Hydrogeology Journal (2018) 26:2753–2767

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1831-1

REPORT

Evapotranspiration capture and stream depletion due to groundwater

pumping under variable boreal climate conditions: Sudogda River Basin,
Russia
Sergey Grinevskiy 1 & Elena Filimonova 1 & Victor Sporyshev 1 & Vsevolod Samartsev 1 & Sergey Pozdniakov 1

Received: 17 December 2017 / Accepted: 7 July 2018 / Published online: 26 July 2018
# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
Groundwater pumping and changes in climate-induced recharge lead to lower groundwater levels and significant changes in the
water balance of a catchment. Water previously discharged as evapotranspiration can become a source of pumpage. Neglecting
this effect leads to overestimated streamflow depletion. A small river basin (Sudogda River Basin, Russia) with a boreal climate
and with long-term records of groundwater head and streamflow rate (showing that the measured stream depletion is less than the
pumping rate) was investigated. The role of evapotranspiration in the water balance was analyzed by a hydrogeological model
using MODFLOW-2005 with the STR package; the annual variation in recharge was obtained with the codes Surfbal and
HYDRUS. The Sudogda River Basin was classified according to landscape and unsaturated-zone texture classes, and for each
classified zone, the unsaturated-zone flow simulation was used to calculate the annual recharge dynamics for the observation
period. Calibration of the regional flow model was conducted using flow and head observations jointly for two steady-state flow
conditions—natural (before pumping started) and stressed (pumping). The simulations showed that pumped water originates
from three sources: intercepted baseflow (75% of the annual total pumping rate), the capture of groundwater evapotranspiration
discharge plus increased groundwater recharge (17%), and induced stream infiltration (8%). Additionally, multi-year precipita-
tion records were analyzed to detect any long-term recharge and pumping water-budget changes. The results showed that
increasing groundwater recharge by natural precipitation leads to (1) decreased intercepted baseflow and induced streamflow
infiltration and (2) increased intercepted evapotranspiration discharge, thereby reducing stream depletion.

Keywords Groundwater recharge/water budget . Evapotranspiration . Numerical modeling . Calibration . Russia

