Since the 1970s, numerous models of pesticide transport in the agricultural environment have been
developed. Early conceptual and deterministic approaches to model the fate of pesticides on soil surface and
in above-soil canopy were limited to certain pesticides and environments and described the
transport of the soluble phase as one-dimensional (1D) flow without using geo-referenced data
(Goodman et al., 1983; Vithayathil et al., 1979). However, from the very beginning of pesticide
modelling, sorption and degradation of pesticides were explicitly incorporated as attenuation and
retention factors. Figure 1
provides an influence diagram of processes affecting pesticides loads via
runoff.
In a next phase, the focus was on leaching of pesticides to groundwater and a variety of 1D leaching
models for agricultural soils was generated, which predict pesticide concentrations in various soil depths in
the vadose and phreatic zones (Bonazountas, 1987; Matthies and Behrendt, 1991
; Crowe and
Mutch, 1992; Persicani, 1996
; Wauchope et al., 2003). Few of these models include the transport
mechanism runoff as loss term of pesticides and none distinguishes between surface and subsurface
runoff.
As partly described in leaching models, preferential flow through soil macropores can significantly
increase the risk of pollution of surface water bodies by pesticides. While many field studies have shown the
importance of preferential flow on a field scale, few have included detailed numerical modelling of the
processes involved (Gärdenäs et al., 2006
).
Contemporarily, modellers improved the universal soil loss equation (USLE) leading to a revised
equation (RUSLE), and 1D or two-dimensional (2D) models of surface erosion and soil particle transport
were created. Previous studies had recognized that surface erosion is a function of rainfall intensity rather
than of total annual rainfall and therefore, event-oriented 1D and 2D approaches of surface erosion and
particle transport were developed that are physically based or of hybrid nature with both,
empirical and deterministic elements (Jetten et al., 2003
; Morgan et al., 1998). These models
neglect subsurface flow and are hardly applicable for the transport of the soluble pesticide
phase.
Dynamic hydrological models deal with these deficits and are able to predict transport and fate of
soluble pesticides for small watersheds with moderate temporal and spatial resolution (Borah
and Bera, 2004
; Tarboton et al., 2002). As a prerequisite of such simulations, Geographical
Information Systems (GIS) were developed, so that hydrological models could be implemented on a
GIS-platform that in turn allows for using and producing geo-referenced data. Hydrological and
leaching models partly originate from the same roots, as it is exemplified by the leaching model
GLEAMS (Sabbagh et al., 1993
), which is based on the hydrological model CREAMS (Rudra
et al., 1985
).
Recognizing the need for models that enable the prediction of soluble pesticide losses via surface and
subsurface runoff recently, leaching models and transport or erosion models were combined to calculate
pesticide transport to the aquatic environment with high temporal and moderate spatial resolutions. The
combination of both, elaborate descriptions of horizontal and vertical transport, and retention and
detention mechanism within or above soil, resulted in reliable simulations of pesticide transport and fate on
a watershed or even river basin scale (Röpke et al., 2004
; Jackson et al., 2005; Ramanarayanan
et al., 2005
). Combinations of hydrological models with leaching models, which include the description of
preferential flow, might augment the accuracy of predictions of pesticide concentrations in runoff even
more.
All models mentioned above are capable to calculate realistic worst case scenarios, but are barely
adequate tools for probabilistic approaches on a watershed scale. 2D and 3D erosion and hydrological
models are supposed to be suitable tools for simulations at large scales, but these models demand extremely
high computational effort for Monte Carlo simulations. In turn, leaching models scarcely incorporate
horizontal flow and hence, they need to be combined with hydrological models if the aim is to simulate
horizontal runoff. Therefore, another development of modelling pesticide transport via runoff started in the
1990s, which relies on simple empirical or hybrid approaches in order to make robust predictions of
pesticide exposure by conducting Monte Carlo simulations (Franke and Teutsch, 1994
; Kapo and
Burton Jr, 2006).
In summary, models of pesticide transport became more elaborate as time went by, including mathematical and numerical complexity, as well as spatial resolution and extent. However, the progresses made in model development have been confined by the state of scientific knowledge of pesticide behaviour in and above soil. For example, there are still deficits in describing preferential flow in soils and the sorption behaviour of pesticides, owing to the fact that every soil patch seems to have a different partitioning coefficient KD. The discrepancy between small-scale patchiness of soils and vegetation and the purpose to provide reliable predictions of pesticide transport and fate at large scales remains unsolved. However, various types of models and model combinations experienced an evolution that enables the prediction of geo-referenced pesticide exposure from small to large scales. In the following, we will provide an overview of existing runoff models eligible for pesticides. We will discuss their advantages and disadvantages and give a perspective for future developments.
| http://www.livingreviews.org/lrlr-2007-1 | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 2.0 Germany License. Problems/comments to |