Interaction Between Groundwater and Surface Water of Channel Network at Žitný Ostrov Area

  • P. Dušek
  • Y. VelískováEmail author
Part of the The Handbook of Environmental Chemistry book series (HEC, volume 69)


Surface water-groundwater interaction is a dynamic process which can be influenced by many factors most associated with the hydrological cycle. Besides the fluctuation of surface water and groundwater levels and their gradient, this interaction is also influenced by the parameters of the aquifer (regional and local geology and its physical properties). The next significant factors are precipitation, the water level regime of rivers or reservoirs in the area of interest, and last but not the least the properties of the riverbed itself. The investigation of the interaction between the surface water and groundwater was applied utilizing modern numerical simulations on the Gabčíkovo-Topoľníky channel, one of the main channels of irrigation and drainage channel network at Žitný Ostrov. Žitný Ostrov area is situated in the southwestern part of Slovakia, and it is known as the biggest source of groundwater in this country. For this reason, experts give it heightened attention from different points of view. The channel network was built up in this region for drainage and safeguarding of irrigation water. The water level in the whole channel network system affects the groundwater level and vice versa. With regard to the mutual interaction between channel network and groundwater, it has been necessary to judge the impact of channel network silting up by alluvials and the rate of their permeability to this interaction. The aim of this contribution was to collect the available data from the area of interest for simulation of real and theoretical scenarios of interaction between groundwater and surface water along the Gabčíkovo-Topoľníky channel. The obtained results give valuable information about how the clogging of the riverbed in the channel network influences the groundwater level regime in the area.


Channel network Groundwater Interaction Numerical simulation Surface water Žitný Ostrov (Rye Island) 



The chapter was created with support from VEGA project no. 2/0058/15 and APVV-14-0735. This publication is also the result of the implementation of the ITMS 26240120004 project entitled Centre of Excellence for Integrated Flood Protection of Land supported by the Research and Development Operational Programme funded by the ERDF.


  1. 1.
    Woessner WW (2000) Stream and fluvial plain ground water interactions: rescaling hydrogeologic thought. Ground Water 38(3):423–429CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Toth J (1970) A conceptual model of the groundwater regime and the hydrogeologic environment. J Hydrol 10:164–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Schaller MF, Fan Y (2009) River basins as groundwater exporters and importers: implications for water cycle and climate modeling. J Geophys Res 114:1–21Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Schwarzenbach RP, Westall J (1981) Transport of nonpolar organic compounds from surface water to groundwater. Laboratory sorption studies. Environ Sci Technol 15(11):1360–1367CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Rushton KR, Tomlinson LM (1979) Possible mechanisms for leakage between aquifers and rivers. J Hydrol 40:49–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Selker JS, Keller CK, McCord JT (1999) Vadose zone processes. CRC Press, Boca RatonGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Irvine DJ, Brunner P, Franssen HH, Simmons CT (2012) Heterogeneous or homogeneous? Implications of simplifying heterogeneous streambeds in models of losing streams. J Hydrol 424–425(2012):16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Winter TC (1999) Relation of streams, lakes, wetlands to groundwater flow systems. Hydrogeol J 7:28–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Dulovičová R, Kosorin K (2007) Determination of lateral additions of discharges by interaction between open channels and groundwater. Acta Hydrologica Slovaca 8(2):245–253. (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Mäsiar E, Kamenský J (1989) Hydraulics for civil engineers II. Alfa, Bratislava. (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Květon R (2012) Mathematical modeling of flow in open channels. STU Publisher. (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Šebová E (2011) Interaction between surface water and groundwater at Žitný ostrov – current results and experience. Acta Hydrologica Slovaca 12(2):151–157. (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Andersen MP, Woessner WW, Hunt RJ (2015) Applied groundwater modeling – simulation of flow and advective transport, 2nd edn. Elsevier, AmsterdamGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Domenico PA, Mifflin MD (1965) Water from low-permeability sediments and land subsidence. Water Resour Res 1(4):563–576CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Morris DA, Johnson AI (1967) Summary of hydrologic and physical properties of rock and soil materials, as analyzed by the hydrologic laboratory of the U.S. Geological Survey, 1948–60, Water Supply Paper 1839-D, US Geological SurveyGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Theis CV (1941) The effect of a well on the flow of a nearby stream. EOS Trans Am Geophys Union 22(3):734–738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Krčmář D (2012) Modelling of surface and ground water interaction. Podzemná voda XVIII(1):1–13. (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Saleh F, Flipo N, Habets F, Ducharne A, Oudin L, Viennot P, Ledoux E (2011) Modeling the impact of in-stream water level fluctuations on stream-aquifer interactions at the regional scale. J Hydrol 400(2011):490–500CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Baalousha HM (2011) Modelling surface–groundwater interaction in the Ruataniwha basin, Hawke’s Bay, New Zealand. Environ Earth Sci 66:285–294CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Bosompemaa P, Yidana SM, Chegbeleh LP (2016) Analysis of transient groundwater flow through a stochastic modelling approach. Arab J Geosci 9:694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Yidana SM, Addai MO, Asiedu DK, Banoeng-Yakubo B (2016) Stochastic groundwater modeling of a sedimentary aquifer: evaluation of the impacts of abstraction scenarios under conditions of reduced recharge. Arab J Geosci 9:694CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barthel R, Banzhaf S (2016) Groundwater and surface water interaction at the regional-scale – a review with focus on regional integrated models. Water Resour Manag 30:1–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Šimůnek J, van Genuchten MT, Šejna M (2016) Recent developments and applications of the HYDRUS computer software packages. Vadose Zone J 15(7):25CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Twarakavi NKC, Šimůnek J, Seo S (2008) Evaluating interactions between groundwater and vadose zone using the HYDRUS-based flow package for MODFLOW. Vadose Zone J 7(2):757–768CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Welsh WD, Vaze J, Dutta D, Rassam D, Rahman JM, Jolly ID, Wallbrink P, Podger GM, Bethune M, Hardy MJ, Teng J, Lerat J (2013) An integrated modelling framework for regulated river systems. Environ Model Softw 39(2013):81e102Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Royal Haskoning (2004) Triwaco user’s manual. Royal Haskoning, Amersfoort. Scholar
  27. 27.
    Baroková D (2006) Determination of structures impact on groundwater level regime and possibilities of regulations. STU Publisher. (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Strack ODM, Haitjema HM (1981) Modeling double aquifer flow using a comprehensive potential and distributed singularities. Water Resour Res 17:1535–1549CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Aquaveo (2013) WMS user manual (v9.1) – the watershed modeling system. Aquaveo, Provo.
  30. 30.
    Haitjema HM, Wittman J, Kelson V, Bauch N (1994) WhAEM: program documentation for the wellhead analytic element model. US Enviromental Protection AgencyGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Haitjema HM (1995) Analytic element modeling of groundwater flow. Academic Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Harbaugh AW, Banta ER, Hill MC, McDonald MG (2000) MODFLOW-2000, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model – user guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process. US Geological Survey, RestonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Harbaugh AW (2005) MODFLOW-2005, the U.S. Geological Survey modular ground-water model – the ground-water flow process. US Geological Survey, RestonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Doherty J (1994) PEST – model independent parameter estimation. Watermark Numerical Computing, CorindaGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Zheng C (2010) MT3DMS v5.3 – supplemental user’s guide. The University of Alabama, TuscaloosaGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Pollock DW (2012) User guide for MODPATH version 6 – a particle-tracking model for MODFLOW. US Geological Survey, RestonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Pásztorová M, Vitková J, Jarabicová M, Nagy V (2013) Impact of Gabčíkovo waterworks on soil water regime. Acta Hydrol Slovaca 14(2):429–436. (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Velísková Y, Dulovičová R (2008) Variability of bed sediments in channel network of Rye Island. In: IOP conference series: earth and environmental scienceGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Káčer Š et al (2005) Digital geological map of Slovak Republic in scale M 1:50,000 and 1:500,000. SGIDŠ, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Maglay J et al (2009) Geological maps of Slovakia – map of quaternary layer thickness, M 1: 500,000. SGIDŠ, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  41. 41.
    Malík P, Bačová N, Hronček S, Ivanič B, Káčer Š, Kočický D, Maglay J, Marsina K, Ondrášik M, Šefčík P, Černák R, Švasta J, Lexa J (2007) Set up of geological maps at a scale of 1:50,000 for the needs of integrated landscape management. Manuscript – Archive of Geofond Union ŠGIDŠ, Bratislava, p 552Google Scholar
  42. 42.
    Gavurník, J, Bodácz B, Čaučík P, Paľušová Z (2011) Danube – refilling source of grounwater. SHMI report (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Dulovičová R, Velísková Y, Koczka Bara M, Schűgerl R (2013) Impact of silts distribution along the Chotárny channel on seepage water amounts. Acta Hydrologica Slovaca 14(1):126–134. (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  44. 44.
    Faško P, Štastný P (2002) Atlas krajiny Slovenskej republiky. Ministerstvo životného prostredia SR, BratislavaGoogle Scholar
  45. 45.
    Malík P et al (2011) Comprehensive geological information base for the needs of nature conservation and landscape management (GIB-GES). SGIDŠ report (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  46. 46.
    Dulovičová R, Velísková Y (2005) Saturated hydraulic conductivity of silts in the main channels of the Žitný ostrov channel network. Acta Hydrologica Slovaca 6(2):274–282. (in Slovak)Google Scholar
  47. 47.
    Aquaveo (2011) MODFLOW – conceptual model approach I. Aquaveo, Provo.
  48. 48.
    Aquaveo (2011) GMS user manual (v9.1), the groundwater modeling system. Aquaveo, Provo.
  49. 49.
    Carle SF (1999) T-PROGS: transition probability geostatistical software version 2.1. Hydrologic Sciences Graduate Group University of California, DavisGoogle Scholar
  50. 50.
    McDonald MG, Harbaugh AW (1988) A modular three – dimensional finite – difference ground – water flow model. US Geological Survey, RestonGoogle Scholar
  51. 51.
    Prudic DE, Konikow LF, Banta ER (2004) A new Streamflow-Routing (SFR1) package to simulate stream-aquifer interaction with modflow-2000. US Geological Survey, RestonCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. 52.
    Aquaveo (2011) MODFLOW – STR package. Aquaveo, Provo.
  53. 53.
    Niswonger RG, Prudic DE (2010) Documentation of the Streamflow-Routing (SFR2) Package to include unsaturated flow beneath streams – a modification to SFR1. US Geological Survey, RestonGoogle Scholar
  54. 54.
    Aquaveo (2011) MODFLOW – SFR2 package. Aquaveo, Provo.
  55. 55.
    Marino MA, Lithin JN (1982) Seepage and groundwater. Elsevier, Amsterdam, p 489. ISBN 0-444-41975-6Google Scholar
  56. 56.
    Zaadnoordijk JW (2009) Simulating piecewise-linear surface water and ground water interactions with MODFLOW. Ground Water 47(5):723–726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  57. 57.
    Fleckenstein JH, Niswonger RG, Fogg GE (2006) River–aquifer interactions, geologic heterogeneity, and low-flow management. Ground Water 44(6):837–852CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  58. 58.
    Doppler T, Franssen HJH, Kaiser HP, Kuhlman U, Stauffer F (2007) Field evidence of a dynamic leakage coefficient for modelling river–aquifer interactions. J Hydrol 347(1–2):177–187CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Institute of Hydrology, Slovak Academy of SciencesBratislavaSlovakia

Personalised recommendations