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

This Article Abstract Full Text Free Full Text (PDF) Free 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 ISI Web of Science (4) Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Cryer, S. A. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Cryer, S. A. Agricola Articles by Cryer, S. A. Related Collections Best Management Practices Pesticides Software

Predicting Soil Fumigant Air Concentrations under Regional and Diverse Agronomic Conditions

Dow AgroSciences, LLC, 9330 Zionsville Road, Indianapolis, IN 46268

View larger version (43K): [in a new window]   Fig. 1. Simulation domain based on contiguous township representation.

View larger version (60K): [in a new window]   Fig. 2. Example of field locations (dark squares) and receptor placement for a single township for setback distances of 30.5, 61.0, 122, 244, and 457 m (100, 200, 400, 800, and 1500 ft).

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 3. Illustration of field placement within a section or township where not all land can be utilized. PDF = probability density function.

View larger version (61K): [in a new window]   Fig. 4. Example random and section weighted field placement (with overflow) in a 3 x 3 township domain for a 10 x 10 township grid for Ventura, CA.

View larger version (23K): [in a new window]   Fig. 5. Functional nonlinear dependence of cumulative volatilization losses for the fumigant 1,3-D as a function of application depth.

View larger version (34K): [in a new window]   Fig. 6. Air concentration results for Monterey 3 x 3 (central Township 15S04E) represented as a three-dimensional mesh plot with exaggerated z axes.

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 7. Field observations of transient volatility losses of 1,3-D for shank injection application (application rate of 137 kg ha–1 [122 lb acre–1]).

View larger version (30K): [in a new window]   Fig. 8. Histogram for 1,3-D application dates occurring in Kern County during 2000–2001 and over the monitoring interval of the California Department of Environmental Protection Air Resources Board (ARB).

View larger version (32K): [in a new window]   Fig. 9. Pie chart showing Kern County crop percentages treated with 1,3-D for 2000–2001.

View larger version (17K): [in a new window]   Fig. 10. Observed and simulated 24-h 1,3-D air concentrations in Kern County (M31S29E) over the 2001 California EPA Air Resources Board (ARB) monitoring interval (30 June–30 August).

View larger version (13K): [in a new window]   Fig. 11. The percent differences (Eq. [3]) between simulated and observed Kern Township air concentrations for different exceedence percentiles.

View larger version (16K): [in a new window]   Fig. 12. Example of simulated 1,3-D air concentrations for two neighboring receptors in the Kern simulation that mimic field observations for the Vineland School District–Sunset School monitoring location (VSD).

View larger version (21K): [in a new window]   Fig. 13. Results of sensitivity analysis represented as an approximate contribution to variance in model output (15-d directional average 1,3-D air concentration at 30.5 m [100 ft] from field edge and 1.5 m from the soil surface) for the Kern validation simulation.