<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">HESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">HESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1607-7938</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/hess-25-811-2021</article-id><title-group><article-title>Determination of vadose zone and saturated zone nitrate lag times using long-term groundwater monitoring data and <?xmltex \hack{\break}?> statistical machine learning</article-title><alt-title>Determination of vadose zone and saturated zone nitrate lag times</alt-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{Determination of vadose zone and saturated zone nitrate lag times}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{M. J. Wells et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2 aff6">
          <name><surname>Wells</surname><given-names>Martin J.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1 aff2">
          <name><surname>Gilmore</surname><given-names>Troy E.</given-names></name>
          <email>gilmore@unl.edu</email>
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0001-9939-4780</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3 aff4">
          <name><surname>Nelson</surname><given-names>Natalie</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-3258-7622</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Mittelstet</surname><given-names>Aaron</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Böhlke</surname><given-names>John K.</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Conservation and Survey Division, School of Natural Resources, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>Lincoln, NE 68583, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Biological Systems Engineering Department, College of Engineering, University of Nebraska – Lincoln, <?xmltex \hack{\break}?>Lincoln, NE 68583, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Department of Biological and Agricultural Engineering, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Center for Geospatial Analytics, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC 27695, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>U.S. Geological Survey, Reston, VA 20192, USA</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff6"><label>a</label><institution>currently at: Natural Resources Conservation Service Field Office, Redmond, OR 97756, USA</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Troy E. Gilmore (gilmore@unl.edu)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>19</day><month>February</month><year>2021</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>25</volume>
      <issue>2</issue>
      <fpage>811</fpage><lpage>829</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>15</day><month>April</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>5</day><month>May</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>9</day><month>December</month><year>2020</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>27</day><month>December</month><year>2020</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2021 Martin J. Wells et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2021</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/811/2021/hess-25-811-2021.html">This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/811/2021/hess-25-811-2021.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/811/2021/hess-25-811-2021.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/811/2021/hess-25-811-2021.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>
    <p id="d1e157">In this study, we explored the use of statistical machine learning and long-term groundwater nitrate monitoring data to estimate vadose zone and saturated zone lag times in an irrigated alluvial agricultural setting. Unlike most previous statistical machine learning studies that sought to predict groundwater nitrate concentrations within aquifers, the focus of this study was to leverage available groundwater nitrate concentrations and other environmental variables to determine mean regional vertical velocities (transport rates) of water and solutes in the vadose zone and saturated zone (3.50 and 3.75 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively). The   statistical machine learning results are consistent with two primary recharge processes in this western Nebraska aquifer, namely (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) diffuse recharge from irrigation and precipitation across the landscape and (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>) focused recharge from leaking irrigation conveyance canals. The vadose zone mean velocity yielded a mean recharge rate (0.46 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) consistent with previous estimates from groundwater age dating in shallow wells (0.38 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The
saturated zone mean velocity yielded a recharge rate (1.31 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) that was more consistent with focused recharge from leaky irrigation canals, as indicated by previous results of  groundwater age dating in intermediate-depth wells (1.22 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Collectively, the statistical machine learning model results are consistent with previous observations of relatively   high water fluxes and short transit times for water and nitrate in the primarily oxic aquifer. Partial dependence plots from the model indicate a sharp threshold in which high groundwater nitrate concentrations are mostly associated with total travel times of 7 years or less, possibly reflecting some combination of recent management practices and a tendency for nitrate concentrations to be higher in diffuse infiltration recharge than in canal leakage water. Limitations to the machine learning approach include the non-uniqueness of different transport rate combinations when comparing model performance and highlight the need to corroborate statistical model results with a robust conceptual model and complementary information such as groundwater age.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d1e259">Nitrate is a common contaminant of groundwater and surface water that can affect drinking water quality and ecosystem health. Predicting responses of aquatic resources to changes in nitrate loading can be complicated by uncertainties related to rates and pathways of nitrate transport from sources to receptors. Lag times for the movement of non-point source<?pagebreak page812?> nitrate contamination through the subsurface are widely recognized (Böhlke, 2002; Meals et al., 2010; Puckett et al., 2011; Van Meter and Basu, 2017) but difficult to measure. Vadose (unsaturated zone) and groundwater (saturated zone) lag times are of critical importance for monitoring, regulating, and managing the transport of contaminants in groundwater. However, transport timescales are often generalized due to the coarse spatiotemporal resolutions in data available for groundwater systems being impacted by agricultural
activities (Gilmore et al., 2016; Green et al., 2018; Puckett et al., 2011), which results in a simplified groundwater management approach. Regulators and stakeholders in agricultural landscapes are increasingly in need of more precise and local lag time information to better evaluate and apply regulations and best management practices for the reduction of groundwater nitrate concentrations (e.g., Eberts et al., 2013).</p>
      <p id="d1e262">Field-based studies of lag times (time required for water to move through both the vadose zone and saturated zone) commonly use vadose zone sampling and/or expensive groundwater age-dating techniques to estimate nitrate transport rates moving into and through aquifers (Böhlke et al., 2002, 2007; Böhlke and Denver, 1995; Browne and Guldan, 2005; Kennedy et al., 2009; McMahon et al., 2006;  Morgenstern et al., 2015; Turkeltaub et al., 2016; Wells et al., 2018). Detailed process-based modeling studies focused on lag times require complex numerical models combined with spatially intensive and/or costly hydrogeological observations (Ilampooranan et al., 2019; Rossman et al., 2014; Russoniello et al., 2016). Thus, efficient but locally applicable modeling approaches are needed (Green et al., 2018; Liao et al., 2012; Van Meter and Basu, 2015). In this study, an alternative data-driven approach (random forest regression) leverages existing long-term groundwater nitrate concentration (hereafter referred to as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) data and easily accessible environmental data to estimate vadose and saturated zone vertical velocities (transport rates) for the determination of subsurface lag times.</p>
      <p id="d1e278">Statistical machine learning methods, including random forest, have been used successfully for modeling <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> distribution in aquifers (Anning et al., 2012; Juntakut et al., 2019; Knoll et al., 2020; Nolan et al., 2014; Ouedraogo et al., 2017; Rodriguez-Galiano et al., 2014; Rahmati et al., 2019; Vanclooster et al., 2020; Wheeler et al., 2015), but there has not been robust analysis of model capabilities for estimating vadose and/or saturated zone lag times. Proxies for lag time, such as well screen depth, have been used as predictors in random forest models (Nolan et al., 2014; Wheeler et al., 2015). Decadal lag times have been suggested from using time-averaged nitrogen inputs as predictors (e.g., 1978–1990 inputs vs. 1992–2006 inputs) and by comparing their relative importance in the model (Wheeler et al., 2015). The application of similar machine learning methods suggested that groundwater age could be used as a predictor to improve model performance (Ransom et al., 2017). Hybrid models, using both mechanistic models and machine learning, have also sought to integrate vertical transport model parameters and outputs to evaluate nitrate-related predictors,
including vadose zone travel times (Nolan et al., 2018).</p>
      <p id="d1e294">The objective of this study is to test a data-driven approach for estimating vadose and saturated zone transport rates and lag times for an intensively monitored alluvial aquifer in western Nebraska (Böhlke et al., 2007; Verstraeten et al., 2001a, 2001b; Wells et al., 2018). Results are compared to the hydrogeologic and mechanistic understanding from previous groundwater studies to determine the strengths and weaknesses of the approach as (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) a stand-alone technique or (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>) as an exploratory analysis to guide or complement more complex physically based models or intensive hydrogeologic field investigations.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS1">
  <label>2.1</label><title>Site description</title>
      <p id="d1e316">The Dutch Flats study area is in the western Nebraska counties of Scotts Bluff and Sioux (Fig. 1). The North Platte River delivers large quantities of water for crop irrigation to this region and runs along the southern portion of this study area. Irrigation water is diverted from the North Platte River into three major canals (Mitchell–Gering, Tri-State, and Interstate) that feed a network of minor canals. Several previous Dutch Flats area studies have investigated groundwater characteristics and provided thorough site descriptions of the semiarid region (Babcock et al., 1951; Böhlke et al., 2007; Verstraeten et al., 2001a, 2001b; Wells et al., 2018) The
Dutch Flats area overlies an alluvial aquifer characterized by unconsolidated deposits of predominantly sand and gravel, with the aquifer base largely consisting of consolidated deposits of the Brule, Chadron, or Lance formations (Verstraeten et al., 1995; Fig. 2). Irrigation water not
derived from the North Platte River is typically pumped from the alluvial aquifer or water-bearing units of the Brule Formation.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d1e321">Dutch Flats study area <bold>(a)</bold> overlain by 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> digital elevation model (DEM; USGS, 1997). The study area is located within the North Platte Natural Resources District of western Nebraska <bold>(b)</bold>. Depending on data availability, multiple wells (well nest) or a single well may be found at each monitoring well location. Transect A–<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">A</mml:mi><mml:mo>′</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the location and wells displayed in the Fig. 2 hydrogeologic cross section.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/811/2021/hess-25-811-2021-f01.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d1e357">Cross section along representative well transect (see Fig. 1) within the Dutch Flats area. Surface elevation data were derived from a 30 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> digital elevation model (USGS, 1997). Water surface and base of aquifer elevations were sourced from a 1998 Dutch Flats study (Böhlke et al., 2007; Verstraeten et al., 2001a, 2001b). Small black arrows beneath the  surface indicate general groundwater flow direction.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=483.69685pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/811/2021/hess-25-811-2021-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e375">The total area of the Dutch Flats study area is roughly 540 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, of which approximately 290 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (53.5 %) is agricultural land (cultivated crops and pasture). Most agricultural land is concentrated south of the Interstate Canal (Homer et al., 2015). Due to the combination of intense agriculture and low annual precipitation, producers in Dutch Flats rely on a network of irrigation canals to supply water to the region. From 1908 to 2016, a mean precipitation of 390 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was measured at the nearby Western Nebraska Regional Airport in Scottsbluff, NE (NOAA, 2017).</p>
      <p id="d1e408">While some groundwater is withdrawn for irrigation and some irrigated acres in the study area are classified as commingled (groundwater and surface water source), Scotts Bluff County irrigation is mostly from surface water sources. Estimates determined every 5 years suggest that surface water provided between 76.8 % and 98.6 % of the total water withdrawals from 1985 to 2015, which is about 92 % on<?pagebreak page813?> average (Dieter et al., 2018). Canals transport water from the North Platte River to fields throughout the study area, most of which are downgradient (south) of the Interstate Canal. Mitchell–Gering, Tri-State, and Interstate canals are the major canals in Dutch Flats, with the latter holding the largest water right of 44.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (NEDNR, 2009). Leakage from these canals provides a source of artificial groundwater recharge. Previous studies estimate that the leakage potential of canals in the region results in as much as 40 % to 50 % of canal water being lost during conveyance (Ball et al., 2006; Harvey and Sibray, 2001; Hobza and Andersen, 2010; Luckey and Cannia, 2006). Leakage estimates from a downstream section of the Interstate Canal (extending to the east of the study area; Hobza and Andersen, 2010) suggest fluxes ranging from 0.08 to 0.7 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> through the canal bed. Assuming a leakage of 0.39 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> over the Interstate Canal bed area (16.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> width <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mo>×</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> 55.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> length) within Dutch Flats yields <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of leakage. Applied over an average operation period of 151 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">d</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (USBR, 2018), leakage from the Interstate Canal alone could approach <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> annually, which is about 29 % of the annual volume of precipitation in the Dutch Flats area.</p>
      <?pagebreak page814?><p id="d1e550">A 1990s study investigated both the spatial and temporal influences from canals in the Dutch Flats area (Verstraeten et al., 2001a, 2001b), with the results later synthesized by Böhlke et al. (2007). Canals were found to dilute groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> locally with low-<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (e.g., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.06</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">N</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in 1997) surface water during the irrigation season. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">He</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> age dating was used to determine apparent groundwater ages and recharge rates. It was noted that wells near canals displayed evidence of high recharge rates influenced by local canal leakage. Data from wells far from the canals indicated that
shallow groundwater was more likely influenced by local irrigation practices (i.e., furrows in fields), while deeper groundwater was impacted by both localized irrigation and canal leakage (Böhlke et al., 2007). Shallow groundwater in the Dutch Flats area has hydrogen and oxygen stable isotopic compositions consistent with surface water sources (i.e., North Platte River and associated canals), indicating that most groundwater intercepted by the monitoring well network has been affected by surface water irrigation recharge (Böhlke et al., 2007; Cherry et al., 2020).</p>
      <p id="d1e632">The Dutch Flats area is within the North Platte Natural Resources District (NPNRD), one of 23 groundwater management districts in Nebraska tasked with, among other functions, improving water quality and quantity. The NPNRD has a large monitoring well network consisting of 797 wells, 327 of which are nested. Nested well clusters are drilled and constructed such that screen intervals represent (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) shallow groundwater intersecting the water table (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>length of screened interval</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.1</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>) intermediate groundwater from mid-aquifer depths (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>length of screened interval</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>) deep groundwater near the base of the unconfined aquifer (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>length of screened interval</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Depending on well location within the Dutch Flats area, depths of the water table and base of aquifer are highly variable, such that shallow,  intermediate, and deep wells can have overlapping ranges of depths below land surface (Fig. 2).</p>
      <p id="d1e690">Influenced by both regulatory and economic incentives, the Dutch Flats area has undergone a notable shift in irrigation practices in the last two decades. From 1999 to 2017, the center pivot irrigated area has increased by approximately 270 %, from roughly 3830 to 14 253 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or from 13 % to 49 % of the total agricultural land area, respectively. Most of this shift in technology has occurred on fields previously under furrow irrigation. Conventional furrow irrigation has an estimated potential application efficiency (which is a “measure of the fraction of the total volume of water delivered to the farm or field to that which is stored in the root zone to meet the crop evapotranspiration needs,” according to Irmak et al., 2011) of 45 % to 65 %, compared to center pivot sprinklers at 75 % to 85 % (Irmak et al., 2011). Based on improved irrigation efficiency (between 10 % and 40 %), the average precipitation throughout the growing season (29.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for 15 April to 13 October; Yonts, 2002), and average water requirements for corn (69.2 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Yonts, 2002), converting furrow irrigated fields to center pivot over the aforementioned 14 253 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> could represent a difference of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6</mml:mn><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the water applied. Those (roughly approximated) differences in water<?pagebreak page815?> volumes are equivalent to between 6 % and 28 % of the average annual precipitation applied over the Dutch Flats area, suggesting that the change in irrigation practice does have potential to alter the water balance in the area.</p>
      <p id="d1e770">The hypothesis of lower recharge due to changes in irrigation technology was investigated by Wells et al. (2018), who compared samples collected in 1998 and 2016. Sample sites were selected based on a well's proximity to the fields that experience a conversion in irrigation practices (i.e., furrow irrigation to center pivot) between the two collection periods. While the mean recharge rate was not significantly different, a lower recharge rate was indicated by data from 88 % of the wells. Long-term Dutch Flats <inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trends were also assessed in the study, suggesting decreasing trends (though statistically insignificant) from 1998 to 2016 throughout the Dutch Flats
area, and nitrogen isotopes of nitrate indicated little change in the biogeochemical processes. For additional background, Wells et al. (2018) provides a more in-depth analysis of recent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> trends in this region (see also Fig. S1A in the Supplement, which shows the nitrate data used in the present study).</p>
      <p id="d1e800">As in other agricultural areas, nitrate in Dutch Flats groundwater is dependent on nitrogen loading at the land surface, the rate of leaching below crop root zones, the rate of nitrate transport through the vadose and saturated zones, the dilution from focused recharge in the vicinity of canals, the rate of discharge from the aquifer (whether from pumping or discharge to surface water bodies), and the rates of nitrate reduction (primarily denitrification) in the aquifer. Based on nitrogen and oxygen isotopes in nitrate and redox conditions observed in previous studies, denitrification likely has a relatively minor or localized influence on groundwater nitrate in the Dutch Flats area (Wells et al., 2018). Evidence of denitrification (from dissolved gases and isotopes (Böhlke et al., 2007; Wells et al., 2018) was mostly limited to some of the deepest wells near the bottom of the
aquifer. Leakage of low-nitrate water in the major canals causes nitrate dilution in the groundwater (i.e., relatively little nitrate addition, at least from the upgradient canals). Additional isotope data might be useful for documenting temporal shifts in recharge sources or irrigation return flows to the river; however, it is difficult to know the exact location or size of the contributing area for each well, especially for the deeper ones.</p>
      <p id="d1e803">Other long-term changes to the landscape were evaluated by Wells et al. (2018) and included statistically significant reductions in mean fertilizer application rates (1987–1999 vs. 2000–2012) and the volume of water diverted into the Interstate Canal (1983–1999 vs. 2000–2016), while a significant increase in the area of planted corn occurred (1983–1999 vs. 2000–2016). Precipitation was also evaluated, and though the mean has decreased over a similar time period, the trend was not statistically significant.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS2">
  <label>2.2</label><title>Statistical machine learning modeling framework</title>
      <p id="d1e814">Statistical machine learning uses algorithms to assess and identify complex relationships between variables. Learned relations can be used to uncover nonlinear trends in data that might otherwise be overshadowed when using simple regression techniques (Hastie et al., 2009). In this study, we used random forest regression to evaluate site-specific explanatory variables (e.g., precipitation, vadose zone thickness, depth to the bottom of screen, etc.) that may impact the response variable, i.e., groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Additionally, as described in detail in Sect. 2.4, we estimated a range of total travel times (from land surface to the point of sampling) at each of the wells by varying the vadose and saturated zone transport rates. The relative importance of total travel time as a predictor variable was ultimately used to identify an optimal travel time and model.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS3">
  <label>2.3</label><title>Variables and project setup</title>
      <p id="d1e838">Data from 15 predictors were collected and analyzed (Table 1). Spatial variables were manipulated using ArcGIS 10.4. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data set for the entire NPNRD had 10 676 observations from 1979 to 2014 and was downloaded from the Quality-Assessed Agrichemical Contaminant Database for
Nebraska Groundwater (University of Nebraska – Lincoln, 2016). We used data encompassed by the Dutch Flats model area (2829 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M40" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observations from 214 wells). In order to have an accurate vadose zone thickness, only wells with a corresponding depth to groundwater record, of which the most recent record was used, were selected (2651 observations from 172 wells). Over this period, several wells were sampled much more frequently than others (e.g., monthly sampling over a short period of record), especially during a U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) National Water-Quality
Assessment (NAWQA) study from 1995 to 1999. To prevent those wells from dominating the training and testing of the model, the annual median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M41" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was calculated for each well and used in the data set. The data set was further manipulated such that each median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observation had 15 complementary predictors (Table 1). The selected predictor variables capture the drivers of long-term <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> lags. After incorporating all the data, including limited records of dissolved oxygen (DO), the final data set included 1049 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observations from 162 wells sampled between 1993 and 2013 (Fig. S1A). Additional details of the data selection, sources, and manipulations may be found in the Supplement.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{1}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Table}?><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d1e936">List of the 15 predictors used for random forest evaluation. Average (avg.) and median (med.) values are shown, and DEM denotes digital elevation model.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="4">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="justify" colwidth="240pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="justify" colwidth="40pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="justify" colwidth="50pt"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="justify" colwidth="120pt"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Predictor</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Units</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Predictor type</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Source</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Center pivot irrigated area (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2618</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.</mml:mtext><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1037</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Dynamic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">NAIP; NAPP; Landsat-1,5, 7, 8<inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Interstate Canal discharge (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.53</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M57" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.55</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Dynamic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">USBR (2018)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Area of planted corn (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8065</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7869</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Dynamic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">NASS (2018)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">384</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">377</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M66" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Dynamic</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">NOAA (2017)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Available water capacity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cm</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Static</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">NRCS (2018)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Dissolved oxygen (DO; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mg</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">L</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Static</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Carolyn Hudson, personal communication (2018)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Distance from a major canal (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1462.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1161.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M76" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Static</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">USGS (2012)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M77" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Distance from a minor canal (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">633.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M79" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">397.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Static</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">USGS (2012)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Bottom screen (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">26.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">24.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Static</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">UNL (2016)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Saturated hydraulic conductivity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">68</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">28</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">µ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Static</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">NRCS (2018)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Saturated thickness (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">30.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">27.6</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M91" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Static</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Travis  Preston, personal communication (2017)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Saturated zone travel distance (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Static</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">UNL (2016)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Surface elevation (DEM; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1244</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1248</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Static</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">USGS (1997)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Total travel time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace width="0.25em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Static</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">UNL (2016)<inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Vadose zone thickness (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M105" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>avg.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9.9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M106" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>med.:</mml:mtext><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.25em"/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M107" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Static</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Travis Preston, personal communication (2017); Aaron Young, personal communication (2016)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e939"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Average and median span from 1946 to 2013. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">b</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Data required further analysis to yield calculated values; data sources are USDA (2017) and USGS (2017). <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">c</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> Average and median reflects transport rates of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.5</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.75</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p id="d1e1853">Predictors were divided into two categories, namely static and dynamic (Table 1). Static predictors are those that either did not change over the period of record or had only short records. DO, for example, could potentially experience slight annual variations, but the data were not available to assign each nitrate sample with a unique DO value. Instead, observations for each well were assigned the average DO value observed from the well. This approximation was considered<?pagebreak page816?> reasonable because nitrate isotopic composition and DO data from Wells et al. (2018) and Böhlke et al. (2007) did not indicate any major changes to the biogeochemical processes over nearly 2 decades. Total travel time (from ground surface to the point of sampling) was strictly considered a static predictor in this study and was used to link the nitrate sampling year to a dynamic predictor value.</p>
      <p id="d1e1857">Dynamic predictors were defined in this study as data that changed temporally over the study period. Therefore, each annual median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was assigned a lagged dynamic value to represent the difference between the time of a particular surface activity (e.g., timing of a particular irrigation practice) and when the groundwater sampling occurred. Dynamic predictors were
available from 1946 to 2013 and included annual precipitation, Interstate Canal discharge, the area under center pivot sprinklers, and the area of planted corn (Fig. 3). Dynamic predictors were included to assess their ability to optimize random forest groundwater modeling and determine an appropriate
lag time. Lag times were based on the vertical travel distance through both the vadose and saturated zones (see Sect. 2.4). The area of planted corn was included as a proxy for fertilizer data, which were unavailable prior to 1987. However, the analysis suggests that there has been a 17 % reduction (comparing the means of 1987–1999 to 2000–2012) in fertilizer application rates per planted hectare, while the area of planted corn has increased by 16 % (comparing the means of 1983–1999 to 2000–2016) in recent decades (Wells et al., 2018). This trend may be attributed to improved fertilizer management by agricultural producers. There was a likely trade-off in using this proxy; we were able to extend the period of record back to 1946, allowing for the analysis of a wider range of lag times in the model, but we might have sacrificed some accuracy in recent decades when nitrogen management may have
improved. Lastly, vadose and saturated zone transport rates were assumed to be constant over time (Wells et al., 2018).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{3}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d1e1875">Time series plots of all four dynamic predictors. Figures represent the <bold>(a)</bold> annual precipitation, <bold>(b)</bold> Interstate canal discharge, <bold>(c)</bold> center pivot irrigated area, and <bold>(d)</bold> area of planted corn from 1946 to 2013.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/811/2021/hess-25-811-2021-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<?pagebreak page817?><sec id="Ch1.S2.SS4">
  <label>2.4</label><title>Vadose and saturated zone transport rate analysis</title>
      <p id="d1e1904">Ranges of vertical velocities (transport rates) through the Dutch Flats vadose zone and saturated zone were estimated from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">He</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> age-dating-derived recharge rates. The vertical velocities were determined from results published for samples collected in 1998 (Böhlke et al., 2007, Verstraeten et al., 2001a) and 2016 (Wells et al., 2018) as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M110" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mi>R</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the upper and lower bound of recharge rates (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the mobile water content in the vadose zone or porosity in the saturated zone. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">He</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data were used in this study solely for constraining the range of potential transport rates being evaluated in the vadose and saturated zones and as a base comparison to model results. The age data, however, were not used by the model itself when seeking to identify an optimum transport rate combination. Throughout the text, unsaturated (vadose) zone vertical transport rates will be abbreviated as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while saturated zone vertical transport rates will be <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In the vadose zone, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was assigned a constant value of 0.13, which was calibrated previously using a vertical transport model for the Dutch Flats area (Liao et al., 2012). In the saturated zone, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">θ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was assigned a constant value of 0.35, equal to the value assumed previously for recharge calculations (Böhlke et al., 2007). Vadose and saturated zone travel times (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) were then calculated as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M120" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi>V</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is either the vadose zone (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or saturated zone (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> travel time in years, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mi>z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the vadose zone thickness (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or distance from the water table to the well mid-screen (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in meters.</p>
      <p id="d1e2124">Though Eqs. (1) and (2) do not explicitly consider horizontal groundwater flow, they are approximately consistent with the distribution of groundwater ages (travel times from recharge), which increase with depth below the water table. Whereas groundwater ages commonly increase exponentially with
depth in idealized surficial aquifers with relatively uniform thickness and distributed recharge (Cook and<?pagebreak page818?> Böhlke, 2000), our linear approximation is based on several local observations including the following: (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) the linear approximation is similar to the exponential approximation in the upper parts of idealized aquifers, (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>) linear age gradients may be appropriate in idealized wedge-shaped flow systems, as in some segments of the aquifer section (Fig. 2), (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>) focused recharge under irrigation canals and distribution channels, which can cause the distortion of vertical groundwater age gradients in downgradient parts of the flow system, and (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E4"/>) roughly linear age gradients, which were obtained from groundwater dating in the region, though with substantial local variability (Böhlke et al., 2007). Discrete transport rates and travel times calculated from Eqs. (1) and (2) should be considered “apparent” rates and travel times, similar to apparent
groundwater ages, which are based on imperfect tracers and may be affected by dispersion and mixing. Nonetheless, the saturated open intervals of the monitoring wells used for this study (&lt;6.1 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for shallow wells; 1.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for intermediate and deep wells) generally were short compared with the aquifer thickness, such that age distributions within individual samples were relatively restricted in comparison to those of the whole aquifer or of wells with long screened intervals. In addition, it is emphasized that the assumed mobile water content of 0.13 is a calibrated parameter derived previously through inverse modeling and, as suggested by Liao et al. (2012), may have large uncertainties due to the varying, site-specific characteristics known to exist from one well to the next.</p>
      <p id="d1e2152">Because of the influence of canal leakage on both intermediate and deep wells (Böhlke et al., 2007), only recharge rates from shallow wells were used to estimate initial values and the permissible ranges of vadose zone travel times. The mean (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.38</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and standard
deviation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.23</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of all the 1998 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and 2016 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) shallow recharge rates were calculated. Using <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, a range of recharge rates from 0.15 to 0.61 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (i.e., rates that varied by a factor of 4) were converted to transport rates (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) using Eq. (1). Calculated transport rates resulted in 1.15 to 4.69 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> being the range of vadose zone transport rates. Expanding the upper and lower bounds, a minimum vadose zone transport rate of 1.0 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and a maximum of 4.75 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was applied. Vertical transport rates in the vadose zone were increased by increments of 0.25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from 1.0 to 4.75 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, resulting in 16 possible vadose zone transport rates to evaluate in the random forest model.</p>
      <p id="d1e2366">The mean (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.84</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and standard deviation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.73</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) of all shallow, intermediate, and deep well recharge rates were included in identifying a range of saturated zone recharge rates from 0.10 to 1.57 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. A total of 35 and eight recharge rates were used from the Böhlke et
al. (2007) and Wells et al. (2018) studies, respectively. Equation (1) was used to calculate the saturated zone transport rates (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of 0.28 and 4.49 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Saturated zone transport rates were increased by increments of 0.25 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, from 0.25 to 4.5 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, resulting in 18 unique saturated zone transport rates that could be evaluated in the random forest model. The range of transport rates suggested by groundwater age dating was large (more than an order of magnitude) and is considered to include rates likely to be expected in a variety of field settings. Presumably, similar model constraints and results could have been obtained without the prior age data and with some relatively conservative estimates.</p>
      <p id="d1e2507">Travel times <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were calculated for each well based on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>z</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. For every possible combination of vadose and saturated zone transport rates, a unique total travel time, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, was calculated for each
well based on the vadose and saturated zone dimensions of that particular well.
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M153" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">t</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The total travel times from Eq. (3) were used to lag dynamic predictors relative to each nitrate sample date. For instance, a nitrate sample collected in 2010 at a well with a 20 year total travel time (e.g., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is 10 years and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">τ</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is 10 years)
would be assigned the 1990 values for precipitation (450 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">mm</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), Interstate Canal discharge (0.4 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">km</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), center pivot irrigated area (2484 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and area of planted corn (8905 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">ha</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), respectively.</p>
      <p id="d1e2660">A total of 288 unique transport rate combinations (corresponding to different combinations of the 16 vadose and 18 saturated zone transport rates) were evaluated. Each transport rate combination incorporated up to 1049 groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M160" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values in the random forest model.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2.SS5">
  <label>2.5</label><title>Random forest application</title>
      <p id="d1e2685">Random forests are created by combining hundreds of unskilled regression trees into one model ensemble, or forest, which collectively produces skilled and robust predictions (Breiman, 2001). Models of groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were developed using five-fold cross validation (Hastie et al., 2009), where each fold was used to build the model (training data) four times and held out once (testing data). The maximum and minimum of the groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and each predictor were determined and placed into each fold for training models to eliminate the potential for extrapolation during validation. The four folds designated to build the model also underwent a nested five-fold cross validation, as specified in the trainControl function within the caret (Classification And Regression Training) R package (Kuhn, 2008; R Core Team, 2017). Functions in caret were used to train the random forest models. We repeated the five-fold cross validation process five times to create a total of 25 models, similar to the approach used by Nelson et al. (2018), in order to assess the sensitivity of the model performance to the data assigned to the training and testing folds.</p>
      <?pagebreak page819?><p id="d1e2714">Permutation importance, partial dependence, and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) were quantified to evaluate model performance and to interpret results. The NSE (Nash and Sutcliffe, 1970) was calculated as follows:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M163" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>NSE</mml:mtext><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close="]" open="["><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mtext>pred</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msup><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mtext>mean</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the number of observations, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M166" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mtext>th</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observation of the response variable (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mtext>pred</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mtext>th</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> prediction from the random forest model, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M170" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>Y</mml:mi><mml:mtext>mean</mml:mtext></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the mean of observations from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> through <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Values from negative infinity to zero suggest the mean of the observed
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> would serve as a better predictor than the model. When NSE is zero, the model predictions are as accurate as that of a model with only the mean observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> as a predictor. From zero, the larger NSE values indicate how a model's predictive ability improves, until NSE is one, where observations and predictions are equal. NSE was calculated for both the training and testing data.</p>
      <p id="d1e2921">For each tree, a random bootstrapped sample (i.e., data randomly pulled from the data set and sampled with a replacement) is extracted from the data set (Efron, 1979) and a random subset of predictors to consider the fitting at each split. Thus, each tree is grown from a bootstrap sample and random subset of predictors, making the trees random and grown independently of the others. Observations not used as bootstrap samples are termed the out-of-bag (OOB) data.</p>
      <p id="d1e2924">When building a tree, all <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the bootstrap sample are categorized into terminal nodes, such that each node is averaged and yields a predicted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The performance and mean squared error (MSE) of a random forest model is evaluated by comparing the observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of the OOB data to the average predicted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the forest. OOB data from the training data set may be used to evaluate both the permutation importance, referred to in the rest of this text as variable importance, and partial dependence. Variable importance uses the percent increase in the mean squared error  (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to describe the predictive power of each predictor in the model (Jones and Linder, 2015). During this process, a single predictor is permuted, or shuffled, in the data set. Therefore, each observed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has the same relationship between itself and all predictors, except one permuted variable. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of a variable is determined by comparing the permuted OOB MSE to an unpermuted OOB MSE. Important predictors will result in a large <inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while a variable of minor importance does little to impact a model's performance, as suggested by a low <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value.</p>
      <p id="d1e3046">Partial dependence curves serve as a graphical representation of the relationship between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and predictors in the random forest model ensemble (Hastie et al., 2009). In these models, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> axis of a partial dependence plot represents the average of the OOB-predicted <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> at a specific <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value of each predictor.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Results and discussion</title>
      <p id="d1e3099">This study addressed a relatively unexplored use of random forest, which is to identify optimal lag times based on testing a range of transport rate combinations through the vadose and saturated zones, historical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the use of easily accessible environmental data sets.</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Relative importance of transport time and dynamic variables</title>
      <p id="d1e3122">In our initial modeling (using both static and dynamic predictors), we anticipated that we could use the random forest model with the highest NSE to identify the optimal pair of vadose and saturated zone transport rates. However, no clear pattern emerged among the different models (Fig. 4). Given the small differences and lack of defined pattern in testing NSE values, we selected 10 transport rate combinations (the five top-performing models, four transport rate combinations of high and low transport rates, and one intermediate transport rate combination) for further evaluation of variable importance and sensitivity to a range of transport rate combinations (Table 2). The median total travel time ranked third in the variable importance, while the four dynamic variables consistently had the four lowest rankings (Fig. 5). Total travel time also had the greatest variability in importance among the 15 variables, with a range of 18.4 % between the upper and lower values, suggesting some model sensitivity to lag times. When excluding total travel time, the remaining variables had an average variable importance range of 6 %.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{4}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d1e3127">Heat map of testing NSE results from 288 vadose and saturated zone transport rate combinations. Testing NSE in this figure is the median of all 25 model outputs from each of the 288 transport rate combinations. No clear pattern of optimal vadose and saturated zone transport rate combinations was observed.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=341.433071pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/811/2021/hess-25-811-2021-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

<?xmltex \floatpos{p}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{2}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Table}?><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d1e3139">Summary of 10 vadose and saturated zone transport rate
combinations selected from 288 unique potential combinations from the analysis, including the dynamic variables.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="7">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Vadose zone trans-</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Sat. zone trans-</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Test</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry rowsep="1" namest="col6" nameend="col7" align="center">Total travel time (years) </oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">port rate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">port rate (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">NSE</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">observations<inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Mean (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">σ</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Median</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Five top-</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.623</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">878</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">19.9 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.8</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">11.3</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">performing</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.622</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">861</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">21.6 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">16.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">transport</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">3.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.617</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1049</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5.4</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">rates</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.617</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1049</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.3 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.616</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1049</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">6.7 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">5.7</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Extreme and</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.608</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1049</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">5.1 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.2</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">4.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">midrange</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">2.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">2.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.599</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1049</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">9.6 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">6.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">8.5</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">transport</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.50</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.570</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1049</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">12.6 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">7.7</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">10.8</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">combinations</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.00</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.559</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">607</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">26.7 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13.3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">20.6</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">4.75</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.25</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.548</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">664</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">21.3 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>±</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">15.0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">14.9</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d1e3142"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">a</mml:mi></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> In cases with slow transport rates, lag times were relatively long and not all <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> data could be used in the model. For example, a slow transport rate combination resulting in a lag time with the infiltration year prior to 1946 could not be included. Thus, some models were ultimately based on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">&lt;</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1049</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> observations.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{5}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d1e3664">Box plot of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the 10 transport rate combinations shown in Table 2. Each box plot has 10 points for each transport rate combination, representing the median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from the 25 models (five-fold cross validation repeated five times). A larger <inline-formula><mml:math id="M209" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> suggests that the variable had a greater influence on a model's ability to predict <inline-formula><mml:math id="M210" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Note: <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula><inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> denotes dynamic predictors.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=455.244094pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/811/2021/hess-25-811-2021-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <?pagebreak page821?><p id="d1e3742">Dynamic variables had little influence on the model, despite having common potential linkages to groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Böhlke et al., 2007; Exner et al., 2010; Spalding et al., 2001). A pattern emerged among the dynamic variables where the stronger the historical trend of the predictor, the greater the importance of the predictor (Figs. 3 and 5). For instance, the center pivot irrigated area (highest-ranking dynamic variable) had the least noise and the most pronounced trend, while annual precipitation (lowest-ranking variable) was highly variable and lacked any trend over time (Fig. 3) and also may not be a substantial source of recharge (Böhlke et al., 2007). Further exploration could be done to test more refined and/or spatially varying predictors – for instance, annual median rainfall intensity for the growing season might have a more direct connection to nitrate leaching than total annual precipitation. However, rainfall intensity data are not readily available. Likewise, the availability of a long-term, detailed fertilizer loading data set would be advantageous in providing a more substantiated conclusion regarding the viability of applying dynamic variables for determining the vadose and saturated zone lag. Dynamic variables could be of more use in other study areas that undergo relatively rapid and pronounced changes (e.g., land
use). In future work, the model sensitivity to dynamic variables could be tested through formal sensitivity analysis and/or automated variable selection algorithms (Eibe et al., 2016).</p>
      <p id="d1e3758">Ultimately, the results from initial analyses suggest that (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) the dynamic data did little to improve model performance, and (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>) the random forest was not able to relate the four considered dynamic predictors to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in a meaningful way that could be used to estimate lag times. It is likely that the influence of these dynamic predictors is dampened as nitrate is transported from the surface to wells, such that data-driven approaches are unable to sort through the noise to identify relationships.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{6}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d1e3780">Heat map of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M215" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (median from 25 models) from the variable importance of the total travel time for each of the 288 transport rate combinations evaluated. Red dashed lines indicate upper (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1.5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; long dashes) and lower (0.9; short dashes) bounds of the band of transport rate combinations with consistently higher <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The white square highlights the single transport rate combination with the highest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=369.885827pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/811/2021/hess-25-811-2021-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Use of random forest to determine transport rates</title>
      <p id="d1e3870">Due to their low relative importance as predictors, all four dynamic predictors were removed in the subsequent analysis. As discussed above, a notable variation in total travel time <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was observed in Fig. 5, suggesting model sensitivity to this variable. Additionally, a relationship between travel time and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> has been suggested in the Dutch Flats area through previous studies (Böhlke et al., 2007; Wells et al., 2018). Therefore, a second analysis of just the 11 static predictors was performed over the full range of vadose and saturated zone transport rates (i.e., 288 combinations). However, in the second analysis, the model sensitivity to total travel time – evaluated with respect to the transport rate combination corresponding to the largest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of total travel time – was used to determine a distinguished transport rate combination. In other words, the models were retrained and tested for all transport rate combinations, each of which produced a unique set of values for the total travel time variable. As described in Sect. 2.5, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> value for total travel time was then based on the error induced in the model by permuting the calculated total travel times across all the nitrate observations (i.e., randomly shuffling the total travel time variable and, thus, disturbing the structure of the data set).</p>
      <?pagebreak page822?><p id="d1e3925">The random forest models were useful in identifying the relative magnitudes of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> that led to high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Based on the heat map of  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, a band of transport rate combinations with consistently high <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was visually apparent (Fig. 6). The upper and lower bounds of the band translate to transport rate ratios (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mo>/</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranging from 0.9 to 1.5 and are values that could be useful in constraining recharge and/or transport rate estimates in more complex mechanistic models of the Dutch Flats area as part of a hybrid modeling approach. This is especially important because recharge is one of the most sensitive parameters in a groundwater model (Mittelstet et al., 2011), yet it is one with high uncertainty. Whereas a saturated zone velocity that is greater than a vadose zone velocity would be unexpected in many unconsolidated surficial aquifers receiving distributed recharge, the statistical machine learning results are consistent with the two contrasting primary recharge processes in the Dutch Flats area, namely (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) the diffuse recharge from irrigation and precipitation across the landscape and (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>) the focused recharge from leaking irrigation conveyance canals.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{7}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d1e4027">Plot from the secondary analysis exploring the variable importance of the transport rate combination with the largest median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in total travel time (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.5</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.75</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Each point is from one of 25 random forest models that were run for this evaluation. A larger <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> suggests the variable had a greater influence on a model's ability to predict <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=460.934646pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/811/2021/hess-25-811-2021-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4132">The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of total travel time in the second analysis (using only static variables) ranged from 20.6 % to 31.5 %, with the largest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> associated with vadose and saturated zone transport rates of 3.50 and 3.75 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively (Fig. 6), and the top four predictors for this transport rate combination were total travel time, vadose zone thickness, dissolved oxygen (DO), and saturated thickness (Fig. 7). Converting those vadose and saturated zone transport rates to recharge rates yielded values of 0.46 and 1.31 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. Such a large difference between the two recharge values is consistent with the hydrologic conceptual model of the Dutch Flats area. In fact, both model recharge rates compare favorably with recharge rates calculated from the previous Dutch Flats studies using <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">He</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> age dating (Böhlke et al., 2007; Wells et al., 2018). For instance, the recharge rate determined from the vadose zone transport rate in this study (0.46 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) was comparable to the mean recharge rate of 0.38 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">9</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) from groundwater age dating at shallow wells, which are the most representative of the diffuse recharge below crop fields that are present across most of the study area (e.g., Fig. S2). Additionally, the recharge rate (1.31 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) determined from the saturated zone transport rate was consistent with the mean recharge value derived from groundwater ages in intermediate wells (1.22 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">13</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Böhlke et al., 2007; Wells et al., 2018). Intermediate wells are variably impacted by focused recharge from canals in upgradient areas. Given the similarity in diffuse recharge and focused recharge estimates from both random forest and groundwater age dating, the transport rate ratios (1.2 and 1.1, respectively) were consistent. That is, the random forest modeling framework produced transport rates<?pagebreak page823?> consistent with the major hydrological processes in Dutch Flats in both direct (i.e., transport rate estimates) and relative (i.e., transport rate ratio) terms.</p>
      <p id="d1e4307">Assuming that the random forest approach has accurately captured the two major recharge processes (diffuse recharge over crop fields and focused recharge from canals), a comparison of recharge rates from all sampled groundwater wells representative of recharge to the groundwater system as a whole (0.84 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">43</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) to the recharge rates from random forest modeling (0.46 and 1.31 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) would provide an estimate of the relative importance of diffuse versus focused recharge on overall recharge in Dutch Flats. Under these assumptions, diffuse recharge would account for approximately 55 %, while focused recharge would account for about 45 % of the total recharge in the Dutch Flats area. Similarly, Böhlke et al. (2007) concluded that these two recharge sources contributed roughly equally to the aquifer on the basis of groundwater age profiles and from dissolved atmospheric gas data indicating the mean recharge temperatures between those expected for diffuse infiltration and focused canal leakage.</p>
      <p id="d1e4356">Partial dependence plots, which illustrate the impact that a single predictor has on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the model with respect to other predictors (Fig. 8), largely reflect the conceptual understanding of the system from previous studies, including Böhlke et al. (2007) and Wells et al. (2018). Key plots and features that strengthen confidence in the random forest modeling include (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) depth to the bottom screen, where groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is lower at greater depths; (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>) the effects of minor and major canals, where groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the vicinity of canals is diluted by canal leakage, and the influence of major canals, which extend over a longer distance when compared to that of minor canals; (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E3"/>) land surface elevation, where elevations indicating proximity to major canals are associated with relatively lower groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; and (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E4"/>) DO concentration, where higher DO concentration is linked to higher groundwater
<inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. We note that decreasing DO and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> with groundwater age can be explained by the DO reduction and historical changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> recharge, whereas<?pagebreak page824?> groundwater chemistry and nitrate isotopic data recorded in both this study and previous Dutch Flats studies suggest that denitrification was not a major factor in this alluvial aquifer.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><?xmltex \currentcnt{8}?><?xmltex \def\figurename{Figure}?><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d1e4461">Partial dependence plot for the model evaluating the transport rate combination of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">u</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.5</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3.75</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">m</mml:mi><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">yr</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Tick marks on each plot represent predictor observations used to train models.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=497.923228pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/25/811/2021/hess-25-811-2021-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d1e4526">The partial dependence plot (Fig. 8) for total travel time exhibits a pronounced threshold, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is markedly higher for groundwater with a travel time of less than 7 years. It is possible that this reflects long-term stratification of groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, stemming from the suggested patterns stated above, as nitrate varies with the aquifer depth due to the influences of diffuse and focused recharge in the region. This 7-year threshold is slightly lower than a previous estimate of mean groundwater age in the aquifer (8.8 <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="unit"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">years</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>; Böhlke et al., 2007; where groundwater age excludes vadose zone travel time) and suggests that shallow groundwater can respond relatively rapidly to changes in nitrogen management in the Dutch Flats area.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Opportunities and limitations of the random forest approach in estimating lag times</title>
      <p id="d1e4571">Overall, results suggest that, in a complex system such as Dutch Flats, random forest was able to identify reasonable transport rates for both the vadose and saturated zones, and with additional validation, this method may offer an inexpensive (i.e., compared to groundwater age dating across a large monitoring well network and/or complex modeling) and reasonable technique for estimating the lag time from historical monitoring data. Furthermore, this approach allows for additional insight on groundwater dynamics to be extracted from existing monitoring data. However, this study was conducted in the context of a larger project (Wells et al., 2018) and built on prior research on groundwater flow and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the study area (Böhlke et al., 2007). Therefore, it is critical, in future work, to incorporate site-specific knowledge, process understanding, and approaches for increasing the interpretability of machine learning models (Lundberg et al., 2020, Saia et al., 2020), as highlighted in the key considerations below.</p>
      <p id="d1e4587">Some key considerations for the future application of this approach include the following:
<list list-type="order"><list-item>
      <p id="d1e4592">The random forest approach might be useful for estimating future recharge and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> using multiple potential management scenarios as long as the considered management scenarios fall within the range of historical observations used to train the model. This information could be used to inform policy makers of the impact that current and future management decisions will have on recharge and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e4622">The Dutch Flats overlies a predominantly oxic aquifer where nitrate transport is mostly conservative. In aquifers with heterogeneity in the denitrification potential and/or distinct nitrate extinction depths (Liao et al., 2012; Welch et al., 2011), this approach may be biased toward the oxic portions of the aquifer where the nitrate signal is preserved. Similarly, vertical profiles of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and isotopic composition in the vadose zone could provide valuable data for investigating (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E1"/>) the amount of nitrate stored in the vadose zone and (<xref ref-type="disp-formula" rid="Ch1.E2"/>) whether nitrate undergoes any biogeochemical changes while being transported through the vadose zone to the water table.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e4643">While estimates of vadose and saturated zone transport rates determined from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are consistent with previous studies, the predictive performance of the selected model (based on NSE and a visual inspection of predicted versus observed nitrate plots) was not substantially different to other models tested. In other words, the optimal model was only weakly preferred in terms of predicting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Testing the approach of using <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in other vadose and saturated zones, with substantial comparison to previous transport rate estimates, is warranted. This would be especially valuable in an area with a well-defined input function for nitrate that could be compared to a   reconstructed input function from the model. Furthermore, in aquifer settings with relatively evenly distributed recharge, optimized travel times to wells could be used to estimate the infiltration date of samples, thus providing an optimized view of historical variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> entering the subsurface, as illustrated in Fig. S1B. In the Dutch Flats area, however, such an analysis is complicated by the effects of subsurface nitrate dilution by local recharge from canal leakage.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e4699">Despite the potential non-uniqueness in the prediction metrics, the heat map of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mtext>inc</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mtext>MSE</mml:mtext></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> did reveal an orderly pattern, suggesting consistent transport rate ratios. For modeling efforts where recharge rates are a key calibration parameter, the identification of a range of reasonable recharge rates, and/or the ratio of recharge rates from diffuse and focused recharge sources for a complex system, will reduce model uncertainty and improve the results. This statistical machine learning approach, which essentially leverages nitrate as a tracer (albeit with an unknown input function in this case), may provide valuable insight to complement relatively expensive groundwater age-dating or vadose zone monitoring data or perhaps it will be useful as a stand-alone approach for first-order approximations.</p></list-item><list-item>
      <p id="d1e4716">The demonstrated statistical machine learning approach is apparently well-suited for drawing out transport rate information from a site with two distinct recharge sources (diffuse versus focused recharge sources) driving the groundwater nitrate dynamics. Further testing is needed at  sites where recharge and nitrate dynamics are more subtle.</p></list-item></list></p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
</sec>
<?pagebreak page825?><sec id="Ch1.S4" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>4</label><title>Conclusions</title>
      <p id="d1e4729">The Dutch Flats area exhibits large variations in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> throughout a relatively small region in western Nebraska. Long-term groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> monitoring and previous groundwater age-dating studies in Dutch Flats provided an opportune setting to test a new application of statistical machine learning (random forest) for determining vadose and saturated zone transport rates. Overall results suggest that random forest has the capability to both identify reasonable transport rates (and lag time) and key variables influencing groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, albeit with the potential for non-unique results. Limitations were also identified when using dynamic predictors to model groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Utilizing only static predictors and random forest's ability to evaluate variable importance, vadose zone and saturated zone transport rates were selected based on model sensitivity to changing the total travel time predictor. In other words, total travel time variable importance was evaluated for 288
different transport rate combinations, and the combination with a total travel time that had the largest influence over the model's ability to predict <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was selected for additional examination. This analysis identified a vadose zone and saturated zone transport rate combination consistent with rates previously estimated from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">H</mml:mi><mml:msup><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">He</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> age dating in Böhlke et al. (2007) and Wells et al. (2018), indicating that there is a combination of distributed and focused sources of irrigation recharge to this aquifer.</p>
      <p id="d1e4817">Future studies could include assessments of the proper conditions for the application of dynamic predictors and comparisons of data-driven analyses with complementary data sets and/or modeling (e.g., field-based recharge rate estimates, finite-difference flow model). Despite the noted limitations, the partial dependence plots and relative importance of predictors were largely consistent with the previous findings and mechanistic understanding of the study area, giving greater confidence in the model outputs. The influence of canal leakage on groundwater recharge rates and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, for example, was consistent with previous Dutch Flats studies. Partial dependence plots suggest a threshold of higher <inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-<?pagebreak page826?></mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for groundwater with a total travel time (vadose and saturated zone travel times, combined) of less than 7 years, indicating the potential for a relatively rapid groundwater <inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow class="chem"><mml:msubsup><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">NO</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> response to the widespread implementation of best management practices. Additionally, research is needed to determine the minimum number of observations necessary to effectively apply the framework shown here.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codedataavailability"><title>Code and data availability</title>

      <p id="d1e4864">The code is available on request. Data used in the random forest model and described in the Supplement are available via the University of Nebraska – Lincoln Data Repository (UNLDR; <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.32873/unl.dr.20200428" ext-link-type="DOI">10.32873/unl.dr.20200428</ext-link>; Wells and Gilmore, 2020).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d1e4870">An online file accompanying this article contains additional figures, tables, and details of the methods used for the study. The supplement related to this article is available online at: <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-811-2021-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-811-2021-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d1e4879">TG, AM, and NN were responsible for the conceptualization. MW and NN developed the model code, and MW performed the formal analysis. MW prepared the paper from his Masters thesis, with contributions from all coauthors, including JKB. TG was responsible for the project administration and funding acquisition.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d1e4885">The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d1e4891">Any use of trade, firm, or   product names is for descriptive purposes only and does not imply endorsement by the U.S. government.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d1e4897">The authors acknowledge the North Platte Natural Resources District for providing technical assistance and resources, including long-term groundwater nitrate data accessed via the Quality-Assessed Agrichemical Contaminant Database for Nebraska Groundwater. We thank Steve Sibray and Mason Johnson, for their support in the field sampling efforts, and Les Howard, for the cartography. Models were run on the Holland Computing Center (HCC) cluster at the University of Nebraska – Lincoln. We also thank Christopher Green, Sophie Ehrhardt, Pia Ebeling, and two anonymous reviewers for the helpful comments on earlier versions of the paper.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d1e4902">This research has been supported by the U.S. Geological Survey (grant no. 2016NE286B), the U.S. Department of Agriculture National Institute of Food and Agriculture (grant no. NEB-21-177; accession no. 1015698), and the Daugherty Water for Food Global Institute Fellowship for graduate students.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d1e4908">This paper was edited by Nunzio Romano and reviewed by Sophie Ehrhardt, Pia Ebeling, and two anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Anning, D. W., Paul, A. P., McKinney, T. S., Huntington, J. M., Bexfield, L. M., and
Thiros, S. A.: Predicted Nitrate and Arsenic Concentrations in Basin-Fill Aquifers of the
Southwestern United States, United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2012–5065, 78, available at: <uri>https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5065/</uri> (last access: 8 February 2021), 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><?label 2?><mixed-citation>Babcock, H. M., Visher, F. N., and Durum, W. H.: Ground-Water Conditions in the Dutch
Flats Area, Scotts Bluff and Sioux Counties, Nebraska, United States Geological Survey Circular
126, 51, available at: <uri>http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir126</uri> (last access: 8 February 2021), 1951.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><?label 3?><mixed-citation>Ball, L. B., Kress, W. H., Steele, G. V., Cannia, J. C., and Andersen, M. J.:
Determination of Canal Leakage Potential Using Continuous Resistivity Profiling Techniques,
Interstate and Tri-State Canals, Western Nebraska and Eastern Wyoming, 2004, United States
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5032, 53, available at:
<uri>http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20065032</uri> (last access: 8 February 2021),
2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><?label 4?><mixed-citation>Böhlke, J. K.: Groundwater Recharge and Agricultural Contamination, Hydrogeol. J.,
10, 153–179, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-001-0183-3" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10040-001-0183-3</ext-link>, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><?label 5?><mixed-citation>Böhlke, J. K. and Denver, J. M.: Combined Use of Groundwater Dating, Chemical, and
Isotopic Analyses to Resolve the History and Fate of Nitrate Contamination in Two Agricultural
Watersheds, Atlantic Coastal Plain, Maryland, Water Resour. Res., 31, 2319–2339,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR01584" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/95WR01584</ext-link>, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><?label 6?><mixed-citation>Böhlke, J. K., Wanty, R., Tuttle, M., Delin, G., and Landon, M.: Denitrification in
the Recharge Area and Discharge Area of a Transient Agricultural Nitrate Plume in a Glacial
Outwash Sand Aquifer, Minnesota, Water Resour. Res., 38, 10-1–10–26, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000663" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2001WR000663</ext-link>,
2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><?label 7?><mixed-citation>Böhlke, J. K., Verstraeten, I. M., and Kraemer, T. F.: Effects of Surface-Water
Irrigation on Sources, Fluxes, and Residence Times of Water, Nitrate, and Uranium in an Alluvial
Aquifer, Appl. Geochem., 22, 152–174, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2006.08.019" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.apgeochem.2006.08.019</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><?label 8?><mixed-citation>Breiman, L.: Random Forests, Machine Learning, 45, 5–32, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1023/A:1010933404324</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><?label 9?><mixed-citation>Browne, B. A. and Guldan, N. M.: Understanding Long-Term Baseflow Water Quality Trends
Using a Synoptic Survey of the Ground Water–Surface Water Interface, Central Wisconsin, Journal
of Environment Quality, 34, 825, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2004.0134" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2134/jeq2004.0134</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><?label 10?><mixed-citation>Cherry, M., Gilmore, T., Mittelstet, A., Gastmans, D., Santos, V., and Gates, J. B.:
Recharge Seasonality Based on Stable Isotopes: Nongrowing Season Bias Altered by Irrigation in
Nebraska, Hydrol. Process., 34, 1575–1586, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13683" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.13683</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><?label 11?><mixed-citation> Cook, P. G. and Böhlke, J. K.: Determining Timescales for Groundwater Flow and
Solute Transport, in: Environmental Tracers in Subsurface Hydrology, edited by: Cook, P. G. and Herczeg, A. L., 1–30, Springer US, Boston, MA, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><?label 12?><mixed-citation>Dieter, C. A., Maupin, M. A., Caldwell, R. R., Harris, M. A., Ivahnenko, T. I.,
Lovelace, J. K., Barber, N. L., and Linsey, K. S.: Estimated Use of Water in The United States in
2015, United States Geological Survey Circular 1441, 65, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1441" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3133/cir1441</ext-link>,
2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><?label 13?><mixed-citation>Eberts, S. M., Thomas, M. S., and Jagucki, M. L.: Factors Affecting Public-Supply-Well
Vulnerability to Contamination: Understanding Observed Water Quality and Anticipating Future Water
Quality, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1385, 120, available at:
<uri>https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1385/</uri> (last access: 8 February 2021), 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><?label 14?><mixed-citation>Efron, B.: Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife, Ann. Stat., 7, 1–26,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1214/aos/1176344552</ext-link>, 1979.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><?label 15?><mixed-citation> Eibe, F., Hall, M. A., and Witten, I. H.: The WEKA Workbench, in: Online Appendix for
“Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques,” Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, United States, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><?label 16?><mixed-citation>Exner, M. E., Perea-Estrada, H., and Spalding, R. F.: Long-Term Response of Groundwater
Nitrate Concentrations to Management Regulations in Nebraska's Central Platte Valley, The
Sci. World J., 10, 286–297, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2010.25" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1100/tsw.2010.25</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><?label 17?><mixed-citation>Gilmore, T. E., Genereux, D. P., Solomon, D. K., and Solder, J. E.: Groundwater Transit
Time Distribution and Mean from Streambed Sampling in an Agricultural Coastal Plain Watershed,
North Carolina, USA, Water Resour. Res., 52, 2025–2044, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017600" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015WR017600</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><?label 18?><mixed-citation>Green, C. T., Liao, L., Nolan, B. T., Juckem, P. F., Shope, C. L., Tesoriero, A. J.,
and Jurgens, B. C.: Regional Variability of Nitrate Fluxes in the Unsaturated Zone and
Groundwater, Wisconsin, USA, Water Resour. Res., 54, 301–322, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR022012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017WR022012</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><?label 19?><mixed-citation>Harvey, F. E. and Sibray, S. S.: Delineating Ground Water Recharge from Leaking
