Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-023-01817-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Modeling future hydrological responses through parameter

optimization and climate change scenarios in Dirima Watershed,
Ethiopia
Simir B. Atanaw1   · Fasikaw A. Zimale2 · Tenalem Ayenew3 · Gebiaw T. Ayele4

Received: 25 May 2023 / Accepted: 11 June 2023

© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023

Abstract
Purpose  Hydrological modeling is an important tool for estimating hydrological responses, not only for current conditions
but also for future scenarios by optimizing hydrological parameters. In cases where direct measurements are difficult to
obtain, modeling can be used to fill in the gaps and provide vital information for water resources planning and management.
However, it is important to note that hydrological models need to be calibrated and validated to ensure that the parameter
values are optimized for the specific watershed being studied.
Materials and methods  The Xinanjiang (XAJ) model have been used to estimate the potential hydrological responses under
current and future scenarios. In this study, an attempt was made to optimize the parameters for the Dirima watershed with a
total area of 162 k­ m2 using DEoptim algorithms. In this study, the calibrated parameters were used to simulate the watersheds’
hydrological response for baseline (1996–2009) and three climate change scenarios (SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5)
from a CMIP6 multimodel ensemble (2015–2100).
Results and discussion  The study shows that the baseline period of performance measure values is RMSE = 12, NSE = 0.76,
PBIAS = 10.5% and ­R2 = 0.78, and RMSE = 3.65, NSE = 0.85, PBIAS = 9.9%, and ­R2 = 0.85 indicate that the model has per-
formed well in simulating the streamflow in both the calibration and validation periods, respectively. Lower RMSE, higher
NSE, and lower PBIAS indicate better model performance and suggest that the model has performed well in all these aspects.
In the future (2015–2100) the average Tmax 1.59 , 1.93  and 2.48 °C, and Tmin will raise by 1.83 , 2.33  and 2.85 °C under
SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5, respectively. Additionally, the mean annual future hydrological responses in the upper
soil layer, including evaporation, soil moisture, and runoff will be 1.72, 1.71, and 1.79 mm, 0.63, 0.62, 0.64 mm, and 1.07,
0.97, and 1.18 mm under SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5. The future projections show an increase in average maximum
and minimum temperatures under different SSP scenarios.
Conclusion  The calibrated parameters of the XAJ model were critical to assess the future hydrological responses of the
Dirima watershed under the three SSP scenarios. The precipitation and streamflow values are consistently lower than those
of ET and temperature across all SSP scenarios. This indicates that future water availability is likely to be under pressure
and calls for appropriate strategic measures to create a more resilient water resource system.

Keywords  Differential evolution algorithm · Hydrological responses · Xinanjiang (XAJ) model · Climate Change
modeling · CMIP6

Introduction non-point sources of pollution, and agricultural activities

Water resource systems are recently facing numerous chal-
lenges due to global climate change and rapid population
growth. In a water resource and watershed system, various
processes such as floods, erosion, sedimentation, point and
Extended author information available on the last page of the article
take place, all of which have both direct and indirect impacts
on the system (Tundu et al. 2018). So, understanding the
key hydrological processes using a hydrological model is a
potential approach for improving the effectiveness of adopted
management plans and policies, used to estimate streamflow
for ungauged watersheds, because the model provides the
current and future state of hydrological responses on the
temporal and spatial scale. By calibrating the parameters

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

specifically for future scenarios, we can enhance the reliabil-
ity of hydrological models in estimating how water systems
will respond to changing climate conditions. Various vari-
ables affect the fluctuation of hydrological response in the
watershed. These include geographical differences (Siswanto
and Sule 2019), soil characteristics (Patil et al. 2012), plant
cover and density, mean humidity, soil water depth, precipi-
tation, and other meteorological variables (Guo et al. 2020).
For example, the relationship between SM and precipitation
is critical, with the direction of the correlation (positive or
negative) and the amplitude varying regionally (i.e. weak
or strong) (Sehler et al. 2019), and concluded that in areas
with limited vegetative cover, precipitation, and SM have the
strongest correlations, whereas forests and vegetated areas
have weaker correlation coefficients.
Assessing the impacts of climate change on water
resources, often related to some aspect of water availabil-
ity, is a key variable that motivates scientific research and
public policies. Thus, we assessed the future hydrological
responses in the Dirima watershed, which is of paramount
importance for understanding the water balance. The hydro-
logical response was analyzed considering three climate
change scenarios within the coupled model intercompari-
son project phase 6 (CMIP6). The Dirima watershed is one
of the main water resources for the urban and rural areas
of Koladiba and the city of Gondar. Limited studies have
been conducted on the factors that shape the resilience and
vulnerability of rural households in the face of recurring
floods (Weldegebriel and Amphune 2017), and we did not
find any study related to current and future hydrological
responses using baseline and climate models. As Mounir
et al. (2023) conducted by using statistical analysis and the
soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) hydrological model
to predict drier and hotter climatic conditions in the region
of northern Morocco (Mounir et al. 2023). The HEC-HMS
model was adopted to model the rainfall-runoff relation of
the Upper Sabarmati River basin (Verma et al. 2022). There-
fore, hydrological modeling and remote sensing tools are
critically essential to understanding hydrological processes,
as well as supporting long-term planning of water use and
irrigation application (Jakada et al. 2019). Hydrological
modeling can be divided into three types: deterministic
physically distributed models (white box models), concep-
tual hydrological models (grey box models), and data-driven
or empirical models (black box models) (Abdulkareem et al.
2018; Jajarmizadeh et al. 2012).
Various hydrological responses of the hydrological pro-
cess can be incorporated, analyzed, and simulated in deter-
ministic physically distributed models such as MIKE SHE
and SWAT (Feyen et al. 2000),. Stanford Watershed Model
(SWM-IV), Système Hydrologique Européen (SHE), TOP-
MODEL, Precipitation Runoff Modelling System (PRMS),
and the National Weather Service River Forecasting System
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
(NWSRFS) have also been used to quantitatively simulate
flow and water quality in watersheds (Soohong et al., 2022).
However, these models need a high temporal and geographic
resolution of topography, precipitation, evapotranspiration,
and other inputs, all of which have a direct influence on
the model output. Additionally, these models have a limited
capacity to capture the hydrological response of the upper,
lower, and deep layers of the soil. Conceptual models such
as TANK, HBV, GR4J, and XAJ employ basic mathemati-
cal elements to simulate the hydrological response approxi-
mately (Qi et al. 2022; Wang et al. 2021). Recently, gravity
recovery and climate experiment (GRACE) and climate data
were used to evaluate the terrestrial water storage (TWS)
main components and long-term drought monitoring. Oth-
man et al. (2022) evaluate the spatiotemporal mass vari-
ations caused by groundwater changes, Gonçalvès (2013)
estimates groundwater recharge over Sahara aquifers through
water storage from GRACE and soil moisture from global
land data assimilation system (GLADS), and the result
shows that recharge variation was correlated at one year lag
period. Mohamed and Gonçalvès (2021) investigate the vari-
ation of groundwater recharge reconstruction and reveal that
the lag period for groundwater recharge reaching the water
table is nearly 45 to 100 years, with anthropogenic effects
being the primary controlling factor, accounting for nearly
99% of the variance in comparison to rainfall. Zhang et al.
(2022) investigated the use of soil moisture observations
from the soil moisture active passive (SMAP) satellite mis-
sion to inform simulated carbon fluxes in the international
terrestrial ecosystem model LPJ-wsl includes land surface
processes.
Hydrological modeling is a valuable tool for estimat-
ing hydrological responses for current and future scenarios
by optimising hydrological parameters. By simulating the
hydrological processes of a watershed through a hydrologi-
cal model, it is possible to predict the potential effects of
climate change, changes in land use, and water management
strategies on the water balance of the watershed (Dau et al.
2021). It is common to use hydrological models, such as
the XAJ model, to simulate the watershed’s hydrological
response under various climate change scenarios. The XAJ
model is typically applied with precipitation and potential
evapotranspiration as primary input data. This model was
selected based on the following main reasons: (1) The model
has been successfully and widely applied in similar humid
and semi-humid regions of China and other areas such as
the USA (Rahman and Lu 2015) (2) Test Differential Evo-
lution Optimization (DEoptim) algorithm for parameter
calibration. The discretization provides critical informa-
tion about runoff, SM, and ET at each soil layer, so this is
important to understand the physical meaning of the hydro-
logical responses in the three soil layers and the correlation
between remotely detected SM. The use of a multimodel
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
ensemble, in this case from the CMIP6 dataset, can help to
capture the overall range of uncertainty associated with the
climate projections. The SSP scenarios (Shared Socioeco-
nomic Pathways) are designed to represent different possible
future pathways for global development, including changes
in population, economic development, and technology. The
SSP2-4.5 represents a scenario where greenhouse gas emis-
sions peak around 2040 and then decline with relatively low
greenhouse gas emissions, leading to a radiative forcing level
of 4.5 W/m² by 2100. SSP3-7.0 represents a scenario where
the medium level of greenhouse gas emissions continues to
increase throughout the 21st century, leading to a radiative
forcing level of 7.0 W/m² by 2100. And SSP5-8.5 represents
a scenario where greenhouse gas emissions increase even
more rapidly than in SSP3, leading to a radiative forcing
level of 8.5 W/m² by 2100 with a high level of emissions.
Simulating the hydrological response of a watershed under
these different scenarios can help to provide insight into the
potential impacts of climate change on water resources in
the region. This information can be used to inform water
resource management decisions, such as the development
and implementation of adaptation strategies to prepare for
various climate change scenarios.
The Xinanjiang model is a popular choice for hydrologi-
cal modeling, and it has been used to estimate hydrological
responses in many different regions around the world. How-
ever, it is important to note that hydrological models need
to be calibrated and validated to ensure that the parameter
values are optimized for the specific watershed being stud-
ied. This is because the optimal parameter values can vary
depending on the characteristics of the watershed, such as
topography, vegetation cover, soil type, and climate. Opti-
mizing the parameters for the Dirima watershed in Ethiopia
using reliable algorithms can help identify optimal param-
eter values that are specific to the watershed, thus improving
our understanding of the hydrological processes that occur
in the watershed. This, in turn, can help to improve water
resource planning and management in the region. Overall,
the use of hydrological models and climate change scenarios
can provide valuable insights into the potential impacts of
climate change on water resources in a region, helping to
facilitate the development of more sustainable and resilient
water resource management strategies.
Materials and methods
Study area
The studied Dirima river watershed is a sub-water-
shed located in the upper Lake Tana basin, cover-
ing an area of 162.2 ­k m 2 and an altitudinal range of
1786–2746 masl. Geographically, the watershed is located
between 12°25̍ ’ 06″–12°39′36″ N latitude and from
37°13’06″–37°30′36″ E longitudes at the outlet point
(bridge) where the discharge observation station is located
and is shown in Fig. 1. It has a tropical savanna climate, with
an average annual minimum and maximum temperature of
16.7 °C and 27.2 °C, respectively, and a long-year average
annual precipitation of 1,254.50 mm shown in (Fig. A). The
annual flow of the river is 53.7 m 3/s and evapotranspira-
tion is 1280 mm. The rainfall distribution is quite uneven
throughout the year in that precipitation in summer accounts
for more than 74%. The Dirima River is the main tributary
of Lake Tana, with the longest main flow path of 48.53 km.
The slope class coverages are moderate and flat to gentle,
as shown in Fig. 1a. The soil types found in the Dirima
watershed include Eutric fluvisols (44.2%), Eutric lepto-
sols (28.6%), chromic luvisols (15.6%), and Eutric vertisols
(11.6%) as shown in (Fig. 1c). Along the flowing direction
of the river from north to south, the Dirima River water-
shed contains many agricultural areas on both sides of the
river, including fragmented irrigated lands. Regarding land
use and land cover (LULC), the Dirima watershed includes
several categories that are predominantly covered by crop-
land (94.7%), shrubland (1.8%), and herbaceous vegetation
(1.5%), sources: https://​lcvie​wer.​vito.​be/​2019. In the water-
shed, there is an estimated irrigated area of nearly 178 ha on
both the right and left sides of the Dirima river.
Xinanjiang (XAJ) conceptual hydrological model
The XAJ model is a conceptual hydrological model that
predicts discharge at a basin outlet by simulating runoff,
generation, and concentration within a catchment (Hao et al.
2015; Ren-Jun 1992; Zhijia et al. 2013). Its major character-
istic is the formation of runoff during storage replenishment
(saturation excess overland flow), which implies that runoff
does not occur until the SM content of the unsaturated zone
exceeds the field capacity, after which runoff equals the rain-
fall surplus without a further loss (Hao et al. 2015; Weimin
and Qian 2012; Zhijia et al. 2013; Zhu et al. 2017). The key
concept in the model is the distribution of storage capacities
in the soil layer. Areal average precipitation and potential
evapotranspiration serve as input to the XAJ model. Param-
eters within a group are mutually dependent, whereas param-
eters between groups appear to be mainly independent. Vari-
ation in runoff concentration parameter values, for example,
within a reasonable range, does not affect the optimum value
of the runoff separation parameter, and variation in runoff
separation parameter values does not affect the optimized
value of the runoff production and evapotranspiration param-
eters (Ren-Jun 1992). Table (1) provides a list of parameters
of the XAJ model and their physical implications. The model
assumes that potential evapotranspiration does not alter
between a “dry year” and a “wet year.“ The output is the
13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 1  Dirima watershed
hydrological location with
respect to Tana Basin, a slope,
b LULC BUA: built-up area,
HW: Herbaceous wetland, Fr:
Forest, Hrbve: Herbaceous
vegetation, Shr: Shrub land, and
Cl: Cultivated land) and c soil
type of Eutric fluvisols, Eutric
leptosols, chromic luvisols, and
Eutric vertisols

runoff/discharge (Q) from the watershed outlet. and the unit
hydrograph (UH) directs the surface runoff. The linear res-
ervoir approach is used to route interflow and groundwater
flow. The entire XAJ model structure is displayed in (Fig. 2).
More details of the original structure of XAJ model can be
found in (Ren-Jun 1992). The XAJ model has 15 parameters
(Rahman and Lu 2015) and the outflow is estimated with
four main components for each sub-catchment: (i) Evapo-
transpiration, which generates the deficit of soil storage that
is divided into three layers, that is, upper, lower, and deep;
(ii) Runoff generation, which produces the runoff according
to the rainfall and soil storage deficit; (iii) Runoff separa-
tion, which divides the above-mentioned runoff into three
components, that is, surface, subsurface, and groundwater;

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 2  Flowchart of the Xinanjiang (XAJ) model for a single watershed, Deng (2020)

Table 1  Parameters of Xinanjiang (XAJ) model and their physical meaning

Processes Physical meaning and units Lower bounds Upper bounds

Evapotranspiration KC The ratio of potential evap to pan evap (−) 0.2  1.5
WUM SM capacity of the upper layer (mm)  5  20
WLM SM capacity of the lower layer (mm) 10  90
WDM SM capacity of deep layer (mm) 10  60
C Coefficient of deep evap (−)  0  0.05
Runoff generation B The exponent of the SM storage capacity curve (−)  0.05  0.2
IM Fraction of impermeable area (%)  0.1  0.6
SM Areal mean free water capacity of the surface soil layer (mm)  10  60
Runoff separation EX The exponent of the free water capacity curve (−)  0.5  2
KI Outflow coefficient of the free water storage to interflow (−)  0.01  0.7
KG Outflow coefficient of the free water storage to GW (−)  0.01  0.7
Runoff routing /concentration/ CI Recession constant of the lower interflow storage (−)  0.5  0.9
CG Recession constant of groundwater storage (−)  0.99  0.998
N Number of reservoirs in the instantaneous unit hydrograph (IUH)  0.1  5
NK Common storage coefficient in the IUH  1  6

and (iv) Flow routing, which transfers the local runoff to the
outlet of each subbasin forming the outflow of the sub-basin
which shown in Fig. 2.
The state variables in the hydrological model include
the tension water storage (W) and free water storage (S)
areas. The mean tension water (W) is composed of three
elements (WU, WL and WD) in the upper, lower, and deep
layers, respectively. The runoff-contributing region factor
(FR) is associated with tension water storage (W), while
RB represents the immediate runoff from the impervious
area. The pervious surface is divided into three components
(RS, RI and RG) representing surface runoff, subsurface
runoff, and groundwater runoff, respectively, which are
collectively transferred to QS, QI, and QG and constitute
the total flow to the channel network of the sub-basin. The
discharge (Q) from the sub-basin is calculated using the
Muskingum method. As depicted in Fig 2, runoff (R) from
the pervious area has three components: RS, RI, and RG,
representing surface runoff, interflow, and groundwater
runoff, respectively, while RB represents runoff from the
impervious area (IM). The discharge (Q) from the sub-basin
is composed of three components: QS, QL, and QG, repre-
senting surface runoff, interflow, and groundwater runoff,
respectively,Table1 while FR denotes the variable runoff
producing area and T represents the total subbasin inflow
to the stream.

