The DOI matches its Crossref record; 6 of the 6 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 10 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
A Viable System of Biological Indicators For Monitoring Air Pollutants
Open accessAbstract
An air pollution monitoring biological indicator (AMBI) system for ambient ozone was tested in the South Coast Air Basin of California during the 1972 fall growing season. The basic unit or AMBI station was an inexpensive, portable plant station which operated independent of power sources. Reliability of these units was excellent as only three instances of missing data were observed from 330 possibilities. A photo-reference system of ozone injury evaluation utilizing direct comparisons of injured leaves with reference photographs was successful in standardizing assessments of ozone injury. Average weekly injury indices for field locations were correlated with average weekly ozone dosages and were found to be significant at the .01 level.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
13 Own interpretation · 4 Own method · 4 No basis given · 3 Own result · 1 Supported · 1 Sources not found · 1 Not checked yet
Every source the paper cites for this claim was checked and supports it.
In the paper
“attempts to correlate severity of plant injury with ambient dosages of pollutants have had little success. 9- 10”
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [9] 9. W. W. Heck, F. L. Fox, C. S. Brandt, and H. A. Dunning, "To- bacco, A Sensitive Monitor for Photochemical Air Pollution," Natl. Air Poll. Control Admin., Pub. AP- 55, 1969. source
The Abstract says earlier attempts to correlate plant injury with oxidant levels were only partially successful and reports that the relationship in this study was inconsistent. The Summer Monitoring Program (1966) likewise found no consistent relationship between weekly oxidant concentrations and plant injury. (LLM, conf=0.91)
- Supportedcites [10] 10. W. W. Heck and A. S. Heagle, "Measurement of photochemical air pollution with a sensitive monitoring plant," J. Air Poll. Control Assoc. 20: 97(1970). source
The paper’s Abstract says earlier attempts to correlate plant injury with oxidant levels were only partially successful. Its Summer Monitoring Program (1966 and 1967) likewise reports no consistent relationship between measured oxidant levels and plant injury. Page numbers are not available in our copy. (LLM, conf=0.93)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Most instances of station malfunctioning was due to this type of problem or vandalism.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A photo-reference system of ozone injury evaluation utilizing direct comparisons of injured leaves with reference photographs was successful in standardizing assessments of ozone injury.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussions · plain
“The photo-reference injury evaluation system effectively standardizes leaf injury assessments.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussions · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Reliability of these units was excellent as only three instances of missing data were observed from 330 possibilities.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussions · plain
“all three stations at a field location were down simultaneously only three times out of 330 possibilities or 0.9%.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussions · plain
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Single station malfunc-tions occurred at a 7% frequency over the fall season”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AMBI station reliability depended, to a large extent, on the quality of weekly maintenance and early recognition and correction of local problems.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The comparison of average weekly injury with average weekly ozone dosage during a growing season was effective in comparing geographical areas of the South Coast Air Basin against each other”
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the inherent limitations of any biological monitor due to individual variability within a variety would preclude such a system as a weekly monitoring program.”
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In total, the AMBI system provides an inexpensive, reliable means of monitoring seasonal dosages of ambient ozone in large agricultural areas.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: There is a need for an inexpensive method of monitoring ambient air pollutants in areas devoid of instrument stations.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The number of injured plants necessary to standardize this variability on a short term basis would be prohibitive due to increases in logistical and maintenance requirements.”
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 12
- It may state two separate claims as one. 9
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Water quality, especially heavy concentrations of suspended particulates, was a major problem in some areas and required filtering.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Both systems were reliable but summer temperatures necessitated using the gravity flow method.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Average weekly injury indices for field locations were correlated with average weekly ozone dosages and were found to be significant at the .01level.”
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussions · boosted
“An excellent correlation of injury to dosage was observed (Figure 4) with a confidence level greater than 99.9%.”
boostedstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one. The quote only partly states this claim.
- Also stated in: § Results and Discussions · boosted
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“biological monitors cannot be compared to or substituted for instrument monitoring stations.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The AMBI stations require no power sources, allowing complete flexibility in selecting field sites.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AMBI stations proved to be reliable and extremely well suited for field monitoring.”
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“All beans were grown in 4 in.plastic pots and screened for uniformity before use.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pinto bean (Phaseolus vulgaris L. var.U. I. Ill) was selected as the indicator plant to monitor ozone levels.Its fast growth, small stature, relatively low water requirement, ability to tolerate full sun, and sensitivity to ozone made it ideal for AMBI stations.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: Pinto bean has fast growth, small stature, relatively low water requirement, ability to tolerate full sun, and sensitivity to ozone.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Varieties with greater sensitivity were eliminated in order to cope with high ambient ozone levels present in the South Coast Air Basin during the summer, but would be useful in other areas of lower ozone levels.”
hedgedstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Subjective injury rating systems based on personal estimates of percent leaf area damaged are impossible to standardize.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Care was taken to use pinto beans with primary leaves not fully expanded, as exposure to field conditions sometimes injured fully expanded primary leaves.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Only the most severely injured primary leaf on a plant was evaluated, and borderline ratings were automatically assigned the higher of the two in question.”
