Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment of Plant Protection Products: A Review

Pavlis, Michail; Cummins, Enda; McDonnell, Kevin

doi:10.1080/10807031003788881

Cited by 38 publications

(36 citation statements)

References 72 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Sound nonpoint source management and control policy requires thorough scientific understanding of nonpoint sources and of the linkage between nonpoint sources and groundwater discharges to users or affected ecosystems via wells, springs, or inflow to streams. Significant scientific effort has been dedicated to understand, manage, and monitor potential sources, to understand the dynamics of NPS pollutants in the vadose zone and in groundwater, and to assess the environmental and public health consequences of NPS pollution of groundwater [ Addiscott and Wagenet , 1985; Corwin et al , 1999; Pavlis et. al.…”

Section: Developing a Rationale For A Nps Groundwater Modeling Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Groundwater nonpoint source assessment tools can be generally grouped into three categories: overlay and index methods to map qualitative indicators of groundwater vulnerability to pollution [ Aller et al , 1987; National Research Council , 1993; Civita and De Maio , 2004; Pavlis et al , 2010], statistical models that estimate potential pollution from existing data sets, e.g., using regression analysis [ Nolan et al , 2002; Worrall et al , 2000] or fuzzy logic [ Uricchio et al , 2004], and last,process‐based methods that simulate contaminant transport using mathematical formulas. The majority of these latter models are limited to the simulation of pollutants in the vadose zone; while simple methods such as zero‐order mixing models [ Mercado , 1976; Lee , 2007], one‐dimensional plug‐flow models [ Hansen et al , 1991; Refsgaard et al , 1999; Cho and Mostaghimi , 2009], or the advective travel time method [ Darracq et al , 2010] are used for the estimation of the fate of contaminants in the saturated zone.…”

Section: Developing a Rationale For A Nps Groundwater Modeling Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

A groundwater nonpoint source pollution modeling framework to evaluate long‐term dynamics of pollutant exceedance probabilities in wells and other discharge locations

Kourakos¹,

Klein²,

Cortis³

et al. 2012

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

[1] Understanding the long-term effect of nonpoint source (NPS) pollution on groundwater of agricultural regions is an increasing challenge of global importance. A novel groundwater modeling framework is developed to assess and evaluate the dynamic, spatio-temporally distributed linkages between nonpoint sources above a groundwater basin and groundwater discharges to wells, streams, or other compliance discharge surfaces (CDSs) within a groundwater basin. The modeling framework allows for efficient evaluation of NPS pollution scenarios and of their short-and long-term effects on pollutant exceedance probabilities in CDSs. Using the model, we investigate the effect of aquifer heterogeneity, well design variability, and spatio-temporal nitrate source variability on nitrate in domestic and large production wells of a semiarid, irrigated agricultural region. Results show that the timing of nitrate breakthrough in wells is significantly controlled by aquifer recharge and pumping rates in NPS areas and by the effective porosity of the aquifer system. Results further show that mixing within a domestic or large production well is a dominant source of dispersive behavior in pollutant breakthrough. In production wells with shorter screens, macrodispersivity due to aquifer heterogeneity accelerates the earliest breakthrough. Variability in well construction and spatio-temporal variability of nitrate sources most strongly control the temporal dynamics of the nitrate exceedance probability and the variability of nitrate between wells, regardless of the degree of aquifer heterogeneity. Hence, characterization of the heterogeneity of external sources and sinks is critical to understand variability and uncertainty about nonpoint source pollution in groundwater discharge locations across basins.Citation: Kourakos, G., F. Klein, A. Cortis, and T. Harter (2012), A groundwater nonpoint source pollution modeling framework to evaluate long-term dynamics of pollutant exceedance probabilities in wells and other discharge locations, Water Resour. Res., 48, W00L13,

show abstract

Section: Developing a Rationale For A Nps Groundwater Modeling Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Developing a Rationale For A Nps Groundwater Modeling Frameworkmentioning

confidence: 99%

A groundwater nonpoint source pollution modeling framework to evaluate long‐term dynamics of pollutant exceedance probabilities in wells and other discharge locations

Kourakos¹,

Klein²,

Cortis³

et al. 2012

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In addition, it also considers human activities that could enhance the movement of the contaminants to groundwater (for instance agricultural practices such us irrigation, land use) (Aller et al, 1987;Connell and Daele, 2003;Bozzo et al, 2013). In recent years, many approaches have been developed to evaluate both the intrinsic and specific aquifer vulnerability and comprehensive reviews of groundwater vulnerability assessment methods are present in literature (Zhang et al, 1996;Worrall and Besien, 2005;Pavlis et al, 2010).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A client–server software for the identification of groundwater vulnerability to pesticides at regional level

Guardo

Finizio

2015

Science of The Total Environment

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Whereas pollutant sources contributing to surface run-off losses are often visible, those contributing to groundwater losses are hidden and difficult to measure directly (Schilling & Wolter, 2001). Assessing the groundwater contribution to NPS loads at a watershed scale is typically conducted using basinwide stream sampling during baseflow (BF; e.g., Aquilina et al, 2012;Schilling & Wolter, 2001), groundwater vulnerability indicators (e.g., Aller, Bennett, Lehr, Petty, & Hackett, 1987;Pavlis, Cummins, & McDonnell, 2010), statistical modelling (e.g., Nolan, Hitt, & Ruddy, 2002;Schilling & Zhang, 2004), or watershed models (Almasri & Kaluarachchi, 2007;Hu & Tian, 2007;Kourakos, Klein, Cortis, & Harter, 2012). In all cases, it is important to match the appropriate method to the scale of investigation.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Groundwater monitoring at the watershed scale: An evaluation of recharge and nonpoint source pollutant loading in the Clear Creek Watershed, Iowa

Schilling

Streeter

Bettis

et al. 2018

Hydrological Processes

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Determining the groundwater contribution of nonpoint source pollution at a watershed scale is a challenging issue. In this study, we utilized a top‐down approach to characterize representative groundwater response units (GRUs) based on land use and landscape position (e.g., upland, sideslope, or floodplain) in the 275‐km2 Clear Creek Watershed, Iowa. Groundwater monitoring wells were then established along downslope transects in representative GRUs. This unique combination of top‐down/bottom‐up approaches allowed us to estimate groundwater pollutant loads at the watershed scale with minimal monitoring. For the 2015 study period, results indicated that more groundwater recharge occurred in the floodplain (404 mm) compared to the uplands or sideslopes (281 and 165 mm, respectively), irrespective of land use. Recharge in the floodplains consisted of 37% of the annual precipitation, whereas upland wells averaged 26% and sideslopes averaged 15% of the annual precipitation. Less recharge was found to occur beneath perennial grass compared to row crop and urbanized areas. Baseflow discharge accounted for 69% of the total NO3‐N exported from the Clear Creek Watershed, with row crop areas contributing approximately 95% of the annual load. Orthophosphorus (OP) yields were approximately 0.72 kg/ha beneath urban and suburban areas, three times higher than those in row crop or perennial areas. Urban and suburban areas accounted for 21.4% of groundwater orthophosphorus and chloride loads in the watershed compared to only 8.5% of the land area. Overall, the groundwater load allocation model for baseflow nutrient discharge to Clear Creek can be used to target future nonpoint source load reduction strategies at the watershed scale. The use of GRUs can pinpoint better areas of concern for controlling nutrient loads.

show abstract

Groundwater Vulnerability Assessment of Plant Protection Products: A Review

Cited by 38 publications

References 72 publications

A groundwater nonpoint source pollution modeling framework to evaluate long‐term dynamics of pollutant exceedance probabilities in wells and other discharge locations

A groundwater nonpoint source pollution modeling framework to evaluate long‐term dynamics of pollutant exceedance probabilities in wells and other discharge locations

A client–server software for the identification of groundwater vulnerability to pesticides at regional level

Groundwater monitoring at the watershed scale: An evaluation of recharge and nonpoint source pollutant loading in the Clear Creek Watershed, Iowa

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About