Get documents about "Air pollution causes moderate damage to tomatoes
Document Sample
They’re more resistant
than cotton to ozone
and sulfur dioxide
Air pollution
causes moderate
Patrick J. Temple 0 Kris A. Surano
M o r e than 90 percent of the processing
tomatoes grown-in the United States are
raised in California’s Central Valley.
Much of this acreage is in San Joaquin
County, directly east, downwind, of the
large urban-industrial complex around
San Francisco Bay. Automobile exhaust
and industrial emissions mix in the atmo-
sphere and convert to smog (ozone)
through photochemical processes. Pre-
vailing westerly winds carry the pollution
into the Central Valley. Increased indus-
compared with the control diet (no sodium trialization and urban growth in the area
bicarbonate). add to the air pollution burden already
In summary, adding sodium bicarbon- present as a result of agricultural burn-
ate to complete mixed diets high in con- ing. Proposed fossil-fuel-burning power
centrate and containing chopped alfalfa plants in the Sacramento Delta could fur-
hay did not affect digestibility of dietary ther contribute to air pollution levels in
components even though it elevated ru- this agriculturally rich area.
men pH. Milk fat also was not affected. Some tomato cultivars are known to
Improved production responses have been be highly susceptible to air pollution in-
reported with the inclusion of 0.8 percent jury, although little is known of the effects
sodium bicarbonate in the total diet dry of air pollution on tomato productivity. A
matter or 1.5 percent in the concentrate major field study was begun in 1981 to
dry matter of diets based on corn silage determine the effects of ozone (03) and
as the forage component. This would be sulfur dioxide (SO*),the major phytotoxic
approximately 0.4 to 0.5 pound sodium bi- components of air pollution, on growth
carbonate per cow per day in early lacta- and yield of tomatoes. This experiment
tion and 0.2 to 0.3 pound per cow per day was conducted as part of the National
feeding followed by smaller changes until in mid lactation. Our research indicated Crop Loss Assessment Network (NCLAN)
nine hours. Sodium bicarbonate at the that when dairy rations contain alfalfa program. The objectives of NCLAN are to
highest two levels provided a more stable hay, there may not be as much need for (1) develop dose-response equations that
rumen environment in terms of pH. Al- supplemental sodium bicarbonate as is relate yields of major agricultural crops
though differences in cellulose digestibil- sometimes the case when corn silage is to exposure to ozone, sulfur dioxide, and
ity were not significantly different (table the only forage in the diet. their mixtures; and (2) use this informa-
3), there were small improvements in cel- tion to assess the economic effects of air
lulose digestibility observed for the 0.8 Edward J. DePeters is Assistant Professor, and Alan pollution on U.S. agriculture.
H Fredeen is a graduate student, Department o f
and 1.2 percent diets that may be associ- AnjrnaJ Science; Donald L. Bath i s Extension Dairy ‘Murrieta’, the tomato cultivar used in
ated with rumen pH. Rumen pH before Nutritionist. Animal Science Extension. All are with these experiments, was released in 1974.
feeding was also slightly higher for all the University of California, Davis. The authors ac-
knowledge the support of Church & Dwight Com- Initial selection was conducted in the San
diets containing sodium bicarbonate when pany. Inc , Piscataway, New Jersey, in this research. Joaquin Valley, and final development
20 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, MARCH-APRIL 1985
The impact of air pollution on an experimental plot in a commercial tomato field was com-
pared with a plot enclosed in an adjacent open-top plastic chamber to which controlled
amounts of pollutant gases were added.
damage to tomatoes
0 Randall G. Mutters 0 Gail E. Bingham 0 Joseph H. Shinn
took place at the Niagara Seed Farm in were charcoal-filtered, nonfiltered, and Chamber and companion plots were
Davis. Approximately 30 percent of the nonfiltered times 1.3, 1.5, and 1.6. In both harvested September 15-18, 1981, and Oc-
tomato acreage in the San Joaquin Valley years, sulfur dioxide was added to cham- tober 12-24, 1982. Fruit from each plot
is now planted to ‘Murrieta’. Any loss in bers at concentrations of about 0, 0.03, was sorted, counted, and weighed in the
yield induced by air pollution could thus 0.06, 0.09, 0.12, and 0.23 ppm. field. Harvest data were analyzed statisti-
have serious economic consequences for Both gases were added seven hours per cally, by analysis of variance and multi-
growers in the area. day (0900 to 1600), seven days per week. ple regression analysis.
In 1981, exposure to pollutant gases began
Methods on July 15, about two weeks after flower Yield responses
The experimental site was on the initiation, and continued until September Total fruit fresh weight of ‘Murrieta’
southeastern edge of a 160-hectare (385- 14. In 1982, exposures began on July 21, was reduced by exposure to ozone at or
acre) commercial tomato farm near Tra- one week after flower initiation, and end- above naturally occurring concentrations.
cy. ‘Murrieta’ was seeded on June 1, 1981, ed on October 11. Pollutant gases inside The relationship between tomato yield
onto prepared single-row, false-furrow chambers were sampled three times each and pollutant concentration was highly
beds, and on May 17, 1982, onto prepared hour; from these figures, hourly, daily, significant in both years (1981, r = 0.82;
double-row, false-furrow beds. Seeding, weekly, and seasonal mean concentra- 1982, r = 0.68). Ozone was more injurious
cultivation, fertilization, irrigation, and tions were computed. Atmospheric ozone to tomato than sulfur dioxide. Yields in
pesticide applications were performed by and sulfur dioxide were monitored con- chambers averaged about 18 percent low-
the grower, and conformed to standard tinuously. er than in adjacent companion plots.
commercial practices. continued
Thirty-two open-top chambers, 3 me-
ters in diameter by 2.4 meters high, were
centered on randomly selected row seg- TABLE 1. Effect of ozone on yield of ‘Murrieta’
ments on June 30, 1981, and July 14, 1982. tomato grown in opentop chambers at Tracy,
Companion plots consisting of a 3-meter California in 1981 and 1982
segment of row were established near Ozone’ Yieldt Percent lossf
each chamber to assess plot-to-plot vari-
1981
ability across the field. Twenty-four com- 0.012 61.4 - 0
50
panion plots were used in 1981 and 48 in 0.030 61.9 -
1982. 0.062 59.4 3.3
Plants inside the chambers were ex- 0.085 53.1 13.5 m
L
0.102 46.6 24.1
posed to five levels of ozone and six levels
1982 01oOo
10 aom
of sulfur dioxide in a 5x6 factorial experi- -
OD25 a050 0
01 0
0.012 59.5 Ozone concentration: seasonal 7-hr
ment. The control treatment (no pollu- 0.031 56.9 4.4 average (ppm)
tants) was replicated three times. 0.041 51.8 12.9
In 1981, ozone treatments consisted of 0.047 50.1 15.8
charcoal-filtered air, nonfiltered air, and 0.051 47.3 20.5
nonfiltered air plus 0.03, 0.06, and 0.07 * Seasonal 7-hour (0900-1600) pleans ppm
parts per million (ppm) ozone. In 1982, t Total fruit fresh weight, kg ha-
x 10.’. averaged across Fig. 1. In cooler, more humid weather of 1982,
SO, treatments
ozone was added in proportion to its con- $ Relative to yield in charcoal-filtered chambers (0, =
comparable doses of ozone caused almost
centration in atmospheric air; treatments 0 012 ppm) twice the tomato yield reduction as in 1981.
CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, MARCH-APRIL 1985 21
In 1982, atmospheric concentrations of
ozone reduced tomato yield 4.4 percent
relative to yields in charcoal-filtered
The economic effects of
chambers (table 1). A seasonal seven-hour
mean concentration of 0.051 ppm reduced
tomato yield over 20 percent relative to
air pollution on annual crops
charcoal-filtered chambers. In 1981, at- Richard E. Howitt 0 Thomas W. Gossard 0 Richard M. Adams
mospheric levels of ozone had no appar-
ent effect on tomato yield, but yields were
reduced at concentrations above 0.062
ppm. The same seasonal mean concentra- For both consumers and producers, the effects
tion of ozone had approximately twice the of ozone on agriculture are substantial
effect in reducing yield in 1982 as in 1981
(fig. 1). These results were similar to
those reported earlier for cotton (Califor-
nia Agriculture, September-October T h e adverse effects of air pollution on within 14 production regions of the state.
1983). California agriculture have been a source The results suggest that even modest
The 1981 growing season was typical of concern for at least three decades. The changes in ozone levels have substantial
of the Central Valley: high temperatures, reasons for concern are California’s spe- economic consequences.
low humidity, and little cloud cover. In cialized and highly valued crop produc- CARM finds the cropping activity that
contrast, the summer of 1982 was cooler, tion, the documented sensitivity of some maximizes the sum of consumers’ and
cloudier, and more humid than normal. In crops to air pollution, and the high levels producers’ surplus for 44 annual and pe-
1982, cooling degree-days were 36 percent of air pollutants in such major production rennial crops in all 14 production regions.
