Benefits and limitations of using isotope-derived groundwater travel times and major ion chemistry to validate a regional groundwater flow model: example from the Centre-du-Québec region, Canada

Gagné, Sylvain; Larocque, Marie; Pinti, Daniele L.; Saby, Marion; Meyzonnat, Guillaume; Méjean, Pauline

doi:10.1080/07011784.2017.1394801

Cited by 14 publications

(21 citation statements)

References 66 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They found that only a weighted multivariate objective function of H, Q GW , and TT could properly calibrate the karst conduit network and hydraulic parameters and that sequential calibration with single‐variable objective functions did not result in adequate models. Gagné et al () compared the manual calibration of a large, basin‐scale GW flow model to automated calibration based on a weighted multivariate objective function, including both observations of H and Q base . The performance of the two calibration approaches was assessed by comparing simulated to measured H, Q base , and RT (derived from measurements of C).…”

Section: Review Of the Use Of Unconventional Observation Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Automated calibration based on a weighted multivariate objective function reduced the mismatch between observed and simulated RT by more than half compared to manual calibration. Gagné et al () demonstrated that GW RTs may be reproduced with a model calibrated against observations of H and Q base , but only if that model is calibrated based on automated inversion of a weighted multivariate objective function—manual calibration failed in finding a parameter set to reproduce observations beyond the ones directly used in the calibration data set.…”

Section: Review Of the Use Of Unconventional Observation Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…All other models reviewed in the context of observations of RT were calibrated manually, which, as outlined in the introduction, does not allow for the optimal set of parameters to be found or for a quantitative analysis of the information content of RT observations. Gagné et al () (discussed in section ) used observations of RT to systematically compare the outcome of a manual flow model calibration against an automated flow model calibration, but unfortunately observations of RT were only used in the validation step and the calibration was based on observations of H and Q GW . In order to allow for more concise conclusions about the use and information content of observations of RT for flow model calibration, future studies should include observations of RT in the calibration data set and be based on automated calibration routines.…”

Section: Review Of the Use Of Unconventional Observation Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Beyond Classical Observations in Hydrogeology: The Advantages of Including Exchange Flux, Temperature, Tracer Concentration, Residence Time, and Soil Moisture Observations in Groundwater Model Calibration

Schilling

Cook

Brunner

2019

Reviews of Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Traditionally, groundwater and surface water flow models have been calibrated against two observation types: hydraulic heads and surface water discharge. It has repeatedly been demonstrated, however, that these classical observations do not contain sufficient information to calibrate flow models. To reduce the predictive uncertainty of flow models, the consideration of other observation types constitutes a promising way forward. Despite the ever-increasing availability of other observation types, however, they are still unconventional when it comes to flow model calibration. By reviewing studies that included nonclassical observations in flow model calibration, benefits and challenges associated with their integration in flow model calibration were identified, and their information content was analyzed. While explicit simulation of mass transport processes in flow models poses challenges, even simplified approaches to integrate tracer concentrations yield significantly better calibration results than using only classical observations. For a majority of calibrated flow models, observations of tracer concentrations and of exchange fluxes were beneficial. Temperature observations improved the simulation of heat transport but often worsened all other model outcomes. Only when temperature observations were made within 2 m of the surface water-groundwater interface did they have the potential to also improve flow and mass transport simulations. Surprisingly, many models were calibrated manually rather than with the widely available, mathematically robust and automated tools. There is a clear need for more systematic implementation of unconventional observations and automated flow model calibration as well as for more systematic quantification of the information content of unconventional observations. Plain Language Summary Traditionally, groundwater and surface water flow models, which are critical for water resources assessment, have been calibrated against only two classical observation types: groundwater levels and surface water discharge. In the past, it has repeatedly been demonstrated that these classical observations do not contain sufficient information to calibrate the parameters required for the simulation of groundwater and surface water flow systems. Owing to the rapid development of measurement techniques throughout the last three decades, however, many other observations of hydrological systems have become widely available. Despite this, observation types other than the classical ones are still unconventional when it comes to flow model calibration. The overall goal of this review is to identify optimal observation types and procedures for flow model calibration and hydrological predictions. We found that observations of tracer concentrations and exchange fluxes are beneficial for most flow models. Temperatures improve the simulation of heat transport but often worsen other flow model outcomes, unless temperatures are measured within 2 m of the surface water-groundwater interface. We identified a need for...

show abstract

Section: Review Of the Use Of Unconventional Observation Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Review Of the Use Of Unconventional Observation Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Review Of the Use Of Unconventional Observation Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Beyond Classical Observations in Hydrogeology: The Advantages of Including Exchange Flux, Temperature, Tracer Concentration, Residence Time, and Soil Moisture Observations in Groundwater Model Calibration

Schilling

Cook

Brunner

2019

Reviews of Geophysics

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The papers focus on three main components of aquifer characterization, i.e. aquifer geometry (Légaré-Couture et al 2018;Nadeau et al 2018;Walter et al 2018), hydrogeochemistry and isotope tracers (Chaillou et al 2018;Rey et al 2018;Beaudry et al 2018), and groundwater flow modeling and particle tracking (Gagné et al 2018;Janos et al 2018;Montcoudiol et al 2018;Turgeon et al 2018). The paper by Walter et al (2018) combines the topics of geometry and hydrogeochemistry.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The results were used to build a regional-scale conceptual model which describes recharge, evaporation, mixing and discharge processes. Gagné et al (2018) present a 3D model of groundwater flow for the Bécancour and Nicolet watersheds in the Centre-du-Québec region (BEC and NSF). In this region, the main aquifer is located in the sedimentary fractured bedrock and is overlain by till, sand and clay from the Champlain Sea.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Results from the Quebec Groundwater Knowledge Acquisition Program

Larocque

Cloutier

Levison

et al. 2018

Canadian Water Resources Journal / Revue canadienne des ressour

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Groundwater is a crucial supply of freshwater worldwide. It is estimated that groundwater represents more than one third of water withdrawals used for irrigation, domestic, and manufacturing purposes (Döll et al. 2012). In Canada, about 30% of the population (nearly 10 million inhabitants) depend on groundwater for their water supply (CCA 2009). In the Province of Quebec, 20% of the population relies on groundwater for its drinking water over 90% of the inhabited territory (MDDELCC 2018). Globally, several pressures impact the state of groundwater resources, including urbanization, land and water uses, pollution and climate variability (WWAP 2009). The intensification of industrial and agricultural activities, that can lead to contamination and overexploitation, as well as natural climate variability and climate change, are threats to Canada's groundwater (Rivera et al. 2004; CCA 2009). It has been recognized at different levels of organizations that the lack of knowledge on groundwater resources and aquifers, as well as the difficulty in accessing water-related data, are major obtacles to the implementation of sustainable management of groundwater resources (Government of Québec 2002; CCA 2009; WWAP 2009). To face this challenge in the Province of Quebec, a unique and systematic program of regional hydrogeological mapping, the Groundwater Knowledge Acquisition Program (Programme d'acquisition de connaissances sur les eaux souterraines-PACES), was implemented in 2008 by the Québec Ministry of the Environment (Ministère du Développement durable, de l'Environnement et de la Lutte contre les changements climatiques-MDDELCC) to ensure the protection and long-term sustainability of groundwater resources (MDDELCC 2018). The proposed methodology for the PACES program was based on the experience developed during previous hydrogeological mapping projects in Quebec (pre-PACES projects; Figure 1), including the Portneuf granu

show abstract