Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11270-023-06744-4
Snow/Ice Melt, Precipitation, and Groundwater Contribute
to the Sutlej River System
Suneel Kumar Joshi · Somil Swarnkar ·
Sandeep Shukla · Sudhir Kumar · Sanjay Jain ·
Sneha Gautam
Received: 30 June 2023 / Accepted: 1 November 2023
© The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2023
Abstract This study examines the proportional
contribution of snow/ice melt, rainfall, and ground-
water to Sutlej River discharge at various locations.
Sutlej River is a major tributary of the Indus River
system and an important water supply source for irri-
gation through the canal network in northwest India.
Here, we used hydrograph separation and associated
uncertainty and applied the snowmelt runoff model
(SNOWMOD) to estimate the contribution from dif-
ferent water sources to the Sutlej River. We used δ18O
and electrical conductivity values of different waters
for the hydrograph-separation approach. The first-
order Gaussian error propagation and Monte-Carlo
simulation are used to assess the accuracy. The esti-
mated contribution at Rampur is ~ 62.7% (snow/ice
melt), 18.7% (rainfall), and ~ 18.4% (groundwater);
S. K. Joshi (*)
Research and Development Centre, Geo Climate Risk
Solutions Private Limited, Visakhapatnam, India
e-mail: joshisuneelkumar@gmail.com
S. K. Joshi · S. Kumar
Hydrological Investigations Division, National Institute
of Hydrology, Roorkee, India
S. Swarnkar
Department of Earth and Environmental Sciences, Indian
Institutes of Science Education and Research, Bhopal,
India
S. Shukla · S. Jain
Surface Water Hydrology Division, National Institute
of Hydrology, Roorkee, India
for Ropar is 59 ± 2% (snow/ice melt), 23 ± 2% (rain-
fall), and 18 ± 2% (groundwater); and for Yusuf-
pur, 25 ± 3% (snow/ice melt), 39 ± 3% (rainfall),
and 36 ± 2% (groundwater) during July–December
2013. The findings from the hydrograph-separation
and SNOWMOD analysis established a fundamental
understanding of the hydrological processes in the
Sutlej River system, providing valuable baseline data
essential for developing sustainable water resource
management strategies.
Keywords Sutlej River · Hydrograph separation ·
Stable isotopes · Uncertainty · SNOWMOD · Western
Himalayas
S. Shukla
Department of Environmental Sciences, Gurugram
University, Gurugram, Haryana, India
S. Gautam (*)
Department of Civil Engineering, Karunya Institute
of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore 641 114,
Tamil Nadu, India
e-mail: snehagautam@karunya.edu
S. Gautam
Water Institute, A Centre of Excellence, Karunya Institute
of Technology and Sciences, Coimbatore 641 114,
Tamil Nadu, India
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 719 Page 2 of 18
1 Introduction
Glaciers serve as robust indicators of environmen-
tal influence and climate change. Their behavior
responds sensitively to slight fluctuations in hydro-
meteorological factors, including temperature and
precipitation, as indicated in previous research
(Mayewski & Jeschke, 1979; Immerzeel et al., 2014;
Veh et al., 2020). The glaciers are a valuable source
of water supply in the downstream region (Immer-
zeel et al., 2013; Zhou et al., 2022; Gong et al.,
2023). The retreat in glaciers can impact human
livelihoods, food security, and hydropower poten-
tial, particularly in the western Himalayan (WH)
region (Schaner et al., 2012; Prasad et al., 2019;
Li et al., 2022). The Himalayan mountain range,
often referred to as the “Third Pole,” is primarily
characterized by extensive snow and glacier cov-
erage (Kulkarni et al., 2010), known as the “Third
Pole.” These mountains serve as the source for
numerous rivers, highlighting the significant role
of snow and ice melt in river hydrology (Jeelani
et al., 2017; Maurya et al., 2018; Lone et al., 2019;
Prasad et al., 2019). The Himalayan rivers are peren-
nial due to snow/ice melt during the non-monsoon
and rainfall contribution during the monsoon sea-
son (Khan et al., 2017; Boral et al., 2019; Rai et al.,
2019; Kalpana et al., 2020; Swarnkar et al., 2021a;
Gauatm et al., 2022; Bose et al. 2023). Thus, the
estimation of various river discharge sources has
become increasingly crucial as industrial, domes-
tic, and agricultural activity solely depends on water
resources (Joshi et al., 2014; Sinha et al., 2019;
Shekhar et al., 2020; van Dijk et al., 2020). The flow
of Himalayan rivers varies in space and time and
shows seasonal hydrological variation (Luo et al.,
2022; Liu et al., 2023; Li et al., 2023).
The hydrograph separation approach using δ18O
and the electrical conductivity (EC) values of water
are valuable tools to estimate the contribution from
various sources to river discharge in any given catch-
ment (Dincer et al., 1970; Clark & Fritz, 1997;
Uhlenbrook & Hoeg, 2003; Bookhagen and Burbank,
2010). There are a few localized studies that attempt
to assess the relative fractionation using various tech-
niques in the Himalayan rivers (Bhattacharya et al.,
1985; Rai et al., 2016; Jeelani et al., 2017; Khan et al.,
2017; Kumar et al., 2018; Maurya et al., 2018; Boral
et al., 2019). Jeelani et al. (2017) used an isotopic
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
approach and estimated the contribution of snowmelt
from 5 to 66% to the Liddar stream in WH and sug-
gested maximum snowmelt contribution from March
to July. Khan et al. (2017) estimated ~ 11% of glacier
melt contribution to the Ganga River at Devprayag.
Maurya et al. (2018) used δ18O and EC values of
water. They estimated glacier melt contribution at
Yusufpur (~ 15%) and Ropar (~ 64%) and groundwa-
ter contribution at Yusufpur (~ 25–35%) and Ropar
(10–20%) in Sutlej River Basin. Boral et al. (2019)
estimated glacier melt fraction in the headwater
region of the Ganga River is about 25 ± 17% (pre-
monsoon), 46 ± 16% (monsoon), and 41 ± 20% (post-
monsoon) based on the isotopic approach. This study
indicates the highest glacier melt contribution to the
Ganga River’s headwater region during the monsoon
and post-monsoon seasons.
Existing literature has revealed a notable absence
of systematic studies that employ tracers or hydrolog-
ical modeling in the Western Himalayas and north-
west India (NWI), with a specific scarcity of such
research in the Sutlej River Basin (SRB) aimed at
identifying the diverse contributions of runoff com-
ponents. Consequently, this study adopts a system-
atic approach that combines isotopic analysis and the
SNOWMOD model to unveil the contributions from
multiple sources to the Sutlej River discharge. The
hydrograph separation approach relies on the premise
that specific water sources contributing to ground-
water at a given location can be discerned by statis-
tically significant variations in particular properties,
as indicated by Dincer et al. (1970). Additionally, the
SNOWMOD model is utilized to estimate contribu-
tions from snowmelt and rainfall runoff to the river
discharge, as demonstrated by Singh and Jain (2003).
Furthermore, it is worth noting that limited attention
has been devoted to assessing the uncertainties asso-
ciated with the runoff contributions derived from the
hydrograph separation approach. Consequently, this
study significantly emphasizes evaluating uncertain-
ties related to the various runoff components.
The present study investigated the relative frac-
tion contribution using the hydrograph separation
approach. Our primary objectives are to (i) estimate
the relative contribution of rainfall, groundwater,
and snow/ice melt at various locations in the Sutlej
River, (ii) evaluate the uncertainty associated with the
hydrograph separation approach, and (iii) assess run-
off using SNOWMOD modeling.
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
2 Study Area
The study area lies between 30.31958 N and 32.93047
N and 74.95625 E and 82.45041 E and covers an area
of ~ 63,900 ­km2 (Fig. 1). The Sutlej River is a trans-
Himalayan River that rises from the Rakas Lake near
Dharma Pass, as the Longchen Khabab River in the
Tibetan Plateau in Tibet. The Sutlej River is a snow/
ice-fed river (Shukla et al., 2017; Varay et al., 2017)
and flows ~ 300 km in the northwest direction in the
upstream region and then in the southwest direction.
About 69 ± 12 ­km3 of glacier water is stored in
2026 glaciers in the Sutlej River Basin (Prasad et al.,
2019), wherein 37.6 ­ km3 of freshwater is stored
in large glaciers (area > 5 ­km2). Around 11% of the
area is covered by snow/ice in the Sutlej River Basin.
Bhakra Dam is a large hydraulic structure constructed
in the Sutlej River (Fig. 1). The annual discharge
is ~ 13 ­km3/year and flows through the Bhakra dam
(Prasad et al., 2019).
The study area receives ~ 80% of the annual rain-
fall during the monsoon (July–September) (Shukla
et al., 2017) and the remaining 20% during the non-
monsoon season (October–June). The Asian Precip-
itation–Highly Resolved Observational Data Inte-
gration Towards Evaluation (APHRODITE) rainfall
data (Yatagai et al., 2012) shows basin-wise long-
term average annual rainfall, i.e., 437 ± 255 mm in
Sutlej River Basin up to Rampur, 546 ± 346 mm up
to Ropar, and 563 ± 333 mm up to Yusufpur during
1990–2015 (Fig. 2a). The long-term annual average
temperature exhibits 23.9 ± 0.4 °C up to Rampur,
Fig. 1  Overview of the
study area superimposed on
Shuttle Radar Topographic
Mission–Digital Elevation
Model
Page 3 of 18 719
25.6 ± 0.4 °C up to Ropar, and 26.2 ± 0.4 °C up to
Yusufpur from 1990 to 2015 (Fig. 2b).
The study area constitutes two hydrogeological
units: the Himalayan mountainous region and the
alluvium plain (Bhat & Le Fort, 1992; Bhatt et al.,
2008). In the Himalayan mountainous area, from
upstream to downstream, Sutlej River flows through
the low-grade metamorphosed Tethyan Himalayan
Sequence, Greater Himalayan Crystalline complex,
lesser Himalayan Crystalline Sequences, and lesser
Himalayan Sequences. The northward dipping thrust
separating litho-structural units is the Southern
Tibetan Detachment, Main Central Thrust, Munsiari
Thrust, and Main boundary thrust (Webb et al., 2011).
The alluvium region is separated from the Himala-
yan Frontal Thrust (HFT) (Singh, 1987; Bhatt et al.,
2008). The HFT passes along the Siwalik Hills in the
Himalayas’ foothills (Bhatt et al., 2008). The foreland
basin fill is dominated by alluvial fans deposited by
the Sutlej River system and comprises spatially het-
erogeneous sand, silt, and clay deposits intermixed
with pebbles and calcareous concretions (Bhatt et al.,
2008; Sinha et al., 2013; Singh et al., 2017).
3 Material and Methods
3.1 Water Sampling
We have compiled δ18O and δ2H values of groundwa-
ter from 77 locations in November 2013 based on the
work done by Maurya et al. (2018). They collected
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 719 Page 4 of 18
Fig. 2  Long-term annual
average a rainfall (mm)
and b temperature (°C)
of the Sutlej River basin
up to Rampur, Ropar, and
Yusufpur
groundwater samples from monitoring wells oper-
ated by the state and central government agencies,
public tube wells, and hand pumps in the Sutlej River
Basin. They have adopted a water sampling procedure
such as Clark and Fritz (1997) and purged wells for
25–30 min before water sampling (e.g., Joshi et al.,
2018).
Precipitation is the primary recharge source of
groundwater and river discharge. Groundwater
recharge from the canal and irrigation return flow
are also important in Northwest India (Lapworth
et al., 2017; Joshi et al., 2018). The irrigation
canals typically convey the water from the Sutlej
River, such as the Bist-Doab Canal, a major irri-
gation canal drawn from the Sutlej River in Pun-
jab in NWI (Joshi et al., 2020). To understand the
isotopic signatures of different sources in the study
area, we complied isotopic values of precipitation
during the monsoon season (July to September) for
2013 from Joshi et al. (2018) and river water sam-
ples from two locations (Rao et al., 2017; Maurya
et al., 2018) for the Sutlej River Basin.
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
Rao et al. (2017), Varay et al. (2017), Joshi et al.
(2018), and Maurya et al. (2018) have collected
water samples in pre-cleaned polypropylene bottles
(20 ml) for stable isotope analysis. The bottles were
rinsed with the sample water more than once at the
sampling site. In order to avoid evaporative losses
from the sample bottles and storage containers, bot-
tles were tightly sealed and brought to the labora-
tory for isotopic analysis. A handheld global posi-
tioning system measured sample latitude, longitude,
and altitude. Water’s electrical conductivity (EC)
is also measured during the sampling (Rao et al.,
2017; Varay et al., 2017; Joshi et al., 2018; Maurya
et al., 2018).
3.2 Isotopic Analysis
The stable isotopic analysis was carried out in the
Nuclear Hydrology Laboratory at the National Institute
of Hydrology, Roorkee, India. The stable isotope meas-
urements were made using continuous flow isotope ratio
mass spectrometry and dual inlet isotope ratio mass
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
spectrometry following standard procedures (Epstein and
Mayeda, 1953; Brenninkmeijer and Morrison, 1987).
The results are expressed in per mil (i.e., ‰) on Vienna
Standard Mean Ocean Water (VSMOW) on the δ scale:
( R −R ) E is EC.
𝛿 = sample (1)
standard
R
× 1000% VSMOW
standard
where Rsample is the 18O/16O or 2H/1H ratio of the
water samples, and Rstandard is the corresponding ratio
in VSMOW. The overall precision is based on ten
repeated measurements for each sample, which was
within the error limits of ± 1.0‰ for δ2H and ± 0.1‰
for δ18O, respectively.
3.3 Hydrograph Separation
We used the hydrograph separation approach to esti-
mate snow/ice melt, rainfall, and groundwater contri-
bution to the Sutlej River to determine the tracer-based
contribution. The fundamental assumption is that water
and snow precipitation will distinctly fractionate heavy
and light oxygen isotopes. The altitude effect mainly
affects the isotopic values of snow at higher altitudes.
Hence, the snow has a relatively lesser amount of heav-
ier (18O) isotope than liquid precipitation.
It should be noted here that the river discharge in
the alluvial region of NWI and WH are mainly com-
prising three components, namely, (i) snow/ice melt,
(ii) groundwater, and (iii) rainfall. These discharge
components are mainly due to summer rainfall, post-
monsoon interflow, and winter snowmelt from the
catchment area. Therefore, discharge can be calcu-
lated based on Eq. (2).
T =I+G+R (2)
where T is the total discharge, I is the snow/ice melt,
G is the groundwater, and R is the rainfall due to
summer rainfall, post-monsoon interflow, and winter
snowmelt from the catchment.
If the total discharge is considered one, then the
three components can be considered a fraction of 1
(Eq. 3).
i+g+r =1 (3)
i.𝛿I + g.𝛿G + r.𝛿R = 𝛿T (4)
Page 5 of 18 719
i.EI + g.EG + r.ER = ET (5)
where i, g, and r denote the discharge fractions due to
snow/ice melt, groundwater, and rainfall, respectively.
( )( )
𝛿T − 𝛿I EG − EI − (𝛿G − 𝛿I )(ET − EI )
r= ( (6)
)( )
𝛿R − 𝛿I EG − EI − (𝛿G − 𝛿I )(ER − EI )
( )( )
𝛿T − 𝛿I ER − EI − (𝛿R − 𝛿I )(ET − EI )
g= ( (7)
)( )
𝛿G − 𝛿I ER − EI − (𝛿R − 𝛿I )(EG − EI )
We used Eq. (3) to calculate the i value.
We assumed EC and δ18O of three end-members
are constant throughout the year (Penna et al., 2016;
Jeelani et al., 2017), excluding the river discharge
component as it varies significantly during pre- and
post-monsoon. In the present study, the upper and
lower limit of snow/ice melt fraction estimates for
river discharge were obtained from Pande et al.
(2000), Rai et al. (2016), Biggs et al. (2015), and Ren
et al. (2016).
3.4 Uncertainty
The primary sources of uncertainty using the hydro-
graph separation are spatio-temporal variations of
δ18O and EC values of water (Delsman et al., 2013;
Davis et al., 2015). We first used first-order Gauss-
ian error propagation to evaluate uncertainty in the
hydrograph separation (Genereux, 1998). Measure-
ment errors in δ18O (± 0.1‰) and EC (± 10 μS/cm)
are considered in uncertainty propagation (Schmieder
et al., 2018). The first-order Gaussian error propaga-
tion method is applied by considering measurement
errors in all factors for hydrograph separation. Factors
equations for hydrograph separation (Eq. 3) are par-
tially differentiated for individual factors, and these
values are summed in a quadrature manner to esti-
mate the propagated uncertainty in the final results
(Taylor, 1997; Uhlenbrook & Hoeg, 2003; Guo et al.,
2015; Camacho Suarez et al., 2015; Swarnkar et al.,
2018; Chen et al., 2019; Loukili et al., 2022). Equa-
tion 8, used for the first-order Gaussian error propa-
gation method, is described below.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 719 Page 6 of 18
√
2 2 2
𝜕z 𝜕z 𝜕z
Δfx = ( Δc1 ) + ( Δc2 ) + ⋯ + ( Δcn )
𝜕c1 𝜕c2 𝜕cn
(8)
where Δfx represents uncertainty in the contribution,
c1 , c2 … c3 represent different variables,
Δc1 , Δc2 … Δc3 represent measurement error in each
variable, and 𝜕c𝜕z , 𝜕c𝜕z … 𝜕c𝜕z represent partial differenti-
1 2 n
ation of factor equations concerning each variable for
the hydrograph separation.
Further to this, to check the robustness of esti-
mated uncertainty through the first-order Gaussian
error propagation, the Monte Carlo (MC) uncertainty
framework is separately used to assess the uncer-
tainty in individual factors for hydrograph separa-
tion. In the MC framework, due to the unavailability
of distribution and as suggested by previous work-
ers (Bazemore et al., 1994; Genereux, 1998; Joerin
et al., 2002), uncertainty associated with individual
factors is assessed by considering normal distribu-
tion around the mean (measured values) and standard
deviation (measurement error). Normally distributed
random values for individual factors are generated
for each iteration to assess the final uncertainty val-
ues. These randomly generated variables are used in
Eqs. 3, 6, and 7 to estimate the fraction of snow/ice
melt, groundwater, and rainfall at each iteration. We
observed that the standard deviation for individual
factors converges at 1­ 05 simulations; therefore, ­105
simulations are most suitable for the MC framework.
The estimated 1­ 05 values for i, g, and r fractions are
used to calculate standard deviation and then evalu-
ate the uncertainty at each component (%) by dividing
the mean value. The obtained uncertainty associated
with each factor is used in Eqs. 3 and 8. Finally, prop-
agated uncertainty in different aspects is assessed and
compared with the first-order Gaussian error propaga-
tion method.
3.5 SNOWMOD Modeling
We used a conceptual snowmelt runoff model
(SNOWMOD) to estimate the contribution from vari-
ous Sutlej River sources at the Rampur (Fig. 1). The
SNOWMOD is a degree-day-based or temperature
index-based model (Singh & Jain, 2003), developed
to simulate daily streamflow and fraction contribu-
tion from snowmelt and rainfall. The SNOWMOD
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
is designed for mountainous regions (Singh & Jain,
2003). The catchment area is divided into differ-
ent elevation zones based on the surface topography
(Singh & Bengtsson, 2003 & 2004). About ten eleva-
tion bands have been categorized from an elevation of
900 m above sea level (ASL) to 6752 m asl (interval
between two bands: 600 m) using Advanced Space-
borne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiation-
Digital Elevation Model (ASTER-DEM) for the study
area up to Rampur (Table 1) because temperature and
rainfall patterns decrease with increasing elevation in
the mountainous region (Singh & Bengtsson, 2004).
Further to this, we have simulated streamflow and
three components to understand the hydrological pro-
cesses in the mountainous region. We have used the
input parameter as the snow cover area (SCA) and
daily hydrometeorological data (rainfall and tem-
perature) to the SNOWMOD. The SCA and snow
depletion curve (SDC) for Sutlej River Basin up to
Rampur has been estimated using Moderate Resolu-
tion Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) land sur-
face reflectance 8-day maximum snow cover prod-
ucts (MOD10A2) with a 500-m spatial resolution
(Hall et al., 2002; Wan et al., 2004). The hydromete-
orological data were collected from Rampur, Kalpa,
Rakcham, Namgia, and Kaza monitoring stations
from the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB),
Government of India, from 2000 to 2006. We have
also assigned these monitoring stations to each eleva-
tion band based on their proximity to the respective
Table 1  Elevation band derived from Advanced Spaceborne
Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiation-Digital Elevation
Model. Rain gauge and temperature monitoring stations were
used for different elevation bands
Band Elevation range Monitoring
(m/amsl) station
1 900–1500 Rampur
2 1500–2100 Rampur
3 2100–2700 Kalpa
4 2700–3300 Rakcham
5 3300–3900 Rakcham
6 3900–4500 Namgia
7 4500–5100 Kaza
8 5100–5700 Kaza
9 5700–6300 Kaza
10 6300–6752 Kaza
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719 Page 7 of 18 719

