Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
net/publication/323247569
CITATIONS READS
7 1,229
4 authors:
Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:
Identification of ground water prospect and recharge zones in District Banda Of Bundelkhand Region(UP) View project
All content following this page was uploaded by Nirmal Kumar on 19 February 2018.
ORIGINAL ARTICLE
Abstract
Both natural erosional dynamics and anthropogenic changes have intense effects on the land use/land cover (LULC) of
the global earth. These LULC changes have a substantial impact on soil and water. This study focus on impacts of LULC
changes on hydrological processes governing the Tons River Basin (TRB). Landsat satellite images based on seven land
use classes which were defined for this basin are forest deciduous (FRSD), forest mixed (FRST), mixed crop (RWSW),
barren land (BARN), hay (HAY), residential (URBN) and water body (WATR). The LULC (1985–2035) result showed an
increase in URBN from 0.29 to 2.81% while the rate of change (RoC) for URBN was calculated to be 8.71%. A continuous
reduction was seen in FRSD from 15.57 to 9.77% giving the RoC as − 0.37%. The FRST increased at the RoC of 1.95%
from 0.6 to 1.77% while the mixed crop (RWSW) increased from 72.68 to 78.27% at the RoC of 0.77%. The other LULC
classes showed similar results. The hydrologic impacts were analyzed by running SWAT for the LULC changes in order to
predict the corresponding changes in the hydrologic process. In this consequence SWAT was run for five decades from 1985
to 1995, 1995–2005, 2005–2015 (before baseline scenario) and 2015–2025, 2025–2035 (after baseline scenario) assuming
2015 as a baseline scenario. Evaluation of the impact of LULC changes revealed that there was decrease in surface runoff,
from 62.29 to 62.14% and lateral flow from 2.39 to 0.261% for the period of 2015 to 2035. The groundwater flow showed
a slight increment from 37.42 to 37.62% while the total water yield increased from 774.74 to 776.74 mm. The simulated
results for TRB showed that the hydrological processes in the watershed were minimally influenced by LULC changes. It was
concluded that the basin’s LULC change was not pronounced and was minimally affected by natural and artificial changes.
The hydrological changes were not correlated with LULC changes. It is recommended that in order to manage the water
resources and to properly develop the entire catchment, a rational regulation policy for land use patterns is vitally important
in order to assist stakeholders and policy makers.
13
Vol.:(0123456789)
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
LULC change on hydrological processes such as inter- et al. 2015). Generally, these studies have been performed
ception, evapotranspiration, infiltration, surface runoff, using past and present LULC states or radical LULC change
groundwater recharge, stream flow and sediment yield in scenarios in event-scale hydrological models to assess the
a river basin remains a prominent topic of research around hydrological processes in the basins (Olang 2011). Thus,
the world (Singh et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2014; Molina- assessing long-term hydrological impacts of LULC change
navarro et al. 2014; Isik et al. 2012; Niu and Sivakumar is of critical importance for land use planning and water
2014; Gyamfi et al. 2017). resources management for which hydrological models are
LULC changes, whether they are natural or anthropo- particularly useful, as they can assess past and possible
genic, have both positive and negative impacts on hydro- future impacts (using different land use scenarios). There-
logical processes, and water resources (Gajbhiye et al. fore, hydrological models have become an indispensable
2015) and soil nutrients (Kumar et al. 2013). Additionally, tool for water resources management studies (Suliman et al.
it is noted that different LULC changes in different basins 2015).
produce significantly different hydrologic output (Lin et al. Hydrological models require meteorological data and
2009), i.e., changes in one basin cannot be superimposed spatio-temporal watershed characteristics, for accurate
onto the next basin to produce the same hydrologic output evaluation, modeling and prediction of the dynamic water
as in the previous basin. The stream flow generation capac- balance of a watershed (He and Hogue 2012; Kristian et al.
ity of a basin also dependents on the vegetation types and 1998; Ye et al. 2013; Makwana and Tiwari 2017). Hydrolog-
its spatial-seasonal variation patterns as this driver per se is ical models, such as the Environmental Protection Agency
known to strongly influence the rate of potential evapotran- (EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) (Huber
spiration (PET) in the basin (Molina-navarro et al. 2014; et al. 1988), Long-term hydrologic impact assessment
Morán-tejeda et al. 2015). (L-THIA) (Li and Wang 2009), United States Department
A number of studies have reported the impact of LULC of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Non-Point Source Pol-
changes on hydrological processes at different spatial and lution Model (AGNPS) (USDA 2011; Young et al. 1989),
temporal scales (Baker and Miller 2013; Fan and Shibata HydrologiskaByrånsVattenbalansavdelning (HBV) model
2015; Zhou et al. 2013). In addition, reviews of several (Ashagrie et al. 2006), European hydrological system—sys-
domestic and international studies suggest that LULC temehydrologiqueEuropeen (SHE) (Abbott et al. 1986) and
change can alter streamflow thereby altering the hydrology Hydrologic Modeling System (HECHMS) (Feldman 1981)
of a basin (Carpenter et al. 2011; Chen et al. 2013; García- have been extensively used for hydrological analysis. The
ruiz et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2014; Hu et al. 2015). For hydrological models generally require a large amount of spa-
example, Zhang and Schilling (2006) concluded that the tially variable input data and parameters. They also require
LULC changes in the Mississippi Basin had resulted in an calibration to varying degrees against observed hydrologic
increase of stream flow mainly due to an increased base flow. variables, mainly due to lack of high quality input data and
Yang et al. (2012), in their study on Laohahe Basin of China conceptual simplification of environmental processes (Srini-
found out that human activities had significantly modified vasan et al. 2010).
and converted the main LULC types in this region leading Various other hydrological models have also been
to a 90% decrease in stream flow. He and Hogue (2012) developed to study the spatio-temporal variations in
noted that urbanization was often the most influential fac- hydrological processes induced by both the natural and
tor that affected flow regimes in a basin. Further, the article anthropogenic activities and their simultaneous impact on
reported that an increase in urban development had caused water resources within a basin (Du et al. 2012; Maetens
an increase in the total annual runoff and wet season flows et al. 2012), including the soil and water assessment tool
in Upper Santa Clara Basin in the United States of America (SWAT). SWAT is a physically-based semi-distributed
(USA). Jing and Ross (2015), on the other hand, assessed the hydrological model that was developed to operate at a
possible relationship between LULC and stream flow due to continuous time-step. It has the capability to simulate the
mining activities in Peace River in Southwest Florida and nexus of hydrological processes and biophysical changes
found out that there was a decreasing pattern in streamflow (Wang et al. 2014; Chen et al. 2016). SWAT is a preferred
at most gauging stations which were impacted by upstream model among hydrologists because of its strong emphasis
mining activities. on vegetation and hydrological interactions that make it
Furthermore, impacts of LULC changes on the water suitable for LULC based hydrological analysis (Srinivasan
resources have been analyzed in many other studies at dif- et al. 1998; Santhi et al. 2001a, b; Tripathi et al. 2006;
ferent spatial and temporal scales (Legesse et al. 1995; Wang Gosain et al. 2005; Cao et al. 2006; Krysanova et al. 2015;
et al. 2008; Ghaffari et al. 2010; Mango et al. 2011; Barthel Srinivasan et al. 2010). Examples of articles where SWAT
et al. 2012; Wijesekara et al. 2012; Yan et al. 2013; Niraula has been used for river basin modelling are captured in
Table 1.
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Results of the studies in Table 1 show that SWAT is capable Materials and Methods
of simulating stream flow in a river basin with satisfactory
accuracies. However, most of these previous studies assessed Description of study area
the hydrological impacts based on a few (two or three) LULC
scenarios. Since the LULC change and its impact on hydro- As show Fig. 1, Tons River Basin (TRB), which is also
logical processes is a widespread concern and a great chal- known as Tamsa river basin, is a sub-basin of the Gan-
lenge, during this current study it was vital to understand ges basin. It is located towards the northern part of India,
the impact of LULC change on hydrology in the Tons River spreading across the two states of Madhya Pradesh (MP)
Basin (TRB) using a suitable hydrological model and more and Uttar Pradesh (UP). TRB originates from a tank “Tam-
than three LULC scenarios. Thus, the main objective of this akund” of the Kaimur hills at an elevation of 610 m as well
study was to assess the changes in stream flow in the TRB due as in Satna district of Madhya Pradesh. It flows between
to changing land use-cover for seven decades using SWAT. A 23°57′N to 25°20′N latitudes and 80°20′E to 83°25′E lon-
specific research question that could be answered as a result gitudes via the hilly Vindhyan Range to the fertile plains
of this study was “how could long term changes in LULC of Rewa district in MP and Allahabad district of UP.
affect the spatial and temporal variability of stream flow in The 10 m geography of the area (Fig. 2) indicates that the
the TRB?”. basin almost entirely sits on the Chota Nagpur Plateau, with
the Vindhya Range lying towards its South-West. The Gan-
ges Plain is located to the North of the basin while Kaimur
Sanctuary is on its eastern side. The geology of the basin is
predominantly Precambrean (Archean + Proterozoic), with
patches of Quaternary base rock (Fig. 3). These are further
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Fig. 1 Spatial location of Tons River Basin, Uttar Pradesh, India. Source: Hydrosheds-Asia Digital Elevation Model (DEM), Global Rivers and
Global Basins
subdivided into three series namely, the Bhander the Rewa red black soil. The majority of slopes in the basin are less
and the Kaimur. than 2% on a mean elevation of 285 m. The maximum
The major land use of the area is agricultural land for and minimum elevations are 665 and 319 m, respectively,
wheat (major crop), rice, soybean, millet (minor crops) for a gradient ratio of 0.9275 m/km. The wind speed in
and pulses under popular cropping patterns of wheat- the region varies from 0.43 m/s (November) to 1.29 m/s
pulses and rice-wheat-pulses. TRB is endowed with (June), with a predominant West to North–West wind
mainly deep black soil, shallow black soil and the mixed direction. TRB experiences mean relative humidity ranges
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
∑
t
( )
SWt = SW0 + Rday − Qsurf − Ea − Wseep − Qqw .
i=1
(1)
SWt final soil water content (mm), S W0 initial soil water
content on day i (mm), Rday amount of precipitation on day i
(mm), Qsurf amount of surface runoff on day i (mm), E a amount
of evapotranspiration on day i (mm), Qgw amount of return
flow on day i (mm). Wseep amount of water entering the vadose
zone from the soil profile on day i (mm).
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Equation (3), as given in Singh et al. (2015), denotes the Nations, and it showed that for TRB there were six main
transition probability from state i to state j, while X[k] rep- soil types. All the soil types and codes were manually
resents the states {x1, x2, x3, ···}. However, many times added with attributes into the SWAT user soil database.
Markov chain follows a finite number of states (n); in the The Sandy Clay Loam (Lc75-1b-3780) soil which cov-
latter case the transition probability matrix can be defined ers 60.30% of the basin area is the most dominant soil
by Eq. (4) (Singh et al. 2015): (Fig. 4b). The Loam (Lo51-2a-3812) soil covers 30.50%
and occurs mostly in the north-eastern part of the basin.
Pi,j = Pr (X[k + 1] = j|X[k] = i ), (3) The other four types are Loam (0.19%) as Be80-2a-3681,
⎡P1,1 P1,2 − − − P1,n ⎤ Sandy Clay Loam (0.85%) as Lc5-1a-3772, Sandy
⎢ ⎥ loam (2.32%) as Lf10-1bc-3785 and Clay (5.84%) as
⎢P2,1 P2,2 − − − P2,n ⎥ Vc21-3a-3859.
⎢− − − − − − ⎥. (4) Slope map was prepared from DEM (90 m) using
⎢ ⎥
⎢− − − − − − ⎥ the slope tool in ArcGIS. The slope map for the study
⎢ ⎥ area provided five classes where the maximum eleva-
⎣Pn,1 Pn,2 − − − Pn,n ⎦
tion occurred in the central and southern most part of
TRB (Fig. 5a). Climate (meteorological) data was taken
Data input from the SWAT database for the period 1979–2013, for
the parameters daily precipitation, minimum and maxi-
In this study, the SWAT model was employed, where the mum temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation and
required data-sets were digital elevation model (DEM), soil, wind speed. The data represented 16 gauging stationsand
LULC, meteorological data (temperature, precipitation, solar these were taken as input into SWAT. Stream flow was
radiation, relative humidity, wind speed), and discharge obtained from the Ministry of Water Resources, Gov-
observations at Meja gauge station. ernment of India for the period 1979 to 2011 for Meja
DEM data was collected from the Shuttle Radar Topo- gauging station near the junction of Tons and Ganga
graphic Mission (SRTM) website with 90 ms resolution. at Sirsa. These data were then compared to the SWAT
The elevation of TRB ranges from 698 to 36 m above model output during model calibration and validation
mean sea level (Fig. 4a). Soil data was collected from the (Fig. 5b).
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Land use change modeling using CA Markov model landuse data of previous years and keeping all other inputs
(soil and weather) constant. The model results were com-
The land use/land cover (LULC) data was prepared using pared with the baseline scenario. The model was sequen-
Landsat5(TM) and Landsat8 (OLI) data-sets. The unsuper- tially calibrated and validated for past and future scenarios.
vised classification method and ISODATA techniques were Table 2 shows the calibrated and validated stream flow
used to create LULC in TRB. The LULC maps were pre- results at Meja gauge station. The values given in Table 2 are
pared for years 1985, 1995, 2005 and 2015 while the CA- showing satisfactory/good performance of model (Moriasi
Markov techniques were used to create future data-sets, i.e., et al. 2007, 2015; Nash and Sutcliffe 1970).
2025 and 2035. Total seven LULC types were observed in The detailed methods that were used for simulation of
TRB namely forest mixed (FRST), forest deciduous (FRSD), LULC changes and their impact on stream flow are provided
barren land (BARN), hay (HAY), mixed crop (RWSW), resi- in Fig. 7. The results of all decades can be compared for best
dential (URBN) and water body (WATR) (Fig. 6 a–f). performance of the model in a particular year. The compara-
tive relationship of simulated data with baseline scenario for
all decades can then be found.
Model calibration and validation
SWAT model was set up to simulate the stream flow for the Results and discussions
baseline scenario using LULC for 2015. The model was then
calibrated for baseline scenario from 1979 to 2011, with Land use/land cover change analysis and its impact
a 3-year warm up period of 1979 to 1981. An automatic on stream flow
calibration and validation was done using SWAT-CUP and
SUFI-2 algorithm for the 19 selected parameters. SWAT- The impacts of land use changes on water resource (Genxu
CUP was set up to calibrate the model with a 1000 times et al. 2005; Nugroho et al. 2013) have been the main focus
iteration. The calibration results showed that among the 19 for the researchers and among them an integrated modeling
parameters the most sensitive parameters were ALPHA_BF, approach has its potentiality (Ma et al. 2009a; Marhaento
SOL_K, ESCO, GW_DELAY, CH_K2 and SLSUBBSN. et al. 2016; Wijesekara et al. 2012). Woldesenbet et al.
hru but their sensitivity order had changed during various (2017) combined a semi-distributed hydrologic model
decades. After the baseline scenario, the SWAT was run SWAT and partial least squares regression (PLSR) for the
for three past decades 1985, 1995 and 2005. Two futures hydrological responses in the source region of Upper Blue
LULC (2025, 2035) were used to run SWAT by replacing the Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Choi and Deal (2008) also used this
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
integration with dynamic urban growth model (LEAM- Here in this study, the LULC analysis was started with 1985
luc) in order to show how this urbanization influences the in order to study the separate changes and their responses on
hydrology of basin. They concluded that noticeable land use hydrological component that occurred before and after the
changes have increased the surface runoff, water yield and baseline scenario (2015). The LULC changes were estab-
reduced the infiltration and balse flow in the basin. Therefore lished for years 1985, 1995, and 2005 before baseline and
quantitative information can be extracted by using integra- then 2025 and 2035 for the future using the LULC predic-
tion of land use models with distributed hydrological model tion model method. The dominant land use types in TRB
for hydrological response in a changing land use pattern. watershed are agricultural land, hay and mixed forest. These
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
FRSD 15.57 15.47 − 0.006 15.47 15.25 − 0.014 15.25 15.01 − 0.016
FRST 0.6 1.02 0.700 1.02 1.05 0.027 1.05 2.01 0.918
RWSW 72.68 72.55 − 0.002 72.55 72.57 0.0003 72.57 72.37 − 0.003
BARN 2.52 2.47 − 0.020 2.47 2.63 0.066 2.63 2.4 − 0.089
HAY 6.79 6.38 − 0.060 6.38 6.45 0.011 6.45 6.21 − 0.038
URBN 0.29 0.41 0.414 0.41 0.55 0.334 0.55 0.67 0.225
WATR 1.56 1.7 0.090 1.7 1.50 − 0.120 1.50 1.33 − 0.111
classes accounted for almost 90% of the total area, although The mixed forest showed positive growth rates during
their individual percentage coverages for the different sce- 1985–1995 (0.7%) while for 1995–2005, the growth rate was
narios were significantly different (Table 3). very slow (0.027%), most of which was located in the SW
Reference is made to Table 3 for the analysis which fol- and NW parts of the study area. The RoC (2005–5015) for
lows the LULC changes in TRB during different decades. mixed forest showed an increment than in the previous peri-
The rate of change (RoC) for built up area during 1985–1995 ods. The area of water showed a substantial reduction, which
was 0.414% and during 1995–2005 was 0.334%, which decreased at the rate of 0.09% (1985–1995) to − 0.120%
showed a reduction in the RoC compared to previous dec- (1995–2005) and − 0.111% for the period 2005–2015.
ades, which agreed with regional transportation and rapid The construction of reservoirs and check-dams is good
urbanization trends. for sustainable development but generally construction of
The average RoC for the mixed crop and the forest dam or reservoir constitutively reduces the areal extent of
deciduous were − 0.002%, − 0.006%, respectively during water. These constructions also influence the infiltration in
the period 1985–1995 and 0.0003%, − 0.014%, respectively that area as a result the groundwater generally declines. The
during the period 1995–2005. This shows that the intensity above mentioned causes were similarly responsible in TRB
of changes during these decades, in the human–environmen- for reduction in the areal extent of water body during 1985
tal system, were relatively stable. The RoC again for the to 2015. These areal declines in water body were mainly
2005–2015 was although showing reduction but percentage located close to Amkoi Dam (SW), Amua Dam (SE), Bhai-
of area of built-up has been increased from year 2005 to sawar Dam (NW), Chithara Dam (NW), Gonda Dam (NW),
2015 (Table 3). Koka Dam (SE), Kulgarhi Dam (Middle Satna), Lilgi Dam
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Table 4 Land use/land cover LULC Area2015 (%) Area2025 (%) RoC (%) Area2025 (%) Area2035 (%) RoC (%)
change analysis after baseline
scenario (2015) FRSD 15.01 10.97 − 0.269 10.97 9.77 − 0.110
FRST 2.01 1.79 − 0.108 1.79 1.77 − 0.013
RWSW 72.37 77.59 0.072 77.59 78.27 0.009
BARN 2.4 0.78 − 0.673 0.78 0.74 − 0.055
HAY 6.21 5.27 − 0.151 5.27 5.06 − 0.041
URBN 0.67 2.08 2.105 2.08 2.81 0.353
WATR 1.33 1.51 0.138 1.51 1.58 0.042
(Maihar), Naktara reservoir (SE), and Singhpur Dam (NW). simulation with LULC dynamics. Here all the simulated
All these declines would greatly disturb the eco-environment stream flow results (past and future) were compared with the
and the hydrological cycle in SE, SW and the upper part of observed values in order to show that how the variation in
TRB. According to Table 4 the growth rate after the base- the stream flow was taken place from the baseline scenario
line scenario for URBN area was 2.105% during 2015–2025 (Fig. 8a, f). Figure 8a–f shows the observed versus simulated
and 0.353% during 2025–2035, respectively. The FRST after discharge for LULC 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015, 2025 and 2035.
the baseline showed a reduction in growth rate as − 0.108% Results for the future years 2025 and 2035 showed minimal
during 2015–2025 and − 0.013% during 2025–2035. The impact of LULC change on simulated discharge compared
FRSD was also showing almost same pattern of changes to historical observed. LULC changes such as conversion
in TRB after the baseline. These negative growths of forest of agricultural land and forests to urban area due to urbani-
were envisaged to reduce the infiltration capacity of water zation and tree planting for soil and water conservation as
to groundwater and increase the surface runoff in the study well as changes within classes such as change of cropping
area (Table 4). Welde and Gebremariam (2017) concluded pattern, result in noticeable changes in hydrologic processes
the LULC impacts on hydrological component in the Tekeze in a basin (Haregeweyn et al. 2012; Nyssen et al. 2010). Fur-
dam watershed as increasing bare land and agricultural areas thermore, LULC changes, which are generally induced by
resulted in increased stream flow and sediment yield. anthropogenic activities followed by natural processes, affect
In order to show the impacts of LULC changes on stream the rate and magnitude of various hydrological processes
flow, SWAT has simulated the stream flows using different such as evapotranspiration (ET), interception and infiltration,
decade’s LULC and meteorological data-sets (1979–2011). resulting in alterations of surface and subsurface flow. These
As shown in Table 5, the land use change significantly alterations, in turn, influence streamflow in a basin (Niraula
impacted the water balance in TRB. The simulated annual et al. 2015; Ma et al. 2009a, b; Gebremicael et al. 2013; Ye
average runoff in TRB at Meja gauge station showed an et al. 2013; Sterling et al. 2012; Deng et al. 2015; Metzger
increasing trend (after baseline) based on the stipulated land et al. 2014). An increase in shrub and forest cover in a basin
use scenarios, which was consistent with simulated results. decreases the surface runoff and streamflow discharge from
The average annual runoff, lateral flow and groundwater flow the concerned basin by increasing canopy interception stor-
(Table 5) were estimated for the future in TRB under the age, transpiration, and infiltration capacity (García-ruiz et al.
