Assessing the inconsistency between groundwater vulnerability and groundwater quality: The case of Chapala Marsh, Mexico

Hydrogeology Journal

Volumn 20, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 591-603

  Leal, J A Ramos ^a   Medrano, C Noyola ^a   Silva, F O Tapia ^b   García, J T Silva ^c   Gutiérrez, L R Reyes ^a  

^a INSTITUTO POTOSINO DE INVESTIGACIÓN CIENTÍFICA Y TECNOLÓGICA   (Mexico)

^b Centro de Investigacion en Geografia y Geomatica Ing Jorge L Tamayo AC   (Mexico)

^c Unidad Michoacán   (Mexico)

Author keywords

Granular aquifer; Groundwater quality; Mexico; SINTACS; Vulnerability mapping

Indexed keywords

ANTHROPOGENIC SOURCE; AQUIFER; GROUNDWATER; GROUNDWATER POLLUTION; NUMERICAL MODEL; RECHARGE; REGRESSION ANALYSIS; VULNERABILITY; WATER QUALITY;

MEXICO [NORTH AMERICA];

EID: 84859850115     PISSN: 14312174     EISSN: 14350157     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1007/s10040-011-0823-1     Document Type: Article

References (28)

1. Aller L, Bennet T, Lehr JH, Petty RJ, Hackett G (1985) DRASTIC: a standardized system for evaluating groundwater pollution potential using hydrogeologic settings. EPA 6002-85081, USEPA, Washington, DC.
2. Atkinson PM, German SE, Sear DA, Clark MJ (2003) Exploring the relations between riverbank erosion and geomorphological controls using geographically weighted logistic regression. Geogr Anal 35(1): 58-82.
3. Backman BD, Bodis P, Lahermo S, Rapant, Tarvainen T (1998) Application of a groundwater contamination index in Finland and Slovakia. Environ Geol 36(1-2): 55-64.
4. Barrón-Romero LE (2004) Assessment of groundwater contamination based on water quality indices: case-Penjamo-Abasolo aquifer (in Spanish). Facultad de Ciencias-UNAM, Mexico City.
5. Brundson C (1998) Exploratory spatial data analysis and local indicators of spatial association with XLISP-STAT. The Statistician 47(3): 471-484.
6. CIIDIR-MICH (2000) Technical reports on soil analysis at different locations in the marsh of Chapala (in Spanish). Internal report, Centro Interdisciplinario de Investigación para el Desarrollo Integral Regional México, Jiquilpan, Mexico.
7. Civita M, De Maio M (1997) SINTACS: a parametric system for the assessment and mapping of groundwater vulnerability to pollution: methodology and automation (in Italian). Pitagora, Bologna, Italy.
8. Conesa F (1993) Methodological guidelines for environmental impact assessment (in spanish). Mundi Prensa, Mexico City.
9. Couillard D, Lefebre Y (1985) Analysis of water quality indices. J Environ Manage 21: 161-179.
10. Doerfliger N, Zwahlen F (1997) EPIK: a new method for outlining of protection areas in karstic environment. In: Int. Symp. On Karst Waters and Environmental Impacts. Antalya, Turkey, Balkema, Rotterdam, The Netherlands, pp 117-123.
11. European Commission (2004) COST Action 620: vulnerability and risk mapping for the protection of carbonate (karts) aquifers. Final Report, European Commission, Luxembourg, Belgium.
12. Foster S (1987) Fundamental concepts in aquifer vulnerability, pollution risk and protection strategy. In: van Duijvenbooden W, van Waegeningh HG (eds) Vulnerability of soil and groundwater to pollutants. Proc. Int. Conf. at Woordrijk aan Zee, The Netherlands 30 March-3 April 1987, pp 69-86.
13. Fotheringham AS, Brundson C, Charlton ME (2002) Geographically weighted regression: the analysis of spatially varying relationships. Wiley, Chichester, UK.
14. Godinez-Gonzalez LR (2004) Index of groundwater quality in Chapala Marsh (in Spanish). BSc Thesis, Escuela Superior de Arquitectura e Ingeniería, Unidad Ticoman, IPN, Mexico, 64 pp.
15. Gogu RC, Dasargues A (2000) Sensivitivity analysis for the EPIK method of vulnerability assessment in a small karstic aquifer, southern Belgium. Hydrogeol J 8(3): 337-345.
16. Hirata R, Rebouças A (1999) The protection of groundwater resources: an integrated view, based on perimeter protection of wells and aquifer vulnerability (in Spanish). Bol Geol Min 110(4): 423-236.
17. INEGI (1983) Soil map 1: 50 000, F14 (in Spanish). INEGI, Mexico.
18. León-Sánchez PD (2002) Geohydrology and geoelectric, characteristics of Chapala Marsh aquifer, Michoacán: approach to sustainable management (in Spanish). BSc Thesis, Facultad de Ingeniería, UNAM, Mexico.
19. Lichstein JW, Simons TR, Shriner SA, Franzreb KE (2002) Spatial autocorrelation and autoregressive models in ecology. Ecol Monogr 73(3): 445-463.
20. Ramos-Leal JA, Rodríguez CR (2003) Validation alternatives for aquifer vulnerability mapping: the Turbio River Valley, México. Geofísica Int 42: 141-156.
21. Ramos-Leal JA, Noyola-Medrano C, Tapia-Silva FO (2010) Aquifer vulnerability and groundwater quality in mega cities: case of the Mexico Basin. Environ Earth Sci 61(6): 1309-1320.
22. Rosas EJ (1997) Extensional tectonics in the western Trans-Mexican Volcanic Belt (in Spanish). PhD Thesis, UNAM-Instituto de Geofísica, Mexico.
23. Rosas EJ, Urrutia FJ, Maciel J (1989) Geology of the eastern part of the Chapala graben: a brief discussion about its age-geothermal zone of Ixtlan de los Hervores, Los Negritos, México (in Spanish). Geotermia Rev Mex Geoec 5(1): 3-18.
24. Silva-García JT (2002) Hydrogeological study of the aquifer system of Chapala Marsh, Michoacán: focused on sustainable management (groundwater) (in Spanish). UNAM, México.
25. Turc L (1954) The soil water balance: the relationship between precipitation, evaporation and runoff (in French). Ann. Agro, 5: 491-569.
26. van Stempvoort D, Ewert L, Wassenaar L (1992) AVI: Aa method for groundwater protection mapping in the prairie provinces of Canada. Prairie Provinces Water Board, Regina, SK.
27. Wheeler D, Tiefelsdorf M (2005) Multicollinearity and correlation among local regression coefficients in geographically weighted regression. J Geograph Syst 7(2): 161-187.
28. Vrba J, Zaporožec A (1994) Guidebook on mapping groundwater vulnerability. IAH International Contributions to Hydrogeology 16, IAH, Goring, UK.