Numerical Groundwater Flow Modeling in a Tropical Aquifer Under Anthropogenic Pressures: A Case Study in the Middle Magdalena Valley, Colombia
Abstract
1. Introduction
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.1.1. Location
2.1.2. Geological and Geomorphological Setting
2.1.3. Rainfall and Surface Hydrology
2.2. Materials
2.2.1. Groundwater Inventory
2.2.2. Water Sampling and Analytical Procedures
2.2.3. Design of Monitoring Nests
2.3. Conceptual Model
2.3.1. Physicochemical Analysis
2.3.2. Hydraulic Head and Flow Direction
2.3.3. Groundwater Recharge
2.3.4. Estimation of Hydraulic Parameters
2.3.5. Conceptual Model Formulation
2.4. Numerical Groundwater Flow Model (NGFM)
2.4.1. Meshing
2.4.2. Boundary Conditions
2.4.3. Hydraulic Parameterization
2.4.4. Sensitivity Analysis of Hydraulic Parameters
2.4.5. Observation Points Used in Model Calibration
2.4.6. Steady-State Model Calibration
2.4.7. Transient-State Model Calibration
3. Results and Discusion
4. Conclusions
Author Contributions
Funding
Data Availability Statement
Acknowledgments
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Carrard, N.; Foster, T.; Willetts, J. Groundwater as a source of drinking water in southeast Asia and the Pacific: A multi-country review of current reliance and resource concerns. Water 2019, 11, 1605. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- van der Gun, J. Groundwater resources sustainability. In Global Groundwater; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2021; pp. 331–345. [Google Scholar]
- Vrba, J.; van der Gun, J. The World’s Groundwater Resources; World Water Development Report 2, Contribution to Chapter 4, Report IP 2004-1; International Groundwater Resources Assessment Centre (IGRAC): Utrecht, The Netherlands, 2004; Volume 2, pp. 1–10. [Google Scholar]
- Ravindiran, G.; Rajamanickam, S.; Sivarethinamohan, S.; Balamurugan, K.S.; Ravindran, G.; Muniasamy, S.K.; Hayder, G. A review of the status, effects, prevention, and remediation of groundwater contamination for sustainable environment. Water 2023, 15, 3662. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Akhtar, N.; Ishak, M.I.S.; Bhawani, S.A.; Umar, K. Various natural and anthropogenic factors responsible for water quality degradation: A review. Water 2021, 13, 2660. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Syafiuddin, A.; Boopathy, R.; Hadibarata, T. Challenges and solutions for sustainable groundwater usage: Pollution control and integrated management. Curr. Pollut. Rep. 2020, 6, 310–327. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ferrer, N.; Folch, A.; Lane, M.; Olago, D.; Katuva, J.; Thomson, P.; Jou, S.; Hope, R.; Custodio, E. How does water-reliant industry affect groundwater systems in coastal Kenya? Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 694, 133634. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, X.; Adesina, J.A. Integrated watershed management framework and groundwater resources in Africa—A review of West Africa sub-region. Water 2022, 14, 288. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gaye, C.B.; Tindimugaya, C. Challenges and opportunities for sustainable groundwater management in Africa. Hydrogeol. J. 2019, 27, 1099–1110. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Román-Chaverra, D.; Lora-Ariza, B.; Vargas, O.M.; Cubillos, C.E.; García, M.; Ramírez, J.M.; Niño, O.P.; Aguirre, S. Programa Nacional de Monitoreo del Recurso Hídrico; Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible; IDEAM; Universidad Nacional de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2023; ISBN 978-628-7598-24-9. [Google Scholar]
- Ngendahayo, E.; Nilsson, E.; Barmen, G.; Wali, U.G.; Larson, M.; Nsabimana, A.; Persson, K.M. Current groundwater monitoring practices in Rwanda and recommendations for enhancing knowledge of groundwater resources. Hydrogeol. J. 2025, 33, 339–354. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sorza Ríos, D.A.; Torres Socha, A.M. Análisis de la Política Nacional para la Gestión Integral del recurso Hídrico con Relación a la Planificación y Manejo del Recurso Hídrico Subterráneo en Colombia; FAO: Dublin, Germany, 2023. [Google Scholar]
