EPA-R5-72-010
October 1972                  Socioeconomic Environmental Studies
1971 Survey And Assessment
Of Air Pollution Damage
To Vegetation In New  Jersey
                            U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
                            Washington, D. C. 20460

-------
                                             EPA-R5-72-010
 1971  Survey And Assessment
    Of  Air  Pollution Damage
To  Vegetation  In New Jersey
                       by
                 Alberto Feliciano

             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.  A11004
         Project Officer:  Donald G. Gillette
              Office of  the Director
          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
                  October 1972

-------
                           EPA REVIEW NOTICE





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 oolicies of the Agency,



nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute



endorsement or recommendation for use.
                                    11

-------
                 TABLE OF CONTENTS









Acknowledgments  	  IV




Abstract	   V




Listing of Tables and Figures	VII




Introduction	1




The Survey	7




Assessment of Loss	13




Results




      Economic Losses	    15




      Garden of Plant Indicators	   10




Discussion and Recommendations	22




Literature Cited	43
                          111

-------
                        ACKNOWLEDGMENTS






       The work reported herein was performed pursuant to Contract




No. 68-02-0078 with the Division of Ecological Research,  Environ-




mental Protection Agency, National  Environmental Research Center,




Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, and financed in part by




Division of Rural Resources,  New Jersey Department of Agriculture.




       Grateful  acknowledgment  is extended to Dr. Robert H. Daines,




Dr. Spencer H. Davis, Dr. John Springer, Professor Eileen Brennan




and Professor Ida Leone of  the Plant Biology Department, Rutgers -




The State University for their valuable advice and assistance during




the entire period of the survey.  Special thanks are expre-sed to




Professors Eileen Brennan and Ida Leone for the chemical tissue analyses.




I also would like to thank the members of the Cooperative Extension




Service of Rutgers - The State University for their cooperation during




the survey.




       Appreciation is also expressed to those members of the New Jersey




Department of Agriculture,  Division of Plant Industry who participated




in the survey on nurseries, and to the New Jersey Crop  Reporting




Service for providing the necessary information needed in the assessment




of crop  losses.  The cooperation of the Department of Meteorology of




Rutgers - The State University in providing weather reports pertinent




to possible air pollution episodes is gratefully acknowledged.
                               IV

-------
                            ABSTRACT






       A survey of injury resulting from air pollution episodes and




assessment of their resultant effect on crop production in 1971 was




conducted in  New Jersey with the assistance of the Cooperative Extension




Service and the Department of Plant Biology of Rutgers  University. This




survey was concentrated in the central and southern counties of the




state .where most of the  agricultural crops are grown.




       Economic loss to crops due to air pollution was estimated at




$1, 183,800.   Indirect losses such as growers' relocation cost, crop




substitution losses and  loss in value of the land were not included.




Likewise, economic losses to forest trees and other ornamental plants




and reduction in crop  yield due to invisible injury were not  included.




       Three hundred  fifteen reported air pollution incidences were




investigated and documented during the period of this  survey. Plant




injury was  observed in 17  counties but economic loss  or crop damage




was  observed in only  16 of these counties. Over one-fourth  ($337,265)




of the total crop losses  for New  Jersey were recorded in Cumberland




County.  Other counties where damages exceeded $100,000 were




Burlington, Atlantic, and Salem.




       Only  29 out of the  seventy plant species  that exhibited injury




were involved in the assessment of crop loss. As a group,  vegetables




accounted for 51 percent ($598,099) of the total crop loss.  Damage to

-------
lettuce alone accounted for over one-third  ($185,425) of the losses to




the vegetable crop and for about 12 percent of the estimated total crop




loss in New Jersey.




       The photochemical pollutants were  responsible for 80 percent of




the plant injury recorded, with ozone contributing about 60  percent and




PAN 20 percent of the total.  The other pollutants involved and their




percentages of plant injury are; HC1 mist and chlorine gas 6 percent,




ethylene 3 percent, fluoride 2 percent,  sulfur dioxide 2 percent, ammonia




2 percent, particulates  2  percent, and oil, petroleum and an unidentified




pollutant 3 percent.




       Air pollution gardens were maintained in various areas of the




state to aid  the cooperators in  noting time  and classification of




pollution damage.
                               VI

-------
                      Listing of Tables and Figures

Page

   4    Rank of New Jersey for Selected Crops-in 1970

   5    Acreage and Dollar Value of Important Crops Grown in New Jersey

  17    Summary of Counties Showing Crop Losses Due to Air Pollution in 1971

  18    List of Plants Affected by Air Pollutants During the Entire Perion
           of the Survey

  25    Summary of 1971 Crop Losses in New Jersey Due to Air Pollution

  27    County Crop Losses

  35    Summary of Plant Injury Report by Counties
   9    Plant Injury Report Card Used in the Survey

  11    Map of New Jersey Showing the Location of Air Pollution Gardens
                                 VII

-------
INTRODUCTION




       New Jersey, perhaps the most urbanized state in the nation,  has




1,035,678 acres of farm land; 496,241 acres of which are devoted to the




production of food crops.  The value of these crops sold in 1969 amounted




to $124,254,021 accounting for more than 50 percent of the total farm




marketings (1).  New Jersey ranked 36 among the states in total cash crop




receipts in 1970, and is considered a major state in the production of




several important crops (1, 2). The rank of New Jersey in the production




of selected crops is shown in Table 1.  The total acreage and dollar value




of important crops grown are shown in  Table 2.




       Although air pollution damage to crops has been known for  more than




a century, the problem did not become serious in New Jersey until the




late years of World War II.  Prior to this  time air pollution damage in the




state was believed to be limited to that produced by SO2f illuminating  gas




and ethylene (5).  However, expansion in industry and vehicular traffic,




and new processes in connection with  the war effort introduced new




pollutants which created a serious threat to our highly valuable agricultural




industry.




       Air Pollution injury to crops in  New Jersey was first observed in




two locations along the Delaware River (5).  In 1946 the State Legislature




appropriated funds to the New Jersey Agricultural Experiment Station  to make




a study on the effect of industrial fumes on adjoining agricultural lands




and their effect on plant and animal life in the State of New Jersey.

-------
A research team from Rutgers University headed by Dr.  Robert H. Daines




was appointed to investigate this problem.  They reported that foliage




injury observed  in cultivated crops, ornamentals and native vegetation




could not be attributed to any known disease,.nor to temperature or




fertilizer effects.  However, the similarity of injury on corn and peaches




from cryolite, a fluoride-containing insecticide, and the  presence  of




industrial establishments in the area  that were actively engaged in the




production and use of fluorine, implicated fluorine as the responsible




pollutant.  Since then this group of researchers has published valuable




papers on the identification and relative levels of some air pollutants




occurring in  the atmosphere of New Jersey,  plant species affected, and




effects of climatic,  nutritional, and biological factors affecting plant




response to specific air pollutants. Other works have been published




which have improved our knowledge of the basic aspects  of pollutant




absorption, translocation and their effects on the physiological activities




of plants.




       The advancing urbanization of the state no doubt poses increasing




problems to agricultural production.  If agriculture is to remain the means




of livelihood for many people in New  Jersey, the problems created  by




air pollution must  be minimized.  The first step toward  realization  of this




goal is to determine  the nature and extent of air pollution problems in




New Jersey.  With this information in hand,  the necessary research,




manpower and funds  could be directed toward solving our most urgent




problems.  Thus, a statewide survey  was initiated to obtain a realistic




appraisal of air  pollution damage to vegetation in New Jersey.  This kind

-------
of information is also needed to make more rational decisions about




environmental matters where the  trade-off between the costs and




benefits of these decisions are important.

-------
Table 1.     RANK OF NEW JERSEY FOR SELECTED CROPS IN 1971
Crop
Late Summer potato
production
Vegetables - Fresh
Market Production
Asparagus
Sweet Corn
Green Peppers
Spinach
Tomatoes
Vegetables - Processing
Production
Asparagus
Tomatoes
Fruit and Berry Production
Peaches
Blueberries
Cranberries
Strawberries
1
Washington
California
Florida
California
Texas
California
California
California
California
Michigan
Massachusetts
California
2
Wisconsin
New Jersey
California
Florida
California
Florida
Washington
Ohio
S. Carolina
New Jersey
Wisconsin
Florida
3
Colorado
Washington
New York
New Jersey
New Jersey
New Jersey
Michigan
Indiana
New Jersey
N. Carolina
New Jersey
Michigan
4
New jersey
Massachusetts
Ohio
Texas
Colorado
S. Carolina
New Jersey
New Jersey
Georgia
Washington
Washington
Louisiana
5
California
New Jersey
North Carolina
Texas
Illinois
Pennsylvania
Pennsylvania
Oregon
New Jersey

-------
                             Table  2.                            ,/
ACREAGE AND DOLLAR VALUE OF SELECTED CROPS GROWN IN NEW JERSEY -
                                Value
Crops
Apples
Asparagus
Barley
Blueberries
Broccoli
Cabbage
Carrots

Cherries
Corn (grain)

Cranberries
Cucumbers , fresh market
Eggplant
Es carole
Forest Products
Grapes
Greenhouse & Nursery
Hay
Lettuce
Muskmelon
Oats
Onions
Peaches
(thousand dollars)
5,635
6,782
1,254
6,874
88
3,471
481
I/
82,740 Ib.
6,396
3/
2,773
1,301
1,548
1,647
611
238
34,997
12,798
3,049
—
292
1,864
10,625
Acres
—
17,400
20,000
7,200
130
4,200
1,000

51
80,000

3,100
1,600
1.500
1,100
—
—
—
137,000
3,400
—
7,000
1,800
___

-------
Table  2.  (Continued)
                             Value
Crops                   (thousand dollars)         Acres
                                      I/
Pears                       275,7021b.              90

Peppers                       3,617             8,100

Potatoes, Irish                6,738            11,000

Raspberries                    —                 —

Rye                             263            10,000

Snap beans, fresh market       2,499             5,000
                                       V
Sorghum                       6,36Gbu.             125

Soybean  (Beans)                3,998            51,000

Spinach, fresh  market             924             1,400

Sweet Corn                    4,134            11,100

Sweetpotatocs                  1,408             l.TOO

Strawberries                   2,268             1,700

Tomatoes                    18,135            20,900

Wheat                         2,202            33,000
                                   I/
Other Processing Vcg.          5,041            18,720

Miscellaneous                      _4/            —
   fresh market vegetable       5,062

          Christmas Trees - Included in forest products

          Vegetables under glass

}J  Figures obtained from the office  of New Jersey Crop Reporting
    Service, Trenton, N.J.   08625
2/  Includes snap beans, lima beans, beets, cucumbers for pickles,
    green peas and spinach.
3/  Value based on 1971  price.
4/  Includes greenhouse tomatoes.
5/  Production only. No value available.

-------
THE SURVEY
       Surveys concerned with air pollution injury to vegetation and its
economic impact on agriculture have been conducted for several years in
California and for three years or more in Pennsylvania.  At the present time,
New England and New Jersey are involved in similar projects.
       In 1969 Millecan(lO) estimated that California growers suffered a
44.5 million dollar loss as a result of air  pollution  injury. This figure did
not include losses to forest or ornamental plantings.  Lacasse and Weidensaul
(7) estimated an $11.5 million loss to Pennsylvania growers as a result of
direct and indirect injury from  air pollution.  Figures for 1970 show a $25.6
million loss in California (11) and a $225 thousand loss in Pennsylvania.
       Workers in New Jersey have long recognized the economic impact of
air pollution on agriculture in this state (4,5,9).  Although an extimate of
crop loss due  to air pollution in the amount of $832,700 to commercial crops
has been reported by Stanford Research Institute (3), there has been no
actual field survey undertaken in New Jersey.
       The present survey was designed to assist in making  an estimate
of the economic losses resulting from air pollution damage to outdoor and
greenhouse crops in New Jersey.  This survey was financed by the Office
of Research and Monitoring, Environmental Protection Agency, from April,
1971 to January, 1972, and by the New Jersey Department of  Agriculture,
Division  of Rural Resources from February, 1972 to April,  1972.   The
survey was a cooperative  effort between the Cooperative Extension  Service
and Department of Plant Biology of Rutgers-The State University. The

-------
help of arborists, orchardists, nurserymen, florists, vegetable growers and




gardeners was also solicited in reporting suspected air pollution injury to




their plants. The author, a plant pathologist with three years experience




on air pollution problems, was appointed survey leader to direct and coordinate




the work with county agents and extension specialists to assess the crop loss.




       A two-day training session to acquaint  the  participating county agents




with the nature and effects of air pollution on vegetation was conducted.




This program included  slide-illustrated talks by nationally recognized air




pollution experts.   Printed information was distributed which served as




guidelines for the evaluation of air pollution injury.  In addition to  the two-




day training program, the county agents attended short courses and seminars




conducted by the Department of Plant Biology on recognition of air pollution




damage to fruits, vegetables and ornamental crops.




       The  Department of Meteorology submitted timely warnings regarding




meteorological conditions conducive to possible air pollution damage incidents.




The project leader then passed the information to county agents who were on




the lookout  for possible air pollution episodes.  Once an air pollution episode




was recognized, the county agent filled out the inquiry report card, modified




from the Pennsylvania  1969  report card (6)  (Figure 1), and mailed  it to our




office or informed the project leader directly by telephone.  The project leader




visited the area with the county agent, identified the pollutant involved




whenever possible, and brought specimens to the laboratory for further




diagnosis and verification.  A thorough documentation of the incident was




made by direct field investigation and by consulting with the growers,  with

-------
                  AIR POLLUTION INJURY REPORT
   Location
   Name of grower.

   Date of injury —
   Name of crop (species and variety)	

   Acreage damaged	or no. of plants damaged

   % of total no. damaged	

   % of each plant damaged	
   Loss in (check one): Quality	

   Estimated loss	% or $.

   Suspected pollutant	

   Remarks	
                   Quantity
           .Suspected source
   Date filed.
.Reporter's name.
  COOPERATIVE EXTENSION SERVICE
 U.S. DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
   COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND
     ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
       RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
THE STATE UNIVERSITY OF NEW JERSEY
     NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. 08903

        OFFICIAL BUSINESS
                          POSTAGE PAID
                             0«pailm«nl ol
                     Department of Plant Pathology
                     College of Agriculture and Environmental Science
                     Box 231
                     New Brunswick. N.J. 08903
   Attention: Dr. Alberto Feliciano

-------
special emphasis on collection of information pertinent to assessment of

crop loss.  When applicable, chemical tissue analyses were conducted in

the laboratory for pollutant residues.  Tissue analyses were considered

useful  in confirming plant damage caused by fluoride, HC1  mist or C^Qas

and SO2   The project leader and the county agent revisited many affected

fields throughout the season to provide a more accurate assessment of crop

loss.  Furthermore, to ensure thai most  of the air pollution incidences

were documented, a regular appointment with each county agent was arranged

in order to visit as many farms, nurseries and greenhouses  as could be

covered during the visit in  their respective  counties.

       A garden containing the plants sensitive to air pollution injury was

established in approximately fifteen agricultural areas throughout the state

(Figure 2).  The locations listed  below cover the most important areas.

       a.  Plainsboro       f.   Salem            k.  Pinebrook

       b.   Evesboro        g.   Swedesboro      1.  Holmdel

       c.   Cedarville       h.   Hightstown       m.  Sussex

       d.   Centerton        1.   Flemington       n.  New Brunswick

       e.   Great Meadows  j.   Hackettstown     o.  Paramus

 The plant indicators used were as follows:

        1 .   Ozone (03) - Pinto  Beans and  Tobacco  var. Bel W3

        2.   Sulfur Dioxide (802) - Squash and  Begonia var. Viva and
                                  Pink Tausendschon

        3.   Peroxyacetyl Nitrate (PAN)  - Swiss Chard and  Petunia
                                       var. White Sails

        4.   Fluoride (F) - Gladiolus var. White Friendship and Beverly Ann
                                 10

-------
                                           NEW JERSEY
fto
                           11

-------
These "air pollution gardens," as we commonly call them,were designed to




aid the cooperators in noting time, and classification of pollution damage.




It also served as a valuable educational tool in maintaining the interest of




cooperators.




       Pinto bean and tobacco variety Bel Wg were excellent indicators of




ozone and PAN incidences.  In one garden located in Bergen County,  the




agricultural county agents recorded plant injury on 8 separate dates from




June 1 7 to September 5, 1971.  Most of the plant injury was observed f rom




48 to 72  hours after a period of weather stagnation.




       Petunia and begonia although sensitive to PAN and SO2,respectively,




become less  susceptible to the pollutants under field conditions especially




during  the latter part of the growing season.
                                   12

-------
ASSESSMENT OF LOSS




       Field observations provided the main source of data  used in the




assessment of crop loss.  The number of field observations  made was in




turn dependent on the number of pollution incidences reported by the




agricultural county agents, extension specialists, growers and other




cooperators.




       Methods of assessing loss as a  result of air pollution varied.  No




specific methods could be adequately applied  to all situations.  In cases




where the entire crop planting was rendered unmarketable, total loss was




based on the crop value of the acreage affected.  Data on the calculation




of the harvest value  of the crop and price of the commodities were obtained




from the Office  of New Jersey Crop Reporting  Service at Trenton, New Jersey.




However,  when available,  local crop values rather than the state averages




were  used in assessing crop loss.  If crop damage was not complete,  the




loss reported reflected only that portion of  the crop affected, e.g. reduction




in yield or quality,  increased labor cost due to removal of damaged parts, etc.




In cases where  no direct correlation existed between production losses and




the amounts of leaf injury, a  "rule of thumb"  evaluation method was used




for estimating loss.  Where visual inspection  of the overall leaf surface




of the plants indicated 1 to 5 percent injury, a 1 percent loss was applied




for that crop. A leaf surface injury ranging from 6 to 10 percent was given




a 2 percent loss; 11  to 15  percent injury, a 4 percent loss; and 16 to 20




percent injury an 8 percent loss (11).
                                  13

-------
       Assessment of loss resulting from destruction of  aesthetic value,




grower relocation cost,  farm abandonment and other indirect effects as a




result of air pollution injury was not made.  Many incidences of photo-




chemical injury to our forest and shade trees and to other crops,  specifically




eggplant and corn, during this 1971 survey were investigated.  The lack of




a suitable assessment procedure precluded any attempt to place a loss




assessment in these instances.  Furthermore, reduction in yield and/or




quality of the crop resulting from  "hidden injury" due to air pollution  is




not within the scope of  this survey.
                                 14

-------
RESULTS




        Economic Losses.  The results of the survey were based primarily




upon actual field observations made by the  survey leader in cooperation with




the farmers and  the agricultural county agents from April   1971  to April  1972.




The survey leader analyzed and interpreted  the data and assumed responsi-




bility for. the interpretations contained within this report.




        During this  survey, which is in its first year, economic losses tc




crops in New Jersey due to air pollution amounted to $1, 183,800 (Table 3).




This amount represents only direct losses.  Indirect  losses such as grov/cr's




relocation cost, crop substitution losses,  loss  in value of the land, etc.,




were not included.




        The 315  reports of air pollution damage were  confirmed during the




period of the survey (Table 7).  Three hundred and one incidences were




attributed to 8 pollutants;  ozone, PAN, (peroxyacetyl nitrate),  I1C1 mist and




C\2 gas, ethylcnc,  sulfur dioxide, ammonia,  fluoride and particuljtes.




The other 14 incidences were attributed to petroleum oil and herbicide injuries,




and to an unidentified pollutant.  Analysis of the data (Table 7) showed




that 80 percent of the damage was caused by pollutants resulting from photo-




chemical reactions,  with ozone contributing 57  percent and PAN  ?3 percent




of this total.  Hydrochloric acid mist and chlorine gas injury, which resulted




from accidental  spillage from a nearby source accounted for 6 percent of the




damage. Ethylene plant injury (3 percent) was essentially associated  with




indoor crops grown  in heated glasshouses.  Plant injury from fluoride (2 percent)




was  very localized,  occurring most frequently in areas near glass factories.



                                  15

-------
Sulfur dioxide, responsible for 2 percent of the total damage was observed




most frequently near industrial establishments.  Accidental spillage of




ammonia fron an ice plant that affected a variety of crops in the neighborhood




accounted for  2 percent of the total injury attributed to air pollutants.  Acid




aerosols (particulates) settling on leaves, which caused small necrotic spots




on the  upper leaf surface, was responsible for 2 percent of the damage.  Oil,




petroleum and an unidentified  pollutant accounted for 3 percent of the damage,




       Economic loss to crops due to air pollution injury was  observed in




16 counties, with Cumberland experiencing the heaviest loss  ($337,265),




followed by Burlington,  Atlantic and Salem Counties, each with more than




$100,000 loss (Table  3).  The 16  counties listed in Table 3 represent  the




most important agricultural areas  of the  state.




       Seventy plant  species  (Table 4) were observed to be affected by




air pollutants  during this period of the survey.  Twenty-nine of these  plant




species were involved in the assessment of crop loss.




       As a group,  vegetables experienced the greatest damage with an




assessed loss of $588,053. This figure represents about 51 percent of the




total damage  (Table 5).  Damage to field crops was estimated to be $430,212.




Nursery and cut-flower growers incurred a loss of $88,400.  Grape, the




only fruit crop represented in this survey accounted for a $67,089 loss




due to  air pollution.  Lettuce (Iceberg, Boston and Romaine) sustained the




greatest  loss of any one commodity which amounted to $184, 425 for early




fall and late spring crops.
                                  16

-------
Table 3.
             SUMMARY OF COUNTIES SHOWING CROP LOSSES
                   DUE TO AIR POLLUTION. IN  1971
             Cumberland                    337,265

             Burlington                     150,764

             Atlantic                       122,439

             Salem                         122,280

             Mercer                         87,956

             Monmouth                      8 4,8 60

             Gloucester                     82,110

             Middlesex                      60,053

             Bergen                         50,400

             Cape May                      33,779

             Warren                         33,777

             Morris                          8,247

             Camden                         4,295

             Somerset                        3,760

             Hunterdon                       1,720

             Ocean                     	95
                             TOTAL     $ 1,183.800
                                17

-------
      Table 4.




            LIST OF PLANTS AFFECTED BY AIR POLLUTANTS DURING THIS SURVEY
       Plant
Pollutant
Plant
Pollutant
Alfalfa
                                                Clover
Medicago sativa L.
Apple
Malus sp.
Ash, white
Fraxinus americanaL.
Azalea
Rhododendron sp.
Bean
Phaseolus vulgaris L
Bean, lima
Phaeolus hmensis Macf
Beet
Beta vulgaris L.
Begonia
Begonia spp.
Cabbage
Brassica oleracea L.
Catalpa
Catalpa sp.
Catbriar
Smilax sp.
Celery
Apium graveolens L.
Chard, swiss
Beta vulgaris var. cicla
Cherry
Prunus avium L
Chrysanthemum
Chrysanthemum sp.
03
NH3
C12
Herbicide
03, PAN. Herbicide
03, Petroleum
Herbicide
SO2
Particulate
Particulate
Cl2
03, PAN
L PAN, Particulate
NH3
Herbicide
Trifohum spp O3
Corn
Zea mays L. O-*, Particul;
Cucumber
Cucumis sativus O-^
Cyclamen
Cyclamen Sp. 03
Dandelion
Taraxacum of ficmale Weber PAN
Dogwood
Cornus florida L. Cl?
Eggplant
Solanum melongena L. PAN
Elm
Ulmus americana L. Cl?.
Endive
Chichoriumendivia L. Oa, PAN, HC1
Fir, Douglas
Pseudotsuga taxi folia Bridt. Cl2
Gladiolus
Gladiolus sp. F
Gooseberry
Ribes sp Herbicide
Gourd
Luffa acutangula L. 03
Grape
Vitis vinifera L. O3, NH^, Herb

                                         18

-------
Table 4. (Continued)

        Plant
                        Pollutant
Hazelnut
  Corylus americana Walt.   C\2

Horsechestnut
  Aesculus sp.
Iris
  Iris sp.

Ivy, English
  Hedera helix L,
                           NH3


                        Cl2i Herbicide


                           C12
Kohlrabi
  Brassica caulorapa Pasq.  Herbicide

Lamb's Quarter
  Chenopodium album L.
Leek
  Alhumporrum L,

Lettuce
  Lactuca  spp.
                           03


                           03


                       PAN, 03, Herbicide,Oil
Lilac
  Syringa vulgaris L.         C\2
Lily,
  Hosta,  sp.

Maple, sugar
  Acer saccharum Marsh.

Mulberry
  Morus sp.

Muskmelon
  Cucumis melo L.

Mustard
  Brassica sp.

Oak
  Quercus sp.
                           C\2
                           C\2
                           03
                           PAN
     Plant              Pollutant

Oat
 A vena sativa L.          03

Onion
 Allium ccpa L.         03, NH3

Orchid
 Cattleya sp.             E
 Phalaenopsis  sp.         E

Pea
 Lathyrus spp.            03

Peach
 Prunus persica Sieb & Zucc .  Particulate

Pear
 Pyrus sp.                NH3

Petunia
 Petunia hybrida Vilm      03, PAN

Pigweed
 Amaranthus sp.           03

Pine, Scotch              013
 Pinus sylvestris L.

Pine, white
 Pinus strobus L.          03

Plum
 Prunus sp.               NH3

Potato
 Solanum tuberosum L.     PAN,  03

Pumpkin
 Cucurbita pepo L.         03

Radish
 Rhapanus sativus L.      03,  PAN
                                         19

-------
Table 4.  (continued)

      Plant            Pollutant
Rose
  Rosa spp

Sorrel
  Rumex acetosa L.

Soybean
  Glycine max Merr

Spinach
  Spinacia oleracea L.

Squash
  Cucurbita spp.

Sunflower, Common
  Helianthus annuus L.

Sycamore
  Platanus sp.

Tomato
  Lycopersicon
    esculentum Mill
                       Herbicide
                        PAN
                        O3, PAN,  NH3, Herbicide
Tulip,  Darwin
  Tulipa gesneriana
   var. darwinia Bailey  SO2
Tulip tree
  Liriodendron tulipifera

Turnip
  Brassica rapa L.
                        PAN
Watermelon
  Citrullus vulgaris Schrad.  O3
                                       20

-------
Table 4.  (Continued)
      Plant
Pollutant
Soybean
  Glycine mas Merr.          03
Spinach
  Spinacia oleracea L.

Squash
  Cucurbita spp.

Sunflower, Common
  Helianthus annuus L.

Sycamore
  Platanus sp.

Tomato
  Lycopersicon
   esculcntum Mill

Tulip, Darwin
  Tuhpa gesneriana
   var. darwinia Bailey

Tulip tree
  Liriodendron tulopifcra
Turnip
  Brassica rapa L.            PAN

Watermelon
  Citrullus  vulgaris Schrad.   Oo
   03, PAN, NH3, Herbicide
   SO-
                                  21

-------
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS




       The state of New Jersey has a total of 21 counties (Figure 2),




however, data from only 16 counties were involved in the assessment of




crop losses  due  to air pollution.  The absence'of air pollution damage to




crops in the four remaining counties—Sussex, Essex, Hudson and Union—




does not imply that these counties are "pollution-free,"  but rather,




incidences in  these areas were either not serious enough to realize




economic loss or were  simply overlooked and not reported at all.  The




survey was concentrated in the central and southern counties where most




of the important  agricultural crops such as  fruits and vegetables are grown.




       The cooperation of agricultural county agents and farmers made




this initial survey  possible.  The county agents  travel constantly in




rural areas and growers call upon them for any problems that arise. County




agents are extremely busy, however, especially during the growing season




and would have little time to look specifically for air pollution damage.




Most of the  reported air pollution cases  are brought to the attention of the




county agents  by the growers.  Minor injuries, causing  no noticeable




damage to the  plants would therefore easily go undetected.




       This serious drawback  was realized during the first few months




of the survey.  To  alleviate this problem the project leader arranged for




regular visits  with each county agent to  inspect  as many farms, orchards,




nurseries and  greenhouses  in his county as possible. This approach kept




us in constant association  with the farmers and enabled us to get firsthand




knowledge of crop  development.  This procedure also gave me the opportunity
                                  22

-------
to demonstrate and explain to county agents and growers what air pollution




injury looks like and how it affects their crops.  Air pollution gardens were




most helpful in this respect.




       As a result of this  approach many air pollution injuries to crops




were observed and documented which would otherwise have gone unnoticed




and not reported.  These regular visits however were only possible because of




the size of New Jersey. Since the success of the project depends on recog-




nition of the injury by the  farmers or the county agents, a continuing




program aimed at educating the people  concerned through demonstration and




conferences should be  pursued as often as  possible.




       The establishment  of "air pollution  gardens" will be continued




during  the 1972 survey. However, gardens will  be  limited to counties that




expressed interest in maintaining them.  Maintenance of the gardens posed




a problem to the already overloaded  schedule of the cooperators,  and therefore,




their establishment will not be imposed.  In addition to the outdoor gardens,




plant indicators will be established in  greenhouses this year.




       During the survey,  instances of air pollution injury to landscape




plantings and native vegetation were likewise noted but no attempt was




made to tag a dollar value to this type  of injury.  There was also no basis




for judging any small degree of reduced growth and  reproduction (damage




without visual symptoms of injury) due to air pollutants, which undoubtedly




occurred. More research work is necessary to explore the relationship




between air pollutants  and growth suppression before any meaningful




correlation can be made.  Furthermore, there is an acute awareness that







                                 23

-------
photochemical pollutants (specifically ozone and PAN) account for the greater




portion of the damage to crops in New Jersey.  Whereas monitoring for ozone




is a continuing practice, our knowledge of PAN formation and accumulation




in the atmosphere of New Jersey is practically nil.




       In many instances an unidentified pollutant causing foliar injury on




Irish potato and tomato has been observed. The  symptoms appear as numerous




spots op the lower surface of the leaves with a characteristic bronze color.




The symptoms  were first observed two to three days after a period of weather




stagnation.  In one instance, tomato plantings (variety Supersonic and Jetstar)




were injured at flowering.  The flowers dropped off and the upper stems  became




woody prematurely resulting in a 40 percent reduction in yield.   The importance




of research along these lines can  not be overemphasized.




       Greenhouse problems were mainly due to  faulty burners that  failed




to burn fuel properly, improper ventilation and use of poor grades of fuel.




Timely diagnosis and appropriate actions for control often minimized crop




losses in cases where the damage was  not too severe.
                                  24

-------
Table 5.

            SUMMARY OF 1971 CROP LOSSES IN NEW JERSEY
                      DUE TO AIR POLLUT;ON

Crop               Acreage Affected    Harvest Value***  Amount of Loss
acres
FIELD
Alfalfa 12,
Clover 10,
Potato 1 ,
Soybean 22,
47,
FRUIT
Grape
NURSERY AND CUT FLOWERS
Gladiolus
Ivy 6,
Orchid 80,
Miscellaneous
86,
VEGETABLE
Bean, bush, pole, snap 4,
Bean, Lima 4,
Cabbage
Chard
Cucumber 2,

590
305
725
509
129
264

383
000*
000*
1
383
000*
158
136
1
21
035
dollars

**
**
1 ,210,950
1 ,553,121
2,764,071
229,337

1 ,916,532
**
**
**
1 ,916,532
1 ,975,050
827,200
878
15,792
1,843,710

111,882
86,49'^
86,004
145,827
430,212
67,089

36,540
1 ,360
50,000
500
88,400
71,105
74,754
311
1,322
36,890
                               25

-------
Table 5.  (Continued)

Crop                 Acreage Affected     Harvest Value***  Amount of Loss
^—^^•> •
egetable (Continued)
Dandelion
Endive and Escarole
Gourd
Leek and Green Onion
Lettuce
Muskmelon
Mustard
Onion, Dry
Pumpkin
Spinach
Sorrel
Squash
Tomato
Fresh Market
Processing
Tomato
Watermelon
Miscellaneous

DTALS
acres
9
427
7
151
618
375
13
1,800
531
20
2
103

672
1,993
24,480*
254
1 ,125*
17,326
25,605*
65,102
111,605*

14,328
565,775
**
**
500,142
366,375
7,800
1,668,600
531 ,000
11 ,600
2,000
93,524

667,270
1,600,379
**
36,322

10,727,745
15,637,685
dollars
4,629
52,146
650
8,138
185,425
3,252
905
9,353
5,616
76
300
2,365

64,255
67,427
7,830
850
200
598,099
1,183,754
                *  Greenhouse in square feet
               **  Harvest value not available
              ***  New Jersey Crop  Reporting  Service
                                26

-------
Table 6.
                        COUNTY CROP LOSSES
County and Crop
Acreage Affected
Harvest Value
Amount of Loss
ATLANTIC
Field
Potato1
Fruit
Grape
Vegetable
Beans, bush, pole, snap
Cucumber
Endive and Escarole
Leek and Green Onion
Lettuce
Muskmelon
Pumpkin
Tomato
Fresh market
Processing
Watermelon
TOTALS
BERGEN
Nursery and Cutflowers
Orchids
Tulip
TOTALS
acres
200
191
156
403
50
39
51
53
21
205
293
49
1,711

80,000*
0.2


140,400
165,462
74,100
365,118
66,250
**
40,287
51 ,781
21,000
195,365
235,279
7.007
1,362,049

**
**

dollars
17,896
53,404
2,388
7,302
4,00
2,148
18,197
460
214
10,907
5,353
170
122,439

50,000
400
50,400
                               27

-------
Table 6.  (Continued)




County and Crop     Acreage Affected     Harvest Value   Amount of Loss
BURLINGTON
Field
Alfalfa
Clover
Soybean
Fruit
Grape
Vegetable
Beans, bush, pole, snap
Pumpkin
Tomato
Watermelon
TOTALS
CAM DEN
Fruit
Grape
CAPE MAY
Vegetable
Beans, bush, pole, snap
Beans, lima
TOTAL
acres
5,000
3,000
3,056
42
360
16
12,930*
28
11,502

18

50
1,965
2,015

**
**
210,864
36,750
171 ,000
16,000
**
4,004
438,618

15,750

23,750
393,000
416,750
dollars
62,000
37,200
21,392
6,615
18,204
163
5,050
140
150,764

4,295

1,445
32,334
33,779
                                28

-------
Table 6.  (Continued)




County and Crop     Acreage Affected      Harvest Value   Amount of Loss
Acres
CUMBERLAND
Field
Potato
Soybean
Nursery and Cut Flowers
Gladiolus
Vegetable
Bean, bush, pole, snap
Bean, lima
Chard
Cucumber
Dandelion
Endive and Escarole
Leek and Green Onion
Lettuce, Romaine and
Iceberg (late spring and
early fall)
Lettuce, Romaine
Muskmelon
Mustard
Onion, Dry
Sorrel
Tomato
Fresh Market
Processing
Tomato
Watermelon
TOTAL


572
1 ,065

256

2,305
1,524
5
800
3
100
112


530
1,125*
123
10
1,350
2

53
347
2,700
109
9,266
29
dollars

401,544
73.485
.
1,281,024

1,094,875
304,800
3,760
724,800
4,776
132,500
**


420,820
**
120,171
6,000
1,251 ,450
2,000

50,509
278,641
**
15,587
6,166,742


42, 038
12,455

24,390

20,514
28,480
250
14,496
148
4,000
5,990


146,205
200
1 ,065
410
4,561
300

15,573
15,645
405
140
337,265


-------
Table 6.  (Continued)
County and Crop
Acreage Affected    Harvest Value   Amount of Loss

GLOUCESTER
Field
Soybean
Nursery and Cut Flowers
Gladiolus
Vegetable
Beans, bush, pole, snap
Chard
Cucumber
Lettuce
Muskmelon
Onion, Dry
Pumpkin
Tomato
Fresh Market
Processing
Tomato
TOTAL
HUNTERDON
Field
Soybean
MERCER
Field
Alfalfa
Clover
acres
709
127
110
1
305
10
30
250
300
246
1,108
2,250*
3,196

40


890
2,000

48,921
635,508
52,250
752
276,330
10,010
29,310
231 ,750
300,000
234,438
889,724
**
2,708,993

2,760


**
**
dollars
4,963
12,150
1,979
70
5,527
5,870
260
1,965
3,060
14,689
30,527
1,050
82,110

1,720


12,497
23,600
 Soybean
    5,765
397,785
40,355
                                30

-------
Table 6.  (Continued)




County and Prop       Acreage Affected
               Harvest Value  Amount of Loss
Mercer Continued)
Vegetable
Tomato
TOTAL
MIDDLESEX
Field
Alfalfa
Clover
Potato
Soybean
Vegetable
Bean, bush, pole, snap
Bean, Lima
Chard
Cucumber
Endive and Escarolc
Dandelion
Lettuce
Mustard
Pumpkin
Spinach
Nursery and Cut Flowers
Ivy
Roses
acres
2
8,657

500
700
300
2,158
27
40
10
4
10
6
4
3
14
20
6,000*
0.3
dollars
28,760
4-26, 545

**
**
210,600
148,902
12,825
8,000
7,520
3,624
13,250
9,552
4,004
1 ,800
14,000
11,600
**
**
11,504
87,956

13,800
3,260
7,390
23,306
340
1,800
282
72
400
4,481
2,348
495
243
76
1 ,360
100
TOTAL
3,796
445,677
60,053
                                 31

-------
Table 6.  (Continued)



County and Crop      Acreage^Affected    Harvest Value  Amount of Loss
MONMOUTH
Field
Alfalfa
Clover
Potato
Soybean
Fruit
Grape
Vegetable
Bean, bush, pole, snap
Cucumber
Endive and Escarole
Gourd
Lettuce
Pumpkin
Muskmelon
Watermelon
TOTAL
MORRIS
Vegetable
Endive and Escarole
Pumpkin
Tomato
TOTAL
acres
2,000
1,500
630
7,246
13
150
23
64
7
6
105
47
54
11,845

50
12
6,600*
62
dollars
**
**
442,260
499,974
11 ,375
71,250
20,838
84,800
**
6,006
105,000
45,919
7,722
1,295,144

66,250
12,000
**
78,250

12,600
6,700
15,545
24,346
2,775
7,335
433
9,200
650
3,522
1,071
408
275
84,860

6,700
222
1,325
8.247
                                32

-------
Table 6.  (Continued)




County and Crop      Acreage Affected    Harvest Value    Amount of Loss

OCEAN
Vegetables
Tomato (fresh market)
SALEM
Field
Alfalfa
Clover
Potato
Soybean
Vegetable
Bean , bush, pole, snap
Bean, Lima
Cucumber
Lettuce
Muskmelon
Onion, Dry
Pumpkin
Squash
Tomato
Fresh Market
Processing
Watermelon
TOTAL
acres


10


3,000
2,605
23
2,470

1 ,000
607
500
15
122
100
63
103

156
245
14
11,023
dollars


9,530


**
**
16,146
170,430

475,000
121 ,400
453,000
15,015
119,194
92,700
63,000
93,524

148,668
196,735
2,002
1,966,814



95


8,275
14,689
3,135
17,290

18,900
12,140
9,060
5,283
1 ,059
1 ,927
643
2,365

11 ,487
15,902
125
122,280
                                 33

-------
Table 6.  (Continued)

County and Crop      Acreage Affected    Harvest Value    Amount of Loss


SOMERSET

Field
  Alfalfa

  Clover


TOTAL'

WARREN

Vegetable
  Cabbage

  Chard

  Endive and Escarole

  Lettuce

  Onion, Dry

TOTAL

GRAND TOTAL

       *  Greenhouse in square feet.
      **  Harvest value not available.
acres
1.

1,






65,
200
500
700
1
5
153
4
100
261
102
dollars
** 2,710
** 1,050
3,760
878 311
3,760 720
202,725 27,846
4,000 4,000
92,700 900
304,063 33,777
15,637,685 1,183,754
                                 34

-------
Table 7.

          SUMMARY OF PLANT INJURY REPORT BY COUNTIES

                                  i/
County and Crop           Pollutant          Number of Reports

ATLANTIC

Field
   Potato                    O3                      2
                             PAN                     1

Fruit
   Grape                     O3                      2

Vegetable
   Bean                      03                      1

   Cucumber                  03                      3
Endive and Escarole
Leek and Green Onion
Lettuce
Muskmelon
Pumpkin
Tomato
Watermelon

BERGEN
Floral and Weed Crop
Catbriar
Dogwood
Iris
Lily
Lilac
Pan
03
03
Pan
°3
03
03
Pan
°3



C12
C12
C12
C12
C12
2
1
2
3
1
2
3
2
1
26


1
1
1
1
1
                             35

-------
Table 7.  (Continued)






 County and Crop           Pollutant-'           Number of Reports
Bergen (Continued)
Petunia
Orchid
Tulip
Forest and Shade Trees
Ash
Elm
Fir
Hazel nut
Maple
Mulberry
Oak
Pine
Tuliptree

BURLINGTON
Field
Alfalfa
Clover
Soybean
Fruit
Grape
Vegetables
Beans
Pumpkin
Tomato
Watermelon


PAN
E
S02

C12
C12
C12
C12
C12
C12
C12
ci2
C12



03
03
03

°3

03
03
03
SO2
03
36

1
7
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
IT


4
4
3

1

2
2
1
2
1
20

-------
Table 7.  (Continued)




County and Crop
Pollutant
CAM DEN
Fruit
Grape
CAPE MAY
Vegetable
Beans

CUMBERLAND
Field
Potato

Soybean
Vegetable
Bean
Chard
Cucumber
Dandelion
Eggplant
Endive and Escarole
Leek and Green Onion
Lettuce
Muskmelon
Mustard
Onion, Dry
Radish
Sorrel
Tomato



03


°3
Pet


03
PAN
03

°3
PAN
03
PAN
PAN
PAN
03
PAN
03
Oil
03
PAN
°3
03
PAN
03
PAN
S02


1


5
1
6

3
4
2

3
1
2
1
5
1
3
2
2
1
1
1
2
1
2
5
3
2
Number of Reports
                               37

-------
Table 7.  (Continued)

