EPA-R5-73-022
June 1973
Socioeconomic Environmental Studies Series
-------
EPA-R5-73-022
1972 SURVEY AND ASSESSMENT
OF AIR POLLUTION DAMAGE
TO VEGETATION IN NEW JERSEY
by
Dr. Eva J. Pell
Department of Plant Biology
Cooperative Extension Service
College of Agriculture and Environmental Science
Rutgers - The State University
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
Contract No. 68-02-0078
Program Element No. 1A1004
EPA Project Officer: Dr. Donald G. Gillette
Human Studies Laboratory
National Environmental Research Center
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
Prepared for
OFFICE OF RESEARCH AND MONITORING
U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
June 1973
-------
This report has been reviewed by the Environmental Protection Agency and
approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents
necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Agency, nor does
mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement
or recommendation for use.
11
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
List of Tables and Figures iv
Acknowledgements v
Abstract vi
Introduction 1
Rationale 4
Materials and Methods 5
Results and Discussion 8
Conclusion and Summary 34
Literature Cited 35
111
-------
LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES
Table I. Statewide estimates of crop loss tabulated
according to crop and pollutant 9
Table II. Estimated dollar and acreage loss to crops
tabulated according to county and pollutant .... 1 2
Table III. Air stagnation advisory for New Jersey for
the years of 1971 and 1972 22
Table IV. Average rainfall for the months June-
September for the years 1971 and 1972
in Hightstown, New Jersey 24
Figure 1 . County Map of New Jersey 18
Figure 2. Average, maximum and minimum oxidant
values for 1971 and 1972 21
Figure 3. Interacting factors responsible for effects
of air pollutants on plants 26
iv
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The research reported herein was performed pursuant to Contract
Number 68-02-0078 with the Division of Ecological Research, Environ-
mental Protection Agency, National Environmental Research Center,
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina.
I would like to thank Eileen Brennan and Spencer Davis for their
assistance in the verification and identification of symptoms throughout
the course of the survey. Appreciation is extended to Ida Leone for her
help in preparation of this manuscript. Many thanks to the members of
the Extension Service for their active support of the survey.
The air pollution data was kindly provided by Marvin Green and
the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The meteorological
information necessary for proper interpretation of data was provided by
James Carr of the Department of Meterology of Rutgers - The State University.
The assistance of the New Jersey Crop Reporting Service in providing data
concerning crop and harvest values is acknowledged.
v
-------
ABSTRACT
The economic impact of air pollution on vegetation was
studied for a second year, from May 1972 through May, 1973.
Direct losses to agronomic crops and ornamental plantings
were evaluated; crop substitution and indirect yield reduction
were not accounted for. The total losses to these crops for
1972-73 amounted to $128,019. Forty-seven percent of the
plant damage was caused by oxidants, 18% by hydrogen fluoride,
16% by ethylene, 4% by sulfur dioxide and 1% by anhydrous
ammonia. Cumberland, Warren, Atlantic and Salem Counties
sustained the greatest degree of injury. Damage reported in
this survey was only 11% of that reported for 1971-1972 in
New Jersey. Reduced losses did not result from decreased
air pollution concentrations but rather from altered environ-
mental conditions. The unusual rainfall patterns in 1972 placed
the plants under water stress and probably protected them
from air pollution injury. In addition to evaluating crop losses,
unknown problems were documented and research needs
assessed.
VI
-------
INTRODUCTION
The history of the air pollution problems on vegetation began in the
1890's when sulfur dioxide was first recognized as a phytotoxicant (24,27).
Since then many air pollutants have been characterized as toxic, among them
fluoride (HF), ozone (03), peroxyacetyl nitrate (PAN) and nitrogen dioxide(NO2) •
In New Jersey air pollution problems on vegetation became apparent in 1944.
Defoliation of deciduous and coniferous species, tip burn of gladiolus and
tulip, mottling of corn foliage and early fruit drop of peach were among the
symptoms attributed to hydrogen fluoride gas emitted from certain industrial
processes (8). The fluoride problem provided the initiative for establishment
of a permanent air pollution research laboratory at the Rutgers Experiment
Station. Since then various symptoms on plant species in New Jersey have
been attributed to all major air pollutants currently recognized. The ozone
problem (presently the most serious) was first observed on spinach in 1958,
the same year that it was first reported in the literature on grape (23). New
Jersey is the most densely populated and one of the most heavily industrialized
states in the United States. Since New Jersey's agricultural regions interface
on the industrial sections of the state, the serious air pollution problems
confronting crops come as no surprise.
There are many implications to air pollution phytotoxicity, among them:
(1) the economic impact of air pollution on agricultural and
ornamental crops,
(2) the role of vegetation as an indicator of the presence of air
pollutants in the ambient atmosphere,
(3) the role of vegetation as a sink for air pollutants (25).
1
-------
The importance of the problem on vegetation generated a need to quantify and
and qualify these effects. The Division of Ecological Research of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency initiated continuous surveys to establish the economic
impact of air pollution damage to vegetation in California, Pennsylvania and
New Jersey. The objectives of these surveys were manifold. Initially
researchers hoped to determine the relative sensitivity of plant species to
specific pollutants and the severity and extent of the ensuing damage. By
observing air pollution effects over a period of years researchers could eval-
uate (a) the annual variability of damage to crops and, (2) the geographical
distribution of the damage. Many uses could then be made of the data:
(1) It would provide a basis for estimating and evaluating losses.
(2) It would provide a base for estimating the necessity and economic
practicality of control measures. If instituted, success of controls
could be evaluated during the course of the survey.
(3) It would identify unknown and important problems serving as a
source of new research direction.
California conducted two types of surveys. Stanford Research Institute
developed a model to study the potential air pollution effects on vegetation(l).
