Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data - 2016

Back to 2016 Pesticide Use Reporting (PUR) Menu


CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF PESTICIDE REGULATION

California Environmental Protection Agency
P.O. Box 4015
Sacramento, California 95812-4015

Edmund G. Brown Jr., Governor

Matt Rodriquez, Secretary
California Environmental Protection Agency

Brian R. Leahy, Director
Department of Pesticide Regulation

State Seal

April 2018

Any portion of this report may be reproduced for any but profit-making purposes.
If you have questions concerning this report, contact PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov.

Contents

How To Access the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data

Year in Summary

1.  Introduction

2.  Comments and Clarifications of Data

3.  Data Summary

4.  Trends in Pesticide Use For Select Pesticide Categories

5.  Trends in Pesticide Use for select Commodities

6.  Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2016 Indexed by Commodity, PDF (9.2 mb)

     Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2016 Indexed by Chemical, PDF (9 mb)

Appendix


How to Access the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data

The Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data issued by the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (DPR) for the years 1989-2016 can be found by clicking the “Access Annual Reports” link under the Pesticide Use Annual Summary Reports section at www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm. The tables in the Statewide Report and County Summary Reports list the pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied, the number of applications, and the number of acres or other unit treated. The data is available in two formats:

  • Indexed by chemical: The report indexed by chemical shows all the commodities and sites in which a particular AI was applied.
  • Indexed by commodity: The report indexed by commodity shows all the AIs that were applied to a particular commodity or site.

The following pesticide use report data can be downloaded from the Department’s File Transfer Protocol (FTP) site at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur_archives/.

  • Annual Report Data: The raw data used in the Pesticide Use Annual Summary Reports for 1989 to 2016. The files are in text (comma-delimited) format and do not include updates that occur after the Pesticide Use Annual Summary was released. For more up-to-date data, use the online California Information Portal (CalPIP) at https://calpip.cdpr.ca.gov/main.cfm or contact DPR at PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov
  • Early Pesticide Use Data 1974 - 1989: Pesticide use data from 1974 to 1989 is available as text files.
  • Microfiche Pesticide Use Data 1970 - 1973: Files of summarized pesticide use data from 1970 to 1973 are available as PDF scans of microfiche.

Starting in 2016, the data from each figure or table in the annual report can be found at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Please direct any questions regarding the Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data to the Department of Pesticide Regulation, Pest Management and Licensing Branch, P.O. Box 4015, Sacramento, California 95812-4015, or you may request copies of the data by contacting PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov.

Year in Summary

Reported pesticide use for California in 2016 totaled 209 million pounds of applied active ingredients (AIs) and 101 million cumulative acres treated. Compared to 2015, pounds of AIs decreased by 3 million (1.4 percent) while the area treated increased by 4.3 million (4.4 percent). Biopesticides increased in both the pounds applied and the area treated since 2015. Pounds of pesticides considered to be reproductive toxins, carcinogens, cholinesterase inhibitors, ground water contaminants, toxic air contaminants, fumigants, and oils all decreased since 2015, although the area treated with carcinogens, ground water contaminants, and oils increased. The AIs with the highest total reported pounds were sulfur, petroleum and mineral oils, 1,3-dichloropropene, glyphosate, and metam-potassium (potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate) while the AIs with the highest reported cumulative area treated were glyphosate, sulfur, petroleum and mineral oils, abamectin, and copper.


I. Introduction

California’s pesticide use reporting program is the most comprehensive in the world. California has reported pesticide use in some form since 1934. However the detailed reporting that occurs today did not begin until the 1990s. Until 1954, only statistics on aerial pesticide applications were recorded. In 1954, state regulators asked for reports on ground application acreage, without any detailed information about the pesticides used or commodities treated. In 1970, growers were required to report all applications of restricted materials and pest control operators were required to report all pesticides used. The Food Safety Act of 1989 (Chapter 1200, AB 2161) gave DPR statutory authority to require full reporting of agricultural pesticide use. In 1990, California became the first state requiring full reporting of agricultural pesticide use to better inform DPR’s pesticide regulatory programs. Prior to full reporting, the regulatory program’s estimates of pesticide use frequently relied on maximum rates and applications as listed on the label, overstating many risks. Over the years, these data have been used by a variety of individuals and groups, including government officials, scientists, growers, legislators, and public interest groups. Most pesticide use data required to be reported must be sent to the county agricultural commissioner (CAC), who then reports the data to DPR. On average, DPR collects around three million pesticide use records a year. Currently the PUR database contains over 77 million pesticide use records, going back to 1990. (A pesticide application record represents an individual pesticide product, even if it was applied simultaneously with other products in the field or if it contained more than one AI).

California’s broad definition of “agricultural use” requires reporting pesticide applications in production agriculture, parks, golf courses, cemeteries, rangeland, pastures, and along roadside and railroad rights-of-way. Production agricultural pesticide use is a subset of agricultural use, defined as use of a pesticide for the “production for sale of an agricultural commodity” or “agricultural plant commodity.” Each application of pesticide on crops (production agriculture) must include the site name given to a location or field by the CAC as well as the section (square mile) in which the application occurred. Most other uses are aggregated and reported by month with only the county identified. These other uses include rights-of-way applications, all postharvest pesticide treatments of agricultural commodities, structural applications by licensed applicators, all pesticide treatments in poultry and fish production, and some livestock applications. In addition, all applications made by licensed applicators and outdoor applications of pesticides that have the potential to pollute ground water must be reported. The primary exceptions to the reporting requirements are residential home and garden uses, veterinary uses, and most industrial and institutional uses.

In addition to requiring pesticide use reporting, California law (Food and Agricultural Code [FAC] section 12979) directs DPR to use the reports in setting priorities for monitoring food, enforcing pesticide laws, protecting the safety of farm workers, monitoring the environment for unanticipated residues, researching pest management practices, monitoring and researching public health issues, and similar activities. These activities help DPR continuously evaluate currently registered pesticides (FAC section 12824), another mandated activity. Information gathered during continuous evaluation is used to gauge the performance of DPR’s regulatory programs and justify additional measures, including development of new regulations or reevaluation or cancellation of pesticide registrations. California Code of Regulations Title 3, sections 6624 et seq. further describe pesticide use record keeping and reporting requirements.

Continuous Evaluation of Pesticides

The Pesticide Use Report (PUR) greatly increases the accuracy and efficiency of continuous evaluation of pesticides by providing details on each application, including date, location, site (e.g., crop), time, acres or units treated, and the identity and quantity of each pesticide product applied. These data allow scientists and others to identify trends in pesticide use, compare use locations with other geographical information and data, and perform quantitative assessments and evaluations of risks pesticides may pose to human health and the environment.

DPR uses the PUR throughout its pesticide regulatory programs in ways that can be broadly grouped as temporal (time), geospatial (place), and quantitative (amount), often combining elements of each.

Temporal analyses can pinpoint specific applications or span many years. Investigations into suspected worker illnesses, spray drift, fish or wildlife losses, or other enforcement inquiries frequently begin with a review of the PUR to see what applications were made in an area at a particular time. Protection of ground and surface waters, assessments of acute and chronic risks to human health, and allocation of monitoring and enforcement resources often begin with analyses of PUR data spanning many years to evaluate pesticide use trends.

Geospatial analyses may be local or expansive. Local analyses are used to help set priorities for surface and ground water monitoring programs by determining pesticide use and runoff potential in specific watersheds or other defined areas. DPR scientists calculate contributions of smog-forming volatile organic compounds (VOCs) in the atmosphere from pesticide products using pesticide use data in combination with emissions potential data of products. DPR further refines the analyses to specific air basins that are particularly vulnerable to air pollution to determine whether pesticide-related VOC emissions are below required targets or whether additional restrictions on use may be warranted to protect air quality. More expansive analyses examine the proximity of pesticide use to endangered species habitat, resulting in the development of best use practices to protect these species. These analyses are invaluable when assessing regulatory responses or evaluating the performance of voluntary stewardship efforts.

Quantitative assessments are broadly used to model risks of pesticide use to humans and the environment. The quality and depth of the information provided in the PUR allows researchers to apply realistic assumptions when modeling pesticide exposure. PUR data have been used to model pesticide exposure of people who live near agricultural lands, workers in the field, handlers preparing and applying pesticides, and aquatic organisms inhabiting waterways that receive agricultural runoff. Analysis of the PUR enables well-informed and realistic assessments for risk management decisions.

It is frequently assumed that increases in the pounds, area treated, or number of applications of pesticides will correspond to higher risk to human health or the environment. However it is important to remember that risk is a function not only of the pesticide amount used, but also the toxicity of the AI to a non-targeted organism and the organism's exposure to the AI. For example, kaolin clay was a large contributor to the total pounds of pesticides used in California in 2016, ranking 10th in the top 100 pesticides used by pounds. Kaolin is a biopesticide and considered a minimum risk chemical. Increased use of lower risk chemicals do not heighten risk in the same way as increases in use of conventional chemicals, and may actually serve to reduce overall risk if they are used as alternatives to higher risk chemicals.

In contrast, some AIs with high toxicity are only needed in very small amounts to be effective pest control agents, and therefore have low total pounds. However if the toxicity, mode of action, and selectivity of the AI can cause unintended harm to a non-target organism, then a small amount of an AI with high toxicity could pose a greater risk than a large amount of an AI with a lower known toxicity.

In addition to toxicity, exposure plays a large role in determining potential human health or environmental risks. Minimizing exposure to an AI is generally thought to reduce risk of harm from the AI. Risk can therefore be mitigated through a number of tools and practices that minimize exposure, such as personal protective equipment (PPE), buffer zones, drift reduction practices and equipment, application timing with favorable environmental conditions, vegetative filter strips, tailwater ponds, and many other innovative techniques. In summary, when using PUR data to assess risk from an AI, consider the AI’s toxicity and exposure potential as well.

The passage of the federal Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) of 1996 launched the PUR into a more integral role as a tool for monitoring and achieving compliance with updated food safety regulations. The FQPA contained a new food safety standard against which all pesticide tolerances–amounts of pesticide residue allowed by federal law to remain on a harvested crop–must be measured. PUR data became increasingly important to commodity groups, University of California (UC) specialists, the United States Environmental Protection Agency (U.S. EPA), and other interested parties as they reassessed tolerances and calculated dietary risks from pesticides based on actual reported uses. PUR information such as pesticide type, use rates, geographical locations, crops, and timing of applications help researchers understand how various pest management options are implemented in the field. Analyses of these data are the basis for grant projects that DPR funds to promote the development and adoption of integrated pest management practices in both agricultural and urban settings.

The PUR data are used by state, regional, and local agencies, scientists, and public interest groups. The data are an invaluable tool for understanding pesticide use in order to protect human health and the environment while balancing the population’s need for quality food, fiber, shelter, and surroundings.

Data Collection

Partial reporting of agricultural pesticide use has been in place in California since the 1930s, although much of this early data has been lost or is not available through DPR. In the early years, CACs required agricultural pest control operators to submit monthly reports. County requirements varied, but many reports included a statement for each application that showed the grower’s name, the location and date of the application, the crop and the size of area treated, the target pest, and the type and amount of pesticide applied. Only statistics on aerial pesticide applications were forwarded to the state for tabulation. In 1955, state regulators asked for reports on ground application acreage but discontinued requirements for detailed reporting of pesticides used and commodities treated. In 1970, DPR required growers to report all applications of restricted-use pesticides, and pest control operators to report all pesticides used, whether restricted or not. Both kinds of reports had to include the date, location, site (e.g., crop), acres or units treated, and the identity and quantity of each pesticide applied. Production agricultural applications included records for each application and the location to within a square mile area (section, township, and range); all other applications were reported as a monthly summary by county. The reports were filed with the CAC, who forwarded the data to the state, where it was entered into a database and summarized in annual publications.

The Food Safety Act of 1989 (Chapter 12001, Assembly Bill 2161) gave DPR statutory authority to require full reporting of pesticide use. DPR adopted regulations the same year and full-use reporting began in 1990. The first years of full-use reporting nearly overwhelmed DPR’s capacity to process data. Use reports were on paper, and required staff to manually enter data from more than a million records each year. DPR began searching almost immediately for ways to automate reporting from pesticide users to the CAC, and, in turn, from the counties to DPR. However, it was difficult to find an approach that suited the diversity of use reporting and differing budget resources among the counties. Starting in 1991, various automated programs were developed and modified by DPR and CACs. Meanwhile, technological progress and increasing use of online resources by businesses fed expectations for more web-based functionality for pesticide use reporting.

CalAgPermits

In 2011, the counties implemented CalAgPermits, a standardized, web-based system that greatly enhanced the efficiency of data entry and transfer, and thus the accuracy and integrity of the PUR database. In addition to helping CACs issue restricted-materials permits, it allowed individuals and firms the option of reporting pesticide use electronically. CalAgPermits also greatly enhanced data quality assurance by adding another level of automated data validation and error checking of submitted pesticide use reports in addition to what occurs after transmission to DPR. The many improvements in the ability to share data electronically between DPR and CACs have greatly improved the efficiency and effectiveness of quality control for the PUR.

Improving Data Quality

DPR checks the quality of PUR data many times between the initial data entry and before it is made available to the public. CalAgPermits checks for data entry errors, such as whether the pesticide applicator has the correct permits for any restricted materials reported or whether the pesticide product is allowed on the reported application site. Once the data have been received by DPR they undergo more than 50 different validity checks such as verifying product registration numbers and confirming that products are registered for use on the reported site of application. The PUR database may include products that do not have an active registration since end-users are allowed to continue using stocks purchased prior to a product’s registration becoming inactive. Records flagged for suspected errors are returned electronically to the county for resolution. Additional data checks are performed to identify errors and outliers in pesticide use amounts via an extensive statistical method developed by DPR in the late 1990s. If a reported use rate (amount of pesticide per area treated) greatly exceeds maximum label rates, it is flagged as an error and sent back to the CAC to confirm. If the county is unable to identify the correct rate, an estimated rate equal to the median rate of all other applications of the pesticide product on the same crop or site is used instead. Although less than one percent of the reports are flagged with this type of error, some errors are so large that if included, they would significantly affect the total cumulative amount of applied pesticides. For more information on errors and identifying outliers in the PUR, see www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/outlier.pdf and www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pestmgt/pubs/pm9801.pdf

Improving Access to the Data

There are several ways to access the PUR data. Annual reports serve as an accessible snapshot summary of the much larger PUR database. Before the late 1990s, summaries were available by request and were only hard copy. As use of online resources increased, DPR improved public access to the data and presented it in a more meaningful context, posting the summary annually on its website www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm. In addition, the PUR data used in each annual report from 1984 on can be downloaded from DPR’s FTP website ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur_archives/. This data does not include any updates that may have occurred after the release of the annual report. Scans of the hard copy summaries from 1974 to 1989 are also available on the FTP site, although they are less a report and more of a tabular summary of pesticide use data by county. They differ greatly from the current type of detailed annual reports analyzing various pesticide use trends done today. Recently, PDF files of scanned summary pesticide use reports on microfiche from 1970 to 1973 were added to the FTP site for download.

Starting in 1996, DPR scientists began analyzing critical crops and their pest problems as well as trends in the pounds of pesticides used, and the number of applications and acres treated. Each year, the annual report charts pesticide use over several years in specific categories:

  • Reproductive toxins
  • Carcinogens
  • organophosphorus and carbamate cholinesterase inhibitors
  • Chemicals classified by DPR as ground water contaminants
  • Chemicals listed by DPR as toxic air contaminants
  • Fumigants
  • Oil pesticides derived from petroleum distillation (many of which serve as alternatives to high-toxicity pesticides)
  • Biopesticides (including microorganisms, naturally occurring compounds, or compounds similar to those in nature that are not toxic to the target pest, such as pheromones)
  • Crops (DPR analyzes pesticide use trends for around a dozen crops with the highest amount of pesticide used or acreage treated)

Pesticide use trend analyses can help regulatory agencies understand where efforts to promote reduced-risk pest management strategies are succeeding or failing. Information on long-term trends also helps researchers better identify emerging challenges and direct research to finding solutions.

In 2003, DPR launched the web-based California Pesticide Information Portal (CalPIP) database to increase public access to the PUR. CalPIP provides pesticide use information including date, site or crop treated, pounds used, acres treated, pesticide product name, AI name, application pattern (ground, air, or other), county, ZIP code, and location where the application was made to within a one-square-mile area. CalPIP annually updates the previous few years of data to account for any changes due to errors identified after the annual report has been released, so it is the most up-to-date source of pesticide information available via the website www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm.

Starting in 2016, text files of the data from all tables and figures in the annual reports can be accessed at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

II. Comments and Clarifications of Data

When analyzing the data contained in this report, it is important to consider the following:

Terminology

  • Product versus active ingredient (AI):A pesticide product contains both active and inert ingredients. An AI is a component of a pesticide product that controls target pests. There can be more than one AI in a product. Inert ingredients are all the other ingredients of the product which do not target the pest but may enhance product performance and application. Pesticide use of products is reported to DPR, where the associated AIs are identified and their use trends are analyzed.
  • Number of agricultural applications: Number of applications of pesticide products made to production agriculture. More detailed information is given below under “Number of Applications.”
  • Pounds applied: Total pounds of active ingredient summed over a given time period, geographic area, crop, or other category of interest. The pounds of AI in a single application is calculated by converting the product amount to pounds, then multiplying the pounds of product by the percent of the AI in the product
  • Unit type: The type of area treated with the pesticide::
    • A = Acreage
    • C = Cubic feet (usually of postharvest commodity treated)
    • K = Thousand cubic feet (usually of postharvest commodity treated)
    • P = Pounds (usually of postharvest commodity treated)
    • S = Square feet
    • T = Tons (usually of postharvest commodity treated)
    • U = Miscellaneous units (e.g., number of tractors, trees, tree holes, bins)
  • Acres treated: Cumulative number of acres treated. More detailed information is given below under “Acres Treated.”
  • Risk Analysis: When using PUR data to analyze potential human health or environmental risks, consider the toxicity of the AI and the potential for exposure.

Agricultural and Non-Agricultural Pesticide Use

Many pesticide licensing, sales, and use requirements are tied to California’s definition of agricultural use. Pesticide labels differentiate between agricultural, industrial, or institutional uses. Some pesticide products are labeled for both agricultural and nonagricultural uses. California law (FAC section 11408) identifies agricultural use as all use except the following categories specifically identified as nonagricultural use:

  • Home: Use in or around the immediate environment of a household. Licensed, professional pesticide applications are reported as nonagricultural use (usually “structural pest control” or “landscape maintenance”). Unlicensed, non-professional, residential pesticide applications around a home or garden are not required to be reported.
  • Industrial: Use in or on property necessary to operate factories, processing plants, packing houses, or similar buildings or use for a manufacturing, mining, or chemical process. Postharvest commodity fumigations for buildings or on trucks, vans, or rail cars are normally considered industrial use. Industrial pesticide uses are not required to be reported unless the pesticide is a restricted material, has the potential to pollute ground water, or was made by a licensed pest control operator. In California, industrial use does not include use on rights-of-way.
  • Institutional: Use in or on property necessary to operate buildings such as hospitals, office buildings, libraries, auditoriums, or schools. Includes pesticide use on landscaping and around walkways, parking lots, and other areas bordering the institutional buildings. Institutional pesticide uses are not required to be reported unless the pesticide is a restricted material, has the potential to pollute ground water, or was made by a licensed pest control operator. Note that the Healthy Schools Act of 2000 requires additional pesticide use reporting by both unlicensed and licensed professionals if the pesticide application takes place at a school or childcare center. See the California School and Child Care Pesticide Use Report Summary for more information at https://apps.cdpr.ca.gov/schoolipm/school_ipm_law/2015_pur_summary.pdf.
  • Structural: Use by licensed structural pest control operators within the scope of their licenses
  • Vector control: Use by certain vector control (e.g., mosquito abatement) districts
  • Veterinary: Use according to a written prescription of a licensed veterinarian. Veterinary prescription pesticide use is not reported to the State.

Agricultural use of pesticides includes:

  • Production agricultural use: Any pesticide used to produce a plant or animal agricultural product (food, feed, fiber, ornamental, or forest) that will be distributed in the channels of trade (Some requirements—most notably those that address worker safety and use reporting—apply only to plant product production.)
  • Nonproduction agricultural use: Any pesticide used on watersheds, rights-of-way, and landscaped areas (e.g., golf courses, parks, recreation areas, and cemeteries) not covered by the definitions of home and institutional uses

The following specific pesticide uses are required to be reported to the CAC who, in turn, reports the data to DPR:

  • Production of any agricultural commodity except livestock (where livestock is defined in FAC section 18663 as “any cattle, sheep, swine, goat, or any horse, mule or other equine, whether live or dead”)
  • Treatment of postharvest agricultural commodities
  • Landscape maintenance in parks, golf courses, cemeteries, and similar sites defined in the FAC as agricultural use
  • Roadside and railroad rights-of-way
  • Poultry and fish production
  • Application of a restricted material
  • Application of a pesticide listed in regulation as having the potential to pollute ground water when used outdoors in industrial and institutional settings
  • Application by licensed pest control operators, including agricultural and structural applicators and maintenance gardeners

What must be reported. Growers must submit their production agricultural pesticide use reports to the CAC by the tenth day of the month following the month in which the work was performed, and pest control businesses must submit seven days after the application. Not all information submitted to the counties is transferred to DPR.

Production agricultural pesticide use reports include the following:

  • Date and time of application
  • Geographic location including the county, section, township, range, base, and meridian.
  • Operator identification number (An operator identification number, sometimes called a “grower ID,” is issued by CAC to property operators. The number is needed to report pesticide use and to purchase restricted-use pesticides. Pest control professionals are not required to obtain an operator ID number.)
  • Operator name and address (this information is not submitted to DPR)
  • Site identification number (A site identification code must be assigned to each location or field where pesticides will be used for production of an agricultural commodity. This alphanumeric code is also recorded on any restricted material permit the grower obtains for the location. CalAgPermits has a map server feature that tracks locations of sites for county use.)
  • Commodity, crop, or site treated
  • Acres or units planted and treated
  • Application method (e.g., by air, ground, or other means)
  • Fumigation methods. Since 2008, fumigation applications in nonattainment areas that do not meet federal air quality standards for pesticide VOC emissions must be identified along with details on fumigation methods (for example, shallow shank injection with a tarp). This information allows DPR to estimate pesticide VOC emissions, which contribute to the formation of atmospheric ozone, an important air pollutant.
  • Product name, U.S. EPA Registration Number (or the California Registration Number if the product is an adjuvant), and the amount of product applied

All other kinds of pesticide use (mostly nonagricultural) are reported as monthly summaries that include the following information:

  • Pesticide product name
  • Product registration number
  • Amount used
  • Number of applications
  • Application site (e.g., roadside, structure)
  • Month of application (rather than date and time)
  • County (rather than square mile location)

Commodity Codes

DPR uses its product label database at www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/label/labelque.htm to verify that products listed in pesticide use reports are registered for use on the reported commodity or site. The product label database uses a coding system consistent with U.S. EPA official label information. To minimize errors, DPR developed a cross-reference table to link the different commodity code naming systems of the U.S. EPA, DPR’s product label database, and the PUR database.

Certain commodities or sites may have more than one site code associated with them if different production methods or uses of the commodity result in different pesticide use. For example, greenhouse and nursery operations are divided into six different site codes: greenhouse-grown cut flowers or greens, outdoor-grown cut flowers or greens, greenhouse-grown plants in containers, outdoor-grown plants in container/field-grown plants, greenhouse-grown transplants/propagative material, and outdoor-grown transplants/propagative material.

Tomatoes and grapes are also separated into further subcategories because of public and processor interest in differentiating pesticide use. Tomatoes are assigned codes to differentiate between fresh market and processing categories. Grapes are assigned separate codes to differentiate table grapes and raisins from wine grapes.

Unregistered Use

The PUR database may contain records of pesticide use on a commodity or site for which the pesticide is not currently registered. Unregistered uses that survive the error-checking process may be due to an error in the DPR product label database, where the product incorrectly lists a commodity or site as being registered. Other unregistered uses may be flagged as errors by the validation procedures, but left unchanged in the database. The error-checking process does not check whether the product was registered at the time of application. It is therefore possible that an application flagged as an error due to a recent change in registration may have been legally applied at the time of application. In addition, the law sometimes allows growers to use existing stocks of a pesticide product following its withdrawal from the market by the manufacturer, or suspension or cancellation by regulatory authorities since the safest way to dispose of small quantities of pesticides is to use them as they were intended. Finally, some pesticide products do not list specific sites or commodities on their labels as they are designed to target specific pests across all sites, such as some soil fumigants, certain pre-plant herbicides, and rodenticides. In these cases, reporting an application of one of these types of pesticides on a specific commodity or site can result in an error. In 2015, an option was added in CalAgPermits that allows the user to designate any application as “pre-plant” and enter the commodity or site without generating any error messages.

Adjuvants

Use data on spray adjuvants (e.g., emulsifiers, wetting agents, foam suppressants, and other efficacy enhancers) were not reported before full-use reporting was required. Adjuvants are exempt from federal registration requirements but must be registered as pesticides in California. Examples of adjuvants include many alkyl groups and some petroleum distillates. Adjuvant product formulations are considered proprietary and are therefore confidential, however pesticide use totals for adjuvant AIs are included in the annual report.

CUMMULATIVE AREA TREATED

The cumulative area treated is the sum of the area treated with an AI and is expressed in acres (applications reported in square feet are converted to acres). The cumulative area treated for a crop may be greater than the planted area of the crop since this measure accounts for a field being treated with the same AI more than once in a year. For example, if a 20-acre field is treated three times in a calendar year with an AI, the cumulative area treated would be reported as 60 acres while the area planted would be reported as 20 acres.

It is important, however, to be aware of the potential to over-count acreage when summing cumulative area for products that have more than one AI. If a 20-acre field is treated with a product that contains three different pesticide AIs, the PUR record will correctly show that the product was applied to 20 acres, but that 20 acre value will also be attributed to each of the three AIs in any chemical summary reports. Adding these values across the AIs results in a total of 60 acres treated instead of the 20 acres actually treated

Number of Applications

The number of applications is only included in the Annual Summary Report for production agricultural applications. Applicators are required to submit one of two basic types of use reports, a production agricultural report or a monthly summary report. The production agricultural report must include information for each application. The monthly summary report, required for all uses other than production agriculture, includes only monthly totals for all applications of pesticide product, site or commodity, and applicator.

The total number of applications in the monthly summary reports is not consistently reported, so they are no longer included in the annual totals. (In the annual PUR reports before 1997, each monthly summary record was counted as one application). On January 1, 2015, an amendment to section 8505.17 of the Business and Professions Code (BPC) brought about by the passage of Senate Bill 1244 (Chapter 560, Statutes of 2014), eliminated the requirement to report the number of applications made in monthly summary structural PURs.

Note that in the annual summary report arranged by commodity, the total number of agricultural applications for the site or commodity may not equal the sum of all applications of the listed AIs. Since the summary report is at the AI level rather than the product level, a single application of a product comprised of two AIs will result in the summary report assigning the single application to both AIs listed under the commodity heading. Summing the agricultural applications for these two AIs would result in an incorrect total of two applications. The total applications value at the bottom of each commodity section removes the possibility of over-counting applications for products with more than one AI, and is therefore a more accurate value.

III. Data Summary

This report is a summary of 2016 data submitted to DPR as of November 15, 2017. PUR data are continually updated and therefore may not match later data from CalPIP or internal queries that contain corrected records identified after November 15, 2017

Pesticide Use In California

In 2016, as in previous years, the region of greatest pesticide use was California’s San Joaquin Valley (Table 1). The four counties in this region with the highest use were Fresno, Kern, Tulare, and San Joaquin. These counties were also among the leading producers of agricultural commodities.

Table 1, PDF: Total pounds of pesticide active ingredients reported in each county and their rank during 2015 and 2016 Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/

.

Reported pesticide use in California in 2016 totaled 209 million pounds, a decrease of 3 million pounds (1.4 percent) from 2015. However some categories of use increased, including postharvest treatments, structural pest control, and landscape maintenance. This increase was offset by the decrease in other categories including production agriculture. Production agriculture is a major category of pesticide use and accounted for the largest reduction, decreasing by 3.4 million pounds (1.7 percent). The remaining assortment of nonagricultural pesticide uses decreased as a whole. This group includes pesticide use for research purposes, vector control, pest and weed control on rights-of-way, and pest control through fumigation of non-food and non-feed materials such as lumber and furniture.

Table 2 breaks down the pounds of pesticide by general use categories: production agriculture, postharvest commodity treatment, structural pest control, landscape maintenance, and all others.

Table 2, PDF: Pounds of pesticide active ingredients, 1997 – 2016, by general use categories. Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/

IV. Trends in Pesticide Use for Select Pesticide Categories

This report discusses three different measures of pesticide use: amount of AI applied in pounds, cumulative area treated in acres (for an explanation of cumulative area treated see page 12), and to a lesser degree, application counts. While most pesticides are applied at rates of one to two pounds per acre, some may be as low as a few ounces or as high as hundreds of pounds per acre. When comparing use among different AIs, pounds of use will emphasize pesticides used at high rates, such as sulfur, horticultural oils, and fumigants. In contrast, area treated lacks the bias toward pesticides with higher application rates, identifying the pesticides used over the widest area. However area treated is not always reported for non-production-agricultural pesticide use reports. Application counts can also be a useful measure of pesticide use, however it has been inconsistently reported for non-production-agricultural use and is no longer required for structural use reporting, so it is not included as often in the annual report.

The contrast between measuring pesticide use by pounds or by acres can be seen by looking at the use of different pesticide types (Figures 1 and 2). Figure 1, the amount applied by weight (pounds), shows that pesticides with both fungicidal and insecticidal properties (fungicide/insecticides) such as sulfur had the highest use, followed by insecticides and fumigants. By cumulative area (acres) treated in Figure 2, insecticides, herbicides, and fungicides had the highest use. The trends in use for a single AI will usually follow similar patterns of increases or decreases for both pounds and area treated measures of pesticide use. However, when looking at cumulative totals of many AIs over a period of time or a region, the trends may diverge depending on what measure of pesticide use is analyzed, with pounds increasing while area treated decreases, or vice versa.

There were 209 million pounds of pesticides used in 2016, a decrease of nearly 3 million pounds (1.4 percent) from 2015. The AIs with the highest total reported pounds were sulfur, petroleum and mineral oils, 1,3-dichloropropene, glyphosate, and metam-potassium (potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate). Sulfur accounted for 23 percent of all reported pesticide pounds in 2016.

Reported pesticide use by cumulative area treated in 2016 was 101 million acres, an increase of 4.3 million acres (4.4 percent) from 2015. The non-adjuvant pesticides applied to the greatest area in 2015 were glyphosate, sulfur, petroleum and mineral oils, abamectin, and copper (Figures 3, 4, and A-1). The top AIs for each pesticide type were petroleum and mineral oils (insecticides), copper (fungicides), sulfur (fungicide/insecticide combinations), glyphosate (herbicides) and aluminum phosphide (fumigants).

Since 1990, the reported pounds of pesticides applied and acres treated have fluctuated from year to year. These fluctuations can be attributed to a variety of factors, including changes in planted acreage, crop plantings, pest pressures, and weather conditions. An increase or decrease in use from one year to the next or in the span of a few years may not necessarily indicate a general trend in use, but rather variations related to changes in weather, pricing, supply of raw ingredients, or regulations. Regression analyses on use over the last twenty years do not indicate a significant trend of either increase or decrease in total pesticide use.

Figure 1, PNG: Pounds of all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1997 to 2016, where Other includes pesticides such as rodenticides, molluscicides, algaecides, repellents, antimicrobials, antifoulants, disinfectants, and biocides. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/

Figure 2, PNG: Acres treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1997 to 2016, where Other includes pesticides such as rodenticides, molluscicides, algaecides, repellents, antimicrobials, antifoulants, disinfectants, and biocides. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/

Pesticide use is summarized for eight different pesticide categories from 2007 to 2016 (Tables 3 – 18) and from 1997 to 2016 (Figures 5 – 12). These categories include reproductive toxicity, carcinogens, cholinesterase inhibitors, ground water contaminants, toxic air contaminants, fumigants, oils, and biopesticides. Changes from 2015 to 2016 are summarized as follows:

  • Reproductive toxins: Chemicals classified as reproductive toxins decreased in amount applied from 2015 to 2016 (224 thousand-pound decrease, 2.9 percent) and area treated (135 thousand-acres treated decrease, 3.5 percent). The decrease in amount applied was mainly due to a decrease in use of the fumigant metam-sodium. The decrease in area mostly resulted from less use of the fungicides myclobutanil, the insecticide carbaryl, and the herbicide bromoxynil octanoate. Pesticides in this category are listed on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause reproductive toxicity. Propazine, simazine and atrazine were added to the Proposition 65 list in 2016 or 2017.
  • Carcinogens: The amount of pesticides classified as carcinogens decreased by 2.3 million pounds from 2015 to 2016 (4.9 percent decrease), but the area treated increased by 165,000 acres (1.8 percent). The decrease in amount applied was largely due to less use of the fumigants 1,3-dichloropropene, metam-potassium, and metam-sodium. The increase in area treated was mostly due to greater use of the fungicides iprodione and mancozeb and the herbicide propyzamide. The pesticides in this category are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer. Glyphosate (and derivatives), malathion, parathion, sedaxane, and tetrachlorvinphos were added to the Proposition 65 or EPA lists in 2016 or 2017.
  • Cholinesterase inhibitors: Use of organophosphorus and carbamate cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides decreased from the previous year by 45,000 pounds (1.0 percent decrease) and by 231,000 acres treated ( 6.6 percent decrease). Most of the decrease in amount applied and area treated resulted from a decrease in the use of the insecticide chlorpyrifos, which was designated as a restricted-use pesticide for agriculture in 2015. Other AIs with large decreases were malathion, bensulide, and dimethoate.
  • Ground water contaminants: The use of AIs categorized as ground water contaminants decreased in amount applied by 101,000 pounds (17.2 percent decrease) but increased in area treated by 41,000 acres (9.3 percent increase), mainly from changes in the use of the herbicide diuron.
  • Toxic air contaminants: The use of AIs categorized as toxic air contaminants decreased in amount applied by 2.2 million pounds (4.5 percent decrease) and decreased in area treated by 86,000 acres (3.4 percent decrease). Decreases in the pounds of metam-potassium, metam-sodium, and 1,3-dichloropropene accounted for much of the overall decrease in amount applied. The decrease in area treated was due to less acres treated with the herbicide trifluralin and the fumigant aluminum phosphide.
  • Fumigants: The use of fumigant AIs decreased by 2.5 million pounds (5.5 percent decrease) and by 97,000 acres treated (24.2 percent decrease). Much of the decrease was due to less pounds applied of metam-potassium, metam-sodium, and 1,3-dichloropropene, and less area treated with aluminum phosphide.
  • Oils: Use of oil pesticides decreased in amount by 3.3 million pounds (7.9 percent decrease), but increased in area treated by 329,000 acres (6.8 percent increase). Only oil AIs derived from petroleum distillation are included in these totals. Although some oils are listed on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals known to cause cancer, none of these carcinogenic oils are known to be used as pesticides in California. Most oil pesticides used in California serve as alternatives to highly toxic pesticides. Some highly refined petroleum-based oils are also used by organic growers.
  • Biopesticides: Use of biopesticides and AIs considered to be lower risk to human health or the environment increased in amount by 792,000 pounds (11.5 percent increase) and by 522,000 acres (7.0 percent increase). Potassium phosphite and kaolin had the largest increases in pounds, while citric acid, vegetable oil, and potassium phosphite accounted for most of the increase by area treated. Kaolin is used both as a fungicide and insecticide, potassium phosphite is a fungicide, and citric acid and vegetable oil are adjuvants. In general, biopesticides are derived from or synthetically mimic natural materials such as animals, plants, bacteria, and minerals. Biopesticides fall into three major classes: microbial, plant-incorporated protectant, or naturally occurring substances.

The summaries detailed in the following use categories are not intended to serve as indicators of pesticide risks to the public or the environment. Rather, the data supports DPR regulatory functions to enhance public safety and environmental protection. (See “Continuous Evaluation of Pesticides” on page 2.)

Figure 3, PNG: Acres treated by the top 5 AIs in each of the major types of pesticides from 2010 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/

Figure 4, PNG: Acres treated by the top 5 AIs in each of the major types of pesticides from 2010 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/

USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON THE STATE'S PROPOSITION 65 LIST OF CHEMICALS THAT ARE "KNOWN TO CAUSE REPRODUCTIVE TOXICITY"

Table 3, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause reproductive toxicity.” Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Table 4, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause reproductive toxicity.” Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure 5, PNG: Use trends of pesticides that are on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause reproductive toxicity.” Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.


USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON THE STATE’S PROPOSITION 65 LIST OF CHEMICALS THAT ARE “KNOWN TO CAUSE CANCER.”

Table 5, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause cancer.” Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Table 6, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause cancer.” Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure 6, PNG: Use trends of pesticides that are listed by U.S. EPA as A or B carcinogens or on the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals that are “known to cause cancer.” Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.


USE TRENDS OF CHOLINESTERASE-INHIBITING PESTICIDES

Table 7, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are organophosphorus or carbamate cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Table 8, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are organophosphorus or carbamate cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure 7, PNG: Use trends of pesticides that are organophosphorus or carbamate cholinesterase-inhibiting pesticides. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.


USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON THE “A” PART OF DPR’S GROUNDWATER PROTECTION LIST.

Table 9, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are on the “a” part of DPR’s ground water protection list. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Table 10, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on the “a” part of DPR’s ground water protection list. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure 8, PNG: Use trends of pesticides that are on the “a” part of DPR’s ground water protection list. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6800(a). Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.


USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES ON DPR’S TOXIC AIR CONTAMINANTS LIST

Table 11, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are on DPR’s toxic air contaminants list applied in California. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6860. Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Table 12, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are on DPR’s toxic air contaminants list applied in California. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6860. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure 9, PNG: Use trends of pesticides that are on DPR’s toxic air contaminants list applied in California. These pesticides are the active ingredients listed in the California Code of Regulations, Title 3, Division 6, Chapter 4, Subchapter 1, Article 1, Section 6860. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.


USE TRENDS OF PESTICIDES THAT ARE FUMIGANTS

Table 13, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are fumigants. Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Table 14, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are fumigants. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure 10, PNG: Use trends of pesticides that are fumigants. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.


USE TRENDS OF OIL PESTICIDES.

Table 15, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are oils. Although some oils and other petroleum distillates are on U.S. EPA’s list of A or B carcinogens or the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause cancer,” these carcinogenic oils are not known to be used in California as pesticides. Many oil pesticides used in California serve as alternatives to chemicals with higher toxicity. Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Table 16, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are oils. Although some oils and other petroleum distillates are on U.S. EPA’s list of A or B carcinogens or the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause cancer,” these carcinogenic oils are not known to be used in California as pesticides. Many oil pesticides used in California serve as alternatives to chemicals with higher toxicity. Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure 11, PNG: Use trends of pesticides that are oils. Although some oils and other petroleum distillates are on U.S. EPA’s list of A or B carcinogens or the State’s Proposition 65 list of chemicals “known to cause cancer,” these carcinogenic oils are not known to be used in California as pesticides. Many oil pesticides used in California serve as alternatives to chemicals with higher toxicity. Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.


USE TRENDS OF BIOPESTICIDE

Table 17, PDF: The reported pounds of pesticides used that are biopesticides or AIs considered to be lower risk to human health or the environment. Biopesticides include microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds similar to those found in nature that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones). Use includes both agricultural and reportable nonagricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Table 18, PDF: The reported cumulative acres treated with pesticides that are biopesticides or AIs considered to be lower risk to human health or the environment. Biopesticides include microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds similar to those found in nature that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones). Use includes primarily agricultural applications. The grand total for acres treated may be less than the sum of acres treated for all active ingredients because some products contain more than one active ingredient. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure 12, PNG: Use trends of pesticides that are biopesticides. Biopesticides include microorganisms and naturally occurring compounds, or compounds similar to those found in nature that are not toxic to the target pest (such as pheromones). Reported pounds of active ingredient (AI) applied include both agricultural and nonagricultural applications. The reported cumulative acres treated include primarily agricultural applications. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.


V. Trends In Pesticide Use for Select Commodities

A grower’s or applicator’s decision to apply pesticides depends on many factors, such as the presence of biological control agents (e.g., predatory insects and other natural enemies), current pest levels, cost of pesticides and labor, value of the crop, pesticide resistance and effectiveness, other available management practices, and potential pesticide risk to the environment or farm workers. Pest populations are determined by complex ecological interactions. Sometimes the causes of pest outbreaks are unknown. Weather is a critically important factor and affects different pest species in different ways.

Crops treated with the greatest total pounds of pesticides in 2016 were almond, wine grape, table and raisin grape, processing tomato, and strawberry. Crops or sites with the greatest increase in the pounds applied from 2015 to 2016 include orange, rice, grape, tangerine, and tomato. Crops or sites with the greatest decrease in the pounds applied include pistachio, soil fumigation/preplant, wine grape, processing tomato, and potato (Table 19).

Table 19, PDF: The change in pounds of AI applied and acres planted or harvested and the percent change from 2015 to 2016 for the crops or sites with the greatest increase and decrease in pounds applied. Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Thirteen commodities were chosen for in-depth analyses of the possible reasons for changes in pesticide use from 2015 to 2016: alfalfa, almond, carrot, cotton, orange, peach and nectarine, pistachio, processing tomato, rice, strawberry, table and raisin grape, walnut, and wine grape. (‘Peach and nectarine’ and ‘table and raisin grapes’ were grouped together for the purposes of the annual report due to similar pesticide use). They were selected because each commodity was treated with more than 4 million pounds of AIs or treated on more than 3 million acres, cumulatively. Collectively, these commodities represent 72 percent of the total amount used in 2016 (78 percent of total used on agricultural fields) and 73 percent of the area treated in 2016 (74 percent of total agricultural acres treated).

For these 13 commodities, the non-adjuvant AIs applied to the most area were sulfur and glyphosate. Sulfur, used on all 13 commodities except rice, was applied mostly on table and raisin grape, wine grape and processing tomato. Sulfur is a natural fungicide favored by both conventional and organic farmers and is used mostly to manage powdery mildew on grape and processing tomato. It can also be used on some crops to suppress mites. Glyphosate is a broad-spectrum herbicide and crop desiccant. Glyphosate was used on all 13 commodities although nearly 40 percent was on almond. Although not used on every one of the 13 commodities, the following AIs were used on over one million cumulative acres: the insecticides (and miticides) abamectin, lambda-cyhalothrin, bifenthrin, methoxyfenozide, imidacloprid, chlorantraniliprole, and petroleum and mineral oils; the herbicides oxyfluorfen and paraquat dichloride; and the fungicides copper and pyraclostrobin.

Petroleum and mineral oils were second to sulfur in amount of pounds of non-adjuvant pesticides used on all 13 commodities. Almond, wine grape, orange, and peach and nectarine had the highest use of oils out of the 13 commodities. Oils are mostly used as insecticides, but can also be used as fungicides and adjuvants. The fumigants 1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin, metam-potassium, and metam-sodium also ranked high in pounds of pesticide used on the 13 commodities, with the exception of rice. In production agriculture, these fumigants are usually applied to the soil before planting a crop to control various soil-borne diseases, nematodes, and other problematic pests. In orchards, fumigation may be used to spot-treat a small area following tree removal before a replacement tree is planted.

Information used to develop the trend analyses for each of the thirteen crops in this chapter was drawn from several publications and from the expertise of pest control advisors, growers, University of California Cooperative Extension farm advisors and specialists, researchers, and commodity association representatives. DPR scientists analyzed the information, using their knowledge of pesticides, California agriculture, pests, and pest management practices. As a result, the explanations for changes in pesticide use are largely based on the subjective opinions of experts as opposed to rigorous statistical analyses. Additional figures of pesticide distribution maps and graphs associated with each crop can be found in the Appendix of this document (Appendix figures are referenced by an “A” preceding the figure number). Note that graphs and tables of this section are based on statewide totals which may not accurately reflect regional differences in environmental conditions, pest pressure, and pesticide use patterns of crops grown in multiple, geographically-distinct areas of California.

Alfalfa

Alfalfa is grown primarily as a forage crop, providing protein and high energy for dairy cows and other livestock. California is the leading alfalfa hay-producing state in the United States. There are six alfalfa growing regions in California, encompassing a range of climatic conditions: Inter-mountain, Sacramento Valley, San Joaquin Valley, Coastal, High Desert, and Low Desert 75 (Figure A-3). The price received per ton of hay decreased in 2016 after having reached one of its highest values in 2014 (Table 20). In addition, the number of acres harvested was at its lowest since the 1940s. These two factors may account for some of the observed trends in pesticide use in alfalfa in 2016 (Figures 14, A-4, and A-5).

Table 20, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres harvested, and prices for alfalfa each year from 2012 to 2016. Harvested acres are from USDA(a) 2013 - 2017; marketing year average prices are from USDA(c), 2015 - 2017; Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12). Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Use of all the major insecticides decreased in 2016 (Figure 13). This decrease can be tied to lower prices received for hay as well as a reduced number of acres planted. The alternative practice of early cutting is commonly used when the price of hay is low to reduce insect and disease problems and thus avoid the cost of pesticides. Dimethoate use decreased 93,788 acres, a 32 percent decline from 2015, suggesting a link to reduced pest pressure from blue alfalfa aphid. In addition to the organophosphates chlorpyrifos and dimethoate, the pyrethroid lambda-cyhalothrin was also used less (Figure 14). Pyrethroid use decreased in 2016 for a second year, which continued to reverse an increasing trend that began in 2009.

The area treated with pyrethroids, carbamates, and organophosphates decreased by 341,869 acres in 2016. Chlorantraniliprole, a broad-spectrum, anthranilic diamide insecticide, increased in area treated by 108 percent for a total of 57,544 acres treated. The use of Bacillus thuringiensis increased 251 percent, with a total of 20,353 acres treated in 2016, which is the largest acreage treated since 2008.

The inter-mountain region experienced pyrethroid resistance for the treatment of the alfalfa weevil. One expert source reported that in some instances, untreated areas yielded a better crop compared to treated areas, implying that resistance was extreme enough to render the pyrethroid applications ineffective. Indoxacarb use increased by 62 percent which can be attributed to weevil control and its use as an alternative to chlorpyrifos. Chlorpyrifos became a restricted material in July 2015 and its use in alfalfa has declined by 38 percent with 82,682 fewer acres treated. Flubendiamide was the only other top five AI to increase, with 33 percent increased use. In 2016, flubendiamide registration was canceled nationally. In the U.S. EPA’s Flubendiamide; Notice of Intent to Cancel Pesticide Registration (Vol.81, No. 43, March 4, 2016, Notices), they concluded that continued use of the insecticide will result in unreasonable adverse effects to aquatic invertebrates, an important part of the aquatic food chain, particularly for fish.

Figure 13, PNG: Acres of alfalfa treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Herbicide use decreased for all of the top five AIs (Figure 13). The largest top five AI decreases were found in paraquat dichloride, pendimethalin, and trifluralin (Figure 14). Flumioxazin use decreased by 48 percent, with 39,820 fewer acres treated. Although the area treated with glyphosate in 2016 (257,966 acres) was four times that in 2011 (64,592 acres), the use of glyphosate decreased by 7 percent in 2016. This decrease ended a consistently increasing trend in use over the last five years which may be explained by the deregulation of genetically glyphosate resistant alfalfa seeds in 2011. An expert source reported that an estimated 50 to 60 percent of alfalfa was grown using genetically modified seeds resistant to glyphosate. Weed control for alfalfa is important during establishment. Glyphosate resistant alfalfa plants can be treated with glyphosate at a point in the plants life cycle when alfalfa is more susceptible to competition from weeds. Weed growth exerts a large effect on the quality of hay, and mature alfalfa plants out compete a greater percentage of weeds than immature plants.

Figure 14, PNG: Acres of alfalfa treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2012 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Botanical, microbial, oil and soap pesticides are generally regarded as having a lower risk of adverse effects to non-target species. The area treated with microbial and soap pesticides increased in 2016 to 20,774 and 13,094 total acres treated, respectively.

Use of fungicides in alfalfa is minimal compared to the use of insecticides and herbicides. Domestic dairies are the primary U.S. market for alfalfa. Low profits in dairy drove alfalfa hay prices to the lowest level in many years. Exports were reported at a record high in 2016, to Middle Eastern markets, Japan, China, and other Asian countries. Because of Saudi Arabia’s program to conserve water resources, they were the top importing country for U.S. grown alfalfa. Increased growth in alfalfa exports coincides with the USDA National Agriculture Statistics Service forecast for an increase in acres planted in 2017.

Almond

California produces over 80 percent of the worlds almond supply. There are approximately 1.1 million almond acres, located over a 400-mile stretch from northern Tehama County to southern Kern County in the Central Valley (Figure A-6).Total acres planted increased by 7 percent while total bearing acreage increased by 2 percent in 2016 (Table 21).

Table 21, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for almond each year from 2012 to 2016. Planted acres are from CDFA(a), 2014 - 2017; marketing year average prices are from USDA(d), 2015 - 2017; Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12).Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Almond acreage treated with insecticides and miticides decreased by 3 percent in 2016. Oil was the most used insecticide in 2016, with very little change in area treated since 2015. Major insect pests for almond include navel orangeworm, peach twig borer, web-spinning spider mites, leaffooted bug, San Jose scale, and ants. There were some notable changes in the months insecticides were used, indicating a fluctuation in pest pressures. Less acreage was treated with miticides in spring and more acreage was treated in the summer months (June and July), suggesting an outbreak of web-spinning spider mites later in the season. Abamectin use increased by 5 percent and etoxazole use decreased by 9 percent. Cyflumetofen, a relatively new miticide with a novel mode of action, started being used on almond acreage in 2015 and its use more than doubled in 2016. The resistance of mites to abamectin has led to the use of other miticides, such as cyflumetofen. Bifenthrin, a pyrethroid used to control leaffooted bug, was used on 13 percent less acreage in 2016. (Figures 15, 16, A-7, and A-8).

The winter of 2015-2016 had below average temperatures and rainfall, resulting in a large over-wintering population of navel orangeworm and leaffooted bug. Almond acreage planted in close proximity to an overwintering crop, such as pomegranates, has a higher chance of leaffooted bug damage early in the season. Navel orangeworm is the chief pest associated with almond production. Not only does navel orangeworm cause direct yield losses to growers, but also market issues for the handlers since damage can lead to aflatoxin contamination, a major food safety concern. Methoxyfenozide is the main insecticide used to control navel orangeworm and its use stayed the same in 2016. However, the use of (z,z)-11,13-hexadecadienal, a relatively new synthetic compound, increased by 23 percent. This insecticide mimics the pheromone of the female navel orangeworm moth to disrupt mating. It has very low environmental or human health risks and has shown to be effective in controlling the navel orangeworm.

Figure 15, PNG: Acres of almond treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Herbicide use only increased by 1 percent which is in line with the increase in acreage for 2016. The area treated with glyphosate declined by 8 percent while paraquat dichloride and glufosinate-ammonium use increased by 24 and 50 percent respectively. Paraquat dichloride and glufosinate-ammonium are non-selective post-emergence herbicides that kill existing weeds on contact. Herbicide resistance to glyphosate has been increasing in recent years. Glufosinate-ammonium use has increased due to its ability to control glyphosate resistant weed species as well as increased availability of the AI for purchase on the west coast. Weed control is important, especially during a drought, since weeds can increase water use by 10 to 30 percent.

Acreage treated with fungicides during 2016 increased by 32 percent and a 2 percent increase in bearing acreage suggests that there was significant disease pressure from Alternaria leaf spot, brown rot blossom blight, shot hole, and anthracnose. Rainfall, during and after bloom, is the key predictor of diseases such as brown rot blossom blight and Alternaria leaf spot. Metconazole was used on the most acreage in 2016 and its use increased by 57 percent. Pyraclostrobin and iprodione use also increased by 13 and 45 percent respectively. Metconazole and fluopyram are fungicides used to control many diseases, such as powdery mildew and brown rot blossom blight. A recent increase in resistance to the demethylation inhibitor (DMI) fungicide propiconazole has resulted in an increase in the use of other DMI fungicides such as metconazole. Copper-based fungicides are used to combat scab and their use decreased by 5 percent.

Overall, fumigant use decreased by 3 percent in 2016. Fumigants have multiple functions in almond production: post-harvest insect control during storage, pest control to meet phytosanitary and food safety standards, pre-plant soil fumigation to control soil borne diseases and nematodes, and finally, to some extent, rodent control. Use of pre-plant soil fumigants remained relatively low over the last five years, with little fluctuation.

Figure 16, PNG: Acres of almond treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2012 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Carrot

California is the largest producer of fresh market carrots in the United States, accounting for 72 percent of the 2016 U.S. production of 3 billion pounds. California has four main production regions for carrots: the San Joaquin Valley (Kern County), the Central Coast in San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara counties (Cuyama Valley) and Monterey County, the low desert (Imperial and Riverside counties), and the high desert (Los Angeles County)(Figure A-9). The San Joaquin Valley accounts for more than half the state’s acreage.

In 2016, 67,500 acres of carrots were planted in California, an increase of nearly one percent from 2015. The area treated with fungicides and insecticides decreased while the area treated with fumigants and herbicides increased (Figure 17). Nematodes, leaf blights, weeds, cavity spot, and rots remain the major pest concerns.

Table 22, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for carrot each year from 2012 to 2016. Planted acres are from USDA(e), 2015-2017; marketing year average prices are from USDA(e), 2015-2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12). Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

The most-applied fungicides by area in 2016 were sulfur, mefenoxam, and copper, followed by pyraclostrobin and azoxystrobin. The patterns of fungicide use in carrots have remained stable with the exception of 2014, when the use of copper was less and the use of sulfur was greater than usual. All five fungicides decreased in both area treated and amount used since 2015 (Figures 18, A-10, and A-11).

As was the case in 2015, the most applied herbicides in carrot production by area treated in 2016 were linuron, pendimethalin, fluazifop-p-butyl, and trifluralin. Use of clethodim, which replaced EPTC for the fifth most used herbicide by area in 2015, continued to increase (Figure 18). Linuron, which was applied to the largest number of acres, is a post-emergence herbicide used to control broadleaf weeds and small grasses.

The insecticides most used for the carrot crop in 2016 by area treated remained the same as the previous year: esfenvalerate, Purpureocillium lilaciunum Strain 251 (formerly Paecilomyces lilacinus), imidacloprid, methoxyfenozide, and s-cypermethrin (Figure 18). Use of imidacloprid increased by area treated and pounds applied, driven mostly by an increase in use of a systemic insecticide product in Los Angeles, Fresno, and San Luis Obispo counties that was already commonly used in Kern and Santa Barbara counties. The four other most commonly applied insecticides decreased in area treated. Use of Purpureocillium lilaciunum Strain 251, a naturally occurring fungus with nematicidal properties, decreased more than the use of esfenvalerate, which is applied to kill pests such as whitefly, leafhoppers, and cutworms. Use of carbamate and organophosphate insecticides decreased by area treated.

Figure 17, PNG: Acres of carrot treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure 18, PNG: Acres of carrot treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2012 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Fumigants in carrot production are primarily used to manage nematodes and also control weeds and soil-borne diseases. Metam-potassium (potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate), 1,3-dichloropropene, and metam-sodium were again the three most used fumigants for carrots. Fumigant use increased both for the area treated and for the total pounds applied across all active ingredients. However, fumigant use remains lower overall when compared with years prior to 2013. The increase in the use of fumigants was the primary factor that led to the 6 percent increase from 2015 in total pounds of active ingredients used in carrot production.

Cotton

Total planted cotton acreage continued to decrease in 2016 (Table 23), largely due to the drought and conversion to more lucrative crops, especially almonds. The value of the cotton crop declined by 44 percent with acreage down by 33 percent. Cotton planting was delayed in 2016 due to cool weather but a warm summer hastened growth and maturity with some farmers reporting high yields. Cotton is grown for its fiber, and cottonseed can be used to produce cottonseed oil and cottonseed meal for dairy feed. Most cotton is grown in the southern San Joaquin Valley, with smaller acreages grown in Imperial and Riverside counties and a few counties in the Sacramento Valley (Figure A-12).

Table 23, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for cotton each year from 2012 to 2016. Planted acres are from USDA(a), 2013-2016; marketing year average prices from 2012 to 2016 are from CDFA(c), 2016. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12). Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure 19, PNG: Acres of cotton treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Pounds of insecticides decreased by three percent in 2016 (Figure 19). It was a modest year for lygus bugs but whiteflies required late season insecticide applications into August and September (Figure A-14). Sweet potato whitefly (strain B) became a major pest in 2013 and still remains an issue. Late season aphids and whiteflies are a serious concern because they produce sugary excretions which drop onto the cotton lint creating a condition called sticky cotton. When ginned, sticky cotton produces a lower quality cotton lint, thus reducing the price growers receive. The California drought is partly responsible for larger whitefly populations in recent years. The systemic carbamate insecticide aldicarb has not been used on cotton since 2014. Acephate (used primarily to treat aphids) was down by more than half of the pounds of the previous year. Malathion use was down nearly 10-fold, likely replaced by more effective whitefly insecticides.

Despite declining cotton acreage, the use of nearly all major herbicides increased, resulting in a 38 percent increase in total pounds of herbicides applied (Figure 19). The area treated with glyphosate increased by 44 percent. Pounds used of pendimethalin more than doubled over the prior year. Some AIs, such as paraquat dichloride, are used both as an herbicide and as a harvest aid to defoliate or desiccate cotton plants before harvest. It is assumed that if an herbicide is applied from August through November, it is used as a harvest aid, otherwise as an herbicide. The use of harvest aides increased in both pounds and area treated in spite of declining cotton acreage. Among pre-emergent herbicides, pounds of trifluralin used decreased by approximately two-thirds while pounds used of diuron and pendimethalin increased by 50 percent and 118 percent, respectively. (Figures 20, A-13, and A-14).

Pounds of fungicides used decreased by 30 percent to the lowest level in a decade. Delayed plantings due to a wet spring followed by hot weather likely reduced the risk of seedling fungal diseases (e.g. Rhizoctonia solani). Sulfur use increased nearly three-fold. Sulfur is used to suppress mites and certain diseases.

Fumigant use was the lowest it has been in a decade. Fumigants are used to treat the soil before planting for a range of soil pathogens, nematodes, and weeds, in addition to treating stored products. Fusarium oxysporum f. sp. vasinfectum race 4, more commonly known as FOV race 4, is spreading throughout the San Joaquin Valley and is an ongoing concern. Some experts consider this pathogen to be one of the biggest challenges California cotton growers have faced in many years. Once a field is infected, it is impossible to achieve profitable yields of many cotton varieties. Although the pathogen cannot be completely eradicated by pesticides, some research has shown that metam-sodium treatments can knock down inoculum populations. Growers have adapted their cotton production to this challenging disease by avoiding planting in heavily infested areas and by using resistant varieties. Fusarium is worse in fields that are also impacted by nematodes. Less cotton was planted on lighter (sandy) soils in 2016 due to nematode pressure and higher water usage.

Figure 20, PNG: Acres of cotton treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2012 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Orange

California has the highest valued citrus industry in the United States. Citrus is grown in four major areas in California. The San Joaquin Valley Region comprises nearly 65 percent of the state’s acreage and is characterized by hot, dry summers and cold, wet winters. The Interior Region includes Riverside and San Bernardino counties and inland portions of San Diego, Orange, and Los Angeles counties and is marginally affected by the coastal climate. The Coastal-Intermediate Region extends from Santa Barbara County south to the San Diego County-Mexican border and has a mild climate influenced by marine air. The Desert Region includes the Coachella and Imperial valleys where temperatures fluctuate wildly (Figure A-15).

Table 24, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres bearing, and prices for orange each year from 2012 to 2016. Bearing acres are from USDA(b), 2014-2017; marketing year average prices are from USDA(b), 2014-2017. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12). Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Total bearing acres decreased in 2016 by four percent (Table 24), continuing a five-year decline due in part to a reduction in available irrigation water. The price per box decreased 12 percent in 2016, and was similar to prices from 2012 and 2013.

Insecticide use increased in 2016 (Figure 21). It has increased 50 percent in the last 5 years. Oils are the most widely used insecticide on oranges and their use increased in 2016, continuing a trend since 2008 (Figure 22). Oil insecticides kill soft-bodied pests such as aphids, immature whiteflies, immature scales, psyllids, immature true bugs, thrips, mites, and some insect eggs. Oils are also used to manage powdery milder and other fungi, and as an adjuvant for many insecticide treatments in citrus.

The Asian citrus psyllid (ACP), which vectors a bacterium that causes Huanglongbing or Citrus greening disease, was first detected in California in Los Angeles in 2008. Since that time, ACP has spread throughout Southern California, up the Central Coast, and into the San Joaquin Valley.Attempts are being made in the San Joaquin Valley to eradicate ACP using a combination of foliar pyrethroids to kill all stages, and the neonicotinoid imidacloprid which is distributed systemically throughout the tree and causes death when consumed by the insect. Some pesticides show better efficacy against one stage or another. Area-wide treatments using abamectin, beta-cyfluthrin, cyfluthrin, thiamethoxam, and spirotetramat, as well as many other insecticides, are being conducted in Southern California where the insect is established. Use of many of these chemicals has increased since 2013. Despite eradication efforts, treatments have not prevented the spread of ACP and it remains a major concern.

Figure 21, PNG: Acres of orange treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Chlorpyrifos is a broad-spectrum insecticide used primarily for citricola scale management. However, chlorpyrifos resistance in citricola scale has been documented and imidacloprid is increasingly being used to suppress these resistant populations. Imidacloprid is also used in the required treatment of glassy-winged sharpshooter (Figure A-17).

Korea is a major California naval export market and they are planning to discontinue the use of methyl bromide to disinfest citrus pests. Fuller’s rose weevil is a quarantine pest in South Korea and orchards exporting to South Korea must have low levels of this pest and acceptable management practices in place. South Korea has required treatment for Fuller rose beetle since 2013. The weevil does not cause economic damage in California, but it is hard to kill. California growers are required to apply two insecticide treatments and thiamethoxam is most commonly used. Thiamethoxam use has been increasing since 2010, with a 36 percent increase in pounds applied since 2015.

Spinosad and spinetoram are relatively new insecticides and are primarily used in citrus to manage citrus thrips (Figure 22). Both are very selective, allowing natural enemies to survive and may eventually take over the market share of older insecticides. Of the two, spinetoram is more effective against citrus thrips populations that have developed resistance to carbamate insecticides. Spinetoram’s persistence and effectiveness has resulted in the reduced use of spinosad.

The relatively warm, dry winters and hot summers of 2015 and 2016 produced higher populations of California red scale. Spirotetramat is used on the younger instar of California red scale and it is also effective for citrus red mite, citrus leafminer, and citrus thrips. Pyriproxyfen is used almost exclusively for California red scale.

Fenpropathrin is used to manage red mites, citrus thrips, Asian citrus psyllid, katydids, and other miscellaneous pests. The insecticidal activity of fenpropathrin is similar to that of beta-cyfluthrin. Abamectin is used for thrips, mites, and citrus leafminer, and is preferred because it is inexpensive and has broad-spectrum and long residual activity, low worker risk, and a short pre-harvest interval. Dimethoate is used for a variety of pests such as scales and thrips. Its declining use is likely due to the growing popularity of replacement insecticides such as spinetoram and the neonicotinoids imidacloprid and acetamiprid. Pyriproxyfen is used almost exclusively for California red scale. In the San Joaquin Valley, populations of armored scale show resistance to chlorpyrifos, methidathion, and carbaryl, and growers are encouraged to release parasitic wasps and use buprofezin, oil, pyriproxyfen, and spirotetramat.

Figure 22, PNG: Acres of orange treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2012 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Two new insecticides, flupyradifurone and cyantraniliprole, were first used in 2015. It usually takes some time for growers to regularly use a new pesticide but these two insecticides showed an increase in pounds used in 2016.

Fungicides are used to prevent Phytophthora gummosis, Phytophthora root rot, and fruit diseases such as brown rot and Septoria spot. These diseases are exacerbated by wet, cool weather during harvest. There was an increase in fungicide use in 2016, largely due to a substantial increase in the use of copper-based fungicides, the most widely used fungicides in oranges (Figures 21, 22, and A-16).

Weed management is important in citrus groves to prevent competition for nutrients and water, which affects tree growth and reduces yield. Excessive weed growth also impedes production and harvesting operations. Both pre-emergence and post-emergence herbicides, as well as mechanical removal, are used to control weeds. Herbicide use decreased in 2015. Glyphosate, a post-emergence herbicide, was the most-used herbicide. Simazine is widely used for pre- and post- emergence weed management. Saflufenacil is a post-emergence, burn-down herbicide that was first used in 2010 and now replaces glyphosate for use on horseweed and fleabane due to resistance. Indaziflam is a pre-emergence herbicide, and its use has increased every year since it was first registered in California in 2011 (Figures 21, 22, and A-16).

Peach and nectarine

California grew 72 percent of all U.S. peaches (including 42 percent of fresh market peaches and 93 percent of processed peaches) and 94 percent of nectarines in 2016. Most freestone peaches and nectarines are grown in Fresno, Tulare, and Kings counties in the central San Joaquin Valley and sold on the fresh market. Clingstone peach, largely grown in the Sacramento Valley, is exclusively canned and processed into products such as baby food, fruit salad, and juice (Figure A-18). Peach and nectarine are discussed together because pest management issues for the two crops are similar.

Table 25, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres bearing, and prices for peach and nectarine each year from 2012 to 2016. Bearing acres in 2012 are from USDA(d), 2015-2017; marketing year average prices are from USDA(d), 2015-2017. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12). Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

The price per pound in Table 25 is an average of the prices of peach and nectarine, weighted by their respective acreages. Due to the wide variation in individual prices, it is best to consult USDA and CDFA for specific prices.

Figure 23, PNG: Acres of peach and nectarine treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Cumulative peach and nectarine acreage treated with insecticides and miticides increased 7 percent in 2016 despite the decrease in bearing acreage (Figure 23). The data suggests that mites, peach twig borer, leafrollers, ants, and moth larvae were all major pests in 2016. Oil was used on the most acreage in 2016 and its use increased 35 percent. Oils are applied during the dormant season and/or during the growing season to prevent outbreaks of scales, mites, and moth species (Figure A-20). Spinetoram decreased in acreage by 8 percent while indoxacarb increased by 19 percent. Spinetoram and indoxacarb are applied to control moths and katydids; spinetoram is used for thrips as well. Chlorpyrifos, an organophosphate used on relatively fewer acres, increased in 2016.

Although herbicides were applied to 8 percent more cumulative area in peach and nectarine orchards, the bearing acreage declined 6 percent (Figure 23). The area treated with glyphosate declined by 4 percent. Pendimethalin and rimsulfuron were applied to less area while indaziflam was applied to more than double the acreage from 2015 (Figures 24 and A-19). Pre-emergence herbicides such as oxyfluorfen, pendimethalin, rimsulfuron, and indaziflam are applied to soil before the growing season to prevent weed sprouting. Post-emergence herbicides such as glyphosate, 2,4-D, pyraflufen-ethyl, and paraquat kill existing weeds on contact. Glufosinate-ammonium was not used much in past years due to limited supply on the west coast, but its use increased dramatically in 2015 and by as much as 50 percent in 2016. Glufosinate-ammonium is a broad spectrum herbicide that has gained popularity in recent years because of its ability to control glyphosate-resistant weed species.

Figure 24, PNG: Acres of peach and nectarine treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2012 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Cumulative acreage of peach and nectarine orchards treated with fungicides and sulfur during 2016 increased by 5 and 4 percent, respectively (Figure 23). Brown rot, powdery mildew, scab, and rust are the top diseases for peach and nectarine. Sulfur is customarily used to prevent powdery mildew but it does not treat the infection. Metconazole, a fungicide used to control powdery mildew and brown rot, was used on a much larger scale beginning in 2015 and increased by 39 percent in 2016. Resistance of other demethylation inhibitors or (DMI) fungicides, such as propiconazole, has been a contributing factor to the increase in metconazole use. Brown rot is the chief cause of postharvest fruit decay, but gray mold (known as Botrytis bunch rot when it infects grapes), Rhizopus rot (aka black bread mold), and sour rot can also pose significant problems.

Fumigant use increased by 2 percent in 2016 (Figure 23). Fumigants are used in peach and nectarine orchards for rodent control and for pre-plant soil treatments against arthropod pests, nematodes, pathogens, and weeds. Only 154 acres of rodent burrows were treated with aluminum phosphide, perhaps in part because of the drought. Aluminum phosphide requires, and works best in, moist soils. Area treated with the most widely-used pre-plant soil fumigant 1,3-D, increased by 2 percent and chloropicrin application decreased by 4 percent, indicating a reduction in replanting compared to last year. Agricultural use of methyl bromide in the field is being phased out and has not been used since 2013. Changing relationships between nematode infestations, pathogen infections, rootstock choices, and application patterns also affect fumigant selection and use from year to year.

A cumulative total of 1,411 acres of peaches and nectarines were treated with plant growth regulators (PGRs) in 2016. Gibberellins, plant hormones that regulate growth and development, were applied to 916 acres, a 17 percent decrease from 2015. However, applications of amino ethoxy vinyl glycine hydrochloride, an ethylene synthesis inhibitor applied during bloom, increased by 126 percent from 219 to 495 acres in 2016. Both chemicals can enhance the firmness, size, and durability of fruit. In many cultivars, gibberellins applied from May through July can reduce the percentage of buds that produce flowers the following year. As a result, fruit numbers are reduced; there is less, and in some cases, no need for hand thinning and fruit quality is better. There are risks associated with “chemical thinning” because it is impossible to predict weather conditions during bloom and fruit set, but an increasing scarcity of field labor has motivated some growers to experiment with PGRs for that purpose.

Pistachio

In 2016, California accounted for 239,000 bearing acres of pistachio, or about 98 percent of the U.S. crop (Table 26). The crop suffered in 2015 due to weather conditions, but rebounded in 2016, showing a 231 percent yield increase, from 271,000 pounds in 2015 to 896,000 pounds in 2016. Bearing acres increased 3 percent from 2015 to 2016. In 2016, the U.S. regained its spot as top pistachio producer (57 percent), compared to Turkey (22 percent), and Iran (21 percent).

Table 26, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres bearing, and prices for pistachio each year from 2012 to 2016. Bearing acres are from USDA(d), 2015-2017; marketing year average prices are from USDA(d), 2015-2017. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12). Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Pistachio acreage will continue to increase during the next few years due to a surge in planting around 2005. Pistachio is grown in 22 counties, from San Bernardino County in the south to Tehama County in the north, with most grown in the San Joaquin Valley counties of Kern, Madera, Fresno, and Tulare (Figure A-21). Pistachio trees generally alternate between high and low production each year and 2016 was projected to be a heavier harvest. Despite drought conditions in the San Joaquin Valley, rainfall was close to normal during the winter leading up to the growing season. The 2015 crop was threatened from the start with inadequate chilling hours, which interfered with nut development and resulted in a dismally low crop. In contrast, the 2016 crop had plenty of chilling hours that resulted in synchronized blooming and pollination.

In 2016, important arthropod pests of pistachio included mites, leaffooted plant bugs, false chinch bug, stink bugs, and navel orangeworm.

Acres treated with insecticide increased 9 percent from 2015 to 2016, primarily due to additional bearing acres and threats by leaffooted plant bugs, stink bugs, and navel orangeworm (Figures 25, A-22, and A-23). Feeding by leaffooted plant bugs (a complex of three Leptoglossus species) can cause epicarp lesion to the nuts shortly after bloom and lead to kernel necrosis after shell hardening in June, darkening and ruining the flavor of the nutmeat. These bugs usually reappear just before harvest in August and September. Stink bugs can also be late-season pests, causing kernel necrosis during July and August. Often growers preemptively apply insecticides, primarily lambda-cyhalothrin and permethrin, before the bugs can do much damage. Use of both of these insecticides peaked during spring.

Navel orangeworm attack nuts beginning in July, but insecticide sprays target the third generation that coincides with the beginning of the nut harvest. Use of bifenthrin, which peaked in August, increased 50 percent. As the larvae feed, they leave behind frass (or excrement), a substrate for the fungi Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus. In 2016, navel orangeworm damage to the harvested crop set a record at 2 percent.

Navel orangeworm larvae overwinter in mummy nuts on the ground. During dry winters, they survive the fungal diseases that would normally kill them under wet conditions. The use of mating-disruption pheromone puffers that contain the active ingredient (Z,Z)-11, 13-hexadecadienal have generally increased since 2011. Use of mating disruption puffers during the first egg-laying period in late April and May remained steady in 2016, but fell off during the second egg-laying period in June and July. Overall, use of puffers in 2016 decreased 7 percent.

Figure 25, PNG: Acres of pistachio treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Use of the main fungicides increased (Figure 26). Aspergillus flavus strain AF36 is included in the fungicide group, but is actually a fungal inoculant acceptable for use on organically grown produce that acts as a biological control agent and prevents contamination of nuts by aflatoxins. The aflatoxin-producing fungi, a complex of Aspergillus flavus and A. parasiticus, grow on pest-damaged nuts. Aflatoxins are both toxic and carcinogenic. About half of the strains of A. flavus found in the orchard are atoxigenic–that is, they do not produce aflatoxin. However, almost all A. parasiticus strains produce aflatoxins. When applied to orchards, the harmless, atoxigenic strain of Aspergillus flavus, AF36, crowds out aflatoxin-producing strains and drastically reduces aflatoxin levels in the nuts. In 2016, use of AF36 increased 17 percent.

Figure 26, PNG: Acres of pistachio treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2011 to 2015.

Sulfur, used as a low-risk miticide, is applied at several pounds per acre, and is used to manage citrus flat mite. The mites feed on the stems of nut clusters as well as the nut hulls and nuts themselves, which can lead to shell stain. As the weather warms up in June, mite populations thrive and peak in late July and August. In 2016, growers began applying sulfur for mites in April and applied higher-than-average amounts during August and September, with an average increase from 2015 of 19 percent. (Figure A-23).

Use of herbicides increased 4 percent, corresponding to increased bearing acreage (Figure 26). Additionally, nonbearing trees, which lack shade to deter weed growth, often require more herbicide than bearing trees. The post-emergence herbicide glyphosate is applied year-round, but mostly during the summer months to manage weeds such as field bindweed and cheeseweed. Even under drought conditions, herbicides, both pre-emergence and post-emergence, are needed to limit weed growth. Reducing competition from weeds extends limited supplies of irrigation water and protects young trees from the false chinch bug, which builds up on weeds next to the orchards.

Processing tomato

In 2016, processing tomato growers planted 262,000 acres, yielding 12.6 million tons, an 11 percent yield decrease from 2015. About 95 percent of U.S. processing tomatoes are grown in California. At 34 percent, the U.S. is the worlds top producer of processing tomatoes followed by the European Union and China. California processing tomatoes, valued at $1.03 billion in 2016, are primarily grown in the Sacramento and San Joaquin Valleys (Figure A-24). Fresno County leads the state in acreage with 31 percent (90,000 acres) of the statewide total, followed by Yolo County (38,000 acres), Kings County (26,000 acres), and San Joaquin County (34,000 acres). Significant production also occurs in Merced, Colusa, Kern, Stanislaus, and Solano counties.

Table 27, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for processing tomato each year from 2012 to 2016. Planted acres are from USDA(e), 2015-2016 and USDA(f), 2017; marketing year average prices are from USDA(e), 2015-2017. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12). Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Total cumulative treated area of processing tomatoes decreased 13 percent in 2016 (Table 27). Sulfur, kaolin, 1,3-dichloropropene, and potassium N-methyldithiocarbamate (metam-potassium) accounted for 88 percent of the total pounds of pesticide AIs applied, while sulfur, chlorothalonil, trifluralin, glyphosate, copper, and imidacloprid were applied to the most acreage. The most-used pesticide type as measured by area treated was insecticides, which decreased 22 percent(Figure 27). The most-used category as measured by amount AI applied was fungicide/insecticide (mostly sulfur and kaolin); use in this category decreased 11 percent.

Figure 27, PNG: Acres of processing tomato treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/report data/.

Overall fungicide use, expressed as cumulative area treated, decreased 14 percent; pounds of AI decreased 13 percent. Difenoconazole and azoxystrobin ended a seven year trend of increasing use in 2016, with a little over 40 percent decrease in area treated. 2016 was a relatively light year for powdery mildew, but bacterial diseases were more problematic. Copper use increased 92 percent, while mancozeb use increased 39 percent; mancozeb increases the efficacy of copper when they are applied together for bacterial disease control. Lower-risk fungicide use increased substantially in 2016: use of the biopesticide, Bacillus amyloliquifaciens, increased over 1,000 percent (going from 143 acres treated in 2015 to 1,666 acres treated in 2016), while hydrogen peroxide use increased by 360 percent.

The area treated with herbicides decreased 5 percent (Figure 27); the amount used decreased 2 percent. Primary weeds of concern for processing tomatoes are nightshades and bindweed. Trifluralin and pendimethalin are used to control bindweed and are often used in combination with metolachlor. The use of pendimethalin decreased 13 percent, while trifluralin use decreased 15 percent (Figures 28 and A-25). Glyphosate is commonly used for preplant treatments in late winter and early spring; its use increased 21 percent. (Figure A-26).

Figure 28, PNG: Acres of processing tomato treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2012 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/report data/.

Processing tomato growers primarily use three fumigants—metam-potassium (potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate), metam-sodium, and 1,3-dichloropropene—to manage root-knot nematodes and weeds, particularly those of the nightshade family. In 2016, the pounds of fumigants used increased 4 percent and accounted for about 21 percent of the total amount of pesticide AIs applied. In terms of area treated, fumigant use increased 9 percent. The increase in fumigated acres is mostly due to a 25 percent increase in acres treated with metam-potassium.

In 2016, 1,120,364 cumulative acres were treated with insecticides, a 22 percent decrease from 2015 (Figure 27). Imidacloprid, the most-used insecticide, is used to control whiteflies; its use decreased 17 percent from the previous year. Dimethoate, which decreased 6 percent, is a broad spectrum insecticide used for thrips control. However, its use early in the season can disrupt natural predation and cause population explosions of other insect pests, such as leafminers, later in the season (Figure A-26). Methomyl use decreased 48 percent, as growers have begun switching to pyrethroids such as bifenthrin because of worker safety concerns. Bifenthrin, which decreased 21 percent, is a broad spectrum pyrethroid often used in rotation with spinosad for thrips control. Bifenthrin is also used to manage mites and stinkbugs.

Rice

California is the largest producer of short and medium grain (‘Calrose’) Japonica rice in the United States and the second largest rice-growing state in the nation. Ninety-five percent of the rice in California is grown in six counties in the Sacramento Valley (Colusa, Sutter, Glenn, Butte, Yuba, and Yolo, Figure A-27). The drought had marked effects on rice growers, and water cutbacks caused reduction in rice plantings in 2014 and 2015. Relaxed water restrictions in Northern California in 2016 allowed farmers to grow more rice; the acres planted with rice increased 28 percent, similar to the number of acres planted in prior years. (Table 28).

Table 28, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for rice each year from 2012 to 2016. Planted acres are from USDA(a), 2013-2017; marketing year average prices are from USDA(c), 2015-2017. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12). Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Rice planting was delayed in the spring due to late spring rains and water deliveries to support salmon in the upper Sacramento River. Late planting meant late harvest in the fall of 2016 with some fields left unharvested late into October and even mid-November. Additionally, the fall rains came earlier and were far heavier than normal years creating muddy conditions which were a problem during harvest.

Herbicides were the most-used type of pesticides on rice in 2016 in terms of area treated. Much of California’s rice is grown repeatedly in the same fields and growers are heavily dependent on herbicides for effective weed management. Many weed species are difficult to manage and if allowed to grow unimpeded, will severely compete with the rice crop for resources. Several species of broadleaf, grass, and sedge weeds that grow along with rice have developed resistance to herbicides.

Propanil, a post-emergence herbicide, was the most used rice herbicide in California. Collaborative water monitoring efforts between the California Rice Commission and registrants have been ongoing since 2006. The pounds applied increased 32 percent from 2015 which had been a 10-year low (Figures 30 and A-28). The 33 percent increase in both pounds used and acres applied of thiobencarb in 2016 was probably due to the progressive resistance of sprangletop to clomazone and cyhalofop-butyl. The continuing decrease of bensulfuron methyl may have resulted from a 2013 introduction of a product that combined thiobencarb and imazosulfuron for bensulfuron methyl-resistant sedges. More acres of weedy rice (red rice) were reported in 2016 than in the previous two decades. The origin and spread are not well understood and the guidelines for treatment will be refined as more knowledge is gained. For larger infestations, glyphosate is used as a burn down herbicide. The pounds of glyphosate applied in 2016 increased 120 percent.

The area treated with fungicides increased 6 percent (Figure 29) and the pounds applied increased 4 percent in 2016. Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate, an organic fungicide, was the most-used fungicide on rice in terms of pounds applied. Azoxystrobin was used on the greatest number of acres, accounting for 87 percent of the acres where fungicide was applied. Azoxystrobin, propiconazole, and trifloxystrobin are reduced-risk fungicides often used as preventive treatments. Copper sulfate is the key algaecide registered for rice in California. It is used primarily for algal management in rice fields and also to manage tadpole shrimp in both conventional and organic production. Copper sulfate can bind to organic matter such as straw residue and potentially reduce the algaecide efficacy. Sodium carbonate peroxyhydrate was registered as an alternative to copper sulfate to manage algae. However, it has yet to displace copper sulfate as the most used algaecide (Figure A-28).

Usually there is little insect pressure on California rice and insecticides are used on relatively few acres (Figure 29).Use of insecticides decreased in 2016. However, armyworm pressure was high for a second consecutive year. Armyworms have a naturally occurring level of tolerance to insecticides. In 2015, no registered insecticide was effective in managing the significant outbreak. Multiple applications of different pesticides, predominantly pyrethroids and carbaryl, had little effect on the pest. An emergency exemption was issued for a methoxyfenozide-containing product in 2015 and 2016. Rice water weevil is the major insect pest on California rice, but tadpole shrimp are becoming more problematic, and in some areas they are the main pest of rice during the seedling stage. Growers often rely on lambda-cyhalothrin, copper sulfate pentahydrate, and carbaryl, applied soon after flooding, to manage tadpole shrimp. Pyrethroids have been used intensively over the last 15 years for rice water weevil and they are managing this pest less effectively (Figures 30 and A-29).

