Skip to main content

Advertisement

SpringerLink
Log in

Modelling runoff and sediment yield using GeoWEPP: a study in a watershed of lesser Himalayan landscape, India

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Estimation of runoff and sediment yield are primarily required for watershed development planning involving soil and water conservation measures. Runoff is primarily responsible for sediment detachment and their transport during the erosion processes. In the study, GeoWEPP model was used to estimate the daily runoff and sediment yield from a small watershed located in the Lesser Himalaya, Uttarakhand state, India. GeoWEPP model requires input files of the land use/land cover, slope, climate, soil and land use management which were generated within the GeoWEPP interface. CLIGEN (CLImate GENerator) was used to generate the daily weather parameters for the model. The model was calibrated with measured data of the year 2015 and performance was evaluated with the data collected in the year of 2016 and 2017 for runoff and sediment yield of the watershed. The sensitivity analysis showed the effective hydraulic conductivity, critical shear, inter-rill and rill erodibility as the most sensitive model parameters. Calibration of model revealed high correlation coefficient (0.92 and 0.94) and NSE (0.67 and 0.85) value for daily runoff and sediment yield from the watershed. Performance of the model showed high coefficient of determination for runoff (R2 = 0.85) and sediment yield (R2 = 0.95) with low RMSE value of 4.35 mm and 2.53 t ha−1, respectively. Lower scatter index (SI) value indicates acceptable RMSE for the model. The study showed a reliable estimation of daily runoff and sediment yield with GeoWEPP model in the lesser Himalayan landscape.

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.

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Aawar T, Khare D (2020) Assessment of climate change impacts on streamflow through hydrological model using SWAT model: a case study of Afghanistan. Model Earth Syst Environ 6(3):1427–1437

    Google Scholar 

  • Ahmadi M, Minaei M, Ebrahimi O, Nikseresht M (2020) Evaluation of WEPP and EPM for improved predictions of soil erosion in mountainous watersheds: a case study of Kangir River basin, Iran. Model Earth Syst Environ.

  • Albaradeyia I, Hani A, Shahrour I (2011) WEPP and ANN models for simulating soil loss and runoff in a semi-arid Mediterranean region. Environ Monit Assess 180(1–4):537–556

    Google Scholar 

  • Amin M, Romshoo SA (2019) Comparative assessment of soil erosion modelling approaches in a Himalayan watershed. Model Earth Syst Environ 5(1):175–192

    Google Scholar 

  • Ashraf A (2020) Risk modeling of soil erosion under different land use and rainfall conditions in Soan river basin, sub-Himalayan region and mitigation options. Model Earth Syst Environ 6(1):417–428

    Google Scholar 

  • Bahadur KK (2009) Mapping soil erosion susceptibility using remote sensing and GIS: a case of the Upper Nam Wa Watershed, Nan Province, Thailand. Environ Geol 57(3):695–705

    Google Scholar 

  • Ballabio C, Borrelli P, Spinoni J, Meusburger K, Michaelides S, Beguería S, Aalto J (2017) Mapping monthly rainfall erosivity in Europe. Sci Total Environ 579:1298–1315

    Google Scholar 

  • Bell JC, Butler CA, Thompson JA (1995) Soil‐terrain modeling for site‐specific agricultural management. InSite‐specific management for agricultural systems (pp. 209–227). Madison, WI, USA: American Society of Agronomy, Crop Science Society of America, Soil Science Society of America.

  • Beven K (1989) Changing ideas in hydrology—the case of physically based models. J Hydrol 105:157–172

    Google Scholar 

  • Bjorneberg DL, Trout TJ, Sojka RE, Aase JK (1999) Evaluating WEPP-predicted infiltration, runoff, and soil erosion for furrow irrigation. Trans ASAE 42(6):1733

    Google Scholar 

  • Brakensiek DL, Rawls WJ (1994) Soil containing rock fragments: effects on infiltration. CATENA 23:99–110

    Google Scholar 

  • Clark EH, Haverkamp JA, Chapman W (1985) Eroding soils. The off-farm impacts, Conservation Foundation.

