Test plots

Every continent, except Antarctica, grows com 40% of the present world crop is produced in the United States. In the 1987—1988 crop year, 12 states (Iowa, HI., Nebr., Minn., Ind., Ohio, Wis., Mo., S. Dak., Mich., Kans., and Tex. in order of production) produced 157.5 million metric tons (6.2 biUion bushels) that was 88% of the United States and 36% of the world s crop (66). Yield is influenced by many factors, including climate, pest control, planting density, and fertilization. Yield in the United States has increased from about 1.5 metric tons /hectare in the 1930s to about 7.5 metric tons /hectare. In 1985, a test plot produced 23.2 metric tons /hectare and yields approaching 40 metric tons /hectare are considered possible com is the most productive of the principal food crops. 

Yields as high as 45 t/hm yr have been observed on experimental test plots in Elorida, and it has been suggested that similar yields could be achieved in the Southwest with irrigation. 

Feedstock Development. Most of the research in process in the United States in the early 1990s on the selection of suitable biomass species for energy appHcations is limited to laboratory studies and small-scale test plots. Many of the research programs on feedstock development were started in the 1970s or early 1980s. 

Whatever the case, the ability to irrigate test plots is an important consideration during field site selection. Sprinkler irrigation is preferred. Flood and furrow irrigation should be avoided since they may disturb surface residues, resulting in uneven residue distribution and/or inadvertent agrochemical loss from the study plots. Recommended irrigation practices are discussed in more detail in Section 3.3.8. 

Figure 5 Techniques used to mark test plots in field soil dissipation trials...

Each of the five main steps in field conduct (site selection, test plot layout, test substance application, sample collection, and sample storage/handling) is addressed below. 

In addition to being smooth, it is preferable that the soil surface be firmly packed. This is because loose soil is not always retained in large-diameter sampling probes. Firming of the soil surface may be accomplished using a turf roller or equivalent. Alternatively, the soil surface may be prepared in advance of study initiation to allow rainfall or irrigation to settle and firm the soil. This latter approach also allows soil surface depressions to be observed and avoided when laying out the test plots. 

A combination of techniques is typically used to verify the accuracy and precision of agrochemical applications to soil. For example, the catch-back method or passtime method is typically used in conjunction with analytical results from application verification monitors to confirm proper application. The catch-back method involves measuring the spray solution volume before and after application to double check that the desired volume of test solution was actually applied to the test plots. Experienced applicators are often able to apply within 2% of the targeted spray volume. 

Application verification (AV) monitors are devices that are placed within test plots to measure actual spray deposition that occurred during application. The main function of AV monitors is to show whether or not the intended amount of test material was actually deposited on the soil surface. Application monitors consisting of soil-filled containers, paper disks, polyurethane foam plugs, and glass Petri dishes have all been used successfully for this purpose. Prior to using a monitor in the field, it is important to determine that the test substance can indeed be successfully extracted from the monitor and that the compound will be stable on the monitor under field conditions... 

The guiding principles in test plot maintenance are to (1) minimize soil surface disturbance at all times, (2) ensure that control and treated plots are similarly maintained, (3) avoid applying other agrochemicals that may interfere with sample analysis or that are otherwise contrary to the purpose of the study, (4) follow the prescribed irrigation policy determined for the study site, and (5) keep bare-soil test plots free of vegetation, as follows. 

In regions of rain-fed agriculture, the test plots must receive 110% of the monthly historical rainfall. Differences in this total should be reconciled every 10 days. If the plots do not receive 110% of historical monthly rainfall, the study may be severely compromised. 

Where k =Ek j. The concentration ratio expressed with the aid of lactose conversion (X) is Cqa/ca=1-X. A series of first-order test plots were prepared and they revealed that lactose obeys pseudo-first order kinetics very well. 

In addition, previous studies have been conducted that monitored the performance of ET covers. Selected studies include the following integrated test plot experiment in Los Alamos, New Mexico, which monitored both types of ET covers from 1984 to 198786 Hill Air Force Base alternative cover study in Utah, which evaluated three different covers (RCRA Subtitle D, monolithic ET, and capillary barrier ET) over a 4-year period87 and Hanford field lysimeter test facility in Richland, Washington, DC, which monitored ET covers for 6 years.88... 

Nguyen et al. [205] designed a volume displacement technique that was used to measure the capillary pressures for both hydrophobic and hydrophilic materials. One requirement for this method is that the sample material must have enough pore volume to be able to measure the respective displaced volume. Basically, while the sample is filled wifh water and then drained, the volume of water displaced is recorded. In order for the water to be drained from fhe material, it is vital to keep the liquid pressure higher than the gas pressure (i.e., pressure difference is key). Once the sample is saturated, the liquid pressure can be reduced slightly in order for the water to drain. From these tests, plots of capillary pressure versus water saturation corresponding to both imbibitions and drainages can be determined. A similar method was presented by Koido, Furusawa, and Moriyama [206], except they studied only the liquid water imbibition with different diffusion layers. 

Azinphos-methyl will not leach to any great extent in soil (Helling, 1971). Staiff et al. (1975) studied the persistence of azinphos-methyl in a test plot over an 8-yr period. At the end of the eighth year, virtually no azinphos-methyl was detected 30 cm below the surface. In a sugarcane runoff plot, azinphos-methyl was applied at a rate of 0.84 kg/ha 4 times each year in 1980 and 1981. Runoff losses in 1980 and 1981 were 0.08 and 0.55 of the applied amount, respectively (Smith et al., 1983). 

Under field conditions trifluralin has been predicted to degrade to nonphytotoxic levels within a growing season when soil conditions are moist and warm (12). After three years, less than 1.5% of C-trifluralin was detected in test plots maintained under natural conditions (18). 

Bromacll leached to a shallow water table aquifer In a Lakeland sand soil In a Florida test plot (61). The concentrations seemed to be related to rainfall, and at one point exceeded 1 ppm, though values of several hundred parts per billion were more typical. 

---