Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Groundwater potential mapping in semi-arid karst regions is often compromised by spatially optimistic validation, limited assessment of predictive variability, and insufficient independent hydrogeological verification. This study introduces TriFusion-Karst, a stacked-ensemble model using RF and LightGBM as base learners and XGBoost as the meta-learner, embedded within a spatially robust and hydrogeologically validated workflow. Thirteen geo-environmental predictors were extracted at 7,313 groundwater monitoring wells, and GTD observations collected during 2018–2024 were pooled and used exclusively as the regression target. TriFusion-Karst and six alternative standalone and ensemble configurations were evaluated using five-fold spatially blocked cross-validation with leakage-controlled out-of-fold meta-feature generation, followed by 30-m spatial prediction. TriFusion-Karst achieved the best performance (RMSE = 1.47 m, MAE = 0.99 m, R² = 0.930, NSE = 0.926, and r = 0.964). Fold-wise spatial prediction variability was quantified using the pixel-wise standard deviation of five fold-specific predictions as an indicator of model stability rather than total predictive uncertainty. Independent validation using 250 mapped karst springs excluded from model development showed that 91.3% occurred within the High and Very High groundwater-potential classes, which covered 42.6% of the study area (SRI = 2.14; p < 0.001; 1,000 permutations). Relief energy, evapotranspiration, fracture density, drainage density, and lithology were the most influential predictors. The resulting maps provide a reproducible basis for regional screening and preliminary groundwater prioritisation but represent relative groundwater favourability rather than aquifer productivity or sustainable yield.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Pourmorad et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: