Pathological Phase 4
Description of the area 4
The aluminum plant 4
Field study design 4
Laboratory study design 6
Histological analyses 6
Aerial photography 8
Methods, Entolomological Phase 8
Accumulation of fluoride by insects 8
Insect population sampling 8
Results, Pathological Phase 10
Parameters 10
Control plots 10
Radial system 10
Page
Special samples 18
Relation between injury index and fluoride content 20
Rates of accumulation 20
Histological results 20
Aerial photography 23
Results, Entomological Phase 26
Fluoride accumulation by insects 26
Insect population sampling 26
Discussion and Conclusions 28
General 28
Rates of accumulation : 28
Susceptibility of species 28
Ecological Implications 29
Pollution in Glacier National Park 29
Pollution in Coram Experimental Forest 29
Insects and fluoride 29
Economic and esthetic damage 30
Future plans 30
Acknowledgements 31
Literature cited 32
Appendixes 34
LIST OF FIGURES
1. Fluoride study area 5
2. Anaconda Aluminum Reduction Plant 7
3. Location of special sample areas 9
4. Schematic of fluoride gradients 13
5. Profile of radius 4 14
6. Profile of radius 5 15
7. Profile of radius 6 16
Page
8. Isopols of fluoride pollution ' .... 17
9. Insect and fluoride injury 19
10. Fluoride burn on lodgepole pine 21
11. Fluoride burn on lodgepole pine 21
12. Terminal dieback of Douglas-fir 22
13. Hypertrophied phloem and transfusion parenchyma 23
14. Hypertrophied nuclei of mesophyll cells 24
15. Hypertrophied epithelial cells 25
16. Regression of scale counts on fluoride 27
LIST OF TABLES
I-A Analysis of variance of control data 11
I- B Means for factors, control data 11
II Classification of visual injury 18
III Rates of fluoride accumulation 20
LIST OF APPENDIXES
I Common and scientific names of plants and animals 34
II- A Tabulation of radial and control data, first sampling 37
II- B Tabulation of radial and control data, second sampling 40
III- A Area polluted by fluorides, all lands studied 43
III-B Area polluted by fluorides, Glacier National Park 44
IV Fluoride content and injury index values for special samples 45
V Regression analysis of injury index on fluoride content 50
VI Fluoride accumulation levels in insects 51
VII Larch casebearer per 100 spurs sampled 53
VIII Pine needle scales per 600 lodgepole needles 54
IX Pine needle scales per 600 ponderosa needles 55
X Regression analysis of pine needle scales on fluoride content 56
Summary
The U. S. Forest Service initiated a study in 1969 to determine: (1) the major cause of vege- tational injury and damage on forested lands proximal to the Anaconda Aluminum Com- pany, (2) the source of the cause, (3) the area affected, (4) whether insects were accumu- lating fluorides, and (5) if insect populations were being affected by fluorides.
Fluorides emitted from the Anaconda Aluminum Company were determined to be the primary cause of the injury and damage to vegetation in the surrounding area. Isopols, lines of equal pollution, were established for the area. Highest fluoride concentrations, up to 1000 ppm1 , in foliar tissue were found near the Anaconda aluminum plant. Data indicated the fluorides were carried by air movement from the aluminum plant through a saddle in Tea- kettle Mountain to Glacier National Park, fol- lowing the pattern of the prevailing winds in the area. Elevated fluorides (greater than 10 ppm) were found in vegetation on Columbia Mountain and Teakettle Mountain, in vegeta- tion near the towns of Columbia Falls, Hungry
' ppm — parts per million
Horse, and Coram, Montana, and in the south- west portion of Glacier National Park. Varying degrees of visible fluoride injury were found on vegetation over more than 69,120 acres. Ele- vated fluorides were found in vegetation on nearly 214,000 acres of forested lands of mixed ownerships.
Although fluoride emissions were reduced during the summer of 1970, fir and spruce trees continued to accumulate fluorides at the same rate as in 1969.
Definite histological reactions to elevated fluorides occur in conifer needle tissue, in- cluding hypertrophy of parenchymatous cells.
Fluorides also were found to accumulate in insect tissue. All groups of insects studied con- tained high fluoride levels. Pollinators pos- sessed the highest, up to 406 ppm. Cambium feeders contained in excess of 52 ppm, indi- cating that fluoride must be translocated in the cambium of trees. Predatory insects had fluo- ride counts over 53 ppm, showing fluoride is passed along the food chain. Insect population samples indicated that elevated fluoride levels in pine needles leads to a buildup of the pine needle scale.
Introduction
On August 15, 1955, the Anaconda Com- pany formally dedicated a new aluminum re- duction plant on their lands at Columbia Falls, Montana adjacent to the Glacier View Ranger District, Flathead National Forest. Partial oper- ation of the plant had already begun using the Vertical Soderberg anode pot system. Ana- conda Company officials insisted that injury caused to vegetation and animals by emitted fluorides would be negligible. F. J. Nietzling, Supervisor of the Flathead National Forest, wrote a letter to Glacier View District Ranger Mel Yuhas on June 27, 1957, and indicated ponderosa pine1 trees in the vicinity of the re- duction plant were dying. Subsequently, in July of 1957, Ranger Mel Yuhas, Bert Morris, Forester on the Glacier View District, and Don Leaphart2 , pathologist, Forest Service Inland Empire Research Center, inspected suspected fume damage near the aluminum plant. In a Forest Service memorandum Leaphart ex- pressed his opinion that the injury was caused by fluoride fumes escaping from the reduction works. Little in the way of evaluation was done subsequently until 1969. In the meantime, the Anaconda Company expanded the plant in
1 Scientific names of all plant and animal species mentioned in this report are listed in Appendix I.
2 Now at Intermountain Research Station, Moscow, Idaho.
1964-1965 and again in 1967-1968. Following the 1968 expansion and increased production, dead and dying trees and foliage necrosis were observed over the entire west face of Teakettle Mountain immediately east of the reduction works.
In preliminary evaluations in June and November 1969, we found tissue necrosis and elevated fluoride levels in 26 of 35 vegetation samples consisting of ponderosa pine, lodge- pole pine, western white pine, and Douglas-fir. It became obvious that a detailed evaluation was needed to accurately assess the problem. In January of 1970 a study plan, designed to analyze the fluoride problem, was finalized.
Our hypothesis was that fluorides from the aluminum plant were causing ecological dam- age to flora and fauna. To test this hypothesis, the following objectives were outlined:
1. Identify the major cause of vegetational injury and damage on forested lands near the aluminum plant.
2. Identify the source of the cause.
3. Determine the area affected.
4. Determine if insects accumulate fluorides.
5. Determine if insect populations were fluctuating relative to the injury.
This report is divided into two phases: Path- ological, dealing with objectives 1-3, and entomological, dealing with objectives 4 and 5.
1
Literature
Review
Origin of Fluorides
Electrolytic reduction of alumina (AI2O3) produces pure aluminum. The electrolysis is done within a reduction cell or “pot” and is accomplished in the presence of the electrolyte cryolite (3 NaF-AlF3). Sodium fluoride (NaF) and aluminum fluoride (AIF3) are released in particulate form as waste during the high tem- perature electrolysis (965° to 975° C.), and hydrogen fluoride (HF) and small quantities of carbon tetrafluoride (CF4) are released as gases (Hickey, 1968). Hydrocarbons in considerable amounts are released. NaF, AIF3, and HF are accumulated by and cause injury to plants. Al- though no highly reliable figures are available, it has been estimated that about half of the emissions are gaseous and half particulate (Semrau, 1957).
Fluoride emissions can be contolled to vari- ous extents by a process known as scrubbing. This involves the injection of a high-pressure spray of water or lime solution into the effluent
stacks or the application of a low pressure scrubbing system, resulting in absorption of the fluorides (Hickey, 1968).
Effects on Vegetation
General. During the past 20 years, effects of fluorides on vegetation have been studied quite extensively in laboratory-controlled experi- ments and in field experiments proximal to aluminum reduction plants. Shaw, et. al. (1951) reported foliar necrosis and retarded diameter growth in ponderosa pine near the Kaiser Aluminum Company aluminum reduc- tion plant at Mead, Washington. The injury could not be attributed to insects, fungi, nor climate, but was highly correlated with exces- sive foliar fluoride concentrations ranging to 600 ppm dry weight basis. Lynch (1951) found nearly a sixfold decrease in diameter growth rate in ponderosa pine near the same reduction plant and attributed the effect to fluorides. Adams, et. al. (1956) tested the sensitivity of
2
ponderosa pine as an indicator of fluoride pol- lution and found it readily express visual symptoms (foliar necrosis).
A study made near the Harvey Aluminum Company reduction plant at The Dalles, Oregon (Compton, et. al. 1961), showed foliar necrosis of ponderosa pine to be related to ele- vated fluoride levels and not to fungal, climatic, nor insect agents. They also found abnormally large concentrations of black pine leaf scale in the affected area.
Treshow, et. al. (1967), reported mortality and growth decline of Douglas-fir near a phos- phate reduction plant in Idaho. They found up to 100 percent reduced diameter growth when the foliar fluoride concentrations exceeded 50 ppm. Interestingly, they found increased shoot and needle elongation under insidious levels of fluoride pollution, but concluded the increased length was due to abnormal cell elongation and not excessive division.
Accumulation and Symptoms on Plants
Fluorides enter needles and leaves mainly through stomata. Once in the foliar tissue, they are in a soluble state, free-flowing and tend to accumulate at conifer needle tips or broadleaf margins, causing tip or margin necrosis. Be- cause particulate fluorides are readily adsorbed to dust particles, dust on the leaf surface may aid in accumulating fluorides (Jacobson, et. al. 1966).
Hindawi (1970), through the use of colored pictures, vividly portrayed symptoms of fluo- ride injury. Browning of leaf margins and needle tips associated with a distinct demarca- tion line between healthy and injured tissue was a constant indicator of fluoride pollution.
Reductions in photosynthesis have been shown to occur in fluoride fumigated plants. Thomas (1961) reported a decrease in photo- synthesis of up to 45 percent on Gladiolus plants, resulting in decreased plant vigor and growth.
Entomological Aspects
The literature pertaining to the effects of fluorides on insect populations is limited. In a study of blighted ponderosa pines near an aluminum reduction facility, Johnson (1950) found a significant increase of the black pine
leaf scale as tree damage caused by fluorides increased. Lezovic (1969) indicated that in a study conducted near an aluminum factory “all colonies of bees, a total of 70, died off.” Other authors reporting on fluoride injury to bees in- clude Caparrini (1957), Guilhon et. al. (1962), Marier (1968), and Maurizio and Staub (1956).
Outram (1970) concluded sulphuryl fluo- ride caused a reduction in oxygen uptake and changes of respiratory quotient in the eggs of the desert locust, and the yellow meal worm. He said, “it is suggested that sulphuryl fluoride is nonspecific in respect to sites of attack in the insect egg and inhibits several metabolic processes.”
Pollution by chemicals other than fluorides has been reported to indirectly affect insect populations. Stark et. al. ( 1968) in a study deal- ing with oxidants of photochemical air pollu- tion (particularly ozone) stated that “air pollu- tion injury predisposed ponderosa pine to bark beetle infestations.”
Environmental Effects
Maclean et. al. ( 1969) showed that livestock forage accumulated enough fluorides to be a potential hazard to livestock. Little fluoride is taken in by breathing; most is ingested through foods, forage, etc. Marier et. al. (1969) pointed out that excessive inorganic fluorides in ani- mals tend to be either excreted through the kidneys or accumulated in the teeth and skele- tal tissues. In acute cases, excessive fluorides have caused skeletal fracture and disintegration of teeth, associated with severe pain. Normally, in animals feeding on foliage not contaminated by fluorides, fluorides in bones do not exceed 1000 ppm. However, ingestion by animals of fluoride-contaminated forage can lead to fluo- ride accumulations of 5000 ppm or more, at which levels severe fluorosis can occur (Marier, 1969).
Gordon ( 1969) in a study near the Cominco American phosphate fertilizer plant in western Montana found large concentrations of fluo- rides in femur bones of Columbian ground squirrel and concluded the fluorides were in- gested with the contaminated forage. Available forage in the area was found to have excessive fluorides. No fluorosis in the animals was indicated.
3
Methods
Pathological Phase
Description of the Area
The Anaconda Aluminum Company reduc- tion plant is located about 2 miles east of Columbia Falls, Montana, (fig. 1) at 3,100 feet m.s.l. (mean sea level). Teakettle Mountain rises abruptly to 5,936 feet m.s.l. immediately east of the plant. Columbia Mountain is 2 miles south and Glacier National Park 6 miles north- east of the plant. Topography west and south- west of the reduction plant is quite flat for 10 to 1 5 miles, but mountainous with deep valleys to the northwest, north, northeast, and south- east. The higher peaks in the general area attain an elevation of 8,000 to 9,000 feet m.s.l. The prevailing wind is southwesterly.
Because of the variable topography, a num- ber of different habitat types are represented. The more common are: Pseudotsuga menziesii — Symphoricarpos albus h.t., Abies lasiocarpa — Xerophyllum tenax h.t.; and Pinus albicaulis — Abies lasiocarpa h.t. (Daubenmire and Daubenmire, 1968). A large variety of fauna, from grizzly bear and elk to small rodents, proliferate in the area.
The Aluminum Plant
The reduction plant is owned by the Ana- conda Company. The physical plant is com- posed of five pot lines, each line containing 120 individual reduction pots, for a total of 600 pots(fig. 2). The Vertical Stud Soderberg Pot system is used for reducing the alumina to pure aluminum, a process shown to be one of the most problematical in terms of controlling effluents.
During 1969 and early 1970 the Anaconda Company reported fluorides were emitted at a
rate of nearly 7,600 pounds per day but were reduced to about 5,000 pounds by September of 1970. By early May, 1971, company of- ficials reported emissions were reduced to 2,500 pounds per day. Although the fluoride component of the effluent plume is nearly in- visible, the hydrocarbon portion readily indi- cates the general direction of atmospheric F transport of the pollutants.
Field Study Design
Control Plots. Two areas, one 30 miles south of Columbia Falls near Big Fork, Montana, and the other 30 miles west of Columbia Falls, about 15 miles west of Kalispell, Montana, were selected for control sampling. The loca- tions were upwind of the aluminum plant in terms of the general prevailing southwesterly winds. Three plots, each one-hundredth acre in size (6.6 feet wide by 66 feet long), were in- stalled in each area. All conifers and shrubs on the plots were sampled. Also, representative herbaceous plants and at least one grass species were sampled. We collected control samples in June-July and again in September-October, 1970.
Radial System. Ten radii, numbered con- secutively from 1 to 10, were established ex- tending from the aluminum plant into adjacent forested lands (figure 1). The direction of each radius was based on two criteria: (1) it must transect National Forest land, and (2) it should follow suspected wind channels. On each radius, basic plots one-hundredth acre in size (6.6 feet wide by 66 feet long, oriented longi- tudinally) were established at one-fourth, one- half, 1, 2, 4, 6, and 8 miles from the plant. Be-
4
5
cause radii 4, 5, and 6 intercepted Glacier Na- tional Park, additional plots were established at 10, 12, and 14 miles on radii 4 and 5 and at 14 miles on radius 6 to sample vegetation in the Park. Each plot was permanently established as witnessed by driving a wooden stake at the plot location with plot information written on it.
Collection of Vegetation on Control and Radial Plots. Plots were sampled twice, once during June-July 1970, and again in October- November 1970. For convenience, we termed the June-July collection the “first sampling” and the October-November collection the “second sampling.” About 3 pounds of foliage on each plot were collected and maintained separately from one to several representatives of each conifer species, one representative of each of two shrub species, and one repre- sentative of each of one herbaceous and one grass species. Foliage collected from each grass, broadleaf plant, and deciduous conifer was considered a separate sample. Foliage collected from other conifers was separated by year of origin, and foliage of each year was considered a separate sample. Generally only 1969 and 1970 needles were sampled. For conifers, the sample was always collected from dominant and codominant trees and always in the upper one-third of the crown facing the aluminum plant. Samples from other types of vegetation were collected as foliage was available.
Special sampling. In addition to the sys- tematic field design, a supplemental series of “special samples” were collected in areas deemed most likely to sustain high fluoride levels. Because fluorides are transported in at- mosphere, vegetation on ridges and prominent topography downwind from the prevailing winds over the aluminum plant may be more likely to intercept fluorides than vegetation in valleys or other areas. The general locations of special sampling are shown in figure 3. The lo- cations were: 1) near Columbia Falls, 2) Columbia Mountain, 3) Teakettle Mountain, 4) Southwest Glacier National Park, 5) Coram Experimental Forest, near Desert Mountain, and 6) northeast edge of Hungry Horse Reser- voir. Samples were not collected on a plot basis as described for the radial collections; rather, vegetation representative of the area, with emphasis on coniferous species, was col- lected in June and again in October 1970. A
sample was defined as stated in the section on Collection of Vegetation.
Laboratory Study Design
Visual Burn. All vegetation samples were brought to the laboratory for analysis of visu- al burn. For each conifer sample, needles were sorted according to year of origin, 1969 or 1970. The proportion of different needles showing evidence of foliar burn was recorded (Carlson and Dewey, 1970). Also the average proportion of length of burn on affected needles was estimated. For shrubs, the pro- portion of different leaves showing bum symptoms was estimated, and burned on leaves, the actual proportion of area affected was es- timated. Symptoms on grasses could not be measured. Extreme care was exercised to avoid confusing insect or disease injury with fluoride burn.
Chemical Analysis. After estimation of foliar burn, separate subsamples of 30 to 40 grams of foliar tissue from samples of 1969 and 1970 needles of each conifer species and from one sample of each of two shmb species from each plot were prepared for chemical analysis of available fluorine (i.e., gaseous and particulate). A subsample of grass and herba- ceous tissue from each plot was similarly pre- pared. All samples were sent to WARF Insti- tute, Inc., Madison, Wisconsin, for analysis. The semi-sutomated method as outlined by Health Laboratory Science (1969) was used for determination of total fluorine. Results were given in ppm (parts per million) dry weight basis. For the purposes of this report, the terms “fluorine” and “fluoride” will be used interchangeably.
Histological Analyses
Solberg and Adams (1956) and Gordon (1970) in controlled studies described histo- logical responses of conifers to fumigations by fluorides. Protoplasmic and nuclear hyper- trophy of parenchyma cells resulting in death of foliar phloem tissue were regarded as symptomatic of fluorosis in conifer tissue. Therefore, we arbitrarily selected subsamples from burned conifer needles for histological analysis of tissue showing fluoride bum. Ap- proximately 2 mm. sections of tissue were ex- tracted from the “transition zone” (that por- tion between the green and burned tissue on
6
Figure 2. — Anaconda Aluminum Reduction plant at Columbia Falls , Montana. Note effluent from the five pot lines. View is southerly, Columbia Mountain is in background.
7
the needles). The sections included green, chlorotic, and necrotic tissue. The specimens were killed and fixed in formalin- aceto-alcohol, dehydrated through a tertiary butyl alcohol series, embedded in paraplast, sectioned at 9 micra thickness on a rotary microtome, and examined and photographed through a Leitz Ortholux phase contrast microscope equipped with an Aristophot photographic system.
Aerial Photography
The entire area suspected to be affected by fluorides was photographed in July of 1970 with Aero Ektachrome, 9x9 format, at a scale of 1:12000. In addition, stereo pairs were taken of all the radial plots at a scale of 1:4000.
Entomological Phase
Accumulation of Fluoride by Insects
A broad spectrum of insects including fo- liage feeders, cambium feeders, pollinators, and predators were sampled and analyzed for fluoride accumulation (Appendix VI). At least 5 grams of each species were oven dried and sent to WARF for analysis of available fluoride (5 grams = from 100-500 individual insects, depending on the species.) Insects were collected in the spring (June 1), summer (August 12), and fall (October 9), 1970, on the basis of their availability. All collections were made within one-half mile of the alumi-
num plant except for eight control samples that were taken at least 50 miles from the plant. The less common insects were sent to the U. S. National Museum for identification; the remainder were identified by Jerald E. Dewey.
Insect Population Sampling
Controls. Two forest insects, larch case- bearer and pine needle scale, were sampled in an attempt to relate population numbers to fluoride accumulations. Control samples were taken 30 miles to the north, south, east, and west of the plant. Larch casebearer popula- tions were measured using the system de- scribed by Bousfield (1969) in which case- bearers per 100 larch spurs were measured. Pine needle scale populations were measured modifying the method reported by Fischer (1950) in which scales per linear inch of “new” and “old” foliage were counted. Val- ues of scales per 600 needles were obtained.
Radial Sampling. To determine if insect populations were increasing, decreasing, or re- maining static in relation to distance from the suspected fluoride source and to foliar fluo- ride content, sampling was conducted in mid- April 1970, for populations of larch case- bearer and pine needle scale, along the estab- lished radii. The same procedures were used as described above. Sample intervals were one- fourth, one-half, 1, 2, 4, and 8 miles from the aluminum plant.
8
FIGURE 3
Location of areas in which special sampling was done.
SCAU 2 3
Mile
N
Teakettle Mtn.«
A
GLACIER NATIONAL PARK
% m'
4
Park i Hdqrs
West
lacier
Lake Five
aacQ
Falls
nHungry
Horse
umbia
'Mtn.
O
FLATHEAD rL NATIONAL ^
FOREST
6
V
9
Results
Pathological Phase
Parameters
The following parameters were used in the evaluation of the pollution problem:
1 . Fluoride content — Available fluoride content of whole leaves and whole needles of plants, dry weight basis, in ppm.
2. Injury index — The concept of injury index (I. I.) was developed after the field data were collected. Let P equal proportion of dif- ferent needles showing fluoride burn symp- toms for a given sample and let R equal the Ratio of length of burn on burned needles of the same sample, as described previously. Then the product PR would be an estimate of the gross amount burned for foliage of a given year. A similar value can be computed for broadleaf plants. We have termed this value the “injury index” for a given sample. Estima- tions of foliar burn for determining injury in- dex were done on all samples (except grasses) collected the first sampling period, but only on conifers the second. An early freeze caused premature death of broadleaf foliage, making estimation of burn nearly impossible.
Control Plots
Fluorine Content. One hundred and nine control samples, including collections of both sampling periods, were analyzed chemically. Data for fluoride accumulation in vegetation were classified and grouped as shrub, 1969 conifer, 1970 conifer, herbaceous, and grass (Appendixes II-A and II-B) and were sub- jected to a four-factor analysis of variance shown in table I-A. The means for factors are shown in table I-B.
Only means in vegetation type showed sig- nificance: the other factors were insignificant. The significance in vegetation type was vested between 1970 conifer tissue at 6.17 ppm and the grass tissue at 10.73. All factors, with the exception of grass species, had average fluo- ride content of less than 10 ppm. Therefore, we selected 10 ppm fluoride as a conservative control or “background” level for all plant tis- sue sampled in the study.
Injury Index. For all control samples in the first sampling the average injury index (I. I.) was 0.001; for the second sampling was 0.000. Thus we arbitrarily established a higher value of 0.006 as a conservative control level for injury index; i.e., only samples having an 1. 1. greater than 0.006 would be considered visually injured by fluorides. To further sub- stantiate 1. 1. as a parameter for evaluating foliar fluorosis we made a nonparametric anal- ysis over all the samples, control and other- wise, including both sampling periods and found that of 237 samples having an 1. 1. ex- ceeding 0.006, 227 had fluorine concentra- tions greater than 10 ppm and 10 had less than 10 ppm. Thus, 96 percent of the time an 1. 1. exceeding 0.006 was highly indicative of elevated (abnormal) fluoride levels. How- ever, many samples having high fluoride levels did not show injury. Therefore, 1. 1., at best, is a useful but very conservative param- eter for estimating fluoride pollution.
Radial System
Fluoride Content. For the purpose of dem- onstrating general pollution levels, fluoride
10
Table I-A. — Analysis of variance of control data, fluoride content
|
Source of variation |
Degrees of freedom |
Sum squares |
Mean squares |
F ratio |
Significance |
|
Collection period |
1 |
27.2431 |
27.2431 |
2.75 |
NS1 |
|
Area |
1 |
27.4862 |
27.4862 |
2.78 |
NS |
|
Plots |
2 |
23.0648 |
11.5324 |
1.17 |
NS |
|
Vegetation type |
4 |
158.2020 |
39.5504 |
4.00 |
*2 |
|
Residual |
51 |
504.3950 |
9.8900 |
||
|
Total |
59 |
704.3950 |
1 NS = Nonsignificant
2 * = Significant at the 95 percent level
Table I-B. — Means for factors, control data
|
Factor |
Level |
Mean |
|
Collection period |
June |
7.6713 |
|
October |
9.018 |
|
|
Area |
I |
7.668 |
|
II |
9.021 |
|
|
Plot |
1 |
9.136 |
|
2 |
7.622 |
|
|
3 |
8.276 |
|
|
Vegetation type |
Shrub |
8.324 |
|
Conifer, 1969 |
7.076 |
|
|
Conifer, 1970 |
6.171 |
|
|
Herbaceous |
9.423 |
|
|
Grass |
10.729 |
|
|
Grand mean |
8.344 |
3 Fluoride content, ppm
11
content values were averaged separately on a plot-by-plot basis, irrespective of the general vegetation type. This procedure was consid- ered quite valid because very nearly the same amount and type of vegetation was collected from all plots sampled and would be readily comparable to the plot-by-plot analysis of control data mentioned previously. (Control plot averages did not show significance and were less than 10 ppm). However, on all 11 of the plots located very close to the reduction plant, conifers had been killed, apparently from fluorides, and samples could not be ob- tained. Results are tabulated in Appendix II- A (first sampling) and Appendix II-B (second sampling). Blanks in data indicate the vegeta- tion type was not found on the plot. A total of 1,254 samples obtained during both sam- pling periods were chemically analyzed.
For every radius there exists a general trend of very high fluoride content near the aluminum plant, decreasing to control levels at the furthest plots. One can easily see from the tables the same general trend exists for separate vegetational types as exists for the plot averages, thus supporting our decision to use plot averages. In figure 4, the fluoride gra- dients from the grand average column, Appen- dix II-B, are schematically portrayed. On all the radii the lines of increasing concentration converge at the aluminum reduction plant, in- dicating the source of the fluorides. In figures 5, 6, and 7, we have graphed for radii 4, 5, and 6 respectively, the fluoride concentration data from the grand average column, Appen- dix II-B (second sampling period) against dis- tance from the aluminum plant. We termed these graphs “Radial Profiles.” These specific radii were selected for discussion because: 1) they are representative of all radii, and 2) they extend into Glacier National Park. The right ordinate depicts fluoride concentration from 10 to 10,000 ppm, (10 ppm is the con- trol level) and the abscissa represents distance from the plant in miles. The data was plotted on logarithmic paper to accentuate smaller fluoride values. Plots located in Glacier Na- tional Park are designated by G.N.P.
The general shape of the fluoride curve is similar on all three radii, and similar on the other seven radii sampled, and shows abnor-
mally high fluoride concentrations occurred (above 10 ppm) up to 12 and 14 miles from the reduction plant, including lands within Glacier National Park.
To simplify interpretation of the fluoride data, a single diagram was prepared that de- picts virtually the entire extent of the pollu- tion (figure 8). From the graphs of all the radial profiles, second sampling, we inter- preted the distance at which average plot fluo- ride concentrations equalled the arbitrarily es- tablished levels of 10, 15, 20, 30, 60, 100, 300, and 600 ppm. Those distances were plotted on the radii, and then equal pollution (fluoride concentration) levels were con- nected by lines. These lines of equal pollution are termed “isopols.” Data from the first sampling gave a similar figure, as did data for the separate vegetational categories. One can easily see the area of fluoride “fallout” and the various levels of average concentration. The distribution of fluorides generally cor- responds with the prevailing southwesterly winds.1 The areas included within (total area within a given isopol, including all area sus- taining fluoride levels equal to or greater than the given isopol) and between (the area be- tween two given isopols, such as the area be- tween the 30 and 60 isopols) isopols are tabulated in Appendix III-A. Vegetation on approximately 214,000 acres had accumu- lated more than 10 ppm fluoride, on 69,120 acres had accumulated 30 ppm or more, and on 7,040 had accumulated 100 ppm or more. (The isopols southwest of Columbia Falls were constructed from special sample data and may not be as reliable as those estimated from radial data. They are, however, indica- tive of the general pattern in a southwesterly direction.) Much vegetation in the area within the 30 ppm isopol has been affected to vari- ous degrees by fluorides from the aluminum plant.
Injury Index. Injury index values were averaged separately on a plot by plot basis for fluoride content, irrespective of vegetation type (Appendix II-A and II-B). However, plot
xThe Environmental Protection Agency collected detailed information on meteorological conditions in the area and will publish the findings soon.
12
FIGURE 4
Schematic diagram showing increasing concentration of fluorides in vegetation in the direction of and converging at the Anaconda Aluminum. The arrows represent the direction of increasing concentration.
13
Injury Index
14
Fluoride, PPM
Injury Index
15
Fluor i de, PPM
Injury Index
1 .000 .800
.600 . WO
.200
. 100 .080
.060
.040
.020
.010
.008
.006
.004
.002
.001
,/4,,, 12 4 6 8 10 12 14
Distance From Plant, Miles
16
Fluoride, PPM
FIGURE 8
Isopols of fluoride pollution at Columbia Falls, Montana. 69,120 acres are included within the 30 isopol. See append i xes III A and III B for acreage data.
10
SCALE
2 3 4 5
M>les
N
A*
GLACIER NATIONAL PARK
%
^ /W\
*2.
/s,y
JO
15
20
Teakettle Mtn .
''Columbia Falls
100
J00
'A AC
600
60
Park , Hdqr .
West Q Glacier
Lake Five
Hills
^Hungry
Horse
■Xolumbia \tn
m/dolf\
^/v /
.-VS
Q JS/
/v /
Jv/ / ^VvMt p* nrose
FLATHEAD
' I
NATIONAL
]
FOREST
/>
17
averages were determined by considering only those samples that had an I.I. of 0.001 or greater. Radial profiles of I.I. values were made for all radii separately for each sampling period. Only radii 4, 5, and 6 - figures 5, 6, and 7, respectively were selected for inclusion in this report, for the same reasons as outlined in the previous section on fluoride content. The left ordinate depicts I.I. values from 0.001 to 1.00. The abscissa represents dis- tance in miles from the aluminum factory. The graphs indicate a decreasing amount of visual injury at increasing distances from the aluminum plant. Visual injury was found up to 8.5 miles from the factory on radius 4, up to 12 miles on radius 5, and up to 4 miles on radius 6. Generally, visual injury was found on sensitive species (Western white pine, lodgepole pine, and ponderosa pine) within the 30 isopol.
High injury indices were nearly always as- sociated with values of fluoride concentration above 100 ppm. From data collected the second sampling period, we found the average injury index for plots 1-4, radii 3-8, was 0.142. As mentioned previously, of vegetation collected during the second sampling period, only conifers were analyzed for I.I. Radii 3-8 all transected a part of Teakettle Mountain, and plots 1-3 occurred on the west face of Teakettle Mountain. Plots No. 4 were on the east side of Teakettle, just over the crest of the ridge. All these plots had average fluoride values more than 100 ppm, as indicated in Appendixes II-A and II-B. Because the great- est and most obvious amount of visual injury occurred on the west face of the mountain, we used this area as a basis for establishing the classes of injury as shown in Table II.
Table II. — Classification of Visual Injury of Conifers
|
Class |
Average injury index |
|
Non-injured |
< 0.006 |
|
Light |
0.007 - 0.050 |
|
Moderate |
0.051 - 0.099 |
|
Severe |
> 0.100 |
In general, conifers on most of the west face of Teakettle Mountain have been severely
injured by fluorides; on the north face of Columbia Mountain have sustained moderate injury; and on the east face of Teakettle have showed moderate injury. Vegetation, especially ponderosa pine, within the city of Columbia Falls has been injured moderately to severely by fluorides.
Visual injury to vegetation between the 30 and 100 isopols was restricted primarily to the conifers — lodgepole pine, western white pine, whitebark pine, ponderosa pine, and Douglas-fir. However, the forb lily of the val- ley proved to be very sensitive to fluorides and showed typical symptoms within the 30 isopol.
The most serious visible injury to vegeta- tion occurred in the 19,840 acres included within the 60 ppm isopol. In 12,800 acres be- tween the 60 and 100 isopols, 100 percent of the foliage of lodgepole pine showed partial necrosis, of which 50 percent was necrotic due to fluorides. The remaining 50 percent had been infested by four different insect species: sugar pine tortrix, pine needle scale, needle sheath miner, and a needle miner (fig- ure 9). A causal relationship was not estab- lished between elevated fluorides and insect infestation; however, it would seem more than coincidental that the infestation was as- sociated so closely with the high fluorides.
In the 5,760 acres between the 100 and 300 isopols, insects subsided to endemic levels. However, foliage of nearly all vegeta- tion, including shrubs, forbs, and conifers, showed moderate fluoride burn. In 1,280 acres within the 300 and 600 isopols, foliage of all vegetation except grasses was severely burned (figures 10 and 11) and conifers ex- hibited terminal dieback (figure 12).
Special Samples
Fluoride Content and I.I. Data concerning fluoride content and injury index collected on a total of 175 special samples were very simi- lar to radial data collected in the same areas. Data is shown in Appendix IV. High levels of fluorides, up to 290 ppm, were found in the Columbia Falls area. Moderate levels up to 86.5 ppm along with moderate foliar injury were found on Columbia Mountain, and up to 1163 ppm were found in 1969 Douglas-fir needles on Teakettle Mountain. Injury was
18
Figure 9. — Fluoride and insect injury on lodgepole pine from the east side of Teakettle Moun- tain. About 50% of the needles show typical fluoride burn (1 ); the rest are infested separate- ly by sugar pine tortrix (2); pine needle scale (3); a needle sheath miner (4); and a needle miner (5).
19
severe on Teakettle Mountain. Fluoride levels between 20-30 ppm in 1969 conifer tissue were common in southwest Glacier Park. Light to moderate foliar injury also was found. Light fluoride accumulations between 15-20 ppm and little injury was found on the Coram Experimental Forest, and little fluo- ride or injury was found along the northeast edge of Hungry Horse Reservoir.
Much of the special data was used in the verification of isopols and the extension of isopols southwest from the aluminum plant.
Relation Between Injury Index and Fluoride Content
As explained previously, each sample col- lected was subjected to both a fluoride analysis and estimation of 1. 1. Because exces- sive fluorides can cause injury to plant tissue, one can hypothesize a positive correlation be- tween fluoride level and I.I. We tested this hypothesis by regression analysis separately on 1969 and 1970 conifer needles and shrub foliage. Data obtained from radial plots and special samples were used, combining data for both sampling periods. Results of the analysis are shown in Appendix V. The correlation was positive and significant at the 99 percent level of confidence for 1969 conifer needle tissue. The “F” ratio for slope was also highly significant. For 1970 conifer needles and for shrubs, the correlation was nonsignificant. This analysis readily substantiated that for
1970 conifer tissue and for all broadleaf tissue tested, high fluoride levels existed without corresponding visible necrosis or burn.
Rates of Accumulation
To obtain a comparison of the relative rates of fluoride accumulation for 1969 and 1970 coniferous tissue, accumulations in
1969 tissue were paired with accumulations in
1970 tissue sampled from the same tree. Data collected from the radial plots and special samples, second sampling period, were used. The data was stratified by isopol and species type as shown in Table III. Values given in the table are average monthly fluoride accumula- tions in excess of the normal 10 ppm back- ground level. The rate for 1969 tissue was found by dividing the total excess fluoride by 17 (total length of exposure in months) and by 5 for 1970 tissue.
The data indicates for pines that the rate of accumulation was about the same in 1970 as in 1969 between the 60-600 isopols but slowed down between the 10-60 isopols. The firs and spruces maintained about the same rate in 1970 as in 1969 for all the isopols.
Histological Results
Definite histological reactions were found in internal tissue of necrotic conifer needles. As described previously a 2mm piece of needle was taken from the “transition zone” be- tween healthy and necrotic tissue and sec-
TABLE III
Rates of Fluoride Accumulation Species Type 1
|
Pines |
Firs and spruces |
|||
|
Isopol |
1969 |
1970 |
1969 |
1970 |
|
300 - 600 |
12.69 |
16.26 |
30.16 |
32.26 |
|
100 - 300 |
16.73 |
8.27 |
24.11 |
15.76 |
|
60-100 |
4.56 |
7.22 |
||
|
30- 60 |
1.69 |
0.54 |
1.54 |
1.22 |
|
10- 30 |
0.67 |
0.45 |
0.94 |
1.58 |
1 "Pines” includes ponderosa, western white, whitebark, and lodgepole pines. Firs and Spruces ” includes Douglas, grand, and subalpine firs and Engelmann spruce.
20
Figure 10. — (top) Severe foliar fluoride burn on lodgepole pine. This sample was collected in the 300 isopol zone on U. S. Forest Service land. XO.5
Figure 11. — (bottom) Closeup of fluoride burn on lodgepole pine collected from within the 300 isopol zone on U. S. Forest Service land. X2
21
Figure 12. — Terminal dieback of Doublas-fir, caused by repeated fluoride fumigations. This tree is within the 300 isopol zone on Forest Service land. XO.5
Figure 13. — Hypertrophied transfusion parenchyma cells and associated collapse of transfusion tracheids (arrow). Lodgepole pine. X350.
tioned at 9 micra thickness. Microscopic ex- amination of conifer tissue in the early stage of necrosis (green-yellow part of transition zone) revealed that phloem and transfusion parenchyma and albuminous cells hyper- trophied extensively, crushing and causing collapse of transfusion tracheids and phloem elements (figure 13). Enlarged nuclei were al- ways associated with the hypertrophied cells and expanded nuclei often occurred in meso- phyll cells (figure 14). Often the mesophyll cell immediately interior to the stomatal opening had been killed before fixation and sectioning. Epithelial tissue and nuclei hyper- trophied extensively, often occluding resin canals (figure 15).
In the later stage of fluorosis (necrotic por- tion of transition zone), many of the hyper- trophied cells had collapsed, leaving a void in the tissue. Granulosis of the chloroplasts in mesophyll cells was obvious.
This disease syndrome is unlike any caused by fungi or adverse weather conditions, and is very distinctive for fluorosis of conifer tissue. This type of internal injury caused by fluo- rides occurred generally within the isopols 30 ppm and greater, including vegetation in Gla- cier National Park, but varied depending on the species.
Aerial Photography
The aerial photography was scheduled to be completed by June 15, 1970. However, be- cause of adverse weather, it was not done until mid-July, and much of the injury pres- ent on vegetation was masked by the new flush of growth. Even so, injury was detec- table generally within the 60 ppm isopol. Mortality of conifers was readily identifiable within the 300 ppm isopol. Ektachrome Aero film was satisfactory for delineating general areas sustaining visual pollution injury.
23
Figure 14. — Hypertrophied nuclei in mesophyll parenchyma cells (arrows). Lodgepole pine. X950
24
Figure 15. — Hypertrophied epithelial cells in ponderosa pine resin canal (arrow). X950.
Entomological Phase
Fluoride accumulation by Insects
Control Samples. Fluoride content data of control insects are given in Appendix VI. Foliage feeders were represented by larch casebearer at 16.5 ppm and grasshoppers at 7.5 ppm. Highest control for cambial feeders was 11.5 ppm found in Ips sp. Red turpentine beetle, also a cambial feeder, had 4.8 ppm fluoride. Bumblebees, which are pollinating insects, had 7.5 ppm and damselflies, which are predaceous, had 9.2 ppm fluoride.
Test Samples. Generally at least twice as much fluoride was found in test samples as in corresponding control samples. Foliage feeders collected within the areas sustaining fluoride pollution had from 21.3 to 48.6 ppm fluoride, with weevils containing the highest. From 8.5 to 52.5 ppm fluoride was found in the cambial feeding group, with engraver beetles sustaining the largest amount. The highest readings in the pollinating groups were found in bumblebees at 406 ppm and the low- est in the wood nymph butterfly at 58.0 ppm. Predaceous insects ranged from 6.1 to 170.0 ppm fluoride, with ants accumulating the largest amount.
Insect Population Sampling
Controls. Larch casebearers ranged from 0 - 27.6 per 100 spur shoots (Appendix VII).
Scale counts on lodgepole pine averaged 0.3 insects per 600 needles (Appendix VIII); on ponderosa pine they averaged 5 per 600 needles (Appendix IX).
Radial Collections. Of the possible sam- pling locations, only 30 plots had sufficient larch to sample larch casebearer populations; 34 plots had sufficient lodgepole pine to sam- ple for scale insects; and 16 plots had suffi- cient ponderosa pine to sample for scales.
Because extensive sampling of vegetation for foliar fluoride analysis was done in the pathological phase, we did not feel it neces- sary to repeat vegetation collections on indi- vidual plots during this phase. Therefore, counts of casebearer and scale were compared to the fluoride readings from the respective plots in the pathological phase.
No discernible pattern existed from the larch casebearer samples (Appendix VII). Rel- atively high casebearer counts were found at all distances from the aluminum plant with the exception of one-fourth mile where the only larch sample taken had no casebearer.
Generally, scale counts on lodgepole pine decreased with increasing distance from the aluminum plant, with the exception of the 8-mile samples (Appendix VIII).
Scale counts on lodgepole pine were com- pared to foliar fluoride content of conifers on the same plot (Appendix X). Linear regression analysis showed no significant correlation (r = 0.201, 30 degrees of freedom) existed.
The regression line is shown in Figure 16. A constant increase in scale numbers with in- creasing fluoride concentrations is indicated. Although the correlation is insignificant, the graph does indicate a trend and more exten- sive sampling likely would confirm the relationship.
Lodgepole pine that had scale counts ex- ceeding 50 per 600 needles contained 23 to 401 ppm fluoride (average 133 ppm) in all vegetation, compared to a range of 6 to 160 ppm fluoride (average 36 ppm) for pines with less than 50 scales per 600 needles.
The same pattern existed for the ponder- osa pine samples (Appendix VIII) even though the number of samples was smaller.
26
o
sa lPaaN 009/sa LB3S ^O'ON
27
Fluoride, PPM
Discussion
and
Conclusions
General
The original objectives of the evaluation were satisfied. The chemical and histological analyses showed definitely that fluorides were the major factor contributing to injury and damage on vegetation peripheral to the alumi- num reduction plant. That the source of the fluorides was the Anaconda Company’s alumi- num reduction plant is confirmed by the con- vergence of lines of increasing concentration at the reduction plant. Through systematic and special sampling systems, we were able to map the area affected by fluorides.
The 32 insect tissue samples analyzed showed definitely that fluorides accumulate in insects. Generally, scale insects increased with increasing concentrations of fluoride in lodgepole and ponderosa pine needle tissue; however, data was not complete. Larch case- bearer populations showed no trends.
Rates of Accumulation
Previously we mentioned that the alumi- num plant had reduced fluoride emissions from 7,600 to 5,000 pounds per day. One can hypothesize that a corresponding decrease in fluroide content of vegetation should occur. However, our data shows this is not uni- versally true. In fact, only for the pine species under insidious levels of fumigation (10-60 ppm isopols) did the rate drop substantially. The rate of accumulation in firs did not change even at the insidious levels of fumiga- tion. We interpret this as indicating the exist- ence of a threshold concentration of atmos- pheric fluoride as measured by emission at the aluminum plant, below which a decreasing level of atmospheric fluoride results in a cor- responding decrease in accumulation by plants and which, when exceeded, contributes little to the total accumulation by plants. This threshold effect could be realized either by short exposures to high concentrations of at-
mospheric fluorides or prolonged exposure to lower levels. The threshold level may be much lower than 5,000 pounds per day. Even at “low” levels of 500 to 1,000 pounds per day, injury to vegetation could be expected up to 3 or 4 miles from the aluminum plant, and even farther under stable inversion periods.
Possibly the threshold for pine species was reached somewhere between the 10-60 isopols, but was never reached for the firs and spruces. A possible explanation for this dif- ferential response between pines and firs is that pines are more sensitive to fluorides than are firs and spruces. Gordon (personal com- munication) has indicated that the physi- ological activity of a tree is directly related to its ability to accumulate fluorides. Thus pine trees sensitive to fluorides may accumulate fluorides rapidly up to a point, at which time phytotoxic effects result in a decrease in physiological activity and a corresponding de- crease in fluoride accumulation rate. Because the fluoride concentration at which phyto- toxicity occurs in firs and spruces may be higher than pines, their physiological activity would be greater and their ability to accumu- late fluorides would continue beyond that of pines.
Susceptibility of Species
We noted apparent differences in fluoride susceptibility in terms of expression of visual burn symptoms by the plant. Of the conifers, white pines were most susceptible followed by ponderosa pine, lodgepole pine, and Douglas-fir, respectively. Spruces, western red cedar, and subalpine fir were most tolerant. Of the shrubs, chokecherry and serviceberry showed symptoms of fluorosis quite readily, with buffalo berry the most tolerant. Lily of the valley and disporum were highly sensitive compared to other forbs. These classifications are, however, based only on field data and ob- servations.
28
Ecological Implications
Ecologically, western white pine is re- garded as a serai or temporary species in the trend towards a climax community. This species occurs on the east side of Teakettle Mountain as an integral part of the forest community. However, it has been severely af- fected by fluorides, and in many cases is dy- ing or dead. This unnatural selection most cer- tainly is hastening the trend towards climax. The same sort of rational could also be made for lodgepole pine, for it too is affected by fluorides much more severely than subalpine fir and western red cedar. Certainly unnatural ecological changes are occurring in response to the fluoride pollution, are resulting in re- duced biological diversity, and should receive considerable study in the future.
Pollution in Glacier National Park
Vegetation within 71,670 acres of Glacier National Park has accumulated, in quantities greater than 10 ppm, fluorides emitted from the reduction plant (Appendix III-B). On 9,600 acres, plants have accumulated 30 ppm or more, and some have been lightly injured. Plants on 371 acres showed average accumu- lations up to 60 ppm with some moderate in- jury on lodgepole, white, and ponderosa pines and Douglas-fir. As indicated by figure 8, most of the injury and high accumulation levels occurred on the southwest face of the Apgar Mountains and the southwest face of the Belton Hills. No samples were collected from the upper reaches of McDonald Creek in Glacier National Park. However, the isopol map does indicate the possibility of pollution damage near Logan Pass, and future sampling should include these areas.
Pollution in Coram Experimental Forest
All the special samples collected near Desert Mountain (Figure 3) were located within Coram Experimental Forest. Many studies important to management of western larch currently are in progress on the exper- imental forests. Generally, average fluoride ac- cumulations in western white pine and west- ern larch ranged from 10-25 ppm. Little foliar injury was found. We do not know what af- fect these insidious fluoride accumulations may have on reproductive potential, growth, and other factors of the species being studied.
However, the presence of elevated fluorides may contribute to unexplained error in sta- tistical analyses of the data.
Study Replicated
Data for construction of isopols and radial profiles displayed in this report were obtained from the second sampling period as these were more current. A similar pattern existed for data of the first sampling period but was not of the magnitude as that of the second. Because data of both sampling periods was collected in the same manner, each sampling period could be considered a replicate of the same experiment. As both sampling periods yielded data showing similar trends, the tech- niques used (i.e., radial sampling) are con- sidered valid.
Insects and Fluoride
The damsel flies and ostomids are 100 per- cent predatory in both larval and adult stages. Fluoride accumulated in these insects must have come from the insects upon which they fed, indicating that fluoride is passed along the food chain to some predators.
In two instances where both larvae and adults of the same species (flatheaded beetles and ostomids) were analyzed, accumulation was much higher in the adults. Bumblebees collected in the summer had over twice the fluoride levels as those collected in the spring. Both cases suggest that accumulation occurs throughout the life of the insects.
Many plants are dependent upon insect pollinators for seed production. By altering the pollinator complex, i.e., bumblebees, honeybees, sphinx moths, and others, it is possible to alter vegetational types, and subse- quently much of ecology of an area. Studies have shown fluorides to be devastating to honeybees. If this applies to pollinators in general it could have a detrimental effect on fruit trees, legumes, and many other insect- pollinated flowering plants in the polluted area.
Current research shows that several chemi- cals and pesticides (DDT, etc.) are adversely affecting organisms farther up the food chain. Eagles lay soft-shelled nonviable eggs due to feeding on fish containing high levels of DDT. Insects are one of the most important ele- ments of the food chain. They are the only
29
watershed through loss of ground cover likely is minimal.
Previous research has shown that livestock will develop fluorosis if feeding is done on vegetation containing more than 35 ppm fluo- ride. The area within the 30 isopol contains several thousand acres of grazing lands that should not be utilized, indicating a dollar value which can be fixed.
Research also has shown that diameter growth rates of conifers will decrease from" 1-6 fold in fluoride polluted areas. We have not collected at Columbia Falls any data con- cerning growth decline of conifers. However, the decrease mentioned above could be ap- plied to commercial species in the area.
Environmental damage is continuing and can be stopped only by (1) installation of effi- cient pollution abatement equipment at the reduction plant to limit fluoride emission to 0.0 pounds per day, which likely is impossi- ble, or (2) closure of the plant. The latter is an unrealistic position because the aluminum plant does provide jobs to hundreds of people at a payroll exceeding $9 million per year. Therefore, it would seem appropriate to sup- port the fluoride emission standard of 864 pounds per day set by the State of Montana.
If emissions are not reduced to the State standard, extensive pollution can be expected to continue. As a result, it would be unwise to raise livestock within the area included by the 30 ppm isopol. Leafy vegetables and fruits grown or collected within the 30 ppm isopol should be thoroughly washed before they are eaten.
Forest vegetation would continue to de- cline, and the southwestern portion of Glacier National Park would continue to sustain a chronic level of injury caused by excessive fluorides.
food of some birds, fish, amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and arthropods including other in- sects and arachnids. If fluorides accumulated by insects are injurious to insectivorous ani- mals, then additional damage may be occurring.
It should be remembered that while there are many undesirable insects we would like to control, only about one in 100 is considered to cause significant crop loss. Much research is needed before the effect of different levels of atmospheric fluoride upon insect populations is clearly understood.
Fluroide has not been reported to be trans- located in conifers, it is said to accumulate in the foliage by absorption. The bark beetle species examined feed solely as larvae and adults on the cambium of conifers. The high fluoride readings in some bark beetle samples indicate that fluorides are translocated in the xylem or phloem of the tree and are accessi- ble to bark beetles.
Scale insects are known to build up on weakened or disturbed trees. Excessive dust alone can trigger scale outbreaks. There ap- pears to be a relationship to scale populations and fluoride accumulated by the vegetation, but more extensive sampling is needed.
Economic and Esthetic Damage
The Forest Service is charged with the re- sponsibility of wise use of all National Forest lands. We are also responsible for technical ad- vise and service to National Parks, State and private concerns. The responsibilities are ad- ministered in five general use categories: 1) wildlife, 2) water, 3) forage, 4) recreation, and 5) timber. Therefore, an economic analy- sis of fluoride pollution would have to con- sider values in all these categories.
We have not yet made a thorough eco- nomic analysis of the fluoride pollution prob- lem at Columbia Falls. Recreation and wild- life values are difficult to establish. Gordon1 has shown that wildlife in the area is accumu- lating fluorides, but no economic loss has been established. Excessive fluoride concen- trations in water have not yet been reported in the Columbia Falls area, and damage to the
1 Personal communication with Dr. C. C. Gordon, University of Montana.
Future Plans
We are establishing a permanent system to monitor for fluoride pollution in the Colum- bia Falls area. The precise methods have not yet been outlined.
During the summer of 1971 we will evalu- ate possible timber growth losses due to fluo- ride. It is anticipated that a series of variable plots would provide the data, but definite procedures have not yet been established.
30
Acknowledgements
Special appreciation is extended to person- nel of the Flathead National Forest, especially Mr. John Ulrich, for assistance in organization of the field part of this study; to Mrs. Carma Gilligan for her excellent histological work; to Mr. Ralph E. Williams for valuable assistance in organizing the manuscript, and to many other close associates who aided in the field work and reviewed the manuscript. We also wish to extend our gratitude to Mrs. Karen Brown, who typed the manuscript.
31
Literature
Cited
Adams, Donald F., C. Gardner Shaw, Richard M. Gnagy and others.
1956. Relationship of atmospheric fluo- ride levels and injury indexes on Gladiolus and ponderosa pine. Agricultural and Food Chemistry 4(1): 64-66.
Anonymous.
1969. Tentative Method of analysis for Fluoride content of the atmosphere and plant tissue. Health Laboratory Science, 6: 84-101.
Bousfield, W. E.
1969. Sampling plan for larch casebearer. USDA For. Serv., Div. State & Pri. For- estry, Missoula, MT. Unpub. rept.
Caparrini, W.
1957. Fluorine poisoning in domestic ani- mals (cattle) and bees. Zooprofilass 12: 249-250.
Carlson, C. E. and J. E. Dewey.
1970. Study plan for the evaluation of flu- oride damage to ecosystem segments on National Forest land in the vicinity of Co- lumbia Falls, MT. USDA For. Serv., Div. State & Private Forestry, Missoula, MT.
Compton, O. C., L. F. Remmert, J. A. Rudinsky and others.
1961. Needle scorch and condition of ponderosa pine trees in The Dalles area. Misc. paper 120, Agri. Exp. Sta., Oregon State Univ., Corvallis, OR.
Daubenmire, R., and J. B. Daubenmire.
1968. Forest Vegetation of Eastern Washington and Northern Idaho. Wash- ington Agr. Exp. Sta. Tech. Bull. 60.
Fischer, G. W.
1950. Second progress report Spokane County ponderosa pine blight investi- gation. USDA For. Serv., Unpub. rept.
Gordon, C. C.
1970. Damage to Christmas trees near Oakland, Maryland, and Mountain Storm, West Virginia. Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT., special report.
1969. Cominco American Report II. Univ. of Montana, Missoula, MT.
Guilhon, J., R. Truhaut, and J. Bernuchon. 1962. Studies on the variations in fluorine levels in bees with respect to industrial at- mospheric air pollution in a Pyrenean vil- lage. Acad. d’Agr. de France, Compt. Rendt. 48: 607-615.
Hickey, H. R.
1968. Controlling aluminum effluent re- duction. System Services Resources Re- search, Inc. Sub. of Hazelton Laboratories, Inc. TRW Life Sciences Center.
Hindawi, I. J.
1970. Air pollution injury to vegetation. U. S. Dept. HEW, Natl. Air Pollution Con- trol Adminis., Raleigh, NC., pp. 26-29.
32
Jacobson, Jay S., Leonard H. Weinstein, D. C. McCune, and A. E. Hitchcock.
1966. The accumulation of fluorine by plants. J. Air Poll. Cont. Assoc. 16 (8): 412-417.
Johnson, P. C.
1950. Entomological aspects of the pon- derosa pine blight study, Spokane, WN. USDA For. Serv. Unpubl. Rept.
Lezovic, J.
1969. The influence of fluorine com- pounds on the biological life near an alumi- num factory. Fluoride Quarterly Rept., vol. 2, No. 1.
Lynch, Donald W.
1951. Diameter growth of ponderosa pine in relation to the Spokane pine-blight problem. Northwest Science 25: 157-163.
MacLean, D. C., R. E. Schneider, and L. H. Weinstein.
1969. Accumulation of fluoride by forage crops. Contrib. Boyce Thompson Inst. 24 (7): 165-166.
Marier, J. R.
1968. Fluoride research. Science 159: 1494-1495.
Marier, J. R., Dyson Rose, and J. S. Hart.
1969. Environmental fluoride. Pollution Task Force Rept. Div. of Biology, N.R.C., Ottawa.
Maurizio, A., and M. Staub.
1956. Poisoning of bees with industrial
gasses containing fluorine in Switzerland. Schweiz. Bieren Ztg. 79: 476-486.
Outram, I.
1970. Some effects of fumigant sulphryl fluoride on the gross metabolism of insect eggs. Fluoride Quarterly Rept. vol. 3, No. 2.
Semrau, Konrad T.
1957. Emission of fluorides from indus- trial processes — a review. J. of Air Poll. Cont. Assoc., 7: 92-108.
Shaw, Charles Gardner, George W. Fischer, Donald F. Adams, and Mark F. Adams.
1951. Fluorine injury to ponderosa pine. Phytopath. 4a: 10, p. 943, abs.
Solberg, R. A. and D. F. Adams.
1956. Histological responses of some plant leaves to hydrogen fluoride and sulfur dioxide. Amer. J. Bot. 43: 755-760.
Stark, R. W., P. R. Miller, R. W. Cobb, Jr., and others.
1968. Photochemical oxidant injury and bark beetle (Coleoptera: Scolytidae) infes- tation of ponderosa pine. Hilgardia, 39 (6).
Thomas, M. D.
1961. Effects of air pollution on plants. World Health Organization Monograph Se- ries 46.
Treshow, M., Franklin K. Anderson, and Frances Harner.
1967. Responses of Douglas fir to elevated atmospheric fluorides. For. Science 13(2): 114-120.
33
Appendix I
COMMON AND SCIENTIFIC NAMES OF PLANTS AND ANIMALS STUDIED OR REFERRED TO IN THIS REPORT
TREES
Common Name
Western Larch Western White Pine Whitebark Pine Ponderosa Pine Douglas-fir Lodgepole Pine Engelmann spruce Grand fir
Western Red Cedar Subalpine fir Yew Juniper
SHRUBS
Service berry Oregon grape Ribes
Snowberry Ocean Spray Buffalo Berry Spiraea Paper Birch Rose
Mountain maple
Willow
Dogwood
Cottonwood
Huckleberry
Scientific Name
Larix occidentalis Nutt.
Pinus monticola Dough ex. D.
Pinus albicaulis Engelm.
Pinus ponderosa Laws.
Pseudotsuga menziesii (Mirbel) Franco Pinus contorta var. latifolia Engelm. Picea engelmannii Parry ex Engelm. Abies grandis (Dough) Lindl.
Thuja plicata Donn. Hort.
Abies lasiocarpa (Hook.) Nutt.
Taxus brevifolia Nutt.
Juniperus occidentalis Hook.
Amelanchier alni folia Nutt.
Berberis repens Lindl.
Ribes sp. L.
Symphoricarpos albus (L). Blake Holodiscus discolor (Pursh) Maxim. Shepherdia argentea (Pursh) Nutt. Spiraea betulifolia Pall.
Betula papyrifera Marsh.
Rosa woodsii Lindl.
Acer glabrum Torr.
Salix sp. L.
Cornus canadensis L.
Populus trichocarpa T. and G. ex Hook Vaccinium sp. L.
34
Common Name
Scientific Name
Mountain ash Ninebark Aspen Alder
Chokecherry
Red stem ceanothus
Evergreen Ceanothus
Pachistima
Hawthorne
Honeysuckle
Elderberry
Kinnikinnick
Syringa
FORBS
Lily of the Valley
Lupine
Mullein
Heart Leaf Arnica Strawberry Thimbleberry Fern
Wild Snapdragon
Hawkweed
Fireweed
Yarrow
Mint
Larkspur
Arrow Leaf Balsam Root Wild Pea Devils Club Aster
Meadow Rue
False Azalea
Bedstraw
Goldenrod
Wild Onion
Lousewort
Canadian Thistle
Disporum
Absinthium
Raspberry
Pussytoes
Michaux sagebrush
Hounds Tongue
Alum Root
Dogbane
Sorbus scopulina Greene Physocarpus malvaceus (Greene) Kuntze Populus tremuloides Michx.
Alnus incana (L.) Moench Prunus virginiana L.
Ceanothus sanguineus Pursh Ceanothus uelutinus Dougl. ex Hook. Pachistima myrsinites (Pursh) Raf. Crataegus douglasii Lindl.
Lonicera ciliosa (Pursh) DC.
Sambucus cerulea Raf.
Arctostaphylos uua-ursi (L.) Spreng. Philadelphus lewisii Pursh
Smilacina stellata (L.) Desf.
Lupinus Sp. L.
Verbascum thapsus L.
Arnica cordi folia Hook.
Fragaria virginiana Duchesne Rubus parviflorus Nutt.
Pteridium equilinum (L.) Kuhn Antirrhinum sp. L.
Hieracium sp. L.
Epilobium angustifolium L.
Anchillea millefolium L.
Mentha sp. L.
Delphinium sp. L.
Balsamorhiza sagittata (Pursh) Nutt. Vicia sativa L.
Oplopanax horridum (J. E. Smith) Miq. Aster sp. L.
Thalictrum occidentale Gray Rhododendron sp. L.
Galium sp. L.
Solidago sp. L.
Allium sp. L.
Pedicularis sp. L.
Cirsium arvense L. (Scop.)
Disporum hookeri (Torr.) Nicholson Artemisia absinthium L.
Rubus idaeus L.
Antennaria sp. Gaertn.
Artemesia michauxiana Bess. Cynoglossum officinale L.
Heuchera sp. L.
Apocynum androsaemifolium L.
