The National Crop Loss Assessment Network (NCLAN) began in 1980 to coordinate research on the impact of ozone (O3) on agricultural crops. During a 7‐yr period, the program investigated 14 crops at sites across the country in a total of 41 studies. A major objective was to develop dose‐response relationships between yield of major agricultural crop species and ozone pollution in order to estimate the economic impact of ozone pollution. This paper outlines the statistical methodologies used in combining the dose‐response information for each species over all NCLAN studies, and summarizes the ozone dose‐response relationships obtained. Differences in experimental designs, treatment combinations, and levels of ozone across studies invalidated the conventional analysis of variance approach to combining information across studies. Regression analyses, with weighted least squares and transformations as needed, were used. Dose‐response relationships between yield and ozone were quantified with the nonlinear Weibull response equation and with confidence interval estimates of percentage yield losses. Significant yield losses from ozone were found for 13 of 14 crops studied. The nature of the yield response to ozone differed among crops with soybean [Glycine max (L.) Merr.] being the most sensitive and showing a nearly linear response. Losses from ozone at 0.06 μL L−1 compared with 0.025 μL L−1 were estimated as high as 20%. The impact of ozone was shown to be affected by level of moisture stress but not by SO2.

The effect of personalization on mail survey response rates was examined in nine studies that included 17 comparisons under several research conditions. A study of this variable across multiple experiments in five agricultural experiment stations was undertaken because of conflicting results from previous research and from concern that the effectiveness of personalization might have decreased over time. Results show that, while response to general public surveys appeared to increase modestly across all treatment groups, there was no positive effect for populations in which a group identity (e.g., Dear Oregon Gardner or Dear ATV Owner) is employed to address respondents in cover letters. Personalization appears to remain useful for improving response in surveys of the general public.

No abstract