Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Application of SWAT in an Indian river basin for modeling runoff, sediment and water balance

  • Original Article
  • Published:
Environmental Earth Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

The present study integrated remote sensing derived products, gridded precipitation and temperature data, and the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) within a geographic information system modeling environment to evaluate the hydrology, sediment yield and water balance for a medium-sized Ken basin of Central India. The entire basin was divided into 10 sub-basins comprising 143 hydrological response units on the basis of unique land cover, soil and slope classes using the SWAT model. Monthly and daily calibrated (1985–1995) and validated (1996–2005) SWAT model used the observed discharge and sediment data of the Banda site of the Ken basin. The runoff simulation was good on daily basis (R 2 = 0.766 and 0.780 for calibration and validation period, respectively) and was further improved (very good) on monthly basis (R 2 = 0.946 and 0.959 for calibration and validation period, respectively). The sediment simulation was considerable on daily basis (R 2 = 0.429 and 0.379 for calibration and validation period, respectively) and was further improved (good) on monthly basis (R 2 = 0.748 and 0.721 for calibration and validation period, respectively). The water balance study of the basin showed that evapotranspiration is more predominant accounting for about 44.6% of the average annual precipitation falling over the area. The average annual sediment yield of the basin was found to be 15.41 t/ha/year, which falls under high erosion class.

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
Fig. 11
Fig. 12
Fig. 13
Fig. 14
Fig. 15

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Akiner ME, Akkoyunlu A (2012) Modeling and forecasting river flow rate from the Melen Watershed, Turkey. J Hydrol 456:121–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Arnold JG, Fohrer N (2005) SWAT 2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydrol Process 19(3):563–572

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • 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, Moriasi DN, Gassman PW, Abbaspour KC, White MJ, Srinivasan R, Santhi C, Harmel RD, Van Griensven A, Van Liew MW, Kannan N (2012) SWAT: model use, calibration, and validation. Trans ASABE 55(4):1491–1508

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ayana AB, Edossa DC, Kositsakulchai E (2012) Simulation of sediment yield using SWAT model in Fincha Watershed, Ethiopia. Kasetsart J Nat Sci 46:283–297

    Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bicknell BR, Imhoff JL, Kittle JL, Donigian AS, Johanson RC (1993) Hydrologic simulation program Fortran; user‘s manual for release 10. U.S. EPA. Environmental Research Laboratory, Athens

    Google Scholar 

  • Borah DK, Bera M, Shaw S, Keefer L (1999) Dynamic modeling and monitoring of water, sediment, nutrients, and pesticides in agricultural watersheds during storm events. Contract Report 655, Illinois State Water Survey Watershed Science Section Champaign, IL

  • Bosch DD, Sheridan JM, Batten HL, Arnold JG (2004) Evaluation of the SWAT model on a coastal plain agricultural watershed. Trans ASAE 47(5):1493–1506

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Cao W, Bowden WB, Davie T, Fenemor A (2006) Multi-variable and multi-site calibration and validation of SWAT in a large mountainous catchment with high spatial variability. Hydrol Process 20(5):1057–1073

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chanasyk DS, Mapfumo E, Willms W (2003) Quantification and simulation of surface runoff from fescue grassland watersheds. Agric Water Manag 59(2):137–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CWC: Central Water Commission (2005) Pocket book on water data. Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India

  • Ewen BJ, Parkin G (2000) Shetran: distributed river basin flow modeling system. J Hydrol Eng 5(3):250–258

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Harmel RD, Cooper RJ, Slade RM, Haney RL, Arnold JG (2006) Cumulative uncertainty in measured stream flow and water quality data for small watersheds. Trans Am Soc Agric Eng 49(3):689–701

    Google Scholar 

  • Himanshu SK, Garg N, Rautela S, Anuja KM, Tiwari M (2013) Remote sensing and GIS applications in determination of geomorphological parameters and design flood for a Himalayan river basin, India. Int Res J Earth Sci 1(3):11–15

    Google Scholar 

  • ICWE: International Conference on Water and the Environment (1992) Dublin, Ireland. http://www.wmo.int/pages/prog/hwrp/documents/english/icwedece.html

  • Jajarmizadeh M, Harun S, Ghahraman B, Mokhtari MH (2012) Modeling daily stream flow usingplant evapotranspiration method. Int J Water Resour Environ Eng 4(6):218–226

    Google Scholar 

  • Jayakrishnan R, Srinivasan R, Santhi C, Arnold JG (2005) Advances in the application of the SWAT model for water resources management. Hydrol Process 19(3):749–762

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jiang R, Li Y, Wang Q, Kuramochi K, Hayakawa A, Woli KP, Hatano R (2011) Modeling the water balance processes for understanding the components of river discharge in a non-conservative watershed. Trans ASABE 54(6):2171–2180

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Julien PY, Saghafian B (1991) CASC2D User‘s manual. Civil Engineering Report, Department of Civil Engineering, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, CO 80523

  • Korzoun VI, Sokolov AA (1978) World water balance and water resources of the earth. Water Development, Supply and Management, Russia

    Google Scholar 

  • Kusre BC, Baruah DC, Bordoloi PK, Patra SC (2010) Assessment of hydropower potential using GIS and hydrological modeling technique in Kopili River basin in Assam (India). Appl Energy 87(1):298–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Laflen JM, Lane LJ, Foster GR (1991) WEPP: a new generation of erosion prediction technology. J Soil Water Conserv 46(1):34–38

    Google Scholar 

  • Leavesley GH, Lichty RW, Troutman BM, Saindon LG (1983) Precipitation-runoff modeling system—user‘s manual. U.S. Geol. Surv. Water Resour. Invest. Rep., Washington, pp 83–4238

    Google Scholar 

  • MIKE 11 (1995) A computer based modeling system for rivers and channels: reference manual. DHI Water and Environment

  • Miller SN, Semmens DJ, Goodrich DC, Hernandez M, Miller RC, Kepner WG, Guertin DP (2007) The automated geospatial watershed assessment tool. Environ Model Softw 22(3):365–377

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD, Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans ASABE 50(3):885–900

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Moriasi DN, Steiner JL, Arnold JG (2011) Sediment measurement and transport modeling: impact of riparian and filter strip buffers. J Environ Qual 40(3):807–814

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Murty PS, Pandey A, Suryavanshi S (2014) Application of semi-distributed hydrological model for basin level water balance of the Ken basin of Central India. Hydrol Process 28(13):4119–4129

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ndomba P, Mtalo F, Killingtveit A (2008) SWAT model application in a data scarce tropical complex catchment in Tanzania. Phys Chem Earth Parts A/B/C 33(8):626–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2011) Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resources Institute, College Station

    Google Scholar 

  • 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(3):145–153

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pandey A, Himanshu SK, Mishra SK, Singh VP (2016) Physically based soil erosion and sediment yield models revisited. CATENA 147:595–620

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Qiu LJ, Zheng FL, Yin RS (2012) SWAT-based runoff and sediment simulation in a small watershed, the loessial hilly-gullied region of China: capabilities and challenges. Int J Sediment Res 27(2):226–234

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Rouhani H, Willems P, Feyen J (2009) Effect of watershed delineation and areal rainfall distribution on runoff prediction using the SWAT model. Hydrol Res 40(6):505–519

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Schmalz B, Zhang Q, Kuemmerlen M, Cai Q, Jähnig SC, Fohrer N (2015) Modelling spatial distribution of surface runoff and sediment yield in a Chinese river basin without continuous sediment monitoring. Hydrol Sci J 60(5):801–824

    Google Scholar 

  • Shiklomanov IA (1998) World water resources. A new appraisal and assessment for the 21st century. UNESCO, Paris

    Google Scholar 

  • Singh VP (1995) Computer models of watershed hydrology. Water Resources Publications, Littleton

    Google Scholar 

  • USDA Soil Conservation Service (1972) Section 4. Hydrology. In: Mockus V (ed) National engineering handbook. US Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service, Washington, DC

  • Veith TL, Ghebremichael LT (2009) How to: applying and interpreting the SWAT auto-calibration tools. In: 2009 international SWAT conference, conference proceedings, p 26

  • Viney NR, Sivapalan M (1999) A conceptual model of sediment transport: application to the Avon River Basin in Western Australia. Hydrol Process 13(5):727–743

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Xu ZX, Pang JP, Liu CM, Li JY (2009) Assessment of runoff and sediment yield in the Miyun Reservoir catchment by using SWAT model. Hydrol Process 23(25):3619–3630

    Article  Google Scholar 

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

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Water Resources Development and Management, IIT Roorkee, Roorkee, India

    Sushil Kumar Himanshu, Ashish Pandey & Prabin Shrestha

Authors
  1. Sushil Kumar Himanshu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ashish Pandey
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Prabin Shrestha
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sushil Kumar Himanshu.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Himanshu, S.K., Pandey, A. & Shrestha, P. Application of SWAT in an Indian river basin for modeling runoff, sediment and water balance. Environ Earth Sci 76, 3 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6316-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6316-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation