Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Evaluation of effective management plan for an agricultural watershed using AVSWAT model, remote sensing and GIS

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Geology

Abstract

In the present investigation, an effort has been made to identify the critical sub-watersheds for the development of best management plan for a small watershed of Eastern India using a hydrological model, namely, AVSWAT2000. A total of 180 combinations of various management treatments including crops (rice, maize ground nut and soybean), tillage (zero, conservation, field cultivator, mould board plough and conventional practices) and fertilizer levels (existing half of recommended and recommended) have been evaluated. The investigation reveled that rice cannot be replaced by other crops such as groundnut, maize, mungbean, sorghum and soybean since comparatively these crops resulted in higher sediment yield. The tillage practices with disk plough have been found to have more impact on sediment yield and nutrient losses than conventional tillage practices for the existing level of fertilizer. Sediment yield decreased in the case of zero tillage, conservation tillage, field cultivator, moldboard plough, and conservation tillage as compare to conventional tillage. Lowest NO3–N loss was observed in zero tillage in all the fertilizer treatments, whereas field cultivator, moldboard plough and disk plough resulted in increase of NO3–N loss. As compared to conventional tillage, the losses of soluble phosphorus were increased in moldboard plough. The losses of organic nitrogen were also increased as fertilizer dose increased. After zero tillage the conservation tillage preformed better in all the fertilizer treatments as per loss of organic nitrogen and organic phosphorus is concerned. It can be concluded that the sediment yield was found to be the highest in the case of disk plough followed by moldboard plough, field cultivator, conventional tillage, field cultivator and least in zero tillage practices. The nutrient losses were found to be in different order with tillage practices, resulted highest in disk plough tillage practices. In view of sediment yield and nutrient losses, the conservation tillage practice was found to be the best as the sediment yield is less than the average soil loss whereas nutrient loss is within the permissible limit.

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
Fig.5
Fig.6
Fig.7
Fig.8
Fig.9
Fig.10

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alberts EE, Spomer RG (1985) Dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff from watersheds in conservation and conventional tillage. J Soil Water Conserv 40(1):153–157

    Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Fohrer N (2005) SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modeling. Hydrol Process 19:563–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Williams JR, Srinivasan R, King KW (1996) SWAT: soil and water assessment tool. User’s Manual USDA Agriculture Research Service Grassland, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, 808 East Blackland Road Temple, TX 76502, p 190

  • Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment, part I: Model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):73–89

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, DiLuzio M, Neitsch SL (2001) SWAT2000-Capabilities and improvements in watershed modeling. In: Proceeding of the ‘international SWAT conference’, 13–17 August 2001, SFB 299 and Justus-Liebig-University Giesen, Germany, pp 9–10

  • ASCE Task Committee (1993) Criteria for evaluation of watershed models. J Irrig Drain Eng 119(3):429–442

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beasley DB, Huggins LF, Monke EJ (1980) ANSWERS: a model for watershed planning. Trans ASAE 23(4):938–944

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Behera S, Panda RK (2006) Evaluation of management alternatives for an agricultural watershed in a sub-humid subtropical region using a physical process based model. Agric Ecosyst Environ 113:62–72

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bhuyan SJ, Koelliker JK, Marzen LJ, Harrington Jr JA (2003) An integrated approach for water quality assessment of a Kansas watershed. Environ Model Softw 18(5):473–484

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingner RL, Murphee CE, Mutchler CK (1989) Comparison of sediment yield models on various watershed in Mississippi. Trans ASAE 32(2):529–534

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bingner RL, Garbrecht J, Arnold JG, Srinivasan R (1997) Effect of watershed sub division on simulation of runoff and finer sediment yield. Trans ASAE 40(5):1329–1335

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Brannan KM, Mostaghimi S, McClellan PW, Inamdar S (2000) Animal waste BMP impacts on sediment and nutrient losses in runoff from the OWL Run watershed. Trans ASAE 43(5):155–1166

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dickinson WT, Rudra RP, Wall GJ (1990) Targeting remedial measures to control nonpoint source pollution, Water Resour Bull 26(3):99–507

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • DiLuzio M, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG (2001a) Application of AVSWAT for a TMDL case in central Texas. In: Proceeding of the ‘international SWAT conference’, 13–17 August 2001, SFB 299 and Justus-Liebig-University Giesen, Germany, pp 12–13

  • DiLuzio M, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG (2001b) ArcView interface for SWAT 2000. User’s Guide, Backland Research Center, Agricultural Experiment Station Temple, TX

  • Duda AM (1993) Addressing non-point sources of water pollution must become an international priority. Water Sci Technol 28(3–5):1–11

    Google Scholar 

  • Eckhardt K, Arnold JG (2001) Automatic calibration of a distributed catchment model. J Hydrol 251(1–2):103–109

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Engel BA, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG, Rewerts C, Brown SJ (1993) Nonpoint source pollution modeling using model integrated with geographical information systems. Water Sci Technol 28(3–5):685–690

    Google Scholar 

  • EPA (1976) Quality criteria for water. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, DC

    Google Scholar 

  • ESRI (1994) Arc View GIS Environment System Research Institute. ESRI Inc., USA

    Google Scholar 

  • Fohrer N, Eckhardt K, Haverkamp S, Frede HG (1999) Effects of land use changes on the water balance of rural a watershed in a peripheral regional. J Rural Eng Develop 40(5–6):202–206

    Google Scholar 

  • Fohrer N, Haverkamp S, Eckhardt K, Frede HG (2001) Hydrologic response to land use changes on the catchmant scale. Phys Chem Earth B 26(7–8):577–582

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ghidey F, Alberts EE (1996) Comparison of measured and WEPP predicted runoff and soil loss for Midwest Claypan Soil. Trans ASAE 39(4):1395–1402

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hargreaves GH, Samani ZA (1985) Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature. J Appl Eng Agric 1(1):96–99

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Humenik FJ, Semolen MD, Dressing SA (1987) Pollution from nonpoint sources: where we are and where we should go. Environ Sci Technol 21(8):737–742

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Manguerra HB, Engle BA (1998) Hydrological parameterization of watershed for runoff prediction using SWAT. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(3):1149–1162

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mannering JV (1981) The use of soil tolerances as strategy for soil conservation. In: Morgan RPC (ed) Soil conservation problem and prospects. Wiely, Chichester, pp 337–349

    Google Scholar 

  • Martinec J, Rango A (1989) Merits of statistical criteria for the performance of hydrologic models. Water Resour Bull 25(20):421–432

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McDowell LL, McGregor KC (1984) Plant nutrient losses in runoff from conservation tillage on corn. Soil Tillage Res 4:79–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Mostaghimi S, Park SW, Cooke RA, Wang SY (1997) Assessment of management alternatives on a small agricultural watershed. Water Res 31(8):1867–1878

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models. Part I: a discussion of principals. J Hydrol 10(3):282–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2001) Soil and water assessment tool, theoretical documentation. Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, Grassland, 808 East Blackland Road, Temple, TX, USA

  • Olivera F (2001) Extracting hydrologic information from spatial data for HMS modeling. J Hydrol Eng 6(6):524–529

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandey VK, Panda SN, Sudhakar S (2005) Modelling of an agricultural watershed using remote sensing and a geographic information system. Biosyst Eng 90(3):331–347

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Peterson JR, Hamlett JM (1998) Hydrological calibration of SWAT model in a watershed containing Fragipan soils. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(5):531–544

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ritter WF (2000) BMPs to Reduce Nutrient Loads in Delaware’s Inland Bays. In: Proceedings of ASCE, EWRI, watershed management 2000: Science and Engineering Technology for the New Millennium

  • Saleh A, Arnold JG, Gassman PW, Hauck LM, Rosenthal WD, Williams JR, McFarland AMS (2000) Application of SWAT for the Upper North Bosque river watershed. Trans ASAE 43(5):1077–1087

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santhi C, Arnold JG, Williams JR, Dugas WA, Srinivasan R, Hauck LM (2001) Validation of the SWAT model on a large river basin with point a non point sources. J Am Water Resour Assoc 37(5):1169–1170

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Santhi C, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG, Williams JR (2006) A modeling approach to evaluate the impacts of water quality management plans implemented in a watershed in Texas. Environ Model Softw 21:1141–1157

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shin-Min C, Ting-Kuei T, Stephan JN (2002) Hydrologic regionalization of watersheds I: Methodology development. J Water Resour Plan Manag 128(1):3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singh G, Babu R, Narayan P, Bhushan LS, Abrol IP (1992) Soil erosion rate in India. J Soil Water Conserv 47(1):97–99

    Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan R, Ramanarayan TS, Arnold JG, Bednarz ST (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part II: Model application. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):91–101

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tim US, Mostaghimi S, Shanholtz VO (1992) Identification of critical nonpoint pollution source areas using geographical information systems and water quality modeling. Water Resour Bull 28(5):877–887

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripathi MP (1999) Hydrological modeling of effective management of a small watershed. Ph.D. thesis, Agricultural and Food Engineering Department, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, India

  • Tripathi MP, Panda RK, Raghuwanshi NS, Singh R (2004) Hydrological modelling of a small watershed using generated rainfall in the soil and water assessment tool model. Hydrol Process 18:1811–1821

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Tripathi MP, Panda RK, Raghuwanshi NS (2005) Development of effective management plan for critical subwatersheds using SWAT model. Hydrol Process 19:809–826

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Turpin N, Bontems P, Rotillon G (2005) AgriWaterBMP: systems approach to environmentally sound farming. Environ Model Softw 20:187–196

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weber A, Fohrer N, Moller D (2001) Long term landuse changes in a mesoscale watershed due to socio-economic factors: effects on landscape structures and functions. Ecol Model 140:125–140

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams JR, Hann RW (1973) HYMO: Problem-Oriented Language for Hydrologic Modelling, User’s Manual. USDA, ARS-S-9, p 45

  • Williams JR, Berndt HD (1977) Sediment yields prediction based on watershed hydrology. Trans ASAE 20(6):1100–1104

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams JR, Jones CA, Dyke PT (1984) A modeling approach for determining the relationship between erosion and soil productivity. Trans ASAE 27(1):129–144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xevi EK, Christiaens A, Espino W, Sewanandan D, Mallants D, Sorensen H, Feyen J (1997) Calibration, validation and sensitivity analysis of MIKE-SHE model using Neuenkirchen Catchment Case Study. Water Resour Manage 11:219–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Young RA, Onstad CA, Bosch DD, Anderson WP (1989) AGNPS: a nonpont source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds. J Soil Water Conserv 44(2):168–173

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

The authors express their gratitude to the Ex-Head, Regional Remote Sensing Service Centre (RRSSC) (Department of Space, Govt. of India), Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur Center for providing necessary facilities for data analysis using GIS and Remote Sensing techniques. Thanks are also due to the Director of Soil Conservation, Damodar Valley Corporation, Hazaribagh, Jharkhand State for providing necessary data, technical advice and facilities for field survey from time to time.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Soil and Water Engineering, Faculty of Agricultural Engineering, Indira Gandhi Agricultural University, Raipur, 492006, India

    V. K. Pandey

  2. Department of Agricultural and Food Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, 721302, West Bengal, India

    S. N. Panda

  3. Department of Water Resources Development and Management, Indian Institute of Technology, Roorkee , 247667, Uttarakhand, India

    Ashish Pandey

  4. National Remote Sensing Agency, Indian Space Research Organization, Government of India, Hyderabad, 500037, Andhra Pradesh, India

    S. Sudhakar

Authors
  1. V. K. Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. S. N. Panda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Ashish Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. S. Sudhakar
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ashish Pandey.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Pandey, V.K., Panda, S.N., Pandey, A. et al. Evaluation of effective management plan for an agricultural watershed using AVSWAT model, remote sensing and GIS. Environ Geol 56, 993–1008 (2009). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1201-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00254-008-1201-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation