Journal of Hydrology (2006) 329, 281– 293
available at www.sciencedirect.com
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jhydrol
Combined estimation of specific yield and
natural recharge in a semi-arid groundwater
basin with irrigated agriculture
J.C. Maréchal
a
b
a,*
, B. Dewandel a, S. Ahmed b, L. Galeazzi
a,1
, F.K. Zaidi
b
BRGM, Water Department, Indo-French Center for Ground water Research, NGRI, Uppal Road, 500 007 Hyderabad, India
NGRI, Indo-French Center for Ground water Research, NGRI, Uppal Road, 500 007 Hyderabad, India
Received 20 April 2005; received in revised form 16 February 2006; accepted 17 February 2006
KEYWORDS
Summary A water budget approach is developed to jointly estimate specific yield and natural
recharge in an unconfined aquifer with significant seasonal water table fluctuations. Water
table fluctuations are due to distinct seasonality in groundwater recharge. The separation of
the hydrologic year into two (or more) extended seasons of recharge (wet season) and norecharge (dry season) with accompanying changes in water table allows for a split use of the
water table fluctuation (WTF) method, first to estimate specific yield from the water table drop
during the dry season (no recharge) and, second, to estimate recharge from the water table rise
during the wet season, after considering all other water budget components explicitly. The latter includes explicit computation of groundwater storage with the WTF method. The application of the WTF method requires a large number of water level measurements throughout
the unconfined aquifer before and after each season. The advantage of the method is that specific yield and recharge are estimated at the scale of interest to basin hydrologic studies and
that the method requires no extensive in situ instrumentation network. Here, the method is
demonstrated through a case study in a fractured hard-rock aquifer subject to intensive groundwater pumping for irrigation purposes.
c 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
Water balance;
Recharge;
Semi-arid environment;
India;
GIS
Introduction
* Corresponding author. Present address: BRGM, Water Department, Unit RMD, 1039 rue de Pinville, 34000 Montpellier, France.
Tel.: +33 467157968; fax: +33 467157975.
E-mail address: jc.marechal@brgm.fr (J.C. Maréchal).
1
BG Ingénieurs Conseils SAS, 47 rue de la République, 69002 Lyon,
France.
Quantification of the rate of ground water recharge is a basic prerequisite for efficient ground water resource management (Sophocleous, 1991). This constitutes a major issue in
regions with large demands for ground water supplies, such
as in semiarid areas, where such resources are the key to
0022-1694/$ - see front matter c 2006 Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.02.022
282
agricultural development. However, the rate of aquifer recharge is one of the most difficult components to measure
when evaluating ground water resources (Sophocleous,
1991). Its determination in arid and semiarid areas is neither
straightforward nor easy. This is a consequence of the time
variability of precipitation in arid and semiarid climates,
and spatial variability in soil characteristics, topography,
vegetation and land use (Lerner et al., 1990). Moreover, recharge amounts are usually small in comparison with the
resolution of investigation methods. The more arid the climate, the smaller and potentially more variable is the recharge flux (Allison et al., 1994).
According to Sophocleous (1991), the main techniques
used to estimate ground water recharge rates can be divided into physical methods and chemical methods (Allison,
1988; Foster, 1988). Among the physical methods, the water
table fluctuation technique (WTF) links the change in
ground water storage with resulting water table fluctuations
through the storage parameter (specific yield in unconfined
aquifer). This method is considered to be one of the most
promising and attractive due to its accuracy, ease of use
and low cost of application in semiarid areas (Beekman
and Xu, 2003). The WTF method was first used to estimate
ground water recharge and has since been used in numerous
studies for the same purpose (Leduc et al., 1997; Moon
et al., 2004) or groundwater storage changes estimation
(Ruud et al., 2004).
The main limitations of the WTF technique are: (1) the
need to know the specific yield of the saturated aquifer at
a suitable scale and (2) the fact that its accuracy depends
on both the knowledge and representativeness of water table fluctuations (Beekman and Xu, 2003). In order to deter-
J.C. Maréchal et al.
mine the specific yield at a suitable scale, and consequently
the recharge, a double water table fluctuation method
(DWTF) that is a combination of the ground water budget
and water table fluctuation procedures, is employed. It is
illustrated by its application to a case study in an overexploited hard-rock aquifer in India where numerous observation wells enable an accurate knowledge of water table
fluctuations in such a heterogeneous environment. Special
attention has been paid, in this paper, to accurately estimate all the components of the ground water budget.
Study area
The Maheshwaram pilot watershed (Fig. 1a), 53 km2 in area,
is located 35 km south of Hyderabad (Andhra Pradesh State,
India). The area is characterized by a relatively flat topography 590–670 m above sea level and the absence of perennial streams. The region has a semiarid climate controlled
by the periodicity of the Monsoon (rainy or ‘‘Kharif’’ season
from June to October). Mean annual precipitation (P) is
about 750 mm, of which more than 90% falls during the Monsoon season. The mean annual temperature is about 26 C,
although in summer (‘‘Rabi’’ season from March to May)
the maximum temperature can reach 45 C. The resulting
potential evaporation from soil plus transpiration by plants
(PET) is 1800 mm/year. Therefore, the aridity index
(AI = P/PET = 0.42) is 0.2 < AI < 0.5, typical of semiarid areas
(UNEP, 1992). Surface streams are dry most of the time, except a few days a year after very heavy rainfalls during the
monsoon. The geology of the watershed is relatively homogeneous and mainly composed of the Archean granite com-
Figure 1 (a) Maheshwaram watershed (53 km2), location of farmers pumping borewells in July 2002 (MS: meteorological station;
IFP7: observation well whose hydrograph is used on Fig. 3); (b) weathering profile of the hard-rock aquifer with mean altitude of
layer limits.
Combined estimation of specific yield and natural recharge in a semi-arid groundwater basin
monly found in the region characterized by remains of ancient and more recent weathering profiles. Recent results
(Dewandel et al., submitted) describe a typical weathering
profile (Fig. 1b) comprised of the following layers having
specific hydrodynamic properties. From top to bottom:
• Saprolite (or alterite or regolith), a clay-rich material,
derived from prolonged in situ decomposition of bedrock,
a few tens of meters thick (where the layer is not
eroded). Because of its clayey–sandy composition, the
saprolite layer has a high porosity, and a low permeability. When it is saturated, this layer constitutes part of the
storage capacity of the aquifer.