35
GRASSES
|
Common Name |
Scientific Name |
|
Pine Grass Bear Grass Timothy Grass Cheat Grass Blue Grass |
Calamgrostis rubescens Buckl. Xerophyllum tenax (Pursh) Nutt. Phleum sp. L. Bromus tectorum L. Poa sp. L. |
|
INSECTS |
|
|
Black pine leaf scale Desert Locust Yellow Meal Worm Larch case bearer Pine Needle Scale Sugar pine tortrix Needle Sheath Miner Needle Miner Bumblebee Sphinx moth Honey bee Skipper butterfly Wood nymph Weevils Grasshoppers Cicadas Engraver beetles Buprestid larvae Buprestid adults Red Turpentine Beetle Douglas-fir Beetle Ants Ostomids Damsel Flies Longlegged fly Cerambycids Elaterids |
Nuculaspis californica (Coleman) Schistocera gregaria (Forsk.) Tenebrio molitor (L.) Coleophora laricella (Hbn.) Phenacaspis pinifoliae (Fitch) Choristoneura lambertiana (Busck) Zellaria hambachi Busck Recurvaria sp. Bombus sp. Hemaris sp. Apis me lli f era Linn. Erynnis sp. Cercyonis sp. Magdalis sp. Melanoplus sp. Family Cicadidae Ips sp. DeGeer Melanophila sp. Melanophila sp. Dendroctonus valens LeConte Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopk. Family Formicidae Temnochila sp. Argia sp. Medeterus sp. Family Cerambycidae Family E later idae |
|
MAMMALS |
|
|
Columbian-ground squirrel Grizzly Bear Elk |
Spermophilus columbianus columbianus Ord Ursus horribilis Merriam Cervus canadensis Nelsoni Bailey |
36
Appendix IIA
TABULATION OF RADIAL AND CONTROL DATA First Sampling
Average Fluoride Content I. I.
|
Plot# |
Shrubs |
Conifers 1969 1970 |
Herbs |
Grasses |
Grand Ave |
Ave I. I. |
High I. I. |
|
|
Control #1 |
5.651 |
6.25 |
9.25 |
6.67 |
- |
6.92 |
.003 |
.006 |
|
Control #2 |
5.0 |
3.5 |
7.5 |
5.0 |
1.3 |
4.79 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Control #3 |
11.4 |
7.58 |
6.28 |
10.0 |
9.8 |
8.02 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Control #4 |
7.5 |
10.0 |
11.0 |
8.5 |
8.5 |
10.36 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Control #5 |
7.17 |
4.75 |
6.77 |
12.0 |
- |
7.03 |
.007 |
.014 |
|
Control #6 |
4.77 |
6.33 |
3.00 |
5.50 |
16.0 |
5.80 |
.005 |
.006 |
|
Rl-Pl2 |
108.5 |
300 |
40.8 |
188 |
70.0 |
122.36 |
.138 |
.235 |
|
R1-P2 |
106.5 |
107.8 |
18.3 |
- |
45.0 |
70.72 |
.305 |
.442 |
|
R1-P3 |
48.8 |
42.2 |
11.4 |
- |
18.8 |
31.94 |
.044 |
.090 |
|
R1-P4 |
19.8 |
18.3 |
14.7 |
12.5 |
2.5 |
15.46 |
.132 |
.301 |
|
R1-P5 |
17.0 |
-- |
- |
16.0 |
8.0 |
12.88 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R1-P6 |
3.0 |
12.5 |
9.0 |
- |
4.0 |
8.94 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R1-P7 |
6.3 |
5.8 |
9.3 |
- |
4.0 |
6.80 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R2-P1 |
42.4 |
143.5 |
17.5 |
93.8 |
66.3 |
91.21 |
.075 |
.313 |
|
R2-P2 |
112.7 |
127.5 |
20.0 |
90.0 |
83.3 |
89.59 |
.196 |
.528 |
|
R2-P3 |
44.3 |
77.9 |
17.8 |
50.0 |
49.0 |
50.21 |
.163 |
.313 |
|
R2-P4 |
13.2 |
20.7 |
8.83 |
- |
13.0 |
14.71 |
.079 |
.200 |
|
R2-P5 |
13.0 |
9.5 |
17.3 |
9.0 |
32.0 |
15.86 |
.012 |
.019 |
|
R2-P6 |
3.6 |
5.5 |
2.3 |
5.5 |
2.5 |
3.70 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R2-P7 |
7.1 |
8.9 |
9.2 |
7.3 |
6.0 |
8.13 |
.004 |
.008 |
1 Fluoride content, ppm, dry weight basis 2R = Radius No., P = Plot No.
37
APPENDIX II-A, Con’t
Average Fluoride Content I. I.
|
Plot# |
Shrubs |
Conifers 1969 1970 |
Herbs |
Grasses |
Grand Ave |
Ave I. I. |
High I. I. |
|
|
R3-P1 |
1166.6 |
- |
- |
875.5 |
775 |
1004.3 |
.020 |
.027 |
|
R3-P2 |
488 |
637 |
229 |
315 |
344 |
411.3 |
.107 |
.271 |
|
R3-P3 |
149.0 |
- |
- |
115 |
3.0 |
118.6 |
.009 |
.021 |
|
R3-P4 |
100.0 |
96.0 |
16.0 |
- |
82.5 |
78.90 |
.136 |
.136 |
|
R3-P5 |
37.2 |
31.5 |
11.5 |
-- |
22.5 |
26.31 |
.066 |
.334 |
|
R3-P6 |
10.0 |
10.8 |
10.9 |
-- |
2.1 |
9.23 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R3-P7 |
14.5 |
7.0 |
8.0 |
3.3 |
8.20 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
|
R4-P1 |
704.2 |
— |
-- |
628.0 |
156 |
604.14 |
.025 |
.076 |
|
R4-P2 |
778.0 |
- |
- |
450.5 |
231 |
537.60 |
.010 |
.063 |
|
R4-P3 |
425.5 |
681.5 |
116.5 |
525 |
206 |
397.25 |
.072 |
.500 |
|
R4-P4 |
120.0 |
198.4 |
65.1 |
96.5 |
234 |
130.23 |
.150 |
.470 |
|
R4-P5 |
21.2 |
57.2 |
15.3 |
34.5 |
49.0 |
38.16 |
.066 |
.215 |
|
*R4-P6 |
14.0 |
9.77 |
7.50 |
10.0 |
13.0 |
10.13 |
.003 |
.007 |
|
*R4-P7 |
13.7 |
17.8 |
6.83 |
17.8 |
- |
13.25 |
.038 |
.051 |
|
*R4-P8 |
15.4 |
18.0 |
7.15 |
9.9 |
103 |
19.68 |
.003 |
.003 |
|
*R4-P9 |
8.0 |
11.2 |
6.0 |
15.5 |
71.5 |
16.98 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
*R4-P10 |
9.27 |
8.93 |
4.0 |
5.7 |
5.8 |
6.88 |
.008 |
.008 |
|
R5-P1 |
1719 |
— |
- |
1038 |
250 |
1181.5 |
.288 |
.580 |
|
R5-P2 |
653 |
-- |
-- |
375 |
600 |
597.8 |
.029 |
.029 |
|
R5-P3 |
173.7 |
341.0 |
45.0 |
281 |
444 |
224.2 |
.197 |
.343 |
|
R5-P4 |
137.5 |
243.7 |
68.6 |
70.0 |
87.5 |
130.7 |
.086 |
.392 |
|
R5-P5 |
25.0 |
45.9 |
9.60 |
22.5 |
6.0 |
27.80 |
.151 |
.344 |
|
R5-P6 |
20.0 |
30.2 |
12.7 |
- |
21.0 |
19.93 |
.007 |
.023 |
|
R5-P7 |
16.3 |
30.5 |
- |
11.5 |
23.5 |
19.60 |
.003 |
.006 |
|
*R5-P8 |
20.50 |
19.15 |
10.2 |
21.0 |
26.0 |
17.43 |
.006 |
.011 |
|
*R5-P9 |
20.25 |
29.75 |
11.0 |
13.5 |
72.5 |
24.33 |
.115 |
.115 |
|
* R5-P10 |
11.05 |
10.1 |
4.10 |
8.28 |
5.5 |
7.46 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R6-P1 |
— |
1950 |
- |
363 |
313 |
875.3 |
.202 |
.442 |
|
R6-P2 |
1125.3 |
- |
- |
431 |
581 |
877.6 |
.019 |
.089 |
|
R6-P3 |
115.3 |
292 |
29.8 |
163 |
68.8 |
138.2 |
.019 |
.083 |
|
R6-P4 |
57.0 |
85.0 |
33.0 |
63.3 |
36.0 |
51.17 |
.106 |
.209 |
|
R6-P5 |
33.8 |
20.6 |
7.5 |
29.2 |
24.5 |
23.0 |
.073 |
.146 |
|
R6-P6 |
17.1 |
37.5 |
8.5 |
20.8 |
37.0 |
21.4 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R6-P7 |
7.5 |
19.0 |
10.5 |
11.0 |
15.0 |
11.75 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
*R6-P1Q |
14.65 |
13.5 |
6.0 |
18.5 |
51.5 |
17.83 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R7-P1 |
1073 |
- |
-- |
600 |
338 |
871.7 |
.065 |
.299 |
|
R7-P2 |
881.3 |
-- |
-- |
103 |
233 |
596.0 |
.118 |
.230 |
38
APPENDIX II-A, Con’t
Average Fluoride Content I. I.
|
Plot# |
Shrubs |
Conifers 1969 1970 |
Herbs |
Grasses |
Grand Ave |
Ave I. I. |
High I. I. |
|
|
R7-P3 |
65.3 |
168 |
22.3 |
62.5 |
75.0 |
68.67 |
.091 |
.225 |
|
R7-P4 |
55.0 |
111.0 |
18.9 |
44.0 |
44.0 |
63.20 |
.058 |
.111 |
|
R7-P5 |
25.3 |
- |
- |
25.5 |
42.0 |
29.50 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R7-P6 |
4.8 |
16.2 |
5.3 |
14.0 |
20.5 |
10.87 |
.016 |
.029 |
|
R7-P7 |
17.3 |
10.0 |
4.5 |
7.0 |
21.0 |
12.43 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R8-P1 |
399.8 |
975 |
175 |
- |
110 |
409.8 |
.052 |
.115 |
|
R8-P2 |
129 |
245 |
136.5 |
235 |
65.0 |
152.3 |
.016 |
.046 |
|
R8-P3 |
83.3 |
119.8 |
22.5 |
150 |
- |
85.9 |
.176 |
.400 |
|
R8-P4 |
25.3 |
49.0 |
12.7 |
41.5 |
14.3 |
29.4 |
.087 |
.152 |
|
R8-P5 |
20.0 |
31.8 |
9.8 |
14.0 |
8.0 |
17.2 |
.018 |
.049 |
|
R8-P6 |
21.5 |
14.9 |
16.0 |
18.3 |
- |
17.8 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R8-P7 |
11.8 |
14.2 |
9.2 |
13.3 |
22.5 |
12.6 |
.016 |
.018 |
|
R9-P1 |
108.7 |
110 |
39.5 |
51.5 |
41.0 |
70.97 |
.026 |
.026 |
|
R9-P3 |
26.1 |
-- |
10.0 |
15.0 |
13.5 |
20.40 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R9-P4 |
43.4 |
68.7 |
24.0 |
- |
23.5 |
45.31 |
.005 |
.005 |
|
R9-P5 |
12.5 |
7.8 |
11.0 |
-- |
6.0 |
9.80 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R9-P6 |
11.4 |
9.3 |
5.37 |
6.5 |
9.5 |
7.72 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R9-P7 |
5.6 |
9.0 |
10.3 |
25.0 |
5.0 |
9.98 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R10-P1 |
76.5 |
133 |
42.5 |
31.0 |
38.5 |
66.3 |
.032 |
.097 |
|
R10-P2 |
43.3 |
61.0 |
14.5 |
45.0 |
22.5 |
38.2 |
•’.070 |
.091 |
|
R10-P3 |
23.3 |
28.8 |
6.3 |
20.8 |
8.5 |
18.9 |
.013 |
.022 |
|
R10-P4 |
22.8 |
20.8 |
9.3 |
- |
16.0 |
16.82 |
.054 |
.054 |
|
R10-P5 |
15.0 |
23.9 |
7.8 |
10.0 |
7.5 |
15.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R10-P6 |
11.4 |
11.5 |
10.8 |
- |
10.0 |
10.8 |
.003 |
.003 |
|
R10-P7 |
6.8 |
9.2 |
3 5 |
11.0 |
6.5 |
7.54 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
* — Located on Glacier National Park lands.
39
Appendix II-B
TABULATION OF RADIAL AND CONTROL DATA Second Sampling
Average Fluoride Content I.I.
|
Plot# |
Shrubs |
Conifers 1969 1970 |
Herbs |
Grasses |
Grand Ave |
Ave I. I. |
High I. I. |
|
|
Control #1 |
8.7 |
8.5 |
4.5 |
10.0 |
11.5 |
8.67 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Control #2 |
6.8 |
7.0 |
5.8 |
10.5 |
5.5 |
6.88 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Control #3 |
15.8 |
11.3 |
4.75 |
6.5 |
7.5 |
7.91 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Control #4 |
10.9 |
5.9 |
5.2 |
17.0 |
17.0 |
9.74 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Control #5 |
10.5 |
7.8 |
5.2 |
- |
16.0 |
8.50 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Control #6 |
5.7 |
6.0 |
4.8 |
10.0 |
12.5 |
6.46 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
Rl-Pl |
323 |
338 |
115 |
310 |
139 |
258 |
.079 |
.086 |
|
R1-P2 |
140.5 |
131.7 |
38.9 |
115 |
102 |
95.3 |
.052 |
.143 |
|
R1-P3 |
65.5 |
40.7 |
19.3 |
32.0 |
20.0 |
40.9 |
.003 |
.003 |
|
R1-P4 |
43.3 |
18.5 |
12.8 |
43.5 |
20.5 |
23.4 |
.024 |
.024 |
|
R1-P5 |
11.5 |
9.0 |
6.0 |
- |
5.0 |
8.60 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R1-P6 |
13.8 |
9.10 |
6.2 |
- |
- |
9.06 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R1-P7 |
9.0 |
4.5 |
5.5 |
-- |
5.0 |
5.90 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R2-P1 |
136 |
189 |
64.7 |
61.5 |
93.5 |
111.0 |
.063 |
.093 |
|
R2-P2 |
147.5 |
100.8 |
26.8 |
146 |
44.5 |
92.6 |
.211 |
.279 |
|
R2-P3 |
110.0 |
124.7 |
32.8 |
104 |
32.0 |
85.3 |
.093 |
.104 |
|
R2-P4 |
29.1 |
17.3 |
8.5 |
- |
18.5 |
22.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R2-P5 |
16.0 |
16.0 |
9.5 |
14.5 |
- |
13.6 |
.018 |
.032 |
|
R2-P6 |
9.0 |
9.3 |
8.5 |
16.0 |
8.8 |
9.48 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R2-P7 |
9.8 |
8.5 |
5.5 |
8.8 |
4.5 |
7.84 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
40
APPENDIX II-B, Con’t
Average Fluoride Content 1. 1.
