MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W133118770

The relationships between groundwater discharge and the Lower Jordan River

2005· article· en· W133118770 on OpenAlexaff
Efrat Farber, Avner Vengosh, Ittai Gavrieli, Amer Marie, Thomas D. Bullen, Bernhard Mayer, Ran Holtzman, Michal Segal‐Rozenhaimer, Uri Shavit

Bibliographic record

VenuePure (Coventry University) · 2005
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicTransboundary Water Resource Management
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsGroundwaterHydrology (agriculture)GeologyDischargeEnvironmental scienceGeographyDrainage basinGeotechnical engineeringCartography
DOInot available

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The chemical and isotopic (87Sr/86Sr, δ11B, δ34Ssulfate, δ18Owater, δ15Nnitrate) compositions of water from the Lower Jordan River and its major tributaries between the Sea of Galilee and the Dead Sea were determined in order to reveal the origin of the salinity of the Jordan River. We identified three separate hydrological zones along the flow of the river: (1) A northern section (20 km downstream of its source) where the base flow composed of diverted saline and wastewaters is modified due to discharge of shallow sulfate-rich groundwater, characterized by low 87Sr/86Sr (0.7072), δ34Ssulfate (−2‰), high δ11B (∼36‰), δ15Nnitrate (∼15‰) and high δ18Owater (−2 to–3‰) values. The shallow groundwater is derived from agricultural drainage water mixed with natural saline groundwater and discharges to both the Jordan and Yarmouk rivers. The contribution of the groundwater component in the Jordan River flow, deduced from mixing relationships of solutes and strontium isotopes, varies from 20 to 50% of the total flow. (2) A central zone (20–50 km downstream from its source) where salt variations are minimal and the rise of 87Sr/86Sr and SO4/Cl ratios reflects predominance of eastern surface water flows. (3) A southern section (50–100 km downstream of its source) where the total dissolved solids of the Jordan River increase, particularly during the spring (70–80 km) and summer (80–100 km) to values as high as 11.1 g/L. Variations in the chemical and isotopic compositions of river water along the southern section suggest that the Zarqa River (87Sr/86Sr∼0.70865; δ11B∼25‰) has a negligible affect on the Jordan River. Instead, the river quality is influenced primarily by groundwater discharge composed of sulfate-rich saline groundwater (Cl-=31–180 mM; SO4/Cl∼0.2–0.5; Br/Cl∼2–3×10-3; 87Sr/86Sr∼0.70805; δ11B∼30‰; δ15Nnitrate ∼17‰, δ34Ssulfate=4–10‰), and Ca-chloride Rift valley brines (Cl-=846–1500 mM; Br/Cl∼6–8×10-3; 87Sr/86Sr∼0.7080; δ11B>40‰; δ34Ssulfate=4–10‰). Mixing calculations indicate that the groundwater discharged to the river is composed of varying proportions of brines and sulfate-rich saline groundwater. Solute mass balance calculations point to a ∼10% contribution of saline groundwater (Cl−=282 to 564 mM) to the river. A high nitrate level (up to 2.5 mM) in the groundwater suggests that drainage of wastewater derived irrigation water is an important source for the groundwater. This irrigation water appears to leach Pleistocene sediments of the Jordan Valley resulting in elevated sulfate contents and altered strontium and boron isotopic compositions of the groundwater that in turn impacts the water quality of the lower Jordan River.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesScience and technology studies
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.968
Threshold uncertainty score0.998

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0030.001
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.019
GPT teacher head0.216
Teacher spread0.197 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations1
Published2005
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venuePure (Coventry University)Same topicTransboundary Water Resource ManagementFrench-language works237,207