Anticipated Performance Index of Tree Species for Green Belt Development using Air Pollution Tolerance Index

IJEP 42(3): 316-327 : Vol. 42 Issue. 3 (March 2022)

P. Sekhar1* and Kisi Begna2

1. Bule Hora University, Department of Environmental Science, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, P.O. Box 144, Bule Hora, Ethiopia
2. Ambo University, Division of Environmental Science, Biology Department, College of Natural and Computational Sciences, P.O. Box 19, Ambo, Ethiopia


In the present study the anticipated performance index of tree species from Ambo town was evaluated for the purpose of green belt development. For evaluating anticipated performance index of the species, alongwith biochemical parameters, biological and socio-economic parameters, such as plant habit, canopy structure, type of plant, texture, hardness and economic value of each species were considered. Descriptive statistics using crosstabs were used for data analysis using statistical package for social sciences software (SPSS version 21). Results of the present study have shown that highest air pollution tolerance index was found with Jacaranda mimosifolia (35.28) followed by Schinus molle (35.21) which were designated as ‘tolerant’ species whereas least air pollution tolerance index was associated with Croton macrstachs (12.28) followed by Olea africana (13.25) which are designated as ‘sensitive’ species. As far as anticipated performance scoring is considered, highest score was attained by Azadirachta indica (4) at site 1 and at site 2 highest score was attained by Schinus mole (4). At site 3, Psidium guajava attained highest anticipated performance index score of 4. Based on the chi-squared (X²) test value it was concluded that there is no significant relation exists between anticipated performance and tolerance index. Dust holding capacity has shown an inverse correlation with leaf area of plant species.


Air pollution tolerance index, Ambo town, Green belt, Performance index


  1. GBD report. 2019. Global health impacts of air pollution. State of Global air/2020 report. USA.
  2. Shannigrahi, A.S., T. Fukushima and R.C. Sharma. 2004. Anticipated air pollution tolerance of some plant species considered for green belt development in and around an industrial/urban area in India: An overview. Asian J. Biol. Sci., 61(2): 125-137.
  3. Sharrock, S.S. and O. Wilson. 2014. A review of progress towards the global strategy for plant conservation 2011-2020. Technical series no. 81. Plant conservation report. Secretariat of the
    Convention on Biological Diversity, Montréal, Canada.
  4. Prajapati, S.K. and B.D. Tripathi. 2008. Anticipated performance index of some tree species considered for green belt development in and around an urban area: A case study of varanasi city, India. J. Env. Manage., 88(4): 1343-1349.
  5. Rai, P.K. 2016. Biodiversity of roadside plants and their response to air pollution in an Indo-Burma hotspot region: Implications for urban ecosystem restoration. J. Asia-Pac. Biodivers., 9(1): 47-55.
  6. Seyyednjad, S.M., M.N. Majdian and H. Koochak. 2011. Air pollution tolerance indices of some plants around industrial zone in south of Iran. Asian J. Biol. Sci., 4:300-305.
  7. Agbaire, P.O. and E. Esiefarienrhe. 2009. Air pollution tolerance indices (APTI) of some plants around Otorogun Gas Plant in Delta State, Nigeria. J. Appl. Sci. Env. Manage., 13(1): 11-14.
  8. Subramani, S. and S. Devaanandan. 2015. Application of air pollution tolerance index in assessing the air quality. Int. J. Pharm. Sci., 7(7): 216-221.
  9. Pathak, V., B.D. Tripathi and V.K. Mishra. 2010. Evaluation of anticipated performance index of some tree species for green belt development to mitigate traffic generated noise. Urban For. Urban Greening. 10:61-66.
  10. Singh, S.N. and A. Verma. 2007. Phytoremediation of air pollutants: A review. In Environmental bioremediation technology. Ed S.N. Singh and R.D. Tripathi. Springer, Berlin Heidelberg. pp 293–
  11. Bora, M. and N. Joshi. 2014. A study on variation in biochemical aspects of different tree species with tolerance and performance index. The Bioscan., 9(1): 59 – 63.
  12. Pandey, A.K. 2015. Air pollution tolerance index and anticipated performance index of some plant species for development of urban forest. Urban For. Urban Greening. 14(4): 866-871.
  13. Singh, S.K. and D.N. Rao. 1983. Evaluation of the plants for their tolerance to air pollution. Symposium on air pollution control, Delhi. Proceedings, pp 218-224.
  14. Sarala Thambavani, D. and J. Maheswari. 2012. Evaluation of anticipated performance of certain tree species in Virudhunagar, India. International Congress on Informatics, environment, energy and applications. Singapore. Proceedings, vol. 38.
  15. Rao, M.V. and P.S. Dubey. 1988. Plant response against SO2in field conditions. Asian Env., 10 : 1–9.
  16. Abida, B. and S. Harikrishna. 2010. Evaluation of some tree species to absorb air pollutants in three industrial locations of south Bengaluru, India. E-J. Chem., 7(S1): 151-156.
  17. Lima, J.S., E.B. Fernandes and W.N. Fawcett. 2000. Mangifera indica and Phaseolus vulgaris in the bioindicator of air pollution in Bahia, Brazil. Ecotoxicol. Env. Safe., 46(3): 275–278.
  18. Keller, T. and H. Schwager. 1977. Air pollution and ascorbic acid. Europiean J. Forest Pathol., 7: 338–350.
  19. Deepalakshmi, A.P., et al. 2013. Roadside plants as bio-indicators of urban air pollution. IOSR J. Env. Sci. Toxicol. Food Tech., 3:10-14.
  20. Jyothi, J.S. and D.S. Jaya. 2010. Evaluation of air pollution tolerance index of selected plant species along roadsides in Thiruvananthapuram, Kerala. J. Env. Biol., 31: 379-386.
  21. Escobedo, F.J., E.W. John and J.N. David. 2008. Analyzing the cost effectiveness of Santiago, Chile’s policy of using urban forests to improve air quality. J. Env. Manage., 86(1): 148-157.
  22. Joshi, C. and A. Swami. 2009. Air pollution induced changes in the photosynthetic pigments of selected plant species. J. Env. Biol., 30: 295-298.
  23. Triratnesh, G. 2016. Foliar transfer of dust and heavy metals on roadside plants in a subtropical environment. Asian J. Atmos. Env., 10(3): 137-145.
  24. Rehman, R. and A. Gul. 2015. Plant-pollutant interaction. In plants, pollutants and remediation. Ed Münir Öztürk, Muhammad Ashraf, Ahmet Aksoy, M.S.A. Ahmad and Khalid Rehman Hakeem. Springer, Netherlands. pp 213-239.
  25. Verma, V. and N. Chandra. 2014. Biochemical and ultrastructural changes in Sida cordifolia L. and Catharanthus roseus L. to auto pollution. Int. Scholarly Res. Notices. Article ID 263092.
  26. Rahul, J. and K.J. Manish. 2014. An investigation into the impact of particulate matter on vegetation along the national highway: A review. Res. J. Env.. Sci., 8(7): 356-372.
  27. Uzma, Y., 2013. Dust interception capacity and alteration of various biometric and biochemical attributes in cultivated population of ficus carica L. J. Pharm. Biol. Sci., 6(4): 35-42.
  28. Soltys, K. 2016. The effect of drought stress on the leaf relative water content and tuber yield of a half-sib family of katahdin-derived potato cultivars. Breed. Sci., 66(2): 328-331.