zone (Table 1). We have used additional information Table 2  Summary of the isotopic composition of groundwater
such as the total study area up to Rampur, elevation samples in the Sutlej River basin
band-wise area, SDC, and altitude of rainfall and tem- Sample Range EC (µS/cm) δ18O (‰) δ2H (‰)
perature monitoring stations for SNOWMOD simula-
All Samples Minimum 340.0 − 11.3 − 81.6
tion. We have used daily observed discharge data for
Maximum 1840.0 − 6.1 − 37.4
model calibration and validation. We also assigned
Average 724.6 − 7.6 − 52.3
generated runoff from the model to snowmelt and
Std 274.2 1.3 9.7
rainfall runoff, estimated using the runoff coefficient.
Downstream Minimum 340.0 − 11.3 − 81.6
The remaining runoff is from the baseflow generated region Maximum 1840.0 − 6.1 − 37.4
from the snowmelt or rainfall.
Average 720.5 − 7.7 − 52.8
Std 279.1 1.3 9.8
Upstream Minimum 430.0 − 10.6 − 71.2
4 Results region Maximum 1115.0 − 6.1 − 41.8
Average 754.5 − 7.2 − 49.2
4.1 Isotopic Composition of Groundwater and River
Std 246.7 1.4 9.4
Water

The measured isotopic composition of ground-

water shows a more comprehensive range. It var-
ies from − 11.3 to − 6.1‰ (average: − 7.6‰ and
σ: ± 1.3‰) for δ18O, − 81.6‰ to − 37.4 (aver-
age: − 52.3‰ and σ: ± 9.7‰) for δ2H, and from + 3.6
to + 13.9‰ (average + 8.4‰; σ: + 2.4‰) for D-excess
(Table 2). We have categorized groundwater samples
into the upstream and downstream regions based on
the study area’s surface topography to understand the
groundwater system. The upstream part covers the
mountainous region up to the Ropar, and the down-
stream part covers the alluvium region. Table 2 shows
a wide variation in the δ18O values of groundwater
samples in the downstream area, whereas the narrow
range in the upstream groundwater samples (except
for one sample located very close to the Sutlej River).
The isotopic composition of Sutlej River water
at the Ropar monitoring station shows a maximum
depleted signature. It ranges from − 12.6 to − 10.9‰
(average: − 11.7‰ and σ: ± 0.6‰) for δ18O, − 87.8
to − 75.3‰ (average: − 80.9‰ and σ: ± 3.9‰) for
δ2H, and from + 10.2 to + 15.0‰ (average + 12.9‰;
σ: + 1.5‰) for D-excess, whereas the enriched iso-
topic signature observed at Yusufpur ranges from − 9.7
to − 8.1‰ (average: − 8.8‰ and σ: ± 0.5‰) for
δ18O, − 63.9 to − 62.1‰ (average: − 62.7‰ and
σ: ± 0.7‰) for δ2H, and from + 7.0 to + 15.0‰ (aver-
age + 10.4‰; σ: + 2.6‰) for D-excess.
We prepared a cross plot of δ18O vs. δ2H values
of groundwater along with Ropar water, Global Mete-
oric Water Line (GMWL), and Meteoric Water Line
of NWI (NW-India line) (Joshi et al., 2018) (Fig. 3).
Figure 3 shows the groundwater samples’ enriched
δ18O and δ2H values than Sutlej River water at Ropar.
A few groundwater samples fall below the NW-
India line, suggesting evaporative enrichment during
recharge. Most of the groundwater samples fall on
or above the NW-India line. The slope and intercept
in the groundwater regression line are less than the
GMWL and NW-India lines, suggesting evaporative
enrichment during recharge processes. These findings
also indicate that regional and local factors in this
study area mainly affect groundwater isotopic compo-
sition during recharge processes.
According to the distribution of Sutlej River water
in space, the δ18O and δ2H values of Sutlej River at
Ropar fall above the NW-India line. The regression
line (RWL) of Sutlej River water samples at Ropar
is δ2H = 6.39(± 0.49)× δ18O–6.01(± 5.79) (r2 = 0.91,
n = 18), indicating a lower slope and intercept than
the NW-India line. It is also observed that the isotopic
values of Sutlej River water at Yusufpur are located
above the NW-India line. These results clearly distin-
guish between the sampling locations: one is depleted
in the upstream, and the other is enriched in the
downstream region.
4.2 Identification of End‑members
The end-member mixing analysis (EMMA) provides
valuable insight into catchment hydrological behavior
(Engel et al., 2016). We determined the end-mem-
ber to compute the melt contribution from various

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 719 Page 8 of 18
Fig. 3  Cross plot of δ18O
vs. δ2H values of Sutlej
River water and ground-
water
sources to river discharge (Varay et al., 2017). For the
Sutlej River Basin, we used δ18O and EC values of
snow/ice melt, rainfall, and groundwater to identify
the potential end-members (Genereux 1998; Penna
et al., 2016).
The surface runoff mainly comprises various com-
ponents such as snowmelt during winters and rainfall-
runoff during monsoon and post-monsoon seasons.
The isotopic composition of precipitation shows
seasonality in the mountainous region (Kumar et al.,
2010). We used the Amount Weighted Annual Pre-
cipitation (AWAP) isotope value of − 5.54‰ for δ18O
from Joshi et al. (2018, 2020), and EC is 50 μS/cm
(Lambs, 2000; Maurya et al., 2011) for monsoon and
post-monsoon season.
The isotopic snow/ice melt values are highly varia-
ble in WH (Pande et al., 2000; Rai et al., 2016; Biggs
et al., 2015; Ren et al., 2016; Varay et al., 2017). The
EC values of the stream show seasonality in WH. In
comparison, the isotopic values of snow/ice meltwa-
ter are − 15.54 ± 3.34‰ for δ18O and 115 μS/cm for
EC (Pande et al., 2000; Rai et al., 2016; Biggs et al.,
2015; Ren et al., 2016).
Further to this, we have used groundwater’s two
separate δ18O and EC data in the upstream region of
Ropar and Yusufpur stations for hydrograph separa-
tion. The average δ18O value is − 7.2 ± 1.4‰ for the
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
upstream region of Ropar and − 7.6 ± 1.3‰ for the
upstream part of Yusufpur. The EC value of ground-
water ranges from 430 to 1115 μS/cm (average:
755 μS/cm) for the upstream region of Ropar and
from 340 μS/cm to 1840 μS/cm (average: 725 μS/cm)
for the upstream part of Yusufpur (Table 2).
We plotted all three end-members in a cross-
plot of δ18O vs. EC values of groundwater, rainfall,
snow/ice melt, and Sutlej River water (Fig. 4). Fig-
ure 4 shows the isotopic values of Sutlej River water
at Ropar and Yusufpur that exhibit good agreement
with the end members. The depleted δ18O value and
lower EC were observed at Ropar, enriched δ18O, and
higher EC value at the Yusufpur monitoring station.
4.3 Relative Contributions
Figure 5 shows various sources’ contributions to
the Sutlej River at Ropar and Yusufpur. The snow/
ice melt contributions show seasonality from July to
December (Fig. 5a–b).
We found that the maximum contribution from
snow/ice melt is 69 ± 2% at Ropar and 35 ± 2% at
Yusufpur during July–August, respectively, and
a minimum of 50 ± 2% at Ropar and 18 ± 3% at
Yusufpur during November–December, respectively
(Table 3). The lower contribution of snow/ice melts
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
Fig. 4  Mixing diagram
using the average value
of δ18O and electrical
conductivity (EC) values of
groundwater (upstream and
downstream samples), rain-
fall, and snow/ice melt for
the Sutlej River (upstream
and downstream samples)
basin
to river discharge is mainly associated with lower
temperatures during winters in higher altitude regions
(Fig. 2b). We also observed a decreasing trend in
snow/ice melt contribution from 58.8 ± 2.0% to
2.55 ± 3.0%, an increasing trend in rainfall contribu-
tion from 23.1 ± 2.0% to 38.8 ± 3.0%, and groundwa-
ter contribution from 18.1 ± 2.0% to 35.6 ± 2.0% from
upstream to downstream region in Sutlej River Basin
(Fig. 5).
The contribution from groundwater to the Sut-
lej River is higher at Yusufpur, indicating seasonal-
ity from July to December of 2013. In contrast, the
contribution of snow/ice melts indicates a decreas-
ing trend from upstream to downstream (Fig. 5a–b).
The contribution from groundwater shows seasonal
variation across the study area. In December 2013,
groundwater’s estimated contribution was 39 ± 2%,
significantly higher than the previous estimates by
Maurya et al. (2018). This variation is because Mau-
rya et al. (2018) used δ18O and EC values of ground-
water from the different basins in the Indus River
system’s headwater region in WH (Karim & Veizer,
2002). They also used isotopic groundwater values
from the downstream area to estimate the groundwa-
ter contribution in the upstream region at Ropar.
Page 9 of 18 719
4.4 Snowmelt Runoff Simulation
In order to estimate the contribution from various
sources to the river discharge at Rampur, we have
used SNOWMOD and the input data from 2000/01 to
2003/04 for model calibration and from May 2004 to
June 2005 for model validation. We used the Rosen-
brock optimization approach (Rosenbrock, 1960;
Rosenbrock, 1963) to optimize the SNOWMOD
parameters. Figure 6 shows the temporal variation of
various contributing sources to the Sutlej River from
2000 to 2006.
The snow/ice melt contribution is higher from
April to August, and snow accumulation occurs
from October to March. Snow/ice melt is the pri-
mary source of Sutlej River discharge from April
to June. Rainfall and snowmelt contributed substan-
tially from July to September. The estimated snow-
melt contribution to the Sutlej River at Rampur var-
ies between 32 and 96% from 2000 to 2006. The
maximum snow/ice melt contribution was observed
during August–September. The rainfall contribu-
tion to the river is ~ 48%, and groundwater is ~ 28%.
Further to this, we have an estimated annual average
contribution from snow/ice melt (62.7%), rainfall
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 719 Page 10 of 18 Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719

Fig. 5  Snow/Ice melt,

rainfall, and groundwater
contribution to Sutlej River
discharge every 10 days
during 2013 for a Ropar
and b Yusufpur. The error
bar shows uncertainty
based on the Monte Carlo
simulation

(~ 18.7%), and groundwater (~ 18.4%) at Rampur
from 2000 to 2006. Also, we have computed model
efficiency based on daily computed and observed
data. The simulated daily streamflow data agrees
with the observed data, as the coefficient of deter-
mination (r2) value is obtained as 0.93 and 0.91,
respectively. From the evaluation criteria (r2), it is
found that the model performs well for both periods
(calibration and validation) (Fig. 6b–c).
5 Discussion
5.1 Snow/Ice Melt Contribution
Previously, Singh and Jain (2003) and Bookhagen
and Burbank (2010) used modeling approaches to
estimate the Sutlej River Basin hydrological budget.
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Bookhagen and Burbank (2010) used remotely
sensed datasets to calculate rainfall, evaporation, and
snowmelt amounts. They suggested snowmelt runoff
contributes ~ 57% and ~ 43% from rainfall and other
sources. Singh and Jain (2003) used Landsat MSS,
IRS LISS-I, and in situ data from rain gauge stations
to calculate snowmelt contribution at Bhakra Dam.
They suggested ~ 32% contribution from rainfall
and ~ 68% from snowmelt and other sources (Singh &
Jain, 2003). They pointed out seasonality in the rela-
tive contributions from 1988 to 1999. Further to this,
Varay et al. (2017) used a mixing model and estimated
melt contribution for the Sutlej River Basin (Fig. 7).
Our estimates based on the hydrograph separation
and the SNOWMOD results suggest a good agreement
with the previous modeling-based studies in the higher
Himalayan mountains (Singh and Jain, 2002 & 2003;
Bookhagen and Burbank, 2010; Wulf et al., 2016). At
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719 Page 11 of 18 719

Table 3  Summary of contributions (%) of snow/Ice melt, Ropar, the maximum snow/ice melt was 69 ± 2% on
groundwater, and rainfall in Sutlej river discharge at Yusufpur, August 10, 2013, and the minimum was 50 ± 2% on
Ropar, and Rampur
November 10, 2013. Yusufpur’s maximum snow/ice
Station Month Rainfall Groundwater Snow/ice melt melt was 35 ± 2% on July 30, 2013, and the minimum
was 18 ± 3% on December 10, 2013. This analysis fur-
Yusufpur July 37.5 30.3 32.2
ther suggests that the upstream region’s highest snow/
August 39.0 33.9 27.0
ice melt contribution was during July–August 2013.
September 35.3 34.9 29.8
We also observed a higher snow/ice melt contribution
October 39.6 36.7 23.6
of ~ 64% at Ropar from 2000 to 2006. Similarly, Varay
November 39.9 39.0 21.1
December 41.7 38.9 19.5
et al. (2017) observed a higher snowmelt contribution
Annual 38.8 35.6 25.5
(67%) at Lipa in the mountainous region (Fig. 7). The
Ropar July 21.8 12.5 65.7
study results highlight the downstream variability in
August 24.5 14.5 61.1
snowmelt contribution (Wulf et al., 2016). We suggest
September 17.7 17.3 65.0
that the ice/snowmelt runoff is the primary source of
October 25.6 19.7 54.7
the Sutlej River.
November 25.0 22.3 52.7
December 23.9 22.2 53.9
5.2 Uncertainty in Hydrograph Separation
Annual 23.1 18.1 58.8
Rampur Annual 19.0 –- 64
The uncertainty of the hydrograph separation
approach is not avoidable (Uhlenbrook and Hoeg,

Fig. 6  a Snow/Ice melt,

rainfall, and groundwater
contribution to Sutlej River
discharge at Rampur moni-
toring station. Panels b and
c are the cross-plot between
computed and observed
discharge using SNOMOD

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 719 Page 12 of 18
Fig. 7  Summary of snow/
ice melts in the Sutlej river
basin in the Western Hima-
layas and northwest India
2003). Several factors control the hydrograph sepa-
ration approach’s accuracy in any glacierized basin
(Penna et al., 2017). Thus, the uncertainty assess-
ment is a helpful approach that gives probable like-
lihood values by propagating measurement errors to
the final results (Swarnkar et al., 2018; Chen et al.,
2019; Swarnkar et al., 2021b). The spatio-temporal
variation of various contributing sources might influ-
ence the hydrograph separation approach’s uncer-
tainty in the isotopic composition of end members
(Uhlenbrook & Hoeg, 2003). Further to this, the
hydrometeorological parameters (temperature and
humidity) and moisture source influence the rainfall
tracer concentration (Clark & Fritz, 1997). Therefore,
these uncertainties could be much higher than labora-
tory errors (Penna et al., 2017). The statistical uncer-
tainty can be quantified using a first-order uncertainty
estimate (Schmieder et al., 2018) or the Monte Carlo
framework (Genereux, 1998). In the present study, we
quantified uncertainty by applying both methods and
comparing their applicability (Table 4).
Our uncertainty results suggest 1.7–1.8% and
2.0–3.0% uncertainty in groundwater and rainfall
contribution (Table 4). The first-order uncertainty
and MC simulations yielded similar results for both
contributing factors. The uncertainty in snow/ice
melt contribution (i) varies between 2.7–3.7% and
1.6–3.0% using first-order and MC simulations.
It should be noted here that the uncertainty value
of groundwater and rainfall was estimated by par-
tially differentiating Eqs. 6 and 7 in the first-order
uncertainty assessment. The obtained uncertainty
of groundwater and surface-water components were
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
summed in quadrature to obtain uncertainty in rain-
fall contribution.
In MC simulations, uncertainty in the rainfall con-
tribution was estimated by generating random val-
ues and using them in the equations (Eq. 3, 6, and
7). Hence, the first-order uncertainty assessment of
rainfall contribution uncertainty is relatively higher
than the MC uncertainty simulations. It is also proved
that the uncertainties might be over-estimated if they
are assessed through the first-order uncertainty pro-
cedure. The assessed uncertainty could be underes-
timated. Other sources, i.e., spatial uncertainty due
to inhomogeneities in the hydrometeorological pro-
cesses, temporal variation in measurement uncer-
tainty, and stochastic and model errors, should be
incorporated into the uncertainty framework. Com-
bining these different sources of uncertainty might
give relatively higher values than the current uncer-
tainty estimates.
5.3 Limitations of the Present Study
We used hydrograph separation and SNOWMOD
to estimate groundwater, rainfall, and snow/ice melt
contributions to Sutlej River discharge at various
locations in the study area. Due to the remoteness and
inhomogeneities in climatic conditions, collecting
water samples from the higher altitude region for the
isotopic analysis in the Sutlej River Basin is impos-
sible. Therefore, we collected water samples from
the lower altitude region for isotopic study (Varay
et al., 2017; Maurya et al., 2018). We applied an iso-
topic approach for the lower altitude and a modeling
 Table 4  Summary of results obtained from the hydrograph separation approach and associated uncertainty
Result (%) Monte Carlo Gaussian
Location Date Rainfall Groundwater Snow/ice melt Rainfall Groundwater Snow/ice melt Rainfall Groundwater Snow/ice melt

Ropar 10 Jul 2013 24.7 12.4 63.0 2.3 1.8 2.0 2.3 1.8 2.9
Water Air Soil Pollut

20 Jul 2013 20.2 12.2 67.6 2.2 1.8 1.8 2.2 1.8 2.8
30 Jul 2013 20.5 13.0 66.4 2.2 1.8 1.8 2.2 1.8 2.8
10 Aug 2013 17.6 13.5 68.9 2.1 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.8 2.7
20 Aug 2013 27.3 14.5 58.2 2.4 1.7 2.1 2.3 1.7 2.9
30 Aug 2013 28.5 15.4 56.1 2.4 1.7 2.1 2.4 1.7 2.9
10 Sep 2013 18.3 16.7 65.0 2.1 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.8 2.7
(2023) 234:719

20 Sep 2013 18.5 17.5 64.0 2.1 1.8 1.7 2.1 1.8 2.7
30 Sep 2013 16.4 17.8 65.9 2.1 1.8 1.6 2.0 1.8 2.7
10 Oct 2013 19.8 20.0 60.2 2.1 1.7 1.7 2.1 1.7 2.7
20 Oct 2013 30.7 16.2 53.1 2.5 1.7 2.2 2.4 1.7 3.0
30 Oct 2013 26.3 23.0 50.8 2.3 1.7 2.0 2.3 1.7 2.8
10 Nov 2013 27.8 22.4 49.9 2.3 1.7 2.1 2.3 1.7 2.9
20 Nov 2013 25.9 21.4 52.7 2.3 1.7 2.0 2.3 1.7 2.8
30 Nov 2013 21.3 23.3 55.4 2.1 1.7 1.8 2.1 1.7 2.7
10 Dec 2013 25.5 22.9 51.6 2.3 1.7 2.0 2.2 1.7 2.8
20 Dec 2013 23.9 19.6 56.4 2.2 1.7 1.9 2.2 1.7 2.8
30 Dec 2013 22.3 24.1 53.6 2.2 1.7 1.8 2.2 1.7 2.7
Page 13 of 18
719

Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 Table 4  (continued)
719

Result (%) Monte Carlo Gaussian

13
Location Date Rainfall Groundwater Snow/ice melt Rainfall Groundwater Snow/ice melt Rainfall Groundwater Snow/ice melt

Vol:. (1234567890)
Yusufpur 10 Jul 2013 39.7 31.3 29.0 2.8 1.8 2.7 2.8 1.8 3.3
20 Jul 2013 37.9 29.4 32.7 2.7 1.8 2.6 2.7 1.8 3.2
Page 14 of 18

30 Jul 2013 35.0 30.1 34.9 2.6 1.8 2.4 2.6 1.8 3.1
10 Aug 2013 38.6 31.2 30.3 2.8 1.8 2.7 2.7 1.8 3.2
20 Aug 2013 38.9 34.5 26.6 2.8 1.8 2.7 2.7 1.8 3.3
30 Aug 2013 39.6 36.2 24.2 2.8 1.8 2.7 2.8 1.8 3.3
10 Sep 2013 40.6 33.0 26.4 2.8 1.8 2.8 2.8 1.8 3.3
20 Sep 2013 30.9 35.3 33.8 2.4 1.8 2.3 2.4 1.8 3.0
30 Sep 2013 34.3 36.4 29.3 2.6 1.8 2.4 2.6 1.8 3.1
10 Oct 2013 36.2 37.5 26.4 2.7 1.8 2.5 2.6 1.8 3.2
20 Oct 2013 39.9 34.6 25.5 2.8 1.8 2.7 2.8 1.8 3.3
30 Oct 2013 42.8 38.2 19.0 3.0 1.8 2.9 2.9 1.8 3.4
10 Nov 2013 40.6 38.7 20.7 2.9 1.8 2.8 2.8 1.8 3.3
20 Nov 2013 39.2 39.4 21.3 2.8 1.8 2.7 2.8 1.8 3.3
30 Nov 2013 40.1 38.7 21.2 2.8 1.8 2.7 2.8 1.8 3.3
10 Dec 2013 43.7 38.3 18.0 3.0 1.8 3.0 3.0 1.8 3.5
20 Dec 2013 42.4 38.9 18.7 2.9 1.8 2.9 2.9 1.8 3.4
30 Dec 2013 38.9 39.4 21.7 2.8 1.8 2.7 2.8 1.8 3.3
Water Air Soil Pollut
(2023) 234:719
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
approach for the Sutlej River Basin’s higher altitude
region.
First, δ18O and EC values of groundwater, rain-
fall, snow/ice melt, and river water have been used
for hydrograph separation for Yusufpur and Ropar
(Fig. 5). Second, SNOWMOD has been used for the
mountainous region at Rampur (Fig. 6). As men-
tioned earlier, there are limitations regarding isotopic
and in situ data for SNOWMOD. We have used the
available data for our analysis in the present study.
The isotopic data used in the paper was collected in
2013, and in situ data for SNOWMOD was collected
from 2000 to 2006.
We also observed a higher snow/ice melt con-
tribution during July and a decreasing trend until
December (Figs. 5 and 6), possibly due to tempera-
ture variability and hydrometeorological parameters
(Fig. 2a–b). We cannot determine the actual cause(s)
for the observed decreasing trend in snow/ice melt
relative contribution due to the lack of stable isotope,
EC, river discharge, and hydrometeorological datasets
from the present study.
6 Conclusions
This study has comprehensively assessed the rela-
tive contributions of snow/ice melt, groundwater,
and rainfall to the Sutlej River at three key locations:
Rampur, Ropar, and Yusufpur in the Western Hima-
layas and northwest India. Our investigation involved
the use of hydrograph separation and SNOWMOD
modeling techniques. Through our analysis, we dis-
cerned distinct seasonality in snow/ice melt, rainfall,
and groundwater contributions to the river’s dis-
charge. Our findings revealed notable variations in
the contribution of snow/ice melt, precipitation, and
groundwater to the Sutlej River discharge at various
locations. The estimated contributions of snow/ice
melt in Sutlej River discharge vary from 64% at Ram-
pur, 50 ± 2–69 ± 2% at Ropar, and 18 ± 3–35 ± 2% at
Yusufpur. Relatively higher groundwater contribution
is observed at Yusufpur, from 29 ± 2–39 ± 2%, fol-
lowed by the groundwater contribution at Ropar, from
12 ± 2–24 ± 2%. We observed a relatively higher rain-
fall contribution at Yusufpur, from 31 ± 2–44 ± 3%,
followed by the rainfall contribution at Ropar, from
16 ± 2–31 ± 3%. The present study suggests discharge
in the Sutlej River is primarily modulated by the
Page 15 of 18 719
snow/ice melt contribution, originating in the WH
higher-altitude region. In contrast, groundwater and
rainfall mainly govern the Sutlej River discharge in
the alluvium region. Our results can provide an oper-
ational monitor and groundwater manager to manage
water resources to sustain long-term existence in the
mountainous river system.
Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the
Director of the National Institute of Hydrology, Roorkee, for
their support during the study. The isotopic data of snow/ice
melt, groundwater, surface water, and precipitation used in this
study are obtained from Pande et al. (2000), Rai et al. (2016 &
2019), Biggs et al. (2015), Ren et al. (2016), Rao et al. (2017),
Joshi et al. (2018; 2020), Maurya et al. (2018), and Boral et al.
(2019). Data obtained from the Asian Precipitation—Highly
Resolved Observational Data Integration Towards Evaluation
(http://​aphro​dite.​st.​hiros​aki-u.​ac.​jp/​downl​oad/), Advanced Spa-
ceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiation Digital
Elevation Model (https://​gbank.​gsj.​jp/​madas/?​lang=​en#​top),
Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer land surface
reflectance 8-day maximum snow cover products (MOD10A2)
with a 500-m spatial resolution (https://​nsidc.​org/​data/​MOD10​
A2/​versi​ons/6), and hydrometeorological data (rainfall and
temperature) data from Indian Meteorological Department
(http://​imdpu​ne.​gov.​in/​Clim_​Pred_​LRF_​New/​Grided_​Data_​
Downl​oad.​html) are thankfully acknowledged. The data
obtained from the Bhakra Beas Management Board (BBMB),
Government of India, is thankfully acknowledged.
Author Contribution Suneel Kumar Joshi: conceptualiza-
tion, methodology, validation, formal analysis, resources, writ-
ing—original draft, writing—review and editing.
Somil Swarnkar: methodology, validation, formal analysis,
writing—review and editing.
Sandip Shukla: methodology, validation, formal analysis,
writing—review and editing.
Sudhir Kumar: writing—review and editing, supervision.
Sanjay Jain: writing—review and editing, supervision.
Sneha Gautam: writing—review and editing.
Declarations
Conflict of Interest The authors declare no competing inter-
ests.
References
Bazemore, D. E., Eshleman, K. N., & Hollenbeck, K. J. (1994).
The role of soil water in stormflow generation in a for-
ested headwater catchment: Synthesis of natural tracer and
hydrometric evidence. Journal of Hydrology, 162(1–2),
47–75.
Bhat, M. I., & Le Fort, P. (1992). Sm-Nd age and petrogen-
esis of Rampur metavolcanic rocks, NW Himalayas:
Late Archaean relics in the Himalayan belt. Precambrian
Research, 56(3–4), 191–210.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 719 Page 16 of 18
Bhatt, C., Litoria, P., & Sharma, P. (2008). Geomorphic sig-
natures of active tectonics in Bist Doab interfluvial tract
of Punjab, NW India. Journal of the Indian Society of
Remote Sensing, 36(4), 361–373.
Bhattacharya, S., Gupta, S., & Krishnamurthy, R. (1985). Oxy-
gen and hydrogen isotopic ratios in groundwaters and
river waters from India. Proceedings of the Indian Acad-
emy of Sciences-Earth and Planetary Sciences, 94(3),
283–295.
Biggs, T. W., Lai, C. T., Chandan, P., Lee, R. M., Messina, A.,
Lesher, R. S., & Khatoon, N. (2015). Evaporative frac-
tions and elevation effects on stable isotopes of high ele-
vation lakes and streams in arid Western Himalaya. Jour-
nal of Hydrology, 522, 239–249.
Bookhagen, B., Burbank, D., W. (2010). Toward a complete
Himalayan hydrological budget: Spatiotemporal distribu-
tion of snowmelt and rainfall and their impact on river
discharge. Journal of Geophysical Research: Earth Sur-
face, 115, F03019. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1029/​2009J​F0014​26
Boral, S., Sen, I. S., Ghosal, D., Peucker-Ehrenbrink, B., &
Hemingway, J. D. (2019). Stable water isotope modeling
reveals spatio-temporal variability of glacier meltwater
contributions to Ganges River headwaters. Journal of
Hydrology, 577, 123983.
Bose, J. R., Manova, S., Angeline, A. A., Asirvatham, L. G., &
Gautam, S. (2023). Numerical study on the heat transfer
characteristics of Cu-water and TiO2-Water nanofluid in a
circular horizontal tube. Energies, 16(3), 1449.
Brenninkmeijer, C. A. M., & Morrison, P. D. (1987). An auto-
mated system for isotopic equilibration of ­CO2 and ­H2O
for 18O analysis of water. Chemical Geology: Isotope
Geoscience Section, 66(1–2), 21–26.
Camacho Suarez, V. V., Saraiva Okello, A. M. L., Wenninger,
J. W., & Uhlenbrook, S. (2015). Understanding runoff
processes in a semi-arid environment through isotope and
hydrochemical hydrograph separations. Hydrology and
Earth System Sciences, 19(10), 4183–4199.
Chen, H., Chen, Y., Li, W., & Li, Z. (2019). Quantifying the
contributions of snow/glacier meltwater to river runoff in
the Tianshan Mountains, Central Asia. Global and Plan-
etary Change, 174, 47–57.
Clark, I. D., & Fritz, P. (1997). Environmental isotopes in
hydrogeology. CRC Press.
Davis, P., Syme, J., Heikoop, J., Fessenden-Rahn, J., Perkins,
G., Newman, B., Chrystal, A. E., & Hagerty, S. B. (2015).
Quantifying uncertainty in stable isotope mixing mod-
els. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences,
120(5), 903–923.
Delsman, J. R., Essink, G. H. O., Beven, K. J., & Stuyfzand,
P. J. (2013). Uncertainty estimation of end-member mix-
ing using generalized likelihood uncertainty estimation
(GLUE), applied in a lowland catchment. Water Resources
Research, 49(8), 4792–4806.
Dincer, T., Payne, B., Florkowski, T., Martinec, J., & Ton-
giorgi, E. (1970). Snowmelt runoff from measurements of
tritium and oxygen-18. Water Resources Research, 6(1),
110–124.
Engel, M., Penna, D., Bertoldi, G., Dell’Agnese, A., Soulsby,
C., & Comiti, F. (2016). Identifying runoff contributions
during melt-induced runoff events in a glacierized alpine
catchment. Hydrological Processes, 30(3), 343–364.
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
Epstein, S., & Mayeda, T. (1953). Variation of O ­ 18 content of
waters from natural sources. Geochimica Et Cosmochim-
ica Acta, 4(5), 213–224.
Gauatm, S., Thomas, J. E., Gautam, A. S., & Abhilash, P.
(2022). Impact assessment of aerosol optical depth on
rainfall in Indian rural areas. Aerosol Science and Engi-
neering, 6, 186–196.
Genereux, D. (1998). Quantifying uncertainty in tracer-based
hydrograph separations. Water Resources Research, 34(4),
915–919.
Gong, S., Bai, X., Luo, G., Li, C., Wu, L., Chen, F., Ran, C.,
Xi, H., Zhang, S. (2023). Climate change has enhanced
the positive contribution of rock weathering to the major
ions in riverine transport. Global and Planetary Change,
228, 104203. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​glopl​acha.​2023.​
104203
Guo, X., Feng, Q., Liu, W., Li, Z., Wen, X., Si, J., Xi, H.,
Guo, R., & Jia, B. (2015). Stable isotopic and geochemi-
cal identification of groundwater evolution and recharge
sources in the arid Shule River Basin of Northwestern
China. Hydrological Processes, 29(22), 4703–4718.
Hall, D. K., Riggs, G. A., Salomonson, V. V., DiGirolamo, N.
E., & Bayr, K. J. (2002). MODIS snow-cover products.
Remote Sensing of Environment, 83(1–2), 181–194.
Immerzeel, W. W., Pellicciotti, F., & Bierkens, M. F. P. (2013).
Rising river flows throughout the twenty-first century in
two Himalayan glacierized watersheds. Nature Geosci-
ence, 6(9), 742–745.
Immerzeel, W. W., Kraaijenbrink, P. D., Shea, J. M., Shrestha,
A. B., Pellicciotti, F., Bierkens, M. F., & de Jong, S. M.
(2014). High-resolution monitoring of Himalayan glacier
dynamics using unmanned aerial vehicles. Remote Sens-
ing of Environment, 150, 93–103.
Jeelani, G. H., Shah, R. A., Jacob, N., & Deshpande, R. D.
(2017). Estimation of snow and glacier melt contribution
to Liddar stream in a mountainous catchment, Western
Himalaya: An isotopic approach. Isotopes in Environmen-
tal and Health Studies, 53(1), 18–35.
Joerin, C., Beven, K. J., Iorgulescu, I., & Musy, A. (2002).
Uncertainty in hydrograph separations based on geo-
chemical mixing models. Journal of Hydrology, 255(1–4),
90–106.
Joshi, S. K., Rai, S. P., Sinha, R., Gupta, S., Shekhar, S., Rawat,
Y. S., Kumar, M., Mason, P. J., Densmore, A. L., Singh,
A., & Nayak, N. (2014). Spatio-temporal variations in
groundwater levels in Northwest India and implications
for future groundwater management. AGUFM, 2014,
H41G-0903.
Joshi, S. K., Rai, S. P., Sinha, R., Gupta, S., Densmore, A. L.,
Rawat, Y. S., & Shekhar, S. (2018). Tracing groundwater
recharge sources in the northwestern Indian alluvial aqui-
fer using water isotopes (δ18O, δ2H, and 3H). Journal of
Hydrology, 559, 835–847.
Joshi, S. K., Rai, S. P., & Sinha, R. (2020). Understanding
groundwater recharge processes in Sutlej-Yamuna plain in
northwest India using isotopic approach. Geological Soci-
ety of London. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1144/​SP507-​2020-​174
Kalpana, P., Parthiban, S., Gopinathan, P., Subramani, T.,
Roy, P. D., & Gautam, S. (2020). Spatio-temporal esti-
mation of rainfall patterns in north and northwestern
states of India between 1901 and 2015: Change point
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
detections and trend assessments. Arabian Journal of
Geosciences, 13, 1–15.
Karim, A., & Veizer, J. (2002). Water balance of the Indus
River Basin and moisture source in the Karakoram and
Western Himalayas: Implications from hydrogen and
oxygen isotopes in river water. Journal of Geophysical
Research: Atmospheres, 107(D18), ACH-9.
Khan, A. A., Pant, N. C., Sarkar, A., Tandon, S. K., Tham-
ban, M., & Mahalinganathan, K. (2017). The Himala-
yan cryosphere: A critical assessment and evaluation of
glacial melt fraction in the Bhagirathi basin. Geoscience
Frontiers, 8(1), 107–115.
Kulkarni, A. V., Rathore, B. P., & Singh, S. K. (2010). Dis-
tribution of seasonal snow cover in central and Western
Himalaya. Annals of Glaciology, 51(54), 123–128.
Kumar, B., Rai, S. P., Kumar, U. S., Verma, S. K., Garg, P.,
Kumar, S. V. V., Jaiswal, R., Purendra, B. K., Kumar,
S. R., & Pande, N. G. (2010). Isotopic characteristics
of Indian precipitation. Water Resources Research, 46,
W12548.
Kumar, A., Tiwari, S. K., Verma, A., & Gupta, A. K. (2018).
Tracing isotopic signatures (δD and δ18O) in precipita-
tion and glacier melt over Chorabari Glacier-Hydro-
climatic inferences for the Upper Ganga Basin (UGB),
Garhwal Himalaya. Journal of Hydrology: Regional
Studies, 15, 68–89.
Lambs, L. (2000). Correlation of conductivity and stable iso-
tope 18O for the assessment of water origin in river sys-
tem. Chemical Geology, 164(1–2), 161–170.
Lapworth, D., Krishan, G., MacDonald, A., & Rao, M.
(2017). Groundwater quality in the alluvial aquifer sys-
tem of northwest India: New evidence of the extent of
anthropogenic and geogenic contamination. Science of
the Total Environment, 599, 1433–1444.
Li, Q., Song, D., Yuan, C., & Nie, W. (2022). An image rec-
ognition method for the deformation area of open-pit rock
slopes under variable rainfall. Measurement, 188, 110544.
https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​measu​rement.​2021.​110544
Li, Y., Mi, W., Ji, L., He, Q., Yang, P., Xie, S., Bi, Y. (2023).
Urbanization and agriculture intensification jointly
enlarge the spatial inequality of river water quality. Sci-
ence of The Total Environment, 878, 162559. https://​doi.​
org/​10.​1016/j.​scito​tenv.​2023.​162559.
Liu, Z., Xu, J., Liu, M., Yin, Z., Liu, X., Yin, L., Zheng, W.
(2023). Remote sensing and geostatistics in urban water-
resource monitoring: A review. Marine and Freshwater
Research, 74, 747–765.
Lone, S. A., Jeelani, G., Deshpande, R. D., & Mukherjee, A.
(2019). Stable isotope (δ18O and δD) dynamics of pre-
cipitation in a high-altitude Himalayan cold desert and
its surroundings in Indus river basin, Ladakh. Atmos-
pheric Research, 221, 46–57.
Loukili, H., Anouzla, A., Jioui, I., Achiou, B., Alami Younssi,
S., Azoulay, K., Bencheikh, I., Mabrouki, J., Abrouki, Y.,
Sebbahi, S., & Bourais, I. (2022). Combining multiple
regression and principal component analysis to evalu-
ate the effects of ambient air pollution on children’s res-
piratory diseases. International Journal of Information
Technology, 14(3), 1305–1310. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1007/​
s41870-​022-​00906-z
Page 17 of 18 719
Luo, J., Niu, F., Lin, Z., Liu, M., Yin, G., Gao, Z. (2022).
Abrupt increase in thermokarst lakes on the central
Tibetan Plateau over the last 50 years. CATENA, 217,
106497. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​catena.​2022.​106497.
Maurya, A., Shah, M., Deshpande, R., Bhardwaj, R., Prasad,
A., & Gupta, S. (2011). Hydrograph separation and pre-
cipitation source identification using stable water isotopes
and conductivity: River Ganga at Himalayan foothills.
Hydrological Processes, 25(10), 1521–1530.
Maurya, A. S., Rai, S. P., Joshi, N., Dutt, K. S., & Rai, N.
(2018). Snowmelt runoff and groundwater discharge in
