Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-023-02686-7

REPORT

Spatial prediction of groundwater levels using machine learning

and geostatistical models: a case study of coastal faulted aquifer
systems in southeastern Tunisia
Hayet Chihi1 · Iyadh Ben Cheikh Larbi2,3

Received: 12 November 2022 / Accepted: 15 July 2023 / Published online: 22 August 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to International Association of Hydrogeologists 2023

Abstract
Developing efficient methods for groundwater level (GWL) prediction is essential for identifying the groundwater flow
pattern, characterizing the spatial extent of contaminant plumes, and enhancing water resources management. Recently, sig-
nificant advances have been made in predicting GWL using machine learning (ML) models, but these do not consider hydro-
geological heterogeneities that condition the flow pattern. This study develops and evaluates the applicability of advanced
geostatistics and ML models to characterize the spatial variability of the GWL, taking into account the discontinuities induced
by complex geological environments and leveraging only piezometer positions and monitored GWL. Geostatistical-based
ordinary kriging (G/OK) and kernel ridge regression (KRR) were conducted on joint-faulted coastal aquifer systems in
southeastern Tunisia. Geological knowledge was incorporated into the characterization process, achieving better function
modeling, and optimizing both geostatistical and ML models. The present work counts among the first ML applications that
take into account the spatial variability modeling constrained by geological heterogeneities. The task is especially challenging
as actual data points are scarce. The results are evaluated using cross-validation with several error and evaluation metrics.
Comparative analyses were performed to assess the consistency with the hydrogeological reality. The proposed approaches
generated credible GWL maps that reproduce the regional and local flow patterns. A comprehensive interpretation provides
a range of essential insights on the spatial variation of the groundwater flow path and the hydraulic behavior of faults acting
as conduits, barriers, or conduit-barriers. The implemented model could be applied to other analogous areas to assess GWL
and other hydraulic parameters efficiently.

Keywords Groundwater level · Geostatistics · Machine learning · Kernel ridge regression · Spatial variability ·
Heterogeneity

Introduction are high, groundwater becomes a highly valuable resource,

Groundwater resources meet a substantial part of the water
needs for human life. Particularly in arid and semiarid coun-
tries, where surface water is scarce and evaporation rates
Published in the special issue “Geostatistics and hydrogeology”
* Hayet Chihi
hayet_chihi@yahoo.fr; hayet.chihi@certe.rnrt.tn
1
Georesources Laboratory, Centre for Water Research
and Technologies, University of Carthage, Borj Cedria
Ecopark, Soliman, Tunisia
2
Technical University of Berlin, Berlin, Germany
3
German Research Center for Artificial Intelligence (DFKI),
Berlin, Germany
playing a significant role in various sectors such as agricul-
ture, industry and drinking water supply. Global changes,
including natural and anthropogenic influences on climate
and the hydrological cycle, are increasingly altering surface-
water levels and groundwater recharge (De Marsily 2021).
Depletion of aquifers may involve drastic reductions in
yield and deviation of groundwater flow pathways, which
may eventually entail degradation of water quality, such as
through seawater intrusion in coastal areas (Custodio 2013;
UNESCO 2022).
More precisely, the groundwater level (GWL) surface
geometry is expected to fluctuate over time as a consequence
of short-term, seasonal, and long-term influences. Thus, the
GWL serves as a basic and practical parameter for assess-
ing the potential availability of groundwater. Therefore,

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
1388
efficient methods for regionalizing GWL, and thus a pro-
viding thorough understanding of the generated groundwater
flow patterns, can guide decision-makers to implement effec-
tive water resources management strategies and to protect
aquifers.
Spatial estimates of GWL, however, are significantly con-
strained by an array of factors that include the data sources,
patterns, timing, and associated uncertainties, in addition to
any influences due to the interpolation procedures, which
must be customized to the geologic environment. In fact,
the changes in hydraulic properties primarily depend on
the environmental heterogeneity imposed by the geological
history (deposition, diagenesis, tectonic deformation, etc.;
Matheron and De Marsily 1980; De Marsily et al. 2005;
Chihi and De Marsily 2009; Chihi et al. 2015).
Groundwater level mapping usually relies on data gener-
ated from boreholes and piezometer networks that survey
GWL variations. It is common, nonetheless, to witness a
lack of groundwater measurements, attributed mainly to the
high costs of piezometer installation and ongoing mainte-
nance, sampling missions, and analysis. Consequently, this
has affected the spatial and temporal distribution of GWL
measurements. Accordingly, considering the hydrogeologi-
cal heterogeneities inducing stochastic and nonstationary
characteristics of GWL fluctuations, and the pattern of the
related data that are often incomplete or nonexistent, it is not
easy to make an accurate assessment of GWL (Boezio et al.
2006; Pirot et al. 2015; Chihi and De Marsily 2009; Chihi
et al. 2016; Koch et al. 2019).
Several approaches have been implemented in previous
studies to adapt more advanced interpolation algorithms, to
enable increasingly efficient predictions of GWL. Geosta-
tistical techniques, which have been widely developed, are
being implemented to identify the structure of the spatial
and/or temporal variability of GWL and to optimize the esti-
mation at locations where there are no measurements, using
the neighboring sampled data (Matheron 1963, 1965; Isaaks
and Srivastava 1989; Delhomme 1978; Delhomme and De
Marsily 2006, Goovaerts 1997; Chiles and Definer 2012).
Alternatively, the last decade has seen major advances in
the use of machine learning (ML) models for GWL predic-
tion and related hydrogeological modeling issues. Indeed,
several authors have implemented and compared different
ML models in order to improve the efficiency of GWL pre-
diction in the time domain, ranging from annual, monthly,
and daily to even hourly lead time. Most of them developed
their predictive models by integrating previous GWL data
and other related meteorological variables such as precipi-
tation, air temperature, humidity and evapotranspiration—
for example, artificial neural network (ANN) (Lallahem
et al. 2005; Mohanty et al. 2013; Moghaddam et al. 2019;
Moghaddam et al. 2021; Kayhomayoon et al. 2022), extreme
learning machines (ELM) (Yadav 2017), support vector
13
Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404
regression (SVR) and Gaussian process regression (GPR)
(Band et al. 2021), random forest (RF), alongside ANN and
SVR (Tang et al. 2019; Koch et al. 2019; Ghordoyee Milan
et al. 2023), and kernel models (Guzman et al. 2019) have
been applied with success for temporal prediction of GWL.
A more comprehensive review of the literature on ML mod-
els used for efficient estimation of GWL and other hydraulic
parameters can be found in Tao et al. (2022).
While ML models have shown promising potential for
temporal and time series prediction, their application in
spatial modeling of hydraulic parameters, such as GWL,
has been limited. To overcome this limitation some authors
make use of hybrid models that combine ML models for
time domain prediction with geostatistical methods for spa-
tial domain estimation. Nourani et al. (2011) conducted a
hybrid ANN–a geostatistical methodology for spatiotempo-
ral prediction of GWL in two separate stages. First, an artifi-
cial neural network is trained for each piezometer, allowing
the model to forecast the GWL for the following month.
Then, in the second step, the predicted GWL value at each
of the piezometers is integrated into geostatistical mode-
ling to accurately estimate the spatial distribution of GWL.
Recently, Varouchakis et al. (2022) implemented a geostatis-
tical analysis based on the Gaussian process method, using
space-time GWL observations, to generate reliable spatial
maps of GWL.
Upon reviewing the literature, and according to the
authors’ knowledge, no ML model has been directly applied
to estimate GWL in the space domain, specifically. In the
context of addressing these specific issues, kernel ridge
regression (KRR) is proposed as an appropriate approach.
KRR is a powerful machine learning algorithm that com-
bines the advantages of ridge regression and kernel methods
to provide a more accurate and robust prediction of nonlin-
ear functions. Kernel ridge regression makes use of a kernel
function to map the data into a higher dimensional space,
allowing it to capture more complex nonlinear relationships
between the input and output variables (Zhang et al. 2013).
It, therefore, allows better modeling of the target function
and more accurate predictions of GWL; furthermore, it uses
regularization to reduce the variance of the model and pre-
vent overfitting. In the present case study, KRR, based on a
Gaussian function, was guided by geostatistical philosophy/
thinking and hydrostratigraphic configuration to deal with
the geological complexity of the study area and the GWL
data scarcity. Faults were inferred as screens within the esti-
mation procedure to capture the GWL local variability while
reproducing the heterogeneous flow pattern at a local and
regional scale. Additionally, a model selection procedure
was conducted to optimize the parameters of the model and
maximize the accuracy. A cross-validation procedure was
also used to assess the performance of the models and pre-
vent any potential overfitting of the data. Furthermore, the
Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404
kriging map data and the estimation error, along with cross-
validation, were all employed to supplement the database
with secondary GWL data. This, in turn, provides greater
insight and guidance for the kernel ridge regression model,
enabling more accurate predictions.
The main aim of this work is to develop ML spatial
models to evaluate the spatial variability of GWL. More
specifically, the implementation of spatial ML models is
based on KRR, leveraging the methodology and principles
of geostatistics, in particular ordinary kriging (OK), which
has proven effective even in complex geological environ-
ments. Four key issues deserve to be addressed, thus (1)
ensuring the reliability of ML models when dealing with a
complex geological environment characterized by a regional
fault system, (2) handling the challenge of modeling with
uneven data distribution, (3) capturing the GWL variability
at both regional and local scales, and (4) determining the
hydraulic properties of the faults and deduce their impact
on the flow pattern featuring the regional and local water
flow paths induced by the geological heterogeneities and
more specifically the fault structures. The methodology was
implemented and tested over the largely extended aquifer
system located in the Jeffara coastal plain in south-eastern
Tunisia (Fig. 1). The area was chosen for a range of reasons,
including the geological complexity of the basin, the pres-
ence of various joined aquifers systems that underlie this
basin and the influence of tectonic processes. By consid-
ering these constraints, the developed ML model aims to
accurately estimate GWL, facilitating a better understanding
and management of groundwater resources and the hydro-
geological environment.
The study area
The Jeffara basin, situated in southeastern Tunisia, was cho-
sen as an ideal case study to investigate the distribution of
GWL and the hydrogeological characteristics of the included
aquifer systems (Fig. 1). The Jeffara basin is characterized
by an almost continuous stratigraphic succession from the
Permian to the Quaternary. The hydrostratigraphic studies
conducted in the region (Mammou 1990; Ben Baccar 1982;
Chihi et al. 2013, 2016, 2023) concluded that a huge multi-
layered aquifer system, combining porous and karst reservoir
formations, extends along the Jeffara coastal plain. Overall,
four ensembles were distinguished:
1. The Miocene sandy/detrital deposits, which constitute
a relatively continuous aquifer over the entire coastal
Jeffara basin
2. The Upper Cretaceous (Turonian and Lower Senonian)
carbonate aquifer formations, which extend along the
Mareth and Jorf regions
1389
3. The Lower Cretaceous (Neocomian, Barremian, Aptian
and Albian) continental formations, which form a com-
plex succession of clastic sediments within the Zeus-
Koutine aquifer, where they overlay the Jurassic carbon-
ate aquifers
4. The Lower and Middle Triassic formations that host
the sandstone Sahel El Ababsa aquifer system, which
is locally confined where overlain by the intermediate
Triassic layer
Figure 1b displays the distribution of these aquifer sys-
tems in relation with the major normal faults (Chihi et al.
2015). The figure also specifies which parts of the aquifers
are confined or unconfined. Actually, repetitive tectonic
movements have significantly influenced the aquifer-system
configurations and their hydrodynamic functioning. The
Jeffara basin is intensely affected by a complex system of
NW–SE major faults crossed by minor NE–SW ones dis-
playing variable normal displacement. Deep E–W–trending
fault systems are also featured in the northern and southern
sectors, such as the Tebaga fault. These tectonic structures
have a direct impact on groundwater flow and divide the
huge Jeffara hydrologic system into distinct aquifer systems
that have been designated as “Mareth aquifer” “Zeuss-Kou-
tine aquifer”, “Jorf aquifer” and “Sahel El Ababsa aquifer”
(Fig. 1b). These aquifer systems are compartmentalized into
interconnected subsystems and exhibit significant lateral
variability in terms of depth, thickness, facies and reservoir
connectivity (Chihi et al. 2014; Soua and Chihi 2014; Ham-
mami et al. 2018a; Mezni et al. 2022a, b). Each aquifer is
thus characterized by its specific recharge, boundary, and
flow conditions.
Furthermore, the tectonic activity in the region has also
affected the topographic surface and shaped the major sur-
face outcropping structures. The western part of the study
area, particularly within the Dhahar Mountains, exhibits high
topographic elevations, ranging from 300 to 700 m above sea
level (asl). Elevations between 200 and 300 m are limited to
scattered mounds, such as Jebel Tebaga, Jebel Matmata, Jebel
Zemlet Leben, and Jebel Tejra (Figs. 1 and 2). Elevations from
0 to 200 m are identified in the Jeffara plain and downhill
areas, including the main valley floor (Mezni et al. 2022b).
The region is dominated by an arid to semiarid climate,
influenced by continental dry air masses emanating from
the desert and maritime humid air masses originating from
the Mediterranean Sea. The annual average rainfall is about
200 mm, while the potential evaporation is around 2,700
mm. The temperature ranges from an average of 12.5 °C in
January to a maximum of 30.4 °C in August, characterizing
a Mediterranean-type climate.
The region is drained by ephemeral rivers (wadis) that
have a direct impact on the hydrology and geomorphology of
the drainage network (Fig. 2). The main wadis are Zigzaou,
13
1390 Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404

Fig. 1  a Study area location in

Tunisia; b Regional geological Mediterranean Sea
map, showing the main geo-
logical outcrops, faults, and the
nature and distribution of the
aquifer systems
Tunisia

Algeria Libya

(a)
600 620 640 660
.
aF N
tt an
Ke

F.
Gulf of Gabes

e
in
Mareth

rk
3730

Ze
F.
a ou
az

Za
g
Zi

ra
tF
Jorf

.
Aquife em
Ks .
Zeuss-Koutine
Matmatas ar em
Ch
3710 ra
rif
Ze
us Ko L.
s ut Ga
Tebaga F.
in m
Leben e Ou ou
a di
Tebag J.
Te M mZ aF
jra ed es .
en sa
in rF
e
3690 Sahel El Ababsa F. .
Aquifer em
Tejra_Medenine F.
Dh

Medenine High
ah
ar
ou
tc

3670
ro
ps

Dh
0 5 10 20 ah
(b) ar
km F.

Legend
Jurassic Albian Lower Senonian Quaternary Unconfined kar ed aquifer
Mio-Pliocene/
Triassic Aptian Turonian ocene Unc e aquifer
Permian L. Cretaceous Cenomanian U. Senonian Confined aquifer
Faults

Oum Zessar, Zeuss, Sidi Makhlouf, and El Morra. Due to the
infrequent rainfall and the prevalence of permeable and semi-
permeable soils in the upper geologic layers for a significant
part of the area, surface flows and drainage in these rivers are
very restricted. Therefore, the river appears to have surface
flows only for a short period of time after intense precipita-
tion events.
Accordingly, surface water is scarcely available, so instead
groundwater serves as the primary resource for domestic and
drinking water supply, as well as for agricultural and indus-
trial activities. The accompanying exponential increase in
the use of these water resources, especially for agricultural
and other irrigation purposes, has contributed to pervasive
aquifer overexploitation and to groundwater quality deterio-
ration. Therefore, there is a need for accurate estimation and
an in-depth understanding of water flow in such complex
aquifer systems.
Materials and methods
The traditional methods of directly interpolating GWL
measurements often result in inconsistent maps that are
hydrogeologically not coherent, for two main reasons.
Firstly, measurements are rarely sufficient to reconstruct
the true GWL map. Secondly, existing computational

13
Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404
Fig. 2  Digital elevation model, stream network, main compartments and (monitored and secondary) data locations within the study area
procedures and algorithms do not adequately consider the
local variability of the hydraulic parameter induced by the
complex geological environment and by the hydrogeologi-
cal heterogeneities prevalent in the study area. To address
these issues, a comprehensive methodology is proposed,
and the different steps are described in Fig. 3.
The database
The data used in this work are derived from the research pro-
ject “Geological modeling for vulnerability characterization of
aquifer systems”, developed by the Georesources Laboratory
of the Centre for Water Research and Technologies, Tunisia.
The database includes various sources (Figs. 1 and 2): (1) six
geological maps covering the entire study area, acquired from
the National Office of Mines (ONM), which were assembled
and digitized; (2) a digital elevation model (DEM) derived
from the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) with
a resolution of about 30 m, obtained from the US Geologi-
cal Survey’s Earth Explorer database (USGS 2014); and (3)
observations from boreholes and piezometers installed for
monitoring GWL fluctuations and geochemistry, provided by
the General Directorate of Water Resources (DGRE). Water
level measurements from 70 monitoring wells were recorded
at the end of both the dry and wet seasons from 1974 to 2018.
1391
All spatial data, such as digital elevation, borehole infor-
mation, geologic maps, faults, and the river network, were
compiled, harmonized and georeferenced using ArcGIS soft-
ware (Figs. 1 and 2). The dataset, used for implementing the
interpolation procedures in the space domain, concerns the
GWL records of the year 2015 (wet season), as it provides
the most complete set of records (displayed as red dots in
Fig. 2). The majority of GWL records are taken from the
interconnected aquifers covering Sahel El Ababsa, Zeuss-
Koutine, Mareth and Jorf aquifer systems. To address data
gaps in certain areas, the measured data were complemented
with secondary GWL data (indicated by blue dots in Fig. 2).
Extending the dataset was necessary to supply the ML model
with sufficient information to improve its performance and
enhance the accuracy of the GWL prediction.
Methods
Geostatistical modeling
Geostatistics methods are based on the regionalized vari-
ables theory (Matheron 1963). The interpolation procedure,
commonly called “kriging”, is distinguished from other
basic methods, as it involves the spatial correlation between
data points to estimate the studied regionalized variable at
13
1392 Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404

