| Literature DB >> 31151262 |
Ya Sun1, Shi Guo Xu2, Ping Ping Kang3, Yan Zhao Fu4, Tian Xiang Wang5.
Abstract
Artificial underground reservoirs have changed the hydrological cycle from its natural condition. This modification may trigger a series of negative environmental effects both at the local and regional levels. This study investigated the impact of the Wanghe artificial underground reservoir on groundwater flow and quality in the reservoir and its downstream area. Wanghe is a typical artificial underground reservoir scheme in China, which assumes the dual function of fresh-water preservation and control of seawater intrusion. The groundwater flow pattern has changed after the reservoir construction, and the water level in the reservoir rose rapidly. Evaluation of long-term groundwater level fluctuation suggested that the reservoir deprived the downstream aquifer of the runoff, which it received under the natural flow regime. A preliminary isotopic evaluation using 3H was developed to understand the groundwater flow and renewal rates in the study area. The uniform distribution of tritium levels in the reservoir indicated that the stored water was well-mixed in both horizontal and vertical directions. The intervention on groundwater circulation also made differences in groundwater renewal rates between stored and downstream water. Field investigations on groundwater nitrogen pollution showed that the construction of the artificial underground reservoir resulted in nitrate accumulation in the stored water. Agriculturally derived nitrate was the largest contributor, and NO 3 - concentration varied considerably over time due to fertilization and irrigation activities, rainfall, and denitrification. NO 3 - -N distributed homogeneously in the reservoir, which was attributed to the construction of the subsurface dam, land use pattern and artificial groundwater flow.Entities:
Keywords: artificial underground reservoir; environmental impact; groundwater flow; nitrogen pollutant distribution
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31151262 PMCID: PMC6603707 DOI: 10.3390/ijerph16111921
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Int J Environ Res Public Health ISSN: 1660-4601 Impact factor: 3.390
Basic information of some artificial underground reservoirs in China.
| Reservoir Name | Reservoir Area (km2) | Total Storage Capacity | Active Storage | Reservoir Structure | Construction Method of Cut-Off Wall | Vertical Configuration of Cut-Off Wall | Wall Length (m) | Seepage Control Area of Cut-Off Wall (103 m2) | Construction Period | Location |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Nangong | 206 | 460,000 | 84,000 | plain palaeochannel | NAp | NAp | NAp | NAp | 1977–1982 | Hebei |
| Wanghe | 68.49 | 56,930 | 32,730 | coastal alluvial plain | high pressure jet grouting | keyed-into low permeability layer | 13,593 | 27.2 | 1999–2006 | Shandong |
| Jiahe | 63.26 | 205,200 | 65,000 | intermontane valley alluvial plain | high pressure jet grouting | keyed-into low permeability layer | 2511 | 4.5 | 2000–2001 | Shandong |
| Daguhe | 421.69 | 384,130 | 237,800 | intermontane valley alluvial plain | high pressure jet grouting, geomembrane wall, permeation grouting | keyed-into low permeability layer | 4350 | 3.5 | 1997–1998 | Shandong |
| Hutuohe | 436.5 | 100.4 | NAp | alluvial fan, cone of depression | NAp | NAp | NAp | NAp | 2012–2014 | Hebei |
| Longhe * | 8.5 | 865 | NA | intermontane valley alluvial plain | high pressure jet grouting | keyed-into low permeability layer | 544.6 | 0.5 | 1998–2000 | Liaoning |
| Jianbaohe | 26.09 | 6904.1 | 6525.2 | intermontane valley alluvial plain | high pressure jet grouting | keyed-into low permeability layer | 930 | 1.5 | 2001–2003 | Liaoning |
| Huangshuihe | 53 | 53,590 | 39,290 | coastal alluvial plain | high pressure jet grouting | keyed-into low permeability layer | 5996 | 16 | 1993–1995 | Shandong |
| Balishahe | 0.7 | 398 | 355 | coastal alluvial plain | high pressure jet grouting | keyed-into low permeability layer | 756 | 5500 | 1988–1989 | Shandong |
| Maguan | NAp | 1325.42 | 1325.42 | karst subterranean river (surface–subsurface reservoir) | damming underground river | NAp | NAp | NAp | 1990–1990 | Guizhou |
| Pengbao | 75 | 84,380 | 7280 | cone of depression | plastic concrete slurry wall, permeation grouting grouting | keyed-into low permeability layer | 4050 | 16.2 | 2009–2011 | Ningxia |
| Liangchenghe | 12.3 | 23,050 | 10,600 | coastal alluvial plain | deep soil mixing | keyed-into low permeability layer | 3990 | 4.8 | 2016–2017 | Shandong |
| Rushanhe | 19.6 | 21,970 | 16,860 | coastal alluvial plain | high pressure jet grouting | keyed-into low permeability layer | 7600 | 11.4 | 2017–2018 | Shandong |
| Shilin | NAp | 6725.5 | 5508.7 | karst subterranean river (surface-subsurface reservoir) | permeation grouting | keyed-into low permeability layer | 4840 | 10 | 2012–2013 | Yunnan |
| Shangba | NAp | 2800 | 2680 | karst subterranean river | damming underground river | keyed-into low permeability layer | NAp | NAp | 2006–2007 | Guizhou |
| Wulichong | NAp | 79,490 | 79,490 | karst subterranean river (surface-subsurface reservoir) | high pressure jet grouting, damming underground river, reinforced concrete slurry wall, damming at outfall of underground river | hanging wall | 1383 | 26.2 | 1991–1996 | Yunnan |
| Baixi | NA | NA | NA | coastal alluvial plain | high pressure jet grouting | keyed-into low permeability layer | 514 | 8153 | 2009–2009 | Zhejiang |
| Sanguanmiao | 1 | 638.1 | 1472.46 | intermontane valley alluvial plain | high pressure jet grouting | keyed-into low permeability layer | NA | NA | 2001–2002 | Liaoning |
| Laolongwan | NA | NA | 360 | intermontane valley alluvial plain | geomembrane | keyed-into low permeability layer | 391.4 | NA | 1995–1998 | Liaoning |
*: Longhe artificial underground reservoir was abandoned due to water contamination. NAp: information not applicable; NA: information not available
Figure 1Location of study area and Wanghe artificial underground reservoir.
Figure 2Land use pattern of the study area.
Figure 3Layout of the Wanghe artificial underground reservoir, location of groundwater sampling sites, groundwater level monitoring wells, and hydrogeological section.
Figure 4A sketch map of the subsurface dam.
Nitrogen fertilizer application calendar.
| Calendar | Growth Period | Agricultural Practices | N-Fertilizer Application | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| June 10th | summer maize | sowing period | summer maize sowing | / |
| July 10th | jointing period | top application | 80 (chemical fertilizer N) | |
| August 1st | booting period | top application | 120 (chemical fertilizer N) | |
| August 20th | filling period | top application | 40 (chemical fertilizer N) | |
| October 1st | harvest period | summer maize harvest straw mulching and nitrogen fertilizer application | 60 (chemical fertilizer N) | |
| October 5th | winter wheat | sowing period | winter wheat sowing base fertilizer application | 250 (organic fertilizer N) |
| April 20th | jointing period | top application | 120 (chemical fertilizer N) | |
| June 5th | harvest period | winter wheat harvest straw mulching and N-fertilizer application | 60 (chemical fertilizer N) | |
Amount of livestock wastewater and TN, -N concentrations.
| Livestock Species | Amount of Wastewater (L/d/pd) | N Concentration (mg/L) | |
|---|---|---|---|
| TN | |||
| swine | 10 | 400 | 250 |
| beef cattle | 30 | 80 | 50 |
| chicken | 0.25 | 500 | 200 |
Figure 5Groundwater flow field in (a) 1994/06/01 before reservoir construction; (b) 2004/06/01 after reservoir construction; (c) 2009/06/01 after reservoir construction; (d) 2016/06/01 after reservoir construction. (unit: m).
Figure 6Relationship between annual precipitation and average annual groundwater level.
Groundwater tritium concentration and renewal rate.
| Sampling Site | In/Downstream the Reservoir | Ground Elevation (m) | Groundwater Level (m) | Well Depth (m) | Aquifer Characteristics | Surrounding Environment | EC at 25 ℃ (mS/cm) | 3H Level (TU) | Groundwater Renewal Rate (%/a) |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| T1 | in | 3.4 | 3.1 | 8 | unconfined | wasteland | 1.82 | 17.3 | 14 |