- Norouzi Khatiri, K.; Nematollahi, B.; Hafeziyeh, S.; Niksokhan, M.H.; Nikoo, M.R.; Al-Rawas, G. Groundwater management and allocation models: A review. Water 2023, 15, 253. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Pareta, K. Groundwater contamination modelling in Ayad River Basin, Udaipur. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 16624. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maliva, R.G. Aquifer Characterization Techniques; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2016; Volume 10. [Google Scholar]
- Izady, A.; Davary, K.; Alizadeh, A.; Ziaei, A.N.; Alipoor, A.; Joodavi, A.; Brusseau, M.L. A framework toward developing a groundwater conceptual model. Arab. J. Geosci. 2014, 7, 3611–3631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, M.P.; Woessner, W.W.; Hunt, R.J. Applied Groundwater Modeling: Simulation of Flow and Advective Transport; Academic Press: Cambridge, MA, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Bredehoeft, J. The conceptualization model problem—Surprise. Hydrogeol. J. 2005, 13, 37–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rushton, K.R. Groundwater Hydrology: Conceptual and Computational Models; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Zarinmehr, H.; Tizro, A.T.; Fryar, A.E.; Pour, M.K.; Fasihi, R. Prediction of groundwater level variations based on gravity recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) satellite data and a time-series analysis: A case study in the Lake Urmia basin, Iran. Environ. Earth Sci. 2022, 81, 180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, J.; Cazenave, A.; Dahle, C.; Llovel, W.; Panet, I.; Pfeffer, J.; Moreira, L. Applications and challenges of GRACE and GRACE follow-on satellite gravimetry. Surv. Geophys. 2022, 43, 305–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Xiang, L.; Steffen, H.; Wu, P.; Jiang, L.; Shen, Q.; Li, Z.; Hayashi, M. GRACE-based estimates of groundwater variations over North America from 2002 to 2017. Geod. Geodyn. 2022, 13, 11–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Solovey, T.; Śliwińska-Bronowicz, J.; Janica, R.; Brzezińska, A. Assessment of the effectiveness of GRACE observations in monitoring groundwater storage in Poland. Water Resour. Res. 2025, 61, e2024WR038888. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhou, Y.; Li, W. A review of regional groundwater flow modeling. Geosci. Front. 2011, 2, 205–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lozano Hernández, B.L.; Marín Celestino, A.E.; Martínez Cruz, D.A.; Ramos Leal, J.A.; Hernández Pérez, E.; García Pazos, J.; Almanza Tovar, O.G. A systematic review of the current state of numerical groundwater modeling in American Countries: Challenges and future research. Hydrology 2024, 11, 179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ebraheem, A.M.; Riad, S.; Wycisk, P.; Sefelnasr, A.M. A local-scale groundwater flow model for groundwater resources management in Dakhla Oasis, SW Egypt. Hydrogeol. J. 2004, 12, 714–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Schäfer, G.; Lincker, M.; Sessini, A.; Carletti, A. Numerical Groundwater Model to Assess the Fate of Nitrates in the Coastal Aquifer of Arborea (Sardinia, Italy). Water 2024, 16, 2729. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rad, S.M.; Ray, A.K.; Barghi, S. Water pollution and agriculture pesticide. Clean Technol. 2022, 4, 1088–1102. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Uribe, N.; Srinivasan, R.; Corzo, G.; Arango, D.; Solomatine, D. Spatio-temporal critical source area patterns of runoff pollution from agricultural practices in the Colombian Andes. Ecol. Eng. 2020, 149, 105810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lora-Ariza, B.; Piña, A.; Donado, L.D. Assessment of groundwater quality for human consumption and its health risks in the Middle Magdalena Valley, Colombia. Sci. Rep. 2024, 14, 11346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Singh, B.; Craswell, E. Fertilizers and nitrate pollution of surface and ground water: An increasingly pervasive global problem. SN Appl. Sci. 2021, 3, 518. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Aranguren-Díaz, Y.; Galán-Freyle, N.J.; Guerra, A.; Manares-Romero, A.; Pacheco-Londoño, L.C.; Romero-Coronado, A.; Vidal-Figueroa, N.; Machado-Sierra, E. Aquifers and groundwater: Challenges and opportunities in water resource management in Colombia. Water 2024, 16, 685. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agah, A.; Doulati Ardejani, F.; Shehab, M.; Butscher, C.; Taherdangkoo, R. Modeling Hydrocarbon Plume Dynamics in Shallow Groundwater of the Rey Industrial Area, Iran: Implications for Remediation Planning. Water 2025, 17, 1180. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Radelyuk, I.; Naseri-Rad, M.; Hashemi, H.; Persson, M.; Berndtsson, R.; Yelubay, M.; Tussupova, K. Assessing data-scarce contaminated groundwater sites surrounding petrochemical industries. Environ. Earth Sci. 2021, 80, 351. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piña, A.; Donado, L.D.; Silva, L.; Pescador, J. Seasonal and deep groundwater-surface water interactions in the tropical Middle Magdalena River basin of Colombia. Hydrol. Process. 2022, 36, e14764. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lora-Ariza, B.; Silva Vargas, L.; Donado, L.D. Estimation of Hydraulic Conductivity from Well Logs for the Parameterization of Heterogeneous Multilayer Aquifer Systems. Water 2025, 17, 2439. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Granados Cabrera, Ó.A.; Rincón Romero, V.O.; Arango Ospina, M.E.; Arias Arias, N.A. Palma de aceite en Puerto Wilches: Actores y procesos de transformación (1960–2016). Anu. De Hist. Reg. Y De Las Front. 2021, 26, 111–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Vides Bossio, A.C.; Alarcón Arias, L.M. Análisis de las Consecuencias Ambientales por la Implementación del Fracking en Puerto Wilches, Colombia, del 2019 a 2022. 2023. Available online: http://hdl.handle.net/11349/40331 (accessed on 15 July 2025).
- Pérez García, C.A. Análisis del Sistema Agroalimentario Implementado en las Comunidades con Situación de Vulnerabilidad Socioeconómica para Determinar los Efectos en la Seguridad Alimentaria y Nutricional en Puerto Wilches. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Santo Tomás, Bucaramanga, Colombia, 2023. Available online: https://repository.usta.edu.co/items/5c81764d-ba6c-40c3-93e8-b26031b74a45 (accessed on 28 September 2025).
- Fonseca, H.; Fuquen, J.; Mesa, L.; Talero, C.; Pérez, O.; Porras, J.; Gavidia, O.; Pacheco, S.; Amaya, E.; García, Y.; et al. Cartografía Geológica de la Plancha 108—“Puerto Wilches”; Servicio Geológico Colombiano y Universidad Pedagógica y Tecnológica de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2012. Available online: https://recordcenter.sgc.gov.co/B13/23008010024507/mapa/pdf/2105245071300002.pdf (accessed on 22 July 2025).
- Sarmiento, G.; Puentes, J.; Sierra, C. Evolución geológica y estratigrafía del sector norte del Valle Medio del Magdalena. Geol. Norandina 2015, 12, 51–82. [Google Scholar]
- Vargas Quintero, J.A. Modelamiento de la estructura resistiva del Valle Medio del Magdalena a partir de la interpretación de estudios magnetotelúricos. Master’s Thesis, Universidad Nacional de Colombia, Bogotá, Colombia, 2021. [Google Scholar]
- Rodríguez, E.; Sánchez, I.; Duque, N.; Arboleda, P.; Vega, C.; Zamora, D.; López, P.; Kaune, A.; Werner, M.; García, C.; et al. Combined use of local and global hydro meteorological data with hydrological models for water resources management in the Magdalena-Cauca Macro Basin–Colombia. Water Resour. Manag. 2020, 34, 2179–2199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Li, X.; Hu, Z.-Z.; Tseng, Y.-H.; Liu, Y.; Liang, P. A historical perspective of the La Niña event in 2020/2021. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2022, 127, e2021JD035546. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Instituto de Hidrología, Meteorología y Estudios Ambientales (IDEAM); Instituto de Investigaciones Marinas y Costeras José Benito Vives de Andréis (INVEMAR). Protocolo de Monitoreo y Seguimiento del Agua; IDEAM: Bogotá, Colombia, 2021; ISBN 978-958-5489-24-0.
- NTC-ISO 5667-1:2010; Calidad del Agua—Muestreo—Parte 1: Directrices para el Diseño de Programas y Técnicas de Muestreo. Norma Técnica Colombiana Equivalente a ISO 5667-1:2006. ICONTEC—Instituto Colombiano de Normas Técnicas y Certificación: Bogotá, Colombia, 2010.
- Rice, E.W.; Baird, R.B.; Eaton, A.D.; Clesceri, L.S. Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 22nd ed.; American Public Health Association (APHA), American Water Works Association (AWWA), Water Environment Federation (WEF): Washington, DC, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Wu, J.; Zeng, X. Review of the uncertainty analysis of groundwater numerical simulation. Chin. Sci. Bull. 2013, 58, 3044–3052. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rojas, R.; Feyen, L.; Dassargues, A. Conceptual model uncertainty in groundwater modeling: Combining generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation and Bayesian model averaging. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, 2008WR006908. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yao, Y.; Zheng, C.; Liu, J.; Cao, G.; Xiao, H.; Li, H.; Li, W. Conceptual and numerical models for groundwater flow in an arid inland river basin. Hydrol. Process. 2015, 29, 1480–1492. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mastrocicco, M.; Prommer, H.; Pasti, L.; Palpacelli, S.; Colombani, N. Evaluation of saline tracer performance during electrical conductivity groundwater monitoring. J. Contam. Hydrol. 2011, 123, 157–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ministerio de Ambiente; Vivienda y Desarrollo Territorial. Resolución 2115 de 2007: Por la Cual se Señalan Características, Instrumentos Básicos y Frecuencias del Sistema de Control y Vigilancia para la Calidad del Agua para Consumo Humano; Diario Oficial de la República de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Ministerio de Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible. Decreto Único Reglamentario 1076 de 2015 del Sector Ambiente y Desarrollo Sostenible; Diario Oficial de la República de Colombia: Bogotá, Colombia, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Ramírez-Cano, C. Adaptación de la metodología de cálculo de huella ecológica para los cultivos de palma africana usando sistemas de información geográfica: Estudio de caso Puerto Wilches, Santander. Colomb. For. 2014, 17, 60–76. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Fang, W.N.; Lim, J.J. Agronomic and Economic Efficacy of Nitrate-Based Compound Fertilizer in Replacing Straight Fertilizers Application on Oil Palms Planted in Semiarid Regions. Int. J. Agron. 2025, 2025, 3551465. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Banerjee, A.; Creedon, L.; Jones, N.; Gill, L.; Gharbia, S. Dynamic groundwater contamination vulnerability assessment techniques: A systematic review. Hydrology 2023, 10, 182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Casanova, J.; Devau, N.; Pettenati, M. Managed aquifer recharge: An overview of issues and options. In Integrated Groundwater Management: Concepts, Approaches and Challenges; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016; pp. 413–434. [Google Scholar]
- Healy, R.W. Estimating Groundwater Recharge; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Simmers, I. Groundwater recharge principles, problems and developments. In Recharge of Phreatic Aquifers in (Semi-) Arid Areas; Routledge: London, UK, 2017; pp. 1–18. [Google Scholar]
- Adhikari, R.K.; Yilmaz, A.G.; Mainali, B.; Dyson, P.; Imteaz, M.A. Methods of groundwater recharge estimation under climate change: A review. Sustainability 2022, 14, 15619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lerner, D.N. Groundwater recharge. In Geochemical Processes, Weathering and Groundwater Recharge in Catchments; CRC Press: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2020; pp. 109–150. [Google Scholar]
- Sophocleous, M. Groundwater Recharge; EOLSS Publishers/UNESCO: Paris, France, 2004. [Google Scholar]
- Koeniger, P.; Gaj, M.; Beyer, M.; Himmelsbach, T. Review on soil water isotope-based groundwater recharge estimations. Hydrol. Processes 2016, 30, 2817–2834. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Anderson, M.P. Heat as a ground water tracer. Groundwater 2005, 43, 951–968. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Zakir-Hassan, G.; Punthakey, J.F.; Shabir, G.; Yasmeen, F.; Sultan, M.; Ashraf, H.; Sohoo, I.; Majeed, F. Physicochemical investigation of rainfall for managed aquifer recharge in Punjab (Pakistan). Water 2022, 14, 2155. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kurrupath, N.; Raviraj, A.; Kannan, B.; Sellamuthu, K.M. Estimation of groundwater recharge using the water table fluctuation method. Int. J. Curr. Microbiol. Appl. Sci. 2018, 7, 3404–3412. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renard, P. Hydraulics of Wells and Well Testing. In Encyclopedia of Hydrological Sciences; Wiley: Chichester, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
- Renard, P. Hytool: An open source MATLAB toolbox for the interpretation of hydraulic tests using analytical solutions. J. Open Source Softw. 2017, 2, 441. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Renard, P.; Glenz, D.; Mejias, M. Understanding diagnostic plots for well-test interpretation. Hydrogeol. J. 2009, 17, 589–600. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mier-Umaña, R.; Henao, T.S.P.; Luna-Osorio, J.S.; Delgado-Blanco, L.A. Stratigraphic analysis and calculation of reserves in the Colorado field, MMV, Colombia. Boletín Cienc. Tierra 2016, 40, 24–31. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos (ANH). Integración Geológica de la Digitalización y Análisis de Núcleos. Cuenca Valle Medio del Magdalena; Informe técnico Final Elaborado por Halliburton e INGRAIN Inc. para la Agencia Nacional de Hidrocarburos: Bogotá, Colombia, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Scudeler, C.; Paniconi, C.; Pasetto, D.; Putti, M. Examination of the seepage face boundary condition in subsurface and coupled surface/subsurface hydrological models. Water Resour. Res. 2017, 53, 1799–1819. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rath, P.; Bresciani, E.; Zhu, J.; Befus, K.M. Numerical analysis of seepage faces and subaerial groundwater discharge near waterbodies and on uplands. Environ. Model. Softw. 2023, 169, 105828. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Diersch, H.-J.G. FEFLOW—Finite Element Modeling of Flow, Mass and Heat Transport in Porous and Fractured Media; Springer: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Shewchuk, J.R. Triangle: Engineering a 2D Quality Mesh Generator and Delaunay Triangulator. In Applied Computational Geometry: Towards Geometric Engineering; Lecture Notes in Computer Science; Springer: Berlin, Germany, 1996; Volume 1148, pp. 203–222. [Google Scholar]
- Zheng, W.; Wang, H.; Huang, X. Study on Delaunay Triangular Mesh Delineation for Complex Terrain Based on the Improved Center of Gravity Interpolation Method. Appl. Sci. 2024, 14, 1370. [Google Scholar]
- Nguyen, T.K.H.; Nuottimäki, K.; Jarva, J.; Dang, T.T.; Luoma, S.; Nguyen, K.H.; Pham, T.L.; Hoang, T.N.A. Use of a groundwater model to evaluate groundwater–surface water interaction at a riverbank filtration site: A case study in Binh Dinh, Vietnam. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2025, 11, 14. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Stachniak, K.; Sitek, S.; Ignatiuk, D.; Jania, J. Hydrogeological model of the forefield drainage system of Werenskioldbreen, Svalbard. Water 2022, 14, 1514. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Brunner, P.; Therrien, R.; Renard, P.; Simmons, C.T.; Franssen, H.-J.H. Advances in understanding river–groundwater interactions. Rev. Geophys. 2017, 55, 818–854. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Peach, D.; Taylor, A. The development of a hydrogeological conceptual model of groundwater and surface water flows in the Silala River Basin. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2024, 11, e1676. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Soliman, K.; Hafiz, M.G.; Amin, D.; Bekhit, H.M. Specifying the hydrogeological parameters range for a groundwater flow model in El-Qaa Plain aquifer, Sinai, Egypt. Arab. J. Geosci. 2022, 15, 1631. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piña, A.; Donado, L.D.; Blessent, D. Analysis of the scale-dependence of the hydraulic conductivity in complex fractured media. J. Hydrol. 2019, 569, 556–572. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Boschan, A.; Noetinger, B. Scale dependence of effective hydraulic conductivity distributions in 3D heterogeneous media: A numerical study. Transp. Porous Media 2012, 94, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Maier, R.; Leven, C.; Sánchez-León, E.; Strasser, D.; Stoll, M.; Cirpka, O.A. Revealing vertical aquifer heterogeneity and hydraulic anisotropy by pumping partially penetrating wells. Hydrogeol. J. 2022, 30, 463–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Bakker, M.; Bot, B. The effective vertical anisotropy of layered aquifers. Groundwater 2025, 63, 68–75. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- ASTM D5611-94 (2016); Standard Guide for Conducting a Sensitivity Analysis for a Groundwater Flow Model. ASTM International: West Conshohocken, PA, USA, 2016.
- Zhu, J.; Winter, C.L.; Wang, Z. Nonlinear effects of locally heterogeneous hydraulic conductivity fields on regional stream–aquifer exchanges. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2015, 19, 4531–4548. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tolley, D.; Bailey, R.T.; Miller, M.P.; Masbruch, M.; Glover, C. Sensitivity Analysis and Calibration of an Integrated Hydrologic Model. Water Resour. Res. 2019, 55, 1535–1555. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Moore, C.R.; Doherty, J. Exploring the adequacy of steady-state-only calibration. Front. Earth Sci. 2021, 9, 692671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Knowling, M.J.; Werner, A.D. Estimability of recharge through groundwater model calibration: Insights from a field-scale steady-state example. J. Hydrol. 2016, 540, 973–987. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hunt, R.J.; Fienen, M.N.; White, J.T. Revisiting “An Exercise in Groundwater Model Calibration and Prediction” After 30 Years: Insights and New Directions. Groundwater 2020, 58, 168–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Rao, K.L. India’s Water Wealth: Its Assessment, Uses and Projections; Orient Longman: Delhi, India, 1979. [Google Scholar]
- Gleeson, T.; Befus, K.M.; Jasechko, S.; Luijendijk, E.; Cardenas, M.B. The global volume and distribution of modern groundwater. Nat. Geosci. 2016, 9, 161–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Böhlke, J.-K. Groundwater recharge and agricultural contamination. Hydrogeol. J. 2002, 10, 153–179. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Romero, P.; Piña, A. GRACE-based analysis of groundwater sustainability in the tropics. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2025, 62, 102756. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]













| ID | X | Y | Type | Wellhead Elev. (m a.s.l.) | Depth (m) | Water Table (m) | Piezometric Head (m a.s.l.) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| HDW1 | −73.8899 | 7.3743 | HDW | 71.7 | 10.0 | 5.0 | 66.7 |
| HDW2 | −73.8690 | 7.3693 | HDW | 70.7 | 10.0 | 4.3 | 66.3 |
| HDW3 | −73.8840 | 7.3232 | HDW | 76.0 | 8.0 | 5.1 | 70.9 |
| HDW4 | −73.8499 | 7.3277 | HDW | 76.1 | 4.6 | 4.6 | 71.5 |
| HDW5 | −73.8484 | 7.3606 | HDW | 75.3 | 12.0 | 5.0 | 70.3 |
| HDW6 | −73.8577 | 7.3293 | HDW | 75.3 | 11.0 | 6.9 | 68.4 |
| HDW7 | −73.8910 | 7.3320 | HDW | 69.2 | 8.0 | 4.9 | 64.2 |
| HDW8 | −73.8998 | 7.3506 | HDW | 68.3 | 10.0 | 2.4 | 65.8 |
| HDW9 | −73.8531 | 7.3598 | HDW | 76.4 | 13.0 | 7.6 | 68.8 |
| HDW10 | −73.8398 | 7.3307 | HDW | 77.8 | 8.0 | 3.8 | 74.0 |
| PZ1 | −73.8870 | 7.3708 | PZ | 68.2 | 4.5 | 4.3 | 63.9 |
| PZ2 | −73.8518 | 7.3601 | PZ | 83.4 | 269.5 | 7.9 | 75.5 |
| DW1 | −73.8388 | 7.3658 | DW | 71.3 | 60.0 | 6.1 | 65.2 |
| DW2 | −73.8802 | 7.3224 | DW | 68.1 | 25.0 | 3.2 | 65.0 |
| DW3 | −73.8686 | 7.3603 | DW | 73.2 | 45.0 | 5.6 | 67.6 |
| DW4 | −73.8523 | 7.3600 | DW | 82.1 | 269.5 | 8.8 | 73.3 |
| DW5 | −73.8939 | 7.3419 | DW | 75.3 | 18.0 | 3.9 | 71.4 |
| Name | X | Y | Water Type | Type | DW Depth (m) | C.S. | CE (μS/cm) | pH | T (°C) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Acueducto Km 20 | −73.74 | 7.32 | GW | DW | 80 | 2 | 189.0 | 6.4 | 27.7 |
| Acueducto Km 8 | −73.84 | 7.33 | GW | DW | 64 | 1, 2, 3 | 117.6 | 7.0 | 28.0 |
| Acueducto San Claver | −73.77 | 7.32 | GW | DW | 68 | 2, 3 | 230.0 | 7.4 | 155.1 |
| Aguas De P Wilches | −73.91 | 7.33 | GW | DW | 68 | 2 | 282.0 | 6.5 | 28.4 |
| Caserio Garcia Cadena | −73.79 | 7.31 | GW | DW | 40 | 1 | 55.0 | 6.6 | 29.0 |
| Caserio Sabaneta | −73.65 | 7.35 | GW | DW | 58 | 1, 2 | 81.1 | 4.2 | 29.0 |
| Chiquita DW | −73.45 | 7.33 | GW | DW | 280 | 2 | 259.8 | 5.9 | 31.5 |
| Ciénaga Yarirí | −73.89 | 7.35 | SW | Swamp | 0 | 2, 3 | 118.5 | 7.1 | 28.5 |
| Espusato II Estadio | −73.50 | 7.39 | GW | DW | 100 | 3 | 41.1 | 7.1 | 28.8 |
| Espusato | −73.49 | 7.39 | GW | DW | 125 | 1, 2, 3 | 47.7 | 5.5 | 28.4 |
| Finca Buenos Aires I | −73.46 | 7.34 | GW | DW | 33 | 2, 3 | 78.0 | 4.5 | 27.1 |
| Finca La Esperanza II | −73.60 | 7.36 | GW | DW | 60 | 1 | 53.0 | 4.3 | 29.4 |
| Finca Verede La Moneda | −73.57 | 7.37 | GW | DW | 60 | 1 | 123.0 | 4.4 | 27.9 |
| Finca Villa De Oro | −73.73 | 7.33 | GW | HDW | 3 | 1 | 67.0 | 6.0 | 30.0 |
| Finca Villa Maria | −73.62 | 7.37 | GW | DW | 38 | 1, 2, 3 | 34.4 | 4.3 | 29.4 |
| Hotel Nuevo Despertar | −73.50 | 7.39 | GW | HDW | 15 | 1 | 120.0 | 6.2 | 32.0 |
| Lav Autos | −73.49 | 7.40 | GW | HDW | 14 | 1 | 72.0 | 4.6 | 31.0 |
| Manantial Villa Luz | −73.47 | 7.34 | GW | Spring | 0 | 2, 3 | 14.2 | 5.7 | 26.6 |
| Nuevo Caserio | −73.88 | 7.32 | GW | HDW | 6 | 1, 2 | 204.9 | 4.2 | 28.5 |
| PCM 2 DW | −73.89 | 7.37 | GW | DW | 365 | 2, 3 | 267.5 | 8.0 | 16.5 |
| Pradilla | −73.68 | 7.35 | GW | DW | 80 | 2, 3 | 130.8 | 5.7 | 29.0 |
| Santos 6 DW | −73.45 | 7.33 | GW | DW | 355 | 2 | 296.0 | 5.6 | 29.3 |
| Sopintura Lav Auto | −73.50 | 7.39 | GW | HDW | 14 | 1 | 72.0 | 4.6 | 30.0 |
| Vda El 36 | −73.61 | 7.36 | GW | HDW | 12 | 1, 2 | 59.0 | 4.2 | 29.0 |
| Analyzed Parameter | Meets Standards | Does Not Meet Standards | Below Detection/Inconclusive | Not Analyzed |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Arsenic | 33 | 2 | 0 | 7 |
| Aluminum | 37 | 4 | 0 | 1 |
| Iron | 27 | 14 | 0 | 1 |
| Manganese | 0 | 6 | 35 | 1 |
| Barium | 39 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Cadmium | 40 | 1 | 0 | 1 |
| Cyanide | 40 | 2 | 0 | 0 |
| Zinc | 39 | 0 | 0 | 3 |
| Chloride | 42 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Copper | 37 | 0 | 0 | 5 |
| Coliforms | 0 | 29 | 5 | 8 |
| Chromium | 40 | 0 | 0 | 2 |
| Fluoride | 42 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| Mercury | 41 | 0 | 0 | 1 |
| Nitrate | 33 | 9 | 0 | 0 |
| Nitrite | 41 | 1 | 0 | 0 |
| Lead | 36 | 2 | 0 | 4 |
| Selenium | 38 | 0 | 0 | 4 |
| Sulfate | 42 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
| pH | 12 | 25 | 0 | 5 |
| Silver | 36 | 0 | 0 | 6 |
| Hydrogeological Unit | Parameterization Zone | Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity (m/d) Steady-State Model | Horizontal Hydraulic Conductivity (m/d) Transient Model | Specific Storage (1/m) |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Upper Quaternary | Q upper Gravel | 22 | 22 | |
| Q upper Gravelly sand | 20 | 20 | ||
| Q upper Sand | 18 | 18 | ||
| Lower Quaternary | Q lower Gravel | 21 | 21 | |
| Q lower Gravelly sand | 19 | 19 | ||
| Q lower Sand | 17 | 17 | ||
| Real U4 | U4 Gravel | 16 | 16 | |
| U4 Gravelly sand | 14 | 14 | ||
| U4 Sand | 12 | 12 | ||
| Real U3 | U3 Gravel | 6 | 6 | |
| U3 Gravelly sand | 5 | 5 | ||
| U3 Muddy sand | 3 | 3 | ||
| U3 Sand | 4 | 4 | ||
| U3 Sandy mud | 0.5 | 0.5 | ||
| Real U2 | U2 Muddy sand | 1 | 1 | |
| U2 Sand | 2 | 2 | ||
| Real U1 | U1 Mud | 0.1 | 0.1 |
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |
© 2025 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Lora-Ariza, B.; Silva Vargas, L.; Pescador, J.; Vaca, M.; Landinez, J.; Piña, A.; Donado, L.D. Numerical Groundwater Flow Modeling in a Tropical Aquifer Under Anthropogenic Pressures: A Case Study in the Middle Magdalena Valley, Colombia. Water 2025, 17, 3579. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17243579
Lora-Ariza B, Silva Vargas L, Pescador J, Vaca M, Landinez J, Piña A, Donado LD. Numerical Groundwater Flow Modeling in a Tropical Aquifer Under Anthropogenic Pressures: A Case Study in the Middle Magdalena Valley, Colombia. Water. 2025; 17(24):3579. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17243579
Chicago/Turabian StyleLora-Ariza, Boris, Luis Silva Vargas, Juan Pescador, Mónica Vaca, Juan Landinez, Adriana Piña, and Leonardo David Donado. 2025. "Numerical Groundwater Flow Modeling in a Tropical Aquifer Under Anthropogenic Pressures: A Case Study in the Middle Magdalena Valley, Colombia" Water 17, no. 24: 3579. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17243579
APA StyleLora-Ariza, B., Silva Vargas, L., Pescador, J., Vaca, M., Landinez, J., Piña, A., & Donado, L. D. (2025). Numerical Groundwater Flow Modeling in a Tropical Aquifer Under Anthropogenic Pressures: A Case Study in the Middle Magdalena Valley, Colombia. Water, 17(24), 3579. https://doi.org/10.3390/w17243579