GWL Data / Hydrostratigraphic Configuration

Test /
Coherence
G/OK model ML/KRR model

Add secondary data to

better model the piezometric function
and/or repeat model selection
Variography n-folds

- Experimental variogram
One Leave-one-out
- Theoretical variogram
cross-validation Whole Region / Compartment
iteration Dataset
GWL estimation
Split according to current fold
- Neighborhood search
- Fault parameters Training points ing point

No Train KRR model

Cross-validation

Yes
Spatial coordinates
Trained KRR model
- Kriging
Predicted GWL Actual GWL

No Evaluation metrics Evaluation metrics

Hydrogeological (Averaged over all
realism cross-validation folds)

Yes Inference
Whole Region / Compartment
Dataset

Final model Generate grid points

Training points

KRR model

Spatial coordinates
Trained KRR model
Predicted GWLs

Piezometric map

No
Satisfying results Yes
& Final model
Hydrogeological
realism

Fig. 3  Workflow of the methodology used for groundwater level of spatial variability being considered. G geostatistics, OK ordinary
(GWL) prediction. This methodology can be applied to the whole kriging, ML machine learning, KRR kernel ridge regression
region or to individual compartments, depending on the specific cases

13
Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404
unsampled locations. Only a concise overview of the ordi-
nary kriging method is provided, as it is the specific method
employed in this work. A comprehensive description of geo-
statistical concepts and their application to hydraulic param-
eters estimation can be found in several publications (e.g.
Delhomme 1979; De Marsily et al. 1984; De Marsily 1986;
Goovaerts 1997; Chiles and Definer 2012). The geostatistical
modeling was performed using the ISATIS software (ISATIS
2020).
Kriging involves a series of advanced linear regression
algorithms, which enable the implementation of all various
kriging predictors, such as ordinary, simple, universal krig-
ing (Journel and Huijbregts 1978; Matheron 1963; Chihi
1998; Chihi et al. 2000, 2007). These variants of kriging
can be processed as a basic linear regression expressed as
follows:
( ) ∑n ∑n
Z ∗ x0 = (1)
( )
𝜆∝ Z x∝ with 𝜆
∝=1 ∝=1 ∝
In Eq. (1), Z*(x0) is the estimate at the point x0; Z(xα) are
the values measured at points xα, λα represents the kriging
weights, and α = 1, . . . , n, where n denotes to the number
of samples.
The weights λα are estimated by minimizing the estima-
tion variance 𝜎k2 = Var [Z ∗ (x) − Z(x)] while ensuring the
unbiasedness of the estimator, E[Z∗(x) – Z(x)] = 0.
In the case of ordinary kriging, which is the kriging vari-
ant employed in the present study, the weights are deter-
mined by solving a set of “n + 1 linear equations” known as
the “ordinary kriging system”:
� ∑n � � � �
𝜆𝛽∝ 𝛾 x𝛼 − x𝛽 + 𝜇 = 𝛾 x𝛼 − x0
∑n 𝛽=1
(2)
∝=1 ∝
𝜆 =1
In Eq. (2), μ is the Lagrange parameter that expresses the
constraint on the weights λa.
The kriging procedure requires the estimation and mod-
eling of a variogram function “γ(h)” that characterizes the
spatial variability of the regionalized variable Z(x):
1 rectly as possible at these and other new points in the plane.
𝛾(h) = Var [Z(x) − Z(x + h)] (3)
2
In Eq. (3), x and x + h are two locations separated by the
lag distance h.
Ordinary kriging was performed using the GWL read-
ings from 70 monitoring wells during the winter of 2015.
Figure 2 displays a map identifying the locations of the
monitoring wells (shown in red dots), overlaid on the DEM
with the major watercourses. Ordinary kriging (OK) was
implemented using ISATIS software to make estimates of
GWL, based on a calculated variogram model. The primary
analysis of GWL spatial continuity and mapping revealed
1393
a SW–NE trend that was addressed using ordinary kriging,
assuming local stationarity with a restricted angular-sector
moving neighborhood. To capture the local variability along
the major aquifer compartments, major normal faults were
incorporated as screens within the estimation procedure.
Each step of the constrained kriging procedure was validated
using the error metrics.
This approach allows one to honor the data, generate reli-
able spatial maps that accurately depict the GWL variability,
and identify groundwater flow patterns over the entire Jeffara
of Medenine. The kriging procedures and the resulting map
were used as a basis to guide the ML modeling implementa-
tion and to generate additional GWL data to compensate for
the scarcity of data at specific locations.
Machine learning model: kernel ridge regression (KRR)
In this work, the applicability of machine learning (ML) is
explored to automatically estimate GWL using a small data-
set that only contains selected spatial information on the
GWL. To improve the ML performance, a technique from
the geostatistical domain-knowledge is applied, as explained
in section ‘Modeling constraints’ and section ‘Modeling
results’. In addition, a few more secondary data points that
are well-representative the GWL function were incorporated
in the database (Fig. 2). This approach allows one to apply
and enhance ML algorithms under the geological settings and
data constraints. All implementations of the ML procedures
were developed using the Python programming language and
mainly the scikit-learn library (Pedregosa et al. 2011).
In this regard, a more abstract reformulation of the task
is outlined to clarify the ML process based on the kernel
ridge regression. First, there are n data positions where each
position xi ∈ R2 has a GWL value yi ∈ R, which is either a real
measurement or a “secondary” one. Note that yi is equivalent
to Z(x) in the geostatistics notification. Similarly, the esti-
mated GWL value y∗ for a data point x is equivalent to Z∗(x).
This builds up the training data required for the ML model to
achieve the study’s goal, namely estimating the GWL as cor-
This problem is addressed as a regression task, in which
the goal is to find the best fitting function, based on the train-
ing data, that best approximates the real-life function and
depicts the actual groundwater hydrodynamic behavior at
all points. There are several ML techniques to solve similar
regression tasks—e.g. linear/polynomial regression, support
vector machines, artificial neural networks, etc. (Tao et al.
2022). However, considering the sparsity and low-dimen-
sionality of the dataset, where only spatial coordinates are
used as input to predict the GWL, significant importance is
given to both the simplicity and modeling robustness of a
potential ML technique. Advanced or complex ML models
13
1394 Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404

often require substantial training data and computational
resources. Indeed, the preliminary trials conducted here
have also shown that the available sparse data would not
give satisfactory predictions even with simple feed-forward
neural networks. Therefore, it was considered more appro-
priate to use simple models that have great modeling capa-
bilities given a well-representative dataset of the real func-
tion. Furthermore, the model should be intuitive, efficient to
train, and easily reproducible on other hydraulic parameters
prediction and mapping. Simple models are highly suitable
to achieve all these objectives (Li et al. 2022). In fact, KRR
turned out to be the most appropriate approach, given the
modeling constraints explained in the preceding.
Kernel ridge regression combines ridge regression with
the kernel trick; therefore, it learns a nonlinear function that
best fits the data based on the chosen kernel and the data
itself. This is elucidated in more detail and progressively in
the following paragraphs.
First, KRR is based on ridge regression, which involves
modeling a linear function so that it best represents the rela-
tionship between the input variable X and the target vari-
able Y, both of which are continuous (Zhang et al. 2013).
This consists in finding the weights, w, of the model that
minimize the loss function L as defined in Eq. (4). The pre-
diction y∗i given by the dot product wTxi of the model, for
the ith training data point, should be as close as possible to
the real value yi:
1 ∑n ( )2 1 ∑n ( )2
L(w) = yi − y∗i = yi − wT xi (4)
2n i 2n i
To avoid overfitting, a regularization term is added to
penalize the norm of w, resulting in Eq. (5):
1 �n � �2 1 �
yi − wT xi + 𝜁 ‖w‖2 − C (5)
�
L(w) =
2n i 2 y∗ = wT Φ(x),
be simplified by replacing the regularization strength nζ by
ζ. Now, to predict the GWL value y∗ for a new data point x,
simply calculate as follows:
(( )T
)−1
y∗ = wT x = XXT + 𝜁I Xy x (7)
To tackle nonlinear problems, kernels and the kernel
trick are employed. This involves mapping the data to a
higher-dimensional space (which could be infinite) using
an appropriate feature map and solve the problem linearly
in the new feature space. The obtained solution corre-
sponds to a nonlinear solution in the original space. The
convenient aspect of this method is that all calculations in
the high-dimensional feature space are performed implic-
itly thanks to the kernel trick.
This is explained in more detail under the following con-
siderations. Indeed, in the kernel method setting, the feature
map is defined as Φ : Rd → Rh; x ↦ Φ(x), where Rd is the input
space with d ∈ N features and Rh is the higher-dimensional
feature space with h ∈ N (or infinite) dimensions. The kernel
trick involves directly calculating the defined kernel function
k(x, x′) for two points x and x′ instead of computing both the
feature map and the dot product Φ(x)TΦ(x′). Accordingly,
the kernel function used, in this implementation, is the radial
basis function (RBF) kernel, expressed in Eq. (8):
( )
k x, x� = exp −𝜂 ‖ � ‖2
(8)
( )
‖ x − x ‖ .
Here, η is a hyperparameter of the RBF kernel, which is
equal to 2𝜎1 2 , and this kernel is also known as the Gaussian
kernel with variance σ2.
This kernel function will be used in the prediction func-
tion, which is first redefined as:
(9)

Here, ζ is a Lagrange multiplier and C is a hyperparameter where w ∈ Rh.

that controls the regularization strength. The solution for this Consequently, the loss function L becomes:
problem, obtained through differentiation, is expressed by
1 �n � � ��2 1 �
Eq. (6): yi − wT Φ xi + 𝜁 ‖w‖2 − C . (10)
�
L(w) =
2n i 2
(∑n )−1 (∑n ) )−1
x xT = XXT + n𝜁 I Xy, The solution to minimize this loss function is given by
(
w= + 𝜁I xy
i i i i i i
(6) Eq. (11):

where X is a matrix containing each data point xi as a vector

)−1
w = 𝚽(X)𝚽(X)T + 𝜁I 𝚽(X)y. (11)
(
and y is a vector containing each of the corresponding yi. I
represents the identity matrix. Here Φ(X) is a matrix containing Φ(x1), Φ(x2), …, Φ(xn)
In practice, ζ can be directly treated as the hyperparam- as column vectors, and ζ is an appropriate hyperparameter.
eter that controls the regularization strength, omitting the The GWL y∗ for a new data point x is then predicted
usage of the hyperparameter C. Furthermore, Eq. (6) can using the kernel trick as follows:

(12)
)−1
y∗ = wT Φ(x) = Φ(x)T w = Φ(x)T 𝚽(X)𝚽(X)T + 𝜁I 𝚽(X)y = k(x, X)(K + 𝜁I)−1 y,
(

13
Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404
where
∑n �
Φ(x)T Φ(X) = k(x, X) = i k x, xi and
�
K = Φ(X)TΦ(X) so Ki, j = k(xi, xj).
Considering the previous development, it is evident
that following training, the GWL function of the model
depends on and is determined by the training data points
and the selected kernel function (including its hyperpa-
rameters). Using KRR makes it possible to optimize the
models based on the available sparse dataset while con-
sidering the faults, spatial location, and GWL information.
This approach helps to define the nonlinear function that
estimates the GWL as best as possible.
Modeling constraints
The implementation of each of the modeling algorithms,
whether based on geostatistical or ML/KRR methods, incor-
porated two main constraints: (1) the size and spatial distri-
bution of the dataset and (2) the geological heterogeneity as
manifested, in this work, by fault discontinuities.
Data constraint. As observed on Fig. 2, monitoring wells
measuring GWLs are dispersed unevenly. The limited num-
ber of measurements makes it challenging to reconstruct an
accurate GWL map, particularly in the eastern part of the
study area including the Jorf and in the Sahel El Ababsa
aquifers. Consequently, GWL predictions may be highly
biased in some locations. Therefore, the lack of measure-
ments was addressed by integrating auxiliary information.
An effective strategy was adopted to define the location
of secondary GWL data. This was, naturally, guided by a
comprehensive understanding of aquifer characteristics, as
synthesized in Fig. 1b, including the hydro-stratigraphic pat-
tern, the fault network, the soil surface topography, and the
hydrographic network, to properly discretize and generate
the secondary dataset.
By considering this knowledge for each compartment, the
kriging map, the estimation error, and cross-validation were
analyzed and employed to supplement the database with
secondary GWL data. This was achieved by, first, situating
the secondary data close to and along the boundaries of the
streams, as well as in specific locations with comparatively
low data density.
For each of these sites, a GWL is derived taking into
account the nearest piezometer records while ensuring to
reproduce a similar water pathway pattern to that of the cor-
responding river and respecting the local variability identi-
fied through the geostatistical analysis. This process allows
for the database to be supplemented, to provide further
guidance for the kernel ridge regression model, to ensure
an accurate prediction of water levels, and to generate a map
that respects the hydrogeological constraints.
Geological faults. These are defined as discontinuities
that can interrupt the continuity of any studied variable. To
1395
respect the local variability of the GWL, the studied area
was segmented into “homogeneous geological domains”
taking into account the hydrogeological environment and
the structural configuration as extensively discussed in pre-
vious works (Chihi et al. 2015; Hammami et al. 2018a, b)
(Fig. 1b). In the present work, only three NW–SE major
faults were involved, Dhahar fault (DF), Medenine fault
(MF), and the joined Tebaga-fault (TbF)-Tejra fault (TF)
(Figs. 1b and 2), considering the aquifer systems’ limits but
also maintaining an adequate set of data to ensure a credible
estimation process within each delineated domain. These
are designated as the “southwestern”, “intermediate” and
“northeastern” compartments. The interpolation procedure
was carried out separately within each of them, that is, only
the neighboring samples located within the considered com-
partment, between the faults boundaries are involved in the
estimation process of each target location.
Cross validation
To accurately assess the performance of the prediction
models, it is essential to employ an appropriate procedure
that ensures reliable and unbiased evaluations, especially
when dealing with a small dataset. Therefore, a leave-one-
out cross-validation (Goovaerts 1997; Chiles and Definer
2012) was conducted, involving multiple iterations where
the model is trained to predict the GWL using the set of
training points, within the same compartment, excluding
one. The model then tries to predict the target value at the
excluded point. Throughout this process, four distinct evalu-
ation and error metrics (Eqs. 13–16) are calculated:
– The root mean square error (RMSE) (Eq. 13) is the
square root of the mean squared error. It is a measure of
the overall prediction error of the model. The closer it is
to 0, the more accurate is the model.
√
1 ∑n ( ∗ ( ))2
RMSE = Z x∝ )−Z(x∝ (13)
n ∝=1
– The mean absolute error (MAE) (Eq. 14) is the arithme-
tic mean of all absolute errors. It measures the average
magnitude of the error. A lower value denotes a more
accurate model.
1 ∑n
∣ Z ∗ x∝ )−Z(x∝ ∣ (14)
( )
MAE =
n ∝=1
– The linear correlation coefficient (R) (Eq. 15) specifies
the degree of correlation that exists between the observed
and estimated values. The closer it is to 1, the more the
observed and predicted data are correlated, and the better
the model is.
13
1396 Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404

� � � � ��� ∗ � � � ��
(18)
∑n
𝛼=1
Z x𝛼 − Z x𝛼 Z x𝛼 − Z ∗ x
𝛼 𝛾(h) = 450 Gaussian(24000 )
R= � �
∑n � � � � ��2 ∑n � � � � ��2
Z x − Z x Z ∗ x − Z ∗ x
𝛼=1 𝛼 𝛼 𝛼=1 𝛼 𝛼 The cross-validation carried out indicated that the spheri-
(15) cal model generated a lower root mean square error (RMSE
= 2.7 m) than that of the Gaussian model (RMSE = 3 m).
– The Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE) (Eq. 16), Accordingly, the spherical structure was considered as the
measures the relative magnitude of the estimation error best-fitting model. Its range parameter (a = 29,400 m) and
variance compared to the observed data variance. NSE sill parameter (C = 450 ­m2) were subsequently used in the
ranges between −∞ and 1. The optimal fit between the kriging procedure.
observed and estimated data would be equal to 1. The estimation process of the GWL was implemented
on a regular grid with a 500 m × 500 m mesh. It was con-
⎡ ∑n � ∗ � ��2 ⎤ strained by the integrated fault system. A moving neighbor-
⎢ ∝=1 Z x∝ )−Z(x∝ hood with six angular sectors was adopted allowing one to
(16)
⎥
NSE = 1 − ⎢
� � ⎥ 2
ensure the best configuration of the estimating points. These
� �
⎢ ∑n
� �
Z x − Z x𝛼 ⎥
⎣ ∝=1 𝛼 ⎦ are selected exclusively within the corresponding compart-
ment where the unknown GWL is being estimated. The
kriged map of the GWL is shown in Fig. 4b.
In the preceding equations, Z*(xα() is)the estimate at point
KRR models. The KRR models were developed taking into
xα; Z(xα) is the observed( value, Z x𝛼 is the mean of the
account the data availability, and the regional and local vari-
observed values, and Z x𝛼 is the mean of the estimated
)
∗
ability of the GWL variable, which is actually impacted by the
values.
cutting faults. However, due to the scarcity of GWL observations
in some domains, such as the southeastern side of the study area,
the initial prediction attempts, as well as the modeled maps,
Results and discussion were considered somewhat unsatisfactory in terms of accuracy.
Accordingly, the database was extended by incorporating
This section presents the results of the GWL modeling suc- “secondary” GWL data. These are thoroughly identified, as
cessively for the geostatistical and then for the ML/KRR already explained, and added (1) to help the model learn how
approaches. Then all the different prediction procedures are the function should look like at their corresponding positions,
comparatively evaluated based on three different aspects: and (2) more importantly to indirectly capture the spatial vari-
(1) error metrics, (2) scatter diagrams comparing observed ability of GWLs, induced by various factors such as climate,
and estimated values, and (3) consistency with the hydro- topography, hydrogeology, etc.
geological reality. A dataset of about 100 data points is established, with
features consisting only of piezometer positions (2D spa-
tial coordinates) and the GWL values as a target variable.
Modeling results Again, these are either real or auxiliary and are selected to be
sufficiently representative of the real function to reproduce
The geostatistical model. The assessment of the GWL in the spatial variability of the GWL. On the other hand, to
the area was carried out using the ordinary kriging method, improve the prediction accuracy at all locations in the study
based on the estimated variogram model and constrained by area, it was deemed beneficial to adapt the geostatistical
fault parameters. reasoning and test the KRR model potentials, to reproduce
The investigation of the GWL spatial continuity revealed both the regional and local variability of the GWL variable.
a stationary behavior complying with the local variability The models are trained according to the defined ML
within each compartment (Fig. 4a). Two authorized theoreti- approach, considering three cases of spatial variability and
cal models were tried to fit the experimental variogram of estimating the adequate corresponding functions. Firstly, pre-
the GWL variable. The spherical model (variogram func- dictions were performed considering the whole region without
tion 17) exhibits a linear behavior at the origin, while the taking into account the faults, evidently, a single KRR model
Gaussian model (variogram function 18) displays a para- (designated as “KRR_G”, G: Global or whole area) is imple-
bolic behavior at small distances (Fig. 4a). mented. Here, the model is trained on all data points of the
area. Secondly, predictions were performed considering the
𝛾(h) = 450 Spherical(29400 ) (17)
whole region, taking into account the faults. The data points

13
Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404 1397

(a) To select the best models under each setting, a systematic

(h) trial-and-error procedure, involving a leave-one-out cross-
Spherical model
500 Gaussian model
validation for each model, is conducted. For each trial, dif-
Experimental variogram ferent hyperparameters ζ and η are selected, and the error
metrics are calculated to indicate how accurate the model is
400 in predicting the real value for a new unseen test point. This
procedure makes it possible to choose the best model while
avoiding overfitting.
300 That said, the η parameter is constrained to be within
a specific range before the trial-and-error procedure. In
fact, this kernel parameter plays a crucial role in correctly
200
modeling the spatial variability, the regional trend, and the
local GWL behavior expressed through the “wavy” contour-
100 ing, therefore getting a credible GWL map and a realistic
reconstruction of the hydrogeological reality. Whereas the
ζ parameter controls the regularization strength, with higher
0
0 10 20 30
values enforcing the smoothness of the function.
The best hyperparameters for all the models are stated in
Table 1. The models are trained using these hyperparameters
(b) on all the data points of their corresponding compartments.
3740 GWL (m)
The predicted functions are then modeled, and the generated
Gulf of Gabes 110
3730
maps are shown in Fig. 5.
100

3720 Results validation

90

3710 80 The results of the G/OK, ML/KRR_G, ML/KRR_F and ML/

Y(km)

KRR_I models are examined using scatter plots (Fig. 6), and
3700 70
error metrics including RMSE, MAE, R and NSE (Table 1).
Je

Most notably, the models were carefully checked for consist-

be

60
3690 ency with local and regional hydrogeological contexts.
lD

50 Figure 6 displays the different scatter plots depicting the

ha

3680 observed and estimated values of the GWL variable as calcu-

ha

40
0 5 10 20 lated from geostatistical and ML/KRR models. Overall, most
r

km
3670
30
600 610 620 630 640 650 660
X (km)
Fig. 4  a Experimental and theoretical variograms; b Estimated GWL
map using ordinary kriging, taking into account the major faults
are separated into their corresponding compartments defined
by the faults and outer borders. However, a single KRR model
(designated as “KRR_F”, F: integrating Faults) is chosen for
the whole region, but trained separately on each compartment.
Thirdly, predictions were performed considering each com-
partment individually. Here, a specific KRR model (designated
as “KRR_I”, I: Individual compartment) is implemented and
optimized for each corresponding compartment. That is, each
model is trained exclusively on the data points belonging to the
respective compartment. In the end, the models can be used to
estimate the GWL at a specific point in the study area.
of the predictions follow the 45° line, which indicates that each
of the tried models can consistently predict the GWL variable.
As indicated previously, the Kriging cross-validation pro-
cess showed compatibility between the used data set, the
assessed theoretical variogram representing the GWL spatial
variability, and the involved local neighborhood configura-
tion. This is evident in Fig. 6a where the majority of GWL
predictions closely align with the 45° line, demonstrating
their accuracy, except for only two data points. These two
points were verified using the ISATIS software tools, and
found to be situated within poorly sampled locations east-
ward, on the southwestern domain. The error metrics RMSE,
MAE, R and NSE are reported as 2.70 m, 1.68 m, 0.98 and
0.9860 respectively (Table 1). These values indicate satis-
factory results and confirm the accuracy of the predictions.
Concerning the ML methods, the ML/KRR_G model is
able to map the GWL with relatively good results; however, the
RMSE and MAE values (3.53 and 2.40 m respectively) are the

13
1398 Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404

highest of all other models (Table 1). This is also highlighted
when looking at the scatter plot (Fig. 6b); points exhibit a more
scattered cloud that is roughly symmetric around the diagonal
line, indicating less accurate predictions. The main reason for
this is that the KRR function is defined to fit all data along the
entire study area, but faults are not included in the modeling
procedure thus the local variability is not respected. Actually, the
estimate of a point, situated on one side of a fault, may be heavily
influenced by a lower or a higher variability of the neighborhood
situated on a downlifted or an uplifted adjacent compartment.
For the proposed ML/KRR_F and the ML/KRR_I, spe-
cific codes were developed, using Python programming
language, for incorporating faults into the prediction pro-
cess. This allowed one to respect the local variability, since
the observations taken as estimating neighborhood belong
exclusively to the delimited compartment where estimation
is being processed. This “fault constraint” improves the
accuracy of the prediction as evidenced through the scat-
ter diagram (Fig. 6c) displaying most of the ML/KRR_F
predictions along the 45° line. In addition, the error metrics
indicating lower RMSE (1.77 m) and MAE (1.24 m) values,
and higher R (0.99) and NSE (0.9926) values, indicating
improved prediction accuracy.
Defining a specific KRR function for each compartment
through the ML/KRR_I model allows one to better identify
the local variability and accurately capture the contouring
pattern of the GWL map in every compartment compared
with the ML/KRR_F model. Actually, each compartment
requires its specific parameters to correctly model its
function, which ensures a more precise representation of
the GWL behavior.
The ML/KRR_I model demonstrates its effectiveness in
ensuring high accuracy, as evidenced by the scatter diagram
in Fig. 6d and the corresponding error metrics. The model
achieves the lowest RMSE (1.74 m) and MAE (1.21 m)
values and the highest R (0.99) and NSE (0.9929) values,
among all geostatistical and ML models. Its performance is
also revealed through its ability to capture spatial variability
and reproduce GWL patterns in each compartment.
To recapitulate, the results and maps obtained in this
study (Fig. 5a,b,c) clearly demonstrate that the ML/KRR_I
model is more capable of estimating the GWL compared
with the other (ML/KRR_G and ML/KRR_F) models. It
reproduces the local spatial variability and reveals the main
regional trends towards the NE and the East, as well as
the contouring details in faulted zones as observed in the
G/OK. In fact, the G/OK, while only being based on the
monitored data, shows great efficiency in inferring structural
variability. This is obviously ensured by (1) the assumed
local stationarity through the spherical variogram model,
(2) the suitably designed neighborhood pattern, and (3) the
imposed “screen-fault” constraint. All these interpolation
procedures allowed the G/OK model to capture the local
variability within each compartment, and the regional trend
from one compartment to another one.
It can therefore be confirmed that the advanced ML/
KRR_I model, developed in this work, is performing con-
sistently as well as geostatistical methods. Indeed, it allows

Table 1  General statistics of the observed and estimated groundwater level (GWL) from the different models with their spatial variability con-
straints
Error metrics ML/KRR modeling Geostatistical modeling
Considering the area Considering the area over- Considering Considering the area
overall, without faults all, with faults each compartment individually overall, with faults
“ML/KRR_G” “ML/KRR_F” “ML/KRR_I” G/OK
One model One model Model 1 Model 2 Model 3 Theoretical variogram
ζ = 1e-04 ζ = 1e-04 ζ = 1e-04 ζ = 1e-05 ζ = 1e-04 ­ 2
C = 450 m
η = 1e-09 η = 1e-09 η = 1e-09 η = 1e-09 η = 1e-09 a = 29,400 m
NEC IC SWC NEC IC SWC

RMSE BC - 0.97 2.29 2.03 0.97 2.19 2.03 -

All 3.53 1.77 1.74 2.70
R BC - 0.98 0.75 0.96 0.98 0.77 0.96 -
All 0.97 0.99 0.99 0.98
MAE BC - 0.65 1.79 1.50 0.65 1.68 1.50 -
All 2.40 1.24 1.21 1.66
NSE All 0.971 0.9926 0.9929 0.9860

Parameters: ζ regularization hyperparameter; η RBF kernel’s hyperparameter; C sill of the theoretical variogram; a range of theoretical vari-
ogram
NEC northeastern compartment; IC intermediate compartment; SWC southwestern compartment; BC by compartment. ‘All’ denotes taking the
average over all the data points

13
Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404 1399

Fig. 5  Estimated GWL maps using: a ML/KRR considering the ▸

whole region without taking into account the faults; b ML/KRR con-
sidering the whole region taking into account the faults; c ML/KRR
considering each compartment individually

the GWL contours to be drawn robustly and the flow pattern

to be captured consistently, especially along rivers and more
importantly along secondary tributaries. A comprehensive
hydrogeological interpretation was conducted to provide a
solid basis for understanding the hydrogeological environ-
ment of the region. This interpretation is detailed in the fol-
lowing section.

