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 ------- |