Modeling hydrologic responses to land management scenarios for the Chi River Sub-basin Part II, Northeast Thailand

  • Yutthaphong Kheereemangkla
  • Rajendra Prasad Shrestha
  • Sangam Shrestha
  • Damien Jourdain
Original Article

Abstract

The Chi River Sub-basin Part II, in Northeast (NE) Thailand, experiences many anthropogenic activities due to the agricultural expansion and intensification, forest deterioration, and a high demand for resource utilization. Land use/land cover change (LULCC) associated with land management, agricultural and conservation practices within the basin can significantly affect hydrologic responses. Like other basins in NE Thailand, the Chi River Sub-basin Part II—comprising more than 60 % of agricultural lands—is characterized by severe floods, droughts, and sedimentation, which directly affect human well-being. Therefore, the objective of this study was to investigate the influences of land management and conservation practices on discharge and sediment yield, and then to develop appropriate management solutions, which could provide alternatives to the current watershed management practices. Three management scenarios—current land use with conservation practices, land use planning (LUP) based on Watershed Classification (WSC), and WSC with conservation practices—were modeled with the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), and the results were compared to the existing conditions. The findings indicated that LULCC and conservation practices—conserving the remaining forest, reforestation, applying strip cropping to agricultural land, and channel stabilization by plant cover and engineered constructions—had a little effect on discharge, but greatly influenced the sediment yield. Current land use with the addition of conservation practices resulted in a slight decrease in both total discharge and sediment yield. WSC resulted in a small decrease in discharge, but a dramatic increase in sedimentation. Lastly, WSC together with conservation practices resulted in a slight decrease in discharge and a small increase in sedimentation. These results informed that land management that adopts conservation practices has a strong effect on discharge and sediment yield. A decreased in forest cover when applied WSC resulted in a slight decrease in discharge, but much higher sediment yield. When conservation practices were applied, sediment yield was found to be significantly decreased. Therefore, watershed management should consider LUP, vegetation cover measures, and channel improvements to sustain the Chi River Sub-basin Part II.

Keywords

Chi River Sub-basin Part II Hydrologic responses Land management SWAT Thailand Watershed Classification Conservation practices 

References

  1. Abraham LZ, Roehrig J, Chekol DA (2007) Calibration and validation of SWAT hydrologic model for Meki Watershed, Ethiopia. Conference on International Agricultural Research for Development, University of Kassel-Witzenhausen and University of Göttingen, 9–11 October 2007Google Scholar
  2. Aglanu LM (2014) Watersheds and rehabilitations measures-a review. Resour Environ 4(2):104–114. doi:10.5923/j.re.20140402.04 Google Scholar
  3. Arnold JG, Fohrer N (2005) SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modeling. Hydrol Process 19(3):563–572CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Srinivasan R, Williams JR, Haney EB, Neitsch SL (2012) Soil and water assessment tool: input/output documentation version 2012. Texas Water Resources Institute. http://swatmodel.tamu.edu. Accessed 12 July 2014
  5. Ayana AB, Edossa DC, Kositsakulchai E (2012) Simulation of sediment yield using SWAT model in Fincha Watershed, Ethiopia. Kasetsart J (Nat Sci) 46:283–297Google Scholar
  6. Bach H, Clausen TJ, Trang DT, Emerton L, Facon T, Hofer T, Lazarus K, Muziol C, Noble A, Schill P, Sisouvanh A, Wensley C, Whiting L (2011) From local watershed management to integrated river basin management at national and transboundary levels. Mekong River Commission, Lao PDRGoogle Scholar
  7. Betrie GD, Mohamed YA, van Griensven A, Srinivasan R (2011) Sediment management modelling in the Blue Nile Basin using SWAT model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:807–818CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Cai T, Li Q, Yu M, Lu G, Cheng L, Wei X (2011) Investigation into the impacts of land-use change on sediment yield characteristics in the upper Huaihe River basin. J Phys Chem Earth, China. doi:10.1016/j.pce.2011.08.023 Google Scholar
  9. Cho KM, Zoebisch MA (2003) Land-use changes in the Upper Lam Phra Phloeng Watershed, Northeastern Thailand: characteristics and driving forces. J Agric Rural Dev Trop Subtrop 104(1):15–29Google Scholar
  10. Chunkao K (1996) Principles of watershed management. Department of Conservation, Faculty of Forestry, Kasetsart University, Bangkok (in Thai) Google Scholar
  11. Cui X, Liu S, Wei X (2012) Impacts of forest changes on hydrology: a case study of large watersheds in the upper reaches of Minjiang River watershed in China. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 16:4279–4290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Darghouth S, Ward C, Gambarelli G, Styger C, Roux J (2008) Watershed management approaches, policies and operations: lessons for scaling up., Water sector board discussion paper series, Paper no. 11. World Bank, Washington DC Google Scholar
  13. De Girolamo AM, Lo Porto A (2012) Land use scenario development as a tool for watershed management within the Rio Mannu Basin. Land Use Policy 29:691–701CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Easton ZM, Fuka DR, White ED, Collick AS, Asharge BB, McCartney M, Awulachew SB, Ahmed AA, Steenhuis TS (2010) A multi basin SWAT model analysis of runoff and sedimentation in the Blue Nile, Ethiopia. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 7:3837–3878CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Ekasingh B, Sungkapitux C, Kitchaicharoen J, Suebpongsang P (2007) Competitive commercial agriculture in the Northeast of Thailand. Background paper for the Competitive Commercial Agriculture in Sub-saharan Africa (CCAA) study. World Bank, Washington DC Google Scholar
  16. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; FAO (1983) Soil tillage in Africa: needs and challenges. FAO soils bulletin 69. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  17. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations; FAO (2008) Forests and water: a thematic study prepared in the framework of the Global Forest Resources Assessment 2005. FAO forestry paper No. 155. FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  18. Gartley ML, George B, Davidson B, Malano HM, Garg KK (2009) Hydro-economic modelling of the Upper Bhima Catchment, India. In: 18th World IMACS/MODSIM Congress, Cairns, Australia, 13–17 July 2009Google Scholar
  19. Gassman PW, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG (2007) The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions. Trans ASABE 50(4):1211–1250CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. George C, Leon LF (2007) Waterbase: SWAT in an open source GIS. Open Hydrol J 1:19–24Google Scholar
  21. Ghaffari G, Keesstra S, Ghodousi J, Ahmadi H (2010) SWAT-simulated hydrological impact of land-use change in the Zanjanrood Basin, Northwest Iran. Hydrol Process 24:892–903CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Graiprab P, Pongput K, Tangtham N, Gassman PW (2010) Hydrologic evaluation and effect of climate change on the At Samat watershed, Northeastern Region, Thailand. Int Agric Eng J 19(2):12–22Google Scholar
  23. Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Yapo PO (1999) Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models: comparison with multilevel expert calibration. J Hydrologic Eng 4(2):135–143CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Homdee T, Pongput K, Kanae S (2011) Impacts of land cover changes on hydrologic responses: a case study of Chi River Basin, Thailand. Annu J Hydraul Eng JSCE 55:31–36Google Scholar
  25. Immerzeel W, Stoorvogel J, Antle J (2008) Can payments for ecosystem services secure the water tower of Tibet? Agric Syst 96:52–63CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Land Development Department (2004) Soil erosion modeling. Land Development Department (LDD), Bangkok (in Thai) Google Scholar
  27. Memarian H, Tajbakhsh Balasundram SK (2013) Application of SWAT for impact assessment of land use/cover change and best management practices: a review. IJAEES 1(1):36–40Google Scholar
  28. Moulton C (2008) Traditional natural resource use and development in Northeast Thailand. Senior Honors Projects, University of Rhode Island, paper 107Google Scholar
  29. Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models: part I-A discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10(3):282–290CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. National Statistical Office (2011) Average monthly income per household. In: National Information Center, National Statistical Office (NSO), Ministry of Information and Communication Technology, Bangkok. http://www.nic.go.th. Accessed 26 June 2014
  31. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2009) Overview of Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. In: Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT): global applications. World Association of Soil and Water Conservation. Special publication no. 4Google Scholar
  32. Nie W, Yuan Y, Kepner W, Nash MS, Jackson M, Erickson C (2011) Assessing impacts of landuse and landcover changes on hydrology for the upper San Pedro Watershed. J Hydrol 407:105–114CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Nobert J, Jeremiah J (2012) Hydrological response of watershed systems to land use/cover change. A case of Wami River Basin. Open Hydrol J 6:78–87CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Odira PMA, Nyadawa MO, Ndwallah BO, Juma NA, Obiero JP (2010) Impact of land use/cover dynamics on streamflow: a case of Nzoia River Catchment, Kenya. Nile Basin Water Sci Eng J 3(2):64–78Google Scholar
  35. Oeurng C, Sauvage S, Sánchez-Pérez JM (2011) Assessment of hydrology, sediment and particulate organic carbon yield in a large agricultural catchment using the SWAT model. J Hydrol 401:145–153CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (2006) State of the environment. Office of Natural Resources and Environmental Policy and Planning (ONEP), Bangkok (in Thai) Google Scholar
  37. Otuoma J, Langat D, Maina J, Maina G, Maina J, Mwanje P (2012) Effect of watershed degradation on hydrological functions in the Sondu River Catchment. In: IUFRO-FORNESSA Regional Congress. World Agronomy Centre, Nairobi, Kenya, 25–30 June 2012Google Scholar
  38. Palao LKM, Dorado MM, Anit KPA, Lasco RD (2013) Using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to assess material transfer in the Layawan Watershed, Mindanao, Philippines and its implications on payment for ecosystem services. J Sustain Dev 6(6):73–88Google Scholar
  39. Phomcha P, Wirojanagud P, Vangpaisal T, Thaveevouthti T (2011) Predicting sediment discharge in an agricultural watershed: a case study of the Lam Sonthi Watershed, Thailand. Sci Asia 37:43–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Quintero M, Wunder S, Estrada RD (2009) For services rendered? Modeling hydrology and livelihoods in Andean payments for environmental services schemes. For Ecol Manage 258:1871–1880CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  41. Reungsang P, Kanwar RS, Srisuk K (2010) Application of SWAT model in simulating stream flow for the Chi River Subbasin II in Northeast Thailand. Trends Res Sci Technol 2(1):23–28Google Scholar
  42. Royal Irrigation Department (2010) Chi Basin. Office of Large Scale Projects, Royal Irrigation Department (RID), Bangkok, Thailand. http://kromchol.rid.go.th/lproject/2010/index.php/-25-/107-e4- . Accessed 16 June 2011
  43. Tangtham N (2004) Forest conversion effects on runoff response—recent findings in Thailand. In: World water forum symposium, Kyoto, Japan, 1–6 February 2004Google Scholar
  44. Tangtham N (1996) Watershed classification: the macro land-use planning for the sustainable development of water resources. In: International workshop on advances in water resources management and wastewater treatment technologies, Suranaree University of Technology, Nakhon Ratchasima, Thailand, 22–25 July 1996Google Scholar
  45. Thanapakpawin P, Richey J, Thomas D, Rodda S, Campbell B, Logsdon M (2006) Effects of landuse change on the hydrologic regime of the Mae Chaem river basin, NW Thailand. J Hydrol 334:215–230CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  46. Tingting LV, Xiaoyu S, Dandan Z, Zhenshan X, Jianming G (2008) Assessment of soil erosion risk in Northern Thailand. Int Arch Photogramm Remote Sensing Spatial Inf Sci XXXVII part B8:703–708 (Beijing)Google Scholar
  47. Ullrich A, Volk M (2009) Application of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) to predict the impact of alternative management practices on water quality and quantity. Agric Water Manag 96:1207–1217CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Wang X, Shang S, Yang W, Clary CR, Yang D (2010) Simulation of land use-soil interactive effects on water and sediment yields at watershed scale. Ecol Eng 36:328–344CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  49. Wangkahart T, Pathak P, Seehaban P, Bhotinam A, Chueychoom P, Wani SP, Rao AVRK, Sudi R (2012) Integrated land and water management for controlling land degradation and improving agricultural productivity in Northeast Thailand. In: Community watershed management for sustainable intensification in Northeast Thailand. International Crops Research Institute for the Semi-Arid Tropics, Patancheru, Andhra Pradesh, IndiaGoogle Scholar
  50. Wilkie ML, Holmgren P, Castaňeda F (2003) Sustainable forest management and the ecosystem approach: two concepts, one goal. Forestry Management Working Paper 25, Forestry Department, FAO, RomeGoogle Scholar
  51. Williams JR, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Gassman PW, Green CH (2008) History of model development at Temple, Texas. Hydrol Sci J 53(5):948–960. doi:10.1623/hysj.53.5.948 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  52. Yang B, Li M-H (2011) Assessing planning approaches by watershed streamflow modeling: case study of the Woodlands; Texas. Landsc Urban Plan 99:9–22CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Yutthaphong Kheereemangkla
    • 1
    • 3
  • Rajendra Prasad Shrestha
    • 1
  • Sangam Shrestha
    • 2
  • Damien Jourdain
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.Natural Resources Management Field of Study, School of Environment, Resources, and Development (SERD)Asian Institute of Technology (AIT)Klong LuangThailand
  2. 2.School of Engineering and Technology (SET)Asian Institute of Technology (AIT)Klong LuangThailand
  3. 3.Department of Conservation, Faculty of ForestryKasetsart UniversityBangkokThailand

Personalised recommendations