Using environmental isotopes to investigate the groundwater recharge mechanisms and dynamics in the North-eastern Basin, Palestine

Figures & data

Figure 1. Geological map of the study area showing different geological structures, units and locations of sampled wells, and deep and shallow springs.

Table 1. Generalized stratigraphic column of the West Bank (modified after Braun and Hirsch 1994, Guttman and Zuckerman 1995).

System	Epoch	Israeli nomenclature				Guttman 1998		Kronfeld et al. 1992		Palestinian Nomenclature
		Group	Formation		Lithology	Thickness [m]	Hydrogeology	Thickness [m]	Hydrogeology	Formation
Quaternary	Holocene	Dead Sea
	Pleistocene	Mount Scopus
	Pliocene
	Miocene		Lisan		Clays, silt, conglomerate, gypsum, chalk	?				Lisan
	Oligocene
Tertiary	Eocene									Baida
	Paleocene		Taqiye		Marl, chalk, clay, limonite concentrations	100 – 400	Aquiclude	100 – 300	Aquiclude	Abu Dis
	Maastrichtian		Ghareb		Yellowish chalk
	Campanian		Mishash		Chalk with black chert
Upper Cretaceous					White chalk, some calcareous chalk
	Santonian		Menuha
	Coniacian
	Turonian	Judea	Bina, Kub	Netzer	Fine grained limestone and dolomit	90 – 100	Aquifer	230 – 300	Aquifer	Jerusalem
				Shivta
				Derorim			Aquitard
	Cenomanian		Weradim		Hard gray dolomite, porous	90 – 100	Aquifer			Beit Lehem
			Kefar Shaul Avnon		Chalky limestone, chalk, marl	30 – 40	Aquitard
			Aminadav		Hard gray dolomite, porous	110 – 140	Aquifer			Hebron
			Moza		Marl, clay	10	Aquiclude	140 – 230	Aquitard – Aquiclude	Yatta
			Bet Meir		Chalky limestone, bluish clay, chert, some dolomite	120 – 140	Aquiclude
	Albian		Kesalon		Limestone and dolomite, rich in fossils	30	Aquifer			Upper Beit Kahil
			Soreq		Limestone and marly dolomite, marl and some chert	110 – 170	Aquitard
Lower Cretaceous			Givat Ye’arim		Hard dolomite, at times also limesone	20 – 40	Aquifer	150 – 270	Aquifer	Lower Beit Kahil
			Kefira		Limestone alternating with marl	160 – 180	Aquifer
	Aptian	Kurnub	Qatana		Marl with some limestone	50	Aquiclude	350 – 380	Aquiclude	Qatana
			Ein Qinya		Limestone	60 – 70	Aquifer
			Tammun		Limestone, marl and some sand	?	Aquitard
Jurassic	Calovian Bajocian	Arad			Dolomitic Lime stone	150–200	Aquifer	190	Aquifer	Upper Malih
Triassic					Dolomitic Lime stone Jointed and Karstic	55–95	Aquiclude	55		Lower Malih

Table 2. Hydrochemistry and isotope data for the groundwater samples from different sub-aquifers in the North-eastern Basin.

