sustainability

Article
Assessment of Spatial and Temporal Variations in Runoff
Potential under Changing Climatic Scenarios in Northern Part
of Karnataka in India Using Geospatial Techniques
Rejani Raghavan 1, *, Kondru Venkateswara Rao 1 , Maheshwar Shivashankar Shirahatti 2 ,
Duvvala Kalyana Srinivas 1 , Kotha Sammi Reddy 1 , Gajjala Ravindra Chary 1 , Kodigal A. Gopinath 1 ,
Mohammed Osman 1 , Mathyam Prabhakar 1 and Vinod Kumar Singh 1

1 ICAR-Central Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad 500 059, India;
kv.rao@icar.gov.in (K.V.R.); kalyan.srinivas90@gmail.com (D.K.S.); k.sammireddy@icar.gov.in (K.S.R.);
rc.gajjala@icar.gov.in (G.R.C.); ka.gopinath@icar.gov.in (K.A.G.); mdosman@icar.gov.in (M.O.);
m.prabhakar@icar.gov.in (M.P.); director.crida@icar.gov.in (V.K.S.)
2 AICRPDA Centre, Vijayapura 586 101, India; msshirahatti@gmail.com
* Correspondence: r.rejani@icar.gov.in






Citation: Raghavan, R.; Rao, K.V.;
Shirahatti, M.S.; Srinivas, D.K.;
Reddy, K.S.; Chary, G.R.; Gopinath,
K.A.; Osman, M.; Prabhakar, M.;
Singh, V.K. Assessment of Spatial and
Temporal Variations in Runoff
Potential under Changing Climatic
Scenarios in Northern Part of
Karnataka in India Using Geospatial
Techniques. Sustainability 2022, 14,
3969. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su14073969
Academic Editor: Francesco Faccini
Received: 3 February 2022
Accepted: 24 March 2022
Published: 28 March 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Abstract: The northern dry zone of Karnataka in Southern India is frequently affected by drought,
and the overdraft of groundwater resulted in declining groundwater levels. In this context, spatial
estimation of available runoff potential, planning and adoption of site-specific interventions for in-situ
moisture conservation, supplementing irrigation and groundwater recharge are of prime concern.
Therefore, spatial runoff estimation models were developed subdistrict-wise for the northern dry
zone of Karnataka using the Soil Conservation Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) method and GIS.
The estimated runoff was validated using the recorded data and was found satisfactory (R2 = 0.90).
The results indicated that for major portion of the study area (61.8%), the mean annual rainfall varied
spatially from 550 to 800 mm, and the runoff potential ranged from 10.0% to 20.0% of mean annual
rainfall from 1951 to 2013. The higher rainfall and runoff potential was observed in the Khanapur
subdistrict which lies in the western part of the selected area. It was observed that the number
of subdistricts under the low-rainfall category (<550 mm) has increased, whereas the high-rainfall
category (>1100 mm) has decreased over the years. Considerable variation in rainfall and runoff
potential was observed during above normal, normal and drought years. The runoff generated
from most of the study area was below 10.0% of mean annual rainfall in drought year, <30.0% in
above normal year and <15.0% in normal year. The northern dry zone of Karnataka is vulnerable
to drought and water scarcity, and the runoff potential was estimated under future scenarios using
ENSEMBLE data of CMIP 5 to enable planners to design water-harvesting structures effectively.
Finally, based on the modeling results, it was found that by 2050s (2040 to 2069), the runoff potential
is expected to increase by 20.0% to 30.0% under RCP 8.5 and by 10.0% to 20.0% under RCP 4.5
and RCP 2.6 scenarios. By 2080s (2070–2099), the runoff is predicted to increase by >30.0% under
RCP 8.5, by 20.0% to 30.0% under RCP 4.5 and by 10.0% to 20.0% under RCP 2.6, respectively. Even
though considerable increase in runoff potential is predicted for the northern dry zone of Karnataka
in the coming years, the current runoff potential itself is relatively high, and there is tremendous
scope for its harvesting and utilization for in-situ moisture conservation, supplemental irrigation and
groundwater recharge to ensure the long-term sustainability of the region

Keywords: ASTER; climate change; GIS; northern Karnataka; runoff potential; SCS-CN method
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
1. Introduction
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// Greenhouse gases (GHG) emitted by human activities have increased radiative forcing
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ and have been reported to be contributing to an increase in global mean temperature by
4.0/). approximately 0.74 ◦ C over the past century [1]. The estimates of projected temperature

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14073969 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability

Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 2 of 21

increase over the 21st century ranged from 1.8 to 4.9 ◦ C [2]. The Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change reported that the rise in the Earth’s surface air temperature since the
middle of 20th century is probably due to increase in anthropogenic ozone depletion and
global warming. Global warming will prompt changes in precipitation and other climatic
factors [3,4]. The increase in temperature results in higher evaporation on the Earth’s
surface, variations of hydrologic cycle, precipitation, extreme events and soil moisture
status [2]. This will affect the balance between water supply and demand in many regions
across the world [5]. The measurements made by the Indian Meteorological Department
(IMD) showed that the mean annual temperature of India has increased by 0.5 ◦ C during
1901–2003, whereas the maximum temperature increased by 0.7 ◦ C. It is predicted that the
climate change may increase the average surface temperature by 2 ◦ C to 4 ◦ C, decrease the
rainy days and increase high-intensity rains in some regions of India [6].
Rainfed farming covers 80% of the world’s cropland and produces more than 60%
of the world’s cereal grains, thereby generating livelihoods for people [7]. Water is a key
challenge for food production in rainfed regions due to the extreme variability of rainfall,
long dry seasons, and recurrent droughts, floods, and dry spells. Water availability to
enhance yields can be achieved by improving water utilization and uptake by crops [8].
India ranks first among the rainfed agricultural countries of the world in terms of both
extent and value of produce [9]. Rainfed agriculture is practiced mainly in arid, semi-
arid and dry sub-humid zones and supports 40% of the national food basket with 55%
of rice, 91% of coarse grains, 90% of pulse and, 85% of oilseeds [9]. Indian agriculture
is vulnerable to climate change, since 58% of the agricultural area is rainfed, and more
than 80% of farmers are small or marginal with less adaptive capacity [10]. Rainfall is
the most important natural resource, especially in drylands [8]. The annual per capita
availability of water in India has reduced to 1654 m3 in 2007 from 5177 m3 per year in
1951. By 2050, it is predicted to decrease to 1140 m3 , resulting in a water scarce condition of
<1000 m3 per year [11]. According to the Ground Water Board of India, 15% of the blocks
are already overexploited, and the rate of exploitation is growing by 5.5% per year [12].
In arid and semi-arid regions, rainfall is generally lower than the evapotranspiration, and
its non-uniform distribution results in frequent droughts during the critical growth stages
of the crops, and the rainfall usually comes as intense showers, generating heavy surface
runoff and uncontrolled erosion [8]. Despite its scarcity, this rainwater is generally poorly
managed, and much of it is lost as runoff and evaporation [8]. Hence, considerable efforts
are required to make Indian agriculture resilient to the climatic change.
Harvesting the available rainwater in the field using in-situ moisture conservation
techniques and water-harvesting structures and making its use effective is crucial for any
project to make rainfed agriculture in arid and semi-arid regions of the developing nations
more sustainable [8,9,13]. The spatial variability in runoff is very important for planning
in-situ moisture conservation practices and water-harvesting structures in catchments or
watersheds [14–17]. Variations in the hydrologic processes under the projected climate
scenarios indicated that tremendous efforts are required to develop sustainable water
management strategies for river basins of India [18]. The impact of climate change on
the discharge of the Krishna River using SWAT with the assumption of no change in
land use and land cover over the time showed an increase in annual discharge, surface
runoff and base flow during mid-century [19]. In India, the data of surface runoff is
available only from limited sites where gauging stations are available. Hence, modeling
is important for estimating runoff, especially from ungauged areas for its sustainable
development [20,21]. The SCS-CN method is widely used for accurate estimation of runoff
from watersheds [22,23] compared to traditional techniques. It accounts for many factors
like topographic features, rainfall, soil, land use and land cover and integration of these
into the CN parameter [24–26]. Many researchers across the globe directly used, modified
and evaluated the SCS–CN model [27–29]. The SCS-CN method with the aid of GIS helps
to determine the runoff temporally and spatially [12,25]. This methodology is embedded in
many hydrological models [30,31]. Some popular hydrological models used to estimate
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 3 of 21

the runoff includes MIKE SHE [30,31], Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) [32], Water
Erosion Prediction Project (WEPP) [33], etc. Many studies projected the impact of climate
change on water resources, agriculture and other ecosystems [34–36]. Researchers reported
the effects of climate change on river basins of India using hydrological modelling [18,37,38].
The selected area, the northern dry zone of Karnataka, a part of Southern India, is
affected by prolonged dry spells during the crop season, which leads to its low crop
productivity [39]. Adopting moisture conservation measures and providing one or two
irrigations during critical growth stages can save the crop and improve the yield signifi-
cantly [40]. Canal irrigation is available in limited areas, and A major portion of the area is
rainfed with groundwater exploitation and relatively high runoff potential [41,42]. Hence,
estimation of runoff potential and adoption of suitable moisture conservation practices and
water-harvesting structures for rainwater harvesting and groundwater recharge are very
important for the sustainability of agriculture in this region. Therefore, the present study
was undertaken to estimate the runoff potential available in the selected area using the
SCS-CN method and GIS. An attempt was also made to observe the variability of runoff
spatially to prioritize the potential areas for rainwater harvesting. The runoff was estimated
under changing climatic scenarios for the selected subdistricts, since the distribution of
rainfall varies spatially and influences the water available for rainwater harvesting. The pre-
diction of future runoff potential gives insight into designing water-harvesting structures
and into efficient management of valuable crops and crop lands.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
The area selected for this study, the northern dry zone of Karnataka, lies in Southern
India, located between 13◦ 470 to 17◦ 300 N and 74◦ 050 to 77◦ 360 E (Figure 1a–c) with an
elevation ranging from 75 to 1104 m above the MSL. It is a dry semi-arid region covering
nine districts of Karnataka and lies in the Krishna River basin [41]. The average rainfall
of these districts varied spatially from 480 to 1745 mm in different subdistricts. Only few
subdistricts of Belgavi and Dharwad along the western part of the study area receive
relatively higher rainfall, and the remaining areas receive 480–800 mm.
The texture of the soil varies from clayey to loamy. Most of the area is under crop land
followed by current fallow, waste land, scrub land and degraded forest. The major crops
during kharif season (June to September) are green gram, pearl millet, sunflower, pigeon
pea and sorghum, and chickpea and rabi sorghum [39] during the rabi season (November to
May). The LULC map from the National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC) Hyderabad, soil
map from National Bureau of Soil Science and Land Use Planning (NBSS&LUP), ASTER
DEM (30 m resolution), ENSEMBLE data of CMIP 5.0 (0.5◦ × 0.5◦ ) from ICAR Headquarters
and weather data from Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) were used in the study.

2.2. Estimation of Runoff Using SCS-CN Method

The rainfall grid data (0.25◦ × 0.25◦ ) from the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD)
for the period from 1951 to 2013 were used. The slope map generated from DEM showed
that around 70% of the selected area had a slope of less than 5% (Figure 2) and hence, the
SCS-CN method was suitable for determining the runoff potential of this region [12]. The
SCS-CN method (SCS 1972) uses daily rainfall for estimating the runoff potential and is
given below.
For P > 0.2 S (1)
( P − 0.2S)2
Q=
P + 0.8S
Q = 0 For P ≤ 0.2 S (2)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 4 of 21

where P = precipitation (mm); Q = surface runoff (mm); and S = potential maximum

retention or infiltration (mm). S is related to curve number (CN) as shown in Equation (3).

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 25400 4 of

S= − 254 (3)22
CN
where CN = curve number.

Figure 1. 1.Location
Figure Locationmap
mapofofthe
thestudy
studyarea.
area.(a)
(a)India
Indiamap.
map.(b)
(b)Karnataka
Karnatakastate
statemap.
map.(c)
(c)Northern
Northerndry
dry
zone of Karnataka (study area).
zone of Karnataka (study area).

The texture of the soil varies from clayey to loamy. Most of the area is under crop
land followed by current fallow, waste land, scrub land and degraded forest. The major
crops during kharif season (June to September) are green gram, pearl millet, sunflower,
pigeon pea and sorghum, and chickpea and rabi sorghum [39] during the rabi season (No-
vember to May). The LULC map from the National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC) Hy-
derabad, soil map from National Bureau of Soil Science and Land Use Planning
(NBSS&LUP), ASTER DEM (30 m resolution), ENSEMBLE data of CMIP 5.0 (0.5° × 0.5°)
from ICAR Headquarters and weather data from Indian Meteorological Department
 2.2. Estimation of Runoff Using SCS-CN Method
The rainfall grid data (0.25° × 0.25°) from the Indian Meteorological Department
(IMD) for the period from 1951 to 2013 were used. The slope map generated from DEM
showed that around 70% of the selected area had a slope of less than 5% (Figure 2) and
hence, the SCS-CN method was suitable for determining the runoff potential of this region
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 5 of 21
[12]. The SCS-CN method (SCS 1972) uses daily rainfall for estimating the runoff potential
and is given below.

Figure2.2.Slope
Figure Slopemap
mapofofthe
theselected
selecteddistricts.
districts.

CN is a function of land use, treatments, soil and antecedent moisture conditions

(AMC) of the area and varies between 0 and For100.
P >Even
0.2 S though standard tables are available, (1)
in this study, CN was selected based on data ( P −from
0.2 S nearby
)2 or similar areas. According to soil
characteristics, the soils were categorizedQ = into four major hydrologic groups, namely, A (low
P + 0 .8 S
runoff potential), B (moderately low runoff potential), C (moderately high runoff potential)
𝑄 = 0 For
and D (high runoff potential). The antecedent P ≤ 0.2conditions
moisture S (AMC) considered were (2)
AMC
whereI (5-day antecedent(mm);
P = precipitation rainfall
Q <35 mm), runoff
= surface AMC II (5-day
(mm); andantecedent rainfall
S = potential >35 mm)
maximum re-
and AMC III (5-day antecedent rainfall >52.5 mm) [43]. The thematic layers
tention or infiltration (mm). S is related to curve number (CN) as shown in Equation (3). were prepared
in ARCGIS and used as input while estimating 2 5 4 0 0 the runoff. The thematic layers such as
ASTERDEM, rainfall, slope, soil map S = and LULC − map2 5 4were intersected in ARCGIS, and the (3)
SCS-CN method was applied (Figure 3).CThe
N runoff potential was determined with the
where CN = curve number
SCS-CN CNmethod coupled
is a function of with
land GIS
use,[43,44]. The observed
treatments, soil and daily runoffmoisture
antecedent data for the period
conditions
from 2012 to 2015 from All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland
(AMC) of the area and varies between 0 and 100. Even though standard tables are availa- Agriculture,
Vijayapura
ble, in this were
study,used for validation
CN was of the
selected based onmodel (Figure
data from 1c). or
nearby The runoff
similar obtained
areas. was
According
intersected with the catchments generated in GIS, and catchment-wise, runoff volume was
to soil characteristics, the soils were categorized into four major hydrologic groups,
determined for planning the interventions.
namely, A (low runoff potential), B (moderately low runoff potential), C (moderately high
runoff
2.3. potential)
Rainfall andAnalysis
and Runoff D (high runoff potential). The antecedent moisture conditions
(AMC) considered were AMC I (5-day antecedent rainfall <35 mm), AMC II (5-day ante-
The runoff was estimated subdistrict-wise for the period from 1951 to 2013 using
cedent rainfall >35 mm) and AMC III (5-day antecedent rainfall >52.5 mm) [43]. The the-
SCS-CN and GIS to enable the stake holders to make use of the data for subdistrict-wise
matic layers were prepared in ARCGIS and used as input while estimating the runoff. The
planning. The Mann–Kendall test and Sen’s slope were used to find the trend of rainfall
thematic layers such as ASTERDEM, rainfall, slope, soil map and LULC map were inter-
and runoff [45,46]. Rainfall and corresponding runoff for 63 years in each subdistrict was
sected in ARCGIS, and the SCS-CN method was applied (Figure 3). The runoff potential
divided into three classes of 21 years, namely, 1951–1971, 1972–1992 and 1993–2013 and
was determined with the SCS-CN method coupled with GIS [43,44]. The observed daily
were analyzed for its spatial and temporal variability over the years. The annual rainfall
pertaining to the subdistricts of selected districts was categorized into drought, above
normal and normal years [47]. The years having annual rainfall > +19% were classified as
above normal, from −19% to +19% as normal and < −19% as drought years [12,48]. The
spatial and temporal variation of runoff corresponding to these three categories of years
was analyzed for all subdistricts in the selected districts.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6

runoff data for the period from 2012 to 2015 from All India Coordinated Research Pro
for Dryland Agriculture, Vijayapura were used for validation of the model (Figure
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 6 of 21
The runoff obtained was intersected with the catchments generated in GIS, and ca
ment-wise, runoff volume was determined for planning the interventions.

Figure 3. Flow chart depicting spatial estimation of runoff potential using SCS-CN and GIS.
Figure 3. Flow chart depicting spatial estimation of runoff potential using SCS-CN and GIS.
2.4. Rainfall and Runoff under Changing Climatic Scenarios
2.3. Rainfallstudied
Many researchers and Runoff Analysis
climate change impact on river flows using RCP scenar-
ios [49,50]. A Representative
The runoff was Concentration Pathway (RCP) is
estimated subdistrict-wise fora greenhouse
the period from gas concen-
1951 to 2013 u
tration trajectory
SCS-CNadopted by the
and GIS to IPCC
enablefortheitsstake
fifth holders
Assessment Report
to make use(AR5)
of theindata
2014.
forFour
subdistrict-w
pathways have been selected
planning. for climate modeling
The Mann–Kendall test andnamely, RCPwere
Sen’s slope 2.6, RCP
used4.5,
to RCP
find 6.0
the and
trend of rain
RCP 8.5. In the
andpresent
runoffstudy, theRainfall
[45,46]. daily minimum temperature,
and corresponding maximum
runoff for 63 temperature
years in eachand subdistrict
rainfall of CMIP 5 (Ensemble data) for RCP 2.6, RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 scenarios
divided into three classes of 21 years, namely, 1951–1971, 1972–1992 and 1993–2013 were used
as the data set. Raoanalyzed
were et al. [51]for
anditsChary et and
spatial al. [52] also used
temporal same data
variability set/ensemble
over the years. Themeansannual rain
from a number of climate models belonging to CMIP 5 for the four RCPs
pertaining to the subdistricts of selected districts was categorized into drought, viz, RCP 2.6, above
RCP 4.5, RCP mal6.0and
andnormal
RCP 8.5yearsfor climate
[47]. Thechange
yearsscenarios. The runoff
having annual potential
rainfall >+19% corre-
were classifie
sponding to above
the baseline
normal, (BL) (1976–2005),
from −19% to +19% 2020sas (2010 to 2039),
normal and <2050s
−19%(2040 to 2069)years
as drought and [12,48].
2080s (2070 tospatial
2099) was estimated using the SCS-CN method and GIS with the assumption
and temporal variation of runoff corresponding to these three categories of y
that no changewasinanalyzed
the land foruseall
pattern may occur
subdistricts in theover the time.
selected The runoff determined
districts.
was analyzed to find its variability in the future in order to provide the planners with an
insight into designing
2.4. Rainfallwater-harvesting
and Runoff understructures
Changing for efficient
Climatic management of crops and
Scenarios
cropping systems.
Many researchers studied climate change impact on river flows using RCP scena
3. Results [49,50]. A Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) is a greenhouse gas concentra
3.1. Spatial Variation of Rainfall and Runoff at Northern Dry Zone of Karnataka
The estimated runoff was validated using the recorded data from All India Coordi-
nated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture, Vijayapura. A linear regression analysis of
 insight into designing water-harvesting structures for efficient management of crops and
cropping systems.

3. Results
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 3.1. Spatial Variation of Rainfall and Runoff at Northern Dry Zone of Karnataka 7 of 21
The estimated runoff was validated using the recorded data from All India Coordi-
nated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture, Vijayapura. A linear regression analysis
of the
the measured
measured andand estimated
estimated runoff
runoff waswas carried
carried out, out,
and anandR2anvalue
R2 value of was
of 0.90 0.90obtained
was ob-
tained showed
which which showed a goodbetween
a good match match between the observed
the observed and simulated
and simulated values
values (Figure 4).(Figure
Hence,
4). Hence,
this modelthis model
could could be successfully
be successfully used for estimating
used for estimating the runoff the runoff
under under
various various
scenarios
scenarios including
including climateConsiderable
climate change. change. Considerable spatial variability
spatial variability in theaverage
in the annual annual average
rainfall
was observed
rainfall across the
was observed subdistricts
across in different
the subdistricts districts districts
in different (Table 1).(Table 1).

Figure 4. Observed vs. predicted runoff in the study area.

Table
Table 1. Spatial variability
1. Spatial variabilityof
ofmean
meanannual
annualrainfall
rainfall(from
(from1951
1951toto2013)
2013)
inin
thethe northern
northern dry
dry zone
zone of
of Karnataka.
Karnataka.

District
District Annual Rainfall
Annual (mm)
Rainfall (mm)
Vijayapura
Vijayapura 534–707
534–707
Belgavi
Belgavi 532–1745
532–1745
Bagalkot 523–648
Bagalkot 523–648
Gadag 501–1083
Gadag 501–1083
Koppal 540–707
Koppal
Bellary 540–707
462–650
Bellary
Davengere 462–650
422–1494
Raichur
Davengere 469–613
422–1494
DharwadRaichur 605–810
469–613
Dharwad 605–810

The mean annual rainfall varied spatially from 480 to 1745 mm and it ranged from
450 to 2600 mm over the years during 1951 to 2013 (Figure 5a), and runoff varied from
4.4% to 30.1% of rainfall (Figure 5b). The rainfall from a major portion of the area (61.8%)
ranged from 550 to 800 mm, and runoff lied between 10.0% and 20.0% of the annual
rainfall. Higher rainfall (>1500 mm) and more runoff (>30.0%) was generally observed
in the Khanapur subdistrict of the Belgavi district, which is characterized by undulating
topography. High runoff occurred due to intense rainfalls even in other subdistricts. Out of
the nine districts, only 4.5% of the area had very high runoff more than 30.0%, 22.7% of
the area had high runoff ranging from 20.0% to 30.0% and 7.9% of the area had runoff less
than 10.0% of annual rainfall (Figure 5b). Ahmadi et al. [53] evaluated the effect of land
use changes on runoff over 15 years in the Haraz River basin located in Hyrcania using
remote-sensing data and GIS analyses. The annual precipitation of the region was 665 mm,
and the estimated runoff was 9.4% of precipitation in 1996 and 9.6% of precipitation in
2011. Adoption of in-situ moisture conservation measures like modified crescent bund and
coconut husk burial treatments reduced the annual runoff (22.3% and 20.4% of the annual
rainfall compared to 36.9% of the annual rainfall in control), soil loss (47.0% and 49.0% of
control) and nutrient loss in cashew garden grown on steep slopes in southern Karnataka
with annual rainfall from 3000 to 3500 mm [54]. Ningaraju et al. used SCS-CN and GIS for
 remote-sensing data and GIS analyses. The annual precipitation of the region was 665 mm,
and the estimated runoff was 9.4% of precipitation in 1996 and 9.6% of precipitation in
2011. Adoption of in-situ moisture conservation measures like modified crescent bund and
coconut husk burial treatments reduced the annual runoff (22.3% and 20.4% of the annual
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 rainfall compared to 36.9% of the annual rainfall in control), soil loss (47.0% and 49.0% of 8 of 21
control) and nutrient loss in cashew garden grown on steep slopes in southern Karnataka
with annual rainfall from 3000 to 3500 mm [54]. Ningaraju et al. used SCS-CN and GIS for
estimating the runoff
estimating from from
the runoff ungauged watershed,
ungauged Kharadya
watershed, mill in
Kharadya Karnataka
mill with annual
in Karnataka with annual
rainfall of 749 mm, and the obtained runoff varied between 35.47 and
rainfall of 749 mm, and the obtained runoff varied between 35.47 and 240.16 240.16 mm frommm from
2003 to 2013
2003 to [55].
2013 For
[55].a For
similar watershed,
a similar RawatRawat
watershed, and Singh [56] reported
and Singh a mean
[56] reported annual
a mean annual
rainfall of 1107.7
rainfall mm and
of 1107.7 mm anand
estimated runoff of
an estimated 238.3of
runoff mm during
238.3 mm2002–2015. Parvez and
during 2002–2015. Parvez
Inayathulla [57] estimated
and Inayathulla the surfacethe
[57] estimated runoff from
surface upper
runoff Cauvery
from upperKarnataka by the SCS-by the
Cauvery Karnataka
CN model,
SCS-CN and it varied
model, andfrom 170.12
it varied to 599.84
from 170.12mm in themm
to 599.84 study
in area, whenarea,
the study rainfall
when rates
rainfall
were rates
1042.65–1912 mm.
were 1042.65–1912 mm.

(a) (b)
FigureFigure
5. (a,b)5.Spatial variation
(a,b) Spatial of rainfall
variation and runoff
of rainfall in the in
and runoff domain districts
the domain (from (from
districts 1951 to 2013)
1951 to in
2013) in
the northern dry zone of Karnataka.
the northern dry zone of Karnataka.

3.2. Long-Term Variability

3.2. Long-Term of Rainfall
Variability and Runoff
of Rainfall in Different
and Runoff Sub-Districts
in Different Sub-Districts
CanalCanal
irrigation facilities
irrigation facilitiesare
areavailable
available ininsome
some subdistricts
subdistricts where where tanks/reser-
tanks/reservoirs/water
voirs/water
bodies bodies are present.
are present. Hence, cropsHence, crops mainly
depend dependonmainly on the
the rainfall rainfall availability
availability and its distribu-
tion.
and its Considerable
distribution. temporal variation
Considerable temporalin rainfall and
variation runoffand
in rainfall potential
runoffwas observed
potential wasacross
the subdistricts
observed (Figure 6a,b).(Figure
across the subdistricts While 6a,b).
rainfallWhile
was high in Belgavi,
rainfall was high there was more
in Belgavi, runoff in
there
the Raichur
was more runoff insubdistrict
the Raichur in some years in
subdistrict due
someto the high-intensity
years rainfall that occurred.
due to the high-intensity rainfall The
Mann–Kendall
that occurred. test and Sen’stest
The Mann–Kendall slope
andshowed a significantly
Sen’s slope showed a decreasing
significantly trend (p < 0.01) of
decreasing
rainfall and runoff at Belgavi at a rate of 9.8 mm/year and 0.13% of
trend (p < 0.01) of rainfall and runoff at Belgavi at a rate of 9.8 mm/year and 0.13% of annual rainfall/year,
respectively. The other two locations did not show any significant trend for rainfall and
runoff, but a slight increase in rainfall and runoff was observed. In order to determine the
long-term variability of rainfall and runoff in different subdistricts, 63 years (from 1951 to
2013) of rainfall and runoff data were divided into three classes of 21 years each, namely
1951–1971, 1972–1992 and 1993–2013, respectively. The number of subdistricts under the
low-rainfall category (<550 mm) increased, and the high-rainfall category (>1100 mm)
showed a decreasing trend (Figure 7a–c). An increasing trend of runoff ranging from 0.5%
to 1.0% of annual rainfall was observed in most subdistricts (Figure 7d–f) during the 63-year
period. A decreasing trend of rainfall was observed at Belagavi over the years (Figure 7a–c)
as obtained in the Mann–Kendall test and Sen’s slope.
The rainfall in different subdistricts of Vijayapura ranged from 627 to 688, from 605 to
707 and from 534 to 697 mm during the three time periods (Table 2). Runoff varied from
6.1% to 16.7%, from 7.1% to 20.5% and from 7.6% to 18.3% of rainfall during 1951–1971,
1972–1992 and 1993–2013, respectively. It is evident from Table 2 that the mean annual
rainfall in low-rainfall areas decreased over the years, and intense rains have resulted in
more runoff. Figure 5a shows that the Belgavi district consists of low-, medium- and high-
rainfall areas. The rainfall and runoff showed a decreasing trend at Belgavi (Figure 7a–f) as
obtained by the Mann–Kendall test and Sen’s slope. At Bagalkot, the rainfall and runoff
Sustainability
Sustainability2022,
2022,14,
14,x3969
FOR PEER REVIEW 9 9ofof22
21

annual rainfall/year,
has decreased respectively.
and then increasedThe
overother two locations
the years (Table 2).didAtnot showeven
Gadag, any though
significant
the
trend
rainfall in high-rainfall subdistricts increased, the runoff showed a decreasing trend. In
for rainfall and runoff, but a slight increase in rainfall and runoff was observed. At
order to determine
Koppal, the rainfallthehas
long-term variability
decreased, whereas of the
rainfall andpotential
runoff runoff in increased
different subdistricts,
due to high
63 years intensities.
rainfall (from 1951 to 2013) of rainfall and runoff data were divided into three classes of
21 years each, namely
In Bellary 1951–1971,
subdistricts, 1972–1992 and
no considerable 1993–2013,
variation respectively.
in rainfall The number
was observed, whereasof
subdistricts
the runoff has under the low-rainfall
increased category
over the years. (<550ofmm)
In case increased,
Davengere and the high-rainfall
subdistricts, considerable
category
increase in(>1100 mm)
rainfall andshowed a decreasing
runoff was observed.trend (Figurethe
At Raichur, 7a–c). An and
rainfall increasing trend of
runoff increased
runoff
duringranging
1972–1992from and0.5%
thentodecreased.
1.0% of annual rainfallsubdistricts
In different was observed in most subdistricts
of Dharwad, the rainfall
(Figure 7d–f)
and runoff duringa the
showed 63-year trend
decreasing period.andA then
decreasing trend
increased. of rainfall was
Considerable observed
variability at
in the
Belagavi over therainfall
subdistrict-wise years (Figure 7a–c)
and runoff as obtained
shows the needinfor the Mann–Kendall
planning test and Sen’s
of location-specific soil
slope.
and water conservation interventions.

3000.0
Rainfall_Belgavi (mm)
2500.0 Raichur_Raichur (mm)
Rainfall_Bellary (mm)
Rainfall (mm)

2000.0

1500.0

1000.0

500.0

0.0
Years
1953
1956
1959
1962
1965
1968
1971
1974
1977
1980
1983
1986
1989
1992
1995
1998
2001
2004
2007
2010
Years

(a)

40.0
Q_Belgavi (%)
35.0
Q_Raichur (%)

30.0 Q_Bellary (%)

Runoff (% of rainfall)

25.0

20.0

15.0

10.0

5.0

0.0
1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010 2020
Years

(b)
Figure
Figure6.6.(a)
(a)Temporal
Temporalvariation
variationofof
rainfall in in
rainfall low, medium
low, and
medium high
and rainfall
high subdistricts
rainfall in northern
subdistricts in north-
Karnataka. (b) Temporal variation of runoff in low, medium and high rainfall subdistricts
ern Karnataka. (b) Temporal variation of runoff in low, medium and high rainfall subdistricts in north-
in
ern Karnataka.
northern Karnataka.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 10 of 21
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

(a) (b)

(c) (d)

(e) (f)
Figure 7. (a–c) Spatial variation of rainfall during 1951–2013 in the northern dry zone of Karna-
Figure 7. (a–c) Spatial variation of rainfall during 1951–2013 in the northern dry zone of Karnataka.
taka. (d–f) Spatial variation of runoff during 1951–2013 in the northern dry zone of Karnataka
(d–f) Spatial variation of runoff during 1951–2013 in the northern dry zone of Karnataka.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 11 of 21

Table 2. Spatial variability of mean annual rainfall and runoff over the years (from 1951 to 2013) in
the northern dry zone of Karnataka.

District Mean Annual Rainfall (mm) Mean Annual Runoff (% of Rainfall)

1951–1971 1972–1992 1993–2013 1951–1971 1972–1992 1993–2013
Vijayapura 627–688 605–707 534–697 6.1–16.7 7.1–20.5 7.6–18.3
Belgavi
Sustainability 547–1927
2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 532–1958 537–1748 5.4–32.1 5.9–30.0 5.9–30.1
12 of 22
Bagalkot 528–647 553–602 523–648 6.0–21.4 6.0–17.2 7.4–18.2
Gadag 625–745 501–687 519–1083 5.3–18.2 4.6–16.2 6.7–17.0
Koppal 569–707 540–707 556–646 6.0–22.9 7.3–22.4 8.6–23.8
Bellary 462–650 469–648 479–645 5.8–15.0 7.1–16.4 8.1–16.5
Davengere 422–675 443–952 500–1494 5.2–19.7 7.0–17.0 6.7–23.6
Raichur 593–713 610–692 469–667 6.0–20.0 7.7–21.5 9.2–18.8
Dharwad 616–807 605–767 648–801 5.3–17.4 5.1–15.3 6.0–17.8

3.3. Variability of Rainfall and Runoff during above Normal, Normal and Drought Years
The rainfall from most of the area ranged from 800 to 1400 mm in above normal
years, from 450 to 650 mm in normal years and from 230 to 550 mm in drought years
(Figure 8a–c). Normal rainfall at Vijayapura district ranged from 540 to 620 mm. Out of
63 years (1951–2013), 19.0% to 27.0% of the years were above normal rainfall years with
a runoff of 11.5% to 25.7%; 62% to 73% were normal rainfall years with a runoff of 7.1%
to 17.5% and 6.3% to 11.1% were drought years with a runoff of 2.7% to 8.0% in different
subdistricts of Vijayapura (Table 3).
More drought years were experienced in a few subdistricts of Davengere, Dharwad
and Belgavi, and above normal years were also higher in Davengere and Belgavi. Considerable
spatial variation in rainfall and runoff were observed during different rainfall years
(Figure 8a–f). During above normal years, the rainfall in some subdistricts of Belgavi
exceeded 2600 mm. In most subdistricts, the runoff was below 30% of the rainfall in above
normal years, 15% in normal years and 10% in drought years (Figure 8d–f).

(a) (b)

Figure 8. Cont.
Sustainability 2022,
Sustainability 14, x3969
2022, 14, FOR PEER REVIEW 1312ofof 22
21

(c) (d)

(e) (f)

Figure 8. (a–c) Spatial variation of rainfall during above normal, normal and drought years in the
northern dry zone of Karnataka. (d–f) Spatial variation of runoff during above normal, normal and
Figure 8. (a–c) Spatial variation of rainfall during above normal, normal and drought years in the
drought years in the northern dry zone of Karnataka.
northern dry zone of Karnataka. (d–f) Spatial variation of runoff during above normal, normal and
drought years in the northern dry zone of Karnataka.

Table 3. Temporal variation of rainfall and runoff during above normal, normal and drought years
in the northern dry zone of Karnataka.
Mean Rainfall (Pmean) (mm) and Runoff (Qrange) (% of Rainfall)
Domain Districts Sub-Districts Above Normal Year Normal Year Drought Year
P mean Q range P mean Q range P mean Q range
Honnali 2150.9 21.0 32.9 865.9 7.2 13.2 531.0 5.1 9.2
Harihar 895.0 14.4 22.0 591.4 12.6 18.1 413.9 8.2 13.7
Davengere
Channagiri 883.6 12.6 20.0 595.7 6.8 11.7 362.9 2.8 5.2
Davengere 722.6 11.4 19.0 467.7 10.3 16.3 246.2 7.0 12.1
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 13 of 21

Table 3. Temporal variation of rainfall and runoff during above normal, normal and drought years in
the northern dry zone of Karnataka.

Mean Rainfall (Pmean ) (mm) and Runoff (Qrange ) (% of Rainfall)

Domain
Sub-Districts Above Normal Year Normal Year Drought Year
Districts
P mean Q range P mean Q range P mean Q range
Honnali 2150.9 21.0 32.9 865.9 7.2 13.2 531.0 5.1 9.2
Harihar 895.0 14.4 22.0 591.4 12.6 18.1 413.9 8.2 13.7
Channagiri 883.6 12.6 20.0 595.7 6.8 11.7 362.9 2.8 5.2
Davengere
Davengere 722.6 11.4 19.0 467.7 10.3 16.3 246.2 7.0 12.1
Harpanahalli 814.4 10.7 17.8 514.4 6.2 10.8 267.2 1.6 3.2
Jagalur 678.7 12.8 20.2 463.3 7.4 12.9 230.0 5.9 10.0
Deodurg 968.6 15.2 23.6 572.6 9.6 15.9 330.1 5.6 10.1
Lingsugur 800.9 11.0 19.0 524.8 7.9 13.7 313.2 3.1 7.0
Raichur Manvi 967.4 16.7 26.0 553.2 12.3 19.7 285.3 7.0 11.6
Raichur 997.1 14.4 23.1 605.7 10.4 17.1 371.9 7.0 12.2
Sidhnur 939.3 18.6 27.6 567.7 8.2 14.1 301.5 3.7 7.0
Navalgud 1157.9 14.9 23.2 635.3 9.3 15.3 378.6 3.5 5.9
Dharwad 1101.5 12.4 19.8 696.3 7.1 12.5 310.5 7.2 12.6
Dharwad Hubli 1238.3 22.5 32.0 612.2 9.0 15.1 391.2 4.5 7.8
Kundgol 1216.4 12.8 20.6 667.0 5.0 9.3 393.6 2.1 4.4
Kalghatti 1258.2 15.4 23.1 717.1 6.4 11.6 425.1 3.4 5.6
Huvinahadagalli 791.8 10.6 17.3 556.3 7.8 13.3 324.1 1.0 2.6
Hagaribommanahalli 893.7 15.6 23.5 594.1 9.0 14.7 332.1 3.0 6.2
Kudligi 681.9 13.7 21.5 454.2 7.5 12.9 230.4 1.0 2.0
Bellary Sandur 864.4 14.9 23.0 606.3 6.8 11.8 310.2 0.4 1.5
Hospet 808.8 12.3 19.6 547.5 7.4 12.9 304.8 2.9 5.9
Bellary 788.5 12.0 19.6 507.9 7.9 13.6 279.8 3.6 6.9
Siruguppa 872.1 15.3 23.5 581.5 8.4 14.8 387.8 3.7 8.1
Indi 869.9 13.1 21.8 590.1 9.3 15.8 283.1 2.7 4.8
Vijayapura 842.0 15.8 24.3 545.0 10.7 17.5 320.5 4.2 8.0
Vijayapura Sindgi 1039.1 16.5 25.7 619.9 10.2 17.0 344.5 3.2 6.6
B Bagevadi 898.5 15.5 23.7 571.2 9.9 16.7 358.3 3.1 6.2
Muddebihal 886.6 11.5 19.5 540.2 7.1 12.5 336.4 3.0 6.0
Khanapur 2646.1 28.1 40.6 1613.0 18.2 28.7 999.7 11.7 20.5
Sampgaon 1160.7 15.4 23.8 646.3 6.6 12.0 415.0 4.1 7.5
Belgavi 1383.5 14.9 24.1 815.5 9.2 15.6 517.6 2.6 5.4
Parasgad 1081.6 16.2 24.2 588.2 9.3 15.3 376.4 5.9 10.0
Ramdurg 837.6 13.2 20.8 549.3 8.6 14.3 330.4 4.1 7.3
Belgavi
Hukeri 1091.4 16.5 25.6 664.2 10.8 17.4 374.5 3.4 6.0
Gokak 1091.4 11.9 19.5 629.0 5.0 9.5 356.8 1.6 3.4
Chikodi 861.3 10.3 17.8 570.2 6.5 11.4 332.0 2.6 5.4
Raybag 752.7 12.2 19.9 490.3 7.4 12.4 277.9 6.2 9.7
Athni 764.2 15.6 23.9 520.4 7.1 12.2 318.3 4.8 9.0
Jamkhandi 759.6 14.2 21.7 523.2 8.0 13.6 329.9 4.1 7.9
Mudhol 783.3 10.4 18.3 518.1 5.9 11.0 307.7 0.9 2.2
Bilgi 847.2 16.9 26.3 573.2 10.0 16.4 286.4 2.0 4.7
Bagalkote
Bagalkote 796.8 11.4 18.8 535.3 8.5 14.2 293.6 4.1 7.3
Badami 806.3 13.6 21.7 565.3 8.9 14.6 331.6 2.1 4.4
Hungund 859.0 17.1 26.1 590.2 9.5 16.0 356.7 4.5 8.8
Nargund 981.7 13.5 21.2 610.0 7.6 13.0 385.9 1.1 2.4
Ron 900.8 15.4 24.6 604.6 8.6 14.4 385.2 3.7 7.3
Gadag Gadag 800.8 11.2 18.6 543.0 5.6 10.3 291.9 2.4 4.9
Mundargi 742.0 14.8 23.1 505.7 8.8 15.0 268.4 3.0 5.0
Shirhatti 2305.6 26.2 37.7 707.3 5.2 9.5 465.1 2.9 6.0
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 14 of 21

Table 3. Cont.

Mean Rainfall (Pmean ) (mm) and Runoff (Qrange ) (% of Rainfall)

Domain
Sub-Districts Above Normal Year Normal Year Drought Year
Districts
P mean Q range P mean Q range P mean Q range
Kushtagi 826.8 14.3 22.5 532.8 10.1 16.6 324.5 4.8 7.7
Yelbarga 840.2 11.3 19.2 570.3 7.7 13.4 350.1 3.5 6.8
Koppal
Koppal 953.5 20.5 30.0 623.2 13.1 20.3 316.7 3.0 6.5
Gangawati 864.6 14.3 22.2 510.3 9.0 14.8 294.6 3.3 6.2

3.4. Prioritization of Areas for Rainwater Harvesting

The mean annual runoff potential obtained using the SCS-CN model was intersected
with the catchments generated in GIS, dissolved and catchment-wise runoff volume was
generated for planning soil and water conservation interventions (Figure 9). In areas
with less runoff volume generated, in-situ moisture conservation needs to be adopted.
Similarly, areas with surplus runoff potential after in-situ moisture conservation need to be
harvested in water-harvesting structures and may be utilized for supplemental irrigation
using efficient application methods or for groundwater recharge. It was found that 41.0% of
total area with a runoff volume <10,000 m3 and catchment size varying from 0.1 to 30.6 ha
(average size of 1.08 ha) needs in-situ moisture conservation treatments like conservation
furrow, contour bunds, compartmental bunding, broad bed furrow (BBF), ridge and furrow,
contour cultivation, etc. to retain the moisture in the soil. Around 21.0% of the area had
runoff volume ranging from 10,000 to 20,000 m3 with catchment size of 0.58 to 52.7 ha
(average size of 11.3 ha) and needs priority for water-harvesting/groundwater recharge
structures in addition to in-situ moisture conservation measures. Finally, 32.0% of the
area had high runoff potential (>20,000 m3 ) with catchment size varying from 1.17 to
89.98 ha (average size of 17.1 ha) and needs adoption of water-harvesting interventions as
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 15 of 22
top priority. The map generated (Figure 9) will help planners decide on the site-specific
interventions based on the runoff potential available for harvesting.

Figure volume generated

Figure 9. Runoff volume generatedcatchment-wise.
catchment-wise.

3.5. Variability of Rainfall and Runoff under Changing Climatic Scenarios

Runoff potential was estimated under changing climatic scenarios for the northern
dry zone of Karnataka. Most of the subdistricts had rainfall ranging from 460 to 800 mm
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 15 of 21

3.5. Variability of Rainfall and Runoff under Changing Climatic Scenarios

Runoff potential was estimated under changing climatic scenarios for the northern dry
zone of Karnataka. Most of the subdistricts had rainfall ranging from 460 to 800 mm and
runoff varying from 6.7% to 20.0% of the mean annual rainfall during the baseline period
(1976–2005) (Figure 10a). Under changing climatic scenarios, an increasing trend of rainfall
and runoff was predicted w.r.t the baseline period in all the scenarios (Figures 10–12).
Under RCP 2.6, more than a 10.0% to 20.0% increase in runoff was expected from 85.0%
and 89.3% of the area by the mid (2050s) and end of the century (2080s), respectively
(Figure 10b–d). In case of RCP 4.5, a 10.0% to 20.0% increase in runoff was expected from
69.2% of the area by 2050s and a 20.0% to 30.0% increase from 59.2% of the area by 2080s
(Figure 11a–c). Under RCP 8.5, runoff was expected to increase by 20.0% to 30.0% from
61.7% of the area and >30.0% from 86.4% of the area by 2050s and 2080s, respectively,
and a substantial increase in rainfall was also predicted in almost all the subdistricts
(Figure 12a–c). The results of the study also give immense scope for rainwater harvesting
in the future. Similarly, Gardner [58] assessed the effect of climate change on the mean
annual runoff in the United States, and Fowler et al. [59] developed a framework for model
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22
improvement and simulated runoff under changing climatic conditions for the Harvey
River at Dingo Road in the southwest of Australia.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure 10. (a) Baseline runoff. (b–d) Increase in runoff under RCP 2.6 w.r.t the baseline during 2020s,
Figure 10. (a) Baseline runoff. (b–d) Increase in runoff under RCP 2.6 w.r.t the baseline during 2020s,
2050s and 2080s in the northern dry zone of Karnataka.
2050s and 2080s in the northern dry zone of Karnataka.
 (c) (d)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 16 of 21
Figure 10. (a) Baseline runoff. (b–d) Increase in runoff under RCP 2.6 w.r.t the baseline during 2020s,
2050s and 2080s in the northern dry zone of Karnataka.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 22

(a) (b)

(c)
Figure 11.
Figure 11. (a–c)
(a–c) Increase
Increase in
in runoff
runoff under
under RCP
RCP 4.5
4.5 w.r.t
w.r.tthe
the baseline
baseline during
during 2020s,
2020s, 2050s
2050s and
and 2080s
2080s in
in
the northern dry zone of Karnataka.
the northern dry zone of Karnataka.

The impact of climate change in the northern dry zone of Karnataka with the assump-
tion of no change in the LULC over time showed considerable increase in surface runoff
during the middle and the end of the present century when RCP could be 4.5 and 8.5,
respectively. When planning soil and water conservation interventions, rainfall and runoff
of the 2020s and the 2050s are important compared to those of the 2080s (2070–2099), which
is very far. Therefore, the probable increase in runoff is expected to vary spatially from
10.0% to 30.0% across different subdistricts. The existing runoff potential itself is relatively
high, and there is substantial scope for its harvesting and utilization for supplemental
irrigation or groundwater recharge for climate-resilient agriculture in this area.

(a) (b)
 (c)
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969
Figure 11. (a–c) Increase in runoff under RCP 4.5 w.r.t the baseline during 2020s, 2050s and 2080s17
inof 21
the northern dry zone of Karnataka.

(a) (b)

(c)

Figure 12. (a–c) Increase in runoff under RCP 8.5 w.r.t the baseline during 2020s, 2050s and 2080s in
the northern dry zone of Karnataka.

4. Discussion
Estimation of runoff and planning of suitable interventions subdistrict-wise for supple-
mental irrigation and groundwater recharge are of prime concern for sustainable manage-
ment of rainfed agriculture in the northern dry zone of Karnataka in India. In view of the
limited number of gauging stations and non-availability of sufficient runoff data, a spatial
runoff estimation model (subdistrict-wise) was developed using the SCS-CN method and
GIS. Higher rainfall and runoff were observed only in a few subdistricts which are close to
the west coast, and runoff from a major portion of the area ranged from 10.0% to 20.0% of
the annual rainfall. Runoff is expected to increase considerably under different future sce-
narios. Under RCP 2.6, more than 10.0% to 20.0% increase in runoff is expected by the mid
(2050s) and end of the century (2080s). In case of RCP 4.5, 10.0% to 20.0% increase in runoff
is expected by the 2050s and 2080s. Similarly, under RCP 8.5, runoff is expected to increase
by 20.0% to 30.0% and by >30.0% by the 2050s and the 2080s, respectively. According to the
fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
average river discharge and availability of water may increase by 10.0% to 40.0% near the
high latitudes and in some wet tropics. It may reduce by 10.0% to 30.0% in dry tropics and
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 18 of 21

dry areas at mid-latitudes, part of which are already in water-stressed conditions [35,36].
Previous studies reported that the annual water potential and hydrological extremes in the
Krishna basin will increase under future climatic scenarios. They predicted an increase
in annual discharge by 13.8 m3 and 27.8 m3 under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5, respectively, in
the Krishna basin due to hydrological extreme events as compared with that of the past
records of 1985–2005 [37]. Another study using the SWAT model for the Krishna basin
highlighted that in the mid-century (2044–2070), the surface runoff and water yield were
projected to increase by 20.0% and 6.8%, respectively, under the RCP 4.5 scenario, and by
39.0% and 29.0%, respectively, under the 8.5 scenario. By the end of century, the mean
surface runoff and water yield were projected to increase by 64.6% and 56.2% using the
RCP 8.5 scenario, and by 22.4% and 10.0% under RCP 4.5 scenario, respectively [38]. These
results indicate that surface runoff and water yield are more sensitive to climate change.
Similarly, Mishra and Lilhare [18] projected a continuous increasing trend of water balance
components along with rainfall and air temperature in both RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios of
CMIP5 models in the Krishna River basin. Rainfall may increase by 8.0% to 20.0% under
RCP 4.5 and 10.0% to 40.0% in the case of RCP 8.5 by the end of the century [38]. Similarly,
the surface runoff and streamflow were projected to increase by 20.0% to 55.0% and 20.0%
to 60.0% under RCP 4.5 and 35.0% to 120.0% and 40.0% to 120.0% under RCP 8.5 by the
end of the century, respectively.
In the selected study area, which is a part of the Krishna River basin, the current runoff
potential itself is relatively high, and there is substantial scope for rainwater harvesting and
its utilization. Hence, rainwater harvesting and its optimal utilization for supplemental
irrigation using efficient application methods is recommended as one the climate-resilient
adaptation strategies for the northern dry zone of Karnataka. This methodology could be
utilized by planners for the estimation of runoff potential and planning of interventions
in similar watersheds/catchments with limited gauging stations or with no gauges. The
runoff potential predicted for the future scenarios showed considerable increase in runoff
potential in the near future and more scope for planning and adoption of suitable soil and
water conservation interventions for this dry zone.

5. Conclusions
The rainfed areas in northern dry zone of Karnataka in Southern India are facing erratic
rainfall, water scarcity, soil erosion and prolonged dry spells, which results in reduction
in crop yield or even crop failures. This region needs site-specific management of natural
resources like soil and water for its long-term sustainability. Planning and adoption of
suitable soil and water conservation interventions needs data of runoff potential available
in the region. Because of the limited availability of runoff data, SCS-CN and GIS was
adopted to estimate the runoff potential for planning the interventions under the present
scenario and climate change scenarios. The results indicated that 61.8% of the study area
had mean annual rainfall varying spatially from 550 to 800 mm, and the runoff potential
ranged from 10.0% to 20.0% of mean annual rainfall during 1951–2013. The higher rainfall
and runoff potential of more than 30.0% was observed in limited subdistricts that lie along
the western part of the selected area. The Mann–Kendall test and Sen’s slope showed
a significantly decreasing trend of rainfall and runoff at Belgavi, the high-rainfall area
during the 63-year period. It was also observed that the number of subdistricts under
the low-rainfall category (<550 mm) has increased, whereas the high-rainfall category
(>1100 mm) has decreased over the years. Considerable variation in rainfall and runoff
were observed in high, medium and low rainfall regions as well as in above normal, normal
and drought years. The runoff volume was estimated catchment-wise and prioritized the
regions for adoption of different soil and water conservation interventions. The results
indicated that 41.0% of the area had a runoff volume <10,000 m3 and needs in-situ moisture
conservation treatments like conservation furrow, contour bunds, compartmental bunding,
broad bed furrow (BBF), ridge and furrow, contour cultivation etc. to retain the moisture in
the soil. Around 21.0% of the area had runoff volume ranging from 10,000 to 20,000 m3
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 19 of 21

and needs water-harvesting/groundwater recharge structures along with in-situ moisture

conservation measures. Around 32.0% of the area had high runoff potential (>20,000 m3 )
that needs adoption of water-harvesting interventions as top priority. The generated map
will help planners decide on the site-specific interventions based on the runoff potential
available for harvesting. The runoff potential estimated under future scenarios will enable
planners to design water-harvesting structures effectively. Based on the modeling results, it
was found that by the 2050s (2040 to 2069), the runoff potential was expected to increase by
20.0% to 30.0% under RCP 8.5 and by 10.0% to 20.0% under RCP 4.5 and RCP 2.6 scenarios,
respectively. By the 2080s (2070–2099), the runoff was predicted to increase by >30.0%
under RCP 8.5, by 20.0% to 30.0% under RCP 4.5 and by 10.0% to 20.0% under RCP 2.6,
respectively. Hence, considerable increase in runoff potential is expected for the area in
the coming years. The study indicated that current runoff potential itself is relatively
high and there is tremendous scope for its harvesting and utilization for in-situ moisture
conservation, supplemental irrigation and groundwater recharge to ensure the long-term
sustainability of the region.

Author Contributions: All authors contributed to the study. R.R. conducted the study, analyzed the
data, prepared the maps and the manuscript. K.V.R. was involved in conceptualizing the methodology
and interpreting the results, M.S.S., G.R.C. and K.A.G. were involved in data collection and survey,
D.K.S. contributed towards the preparation of the maps. K.S.R., M.O., M.P. and V.K.S. supervised the
study, reviewed and edited the manuscript. The first draft of the manuscript was written by R.R. and
all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors have read and agreed to
the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research work was supported by funding from the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research-National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture (ICAR-NICRA) at ICAR-Central
Research Institute for Dryland Agriculture, Hyderabad (Grant number: 2–2(201)/17–18/NICRA).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The datasets used and analyzed during the current study are available
from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgments: The authors express their sincere gratitude to the Indian Council of Agricultural
Research-National Innovations in Climate Resilient Agriculture (ICAR-NICRA) for providing funds
for carrying out this work. The authors thank All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland
Agriculture, Vijayapura Centre for providing the runoff data, ICAR Headquarters for providing the
ENSEMBLE data, the Indian Meteorological Department (IMD) for the weather data, ASTER for the
DEM, the National Bureau of Soil Science and Land Use Planning (NBSS&LUP) for the soil map and
the National Remote Sensing Centre (NRSC) for the land use and land cover maps.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interests.

References
1. Srinivasarao, C.; Rejani, R.; Channalli, P. Climate resilient water management practices for improving water use efficiency and
sustaining crop productivity. In Proceedings of the National Workshop on Climate Change and Water—Improving water use
efficiency, Hyderabad, India, 13–14 November 2014; pp. 9–30.
2. IPCC. Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY, USA, 2007.
3. Arnell, N.W. Climate change and global water resources. Glob. Environ. Change 1999, 9, S31–S49. [CrossRef]
4. Donnelly, C.; Greuell, W.; Andersson, J.; Gerten, D.; Pisacane, G.; Roudier, P.; Ludwig, F. Impacts of climate change on European
hydrology at 1.5, 2 and 3 degrees mean global warming above preindustrial level. Clim. Change 2017, 143, 13–26. [CrossRef]
5. Arnell, N.W.; Hudson, D.A.; Jones, R.G. Climate change scenarios from a regional climate model: Estimating change in runoff in
southern Africa. J. Geophys. Res. 2001, 108, 2782. [CrossRef]
6. Ranuzzi, A.; Srivastava, R. Impact of Climate Change on Agriculture and Food Security; ICRIER Policy Series 16; Indian Council for
Research on International Economic Relations: New Delhi, India, 2012.
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 20 of 21

7. Rockstrom, J.; Hatlbu, N.; Owels, T.Y.; Wani, S.P. Managing water in rainfed agriculture. In Water for Food, Water for Life: A
Comprehensive Assessment of Water Management in Agriculture; International Water Management Institute: London, UK, 2007;
pp. 315–352. ISBN 978-1-84407-396-2.
8. Yazar, A.; Ali, A. Water harvesting in dry environments. In Innovations in Dryland Agriculture; Springer: Cham, Switzerland, 2016;
pp. 49–98. [CrossRef]
9. Ashalatha, K.V.; Gopinath, M.; Bhat, A.R.S. Impact of Climate Change on Rainfed Agriculture in India: A Case Study of Dharwad.
Int. J. Environ. Sci. Develop. 2012, 3, 368–371.
10. Rao, C.S.; Rejani, R.; Rao, C.R.; Rao, K.V.; Osman, M.; Reddy, K.S.; Kumar, M.; Kumar, P. Farm ponds for climate-resilient rainfed
agriculture. Curr. Sci. 2017, 112, 471–477.
11. MOWR. Report of Sub-Committee on Policy and Institutional Framework. National Water Mission under National Action Plan on Climate
Change; Comprehensive Mission Document; Ministry of Water Resources, Government of India: New Delhi, India, 2008; Volume 2.
Available online: http://wrmin.nic.in/writereaddata/nwm28756944786.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2022).
12. Rejani, R.; Rao, K.V.; Osman, M.; Chary, G.R.; Reddy, K.S.; Rao, C.S. Spatial and temporal estimation of runoff in a semi-arid
micro-watershed of Southern India. Environ. Monit. Assess 2015, 187, 540. [CrossRef]
13. Rejani, R.; Rao, K.V.; Osman, M.; Chary, G.R.; Reddy, K.S.; Rao, C.S. Location specific in-situ soil and water conservation
interventions for sustainable management of drylands. J. Agromet. 2015, 17, 55–60. [CrossRef]
14. Rejani, R.; Rao, K.V.; Srinivasa Rao, C.H.; Osman, M.; Sammi Reddy, K.; George, B.; Pratyusha Kranthi, G.S.; Chary, G.R.;
Swamy, M.V.; Rao, P.J. Identification of potential rainwater-harvesting sites for the sustainable management of a semi-arid
watershed. Irrig. Drain. 2017, 66, 227–237. [CrossRef]
15. Kadam, A.K.; Kale, S.S.; Pande, N.N.; Pawar, N.J.; Sankhua, R.N. Identifying potential rainwater harvesting sites of a semi-arid,
basaltic region of Western India, using SCS-CN method. Water Resour. Manag. 2012, 26, 2537–2554. [CrossRef]
16. Durbude, D.G. Hydrological impact assessment of SWC measures in Ralegaon Siddhi model watershed. Indian J. Soil Conserv.
2015, 43, 197–203.
17. Nandgude, S.B.; Chavan, P.B.; Mahale, D.M.; Shinde, V.T. Study of water harvesting potential in Morna river basin of Maharashtra
using remote sensing and geographical information system. Trends Biosci. 2014, 7, 309–315.
18. Mishra, V.; Lilhare, R. Hydrologic sensitivity of Indian sub-continental river basins to climate change. Glob. Planet. Change 2016,
139, 78–96. [CrossRef]
19. Kulkarni, B.D.; Deshpande, N.R.; Patwardhan, S.K.; Bansod, S.D. Assessing hydrological response to changing climate in the
Krishna basin of India. J. Earth Sci. Clim. Change 2014, 5, 7.
20. Sanjay, K.J.; Jaivir, T.; Vishal, S. Simulation of runoff and sediment yield for a Himalayan watershed using SWAT model. J. Water
Resour. Prot. 2010, 2, 15.
21. Patil, J.P.; Sarangi, A.; Singh, O.P.; Singh, A.K.; Ahmad, T. Development of a GIS interfaces for estimation of runoff from
watersheds. Water Resour. Manag. 2008, 22, 1221–1239. [CrossRef]
22. Soulis, K.X.; Valiantzas, J.D.; Dercas, N.; Londra, P.A. Analysis of the runoff generation mechanism for the investigation of
the SCS-CN method applicability to a partial area experimental watershed. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2009, 6, 373–400.
[CrossRef]
23. Sahu, R.K.; Mishra, S.K.; Eldho, T.I.; Jain, M.K. An advanced soil moisture accounting procedure for SCS curve number method.
Hydrol. Processes Int. J. 2007, 21, 2872–2881. [CrossRef]
24. Satheeshkumar, S.; Venkateswaran, S.; Kannan, R. Rainfall-runoff estimation using SCS-CN and GIS approach in the Pappiredipatti
watershed of the Vaniyar sub basin, South India. Model. Earth Syst. Environ. 2017, 3, 24. [CrossRef]
25. Nagarajan, N.; Poongothai, S. Spatial mapping of runoff from a watershed using SCS-CN method with remote sensing and GIS.
J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012, 17, 1268–1277. [CrossRef]
26. Verma, S.; Verma, R.K.; Mishra, S.K.; Singh, A.; Jayaraj, G.K. A revisit of NRCS-CN inspired models coupled with RS and GIS for
runoff estimation. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2017, 62, 1891–1930. [CrossRef]
27. Shi, W.; Wang, N. An improved SCS-CN method incorporating slope, soil moisture, and storm duration factors for runoff
prediction. Water 2020, 12, 1335. [CrossRef]
28. Al-Ghobari, H.; Dewidar, A.; Alataway, A. Estimation of surface water runoff for a semi-arid area using RS and GIS-based
SCS-CN method. Water 2020, 12, 1924. [CrossRef]
29. Mishra, S.K.; Jain, M.K.; Bhunya, P.K.; Singh, V.P. Field applicability of the SCS-CN-based Mishra-Singh general model and its
variants. Water Resour. Manag. 2005, 19, 37–62. [CrossRef]
30. Refsgaard, J.C.; Knudsen, J. Operational validation and intercomparison of different types of hydrological models. Water Resour.
Res. 1996, 32, 2189–2202. [CrossRef]
31. Singh, R.; Subramanian, K.; Refsgaard, J.C. Hydrological modelling of a small watershed using MIKE SHE for irrigation planning.
Agric. Water Manag. 1999, 41, 149–166. [CrossRef]
32. Arnold, J.G.; Moriasi, D.N.; Gassman, P.W.; Abbaspour, K.C.; White, M.J.; Srinivasan, R.; Santhi, C.; Harmel, R.D.;
Van Griensven, A.; Van Liew, M.W.; et al. SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55, 1491–1508.
[CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 3969 21 of 21

33. Lane, L.J.; Nearing, M.A.; Laflen, J.M.; Foster, G.R.; Nichols, M.H. Description of the US Department of Agriculture water erosion
prediction project (WEPP) model. In Overland Flow: Hydraulics and Erosion Mechanics; Taylor & Francis: Abingdon, UK, 1992;
pp. 377–391.
34. Zhu, D.; Das, S.; Ren, Q. Hydrological appraisal of climate change impacts on the water resources of the Xijiang Basin, South
China. Water 2017, 9, 793. [CrossRef]
35. Nohara, D. Impact of climate change on river discharge projected by multi-model ensemble. J. Hydromet. 2006, 7, 1076–1089.
[CrossRef]
36. Yaghoubi, B.; Hosseini, S.A.; Nazif, S. Evaluation of Climate Change Impact on Runoff: A Case Study. Indian J. Sci. Technol. 2016,
9, 1–7. [CrossRef]
37. Nikam, B.R.; Garg, V.; Jeyaprakash, K.; Gupta, P.K.; Srivastav, S.K.; Thakur, P.K.; Aggarwal, S.P. Analyzing future water availability
and hydrological extremes in the Krishna basin under changing climatic conditions. Arab. J. Geosci. 2018, 11, 581. [CrossRef]
38. Chanapathi, T.; Thatikonda, S.; Raghavan, S. Analysis of rainfall extremes and water yield of Krishna river basin under future
climate scenarios. J. Hydrolog. Reg. Stud. 2018, 19, 287–306. [CrossRef]
39. Chary, G.R.; Srinivasa Rao, C.h.; Gopinath, K.A.; Sikka, A.K.; Kandpal, B.; Bhaskar, S. Improved Agronomic Practices for Rainfed
Crops in India; All India Coordinated Research Project for Dryland Agriculture, ICAR-Central Research Institute for Dryland
Agriculture: Hyderabad, India, 2016; p. 292.
40. Singh, V.K.; Prasad, J.V.N.S.; Ramana, D.B.V.; Nagasree, K.; Rejani, R.; Venkatesh, G.; Reddy, D.V.S.; Venkatasubramanian, V.;
Prabhakar, M.; Bhaskar, S.; et al. Promising Climate Resilient Technologies for Karnataka; ICAR Central Research Institute for Dryland
Agriculture: Hyderabad, India, 2021; 87p, ISBN 978-93-80883-59-5.
41. CGWB (Central Ground Water Board). Aquifer Systems of Karnataka; Central Ground Water Board, Ministry of Water Resources,
Government of India: Bangalore, India, 2012.
42. Kumar, S.; Raizada, A.; Biswas, H.; Muralidhar, W.; Rao, K.S. Groundwater extraction in Karnataka and its long-term implications.
Indian J. Econ. Dev. 2016, 12, 615–628. [CrossRef]
43. Tailor, D.; Shrimali, N.J. Surface runoff estimation by SCS curve number method using GIS for Rupen-Khan watershed, Mehsana
district, Gujarat. J. Indian Water Resour. Soc. 2016, 36, 1–5.
44. Chadli, K.; Kirat, M.; Laadoua, A.; El Harchaoui, N. Runoff modeling of Sebou watershed (Morocco) using SCS curve number
method and geographic information system. Modeling Earth Syst. Environ. 2016, 2, 1–8. [CrossRef]
45. Sa’adi, Z.; Shahid, S.; Ismail, T.; Chung, E.S.; Wang, X.J. Trends analysis of rainfall and rainfall extremes in Sarawak, Malaysia
using modified Mann-Kendall test. Meteorol. Atmos. Phys. 2019, 131, 263–277. [CrossRef]
46. Mondal, A.; Kundu, S.; Mukhopadhyay, A. Rainfall trend analysis by Mann-Kendall test: A case study of north-eastern part of
Cuttack district, Orissa. Int. J. Geol. Earth Environ. Sci. 2012, 2, 70–78.
47. Knapp, A.K.; Hoover, D.L.; Wilcox, K.R.; Avolio, M.L.; Koerner, S.E.; La Pierre, K.J.; Loik, M.E.; Luo, Y.; Sala, O.E.; Smith, M.D.
Characterizing differences in precipitation regimes of extreme wet and dry years: Implications for climate change experiments.
Glob. Change Biol. 2015, 21, 2624–2633. [CrossRef]
48. Indian Meteorological Department (IMD), Frequently asked Questions (FAQs) on Monsoon. 2022. Available online: https://mausam.
imd.gov.in/imd_latest/monsoonfaq.pdf (accessed on 10 January 2022).
49. Chakilu, G.G.; Sándor, S.; Zoltán, T. Change in stream flow of Gumara watershed, upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia under
representative concentration pathway climate change scenarios. Water 2020, 12, 3046. [CrossRef]
50. Anjum, M.N.; Ding, Y.; Shangguan, D. Simulation of the projected climate change impacts on the river flow regimes under CMIP5
RCP scenarios in the westerlies dominated belt, northern Pakistan. Atmos. Res. 2019, 227, 233–248. [CrossRef]
51. Rao, M.S.; Rao, C.R.; Sreelakshmi, P.; Islam, A.; Rao, A.S.; Chary, G.R.; Bhaskar, S. Pest scenario of Spodoptera litura (Fab.) on
groundnut under representative concentration pathways (RCPs) based climate change scenarios. J. Therm. Biol. 2020, 94, 102749.
52. Chary, G.R.; Bhaskar, S.; Gopinath, K.A.; Prabhakar, M.; Prasad, J.V.N.S.; Rao, C.A.; Rao, K.V. Climate resilient rainfed agriculture:
Experiences from India. In Climate Change Adaptations in Dryland Agriculture in Semi-Arid Areas; Springer: Singapore, 2022;
pp. 3–18.
53. Ahmadi-Sani, N.; Razaghnia, L.; Pukkala, T. Effect of Land-Use Change on Runoff in Hyrcania. Land 2022, 11, 220. [CrossRef]
54. Rejani, R.; Yadukumar, N. Soil and water conservation techniques in cashew grown along steep hill slopes. Sci. Hortic. 2010,
126, 371–378. [CrossRef]
55. Ningaraju, H.J.; Ganesh Kumar, S.B.; Surendra, H.J. Estimation of runoff using SCS-CN and GIS method in ungauged watershed:
A case study of Kharadya mill watershed, India. Int. J. Adv. Eng. Res. Sci. 2016, 3, 36–42.
56. Rawat, K.S.; Singh, S.K. Estimation of surface runoff from semi-arid ungauged agricultural watershed using SCS-CN method and
earth observation data sets. Water Conserv. Sci. Eng. 2017, 1, 233–247. [CrossRef]
57. Parvez, M.B.; Inayathulla, M. Estimation of surface runoff by soil conservation service curve number model for upper Cauvery
Karnataka. Int. J. Sci. Res. Multidiscip. Stud. 2019, 5, 7–17.
58. Gardner, L.R. Assessing the effect of climate change on mean annual runoff. J. Hydrol. 2009, 379, 351–359. [CrossRef]
59. Fowler, K.; Coxon, G.; Freer, J.; Peel, M.; Wagener, T.; Western, A.; Woods, R.; Zhang, L. Simulating runoff under changing climatic
conditions: A framework for model improvement. Water Resour. Res. 2018, 54, 9812–9832. [CrossRef]