Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41931302›Full record

ArticleGround water

Deep Groundwater Total Dissolved Solids Mapping in the Dakota Group, Williston Basin, USA.

Michael J Stephens, Bennett E Hoogenboom, Lyndsay B Ball, Will Chang

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Ground water. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Michael J Stephens
Bennett E HoogenboomU.S. Geological Survey, California Water Science Center, Sacramento, CA.
Lyndsay B BallU.S. Geological Survey, Geology, Geophysics, and Geochemistry Science Center, Denver, CO.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6356-4693
Will ChangHypergradient, LLC, Berkeley, CA.

Funding

U.S. Geological Survey
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Growing concern about the quantity of available freshwater around the world has led to interest in surveying groundwater total dissolved solids (TDS) below water well depths. Deep TDS has not been systematically mapped, and there is much to learn about the distribution and controls on deeper groundwater. In sedimentary basins across the United States, groundwater resources often overlie hydrocarbon resources, providing an opportunity to use borehole geophysical data collected for hydrocarbons to characterize groundwater and pore space resources. This study adapts a recently developed subsurface geostatistical and geophysical modeling approach to continuously map groundwater TDS, porosity, and temperature in the Dakota Group of the Williston Basin-an undercharacterized regional aquifer system overlying deeper hydrocarbon reservoirs. Groundwater TDS in the Dakota Group ranges from approximately 4800 to 26,900 mg/L. TDS patterns are stratified with higher TDS in the lower and upper Dakota Group, and relatively lower TDS in the middle Dakota Group. The lower TDS in the middle zone may represent a preferential regional flow path for lower-TDS meteoric recharge from the west. The alternating pattern of TDS may also be evidence of higher-TDS inflows into the Dakota Group from underlying and potentially from overlying aquifers. Porosity is lower near the center of the Williston Basin and tends to be higher to the east, which may be related to grain size distributions. The new regional TDS and porosity modeling serves as a quantitative reference for water users and provides supporting evidence for hypotheses on Dakota Group recharge.

Indexed as

Environmental MonitoringGroundwaterModels, TheoreticalNorth Dakota

Identifiers

PMID41931302
PMCPMC13157693

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.