Abstract
Individual and combined impacts of land use and climate change on water resources in a river basin cannot be easily categorized due to feedback effects. These impacts should be assessed separately to determine the dominant role of land use and/or climate change affecting planning and management of natural resources. In this study, a conceptual framework is proposed to disentangle individual as well as combined impacts of land use and climate changes on hydrology of the Betwa River basin in central India. Land use maps of the years 2013 (classified) and 2040 (simulated) were used as inputs in the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model for the land use change impact study. Downscaled and bias-corrected CMIP5 GCM data was firstly evaluated using observed station data, and then used in the SWAT model for simulation of basin hydrology over five periods of time, i.e., baseline (1986–2005), horizon 2039 (2020–2039), horizon 2059 (2040–2059), horizon 2079 (2060–2079), and horizon 2099 (2080–2099). The study reveals that the impact of climate change dominates effects on water resources in the future, especially due to increased precipitation. Changes in dense forest, agriculture and waterbody induce positive responses; nevertheless, changes in degraded forest and barren land induce negative responses to the changes in hydrology of the Betwa basin. The proposed conceptual framework can disentangle individual and combined impacts of land use change and climate change on basin hydrology. Thus, it can be utilized as an important tool for sustainable river basin management.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
1 Introduction
Land use and climate are the intrinsic drivers of hydrological processes (Blöschl et al., 2007; Juckem et al., 2008; Li et al., 2009). Human activities (such as reservoir construction, urbanization, and industrialization), population growth (resulting in increased water demand), and climate change (mainly changes in temperature and precipitation variables) are widely acknowledged to be the primary catalysts for changes in hydrological response of a river basin (Gao et al., 2010; Grum et al., 2017; Hovenga et al., 2016; Mahmoodi et al., 2021a). Recent studies have demonstrated that land use and climate change have significant impacts on water balance (Cornelissen et al., 2013; Mango et al., 2011; Morán-Tejeda et al., 2010; Tigabu et al., 2019; Wagner et al., 2016) and sediment (Gebremicael et al., 2013; Julian & Ward, 2014; Khoi & Suetsugi, 2014). These studies demonstrate that both surface water and sediment loads have been significantly affected by rapid land use and climate changes in recent decades (Gao et al., 2010; Miao et al., 2010; Pandey & Palmate, 2018; Zhao et al., 2014).
Land use change is induced progressively and abruptly by human–environment interaction and the result of socio-economic and biophysical drivers (Lambin et al., 2001). Changes in agriculture, deforestation, and urbanization have pronounced impacts on soil erosion, flooding, drought, and agricultural productivity, which may also cause land degradation (Lørup et al., 1998; Palmate et al., 2022). In addition to land use change, climate change affects the hydrologic cycle (Mahmoodi et al., 2021b; Tigabu et al., 2021). Temperature change affects evapotranspiration losses and may alter regional weather circulation patterns. This can lead to changes in the frequency and intensity of precipitation, which in turn can increase flash flooding and droughts. Soil erosion, a process of detachment, transportation, and deposition of soil particles, is primarily caused by extreme precipitation events (Burt et al., 2016; Feng et al., 2015; Nearing et al., 2005; Palmate & Pandey, 2021). Climate change has an influence on soil erosion processes in terms of the amount, concentration, and distribution of fluvial sediments in a river basin (Lal & Pimentel, 2008; Routschek et al., 2014; Zuo et al., 2016). Thus, it is important to investigate the extent of climate change impact that would impair current conditions and future management of water resources. Previous studies have analyzed the individual impact of land use change (Bieger et al., 2015; Huang et al., 2009; McGinn et al., 2021; Niehoff et al., 2002; Wagner et al., 2013) and climate change (Li et al., 2011; Setegn et al., 2011; Wagner et al., 2015) on water balance components, sediment or nutrients loads in various river basins under considerably different conditions. Combined land use and climate change impact has also been investigated (Juckem et al., 2008; Li et al., 2009; Santos et al., 2014; Tu, 2009; Wagner et al., 2016). Simple statistical methods or process-based models have been used to study changes in runoff and sediment fluxes (including soil erosion and sediment transport). Process-based models are reliable for simulations under changing land use/climate conditions. Statistical methods lack a physical mechanism, so process-based models are preferred. Among presently available hydrologic models, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT; Arnold et al. 1998, 2012) has been widely used to assess land use and climate change impact on water resources (Benaman et al., 2005; Conradt et al., 2012; Hyandye et al., 2018; Khoi & Suetsugi, 2014; Kim et al., 2013; Pandey et al., 2016). The SWAT model can incorporate climate projections from downscaled global climate models (GCMs) and regional climate models (RCMs) (Jha & Gassman, 2014; Narsimlu et al., 2013; Phan et al., 2011; Shrestha et al., 2013; Wagner et al., 2015). Some hydrological modeling studies have investigated both land use and climate change using SWAT (Bronstert et al., 2002; Chen et al., 2005; Feng et al., 2016; Park et al., 2011; Pervez & Henebry, 2015; Schilling et al., 2008; Semadeni-Davies et al., 2008; Wagner et al., 2016; Yan et al., 2013). Effects of land use and climate change are complex, but they can be disentangled using modeling framework. Scenario-based simulations can demonstrate the potential effects of future changes, which can then be used as a basis for sustainable management practices of natural water resources. Climate change information can be used to mitigate and adapt future management strategies based on the hydrological response of a river basin. Therefore, the assessment of land use and climate change impacts on hydrological processes and sediment loads is imperative for water resource and land use planning.
Consequently, this study aims to investigate isolated and combined land use and climate change impacts on water balance and associated sediment loads using a modeling framework for the Betwa River basin, located in central India.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 Study area
The Betwa River basin covers approximately 43,937 km2 between 77° 05′ 38″ E and 80° 13′ 48″ E longitude and between 22° 51′ 51″ N and 26° 3′ 5″ N latitude. It is an interstate river basin in the States of Madhya Pradesh and Uttar Pradesh (Fig. 1). Elevation of the Betwa river basin varies from 76 to 715 m above mean sea level. The climate of the basin is humid-subtropical. The study area receives a mean annual rainfall ranging from 700 to 1200 mm and more than 80% of that rain occurs during monsoon season, from June to September. The average minimum and maximum temperature varies from 6.7 to 44.2 °C. Hence, the study basin experiences a mild winter (October to February) and a hot summer (March to May). The land use of the catchment is dominated by agriculture (about 68%), with wheat, millet and gram as the main crops. Forest area has the second largest percentage (about 26%), out of which dense forest (about 14%) is in the South-East, while degraded forest (about 12%) is in the Northern part of the basin. The settlement area only accounts for about 0.3%, even though Bhopal city, which is located in the upstream basin, has been rapidly growing due to industrialization and urbanization (around 1.8 Million inhabitants; Chandramouli & Sinha, 2014). Barren land (about 3.7%) and water bodies (about 2%) cover smaller percentages of the Betwa basin. Changes in the water body area mainly depend on the variation of monsoonal rainfall.
2.2 Model input data
In this study, daily observed rainfall data and minimum and maximum temperature data for the years 2001–2013 were obtained from the India Meteorological Department (IMD) Pune. For the same years, discharge and sediment data of the gauging sites Basoda (HO 676), Garrauli (HO 693), Mohana (HO 714), and Shahijina (HO 737) (CWC and NRSC, ) were procured from the Yamuna Basin Organization (YBO), Central Water Commission (CWC), New Delhi. A digital elevation model (DEM) based on the Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) data of 30 m spatial resolution was used (Farr et al., 2007; Jarvis et al., 2008). This DEM data informed the extraction of elevation and slope information, as well as river basin delineation of the study area. Soil data was obtained from the National Bureau of Soil Survey & Land Use Planning (NBSS&LUP), Nagpur.