The most populated areas in the United States i.e. those in the statistical
Metropolitan area, and those with the greatest fuel consumption were analyzed
in this model. Air pollutant concentrations were based on fuel consumption
and point source emission data. Tables of species (agronomic, ornamental
and forest) sensitive to specific pollutants and the percentage injury expected
from exposure to different levels of specific air pollutants were prepared
from existing literature.
-------
The market value of these crops was considered and the data described
above utilized to calculate the dollar loss according to a formula developed
by the Institute. The SRI reported an average loss of $35,230,000 to the
State of California in the years 1969 and 1970, and a $7,391,000 loss to the
State of Pennsylvania in the years 1969-1970 and 1970-1971. It should be
stressed that this model is predictive. The model has incorporated effects
such as corp substitution but could not incorporate factors such as climatic
or meteorological variability, hence, estimates by the Stanford technique
could be expected to vary from yearly results in individual states.
Both California and Pennsylvania conducted surveys in which qualified
personnel made on-the-spot investigations of individual air pollution episodes
and quantified the results from their observations. In 1969 California sustained
a $44.5 million loss to agriculture by this method. These results did not
include losses to forest, vegetation or ornamental plantings (20). In another
survey in 1970, losses to agronomic crops in California amounted to $25.7
million (20). In a two-year survey conducted in Pennsylvania losses to
agronomic crops and ornamental plantings resulted in an $11.5 million in
1969, and a $225 thousand loss in 1970 (26).
In 1971 New Jersey embarked on a similar EPA sponsored survey using
the same protocol. Feliciano (9) reported a loss of $1, 183,754. His survey
was concentrated on effects on agronomic crops but did include acute effects
on ornamental plantings. The following report will describe the survey which
was conducted in New Jersey in 1972-73.
3
-------
RATIONALE
In undertaking the study, I considered the following areas to be of
importance to the success of the survey.
1. Evaluation of dollar loss as a result of air pollution damage to
vegetation. Since the profile of the agricultural industry is
shifting from rural agronomic crops to urban-related ornamental
crops, an effort was made to obtain more data regarding ornamental
vegetation.
2. Consideration of the relative importance of the individual air
pollutants injuring vegetation.
3. Identification of those plants particularly sensitive to a pollutant.
4. Documentation of unknown problems which may be of air pollution
origin.
This last area is important since our knowledge of the effects of air
pollution on plants is limited to a few pollutants. We would do a great
disservice to our research efforts if we merely pursued areas already defined.
-------
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Method of Collection
In order to accumulate the greatest volume of data and describe the
greatest number of air pollution episodes, we contacted three groups.
1. Extension Service: county agents and extension specialists.
2. Christmas tree growers' association - all Christmas tree growers.
3. Flower growers' association - major flower growers of New Jersey.
Communication between the county agents and the survey leader
included air pollution report forms (9) and investigations of all reported air
pollution episodes. The counties were inspected even when damage was not
reported in order that no air pollution episodes be overlooked. In order to
compare air pollution effects both years' surveys* accurately, all the species
on which Feliciano (9) reported injury were examined.
There have been mounting reports of the importance of air pollution
effects on conifers (2, 7). We did not have the personnel to assess air
pollution effects on conifers throughout the state, therefore we sent question-
naires concerning air pollution damage on trees to all the Christmas tree growers
When responses indicated potential air pollution problems, the Christmas tree
plantation was visited.
Similar report forms and a descriptive letter were sent to the major
flower growers to inform them of our service and to make the growers cognizant
of potential air pollution problems. Any air pollution episodes were investigated.
*Survey I - The 1971-1972 survey was conducted from April 1971-April, 1972.
Survey II- The 1972-1973 survey was conducted from May 1972- May, 1973.
-------
Air pollution damage was identified by symptoms, and when meaningful,
by chemical analyses of plant tissue for pollutant residues.
Method of Assessment
There were essentially two modes of assessing value loss:
Method of Evaluating Complete Loss
If an entire agronomic crop or portion of the ornamental crop
was completely destroyed, the loss was expressed as cost of replace-
ment. In the case of the conifers the replacement value was calculated
at an average of $1.00 to $1.25 per foot. The additional cost of
property taxes and maintenance were not included. The value of
agronomic and ornamental crops was based on market value.
Method of Evaluating Partial Loss
In most species, particularly those that were not ornamental,
partial injury did not result in complete loss of a crop but reduced
its value. These values were calculated according to the rule of
thumb previously utilized (9, 20). The inaccuracies of this method
will be discussed later.
When we observe injury to a portion of a particular crop we can either
report that specified damage as the loss, or we can extrapolate to include the
damage on the entire acreage of the crop grown in the state. I have rejected
the idea of extrapolating for two reasons; (a) we do not have data to prove that
air pollutants were present at every site where a sensitive crop was growing;
(b) from our field and laboratory experience we know that plants grown in the
same atmosphere sometimes respond differently. Therefore, it is invalid to
6
-------
extrapolate to effects on acreage we have not observed. Since we are not in
a position to present a predictive model (1), we confine our report to actual
observations only.
Method of Data Analysis
The data were evaluated from two perspectives:
1. Comparison with New Jersey survey data of 1971-1972.
The data were compiled according to the pollutant and affected
crop on a statewide basis (Table I). In Table II the data were
tabulated according to county. Data on crop substitution were
not included.
2. Evaluation of Field Problems
The serious field problems will be discussed in detail with
an emphasis on the difficulty of accurate diagnosis. In this section
unknown field problems will be elaborated as well.
