E-mail: [email protected]

E-mail: [email protected]

Modelling the Leaching of pesticides at thePan-European level

Aaldrik Tiktak, Danielle de Nie, Juan Piñeros Garcet,Marnik Vanclooster, Arwyn Jones


The EuroPEARL model

Work package 6 of APECOP project

Model parameterisation

Results:• water balances• substance balances• leaching concentration• comparison with FOCUS

Conclusions and shortcomings


Outline:



Results


Work package 6 of APECOP

•Aim of this work package is to evaluate the validity of the FOCUS scenarios.

•Partners in this work package are:

• RIVM (Aaldrik Tiktak & Danielle de Nie)

• Université de Louvain-la-Neuve (Marnik Vanclooster & Juan Piñeros

• JRC (Arwyn Jones)

Scenario validation

•The exact 90th percentile cannot be determined precisely without extensive simulations of the various combinations present in a region;

•Models at the European scale can provide an answer to this question:

• maps of the leaching concentration for all agricultural soils in Europe

• frequency distributions


Outline:



Results


Parameterisation of EuroPEARL

• Step 1: Derivation of the unique combinations, based on climate and soil mapping units;

• Step 2a: Parameterisation of the soil profiles (linkage between soil map and Soil Profile Analytical Database of Europe, SPADE);

• Step 2b: Parameterisation of weather conditions for each individual plot;

• Step 3: Translation into model parameters, using pedotransfer functions etc.

Step 1: Derivation of Unique Combinations (UC)

Soil Map (FAO)

• Created by JRC

• 1:1.000.000

• ‘STU’ info

FOCUS areas

•LU mask

•Precipitation and temperature maps

Country

•Based on the SMU soil map

Step 1: Unique Combinations

1410 plots.

Each UC contains info about:

• SMU

• Country

• FOCUS Area

Step 2a: Combine SPADE & SMU’s to PEARL profiles

Soil Map of Europe

Soil Profile Analytical Database

SMUSMU number;Country;STU 1 number;STU 1 coverage;

…...STU n number;STU n coverage;

Dominant STU number1

STU number1,2

Country2;FAO Soil Name2;Texture class2;Other parameters. Soil profile number

(STU number)2;Country2;FAO Soil Name2;Texture class2;Horizon numbers3;Other parameters

Soil Horizon number3

Horizon depth;Profile number;Organic matter;Texture;pH.

1

2

3

1: Establish dominant STU2: STU -> profile #3: Profile # -> Horizon #

Basic soil data:

Peat soils

Extreme low

Calcareous soils

Lightly textured

Step 2b: Combine daily weather & climate maps

Daily weather datafor each UC

UC• Temperature• Precipitation

Scaling

9 FOCUS area’s• Meteo district• Daily time series• Potential evapotranspiration

Area assigned a soil profile:

• Sweden, Finland and Austria not in SPADE

• 1062 unique combinations linked to SPADE

• 75 % of the area parameterised

Step 3:specific model parameters

RunSubstance IDPlot IDStart dateEnd date

RunSubstance IDPlot IDStart dateEnd date

SubstanceSubstance properties, such as the half-live and the partitioning coefficient

Application typeApplication dosage

SubstanceSubstance properties, such as the half-live and the partitioning coefficient

Application typeApplication dosage

PlotPlot IDFOCUS Area IDLand-use type IDSoil profile IDGroundwater depth group IDSeepage flux and amplitudeDrainage characteristics

PlotPlot IDFOCUS Area IDLand-use type IDSoil profile IDGroundwater depth group IDSeepage flux and amplitudeDrainage characteristics

ManagementApplication date

ManagementApplication date

Plot IDRainfallTemperatureETrefIrrigation switch

Plot IDRainfallTemperatureETrefIrrigation switch

Soil profileSoil layer ID

Soil profileSoil layer ID

Soil layerSoil physical unit IDLayer thicknessTextureOrganic matterpH

Soil layerSoil physical unit IDLayer thicknessTextureOrganic matterpH

FOCUS AreaEmergence dateHarvest dateDevelopment stage IDCritical pressure headsfor drought stress andirrigationManagement ID

FOCUS AreaEmergence dateHarvest dateDevelopment stage IDCritical pressure headsfor drought stress andirrigationManagement ID Development stage

LAICrop factorRooting depth

Development stageLAICrop factorRooting depth

Soil physicsParameters of the Mualem-van Genuchten functionsDispersion length

Soil physicsParameters of the Mualem-van Genuchten functionsDispersion length

Spatially distributed variables

Irrigation scenario’s in EuroPEARL:

•No irrigation for winter wheat;

•Maize is irrigated if:• The pressure head drops below a critical

value (-500cm or pF 2.7)

AND

• Over 2.5% of the area is equipped for irrigation

•The presence of an irrigation system is derived from inventories by Siebert and Döll, University of Kassel.

Inventories by Siebert & Döll:

Additional remarks:

•No linkage with a regional groundwater model; no simulation of interflow (lateral drainage);

•Groundwater fixed at 2 m depth.

•Calculations carried out for one crop in a time:• winter wheat with no irrigation;• maize with irrigation;

•Crop properties including emergence and harvest date linked to FOCUS area;

•Pre-emergence applications simulated - so application date coupled with FOCUS area.

Results:

Water balances;

Substance fluxes;

80th percentile of the leaching concentration;

Comparison with FOCUS.

Water balance simulated with EuroPEARL

High irrigation rates

High rainfall rates

Corresponding patterns

Enhanced by irrigation

Results:

•Water balances;

•Substance fluxes;

•80th percentile of the leaching concentration;

•Comparison with FOCUS.

Maps of the substance balances:

High

MA < WC

Results:

•Water balances;




80th percentile of leaching concentration

Winter wheat > maize

High leaching risk

Southern countries are not always less vulnerable!!!!

Variance due to weather conditions (substance A)

• (80th-20th)/50th percentile due to weather conditions;

Results:

•Water balances;




Properties of FA compared with FOCUS

•FOCUS close to 20th percentile of organic matter and clay•OM of FS Port >> FA Port!

80th percentile per FOCUS area (wheat scenario)

•Differences for the warm scenario’s PO, PI and SE;•OK for temperate scenario’s

80th percentile per FOCUS area (maize scenario)

•Larger differences due to irrigation effect•Also here: largest differences for warm scenario’s


Outline:

Reminder: Work package 6 of APECOP project


Results


Leaching concentration:

•Leaching increases with increasing precipitation and decreases with increasing organic matter content;

•Hotspots occur also in Southern Europe;

•Difference between maize (spring application) and wheat (autumn application)

• Absolute level higher for wheat;

•Differences for warm scenarios are obvious (PO underestimated by FOCUS, PI overestimated).

Shortcomings of current procedure:

•Soil database (SPADE):• contains estimated profiles;• does not give full coverage;• differences across Europe still present;• only dominant STU’s can be linked.

•Groundwater:• fixed at 2 m below soil surface;• no run-off & interflow calculations.

•Weather data:• simple scaling procedure.

•Land use mask:• only distinction arable/non-arable land.

Future improvements:

•From SPADE to SPADE-2:• full coverage;• provide more information on variability.

•Groundwater:• make use of aquifer inventories by ECPA.• include simple run-off calculations or accept ‘worst-

case’

•Weather data:• direct extraction from MARS database.

•Land use mask:• no improvement foreseen.

E-mail: [email protected]

Documents

Transcript of E-mail: [email protected]