Auxiliary Materials for ‘Mapping permeability over the surface of the earth’
[Gleeson et al.]
Methods
Table S1 is a compilation of horizontal intrinsic permeability, vertical anisotropy and
horizontal unit length from peer-reviewed, calibrated models with hydrolithologic units
that are >5 km in length with a shallow upper contact (<100 m depth). Models generally
assume horizontal isotropy. Models are not included if the permeability is assigned
(rather than calibrated), calibration criteria are unclear or where the geologic units are
insufficiently described. Potential bias is reduced by including a diversity of model
software, modelers, geographical areas and calibration targets (flow, tracer, heat) and
excluding multiple models from the same geographic area. In the few cases that
permeability was reported as a range, the geometric mean of the bounding values is
assumed to represent a reasonable estimate of the mean. Unbounded values are discarded
because it is difficult to determine a reasonable estimate of the mean. If the
hydrolithologic unit is greater than 100 km in length, 100 km is reported as the length in
the compilation so that values can be graphed. Hydraulic conductivity (m/s) is converted
to intrinsic permeability (m2) assuming fresh water at near surface conditions since we
are examining the near surface. Permeability (k) is expressed as log10(k). Normality of
logk was examined using the Shapiro-Wilk and the non-parametric Kolmogorov-Smirnov
tests, the latter of which can be used for small populations. For calculating the geometric
mean of combined hydrolithologic categories, n for each hydrolithologic category is
weighted by the global volumetric ratio of aquifer material in fine to coarse grained
sediments [Füchtbauer, 1974] rather than bias the combined geometric mean by n.
The lithology maps were originally derived for examining the role of lithology on river
geochemistry [Dürr, et al., 2005; Jansen, et al., 2010]. For the global lithologic map,
dune and alluvial units were always mapped whereas other unconsolidated units (i.e.
loess and glacial till) were mapped if the unit thickness suggested it would be important
for hydrogeochemistry [Dürr, et al., 2005]. Unconsolidated units are mapped somewhat
differently in the digital sources of the North America map [Jansen, et al., 2010]. In
western North America, geologic maps consist of a mix of mapped exposed bedrock
areas and unconsolidated units (valley fill or alluvium), due to extensive bedrock
exposure. In the eastern North America, separate bedrock maps and surficial deposit
maps are typically produced due to limited bedrock exposure. The lithologic map of
eastern North America is derived primarily on the bedrock maps and therefore is slightly
biased towards the bedrock lithology in this area. Lithologies were combined and paired
with hydrolithologies based on lithologic and hydrogeologic compatibility (Table 1). For
example, basic volcanic, intermediate volcanic and acidic volcanic lithologies were
combined and paired to the volcanic hydrolithology. The spatially-distributed
permeability statistics (mean ± standard deviation) are raster statistics calculated in
ArcGIS9.3 after the permeability polygons for North America and the world are
converted to a 1 km resolution raster.
Figure S1. Histogram of the North America permeability map (Figure 2c) converted to
1 km resolution raster. a, conterminous United States. b, principal aquifers of the
conterminous United States which are a characterized by a larger percentage of
permeable material.
Figure S2. Detailed maps of the standard deviation of permeability a, globally and
b, over North America.
Table S1. Compilation of regional scale hydrogeologic models.
