Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

https://doi.org/10.1007/s40808-018-0439-8

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Modelling hydrological response under climate change scenarios

using SWAT model: the case of Ilala watershed, Northern Ethiopia
Henok Shiferaw1 · Amdom Gebremedhin1 · Tesfay Gebretsadkan3,4 · Amanuel Zenebe1,2

Received: 8 December 2017 / Accepted: 5 March 2018

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Abstract
This study evaluates surface runoff generation under climate change scenarios for Ilala watershed in Northern highlands
of Ethiopia. The climate change scenarios were analyzed using delta based statistical downscaling approach of RCPs 4.5
and 8.5 in R software packages. Hydrological response to climate changes were evaluated using the Soil and Water Assess-
ment Tool model. The Soil Water Analysis Calibration and Uncertainty Program of Sequential Uncertainty fitting version
2 algorithm was also used to compute the uncertainty analysis, calibration and validation process. The results show that the
minimum and maximum temperature increases for the future of 1.7 and 4.7 °C respectively. However, the rainfall doesn’t
show any significant increase or decrease trend in the study area. The 95% prediction uncertainty brackets the average values
of observation by 71 and 74% during the calibration and validation processes, respectively. Similarly, R-factor equals to 0.5
and 0.6 during calibration and validation periods. The simulated and observed hydrographs of the total river yield showed
a good agreement during calibration (NSE = 0.51, R ­ 2 = 0.54) and validation (NSE = 0.54, ­R2 = 0.63). From the total rainfall
received only 6.2% portion of the rainfall was changed into surface runoff. The rainfall-runoff relationship was strongly
correlated with ­R2 = 0.97. Moreover, there had been also high evapotranspiration (ET) loss in the watershed; almost 75% of
the total rainfall was lost as ET and 7.8% as ground water recharge. Due to an increase trend in temperature and evaporation
loss for the future, the surface runoff also declined from 1.74% in RCP4.5 near-term to 0.36% in RCP8.5 end-term periods.
This implies, proper planning and implementation of appropriate water management strategies is needed for sustainable
water resources management in the region.

Keywords  Evapotranspiration · Runoff · SWAT​ · SWAT-CUP · RCP · Watershed

Introduction country. Based on this, the government has implemented dif-

ferent land and water management practices in the highlands
Ethiopia often referred as the water tower of East-Africa, to potentially use the resource and minimize degradation
characterized by mountainous topography (Awulachew et al. problems (Ministry Water Resources 2002).
2009). The rainfall-runoff processes on the mountainous Land degradation is a common occurrence in most high-
slopes are the sources of the surface water for much of the lands of the country (Hurni et al. 2005; Taddese 2001). As
mentioned by Hurni et al. (2005) and Nyssen et al. (2007)
the problem is mainly attributed to population growth, cli-
* Henok Shiferaw
[email protected] mate change and lack of effective land and water manage-
ment practices in the country. Climate change is believed to
1
Institute of Climate and Society, Mekelle University, POB have led to the changes in global patterns of precipitation,
231, Mekelle, Ethiopia thereby changing the global water cycle and causing the
2
Department of Land Resources Management redistribution of water resources in time and space (Milly
and Environmental Protection, Mekelle University, Mekelle, et al. 2005). Presently, there are scientific evidences indi-
Ethiopia
cating that the average temperature of the earth’s surface is
3
Tigray Agricultural Research Institute (TARI), Mekelle, increasing due to greenhouse gas emission and other natural
Ethiopia
and anthropogenic factors. According to the 2014 report of
4
UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), the
The Netherlands

13
Vol.:(0123456789)
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

mean annual global surface temperature has increased by Similarly, Gyamfi et al. (2017) also applied SWAT model
0.3–0.6 °C since the late nineteenth century and it is antici- for groundwater recharge in a large scale basin in Olifants
pated to further increase by 1.0–2 °C over the next 100 years basin, South Africa. The findings indicated that groundwa-
(IPCC 2014). ter recharge declined by 10.37 mm (30.3%) and 2.34 mm
Climate change affects the function and operation of (9.82%) during the periods 2000–2007 and 2007–2013
existing water infrastructures including hydropower, struc- respectively over the study area. Makwana and Tiwar (2017),
tural, drainage and irrigation systems as well as water man- also carried out stream flow modeling using SWAT and neu-
agement practices (Eromo et al. 2016). Impact of climate ral networks (NNs). They found that the SWAT model pro-
change on water resources, particularly on surface runoff is a vides a better description of water balance of the watershed,
key and current research agenda at global level (IPCC 2014; whereas NN models present the surface runoff at the outlet
Pandey et al. 2016; Yin et al. 2016). There are many studies without any explicit consideration of different components
at global level focused on impact of climate change on water of the hydrologic cycle.
resources, particularly on surface runoff (Yin et al. 2016). Furthermore, Raneesh and Santosh (2011) also used
For example, Raneesh and Santosh (2011) assessed the effect SWAT for evaluating the effect of climate change on stream-
of climate change on streamflow and vegetative growth in flow and vegetative growth in a humid tropical watershed of
a humid tropical watershed of India. Similarly, Eromo et al. India. However, in Ethiopia, only few studies are available
(2016) investigated the impact of climate change on surface which lay emphasis on hydrological modelling at interme-
hydrological process in Omo-Gibe river basin of Ethiopia diate scale of a watershed. These studies demonstrate the
and reported that surface water decreases in terms of mean capability of SWAT model to simulate runoff at different
monthly discharge in the dry season and increases in the wet scales of watershed in different parts of the country.
season. The percentage change in future seasonal and annual Understanding the impact of climate change on the hydro-
hydrological variables was shown increasing trends. How- logical processes at watershed level is crucial for water and
ever, in the semi-arid northern Ethiopia, only few studies are land resource management in order to put appropriate adap-
available which mainly focused on hydrological modelling tation and mitigation measures (Gebrekristos 2015; Ashenafi
at different watershed scales. For example, Ashenafi (2014) 2014). Hence, this study was aimed at investigation on the
reported that land use and climate change are affecting impacts of climate change on water resources at interme-
water resources in Geba catchment, northern Ethiopia. The diate watershed scale which is helpful to put appropriate
report from this study shows that the stream flow decreased amelioration measures, proper plans, and policy measures
by 10% during the wet season and by 30% during the dry to have sustainable water resources management. There-
season. According to Abebe (2014) as a result of climate fore, the main objective of this study was to determine and
change, surface runoff in Suluh watershed of the Geba catch- simulate the impact of climate change on surface runoff in
ment increased by 4.6% and base flow and deep percolation Ilala watershed of Northern Ethiopia. The specific objec-
were reduced by 10 and 7.4% respectively. tives were to (1) assess and model climate change scenario
Hydrological modeling tools are very useful to investigate over the study area (2) determine surface runoff generation
the impact of climate change on the hydrology of a given and quantify the evapotranspiration of the study area, and
watershed (Pandey et al. 2016). Today, the use of hydrologi- (3) evaluate possible effects of climate change on surface
cal modeling for water resources planning and management runoff for the future.
is becoming increasingly popular in various research studies.
Among many others, spatially and temporally distributed or Description of the study area
semi-distributed hydrological models such as SWAT have
important applications for discovering the relationships Ilala watershed (Fig. 1) is located at 13°23´ to 13°31´30″
between the climate of the watershed and hydrological pro- in North and 39°27´ to 39°31´48″ in East of Tigray region,
cess (Mango et al. 2011). Such models are able to explicitly Northern Ethiopia. The watershed covers an area of 215 km2
represent the spatial variability of land surface characteris- and has an altitude ranging from 1964–2680 meter above
tics such as elevation, slope, vegetation, land use, soil and sea level (m.a.s.l). The climate of Ethiopia influenced by the
climate (Abebe 2014). Indian and Atlantic Oceans. As the area is characterized by
Given its spatial and temporal capability of SWAT, dif- a mono modal rainfall type the long rainy season (summer)
ferent researchers are using SWAT to model watershed at lasts from June to September and locally called "kirmt”. It
different scales. For instance, Kumar and Singh (2016) used receives rainfall only from June to September. The rain-
SWAT-VSA to model the surface runoff in the Himalayan fall distribution during this period varies between 240 and
landscapes. He concluded that paddy croplands followed by 398 mm with a peak rainfall in August. The “Kirmit” season
scrub, maize and forest cover as most contributing areas of contributes about 83% of the annual rainfall, while about
surface runoff generation in the watershed. 17% of the annual rainfall comes from May and October.

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 1  Location map of Ilala watershed

The average maximum and minimum temperature is 28 and (10 km2) (Ministry of Water Resources 1997). The SWAT
11 °C respectively. The highest maximum temperature is model requires soil property data such as the texture, chemi-
observed in May (29 °C) and June (30 °C). The minimum cal composition, physical properties, and available moisture
temperature record was observed in December (8 °C) and content, hydraulic conductivity, bulk density and organic
January (7 °C) and both months were dry and free of sub- carbon content of different layers. The soil information was
stantial rain. collected from Tekeze River Basin Master Plan Project of
Ethiopia (TRBMPP). The geology of Ilala catchment is
Land use/land cover highly disturbed due to volcanic eruptions. The catchment
is mainly dominated by limestone-shale-marl intercalation,
Land use and land cover is an important factor affecting limestone, dolerite, sills and quaternary sediments (Geologi-
different processes of a watershed, such as surface runoff, cal map of Ethiopia 1996).
infiltration, recharge and evapotranspiration. Following the
basic principles of the land use/land cover classification
system, the study area was classified into eight classes: cul- Materials and methods
tivated land (AGRL)—33%, built-up area (URBN)—24%,
bush land (RNGE)—15%, bare land (BARL)—8%, shrub- Data collection
land (RNGB)—16%, grass land (PAST)—3.5%, forest-land
(FRST)—(0.1%) water body (WATER)—0.5% as shown in Climate and hydrological data
Fig. 2. Built-up area and cultivated land were the most domi-
nant types of land cover types in the study area. Daily climate data (1980–2009) of the Mekelle gauging
station (rainfall, air temperature, wind speed, humidity,
Soil and geology  and sunshine hour) were collected from Ethiopia National
Metrological Agency (NMA). For each data variables,
The response of runoff to a rainfall event depends on the two main activities have been carried out in order to val-
nature and conditions of the underlying soils. The most idate and screen the reliability of input data. The first
dominant soil type in the watershed is Calcaric Cambi- activity was selection of good representative data years
sol (110 km2), Calcic Vertisol (95 km2) and Eutic Vertsol for both rainfall and temperature that have long term

13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 2  land use and land cover

record. Finally, data analysis and interpretations has been Spatial data
conducted using Excel spread sheets to sort out outliers.
The screened climatic data were used as an input to the The digital elevation model (DEM), soil map, and land use
hydrological model. In addition, 12 years (1990–2002) map were used by the SWAT model to delineate the hydro-
of observed hydrological river discharge were obtained logical response units. The 30 m DEM was obtained from
from Ethiopia Ministry of Water, irrigation and Electric United State Geological Survey Database (USGS) (http://
city for the purpose of model calibration and validation. glovi​s.usgs.gov/). The land use and land cover of Ilala
The period from 1990 to 1996 was used for calibration watershed was prepared from Landsat imaginary products
whereas; the period from 1997 to 2002 was used for vali- (http://glovis​ .usgs.gov/) with spatial resolution of 30 m. The
dation of the SWAT model. images were downloaded in a dry season January month to

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

minimize errors of haze and cloud. ERDAS imagine 2014 three time periods. As the CMPI5 have 20 GCMs in total we
was used to process and classify the image. The soil physi- selected only 5 GCMs for further analysis which have low
cal properties (e.g. bulk density, available water capacity, errors between the observed and the baseline data (Table 1).
hydraulic conductivity, saturated hydraulic conductivity, Using multi-GCMs for climate modelling helps to mini-
particle-size distribution) were taken from TRBMPP. mize the degree of uncertainties than using a single GCM.
Making a conclusion about the effect of climate change on
Data quality the catchment hydrology using a single GCM may not give
a clear representation of the future changes. High uncer-
Before starting any data analysis, quality of the data col- tainty is expected with climate change impact studies if the
lected (missing data, consistency, and outliers) was checked simulation is a result of a single GCM (IPCC 2014; Mango
using double mass curve analysis method. The Double mass et al. 2011).
curve is a simple, visual and practical method, and it is
widely used in the study of the consistency and long-term Hydrological modelling
trend test of hydro-meteorological data. Moreover, the Agri-
cultural Modern Era Retrospective Analysis for Research The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) (Arnold
and Application (AgMERRA) with 0.25° × 0.25° resolution 1998), was used for simulating flows and evapotranspira-
of bias-corrected reanalysis data were used for filling the tion of the study area. SWAT is one of the most widely used
missing values of the observed climate datasets. watershed modeling tools, applied extensively in a broad
range of water quantity and quality problems worldwide
(Gassman et al. 2014). The details of SWAT model descrip-
Method tion are here below explained.

Climate change modelling scenarios Description of SWAT model

To generate the future climate change of the study area, The hydrological model used in this study is a continuous
delta based statistical downscaling approach of the phase time model that operates on a daily/sub-daily time step. It
Five Coupled Model Intercomparison (CMIP5) was used is physically based and can operate on large basins for long
in R software version 3.4.2. The general circulation model periods of time (Arnold et al. 1998; Neitsch et al. 2005). The
(GCM) was undergone in the recent two representative con- hydrological cycle in SWAT model is operated based on the
centration pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5 emission scenarios. water balance equation as shown below (Eq. 1);
The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement
t
Project (AgMIP) guidelines and scripts were used to run the ∑
SWt = SW0 + (Rday − Qsur − Ea − Wdeep − Qgw ) (1)
model in “R” software. Detailed descriptions of RCPs and i
their equivalent representation for atmospheric C ­ O2 con-
centrations are available in Wayne (2013) and Ruane et al. where: ­SWt, is the final soil water content in mm, ­SW0, is the
(2015). The time period was classified according to AgMIP initial soil water content on the day (mm), t is the time days,
protocol as; 1980–2009 (baseline period), 2018–2039 (near- ­Rday is the amount of precipitation in a day (mm), ­Qsurf is the
term), 2040–2069 (midterm) and 2070–2099 (end-term) amount of surface runoff in a day (mm), Ea is the amount of
periods respectively (Rosenzweig et al. 2013; Thomson et al. evapotranspiration on the day in mm, ­Wdeep is the amount
2011). Hence, changes in rainfall, minimum temperature of water entering the vadose zone from the soil profile in a
and maximum temperature for future were projected for the day (mm), ­Qgw is the amount of return flow in a day (mm).

Table 1  Detail descriptions of the selected GCMs of the CMIP5

SN Model code GCMs Institutional reference Horizontal resolution

1 E CCSM4 US National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) ∼ 0.9° × 1.25°

2 I GFDL-ESM2M NOAA/Geophysical Fluid Dynamic Laboratory (GFDL) (Modular Ocean Model) ∼ 2.0° × 2.5°
3 K HadGEM2-ES UK Meteorological Office—Hadley Centre (all Earth system components) 1.25° × 1.875°
4 O MIROC5 University of Tokyo, Japanese National Institute for Environmental Studies ∼1.4° × ∼ 1.4°
(NIES) and Japan Agency for Marine-Earth Science and Technology (JAM-
STEC)
5 Q MPI-ESM-LR Max Planck Institute (MPI) for Meteorology (low resolution) ∼1.9° × 1.875°

13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

The model uses the concept of infiltration excess runoff necessary to delineate the watershed into smaller sized sub
mechanism. It assumes the runoff occurs whenever the rainfall basin areas where the variables can be considered homog-
intensity is greater than the rate of infiltration (Neitsch et al. enous. Furthermore, the digital elevation model (DEM)
2005). This process is very important in areas where signifi- was used to divide the watershed into several hydrological
cant soil crusting and/or surface sealing occurs during storm response units and to predict the location of the stream. The
events, in irrigated fields, in urban areas and more generally Land use and soil maps were used to define the character-
during very high rainfall intensity storms. For estimation of istics of land cover and soil properties of the watershed,
surface runoff, SWAT uses two methods based on the above respectively. Using the combination of the land use, DEM,
assumption. The soil conservation curve number method and soil and slopes, the hydrological response units were devel-
Green and Ampt infiltration method (Green 1911). For this oped to simulate the basin characteristics. Furthermore, a
particular research, the soil conservation services (SCS) curve weather generator model from statistical data summarized
number was employed. Because of its capability to use daily over long-term monthly average series was developed in
input data the SCS is commonly used. The SCS curve number order to fill missing values and to generate the other climatic
is described in Eq. (2) as follows: parameters (wind speed, sunshine hours and solar radiation).

(Rday − 0.2)2 Sensitivity analysis, calibration and validation

Qsurf = (2) of the model
(Rday + 0.8S)

where: ­Qsurf is the accumulated runoff or rainfall excess Sensitivity analysis is crucial in modeling as it helps to
(mm), ­Rday is the rainfall depth for the day (mm), S is the understand the rate of change in the outputs of the model as
retention parameter (mm). The retention parameter is defined a result of changes in model inputs (Gassman et al. 2007).
by Eq. (2) with curve number (CN), as shown in Eq. (3) below: Knowing which parameter of the model is more sensitive
to the given inputs can help to determine parameters values
100 which is important to have more accurate values in calibra-
( )
S = 25.4 − 10 (3)
CN tion of model and thus to better understand the characteris-
SWAT calculates the peak runoff rate with a modified tics of hydrological processes in a given watershed. In this
rational method. In rational method, it is assumed that a pre- study, Latin Hypercube One-factor-At-a-Time (LH-OAT)
cipitation of intensity I begins at time t = 0 and continues was employed. The LH-OAT sensitivity analysis combines
indefinitely, the rate of runoff will increase until the time of the strength of global and local sensitivity analysis meth-
concentration, t = tconc. The modified rational method is math- ods (Van Griensven et al. 2006). After sensitivity analysis,
ematically expressed as in Eq. (4) below: model calibrations were done by selecting the most sensible
parameters of the model. This was done by checking results
𝛼tc ∗ Qsurf ∗ A against the observations at the watershed outlet to ensure
qpeak = (4) similar response over time which involves comparing the
3.6 ∗ tconc
model outputs, generated with the recorded stream flows.
where, qpeak is the peak runoff rate (­ m3/s), αtc is the fraction In this process, model parameters varied until recorded flow
of daily precipitation that occurs during the time of concentra- patterns were accurately simulated.
tion, Qsurf is the surface runoff (mm), Area is the sub-basin
area ­(km2), tconc is the time of concentration (hr), and 3.6 is a Uncertainty analysis
conversion factor.
SWAT model provides three methods for estimating poten- Uncertainty analysis was performed after sensitivity analysis
tial evapotranspiration: Penman-Monteith, Priestly-Taylor and using SWAT-CUPv.2012 (Soil Water Analysis Calibration
Hargreaves methods (Nietsch et al. 2005). The three meth- and Uncertainty Program) software. SWAT-CUP SUFI-2
ods included in SWAT vary in the amount of required inputs (Sequential Uncertainty fitting version 2) was used for
(Neitsch et al. 2005). For this study Hargreaves method was uncertainty and calibration, validation process (Abbaspour
employed as it required relatively a limited data. et al. 2004).
The degree of uncertainties was measured as the P-factor,
Model setup which is the percentage of observed data related by the 95PPU
(95% prediction uncertainty). The 95PPU is calculated at the
SWAT model requires intensive data including topography, 2.5 and 97.5% levels of cumulative distribution of the output
soil, and land use and weather data as input. To capture variables. Another measure quantifying the strength of uncer-
the spatial and temporal variations of the watershed, it is tainty analysis was the R-factor, which is the average thickness

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

of the 95PPU band ( r̄  ) divided by the standard deviation of the ∑

(Qm − Qs )2
measured data as described in Eqs. (5) and (6): NSE = 1 − ∑ i (8)
̄ 2
i (Qm − Qm )
n
1∑ M
r= (y ti , 97.5% − yM ti , 2.5%) (5) where: ­Qm is the measured discharge, Qs is the simulated
n t
i discharge, Q
̄ m is the average measured discharge and Q
̄ s is
the average simulated discharge.
p − factor
r − factor = (6)
𝜎obs
Result and discussion
where; y M ti , 97.5% and yM ti , 2.5% represents the upper and
lower boundaries of the 95PPU, and 𝜎obs is the standard devia- Climate change modelling scenarios
tion of the measured data.
Future temperatures have generally increased with the time
Evaluation of model performance period in both RCP’s across all the GCMs. Many studies also
clearly indicated that minimum and maximum temperature
The performance of SWAT model was evaluated using both are expected to increase in the future (Araya et al. 2015b;
qualitative and quantitative measures such as graphs and sta- Ashenafi 2014). The highest minimum and maximum tem-
tistical indices based on simulated and observed values. In this perature were simulated during the end-term period under
study, the performance of the model was evaluated using both RCP8.5 (Tables 2, 3). The highest temperature was recorded
hydrograph comparisons, statistical indices; the Nash–Sutcliffe in “HadGEMs-ES”model (+ 5.7 and + 6.3 °C) in RCP8.5
simulation efficiency (ENS) and the coefficient of determina- for both minimum and maximum temperature respectively
tion ­(R2). The details of those statistical indices (NSE and ­R2) (Table 4). The lowest temperature also recorded in CCSM4
are well documented in Neitsch et al. (2005), Green (1911), model (+ 1.3 °C), GFDL-ESM2M model (1.4 °C), MIROC5
Gassman et al. (2007) and Moriasi et al. (2007a, b): (1.4 °C) model, in RCP 4.5 near-term periods respectively.
Similarly, highest mean annual rainfall was simu-
∑� ̄ s) 2
�
̄ m )(Qs − Q
(Qm − Q lated during the end term period under RCP8.5 with the
R2 = ∑
i
(7) “MIROC5” (+ 42.5%), whereas the lowest mean annual rain-
2 2
̄ ∑ ̄
i (Qmi − Qm ) i (Qs − Qs ) fall was simulated during the near-term period under RCP4.5

Table 2  Changes in maximum T_Max

temperatures (°C) compared
to the baseline across the five GCMs RCP4.5 RCP4.5 RCP4.5 RCP8.5 RCP8.5 RCP8.5
GCMs in RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 Near-term Mid-term End-term Near-term Mid-term End-term

CCSM4 1.3 1.5 1.7 1.9 2.1 3.7

GFDL-ESM2M 1.5 1.6 2.4 2.5 2.6 3.9
HadGEMs-ES 3.1 2.7 3.6 3.8 3.5 5.7
MIROC5 1.6 1.5 1.8 1.3 1.4 2.5
MPI-ESM-MR 2.1 2.2 2.5 2.7 2.9 4.8
Average 1.7 1.9 2.4 2.6 2.5 4.1

Table 3  Changes in mean T_min

minimum temperature (°C)
compared to the baseline across GCMs RCP4.5 RCP4.5 RCP4.5 RCP8.5 RCP8.5 RCP8.5
the five GCMs in RCP4.5 and Near-term Mid-term End-term Near-term Mid-term End-term
RCP8.5
CCSM4 1.8 1.7 2.0 2.0 2.3 4.0
GFDL-ESM2M 1.4 1.5 2.2 2.8 2.7 4.0
HadGEMs-ES 3.0 3.1 3.9 4.9 4.1 6.3
MIROC5 1.4 1.6 1.9 1.9 1.8 3.1
MPI-ESM-MR 2.6 2.4 2.8 2.8 3.1 5.3
Average 2.3 2.1 2.5 2.9 2.8 4.5

13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Table 4  Changes in mean annual rainfall (%) compared to the baseline across the five GCMs in RCP4.5 and RCP8.5
Rain (%)
GCMs RCP4.5 Near-term RCP4.5 Mid-term RCP4.5 End-term RCP8.5 Near-term RCP8.5 Mid-term RCP8.5 End-term

CCSM4 7.7 7.2 8.5 4.8 4.1 7.5

GFDL-ESM2M 4.6 4.8 − 1.2 2.7 1.2 − 9.7
HadGEMs-ES − 6.2 − 9.2 − 3.2 8.7 1.7 15.7
MIROC5 15.7 13.0 18.4 32.0 33.0 42.5
MPI-ESM-MR − 13.6 − 13.2 − 14.1 − 13.2 − 12.2 − 18.2
Average 1.1 0.5 1.7 6.6 5.6 7.6

Table 5  Statistical outputs of SUFI-2 algorithm Based on these recommendations, the performance of

Variable P-factor (%) R-factor R2 NSE
SWAT model for the study area was good during the cali-
bration period with NSE > 0.50. The uncertainty analysis
Calibration Flow 71 0.5 0.54 0.51 indicated parameter effectiveness  of  SCS curve number
Validation Flow 74 0.6  0.63  0.54 for moisture condition II (CN2.mgt), base-flow alpha fac-
tor for bank storage (ALPHA_BNK), Groundwater delay
(GW_DELAY) and Threshold depth of water in the shal-
in GFDL-ESM2M (− 1.2%) (Table 4). The difference among low aquifer required for return flow to occur (GWQMN.gw)
the simulated climate outputs could be mainly due to the played an important roles in the calibration and validation
basic modeling structures and parameterization of the GCMs of SWAT model. Table 5 explains the computed P-factor,
(Araya et al. 2017). It is assumed that the climate impacts of R-factor, ­R2 and NSE values of the analysis.
multi-model predictions could help to explore the magnitude
of changes and the likely occurrence of events together with
reasonable uncertainty (Araya et al. 2015a). Calibration and validation surface runoff using
SUFI‑2 algorithm
Hydrological modelling
In this study, the comparisons between the observed and
Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis simulated daily values of flow of the watershed were done
using different evaluation criteria. Those were, comparing
Twenty-seven hydrological parameters were tested for sen- annual water balance, statistical index Nash Sutcliffe effi-
sitivity analysis for the simulation of the stream flow in the ciency (ENS), coefficient of determination (­ R2), and graphi-
study area. From the total 27 hydrological flow parameters, 4 cal comparison of hydrograph shape. The optimum param-
parameters were found to be sensitive. Curve number (CN2), eter values obtained during calibration period were used to
Base flow alpha factor (ALPHA_BF), Groundwater delay validate the model with independent observed data.
(GW_DELAY) and Threshold depth of water in the shallow The model was calibrated using SWAT-CUP SUFI-2
aquifer required for return flow to occur (GWQMN.gw) have algorism and the comparison between the observed and
shown a relatively higher sensitivity as described in Table 5. simulated stream flow showed a reasonable good agreement
The analysis was conducted for the entire period of calibra- (Fig. 3). As shown below in Table 6 four main hydrological
tion and validation periods. parameters (CN2.mgt, ALPHA_BF, GW_DELAY.gw and
SUFI-2 is given several iterations to get the acceptable GWQMN.gw) were selected which create significant varia-
results. Each of iterations provides the suggested values tion in the calibration. Accordingly, by adjusting the values
for the new parameters to be used in the next iteration. of parameters, the hydrograph of calibration was fitted as
Finally, it provides the acceptable result with the values of shown in the graph (Fig. 3). The result shows that the timing
the Nash–Sutcliffe, Coefficient of determination and other and shape of the runoff hydrograph were well predicted. The
statistical parameters. low flow and high flows (peak flow) are well represented as
The p-factor, which is the percentage of observations well. The performance of the model was also valued using
bracketed by the 95% prediction uncertainty (95PPU), statistical indicators and based on the R­ 2 and ENS. In the
2
brackets 71, 74% of the observation during calibration and calibration period ­R was 0.55 and ENS = 0.51, while for the
validation periods. R-factor equals to 0.5 and 0.6. The result validation period was 0.63 and 0.54 (Fig. 4). These values
categorized within the acceptable range values as recom- can be considered as satisfactory as suggested by Moriasi
mended by Abbaspour et al. (2004). et al. (2007a, b).

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 3  Calibration period of
observed vs simulated Surface
runoff of Ilala watershed

Table 6  Maximum and the Parameters Descriptions Fitted value Min_value Max_value

parameters and fitted values
after calibration CN2.mgt SCS curve number for moisture condition II − 0.2 − 0.2 0.2
ALPHA_BF.gw Base flow alpha factor 0.65 0 1
GW_DELAY.gw Groundwater delay (days) 303 30 450
GWQMN.gw Treshold depth of water in the shallow aqui- 1.9 0 2
fer required for return flow to occur (mm)

Fig. 4  Validation period of
observed vs simulated Surface
runoff of Ilala watershed

The Figs.  3 and 4 shows that the mean monthly Evapotranspiration

observed and simulated discharge of the calibration and
validation periods. It is known that the main rainfall sea- The highest evapotranspiration were recorded in April
son of the study area is between June and September and and March with a value of 184.3 and 181.8 mm per month
the higher surface runoff also occurs during these months. respectively (Fig. 5). In contrast, the lowest evapotranspira-
The coefficient determination for the calibration and vali- tion were recorded in July and August 69 and 63 mm per
dation periods was 0.54 and 0.63. The higher value of R ­ 2 month. The evapotranspiration loss was considerable in the
implies that the simulated discharge agreed well with the study area. Almost 75% of the total rainfall received was
observed discharge. The detailed statistics of simulated changed into evapotranspiration.
and observed values are presented in Table 6.
The rainfall in the area comes with great intensity over Rainfall‑ runoff relationships
a short period of time and concentrated in a few months.
Hence, much water is falling on the ground very rapidly The surface runoff has direct relation with the rainfall as
and gets little time to percolate-in and most of the water shown in Fig.  6. The higher the rainfall, the higher the
flows as runoff into nearby rivers and lakes. surface runoff. Rainfall and runoff are responsible factors

13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Fig. 5  Evapotranspiration trend
of the study area

for the detachment, transport, and deposition of sediment the watershed include: the total amount of rainfall falling on
particles. the watershed, actual evapotranspiration and the net amount
At the beginning of the rainy season, surface runoff of water that leaves the watershed and contributes to stream
increased rapidly, with a peak in June in most of the year. flow in the reach (water yield). The water yield during vali-
The average peak rainfall in the area was in July and the dation period was higher than the calibration period. This
average peak discharge was in August. Both the simulated could be because the rainfall amount during the validation
and observed flows indicated that during July and August, period was relatively higher. Table 7 showed that water
there was a highest intensity of rainfall that contributed to balance components of Ilala watershed during the simula-
high surface runoff. The runoff was highly correlated with tion period. From these components only, 6.2% of the total
rainfall ­(R2 = 0.97) as shown in Fig. 7. rainfall received in the study area was changed into surface
runoff, while the majority of the component around 75% has
Water balance of the watershed contributed to evapotranspiration. Ground water recharge
contributed about 7.8% of the total water balance. This high
The annual average rainfall and other hydrological compo- evapotranspiration loss could be due to temperature fluc-
nents were compared for each year of the calibration and tuations and dry wind weather condition of the watershed
validation periods. The main water balance components of (Tesfaye et al. 2017).

Fig. 6  Rainfall runoff relation-

ships

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Impact on future hydrological response study has a similarity with findings of other researches like
(Tesfaye et al. 2017; Ashenafi 2014). As many studies indi-
In the mean ensemble model result in RCP4.5, the change cated that increasing water abstractions, particularly in the
in surface runoff ranged from 1.75 to 0.74%, whereas, in semi-arid catchments of the basin, might have caused the
RCP8.5 from 0.76 to 0.36% as shown in Table 8. The mini- decline of stream flow during dry and small rainy seasons
mum and maximum monthly variation change in surface (Gebremicael et al. 2016; Alemayehu et al. 2009; Nyssen
runoff volume is 0.36% in RCP8.5 end-term and RCP4.5 et al. 2010). Hence, this could be due to surface and shallow
in near-term (1.74%) respectively as shown in Table 8. The groundwater development and abstraction for irrigation have
overall increase in temperature and rainfall results in reduc- significantly increased since the mid-2000s, after implemen-
tion in surface runoff in the watershed. The result of the tation of intensive catchment management programmes as

Fig. 7  Correlation of rainfall
runoff relationships

Table 7  Water balance of Ilala Period Rainfall (mm) ET (mm) Qsurf Qlat GWQ Water yield SW PERC TLosses
watershed
(mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm) (mm)

Calibration 511 400 28 8 38 82 10 11 2

% 100 78 5.5 1.6 7.4 16.0 1.9 2.1
Validation 560 407 35 15 46 103 11 13 4
% 100 72.0 6.25 2.7 8.2 18.4 1.9 2.3

ET actual evapotranspiration, Qsurf surface runoff, Qlat lateral flow, GWQ ground water contribution to
stream flow, SW soil water content, PERC water that percolates past the root zone, TLosses water lost from
tributary channels

Table 8  Future runoff under Runoff (%)

change in climate
GCMs RCP4.5 RCP4.5 Mid- RCP4.5 RCP8.5 Near- RCP8.5 RCP8.5 End-term
Near-term term End-term term Mid-term

CCSM4 1.2 0.3 0.6 0.5 0.14 0.21

GFDL-ESM2M 4.8 0.42 0.9 1.3 0.3 0.4
HadGEMs-ES 1.6 1.5 1.3 1.2 1.21 0.21
MIROC5 0.3 1.23 0.3 0.4 0.5 0.7
MPI-ESM-MR 0.8 1.3 0.6 0.4 0.5 0.3
Average 1.74 0.95 0.74 0.76 0.53 0.364

13
 Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

explained in Gebremicael et al. (2016). Moreover, climate watershed as almost 75% of the total rainfall received were
change has also a considerable effect on declining the sur- lost as evapotranspiration and only 7.8% as ground water
face runoff (Abebe 2014; Ashenafi 2014; Tesfaye et  al. recharge. For all investigated periods the average surface
2017). In most of the models except HadGEMs-ES they runoff for future will decrease under climate change scenar-
showed both increasing and decreasing trends in surface ios with a value of 1.74–0.36%. There will be a considerable
runoff in all RCPs and time periods. However, the overall effect of climate change on surface runoff. Thus, the findings
average trend showed that a decreased trend in surface runoff could be useful for water managers’ decisions’ and policy-
for the future in all time segments and RCPs from near-term makers. It gives also a direction mechanism for adaptation
to end-term periods respectively. This could be potentially and mitigation measures. Moreover, it helps to implement
attributed to the effect of climate change (Gebremicael et al. appropriate watershed management activities and to ensure
2017). sustainable water resources management in the watershed
The other reason could be that the total amount of rainfall and in other agro-ecologically similar watersheds.
received in the study area has a relatively higher amount of
water converted to ground water recharge (7.8%) than the Acknowledgements  The research was supported by the Open Soci-
ety Foundation-Africa Climate Change Adaptation Initiative (OSF-
surface runoff (6.2%). As reported by Nyssen et al. (2010); ACCAI) project at  Institute of Climate and Society of Mekelle Uni-
Gebremicael et al. (2017) there is an increasing trend in versity (MU-ICS). The authors also would like to thank the Ethiopia
water abstractions particularly in the semi-arid catchments National Metrological Agency (NMA), and Ethiopian Ministry of
of the basins, and this might have caused to decline of sur- Water, Irrigation and Electricity for providing meteorological and
hydrological data of the study area. The authors express sincere
face runoff during dry and small rainy seasons. Moreover, appreciation to Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement
due to the increment of the temperature there was high evap- Project (AgMIP) for their initiation and development of the technical
oration loss in the study area. This all could contribute to scripts for climate modelling.
reduction in surface runoff in the study area.
Compliance with ethical standards 

Conclusions Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.

Minimum and maximum temperature values show a consid-

erable variation in the future in the study area. The minimum
temperature shows an increase trend by 2.3 °C in near-term References
and 4.5 °C in end-term periods. Similarly, maximum temper-
Abbaspour KC, Johnson CA, van Genuchten MT (2004) Estimating
ature increase from 1.7 to 7.6 °C in near-term and end-term
uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential uncer-
time periods. However, the rainfall did not show a systematic tainty fitting procedure 3:1340–1352
increase or decrease trend in the study area. The SWAT was Abebe BA (2014) Modeling the effect of climate and land use change
successfully used to simulate the hydrological dynamics of on the water resources in Northern Ethiopia: the case of Suluh
River Basin, p 23
Ilala watershed. Sensitivity analysis was done to select the
Alemayehu F, Taha N, Nyssen J et al (2009) The impacts of watershed
most sensitive parameters for further calibration processes. management on land use and land cover dynamics in Eastern Tig-
SWAT-CUP was also used to calibrate and validate the ray (Ethiopia). Resour Conserv Recycl 53:192–198. https​://doi.
model. The calibration parameters of SWAT were selected org/10.1016/j.resco​nrec.2008.11.007
Araya A, Girma A, Demelash T et al (2015a) Assessing impacts of
based on sensitivity analysis of model results. The graphi-
climate change on tef (Eragrostis tef) productivity in Debrezeit
cal comparison of simulated and observed time series of the area. Ethiopia 4:39–48
monthly flows has shown good match of the hydrographs. Araya A, Hoogenboom G, Luedeling E et al (2015b) Assessment of
The calibration results of the flows, showed that Nash–Sut- maize growth and yield using crop models under present and
future climate in southwestern Ethiopia. Agric For Meteorol 214–
cliffe efficiency (NSE) of (0.51 and 0.54) and coefficient
215:252–265. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrfo​rmet.2015.08.259
of determination (­ R2) (0.54, 0.63) for the calibration and Araya A, Kisekka I, Girma A et al (2017) The challenges and oppor-
validation periods respectively. The total average simulated tunities for wheat production under future climate in Northern
water yield was 188 mm/year. The water yield was higher Ethiopia. J Agric Sci 155:379–393. https:​ //doi.org/10.1017/S0021​
85961​60004​60
in the validation period than the calibration period, which
Arnold JG (1998) The GIS tool chosen was the geographical 34:91–101
could be attributed to higher rainfall during the validation Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large
period. In line with this, 6.2% of the total rainfall received area hydrologic modeling and assesment part I: model develop-
in the area was changed into surface runoff. The surface ment. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 34:73–89. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb059​61.x
runoff is directly associated with rainfall. The rainfall- run-
Ashenafi AA (2014) Modeling hydrological responses to changes in
off relationships was strongly correlated with ­R2 = 0.97. In land cover and climate in Geba River Basin, Northern Ethiopia.
addition, there had been high evapotranspiration loss in the Ph.D. Thesis, Freie Univ Berlin, Ger 187

13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Awulachew SB, Erkossa T, Smakhtin V, Fernando A (2009) Improved simulations. Trans ASABE 50:885–900. https​://doi.org/10.13031​
water and land management in the ethiopian highlands: its impact /2013.23153​
on downstream stakeholders dependent on the Blue Nile Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW et al (2007b) Model evaluation
Eromo S, Adane C, Santosh A, Pingale M (2016) Assessment of the guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed
impact of climate change on surface hydrological processes simulations. 50:885–900
using SWAT: a case study of Omo-Gibe river basin, Ethiopia. Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR (2005) SWAT theoretical documen-
Model Earth Syst Environ 2:1–15. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4080​ tation (version 2005). Grassland, Soil and Water ResearchLabo-
8-016-0257-9 ratory, Agricultural Research Service, Temple, TX. pp 95–116
Gassman WP, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG (2007) The soil and Nyssen J, Poesen J, Gebremichael D et al (2007) Interdisciplinary on-
water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and site evaluation of stone bunds to control soil erosion on cropland
future research directions. Trans ASABE 50(4):1211–1250 in Northern Ethiopia. 94:151–163. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.still​
Gassman PW, Sadeghi AM, Srinivasan R (2014) Applications of the .2006.07.011
SWAT model special section: overview and insights. J Environ Nyssen J, Clymans W, Descheemaeker K et al (2010) Impact of soil
Qual 43:1. https​://doi.org/10.2134/jeq20​13.11.0466 and water conservation measures on catchment hydrological
Gebrekristos ST (2015) Understanding catchment processes and hydro- response—a case in north Ethiopia. Hydrol Process 24:1880–
logical modelling in the Abay/Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia 1895. https​://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7628
Gebremicael TG, Mohamed YA, Betrie GD et al (2013) Trend analy- Pandey A, Himanshu SK, Mishra SK, Singh VP (2016) Physically
sis of runoff and sediment fluxes in the Upper Blue Nile basin: based soil erosion and sediment yield models revisited. Catena
a combined analysis of statistical tests, physically-based models 147:595–620. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.caten​a.2016.08.002
and landuse maps. J Hydrol 482:57–68. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j. Raneesh KY, Santosh GT (2011) A study on the impact of climate
jhydr​ol.2012.12.023 change on streamflow at the watershed scale in the humid tropics.
Gebremicael TG, Mohamed YA, van der Zaag P, Hagos EY (2016) Hydrol Sci 56:946–965
Temporal and spatial changes of rainfall and streamflow in the Rosenzweig C, Jones JW, Hatfield JL et al (2013) Agricultural and
Upper Tekeze–Atbara River Basin, Ethiopia. Hydrol Earth Syst forest meteorology the agricultural model intercomparison and
Sci Discuss 0:1–29. https​://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2016-318 improvement project (AgMIP): protocols and pilot studies. Agric
Gebremicael TG, Mohamed YA, Zaag PV, Hagos EY (2017) Tempo- For Meteorol 170:166–182. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.agrfo​
ral and spatial changes of rainfall and streamflow in the Upper rmet.2012.09.011
Tekezē-Atbara river basin, Ethiopia. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Ruane AC, Goldberg R, Chryssanthacopoulos J (2015) Agricultural
21:2127–2142. https​://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2127-2017 and forest meteorology climate forcing datasets for agricultural
Geological map of Ethiopia (1996) Geology of Ethiopia modeling: merged products for gap-filling and historical climate
Green AGA (1911) Studies on soil physics. Agric Sci 4:1 (1–24) series estimation. Agric For Meteorol 200:233–248. https​://doi.
Gyamfi C, Ndambuki M, Anornu GK, Gislar Edgar K (2017) Ground- org/10.1016/j.agrfo​rmet.2014.09.016
water recharge modelling in a large scale basin: an example Taddese G (2001) Land degradation: a challenge to Ethiopia. Environ
using the SWAT hydrologic model. Model Earth Syst Environ Manag 27:815–824. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0026​70010​190
3:8-017-0383 Tesfaye S, Birhane E, Leijnse T, Zee SEATM., Van Der (2017) Sci-
Hurni H, Tato K, Zeleke G (2005) The implications of changes in ence of the total environment climatic controls of ecohydrological
population, land use, and land management for surface runoff in responses in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. Sci Total Environ
the upper Nile Basin area of Ethiopia. Mt Res Dev 25:147–154 609:77–91. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2017.07.138
IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers Thomson AM, Calvin KV, Smith SJ et al (2011) RCP4.5: a pathway for
Kumar S, Singh S (2016) Modelling spatially distributed surface run- stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Clim Change 109:77–
off generation using SWAT-VSA: a case study in a watershed of 94. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1058​4-011-0151-4
the north-west Himalayan landscape. Model Earth Syst Environ van Griensven A, Meixner T, Grunwald S et al (2006) A global sen-
2:1–11. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4080​8-016-0249-9 sitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catch-
Makwana JJ, Tiwar MK (2017) Hydrological stream flow modelling ment models. J Hydrol 324:10–23. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr​
using soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) and neural networks ol.2005.09.008
(NNs) for the Limkheda watershed, Gujarat, India. Model Earth Vancampenhout K, Nyssen J, Gebremichael D et al (2006) Stone bunds
Syst Environ 3:635–645 for soil conservation in the northern Ethiopian highlands: impacts
Mango LM, Melesse AM, McClain ME et al (2011) Land use and on soil fertility and crop yield. Soil Tillage Res 90:1–15. https​://
climate change impacts on the hydrology of the upper Mara doi.org/10.1016/j.still​.2005.08.004
River Basin, Kenya: results of a modeling study to support better Wayne GP (2013) The Beginner’s guide to representative concentration
resource management. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:2245–2258. https​ pathways (RCPs). Skept Sciece 1.0:1–24
://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2245-2011 Welde K, Gebremariam B (2017) International soil and water con-
Milly PCD, Dunne KA, Vecchia AV (2005) Global pattern of trends in servation research e ff ect of land use land cover dynamics on
streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature hydrological response of watershed: case study of Tekeze Dam
438:347–350 watershed, northern Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 5:1–16.
Ministry of Water Resources (1997) Tekeze river basin integrated https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr​.2017.03.002
development master plan project Yin J, He F, Xiong Y, Qiu G (2016) Effect of land use/land cover and
Ministry Water Resources M (2002) Water sector developemnt pro- climate changes on surface runoff in a semi-humid and semi-arid
gram main report of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia transition zone in Northwest China. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Dis-
Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW et al (2007a) Model evaluation cuss. https​://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2016-212
guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed

13