Articles | Volume 24, issue 5
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 2437–2456, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-2437-2020
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 2437–2456, 2020
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-2437-2020
Research article
13 May 2020
Research article | 13 May 2020

Sensitivity of hydrologic and geologic parameters on recharge processes in a highly heterogeneous, semi-confined aquifer system

Stephen R. Maples et al.

Related authors

Coupled effects of observation and parameter uncertainty on urban groundwater infrastructure decisions
Marina R. L. Mautner, Laura Foglia, and Jonathan D. Herman
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1319–1340, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1319-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1319-2022, 2022
Short summary
Impact of distributed meteorological forcing on snow dynamic and induced water fluxes over a mid-elevation alpine micro-scale catchment
Aniket Gupta, Alix Reverdy, Jean-Martial Cohard, Didier Voisin, Basile Hector, Marc Descloitres, Jean-Pierre Vandervaere, Catherine Coulaud, Romain Biron, Lucie Liger, Jean-Gabriel Valay, and Reed Maxwell
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-639,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-639, 2022
Preprint under review for HESS
Short summary
GMD perspective: The quest to improve the evaluation of groundwater representation in continental- to global-scale models
Tom Gleeson, Thorsten Wagener, Petra Döll, Samuel C. Zipper, Charles West, Yoshihide Wada, Richard Taylor, Bridget Scanlon, Rafael Rosolem, Shams Rahman, Nurudeen Oshinlaja, Reed Maxwell, Min-Hui Lo, Hyungjun Kim, Mary Hill, Andreas Hartmann, Graham Fogg, James S. Famiglietti, Agnès Ducharne, Inge de Graaf, Mark Cuthbert, Laura Condon, Etienne Bresciani, and Marc F. P. Bierkens
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7545–7571, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7545-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7545-2021, 2021
Short summary
Assessment of the ParFlow–CLM CONUS 1.0 integrated hydrologic model: evaluation of hyper-resolution water balance components across the contiguous United States
Mary M. F. O'Neill, Danielle T. Tijerina, Laura E. Condon, and Reed M. Maxwell
Geosci. Model Dev., 14, 7223–7254, https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7223-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-14-7223-2021, 2021
Short summary
A national topographic dataset for hydrological modeling over the contiguous United States
Jun Zhang, Laura E. Condon, Hoang Tran, and Reed M. Maxwell
Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 13, 3263–3279, https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3263-2021,https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-13-3263-2021, 2021
Short summary

Related subject area

Subject: Groundwater hydrology | Techniques and Approaches: Modelling approaches
Karst spring discharge modeling based on deep learning using spatially distributed input data
Andreas Wunsch, Tanja Liesch, Guillaume Cinkus, Nataša Ravbar, Zhao Chen, Naomi Mazzilli, Hervé Jourde, and Nico Goldscheider
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2405–2430, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2405-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2405-2022, 2022
Short summary
HESS Opinions: Chemical transport modeling in subsurface hydrological systems – space, time, and the “holy grail” of “upscaling”
Brian Berkowitz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 2161–2180, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2161-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2161-2022, 2022
Short summary
Spatiotemporal variations in water sources and mixing spots in a riparian zone
Guilherme E. H. Nogueira, Christian Schmidt, Daniel Partington, Philip Brunner, and Jan H. Fleckenstein
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1883–1905, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1883-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1883-2022, 2022
Short summary
Delineation of discrete conduit networks in karst aquifers via combined analysis of tracer tests and geophysical data
Jacques Bodin, Gilles Porel, Benoît Nauleau, and Denis Paquet
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1713–1726, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1713-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1713-2022, 2022
Short summary
Reactive transport modeling for supporting climate resilience at groundwater contamination sites
Zexuan Xu, Rebecca Serata, Haruko Wainwright, Miles Denham, Sergi Molins, Hansell Gonzalez-Raymat, Konstantin Lipnikov, J. David Moulton, and Carol Eddy-Dilek
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 755–773, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-755-2022,https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-755-2022, 2022
Short summary

Cited articles

Adham, M., Jahan, C., Mazumder, Q., Hossain, M., and Haque, A.-M.: Study on groundwater recharge potentiality of Barind tract, Rajshahi district, Bangladesh using GIS and remote sensing technique, J. Geol. Soc. India, 75, 432–438, https://doi.org/10.1007/s12594-010-0039-3, 2010. a
Anderson, M. P., Woessner, W. W., and Hunt, R. J.: Applied groundwater modeling: simulation of flow and advective transport, Academic Press, London, UK, 2015. a, b, c
Asano, T.: Artificial recharge of groundwater, Elsevier, Boston, Massachusetts, USA, 2016. a
Ashby, S. F. and Falgout, R. D.: A parallel multigrid preconditioned conjugate gradient algorithm for groundwater flow simulations, Nucl. Sci. Eng., 124, 145–159, https://doi.org/10.13182/NSE96-A24230, 1996. a
Assouline, S. and Or, D.: Anisotropy factor of saturated and unsaturated soils, Water Resour. Res., 42, W12403, https://doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005001, 2006. a
Download
Short summary
In this study, we use a combination of local- and global-sensitivity analyses to evaluate the relative importance of (1) the configuration of subsurface alluvial geology and (2) the hydraulic properties of geologic facies on recharge processes. Results show that there is a large variation of recharge rates possible in a typical alluvial aquifer system and that the configuration proportion of sand and gravel deposits in the subsurface have a large impact on recharge rates.