Assessment of Groundwater Recharge in Agro-Urban Watersheds Using Integrated SWAT-MODFLOW Model
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. General Description of the Study Area
2.2. SWAT Model
2.3. MODFLOW Model
2.4. Integrated SWAT-MODFLOW Model
3. Results
3.1. Model Calibration and Validation Performance
3.2. Principal Water Segments of the Region
3.2.1. Groundwater Recharge
3.2.2. Stream–Aquifer Interaction
4. Summary and Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Fleckenstein, J.H.; Krause, S.; Hannah, D.M.; Boano, F. Groundwater-surface water interactions: New methods and models to improve understanding of processes and dynamics. Adv. Water Resour. 2010, 33, 1291–1295. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Winter, T.C.; Harvey, J.W.; Franke, O.L.; Alley, W.M. Ground Water and Surface Water—A Single Resource—U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1139; U.S. Geological Survey: Denver, CO, USA, 1998. [Google Scholar]
- Sophocleous, M. Interactions between groundwater and surface water: The state of the science. Hydrogeol. J. 2002, 10, 52–67. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sophocleous, M.A.; Koelliker, J.K.; Govindaraju, R.S.; Birdie, T.; Ramireddygari, S.R.; Perkins, S.P. Integrated numerical modeling for basin-wide water management: The case of the Rattlesnake Creek basin in south-central Kansas. J. Hydrol. 1999, 214, 179–196. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guevara Ochoa, C.; Medina Sierra, A.; Vives, L.; Zimmermann, E.; Bailey, R. Spatio-temporal patterns of the interaction between groundwater and surface water in plains. Hydrol. Process. 2020, 34, 1371–1392. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jolly, I.D.; McEwan, K.L.; Holland, K.L. A review of groundwater-surface water interactions in arid/semi-arid wetlands and the consequences of salinity for wetland ecology. Ecohydrology 2008, 1, 43–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kalbus, E.; Reinstorf, F.; Schirmer, M. Measuring methods for groundwater-surface water interactions: A review. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci 2006, 10, 873–887. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sharp, J.M. The impacts of urbanization on groundwater systems and recharge. Aquamundi 2010, 1, 51–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hamel, P.; Daly, E.; Fletcher, T.D. Source-control stormwater management for mitigating the impacts of urbanisation on baseflow: A review. J. Hydrol. 2013, 485, 201–211. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Salvadore, E.; Bronders, J.; Batelaan, O. Hydrological modelling of urbanized catchments: A review and future directions. J. Hydrol. 2015, 529, 62–81. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Meredith, E.; Blais, N. Quantifying irrigation recharge sources using groundwater modeling. Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 214, 9–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Götzinger, J.; Barthel, R.; Jagelke, J.; Bárdossy, A. The role of groundwater recharge and baseflow in integrated models. Iahs-Aish Publ. 321 2008, 103–109. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zomlot, Z.; Verbeiren, B.; Huysmans, M.; Batelaan, O. Spatial distribution of groundwater recharge and base flow: Assessment of controlling factors. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2015, 4, 349–368. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sanford, W. Recharge and groundwater models: An overview. Hydrogeol. J. 2002, 10, 110–120. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Walker, D.; Parkin, G.; Schmitter, P.; Gowing, J.; Tilahun, S.A.; Haile, A.T.; Yimam, A.Y. Insights From a Multi-Method Recharge Estimation Comparison Study. Groundwater 2018. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Scanlon, B.R.; Healy, R.W.; Cook, P.G. Choosing appropriate techniques for quantifying groundwater recharge. Hydrogeol. J. 2002, 10, 18–39. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- De Vries, J.J.; Simmers, I. Groundwater recharge: An overview of processes and challenges. Hydrogeol. J. 2002, 10, 5–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chung, I.-M.; Kim, N.-W.; Lee, J.; Sophocleous, M. Assessing distributed groundwater recharge rate using integrated surface water-groundwater modelling: Application to Mihocheon watershed, South Korea. Hydrogeol. J. 2010, 18, 1253–1264. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebrahimi, H.; Ghazavi, R.; Karimi, H. Estimation of Groundwater Recharge from the Rainfall and Irrigation in an Arid Environment Using Inverse Modeling Approach and RS. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 1939–1951. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aliyari, F.; Bailey, R.T.; Tasdighi, A.; Dozier, A.; Arabi, M.; Zeiler, K. Coupled SWAT-MODFLOW model for large-scale mixed agro-urban river basins. Environ. Model. Softw. 2019, 115, 200–210. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Furman, A. Modeling Coupled Surface-Subsurface Flow Processes: A Review. Vadose Zone J. 2008, 7, 741–756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Arnold, J.G.; Srinivasan, R.; Muttiah, R.S.; Williams, J.R. LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 1998, 34, 73–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- McDonald, M.; Harbaugh, A.W. A Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Ground-Water Flow Model; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, WV, USA, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- Bailey, R.T.; Wible, T.C.; Arabi, M.; Records, R.M.; Ditty, J. Assessing regional-scale spatio-temporal patterns of groundwater–surface water interactions using a coupled SWAT-MODFLOW model. Hydrol. Process. 2016, 30, 4420–4433. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Molina-Navarro, E.; Bailey, R.T.; Andersen, H.E.; Thodsen, H.; Nielsen, A.; Park, S.; Jensen, J.S.; Jensen, J.B.; Trolle, D. Comparison of abstraction scenarios simulated by SWAT and SWAT-MODFLOW. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2019, 64, 434–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wei, X.; Bailey, R.T. Assessment of System Responses in Intensively Irrigated Stream–Aquifer Systems Using SWAT-MODFLOW. Water 2019, 11, 1576. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Menking, K.M.; Syed, K.H.; Anderson, R.Y.; Shafike, N.G.; Arnold, J.G. Model estimates of runoff in the closed, semiarid Estancia basin, central New Mexico, USA. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2003, 48, 953–970. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kim, N.W.; Chung, I.M.; Won, Y.S.; Arnold, J.G. Development and application of the integrated SWAT–MODFLOW model. J. Hydrol. 2008, 356, 1–16. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ke, K.-Y.Y. Application of an integrated surface water-groundwater model to multi-aquifers modeling in Choushui River alluvial fan, Taiwan. Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 1409–1421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Galbiati, L.; Bouraoui, F.; Elorza, F.J.; Bidoglio, G. Modeling diffuse pollution loading into a Mediterranean lagoon: Development and application of an integrated surface–subsurface model tool. Ecol. Model. 2006, 193, 4–18. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Perkins, S.P.; Sophocleous, M. Development of a Comprehensive Watershed Model Applied to Study Stream Yield under Drought Conditions. Ground Water 1999, 37, 418–426. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sophocleous, M.; Perkins, S.P. Methodology and application of combined watershed and ground-water models in Kansas. J. Hydrol. 2000, 236, 185–201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Guzman, J.A.; Moriasi, D.N.; Gowda, P.H.; Steiner, J.L.; Starks, P.J.; Arnold, J.G.; Srinivasan, R. A model integration framework for linking SWAT and MODFLOW. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 73, 103–116. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chunn, D.; Faramarzi, M.; Smerdon, B.; Alessi, D. Application of an Integrated SWAT–MODFLOW Model to Evaluate Potential Impacts of Climate Change and Water Withdrawals on Groundwater–Surface Water Interactions in West-Central Alberta. Water 2019, 11, 110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Niswonger, R.G.; Panday, S.; Motomu, I. MODFLOW-NWT, A Newton Formulation for MODFLOW-2005: Techniques and Methods 6–A37; U.S. Geological Survey: Reston, WV, USA, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Taie Semiromi, M.; Koch, M. Analysis of spatio-temporal variability of surface–groundwater interactions in the Gharehsoo river basin, Iran, using a coupled SWAT-MODFLOW model. Environ. Earth Sci. 2019, 78, 201. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, F.; Feng, G.; Han, M.; Dash, P.; Jenkins, J.; Liu, C. Assessment of Surface Water Resources in the Big Sunflower River Watershed Using Coupled SWAT–MODFLOW Model. Water 2019, 11, 528. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Sophocleous, M.; Perkins, S.P. Calibrated models as management tools for stream-aquifer systems: The case of central Kansas, USA. J. Hydrol. 1993, 152, 31–56. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Park, S.; Nielsen, A.; Bailey, R.T.; Trolle, D.; Bieger, K. A QGIS-based graphical user interface for application and evaluation of SWAT-MODFLOW models. Environ. Model. Softw. 2019, 111, 493–497. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhang, D.; Chen, X.; Yao, H.; Lin, B. Improved calibration scheme of SWAT by separating wet and dry seasons. Ecol. Model. 2015, 301, 54–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- National Institute of Agricultral Sciences. Available online: http://www.naas.go.kr/ (accessed on 15 August 2019).
- Water Resources Management Information System. Available online: http://www.wamis.go.kr/ (accessed on 15 August 2019).
- Meteorological Agency Weather Data Service. Available online: https://data.kma.go.kr/cmmn/main.do (accessed on 15 August 2019).
- Arnold, J.G.; Moriasi, D.N.; Gassman, P.W.; Abbaspour, K.C.; White, M.J.; Srinivasan, R.; Santhi, C.; Harmel, R.D.; van Griensven, A.; Van Liew, M.W.; et al. SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation. Trans. Asabe 2012, 55, 1491–1508. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbaspour, K.C.; Yang, J.; Maximov, I.; Siber, R.; Bogner, K.; Mieleitner, J.; Zobrist, J.; Srinivasan, R. Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. J. Hydrol. 2007, 333, 413–430. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Her, Y.; Frankenberger, J.; Chaubey, I.; Srinivasan, R. Threshold effects in HRU definition of the soil and water assessment tool. Trans. Asabe 2015, 58, 367–378. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Abbaspour, K.C. SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Programs—A User Manual; Eawag: Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology: Duebendorf, Switzerland, 2015; p. 100. [Google Scholar]
- Moriasi, D.N.; Arnold, J.G.; Van Liew, M.W.; Bingner, R.L.; Harmel, R.D.; Veith, T.L. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. Asabe 2007, 50, 885–900. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Blöschl, G.; Sivapalan, M. Scale issues in hydrological modelling: A review. Hydrol. Process. 1995, 9, 251–290. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tegegne, G.; Kim, Y.-O. Modelling ungauged catchments using the catchment runoff response similarity. J. Hydrol. 2018, 564, 452–466. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mathias, S.A.; Butler, A.P. Flow to a finite diameter well in a horizontally anisotropic aquifer with wellbore storage. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43, 127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Doherty, J. Ground Water Model Calibration Using Pilot Points and Regularization. Ground Water 2003, 41, 170–177. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bailey, R.; Rathjens, H.; Bieger, K.; Chaubey, I.; Arnold, J. SWATMOD-Prep: Graphical User Interface for Preparing Coupled SWAT-MODFLOW Simulations. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2017, 53, 400–410. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Parameter Abbreviation | Full Description and Units | Value Range |
---|---|---|
r__CN2.mgt | Soil Conservation Service (SCS) runoff curve number | −0.2–0.2 |
v__GWQMN.gw | Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer for return flow to be initiated (mm H2O) | 0–5000 |
v__GW_REVAP.gw | A coefficient for water flow from a shallow aquifer to root zone | 0.02–0.2 |
v__ALPHA_BF.gw | Coefficient of baseflow recession | 0–1 |
v__RCHRG_DP.gw | Percolation fraction to the deep aquifer | 0–1 |
v__REVAPMN.gw | Shallow aquifer threshold depth of water to initiate percolation (mm H2O) | 0–500 |
v__OV_N.hru | Roughness coefficient of overland flow (Manning) | 0.01–30 |
v__ESCO.hru | Soil evaporation demand coefficient | 0–1 |
v__CH_K2.rte | Main channel effective hydraulic conductivity (mm/h) | 0.01–150 |
r__SOL_AWC.sol | Soil available moisture capacity (mm H2O/mm soil) | −0.5–0.5 |
r__SOL_K.sol | Hydraulic conductivity of soil (mm/h) | −0.5–0.5 |
v__SURLAG.bsn | Surface runoff lag coefficient | 0.05–24 |
v__CANMX.hru | Maximum canopy storage (mm H2O) | 0–100 |
r__HRU_SLP.hru | Average slope steepness (m/m) | 0–0.6 |
r__SOL_BD.sol | Soil moist bulk density (Mg/m3) | −0.5–0.6 |
Model | Subbasin (Outlet) | R2 | RSR | PBIAS | NSE |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
SWAT | 19(SG1) | 0.92(0.92) | 0.42(0.48) | 19.5(22.3) | 0.76(0.75) |
20(SG3) | 0.91(0.93) | 0.3(0.28) | −20.3(14.9) | 0.91(0.92) | |
24(SG2) | 0.95(0.96) | 0.28(0.24) | 32.1(30.4) | 0.92(0.94) | |
SWAT-MODFLOW | 19(SG1) | 0.93(0.92) | 0.49(0.53) | 16.6(18.85) | 0.78(0.8) |
20(SG3) | 0.97(0.87) | 0.23(0.38) | −9.6(6.27) | 0.95(0.79) | |
24(SG2) | 0.98(0.94) | 011(0.11) | 12.76(14.74) | 0.98(0.92) |
© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Yifru, B.A.; Chung, I.-M.; Kim, M.-G.; Chang, S.W. Assessment of Groundwater Recharge in Agro-Urban Watersheds Using Integrated SWAT-MODFLOW Model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6593. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166593
Yifru BA, Chung I-M, Kim M-G, Chang SW. Assessment of Groundwater Recharge in Agro-Urban Watersheds Using Integrated SWAT-MODFLOW Model. Sustainability. 2020; 12(16):6593. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166593
Chicago/Turabian StyleYifru, Bisrat Ayalew, Il-Moon Chung, Min-Gyu Kim, and Sun Woo Chang. 2020. "Assessment of Groundwater Recharge in Agro-Urban Watersheds Using Integrated SWAT-MODFLOW Model" Sustainability 12, no. 16: 6593. https://doi.org/10.3390/su12166593