Identification of groundwater recharge sources and processes in a heterogeneous alluvial aquifer: results from multi‐level monitoring of hydrochemistry and environmental isotopes in a riverside agricultural area in Korea
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Abstract We evaluated sources and pathways of groundwater recharge for a heterogeneous alluvial aquifer beneath an agricultural field, based on multi‐level monitoring of hydrochemistry and environmental isotopes of a riverside groundwater system at Buyeo, Korea. Two distinct groundwater zones were identified with depth: (1) a shallow oxic groundwater zone, characterized by elevated concentrations of NO3− and (2) a deeper (>10–14 m from the ground surface) sub‐oxic groundwater zone with high concentrations of dissolved Fe, silica, and HCO3−, but little nitrate. The change of redox zones occurred at a depth where the aquifer sediments change from an upper sandy stratum to a silty stratum with mud caps. The δ18O and δ2H values of groundwater were also different between the two zones. Hydrochemical and δ18Oδ2H data of oxic groundwater are similar to those of soil water. This illustrates that recharge of oxic groundwater mainly occurs through direct infiltration of rain and irrigation water in the sandy soil area where vegetable cropping with abundant fertilizer use is predominant. Oxic groundwater is therefore severely contaminated by agrochemical pollutants such as nitrate. In contrast, deeper sub‐oxic groundwater contains only small amounts of dissolved oxygen (DO) and NO3−. The 3H contents and elevated silica concentrations in sub‐oxic groundwater indicate a somewhat longer mean residence time of groundwater within this part of the aquifer. Sub‐oxic groundwater was also characterized by higher δ18O and δ2H values and lower d‐excess values, indicating significant evaporation during recharge. We suggest that recharge of sub‐oxic groundwater occurs in the areas of paddy rice fields where standing irrigation and rain water are affected by strong evaporation, and that reducing conditions develop during subsequent sub‐surface infiltration. This study illustrates the existence of two groundwater bodies with different recharge processes within an alluvial aquifer. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
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 machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".