pesticide fate and transport monitoring and modeling for paddy fields
DESCRIPTION
Research activities of Watanabe’s lab. Pesticide fate and transport monitoring and modeling for paddy fields. Hirozumi Watanabe, Ph.D. Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology (TUAT) 3-5-8, Saiwaicho, Fuchu, Tokyo 183-8509 Japan Phone/Fax +81-42-367-5889 email [email protected]. - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
1
Pesticide fate and transport monitoring and modeling for paddy fields
Hirozumi Watanabe, Ph.D.Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology (TUAT)3-5-8, Saiwaicho, Fuchu, Tokyo 183-8509 JapanPhone/Fax +81-42-367-5889email [email protected]
Research activities of Watanabe’s lab
2
Outline
• Pesticide runoff from rice field– Background– Current condition– Research opportunities
• Pesticide fate and transport research– Plot scale monitoring and modeling– Watershed scale monitoring and modeling– Model system approach
3
Paddy field
55%4,794 4,794
(kilo-ha)
Upland field
25%
Fruit farm7%
Pasture land
13%
Paddy field
55%4,794 4,794
(kilo-ha)
Upland field
25%
Fruit farm7%
Pasture land
13%
Paddy field in Japan( as 2001)
0
100
200
300
400
500
600
1986 1990 1994 1998
Tot
al p
astici
de u
se (10
00to
n)
Paddy field Orchard
Veg. Crop Others
Pesticide shipment in Japan農薬学事典 2001,p 31
72%
49%
Current state of rice pesticide used in JapanCurrent state of rice pesticide used in Japan
Half of the total domestic pesticide is used for paddy field in JapanMore than half of agricultural land is used for paddy fieldsRice pesticide is probably main non-point source pollution of surface water in Japan.
4
Pesticide RegistrationPesticide Registration
531528520501493473465461451登録有効性分数
12877551178失効有効成分数
15162615251315178新規登録有効性分数
226217304381287250380237271新規登録件数
530953235369543954345589578058826037有効登録件数
121110987654区分\農薬年度
Currently Registered products
Newly Registered products
Newly Registered active ingredients
Dismissed products
Currently Registered active ingredients
20001992
531528520501493473465461451登録有効性分数
12877551178失効有効成分数
15162615251315178新規登録有効性分数
226217304381287250380237271新規登録件数
530953235369543954345589578058826037有効登録件数
121110987654区分\農薬年度
Currently Registered products
Newly Registered products
Newly Registered active ingredients
Dismissed products
Currently Registered active ingredients
20001992
In Japan, more than 200 pesticide products with more than 15 active ingredients have been registered each year .
http://www.greenjapan.co.jp/greenjapan.htmグリーンジャパン研究会
5
New design for saving labor costs
Time of application and design of active ingredients
Pesticide fate depends on its design and type of application
Increased variety of pesticide products
Pesticide fate also depends on its design and type of application. So many kinds of products and their various design make pesticide fate study very complex and difficult. In order to help cooperate with pesticide industry as well as satisfy the public demand for environmental safety and quality, we are responsible to develop fast and efficient methods and tools for the pesticide fate and transport research.
6
Pesticide directly applied to paddy water
Inappropriate water management
Paddy field runoff may lose more than 35% of applied mass to surface water, while Upland field lose less than 10% of applied
Pesticide Runoff from Paddy FieldPesticide Runoff from Paddy Field
0
5
10
15
20
25
4/28 5/5 5/12 5/19 5/26 6/2 6/9
Con
c.(
g/l)
Mefenacet concentrations in drainage canal
WQS
Typically used herbicide, mefenacet concentrations in a secondary drainage canal increased as corresponding to the application period during or shortly after the rice transplant and its peak concentration often exceeds environmental water quality standards recommended by the Ministry of the Environment Japan.
7
Pacific Ocean
Lake Kasumigaura
Kitaura
Sotonasakaura
Saka R.
Mt. Tsukuba
Sakura R.
10km
876m
Pacific Ocean
Lake Kasumigaura
Kitaura
Sotonasakaura
Saka R.
Mt. Tsukuba
Sakura R.
10km
876m
Pesticide Conc. (ug/l) in Sakura River Basin 350km2
about 20% is paddy field(By S. Ishihara et al. 2000, NIAES)
5
7 6
11
22
4
3
Co
nce
ntra
tion
( m
g/l)
5
040
1.5020
01
01
5
0
0
01
0
St. 3
Mar. Apr. May June July Aug
molinate
mefenacet
pretilachlor
cafenstrole
esprocarb
simetrynCo
nce
ntra
tion
( m
g/l)
5
040
1.5020
01
01
5
0
0
01
0
St. 3
Mar. Apr. May June July AugMar. Apr. May June July Aug
molinate
mefenacet
pretilachlor
cafenstrole
esprocarb
simetryn
3
St. 4
Mar. Apr. May June July Aug.
molinate
mefenacet
pretilachlor
cafenstrole
esprocarb
simetrynCo
nce
ntra
tion
( m
g/l)
5
040
1.5020
01
01
5
0
0
01
0
St. 4
Mar. Apr. May June July Aug.
molinate
mefenacet
pretilachlor
cafenstrole
esprocarb
simetrynCo
nce
ntra
tion
( m
g/l)
5
040
1.5020
01
01
5
0
0
01
0
St. 4
Mar. Apr. May June July Aug.Mar. Apr. May June July Aug.
molinate
mefenacet
pretilachlor
cafenstrole
esprocarb
simetrynCo
nce
ntra
tion
( m
g/l)
5
040
1.5020
01
01
5
0
0
01
0
4
Corresponding to the early season of rice production during late April to late June, commonly used herbicides are detected up to a few ppb level in Japanese rivers. The time and size of peaks are different among the active ingredients depending upon the time and location of the application.
8
New Drinking Water Quality Standards imposed by Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare, 2003
• Pesticides ( 1.3-dichloropropane, simazine, thiram, benthiocarb ) has removed from the regulation
• Pesticides will be monitored and regulated by the integrated concentration of detected pesticides in the river basin. Possible target pesticides are selected from 101 pesticides.
9
Water Holding Requirement in California Rice Production
Water holding period for molinate is 28 days, thiobencarb is 30 days
CDPR report 2002 ( http://www.cdpr.ca.gov)
In Sacrament river basin in California, water holding requirement was imposed on rice farmer. Imposing holding water requirement successfully reduced the pesticide concentrations in the streams. California also concerns about seepage runoff from paddy field. In Japan, farmers awareness of the water quality control seems very limited since there is very limited extension or education programs for the pesticide runoff. One popular source of information is the water holding recommendation of 3-4 days after the application in pesticide product label, however more and appropriate extension of pesticide runoff control to the farmer is necessary in order to conserve the water quality
10
Monitoring and Modeling for Pesticide fate and transport
• Pesticide fate in a paddy field – Plot scale monitoring– Plot scale simulation model (PCPF1)
• Pesticide transport in paddy field watershed– Watershed scale monitoring and modeling
• Model system for analyzing pesticide fate and transport
11
Field MonitoringMefenacet dissipation in paddy field from May 13 to July 4 in 1998 at NIAES
Water balance data
Solar and UV-B radiation
pH, Eh, Temp.
Pesticide concentrations
•For pesticide fate study in a paddy field that we conducted in 1998 and 1999 consist of 1). Plot scale monitoring and 2). Plot scale simulation model (PCPF1). This study was conducted at National Institute of Agro-Environmental Sciences in Tsukuba, Japan. We were responsible for monitoring pesticide fate in paddy field and for developing a simulation model for predicting pesticide concentration in paddy plot.
12
Conceptual pesticide fate and transport processes in paddy
water and surface soil.
