Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • The Role of Sensitivity Analysis in Groundwater Risk Modeling for Pesticides

  • Don D. Fontaine, Patrick L. Havens, Gary E. Blau, Patricia M. Tillotson
  • Journal:
    Weed Technology / Volume 6 / Issue 3 / September 1992
    Published online by Cambridge University Press:
    12 June 2017, pp. 716-724

  • Two methods were used to obtain the sensitivity of chemical leaching depth to variations in the input parameters of the Pesticide Root Zone Model (PRZM). First a Plackett-Burman (PB) screening design was used to vary 35 PRZM inputs over seven ranges around a nominal value. Six of the seven ranges were approximately 0.1, 0.25, 0.5, 1.0, 5.0, and 15%, the seventh range was chosen to cover a range appropriate for a soybean herbicide applied preemergence in the Midwestern region defined by the USDA–SCS land resource region M. Next, Fourier amplitude sensitivity testing (FAST) was then used to vary from 19 to 25 parameters over four of the ranges previously tested. For the smaller parameter ranges the two methods typically gave equivalent results but the PB method required far fewer simulations. For the simulation of the Midwestern region where some parameter varied by larger amounts the relative magnitudes of the sensitivity coefficients obtained by the two methods were similar but the magnitude of the coefficients obtained using FAST were smaller than those obtained using PB.