Abstract:
Understanding spatial patterns of pesticide use is critical for environmental monitoring, public health protection, and informed policymaking, particularly in agriculturally intensive regions such as Fresno County, California, and Yakima County, Washington. This study compared two major pesticide data sources—the California Pesticide Information Portal (CalPIP) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) pesticide use estimates—to assess their agreement and accuracy at the Township Range Section (TRS) scale, which is part of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) and was created by the United States government in the early 1800s to divide land into rectangular parcels. Focusing on orchard, vineyard, and nut crops, we evaluated pesticide application trends across three key time points (2000, 2010, and 2019/2020) and mapped the distribution of the most commonly used active ingredients, including sulfur, glyphosate, petroleum oil, kaolin, and chlorpyrifos. Our analysis revealed notable differences between the two data sources. CalPIP provided high-resolution, crop-specific pesticide application data, enabling detailed spatial visualizations at a fine resolution. In contrast, USGS data, which was modeled from county-level crop acreage and average application rates, lacked crop specificity and resulted in more generalized spatial patterns. Despite these differences, both sources highlighted similar high-use regions, indicating that USGS data, although limited, can be used with caution for a more generalized geographic analysis of pesticide use across 49 states outside of California. Validation analysis between USGS and CalPIP grid estimates revealed weak positive correlations, revealing methodological inconsistencies between the two sources, including data suppression, reporting gaps, and the generalized non-specific nature of USGS estimates. These findings highlight the need for improved pesticide use estimation methodologies that can be ground-truthed with satellite imagery and local surveys to improve the accuracy and applicability of pesticide exposure assessments.
Understanding spatial patterns of pesticide use is critical for environmental monitoring, public health protection, and informed policymaking, particularly in agriculturally intensive regions such as Fresno County, California, and Yakima County, Washington. This study compared two major pesticide data sources—the California Pesticide Information Portal (CalPIP) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) pesticide use estimates—to assess their agreement and accuracy at the Township Range Section (TRS) scale, which is part of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) and was created by the United States government in the early 1800s to divide land into rectangular parcels. Focusing on orchard, vineyard, and nut crops, we evaluated pesticide application trends across three key time points (2000, 2010, and 2019/2020) and mapped the distribution of the most commonly used active ingredients, including sulfur, glyphosate, petroleum oil, kaolin, and chlorpyrifos. Our analysis revealed notable differences between the two data sources. CalPIP provided high-resolution, crop-specific pesticide application data, enabling detailed spatial visualizations at a fine resolution. In contrast, USGS data, which was modeled from county-level crop acreage and average application rates, lacked crop specificity and resulted in more generalized spatial patterns. Despite these differences, both sources highlighted similar high-use regions, indicating that USGS data, although limited, can be used with caution for a more generalized geographic analysis of pesticide use across 49 states outside of California. Validation analysis between USGS and CalPIP grid estimates revealed weak positive correlations, revealing methodological inconsistencies between the two sources, including data suppression, reporting gaps, and the generalized non-specific nature of USGS estimates. These findings highlight the need for improved pesticide use estimation methodologies that can be ground-truthed with satellite imagery and local surveys to improve the accuracy and applicability of pesticide exposure assessments.
Understanding spatial patterns of pesticide use is critical for environmental monitoring, public health protection, and informed policymaking, particularly in agriculturally intensive regions such as Fresno County, California, and Yakima County, Washington. This study compared two major pesticide data sources—the California Pesticide Information Portal (CalPIP) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) pesticide use estimates—to assess their agreement and accuracy at the Township Range Section (TRS) scale, which is part of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) and was created by the United States government in the early 1800s to divide land into rectangular parcels. Focusing on orchard, vineyard, and nut crops, we evaluated pesticide application trends across three key time points (2000, 2010, and 2019/2020) and mapped the distribution of the most commonly used active ingredients, including sulfur, glyphosate, petroleum oil, kaolin, and chlorpyrifos. Our analysis revealed notable differences between the two data sources. CalPIP provided high-resolution, crop-specific pesticide application data, enabling detailed spatial visualizations at a fine resolution. In contrast, USGS data, which was modeled from county-level crop acreage and average application rates, lacked crop specificity and resulted in more generalized spatial patterns. Despite these differences, both sources highlighted similar high-use regions, indicating that USGS data, although limited, can be used with caution for a more generalized geographic analysis of pesticide use across 49 states outside of California. Validation analysis between USGS and CalPIP grid estimates revealed weak positive correlations, revealing methodological inconsistencies between the two sources, including data suppression, reporting gaps, and the generalized non-specific nature of USGS estimates. These findings highlight the need for improved pesticide use estimation methodologies that can be ground-truthed with satellite imagery and local surveys to improve the accuracy and applicability of pesticide exposure assessments.
Understanding spatial patterns of pesticide use is critical for environmental monitoring, public health protection, and informed policymaking, particularly in agriculturally intensive regions such as Fresno County, California, and Yakima County, Washington. This study compared two major pesticide data sources—the California Pesticide Information Portal (CalPIP) and the United States Geological Survey (USGS) pesticide use estimates—to assess their agreement and accuracy at the Township Range Section (TRS) scale, which is part of the Public Land Survey System (PLSS) and was created by the United States government in the early 1800s to divide land into rectangular parcels. Focusing on orchard, vineyard, and nut crops, we evaluated pesticide application trends across three key time points (2000, 2010, and 2019/2020) and mapped the distribution of the most commonly used active ingredients, including sulfur, glyphosate, petroleum oil, kaolin, and chlorpyrifos. Our analysis revealed notable differences between the two data sources. CalPIP provided high-resolution, crop-specific pesticide application data, enabling detailed spatial visualizations at a fine resolution. In contrast, USGS data, which was modeled from county-level crop acreage and average application rates, lacked crop specificity and resulted in more generalized spatial patterns. Despite these differences, both sources highlighted similar high-use regions, indicating that USGS data, although limited, can be used with caution for a more generalized geographic analysis of pesticide use across 49 states outside of California. Validation analysis between USGS and CalPIP grid estimates revealed weak positive correlations, revealing methodological inconsistencies between the two sources, including data suppression, reporting gaps, and the generalized non-specific nature of USGS estimates. These findings highlight the need for improved pesticide use estimation methodologies that can be ground-truthed with satellite imagery and local surveys to improve the accuracy and applicability of pesticide exposure assessments.