Published online 6 July 2006
Published in J Environ Qual 35:1213-1226 (2006)
DOI: 10.2134/jeq2005.0377
© 2006 American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America
677 S. Segoe Rd., Madison, WI 53711 USA
Mapping Ground Water Vulnerability to Pesticide Leaching with a Process-Based Metamodel of EuroPEARL
A. Tiktaka,*,
J. J. T. I. Boestenb,
A. M. A. van der Lindenc and
M. Vancloosterd
a Netherlands Environmental Assessment Agency (NEAA), P.O. Box 303, 3720 AH Bilthoven, the Netherlands
b Alterra, P.O. Box 47, 6700 AA Wageningen, the Netherlands
c RIVM, P.O. Box 1, 3720 BA Bilthoven, the Netherlands
d Université Catholique de Louvain, Croix du Sud 2, 1348 Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

View larger version (66K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 1. Basic maps for EuroPEARL. Areas without agricultural land use and areas where insufficient soil information was available are not shown. (a) Organic matter content of the upper meter as derived from the SPADE database, (b) soil texture from the 1:1 000 000 Soil Map of Europe, (c) mean annual rainfall, and (d) mean annual temperature. Temperature and rainfall were taken from the Pan-European climate database.
|
|

View larger version (21K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 2. The maximum in time of the flux concentration, CL, at 1-m depth (µg L1) as calculated with Eq. [2] as a function of the leached fraction F (dimensionless) as calculated with Eq. [1]. The points are Monte Carlo calculations based on random values for the volume fraction of water, retardation factor, water flux, and half-life of the pesticide. The lines are at arbitrary concentration levels but have a slope of 1 implying that the concentration is proportional to the leached fraction.
|
|

View larger version (53K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 3. Leaching concentration CL (µg L1) at 1-m depth as calculated with the EuroPEARL model plotted against leaching concentrations predicted with the metamodel (Eq. [5]). The points are leaching concentrations and the line represents a 1:1 correspondence. Model II: one regression for the EU-15 as a whole. Model III: regressions for individual climate zones as described in Table 2.
|
|

View larger version (55K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 4. Predicted leaching concentration in response to annual applications in autumn, as calculated with EuroPEARL (left) and the metamodel (right). Areas without agricultural land use and areas where EuroPEARL could not be parameterized are not shown.
|
|

View larger version (55K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 5. Predicted leaching concentration in response to annual applications in spring as calculated with EuroPEARL (left) and the metamodel (right). Areas without agricultural land use and areas where EuroPEARL could not be parameterized are not shown.
|
|

View larger version (13K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 6. Relation between (a) mean annual precipitation (P) and the mean annual flux q100 at 100-cm depth and (b) relationship between water content at field capacity ( fc) and long-term average water content ( ). Both relationships were obtained from EuroPEARL simulations.
|
|

View larger version (59K):
[in a new window]
|
Fig. 7. Results of the metamodel application at the entire EU-25. Leaching set autumn application was used. (a) Organic matter content of the upper meter of the soil profile, (b) annual mean precipitation surplus, (c) predicted leaching concentration for Substance A, (d) predicted leaching concentration for Substance B, (e) normalized vulnerability score for Substance A, and (f) normalized vulnerability score for Substance B.
|
|
Copyright © 2006 by the American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, and Soil Science Society of America.