Use of multivariate indicator kriging methods for assessing groundwater contamination extents for irrigation
- First Online:
- 368 Downloads
Multivariate geostatistical approaches have been applied extensively in characterizing risks and uncertainty of pollutant concentrations exceeding anthropogenic regulatory limits. Spatially delineating an extent of contamination potential is considerably critical for regional groundwater resources protection and utilization. This study used multivariate indicator kriging (MVIK) to determine spatial patterns of contamination extents in groundwater for irrigation and made a predicted comparison between two types of MVIK, including MVIK of multiplying indicator variables (MVIK-M) and of averaging indicator variables (MVIK-A). A cross-validation procedure was adopted to examine the performance of predicted errors, and various probability thresholds used to calculate ratios of declared pollution area to total area were explored for the two MVIK methods. The assessed results reveal that the northern and central aquifers have excellent groundwater quality for irrigation use. Results obtained through a cross-validation procedure indicate that MVIK-M is more robust than MVIK-A. Furthermore, a low ratio of declared pollution area to total area in MVIK-A may result in an unrealistic and unreliable probability used to determine extents of pollutants. Therefore, this study suggests using MVIK-M to probabilistically determine extents of pollutants in groundwater.
KeywordsMultivariate indicator kriging (MVIK) Groundwater Cross-validation Irrigation Uncertainty
- AERC (Agriculture Engineering Research Center). (2008). Analysis and evaluation of the groundwater quality survey in Taiwan areas (p. 487). Taiwan: Water Resources Agency, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Executive Yuan.Google Scholar
- Deutsch, C. V. (2002). Geostatistical reservoir modeling (pp. 124–152). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Deutsch, C. V., & Journel, A. G. (1998). GSLIB: Geostatistical Software Library and User’s Guide (2nd ed.). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Goovaerts, P. (1997). Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation (pp. 259–368). New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
- Goovaerts, P., AvRuskin, G., Meliker, J., Slotnick, M., Jacquez, G., & Nriagu, J. (2005). Geostatistical modeling of the spatial variability of arsenic in groundwater of southeast Michigan. Water Resources Research, 41. doi:10.1029/2004WR003705.
- Lin, Y. P., Cheng, B. Y., Shyu, G. S., & Chang, T. K. (2010). Combining a finite mixture distribution model with indicator kriging to delineate and map the spatial patterns of soil heavy metal pollution in Chunghua County, central Taiwan. Environmental Pollution, 158(1), 235–244.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Oyedele, D. J., Amusan, A. A., & Obi, A. O. (1996). The use of multiple-variable indicator kriging technique for assessment of the suitability of an acid soil for maize. Tropical Agriculture, 73(4), 259–263.Google Scholar
- Sawyer, C. N., & McCarty, P. L. (1978). Chemistry for Environmental Engineering (3rd ed., pp. 371–373). New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
- Smith, J.L., & Halvorson, J.J. (2011). Field scale studies on the spatial variability of soil quality indicators in Washington State, USA. Applied and Environmental Soil Science, 2011, Article ID 198737. doi:10.1155/2011/198737.
- Taiwan CGS (Central Geological Survey). (2002). Hydrogeological survey report of Pingtung Plain, Taiwan (pp. 97–142). Taiwan: Central Geological Survey, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Executive Yuan.Google Scholar
- Taiwan Sugar Company. (2005). Groundwater quality monitoring and analysis for Taiwan Groundwater Monitoring Network (2/2) (pp. 10-1–10-74). Taiwan: Water Resources Agency, Ministry of Economic Affairs, Executive Yuan.Google Scholar
- USSL (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. USDA Hand Book, 60, (pp. 147). Washington DC.Google Scholar