Identification and Prioritisation of Critical Sub-watersheds for Soil Conservation Management using the SWAT Model
Introduction
The Resource considerations for implementation of watershed management programmes or various other reasons related to administration or even political considerations may limit the implementation of management programmes to a few sub-watersheds only. Even otherwise, it is always better to start management measures from the most critical sub-watershed, which makes it mandatory to prioritise the sub-watershed available. Watershed prioritisation is thus the ranking of different critical sub-watersheds of a watershed according to the order in which they have to be taken up for treatment and soil conservation measures
The intensive study of individual watersheds is necessary to enable management plans to be developed and also to apply the results of one watershed, to another with similar characteristics. Effective control of soil and nutrient losses requires implementation of best management practices in critical erosion prone areas of the watershed. It can be enhanced by the use of physically based distributed parameter models, remote sensing technique and geographic information system that can assist management agencies in both identifying most vulnerable erosion prone areas and selecting appropriate management practices.
Numerous studies have indicated that, for many watersheds, a few critical areas are responsible for a disproportionate amount of the pollution (Dickinson et al., 1990; Dillaha, 1990; Maas et al., 1985; Storm et al., 1988). Critical areas of non-point source pollution can be defined both from the land resources and the water quality perspectives (Maas et al., 1985). From the land resource perspective, critical areas are those land areas where the soil erosion rate exceeds the soil loss tolerance value. Critical areas from the water quality perspectives are areas where the greatest improvement can be achieved with the least capital investment in best management practices.
The average soil loss value of 16·4 t ha−1 yr−1 (Dhruva Narayana, 1993) and permissible soil loss value of 11·2 t ha−1 yr−1 (Mannering, 1981) can be taken into consideration for identifying the critical sub-watershed. Priorities can be fixed on the basis of ranks assigned to each critical sub-watershed according to ranges of soil erosion classes described by Singh et al. (1992) for the Indian condition. They categorised the soil loss ranges into different soil erosion classes. Soil erosion classes such as slight (0–5 t ha−1 yr−1), moderate (5–10 t ha−1 yr−1), high (10–20 t ha−1 yr−1), very high (20–40 t ha−1 yr−1), severe (40–80 t ha−1 yr−1) and very severe (>80 t ha−1 yr−1) were reported by Singh et al. (1992).
An average soil loss tolerance value of 9·0 t ha−1 yr−1 was used for Nomini Creek watershed located in Westmoreland County, Virginia by Tim et al. (1992) in their study for identifying the critical areas from the land source prospective. They also considered a threshold value for the loading rate P of 1·12 kg ha−1 yr−1. This threshold value of P loading was obtained from the work of DelRegno and Atkinson (1988). Tim et al. (1992) classified watershed areas into three classes i.e. low, medium and high potential areas from both land resource and water quality prospective. Also for nutrient losses a threshold value of 10 mg−1l for nitrate nitrogen and 0.5 mg −1l for dissolve phosphorous as described by EPA (1976) can be considered as criterion for identifying the critical sub-watersheds.
The Soil Conservation Department of Damodar Valley Corporation (DVC) Hazaribagh, Bihar (India) has demarcated 20 prioritised sub-watersheds out of 39 sub-watersheds for treating them with the appropriate soil conservation measures (Misra, 1986). The prioritisation of these sub-watersheds was based on an empirical formula developed by DVC using a limited stream flow record of only 3 years. They considered three priority criteria, i.e. priority I (erosion index of 30 and above), priority II (erosion index lying between 15 and 30) and priority III (erosion index less than 15). The actual formula used for calculating the erosion index IE is as follows:where: Au is the upland area in ha; Agw is the gullied wasteland area in ha; Adf is the denuded forestland area in ha; and Af is the wood forestland area in ha.
Several techniques, ranging from manual overlay of spatially -index mapped data to pollutant yield modelling, have been used to characterise and delineate critical areas of non-point source pollution in complex landscapes. McHarg (1969) used a manual map overlay system to display the common attributes of selected land areas in order to make decisions on the type and degree of land development that is commensurate with the physical properties and limits of an area. Recently, there has been a shift towards the use of computerised data management systems to facilitate the delineation of critical areas of non-point source pollution (Hession & Shanholtz, 1988; Vieux, 1991). Some of the research workers used the sediment yield index Isy method for prioritisation of sub-watersheds (Karale et al., 1975, 1977). They used the following equation for computation of Isy.where: Isy is the sediment yield index; Ei is the weighing value of erosion intensity mapping unit; Aei is the area of the erosion intensity mapping unit in a watershed in ha; Dr is the delivery ratio; and Aw is the total area of watershed in ha.
Several physically based distributed parameter models (ANSWERS, AGNPS, SHE, SWRRB and SWAT) have been developed to predict runoff, erosion, sediment and nutrient transport from agricultural watersheds under various management regimes. Among these models, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is the most recent one used successfully for simulating runoff, sediment yield and water quality of small watersheds. The SWAT model is a distributed parameter, continuous model developed by the USDA-ARS (Arnold et al., 1996, 1998). The SWAT model was tested mainly on monthly and annual basis for predicting runoff and sediment yield (Srinivasan et al., 1993; Srinivasan & Arnold, 1994; Rosenthal et al., 1995; Bingner, 1996; Bingner et al., 1997; Peterson & Hamlett, 1998). However, Tripathi et al. (1999a, 1999b) tested the SWAT model on the basis of daily runoff and sediment yield for an Indian watershed, namely Nagwan in the Hazaribagh district of the Bihar State in India. Limited research work on identification of critical sub-watersheds and assessment of the impact of management practices on runoff, sediment yield and nutrient losses using SWAT has been reported (Arnold et al. 1999; Santhi et al., 2001). Also the testing of SWAT model on daily basis for the nutrient losses has not appeared much in the literature.
Keeping the above facts in mind, the current study was undertaken with the use of a verified model i.e. SWAT to identify the critical sub-watersheds on the basis of estimated sediment yield and nutrient losses of a small watershed for the purpose of developing the effective management plan.
Section snippets
Theoretical considerations
SWAT model is a distributed parameter model that operates on a daily time step. The major goal of the model development was to predict the impact of management measures on water, sediment and agricultural chemical yields in large ungauged basins (Arnold et al., 1996). It is comparatively simple, user friendly, physically based and distributed, which uses readily available inputs. It is computationally efficient to operate on large basins in a reasonable time. It is a continuous time-scale
Study area and data collection
The selected Nagwan watershed (92·46 km2) is located in Upper Damoder Valley Corporation (DVC) in the Hazaribagh district of Bihar, India. Location map of the study area is shown in Fig. 1. The watershed receives an average annual rainfall of 1256 mm, out of which the monsoon season (June–October) contributes more than 80% rainfall. Rainfall and runoff data for 7 years (1992–1998) from the gauging station at Nagwan sediment observation post were collected from DVC, Hazaribagh. IRS-1B (LISS II)
Surface runoff
The graphical representation of validation results for the daily runoff is shown in Fig. 3. The graphs show that the magnitude and temporal variation of simulated runoff matched closely with the observed runoff values for the entire monsoon season of 1997. Timings of occurrence of the peaks for both observed and simulated runoff matched well. However, the model overpredicted runoff for few rainfall events of high magnitude.
The descriptive statistics for both measured and simulated daily runoff
Conclusions
The study confirmed that the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model could accurately simulate runoff, sediment yield and nutrient losses particularly from small agricultural watersheds. The simulated data closely matched with their observed counterparts in the study. The study also revealed that all the sub-watersheds of a small agricultural watershed do not contribute to the discharge, sediment yield and nutrient losses measured at the outlet. The SWAT model could identify the critical
Acknowledgements
Authors wish to acknowledge the CSIR, New Delhi, for providing financial assistance to conduct this study. Er. Kamal Misra, Director (Soil Conservation) DVC, Hazaribagh, Bihar, and Project Co-ordinator, IGBP “Watershed Management”, New Delhi, are also acknowledged by the authors for providing the data to conduct the above study. The facilities and support provided by the Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, IIT, Kharagpur and RRSSC, IIT Campus are sincerely acknowledged.
References (0)
Cited by (188)
Geomorphologic risk zoning to anticipate tailings dams' hazards: A study in the Brumadinho's mining area, Minas Gerais, Brazil
2024, Science of the Total EnvironmentSoil erosion and sediment yield modeling in a tropical mountain watershed of the southern Western Ghats, India using RUSLE and Geospatial tools
2023, Total Environment Research ThemesImpact of renewed solar dimming on streamflow generation in monsoon dominated tropical river basins
2022, Journal of Hydro-Environment Research