Land use data for 2013 and 2040 years was used in the study for land use change impact assessment. Data from 2013 has an overall classification accuracy of 82% and a Kappa coefficient of 0.775 (Palmate et al., 2017). An integrated Cellular Automata–Markov Chain (CA-MC) model was used to simulate a future land use map for the year 2040 (Palmate et al., 2017). Land use data was classified into six major classes, i.e., dense forest, degraded forest, agriculture area, barren land, waterbody and settlement.
Downscaled and bias-corrected Coupled Model Inter-comparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) data of the Max-Planck-Institute-Earth System Model-Medium Resolution (MPI-ESM-MR) model datasets were used to study the climate change impact on the river basin hydrology. MPI-ESM-MR model data at 0.25° × 0.25° spatial resolution was obtained from the Centre for Climate Change Research, Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune. We used the climate data for the RCP 8.5 scenario, as it represents severe conditions and could be considered a worst-case scenario. This scenario would be the upper limit for potential climate change impact analysis. The MPI-ESM-MR model was selected based on the model performance evaluation and climate change impact studies conducted in other Indian regions (Das et al., 2018; Guo et al., 2016; Roxy et al., 2016; Sharmila et al., 2015). Station-wise future climate variables were initially extracted and then bias-corrected using the quantile mapping method (Thrasher et al., 2012). Quantile mapping bias correction algorithms are commonly used to correct systematic distributional biases in climate model outputs (Cannon et al., 2015, Cannon 2018). They adjust the distribution of variables originating from climate model outputs, so that they are able to preserve changes in quantiles and extremes of GCM variables (Cannon et al., 2015). In this study, the SWAT model was calibrated and validated using observed climate data. The selected GCM model includes climate data for both baseline and future periods. Therefore, we have validated the bias-corrected GCM data by statistical comparison with the observed climate data and then utilized it as input to the calibrated and validated SWAT model for simulating water balance components and sediment yields.
2.3 Hydrological modeling using SWAT
The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is a semi-distributed hydrologic model developed by USDA’s Agricultural Research Service (ARS) that operates at daily or sub-daily time-steps (Arnold & Fohrer, 2005; Arnold et al., 1998, 2012). The SWAT model is a useful tool for modeling hydrologic processes in a river basin, it uses water balance as the basis of river basin simulation (Neitsch et al., 2005, 2011). In this study, ArcSWAT, an extension and interface for SWAT in ArcGIS, has been employed for setting up the SWAT model, i.e., to derive model parameters from the input data. The model itself is run outside of ArcGIS and ArcSWAT.
2.3.1 SWAT model set-up and run
ArcSWAT interface has been used to set-up and run the model for the period 2001–2013. Given that we were focusing on long-term changes in water balance components and sediment yields, only monthly model outputs were used in this study. The Betwa basin was divided into 57 sub-basins (SB) based on a critical source area of 50,000 ha. The threshold value was selected based on desired stream network density, and the connectivity of drainage networks to reservoirs and weirs that mainly affect river channel flow and outflow at CWC gauging sites. Gauging sites and outlet points provided for nine reservoirs and weirs were implemented. Further, the study area was divided into 3,874 Hydrological Response Units (HRUs) representing homogenous areas with unique land use (threshold value = 0%), soil type (threshold value = 1%) and slope (threshold value = 0%). With this set-up, the SWAT model was run using the curve number approach and the MUSLE (Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation) method for runoff and erosion processes.
2.3.2 Reservoir management in SWAT model
The reservoir module of ArcSWAT was used to implement, manage, and simulate different reservoirs and weirs of the Betwa basin. Limited information for 7 reservoirs and 2 weirs was obtained from India-WRIS (Water Resources Information System) and WRIS publications (CWC and NRSC, 2012, 2014). Available information on reservoirs and weirs is limited to the year of completion, maximum target storage, and storage volume. Nevertheless, remotely sensed surface area and outflow regulations were obtained for successful reservoir management in the SWAT model (McFeeters, 1996). Wagner et al. (2011) derived parameters for six reservoirs located in the Western Ghats of India. Also, Zhang et al. (2012) estimated parameters for small to large reservoirs in China. The same methodology has been adopted in this study for the estimation of surface area and outflow regulations. In addition, the average daily principle spillway release rate (RES_RR) for all the reservoirs and weirs has been incorporated, as shown in Table 1.
2.3.3 Model calibration and validation
The SWAT-Calibration and Uncertainty Programs (CUP) Sequential Uncertainty Fitting version 2 (SUFI-2) algorithm (Abbaspour et al., 2007, 2015) has been used for calibration and validation of the model on a monthly time-scale using data from 2001 to 2013. The first 2 years (2001 and 2002) of the simulation period were reserved as ‘warm-up period’ to realistically set up internal hydrological components, e.g., groundwater storage and soil moisture content. Measured hydrologic data of the initial seven years (2003–2009) and the last 4 years (2010–2013) were used for calibration and validation, respectively.
For calibration, parameters and their value range were considered based on the available literature and previous studies carried out for the Betwa river basin, the regions located near the study area, as well as in India (Anand et al., 2018; Kumar et al., 2017; Murty et al., 2014; Narsimlu et al., 2013; Suryavanshi et al., 2017). Identified parameters were initially tested for sensitivity and uncertainty analysis using the SUFI-2 algorithm in SWAT-CUP. After a One-At-a-Time (OAT) sensitivity analysis, the selected parameters were used for calibration and validation of the SWAT model on a monthly time-scale. A total of 23 sensitive parameters were considered for streamflow (9 parameters) and sediment (14 parameters) based on the sensitivity order obtained in SWAT-CUP (Table 2). Model performance criteria suggested by Moriasi et al. (2007) was used to evaluate monthly hydrologic simulation of the SWAT model by statistical measures of Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), percent bias (PBIAS), and ratio of the root mean square error to the standard deviation of measured data (RSR), as well as the coefficient of determination (R2).
2.3.4 Land use and climate change impact assessment
After calibration and validation of the SWAT model, classified and simulated land use data of the years 2013 and 2040 was used to study land use change impacts, and the downscaled and bias-corrected CMIP5 GCM climate data of MPI-ESM-MR model was used for climate change impact study. Station-wise GCM-derived climate data was initially compared with the observed climate data, and evaluated using statistical measures (maximum, minimum, average, standard deviation, and root-mean-square error values). A detailed flowchart depicting the methodology used in this study is provided in Fig. 2.
We considered four scenarios based on the input(s) used for model simulation (S1–S4, Table 3). S1 is the baseline simulation in which the land use map of the year 2013 and climate data of the historical years 1986–2005 were used as inputs to the SWAT model. S2 was used to study individual land use change impact based on the 2040 predicted future land use map and climate data of the baseline period (1986–2005). S3 shows individual climate change impact by using climate change input data from 2020 to 2099 and the land use map of the baseline period (2013). In the combined impact assessment study (S4), the 2040 land use map and climate change data from 2020 to 2099 were employed. The analysis of S2 vs. S1 represents individual land use change impacts, and the analysis of S3 vs. S1 represents individual climate change impacts. Combined land use and climate change impact were assessed by comparing S4–S1.
SWAT model outputs from 2020 to 2099 were grouped into four future climate horizons, i.e., horizons 2039 (2020–2039), 2059 (2040–2059), 2079 (2060–2079) and 2099 (2080–2099) for climate change analysis. We used 20 years for analysis, as the historical climate data was also available for 20 years (1986–2005). However, only horizon 2039 climate data was analyzed for climate change and land use change impact assessment using the corresponding 2040 future land use map.
The conceptual framework of this study disentangles individual and combined impacts of climate and land use change on water balance components and sediment yield. It is structured into four quadrants showing all combinations of constant and changed land use and climate impacts based on the SWAT model outputs obtained from scenarios S1, S2–S1, S3–S1 and S4–S1 (Fig. 3). The first quadrant consists of constant land use and climate, i.e., no change, and hence represents the baseline. The second quadrant shows results for constant climate and changed land use, representing individual land use change impact. The third quadrant depicts constant land use and changed climate, representing individual climate change impacts. And the fourth quadrant represents changes in both, land use and climate, hence showing their combined impacts. This framework is limited to using one set of climate change and land use data for the same future period, which in our case is the horizon 2039 climate data and the 2040 land use map.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Performance evaluation of the SWAT model
Performance of the SWAT model was evaluated with monthly streamflow and sediment yield. Results show satisfactory performance during calibration and validation on monthly time-scale at all gauging sites (Table 4). High values of R2 (0.88–0.94), NSE (0.84–0.92), and low values of PBIAS (−4 to −17) and RSR (0.29–0.41) indicate good model performance at Basoda and Garrauli, very good model performance at Mohana, and satisfactory model performance at Shahijina gauges for streamflow simulation (Table 4; Moriasi et al., 2007). Flow duration curves of simulated streamflow also show good agreement with observed streamflow data at different flow segments, providing additional confidence in the model representation (Fig. 5). Monthly streamflow dynamics are well represented by the SWAT model (Fig. 4a). However, peak values are sometimes underestimated during the monsoon season, e.g., in 2013 at the upstream gauge Basoda (Fig. 4a). Also, the flow duration curve indicates an underestimation of high flows at the Basoda gauge. This may be attributed to the fact that these strong peak flows were not present in the calibration period. Nevertheless, a better representation of the peak flows in 2013 was achieved at the outlet Shahijina. In addition, low PBIAS values (about 2–8% to − 4%) for the Mohana, a downstream gauging site of reservoirs and weirs, indicate that implementation and management of upstream reservoirs or weirs in the SWAT model is feasible.
Furthermore, the SWAT model shows a lower performance for sediment as compared to the streamflow simulation (Table 4), which is a common effect (Bieger et al., 2015; Gebremicael et al., 2013; Hovenga et al., 2016; Khoi & Suetsugi, 2014; Yan et al., 2013). Nevertheless, the analysis shows that high values of R2 and NSE, and low values of PBIAS and RSR in Table 4 indicate satisfactory to good model performance for sediment simulation (Moriasi et al., 2007). Low performance can be attributed to underestimated peak sediment loads (Fig. 4b). These may be associated with the MUSLE method that is used in SWAT for soil erosion, which generates lower peak sediment loads (Qiu et al., 2012). We observed better performance at the Garrauli site (without upstream reservoirs or weirs) when compared to the Shahijina site (with management of 7 reservoirs and 2 weirs upstream), which could be expected as a general reservoir management scheme was applied.
3.2 Evaluation of GCM-derived climate data
In this study, GCM-derived climate variables were evaluated prior to use in the analysis. Statistical measures, such as maximum, minimum, average, standard deviation and root-mean-square-error values, were used to compare the observed and the GCM-derived precipitation and temperature variables on daily, monthly and annual time-scales (Table 5). Analysis results show that statistical measures of minimum and maximum temperature variables have an acceptable range (Table 5). Daily precipitation values mostly differ more pronounced (e.g., maximum value, standard deviation, RMSE), but the differences are smaller on the annual scale. The differences regarding temperature values are much smaller when compared to the precipitation differences, which are commonly known (e.g., Deng et al., 2018; Li et al., 2010; Piani et al., 2010; Wagner et al., 2015; Yang et al., 2018). Overall, the analysis shows that GCM-derived climate variables have a reasonable agreement with the observed climate data and are suitable for impact analysis on the monthly time scale.
3.3 Individual land use change impact assessment
3.3.1 Land use changes between 2013 and 2040
Initially, land use changes between 2013 and 2040 were derived for six land use classes and all sub-basins (SB) using the two land use maps (Fig. 6). Major drivers of land use changes included anthropogenic impacts in the upper basin part, new sources of water availability in terms of large reservoirs, constructed in the middle part of the basin, and an interstate governments conflicts for land resources utilization and management (Palmate et al., 2017). Results show that the area of dense forest increases in the range of 10–18% in SB-11, SB-13, SB-14, SB-19, SB-20, SB-23 and SB-27 (Fig. 6a). Most of the other sub-basins have 1–9% or no significant change in the dense forest area. Further, degraded forest mostly increases in several sub-basins of the Betwa river basin. In a few sub-basins, degraded forest decreases, especially in SB-25, SB-33 and SB-40 (about 10–18%), and in SB-28, SB-28, SB-32, SB-34, SB-35, SB-41, SB-44 and SB-52 (about 1–9%) (Fig. 6b). Several sub-basins have undergone transitions between degraded forest and agriculture. Among them, the SB-25, SB-32, SB-33 and SB-40 have an increase of 10–18% in agriculture, and SB-28, SB-35 and SB-41 have 1–9% increase in agriculture area (Fig. 6c). SB-1, SB-2, SB-4, SB-22 and SB-24 show a strong 29% to 44% decrease in agriculture between the years 2013 and 2040.
Furthermore, barren land decreases in SB-10, SB-21, SB-56 and SB-57 by 1–9%; and in other sub-basins the barren land increases by 1–29% (Fig. 6d). In most of the sub-basins, waterbodies decrease by 1–9%; except for the SB-18 and SB-32 that show a stronger decrease (Fig. 6d). The settlement area increases by 1–9% in some sub-basins during 2013–2040 (Fig. 6f). Overall, this analysis revealed that dense forest and agriculture are the most rapidly decreasing vegetative areas; and settlement and waterbody are the rapidly changing non-vegetative areas of the Betwa basin.
3.3.2 Impact of land use change
The SWAT model outputs for the baseline simulation (S1) and land use change simulation (S2) were analyzed to study the land use change impact on streamflow, sediment yield, ET, and water yield. In this study, the static delta change approach was used to compare the simulation based on two land use maps of the years 2013 and 2040. Pearson’s correlation method at the significance level of 0.05 was used to investigate the impact of percent change in each land use class on the percent change in model simulation at sub-basin level.
This analysis shows that the change in ET is positively related (r = 0.92, p < 0.05) to the change in waterbody class (decreased up to 9% at sub-basin level, Fig. 7). This demonstrates the strong impact of surface water evaporation on ET. Furthermore, results show that water yield exhibited significant relationships with the changes in dense forest (r = − 0.27, p < 0.05), degraded forest (r = − 0.45, p < 0.05), and agriculture (r = 0.49, p < 0.05) as shown in Fig. 7. Overall, this analysis reveals that ET and water yield are substantially influenced by land use change. Three vegetation classes, namely dense forest, degraded forest, agriculture, and the waterbody have a significant impact on these water balance components. Thus, vegetation planting and water conservation practices are essential to minimize land use change impact on the hydrology of the Betwa river.
Individual land use change impact on streamflow (FLOW), sediment yield (SYLD), evapotranspiration (ET) and water yield (WYLD)of the Betwa basin as indicated by correlation. The star symbol (*) indicates correlations at the 0.05 significance level. This analysis uses six land use classes, namely dense forest (DenF), degraded forest (DegF), agriculture land (AgrL), barren land (BarL), waterbody (Watr) and settlement (Setl)
3.4 Individual climate change impact assessment
3.4.1 Changes in future precipitation at sub-basin level
The climate change simulations (S3) were analyzed with regard to the impact of precipitation change at the sub-basin level. This analysis was performed to investigate the impact of percent precipitation change on the hydrology of the Betwa basin for four future horizons (2039, 2059, 2079 and 2099). When compared to the baseline period, the upper part of the Betwa basin receives increased precipitation amounts, i.e., 71–140 mm during horizons 2039, 141–280 mm during horizon 2059, 281–363 mm during horizon 2079, and 71–210 mm during horizon 2099 (Fig. 8). Nevertheless, in the middle and lower parts of study basin precipitation amounts decrease in future. During horizon 2059, a few sub-basins have precipitation decrease (127 mm) and increase (280 mm) in the lower and upper basin areas, respectively (Fig. 8). The mean annual precipitation is quite different in the future horizons: horizon 2039 and 2059 are relatively dry with mean annual precipitation difference 821 mm and 957 mm, respectively. However, horizon 2099 experiences more (1540 mm), and horizon 2079 has even more (1621 mm) difference in annual precipitation as compared to the baseline (1109 mm). Hence, these dry and wet spells, in combination with different initial moisture conditions at the onset of the rainfall event, have a pronounced effect on the hydrologic response of the Betwa river basin.
3.4.2 Impact of precipitation change
During horizon 2039, the percent precipitation change has a significant impact on streamflow (r = 0.74, p < 0.05), sediment yield (r = 0.27, p < 0.05), ET (r = 0.45, p < 0.05), and water yield (r = 0.99, p < 0.05) as shown in Fig. 9. Similarly, in horizon 2059, the precipitation change indicates a significant increase in the values of streamflow (r = 0.39, p < 0.05), sediment yield (r = 0.30, p < 0.05), ET (r = 0.42, p < 0.05), and water yield (r = 0.97, p < 0.05, Fig. 9).
Individual climate (precipitation) change impact on streamflow (FLOW), sediment yield (SYLD), evapotranspiration (ET) and water yield (WYLD) of the Betwa basin for future climate horizons. The star symbol (*) indicates correlations at the 0.05 significance level. This analysis uses only one climate parameter, precipitation (Pcp), to study its impact on the basin hydrology
During horizon 2079 and 2099, the precipitation change has a significant impact on streamflow, ET, and water yield, but the relationship with sediment yield is not significant (Fig. 9). The effects on water balance components are reasonable as a change in precipitation results in a change of the available water for streamflow, ET, and water yield. Sediment yield is only indirectly affected by the amounts of precipitation, whereas the intensity of precipitation is much more important, so the correlation is either weak (2039, 2059) or not significant (2079, 2099).
3.5 Combined land use and climate change impact assessment
The combined impact of land use and climate changes on streamflow, sediment yield, ET and water yield of the Betwa river basin has been assessed as follows.
3.5.1 Combined impact on streamflow
Results of the combined land use and climate change analysis show that a decrease in the area of dense forest significantly decreases the value of streamflow during the first two horizons 2039 (r = 0.33, p < 0.05) and 2059 (r = 0.46, p < 0.05). However, an increase in the degraded forest area significantly decreases streamflow in the last two future horizons 2079 (r = − 0.27, p < 0.05) and 2099 (r = − 0.28, p < 0.05), as shown in Fig. 10a. Dense forest is primarily changed into degraded forest (Palmate et al., 2017). The effect of barren land on streamflow also exhibited a negative correlation in horizon 2039 (r = − 0.37, p < 0.05) and horizon 2059 (r = − 0.34, p < 0.05). Decrease in the dominant agriculture area causes decreases in the value of streamflow (r = 0.299, p < 0.05), which are, however, only significant during horizon 2039. Furthermore, an increase in the value of future precipitation shows a significant increase in the value of streamflow in all future periods (Fig. 10a).
Combined impact of land use and climate changes on a streamflow (FLOW), b sediment yield (SYLD), c evapotranspiration (ET), and d water yield (WYLD) of the Betwa basin. Star symbol (*) indicates correlations at the 0.05 significance level. This analysis uses six land use classes, namely dense forest (DenF), degraded forest (DegF), agriculture land (AgrL), barren land (BarL), waterbody (Watr) and settlement (Setl), and one climate parameter, precipitation (Pcp)
3.5.2 Combined impact on sediment yield
Results of the combined impact analysis at the sub-basin level show that a decrease in the area of dense forest significantly decreases sediment yield during horizon 2039 (r = 0.31, p < 0.05) and horizon 2059 (r = 0.44, p < 0.05). However, the explanatory variables change in precipitation and change in dense forest are correlated (r = 0.47, p < 0.05). This indicates that these impacts cannot be singularly attributed to land use change, but might result from changes in precipitation. Precipitation changes were correlated to changes in sediment yield in the individual assessment (Fig. 9), whereas changes in dense forest were not correlated to changes in sediment yield (Fig. 7), it is likely that the changes in sediment yield in the combined assessment can be attributed to climate change. Increase in the area of barren land caused a significant decrease in the sediment yield (r = − 0.30, p < 0.05) only in horizon 2059. A weak negative correlation between barren land and sediment yield has already been observed for the individual assessment (r = − 0.16, Fig. 7), which may be attributed to no management measures in these areas. This relationship becomes significant in combined impact analysis (r = − 0.30, p < 0.05), may be due to less rainfall in horizon 2059, which reduces soil losses from barren land. Furthermore, increase in the precipitation amount also shows a significant increase in the sediment yield in horizon 2039 (r = 0.29, p < 0.05), and horizon 2059 (r = 0.53, p < 0.05), as shown in Fig. 10b. The non-significant relationships in horizon 2079 and horizon 2099 may be due to wetter weather conditions in which prolonged soil moisture availability results in less soil erodibility (Fitzjohn et al., 1998; Ziadat & Taimeh, 2013). Overall, the present combined impact analysis revealed that sediment yield is only significantly affected in the horizons 2039 and 2059.
3.5.3 Combined impact on evapotranspiration
The result of the combined impact analysis shows that changes in land use (waterbody) and climate (precipitation) have a significant impact on ET. The waterbody class exhibited slightly lower correlations (r < 0.92, p < 0.05) with ET in future climate horizons (Fig. 10c), when compared with the baseline correlation value (r = 0.92, p < 0.05). Precipitation also exhibited significant positive correlations to ET due to increased water availability, in horizon 2059 (r = 0.53, p < 0.05), horizon 2079 (r = 0.40, p < 0.05), and horizon 2099 (r = 0.34, p < 0.05), which are lower than during the single climate change impact assessment. Thus, the analysis reveals that change in ET considerably depends on changes in water vaporization from surface waterbodies (Fig. 6) in the Betwa river basin. Kundu et al. (2017) reported that the individual impact of land use change is responsible for ET losses in the Narmada river basin of central India.
3.5.4 Combined impact on water yield
Combined impact analysis shows that changes in dense forest, agriculture, barren land and precipitation have a significant impact on water yield (Fig. 10d). Dense forest, agriculture and precipitation changes with the water yield exhibited positive correlations; however, barren land has a negative correlation with water yield as shown in Fig. 10d. Changes in dense forest and precipitation are correlated, but both variables also showed an impact on water yield in the individual assessment, so that it is likely that both variables affect water yield in the combined assessment as well. Results show that agricultural change has a more substantial impact on water yield during high precipitation periods, i.e., horizon 2079 (1153 mm) and horizon 2099 (1082 mm). Barren land of the Betwa basin contributes to ET losses, but becomes a grassland area during periods of rain that also contributes to groundwater recharge.
3.6 Application of conceptual framework
In this study, the developed conceptual framework was employed to assess the individual and combined impacts of land use and climate changes on the hydrology of the Betwa river basin.
3.6.1 Assessment of individual and combined impacts of land use and climate changes
The conceptual framework representing hydrologic components of the Betwa basin is shown in Figs. 11 and 12. Results show that FLOW increases from 67.77 to 67.86 m3 s−1 due to land use change, from 67.77 to 80.46 m3 s−1 due to climate change, and from 67.77 to 80.56 m3 s−1 due to combined impact of land use and climate changes (Fig. 12). Similarly, the SYLD increases from 16.51 to 16.58 t ha−1 due to land use change, from 16.51 to 19.61 t ha−1 due to climate change, and from 16.51 to 19.69 t ha−1 due to combined impact of land use and climate changes. Both FLOW and SYLD increase due to individual climate and land use change and the combined assessment shows that the impacts of climate and land use change add up. Furthermore, result shows a decrease in ET under land use change (reduced from 460.15 to 411.25 mm, − 48.9 mm), climate change (reduced from 460.15 to 456.53 mm, − 3.62 mm), and combined land use and climate changes (reduced from 460.15 to 405.31 mm, − 54.84 mm) with respect to the baseline ET (Fig. 12). Similarly, the WYLD also decreases under land use change (reduced 399.67–386.09 mm, − 13.58 mm), climate change (reduced from 399.67 to 350.43 mm, − 49.24 mm), and combined land use and climate changes (reduced from 399.67 to 336.75 mm, − 62.92 mm) with respect to the baseline (Figs. 11 and 12). Thus, both ET and WYLD are decreased by land use and climate change. The combined assessment shows that the sum of the impacts of the individual assessments mostly corresponds to the impact of the combined assessment. Only the value of the combined impacts on ET is 2.32 mm greater than the sum of the individual impacts.
Comparison of individual and combined impacts of land use and climate change using a conceptual framework. The value at right side represents streamflow (m3 s−1), value at bottom side represents sediment yield (t ha−1), value at top side represents ET (mm), and value at left side represents water yield (mm)
Hence, climate change impacts dominate for FLOW, SYLD, and WYLD and the combined change assessment (12.69 m3 s−1, 3.18 t ha−1, − 62.92 mm) is almost equal (differs only by 0.01 m3 s−1, 0.01 t ha−1, and 0.1 mm, respectively) to the sum of the individual assessments (0.09 m3 s−1 + 12.59 m3 s−1; 0.07 t ha−1 + 3.1 t ha−1; − 13.58 mm − 49.24 mm). Only in the case of ET, the land use change impacts dominate when compared to the climate change impacts and also, the sum of the individual change assessments differs a bit more from the combined change assessment (2.32 mm). This seems reasonable as ET is more affected by land use than the other variables. A changed land use in combination with a different climate has stronger impacts on ET, so the combined assessment shows a higher value than the sum of the individual assessments and underlines the importance of a combined assessment in this case. However, the relatively small differences between the combined and the sum of the individual assessments for the other variables indicate that the model shows a linear behavior for the prediction of these variables. This might be different if a dynamic and nonlinear land use change was implemented instead of a static one-time change (Wagner et al., 2016, 2019). Also, land use and climate change data were not related to each other in this study, so no feedback effects were considered that may influence the impacts.
Overall, the climate change impact is greater than the land use change impact on the hydrology of the Betwa River basin. Only ET is more affected by land use change. Kundu et al. (2017) underline these findings as they report that the individual impact of climate change is prominent for water yield, and land use change impact is prominent for ET losses. Due to the impacts of land use and climate change, the FLOW and SYLD components increase while the ET and WYLD components decrease in future scenarios. In this analysis, current management practices related to agricultural land and reservoir water flow regulations were implemented. In the future, sustainable management practices such as soil and water conservation, vegetation planting, changes in the cropping system, and river channel protection are essential to reduce their impacts on changes in the hydrologic components of the Betwa basin. This study can also be a basis for policymakers and Government agencies associated with efficient natural resources management. In general, the proposed conceptual framework helps to interpret the results of model simulation under changing land use and climate conditions. Therefore, it can be used in future research studies focused on the assessment of individual as well as combined impacts of land use and climate change for sustainable river basin management.
4 Conclusions
A hydrologic model for the Betwa River basin has been set up to study the individual and combined impacts of land use and climate change. The multi-gauge calibration and validation indicated a satisfactory to very good model performance on the monthly time scale for streamflow and a satisfactory to good performance for sediment yield. Comparison of measured and modeled flow duration curves provides additional confidence in the model. The derivation of suitable reservoir management was crucial when setting up the SWAT model, as observed data from the reservoirs was not available. Implementing the derived general management rules and the characteristics of the seven reservoirs and two weirs has significantly improved hydrological simulations. GCM data has been downscaled to the study area for climate change impact analysis, and classified land use maps of the past and modeled land use maps for the future were employed for land use change impact analysis.
With regard to the impacts of land use and climate change, the following general conclusions are drawn:
-
1.
The spatial analysis showed that land use (from 2013 to 2040) and climate (from 2020 to 2099) of the Betwa basin significantly change in the applied future scenarios, i.e., horizon 2039, horizon 2059, horizon 2079, and horizon 2099.
-
2.
Individual land use change impact analysis at the sub-basin level showed a significant impact on the water balance components, i.e., the change in the land use class waterbody has a significant (p < 0.05) impact on ET losses, and the changes in dense forest, degraded forest, and agriculture have a significant impact on water yield in the Betwa basin.
-
3.
Individual climate change impact analysis shows that precipitation significantly (p < 0.05) impacts streamflow, sediment yield, ET, and water yield during all future climate horizons. This can be explained by increased precipitation by up to 363 mm in the upper Betwa basin and decreases in the middle and lower basin areas by up to −127 mm.
-
4.
The developed conceptual framework can effectively separate the individual as well as the combined impacts of land use change and climate change on four components, i.e., FLOW, SYLD, ET, and WYLD, of the study area.
-
5.
This study reveals that the impact of climate change dominates the land use change impact on streamflow, water yield, and sediment yield. Only for evapotranspiration, the impacts of land use change dominate those of climate change.
Therefore, we strongly recommend assessing the combined impacts of land use and climate change, as individual impacts might be exaggerated or compensated for. The results show that this is the case for the assessment of changes in evapotranspiration, as the combined impact differs from the sum of the individual impacts. The developed framework provides a useful structure for the differentiation and presentation of the combined and individual hydrologic impacts of land use and climate change in any future study on this topic.
Data availability
The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
Abbaspour, K. C., Rouholahnejad, E., Vaghefi, S., Srinivasan, R., Yang, H., & Kløve, B. (2015). A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe: Calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. Journal of Hydrology, 524, 733–752.
Abbaspour, K. C., Yang, J., Maximov, I., Siber, R., Bogner, K., Mieleitner, J., Zobrist, J., & Srinivasan, R. (2007). Modelling hydrology and water quality in the pre-alpine/alpine Thur watershed using SWAT. Journal of Hydrology, 333(2–4), 413–430.
Anand, J., Gosain, A. K., Khosa, R., & Srinivasan, R. (2018). Regional scale hydrologic modeling for prediction of water balance, analysis of trends in streamflow and variations in streamflow: The case study of the Ganga River basin. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 16, 32–53.
Arnold, J. G., & Fohrer, N. (2005). SWAT2000: Current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydrological Processes, 19(3), 563–572.
Arnold, J. G., Moriasi, D. N., Gassman, P. W., Abbaspour, K. C., White, M. J., Srinivasan, R., Santhi, C., Harmel, R. D., van Griensven, A., Van Liew, M. W., Kannan, N., & Jha, M. K. (2012). SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the ASABE, 55(4), 1491–1508.
Arnold, J. G., Srinivasan, R., Muttiah, R. S., & Williams, J. R. (1998). Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: Model development. JAWRA Journal of the American Water Resources Association, 34(1), 73–89.
Benaman, J., Shoemaker, C. A., & Haith, D. A. (2005). Calibration and validation of soil and water assessment tool on an agricultural watershed in upstate New York. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 10(5), 363–374.
Bieger, K., Hörmann, G., & Fohrer, N. (2015). Detailed spatial analysis of SWAT-simulated surface runoff and sediment yield in a mountainous watershed in China. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 60(5), 784–800.
Blöschl, G., Ardoin-Bardin, S., Bonell, M., Dorninger, M., Goodrich, D., Gutknecht, D., Matamoros, D., Merz, B., Shand, P., & Szolgay, J. (2007). At what scales do climate variability and land cover change impact on flooding and low flows? Hydrological Processes, 21(9), 1241–1247.
Bronstert, A., Niehoff, D., & Bürger, G. (2002). Effects of climate and land-use change on storm runoff generation: Present knowledge and modelling capabilities. Hydrological Processes, 16(2), 509–529.
Burt, T., Boardman, J., Foster, I., & Howden, N. (2016). More rain, less soil: Long-term changes in rainfall intensity with climate change. Earth Surface Processes and Landforms, 41(4), 563–566.
Cannon, A. J. (2018). Multivariate quantile mapping bias correction: An N-dimensional probability density function transform for climate model simulations of multiple variables. Climate Dynamics, 50(1–2), 31–49.
Cannon, A. J., Sobie, S. R., & Murdock, T. Q. (2015). Bias correction of GCM precipitation by quantile mapping: How well do methods preserve changes in quantiles and extremes? Journal of Climate, 28(17), 6938–6959.
Chandramouli, C., & Sinha, S. (2014). Census of India 2011: District Census Handbook Bhopal. Directorate of Census Operations, Madhya Pradesh, Government of India, Series-24, Part XII-B.
Chen, J., Li, X., & Zhang, M. (2005). Simulating the impacts of climate variation and land-cover changes on basin hydrology: A case study of the Suomo basin. Science in China Series d: Earth Sciences, 48(9), 1501–1509.
Conradt, T., Koch, H., Hattermann, F. F., & Wechsung, F. (2012). Spatially differentiated management-revised discharge scenarios for an integrated analysis of multi-realisation climate and land use scenarios for the Elbe River basin. Regional Environmental Change, 12(3), 633–648.
Cornelissen, T., Diekkrüger, B., & Giertz, S. (2013). A comparison of hydrological models for assessing the impact of land use and climate change on discharge in a tropical catchment. Journal of Hydrology, 498, 221–236.
CWC & NRSC (2012). River basin atlas of India. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. Available at: http://www.india-wris.nrsc.gov.in/wrpinfo/index.php?title=WRIS_Publications. Accessed 2012 October.
CWC and NRSC (2014) Watershed atlas of India. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India. Available at: http://www.india-wris.nrsc.gov.in/wrpinfo/index.php?title=WRIS_Publications. Accessed April 2014.
Das, L., Dutta, M., Mezghani, A., & Benestad, R. E. (2018). Use of observed temperature statistics in ranking CMIP5 model performance over the Western Himalayan Region of India. International Journal of Climatology, 38(2), 554–570.
Deng, Z., Liu, J., Qiu, X., Zhou, X., & Zhu, H. (2018). Downscaling RCP8. 5 daily temperatures and precipitation in Ontario using localized ensemble optimal interpolation (EnOI) and bias correction. Climate Dynamics (pp. 1–21).
Farr, T. G., Rosen, P. A., Caro, E., Crippen, R., Duren, R., Hensley, S., Kobrick, M., Paller, M., Rodriguez, E., Roth, L., Seal, D., Shaffer, S., Shimada, J., Umland, J., Werner, M., Oskin, M., Burbank, D., & Alsdorf, D. (2007). The shuttle radar topography mission. Reviews of Geophysics. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005RG000183
Feng, Q., Guo, X., Zhao, W., Qiu, Y., & Zhang, X. (2015). A comparative analysis of runoff and soil loss characteristics between “extreme precipitation year” and “normal precipitation year” at the plot scale: A case study in the loess plateau in china. Water, 7(7), 3343–3366.
Feng, X., Cheng, W., Fu, B., & Lü, Y. (2016). The role of climatic and anthropogenic stresses on long-term runoff reduction from the Loess Plateau, China. Science of the Total Environment, 571, 688–698.
Fitzjohn, C., Ternan, J. L., & Williams, A. G. (1998). Soil moisture variability in a semi-arid gully catchment: implications for runoff and erosion control. CATENA, 32(1), 55–70.
Gao, P., Zhang, X., Mu, X., Wang, F., Li, R., & Zhang, X. (2010). Trend and change-point analyses of streamflow and sediment discharge in the Yellow River during 1950–2005. Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal Des Sciences Hydrologiques, 55(2), 275–285.
Gebremicael, T. G., Mohamed, Y. A., Betrie, G. D., van der Zaag, P., & 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. Journal of Hydrology, 482, 57–68.
Grum, B., Woldearegay, K., Hessel, R., Baartman, J. E. M., Abdulkadir, M., Yazew, E., Kessler, A., Ritsema, C. J., & Geissen, V. (2017). Assessing the effect of water harvesting techniques on event-based hydrological responses and sediment yield at a catchment scale in northern Ethiopia using the Limburg Soil Erosion Model (LISEM). CATENA, 159, 20–34.
Guo, Y., Cao, J., Li, H., Wang, J., & Ding, Y. (2016). Simulation of the interface between the Indian summer monsoon and the East Asian summer monsoon: Intercomparison between MPI-ESM and ECHAM5/MPI-OM. Advances in Atmospheric Sciences, 33(3), 294–308.
Hovenga, P. A., Wang, D., Medeiros, S. C., Hagen, S. C., & Alizad, K. (2016). The response of runoff and sediment loading in the Apalachicola River, Florida to climate and land use land cover change. Earth’s Future, 4(5), 124–142.
Huang, S., Hesse, C., Krysanova, V., & Hattermann, F. (2009). From meso-to macro-scale dynamic water quality modelling for the assessment of land use change scenarios. Ecological Modelling, 220(19), 2543–2558.
Hyandye, C. B., Worqul, A., Martz, L. W., & Muzuka, A. N. (2018). The impact of future climate and land use/cover change on water resources in the Ndembera watershed and their mitigation and adaptation strategies. Environmental Systems Research, 7(1), 7.
Jarvis, A., Reuter, H. I., Nelson, A., & Guevara. E. (2008). Hole‐filled seamless SRTM data V4. Cali, Colombia: International Center for Tropical Agriculture (CIAT). Available at: http://srtm.csi.cgiar.org. Accessed 3 November 2008.
Jha, M. K., & Gassman, P. W. (2014). Changes in hydrology and streamflow as predicted by a modelling experiment forced with climate models. Hydrological Processes, 28(5), 2772–2781.
Juckem, P. F., Hunt, R. J., Anderson, M. P., & Robertson, D. M. (2008). Effects of climate and land management change on streamflow in the driftless area of Wisconsin. Journal of Hydrology, 355(1–4), 123–130.
Julian, M. M., & Ward, P. J. (2014). Assessment of the effects of climate and land cover changes on river discharge and sediment yield, and an adaptive spatial planning in the Jakarta region. Natural Hazards, 73(2), 507–530.
