HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Abstract Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Services Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in ISI Web of Science Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Citing Articles via ISI Web of Science (3) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Connolly, R.D. Articles by Freebairn, D.M. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Connolly, R.D. Articles by Freebairn, D.M. Agricola Articles by Connolly, R.D. Articles by Freebairn, D.M. Related Collections Water Quality Cotton Agricultural Pesticides Water Pollution

Simulating Endosulfan Transport in Runoff from Cotton Fields in Australia with the GLEAMS Model

^a Queensland Dep. of Natural Resources, P.O. Box 318, Toowoomba, QLD 4350, Australia
^b Dep. Agric. Chem. & Soil Sci., Univ. of Sydney, Ross Street Building A03, Sydney, NSW 2006, Australia
^c Queensland Dep. of Natural Resources, Resource Sciences Centre, Meiers Road, Indooroopilly, QLD 4068, Australia

View larger version (22K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Measured and predicted runoff, endosulfan transport, and proportion of endosulfan transported in the water phase for all the experimental studies.

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Typical endosulfan concentrations on soil at the Queensland and New South Wales sites predicted for the Conventional, Stubble Retained, and Reduced Sprays scenarios.

View larger version (12K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Predicted variation in runoff and endosulfan transport during the year (Conventional scenario).

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Predicted average annual runoff and endosulfan transport from the two sites. Runoff from the Reduced Sprays scenario is the same as Conventional.

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Change in predicted average annual endosulfan transport when runoff and the amount of endosulfan applied is reduced. Scenarios plotted are Conventional, Reduced Irrigation, and Dryland.

View larger version (20K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Daily runoff, endosulfan concentration, and mass predicted in large events at the Queensland site, calculated using an annual series. Top and bottom of the thin bars are the 1:30 and 1:1 year probabilities, top and bottom of the thick bars are the 1:10 and 4:5 year probabilities, respectively. Runoff in the Reduced Sprays scenario is the same as Conventional. Note: Data for runoff, concentration, and mass are calculated independently, and may not be from the same event.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Daily endosulfan mass and concentration predicted in runoff from large events at the New South Wales site. Top and bottom of the thin bars are the 1:30 and 1:1 year probabilities, top and bottom of the thick bars are the 1:10 and 4:5 year probabilities, respectively. Runoff in the Reduced Sprays scenario is the same as Conventional.