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three AMBI stations were used to monitor each field location to insure that single unit malfunctions would not result in data loss and to provide a greater number of observations for statistical analysis.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Their uncomplicated design and ease of maintenance require only a minimum of overhead during operations.”
plainstates a cause- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Investigators have used indigenous, naturally growing vegetation 3 -4 and selected sensitive species 5”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [3] 3. W. M. Noble, "Pattern of damage produced on vegetation by smog," Agric. Food Chem. 3: 330 (1955).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [4] 4. G. A. Cole, "Air pollution with rela- tion to agronomic crops: III. Vegetation survey methods in air pollution studies," Agron. J. 50: 553 (1958). source
- Not matchedcites [5] 5. J. T. Middleton and A. O. Paulus, "The identification of air pollutants through plant response," Arch. Ind. Health 14: 526 (1956).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [6] 6. II. A. Babrov, "The leaf structure of Poa annua with observations on its smog sensitivity in Los Angeles County," Amer. J. Botany 42: 467 (1955).
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [7] 7. W. M. Noble and L. A. Wright, "Air pollution with relation to agronomic crops: II. A bio-assay approach to the study of air pollution," Agron. J. 50: 551 (1958). source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] 8. W. W. Heck, "The use of plants as indicators of air pollution," Intern. J. Air Water Poll. 10: 99 (1966).
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
None of the sources cited for this claim could be matched to a paper in Crossref, so there is nothing to check it against.
In the paper
“Sensitive plants have been used in the past to detect ambient air pollutants 1 -2”
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [1] 1. '?&-Jt\ '*"'.'^A,';^! -.&
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
- Not matchedcites [2] 2. J. R. Taylor, "Plant Damage Trends in the Los Angeles Basin 1956-61," Los Angeles Air Poll. Control Dist. Rept. No. 47, 1962.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plainstates an association- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
The paper relies on this without support.
Few attempts have been made to standardize evaluations for any species of indicator plant.
“Unfortunately, few attempts have been made to standardize evaluations for any species of indicator plant.”
The paper relies on this without support.
There is a need for an inexpensive method of monitoring ambient air pollutants in areas devoid of instrument stations.
“The air monitoring biological indicator (AMBI) system described in this paper was designed to satisfy the need for an inexpensive method of monitoring ambient air pollutants in areas devoid of instrument stations.”
The paper relies on this without support.
Pinto bean has fast growth, small stature, relatively low water requirement, ability to tolerate full sun, and sensitivity to ozone.
“Its fast growth, small stature, relatively low water requirement, ability to tolerate full sun, and sensitivity to ozone made it ideal for AMBI stations.”
Citations
Cites
The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Diversity Relations and Succession in Californian Coastal Sage Scrub
Westman, W. E. (1981) · Ecology · doi:10.2307/1936680 · Cited by 166
Guidi, L., Nali, C., Ciompi, S., Lorenzini, G., & Soldatini, G. (1997) · Journal of Experimental Botany · doi:10.1093/jxb/48.1.173 · Cited by 110
“The two cultivars of Phaseolus vulgaris used in this report are known to show a different response, as visible symptoms , to ozone exposure (Oshima, 1974; Tonneijck, 1983).”
BackgroundNative plant species suitable as bioindicators and biomonitors for airborne fluoride
Weinstein, L. H., & Davison, A. W. (2003) · Environmental Pollution · doi:10.1016/s0269-7491(03)00090-3 · Cited by 105
“Perhaps the greatest advantage is the capacity of plants to absorb and integrate doses of F over different environmental and climatological conditions (Heck, 1966; Gilbert, 1968, 1971, 1973; LeBlanc and DeSloover, 1970; Oshima, 1974; Treshow, 1975; Weinstein and Laurence, 1989; Weinstein et al., 1990).”
BackgroundOxidant Effects on Californian Coastal Sage Scrub
Westman, W. E. (1979) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.205.4410.1001 · Cited by 58
Foliar injury responses of 24 bean cultivars (Phaseolus vulgaris) to various concentrations of ozone
Tonneijck, A. E. G. (1983) · European Journal of Plant Pathology · doi:10.1007/bf01976348 · Cited by 29
Metadata
- Authors
- Oshima, R. J.
- Affiliations
- California Department of Food and Agriculture (US)
- Corresponding author
- Oshima, R. J.
- Venue
- Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association
- Publisher
- Informa UK Limited
- Published
- 1974-06
- Volume
- 24
- Issue
- 6
- Pages
- 576-578
- ISSN
- 0002-2470 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2088832533
- Cited by
- 14
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2023: 1
- FWCI
- 0.73
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- Journal of the Air Pollution Control Association (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- California Air Resources Board
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Agricultural and Biological Sciences › Plant Science › Plant responses to elevated CO2
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Environmental Engineering › Air Quality Monitoring and Forecasting
- Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Health, Toxicology and Mutagenesis › Environmental Toxicology and Ecotoxicology
- Keywords
- air quality monitoring, bioindicators, ambient ozone, ozone injury, ozone dosage, injury index, South Coast Air Basin
- MeSH terms
- Air Pollution, Equipment and Supplies, Evaluation Studies as Topic, Methods, Ozone, Plants
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
