Comparison of groundwater recharge estimation techniques in an alluvial aquifer system with an intermittent/ephemeral stream (Queensland, Australia)

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorKing, ACen_AU
dc.contributor.authorRaiber, Men_AU
dc.contributor.authorCox, MEen_AU
dc.contributor.authorCendón, DIen_AU
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-06T04:13:34Zen_AU
dc.date.available2021-12-06T04:13:34Zen_AU
dc.date.issued2017-03-30en_AU
dc.date.statistics2021-10-15en_AU
dc.description.abstractThis study demonstrates the importance of the conceptual hydrogeological model for the estimation of groundwater recharge rates in an alluvial system interconnected with an ephemeral or intermittent stream in south-east Queensland, Australia. The losing/gaining condition of these streams is typically subject to temporal and spatial variability, and knowledge of these hydrological processes is critical for the interpretation of recharge estimates. Recharge rate estimates of 76–182 mm/year were determined using the water budget method. The water budget method provides useful broad approximations of recharge and discharge fluxes. The chloride mass balance (CMB) method and the tritium method were used on 17 and 13 sites respectively, yielding recharge rates of 1–43 mm/year (CMB) and 4–553 mm/year (tritium method). However, the conceptual hydrogeological model confirms that the results from the CMB method at some sites are not applicable in this setting because of overland flow and channel leakage. The tritium method was appropriate here and could be applied to other alluvial systems, provided that channel leakage and diffuse infiltration of rainfall can be accurately estimated. The water-table fluctuation (WTF) method was also applied to data from 16 bores; recharge estimates ranged from 0 to 721 mm/year. The WTF method was not suitable where bank storage processes occurred. © 2017 Springer Nature Switzerland AGen_AU
dc.description.sponsorshipThe authors acknowledge the Australian Institute of Nuclear Science and Engineering (AINSE) for the research grant that funded 3H analysis. Funding by the National Centre for Groundwater Research and Training (NCGRT) is gratefully acknowledged.en_AU
dc.identifier.citationKing, A. C., Raiber, M., Cox, M. E., & Cendón, D. I. (2017). Comparison of groundwater recharge estimation techniques in an alluvial aquifer system with an intermittent/ephemeral stream (Queensland, Australia). Hydrogeology Journal, 25(6), 1759-1777. doi:10.1007/s10040-017-1565-5en_AU
dc.identifier.issn1435-0157en_AU
dc.identifier.issue6en_AU
dc.identifier.journaltitleHydrogeology Journalen_AU
dc.identifier.pagination1759-1777en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-017-1565-5en_AU
dc.identifier.urihttps://apo.ansto.gov.au/dspace/handle/10238/12357en_AU
dc.identifier.volume25en_AU
dc.language.isoenen_AU
dc.publisherSpringer Nature Limiteden_AU
dc.subjectGround wateren_AU
dc.subjectGroundwater rechargeen_AU
dc.subjectAquifersen_AU
dc.subjectQueenslanden_AU
dc.subjectAustraliaen_AU
dc.subjectStreamsen_AU
dc.subjectHydrologyen_AU
dc.subjectTritiumen_AU
dc.subjectSimulationen_AU
dc.subjectDataen_AU
dc.titleComparison of groundwater recharge estimation techniques in an alluvial aquifer system with an intermittent/ephemeral stream (Queensland, Australia)en_AU
dc.typeJournal Articleen_AU
Files
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.63 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Journal Articles