See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/344620697

Analysis of ambo water supply source diversion weir sedimentation and

assessing impact of land management practice through hydrological studies

Article in Sustainable Water Resources Management · October 2020

CITATIONS READS

4 1,038

2 authors:

Timketa Adula Duguma Shimelis Asfaw Wakigari

Ambo University Ambo University
8 PUBLICATIONS 25 CITATIONS 6 PUBLICATIONS 19 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Timketa Adula Duguma on 28 June 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-020-00455-y

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Analysis of ambo water supply source diversion weir

sedimentation and assessing impact of land management practice
through hydrological studies
Timketa A. Duguma1 · Shimelis A. Wakigari1 · Ebisa A. Dilgasa2

Received: 20 November 2019 / Accepted: 21 September 2020 / Published online: 9 October 2020
© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Abstract
Huluka River diversion weir, which diverts water supply for Ambo town, has been under severe sedimentation. In this
study, the ArcSWAT model was applied to determine the sediment yield and sediment load of the Ungauged Huluka River
watershed through the parameters transfer method. This particular study calibrated and validated the ArcSWAT model on
the Guder River gauging station of watershed area 659 k­ m2. The calibrated and validated best values were extended to all
the sub-basin to estimate the sediment yield and sediment load of the ungauged Huluka River watershed. The ArcSWAT
model was found certain with statistical performance procedures like regression coefficient, Nash–Sutcliffe and percentage
of bias. The model was calibrated and validated with accepted statistical performance values on the monthly time scale.
The statistical performance like regression coefficient, Nash and percentage of biased were dramatically increased upon the
validation period to very good range according to Arnold et al. The estimated average sediment yield of the whole Guder
sub-basin was found to be 4.3 (ton/ha). The annual average sediment load contributed from the Huluka River watershed was
found to be 37.5 Kiloton/year. The estimated average annual sediment quantities at Guder gauging station and the whole
Guder sub-basin were 344.8 Kiloton/year and 1.1 Megaton/year, with data ranging from 1998 to 2014 (17 years). Three
different best management practices (BMPs) such as contouring, strip cropping and terracing were evaluated to see their
effectiveness on the whole sub-basin. The sediment yield reduction with these BMPs was ranged from 58 to 62% at Guder
hydro-gauging station with simulation period of 1998–2014. The sediment yield was strongly decreased to 76% with these
BMPs at the Upper Huluka watershed.

Keywords SWAT​· SWAT output viewer · Sediment rating curve · Sediment yield · BMPs

Introduction level and precipitation leading to drought and flood (Gain

et al. 2011; Kundzewicz et al. 2007). On the other hand,
The fluctuation in the availability of water seems to be a the change in catchment characteristics affects the response
topic of discussion among users, researchers and policy- of the catchment to the precipitation which might result in
makers worldwide. The spatial and temporal variations extreme hydrological events (DeFries and Eshleman 2004).
in the amount of water were attributed to the climate and Anthropogenic activities are dramatically increasing in Ethi-
catchment characteristic alteration. Some of the impacts of opia due to the increase in population at high rate and the
climate change include the alteration in temperature, sea economic development of the country, which in turn affect
the biophysical assets such as soil, vegetation and water
(Ali et al. 2011; Eshleman 2004; Zeleke and Hurni 2006).
* Timketa A. Duguma Some of the anthropogenic activities include deforestation,
timketa.adula@ambou.edu.et overgrazing and urbanization. Due to this reason, Guder
1 watersheds were the most prone to erosion as compared to
Agricultural Engineering, Institute of Technology, Ambo
University, Ambo, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia other watersheds of the Upper Blue Nile Basin, according to
2 soil erosion severity classes (Ayele et al. 2017; Haregeweyn
Hydraulic and Water Resource Engineering, Institute
of Technology, Ambo University, Ambo, Addis Ababa, et al. 2017). According to Awulachew et al., Guder sub-
Ethiopia basin is one of the highest sediments yielding sub-basin in

13
Vol.:(0123456789)

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

97 Page 2 of 20
the Upper Blue Nile Basin and dominated by agriculture,
which accounts for about 95.66% (Awulachew et al. 2008).
Modification of the catchment behaviour due to anthro-
pogenic activities may result in the extreme runoff event that
could result in loss of life and property. The alteration of the
catchment behaviour for different purposes like agriculture
land and wood or charcoal causes the change of the domi-
nant hydrological process in the catchment. Furthermore,
soil erosion causes water management difficult by silting of
water storage structures. This problem has been occurred in
the country due to the mismanagement of land as a result of
intensive agriculture. In the Upper Blue Nile, for instance,
there are several micro-dams; however, they are affected by
sedimentation problems which are the major headache for
developing countries like Ethiopia (Betrie et al. 2011a).
Hydrological models have been widely applied for com-
prehending these processes in the catchment for the past few
decades (Gebrekristos 2015; Tufa et al. 2014). The models
represent the catchment process in a simplified way. They
can be categorized as distributed and lumped models based
on the way they represent the hydrological process in the
catchment (Refsgaard 2011). The distributed hydrological
models require intensive input data and have several param-
eters, whereas the conceptual hydrological models need
minimal data requirement and involve few parameters for
calibration. In this study, distributed hydrological models
were used to evaluate the hydrology of the catchment in
detail. There have been numerous studies conducted in the
Ethiopian highlands on modelling discharge and soil erosion
with SWAT (Betrie et al. 2011b; Easton et al. 2010; Lemann
et al. 2016; Mekonnen et al. 2009; Preksedis Ndomba et al.
2008a, b; Setegn et al. 2010; Yesuf et al. 2016), whereas
these authors focused on modelling with limited observed
data, and none of them tried a model parameter transfer for
basin sediment evaluation. The Soil and Water Assessment
Tool (SWAT) model was originally developed to operate
in large-scale ungauged basins with little or no calibration
efforts (Arnold and Fohrer 2005; Srinivasan and Zhang
2010). As stated by (Arnold et al. 1998; Arnold and Fohrer
2005; Srinivasan and Zhang 2010), SWAT integrated spa-
tially and physically distributed watershed inputs to simu-
late a lot of comprehensive processes, such as hydrology,
sedimentation, pesticides, bacteria, vegetative growth and
comprehensive nutrient cycling in soils and streams.
The issue of sediment yield modelling has taken the atten-
tion of many scientists, but lack of resources and convincing
approaches to predict sediment yields is some of the prob-
lems towards this direction (da Silva et al. 2007; Ndomba
et al. 2008a, b). Diverse methods are available, to estimate the
sediment yield and sediment load of an ungauged river basin.
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97
As mentioned by Subramanya (2013), sediment yield estima-
tion from a catchment has the highest importance in soil and
water conservation, as well as in planning, design and opera-
tion of reservoirs. Although estimation of the sediment yield
is generally a problem in many practical constraints regarding
the availability of quality data, a few methods like Sediment
Rating Curve, evaluation of Watershed Erosion and Sediment
Delivery Ratio and Reservoir Sedimentation Surveys are iden-
tified. Many empirical equations [Khosla’s Eq. (1953), Jogle-
kar’s Eq. (1960), Dhruv Narayan Et al’s Eq. (1983)] were also
developed for Indian rivers to estimate annual sediment and are
given as function watershed area. These empirical equations
developed for Indian watersheds cannot be applied for this
study, as the catchment characteristics, annual rainfall, climate
and soil property of Indians are different from that of Ethiopia.
Various procedures have been developed to make hydrologic
modelling systems in ungauged basins, like the extrapolation
of response info from gauged to ungauged basins, quantify-
ing by remote sensing, the model process-based hydrological
models in which climate inputs are quantified, and the com-
bined meteorological‐hydrological models that do not require
the user to specify precipitation inputs (Srinivasan and Zhang
2010; SIVAPALAN et al. 2003).
Recently, many studies have examined approaches that
improve the applicability of hydrologic models in ungauged
basins, including a priori parameter estimation from physi-
cal watershed characteristics (Atkinson et al. 2003; Beck
et al. 2016; Srinivasan and Zhang 2010), regionalization of
model parameters (Subramanya 2013; Vandewiele and Elias,
1995), regionalization of hydrologic indices (Srinivasan and
Zhang 2010; Yadav et al. 2007; Zhang et al. 2008) and the
use of process‐based, distributed hydrologic models (Moretti
and Montanari, 2008; Srinivasan and Zhang 2010). Another
method of sedimentation estimation is by model parameter
transfer (Roth et al. 2016). Still, relatively few researchers have
attempted model parameter transfer so far (Roth et al. 2016),
as this method is very crucial to determine sediment yield in
the ungauged site, where measured data were rarely available
like our country, Ethiopia.
There are various control measures that can be adopted to
reduce erosion and transportation of eroded products in the
catchment area, such as: terraces, strip cropping and contour
bunding, check dams, vegetal covers, grassed waterways
and afforestation (Arnold et al. 1998). Therefore, the main
objective of this study was (1) to predict the sediment yield
of ungauged Huluka River watershed, using parameter transfer
method, with the help of ArcSWAT model, (2) to evaluate the
effect of three best management practices (BMPs) such as:
contouring, strip cropping and terracing to mitigate soil ero-
sion from the watersheds of Upper Blue Nile Basin.
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97
Materials and methods
Huluka River has a catchment area of 152 ­k m 2 is and
located in the Abay River basin. Geographically, it is
situated at 8° 46′–8° 59′ N and 37° 49′–38° 03′ E with an
elevation varying from 1947 to 2818 m a.s.l (Fig. 1). The
Huluka River originates from Lake Dandi at about 39 km
South of Ambo town through which it flows at a distance
of about 115 km west of the capital, Addis Ababa and
constitutes the main source of water supply for the town
as well as nearby areas. Ambo town has recently grown
rapidly with a total population of about 67,470 (Central
Statistical Agency 2013). Debis River, which flows in
the northern part of the town, 3 km from its center, joins
Huluka River before they both join the Guder River, to
ultimately end up in Abay River. Huluka River is peren-
nial with a mean flow of about 15,000 and 75,000 m ­ 3/day
during dry and rainy seasons, respectively.
The main economic activity in this catchment is rain-
fed agriculture. Due to the lack of alternative sources
of income, most of the dweller of the watershed eco-
nomic activity is mainly based on rain-fed agriculture.
As a result, in the removal of all-natural vegetation and
Fig. 1  Location of the study area
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 3 of 20 97
replacing with crops causes the transportation of soil dur-
ing the rainy season. Soils that are predominantly avail-
able are generally vertisols, latosols, Cambisols, Alisols,
Luvisols and Nitisols (Fentaw 2018).
The meteorological data required, such as: rainfall, tem-
perature, wind speed, relative humidity and solar radia-
tion for the stations (Table 1), within the catchment and/
or nearby the catchment, were collected from the National
Meteorological Service Agency (NMSA). Besides, the flow
data (Table 2) and soil shapefile were gathered from the
Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy (MOWIE). Fur-
thermore, spatial data, maps which include: DEM, soil
and land use or cover shapefiles were used for running
the ArcSWAT model. The daily weather data collected
from Ethiopian National Meteorological Service Agency
(NMSA) were filtered, screened and analysed according to
the SWAT model input requirement. The meteorological
data applied in this model were: daily precipitation, maxi-
mum and minimum temperature, relative humidity and wind
speed. The filling of missing data was done with the model,
using ‘WGEN-CFSR-World’, downloaded from ArcSWAT
CFSR_World Weather Database (https​://globa​lweat ​her.
tamu.edu/). This WGEN-CFSR-World was downloaded,
13
97 Page 4 of 20 Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97