|
Plot# |
Shrubs |
Conifers 1969 1970 |
Herbs |
Grasses |
Grand Ave |
Ave I. I. |
High I. I. |
|
|
R3-P1 |
1194 |
488 |
258 |
794 |
600 |
754.7 |
.281 |
.348 |
|
R3-P2 |
475 |
496.5 |
367.8 |
463 |
101 |
401.2 |
.313 |
.628 |
|
R3-P3 |
281.5 |
294.5 |
70.0 |
137 |
168 |
199.6 |
.156 |
.313 |
|
R3-P4 |
130 |
85.5 |
23 |
107 |
68 |
90.6 |
.034 |
.043 |
|
R3-P5 |
49.8 |
42.8 |
17.5 |
36.5 |
31.5 |
33.9 |
.014 |
.025 |
|
R3-P6 |
15.0 |
11.8 |
7.5 |
5.5 |
12.5 |
11.0 |
.008 |
.015 |
|
R3-P7 |
7.3 |
12.5 |
10.0 |
7.5 |
4.5 |
8.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R4-P1 |
925 |
- |
-- |
1250 |
469 |
903.2 |
- |
-- |
|
R4-P2 |
1244 |
- |
-- |
638 |
205 |
832.8 |
- |
-- |
|
R4-P3 |
900.5 |
390.3 |
87.5 |
363 |
385 |
432.8 |
.208 |
.495 |
|
R4-P4 |
211.5 |
286.3 |
123.2 |
375 |
153 |
215.8 |
.119 |
.301 |
|
R4-P5 |
47.5 |
53.3 |
22.2 |
11.5 |
20.0 |
35.3 |
.075 |
.211 |
|
*R4-P6 |
32.5 |
11.7 |
9.3 |
15.5 |
-- |
17.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
*R4-P7 |
21.3 |
11.0 |
9.7 |
23.5 |
14.5 |
15.3 |
.007 |
.007 |
|
*R4-P8 |
37.8 |
22.3 |
8.0 |
13.5 |
-- |
20.0 |
.003 |
.003 |
|
*R4-P9 |
14.3 |
9.8 |
6.3 |
10.5 |
51.5 |
15.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
*R4-P10 |
10.5 |
6.2 |
6.1 |
5.5 |
4.3 |
6.3 |
.005 |
.005 |
|
R5-P2 |
1300 |
-- |
-- |
875 |
200 |
918.7 |
-- |
-- |
|
R5-P3 |
294.5 |
537.5 |
80.3 |
-- |
508 |
332.2 |
.132 |
.250 |
|
R5-P4 |
202.5 |
228.7 |
55 |
111 |
128 |
160.0 |
.063 |
.114 |
|
R5-P5 |
59.5 |
56.5 |
23.3 |
270 |
51.0 |
66.91 |
.014 |
.014 |
|
R5-P6 |
38.0 |
35.0 |
11.7 |
59.5 |
32.0 |
30.3 |
.003 |
.003 |
|
R5-P7 |
39.0 |
28.5 |
10.0 |
34.0 |
19.5 |
28.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
*R5-P8 |
73.0 |
18.0 |
13.0 |
- |
23.5 |
24.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
*R5-P9 |
69.0 |
24.8 |
14.2 |
32.5 |
22.0 |
26.9 |
.014 |
.019 |
|
*R5-P10 |
12.8 |
11.9 |
10.2 |
9.0 |
15.5 |
11.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R6-P1 |
1433 |
1728 |
775 |
2100 |
469 |
1339 |
.150 |
.150 |
|
R6-P2 |
1889 |
- |
-- |
3000 |
488 |
1831 |
-- |
- |
|
R6-P3 |
169.5 |
239.6 |
44.7 |
171 |
117 |
148 |
.114 |
.144 |
|
R6-P4 |
64.2 |
140 |
76.3 |
113 |
53.0 |
83.8 |
.182 |
.291 |
|
R6-P5 |
67.3 |
27.0 |
10.3 |
47.0 |
27.5 |
36.7 |
.006 |
.006 |
|
R6-P6 |
54.0 |
32.5 |
13.8 |
14.0 |
21.0 |
32.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R6-P7 |
14.8 |
18.8 |
9.8 |
23.5 |
27.5 |
17.2 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
*R6-P10 |
20.5 |
18.5 |
9.3 |
30.5 |
154 |
30.9 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R7-P1 |
1509 |
- |
- |
700 |
375 |
1120 |
- |
- |
|
R7-P2 |
969 |
1825 |
413 |
56.0 |
293 |
754.2 |
.289 |
.567 |
* — Located on Glacier National Park lands.
41
APPENDIX II-B, Con’t
Average Fluoride Content I. I.
|
Plot# |
Shrubs |
Conifers 1969 1970 |
Herbs |
Grasses |
Grand Ave |
Ave I. I. |
High 1. 1. |
|
|
R7-P3 |
154.5 |
142.5 |
31.3 |
143 |
160 |
120.0 |
.105 |
.154 |
|
R7-P4 |
100.5 |
104.7 |
17.5 |
— |
63.5 |
76.7 |
.064 |
.064 |
|
R7-P5 |
47.3 |
51.5 |
20.5 |
28.5 |
16.5 |
25.3 |
.042 |
.042 |
|
R7-P6 |
35.0 |
37.8 |
18.9 |
25.0 |
13.0 |
26.2 |
.004 |
.005 |
|
R7-P7 |
23.0 |
14.0 |
10.2 |
17.2 |
7.5 |
14.3 |
.002 |
.002 |
|
R8-P1 |
812.5 |
906 |
306 |
750 |
131 |
619.7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R8-P2 |
475.5 |
313 |
209.5 |
325 |
70.0 |
269.9 • |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R8-P3 |
199.0 |
167.0 |
41.3 |
250 |
97.5 |
145.2 |
.042 |
.067 |
|
R8-P4 |
48.5 |
56.0 |
55.3 |
32.5 |
— |
49.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R8-P5 |
33.5 |
28.1 |
14.5 |
31.5 |
14.5 |
24.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R8-P6 |
26.3 |
15.5 |
8.8 |
14.5 |
42.5 |
19.5 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R8-P7 |
16.2 |
14.0 |
8.50 |
— |
12.5 |
12.7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R9-P1 |
251.5 |
168 |
76 |
198 |
85 |
171.7 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R9-P2 |
134.7 |
— |
— |
113 |
132 |
129.8 |
— |
— |
|
R9-P3 |
45.0 |
19.3 |
12.3 |
52.5 |
35.0 |
30.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R9-P4 |
68.0 |
41.5 |
14.0 |
35.8 |
33.0 |
39.0 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R9-P5 |
9.0 |
4.5 |
4.75 |
8.5 |
6.0 |
5.79 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R9-P6 |
17.3 |
4.7 |
4.27 |
14.0 |
— |
9.48 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R9-P7 |
10.5 |
4.0 |
6.03 |
— |
5.5 |
6.29 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R10-P1 |
185.5 |
140 |
62.0 |
200 |
76.0 |
141.5 |
.030 |
.030 |
|
R10-P2 |
107.7 |
51.5 |
23.5 |
77.5 |
72.5 |
78.3 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R10-P3 |
30.7 |
23.0 |
8.8 |
26.0 |
28.5 |
24.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R10-P4 |
41.8 |
16.5 |
15.5 |
31.0 |
24.0 |
26.6 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R10-P5 |
9.5 |
20.8 |
10.5 |
33.8 |
12.5 |
17.41 |
.004 |
.004 |
|
R10-P6 |
— |
12.3 |
5.0 |
— |
11.0 |
10.1 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
|
R10-P7 |
— |
4.7 |
4.4 |
7.0 |
8.0 |
5.74 |
0.0 |
0.0 |
42
AREA POLLUTED BY FLUORIDES, ALL LANDS STUDIED
ci
o
H
C/3
o
a
o
a3 c/3 Oj 1—1
<1 <u
OJ
£
-V
a;
CQ
C/3
a>
S-l
a
<
C/3
|
o |
o |
o |
o |
O |
o |
O |
|
00 |
HP |
CM |
00 |
O |
ZD |
hP |
|
ZDr |
00 |
i — 1 |
<M |
CO |
t> |
ZD |
|
03 |
rH |
co" |
CD |
cT |
lo" |
|
|
CO |
LO |
LO |
hP |
1 — 1 |
CM
CD
GO
co
00
to-
O
CM
03 rH
V
a>
-V
03
OJ
Vi
a
03
oj
v
<
C/3
OJ
V
CJ
<
|
CD |
O |
o |
o |
CD |
O |
o |
o |
|
ZD |
00 |
HP |
CM |
HP |
HP |
GO |
HP |
|
o |
CM |
l—l |
00 |
O |
CT |
ZD |
|
|
co" |
HP |
cm" |
ocT |
03 |
C-" |
i—i |
|
|
i — i |
C" |
CM |
ZD |
t-H |
|||
|
CM |
rH |
i— H |
|
HP |
CM |
t-H |
00 |
tH |
t-H |
CM |
T— H |
|
co |
13- |
o |
co |
t-H |
|||
|
co |
(M |
tH |
1—1 |
C/3
CO
TO
o3
O)
T3
3
O
C/3
o
a
o
03
03
V
<
C
OJ
03
£
OJ
DQ
v
OJ
-v
03
03
V
o
03
03
V
<
C/3
OJ
V
03
<
C/3
C/3
03
V
OJ
<
|
o |
O |
o |
o |
o |
|
ZD |
CM |
ZD |
o |
(M |
|
al |
lO |
i— l |
o |
i—l |
|
oo" |
i—l |
oo" |
ZD |
lo" |
|
i — 1 |
CM |
i—l |
|
00 |
HP |
LO |
GO |
|
|
t-H |
T— 1 |
HP |
CM |
|
O |
o |
O |
o |
o |
o |
|
00 |
CM |
O |
HP |
HP |
CM |
|
CD |
M |
o |
<o |
ai |
|
|
r— 1 |
cm" |
i-H |
co" |
i—i |
|
|
t- |
CD |
LO |
CM |
|
<N |
00 |
O |
CD |
rH |
CO |
|
rH |
03 |
oo |
CO |
rH |
C/3
o
a
03 S
CU M
< g
OJ
-V
C/3
>3
CO
"cd
'S
CC3
Ptf
Xi
-h
OJ
PQ
v
OJ
-V
03
03
V
a
03
OJ
V
<
C/3
OJ
V
o>
. C/3
O OJ
co
C/3
03
V
OJ
<
C/3
-D CD O ■— ' C/2 S
|
o |
o |
o |
O |
o |
o |
o |
|
CM |
CM |
CD |
00 |
00 |
HP |
HP |
|
OO |
C7> |
CM |
C Dr |
co |
CD |
|
|
o" |
o" |
Hp" |
co" |
c~" |
co" |
|
|
CO |
HP |
CM |
CO |
|
00 |
CO |
03 |
CM |
(N |
CD |
tH |
|
Hp |
CD |
CO |
LO |
t-H |
|
o |
O |
O |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
00 |
CD |
HP |
00 |
o |
CM |
GO |
HP |
|
o |
03 |
<0 |
GO |
rH |
CD |
||
|
cT |
i—l |
rH |
cd" |
cm" |
LO" |
tH |
|
|
hP |
rH |
Hp |
1—1 |
CM ^
CM I>
CM rH I
CM O 00 <M i— I
I> CM
O
a
o
C/3
LO
O
(M
o o o
CO ZD O
O O
o o
CO ZD
CM CO
43
The area Southwest of Columbia Falls.
Total area sustaining greater than a given level of fluoride, p.p.m.
Area between established Isopols, i.e., the area between the 10 and 15 Isopols, etc.
Appendix III-B
AREA POLLUTED BY FLUORIDES GLACIER NATIONAL PARK1
Area
Isopol Area Greater Between Isopols
|
Sq. |
Sq. |
|||
|
Miles |
Acres |
Miles |
Acres |
|
|
10 |
112 |
71,670 |
40 |
25,600 |
|
15 |
72 |
46,080 |
40 |
25,600 |
|
20 |
32 |
20,480 |
17 |
10,880 |
|
30 |
15 |
9,600 |
14.42 |
9,229 |
|
60 |
.58 |
371 |
1 All lands studied in Glacier National Park were within the radial system.
44
FLUORIDE CONTENT AND INJURY INDEX VALUES FOR SPECIAL SAMPLES
too X G c s
O O,
£ s w &
too
x .£
2 'a
ix £
a3
C/D
_ OD
o a
£ £ C/D as CO
Ph
Pi
qT
X
‘S
o
3
x
C/3
.fcl
C*H
|
W) c |
LO |
o |
o |
q |
O |
q |
q |
o |
q |
o |
o |
|||||||||
|
o |
o |
lO |
lO |
o |
lO |
o |
CO |
T— t |
03 |
O |
T— i |
03 |
03 |
CD |
i-i |
co |
LO |
CM |
rH |
|
|
Qh £ 03 C/D |
CM CM |
X |
c- X |
00 |
03 CM |
LO <- 1 |
LO tH |
LO |
O |
CD |
CD |
CM |
rH |
oo |
CO |
x |
CM |
rH |
CO |
a/
sh
03 (h t3
<1> o Jx >H O fa
CO
a;
O
D
a
co
£ S a -a
£ £ a g co £
o
o
o o o o
o o o
O X X 1 — I CO O
6 o
oo
o
o
o
o in o
co co co
1“ \ CO X
0303000)00000303000)000300
cococDcocococccocficocflcoco
oiooooooooaio
CDCDCDCDC'-C'-CDC'-
d:
V
Sh
C3
fa
|
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
03 D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D D |
|
G |
G |
C |
G |
G |
£ G C |
G |
G |
G |
G |
C G |
|
pH |
pH |
c£ |
pH |
ph |
^ ph ph |
Ph |
ph |
pH |
pH |
PH PH |
|
03 |
D |
D |
CS |
"5 D D |
D |
D |
03 |
CS |
D D |
|
|
C/3 |
C/3 |
C/3 |
^ X X |
C/3 |
C/3 |
|||||
|
o |
o |
0 |
o |
o |
. ° ° |
o |
o |
o |
o |
O O |
|
Sh |
Sh |
a |
a |
Sh |
a, a, |
a |
a |
Sh |
Sh |
a a |
|
D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
g D D |
D |
D |
D |
D |
D D |
|
X |
X |
OlC |
tUO |
X |
5 GUO CUD |
COD |
CUD |
X |
X |
CJD CJD |
|
G |
G |
X |
x |
G |
Sh XS X |
X |
X |
G |
G |
X X |
|
0 |
0 |
o |
O |
o |
o o o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o o |
|
Ph |
Ph |
fa |
fa |
Ph |
2 fa fa |
fa |
fa |
Ph |
Ph |
fa fa |
<D
Sh
^H
3 3
«*H <+H
0 0^0
Q Q J Q
H *
c/3
o
Sh 0)
&JD fcUO t3
So £ £ c
C/3
03
O o Q Ph
|
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
* |
|
|
rH |
CM |
CO |
X |
LO |
CD |
t> |
03 |
fa |
03 |
fa |
03 |
X |
03 |
-Q |
03 |
X co X |
LO |
|
CM |
CM |
CO |
CO |
LO |
LO |
CM |
CM |
X |
X |
||||||||
|
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
X |
o
03
*-H
<13
Cj
-Si
o
o
<33
S^
13
2
<33
■C
Cl)
HC
C
o
<13
c
o
X
</3
a
2
X
<13
"a
,c
Sh
3
03
CO
03
"a
CD
o
-Si
o
Cj
<13
Sh
CD
2
03
fa
£
jp
ns
O
c<3
fa
03
fa
£
jo
'o
O
Cl
S
eg
45
Samples not collected or processed.
APPENDIX IV, Con’t.
|
be |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
fa |
G |
co |
00 |
LO |
C" |
CD |
o |
LO |
05 |
CD |
HP |
o |
o |
iH |
05 |
CD |
||||||||||||
|
G |
fa |
CO |
o |
o |
05 |
o |
O |
rH |
, |
LO |
o |
i |
, |
t> |
CM |
, |
o |
o |
, |
, , |
o |
rH |
o |
o |
o |
05 |
, |
05 |
|
O r } |
a |
t-H |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
q |
1 |
rH |
rH |
i |
1 |
r- 1 |
CO |
1 |
o |
o |
1 |
1 * |
o |
q |
o |
o |
1—1 |
q |
1 |
i—i |
|
w <D |
S |
6 |
o |
d |
o |
o |
o |
o |
rH |
d |
d |
o |
o |
d |
o |
o |
o |
o |
d |
o |
||||||||
|
CO |
G |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
CO |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
be |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
c |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
+-> |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
c/3 |
'a |
CM |
CM |
05 |
l> |
05 |
CO |
rH |
o |
CO |
rH |
05 |
o |
CM |
CM |
iH |
o |
rH |
o |
00 |
t> |
|||||||
|
r_ |
G |
, |
o |
CM |
o |
T— 1 |
o |
CM |
co |
CD |
, |
CM |
CM |
o |
05 |
O |
LO |
, |
rH |
, 05 |
O |
00 |
o |
O |
o |
i—i |
o |
t> |
|
MH |
G c3 |
* |
o |
i — 1 |
o |
ID |
o |
q |
rH |
q |
1 |
rH |
t> |
o |
rH |
CO |
CM |
1 |
o |
’ ® |
o |
o |
o |
O |
o |
CM |
rH |
rH |
|
CO |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
d |
d |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
d |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
O |
w>
fa £ G
|
G |
P— H |
||||||||||||||||||||||
|
O y |
Qh c |
q |
o |
ID |
o |
o |
o |
o |
ID |
o |
LO |
o |
o |
||||||||||
|
05 |
c 03 c n |
LO |
iD |
co |
05 |
CM |
00 |
LO |
o |
rH |
rH |
LO |
i— t |
hp |
HP |
CO |
00 |
d |
CM |
rH |
LO |
||
|
CO |
co |
rH |
hP |
CM |
CO |
LO |
LO |
I HP |
O ! |
: 05 |
00 |
! CM |
00 |
! i—i |
Hp |
i— 1 |
LO |
t- |
rH |
CM |
: co |
||
|
rH |
rH |
rH |
LO |
rH |
HP |
CM |
rH |
i — i |
a
Oh
CD
fa
d
o
o
a
be
G
,jh a
fa S
c3
C/2
|
co |
q |
q |
o |
LO |
o |
q |
LO |
o |
o |
o |
ID |
oo |
o |
o |
o |
co |
||||||||
|
CD |
rH |
o |
o |
hp |
00 |
o |
LO |
o |
HP |
HP |
o |
CO |
CD |
CO |
00 |
o |
CD |
CM |
CD |
05 |
rH |
CD |
CD |
O |
|
HP |
CM |
CM |
CM |
rH |
05 |
HP |
! CO |
CM |
HP |
o |
CD |
00 |
! CD |
CO |
LO |
CM |
05 |
rH |
05 |
rH |
LO |
iD |
00 |
|
|
rH |
rH |
rH |
rH |
CO |
LO |
rH |
HP |
HP |
i— i |
1—1 |
c3
O)
I*
a;
be
fa
05 O 03 CO t- CD
00500500050
C-OC^Ot>t>OI>
05
co
O 05 O O 05 00 o
I> CD O I> CD CO tr~
O O 05 C- t> o
O 05
t> o
O 05 O 05 I> CO t> O
|
0) |
05 |
05 |
05 |
05 |
0) |
05 |
05 |
05 |
05 |
05 |
05 05 |
|||||||||||||||
|
G |
£ |
G |
G |
G |
G |
G |
G |
£ |
G |
G |
G £ |
|||||||||||||||
|
ia |
a |
a |
a |
a |
a |
a |
ia |
ia |
ia |
ia |
a ia |
|||||||||||||||
|
C3 |
03 |
03 |
05 |
JD |
05 |
05 |
c n |
Sh |
Sh |
c3 |
c3 |
^05 |
CD |
H |
H |
C/3 |
C/5 |
05 |
05 |
05 |
05 |
05 05 |
05 |
05 |
||
|
in |
in |
m |
■— < |
G |
G |
G |
Hh |
<+H |
m |
m |
Hh |
«+fa |
<+H |
C/3 |
G |
1— < |
»— • |
G |
G |
r— H f— H |
G |
G |
||||
|
O H |
O H |
O H |
o a |
’o a |
a |
a |
fa -H |
C/3 03 |
C/3 03 |
O H |
O 5h |
"o a |
d a |
a C/2 |
C/3 03 |
C/3 05 |
C/3 o3 |
03 H |
fa -H |
o a |
o a |
ia |
ia |
o o a a |
a |
ia |
|
05 |
05 |
05 |
05 |
05 |
05 |
o |
05 |
05 |
05 |
05 |
O |
o |
05 |
05 |
05 |
05 05 |
05 |
05 |
||||||||
|
fa |
fa |
fa |
CUD |
bC |
-H> |
c |
too |
&JD |
fa |
fa |
CUD |
COD |
C/3 |
&G |
tuo |
tJD |
G |
COD |
CUD |
fafa |
-H |
be tOC |
_H5 |
-H> |
||
|
c |
C |
G |
fa |
fa |
c3 |
3 |
7-> |
G |
G |
fa |
fa |
3 |
3 |
3 |
G |
fa |
fa |
fa fa |
||||||||
|
o |
o |
o |
O |
O |
1c |
fa |
05 |
o |
O |
o |
o |
O |
o |
O |
o |
O |
g |
05 |
o |
o |
1c |
fa |
o o |
fa |
fa |
|
|
a |
a |
a |
fa |
fa |
£ |
£ |
u |
Q |
Q |
a |
a |
fa |
fa |
Q |
Q |
Q |
£ |
o |
fa |
fa |
£ |
fa fa |
« 05
a fa
S S
C3
c n
CD
O
i-l CM CO HP
CM CM CM <M
lo CD C-
CM CM CM
00 05 O rH
(M CM CO CO
CM CO
co co
03
05
•3
05
C
g
0)
fa
G
05
H
G
G
o
46
APPENDIX IV, Con’t.
bB
|
T3 |
c |
o |
CD |
co |
o |
o |
o |
CD |
T“H |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
rH |
o |
||
|
C |
'fa c |
, 00 |
T— 1 |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
CD |
O |
o |
o |
o , |
, , , , o |
o |
, o |
lO , |
. o |
o |
|
O CJ |
1 |
o |
o |
o |
q |
o |
i — i |
o |
o |
q |
o ... |
, , , , <-> |
o |
1 o |
O 1 |
■ o |
o |
||
|
C/D |
c cb CO |
o |
o |
o |
d |
o |
o |
o |
o |
d |
o |
o |
d |
o |
o |
d |
o |
o |
o |
.Id
fa
bB
C
'fa
£
cb
CO
|
lO |
LO |
co |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
||
|
O |
o |
rH |
o |
co |
o |
CO |
o |
H |
|
|
T— I |
o |
T— 1 |
o |
o |
rH |
o |
co |
o |
o |
|
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
bB
|
CO |
G |
||||||||||||||||||||
|
c o |
"fa |
q |
o |
LO) |
q |
o |
o |
o |
LO) |
q |
o |
o |
q |
o |
LO |
o |
o |
o |
LO) |
||
|
o |
g |
LO |
id |
co |
co |
rH |
CD |
co |
00 |
LO |
C- |
lO |
03 |
id : : : |
: ! ! ! rH |
rH |
rH |
LO |
CD ! |
! ci |
CO |
|
03 CO |
cb CO |
<N |
LO |
CD CO |
fa |
fa |
rH |
CD |
. — i |
fa |
<M |
rH |
CO |
rH |
rH |
CO |
rH |
S
fa
fa
cu
fa
o
jg
fa
bB
c
co -h H fa
fa s
a
co
|
o |
o |
o |
O |
o |
o |
o |
q |
o |
o |
q |
o |
o |
q |
q |
q |
|
o |
LO |
T— 1 |
03 |
t-H |
rH |
03 |
co |
UO |
tH |
id |
00 |
CO |
CD |
LO |
rH |
|
t-H |
CD |
CO |
rH |
(M |
rH |
T 1 |
(M |
tH |
CD |
<N |
|
CD |
|
|
Sh |
W) |
|
03 |
, 03 |
|
0) |
|
|
° O |
|
|
fa |
o o
B- t>
<fa O CD C"
03
CD
O 03 O C- CO C"
03 O 03 o CD t> CD O
03
CD
O 03 O 03 t> CD O CD
O 03 o o I> CD t> t>
03 O O 03 CD I> t> CD
O 03 O 03 t> CD l> CD
|
03 |
03 |
03 |
03 |
03 |
03 |
||||||||
|
G |
G |
c |
G |
G |
c |
||||||||
|
fa |
fa |
fa |
fa |
fa |
fa |
||||||||
|
^03 |
03 |
03 |
03 |
0) |
cb |
cb |
03 |
0) |
cb |
cb |
03 |
03 |
|
|
C/3 |
r— ' |
c |
g |
C/3 |
C/3 |
G |
G |
C/3 |
C/3 |
G |
G |
||
|
Specie |
■fa cb |
o fa |
o fa |
fa |
fa |
O Sh |
O Sh |
fa |
fa |
O Sh |
O Sh |
fa |
fa |
|
03 bB |
03 bB |
03 -H> |
0) |
03 fa |
03 03 |
03 ■+H |
0) -h> |
03 03 |
03 03 |
03 ■+H |
03 ■+■> |
||
|
-4-i |
03 O |
03 o |
fa |
fa |
G o |
G o |
fa |
fa |
C o |
G o |
fa |
fa |
|
|
fa |
fa |
£ |
£ |
fa |
fa |
£ |
£ |
fa |
fa |
£ |
£ |
|
03 |
03 03 |
03 |
03 03 |
0) 03 |
03 03 |
||||||
|
G |
G G |
G |
G G |
<D |
G G |
G G |
|||||
|
fa |
fa fa |
fa |
fa fa |
Oh |
fa fa |
fa fa |
|||||
|
^03 |
03 03 |
J03 |
03 03 |
CS Sh |
03 03 |
co |
Sh |
m<* |
Sh |
Sh |
O) 03 |
|
rH |
3 |
«4H |
<+H |
«+H |
Hh |
||||||
|
o fa |
o o fa fa |
d a |
o o fa fa |
w c |
O O fa fa |
dC fafa |
i C/3 03 |
l C/3 03 |
CO o3 |
i C/3 03 |
O O fa fa |
|
03 |
03 03 |
03 |
03 03 |
Q |
03 03 |
o |
03 03 |
||||
|
bB |
bB bB |
bB |
bB bB |
tJD |
bB bB |
tJj |
bJD |
&D |
tUD |
bB bB |
|
|
03 |
03 03 |
03 |
03 03 |
03 03 |
03 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
3 |
03 03 |
|
|
O |
O O |
O |
O O |
Sh |
O O |
a; |
O |
O |
O |
O |
O O |
|
fa |
fa fa |
fa |
fa fa |
O |
fa fa |
U |
Q |
Q |
Q |
Q |
fa fa |
^ 03
fa fa
S £
cb 3
CO £
|
< |
< |
< |
* 03 |
*• |
* cb |
* G3 |
* cb |
* fa |
cb |
q |
|||||||
|
id |
GO |
o |
rH |
(M |
co |
fa |
rH |
rH |
00 |
oo |
C30 |
03 |
0D tH |
<M |
LO |
CO |
co |
|
CO |
CO |
fa |
fa |
fa |
fa |
rH |
rH |
t-H |
rH |
t-H |
t-H |
CO |
a
0)
3
.£ fa
3 £ o
47
APPENDIX IV, Con’t
biD 73 G G fa
o a
£ S
bC
c
fa
a
£
cd
CO
Cfa
Cl.
aT
'Sh
o
3
Sh
a3
a>
>h
0)
COD
o ^ o
fa
C/3
0/
'o
a;
a
CO
03 £
fafa
s s
03 3 CO £
o3
a>
Sh
<
|
o |
o |
o |
CM o |
o |
CM |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
o |
o |
o |
o |
O 1 |
, o |
o |
o , |
. o |
o |
o , |
. o |
o |
o , |
. o |
o |
o |
|
|
q |
q |
o |
o |
o |
o |
■ q |
o |
O ’ |
• o |
o |
o 1 |
1 9 |
o |
o 1 |
1 9 |
o |
o |
|
d |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
d |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
O 03 o o O CM o o q q o o
o 'do
|
tH |
o |
CO |
co |
o |
o |
LO |
o |
LO |
o |
o |
o |
LO |
c- |
o |
||
|
o |
o |
CM |
o |
o |
o |
o |
IO |
o |
, o |
o |
o |
o |
, o |
o |
o |
o |
|
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
q |
o |
o |
1 °. |
o |
q |
o |
■ o |
o |
o |
o |
|
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
o |
o |
q |
o |
q |
LO |
o |
00 |
o |
q |
o |
LO |
CO |
|
LO |
T- 1 |
d |
00 rH |
o T— 1 |
l> CM |
CM |
d CM |
00 |
00 r—H |
o i— i |
LO .“H |
t-H CM |
co
d
co
OLOcoiooiouoouoLOiooqqoqin
HHC'o6['NI>C5I> co n ^ i> o
q q
uo d
O 03 O 03 O 03
t> CD O OD t> o
|
03 |
03 |
03 |
03 |
|
G |
G |
G |
G |
|
fa |
fa |
fa |
fa |
|
CO |
cd |
03 |
03 |
|
C/3 |
in |
C/3 |
C/3 |
|
o |
O |
O |
o |
|
Sh |
Sh |
Sh |
Sh |
|
03 |
03 |
03 |
03 |
|
73 |
73 |
73 |
73 |
|
G |
G |
C |
G |
|
O |
O |
O |
O |
|
fa |
fa |
fa |
fa |
as a>
s s
£ ifa
a> a;
'o 'o a cl
a; as W) cuo 73 73
o o
fa fa
LO
CO
CO
|
o |
CO |
o |
q |
LO |
o |
o |
o |
o |
|
LO |
d |
o |
o |
d |
||||
|
rH |
rH |
CM |
T—l |
tH |
CM |
CM |
o o lo o q o oo lo d oo os d
00 LO lO UO CO i> 03 i> lo d
000030000030000030 000030
Ot>t>OOl>C'-C-t>COt>l>I>l>tOI> ooooo
Sh
03 03
>>
Sh
Sh
03 03
>>
Sh
Sh
03 03
>>
Sh
Sh
03 0)
|
C/3 cd Sh o |
03 fa 03 03 |
G ifa 03 |
G ifa 03 |
£l |
C/3 cd Sh o |
03 fa 0) 03 |
G ifa 03 |
G fa 03 |
C/3 cd Sh 0 |
03 fa 03 03 |
G ifa 03 |
G ifa 0) |
jG |
C/3 cd Sh 0 |
03 fa 03 03 |
G ifa 03 |
G ifa 03 |
£1 |
|
|
03 |
’> |
4J |
_-H> |
03 |
03 |
’> |
-H |
-H> |
03 |
03 |
’> |
-H> |
03 |
03 |
'> |
-H> |
-H |
03 |
|
|
G |
Sh 03 CO |
ifa |
i£ |
Sh |
G |
Sh 03 co |
i£ |
ic |
Sh cd |
G |
Sh 03 CO |
i£ |
ic |
Sh cd |
G |
Sh 03 CO |
fa |
fa |
Sh cd |
|
ifa |
£ |
£ |
fa |
ifa |
£ |
£ |
fa |
ifa |
£ |
£ |
fa |
ifa |
£ |
£ |
fa |
i-H (N CO
^ lO 00 t>
00 03 O H
CM CO ^ IO
co
6
03
Sh
o
U
g
03
s
‘C
03
a
x
H
cn
03
Sh
o
fa
48
Hungry Horse 13a* Lodgepole Pine 70 2.0
Reservoir 13b* Lodgepole Pine 69 12.0
APPENDIX IV, Con’t
tic
T3 G G JO O Cu
O O O O O O
O O O O O O
o o o o o o
d> d d> d> d> d>
o
o
o 10
d d
CM
CU
cu
oT
T3
'C
o
&4
toe
o o o o o o
o o
i i
i i
o o o o ° 9 o o
LO LO
t> d
o o o o o o
o o
o LO
^ 06
o o
O r— I
o o o o
LO LO
t> o
O CM O CO O O
o o
lo o
oo ^
CM
o o o o o
d id cm lo d
q co io d d r-5
LO LO
t> d CM
O 02 O 02 O 02 o t> CO O CD t> <o o
02 O 02 CO t> CO
|
02 |
02 |
02 |
02 |
02 |
02 |
02 |
02 |
02 |
02 |
|
G |
c |
G |
C |
c |
G |
G |
G |
G |
G |
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
|
02 |
02 |
02 |
02 |
02 |
02 |
0) |
02 |
02 |
02 |
|
4-4 |
44> |
+4 |
-1-5 |
4-5 |
4-4 |
4-4 |
4-4 |
+4 |
4-4 |
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
|
|
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
£ |
02 02 1 1 w £
JO
CM
CO
00
c3
02
J-i
<
49
Appendix V
REGRESSION ANALYSES OF FLUORIDE ON INJURY INDEX'
|
Shrubs |
Conifers 1969 |
1970 |
|
|
n |
60 |
130 |
67 |
|
Slope |
-.002318 |
.0001297 |
.0001038 |
|
Y - Intercept |
2.461 |
.122416 |
.0692 |
|
F - Ratio for Slope |
.5136 |
10.9345 |
.970 |
|
Significance of F - ratio |
N.S.2 |
H.S.3 |
N.S. |
|
Correlation |
-.094 |
.2805 |
.1213 |
|
Significance of Correlation |
N.S. |
H.S. |
N.S. |
|
1 Data from first sampling period only 2 N.S. — Non significant , 95 percent level. 2 H.S. — Highly significant, 99 percent level. |
50
Appendix VI
FLUORIDE ACCUMULATION LEVELS IN INSECTS
|
Insect |
Date Collected |
PPM* Fluoride |
|
Pollinators: |
||
|
Bumblebee — Bombus sp. |
August 12, 1970 |
406.0 |
|
Bumblebee — Bombus sp. |
June 1, 1970 |
194.0 |
|
Sphinx moth — Hemaris sp. |
June 1, 1970 |
394.0 |
|
Honey bee — Apis mellifera |
June 1, 1970 |
221.0 |
|
Skipper butterfly — Erynnis |
August 12, 1970 |
146.0 |
|
Wood nymph butterfly — Cercyonis sp. |
August 12, 1970 |
58.0 |
|
Foliage feeders: |
||
|
Weevils — Mixed curculionids |
June 1, 1970 |
48.6 |
|
Grasshoppers — Melanoplus sp. |
August 12, 1970 |
31.0 |
|
Larch Casebearer — Coleophora laricella |
June 1, 1970 |
25.5 |
|
Cicadas — Cicadidae |
June 1, 1970 |
21.3 |
|
Cambium Feeders: |
||
|
Engraver beetles — Ips sp. Flathead beetle |
October 9, 1970 |
52.5 |
|
Mixed buprestids Red turpentine beetle — |
June 1, 1970 |
20.0 |
|
Dendroctonus valens LeConte |
June 1, 1970 |
11.5 |
|
Douglas-fir beetle — Dendroctonus pseudotsugae Hopk. Flatheaded beetle larvae — |
October 9, 1970 |
9.4 |
|
Mixed buprestids |
October 9, 1970 |
8.5 |
|
Predators: |
||
|
Ants |
June 1, 1970 |
170.0 |
|
Ostomids — Temnochila sp. |
June 1, 1970 |
53.4 |
|
Damsel flies — Argia sp. |
June 1, 1970 |
21.7 |
|
Longlegged fly — Medeterus sp. |
October 9, 1970 |
10.2 |
|
Ostomid larvae |
October 9, 1970 |
6.1 |
|
Miscellaneous Insects: |
||
|
Long horned beetles |
||
|
Mixed Cerambycids |
August 12, 1970 |
47.5 |
|
Click beetles |
||
|
Mixed elaterids |
June 1, 1970 |
36.0 |
|
Black Scavanger |
||
|
Cerambycid |
June 1, 1970 |
18.8 |
|
*PPM = parts per million by dry weight |
51
APPENDIX VI, Con’t
CONTROL INSECT SAMPLES
|
Insect |
Date Collected |
PPM* Fluoride |
|
Larch casebearer |
June 1, 1970 |
16.5 |
|
Bark beetle — Ips sp. |
October 9, 1970 |
11.5 |
|
Honey bees |
June 1, 1970 |
10.5 |
|
Damselflies |
June 1, 1970 |
9.2 |
|
Grasshoppers |
August 12, 1970 |
7.5 |
|
Bumblebees |
June 1, 1970 |
7.5 |
|
Barkbeetles — Dendroctonus ualens |
June 1, 1970 |
4.8 |
|
Flathead beetles |
June 1, 1970 |
3.5 |
52
Appendix VII
LARCH CASEBEARER PER 100 SPURS SAMPLED
Miles
Radii
|
plant |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
7 |
8 |
9 |
10 |
Ave. |
|
1/4 |
-- |
-- |
- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
- |
0 |
-- |
-- |
0 |
|
1/2 |
-- |
0 |
0 |
- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
0 |
14.4 |
17.4 |
6.4 |
|
1 |
33.4 |
13.0 |
0 |
-- |
-- |
- |
-- |
- |
.2 |
16.4 |
12.6 |
|
2 |
15.8 |
8.6 |
- |
0 |
-- |
-- |
- |
.2 |
0 |
8.0 |
4.9 |
|
4 |
27.6 |
1.4 |
.75 |
0 |
-- |
0 |
.4 |
17.4 |
-- |
1.2 |
6.3 |
|
8 |
- |
- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
-- |
5.0 |
- |
12.8 |
8.9 |
|
Ave. |
25.6 |
5.6 |
.25 |
0 |
0 |
.4 |
4.5 |
4.9 |
11.2 |
Checks: No. 1 - 8.6; No. 2 = 0; No. 3 = 0; No. 4 = 27.6
53
U)
a
J
Q
a
H
£
W
a
o
Ph
a
o
Q
O
a
o
o
CD
PS
W
a
ca
H
a
<
U
co
a
a
Q
a
a
£
a
g
E
|
IN |
IN |
rH |
00 |
|||||
|
o |
1 |
co |
HP |
rH |
||||
|
Ave. |
[N |
1 |
T— 1 |
|||||
|
(M |
LO |
LO |
t-H |
HP |
||||
|
o |
1 |
i — 1 |
IN |
<M |
<M |
CO |
||
|
CD |
1 |
CD |
||||||
|
o |
1 |
1 |
1 |
O |
CM |
rH |
||
|
in |
1 |
l |
1 |
1 |
||||
|
o |
03 |
l |
l |
1 |
1 |
r-H |
o |
LO |
|
i— i |
CD |
1 |
i |
1 |
||||
|
O |
1 |
1 |
1 |
O |
i |
o |
o |
|
|
IN |
1 |
l |
1 |
i |
||||
|
03 |
03 |
1 |
l |
1 |
O |
i |
o |
o |
|
CD |
1 |
1 |
1 |
■ |
||||
|
O |
1 |
l |
1 |
o |
i— 1 |
o |
CO |
|
|
t> |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|||||
|
00 |
03 |
1 |
l |
1 |
o |
<M |
o |
rH |
|
CD |
1 |
l |
1 |
|||||
|
O |
1 |
1 |
1 |
CO |
o |
rH |
||
|
IN- |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|||||
|
in |
03 |
l |
1 |
1 |
1 |
IN |
o |
00 |
|
CD |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
LO |
CM |
||
|
70 |
1 1 |
i 1 |
1 1 |
T— 1 |
o |
o |
CO |
|
|
CD |
03 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
o |
o |
03 |
CD |
|
CD |
1 |
1 |
1 |
r— 1 |
||||
|
CO |
<M |
03 |
rH |
|||||
|
O |
1 |
l |
1 |
HP |
LO |
|||
|
IN- |
1 |
l |
1 |
rH |
||||
|
O |
00 |
<M |
IN |
|||||
|
LO |
03 |
, |
, |
1 |
CO |
IN |
CO |
|
|
CD |
1 |
1 |
T— 1 |
<M |
rH |
|||
|
O |
1 |
1 |
t-H |
o |
O |
HP |
||
|
t> |
1 |
1 |
r— 1 |
|||||
|
03 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
03 |
o |
o |
CO |
|
|
CD |
1 |
l |
1 |
03 |
CO |
|||
|
O |
o |
<M |
o |
LO |
||||
|
O |
1 |
HP |
1 |
HP |
||||
|
IN |
1 — 1 |
1 |
||||||
|
O |
o |
00 |
o |
IN |
||||
|
CO |
03 |
1 |
h* |
CM |
(M |
1 |
03 |
|
|
CD |
1 |
i — I |
<M |
1 |
||||
|
03 |
r— 1 |
O |
o |
o |
CD |
|||
|
<M |
Hp |
|||||||
|
O |
, |
<M |
||||||
|
IN |
1 |
LO |
HP |
O |
o |
<M |
o |
|
|
00 |
1- 1 |
CM |
||||||
|
<M |
03 |
1 |
o |
<M |
||||
|
CD |
1 |
i— i |
||||||
|
* |
||||||||
|
O |
1 |
i |
o |
oo |
o |
rH |
(M |
|
|
IN |
1 |
i |
CO |
rH |
rH |
|||
|
* |
||||||||
|
i-l |
03 |
i |
T— 1 |
LO |
o |
CD |
O |
|
|
CD |
J |
i |
LO |
<M |
(M |
|||
|
W c |
4-s |
|||||||
|
03 C O C |
G c3 |
51 |
<N |
03 > |
||||
|
§ <H D< |
rH |
t-H |
r— H |
<M |
Hp |
oo |
c |
CO
II
a>
>
<
nt<
o
r— I II
CO
*
o
o
CM
o
o
W3
a
CJ
a;
6
<y o> Lac tic
•2 -2 '*■«»»
o o
a a
03 © © IN 03 03
’-I ’'H
03 © CO IN
* *
54
m
cn
H
a
Q
H
W
£
CO
O
a
Q
£
O
a
o
o
CD
a
a
CO
a
a
<
u
CO
a
a
Q
a
a
£
a
£
HH
a
05
00
Q
<
a
CD
LO
CO
|
o |
T— 1 |
t- |
o |
o |
o |
|
|
t> |
||||||
|
69 |
m |
o |
t> |
o |
o |
|
|
CD CO |
<N |
co |
rH |
|||
|
o |
1 |
o |
in |
i |
o |
o |
|
t> |
1 |
CO |
||||
|
69 |
<N |
c- |
i |
o |
o |
|
|
1 |
1—1 |
t— t |
||||
|
o |
1 |
o |
i |
|||
|
i> |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
! |
|
|
05 |
1 |
1 |
o |
i |
1 |
|
|
CD |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
1 |
|
|
O |
1 |
1 |
o |
i |
o |
1 |
|
c- |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
||
|
05 |
1 |
1 |
CD |
i |
o |
1 |
|
CD |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
||
|
O |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
1 |
|
I> |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
1 |
|
05 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
1 |
|
CD |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
1 |
|
O |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
||
|
t> |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
! |
1 |
|
05 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
|
|
CD |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
|
|
O |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|||
|
t> |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
s |
1 |
|
05 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
i |
1 |
|
|
CD |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
1 |
|
|
O |
1 |
1 |
1 |
o |
1 |
|
|
1 |
1 |
1 |
! |
1 |
|
05 |
i |
05 |
i |
CO |
|
|
CD |
i |
<N |
i |
||
|
o |
i |
rH |
o |
||
|
t- |
i |
s |
1 |
! |
|
|
05 |
i |
1 |
<N |
o |
|
|
CD |
i |
! |
1 |
S |
|
|
* |
|||||
|
o |
71 |
1 |
O |
1 1 1 1 |
i |
|
* 05 CD |
365 |
3 |
rH |
1 1 1 1 |
j |
|
plant |
rH |
1/2 |
rH |
00 |
t>
05
t>
o
o
o
CO
|
1 1 |
o |
|
m |
|
|
1 |
05 > < |
|
1 1 |
— | |
|
o |
© |
|
=n= |
|
|
o |
a |
05
05
a
O
|
in |
CO |
|
|
CD |
X |
|
|
CO |
05 05 X U |
|
|
in |
||
|
i—i |
X 05 05 X O |
|
|
•_*' |
05 |
|
|
m |
I |
|
|
CO |
i o |
•S £ |
|
CO |
CD |
03 CO |
|
00 |
i—( |
03 |
|
1—1 |
i-i |
|
|
C/3 |
II |
|
|
X |
03 |
|
|
05* |
05 |
CO |
|
05 |
* |
|
|
> |
X |
|
|
< |
O |
55
*70 = 1970 Foliage
Appendix X
“REGRESSION ANALYSIS OF PINE NEEDLE SCALES ON FLUORIDE CONTENT”
Y X
|
Radius |
Plot Number |
Number of Scales |
Fluoride Content |
|
1 |
3 |
1 |
40.7 |
|
4 |
55 |
18.5 |
|
|
5 |
0 |
9.0 |
|
|
7 |
26 |
4.5 |
|
|
2 |
2 |
1085 |
100.8 |
|
3 |
4 |
124.7 |
|
|
4 |
10 |
17.3 |
|
|
5 |
0 |
16.0 |
|
|
7 |
2 |
8.5 |
|
|
3 |
2 |
140 |
496.5 |
|
3 |
220 |
294.5 |
|
|
4 |
28 |
85.5 |
|
|
5 |
0 |
42.8 |
|
|
4 |
4 |
99 |
286.3 |
|
5 |
0 |
53.3 |
|
|
7 |
0 |
11.0 |
|
|
5 |
4 |
0 |
228.7 |
|
5 |
138 |
56.5 |
|
|
7 |
272 |
28.5 |
|
|
6 |
4 |
10 |
140 |
|
5 |
0 |
27.0 |
|
|
7 |
9 |
18.8 |
|
|
7 |
5 |
57 |
51.5 |
|
7 |
0 |
14.0 |
56
APPENDIX X, Con’t
|
Radius |
Plot Number |
Y |
X |
|
Number of Scales |
Fluoride Content |
||
|
8 |
4 |
0 |
56.0 |
|
5 |
2 |
28.1 |
|
|
7 |
0 |
14.0 |
|
|
9 |
4 |
0 |
41.5 |
|
7 |
0 |
4.0 |
|
|
10 |
5 |
1 |
20.8 |
|
7 |
0 |
4.7 |
Linear Regression Analysis
Y = A+BX A = 42.036 B = 0.365
Correlation Coefficient = .201 N.S.1 1 Nonsignificant
57
The Forest Service of the U.S. Department of Agriculture is dedicated to the principle of multiple use management of the Nation's forest resources for sustained yields of wood, water, forage, wildlife and recreation. Through forestry research, cooperation with the States and private forest owners, and management of the National Forests and National Grasslands, it strives — as directed by Congress — to provide increasingly greater service to a growing Nation.