Abstract

The article “Characteristics of Point Recharge in Karst Aquifers, Water 6: 2782–2807” by N. Somaratne evaluates various recharge estimation techniques applied to four limestone aquifers in South Australia. Somaratne [1] concludes that methods based on watertable fluctuations, groundwater modelling and water budgets are independent of recharge processes, and are therefore superior to the chloride mass balance (CMB) approach for karst aquifers. The current comment offers alternative interpretations from existing field measurements and previous literature, in particular for the Uley South aquifer, which is the focus of much of the article by Somaratne [1]. Conclusions regarding this system are revised, partly to account for the misrepresentation of previous studies. The aeolianite sediments of Uley South are mostly unconsolidated or poorly consolidated, and dissolution features in the calcrete capping provide point infiltration into a predominantly unconsolidated vadose zone, whereas Somaratne’s [1] findings require that the system comprises well-developed conduits in otherwise low-conductivity limestone. Somaratne’s [1] assertion that the basic premise of CMB is violated in Uley South is disputable, given strong evidence of relatively well-mixed groundwater arising from mostly diffuse recharge. The characterization of karst aquifer recharge should continue to rely on multiple techniques, including environmental tracers such as chloride.

Highlights

  • The article “Characteristics of Point Recharge in Karst Aquifers, Water 6: 2782–2807” by Somaratne [1] examines recharge to four limestone aquifers in South Australia, and discusses the applicability of various recharge estimation approaches to these types of settings

  • Based on a critique of recharge estimation methods and their applicability to karst systems, Somaratne [1] concludes that methods based on watertable fluctuations, numerical groundwater modelling and water budgets are independent of recharge processes, and are, superior to the chloride mass balance (CMB) approach

  • Notwithstanding that recharge calculations were subject to significant measurement uncertainty, these findings demonstrate the critical importance of accounting for vegetation controls on recharge, even in regions with strong point infiltration

Read more

Summary

Introduction

The article “Characteristics of Point Recharge in Karst Aquifers, Water 6: 2782–2807” by Somaratne [1] examines recharge to four limestone aquifers in South Australia, and discusses the applicability of various recharge estimation approaches to these types of settings. Based on a critique of recharge estimation methods and their applicability to karst systems, Somaratne [1] concludes that methods based on watertable fluctuations, numerical groundwater modelling and water budgets are independent of recharge processes, and are, superior to the CMB approach. Much of the article by Somaratne [1] focuses on the Uley South aquifer, and as a co-author of several of the cited investigations of Uley South hydrogeology, the conclusions regarding this system are found to require revision. The comments that follow are subdivided into two sections: (1) Uley South recharge processes; and (2) Uley South Recharge: Methods and Estimates

Uley South Recharge Processes
Methods and Estimates
Conclusions
Findings
31. Hydrology and Earth Systems Sciences Interactive Discussion
Full Text
Published version (Free)

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call