13

Table 2  CMIP6 climate model No. CMIP6 model name
used to evaluate hydrological
response in the watershed 1 BCC-CSM2-MR
2 MRI-ESM2-0
Model input data preparation
This study utilized daily precipitation and potential evap-
oration data sets from 1994 to 2009 as input data. The
hydrometeorological data was collected from the National
Meteorology Agency (NAM) of Ethiopia and the Ministry
of Water, Irrigation, and Electricity of Ethiopia (MoWIE).
Some missing values (i.e. 6.3%) in the data series were
filled using the simple averaging method. Although the
missing data was less than 10%, it was filled in for data
clarity. The 16-year meteorological data was used because
streamflow data was only available for this period. The
warm-up of the model used two-year data (1994–1995),
calibration used 10-year data (1996–2005), and validation
used four-year data (2006–2009). The Penman-Monteith
approach for potential evapotranspiration (Allen et  al.
1998) used meteorological time series data such as maxi-
mum temperature, minimum temperature, solar radia-
tion, and actual vapour pressure as input. The landscape
characteristics of a catchment were derived from a DEM
with a spatial resolution of 30 m by 30 m SRTM (https://​
search.​earth​data.​nasa.​gov/​search), and the morphometric
watershed attributes such as slope and watershed area were
extracted using QGIS digital terrain analysis tools.
For the future analysis of the climate projection of the
watershed, data were extracted from the World Climate
Research Programme (WCRP)–CMIP6 under a low forc-
ing scenario (SSP2-4.5), medium to high forcing scenario
(SSP3-7.0), and a strong forcing scenario (SSP5-8.5) (Xin
et  al. 2019), source: https://​e sgf-​n ode.​l lnl.​g ov/​s earch/​
cmip6/. A detailed description of the scenarios is avail-
able in [22,24] and the CMIP6 products are summarised
in Table  2 which gives acronyms, resolution, sources,
references, and the mean annual climate data distribution
is shown in Figure B. For validation, available ground
observation climatological data within the basin and for
the baseline period (1990–2014) were collected from the
archive of the National Meteorology Agency (NMA) of
Ethiopia. The Mann Kendall and seasonal MK tau tests are
non-parametric statistical tests used to identify trends in
time series data. Under the following hypothesis, the tests
were performed in the baseline period of the precipitation,
evapotranspiration, and streamflow time series. Ho: the
time series data show neither an upward nor a downward
trend, whereas Ha: the time series data exhibit either an
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Country Nominal Res (km) Variant label References
China 100 km r1i1p1f1 (Xin et al. 2019)
Japan 101 km r1i1p1f1 (Yukimoto et al. 2019)
upward or a downward trend (Tigabu et al. 2020). The
daily time series data was used to detect if the data has a
trend or not with a 95% significance level.
Bias correction is common for simulations of regional
climate models (RCMs) that exhibit systematic biases in pre-
cipitation and temperature. To produce reliable estimators
of local-scale climate, RCMs need to be post-processed. For
bias correction of precipitation linear scaling (multiplica-
tive) methods were applied. This approach involves apply-
ing scaling factors to the simulated precipitation data. The
scaling factor is derived from the ratio of observed precipita-
tion to simulation over a specific reference period. By mul-
tiplying the simulation precipitation values by this scaling
factor, systematic biases can be reduced and model output
accuracy improved. Regarding temperature, linear scaling
(adaptive) methods were used. Instead of applying a single
scaling factor throughout the temperature range, different
scaling factors apply to different temperature ranges. These
methods were applied using climate data from 1990–2014
as the baseline period. Before evaluating precipitation and
temperature for the selected CMIP6 models, biases were cor-
rected over the watershed using the CMhyd tools (Rathjens
et al. 2016), Teutschbein, (2012) provides detailed math-
ematical equations that are presented about all methods.
Model setup, calibration and validation
In the XAJ model, sensitive parameters were identified
through four distinctive processes. Daily observations data
from 1996–2009, as shown in Fig. A were prepared using the
hydroTSM and hydroGOF packages. The XAJ model is a con-
ceptual hydrological model that is used to simulate the main
hydrological processes in the Dirima watershed, such as evap-
oration, runoff, and soil moisture from three soil layers. The
ideal initial parameter ranges were collected from literature
sources, specifically previous applications of the XAJ model
(Bai et al. 2017; Ren-Jun 1992). Calibration and validation of
model parameters were conducted using a differential evolu-
tionary algorithm (DEoptim) which is a population-based, sto-
chastic search algorithm that aims to find the global optimum
of a given objective function (Mullen et al. 2011). DEoptim
is particularly suitable for identifying the global optimum of
a real-valued function with real-valued parameters, as it does
not require the function to be continuous or differentiable. The
objective function of optimization is to minimize the Root
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Table 3  The initial and calibrated value of the XAJ parameters

Parameters KC IM WUM WLM WDM C B SM EX KI KG CI CG N NK

Initial Value 0.38 0.22 18.93 88.46 59.01 0.01 0.19 58.34 0.5 0.7 0.7 0.64 0.96 0.1 1.65
Calibrated Value 1.5 0.1 5.3 24.6 13.4 0.1 0.2 60 2 0.4 0.5 0.9 1 0.1 1
hydroGOF R2 NSE PBIS% RMSE MSE KGE VE
d m d m d m d m d d d

Calibration 0.78 0.96 0.76 0.95 10.5 1.6 12 3.03 145 0.8 0.4
Validation 0.85 1 0.85 1 9.9 0 3.65 0 13 0.9 0.6

d daily, m monthly

Mean Square Error (RMSE) between observed and simulated �∑

n
�2
streamflow. Equation (1) shows the method used to calculate (Qo − Qo)(Qs − Qs)
i
RMSE, with a lower value indicating higher accuracy of the
R2 = �2 � �2 (2)
∑n �
model results. The calibration algorithm that optimizes the i
Qo − Qo Qs − Qs
error criterion was selected as an objective function using the
provided functions. All parameters were changed within their ∑n
(Qo − Qs)2
‘reasonable’ range (lower and upper), based on literature and/ NSE = 1 − i
�2 (3)
or experience of model implementation. The simulation was
∑n �
i
Qo − Qo
conducted with a maximum of 2000 iterations.
√ ∑n
√ n (Qo − Qs)
√1 ∑ i
RMSE = √ (Qo − Qs)2 (1) pbias = 100 ∗ ∑n (4)
n t=1 i
Qo

Where ­Qo is the observed discharge shown in Fig. A ­Qs

Performance measures
Evaluation indexes are available to statistically measure the
performance of the hydrological model and assess the hydro-
graph pattern. Moriasi et al. (2007) conducted comprehensive
model performance evaluation guidelines, such as statistical
goodness of fit of the model, which was assessed by the coeffi-
cient of determination ­(R2), RMSE, and relative squared error
(RSE) for whose errors are measured in the different units.
A preliminary evaluation was performed using the following
criteria: Percent Bias (PBIAS) and Nash-Sutcliffe Efficiency
(NSE) (Nash and Sutcliffe 1970; Pushpalatha et al. 2011).
The PBIAS formula is used to measure the variance between
observed and simulated total runoff (Pushpalatha et al. 2012).
NSE is a technique to assess mostly high-flow simulations.
PBIAS = 0 and NSE = 1 indicates that the observed and simu-
lated values are perfectly fit. The measure of the observed flow
variance explained by the simulated flow is determined using
­R2 and the values vary from 0 to 1, with values greater than
0.5 representing good performance. The three criteria may be
formulated as described below:
is the model simulated discharge. Qo is the mean measured
discharge for the entire period, Qs and is the mean simulated
discharge for the entire period. NSE determines the rela-
tive magnitude of the residual variance in comparison with
the observed data variance and is calculated using Eq. (3).
NSE values with higher magnitudes are preferred (Car-
los Mendoza et al. 2021). In general, when NSE > 0.5 and
PBIAS < ± 25%, the performance of the model is considered
to be satisfactory (Amin et al. 2017; Jiang et al. 2020).
Results
XAJ model simulation
The Mann–Kendall trend test was conducted on daily time
series data using the trend r-package. The resulting P value
(> 0.05) indicates that there is no significant monotonic
trend, thereby accepting the null hypothesis. The values of
the model parameters have been calibrated (1996–2005) and
validated (2006–2009) to capture the hydrological process
of the Dirima basin. The variation between simulated and
measured streamflow is evaluated using model efficiency

