P u b l i s h i n g

Australian Journal
of Soil Research

Volume 39, 2001

© CSIRO 2001

An international journal for the publication of

original research into all aspects of soil science

All enquiries and manuscripts should be directed to:

Australian Journal of Soil Research
CSIRO Publishing
PO Box 1139 (150 Oxford St)
Collingwood, Vic. 3066, Australia

Telephone: +61 3 9662 7628

Fax: +61 3 9662 7611
Email: sr@publish.csiro.au

Published by CSIRO Publishing

for CSIRO and the Australian Academy of Science

w w w. p u b l i s h . c s i ro . a u / j o u r n a l s / a j s r
 Aust. J. Soil Res., 2001, 39, 1041–1058

Application of VARLEACH and LEACHM models

to experimental data on leaching of a non-reactive tracer
and three sulfonylurea herbicides

Ajit K. SarmahABD, Rai S. KookanaAC, and A. M. AlstonAB

A
Cooperative Research Centre for Soil and Land Management, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia.
B
Department of Soil and Water, The University of Adelaide, PMB 1, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia.
C
CSIRO Land and Water, PMB 2, Glen Osmond, SA 5064, Australia.
D
Corresponding author and present address: School of Civil Engineering, 1284 Civil Engineering Building,
Purdue University, West Lafayette, IN 47907–1284, USA. Email: sarmah@ecn.purdue.edu

Abstract
A chromatographic model (VARLEACH) and a process-based model (LEACHM) were evaluated under
low and high water input regimes (‘rainfall’ and ‘rainfall + irrigation’, respectively) using experimental data
for a non-reactive tracer (KBr), and 3 sulfonylurea herbicides: triasulfuron, metsulfuron-methyl, and
chlorsulfuron. Both qualitative and quantitative comparisons of predicted and measured water contents
revealed that both models performed well under ‘rainfall’, but prediction was less satisfactory under the
treatment of ‘rainfall + irrigation’. Both models failed to simulate the bimodal distribution of Br– and the
herbicides observed under ‘rainfall + irrigation’ treatment. Distribution of Br– and the 3 herbicides in the
profile was over- or under-estimated at certain depths and times, probably due to the limitations inherent to
the models (e.g. inability to deal with the macropore flow), and to simplifications associated with some
input data. Simulations for a dry (1 decile), median (5 decile), and wet year (9 decile) with LEACHM and
VARLEACH models using long-term weather data for the site showed that leaching and persistence of the
herbicides are highly dependent on the amount of rainfall the site receives. The results indicate that the risk
of injury to herbicide-sensitive crops in the following year of application of herbicides is likely to be greater
when the herbicides are applied in a drier rather than a wetter year.

Additional keywords: simulation, herbicide persistence, transport, modelling efficiency.

SeA.RatK0l. Sa8r0mah
VARLEAC HandLEACHMap licatoin

Introduction
Computer simulation models are useful in understanding the behaviour of agricultural
chemicals in the soil and their movement into the groundwater (Khakural et al. 1995) under
a range of soil and climatic conditions. They have been used increasingly to predict the fate
and behaviour of pesticides in soil (Brown et al. 1994; Bergström 1996; Walker et al. 1996;
Jabro et al. 1998) and to perform risk assessments of the environmental impacts of pesticide
use (Wauchope and Duffy 1992; Gustafson 1993; Walker and Hollis 1994). Models have
been developed using a variety of approaches, and they include PRZM developed by United
States Environmental Protection Agency (Carsel et al. 1984, 1985) and its modified version
PELMO (Klein 1991), LEACHM (Wagenet and Hutson 1987, 1989; Hutson and Wagenet
1992), CALF (Nicholls et al. 1982) and its latest version VARLEACH (Walker and Welch
1989; Walker and Hollis 1994), PESTLA (Boesten and van der Linden 1991), and MACRO
(Jarvis 1994).
Models such as CALF and VARLEACH have been used to predict the field behaviour
of sulfonylurea and other herbicides with varying degree of success (Nicholls and Evans
1985; Blair et al. 1989; Walker and Welch 1989; Haigh and Ferris 1991; Ferris et al. 1995).
One reason for the varied success is that the models often incorporate empirical

© CSIRO 2001 10.1071/SR00080 0004-9573/01/051041

1042 A. K. Sarmah et al.

relationships based on data from a limited range of soil types in the particular region where
the models were developed. Therefore, the use of the models and their extrapolation to
other regions with different conditions may not always be reliable.
In this study, a chromatographic model (VARLEACH) and a process-based model
(LEACHM) were tested to determine if they could describe the distribution of triasulfuron,
metsulfuron-methyl, and chlorsulfuron under field conditions in an alkaline soil in
Australia using input-data obtained from both laboratory and field experiments. The
behaviour of a non-reactive tracer (Br–) was also examined. The 2 models differ
considerably in the data demand and complexity. VARLEACH is a simple model, whereas
LEACHM represents more comprehensive and complex models (Table 1). In addition, we
evaluated the applicability of VARLEACH and the pesticide version (LEACHP) of the
LEACHM model to predict the persistence and leaching of these herbicides in a dominant
soil type of southern Australia in dry, median, and wet years.

Materials and methods

Soil and herbicides
The trial site was located on a calcareous sandy loam soil near Avon, South Australia, typical of the cereal-
growing region with winter-dominant rainfall. The soil was highly alkaline with organic carbon content of
0.09–1.6%, clay content 1.0–17.7%, and pH ranging from 8.7 to 10.0 in the 0–150 cm depth. The full
physical and chemical characteristics of the site have been published by Sarmah et al. (1999). Commercial
formulations of chlorsulfuron (Glean, 750 g a.i./kg), metsulfuron-methyl (Ally, 600 g a.i./kg), triasulfuron
(Logran, 740 g a.i./kg), and a non-reactive tracer (potassium bromide) were used at application rates of
150 g/ha for each herbicide and 50 kg/ha for bromide. The application rate for the herbicide was above the
recommended label rate. This was done so that the concentration of the herbicide in the soil profile would
be high enough to be detected by the analytical method employed in the study.

Treatments
The experiment was conducted during the winter months (6 June–17 August, 1997) when rainfall is most
dominant in the study area. There were 2 water input treatments, ‘rainfall’ and ‘rainfall + irrigation’, each
applied to 3 replicate plots. The plots were 4 by 1 m in size, with a buffer zone around each plot. Appropriate
amounts of the 3 herbicides and bromide were dissolved in 10 L of water, mixed thoroughly, and applied

Table 1. Comparison of the two models used in this study

Properties LEACHP (3.1) VARLEACH (2.0)

Solution method Finite difference Two-region tipping bucket

Water flow description Richard’s equation (mobile only) Capacity (mobile/immobile)
Macropore flow Not represented Not represented
Runoff/erosion Not considered Not considered
Solute transport Convection–dispersion equation Daily equilibration
Dispersion Required as input Fixed by mobile-immobile water
separation and layer depth in model
K–␪–h relationship Estimated from retentivity data using θ required as input; K not required
Campbell’s equation
Plant growth Yes Not considered
Evapotranspiration Calculated from pan data or from Calculated from pan data or from
Linacre’s equation Linacre’s equation
Pesticide sorption Linear or Freundlich, 2-site possible (Kd Linear, time-dependent and Kd varies with
constant with time, not depth) depth
Pesticide degradation First-order kinetics, temperature and First-order kinetics, temperature and water
water content-dependent, biotic/abiotic content-dependent, biotic/abiotic
Volatilisation Yes Not considered
VARLEACH and LEACHM application 1043

14

Day 19 (25 June 1997)

Day 69 (17 Aug. 1997)

Day 46 (26 July 1997)
Day 28 (4 July 1997)
12

10
Daily rainfall (mm)

(6 June 1997)

(19 June 1997)

(2 July 1997)
8

Duration of experiment
Fig. 1. Daily rainfall measured at the study site, and dates of chemical
application and sampling time.

on 6 June 1997, with a hand-held sprayer having a shrouded nozzle for minimising drift across the plots.
After incorporating the herbicides into the soil with a hand-hoe, the nominal concentrations of the
herbicides and that of bromide in the 0–10 cm layer of soil were 0.1 and 33 mg/kg, respectively, estimated
from the measured mean bulk density of 1500 kg/m3. A rainfall simulator was used to apply a calibrated
amount of irrigated water (>90% application uniformity) over the 3 plots on selected days, while the other
3 plots received only ‘rainfall’. The high rates of irrigation were applied to see whether preferential flow
would occur in these soils. The rainfall simulator was rotating disc type developed by Malinda et al. (1992).
Figure 1 shows the daily rainfall received at the study site during the simulation period together with the
sampling dates and days. First irrigation of 60 mm was applied on 19 June 1997, 2 weeks after the
application of the chemicals, and a second irrigation (30 mm) followed after another 14 days (2 July 1997).
When the 2 irrigation events were included in the rainfall data and used in the simulation, the treatment was
termed ‘rainfall + irrigation’, and the treatment without irrigation was known as ‘rainfall’.

Sampling and extraction

Intact soil cores (50 mm diam.) were collected on Days 19, 28, 46, and 69 with a trailer-mounted rig on a
4-whee-drive vehicle, using the split-core technique. These sampling days were chosen so that they fall
right after a rainfall or irrigation event and were based on the compounds’ measured half-lives under field
conditions, which were 32–45 days under ‘rainfall’ and 45–59 days under ‘rainfall + irrigation’ (Sarmah
et al. 2000). Further sampling was deemed not necessary as the compounds would degrade further with
time and the residues left in soils would be at a much lower level than that which can be detected by our
method. Under each treatment, 12 cores were extracted (4 cores/plot) on each sampling day, sliced at 10-
cm intervals, placed in plastic bags, and sealed. The tube was cleaned with a brush and washed with water
and dried before the next core was sampled. The last sampling was done on Day 69 (17 August 1997) to a
depth of 160 cm. A total of 96 intact soil-cores were extracted during the entire duration of the experiment.
The holes created by the sampling tube were filled with soil from the nearby buffer zones. A full description
of sampling and extraction procedure is given in Sarmah et al. (2000).
Bromide and the herbicide residues were analysed using ion-chromatography and high performance
liquid chromatography, respectively. A detailed description of the extraction procedure for the herbicides in
the soil samples and the analytical method used can be found elsewhere (Sarmah and Kookana 1999).
1044 A. K. Sarmah et al.

Model descriptions

LEACHM
LEACHM (Version 3.1) is the general acronym (Leaching Estimation and Chemistry Model) that refers
to a suite of models that describe the 1-dimensional (vertical) storage, transmission, and dissipation of water
and solutes in the soil profile (Hutson and Wagenet 1992). LEACHP, which describes sorption, movement,
and degradation of pesticides was used in this study. (Other submodels are LEACHN which describes
nitrogen transformations and transport, and LEACHC which describes the movement of inorganic salts.)
Water flow in LEACHM is based on the 1-dimensional Richard’s equation for transient vertical soil
water flow, derived from Darcy’s Law and the continuity equation. A finite difference approximation solves
the Richard’s equation for water transport. The model requires empirical functions relating fractional
volumetric water content (θ), pressure potential (h), and hydraulic conductivity (K). Currently, the model
uses functions based on those proposed by Campbell (1974), and non-homogeneous and layered soils can
be simulated by changing the values of bulk density and hydraulic conductivity. Campbell’s water retention
equation (Campbell 1974) is given by:

h = a(θ/θs)–b –∞ ≤ h ≤ hi (1)

where θs is the volumetric water content at saturation (L3/L3), and a (L) and b (L) are empirical constants.
The constant ‘a’ is sometimes regarded as an air-entry value and is usually obtained by curve-fitting, but
does not have any physical significance.
Solute (pesticide) transport through the soil profile is described in LEACHP by the convection-
dispersion equation (CDE). Degradation and transformation of the pesticide is accounted for using first-
order kinetics. Usually, no distinction is made between the liquid, sorbed, and gaseous phase chemical,
although a ‘flag switch’ is provided in the LEACHP input file which allows specification of whether the
dissipation rate constant applies to all phases of the chemical or to the solution phase only. The model
LEACHP can simulate the fate of several chemicals simultaneously. Surface run-off, erosion, and
macropore flow through cracks or biopores are not accounted for in LEACHP. A detailed description of
other features of the model can be found in Hutson and Wagenet (1992).

VARLEACH
VARLEACH 2.0 (Walker and Welch 1989; Walker and Hollis 1994) is a revised version of the CALF
(CALculates Flow) leaching model described initially by Nicholls et al. (1982). The CALF model was
derived from the nitrate leaching model of Addiscott (1977), modified to permit both adsorption and
degradation of solute. Pesticide degradation is described using first-order kinetics accounting for effects of
soil water, temperature, and depth on degradation. Pesticide sorption is modelled as a linear isotherm, but
the sorption coefficient increases with residence time in the surface soil layers (0–5 cm). The influences of
temperature and water on rates of degradation are simulated using the routines described by Walker and
Barnes (1981).
VARLEACH is a 1-dimensional chromatographic model for a soil profile, and it does not simulate crop
growth, runoff, erosion, or pesticide volatilisation from the soil surface. The transport of water in the model
is based on the ‘tipping bucket’ concept. The number of input parameters required in the model are fewer
and more easily obtained than for the LEACHM model. VARLEACH is based on a soil profile from the
surface to a depth of 2 m. The profile is divided into a number of layers of equal thickness and also into
3 horizons. VARLEACH incorporates the concept of ‘mobile’ and ‘immobile’ water, and the division
between the two is set at a matric potential of –200 kPa. Only solutes associated with the mobile water
contribute to the solute leaching. Therefore, movement of solutes is controlled by water movement between
layers and ceases when only ‘immobile water’ is present.

Input parameters

LEACHP
Soil hydraulic properties (K–␪–h relationship) were obtained by fitting the retentivity data for the first
4 layers of soil (0–40 cm) to Campbell’s equation (Eqn 1) to obtain the values for constants a (air-entry
value) and b (Campbell’s exponent). For the remaining layers of the profile, the values of a and b were
estimated using a regression equation based on particle size distribution, bulk density, and organic matter
(Thomasson and Carter 1989). The effect of dispersivity on the transport of the herbicides was examined
VARLEACH and LEACHM application 1045

Table 2. Some input parameters for LEACHP and VARLEACH models

a, Air-entry value; b, exponent in Eqn 1. Values of a, b, bulk density, and k were measured
independently in the laboratory

Depth a b Bulk Degradation rate constants k (/day)

(cm) (kPa) density Triasulfuron Metsulfuron- Chlorsulfuron
(kg/m3) methyl

LEACHP
10 –0.35 5.22 1.56 0.0180 0.012 0.0145
20 –3.25 4.23 1.56 0.0170 0.011 0.0104
30 –4.22 4.87 1.52 0.0151 0.010 0.0060
40 –2.67 5.26 1.52 0.0118 0.008 0.0046
50 –0.51 5.41 1.52 0.0118 0.008 0.0046
60 –0.49 6.19 1.52 0.0118 0.008 0.0046
70 –0.59 8.87 1.53 0.0118 0.008 0.0046
80 –0.59 8.87 1.53 0.0118 0.008 0.0046
90 –3.93 12.00 1.54 0.0118 0.008 0.0046
100 –3.52 12.00 1.53 0.0118 0.008 0.0046
110 –2.46 12.00 1.52 0.0118 0.008 0.0046
120 –2.14 12.00 1.51 0.0118 0.008 0.0046
130 –0.66 11.38 1.51 0.0118 0.008 0.0046
140 –0.66 11.38 1.51 0.0118 0.008 0.0046
150 –2.85 12.00 1.51 0.0118 0.008 0.0046
VARLEACH
Field capacity (–5 kPa) 16%
Water content (–200 kPa) 9.6% (60% of FC)
Sorption coefficient, Kd (L/kg) 0.26 (triasulfuron), 0.12 (metsulfuron-methyl),
0.11 (chlorsulfuron), 0.0001 (Br–)
First-order half-life (days) 24 (triasulfuron), 27 (metsulfuron-methyl), 34
(chlorsulfuron), 99999 (Br–)
Application rate (g/ha) 150 g/ha (herbicides), 50 kg/ha (Br–)

for bromide, and an a value of 100 mm was used for the Avon site for both bromide and the herbicides.
Climatic data such as daily rainfall and mean daily maximum and minimum soil temperatures were
obtained from a nearby weather station, while evapotranspiration was estimated from Linacre’s equation
(Linacre 1977) using maximum and minimum temperature data. Degradation rate constants for the first 4
layers of soil were obtained from a separate laboratory incubation study (Sarmah et al. 1999). However, in
the absence of degradation data for the layers below 40 cm, the constants were assumed to be same as for
the 30–40 cm layer. Sorption (Kd) data were obtained from a laboratory batch sorption study, and Koc values
were calculated dividing Kd by organic carbon (OC) in the soil (Koc = Kd /%OC). Some input parameters
used in the simulation are shown in Table 2.
VARLEACH
The input parameters required by VARLEACH were soil water contents at –5 kPa (field capacity) and
–200 kPa (division between mobile and immobile water), the average bulk density of the soil in the field,
and the initial water content of soil. Daily measurements of rainfall and maximum and minimum daily air
temperatures were obtained as described above. It was assumed that the herbicides were initially
incorporated into the top layer and batch sorption coefficients (Kd) were used to calculate the distribution
of the herbicide between the sorbed and solution phase. In VARLEACH, adsorption is assumed to be a
function of time, and the Kd increases with residence time. Some important input parameters for
VARLEACH are also presented in Table 2.

Model evaluation
The ability of the models to predict accurately the distribution of water, bromide, and herbicides in the
profile was assessed against measured values, using both qualitative and quantitative approaches. Several
1046 A. K. Sarmah et al.

statistical relationships have been used previously for model evaluation in leaching studies (Ambrose and
Roesch 1982; Martinec and Rango 1989; Loague and Green 1991; Walker et al. 1996). In the present study,
performance of the 2 models was evaluated by comparing the measured and predicted water, bromide, and
herbicide distribution in the profile by using the following statistical relationships.

Measure of goodness of fit

In addition to graphical displays and linear regression, statistical measures suggested by Loague and
Green (1990) were used to evaluate the goodness of fit between the measured and predicted data. These are
defined as follows:
n
∑i=1 (Oi − Pi )
Coefficient of residual mass (CRM) = n
(2)
∑i =1 (Oi )
where Oi and Pi are the observed and predicted values in sample i. The relationship compares the amounts
of chemical irrespective of their distributions in soil. A CRM value close to zero indicates good prediction
of the amounts of chemical remaining in the soil and no bias in the distribution of predicted values with
respect to measured values. It is essentially an indication of the consistent errors in the distribution of all
predicted values across all measurements. However, the order of measurements is not considered.

∑i =1 (Oi − O m ) 2
n
Coefficient of determination (CD) = (3)
∑i =1 (Pi − O m )2
n

where Om is the mean of the observed data, and the other terms are as defined above. When the value of
CD reaches unity, it indicates a perfect correspondence with the measured data. The lower limit of CD can
be zero.

∑i =1 (Oi − O m )2 – ∑i =1 (Pi − O m ) 2
n n
Modelling efficiency (ME) = (4)
∑i =1 (Oi − O m )2
n

ME is an indicator of the overall agreement between the observed and predicted data. A value of unity
indicates a perfect fit between the measured and predicted data. However, if ME is less than zero, the model-
predicted values are worse than simply using the observed mean as the best estimate of the data points.

Results

Soil water contents

Qualitative comparison
The measured and simulated water contents at Avon are compared in Fig. 2. Both
VARLEACH and LEACHP predicted the measured water contents reasonably well under
rainfall alone. However, some over- and under-estimations by both the models can be
observed. Common to all sampling days, LEACHP over-estimated the measured water
contents than VARLEACH near the surface (0–10 cm), whereas the converse was true for
depths below 100 cm (Day 69).
VARLEACH gave more accurate estimations of the observed water content distribution
in the profile under ‘rainfall + irrigation’ treatment on all sampling days than LEACHP at
the same time. For instance, prediction by VARLEACH on Days 46 and 69 was in far better
agreement with the observed data than that predicted by LEACHP. Statistical evaluations
used in our study also support this observation as discussed below.

Quantitative comparison
The error statistics for VARLEACH and LEACHP predictions of water contents against
the measured data under the 2 rainfall regimes are summarised in Table 3. The overall
VARLEACH and LEACHM application 1047

VARLEACH
Volumetric water content (m3/m3) LEACHP
Measured
0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.0 0.1 0.2

30

60

90
Depth from the surface (cm)

120
Day 19 Day 28 Day 46 Day 69
150 17.7 mm 18.2 mm 31.6 mm 69.1 mm

Rainfall
0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.0 0.2 0.4

30

60

90

120

150 77.7 mm 90.0 mm 121.1 mm 158.6 mm

Rainfall + irrigation

Fig. 2. Comparison of measured volumetric water contents in the soil profile at Avon with the values
predicted by VARLEACH and LEACHP for the two water treatments. Horizontal bars are standard error
of means (n = 4). (Note that the scale of the x-axis differs between the treatments, and sampling depth
was 60 cm for the first 3 sampling days.)

discrepancy between the measured and predicted values of water contents under rainfall
was generally smaller at all sampling days than under ‘rainfall + irrigation’. Coefficients of
residual mass (CRM) were close to zero, and both CD and ME values were close to unity
on all sampling days for the ‘rainfall’ treatment, suggesting better fits to the measured data
than were predicted for the treatment of ‘rainfall + irrigation’. Thus the error statistics
demonstrated that both VARLEACH and LEACHP performed reasonably well in the
prediction of the water contents in the profile that received only ‘rainfall’. This was further
supported by high modelling efficiencies (ME) for VARLEACH under both treatments as
compared with the values of ME for LEACHP model, under ‘rainfall + irrigation’ (Table 3).

Distribution of Br– in the profile

Qualitative comparison
Figure 3 shows the measured and predicted distributions of Br– in the soil profile at
Avon. Under rainfall, both VARLEACH and LEACHP under-predicted the distribution of
Br– in the surface, and over-predicted Br– in the 20–40 cm depths on all sampling days, with
prediction by VARLEACH being slightly smaller than LEACHP in the 10–30 cm depths.
On Day 69, measured and VARLEACH-predicted Br– concentration was in reasonable
agreement at all depths except in the surface and 30 cm depth.
Under ‘rainfall + irrigation’, prediction of Br– contents in the profile by VARLEACH
was similar to prediction under rainfall (Fig. 3), except on Day 69 when predicted values
by the 2 models were considerably greater than measured values in the 20–60 cm depths.
Neither VARLEACH nor LEACHP simulated the second peak of Br– observed on Day 69
in the 80–120 cm depths. One reason for using a non-reactive tracer in this study was to
1048 A. K. Sarmah et al.

Table 3. Measures of goodness of fit for observed and predicted

volumetric water contents and bromide distribution at Avon site, under
two water treatments

Days Volumetric water contents Bromide distribution

CRM CD ME CRM CD ME

VARLEACH — rainfall
19 –0.161 0.731 0.969 0.520 0.177 –10.29
28 –0.144 0.743 0.963 0.386 0.165 –9.79
46 –1.257 0.787 0.981 0.277 0.131 –10.38
69 –0.029 0.939 0.994 0.336 0.891 –0.19
LEACHP — rainfall
19 –0.088 1.163 0.900 0.288 0.159 –11.01
28 –0.039 0.942 0.982 0.088 0.115 –12.54
46 0.0007 0.873 0.920 0.003 0.075 –17.81
69 0.022 0.912 0.964 –0.076 0.893 –0.86
VARLEACH — rainfall + irrigation
19 –0.333 0.165 –1.708 0.595 0.327 –6.09
28 0.100 0.458 0.135 –0.174 0.112 –13.98
46 0.268 0.333 –3.743 –0.214 0.190 –7.96
69 0.282 0.631 –3.466 0.561 0.105 –4.37
LEACHP — rainfall + irrigation
19 –0.154 0.735 0.921 0.335 0.179 –9.24
28 –0.193 0.701 0.941 –0.236 0.054 –25.32
46 0.048 1.112 0.990 –0.191 0.147 –7.26
69 0.094 1.223 0.984 0.249 0.095 –5.72

obtain a dispersivity value for simulation of movement of the herbicides (Sarmah et al.
1999). The dispersivity values estimated from the data in Fig. 3 were therefore used for the
herbicide simulations.

Quantitative comparison
Table 3 shows the coefficients derived from the goodness of fit between measured and
predicted data for bromide distribution in the Avon soil profile under ‘rainfall’ and ‘rainfall
+ irrigation’. With a perfect fit of data CRM would be 0, while CD and ME would be 1.
However, the closest the data came to this condition was with VARLEACH under ‘rainfall’,
on Day 69 (CD 0.893), and under ‘rainfall + irrigation’ on Day 19 (CD 0.327). On Day 46
for VARLEACH (under rainfall), CD and ME values were an order of magnitude lower.
However, CRM was close to 0 suggesting better fit than on other sampling days. For
LEACHP, the highest values obtained for CD were 0.891 (Day 69, under ‘rainfall’) and
0.179 (Day 46, under ‘rainfall + irrigation’), respectively.

Distribution of herbicides in the profile

Qualitative comparison
The distributions of triasulfuron, metsulfuron-methyl, and chlorsulfuron in the soil
profile at Avon are presented in Figs 4–6. Predictions of triasulfuron distribution under
rainfall by VARLEACH and LEACHP were similar on all sampling days. However, it can
be observed that both the models grossly under-predicted triasulfuron concentration in the
VARLEACH and LEACHM application 1049

VARLEACH
LEACHP
Br− concentration (mg/kg) Measured

0 20 0 20 0 20 0 20 40

30

60 Day 19 Day 28 Day 46 Day 69

17.7 mm 18.2 mm 31.6 mm 69.1 mm
Depth from the surface (cm)

90

120

150
Rainfall

30

60 77.7 mm 90.0 mm 121.1 mm 158.6 mm

90

120

150
Rainfall + irrigation

Fig. 3. Comparison of measured Br– distribution in the soil profile at Avon with the values predicted by
VARLEACH and LEACHP for the two water treatments. Horizontal bars are standard error of means
(n = 4). (Note that sampling depth was 60 cm for the first 3 sampling days.)

