See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/323247569

Investigation of impacts of land use/land cover change on water availability of

Tons River Basin, Madhya Pradesh, India

Article · February 2018

DOI: 10.1007/s40808-018-0425-1

CITATIONS READS

7 1,229

4 authors:

Nirmal Kumar Sudhir Kumar Singh

University of Allahabad University of Allahabad
3 PUBLICATIONS   25 CITATIONS    124 PUBLICATIONS   1,501 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Vikram Gaurav Singh Bloodless Dzwairo

University of Allahabad Durban University of Technology
1 PUBLICATION   7 CITATIONS    24 PUBLICATIONS   160 CITATIONS   

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Some of the authors of this publication are also working on these related projects:

Risk Management View project

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.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-018-0425-1

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Investigation of impacts of land use/land cover change on water

availability of Tons River Basin, Madhya Pradesh, India
Nirmal Kumar1 · Sudhir Kumar Singh1   · Vikram Gaurav Singh1 · Bloodless Dzwairo2

Received: 21 November 2017 / Accepted: 2 February 2018

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

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.

Keywords  LULC · SWAT​ · Hydrological modeling · Stream flow · Ecological system

Introduction transformation on biophysical and ecological systems are

River basins of arid and semi-arid regions in developing
countries, where water is a scarce resource, are facing
drastic land use/land cover (LULC) changes as a result of
rapidly increasing human population and socio-economic
developments. The consequences of earth’s land surface
* Sudhir Kumar Singh
sudhirinjnu@gmail.com
1
K. Banerjee Centre of Atmospheric and Ocean Studies,
IIDS, Nehru Science Centre, University of Allahabad,
Allahabad, Uttar Pradesh, 211002, India
2
Durban University of Technology, Civil Engineering
Midlands, PO Box 101112, Scottsville 3209, South Africa
urban heat islands, alteration in stream flow pattern, global
atmospheric circulation, and even extinction of living spe-
cies (Yu et al. 2011). According to Lin et al. (2009) the
rate of LULC change in any basin is a function of factors
such as altitude, slope, distance from the river, type of soil
and magnitude of erosion, type of agricultural practices, fre-
quency of drought and flood, distance from a built-up area,
and population density.
Many researchers have quantified and predicted the
future land use/land cover using earth observing satel-
lite data sets (Amin and Singh 2012; Singh et al. 2012,
2014, 2015, 2017a, b; Kumar et  al. 2014; Kishor and
Singh 2014; Mustak et al. 2015, 2016; Basomi et al. 2016;
Lamine et al. 2017; Gidey et al. 2017a, b). The impact of

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

LULC change on hydrological processes such as inter-
ception, evapotranspiration, infiltration, surface runoff,
groundwater recharge, stream flow and sediment yield in
a river basin remains a prominent topic of research around
the world (Singh et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2014; Molina-
navarro et al. 2014; Isik et al. 2012; Niu and Sivakumar
2014; Gyamfi et al. 2017).
LULC changes, whether they are natural or anthropo-
genic, have both positive and negative impacts on hydro-
logical processes, and water resources (Gajbhiye et  al.
2015) and soil nutrients (Kumar et al. 2013). Additionally,
it is noted that different LULC changes in different basins
produce significantly different hydrologic output (Lin et al.
2009), i.e., changes in one basin cannot be superimposed
onto the next basin to produce the same hydrologic output
as in the previous basin. The stream flow generation capac-
ity of a basin also dependents on the vegetation types and
its spatial-seasonal variation patterns as this driver per se is
known to strongly influence the rate of potential evapotran-
spiration (PET) in the basin (Molina-navarro et al. 2014;
Morán-tejeda et al. 2015).
A number of studies have reported the impact of LULC
changes on hydrological processes at different spatial and
temporal scales (Baker and Miller 2013; Fan and Shibata
2015; Zhou et al. 2013). In addition, reviews of several
domestic and international studies suggest that LULC
change can alter streamflow thereby altering the hydrology
of a basin (Carpenter et al. 2011; Chen et al. 2013; García-
ruiz et al. 2011; Zhang et al. 2014; Hu et al. 2015). For
example, Zhang and Schilling (2006) concluded that the
LULC changes in the Mississippi Basin had resulted in an
increase of stream flow mainly due to an increased base flow.
Yang et al. (2012), in their study on Laohahe Basin of China
found out that human activities had significantly modified
and converted the main LULC types in this region leading
to a 90% decrease in stream flow. He and Hogue (2012)
noted that urbanization was often the most influential fac-
tor that affected flow regimes in a basin. Further, the article
reported that an increase in urban development had caused
an increase in the total annual runoff and wet season flows
in Upper Santa Clara Basin in the United States of America
(USA). Jing and Ross (2015), on the other hand, assessed the
possible relationship between LULC and stream flow due to
mining activities in Peace River in Southwest Florida and
found out that there was a decreasing pattern in streamflow
at most gauging stations which were impacted by upstream
mining activities.
Furthermore, impacts of LULC changes on the water
resources have been analyzed in many other studies at dif-
ferent spatial and temporal scales (Legesse et al. 1995; Wang
et al. 2008; Ghaffari et al. 2010; Mango et al. 2011; Barthel
et al. 2012; Wijesekara et al. 2012; Yan et al. 2013; Niraula
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
et al. 2015). Generally, these studies have been performed
using past and present LULC states or radical LULC change
scenarios in event-scale hydrological models to assess the
hydrological processes in the basins (Olang 2011). Thus,
assessing long-term hydrological impacts of LULC change
is of critical importance for land use planning and water
resources management for which hydrological models are
particularly useful, as they can assess past and possible
future impacts (using different land use scenarios). There-
fore, hydrological models have become an indispensable
tool for water resources management studies (Suliman et al.
2015).
Hydrological models require meteorological data and
spatio-temporal watershed characteristics, for accurate
evaluation, modeling and prediction of the dynamic water
balance of a watershed (He and Hogue 2012; Kristian et al.
1998; Ye et al. 2013; Makwana and Tiwari 2017). Hydrolog-
ical models, such as the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) Storm Water Management Model (SWMM) (Huber
et  al. 1988), Long-term hydrologic impact assessment
(L-THIA) (Li and Wang 2009), United States Department
of Agriculture (USDA) Agricultural Non-Point Source Pol-
lution Model (AGNPS) (USDA 2011; Young et al. 1989),
HydrologiskaByrånsVattenbalansavdelning (HBV) model
(Ashagrie et al. 2006), European hydrological system—sys-
temehydrologiqueEuropeen (SHE) (Abbott et al. 1986) and
Hydrologic Modeling System (HECHMS) (Feldman 1981)
have been extensively used for hydrological analysis. The
hydrological models generally require a large amount of spa-
tially variable input data and parameters. They also require
calibration to varying degrees against observed hydrologic
variables, mainly due to lack of high quality input data and
conceptual simplification of environmental processes (Srini-
vasan et al. 2010).
Various other hydrological models have also been
developed to study the spatio-temporal variations in
hydrological processes induced by both the natural and
anthropogenic activities and their simultaneous impact on
water resources within a basin (Du et al. 2012; Maetens
et al. 2012), including the soil and water assessment tool
(SWAT). SWAT is a physically-based semi-distributed
hydrological model that was developed to operate at a
continuous time-step. It has the capability to simulate the
nexus of hydrological processes and biophysical changes
(Wang et al. 2014; Chen et al. 2016). SWAT is a preferred
model among hydrologists because of its strong emphasis
on vegetation and hydrological interactions that make it
suitable for LULC based hydrological analysis (Srinivasan
et al. 1998; Santhi et al. 2001a, b; Tripathi et al. 2006;
Gosain et al. 2005; Cao et al. 2006; Krysanova et al. 2015;
Srinivasan et al. 2010). Examples of articles where SWAT
has been used for river basin modelling are captured in
Table 1.
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Table 1  List of selected readings that applied SWAT​

Authors and Year River basin/watershed SWAT application

Kumar et al. (2017) Tons, India Quantified stream flow

Ejieji et al. (2016)
Vilaysane et al. (2015)
Murty et al. (2014)
Perrin (2014)
Yan et al. (2013)
Santra and Das (2013)
Girolamo and Porto (2012)
Prasad (2012)
Singh and Imtiyaz (2012)
Conaghan (2010)
Ghaffari et al. (2010)
Srinivasan et al. (2010)
Wang et al. (2008)
Gosain et al. (2006)
Hadejia-Jama’are-Kamadugu-Yobe River Basin, North Predicted stream flow
Eastern Nigeria
Xedone, Japan Tested the performance and feasibility of SWAT
for predicting stream flow
Ken, India Predicted the water balance components
Gajwel watershed, Southern India Assessed water availability in a semi-arid
watershed
Upper Du, China Assessed the impact of LULC change on water-
shed stream flow
Chilka Lake, Odisha, India Did a simulation of surface run-off from an
agricultural watershed
Rio Mannu, Sardinia, Italy LULC scenario based study
Kothakunta, India Quantified the effect of LULC changes on water
yield over a long period
Nagwa, Eastern India Predicted the monthly stream flow
Upper Neuse, North Carolina, USA Compared stream flow and total sediment
load between the current and future land use
scenarios
Zanjanrood, Northwest Iran Quantified the hydrological response of land
use change on surface runoff simulation for
three-year land-use patterns in the
Upper Mississippi, USA Evaluated SWAT model for hydrologic budget
and crop yield simulations
Zamu River basin, Northwest China Investigated stream flow variations in North-
west China under different land-use scenarios
12 major river basins some of which are Ganga, the Quantified runoff
Cavery, the Krishna, the Godavari and the Mahanadi,
India

Results of the studies in Table 1 show that SWAT is capable
of simulating stream flow in a river basin with satisfactory
accuracies. However, most of these previous studies assessed
the hydrological impacts based on a few (two or three) LULC
scenarios. Since the LULC change and its impact on hydro-
logical processes is a widespread concern and a great chal-
lenge, during this current study it was vital to understand
the impact of LULC change on hydrology in the Tons River
Basin (TRB) using a suitable hydrological model and more
than three LULC scenarios. Thus, the main objective of this
study was to assess the changes in stream flow in the TRB due
to changing land use-cover for seven decades using SWAT. A
specific research question that could be answered as a result
of this study was “how could long term changes in LULC
affect the spatial and temporal variability of stream flow in
the TRB?”.
Materials and Methods
Description of study area
As show Fig. 1, Tons River Basin (TRB), which is also
known as Tamsa river basin, is a sub-basin of the Gan-
ges basin. It is located towards the northern part of India,
spreading across the two states of Madhya Pradesh (MP)
and Uttar Pradesh (UP). TRB originates from a tank “Tam-
akund” of the Kaimur hills at an elevation of 610 m as well
as in Satna district of Madhya Pradesh. It flows between
23°57′N to 25°20′N latitudes and 80°20′E to 83°25′E lon-
gitudes via the hilly Vindhyan Range to the fertile plains
of Rewa district in MP and Allahabad district of UP.
The 10 m geography of the area (Fig. 2) indicates that the
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

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
and the Kaimur.
The major land use of the area is agricultural land for
wheat (major crop), rice, soybean, millet (minor crops)
and pulses under popular cropping patterns of wheat-
pulses and rice-wheat-pulses. TRB is endowed with
mainly deep black soil, shallow black soil and the mixed
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
red black soil. The majority of slopes in the basin are less
than 2% on a mean elevation of 285 m. The maximum
and minimum elevations are 665 and 319 m, respectively,
for a gradient ratio of 0.9275 m/km. The wind speed in
the region varies from 0.43 m/s (November) to 1.29 m/s
(June), with a predominant West to North–West wind
direction. TRB experiences mean relative humidity ranges
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Fig. 2  Tons River Basin geography
Fig. 3  Tons River Basin geology
of 29–80% and a humidity of around 80% during the mon-
soon season.
The river basin lies in a semi-arid subtropical climate
where total annual rainfall varies from 930 to 1116 mm/
year, with a mean annual rainfall of 1099 mm/year. Its
maximum number of rainy days occurs in the months of
July and August. The summer season (May to June) is hot,
with the daily maximum temperature going up to 46 °C.
Winter season (December to January) is cool, with mini-
mum temperatures of only up to 5 °C. The mean annual
temperature is about 25.65 °C.
Research methods
Brief SWAT model description
The impacts of land management and climate on water, nutri-
ent, and pesticide transport can be assessed at the basin scale
(Gassman et al. 2007; Neitsch et al. 2005; Arnold et al. 2011)
using hydrological models, the most notable being SWAT
(soil water assessment tool). SWAT is a semi-distributed
hydrological model that was developed by the Agricultural
Research Service of the United States Department of Agri-
culture (USDA-ARS). It simulates river basin hydrological
processes such as surface runoff and sediment yield at a daily
time-step, based on information regarding weather, topogra-
phy, soil properties, vegetation, and land management prac-
tices (Ghaffari et al. 2010).
A physically based SWAT hydrological model was used
to delineate the watershed into number of sub basins. Each
sub basin is dividing into hydrologic response units (HRUs),
with unique combinations of land cover, slope, and soil
type (Kumar et al. 2017). The detail regarding the prepara-
tion of data inputs the readers can found in SWAT model
manual (http://swat.tamu.edu/docum​entat​ion/). The model
is based on principle of water balance algorithm as defined
by Eq. (1):
∑
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).
Brief description of CA Markov chain model
CA Markov chain model (CA MCM) is a popular and robust
model generally used in land use change modeling studies. It
describes the probability of land cover change between former
(t1) and later time (t2) periods Is described by Markov Chain
model through developing a transition probability matrix
between them (Singh et al. 2015, 2017b). The probabilities
may be accurate on a per category basis, but there is no knowl-
edge of the spatial distribution of occurrences within each
land cover class, therefore to incorporate the spatial character
to the model, CA is integrated into the Markovian approach
(Singh et al. 2017b). The equations are expressed from (2–4)
as follows:
Fx (X(tn+1 ) ⩽ xn+1 ||X(tn ) = xn , X(tn−1 ) = xn−1 , −−, X(t1 ) = x1 )
=(X(tn+1 ) ⩽ xn+1 ||X(tn ) = xn ),
(2)
where ­X(t) represents the Markovian chain process for a par-
ticular time (t), ­tn defines the present time while the time for
changes in the future is defined by ­tn+1. Similarly, the nota-
tion ­tn−1 is used to denote the previous changes.
13

