Abstract
Despite a long history of related research, quantifying and verifying recharge is still a major challenge. The combination and comparison of conceptually different methods has been recommended as a strategy for evaluating recharge estimates. In this article, recharge estimates from water-table fluctuation (WTF) methods are combined with and compared to the results of the spatially and temporally discretized soil-water-balance model PROMET (processes of radiation, mass and energy transfer). As PROMET and WTF methods rely on different measurable variables, a comparison of these two contrasting techniques allows improved assessment of the plausibility of recharge estimates. An enhanced approach to WTF methods is presented. The approach assumes that in the case of no recharge, there exists a maximum possible potential decline for any given groundwater level. The primary conclusion is that WTF methods are excellent for determining the plausibility of spatially distributed regional-groundwater-recharge estimation approaches and for detecting inconsistencies in available models. Recharge estimates derived from WTF approaches alone are, however, not suitable for regional-scale recharge estimation due to (1) their strong dependency on local data, applicability of which is limited to only very specific conditions, and (2) their sensitivity to influences other than recharge.
Résumé
Malgré une longue histoire de recherches sur le sujet, quantifier et vérifier une recharge est encore un challenge majeur. La combinaison et la comparaison de méthodes conceptuellement différentes a été recommandée comme stratégie pour évaluer les recharges. Dans cet article, des estimations de recharge déduites de la fluctuation de la nappe (WTF) sont combinées et comparées aux bilans d’eau discrétisés dans le temps et dans l’espace du modèle PROMET (Processus de Radiation, de Transfert de Masse et d’Energie). Comme les méthodes PROMET et WTF s’appuient sur différentes variables mesurables, une comparaison entre ces deux techniques contrastées autorise une évaluation améliorée et plausible de la recharge. Une approche améliorée de la méthode WTF est présentée. L’approche suppose qu’en cas d’absence de recharge, il existe un rabattement potentiel maximum possible pour tout niveau de nappe. La conclusion fondamentale est que les méthodes WTF sont excellentes pour déterminer la plausibilité des estimations de recharge de nappe à distribution spatiale régionale et pour détecter des incohérences dans les modèles disponibles. Les estimations de recharge dérivées des approches WFT seules ne sont toutefois pas adaptées à l’échelle régionale en raison de (1) leur forte dépendance aux données locales, dont l’exploitation est limitée seulement à des conditions très particulières, et (2) leur sensibilité à des influences autres que la recharge.
Resumen
A pesar de una larga historia de investigación sobre el tema, la cuantificación y verificación de la recarga es aún un gran desafío. La combinación y comparación de diferentes métodos conceptuales han sido recomendados como una estrategia para evaluar la estimación de la recarga. En este artículo, las estimaciones de la recarga a partir de los métodos de fluctuaciones de los niveles freáticos (WTF) son combinados y comparados con los resultados del modelo de balance de agua – suelo, espacial y temporalmente discretizado PROMET (Procesos de transferencia de radiación, masa y energía). Puesto que los métodos PROMET y WTF descansan sobre diferentes variables medibles, una comparación de estas dos técnicas contrastantes permite una mejora en la evaluación de la plausibilidad de las estimaciones de la recarga. Se presenta una aproximación mejorada de los métodos WTF. La aproximación supone que en el caso que no haya recarga, existe un máximo descenso potencial posible para cualquier dado nivel de agua subterránea. La conclusión primaria es que los métodos WTF son excelentes para determinar la plausibilidad de las aproximaciones a la estimación de recarga regional del agua subterránea espacialmente distribuida y para detectar inconsistencia en los modelos disponibles. Las estimaciones de la recarga provenientes de las aproximaciones WTF, sin embargo no son adecuadas para la estimación de la recarga a escala regional debido a (1) su fuerte dependencia de los datos locales, cuya aplicabilidad está limitada a sólo condiciones muy específicas, y (2) su sensibilidad influencias diferentes de recarga.
摘要
尽管长期进行相关调查,但补给量的定量确定及验证仍是一个较大挑战。不同概念模型间的结合和比较是评价补给量的可以推荐的一个策略。本文对水位波动模型(WTF)补给估计量与时空离散土壤水平衡模型PROMET(衰变、质量与能量转移的过程)的结果进行结合与比较。由于PROMET 和WTF模型依赖于不同的实测变量,这两个独立技术的比较可改进对补给量合理性的评价。本文提出了WTF模型增强模式。该模式假定在没有补给的情况下,对任一给定的地下水位,存在一个最大可能潜在下降面。初步结论为WTF模型对于确定空间分布区域地下水补给估计量方法的合理性及检查获得模型中的不一致性较好。但是,仅仅用WTF模型对区域尺度上补给量的评估不适用,因为(1) 强烈依赖于当地数据,仅仅在特定条件下才适用;(2) 对除了补给之外其它因素影响的敏感性。
Resumo
Apesar de uma longa história de pesquisas relacionadas, quantificar e verificar a recarga é ainda um grande desafio. A combinação e a comparação de métodos conceptualmente diferentes tem sido recomendada como uma estratégia para avaliar as estimativas de recarga. Neste artigo, métodos de estimativa de recarga a partir da flutuação da superfície freática (WTF) são combinados e comparados com os resultados do modelo de balanço hídrico no solo discretizado no espaço e no tempo PROMET (Processos de Transferência de Massa, Radiação e Energia). Como os métodos PROMET e WTF dependem de diferentes variáveis mensuráveis, uma comparação entre essas duas técnicas distintas permite uma melhor avaliação da plausibilidade das estimativas de recarga. Apresenta-se uma abordagem melhorada aos métodos WTF. A abordagem assume que, no caso de não existir recarga, haverá um possível declínio potencial máximo para qualquer nível da superfície freática. A conclusão principal é que os métodos WTF são excelentes para determinar a plausibilidade de abordagens de estimativa regional espacialmente distribuída da recarga de águas subterrâneas e para a detecção de inconsistências nos modelos disponíveis. As estimativas de recarga resultantes de abordagens WTF, por si só, são no entanto inadequadas para a estimação da recarga à escala regional devido i) à sua forte dependência de dados locais, cuja aplicabilidade está limitada apenas a condições muito específicas, e ii) à sua sensibilidade a influências distintas da recarga.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Barthel R (2006) Common problematic aspects of coupling hydrological models with groundwater flow models on the river catchment scale. AdGeo 9:63–71
Barthel R (2011) An indicator approach to assessing and predicting the quantitative state of groundwater bodies on the river basin scale with a special focus on the impacts of climate change. Hydrogeol J 19(3):525–546. doi:10.1007/s10040-010-0693-y
Barthel R, Rojanschi V, Wolf J, Braun J (2005) Large-scale water resources management within the framework of GLOWA-Danube, part A: the groundwater model. Phys Chem Earth 30(6–7):372–382
Barthel R, Jagelke J, Götzinger J, Gaiser T, Printz A (2008) Aspects of choosing appropriate concepts for modelling groundwater resources in regional integrated water resources management: examples from the Neckar (Germany) and Oueme Catchment (Benin). Phys Chem Earth 33(1–2):92–114. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2007.04.013
Barthel R, Janisch S, Nickel D, Trifkovic A (2010) Using the multiactor-approach in GLOWA-Danube to simulate decisions for the water supply sector under conditions of global climate change. Water Resour Manage 24:239–275. doi:10.1007/s11269-009-9445-y
Coes A, Spruill T, Thomasson M (2007) Multiple-method estimation of recharge rates at diverse locations in the North Carolina Coastal Plain, USA. Hydrogeol J 15:773–788
Crosbie RS, Binning P, Kalma JD (2005) A time series approach to inferring groundwater recharge using the water table fluctuation method. Water Resour Res 41
De Vries J, Simmers I (2002) Groundwater recharge: an overview of processes and challenges. Hydrogeol J 10:5–17
Delin GN, Healy RW, Lorenz DL, Nimmo JR (2007) Comparison of local- to regional-scale estimates of groundwater recharge in Minnesota, USA. J Hydrol 334:231–249
Eagleson PS (1978) Climate, soil, and vegetation. Water Resour Res 04(5):722–730
Fetter CW (2001) Applied hydrogeology. Prentice-Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ
Healy RW, Cook PG (2002) Using groundwater levels to estimate recharge. Hydrogeol J 10:91–109
Heppner CS, Nimmo JR (2005) A computer program for predicting recharge with a master recession curve. US Geol Surv Sci Invest Rep 2005–5172, 8 pp
Heppner CS, Nimmo JR, Folmar GJ, Gburek WJ, Risser DW (2007) Multiple-methods investigation of recharge at a humid-region fractured rock site, Pennsylvania, USA. Hydrogeol J 15:915–927
Hiscock KM (2005) Hydrogeology principles and practice. Blackwell, Oxford, UK
Johansson PO (1987) Estimation of groundwater recharge in sandy till with two different methods using groundwater level fluctuations. J Hydrol 90:183–198
Johnson A (1967) Specific yield: compilation of specific yields for various materials. US Geol Surv Water Suppl Pap 1662-D, 74 pp
Ketchum N, Donovan J, Avery W (2000) Recharge characteristics of a phreatic aquifer as determined by storage accumulation. Hydrogeol J 8:579–593
Lorenz DW, Delin GN (2007) Regional estimation of groundwater recharge in Minnesota using a multiple regression model. Ground Water 45(2):374–382
Ludwig R, Mauser W, Niemeyer S, Colgan A, Stolz R, Escher-Vetter H, Kuhn M, Reichstein M, Tenhunen J, Kraus A, Ludwig M, Barth M, Hennicker R (2003) Web-based modelling of energy, water and matter fluxes to support decision making in mesoscale catchments: the integrative perspective of Glowa-Danube. Phys Chem Earth 28:621–634
Mauser W, Bach H (2009) PROMET: large scale distributed hydrological modelling to study the impact of climate change on the water flows of mountain watersheds. J Hydrol 376:362–377
Meinzer OE (1923) The occurrence of groundwater in the United States with a discussion of principles. US Geol Surv Water Suppl Pap 489, 321 pp
Meinzer O, Stearns N (1929) A study of groundwater in the Pomperaug Basin, Connecticut with special reference to intake and discharge. US Geol Surv Water Suppl Pap 597:73–146
Moon SK, Woo NC, Lee KS (2004) Statistical analysis of hydrographs and water-table fluctuation to estimate groundwater recharge. J Hydrol 292:198–209
Nickel D, Barthel R, Braun J (2005) Large-scale water resources management within the framework of GLOWA-Danube: the water supply model. Phys Chem Earth 30:383–388
Risser DW, Gburek WJ, Folmar GJ (2009) Comparison of recharge estimates at a small watershed in east-central Pennsylvania, USA. Hydrogeol J 17:287–298
Rushton KR, Redshaw SC (1979) Seepage and groundwater flow. Wiley, Chichester, UK, 332 pp
Rutledge AT (1998) Computer programs for describing the recession of groundwater discharge and for estimating mean groundwater recharge and discharge from streamflow records: update. US Geol Surv Water Resour Invest Rep 98-4148
Sanford W (2002) Recharge and groundwater models: an overview. Hydrogeol J 10:110–120
Scanlon B, Healy R, Cook P (2002) Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge. Hydrogeol J 10:18–39
Schilling K (2009) Investigating local variation in groundwater recharge along a topographic gradient, Walnut Creek, Iowa, USA. Hydrogeol J 17:397–407
Schirmer M (2008) Zukünftige Grundwasserforschung: Was sind unsere Aufgaben? [Future groundwater research: What are our responsibilities?]. Grundwasser 13:131–132
Schwartz FW, Zhang H (2003) Fundamentals of ground water. Wiley, New York
Shah N, Ross M (2009) Variability in specific yield under shallow water table conditions. J Hydrol Eng 14:1290–1298
Sophocleous MA (1991) Combining the soilwater balance and water-level fluctuation methods to estimate natural groundwater recharge: practical aspects. J Hydrol 124:229–241
Voss C (2005) The future of hydrogeology. Hydrogeol J 13:1–6
Wolf J, Barthel R, Braun J (2008) Modeling ground water flow in alluvial mountainous catchments on a watershed scale. Ground Water 46:695–705. doi:10.1111/j.1745-6584.2008.00456.x
Zhang J (2009) Estimation of groundwater recharge from groundwater level time series in the Upper Danube Catchment. MSc Thesis, Karlsruhe University of Applied Sciences, Germany
Acknowledgements
GLOWA-Danube was funded by the BMBF (German Federal Ministry of Education and Research). The authors would like to thank all governmental organizations, private companies and others who supported our work by providing data, models, advice or additional funding. The authors would like to thank their colleagues from partner projects within GLOWA-Danube for their cooperation over the last 10 years. Special thanks go to the research group of Prof. Dr. Wolfram Mauser, Department of Geography, LM-University Munich, Germany, who provided the PROMET-results for the UDC project used in this study as well as tools for the post-processing of these data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Jie, Z., van Heyden, J., Bendel, D. et al. Combination of soil-water balance models and water-table fluctuation methods for evaluation and improvement of groundwater recharge calculations. Hydrogeol J 19, 1487–1502 (2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0772-8
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0772-8