Parisa Kazerani; Ali Naghi Ziaei; Kamran Davari

doi:10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280005

doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2023.9280005

^1, ,,
²,
³

计量
- 文章访问数: 376
- HTML全文浏览量: 172
- PDF下载量: 37
- 被引次数: 0
出版历程
- 收稿日期: 2022-08-22
- 录用日期: 2023-01-30
- 网络出版日期: 2023-03-20
- 刊出日期: 2023-03-15

Determining safe yield and mapping water level zoning in groundwater resources of the Neishabour Plain

1.
Master of Water Resources Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Khorasan Razavi, Iran
2.
Head of the Water Science and Engineering Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Khorasan Razavi, Iran
3.
Professor of the Water Engineering Department, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad, Khorasan Razavi, Iran

More Information

Corresponding author: parisa.kazerani@ymail.com

摘要

- /
- /
- /
- /
Abstract: Groundwater is a crucial sources of water supply, especially in arid and semi-arid areas around the world. With uncontrolled withdrawals and limited availability of these resources, it is essential to determine the safe yield of these valuable resources. The Hill method approach was used in this study to determine the safe yield the Neishabour aquifer in Khorasan Razvi province in Iran. The results showed that the safe yield in the Neishabour aquifer is 60% lower than the current pumping amounts during the study period, indicating that further overdrafts could result in the destruction of this aquifer. This highlights the importance of using the Hill method to estimate the permitted exploitation from other aquifers, thus preventing problems caused by over-extraction and maintaining stability of global groundwater levels.
- Hill method /
- Water level zoning maps /
- Groundwater pumping /
- Safe yield /
- Groundwater crisis

HTML全文

Figure 1. Location of the study area in Khorasan Razavi province, Iran

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 2. Location of existing pumping wells in the aquifer and the modeling range

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 3. The Hill method and determination of safe yield using initial pumping values

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

4. 1. Modelled water level with 10% pumping reduction

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

4. 2. Modelled water level with 20% pumping reduction

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

4. 3. Modelled water level with 30% pumping reduction

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

4. 4. Modelled water level with 40% pumping reduction

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

4. 5. Modelled water level with 50% pumping reduction

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

4. 6. Modelled water level with 60% pumping reduction

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 5. The Hill method and determination of safe yield after changing pumping values

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 6. The zoning map of the aquifer water level in the initial pumping condition

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Figure 7. The zoning map of aquifer water level in the appropriate pumping condition

下载: 全尺寸图片幻灯片

Table 1. Sum of pumping values and water level drop in the water years of the period

Water year	Annual pumping (million m³)	Annual water level change (m)
2000–2001	680.42	−0.90
2001–2002	671.82	−1.10
2002–2003	662.63	−0.93
2003–2004	655.39	−0.84
2005–2004	644.76	−0.72
2005–2006	635.54	−0.78
2006–2007	626.10	−0.66
2007–2008	616.36	−0.68
2008–2009	609.83	−0.62
2009–2010	611.46	−0.65
2010–2011	611.52	−0.64
2011–2012	547.29	−0.45

下载: 导出CSV

Table 2. Average annual pumping values of the period after reducing the pumping percentage compared to initial pumping values

Average annual pumping values of the period (million m³)	The percentage of pumping reduction compared to existing (initial) values (%)
557.99	−10
495.83	−20
433.99	−30
371.99	−40
315.45	−50
245.84	−60

下载: 导出CSV

Table 3. Determination of safe yield from the obtained curve equation

Water year	Annual pumping (million m³)	Annual water level change (m)
2000–2001	680.42	−0.90
2001–2002	671.82	−1.10
2002–2003	662.63	−0.93
2003–2004	655.39	−0.84
2005–2004	644.76	−0.72
2005–2006	635.54	−0.78
2006–2007	626.10	−0.66
2007–2008	616.36	−0.68
2008–2009	609.83	−0.62
2009–2010	611.46	−0.65
2010–2011	611.52	−0.64
2011–2012	547.29	−0.45
From the curve equation to zero water level drop	494.8	0

下载: 导出CSV

Table 4. Determining the safe yield from the obtained line equation

The percentage of Pumping reduction compared to existing (initial) values (%)	Average annual pumping values of the period (million m³)	Average annual water level changes of the period (m)
−10	557.99	−0.70
−20	495.83	−0.54
−30	433.99	−0.39
−40	371.99	−0.25
−50	315.45	−0.11
−60	245.84	+0.02
From the curve equation to zero water level drop	257.2	0

下载: 导出CSV

参考文献(15)

Akbari B, Hejazi A. 2017. The importance of water resources management in Iran with emphasis on groundwater. The 7th National Conference on Agriculture and Sustainable Natural Resources.

Alizadeh A, Izadi A, Davari K, et al. 2013. Estimation of actual evapotranspiration on a year-basin scale using SWAT. Iranian Journal of Irrigation and Drainage, 2: 243-258. https://www.sid.ir/paper/131662/fa

Alley William M, Stanley AL. 2004. The journey from safe yield to sustainability. Groundwater, 42(1): 12−16. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.tb02446.x.

Bredehoeft J. 1997. Safe yield and the water budget myth. Groundwater, 35(6): 929. DOI: 10.1111/j.1745-6584.1997.tb00162.x.

Izadi A. 2013. Application and evaluation of a developed integrated model of groundwater-surface water in the Neishabour Basin. Ph. D. Dissertation in Water Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad.

Kalf FR, Woolley DR. 2005. Applicability and methodology of determining sustainable yield in groundwater systems. Hydrogeology Journal, 13: 295−312. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-004-0401-x.

Kamran KV, Khorrami B, Roostaei S. 2018. Assessment of groundwater-level susceptibility to degradation based on analytical network process (ANP). International Journal of Environment and Geoinformatics, 5(3): 314−324. DOI: 10.30897/ijegeo.451067.

Meyland SJ. 2011. Examining safe yield and sustainable yield for groundwater supplies and moving to managed yield as water resource limits become a reality. Department of Environmental Technology, New York Institute of Technology, USA, water resource management, 1: 813.

Meinzer E. 1923. Outline of groundwater hydrology, with definitions. Geological Survey, Water Supply: 494.

Naik P, Awasthi A. 2003. Groundwater resources assessment of the Koyna River basin, India. Hydrogeology Journal, 11: 582−594. DOI: 10.1007/s10040-003-0273-5.

Nazarieh F. 2017. Development and evaluation of an integrated simulation model of surface flow, unsaturated, and saturated areas in the Neishabour plain. Ph. D. Dissertation in Water Science and Engineering, Faculty of Agriculture, Ferdowsi University of Mashhad. https://ganj.irandoc.ac.ir/#/articles/b8f1157641ec90c37f3a108914a1f435

Panahi Gh, Hassanzadeh Eskafi M, Faridhosseini A, et al. 2021 Physical–chemical evaluation of groundwater quality in semi-arid areas: Case study—Sabzevar plain, Iran. Sustainable Water Resources Management, 7: 99.

Sharp J. 2016. Sustainability of groundwater resources: Conceptual evolution, opportunities, & challenges. Session I: 2. DOI: 10.1130/abs/2017SC-288962.

Wilson E. 2005. Safe Yield of an Aquifer. Water Encyclopedia, 5: 575−576. DOI: 10.1002/047147844X.gw1006.

Yazdani, Mansoorian H. 2014. Zoning the exploitation potential of groundwater resources using quantitative and qualitative data of the Neishabour plain aquifer. Journal of Irrigation and Water Engineering, 15: 118. http://www.waterjournal.ir/article_70951.

[1]	Masoud H Hamed, Rebwar N Dara, Marios C Kirlas2024: Groundwater vulnerability assessment using a GIS-based DRASTIC method in the Erbil Dumpsite area (Kani Qirzhala), Central Erbil Basin, North Iraq, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 12, 16-33. doi: 10.26599/JGSE.2024.9280003
[2]	Vinay Kumar Gautam, Mahesh Kothari, P.K. Singh, S.R. Bhakar, K.K. Yadav2022: Analysis of groundwater level trend in Jakham River Basin of Southern Rajasthan, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 1-9. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.01.001
[3]	Rustadi, Darmawan I Gede Boy, Haerudin Nandi, Setiawan Agus, Suharno2022: Groundwater exploration using integrated geophysics method in hard rock terrains in Mount Betung Western Bandar Lampung, Indonesia, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 10-18. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.01.002
[4]	Yang Hui-feng, Meng Rui-fang, Bao Xi-lin, Cao Wen-geng, Li Ze-yan, Xu Bu-yun2022: Assessment of water level threshold for groundwater restoration and over-exploitation remediation the Beijing-Tianjin-Hebei Plain, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 10, 113-127. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2022.02.002
[5]	Kirlas Marios C2021: Assessment of porous aquifer hydrogeological parameters using automated groundwater level measurements in Greece, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9, 269-278. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.04.001
[6]	Luong Van Viet2021: Effects of urbanization on groundwater level in aquifers of Binh Duong Province, Vietnam, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9, 20-36. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.01.003
[7]	Zhang Han, Chen Zong-yu, Tang Chang-yuan2021: Quantifying groundwater recharge and discharge for the middle reach of Heihe River of China using isotope mass balance method, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9, 225-232. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.03.005
[8]	Wen Xue-ru, Cheng Yan-pei, Zhang Jian-kang, Dong Hua2021: Ecological function zoning and protection of groundwater in Asia, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 9, 359-368. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2021.04.009
[9]	Abdulrahman Th Mohammad, Qassem H Jalut, Nadia L Abbas2020: Predicting groundwater level of wells in the Diyala River Basin in eastern Iraq using artificial neural network, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 8, 87-96. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.01.009
[10]	A S El-Hames2020: Development of a simple method for determining the influence radius of a pumping well in steady-state condition, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 8, 97-107. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2020.02.001
[11]	SONG Hong-wei, MU Hai-dong, XIA Fan2018: Analyzing the differences of brackish-water in the Badain Lake by geophysical exploration method, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 6, 187-192. doi: 10.19637/j.cnki.2305-7068.2018.03.004
[12]	LI Xiao-yuan, YUE Gao-fan, SU Ran, YU Juan2016: Research on Pisha-sandstone’s anti-erodibility based on grey multi-level comprehensive evaluation method, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 4, 103-109.
[13]	MA Luan, WANG Guang-cai, SHI Zhe-ming, GUO Yu-ying, XU Qing-yu, HUANG Xu-juan2016: Simulation of groundwater level recovery in abandoned mines, Fengfeng coalfield, China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 4, 344-353.
[14]	YANG Yun, WU Jian-feng, LIU De-peng2015: Numerical modeling of water yield of mine in Yangzhuang Iron Mine, Anhui Province of China, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 3, 352-362.
[15]	Ramasamy Jayakumar2015: Groundwater level monitoring-importance global groundwater monitoring network, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 3, 295-305.
[16]	WANG Ye, ZHANG Qiu-lan, WANG Shi-chang, SHAO Jing-li2015: Forecasting of water yield of deep-buried iron mine in Yanzhou, Shandong, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 3, 342-350.
[17]	GONG Xiao-ping, JIANG Guang-hui, CHEN Chang-jie, GUO Xiao-jiao, ZHANG Hua-sheng2015: Specific yield of phreatic variation zone in karst aquifer with the method of water level analysis, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 3, 192-201.
[18]	ZHANG Shao-cai, LIU Li-jun, LIU Zhi-gang, WANG Jun-jie, CUI Qiu-ping, WANG Juan2014: Method for groundwater research in bedrock of mountainous area of Hebei, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 2, 97-104.
[19]	2014: The Experimental Investigations on Motion Features of Groundwater Flow near the Pumping Well, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 2, 1-11.
[20]	Lihe Yin, Hongyun Ma, Jiaqiu Dong, Xiaoyong Wang, Ying Li2013: Using a Particle Tracking Method to Quantify Groundwater Circulation rates: a Case Study in the Ordos Plateau, Journal of Groundwater Science and Engineering, 1, 97-101.