-------
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
I. Comparison between New Jersey survey data from Survey I and Survey II.
In Survey II air pollution damage to vegetation resulted in $128,019
losses to New Jersey growers (Table I and Table II). This value was only 11%
of the $1,183,754 loss reported for Survey I (9). When losses were compared
on a per county basis (Table II), we found that Cumberland County sustained
the greatest losses followed by Warren, Atlantic and Salem counties respectively,
In Survey I Cumberland, Burlington, Atlantic and Salem counties suffered the
severest effects of air pollution injury to vegetation. While Warren County
sustained a $33,777 loss in Survey I, and $26,000 loss in Survey II, these
values reflected only a 2% of the total in the former opposed to 20% of the latter
total. The absolute degree of damage in a particular county was a function of
the presence of sensitive species as well as the presence of air pollutants-
proportional distribution of damage was also a function of total loss. Forty-six
percent of the dollar loss in Survey II resulted from damage to vegetable crops
compared to 51% in Survey I. In Survey I, 36% of the air pollution damage
occurred on field crops but in Survey II there was only a 2% loss to these crops.
In Survey II there was virtually no injury to alfalfa, clover or soybean which
explains the decreased damage to field crops. The absence in damage to field
crops also explains the decrease in dollar losses in Burlington County since
$120,592 of the $150,764 losses incurred in this county in Survey I resulted
from air pollution damage to field crops. Ornamentals are often injured as the
result of accidental exposures to air pollutants. While the number of episodes
of air pollution damage in Survey I and Survey II were similar, the percentage
8
-------
Table I. Statewide estimates of crop loss tabulated according
to crop and pollutant
Crop
Field Crops
Alfalfa
White potato
Fruit
Grape
Acreage State **
Pollutant Affected $ Loss Harvest Value
03 10
PAN 300
O3 67.5
0 xxx
2,106 7,582,000
2,106
10,730 369,112
10,730
Nursery and Cut
Flowers
Gladiolus
Easter lily
HF 240
ethylene 2000 a
Chrysanthemum aldehyde 3300 a
Chrysanthemum phenol 2600 a
African violet, products of 2000 a
Azalea and Begonia oil combustion
22,890 1,916,532
20,000 xxx
1,925 xxx
53 xxx
5,000 xxx
49,868
Trees (Christmas)
Norway spruce
Norway spruce
unknown II 504 a
unknown II 1 6 a
Jap. black pine SO2 12a
White pine
White pine
Norway spruce
Scotch pine
White pine _
unknown I 78 a
unknown 2 a
stack source
100T
NH3 50 a
25a
5,042 xxx
0 xxx
120 xxx
975 xxx
30 xxx
800 xxx
6,967
-------
Crop
Vegetables
Cucumber
Dandelion
Endive & Escarole
Fall lettuce
Spring lettuce
Spring lettuce
Lima bean
Muskmelon
Okra
Onion
Pumpkin
Scallions
Shallots
Spinach
Squash
Sweet corn
Swiss Chard
Tomato
Turnip
Watermelon
Pollutant
03
PAN
PAN
PAN
PAN
HClmist
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
03
PAN
03
03
PAN
PAN
S02
PAN
°3
Acreage
Affected
37
3
15
800
15
2
605
515
100
XXX
17
1
20
74
3
1
10
2
25
5040b
.25
81
Total
$ Loss
2,530
1,015
811
15,736
' 880
6,000
3,690
11,529
XXX
XXX
111
10
605
5,071
225
15
44
60
4,789
5,123
XXX
104
58,348
128,019
State
Harvest Value
1,700,000
14,328
1,871 ,000
1,180,000
1 ,534,000
1 ,534,000
412,800
' 298,200
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
423,000
XXX
4,883,000
15,792
7,543,000
XXX
15,587
10
-------
Key: Table I and II
* Data not provided.
** New Jersey Crop Reporting Service.
*** Harvest value not available.
a. Trees or plants affected.
b. Square feet.
11
-------
Table II. Estimated dollar and acreage loss to crops tabulated
according to county and pollutant
County
Atlantic
Bergen
Burlington
Camden
Pollutant Crop
03 Grape var.
Elvira
Fredonia
Ives
Niagar^
Noah
Riesling
Scallions
Shallots
PAN Endive
Spring lettuce var.
Iceberg & Romaine
unknown I White pine
unknown II Norway spruce
Aldehyde Chrysanthemum var.
Princess Anne
03 Cucumber
Spinach
PAN Endive
unknown II Norway spruce
unknown III Norway spruce
O3 Squash
Phenol ? Apple
Azalea
Blue spruce
Chestnut
Daisy
Forsythia
Acreage
Affected
1
3
1.5
1
25
36 '
1
20
10
15
15a
500a
300a
2
2
2
2a
3a
X
X
$ Loss
10,730
10
605
11,345
660
880
1,540
210
5,000
18,095
125
125
675
34
709
100
100
20
0
829
X
X
County*
Harvest Value
165,46?.
XXX
XXX
66,250
40,287
XXX
XXX
XXX
24,250
XXX
XXX
20
30
X
XXX
12
-------
Acreage
County Pollutant Crop Affected
Camden Phenol ? Gladiolus
(continued) Grapes
Peony
Roses
Sycamore
Yew
Cape May 63 Lima bean var.
Fordhook & baby lima
Cumberland 03 Alfalfa
Cucumber
Lima bean var. Pole
Muskmelon
Okra
Onion
Watermelon
PAN Dandelion
Escarole
Galinsoga
Fall lettuce var.
bibb, boston, iceberg
leaf, romaine
Spinach
Tomato
Turnip
HF Gladiolus var.
White friendship
and pilgrim
Gloucester 03 Cucumber
Muskmelon
Pumpkin
Squash
HF Fir
Maple
Oak
Spruce
500
5
3
-
10
100
X
81
1
2
-
800
3
X
.25
240
20
5
2
1
X
X
X
X
County
$ Loss Harvest Value
X
2,700
2,700
0
1,012
display
439
XXX
X
104
1,555
200
34
0
15,736
225
X
XXX
17,750
22,890
40,640
337
110
39
15
501
X
X
X
X
393,000
724,800
-
120,171
XXX
X
15, 587
4,776
132,500
0
420,820
XXX
50,509
XXX
1,281,024
276,330
29,310
300,000
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
501
13
-------
County
Pollutant
Crop
Acreage County
Affected $ Loss Harvest Value
Hunterdon
Mercer
Middlesex
Monmouth
oil
Morris
unknown III
unknown I
unknown II
unknown III
PAN
Unknown I
unknown II
unknown III
PAN
SO2
NH3
combustion
product
so2
Norway spruce
White pine
Norway spruce
White spruce
Spinach
Sweet corn
Dandelion
White potato
White pine
Norway spruce
Jap, black pine
Austrian pine
Escarole
Swiss Chard
Jap. black pine
Norway spruce
Scotch pine
White pine
African violets
Azalea
Begonia _
Tomato var.
Michigan, Ohio
3a 0
0
8a 80
la 12
10 0
92
53 3,042
10 44
3,086
2 815
300 2,106
2,921
55a 685
la 10
0
6,702
1 17
2 60
77
12 120
120
lOOa"
50a 800
25a
800
2000a 5,000
5,997
5040b 5,123
5,123
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
1 1 ,600
9,552
210,600
XXX
XXX
XXX
84,800
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
XXX
14
-------
Acreage
County
County Pollutant Crop
Ocean 03 Cucumber
Lima bean var.
Ford Hook
aldehydes Chrysanthemums
Affected
12
5
3000c
$ Loss Harvest Value
506
750
1,256
1,800
XXX
XXX
XXX
Salem
PAN
Somerset Phenols ?
var. Baby Tears
Cameo
Dan Foley
Gambler
Gold Strike
Grand Child
Jessamine Williams
Joan Helen
Lipstick
Minn White
Princess
Roll Call
Small Wonder
Wee Willie
Yellow Supreme
Yellow Jess.Williams
Zonta
Lima bean var
ba by lima & dixie pea
Muskmelon var.
Gold star
Pumpkin
Spinach
Tomato
Chrysanthemum var.
Deep Mermaid
Mountain snow
Princess Anne
100
500
15
19
25
600a
3,056
240
10,980
72
1,995
13,287
4,789
18,076
53
121 ,400
119,194
63,000
XXX
148,668
XXX
Union unknown White Pine
stack source
2a
53
30
30
XXX
15
-------
County
Warren
Pollutant
ethylene
HC1 acid
mist
Crop
Easter lily
Escarole &
Lettuce var
Acreage
Affected
2 ,000 a.
Endive 4
.Romaine 2
$ Loss
20,000
20,000
0
6,000
26,000
County
Harvest Value
XXX
202,725
4,000
TOTAI 128,019
16
-------
damage to floriculture (39%) was much higher than in Survey I (7%) due to the
reduced total loss values.
The oxidants i.e. ozone and PAN were responsible for 47% of all damage,
sulfur dioxide (SO?) for 4% and ammonia (NHs) for 1%. Ethylene caused 16% and
HF 18% of air pollution damage in Survey II as opposed to 3% and 2% in Survey I
respectively. The ethylene was responsible for $20,000 loss to Easter lilies
and exposure of gladiolus to HF resulted in $22,890 damage. Aldehydes and
phenols were suspected toxicants to a variety of ornamentals.
We had a 20% response to the Christmas tree questionnaire. There
were nine positive responses which upon inspection revealed an estimated
$6,967 damage. The most interesting result of this survey was the document-
ation of three problems, one on white pine and two on norway spruce: hypotheses
concerning the origin of these symptoms will be discussed in the next section.
The damage reported this year (1972-1973) is substantially lower than
the $1,183,754 figure accrued during Survey I. When results are substantially
reduced from one year to the next we must examine the possibility that air
pollution levels had declined. We considered this possibility and carefully
studied air pollution monitoring data. The New Jersey State Department of the
Environmental Protection, Bureau of Air Pollution Control monitors the air for
nitrogen oxides, nitric oxide, nitrogen dioxide, sulfur dioxide, oxidants .alde-
hydes, carbon monoxide (CO), Carbon dioxide, hydrocarbons and smoke shade
at four sited, Bayonne, Camden, Elizabeth and Newark (11) (Figure 1). We
selected to evaluate the data obtained from the Camden trailer since it was
closest to the agricultural region of the state. We compared the concentrations
17
-------
Newark
Elizabeth
Bayonne
NEW JERSEY
n'te
Figure 1. County Map of New Jersey
18
-------
of NC>2» SO2, oxidants, aldehydes, CO and hydrocarbons for the months of
May through September of the years 1971 and 1972; the data was compiled
according to monthly averages, minima and maxima, each of these categories
being divided into averages and maximums. We studied 180 pairs of data: in
142 cases concentrations of the six pollutants were higher in 1972 (Survey II)
than in 1971 (SurveyI), and in 38 cases the reverse was true. CO never was
as high in 1971 as it was in 1972 for the months studied. The other pollutants
showed a similar distribution of 1971/1972 ratios of pollutant concentrations.
Concentration differences were often only several ppb in magnitude, and would
probably not be construed as significant. Since oxidants were responsible for
47% of the air pollution damage to vegetation, I have selected these gases as
an example for graphic representation of this data (Figure 2). The conclusion
is apparent: reduction in air pollution, injury to plants in 1972 cannot be
attributed to a reduction in the concentrations of known air pollutants.
While 1971 air pollution concentrations were not higher than in 1972,
there were six air stagnation advisories in 1971, and only two in 1972 growing
season (Table III). "An air stagnation episode occurs when meteorological
conditions develop which may inhibit dispersion of airborne wastes for extended
periods of time and consequently cause elevated pollution levels that pose a
threat to public health (11)." During periods of stagnation plants are exposed
to pollutants for an extended time; the plants are, therefore, more likely to be
injured. However, such extended periods of air stagnation that are required
for air pollution advisories are not a prerequisite for plant damage.
19
-------
Figure 2. Average, maximum a.id minimum oxidant values for 1971 and 1972.
(A) Monthly average of daily averages, (B) Monthly average of
maximum hourly average, (C) Monthly maximum of daily averages,
(D) Maximum hourly average, (E) Monthly minimum of daily
averages, (F) Maximum minimum hourly average.
* Data provided by the New Jersey continuous air monitoring
network. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection,
Trenton, New Jersey.
20
-------
.030-
.020-
.010-
.100-
.07ft-
«
2
x
o
.021-
.010-
.007f-
.005O-
/ \
B
A •
month
21
-------
Table III. Air Stagnation Advisory for New Jersey for the Years 1971 and 1972
YEAR 1971
August 18,
August 19,
October 15,
October 16,
October 21,
October 22,
October 27,
October 28,
October 30,
November 17,
November 19,
11:30 am start
12:30 pm end
2:30 pm start
12:00 noon end
12:00 noon start
11:00 am end
4:00 pm start
11:00 am end
11:00 am only local condition,
no alert reported.
4:00 pm start
10:00 am end
YEAR 1972
February 9,
February 11,
July 18,
July 20,
4:00 pm start
12;00 noon end
12:00 noon start
12:00 noon end
22
-------
The decrease in plant damage in 1972 could be explained partly by
meteorological differences but other explanations must be sought. The
decrease in air pollution damage to crops may be explained in part by some
crop-related phenomenon. The tonnage of harvested vegetable crops was
reduced 11% from the values in 1971. Harvested acreage of major vegetable
crops in 1972 totaled 89,990 compared with 98,050 in 1971 . Hurricane
Agnes was partially responsible for destroying a considerable quantity of
the June crop. While the acreage harvested was lower, the prices were
higher so dollar loss for a specific crop was not affected by crop reduction
per se. However, it rained 22 out of 42 days (in Hightstown, N. J.) for the
month of June and the first two weeks of July accumulating over 12 inches.
Many spring crops grew slowly or had to be plowed under. From July 12
until the end of September we had only 2.13 inches of rain (Table IV).
The climatic conditions just described are an important factor in
explaining the crop reduction but perhaps even more important in explaining
altered effects of air pollution on vegetation. It has been shown experiment-
ally that plants grown under water stress have an altered morphology and
physiology, and are less sensitive to air pollutant injury than are
those turgid plants grown under adequate watering conditions (18, 19, 21).
Celery, onion, cabbage, soybean, eggplant, clover and mustard on which
Feliciano (9) reported injury did not show symptoms in 1972, and quite likely
climatic conditions were responsible for this variation. A similar observation
was made by Benedict (1); he pointed out thaft a severe air pollution episode
in New Jersey, New York and Pennsylvania at the end of July, 1970 resulted
23
-------
Table IV. Average rainfall for the months June-September for the years
1971 and 1972 in Hightstown, New Jersey*
1971 1972 Normal**
June
July
August
September
0.83
6.08
12.04
5.13
7.29
5.37
.1.16
0.97
3.83
4.46
4.52
3.99
24.08 14.79 16.80
* Data provided by the U.S. Department of Commerce,
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
Environmental Data Service.
** Mean values over a 30-year period.
24
-------
in only slight injury to sensitive species. Benedict suggested that climatic
conditions may have been responsible for the results. Other environmental
factors contribute to the susceptibility of vegetation to air pollutants. For
example, increases in humidity increase sensitivity of begonia to ozone and
sulfur dioxide injury (15, 16). Plant nutrition also affects species sensitivity:
plants grown at optimum nitrogen concentrations are more sensitive than
those grown at luxuriant or deficient levels (17). There are many interacting
factors which determine to what degree a plant will be damage. Figure 3
summarizes these factors.
The following field observations illustrate the relative decrease in
air pollution damage to vegetation from Survey I to Survey II. One striking
example of this decrease was observed at the Renault Vineyard in Atlantic
County. In 1971 (Survey I) a severe ozone episode in early July resulted in
typical stippling of grape leaves leading to rapid necrosis and early leaf
abscission. The resulting damage was estimated at $67,089. This year the
vineyard was inspected several times; the grape leaves showed minor degree
of stipple but from personal accounts (county agent and grower), and from
comparisons with photographs from the summer of 1971, injury in 1972
(Survey II) was negligible when compared with damage the previous year.
Most of the damage this year ($10,730) was attributed to reduced yield
because of the dieback of the vines last year.
Leone and Brennan (14) also demonstrated the decrease in air pollution
injury to vegetation between this year and last. In 1971 and 1972 Bel W-3
Tobacco was grown in ambient air in New Brunswick, New Jersey. On the
25
-------
GENETIC FACTORS
Size
Shape, area of leaves
Ratio internal/external surface
Stomata
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS
Physical
Atmospheric Soil Biotic
Temperature
Humidity
Light
intensity
quality
Texture Man
Structure Plants
Depth Animal
Chemical Comp /
PH /
duration
Precipitation
Wind
Aeration
Temperature
H2O Holding
capacity
PLANT PROCESSES - CONDITIONS
V
PLANT
Quality Quality
POLLUTANT
\J
RESPONSE
Figure 3. Interacting factors responsible for effects of air pollutants on plants,
-------
basis of a rating system established by the NE-56 (13) plants were evaluated
periodically from June to September. When 21 pairs of (according to date of
the observations in 1971and 1972) results were compared, there were 11
instances when injury was greater in 1971, 5 when it was less and 5 when
equivalent. BelW-3 is an indicator only for the presence of ozone; these
results are consistent with the statistics we have accrued and with the
opinions and observations of the county agents and extension specialists.
27
-------
II. RESEARCH NEEDS
In this section I will elaborate on the research needs which became
apparent during the course of this survey.
A. The "Oxidant" Symptom on Lima Beans
For many years we have observed a bronzing-stippling symptom
on lima beans and on potatoes as well. This symptom also has been
reported on okra in New Jersey and elsewhere (12). Generally we
have attributed this symptom to ozone, however, an acute dose of
ozone under controlled conditions produces a somewhat different
symptom in the chamber, namely a combination of whitish fleck or
bleach and sometimes some stipple as well. To our knowledge the
field symptom has not been reproduced under controlled conditions.
Preliminary results (22) indicate that many long exposures at low
levels may be responsible for this symptom on lima bean var.
baby lima. We could not reproduce this symptom on the Ford Hook
variety of lima bean which also shows this symptom in the field.
Whether it is the dosage, the growing conditions or the response to
a combination of pollutants is unclear at this time. The problem is
compounded since the symptom often shows up on scattered plants
throughout a field of healthy plants or will show up in several fields
and not others in a single geographic location.
B. PAN — A Problem of Diagnosis
In New Jersey we have what appear to be PAN episodes in the
spring and fall. Whether these episodes occur because this is when
28
-------
the pollutant is present at high concentrations or because this is
when the sensitive leafy vegetables are grown is not clear. Our
basic problem is that reported PAN episodes usually occur when
there has been the possibility of a local frost. Since frost can cause
symptoms similar to those caused by PAN, it is at times difficult to
make an absolute diagnosis.
An example occurred in October, 1972, when 800 acres of
lettuce, escarole, spinach, dandelion and turnip in Cumberland
County were reported to have a bronzing or glazing of the leaf
tissue. While "classically" this symptom has been defined as
undersurface injury many of our observations occurred on both
surfaces and in Romaine lettuce typically on the tips of the upper
surfaces of the leaves. We had several lines of evidence that PAN
was responsible for the injury;
1. The field symptom resembled the PAN symptom described
in the literature.
2. A haze was observed on the morning that the injury developed,
3. Plants known to be sensitive to PAN were injured.
4. Galinsoga, a PAN indicator (3,6) was injured in all instances
where PAN symptoms were observed on other crops.
Unfortunately, New Jersey does not monitor the atmosphere for PAN
concentrations, therefore we have no chemical evidence of its
existence, and we cannot be positive frost was not present.
29
-------
Further research to differentiate between PAN and frost injury
on the same species to solve these diagnostic difficulties is
essential. PAN is a pollutant about which little is known. If it is
as serious a problem as it seems to be, much more research must
be conducted in this area.
C. Aldehydes; Problems on Chrysanthemums
We have observed a generalized necrosis of i..hrysanthemurr;
leaves on 17 varieties of Chrysanthemum. We hove evidence thai
this injury may have been caused by acetaldehyde (dissolved in ram
water) emissions from an X-ray incineration factory (22). In previous
research, aldehydes have been reported to cause injury on Petunia (4).
Since aldehydes are a product of automobile combustion as well as
of industrial processes, the phytoxicity of this chemical shoulc OP
thoroughly investigated.
D. Products of Oil Combustion: Injury to Begonia, African Violets anc
Azalea Flowers.
An oilburner in a greenhouse was improperly ventilated and burned
oil inefficiently; as a result begonia plants were severely injured. The
injury varied from necrosis to cupping and distorting the color of the
leaves. The flowers of begonia,, african violets and azalea showed
necrotic spots on the petals. This is an unusual symptom; only
ethylene has been reported to be responsible for injury to flowers.
It would be interesting to know which fraction of incomplete combus-
tion is responsible for this symptom.
30
-------
E. Unknown Problems; Conifers
There are three problems which we observed on conifers for which
the causal agent is unknown. These are widespread problems and
because they may be caused by air pollutants they are vorthy of
discussion.
1. Unknown I — White Pine
Throughout the state there are white pines which exhibit
severe tip burn, sometimes extending almost the entire length
of the needle. There is variation such that a small number
of sensitive trees will show the symptom while the majority
will be healthy in appearance. Berry and Ripperton (2)
described this symptom and suggested that ozone or some oxi-
dant could be responsible for the symptom. When Costonis (7)
exposed white pine to sulfur dioxide or ozone, the tip burn
symptom developed. We have observed tip burn of white pine
as a result of an anhydrous ammonia accident. All of these
air pollution symptoms develop differently, the end result
being the same. In order to differentiate between symptoms
we must know' (a) what the preliminary symptoms looked like,
(b) which pollutants were present at the time of needle injury.
This symptom could also be caused by other stresses. We
should determine which other stresses—air pollutant and
other environmental stresses—could cause the same symptom.
31
-------
2. Unknown II — Norway Spruce
We originally observed a mottling symptom on spruce needles
in one location in Atlantic County. Since first observed, this
symptom has been observed in three other counties, Burlington,
Mercer, and Middlesex Counties. There seems to be no
correlation between drainage problems and the observed
symptoms. Nor does the symptom correlate with any nutrient
deficiency. At present we could not say that this symptom is
of air pollution origin, but it is worth pursuing.
3. Unknown III — Norway and White Spruce, White Pine,
Japanese Black Pine and Austrian Pine
Over the last few years we have observed a discrete white
spot on a number of species namely Norway and white spruce,
white pine, Japanese black pine and Austrian pine. This
symptom is widespread. We have observed it in urban and
rural counties alike. We have been able to protect needles
from developing this symptom by covering branches with plastic
bags (5), and we feel this is evidence that the problem is of
air pollution origin. The symptom generally appears in the
winter when needles are hardened; we have hypothesized that
acid gases washing out in rain or in snow burn the needles in
this manner. There is evidence that acidic rainwater causes
another Christmas tree symptom, short-long needle disease
32
-------
on Scotch pine (10). Precipitation should be monitored for
acid content; controlled experiments should be conducted to
determine whether an air pollutant could be responsible for
this symptom.
F. Evaluation of Rule of Thumb as Method of Assessment
While the rule of thumb is an accepted method, it has serious
limitations which merit discussion. There is no doubt that leaf injury
can alter yield, however time of injury is critical. If a leaf is injured
early in plant development, prior to flowering or fruit set, there is no
question that yield reduction will occur. If a substantial portion of
the leaf is injured the photosynthetic activity is reduced and hence
the plant vigor as well. The yield of most species may be reduced
but whether the geometric progression relationship described for leaf
injury by the rule of thumb pertains to all species is questionalle.
There is also the possibility that leaf tissue will be injured in the
growing season and then the effect of air pollution on plant yield would
not be marked. Furthermore, it is possible that there will be no effect
on yield in terms of weight loss but more pronounced effect on quality
in terms of carbohydrate, vitamin, protein or trace element content.
The experiments necessary to determine the relationship
between leaf injury and yield would be extensive and time consuming.
It would only be beneficial to study effects on yield, particularly
where quality may be affected, where damage is extensive.
33
-------
CONCLUSION AND SUMMARY
Air pollution damage to agronomic and ornamental crops in Survey II
resulted in $128,019 loss to New Jersey growers . Forty-seven percent of
the damage resulted from ozone and PAN damage. The Survey II losses were
11 percent of the Survey I losses. After comparing the air pollution data
for the months of May through September, we concluded that the decrease
in damage could not be attributed to improved air quality. We know from
the literature that there are only certain conditions under which plants will
be injured by air pollutants. Apparently some factor(s) necessary for plant
damage which were present in the summer of 1971 (Survey I) were absent in
1972 (Survey II). One important factor was rainfall. It is very possible that
the unusual rainfall pattern in 1972 (Survey II) was partially responsible for
the apparent resistance which the vegetation had to air pollution in that year.
One of the aims of any survey is to utilize previous research to
explain current problems. Another goal is to define new problems and sri
new research vistas. I believe priority should be given to probing for the
answers to questions concerning the resistance mechanism of plants and to
developing better methods of diagnosis.
34
-------
Literature Cited
1. Benedict, H.M., C. J. Miller, and R.E. Olson. 1971. Economic impact
of air pollutants on plants in the United States. Stanford Research
Institute, Menlo Park, California, pp.77
2. Berry, C. R. and L. A. Ripperton. 1963. Ozone, a possible cause of
white pine emergence tipburn. Phytopathology 53; 552-557.
3. Brennan, E. and I.A. Leone. 1969. Air pollution damage to chrysanthe-
mum foliage. Plant Disease Reporter. 53; 54-55.
4. Brennan, E., I. A. Leone, andR.H. Daines. 1964. Atmospheric aldehy'es
related to petunia leaf damage. Science 143: 818-820.
5. Brennan, E. and E. J. Pell. 1973. Unpublished data.
6. Bobrov, R.A. 1955. The leaf structure of Poa Annua with observations
on its smog sensitivity in Los Angeles County. Am. J. Botany
42: 467-474.
7. Costonis, A.C. 1970. Acute foliar injury of eastern white pine induced
by sulfur dioxide and ozone. Phytopathology 60: 994-999.
8.Daines, R.H., I.A. Leone, and E. Brennan. 1960. Air pollution as it
affects agriculture in New Jersey. Bull. 794. pp. 14.
9. Feliciano, A. 1971. 1971 survey and assessment of air pollution damage
to vegetation in New Jersey. Cooperative Extension Service, CAES,
Rutgers-The State University, New Brunswick, New Jersey.
10. Gordon, C.C. 1972. Plantations vs. power plants. Christmas Tree
Journal. August 5-10.
11. Green, M.H. 1972. The New Jersey continuous air monitoring network.
Technical Bull. New.Jersey Dept. Environmental Protection,
Trenton, N.J.
12. Heggestad, H.E. Personal communication.
13. Jacobson. J. 1973. Personal communication.
14. Leone, I. A. and E. Brennan. 1973 Unpublished data.
15. Leone, I. A. and E. Brennan. 1969. The importance of moisture in ozone
phytotoxicity. Atmospheric Environment 3: 339-406.
35
-------
16. Leone, I.A. and E. Brennan. 1969. Sensitivity of begonias to air
pollution. Horticultural Research 9: 112-116.
17. Leone, I.A., E. Brennan, and R.H. Daines. 1966. Effects of nitrogen
nutrition on the response of tobacco to ozone in the atmosphere.
J. APCA. 16: 191-196.
18. Macdowall, F.O.H. 1965. Predisposition of tobacco to ozone damage.
Can. J. Plant Sci. 45: 1-11.
19. Middleton, J.T. 1956. Response of plants to air pollution.
J. APCA 6: 1-4.
20. Millecan, A. A. 1971. A survey and assessment of air pollution damage
to California vegetation in 1970. California Dept. of Agriculture.
21. Oertli, J. J. 1958. Effect of salinity on susceptibility on sunflower
plants to smog. Soil Sci. 87; 249-251.
22. Pell, E. J. and E. Brennan. 1973. Unpublished data.
23. Richards, B. L. , J.T. Middleton, and W. B. Hewitt. 1958. Air pollution
with relation to agronomic crops: V. oxidant stipple of grape.
Agron. J. 50: 559-561.
24. Treshow, M. 1970. Environment and Plant Response. McGraw-Hill
Book Co. New York, N.Y.
25. Waggoner, P.E. 1971. Plants and polluted air. Bioscience. 10; 455-459.
26. Weidensaul, T. C. and N. L. Lacasse. 1972. Results of the 1969 state-
wide survey of air pollution damage to vegetation in Pennsylvania.
Plant Disease Reporter. 56: 701-704.
27. Weinstein, L. H. and D. C. McCune. 1970. Implications of air pollution
for plant life. Proc. Amer. Phil. Society. 114: 18-21.
36
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA '• Import No. 2-
SHEET EPA-R5-73-022
"5. Title and Subt itlc
1972 Survey and Assessment of Air Pollution Damage to
Vegetation in New Jersey
7. Author(s)
Eva J. Pel 1
9. Performing Organization Name and Address
Rutgers - The State University
Department of P ant Biology
College of Agriculture and Environmental Science
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGUCY
Division of Ecological Research
Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711
3. Recipient's Accession No. ,
5- Report Date
June 1973
6.
8. Performing Organization Rcpt.
No.
10. Project/Task/Work Unit No.
11. Conflict /firanr No
68-02-0078
13. Type of Report & Period
Covered
14.
15. Supplementary Notes
16. Abstracts The economic impact of air pollution on vegetation was studied for a second
year, from May 1972 through May, 1973. Direct losses to agronomic croos and ornamental
plantings were evaluated; crop substitution and indirect yield reduction were not
accounted for. The total losses to these crops for 1972-73 amounted to $128,019. Forty
seven percent of the plant damage was caused by oxidants, 18% by hydrogen fluoride, 16%
by ethylene, k% by sulfur dioxide and 1% by anhydrous ammonia. Cumberland, Warren,
Atlantic and Salem Counties sustained the greatest degree of injury. Damage reported
in this survey was only 11% of that reported for 1971-1972 in New Jersey. Reduced loss
es did not result from decreased air pollution concentrations but rather from altered
environmental conditions. The unusual rainfall patterns in 1972 placed the plants
under water stress and probably protected them from air pollution injury. The report
also documents unknown problems, and assesses research needs.
17. Key tt'ords and Document Analysis. Mo- Descriptors
Air pollution Ammonia
Vegetat i on
Ornament plants
Vegetable crops
Losses
Economi cs
Sulfur dioxi de
Oxi di zers
Hydrogen fluoride
Ethylene
17b. Identificrs/Open-Endcd Terms
Air pollution effects (plants)
17c. COSATI Fio Id /Croup I 3B
18. Avail.ibilily Statement
Un1i mi ted
19. Security C.l.iss (This
Report)
'
20. Security (.lass (This;
Page:
22. Price
FORM NTIS-.'iS (REV. 3-721
THIS FORM MAY HK REPRODUCI-H
iJSCOMM-DC l fl
-------
INSTRUCTIONS FOR COMPLETING FORM NTIS-35 (10-70) (Bibliographic Data Sheet based on COSATI
Guidelines to Format Standards for Scientific and Technical Reports Prepared by or for the Fedeial Government,
PB-180 600).
1. Report Number. Each individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation selected by the performing
organization or provided by the sponsoring organization. Use uppercase letters and Arabic numerals only. Examples
FASEB-NS-87 and FAA-RD-68-09.
2. Leave blank.
3. Recipient's Accession Number. . Reserved for use by each report recipient.
4. Title and Subtitle. Title should indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, and be displayed promi-
nently. Set subtitle, if used, in smaller type or otherwise subordinate it 10 main tide. When a report is prepared in more
than one volume, repeat the primary title, add volume number and include subtitle for the specific volume.
5- Report Dote. Each report shall carry a date indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which it was elected
(e.g., date of issue, date of approval, date of preparation.
6- Performing Organization Code. Leave blank.
7. Authors). Give name(s) in conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J.Robert Doc). List author's affiliation if ii differs
from the performing organization.
. 8. Performing Organization Report Number. Insert if performing organization wishes to assign this number.
9. Performing Orgoniiotion Name and Address, dive name, street, city, state, and zip code. List no more than two levels ol
an organisational hierarchy. Display the name of the organization exactly as it should appear in Government indexes such
as USGROR-I.
10. Project/To»k/Work Unit Number. Use the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.
11. Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
12- Sponsoring Agency Name and Address. Include zip code.
13- Type of Report and Period Covered. Indicate interim, final, etc., and, if applicable, dates covered.
14. Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.
15. Supplementory Notes. Enter information not included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared in cooperation with . .
Translation of ... Presented at conference of ... To be published in ... Supersedes . . . Supplements . . .
16. Abstract. Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the mosi significant information contained in the report.
If the report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention it here.
17. Key Words and Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Hngineering and Scientific Terms (he
proper authorized terms that identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to he used
as index entries for cataloging.
(b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use
open-ended terms written in descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.
(c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken from the 1965 COSATI Subject Category List.
Since the majority of documents are multidisc iplinary in nature, the primary Field/Group assignments) will be the specific
discipline, area of human endeavor, or type of physical object. The application(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary
Field/Group assignments that will follow the primary posting(s).
18. Distribution Statement. Denote releasability to the public or limitation for reasons other than security for example "Re-
lease unlimited". Cite any availability to the public, with address and price.
19 & 20. Security Classification. Do not submit classified reports to the National Technical
21. Number of Pages. Insert ihc total number of pages, including this one and unnumbered pages, but excluding distribution
list, if any.
22. Price. Insert the price set by the National Technical Information Service or the Government Printing Office, if known.
FORM NTI3-33 (REV. 3-72) USCOMM-OC 149S2-P72
------- |