Advertisement

Analysis of spatio-temporal variability of surface–groundwater interactions in the Gharehsoo river basin, Iran, using a coupled SWAT-MODFLOW model

  • Majid Taie SemiromiEmail author
  • Manfred Koch
Original Article
  • 177 Downloads

Abstract

Although groundwater and surface water are often treated as individual water compartments in hydrological cycle studies, they essentially originate from one source. Such a split approach restricts the optimal usages of these water resources in several water management applications. The present study aims to shed light on the complex interaction of surface–groundwater interactions in terms of groundwater recharge from drainage network towards the adjacent aquafer and conversely, groundwater discharge from the aquifer towards the drainage network in the Gharehsoo River Basin (GRB), with the enclosed Ardabil aquifer, located in northwest Iran. To that end, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), as the surface hydrological model was fully coupled with the latest version of the Modular Three-Dimensional Finite-Difference Groundwater Flow (MODFLOW-NWT) (Newton–Raphson Technique to improve the solutions of unconfined groundwater-flow problems). The total study period, i.e. 1978–2012 was split into two intervals for calibration (1988–2012) and validation (1978–1987). To facilitate and expedite the calibration of the coupled model, first we calibrated SWAT and MODFLOW-NWT independently against the observed streamflow and groundwater head time series, respectively. Afterwards, we recalibrated the coupled model SWAT-MODFLOW. To link these two models, the surface and sub-surface water flow components are exchanged between the Disaggregated Hydrological Response Units (DHRUs) of SWAT with the MODFLOW-NWT’ grid cells. In addition, three more flow components are sequentially exchanged: the deep percolation from SWAT to MODFLOW-NWT, baseflow/groundwater discharge from MODFLOW-NWT to SWAT, and the river heads from SWAT to MODFLOW-NWT. The results of the application show that the coupled model satisfactorily, quantified by R2 ≥ 0.5, simulates streamflow and particularly, groundwater heads. In fact, both observations and simulations indicate that, owing to an ongoing overexploitation of the aquifer, heads have been decreased steadily over the studied period which has led to a parallel decline of the groundwater storage. Moreover, the analysis of the stream–aquifer exchange flows indicates that groundwater discharge towards the stream-network (effluent conditions) is orders of magnitude higher than the opposite process (influent conditions). In addition, findings reveal that many of the tributaries across the GRB have shifted from a perennial regime to ephemeral/intermittent system over the past decades. The provided and well-tested coupled model would be a viable asset to assess a wide range of plausible scenarios to identify most effective and practical water resource management schemes to recover the severely depleted surface water and groundwater resources of the GRB.

Keywords

Surface–groundwater interactions SWAT MODFLOW-NWT Coupled modelling Iran 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors would like to express their gratitude to Dr. Ryan T. Bailey from Colorado State University for his constructive and valuable comments on SWAT-MODFLOW linkage and special thanks to Dr. Richard B. Winston from the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) for sharing his knowledge in groundwater flow modelling using ModelMuse. Also, authors are very grateful to anonymous reviewers whom their provided thoughtful and thorough reviews could greatly improve the manuscript.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Abbaspour KC, Johnson CA, Van Genuchten MT (2004) Estimating uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential uncertainty fitting procedure. Vadose Zone J 3:1340–1352CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Abbaspour KC, Yang J, Maximov I, Bogner SIBER,R, Mieleitner K, Zobrist J, J. & Srinivasan R (2007) Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-ailpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. J Hydrol 333:413–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Abbaspour KC, Rouholahnejad E, Vaghefi S, Srinivasan R, Yang H, Klove B (2015) A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. J Hydrol 524:733–752CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Aizen V, Aizen E, Glazirin G, Loaiciga HA (2000) Simulation of daily runoff in Central Asian alpine watersheds. J Hydrol 238:15–34CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Anderson MP, Woessner WW, Hunt RJ (2015) Applied groundwater modeling: simulation of flow and advective transport, 2nd edn., Elsevier, New York, USAGoogle Scholar
  6. Andersson JCM, Zehnder AJB, Wehrli B, Yang H (2012) Improved SWAT model performance with time-dynamic voronoi tessellation of climatic input data in Southern Africa1. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 48:480–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Ardabil Regional Water Authority (2013) Investigation of groundwater balance in ardabil plain. In: Investigation of groundwater development and feasibility study of allocating the groundwater to 4 regions of the ardabil plain (In Persian). Ardabil Regional Water Authority, ArdabilGoogle Scholar
  8. Arlai P, Koch M, Munyu S, Pirarai K, Lukjan A (2013) Modelling Investigation of the sustainable Groundwater Yield for the Wiang Pao Aquifers System. 29th National Graduate Research Conference (NGRC29), October 24–25, 2013, Mae Fah Luang University, ThailandGoogle Scholar
  9. Arnold JG, Fohrer N (2005) SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydrol Process 19:563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Arnold JG, Allen PM, Bernhardt G (1993) A comprehensive surface-groundwater flow model. J Hydrol 142:47–69CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, William JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeler and assessment part I: model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34:73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Arnold JG, Muttiah RS, Srinivasan R, Allen PM (2000) Regional estimation of base flow and groundwater recharge in the Upper Mississippi river basin. J Hydrol 227:21–40CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Baalousha HM (2012) Modelling surface-groundwater interaction in the Ruataniwha basin, Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. Environ Earth Sci 66:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Bailey RT, Wible TC, Arabi M, Records RM, Ditty J (2016) Assessing regional-scale spatio-temporal patterns of groundwater-surface water interactions using a coupled SWAT-MODFLOW model. Hydrol Process 30:4420–4433CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Bejranonda W, Koontatakulvong S, Koch M (2007) Surface and groundwater dynamic interactions in the Upper Great Chao Phraya Plain of Thailand: semi-coupling of SWAT and MODFLOW. IAH 2007, Groundwater and Ecosystems, September 17–21, 2007, Lisbon, PortugalGoogle Scholar
  16. Bejranonda W, Koch M, Koontanakulvong S (2013) Surface water and groundwater dynamic interaction models as guiding tools for optimal conjunctive water use policies in the central plain of Thailand. Environ Earth Sci 70:2079–2086CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Brown ME, Funk CC (2008) Climate—food security under climate change. Science 319:580–581CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Chung IM, Kim NW, Lee J, Sophocleous M (2010) Assessing distributed groundwater recharge rate using integrated surface water-groundwater modelling: application to Mihocheon watershed, South Korea. Hydrogeol J 18:1253–1264CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Conan C, Bouraoui F, Turpin N, De Marsily G, Bidoglio G (2003) Modeling flow and nitrate fate at catchment scale in Brittany (France). J Environ Qual 32:2026–2032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Dages C, Paniconi C, Sulis M (2012) Analysis of coupling errors in a physically-based integrated surface water-groundwater model. Adv Water Resour 49:86–96CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Daggupati P, Pai N, Ale S, Douglas-Mankin KR, Zeckoski RW, Jeong J, Parajuli PB, Saraswat D, Youssef MA (2015) A recommended calibration and validation strategy for hydrologic and water quality models. Trans Asabe 58:1705–1719CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. FAO (1995) The digital soil map of the world and derived soil properties. CD-ROM, Version 3Ð5. Food and Agriculture Organization, RomeGoogle Scholar