Irrigation
Percolation
DissolutionDesorption
Adsorption
PhotolysisBiochemical degradation
Drainage
Paddy Water
Pesticide Source Layer(1 cm)Biochemical
degradation
Evapo-transpiration Precipitation
Desorption
Volatilization
We conceder a conceptual pesticide fate and transport processes in paddy water and surface soil. Upon pesticide application of granule pesticide, pesticide is subject to dissolution in paddy water and then, adsorption in paddy surface soil and partition between paddy soil and water proceed towards the equilibrium condition. However, as irrigation, precipitation and drainage dilute the pesticide concentration and concentration gradient between surface soil and paddy water proceed, pesticide desorbs from paddy soil in order to decrease the chemical potentials between two compartments. Pesticide also desorbs below the surface soil layer as paddy water percolates. Pesticides in paddy water as well as paddy soil are subject to photodegradation, volatilization (paddy water only) and biochemical, and these process also affect pesticide concentration in both compartment.
13
Simulation model for pesticide concentration in paddy
field( PCPF1)
Simulated and observed mefenaset concentrations in paddy water (above) and paddy surface soil (below)
Herbicide concentrations in paddy water
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Days after herbicide application
Con
cent
ratio
n(m
g/L
) Simu PW Obs. PW
Herbicide concentrations in pesticide source layer
0
5
10
15
0 10 20 30 40 50 60Days after herbicide application
Con
cent
ratio
n (
mg/
kg d
ry s
oil) Simu SL Obs. SL
PCPF-1 model input data sheet
PCPF1 model is a conceptual lumped model simulating the pesticide concentration in paddy water and 1cm deep surface paddy soil. The model is programmed by visual basic application and operated as a macro in Microsoft Excel. The PCPF1 was validated with several commonly used herbicide in Japan.
14
Best Management for controlling pesticide runoff from paddy plots
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
0 20 40 60
Days after Herbicide Application
Her
bic
ide
Lo
ss
(% a
pp
lied
)
CDLP3.0
CDLP1.0
LDLP4
LDLP6
Continuous Irrigation and Drainage
Higher Drainage Gate
Cumulative Herbicide Losses by Overflow Drainage
Significant rain events
Intermittent irrigation
Figure shows PCPF1 simulations for evaluating the scenarios for different management practice. Continuous irrigation and drainage scheme loses significant amount of pesticide especially in earlier period as compared to intermittent irrigation scheme. Further more, model calculation implies that higher drainage gate may prevent pesticide runoff when significant rain events by storing rainwater and preventing surface discharge.
15
Best Management for controlling pesticide runoff Best Management for controlling pesticide runoff from paddy plots --- Experimentalfrom paddy plots --- Experimental
Automatic irrigation vs. Continuous drainage Automatic irrigation vs. Continuous drainage
In Tokyo University of Agriculture and Technology, we conducted the monitoring experiment for the evaluation of Best Management Practice for controlling pesticide runoff from a paddy plot from 2001. The objective of this study is to monitor and evaluate pesticide runoff from paddy field managed by automatic irrigation scheme and continuous irrigation-drainage scheme. The monitored variable consist of water balance such as irrigation, drainage, paddy water depth, rainfall, evapotranspiration as well as pesticide concentrations in paddy water and paddy soil during the monitoring period of 35 days.