Table 1  List of selected S. no Station name Station elevation Longitude Latitude Data coverage
weather monitoring stations and
available data sets for rainfall (m) (Deg) (Deg) (year)
and climatic variables
1 Busa 1993 37.20 7.93 1987–2016
2 Abebe Keranso 2456 38.17 8.98 1999–2017
3 Ambo Agriculture 2068 37.84 8.98 1986–2017
4 Asgori 2072 38.33 8.79 1986–2017
5 Dertu Liben 1991 38.12 8.97 1986–2017
6 Enselale – 38.42 8.93 1986–2017
7 Tikur Enchine 2467 37.67 8.84 1980–2015
8 Ginchi 2132 38.13 9.02 1980–2017
9 Guder 2011 39.75 8.96 1980–2017
10 Abebe Keranso 2456 38.17 8.98 1999–2007
11 Tefki 2063 38.49 8.84 2007–2017
12 Teji 2091 38.37 8.83 1986–2007
13 Tulu Bolo 2190 38.21 8.65 1987–2017

Table 2  Basic hydrometric S. River Station Latitude Lon- Catchment area ­(km2) Data coverage (year)
monitoring description for no Deg. Min gitude
Guder River sub-basin Deg.
min

1 Upper Guder Guder Nr. 8 57 37 45 659 1990–2009

Guder

unzipped and imported to the “WGEN_CFSR_World” table

from the “CFSR_World.mdb” database into the “ArcSWAT_
Weather Database.mdb” database. The flow data collected
from the Ethiopian Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy
(MOWIE) were also analysed and processed as it can be
accepted with Sufi 2 of the SWAT-CUP algorithm.
The spatial shapefile map collected from different places
was projected to similar projections, before using in SWAT
setup. The DEM of spatial resolution 30m × 30m accessed
and downloaded from (https​://earth​explo​rer.usgs.gov/) was
processed in ArcGIS 10.1. Land use/cover of similar reso-
lutions was obtained from Oromia Water Work Design and
Supervision Enterprise (OWWDSE), which shows vegeta-
tions and crops in detail. Figure 2 shows the land use, spatial
data of the study area. This land use/cover was selected,
because of its detail about the study area, as compared it,
to that of MERIS land use/cover 2009 as well as FAO land
use. The soil map collected from Dr Belete Berhanu (Fig. 3),
‘Soil geo-database of Ethiopia’ previously published arti-
cles, which has a spatial resolution of 30m × 30m, was
applied (Berhanu et al. 2013). This soil shapefile map was
chosen as it consists of all the parameters required for the
ArcSWAT model. The informations about geospatial data
are tabulated in Table 3.

Fig. 2  SWAT land cover

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97 Page 5 of 20 97

on the Upper Guder watershed of area 659 ­km2. The fitted

parameter values were transferred to the whole Guder sub-
basin of area 6725 ­km2. Finally, sediment yield was esti-
mated for the Huluka watershed area of 206.1 ­km2, which
is found in the upper part of the Guder hydro-gauging sta-
tion. A few measured data on sediment were found during
the simulation period from the year 1986 to 2014. Hence,
the missing data on sediment were filled with the sediment
rating curve developed from measured discharge and sedi-
ment at the same time. The observed sediment collected in
mg/L was initially changed to unit of ton/day. In order to fill
missing data of long-term sediment measurements, power
equation of the form, C = aQb, is most commonly used for
regression analysis, to determine absent observed data of
sediment concentrations were, C is the sediment concentra-
tion (ton/day), Q is the streamflow rate ­(m3/S) and a and b
are constant (Aga et al. 2018; Ayele et al. 2017; Ndomba
et al. 2008a, b; Tananaev 2014).
The advantage of sediment rating curve techniques is that
once a transport relationship has been developed, it can be
applied to reconstruct long-term sediment records (Walling
1977). The sediment rating curve has been gained popularity
for filling of missed data in Abay Basin Master Plan Study.
The sediment rating curve has been used widely due to its
simplicity and required parameters (Benisi Ghadim et al.
2019), and when only water discharge data are available
(Tananaev 2014) alike this study area. Acceptability of the
result also depends on the statistical performance indicator
Fig. 3  Soil map (Tananaev 2014) assuming that no significant land cover
change may result in a change in water yield and sediment
Table 3  Geospatial data yield.
Type Data provider Spatial resolution Data collected
Name (square meters) (year)
The model selection

DEM USGS 30 × 30 2011 Even though there are different hydrological models devel-
Soil map Addis Ababa 30 × 30 2013 oped and applied to simulate a relationship between various
University
hydrological components, recently, distributed watershed
(AAiT)
models have been more used in order to evaluate alterna-
Land cover OWWDSE 30 × 30 2018
tive management approaches in the areas of water resources
allocation, flood control, impact of land-use change and
climate change and finally environmental pollution control
Development of sediment rating curve (Setegn et al. 2008; Yang et al. 2008). Most of these models
have a similar base in the way to contain the heterogene-
According to Aga et al (2018) and McCallum (2008), the ity of the watershed and spatial distribution of topography,
most accurate method of determining long-term sediment vegetation, land use, soil characteristics, rainfall and evapo-
yield from a watershed is by measurement of streamflow, ration. Among the watershed, models developed some of
suspended sediment concentration and bedload (Aga et al. them are CREAMS (Chemicals, Runoff and Erosion from
2018; McCallum, 2008). But in our country, Ethiopia Agricultural Management Systems), AGNPS (Agricultural
observed sediment yield is rarely available in most of the None Point Source model), SWAT (Soil and Water Assess-
hydro-gauging site. Therefore, the parameter transfer method ment Tool) and HSPF (Hydrologic Simulation Program—
is applied in such conditions, to get the best estimation of Fortran), ANSWERS (Areal Nonpoint Source Watershed
the sediment yield of the ungauged station. In this study, Environmental Response Simulation), EUROSEM (Euro-
monthly flow and sediment were calibrated and validated pean Soil Erosion Model), WEPP (Water Erosion Prediction

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

97 Page 6 of 20
Project), HEC-HMS (Hydrological Modelling System), etc.
The SWAT model was selected for this particular study, as
the model is freely accessed and developed to predict the
impact of land management practices on water, sediment and
agricultural chemical yields in large, complex watersheds
with varying soils, land use and management conditions over
long periods of time (Neitsch et al. 2011b). This model has
been also used all over the world (Gassman et al. 2007) and
is continuously under improvement.
SWAT model overview
The SWAT is a physically based semi-distributed model that
uses continuous time series for simulation runoff, sediment
and non-point loads. It was developed to envisage the impact
of land management practices on water, sediment and agri-
cultural chemical yields in large, complex watersheds with
varying soils, land use and management conditions over long
periods (Arnold et al. 1998; Neitsch et al. 2011b). SWAT is
an ArcGIS interface model to discretize the watershed into
small units called HRU based on soil, slope and land-use
practice (Arnold et al. 1998). The main input to the model
is weather data, discharge and physiographic information
of the catchment. The model produces the runoff and sedi-
ment yield at each HRU which will be routed to give the
total runoff and sediment yield at the catchment outlet. The
surface runoff will be estimated by making use of the Natu-
ral Resources Conservation Service Curve Number (CN)
method (USDA-SCS 1972) and for sediment prediction of
the sediment yield the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equa-
tions (MUSLE) will be used. It uses runoff, energy to detach
and transport sediment (Williams and Berndt 1977). The cali-
bration of the sediment yield will be done with empirically
estimated sediment data as there is no gauged record of sedi-
ment in the Huluka River. Based on the result obtained from
the model, possible management scenario was developed to
observe its effects on sediment yield.
SWAT is a continuous-time or long-term yield model
where the model is not designed to simulate detailed, single-
event flood routing. The spatial complexity of the watershed
is taken into account in the model by combining the informa-
tion from digital elevation model (DEM), soil and land use.
The SWAT model divides the watershed into sub-basins.
The sub-basins are further subdivided into hydrological
response units based on the land use and soil distribution.
The model is divided into eight major components, includ-
ing hydrology, weather, sedimentation, soil, temperature,
crop growth, nutrients, pesticides and agricultural manage-
ment. Water balance is the driving force behind everything
that happens in the watershed. According to (Arnold and
Fohrer 2005), the hydrology of the watershed can be sepa-
rated into two major divisions: the first division is the land
phase of the hydrologic cycle and the second division is the
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97
water or routing of the hydrologic cycle. The land phase
of the hydrologic controls the amount of water, sediments,
nutrients and pesticide loading in the main channel in each
sub-basin. The movement of water, sediments, nutrients and
pesticides through the channel network to the watershed out-
let is considered as the routing phase. SWAT’s simulation
of the hydrologic cycle is based on the following equation
∞
∑
(1)
( )
SWt = SWo + Rday − Qsurf − Ea − Wseep − Qwg
n=1
where: ­SWt is the final soil water content (mm ­H2O), ­SWo
is the initial water content on day i (mm ­H2O), t is the time
(days), Rday is the amount of precipitation on day i (mm
­H2O), Qsurf is the amount of surface runoff on day i (mm
­H2O), Ea is the amount of evaporation on day i (mm H ­ 2O),
Wseep is the amount of water entering in the vadose zone
from the soil profile on day i (mm ­H2O), Qwg is the amount
of return of flow on day i (mm ­H2O).
Surface runoff Overland flow or surface runoff consists of
flow along a sloping surface. SWAT provides two methods
for modelling surface runoff: The Soil Conservation Service
(SCS) curve number method (USDA-SCS 1972) and the
Green and Ampt infiltration method (Green and Al 1911).
SWAT simulates surface runoff volume and peak rates for
each HRU based on these two methods. The curve number
method is a daily-based time step.
When used for computing surface runoff in the SWAT, it
is unable to compute directly infiltration. Rather, the amount
of water entering the soil is computed as the difference
between the amount of rainfall and the amount of surface
runoff. On the other hand, the Green and Ampt infiltration
method compute directly the infiltration in the model but
require data in sub-daily increments (Neitsch et al. 2011b).
The method used for this work is the curve number method
due to the daily-based data that we have for the project. The
curve number equation is given by (USDA-SCS 1972) as:
( )2
Rday − Ia
Qsurf = ( (2)
)
Rday − Ia + S
where: Qsurf is the accumulated runoff (rainfall excess) in
(mm ­H2O), Rday is the rainfall depth for the day (mm ­H2O), Ia
is the initial abstraction which includes surface store, inter-
ception and infiltration prior to runoff (mm H ­ 2O), S is the
retention parameter (mm ­H2O) and it is defined as:
(
100
)
Qsurf = 25.4 ∗ − 10 , (3)
CN
where CN is the curve number for the day. Ia is commonly
given as 0.2 S. Hence, Eq. (2) becomes:
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97
(
Rday − 0.2S
)2
Qsurf = ( ) (4)
Rday + 0.8S
Runoff is generated only when Rday > Ia. Typical curve
numbers for moisture conditions are classified into four
hydrological groups such as A for high infiltration, B for
moderate infiltration, C for slow infiltration and D very slow
infiltration. According to the US National Resource Conser-
vation Service (NRSC) Soil Survey Staff, a hydrologic group
is defined as a group of soil having similar runoff potential
under the similar storm and cover conditions (Neitsch et al.
2011a). The full description of the other components of the
SWAT model can be found in the theoretical documentation
of the SWAT model (Neitsch et al. 2011a).
Sediment component of SWAT:
SWAT computes erosion for each HRU caused by rainfall
and runoff with the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation
(MUSLE) (Ndomba and Griensven 2011). The modified
Universal soil loss equation is given by the equation,
Sed = 118 ∗ (Qsurf ∗ qpeak ∗ Ahru)0.56 ∗ KUSLE
∗ CUSLE ∗ PUSLE ∗ LSUSLE*CFRG , (5)
where Sed is the sediment yield on a given day in metric
tons, Qsurf is the surface runoff from the watershed in mm/ha,
qpeak is the peak runoff rate in cubic meter per second, Ahru is
the area of HRU, KUSLE is the USLE soil erodibility factor,
CUSLE is the USLE land cover and management factor, PUSLE
is the USLE support practice factor, L ­ SUSLE is the USLE
topographic factor and CFRG is the coarse fragment fac-
tor. In SWAT, water is routed through the channels network
using either the variable storage routing or the Muskingum
River routing method (Neitsch et al. 2011a).
The transport of the sediment in the river channel com-
prises deposition and degradation. The degradation of the
sediment in the channel can be calculated by the model using
Eq. (6). The net amount of sediment deposited in the reach
can be calculated using Eq. (7),
(6)
( )
Seddeg = Concmx − Conci ∗ Vch ∗ KCH ∗ CCH ,
(7)
( )
Seddep = Conci − Concmx ∗ Vch,
where Seddeg is the amount of suspended sediment in the
reach (metric tons), Concmx is the maximum concentration
of sediment that can be transported by the water (ton/m3),
Conci is the initial sediment concentration in the reach (ton/
m3), Vch is the volume of water in reach segment ­(m3),KCH is
the channel erodibility factor, CCH is the channel cover fac-
tor, Seddep is the amount of sediment deposited in the reach
sediment (ton).
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 7 of 20 97
Model setup
ArcSWAT 2012 interface was used to set up and para-
metrize the model. The model was set up, for the Upper
Guder watershed of area 659 k­ m2, and applied to the whole
drainage basin. The SWAT model inputs are Weather data,
Digital elevation model (DEM), soil and land-use shape file.
The DEM was used to delineate the watershed. Soil, land-
use and slope layers along with their threshold were applied
to define the level of spatial detail. Daily weather data of
thirteen stations were used to run the model. Weather gen-
erator ‘WGEN-CFSR-World’ was used to fill in the gaps.
The total number of the sub-basin defined was seventeen
(17) with 136 numbers of hydrologic response unit (HRUs)
using a 10% threshold for land use, soil and slope definition.
The model was run monthly for 22 years. It was simulated
with the starting period of 1993 and the end period of 2014
(22 years), on a monthly time scale. Five years (1993–1997)
were used for a model warm-up period.
Sensitivity analysis, model calibration
and validation
One-at-a-time sensitivity analysis was applied using sufi-2 of
SWAT-CUP algorithm. About 33 parameters were analysed
for sensitivity, 20 parameters for stream flow simulation and
13 parameters for sediment simulation. The range param-
eters were fixed based on SWAT-CUP default values given
on SWAT-CUP manual. Eleven parameters for water balance
and ten parameters for sediments were selected through sen-
sitivity analysis as given in Table 5.
Calibration describes the effort to support the model with
fitted parameters for a given set of local conditions in order
to reduce the prediction uncertainty (Moriasi et al. 2012).
The Huluka catchment, model calibration includes water
balance on the monthly time step. Likewise, model valida-
tion is checking the calibrated model output by independ-
ent data set without any more modification (Neitsch et al.
2002) at different spatial and temporal scales (Fetene et al.
2019). The calibration and validation of the model were
performed with Sufi-2 of SWAT-CUP algorithms. Before
the task of calibration and validation was taken into effect,
the observed discharge and sediment data were prepared as
suited to the model. Both the observed discharge data and
sediment data were classified into two (for calibration and
validation period). Calibration and validation were done fol-
lowing the SWAT-CUP manual as stated by (Moriasi et al.
1983). 6 years (1998–2003) data for calibration and 5-year
(2004–2008) data for validation were applied in SWAT-
CUP model on monthly time scale. This study calibrated
and validated the model with the data from a the Upper
Guder watershed and used the parameters into the bigger
basin. The calibrated and validated best parameter values
13
97 Page 8 of 20 Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97

were extended to the whole sub-basin (Guder Sub-basin), to are used. Apart from simple graphical and visual interpreta-
estimate the sediments in the ungauged watershed of Guder tion of model results, statistical values were used to quantify
sub-basin, especially, Huluka River watershed. Finally, the the model’s performance. The following objective functions
calibrated and validated discharge and sediment parameters to measure the model’s goodness of fit for discharge were
were applied over the sub-basin, to estimate the sediment taken into consideration:
yield and water balance of the total sub-basin scale. The
task of calibration and validation was applied in the SWAT 1. Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE)
calibration and Uncertainty Program (SWAT-CUP) 2012   The Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (Nash and Sutcliffe
Version 2.7.1.2, which facilitates the calibration process 1970) is a dimensionless, normalized statistical value
(Abbaspour et al. 2004) on the Upper Guder sub-basin. The and expresses the noise to information ratio (Eq. 8). It
calibrated and validated best parameters were extended all shows how well the plot of observed versus simulated
over the Guder sub-basin watershed area of 6725 ­Km2 with a data fits the 1:1 line. Its usage is recommended by Psuty
total number of sub-basins equals to 94 and 1232 HRUs with et al. (1993).
the similar threshold for land-use, soil and slope definition. ∑n m
i=1 (Qi
− Qis )
NSE =
Automatic calibration and validation procedure using − (8)
� �
∑n m m
Qi − Qi
SUFI‑2 algorithm i=1

