Comparison of recharge estimates at a small watershed in east-central Pennsylvania, USA
The common recommendation that recharge should be estimated from multiple methods is sound, but the inherent differences of the methods make it difficult to assess the accuracy of differing results. In this study, four methods for estimating groundwater recharge and two methods for estimating base f...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | Hydrogeology journal 2009-03, Vol.17 (2), p.287-298 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , |
| Format: | Artikel |
| Sprache: | eng |
| Schlagworte: | |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| container_end_page | 298 |
|---|---|
| container_issue | 2 |
| container_start_page | 287 |
| container_title | Hydrogeology journal |
| container_volume | 17 |
| creator | Risser, Dennis W. Gburek, William J. Folmar, Gordon J. |
| description | The common recommendation that recharge should be estimated from multiple methods is sound, but the inherent differences of the methods make it difficult to assess the accuracy of differing results. In this study, four methods for estimating groundwater recharge and two methods for estimating base flow (as a proxy for recharge) are compared at two hydrologic research sites in east-central Pennsylvania, USA. Results from the multiple methods all provided reasonable estimates of groundwater recharge that differed considerably. The estimates of mean annual recharge for the period 1994-2001 ranged from 22.9 to 35.7 cm—about 45% of the mean of all estimates. For individual years, recharge estimates from the multiple methods ranged from 30 to 42% of the mean value during the dry years and 64 to 76% of the mean value during wet years. Comparison of multiple methods was found to be useful for determining the range of plausible recharge rates and highlighting the uncertainty of the estimates. |
| doi_str_mv | 10.1007/s10040-008-0406-y |
| format | Article |
| fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_cross</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_36317167</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>36317167</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-a400t-c05fb9283f6d07964732921cc37774aeeca4e2db256fefa1c6e44d784c42f7023</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNqFkUtLAzEUhYMoWKs_wF1w4cponpN2WYovEBS0uAxp5qadMs3UZKrMvzd1BEEQNzkhfOdwbw5Cp4xeMkr1VcqnpITSEclakG4PDZgUilCm9P7XnRHOtDxERymtaKaZFgP0Om3WGxur1ATceBzBLW1cAIbUVmvbQsK2xRanta1r_JEfYlpCiauAwaaWOAhttDV-ghBSV7_bUNkLPHueHKMDb-sEJ986RLOb65fpHXl4vL2fTh6IlZRmP1V-PuYj4YuS6nEhteBjzpwTWmtpAZyVwMs5V4UHb5krQMpSj6ST3GvKxRCd97mb2Lxt89RmXSUHdW0DNNtkRCGYZoX-F-SMK02VyuDZL3DVbGPIS2SGqZymaYZYD7nYpBTBm03M_xU7w6jZFWL6QkwuxOwKMV328N6TMhsWEH-C_zZ9AhPhjWE</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Aggregation Database</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>211517170</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Comparison of recharge estimates at a small watershed in east-central Pennsylvania, USA</title><source>Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals</source><creator>Risser, Dennis W. ; Gburek, William J. ; Folmar, Gordon J.</creator><creatorcontrib>Risser, Dennis W. ; Gburek, William J. ; Folmar, Gordon J.</creatorcontrib><description>The common recommendation that recharge should be estimated from multiple methods is sound, but the inherent differences of the methods make it difficult to assess the accuracy of differing results. In this study, four methods for estimating groundwater recharge and two methods for estimating base flow (as a proxy for recharge) are compared at two hydrologic research sites in east-central Pennsylvania, USA. Results from the multiple methods all provided reasonable estimates of groundwater recharge that differed considerably. The estimates of mean annual recharge for the period 1994-2001 ranged from 22.9 to 35.7 cm—about 45% of the mean of all estimates. For individual years, recharge estimates from the multiple methods ranged from 30 to 42% of the mean value during the dry years and 64 to 76% of the mean value during wet years. Comparison of multiple methods was found to be useful for determining the range of plausible recharge rates and highlighting the uncertainty of the estimates.</description><identifier>ISSN: 1431-2174</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1435-0157</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1007/s10040-008-0406-y</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag</publisher><subject>Aquatic Pollution ; Earth and Environmental Science ; Earth Sciences ; Geology ; Geophysics/Geodesy ; Groundwater discharge ; Groundwater recharge ; Hydrogeology ; Hydrologic research ; Hydrology ; Hydrology/Water Resources ; Waste Water Technology ; Water Management ; Water Pollution Control ; Water Quality/Water Pollution ; Watersheds</subject><ispartof>Hydrogeology journal, 2009-03, Vol.17 (2), p.287-298</ispartof><rights>US Government 2008</rights><rights>Springer-Verlag 2009</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-a400t-c05fb9283f6d07964732921cc37774aeeca4e2db256fefa1c6e44d784c42f7023</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-a400t-c05fb9283f6d07964732921cc37774aeeca4e2db256fefa1c6e44d784c42f7023</cites></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007/s10040-008-0406-y$$EPDF$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://link.springer.com/10.1007/s10040-008-0406-y$$EHTML$$P50$$Gspringer$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>314,776,780,27903,27904,41467,42536,51298</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>Risser, Dennis W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gburek, William J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Folmar, Gordon J.</creatorcontrib><title>Comparison of recharge estimates at a small watershed in east-central Pennsylvania, USA</title><title>Hydrogeology journal</title><addtitle>Hydrogeol J</addtitle><description>The common recommendation that recharge should be estimated from multiple methods is sound, but the inherent differences of the methods make it difficult to assess the accuracy of differing results. In this study, four methods for estimating groundwater recharge and two methods for estimating base flow (as a proxy for recharge) are compared at two hydrologic research sites in east-central Pennsylvania, USA. Results from the multiple methods all provided reasonable estimates of groundwater recharge that differed considerably. The estimates of mean annual recharge for the period 1994-2001 ranged from 22.9 to 35.7 cm—about 45% of the mean of all estimates. For individual years, recharge estimates from the multiple methods ranged from 30 to 42% of the mean value during the dry years and 64 to 76% of the mean value during wet years. Comparison of multiple methods was found to be useful for determining the range of plausible recharge rates and highlighting the uncertainty of the estimates.</description><subject>Aquatic Pollution</subject><subject>Earth and Environmental Science</subject><subject>Earth Sciences</subject><subject>Geology</subject><subject>Geophysics/Geodesy</subject><subject>Groundwater discharge</subject><subject>Groundwater recharge</subject><subject>Hydrogeology</subject><subject>Hydrologic research</subject><subject>Hydrology</subject><subject>Hydrology/Water Resources</subject><subject>Waste Water Technology</subject><subject>Water Management</subject><subject>Water Pollution Control</subject><subject>Water Quality/Water Pollution</subject><subject>Watersheds</subject><issn>1431-2174</issn><issn>1435-0157</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2009</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>ABUWG</sourceid><sourceid>AFKRA</sourceid><sourceid>AZQEC</sourceid><sourceid>BENPR</sourceid><sourceid>CCPQU</sourceid><sourceid>DWQXO</sourceid><sourceid>GNUQQ</sourceid><recordid>eNqFkUtLAzEUhYMoWKs_wF1w4cponpN2WYovEBS0uAxp5qadMs3UZKrMvzd1BEEQNzkhfOdwbw5Cp4xeMkr1VcqnpITSEclakG4PDZgUilCm9P7XnRHOtDxERymtaKaZFgP0Om3WGxur1ATceBzBLW1cAIbUVmvbQsK2xRanta1r_JEfYlpCiauAwaaWOAhttDV-ghBSV7_bUNkLPHueHKMDb-sEJ986RLOb65fpHXl4vL2fTh6IlZRmP1V-PuYj4YuS6nEhteBjzpwTWmtpAZyVwMs5V4UHb5krQMpSj6ST3GvKxRCd97mb2Lxt89RmXSUHdW0DNNtkRCGYZoX-F-SMK02VyuDZL3DVbGPIS2SGqZymaYZYD7nYpBTBm03M_xU7w6jZFWL6QkwuxOwKMV328N6TMhsWEH-C_zZ9AhPhjWE</recordid><startdate>20090301</startdate><enddate>20090301</enddate><creator>Risser, Dennis W.</creator><creator>Gburek, William J.</creator><creator>Folmar, Gordon J.</creator><general>Springer-Verlag</general><general>Springer Nature B.V</general><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>3V.</scope><scope>7QH</scope><scope>7ST</scope><scope>7TG</scope><scope>7UA</scope><scope>7XB</scope><scope>88I</scope><scope>8FD</scope><scope>8FE</scope><scope>8FG</scope><scope>8FK</scope><scope>ABJCF</scope><scope>ABUWG</scope><scope>AEUYN</scope><scope>AFKRA</scope><scope>ATCPS</scope><scope>AZQEC</scope><scope>BENPR</scope><scope>BGLVJ</scope><scope>BHPHI</scope><scope>BKSAR</scope><scope>C1K</scope><scope>CCPQU</scope><scope>DWQXO</scope><scope>F1W</scope><scope>FR3</scope><scope>GNUQQ</scope><scope>H96</scope><scope>HCIFZ</scope><scope>KL.</scope><scope>KR7</scope><scope>L.G</scope><scope>L6V</scope><scope>M2P</scope><scope>M7S</scope><scope>PATMY</scope><scope>PCBAR</scope><scope>PQEST</scope><scope>PQQKQ</scope><scope>PQUKI</scope><scope>PTHSS</scope><scope>PYCSY</scope><scope>Q9U</scope><scope>SOI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>20090301</creationdate><title>Comparison of recharge estimates at a small watershed in east-central Pennsylvania, USA</title><author>Risser, Dennis W. ; Gburek, William J. ; Folmar, Gordon J.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-a400t-c05fb9283f6d07964732921cc37774aeeca4e2db256fefa1c6e44d784c42f7023</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2009</creationdate><topic>Aquatic Pollution</topic><topic>Earth and Environmental Science</topic><topic>Earth Sciences</topic><topic>Geology</topic><topic>Geophysics/Geodesy</topic><topic>Groundwater discharge</topic><topic>Groundwater recharge</topic><topic>Hydrogeology</topic><topic>Hydrologic research</topic><topic>Hydrology</topic><topic>Hydrology/Water Resources</topic><topic>Waste Water Technology</topic><topic>Water Management</topic><topic>Water Pollution Control</topic><topic>Water Quality/Water Pollution</topic><topic>Watersheds</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Risser, Dennis W.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Gburek, William J.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Folmar, Gordon J.</creatorcontrib><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Corporate)</collection><collection>Aqualine</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts</collection><collection>Water Resources Abstracts</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Science Database (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>Technology Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest SciTech Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Technology Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni) (purchase pre-March 2016)</collection><collection>Materials Science & Engineering Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central (Alumni Edition)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Sustainability</collection><collection>ProQuest Central UK/Ireland</collection><collection>Agricultural & Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Essentials</collection><collection>ProQuest Central</collection><collection>Technology Collection</collection><collection>Natural Science Collection</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Sciences and Pollution Management</collection><collection>ProQuest One Community College</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Korea</collection><collection>ASFA: Aquatic Sciences and Fisheries Abstracts</collection><collection>Engineering Research Database</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Student</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) 2: Ocean Technology, Policy & Non-Living Resources</collection><collection>SciTech Premium Collection</collection><collection>Meteorological & Geoastrophysical Abstracts - Academic</collection><collection>Civil Engineering Abstracts</collection><collection>Aquatic Science & Fisheries Abstracts (ASFA) Professional</collection><collection>ProQuest Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Science Database</collection><collection>Engineering Database</collection><collection>Environmental Science Database</collection><collection>Earth, Atmospheric & Aquatic Science Database</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic Eastern Edition (DO NOT USE)</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic</collection><collection>ProQuest One Academic UKI Edition</collection><collection>Engineering Collection</collection><collection>Environmental Science Collection</collection><collection>ProQuest Central Basic</collection><collection>Environment Abstracts</collection><jtitle>Hydrogeology journal</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Risser, Dennis W.</au><au>Gburek, William J.</au><au>Folmar, Gordon J.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Comparison of recharge estimates at a small watershed in east-central Pennsylvania, USA</atitle><jtitle>Hydrogeology journal</jtitle><stitle>Hydrogeol J</stitle><date>2009-03-01</date><risdate>2009</risdate><volume>17</volume><issue>2</issue><spage>287</spage><epage>298</epage><pages>287-298</pages><issn>1431-2174</issn><eissn>1435-0157</eissn><abstract>The common recommendation that recharge should be estimated from multiple methods is sound, but the inherent differences of the methods make it difficult to assess the accuracy of differing results. In this study, four methods for estimating groundwater recharge and two methods for estimating base flow (as a proxy for recharge) are compared at two hydrologic research sites in east-central Pennsylvania, USA. Results from the multiple methods all provided reasonable estimates of groundwater recharge that differed considerably. The estimates of mean annual recharge for the period 1994-2001 ranged from 22.9 to 35.7 cm—about 45% of the mean of all estimates. For individual years, recharge estimates from the multiple methods ranged from 30 to 42% of the mean value during the dry years and 64 to 76% of the mean value during wet years. Comparison of multiple methods was found to be useful for determining the range of plausible recharge rates and highlighting the uncertainty of the estimates.</abstract><cop>Berlin/Heidelberg</cop><pub>Springer-Verlag</pub><doi>10.1007/s10040-008-0406-y</doi><tpages>12</tpages></addata></record> |
| fulltext | fulltext |
| identifier | ISSN: 1431-2174 |
| ispartof | Hydrogeology journal, 2009-03, Vol.17 (2), p.287-298 |
| issn | 1431-2174 1435-0157 |
| language | eng |
| recordid | cdi_proquest_miscellaneous_36317167 |
| source | Springer Nature - Complete Springer Journals |
| subjects | Aquatic Pollution Earth and Environmental Science Earth Sciences Geology Geophysics/Geodesy Groundwater discharge Groundwater recharge Hydrogeology Hydrologic research Hydrology Hydrology/Water Resources Waste Water Technology Water Management Water Pollution Control Water Quality/Water Pollution Watersheds |
| title | Comparison of recharge estimates at a small watershed in east-central Pennsylvania, USA |
| url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-22T21%3A24%3A04IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_cross&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Comparison%20of%20recharge%20estimates%20at%20a%20small%20watershed%20in%20east-central%20Pennsylvania,%20USA&rft.jtitle=Hydrogeology%20journal&rft.au=Risser,%20Dennis%20W.&rft.date=2009-03-01&rft.volume=17&rft.issue=2&rft.spage=287&rft.epage=298&rft.pages=287-298&rft.issn=1431-2174&rft.eissn=1435-0157&rft_id=info:doi/10.1007/s10040-008-0406-y&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_cross%3E36317167%3C/proquest_cross%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=211517170&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true |