• A fissured layer, generally characterized by dense horizontal fissuring (Maréchal et al., 2003) in the first few meters
and a depth-decreasing density of subhorizontal and subvertical fissures (Maréchal et al., 2004). This layer mainly
assumes the transmissive function of the aquifer and is
tapped by most of the wells drilled in hard-rock areas.
• The fresh basement is permeable only locally, where tectonic fractures are present.
The Maheshwaram watershed is a representative Southern India catchment in terms of overexploitation of its
hard-rock aquifer (more than 700 borewells in use), its cropping pattern (rice fields dominating), rural socio-economy
(based mainly on traditional agriculture) and agricultural
practices. Ground water resources face a chronic depletion
that is observable by the drying-up of springs and streams
and a declining water table. Water table is now 15–25 m
deep and is disconnected from surface water: no spring,
no baseflow, no regular infiltration from surface streams
beds is observed.
Methodology
Principle
The employed methodology is based on applying the water
table fluctuation (WTF) method in conjunction with the
groundwater basin water budget method. The water budget
method focuses on the various components contributing to
283
groundwater flow and groundwater storage changes
(Fig. 2). Changes in ground water storage can be attributed
to recharge, irrigation return flow and ground water inflow
to the basin minus baseflow (ground water discharge to
streams or springs), evapotranspiration from ground water,
pumping, and ground water outflow from the basin according to the following equation adapted from Schicht and
Walton (1961):
R þ RF þ Q on ¼ ET þ PG þ Q off þ Q bf þ DS;
ð1Þ
where R is total ground water recharge (sum of direct recharge Rd through unsaturated zone and indirect and localized recharge Ril, respectively, from surface bodies and
through local pathways like fractures, this point is discussed
in details at ‘‘Natural recharge estimates’’), RF is irrigation
return flow, Qon and Qoff are ground water flow onto and off
the basin, ET is evaporation from water table, PG is the
abstraction of ground water by pumping, Q bf is baseflow
(ground water discharge to streams or springs) and DS is
change in ground water storage.
Due to the significant thickness of the unsaturated zone
overlying the unconfined aquifer in the Maheshwaram basin
– on average more than 17 m – the following simplifications
can be made to the water budget:
• Groundwater discharge to surface water, Qbf, via stream
discharge or springs does not exist (Qbf = 0). All groundwater discharge is via groundwater pumping.
• Transpiration from the water table is negligible due to
large depth to groundwater higher than the depth of
trees roots evaluated to maximum 10 m in this area from
borewells and dugwells observation. Therefore, this flow
can be neglected and the evaporation (E) from the water
table has been estimated according to the water table
depth using the relation proposed by Coudrain-Ribstein
et al. (1998) for semi-arid areas,
Eq. (1) can be rewritten:
R þ RF þ Q on ¼ PG þ E þ Q off þ DS.
ð2Þ
The main advantage of the ground water budget method
compared to the classical hydrologic budget is that evapotranspiration from the root zone of soils – already included
Figure 2 Schematisation of flow components of the groundwater budget in a depleted unconfined aquifer (modified after
Maréchal et al., 2004).
284
J.C. Maréchal et al.
in the natural recharge – which usually constitutes a major
component with large associated uncertainties is not present in Eq. (2).
The methodology used to determine the unknown ground
water storage is the Water Table Fluctuations method
(WTF), which links the change in ground water storage DS
with resulting water table fluctuations Dh:
DS ¼ Sy Dh;
ð3Þ
where Sy is the specific yield (storage) or the fillable porosity of the unconfined aquifer.
Because the water level measured in an observation well
is representative of an area of at least several tens of square
meters, the WTF method can be viewed as an integrated approach and less a point measurement than methods based
on very local data in the unsaturated zone for example.
Techniques based on ground water levels are among the
most widely applied methods for estimating recharge rates
(Healy and Cook, 2002). This is likely due to the abundance
of available ground water-level data and the simplicity of
estimating recharge rates from temporal fluctuations or
spatial patterns of ground water levels.
The WTF method, applicable only to unconfined aquifers,
is best applied to shallow water tables that display sharp
water-level rises and declines. Deep aquifers may not display sharp rises because wetting fronts tend to disperse over
long distances (Healy and Cook, 2002). In the study area,
the monitoring of water table between 2000 and 2003 using
10 automatic water level recorders shows that the aquifer
displays well-identified large seasonal water-level fluctuations due to percolation of water during monsoon period
through a rather thick unsaturated zone and small daily fluctuations due to pumping cycles (Fig. 3). The Kharif season,
during which the water table level rises several meters due
Figure 3 Well hydrograph observed (IFP7; Fig. 1a) in the
study area with seasonal water table fluctuations. The rise of
water table during the Kharif season is general on the whole
basin at the same time (a small delay of several days is
observable according to wells local context).
to rainfall recharge, is followed by the Rabi season during
which the water level drops due mainly to ground water
pumping (Fig. 3). Therefore, the hydrological year can be
divided into two distinct seasons each with a distinct water
level rise or decline. To each of these seasons, the WTF
method can be applied separately.
Combining the water budget Eq. (2) with the WTF method expressed in (3), we obtain:
R þ RF þ Q on ¼ PG þ E þ Q off þ Sy Dh.
ð4Þ
As is typical for semi-arid basins with irrigated agriculture,
two terms that cannot be evaluated independently without
extensive in situ instrumentation are the basin-average natural recharge rate, R and the basin-average, effective specific yield, Sy. By applying (4) separately to the dry
season, during which R = 0, and to the wet season, we obtain two equations with two unknown parameters:
dry
dry
þ E dry þ Q dry
;
RFdry þ Q dry
on ¼ PG
off þ Sy Dh
R þ RF
wet
þ
Q wet
on
¼ PG
wet
þE
wet
þ
Q wet
off
þ Sy Dh
ð5Þ
wet
;
ð6Þ
which can be solved sequentially, first by obtaining Sy by
solving (5), then by solving (6) for R, given the season-specific values for the known parameters:
Sy ¼
dry
RFdry þ Q dry
PGdry Q dry
on E
off
wet
R ¼ Dh
;
Dhdry
wet
wet
Sy RF Q on þ E þ PGwet þ Q wet
off .
wet
ð7Þ
ð8Þ
Eq. (7) known as the ‘‘water-budget method’’ for estimating Sy (Healy and Cook, 2002), was initially proposed by Walton (1970) and was afterwards used namely by Hall and
Risser (1993) and Gburek and Folmar (1999). The water-budget method is the most widely used technique for estimating
specific yield in fractured-rock systems, probably because it
does not require any assumptions concerning flow processes
(Healy and Cook, 2002).
