Runoff and Sediment Yield Determination for Karita Wuha Watershed in West Belsa

Woreda the Uplands of Tekeze River Basin, Ethiopia

Temesgen Tsehayneh (MSc.), Fasikaw Atanew (PhD), Seifu Admassu (PhD)

Department of Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering, Assosa University, Assosa, Ethiopia.

ABSTRACT
The study was conducted in Karita Wuha watershed tion of soil water conservation practice in 2020 but
(Atlaku and Menu Catchments) in West Belesa the watershed still categorized in high class of erosion
Woreda the uplands of Tekeze River Basin, Ethiopia. and needs farther conservation practice.
My study presents Runoff and sediment Yield deter-
Key Words: West Belesa Watershed, Karita wuha,
mination for Menu and Atlaku catchments. During
Menu, Atlaku, Sediment Yield.
the rainy period of 2019 and 2020 Precipitation were
measured continuously in both catchments using both
1. INTRODUCTION
manual and automatic rain wise rain gauge instru- In the highlands of Ethiopia, soil erosion and land

ments. The river cross section was surveyed using degradation is a serious and continuous problem that

leveling instrument and the velocity was determined resulted in the loss of fertile topsoil leading to low

by floating method, the surface velocity were multi- agricultural productivity (Hurni, 1993). Lack of effec-

plied by two-third for calculating mean velocity to tive watershed management system and poor land use

compute the mean discharge. The discharge were practices played a significant role in land degradation

determined by velocity area method, the area obtained in the region (Setegn et al., 2009). About 1.3 billion

by area staff gauge model and the velocity was the ton of fertile soil are lost each year and soil erosion

average velocity obtained from two third of surface and land degradation increase significantly due to

velocity then the best fit stage discharge rating curve undulation and irregular topography in the area (Hur-

was developed from all the 20- minute flow depths. A ni, 1989b). According to various studies in the Ethio-

0.6 liter of water was sampled using bottles and taken pia highlands, much of the lost land will be economi-

to be filtrated using Whitman filter paper to compute cally insufficient in the near future. According to the

the mass of suspended sediment concentration and Ethiopian highland reclamation study (Yilma and

sediment rating curves were also develop. The annual Awulachew, 2009), in the mid1980’s, 27 million

runoff depth varies between 191.08mm and hectare or almost 50% of the high land area was sig-

124.99mm with an average of 158.03mm for Atlaku nificantly eroded, 14 million hectare seriously eroded

catchment and between 125.08mm and 73.96mmwith and over 2 million hectare were beyond reclamation.

an average of 99.52mm for Menu catchment. The Efforts have been made to manage this loss. Howev-

annual Sediment yield for Atlaku catchment was er, a number of previous studies have pointed out that

decreased from 36.47ton/ha/yr in 2019 to such arrangements were unsatisfactory and incompat-

28.43ton/ha/yr in 2020and the annual Sediment yield ible due to ineffective community participation in

for Menu catchment are decreased from 27.4ton/ha/yr planning stage, improper intervention selection, poor

in 2019 to 21.13ton/ha/yr in 2020 following installa- management after construction, not integrated with
biological conservation measures and others among for example when forest is lost and crop or agricul-
the smallholder farmers (Hurni, 1989b). This requires tural land is expanded increase in surface runoff and
immediate action to estimate soil erosion rate and cause severe soil erosion and sedimentation problem
develop a relation with sediment and discharge of the in different hydraulic structure. Fast population
study watersheds and adapt conservation practice in growth and high density of livestock’s spare those
the area. forest lands to crop lands. Also cultivation on long
Estimating soil erosion is the process of mathemati- and steep slopes are conducted without effective pro-
cally incorporating and describing soil detachment, tective measures which makes the watershed suscep-
transport and deposition on land surfaces. Empirical tible to soil erosion. Due to decreasing crop produc-
methods are an inseparable part of any erosion re- tion community living in both catchments categorized
search to estimate the amount of sedimentation (Najm food insecure area since 1999 by the regional gov-
et al., 2013).One way of trying to improve our predic- ernment (Birru, 2007). Soil and water conservation
tion of erosion processes is through sediment rating measure had been implanted in the watershed for the
curves based on empirical knowledge from a specific last decades. However, community as well as gov-
region (Asselman, 2000).For the Ethiopian highlands, ernment blindly recommended different measures
sediment rating curves are complex since sediment without any evidence on targeting as a result they
delivery depends on discharge, the onset of rainfall, aggravated instead of reducing soil erosion in both
land use and land cover, which vary between rainfall watersheds. To reduce soil erosion problems in the
seasons (Awulachew, 2010). However, developing watershed, rate of soil loss could be estimated. In the
these rating curves from a long record of sediment highlands of Ethiopia, in which Menu and Atlaku
concentration and associated runoff rates is a viable catchments are found, are facing severe problems
alternative to models that require a large number of arising from excessive erosion that results sedimenta-
different types of data inputs. On the other hand, dif- tion problem in Karita wuha gravity Dam which was
ferent management intervention scenarios have de- constructed for both water supply and irrigation pur-
veloped for the watershed which helps to reduce land pose in the downstream of the watershed.
degradation, increase vegetation cover, and increases 1.3. Objective of the Study
the productivity of the watershed area. Therefore, to The overall goal of this study is Runoff and sediment
address the above situation, runoff and sediment yield Yield determination for Menu and Atlaku catchments
determination for watershed management is one of and develop stage discharge rating curve and sedi-
the most important approaches, which helps to reduce ment rating curve in both catchments.
land degradation, minimize sedimentation problem in
2. LITERATURE REVIEW
different hydraulic structures, increase vegetation
cover, and increases the productivity of the watershed 2.1. Soil and land degradation in Ethiopia
area.
In Ethiopia, deforestation, rapid rate of soil erosion
1.2. Statement of the problem
and degradation of land are serious environmental
Soil erosion is a critical problem in Ethiopia high-
problems resulting in food insecurity and reducing
lands. Deforestation, human settlements and agricul-
agricultural productivity. Soil erosion is one part of
tural expansion in the watershed directly related to
land degradation that affects the physical and chemi-
land use change. This change will cause an effect on
cal properties of soil and resulting in on-site nutrient
the hydrology and sediment yield of the watershed,
loss and off-site sedimentation of water resources in
Ethiopia (Hurni, 1993).Other degradation processes annual soil loss of 1,493Mt (Sinore et al., 2017). The
include intensified runoff from grasslands and related severity is much higher in agriculture land, in which
gulling, as well as high soil erosion rates from heavily 85% of the total population depends on it to get their
degraded lands. The practices of the small scale farm- survival (Authority, 2012)
ers are the main cause of these processes. Due to this
2.2. SWC practices in reducing storm runoff and
Soil erosion and land degradation is a great concern
sediment yield
which constitutes to global environmental and eco-
The Ethiopian highlands are characterized by defor-
nomic problems (Hurni, 1993).Studies suggested that
estation, accelerated soil erosion, and severe land
high rates of soil erosion in Ethiopia is mainly caused
degradation due to thousands of years of agriculture
by extensive deforestation due to the prevalence of
and human settlement in the area (Bishaw, 2005)
high demand for fuel wood collection and grazing
SWCPs are intended to improve infiltration, recharge
into steep land areas (Amsalu et al., 2007).On the
ground water, and reduce surface runoff and erosion
other hand, soil erosion by water is the degradation
(Morgan, 2009). To reduce erosion and land degrada-
process and occurs particularly on cropland, with
tion, a series of soil and water conservation (SWC)
annual soil loss rates on average of 42 tons/ha for
programs were launched. In Ethiopia, these practices
croplands, and up to 300 tons/ha in extreme cases
were reported to result in reduction in runoff and
(Hawando, 1995), also estimated that the amount of
increase infiltration and reduction of sediment yield
annual soil movement (loss) by erosion ranges from
(Nyssen et al., 2010) and Results also showed in-
1,248 to 23,400 Mtyr-1 from 78 million ha of pasture
creased agricultural production (Adgo et al., 2013),
and rangelands and cultivated fields in Ethiopia. Us-
improved soil physical and chemical properties
ing conventional soil loss measuring methods, the six
(Fekadu et al., 2015), and economical pay-off
SCRAP sites of Ethiopia found a soil loss ranging
(Teshome et al., 2013). However, few of these studies
from 18 to 214.8tons/ha/year (Berhe, 1996). This by
included detailed assessment of the effect of SWCPs
far exceeds the natural rate of regeneration. (FAO
on catchment hydrology based on measured hydrolo-
1986. Food and Agriculture Organization .Ethiopian
gy data “before” and “after” the SWCPs intervention.
highlands reclamation study), estimated that 50% of
2.3. On-site and Off-site Effects of Erosion
the highlands are significantly eroded of which 25%
The reduction of soil productivity over extended peri-
are seriously eroded and 4% have reached a point of
od is the main onsite effect of soil erosion. In Ethio-
no return (MoWIE, 1993, Hurni, 1989a). Based on
pia, the active soil erosion is turning many of the once
estimation, the trans-boundary Rivers that originate
fertile and surplus production areas in to badlands
from the highlands of Ethiopia carry about 1.3billion
(Emama et al., 2015). Erosion not only damages the
ton/year of sediment to the neighboring countries.
immediate agricultural area where it occurs but also
The extent and severity of the problems different in
negatively affects the surrounding environment. Sed-
spatial variations, is subject to difference in altitude,
imentation and water pollution are the main off-site
ecology, settlement, topography, and land use system
effects of soil erosion by water. For the conservation,
(Shiferaw, 2015). Natural resource degradation is the
development and utilization of our soil and water
major environmental problem resulting from decline
resources, sedimentation should be the main concern
of agricultural productivity (Tesfa and Mekuriaw,
(Julien, 2010). Sediment is the product of erosion and
2014). The average rate of soil erosion in the country
it decreases the storage capacity and life expectancy
wide was estimated at 12ton ha-1yr-1, giving a total
of reservoirs, increases flood damage and water
treatment cost (Toy et al., 2002). The sediment deliv- The study area Karita wuha watershed (Atlaku and
ered at the outlet of a watershed /watershed sediment Menu catchments) are located in West Belesa Woreda
yield should be estimated before the designing of the upland of Tekeze River basin Amhara National
reservoirs to analyze sedimentation and water quality Regional State Ethiopia (figure 3-1) The Geograph-
problems. In Ethiopia, most of the reservoirs that are ical coordinate of Karita wuha watershed is ranges
built for different purpose are filled with sediment from 37o46’2”to 37o46’45” E and12o26’50”to
with in less than 50% of their projected service lives 12o27’25” N. Both catchments are classified under
(Braimoh and Vlek, 2008). semi-arid agro climatic zone.
3. Methodology
3.1. Description of the study area

Figure 3-1: Location map of the study area

3.2. Hydrology
The hydrological data for both catchments obtained from the station installed on the study area. The annual
rainfall occurred mainly between May and October in a unimodal distribution of the watershed. The majority of
annual rainfall falls between July (34%) and August (32%) during the main rainy season accounting for 66% of
the total annual rainfall.
3.3. Data collection and Analysis training points have been verified through Google Earth
The selection of sub-catchments have been made on and land uses have been prepared by GIS software. To
Water for Food Security, Women's Empowerment and accomplish these data, I have used different materials.
Environmental Protection program (SWEEP) of CARE 3.3.1.1. Rainfall data analysis
Ethiopia together with Bahir dar Institute of technology Daily rainfall was measured with manual rain gauge has
to develop SWC structures in the watershed. Once deci- orifices diameter of 20cm and a capacity of 150mmand
sion has been reached on the selection of sub- Automatic rain wise rain gauge. These rain gauges were
catchments, next was to collect materials for obtaining installed in close vicinity to the site manager’s home as
catchment data. To accomplish the objective of the shown in Figure 3- 2 and record 167 rain fall data.
study both primary and secondary data were collected Since the two catchments are nested catchments and the
3.3.1. Primary data collection rain gauge was installed in Menu catchments, it is as-
Daily water level records, rainfall, floating time and sumed that the rain fall distributions considered as simi-
sediment sample were collected primarily from the site lar for the two catchments. Rainfall data were collected
by the local people appointed by Bahir dar Institute of two times a day at 7:00 and 19:00 by the local people
Technology and sample survey of ground control points appointed by Bahir dar Institute of Technology. In addi-
for land use land cover classification and different land tion to these record additional records have been col-
uses have been identified and Coordinates of training lected during any time of the day when there is rain.
samples were taken by GPS. The GPS points were tak- Irregular check-ups were made as often as possible, to
en from main types of land uses; cultivated lands, for- check on the rain gauge observation skills, and addi-
ests, bush lands, grazing lands and bare lands. These tional training was given when required.

Figure 3- 3: Survey Menu river cross section profile

Figure 3- 2: The location of both automatic rain wise
3.3.1.3. Water level measurement
rain gauge and manual rain gauge
Water level was usually monitored with the help of staff
3.3.1.2. Area determination
gauges, which was read two times a day at 7:00 and
The cross sectional area for both catchments were de-
19:00 by the local people appointed by Bahir dar Insti-
termined by AUTOCAD that means by drawing the
tute of Technology. Additional records have been col-
cross section of the river at the staff gauge position and
lected during any time of the day when there is runoff.
determine the area for each staff gauge reading and
Therefore, during 2019-2020 the level of water (to be
develop the staff gauge area model for Menu catchment
converted to discharge, when stage discharge rating
both catchments.
curves have been established) has been measured based
on a painted staff gauges (made of metal) and with a
painted staff board at the accuracy of 1cm, produced
and delivered by Bahir dar University Institute of Tech- small river catchments as shown in Figure 3- 7 and 156
nology, in early 2019. There were two staff gauges measurements were taken in both catchment.
installed in Karita Wuha watershed at Menu and Atlaku

gauge and the hourly flow data were processed in

spread sheet software to get daily, decadal and monthly
value. The decadal and monthly values are aggregated
averaging the values obtained from daily basis.
𝑄=𝐴∗𝑉𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛 (3.3)
3.3.1.6. Runoff determination
The storm runoff volume was calculated by assuming
that the discharge flow rate was constant during the
time interval, and thus runoff volume was obtained by
multiplying the time duration, 𝛻(sec), by the discharge
flow rate, Qi (m3/sec). The time interval 𝛻(sec) is the
time that the staff gauge reading was taken.
𝑅=𝑄𝑖∗∇𝑡 (3.4)
Figure 3- 7: Staff gauge position for both Atlaku in (A)
3.3.1.7. Stage-discharge rating curve
and Menu in (B) catchments
Direct and continuous recording of discharge was diffi-
3.3.1.4. Velocity determination
cult that is costly, time consuming, and sometimes im-
The velocity in both Menu and Atlaku catchments was
practical during floods. However, observing and record-
determined by using flouting method. The flouting was
ing flow depth relatively simple. To determining the
always determine at a constant length for each water-
stage discharge rating curve I have used the recording
sheds, i.t the time was read in minute for 15m length for
stage and the discharge determined by area velocity
Menu and 20m length for Atlaku catchment (Dessie et
method. I have used stage-discharge rating curve by
al., 2014), finally the velocity was determined by apply-
treats the discharge as a unique function of the stage
ing a simple mathematics.
(Zhang et al., 2015).
𝑉𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒=𝐿𝑡 (3.1)
𝑄= (𝐻) (3.5)
Because of surface velocities are typically higher than
3.3.1.8. Sediment data collection and analysis
mean or average velocities the following correction
Suspended sediment concentration was measured using
method have used.
the grab sample method with 0.6 liter bottles. The sam-
𝑉𝑚𝑒𝑎𝑛=𝐾∗𝑉𝑠𝑢𝑟𝑓𝑎𝑐𝑒 (3.2)
ples were collected from the site to determine the mass
Where, k is a coefficient that generally used as two
of sediment concentration per 0.6liter of discharge.
third of surface velocity (Tilahun et al., 2013).
During storm events, stage-discharge and suspended
3.3.1.5. Discharge determination
sediment concentration measurements were taken at 20-
In both Atlaku and Menu catchments the discharge was
min intervals and continued until flow stabilized to pre-
determined by applying velocity area method, area ob-
storm levels and the water became visibly clear
tained from area staff gauge model and velocity ob-
(Tilahun et al., 2013). For Menu catchment 119 samples
tained from floating method. Interpolation of original
were collected and 103 sample were also collected in
data to hourly data were used to get hourly data of staff
Atlaku catchment. The concentration of suspended map to get Land use land cover classification, and Soil
sediment was determined in the laboratory using classification for the years of 2019-2020 which helps to
Whatman 320mm diameter with a pore size of2.5mm notice the rate of soil loss within the study area.
filter paper. To determine sediment concentration the 4. RESULUT AND DISCUSSION
first step was determine the weight of the paper and
4.1. Precipitation for Karita wuha watershed
second filtering the sample and put the sediment sample
The rainfall pattern in the Karita Wuha catchment is
in an oven-drying at a temperature of 105 °C for 24 hr,
unimodal, which occurs from May to October. Total
After the oven dry the sample was measured by using
precipitation of the six months of the rainy season
sensitive balance as shown in Figure 3- 8 and converted
(May-Oct) are as shown in Figure 4- 1.Total precipita-
to equivalent dry mass by applying simple mathemati-
tion for the six months May to October from 2019 to
cal equations (Dessie et al., 2014).
2020 ranged between 635mm and 710.4mm as shown
SSC (g/L) =Weight of oven dry sample (g) - weight of
in Table 4- 1. The difference between the driest (2019)
paper (g) /0.6 (3.6)
and wettest (2020) year was 75.4mm. The analysis and
For ease of unit conversion sediment concentration of
conversion of original rainfall data to daily monthly and
the measured data to sediment load converted as:
annual was conducted by using excel spread sheet soft-
SSL=86.4∗Q∗SSC (3.7)
ware, and the result as shown in Table 4- 1 & Figure 4-
Where: SSL is suspended sediment load in (ton/day), Q
1.
is flow of the stream (m3/s), SSC is suspended sediment
Table 4- 1: Annual Rainfall of Karita wuha (Menu and
concentration (g/l) and 86.4 is conversion factor.
Atlaku) catchments
The sediment yield was determined by using the formu-
la
SY (t/ha/yr) =SSL (t/yr)/A (ha) (3.8)

2019 2020
250
200
Rainfall (mm)

150
100
50
0

Figure 3- 8: Laboratory Procedures for measuring sus-

pended sediment concentration
3.3.2. Secondary data collection Figure 4- 1: Monthly precipitation for both Atlaku and

Digital elevation model (DEM), soil maps and Satellite Menu catchments

images were collected. The Digital Elevation Model 4.2. Runoff

(DEM) of study area, having 30meter spatial resolution The annual runoff depth varies between 191.08mm and

was downloaded from the Website 124.99mm with an average of 158.03 mm for Atlaku

https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/in the month of July catchment and between 125.08mm and 73.96mm with

2020. DEM and satellite images were used to delineate an average of 99.52mm for Menu catchment.

and map the watershed including the streams and slope 4.3. Rain fall and Runoff patterns
In Karita Wuha Watershed most of the rainfall with tillage on the clay-dominated areas breaks soil structure,
great intensities occurs in Jun and July. The maximum creates greater soil disturbance and makes abundant
daily precipitation was 52mm (occurred in 7/27/2019) fine sediment available for an easy detachment and
and it generates runoff depth 38mm/day. The runoff transport. This facilitates the storm runoff to transport
distribution pattern was similar in both 2019 and 2020 sediment and results in increased SSC from the culti-
but different in magnitude i.e., the runoff was decreased vated lands than bush land dominated catchment.
in 2020 because of SWCP. 4.6. Infiltration rates
4.4. Runoff as affected by land use The median infiltration capacity for upper, mid and
During the entire study period (2019–2020), the annual down slope position was 82.27, 86.27 and 85.16 mm/hr
storm runoff volumes generated from bush land domi- for Atlaku catchment and 82.19, 87 and 86.71mm/hr for
nated catchment varied between 285.84 and 261.97 mm Menu catchment respectively, this showing the effect of
while the runoff volume from cultivated land dominated land scape positions on infiltration rates. Considerable
catchment ranged from 310.66 to 281.57mm. Both differences were observed in the median infiltration
monthly and annual storm runoff from cultivated land rates between landscape positions. The upper portions
catchment was significantly greater as compared to the of the catchment exhibited lower infiltration rates, as
runoff generated from bush land dominated catchment. compared to the mid and lower portions.
The variation in daily, monthly and seasonal storm 4.7. Runoff source area identification
runoff volumes between the two catchments generally By understanding the relationship between infiltration
indicate that there is a need to focus on the construction capacity of the soil and the spatial variability of soil
of conservation measures. structure within the catchment, it is possible to identify
4.5. Soil loss as affected by land use where in the catchment is runoff generated i.e. runoff
The general trend of SSL in both cultivated dominated source areas. Lower infiltration rates are found in the
catchment and bush land dominated catchments is that upland areas of the catchment where the area is bush
SSL start lower early in the rainy season, quickly in- lands and sound rock. On the other hand, in the middle
creases and then gradually starts to decline with the and down slopes of the catchment, the soils are deeper
progress of the season Figure 4- 5 & Figure 4- 6. SSL and are well drained and have higher infiltration rates.
were greater in the month of June and July than in Au- Therefore, runoff in the middle and down slopes of the
gust, September and December Table 4-9. This is con- catchment is generated from the runoff on the uplands
sistent with earlier observations in the catchment in that of the area.
rill formation in the unconsolidated soil after plowing is
the largest source of sediment and cause high concen-
tration in the beginning of the rainy season (Zegeye et
al., 2010). This is related with the fact that when vege-
tation cover is removed from a land surface, the rate of
removal of the soil material, at least initially, increases
rapidly. Later, when the vegetation cover improves, the
effect of this factor declines (Kang et al., 2001). In ad-
dition, in Atlaku catchment, cereals cultivation such as
‘tef’, which is the predominant crop, require repeated
tillage of up to 3–5 rounds before sowing. This repeated
Since there is no need to conserve water on upland are- not performed, they can collect less runoff and led to
as (because the soil is sound rock for crop production), increase in the runoff coefficients in 2020.
installing soil bunds will only use to discharge water Atlaku Menu

Runoff(mm) and %Reduction

safely out of the field. In addition our discussion with 210
180
farmers in both Atlaku and Menu catchments, transect
150
walks, continuous field observations and photo moni-
120
toring indicated that soil bunds are effective when they
90
are placed on specific locations in the landscape. 60
Thus, infiltration furrows were found effective on the 30
drained hillsides where Lebtosol dominate. Since these 0
soils are very shallow soil over hard rock or a deeper 2019 2020 %Reduction

soil that is extremely gravelly and/or stony, where rain

water could infiltrate easily, soil bunds are stable and Figure 4-2: Storm runoff and % reduction in runoff

collect runoff. Furrows of soil bunds in the uplands are 4.9. Stage Discharge Rating Curve

effective to infiltrate rain water as water table in these The polynomial and power trend relation were fitted.

areas are deeper which in turn reduced storm runoff. For Menu catchment the power relation is taken when

However, on the flat bottomlands that saturate with the the water level is greater than 50cm because the values

progress of the monsoon rain and on fields dominated of the polynomial trend have extremely minimized and

by vertisols, soil bunds were not effective due to the the polynomial relation is taken when the water level

combined effect of soil saturation and vertic nature of reading is less than 50cm because the values of the

soil (Chanie, 2020). Soils have very low infiltration power relation become extremely maximized the value.

rates/restricted infiltration at saturation. On the other For Atlaku catchment the power relation is taken when

hand, vertisols have a tendency to form wide-deep the water level is greater than 30cm because the values

cracks during the dry season and swell during the rainy of the polynomial trend have extremely minimized the

season. The combination of saturated and vertic soil flow value and the polynomial relation is taken when

results in instability and collapse of soil bunds and in- the water level reading is less than 30cm because the

creased runoff, thus conservation practices became values of the power trend have extremely maximized

conduits for carrying excess rainfall (Chanie, 2020). the flow value.

4.8. Effectiveness of SWC practices in reducing 0.35

storm runoff 0.3 y = 0.0001x2 - 0.0011x + 0.0033
Discharge(m^3/sec)

R² = 0.9995
Soil and water conservation practices in 2020 reduced 0.25
the total storm runoff in both Menu and Atlaku catch- 0.2
ments. The reduction in both catchments ranges 0.15
from125.08mm to 73.96mm (41% reduction) in Menu 0.1
catchment and ranged from 191.08mm to 124.99mm 0.05
(35% reduction) in Atlaku catchment as shown in Fig- 0
ure 4-2. However, the reduction is higher in Menu 0 20 40 60
Staff guage(cm)
catchment (41%) than Atlaku (35%) as shown in Figure
4-2, because the furrows in Atlaku are already filled Figure 4- 1: Menu catchment stage discharge rating
with sediments and maintenance of the structures were curve when H<=50cm
 Discharge(m^3/sec) 8.2 negate this effect. The power and polynomial trend

6.2 y= 9E-06x2.6061 relation was used for both Menu and Atlaku catch-
R² = 0.9911
ments. The power relation was used when the discharge
4.2
is less than or equal to 0.01m^3/sec because the poly-
2.2
nomial function extremely maximized the value and the
0.2
polynomial was used when the discharge is greater than
50 100 150 200
Staff Gauge(cm) 0.01m^3/sec because the power function extremely
minimized the value as shown in Figure 4- 5, Figure 4-
Figure 4- 2: Menu catchment stage discharge rating 6, Figure 4- 7 & Figure 4- 8 respectively.
curve when H>50cm 28.02
12.30 24.02
Discharge (m^3/sec)

10.30 y = 0.00007x2.5922 20.02 y = 12434x1.3642

SSL (t/day)
8.30 R² = 0.9937 16.02 R² = 0.9015
6.30 12.02
8.02
4.30
4.02
2.30
0.02
0.30 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.01
30.0 50.0 70.0 90.0 110.0

Staff gauge (cm) Discharge (m^3/sec)

Figure 4- 3: Atlaku catchment stage discharge rating Figure 4- 5: Menu catchment sediment rating curve
curve when H<=30cm when Q <= 0.01m^3/sec
0.40 420.00
0.35 y = 0.0005x2 - 0.0041x + 0.0194 y = 14007x2 + 1689.5x + 12.888
Discharge (m^3/sec)

SSL (t/day)

0.30 R² = 0.9985 320.00 R² = 0.9627

0.25 220.00
0.20
0.15 120.00
0.10 20.00
0.05 0.01 0.06 0.11 0.16
0.00
4 14 24 34 Discharge (m^3/sec)

Staff gauge (cm) Figure 4- 6: Menu catchment sediment rating curve

Figure 4- 4: Atlaku catchment stage discharge rating when Q > 0.01m^3/sec

curve when H>30cm 14
12 y = 15587x1.554
10 R² = 0.9461
4.10. Sediment Rating Curve
SSL (t/day)

8
In both Atlaku and Menu catchments, for a given dis- 6
charge, the concentrations were greater at the beginning 4
of the rainy season and becomes decrease at the end of 2
0
the rainy season. Higher concentrations for low flows
0 0.005 0.01 0.015
and lower concentrations for high flows in the whole
Discharge (m^3/sec)
data set made the use of a single rating curve impracti- Figure 4- 7: Atlaku catchment sediment rating curve
cal (Asselman, 2000) and gives low coefficients of when Q <= 0.01m^3/sec
determination. In some cases, dividing the data into
these different parts and plotting them separately can
 694 rating curve. For Menu catchment the power relation is
y = 9758.5x2 + 1645.3x - 9.6414
595 R² = 0.9956 taken when the water level is greater than 50cm because
496 the values of the polynomial trend have extremely min-
397 imized and the polynomial relation is taken when the
SSL (t/day)

298 water level reading is less than 50cm because the values
199 of the power relation become less than zero. For Atlaku
100
catchment the power relation is taken when the water
1
0.01 0.06 0.11 0.16 0.21 level is greater than 30cm because the values of the
Discharge (m^3/sec) polynomial relation become extremely minimized and
Figure 4- 8: Atlaku catchment sediment rating curve the polynomial relation is taken when the water level
when Q > 0.01m^3/sec
reading is less than 30cm because the values of the
4. 11. Suspended sediment yield of the two catch-
ments power trend have extremely maximized the flow. For
The seasonal suspended sediment yield (SSY) was sediment rating curve the power and polynomial trend
greater in cultivated land dominated catchment when was also used for both Menu and Atlaku catchments.
compared to the SSY measured in bush land-dominated The power relation was used when the discharge is less
catchment Error! Reference source not found.. The than or equal to 0.01m^/sec because the polynomial
seasonal SSY in bush land dominated catchment were function extremely maximized the value and the poly-
decreased from 36.47ton/ha/yr to 28.43ton/ha/yr and the nomial was used when the discharge is greater than
annual Sediment yield for Menu catchments were de- 0.01m^3/sec because the power function extremely
creased from 27.4ton/ha/yr to 21.13ton/ha/yr. Our re- minimized the value. The sediment yield in both Menu
sults are consistent with the results of (Dagnew et al., and Atlaku falls under very high soil erosion class. The
2017) in that land use is the key factor that influences Sediment load for Atlaku catchment are higher than
the sediment yield in a catchment. In addition, (Dagnew Menu catchment due to less treatment for controlling
et al., 2017) demonstrated that repeated tillage in culti- runoff and because of Atlaku catchment is dominated
vated land could result in higher catchment sediment by cultivated land which is sensitive for erosion. The
budgets, as tillage accelerates detachment and transpor- implementation of large scale SWCPs such as soil
tation of sediments. Differences between the two bunds and stone bunds in the Karita wuha watershed
catchments in SSY were significant for the years 2019 has generally reduced the watershed sediment yields
and 2020. This could be attributed to the implementa- and marginal reductions in sediment concentration. The
tion of SWC measures in 2020 that covers large areas of mid slope and down slope of the area in the catchment
the cultivated land. As sediment yield of the watershed were found to be erosion hotspots because cultivated
is quite very high greater than 21Mg ha-1, it falls under land which is actively eroding rills were found on these
very high soil erosion class according to (Mishra et al., areas. The land use land cover of the upland of the wa-
2006) tershed was bush lands which is runoff source area and
leads erosion in both mid slop and down slope of the
5. Conclusion waters. The study area is economically important; since
it is excessive soil erosion from Karita wuha watershed
By studying the suspended sediment dynamics at the
lower catchment to reservoir of Karita wuha gravity
outlet of both catchments, the role of storm runoff in
dam by increasing sedimentation problem closes its
determining suspended sediment concentration was
outlet of diversion structure and reduced the storage
assessed and this was determined by developing the
capacity of the dam. This study provides information to BISHAW, A. (2005) Areas with concentrated poverty,
planners and decision makers, to take effective soil and 1999, US Department of Commerce, Econom-
ics and Statistics Administration, US ….
water conservation practice, in order to reduce soil loss BLANCO-CANQUI, H. & LAL, R. (2008) No‐tillage
and to increase amount of water accumulation in the and soil‐profile carbon sequestration: An on‐
farm assessment. Soil Science Society of
watershed. As a mitigation measure for prevention of America Journal, 72, 693-701.
severe erosion and conservation mechanism, it is rec- BRAIMOH, A. K. & VLEK, P. L. G. (2008) Impact of
land use on soil resources. Land Use and Soil
ommended to do further research on management inter-
Resources. Springer.
vention scenario analysis and develop appropriate man- CHANIE, D. (2020) EROSION DYNAMICS AND
EFFICACY OF CONSERVATION
agement option for those selected critical sub water-
INTERVENTIONS IN THE SUB-HUMID
sheds. The land use land cover of the upland of the ETHIOPIAN HIGHLANDS.
watershed was bush lands which is runoff source area DAGNEW, D. C., GUZMAN, C. D., ZEGEYE, A. D.,
AKAL, A. T., MOGES, M. A., TEBEBU, T.
and leads erosion in both mid slop and down slope of Y., MEKURIA, W., AYANA, E. K.,
the watershed so, care must be taken for the construc- TILAHUN, S. A. & STEENHUIS, T. S.
(2017) Sediment loss patterns in the
tion of SWCP in the upland of the watershed. The Ethi- sub―humid Ethiopian highlands. Land Deg-
opian government should focus on the maintenance of radation & Development, 28, 1795-1805.
DESCHEEMAEKER, K., NYSSEN, J., ROSSI, J.,
previously constructed SWCPs than merely focusing on
POESEN, J., HAILE, M., RAES, D., MUYS,
increasing the coverage of SWCPs in Karita Wuha wa- B., MOEYERSONS, J. & DECKERS, S.
tershed. In Karita Wuha catchment further studies are (2006) Sediment deposition and pedogenesis
in exclosures in the Tigray Highlands, Ethio-
needed to improve our understanding of the effects of pia. Geoderma, 132, 291-314.
land management practices on runoff and erosion pro- DESSIE, M., VERHOEST, N. E. C., ADMASU, T.,
PAUWELS, V. R. N., POESEN, J., ADGO,
cesses in both catchment. E., DECKERS, J. & NYSSEN, J. (2014) Ef-
fects of the floodplain on river discharge into
Lake Tana (Ethiopia). Journal of hydrology,
References 519, 699-710.
EMAMA, B., MOHAMMED, H. & MOHAMMED, S.
ADGO, E., TESHOME, A. & MATI, B. (2013) Impacts (2015) A situational analysis of agricultural
of long-term soil and water conservation on production and marketing, and natural resource
management systems in the Ethiopian high-
agricultural productivity: The case of Anjenie lands.
watershed, Ethiopia. Agricultural Water Man- FAO 1986. FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
ORGANIZATION .ETHIOPIAN
agement, 117, 55-61. HIGHLANDS RECLAMATION STUDY, F.
AMSALU, A., STROOSNIJDER, L. & DE GRAAFF, R. V. I., FOOD AND AGRICULTURE
J. (2007) Long-term dynamics in land resource ORGANIZATION (FAO) ROME. FAO 1986.
use and the driving forces in the Beressa wa- Food and Agriculture Organization .Ethiopian
tershed, highlands of Ethiopia. Journal of envi- highlands reclamation study, Final Report
ronmental management, 83, 448-459. (Volume II), Food and Agriculture Organiza-
ASSELMAN, N. E. M. (2000) fitting and interpretation tion (FAO) Rome.
of sediment rating curves. Journal of hydrolo- FAO, F. (1981) Agriculture Organization. 1982. Pro-
gy, 234, 228-248. duction yearbook, 36.
AUTHORITY, E. P. (2012) National Report of Ethio- FEKADU, S., MERID, Y., BEYENE, H., TESHOME,
pia. The United Nations Conference on Sus- W. & GEBRE-SELASSIE, S. (2015) Assess-
tainable Development (Rio 20+). ment of antibiotic-and disinfectant-resistant
BERHE, W. (1996) Twenty years of soil and water bacteria in hospital wastewater, south Ethiopia:
conservation in Ethiopia: A personal overview. a cross-sectional study. The Journal of Infec-
Regional soil conservation unit/SIDA, Nairobi, tion in Developing Countries, 9, 149-156.
Kenya. FOOT, K. & MORGAN, R. (2005) the role of leaf in-
clination, leaf orientation and plant canopy ar-
chitecture in soil particle detachment by
 raindrops. Earth Surface Processes and Land- sponse—a case in north Ethiopia. Hydrologi-
forms: The Journal of the British Geomorpho- cal processes, 24, 1880-1895.
logical Research Group, 30, 1509-1520. NYSSEN, J., HAREGEWEYN, N.,
GRISSINGER, E. & MURPHY, J. (1989) Ephemeral DESCHEEMAEKER, K., GEBREMICHAEL,
Gully erosion in the loss uplands, Gardwin wa- D., VANCAMPENHOUT, K., POESEN, J.,
tershed, Northern Mississippi, USA. Proc. 4th HAILE, M., MOEYERSONS, J.,
Int. River Sedimentation Symp. Beijing, Chi- BUYTAERT, W. & NAUDTS, J. (2006)
na, IASH Pub. Comment on “Modelling the effect of soil and
HAWANDO, T. (1995) the survey of the soil and water water conservation practices in Tigray, Ethio-
resources of Ethiopia. UNU/Toko. pia” [Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 105 (2005) 29–
HURNI, H. (1993) Land degredation, famine, and land 40]. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment,
resource scenarios in Ethiopia. 114, 407-411.
JULIEN, P. Y. (2010) Erosion and sedimentation, OLDEMAN, L. R. (1992) Global extent of soil degra-
Cambridge university press. dation. Bi-Annual Report 1991-1992/ISRIC.
KANG, S., ZHANG, L., SONG, X., ZHANG, S., LIU, ISRIC.
X., LIANG, Y. & ZHENG, S. (2001) Runoff PHILOR, L. (2011) Erosion impacts on soil and envi-
and sediment loss responses to rainfall and ronmental quality: Vertisols in the Highlands
land use in two agricultural catchments on the Region of Ethiopia. Soil and Water Science
Loess Plateau of China. Hydrological process- Department, University of Florida.
es, 15, 977-988. SHIFERAW, E. (2015) Awareness and views of farm-
LIU, B. M., COLLICK, A. S., ZELEKE, G., ADGO, ing households regarding land resource degra-
E., EASTON, Z. M. & STEENHUIS, T. S. dation and conservation-the case of Bule hora.
(2008) Rainfall‐discharge relationships for a Ethiopia.
monsoonal climate in the Ethiopian highlands. SINORE, T., ADUGNA, O. & MELKAMU, T. (2017)
Hydrological Processes: An International Community Perception on Land Degradation
Journal, 22, 1059-1067. Problems and Management Practices in Begi
MISHRA, S. K., TYAGI, J. V., SINGH, V. P. & Woreda, Oromia Regional State, Ethiopia. In-
SINGH, R. (2006) SCS-CN-based modeling of ternational Journal of Agriculture, Forestry and
sediment yield. Journal of hydrology, 324, Fisheries, 47-54.
301-322. TESFA, A. & MEKURIAW, S. (2014) the effect of
MITIKU, H., HERWEG, K. G. & STILLHARDT, B. land degradation on farm size dynamics and
(2006) Sustainable land management: A new crop-livestock farming system in Ethiopia: A
approach to soil and water conservation in Review. Open Journal of Soil Science, 2014.
Ethiopia. Centre for Development and Envi- TESHOME, A., ROLKER, D. & DE GRAAFF, J.
ronment (CDE) and NCCR North-South. (2013) financial viability of soil and water
MORGAN, D. O. (1995) Principles of CDK regulation. conservation technologies in northwestern
Nature, 374, 131-134. Ethiopian highlands. Applied Geography, 37,
MORGAN, R. P. C. (2009) Soil erosion and conserva- 139-149.
tion, John Wiley & Sons. TILAHUN, S. (2012) Observations and modeling of
MOWIE (1993) Ministry of Water, Irrigation and Elec- erosion from spatially and temporally distrib-
tricity.(1993). Improvement of the resource– uted sources in the (semi) humid Ethiopian
population sustainability balance. Water Re- highlands.
sources Development, MoWIE, Addis Ababa, TILAHUN, S. A., AYANA, E. K., GUZMAN, C. D.,
Ethiopia. DAGNEW, D. C., ZEGEYE, A. D., TEBEBU,
NYAMAI, M., MATI, B. M., HOME, P. G., T. Y., YITAFERU, B. & STEENHUIS, T. S.
ODONGO, B., WANJOGU, R. & (2016) Revisiting storm runoff processes in the
THURANIRA, E. (2012) Improving crop upper Blue Nile basin: The Debre Mawi wa-
productivity and water use efficiency in basin tershed. Catena, 143, 47-56.
rice cultivation in Kenya through SRI. Agri- TILAHUN, S. A., MUKUNDAN, R., DEMISSE, B. A.,
cultural Engineering International: CIGR Jour- ENGDA, T. A., GUZMAN, C. D.,
nal, 14, 1-9. TARAKEGN, B. C., EASTON, Z. M.,
NYSSEN, J., CLYMANS, W., DESCHEEMAEKER, COLLICK, A. S., ZEGEYE, A. D. &
K., POESEN, J., VANDECASTEELE, I., SCHNEIDERMAN, E. M. (2013) A saturation
VANMAERCKE, M., ZENEBE, A., VAN excess erosion model. Transactions of the
CAMP, M., HAILE, M. & HAREGEWEYN, ASABE, 56, 681-695.
N. (2010) Impact of soil and water conserva- TOY, T. J., FOSTER, G. R. & RENARD, K. G. (2002)
tion measures on catchment hydrological re- Soil erosion: processes, prediction, measure-
ment, and control, John Wiley & Sons.
VANMAERCKE, M., ZENEBE, A., POESEN, J.,
NYSSEN, J., VERSTRAETEN, G. &
DECKERS, J. (2010) Sediment dynamics and
the role of flash floods in sediment export from
medium-sized catchments: a case study from
the semi-arid tropical highlands in northern
Ethiopia. Journal of Soils and Sediments, 10,
611-627.
VERSTRAETEN, G. & POESEN, J. (2002) Using
sediment deposits in small ponds to quantify
sediment yield from small catchments: possi-
bilities and limitations. Earth Surface Process-
es and Landforms: The Journal of the British
Geomorphological Research Group, 27, 1425-
1439.
WELDE, K. & GEBREMARIAM, B. (2017) Effect of
land use land cover dynamics on hydrological
response of watershed: Case study of Tekeze
Dam watershed, northern Ethiopia. Interna-
tional Soil and Water Conservation Research,
5, 1-16.
WINTERBOTTOM, R., REIJ, C., GARRITY, D.,
GLOVER, J., HELLUMS, D., MCGAHUEY,
M. & SCHERR, S. (2013) Improving land and
water management. World Resources Institute
Working Paper). Accessed on April, 2, 2014.
ZEGEYE, A. D., STEENHUIS, T. S., BLAKE, R. W.,
KIDNAU, S., COLLICK, A. S. & DADGARI,
F. (2010) Assessment of soil erosion processes
and farmer perception of land conservation in
Debre Mewi watershed near Lake Tana, Ethio-
pia. Ecohydrology & Hydrobiology, 10, 297-
306.
ZHANG, W., WANG, W.-G., ZHENG, J.-H., WANG,
H.-G., WANG, G. & ZHANG, J.-S. (2015)
Reconstruction of stage–discharge relation-
ships and analysis of hydraulic geometry varia-
tions: the case study of the Pearl River Delta,
China. Global and Planetary Change, 125, 60-
70.
ZUAZO, V. C. H. D. & PLEGUEZUELO, C. R. O. R.
(2009) Soil-erosion and runoff prevention by
plant covers: a review. Sustainable agriculture.
Springer.