Irrigation Canals Using Water Chemistry and Isotopes, Ground Water, 39, 408–421,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2001.tb02325.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1745-6584.2001.tb02325.x</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><?label 20?><mixed-citation> Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. H.: The Elements of Statistical Learning:
Data Mining, Inference, And Prediction, 2nd ed., Springer, New York, USA, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><?label 21?><mixed-citation>Hobza, C. M. and Andersen, M. J.: Quantifying Canal Leakage Rates Using a Mass-Balance
Approach and Heat-Based Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates in Selected Irrigation Canals, Western
Nebraska, 2007 through 2009, United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2010–5226, 38, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20105226" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3133/sir20105226</ext-link>,
2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><?label 22?><mixed-citation> Homer, C. G., Dewitz, J., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G. Z., Coulston, J.,
Herold, N., Wickham, J., and Megown, K.: Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for
the Conterminous United States – Representing a Decade of Land Cover Change Information,
Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S., 81, 345–354, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><?label 23?><mixed-citation> Hudson, C. (NPNRD): Personal communication with M. J. Wells, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE, USA, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><?label 24?><mixed-citation>Ilampooranan, I., Van Meter, K. J., and Basu, N. B.: A Race Against Time: Modelling
Time Lags in Watershed Response, 55, 3941–3959, Water Resour. Res., <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023815" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018WR023815</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><?label 25?><mixed-citation>Irmak, S., Odhiambo, L., Kranz, W. L., and Eisenhauer, D. E.: Irrigation Efficiency and
Uniformity, And Crop Water Use Efficiency, Extension Circular, University of Nebraska – Lincoln,
Lincoln, NE, available at: <uri>http://extensionpubs.unl.edu/</uri> (last access: 8 February 2021), 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><?label 26?><mixed-citation>Jones, Z. M. and Linder, F. J.: Exploratory Data Analysis using Random Forests, in 73rd
Annual MPSA Conference, 1–31, available at:
<uri>http://zmjones.com/static/papers/rfss_manuscript.pdf</uri> (last access: 25 May 2018), 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><?label 27?><mixed-citation>Juntakut, P., Snow, D. D., Haacker, E. M. K., and Ray, C.: The Long Term Effect of
Agricultural, Vadose Zone and Climatic Factors on Nitrate Contamination in Nebraska's Groundwater
System, J. Contam. Hydrol., 220, 33–48, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.007" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.007</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><?label 28?><mixed-citation>Kennedy, C. D., Genereux, D. P., Corbett, D. R., and Mitasova, H.: Spatial and Temporal
Dynamics of Coupled Groundwater and Nitrogen Fluxes Through a Streambed in an Agricultural
Watershed, Water Resour. Res., 45, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007397" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2008WR007397</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><?label 29?><mixed-citation>Knoll, L., Breuer, L., and Bach, M.: Nation-Wide Estimation of Groundwater Redox
Conditions and Nitrate Concentrations Through Machine Learning, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 064004,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7d5c" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/ab7d5c</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><?label 30?><mixed-citation>Kuhn, M.: Building Predictive Models in R Using the Caret Package, J. Stat. Softw.,
28, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v028.i05" ext-link-type="DOI">10.18637/jss.v028.i05</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><?label 31?><mixed-citation>Liao, L., Green, C. T., Bekins, B. A., and Böhlke, J. K.: Factors Controlling
Nitrate Fluxes in Groundwater in Agricultural Areas, Water Resour. Res., 48,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011008" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011WR011008</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><?label 32?><mixed-citation>Luckey, R. R. and Cannia, J. C.: Groundwater Flow Model of the Western Model Unit of
the Nebraska Cooperative Hydrology Study (COHYST) Area, Nebraska Department of Natural Resources,
Lincoln, NE, available at:
<uri>ftp://ftp.dnr.nebraska.gov/Pub/cohystftp/cohyst/model_reports/WMU_Documentation_060519.pdf</uri> (last access: 24 March 2017), 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><?label 33?><mixed-citation>Lundberg, S. M., Erion, G., Chen, H., DeGrave, A., Prutkin, J. M., Nair, B., Katz, R.,
Himmelfarb, J., Bansal, N., and Lee, S. I.: from Local Explanations to Global Understanding with
Explainable AI for Trees, Nature Machine Intelligence, 2, 56–67, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9</ext-link>,
2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><?label 34?><mixed-citation>McMahon, P. B., Dennehy, K. F., Bruce, B. W., Böhlke, J. K., Michel, R. L., Gurdak,
J. J., and Hurlbut, D. B.: Storage and Transit Time of Chemicals in Thick Unsaturated Zones Under
Rangeland and Irrigated Cropland, High Plains, United States, Water Resour. Res., 42,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004417" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2005WR004417</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><?label 35?><mixed-citation>Meals, D. W., Dressing, S. A., and Davenport, T. E.: Lag Time in Water Quality Response
to Best Management Practices: A Review, Journal of Environment Quality, 39, 85,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2009.0108" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2134/jeq2009.0108</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><?label 36?><mixed-citation>Mittelstet, A. R., Smolen, M. D., Fox, G. A., and Adams, D. C.: Comparison of Aquifer
Sustainability Under Groundwater Administrations in Oklahoma and Texas, J. Am. Water Resour. As.,
47, 424–431, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00524.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00524.x</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><?label 37?><mixed-citation>Morgenstern, U., Daughney, C. J., Leonard, G., Gordon, D., Donath, F. M., and Reeves,
R.: Using groundwater age and hydrochemistry to understand sources and dynamics of nutrient
contamination through the catchment into La<?pagebreak page828?>ke Rotorua, New Zealand, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19,
803–822, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-803-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-19-803-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><?label 38?><mixed-citation>Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River Flow Forecasting Through Conceptual Models Part
I – A Discussion of Principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282–290, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-169490255-6" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/0022-169490255-6</ext-link>, 1970.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><?label 39?><mixed-citation>NASS: USDA/NASS QuickStats Ad-hoc Query Tool, available at:
<uri>https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/</uri>, last access: 15 February 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><?label 40?><mixed-citation>NEDNR: Fifty-Fifth Biennial Report of the Department of Natural Resources, Nebraska
Department of Natural Resources, Lincoln, NE, available at:
<uri>https://dnr.nebraska.gov/sites/dnr.nebraska.gov/files/doc/surface-water/biennial-reports/BiennialReport2005-06.pdf</uri> (last access: 8 February 2021), 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><?label 41?><mixed-citation>Nelson, N. G., Muñoz-Carpena, R., Phlips, E. J., Kaplan, D., Sucsy, P., and
Hendrickson, J.: Revealing Biotic and Abiotic Controls of Harmful Algal Blooms in a Shallow
Subtropical Lake through Statistical Machine Learning, Environ. Sci. Technol., 52,
3527–3535, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05884" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/acs.est.7b05884</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><?label 42?><mixed-citation>NOAA: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), available at:
<uri>https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools</uri>, last access: 4 August 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><?label 43?><mixed-citation>Nolan, B. T., Green, C. T., Juckem, P. F., Liao, L., and Reddy, J. E.: Metamodeling and
Mapping of Nitrate Flux in the Unsaturated Zone and Groundwater, Wisconsin, USA, J. Hydrol., 559,
428–441, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.029" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.029</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><?label 44?><mixed-citation>Nolan, B. T., Gronberg, J. M., Faunt, C. C., Eberts, S. M., and Belitz, K.: Modeling
Nitrate at Domestic and Public-Supply Well Depths in the Central Valley, California, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 5643–5651, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es405452q" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es405452q</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><?label 45?><mixed-citation>NRCS: Web Soil Survey, available at: <uri>https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/</uri>
(last access: 16 November 2017), 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><?label 46?><mixed-citation>Ouedraogo, I., Defourny, P., and Vanclooster, M.: Validating a Continental-Scale
Groundwater Diffuse Pollution Model Using Regional Datasets, Environ. Sci. Pollut. R., 26, 2105–2119, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0899-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s11356-017-0899-9</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><?label 47?><mixed-citation> Preston, T. (NPNRD): Personal communication with M. J. Wells, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE, USA, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><?label 48?><mixed-citation>Puckett, L. J., Tesoriero, A. J., and Dubrovsky, N. M.: Nitrogen Contamination of
Surficial Aquifers – A Growing Legacy, Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 839–844,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es1038358" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1021/es1038358</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><?label 49?><mixed-citation>R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, available at:
<uri>https://www.R-project.org/</uri> (last access: 8 February 2021), 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><?label 50?><mixed-citation>Rahmati, O., Choubin, B., Fathabadi, A., Coulon, F., Soltani, E., Shahabi, H.,
Mollaefar, E., Tiefenbacher, J., Cipullo, S., Ahmad, B. B., and Tien Bui, D.: Predicting
Uncertainty of Machine Learning Models for Modelling Nitrate Pollution of Groundwater Using
Quantile Regression and UNEEC Methods, Sci. Total Environ., 688, 855–866,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.320" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.320</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><?label 51?><mixed-citation>Ransom, K. M., Nolan, B. T., A. Traum, J., Faunt, C. C., Bell, A. M., Gronberg,
J. A. M., Wheeler, D. C., Z. Rosecrans, C., Jurgens, B., Schwarz, G. E., Belitz, K., M. Eberts,
S., Kourakos, G., and Harter, T.: A Hybrid Machine Learning Model to Predict and Visualize Nitrate
Concentration Throughout the Central Valley Aquifer, California, USA, Sci. Total Environ.,
601–602, 1160–1172, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.192" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.192</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><?label 52?><mixed-citation>Rodriguez-Galiano, V. F., Mendes, M. P., Garcia-Soldado, M. J., Chica-Olmo, M., and
Ribeiro, L.: Predictive Modeling of Groundwater Nitrate Pollution Using Random Forest and
Multisource Variables Related to Intrinsic and Specific Vulnerability: A Case Study in an
Agricultural Setting (Southern Spain), Sci. Total Environ., 476–477, 189–206,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.001" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.001</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><?label 53?><mixed-citation>Rossman, N. R., Zlotnik, V. A., Rowe, C. M., and Szilagyi, J.: Vadose Zone Lag Time and
Potential 21st Century Climate Change Effects on Spatially Distributed Groundwater Recharge in The
Semi-Arid Nebraska Sand Hills, J. Hydrol., 519, 656–669, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.07.057" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.07.057</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><?label 54?><mixed-citation>Russoniello, C. J., Konikow, L. F., Kroeger, K. D., Fernandez, C., Andres, A. S., and
Michael, H. A.: Hydrogeologic Controls on Groundwater Discharge and Nitrogen Loads in a Coastal
Watershed, J. Hydrol., 538, 783–793, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.05.013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.05.013</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><?label 55?><mixed-citation>Saia, S. M., Nelson, N., Huseth, A. S., Grieger, K., and Reich, B. J.: Transitioning
Machine Learning from Theory to Practice in Natural Resources Management, Ecol. Model., 435,
109257, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109257" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109257</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><?label 56?><mixed-citation>Spalding, R. F., Watts, D. G., Schepers, J. S., Burbach, M. E., Exner, M. E., Poreda,
R. J., and Martin, G. E.: Controlling Nitrate Leaching in Irrigated Agriculture, J. Environ. Qual., 30, 1184, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2001.3041184x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.2134/jeq2001.3041184x</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><?label 57?><mixed-citation>Turkeltaub, T., Kurtzman, D., and Dahan, O.: Real-time monitoring of nitrate transport
in the deep vadose zone under a crop field – implications for groundwater protection,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3099–3108, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3099-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-20-3099-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><?label 58?><mixed-citation>University of Nebraska – Lincoln (UNL): Quality-Assessed Agrichemical Contaminant
Database for Nebraska Ground Water, available at:
<uri>https://clearinghouse.nebraska.gov/Clearinghouse.aspx</uri>, last access: 5 September 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><?label 59?><mixed-citation>USBR: Hydromet: Archive Data Access, available at:
<uri>https://www.usbr.gov/gp/hydromet/hydromet_arcread.html</uri>, last access: 22 May 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><?label 60?><mixed-citation>USDA: NAIP and NAPP Imagery, available at: <uri>https://dnr.nebraska.gov/data/digital-imagery</uri>, last access: 14 August 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><?label 61?><mixed-citation>U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]: National Elevation Dataset (NED), available at:
<uri>https://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/</uri> (last access: 8 October 2020), 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><?label 62?><mixed-citation>U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]: LANDSAT Imagery, available at:
<uri>https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/</uri>, last access: 14 August 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><?label 63?><mixed-citation>U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]: NHDPlus High Resolution, available at:
<uri>https://nhd.usgs.gov/NHDPlus_HR.html</uri> (last access: 29 June 2018), 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><?label 64?><mixed-citation>Van Meter, K. J. and Basu, N. B.: Catchment Legacies and Time Lags: A Parsimonious
Watershed Model to Predict the Effects of Legacy Storage on Nitrogen Export, edited by: Hong, Y.,
PLoS ONE, 10, e0125971, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125971" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1371/journal.pone.0125971</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><?label 65?><mixed-citation>Van Meter, K. J. and Basu, N. B.: Time Lags in Watershed-Scale Nutrient Transport: An
Exploration of Dominant Controls, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 084017, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7bf4" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/aa7bf4</ext-link>,
2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <?pagebreak page829?><ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><?label 66?><mixed-citation>Vanclooster, M., Petit, S., Bogaert, P., and Lietar, A.: Modelling Nitrate Pollution
Vulnerability in the Brussel's Capital Region (Belgium) Using Data-Driven Modelling Approaches,
Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 12, 416–430, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2020.125025" ext-link-type="DOI">10.4236/jwarp.2020.125025</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><?label 67?><mixed-citation>Verstraeten, I. M., Sibray, S. S., Cannia, J. C., and Tanner, D. Q.: Reconnaissance of
Ground-Water Quality in the North Platte Natural Resources District, Western Nebraska, June–July
1991, United States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94–4057,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3133/wri944057" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3133/wri944057</ext-link>, Earth Science Information Center, Reston, VA, United States, 1995.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><?label 68?><mixed-citation>Verstraeten, I. M., Steele, G. V., Cannia, J. C., Böhlke, J. K., Kraemer, T. E.,
Hitch, D. E., Wilson, K. E., and Carnes, A. E.: Selected Field and Analytical Methods and
Analytical Results in the Dutch Flats Area, Western Nebraska, 1995–99, United States Geological
Survey U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-413, 53, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr00413" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3133/ofr00413</ext-link>, Reston, VA, United States, 2001a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><?label 69?><mixed-citation>Verstraeten, I. M., Steele, G. V., Cannia, J. C., Hitch, D. E., Scripter, K. G.,
Böhlke, J. K., Kraemer, T. F., and Stanton, J. S.: Interaction of Surface Water and Ground
Water in the Dutch Flats Area, Western Nebraska, 1995–99, United States Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4070, 56, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3133/wri014070" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3133/wri014070</ext-link>, Reston, VA, United States, 2001b.
</mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><?label 70?><mixed-citation>Welch, H. L., Green, C. T., and Coupe, R. H.: The Fate and Transport of Nitrate in
Shallow Groundwater in Northwestern Mississippi, USA, Hydrogeol. J., 19, 1239–1252,
<ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0748-8" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10040-011-0748-8</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><?label 1?><mixed-citation>Wells, M. and Gilmore, T. E.: Dutch Flats Groundwater Nitrate for Machine Learning, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.32873/unl.dr.20200428" ext-link-type="DOI">10.32873/unl.dr.20200428</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><?label 71?><mixed-citation>Wells, M., Gilmore, T., Mittelstet, A., Snow, D., and Sibray, S.: Assessing Decadal
Trends of a Nitrate-Contaminated Shallow Aquifer in Western Nebraska Using Groundwater Isotopes,
Age-Dating, and Monitoring, Water, 10, 1047, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.3390/w10081047" ext-link-type="DOI">10.3390/w10081047</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><?label 72?><mixed-citation>Wheeler, D. C., Nolan, B. T., Flory, A. R., DellaValle, C. T., and Ward, M. H.:
Modeling Groundwater Nitrate Concentrations in Private Wells in Iowa, Sci. Total Environ., 536,
481–488, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.080" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.080</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><?label 73?><mixed-citation>Yonts, D.: G02-1465 Crop Water Use in Western Nebraska, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Extension, available at: <uri>https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist</uri> (last access: 8 February 2021), 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><?label 74?><mixed-citation> Young, L.A. (UNL): Personal communication with M. J. Wells, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE, USA, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Determination of vadose zone and saturated zone nitrate lag times using long-term groundwater monitoring data and  statistical machine learning</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p>In this study, we explored the use of statistical machine learning and long-term groundwater nitrate monitoring data to estimate vadose zone and saturated zone lag times in an irrigated alluvial agricultural setting. Unlike most previous statistical machine learning studies that sought to predict groundwater nitrate concentrations within aquifers, the focus of this study was to leverage available groundwater nitrate concentrations and other environmental variables to determine mean regional vertical velocities (transport rates) of water and solutes in the vadose zone and saturated zone (3.50 and 3.75&thinsp;m yr<sup>−1</sup>, respectively). The   statistical machine learning results are consistent with two primary recharge processes in this western Nebraska aquifer, namely (<span class="ref here"/>) diffuse recharge from irrigation and precipitation across the landscape and (<span class="ref here"/>) focused recharge from leaking irrigation conveyance canals. The vadose zone mean velocity yielded a mean recharge rate (0.46&thinsp;m yr<sup>−1</sup>) consistent with previous estimates from groundwater age dating in shallow wells (0.38&thinsp;m yr<sup>−1</sup>). The
saturated zone mean velocity yielded a recharge rate (1.31&thinsp;m yr<sup>−1</sup>) that was more consistent with focused recharge from leaky irrigation canals, as indicated by previous results of  groundwater age dating in intermediate-depth wells (1.22&thinsp;m yr<sup>−1</sup>). Collectively, the statistical machine learning model results are consistent with previous observations of relatively   high water fluxes and short transit times for water and nitrate in the primarily oxic aquifer. Partial dependence plots from the model indicate a sharp threshold in which high groundwater nitrate concentrations are mostly associated with total travel times of 7 years or less, possibly reflecting some combination of recent management practices and a tendency for nitrate concentrations to be higher in diffuse infiltration recharge than in canal leakage water. Limitations to the machine learning approach include the non-uniqueness of different transport rate combinations when comparing model performance and highlight the need to corroborate statistical model results with a robust conceptual model and complementary information such as groundwater age.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation> Anning, D. W., Paul, A. P., McKinney, T. S., Huntington, J. M., Bexfield, L. M., and
Thiros, S. A.: Predicted Nitrate and Arsenic Concentrations in Basin-Fill Aquifers of the
Southwestern United States, United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2012–5065, 78, available at: <a href="https://pubs.usgs.gov/sir/2012/5065/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 8 February 2021), 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation> Babcock, H. M., Visher, F. N., and Durum, W. H.: Ground-Water Conditions in the Dutch
Flats Area, Scotts Bluff and Sioux Counties, Nebraska, United States Geological Survey Circular
126, 51, available at: <a href="http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/cir126" target="_blank"/> (last access: 8 February 2021), 1951.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation> Ball, L. B., Kress, W. H., Steele, G. V., Cannia, J. C., and Andersen, M. J.:
Determination of Canal Leakage Potential Using Continuous Resistivity Profiling Techniques,
Interstate and Tri-State Canals, Western Nebraska and Eastern Wyoming, 2004, United States
Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2006–5032, 53, available at:
<a href="http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/sir20065032" target="_blank"/> (last access: 8 February 2021),
2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation> Böhlke, J. K.: Groundwater Recharge and Agricultural Contamination, Hydrogeol. J.,
10, 153–179, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-001-0183-3" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-001-0183-3</a>, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation> Böhlke, J. K. and Denver, J. M.: Combined Use of Groundwater Dating, Chemical, and
Isotopic Analyses to Resolve the History and Fate of Nitrate Contamination in Two Agricultural
Watersheds, Atlantic Coastal Plain, Maryland, Water Resour. Res., 31, 2319–2339,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR01584" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/95WR01584</a>, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation> Böhlke, J. K., Wanty, R., Tuttle, M., Delin, G., and Landon, M.: Denitrification in
the Recharge Area and Discharge Area of a Transient Agricultural Nitrate Plume in a Glacial
Outwash Sand Aquifer, Minnesota, Water Resour. Res., 38, 10-1–10–26, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000663" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR000663</a>,
2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation> Böhlke, J. K., Verstraeten, I. M., and Kraemer, T. F.: Effects of Surface-Water
Irrigation on Sources, Fluxes, and Residence Times of Water, Nitrate, and Uranium in an Alluvial
Aquifer, Appl. Geochem., 22, 152–174, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2006.08.019" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeochem.2006.08.019</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation> Breiman, L.: Random Forests, Machine Learning, 45, 5–32, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010933404324</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation> Browne, B. A. and Guldan, N. M.: Understanding Long-Term Baseflow Water Quality Trends
Using a Synoptic Survey of the Ground Water–Surface Water Interface, Central Wisconsin, Journal
of Environment Quality, 34, 825, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2004.0134" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2004.0134</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation> Cherry, M., Gilmore, T., Mittelstet, A., Gastmans, D., Santos, V., and Gates, J. B.:
Recharge Seasonality Based on Stable Isotopes: Nongrowing Season Bias Altered by Irrigation in
Nebraska, Hydrol. Process., 34, 1575–1586, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13683" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13683</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation> Cook, P. G. and Böhlke, J. K.: Determining Timescales for Groundwater Flow and
Solute Transport, in: Environmental Tracers in Subsurface Hydrology, edited by: Cook, P. G. and Herczeg, A. L., 1–30, Springer US, Boston, MA, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation> Dieter, C. A., Maupin, M. A., Caldwell, R. R., Harris, M. A., Ivahnenko, T. I.,
Lovelace, J. K., Barber, N. L., and Linsey, K. S.: Estimated Use of Water in The United States in
2015, United States Geological Survey Circular 1441, 65, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1441" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1441</a>,
2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation> Eberts, S. M., Thomas, M. S., and Jagucki, M. L.: Factors Affecting Public-Supply-Well
Vulnerability to Contamination: Understanding Observed Water Quality and Anticipating Future Water
Quality, U.S. Geological Survey Circular 1385, 120, available at:
<a href="https://pubs.usgs.gov/circ/1385/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 8 February 2021), 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation> Efron, B.: Bootstrap Methods: Another Look at the Jackknife, Ann. Stat., 7, 1–26,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1214/aos/1176344552</a>, 1979.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation> Eibe, F., Hall, M. A., and Witten, I. H.: The WEKA Workbench, in: Online Appendix for
“Data Mining: Practical Machine Learning Tools and Techniques,” Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA, United States, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation> Exner, M. E., Perea-Estrada, H., and Spalding, R. F.: Long-Term Response of Groundwater
Nitrate Concentrations to Management Regulations in Nebraska's Central Platte Valley, The
Sci. World J., 10, 286–297, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2010.25" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1100/tsw.2010.25</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation> Gilmore, T. E., Genereux, D. P., Solomon, D. K., and Solder, J. E.: Groundwater Transit
Time Distribution and Mean from Streambed Sampling in an Agricultural Coastal Plain Watershed,
North Carolina, USA, Water Resour. Res., 52, 2025–2044, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017600" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017600</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation> Green, C. T., Liao, L., Nolan, B. T., Juckem, P. F., Shope, C. L., Tesoriero, A. J.,
and Jurgens, B. C.: Regional Variability of Nitrate Fluxes in the Unsaturated Zone and
Groundwater, Wisconsin, USA, Water Resour. Res., 54, 301–322, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR022012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR022012</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation> Harvey, F. E. and Sibray, S. S.: Delineating Ground Water Recharge from Leaking
Irrigation Canals Using Water Chemistry and Isotopes, Ground Water, 39, 408–421,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2001.tb02325.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2001.tb02325.x</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation> Hastie, T., Tibshirani, R., and Friedman, J. H.: The Elements of Statistical Learning:
Data Mining, Inference, And Prediction, 2nd ed., Springer, New York, USA, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation> Hobza, C. M. and Andersen, M. J.: Quantifying Canal Leakage Rates Using a Mass-Balance
Approach and Heat-Based Hydraulic Conductivity Estimates in Selected Irrigation Canals, Western
Nebraska, 2007 through 2009, United States Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2010–5226, 38, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20105226" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3133/sir20105226</a>,
2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation> Homer, C. G., Dewitz, J., Yang, L., Jin, S., Danielson, P., Xian, G. Z., Coulston, J.,
Herold, N., Wickham, J., and Megown, K.: Completion of the 2011 National Land Cover Database for
the Conterminous United States – Representing a Decade of Land Cover Change Information,
Photogramm. Eng. Rem. S., 81, 345–354, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation> Hudson, C. (NPNRD): Personal communication with M. J. Wells, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE, USA, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation> Ilampooranan, I., Van Meter, K. J., and Basu, N. B.: A Race Against Time: Modelling
Time Lags in Watershed Response, 55, 3941–3959, Water Resour. Res., <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023815" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023815</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation> Irmak, S., Odhiambo, L., Kranz, W. L., and Eisenhauer, D. E.: Irrigation Efficiency and
Uniformity, And Crop Water Use Efficiency, Extension Circular, University of Nebraska – Lincoln,
Lincoln, NE, available at: <a href="http://extensionpubs.unl.edu/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 8 February 2021), 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation> Jones, Z. M. and Linder, F. J.: Exploratory Data Analysis using Random Forests, in 73rd
Annual MPSA Conference, 1–31, available at:
<a href="http://zmjones.com/static/papers/rfss_manuscript.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 25 May 2018), 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation> Juntakut, P., Snow, D. D., Haacker, E. M. K., and Ray, C.: The Long Term Effect of
Agricultural, Vadose Zone and Climatic Factors on Nitrate Contamination in Nebraska's Groundwater
System, J. Contam. Hydrol., 220, 33–48, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.007" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jconhyd.2018.11.007</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation> Kennedy, C. D., Genereux, D. P., Corbett, D. R., and Mitasova, H.: Spatial and Temporal
Dynamics of Coupled Groundwater and Nitrogen Fluxes Through a Streambed in an Agricultural
Watershed, Water Resour. Res., 45, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007397" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007397</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation> Knoll, L., Breuer, L., and Bach, M.: Nation-Wide Estimation of Groundwater Redox
Conditions and Nitrate Concentrations Through Machine Learning, Environ. Res. Lett., 15, 064004,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7d5c" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7d5c</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation> Kuhn, M.: Building Predictive Models in R Using the Caret Package, J. Stat. Softw.,
28, <a href="https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v028.i05" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v028.i05</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation> Liao, L., Green, C. T., Bekins, B. A., and Böhlke, J. K.: Factors Controlling
Nitrate Fluxes in Groundwater in Agricultural Areas, Water Resour. Res., 48,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011008" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011008</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation> Luckey, R. R. and Cannia, J. C.: Groundwater Flow Model of the Western Model Unit of
the Nebraska Cooperative Hydrology Study (COHYST) Area, Nebraska Department of Natural Resources,
Lincoln, NE, available at:
<a href="ftp://ftp.dnr.nebraska.gov/Pub/cohystftp/cohyst/model_reports/WMU_Documentation_060519.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 24 March 2017), 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation> Lundberg, S. M., Erion, G., Chen, H., DeGrave, A., Prutkin, J. M., Nair, B., Katz, R.,
Himmelfarb, J., Bansal, N., and Lee, S. I.: from Local Explanations to Global Understanding with
Explainable AI for Trees, Nature Machine Intelligence, 2, 56–67, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s42256-019-0138-9</a>,
2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation> McMahon, P. B., Dennehy, K. F., Bruce, B. W., Böhlke, J. K., Michel, R. L., Gurdak,
J. J., and Hurlbut, D. B.: Storage and Transit Time of Chemicals in Thick Unsaturated Zones Under
Rangeland and Irrigated Cropland, High Plains, United States, Water Resour. Res., 42,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004417" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004417</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation> Meals, D. W., Dressing, S. A., and Davenport, T. E.: Lag Time in Water Quality Response
to Best Management Practices: A Review, Journal of Environment Quality, 39, 85,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2009.0108" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2009.0108</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation> Mittelstet, A. R., Smolen, M. D., Fox, G. A., and Adams, D. C.: Comparison of Aquifer
Sustainability Under Groundwater Administrations in Oklahoma and Texas, J. Am. Water Resour. As.,
47, 424–431, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00524.x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2011.00524.x</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation> Morgenstern, U., Daughney, C. J., Leonard, G., Gordon, D., Donath, F. M., and Reeves,
R.: Using groundwater age and hydrochemistry to understand sources and dynamics of nutrient
contamination through the catchment into Lake Rotorua, New Zealand, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19,
803–822, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-803-2015" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-803-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation> Nash, J. E. and Sutcliffe, J. V.: River Flow Forecasting Through Conceptual Models Part
I – A Discussion of Principles, J. Hydrol., 10, 282–290, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-169490255-6" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-169490255-6</a>, 1970.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation> NASS: USDA/NASS QuickStats Ad-hoc Query Tool, available at:
<a href="https://quickstats.nass.usda.gov/" target="_blank"/>, last access: 15 February 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation> NEDNR: Fifty-Fifth Biennial Report of the Department of Natural Resources, Nebraska
Department of Natural Resources, Lincoln, NE, available at:
<a href="https://dnr.nebraska.gov/sites/dnr.nebraska.gov/files/doc/surface-water/biennial-reports/BiennialReport2005-06.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 8 February 2021), 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation> Nelson, N. G., Muñoz-Carpena, R., Phlips, E. J., Kaplan, D., Sucsy, P., and
Hendrickson, J.: Revealing Biotic and Abiotic Controls of Harmful Algal Blooms in a Shallow
Subtropical Lake through Statistical Machine Learning, Environ. Sci. Technol., 52,
3527–3535, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05884" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/acs.est.7b05884</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation> NOAA: National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), available at:
<a href="https://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/cdo-web/datatools" target="_blank"/>, last access: 4 August 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation> Nolan, B. T., Green, C. T., Juckem, P. F., Liao, L., and Reddy, J. E.: Metamodeling and
Mapping of Nitrate Flux in the Unsaturated Zone and Groundwater, Wisconsin, USA, J. Hydrol., 559,
428–441, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.029" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.02.029</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation> Nolan, B. T., Gronberg, J. M., Faunt, C. C., Eberts, S. M., and Belitz, K.: Modeling
Nitrate at Domestic and Public-Supply Well Depths in the Central Valley, California, Environ. Sci. Technol., 48, 5643–5651, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es405452q" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es405452q</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation> NRCS: Web Soil Survey, available at: <a href="https://websoilsurvey.sc.egov.usda.gov/" target="_blank"/>
(last access: 16 November 2017), 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation> Ouedraogo, I., Defourny, P., and Vanclooster, M.: Validating a Continental-Scale
Groundwater Diffuse Pollution Model Using Regional Datasets, Environ. Sci. Pollut. R., 26, 2105–2119, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0899-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-017-0899-9</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation> Preston, T. (NPNRD): Personal communication with M. J. Wells, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE, USA, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation> Puckett, L. J., Tesoriero, A. J., and Dubrovsky, N. M.: Nitrogen Contamination of
Surficial Aquifers – A Growing Legacy, Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 839–844,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1021/es1038358" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1021/es1038358</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation> R Core Team: R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing, R Foundation for
Statistical Computing, Vienna, Austria, available at:
<a href="https://www.R-project.org/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 8 February 2021), 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation> Rahmati, O., Choubin, B., Fathabadi, A., Coulon, F., Soltani, E., Shahabi, H.,
Mollaefar, E., Tiefenbacher, J., Cipullo, S., Ahmad, B. B., and Tien Bui, D.: Predicting
Uncertainty of Machine Learning Models for Modelling Nitrate Pollution of Groundwater Using
Quantile Regression and UNEEC Methods, Sci. Total Environ., 688, 855–866,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.320" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2019.06.320</a>, 2019.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation> Ransom, K. M., Nolan, B. T., A. Traum, J., Faunt, C. C., Bell, A. M., Gronberg,
J. A. M., Wheeler, D. C., Z. Rosecrans, C., Jurgens, B., Schwarz, G. E., Belitz, K., M. Eberts,
S., Kourakos, G., and Harter, T.: A Hybrid Machine Learning Model to Predict and Visualize Nitrate
Concentration Throughout the Central Valley Aquifer, California, USA, Sci. Total Environ.,
601–602, 1160–1172, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.192" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.05.192</a>, 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation> Rodriguez-Galiano, V. F., Mendes, M. P., Garcia-Soldado, M. J., Chica-Olmo, M., and
Ribeiro, L.: Predictive Modeling of Groundwater Nitrate Pollution Using Random Forest and
Multisource Variables Related to Intrinsic and Specific Vulnerability: A Case Study in an
Agricultural Setting (Southern Spain), Sci. Total Environ., 476–477, 189–206,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.001" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2014.01.001</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation> Rossman, N. R., Zlotnik, V. A., Rowe, C. M., and Szilagyi, J.: Vadose Zone Lag Time and
Potential 21st Century Climate Change Effects on Spatially Distributed Groundwater Recharge in The
Semi-Arid Nebraska Sand Hills, J. Hydrol., 519, 656–669, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.07.057" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.07.057</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation> Russoniello, C. J., Konikow, L. F., Kroeger, K. D., Fernandez, C., Andres, A. S., and
Michael, H. A.: Hydrogeologic Controls on Groundwater Discharge and Nitrogen Loads in a Coastal
Watershed, J. Hydrol., 538, 783–793, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.05.013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.05.013</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation> Saia, S. M., Nelson, N., Huseth, A. S., Grieger, K., and Reich, B. J.: Transitioning
Machine Learning from Theory to Practice in Natural Resources Management, Ecol. Model., 435,
109257, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109257" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2020.109257</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation> Spalding, R. F., Watts, D. G., Schepers, J. S., Burbach, M. E., Exner, M. E., Poreda,
R. J., and Martin, G. E.: Controlling Nitrate Leaching in Irrigated Agriculture, J. Environ. Qual., 30, 1184, <a href="https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2001.3041184x" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2001.3041184x</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation> Turkeltaub, T., Kurtzman, D., and Dahan, O.: Real-time monitoring of nitrate transport
in the deep vadose zone under a crop field – implications for groundwater protection,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3099–3108, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3099-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3099-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation> University of Nebraska – Lincoln (UNL): Quality-Assessed Agrichemical Contaminant
Database for Nebraska Ground Water, available at:
<a href="https://clearinghouse.nebraska.gov/Clearinghouse.aspx" target="_blank"/>, last access: 5 September 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation> USBR: Hydromet: Archive Data Access, available at:
<a href="https://www.usbr.gov/gp/hydromet/hydromet_arcread.html" target="_blank"/>, last access: 22 May 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation> USDA: NAIP and NAPP Imagery, available at: <a href="https://dnr.nebraska.gov/data/digital-imagery" target="_blank"/>, last access: 14 August 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation> U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]: National Elevation Dataset (NED), available at:
<a href="https://datagateway.nrcs.usda.gov/" target="_blank"/> (last access: 8 October 2020), 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation> U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]: LANDSAT Imagery, available at:
<a href="https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/" target="_blank"/>, last access: 14 August 2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation> U.S. Geological Survey [USGS]: NHDPlus High Resolution, available at:
<a href="https://nhd.usgs.gov/NHDPlus_HR.html" target="_blank"/> (last access: 29 June 2018), 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation> Van Meter, K. J. and Basu, N. B.: Catchment Legacies and Time Lags: A Parsimonious
Watershed Model to Predict the Effects of Legacy Storage on Nitrogen Export, edited by: Hong, Y.,
PLoS ONE, 10, e0125971, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125971" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0125971</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation> Van Meter, K. J. and Basu, N. B.: Time Lags in Watershed-Scale Nutrient Transport: An
Exploration of Dominant Controls, Environ. Res. Lett., 12, 084017, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7bf4" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa7bf4</a>,
2017.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation> Vanclooster, M., Petit, S., Bogaert, P., and Lietar, A.: Modelling Nitrate Pollution
Vulnerability in the Brussel's Capital Region (Belgium) Using Data-Driven Modelling Approaches,
Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 12, 416–430, <a href="https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2020.125025" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2020.125025</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation> Verstraeten, I. M., Sibray, S. S., Cannia, J. C., and Tanner, D. Q.: Reconnaissance of
Ground-Water Quality in the North Platte Natural Resources District, Western Nebraska, June–July
1991, United States Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 94–4057,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.3133/wri944057" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3133/wri944057</a>, Earth Science Information Center, Reston, VA, United States, 1995.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib68"><label>68</label><mixed-citation> Verstraeten, I. M., Steele, G. V., Cannia, J. C., Böhlke, J. K., Kraemer, T. E.,
Hitch, D. E., Wilson, K. E., and Carnes, A. E.: Selected Field and Analytical Methods and
Analytical Results in the Dutch Flats Area, Western Nebraska, 1995–99, United States Geological
Survey U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 00-413, 53, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr00413" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3133/ofr00413</a>, Reston, VA, United States, 2001a.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib69"><label>69</label><mixed-citation> Verstraeten, I. M., Steele, G. V., Cannia, J. C., Hitch, D. E., Scripter, K. G.,
Böhlke, J. K., Kraemer, T. F., and Stanton, J. S.: Interaction of Surface Water and Ground
Water in the Dutch Flats Area, Western Nebraska, 1995–99, United States Geological Survey
Water-Resources Investigations Report 01-4070, 56, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3133/wri014070" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3133/wri014070</a>, Reston, VA, United States, 2001b.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib70"><label>70</label><mixed-citation> Welch, H. L., Green, C. T., and Coupe, R. H.: The Fate and Transport of Nitrate in
Shallow Groundwater in Northwestern Mississippi, USA, Hydrogeol. J., 19, 1239–1252,
<a href="https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0748-8" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-011-0748-8</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib71"><label>71</label><mixed-citation>
Wells, M. and Gilmore, T. E.: Dutch Flats Groundwater Nitrate for Machine Learning, <a href="https://doi.org/10.32873/unl.dr.20200428" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.32873/unl.dr.20200428</a>, 2020.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib72"><label>72</label><mixed-citation> Wells, M., Gilmore, T., Mittelstet, A., Snow, D., and Sibray, S.: Assessing Decadal
Trends of a Nitrate-Contaminated Shallow Aquifer in Western Nebraska Using Groundwater Isotopes,
Age-Dating, and Monitoring, Water, 10, 1047, <a href="https://doi.org/10.3390/w10081047" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.3390/w10081047</a>, 2018.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib73"><label>73</label><mixed-citation> Wheeler, D. C., Nolan, B. T., Flory, A. R., DellaValle, C. T., and Ward, M. H.:
Modeling Groundwater Nitrate Concentrations in Private Wells in Iowa, Sci. Total Environ., 536,
481–488, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.080" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.080</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib74"><label>74</label><mixed-citation> Yonts, D.: G02-1465 Crop Water Use in Western Nebraska, University of Nebraska-Lincoln
Extension, available at: <a href="https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/extensionhist" target="_blank"/> (last access: 8 February 2021), 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib75"><label>75</label><mixed-citation> Young, L.A. (UNL): Personal communication with M. J. Wells, University of Nebraska,
Lincoln, NE, USA, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
