Water table fluctuation method to estimate the recharge of the free aquifer in the Guariroba river basin, Campo Grande – MS
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X41465Keywords:
Bauru Aquifer System Recharge, groundwater table fluctuation, watershedAbstract
The Guariroba river basin was decreed as an Environmental Protection Area (EPA), and with a surface of 360 km² it is of great importance to the municipality of Campo Grande because it supports almost half of the water supply system of the latter. The surface of the basin is predominantly covered by Cretaceous sediments of the Caiuá Group, which constitutes the free aquifer known as the Bauru Aquifer System (BAS). Recent studies have confirmed the contribution of the BAS in the maintenance of the base flow of surface drainage. Therefore, the quantification of groundwater recharge (GWR) becomes fundamental. This work used the water table fluctuation (WTF) method, based on variations in the piezometric surface-water measurement, to estimate the GWR of the basin. From Mar 2015–Feb 2017, monthly variations of the static level were registered in 13 tubular wells located in the Guariroba EPA. Considering a 1480 mm annual precipitation, the estimated average GWR was 356 mm⋅year–1, varying between 210–694 mm⋅year–1. Despite considering a lower value of the effective porosity parameter (Sy = 0.1) than the one suggested for the BAS, the estimated average GWR-to-precipitation ratio (24%) was more than double that the one adopted by the state environmental agency (10%).
Downloads
References
CAMPO GRANDE. Plano de manejo da Área de Proteção Ambiental dos mananciais do córrego Guariroba (APA) do Guariroba. Campo Grande, 2008. 158 p.
CASADEI JM. Vulnerabilidade do aquífero livre na bacia hidrográfica do córrego Guariroba – Campo Grande, MS, em Programa PGTA [dissertation] Campo Grande: UFMS; 2016. 86 p.
CAVAZZANA GH. Relação entre a água superficial e a água subterrânea da Área de Proteção Ambiental do Guariroba, Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul, Brasil [PhD thesis]. Campo Grande: Programa PGTA/UFMS; 2018. 137 p.
CAVAZZANA GH, LASTORIA G, GABAS SG. Surface-groundwater interaction in unconfined sedimentary aquifer system in the Brazil’s tropical wet region. Brazilian Journal of Water Resources 2019;24(8):2–15.
CHUNG IM, SOPHOCLEOUS MA, MITIKU DB, KIM NW. Estimating groundwater recharge in the humid and semi-arid African regions: review. Geosciences Journal 2016;20(5):731–744.
COMPANHIA DE PESQUISA DE RECURSOS MINERAIS-CPRM- SERVIÇO GEOLÓGICO DO BRASIL. Mapa Geológico do Estado de Mato Grosso do Sul (escala 1:1.000.000). São Paulo (Brazil): 2006.
LASTORIA G, GABAS SG, CAVAZZANA GH, CASADEI JM, AZOIA DE SOUZA T. Potencialidade dos recursos hídricos na bacia do córrego Guariroba, município de Campo Grande-MS. In: Geologia ambiental: tecnologias para o desenvolvimento sustentável. Org. por Cardozo, EL. Atena Editora, Ponta Grossa–PR; 2017. p. 204–213.
LASTORIA G, CAVAZZANA GH, OLIVA A, GABAS SG, CHANG HK. Contribuição da geofísica para a hidrogeologia da APA Guariroba, município de Campo Grande-MS. In: Anais do XX Congresso Brasileiro Águas Subterrâneas; nov./2018; Campinas-SP, Brazil. p. 38–41.
MANCUSO MA, CAMPOS JE. Aquífero Bauru. In: Mapa de águas subterrâneas do Estado de São Paulo (escala 1:1.000.000): nota explicativa. Coord. Rocha, G. DAEE, IPT, CPRM, São Paulo, 2005, p. 32–38.
SECRETARIA DE ESTADO DE MEIO AMBIENTE DO PLANEJAMENTO DA CIÊNCIA E TECNOLOGIA E INSTITUTO DE MEIO AMBIENTE DE MATO GROSSO DO SUL-SEMAC. Plano Estadual de Recursos Hídricos de Mato Grosso do Sul. Campo Grande- MS. Editora UEMS; 2010. 116 p.
TAHAL CONSULTING ENGINEERS LTD; EMPRESA DE SANEAMENTO DE MATO GROSSO DO SUL S.A.-SANESUL Estudos Hidrogeológicos de Mato Grosso do Sul.: Relatório Final. Campo Grande-MS, 1998, v.I, 398p.
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
In particular,
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.