Agric. sci. dev., Vol(3), No (7), July, 2014. pp.

244-250

TI Journals

Agriculture Science Developments

www.tijournals.com

ISSN:
2306-7527
Copyright 2014. All rights reserved for TI Journals.

Assessment of Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Groundwater

Salinity and Alkalinity Using Ordinary Kriging; Case Study: Ardabil
Plain Aquifer
Zahra Mahmoodifard *
MSc of Irrigation and Drainage, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Iran.

Amir Hosein Nazemi

Professor of Irrigation and Drainage, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Iran.

Seyed Ali Sadraddini

Associate of Irrigation and Drainage, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Iran.

Farzin Shahbazi
Assistant of Soil Science Department, Faculty of Agriculture, University of Tabriz, Iran.
*Corresponding author: zahra_470@yahoo.com

Keywords

Abstract

Cross- validation
Geostatistics
Semivariogram
Wilcox Diagram

Groundwater is the most important natural resource required for agriculture. The resource cannot be
optimally used and sustained unless the quality of groundwater is assessed. This study represents the spatial
and temporal distribution of groundwater quality including EC and SAR as salinity and alkalinity indices, in
Ardabil plain. Samples were collected by 34 available wells during 2001-2011. The thematic map of each
mentioned index was generated using ordinary kriging. Experimental semivariogram values were fitted for
different models to identify the best one for interpolating the groundwater quality indices in the study area.
Testing analysis was conducted by cross-validation as well as it revealed the validity and accuracy of
Gaussian model for each year. According to the Wilcox diagram, degree of alkalinity in major portion of
Ardabil plain groundwater was classified at three levels: C2, 34.68%; C3, 63.9%; and C4, 1.34% of total
area. Time change era closed to 10 years impacted on increasing the area extension of the worth class C4
(C2, 26.94%; C3, 62.23%; and C4, 10.83%).

1.

Introduction

Groundwater is the main source of irrigation water supply for many settlements. Because poor-quality irrigation water can alter soil
physicochemical properties, causing soil salinization and reducing crop productivity [1], it is important to be evaluated the quality of any
groundwater that may be potentially used for irrigation. Sampling and mapping in the earth sciences are complicated by spatial and temporal
patterns. The discipline of geostatistics provides very useful techniques for handling spatially distributed data such as soil and groundwater
pollution [2; 3; 4; 5]. By identifying spatial patterns and interpolating values at unsampled points, geostatistical analysis can play a vital role to
achievement the sustainable management of groundwater systems by providing estimated input parameters at regular grid points from
measurements taken at random locations [6]. Many authors have emphasized the role of geostatistics in the management and sustainability of
regional water resources [7; 8; 9]. Kriging is a geostatistical interpolation technique that has a number of variations, including simple kriging,
ordinary kriging (OK), co-kriging, stratified kriging and non-linear kriging, with ordinary kriging used most frequently [10]. Kriging method
considers the spatial correlation between the sample points and is mostly used for mapping spatial variability [11]. It is distinguished from
inverse distance weighting (IDW) and other interpolation methods by taking into consideration the variance of estimated parameters [12]. These
methods work best for normal distribution data [13]. Kriging was widely used by many researchers to analyze the spatial variations of
groundwater characteristics and even at many aspects of soil science such as distribution patterns of soil biological indices affected by different
land uses [14]. [15] have used either kriging to interpolate groundwater levels in the Anthemountas Basin of northern Greece or cross-validation
to estimate the accuracy of interpolations. Kriging, Cokriging and IDW methods have also been used by [16] for predicting spatial distribution of
some groundwater characteristics such as TDS, TH, EC, SAR, Cl- and SO42- in Ardakan-Yazd plain. The results showed that kriging and
cokriging methods were superior to IDW method because of low RMSE. [9] applied ordinary kriging and indicator kriging to analyze the spatial
variability of groundwater depth and its quality parameters in Delhi. The results revealed that not only amount of groundwater chloride was more
than 250 mg L-1 in 62% of the study but also its salinity content was exceeded to 2.5 ds m-1 in 69% of the area. [10] has also applied
geostatistical approach to map the salinity of a groundwater irrigation source in China. According to their findings, spherical model was the most
suitable semivariogram to describe groundwater salinity in March, September and November, while exponential model was distinguished as the
best model for its describing in June. [17] used OK to analyze spatial variability of groundwater salinity over a 7-year period in Turkey whose
observation was that the semivariogram models varied by year. Exponential (2004, 2009), spherical (2005), J-Bessel (2006) and rational (2007,
2008, 2010) models have been preferable approaches for 7 years. In the past year, OK was also used to analyze spatial distribution of the 12
groundwater quality parameters (calcium, magnesium, iron, nitrate, manganese, sodium, potassium, pH, TDS, total hardness, alkalinity and
turbidity) in Ranchi. Results showed that deterioration of groundwater quality in this area is not very serious problem except in few areas [13].
The main objectives of this research are: (i) applying geostatistics to find the best modeling approach to predict the spatial variation of some
groundwater quality indices such as EC and SAR in 10 years change era (2001 and 2011) in Ardabil plain, (ii) fitting models to experimental
variograms, (iii) interpolation of selected indices in the study area using popular methods of OK, (iv) integrate the geostatistical results with GIS
using ArcGIS Geostatistical Analyst to create digital maps of variables and then zoning of the study area to elucidate the occurred environmental
hazards.

245

Assessment of Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Groundwater Salinity and Alkalinity Using Ordinary Kriging; (Case Study: Ardabil Plain Aquifer)
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (7), July, 2014.

2.

Methodology

2.1 Study area

Ardabil plain has an area about 1074 km2 which has located in the central part of Ardabil province of Iran, 38o 03' N, 48o 35' E, Within the
Universal Transverse Mercator projection (UTM) zone 39N (Fig. 1). Ardabil plain is surrounded by mountains where Garasu river is its outline.
The general slope is from South-East to North-West to outline of the plain. The region climate is temperate. The annual average precipitation
and potential evapotranspiration are about 300 mm and 235 mm, respectively.

.
Figure 1. Location of the study area

2.2 Data analysis

In this study for assessment of spatial and temporal distribution of groundwater parameters (EC and SAR) in Ardabil plain, the data from
Ardabil organization regional water were used. The groundwater quality parameters were studied for 34 samples collected from the existing
observation wells Ardabil plain in October 2001 and 2011. Figure 1 shows the observation wells in the study area.
2.3 Statistical analysis
Data was analyzed in 2 stages. First, descriptive statistics for groundwater data, including minimums, maximums, arithmetic means, median,
standard deviations, skewness and kurtosis. Second, a normality (Shapiro-Wilk) test was conducted to test for normal distribution for each
year. Statistical analyses were carried out using SPSS.
2.4 Structural analysis of data
The theoretical basis of geostatistics has been fully described by several authors [18; 19]. The main tool in geostatistics is the variogram, which
expresses the spatial dependence between neighboring observations [20]. The variogram, (h), can be defined as one-half the variance of the
difference between the attribute values at all points separated by h as follows:

( h)

1 N (h)
[ z ( xi h) z ( xi )]
2 N ( h) i 1

(1)

(h): The estimated or experimental semi-variance value for all pairs at a lag distance h
z(xi): The water quality value at point i
z(xi+h): The water quality value of other points separated from xi by a discrete distance h
xi: The georeferenced positions where the z(xi) values were measured
n: The number of pairs of observations separated by the distance h.
Ordinary Kriging was used to interpolate. Five types of semivariogram models (Circular, Spherical, Exponential, Rational quadratic and
Gaussian) were tested EC and SAR in each year. For the selection of the best one, Predictive performances of the fitted models were checked on
the basis of cross validation tests. The values of root mean error (RMSE), average standard error (ASE) and root mean square standardized error
(RMSSE) were estimated to ascertain the performance of the developed models. If the RMSE is close to the ASE, the prediction errors were
correctly assessed. If the RMSE is smaller than the ASE, then the variability of the predictions is overestimated; conversely, if the RMSE is
greater than the ASE, then the variability of the predictions is underestimated. The same could be deduced from the RMSSE statistic. It should
be close to one. If the RMSSE is greater than one, the variability of the predictions is underestimated; likewise if it is less than one, the
variability is overestimated [13]. Various errors are defined by the equation (2)-(4) given below:

RMSE
ASE

1 n
[ z ' ( xi ) z ( xi )]2
n i 1
1 n 2
( xi )
n i 1

(2)

(3)

Zahra Mahmoodifard *, Amir Hosein Nazemi, Seyed Ali Sadraddini, Farzin Shahbazi

246

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (7), July, 2014.

1 n
[ z ' ( xi ) z ( xi ) / ( xi )]2

n i1

RMSSE

(4)

z(xi): Observed value at point xi

z'(xi): Predicted value at point xi
2(xi): The Kriging variance at point xi
n: Number of samples

2.5 Generate of maps

After conducting the cross validation process, maps of kriged estimates were generated which provided a visual representation of the distribution
of the groundwater quality. These maps were produced with the ArcMap module of the ArcGIS. In this study to classification of groundwater
quality, Wilcox diagram were used indicating low-saline and alkali (EC<250 moh/cm and SAR<10), medium-saline and alkali (EC: 250-750
moh/cm and SAR: 10-18), high- saline and alkali (EC: 750-2250 moh/cm and SAR: 18-26) and very high- saline and alkali (EC> 2250 and
SAR>26) regions (Figure 2).

Figure 2. Diagram for the classificatin of

irrigation water [21]

3.

Results and discussion

3.1 Statistical analysis

Table 1 and Table 2 provides a summary of groundwater salinity and alkalinity statistics for 2001 and 2011. In 2001, EC value ranged from 324
mho/cm to 2660 mho/cm with a mean and standard deviation as 1023.50 and 634.84 respectively. In the same year, SAR value ranged from
0.702 to 12.69 with a mean and standard deviation as 4.047 and 2.808 respectively. In 2011, EC value ranged from 369 mho/cm to 5480
mho/cm with a mean and standard deviation as 1456.88 and 1277.48 respectively. In the same year, SAR value ranged from 0.386 to 13.103
with a mean and standard deviation as 3.451and 2.887, respectively.
Kriging methods work best if data is normally distributed. In this study, the Shpiro - Wilk test showed EC and SAR values during the study
period were not normally distributed; therefore, values were log-transformed prior to the calculation of semivariance.

Table 1. Statistical analysis of EC (mho/cm)

Years
2001
2011

N
34
34

Min
324
369

Max
2660
5480

Mean
1023.50
1456.88

Median
810.50
988

S.D.
634.84
1277.48

Skewness
0.976
1.77

Kurtosis
0.302
2.74

Transformation
Lognormal
Lognormal

Table 2. Statistical analysis of SAR

Years
2001
2011

N
34
34

Min
0.702
0.386

Max
12.69
13.103

Mean
4.047
3.451

Median
3.698
2.554

S.D.
2.808
2.887

Skewness
1.438
1.276

Kurtosis
2.356
2.094

Transformation
Lognormal
Lognormal

247

Assessment of Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Groundwater Salinity and Alkalinity Using Ordinary Kriging; (Case Study: Ardabil Plain Aquifer)
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (7), July, 2014.

3.2 Semivariogram Models

Circular, spherical, exponential, gaussian and rational quadratic semivariogram models were evaluated in this study. Tables 3-6 show these
models and results of cross-validation between measured and estimated values. As the tables indicate, guassian model is as best-fits for EC and
SAR in 2001 and 2011. Therefore this model was selected for generate maps. The corresponding nugget, sill and range values of the best fitted
theoretical models were reported in Table 7. The best fitted semivariogram models are shown in Figure 3.
Spatial dependence of groundwater quality parameters can be classified according to nugget-to-sill ratio (%), with a ratio of <25% indicating a
strong spatial dependence, a ratio of 2575% indicating moderate spatial dependence and a ratio of >75% indicating a weak spatial dependence
[22].
Findings for nugget-to-sill ratios in the present study indicated groundwater salinity and alkalinity to have a strong spatial structure for all years
tested (except SAR to have a moderate spatial structure in 2011 year), with similar annual values ranging from 20,000 m to 25,000 m (Table 7).
The RMSSE values close to one represent a good prediction model. Close values of RMSE and ASE for groundwater quality parameters also
shows good agreement of the model.

Table 3. Results of cross- validation for EC in 2001 year

Models
Circular
spherical
exponential
Gaussian
rational quadratic

Prediction errors
Average standard
492.1
519.2
607
365.8
584.4

Root mean square

367.8
366.9
392.6
336.4
400.2

Root mean square standardized

0.7855
0.7409
0.6664
1.001
0.7163

Table 4. Results of cross- validation for EC in 2011 year

Models
Circular
spherical
exponential
Gaussian
rational quadratic

Prediction errors
Average standard
1095
1159
1340
834.1
1294

Root mean square

864.2
868.8
928.4
784.3
998.3

Root mean square standardized

0.8141
0.7667
0.703
1.001
0.7876

Table 5. Results of cross- validation for SAR in 2001 year

Models
Circular
spherical
exponential
Gaussian
rational quadratic

Prediction errors
Average standard
3.202
3.386
3.98
2.508
3.752

Root mean square

2.127
2.150
2.212
1.989
2.505

Root mean square standardized

0.7949
0.7390
0.6110
1.008
0.7492

Table 6. Results of cross- validation for SAR in 2011 year

Models
Circular
spherical
exponential
Gaussian
rational quadratic

Prediction errors
Average standard
2.754
2.843
3.069
2.580
3.078

Root mean square

2.511
2.523
2.554
2.500
2.629

Root mean square standardized

0.9341
0.9039
0.8342
1.008
0.8528

Zahra Mahmoodifard *, Amir Hosein Nazemi, Seyed Ali Sadraddini, Farzin Shahbazi

248

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (7), July, 2014.

Table 7. Parameters of models selected

Groundwater
parameter
EC
SAR

year
2001
2011
2001
2011

Best fitted
model
Gaussian
Gaussian
Gaussian
Gaussian

Nugget (C0)

Sill (C0+C)

Range (m)

Nugget ratio

0.0450
0.0711
0.1000
0.2900

0.3700
0.6610
0.6550
0.3600

20,000
21,000
25,000
22,000

0.1084
0.0971
0.1324
0.4461

Figure 3. Best-fitted semivariograms models for water quality parameters in years tested

3.3 Spatial and temporal variation of groundwater quality parameters

The spatial distribution of groundwater quality parameters is shown in 2001 and 2011 in Figure 4. In 2001, Salinity was mapped into 3
categories, with EC ranging from 324 to 2660 mho/cm (mean: 1023.50 mho/cm). 34.68% of the area showed an EC in the range of 250750
mho/cm, 63.98% of the area had an EC ranging from 750 to 2250 mho/cm and 1.34% had an EC value above 2250 mho/cm (Table 8). In
2011, Salinity was mapped into 3 categories too, with EC ranging from 369 to 5480 mho/cm (mean: 1456.88 mho/cm). 26.94% of the area
showed an EC in the range of 250750 mho/cm, 62.23% of the area had an EC ranging from 750 to 2250 mho/cm and 10.83% had an EC
value above 2250 mho/cm (Table 8).
Spatially, EC values increase from the east part towards the sou'wester part of the study area (Figure 4A and B). In general temporally
groundwater salinity values have increased especially in the sou'wester part between 2001 and 2011 (Figure 4A and B).The increase in
groundwater salinity on the sou'wester part of the study area from 2001 to 2011 can be attributed mainly to existence of Miocene formation at
the fringe of this location and salt leaching by rainfall and infiltration to this area.
In 2001 and 2011, alkalinity was mapped into 1 category that 100% of the area showed an SAR in the range of lower 10 (Table 9). Spatially and
temporally, groundwater alkalinity values have not changed much.

249

Assessment of Spatial and Temporal Distribution of Groundwater Salinity and Alkalinity Using Ordinary Kriging; (Case Study: Ardabil Plain Aquifer)
Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (7), July, 2014.

Figure 4. Spatial distribution map of groundwater quality parameter

Table 8. Differences in groundwater salinity values within the study area, (km2,%).

Year
2001
2011

C1 (<250 mho/cm)
Area(km2)
(%)
0
0
0
0

C2 (250-750 mho/cm)
Area (km2)
(%)
372.25
34.68
289.21
26.94

C3 (750-2250 mho/cm)
Area (km2)
(%)
686.81
63.98
668.04
62.23

C4 (>2250 mho/cm)
Area (km2)
(%)
14.39
1.34
116.21
10.83

Zahra Mahmoodifard *, Amir Hosein Nazemi, Seyed Ali Sadraddini, Farzin Shahbazi

250

Agriculture Science Developments Vol(3), No (7), July, 2014.

Table 9. Differences in groundwater alkalinity values within the study area, (km2,%)

Year
2001
2011

4.

S1 (<10)
Area (km2)
1073.46
1073.46

(%)
100
100

S2 (10-18)
Area(km2)
(%)
0
0
0
0

S3 (18-26)
Area(km2)
(%)
0
0
0
0

S4 (>26)
Area(km2)
(%)
0
0
0
0

Conclusion

Kriging is considered to be a useful technique for the monitoring, evaluation and management of groundwater resources. This study
used ordinary kriging to map the spatial variability groundwater salinity and alkalinity. Spatially, groundwater salinity showed a tendency to
increase from the east part towards the sou'wester part of the Ardabil Plain, and temporally, groundwater salinity increased specially on
the sou'wester part of Ardabil Plain from 2001 to 2011; But spatially and temporally, groundwater alkalinity values have not changed much.
The results will be beneficial for the planners and decision makers to devise policy guidelines for efficient management of the groundwater
resources in Ardabil plain.

References
[1]
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]

Ramsis BS, Claus JO, Robert WF. (1999). Contributions of groundwater conditions to soil and water salinization. Hydrogeology Journal 7: 4664
Cemek B, Guler M, Arslan H. (2006). Determination of salinity distribution using GIS in Bafra plain right land irrigated area. Ataturk University Journal of
Agricultural Faculty 37:6372
Delgado C, Pachec J, Cabrea A, Baltlori E, Orellana R, Baustista F. (2010). Quality of groundwater for irrigation in tropical karst environment; the case of
Yucatan, Mexico. Agricultural Water Management 97:14231433
Gokalp Z, Basaran M, Uzun O, Serin Y. (2010). Spatial analysis of some physical soil properties in a saline and alkaline grassland soil of Kayseri, Turkey.
African Journal of Agricultural Research 5 (10): 11271137
Nas B, Berktay A. (2010). Groundwater quality mapping in urban groundwater using GIS. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 160: 215227.
Kumar V. (2007). Optimal contour mapping of groundwater levels using universal kriging a case study. Hydrological Sciences Journal 52 (5):10391049.
Demir Y, Ersahin S, Gler M, Cemek B, Gnal H, Arslan H. (2009). Spatial variability of depth and salinity of groundwater under irrigated ustifluvents in
theMiddle Black Sea Region of Turkey. Environmental Monitoring and Assessment 158: 279294
Baalousha H. (2010). Assessment of a groundwater quality monitoring network using vulnerability mapping and geostatistics: a case study from Heretaunga
Plains, New Zealand. Agricultural Water Management 97: 240246
Dash JP, Sarangi A, Singh DK. (2010). Spatial variability of groundwater depth and quality parameters in the National Capital Territory of Delhi.
Environmental Management 45:640650
Yimit H, Eziz M, Mamat M, Tohti G.( 2011). Variations in groundwater levels and salinity in the Ili River Irrigation Area, Xinjiang, Northwest China: a
geostatistical approach. International Journal of Sustainable Development & World Ecology 18 (1): 5564
Ella VB, Melvin SW, Kanwar RS.( 2001). Spatial analysis of NO3N concentration in glacial till. Transact ASAE 44: 317327
Buttner O, Becker A, Kellner S, Kuehn S, Wendt- Potthoff K, Zachmann DW, Friese K. (1998). Geostatistical analysis of surface sediments in an acidic
mining lake. Water, Air, and Soil Pollution 108: 297 316
Gorai A, Kumar S. (2013). Spatial Distribution Analysis of Groundwater Quality Index Using GIS: A Case Study of Ranchi Municipal Corporation (RMC)
Area. Geoinfor Geostat: An Overview 1(2): 1-11.
Shahbazi F, Aliasgharzad N, Ebrahimzad SA, Najafi N. (2013) Geostatistical analysis for predicting soil biological maps under different scenarios of land
use. European Journal of Soil Biology 55:20-27
Theodossiou N, Latinopoulos P. (2007). Evaluation and optimisation of groundwater observation networks using the Kriging methodology. Environmental
Modelling & Software 21 (7): 9911000.
Taghizadeh Mehrjerdi R, Zareian M, Mahmodi Sh, Heidari A. (2008). Spatial distribution of groundwater quality with geostatistics ( Case study: YazdArdakan plain).World Applied Science Journal. 4(1): 9-17.
Arslan H. (2012). Spatial and temporal mapping of groundwater salinity using ordinary kriging and indicator kriging: The case of Bafra Plain, Turkey.
Agricultural Water Management 113: 57 63
Xie Y, Chen T, Lei M, Yang J, Guo Q, Song B, Zhou X. (2011). Spatial distribution of soil heavy metal pollution estimated by different interpolation
methods: accuracy and uncertainty analysis. Chemosphere 82: 468476
Mendes MP, Ribeiro L. (2010). Nitrate probability mapping in the northern aquiferalluvial system of th river Tagus (Portugal) using Disjunctive Kriging.
Science of the Total Environment 408: 10211034.
Isaaks EH, Srivastava RH . (1989). An Introduction to Applied Geostatistics. Oxford University Press, New York.
Wilcox LV. (1955). Classification and Use of Irrigation Water. United States Geological Department of Agriculture Circular No. 969, 19 p.
Cambardella CA, Moorman TB, Novak JM, Parkin TB, Karlen DL, Turco RF, Konopka AE. (1994). Field-scale variability of soil properties in central Iowa
soils. Soil Science Society of America Journal 58:15011511