Modelling spatial patterns of correlations between concentrations of heavy metals in mosses and atmospheric deposition in 2010 across Europe

Nickeletal. Environ Sci Eur (2018) 30:53 https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0183-8 RESEARCH Modelling spatial patterns ofcorrelations betweenconcentrations ofheavy metals inmosses andatmospheric deposition in2010 acrossEurope Stefan Nickel1*, Winfried Schröder1, Roman Schmalfuss1, Maike Saathoff1, Harry Harmens2, Gina Mills2, Marina V. Frontasyeva3, Lambe Barandovski4, Oleg Blum5, Alejo Carballeira6, Ludwig de Temmerman7, Anatoly M. Dunaev8, Antoaneta Ene9, Hilde Fagerli10, Barbara Godzik11, Ilia Ilyin12, Sander Jonkers13, Zvonka Jeran14, Pranvera Lazo15, Sebastien Leblond16, Siiri Liiv17, Blanka Mankovska18, Encarnación Núñez‑Olivera19, Juha Piispanen20, Jarmo Poikolainen20, Ion V. Popescu21, Flora Qarri22, Jesus Miguel Santamaria23, Martijn Schaap13, Mitja Skudnik24, Zdravko Špirić25, Trajce Stafilov4, Eiliv Steinnes26, Claudia Stihi21, Ivan Suchara27, Hilde Thelle Uggerud28 and Harald G. Zechmeister29 Abstract Background: This paper aims to investigate the correlations between the concentrations of nine heavy metals in moss and atmospheric deposition within ecological land classes covering Europe. Additionally, it is examined to what extent the statistical relations are affected by the land use around the moss sampling sites. Based on moss data col‑ lected in 2010/2011 throughout Europe and data on total atmospheric deposition modelled by two chemical trans‑ port models (EMEP MSC‑E, LOTOS‑EUROS), correlation coefficients between concentrations of heavy metals in moss and in modelled atmospheric deposition were specified for spatial subsamples defined by ecological land classes of Europe (ELCE) as a spatial reference system. Linear discriminant analysis (LDA) and logistic regression (LR) were then used to separate moss sampling sites regarding their contribution to the strength of correlation considering the areal percentage of urban, agricultural and forestry land use around the sampling location. After verification LDA models by LR, LDA models were used to transform spatial information on the land use to maps of potential correlation levels, applicable for future network planning in the European Moss Survey. Results: Correlations between concentrations of heavy metals in moss and in modelled atmospheric deposition were found to be specific for elements and ELCE units. Land use around the sampling sites mainly influences the correlation level. Small radiuses around the sampling sites examined (5 km) are more relevant for Cd, Cu, Ni, and Zn, while the areal percentage of urban and agricultural land use within large radiuses (75–100 km) is more relevant for As, Cr, Hg, Pb, and V. Most valid LDA models pattern with error rates of < 40% were found for As, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb, and V. Land use‑dependent predictions of spatial patterns split up Europe into investigation areas revealing potentially high (= above‑average) or low (= below‑average) correlation coefficients. Conclusions: LDA is an eligible method identifying and ranking boundary conditions of correlations between atmospheric deposition and respective concentrations of heavy metals in moss and related mapping considering the influence of the land use around moss sampling sites. © The Author(s) 2018. This article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creat iveco mmons .org/licen ses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. Open Access *Correspondence: stefan.nickel@uni‑vechta.de 1 Chair of Landscape Ecology, University of Vechta, Vechta, Germany Full list of author information is available at the end of the article Page 2 of 17 Nickeletal. Environ Sci Eur (2018) 30:53 Background The United Nations Economic Commission for Europe (UNECE) Convention on Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution (CLRTAP) of 1979 and its eight protocols are aimed at limiting and reducing air pollutants. Under the LRTAP convention, the European monitoring and evaluation programme (EMEP) gathers information on emission from its parties, collects data on air and precipitation quality and models atmospheric transport and deposition of air pollutants [1]. Beyond this, biomonitoring programmes provide data on concentrations in various biological matrices potentially correlated with atmospheric deposition of heavy metals (HM). Within the LRTAP convention, European Moss Survey (EMS) is conducted using naturally growing mosses as biomonitors of atmospheric deposition of air pollutants. Since 1990, moss specimens have been sampled every 5years at up to 7300 sampling sites in up to 35 countries [2–4] to determine the concentrations of heavy metals (HM), nitrogen (N, since 2005) and persistent organic pollutants (POPs, since 2010) [4, 5]. The EMS is coordinated by the ICP Vegetation, an international cooperative programme (ICP) reporting on impacts of air pollution on vegetation to the LRTAP convention [3]. Based on EMS data from 2005, atmospheric deposition has been identified as the main factor determining the spatial variation of concentrations of cadmium (Cd) and lead (Pb) in moss specimens collected throughout Europe [6–8]. Harmens etal. [9] found significant correlations between Cd and Pb concentration in moss and respective atmospheric deposition modelled by EMEP for more than two-thirds of the countries participating in the European Moss Survey. Schröder etal. [10] correlated Cd, mercury (Hg), and Pb concentrations in deposition and moss data from the EMS 2005 within a spatial framework of ecologically defined land classes by use of the numeric chemical transport model (CTM) of EMEP MSC-East [11]. In further studies, also land use around the sampling sites is shown to be an important factor affecting element concentrations in moss [12–14]. The above-mentioned findings were verified in the investigation presented in this paper using data collected in the EMS 2010. The present study addresses the following objectives. 1. Correlation analysis Examination of correlations between concentrations of HM in moss from the EMS 2010/2011 and respective atmospheric deposition as modelled by use of the CTMs EMEP MSCEast and LOTOS EUROS (LE), and to which extent the correlations are specific for ecological land classes of Europe (ELCE) [15]. 2. Statistical modelling Calculation, to which extent the amount of ELCE-specific correlation coefficients is affected by the areal percentage of land use around the sampling sites potentially indicating influences of local emission sources as for instance agricultural and urban land use or point sources of air pollutants. Hence, the reason for different ELCE-specific correlation coefficients was investigated. 3. Predictive mapping Land use-dependent predictions and mapping of correlation patterns across Europe (site-related/area-related) and, finally, aggregation of predicted spatial patterns for decision support (e.g. moss survey network planning). For this investigation, data on atmospheric deposition of HM derived from the EMEP MSC-East [11] were supplemented by deposition data calculated by use of the chemical transport model LOTOS-EUROS (LE) [16]. Methods Data on element concentration in moss were correlated with respective modelled atmospheric deposition specifically for ecological land classes of Europe (ELCE) and major land use categories around the sampling sites derived from CORINE land cover 2006 and Global land cover 2000 [17, 18] (Table1). Data onelement concentrations inmoss In 2010/2011, moss specimens were collected at 4499 sample sites in 26 countries across Europe following a standardized experimental protocol [19]. Further countries like Germany, Ireland and United Kingdom who participated in former moss surveys did not participate in 2010. To provide field-based evidence of the extent of long-range transboundary pollution in Europe the monitoring sites are located in background areas, e.g. sampling sites were at least 300m away from major roads and 100 m away from any road or houses. Primarily, Pleurozium schreberi (Brid.) Mitt., Hylocomium splendens (Hedw.) Schimp., Hypnum cupressiforme Hedw. s.str. and Pseudoscleropodium purum (Hedw.) M. Fleisch (synonym Scleropodium purum Hedw. Limpr.) [20] were sampled, but also 32 other species (7% of the samples). For each site, at least five individual moss samples of the Keywords: Biomonitoring, Chemical transport models, Correlation analysis, Ecological classification, Linear discriminant analysis, Logistic regression Page 3 of 17 Nickeletal. Environ Sci Eur (2018) 30:53 same species were collected. Only the 2to 3-year-old shoots of the mosses were used for the analyses. Concentrations of nine HMs: arsenic (As), cadmium (Cd), chromium (Cr), copper (Cu), mercury (Hg), nickel (Ni), lead (Pb), vanadium (V), and zinc (Zn) were determined [4, 9]. Data onatmospheric deposition Statistical relations between element concentrations in moss and atmospheric deposition of HM derived from the numeric chemical transport models (CTMs) LOTOSEUROS (LE) [16, 21] and EMEP [11] were examined. CTMs are based on mathematical descriptions of relevant physical and chemical processes in the atmosphere and are mostly used for large-scale, area-wide estimates of atmospheric deposition [21]. The accuracy of deposition modelling basically depends on the quality of the input data (emission, meteorology, land use, other conditions) used for modelling atmospheric transport and deposition processes as well as intrinsic model uncertainties. The EMEP deposition data were supplied by the meteorological synthesizing centres MSC-East (Moscow) of EMEP operating under the LRTAP convention. Travnikov and Ilyin [11] used emission data to calculate atmospheric deposition of Cd, Hg, and Pb. To verify these model calculations, the results were compared to Cd and Pb measurement data from up to 66 EMEP sites and to Hg data collected at up to 22 EMEP sites [22]. The verified model results were then mapped on grids of 50km × 50km [11]. Following Harmens etal. [9], in this investigation the 3-year sum of HM deposition modelled by EMEP (on a 50km by 50km grid) corresponds to the HM concentration in the sampled 3-year-old shoots of the mosses. Here, the deposition data from 2008 to 2010 was assigned to the data collected in EMS 2010/2011. The 3-year sums of deposition 2009–2011 from LE [16, 21] were assigned to the concentrations of HM in moss collected in EMS 2010/2011. LE provides deposition rates of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, V, and Zn on a 25km by 25km grid covering Europe. Additional information about the CTM is given in Additional file1: TableS2. Ecological land classification ofEurope The data on element concentrations in moss and atmospheric deposition were spatially joined to the map of ecological land classes of Europe (ELCE) (Additional file1: Figure S1, TableS1) derived from Hornsmann etal. [15]. According to the level of spatial differentiation, the ecological classification encompasses 40 (ELCE40) to 200 (ELCE200) classes identified by 48 geo-data layers on potential natural vegetation [23], altitude above sea level [24], soil texture [25], and monthly averages of precipitation and air temperature (1961–2002) [26]. ELCE40 and ELCE200 were calculated and mapped by means of classification and regression trees [27]. To ensure the best possible compliance with minimum sample size specified for each ecoregion [28, 29], ELCE40 was used, whereby ELCE units occurring sporadically and with a total spatial extent below 4.2% were summarized to one class (“others”). Statistical analysis Correlation analysis The statistical design comprises the calculation of Spearman rank correlation coefficients (rs) for quantifying the relation between concentrations in mosses and modelled atmospheric deposition of HM and N (Fig.1). The measured concentrations of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, V, and Zn in moss were correlated with respective total atmospheric deposition data as modelled by EMEP and LE. Thereby, ecological land classes (ELCE40) within participating European countries were used as coding variable for calculating ELCE-specific correlations. Due to a nonnormal distribution in most of the subsamples, Spearman rank correlation coefficients (rs) were determined. The correlation coefficients were classified according to Brosius [30] as very weak (< 0.2), weak (0.2–0.4), moderate (0.4–0.6), strong (0.6–0.8), and very strong (> 0.8). Table 1 Data used forstatistical analysis a HM data provided by MSC-East (November 2013) Data Comment andsource Unit Element concentration in moss As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Hg, Ni, Pb, V, and Zn conc. in moss from the European Moss Survey 2010/2011 μg/g Atmospheric deposition Modelled total deposition of As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, V, Zn summed over 3 years (LOTOS‑EUROS 2009–2011, [21]) µg/m2 Modelled total atmospheric deposition of Cd, Hg, Pb (EMEP MSC‑East) summed over 3 years (EMEP 2008–2010)aµg/m2 ELCE40 Ecological land classes of Europe [15] 40 land classes Spatial density of land use around moss sampling sites Areal percentage of urban, agricultural, and forestry land use, each within a 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100 km radius around the moss sampling sites, derived from CORINE land cover 2006 [17] and global land cover 2000 [18] for Russia, Ukraine and Belarus % Page 4 of 17 Nickeletal. Environ Sci Eur (2018) 30:53 Linear discriminant analysis/logistic regression The second step is to investigate the reason for the difference of ELCE-specific correlations. LDA models were used to find linear separation lines as best discriminate of sampling sites in ELCE regions revealing high or low element-specific correlation coefficients. LDA attempts to find a multivariate discriminant function Y = b0 + b1X1 + b2X2 + ⋯ describing a linear combination of two or more predictors (X1, X2, …) and respective coefficients (b0, b1, b2, …). The aim is to separate groups of data in a scatterplot so that the variation in data within each group is minimized [31–33] and express the contribution of each predictor in the selected discriminant model. For binary classification of ELCE and their allocated sampling sites showing high (= A) or low (= B) correlations, medians of the ELCE-specific Spearman coefficients were taken for defining element-specific class boundaries between high and low correlation levels. ELCE with coefficients above the class boundaries in terms of element-specific medians were classified as ‘A’ and ELCE below the class boundaries as ‘B’. Twenty-one variables for spatial density of agricultural, forestry, and urban land use within a 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100km radius around the sampling sites (Table1) were taken as potential predictors for HM concentrations in moss samples. As the target variable is already determined by atmospheric deposition, it was not considered as a predictor. Further potential influencing factors like elevation, precipitation, population density as investigated by Nickel etal. [34] were examined in a pre-analysis using LDA, but were excluded due to low relevance. Since the values of each of these predictors range between 0 and 100%, data did not need to be standardized as recommended for LDA by Schönwiese [35]. Overall, twelve LDA models were built with regard to available EMEP deposition values for (Cd, Pb, Hg) and LOTOS-EUROS deposition estimations for (As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Ni, Pb, V, and Zn). It was examined whether the variance could be sufficiently explained by just two of the potential 21 linear discriminants (= spatial density [%] of urban, agricultural, and forestry land use, each within a 1, 5, 10, 25, 50, 75, and 100km radius around the moss sampling sites, Table1) to keep the models as simple as possible and allowing for a better interpretation and visualization of the results. Here, near-zero coefficients (linear combination coefficient ranges between − 1 and 1) and correlated predictors have been removed to avoid multicollinearity. For example, if the coefficient of urban land use within a 10km radius was closer to zero than the 5km coefficient, the latter was taken. Logistic regression (LR) is similar to LDA, as it also explains a categorical variable by the values of continuous independent variables. LR is preferable in applications where the independent variables are not normally distributed. Since LR is less concrete, LDA in the present study was used for model building and LR for verification of LDA results. Predictions LDA models were firstly applied on the Europe-wide dataset of moss sampling sites with information on land use density around the sampling sites. Model-specific error rates (%) were calculated by means of confusion matrix values (actual vs. predicted values). Charts for the linear discriminant functions were used for plausibility checks. Logistic regression models were built using the same predictors from the LDA models. Confusion matrices and error rates (%) specified for each LR model were calculated and compared with the statistical characteristics of the LDA models. To verify to which extent the models really separate sampling sites showing high or low correlations between element concentrations in moss and respective atmospheric deposition, bivariate Spearman coefficients for the correlations between element concentrations in moss and atmospheric deposition were again calculated for the following subsamples: sampling sites located within all ELCE classes, ELCE classes showing correlations above and below the element-specific class boundaries between high and low correlation levels defined in Table1. Each subsample was further divided into groups of sampling sites classified by LDA into category A or B. The more B sampling sites modelled by LDA show low or, vice versa, A sites reveal high correlations, the more efficient the between-class separation through the modelling and thus the relevance of predictors. Geographic information on the spatial density of agricultural, forestry, and urban land use within a 1, 5, 10, Fig. 1 Design of statistical analysis (LDA linear discriminant analysis, LR logistic regression) Page 5 of 17 Nickeletal. Environ Sci Eur (2018) 30:53 25, 50, 75, and 100km radius around the sampling sites available with blanket coverage of Europe was taken as predictors for estimating categories of correlations (A, B) between atmospheric deposition of nine HM in Europe using LDA models and to transform spatial information on the land use to spatial correlation patterns across Europe. Finally, spatial patterns estimated by the best LDA models were aggregated by calculating the number of element-specific A classifications (= above elementspecific class boundaries between high and low correlation levels as defined in Table2) to reduce complexity which is more appropriate for decision support. All statistical analyses were performed using R programming language [36], in particular functions for LDA as implemented in the ‘MASS’ package extending R’s core functionality [37]. Results Correlations betweenHM concentrations inmoss andatmospheric deposition forELCE categories acrossEurope andforEurope asawhole All analyses with HM concentration in moss were based on a reasonably large sample size of at least 3274 (As) out of 3965 (Zn) sample points. The minimum sample sizes for elements and ELCE40 classes were calculated and presented by Schröder etal. [28, 29]. As the number of moss sampling sites was very low (> 10 in the classes D_16, D_21, L_2, M_5, and M_6), the correlations for these classes are not considered reliable and are not described below. However, these four classes altogether represent only 2.3% (= 69,600km2) of the sampled area in the countries participating in the EMS (= 3,083,500km2). Cadmium Strong correlations between element concentrations measured in moss and modelled deposition (EMEP, LE) with coefficients (rs) ranging from 0.6 to 0.8 were achieved for 7% (EMEP) up to 10.5% (LE) of the area of ELCE40 coverage of all countries participating in the EMS 2010 together (Table2). These ELCE40 categories (D_13, F1_1, S_0, and “others”) are located in Poland, Switzerland and Austria (Fig.2). The strength of the Europe-wide correlation is also high (rs = 0.65, p < 0.01). Moderate rs values occurred for ELCE40 units covering 47.0–49.6% of the landmass. Moss data from each 5 ELCE40 (for LE in parts other than for EMEP) are weakly correlated with the modelled Cd deposition (EMEP: 15.0%; LE: 17.5%). 7 (EMEP) up to 9 (LE) out of 27 ELCE40 units reveal nonsignificant or very weak correlations (23.5–31.1%). Lead For Pb, in 4 (EMEP) up to 6 (LE) out of 27 ELCE40 units the rs values were not significant (12.0–20.3% of area of ELCE units covered by moss sampling sites) (Table2). From the remaining ELCE40 classes, 6 (in case of LE, 26.3%) and 7 (EMEP, 28.9%) ELCE units show Spearman’s rank coefficients between 0.2 and 0.4. For another 10 ELCE categories (LE) and, respectively, 11 ELCE categories (EMEP), correlation coefficients came out to be between 0.4 and 0.6. The area comprises 36.6–43.5% of the total area covered by moss samples mainly located in Finland, Sweden and France (Fig.2). Highest correlations (0.6 > rs > 0.8) were found for max. 5 ELCE classes: D_13 (only EMEP), S_0 (only LE), B_2, C_0, F1_1, “others” (both EMEP and LE) (15.6–16.8% of the landmass) predominately distributed in Norway. With regard to the samplings across Europe, Spearman’s rank coefficients are 0.64 (LE) and 0.7 (EMEP). Mercury For Hg, in 21 out of 27 ELCE units, the rs values were not significant, below 0.02 or even negative (82.5% of area of ELCE classes covering all participating countries together). It is clear that the correlation between moss data from the EMS 2010 and EMEP modelled deposition is very low (rs = 0.14, Table2). Above-average correlations with coefficients between 0.4 and 0.6 were only found for ELCE units B_1, D_14, F4_1, and J_2 (9.2% of the area), sparsely located in Fennoscandia, Estonia, Poland, France and Spain (Fig.2). For another 2 ELCE classes (D_7, F1_1), correlation coefficients were between 0.2 and 0.4, comprising 8.3% of the area covered by moss samples. Arsenic For Europe as a whole, low correlations between As concentrations in moss and respective modelled atmospheric deposition (LOTOS-EUROS) were found (rs = 0.3). 14 out of 27 ELCE40 units reveal non-significant correlations within 41.1% of the sampled ELCE40 area (Table2). In 5 out of the remaining 13 ELCE40 units, variables were negatively correlated (30.1%). Three ELCE40 classes reveal significant weak correlations with rs values between 0.2 and 0.4 (13.1%). Merely 4 ELCE40 units show moderate coefficients between 0.4 and 0.6 (C_0, D_17, D18, and F1_1). The ELCE40 unit with the highest correlation was U_1 (rs = 0.72, p < 0.01) comprising dispersed small areas within the participating countries (1%) (Fig.3). Chromium Of all elements examined, Cr reveals the weakest Europewide correlation between concentrations in moss and total deposition modelled by LE (rs = 0.03, Table 2). For 16 out of 27 ELCE40 units, the rs values were not significant (49.5% of area of ELCE units covered by moss sampling sites), and for 37.3%, the rs values were below 0.02 Page 6 of 17 Nickeletal. Environ Sci Eur (2018) 30:53 Table 2 Correlations betweenelement concentrations inmoss andmodelled atmospheric deposition specified forecological land classes ofEurope EMEP/LOTOS-EUROS = chemical transport models used for calculating atmospheric deposition; ELCE40 = ecological land classes of Europe [15] and other ELCE which were summarized to one class (“others”); correlation coefficients according to Spearman (*p < 0.05, **p < 0.01); (n) in brackets = sample size; ELCE-specific correlations above the element-specific class boundary between low and high correlation levels (= category A) are in italic print ELCE40 EMEP LOTOS-EUROS Cd Hg Pb As Cd Cr Cu Ni Pb V Zn All 0.65** (3777) 0.14** (3313) 0.70** (3604) 0.30** (3274) 0.65** (3633) 0.03** (3820) 0.50** (3465) 0.09** (3772) 0.64** (3490) 0.19** (3832) 0.17** (3965) B_1 0.39** (73) 0.48** (67) 0.54** (73) 0.23 (67) 0.45** (73) − 0.13 (73) 0.22 (73) − 0.24 (73) 0.67** (73) − 0.09 (73) 0.29* (73) B_2 0.51** (110) − 0.18 (110) 0.63** (110) − 0.11 (111) 0.17 (110) − 0.52** (111) − 0.20 (110) − 0.67** (110) 0.27 (110) 0.13 (34) 0.09 (111) C_0 0.52** (253) 0.19** (239) 0.62** (252) 0.45** (246) 0.52** (253) 0.16* (258) 0.51** (252) − 0.04 (258) 0.65** (252) 0.27** (227) 0.11 (259) D_7 0.13 (186) 0.29** (135) − 0.01 (186) − 0.14 (134) 0.19* (186) 0.22** (186) 0.05 (186) − 0.23** (186) 0.25** (186) − 0.54** (186) − 0.04 (186) D_8 0.37* (42) − 0.10 (34) 0.49** (42) 0.10 (34) 0.31* (42) − 0.10 (42) 0.52** (42) − 0.20 (42) 0.44** (42) 0.07 (42) − 0.03 (42) D_10 − 0.08 (11) 0.20 (11) 0.22 (11) 0.05 (11) − 0.23 (11) − 0.11 (11) 0.08 (11) − 0.25 (11) 0.12 (11) − 0.27 (11) 0.09 (11) D_13 0.72** (99) 0.18 (76) 0.61** (99) − 0.26** (114) 0.74** (99) − 0.48** (139) 0.40** (99) − 0.21* (121) 0.44** (255) − 0.20* (156) 0.10 (139) D_14 0.39** (82) 0.43** (77) 0.46** (78) 0.15 (83) 0.57** (82) − 0.2* (119) 0.36** (94) − 0.04 (119) 0.55** (78) − 0.21* (136) 0.33** (137) D_17 − 0.03 (115) 0.12** (71) 0.36** (89) 0.46** (127) 0.29** (115) 0.69** (147) 0.46** (93) 0.33** (148) 0.40** (89) 0.19* (153) 0.17 (154) D_18 0.22** (255) 0.14* (248) 0.29** (255) 0.47** (201) 0.33** (255) 0.08 (255) 0.37** (255) 0.43** (255) 0.44** (255) 0.22** (253) 0.21** (255) D_19 0.47** (258) 0.18* (165) 0.54** (258) 0.24** (165) 0.47** (258) 0.06 (258) 0.39** (258) 0.03 (258) 0.53** (258) 0.27** (258) 0.19** (258) D_22 0.21** (168) 0.09 (166) 0.36** (168) 0.06 (167) 0.29** (168) 0.43** (171) 0.29** (168) 0.04 (171) 0.42** (168) 0.28** (171) 0.05 (171) F1_1 0.72** (87) 0.37** (87) 0.62** (87) 0.57** (42) 0.76** (87) 0.06 (95) 0.48** (87) − 0.01 (94) 0.65** (87) − 0.14 (91) 0.39** (95) F1_2 0.17** (308) − 0.15** (308) 0.38** (192) − 0.19** (289) 0.20** (308) − 0.11 (191) 0.31** (191) − 0.07 (192) 0.43** (192) 0.14 (191) 0.17 (154) F2_5 0.53** (66) 0.19 (65) 0.33** (66) − 0.51 (12) 0.72** (66) − 0.12 (77) 0.27* (66) − 0.11 (71) 0.40** (66) 0.01 (37) 0.38** (77) F2_6 0.41** (264) 0.01 (238) 0.48** (264) − 0.18** (250) 0.46** (264) − 0.39** (301) 0.31** (264) − 0.49** (291) 0.28** (264) − 0.14* (307) 0.18** (301) F3_1 0.26** (201) 0.20** (189) 0.35** (201) 0.24** (173) 0.43** (201) − 0.09 (204) 0.13 (201) − 0.09 (203) 0.30** (201) − 0.05 (201) 0.20** (204) F3_2 0.53** (115) − 0.21* (113) 0.45** (115) 0.17 (115) 0.53** (115) 0.13 (114) 0.13 (114) 0.17 (115) 0.47** 5 (115) 0.08 (114) 0.17 (114) F4_1 0.28 (17) 0.57* (17) 0.51* (17) − 0.41 (11) 0.09 (17) 0.30 (17) − 0.12 (17) − 0.27 (17) 0.02 (17) 0.36 (17) 0.03 (17) F4_2 0.53** (468) − 0.06 (394) 0.56** (468) − 0.09* (491) 0.46** (468) − 0.45** (540) 0.00 (467) − 0.14** (510) 0.01 (468) − 0.01 (571) − 0.08 (541) G1_0 0.20* (126) 0.03 (63) 0.13 (126) 0.02 (137) 0.14 (126) − 0.04 (189) 0.01 (126) − 0.12 (189) 0.10 (126) − 0.17* (177) 0.29** (189) G2_0 0.08 (186) 0.21** (174) 0.26** (162) − 0.12 (174) 0.32** (186) − 0.49** (152) 0.36** (151) 0.41** (162) 0.40** (162) 0.03 (152) − 0.14 (176) J_2 0.43** (60) 0.50** (60) 0.51** (59) 0.02 (60) 0.54** (60) 0.25 (10) 0.49** (49) 0.60** (59) 0.55** (59) 0.21 (49) − 0.16 (50) S_0 0.69** (54) − 0.04 (44) 0.58** (54) 0.13 (41) 0.64** (54) 0.18 (61) 0.37* (55) − 0.23 (61) 0.62** (54) − 0.15 (55) 0.42** (62) U_1 0.47** (47) 0.05 (47) 0.51** (47) 0.72** (24) 0.57** (47) 0.23 (49) 0.49** (47) − 0.09 (49)0.48** (47) 0.31* (49) 0.35* (49) U_2 − 0.01 (81) − 0.06 (73) 0.13** (80) − 0.24* (98) 0.16 (81) − 0.45** (102) 0.32** (79) − 0.01 (98) 0.18 (80) − 0.24* (102) 0.02 (103) Others 0.78** (45) 0.09 (42) 0.74** (45) 0.37* (40) 0.79** (45) − 0.01 (53) 0.17 (45) − 0.35* (53) 0.68** (45) 0.10 (50) 0.39** (53) Class boundary 0.35 0.10 0.43 0.00 0.44 0.05 0.32 0.00 0.40 0.10 0.15 Page 7 of 17 Nickeletal. Environ Sci Eur (2018) 30:53 01.000500 Kilometers Correlations Cd (EMEP) > 0.8 0.6 - 0.8 0.4 - 0.6 0.2 - 0.4 < 0.2 01.000500 Kilometers Correlations Cd (LE) > 0.8 0.6 - 0.8 0.4 - 0.6 0.2 - 0.4 < 0.2 01.000500 Kilometers Correlations Hg (EMEP) > 0.8 0.6 - 0.8 0.4 - 0.6 0.2 - 0.4 < 0.2 01.000500 Kilometers Correlations Pb (EMEP) > 0.8 0.6 - 0.8 0.4 - 0.6 0.2 - 0.4 < 0.2 01.000500 Kilometers Correlations Pb (LE) > 0.8 0.6 - 0.8 0.4 - 0.6 0.2 - 0.4 < 0.2 Fig. 2 ELCE‑specific correlations of Cd, Pb and Hg concentrations in mosses and respective modelled atmospheric deposition. Atmospheric deposition was modelled by LE (2009–2011) or EMEP (2008–2010); concentration values in mosses were determined in 2010 Page 8 of 17 Nickeletal. Environ Sci Eur (2018) 30:53 Fig. 3 ELCE‑specific correlations of As, Cr, Cu, Ni, V and Zn concentrations in mosses and respective modelled atmospheric deposition. Atmospheric deposition was modelled by LE (2009–2011) or EMEP (2008–2010); concentration values in mosses were determined in 2010 Page 9 of 17 Nickeletal. Environ Sci Eur (2018) 30:53 or even negative (Fig.3). A strong correlation (rs = 0.69) could be shown for land class D_17, covering 2.4% of the analysed area, located in Sweden, Finland and Russia. D_22 (5.4%) as a part of Sweden reveals at least moderate correlations (rs = 0.43). The remaining surface showing low correlations is allocated to ELCE unit D_7, which covers 5.4% of the landmass. Copper The largest area covered by moss sampling sites (48.9%) is allocated to low correlations (rs) between 0.2 and 0.4. Moderately strong correlations were found for 6 out of 27 ELCE40 units (C_0, D_8, D_17, F1_1, J_2, and U_2) sparsely distributed in almost every participating country and comprising 15.6% of the ELCE units. In comparison, Europe as a whole is also characterized by an intermediately strong correlation (rs = 0.5). All other 10 out of 27 ELCE40 units reveal non-significant correlations within 35.5% of the sampled ELCE40 area. Nickel For Ni, most of the ELCE40 units reveal negative correlations (28.5% of the analysed area) or non-significant values (53.8%). Significant positive correlations in ELCE40 classes were found for D_17 (0.2 > rs > 0.4), D_18, G2_0 (0.4 > rs > 0.6) and J_2 (0.6 > rs > 0.8) (Table 2). Together, these four land classes comprise only 13.1% of the ELCE territory within participating countries, in particular Sweden, Estonia and France (Fig.3). Overall, this corresponds to a very low correlation of rs = 0.09 across Europe. Vanadium With respect to atmospheric V deposition modelled by LE and respective concentration in moss, merely 5 of 31 ELCE40 classes (plus “others”) reveal significant positive, low Spearman’s rank coefficients (C_0, D_18, D_19, D_22, and U_1). They cover 25.7% of the sampled area and can be primarily found in Fennoscandia, northern Spain and France (Fig.3). 2.4% of the area analysed (D_17) shows significant low correlations. The remaining ELCE units (66.8%) reveal non-significant or negative correlations (Table2). For V across Europe, the Spearman coefficient also has to be classified as low and amounts to rs = 0.19. Zinc On the European level, the correlation between modelled Zn deposition (LE) and concentrations in moss is significantly low with rs = 0.17. The only ELCE40 unit with an intermediately high correlation is S_0, located in parts of Estonia, Finland and Russia (1.4% of the sampled area). The 7 out of 26 ELCE40 classes with at least low correlations were the following: D_18, F1_1, F2_5, F3_1, G1_0, U_1, and “others”, located in eastern and northern parts Europe. The coefficients for the remaining ELCE units are very low or non-significant (29.5% and 45.6% of the landmass). Linear discriminant analysis/logistic regression The frequency of the predictors used as discriminants in the 11 LDA models ranges between 1 and 3, which means that none of the factors in particular stands out (Fig.4). Moreover, the relevance of the predictors for separating sampling sites contributing to high or low correlations is element specific. When taking areal percentage of urban and agricultural land use as indicators for potential influences of areal and point emission sources, small radiuses around the sampling sites (5km) are obviously more relevant for Cd, Cu, Ni, and Zn than that for the other elements examined. Vice versa, areal percentage of urban and agricultural land use within large radiuses (75–100km) is more relevant for As, Cr, Hg, Pb, and V. LDA models with the highest quality corresponding to error rates ≤ 30% were found for Cr and V followed by As, Cu, Hg, and Pb (only LE) with error rates ≤ 40% (Table3), i.e. in 7 out of 11 cases < 40% of the sampling sites has been incorrectly classified according to their surrounding land use. Although all predictors were not normally distributed, which is a fundamental assumption for LDA, error rates of the logistic regression models (LR) using the same predictors as the LDA models were very similar. From Tables2 and 3, it is obvious that LDA models are appropriate, particularly in case of elements showing low correlations between atmospheric deposition and concentrations in moss (Cr, Cu, Hg, V). For Cd and Pb with strong correlations, density of land use around the sampling sites seems to be less relevant. This is also confirmed by the statistical indicators for the significance of the predictors given from LR modelling: Density of urban land use (5km) for Cd (EMEP, LE) and agricultural land use (100km) as a predictor for Pb (EMEP) was both nonsignificant, which may also explain the high error rates of 41–44%. Figure4 shows the discriminant lines obtained from LDA. The 11 scatter plots exemplify the separation between sampling sites contributing to high and low correlation. Since the whole set of ELCE would lead into non-readable graphs, ELCE units with maximum and minimum correlation coefficients have been selected as examples. Error rates of 26–44% (Table3) are reflected in discriminant lines not really separating green and red points. Resulting from this, LDA models for As, Cr, Cu, Hg, Pb, and V prove to be the most appropriate. The location of point clusters in case of Ni and Zn appears to be implausible, because low densities of urban and Page 16 of 17 Nickeletal. Environ Sci Eur (2018) 30:53 Received: 18 October 2018 Accepted: 11 December 2018 References 1. Tørseth K, Aas W, Breivik K, Fjæraa AM, Fiebig M, Hjellbrekke AG, Lund Myhre C, Solberg S, Yttri KE (2012) Introduction to the European monitor‑ ing and evaluation programme (EMEP) and observed atmospheric com‑ position change during 1972 and 2009. Atmos Chem Phys 12:5447–5481 2. Frontasyeva MV, Steinnes E, Harmens H (2016) Monitoring long‑term and large‑scale deposition of air pollutants based on moss analysis. In: Aničić Urošević M, Vuković G, Tomašević M (eds) Biomonitoring of air pollution using mosses and lichens Passive and active approach—state of the art and perspectives. Air, water and soil pollution science and technology. Nova Science Publishers, Hauppauge, pp 1–20 3. Harmens H, Mills G, Hayes F, Norris DA, Sharps K (2015) Twenty‑eight years of ICP vegetation: an overview of its activities. Ann Bot 5:31–43 4. Harmens H, Norris DA, Sharps K, Mills G, Alber R, Aleksiayenak Y, Blum O, Cucu‑Man S‑M, Dam M, De Temmerman L, Ene A, Fernández JA, Mar‑ tinez‑Abaigar J, Frontasyeva M, Godzik B, Jeran Z, Lazo P, Leblond S, Liiv S, Magnússon SH, Maňkovská B, Pihl Karlsson G, Piispanen J, Poikolainen J, Santamaria JM, Skudnik M, Spiric Z, Stafilov T, Steinnes E, Stihi C, Suchara I, Thöni L, Todoran R, Yurukova L, Zechmeister HG (2015) Heavy metal and nitrogen concentrations in mosses are declining across Europe whilst some “hotspots” remain in 2010. Environ Pollut 200:93–104 5. Dreyer A, Nickel S, Schröder W (2018) (Persistent) Organic pollutants in Germany: results from a pilot study within the 2015 moss survey. Environ Sci Eur 30(43):1–14. https ://doi.org/10.1186/s1230 2‑018‑0172‑y 6. Holy M, Schröder W, Pesch R, Harmens H, Ilyin I, Steinnes E, Alber R, Alek‑ siayenak Y, Blum O, Coskun M, Dam M, De Temmerman L, Frolova M, Fron‑ tasyeva M, Gonzalez Miqueo L, Grodzinska K, Jeran Z, Korzekwa S, Krmar M, Kubin E, Kvietkus K, Leblond S, Liiv S, Magnusson S, Mankovska B, Piispanen J, Rühling Å, Santamaria J, Spiric Z, Suchara I, Thöni L, Urumov V, Yurukova L, Zechmeister HG (2010) First thorough identification of factors associated with Cd, Hg and Pb concentrations in mosses sampled in the European Surveys 1990, 1995, 2000, and 2005. J Atmos Chem 63:109–124 7. Schröder W, Holy M, Pesch R, Harmens H, Fagerli H, Alber R, Coşkun M, De Temmerman L, Frolova M, González‑Miqueo L, Jeran Z, Kubin E, Leblond S, Liiv S, Maňkovská B, Piispanen J, Santamaría JM, Simonèiè P, Suchara I, Yurukova L, Thöni L, Zechmeister HG (2010) First europe‑wide correlation analysis identifying factors best explaining the total nitrogen concentra‑ tion in mosses. Atmos Environ 4:3485–3491 8. Schröder W, Holy M, Pesch R, Harmens H, Ilyin I, Steinnes E, Alber R, Aleksiayenak Y, Blum O, Coskun M, Dam M, De Temmerman L, Frolova M, Frontasyeva M, Gonzalez Miqueo L, Grodzinska K, Jeran Z, Korzekwa S, Krmar M, Kubin E, Kvietkus K, Leblond S, Liiv S, Magnusson S, Mankovska B, Piispanen J, Rühling Å, Santamaria J, Spiric Z, Suchara I, Thöni L, Urumov V, Yurukova L, Zechmeister HG (2010) Are cadmium, lead and mercury concentrations in mosses across Europe primarily determined by atmos‑ pheric deposition of these metals? J Soils Sediments 10:1572–1584 9. Harmens H, Ilyin I, Mills G, Aboal JR, Alber R, Blum O, Coskun M, De Tem‑ merman L, Fernandez JA, Figuera R, Frontasyeva M, Godzik B, Goltsova N, Jeran Z, Korzekwa S, Kubin E, Kvietkus K, Leblond S, Liiv S, Magnus‑ son SH, Mankovska B, Nikodemus O, Pesch R, Poikolainen J, Radnovic D, Rühling A, Santamaria JM, Schröder W, Spiric Z, Stafilov T, Steinnes E, Suchara I, Tabors G, Thöni L, Turcsanyi G, Yurukova L, Zechmeister HG (2012) Country‑specific correlations across Europe between modelled atmospheric cadmium and lead deposition and concentration in mosses. Environ Pollut 166:1–9 10. Schröder W, Pesch R, Hertel A, Schönrock S, Harmens H, Mills G, Ilyin I (2013) Correlation between atmospheric deposition of Cd, Hg and Pb and their concentrations in mosses specified for ecological land classes covering Europe. Atmos Pollut Res 4:267–274 11. Travnikov O, Ilyin I (2005) Regional model MSCE‑HM of heavy metal trans‑ boundary air pollution in Europe. EMEP/MSC‑E technical report 6/2005, p 59 12. Meyer M, Schröder W, Pesch R, Steinnes E, Uggerud HT (2015) Multivari‑ ate association of regional factors with heavy metal concentrations in moss and natural surface soil sampled across Norway between 1990 and 2010. J Soils Sediments 15:410–422 13. Nickel S, Hertel A, Pesch R, Schröder W, Steinnes E, Uggerud HT (2014) Modelling and mapping spatio‑temporal trends of heavy metal accumu‑ lation in moss and natural surface soil monitored 1990–2010 throughout Norway by multivariate generalized linear models and geostatistics. Atmos Environ 99:85–93 14. Skudnik M, Jeran Z, Batič F, Simončič P, Kastelec D (2015) Potential envi‑ ronmental factors that influence the nitrogen concentration and δ15 N values in the moss Hypnum cupressiforme collected inside and outside canopy drip lines. Environ Pollut 198:78–85 15. Hornsmann I, Pesch R, Schmidt G, Schröder W (2008) Calculation of an ecological land classification of Europe (ELCE) and its application for optimising environmental monitoring networks. In: Car A, Griesebner G, Strobl J (eds). Geospatial Crossroads @ GI_Forum ‘08: proceedings of the Geoinformatics Forum Salzburg. Wichmann, Heidelberg, pp 140–151 16. Schaap M, Sauter F, Timmermans RMA, Roemer M, Velders G, Beck J, Builjes PJH (2008) The LOTOS–EUROS model: description, validation and latest developments. Int J Environ Pollut 32(2):270–290 17. EEA (2016) Corine Land Cover 2006 (CLC 2006). Available via DIALOG. http://www.eea.europ a.eu/data‑and‑maps/data/corin e‑land‑cover ‑2006‑ raste r‑2. Accessed 09 Feb 2016 18. EEA (2016) Global Land Cover 2000—Europe (GLC 2000). Available via DIALOG. http://www.eea.europ a.eu/data‑and‑maps/data/globa l‑land‑ cover ‑2000‑europ e. Accessed 09 Feb 2016 19. ICP Vegetation (2010) Heavy metals in European Mosses: 2010 survey. Monitoring manual, international cooperative programme on effects od air pollution on natural vegetation and crops, ICP Coordination Centre, CEH Bangor, pp 1–16. http://nora.nerc.ac.uk/id/eprin t/9952/1/UNECE HEAVY METAL SMOSS MANUA L2010 POPsa dapte dfina l_22051 0_.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2018 20. Hill MO, Bell N, Bruggeman‑Nannenga MA, Brugués M, Cano MJ, Enroth J, Flatberg KI, Frahm J‑P, Gallego MT, Garilleti R, Guerra J, Hedenäs L, Holyoak DT, Hyvönen J, Ignatov MS, Lara F, Mazimpaka V, Muñoz J, Söderström L (2006) An annotated checklist of the mosses of Europe and Macaronesia. J Bryol 28:198–267 21. Builtjes P, Schaap M, Jonkers S, Nagel HD, Nickel S, Schlutow A, Schröder W (2017) Impacts of heavy metal emissions on air quality and ecosys‑ tems in Germany (part 1). Final report on behalf of the German Federal Environmental Agency, Dessau‑Roßlau, p 81 22. Aas W, Breivik K (2009) Heavy metals and POP measurements 2007. EMEP/CCC‑report 3/2009. Norwegian Institute for Air Research, Kjeller, Norway. https ://www.nilu.no/proje cts/ccc/repor ts/cccr3 ‑2009.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2018 23. Bohn U, Hettwer C, Gollub G (eds) (2005) Application and analysis of the map of the natural vegetation of Europe, vol 156. Bonn, BfN–Skripten (Bundesamt fur Naturschutz), p 452 24. Hastings DA, Dunbar PK, Elphingstone GM, Bootz M, Murakami H, Maruyama H, Masaharu H, Holland P, Payne J, Bryant NA, Logan TL, Muller JP, Schreier G, Macdonald JS (1999) The global land one–kilometer base elevation (GLOBE) digital elevation model version 1.0., National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Geophysical Data Center, USA https ://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/topo/repor t/globe docum entat ionma nual.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2018 25. FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations)/IIASA (International Institute of Applied Systems Analysis)/ISRIC‑World Soil Information/ISS‑CAS (Institute of Soil Science, Chinese Academy of Sci‑ ence)/JRC (Joint Research Centre of the European Commission) (2009) Harmonized World Soil Database (version 1.1). Italy and IIASA, Laxenburg, Austria, FAO, Rome. http://www.fao.org/3/a‑aq361 e.pdf. Accessed 23 Nov 2018 26. New M, Lister D, Hulme M, Makin I (2002) A high‑resolution data set of surface climate over global land areas. Climate Res 21:1–25 27. Breiman L, Friedman J, Olshen R, Stone C (1984) Classification and regres‑ sion trees. Wadsworth, Belmont 28. Schröder W, Nickel S, Schönrock S, Schmalfuß R, Wosniok W, Meyer M, Harmens H, Frontasyeva MV, Alber R, Aleksiayenak J, Barandovski L, Blum O, Carballeira A, Dam M, Danielsson H, de Temmermann L, Dunaev AM, Godzik B, Hoydal K, Jeran Z, Pihl Karlsson G, Lazo P, Leblond S, Lindroos J, Liiv S, Magnússon SH, Mankovska B, Núñez‑Olivera E, Piispanen J, Poikolainen J, Popescu IV, Qarri F, Santamaria JM, Skudnik M, Špiric Z, Sta‑ filov T, Steinnes E, Stihi C, Suchara I, Thöni L, Uggerud HT, Zechmeister HG (2017) Bioindication and modelling of atmospheric deposition in forests Page 17 of 17 Nickeletal. Environ Sci Eur (2018) 30:53 enable exposure and effect monitoring at high spatial density across scales. Ann For Sci 74(31):1–23 29. Schröder W, Nickel S, Schönrock S, Meyer M, Wosniok W, Harmens H, Frontasyeva MV, Alber R, Aleksiayenak J, Barandovski L, Danielsson H, de Temmermann L, Fernández Escribano A, Godzik B, Jeran Z, Pihl Karlsson G, Lazo P, Leblond S, Lindroos A‑J, Liiv S, Magnússon SH, Mankovska B, Martínez‑Abaigar J, Piispanen J, Poikolainen J, Popescu IV, Qarri F, Santam‑ aria JM, Skudnik M, Špiric Z, Stafilov T, Steinnes E, Stihi C, Thöni L, Uggerud HT, Zechmeister HG (2016) Spatially valid data of atmospheric deposition of heavy metals and nitrogen derived by moss surveys for pollution risk assessments of ecosystems. Environ Sci Pollut Res 23:10457–10476 30. Brosius F (2013) SPSS 21. Mitp/bhv, Heidelberg, p 1054 31. Backhaus K, Erichson B, Plinke W, Weiber R (2011) Multivariate Analyse‑ methoden. Eine anwendungsorientierte Einführung, 13, überarb. Aufl., Springer, Berlin 32. Fisher RA (1936) The use of multiple measurements in taxonomic prob‑ lems. Ann Eugen 7(2):179–188 33. Varmuza K, Filzmoser P (2008) Introduction to multivariate statistical analysis in chemometrics. CRC Press, Taylor & Francis, Boca Raton, p 321 34. Nickel S, Schröder W, Wosniok W, Harmens H, Frontasyeva MV, Alber R, Aleksiayenak J, Barandovski L, Blum O, Danielsson H, de Temmermann L, Dunaev A, Fagerli H, Godzik B, Iliyn I, Jonkers S, Jeran Z, Pihl Karlsson G, Lazo P, Leblond S, Liiv S, Magnússon SH, Mankovska B, Martínez‑Abaigar J, Piispanen J, Poikolainen J, Popescu IV, Qarri F, Radnovic D, Santamaria JM, Schaap M, Skudnik M, Špiric Z, Stafilov T, Steinnes E, Stihi C, Suchara I, Thöni L, Uggerud HT, Zechmeister HG (2017) Modelling and mapping heavy metal and nitrogen concentrations in moss in 2010 throughout Europe by applying random forests models. Atmos Environ 156:146–159 35. Schönwiese CD (2000) Praktische Statistik für Meteorologen und Geowis‑ senschaftler. Gebrüder Borntraeger Verlag, Berlin, p 298 36. R Core Team (2013) R: a language and environment for statistical comput‑ ing. R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Vienna. http://www.R‑proje ct.org/. Accessed 19 June 2017 37. Venables WN, Ripley BD (2002) Modern applied statistics with S, 4th edn. Springer, New York 38. Aboal JR, Fernandez JA, Boquete T, Carballeira A (2010) Is it possible to estimate atmospheric deposition of heavy metals by analysis of terrestrial mosses? Sci Total Environ 40:6291–6297 39. Harmens H, Norris DA, Koerber GR, Buse A, Steinnes E, Rühling A (2008) Temporal trends (1990–2000) in the concentration of cadmium, lead and mercury in mosses across Europe. Environ Pollut 151:368–376 40. Nickel S, Schröder W (2017) Integrative evaluation of data derived from biomonitoring and models indicating atmospheric deposition of heavy metals. Environ Sci Pollut Res 24:11919–11939 41. Barandovski L, Frontasyeva VM, Stafilov T, Šajn R, Ostrovnaya MT (2015) Multielement atmospheric deposition in Macedonia studied by the moss biomonitoring technique. Environ Sci Pollut Res 22:16077–16097 42. Qarri F, Lazo P, Stafilov T, Frontasyeva M, Harmens H, Bekteshi L, Baceva K, Goryainova Z (2014) Multi‑elements atmospheric deposition study in Albania. Environ Sci Pollut Res 21:2506–2518 43. Špirić Z, Frontasyeva VM, Stafilov T (2012) Multi‑element atmospheric deposition study in Croatia. Int J Environ Anal Chem 92(10):1402–1408 44. Steinnes E (1995) A critical evaluation of the use of naturally growing moss to monitor the deposition of atmospheric metals. Sci Total Environ 160(161):243–249 45. Meharg AA, Hartley‑Whitaker J (2002) Arsenic uptake and metabolism in arsenic resistant and nonresistant plant species. New Phytol 154(1):29–43 46. Husak VV (2015) Copper and copper‑containing pesticides: metabolism, toxicity and oxidative stress. J Vasyl Stefanyk Precarpathian Natl Univ 2:39–51 47. Berg T, Fjeld E, Steinnes E (2006) Atmospheric mercury in Norway: contri‑ butions from different sources. Sci Total Environ 368(1):3–9 48. Lindqvist O, Rodhe H (1985) Atmospheric mercury—a review. Tellus B 37B:136–159 49. Nickel S, Schröder W (2017) Reorganisation of a long‑term monitor‑ ing network using moss as bioindicator for atmospheric deposition in Germany. Ecological Indic 76:194–206