Agriculture, Ecosystems and Environment, 20 (1987) 11-21

11

Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., Amsterdam - - Printed in The Netherlands

Air Pollutant Yield-Loss Assessment for Four

Vegetable Crops
P.M. McCOOL', R.C. MUSSELMAN'and R.R. TESO2

' Statewide Air Pollution Research Center, and 2California Department of Food and
Agriculture, University of California, Riverside, CA 92521 (U.S.A.)
( Accepted for publication 9 June 1987)

ABSTRACT
McCool, P.M., Musselman, R.C. and Teso, R.R., 1987.Air pollutantyield-lossassessment for four
vegetable crops. Agric. Ecosystems Environ., 20" 11-21.
Crop loss was evaluated for leaf lettuce, green onion, turnip and beet in a field chamber system

using a gradient of ambient pollutants. The nine-chamber gradient had air flows adjusted to filter
pollutants to 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 35, 20 and 0% of ambient or ambient plus added ozone. Doseresponse functions were calculated for the four crops using both a 12-h seasonal mean dose statistic
and a 0.10 #l 1- ' threshold dose summary. Yield-loss functions were generated from yield equations. Crop yield-loss functions for green onion, turnips and beets were significant with 12-h seasonal mean ozone dose. Yield-loss functions based on the 0.10/ll l - 1threshold were significant for
onion, lettuce and beets. Multiple regression analysis using both dose summary statistics did not
produce a better predictive model of yield loss for any of the four crops examined.

INTRODUCTION

There have been many estimates of both yield and economic impact of air
pollutants on crops. Early economic assessments of loss from air pollutants
ranged from $25.6M for California agriculture ( Millecan, 1971 ) to $120M nationally (Barrett and Waddell, 1973 ). These economic assessments were based
on subjective visual injury ratings which were converted into economic units.
In order for economic assessments to be as realistic and valid as possible, accurate crop-loss data as a function of air pollutant dose are necessary.
Open-top field chambers at a single site have been used to fumigate crops at
several specific pollutant dose levels to obtain a dose-response function (Heagle et al., 1973). Currently, the National Crop Loss Assessment Network
( NCLAN ) uses regional field sites in conjunction with open-top chambers to
generate dose-response data ( Heck et al., 1982 ). These field sites are selected
on the basis of distinct climatological conditions and distributions of crop species. NCLAN fumigates in chambers at specific dose levels which are related
0167-8809/87/$03.50

1987 Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

12
to ambient levels. The relative benefits and problems of specific exposure systems used in estimating crop loss have been reviewed (Musselman et al., 1986).
Initial economic assessments of crop loss utilized simple conversions of injury
to yield reductions from which economic losses were calculated. Loss assessments based solely on yield decreases do not account for changes in production
acreage and price fluctuations due to supply-demand economics. Recent studies have generated a model which attempts to integrate economic factors and
yield effects in predicting crop loss ( Howitt et al., 1985 ). This model, the California Agricultural Resources (CAR) model, estimates economic effects of
ozone-induced yield changes for major annual crops in California, using data
primarily from NCLAN. The model predicts a gain of $35.7M a year if the base
ozone level is improved to 0.04 pl l-1. A loss of $157.3M per year is predicted
if air quality degrades to the 0.08 pl l-1 level. These more sophisticated economic assessment models can use yield reduction data produced in crop-loss
experiments.
Oshima et al. (1976) developed a pollutant dose, crop-loss function method
to standardize crop-loss assessments. The dose-response function was determined using field sites in California situated along an ambient pollutant gradient. Each site used a uniform soil mixture in an effort to minimize edaphic
influences. However, other specific environmental variables such as temperature, solar radiation and humidity were not manageable and their importance
to plant growth and yield was statistically determined so that crop response to
pollutant dose could be analyzed.
An alternative approach has been developed (Oshima, 1978; Musselman et
al., 1986) which uses field fumigation chambers at a single site to develop a
pollutant gradient without confounding differences in environment between
regions with differing ozone dose levels. From this gradient, a crop yield-loss
function can be developed which could be used in assessment of economic
impact. The objective of this study was to assess yield due to ozone on four
crops and to develop loss functions relevant to California crops. Lettuce, green
onion, turnip and beet were grown to market size, and yield response to a pollutant gradient was assessed.
MATERIALSAND METHODS
Leaf lettuce (Lactuca sativa L. var. Black Seeded Simpson), green onion
(Allium cepa L. var. Evergreen Bunching ), turnip ( Brassica rapa L. var. Tokyo
Cross Hybrid), and beet (Beta vulgaris L. var. Detroit Dark Red) were planted
in closed-top field fumigation chambers (Musselman et al., 1986) in 1982.
Each chamber contained a uniform soil mixture consisting of 2 parts sand: 1
part peat: 1 part redwood shavings. Turnips and beets were seeded directly in
the chambers, while onions and lettuce were previously started from seed in
peat pots and transplanted to the chambers when beets and turnips were

13
emerging. Nine chambers were planted half with beets and half with lettuce,
while an additional nine gradient chambers were planted half onion, half turnip. All plants were placed in rows within the chambers with 0.20-m (8 inch)
spacing between row centers. The crops were separated in chambers on a N-S
axis with rows oriented north to south. Each half contained five rows, three
inner sampling rows bounded on each side by a single border row. Each sampling row was 2 m long. Beets and turnip were thinned to 0.12-m spacing along
the row, lettuce at 0.15-m spacing and green onion to an approximate 0.02-m
spacing. All plants were watered through a drip-irrigation system and fertilized
uniformly. All crops and treatments received similar amounts of water and
fertilizer. Weeds were removed by hand, and a single treatment of Orthene
was applied to beets at 40 days for control of beet armyworm. No pesticide was
applied on any other crop.
The field fumigation facility air delivery system consisted of a filtered and
unfiltered air source. Air delivered to each chamber was proportioned to generate a gradient of ambient pollutants. The air delivery system was in operation 24 h a day through to the final harvest. The experiments were conducted
from March to May when levels of ambient ozone were low. In order to deliver
sufficient ozone to elicit a potential growth impact, it was necessary to supplement ambient oxidant levels by adding ozone to the unfiltered side of the airproportioning system. Ozone concentrations at individual chambers were set
at specific percentage of ambient concentrations by adjusting air flows from
filtered and unfiltered air sources to generate the following approximate gradient of ambient or supplemented ambient pollutants in each nine-chamber
set: 100, 90, 80, 70, 60, 50, 35, 20 and 0%. During fumigations, sufficient ozone
was added to the ambient air supply to result in a peak level of 0.25 ~1 1-1 in
the chamber adjusted to 100% ambient. Concentrations in the other chambers
followed the predetermined gradient during the fumigation periods. However,
during low ambient ozone levels, such as at night, instrument resolution was
not sufficiently precise to differentiate concentrations between chambers. It
was also observed that the gradient changed somewhat with ambient concentration. During periods of the year with high ambient ozone, such as June to
September, supplemental fumigations would not be necessary as peak ambient
levels often exceed 0.20 #l l-1 ozone.
Ozone was generated by an OREC Model 03V10-AR ozone generator (Ozone
Research and Equipment, Phoenix, AZ). Supplemental ozone fumigations extended from 10.00 am to 3.00 pm PST. Ozone monitoring was initiated at the
time of emergence of beets and turnips and was continued until the final crop
was harvested. General chamber characteristics including temperature, light,
air flow and concentration gradients within chambers are reported elsewhere
( Musselman et al., 1986 ). Total ozone dose for each treatment was calculated
by two methods for comparative purposes.
The first method subtracted a 0.10 ttl 1-~ threshold from the daily hourly

14

12 f
I0
v

0 ~'~"
'~"~

o~

I- 8 ~",.~ O
nuJ _ O ~ A

" --..~
A
"...

I
I0

12

14

OZONE (ILL L-I-hrs>.lO)

I
0

i
0.02

i
0.04

I
0.06

I
0.08

I
0.10

OZONE p.LL-1(12-hr. SEASONAL MEAN)

Fig. 1. Regression of onion ( m e a n fresh weight per c h a m b e r ) on ozone dose based on >/0.10 #l
l - 1 threshold a n d 12-h seasonal mean. O = >i 0.10 ttl 1 ] threshold, A = 12-h seasonal mean (dashed
line). See text for calculation of dose.

average concentrations which were then summed for each chamber in the gradient. Ozone doses were the sum of both ambient and supplemental ozone. The
0.10/~l l-1 03 threshold for dose calculations was chosen to provide continuity
with previous loss functions developed for other California crops (Oshima et
al., 1976; McCool et al., 1986). The threshold was originally chosen because at
that time it was, and remains, the California state standard for ozone and doses
above the standard which reduced yield were to be investigated. The threshold
also helped to eliminate low night background levels of ozone which elicit no
plant response. Lefohn and Benedict (1982) also used a 0.10/~l l-1 threshold
in their analysis of pollutant exposures. This threshold enabled them to avoid
equal mathematical weighting of doses accumulated from many low concentration exposures and few high concentration exposures. The threshold is arbitrary, however, and plant response may occur at concentrations below 0.10/tl
l-1 (Heagle et al., 1985). Total dosages do not match treatment proportions
of ambient ozone because only values > 0.10/11 1-1 are included in the dose
summary. This resulted in a greater proportion of the ozone values from the
chambers with low ozone being eliminated from the accumulated dose.
The second dose summary used a 12-h mean averaged over the crop season.
The 12-h period encompassed the hours 09.00-21.00 PST. This procedure is
similar to both the 7-h seasonal mean used previously by NCLAN (Heck et
al., 1982) and to the 12-h mean currently used by NCLAN (P.J. Temple, personal communication, 1985).
Fumigations were initiated approximately 14 days after emergence of the

15

&o

~L

a~

~
Q)

E~
~L

16
70

60

5O
I--

~ 4o
3O

W
n,"
~" 2O

IO
I
2

I
L
4
6
OZONE

0.02
OZONE

I
8

I
I0
( #.L L-~O.IO)
I

I
12
I

0.04
0.06
#.L L-1(12-hr. S E A S O N A L

I
14
I

0.08
MEAN)

0.10

Fig. 2. Regression of beet ( mean fresh weight per chamber) on ozone dose based on >/0.10 ~tl 1threshold and 12-h seasonal mean (dashed line). O = >t 0.10/11 l - 1 threshold, A - 12-h seasonal
mean.

beets and turnips. Lettuce and onion were approximately 20 days post germination at this time. Fumigations were initially conducted once a week for three
weeks and then twice a week on consecutive days for the next five weeks. Supplemental ozone fumigations simulated periodic episodes of high ambient ozone.
Plants received normal ambient ozone in the predetermined proportions at all

200l
180
O
" ~ 16o

140

o
' c
80z(lo

I
2.0

[
4.0

OZONE

I
6.0

I
8.0

i
ta o

( ~ L L-i > 0 . 1 0 )

Fig. 3. Regression of lettuce (mean fresh weight per chamber) on ozone dose based on >/0.10 jul
l - 1 threshold.

17
160

140

" ~ 120
I."1"
-~ ioo
I
m
w
k~

80

60

40

O'

0.02

0.04

o.o6

o.o8

O.lO

OZONE g L L"l (12-hr. SEASONAL MEAN)

Fig. 4. Regression of turnip (mean fresh weight per chamber) on ozone dose based on 12-h seasonal mean.

o t h e r times, 24 h a day. T u r n i p s were h a r v e s t e d 53 days post-seeding, lettuce

60 days p o s t - s e e d i n g a n d b e e t s a n d o n i o n s 78 days a f t e r seeding. F o r all crops,
p l a n t s were h a r v e s t e d f r o m t h e m i d d l e t h i r d o f all t h r e e s a m p l i n g rows in each
c h a m b e r half. T h e t o t a l n u m b e r o f p l a n t s h a r v e s t e d f r o m e a c h c h a m b e r was
25 for b e e t a n d t u r n i p , 24 for l e t t u c e a n d 100 for onion. All p l a n t s were washed,
b l o t t e d d r y a n d f r e s h weights recorded. F r e s h weights were b a s e d o n t h e normal m a r k e t a b l e p o r t i o n o f e a c h c r o p as d e t e r m i n e d b y U n i t e d S t a t e s m a r k e t i n g
s t a n d a r d s ( U S D A M a r k e t i n g Service, W a s h i n g t o n , D C ). One c h a m b e r in e a c h
TABLE II
Result of regression analysis, yield and loss functions for four crops based on dose summary statistic/> 0.10/d 1- ~ozone

Regression
significance
Coefficient of
determination
Yield
function
Coefficients
(s.d.)
Loss
function

Lettuce

Onion

Turnip

Beet

F = 11.82"

F = 23.68*

F = 1.89 n.s. 1

F = 6.78*

R2=0.663

R2=0.798

R2=0.240

R2=0.530

y = 157.55-8.18
(Dose)
-8.18 (2.38)

y = 8.12-0.485
(Dose)
-0.49 (0.099)

N.A.2
N.A.

y = 56.0-1.45
(Dose)
-1.45 (0.555)

% reduction =
5.19 (Dose)

% reduction =
5.97 (Dose)

N.A.

% reduction =
2.59 (Dose)

*,**Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 levels, respectively.

1Non-significant at P = 0.05.
2 Yield functions, coefficient, and loss functions not reported for non-significant regressions.

18
T A B L E III
Results of regression analysis, yield and loss functions for four crops based on dose summary
statistic 12-h day 1 seasonal mean

Regression
significance
Coefficient of
determination
Yield
function
Coefficients (s.d.)
Loss
function

Lettuce

Onion

Turnip

Beet

F = 4 . 1 8 n.s. 1

F=27.84"*

F = 10.7"

F=6.77"

R2=0.411

R2=0.823

R2=0.641

R2=0.530

N.A. 2

y = 11.1-88.1
(Dose)
- 8 8 . 1 (16.7)
% reduction =
793.7 (Dose)

y = 155.5-1026.6
(Dose)
-1026.6 (313.8)
% reduction -660.2 (Dose)

y = 64.7-258.3
(Dose)
- 2 5 8 . 3 (99.2)
% reduction =
399.2 (Dose)

N.A.
N.A.

*,** Significant at 0.05 and 0.01 level, respectively.

1 Non-significance at P = 0.05.
2 Yield functions, coefficient and loss functions not reported for non-significant regressions.

of the nine-chamber gradients was eliminated at harvest due to lack of uniformity resulting from a malfunctioning irrigation and fertilization system. A
90% ambient chamber was removed from one gradient and a 70% ambient
chamber was eliminated from the other.
In order to improve curve fitting of functions, the number of chambers
(doses) along the regression line was maximized. Treatments were randomly
assigned to chambers to help eliminate chamber bias. Crop loss funtions were
generated by first regressing yield on ozone dose to generate yield equations.
Both the 12-h mean seasonal average and accumulated dose > 0.10/~l l - 1were
used in the yield calculation. Linear, quadratic and cubic equations were all
tested for significance. Significance of the regression indicated a significant
ozone effect on yield. The best resultant regression equation (yield= a + b X
dose + c X dose2...) was then used to predict yield at zero dose and then to
convert yield values to percentage reduction values using the following equation: % reduction= ( a - y ) / a 100, where y = y i e l d and a--intercept.