16
Mefenacet mass balance in paddy field during monitoring period
DrainagePaddy water
Soil surface
Percolation
Drainage
Automatic irrigation Continuous irrigation and drainage
0%
47% 44%
4.7%
0.01% 38%0.01%
4.7%
Degradation 13%48%
Mefenacet mass balance indicate that continuous irrigation-drainage scheme lost 38% of applied pesticide whereas automatic irrigation scheme lost no pesticide since it control the paddy water depth and did not have any surface drainage during the monitoring period. In general, pesticide fate in paddy field managed by water holding scheme such as automatic irrigation scheme in this experiment indicate that more pesticide is kept and degraded within the field as compared to water releasing scheme. Such as continuous irrigation-drainage. It is recommended that water holding scheme by Intermittent irrigation using an automatic irrigation system is the best management practice for controlling the pesticide runoff from paddy field
17
Monitoring and modeling of pesticide transport in paddy field watershed( 10ha paddy block)
Block 3(2.43 ha)
ST①
ST②
ST⑧ ST⑦
ST⑤ ST④
ST③
Sakasa River
Irrigation pipe
Block 1 (3.78 ha)
Block 4 (2.88 ha)
Block 2(1.05 ha)
Rain gage ST⑨
Farm road
Plot 1
(I)
(III)
(II)
10 ha selected paddy field
Block 3(2.43 ha)
ST①
ST②
ST⑧ ST⑦
ST⑤ ST④
ST③
Sakasa River
Irrigation pipe
Block 1 (3.78 ha)
Block 4 (2.88 ha)
Block 2(1.05 ha)
Rain gage ST⑨
Farm road
Plot 1
(I)
(III)
(II)
10 ha selected paddy fieldST①
ST②
ST⑧ ST⑦
ST⑤ ST④
ST③
Sakasa River
Irrigation pipe
Block 1 (3.78 ha)
Block 4 (2.88 ha)
Block 2(1.05 ha)
Rain gage ST⑨
Farm road
Plot 1
(I)
(III)
(II)
10 ha selected paddy field
( 97ha paddy watershed)
Watershed monitoring and modeling study for the pesticide transport in paddy field watershed from 2002. The objectives of this study are 1). Monitor and investigate pesticide fate and transport characteristics in paddy field watershed; 2). Recommend the Best Management Practices (BMPs) for controlling pesticide runoff into aquatic environment in Japanese rice paddy production 3). Develop a simulation model for the pesticide transport in paddy field watershed.
18
Pesticide concentrations in different scales
Conc. in drainage water at St 6( Farm block scale) - 2003
05
101520253035
4/28 5/3 5/8 5/13 5/18 5/23 5/28 6/2 6/7 6/12 6/17
Co
nc. (
ug
/l)
Conc. in drainage water at St 8 ( watershed scale) - 2003
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
4/28 5/3 5/8 5/13 5/18 5/23 5/28 6/2 6/7 6/12 6/17
Co
nc.
( u
g/l
) 0.0
10.0
4/ 285/ 35/ 85/ 135/ 185/ 235/ 286/ 26/ 76/ 126/ 17
Oxaziclomef one
Molinate
Symetryn
Esprocarb
Thiobencarb
Dimethametryn
Dimepiperate
Pretilachlor
Pyriminobac-methyl (E)
Pyributicarb
Pentoxazone
Mef enacet
Caf enstrole
5ha-paddy block
97ha-watershed
Pesticide consentrations in paddy field
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
5/ 5 5/ 25 6/ 14 7/ 4 7/ 24
DateC
oncentr
aio
n (m
g/l)
ISMMFPTCBSM
0.01 ha Paddy plot
Plot
Drainage
Stream
In the paddy field watershed, 15 rice herbicides were detected. Peak concentration raged depending on the pesticide and significant concentrations occurred from may until early June. Pesticide concentrations ranged in different scale. Plot scale raged up to about 800 ppb, 5ha scale, up to about 30 ppb, 97ha watershed scale, up to 7ppb, and for Sakura river scale it ranges up to a few ppb.
19
Wind
Rainfall
Over Drainage
Canal
Water management practice in plot 1 ( 2002)Water management practice in plot 1 ( 2002)
However paddy water depth had been kept less than 1cm from drainage gate in most of the monitoring period.
Continuous irrigation : 10% Intermittent irrigation : 90%
High potential of pesticide runoff upon significant
rainfall and strong wind.
Low drainage
gate
0.0
2.0
4.0
6.0
8.0
4/28 5/5 5/12 5/19 5/26 6/2 6/9 6/16
Dep
th (
cm
) Rain.
Irr.
Drain.
Hpw
Height of drainage gate
Paddy field
Drainage gate
1cm
20
Watershed discharge( above) and Integrated detected pesticide loss( below)
Dischagre from watershed at ST8 ( l/s)
0
100
200
300
400
4/28 5/5 5/12 5/19 5/26 6/2 6/9 6/16
Dis
ch
ag
re (
l/s)
0
1
1
2
2
3
Ra
in(c
m)Rain
Q8(L/s)
Total pesticide loss from watershed ( 2003)
0100200300400500600
4/28 5/5 5/12 5/19 5/26 6/2 6/9 6/16
Da
ily lo
ss (
g)
0
500
1000
1500
2000
Cu
m.
loss (
g)
Daily loss ( g)
Cumulative loss ( g)
Watershed discharged in creased during the significant rain events in upper figure. During the period when pesticide concentrations were high, great pesticide loss occurred with watershed discharge (lower figure). Controlling runoff from paddy field during significant rain events is important for preventing pesticide losses from the watershed.
Increased discharge in significant rain events
Increased pesticide loss in significant rain events
21
Development of simulation model for pesticide transport in paddy field watershed
RIVER
Ma
in c
an
al
Dra
ina
ge
ditc
h
Branch canal
Farm road
Pu
mp
Stn
RIVER
Ma
in c
an
al
Dra
ina
ge
ditc
h
Branch canal
Farm road
Pu
mp
Stn
Model output
Dr
Cpw1
Irr RET
p Dr
Irr RET
Cpw2p
Dr
Cpwm
Irr RET
p
Dr
Irr RET
p Cpw3
Qrain
Qout
Qin
Ground waterDownstream
Qs
Qpr
Cpr
RIVER SECTION
Qr
Qpump
PADDY BLOCK
PTG ① PTG ② PTG ③ PTG m
Upstream
Apply PCPF –1 Model
Dr
Cpw1
Irr RET
p Dr
Irr RET
Cpw2p
Dr
Cpwm
Irr RET
p
Dr
Irr RET
p Cpw3
Qrain
Qout
Qin
Ground waterDownstream
Qs
Qpr
Cpr
RIVER SECTION
Qr
Qpump
PADDY BLOCK
PTG ① PTG ② PTG ③ PTG m
Upstream
Dr
Cpw1
Cpw1
Irr RET
Irr RET
p Dr
Irr RET
Irr RET
Cpw2
Cpw2p
Dr
Cpwm
Cpwm
Irr RET
Irr RET
p
Dr
Irr RET
Irr RET
p Cpw3
Cpw3
Qrain
Qout
Qin
Ground waterDownstream
Qs
Qpr
Cpr
RIVER SECTION
Qr
Qpump
PADDY BLOCK
PTG ①PTG ① PTG ②PTG ② PTG ③PTG ③ PTG mPTG m
Upstream
Apply PCPF –1 Model
Paddy block: Pesticide Treatment Group ( PTG)
Pesticide concentration paddy plot : PCPF-1 model
22
NEW COUPLED MODEL OF PESTICIDE NEW COUPLED MODEL OF PESTICIDE FATE AND TRANSPORT IN PADDY FIELDFATE AND TRANSPORT IN PADDY FIELD
TOURNEBIZE Julien, WATANABE Hirozumi, TAKAGI Kazuhiro, NISHIMURA Taku
Tokyo University of Agriculture and TechnologyGraduate School of Agriculture (Japan)
National Institute for Agro-Environmental Sciences (Japan)
Research Institute for Agricultural and Environmental Engineering, (Antony , France)
• This project was supported by SAKURA PROJECT 03-04:• Scientific Exchange between French and Japanese researchers and financial support provided and
managed by Egide (French Association for foreign research) and JSPS (Japanese society for Promotion of Science)
• General Objectives:General Objectives:– Fate and behavior of pesticide in paddy field– Assessment of pesticide residues in soil during one full crop year
• Specific ObjectivesSpecific Objectives– Coupling PCPF-1 and HYDRUS 2D (SWMS_2D): percolation and concentration– Test and calibrate the new Model for hydraulic functioning and tracer experimen
t then validate for the pesticide fate and transport of pretilachlor
23
Coupling PCPF-1 and Coupling PCPF-1 and SWMSSWMS• Hydraulic Calculation in Water Bala
nce– Ponded Water Depth from PCPF 1 B
oundary Condition h(t) in SWMS– Water Flux from SWMS Percolation
rate in PCPF 1
• Solute Calculation – PCPF module: solute concentration in s
urface water and Pesticide Source Layer Boundary Condition C(t) in SWMS
– Solute Transfer in soil Mass Balance
Irrigation Drainage
-
Irrigation
Percolation
ConcentrationDissolution
PaddyWater
-Evapotranspiration Rainfall
Muddy Layer
Hard Pan Layer
PCPF-1 Compartment
HYDRUS_2D Compartment
First Ash Volcanic Layer
Second Ash Volcanic Layer
Concentration
1 cm Soil Sediment Layer
Transition Layer
Intermediate Layer
Irrigation Drainage
-
Irrigation
Percolation
ConcentrationDissolution
PaddyWater
-Evapotranspiration Rainfall
Muddy Layer
Hard Pan Layer
PCPF-1 Compartment
HYDRUS_2D Compartment
First Ash Volcanic Layer
Second Ash Volcanic Layer
Concentration
1 cm Soil Sediment Layer
Transition Layer
Intermediate Layer
16
6
27
20
24
PretilachlorPretilachlor
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
DAHAP
TC
(n
g/m
l)
Simul (15cm)
Obs SW6 (15cm)
Obs SW9 (15cm)
Mid Term Drainage
0.00
0.01
0.02
0.03
0.04
0.05
0.06
0.07
0.08
0.09
0.10
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100 110 120 130
DAHA
PT
C (
ng
/ml)
Simul (45cm)
Obs SW10 (45cm)
Obs SW7 (45cm)
Simul (85cm)
Obs SW8 (85cm)
Mid Term Drainage
Oxydative soil layerHard pan and non-puddled layerDegradation rate220 days (Fajardo et al, 2000)
Reductive soil layerPuddled layer (1-17 cm)Kd=13.0 l/kgDegradation rate (2 simple FOK halflife)-6 days (0-21 DAHA)-23 days (22-63 DAHA)
25
Research needs and Opportunities
• Public concern for water quality
• Regulations– Water quality program– PRTR program
• Increased variety of pesticides
• Limited Extension Program in Japan
• Monitoring pesticide fate and transport– Scale issue– Surface water and Ground w
ater• Development of analytical tools
– Simulation models– Lysimeter– Database
• Rapid chemical analysis– ELISA
Background Research needs
26
2. Simulation model
Determination of governing parameter
1. Micro-paddy lysimeter
Simulate pesticide fate in paddy field
Percolation
DrainageIrrigation ET
Kdiss, Kcom Cpw
Model system for analyzing pesticide fate and transport
Parameter data base for different scenario and location
Sakura river basin overflow drain(1cm /day) Soil data
available
Model parameter Chemical data
Pesticide Kcom1 Kcom2 Loss Sw Kd Kow
/day /day% Applie
dmg/l L/Kg /day
BSM 0.026 0.011 44 120 16
ISM 0.021 0.019 50 308 13.80.12
5
MF 0.023 0.016 36 4 24.1
PTC 0.016 0.021 53 50 130.11
4
A model system for rapid analysis of pesticide fate and transport is being developed. The system consist of a micro-paddy lysimeter (MPL), a simulation model to determine pesticide fate parameters, and parameter database for different scenarios. This system has great advantage in analyzing pesticide fate parameters within a two to three weeks with only one set of experiment over the conventional method usually take more time and experiments as well as expenses.
27
1) Micro-paddy lysimeterSimulation of pesticide fate in paddy field
0.00
0.20
0.40
0.60
0.80
1.00
1.20
1.40
1.60
1.80
2.00
31- Oct 5- Nov 10- Nov 15- Nov 20- Nov 25- Nov 30- Nov 5- Dec 10- Dec
Wat
er
Dept
h
0.60
0.70
0.80
Poro
sity
HPR [cm] HE [cm] HSD [cm] HIrr. [cm] f
[cm]
Water Balance and PorosityWater balance tests
28
Watershed scale model is also included in the model system so that reliable pesticide fate and transport prediction make realistic evaluation and development of BMP’s and environmental risk assessments is possible.
Paddy plots
River
Drainage canal
Chemical parameter data base
Pesticide use data
Metrological data
Hydrological data
Risk Assessment
29
Happy Time!