NEWSLETTER ARTICLES

Vegetables and Plant Pathology

EPA TURNS TOWARD TOLERANCE REASSESSMENT OF NON-OPs

Pesticides other than organophosphates are coming up for reregistration eligibility decisions (REDs) by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Unlike organophosphates, non-OPs are subject to a scheduling procedure that pre-dates the Food Quality Protection Act (FQPA) and does not include OP-type reviews and comment periods.

While revisions to the RED scheduling procedure for non-OPs are likely, EPA has not officially published or announced them. The current schedule starts collecting use and usage information from registrants early in the RED development. Real world data are essential for regulatory decision-making and are particularly needed when the RED is being refined.

This fall, EPA will make several reregistration decisions for non-OPs, including the products listed below. To inform EPA of any critical uses you have for a product, contact the product’s chemical review manager (CRM), who also is listed.

If you are interested in another pesticide, contact the EPA chemical review manager (CRM) for that pesticide; ask about its registration schedule and the type of information EPA will need. Be aware that the schedule for non-OPs becomes most compressed toward September 30, the end of the federal fiscal year. To identify a CRM, contact Ms. Pat Cimino by phone (703/308-9357), fax (703/308-4776), e-mail (cimino.pat@epa.gov), or postal service at U.S. EPA, mail code 7501C, 401 M St. SW, Washington, DC 20460.

Our advice to stakeholders: Don’t wait to be asked before collecting pesticide use and usage information. Growers, tell registrants about your critical uses, don’t assume that registrants already know. This office strives to keep you informed and is glad to confer with you about how to participate in the RED process. However, with so many pesticides in line, registrants and growers should take a vigilant, pro-active approach in representing their interests to each other and to the EPA.

Information from the USDA Office of Pest Management Policy, September 1999.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION ABUSE AND FRAUD

There is a difference between abuse and fraud. Abuse refers to any practice that uses the workers’ compensation system in a way that is contrary to either the intended purpose of the system or the law. This includes behavior that is not criminal.

Fraud occurs when someone knowingly lies to obtain benefits that they were not otherwise entitled to receive. If there is no lie, there may be abuse, but it is not fraud. Fraud is abusive, but abuse is not necessarily fraudulent.

Labor Code 5401.7 states, "Any person who makes or causes to be made any knowingly false or fraudulent material statement or material representation for the purpose of obtaining or denying workers’ compensation benefits or payments is guilty of a felony."

An employer may not discourage an employee from filing a workers’ compensation claim. Reporting a work-related injury does not mean the employer accepts liability for that injury, it is merely a means of notifying the insurance company of an allegation that needs further investigation.

To prove an allegation of fraud, the district attorney must:

• Demonstrate abuse or misrepresentation and
• prove, beyond a reasonable doubt, intent to defraud the workers’ compensation system.

Indicators of Claimant Fraud

• Injury reported on Monday that allegedly took place the week before.
• Employee reports injury three or four months after it allegedly occurred.
• Employee started employment shortly before the alleged incident.
• The injury was reported after the employee was terminated or laid off.
• The injury was reported immediately following notice of disciplinary action.
• The injury was reported immediately following the end of seasonal/tempo-rary employment.
• There are no witnesses to the injury or witness accounts conflict with one another.
• The employee is unusually familiar with workers’ compensation claim handling procedures and laws.
• The employee consistently fails medical appointments and/or is generally uncooperative.
• The employee is found to be employed somewhere else while collecting temporary disability benefits.
• The employee changes physicians when a release for work has been issued.
• The injured employee never seems to improve.
• Other family members are also receiving workers’ compensation benefits.
• The employee is rarely home when you call and/or the message taker is very vague and noncommittal.
• The alleged injuries are all subjective, i.e., pain, headaches, nausea, etc.

Implementation of the below strategies will help to reduce abuse and fraud of the workers’ compensation system.

Pre-injury strategies:

• Make good hiring decisions
• Conduct new employee orientation and training.
• Ensure that employees are working safely.
• Treat employees fairly
• Designate a medical provider
• Develop a strong modified duty/return to work program
• Establish good communication with insurance carrier

Post-injury strategies:

• Promptly report claims to insurance carrier
• Conduct thorough post-injury investigations
• Obtain witness names and statements
• Document the sequence of events
• Direct to appropriate medical care
• Provide modified duty/return to work
• Communicate with insurance company

Source: CFA Newsletter, Summer 1999.

NEMATODE NUMBERS AND YIELD LOSSES
Antoon Ploeg

Plant-parasitic nematodes can cause substantial yield losses to a wide variety of agricultural and ornamental crops grown in California. Virtually every crop cultivar or variety is host to at least one nematode species. Plants attacked by nematodes often become more vulnerable to invasion by other pathogens, e.g., fungi and bacteria, and this can make it difficult to accurately estimate yield losses caused by nematodes under field conditions. To avoid nematode damage, a number of strategies can be followed: Use of nematicides, choosing nematode-resistant cultivars, growing non-host crops, adjustment of planting date, use of soilless media, and soil solarization. However, before making a decision on nematode control, information on expected yield losses for a particular crop needs to be available. To obtain such information, data on the levels of the different plant-parasitic nematodes need to be collected. This is usually achieved by the analysis of soil samples taken prior to planting. Once the nematode density levels for the different plant-parasitic nematode species are known, they can be compared to experimental data on yield losses caused by these nematodes in the same crop.

The general relationship between pre-plant nematode densities and yield loss was described in the 1970s and contains two important characteristics: The tolerance limit (T), which is the highest nematode level still not causing any damage, and the minimum yield (m), which is the yield obtained even at very high pre-plant nematode densities. The relationship between pre-plant nematode densities and crop yield usually is a curve shaped as in Fig. 1.

Figure 1. The relationship between pre-plant nematode density and yield loss.

At low pre-plant densities the yield is not affected. When densities reach the tolerance limit, the yield declines rapidly until it stabilizes around the minimum yield at high nematode levels. Once the shape of this curve is established for a nematode species x crop combination, yield losses can be predicted at any given pre-plant nematode density. For instance, if Fig. 1 was the curve for root-knot nematodes (M. incognita) and bell pepper, a pre-plant soil analysis, showing a nematode level of 4,000 root-knot nematodes per lb. soil, would result in a yield reduction of 50%.

The specific shape of such curves is, however, different for different crops and for different nematode species. Whereas yields of cantaloupes were reported to decrease at root-knot nematode levels of 95/lb. soil, for bell pepper this started at 370 nematodes/lb. Also, at high nematode levels cantaloupe plants were killed (minimum yield=0), bell peppers still yielded 10% of their normal yield at these high nematode levels. The species of nematode is very important. Cotton yields can suffer severely because of root-knot nematodes, but stubby-root nematodes, which often occur in high numbers under cotton, are not known to cause any serious damage to this crop. Other factors, which may strongly influence the relationship between pre-plant nematode levels and yield losses, are the crop cultivar or variety (some cultivars are more tolerant to a nematode than others), soil type (the same number of nematodes may cause much more damage on sandy than on clay-type soil), planting date (nematodes may cause more damage when soil temperatures favor their multiplication and activity), the occurrence of biological control organisms in the soil (a proportion of the nematodes is weakened or killed before they are able to reach the plant roots), and the age of the plant at time of nematode attack (older plants are usually less susceptible and more tolerant to nematodes than young seedlings).

For several crop x nematode combinations, the relationships between pre-plant nematode levels and yield losses are available, but for numerous others these data are still lacking. We are conducting research to establish such relationships for nematodes and crops important in California. Although some information on critical nematode levels for various crops can be accessed on the Internet (http://www.ipm.ucdavis.edu/PMG/crops-agriculture.html), it is still advised to contact your local farm advisor with questions about nematodes and interpretation of nematode counts when in doubt.

Dr. Antoon Ploeg is a Nematology Specialist at UC Riverside.