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
------- |