See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/226207604

Groundwater-flow modeling in the Yucatan karstic aquifer, Mexico

Article in Hydrogeology Journal · October 2002

DOI: 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6

CITATIONS READS

82 256

3 authors, including:

Roger González-Herrera Ismael Sanchez Pinto

Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán Universidad Autónoma de Yucatán
33 PUBLICATIONS 181 CITATIONS 12 PUBLICATIONS 130 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Roger González-Herrera on 08 July 2022.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Groundwater-flow modeling in the Yucatan karstic aquifer, Mexico
Roger González-Herrera · Ismael Sánchez-y-Pinto
José Gamboa-Vargas
Abstract The current conceptual model of the uncon-
fined karstic aquifer in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico, is
that a fresh-water lens floats above denser saline water
that penetrates more than 40 km inland. The transmis-
sivity of the aquifer is very high so the hydraulic gradi-
ent is very low, ranging from 7–10 mm/km through most
of the northern part of the peninsula. The computer mod-
eling program AQUIFER was used to investigate the re-
gional groundwater flow in the aquifer. The karstified
zone was modeled using the assumption that it acts hy-
draulically similar to a granular, porous medium. As part
of the calibration, the following hypotheses were tested:
(1) karstic features play an important role in the ground-
water-flow system; (2) a ring or belt of sinkholes in the
area is a manifestation of a zone of high transmissivity
that facilitates the channeling of groundwater toward the
Gulf of Mexico; and (3) the geologic features in the
southern part of Yucatan influence the groundwater-flow
system. The model shows that the Sierrita de Ticul fault,
in the southwestern part of the study area, acts as a flow
barrier and head values decline toward the northeast. The
modeling also shows that the regional flow-system dy-
namics have not been altered despite the large number of
pumping wells because the volume of water pumped is
small compared with the volume of recharge, and the
well-developed karst system of the region has a very
high hydraulic conductivity.
Résumé Le modèle conceptuel classique de l’aquifère
karstique libre de la péninsule du Yucatan (Mexique)
consiste en une lentille d’eau douce flottant sur une eau
salée plus dense qui pénètre à plus de 40 km à l’intérieur
des terres. La transmissivité de l’aquifère est très élevée,
en sorte que le gradient hydraulique est très faible, com-
Received: 13 February 1998 / Accepted: 6 June 2002
Published online: 10 September 2002
© Springer-Verlag 2002
R. González-Herrera (✉) · I. Sánchez-y-Pinto · J. Gamboa-Vargas
Autonomous University of Yucatan, Engineering School,
P.O. Box 150, Urban Mail Administration 150,
Cordemex CP 97111, Mérida Yucátan, Mexico
e-mail: gherrera@tunku.uady.mx
Fax: +0152-9999410189
Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552
pris entre 7 et 10 mm/km dans la plus grande partie du
nord de la péninsule. Le modèle AQUIFER a été utilisé
pour explorer les écoulements souterrains régionaux
dans cet aquifère. La zone karstifiée a été modélisée en
posant l’hypothèse qu’il fonctionne hydrauliquement
comme un milieu poreux granulaire. Au cours de la cali-
bration, les hypothèses suivantes ont été testées: (1) les
phénomènes karstiques jouent un rôle important dans le
système aquifère, (2) un anneau ou une ceinture de dé-
pressions dans la région est la manifestation d’une zone
à forte transmissivité qui permet l’écoulement en con-
duits de l’eau souterraine en direction du Golfe du Mexi-
que, et (3) la situation géologique dans la partie sud du
Yucatan détermine les écoulements souterrains. Le mo-
dèle montre que la faille de la Sierrita de Ticul, dans la
partie sud-ouest de la région étudiée, joue le rôle de bar-
rière et que les valeurs de la piézométrie décroissent en
direction du nord-est. La modélisation montre également
que la dynamique du système aquifère à l’échelle régio-
nale n’a pas été modifiée malgré le grand nombre de
puits de pompage, parce que le volume pompé est faible
en comparaison du volume de recharge; en outre, le ré-
seau karstique très bien développé dans cette région pos-
sède une très forte conductivité hydraulique.
Resumen El modelo conceptual actual del acuífero
cárstico no confinado de la Península de Yucatán (Méxi-
co) es el de un lentejón de agua dulce flotando sobre
agua salada, más densa, la cual penetra más de 40 kiló-
metros tierra adentro. Debido a la alta conductividad hi-
dráulica del acuífero, existe un gradiente hidráulico muy
bajo cuyo rango está entre 7 y 10 milímetros por kilóme-
tro en la porción norte de la península. Se utilizó el códi-
go AQUIFER para investigar el sistema de flujo de las
aguas subterráneas a escala regional en el acuífero. La
zona carstificada se modeló suponiendo que actúa hi-
dráulicamente como un medio poroso granular. Como
parte de la calibración, se probaron las siguientes hipóte-
sis: (1) las características cársticas desempeñan un papel
importante en el sistema de flujo de agua subterránea;
(2) un anillo o cinturón de sumideros en el área es una
manifestación de una zona de alta transmisividad que
conduce las aguas subterráneas hacia el Golfo de Méxi-
co; y (3) las propiedades geológicas de la porción sur de
Yucatán influyen en el sistema de flujo de agua subterrá-
nea. El modelo demostró que la falla de la Sierrita de Ti-
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6
540
cul, situada en el sudoeste de la zona de estudio, actúa
como una barrera al flujo, y que los niveles piezométri-
cos disminuyen hacia el nordeste. La modelación tam-
bién mostró que la dinámica del sistema de flujo regional
no ha sido alterada a pesar de la gran cantidad de capta-
ciones, ya que el volumen extraído es pequeño en com-
paración con la recarga al acuífero; además, el sistema
cárstico de la región, bien desarrollado, posee una con-
ductividad hidráulica muy elevada.
Keywords Groundwater flow · Hydraulic properties
of aquifers · Karst · Numerical modeling · Yucatán
Introduction
The Yucatan Peninsula, shown in Fig. 1, is geographical-
ly distinctive, being bounded by the Gulf of Mexico on
the north and west and the Caribbean Sea on the east.
The Sierrita de Ticul and a semicircular belt of sinkholes
(cenotes) are the most important geologic features in the
State of Yucatan, (Villasuso and Mendez 2000). The for-
mer is an upland area underlain by Upper Cretaceous
strata and is separated by a normal fault from the adja-
cent lower plain underlain by Lower Tertiary strata
(Weidie 1985). The belt of sinkholes is believed to re-
flect an older meteorite-impact crater (Pope et al. 1991;
Hildebrand et al. 1991). Hydraulic and hydrochemical
evidence reveals the hydrogeologic influence of these
features on the pattern of groundwater flow (Steinich
1996; Steinich and Marin 1997). Beneath the upland, on
the upthrown side of the Sierrita de Ticul fault, the
groundwater level is high and the hydraulic gradient is
from the interior northeastward towards the coast. Ac-
cording to Marin (1990), the belt of sinkholes acts as a
zone of high hydraulic conductivity that conveys the
groundwater towards the coast.
In the northwestern part of Yucatan, the hydrogeology
of the Tertiary karstic aquifer is dominated by strata of
high hydraulic conductivity at various depths. Buckley et
al. (1994) conducted electrical-conductivity and temper-
ature logging that showed preferential groundwater flow
at several horizons within the upper 40 m, related to dis-
solution cavities at depths of 11–12, 21–22, and
29–32 m. The importance of this karstic aquifer as a wa-
ter source is manifested by weak drawdowns and limit-
ed-size cones of depression in response to pumping, and
by the almost immediate stabilization of the water table
during pumping tests. The aquifer system is, in fact, the
only source of water supply in the Yucatan Peninsula.
This site investigation was carried out to refine scien-
tific knowledge of the hydraulic properties of the aquifer
system, which will be needed to plan for future addition-
al demands for water. Numerical modeling techniques
are used to simulate flow conditions and to develop vari-
ous conceptualizations of the hydraulic properties of the
shallow, unconfined aquifer system, with particular em-
phasis on the hydrogeology of the Sierrita de Ticul and
the belt of cenotes.
Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552
General Description of the Study Area
The topography of Yucatan Peninsula is nearly flat, but
the area slopes gently northward to the sea from the
Sierrita de Ticul in the southern part, about 70 km south
of Merida, which is the capital of the state of Yucatan.
The Sierrita de Ticul, 150 m above sea level and
100–110 m above the adjacent plain to the north (Lesser
and Weidie 1988), is interpreted as a landform that re-
sulted from faulting or crustal displacement (Isphording
1975).
The State of Yucatan is underlain by karstic lime-
stone. Locally, the surface is a very hard limestone,
called laja, which is formed by the solution and precipi-
tation of calcium carbonate near the ground surface, and
cements loose grains and shell fragments into a hard lay-
er.
The detailed geologic map of the Yucatan Peninsula
by Bonet and Butterlin (1962), with additions by Lopez-
Ramos (1973), shows that limestone and dolomite of
Eocene and younger ages are dominant. The limestones
are generally hard, crystalline, and of marble-like tex-
ture. The high calcium-carbonate strata weather to a thin,
inorganic, insoluble residue that overlies most of the
Yucatan Peninsula directly on the parent rock with little
or no transition zone. Bedrock exposures are common on
the plain, which is flat and featureless except for solution
openings. In the northwestern part of the peninsula, the
surface material is primarily unconsolidated calcareous
beach sand, but locally some deposits of uncommon clay
minerals are present (Isphording and Wilson 1974).
Where a soil cover protects the bedrock, the surface is
smooth. Furrow-like rills on the rock surface are com-
mon near the coast and small solution widened fractures
are common everywhere. Solution pipes several centi-
meters in diameter and, in places, two or more meters in
depth also occur on exposed surfaces. Also present, are
larger bowl-like depressions with steep or gently sloping
sides, called sartenejas, which vary in diameter from less
than 1 m to several meters.
Below the soil and hard capping surface layer, weath-
ering has altered the original rock and created a soft,
usually friable, nearly pure calcium-carbonate material
known in Yucatan as sascab or sahcab. It is unevenly dis-
tributed and varies in thickness, but in some localities it
is as much as several meters thick. Cavities and quarries,
called sascaberas, are common where sascab has been
removed for domestic use or road building.
Gmitro (1987) examined cores of three boreholes,
each 100 m deep,drilled by the Mexican Ministry of Ag-
riculture and Water Resources (SARAH). The cores in-
clude coquina, caliche profiles, thin dolomite layers,
karst cavern deposits, solution openings, both moldic
and intraparticle porosity and fractures.
Solution processes have produced hollows, openings,
depressions, and even caverns throughout the peninsula.
Rounded, steep-walled collapse sinkholes in which
groundwater is visible, called cenotes, are the best
known and perhaps the most interesting landform of
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6

Fig. 1 Location of the study
area in Yucatan, Mexico
Yucatan. Cenotes are commonly grouped or aligned rath-
er than scattered randomly over the surface. Sánchez
(1999) surveyed 56 caves and sinkholes in Yucatan and
reported a correlation between the direction of maximum
hydraulic conductivity of the aquifer and the dominant
orientation of caves. About 95% of the surveyed cavities
are 15–96 m long; the longest is about 3,000 m.
Most of the cenotes occur in an irregular, semicircular
belt almost 240 km long, centered roughly near the town
of Progreso (Fig. 1). On its northeastern side, cenotes are
present within about 15 km of the Gulf of Mexico; the
southwestern segment, which in places is about 2 km
wide, is oriented roughly parallel to and about 20–40 km
northeast of the Sierrita de Ticul upland. Most of the ce-
notes are locally closely spaced along the belt, but in
some parts they are more widely spaced. The circular na-
ture of the cenote belt is attributed to slump faulting and
perhaps viscous relaxation during post-impact subsi-
dence of early Tertiary limestone near the rim of the bur-
ied Chicxulub crater, which resulted from a large mete-
orite impact at the end of the Cretaceous period (Pope et
al. 1991; Hildebrand et al. 1995, 1998).
The State of Yucatan is in a tropical zone, as defined
by the Köppen climate classification system (INEGI
1984), and, like most such regions, has distinguishable
wet and dry seasons. The wet season normally extends
from May through early October, the dry season runs
through the winter months. March is the month of lowest
precipitation in the area of Merida. In the wet season,
Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552
541
rainfall peaks in June and September or October. Annual
precipitation ranges from 470 mm at Progreso on the
Gulf of Mexico to 1,500 mm to the east along the border
with the State of Quintana Roo, as shown in Fig. 2
(SARH 1989; CNA 1997).
The broad weather and climatic patterns in the area
are well known because of reliable data recorded at nu-
merous weather stations in and close to the Yucatan, but
a single storm or hurricane can produce an abnormal
amount of rain. The distinctive feature of the hydrology
of the peninsula is the complete lack of surface drainage,
for all precipitation either percolates downward through
the karstic limestone to the extensive subsurface flow
system through the cenotes, or is lost through evapotran-
spiration.
Evapotranspiration is 90–95% of the precipitation that
falls on the Yucatan State (Anonymous 1983). Cruz-
Cetina (1978) considered, for practical purposes, zero
runoff and 30% infiltration; the remaining 70% of the
precipitation was allocated to evapotranspiration. Infil-
tration is highly variable, the average might be greater
than 30%. Recharge to the aquifer is 80% of infiltration
(Gobierno del Estado de Yucatan 1984). Despite the ab-
sence of rivers in the Yucatan, groundwater is abundant
because the aquifer is porous and permeable.
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6
542
Fig. 2 Average annual precipitation, Yucatan and vicinity (SARH
1989)
Regional Flow System
According to Doehring and Buttler (1974), the highly
permeable rocks of northern Yucatan comprise a single
flow system in which a layer of fresh water overlies sa-
line water, although others suggest that there are two
permeable zones separated by a zone of low permeability
(Shattuck 1933; Perry 1990). The flow system interpret-
ed by Doehring and Buttler is essentially the same as
that suggested by Cole (1910), i.e., that heavy rainfall in
interior areas produce relatively high groundwater levels
beneath the Sierrita de Ticul upland, from which hydrau-
lic gradients trend toward the coast (Lesser and Weidie
1988). The configuration of the mean annual water table,
shown in Fig. 3, indicates that most of the region acts as
a recharge area; there is no evidence of a confined aqui-
fer with a potentiometric surface different from the water
table. Flow is concentrated along systems of rock frac-
tures. A fresh-water lens floats above denser saline water
that penetrates more than 40 km inland (Back and
Hanshaw 1970; Durazo et al. 1980; Back and Lesser
1981; Gaona et al. 1985; Perry et al. 1989).
Because of the high hydraulic conductivity of the
aquifer, the hydraulic gradient is very low, 7–10 mm/km
throughout most of the northern part of the peninsula
(Marin et al. 1990). The water-table elevation is less than
2 m above sea level in a belt 15–40 km wide inland from
Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552
the coast and only from 2–4 m in the central part of the
State of Yucatan (SARH 1989; CNA 1997). In the south-
western part, about 160 km from the coast, the water ta-
ble is only 10 m above sea level (Fig. 3).
Although a low hydraulic gradient suggests a very
high hydraulic conductivity, Marin et al. (1987), using a
tracer dye to determine groundwater velocities in ce-
notes, failed to observe any water movement. Marin
(1990) concluded that lateral groundwater velocities
within the cenotes are very small. The same conclusion
was reached by observing the air bubbles released by
divers, which rose to the surface in approximately a
straight line; this near-zero velocity, of course, does not
necessarily apply to lateral groundwater flow in con-
duits.
Regardless of the large number of extraction sites in
the study area, groundwater flow has not been altered
significantly. Observations of water-table elevations
have not detected depressions in the water table or sig-
nificant variations in groundwater-flow directions in the
area. This absence of measurable responses to ground-
water extraction presumably is mainly because of the
very high aquifer transmissivity.
Observation-well hydrographs show an annual maxi-
mum fluctuation of about 1.5 m (SARH 1989). The wa-
ter table is highest in October and lowest in April at most
monitoring points. Hydrographs in the southern part are
less sensitive to variations in rainfall than those in the
northern part of the region. The relatively deep water ta-
ble and the presence of clay strata above the aquifer in
the south may explain this relatively insensitive response
(CNA 1997).
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6
 543

Fig. 3 Configuration of the mean annual water table (SARH 1989)

Fig. 4 Configuration of the water table in the northern part of Yucatan during the dry season, April 1988

Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552 DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6

544
Fig. 5 Configuration of the water table in the northern part of
Yucatan during the wet season, July 1988
Water levels in shallow wells in the study area show
that, generally, the water table is a reflection of the re-
gional topography. Potentiometric maps of the water ta-
ble in the northwestern part of the study area during
April (dry season) and July (rainy season) are shown in
Figs. 4 and 5, respectively. Marin (1990) reports varia-
tions in the water table in the northwestern part of the
study area of 5–61 cm over a 2.5-year observation period
(1987–1989). The wider spacing of the equipotential
lines in the central and eastern parts of the area (smaller
hydraulic gradient), shown in Figs. 3, 4, and 5, has been
interpreted to result from the high hydraulic conductivity
in the ring of cenotes (Marin 1990).
Fresh-water submarine springs are present in the Gulf
of Mexico at several localities along the coast; especially
just west of Progreso (Fig. 1; Casares 1907). Flow rates
of as much as 1 m3/s have been recorded at intersections
of the terminus of the ring of cenotes with the coastline
(Marin 1990).
Simulation of the Groundwater-Flow System
Model Description
The AQUIFER program (McLaren 1991), provided by
the Waterloo Centre for Groundwater Research, Water-
loo, Ontario, Canada, was used to model the groundwa-
Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552
ter system in the Yucatan aquifer. For an unconfined
aquifer, this program assumes groundwater flow to be
strictly horizontal. AQUIFER uses a two-dimensional fi-
nite-element numerical scheme based on the Galerkin
method (Sudicky 1989), which yields a matrix equation
of the form [G]{h}={f}, where [G] is the coefficient ma-
trix, also known as the conductance matrix, {h} repre-
sents the unknowns (heads), and {f} is the flux vector.
The matrix equation is assembled by calculating the con-
tributions to each term in the coefficient matrix from a
patch of elements.
The Boussinesq equation is used in the AQUIFER
program to deal with nonlinearity. The equation is easily
linearized in the model by using the known values of the
saturated thickness and iteration until convergence, as
the saturated thickness values are progressively updated
(Bear 1988).
When the Boussinesq equation is applied to an uncon-
fined aquifer, the following Dupuit assumptions are used
(Bear 1988): (1) flow lines are horizontal and equipoten-
tial lines are vertical, and (2) the horizontal hydraulic
gradient is equal to the slope of the free surface and is
invariant with depth. The model can handle either tran-
sient or steady-state situations in confined and uncon-
fined aquifers when aquifer and aquitard thicknesses, hy-
draulic conductivities, storage coefficient, specific yield,
and recharge and discharge rates are provided.
The AQUIFER model was developed for porous me-
dia, but it was used in the unconfined karstic aquifer be-
neath the Yucatan, constrained by these considerations:
(1) large representative elemental volumes (REV’s), rel-
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6

Fig. 6 Finite-element grid for
the AQUIFER computer model
of the Yucatan aquifer
ative to the conduit spacing, are used to minimize the
impact of dissolution cavities and conduits; and (2) the
water table and/or other potentiometric surfaces are well
defined.
The model grid generator, written by R.G. McLaren
of the Waterloo Centre for Groundwater Research, On-
tario, Canada, used a discretized domain consisting of an
array of nodes and associated linear triangular elements.
The resulting finite-element grid does not have inactive
nodes because the elements are fitted exactly to a bound-
ary, which is necessary in order to simulate interactions
between the groundwater system and its boundaries.
The model area is divided into 2,391 elements contain-
ing 1,257 nodes and covers a surface of 3.655×
104 km2; the discretization is shown in Fig. 6. The scale of
the model is much larger than the average spacing of kars-
tic features. In the northwestern part of the study area, the
model contains triangular elements with a 3-km spacing
between nodes; in the remaining area, the triangular ele-
ments have a 10-km spacing. At these spacings each ele-
ment in the model grid should include enough karstic
voids to be representative of the volume of the aquifer.
Hydrogeologic Data
Hydrogeologic data on the Yucatan aquifer were used to
calibrate the model, as well as to describe the aquifer
properties and hydrologic stresses. Pumping tests in the
Yucatan karstic aquifer do not yield good results because
no drawdown is measurable in most cases, and when
drawdowns are measured interpretative techniques are
difficult to apply properly. Marin (1990) reported hy-
draulic conductivity values of 1×100 and 1×10–1 m/s, ob-
tained by modeling the flow system in the northwestern
part of the region. He treated the aquifer as a two-layer
system and the ring of cenotes as a high hydraulic-con-
Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552
545
ductivity channel. Reeve and Perry (1990) reported hy-
draulic-conductivity values for the aquifer on the north-
ern Yucatan coast, 18 km west of Progreso, which range
from 3×10–4–5×10–2 m/s. Andrade-Briceño (1984) calcu-
lated the hydraulic conductivity in the well field of the
Merida I water-supply plant as 9×10–4–1×10–2 m/s. Hy-
draulic conductivity values, listed by Gonzalez (1984) at
1×10–6–5×10–3 m/s, are considered minimum values be-
cause they were obtained from permeameter tests on
cores taken from boreholes drilled around Merida and
along the highway to Progreso by the Ministry of Agri-
culture and Water Resources (SARH) in 1982. These
values are influenced by small flow channels in the cores
and are typically several orders of magnitude smaller
than values measured in-situ. Of course, the hydraulic
conductivity of large-scale flow channels, such as frac-
tures, fissures and dissolution cavities, are not measur-
able in cores.
Hydrologic stresses that are considered in the model-
ing include pumping, recharge, and evapotranspiration.
Of these, pumping rates are the easiest to estimate. Data
for estimating evapotranspiration (ET) are sparse and un-
reliable. Recharge can vary significantly from one model
cell or element to another, but there is little available in-
formation on field-measured recharge rates, so a single
value, a fraction of 1/5 of the mean annual rainfall, as
distributed over the area, was applied to the model grid.
Two types of hydrogeologic boundaries are represent-
ed by mathematical conditions in the model: type 1,
specified-head boundaries (Dirichlet conditions), for
which the head is known; and type 2, specified-flow
boundaries (Neuman conditions), for which the deriva-
tive of head (flux) across a boundary is known. For no-
flow boundary conditions the flux is specified as zero.
The boundaries were selected to match known hydro-
logic conditions, such as hydraulic and physical boundaries
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6
546

Fig. 7 Pumping well fields in Yucatan (SARH 1989) Table 1 Groundwater-extraction rates in the Yucatan. Location of
pumping well fields shown in Fig. 7. Data from SARH (1989)

Water use (Mm3/year)

of the groundwater-flow system, the former being the
groundwater divide and the latter is sea level. Hydraulic Farming Urban Domestic Industrial Total
boundaries are transitory features that can shift in location
or disappear altogether if hydrologic conditions change. Horticola 5 2 5 0 12
Porcion Sur 68 8 5 5 86
Hydraulic boundaries used in the AQUIFER model, Merida 0 60 0 10 70
shown in Fig. 3, were defined for the water-table map by Dzonot Carretero 11 1 10 0 22
SARH (1989). The shoreline of the Gulf of Mexico is a Chankom 9 1 3 0 13
physical boundary of the regional flow system with a Valladolid 14 4 2 5 25
Remainder 17a 0 15a 5a 37
specified head and another specified-head boundary is
Total 124 76 40 25 265
the boundary line B–C on the southern edge of the model
area. No-flow boundaries are those along boundaries a Estimated
A–B, C–D, and D–E. A specified-head boundary in the
groundwater system may allow an inexhaustible supply
of water to enter at the boundary without changing the ering the similarity of the Yucatan aquifer to that of the
head at a specified head node. Floridan aquifer (Johnston and Miller 1988). The trans-
To determine the configuration of the groundwater missivity of the Yucatan unconfined aquifer varies spa-
flow system, water levels, measured by personnel of the tially because of variations in the saturated thickness,
Engineering School of the Autonomous University of which result from water-table fluctuations.
Yucatan in existing dug shallow wells, were used to cal- Surface runoff is negligible (Cruz-Cetina 1978), so
culate the hydraulic head. The position of the interface the distribution and fate of precipitation is controlled by
of the fresh water and saline water was calculated using infiltration and evaporation, at 30 and 70%, respectively.
the Ghyben–Herzberg principle in which the aquifer is Infiltration was modeled as recharge at each node, and
assumed to be a thin lens whose thickness is computed pumping wells were simulated effectively as nodes. The
from water-elevation data; the results are supported by model code calculates the head at every point, thus al-
field evidence. Marin (1990) reported the Yucatan aqui- lowing direct computation of the drawdown. Yucatan
fer thickness to be 18 m. However, from repeated simu- was divided into seven extraction zones (pumping-well
lations carried out for calibration purposes, the final fields) by SARH (1989), shown in Fig. 7. The yearly ex-
thickness along the Yucatan coast was set at 5 m consid- traction rates for various uses are presented in Table 1.

Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552 DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6


Calibration of the Model
Calibration was accomplished by specifying system pa-
rameters, such as hydraulic conductivity and porosity,
and hydrologic stresses such as the recharge rate, in or-
der to simulate the heads, and by comparing the simulat-
ed and recorded heads.
Specified-head boundaries were simulated by setting
the head at the boundary nodes for the coast and south-
ernmost boundary (Fig. 3, boundary B–C) at 0 and 8 m
above mean sea level, respectively; the heads at the
boundary nodes represent the vertically averaged head in
the aquifer at these hydraulic boundaries. Head measure-
ments were derived from field data reported by SARH
(1989).
Model calibration was performed under steady-state
conditions, using representative steady-state water lev-
els, namely the July 1988 water levels (Fig. 5) in the ar-
eas that were considered to represent steady-state condi-
tions under the stresses that prevail during the wet sea-
son.
Specific physical and hydraulic conditions that were
considered during the calibration process were Case A,
where the aquifer is entirely homogeneous, so as to de-
termine, for modeling purposes whether or not the kars-
tic features play an important role in the system; and
case B, where high hydraulic conductivity was assigned
to the ring of cenotes, and a lower hydraulic conductivity
was assigned to the remainder of the area. The objective
was to demonstrate whether or not the cenote ring con-
veys groundwater towards the coast. In case C, the area
of the Sierrita de Ticul was simulated as a zone of low
hydraulic conductivity, and the rest of the region was as-
signed a higher hydraulic conductivity in order to deter-
mine the influence of the regional geology on the
groundwater-flow system.
The results of the calibration were evaluated both
qualitatively and quantitatively, but, even in a quantita-
tive evaluation, judgment of the best fit between the
model and the observed data is still subjective. A com-
Fig. 8 Map showing areas of
computer-simulated water-table
elevations depicting the gener-
alized configuration of the wa-
ter table, Yucatan. Case A. Lo-
cation of model area shown in
Fig. 3
Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552
547
parison of contour maps of the measured and simulated
heads readily highlights the spatial distribution of error
in the calibration. A scatter-plot of measured against
simulated heads was also used to evaluate the effective-
ness of the calibration.
Calibration results consist of measured and simulated
heads, together with differences and some type of aver-
age of the differences. The average of the differences
was used to quantify the average error in the calibration.
Three different ways of expressing the average differ-
ence between simulated and measured heads were used:
(1) the mean error (ME), or the mean difference between
the measured heads and the simulated heads; (2) the
mean absolute error (MAE), or the mean of the absolute
value of the differences between the measured and simu-
lated heads; and (3) the root mean squared (RMS) error,
or the standard deviation, which is the average of the
squared differences between the measured and simulated
heads.
Case A. Homogeneous System
When the Yucatan aquifer was considered to be homoge-
neous, the best calibration was obtained using a hydraulic
conductivity of 0.55 m/s, a porosity of 0.35, and the infer-
ence that the recharge was not uniformly distributed. Re-
charge was assumed to be 12% of the mean-annual pre-
cipitation in the southwestern part of the model area, 10%
in the southern part where a thick soil cover is present,
and 20% in the remainder of the area. The simulated
heads or elevations of the water table in the model area
for this case are shown in Fig. 8. The boundary condi-
tions inferred for case A were that the specified head
along the coast was set to zero elevation; and that no-flow
boundary conditions existed for the rest of the model ar-
ea. When the southernmost boundary (Fig. 3, line B–C)
was set to 8 m and modeled as a type 1, specified-head
boundary, satisfactory calibration was never attained.
Kriging (Krige 1966) was applied to the field data for
July 1988 water-table elevations (Fig. 5) in the area en-
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6
548
Fig. 9 Map showing areas of
simulated water-table eleva-
tions, computed by the kriging
method depicting the general-
ized configuration of the water
table, Yucatan. Location of
model area shown in Fig. 3

Fig. 10 Map showing areas of

computer-simulated water-table
elevations depicting the gener-
alized configuration of the wa-
ter table, Yucatan. Case B. Lo-
cation of model area shown in
Fig. 3

closed by the ring of cenotes and along the coast. Be-
yond these areas, field data were insufficient. The re-
sulting simulated water-table elevations are shown in
Fig. 9. There is a reduction of more than 4 m in the ele-
vation of the water table in the southernmost part of the
area as compared with the elevations reported by SARH
(1989) (Fig. 3). A reasonable calibration was achieved,
however, when the southern hydrogeologic boundary
(B–C) was assumed to be type 2, a specific-flow bound-
ary.
Case B. High Hydraulic Conductivity Assigned
to the Ring of Cenotes
In the case B model, a high value of hydraulic conduc-
tivity (6 m/s) was assigned to the ring of cenotes, and the
rest of the region was assumed to have a constant and
lower value of hydraulic conductivity (0.15 m/s). The re-
charge and porosity values used were the same as for
case A. This combination of hydrologic values resulted
in a good calibration. The simulated head distribution is
shown in Fig. 10.
Boundary conditions in this model were the same as
those initially applied in case A, namely the specific-
head elevation at the coast was set at zero and that at the
southernmost boundary was set at 8 m. These values,
however, resulted in an unsatisfactory calibration. Thus,
the boundary conditions inferred for case B were that the
specified-head elevation along the coast was set at zero
and in the rest of the model area no-flow boundary con-
ditions existed. An anomaly in the water-table elevations
in the central part of the area (Fig. 10), shown by the
dashed line for the simulated water-table elevation of
1.5 m above sea level, resulted from the assignment of a
hydraulic-conductivity value to the ring of cenotes which
was two orders of magnitude higher than for the sur-
rounding area. Hydraulic gradients are high in the north-
east and low in the south and east. In the south, the simu-
lated heads are 1.5–5 m lower compared with the kriged
field (Fig. 9) and SARH data (Fig. 3).

Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552 DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6


Fig. 11 Map showing areas of
computer-simulated water-table
elevations depicting the gener-
alized configuration of the wa-
ter table, Yucatan. Case C. Lo-
cation of model area shown in
Fig. 3
As interpreted from Fig. 10, the ring of cenotes may
not act as a zone of high flow, conveying groundwater to
fresh-water springs at the coast, and intercepting the re-
gional flow system, as has been interpreted by some
workers (Marin 1990; Perry et al. 1995; Velazquez 1995;
Steinich and Marin 1996, 1997; Steinich et al. 1996),
who believe the ring is an efficient drain that conducts
groundwater toward specific discharge points north and
northwest of the region. However, no strong evidence
has been offered to support this hypothesis. Cold thermal
anomalies at the northeastern terminus of the cenote ring
have been recorded on Landsat TM thermal infrared
imaginary in the coastal lagoon during the dry season
(April 1985), and in both the lagoon and offshore during
the wet season (October 1986; Marin 1990). According
to Marin (1990), such anomalies have been confirmed as
fresh-water springs and have been interpreted along the
Yucatan coast as springs fed by flows from the cenote
ring. These thermal anomalies change in size from the
wet to the dry season, but they do not change at all dur-
ing the dry season. Is this an indication that flow through
the cenote ring responds to seasonal changes in rainfall?
This uncertainty remains because of the lack of data in
the southern and western part of the study area.
Case C. Low Hydraulic Conductivity Assigned
to the Sierrita de Ticul Fault Zone
The Sierrita de Ticul fault in the southwestern and south-
ernmost parts of the study area was considered to be an
area of low hydraulic conductivity because of its higher
elevation, the presence of less-permeable strata, and the
separation of the highland from the adjacent plain by a
normal fault that may serve as a low-permeability barri-
er.
If recharge is considered to be 80% of the infiltrated
water (Gobierno del Estado de Yucatan 1984), it would
amount to 24% of the precipitation. SARH (1989) re-
ported recharge to be 20% of the rainfall at the time that
the water balance for the State of Yucatan was deter-
mined. Considering the spatially variable average annual
precipitation in the area (Fig. 2), recharge was assumed,
Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552
549
for modeling, to be spatially non-uniform and to range
from 20–24% of precipitation.
The best steady-state calibration for the case C model
was obtained using the following parameter values: re-
charge was considered non-uniform and 24% of the
amount of precipitation on any location in the model ar-
ea; porosity was set at 0.35; and hydraulic conductivity
was set at 5.5×10–3 m/s for the Sierrita de Ticul upland
and 1.115 m/s for the remaining modeled area. The fol-
lowing boundary conditions were assumed: (1) speci-
fied-head boundaries were set at 0 and 8 m for the coast-
al area and for the southernmost boundary (Fig. 3, line
B–C), respectively; and (2) no-flow boundaries were as-
sumed for the remaining borders of the modeled area.
The distribution of simulated heads for case C is
shown in Fig. 11, and there is reasonable agreement be-
tween the simulated and measured heads. The differ-
ences in the southern part of the area, between the
kriged, simulated-head belts (Fig. 9 and those in
Fig. 11), are due to the lack of data in this area. As stated
earlier, the field data for kriging to calculate the heads
were insufficient in areas generally outside the ring of
cenotes.
Head values in the southern and southwestern parts of
the study area decline northward along a steep hydraulic
gradient because of the influence of topography and the
Sierrita de Ticul fault. Higher hydraulic conductivities
toward the north might be a result of changes in geology,
which would account for the abrupt northward reduction
of the hydraulic gradients and the water-level decline
from approximately 3 m near the Sierrita de Ticul fault
to 0 m along the coast. Over this study area, hydraulic
conductivity decreases northeastward by more than two
orders of magnitude, a consequence of the higher degree
of karstification in northern Yucatan.
Sensitivity Analysis
A sensitivity analysis of the parameters that were al-
lowed to vary in the models, namely recharge and
hydraulic conductivity, was performed. Recharge
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6
550
Table 2 Measured heads and simulated heads from the sensitivity Table 3 Mass balance at steady state. Best-fit calibration for Case
analysis. Case C C model. Units in Mm3/year

Measured heads Simulated heads (m a.s.l.) Component Inflow (+) Outflow (–)
(m a.s.l.)
Best Recharge Hydraulic Dirichlet nodes 10,028.83 18,376.76
calibration (20% of conductivity Recharge 8,525.09
precipitation) (0.115 m/s) Pumping 50.0 227.15
Total 18,603.92 18,603.91
1.40 1.49 1.40 5.92 Difference (inflow–outflow) 0.01
1.42 1.35 1.26 5.45
1.45 1.30 1.21 5.27
1.46 1.33 1.24 5.41
1.45 1.32 1.23 5.42
1.40 1.08 1.01 4.46 system is from the following: (1) 10,029 Mm3 of water
1.35 1.05 0.98 4.35 enters the system annually via the southernmost bound-
1.36 1.03 0.96 4.31 ary; (2) 8,525 Mm3 of water annually recharges the wa-
0.98 0.71 0.66 3.21 ter table; and (3) 50 Mm3 of water is assumed to return
0.89 0.75 0.70 3.21
1.83 0.88 0.82 3.77 annually to the aquifer beneath Merida after being used.
1.23 0.78 0.72 3.37 The calculated outflow from the aquifer system is (1)
1.28 0.86 0.81 3.72 discharge of 18,377 Mm3 per year along the coast to the
1.36 0.98 0.92 4.18 sea; and (2) extraction of 227 Mm3 of water per year by
1.19 1.01 0.94 4.36 wells. It is notable that a relatively low volume of water
1.03 0.89 0.83 3.93
1.61 0.87 0.81 3.83 is pumped out of the aquifer as compared with the vol-
1.47 1.11 1.04 4.71 ume of recharge; and these factors together with the very
1.07 1.14 1.06 4.93 high aquifer hydraulic conductivity explain the fact that
1.17 1.49 1.20 5.47 the ground-water flow system is essentially unaltered.
1.26 1.38 1.29 5.77
1.21 1.44 1.34 5.98
1.20 1.48 1.38 6.14
1.48 1.54 1.43 6.35 Conclusions
1.52 1.72 1.61 6.91
Mean error (ME) 0.17 0.28 –3.49 Karst environments often are characterized by complex
Mean absolute 0.26 0.28 3.49 flow conditions that are difficult to define quantitatively
error (MAE)
Root mean squared 0.34 0.37 3.63 with a reasonable degree of certainty because the flow of
error (RMS) groundwater through the aquifer can be markedly affect-
ed by extensive fracture systems that increase the total
porosity and permeability. In the Yucatan aquifer this
secondary porosity dominates the hydraulic regime of
was reduced from 24–20% of the precipitation at select- the aquifer, so that the regional hydraulic conductivity is
ed localities within the area. Hydraulic conductivity as high as that of coarse, granular material. The regional
was reduced over the majority of the area, from groundwater-flow system in Yucatan can, therefore, be
1.115–0.115 m/s. The effect of reducing the recharge described by standard porous-media techniques and
was a general decrease of approximately 1 m in the Darcy’s law. This approach is valid as long as the spac-
computed heads. The reduction in the hydraulic conduc- ing between karstic features is sufficiently dense with re-
tivity resulted in an increase in the computed heads of spect to the area of concern.
about 3–5 m. Table 2 presents the measured-head data The regional groundwater-flow system in the Yucatan
and the simulated-head data, computed for various lo- has not been altered despite the large number of pump-
calities in the model area, using the two parameters. ing wells, because a relatively small volume of water is
The differences in simulated and measured heads in pumped out compared with the volume of recharge. In
the model area may be a result of local heterogeneities in addition, the pumping effects are rapidly dispersed be-
the aquifer, differences in aquifer responses to recharge, cause of the very high hydraulic conductivity of the
or to normal annual fluctuation of the water table. The aquifer.
differences could also be the result of calibrating the July Hydraulic conductivities determined by laboratory
1988 water levels (Fig. 5) against the mean annual wa- measurements and pumping tests are generally unreli-
ter-level values (Fig. 3), or any process not accounted for able. On the basis of modeling for this study, hydraulic
in the model. conductivities over much of Yucatan are very high, hy-
draulic gradients are low, and water-level elevations de-
cline from approximately 3 m near the Sierrita de Ticul
Mass Balance fault, in the southwestern part of the study area, to 0 m
Table 3 reports the mass balance for the best-fit calibra- along the Gulf of Mexico. Groundwater-flow modeling
tion for the case C model of the groundwater-flow also shows that the Sierrita de Ticul fault acts as a flow
system beneath the Yucatan. The calculated inflow to the barrier and head values drop northeastward across the

Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552 DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6


fault in a steep hydraulic gradient. Differences in hy-
draulic conductivity between the Sierrita de Ticul area
and the northern part of the State of Yucatan are a result
of the well-developed karst system in the latter area,
where secondary-permeability features dominate the
groundwater-flow system.
Groundwater flowing through the ring of cenotes in
the central part of the State responds to seasonal changes
in rainfall; therefore, this feature probably is not hydro-
logically isolated from the northern part of the Yucatan
aquifer. Also, it is probable that its hydraulic conductivi-
ty is only slightly higher than the surrounding rocks,
which would mean that it does not does not act as a hy-
draulic barrier.
This study shows that the karstic aquifer in Yucatan
can be successfully modeled as an equivalent porous me-
dium, as confirmed by the close match between the mea-
sured and simulated heads. The differences between the
measured head data and the simulated heads can be ex-
plained by annual fluctuation in the water table, the oc-
currence of periods of unusually heavy precipitation,
variation in hydrologic responses of the aquifer to stress-
es, local heterogeneities in the aquifer, or processes not
accounted for in the model.
Acknowledgments Part of this work was carried out while the se-
nior author was on study leave at the University of Waterloo,
Waterloo Centre for Groundwater Research, Ontario, Canada. The
assistance of the center personnel is much appreciated. Financial
support of the Autonomous University of Yucatan, the National
Council of Science and Technology (CONACyT) of Mexico (Project
32489-T), the University of Waterloo, and the Organization of
American States is also gratefully acknowledged. Special thanks are
due to reviewers and editors for critical comments on the manuscript.
This work is a contribution to the UNESCO IGCP-448 project.
References
Andrade-Briceño LA (1984) Análisis de fluctuaciones y balance
hídrico del acuífero de la zona de pozos de la JAPAY [Analy-
sis of fluctuations and water balance of the aquifer of the
JAPAY well zone]. BEng Thesis, Engineering School, Auton-
omous University of Yucatan, Mérida, Yucatán
Anonymous (1983) Carta de evapotranspiración y déficit del agua
[Evapotranspiration and water deficit] Hoja Mérida. Secretaría
de Programación y Presupuesto. Escala 1:1,000,000.
Back W, Hanshaw B (1970) Comparison of chemical hydrogeolo-
gy of the carbonate Peninsulas of Florida and Yucatan. J Hy-
drol 10:330–368
Back W, Lesser JM (1981) Chemical constraints of groundwater
management in the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. In: Beard LR
(ed) Water for survival. J Hydrol 51:119–130
Bear J (1988) Dynamics of fluids in porous media. Dover Publica-
tions, New York
Bonet F, Butterlin J (1962) Stratigraphy of the northern part of the
Yucatan Peninsula guidebook, field trip to Peninsula of Yuca-
tan. New Orleans Geol Soc, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
pp 52–57
Buckley DK, Macdonald DMJ, Villasuso M, Graniel E, Vazquez J,
Virgilio M (1994) Geophysical logging of a karstic limestone
aquifer for hydrogeological purposes at Merida, Yucatan,
Mexico. British Geological Survey. Technical Report WD/94/4C.
Hydrogeology Series
Casares D (1907) A notice of Yucatan with some remarks on its
water supply. Proc Am Antiq Soc 17:207–230
Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552
551
CNA (Comisión Nacional del Agua) (1997) Diagnóstico de la
Región XII. Península de Yucatán [Diagnosis of Region XII.
Yucatan Peninsula]. Comisión Nacional del Agua. Sub-
dirección General de Programación. Gerencia de Planeación
Hidráulica. Gerencia Regional de la Península de Yucatán.
Subgerencia de Programación. México, DF
Cole LJ (1910) The caverns and people of northern Yucatan. Bull
Am Geogr Soc 42:321–336
Cruz-Cetina JR (1978) Estudio de la contaminación de aguas sub-
terráneas en la Península de Yucatán por efectos particulares
[Study of groundwater contamination in the Yucatan Peninsula
by special effects]. Monografía. Engineering School. Universi-
ty of Yucatan. Mérida, Yucatán, México
Doehring DO, Buttler JH (1974) Hydrogeologic constraints on
Yucatan’s development. Science 186:591–595
Durazo J, Gaona S, Trejo J, Villasuso M (1980) Observaciones
sobre la interfase salina en dos cenotes del centro-norte de
Yucatán [Saline interface surveys in two cenotes in north-cen-
tral Yucatán]. XXIII Congreso Nacional de Investigación en
Física. Sociedad Mexicana de Física. Guadalajara, Jalisco,
Mexico, 24–28 November 1980
Gaona S, Villasuso M, Pacheco J, Cabrera A, Trejo J, Gordillo de
Anda T, Tamayo C, Coronado V, Durazo J, Perry EC (1985)
Hidrogeoquímica de Yucatán 1: Perfiles hidrogeoquímicos
profundos en algunos lugares del acuífero del noroeste de la
Península de Yucatán [Hydrogeochemistry of Yucatán I: hy-
drochemical profiles in some locations of the northeastern
aquifer of the Yucatán Peninsula]. Boletín Instituto de Geofí-
sica, UNAM, México
Gmitro DA (1987) The interactions of water with carbonate rock
in Yucatan, Mexico. MSc Thesis, Northern Illinois University,
Dekalb, Illinois, USA
Gobierno del Estado de Yucatán (1984) Monografia 1983 [Mono-
graph 1983]. Gobierno del Estado de Yucatán. Secretaría de
Planeación. Mérida, Yucatán, México
Gonzalez RA (1984). Correlación de Muestras de Roca en Pozos
de la Ciudad de Mérida [Correlation of rock samples in bore-
holes of Merida city]. BEng Thesis, Engineering School, Au-
tonomous University of Yucatan, Mérida, Yucatán, México
Hildebrand AR, Penfield GT, Kring DA, Pilkington M, Camargo
ZA, Jacobsen SB, Boynton WV (1991) Chicxulub crater: a
possible Cretaceous/Tertiary boundary impact crater on the
Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. Geology 19:867–871
Hildebrand AR, Pilkington M, Ortiz C, Chavez RE (1995) Size
and structure of the Chicxulub crater revealed by horizontal
gravity gradients and cenotes. Nature 376:415–417
Hildebrand AR, Pilkington M, Ortiz C, Chavez RE, Urrutia J,
Connors M, Graniel E, Camara A, Halpenny JF, Niehaus D
(1998) Mapping Chicxulub crater structure with gravity and
seismic reflection data. In: Grady MM, Hutchinson R, McCall
GJH, Rothery DA (eds) Meteorites: flux with time and impact
effects. Geol Soc Lond Spec Publ 140:155–176
INEGI (1984) Carta de climas. Escala 1:1,000,000 [Climatology
chart. Scale 1:1,000,000] México, DF
Isphording WC (1975) The physical geology of Yucatan. Transac-
tions. Gulf Coast Assoc Geol Soc 25:231–262
Isphording WC, Wilson EM (1974) The relationship of “volcanic
ash”, sak lum, and palygorskite in northern Yucatan Maya ce-
ramic. Am Antiq 39
Johnston RH, Miller JA (1988) Region 24, southeastern United
States. In: Back W, Rosenshein JS, Seaber PR (eds) Hydroge-
ology. The Geology of North America O-2. Geological Soci-
ety of America, pp 229–236
Krige DG (1966) Two-dimensional weighted moving average
trend surfaces for ore valuation. In: Proceedings of a Sympo-
sium on Mathematical Statistics and Computer Applications in
Ore Valuation. 7–8 March. J S Afr Inst Mining Metall,
pp 13–38
Lesser JM, Weidie AE (1988) Region 25, Yucatan Peninsula. In:
Back W, Rosenshein JS, Seaber PR (eds) Hydrogeology. The
Geology of North America O-2. Geological Society of Ameri-
ca, pp 237–241
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6
552
Lopez-Ramos E (1973) Estudio geológico de la Península de Yu-
catán [Geological study of the Yucatan Peninsula]. Bol Asoc
Mexicana Geol Petrol 25:23–76
Marin LE (1990) Field investigations and numerical simulation of
ground-water flow in the karstic aquifer of northwestern Yuca-
tan, Mexico. PhD Thesis, Northern Illinois University, Dekalb,
Illinois, USA
Marin LE, Perry EC, Booth C, Villasuso M (1987) Hydrogeology
of the northwestern Peninsula of Yucatan, Mexico. EOS Trans
Am Geophys Union 69:1292
Marin LE, Perry EC, Pope KO, Duller CE, Booth CJ, Villasuso M
(1990) Hurricane Gilbert: its effects on the aquifer northwest-
ern Yucatan, Mexico. In: Simpson ES, Sharp JM Jr (eds) Pro-
ceedings, Hydrogeology papers of the 28th International Geo-
logic Congress, Washington, DC. Heinz Heise, Hannover,
Germany, 111 pp
McLaren RG (1991) Program Aquifer 2-D aquifer model. Water-
loo Center for Groundwater Research. Fortran source code.
Waterloo, Ontario, Canada
Perry EC (1990) Aspects of the hydrogeology of the northwest re-
gion, Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico. AWRA: International Sym-
posium on Tropical Hydrogeology. San Juan, Puerto Rico,
23–27 July 1990
Perry EC, Swift J, Gamboa J, Reeve A, Sanborn R, Marin LE,
Villasuso M (1989) Environmental aspects of surface cemen-
tation, north coast, Yucatan, Mexico. Geology 17:818–821
Perry EC, Marin LE, McClain J, Velazquez G (1995) Ring of ce-
notes (sinkholes), northwest Yucatan, Mexico: its hydrogeo-
logic characteristics and possible association with the
Chicxulub impact crater. Geology 23:17–20
Pope KO, Ocampo AC, Duller CE (1991) Mexican site for K/T
impact crater? Nature 351:105
Reeve A, Perry EC (1990) Aspects and tidal analysis along the
western north coast of the Yucatan Peninsula, Mexico.
AWRA: International Symposium on Tropical Hydrogeology,
23–27 July 1990, San Juan, Puerto Rico
Sánchez IA (1999) Modelo Numérico del Flujo Subterráneo de la
Porción Acuífera N-NW del Estado de Yucatán: implicaciones
Hidrogeológicas [Groundwater flow numerical model of the
N-NW aquifer sector of the State of Yucatan: hydrogeological
implications]. MEng Thesis, Autonomous University of
Chihuahua, Engineering School, Postgraduate Studies Divi-
sion, Chihuahua, México
Hydrogeology Journal (2002) 10:539–552
View publication stats
SARH (1989) Sinópsis Geohidrológica del Estado de Yucatán
[Geohydrologic synopsis of the State of Yucatán]. Secretaría
de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos. Subsecretaría de Infra-
estructura Hidráulica. Dirección General de Administración y
Control de Sistemas Hidrológicos, Mexico, DF
Shattuck GC (1933) The Peninsula of Yucatan, medical, biologi-
cal, meteorological and sociological studies. Carnegie Institu-
tion of Washington, Washington, DC, Publication 431
Steinich B (1996) Investigaciones geofísicas e hidrogeológicas en
el noroeste de la Península de Yucatán, México [Geophysical
and hydrogeological investigations in northwestern Yucatan
Peninsula, Mexico]. PhD Thesis, Universidad Nacional Autó-
noma de México, México, DF
Steinich B, Marin LE (1996) Hydrogeological investigations in
northwestern Yucatan, Mexico, using resistivity surveys.
Ground Water 34:640–646
Steinich B, Marin LE (1997) Determination of flow characteristics
in the aquifer of the northwestern peninsula of Yucatán,
México. J Hydrol 191:315 – 331
Steinich B, Velazquez G, Marin LE, Perry E (1996) Determination
of the groundwater divide in the karst aquifer of Yucatan,
Mexico, combining geochemical and hydrogeological data.
Geofís Int 35:153–157
Sudicky EA (1989) The Laplace transform Galerkin technique: a
time continuous finite element theory and application to mass
transport in groundwater. Water Resour Res 25(8):1833–
1846
Velazquez G (1995) Estudio Geoquímico del Anillo de Cenotes,
Yucatán [Geochemical study of the modeling of cenotes,
Yucatán]. MSc Thesis, Earth Sciences, Geophysics Institute,
Nacional Autonomous University of México, México, DF
Villasuso M, Mendez R (2000) A conceptual model of the aquifer
of the Yucatán Peninsula. In: Lutz W, Prieto L, Sanderson W
(eds) Population, development, and environment on the Yuca-
tan Peninsula: from ancient Maya to 2030. International Insti-
tute for Applied Systems Analysis, Laxenburg, Austria,
pp 120–139
Weidie AE (1985) Geology of Yucatan platform. In: Ward WC,
Weidie AE, Back W (eds) Geology and hydrogeology of the
Yucatan and Quaternary geology of northeastern Yucatan
Peninsula. New Orleans Geological Society. New Orleans,
Louisiana, USA, pp 1–19
DOI 10.1007/s10040-002-0216-6