  • Cochrane TA, Flanagan DC (1999) Assessing water erosion in small watersheds using WEPP with GIS and digital elevation models. J Soil Water Conserv 54:678–685

    Google Scholar 

  • Covert A (2003) Accuracy assessment of WEPP-based erosion models on three small, harvested and burned forest watersheds. MSc Thesis, Natural Resource College of University of Idaho, USA

  • CSWCR and TI Vision (2011) 2030 Vision document of the Central Soil and water Conservation Research and Training Institute. Allied publisher, Dehradun, pp 1–46

    Google Scholar 

  • Dabral PP, Baithuri N, Pandey A (2008) Soil erosion assessment in a hilly catchment of North Eastern India using USLE, GIS and remote sensing. Water Resour Manag 22(12):1783–1798

    Google Scholar 

  • Daily G, Dasgupta P, Bolin B, Crosson P, Du Guerny J, Ehrlich P, Kinzig A (1998) Food production, population growth and the environment.

  • Dhruvanarayana VV, Babu R (1983) Estimation of soil erosion in India. J Irrig Drain Eng 109(4):419–434

    Google Scholar 

  • Ellison WD (1948) Soil detachment by water in erosion processes. Eos Trans Am Geophys Union 29(4):499–502

    Google Scholar 

  • Flanagan DC, Livingston SJ (1995) USDA Water Erosion Prediction Project—user summary. NSERL Report no.11, USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory, West Lafayette, Indiana, USA.

  • Flanagan DC, Nearing MA (1995) USDA water erosion prediction project: Hillslope profile and watershed model documentation, 2nd ed.; USDA-ARSNSERL Report 10; USDA-ARS National Soil Erosion Research Laboratory: West Lafayette, IN, USA.

  • Flanagan DC, Frankenberger JR, Cochrane TA, Renschler CS, Elliot WJ (2013) Geospatial application of the water erosion prediction project (WEPP) model. Trans ASABE 56(2):591–601

    Google Scholar 

  • Guerra CA, Pinto-Correia T, Metzger MJ (2014) Mapping soil erosion prevention using an ecosystem service modeling framework for integrated land management and policy. Ecosystems 17(5):878–889

    Google Scholar 

  • Han F, Ren L, Zhang X, Li Z (2016) The WEPP Model application in a small watershed in the Loess Kumar Plateau. PloS One 11(3).

  • Keesstra SD, Temme AJAM, Schoorl JM, Visser SM (2014) Evaluating the hydrological component of the new catchment-scale sediment delivery model LAPSUS-D. Geomorphology 212:97–107

    Google Scholar 

  • Kırnak H (2002) Comparison of erosion and runoff predicted by WEPP and AGNPS models using a geographic information system. Turk J Agric For 26:261–268

    Google Scholar 

  • Krause P, Flügel WA (2001) J2000–A modelling system for physically based simulation of hydrological processes in large catchments. Proc MODSIM 1(12):2001

    Google Scholar 

  • Kroetsch D, Wang C (2007) Particle size distribution. In: Soil sampling and methods of analysis, 2nd Ed, CRC Press, Boca Raton

  • Kumar S, Strek G (2005) Process based modelling in: understanding erosion processes and soil erosion assessment at Hillslope scale in the Lesser Himalayas, India, Hydrol Perspect Sustainable Dev., Eds. Perumal M. et al., Department of Hydrology, Indian Institute of Technology Roorkee, Roorkee, 23–25 Feb 2005, Allied Publishers Pvt. Ltd. Vol. I, pp. 420–427.

