Answers are grounded in this paper and cite their sources.
Groundwater vulnerability assessment (GVA) in northern China karst regions remains challenging because existing models are often developed for exposed karst systems, whereas nitrate-based validation may be biased by anthropogenic disturbance. Using the covered–buried karst system of Tai’an, China, this study developed a modified concentration of flow–overlying layers–precipitation–karst development (COPK) model and reassessed the reliability of NO3−-based validation. The model incorporated region-specific hydrogeological controls, including aquifer media and productivity, groundwater depth, pore-aquifer productivity, faults, karst subsidence, karst development degree, and karst type. Compared with the original COPK model, the modified model produced a more spatially coherent groundwater vulnerability (GV) pattern, with very high and high GV areas accounting for 10.01% and 20.15% of the study area, respectively. Two complementary screening approaches, full-background (FB) and pollution-source-density (PSD) screening, were applied to reduce anthropogenic interference in the validation dataset. Direct validation using 61 karst groundwater samples yielded Pearson correlation coefficients of 0.344 and −0.268 for the modified and original COPK models, respectively. Following FB screening, the corresponding coefficients were 0.382 and −0.354; following PSD screening, they were 0.537 and −0.383. These results suggest that the modified COPK model better represents intrinsic GV controls in northern China karst systems, while part of the mismatch between GV indices and NO3− observations may reflect anthropogenic interference. This study highlights the distinction between intrinsic GV and NO3− spatial prediction and cautions against using NO3−–GV correlation as the sole benchmark for model validation in anthropogenically disturbed aquifers.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Cui et al. (2026) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 10 related papers. Consider them for comparative context: