Assessing future water–sediment interaction and critical area prioritization at sub-watershed level for sustainable management

  • Ashish PandeyEmail author
  • Santosh S. Palmate


Changes in the response of water and sediment have brought imbalances in present land resources as well as future management practices. Such critical areas need to be identified and prioritized for conservation and protection interventions. The Betwa River basin, located in the central part of India, has natural resources problems due to hydrologic changes. Thus, the present study has been focused on water–sediment interaction and prioritization of critical areas identified from a simulation using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT). A downscaled and bias-corrected CMIP5 global climate model dataset has been used to simulate the water and sediment yields of the river basin. The analysis period was grouped into a 20-year period starting with a baseline of 1986 (from 1986 to 2005) and four future horizons, i.e. horizon 2020 (2020–2039), horizon 2040 (2040–2059), horizon 2060 (2060–2079) and horizon 2080 (2080–2099). Based on the sediment yield obtained from the SWAT simulation, identification of an empirical relationship and prioritization of critical areas were carried out. Results show that the relationship between annual water and sediment yields has a good correlation (R2 = 0.75) for horizon 2020; however, a low correlation (R2 = 0.63) was observed for horizon 2060. The analysis reveals that the water–sediment interaction will be affected due to changes of monsoon precipitation in future. Based on priority treatment, the critical sub-watersheds were identified and prioritized for the baseline as well as future climate horizons. Analysis shows that the sediment yield of sub-watersheds SW-5, SW-6, SW-11, SW-17, SW-18, SW-34 and SW-45 has increased with changing climate conditions. Further, these sub-watersheds would undergo changes in erosion class from moderate to very severe. Thus, the identified critical sub-watersheds for the baseline as well as for future climate conditions need to be considered for prioritization and management. The present approach can be used for sub-watershed-level sustainable planning and management.


Empirical analysis Prioritization Critical area SWAT model Sustainable management 



The authors sincerely acknowledge the Department of Water Resources Development and Management, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Roorkee, India, for providing research facilities necessary for carrying out this research work. Furthermore, the second author would like to acknowledge the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Government of India, for providing financial support in the form of a scholarship during his Ph.D. study at IIT Roorkee.


  1. Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development 1. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 34(1):73–89CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bochet E (2015) The fate of seeds in the soil: a review of the influence of overland flow on seed removal and its consequences for the vegetation of arid and semiarid patchy ecosystems. Soil 1:131–146CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Chaube UC (1988) Model study of water use and water balance in Betwa Basin. J Inst Eng India Civ Eng Div 69(3):169–173Google Scholar
  4. Chaube UC, Suryavanshi S, Nurzaman L, Pandey A (2011) Synthesis of flow series of tributaries in Upper Betwa basin. Int J Environ Sci 1(7):1459–1475Google Scholar
  5. De Roo A, Jetten V (1999) Calibrating and validating the LISEM model for two data sets from the Netherlands and South Africa. Catena 37(3):477–493CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Laflen JM, Lane LJ, Foster GR (1991) WEPP: a new generation of erosion prediction technology. J Soil Water Conserv 46(1):34–38Google Scholar
  7. Merritt WS, Letcher RA, Jakeman AJ (2003) A review of erosion and sediment transport models. Environ Model Softw 18(8):761–799CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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):885–900CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Palmate SS, Pandey A, Mishra SK (2017) Modelling spatiotemporal land dynamics for a trans-boundary river basin using integrated Cellular Automata and Markov Chain approach. Appl Geogr 82:11–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Peng J, Chen S, Dong P (2010) Temporal variation of sediment load in the Yellow River basin, China, and its impacts on the lower reaches and the river delta. Catena 83(2–3):135–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Ramsankaran R, Kothyari UC, Ghosh SK, Malcherek A, Murugesan K (2013) Physically-based distributed soil erosion and sediment yield model (DREAM) for simulating individual storm events. Hydrol Sci J 58(4):872–891CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Singh G, Babu R, Narain P, Bhushan LS, Abrol IP (1992) Soil erosion rates in India. J Soil Water Conserv 47(1):97–99Google Scholar
  13. Suryavanshi S, Pandey A, Chaube UC, Joshi N (2014) Long-term historic changes in climatic variables of Betwa Basin, India. Theor Appl Climatol 117(3–4):403–418CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Syvitski JP, Kettner A (2011) Sediment flux and the Anthropocene. Philos Trans R Soc Lond A Math Phys Eng Sci 369(1938):957–975CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Walling DE (2009) The impact of global change on erosion and sediment transport by rivers: current progress and future challenges. UNESCO, ParisGoogle Scholar
  16. Wang S, Fu B, Piao S, Lü Y, Ciais P, Feng X, Wang Y (2016) Reduced sediment transport in the Yellow River due to anthropogenic changes. Nat Geosci 9(1):38–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Wohl E (2006) Human impacts to mountain streams. Geomorphology 79(3–4):217–248CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© The International Society of Paddy and Water Environment Engineering 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Water Resources Development and ManagementIndian Institute of Technology (IIT) RoorkeeRoorkeeIndia

Personalised recommendations