lower and precipitation 7.5 cm greater regions of the state as the South Coast and These surpluses, used by economists to es-
than in 1981. Under these conditions, to- San Joaquin Valley. This combination of timate the benefits of alternative policies,
matoes were more susceptible to ozone potentially sensitive crops and relatively are related to the intersection of the sup-
injury and yield reductions were greater high concentrations of harmful pollutants ply and demand curves at the equilibrium
in 1982 than in 1981. suggests that air pollution may be reduc- price. Conceptually, they measure the
In contrast to ozone, sulfur dioxide had ing crop yields, with economic effects on benefits of a competitive market free of
no effect on tomato yield, except a t con- both producers and consumers. government interference, monopoly pow-
centrations far higher than would be ex- Early attempts to assess these effects, er, and outside influences.
pected in the Central Valley. In addition, either in physical terms, such as reduced With CARM, the impacts of current
sulfur dioxide did not interact with ozone crop yields, or in economic terms, such as and alternative ozone levels on crop pro-
to produce greater yield losses than would reduced revenues, were hindered by a duction are determined through the yield
be expected of the two pollutants acting lack of biological information linking adjustments predicted by the dose-re-
alone. yields to changes in pollution levels (dose- sponse data. Specifically, for the base run,
response data). More information has be- the model includes yields for various
Conclusions come available in recent years, as a result crops in each of the 14 regions realized
The difference in response of tomatoes of state- and federally-funded research on under actual atmospheric (base) ozone
to air pollution in 1981 and 1982 was at- crop dose-responses to air pollution. Fur- conditions for 1978. The yield effect, mea-
tributed primarily to cooler, more humid ther, the ability to translate these phys- sured as changes from these actual yields
growing conditions in 1982, which made ical changes in yields into economic con- resulting from differing ozone levels, is
plants more susceptible to ozone injury. sequences has improved through the then entered into CARM to determine as-
Tomatoes were very resistant to sulfur development of detailed economic models sociated changes in cropping activities
dioxide, and there were no interactions of the California agricultural sector. (acreage), total production, market
between the two pollutants. These models can account for a wide prices, and economic surplus. Ozone lev-
These results indicate that tomatoes range of agronomic and economic condi- els in parts per million (ppp) of 0.04 (an
are more resistant than cotton to yield tions critical to the accurate assessment improvement in air quality from the actu-
losses caused by air pollution. However, of the effects of environmental change. al), 0.05 (a slight degradation in air qual-
levels of ozone prevalent in the Central This study uses both newly acquired ity), and 0.08 (a significant degradation)
Valley can reduce yield of ‘Murrieta’ to- dose-response data and a large-scale eco- were specified. The levels were based on
mato under certain environmental condi- nomic mathematical programming mod- a seasonal seven-hour average between 9
tions. el to assess the economic effect of ozone a.m. and 4 p.m.
on the production of several important The dose-response data are derived
Patrick J. Temple is Assistant Research Botanist, annual crops. Ozone is the most pervasive primarily from the US. Environmental
Statewide Air Pollution Research Center, University
of California, Riverside; Kris A. Surano is Physio- and harmful plant air pollutant found in Protection Agency’s (EPA) National Crop
logical Ecologist, Lawrence Livermore National California. The dose-response information Loss Assessment Network (NCLAN) pro-
Laboratory (LLNL), Livermore, California; Randall
G. Mutters is former Plant Physiologist, LLNL (now is used to predict changes in yields ex- gram. The NCLAN data are used to esti-
with the Department of Botany and Plant Sciences, pected from changes in ozone levels in ag- mate crop yields for field corn, cotton (see
UC Riverside); Gail E. Bingham is former Ecologist,
LLNL (now with Utah State University, Logan); and ricultural regions. These yield changes in California Agriculture, September-Octo-
Joseph H. Shinn is Meteorologist/Ecologist, LLNL. turn are used in the economic model to ber 1983), grain sorghum, irrigated wheat,
This work was conducted under cooperative agree- account for price effects, substitution of
ment with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agen- dry beans, lettuce, and processing toma-
c y and the California Energy Commission. Although cropping activities, and differential im- toes (see accompanying article) under al-
this research was funded in part b y USEPA through pacts on producers and consumers. The ternative ozone levels. Yield response
Interagency Agreement EPA-82-D-XO533 with G.E.
Bingharn, this article has not been subjected to agen- model, known as the California Agricul- data for an eighth crop - alfalfa hay -
c y review and therefore does not necessarily reflect tural Resources Model (CARM) measures were taken from another source.
the view of the agency. No official endorsement
should be inferred. The cooperation o f the grower, the economic effects of ozone-induced To more fully account for the effect of
John Paulsen, is gratefully acknowledged. crop yield changes for major annual crops ozone on annual crops and make the
22 CALIFORNIA AGRICULTURE, MARCH-APRIL 1985
Related docs