Equation (3), as given in Singh et al. (2015), denotes the
transition probability from state i to state j, while X[k] rep-
resents the states {x1, x2, x3, ···}. However, many times
Markov chain follows a finite number of states (n); in the
latter case the transition probability matrix can be defined
by Eq. (4) (Singh et al. 2015):
Pi,j = Pr (X[k + 1] = j|X[k] = i ), (3)
⎡P1,1 P1,2 − − − P1,n ⎤
⎢ ⎥
⎢P2,1 P2,2 − − − P2,n ⎥
⎢− − − − − − ⎥. (4)
⎢ ⎥
⎢− − − − − − ⎥
⎢ ⎥
⎣Pn,1 Pn,2 − − − Pn,n ⎦
Data input
In this study, the SWAT model was employed, where the
required data-sets were digital elevation model (DEM), soil,
LULC, meteorological data (temperature, precipitation, solar
radiation, relative humidity, wind speed), and discharge
observations at Meja gauge station.
DEM data was collected from the Shuttle Radar Topo-
graphic Mission (SRTM) website with 90 ms resolution.
The elevation of TRB ranges from 698 to 36  m above
mean sea level (Fig. 4a). Soil data was collected from the
Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United
Fig. 4  a Digital elevation model and b soil types in TRB
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Nations, and it showed that for TRB there were six main
soil types. All the soil types and codes were manually
added with attributes into the SWAT user soil database.
The Sandy Clay Loam (Lc75-1b-3780) soil which cov-
ers 60.30% of the basin area is the most dominant soil
(Fig. 4b). The Loam (Lo51-2a-3812) soil covers 30.50%
and occurs mostly in the north-eastern part of the basin.
The other four types are Loam (0.19%) as Be80-2a-3681,
Sandy Clay Loam (0.85%) as Lc5-1a-3772, Sandy
loam (2.32%) as Lf10-1bc-3785 and Clay (5.84%) as
Vc21-3a-3859.
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-
tion occurred in the central and southern most part of
TRB (Fig. 5a). Climate (meteorological) data was taken
from the SWAT database for the period 1979–2013, for
the parameters daily precipitation, minimum and maxi-
mum temperature, relative humidity, solar radiation and
wind speed. The data represented 16 gauging stationsand
these were taken as input into SWAT. Stream flow was
obtained from the Ministry of Water Resources, Gov-
ernment of India for the period 1979 to 2011 for Meja
gauging station near the junction of Tons and Ganga
at Sirsa. These data were then compared to the SWAT
model output during model calibration and validation
(Fig. 5b).
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Fig. 5  a TRB slope map and b hydro-metrological stations
Land use change modeling using CA Markov model
The land use/land cover (LULC) data was prepared using
Landsat5(TM) and Landsat8 (OLI) data-sets. The unsuper-
vised classification method and ISODATA techniques were
used to create LULC in TRB. The LULC maps were pre-
pared for years 1985, 1995, 2005 and 2015 while the CA-
Markov techniques were used to create future data-sets, i.e.,
2025 and 2035. Total seven LULC types were observed in
TRB namely forest mixed (FRST), forest deciduous (FRSD),
barren land (BARN), hay (HAY), mixed crop (RWSW), resi-
dential (URBN) and water body (WATR) (Fig. 6 a–f).
Model calibration and validation
SWAT model was set up to simulate the stream flow for the
baseline scenario using LULC for 2015. The model was then
calibrated for baseline scenario from 1979 to 2011, with
a 3-year warm up period of 1979 to 1981. An automatic
calibration and validation was done using SWAT-CUP and
SUFI-2 algorithm for the 19 selected parameters. SWAT-
CUP was set up to calibrate the model with a 1000 times
iteration. The calibration results showed that among the 19
parameters the most sensitive parameters were ALPHA_BF,
SOL_K, ESCO, GW_DELAY, CH_K2 and SLSUBBSN.
hru but their sensitivity order had changed during various
decades. After the baseline scenario, the SWAT was run
for three past decades 1985, 1995 and 2005. Two futures
LULC (2025, 2035) were used to run SWAT by replacing the
landuse data of previous years and keeping all other inputs
(soil and weather) constant. The model results were com-
pared with the baseline scenario. The model was sequen-
tially calibrated and validated for past and future scenarios.
Table  2 shows the calibrated and validated stream flow
results at Meja gauge station. The values given in Table 2 are
showing satisfactory/good performance of model (Moriasi
et al. 2007, 2015; Nash and Sutcliffe 1970).
The detailed methods that were used for simulation of
LULC changes and their impact on stream flow are provided
in Fig. 7. The results of all decades can be compared for best
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.
Results and discussions
Land use/land cover change analysis and its impact
on stream flow
The impacts of land use changes on water resource (Genxu
et al. 2005; Nugroho et al. 2013) have been the main focus
for the researchers and among them an integrated modeling
approach has its potentiality (Ma et al. 2009a; Marhaento
et  al. 2016; Wijesekara et  al. 2012). Woldesenbet et  al.
(2017) combined a semi-distributed hydrologic model
SWAT and partial least squares regression (PLSR) for the
hydrological responses in the source region of Upper Blue
Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Choi and Deal (2008) also used this
13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 6  a–f The land use/land cover maps of TRB

Table 2  Calibrated and Year p factor r factor R2 NSE RSR PBIAS

validated stream flow results at
Meja gauge station 1985 0.60 0.64 0.73 0.72 0.53 6.3
1995 0.59 0.68 0.73 0.72 0.53 5.5
2005 0.21 0.13 0.73 0.71 0.54 5.2
2015 0.60 0.71 0.72 0.72 0.53 6.9
2025 0.59 0.71 0.72 0.71 0.53 2.3
2035 0.59 0.72 0.73 0.71 0.54 8.4

integration with dynamic urban growth model (LEAM-
luc) in order to show how this urbanization influences the
hydrology of basin. They concluded that noticeable land use
changes have increased the surface runoff, water yield and
reduced the infiltration and balse flow in the basin. Therefore
quantitative information can be extracted by using integra-
tion of land use models with distributed hydrological model
for hydrological response in a changing land use pattern.
Here in this study, the LULC analysis was started with 1985
in order to study the separate changes and their responses on
hydrological component that occurred before and after the
baseline scenario (2015). The LULC changes were estab-
lished for years 1985, 1995, and 2005 before baseline and
then 2025 and 2035 for the future using the LULC predic-
tion model method. The dominant land use types in TRB
watershed are agricultural land, hay and mixed forest. These

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 7  Flow chart is showing a adopted methodology for this study

Table 3  Land use/land cover change analysis before baseline scenario (2015)

LULC Area1985 (%) Area1995 (%) RoC (%) Area1995 (%) Aera2005 (%) RoC (%) Aera2005 (%) Area2015 (%) RoC (%)

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
their individual percentage coverages for the different sce-
narios were significantly different (Table 3).
Reference is made to Table 3 for the analysis which fol-
lows the LULC changes in TRB during different decades.
The rate of change (RoC) for built up area during 1985–1995
was 0.414% and during 1995–2005 was 0.334%, which
showed a reduction in the RoC compared to previous dec-
ades, which agreed with regional transportation and rapid
urbanization trends.
The average RoC for the mixed crop and the forest
deciduous were − 0.002%, − 0.006%, respectively during
the period 1985–1995 and 0.0003%, − 0.014%, respectively
during the period 1995–2005. This shows that the intensity
of changes during these decades, in the human–environmen-
tal system, were relatively stable. The RoC again for the
2005–2015 was although showing reduction but percentage
of area of built-up has been increased from year 2005 to
2015 (Table 3).
The mixed forest showed positive growth rates during
1985–1995 (0.7%) while for 1995–2005, the growth rate was
very slow (0.027%), most of which was located in the SW
and NW parts of the study area. The RoC (2005–5015) for
mixed forest showed an increment than in the previous peri-
ods. The area of water showed a substantial reduction, which
decreased at the rate of 0.09% (1985–1995) to − 0.120%
(1995–2005) and − 0.111% for the period 2005–2015.
The construction of reservoirs and check-dams is good
for sustainable development but generally construction of
dam or reservoir constitutively reduces the areal extent of
water. These constructions also influence the infiltration in
that area as a result the groundwater generally declines. The
above mentioned causes were similarly responsible in TRB
for reduction in the areal extent of water body during 1985
to 2015. These areal declines in water body were mainly
located close to Amkoi Dam (SW), Amua Dam (SE), Bhai-
sawar Dam (NW), Chithara Dam (NW), Gonda Dam (NW),
Koka Dam (SE), Kulgarhi Dam (Middle Satna), Lilgi Dam

13

Table 4  Land use/land cover LULC Area2015 (%) Area2025 (%)
change analysis after baseline
scenario (2015) FRSD 15.01 10.97
FRST 2.01 1.79
RWSW 72.37 77.59
BARN 2.4 0.78
HAY 6.21 5.27
URBN 0.67 2.08
WATR​ 1.33 1.51
(Maihar), Naktara reservoir (SE), and Singhpur Dam (NW).
All these declines would greatly disturb the eco-environment
and the hydrological cycle in SE, SW and the upper part of
TRB. According to Table 4 the growth rate after the base-
line scenario for URBN area was 2.105% during 2015–2025
and 0.353% during 2025–2035, respectively. The FRST after
the baseline showed a reduction in growth rate as − 0.108%
during 2015–2025 and − 0.013% during 2025–2035. The
FRSD was also showing almost same pattern of changes
in TRB after the baseline. These negative growths of forest
were envisaged to reduce the infiltration capacity of water
to groundwater and increase the surface runoff in the study
area (Table 4). Welde and Gebremariam (2017) concluded
the LULC impacts on hydrological component in the Tekeze
dam watershed as increasing bare land and agricultural areas
resulted in increased stream flow and sediment yield.
In order to show the impacts of LULC changes on stream
flow, SWAT has simulated the stream flows using different
decade’s LULC and meteorological data-sets (1979–2011).
As shown in Table  5, the land use change significantly
impacted the water balance in TRB. The simulated annual
average runoff in TRB at Meja gauge station showed an
increasing trend (after baseline) based on the stipulated land
use scenarios, which was consistent with simulated results.
The average annual runoff, lateral flow and groundwater flow
(Table 5) were estimated for the future in TRB under the
three different land use scenarios. These results were simu-
lated further for surface runoff which increased from 61.96
to 62.14% for the period 2015 to 2035 and groundwater flow
which decreased from 37.71 to 37.62% for the same period.
Woldesenbet et al. (2017) found that the expansion of culti-
vation land and decline in woody shrub and woodland leads
to the rise the surface run-off. Getahun and Van Lanen
(2015) also agreed with the above reason during his study
in Melka Kuntrie Subbasin in Ethiopia. The RoC for the
water body area showed apositive growth rate for 2015–2025
while for 2025–2035 there was a slight reduction although
there was a positive growth rate.
These results predict that future changes in LULC change
may have significant impacts on the water balance in the
study area. The contribution of these land use changes in
TRB was confirmed by the model performance for the
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
RoC (%) Area2025 (%) Area2035 (%) RoC (%)
− 0.269 10.97 9.77 − 0.110
− 0.108 1.79 1.77 − 0.013
0.072 77.59 78.27 0.009
− 0.673 0.78 0.74 − 0.055
− 0.151 5.27 5.06 − 0.041
2.105 2.08 2.81 0.353
0.138 1.51 1.58 0.042
simulation with LULC dynamics. Here all the simulated
stream flow results (past and future) were compared with the
observed values in order to show that how the variation in
the stream flow was taken place from the baseline scenario
(Fig. 8a, f). Figure 8a–f shows the observed versus simulated
discharge for LULC 1985, 1995, 2005, 2015, 2025 and 2035.
Results for the future years 2025 and 2035 showed minimal
impact of LULC change on simulated discharge compared
to historical observed. LULC changes such as conversion
of agricultural land and forests to urban area due to urbani-
zation and tree planting for soil and water conservation as
well as changes within classes such as change of cropping
pattern, result in noticeable changes in hydrologic processes
in a basin (Haregeweyn et al. 2012; Nyssen et al. 2010). Fur-
thermore, LULC changes, which are generally induced by
anthropogenic activities followed by natural processes, affect
the rate and magnitude of various hydrological processes
such as evapotranspiration (ET), interception and infiltration,
resulting in alterations of surface and subsurface flow. These
alterations, in turn, influence streamflow in a basin (Niraula
et al. 2015; Ma et al. 2009a, b; Gebremicael et al. 2013; Ye
et al. 2013; Sterling et al. 2012; Deng et al. 2015; Metzger
et al. 2014). An increase in shrub and forest cover in a basin
decreases the surface runoff and streamflow discharge from
the concerned basin by increasing canopy interception stor-
age, transpiration, and infiltration capacity (García-ruiz et al.
2011; Morán-tejeda et al. 2010, 2015). Changes in basic
hydrological processes such as production and delivery of
runoff to streams and the resulting rate, volume, and timing
of streamflow in a basin have a major implication on its sus-
tainable management (Döll et al. 2012; Farley et al. 2011;
Charlton and Arnell 2011).
Impact of land use change on ecology
Foley et al. (2005) explained that the biodiversity and eco-
system services are directly related and affected by the land
use changes. These changes in a river basin and it’s quan-
titatively influences on the ecology and ecosystem services
are one of key research in the area of the sustainable devel-
opment (Zhou et al. 2008). The ecology and ecosystems
services include the hydrological processes and climate
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

regulation in a river basin (Portela and Rademacher 2001).

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 (%)

stated that the population growth and intensive agriculture

0.3165
37.64
62.06

leads to land use changes. The grain requirement by human

100
mass and building of farmland accelerate the deforestation.
The conversion of grassland into cultivated land and further
Value (mm)
Year 2025

deforestation disturb the water elaboration. These factors

776.37
292.29
2.46
481.84

continuously results the degradation in ecological services.