three different land use scenarios. These results were simu- 2011; Morán-tejeda et al. 2010, 2015). Changes in basic
lated further for surface runoff which increased from 61.96 hydrological processes such as production and delivery of
to 62.14% for the period 2015 to 2035 and groundwater flow runoff to streams and the resulting rate, volume, and timing
which decreased from 37.71 to 37.62% for the same period. of streamflow in a basin have a major implication on its sus-
Woldesenbet et al. (2017) found that the expansion of culti- tainable management (Döll et al. 2012; Farley et al. 2011;
vation land and decline in woody shrub and woodland leads Charlton and Arnell 2011).
to the rise the surface run-off. Getahun and Van Lanen
(2015) also agreed with the above reason during his study Impact of land use change on ecology
in Melka Kuntrie Subbasin in Ethiopia. The RoC for the
water body area showed apositive growth rate for 2015–2025 Foley et al. (2005) explained that the biodiversity and eco-
while for 2025–2035 there was a slight reduction although system services are directly related and affected by the land
there was a positive growth rate. use changes. These changes in a river basin and it’s quan-
These results predict that future changes in LULC change titatively influences on the ecology and ecosystem services
may have significant impacts on the water balance in the are one of key research in the area of the sustainable devel-
study area. The contribution of these land use changes in opment (Zhou et al. 2008). The ecology and ecosystems
TRB was confirmed by the model performance for the services include the hydrological processes and climate
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Value (%)
0.2613
The stream flow as a most variable and influencing factor in
100.00
37.62
62.14
the hydrological cycle, affects the structure and functions of
rivers and hence it greatly impacts the riverine ecosystems
(Poff and Zimmerman 2010). Further, extreme events such
Value (mm)
Year 2035
as high and low flows in the affected areas exert a selec-
776.74
292.23
2.03
482.71
tive pressure on populations, which dictates the relative
success of different species. Generally unplanned land use
changes cause such extreme events. Verburg et al. (1999)
Value (%)
100
mass and building of farmland accelerate the deforestation.
The conversion of grassland into cultivated land and further
Value (mm)
Year 2025
0.3482
0.3081
0.3086
100.00
37.57
62.13
Conclusions
Value (mm)
Year 1995
0.3085
100.00
37.42
62.29
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
2000 2000
observed simulated observed simulated
1800 1800
1600 1600
Discharge (m3/s)
1400 1400
1200 1200
Discharge (m3/s)
1000 1000
800 800
600 600
400 400
200 200
0 0
Oct-09
Oct-00
Oct-03
Oct-06
Oct-82
Oct-85
Oct-88
Oct-91
Oct-94
Oct-97
Apr-11
Apr-93
Apr-96
Apr-99
Apr-02
Apr-05
Apr-08
Apr-84
Apr-87
Apr-90
Jan-94
Jan-97
Jan-00
Jan-03
Jan-06
Jan-09
Jan-82
Jan-85
Jan-88
Jan-91
Jul-10
Jul-92
Jul-95
Jul-98
Jul-01
Jul-04
Jul-07
Jul-83
Jul-86
Jul-89
Oct-82
Oct-85
Oct-88
Oct-91
Oct-94
Oct-97
Oct-00
Oct-03
Oct-06
Oct-09
Apr-84
Apr-87
Apr-90
Apr-93
Apr-96
Apr-99
Apr-02
Apr-05
Apr-08
Apr-11
Jan-82
Jan-85
Jan-88
Jan-91
Jan-94
Jan-97
Jan-00
Jan-03
Jan-06
Jan-09
Jul-83
Jul-86
Jul-89
Jul-92
Jul-95
Jul-98
Jul-01
Jul-04
Jul-07
Jul-10
Time (monthly) Time (monthly)
(a) (b)
2000 1800
1800 observed simulated observed simulated
1600
Discharge (m3/s)
1600 1400
1400
Discharge (m3/s)
1200
1200
1000
1000
800
800
600
600
400 400
200 200
0 0
Apr-08
Apr-11
Apr-96
Apr-99
Apr-02
Apr-05
Apr-84
Apr-87
Apr-90
Apr-93
Jul-07
Jul-10
Jul-83
Jul-86
Jul-89
Jul-92
Jul-95
Jul-98
Jul-01
Jul-04
Oct-09
Oct-97
Oct-00
Oct-03
Oct-06
Oct-82
Oct-85
Oct-88
Oct-91
Oct-94
Jan-97
Jan-00
Jan-03
Jan-06
Jan-09
Jan-82
Jan-85
Jan-88
Jan-91
Jan-94
Apr-84
Apr-87
Apr-90
Apr-93
Apr-96
Apr-99
Apr-02
Apr-05
Apr-08
Apr-11
Jul-83
Jul-86
Jul-89
Jul-92
Jul-95
Jul-98
Jul-01
Jul-04
Jul-07
Jul-10
Oct-82
Oct-85
Oct-88
Oct-91
Oct-94
Oct-97
Oct-00
Oct-03
Oct-06
Oct-09
Jan-82
Jan-85
Jan-88
Jan-91
Jan-94
Jan-97
Jan-00
Jan-03
Jan-06
Jan-09
Time (monthly) Time (monthly)
(c) (d)
1800 2000
observed simulated observed simulated
1600 1800
1400 1600
1200 1400
Discharge (m3/s)
Discharge (m3/s)
1000 1200
800 1000
800
600
600
400
400
200
200
0
0
Apr-84
Apr-87
Apr-90
Apr-93
Apr-96
Apr-99
Apr-02
Apr-05
Apr-08
Apr-11
Jul-83
Jul-86
Jul-89
Jul-92
Jul-95
Jul-98
Jul-01
Jul-04
Jul-07
Jul-10
Oct-82
Oct-85
Oct-88
Oct-91
Oct-94
Oct-97
Oct-00
Oct-03
Oct-06
Oct-09
Jan-82
Jan-85
Jan-88
Jan-91
Jan-94
Jan-97
Jan-00
Jan-03
Jan-06
Jan-09
Jan-82
Nov-82
Sep-83
May-85
Jan-87
Nov-87
Sep-88
May-90
Jan-92
Nov-92
Sep-93
May-95
Jan-97
Nov-97
Sep-98
May-00
Jan-02
Nov-02
Sep-03
May-05
Jan-07
Nov-07
Sep-08
May-10
Jul-84
Mar-86
Jul-89
Mar-91
Jul-94
Mar-96
Jul-99
Mar-01
Jul-04
Mar-06
Jul-09
Mar-11
Time (monthly)
Time (monthly)
(e) (f)
Fig. 8 a Observed vs. simulated monthly discharge (1982–2011) for discharge (1982–2011) for LULC 2015, e observed vs. simulated
LULC 1985, b observed vs. simulated monthly discharge (1982– monthly discharge (1982–2011) for LULC 2025, and f observed vs.
2011) for LULC 1995, c observed vs. simulated monthly discharge simulated monthly discharge (1982–2011) for LULC 2035
(1982–2011) for LULC 2005, d observed vs. simulated monthly
hydrological processes, it was concluded that the impacts of Abbaspour KC (2015) SWAT-CUP: SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty
LULC changes were not significant. The reasoning behind Programs-A User Manual. http://swat.tamu.edu/software/swat-
cup/.(downloaded on August 2016)
this was that LULC changes were not much due to the Abbaspour KC, Yang J, Maximov I, Siber R, Bogner K, Mieleitner J,
reduced influence of natural and anthropogenic destruction Zobrist J, Srinivasan R (2007) Modelling hydrology and water
which would be responsible for changes in the topography quality in the pre-alpine/alpine thur watershed using SWAT.
in any area. Secondly the agricultural pattern in TRB, where J Hydrol 333(2–4):413–430. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr
ol.2006.09.014
crops like wheat (major crop), soybean, millets (minor crop) Abbott MB, Bathurst JC, Cunge JA, O’Connell PE, Rasmussen J
and pluses, are not very water demanding. (1986) An introduction to the European hydrological system—
systeme hydrologique Europeen, ‘‘SHE’’, 1: history and philoso-
Acknowledgements The corresponding author is thankful to Univer- phy of a physically-based, distributed modelling system. J Hydrol
sity Grant Commission (UGC), New Delhi, India for sponsoring major 87(1–2):45–59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(86)90114-9
research project (MRP) [Grant No. 42–74/2013 (SR)] to carry out this Alamirew CD. 2006. Modeling of Hydrology and Soil Erosion in
research work. Authors also express their sincere thanks to Prof. R Upper Awash River Basin. University of Bonn, Institut für Städ-
Srinivasan, Departments of Ecosystem Sciences and Management and tebau, Bodenordnung und Kulturtechnik. Ph.D Thesis. p 233
Biological and Agricultural Engineering at Texas A&M University. Dr. Amin A, Singh SK (2012) Study of urban land use dynamics in Sri-
Srinivasan is one of the developers of Soil and Water Assessment Tool nagar city using Geo-spatial approach. Bull Environ Sci Res
(SWAT) for his constructive remarks on the first draft of the paper. 1:18–24
Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Srinivasan R, Williams JR, Haney EB, Neitsch
SL (2011) Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Docu-
mentation, Version 2009. Texas: Texas Water Resources Institute
Technical Report No 365; 2011.(downloaded on May 2016)
References Ashagrie AG, Laat PJM, De, Wit MJM, De, Tu M, Uhlenbrook S
(2006) Detecting the influence of land use changes on discharges
Abbaspour KC (2012) SWAT-CUP: SWAT calibration and uncertainty and floods in the Meuse River Basin—the predictive power of
programs—a user manual. Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic a ninety-year rainfall-runoff relation?. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci
Science and Technology. (downloaded on August 2016) 691–701. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-10-691-2006
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Baker TJ, Miller SN (2013) Using the soil and water assessment Nigeria, Using SWAT Model. Ethiop Environ Stud Manag 9(2):
tool (SWAT) to assess land use impact on water resources in 209–219
an East African watershed. J Hydrol 486:100–111. https://doi. Fan M, Shibata H (2015) Simulation of watershed hydrology and
org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.01.041 stream water quality under land use and climate change scenarios
Barthel R, Reichenau TG, Krimly T (2012) Integrated modeling of in Teshio River watershed, northern Japan. Ecol Indic 50:79–89.
global change impacts on agriculture and groundwater resources. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2014.11.003
Water Resour Manag 26(7):1929–1951 Farley KA, Tague C, Grant GE (2011) Vulnerability of water supply
Basommi G, Guan Q-F, Cheng D-d, Singh SK (2016) Dynamics of from the Oregon Cascades to changing climate: linking science
land use change in a mining area: a case study of Nadowli Dis- to users and policy. Global Environ Chang 21(1):110–122. https
trict, Ghana. J Mt Sci 13:633–642 ://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.09.011
Beven K, Binley A (1992) The Future of distributed models–model cal- Feldman AD (1981) HEC models for water resources system simula-
ibration & uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Process 6(3):279–298 tion: theory and experience. Adv Hydrosci 12:297–423. https://
Cao W, Bowden WB, Davie T, Fenemor A (2006) Multi-variable and doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-021812-7.50010-9
multi-site calibration and validation of SWAT in a large moun- Foley JA et al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science
tainous catchment with high spatial variability. Hydrol Process 309:570–574
20(5):1057–1073. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5933 Gajbhiye S, Singh SK, Sharma SK (2015) Assessing the effects of
Carpenter SR, Stanley EH, Zanden MJV (2011) State of the World’s different land use on water qualify using multi-temporal Land-
freshwater ecosystems: physical, chemical, and biological sat data. In: Siddiqui AR SP (ed) Resour Manag Dev Strateg A
changes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36:75–99. https: //doi. Geogr Perspect. Pravalika Publications, Allahabad, pp 337–348
org/10.1146/annurev-environ-021810-094524 García-ruiz JM, López-moreno JI, Vicente-serrano SM, Lasanta T,
Charlton MB, Arnell NW (2011) Adapting to climate change impacts Beguería S (2011) Earth-science reviews Mediterranean water
on water resources in England—an assessment of draft water resources in a global change scenario. Earth Sci Rev 105(3–
resources management plans. Global Environ Chang 21(1):238– 4):121–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2011.01.006
248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.07.012 Garg KK, Karlberg L, Barron J, Wani SP, Rockstrom J (2012)
Chen Z, Chen Y, Li B (2013) Quantifying the effects of climate Assessing impacts of agricultural water interventions in
variability and human activities on runoff for Kaidu river the Kothapally watershed, Southern India. Hydrol Process
basin in arid region of northwest China. Theor Appl Climatol 26(3):387–404. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8138
111(3–4):537–545 Garg KK, Wani SP, Barron J, Karlberg L, Rockstrom J (2013) Up-
Chen Y, Li J, Xu H (2016) Improving flood forecasting capability of scaling potential impacts on water fl ows from agricultural
physically based distributed hydrological models by parameter water interventions: opportunities and trade-offs in the Osman.
optimization. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20(1):375–392. https://doi. Hydrol Process 27(26):3905–3921. https://doi.org/10.1002/
org/10.5194/hess-20-375-2016 hyp.9516
Choi W, Deal BM (2008) Assessing hydrological impact of potential Gassman PW, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG (2007) The soil and
land use change through hydrological and land use change mod- water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and
eling for the Kishwaukee river basin (USA). J Environ Manage future research directions. Trans ASABE 50(4):1211–1250
88:1119–1130. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.06.001 Gebremicael TG, Mohamed YA, Betrie GD, Zaag P, Van Der Teferi
Conaghan K (2010) Assessing the Hydrologic Implications of Land E (2013) Trend analysis of runoff and sediment fluxes in the
Use Change for the Upper Neuse River Basin (M.S. Thesis, Upper Blue Nile basin: A combined analysis of statistical tests,
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University). Accessed physically-based models and landuse maps. J Hydrol 482:57–68.
on 2016 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.023
De Girolamo AM, Porto AL (2012) Land use scenario development as Genxu W, Yu Z, Guimin L, Lin C (2005) Impact of land-use change
a tool for watershed management within the Rio Mannu Basin. on hydrological processes in the Maying River basin, China.
Land Use Policy 29(3):691–701. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landu Sci China Ser D Earth Sci 2006 49(10):1098–1110. https://doi.
sepol.2011.11.005 org/10.1007/s11430-006-1098-6
Deng X, Shi Q, Zhang Q, Shi C, Yin F (2015) Impacts of land use and Getahun YS, Van Lanen HAJ (2015) Assessing the Impacts of land
land cover changes on surface energy and water balance in the use-cover change on hydrology of Melka Kuntrie Subbasin in
Heihe River Basin of China, 2000–2010. Phys Chem Earth Parts Ethiopia, using a conceptual hydrological model. Hydrol Current
A/B/C 79–82:2–10. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.01.002 Res 6:210. https://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7587.1000210
Döll P, Portmann FT, Döll P, Eisner S, Strzepek K, Jacobsen M, Boe- Ghaffari G, Keesstra S, Ghodousi J, Ahmadi H (2010) SWAT-simu-
hlert B (2012) Assessment How is the impact of climate change lated hydrological impact of land-use change in the Zanjanrood
on river flow regimes related to the impact on mean annual runoff Basin, Northwest Iran. Hydrol Process 24(7):892–903. https://
? A global-scale analysis. Environ Res Lett 7(1):1–11. https: //doi. doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7530
org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/014037 Gidey E, Dikinya O, Sebego R, Segosebe E, Zenebe A (2017a) Cellular
Du J, Qian L, Rui H, Zuo T, Zheng D, Xu Y, Xu C (2012) Assessing the automata and Markov Chain (CA_Markov) model-based predic-
effects ofurbanization on annual runoff and flood events using an tions of future land use and land cover scenarios (2015–2033) in
integrated hydrologicalmodeling system for Qinhuai River basin, Raya, northern Ethiopia. Model Earth Syst Environ. https://doi.
China. J Hydrol 464–465:127–139. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. org/10.1007/s40808-017-0397-6
jhydrol.2012.06.057 Gidey E, Dikinya O, Sebego R, Segosebe E, Zenebe A (2017b) Mod-
Eberhart RC, Kennedy JA (1995) A new optimizer using particle eling the Spatio-temporal dynamics and evolution of land use
swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Sym- and land cover (1984–2015) using remote sensing and GIS in
posium on Micro Machine and Human Science. IEEE Service Raya, Northern Ethiopia. Model Earth Syst Environ. https://doi.
Center, Piscataway, NJ, Nagoya, Japan. https://doi.org/10.1109/ org/10.1007/s40808-017-0375-z
MHS.1995.494215 Gosain AK, Rao S, Srinivasan R, Reddy NG (2005) Return-flow
Ejieji CJ, Amodu MF, Adeogun AG (2016) Prediction of Streamflow of assessment for irrigation command in the Palleru river basin
Hadejia-Jama’are-Kamadugu-Yobe River Basin, North Eastern using SWAT model. Hydrol Process 19(3):673–682. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hyp.5622
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Gosain AK, Rao S, Basuray D (2006) Climate change impact Legesse D, Vallet-couomb C, Gasse F (1995) Hydrological response of
assessment on hydrology of Indian river basins. Curr Sci a catchment to climate and land use changes in Tropical Africa:
101(3):356–371 case study South Central Ethiopia. J Hydrol 275(1–2):67–85.
Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Yapo PO (1999) Status of automatic calibra- https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(03)00019-2
tion for hydrologic models: comparison with multilevel expert Li Y, Wang C (2009) Impacts of Urbanization on Surface Runoff of the
calibration. J Hydrol Eng 4:135–143. https://doi.org/10.1061/ Dardenne Creek Watershed, St. Charles County, Missouri. Phys
(ASCE)1084-0699(1999)4:2(135) Geogr 30(6):556–573
Gyamfi C, Ndambuki JM, Anornu GK, Kifanyi GE (2017) Groundwa- Li Z, Liu W, Zhang X, Zheng F (2009) Impacts of land use change and
ter recharge modelling in a large scale basin: an example using climate variability on hydrology in an agricultural catchment on
the SWAT hydrologic model. Model Earth Syst Environ. https:// the Loess Plateau of China. J Hydrol 377(1–2):35–42. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s40808-017-0383-z doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.007
Haregeweyn N, Berhe A, Tsunekawa A, Tsubo M, Meshesha DT (2012) Lin YP, Verburg PH, Chang CR, Chen HY, Chen MN (2009) Devel-
Integrated watershed management as an effective approach to oping and comparing optimal and empirical land-use mod-
curb land degradation: a case study of the enabered watershed in els for the development of an urbanized watershed forest in
Northern Ethiopia. Environ Manage 50(6):1219–1233 Taiwan. Landsc Urban Plan 92(3–4):242–254. https: //doi.
He M, Hogue TS (2012) Integrating hydrologic modeling and land use org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2009.05.003
projections for evaluation of hydrologic response and regional Ma X, Xu J, Luo Y, Aggarwal SP, Li J (2009a) Response of hydro-
water supply impacts in semi-arid environments. Environ Earth logical processes to land-cover and climate changes in Kejie
Sci 65(6):1671–1685 watershed, south-west China. Hydrol Process 23(8):1179–
Hornberger GM, Spear RC (1981) An approach to the preliminary- 1191. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7233
analysis of environmental systems. J Environ Manage 12(1):7–18 Ma X, Xu J, Luo Y, Aggarwal SP, Li J (2009b) Response of hydro-
Hu X, Lu L, Li X, Wang J, Guo M (2015) Land use/cover change in the logical processes to land-cover and climate changes in Kejie
middle reaches of the Heihe River Basin over 2000–2011 and its watershed, south-west China. Hydrol Process. https: //doi.
