Jacobsen Ole H, Kjaer Jeanne
Aarhus University, Faculty of Agricultural Sciences, Research Centre Foulum, DK-8830 Tjele, Denmark.
Pest Manag Sci. 2007 May;63(5):417-28. doi: 10.1002/ps.1372.
Given the methods presently available, determination of flux-averaged concentrations of pesticides in structured soils is always a compromise. Most of the available methods entail major uncertainties and limitations. Tile drainage monitoring has several advantages, but the extent to which it is representative of overall leaching has been questioned because it comprises a mixture of water of different origins. This literature review evaluates whether drainage water pesticide concentrations are representative of root zone leaching of pesticides. As there are no reports quantifying the extent to which the flux-averaged concentration of pesticides in drainage water differs from that found between the drains, evidence-based conclusions cannot be drawn. Nevertheless, the existing literature does suggest that the concentration in drainage water does not always correspond to the concentration at drain depth between the drains; depending on the conditions pertaining, the concentrations may be higher or lower. As to whether the flux-averaged concentration of pesticides in drainage water is representative of the interdrain concentration at drain depth it is concluded that (1) the representativeness of drainage water concentrations can be questioned on very well-drained soils and on poorly drained soils with little capacity for lateral transport beneath the plough layer, (2) the conditions provided by relatively porous soils and moderate climatic conditions are conducive to the drainage water concentration being representative and (3) drainage water will be more representative in the case of weakly sorbed pesticides than for strongly sorbed pesticides. Used critically, it is thus believed that drainage water concentrations can serve to characterize the flux-averaged concentration of pesticides at drain depth. However, the use of drainage water for determining average concentrations necessitates thorough investigation and interpretation of precipitation, percolation, drain outflow and concentration dynamics.
鉴于目前可用的方法,测定结构化土壤中农药的通量平均浓度始终是一种折衷方案。大多数现有方法都存在重大的不确定性和局限性。瓦片排水监测有几个优点,但它在多大程度上代表整体淋溶一直受到质疑,因为它包含不同来源的水的混合物。这篇文献综述评估了排水水中农药浓度是否代表农药在根区的淋溶情况。由于没有报告量化排水水中农药通量平均浓度与排水间浓度差异的程度,因此无法得出基于证据的结论。然而,现有文献确实表明,排水水中的浓度并不总是与排水间排水深度处的浓度相对应;根据相关条件,浓度可能更高或更低。至于排水水中农药的通量平均浓度是否代表排水深度处排水间的浓度,得出的结论是:(1)在排水良好的土壤和犁底层以下横向运输能力较弱的排水不良土壤上,排水水浓度的代表性可能受到质疑;(2)相对多孔的土壤和适度的气候条件所提供的条件有利于排水水浓度具有代表性;(3)对于弱吸附农药,排水水比强吸附农药更具代表性。因此,如果谨慎使用,认为排水水浓度可用于表征排水深度处农药的通量平均浓度。然而,使用排水水来确定平均浓度需要对降水、渗流、排水流出和浓度动态进行全面调查和解释。