Mapping groundwater recharge potential zones in arid region using GIS and Landsat approaches, southeast Tunisia

Figures & data

Table 1. Water balance parameters. R: rainfall; PET: potential evapotranspiration; AET: actual evapotranspiration; RUPS: reserve useful for plant survival (max. = 32).

Meteorological station	R (mm)	PET (mm/year)	AET (mm/year)	RUPS, initial	RUPS, final	Excess	PET (mm/d)
Gabes SM	198	1066	206.22	99.85	71.45	20.17	34.88
Gabes DRES	169	1066	185.22	86.71	63.32	7.17	34.88
El Mdou	154	1066	172.22	91.85	70.45	3.17	34.88
El Mida	105	1066	134.83	83.71	51.71	2.17	34.88
Ghannouch	164	1066	178.22	89.84	64.45	11.17	34.88
Matouia	188	1066	201.22	88.85	59.45	16.17	34.88
El Hamma PV	168	1066	176.22	94.85	74.45	12.17	34.88
El Hamma Téléphérique	93	1066	125	81.05	19.05	0	34.88
Mareth	209	1066	212.51	112.42	92.03	16.88	34.88
Matmata Delegation	176	1066	187.22	101.85	71.45	19.17	34.88
Average	162	1066	178	93	74	11	35
Water balance for the rainy year 2003 (Alaya 2014)	232.1	1173.09	212.53	–	–	19.57	–

Figure 1. Location map of Tunisia and the Gabes region (projection system: TUN UTM; datum: WGS_1984; zone: 32).

Figure 2. (a) Correlation of rainfall with temperature and years. (b) Monthly rainfall variability at the climatological station Gabes SM in the period 1985–2015. (c) Correlation of rainfall–PET from Gabes SM station. (d) Abstraction of Mio-Plio-Quaternary aquifer in the Gabes region. (e) Piezometric map.

Table 2. Scores assigned to the parameters influencing each recharge potential factor (modified after Krishnamurthy et al. 1996, Edet et al. 1998, Shahid et al. 2000, Jaiswal et al. 2003, Shaban et al. 2006, Magesh et al. 2011, Kaliraj et al. 2014, Oikonomidis et al. 2015, Senanayake et al. 2016, Yeh et al. 2016)..

Factor	Major effect	Minor effect	Calculation process	Rate	Score assigned
Lineaments	2	0	2 + (0 × 0.5) = 2	2.0	12
Land use/land cover	1	3	(1 × 1) + (3 × 0.5) = 2.5	2.5	15
Lithology	4	0	(4 × 1) + (0 × 0.5) = 4	4.0	24
Drainage	1	1	(1 × 1) + (1 × 0.5) = 1.5	1.5	9
Slope	2	1	(2 × 1) + (1 × 0.5) = 2.5	2.5	15
Soil	1	0	(1 × 1) + (0 × 0.5) = 1	1.0	6
Rainfall	1	1	(1 × 1) + (1 × 0.5) = 1.5	1.5	9
Geomorphology	2	0	(2 × 1) + (0 × 0.5) = 2	2.0	12

Table 3. Criteria for classification of hydrological soil group (Chow et al. 1988, Viessman et al. 1989).

Character	Hydrological soil group
Infiltration rate	A: High	B: Moderate	C: Slow	D: Very slow
Texture	Sand/gravel	Moderately coarse to moderately fine	Moderately fine to fine	Clay
Depth	Deep	Moderately deep to deep	Moderately deep	Shallow over an impervious layer of clay or clay pan of high water table
Drainage	Well drained to excess	Moderately well to well drained	Moderately drained to slow	Very slow
Water transmission	High	Moderate	Slow	Very slow
Remarks	Low runoff potential	Moderate runoff potential	Moderate runoff potential	High runoff potential

Figure 3. Schematic representation of the methodology adopted to delineate the groundwater recharge potential zone of the Gabes region.

Figure 4. Interrelationship between the multiple influencing factors concerning the recharge property.

Figure 5. Lineament density map of the Gabes region.

Figure 6. Rose diagram of the lineament orientation in the Gabes region.

Figure 7. Drainage density map of the Gabes region.

Figure 8. Slope map of the Gabes region.

Figure 9. Soil types map of the Gabes region.

Figure 10. Rainfall map of the Gabes region.

Figure 11. Correlation between precipitation (P) and elevation.

Figure 12. Land-use/land-cover map of the Gabes region.

Figure 13. Lithology map of the Gabes region.

Figure 14. Geomorphology map of the Gabes region.

Figure 15. Distribution of groundwater potential classes in the Gabes region.

Figure 16. Groundwater recharge potential zone map of the Gabes study area.

Table 4. Classification of various factors for delineation of groundwater potential zones.

