Estimating Groundwater Pumping for Irrigation: A Method Comparison
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Effective groundwater management is critical to future environmental, ecological, and social sustainability and requires accurate estimates of groundwater withdrawals. Unfortunately, these estimates are not readily available in most areas due to physical, regulatory, and social challenges. Here, we compare four different approaches for estimating groundwater withdrawals for agricultural irrigation. We apply these methods in a groundwater-irrigated region in the state of Kansas, USA, where high-quality groundwater withdrawal data are available for evaluation. The four methods represent a broad spectrum of approaches: (1) the hydrologically-based Water Table Fluctuation method (WTFM); (2) the demand-based SALUS crop model; (3) estimates based on satellite-derived evapotranspiration (ET) data from OpenET; and (4) a landscape hydrology model which integrates hydrologic- and demand-based approaches. The applicability of each approach varies based on data availability, spatial and temporal resolution, and accuracy of predictions. In general, our results indicate that all approaches reasonably estimate groundwater withdrawals in our region, however, the type and amount of data required for accurate estimates and the computational requirements vary among approaches. For example, WTFM requires accurate groundwater levels, specific yield, and recharge data, whereas the SALUS crop model requires adequate information about crop type, land use, and weather. This variability highlights the difficulty in identifying what data, and how much, are necessary for a reasonable groundwater withdrawal estimate, and suggests that data availability should drive the choice of approach. Overall, our findings will help practitioners evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of different approaches and select the appropriate approach for their application.
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.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot 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.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it