Introduction directly connected with an upper unconfined aquifer at the

The majority of pumping fields are situated in river valleys.
The drawdown of shallow groundwater levels (GWLs) due to
pumping in small river basins leads to significant changes in
the water balance of the catchment and harmful effects on
stream and riparian landscapes within the river valley. This
report investigates pumping of a confined aquifer which is
Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article
(https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1831-1) contains supplementary
material, which is available to authorized users.
* Elena Filimonova
ea.filimonova@yandex.ru
1
Geology Faculty, Moscow State University, Leninskie Gory, GSP_1,
Moscow, Russia
river valley, where the whole aquitard between the aquifers
has been eroded.
Traditionally, three sources of pumped water have been
considered: aquifer storage, induced stream infiltration, and
reduced groundwater discharge to the river (intercepted
baseflow; Todd and Mays 2005). As pumping continues,
the release of water due to aquifer storage decreases—over
the long term, changes in storage go to zero and the ground-
water flow becomes steady state. In this case, the pumpage
is supplied only by intercepted baseflow and induced stream
infiltration, together defined as stream depletion (SD),
which is directly equal to the total pumping rate (TPR).
The problem of SD due to pumping has been extensively
studied by many researchers. Early analytical solutions
were obtained for simplified stream–aquifer systems
(Theis 1941; Glover and Balmer 1954; Hantush 1965;
Shestakov 1965). Later analytical and semi-analytical
2754
expressions have been developed to quantify SD in more
complicated systems: partially penetrated thin (line-width)
streams (Bochever 1966; Minkin 1972; Hunt 1999, 2003),
heterogeneous aquifers (Butler Jr et al. 2001), leaky aqui-
fers (Bakker and Anderson 2003; Zlotnik 2004; Butler et al.
2007), bounded aquifers (Cherepanskiy 2005; Yeh et al.
2008), and a two-layer leaky aquifer system (Hunt 2009).
Jenkins (1968), using the principle of the superposition,
developed the Theis (1941) solution for estimation of SD
caused by intermittent pumping. Wallace et al. (1990), for
the Theis model, and later Darama (2001), for the Hantush
model, gave analytical solutions for cyclic pumping of wells.
Regression dependencies for the estimation of SD created by
cyclic pumping were obtained by Filimonova and Shtengelov
(2013). Wilson (1993), Chen (2003) and Chen and Yin (2004)
obtained equations for separately estimating induced stream
infiltration and baseflow reduction.
Recently, numerical models have been used to analyze
stream–aquifer interaction in more realistic systems. Various
authors have analyzed the errors introduced by the assump-
tions in analytical models (Sophocleous et al. 1995; Conrad
and Beljin 1996). Since that time, numerical models have
been used to estimate SD at the regional scale (Filimonova
and Baldenkov 2015; Kendy and Bredehoeft 2006; Langhoff
et al. 2006; Rodríguez et al. 2006; Wang et al. 2015; Woessner
2000; Zume and Tarhule 2008) or for model experiments
(Baalousha 2012; Bredehoeft and Kendy 2008; Chen and
Shu 2002; Fox and Durnford 2003; Lackey et al. 2015).
The previously mentioned methods are used for SD esti-
mation, but none take into consideration the effect of ground-
water evapotranspiration (ET) on the surface–groundwater in-
teraction. In a river valley with a shallow groundwater level, a
significant part of the natural groundwater flow formed due to
recharge can be discharged through ET. Lowering of the shal-
low water table by pumping can lead to ET decreasing, which
is a source of pumped water but has no influence on river flow.
In such cases, SD will be less than the TPR; however,
neglecting the ET capture may result in overestimating SD.
Numerous papers have focused on the estimation of ET losses
(Nachabe et al. 2005; Ping et al. 2014; De Silva et al. 2008;
Shah et al. 2007; Szilagyi et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2004 and
other), and a review of ET modeling is presented by Doble
and Crosbie (2017).
Nevertheless, very few investigations have analyzed the
role of ET capture in water pumpage. Darama (1996) obtained
an analytical solution for SD, including the effects of linear
variation in captured evaporation. He showed that the assump-
tion of linear variation in evaporation as a function of water-
table depth overestimated the reduction in evaporation and
underestimated the SD. Later, Darama (2004) investigated
the influence of nonlinear variation in evaporation with depth
to the water table on a steady-state SD rate using a modeling
approach. Chen and Shu (2006) analyzed groundwater–
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767
stream–evapotranspiration interaction by model experiments
and showed that the amount of ET capture varies from ~2 to
9.4% of the groundwater pumpage, and results from the case
study in the Platte River (Nebraska, USA) indicated that ~11%
of the pumped water was supplied by ET capture. The role of
ET in the water balance of the TPR was also investigated by
Rassam et al. (2007) using the Theis (1941) solution for esti-
mating stream depletion and the Shah et al. (2007) decay
model for assessing the ET decline implemented in the GIS
platform TIME. Dimensionless plots for ET capture for two
different land-covers with a sandy loam soil are obtained
based on pumping rates, distance from pumping well to the
river and aquifer transmissivity.
In humid boreal environments such as the northern
European part of Russia, the effect of ET change due to
pumping has not been well studied yet. The typical relations
between mean annual values of groundwater recharge (GWR)
or ET and shallow GWL depth for boreal climate conditions
and different landscapes are shown in Fig. 1 (Grinevskiy and
Pozdniakov 2013). According to these relations, there is a
Bcritical^ GWL depth where mean annual flow through the
water Table (W) is zero, and this Bcritical^ depth differs for
different landscapes. If the GWL is higher than the Bcritical^
depth, ET takes place, which increases up to a potential value
corresponding to a zero level depth. Otherwise, if the GWL is
lower than the Bcritical^ depth, GWR takes place, which in-
creases up to a maximum constant value for the deeper GWL;
hence, lowering of the GWL by pumping may cause not only
ET capture but also increased GWR. Both the ET capture and
Bextra^ GWR caused by lowering of a shallow GWL are the
additional sources of pumped water and allow SD to be less
than the TPR.
This study analyzed the relatively typical case of a water-
intake well field within a small river basin. The Sudogda River
Basin has a long history of stream discharge observations
before and after the development of the water-pumping well
Fig. 1 Relations between mean annual flow through the water Table (W)
and its depth (Zg) for different vegetation cover and soil types under
boreal climate conditions (Grinevskiy and Pozdniakov 2013)
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767
field. The preliminary analysis of the stream-discharge-time
series shows that the decrease in the minimal river flow is
significantly smaller than the total water intake and that this
flow is subject to large temporal variability. Thus, the purpose
of this report is to investigate the influence of long-term cli-
mate variability on changes in the water balance in the
Sudogda River Basin under natural and disturbed conditions
associated with groundwater pumping, to study the sustain-
ability of river bank pumping in a well field in a small river
basin under boreal climate conditions.
Investigations were performed with a hydrogeological
model using MODFLOW-2005 (Harbaugh 2005) with the
STR package (Prudic 1989). The hydrogeological model de-
scribes the groundwater flow due to water exchange between
a shallow aquifer and the landscape and due to groundwater/
surface-water (GW–SW) interaction. In addition to the
groundwater flow model, the hydrogeological simulation in-
cludes nonlinear variation in the water flux through bound-
aries such as recharge, evapotranspiration, and gain or loss by
the stream. MODFLOW provides a package for estimating
groundwater ET. The required parameters were obtained by
supporting simulations of the diffusive recharge and ground-
water ET formation due to the transformation of precipitation
at the surface and in the unsaturated zone. The recharge model
Fig. 2 Location of the study area and groundwater level drawdown in the CP aquifer. AB is the line of hydrogeological cross-section shown in the
following figure; the grey square is the area where Sudogda pumping well sites and observation wells are located
2755
comprises two interrelated blocks: transformation of precipi-
tation on the land surface calculated by the code Surfbal
(Grinevskii and Pozdnyakov 2010; Grinevskiy and
Pozdniakov 2017) and moisture transfer in the unsaturated
zone simulated by HYDRUS (Šimůnek et al. 2009).
Study area
Meteorology, hydrology and hydrogeology
The Sudogda field of pumping wells (SFPW) is located 30 km
to the southwest of the city of Vladimir, western Russia
(Fig. 2). It has met the water demands of Vladimir since
1995. The climate of the study area is humid boreal. The mean
annual weather data, obtained from the Vladimir meteorolog-
ical observing station are as follows: temperature is 4.56 °С,
total precipitation is 650 mm, and total potential evapotrans-
piration is ~550 mm. The study area is a low, hilly glacio-
fluvial plain with a developed stream network. Areas favor-
able to wetlands are produced by an exceedance of precipita-
tion over potential evapotranspiration, flooding of the flood-
plain in spring, and discharge of confined aquifers through
2756
hydrogeological gaps (pathways of hydraulic connectivity
where the aquitard between two aquifers has been eroded.)
The basin’s main stream is the Sudogda River, which flows
to the north into the large river Klyazma. The total length of
the Sudogda River is 116 km, and the total catchment area is
1,900 km2. Forested areas occupy 68% of the area, and wet-
lands occupy less than 1%. According to measurements from
stream gauging stations (GS) shown in Fig. 2, the riverbed
width is 10–15 m, and the maximum width is 40–45 m near
the city of Sudogda. The riverbed depth ranges from 0.5 to
2 m and the streamflow velocity of the Sudogda River is 0.1–
0.5 m/s with the east riverbank in many areas being signifi-
cantly peaty and marshy.
The largest tributaries of the Sudogda River are the Yastreb
River, the Poboyka River, the Pechenka River, the Yada River,
the Voyninka River, and the Serduga River. The streamflow
rates of the tributaries of the Sudogda River are 0.2 m3/s or
less, except for the Serduga River with a streamflow rate of
0.38 m3/s. The Serduga River contains large amounts of water
due to groundwater discharge; a lot of springs are also located
on the valley slopes and in the floodplain.
The main aquifer of the Sudogda River Basin is comprised
of Upper Carboniferous - Lower Permian (CP) fissured rocks,
which are the major object of these investigations. The sedi-
ments contain limestones, dolomites with clay, malm or gyp-
sum interlayers. The total thickness of the CP confined aqui-
fer, which corresponds to the upper active fissured zone, is
30–50 m (Fig. 3). The transmissivity values vary widely from
200 to 1,000–5,000 m2/d.
Fig. 3 Cross-section of Sudogda
River Basin
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767
The aquitard overlying the CP aquifer consists of Permian-
Jurassic clays with a total thickness of 20–40 m. In the
Sudogda River Valley, the whole aquitard has been eroded,
and the CP aquifer is connected directly to the upper
Quaternary (Q) aquifer (Fig. 3). The SFPW is situated in this
area. The underlying aquitard is composed of Upper
Carboniferous clays with a thickness of 5–22 m.
Widespread Quaternary glacio-fluvial, glacial, alluvial and
marsh sediments cover the eroded surface of the old rocks.
The thickness of the Quaternary sandy, sandy-loamy, loamy
and peat sediments is irregular and ranges from 0 to 30 m. The
Q aquifer is unconfined and characterized by low values of
hydraulic conductivity.
The Q aquifer discharges via ET into the rivers, and by
leakage into the underlying CP aquifer. The relatively low
horizontal hydraulic conductivity of the shallow aquifer pre-
vents lateral GW flux, and practically the entire recharge in the
Quaternary sediments infiltrates into the confined CP aquifer.
In the carbonate sediments, due to the high values of trans-
missivity, groundwater flows to the Sudogda River. In the
areas of floodplains and directly in the riverbed, the CP aquifer
discharges through the Q aquifer into the Sudogda River. The
values of the lowest 30 daily streamflow rates, obtained by
several measurements from gauging stations (GS; Fig. 4), are
used to characterize the groundwater discharge and baseflow.
The Sudogda River Basin, bounded by GS 2 and GS 17
(Fig. 2), has a catchment area of 1,490 km2. The total low-
flow rate of the Sudogda River with an exceedance probability
of 50% is equal 3.26 m3/s, and the baseflow value is 2.19 L/s/
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767 2757

Fig. 4 Stream discharge with an

exceedance probability of 50%,
along the Sudogda River (left Y
axis), and gain in Sudogda River
baseflow (streamflow changes
between gauging stations except
tributaries; right Y axis)

km2. The streamflow rate increases irregularly (Fig. 4) due to the SFPW began in 1989, before the beginning of groundwa-
different conditions of the CP aquifer discharge, connected via ter abstraction, and included observations of groundwater
hydrogeological gaps, within the paleovalley of the Sudogda levels in dual completion wells in the CP and upper Q aquifers
River. The sections between GS 5–7 and GS 10–13 are char-
acterized by the maximum gains in baseflow.
The main tributaries of the Sudogda River, except the
Serduga River, have much lower values of gain in baseflow
of 0.2–0.6 L/s/km2, which is ten times less than the Sudogda
River. This can be explained by partial penetration of the
tributaries; hence, only the shallow aquifer can discharge into
these local rivers. Another reason for this difference is the
location of the Sudogda River Valley in the zone of the eroded
Permian aquitard, which produces a good hydraulic connec-
tion between the CP aquifer and the Sudogda River. The
Serduga River is situated in similar conditions.
The analysis of the hydrological conditions shows that
groundwater discharge associated with the CP aquifer occurs
into the riverbed of the Sudogda River. Moreover, discharge
into the local rivers is negligible. The distribution of
streamflow rates of the Sudogda River is characterized by
the heterogeneity of the connection between the surface water
and the groundwater due to zones of eroded aquitard. The
maximum gain in baseflow is located in the sections between
gauging stations 8 and 5 and between 13 and 10, situated near
the SFPW. The total gain in Sudogda River baseflow is
2.62 m3/s, which exceeds the average TPR of 0.62 m3/s.

Analysis of SFPW monitoring data

The SFPW consists of 17 pumping wells in the CP aquifer,

combined at three sites with 7, 6, and 4 pumping wells in the
Sudogda River Valley (Fig. 5), and started operation in 1995.
The annual TPR is almost constant and averages 53,430 m3/d Fig. 5 Location map of Sudogda pumping well sites, observation wells
(0.62 m3/s). Monitoring of groundwater and surface water in and GWL drawdown in the Q aquifer
2758
(Fig. 5) and measurements of dry season flow in the Sudogda
River and its tributaries in 1989, 2002 and 2014 (Fig. 1).
Groundwater levels
Significant groundwater level drawdown in both aquifers
due to exploitation was observed during only the first years
of pumping, and then the GWL changed insignificantly in
accordance with variability in seasonal and annual weather
conditions (Fig. 6). The maximum decrease in the GWL of
the CP aquifer in pumping wells is ~8 m with a radius of up
to 10 km from the water intake (Fig. 2), and the maximum
decrease in the GWL of the Q aquifer is ~3 m with a radius
of up to 5 km (Fig. 5).
For the most part of the GWL-drawdown area, the GWL of
CP aquifer is still higher than the GWL of Q aquifer (wells 2
and 2 g, Fig. 6), meaning there has been only a partial decrease
of CP aquifer discharge and partial river baseflow intercep-
tion. However, in the zone of maximum CP aquifer GWL
drawdown, the difference in aquifer groundwater levels exhib-
ited the opposite pattern (wells 1 and 1 g, Fig. 6), indicating
leakage from the alluvial aquifer that was compensated by
induced stream infiltration. Thus, the intercepted groundwater
baseflow and induced river infiltration leads to depletion of
the Sudogda River flow.
Estimation of streamflow depletion
Groundwater pumping influence on streamflow occurs inside
the area of GWL depression, which is limited to the stream
section between GS 5 and 13 (Fig. 2), and can be estimated by
comparing between the measured low summer streamflow
rates before groundwater pumping started (1989) and during
the period of groundwater pumping (2002, 2014).
The Sudogda River flow rates measured in 2002 and 2014
are quite similar but differ significantly from the measure-
ments in 1989—Table S1 of the electronic supplementary
material (ESM) even outside the zone of groundwater
pumping influence, which can be explained by the different
amounts of natural water availability in these years. Therefore,
a direct comparison of the river flow data is not appropriate;
however, although the absolute values of low streamflow in
different years vary, it can be assumed that the relative river
flow increments Q*i = Qn/Qi between downstream (n) and
upstream (i) GSs in the dry season remain ~equal because they
depend on the intensity of groundwater discharge.
Due to pumping influence, the relative streamflow in-
crement Q*i would be different from that of natural condi-
tions. This conclusion is confirmed by the data in Table S1
of the ESM, which show that Q*i values in 2002 and 2014
are less than those in 1989 downstream of GS 7 (Table S1
of the ESM), where the river flow depletion by the ground-
water pumping occurs. The largest differences in Q*i ratios
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767
are obtained for GSs 5 and 7, which remained in natural
flow conditions. Also, it can be noticed that the differences
in Q*i values between GS 13 and GS 15 are not so clear,
because they are outside of the zone of groundwater
pumping influence. Additionally, the absolute streamflow
rates here are much larger than in upstream areas, so the
changes are comparable to the normal error of the
streamflow measurement.
Thus, one can assume that the main river flow depletion
occurs downstream of GS 7, and using Q*7 values for natural
conditions (1989) and measured river flow in 2002 and 2014
Qi, the restored natural river flow QRi for 2002 and 2014 in the
zone of groundwater pumping influence can be calculated as
follows:
QRi ¼ Qi ⋅Q*7 ð1Þ
Then, the river flow depletion ΔQ was calculated as the
difference between restored and measured streamflow rates
(Table S1 of the ESM). These values are quite similar in
2002 and 2014 for all stations upstream of GS 15, and their
averages tend to increase from GS 8 downstream to GS 13,
which is located near the border of the pumping influence
zone. The large difference in ΔQ values calculated for GS
15 is probably associated with the error of the river flow
measurement as already mentioned. Flow measurements at
the Sudogda River tributaries during the pumping period
did not show any univocal changes compared to natural
conditions. This is probably due to the low permeability of
the tributary’s riverbed and the small natural flow rates dur-
ing the dry period.
The total river flow depletion, calculated as an average
for GS 13, is 0.43 m3/s. It is important that this value is less
than the average TPR of 0.62 m3/s, i.e., ~70% of it, which
indicates that there are other sources providing a constant
TPR in steady-state flow conditions in addition to induced
stream infiltration and intercepted baseflow. It can be as-
sumed that this Badditional^ source of pumped water repre-
sents ET capturing in the area, where the natural GWL
depths of the Q aquifer were higher than the Bcritical^
values. Additionally, in those parts of the pumping influence
area where the natural GWL was near the Bcritical^ depth,
the GWL lowering may result in an increase in GWR. Thus,
both ET capture and Bextra^ GWR caused by shallow GWL
lowering are regarded as additional sources of pumped water
and are the reason that the Sudogda River flow depletion is
less than the TPR. Since these Badditional^ sources are
strongly dependent on climate conditions, their total values
change seasonally and annually and lead to similar variabil-
ity in the Sudogda River flow depletion. The annual vari-
ability in the groundwater pumping sources and Sudogda
River flow depletion was investigated by retrospective
modeling using different annual meteorological data.
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767 2759