  23. Faramarzi M, Abbaspour KC, Schulin R, Yang H (2009) Modelling blue and green water resources availability in Iran. Hydrol Process 23:486–501CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Fleckenstein JH, Krause S, Hannah DM, Boano F (2010) Groundwater-surface water interactions: new methods and models to improve understanding of processes and dynamics. Adv Water Resour 33:1291–1295CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Galbiati L, Bouraoui E, Elorza FJ, Bidoglio G (2006) Modeling diffuse pollution loading into a Mediterranean lagoon: Development and application of an integrated surface-sub surface model tool. Ecol Model 193:4–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Guzman JA, Moriasi DN, Gowda PH, Steiner JL, Starks PJ, Arnold JG, Srinivasan R (2015) A model integration framework for linking SWAT and MODFLOW. Environ Model Softw 73:103–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Hill MC, Tiedeman CR (2007) Effective groundwater model calibration: with analysis of data, sensitivities, predictions, and uncertainty. Wiley, HobokenCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Hu YR, Maskey S, Uhlenbrook S (2013) Downscaling daily precipitation over the Yellow River source region in China: a comparison of three statistical downscaling methods. Theor Appl Climatol 112:447–460CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. IPCC (2013) IPCC fifth assessment report. Weather 68:310–310CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Irawan DE, Silaen H, Sumintadireja P, Lubis RF, Brahmantyo B, Puradimaja DJ (2015) Groundwater-surface water interactions of Ciliwung River streams, segment Bogor-Jakarta, Indonesia. Environ Earth Sci 73:1295–1302CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Kalbus E, Reinstorf F, Schirmer M (2006) Measuring methods for groundwater—surface water interactions: a review. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 10:873–887CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Kalin L, Hantush Mohamed M (2006) Hydrologic modeling of an Eastern Pennsylvania Watershed with NEXRAD and Rain Gauge data. J Hydrol Eng 11:555–569CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Ke KY (2014) Application of an integrated surface water-groundwater model to multi-aquifers modeling in Choushui River alluvial fan, Taiwan. Hydrol Process 28:1409–1421CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Kim NW, Chung IM, Won YS, Arnold JG (2008) Development and application of the integrated SWAT–MODFLOW model. J Hydrol 356:1–16CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Kirchner JW (2006) Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology. Water Resources Research 42(3):1–5.  https://doi.org/10.1029/2005wr004362 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Kord K, Asghari Moghaddam A (2014) Spatial analysis of Ardabil plain aquifer potable groundwater using fuzzy logic. J King Saud Univ Sci 129:129–140CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Lehner B, Verdin K, Jarvis A (2008) New global hydrography derived from spaceborne elevation data. Eos Trans AGU 89:93–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Luo Y, Sophocleous M (2011) Two-way coupling of unsaturated-saturated flow by integrating the SWAT and MODFLOW models with application in an irrigation district in arid region of West China. J Arid Land 3:164–173CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Markovic D, Koch M (2015) Stream response to precipitation variability: a spectral view based on analysis and modelling of hydrological cycle components. Hydrol Process 29:1806–1816CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Mcdonald MG, Harbaugh AW, Geological Survey (U.S.) (1988) A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model. U.S. Geological Survey, RestonGoogle Scholar
  41. Menking KM, Syed KH, Anderson RY, Shafike NG, Arnold JG (2003) Model estimates of runoff in the closed, semiarid Estancia basin, central New Mexico, USA. Hydrol Sci J 48:953–970CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2011) Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute, College StationGoogle Scholar
  44. Niswonger RG, Prudic DE, Regan RS (2006) Documentation of the Unsaturated-Zone Flow (UZF1) Package for Modeling Unsaturated Flow Between the Land Surface and the Water Table with MODFLOW-2005. U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  45. Niswonger RG, Panday S, Motomu I (2011) MODFLOW-NWT, A Newton formulation for MODFLOW-2005: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6-A37. U.S. Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  46. Nourani V, Alami MT, Vousoughi FD (2015) Wavelet-entropy data pre-processing approach for ANN-based groundwater level modeling. J Hydrol 524:255–269CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Perkins SP, Sophocleous M (1999) Development of a comprehensive watershed model applied to study stream yield under drought conditions. Ground Water 37:418–426CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Playan E, Mateos L (2006) Modernization and optimization of irrigation systems to increase water productivity. Agric Water Manag 80:100–116CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Scanlon BR, Reedy RC, Stonestrom DA, Prudic DE, Dennehy KF (2005) Impact of land use and land cover change on groundwater recharge and quality in the southwestern US. Glob Change Biol 11:1577–1593CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Sophocleous M (2002) Interactions between groundwater and surface water: the state of the science. Hydrogeol J 10:52–67CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Sophocleous M, Perkins SP (2000) Methodology and application of combined watershed and ground-water models in Kansas. J Hydrol 236:185–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Srivastava P, Mcnair JN, Johnson TE (2006) Comparison of process-based and artificial neural network approaches for streamflow modeling in an agricultural watershed1. JAWRA 42:545–563Google Scholar
  53. Sulis M, Meyerhoff SB, Paniconi C, Maxwell RM, Putti M, Kollet SJ (2010) A comparison of two physics-based numerical models for simulating surface water-groundwater interactions. Adv Water Resour 33:456–467CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Waibel MS, Gannett MW, Chang H, Hulbe CL (2013) Spatial variability of the response to climate change in regional groundwater systems—examples from simulations in the Deschutes Basin, Oregon. J Hydrol 486:187–201CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  55. Wang Y, Brubaker K (2014) Implementing a nonlinear groundwater module in the soil and water assessment tool (SWAT). Hydrol Process 28:3388–3403CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  56. Winston RB (2009) ModelMuse—a graphical user interface for MODFLOW–2005 and PHAST: U.S. Geological Survey Techniques and Methods 6–A29, p 52, Available only online at https://pubs.usgs.gov/tm/tm6A29
  57. Zhang B, Song XF, Zhang YH, Han DM, Tang CY, Yang LH, Wang ZL (2015) The relationship between and evolution of surface water and groundwater in Songnen Plain, Northeast China. Environ Earth Sci 73:8333–8343CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Geohydraulics and Engineering HydrologyUniversity of KasselKasselGermany
  2. 2.Leibniz Centre for Agricultural Landscape Research (ZALF)MünchebergGermany

Personalised recommendations