Various authors (Sokolov and Chapman, 1974; Sophocleous, 1991) distinguish the terms ‘‘specific yield’’ and ‘‘fillable porosity’’ – specific yield being the volume of water
released from a unit volume of saturated aquifer material
drained by a falling water table, whereas fillable porosity
is the amount of water that an unconfined aquifer can store
per unit rise in water table and per unit area. Because of
hysteresis, under some conditions, the fillable porosity can
be smaller than the specific yield (Kayane, 1983). The difference between specific yield during water table decline
and fillable porosity during water table rise is due to the
presence of air trapped in pore space below the water table
when it rises rapidly (Kayane, 1983). Since entrapped air
disappears with time by diffusion, the fillable porosity is a
function of time and increases towards the value of specific
yield. Therefore, maximum water levels should be measured at least one month after the rise in order to obtain
the true water table fluctuation for a storage corresponding
to the specific yield value. Therefore, in the study area,
measurements were done in mid-November, more than
one month after the average water level peak had been
reached (Fig. 3). It is assumed that this time interval is
sufficient to allow entrapped air to be evacuated, especially
in a pumped aquifer where induced flow increases air diffusion. Therefore, the specific yield determined using Eq. (7)
can be introduced in Eq. (8).
Combined estimation of specific yield and natural recharge in a semi-arid groundwater basin
In the following sections, it is described the methods
used for obtaining the ‘‘known’’ parameters in Eqs. (7)
and (8), which are needed for the estimation of Sy and R.
The flow components are considered to be spatially distributed throughout the groundwater basin on a 200 · 200 m
cells-length grid with measurements taken from June 2002
until June 2004 (Fig. 5a–d). A Geographical Information System is used to compute all parameters in Eqs. (7) and (8)
cell by cell which are then aggregated at the groundwater
basin scale. Q on and Q off are reliably determined only at
the larger basin scale through the basin boundaries, hence
Sy and R can only be computed at groundwater basin scale.
Water table fluctuation (Dh)
285
surements. The water table maps were then interpolated
using the kriging technique. The map was then critically
evaluated. The automatic interpolation technique gave satisfactory results owing to the very dense observation network and to the fact that there is no surface water
capable of locally modifying the water table. The map for
June 2002 (Fig. 4) shows that the water table roughly follows the topographic slope, as is usually observed in flat
hard-rock areas. However, local water table depletion is observed in highly pumped areas where natural flow paths are
modified by ground water abstraction.
Water table levels are fluctuating between 610 and
619 m, which indicates that the water table is always in
the fissured aquifer layer (Fig. 1b).
The WTF method requires a very good knowledge of the piezometric level throughout the entire basin. This could be
achieved owing to a very dense observation network (99–
155 wells, Table 1) provided mainly by defunct or abandoned agricultural borewells. Sophocleous (1991) pointed
out that the WTF method can be misleading if the water-level fluctuations are confused with those resulting from
pumping, barometric, or other causes. Continuous (15 min
of recording time interval) monitoring of the water table
using 10 automatic water level recorders has shown, however, that barometric and earth tides do not affect this
unconfined aquifer and care was taken to avoid any interference from pumping wells. No measurements were done in
pumped wells and the rare cases of observed drawdown in
the monitored wells due to interference by nearby pumping
wells are never more than 10–20 cm, which is little compared to water table fluctuations at the seasonal scale (several meters). At the same time, the continuous monitoring
of the water table contributes to determine the relevant
time for piezometric campaigns. Standard deviation of the
error on the water table fluctuation measurement has been
calculated by geostatistics (Table 1). Admitting a Gaussian
statistical distribution of errors, it defines the 66% confidence interval of the error. The relative error on water table fluctuation logically decreases with the increasing
number of measurements (Table 1). Water table elevations
are computed by difference between ground elevation from
a Digital Elevation Model obtained by a couple of satellite
images stereoscopy treatment (grid resolution: 30 m; accuracy: 1 m) and water depth obtained from piezometric mea-
Figure 4
Water table map in June 2002.
Table 1 Number of piezometric observations, mean water table elevation for pre-Monsoon (June) and post-Monsoon
(November) periods from 2002 to 2004 (mean value of the kriged grid), water table fluctuations with absolute and relative errors
Date
10–21 June 02
Number of piezometric
measurements
Mean elevation of
water table (m)
99
613.5
107
614.7
Water table fluctuation (m)
Dhwet = 1.2 ± 0.27 = 1.2 ± 22.5%
11–22 November 02
Dhdry = 4.4 ± 0.35 = 4.4 ± 8%
2–11 June 03
114
610.3
10–21 November 03
155
618.6
Dhwet = 8.3 ± 0.32 = 8.3 ± 4%
Dhdry = 5.1 ± 0.23 = 5.1 ± 4%
14–25 June 04
134
613.5
286
J.C. Maréchal et al.
Pumping flow
Paddy fields (rice) and fields of vegetables (tomatoes, brinjals, ladies’ fingers (okra), chilies, etc.), flowers and fruits
(mangoes, goya and grapes) are irrigated with ground water
due to the absence of perennial surface water, the low cost
of drilling and free electricity for farmers (according to
implemented regulation policies), the possibility of getting
water near the crops, etc. These crops are irrigated
throughout the year, even during the monsoon season,
albeit at a lower rates.
The annual pumping rate was estimated using two
methods: an inventory of borewells and a land use map
using remote sensing technique.
A database of the borewells existing in the watershed
from June 2002 to September 2002 was created. Nine hundred and twenty-nine wells were located using portable
GPS and the discharge rate of the 707 in use was measured
(rates between 5 and 700 L/min with an average of 130 L/
min). Information about daily duration of pumping, annual
number of pumping days and use (rice, vegetables, flowers,
fruit, grapes, domestic, chicken factories) was gathered in
order to estimate the annual abstracted volume.
The daily duration of pumping depends mainly on electrical power availability and automatic water level recorders
installed in five observation wells enable daily observation
of pumping phases. Observations (6.5, 7.1, 7.4, 6.7, and
6.6 h of pumping per day) are consistent with information
collected from the farmers. Computation of monthly pumping rates at the watershed scale (Table 2) is based on the
average daily pumping duration in five observation borewells and on the discharge rates of the 707 borewells in use.