Sample ID	Sampling date	Type of sample	Depth	Z	X	Y	Na^− [mg/L]	K^− [mg/L]	Mg^2+ [mg/L]	Ca^2+ [mg/L]	Cl^− [mg/L]	NO3^− [mg/L]	SO4^2− [mg/L]	δ^2H ‰	δ^18O ‰	HCO3^− [mg/L]	δ^13CDIC‰
S 1	14.11.2014	Spring	0	160	180420	184820	19.0	1.73	6.84	62.50	33.80	15.30	10.00	−24.40	−5.84	198.9	−11.80
S 2	15.11.2014	Spring	0	380	171100	187800	15.9	0.41	5.01	52.80	27.90	6.70	9.10	−24.80	−5.85	158.0	−4.22
S 3	14.11.2014	Spring	0	170	180370	185100	19.2	2.08	6.70	73.10	35.70	14.20	11.60	−24.0	−5.76	224.6	−11.33
S 4	14.11.2014	Spring	0	215	180130	185280	19.6	2.12	6.51	83.30	32.80	13.90	9.40	−24.80	−5.77	267.9	−10.65
S 5	15.11.2014	Spring	0	130	180440	184420	34.8	1.67	6.50	88.40	56.00	13.20	124.00	−25.70	−5.89	43.9	−12.46
S 6	26.10.2014	Spring	0	475	168250	191250	22.6	0.18	5.53	48.50	40.10	11.20	11.00	−24.70	−6.04	146.4	−12.41
S 7	15.11.2014	Spring	0	480	168700	189700	34.5	1.20	4.86	57.10	55.50	26.00	13.00	−24.40	−5.77	145.8	−11.16
S 8	20.10.2014	Spring	0	390	170940	192280	33.5	0.77	7.60	60.40	65.70	32.60	13.20	−24.70	−5.93	151.3	−11.21
W 16	15.12.2014	Shallow well	190	113	176297	209482	53.5	7.62	20.2	54.70	108.80	42.30	21.10	−19.90	−4.78	166.6	−9.40
W 17	15.12.2014	Shallow well	170	99	175520	210153	47.7	2.17	28.80	59.90	95.40	6.20	26.20	−20.20	−4.89	261.2	−10.20
W 18	15.12.2014	Shallow well	50	163	173581	208042	43.1	6.12	12.30	76.70	88.50	40.50	19.10	−21.90	−5.32	203.8	−10.90
W 19	15.12.2014	Shallow well	46	257	173000	207039	44.0	0.66	21.50	69.60	66.50	30.90	13.50	−17.10	−4.39	295.9	−9.80
W 20	15.12.2014	Shallow well	170	246	175334	204337	42.9	0.87	14.80	48.20	65.80	4.50	20.20	−21.4	−5.08	194.0	−10.60
W 21	15.12.2014	Shallow well	280	288	177307	201478	64.3	4.51	29.80	77.80	103.40	0.00	64.50	−22.60	−5.34	299.6	−10.40
W 22	15.12.2014	Shallow well	150	294	177276	201964	50.3	1.31	19.90	53.40	73.20	0.00	24.30	−22.30	−5.21	244.1	−10.20
W 23	15.12.2014	Shallow well	180	156	178732	207984	113.0	24.00	29.50	95.20	177.00	81.30	50.90	−18.40	−4.47	324.6	−9.10
W 24	15.12.2014	Shallow well	200	113	180483	208314	96.3	3.12	27.40	37.00	106.40	1.20	47.80	−21.60	−4.90	270.9	−8.70
W 25	15.12.2014	Shallow well	200	165	183420	208206	86.0	0.97	25.10	51.30	113.30	0.00	38.80	−20.80	−4.51	261.2	−8.00
W 26	15.12.2014	Shallow well	180	197	184218	208445	155.6	1.25	31.8	98.40	290.10	59.70	65.00	−18.00	−4.19	245.3	−8.40
W 27	15.12.2014	Shallow well	106	122	182051	210322	198.0	1.83	34.00	86.00	345.90	23.00	92.90	−18.40	−4.24	228.2	−9.20
W 28	15.12.2014	Shallow well	80	112	178531	211093	108.0	3.15	25.40	76.20	208.90	45.70	34.60	−14.70	−3.50	189.2	−8.10
W 29	15.12.2014	Shallow well	200	114	178224	209668	77.0	8.47	23.20	74.50	132.40	27.70	37.10	−21.00	−4.80	248.4	−9.00
W 30	15.12.2014	Shallow well	200	26	178212	209681	103.1	9.90	36.20	88.20	151.90	25.40	127.70	−20.70	−4.84	358.2	−10.37
W 31	15.12.2014	Shallow well	220	356	174878	198567	23.2	1.12	9.50	76.90	52.70	11.60	16.20	−23.40	−5.51	250.8	−8.86
W 32	15.12.2014	Shallow well	250	348	176159	197895	29.5	3.06	11.40	51.10	51.50	0.00	16.30	−22.50	−5.23	184.3	−10.84
W 33	15.12.2014	Shallow well	165	362	179153	194845	37.2	0.80	16.90	49.10	56.20	0.00	19.80	−21.80	−5.02	0.0	−11.00
W 34	15.12.2014	Shallow well	185	146	177123	207745	40.3	0.64	22.90	30.20	63.40	1.50	22.60	−21.70	−4.91	168.4	−10.90
Ws 14	28.09.2014	Shallow well	62	260	174080	204000	51.8	2.13	31.90	45.50	62.90	0.00	22.00	−22.40	−5.28	292.3	−11.30
Wn 1	14.11.2014	Deep well	585	500	176100	174900	20.4	2.03	23.90	51.00	37.00	18.64	9.76	−24.50	−5.50	244.7	−11.76
Wn 2	14.11.2014	Deep well	500	500	174480	171220	17.3	1.10	25.30	43.40	27.80	9.24	8.75	−23.60	−5.53	247.1	−11.84
Wn 3	14.11.2014	Deep well	595	330	168900	183000	15.3	1.92	19.90	61.10	27.20	13.10	7.53	−23.40	−5.45	256.3	−13.03
Wn 4	14.11.2014	Deep well	748	210	180150	185400	27.1	1.58	15.70	63.40	46.00	7.41	18.50	−24.00	−5.47	244.7	−12.02
Wn 5	14.11.2014	Deep well	413	90	182750	185750	30.3	1.56	26.90	56.60	60.00	15.20	16.80	−23.20	−5.40	259.9	−11.5
Wn 6	14.11.2014	Deep well	400	260	186072	188928	28.9	1.84	27.30	56.60	55.20	17.50	18.00	−23.00	−5.32	260.6	−9.30
Wn 7	14.11.2014	Deep well	150	223	182300	189650	48.2	1.54	29.40	71.90	101.20	22.30	29.20	−22.40	−5.36	270.9	−11.21
Wn 8	14.11.2014	Deep well	670	272	166750	184750	0.3	0	0.70	24.10	0.30	0.03	0.54	−21.20	−5.19	73.2	−12.54
Wn 9	14.11.2014	Deep well	370	300	171250	200900	29.1	2.20	28.40	66.00	50.70	26.30	19.90	−23.00	−5.35	291.7	−8.9
Wn 10	14.11.2014	Deep well	923	245	175730	204533	40.3	3.16	30.40	49.10	61.00	3.390	31.10	−19.60	−4.53	269.7	−9.33
Wn 11	14.11.2014	Deep well	425	123	171464	211090	33.9	2.92	27.10	65.00	53.00	19.30	18.70	−19.80	−4.90	293.5	−9.98
Wn 12	14.11.2014	Deep well	600	400	166288	187186	21.3	2.09	21.00	58.60	41.80	22.80	10.00	−21.70	−5.27	239.8	−10.38
Wn 13	14.11.2014	Deep well	466	293	169460	193415	24.3	1.16	24.40	60.80	43.00	15.60	16.50	−21.50	−5.11	266	−10.05
Wn 15	14.11.2014	Deep well	525	510	175800	172800	17.9	1.53	24.50	47.40	31.30	12.80	9.33	−22.70	−5.52	230.7	−12.54
W 35	14.11.2014	Deep well	1300	378	177000	199690	32.1	4.91	34.60	69.20	62.00	48.50	12.80	−22.80	−5.43	313.6	−11.4
W 36	14.11.2014	Deep well	460	270	167000	205380	33.8	1.78	26.90	52.40	38.50	9.30	22.00	−23.70	−5.54	282.5	−12

Figure 2. Piper diagram showing different chemical behaviours and water types between springs, and shallow and deep wells, which vary between CaCO₃ freshwater in the springs to NaCl-dominated brackish water in the Eocene shallow wells.

Figure 3. Major anions, cations and δ¹⁸O_[SMOW] vs Cl⁻ (meq/L) in the groundwater samples show an increase in salinity from south to northeast, according to the spatial distributions of the sampled points. In particular, Na⁺ concentrations show conservative behaviour, with Cl⁻ indicating a 1:1 relation, while SO₄²⁺ concentrations also show a positive relationship with respect to Cl⁻.

Figure 4. Mg + Ca vs SO₄ + HCO₃ in meq/L, showing the evaporitic salinity trend in the study area, low salinity for the springs and deep wells in the southwest and scattered anion content due to dissolution of sediments in the northwest.

Figure 5. The ratio of Mg/Cl vs Ca/Cl in meq/L differentiates three groups with different chloride contents and distinct Mg/Ca molar ratios: (a) direct quick recharge for the springs from Jerusalem (Turonian); (b) groundwater in the shallow Eocene with high evaporitic salinity and slow recharge; (c) deep wells group with variable Mg content from Lower Cretaceous.

Figure 6. δD vs δ¹⁸O_[SMOW] for local rainwater accounting for the local meteoric water line (LMWL) and for the sampled groundwater, which exhibit almost meteoric water signatures for the springs and enriched δ¹⁸O signatures for the deep and shallow wells due to evaporation.

Figure 7. δ¹³C_{DIC [VPDB]} vs δO¹⁸ _[SMOW] values, indicating higher freshwater values in the springs and deep wells in the south. In contrast, shallow wells in the north reveal δ¹⁸O enrichment parallel to enrichment of δ¹³C_DIC. The results were compared with the δ¹³C_DIC signatures from the alluvial aquifer in the Jericho area (Khayat et al. 2010).

Figure 8. Seasonal distributions of δ¹⁸O signatures (in ‰ V-SMOW; a and b) and chloride content (in meq/L; c and d) for the deep wells, which show less depletion response for the Eocene sub-aquifer in the north, while more depleted signatures are noticed surrounding the flanks of both anticlines and in the south of the study area.

Figure 9. Conceptual recharge and flow model for different aquifer system in the study area, showing different potential recharge zones and groundwater flow from different zones.

Braun, H.A., et al., 1994. Oscillation and noise determine signal transduction in shark multimodal sensory cells. Nature, 367 (6460), 270. doi:10.1038/367270a0

 PubMed Web of Science ®Google Scholar

Guttman, J., and Zuckerman, H., 1995. Flow model in the eastern basin of the Judea and Samaria Hills. Tel-Aviv: Tahal Consulting Engineers Ltd.

 Google Scholar

Guttman, J., 1998. Annual report-1997. Sub project B: hydrogeology of the eastern aquifer in the Judea Hills and Jordan Valley. Tahal, 6440-R98.

 Google Scholar

Kronfeld, J., et al., 1992. Uranium isotope disequilibrium studies and the geohydrology of the Arava Rift Valley, Israel. Nuclear Geophysics, 6 (4), 535–545.

 Google Scholar

Khayat, S., Geyer, S., and Marei, A., 2010. Tracing the inorganic carbon system in the groundwater from the lower Jordan Valley basin (Jericho/Palestine). In: P. Birkle and I.S. Torres-Alvarado, eds. The water rock interaction XIII. Oxfordshire: Taylor and Francis Group, 1008.

 Google Scholar