| T2 | in | 4.2 | 3.6 | 3 | unconfined | cultivated land, near the river | 4.91 | 17.0 | 14 |
| T3 | in | 4.6 | 4.0 | 22 | unconfined | cultivated land | 4.16 | 18.7 | 16 |
| T4 | in | 5.0 | –4.9 | about 25 | unconfined | residential land | 1.79 | 17.9 | 15 |
| T5 | in | 6.5 | 4.6 | 31 | unconfined | vegetable field | 1.78 | 18.7 | 16 |
| T6 | in | 9.0 | 6.1 | 35 | unconfined | residential land, near the river | 1.04 | 17.3 | 14 |
| T7 | in | 5.5 | 0.2 | about 35 | unconfined | cultivated land | 3.84 | 18.4 | 15 |
| T8 | in | 10 | 5.8 | 38 | unconfined | cultivated land | 4.80 | 18.0 | 15 |
| T9 | in | 6.0 | –4.0 | about 40 | unconfined | residential land | 2.52 | 16.9 | 14 |
| T10 | in | 5.2 | –5.4 | 25 | unconfined | cultivated land | 1.50 | 18.7 | 16 |
| T11 | in | 10.0 | –0.8 | 20 | unconfined | cultivated land, near the river | 1.66 | 16.8 | 14 |
| T12 | in | 13.1 | –6.1 | 35 | unconfined | cultivated land | 3.55 | 17.2 | 14 |
| T13 | in | 16.0 | 7.7 | 18 | unconfined | orchard | 1.73 | 17.5 | 15 |
| T14 | in | 4.0 | –6.0 | about 20 | unconfined | cultivated land | 4.61 | 17.9 | 15 |
| T15 | in | 13 | 3.6 | about 35 | unconfined | cultivated land | 2.28 | 17.0 | 14 |
| T16 | in | 9.0 | –6.1 | 35 | unconfined | orchard | 1.88 | 18.8 | 16 |
| T17 | in | 7.5 | –9.1 | 14 | unconfined | cultivated land | 1.77 | 16.8 | 14 |
| T18 | downstream | 0.7 | 0.5 | 26 | unconfined | aquaculture land, near the river | 41.9 | 4 | 2 |
| T19 | downstream | 4.4 | 1.6 | 11 | unconfined | cultivated land | 27.4 | 12.6 | 6 |
| T20 | downstream | 3.2 | 2.6 | 10 | unconfined | waste land | 26.8 | 15.5 | 9 |
| T21 | downstream | 4.2 | 4.0 | about 20 | unconfined | residential land | 31.5 | 16.2 | 11 |
| T22 | downstream | 4.5 | 3.2 | 20 | unconfined | cultivated land | 18.0 | 19.2 | 16 |
| T23 | downstream | 0.2 | 0.0 | 12 | unconfined | aquaculture land | 47.1 | 4 | 2 |
| T24 | downstream | 0.2 | –0.1 | 30 | unconfined | aquaculture land | 46.1 | 3.1 | 2 |
| T25 | downstream | 5 | –4.0 | 23 | unconfined | livestock farm | 19.6 | 16.3 | 12 |
| T26 | downstream | 3.2 | –0.9 | 22 | unconfined | pine forest | 32.2 | 6.4 | 3 |
| T27 | downstream | 5 | –3.8 | 18 | unconfined | wasteland | 26.4 | 13.1 | 6 |
| T28 | downstream | 3.7 | –0.4 | 27 | unconfined | aquaculture land | 39.7 | 5.7 | 3 |
| T29 | downstream | 4.0 | –4.0 | 18 | unconfined | residential land | 16.6 | 14.4 | 8 |
| T30 | downstream | 7.4 | –4.0 | about 40 | unconfined | aquaculture land | 41.5 | 6.2 | 3 |
| T31 | downstream | 6 | –3.6 | 33 | unconfined | aquaculture land | 42.3 | 4.9 | 2 |
Figure 7Relationship between groundwater level and tritium concentration.
Figure 8Hydrogeological section of the storage layers (line A-A’ in Figure 3).
Figure 9Relationship between groundwater conductivity (EC) and tritium concentration.
Figure 10Reconstructed tritium concentration series in precipitation in the study area.
Figure 11Relationship between groundwater tritium concentration and groundwater renewal rate.
Ratios of -N, -N and -N to dissolved inorganic nitrogen (DIN) in stored and downstream groundwater (%).
| Form of Inorganic-N | 2014.07 | 2015.04 | 2015.08 | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Inside | Downstream | Inside | Downstream | Inside | Downstream | |||||||
| Range | Average | Range | Average | Range | Average | Range | Average | Range | Average | Range | Average | |
| 97.92–99.97 | 99.57 | 3.91–99.73 | 76.32 | 86.83–99.65 | 98.18 | 0.33–99.20 | 64.52 | 99.17–99.91 | 99.75 | 16.42–99.24 | 79.46 | |
| 0.00–0.54 | 0.12 | 0.04–15.56 | 4.69 | 0.04–1.52 | 0.23 | 0.26–36.93 | 6.89 | 0.00–0.22 | 0.04 | 0.03–2.83 | 1.33 | |
| 0.02–1.79 | 0.31 | 0.00–80.54 | 18.99 | 0.29–11.65 | 1.59 | 0.27–99.41 | 28.59 | 0.07–0.62 | 0.21 | 0.42–79.45 | 19.21 | |
Figure 12Groundwater -N, -N, and -N concentrations in stored water and the downstream area in (a) July, 2014, (b) April, 2015, and (c) August, 2015 (▲ reservoir sampling site; △ downstream sampling site).
Figure 13The variation of the distribution of groundwater nitrate concentration with time. (a) groundwater -N level in July, 2014; (b) groundwater -N level in April, 2015; (c) groundwater -N level in August, 2015.