During the studied period (June 02–June 04), the mean
total annual ground water abstraction estimated using the
well inventory is about 8.8 million m3 (or 165 mm). This value is in accordance with those evaluated in 1999 using techniques based on census data, agricultural uses of water
(9.1 million m3) and electrical power consumption (9.0 million m3) (Engerrand, 2002). Most of the abstracted ground
water is used for paddy fields (87%), whereas domestic consumption, estimated using inventory wells, represents only
about 2% in this rural area. Geographically, pumping is concentrated in lower elevation zones, on flat areas allowing
agriculture and close to the villages (Fig. 5a).
A land use map has been made from a infra-red satellite
image (image-resolution: 20 · 20 m) acquired in January
2002 during the Rabi season 2002. Since paddy fields consume, by far, most of the ground water abstracted in the area,
special attention was paid to accurately evaluating their surface area. A total area of about 209 ha was found for this period. In order to convert the total paddy field area into ground
Table 2
water abstraction, it was necessary to estimate the mean
daily pumped water need per square meter of paddy field during the same period. Therefore 11 paddy fields were surveyed
in order to measure the water requirements during this period
and during the Kharif season 2003. For both periods, relatively
good linear relationships were found between the irrigated
paddy surface and the daily pumped water. This means that
farmers size their paddy fields according to their borewell
yields. Requirements differ with seasons: during the Rabi season, about 15 mm of pumped water is required daily for the
field while only about 10 mm is needed during the Kharif season because of the additional contribution of monsoon rainfall. Given the moderate decrease of ground water
abstraction from Rabi to Kharif periods (Table 2), the contribution of rainfall allows farmers to extend the size of their
paddy fields during the Kharif season.
With a 15-mm/day water requirement during the Rabi
2003, 209 ha of paddy fields required about 4.2 million m3
(80 mm), confirming the value of about 4.4 million m3
(83 mm, Table 2) estimated using the well inventory. This
means that the relative error on groundwater abstraction
for rice can be considered to be about 5%.
Return flow from irrigation
Since most of the water pumped in the basin is used for irrigation, a large part of it can return to the aquifer by direct
infiltration. This may lead to high irrigation return flow. In
some cases, e.g. in paddy fields, more than 50% of the
pumped water returns to the aquifer (Jalota and Arora,
2002). Therefore, a water budget method has been applied
in order to determine irrigation return flow from the irrigated crops at the watershed and seasonal scale, i.e. for
rice, vegetable and flower fields. However, for fruit and
grapes, irrigation return flow was not calculated since these
crops use drip irrigation techniques that eliminate irrigation
losses. No return flow was thus assumed. The principle of
the method is here briefly described.
The model is based on the daily variations of water stock
present in the field. The water balance is (Chen et al.,
2002):
PG þ P ¼ ETR þ RF þ D þ dw;
ð9Þ
where PG is the pumping flow, P the rainfall, ETR the evapotranspiration of irrigated crops, RF the irrigation return
flow, D the overflow (runoff) and dw the change in ponded
water depth or water storage in the soil profile; all in
mm/day. Lateral seepages across the field edges are assumed to be nil.
Runoff (D) was assumed to occur when surface storage exceeds a water depth that corresponds to the mean field edge.
Ground water abstraction according to use
Hydrological year:
June 02–June 03
June 03–June 04
Usage (area):
Kharif (mm)
Rabi (mm)
Kharif (mm)
Rabi (mm)
Rice (2.1 km2 in Rabi)
Vegetables and flowers (0.35 km2)
Fruits and grapes (1.02 km2)
Domestic and chicken poultries (–)
75.8 ± 3.8
1.3 ± 0.1
4.1 ± 0.2
3.1 ± 0.2
83.4 ± 4.2
1.7 ± 0.1
10.0 ± 0.5
4.2 ± 0.2
62.5 ± 3.1
1.2 ± 0.1
3.8 ± 0.2
3.3 ± 0.2
108.7 ± 5.4
1.6 ± 0.1
9.4 ± 0.5
4.0 ± 0.2
Value in mm per season (and absolute error) at the basin scale, from June 2002 to June 2004.
Combined estimation of specific yield and natural recharge in a semi-arid groundwater basin
287
Figure 5 Spatially distributed flow component maps; (a) volume (m3/year) pumped from the aquifer during Rabi 2003 (November
02–June 03); (b) irrigation return flow (m3/year) during Rabi 2003 (November 02–June 03); (c) horizontal flows (mm/year) across
the limits of the watershed during Rabi 2003 (November 02–June 03); (d) annual ground water balance expressed as water table
fluctuation (m/year) between June 2002 and June 2003.
Irrigation return flows (q) are computed using the Darcy–
Buckingham equations (Buckingham, 1907) for one-dimensional flow that consider the flow theory in non-saturated
and saturated media:
q ¼ KðhÞ
or
dh
1
dz
for unsaturated profile
ð10aÞ
288
J.C. Maréchal et al.
dh
q ¼ K s
1 for saturated profile,
dz
ð10bÞ
where z [m] is the depth, h [m] the pressure head, Ks [m/s]
the soil hydraulic conductivity at saturation and K(h) [m/s]
the unsaturated hydraulic conductivity of the soil.
Water-retention, h–h, and the k–h curves for the different soil types are estimated using the power law models of
Brooks and Corey (1964).
The pressure head, h, is further a function of moisture
content (h):
k
h
hbc
;
ð11Þ
¼H¼
h
hs
where H [–] is the saturation index, h [m3/m3] the moisture
content, hs [m3/m3] the moisture content at saturation, hbc
[m] is the air entry suction, and k [–] a texture-dependent
dimensionless soil parameter that depends on the pore-size
distribution.
The unsaturated hydraulic conductivity is a function of
saturation index:
KðhÞ
¼ Hg ;
Ks
ð12Þ
where g [–] is the pore-disconnect-edness index, a dimensionless parameter function of k and a parameter function
of the soil tortuosity, s.
g¼
2
þ 2 þ s.
k
ð13Þ
Values of s depend on the chosen capillary model, in this
case, the Burdine model (s = 1, g ¼ 2k þ 3).
Calculation of h is done at daily time-step using the continuity equation:
oh oq
¼
.
ot oz
ð14Þ
For saturated profile the left-hand side of the above equation is zero. For unsaturated layers, the rate of change of
h is calculated from a linearized form of this equation. After
each time-step, the new h is calculated by subtracting the
outflow from the inflow during that time-step, dividing the
difference by layer thickness, integrating the resulting rate
of change over time-step, and adding the change to the previous h value. For the next time-step, the pressure head h
corresponding to the new moisture content is assessed
again, and the whole procedure is repeated.