Hydrolithology Location
category1
3
3
3
5
5
5
5
5
5
6
6
6
3
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
7
6
6
6
2
6
6
7
7
5
5
1
1
2
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Utah, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
Virginia, USA
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
Georgia, USA
France
Utah, USA
Southeastern USA
Finland
Switzerland
British Columbia, Canada
Oregon, USA
Florida, USA
Florida, USA
California, USA
California, USA
California, USA
Logk Horizontal Calibration Reference
(m2) length2 (km)
target3
-12.5
-12.5
-12.7
-11.4
-11.4
-11.6
-11.8
-11.9
-12.0
-12.7
-12.8
-12.9
-14.3
-10.6
-11.7
-11.8
-11.8
-15.0
-15.2
-15.6
-9.4
-10.2
-11.1
-11.4
-11.7
-11.8
-11.9
-11.9
-12.0
-12.2
-12.2
-12.8
-11.0
-15.6
-15.0
-12.7
-7.0
-14.2
-16.0
-14.5
-7.0
-10.4
-13.4
-8.8
-9.6
-13.1
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
80
25
25
25
25
25
25
25
5
5
5
10
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
10
51
25
28
100
60
20
6
23
100
100
100
100
100
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
3
1
3
3
3
1
0
2
2
1
1
1
[Yager, et al., 2009]
[Yager, et al., 2009]
[Yager, et al., 2009]
[Yager, et al., 2009]
[Yager, et al., 2009]
[Yager, et al., 2009]
[Yager, et al., 2009]
[Yager, et al., 2009]
[Yager, et al., 2009]
[Yager, et al., 2009]
[Yager, et al., 2009]
[Yager, et al., 2009]
[Willet and Chapman, 1989]
[Sanford, et al., 2009]
[Sanford, et al., 2009]
[Sanford, et al., 2009]
[Sanford, et al., 2009]
[Sanford, et al., 2009]
[Sanford, et al., 2009]
[Sanford, et al., 2009]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Sanford, et al., 2004]
[Marine, 1981]
[Maréchal, et al., 1999]
[Manning and Solomon, 2005]
[Lee, et al., 1996]
[Kukkonen and Clauser, 1994]
[Kohl, et al., 2001]
[Jamieson and Freeze, 1983]
[Ingebritsen, et al., 1992]
[Hughes, et al., 2009]
[Hughes, et al., 2009]
[Faunt, 2009]
[Faunt, 2009]
[Faunt, 2009]
Hydrolithology Location
category1
2
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
6
3
4
California, USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
Mississippi, USA
France
New Mexico, USA
New Mexico, USA
Logk Horizontal Calibration Reference
(m2) length2 (km)
target3
-13.5
-16.9
-17.5
-10.9
-11.1
-11.3
-11.3
-11.8
-11.8
-12.1
-12.2
-12.2
-12.3
-12.5
-12.7
-12.7
-12.9
-12.9
-12.9
-13.4
-9.7
-9.8
-9.8
-9.9
-10.2
-10.2
-10.3
-10.3
-10.5
-10.7
-10.9
-11.0
-11.0
-11.0
-11.0
-11.1
-11.1
-11.4
-11.7
-11.9
-12.1
-12.3
-12.5
-13.3
-13.5
-14.8
-13.3
-13.5
-15.0
100
5
5
20
60
75
60
60
20
20
25
60
15
20
30
40
60
30
40
10
10
5
5
15
10
10
50
5
10
30
30
10
60
100
50
100
100
60
100
100
100
100
25
100
100
20
11
75
75
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
[Faunt, 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Czarnecki, et al., 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Clark and Hart, 2009]
[Bortolami, et al., 1979]
[Weiss and Smith, 1998]
[Weiss and Smith, 1998]
Hydrolithology Location
category1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
4
5
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
4
4
4
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
5
Massachusetts, USA
Massachusetts, USA
Wisconsin, USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Southeastern USA
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Ontario, Canada
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Logk Horizontal Calibration Reference
(m2) length2 (km)
target3
-10.3
-10.3
-10.9
-10.1
-10.4
-10.6
-10.9
-11.2
-11.6
-8.3
-9.0
-9.3
-10.0
-10.3
-11.3
-13.0
-13.3
-14.3
-14.3
-15.0
-16.0
-17.0
-18.0
-15.0
-11.0
-11.3
-11.8
-12.2
-12.3
-12.3
-12.7
-12.8
-12.8
-13.0
-13.4
-14.7
-14.9
-16.2
-11.3
-11.5
-11.6
-12.2
-12.5
-12.6
-13.4
-13.4
-13.5
-13.9
-14.8
9
9
15
100
100
100
100
100
100
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
20
10
5
8
5
10
5
30
10
5
10
20
20
20
8
0
8
10
20
0
10
8
10
10
15
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
[Anderman, et al., 1996]
[Anderman, et al., 1996]
[Hunt, et al., 2006]
[Williamson and Grubb, 2001]
[Williamson and Grubb, 2001]
[Williamson and Grubb, 2001]
[Williamson and Grubb, 2001]
[Williamson and Grubb, 2001]
[Williamson and Grubb, 2001]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Martin and Frind, 1998]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
Hydrolithology Location
category1
5
5
6
6
6
6
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
5
5
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
2
3
5
6
7
4
5
4
4
1
2
2
3
4
5
5
5
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Nevada, USA
Arizona, USA
Arizona, USA
Arizona, USA
Arizona, USA
Arizona, USA
Arizona, USA
South Dakota, USA
New York, USA
Barbados
South Dakota, USA
Manitoba, Canada
Manitoba, Canada
Manitoba, Canada
Manitoba, Canada
Manitoba, Canada
Manitoba, Canada
Florida, USA
Florida, USA
Logk Horizontal Calibration Reference
(m2) length2 (km)
target3
-15.1
-16.1
-14.5
-14.5
-14.6
-17.2
-10.1
-11.4
-11.4
-12.6
-12.9
-13.1
-13.1
-13.2
-13.2
-14.3
-14.5
-15.0
-15.3
-11.3
-12.0
-13.3
-10.8
-11.1
-12.0
-12.6
-13.1
-13.3
-14.7
-15.3
-15.7
-12.0
-12.5
-12.3
-13.1
-14.2
-13.7
-17.2
-11.3
-18.0
-20.5
-10.0
-12.1
-13.0
-12.2
-17.0
-11.8
-8.2
-8.0
20
5
10
10
10
10
10
5
10
5
10
0
10
5
5
30
40
10
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
5
5
10
8
5
10
0
10
26
0
100
100
100
100
100
100
50
100
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Belcher, 2004]
[Zyvoloski, et al., 2003]
[Zyvoloski, et al., 2003]
[Zyvoloski, et al., 2003]
[Zyvoloski, et al., 2003]
[Zyvoloski, et al., 2003]
[Zyvoloski, et al., 2003]
[Zyvoloski, et al., 2003]
[Zyvoloski, et al., 2003]
[Zyvoloski, et al., 2003]
[Zyvoloski, et al., 2003]
[Zyvoloski, et al., 2003]
[Zyvoloski, et al., 2003]
[Pool and Dickinson, 2006]
[Pool and Dickinson, 2006]
[Pool and Dickinson, 2006]
[Pool and Dickinson, 2006]
[Pool and Dickinson, 2006]
[Pool and Dickinson, 2006]
[Bredehoeft, et al., 1983]
[Yager, 1996]
[Screaton, et al., 1990]
[Neuzil, 1993]
[Kennedy and Woodbury, 2005]
[Kennedy and Woodbury, 2005]
[Kennedy and Woodbury, 2005]
[Kennedy and Woodbury, 2005]
[Kennedy and Woodbury, 2005]
[Kennedy and Woodbury, 2005]
[Langevin, et al., 2005]
[Langevin, 2003]
Hydrolithology Location
category1
6
5
3
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
7
1
1
1
1
1
2
6
3
1
1
2
2
1
1
1
2
2
2
1
1
1
1
2
1
2
2
1
Manitoba, Canada
Texas, USA
Chile
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
Nicaragua
China
China
Bangladesh
Bangladesh
India
India
India
Brazil
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Vietnam
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Belgium
Poland
Poland
Poland
Poland
Poland
Minnesota, USA
Minnesota, USA
Minnesota, USA
Argentina
Logk Horizontal Calibration Reference
(m2) length2 (km)
target3
-15.0
-8.3
-11.4
-10.0
-10.4
-11.2
-14.9
-10.1
-10.3
-11.2
-14.9
-11.6
-11.1
-10.3
-10.1
-10.1
-10.4
-11.1
-11.6
-10.3
-10.0
-14.4
-14.7
-10.5
-10.9
-16.5
-14.5
-17.4
-19.0
-10.8
-10.5
-10.9
-11.2
-14.4
-11.0
-14.0
-13.4
-10.6
50
100
20
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
8
100
100
100
100
28
28
28
100
15
15
15
15
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
2
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
[Ophori, 2004]
[Maclay and Land, 1988]
[Rojas and Dassargues, 2007]
[Calderón Palma and Bentley, 2007]
[Calderón Palma and Bentley, 2007]
[Calderón Palma and Bentley, 2007]
[Calderón Palma and Bentley, 2007]
[Moncrieff, et al., 2008]
[Moncrieff, et al., 2008]
[Moncrieff, et al., 2008]
[Moncrieff, et al., 2008]
[Li-Tang, et al., 2007]
[Li-Tang, et al., 2007]
[Michael and Voss, 2009]
[Michael and Voss, 2009]
[Senthilkumar and Elango, 2004]
[Senthilkumar and Elango, 2004]
[Senthilkumar and Elango, 2004]
[Rabelo and Wendland, 2009]
[Jusseret, et al., 2009]
[Jusseret, et al., 2009]
[Jusseret, et al., 2009]
[Jusseret, et al., 2009]
[Gedeon, et al., 2007]
[Gedeon, et al., 2007]
[Gedeon, et al., 2007]
[Gedeon, et al., 2007]
[Gedeon, et al., 2007]
[Gedeon, et al., 2007]
[Jaworska-Szulc, 2009]
[Jaworska-Szulc, 2009]
[Jaworska-Szulc, 2009]
[Jaworska-Szulc, 2009]
[Jaworska-Szulc, 2009]
[Reeve, et al., 2001]
[Reeve, et al., 2001]
[Reeve, et al., 2001]
[Varni and Usunoff, 1999]
1Hydrolithologic
category (1 = coarse-grained unconsolidated; 2 = fine-grained unconsolidated; 3 = coarse-grained siliciclastic
sedimentary; 4 = fine-grained siliciclastic sedimentary; 5 = carbonate; 6 = crystalline; 7 = volcanic)
2Horizontal length is 100 km if >100 km
3Calibration
(flow calibrated =1; flow and tracer calibrated = 2; flow and heat calibrated = 3; X = other)
References:
Anderman, E. R., et al. (1996), Two-dimensional advective transport in ground-water
flow parameter estimation, Ground Water, 34, 1001-1009.
Belcher, W. R. (2004), Death Valley regional ground-water flow system, Nevada and
California - hydrogeologic framework and transient ground-water flow model, U.
S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2004-5205, 408p.
Bortolami, G. C., et al. (1979), Infiltration rate through the crystalline massif of Mont
Blanc evidenced by environmental isotope measurements, in Low-flow, lowpermeability measurements in largely impermeable rocks, edited, pp. 237-247,
OECD.
Bredehoeft, J. D., et al. (1983), Regional flow in the Dakota aquifer; a study of the role of
confining layers, 45 pp, USGS Water Supply Paper 2237.
Calderón Palma, H., and L. Bentley (2007), A regional-scale groundwater flow model for
the Leon-Chinandega aquifer, Nicaragua, Hydrogeology Journal, 15, 1457-1472.
Clark, B. R., and R. M. Hart (2009), The Mississippi Embayment Regional Aquifer Study
(MERAS): Documentation of a Groundwater-Flow Model Constructed to Assess
Water Availability in the Mississippi Embayment, U. S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2009-5172, 62p.
Czarnecki, J. B., et al. (2009), Groundwater-Flow Model of the Ozark Plateaus Aquifer
System, Northwestern Arkansas, Southeastern Kansas, Southwestern Missouri,
and Northeastern Oklahoma, U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations
Report 2009-5148, 62p.
Dürr, H. H., et al. (2005), Lithologic composition of the Earth's continental surfaces
derived from a new digital map emphasizing riverine material transfer, Global
Biogeochem. Cycles, 19.
Faunt, C. C. (2009), Groundwater Availability of the Central Valley Aquifer, California,
U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1766, 227p.
Füchtbauer, H. (1974), Sediments and sedimentary rock 1, 464 pp., Wiley, Hoboken, NJ.
Gedeon, M., et al. (2007), Regional groundwater model of north-east Belgium, Journal of
Hydrology, 335, 133-139.
Hughes, J., et al. (2009), Temporal response of hydraulic head, temperature, and chloride
concentrations to sea-level changes, Floridan aquifer system, USA, Hydrogeology
Journal, 17, 793-815.
Hunt, R. J., et al. (2006), The importance of diverse data types to calibrate a watershed
model of the Trout Lake Basin, Northern Wisconsin, USA, Journal of Hydrology,
321, 286-296.
Ingebritsen, S. E., et al. (1992), Rates and patterns of groundwater flow in the Cascade
range volcanic arc, and the effect on subsurface temperatures, Journal of
Geophysical Research, 97, 4599-4627.
Jamieson, G. R., and R. A. Freeze (1983), Determining hydraulic conductivity
distributions in a mountainous area using mathematical modeling, Ground Water,
21, 168-177.
Jansen, N., et al. (2010), Dissolved silica mobilization in the conterminous USA,
Chemical Geology, 270, 90-109.
Jaworska-Szulc, B. (2009), Groundwater flow modelling of multi-aquifer systems for
regional resources evaluation: the Gdansk hydrogeological system, Poland,
Hydrogeology Journal, 17, 1521-1542.
Jusseret, S., et al. (2009), Groundwater flow modelling in the central zone of Hanoi,
Vietnam, Hydrogeology Journal, 17, 915-934.
Kennedy, P. L., and A. D. Woodbury (2005), Sustainability of the bedrock aquifer
systems in south-central Manitoba: implications for large-scale modelling,
Canadian Water Resources Journal, 30, 281-296.
Kohl, T., et al. (2001), Three-dimensional (3-D) thermal investigation below high Alpine
topography, Physics of The Earth and Planetary Interiors, 126, 195-210.
Kukkonen, I. T., and C. Clauser (1994), Simulation of heat transfer at the Kolla deep-hole
site: implications for advection, heat refraction and palaeoclimatic effects,
Geophys. Journal International, 116, 409-420.
Langevin, C., et al. (2005), Simulation of integrated surface-water/ground-water flow and
salinity for a coastal wetland and adjacent estuary, Journal of Hydrology, 314,
212-234.
Langevin, C. D. (2003), Simulation of submarine ground water discharge to a marine
estuary: Biscayne Bay, Florida, Ground Water, 41, 758-771.
Lee, Y., et al. (1996), Heat flow and heat production in the Arkoma Basin and Oklahoma
Platform, southeastern Oklahoma, J. Geophys. Res., 101, 25,387-325,401.
Li-Tang, H., et al. (2007), Simulated groundwater interaction with rivers and springs in
the Heihe river basin, Hydrological Processes, 21, 2794-2806.
Maclay, R. W., and L. F. Land (1988), Simulation of flow in the Edwards Aquifer, San
Antonio region, Texas, and refinement of storage and flow concepts, U. S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2336-A, 48p.
Manning, A. H., and D. K. Solomon (2005), An integrated environmental tracer approach
to characterizing groundwater circulation in a mountain block, Water Resources
Research, 41, doi:10.1029/2005WR004178
Maréchal, J. C., et al. (1999), Long-term simulations of thermal and hydraulic
characteristics in a mountain massif: The Mont Blanc case study, French and
Italian Alps, Hydrogeology Journal, 7, 341-354.
Marine, I. W. (1981), Comparison of laboratory, in situ, and rock mass measurements of
the hydraulic conductivity of metamorphic rock at the Savannah River plant near
Aiken, South Carolina, Water Resour. Res., 17, 637-640.
Martin, P. J., and E. O. Frind (1998), Modeling a complex multi-aquifer system: the
Waterloo moraine, Ground Water, 36, 679-690.
Michael, H., and C. Voss (2009), Estimation of regional-scale groundwater flow
properties in the Bengal Basin of India and Bangladesh, Hydrogeology Journal,
17, 1329-1346.
Moncrieff, J., et al. (2008), Investigating pesticide transport in the León-Chinandega
aquifer, Nicaragua, Hydrogeology Journal, 16, 183-197.
Neuzil, C. E. (1993), Low fluid pressure within the Pierre Shale: a transient response to
erosion, Water Resour. Res., 29, 2007-2020.
Ophori, D. (2004), A simulation of large-scale groundwater flow and travel time in a
fractured rock environment for waste disposal purposes, Hydrological Processes,
18, 1579-1593.
Pool, D. R., and J. E. Dickinson (2006), Ground-Water Flow Model of the Sierra Vista
Subwatershed and Sonoran Portions of the Upper San Pedro Basin, Southeastern
Arizona, United States, and Northern Sonora, Mexico, U. S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2006-5228, 49p.
Rabelo, J., and E. Wendland (2009), Assessment of groundwater recharge and water
fluxes of the Guarani Aquifer System, Brazil, Hydrogeology Journal, 17, 17331748.
Reeve, A. S., et al. (2001), Regional ground-water flow modeling of the Glacial Lake
Agassiz Peatlands, Minnesota, Journal of Hydrology, 243, 91-100.
Rojas, R., and A. Dassargues (2007), Groundwater flow modelling of the regional aquifer
of the Pampa del Tamarugal, northern Chile, Hydrogeology Journal, 15, 537-551.
Sanford, W. E., et al. (2004), Use of environmental tracers to estimate parameters for a
predevelopment-ground-water-flow model of the Middle Rio Grande Basin, New
Mexico, U. S. Geological Survey Water-Resources Investigations Report 20034286, 102p.
Sanford, W. E., et al. (2009), Simulation of groundwater-level and salinity changes in the
Eastern Shore, Virginia, U. S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report
2009-5066, 126p.
Screaton, E. J., et al. (1990), Permeabilities, Fluid Pressures, and Flow Rates in the
Barbados Ridge Complex, J. Geophys. Res., 95, 8997-9007.
Senthilkumar, M., and L. Elango (2004), Three-dimensional mathematical model to
simulate groundwater flow in the lower Palar River basin, southern India,
Hydrogeology Journal, 12, 197-208.
Varni, M. R., and E. J. Usunoff (1999), Simulation of regional-scale groundwater flow in
the Azul River basin, Buenos Aires Province, Argentina, Hydrogeology Journal,
7, 180-187.
Weiss, R., and L. Smith (1998), Parameter space methods in joint parameter estimation
for groundwater flow models, Water Resour. Res., 34, 647-661.
Willet, S., and D. Chapman (1989), Temperatures, fluid flow and heat transfer
mechanisms in the Uinta Basin, in Hydrogeological regimes and their subsurface
thermal effects, edited by A. E. Beck, et al., AGU Geophysical Monograph 47,
Washington.
Williamson, A. K., and H. F. Grubb (2001), Ground-water flow in the Gulf Coast aquifer
systems, south-central United States, U. S. Geological Survey Professional Paper
1416-F, 173p.
Yager, R. M. (1996), Simulated three-dimensional ground-water flow in a fractured
dolomite aquifer of the Lockport Group near Niagara Falls, New York, U. S.
Geological Survey Water Supply Paper 2487, 42 p.
Yager, R. M., et al. (2009), Simulation of ground-water flow in the Shenandoah Valley,
Virginia and West Virginia, using variable-direction anisotropy in hydraulic
conductivity to represent bedrock structure, 54 pp, U. S. Geological Survey
Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5002, 54p.
Zyvoloski, G., et al. (2003), The site-scale saturated zone flow model for Yucca
Mountain: calibration of different conceptual models and their impact on flow
paths, Journal of Contaminant Hydrology, 62-63, 731-750.