Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Hydrological Response to Agricultural Land Use Heterogeneity Using Variable Infiltration Capacity Model

  • Published:
Water Resources Management Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Hydrological responses corresponding to the agricultural land use alterations are critical for planning crop management strategies, water resources management, and environmental evaluations. However, accurate estimation and evaluation of these hydrological responses are restricted by the limited availability of detailed crop classification in land use and land cover. An innovative approach using state-of-the-art Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) model is utilized by setting up the crop-specific vegetation parameterization and analyse the effect of uniform and heterogeneous agricultural land use over the hydrological responses of the basin, in the Kangsabati River Basin (KRB). Thirteen year simulations (1998–2010) based on two different scenarios i.e., single-crop in agricultural land use (SC-ALU) and multi-crop in agricultural land use (MC-ALU) patterns are incorporated in the model and calibrated (1998–2006) and validated (2007–2010) for the streamflow at Reservoir and Mohanpur in the KRB. The results demonstrated that the VIC model improved the estimates of hydrological components, especially surface runoff and evapotranspiration (ET) at daily and monthly timescales corresponding to MC-ALU than SC-ALU (NSC > 0.7). Grid-scale ET estimates are improved after incorporating heterogeneous agricultural land use (NSC > 0.55 and R2 > 0.55) throughout the period of 1998–2010. This study improves our understanding on how the change in agricultural land use in the model settings alters the basin hydrological characteristics, and to provide model-based approaches for best management practices in irrigation scheduling, crop water requirement, and management strategies in the absence of flux towers, eddy covariance, and lysimeters in the basin.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Adamala S, Srivastava A (2018) Comparative evaluation of daily evapotranspiration using artificial neural network and variable infiltration capacity models. Agric Eng Int CIGR J 20(1):32–39

    Google Scholar 

  • Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration-Guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Fao, Rome, 300(9), p D05109

  • Astuti IS, Sahoo K, Milewski A, Mishra DR (2019) Impact of land use land cover (LULC) change on surface runoff in an increasingly urbanized tropical watershed. Water Resour Manag, 1–17

  • Babar S, Ramesh H (2015) Streamflow response to land use–land cover change over the Nethravathi River Basin, India. J Hydrol Eng 20(10)-05015002

  • Blöschl G, Bierkens MF, Chambel A, Cudennec C, Destouni G, Fiori A, … Stumpp C (2019) Twenty-three unsolved problems in hydrology (UPH)–a community perspective. Hydrol Sci J 64(10):1141–1158

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bruijnzeel LA (1988) Estimates of evaporation in plantations of Agathis dammara Warb. in south-central Java, Indonesia. J Trop For Sci :145–161

  • Burakowski E, Tawfik A, Ouimette A, Lepine L, Novick K, Ollinger S, Bonan G (2018) The role of surface roughness, albedo, and Bowen ratio on ecosystem energy balance in the Eastern United States. Agric For Meteorol 249:367–376

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cerdà A, Keesstra SD, Rodrigo-Comino J, Novara A, Pereira P, Brevik E, Jordán A (2017) Runoff initiation, soil detachment and connectivity are enhanced as a consequence of vineyards plantations. J Environ Manag 202:268–275

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chen Y, Xue Y, Hu Y (2018) How multiple factors control evapotranspiration in North America evergreen needleleaf forests. Sci Total Environ 622:1217–1224

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dechmi F, Burguete J, Skhiri A (2012) SWAT application in intensive irrigation systems: model modification, calibration and validation. J Hydrol 470:227–238

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dunne T, Zhang W, Aubry BF (1991) Effects of rainfall, vegetation, and microtopography on infiltration and runoff. Water Resour Res 27(9):2271–2285

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Eltahir EA (1998) A soil moisture–rainfall feedback mechanism: 1. Theory and observations. Water Resour Res 34(4):765–776

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ford TW, Quiring SM (2013) Influence of MODIS-derived dynamic vegetation on VIC-simulated soil moisture in Oklahoma. J Hydrometeorol 14(6):1910–1921

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Foster AD, Rosenzweig MR (2004) Agricultural productivity growth, rural economic diversity, and economic reforms: India, 1970–2000. Econ Dev Cult Chang 52(3):509–542

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Franchini M, and M. Pacciani (1991) Comparative-analysis of several conceptual rainfall runoff models. J Hydrol 122(1–4):161–219

  • Franczyk J, Chang H (2009) The effects of climate change and urbanization on the runoff of the Rock Creek basin in the Portland metropolitan area, Oregon, USA. Hydrol Process 23(6):805–815

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghale YAG, Altunkaynak A, Unal A (2018) Investigation anthropogenic impacts and climate factors on drying up of Urmia Lake using water budget and drought analysis. Water Resour Manag 32(1):325–337

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hu G, Jia L, Menenti M (2015) Comparison of MOD16 and LSA-SAF MSG evapotranspiration products over Europe for 2011. Remote Sens Environ 156:510–526

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Isik S, Kalin L, Schoonover JE, Srivastava P, Lockaby BG (2013) Modeling effects of changing land use/cover on daily streamflow: an artificial neural network and curve number based hybrid approach. J Hydrol 485:103–112

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jackson RB, Canadell J, Ehleringer JR, Mooney HA, Sala OE, Schulze ED (1996) A global analysis of root distributions for terrestrial biomes. Oecologia 108(3):389–411

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jain SK (2019) Water resources management in India–challenges and the way forward. Curr Sci 117(4):569–576

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kumari N, Srivastava A (2019) An approach for estimation of evapotranspiration by standardizing parsimonious method. Agric Res :1–9. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40003-019-00441-7

  • Liang X, Lettenmaier DP, Wood EF, Burges SJ (1994) A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. J Geophys Res Atmos 99(D7):14415–14428

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lohmann DAG (1996) A large scale horizontal routing model to be coupled to land surface parameterization schemes. Tellus 48A:708–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maurer EP, Wood AW, Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP, Nijssen B (2002) A long-term hydrologically based dataset of land surface fluxes and states for the conterminous United States. J Clim 15(22):3237–3251

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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(3):885–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mu Q, Zhao M, Running SW (2011) Improvements to a MODIS global terrestrial evapotranspiration algorithm. Remote Sens Environ 115(8):1781–1800

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Narain P, Singh RK, Sindhwal NS, Joshie P (1998) Water balance and water use efficiency of different land uses in western Himalayan valley region. Agric Water Manag 37(3):225–240

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10(3):282–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pai DS, Sridhar L, Badwaik MR, Rajeevan M (2014) Analysis of the daily rainfall events over India using a new long period 1901–2010) high resolution 0.25 × 0.25 gridded rainfall data set. Clim Dyn 45(3–4):755–776

    Google Scholar 

  • Paul PK, Kumari N, Panigrahi N, Mishra A, Singh R (2018) Implementation of cell-to-cell routing scheme in a large scale conceptual hydrological model. Environ Model Softw 101:23–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Raymond PA, Oh NH, Turner RE, Broussard W (2008) Anthropogenically enhanced fluxes of water and carbon from the Mississippi River. Nature 451(7177):449

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Refsgaard JC, Knudsen J (1996) Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrological models. Water Resour Res 32(7):2189–2202

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schilling KE, Jha MK, Zhang YK, Gassman PW, Wolter CF (2008) Impact of land use and land cover change on the water balance of a large agricultural watershed: Historical effects and future directions. Water Resour Res 44(7)

  • Schottler SP, Ulrich J, Belmont P, Moore R, Lauer JW, Engstrom DR, Almendinger JE (2014) Twentieth century agricultural drainage creates more erosive rivers. Hydrol Process 28:1951–1961

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seginer I (1969) The effect of albedo on the evapotranspiration rate. J Agric Meteorol 6(1):5–31

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shah HL, Mishra V (2016) Hydrologic changes in Indian subcontinental river basins 1901–2012. J Hydrometeorol 17(10):2667–2687

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sharma T, Gusain A, Karmakar S (2019) Future hydrologic scenarios in India under climate change. In: Climate Change Signals and Response pp 39–59. Springer, Singapore

  • Srivastava A, Sahoo B, Raghuwanshi NS, Singh R (2017) Evaluation of variable-infiltration capacity model and MODIS-terra satellite-derived grid-scale evapotranspiration estimates in a River Basin with Tropical Monsoon-Type climatology. J Irrig Drain Eng 143(8):04017028

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava A, Sahoo B, Raghuwanshi NS, Chatterjee C (2018) Modeling the dynamics of evapotranspiration using Variable Infiltration Capacity model and regionally calibrated Hargreaves approach. Irrig Sci 36(4–5):289–300

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srivastava A, Deb P, Kumari N (2020) Multi-model approach to assess the dynamics of hydrologic components in a tropical ecosystem. Water Resour Manag 34:327–341

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tang C, Piechota TC (2009) Spatial and temporal soil moisture and drought variability in the Upper Colorado River Basin. J Hydrol 379(1–2):122–135

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Thompson SE, Harman CJ, Heine P, Katul GG (2010) Vegetation-infiltration relationships across climatic and soil type gradients. J Geophys Res Biogeosci 115(G2)

  • Udias A, Pastori M, Malago A, Vigiak O, Nikolaidis NP, Bouraoui F (2018) Identifying efficient agricultural irrigation strategies in Crete. Sci Total Environ 633:271–284

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Viña A, Gitelson AA, Nguy-Robertson AL, Peng Y (2011) Comparison of different vegetation indices for the remote assessment of green leaf area index of crops. Remote Sens Environ 115(12):3468–3478

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S (2008) Simulation of evapotranspiration and its response to plant water and CO2 transfer dynamics. J Hydrometeorol 9:426–443

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wang S, Yang Y, Rivera A (2013) Spatial and seasonal variations in actual evapotranspiration over Canada’s landmass. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:3561–3575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang YK, Schilling KE (2006) Increasing streamflow and baseflow in Mississippi River since the 1940s: Effect of land use change. J Hydrol 324:412–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Zhang L, Dawes WR, Walker GR (2001) Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resour Res 37(3):701–708

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • World Water Assessment Programme (United Nations) (2003) Water for people, water for life: The United Nations World Water Development Report: Executive Summary. Unesco Pub

Download references

Acknowledgements

We thank the Editor, Associate Editor, and two anonymous reviewers for their comments, which contributed to improving the previous version of this paper.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. School of Engineering, The University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW, 2308, Australia

    Ankur Srivastava & Nikul Kumari

  2. Department of Agricultural Engineering, North Eastern Regional Institute of Science and Technology, Itanagar, India

    Minotshing Maza

Authors
  1. Ankur Srivastava
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Nikul Kumari
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Minotshing Maza
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ankur Srivastava.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of Interest

On behalf of all authors, the corresponding author states that there is no conflict of interest.

Additional information

Publisher's Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Srivastava, A., Kumari, N. & Maza, M. Hydrological Response to Agricultural Land Use Heterogeneity Using Variable Infiltration Capacity Model. Water Resour Manage 34, 3779–3794 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02630-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-020-02630-4

Keywords

Search

Navigation