The construction of reservoirs in an uneven topographical
region could cause the likelihood of sudden flooding due to
Value (%)

0.3482

failure of such construction. The physical habitat character-

100.00
37.71
61.96

istics, water quality, biotic interactions and energy inputs

in a lotic system are generally affected by alterations in the
stream flow regime. These alterations have seriously become
Value (mm)
Year 2015

a threat to the riverine biodiversity (Rolls et al. 2012). Webb

775.35
292.40
2.70
480.47

et al. (2003) stated that the reduction in species richness due

to loss of native species and changes in reproductive behav-
ior of the sensitive species are also influenced by the altera-
Value (%)

0.3081

tion in stream flow. Poff and Zimmerman (2010) reviewed

100.00
37.16
62.55

that most of the scientific studies influenced a variety of

ecological responses by aquatic biota to streamflow altera-
tion including changes in reproductive behavior,community
Value (mm)
Year 2005

shits based on trophic strategies, reduced species richness

775.71
288.31
2.39
485.23

and in particular the loss of native and sensitive species. In

addition with increasing magnitudes of flow alteration, the
risk of ecological change is observed to increase.
Value (%)

0.3086

100.00
37.57
62.13

Conclusions
Value (mm)
Year 1995

The changes in the topography influencehydrological pro-

774.34
290.99
2.39
481.17

cesses although impacts of these changes on the water

balance are still not fully understood due to climatic inter-
Table 5  The water balance ratio scenario in TRB

ferences. In this work we have investigated the impacts

Value (%)

0.3085

100.00
37.42
62.29

of LULC change on water balance using SWAT model.

TRB had experienced minimal changes in the LULC for a
period of 50 year from 1985 to 2035. Considerable change
Value (mm)

was noted for mixed crop (72.68–78.27%), residential

Year 1985

(0.29–2.81%) and forest deciduous (15.57–9.77%). The

774.61
289.87
2.39
482.55

other classes in TRB showed similar or less changes.

For the impact of LULC change on water processes,
SWAT simulation showed that it was not very pronounced.
Total Water Yield

The surface runoff changed from 62.29 to 62.14% dur-

Surface flow
Lateral flow
Flow Type

ing 1985 to 2035. The groundwater flow showed similar

water flow
Ground

trends from 37.42 to 37.62% while total water yield changed

774.61 to 776.74 mm during same period. Thus, for these

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/softw​are/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
tool (SWAT) to assess land use impact on water resources in
an East African watershed. J Hydrol 486:100–111. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2013.01.041
Barthel R, Reichenau TG, Krimly T (2012) Integrated modeling of
global change impacts on agriculture and groundwater resources.
Water Resour Manag 26(7):1929–1951
Basommi G, Guan Q-F, Cheng D-d, Singh SK (2016) Dynamics of
land use change in a mining area: a case study of Nadowli Dis-
trict, Ghana. J Mt Sci 13:633–642
Beven K, Binley A (1992) The Future of distributed models–model cal-
ibration & uncertainty prediction. Hydrol Process 6(3):279–298
Cao W, Bowden WB, Davie T, Fenemor A (2006) Multi-variable and
multi-site calibration and validation of SWAT in a large moun-
tainous catchment with high spatial variability. Hydrol Process
20(5):1057–1073. https​://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5933
Carpenter SR, Stanley EH, Zanden MJV (2011) State of the World’s
freshwater ecosystems: physical, chemical, and biological
changes. Annu Rev Environ Resour 36:75–99. https​: //doi.
org/10.1146/annur​ev-envir​on-02181​0-09452​4
Charlton MB, Arnell NW (2011) Adapting to climate change impacts
on water resources in England—an assessment of draft water
resources management plans. Global Environ Chang 21(1):238–
248. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloen​vcha.2010.07.012
Chen Z, Chen Y, Li B (2013) Quantifying the effects of climate
variability and human activities on runoff for Kaidu river
basin in arid region of northwest China. Theor Appl Climatol
111(3–4):537–545
Chen Y, Li J, Xu H (2016) Improving flood forecasting capability of
physically based distributed hydrological models by parameter
optimization. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20(1):375–392. https​://doi.
org/10.5194/hess-20-375-2016
Choi W, Deal BM (2008) Assessing hydrological impact of potential
land use change through hydrological and land use change mod-
eling for the Kishwaukee river basin (USA). J Environ Manage
88:1119–1130. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvm​an.2007.06.001
Conaghan K (2010) Assessing the Hydrologic Implications of Land
Use Change for the Upper Neuse River Basin (M.S. Thesis,
Nicholas School of the Environment, Duke University). Accessed
on 2016
De Girolamo AM, Porto AL (2012) Land use scenario development as
a tool for watershed management within the Rio Mannu Basin.
Land Use Policy 29(3):691–701. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.landu​
sepol​.2011.11.005
Deng X, Shi Q, Zhang Q, Shi C, Yin F (2015) Impacts of land use and
land cover changes on surface energy and water balance in the
Heihe River Basin of China, 2000–2010. Phys Chem Earth Parts
A/B/C 79–82:2–10. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2015.01.002
Döll P, Portmann FT, Döll P, Eisner S, Strzepek K, Jacobsen M, Boe-
hlert B (2012) Assessment How is the impact of climate change
on river flow regimes related to the impact on mean annual runoff
? A global-scale analysis. Environ Res Lett 7(1):1–11. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/1/01403​7
Du J, Qian L, Rui H, Zuo T, Zheng D, Xu Y, Xu C (2012) Assessing the
effects ofurbanization on annual runoff and flood events using an
integrated hydrologicalmodeling system for Qinhuai River basin,
China. J Hydrol 464–465:127–139. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydr​ol.2012.06.057
Eberhart RC, Kennedy JA (1995) A new optimizer using particle
swarm theory. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Sym-
posium on Micro Machine and Human Science. IEEE Service
Center, Piscataway, NJ, Nagoya, Japan. https​://doi.org/10.1109/
MHS.1995.49421​5
Ejieji CJ, Amodu MF, Adeogun AG (2016) Prediction of Streamflow of
Hadejia-Jama’are-Kamadugu-Yobe River Basin, North Eastern
Nigeria, Using SWAT Model. Ethiop Environ Stud Manag 9(2):
209–219
Fan M, Shibata H (2015) Simulation of watershed hydrology and
stream water quality under land use and climate change scenarios
in Teshio River watershed, northern Japan. Ecol Indic 50:79–89.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoli​nd.2014.11.003
Farley KA, Tague C, Grant GE (2011) Vulnerability of water supply
from the Oregon Cascades to changing climate: linking science
to users and policy. Global Environ Chang 21(1):110–122. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloen​vcha.2010.09.011
Feldman AD (1981) HEC models for water resources system simula-
tion: theory and experience. Adv Hydrosci 12:297–423. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-02181​2-7.50010​-9
Foley JA et  al (2005) Global consequences of land use. Science
309:570–574
Gajbhiye S, Singh SK, Sharma SK (2015) Assessing the effects of
different land use on water qualify using multi-temporal Land-
sat data. In: Siddiqui AR SP (ed) Resour Manag Dev Strateg A
Geogr Perspect. Pravalika Publications, Allahabad, pp 337–348
García-ruiz JM, López-moreno JI, Vicente-serrano SM, Lasanta T,
Beguería S (2011) Earth-science reviews Mediterranean water
resources in a global change scenario. Earth Sci Rev 105(3–
4):121–139. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.earsc​irev.2011.01.006
Garg KK, Karlberg L, Barron J, Wani SP, Rockstrom J (2012)
Assessing impacts of agricultural water interventions in
the Kothapally watershed, Southern India. Hydrol Process
26(3):387–404. https​://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8138
Garg KK, Wani SP, Barron J, Karlberg L, Rockstrom J (2013) Up-
scaling potential impacts on water fl ows from agricultural
water interventions: opportunities and trade-offs in the Osman.
Hydrol Process 27(26):3905–3921. https​://doi.org/10.1002/
hyp.9516
Gassman PW, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG (2007) The soil and
water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and
future research directions. Trans ASABE 50(4):1211–1250
Gebremicael TG, Mohamed YA, Betrie GD, Zaag P, Van Der Teferi
E (2013) Trend analysis of runoff and sediment fluxes in the
Upper Blue Nile basin: A combined analysis of statistical tests,
physically-based models and landuse maps. J Hydrol 482:57–68.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2012.12.023
Genxu W, Yu Z, Guimin L, Lin C (2005) Impact of land-use change
on hydrological processes in the Maying River basin, China.
Sci China Ser D Earth Sci 2006 49(10):1098–1110. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1143​0-006-1098-6
Getahun YS, Van Lanen HAJ (2015) Assessing the Impacts of land
use-cover change on hydrology of Melka Kuntrie Subbasin in
Ethiopia, using a conceptual hydrological model. Hydrol Current
Res 6:210. https​://doi.org/10.4172/2157-7587.10002​10
Ghaffari G, Keesstra S, Ghodousi J, Ahmadi H (2010) SWAT-simu-
lated hydrological impact of land-use change in the Zanjanrood
Basin, Northwest Iran. Hydrol Process 24(7):892–903. https​://
doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7530
Gidey E, Dikinya O, Sebego R, Segosebe E, Zenebe A (2017a) Cellular
automata and Markov Chain (CA_Markov) model-based predic-
tions of future land use and land cover scenarios (2015–2033) in
Raya, northern Ethiopia. Model Earth Syst Environ. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s4080​8-017-0397-6
Gidey E, Dikinya O, Sebego R, Segosebe E, Zenebe A (2017b) Mod-
eling the Spatio-temporal dynamics and evolution of land use
and land cover (1984–2015) using remote sensing and GIS in
Raya, Northern Ethiopia. Model Earth Syst Environ. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s4080​8-017-0375-z
Gosain AK, Rao S, Srinivasan R, Reddy NG (2005) Return-flow
assessment for irrigation command in the Palleru river basin
using SWAT model. Hydrol Process 19(3):673–682. https​://doi.
org/10.1002/hyp.5622
13

Gosain AK, Rao S, Basuray D (2006) Climate change impact
assessment on hydrology of Indian river basins. Curr Sci
101(3):356–371
Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Yapo PO (1999) Status of automatic calibra-
tion for hydrologic models: comparison with multilevel expert
calibration. J Hydrol Eng 4:135–143. https​://doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1084-0699(1999)4:2(135)
Gyamfi C, Ndambuki JM, Anornu GK, Kifanyi GE (2017) Groundwa-
ter recharge modelling in a large scale basin: an example using
the SWAT hydrologic model. Model Earth Syst Environ. https​://
doi.org/10.1007/s4080​8-017-0383-z
Haregeweyn N, Berhe A, Tsunekawa A, Tsubo M, Meshesha DT (2012)
Integrated watershed management as an effective approach to
curb land degradation: a case study of the enabered watershed in
Northern Ethiopia. Environ Manage 50(6):1219–1233
He M, Hogue TS (2012) Integrating hydrologic modeling and land use
projections for evaluation of hydrologic response and regional
water supply impacts in semi-arid environments. Environ Earth
Sci 65(6):1671–1685
Hornberger GM, Spear RC (1981) An approach to the preliminary-
analysis of environmental systems. J Environ Manage 12(1):7–18
Hu X, Lu L, Li X, Wang J, Guo M (2015) Land use/cover change in the
middle reaches of the Heihe River Basin over 2000–2011 and its
implications for sustainable water resource management. PLoS
One 10(6):1–19. https​://doi.org/10.1371/journ​al.pone.01289​60
Huber WC, Dickinson RE, Barnwell TO Jr (1988) Storm water man-
agement model, version 4: User’s manual, 600/3–88/001a. US
Environmental Protection Agency. Report No. EPA/, Athens
Isik S, Kalin L, Schoonover JE, Srivastava P, Lockaby BG (2012) Mod-
eling effects of changing land use / cover on daily streamflow:
An Artificial Neural Network and curve number based hybrid
approach. J Hydrol 485:103–112. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr​
ol.2012.08.032
Jing Z, Ross M (2015) Hydrologic modeling impacts of post-mining
land use changes on streamflow of Peace River, Florida. Chin
Geogr Sci 25(6):728–738
Kishor B, Singh SK (2014) Change detection mapping of land use
land cover using multidate satellite data. Int J Eng Res Techno
3:2320–2326
Kristian J, Christian J, Mazvimavi D (1998) Assessing the effect of
land use change on catchment runoff by combined use of statisti-
cal tests and hydrological modelling: Case studies from Zimba-
bwe. J Hydrol 205(3–4):147–163. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/S0168​
-1176(97)00311​-9
Krysanova V, White M, Krysanova V, White M (2015) Advances in
water resources assessment with SWAT—an overview. Hydrol
Sci J 60:771–783. https:​ //doi.org/10.1080/026266​ 67.2015.10294​
82
Kumar SK, Aier B, Khanduri VP, Gautam P, Singh D, Singh SK (2013)
Assessment of soil nutrients (N, P, K) status along with tree
diversity In different land use systems at Mokokchung. Nagaland
India Sci Technol J 1:42–48
Kumar S, Yadava RN, Singh SK (2014) Assessment of land use around
highly populous business centre of Lucknow City using GIS
techniques and high resolution Google Earth’s Quickbird satel-
lite data. Bull Environ Sci Res 3:8–14
Kumar N, Singh SK, Srivastava PK, Narsimlu B (2017) SWAT model
calibration and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction
of the Tons river basin, India, using sequential uncertainty fit-
ting (SUFI-2) algorithm. Model Earth Syst Environ. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s4080​8-017-0306-z
Lamine S, Petropoulos GP, Singh SK, Szabó S, Bachari NEI, Srivas-
tava PK, Suman S (2017) Quantifying land use/land cover spa-
tio-temporal landscape pattern dynamics from Hyperion using
SVMs classifier and ­FRAGSTATS®. Geocarto Int 6049:1–17
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Legesse D, Vallet-couomb C, Gasse F (1995) Hydrological response of
a catchment to climate and land use changes in Tropical Africa:
case study South Central Ethiopia. J Hydrol 275(1–2):67–85.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/S0022​-1694(03)00019​-2
Li Y, Wang C (2009) Impacts of Urbanization on Surface Runoff of the
Dardenne Creek Watershed, St. Charles County, Missouri. Phys
Geogr 30(6):556–573
Li Z, Liu W, Zhang X, Zheng F (2009) Impacts of land use change and
climate variability on hydrology in an agricultural catchment on
the Loess Plateau of China. J Hydrol 377(1–2):35–42. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2009.08.007
Lin YP, Verburg PH, Chang CR, Chen HY, Chen MN (2009) Devel-
oping and comparing optimal and empirical land-use mod-
els for the development of an urbanized watershed forest in
Taiwan. Landsc Urban Plan 92(3–4):242–254. https​: //doi.
org/10.1016/j.landu​rbpla​n.2009.05.003
Ma X, Xu J, Luo Y, Aggarwal SP, Li J (2009a) Response of hydro-
logical processes to land-cover and climate changes in Kejie
watershed, south-west China. Hydrol Process 23(8):1179–
1191. https​://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7233
Ma X, Xu J, Luo Y, Aggarwal SP, Li J (2009b) Response of hydro-
logical processes to land-cover and climate changes in Kejie
watershed, south-west China. Hydrol Process. https​: //doi.
org/10.1002/hyp.7233
Maetens W, Vanmaercke M, Poesen J, Jankauskas B, Jankauskiene
G, Ionita I (2012) Effects of land use on annual runoff and soil
loss in Europe and the Mediterranean: a meta-analysis of plot
data. Prog Phys Geogr 36:597–651
Makwana JJ, Tiwari MK (2017) Hydrological stream flow model-
ling using soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) and neural
networks (NNs) for the Limkheda watershed, Gujarat, India
M.K. Model Earth Syst Environ 3:635. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s4080​8-017-0323-y
Mango LM, Melesse AM, Mcclain ME, Gann D, Setegn SG (2011)
Land use and climate change impacts on the hydrology of the
upper Mara River Basin, Kenya: results of a modeling study
to support better resource management. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci
15:2245–2258. https​://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2245-2011
Marhaento H, Booij MJ, Rientjes THM, Hoekstra AY (2016) Attri-
bution of changes in the water balance of a tropical catchment
to land use change using the SWAT model. Hydrol Process
2017:1–12. https​://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.11167​
Metzger JC, Landschreiber L, Gröngröft A, Eschenbach A (2014)
Soil evaporation under different types of land use in southern
African savanna ecosystems. J Plant Nutr Soil Sci 177(3):468–
475. https​://doi.org/10.1002/jpln.20130​0257
Molina-navarro E, Trolle D, Martínez-pérez S, Sastre-merlín A,
Jeppesen E (2014) Hydrological and water quality impact
assessment of a Mediterranean limno-reservoir under climate
change and land use management scenarios. J Hydrol 509:354–
366. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2013.11.053
Morán-tejeda E, Ceballos-barbancho A, Llorente-pinto JM (2010)
Hydrological response of Mediterranean headwaters to climate
oscillations and land-cover changes: the mountains of Duero
River basin (Central Spain). Global Planet Change 72:39–49.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.glopl​acha.2010.03.003
Morán-tejeda E, Zabalza J, Rahman K, Gago-silva A, López-moreno
JI, Vicente-serrano S, Lehmann A, Tague CL, Beniston M
(2015) Hydrological impacts of climate and land-use changes
in a mountain watershed: uncertainty estimation based on
model comparison. Ecohydrology 8(8):1396–1416. https​: //
doi.org/10.1002/eco.1590
Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD,
Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic
quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans
ASABE 50:885–900
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Moriasi DN, Gitau MW, Pai N, Daggupati P (2015) Hydrologic
and water quality models: performance measures and evalu-
ation criteria. Trans ASABE 58(6):1763–1785. https​: //doi.
org/10.13031​/trans​.58.10715​
Murty PS, Pandey A, Suryavanshi S (2014) Application of Semi dis-
tributed hydrological model for basin level water balance of the
Ken basin of Central India. Hydrol Process 28(13):4119–4129.
https​://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9950
Mustak SK, Baghmar NK, Singh SK (2015) Prediction of industrial
land use using linear regression and MOLA techniques: a case
study of Siltara industrial belt. Landsc Environ 9:59–70
Mustak SK, Baghmar NK, Singh SK (2016) Land suitability modeling
for arhar pulse through analytic hierarchy process using remote
sensing and GIS: a case study of Seonath Basin. Bull Environ
Sci Res 4:6–17
Nash JE, Sutcliffe J (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual
models: part I—a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10:282–290
Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2005) Soil and Water
Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation. Ver. 2005. Temple,
Tex., USDA–ARS Grassland Soil and Water. Research Labora-
tory, and Texas A&M University, Blackland Research and Exten-
sion Center, 2005
Niraula R, Meixner T, Norman LM (2015) Determining the importance
of model calibration for forecasting absolute/relative changes in
streamflow from LULC and climate changes. J Hydrol 522:439–
451. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2015.01.007
Niu J, Sivakumar B (2014) Study of runoff response to land use change
in the East River basin in South China. Stoch Env Res Risk
Assess 28(4):857–865
Nugroho P, Marsono D, Sudira P, Suryatmojo H (2013) Impact of land-
use changes on water balance. Proced Environ Sci 17:256–262
Nyssen J, Clymans W, Descheemaeker K, Poesen J, Vandecasteele
I et al (2010) Impact of soil and water conservation measures
on catchment hydrological response–a case in north Ethiopia.
Hydrol Process 24(13):78–87. https​://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7628
Olang LO (2011) Effects of land cover change on flood peak discharges
and runoff volumes: model estimates for the Nyando River Basin,
Kenya. Hydrol Process 25(1):80–89. https​://doi.org/10.1002/
hyp.7821
Perrin J (2014) Assessing water availability in a semi-arid watershed
of southern India using a semi-distributed model. J Hydrol 460–
461:143–155. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2012.07.002
Poff NL, Zimmerman JKH (2010) Ecological responses to altered flow
regimes: a literature review to inform the science and manage-
ment of environmental flows. Freshwater Biol 55(1):194–205.
https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2427.2009.0227
Portela R, Rademacher I (2001) A dynamic model of patterns of defor-
estation and their effect on the ability of the Brazilian Amazonia
to provide ecosystem services. Ecol Model 143(1–2):115–146
Prasad BKV (2012) Water for sustainable water resources manage-
ment in watershed for sustainable water resources management
in watershed
Rolls RJ, Catherine Leigh C, Sheldon F (2012) Mechanistic effects of
low-flow hydrology on riverine ecosystems: ecological principles
and consequences of alteration. Freshwater Sci 31(4):1163–1186
Santhi C, Arnold JG. Williams JR. Dugas WA, Srinivasan R. Hauck
LM (2001a) Validation of the SWAT model on a large river
basin with point and nonpoint sources. J Am Water Resou Assoc
37(5):1169–1188
Santhi C, Arnold JG, Williams JR, Dugas WA, Srinivasan R, Hauck
LM (2001b) Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin
with point and nonpoint sources. J Am Water Resour Assoc
37:1169–1188. https​://doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb036​
30.x
Santra P, Das SB (2013) Modeling runoff from an agricultural water-
shed of western catchment of Chilika lake through ArcSWAT.
J Hydro-Environ Res 7(4):261–269. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jher.2013.04.005
Singh A, Imtiyaz M (2012) Application of process based hydrological
model for simulating stream flow in an agricultural water shed
of India. In: India Water Week 2012—Water Energy and Food
Security Call for Solutions, New Delhi, India
Singh SK, Singh CK, Mukherjee S (2010) Impact of land-use and
land-cover change on groundwater quality in the Lower Shiwa-
lik hills: a remote sensing and GIS based approach. Cent Eur J
Geosci 2:124–131
Singh SK, Kumar KS, Aier B, Kanduri VP, Ahirwar S (2012) Plant
community characteristics and soil status in different land use
systems in Dimapur district, Nagaland, India. For Res Pap
73:305–312
Singh SK, Srivastava K, Gupta M, Thakur K, Mukherjee S (2014)
Appraisal of land use/land cover of mangrove forest ecosystem
using support vector machine. Environ Earth Sci 71:2245–2255
Singh SK, Mustak S, Srivastava PK, Szabó S, Islam T (2015) Predict-
ing spatial and decadal LULC changes through cellular automata
markov chain models using earth observation datasets and geo-
information. Environ Process 2(1):61–78
Singh SK, Srivastava PK, Szabó S, Petropoulos GP, Gupta M, Islam
T (2017a) Landscape transform and spatial metrics for mapping
spatiotemporal land cover dynamics using earth observation data-
sets. Geocarto Int 32(2):113–127. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10106​
049.2015.11300​84
Singh SK, Basommi BP, Mustak SK, Srivastava PK, Szabo S (2017b)
Modelling of land use land cover change using earth observation
data-sets of Tons River Basin, Madhya Pradesh, India. Geocarto
Int. https​://doi.org/10.1080/10106​049.2017.13433​90
Srinivasan R, Ramanarayanan TS, Arnold JG, Bednarz ST (1998)
Large area hydrological modeling and assessment part II: model
application. J Am Water Resou Assoc 34:91–101.https​://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.tb059​62.x
Srinivasan R, Zhang X, Arnold J (2010) SWAT ungauged: hydrological
budget and crop yield predictions in the Upper Mississippi River
Basin. T ASABE 53(5):1533–1546
Sterling SM, Ducharne A, Polcher J (2012) The impact of global
land-cover change on the terrestrial water cycle. Nat Cli
Change:385–390. https​://doi.org/10.1038/nclim​ate16​90
Suliman AHA, Jajarmizadeh M, Harun S, Zaurah I, Darus M (2015)
Comparison of semi-distributed, GIS-based hydrological mod-
els for the prediction of streamflow in a large catchment. Water
Resour Manag 29(9):3095–3110
Tripathi MP, Raghuwanshi NS, Rao GP (2006) Effect of watershed
subdivision on simulation of water. Hydrol Process 20(5):1137–
1156. https​://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5927
US Department of Agriculture (USDA) (2011) AGNPS. Retrieved
October 24, 2010 from http://www.ars.usda.gov/resea​rch/ docs.
htm?docid​= 5199
Verburg PH, Veldkamp A, Bouma J (1999) Land-use change under
conditions of high population pressure: the case of Java. Glob
Environ Change 9(4):303–312
Vilaysane B, Takara K, Luo P, Akkharath I (2015) Hydrological
stream flow modelling for calibration and uncertainty analysis
using SWAT model in the Xedone river basin, Lao PDR. Pro-
ced Environ Sci 28:380–390. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.proen​
v.2015.07.047
Wang S, Kang S, Zhang L, Li F (2008) Modelling hydrological
response to different land-use and climate change scenarios
in the Zamu River basin of northwest China. Hydrol Process
22(14):2502–2510
Wang G, Yang H, Wang L, Xu Z, Xue B (2014) Using the SWAT
model to assess impacts of land use changes on runoff genera-
tion in headwaters. Hydrol Process 28(3):1032–1042. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1002/hyp.9645
13

Webb BW, Clack PD, Walling DE (2003) Water-air temperature rela-
tionships in a Devon river system and the role of flow. Hydrol
Process 17:3069–3084
Welde K, Gebremariam B (2017) Effect of land use land cover dynam-
ics on hydrological response of watershed: case study of Tekeze
dam watershed, northern Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res
5(2017):1–16. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr​.2017.03.002
Wijesekara GN, Gupta A, Valeo C, Hasbani J, Qiao Y, Delaney P,
Marceau DJ (2012) Assessing the impact of future land-use
changes on hydrological processes in the Elbow river watershed
in southern Alberta, Canada. J Hydrol 412–413:220–232. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2011.04.018
Woldesenbet TA, Elagib NA, Ribbe L, Heinrich J (2017) Hydro-
logical responses to land use/cover changes in the source
region of the Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia. Sci Total
Environ 575(2017):724–741. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​
tenv.2016.09.124
Yan B, Fang NF, Zhang PC, Shi ZH (2013) Impacts of land use change
on watershed streamflow and sediment yield: An assessment
using hydrologic modelling and partial least squares regression. J
Hydrol 484:26–37. https:​ //doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydro​ l.2013.01.008
Yang XL, Ren LL, Singh VP et al (2012) Impacts of land use and land
cover changes on evapotranspiration and runoff at Shalamulun
River watershed, China. Hydrol Res 43(1–2):23–37. https​://doi.
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
View publication stats
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
streamflow in the Poyang Lake catchment. J Hydrol 494:83–95.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2013.04.036
Young RA, Onstad C, Bosch D, Anderson W (1989) AGNPS: a non-
point-source pollution model for evaluating agricultural water-
sheds. J Soil Water Cons 44:168–173
Yu W, Zang S, Wu C, Liu W, Na X (2011) Analyzing and modeling
land use land cover change (LUCC) in the Daqing. Appl Geogr
31:600–608. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.apgeo​g.2010.11.019
Zhang YK, Schilling KE (2006) Increasing streamflow and baseflow
in Mississippi River since the 1940s: Effect of land use change.
J Hydrol 324(1–4):412–422. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr​
ol.2005.09.033
Zhang C, Zhang B, Li W, Liu M (2014) Response of stream fl ow
to climate change and human activity in Xitiaoxi river basin in
China. Hydrol Process 28(1):43–50
Zhou H, Xiong D, Yang Z (2008) Effects of land use change on eco-
system service value in Yuanmou dry-hot valley. Trans Chin Soc
Agric Eng 24(3):135–138
Zhou F, Xu Y, Chen Y, Xu C, Gao Y, Du J (2013) Hydrological
response to urbanization at different spatio-temporal scales
simulated by coupling of CLUE-S and the SWAT model in the
Yangtze River Delta region. J Hydrol 485:113–125. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2012.12.040
ISWSCR2004-08.pdf. Accessed 8 Sept 2005