Skip to main content

Advertisement

Log in

SWAT modeling of best management practices for Chungju dam watershed in South Korea under future climate change scenarios

  • Article
  • Published:
Paddy and Water Environment Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Suitable and practicable best management practices (BMPs) need to be developed due to steadily increasing agricultural land development, intensified fertilization practices, and increased soil erosion and pollutant loads from cultivated areas. The soil and water assessment tool model was used to evaluate the present and future proper BMP scenarios for Chungju dam watershed (6,642 km2) of South Korea, which includes rice paddy and upland crop areas. The present (1981–2010) and future (2040s and 2080s) BMPs of streambank stabilization, building recharge structures, conservation tillage, and terrace and contour farming were examined individually in terms of reducing nonpoint source pollution loads by applying MIROC3.2 HiRes A1B and B1 scenarios. Streambank stabilization achieved the highest reductions in sediment and T-N, and slope terracing was a highly effective BMP for sediment and T-P removal in both present and future climate conditions.

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

Access this article

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

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Alcamo J, Döll P, Kaspar F, Siebert S (1997) Global change and global scenarios of water use and availability: an application of water GAP 1.0. Report A9701. University of Kassel, Kassel

    Google Scholar 

  • Arabi M, Frankenberger JR, Engel BA, Arnold JG (2007) Representation of agricultural conservation practices with SWAT. Hydrol Process 22(16):3042–3055

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnell NW (2003) Relative effects of multi-decadal climatic variability and changes in the mean and variability of climate due to global warming: future streamflows in Britain. J Hydrol 270(3–4):195–213

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnell NW (2004) Climate-change impacts on river flows in Britain: the UKCIP02 scenarios. J Chart Inst Water Environ Manag 18(2):112–117

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Fohrer N (2005) SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydrol Process 19(3):563–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Williams JR (1987) Validation of SWRRB: simulator for water resources in rural basins. J Water Resour Plan Manag 113(2):243–256

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Bouraoui F, Galbiati L, Bidoglio G (2002) Climate change impacts on nutrient loads in the Yorkshire Ouse catchment (UK). Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 6(2):197–209

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bracmort KS, Arabi M, Frankenberger JR, Engel BA, Arnold JG (2006) Modeling long-term water quality impact of structural BMPs. Trans ASABE 49(2):367–374

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Cho JH, Sung KS, Ha SR (2004) A river water quality management model for optimizing regional wastewater treatment using a genetic algorithm. J Environ Manag 73(3):229–242

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chow VT (1959) Open-channel hydraulics. McGraw-Hill, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Cullen AC, Frey HC (1999) Probabilistic techniques in exposure assessment: a handbook for dealing with variability and uncertainty in models and inputs. Plenum Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Droogers P, Aerts J (2005) Adaptation strategies to climate change and climate variability: a comparative study between seven contrasting river basins. Phys Chem Earth 30(6–7):339–346

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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):1211–1240

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Green CH, van Griensven A (2008) Autocalibration in hydrologic modeling: using SWAT2005 in small-scale watersheds. Environ Model Softw 23(4):422–434

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • IPCC (2007) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis, contribution of working group I to the 4th assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Salomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

  • IPCC-TGCIA (1999) Guidelines on the use of scenario data for climate impact and adaptation assessment: version 1. In: Carter TR, Hulme M, Lal M (eds) Intergovernmental panel on climate change, task group on scenarios for climate impact assessment. Available at: www.ipcc-data.org/guidelines/TGICA_guidance_sdciaa_v1_final.pdf

  • Izaurralde RC, Williams JR, McGill WB, Rosenberg NJ, Quiroga Jakas MC (2006) Simulating soil C dynamics with EPIC: model description and testing against long-term data. Ecol Model 192(3–4):362–384

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Knisel WG (1980) CREAMS, a field-scale model for chemicals, runoff, and erosion from agricultural management systems. USDA conservation research report no. 26. Washington

  • Koch H, Grünewald U (2009) A comparison of modelling systems for the development and revision of water resources management plans. Water Resour Manag 23(7):1403–1422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kwon YA, Kwon WT, Boo KO, Choi YE (2007) Future projections on subtropical regions over South Korea using SRES A1B data. J Korean Geogr Soc 42(3):355–367

    Google Scholar 

  • Lane LJ (1983) Chapter 19: transmission losses. In: Soil conservation service. National engineering handbook, section 4: hydrology. US Government Office, Washington, p 19–21

  • Lazar B, Williams M (2008) Climate change in western ski areas: potential changes in the timing of wet avalanches and snow quality for the Aspen ski area in the years 2030 and 2100. Cold Reg Sci Tech 51(2–3):219–228

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leonard RA, Knisel WG, Still DA (1987) GLEAMS: groundwater loading effects of agricultural management systems. Trans ASAE 30(5):1403–1418

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Nakicenovic N, Alcamo J, Davis G, de Vries B, Fenhann J, Gaffin S, Gregory K, Grubler A, Jung TY, Kram T, La Rovere EL, Michaelis L, Mori S, Morita T, Pepper W, Pitcher H, Price L, Raihi K, Roehrl A, Rogner H–H, Sankovski A, Schlesinger M, Shukla P, Smith S, Swart R, van Rooijen S, Vitor N, Dadi Z (2000) Emissions scenarios. A special report of working group III of the intergovernmental panel on climate change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge

    Google Scholar 

  • Narasimhan B, Allen PM, Srinivasan R, Bednarz ST, Arnold JG, Dunbar JA (2007) Streambank erosion and best management practice simulation using SWAT. In: Proceeding of 4th conference on watershed management to meet water quality standards and TMDLs, ASABE publication #701P0207, San Antonio, 10–14 March, 2007

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR, King KW (2002) Soil and water assessment tool: theoretical documentation, version 2000. TWRI report TR-191. Texas Water Resources Institute, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  • Park JY, Park MJ, Ahn SR, Park GA, Yi JE, Kim GS, Srinivasan R, Kim SJ (2011) Assessment of future climate change impacts on water quantity and quality for a mountainous dam watershed using SWAT. Trans ASABE 54(5):1725–1737

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Park MJ, Shin HJ, Park JY, Park GA, Srinivasan R, Kim SJ (2012) Technical note: comparison of watershed streamflow using projected MIROC3.2 HiRes GCM data and observed weather data for 2000–2009 under SWAT simulation. Trans ASABE 55(3):1003–1010

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Racsko P, Szeidl L, Semenov M (1991) A serial approach to local stochastic weather models. Ecol Model 57:27–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schwab GO, Fangmeier DD, Elliot WJ (1995) Soil and water management systems, 4th edn. Wiley, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • SCS Engineering Division (1986) Urban hydrology for small watersheds. US Department of Agriculture, technical release 55. USDA, Washington

  • Secchi S, Gassman PW, Jha M, Kurkalova L, Feng HH, Campbell T, Kling CL (2007) The cost of cleaner water: assessing agricultural pollution reduction at the watershed scale. J Soil Water Conserv 62(1):10–21

    Google Scholar 

  • Semenov MA, Barrow EM (2002) LARS-WG: a stochastic weather generator for use in climate impact studies: user manual. Rothamsted Research, Harpenden. Available at: www.rothamsted.ac.uk/masmodels/download/LARS-WG-Manual.pdf

  • Semenov MA, Brooks RJ, Barrow EM, Richardson CW (1998) Comparison of WGEN and LARS-WG stochastic weather generators for diverse climates. Clim Res 10(2):95–107

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Srinivasan R (2008) Bosque river environmental infrastructure improvement plan: phase I final report. TR-312, Texas Water Resources Institute, Texas A&M University, College Station

  • Tuppad P, Kannan N, Srinivasan R, Rossi CG, Arnold JG (2010) Simulation of agricultural management alternatives for watershed protection. Water Resour Manag 24:3115–3144

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • USDA-SCS (1972) National engineering handbook. Hydrology section 4, chapters 4–10. Washington

  • Vache KB, Eilers JM, Santelmann MV (2002) Water quality modeling of alternative agricultural scenarios in the US corn belt. J Am Water Resour Assoc 38(3):773–787

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  • Wilby RL, Greenfield B, Glenny C (1994) A coupled synoptic-hydrological model for climate change impact assessment. J Hydrol 153(1–4):265–290

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams JR (1975) Sediment routing for agricultural watersheds. Water Resour Bull 11(5):965–974

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams JR (1990) The erosion productivity impact calculator (EPIC) model: a case history. Phil Trans R Soc Lond B 329(1255):421–428

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This study was supported by the Center for Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration (CAER) of the Ecostar project from the Ministry of Environment (MOE), Republic of Korea (MOE; EW-55-12-10), and the National Research Foundation of Korea (NRF) grant funded by the Korea government (MEST) (No. 2013-065006).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Seong-Joon Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Park, JY., Yu, YS., Hwang, SJ. et al. SWAT modeling of best management practices for Chungju dam watershed in South Korea under future climate change scenarios. Paddy Water Environ 12 (Suppl 1), 65–75 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-014-0424-4

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10333-014-0424-4

Keywords

Navigation