Determination of water balance equation components in irrigated agricultural watersheds using SWAT and MODFLOW models : A case study of Samalqan plain in Iran
-
Abstract:
Increasing water demands, especially in arid and semi-arid regions, continuously exacerbate groundwater as the only reliable water resources in these regions. Samalqan watershed, Iran, is a groundwater-based irrigation watershed, so that increased aquifer extraction, has caused serious groundwater depletion. So that the catchment consists of surface water, the management of these resources is essential in order to increase the groundwater recharge. Due to the existence of rivers, the low thickness of the alluvial sediments, groundwater level fluctuations and high uncertainty in the calculation of hydrodynamic coefficients in the watershed, the SWAT and MODFLOW models were used to assess the impact of irrigation return flow on groundwater recharge and the hydrological components of the basin. For this purpose, the irrigation operation tool in the SWAT model was utilized to determine the fixed amounts and time of irrigation for each HRU (Hydrological Response Unit) on the specified day. Since the study area has pressing challenges related to water deficit and sparsely gauged, therefore, this investigation looks actual for regional scale analysis. Model evaluation criteria, RMSE and NRMSE for the simulated groundwater level were 1.8 m and 1.1% respectively. Also, the simulation of surface water flow at the basin outlet, provided satisfactory prediction (R2=0.92, NSE=0.85). Results showed that, the irrigation has affected the surface and groundwater interactions in the watershed, where agriculture heavily depends on irrigation. Annually 11.64 Mm3 water entered to the aquifer by surface recharge (precipitation, irrigation), transmission loss from river and recharge wells 5.8 Mm3 and ground water boundary flow (annually 20.5 Mm3). Water output in the watershed included ground water extraction and groundwater return flow (annually 46.4 Mm3) and ground water boundary flow (annually 0.68 Mm3). Overally, the groundwater storage has decreased by 9.14 Mm3 annually in Samalqan aquifer. This method can be applied to simulate the effects of surface water fluxes to groundwater recharge and river-aquifer interaction for areas with stressed aquifers where interaction between surface and groundwater cannot be easily assessed.
-
Key words:
- Groundwater level /
- SWAT Model /
- MODFLOW Model /
- Recharge /
- Irrigation
-
-
Table 1. General geological characteristics and soil units in the study area
Permeability based on geological characteristic Soil depth based on geological characteristic Geological characteristic Land use Soil texture Unit high high Antelopes, young conifers, alluvial plains, young alluvial river Pasture Moderate 3 001 Moderate Moderate Conglomerate with poor consolidation Forest Moderate 3 002 Low Low Thick layer limestone, chert limestone, clayey limestone and marl Forest Moderate 3 003 Low Low Shale Orchard-agriculture Moderate 3 004 Low Low Thick layer limestone, chert limestone, clayey limestone and marl Bare Ground Tundra Moderate 3 005 high high Antelopes, young conifers, alluvial plains, young alluvial river Orchard-agriculture Moderate 3 007 Low Low Red marl and sandstone with layers of conglomerate Pasture Moderate 3 008 Moderate high Antelopes, old cones, alluvial plains Orchard-agriculture Moderate 3 009 Low Low Antelopes, old cones, alluvial plains Orchard-agriculture Moderate 3 010 Low Moderate to high Orbital insoluble limestone Pasture Moderate 3 011 Low Moderate to high Orbital insoluble limestone Forest Moderate 3 012 Low Moderate to high Orbital insoluble limestone Orchard-agriculture Moderate 3 013 Low Low Clay limestone, marl, sandstone and conglomerate, coarse sandstone and conglomerate Orchard-agriculture Moderate to strong 3 014 Moderate Moderate Conglomerate with poor consolidation Pasture Moderate 3 016 high high Antelopes, young conifers, alluvial plains, young alluvial river Pasture Moderate 3 017 high high Antelopes, young conifers, alluvial plains, young alluvial river Orchard-agriculture Moderate 3 018 Low Moderate to high Orbital insoluble limestone Forest Moderate 3 019 
下载: 导出CSV
Table 2. Model evaluation statistics, calibration - validation periods
Coefficients Station Name Calibrated period (2004-2012) Validation Period (2013-2014) P-factor R-factor R2 NSE PBIAS PSR P-factor R-factor R2 NSE PSR PBIAS Darband
Shirabad
Darkesh0.82
0.75
0.720.90
0.78
0.760.92
0.85
0.820.85
0.80
0.75−3.0
2.5
3.80.58
0.50
0.480.80
0.78
0.750.87
0.75
0.700.85
0.80
0.760.80
0.78
0.720.55
0.52
0.46−2.8
1.5
2.6
下载: 导出CSV
Table 3. Average annual surface water balance components calculated by the SWAT model
Surface water balance component(mm) Calibrated period(2004-2012) Validation Period(2013-2014) Precipitation; Precip
Potential evapotranspiration; PET486.5
1 359.0468.3
1 377.8Actual evapotranspiration; ET
Water yield; WYLD
Surface runoff; Sur_Q
Soil water; SW
Lateral flow; Lat_Q
Contribution of groundwater to stream flow; Gw_Q
Percolation out of soil420.5
43.7
1.2
61.5
20.2
18.5
45.0429.0
46.5
2.5
45.5
14.4
15.8
26.5
下载: 导出CSV
Table 4. Groundwater balance components
Components In-flow (Mm3/a) Out-flow (Mm3/a) Inflow boundaries 20.5 Infiltration of river bed and sewage well 5.8 Infiltration of Surface water(Precipitation, irrigation return flow) 11.64 Outflow boundaries 0.68 Discharge and extraction (well, spring) 46.4 Total 37.94 47.08 Storage −9.14
下载: 导出CSV
-
[1] Abbaspour KC, J Yang, Maximov I, et al. 2007. Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. Journal of hydrology, 333(2-4): 413-430. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.09.014
[2] Anderson MP, Woessner WW, Hunt RJ. 1992. Applied groundwater modeling: Simulation of flow and advective transport. Academic Press Inc. , San Diego, CA. Journal of Hydrology, 140: 393-395.
[3] Arnold JG, Moriasi DN, Gassman PW, et al. 2012. SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the ASABE 55 (4): 1491-1508.
[4] Borsi I, R Rossetto C, Schifani, et al. 2013. Modeling unsaturated zone flow and runoff processes by integrating MODFLOW-LGR and VSF, and creating the new CFL package. Journal of hydrology, 488: 33-47. doi: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.02.020
[5] Cao GL, Zheng CM, Scanlon BR , et al. 2013. Use of flow modeling to assess sustainability of groundwater resources in the North China Plain. Water Resources Research, 49(1): 159-175. doi: 10.1029/2012WR011899
[6] Chakraborty S, Maity PK, Das S. 2020. Investigation, simulation, identification and prediction of groundwater levels in coastal areas of Purba Midnapur, India, using MODFLOW. Environment, Development and Sustainability, 22, (4): 3805-3837.
[7] Chatterjee R, Jain A, Chandra S, et al. 2018. Mapping and management of aquifers suffering from over-exploitation of groundwater resources in Baswa-Bandikui watershed, Rajasthan, India. Environmental Earth Sciences, 77(5): 1-14.
[8] Cho J, Barone V, Mostaghimi S. 2009. Simulation of land use impacts on groundwater levels and streamflow in a Virginia watershed. Agricultural water management, 96(1): 1-11. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2008.07.005
[9] Daloğlu I, JI Nassauer R Riolo, Scavia D. 2014. An integrated social and ecological modeling framework—Impacts of agricultural conservation practices on water quality. Ecology and Society, 19 (3).
[10] Epting J, Müller MH, Genske D, et al. 2018. Relating groundwater heat-potential to city-scale heat-demand: A theoretical consideration for urban groundwater resource management. Applied Energy, 228: 1499-1505. doi: 10.1016/j.apenergy.2018.06.154
[11] Gassman PW, Reyes MR, Green CH, et al. 2007. The soil and water assessment tool: Historical development, applications, and future research directions. Transactions of the ASABE 50 (4): 1211-1250.
[12] Iran Water Resources Management Company. Available online: https://www.wrm.ir (accessed on 23 April 2019).
[13] Jalut QH, Abbas NL, Mohammad AT. 2018. Management of groundwater resources in the Al-Mansourieh zone in the Diyala River Basin in Eastern Iraq. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 6: 79-86. doi: 10.1016/j.gsd.2017.11.004
[14] Karimi L, Motagh M, Entezam I. 2019. Modeling groundwater level fluctuations in Tehran aquifer: Results from a 3D unconfined aquifer model. Groundwater for Sustainable Development, 8: 439-449. doi: 10.1016/j.gsd.2019.01.003
[15] Khalili K, Tahoudi MN, Mirabbasi R, et al. 2016. Investigation of spatial and temporal variability of precipitation in Iran over the last half century. Stochastic environmental research and risk assessment, 30(4): 1205-1221. doi: 10.1007/s00477-015-1095-4
[16] Llamas MR, Custodio E. 2002. Intensive Use of Groundwater: Challenges and Opportunities: CRC Press.
[17] Lobo-Ferreira J, Chachadi A, Diamantino C, et al. 2005. Assessing aquifer vulnerability to seawater intrusion using GALDIT Method. Part 1: Application to the Portuguese aquifer of Monte Gordo.
[18] McDonald MG, Harbaugh AW. 1988. A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground-water flow model: US Geological Survey.
[19] Meredith E, Blais N. 2019. Quantifying irrigation recharge sources using groundwater modeling. Agricultural water management, 214: 9-16. doi: 10.1016/j.agwat.2018.12.032
[20] Mojarrad BB, Betterle A, T Singh C Olid, et al. 2019. The effect of stream discharge on hyporheic exchange. Water, 11(7): 1436. doi: 10.3390/w11071436
[21] Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, et al. 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE 50 (3): 885-900.
[22] Moridi A, Tabatabaie MRM, Esmaeelzade S. 2018. Holistic approach to sustainable groundwater management in semi-arid regions. International Journal of Environmental Research, 12(3): 347-355. doi: 10.1007/s41742-018-0080-4
[23] Nan T, Li K, Wu J, et al. 2018. Assessment of groundwater exploitation in an aquifer using the random walk on grid method: A case study at Ordos, China. Hydrogeology journal, 26(5): 1669-1681. doi: 10.1007/s10040-018-1762-x
[24] Pholkern K, P Saraphirom V Cloutier, et al. 2019. Use of alternative hydrogeological conceptual models to assess the potential impact of climate change on groundwater sustainable yield in central Huai Luang Basin, Northeast Thailand. Water, 11(2): 241. doi: 10.3390/w11020241
[25] Qiu SW, Liang XJ, Xiao CL, et al. 2015. Numerical simulation of groundwater flow in a river valley basin in Jilin urban area, China. Water, 7(10): 5768-5787. doi: 10.3390/w7105768
[26] Rejani R, Jha MK, Panda S, et al. 2008. Simulation modeling for efficient groundwater management in Balasore coastal basin, India. Water Resources Management, 22(1): 23-50. doi: 10.1007/s11269-006-9142-z
[27] Sattari MTR Mirabbasi, Sushab RS, Abraham J. 2018. Prediction of groundwater level in Ardebil plain using support vector regression and M5 tree model. Groundwater, 56(4): 636-646. doi: 10.1111/gwat.12620
[28] Su XS, Yuan WZ, SH Du, et al. 2017. Responses of groundwater vulnerability to groundwater extraction reduction in the Hun River Basin, northeastern China. Human and Ecological Risk Assessment:An International Journal, 23(5): 1121-1139. doi: 10.1080/10807039.2017.1300858
[29] Tabios III GQ, Salas JD. 1985. A comparative analysis of techniques for spatial interpolation of precipitation 1. Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 21(3): 365-380. doi: 10.1111/j.1752-1688.1985.tb00147.x
[30] Thangarajan M. 2007. Groundwater: Resource evaluation, augmentation, contamination, restoration, modeling and management: Springer Science & Business Media.
[31] Xue S, Liu Y, Liu SL, et al. 2018. Numerical simulation for groundwater distribution after mining in Zhuanlongwan mining area based on visual MODFLOW. Environmental Earth Sciences, 77(11): 1-9.
-
图(13)
表(4)
计量
- 文章访问数: 2859
- PDF下载数: 50
- 施引文献: 0