implications for sustainable water resource management. PLoS org/10.1002/hyp.7233
One 10(6):1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0128960 Maetens W, Vanmaercke M, Poesen J, Jankauskas B, Jankauskiene
Huber WC, Dickinson RE, Barnwell TO Jr (1988) Storm water man- G, Ionita I (2012) Effects of land use on annual runoff and soil
agement model, version 4: User’s manual, 600/3–88/001a. US loss in Europe and the Mediterranean: a meta-analysis of plot
Environmental Protection Agency. Report No. EPA/, Athens data. Prog Phys Geogr 36:597–651
Isik S, Kalin L, Schoonover JE, Srivastava P, Lockaby BG (2012) Mod- Makwana JJ, Tiwari MK (2017) Hydrological stream flow model-
eling effects of changing land use / cover on daily streamflow: ling using soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) and neural
An Artificial Neural Network and curve number based hybrid networks (NNs) for the Limkheda watershed, Gujarat, India
approach. J Hydrol 485:103–112. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr M.K. Model Earth Syst Environ 3:635. https://doi.org/10.1007/
ol.2012.08.032 s40808-017-0323-y
Jing Z, Ross M (2015) Hydrologic modeling impacts of post-mining Mango LM, Melesse AM, Mcclain ME, Gann D, Setegn SG (2011)
land use changes on streamflow of Peace River, Florida. Chin Land use and climate change impacts on the hydrology of the
Geogr Sci 25(6):728–738 upper Mara River Basin, Kenya: results of a modeling study
Kishor B, Singh SK (2014) Change detection mapping of land use to support better resource management. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci
land cover using multidate satellite data. Int J Eng Res Techno 15:2245–2258. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2245-2011
3:2320–2326 Marhaento H, Booij MJ, Rientjes THM, Hoekstra AY (2016) Attri-
Kristian J, Christian J, Mazvimavi D (1998) Assessing the effect of bution of changes in the water balance of a tropical catchment
land use change on catchment runoff by combined use of statisti- to land use change using the SWAT model. Hydrol Process
cal tests and hydrological modelling: Case studies from Zimba- 2017:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11167
bwe. J Hydrol 205(3–4):147–163. https: //doi.org/10.1016/S0168 Metzger JC, Landschreiber L, Gröngröft A, Eschenbach A (2014)
-1176(97)00311-9 Soil evaporation under different types of land use in southern
Krysanova V, White M, Krysanova V, White M (2015) Advances in African savanna ecosystems. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 177(3):468–
water resources assessment with SWAT—an overview. Hydrol 475. https://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.201300257
Sci J 60:771–783. https: //doi.org/10.1080/026266 67.2015.10294 Molina-navarro E, Trolle D, Martínez-pérez S, Sastre-merlín A,
82 Jeppesen E (2014) Hydrological and water quality impact
Kumar SK, Aier B, Khanduri VP, Gautam P, Singh D, Singh SK (2013) assessment of a Mediterranean limno-reservoir under climate
Assessment of soil nutrients (N, P, K) status along with tree change and land use management scenarios. J Hydrol 509:354–
diversity In different land use systems at Mokokchung. Nagaland 366. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.11.053
India Sci Technol J 1:42–48 Morán-tejeda E, Ceballos-barbancho A, Llorente-pinto JM (2010)
Kumar S, Yadava RN, Singh SK (2014) Assessment of land use around Hydrological response of Mediterranean headwaters to climate
highly populous business centre of Lucknow City using GIS oscillations and land-cover changes: the mountains of Duero
techniques and high resolution Google Earth’s Quickbird satel- River basin (Central Spain). Global Planet Change 72:39–49.
lite data. Bull Environ Sci Res 3:8–14 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.03.003
Kumar N, Singh SK, Srivastava PK, Narsimlu B (2017) SWAT model Morán-tejeda E, Zabalza J, Rahman K, Gago-silva A, López-moreno
calibration and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction JI, Vicente-serrano S, Lehmann A, Tague CL, Beniston M
of the Tons river basin, India, using sequential uncertainty fit- (2015) Hydrological impacts of climate and land-use changes
ting (SUFI-2) algorithm. Model Earth Syst Environ. https://doi. in a mountain watershed: uncertainty estimation based on
org/10.1007/s40808-017-0306-z model comparison. Ecohydrology 8(8):1396–1416. https: //
Lamine S, Petropoulos GP, Singh SK, Szabó S, Bachari NEI, Srivas- doi.org/10.1002/eco.1590
tava PK, Suman S (2017) Quantifying land use/land cover spa- Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD,
tio-temporal landscape pattern dynamics from Hyperion using Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic
SVMs classifier and FRAGSTATS®. Geocarto Int 6049:1–17 quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans
ASABE 50:885–900
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Moriasi DN, Gitau MW, Pai N, Daggupati P (2015) Hydrologic J Hydro-Environ Res 7(4):261–269. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
and water quality models: performance measures and evalu- jher.2013.04.005
ation criteria. Trans ASABE 58(6):1763–1785. https: //doi. Singh A, Imtiyaz M (2012) Application of process based hydrological
org/10.13031/trans.58.10715 model for simulating stream flow in an agricultural water shed
Murty PS, Pandey A, Suryavanshi S (2014) Application of Semi dis- of India. In: India Water Week 2012—Water Energy and Food
tributed hydrological model for basin level water balance of the Security Call for Solutions, New Delhi, India
Ken basin of Central India. Hydrol Process 28(13):4119–4129. Singh SK, Singh CK, Mukherjee S (2010) Impact of land-use and
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9950 land-cover change on groundwater quality in the Lower Shiwa-
Mustak SK, Baghmar NK, Singh SK (2015) Prediction of industrial lik hills: a remote sensing and GIS based approach. Cent Eur J
land use using linear regression and MOLA techniques: a case Geosci 2:124–131
study of Siltara industrial belt. Landsc Environ 9:59–70 Singh SK, Kumar KS, Aier B, Kanduri VP, Ahirwar S (2012) Plant
Mustak SK, Baghmar NK, Singh SK (2016) Land suitability modeling community characteristics and soil status in different land use
for arhar pulse through analytic hierarchy process using remote systems in Dimapur district, Nagaland, India. For Res Pap
sensing and GIS: a case study of Seonath Basin. Bull Environ 73:305–312
Sci Res 4:6–17 Singh SK, Srivastava K, Gupta M, Thakur K, Mukherjee S (2014)
Nash JE, Sutcliffe J (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual Appraisal of land use/land cover of mangrove forest ecosystem
models: part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290 using support vector machine. Environ Earth Sci 71:2245–2255
Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2005) Soil and Water Singh SK, Mustak S, Srivastava PK, Szabó S, Islam T (2015) Predict-
Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation. Ver. 2005. Temple, ing spatial and decadal LULC changes through cellular automata
Tex., USDA–ARS Grassland Soil and Water. Research Labora- markov chain models using earth observation datasets and geo-
tory, and Texas A&M University, Blackland Research and Exten- information. Environ Process 2(1):61–78
sion Center, 2005 Singh SK, Srivastava PK, Szabó S, Petropoulos GP, Gupta M, Islam
Niraula R, Meixner T, Norman LM (2015) Determining the importance T (2017a) Landscape transform and spatial metrics for mapping
of model calibration for forecasting absolute/relative changes in spatiotemporal land cover dynamics using earth observation data-
streamflow from LULC and climate changes. J Hydrol 522:439– sets. Geocarto Int 32(2):113–127. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106
451. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.007 049.2015.1130084
Niu J, Sivakumar B (2014) Study of runoff response to land use change Singh SK, Basommi BP, Mustak SK, Srivastava PK, Szabo S (2017b)
in the East River basin in South China. Stoch Env Res Risk Modelling of land use land cover change using earth observation
Assess 28(4):857–865 data-sets of Tons River Basin, Madhya Pradesh, India. Geocarto
Nugroho P, Marsono D, Sudira P, Suryatmojo H (2013) Impact of land- Int. https://doi.org/10.1080/10106049.2017.1343390
use changes on water balance. Proced Environ Sci 17:256–262 Srinivasan R, Ramanarayanan TS, Arnold JG, Bednarz ST (1998)
Nyssen J, Clymans W, Descheemaeker K, Poesen J, Vandecasteele Large area hydrological modeling and assessment part II: model
I et al (2010) Impact of soil and water conservation measures application. J Am Water Resou Assoc 34:91–101.https://doi.
on catchment hydrological response–a case in north Ethiopia. org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.tb05962.x
Hydrol Process 24(13):78–87. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7628 Srinivasan R, Zhang X, Arnold J (2010) SWAT ungauged: hydrological
Olang LO (2011) Effects of land cover change on flood peak discharges budget and crop yield predictions in the Upper Mississippi River
and runoff volumes: model estimates for the Nyando River Basin, Basin. T ASABE 53(5):1533–1546
Kenya. Hydrol Process 25(1):80–89. https://doi.org/10.1002/ Sterling SM, Ducharne A, Polcher J (2012) The impact of global
hyp.7821 land-cover change on the terrestrial water cycle. Nat Cli
Perrin J (2014) Assessing water availability in a semi-arid watershed Change:385–390. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1690
of southern India using a semi-distributed model. J Hydrol 460– Suliman AHA, Jajarmizadeh M, Harun S, Zaurah I, Darus M (2015)
461:143–155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.07.002 Comparison of semi-distributed, GIS-based hydrological mod-
Poff NL, Zimmerman JKH (2010) Ecological responses to altered flow els for the prediction of streamflow in a large catchment. Water
regimes: a literature review to inform the science and manage- Resour Manag 29(9):3095–3110
ment of environmental flows. Freshwater Biol 55(1):194–205. Tripathi MP, Raghuwanshi NS, Rao GP (2006) Effect of watershed
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.0227 subdivision on simulation of water. Hydrol Process 20(5):1137–
Portela R, Rademacher I (2001) A dynamic model of patterns of defor- 1156. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5927
estation and their effect on the ability of the Brazilian Amazonia US Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2011) AGNPS. Retrieved
to provide ecosystem services. Ecol Model 143(1–2):115–146 October 24, 2010 from http://www.ars.usda.gov/research/ docs.
Prasad BKV (2012) Water for sustainable water resources manage- htm?docid= 5199
ment in watershed for sustainable water resources management Verburg PH, Veldkamp A, Bouma J (1999) Land-use change under
in watershed conditions of high population pressure: the case of Java. Glob
Rolls RJ, Catherine Leigh C, Sheldon F (2012) Mechanistic effects of Environ Change 9(4):303–312
low-flow hydrology on riverine ecosystems: ecological principles Vilaysane B, Takara K, Luo P, Akkharath I (2015) Hydrological
and consequences of alteration. Freshwater Sci 31(4):1163–1186 stream flow modelling for calibration and uncertainty analysis
Santhi C, Arnold JG. Williams JR. Dugas WA, Srinivasan R. Hauck using SWAT model in the Xedone river basin, Lao PDR. Pro-
LM (2001a) Validation of the SWAT model on a large river ced Environ Sci 28:380–390. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.proen
basin with point and nonpoint sources. J Am Water Resou Assoc v.2015.07.047
37(5):1169–1188 Wang S, Kang S, Zhang L, Li F (2008) Modelling hydrological
Santhi C, Arnold JG, Williams JR, Dugas WA, Srinivasan R, Hauck response to different land-use and climate change scenarios
LM (2001b) Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin in the Zamu River basin of northwest China. Hydrol Process
with point and nonpoint sources. J Am Water Resour Assoc 22(14):2502–2510
37:1169–1188. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb036 Wang G, Yang H, Wang L, Xu Z, Xue B (2014) Using the SWAT
30.x model to assess impacts of land use changes on runoff genera-
Santra P, Das SB (2013) Modeling runoff from an agricultural water- tion in headwaters. Hydrol Process 28(3):1032–1042. https: //doi.
shed of western catchment of Chilika lake through ArcSWAT. org/10.1002/hyp.9645
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Webb BW, Clack PD, Walling DE (2003) Water-air temperature rela- streamflow in the Poyang Lake catchment. J Hydrol 494:83–95.
tionships in a Devon river system and the role of flow. Hydrol https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.04.036
Process 17:3069–3084 Young RA, Onstad C, Bosch D, Anderson W (1989) AGNPS: a non-
Welde K, Gebremariam B (2017) Effect of land use land cover dynam- point-source pollution model for evaluating agricultural water-
ics on hydrological response of watershed: case study of Tekeze sheds. J Soil Water Cons 44:168–173
dam watershed, northern Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res Yu W, Zang S, Wu C, Liu W, Na X (2011) Analyzing and modeling
5(2017):1–16. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr.2017.03.002 land use land cover change (LUCC) in the Daqing. Appl Geogr
Wijesekara GN, Gupta A, Valeo C, Hasbani J, Qiao Y, Delaney P, 31:600–608. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeog.2010.11.019
Marceau DJ (2012) Assessing the impact of future land-use Zhang YK, Schilling KE (2006) Increasing streamflow and baseflow
changes on hydrological processes in the Elbow river watershed in Mississippi River since the 1940s: Effect of land use change.
in southern Alberta, Canada. J Hydrol 412–413:220–232. https J Hydrol 324(1–4):412–422. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr
://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.04.018 ol.2005.09.033
Woldesenbet TA, Elagib NA, Ribbe L, Heinrich J (2017) Hydro- Zhang C, Zhang B, Li W, Liu M (2014) Response of stream fl ow
logical responses to land use/cover changes in the source to climate change and human activity in Xitiaoxi river basin in
region of the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Sci Total China. Hydrol Process 28(1):43–50
Environ 575(2017):724–741. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito Zhou H, Xiong D, Yang Z (2008) Effects of land use change on eco-
tenv.2016.09.124 system service value in Yuanmou dry-hot valley. Trans Chin Soc
Yan B, Fang NF, Zhang PC, Shi ZH (2013) Impacts of land use change Agric Eng 24(3):135–138
on watershed streamflow and sediment yield: An assessment Zhou F, Xu Y, Chen Y, Xu C, Gao Y, Du J (2013) Hydrological
using hydrologic modelling and partial least squares regression. J response to urbanization at different spatio-temporal scales
Hydrol 484:26–37. https: //doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydro l.2013.01.008 simulated by coupling of CLUE-S and the SWAT model in the
Yang XL, Ren LL, Singh VP et al (2012) Impacts of land use and land Yangtze River Delta region. J Hydrol 485:113–125. https://doi.
cover changes on evapotranspiration and runoff at Shalamulun org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.040
River watershed, China. Hydrol Res 43(1–2):23–37. https://doi. ISWSCR2004-08.pdf. Accessed 8 Sept 2005
org/10.2166/nh.2011.120
Ye X, Zhang Q, Liu J, Li X, Xu C (2013) Distinguishing the relative
impacts of climate change and human activities on variation of
13