Hydrological Modeling of Upper Indus Basin and Assessment of Deltaic Ecology
Hydrological Modeling of Upper Indus Basin and Assessment of Deltaic Ecology
Hydrological Modeling of Upper Indus Basin and Assessment of Deltaic Ecology
=
=
n
1 i
2
)
mean
i
Y
obs
i
Y (
n
1 i
2
)
sim
i
Y
obs
i
Y (
1 NSE
(2)
Where
obs
i
Y
is the ith observation (streamflow),
sim
i
Y
is the ith simulated value,
mean
Y
is the mean of
observed data and n is the total number of observations.
NSE ranges between and 1.0 (1 inclusive), with NSE=1 being the optimal value. Values between 0.0 and 1.0
are generally viewed as acceptable levels of performance [28]. According to NSE method, the model result of
0.98 which is quite acceptable
5.2. Output Maps
SWAT model used the input data for soil, climate and land use to simulate the hydrology of Upper
Indus River Basin and assessment of impact of drought and dry periods on environmental flow. A large
watershed system in Pakistan, India, China and Afghanistan has been used for simulation. The simulation period
is 11 years from 1994 to 2004. The model results are briefly summarized in the following output maps, Fig.(7)
Hydrological Modeling of Upper Indus Basin and Assessment of Deltaic Ecology
| IJMER | ISSN: 22496645 | www.ijmer.com | Vol. 4 | Iss. 1 | Jan. 2014 |82|
Figure 7: Distribution of Basic output hydrological components and land use of Upper Indus Basin watershed
through 101 sub-basins for simulation period of 11years (1994-2004).
The analysis of Figure 7 illustrates that: the precipitation varies very much spatially. The average
annual precipitation of 652 mm with maximum of 1696 mm and minimum of 82 mm. the occurrence and
magnitude of precipitation are influenced by the distribution of areas within each elevation band in the study
area as shown in Fig.7(a). High mountain regions are characterized by altitudinal variations in the contribution
of rainfall, snowmelt and glacier melt to runoff. Waters captured at high altitudes flow under gravity via the
stream network or groundwater aquifers to the lowlands resulting in quite different hydrological regimes.
(a) Average annual precipitation (mm) (b) Average annual evapotranspiration (mm)
14
59
58
61
97
7
2
99
92
22
100
5
69
8
60
35
1
88
33
23
72
34
86
51
11
87
84
50
40
76
18
98
6 3
24
55
90
52
73
26
63
62
71
65
30
66
57
19
85
4
39
91
83
53
96
15
94
70
80
89
48
74
10
44
77
12
75
28
67
16
79
45
95
56
17
32
21
37 46
93
20
9
54
25
38
68
41
13
81
36
78
42
31
82
43
49
29
64
27
47
101
Swat-Out putSub_default_Sim1: Sw [mm] Aver
1.068 - 6.917
6.917 - 20. 246
20. 246 - 59.831
59. 831 - 143.043
143.043 - 242.764
Soil Water Contents
14
59
58
61
97
7
2
99
92
22
100
5
69
8
60
35
1
88
33
23
72
34
86
51
11
87
84
50
40
76
18
98
6
3
24
55
90
52
73
26
63
62
71
65
30
66
57
19
85
4
39
91
83
53
96
15
94
70
80
89
48
74
10
44
77
12
75
28
67
16
79
45
95
56
17
32
21
37 46
93
20
9
54
25
38
68
41
13
81
36
78
42
31
82
43
49
29
64
27
47
101
Swat-Output Sub_def ault_Sim1: Gw_Q [ mm] Aver
0 - 14. 828
14. 828 - 56. 927
56. 927 - 248. 96
248. 96 - 477. 752
477. 752 - 832. 878
Groundwater Contribution to Streamf low
(c) Average annual soil water contents (mm) (d) Average annual contribution of groundwater to
stream flow (mm)
14
59
58
61
97
7
2
99
92
22
100
5
69
8
60
35
1
88
33
23
72
34
86
51
11
87
84
50
40
76
18
98
6
3
24
55
90
52
73
26
63
62
71
65
30
66
57
19
85
4
39
91
83
53
96
15
94
70
80
89
48
74
10
44
77
12
75
28
67
16
79
45
95
56
17
32
21
37 46
93
20
9
54
25
38
68
41
13
81
36
78
42
31
82
43
49
29
64
27
47
101
Swat-Out putSub_default_Sim1: Surq [ mm] Aver
0 - 7.534
7.534 - 42. 695
42. 695 - 74.008
74. 008 - 173.301
173.301 - 323.42
Surface Water Contribution to Streamflow
(e) Average annual surface water yield (mm) (f) SWAT land use classes
N
N
N N
N N
Hydrological Modeling of Upper Indus Basin and Assessment of Deltaic Ecology
| IJMER | ISSN: 22496645 | www.ijmer.com | Vol. 4 | Iss. 1 | Jan. 2014 |83|
Changes in land use and vegetation affect not only runoff but also evapotranspiration. Increased
evapotranspiration reduces the groundwater recharge and the contribution to river flow. However, great
differences occur according to the plant species and the rate of production. Fig. 7(b) represents the amount and
variation of evapotranspiration over the whole catchment, which ranges from 512mm to 70 mm with an average
annual of 236 mm. The distribution of annual soil water content is presented by Fig. 7(c), the maximum value is
243 mm with the average annual of 51mm and minimum as low as 1mm.
Streams and other surface-water bodies may either gain water from ground water or lose (recharge) water to
ground water. The contribution of ground water to total streamflow varies widely among streams.The effect of
ground-water contribution to headwater streams on the volume of streamflow lower in a watershed is related
partly to the volume of ground water contri-buted in the headwater area; that is, the larger flow is initially, the
farther downstream that water will extend. Fig. 7(d) illustrates that the average annual contribution of
groundwater in UIB to steam flow is about 202 mm with the maximum 832 mm and minimum of zero ( for low
precipitation), and total average annual surface water yield is 152 mm with the average maximum of 323 mm
and minimum of even less than one mm as shown in Figures 7(d & e) respectively. These results of Upper Basin
have practical consequences for flow forecasting on the River Indus and a significance for water resource use in
the lower Indus.
VI. ECOHYDROLOGY
The river Indus intercepts mountains, feeds great Indus Basin Irrigation System (IBIS), transverses
deserts and deltaic systems and finally drains into Arabian Sea. The last ecosystem intercepted by this mighty
river is deltaic. The main use of Indus water is agriculture and provinces own right of its use. The survival of the
Indus Delta is dependent on the silt-laden freshwater discharges from river which has been curtailed due to
diversion of water for agriculture, power generation, and other uses in the upper reaches. The distributing of
water among provinces is governed under water appointment accord signed in 1991 among provinces. It was
agreed in accord that 12 Bm3 flow will be allocated for sustainability of freshwater dependent deltaic
ecosystem. The freshwater flows into the delta during the recent years have been inconsistent and mostly below
the minimum required quantity as shown in Fig.(8).
Figure 8 indicates that release of environmental flow to delta rather than the hydrological as the flow
below Kotri Brage is highly variable for the same range of runoff in Upper Indus Watershed. The reduction in
the inflow of freshwater has exposed complex deltaic ecosystem to several environmental and social stresses in
the form of loss of habitat and biodiversity and a decline in the productive values of the ecosystem. The reasons
for continuous reduction in discharges and consequent silt load are mainly due to construction of dams and
diversion of water in canals. From 1992 onwards the reduction in water discharges below Kotri Barrage and
natural drought periods are very conspicuous and so is the drastic reduction in silt load. This has not only
degraded the development and health of mangroves but has facilitated the sea intrusion in the Indus delta.
Because of the volume and sustainability of stream flow is generated in head-waters areas, the model
out put was used to analyze the environmental flow in lower delta. Figure 8 illustrates that the average
precipitation is sufficient to generate runoff and groundwater recharge. The simulated runoff by the model have
practical consequences for flow forecasting on the River Indus and its delta. The figure shows that there is
enough water for downstream release so that freshwater release for sustainability of Deltaic ecosystem should
taken at second priority whereas other uses like ; irrigation, power, drinking etc. are preferred during dry
periods which degrades the deltaic ecosystem
Figure 8: Availability of Water and Environmental Flow in Indus River
Bm
3
mm
Simulated
Hydrological Modeling of Upper Indus Basin and Assessment of Deltaic Ecology
| IJMER | ISSN: 22496645 | www.ijmer.com | Vol. 4 | Iss. 1 | Jan. 2014 |84|
VII. CONCLUSIONS
The mountains region of UIB is a critical source of water for Pakistan and provide the main water
source for the IBIS, one of the worlds largest integrated irrigation networks. The River Indus is fed by a
combination of melt water from seasonal and permanent snow fields and glaciers, and runoff from rainfall both
during the winter and monsoon season. The hydrology of Upper Indus River Basin and the linkage between
climatic variables and river flow is investigated by A GIS based watershed model Soil and Water Assessment
Tool (SWAT). The impact of drought and dry periods on the ecohydrology of Indus Delta also assessed. Swat
model was successfully calibrated in the UIB watershed. The evaluation of the model performance was carried
out successfully with the recommended statistical coefficients. The comparison of observed and simulated flow
stream at two gauging stations revealed a Nash-Sutcliffe coefficient superior to 0.98 and R
2
to 0.54 for
calibration periods.
The analysis of output maps concluded that: the hydrological components of Upper Indus Basin
watershed (precipitation, evapotranspiration, soil water content, surface water yield and contribution of
groundwater to stream flow) differ between basins in the region and these affect the environmental flow of
Indus River and the water resource use in the lower Indus. The variation of hydrological components within the
basin due to the elevation range and the distribution of areas within each elevation band in the in the catchment,
temperature variations, permanent snowfields and the glacierised proportion.
Freshwater release for sustainability of Deltaic ecosystem should taken at second priority whereas
other uses like ; irrigation, power, drinking etc. are preferred during dry periods which degrades the deltaic
ecosystem. Thereafter differing hydrological regimes over the mountains of northern Pakistan must be taken
into account in the planning , design, management and operation of water resources of the River Indus and its
delta.
This study had showed the utility of GIS to create combine and generate the necessary data to set up
and run the hydrological models especially for those distributed and continuous. It also had demonstrated that
the SWAT model works well in large mountainous watersheds and in semi-arid regions.
RECOMMEDATION
1- The calibrated model can be well used in UIB watershed to assess or predict other watershed components
such as the impacts of land and climate changes on water quality and sediment yield.
2- The performances can be enhanced using some other global climate data and emissions scenarios to assess
the potential impacts of climate change on the hydrology of whole Indus River basin as a macro scale
model.
3- Solute transport model should be developed for Indus Delta to predict the saline water intrusions and for
different scenarios of pumping of aquifer at different depths
REFERENCES
[1] Ahmad N., Water Resources of Pakistan (Miraj-ud-Dn Press, Lahore, Pakistan, 1993).
[2] MOWP, Pakistan Water Sector Strategy: National Water Sector Profile ( Ministry of Water and Power, Vol. 5,
October 2002).
[3] Hayley J. Fowler and David R. Archer, Hydro-climatological variability in the Upper Indus Basin and
implications for water resources, Regional Hydrological Impacts of Climatic Change-Impact Assessment and
Decision Making ,Proceedings of symposium S6 held during the Seventh IAHS Scientific Assembly at Foz do
Iguau, Brazil, April 2005, IAHS Publ. 295 (2005).
[4] Rao, Y. P. , The Climate of the Indian Subcontinent, In Climate of Southern and Western Asia, (Word Survey of
Climatology New York: Elsevir., vol. 9 ,1981) 67-1123.
[5] Hoekstra, M. Nurrudin, G.R. Shah, W.A. Shah, M.A. Domki and Q.M. Ali Diagnostic Study of the Indus Delta
Mangroves Ecosystem (Sindh Forest & Wildlife Department, Karachi, 1997).
[6] WAPDA (Water and Power Development Authority), Terbala Dam Sedimentation Annual Report, Pakistan, 2005.
[7] Kahlown. M.A., Khan A. D. and Azam M., Worlds Largest Contiguous Irrigation System: Developments,
Successes, and Chellanges of Indus Irrigation System. In: Proceedings. The History of water, Islamabad, Pakistan,
2000.
[8] Vijay P. Singh and Donald K. Frevert, Watershed Models. (Taylor and Francis Group, LLC. New York, 2006).
[9] V. P. Singh and D. A. Woolhiser, Mathematical Modeling of Watershed Hydrology, Journal of Hydrologic
Engineering, ASCE, 7(4), 2002, 270-292.
[10] Masood T. and Sana Ullah, Draft Report on UBC Modeling of Jhelum (Lahore, Pakistan,1991)
[11] Munir A. B. and Najib A., Climate Change Impact Assessment and Adaptation Strategies for Pakistan in Water
Sector, Pakistan Science Foundation, (1997).
[12] Ahmad M., A. Brooke, and G. P. Kutcher, Guide to the Indus Basin Model Revised (Washington, DC: World
Bank, 1990).
Hydrological Modeling of Upper Indus Basin and Assessment of Deltaic Ecology
| IJMER | ISSN: 22496645 | www.ijmer.com | Vol. 4 | Iss. 1 | Jan. 2014 |85|
[13] Winston Yu, Yi-Chen Yang, Andre S., Donald A., Casey B., James W., Dario D. and Sherman R., The Indus
Basin of Pakistan: The Impacts of Climate Risks on Water and Agriculture ( The WORLD BANK, Washington,
D.C. ,2013).
[14] Arnold J. G., Sprinvasan R., Muttiah R. S. and Williams J. R., Large area Hydrologic Modeling and Assessment:
Part 1 Model Development, Journal of American Water Resources Association, 34(1) ,1998, 73-89
[15] Di Luzio M., Raghavan S. and Jeffrey G. Arnold, A GIS-Coupled Hydrological Model System for the Watershed
Assessment of Agricultural Nonpoint and Point Source of Pollution, Transaction in GIS, 8(1), 2004, 113-136
[16] Shimelis G. S., R. Srinivasan and B. Dargahi, Hydro-logical Modelling in the Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia Using
SWAT Model, The Open Hydrology Journal, 2(1) ,2008, 49-62.
[17] Ashagre B. B., SWAT to Identify Watershed Management Options: Anjeni Watershed, Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia,
Masters Thesis, Cornell University, New York, 2009.
[18] Fadil A., Rhinane H. , Kaoukaya A., Kharchaf Y. and Bachir O. A., Hydrologic Modeling of the Bouregreg
Watershed (Morocco) Using GIS and SWAT Model, Journal of Geographic Information System, 3,October 2011,
279-289.
[19] Cindy S. and Koichiro O., Dam Construction Impacts on Stream Flow and Nutrient Transport in Kase River Basin,
International journal of Civil and Environmental Engineering, IJCEE-IJENS, 12 (3) , June (2012).
[20] Wake C. P., Glaciochemical investigations as a tool to determine the spatial variation of snow accumulation in the
Central Karakoram, Northern Pakistan, Ann. Glaciol. 13 ,1989, 279284.
[21] Archer D. R., The climate and hydrology of northern Pakistan with respect to the assessment of flood risk to
hydropower schemes (GTZ/WAPDA, Lahore, Pakistan, 2001)
[22] Archer D. R., Contrasting hydrological regimes in the upper Indus Basin, Journal of Hydrology, 274 , 2003, 198
210.
[23] Verdin K.L., and Greenlee S. K., Development of Continental Scale Digital Elevation Models and Extraction of
Hydrographic Features, Third International Conference/Workshop on Integrating GIS and Environmental
Modeling, Santa Fe, New Mexico, January 21-26, 1996. National Center for Geographic Information and Analysis,
Santa Barbara, California.
[24] Agarwal, C., G. M. Green, J. M. Grove, T. P. Evans, and C. M. Schweik, A Review and Assessment of Land-Use
Change Models: Dynamics of Space, Time, and Human Choice, General Technical Report NE-297, Newtown
Square, Pennsylvania: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Forest Service, Nort heastern Research Station, 2002).
[25] Dyke Paull T., McMahon B., and Nichols M., Global Soils,2001. 1:1Million Digital Soil Map of the World. To be
published by Trexas Experimenta l Stataion/Blackland research centre. Temple Texas. www.brc.tamous.edu
[26] Bamour O, Kenyon P, Bettis. MUUF, v2-14user:s Manual (Natural Resources Conservation Services, National
Soil Survey Centre, Lincolin, NE, 1994).
[27] Users Guide, ArcView Interface for SWAT 99-2, Balckland Research Centre, TAES,Temple Tx.,USA, ,1999.
[28] Moriasi D. N, Arnold J.G., Van Liew, M.W., Bingner R. L., Harmel R. D. and Veith T.L., Model Evaluation
Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in Watershed Simulations, American Society of Agricultural
and Biological Engineers, 50(3) ,2007, 885900.
[29] Santhi C., Arnold J.G., Williams J.R., Dugas W.A., Srinivasan R. angHauck L.M., Validation of the SWAT
Model on a Large River Basin with Point and Non-point Sources, Journal of American Water Resources
Association, 37 (5) , 2001, 11691188.
[30] Van Liew M.W., Veith T.L., Bosch D.D., Arnold J.G., Suitability of SWAT for the Conservation Effects
Assessment Project: A Comparison on USDA-ARS Experimental Watersheds, Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
12 (2), 2007, 173189.
[31] Nash J. E. and Sutcliffe J. V., River Flow Forecasting through Conceptual Models, Discussion of Principles,
Journal of Hydrology, 10( 3) ,1970, 282-290.