0–10 cm depth. There was not a great variation in the predictions of metsulfuron-methyl or
chlorsulfuron concentrations by the 2 models. For all 3 compounds, predictions by
VARLEACH were better than LEACHP on Day 69 under rainfall, but neither of the models
VARLEACH
Chlorsulfuron concentration (µg/kg) LEACHP
Measured
0.0 70.0 0.0 30.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 15.0 30.0

30

60 Day 19 Day 28 Day 46 Day 69

17.7 mm 18.2 mm 31.6 mm 69.1 mm
Depth from the surface (cm)

90

120

150
Rainfall

30

60
77.7 mm 90.0 mm 121.1 mm 158.6 mm
90

120

150
Rainfall + irrigation

Fig. 4. Comparison of measured triasulfuron distribution at Avon with values predicted by

VARLEACH and LEACHP for the two water treatments. Horizontal bars are standard error of means
(n = 4). (Note that sampling depth was 60 cm for the first 3 sampling days.)
1050 A. K. Sarmah et al.

VARLEACH
Metsulfuron-methyl concentration (µg/kg) LEACHP
Measured
0.0 60.0 0.0 50.0 0.0 20.0 0.0 15.0 30.0

30
60
Depth from the surface (cm)

90
Day 19 Day 28 Day 46 Day 69
120
17.7 mm 18.2 mm 31.6 mm 69.1 mm
150
Rainfall

30
60
90
120
77.7 mm 90.0 mm 121.1 mm 158.6 mm
150
Rainfall + irrigation
Fig. 5. Comparison of measured metsulfuron-methyl distribution at Avon with values predicted by
VARLEACH and LEACHP for the two treatments. Horizontal bars are standard error of means (n = 4).
(Note that sampling depth is 60 cm for the first 3 sampling days.)

predicted the peaks for metsulfuron-methyl and chlorsulfuron at 30–40 cm depth. LEACHP
predicted the concentration of the 3 compounds against their measured values reasonably
well on Day 46.
Under the treatment of ‘rainfall + irrigation’, both models generally under-predicted the
measured triasulfuron, metsulfuron-methyl, and chlorsulfuron concentrations at most
VARLEACH
LEACHP
Triasulfuron concentration (µg/kg) Measured
0.0 75.0 0.0 40.0 0.0 25.0 0.0 15.0 30.0

30

60
Day 19 Day 28 Day 46 Day 69
90 17.7 mm 18.2 mm 31.6 mm 69.1 mm
Depth from the surface (cm)

120

150
Rainfall

30

60

90
77.7 mm 90.0 mm 121.1 mm 158.6 mm
120

150
Rainfall + irrigation

Fig. 6. Comparison of measured chlorsulfuron distribution at Avon with values predicted by

VARLEACH and LEACHP for the two treatments. Horizontal bars are standard error of means
(n = 4). (Note that sampling depth is 60 cm for the first 3 sampling days.)
VARLEACH and LEACHM application 1051

Table 4. Measures of goodness of fit for observed and predicted data for triasulfuron,
metsulfuron-methyl, and chlorsulfuron at Avon under ‘rainfall’ and ‘rainfall + irrigation’

Days Triasulfuron Metsulfuron-methyl Chlorsulfuron

CRM CD ME CRM CD ME CRM CD ME

VARLEACH—rainfall
19 0.554 0.039 –30.880 0.532 0.059 –11.100 0.519 0.056 –9.429
28 0.163 0.244 –0.125 0.455 0.169 –1.093 –0.066 0.704 0.889
46 0.201 0.393 0.031 0.232 0.216 –1.245 –0.009 0.341 0.052
69 0.125 0.320 0.408 0.497 0.131 –3.265 0.191 0.776 –0.164
LEACHP—rainfall
19 0.493 0.046 –26.499 0.391 0.086 –6.946 0.450 0.064 –7.648
28 0.087 0.268 –0.032 0.284 0.281 0.189 –0.188 0.807 0.834
46 0.113 0.597 –0.486 -0.097 0.708 0.827 –0.157 0.842 0.514
69 0.351 0.109 –3.161 0.341 0.145 –2.988 0.265 1.104 –0.396
VARLEACH—rainfall + irrigation
19 0.348 1.949 –1.811 0.176 0.071 –16.780 0.0004 0.167 –1.392
28 0.170 9.730 0.448 0.262 0.121 –7.893 0.056 0.236 –5.162
46 0.303 0.643 –3.677 0.234 0.176 –5.340 0.144 0.176 –2.137
69 0.417 0.106 –9.369 0.414 0.117 –5.325 0.355 0.154 –8.360
LEACHP—rainfall + irrigation
19 0.474 0.136 –11.988 0.136 0.013 –62.038 0.104 0.066 –21.858
28 0.355 0.385 –4.405 0.313 0.404 –3.191 0.097 0.153 –1.735
46 0.367 0.073 –18.880 0.359 2.407 –0.192 0.194 0.703 –1.659
69 0.444 0.115 –5.171 0.991 0.139 –2.977 0.307 0.401 –2.818

depths in the profile on all sampling days (Figs 4–6). However, some consistent over-
estimation by VARLEACH for metsulfuron-methyl and chlorsulfuron in the 0–10 cm depth
can be observed, and neither model simulated the peaks of chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron-
methyl in the subsoil on Day 69.

Quantitative comparison
The statistical indices CRM, CD, and ME (Table 4) confirm the conclusions drawn from
the qualitative comparison. For example, better correspondence of measured and predicted
triasulfuron data on Day 69 under rainfall was matched with greater modelling efficiency
(ME 0.408) and low CRM value (0.125) compared with any other day. Furthermore, CD
and ME for VARLEACH and LEACHP were close to 1 and CRM was close to 0 for
chlorsulfuron on Days 28 and 46, which indicate good agreement between measured and
predicted data (Table 4).
Under the treatment of ‘rainfall + irrigation’, VARLEACH gave low values of error
statistics for triasulfuron on Day 28, which was matched by low CRM (0.170) and greater
ME (0.448) on the same day (Table 4). Linear regression analysis of the measured data for
triasulfuron, metsulfuron-methyl, and chlorsulfuron for all depths and all sampling days
against the predicted data showed that LEACHP gave only marginally better prediction
(r2 = 0.80 – 0.89) than VARLEACH (r2 = 0.78 – 0.85) under ‘rainfall’. In contrast, r2 values
for the 3 compounds were considerably lower for LEACHP (0.62 – 0.65) than VARLEACH
(r2 = 0.80 – 0.92) under ‘rainfall + irrigation’ (Table 5).
1052 A. K. Sarmah et al.