County and Crop

Cumberland (Continued)
Vegetables
   Turnip

   Watermelon

Nursery and Cut Flowers
   Gladiolus


GLOUCESTER
 Field
   Soybean

Nursery and Cut Flowers
   Gladiolus
Pollutant
   PAN
HUNTERDON
Field
   Soybean
   H
Number of Reports



        1

        1


        2

       IF
Vegetable
Bean
Chard
Cucumber
Lettuce
Muskmelon
Pumpkin
Tomato

°3
PAN
°3
PAN
03
03
03
PAN

2
1
3
1
1
1
2
2
20
MERCER
Field
Alfalfa
Clover
Soybean
Vegetable
Tomato



03
03
03
PAN
PAN
U
38


2
2
3
1
1
1
v^v
ro

-------
Table 7.  (Continued)




County and Crop         Pollutant            Number of Reports
MIDDLESEX
Field
Alfalfa
Clover
Oat
Potato

Soybean
Floral and Weed Crop
Azalea
Begonia
Chrysanthemum
Iris
Ivy
Lamb's Quarter
Petunia
Pigweed
Rose
Sunflower
Sycamore
Forest and Shade
Pine
Chestnut
Fruit
Apple
Cherry
Gooseberry
Grape

Pear
Plum


03
03
°3
PAN
03
03

H
S02
H
H
Cl
03
03
03
H
03
°3

03
NH3

NH3
NH3
H
NH3
H
NH3
NHo


3
3
1
1
1
3

1
2
1
1
1
2
3
1
1
1
2

2
1

1
1
1
1
1
1
1
                              39

-------
Table 7. (Continued)




County and Crop         Pollutant-/           Number of Reports
Middlesex (continued)
Vegetable
Bean

Beet
Chard
Cucumber
Endive and Escarole
Dandelion
Kohlrabi
Lettuce
Mustard
Pumpkin
Spinach

MONMOUTH
Field
Alfalfa
Clover
Potato
Soybean
Fruit
Grape
Vegetable
Bean
Cucumber
Endive and Escarole
Gourd
Lettuce

H
03
H
P
PAN
°3
PAN
PAN
H
H
PAN
PAN
Oo
O*l


03
03
03
PAN
03

03

03
°3
PAN
03
PAN

1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
2
1
1
2
IF

2
1
1
3
4

1

2
2
3
1
2
                             40

-------
Table 7.  (Continued)

County and Crop          Pollutant-^/         Number olReports

Monmouth (continued)
Vegetable
   Pumpkin                  03                      3
   Muskmelon               03                      2

   Watermelon               03                      1
                                                   28"

MORRIS
Vegetables
   Endive and Escarole       PAN                     2

   Pumpkin                  03                      1

   Tomato                   E                       1

Floral and Weed Crop
   Cyclamen                03                      1
                                                   ~T
OCEAN
Vegetable
   Tomato                   PAN                     1

PASSAIC
Field
   Corn                     P                       1

Fruit
   Peach                    P                       1
Forest and Shade
   Catalpa                  P                      _1_
                                                   ~T
SALEM
Field
   Alfalfa                   03                      2

   Clover                   03                      3

   Potato                   PAN                     !
                            03                      2

   Soybean                  Oo                      3
                              41

-------
Table 7. (Continued)
County and Crop
Pollutant
Number of Reports
Salem (continued)
Vegetable
Bean

Celery

Cucumber
Lettuce
Muskmelon
Onion, Dry
Pumpkin
Squash
Tomato
Watermelon

SOMERSET
Field
Alfalfa
Clover

WARREN
Vegetable
Cabbage
Chard
Endive and Escarole


Lettuce
Onion, Dry


I/ C\2 = Chlorine gas
E = Ethylene
F = Fluoride
H = Herbicide
NH3 = Ammonia
O3 = Ozone


PAN
03
PAN
03
°3
PAN
03
03
°3
03
RAN
°3
03



03
03



p
PAN
PAN
HC1
03
PAN
°3


PAN
P
Pet
S02
U



3
4
1
1
3
2
4
2
3
4
4
2
1
45


2
2
4


1
1
4
3
2
3
2
16
GRAND TOTAL 315
= Peroxyacetyl nitrate
= Particulate
= Petroleum
= Sulfur Dioxide
= Unidentified pollutant

                            42

-------
 LITERATURE CITED

 1.    1969 Census of Agriculture.  Volume 1.  Part 8.  New Jersey.

 2.    1970 New Jersey Agricultural Statistics.  N.J. Crop Reporting Service.
            Circular 458.  N.J. Dept. of Agriculture, Trenton,  New Jersey.

 3.    Benedict, H.M. and R. E. Olson.  1970.  Economic impact of air
            pollutants on plants.  Volume 1. Stanford Research Institute.
            SRI-Irvine, California.

 4.    Dames, R.H., E. Brennan and  I.A. Leone.  1960. Air pollution
            headache grows  now covering large  urban areas. Florists'
            Exchange 135: 18-22.

 5.    Daines, R.H., E. Brennan and  I. A. Leone.  1960.  Air pollution as
            it affects agriculture in New Jersey.  N.J. Agric. Expt. Sta.
            Bulletin No. 794.

 6.    Lacasse, N.L. and W.J. Moroz.  1969.  Handbook of Effects
            Assessment.  Vegetation  Damage.  Center for Air Environment
            Studies, The  Pennsylvania State University, Univ.  Park, Pa.

 7.    Lacasse, N.L. and T.  C. Weidensaul.  1970. A cooperative
            extension-based system of assessing air pollution  damage
            to vegetation: organization,  results and recommendations
            for future surveys.  Center for Air Environment Studies.
            The Pennsylvania State Univ.

 8.    Lacasse, N.L. 1971.  Assessment of air  pollution damage to
            vegetation in Pennsylvania.  Center for Air Environment Studies.
            The Pennsylvania State Univ.

 9.    Leone,  I. A.,  E. Brennan and R. H. Daines.  1963.  Air pollution
            new threat to farmers.  New  Jersey Business 34; 17-20.

10.    Millecan, A. A. 1970.  Air pollution crop losses in 1969. Unpublished,
11.    Millecan, A. A. 1971.  A survey and assessment of air pollution
            damage to California vegetation in 1970.  California Dept.
            of Agriculture, Sacramento, California.
                                 43

-------