Assessment of the Environmental Fate of the Herbicides Flufenacet and Metazachlor with the SWAT Model

被引:51
作者
Fohrer, Nicola [1 ]
Dietrich, Antje [1 ]
Kolychalow, Olga [1 ]
Ulrich, Uta [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Kiel, Dep Hydrol & Water Resources Management, Inst Nat Resources Conservat, Ctr Ecol, D-24118 Kiel, Germany
关键词
SOURCE POLLUTION MODELS; WATER ASSESSMENT-TOOL; SENSITIVITY-ANALYSIS; PESTICIDE FATE; SURFACE-WATER; QUALITY MODEL; CATCHMENT; RIVER; FIELD; MANAGEMENT;
D O I
10.2134/jeq2011.0382
中图分类号
X [环境科学、安全科学];
学科分类号
08 ; 0830 ;
摘要
This study aims to assess the environmental fate of the commonly used herbicides flufenacet and metazachlor in the Northern German Lowlands with the ecohydrological Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT model) and to test the sensitivity of pesticide-related input parameters on the modeled transport dynamics. The river discharge of the Kielstau watershed was calibrated (Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency [NSE], 0.83; r(2) = 0.84) and validated (NSE, 0.76; r(2) = 0.77) for a daily time step. The environmental fate of metazachlor (NSE, 0.68; r(2) = 0.62) and flufenacet (NSE, 0.13; r(2) = 0.51) was simulated adequately. In comparison to metazachlor, the simulated flufenacet concentration and loads show a lower model efficiency due to the weaker simulation of the stream flow. The in-stream herbicide loads were less than 0.01% of the applied amount in the observed time period and thus not in conflict with European Environmental Legislation. The sensitivity analysis showed that, besides the accurate simulation of stream flow, the parameterization of the temporal and spatial distribution of the herbicide application throughout the watershed is the key factor for appropriate modeling results, whereas the physicochemical properties of the pesticides play a minor role in the modeling process.
引用
收藏
页码:75 / 85
页数:11
相关论文
共 86 条
[1]   Losses of atrazine, metolachlor, prosulfuron and triasulfuron in subsurface drain water. I. Field results [J].
Accinelli, C ;
Vicari, A ;
Pisa, PR ;
Catizone, P .
AGRONOMIE, 2002, 22 (04) :399-411
[2]  
[Anonymous], THESIS U GHENT GHENT
[3]  
[Anonymous], 2010, SOIL WATER ASSESSMEN
[4]  
[Anonymous], 1980, CREAMS FIELD SCALE M
[5]   A probabilistic approach for analysis of uncertainty in the evaluation of watershed management practices [J].
Arabi, Mazdak ;
Govindaraju, Rao S. ;
Hantush, Mohamed M. .
JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY, 2007, 333 (2-4) :459-471
[6]   The mobility and degradation of pesticides in soils and the pollution of groundwater resources [J].
Arias-Estevez, Manuel ;
Lopez-Periago, Eugenio ;
Martinez-Carballo, Elena ;
Simal-Gandara, Jesus ;
Mejuto, Juan-Carlos ;
Garcia-Rio, Luis .
AGRICULTURE ECOSYSTEMS & ENVIRONMENT, 2008, 123 (04) :247-260
[7]  
Arnold J.G., 2002, TR191 TWRI, DOI DOI 10.1055/S-0029-1192096
[8]   Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment - Part 1: Model development [J].
Arnold, JG ;
Srinivasan, R ;
Muttiah, RS ;
Williams, JR .
JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN WATER RESOURCES ASSOCIATION, 1998, 34 (01) :73-89
[9]   SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling [J].
Arnold, JG ;
Fohrer, N .
HYDROLOGICAL PROCESSES, 2005, 19 (03) :563-572
[10]   AUTOMATED BASE-FLOW SEPARATION AND RECESSION ANALYSIS TECHNIQUES [J].
ARNOLD, JG ;
ALLEN, PM ;
MUTTIAH, R ;
BERNHARDT, G .
GROUND WATER, 1995, 33 (06) :1010-1018