Factor	Domain of effect	Weight of effect	Rates	Weighted rating	Total	Descriptive recharge potential
Lineament density (km/km^2)^a	0–0.5	1	2.0	2	22	Poor
	0.5–1	4		8		Good
	1–1.5	6		12		Very good
Drainage density^b	0–1	2	1.5	3	16.5	Poor
	1–1.5	3		4.5		Moderate
	1.5–2.5	5		7.5		Good
	2.5–3.5	6		9		Very good
Land use/land cover	Buildings	1	2.5	2.5	38.75	Poor
	Bare land	3.5		8.75		Moderate
	Forest + agriculture	5		12.5		Good
	Streams	6		15		Very good
Lithology	Alluvium and Quaternary sediments	6	4.0	24	88	Very good
	Sand clay–sand	6		24		Very good
	Coarse sand	6		24		Very good
	Silty clay	2		8		Poor
	Marly limestone	2		8		Moderate
Slope	0–2°	6	2.5	15	27.5	Very good
	2–4°	3		7.5		Moderate
	4–10°	1		2.5		Poor
	>10°	1		2.5		Poor
Soil	Sandy and sandy silt	6	1	6	8	Very good
	Sandy + clay and silt	2		2		Poor
	Clay, clay sandy
Rainfall	10–50 mm	1	1.5	1	25	Poor
	50–100 mm	2		3		Moderate
	100–150 mm	4		6		Good
	150–200 mm	4		6		Good
	<200 mm	6		9		Very good
Geomorphology	0–110 (Plain)	6	2.0	12	28	Very good
	110–660 (Relief)	2		4		Moderate
	Rivers	6		12		Very good

^aLineament per km².

^bSegment per km².

Table 5. Groundwater recharge potential zones and categorization.

	Very Good	Good	Moderate	Poor
Area (%)	40	13	18	29
Area (km^2)	4607	1499	2061	3333
Average (%)^a	47.5	32.5	15	7.5

^aUN (1967).

Alaya, M.B., et al., 2014. Suitability assessment of deep groundwater for drinking and irrigation use in the Djeffara aquifers (northern Gabes, south-eastern Tunisia). Environmental Earth Sciences, 71 (8), 3387–3421.

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Krishnamurthy, J., et al., 1996. An approach to demarcate ground water potential zones through remote sensing and a geographical information system. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 17 (10), 1867–1884. doi:10.1080/01431169608948744

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Edet, A.E., et al., 1998. Application of remote-sensing data to groundwater exploration: a case study of the Cross River State, southeastern Nigeria. Hydrogeology Journal, 6 (3), 394–404. doi:10.1007/s100400050162

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shahid, S., Nath, S., and Roy, J., 2000. Groundwater potential modelling in a soft rock area using a GIS. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 21 (9), 1919–1924. doi:10.1080/014311600209823

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Jaiswal, R.K., et al., 2003. Role of remote sensing and GIS techniques for generation of groundwater prospect zones towards rural development – an approach. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 24 (5), 993–1008. doi:10.1080/01431160210144543

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Shaban, A., Khawlie, M., and Abdallah, C., 2006. Use of remote sensing and GIS to determine recharge potential zones: the case of Occidental Lebanon. Hydrogeology Journal, 14 (4), 433–443. doi:10.1007/s10040-005-0437-6

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Kaliraj, S., Chandrasekar, N., and Magesh, N.S., 2014. Identification of potential groundwater recharge zones in Vaigai upper basin, Tamil Nadu, using GIS-based analytical hierarchical process (AHP) technique. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 7 (4), 1385–1401. doi:10.1007/s12517-013-0849-x

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Oikonomidis, D., et al., 2015. A GIS/remote sensing-based methodology for groundwater potentiality assessment in Tirnavos area, Greece. Journal of Hydrology, 525, 197–208. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.056

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Senanayake, I.P., et al., 2016. An approach to delineate groundwater recharge potential sites in Ambalantota, Sri Lanka using GIS techniques. Geoscience Frontiers, 7 (1), 115–124. doi:10.1016/j.gsf.2015.03.002

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Yeh, H.-F., et al., 2016. Mapping groundwater recharge potential zone using a GIS approach in Hualian river, Taiwan. Sustainable Environment Research, 26 (1), 33–43. doi:10.1016/j.serj.2015.09.005

 Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Viessman, J.R.W., Lewis, G.L., and Knapp, J.W., 1989. Introduction to Hydrology. 3rd ed. Singapore: Harper and Row, 780.

 Google Scholar

UN, 1967. Hydrogeologic map of Lebanon. Carte hydrogelogique du Liban au 1/100000 me, United Nations, Beyrouth, Lebanon.

 Google Scholar