RESULTS

>10.10/21 l- 1 threshold dose

Mean fresh weight and ozone dose for the four crops are listed in Table I.
Ozone doses varied among crops due to differing harvesting dates. Regression

19
analysis of yield on dose indicated significant linear functions for onion, beet
and lettuce {Figs. 1, 2 and 3, respectively). Yields of these three crops decreased with increasing dose. Yield of turnip was not significantly correlated
with this dose statistic. Yield regressions, loss functions and regression parameters are summarized in Table II for accumulated dose >/0.10/A 1-1 ozone.
12-h seasonal mean dose

The 12-h mean doses can be compared to the >/0.10/L11-1 threshold dose in
Table I. Significant regressions of yield on 12-h mean dose were obtained for
onion, beet and turnip (Figs. 1, 2 and 4, respectively). The significant yield
functions for these three crops were linear. Unlike the 0.10/~l 1-1 threshold
dose, turnip exhibited a significant yield reduction. In contrast, leaf lettuce
yield decreases were not significantly correlated with 12-h mean seasonal dose,
but were significant for 0.10/~1 1-1 threshold. Regression parameters for the
12-h mean dose are presented in Table III.
DISCUSSION
Two dose-summary statistics were utilized in this study. The 0.10/~l 1-1
threshold dose emphasizes higher peak ozone episodes in the evaluation of
plant response. The 12-h seasonal mean dose summary incorporates both low
background levels and higher ozone levels averaged over a 12-h day for the
growing season. Although not directly comparable, the two dose statistics provide alternate methods for assessing crop yield loss. The 0.10 #l 1-1 threshold
essentially evaluates the effects of dose greater than the primary ozone standard for California and may be a valuable regulatory criterion in the process
of setting ozone standards. This dose statistic tends to emphasize peak values
which have been shown to be important in plant response to pollutants ( Musselman et al., 1983; Hogsett et al., 1985).
Loss assessment for turnip has been previously reported. Using 0.025/~11-1
ozone as a control level, Heagle et al. (1985) predicted root yield reductions
for four combined cultivars of 7, 24 and 42% at 7-h seasonal mean ozone levels
of 0.04, 0.06 and 0.08/A l-1, respectively. The turnip-loss function developed
in the study reported here utilizing the 12-h seasonal mean dose with 0.025 ~l
1-1 control level, predicts losses of 10, 23 and 36% at 12-h seasonal doses of
0.04, 0.06 and 0.08/zl l-1, respectively. These reductions agree quite closely
with those reported from Heagle et al. (1985), despite the differences in fumigation chambers (open vs. closed top), environmental conditions (North
Carolina vs. California) and dose statistics ( 7-h vs. 12-h seasonal means ). The
0.10/~1 l- 1threshold dose summary also reported here was not significant when
regressed against yield of turnip.
Heck et al. (1982) reported that head lettuce grown in California exhibited

20
a 53-56% reduction in growth due to ambient ozone exposures (0.025/~l l-1
control). The data reported here demonstrated a significant loss function for
leaf lettuce using the 0.10 pl 1-1 threshold dose summary, but not for 12-h
seasonal mean. Direct comparisons of lettuce data are difficult due to differences in dose-summary statistics, cultivar differences (head vs. leaf variety),
and growth conditions between experiments.
Yield functions for beets and onions were significant with both dose-summary statistics. In order to determine if yield functions would be best described
by a combination of both dose statistics used here, a stepwise multiple regression analysis was run. This would determine if both peak and mean values
together would predict yield more effectively than either one by itself. The
parameters used in this analysis were linear, quadratic and cubic forms of the
12-h seasonal mean and the 0.10/~l l-1 threshold dose. The stepwise multiple
regression incorporates one parameter at a time, ranked by F-value, until additional factors do not meet a minimum level of significance to be added to the
equation. Analysis of the four crops indicated that once either the 12-h mean
or 0.10 pl 1-1 threshold dose was incorporated as the initial factor, no other
factors added significance to the regression. Therefore, with this data set, the
best description of yield by dose is by either single dose statistic. The dose
statistic for each crop which was chosen by multiple regression analysis depended on which had the highest F-value in the regression. For onions and
beets, both dose statistics yielded significant F-values in the linear yield regression. However, the F-values were very close for the two statistics and therefore
it is not reasonable to state whether one statistic is a better predictor than the
other. Data from other crops may be able to use successfully the combined dose
statistics which incorporate both peaks and mean dosages to predict yield losses.
These equations may be incorporated into suitable models for economic assessment of crop loss in California. Further experiments may use alternate
thresholds and dose characteristics to fit the existing economic models better.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

These crop-loss functions are part of a program developed and funded by

the California Department of Food and Agriculture. This methodology has
been developed to aid in assessing air pollution crop losses for California. Croploss functions are compiled in a crop-loss manual and are distributed to country agricultural commissioners. The manuals are available to other interested
parties.
We thank T. Younglove, D. Clark, H. Haggerty and G. DeHart for technical
assistance in this study.

21
REFERENCES
Barrett, L.B. and Waddell, T.E., 1973. Cost of Air Pollution Damage: A Status Report. Publ. AP85, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC, pp. 27-31.
Heagle, A.S., Body, D.E. and Heck, W.W., 1973. An open-top fieldchamber to assess the impact
of air pollution on plants.J. Environ. Qual., 2: 365-368.
Heagle, A.S., Cure, W.W. and Rawlings, J.O., 1985. Response of turnips to chronic doses of ozone
in open-top fieldchambers. Environ. Pollut. (Set. A), 38: 305-319.
Heck, W.W., Taylor, O.C., Adams, R.A., Bingham, G., Miller, J., Preston, E. and Weinstein, L.,
1982. Assessment of crop loss from ozone. J. Air Pollut. Control. Assoc., 32: 353-361.
Hogsett, W.E., Tingey, D.T. and Holman, S.R., 1985. A programmable exposure control system
for determination of the effectsof pollutant exposure regimes on plant growth. Atmos. Environ., 19: 1135-1145.
Howitt, R.E., Gossard, T.W. and Adams, R.M., 1985. The economic effectsof air pollution on
annual crops. Calif.Agric.,39: 22-24.
Lefohn, A.S. and Benedict, H.M., 1982. Development of a mathematical index that describes
ozone concentration, frequency and duration. Atmos. Environ., 16: 2529-2532.
McCool, P.M., Musselman, R.C., Teso, R.R. and Oshima, R.J., 1986. Determining crop yieldlosses
from air pollutants.Calif.Agric.,40: 9-10.
Millecan, A.A., 1971. A Survey and Assessment of Air Pollution Damage to CaliforniaVegetation
in 1970. California Department of Food and Agriculture, Sacramento, CA, 48 pp.
Musselman, R.C., Oshima, R.J. and Galavan, R.E., 1983. Significance of pollutant concentration
distribution in the response of"red kidney" beans to ozone. J. Am. Soc. Hort. Sci., 108: 347-351.
Musselman, R.C., McCool, P.M., Oshima, R.J. and Teso, R.R., 1986. Field chambers for assessing
crop loss from air pollutants. J. Environ. Qual., 15: 152-157.
Oshima, R.J., 1978. The Impact of Sulfur Dioxide on Vegetation: A Sulfur Dioxide-Ozone Response
Model. Final Report to California Air Resources Board (ARB Agreement A6-162-30), 91 pp.
Oshima, R.J., Poe, M.P., Braegelmann, P.K., Baldwin, D.W. and Van Way, V., 1976. Ozone dosage-crop loss function for alfalfa: a standardized method for assessing crop losses from air
pollutants. J. Air Pollut. Control Assoc., 26: 861-865.