Fig. 6 Annual variations in the

total pumping rate and
groundwater levels in the CP
aquifer (wells 1 g, 2 g) and Q
aquifer (wells 1, 2)

Hydrogeological model The hydraulic conductivity of the upper Q aquifer, which is

The hydrogeological model of the Sudogda River Basin
should be able to reflect the changes in the hydrologic balance
components occurring in the unsaturated zone during GWL
lowering and should also be designed to simulate the SD
caused by pumping. Therefore, the hydrogeological model
comprises three interconnected blocks: the groundwater flow
model, the GWR and ET model, and the GW–SW interaction
model. In other words, the groundwater flow model, a major
unit of the hydrogeological model, is supplemented with in-
ternal nonlinear conditions that characterize the GWR and ET
depending on the shallow GWL depth as well as taking into
account the river flow and the GW–SW interaction changes
caused by the pumping or natural climate variability.
mostly composed of loamy deposits in the main part of the
simulated area, varies from 0.1 to 2 m/d. Maximum values of
up to 20 m/d are observed in the Sudogda River Valley with
sandy alluvium. The maximum transmissivity values of the
CP aquifer of up to 5,000 m2/d are also located in the Sudogda
River Valley, where the carbonate sediments of the aquifer are
strongly fissured and karstic. The wide range of vertical
leakance values is mostly associated with variability in the
Permian-Jurassic aquitard thickness. For hydrogeological
gaps, where the aquitard thickness is zero, the vertical
leakance is set to 10 d−1. The first model set was developed
for steady-state mean annual natural and pumping conditions.
Groundwater/surface-water interaction simulation

The MODFLOW STR package (Prudic 1989) for simulation

Groundwater-flow-model development
of GW–SW interaction under natural and pumping conditions
was used. The differences in GW–SW interaction intensity are
A two-layer finite-difference MODFLOW model (Harbaugh
characterized by low river flow increments between GSs (see
2005) was developed using Processing Modflow to simulate
section ‘Meteorology, hydrology and hydrogeology’), so the
groundwater flow in the studied Sudogda River basin. The
model area of 1,805 km2 includes the Sudogda River Basin, Table 1 Groundwater flow model parameters
which also includes a segment of the main Klyazma River
(Fig. 2). The western, eastern and southern model boundaries Model parameter Parameter values
are watersheds and no-flow boundaries. The northern
Minimum Maximum
constant-head boundary coincides with the Klyazma River.
A finite-difference grid of 224 rows and 200 columns with Layer 1, Q aquifer:
uniform cell dimensions of 250 m × 250 m was used for sim- Top elevation (m) 95 180
ulation. The groundwater flow model consists of two major Bottom elevation (m) 71 169
layers: the unconfined Q aquifer and the confined CP aquifer, Horizontal hydraulic conductivity (m/d) 0.1 20
which are divided by a Permian-Jurassic aquitard of clay and Vertical leakance (d−1) 10−5 10
loam. The model top is the land-surface topography and the Layer 2, CP aquifer:
model bottom is an impermeable underlying aquitard. Top elevations (m) 65 107
The model area was divided into sub-regions to character- Bottom elevations (m) 40 40
ize the aquifer properties based on well data and pumping Transmissivity (m2/d) 200 5000
tests. The list of model parameters is presented in Table 1.
2760 Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767

hydraulic conductivity of the river streambed Kriv was calcu-

lated for the river sections as follows:
mM l
K riv ¼ ð2Þ
bΔН
where Ml = ΔQ/l is the low river flow increment ΔQ per unit
river length l; b is the average width of the river, calculated
from river flow measurements; m is the average thickness of
the riverbed sediments, set as 0.5 m; ΔH is the average dif-
ference between groundwater and surface-water levels and is
defined as 0.1 m for the Sudogda River and 0.3 m for its
tributaries with lower riverbed permeability.
The other parameters for the STR package were obtained
by river flow measurements on GSs and were interpolated for
river grid cells between them. Manning’s roughness coeffi-
cients were calculated using Manning’s equation (Prudic
1989) and measured river parameters.

Groundwater recharge model

Estimation of groundwater recharge for the Sudogda River

Basin was based on the simulation of the water balance at
the land surface and the unsaturated flow inside the soil cover
and unsaturated zone down to the GWL. For the same climate
conditions, these processes are generally identical for the uni-
form typical natural conditions of GWR, which is controlled
by a combination of the surface, vegetation type, soil and
underlying unsaturated zone properties, as well as the GWL
depth. Hence, the results of the simulation of GWR, obtained
for each type (combination) of such conditions, can be extrap-
olated for the corresponding part of the river basin (Crosbie et
al. 2010; Grinevskii and Pozdnyakov 2010). The GWR model
includes two blocks—the surface water and energy balance,
and the subsurface unsaturated flow (Fig. 7).
The well-known package HYDRUS-1D (Šimůnek et al.
2009) was used for groundwater recharge simulations based
on long-term meteorological data with a daily resolution. For
a boreal climate with a long winter period, raw meteorological
data such as precipitation, cannot be used directly as the atmo-
spheric boundary conditions in HYDRUS. These data must be
preprocessed to take snow accumulation, snow melting, surface
runoff, evaporation from snow and vegetation cover, and soil
freezing-thawing processes into account. For this purpose,
SurfBal (Grinevskii and Pozdnyakov 2010; Grinevskiy and
Pozdniakov 2013; Pozdniakov et al. 2015), a code for simulat-
ing surface-water and energy balances and generating upper
boundary conditions for HYDRUS-1D, was used.
Firstly, the areal division of the Sudogda River basin was
conducted using the typical recharge conditions such as veg-
etation, soil and subsoil type (see ESM). Then, GWR simula-
tions by SurfBal and HYDRUS-1D using the daily meteoro-
logical data for 1965–2015 from the Vladimir meteorological
Fig. 7 Schematic diagram of the GWR model, which includes two
blocks: code SurfBal (Pozdniakov et al. 2015) and code HYDRUS-1D
(Šimůnek et al. 2009)
station were performed for all seven combinations of vegeta-
tion and soil types (landscape types) obtained by overlaying
the maps shown in the ESM. Since natural GWL depths in the
Sudogda River basin vary from less than 1 to 10 m, unsatu-
rated flow simulations for each soil profile were implemented
using different constant hydraulic heads (from 1 to 10 m) at
the lower boundary.
Data for the unsaturated flow simulation were obtained
from field investigations at pilot sites in the Sudogda River
basin with different types of soil and vegetation cover, and soil
samples for laboratory study were taken. Additionally, data on
the nearest similar soil profiles from a database provided by
the Russian Soil Institute (V.V. Dokuchaev Soil Science
Institute 2016) were used.
In the results of the simulations, the groundwater recharge
was treated as equal to the downward water flux (W) through
the lower boundary of the modeled soil profile. The mean
annual GWR value was obtained for each landscape type area
with different GWL depth (Zg) by averaging the recharge
values over the simulation period 1965–2015 (Fig. 8).
Negative values of the mean annual water flux W for shallow
GWL depths mean that, under these conditions, the total up-
ward flux in the unsaturated zone is greater than the total
downward flux, and groundwater discharge by ET occurs.
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767
Fig. 8 Relations between mean annual groundwater flux through the
water table (W) and GWL depth for different soil profiles in a meadow
and b forest landscapes in the Sudogda River Basin
The W(Zg) relations can be approximated as follows
(Shestakov et al. 1982; Grinevskiy and Pozdniakov 2013):
 

