Modelling ethoprophos and bentazone fate in a sandy humic soil with primary pesticide fate model PRZM-2

Trevisan, Marco; Errera, Giuseppe; Goerlitz, Gerhard; Remy, B; Sweeney, Paul

doi:10.1016/s0378-3774(99)00098-0

Cited by 20 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 4 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…These uses strongly contrast with pesticide fate models (Dubus and Surdyk, 2006). Examples of indicators include SYNOPS 2 (Gutsche and Roßberg, 1997), the environmental performance indicator of pesticides (p-EMA) , Environmental Potential Risk Indicator for Pesticides (EPRIP) (Trevisan et al, 2000), and Pesticide Environmental Risk Indicator (PERI) (Reus et al, 2002). These examples aim to estimate toxicity impacts on water ecosystems.…”

Section: Methodology Of the Pesticide Indicatormentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling pesticide risk: A marginal cost–benefit analysis of an environmental buffer-zone programme

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Methodology Of the Pesticide Indicatormentioning

confidence: 99%

Modelling pesticide risk: A marginal cost–benefit analysis of an environmental buffer-zone programme

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Such a scheme is often referred to as "tipping bucket" in the literature. 18) As compared with other pollutant fate and transport fate models (PRZM, HYDRUS, MACRO), SPEC development focuses on having minimum input parameter requirements while maintaining physically based processes. The mass balance equation used by the SPEC model to calculate the amount of water in the soil layers is:…”

Section: Model Descriptionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Development and validation of the SPEC model for simulating the fate and transport of pesticide applied to Japanese upland agricultural soil

et al. 2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A pesticide fate and transport model, SPEC, was developed for assessing Soil-PEC (Predicted Environmental Concentrations in agricultural soils) for pesticide residues in upland field environments. The SPEC model was validated for predicting the water content and concentrations of atrazine and metolachlor in 5-cm deep soil. Uncertainty and sensitivity analyses were used to evaluate the robustness of the model's predictions. The predicted daily soil water contents were accurate regarding the number of observation points (n=269). The coefficient of determination (R 2 ) and Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency (N SE ) were equal to 0.38 and 0.22, respectively. The predicted daily concentrations of atrazine and metolachlor were also satisfactory since the R 2 and N SE statistics were greater than 0.91 and 0.76, respectively. The field capacity, the saturated water content of the soil and the Q 10 parameter were identified as major contributors to variation in predicted soil water content or/and herbicide concentrations.

show abstract

“…PRZM is a one‐dimensional, finite‐difference model that simulates fate and transport of sediment and pesticide over, within, and below the crop root zone at a daily time step (Carsel et al, ). Most validation of PRZM focused on pesticide leaching and/or persistence in the soil (Burkart, Gassman, Moorman, & Singh, ; Chang, Srilakshmi, & Parvathinathan, ; Cogger, Bristow, Stark, Getzin, & Montgomery, ; Durborow, Barnes, Cohen, Horst, & Smith, ; Fox, Sabbagh, Chen, & Russell, ; Garratt, Capri, Trevisan, Errera, & Wilkins, ; Jmones & Mangels, ; Loague, Bernknopf, Green, & Giambelluca, ; Q. L. Ma, Hook, et al, ; Q. L. Ma, Rahman, Holland, James, & McNaughton, ; Malone, Warner, Workman, & Byers, ; Mamy, Gabrielle, & Barriuso, ; Marín‐Benito et al, ; Marín‐Benito, Rodríguez‐Cruz, Sánchez‐Martín, & Mamy, ; Mueller, Bush, Banks, & Jones, ; Noshadi, Amin, & Maleki, ; Russell & Jones, ; Trevisan, Errera, Goerlitz, Remy, & Sweeney, ; Zacharias & Heatwole, ). For pesticide runoff simulation, PRZM (Versions 2.0 and 3.0) predicted runoff water amounts with good accuracy (Q. Ma, Holland, James, McNaughton, & Rahman, ; Q. L. Ma, Smith, Hook, & Bridges, ), whereas PRZM (Beta Version 3.0) underestimated pesticide concentration in runoff flow (Malone et al, ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Numerical simulation of agricultural sediment and pesticide runoff: RZWQM and PRZM comparison

Chen

Zhang

DeMars

et al. 2017

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Agricultural sediment and pesticide runoff is a widespread ecological and human health concern.Numerical simulation models, such as Root Zone Water Quality Model (RZWQM) and Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM), have been increasingly used to quantify off-site agricultural pollutant movement. However, RZWQM has been criticized for its inability to simulate sedimentation processes. The recent incorporation of the sedimentation module of Groundwater Loading Effects of Agricultural Management Systems has enabled RZWQM to simulate sediment and sedimentassociated pesticides. This study compares the sediment and pesticide transport simulation performance of the newly released RZWQM and PRZM using runoff data from 2 alfalfa fields in Davis, California. A composite metric (based on coefficient of determination, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency, index of agreement, and percent bias) was developed and employed to ensure robust, comprehensive assessment of model performance. Results showed that surface water runoff was predicted reasonably well (absolute percent bias <31%) by RZWQM and PRZM after adjusting important hydrologic parameters. Even after calibration, underestimation bias (−89% ≤ PBIAS ≤ −36%) for sediment yield was observed in both models. This might be attributed to PRZM's incorrect distribution of input water and uncertainty in RZWQM's runoff erosivity coefficient. Moreover, the underestimation of sediment might be less if the origin of measured sediment was considered. Chlorpyrifos losses were simulated with reasonable accuracy especially for Field A (absolute PBIAS ≤ 22%), whereas diuron losses were underestimated to a great extent (−98% ≤ PBIAS ≤ −65%) in both models. This could be attributed to the underprediction of herbicide concentration in the top soil due to the limitations of the instantaneous equilibrium sorption model as well as the high runoff potential of herbicide formulated as water-dispersible granules.RZWQM and PRZM partitioned pesticides into the water and sediment phases similarly. According to model predictions, the majority of pesticide loads were carried via the water phase. On the basis of this study, both RZWQM and PRZM performed well in predicting runoff that carried highly adsorptive pesticides on an event basis, although the more physically based RZWQM is recommended when field-measured soil hydraulic properties are available.

show abstract

Modelling ethoprophos and bentazone fate in a sandy humic soil with primary pesticide fate model PRZM-2

Cited by 20 publications

References 4 publications

Modelling pesticide risk: A marginal cost–benefit analysis of an environmental buffer-zone programme

Modelling pesticide risk: A marginal cost–benefit analysis of an environmental buffer-zone programme

Development and validation of the SPEC model for simulating the fate and transport of pesticide applied to Japanese upland agricultural soil

Numerical simulation of agricultural sediment and pesticide runoff: RZWQM and PRZM comparison

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About