The hydraulic properties of the different soil types (e.g.
Ks, hs and hbc) have been assessed by field measurements
(De Condappa, 2005). As an average, rice soils are sandy
clay loam with Ks: 2.5 · 107 m/s, hs: 0.40 m3/m3, hbc:
0.14 m and k: 0.148; the other crops soils are sandy loam
soil with Ks: 4.2 · 106 m/s, hs: 0.37 m3/m3, hbc: 0.03 m
and k: 0.09.
All calculations are done at a daily time step.
Computation of daily PG at the watershed scale is based
on the daily duration of pumping (see ‘‘Pumping flow’’) and
on the seasonal water requirements of the field assessed
during a field survey (see ‘‘Pumping flow’’ for rice,
7.7 mm/d for the vegetables and 4.9 mm/d for the flowers).
Therefore it is assumed that for each season the mean seasonal PG does not vary significantly (e.g. for rice all Rabi
seasons have a mean PG of 15 mm/d).
Daily evapotranspiration of irrigated crops (ETR) has
been computed according to the FAO method (Allen
et al., 1990).
The error on irrigation return flow coefficients (CRF = RF/
PG) has been evaluated according to the error introduced by
PG (5%, see ‘‘Pumping flow’’) and to the variability of the
soil saturated hydraulic conductivity (e.g. for rice soil:
107–4 · 107 m/s), error on CRF due to other hydraulic
parameters being negligible when compared to the error
introduced by the uncertainty on soil saturated hydraulic
conductivity.
Table 3 gives the average value of irrigation return flow
coefficients for the different seasons from June 2002 to
June 2004 with their absolute errors. Since climate conditions and pumping flow fluctuate, the return flow coefficient is variable with seasons. The mean value of the rice
irrigation return flow coefficient is about 48%, which is comparable to values found by previous studies in various regions of Southeast Asia: 51% in Northern India (Jalota and
Arora, 2002) and 59% in Taiwan (Chen et al., 2002). The estimated return flow coefficient is also consistent with the one
evaluated by APGWD (1977) for paddies on granitic rocks
(60%). For vegetables and flowers, the mean CRF is about
17%, a value similar to the one proposed by CGWB (1998)
(20%). No data are available for domestic and chicken poultries, but since return flow probably exists, a value of 20%
was assumed for the coefficient.
Therefore, a large proportion of the water pumped
(40%, CRF Total; Table 3) returns to the aquifer. The only
water that does not return to the aquifer is that which evapotranspires from crops and soils. The map of spatially distributed irrigation return flow was calculated applying the
estimated CRF to each of the pumping rates according to
their uses (Fig. 5b).
Table 3 Seasonal irrigation return flow coefficients (CRF = RF/PG) and absolute errors for paddy fields (rice) and vegetable and
flower fields from June 2002 to June 2004
Period
June 02–June 03
June 03–June 04
CRF in rice (%)
CRF in vegetables + flowers (%)
CRF total (%)
Return flow
Kharif
Return flow
Rabi
Return flow
Kharif
Return flow
Rabi
Return flow
Kharif
Return flow
Rabi
40 ± 3.6
51 ± 4.6
44 ± 1.7
48 ± 1.8
15 ± 2.1
18 ± 2.5
10 ± 0.8
15 ± 1.1
37 ± 3.3
46 ± 4.1
38 ± 1.4
42 ± 1.6
CRF_Total: for all ground water abstraction, i.e.: rice, vegetables, flowers, fruit, grapes, domestic and poultries.
Combined estimation of specific yield and natural recharge in a semi-arid groundwater basin
Table 4
289
Seasonal horizontal flow across the boundaries of the watershed (Qon: horizontal in-flow, Qoff: horizontal out-flow)
Hydrological year:
June 02–June 03
June 03–June 04
Season:
Kharif (mm)
Rabi (mm)
Kharif (mm)
Rabi (mm)
Q on
Q off
Q on Q off
1.1
1.1
0.0 ± 1
1.5
1.8
0.3 ± 1
0.7
1.8
1.2 ± 1
1.6
0.5
1.1 ± 1
Maximum relative error of 100% (i.e. 1 mm) is assumed.
Horizontal flow across the boundaries of the
watershed
Flow was computed using a finite-differences model (Modflow) with hydrodynamic and geometry properties acquired
on the basin, in order to obtain a spatial distribution of flows
on the grid of square cells (Fig. 5c and Table 4).
Low in-flow occurs mainly across the southern border of
the watershed due to the regional south–north gradient
linked to the regional topographical slope (Figs. 4 and 5c).
In-flow from the west and east is due to water table depletion near the boundaries, induced by pumping wells. The
balance between horizontal in- and out-flow is close to
nil. As expected, in this flat hard-rock aquifer, the regional
water table being sub-parallel to regional topography,
ground water flow through the boundaries of the surface
watershed are negligible. Disturbance of natural flow by
pumping does not significantly affect this context due to
the fact that effects statistically nullify each other, in the
case of regular distribution.
Results and discussion
Specific yield estimates
Basin-wide effective specific yields obtained from (7) were
0.014 ± 0.003 for both dry seasons (Table 5). Because these
values reflect an effective basin-wide process, they are
insensitive to local heterogeneities in the fractured rock
aquifer system, in comparison with locally obtained values
using lab samples or local aquifer testing, which are highly
variable and relatively unreliable (Bardenhagen, 2000).
Therefore, for water resource assessment at the watershed
scale, this methodology for specific yield estimation is much
more sound than the aforementioned punctual techniques.
Error on specific yield (20%, Table 5) has been computed
cumulating all the sources of errors described above.
The specific yield obtained is realistic for fissured granite
and is of the same order of magnitude as values estimated
at the sub-basin scale through global modeling (one value:
0.01, Engerrand, 2002) and at the well scale using pumping
data in the fissured layer itself (six values with an average of
6.3 · 103, Maréchal et al., 2004). Higher values obtained
Table 5
with the water budget method can be explained by the fact
that the upper part of the weathering cover (saprolite with
specific yield much higher than in the fissured zone, Chilton
and Foster, 1995) can be partially saturated in some areas
after Monsoon, which increases the global storage at the
watershed scale. Heterogeneity effects can also explain this
apparent increase of Sy with scale.