Figure 29, PNG: Acres of rice treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure 30, PNG: Acres of rice treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2012 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Strawberry

In 2016 California produced 2.87 billion pounds of strawberries valued at more than $1.8 billion. Market prices determine how much of the crop goes to fresh market and how much is processed, and in 2016, about 79 percent of the crop went to fresh market. About 38,500 acres of strawberry were planted and harvested in 2016, primarily along the central and southern coast, with smaller but significant production occurring in the Central Valley (Figure A-30 and Table 29).

Table 29, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for strawberry each year from 2012 to 2016. Planted acres are from USDA(d), 2015-2017; marketing year average prices are from USDA(d), 2015-2017. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12). Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

The major insect pests of strawberry are lygus bugs and worms (various moth and beetle larvae), especially in the Central and South Coast growing areas. Until recently, lygus bugs were not considered a problem in the South Coast, but lygus has become a serious threat probably due to warmer, drier winters and increased diversity in the regional crop complex that supports this pest. Flonicamid and acetamiprid, insecticides used to control lygus, were applied to 19 and 26 percent fewer acres in 2016, respectively. Overall insecticide use was down 16 percent in 2016, with 25 to 35 percent decreases in neonicotinoid, organochlorine, organophosphate, and pyrethroid insecticides. Use of organophosphates and carbamates decreased by 29 percent. (Figures 32, A-31, and A-32).

Herbicide use in 2016 decreased 4 percent. The primary contributors to this decrease were a 5 percent decrease in oxyfluorfen use and a 19 percent decrease in flumioxazin.

Figure 31, PNG: Acres of strawberry treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Fungicides continued to be the most-used pesticides in 2016, as measured by area treated. Overall, fungicide use decreased by 3 percent in 2016, with most fungicides showing a slight decrease in use. (Figure 31).

Figure 32, PNG: Acres of strawberry treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2012 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Strawberry production relies on several fumigants. Fumigants accounted for about 81 percent (as measured by pounds applied) of all pesticide AIs applied to strawberries in 2016. The area treated with fumigants in 2016 decreased 3 percent.(Figures 32 and A-31). Methyl bromide use decreased by 26 percent, metam-sodium use decreased by 69 percent, and 1,3-dichloropropene use increased by 5 percent. Chloropicrin use increased by roughly 2 percent. Methyl bromide is used primarily to control pathogens and nutsedge. Metam-sodium is generally more effective in controlling weeds, but less effective than 1,3-dichloropropene or 1,3-dichloropropene plus chloropicrin against soilborne diseases and nematodes. Fumigants usually are applied at higher rates than other pesticide types, such as fungicides and insecticides, in part because they treat a volume of space rather than a surface such as leaves and stems of plants. Thus, the amounts applied are large relative to other pesticide types even though the number of applications or number of acres treated may be relatively small.

Table and raisin grape

The southern San Joaquin Valley region accounts for more than 90 percent of California’s raisin and table grape production (Figure A-33). Total acreage planted in table and raisin grapes decreased by an estimated 15,000 acres in 2016, continuing a trend that reflects a decrease primarily in raisin production. Average prices decreased as well, after increases in 2014 and 2015 (Table 30). The California Grape Acreage survey for 2016 found that Thompson Seedless was again the leading raisin grape variety, while Flame Seedless was again the leading table grape variety.

Table 30, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for table and raisin grape each year from 2012 to 2016. Planted acres are from CDFA(b), 2015-2016; marketing year average prices are from USDA(d), 2015-2017. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12). Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

The price per ton in Table 30 is an average of the prices of table and raisin grapes, weighted by their respective acreages. Due to the wide variation in individual prices depending on type and use of the grape, it is best to consult USDA and CDFA for specific prices.

Patterns in pesticide use on table and raisin grapes are influenced by a number of factors, including weather, topography, pest pressure, evolution of resistance, competition from newer pesticide products, commodity prices, application restrictions, and efforts by growers to reduce costs.

Figure 33, PNG: Acres of table and raisin grape treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Area treated with sulfur and fungicides increased, while area treated with insecticides and herbicides decreased in 2016. Herbicide use has trended downward for five years, and after an upward trend from 2010, insecticide use has decreased since 2014 (Figure 33).

The major arthropod pests in table and raisin grapes continue to be the vine mealybug, leafhoppers, western grape leaf skeletonizer and other Lepidoptera, and spider mites.

The area treated with the top five insecticide AIs changed little from 2015 (Figure 34). With the exception of methoxyfenozide (used for control of Lepidoptera), area treated with all these AIs had generally been increasing over the last decade until 2014, when use of imidacloprid, spirotetramat, and abamectin either leveled off or began to decrease. Spinetoram use has generally continued an increasing trend over the last decade. For the last decade, approximately 81,000 acres were treated with methoxyfenozide each year, though this amount has decreased by around 6,000 acres during each of the last two years. The reduction in overall insecticide use may be attributed in part to a decline in grape acreage as vineyards are replaced by almond and pistachio orchards, as well as a reduction in pest pressure. Growers may have shifted to other AIs to some extent but overall insecticide use decreased. Beta-cyfluthrin, a pyrethroid, and clothianidin, a neonicotinoid, were used on a larger number of acres in 2016 but they were not used extensively (22,000-25,000 acres in total) compared to other AIs. The newly registered miticide, cyflumetofen, and fenproximate, also a miticide, were used on a substantially greater area in 2016 compared to 2015, with increases of 219 and 56 percent, respectively.

The areas treated with sulfur and other fungicides increased marginally (Figure 33). The top five fungicides with the greatest area treated were mostly the same as in 2015, with the addition of tebuconazole in place of pyraclostrobin/boscalid combination fungicides (Figure 34and A-34). The area treated with quinoxyfen trended upward from 2008 to 2015, but decreased slightly in 2016. Notable increases in area treated were observed for cyflufenamid and potassium bicarbonate. Flutriafol increased from less than 1,000 acres in 2015 to nearly 14 thousand acres in 2016. Substantial decreases in area treated were observed for triflumizole and fenhexamid. Cyflufenamid was first registered in 2012 and flutriafol in 2014 so increases in use would be expected as growers test new AIs and use them in rotation with other AIs. Much of the pattern of fungicide use across years can be explained by rotation of AIs as part of a resistance management program. Most applications were in spring to early summer, likely for powdery mildew (Figure A-35). There were some late season applications of copper, cyprodinil, fludioxonil and fenhexamid.

Though drought conditions were abating in 2016, weed pressure was still light and the area treated with herbicides decreased again, a trend that has continued since drought began in 2011 (Figure 33). Very little change occurred in the area treated with the top herbicides, except for pendimethalin which was used on 48 percent more area (Figure 34). There were reductions in area treated with most other herbicides, except flazasulfuron and capric acid, which were applied to a relatively small number of acres (around 8,000 acres each). Flazasulfuron was registered in 2012 so its use might be expected to increase as more applicators become aware of it. Capric acid is an AI of an Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) approved organic product and was registered for grapes in 2015.

Figure 34, PNG: Acres of table and raisin grape treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2012 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

The area treated with fumigants was nearly unchanged from 2015, with a three percent increase of 85 acres treated. 1,3-dichloropropene decreased by 14 percent, while metam-sodium and metam-potassium (potassium n-methyldithiocarbamate) increased.

The area treated with plant growth regulators (PGRs) increased by two percent in 2016. Gibberellins were again used more than other PGRs. Ethephon and hydrogen cyanamide were the next most widely applied PGRs. Gibberellins are applied in early spring to lengthen and loosen grape clusters and increase berry size. Ethephon releases ethylene and is used to enhance fruit ripening in raisin grapes and fruit color in table grapes. Hydrogen cyanamide is applied after pruning to promote bud break. More area was treated with forchlorfenuron in 2016 (by 3,080 acres). Forchlorfenuron is a synthetic cytokinin, applied after fruit set to increase the size and firmness of table grapes.

Walnut

California produces 99 percent of the walnuts grown in the United States. The California walnut industry is comprised of over 4,000 growers who farmed 315,000 bearing acres in 2016 (Table 31 and Figure A-36). According to the 2016 Walnut Objective Measurement Report, the season had satisfactory chilling hours and rain, although spring rains increased the probability of blight, and high temperatures in August resulted in an earlier harvest. Walnut production was estimated at 670,000 tons in 2016, an increase of about 11 percent from the previous year. The price increased by 8 percent while bearing acreage increased by 5 percent. The amount of applied pesticides increased by 5 percent and the area treated increased by 3 percent (Figure 35).

Table 31, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres bearing, and prices for walnut each year from 2012 to 2016. Bearing acres are from USDA(d), 2015-2017; marketing year average prices are from USDA(d), 2015-2017. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12). Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

The area treated with insecticides, which includes miticides, increased by 1 percent (Figure 35). Important pests for walnuts include codling moth, walnut husk fly, navel orangeworm, aphids and webspinning spider mites. The top five insecticides by area treated did not change much from 2015, consisting of abamectin, bifenthrin, chlorantraniliprole, acetamiprid, and methoxyfenozide. Abamectin, a miticide, remained the most-used insecticide because of its low cost and continued efficacy. Pheromone-treated acreage jumped by 35 percent while area treated with organophosphate insecticides continued to decline, showing an 11 percent reduction in 2016. This reduction was largely due to decreased use of chlorpyrifos which became a restricted use material in 2015 (Figures 36 and A-37).

The area treated with herbicides decreased by 2 percent (Figure 35). Similar to 2015, glyphosate, oxyfluorfen, glufosinate-ammonium, paraquat dichloride, and saflufenacil were the top five herbicides by area treated. However, in 2016, the area treated with glufosinate-ammonium increased above that of paraquat dichloride and saflufenacil. Lack of availability of glufosinate-ammonium on the west coast in 2014 and 2015 resulted in low use that did not really reflect its high demand at the time. Recently, glufosinate-ammonium went off patent, increasing the number of available herbicide products and likely reducing costs as a result of product competition. Glyphosate remained the herbicide with the most use, probably due to its effectiveness at controlling a wide variety of weeds and its relatively low cost. However, reports of glyphosate-resistant weeds continue to surface, causing growers to take measures to delay or prevent resistance. The Sacramento Valley is dominated by glyphosate-resistant rye grass whereas in the San Joaquin Valley, glyphosate-resistant fleabane and horseweed are more prevalent. In both areas, glyphosate-resistant summer grasses such as junglerice are becoming increasingly important problems. Glufosinate-ammonium and paraquat dichloride are non-selective herbicides recommended for use with a protoporphyrinogen oxidase (PPO) inhibitor such as saflufenacil or oxyfluorfen as an alternative to glyphosate to slow or prevent glyphosate resistance. Saflufenacil is less expensive than glufosinate-ammonium and controls broadleaf weeds like fleabane and horseweed, but is not effective on grass weeds (Figures 36, A-37 and A-38).

The area treated with fungicides increased 10 percent (Figure 35). Copper and mancozeb, used for blight control, had the highest use, increasing in area treated by 14 and 16 percent respectively. Propiconazole, tebuconazole, and pyraclostrobin were also in the top five fungicides for 2016, with tebuconazole showing a 78 percent increase in area treated (Figures A-37, and A-38). These increases were likely due to more occurrences of Botryosphaeria canker (Bot), a fungus that can infect branches, nuts, spurs, and shoots of walnut trees resulting in severe crop loss. Area treated with microbial fungicides which are generally thought to be lower risk increased by 56 percent. Sulfur, a fungicide/insecticide, decreased by 67 percent while kaolin clay increased by 4 percent.

The area treated with fumigants decreased by 40 percent. Aluminum phosphide, a fumigant used for vertebrate control, decreased by 29 percent. Similarly, fumigants applied to the soil before planting such as 1,3-dichloropropene, chloropicrin, and methyl bromide saw significant decreases in area treated by 20, 53, and 67 percent respectively. Given the cost and tighter regulations of fumigants, some growers are using alternatives such as fallowing or cover-cropping for a year prior to replanting orchards with new trees.

Figure 35, PNG: Acres of walnut treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure 36, PNG: Acres of walnut treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2012 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Wine grape

There are four major wine grape production regions: North Coast (Lake, Mendocino, Napa, Sonoma, and Solano counties); Central Coast (Alameda, Monterey, San Luis Obispo, Santa Barbara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, and Santa Clara counties); northern San Joaquin Valley (San Joaquin, Calaveras, Amador, Sacramento, Merced, Stanislaus, and Yolo counties); and southern San Joaquin Valley (Fresno, Kings, Tulare, Kern, and Madera counties). (Figure A-39). Pest and disease pressure may differ among these regions. The pooled figures in this report may not reflect differences in pesticide use patterns between production regions.

Changes in pesticide use on wine grape are influenced by a number of factors, including weather, topography, pest pressure, evolution of resistance, competition from newer pesticide products, commodity prices, application restrictions, efforts by growers to reduce costs, and increased emphasis on sustainable farming.

Table 32, PDF: Total reported pounds of all active ingredients (AI), acres treated, acres planted, and prices for wine grape each year from 2012 to 2016. Planted acres are from CDFA(b), 2015-2017; marketing year average prices are from USDA(d), 2015-2017. Acres treated means cumulative acres treated (see explanation p. 12). Text files of data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

The total amount of pesticides applied and the cumulative area treated in 2016 decreased (Table 32).The area treated with sulfur and herbicides decreased, and the area treated with fungicides and insecticides increased in 2016. The long term trend over the last two decades is an increasing area treated for all pesticide types except for sulfur which has tended to fluctuate more annually (Figure 37).

Vine mealybug continued to be a concern for growers. It has now been found throughout most of the grape growing regions of California. The warm winters since 2012 have allowed vine mealybug populations to build up early in the season. In the North Coast region, the Virginia creeper leafhopper, a recent pest, continued to cause substantial damage in some locations, as did the western grape leafhopper. While there is effective biological control for western grape leafhopper, Virginia creeper leafhopper infestations require insecticide applications. In this region, these leafhoppers have generally been treated with organic materials (botanical pyrethrins and oils) as well as imidacloprid.

Figure 37, PNG: Acres of wine grape treated by all AIs in the major types of pesticides from 1996 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

There has been a generally increasing use of relatively lower risk insecticides (oil, spirotetramat, buprofezin) over the past five years. Over this same period, use of the neonicotinoid insecticides such as imidacloprid, thiamethoxam and clothianidin, have tended to increase, though area treated with imidacloprid decreased in 2014 and 2016 (Figure 38). These insecticides are used to control mealybugs, leafhoppers and sharpshooters. Use of chlorpyrifos dropped off sharply in 2011 and has remained relatively low ever since. Chlorpyrifos was made a restricted material in 2015. Large vine mealybug populations in 2015 and 2016 have kept this AI as an important tool for growers however. Chlorpyrifos is used as postharvest or delayed dormant treatments to prevent spring buildup of vine mealybug populations (Figure A-41). Some AIs used for mite control (abamectin, etoxazole, fenpyroximate) remained about the same or decreased in area treated in 2016 while the newly registered cyflumetofen, and hexythiazox, were used on greater area. Methoxyfenozide has continued to be used on a substantial area for the treatment of Lepidoptera.

Overall, fungicide use has been increasing for two decades (Figure 37), though area treated with the major AIs changed little over the past five years, except for an increased use of tebuconazole from 2012-2014 (Figure 38). Although the dry conditions of the drought generally do not favor fungal reproduction, the winter of 2015-2016 was wetter in most parts of the state than the previous winters during the drought. While there were small increases in area treated with some fungicides (copper, boscalid/pyraclostrobin combination fungicides, cyprodinil, potassium bicarbonate), the decreases in others led to little net change. It is likely that growers were rotating AIs to slow the evolution of resistance. The top five fungicides applied to the largest cumulative treated area changed little from 2015, with myclobutanil replacing trifloxystrobin for fifth largest in area treated (Figure 38).

Figure 38, PNG: Acres of wine grape treated by the top 5 AIs of each AI type from 2012 to 2016. Data are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Weed pressure was light in 2016, perhaps accounting for a slight decrease in area treated with herbicides (Figure 37). The top five herbicides in area treated were the same as in 2015 (Figure 38). There were no notable increases in area treated with any herbicide, while substantial decreases in area treated with glyphosate, oxyfluorfen, indaziflam, oryzalin, and flazasulfuron can account for the overall decrease observed.

Fumigant use continued a decreasing trend that has been observed over the past five years (Figure A-41). All fumigant AIs were used less in 2016. This likely reflects a decrease in the number of acres planted in 2016, a move away from soil fumigation by growers, and a decrease in the use of aluminum phosphide for rodent control.

Gibberellins were by far the most commonly applied plant growth regulator (PGR). Forchlorfenuron was used on three times as many acres in 2016. Forchlorfenuron is a synthetic cytokinin, which is applied after fruit set to increase the size and firmness of table grapes. Since most applications were in May, wine grape growers may have used it at bloom to increase fruit set. Use of other PGRs was negligible in 2016.


Sources of Information

Adaskaveg, J., D. Gubler and T. Michailides. 2013. Fungicides, bactericides, and biologicals for
deciduous tree fruit, nut, strawberry, and vine crops. UC Davis Dept. of Plant Pathology, UC
Kearney Agricultural Center, UC Statewide IPM Program. 53 pp.
http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PDF/PMG/fungicideefficacytiming.pdf

Adaskaveg, J. E., H. Forster, D. Thompson, D. Felts and K. Day. 2012. Epidemiology and
Management of Pre- and Post-Harvest Diseases of Fresh Market Stone Fruits. Annual
research report submitted to the California Tree Fruit Agreement for 2010. 22 pp.
http://ucanr.edu/sites/ctfa/year/2010/?repository=46437&a=92530

CDFA(a). 2016. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. 2016 California Almond Acreage Report. April 26, 2017. 8 pp.
www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/ Almond/index.php

CDFA(a). 2016. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. 2015 California Almond Acreage Report. April 27, 2016. 8 pp.
www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/ Almond/index.php

CDFA(a). 2015. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. 2014 California Almond Acreage Report. May 4, 2015. 8 pp.
www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/ Almond/index.php

CDFA(a). 2014. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. 2013 California Almond Acreage Report. April 24, 2014. 8 pp.
www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/ Almond/index.php

CDFA(a). 2013. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. 2012 California Almond Acreage Report. April 25, 2013. 8 pp.
www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/ Almond/index.php

CDFA(b). 2017. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. California Grape Acreage Report 2016 Crop. April 20, 2017. 79 pp.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Grapes/

CDFA(b). 2016. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. California Grape Acreage Report 2015 Crop. April 14, 2016. 74 pp.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Grapes/

CDFA(b). 2015. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. California Grape Acreage Report 2014 Crop. April 16, 2015. 65 pp. https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Grapes/

CDFA(b). 2014. California Department of Food and Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. California Grape Acreage Report 2013 Crop. April 15, 2014. 59 pp.
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Grapes/

CDFA(c). 2016. California Department of Food and Agriculture. California Agricultural
Statistics Review, 2015-2016. 126 pp. http://www.cdfa.ca.gov/Statistics/PDFs/2016Report.pdf

California Farm Bureau. Ag Alert. Various issues. http://www.agalert.com/

Ogawa, J.M. and H. English. 1991. Diseases of Temperate Zone Tree Fruit and Nut Crops. UC
ANR, Oakland, Calif. Pub. 3345. 461 pp.

University of California Agricultural and Natural Resources Field Notes.

University of California Integrated Pest Management (UC IPM). Pest Management Guidelines.
http://ipm.ucanr.edu/.

USDA. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service. Crop
Progress and Condition Reports. California Crop Weather. (weekly bulletins)
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Crop_Progress_&_Condition/.

USDA. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics Service
(USDA). Quick Stats. http://quickstats.nass.usda.gov.

USDA(a). 2017. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Acreage. June 30, 2017. 47 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2017/Acre-06-30-2017.pdf

USDA(a). 2016. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Acreage. June 30, 2016. 47 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2016/Acre-06-30-2016.pdf

USDA(a). 2015. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Acreage. June 30, 2015. 42 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2015/Acre-06-30-2015.pdf

USDA(a). 2014. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Acreage. June 30, 2014. 42 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2014/Acre-06-30-2014.pdf

USDA(a). 2013. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Acreage. June 28, 2013. 42 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2013/Acre-06-28-2013.pdf

USDA(a). 2012. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Acreage. June 29, 2012. 42 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/Acre/2010s/2012/Acre-06-29-2012.pdf

USDA(b). 2017. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Citrus Fruits 2017 Summary. August 31, 2017. 36 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CitrFrui/2010s/2017/CitrFrui-08-31-2017.pdf

USDA(b). 2016. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Citrus Fruits 2016 Summary. September 12, 2016. 36 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CitrFrui/2010s/2016/CitrFrui-09-12-2016.pdf

USDA(b). 2015. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Citrus Fruits 2015 Summary. September 17, 2015. 34 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CitrFrui/2010s/2015/CitrFrui-09-17-2015.pdf

USDA(b). 2014. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Citrus Fruits 2014 Summary. September 18, 2014. 36 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CitrFrui/2010s/2014/CitrFrui-09-18-2014.pdf

USDA(b). 2013. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Citrus Fruits 2013 Summary. September 19, 2013. 36 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CitrFrui/2010s/2013/CitrFrui-09-19-2013.pdf

USDA(c). 2017. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Crop Values 2016 Summary. February 24, 2017. 50 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropValuSu/2010s/2017/CropValuSu-02-24-2017.pdf

USDA(c). 2016. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Crop Values 2015 Summary. February 24, 2016. 49 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropValuSu/2010s/2016/CropValuSu-02-24-2016.pdf

USDA(c). 2015. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Crop Values 2014 Summary. February 24, 2015. 49 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropValuSu/2010s/2015/CropValuSu-02-24-2015_correction.pdf

USDA(c). 2014. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Crop Values 2013 Summary. February 14, 2014. 49 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/CropValuSu/2010s/2014/CropValuSu-02-14-2014.pdf

USDA(d). 2017. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2016 Summary. June 27, 2017. 121 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/NoncFruiNu/2010s/2017/NoncFruiNu-06-27-2017.pdf

USDA(d). 2016. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2015 Summary. July 6, 2016. 107 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/NoncFruiNu/2010s/2016/NoncFruiNu-07-06-2016.pdf

USDA(d). 2015. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2014 Summary. July 17, 2015. 98 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/NoncFruiNu/2010s/2015/NoncFruiNu-07-17-2015.pdf

USDA(d). 2014.United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Noncitrus Fruits and Nuts 2013 Summary. July 17, 2014. 79 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/NoncFruiNu/2010s/2014/NoncFruiNu-07-17-2014_revision.pdf

USDA(e). 2017. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Vegetables 2016 Summary. February 22, 2017. 111 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/VegeSumm/2010s/2017/VegeSumm-02-22-2017_revision.pdf

USDA(e). 2016. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Vegetables 2015 Summary. February 4, 2016. 75 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/VegeSumm/2010s/2016/VegeSumm-02-04-2016.pdf

USDA(e). 2015. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Vegetables 2014 Summary. January 29, 2015. 83 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/VegeSumm/2010s/2015/VegeSumm-01-29-2015.pdf

USDA(e). 2014. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. Vegetables 2013 Summary. March 27, 2014. 83 pp.
http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/usda/nass/VegeSumm/2010s/2014/VegeSumm-03-27-2014.pdf

USDA(f). 2017. United States Department of Agriculture - National Agricultural Statistics
Service. 2017 California Processing Tomato Report
https://www.nass.usda.gov/Statistics_by_State/California/Publications/Specialty_and_Other_Releases/Tomatoes/2017/201708ptom.pdf

Varela, Lucia G.; Rhonda J. Smith; and Glenn T. McGourty. 2013. Sonoma County Farm News, July.

Weksler, A., A. Dagar, H. Friedman and S. Lurie. 2009. The effect of gibberellin on firmness and
storage potential of peaches and nectarines. Proceedings of the VII International Peach
Symposium. International Society for Horticultural Science Acta Horticulturae 962.
http://www.actahort.org/books/962/962_80.htm

Western Farm Press. Various issues. http://www.westernfarmpress.com/

And many thanks to all the contributions and expertise from County Agricultural Commissioners,
growers, University of California Cooperative Extension Area Integrated Pest Management
Advisors and Farm Advisors, pest control advisors, commodity marketing boards, and University
of California researchers.

Appendix

Data for all figures are available at ftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/.

Figure A-1, PDF: Acres treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-2, PDF: Acres treated by the major AIs and crops in 2016.

Figure A-3,JPG: Number of pesticide applications in alfalfa by township in 2016.

Figure A-4, PDF: Acres of alfalfa treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-5, PDF: Acres of alfalfa treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.

Figure A-6, JPG: Number of pesticide applications in almond by township in 2016.

Figure A-7, PDF: Acres of almond treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-8, PDF: Acres of almond treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.

Figure A-9, JPG: Number of pesticide applications in carrot by township in 2016.

Figure A-10, PDF: Acres of carrot treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-11, PDF: Acres of carrot treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.

Figure A-12, JPG: Number of pesticide applications in cotton by township in 2016.

Figure A-13, PDF: Acres of cotton treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-14, PDF: Acres of cotton treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.

Figure A-15, JPG: Number of pesticide applications in orange by township in 2016.

Figure A-16, PDF: Acres of orange treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-17, PDF: Acres of orange treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.

Figure A-18, JPG: Number of pesticide applications in peach and nectarine by township in 2016.

Figure A-19, PDF: Acres of peach and nectarine treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-20, PDF: Acres of peach and nectarine treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.

Figure A-21, JPG: Number of pesticide applications in pistachio by township in 2016.

Figure A-22, PDF: Acres of pistachio treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-23, PDF: Acres of pistachio treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.

Figure A-24, JPG: Number of pesticide applications in processing tomato by township in 2016.

Figure A-25, PDF: Acres of processing tomato treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-26, PDF: Acres of processing tomato treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.

Figure A-27, JPG: Number of pesticide applications in rice by township in 2016.

Figure A-28, PDF: Acres of rice treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-29, PDF: Acres of rice treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.

Figure A-30, JPG: Number of pesticide applications in strawberry by township in 2016.

Figure A-31, PDF: Acres of strawberry treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-32, PDF: Acres of strawberry treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.

Figure A-33, JPG: Number of pesticide applications in table and raisin grape by township in 2016.

Figure A-34, PDF: Acres of table and raisin grape treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-35, PDF: Acres of table and raisin grape treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.

Figure A-36, JPG: Number of pesticide applications in walnut by township in 2016.

Figure A-37, PDF: Acres of walnut treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-38, PDF: Acres of walnut treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.

Figure A-39, JPG: Number of pesticide applications in wine grape by township in 2016.

Figure A-40, PDF: Acres of wine grape treated by the major AIs from 1997 to 2016.

Figure A-41, PDF: Acres of wine grape treated by the major AIs by month and AI type from 2013 to 2016.


VI. Pesticide Use Report Data 2016

The following report presents information of statewide pesticide use for 2016. For each chemical, the commodity on which it was used, total pounds applied, the number of agricultural applications made, and the amount of commodity treated are summarized.

A summary by commodity is presented in a separate report, Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2016 Indexed by Commodity (PDF). Both versions of the Pesticide Use Report are available on a cd (send requests to PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov) or can be found on DPR’s Web site at www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm.

A summary by chemical is presented in a separate report, Summary of Pesticide Use Report Data 2016 Indexed by Chemical (PDF). Both versions of the Pesticide Use Report are available on a cd (send requests to PUR.Inquiry@cdpr.ca.gov) or can be found on DPR’s Web site at www.cdpr.ca.gov/docs/pur/purmain.htm.

Tab-delimited text files of these report tables are available atftp://transfer.cdpr.ca.gov/pub/outgoing/pur/data/

.