  • Kumar S, Singh A, Shrestha DP (2016) Modelling spatially distributed surface runoff generation using SWAT-VSA: a case study in a watershed of the north-west Himalayan landscape. Model Earth Syst Environ 2(4):1–1

    Google Scholar 

  • Kunst S, Kruse T, Burmester A (2012) Sustainable water and soil management. Springer Science and Business Media, Berlin

    Google Scholar 

  • Lal R (1995) Global soil erosion by water and carbon dynamics. In: Lal R, Kimble JM, Levine E, Stewart BA (eds) Soils and global change. CRC/Lewis Publishers, Boca Raton, pp 131–142

    Google Scholar 

  • Li Z, Liu WZ, Zhang XC, Zheng FL (2011) Assessing the site-specific impacts of climate change on hydrology, soil erosion and crop yields in the Loess Plateau of China. Climatic Change 105:223–242

    Google Scholar 

  • Mahapatra SK, Reddy GP, Nagdev R, Yadav RP, Singh SK, Sharda VN (2018) Assessment of soil erosion in the fragile Himalayan ecosystem of Uttarakhand, India using USLE and GIS for sustainable productivity. Curr Sci 115(1):108

    Google Scholar 

  • Management of crop residues in the context of conservation agriculture, policy paper no. 58, National Academy of Agricultural Sciences (NAAS): New Delhi, India, 2012, pp. 12.

  • Matson PA, Parton WJ, Power AG, Swift MJ (1997) Agricultural intensification and ecosystem properties. Sci 277(5325):504–509

    Google Scholar 

  • McCullough MC, Eisenhauer DE, Dosskey M (2008) Modeling runoff and sediment yield from a terraced watershed using WEPP, USDA Forest Service/UNL Faculty Publications.

  • McKenzie NJ, Ryan PJ (1999) Spatial prediction of soil properties using environmental correlation. Geoderma 89(1–2):67–94

    Google Scholar 

  • Melaku ND, Renschler CS, Flagler J, Bayu W, Klik A (2018) Integrated impact assessment of soil and water conservation structures on runoff and sediment yield through measurements and modeling in the Northern Ethiopian highlands. CATENA 169:140–150

    Google Scholar 

  • Memarian KH, Safdari A (2008) The source studying of eolian sediments in the Fadisheh-Neyshaboor region. pp. 26–41

  • Merritt WS, Letcher RA, Jakeman AJ (2003) A review of erosion and sediment transport models. Environ Modell Softw 18:761–799

    Google Scholar 

  • Motovilov YG, Gottschalk L, Engeland K, Rodhe A (1999) Validation of a distributed hydrological model against spatial observations. Agric For Meteorol 98:257–277

    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

    Google Scholar 

  • Nearing MA, Deer-Ascough L, Laflen JM (1990) Sensitivity analysis of the WEPP Hillslope profile erosion model. Trans ASAE 33:839–849

    Google Scholar 

  • Nelson DW, Sommers LE (1996) Total carbon, organic carbon, and organic matter. Methods of soil analysis part 3—chemical methods, (methodsofsoilan3), pp. 961–1010.

  • Oldeman LR (1992) Global extent of soil degradation. In: Bi-Annual Report 1991–1992/ISRIC, pp. 19–36.

  • Olson R, Fan Y, Evans JP (2016) A simple method for Bayesian model averaging of regional climate model projections: application to southeast Australian temperatures. Geophys Res Lett 43(14):7661–7669

    Google Scholar 

  • Pandey A, Chowdary VM, Mal BC, Billib M (2008) Runoff and sediment yield modeling from a small agricultural watershed in India using the WEPP model. J Hydrol 348:305–319

    Google Scholar 

  • Pimentel D, Harvey C, Resosudarmo P, Sinclair K, Kurz D, McNair M, Crist S, Shpritz L, Fitton L, Saffouri R, Blair R (1995) Environmental and economic costs of soil erosion and conservation benefits. Sci 267(5201):1117–1123

    Google Scholar 

  • Poesen J, Ingelmo-Sanchez F, Mucher H (1990) The hydrological response of soil surfaces to rainfall as affected by cover and position of rock fragments in the top layer. Earth Surf Process Landforms 15:653–671

    Google Scholar 

  • Pruski FF, Nearing MA (2002) Runoff and soil-loss responses to changes in precipitation: a computer simulation study. J Soil Water Conserv 57(1):7–16

    Google Scholar 

  • Reis M, Altun Aladag I, Bolat N, Dutal H (2017) Korištenje modela GeoWEPP za određivanje produkcije nanosa i otjecanja u slivu rijeke Keklik u Kahramanmarasu u Turskoj. Šumarski list 141(11–12):563–569

    Google Scholar 

  • Renschler CS (2003) Designing geo-spatial interfaces to scale process models: The GeoWEPP approach. Hydrol Process 17:1005–1017

    Google Scholar 

  • Schumacher BA (2002) Methods for the determination of total organic carbon (TOC) in soils and sediments.

  • Singh G, Babu R, Narain P, Bhushan LS, Abrol IP (1992) Soil erosion rates in India. J Soil Water Conserv 47:97–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Sorooshian S (1991) Parameter estimation, model identification, and model validation: conceptual-type models. Recent Adv Modeling Hydrol Syst, pp 443–467.

  • Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR)–technical summary. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils, Rome, Italy, 2015

  • Wheater HS, Jakeman AJ, Beven KJ (1993) Progress and directions in rainfall-runoff modelling. Model Change Environ Syst. Wiley, Chichester, pp 101–132

    Google Scholar 

  • Yadav V, Malanson GP (2009) Modeling impacts of erosion and deposition on soil organic carbon in the Big Creek Basin of southern Illinois. Geomorphology 106(3–4):304–314

    Google Scholar 

  • Yu X, Zhang X, Niu L (2009) Simulated multi-scale watershed runoff and sediment production based on GeoWEPP model. Int J Sediment Res 24:465–478

    Google Scholar 

  • Yüksel A, Akay AE, Gundogan R, Reis M, Cetiner M (2008) Application of GeoWEPP for determining sediment yield and runoff in the Orcan Creek Watershed in Kahramanmaras, Turkey. Sensors 8:1222–1236

    Google Scholar 

  • Zema DA, Bingner RL, Govers G, Licciardello F, Denisi P, Zimbone SM (2012) Evaluation of runoff, peak flow and sediment yield for events simulated by the AnnAGNPS model in a Belgian agricultural watershed. Land Degrad Dev (Wiley Intersci) 23:205–215

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhang Z, Sheng L, Yang J, Chen XA, Kong L, Wagan B (2015) Effects of land use and slope gradient on soil erosion in a red soil hilly watershed of southern China. Sustainability 7:14309–14325

    Google Scholar 

  • Zhao XN, Huang J, Wu PT, Gao XD (2014) The dynamic effects of pastures and crop on runoff and sediments reduction at loess slopes under simulated rainfall conditions. CATENA 119:1–7

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

Authors are thankful to Indian Space Research Organization (ISRO) for providing financial support under Earth Observation Applications Mission (EOAM) Project (ISRO/DOS) on “Mountain Ecosystem Processes and Services” to carry out the research work. We are thankful to the Director, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing for providing necessary facilities to carry out the research work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Agriculture and Soil Department, Indian Institute of Remote Sensing, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248001, India

    Abhisek Kumar Singh & Suresh Kumar

  2. School of Environment and Natural Resources, Doon University, Kedarpur, Dehradun, Uttarakhand, 248001, India

    Suneet Naithani

Authors
  1. Abhisek Kumar Singh
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Suresh Kumar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Suneet Naithani
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Abhisek Kumar Singh.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they do not have any 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

Singh, A.K., Kumar, S. & Naithani, S. Modelling runoff and sediment yield using GeoWEPP: a study in a watershed of lesser Himalayan landscape, India. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 7, 2089–2100 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00964-x

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-020-00964-x

Keywords

Search

Navigation