Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-c8zdz Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T15:15:31.801Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Site-Specific Pesticide Recommendations: The Final Step in Environmental Impact Prevention

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 June 2017

Arthur G. Hornsby
Arthur G. Hornsby*
Affiliation:
P.O. Box 110290, Soil Sci. Dep., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL 32611-0290
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

A screening procedure to minimize adverse water quality impacts of pesticide application is presented that matches pesticide parameters to site-specific soil ratings. The pesticide parameters include a Relative Leaching Potential Index (RLPI), a Relative Runoff Potential Index (RRPI), the U.S. Environ. Prot. Agency (USEPA) lifetime health advisory level (HAL), and aquatic toxicity (LC50). Criteria used in developing soil ratings are described. Pesticide selection is accomplished by matching pesticide parameters values for the array of pesticides that control the pest of interest to soil ratings at the application site using selection criteria. A worksheet is presented to facilitate organization of information for the selection procedure and to serve as a record of the pesticide applicator's decision. The linking of an environmental fate model to a geographic information system (GIS) to create thematic maps of pesticide leaching potentials in terms of probability of exceeding the HAL in groundwater is described. A cost vs. groundwater hazard index frontier is described that suggests a method to assess the economic consequences of alternative pesticide selections.

Keywords

Geographic information systemherbicideleachingpesticiderisk assessmentrunoffwater quality

Information

Type
Symposium
Information
Weed Technology , Volume 6 , Issue 3 , September 1992 , pp. 736 - 742
Copyright
Copyright © 1990 by the Weed Science Society of America 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

Literature Cited

1. Brown, R. B., Hornsby, A. G., and Hurt, G. W. 1991. Soil ratings for selecting pesticides for water quality goals. Circular 959. Florida Coop. Ext. Serv. Inst. Food and Agric. Sci., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL. 4 p.Google Scholar
2. Carsel, R. F., Smith, C. N., Mulkey, L. A., Dean, J. D., and Jowise, P. 1984. User's Manual for the Pesticide Root ZONE Model (PRZM): Release 1. EPA-600?3-84-109. USEPA Environ. Res. Lab., Athens, GA. 219 p.Google Scholar
3. Goss, D. W. and Wauchope, R. D. 1990. The SCS/ARS/CES pesticide properties database: Combining it with soils property data for first-tier comparative water pollution risk analysis. p. 471–493 in Weigman, D. L., ed., Pesticides in the Next Decade: The Challenges Ahead. Proc. Third Nat. Res. Conf. on Pesticides. Richmond, VA. November 8–9. Virginia Water Resour. Res. Cent., 617 N. Main St. Blacksburg, VA. 881 p. Google Scholar
4. Hoag, D. L. and Hornsby, A. G. 1991. Linking economics to groundwater contamination from farm pesticide applications. J. Environ. Q. 21(4): In press.Google Scholar
5. Hornsby, A. G., Buttler, T. M., Colvin, D. L., Johnson, F. A., Dunn, R. A., and Kucharek, T. A. 1991. Soybeans: Managing pesticides for crop production and water quality production. Circular 1003. Florida Coop. Ext. Serv. Inst. Food Agric. Sci., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL. 12 p.Google Scholar
6. Hornsby, A. G., Rao, P.S.C., Booth, J. G., Rao, P. V., Pennell, K. D., Jessup, R. E., and Means, G. D. 1990. Evaluation of models for predicting fate of pesticides. Project Completion Report, Florida Dep. Environ. Regul., Contract number WM-225. 130 p.Google Scholar
7. Hurt, G. W., Hornsby, A. G., and Brown, R. B. 1991. Manatee County: soil ratings for selecting pesticides. Soil Science Fact Sheet, SL-86. Florida Coop. Ext. Serv. Inst. Food Agric. Sci., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL. 4 p.Google Scholar
8. Knisel, W. G., Leonard, R. A., and Davis, F. M. 1989. GLEAMS User Manual. Southeast Watershed Res. Lab., USDA/ARS, Tifton, GA. 25 p.Google Scholar
9. Leonard, R. A. and Knisel, W. G. 1988. Evaluating groundwater contamination potential from herbicide use. Weed Technol. 2:207–216.Google Scholar
10. Nofziger, D. L. and Hornsby, A. G. 1987. Chemical Movement in Layered Soil: Users Manual. Circular 780. Florida Coop. Ext. Serv., Inst. Food and Agric. Sci., Univ. Florida, Gainesville, FL. 44 p.Google Scholar
11. Pennell, K. D., Hornsby, A. G., Jessup, R. E., and Rao, P.S.C. 1990. Evaluation of five simulation models for predicting aldicarb and bromide behavior under field conditions. Water Resour. Res. 26:2679–2693.Google Scholar
12. Steenhuis, T. S., Pacenka, S., and Porter, K. S. 1987. MOUSE: a management model for evaluating groundwater contamination from diffuse sources aided by computer graphics. Appl. Agric. Res. 2:277–289.Google Scholar
13. Wagenet, R. J., and Hutson, J. L. 1986. LEACHM: a process based model of water and solute movement, transformations, plant uptake and chemical reactions in the unsaturated zone. Continuum 2. Water Resour. Inst., Cornell Univ. Ithaca, NY. 80 p.Google Scholar