Khoi, D. N., & Suetsugi, T. (2014). Impact of climate and land-use changes on hydrological processes and sediment yield—a case study of the Be River catchment, Vietnam. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 59(5), 1095–1108.
Kim, J., Choi, J., Choi, C., & Park, S. (2013). Impacts of changes in climate and land use/land cover under IPCC RCP scenarios on streamflow in the Hoeya River Basin, Korea. Science of the Total Environment, 452, 181–195.
Kumar, N., Singh, S. K., Srivastava, P. K., & Narsimlu, B. (2017). SWAT Model calibration and uncertainty analysis for streamflow prediction of the Tons River Basin, India, using Sequential Uncertainty Fitting (SUFI-2) algorithm. Modeling Earth Systems and Environment, 3(1), 30.
Kundu, S., Khare, D., & Mondal, A. (2017). Individual and combined impacts of future climate and land use changes on the water balance. Ecological Engineering, 105, 42–57.
Lal, R., & Pimentel, D. (2008). Soil erosion: A carbon sink or source? Science, 319(5866), 1040–1042.
Lambin, E. F., Turner, B. L., Geist, H. J., Agbola, S. B., Angelsen, A., Bruce, J. W., Coomes, O. T., Dirzo, R., Fischer, G., Folke, C., George, P. S., Homewood, K., Imbernon, J., Leemans, R., Li, X., Moran, E. F., Mortimore, M., Ramakrishnan, P. S., Richards, J. F., … Xu, J. (2001). The causes of land-use and land-cover change: moving beyond the myths. Global Environmental Change, 11(4), 261–269.
Li, H., Sheffield, J., & Wood, E. F. (2010). Bias correction of monthly precipitation and temperature fields from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR4 models using equidistant quantile matching. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres. https://doi.org/10.1029/2009JD012882
Li, Y., Chen, B. M., Wang, Z. G., & Peng, S. L. (2011). Effects of temperature change on water discharge, and sediment and nutrient loading in the lower Pearl River basin based on SWAT modelling. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 56(1), 68–83.
Li, Z., Liu, W. Z., Zhang, X. C., & Zheng, F. L. (2009). Impacts of land use change and climate variability on hydrology in an agricultural catchment on the Loess Plateau of China. Journal of Hydrology, 377(1–2), 35–42.
Lørup, J. K., Refsgaard, J. C., & Mazvimavi, D. (1998). Assessing the effect of land use change on catchment runoff by combined use of statistical tests and hydrological modelling: Case studies from Zimbabwe. Journal of Hydrology, 205(3–4), 147–163.
Mahmoodi, N., Kiesel, J., Wagner, P. D., & Fohrer, N. (2021a). Spatially distributed impacts of climate change and groundwater demand on the water resources in a wadi system. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 25(9), 5065–5081.
Mahmoodi, N., Wagner, P. D., Kiesel, J., & Fohrer, N. (2021b). Modeling the impact of climate change on streamflow and major hydrological components of an Iranian Wadi system. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 12(5), 1598–1613.
Mango, L. M., Melesse, A. M., McClain, M. E., Gann, D., & Setegn, S. G. (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. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(7), 2245.
McFeeters, S. K. (1996). The use of the Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) in the delineation of open water features. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 17(7), 1425–1432.
McGinn, A. J., Wagner, P. D., Htike, H., Kyu, K. K., & Fohrer, N. (2021). Twenty years of change: Land and water resources in the Chindwin catchment, Myanmar between 1999 and 2019. Science of the Total Environment, 798, 148766.
Miao, C., Ni, J., & Borthwick, A. G. (2010). Recent changes of water discharge and sediment load in the Yellow River basin. China. Progress in Physical Geography, 34(4), 541–561.
Morán-Tejeda, E., Ceballos-Barbancho, A., & Llorente-Pinto, J. M. (2010). Hydrological response of Mediterranean headwaters to climate oscillations and land-cover changes: The mountains of Duero River basin (Central Spain). Global and Planetary Change, 72(1–2), 39–49.
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel, R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007). Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3), 885–900.
Murty, P. S., Pandey, A., & Suryavanshi, S. (2014). Application of semi-distributed hydrological model for basin level water balance of the Ken basin of Central India. Hydrological Processes, 28(13), 4119–4129.
Narsimlu, B., Gosain, A. K., & Chahar, B. R. (2013). Assessment of future climate change impacts on water resources of upper sind river basin, India using SWAT model. Water Resources Management, 27(10), 3647–3662.
Nearing, M. A., Jetten, V., Baffaut, C., Cerdan, O., Couturier, A., Hernandez, M., Le Bissonnais, Y., Nichols, M. H., Nunes, J. P., Renschler, C. S., Souchère, V., & van Oost, K. (2005). Modeling response of soil erosion and runoff to changes in precipitation and cover. CATENA, 61(23), 131–154.
Neitsch, S. L., Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., Williams, J. R., & King, K. W. (2005). Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation. Grassland. Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Temple, TX.
Neitsch, S. L., Arnold, J. G., Kiniry, J. R., & Williams, J. R. (2011). Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute Technical Report No. 406, Texas Aand M University System, College Station, Texas.
Niehoff, D., Fritsch, U., & Bronstert, A. (2002). Land-use impacts on storm-runoff generation: scenarios of land-use change and simulation of hydrological response in a meso-scale catchment in SW-Germany. Journal of Hydrology, 267(1–2), 80–93.
Palmate, S. S., Kumar, S., Poulose, T., Ganjegunte, G. K., Chaganti, V. N., & Sheng, Z. (2022). Comparing the effect of different irrigation water scenarios on arid region pecan orchard using a system dynamics approach. Agricultural Water Management, 265, 107547.
Palmate, S. S., & Pandey, A. (2021). Effectiveness of best management practices on dependable flows in a river basin using hydrological SWAT model. Water Management and Water Governance Hydrological Modeling. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-58051-3_22
Palmate, S. S., Pandey, A., & Mishra, S. K. (2017). Modelling spatiotemporal land dynamics for a trans-boundary river basin using integrated Cellular Automata and Markov Chain approach. Applied Geography, 82, 11–23.
Pandey, A., Himanshu, S. K., Mishra, S. K., & Singh, V. P. (2016). Physically based soil erosion and sediment yield models revisited. CATENA, 147, 595–620.
Pandey, A., & Palmate, S. S. (2018). Assessments of spatial land cover dynamic hotspots employing MODIS time-series datasets in the Ken River Basin of Central India. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, 11, 1–8.
Park, J. Y., Park, M. J., Ahn, S. R., Park, G. A., Yi, J. E., Kim, G. S., Srinivasan, R., & Kim, S. J. (2011). Assessment of future climate change impacts on water quantity and quality for a mountainous dam watershed using SWAT. Transactions of the ASABE, 54(5), 1725–1737.
Pervez, M. S., & Henebry, G. M. (2015). Assessing the impacts of climate and land use and land cover change on the freshwater availability in the Brahmaputra River basin. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 3, 285–311.
Phan, D. B., Wu, C. C., & Hsieh, S. C. (2011). Impact of climate change on stream discharge and sediment yield in Northern Viet Nam. Water Resources, 38(6), 827–836.
Piani, C., Weedon, G. P., Best, M., Gomes, S. M., Viterbo, P., Hagemann, S., & Haerter, J. O. (2010). Statistical bias correction of global simulated daily precipitation and temperature for the application of hydrological models. Journal of Hydrology, 395(3–4), 199–215.
Qiu, L. J., Zheng, F. L., & Yin, R. S. (2012). SWAT-based runoff and sediment simulation in a small watershed, the loessial hilly-gullied region of China: Capabilities and challenges. International Journal of Sediment Research, 27(2), 226–234.
Routschek, A., Schmidt, J., & Kreienkamp, F. (2014). Impact of climate change on soil erosion—A high-resolution projection on catchment scale until 2100 in Saxony/Germany. CATENA, 121, 99–109.
Roxy, M. K., Modi, A., Murtugudde, R., Valsala, V., Panickal, S., Prasanna Kumar, S., Ravichandran, M., Vichi, M., & Lévy, M. (2016). A reduction in marine primary productivity driven by rapid warming over the tropical Indian Ocean. Geophysical Research Letters, 43(2), 826–833.
Santos, R. M. B., Fernandes, L. S., Moura, J. P., Pereira, M. G., & Pacheco, F. A. L. (2014). The impact of climate change, human interference, scale and modeling uncertainties on the estimation of aquifer properties and river flow components. Journal of Hydrology, 519, 1297–1314.
Schilling, K. E., Jha, M. K., Zhang, Y. K., Gassman, P. W., & Wolter, C. F. (2008). Impact of land use and land cover change on the water balance of a large agricultural watershed: Historical effects and future directions. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006644
Semadeni-Davies, A., Hernebring, C., Svensson, G., & Gustafsson, L. G. (2008). The impacts of climate change and urbanisation on drainage in Helsingborg, Sweden: Combined sewer system. Journal of Hydrology, 350(1–2), 100–113.
Setegn, S. G., Rayner, D., Melesse, A. M., Dargahi, B., & Srinivasan, R. (2011). Impact of climate change on the hydroclimatology of Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia. Water Resources Research. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009248
Sharmila, S., Joseph, S., Sahai, A. K., Abhilash, S., & Chattopadhyay, R. (2015). Future projection of Indian summer monsoon variability under climate change scenario: an assessment from CMIP5 climate models. Global and Planetary Change, 124, 62–78.
Shrestha, B., Babel, M. S., Maskey, S., Griensven, A. V., Uhlenbrook, S., Green, A., & Akkharath, I. (2013). Impact of climate change on sediment yield in the Mekong River basin: A case study of the Nam Ou basin, Lao PDR. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(1), 1–20.
Suryavanshi, S., Pandey, A., & Chaube, U. C. (2017). Hydrological simulation of the Betwa River basin (India) using the SWAT model. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 62(6), 960–978.
Thrasher, B., Maurer, E. P., McKellar, C., & Duffy, P. B. (2012). Technical Note: Bias correcting climate model simulated daily temperature extremes with quantile mapping. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16(9), 3309–3314.
Tigabu, T. B., Wagner, P. D., Hörmann, G., & Fohrer, N. (2019). Modeling the impact of agricultural crops on the spatial and seasonal variability of water balance components in the Lake Tana basin, Ethiopia. Hydrology Research, 50(5), 1376–1396.
Tigabu, T. B., Wagner, P. D., Hörmann, G., Kiesel, J., & Fohrer, N. (2021). Climate change impacts on the water and groundwater resources of the Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 12(5), 1544–1563.
Tu, J. (2009). Combined impact of climate and land use changes on streamflow and water quality in eastern Massachusetts, USA. Journal of Hydrology, 379(3–4), 268–283.
Wagner, P. D., Bhallamudi, S. M., Narasimhan, B., Kantakumar, L. N., Sudheer, K. P., Kumar, S., Schneider, K., & Fiener, P. (2016). Dynamic integration of land use changes in a hydrologic assessment of a rapidly developing Indian catchment. Science of the Total Environment, 539, 153–164.
Wagner, P. D., Bhallamudi, S. M., Narasimhan, B., Kumar, S., Fohrer, N., & Fiener, P. (2019). Comparing the effects of dynamic versus static representations of land use change in hydrologic impact assessments. Environmental Modelling & Software, 122, 103987.
Wagner, P. D., Kumar, S., Fiener, P., & Schneider, K. (2011). Hydrological modeling with SWAT in a monsoon-driven environment: Experience from the Western Ghats, India. Transactions of the ASABE, 54(5), 1783–1790.
Wagner, P. D., Kumar, S., & Schneider, K. (2013). An assessment of land use change impacts on the water resources of the Mula and Mutha Rivers catchment upstream of Pune, India. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 17(6), 2233–2246.
Wagner, P. D., Reichenau, T. G., Kumar, S., & Schneider, K. (2015). Development of a new downscaling method for hydrologic assessment of climate change impacts in data scarce regions and its application in the Western Ghats, India. Regional Environmental Change, 15(3), 435–447.
Yan, B., Fang, N. F., Zhang, P. C., & Shi, Z. H. (2013). Impacts of land use change on watershed streamflow and sediment yield: an assessment using hydrologic modelling and partial least squares regression. Journal of Hydrology, 484, 26–37.
Yang, X., Wood, E. F., Sheffield, J., Ren, L., Zhang, M., & Wang, Y. (2018). Bias correction of historical and future simulations of precipitation and temperature for China from CMIP5 models. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 19(3), 609–623.
Zhang, C., Peng, Y., Chu, J., Shoemaker, C. A., & Zhang, A. (2012). Integrated hydrological modelling of small-and medium-sized water storages with application to the upper Fengman Reservoir Basin of China. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16(11), 4033–4047.
Zhao, G., Mu, X., Strehmel, A., & Tian, P. (2014). Temporal variation of streamflow, sediment load and their relationship in the Yellow River Basin, China. PLoS ONE, 9(3), e91048.
Ziadat, F. M., & Taimeh, A. Y. (2013). Effect of rainfall intensity, slope, land use and antecedent soil moisture on soil erosion in an arid environment. Land Degradation & Development, 24(6), 582–590.
Zuo, D., Xu, Z., Yao, W., Jin, S., Xiao, P., & Ran, D. (2016). Assessing the effects of changes in land use and climate on runoff and sediment yields from a watershed in the Loess Plateau of China. Science of the Total Environment, 544, 238–250.
Acknowledgements
The authors sincerely thank the Department of Water Resources Development and Management, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee, India, for providing necessary research facilities. Also, authors would like to acknowledge the India Meteorological Department (IMD) Pune; Yamuna Basin Organization (YBO), Central Water Commission (CWC) New Delhi; Earth Explorer (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/); National Bureau of Soil Survey & Land Use Planning (NBSS and LUP) Nagpur; Centre for Climate Change Research, Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology, Pune (http://cccr.tropmet.res.in/); and India-WRIS (Water Resources Information System, http://india-wris.nrsc.gov.in/) for providing the required datasets to carry out this research study. Furthermore, the first author would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, for providing financial support in the form of a scholarship during his stay at IIT Roorkee. Also, the first author sincerely acknowledges the support of the World Bank’s Robert S. McNamara (RSM) Fellowship Program-2017 to take research guidance at the Department of Hydrology and Water Resources Management, Institute for Natural Resource Conservation, Kiel University, Germany. The authors would like to thank the anonymous reviewers for providing comments and a native English speaker, Ms. Analicia L. Perez, who is a Program Coordinator II in Texas A&M AgriLife Research Center at El Paso, United States, for editing the manuscript language.
Funding
Open Access funding enabled and organized by Projekt DEAL. This work was supported by the Ministry of Education (MoE), former Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India; and the World Bank’s Robert S. McNamara (RSM) Fellowship Program-2017.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
No potential conflict of interest was reported by the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Palmate, S.S., Pandey, A., Tigabu, T.B. et al. A conceptual framework to disentangle land use and climate change impacts on water balance components and sediment yield. Environ Dev Sustain (2023). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04179-9
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10668-023-04179-9