It is generally assumed that specific yield varies with
depth – especially in hard-rock aquifers where fracture
density and porosity change with depth, namely between
the different layers constituting the aquifer (Maréchal
et al., 2004; Dewandel et al., submitted). Water budget results in 2002 and 2003 seem to indicate that the specific
yield does not vary. In fact, the water table is located
mainly in the fissured layer of the aquifer (Fig. 1b) and
water table fluctuations are small enough so that the water
table remains in the same portion of the aquifer, characterized by a constant specific yield.
Natural recharge estimates
Eq. (8) was used to estimate natural recharge (Table 6).
Natural recharge is determined at the watershed scale,
not cell by cell like other budget components, and is therefore not spatially distributed. Relative error on natural recharge (22–24%, Table 6) has been computed cumulating
all the sources of errors described above.
At Table 6, the recharge is compared to precipitation
during the monsoon (seasonal rainfall) between June and
November. During both hydrological years of monitoring,
the recharge coefficient R/P varies between 0.13 and
0.19. This is similar to recent results obtained in India under
the same climate conditions for a coastal aquifer in Karnataka (0.13–0.24, Rao et al., 2004), an alluvial aquifer in Uttar Pradesh (0.06–0.19, Kumar and Seethapathi, 2002) and
the value assumed by CGWB (1998) for hard-rock aquifer
(0.12). Its fluctuation, year to year, depends mainly on
the intensity and temporal distribution of rainfall events
during the monsoon. Notice that the recharge coefficient increases with the number of rainy days during the monsoon
(Table 6).
Total recharge can be divided into three main components (Lerner et al., 1990): direct recharge Rd (by direct
Ground water budget during the Rabi seasons, estimation of specific yield and absolute errors
Season
Date
RFdry (mm)
PGdry (mm)
Edry (mm)
dry
Q dry
on Q off ðmmÞ
Dhdry (m)
Sy (–)
Rabi 2003
Rabi 2004
November 02–June 03
November 03–June 04
37.9 ± 3.2
53.7 ± 3
99.3 ± 5
123.8 ± 6.2
0.6 ± 1
1.3 ± 1
0.3 ± 1
1.0 ± 1
4.4 ± 0.35
5.1 ± 0.23
0.0140 ± 0.0029
0.0138 ± 0.0027
Rainy days
43
54
543
824
Seasonal rainfall (mm)
R (mm)
70.5 ± 15.8
156.5 ± 37.5
1.2 ± 0.27
8.3 ± 0.32
0.0 ± 1
1.2 ± 1
0.5 ± 1
1.0 ± 1
84.2 ± 4.2
70.8 ± 3.5
Dhwet (m)
wet
Q wet
on Q off (mm)
Ewet (mm)
PGwet (mm)
June 02–November 02
June 03–November 03
Kharif 2002
Kharif 2003
RFwet (mm)
Date
Season
Ground water balance during monsoon seasons, estimation of natural recharge and absolute errors
Table 6
31.0 ± 4.6
32.6 ± 4.6
R/P (–)
J.C. Maréchal et al.
0.13 ± 0.03
0.19 ± 0.05
290
vertical percolation through the vadose zone – saprolite,
Fig. 1b), indirect recharge Ri (percolation to the water table
through the beds of surface-water courses, close to nil in
the study area due to absence of water in surface streams)
and localized recharge Rl (various-scales pathways such as
those formed by shrinkage cracks, roots, and burrowing animals, trenches, dugwells, brick factories and caused by major landscape features.
In the WTF method for recharge evaluation, no assumptions are made concerning the mechanisms by which water
travels through the unsaturated zone. Hence, the presence
of preferential flow paths (indirect or localized recharge as
defined above) within the vadose zone in no way restricts its
application to evaluation of total recharge. The estimated
recharge flow includes all recharge types. This point is illustrated in Fig. 6 where the total recharge R calculated using
the WTF technique is compared to estimates of recharge
using tritium injection tests on the same type of lithology
(granite and gneiss) in semiarid regions of India (Rangarajan
and Athavale, 2000; Sukhija et al., 1996). Tritium injection
tests enable an estimation of only one part (direct recharge
Rd) of the total recharge R by interpretation of artificial tracer transfer through the soils after an injection of tracer before the monsoon. Rangarajan and Athavale (2000) have
shown a linear relationship between direct recharge and
seasonal rainfall in hard-rock regions of India. The regression line suggests that a certain minimum seasonal rainfall
(about 250 mm) is required for initiating deep percolation
and recharge to the phreatic aquifer system. As a comparison, in various lithological and morphological contexts in
South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe, the regional recharge is very low where rainfall is less than 400 mm/year
(Selaolo, 1998 cited in De Vries and Simmers, 2002). This
can be considered as the minimum rainfall required for
recouping the soil moisture deficit in the vadose zone (Rangarajan and Athavale, 2000). Recharge does not vary a lot for
the same seasonal rainfall (Fig. 6). This means that significant recharge does not result from infrequent large events
and that describing mean annual recharge as a proportion
of seasonal rainfall is valid in such a context. Inversely, such
a statement cannot be made in a similar climatic context in
South Africa, Botswana and Zimbabwe where recharge varies by a factor of up to 100 for the same seasonal rainfall
(Selaolo, 1998).
Both black triangles in Fig. 6 corresponding to the estimated total recharge at the Maheshwaram basin scale are
higher (compared to the 95% confidence interval of the linear regression) than the recharge expected from the linear
regression. This is really significant for 2003 because the
discrepancy in 2002 is almost in the range of the error.
This difference could be due to the contribution of indirect
and localized recharge (Ril = Ri + Rl) to the total recharge.
This contribution can be estimated by subtracting direct
recharge (roughly estimated using the linear relationship
with the observed seasonal rainfall) from total recharge
(obtained with the WTF technique). For both years of
available data, indirect and localized recharge accounts
for about 30–40% of total recharge (Table 7). The indirect
recharge Ri should be small in the watershed as stated
above. Consequently, most of the additional recharge
probably corresponds to localized recharge at various
scales (Ril Rl).
Combined estimation of specific yield and natural recharge in a semi-arid groundwater basin
Natural Recharge [mm]
200
291
Rd : Central and Northern India
Rd: Southern India
175
Rd: Andhra Pradesh
150
Rd: Maheshwaram (Rangarajan and Rao,
2001)
R: Maheshwaram (this study)
125
R il
Direct recharge: Rd = 0,172 x P - 44
(Rangarajan & Athavale, 2000)
100
75
R il
50
95% Confidence
Interval
25
0
0
250
500
750
1000
Seasonal Rainfall [mm]
1250
1500
Figure 6 Rainfall-recharge (Rd: direct recharge; Ril: indirect and localized recharge; R: total recharge) relationship in granite and
gneiss. Andhra-Pradesh, Southern, Central and Northern India direct recharge estimated using tritium injection (Rangarajan and
Athavale, 2000; Sukhija et al., 1996).
Table 7
Estimation of recharge types
Year
Annual rainfall
(mm)
Seasonal rainfall
(mm)
Total recharge
(mm)
Directa recharge
(mm)
Indirectb and localized
recharge (mm)
Indirect and localized
recharge (%)
2002
2003
613
889
543
824
70.5 ± 15.8
156.5 ± 37.5
49
98
21
59
30
38
a
b
Direct recharge is estimated using the relation Rd = 0.172 · P 44.
Indirect and localized recharge are estimated by difference between total and direct recharge.
Table 8
Ground water balance during two hydrological cycles
Year
Annual
rainfall
R
(mm/yr)
RFTOT
(mm/yr)
PGTOT
(mm/yr)
ETOT
(mm/yr)
QonTO QoffTOT
(mm/yr)
BAL
(mm/yr)
DhTOT (m)
2002–2003
2003–2004
613
889
70.5 ± 15.8
156.5 ± 37.5
68.9 ± 7.8
86.3 ± 7.6
183.5 ± 9.2
194.6 ± 9.7
1.1 ± 2
2.30 ± 2
0.3 ± 2
0.1 ± 2
45.5 ± 9
+45.8 ± 8
3.2 ± 0.62
+3.2 ± 0.55
Annual ground water budget
The ‘‘double water table fluctuation method’’ consists in
aggregating dry and rainy seasons water budgets. The annual
ground water balance was calculated from June 2002 to June
2004 (Table 8) and we see a respective deficit and excess of
water due to discrepancies between annual rainfall and an
average rainfall of about 740 mm/year (average in Maheshwaram since 1985). Considering the uncertainty on the
components of the budget, this suggests that the balance
should be lightly negative for an average rainfall. Historical
water level data shows a global depletion of the aquifer at
a rate of about one meter per year in pumped areas, confirming that the overexploitation threshold has been reached in
such areas. Moreover, given the abstraction rate in the basin, any deficient monsoon (the 2002 monsoon, for example)
causes a significantly negative balance followed by a drop in
the water table, which can be fully or only partially replenished by the next heavy monsoon. In spite of the fact that the
pumping areas represent only 25% of the 1324 cells of the basin (Fig. 5d), the entire balance is negative.
The importance of irrigation return flow (RF) justifies the
need for accurate techniques for its determination. Its relative importance will guide ground water sustainability
solutions because any reduction in pumping triggers a corresponding reduction in ground water recharge from irrigation
drainage. Regarding cropping pattern changes, choices
should be guided by the same constraint: to halt water table
decline beneath these ground water-irrigated areas, evapotranspiration must decrease. Therefore, sustainability (defined as stabilizing ground water levels) begins not with
reducing irrigation pumping per acre, but rather with reducing the total acreage of irrigated land (Kendy, 2003) or
changing the cropping pattern in order to decrease the total
amount of evapotranspiration at the watershed scale.
Conclusions
The advantage of the proposed method is that specific yield
and recharge are estimated at the scale of interest to basin
hydrologic studies and that the method requires no
292
extensive in situ instrumentation network. This methodology enables to overcome the main limitation of the classical
WTF technique, i.e. unknown specific yield, by determining
it at the suitable watershed scale and within an acceptable
range of uncertainty according to the available observation
network. Obviously, the accuracy of the technique increases with the number of measurements on the water table. Therefore, this technique is well suited to developing
countries and semiarid areas, where the presence of many
agricultural dugwells and borewells throughout a basin provides a high-density observation network. For economic reasons, it is important to optimize the amount of piezometric
data needed to guarantee an acceptable accuracy in the
application of this methodology. Therefore, a geostatistical
approach combined with hydrogeological information must
be used in order to assess the impact of observation well
density reduction on water budget calculations and therefore optimize the density and observation well distribution.
This will be the subject of a future publication.
Acknowledgements
This study was carried out at the Indo-French Center for
Ground water Research (BRGM-NGRI). The authors thank
the French Ministry of Foreign Affairs and the Embassy in India for their support. The Indo-French Center for Ground
water Research has also benefited from CNRS funding within
the framework of the ACI Program ‘‘Water and Environment’’ and from the Indo-French Center for the Promotion
of Advanced Research. This paper benefited from detailed
comments provided by Patrick Lachassagne and research
assistance provided by Géraud Bournet. The authors thank
B. Bourgine who contributed to error estimation and two
anonymous reviewers whose comments have contribute to
improve the manuscript.
References
Allen, R.G., Periera, L.S., Smith, M., 1990. FAO Irrigation and
Drainage, Paper 56: Crops evapotranspiration – guidelines for
computing crop water requirements. FAO.
Allison, G.B., 1988. A review of some of the physical chemical and
isotopic techniques available for estimating ground water
recharge. In: Simmers, I. (Ed.), Estimation of Natural Ground
Water Recharge. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 49–72.
Allison, G.B., Gee, G.W., Tyler, S.W., 1994. Vadose-zone techniques for estimating ground water recharge in arid and semiarid
regions. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58, 6–14.
APGWD, 1977. Studies on hydrologic parameters of ground water
recharge in water balance computations, Andhra Pradesh.
Government of Andhra Pradesh Ground Water Department,
Hyderabad; Research series 6, 151 p.
Bardenhagen, I., 2000. Ground water reservoir characterisation
based on pumping test curve diagnosis in fractured formation.
In: Sililo, O. (Ed.), Ground Water: Past Achievements and Future
Challenges. Balkema, Rotterdam, Cape Town, South Africa, pp.
81–86.
Beekman, H.E., Xu, Y., 2003. Review of ground water recharge
estimation in arid and semiarid Southern Africa. Council for
Scientific and Industrial Research (South Africa) and University
of the Western Cape Report.
J.C. Maréchal et al.
Brooks, R.H., Corey, A.T., 1964. Hydraulic properties of porous
media. Hydrology paper 3. Colorado St University.
Buckingham, E., 1907. Studies on the movement of soil moisture.
Technical Report 38, US Dept. of Agriculture, Bureau of Soils.
CGWB, 1998. Detailed guidelines for implementing the ground
water estimation methodology – 1997. Central Ground Water
Board, Ministry of Water resources, Government of India.
Chen, S-K., Liu, C.W., Huang, H.C., 2002. Analysis of water
movement in paddy rice fields (II) simulation studies. Journal
of Hydrology 268 (1–4), 259–271.
Chilton, P.J., Foster, S.S.D., 1995. Hydrogeological characteristics
and water-supply potential of basement aquifers in Tropical
Africa. Hydrogeology Journal 3 (1), 3–49.
Coudrain-Ribstein, A., Pratx, B., Talbi, A., Jusserand, C., 1998. Is
the evaporation from phreatic aquifers in arid zones independent of the soil characteristics? Comptes Rendus de l Academie
des Sciences Paris, Sciences de la Terre et des Planètes 326,
159–165.
De Vries, J.J., Simmers, I., 2002. Ground water recharge: an
overview of processes and challenges. Hydrogeology Journal 10,
5–17.
De Condappa, D., 2005. Study of the spatialized water flow
processes of the vadose zone of hard-rock aquifers. Implementation for the evaluation of the recharge at the watershed
scale, Maheswharam watershed, Andhra Pradesh, India (in
French). Unpublished PhD Thesis, University of Grenoble,
France, 355 p.
Dewandel, B., Lachassagne, P., Wyns, R., Maréchal, J.C., Krishnamurthy, N.S., submitted. A generalized hydrogeological conceptual model of granite aquifers controlled by single or multiphase
weathering. Journal of Hydrology, accepted for publication.
Engerrand, C., 2002. Hydrogéologie des socles cristallins fissures a
fort recouvrement d’altérites en régime de mousson: étude
hydrogéologique de deux bassins versants situés en AndhraPradesh (Inde). Unpublished PhD thesis, University of Paris VI,
France.
Foster, S.S.D., 1988. Quantification of ground water recharge in
arid regions: a practical view for resource development and
management. In: Simmers, I. (Ed.), Estimation of Natural
Ground Water Recharge. Reidel, Dordrecht, pp. 323–338.
Gburek, W.J., Folmar, G.J., 1999. A ground water recharge field
study: site characterization and initial results. Hydrological
Processes 13, 2813–2831.
Hall, D.W., Risser, D.W., 1993. Effects of agricultural nutrient
management on nitrogen fate and transport in Lancaster
County, Pennsylvania. Water Resource Bulletin 29, 55–76.
Healy, R.W., Cook, P.G., 2002. Using ground water levels to
estimate recharge. Hydrogeology Journal 10, 91–109.
Jalota, S.K., Arora, V.K., 2002. Model-based assessment of water
balance components under different cropping systems in NorthWest India. Agricultural Water Management 57, 75–87.
Kayane, I., 1983. Some problems relating to groundwater balance.
Hydrolological Sciences Journal 28 (1), 125–137.
Kendy, E., 2003. The false promise of sustainable pumping rates.
Ground Water 41 (1), 2–4.
Kumar, C.P., Seethapathi, P.V., 2002. Assessment of natural ground
water recharge in Upper Ganga Canal command area. Journal of
Applied Hydrology 15 (4), 13–20.
Leduc, C., Bromley, J., Schroeter, P., 1997. Water table fluctuation
and recharge in semi-arid climate: some results of the HAPEXSahel hydrodynamic survey (Niger). Journal of Hydrology 188–
189, 123–138.
Lerner, D.N., Issar, A., Simmers, I., 1990. A guide to understanding
and estimating natural recharge. Int. Contribution to hydrogeology, I.A.H. Publication, 8, Verlag Heinz Heisse, 345 p.
Maréchal, J.C., Wyns, R., Lachassagne, P., Subrahmanyam, K.,
Touchard, F., 2003. Vertical anisotropy of hydraulic conductivity in fissured layer of hard-rock aquifers due to the
Combined estimation of specific yield and natural recharge in a semi-arid groundwater basin
geological structure of weathering profiles. C.R. Geoscience
335, 451–460.
Maréchal, J.C., Dewandel, B., Subrahmanyam, K., 2004. Use of
hydraulic tests at different scales to characterize fracture
network properties in the weathered-fractured layer of a hard
rock aquifer. Water Resources Research 40, 11.
Moon, S.-K., Woo, N.C., Leeb, K.S., 2004. Statistical analysis of
hydrographs and water-table fluctuation to estimate groundwater recharge. Journal of Hydrology 292, 198–209.
Rangarajan, R., Athavale, R.N., 2000. Annual replenishable ground
water potential of India – an estimate based on injected tritium
studies. Journal of Hydrology 234, 38–53.
Rao, S.V.N., Vijaya Kumar, S.V., Saheb, S.M., Ramasastri, K.S.,
2004. Regional estimation of draft and recharge for coastal
aquifers using heuristic optimisation algorithms. The Institution
of Engineers (Civil Engineering) Journal 84, 8–16.
Ruud, N., Harter, T., Naugle, A., 2004. Estimation of groundwater pumping as closure to the water balance of a semi-arid,
irrigated agricultural basin. Journal of Hydrology 297 (1–4),
51–73.
293
Schicht, R.J., Walton, W.C., 1961. Hydrologic budgets for three
small watersheds in Illinois. Illinois State Water Surv Rep Invest
40, 40 p.
Selaolo, E.T., 1998. Tracer studies and ground water recharge
assessment in the eastern fringe of the Botswana Kalahari.
Unpublished PhD thesis, Vrije Universiteit, Amsterdam, Netherlands, 229 p.
Sokolov, A.A., Chapman, T.G., 1974. Methods for Water Balance
Computations. UNESCO, Paris, 127 p.
Sophocleous, M.A., 1991. Combining the soilwater balance and
water-level fluctuation methods to estimate natural ground
water recharge: practical aspects. Journal of Hydrology 124,
229–241.
Sukhija, B.S., Nagabhushanam, P., Reddy, D.V., 1996. Ground water
recharge in semiarid regions of India: an overview of results
obtained using tracers. Hydrogeology Journal 4 (3), 50–71.
UNEP, 1992. World Atlas of Desertification. Edward Arnold,
Sevenoaks, UK.
Walton, W.C., 1970. Ground Water Resource Evaluation. McGrawHill, New York, 664 p.