Table 5. Results of linear regression analysis of measured and predicted data

for the three herbicides under ‘rainfall’ and ‘rainfall + irrigation’ treatments

Model Triasulfuron Metsulfuron-methyl Chlorsulfuron

Rainfall
VARLEACH y = 0.472x + 1.57 y = 0.421x + 1.50 y = 4.09x + 1.86
r2 = 0.85 r2 = 0.84 r2 = 0.78
LEACHP y = 0.520x + 1.09 y = 0.509x +1.11 y = 0.556x + 1.6
r2 = 0.89 r2 = 0.86 r2 = 0.80
Rainfall + irrigation
VARLEACH y = 0.742x – 0.284 y = 1.06x – 1.91 y = 1.12x – 1.25
r2 = 0.92 r2 = 0.80 r2 = 0.80
LEACHP y = 0.359x + 2.38 y = 0.532x + 0.817 y = 0.571x + 1.81
r2 = 0.62 r2 = 0.62 r2 = 0.65

Application of VARLEACH and LEACHP using long-term weather data

To assess the leaching behaviour of these herbicides in an average, dry, and wet year,
LEACHP and VARLEACH were further used to predict the persistence and leaching
behaviour of the 3 sulfonylureas in a dominant soil type of southern Australia. Simulations
were carried out for a dry (1 decile), median (5 decile), and wet (9 decile) year using data
based on the last 100 years of rainfall near Avon, South Australia (Sarmah 1998). Figure 7
shows the recorded daily rainfall for these 3 periods. All other input parameters remained
same as before.
The simulation results of LEACHP showed that, after nearly a year under median rainfall
(Fig. 8b), the 3 herbicides remained within 100 cm depth in the profile. In the wet year
(Fig. 8c), however, both metsulfuron-methyl and chlorsulfuron leached further with a peak
distribution at about 100–120 cm depth in the soil. In contrast, under a dry period, the
maximum depth of leaching in a year was about 70–80 cm (Fig. 8a). A comparison of the
disappearance of the 3 compounds under the 3 scenarios revealed that irrespective of the
rainfall periods, triasulfuron disappeared much faster than metsulfuron-methyl and
chlorsulfuron.
In contrast to LEACHP prediction, simulation by VARLEACH estimated less leaching
and greater persistence in the profile. For instance, after about a year from the date of
application in the dry year (Fig. 9a), nearly 2% of chlorsulfuron residues were still
contained in the 10 cm depth, and the maximum depth of leaching was 20 cm. However, in
the same period, under median rainfall conditions (Fig. 9b) the residues of the 3 herbicides
were distributed to a greater depth, with maximum leaching depth of 60 cm. In the wetter
year, all 3 herbicides showed pronounced peaks in all sampling days. The peak of residue
for chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron-methyl was at about 50 cm, while for triasulfuron it
reached 40 cm depth in the profile (Fig. 9c). In all cases the residue remained confined to
100 cm, even in the high rainfall year. This shows that simulations with VARLEACH,
indicated less leaching of the 3 compounds than that predicted by the LEACHP model.

Discussion
The simulation results showed that both VARLEACH and LEACHP predicted measured
water contents and Br– distribution in the profile reasonably well under the ‘rainfall’
VARLEACH and LEACHM application 1053

50
45 Dry year
(1967)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
50
45 Median year
(1988)
40
Daily rainfall (mm)

35 Fig. 7. Daily rainfall for

30 the dry (1 decile), median
(5 decile), and wet (9 decile)
25
years near Avon, South
20 Australia, used in LEACHP
15 and VARLEACH for long-
10 term prediction of
5 sulfonylurea leaching.
0
50
Wet year
45
(1992)
40
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
Jan.

Feb.

Mar.

Apr.

May

June

July

Aug.

Sept.

Oct.

Nov.

Dec.

treatment. However, under high input of water (rainfall + irrigation), both models failed to
describe the bimodal distribution of solutes in the profile (Day 69). Similarly, prediction of
the solute distribution in the profile by VARLEACH under low water input regime
(‘rainfall’) was better than the prediction under the high water input (‘rainfall + irrigation’)
case. One consistent observation in the simulation was the under-prediction of Br– as well
as the 3 herbicides under ‘rainfall + irrigation’. The most likely reason for this is the non-
ideal processes of water and solute movement, such as presence of mobile and immobile
domains (e.g. van Genuchten and Dalton 1986) or preferential flow of water through the
soil as a result of heavy water application. Neither VARLEACH nor LEACHP take
preferential flow into account.
The discrepancy between measured and predicted Br– distribution may also be due in
part to the K–θ–h relationship, which may not have adequately taken into account the
1054 A. K. Sarmah et al.

(a) % Herbicide remaining (initial application)

0 8 16 0 4 8 0 0.9 1.8 0 0.4 0.8
0

20 ·
· · ·
40 Day 90 Day 180 Day 270 Day 360
60

80

100

(b)
Depth from the surface (cm)

0
20
40
60
80 · ·
100
120
140
160
(c)
0
20
40 · · ·
60
80
100
120
140
160

Fig. 8. Sulfonylurea herbicide leaching predicted by LEACHP for the

average (a) dry, (b) median, and (c) wet rainfall period in the past 100 years
near Avon, South Australia.

inherent spatial variability of soils in the field. LEACHP predicts solute flux based on the
convection–dispersion equation (CDE), a well-accepted approach in the laboratory and
under certain field conditions. However, its applicability to well-structured soils or soils
having cracks or biopores has come under criticism (Jemison et al. 1994). The bicontinuum
approach based on CDE and 2-region (van Genuchten and Dalton 1986) or the mobile–
immobile approach (De Smedt et al. 1986) has been developed and found to be successful
to describe the solute movement in laboratory soil columns. Models such as MACRO
(Jarvis 1994), PLM (Hall 1994), and TRANSMIT (Hutson and Wagenet 1995) have been
developed to account for the preferential flow in soils. However, it is uncertain whether
these models can be used predictively because the results of the simulations of preferential
flow for pesticides are extremely sensitive to macroporous properties of the soils (Nicholls
1997).
VARLEACH treats water movement empirically rather than mechanistically, by dividing
the soil water in mobile and immobile components, which are determined arbitrarily. While
VARLEACH and LEACHM application 1055

(a) % Herbicide remaining (initial application)

0 10 20 0 5 10 0 2 4 0 1 2
0

20

40
Day 90 Day 180 Day 270 Day 360
60

80

100
(b)
Depth from the surface (cm)

0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
(c)
0
20
40
60
·
80
100
120
140
160

Fig. 9. Sulfonylurea herbicide leaching predicted by VARLEACH for the

average (a) dry, (b) median, and (c) wet rainfall period in the past 100 years
near Avon, South Australia.

this approach is also not able to handle macropore flow adequately, the model output was
not in anyway inferior than that obtained using LEACHP.
When overall performance of the models in terms of predicting the concentrations of the
3 herbicides was examined, both models were found to simulate the herbicide concentration
with a reasonable accuracy. However, there was some disparity between measured herbicide
concentrations and model-predicted data, and this was found to be more pronounced for
LEACHP under the treatment of ‘rainfall + irrigation’, with r2 values of 0.62–0.65
(Table 5). It is noteworthy that degradation rate constants for triasulfuron, metsulfuron-
methyl, and chlorsulfuron were available for the top layers of soil (up to 40 cm). However,
beyond 40 cm, they were implicitly assumed to be constant. Therefore, the observed
differences between the 2 models in predicting the herbicide concentrations are attributed
to the limitations inherent to the models such as the inability to account for macropore flow,
as well as lack of some input parameters for the entire profile.
LEACHP forecasts based on long-term weather data showed that in general, triasulfuron
would exhibit faster degradation and least leaching potential, whereas mestulfuron-methyl
1056 A. K. Sarmah et al.

and chlorsulfuron would show greater mobility and longer persistence in the soils.
However, in terms of residues remaining in the profile under the 3 rainfall periods, no
difference was observed between the data simulated for chlorsulfuron and metsulfuron-
methyl. This shows that in a wet year, it is likely that small amounts of residues will leach
deeper into subsoils and may not cause deleterious effects to following crops, except for
deep-rooted crops such as canola. In contrast, in the dry year the residues may remain in the
root-zone. It is also noteworthy that the degradation rate constants used in LEACHP
simulation are likely to have underestimated the residues remaining in the profile as
temperature data in the soil profile was kept constant during the simulation. Therefore, it
appears that the risk of crop injury is greater to sensitive crops which follow cereals grown
in a drier year.
The leaching depths for all 3 compounds simulation by VARLEACH were considerably
smaller than those predicted by LEACHP model. In general, LEACHP showed greater
degradation and leaching than the VARLEACH model. This can be attributed in part to the
sorption and half-life components considered in the models. For example, in VARLEACH,
Kd values were assumed to increase with residence times and half-lives of the compounds
changed (increased by a factor of 1.5) with depth in the profile, whereas these parameters
did not change in LEACHP simulation. Therefore, there was a general tendency of faster
degradation as well as greater leaching of the compounds under LEACHP simulation.

Conclusions
The following conclusions were drawn from this study, based on simulations with the 2
models.
• Prediction of the measured water contents and Br– by VARLEACH and LEACHP is
better with low water input (i.e. rainfall alone), than with high water input (i.e. ‘rainfall
+ irrigation’) at the site studied.
• Both models simulated distributions of triasulfuron, metsulfuron-methyl, and
chlorsulfuron herbicides in the profile with reasonable accuracy only under the
‘rainfall’ treatment.
• Neither model could simulate the observed bimodal distribution of Br– and the 3
herbicides at some depths on Day 69 in the profile.
• Discrepancies between the measured and predicted data were attributed in part to
limitations inherent to the models (e.g. inability to deal with macropore flow), and to
simplifications associated with some input data.
• Model forecasts with LEACHP and VARLEACH for a dominant soil type of cereal-
growing regions of southern Australia showed that persistence of herbicides, and
therefore the risk of injury to herbicide-sensitive crops in the year following application
of the herbicides, is likely to be greater when the herbicides are applied in a relatively
drier rather than a wetter year.

Acknowledgments
The senior author would like to thank Dr A. Walker of Horticultural Research International,
Wellesbourne, UK, and Mr Peter Nicholls of Institute of Arable Crops Research,
Rothamsted, UK for providing the VARLEACH model and for their valuable suggestions.
We also thank Dr J. L. Hutson of the Flinders University of South Australia for providing
the LEACHM model and his comments on an earlier draft of this manuscript. The Grains
Research and Development Corporation of Australia (GRDC) funded this research.
VARLEACH and LEACHM application 1057

References
Addiscott TM (1977) A simple computer model for leaching in structured soils. Journal of Soil Science 28,
554–563.
Ambrose Jr RB, Roesch SE (1982) Dynamic estuary model performance. Journal of Environmental
Engineering Division ASCE 108, 51–57.
Bergström L (1996) Model predictions and field measurements of chlorsulfuron leaching under non-
steady-state flow conditions. Pesticide Science 48, 37–45.
Blair AM, Martin TD, Walker A, Welch SJ (1989) Measurement and prediction of chlorsulfuron persistence
in soil following autumn and spring application. In ‘Proceedings: Brighton Crop Protection Conference
—Weeds’. British Crop Protection Council. pp. 1121–1126. (Lavenham Press Ltd: Suffolk, UK)
Boesten JJTI, van der Linden AMA (1991) Modelling the influence of sorption and transformation on
pesticide leaching and persistence. Journal of Environmental Quality 20, 425–435.
Brown CD, Baer U, Gunther P, Trevisan M, Walker A (1994) Ring test with the models LEACHP, PRZM-
2 and VARLEACH: variability between users in prediction of pesticide leaching using a standard data
set. Pesticide Science 47, 249–258.
Campbell GS (1974) A simple method for determining unsaturated conductivity from moisture retention
data. Soil Science 117, 311–314.
Carsel RF, Mulkey LA, Lorber MN, Baskin LB (1985) The pesticide root zone model (PRZM): A procedure
for evaluating pesticide movement to groundwater. Ecological Modelling 30, 46–69.
Carsel RF, Smith N, Mulkey LA, Dean JD, Jawise P (1984) Users manual for the pesticide root zone model.
USEPA Report 60013–84–109, Environment Protection Agency, Washington DC.
De Smedt F, Wauters T, Sevilla J (1986) Study of tracer movement through unsaturated sand. Geoderma 38,
223–236.
Ferris IG, Fawcett R, Stork P, Haigh BM, Pederson N, Rovira A (1995) Persistence and leaching of
sulfonylurea herbicides in four sodic soils. In ‘Australian sodic soils: Distribution, properties and
management’. (Eds R Naidu, M Sumner, P Rengasamy) pp. 229–238. (CSIRO Publishing:
Collingwood, Vic.)
van Genuchten MTh, Dalton FN (1986) Models for simulating salt movement in aggregated field soils.
Geoderma 38, 165–183.
Gustafson DI (1993) Advantages and potential pitfalls in the use of models for regulatory purposes. In
‘Proceedings 1993 Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds’. British Crop Protection Council.
pp. 1373–1380. (Lavenham Press Ltd.: Suffolk, UK)
Haigh BM, Ferris IG (1991) Predicting herbicide persistence using the CALF model. In ‘Modeling the fate
of chemicals in the environment’. (Ed. ID Moore) pp. 50–60. (Centre for Resource and Environmental
Studies, Australian National University: Canberra)
Hall DGM (1994) Simulation of dichlorprop leaching the three texturally distinct soils using Pesticide
Leaching Model. Journal of Environmental Science and Health A 29(6), 1211–30.
Hutson JL, Wagenet RJ (1992) LEACHM, Leaching Estimation and Chemistry Model. Version 3. Research
Report 92–3, Department of Soils, Crops and Atmospheric Sciences, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Hutson JL, Wagenet RJ (1995) A multiregion model describing water flow and solute transport in
heterogeneous soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 59, 743–751.
Jabro JD, Toth JD, Fox RH (1998) Evaluation and comparison of five simulation models for estimating
water drainage fluxes under corn. Journal of Environmental Quality 27, 1376–1381.
Jarvis NJ (1994) The MACRO model Version 3.1. Technical description and sample simulation. Reports
and Dissertations 19. Department of Soil Science, SLU, Uppsala, Sweden.
Jemison JM Jr., Jabro JD, Fox RH (1994) Evaluation of LEACHM: I. Simulation of drainage, bromide
leaching, and corn bromide uptake. Agronomy Journal 86, 843–846.
Khakural BR, Robert PC, Koskinen WC, Sorenson BA, Buhler DD, Wyse DL (1995) Test of LEACHP
model for predicting atrazine movement in three Minnesota soils. Journal of Environmental Quality 24,
644–655.
Klein M (1991) The Pesticide Leaching Model PELMO and its application. Fraunhofer Gesellschaft,
Schmallenberg.
Linacre ET (1977) A simple formula for estimating evaporation rates in various climates, using temperature
data alone. Agricultural Meteorology 18, 409–424.
Loague K, Green RE (1990) Criteria for evaluating pesticide leaching models. In ‘Field scale water and
solute flux in soils’. (Eds K Roth, H Flühler, WA Jury, JC Parker) pp. 175–208. (Birkhaüser: Basle)
Loague K, Green RE (1991) Statistical and graphical methods for evaluating solute transport models:
Overview and application. Journal of Contaminant Hydrology 7, 51–73.
1058 A. K. Sarmah et al.

Malinda DK, Dubois BM, Pederson RN, Darling WR, Fawcett RG (1992) Improved equipment and
methods for the study of rainfall infiltration, run-off, soil and nutrient losses. Department of
Agriculture, South Australia. Technical Paper No. 33.
Martinec J, Rango A (1989) Merits of statistical criteria for the performance of hydrologic models. Water
Resources Bulletin 25, 421–432.
Nicholls PH (1997) Practical aspects of pesticide modelling for environmental-risk assessment. In
‘Proceeding: 16th Asian-Pacific Weed Science Society Meeting.’ Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.
Nicholls P, Evans AA (1985) Adsorption and movement in soils of chlorsulfuron and other weak acids. In
‘Proceedings of the Brighton Crop Protection Conference—Weeds’. British Crop Protection Council.
pp. 333–339. (Lavenham Press Ltd: Suffolk, UK)
Nicholls PH, Walker A, Baker RJ (1982) Measurements and simulation of the movement and degradation
of atrazine and metribuzin in a fallow soil. Pesticide Science 13, 484–494.
Sarmah AK (1998) Persistence and mobility of triasulfuron, metsulfuron-methyl and chlorsulfuron in
alkaline soils. PhD thesis, The University of Adelaide, Australia.
Sarmah AK, Kookana RS (1999) Simultaneous analysis of triasulfuron, metsulfuron-methyl and
chlorsulfuron in water and alkaline soils by high performance liquid chromatography. Journal of
Environmental Science and Health, Part B. 34, 363–380.
Sarmah AK, Kookana RS, Alston AM (1999) Degradation of chlorsulfuron and triasulfuron in alkaline soil
under laboratory conditions. Weed Research 39, 83–94.
Sarmah AK, Kookana RS, Alston AM (2000) Leaching and degradation of triasulfuron, metsulfuron-
methyl, and chlorsulfuron in alkaline soil profiles under field conditions. Australian Journal of Soil
Research 38, 617–631.
Thomasson AJ, Carter AD (1989) Current and future usage of the UK soil water retention data set. In
‘Proceedings of International Workshop on indirect method for estimating the hydrologic properties of
unsaturated soils’. Riverside, CA. (Eds M Th. van Genuchten, FJ Leij, LJ Lund) pp. 355–358.
Wagenet RJ, Hutson JL (1987) LEACHM: Leaching Estimation and Chemistry Model: A Process-based
model of water and solute movement, transformations, plant uptake, and chemical reactions in the
unsaturated zone. Continuum 2. Water Resources Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Wagenet RJ, Hutson JL (1989) LEACHM: Leaching Estimation and Chemistry Model: A Process-based
model of water and solute movement, transformations, plant uptake, and chemical reactions in the
unsaturated zone. Continuum 2, Version 2. Water Resources Institute, Cornell University, Ithaca, NY.
Walker A, Barnes A (1981) Simulation of herbicide persistence in soil: A revised computer model.
Pesticide Science 12, 123–132.
Walker A, Hollis JM (1994) Prediction of pesticide mobility in soils and their potential to contaminate
surface and ground water. In ‘Comparing glasshouse and field pesticide performance II’. (Eds HG
Hewitt, JC Caseley, LG Copping, BT Grayson, D Tyson) Technical Monograph No. 59, pp. 221–224.
(British Crop Protection Council: Farnham, UK)
Walker A, Welch SJ (1989) The relative movement and persistence in soil of chlorsulfuron, metsulfuron-
methyl and triasulfuron. Weed Research 29, 375–383.
Walker A, Welch SJ, Melacini A, Moon YH (1996) Evaluation of three pesticide leaching models with
experimental data for alachlor, atrazine and metribuzin. Weed Research 36, 37–47.
Wauchope RD, Duffy MJ (1992) Role of modelling in regulatory affairs: Introduction to the Symposium.
Weed Technology 6, 670–672.

Manuscript received 26 September 2000, accepted 2 March 2001

http://www.publish.csiro.au/journals/ajsr