SWAT-CUP provides algorithms for auto-calibration, from where Qim = observed discharge at time− step i. Qis =
which Sequential Uncertainty Fitting, Version 2 (SUFI-2) Simulated discharge at time step i. Qm = mean of
was chosen. SUFI-2 accounts for several sources of uncer- observed discharge.
tainties such as uncertainty in driving variables (e.g. Rain-   The range of NSE goes from − 1 to 1. NSE < 1 indi-
fall), conceptual model, parameters and measured data cates that the model’s prediction is worse than the mean
(Abbaspour et al. 2004). It is not a fully automated calibra- observed discharge and NSE = 1 signifies an optimal t
tion tool since it still requires the interaction of the modeller of observed and simulated values. For values between 0
and knowledge about the parameters and their effects on the and 1, the performance is generally seen as acceptable
output (Abbaspour et al. 2004). (Moriasi et al. 1983).
The algorithm has been applied successfully in former 2. Coefficient of determination (R2)
applications to the Blue Nile Basin, e.g. (Setegn et al. 2010).   The coefficient of determination describes the pro-
The SUFI-2 algorithm does not use sole parameters, but portion of variance of the measured data. It has to be
parameter ranges. Consequently, calibrated parameters are treated carefully due to its over-sensitivity to outliers.
given as ranges as well. Before the model is executed, Latin Further, it is insensitive to proportional differences (Lee
Hypercube sampling assigns as many parameter combina- et al. 2010). For the calculation, the following equation
tions as model runs are to be carried out. For each combi- is used.
nation, every single parameter is given value within a sug- ∑n
� −
�� −
�
gested range. Then the iteration with SUFI-2 is executed. As i=1
m
Qi − Q m s
Qi − Q s

a result, the algorithm proposes optimum parameter ranges R2 = � �� � (9)

− −
and the so-called best estimation. Furthermore, SUFI-2 ori- ∑n
Qi m
− Q m Qi s
− Qs
ents on a given objective function (NSE, R2…) resulting
i=1

from the parameter sets besides other quality criteria, in par-

where R2 stands for coefficient of determination Q is a
ticular, the p-factor and the r-factor (Memarian et al. 2014).
variable (e.g. discharge), and m and s stand for measured
These provide information about the model’s strength and
and simulated, i is the ith measured or simulated data.
certainty of the calibration result.
  R2 lies within the bounds of 0 and 1. A value of 0
The task of validation was applied in Sufi-2 without fur-
indicates that there is no relationship between observed
ther change in parameter range. Similar number of simula-
and measured data; 1 signifies a perfect linear relation.
tions was applied as in the case of calibration process. Like
Hence, the closer R2 is to 1, the less is the error variance
calibration, validation was also measured with model quality
(Moriasi et al. 2007).
criteria such as Nash and correlation coefficient and PBIAS.
3. Percent bias (PBIAS)
  The percent bias is an error-index, which measures
Model performance evaluation
the average tendency of the simulated data to be larger
or smaller than the observations (Gupta et al. 1999). It
To decide whether the model is capable to reproduce predic-
is taken as a clear quantifier for water balance errors
tions close enough to observed data, some quality criteria

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97 Page 9 of 20 97

(Moriasi et al. 2007). Psuty et al. (1993) recommends management factor was evaluated in terms of percent-
its usage for watershed models. Calculation of PBIAS age. Among the sediment management practices found on
follows Eq. 10, ArcSWAT, operation interface, the study was focused on
� � terracing, strip cropping and contouring. All the manage-
−
∑n m
Q −Q s ment practices’ values were evaluated in magnitude. The
i=1
i (10) sediment yield found with fitted parameter values minus
PBIAS = 100 ∗
sediment yield with management practice divided by those
∑n m
i=1 Qi
found with fitted parameter values and multiplied by 100.
The schematic of the SWAT model, of the study area, for
where Q is a variable (e.g. discharge), and m and s stand the existing condition was shown in (Fig. 4) below.
for measured and simulated, respectively.
Percent bias measures the average tendency of the simu-
lated data to be larger or smaller than the observations. The
optimum value is zero, where low magnitude values indicate Result
better simulations. Positive values indicate model underes-
timation and negative values indicate model overestimation The land use, soil and slope of the study area
(Gupta et al. 1999).
The land use, soil and slope of the study area with their
Adoption of best management practices proportion were done in ArcSWAT (Table 4). Most of the
land use of the study area was agriculture. Humic Nitosols
After running ArcSWAT with fitted parameter values, was the dominant soil coverage and constitute about 32%
different best management practice was added from of the study area. The slope, which is greater than 15%,
ArcSWAT ‘edit sub-basin inputs’ and their sediment was only 16.3%.

Fig. 4  Framework of the project

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

97 Page 10 of 20 Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97

Table 4  The proportion of each Spatial data Name (SWAT name) Area [ha] Water-
land-use, soil and slope of the shed area
study area [%]

Land-use Agricultural Land-Row Crops (AGRR) 214945.8 31.96

Range-Brush (RNGB) 110822.6 16.48
Agricultural Land-Close-grown (AGRC) 129266.5 19.22
Alfalfa (ALFA) 45986.9 6.84
Eragrostis Teff (TEFF) 101635.1 15.11
Eucalyptus (EUCA) 52906.56 7.87
Residential-Low Density (URLD) 10749.89 1.6
Wetlands-Forested (WETF) 3667.495 0.55
Agricultural Land-Generic (AGRL) 721.8631 0.11
Range-Grasses (RNGE) 1795.16 0.27
Total 672500 100
Soils Humic Nitosols 215546.5 32.05
Lithic Leptosols 31994.59 4.76
Rendzic Leptosols 161889.4 24.07
Chromic Luvisols 130370.8 19.39
Haplic Nitisols 27012.5 4.02
Haplic Phaeozems 8628.045 1.28
Eutric Vertisols 72246.71 10.74
Haplic Luvisols 7538.374 1.12
Dystric Vertisols 17270.93 2.57
Total 672500 100
Slope (%): 0–4 197678.3 29.39
4–8 185788.9 27.63
8–15 179391.6 26.68
> 15 109639.0 16.3
Total 672500 100

Sediment rating curve Calibration and validation of the model

This sediment curve was developed from a few data col-
lected from the year 1990 to 2011. Even though the observed
data were small, the fitting curve is well established, with
the accepted correlation coefficient.
The sediment data of the Guder sub-basin were devel-
oped from the rating curve equation (Fig. 5a). The sedi-
ment rating curve equation (Sc = 22.244Q0.9117), developed
at the Guder gauging station (Fig. 5b), was used to fill the
absent observed sediment data. This sediment rating curve
equation was used to fill the missing data of sediment load,
because of the high correlation between observed discharge
and observed sediment load. The study also assumed that no
significant land use or land cover changes within the study
period (1993–2014), that can affect basin water yield and
sediment yield too. The sediment rating curve equation has
been commonly used in Upper Blue Nile Basin, for filling
of missed sediment load with different authors (Ayele et al.
2017; Dile et al. 2018; Ebabu et al. 2018; Haregeweyn et al.
2017) and Abay Basin Master Plan Study.
Calibration parameters were selected depending on their
influence on simulated sediment and flow. About 33 param-
eters were assessed from previously published articles with
the accepted range. First, flow was calibrated and validated.
By keeping the flow parameter ranges obtained, sediment
parameters were added with accepted ranges in Sufi-2 of
SWAT-CUP algorithm. The parameters that highly affect
flow were ­CN2, Gw_Delay, GW_REVAP.gw, RCHRG_
DP.gw, GWQMN.gw, SOL_AWC, Sol_BD, Ch_N2, ESCO,
CH_K2.rte, Alpha_Bnk and Sol_Z, whereas USLE_P.mgt,
ADJ_PKR.bsn, CH_COV1.rte and SPCON.bsn were a con-
siderable influence on sediment yield balance (Table 5).
The ­CN2 value was manipulated by manual calibration
helper until the observed discharge and simulated discharge
fairly overlapped, in SWAT output viewer. The simulated
curve number was slightly increased for the sub-basin and
saved for the calibration in SWAT-CUP. Finally, calibration
and validation were completed without varying other param-
eters as specified by (Arnold et al. 1998). The calibration

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97 Page 11 of 20 97

Fig. 5  a Sediment rating curve and b Weir site

Table 5  List of SWAT’s parameters that were fitted and their final calibrated values according to Abbaspour
S. Description Parameter Fitted
no value

Flow parameters 1 Curve number r__CN2.mgt 0.152

2 Groundwater (days) V__GW_DELAY.gw 0.239
3 Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer required for return flow to V__GWQMN.gw 4656.2
occur [mm]
4 Groundwater re‐evaporation coefficient V__GW_REVAP.gw 0.0863
5 Soil evaporation compensation factor V__ESCO.hru 0.801
6 Deep aquifer percolation fraction V__RCHRG_DP.gw 0.491
7 Manning’s coefficient for channel V__CH_N2.rte 0.0832
8 Effective hydraulic conductivity in main channel alluvium [mm ­h‐1] V__CH_K2.rte 4.574
9 Depth from soil surface to bottom of layer [mm] V__SOL_Z(..).sol 2283.5
10 Available soil water capacity [mm H2O mm‐1 soil] V__SOL_AWC(..).sol 0.281
11 Soil saturated hydraulic conductivity [mm ­h‐1] V__SOL_K(..).sol 156.6
Sediment parameters 12 Scaling parameter for cover and management factor in ANSWERS erosion V__C_FACTOR.bsn 0.320
model
13 Multiplier to USLE_K for soil susceptible to rill erosion V__RILL_MULT.bsn 1.249
14 Linear parameter for calculating the maximum amount of sediment that can V__SPCON.bsn 0.005297
be reentrained during channel sediment routing
15 Peak rate adjustment factor for sediment routing in the sub-basin (tributary V__ADJ_PKR.bsn 1.463
channels)
16 Exponent parameter for calculating sediment reentrained in channel sediment V__SPEXP.bsn 1.131
routing
17 Channel erodibility factor V__CH_COV1.rte 0.364
18 USLE equation support practice V__USLE_P.mgt 0.987
19 An exponent in the overland flow erosion equation V__EROS_EXPO.bsn 2.949
20 Median particle diameter of main channel bed [mm] V__CH_D50.bsn 0.153
21 Peak rate adjustment factor for sediment routing in the main channel V__PRF_BSN.bsn 0.136

*v_ indicate replacing the default parameter by a given value, r_ means multiplying the existing parameter value by (1 + a given value)

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

97 Page 12 of 20
and validation best value was evaluated as shown in Table 5.
First, discharge was calibrated and validated, followed with
sediment. Increasing the number of parameters in this study
helped me to get the model performance in a short time.
Calibration and validation of the SWAT model were
applied at Guder hydro-gauging station. The observed
monthly flow and sediment data were prepared according to
the Sufi-2 SWAT-CUP algorithm. Missing data on sediment
were filled from the rating curve equation. SWAT model
statistical performance evaluation showed that calibration
and validation were within the accepted range (Table 6).
The study reveals that Nash–Sutcliffe and the correlation
coefficient dramatically increase to a very good range for
the validation period. This result was a little unusual as the
value of calibration is more than validation in most pub-
lished studies. This situation may be happened due to a
change in the hydrologic regime of the catchment. Similar
studies conducted at the Raccoon River watershed in Iowa
for 2002–2010 and Big Creek River watershed in Illinois
(Teshager et al. 2016), the Big Sunflower River watershed
(BSRW) of Mississippi River Valley catchment (Dakhlalla
Table 6  SWAT model statistical Model performance Calibration
performance parameters 2
R NS
Flow 0.78
Sediment 0.68
Fig. 6  Graphical presentation of
sediment calibration at Guder
sub-basin (monthly time scale)
Fig. 7  Graphical presentation of
flow calibration at Guder sub-
basin (monthly time scale)
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97
et al. 2016) and Reedy Fork-Buffalo Creek watershed in
North Carolina (Ayivi and Jha 2018) also found larger vali-
dation value in R­ 2 and NS. Similarly, studies conducted at
Omo-Gibe river basin, Ethiopia (Chaemiso et al. 2016),
Pangani River Basin catchment located in northeast Tanza-
nia (Ndomba et al. 2008a, b), and Ilala watershed, Northern
Ethiopia(Shiferaw et al. 2018) found greater NS value upon
validation than calibration period. Besides, the study con-
ducted at the Lower Porsuk Stream Watershed in Turkey
found certain with higher ­R2 value in the validation period.
There might be hydrologic regime change which could be
attributed to human intervention (land clearing for agricul-
ture, deforestation) and/or climate change.
Graphically, both calibration (Figs. 6, 7) and validation
(Figs. 8, 9) were well developed for dry season (Bega sea-
son) and peak flow season (Keremt season). Calibration
was done with flow data range from 1998 to 2003, while
validation was executed with flow data from 2004 to 2008.
The graphs were well overlapped, especially during the dry
season than the Keremt season as shown below.
Validation
PBIAS R2 NS PBIAS
0.76 − 13.9 0.87 0.85 − 13.8
0.66 14.1 0.88 0.87 − 8.8
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97 Page 13 of 20 97

The scatter plots were also developed to show the rela-
tionship between observed and simulated flow data and
sediment load. As observed in both calibration and vali-
dation time base (Figs. 10, 11), the regression coefficient
­(R2) showed that there was accepted relationship between
observed and simulated flow and sediment load.
The time series were developed for both discharge and
sediment load during both calibration and validation task.
The blue line was represented the observed data while the
dash line was denoted for simulation data (Figs. 12, 13).
Sediment yield and sediment load of the Guder
sub‑basin watersheds
Soon after calibration and validation of the model, the
SWAT parameters were applied to the large sub-basin, the
sediment yield contributed from each watershed was evalu-
ated to understand the catchment annual sediment yield.
The average annual sediment yield of the Upper Guder sub-
basin was 4.63 tons per hectare. The estimated average sedi-
ment yield of the whole Guder sub-basin and Huluka River

Fig. 8  Graphical presentation

of flow validation at Guder sub-
basin (monthly time scale)

Fig. 9  Graphical presentation

of sediment validation at Upper
Guder sub-basin (monthly time
scale)

a b
30000 y = 0.7806x + 181.33
70 y = 0.9383x + 4.2622
Simulated Sediment in (ton/month

R² = 0.7959 R² = 0.6916
60 25000
Simulated Flow in (m^3/s)

50 20000
40
15000
30
10000
20
10 5000

0 0
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Observed Flow in (m^3/s) Observed Sediment in (ton/month)

Fig. 10  Simulated Vs observed scatter plot of a flow and b sediment upon calibration

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

97 Page 14 of 20 Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97

a b
30000

Simulated Sediment in (ton/month

80 y = 0.7282x + 274.99
y = 0.8501x + 4.8037 25000 R² = 0.8601
Simulated Flow in (m^3/s)

70
60 R² = 0.8832
20000
50
15000
40
30 10000
20
5000
10
0 0
0 20 40 60 80 0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000
Observed Flow in (m^3/s) Observed Sediment in (ton/month)

Fig. 11  Simulated Vs observed scatter plot of a flow and b sediment upon validation

Fig. 12  Time series plot of a

measured vs simulated monthly 70
flow upon a calibration b 60
Monthly Flow(m^3/s)

validation 50
40
30
20
10
0

Observed simulated

b
80
Monthly Flow(m^3/s)

70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Observed simulated

basin was 4.06 tons per hectare and 2.39 tons per hectare, The annual Sediment yield of the Huluka sub-basin was
respectively. From the 92 delineated watersheds, the ero- simulated from the ArcSWAT database. The result indicates
sion rate ranges mostly between slight and high according that the maximum and minimum sediment were simulated
to soil erosion severity classification. The average annual in the year of 2011, and 1999 respectively. Therefore, the
sediment yield was viewed for the hydrological year from maximum sediment yield of this watershed was 13.65 tons/
1998 to 2014 (Fig. 14) and was simulated with the SWAT ha/year, and the minimum sediment yield was 0.087 tons/
output viewer. ha/year (Fig. 15).
Finally, the Guder sub-basin maximum and average The annual average sediment load contributed from the
annual sediment yield were evaluated. The maximum sedi- Huluka River watershed was found to be 37.5 Kiloton/year.
ment yields of Guder sub-basin in order of magnitude were The average annual sediment quantity at the Guder gauging
26.7 and 27.8 tons/ha/year. This sediment yield was contrib- station and the whole Guder sub-basin were 344.8 Kiloton/
uted from watershed 39 and 43, respectively, as shown in yesr and 2.73 Megaton/yesr (Table 8).
(Table 7). The estimated average sediment yield of the whole Huluka simulated discharge and sediment output were
Guder sub-basin was found to be 4.06 (ton/ha). evaluated with measured discharge in terms of developed

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97 Page 15 of 20 97

Fig. 13  Time series plot of a

measured vs simulated monthly 30000
sediment load upon a calibra-

Monthly sediment load (ton)

25000
tion b validation 20000
15000
10000
5000
0

1/1998
3/1998
6/1998
8/1998

2/1999
4/1999
6/1999
8/1999

2/2000
4/2000
6/2000
8/2000

1/2001
3/2001
5/2001
7/2001
9/2001

1/2002
3/2002
8/2002

2/2003
4/2003
6/2003
8/2003
10/1998
12/1998

10/1999
12/1999

12/2003
10/2000

11/2001

10/2002
12/2002

10/2003
Observed Simulated
b
40000
Monthly sediment load (ton)

35000
30000
25000
20000
15000
10000
5000
0

Observed Simulated

Fig. 14  Huluka watershed estimated average sediment yield

peak and minimum flow. As observed from Fig. 16, both dis- Ethiopian climate is generally classified into two major
charge and sediment output at Huluka watershed were well seasons, i.e. the Keremt (rainy season) and Bega (dry
developed, with unimodal distribution, due to the fact that season) seasons. Both the peak flow and minimum flow
the country Ethiopia gets the peak flow and the minimum hydrograph were well developed which reveal that the
flow during Keremt and Bega season, respectively.

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

97 Page 16 of 20 Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97

Table 7  Sediment yield of Guder sub-basin watersheds

Watershed Sediment Watershed Sediment Watershed Sediment Watershed Sediment Watershed Sediment
yield (ton/ha/ yield (ton/ha/ yield (ton/ha/ yield (ton/ha/ yield (ton/ha/
year) year) year) year) year)

1 0.4621 21 1.0004 41 1.6389 61 14.4349 81 12.9193

2 0.8157 22 0.8168 42 6.2937 62 9.4416 82 4.987
3 0.9652 23 0.6633 43 27.8639 63 5.5674 83 8.3041
4 0.7788 24 2.5893 44 1.6683 64 11.0883 84 6.4913
5 0.4039 25 0.4715 45 6.3135 65 0.017 85 2.65
6 0.6675 26 0.2133 46 11.3609 66 1.9345 86 13.3199
7 0.6073 27 0.2177 47 2.4038 67 12.8242 87 6.9338
8 0.882 28 0.1967 48 11.3151 68 9.2837 88 10.0477
9 0.9054 29 0.6077 49 5.7895 69 0.1342 89 10.4986
10 1.8652 30 0.1413 50 3.7842 70 8.8223 90 2.3874
11 0.5811 31 0.5638 51 12.9074 71 13.7797 91 1.8042
12 0.6259 32 0.3758 52 3.4653 72 11.6497 92 9.8637
13 0.1331 33 0.0145 53 1.5061 73 15.949 93 7.2636
14 0.8591 34 3.7478 54 0.3235 74 8.6579 94 8.709
15 0.1489 35 0.3874 55 1.0181 75 4.2441
16 0.1154 36 0.0675 56 0.1655 76 15.6713
17 1.0109 37 0.6951 57 13.3662 77 5.107
18 0.6415 38 0.1851 58 8.141 78 11.6511
19 0.0824 39 26.7139 59 0.2936 79 9.1065
20 0.0115 40 1.475 60 6.6219 80 13.9173

Fig. 15  Annual sediment yield Sediment yield (ton/ha)

of Huluka watershed from the
year 1988 to 2014 1.136 0.462
0.987
0.087
7.356
0.444

13.651 2.271
0.146
0.916
0.269
3.358
0.129
2.382
2.961 0.956 3.001

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006

2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014

Table 8  Estimated annual Basin Catchment area Average annual sediment Average annual sedi-
sediment yield in different ­(Km2) yield (ton/year) ment yield (ton/year/
stations km2)

Upper Guder watershed 659 305,117.0 463.0

Huluka watershed 157 37,483.2 238.7
Guder sub-basin 6725 2,730,350.0 406.0

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97 Page 17 of 20 97

Rain (mm) Surf Q (mm) Lat Q (mm) Water yied (mm)

ET (mm) Sed. Yield (μm)/10 PET (mm)
200 0
180
100
Basin water balance[mm]

160

Average rainfall[mm]
140
200
120
100 300
80
400
60
40
500
20
0 600
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Time [January - December]

Fig. 16  Simulated basin average values

observed and simulated sediment and flow have accepted Table 9  The fraction of erosion BMPs Reduction
the correlation coefficient. reduced with BMPs at Guder in sediment
Management practices were adopted in ArcSWAT to Gauging station [%]
see by how much percentage the sediment contribution
Contouring 62
was reduced from the watersheds. Next, to run ArcSWAT
Strip cropping 58
with fitted parameter values, different best management
Terracing 62
practice was added from ArcSWAT ‘edit sub-basin inputs’
and their sediment management factor was evaluated in
terms of percentage. Among the sediment management
practices found in the ArcSWAT operation interface strip,
cropping and contouring were evaluated, as all of these Uncertainties in sediment budget calculation
practices showed a significant effect on the sediment yield
of the sub-basin. The sediment outflow with fitted param- The development of the sediment rating curve depends on
eter values minus sediment outflow with management the average daily flow rate due to a lack of instantaneous
practice was divided by those found with fitted parameter flow measurement. Best management practices were also
values and multiplied by 100. The results were shown in simulated depending on ArcSWAT default parameter values.
the table below. These best management practices (BMPs)
were done with SWAT default parameters.
Therefore, applying these BMPs at agricultural land Conclusion
reduces the sediment yield and soil erosion as well. The
management practices, applied in this study, showed that The fluctuation in the Ambo water supply due to sedimenta-
all the three management practices were almost equally tion calls scholars and researchers to investigate the possible
important to reduce erosion, since soil erosion severity source and to quantify sediment load for decision making
of the sub-basin is earlier mentioned by researchers. As about the existing diversion weir. Therefore, this study cali-
evaluated at Guder hydro-gauging station, these three- brates and validates the SWAT model at the Guder hydro-
management practices each can reduce the sediment by gauging site of watershed area 659 ­Km2. Use the param-
more than 58% (Table 9). If these management practices eter transfer method to determine the sediment load on the
were applied at the upstream of Huluka watershed, more ungauged catchment of the Huluka River (area 157 K ­ m2),
2
erosion and sediment will be saved as well. The study also and the Whole Guder sub-basin (area 6725 ­Km ). The study
showed that the sediment contributed to Huluka water sup- also extended to evaluate the effect of three best manage-
ply diversion weir can be eliminated by adopting BMPs ment practices (BMPs) such as contouring, strip cropping
such as contouring, strip cropping and terracing. and terracing on the Whole catchments.

13

Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.

97 Page 18 of 20
The ArcSWAT model was calibrated and validated with
accepted statistical performance measurements on a monthly
time scale. The calibrated values of the regression coeffi-
cient, Nash–Sutcliffe and percentage of biased were 0.80,
0.71, − 30.5, and 0.69, 0.65, 19.1 for flow and sediment,
respectively, on a monthly time scale. The statistical perfor-
mance, like the regression coefficient and Nash dramatically,
increases to a very good range upon the validation period
to more than 0.81, for both flow and sediment, while the
percentage of biased decreases in magnitude to − 20.1, and
23.2 for flow and sediment, respectively. The best SWAT
parameters found with this statistical performance were
transferred to the whole watershed of Guder sub-basin, to
estimate the annual sediment load of the Huluka River diver-
sion weir site.
Moreover, the annual calibrated sediment load found at
Guder hydro-gauging station was found to be 344.8 Kiloton/
year, while the simulated annual value of the Huluka diver-
sion weir site and the whole Guder sub-basin were, respec-
tively, 37.5 Kiloton/year and 1.1 Megaton/year.
Three BMPs were evaluated in ArcSWAT software, to see
the percentage of sediment reduced at the watershed scale.
Strip cropping can reduce erosion or sedimentation by 58%.
Whereas erosion control measures like terrace and contour
each of them could equally minimize sedimentation by 62%.
Acknowledgements The study was supported by Ambo University,
Ethiopia. Hence, I would like to acknowledge Ambo University for
the financial support of this manuscript. I gratefully acknowledge, the
Ethiopian Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Energy. I would like to
extend my deep gratitude to Oromia Water Work Design and Supervi-
sion Enterprise (OWWDSE). Special thanks to Dr. Belete Berhanu,
Addis Ababa University, Ethiopia. I cannot finish without thanking
my family. I warmly thank and appreciate my parents, my brothers and
sisters for encouragement and spiritual support in all aspects of my life.
References
Abbaspour KC, Johnson CA, van Genuchten MT (2004) Estimat-
ing uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential
uncertainty fitting procedure. Vados Zone J 3(4):1340. https:​ //doi.
org/10.2136/vzj20​04.1340
Aga A, Melesse A, Chane B (2018) Estimating the sediment flux and
budget for a data limited rift valley lake in Ethiopia. Hydrology
6(1):1. https​://doi.org/10.3390/hydro​logy6​01000​1
Ali H, Descheemaeker K, Steenhuis TS, Pandey S (2011) Comparison
of landuse and landcover changes, drivers and impacts for a mois-
ture-sufficient and drought-prone region in the ethiopian high-
lands. Exp Agric. https​://doi.org/10.1017/S0014​47971​00008​40
Arnold JG, Fohrer N (2005) SWAT2000: current capabilities and
research opportunities in applied watershed modelling. Hydrol
Process 19(3):563–572. https​://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5611
Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998)
Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I:
model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb059​61.x
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97
Atkinson SE, Sivapalan M, Viney NR, Woods RA (2003) Predicting
space-time variability of hourly streamflow and the role of climate
seasonality: mahurangi catchment New Zealand. Hydrol Process
17(11):2171–2193. https​://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1327
Awulachew SB, Mccartney M, Steenhuis TS, Ahmed AA (2008)
A review of hydrology sediment and water resource use in the
blue nile basin. IWMI Working Paper. https​://doi.org/10.1353/
tech.0.0177
Ayele G, Teshale E, Yu B, Rutherfurd I, Jeong J, Ayele GT, Teshale
EZ, Yu B, Rutherfurd ID, Jeong J (2017) Streamflow and sedi-
ment yield prediction for watershed prioritization in the Upper
Blue Nile river basin Ethiopia. Water 9(10):782. https​://doi.
org/10.3390/w9100​782
Ayivi F, Jha MK (2018) Estimation of water balance and water yield
in the reedy fork-buffalo creek watershed in north carolina using
SWAT. Int Soil Water Cons Res. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr​
.2018.03.007
Beck HE, van Dijk AIJM, de Roo A, Miralles DG, McVicar TR,
Schellekens J, Bruijnzeel LA (2016) Global-scale regionalization
of hydrologic model parameters. Water Resour Res 52(5):3599–
3622. https​://doi.org/10.1002/2015W​R0182​47
Benisi Ghadim H, Salarijazi M, Ahmadianfar I, Heydari M, Ting Z
(2019) Developing a sediment rating curve model using the curve
slope. Pol J Environ Stud 29(2):1–7. https​://doi.org/10.15244​/
pjoes​/10347​0
Berhanu B, Melesse AM, Seleshi Y (2013) GIS-based hydrological
zones and soil geo-database of Ethiopia. CATENA. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.caten​a.2012.12.007
Betrie GD, Mohamed YA, Van Griensven A, Srinivasan R (2011a)
Hydrology and earth system sciences sediment management mod-
elling in the blue nile basin using SWAT model. Earth Syst Sci
Hydrol. https​://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-807-2011
Betrie GD, Mohamed YA, Van Griensven A, Srinivasan R (2011b)
Hydrology and earth system sciences sediment management mod-
elling in the blue nile basin using SWAT model. Hydrol Earth
Syst Sci 15:807–818. https​://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-807-2011
Central Statistical Agency (2013) Population projection of ethiopia for
all regions at wereda level from 2014–2017. Fed Democr Republ
Ethiop Cent Stat Agency. https:​ //doi.org/10.1186/1746-4269-3-28
Chaemiso SE, Abebe A, Pingale SM (2016) Assessment of the impact
of climate change on surface hydrological processes using SWAT:
a case study of Omo-Gibe river basin Ethiopia. Model Earth Syst
Environ. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4080​8-016-0257-9
da Silva RM, Santos CAG, e Silva LP (2007) Evaluation of soil loss
in Guaraíra basin by GIS and remote sensing based model. J Urb
Environ Eng. https​://doi.org/10.4090/juee.2007.v1n2.04405​2
Dakhlalla AO, Parajuli PB, Ouyang Y, Schmitz DW (2016) Evalu-
ating the impacts of crop rotations on groundwater storage and
recharge in an agricultural watershed. Agric Water Manag. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat​.2015.10.001
DeFries R, Eshleman KN (2004) Land-use change and hydrologic pro-
cesses: a major focus for the future. Hydrol Process. https​://doi.
org/10.1002/hyp.5584
Dile YT, Tekleab S, Kaba EA, Gebrehiwot SG, Worqlul AW, Bayabil
HK, Yimam YT, Tilahun SA, Daggupati P, Karlberg L, Srinivasan
R (2018) Advances in water resources research in the Upper Blue
Nile basin and the way forward: a review. J Hydrol 560:407–423.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2018.03.042
Easton ZM, Fuka DR, White ED, Collick AS, Ashagre BB, Mcca-
rtney M, Awulachew SB, Ahmed AA, Steenhuis TS (2010)
Hydrology and earth system sciences a multi basin SWAT model
analysis of runoff and sedimentation in the Blue Nile Ethiopia.
Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 14:1827–1841. https​://doi.org/10.5194/
hess-14-1827-2010
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97
Ebabu K, Tsunekawa A, Haregeweyn N, Adgo E, Meshesha DT,
Aklog D, Masunaga T, Tsubo M, Sultan D, Fenta AA, Yibeltal
M (2018) Analyzing the variability of sediment yield: a case study
from paired watersheds in the Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia.
Geomorphology 303:446–455. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomo​
rph.2017.12.020
Eshleman KN (2004) Hydrological consequences of land use change:
a review of the state-of-science. Geophys Monogr Ser. https:​ //doi.
org/10.1029/153GM​03
Fentaw F (2018) Impacts of climate change on the water resources of
guder catchment, Upper Blue Nile Ethiopia. Waters 1(1):16. https​
://doi.org/10.31058​/j.water​.2018.11002​
Fetene F, Awulachew SB, Teklie N. (2019) Development of rainfall-
runoff-sediment discharge relationship in the Blue Nile Basin
(Vol. 112). Retrieved August 1, 2019, from https​://publi​catio​
ns.iwmi.org/pdf/H0425​12.pdf
Gain AK, Immerzeel WW, Sperna Weiland FC, Bierkens MFP
(2011) Impact of climate change on the stream flow of the lower
Brahmaputra: trends in high and low flows based on discharge-
weighted ensemble modelling. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. https​://doi.
org/10.5194/hess-15-1537-2011
Gassman PW, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG (2007) The soil and
water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and
future research directions. Trans ASABE 50(4):1211–1250
Gebrekristos S (2015). Understanding catchment processes and hydro-
logical modelling in the Abay/Upper Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia.
https​://repos​itory​.tudel​ft.nl/islan​dora/objec​t/uuid:eb36f​ce3-60a9-
4c0b-905d-2a514​e7f92​5d
Green WH, Al E (1911) Studies of soil physics, part I—the flow of
air and water through soils. J Agric Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1017/
S0021​85960​00014​41
Gupta HV, Sorooshian S, Yapo PO (1999) Status of automatic cali-
bration for hydrologic models: comparison with multilevel
expert calibration. J Hydrol Eng. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1061/
(ASCE)1084-0699(1999)4:2(135)
Haregeweyn N, Tsunekawa A, Poesen J, Tsubo M, Meshesha DT, Fenta
AA, Nyssen J, Adgo E (2017) Comprehensive assessment of soil
erosion risk for better land use planning in river basins: case study
of the Upper Blue Nile River. Sci Total Environ 574:95–108. https​
://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2016.09.019
Kundzewicz ZW, Mata LJ, Arnell NW, Döll P, Kabat P, Jimenez B,
Miller KA, Oki T, Sen Z, Shiklomanov IA (2007) Freshwa-
ter resources and their management. In Climate change 2007:
impacts, adaptation and vulnerability. contribution of working
group II to the fourth assessment report of the intergovernmental
panel on climate change.
Lee M, Park G, Park M, Park J, Lee J, Kim S (2010) Evaluation of
non-point source pollution reduction by applying best manage-
ment practices using a SWAT model and QuickBird high resolu-
tion satellite imagery. J Environ Sci 22(6):826–833. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/S1001​-0742(09)60184​-4
Lemann T, Zeleke G, Amsler C, Giovanoli L, Suter H, Roth V (2016)
Modelling the effect of soil and water conservation on dis-
charge and sediment yield in the upper Blue Nile basin, Ethio-
pia. Appl Geogr 73:89–101. https​://doi.org/10.1016/J.APGEO​
G.2016.06.008
McCallum W (2008) Before the dam: a study of environmental impacts
and community rights associated with the construction and opera-
tion of the approved Kirirom III hydropower scheme, sre ambel
district, Southwest Cambodia. American friends service commit-
tee, November. https​://www.afsc.org/sites​/afsc.civic​actio​ns.net/
files​/docum​ents/Befor​ethe Dam.pdf
Mekonnen MA, Wörman A, Dargahi B, Gebeyehu A (2009) Hydrologi-
cal modelling of Ethiopian catchments using limited data. Hydrol
Process Hydrol Process 23:3401–3408. https​://doi.org/10.1002/
hyp.7470
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Page 19 of 20 97
Memarian H, Balasundram SK, Abbaspour KC, Talib JB, Boon
Sung CT, Sood AM (2014) SWAT-based hydrological mod-
elling of tropical land-use scenarios. Hydrol Sci J. https​://doi.
org/10.1080/02626​667.2014.89259​8
Moretti G, Montanari A (2008) Inferring the flood frequency dis-
tribution for an ungauged basin using a spatially distributed
rainfall-runoff model. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 12(4):1141–1152.
https​://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-1141-2008
Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, MW Liew Van, Bingner RL, Harmel RD,
Veith TL (1983) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic
quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans
ASABE. 50(3). https​: //cites​e erx.ist.psu.edu/viewd​o c/downl​
oad?doi=10.1.1.532.2506a​ndrep​=rep1a​ndtyp​e=pdf
Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW, Bingner RL, Harmel RD,
Veith TL (2007) Model evaluation guidelines for systematic
quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans
ASABE 50(3):885–900. https​://doi.org/10.13031​/2013.23153​
Moriasi DN, Wilson BN, Douglas-Mankin KR, Arnold JG, Gowda
PH (2012) Hydrologic and water quality models: use, calibra-
tion, and validation. Trans ASABE 55(4):1241–1247. https​://
doi.org/10.13031​/2013.42265​
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
Ndomba PM, Van Griensven A (2011) Suitability of SWAT model
in sediment yields modeling in the Eastern Africa. Adv Data
Methods Models Appl Geosci 22:261
Ndomba P, Mtalo F, Killingtveit A (2008a) SWAT model application
in a data scarce tropical complex catchment in Tanzania. Phys
Chem Earth. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2008.06.013
Ndomba PM, Mtalo FW, Killingtveit Å (2008b) A guided SWAT
model application on sediment yield modeling in Pangani river
basin: lessons learnt. J Urb Environ Eng 2(2):53–62. https​://doi.
org/10.4090/juee.2008.v2n2.05306​2
Neitsch S, Arnold J, Kiniry J, Williams J (2011a) SWAT theoretical
documentation version 2009. Texas Water Resour Inst. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2015.11.063
Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Williams JR (2011b) Soil and
water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009.
Texas Water Resour Inst, TR-406. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​
tenv.2015.11.063
Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR, Srinivasan R, Williams JR (2002)
Soil and water assessment tool—user’s manual 2002. TWRI
Report TR-192
Psuty N, De Luca M, Lathrop R, Able K, Whitney S, Grassle FJ (1993)
Mullica river-great bay national estuarine research reserve: a
unique opportunity for research, preservation, and management.
Coastal zone: proceedings of the symposium on coastal and ocean
management
Refsgaard JC (2011) Terminology. Model Protoc Classif Hydrol
Model Codes. https​://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-009-0257-2_2
Roth V, Nigussie TK, Lemann T (2016) Model parameter transfer
for streamflow and sediment loss prediction with SWAT in a
tropical watershed. Environ Earth Sci. https​://doi.org/10.1007/
s1266​5-016-6129-9
Setegn SG, Srinivasan R, Dargahi B (2008) Hydrological model-
ling in the lake tana basin, ethiopia using SWAT model. Open
Hydrol J 2(1):49–62. https​://doi.org/10.2174/18743​78100​80201​
0049
Setegn S, Melesse AM, Setegn SG, Dargahi B, Srinivasan R
(2010) Modeling of sediment yield from anjeni-gauged
watershed, ethiopia using SWAT model. Artic JAWRA J Am
Water Resour Assoc 46(3):514–526. https​: //doi.org/10.111
1/j.1752-1688.2010.00431​.x
Shiferaw H, Gebremedhin A, Gebretsadkan T, Zenebe A (2018) Mod-
elling hydrological response under climate change scenarios
13
97 Page 20 of 20
using SWAT model: the case of Ilala watershed, Northern Ethio-
pia. Model Earth Syst Environ. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4080​
8-018-0439-8
Sivapalan M, Takeuchi K, Franks SW, Gupta VK, Karambiri H,
Lakshmi V, Liang X, McDonnellMendiondo JJEM, O’Connell
PE, Oki T, Pomeroy JW, Schertzer D, Uhlenbrook S, Zehe E
(2003) IAHS Decade on Predictions in Ungauged Basins (PUB),
2003–2012: shaping an exciting future for the hydrological sci-
ences. Hydrol Sci J 48(6):857–880. https​://doi.org/10.1623/
hysj.48.6.857.51421​
Srinivasan R, Zhang X, Arnold J (2010) SWAT ungauged: hydrological
budget and crop yield predictions in the upper Mississippi River
basin. Trans ASABE 53(5):1533–1546. https​://doi.org/10.13031​
/2013.34903​
Subramanya K (3rd ed.). (2013) Tata McGraw-Hill Publishing Com-
pany Limited, New York. Doi: https​://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-
08-09263​1-5.50015​-4
Tananaev NI (2014) Fitting sediment rating curves using regression
analysis: a case study of Russian arctic rivers. IAHS-AISH Proc
Rep 367:193–198. https​://doi.org/10.5194/piahs​-367-193-2015
Teshager AD, Gassman PW, Secchi S, Schoof JT, Misgna G (2016)
modeling agricultural watersheds with the soil and water assess-
ment tool (SWAT): calibration and validation with a novel pro-
cedure for spatially explicit HRUs. Environ Manag. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s0026​7-015-0636-4
Tufa D, Abbulu Y, Civil GS-IJ of and 2014 U (2014). Watershed hydro-
logical response to changes in land use/land covers patterns of
river basin: a Review. Acad Edu4(2), 157–170. https:​ //www.acade​
mia.edu/downlo​ ad/336470​ 84/18._Civil_​ -_Waters​ hed_Hydrol​ ogic​
al_-_Damte​w_Fufa_Tufa.pdf
USDA-SCS (1972) Section 4: hydrology. National engineering hand-
book. USDA-SCS, USA
Vandewiele GL, Elias A (1995) Monthly water balance of ungauged
catchments obtained by geographical regionalization. J Hydrol
13
Content courtesy of Springer Nature, terms of use apply. Rights reserved.
Sustainable Water Resources Management (2020) 6:97
170(1–4):277–291. https​://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(95)02681​
-E
Walling DE (1977) Limitations of the rating curve technique for esti-
mating suspended sediment loads, with particular reference to
British rivers. In: Erosion and solid matter transport in inland
waters, vol 122. IAHS Publication, pp 34–48
Williams JR, Berndt HD (1977) Sediment yield prediction based on
watershed hydrology. Trans ASAE. Doi 10(13031/2013):35710
Yadav M, Wagener T, Gupta H (2007) Regionalization of constraints
on expected watershed response behavior for improved predictions
in ungauged basins. Adv Water Resour 30(8):1756–1774. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.advwa​tres.2007.01.005
Yang J, Reichert P, Abbaspour KC, Xia J, Yang H (2008) Compar-
ing uncertainty analysis techniques for a SWAT application to
the Chaohe Basin in China. J Hydrol 358(1–2):1–23. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jhydr​ol.2008.05.012
Yesuf HM, Melesse AM, Zeleke G, Alamirew T (2016) Streamflow
prediction uncertainty analysis and verification of SWAT model
in a tropical watershed. Environ Earth Sci 75(9):806. https​://doi.
org/10.1007/s1266​5-016-5636-z
Zeleke G, Hurni H (2006) Implications of land use and land cover
dynamics for mountain resource degradation in the north-
western ethiopian highlands. Mount Res Dev. https ​ : //doi.
org/10.1659/0276-4741(2001)021[0184:iolua​l]2.0.co;2
Zhang Z, Wagener T, Reed P, Bhushan R (2008) Reducing uncertainty
in predictions in ungauged basins by combining hydrologic indi-
ces regionalization and multiobjective optimization. Water Resour
Res 44(12):1–13. https​://doi.org/10.1029/2008w​r0068​33
Publisher’s Note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to
jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Terms and Conditions
Springer Nature journal content, brought to you courtesy of Springer Nature Customer Service Center GmbH (“Springer Nature”).
Springer Nature supports a reasonable amount of sharing of research papers by authors, subscribers and authorised users (“Users”), for small-
scale personal, non-commercial use provided that all copyright, trade and service marks and other proprietary notices are maintained. By
accessing, sharing, receiving or otherwise using the Springer Nature journal content you agree to these terms of use (“Terms”). For these
purposes, Springer Nature considers academic use (by researchers and students) to be non-commercial.
These Terms are supplementary and will apply in addition to any applicable website terms and conditions, a relevant site licence or a personal
subscription. These Terms will prevail over any conflict or ambiguity with regards to the relevant terms, a site licence or a personal subscription
(to the extent of the conflict or ambiguity only). For Creative Commons-licensed articles, the terms of the Creative Commons license used will
apply.
We collect and use personal data to provide access to the Springer Nature journal content. We may also use these personal data internally within
ResearchGate and Springer Nature and as agreed share it, in an anonymised way, for purposes of tracking, analysis and reporting. We will not
otherwise disclose your personal data outside the ResearchGate or the Springer Nature group of companies unless we have your permission as
detailed in the Privacy Policy.
While Users may use the Springer Nature journal content for small scale, personal non-commercial use, it is important to note that Users may
not:

1. use such content for the purpose of providing other users with access on a regular or large scale basis or as a means to circumvent access
control;
2. use such content where to do so would be considered a criminal or statutory offence in any jurisdiction, or gives rise to civil liability, or is
otherwise unlawful;
3. falsely or misleadingly imply or suggest endorsement, approval , sponsorship, or association unless explicitly agreed to by Springer Nature in
writing;
4. use bots or other automated methods to access the content or redirect messages
5. override any security feature or exclusionary protocol; or
6. share the content in order to create substitute for Springer Nature products or services or a systematic database of Springer Nature journal
content.
In line with the restriction against commercial use, Springer Nature does not permit the creation of a product or service that creates revenue,
royalties, rent or income from our content or its inclusion as part of a paid for service or for other commercial gain. Springer Nature journal
content cannot be used for inter-library loans and librarians may not upload Springer Nature journal content on a large scale into their, or any
other, institutional repository.
These terms of use are reviewed regularly and may be amended at any time. Springer Nature is not obligated to publish any information or
content on this website and may remove it or features or functionality at our sole discretion, at any time with or without notice. Springer Nature
may revoke this licence to you at any time and remove access to any copies of the Springer Nature journal content which have been saved.
To the fullest extent permitted by law, Springer Nature makes no warranties, representations or guarantees to Users, either express or implied
with respect to the Springer nature journal content and all parties disclaim and waive any implied warranties or warranties imposed by law,
including merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose.
Please note that these rights do not automatically extend to content, data or other material published by Springer Nature that may be licensed
from third parties.
If you would like to use or distribute our Springer Nature journal content to a wider audience or on a regular basis or in any other manner not
expressly permitted by these Terms, please contact Springer Nature at

onlineservice@springernature.com

View publication stats