Hydrogeological

Hydrogeological interpretations 0 5 10 20
km

The estimated GWL maps provide valuable insights regard-

ing the general patterns and the local variation of the
groundwater flow regime along the faulted groundwater
systems. This would constitute crucial support for develop-
ing a conceptual model of the groundwater flow system in
the Jeffara of Medenine.
Accordingly, a comprehensive hydrogeological inter-
pretation was conducted focusing on four key aspects—the
contour pattern, the hydraulic gradient, the flow direction
and the effect of faults on these different hydrogeologi-
cal properties. The analysis was primarily based on the
ML/KRR_I results, which demonstrated high reliability
in reproducing the specific features of the GWL spatial
variability within each compartment and along rivers. To
enhance the interpretative effectiveness, the contours of
the estimated GWL maps were visualized then superim- 0 5 10 20
km
posed onto the rivers and streams network (Fig. 7).
As regards the GWL, the potentiometric surface dis-
plays a comparable trend with the variation of elevation
(Figs. 2, 4b, 5c, and 7). Generally, areas of high poten-
tiometric surface coincide with topographic highs along
the Dhahar-Matmata Mountains, where the aquifer is
recharged. Conversely, depressions in the potentiometric
surface indicate areas of discharge along the coastal area.
Consequently, the regional groundwater flow follows the
down-dip direction from southwest to northeast.
A thorough analysis of the GWL map indicates hetero-
geneous patterns in the groundwater flow regime of the
aquifer system, expressed through variations of hydrau-
lic gradients and flow directions. The calculated maps
(Figs. 4b, 5c, and 7) show clearly that the flow direction
depends on the drainage pattern. Globally the direction
of flow is parallel to the rivers, demonstrating a hydraulic
0 5 10 20
connection between the aquifers and the main rivers as km

well as their tributaries. In the upstream basin, flow direc-

tions are influenced by topographic elevation. Regional

13
1400
Fig. 6  Scatter plots comparing (a)
observed and estimated values
using: a geostatistical modeling
considering the whole region,
taking into account the faults;
b ML/KRR_G considering the
True value (m)
whole region without taking
into account the faults; c ML/
KRR_F considering the whole
region, taking into account the
faults; d ML/KRR_I consider-
ing each compartment individu-
ally
(c)
True value (m)
a
recharge occurs, predominantly, in the western part of the
study area, originating from both the Dhahar and Mata-
matas mountains.
On the other hand, it is imperative to underline that
the flow pattern, as revealed above from the judiciously
constructed maps (Figs. 4b, 5c, and 7), indicates an inter-
aquifer-formations groundwater flow that constitutes a
substantial part of recharge and discharge in the major
compartments of the adjacent aquifers. In fact, tectonic
structures exert considerable control over the partitioning
of the aquifer systems, the connectivity of aquifer forma-
tions, and the regional and local groundwater flow pat-
tern (Chihi et al. 2015; Mezni et al. 2022a). Structural
control over GWL is exerted through discontinuities, such
as faults. The actual effect depends on the magnitude of
displacement, as well as on the degree of permeability
on both sides of the fault. In fact, the location and also
the amount of inter-aquifer flow, increase with increas-
ing permeability as the water can more easily flow and
decreases or stops with decreasing permeability. Based
on these relevant results, further significant insights were
13
Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404
(b)
True value (m)
(d)
True value (m)
formulated regarding the hydrodynamic characteristics
specific to each compartment.
In the Southwestern compartment (SWC), the Sahel El
Ababsa is recharged from Jebel Dhahar oriented NW–SE,
and where the aquifer sandstone unit outcrops (Figs. 1b
and 7). The flow directions are oriented to the NE, follow-
ing the course of rivers. However, deviations, indicated by
the green arrows in Fig. 7, are observed along secondary
tributaries. In some areas, such as the northern aquifer limit,
defined by the Tebaga fault and on the southern edge, the
flow movement is locally oriented E–W to ENE–WSW. A
steep hydraulic gradient seems to dominate the northern and
central parts of the SWC where the permeable sandstone
unit is exposed (Figs. 1b and 7). This is attributed to the
relatively sloping land surface. The hydraulic gradient is
larger in the southern part of the compartment because of the
gently sloping land surface and where the aquifer unit is bur-
ied by the intermediate clay unit (Hammami et al. 2018a).
Moreover, it is particularly relevant here to highlight the
local recharge from the Medenine High zone (Fig. 1b) that
constitutes the secondary source of supply to the water units.
Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404 1401

3740 48
50 Gulf of Gabes
3730
HF 60 36 Legend
N
3720
AM E Regional flow direction
C
40
74 70 Zs Local flow direction
3710 along each compartment
IC
Y(km)

OZ Flow direction
60 50
3700 TbF
90 GWL contours (m asl)
Je

60 Gb
Sr
be

3690 100 80 Faults

MF
lD

90 70 Rivers
110 SW TF
ha

C 70
3680
ha

0 5 10 20
100 km
r

80
110
DF

3670
600 610 620 630 640 650 660
X(km)

Fig. 7  Estimated GWL map by ML/KRR_I, superimposed to the riv- IC: intermediate compartment, NEC: northeastern compartment.
ers and secondary streams map showing the heterogeneous ground- HF: Henchir Fraj, AM: Ain Mjirda, Zs: Zeuss, OZ: Oum Zassar, Gh:
water flow pattern. MD: Medenine Fault,TbF: Tebaga Fault, TF: Ghabbay, Sm: Smar
Tejra Fault, DF: Dhahar Fault. SWC: southwestern compartment,

Within the Intermediate compartment (IC), hosting the
Zeuss-Koutine aquifer, the groundwater flow patterns are
more complex. This is obviously revealed through the heter-
ogeneous GWL contours on both sides of the limiting faults
and in between, from the relatively large area in the NW to
the restricted one on the SE (Fig. 7). On the NW side, the
aquifer is supplied mainly from Jebel Matmatas, oriented
N–S. The flow directions are initially eastward and then shift
to the NE aligning with the rivers. The hydraulic gradient
is gentle, this is to be expected, since recharge from rainfall
occurs throughout the rivers but also directly from the upper
karstified sedimentary unit, at the beginning of the flow path.
On the SE side (Fig. 7), water cannot keep flowing to the
NE, because of a barrier permeability (Chihi et al. 2015),
but rather is forced to shift in an exceptional fashion towards
the NW, then retrieve the major NE direction as it comes
close to the junction with Tebaga Fault (TbF). This reveals
that in this central area, there is an anticipated water inflow
originating specifically from Jebel Tejra.
Along the Northeastern compartment (NEC), including
the Mareth aquifer on the west and the Jorf aquifer on the
east, the global flow direction is oriented to the NE, with
contour lines predominantly perpendicular to the rivers,
thereby revealing that the direction of groundwater flow is
closely parallel to the main rivers. The equipotential lines
are widely spaced, indicating a noticeably low hydraulic gra-
dient attributed to both the low land surface (Fig. 2) and an
overall high permeability of the aquifer formations (Chihi
et al. 2015; Mamou 1990; Ben Baccar 1982).
The comparison of the GWL contour lines on both sides
of the Medenine fault (MF) highlights the lateral change of its
hydraulic properties conditioning thus the hydraulic connection
between the two major compartments, IC and NEC. Actually,
the flow pattern is the same on both sides of the MF, which acts
as a conduit between the permeable formations in Henchir Fraj
(HF), Zeuss (Zs) and Ghabbay (Gh) regions (Fig. 7).
Within the eastern zone, however, along Smar (Sm)
domain, the equipotential lines do not conform across the
fault. Within the NEC, equipotential lines are largely spaced
and intersect the MF. Additionally, inside the IC, contours
are closely spaced and their pattern indicates that the water-
ways are diverted laterally from the NE to the NW direction

13
1402
as previously mentioned. This can be attributed to the vary-
ing permeability across the aquifer system units on either
side of the MF, acting thus as a barrier to groundwater flow
in this region.
In some other areas, such as Ain Mjirda (AM) and Oum
Zassar (OZ), the contours slightly bend downstream because of
a lower permeability of the water units on the north side of the
MF. The groundwater flow is slowed, whilst the water discharge
to the NE compartment is maintained parallel to the rivers.
In this respect, it is particularly important to note the
change of the hydraulic behavior of the MF from the east to
the west of the aquifer system. This is partly explained by the
increasing displacement amount towards the NW direction as
demonstrated in Chihi et al. (2013) and (2015). From the pre-
sent study, an alternating barrier/conduit behavior of the MF
within respectively Sm, Gh, OZ, Zs, AM and HF was further
demonstrated (Fig. 7). More importantly along these domains,
the contour patterns are also alternating convergent/divergent
shapes downstream while maintaining the common NE flow
direction. These changes in contours shape are induced by
the combined effect of the NE–SW trending normal faults
(Fig. 1), generating horst and graben structures. Accordingly,
the connectivity between the water units depends on the
amount of fault displacement, the thickness of the different
units and their resulting intersection along the MF zone.
These significant observations are consistent with the
GWL contours and flow pattern along the coastline. The
focused groundwater discharge is expected to reach the
Mediterranean Sea, at the Gulf of Gabes, earlier in the HF
domain than in the AM domain (Fig. 7). It is important to
note that the reduced flow velocity due to the hydraulic prop-
erties of the medium should be distinguished from an exces-
sive water withdrawal and/or a possible marine intrusion.
These compelling results on contour shape change at dif-
ferent scales, revealed by the effective implementation of
advanced prediction methods, have allowed a significant
characterization of the hydrodynamic behavior of the joined-
faulted aquifer systems extending along the Jeffara of Mede-
nine. Consequently, more attention has to be focused on the
hydrogeological environment and on the geological con-
figuration to get an accurate reading of any predicted GWL
map. A comprehensive analysis and an in-depth understand-
ing of the GWL contoured lines pattern would then help to
properly define the boundary conditions, ensuring the most
representative conceptual model is built for flow simulations
and for a thorough study of the marine water intrusion.
Conclusions
This study investigated the potential of ML methods to
predict the spatial variability of groundwater level (GWL).
The implementation of the proposed kernel ridge regression
13
Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404
(KRR) approach was guided by geostatistical/based ordinary
kriging (G/OK) reasoning and constrained by geological dis-
continuities and scarce data.
Several mathematical models were trained, taking into
account hydrological heterogeneities and the underlying
local and regional spatial variability, to reliably produce a
GWL map for joint-faulted aquifer systems extending along
the southeastern coast of Tunisia. The incorporation of geo-
logical discontinuities supported by parametric analysis
has significantly improved the accuracy of the interpola-
tion results, while ensuring hydrogeological consistency.
This highlights the importance of combining advanced
ML techniques with geological knowledge in the realm of
hydrogeological parameter modeling, specifically for pre-
dicting GWL. Extensive interpretation of the GWL maps
constructed, underpinned by geological knowledge, provided
valuable insights into the spatial variation of the ground-
water flow paths as well as the hydraulic behavior of faults
acting as conduits, barriers or conduit-barriers.
The significant observations regarding the heterogeneous
flow pattern along both sides of the NW–SE faults align with
the observed groundwater level (GWL) contours and flow
pattern along the coastline. This study revealed that the vari-
ations in relative permeability between the horst and graben
compartments, shaped by the NE–SW faults, influence flow
velocity and ultimately affect the timing of groundwater dis-
charge into the Mediterranean Sea. These effects of relative
permeability variations need to be distinguished from other
factors, such as excessive water withdrawal and the potential
occurrence of marine intrusions. Such considerations are
essential (1) to properly define the boundary conditions, (2)
to ensure the most representative conceptual model is built
for flow simulation and (3) to facilitate a thorough study of
the marine water intrusion.
Furthermore, the developed combined machine-learning/
geostatistics/hydrogeology-based approach has led to highly
relevant prediction results and effective perception of the
actual hydrogeological phenomenon characterizing a set of
aquifer systems in a highly complex geological environment.
Furthermore, the model should be intuitive, efficient to train,
and easily reproducible on other hydraulic parameters in
terms of prediction and mapping. These methods are poten-
tially extendable to larger areas, enabling the validation of
regional models in complex environments and providing val-
uable information for the sustainable management of water
resources at regional, national and transboundary levels.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the “General
Directorate of Water Resources” (DGRE) for providing GWL data.
Declarations
Conflicts of interest The authors state that there is no conflict of inter-
est.
Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404
References
Band SS, Heggy E, Bateni SM, Karami H, Rabiee M, Samadianfard
S, Chau KW, Mosavi A (2021) Groundwater level prediction in
arid areas using wavelet analysis and Gaussian process regression.
Eng Appl Comput Fluid Mech 15(1):1147–1158. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1080/​19942​060.​2021.​19449​13
Ben Baccar B (1982) Contribution à L’étude Hydrogéologique de
L’aquifère Multicouche de Gabès Sud [Contribution to the hydro-
geological study of the multilayer aquifer of Gabes Sud]. PhD
Thesis, University of Paris Sud, Orsay, France
Boezio MNMB, Costa JFCL, Koppe JC (2006) Accounting for extensive
secondary information to improve watertable mapping. Nat Resour
Res 15(1):33–48. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11053-​006-​9014-5
Chihi H (1998) Modélisation 3-D des unités stratigraphiques et simu-
lation des faciès sismiques dans la marge du Golfe du Lion [3-D
modeling of stratigraphic units and simulation of seismic facies
in the margin of the Gulf of Lion]. Technip, Rueil-Malmaison,
France. http://c​ atalo​ gue.b​ nf.f​ r/a​ rk:/1​ 2148/c​ b1332​ 5096k. Accessed
July 2023
Chihi H, de Marsily G (2009) Simulating non-stationary seismic facies
distribution in a prograding shelf environment, gas science and
technology. Oil Gas Sci Tech Rev IFP 64(4):451–467. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​2516/​ogst/​20090​17
Chihi H, Alain G, Ravenne C, Tesson M, de Marsily G (2000) Estimat-
ing the depth of stratigraphic units from marine seismic profiles
using non-stationary geostatistics. Nat Resour Res 9(1):77–95.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1023/A:​10101​65914​840
Chihi H, Tesson M, Alain G, de Marsily G, Ravenne C (2007) Geo-
statistical modelling (3D) of the stratigraphic unit surfaces of the
Gulf of Lion western margin (Mediterranean Sea) based on seis-
mic profiles. Bull Soc Géol France 178(1):25–38. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​2113/​gssgf​bull.​178.1.​25
Chihi H, Bedir M, Belayouni H (2013) Variogram identification aided
by a structural framework for improved geometric modeling of
faulted reservoirs: Jeffara basin, southeastern Tunisia. Nat Resour
Res 22(2):139–161. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11053-​013-​9201-0
Chihi H, Jeannée N, Yahayoui H, Belayouni H, Bedir M (2014) Geo-
statistical optimization of water reservoir characterization case
of the Jeffra de Medenine aquifer system (SE Tunisia). Desalin
Water Treat 52(10–12):2009–1016. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 080/1​ 9443​
994.​2013.​812988
Chihi H, de Marsily G, Belayouni H, Yahyaoui H (2015) Relationship
between tectonic structures and hydrogeochemical compartmen-
talization in aquifers: example of the “Jeffara of Medenine” sys-
tem, south-east Tunisia. J Hydrol Reg Stud 4(part B):410–430.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​ejrh.​2015.​07.​004
Chihi H, de Marsily G, Bourges M, Sbeaa M (2016) A constrained
geostatistical approach for efficient multilevel aquifer system char-
acterization. J Water Resour Hydraul Eng 5(3):80–95. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​5963/​JWRHE​05030​02
Chihi H, Hammami MA, Mezni I, Belayouni H, Ben Mammou A
(2023) Multiscale modeling of reservoir systems using geosta-
tistical methods. C R Géoscience (355_S1):1–31. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​5802/​crgeos.​210
Chiles J P, Definer D (2012) Geostatistics: modeling spatial uncer-
tainty. In: Wiley series in probability and statistics, 2nd edn.
Wiley, Hoboken, NJ
Custodio E (2013) Loss of groundwater quality & related services:
trends in groundwater pollution—a global framework for country
action GEFID 3726. Environ Sci. www.​groun​dwate​rgove​rnance.​
org. Accessed July 2023
Delhomme JP (1978) Kriging in hydrosciences advances. Adv Water
Resour 1(5):251–266. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0309-​1708(78)​
90039-8
1403
Delhomme JP (1979) Spatial variability and uncertainty in ground-
water flow parameters: a geostatistical approach. Water Resour
Res 15(2):269–280. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​WR015​i002p​00269
Delhomme JP, De Marsily G (2006) Flow in porous media: an attempt
to outline Georges Matheron’s contributions. In: Bilodeau M,
Meyer F, Schmitt M (eds) Space, structure and randomness: con-
tributions in honor of Georges Matheron in the fields of Geosta-
tistics. Random Sets and Mathematical Morphology: lecture notes
in statistics. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp 69–88
De Marsily G (1986) Quantitative hydrogeology. Academic Pres,
New York
De Marsily G (2021) Will we soon run out of water? Ann Nutr Metab
76(1):10–16. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1159/​00051​5019
De Marsily G, Lavedan G, Boucher M, Fadanino G (1984) Inter-
pretation of interference tests in a well field using geostatisti-
cal techniques to fit the permeability distribution in a reservoir
model. In: Verly G, David M, Journel A, Marechal A (eds) Geo-
statistics for Natural Resources Characterizations. Part 2, D.
Reidel, Dordrecht, pp 831–849
De Marsily G, Delay F, Goncalves J, Renard P, Teles V, Violette S
(2005) Dealing with spatial heterogeneity. Hydrogeol J 13:161–
183. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10040-​004-​0432-3
Ghordoyee Milan S, Kayhomayoon Z, Arya Azar N, Berndtsson
R, Reza Ramezani M, Moghaddam HK (2023) Using machine
learning to determine acceptable levels of groundwater con-
sumption in Iran. Sustain Product Consump 35:388–400. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​spc.​2022.​11.​018
Guzman SM, Paz JO, Tagert MLM, Mercer AE (2019) Evaluation of
seasonally classified inputs for the prediction of daily groundwater
levels: Narx networks vs support vector machines. Environ Model
Assess 24(2):223–234. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10666-​018-​9639-x
Goovaerts P (1997) Geostatistics for natural resources evaluation.
Oxford University Press, New York
Hammami MA, Chihi H, Ben Mammou A, Yahyaoui H (2018a)
Aquifer structure identification through geostatistical integra-
tion of geological parameters: case of the Triassic sandstone
aquifer system (SE Tunisia). Arab J Geosci 11(248):1–18.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s12517-​018-​3591-6
Hammami MA, Chihi H, de Marsily G (2018b) Building constrained
(3D) geostatistical models case of the Triassic sandstone aquifer
system (SE Tunisia). In: Kallel A, Ksibi M, Ben Dhia H, Khélifi N
(eds) Euro-Mediterranean conference for environmental integra-
tion (EMCEI-1). Springer, Cham. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​978-3-​
319-​70548-4_​192
Isaaks EH, Srivastava RM (1989) An introduction to applied geosta-
tistics. Oxford University Press, New York
ISATIS (2020) Geovariances technical references. ISATIS, Fon-
tainebleau France
Journel A, Huijbregts C (1978) Mining geostatistics. Academic, New York
Kayhomayoon Z, Ghordoyee Milan K, Jaafari A, Arya-Azar NM,
Melesse A, Moghaddam HK (2022) How does a combination of
numerical modeling, clustering, artificial intelligence, and evo-
lutionary algorithms perform to predict regional groundwater
levels? Comput Electron Agric 203:107482. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1016/j.​compag.​2022.​107482
Koch J, Berger H, Henriksen HJ, Sonnenborg TO (2019) Modelling
of the shallow water table at high spatial resolution using ran-
dom forests. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 23(11):4603–4619. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​5194/​hess-​23-​4603-​2019
Lallahem S, Mania J, Hani A, Najjar Y (2005) On the use of neural net-
works to evaluate groundwater levels in fractured media. J Hydrol
307:92–111. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhydr​ol.​2004.​10.​005
Li Z, Yoon J, Zhang R, Rajabipour F, Srubar WV, Dabo I, Radlińska
A (2022) Machine learning in concrete science: applications,
challenges, and best practices. npj Comput Mat 8(1):1–17.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1038/​s41524-​022-​00810-x
13
1404
Mammou A (1990) Caractéristiques, évaluation et gestion des res-
sources en eau du Sud-tunisien [Characteristics, evaluation and
management of water resources in southern Tunisia]. PhD The-
sis, University of Paris-Sud, Orsay, France
Matheron G (1963) Principles of geostatistics. Econ Geol 58:1246–1266
Matheron G (1965) Les variables régionalisées et leur estimation
[Regionalized variables and their estimation]. Masson, Paris
Matheron G, De Marsily G (1980) Is transport in porous media
always diffusive? a counterexample. Water Resour Res 16:901–
917. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​WR016​I005P​00901
Mezni I, Chihi H, Bounasri M, Ben Salem A, Ayfer S (2022a) Com-
bined geophysical–geological investigation for 3D geological
modeling: case of the Jeffara reservoir systems, Medenine
Basin, SE Tunisia. Nat Resour Res 3:1329–1350. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1007/​s11053-​022-​10067-2
Mezni I, Chihi H, Hammami MA, Gabtni H, Baba Sy B (2022b)
Regionalization of natural recharge zones using analytical hier-
archy process in an arid Hydrologic Basin: a contribution for
managed aquifer recharge. Nat Resour Res 3:867–895. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s11053-​022-​10023-0
Moghaddam HK, Moghaddam HK, Kivi ZR, Bahreinimotlagh
M, Alizadeh MJ (2019) Developing comparative mathematic
models, BN and ANN for forecasting of groundwater levels.
Groundw Sustain Dev 9:100237. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​gsd.​
2019.​100237
Moghaddam KH, Ghordoyee Milan S, Kayhomayoon Z, Kivi ZR,
Azar A (2021) The prediction of aquifer groundwater level
based on spatial clustering approach using machine learn-
ing. Environ Monit Assess 193:173. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s10661-​021-​08961-y
Mohanty S, Jha MK, Kumar A, Panda DK (2013) Comparative
evaluation of numerical model and artificial neural network for
simulating groundwater flow in Kathajodi–Surua inter-basin of
Odisha, India. J Hydrol 495:38–51. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​
jhydr​ol.​2013.​04.​041
Nourani N, Goli Ejlali R, Taghi Alami M (2011) Spatiotemporal
groundwater level forecasting in coastal aquifers by hybrid arti-
ficial neural network-Geostatistics model: a case study. Environ
Eng Sci 28(3):217–225. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1089/​ees.​2010.​0174
Pedregosa F, Varoquaux G, Gramfort A, Michel V, Thirion B, Grisel
O, Blondel M, Prettenhofer P, Weiss R, Dubourg V, Vanderplas
J, Passos A, Cournapeau D, Brucher M, Perrot M, Duchesnay E
(2011) Scikit-learn: machine learning in python. J Mach Learn
Res 12:2825–2830
13
Hydrogeology Journal (2023) 31:1387–1404
Pirot G, Renard P, Huber E, Straubhaar J, Huggenberger P (2015)
Influence of conceptual model uncertainty on contaminant
transport forecasting in braided river aquifers. J Hydrol 531(part
1):124–141. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhydr​ol.​2015.​07.​036
Soua M, Chihi H (2014) Optimizing exploration procedure using
oceanic anoxic events as new tool for hydrocarbon strategy in
Tunisia. In: Gaci S, Hachay O (eds) Advances in data, methods,
models and their applications in oil/gas exploration. Cambridge,
New York, pp 25–89
Tang Y, Zang C, Wei Y, Jiang M (2019) Data-driven modeling of
groundwater level with least-square support vector machine and
spatial–temporal analysis. Geotech Geol Eng 37(3):1661–1670.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s10706-​018-​0713-6
Tao H, Hameed MM, Marhoon HA, Zounemat-Kermani M, Hed-
dam S, Kim S, Sulaiman SO, Tan ML, Sa’adi Z, Mehr AD,
Allawi MF, Abba SI, Zain JM, Falah MW, Jamei M, Bokde
ND, Bayatvarkeshi M, Al-Mukhtar M, Bhagat SK et al (2022)
Groundwater level prediction using machine learning models: a
comprehensive review. Neurocomputing 489:271–308. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​neucom.​2022.​03.​014
UNESCO (2022) Groundwater: making the invisible visible. UN
World Water Development Rep 2022, UNESCO, Paris
USGS (2014) Earth explorer. US Geological Survey. earth​explo​rer.​
usgs.​gov. Accessed November 9, 2022
Varouchakis EA, Guardiola-Albert C, Karatzas GP (2022) Spati-
otemporal geostatistical analysis of groundwater level in aquifer
systems of complex hydrogeology. Water Resour Res 58:1–14.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2021W​R0299​88
Yadav B, Ch S, Mathur S, Adamowski J (2017) Assessing the suit-
ability of extreme learning machines (ELM) for groundwater level
prediction. J WaterLand Dev 32:103–112. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/1​ 0.1​ 515/​
jwld-​2017-​0012
Zhang Y, Duchi J, Wainwright M (2013) Divide and conquer kernel
ridge regression. Proceedings of the 26th annual conference on
learning theory. PMLR 30:592–617
Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.