Himalayan rivers: A case study of the Satluj River. NW
India. Environmental Earth Sciences, 77(19), 694.
Mayewski, P. A., & Jeschke, P. A. (1979). Himalayan and
Trans-Himalayan glacier fluctuations since AD 1812. Arc-
tic and Alpine Research, 11(3), 267–287.
Pande, K., Padia, J. T., Ramesh, R., & Sharma, K. K. (2000).
Stable isotope systematics of surface water bodies in the
Himalayan and Trans-Himalayan (Kashmir) region. Jour-
nal of Earth System Science, 109(1), 109–115.
Penna, D., Van Meerveld, H. J., Zuecco, G., Dalla Fontana, G.,
& Borga, M. (2016). Hydrological response of an Alpine
catchment to rainfall and snowmelt events. Journal of
Hydrology, 537, 382–397.
Penna, D., Engel, M., Bertoldi, G., Comiti, F. (2017). Towards
a tracer-based conceptualization of meltwater dynam-
ics and streamflow response in a glacierized catchment.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 21, 23–41. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​5194/​hess-​21-​23-​2017
Prasad, V., Kulkarni, A. V., Pradeep, S., Pratibha, S., Tawde,
S. A., Shirsat, T., Arya, A. R., Orr, A., & Bannister, D.
(2019). Large losses in glacier area and water availabil-
ity by the end of twenty-first century under high emis-
sion scenario, Satluj basin. Himalaya. Current Science,
116(10), 1721–1730.
Rai, S. P., Thayyen, R. J., Purushothaman, P., & Kumar, B.
(2016). Isotopic characteristics of cryospheric waters in
parts of Western Himalayas. India. Environmental Earth
Sciences, 75(7), 600.
Rai, S. P., Singh, D., Jacob, N., Rawat, Y. S., & Arora, M.
(2019). Identifying contribution of snowmelt and glacier
melt to the Bhagirathi River (Upper Ganga) near snout of
the Gangotri Glacier using environmental isotopes. CAT-
ENA, 173, 339–351.
Rao, M., Krishan, G., Kumar, C., Purushothaman, P., &
Kumar, S. (2017). Observing changes in groundwater
resource using hydrochemical and isotopic parameters: A
case study from Bist Doab. Punjab. Environmental Earth
Sciences, 76(4), 175.
Ren, W., Yao, T., & Xie, S. (2016). Water stable isotopes in
the Yarlungzangbo headwater region and its vicinity of
the southwestern Tibetan Plateau. Tellus b: Chemical and
Physical Meteorology, 68(1), 30397.
Rosenbrock, H. (1960). An automatic method for finding the
greatest or least value of a function. The Computer Jour-
nal, 3(3), 175–184.
Rosenbrock, H. H. (1963). Some general implicit processes for
the numerical solution of differential equations. The Com-
puter Journal, 5(4), 329–330.
Vol.: (0123456789)
13
 719 Page 18 of 18
Schaner, N., Voisin, N., Nijssen, B., & Lettenmaier, D. P.
(2012). The contribution of glacier melt to streamflow.
Environmental Research Letters, 7(3), 034029.
Schmieder, J., Garvelmann, J., Marke, T., Strasser, U. (2018).
Spatio‐temporal tracer variability in the glacier melt end‐
member — How does it affect hydrograph separation
results?. Hydrological Processes, 32, 1828–1843. https://​
doi.​org/​10.​1002/​hyp.​11628
Shekhar, S., Kumar, S., Densmore, A. L., van Dijk, W. M.,
Sinha, R., Kumar, M., Joshi, S. K., Rai, S. P., & Kumar,
D. (2020). Modelling water levels of northwestern India
in response to improved irrigation use efficiency. Nature
Scientific Report, 10, 13452.
Shukla, S., Kansal, M. L., & Jain, S. K. (2017). Snow cover
area variability assessment in the upper part of the Sat-
luj river basin in India. Geocarto International, 32(11),
1285–1306.
Singh, B. (1987). Geomorphological map of Bist-Doab Tract,
Punjab from Landsat imagery analysis. Journal of the
Indian Society of Remote Sensing, 15(1), 29–33.
Singh, P., & Bengtsson, L. (2003). Effect of warmer climate
on the depletion of snow-covered area in the Satluj basin
in the western Himalayan region. Hydrological sciences
journal, 48(3), 413–425.
Singh, P., & Bengtsson, L. (2004). Hydrological sensitivity of
a large Himalayan basin to climate change. Hydrological
Processes, 18(13), 2363–2385.
Singh, P., & Jain, S. K. (2002). Snow and glacier melt in the
Satluj River at Bhakra Dam in the western Himalayan
region. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 47(1), 93–106.
Singh, P., & Jain, S. K. (2003). Modelling of streamflow and its
components for a large Himalayan basin with predominant
snowmelt yields. Hydrological Sciences Journal, 48(2),
257–276.
Singh, A., Thomsen, K. J., Sinha, R., Buylaert, J. P., Carter, A.,
Mark, D. F., Mason, P. J., Densmore, A. L., Murray, A. S.,
Jain, M., & Paul, D. (2017). Counter-intuitive influence of
Himalayan river morphodynamics on Indus Civilisation
urban settlements. Nature Communications, 8(1), 1–14.
Sinha, R., Yadav, G. S., Gupta, S., Singh, A., & Lahiri, S. K.
(2013). Geoelectric resistivity evidence for subsurface
palaeochannel systems adjacent to Harappan sites in
northwest India. Quaternary International, 308, 66–75.
Sinha, R., Joshi, S. K., & Kumar, S. (2019). Aftershocks of
the Green Revolution in Northwest India. Geography and
You, 19(24), 12–19.
Swarnkar, S., Malini, A., Tripathi, S., & Sinha, R. (2018).
Assessment of uncertainties in soil erosion and sediment
yield estimates at ungauged basins: An application to the
Garra River basin. India. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences, 22(4), 2471.
Swarnkar, S., Prakash, S., Joshi, S. K., & Sinha, R. (2021). Spatio-
temporal rainfall trends in the Ganga River basin over the last
century: Understanding feedback and hydrological impacts.
Hydrological Sciences Journal, 66(14), 2074–2088.
Swarnkar, S., Tripathi, S., & Sinha, R. (2021). Understanding
hydrogeomorphic and climatic controls on soil erosion
Vol:. (1234567890)
13
Water Air Soil Pollut (2023) 234:719
and sediment dynamics in large Himalayan basins. Sci-
ence of the Total Environment, 795, 148972.
Taylor, J. R. (1997). Error analysis. Univ. Science Books.
Uhlenbrook, S., & Hoeg, S. (2003). Quantifying uncertainties
in tracer-based hydrograph separations: A case study for
two-, three-and five-component hydrograph separations in
a mountainous catchment. Hydrological Processes, 17(2),
431–453.
van Dijk, W. M., Densmore, A. L., Jackson, C. R., Mackay,
J. D., Joshi, S. K., Sinha, R., Shekhar, S., & Gupta, S.
(2020). Spatial variation of groundwater response to mul-
tiple drivers in a depleting alluvial aquifer system, north-
western India. Progress in Physical Geography: Earth
and Environment, 44(1), 94–119.
Varay, L. S., Rai, S. P., Singh, S. K., & Jain, V. (2017). Estima-
tion of snow and glacial melt contribution through stable
isotopes and assessment of its impact on river morphol-
ogy through stream power approach in two Himalayan
river basins. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76(23), 809.
Veh, G., Korup, O., & Walz, A. (2020). Hazard from Hima-
layan glacier lake outburst floods. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 117(2), 907–912.
Wan, Z., Zhang, Y., Zhang, Q., & Li, Z. L. (2004). Quality
assessment and validation of the MODIS global land sur-
face temperature. International Journal of Remote Sens-
ing, 25(1), 261–274.
Webb, A. A. G., Schmitt, A. K., He, D., Weigand, E. L. (2011).
Structural and geochronological evidence for the leading
edge of the Greater Himalayan Crystalline complex in the
central Nepal Himalaya. Earth and Planetary Science Let-
ters 304(2011), 483–495
Wulf, H., Bookhagen, B., & Scherler, D. (2016). Differentiat-
ing between rain, snow, and glacier contributions to river
discharge in the western Himalayas using remote-sensing
data and distributed hydrological modeling. Advances in
Water Resources, 88, 152–169.
Yatagai, A., Kamiguchi, K., Arakawa, O., Hamada, A., Yasu-
tomi, N., & Kitoh, A. (2012). APHRODITE: Constructing
a long-term daily gridded precipitation dataset for Asia
based on a dense network of rain gauges. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, 93(9), 1401–1415.
Zhou, J., Wang, L., Zhong, X., Yao, T., Qi, J., Wang, Y.,... Xue,
Y. (2022). Quantifying the major drivers for the expand-
ing lakes in the interior Tibetan Plateau. Science Bulletin,
67(5), 474–478. https://​doi.​org/​10.​1016/j.​scib.​2021.​11.​010
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.