13

Fig. 3  The simulated and measured streamflow hydrograph (a)  and scatter plot during the calibration (1996–2005) (b)  and validation period
(2006–2009) (c) 
criteria (Li et al. 2015). The optimized parameters of the
XAJ model are shown in Table 3 and the comparison of
observed and simulated hydrograph is shown in Fig. 3. As
this figure shows, the observed and simulated streamflow
resulting from the XAJ model revealed good fitness in terms
of capturing the hydrograph pattern, as well as high and
low flows. Figure 5 below also shows that while winter is
normally dry in Dirima, March has been the month when
the lowest mean streamflow has been recorded.
The areal mean tension water is 5.3, 24.6, and 13.4 in the
upper, middle, and lower layers of the soil, respectively. The
average runoff produced from the contribution of the imper-
vious area is 0.2, and the free water storage to the interflow
and groundwater is 0.9 (0.4 + 0.5) with a proportion of 0.8
(0.4/0.5). The SM parameter indicates that there is thick soil
in the watershed and surface runoff is sensitive to the value
of this parameter.
The streamflow hydrograph and scatter plot shows good
agreement in terms of correlation coefficient and pattern
in both calibration and validation period. This suggests
that the calibrated Xinanjiang (XAJ) model is capable
of accurately simulating the streamflow dynamics in the
watershed. Also, the watershed experiences losses from
the incoming precipitation through surface and subsurface
runoff. This means that part of the precipitation falling on
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
the basin does not directly contribute to the flow of water,
but is lost through various processes such as evaporation,
infiltration, and percolation. Consequently, the storage
capacity of the basin may decrease during low flow peri-
ods, indicating that there is less water in the system. Fur-
thermore, this statement implies that the contribution of
the base current to the measurement site (where the stream
flow is recorded) is relatively lower than the output of the
model of subsurface evaporation. In the validation period,
results are also in very good agreement with the observed
streamflow shown in Fig. 3, in the dry period the model
gives delayed underground runoff because of the SM mem-
ory of nearly 12 days. The flow furation curve (FDC) is
shown in Fig. A (a). These figures provide a good fit at
maximum flow, and a large gap between the simulated
and the observed flow at high flow compared to medium
to low flow. This is due to the model overpredicting the
minimum flow at which the model does not consider land
use/land cover and anthropogenic effects such as diversion
for irrigation in the upstream watershed. The FDC has
good agreement at high and medium flow as compared to
the lower flow as shown in Fig. A (b).
The mean daily evapotranspiration was higher than the
SM content in the upper layer, while the evaporation in the
lower soil layer is lower as compared to the corresponding
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 4  Upper (a) and lower (b) soil layer seasonal hydrological components in the calibration period, and (c) upper and (d) (lower) in the valida-
tion period

Fig. 5  Evaporation and SM distribution in the upper soil layer and lower soil layer in (a and c) calibration and (b and d) validation period

13

SM content shown in Fig. 4. This is due to radiation, and
soil heat flux might be decreased from the upper to the
deep soil layer. As shown in Fig. 4 and Table 1 revealed
that the lower SM is higher compared to the deep and
upper layers, and the evapotranspiration and runoff in the
upper layer are higher compared to the lower and the deep
layers, respectively. Therefore, the Dirima watershed stor-
age capacity was reduced due to higher evapotranspiration
and runoff in the upper soil layer. The variability in evapo-
transpiration, soil moisture, and runoff follows the patterns
of rainfall. In Ethiopia, in the seasonal1 rain cycle, most
precipitation occurs in June (10%), July (27%), and August
(37%) followed by September (8%), October (9%), and
November (0.9%) and March (0.9%) April (1.8%) and May
(4.3%). During the autumn and spring seasons, additional
irrigation may be optional to use the available SM in the
watershed as shown in Fig. 5.
The calibration results were assessed using the statistical
and model efficiency criteria such as R­ 2, NSE, PBIAS, and
RMSE. The findings show that the XAJ model can simulate
both the magnitude and dynamics of observed flow event
occurrences, as well as distinct hydrological components to
describe the watershed hydrological responses. As a result,
the XAJ model optimized parameters yield the NSE values
of 0.76 in the calibration period and 0.85 in the validation
period indicating a reasonably good agreement between the
simulated and observed flow data. If so, the PBIAS values
of 10.5% during the calibration period and 9.9% during the
validation period imply that the simulated flow values of
the XAJ model are often within a range that is acceptable
compared to the observed values. Obtaining a higher Nash-
Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) value in validation compared to
calibration can have several implications. Firstly, using inde-
pendent data for validation helps assess the model’s ability
to make accurate predictions on unseen data, thus increas-
ing confidence in its generalization capabilities. Secondly, a
higher NSE value in validation suggests that the model has
avoided overfitting and can provide reliable predictions on
new observations. Thirdly, it demonstrates that the model
structure developed during calibration captures the dominant
hydrological processes, enabling it to represent the system’s
behavior under different conditions. Additionally, a higher
NSE value in validation indicates the robustness of the cali-
brated parameter values, which can be applied to different
periods or regions with similar characteristics. Moreover, the
representativeness of model inputs during calibration, such
as precipitation and streamflow, leads to reliable predictions
during validation. Improved model performance in valida-
tion also reduces uncertainty and enhances confidence in
decision-making and water resources management. Finally,
1
  JJA: Summer, SON: Autumn, DJF: Winter, MAM: Spring.
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
a higher NSE value in validation indicates the model’s abil-
ity to capture the system’s response to changing conditions,
making it useful for future projections and scenario analysis
(Wagener and Gupta 2005). This shows that the parameters
effectively mimic the Dirima hydrological components
of the XAJ model shown in Table 3. Overall, the calibra-
tion and validation results of the XAJ model applied to the
Dirima watershed were good and thus, the corresponding
parameters and simulation results are considered suitable for
this study. As shown in Table 3, RMSE and MSE are meas-
urements of the common magnitude of differences between
observed and simulated values, and lower values indicate
greater performance. In this case, the RMSE values of 12
during the calibration period and 3.65 during the valida-
tion period suggest that the common errors of the model are
somewhat higher during the calibration period than during
the validation period. Similarly, MSE values of 145 in the
calibration period and 13 in the validation period show a
higher total error in the calibration period compared to the
validation period. KGE is a metric that evaluates the simi-
larity of observed and simulated data by means, variances,
and correlation. A value of 1 indicates the ideal matching
between the observed and simulated data. In this case, KGE
values of 0.8 in calibration and 0.9 in validation suggest
a good agreement between the model and observed data
in each period. VE represents the proportion of observed
variations captured by the model. Higher VE values indicate
that the model has a better capacity to explain the observed
variance. The VE values of 0.4 during the calibration period
and 0.6 during the validation period indicate that the model
captures a significantly lower percentage of the observed
variance during the calibration period than during the vali-
dation period.
Watershed hydrological responses
Evapotranspiration, runoff generation, and SM distribution
The dynamics of evapotranspiration and SM is the most
important component that implicitly takes care of the non-
linear dynamics of the variation of SM in space and hence,
determines the spatial variation of the runoff generation
mechanism. The evapotranspiration that generates the deficit
in soil storage is divided into three layers: upper (EU), lower
(EL), and deep (ED).
In the upper soil layer, the evaporation rate is higher in
all months because of direct radiation interaction to satisfy
the atmosphere’s vapour demand. Figure 5 shows that SM in
the rainy season did not decline compared to the dry /source-
limited/ seasons. Figure 5a, b suggests that the Dirima water-
shed’s soil has a greater potential for water storage. The
groundwater potential is greater in watersheds with greater
water storage capacity.
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Table 4  Autocorrelation (a) and Soil layers Lag. interval (a)

cross-correlation (cc) (b) with
lag values 0 1 2 3 4 5…

Upper (WU) 1.00 0.28 − 0.02 0.32 0.38 − 0.03

Lower (WL) 1.00 0.93 0.85 0.80 0.75 0.64
Deep (WD) 1.00 0.79 0.55 0.30 0.06 − 0.18
WU vs. WL 0.59 0.37 0.31 0.39 0.34 0.19
WU Vs WD 0.02 − 0.15 0.04 0.26 0.29 0.12
(b)
CC between PCP and WU 0.81 0.29 − 0.07 0.20 0.37 0.00
CC between PCP and WL 0.38 0.41 0.29 0.31 0.38 0.35
CC between PCP and WD − 0.09 − 0.05 − 0.09 0.02 0.26 0.29
CC between PCP and RS 0.94 0.22 0.27 0.21 0.22 0.30

The generation of runoff and the moisture content of the
soil are both important factors to consider in watershed char-
acterization. The streamflow in this model includes surface
runoff2 (QS), interflow runoff (QI), and groundwater runoff
(QG). Surface runoff is the dominant hydrological compo-
nent of the watershed in the rainy season compared to SM
in the lower and upper layers of the soil shown in Fig. (4c
and d). Figure (5c and d) shows the SM3 and runoff in the
lower soil layer, the runoff starts earlier than the SM, this is
because of the effect of lower layer SM contribution. Also,
the runoff and SM relate positively to precipitation and dur-
ing the rainy season, the SM is higher than the runoff depth.
Similarly, in a deep soil layer, SM storage is as good as in
the lower soil layer, as groundwater flow to the surface of the
lateral flow to the stream shown in Fig. C (c and d).
Lag correlation analysis
Pearson’s correlation coefficient of lag k = 0 (on that rainy
day) for daily precipitation and SM data sets during the crop
growing period (June to December) is evaluated. Autocor-
relation is defined as the correlation between a variable and
its lag time over a set of periods (Box et al. 2008). SM is
the main driver of runoff and evapotranspiration under spe-
cific conditions in the watershed system. SM has a stronger
autocorrelation in different soil layers, and when the time
lag interval increases, the autocorrelation of SM in each soil
layer decreases significantly (Zhao and Yao 2020). The soil
does not hold water for long periods due to factors such as
evapotranspiration, which can cause water to be lost from
the soil profile relatively quickly, and there may be spa-
tial variability in soil moisture across different soil layers,
which can affect the autocorrelation of SM over time. The
maximum cross-correlation value between each soil layer
2
  QS: Surface runoff, QI: interflow, QG: Groundwater flow.
3
  WU: upper layer, WL: lower layer, and WD: deep layer.
(WU vs. WL and WD) at lag k = 0 is 0.59 and k = 7 is 0.39,
respectively shown in Table 4. The correlation coefficient
at k = 0 lag between upper layer SM and precipitation is
0.89 and gradually weakened as the lag interval increases,
as shown in Fig. A This indicates that the cascading effects
of precipitation are more dominant until 34 days in the upper
soil layer, which reaches a maximum value as precipitation
occurs compared to the deep soil layer. Due to the lower soil
temperature and plant cover, the impact of SM memory is
greater in the deep layer than in the lower layer. Moreover,
this controls the surface runoff generation at the watershed
with maximum and positive cross-correlation values shown
in (Fig. C (b). Additionally, the maximum autocorrelation
value of soil moisture in each soil layer at k = 0 lag and
significant at k = 14 is due to the influence of precipitation
shown in Fig. D (a). In the case of the Dirima watershed,
if there is a higher available SM in the lower and deep soil
layers due to higher evaporation in the upper soil layer, this
could have implications for plant growth. Shallow-rooted
plants, as the name suggests, have roots that predominantly
grow in the upper soil layers, where soil moisture availability
is lower due to higher evaporation. Therefore, if the available
SM is limited in the upper soil layers, shallow-rooted plants
may be more susceptible to water stress and have limited
growth compared to deep-rooted plants.
Future hydroclimate responses
Climate change can have a significant impact on hydro-
logical responses, and future climate models suggest that
these responses may vary depending on location and global
temperature increase. One of the potential effects of climate
change on hydrological responses is an increase in evapo-
transpiration rates, which can lead to drier conditions in
some regions. This could be particularly problematic in areas
that are already experiencing water scarcity. Additionally,
changes in precipitation patterns and intensity may lead to
more frequent and severe flooding events in some regions. In

13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Table 5  The mean annual hydroclimate responses in the immediate, Precipitation

intermediate, and distant future under the selected scenarios
Scenarios Variables Year Range In this region, precipitation decreases by 11, 2, and 7% by
2045, 2076, and 2100 respectively, under the SSP2-4.5 sce-
2015–2045 2046–2076 2077–2100
nario, 13%, 6, and 4% under SSP3-7.0 it is likely that we
SSP2-4.5 Pcp (mm) ▼ −167.43 ▼ 25.35 ▼ −111.48 will see some significant impacts on the environment and
−11% −2% −7% human society. It may lead to reduced water availability,
Tmax (°C) ▲ 0.75 ▲ 1.78 ▲ 2.24 especially in this watershed that is already water-stressed.
+ 3% + 7% + 9% This could impact agriculture, food security, and ecosystems
Tmin(°C) ▲ 1.10 2.02 2.49 that depend on water. Furthermore, reduced precipitation
+ 7% + 14% + 17% could lead to an increase in droughts, which could further
ET (mm) ▲ 4.24 4.26 4.31 exacerbate these impacts. Also, Under the SSP5-8.5 sce-
+ 18% + 19% + 21% nario, the changes in precipitation are plausible. A decrease
Q ▼ −3.09 −2.41 ▲ 1.24 of 9% by 2046, followed by a slow increase of 9% by 2076,
−55% −43% 22% and a larger increase of 16% by 2100 would indicate a shift
SSP3-7.0 Pcp (mm) ▼ −197.72 −94.47 −61.26 in the timing and distribution of precipitation throughout the
−13% −6% −4% century shown in Table 5, Fig. 6. Changes in precipitation
Tmax (°C) ▲ 0.76 1.97 3.07 under each SSP scenario can have a significant impact on
+ 3% + 8% + 12% future water availability.
Tmin (°C) ▲ 1.13 2.41 3.45
+ 8% + 16% + 24% Evapotranspiration
ET (mm) ▲ 4.26 4.25 4.40
+ 19% + 19% + 23% The maximum temperature (Tmax) increases of 0.75 °C by
Q ▼ −3.15 −4.54 −0.43 2046, 1.78 °C by 2076, and 2.24 °C by 2100 would result
−56 −81% −8% in more frequent and intense heatwaves and droughts as
SSP5-8.5 Pcp (mm) ▼ −134.60 ▲ 54.04 38.60 shown in Fig. 7. This could lead to decreased crop yields,
−9% + 3% + 9% increased risk of vulnerability to water resources, and poten-
Tmax (°C) ▲ 0.92 2.38 4.16 tially more frequent and severe natural disasters. Addition-
+ 4% + 9% + 16% ally, an increase in minimum temperature (Tmin) by 1.1 °C
Tmin (°C) ▼ 1.27 2.81 4.46 by 2046, 2.02 °C by 2076, and 2.49 °C by 2100 would lead
+ 9% + 19% + 30% to warmer nighttime temperatures. This could exacerbate
ET (mm) ▲ 4.31 4.30 4.50 the effects of heat waves and cause discomfort and health
+ 20% + 20% + 26% issues for vulnerable populations, such as the elderly and
Q ▼ −2.97 ▲ 0.04 −1.78 those with pre-existing health conditions. Furthermore, this
−53% 1 −32% would result in increases in evapotranspiration of 18% by
2046, 19% by 2076, and 21% by 2100 as shown in Table 5.
It could lead to changes in precipitation patterns, with some
contrast, other regions may experience prolonged droughts regions experiencing more frequent and intense rainfall
due to decreased precipitation. In general, future climate while others experience more frequent droughts. This could
models suggest that hydrological responses are likely to be have significant impacts on agriculture, water availability,
complex and highly variable, and will depend on a range of and ecosystem services.
different factors, including location, temperature increases, Overall, the changes in temperature and evapotranspira-
and changes in precipitation patterns. tion could have significant impacts on the Earth’s climate
To compare future hydroclimate responses under the and ecosystems. Policymakers and individuals need to take
three SSP scenarios, we simulate the hydrological response action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and mitigate the
of the watershed under each scenario using the calibrated impacts of climate change. Additionally, changes in evapo-
parameter values. This would involve running the hydro- transpiration rates can affect the availability of water for
logical model with inputs corresponding to each of the SSP other purposes, such as irrigation or domestic use.
scenarios, and then comparing the model output for each
scenario particularly, considering the following factors that Streamflow
can impact future water availability:
The future streamflow will be dramatically decreased by
55% by 2046, 43% by 2076, and 22% by 2100 under the

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Fig. 6  Precipitation availability under three climate change scenarios
(SSP2-4.5 in light red, SSP3-7.0 in green, and SSP5-8.5 in light blue)
over the baseline (1990–2014 in deep blue) and three evaluation peri-
Fig. 7  Evapotranspiration rate under three climate change scenar-
ios (SSP2-4.5 in light red, SSP3-7.0 in green, and SSP5-8.5 in light
blue) over the baseline (1996–2009 in red) and three evaluation peri-
SSP2-4.5 scenario, 56% by 2026, 81% by 2076, and 8% by
2100, under the SSP3-7.0 scenario and 53% by 2046, 32% by
2100 under SSP5-8.5scenario. But a 1% increment is shown
by 2076 under the SSP5-8.5 scenario because maximum and
minimum temperature and evapotranspiration are lower than
ods: immediate future (2015–2045)  (a), intermediate future (2041–
2070) (b), and distant future (2071–2100) (c) 
ods: immediate future (2015–2045) (a), intermediate future (2041–
2070) (b), and distant future (2071–2100) (c) 
the immediate and distant evaluation period. These signifi-
cant changes in streamflow can affect water availability in
both surface and groundwater sources during these evalua-
tion periods. Changes in precipitation and streamflow can
impact groundwater recharge rates, which can, in turn, affect
13

future water availability. In these watersheds, groundwater is
an important source of water for water supply and other uses.
Therefore, future water uses culture and strategy should be
adjusted accordingly, such as reducing streamflow by using
small-scale water harvesting, plantation, and physical struc-
tures to enhance aquifer recharge. It is concerning to hear
of the significant decrease in future flow predicted under
different scenarios.
These changes in streamflow can have far-reaching
impacts on water availability, affecting both surface and
groundwater sources. The decrease in streamflow can lead
to reduced recharge rates, making it difficult to maintain
adequate water supply for various uses, including domestic,
agricultural, and industrial.
As shown in Fig. 9 surface runoff is higher than interflow
and groundwater flow in all ssp. scenarios, which is criti-
cal water availability in the aquifer. This implies in all sce-
narios (SSP), the amount of water that runs off the surface
of the ground is higher than the amount of water that flows
through the soil (interflow) and the amount of water that
moves through underground aquifers (groundwater flow).
This is an important issue because the amount of water
available in the aquifer is critical and if surface runoff is
too high, it can reduce the amount of water that reaches the
aquifer, which can have negative impacts on water availabil-
ity for human consumption and other purposes. Therefore,
this situation should be carefully monitored and managed to
ensure sustainable water use in affected areas. It is crucial to
consider these changes in water availability when develop-
ing water management strategies for the future. Implement-
ing measures to reduce runoff, such as small-scale water
harvesting, plantation, and physical structures to improve
aquifer recharge, can help mitigate the effects of reduced
streamflow. In addition, promoting water conservation and
efficient use can also help ensure that water resources are
used effectively.
Soil moisture
In the Dirima watershed, the estimated mean annual hydro-
logical responses in the upper soil layer, such as evapora-
tion, soil moisture, and runoff, are projected to be 1.72,
1.71, 1.79 mm, 0.63, 0.62, and 0.64 mm, and 1.07, 0.97,
and 1.18 mm in the SSP2-4.5, SSP3-7.0, and SSP5-8.5 sce-
narios, respectively, shown in Table B.
Based on Fig. 10, it can be observed that regardless of the
specific SSP scenario, the rate of evaporation in the upper
soil layer is higher than the amount of moisture present in
that same layer. This consistent relationship between evapo-
ration and moisture content suggests a fundamental physical
relationship that is likely to remain unchanged in the future,
irrespective of other socioeconomic and environmental fac-
tors. Figure 10 shows that in all three SSP scenarios, which
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
represent different possible future scenarios with varying
socioeconomic and environmental conditions, the rate of
evaporation in the upper soil layer is higher than the amount
of moisture present in that same layer. This suggests that
the relationship between the rate of evaporation and the
moisture content of the upper soil layer remains consistent
in all scenarios, regardless of specific socioeconomic and
environmental conditions. In the lower and deep soil layers,
the soil moisture is higher than evaporation. This finding is
important because it indicates that there is a fundamental
physical relationship between evaporation and the moisture
content in the soil that is likely to remain unchanged in the
future, regardless of other factors that can influence the over-
all conditions. This information could be useful in develop-
ing strategies to manage water resources in the affected areas
to ensure sustainable use of available water.
Discussions
The most important components of the hydrological
responses of the watershed are evapotranspiration, soil
moisture, and runoff, which are interconnected. In the
Dirima watershed, the predicted daily flow closely matches
the observed daily flow. A model that systematically over
or under-predicts all the time will still result in “good” ­R2
(close to 1), even if all predictions were not the best fit
(Krause et al. 2005). These components are interconnected
and play crucial roles in the water balance and overall
hydrological processes of the system. The XAJ model has
a variable SM storage capacity in each soil layer (WU,
WL and WD), and it results in different evapotranspiration
rates. This three-layer SM model was developed to more
realistically account for SM distribution and redistribu-
tion phenomena in dry and wet seasons, while also tak-
ing runoff separation processes into account. The overall
pattern of a moderate to strong correlation magnitude and
a positive correlation direction strongly suggests that pre-
cipitation typically causes an increase in soil moisture.
The maximum correlation coefficient of precipitation and
soil moisture at the upper, lower, and deep soil layers and
the corresponding time lag intervals are all k = 0 as shown
in Fig. 10. This indicates that soil moisture in different soil
layers of the Dirima watershed reaches its maximum value
soon after a precipitation event. At a maximum delay, rain-
fall infiltrates in the deeper soil layer, and the upper soil
layer has a peak with a slightly lower cross-correlation
value between SM and precipitation.
In the Dirima watershed, runoff and SM in the upper
layer are more dependent on the availability of precipi-
tation than in other soil layers, because soil layers near
the surface are more vulnerable to quick changes in SM
due to precipitation. Regarding precipitation, Sehler et al.
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Fig. 8  Streamflowavailability under three climate change scenar-
ios (SSP2-4.5 in light red,SSP3-7.0 in green, and SSP5-8.5 in light
blue) over the baseline (1996–2009 iniris blue) and three evaluation
Fig. 9  Time series runoff from projected climate data a ssp2-4.5, b ssp3-7.0, and c sssp5-8.5: S = surface, I = interflow, and G = groundwater
(2019) support that the strongest positive correlations were
found in Africa, Central America, the Middle East, Asia,
Australia, the eastern part of South America, and much of
western North America. Similarly, precipitation is posi-
tively correlated with surface runoff at lag k = 0, as shown
in Fig. 8b and the lower and deeper soil has a delay of one
to seven days lag.
periods: immediate future (2015–2045) a,intermediate future (2041–
2070) b, and distant future (2071–2100) c 
In the Dirima watershed, there is a strong positive cor-
relation between precipitation and upper SM and runoff. It is
an essential parameter to identify the irrigation period in the
study watershed. The SM in the lower layer is higher than
in the deep soil layer. When the rain stopped, evapotranspi-
ration from the lower and deeper layers of the soil slightly
began. This may affect the growth of shallow roots of plants
more than the deep roots of plants in the Dirima watershed.
13

Fig. 10  Soil moisture and evapotranspiration from the projected climate data a  ssp2-4.5, b  ssp3-7.0, c  ssp5-8.5 from 2015–2100 evaluation
period, u = upper, l-lower, and D = deep soil layers from the surface
Also, it implies that the watershed antecedent SM could
enhance runoff generation, creating a cumulative effect. The
soil water holding capacity of the Dirima watershed is high
and the most dominant runoff part is the interflow (RI) and
groundwater (RG). Furthermore, the study investigated the
impact of climate change using shared socio-economic path-
ways (SSPs). SSPs are realistic future socio-economic sto-
ries used to forecast greenhouse gas emissions, population
growth, and other socio-economic factors. By integrating the
SSP scenario into the model structure, the study sought to
assess how changes in climate conditions caused by different
socio-economic channels would affect the future hydrologi-
cal response of the watershed. It was discovered in this study
that hydrological models are substantially used to describe
the watershed hydrological responses. Also, the study is
crucial for irrigation managers, and scholars to examine the
hydrogeological behavior of the watershed in the highland
of the upper Lake Tana basin.
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Conclusions
The study concluded that estimating hydrological responses
based on current and future scenarios is a critical feature of
the watershed for real-time hydrological modeling. Under-
standing the historical hydrological data is critical to the
forecasting of the hydrological response in each watershed,
especially during the dry season. The analysis of time series
data revealed that precipitation is observed to be a relatively
independent time series with no evident autocorrelation,
meaning that it is not strongly correlated with its past val-
ues. On the other hand, SM in each soil layer has stronger
autocorrelation; As the depth and time lag interval increase,
the autocorrelation values become significantly weakened.
At a lag interval k = 0, the cross-correlation value between
precipitation and SM in each soil layer increases. The high-
est correlation coefficients of precipitation and SM series at
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
various soil layers are all found at a time lag interval of k = 0,
implying that SM in the watershed reaches its maximum
value immediately after a precipitation event. Similarly, the
relationship between runoff and precipitation was highest
at lag interval k = 0 and gradually weakened as the time lag
interval and soil depth increased. These findings indicate the
immediate influence of precipitation on soil moisture and
runoff in the watershed. It is essential to prioritize sustain-
able water management practices that balance the needs of
different users while ensuring the long-term availability of
water resources.
Based on the average value of three future evaluation
periods, the precipitation (PCP) decreased by 6%, tmax
increased by 6%, and Tmin increased by 13%, while ET
increased by 19% and Q decreased by 23% under SSP2-
4.5. Under SSP3-7.0, PCP is projected to decrease by 8%,
Tmax to increase by 7%, Tmin to increase by 16%, ET to
increase by 20%, and Q to decrease by 48%. In the SSP5-
8.5 scenario, PCP showed an average increase of 1%, tmax
increased by 10%, Tmin increased by 19%, ET increased by
22%, and Q decreased by 28%. To adapt to these changes in
streamflow, we can help build more resilient communities
and ensure a secure water supply for future generations. The
estimated values for evaporation in the upper soil layer for
these scenarios are 1.72 mm (SSP2-4.5), 1.71 mm (SSP3-
7.0), and 1.79 mm (SSP5-8.5). The corresponding values for
soil moisture in the upper soil layer are 0.63 mm (SSP2-4.5),
0.62 mm (SSP3-7.0), and 0.64 mm (SSP5-8.5). Lastly, the
estimated runoff values are 1.07 mm (SSP2-4.5), 0.97 mm
(SSP3-7.0), and 1.18 mm (SSP5-8.5). Decision makers can
identify how changes in precipitation, evapotranspiration,
runoff, and groundwater recharge rates may impact future
water availability under each SSP scenario by comparing
the model output for each scenario. This, in turn, can help
inform water resource planning and management decisions,
particularly concerning developing adaptation strategies to
deal with potential changes in water availability.
Streamflow reductions can occur due to changes in pre-
cipitation patterns, such as less frequent or intense rainfall
events, and increased evapotranspiration from plants due to
warmer temperatures. These changes can lead to decreased
water availability in rivers, lakes, and groundwater systems,
which can affect water supply for human consumption, agri-
culture, and other uses. Increased air temperatures can also
exacerbate these effects, as warmer air can hold more water
vapor, leading to more evapotranspiration and drier con-
ditions. The relationship between higher air temperatures
and increased evapotranspiration is particularly important.
Warmer air can hold more water vapour, which accelerates
evapotranspiration rates. As a result, the overall moisture
content in the soil and vegetation decreases, contributing
to drier conditions and potentially increasing the risk of
droughts in the watershed. Furthermore, improving water
storage capacities through the construction of reservoirs or
the implementation of groundwater recharge projects can
help mitigate the effects of reduced flow during dry peri-
ods. This, in turn, can increase the risk of droughts in this
watershed. In general, it is important to consider these poten-
tial impacts when planning for the future and developing
strategies to mitigate and adapt to climate change and other
environmental changes.
Supplementary Information  The online version contains supplemen-
tary material available at https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40808-​023-​01817-z.
Acknowledgements  The authors thank the Africa Centre of Excellence
for Water Management (ACEWM), for partially funding the research
project. All institutes which provided relevant data are highly appreci-
ated. The Ministry of Water, Irrigation, and Electricity of Ethiopia
(MoWIE) provides streamflow data. The National Meteorology Agency
of Ethiopia (NMA) Amhara Design & Supervision Works Enterprise
(ADSWE) provides soil data. The Copernicus Global Land Service
(CGLS) provides free land cover data. The Alaska Satellite Facility
(ASF) provides a free 30-meter by 30-meter digital elevation model.
Author contributions  Conceptualization: SBA, FAZ, and TA. Project
supervision: FAZ, TA. Original and revised data acquisition, Data
processing, writing original and revised, Methodology: SBA, FAZ,
TA, and GTA. Writing, review, editing, and approvement of the final
version of the manuscript, all authors.
Data Availability  The datasets generated and/or analyzed during the
study, as well as the codes that support the findings, can be made avail-
able from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. Addition-
ally, summarized data may also be included as supplementary files.
Declarations 
Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no known com-
petingfinancial interests or personal relationships that could have ap-
peared toinfluence the work reported in this paper
References
Abdulkareem JH, Pradhan B, Sulaiman WNA, Jamil NR (2018)
Review of studies on hydrological modelling in Malaysia. Model
Earth Syst Environ 4(4):1577–1605. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s40808-​018-​0509-y
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M, Ab W (1998) Crop evapo-
transpiration - guidelines for computing crop water requirements.
FAO Irrigation and drainage paper. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​eja.​
2010.​12.​001
Amin MGM, Veith TL, Collick AS, Karsten HD, Buda AR (2017)
Simulating hydrological and nonpoint source pollution processes
in a karst watershed: a variable source area hydrology model
evaluation. Agric Water Manage 180:212–223. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1016/j.​agwat.​2016.​07.​011
Bai P, Liu X, Liang K, Liu X, Liu C (2017) A comparison of simple
and complex versions of the Xinanjiang hydrological model in
predicting runoff in ungauged basins. Hydrol Res 48(5):1282–
1295. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2166/​nh.​2016.​094
Box GEP, Jenkins GM, Reinsel GC (2008) Time Series Analysis fore-
casting and control. In: EDITION F (ed) IEEE transactions on
Automatic Control, vol 19. Issue 6). John Wiley & Sons, Inc.,
13

Hoboken, New Jersey. Published simultaneously in Canada
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1109/​TAC.​1974.​11007​32
Carlos Mendoza JA, Alcazar C, T. A., Zuñiga Medina SA, (2021)
Calibration and uncertainty analysis for modelling runoff in the
Tambo River Basin, Peru, Using sequential uncertainty fitting
Ver-2 (SUFI-2) algorithm. Air, Soil, Water Res. https://​doi.​org/​
10.​1177/​11786​22120​988707
Dau QV, Kuntiyawichai K, Adeloye AJ (2021) Future changes in water
availability due to climate change projections for Huong Basin,
Vietnam. Environ Processes 8(1):77–98. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s40710-​020-​00475-y
Feyen L, Vázquez R, Christiaens K, Sels O, Feyen J (2000) Application
of a distributed physically-based hydrological model to a medium
size catchment. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 4(1):47–63. https://d​ oi.o​ rg/​
10.​5194/​HESS-4-​47-​2000
Gonçalvès J, Petersen J, Deschamps P, Hamelin B, Baba-Sy O (2013)
Quantifying the modern recharge of the “fossil” Sahara aquifers.
Geophys Res Lett 40(11):2673–2678. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1002/g​ rl.​
50478
Guo X, Fu Q, Hang Y, Lu H, Gao F, Si J (2020) Spatial variability of
soil moisture in relation to land use types and topographic fea-
tures on hillslopes in the black soil (mollisols) area of northeast
China. Sustain (Switzerland) 12(9):8–10. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​
SU120​93552
Hao F, Sun M, Geng X, Huang W, Ouyang W (2015) Coupling the
Xinanjiang model with geomorphologic instantaneous unit
hydrograph for flood forecasting in northeast China. Int Soil
Water Conserv Res 3(1):66–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​iswcr.​
2015.​03.​004
Jajarmizadeh M, Harun S, Salarpour M (2012) A review on theoreti-
cal consideration and types of Models in Hydrology. J Environ
Sci Technol 5(5):249–261. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3923/​jest.​2012.​
249.​261
Jakada H, Chen Z, Luo M, Zhou H, Wang Z, Habib M (2019) Water-
shed characterization and hydrograph recession analysis: a com-
parative look at a karst vs non-karst watershed and implica-
tions for groundwater resources in Gaolan River basin, Southern
China. Water(Switzerland). https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​W1104​0743
Jiang S, Zhang Q, Werner AD, Wellen C, Hu P, Sun J, Deng Y,
Rode M (2020) Modelling the impact of runoff generation on
agricultural and urban phosphorus loading of the subtropical
Poyang Lake (China). J Hydrol. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhydr​
ol.​2020.​125490
Krause P, Boyle DP, Bäse F (2005) Comparison of different effi-
ciency criteria for hydrological model assessment. Adv Geosci
5:89–97. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​adgeo-5-​89-​2005
Li H, Beldring S, Xu CY (2015) Stability of model performance and
parameter values on two catchments facing changes in climatic
conditions. Hydrol Sci J 60(7–8):1317–1330. https://​doi.​org/​10.​
1080/​02626​667.​2014.​978333
Mohamed A, Gonçalvès J (2021) Hydro-geophysical monitoring
of the North Western Sahara Aquifer System’s groundwater
resources using gravity data. J Afr Earth Sc 178:104188. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jafre​arsci.​2021.​104188
Moriasi, D. N., Arnold, J. G., Van Liew, M. W., Bingner, R. L., Harmel,
R. D., & Veith, T. L. (2007). Model evaluation guidelines for
systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations.
Trans ASABE, 50(3), 885–900.
Mounir K, Sellami H, La Jeunesse I, Elkhanchoufi A (2023) Assess-
ment of future climate and hydrological changes in semi-arid
catchment using the SWAT model and bias-corrected EURO-
CORDEX ensemble: a case of the Ouergha catchment, North
of Morocco. Model Earth Syst Environ. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s40808-​023-​01775-6
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Mullen KM, Ardia D, Gil DL, Windover D, Cline J (2011) DEoptim:
an R package for global optimization by differential evolution. J
Stat Softw 40(6):1–26. https://​doi.​org/​10.​18637/​JSS.​V040.​I06
Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through con-
ceptual models part I - A discussion of principles. J Hydrol
10(3):282–290. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/​0022-​1694(70)​90255-6
Othman A, Abdelrady A, Mohamed A (2022) Monitoring mass vari-
ations in Iraq using time-variable gravity data. Remote Sens
14(14):3346. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​rs141​43346
Patil NG, Pal DK, Mandal C, Mandal DK (2012) Soil water retention
characteristics of vertisols and pedotransfer functions based on
nearest neighbor and neural networks approaches to estimate
AWC. J Irrig Drain Eng 138(2):177–184. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​
1061/​(asce)​ir.​1943-​4774.​00003​75
Pushpalatha R, Perrin C, Le Moine N, Mathevet T, Andréassian V
(2011) A downward structural sensitivity analysis of hydrologi-
cal models to improve low-flow simulation. J Hydrol 411(1–
2):66–76. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhydr​ol.​2011.​09.​034
Pushpalatha R, Perrin C, Moine N, Le, Andréassian V (2012) A
review of efficiency criteria suitable for evaluating low-flow
simulations. J Hydrol 420–421:171–182. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​
1016/j.​jhydr​ol.​2011.​11.​055
Qi WY, Chen J, Li L, Xu CY, Li J, Xiang Y, Zhang S (2022) Region-
alization of catchment hydrological model parameters for global
water resources simulations. Hydrol Res 53(3):441–466. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​2166/​nh.​2022.​118
Rahman MM, Lu M (2015) Model spin-up behavior for wet and dry
basins: a case study using the xinanjiang model. Water (Swit-
zerland) 7(8):4256–4273. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​w7084​256
Rathjens H, Bieger K, Srinivasan R, Arnold JG (2016) CMhyd User
Manual. Documentation for preparing simulated climate change
data for hydrologic impact studies. 16
Ren-Jun Z (1992) The Xinanjiang model applied in China. J Hydrol
135(1–4):371–381. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/​0 022-​1 694(92)​
90096-E
Sehler R, Li J, Reager J, Ye H (2019) Investigating relationship
between soil moisture and precipitation globally using remote
sensing observations. J Contemp Water Res Educ 168(1):106–
118. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1111/j.​1936-​704x.​2019.​03324.x
Siswanto SY, Sule MIS (2019) The Impact of slope steepness and
land use type on soil properties in Cirandu Sub-Sub Catchment,
Citarum Watershed. IOP Conference Series: Earth and Envi-
ronmental Science. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1088/​1755-​1315/​393/1/​
012059
Soohong, Kim J, Kang H, Jang WS, Lim KJ (2022) Analysis of
Water Balance Changes and Parameterization reflecting soil
characteristics in a Hydrological Simulation Program—FOR-
TRAN Model. Water 14(6):990. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​w1406​
0990
Teutschbein C, Seibert J (2012) Bias correction of regional climate
model simulations for hydrological climate-change impact
studies: review and evaluation of different methods. J Hydrol
456–457:12–29. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​jhydr​ol.​2012.​05.​052
Tigabu TB, Hörmann G, Wagner PD, Fohrer N (2020) Statistical
analysis of rainfall and streamflow time series in the Lake Tana
Basin, Ethiopia. J Water Clim Change 11(1):258–273. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​2166/​wcc.​2018.​008
Tundu C, Tumbare MJ, Onema JMK (2018) Sedimentation and its
impacts/effects on river system and reservoir water quality: case
study of Mazowe catchment, Zimbabwe. Proc Int Assoc Hydrol
Sci 377:57–66. https://​doi.​org/​10.​5194/​piahs-​377-​57-​2018
Verma R, Sharif M, Husain A (2022) Application of HEC-HMS for
Hydrological modeling of Upper Sabarmati River Basin, Guja-
rat, India. Model Earth Syst Environ 8(4):5585–5593. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s40808-​022-​01411-9
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Wagener T, Gupta HV (2005) Model identification for hydrologi-
cal forecasting under uncertainty. Stoch Env Res Risk Assess
19(6):378–387. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​s00477-​005-​0006-5
Wang J, Bao W, Gao Q, Si W, Sun Y (2021) Coupling the Xinanjiang
model and wavelet-based random forests method for improved
daily streamflow simulation. J Hydroinformatics 23(3):589–604.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​2166/​hydro.​2021.​111
Weimin B, Qian L (2012) Estimating selected parameters for the
XAJ Model under multicollinearity among watershed charac-
teristics. J Hydrol Eng 17(1):118–128. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1061/​
(asce)​he.​1943-​5584.​00004​15
Weldegebriel ZB, Amphune BE (2017) Livelihood resilience in the
face of recurring floods: an empirical evidence from North-
west Ethiopia. Geoenviron Disasters. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​
s40677-​017-​0074-0
Xin X, Wu T, Shi X, Zhang F, Li J, Chu M, Liu Q, Yan J, Ma Q,
Wei M (2019) BCC BCC-CSM2MR model output prepared
for CMIP6 ScenarioMIP ssp585. Earth Syst Grid Federation.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​22033/​ESGF/​CMIP6.​3050
Yukimoto, S., Kawai, H., Koshiro, T., Oshima, N., Yoshida, K.,
Urakawa, S., Tsujino, H., Deushi, M., Tanaka, T., Hosaka, M.,
Yabu, S., Yoshimura, H., Shindo, E., Mizuta, R., Obata, A.,
Adachi, Y., & Ishii, M. (2019). The Meteorological research
institute earth system model version 2.0, MRI-ESM2.0: descrip-
tion and basic evaluation of the physical component. J Meteorol
Soc Japan Ser II, 97(5), 931–965. https://​doi.​org/​10.​2151/​jmsj.​
2019-​051
Zhang Z, Chatterjee A, Ott L, Reichle R, Feldman AF, Poulter B
(2022) Effect of assimilating SMAP soil moisture on CO2 and
Authors and Affiliations
Simir B. Atanaw1   · Fasikaw A. Zimale2 · Tenalem Ayenew3 · Gebiaw T. Ayele4
* Simir B. Atanaw
simir.birihan@aau.edu.et; simirbirhan80@gmail.com
Fasikaw A. Zimale
fasikaw@gmail.com; fasikaw.atanaw@bdu.edu.et
Tenalem Ayenew
tenalema@geol.aau.edu.et; tenualem@gmail.com
Gebiaw T. Ayele
gebiaw.ayele@griffithuni.edu.au; g.ayele@griffith.edu.au
1
Africa Centre of Excellence for Water Management
(ACEWM), Addis Ababa University, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
CH4 fluxes through direct insertion in a Land Surface Model.
Remote Sens 2022 14(10):2405. https://​doi.​org/​10.​3390/​RS141​
02405
Zhao C, Yao S (2020) Application of time series analysis in soil
moisture of fixed dune on Korqin sandy land, Northern China.
Glob Nest J 22(4):471–476. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​3 0955/​g nj.​
003373
Zhao Ren-Jun (1992) The Xinanjiang model applied in China.
J Hydrol 135(1–4):371–381. https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​1 016/​0 022-​
1694(92)​90096-E
Zhijia L, Penglei X, Jiahui T (2013) Study of the Xinanjiang Model
parameter calibration. J Hydrol Eng 18(11):1513–1521. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1061/​(asce)​he.​1943-​5584.​00005​27
Zhu D, Das S, Ren Q (2017) Hydrological appraisal of climate
change impacts on the water resources of the Xijiang basin.
South China Water (Switzerland). https://​d oi.​o rg/​1 0.​3 390/​
w9100​793
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds
exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the
author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted
manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of
such publishing agreement and applicable law.
2
Faculty of Civil and Water Resources Engineering, Bahir
Dar Institute of Technology, Bahir Dar University, Bahir Dar,
Ethiopia
3
School of Earth Science, Addis Ababa University,
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
4
Australia River Institute and School of Engineering, Griffith
University, Nathan, QLD 4111, Australia
13