Zg
W ¼ W m − W m −W exp −
0
ð3Þ
z0
where Wm and W0 are downward (positive) and upward
(negative) water fluxes through the water table when Zg → ∞
or Zg → 0, respectively (z0 is a parameter). The Bcritical^ GWL
depth Zg0, where W = 0, can be found from Eq. (4) as follows:
Wm
Z 0g ¼ −z0 ln ð4Þ
W m −W 0
To set the received relations of W(Zg), MODFLOW pack-
ages Recharge and Evapotranspiration (EVT; Harbaugh 2005)
were used together. Constant maximum recharge values Wm
were assigned to the Recharge package for corresponding
areas. At the same time, the following parameters were used
in the EVT package:
– The maximum evapotranspiration rate ETM was calculat-
ed as the sum of absolute values of W 0 and W m :
ETM = |Wm| + |W0|
2761
– The elevation of the ET surface was set as the earth
surface
– The ET extinction depth d is equal to the GWL depth at
which the recharge rate becomes constant (W ≈ Wm)
Thus, the simultaneous use of the Recharge and EVT pack-
ages can approximate the relations of W(Zg) for MODFLOW
simulation, as shown in Fig. 9, and the corresponding param-
eters of W(Zg) and the MODFLOW packages for different
landscapes are listed in the ESM. In this way, mean annual
GWR or ET values are not directly assigned to the upper
boundary in MODFLOW but are calculated based on the sim-
ulated GWL depths. It should be noted that such an approxi-
mation of the W(Zg) curves is rather good when the depth to
the water table is less than the Bcritical^ values (Zg < Zg0) but
leads to significant errors when Zg > Zg0. Figure 8 shows that
such approximation errors are greater for loamy soil profiles,
where W(Zg) curves are more gentle.
Model run and results of the simulation
The model was calibrated using streamflow and head obser-
vations for two steady-state flow conditions. The first set
represents natural conditions before the beginning of
Sudogda water intake, while the second set represents con-
ditions stressed by groundwater pumping. Each data set
includes 16 head and 13 flow observations, whereby the
heads were measured at the same observation boreholes
for the two data sets and the head measurements were aver-
aged over several years to represent average steady-state
groundwater flow. River flows were measured at the same
GSs and profiles as well and the river flow increment was
used instead of the total flow value, an approach chosen
with respect to the main research goal of estimating the
impact of groundwater pumping on river baseflow. The
two groundwater flow conditions were simulated by two
models, which were calibrated jointly (see ESM).
Calibration and sensitivity analysis was performed with
UCODE (Hill et al. 2005). Each iteration of UCODE ran
both models and read both simulation results at once. Such
joint calibration allows observation data to be used more
effectively. As a result, the conductivity parameters of Q
and CP aquifers as well as leakance coefficients of the sep-
arating aquitard were calibrated (see ESM). The GWR and
ET parameters, as well as streamflow parameters, did not
change during model calibration.
The verification of calculated mean annual GWR and ET
values, as well as their relations with GWL depths, was con-
ducted by the MODFLOW simulation of the natural steady-
state water-balance conditions. The difference between mean
annual total GWR and ET in the catchment area between GSs
2 and 17 (Fig. 2) simulated by MODFLOW is 281.1 × 103 m3/
2762
Fig. 9 An example of W(Zg) approximation for MODFLOW simulation
with simultaneous use of the Recharge and EVT packages. Dashed line
shows linear ET decreasing in the EVT package; Wm represents constant
maximum GWR in the Recharge package
d and is quite similar to the observed low river flow increment
with a 50% exceedance probability between these GS, which
is 281.7 × 103 m3/d.
Steady-state simulation under mean annual climate
conditions
The two sets of simulations with the calibrated model allow
for estimation of the mean annual water budget for groundwa-
ter pumping by comparing the modeled water budgets under
natural and pumping conditions. The major source of pumped
water is intercepted river baseflow (75% of TPR). Another
significant source is decreased groundwater ET (17% of
TPR). Surprisingly, induced stream infiltration is a minor
source of pumped water (8% of TPR). The calculated total
intercepted ET includes both actual intercepted ET and in-
creased GWR, since using the model approximation of
W(Zg) based on the Recharge and EVT MODFLOW packages
does not allow one to separate them correctly. The increased
GWR is approximated as a part of total intercepted ET in the
drawdown area, where natural GWL depths were below the
Bcritical^ values. The increased GWR is ~3.5 × 103 m3/d (7%
of the TPR), and the actual intercepted ET is 5.4 × 103 m3/d
(10% of the TPR).
The simulated total depletion of the Sudogda River is
0.51 m3/s, and this value is less than the TPR (83% of it)
but is greater (by 18%) than that calculated by the river
flow analysis (0.43 m3/s). Such difference can be related
both to the errors of SD estimation based on river flow data
and the inaccuracy of W(Zg ) model approximation for
groundwater flow simulation. Despite these limitations,
the simulation results confirmed the importance of
intercepted ET and increased GWR for the water-intake
water budget and for SD. The decrease of the Sudogda
River depth, calculated by the STR MODFLOW package,
varies downstream of the GS 7 from 0.05 to 0.55 m,
representing 5–20% of the natural river depth.
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767
Groundwater intake simulation under long-term
climate variability conditions
Previous simulation results show that the mean annual steady-
state budget of Sudogda water intake consists of three sources:
intercepted groundwater flow to the river, induced stream in-
filtration, and the sum of intercepted ET and additional
(increased) GWR. Their proportions can change under natural
climate variations, and this could be the reason for the vari-
ability in the Sudogda River depletion.
The groundwater flow simulation for 1965–2015 was car-
ried out to investigate the climate-induced variability in the
Sudogda basin water budget under natural conditions and
groundwater pumping. The GWL observations (Fig. 6) show
small natural variability before and during groundwater
pumping, and the GWL annual values are almost constant.
This result is the reason for simplifying the long-term ground-
water simulation and neglecting annual changes in aquifer
storage, as neglecting the storage variation allows one to esti-
mate the climatic variability in the groundwater budget more
visibly.
Thus, long-term simulations were performed with the cal-
ibrated model with different annual values of maximum GWR
(Wm) in the Recharge package and different annual ETM
values in the EVT package for 51 steady-state stress periods,
which were obtained from water balance simulations using
SurfBal and HYDRUS-1D for 1965–2015. The simulations
were carried out in two sets: under natural conditions and with
an average TPR of 53.4 × 103 m3/d from 1995 to 2015.
Simulation results
The simulation results for natural conditions show rather
good correlations of modeled total annual GWR, ET and
river baseflow with total annual precipitation from April
to March (Bhydrological^ year), as shown in Fig. 10. This
annual sum of precipitation was chosen because all winter
precipitation accumulates as snow cover, which usually
melts in March. Total ET has the greatest climate-
induced natural variability because of its very strong de-
pendence on the GWL depth (Fig. 8). It should be noted
that the rather good correlations of simulated GWR and
ET with annual precipitation confirm the adequacy of the
GWR model, because GWR and ET values are not
assigned directly but are instead calculated during ground-
water flow simulation.
The water-intake annual budget (% of TPR), which was
calculated for every year as the difference between the
model water budgets for natural and pumping conditions,
is quite stable for 1995–2015, and the majority of it is
intercepted river baseflow (Fig. 11). However, in wet
years, with increased GWR, induced stream infiltration de-
creases to insignificant values, and this change is
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767 2763

Fig. 10 Correlation of simulated

annual river baseflow,
groundwater recharge, and
evapotranspiration with total
precipitation of the
Bhydrological^ year (from April
to March) for 1965–2015. R2 is
the coefficient of determination

compensated by increasing ET capture. This pattern is also Summary and discussion

shown in Fig. 12, where increasing GWR, caused by in-
creasing total precipitation, leads to nonlinear changes in
the water intake budget, including increases in the
intercepted baseflow and intercepted ET but decreases in
the induced stream infiltration. As already mentioned, the
total values of intercepted ET include both actual
intercepted ET and increased GWR.
Climate-induced changes in the groundwater intake budget
lead to corresponding variability in the Sudogda River deple-
tion, as shown in Fig. 13. The maximum river depletion is
45.5 × 103 m3/d (85% of TPR) for years with minimal
GWR and decreases to 41.8 × 103 m3/d (78% of TPR) for
years with maximum GWR.
1. Analysis of monitoring data from the active Sudogda
groundwater intake field shows that groundwater
pumping takes place under almost steady-state annual hy-
drodynamic conditions. The comparison of the Sudogda
River dry season flow before and during pumping showed
the SD under the pumping influence and was estimated to
be 0.42 m/s. The main uncertainties in the SD assessment
may be related to errors in the river flow measurements
and to differences in natural water conditions among the
compared years. The differences between the measured
river flow data at the same stream GS for years with sim-
ilar water conditions (2002 and 2014) are for most stations

Fig. 11 Changes in the Sudogda water-intake water budget (% of TPR) compared with annual GWR variations from 1995 to 2015. ISI is induced stream
infiltration; ΔBF and ΔET are intercepted river baseflow and captured ET, respectively
2764
Fig. 12 Dependence of Sudogda
water intake budget sources from
total GWR for 1995–2015. ISI is
induced stream infiltration; ΔBF
and ΔET are intercepted river
baseflow and captured ET,
respectively
less than 0.02 m/s (~5% of estimated SD), as shown in
Table S1 of the ESM. The relative values of river flow
increment between GSs, which were used to estimate the
natural river flow for the pumping period, helped to re-
duce the uncertainty due to natural water conditions
among compared years Thus, considering the possible
uncertainties, the estimated Sudogda River depletion of
0.42 m/s is less than the average TPR of 0.62 m/s,
representing ~70% of the TPR.
2. Analysis of the Sudogda River Basin hydrogeology sup-
ports the conclusion that the estimated difference between
SD and TPR under steady-state conditions is connected
with additional sources in the water intake budget that do
not affect the river flow. Since pumping leads to shallow
GWL drawdown, these additional water sources include
capturing of ET and increasing the GWR within the
Fig. 13 Dependence of the
Sudogda River depletion on
climate-induced variability in to-
tal GWR
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767
shallow GWL drawdown area, and these processes are
regarded as the reason why the Sudogda River SD is less
than the TPR. The significant role of intercepted ET in the
water intake budget and in the river depletion process is
already known for arid and semi-arid climate conditions
(Darama 2004; Rassam et al. 2007; Chen and Shu 2006)
but has not been studied under boreal climate conditions.
3. The dependence of the mean annual flux through the wa-
ter table on the GWL depth W(Zg) was simulated using
SurfBal and HYDRUS 1D for different typical landscapes
of the Sudogda River basin. The calculated mean annual
W(Zg) relations show that there is a Bcritical^ GWL depth
at which the mean annual flow through the water Table
(W) is zero, and this Bcritical^ depth differs for different
landscapes (Fig. 8). This finding indicates that in the area
of Sudogda water intake influence, where the natural
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767
shallow GWL depths of the Q aquifer were above the
Bcritical^ depth, the GWL lowering by pumping has led
to ET capture. In contrast, in areas where the natural water
table was near the Bcritical^ depth, the GWL lowering has
resulted in increased GWR. Thus, water balance simula-
tions confirm significant variability in mean annual GWR
and ET due to GWL changes, and calculated W(Zg) pa-
rameters were used to account for the GWR and ET
changes due to shallow GWL drawdown in the ground-
water flow simulations. The approximation of the calcu-
lated W(Zg) relations in the MODFLOW simulations was
performed by the joint use of the Recharge and EVT
packages, but this approximation has significant errors
(Fig. 9). The maximum errors are confined to the GWL
depth interval below the Bcritical^ depth to the depth of
constant GWR; therefore, simulation of the increased
GWR caused by GWL drawdown has significant uncer-
tainty. Analysis of the W(Zg) curves for different land-
scapes (Fig. 8) shows that the maximum simulation errors
of increased GWR occur in loamy and peat soils with
gentle W(Zg) curves. The use of the ETS1 package with
nonlinear segment variation in ET between the ET surface
and the extinction depth (Banta 2000) would reduce these
simulation errors.
4. Both flow and head observation data were used for model
calibration to make better use of the limited amount of
observation points. The main challenge of model calibra-
tion emerged due to positioning of monitoring wells,
which are located close to the water intake and thus pro-
vide little information on the heterogeneity in the model
parameters. Therefore, the river flow observations were
assumed to be more important and were given greater
weight than the head observations. The joint use of the
two observation data types allowed good estimation of
numerous model parameters and verification of the model
heterogeneity. The simulated natural difference between
total GWR and ET in the Sudogda River basin equals
281.1 × 103 m3/d and corresponds to the observed river
baseflow, which is 281.7 × 103 m3/d. These total values
confirmed the accuracy of the parameters used in the
model.
5. The mean annual budget of the Sudogda water intake,
estimated as the difference between the simulation results
for natural and pumping conditions, consists of three
sources. The main part is intercepted baseflow, which
accounts for 75% of the average TPR. The second part
is induced ET and increased GWR, representing 17% of
the TPR, and the smallest part is induced stream infiltra-
tion, representing 8% of the TPR. The model approxima-
tion of the W(Zg) curves by the EVT and Recharge pack-
ages did not allow separation of the induced ET and in-
creased GWR correctly, but approximate calculation
shows that their relative values are comparable (10 and
2765
7% of the TPR, respectively). Thus, for boreal climate
conditions, both intercepted ET and increased GWR are
significant for pumping water budgets and the influence
of pumping on river flow. The simulated total depletion of
the Sudogda River is 0.51 m3/s, and this value is less than
the TPR (83% of it), but significantly more than that cal-
culated based on the results of the river flow analysis. The
differences between the simulated and calculated SD
values are related to several reasons. First, as already men-
tioned, possible uncertainty in the calculated SD is related
to errors in the river flow measurements and differences in
the natural water conditions of the compared river flow
data. Second, the errors in the simulated total SD are re-
lated to uncertainties in the intercepted ET and increased
GWR model estimation due to W(Zg) approximation.
Another reason may be related to the coarse model grid
within the shallow GWL depression area. The shape of
the W(Zg) curves (Fig. 8) shows that ET is most sensitive
to small changes in the GWL near surface; therefore, the
averaging of the earth surface and GWL data in the
Sudogda basin model grid cells (with dimensions of
250 × 250 m) may lead to significant errors in the ET
capture estimates. Despite these possible uncertainties in
the intercepted ET and SD estimates, the results of
groundwater flow simulation confirmed that intercepted
ET and increased GWR due to lowering the shallow GWL
by pumping are significant components in the Sudogda
water intake budget and lead to the total SD being less
than the average TPR.
6. The long-term groundwater flow and GWR simulations
allow one to estimate the natural climate-induced variabil-
ity in the Sudogda water intake budget. The simulation
results show that increases in the GWR by natural precip-
itation lead to nonlinear decreases in the induced stream
infiltration and to increases in the intercepted ET and
intercepted baseflow. Climate variability leads to corre-
spondent changes in Sudogda River depletion: maximum
SD corresponds to minimal GWR and is 45.5 × 103 m3/d
(85% of TPR), decreasing to 41.8 × 103 m3/d (78% of
TPR) for years with maximum GWR (Fig. 13).
7. Despite the possible uncertainties in the intercepted ET
and SD estimations, the main results of the investigation
show that Badditional^ sources of riverbank groundwater
in the intake water budget such as intercepted ET and
increased GWR, are essential even in boreal climates
and are the reason for climate-induced variability in SD,
which is less than the TPR. Future research will focus on
the study of seasonal variability in ET capture and SD
using a fine grid model with the ETS1 package in
MODFLOW.
Acknowledgements These investigations were supported by the Russian
Science Foundation No. 16-17-10187.
2766
References
Baalousha HM (2012) Drawdown and stream depletion induced by a
nearby pumping well. J Hydrolog 466–467:47–59. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.08.010
Banta ER (2000) MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. Geological Survey
Modular Ground-Water Model: documentation of packages for sim-
ulating evapotranspiration with a segmented function (ETS1) and
drains with return flow (DRT1). US Geol Surv Open-File Rep 00-
466
Bochever FM (1966) Evaluation of well-field yield in alluvial aquifers:
the impact of a partially penetrating stream (in Russian). VODGEO
(Hydrogeol) 13:84–115
Bredehoeft J, Kendy E (2008) Strategies for offsetting seasonal impacts
of pumping on a nearby stream. Ground Water 46(1):23–29. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2007.00367.x
Butler JJ Jr, Zlotnik VA, Tsou M-S (2001) Drawdown and stream deple-
tion produced by pumping in the vicinity of a partially penetrating
stream. Ground Water 39(5):651–659. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s12665-009-0117-2
Butler JJ Jr, Zhan Х, Zlotnik VA (2007) Pumping-induced drawdown and
stream depletion in a leaky aquifer system. Ground Water 45(5):
178–186. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2006.00272.x
Chen XH (2003) Analysis of pumping-induced infiltration in gaining
streams. J Hydrol 275(1–2):1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-
1694(02)00320-7
Chen XH, Shu LC (2002) Stream–aquifer interactions: evaluation of
depletion volume and residual effects from ground water pumping.
Ground Water 40(3):284–290. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.
2002.tb02656.x
Chen XH, Shu LC (2006) GW evapotranspiration captured by seasonally
pumped wells in river valleys. J Hydrol 318:334–347. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.06.025
Chen X, Yin Y (2004) Semianalytical solutions for stream depletion in
partially penetrating streams. Ground Water 42(1):92–96. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2004.tb02454.x
Cherepanskiy MM (2005) Teoreticheskie osnovy gidrogeologicheskih
prognozov vliyaniya otbora podzemnyh vod na rechnoi stok
[Theoretical base of hydrogeological forecasts of groundwater
pumping influence on streamflow]. NIA-Priroda, Moscow
Conrad LP, Beljin MS (1996) Evaluation of an induced infiltration model
as applied to glacial aquifer systems. Water Resour Bull 32(6):1209–
1220
Crosbie RS, McCallum JL, Walker GR, Chiew FHS (2010) Modeling
climate-change impacts on groundwater recharge in the Murray-
Darling Basin, Australia. Hydrogeol J 18(7):1639–1656. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10040-010-0625-x
Darama Y (1996) Hydraulic interactions between groundwater and sur-
face water resources caused by a pumping well. Tech J Civil Eng
(IMO) 88:1167–1185
Darama Y (2001) An analytical solution for stream depletion by cyclic
pumping of wells near streams with semipervious beds. Water
Resour Res 36(1):79–86. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.
2001.tb00353.x
Darama Y (2004) Stream depletion by a pumping well including the
effects of nonlinear variation of captured evaporation from a phreatic
aquifer. Hydrol Sci J 49(3):443–460. https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.
49.3.443.54346
De Silva M S, Nachabe M H, Šimůnek J, Carnahan R (2008) Simulating
root water uptake from a heterogeneous vegetative cover. J Irrig
Drain Eng 134(2):167–174. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-
9437(2008)134:2(167)
Doble RC, Crosbie RS (2017) Review: current and emerging methods for
catchment-scale modelling of recharge and evapotranspiration from
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767
shallow groundwater. Hydrogeol J 25:3–23. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10040-016-1470-3
Filimonova EA, Shtengelov RS (2013) The dependence of stream deple-
tion by seasonal pumping on various hydraulic characteristics and
engineering factors. Hydrogeol J 21(8):1821–1832. https://doi.org/
10.1007/s10040-013-1053-5
Filimonova E, Baldenkov M (2015) A combined-water-system approach
for tackling water scarcity: application to the Permilovo
Groundwater Basin, Russia. Hydrogeol J 24(2):489–502. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10040-015-1325-3
Fox G A, Durnford D S (2003) Unsaturated hyporheic zone flow in
stream/aquifer conjunctive systems. Adv Water Resour 26(9):989–
1000. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0309-1708(03)00087-3
Glover RE, Balmer GG (1954) River depletion resulting from pumping a
well near a river. Trans AGU 35(3):468–470
Grinevskii SO, Pozdnyakov SP (2010) Principles of regional estimation
of infiltration groundwater recharge based on geohydrological
models. Water Resour 37(5):638–652. https://doi.org/10.1134/
S0097807810050040
Grinevskiy S O, Pozdniakov S P (2013) The use of HYDRU S-1D for
groundwater recharge estimation in boreal environments In:
Šimůnek, J., M. Th. van Genuchten, R. Kodešová (Eds.).
HYDRUS software applications to subsurface flow and contaminant
transport problems, Dept. of Soil Science and Geology, Czech
University of Life Sciences, Prague, Czech Republic, pp 107–118
Grinevskiy SO, Pozdniakov SP (2017) A retrospective analysis of the
impact of climate change on groundwater resources. Moscow
Univ Geol Bull 72(3):200–208. https://doi.org/10.3103/
S0145875217030036
Hantush MS (1965) Wells near streams with semipervious beds. J
Geophys Res 70(12):2829–2838
Harbaugh AW (2005) MODFLOW-2005, the US Geological Survey
modular ground-water model: the ground-water flow process. US
Geol Surv Techniques Methods 6-A16
Hill E et al (2005) UCODE 2005 and six other computer codes for uni-
versal sensitivity analysis, calibration, and uncertainty evaluation.
US Geol Surv Techniques Methods 6-A11
Hunt B (1999) Unsteady stream depletion from ground water pumping.
Ground Water 37(1):98–102
Hunt B (2003) Unsteady stream depletion when pumping from
semiconfined aquifer. J Hydrol Eng 8:12–19. https://doi.org/10.
1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2003)8:1(12
Hunt B (2009) Stream depletion in a two-layer leaky aquifer system. J
Hydrol Eng 14(9):895–903. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)HE.
1943-5584.0000063
Jenkins CT (1968) Techniques for computing rate and volume of stream
depletion by wells. Ground Water 6(2):37–46
Kendy E, Bredehoeft JD (2006) Transient effects of groundwater
pumping and surface-water-irrigation returns on streamflow. Water
R e s o u r R e s 4 2 ( 8 ) : W 0 8 5 1 5 . h t t p s : / / d o i . o rg / 1 0 . 1 0 2 9 /
2005WR004792
Lackey G, Neupauer RM, Pitlick J (2015) Effects of streambed conduc-
tance on stream depletion. Water 7:271–287. https://doi.org/10.
3390/w7010271
Langhoff JH, Rasmussen KR, Christensen S (2006) Quantification and
regionalization of groundwater–surface water interaction along an
alluvial stream. J Hydrol 320:342–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2005.07.040
Minkin EL (1972) Vzaimosvyaz podzemnyh i poverhnostnyh vod i ee
znachenie pri reshenii gidrogeologicheskih i vodohozyaistvennyh
zadach [Groundwater and surface water interaction and its impor-
tance in solving some hydrogeological and water management prob-
lems]. Stroiizdat, Moscow
Nachabe M, Shah N, Ross M, Vomacka J (2005) Evapotranspiration of
two vegetation covers in a shallow water table environment. Soil Sci
Soc Am J 69(2):492–499. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj2005.0492
Hydrogeol J (2018) 26:2753–2767
Ping W, Grinevsky SO, Pozdniakov SP et al (2014) Application of the
water table fluctuation method for estimating evapotranspiration at
two phreatophyte-dominated sites under hyper-arid environments. J
Hydrol B 8(519):2289–2230. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.
2014.09.087
Pozdniakov SP, Vasilevskiy PY, Grinevskiy SO (2015) Estimation of
groundwater recharge by flow in vadose zone simulation at the
watershed with different landscapes and soil profiles. Engineering
geology and hydrogeology, no. 29. Bulgarian Academy of Sciences,
Sofia, Bulgaria, pp 47–58
Prudic DE (1989) Documentation of a computer program to simulate
stream–aquifer relations using a modular, finite-difference, ground-
water flow model. US Geol Surv Open-File Rep 88-729
Rassam DW, Knight JH, Pickett T (2007) Modelling ET capture during
groundwater pumping. In: Proceedings of MODSIM07 Int. Cong.
on modelling and simulation. Modelling & Simulation Society of
Australia & New Zealand, Canberra, Australia, pp 1450–1456
Rodríguez LB, Cello PA, Vionnet CA (2006) Modeling stream-aquifer
interactions in a shallow aquifer, Choele Choel Island, Patagonia,
Argentina. Hydrogeol J 14(4):591–602. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10040-005-0472-3
Shah N, Nachabe M, Ross M (2007) Extinction depth and evapotranspi-
ration from ground water under selected land covers. Ground Water
45(3):329–338. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.2007.00302.x
Shestakov VM (1965) Teoreticheskie osnovy ocenki podpora,
vodoponijeniya i drenaja [Theoretical base of estimation of an
afflux, drawdowns and drainage]. MSU, Moscow
Shestakov VM, Pashkovskii IS, Soyfer AM (1982) Hydrogeological in-
vestigations on irrigated areas. Nedra, Moscow
Šimůnek J, Šejna M, Saito H, Sakai M, van Genuchten MT (2009) The
HYDRUS-1D software package for simulating the one-dimensional
movement of water, heat, and multiple solutes in variably-saturated
media. Ver. 4.08, University of California, Riverside, CA
Sophocleous M, Koussis A, Martin JL, Perkins SP (1995) Evaluation of
simplified stream–aquifer depletion models for water rights admin-
istration. Ground Water 33(4):579–588
2767
Szilagyi J, Gribovszki Z, Kalicz P (2007) Estimation of catchment-scale
evapotranspiration from baseflow recession data: numerical model
and practical application results. J Hydrol 336:206–217. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.01.004
Theis CV (1941) The effect of a well on the flow of a nearby stream.
Trans Am Geophys Union 22(3):734–738
Todd DK, Mays LW (2005) Groundwater hydrology, 3rd edn. Wiley,
Chichester, UK
V.V. Dokuchaev Soil Science Institute (2016) Soil database of Russian
Soil Institute. http://eng.esoil.ru. Accessed November 2016
Wallace RB, Darama Y, Annable MD (1990) Stream depletion by cyclic
pumping of wells. Water Resour Res 26(6):1263–1270
Wang P, Pozdniakov SP, Shestakov VM (2015) Optimum experimental
design of a monitoring network for parameter identification at riv-
erbank well fields. J Hydrol 523:531–541. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2015.02.004
Wilson JL (1993) Induced infiltration in aquifers with ambient flow.
Water Resour Res 29(10):3503–3512
Woessner WW (2000) Stream and fluvial plain ground water interactions:
Rescaling hydrogeologic thought. Ground Water 38(3):423–429.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-006-0110-8
Yeh H-D, Chang Y-C, Zlotnik VA (2008) Stream depletion rate and
volume from groundwater pumping in wedge-shape aquifers. J
Hydrol 349(3):501–511. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2007.11.
025
Zhang L, Hickel K, Dawes WR, Chiew FHS, Western AW, Briggs PR
(2004) A rational function approach for estimating mean annual
evapotranspiration. Water Resour Res 40:W02502. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2003WR002710
Zlotnik VA (2004) A concept of maximum stream depletion rate for leaky
aquifers in alluvial valleys. Water Resour Res 40:W06507. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2003WR002932
Zume JT, Tarhule A (2008) Simulating the impacts of groundwater
pumping on stream–aquifer dynamics in semiarid northwestern
Oklahoma, USA. Hydrobiol J 16:797–810. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10040-007-0268-8