JEQ Journal of Natural Resources and Life Sciences Education
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
 QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     


Published online 1 March 2006
Published in J Environ Qual 35:628-640 (2006)
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2005.0257
© 2006 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
This Article
Right arrow Figures Only
Right arrow Full Text Free
Right arrow Full Text (PDF) Free
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Services
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (4)
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Dann, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Pang, L.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Dann, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Pang, L.
GeoRef
Right arrow GeoRef Citation
Agricola
Right arrow Articles by Dann, R. L.
Right arrow Articles by Pang, L.
Related Collections
Right arrow Pesticides
Right arrow Organic Compounds
Right arrow Agricultural Pesticides

TECHNICAL REPORTS

Vadose Zone Processes and Chemical Transport

Impact of Data Quality and Model Complexity on Prediction of Pesticide Leaching

R. L. Danna, M. E. Closea,*, R. Leeb and L. Panga

a Institute of Environmental Science and Research, PO Box 29-181, Christchurch, New Zealand
b Landcare Research NZ Ltd, Private Bag 3127, Hamilton, New Zealand

* Corresponding author (murray.close{at}esr.cri.nz)

Accurate input data for leaching models are expensive and difficult to obtain which may lead to the use of "general" non-site-specific input data. This study investigated the effect of using different quality data on model outputs. Three models of varying complexity, GLEAMS, LEACHM, and HYDRUS-2D, were used to simulate pesticide leaching at a field trial near Hamilton, New Zealand, on an allophanic silt loam using input data of varying quality. Each model was run for four different pesticides (hexazinone, procymidone, picloram and triclopyr); three different sets of pesticide sorption and degradation parameters (i.e., site optimized, laboratory derived, and sourced from the USDA Pesticide Properties Database); and three different sets of soil physical data of varying quality (i.e., site specific, regional database, and particle size distribution data). We found that the selection of site-optimized pesticide sorption (Koc) and degradation parameters (half-life), compared to the use of more general database derived values, had significantly more impact than the quality of the soil input data used, but interestingly also more impact than the choice of the models. Models run with pesticide sorption and degradation parameters derived from observed solute concentrations data provided simulation outputs with goodness-of-fit values closest to optimum, followed by laboratory-derived parameters, with the USDA parameters providing the least accurate simulations. In general, when using pesticide sorption and degradation parameters optimized from site solute concentrations, the more complex models (LEACHM and HYDRUS-2D) were more accurate. However, when using USDA database derived parameters, all models performed about equally.

Abbreviations: CRM, coefficient of residual mass • GOF, goodness-of-fit • Koc, organic carbon distribution coefficient • Ksat, saturated hydraulic conductivity • SSres, sum of squares residual • T1/2, half-life







HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
The SCI Journals Agronomy Journal Crop Science
Vadose Zone Journal Journal of Plant Registrations
Journal of Natural Resources
and Life Sciences Education
Soil Science Society of America Journal
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.