Abstract
Modeling of the watershed runoff and sediment yield method is very variable and nonlinear in nature. The Shakkar watershed of the Narmada river basin, Central India, has been taken under the study. The linear dynamic (LD), nonlinear dynamic (NLD), and logarithm dynamic (LogD) sediment yield prediction models based on the concept of determining and assigning the varying weightings to the antecedent events for the runoff-sediment process were developed for the watershed. The data set (1990–2005) model was developed only by using active daily runoff data, together with the antecedent runoff index (AQI) and antecedent sediment yield index (ASYI). Due to the high value of R2 (over 60%), the linear, nonlinear, and logarithm dynamic model was discovered to be appropriate for the field of research. The Nash-Sutcliff efficiency (NSE), mean absolute error (MAE), and Willmott’s index (WI) were employed to assess the performance of the models. The results showed that the NLD model was found better than linear and logarithm models. These models had Nash-Sutcliff efficiency (NSE = 92.69, 64.93, 79.66), mean absolute error (MAE = 5744.20, 12,618.83, 0.02), and Willmott’s index (WI = 0.98, 0.88, 0.95) correspondingly. Hence, the NLD model can be used for predicting sediment. In order to take the right conservation steps in the watershed to minimize the sediment load in the reservoir to boost the lives of the structure, the forecast for the sediment yield is of great importance.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
Abbreviations
- LD :
-
Linear dynamic
- NLD :
-
Nonlinear dynamic
- LogD :
-
Logarithm dynamic
- AQI :
-
Antecedent runoff index
- ASYI :
-
Antecedent sediment yield index
- NSE:
-
Nash-Sutcliff efficiency
- MAE:
-
Mean absolute error
- WI:
-
Willmott’s index
- Q :
-
Runoff
- S:
-
Sediment
- SY:
-
Sediment yield
- MT :
-
Metric Tonne
- m 3 /s :
-
Meter cube per second
- k0, k1, k2, k3 :
-
Regression coefficient
- R 2 :
-
Correlation coefficient
References
Ahmadi MH, Molladavoodi H (2018) Rock failure analysis under dynamic loading based on a micromechanical damage model. Civil Eng J 4(11):2801–2812. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-03091199
Amorocho J (1967) The nonlinear prediction problem in the study of the runoff cycle. Water Resour Res 3:861–880
Cordier C, Guyomard K, Stavrakakis C, Sauvade P, Coelho F, Moulin P (2020) Culture of microalgae with Ultrafiltered seawater: a feasibility study. Sci Med J 2(2):56–62. https://doi.org/10.28991/SciMedJ-2020-0202-2
Dhruv Narayana VV, Babu R (1983) Estimation of soil erosion in India. J Irrig Drain Eng 109(4):419–434. https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)0733-9437(1983)
Flaxman EM (1972) Predicting sediment yield in Western united state. J Hydraul Eng ASCE 98(12):2073–2085.
Gajbhiye S, Mishra SK, Pandey A (2015) Simplified sediment yield index model incorporating parameter CN. Arab J Geosci 8(4):1993–2004. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-014-1319-9
Garde RJ, Kothari UC (1987) Sediment yield estimation. J Irrig Power (India) 44(3):97–123
Gudino-Elizondo N, Biggs TW, Bingner RL, Langendoen EJ, Kretzschmar T, Taguas EV, Taniguchi-Quan KT, Liden D, Yuan Y (2019) Modelling runoff and sediment loads in a developing coastal watershed of the US-Mexico border. Water (Basel) 11(5):1–1024. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11051024
Kumar A (1993). Dynamic models of daily runoff and sediment yield for a sub-catchment of Ramganga River. PhD Thesis, Department of Soil and Water Conservation Engg, College of Technology, Pantnagar, India (unpublished)
Kumar A, Das G (1998) A dynamic runoff model for a Himalayan watershed. Int J Agric Eng Asian Assoc Agric Eng 79(3–4):201–210
Kumar A, Das G (2000) Dynamic model of daily rainfall, runoff and sediment yield for a Himalyan watershed. J Agric Eng 75(2):189–193
Meshram SG, Ghorbani MA, Shamshirband S, Karimi V, Meshram C (2018a) River flow prediction using hybrid PSOGSA algorithm based on feed-forward neural network. Soft Comput 23:10429–10438. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-018-3598-7
Meshram SG, Powar PL, Meshram C (2018b) Comparison of cubic, quadratic and quintic splines for soil erosion modelling. Appl Water Sci 8:173. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-018-0807-6
Meshram SG, Powar PL, Singh VP, Meshram C (2018c) Application of cubic spline in soil erosion modelling from Narmada watersheds, India. Arab J Geosci 11:362. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-018-3699-8
Meshram SG, Singh SK, Meshram C, Deo RC, Ambade B (2018d) Statistical evaluation of long term time series of rainfall in concurrence with agriculture and water resources of Ken River basin, Central India. Theor Appl Climatol 134(3–4):1231–1243. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-017-2335-y
Meshram SG, Ghorbani MA, Deo RC, Kashani MH, Meshram C, Karimi V (2019a) New approach for sediment yield forecasting with a two-phase feedforward neuron network-particle swarm optimization model integrated with the gravitational search algorithm. Water Resour Manag 33:2335–2356. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-019-02265-0
Meshram SG, Alvandi E, Singh VP, Meshram C (2019b) Comparison of AHP and fuzzy AHP models for prioritization of watersheds. Soft Comput 23:13615–13625. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00500-019-03900-z
Nash JE, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — a discussion of principles. J Hydrol 10(3):282–290. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
Ojasvi PR, Panda RK, Satyanarayana T (1994) Hydrological and morphological investigation in a hilly catchment. J Agric Eng 3(3):77
Ouyanga Y, Xub D, Leiningerc DT, Zhangba N (2016) A system dynamic model to estimate hydrological processes and water use in a eucalypt plantation. Ecol Eng 86:290–299. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecoleng.2015.11.008
Panigrahi B (2007) Effect of moisture conservation measures on runoff, soil loss and yield of upland rice. J Agric Eng 44(3):121–127
Papazafiriou AC (1976) Linear and nonlinear approaches for short term runoff estimations in time-invariant open hydrologic systems. J Hydrol 30:65–80. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(76)90089-5
Pyasi SK, Singh JK (2001) Weekly sediment yield dynamic model for Naula watershed of Ramganga reservoir. J Agric Eng 38(4):58–65
Ranjan V, Nema AK, Singh A, Bisen Y (2011) Modelling of runoff sediment yield for Kashinagar watershed. Indian J Soil Conserv 39(3):183–187. http://indianjournals.com/ijor.aspx?target=ijor:ijsc&type=home. Accessed 21 Aug 2017
Renard KG (1980) Estimating erosion and sediment yield from rangeland. pp 164-175 In: Proceedings of the Symposium on Watershed Management, Amer Soc Civil Engineers, New York, NY. USA.
Toledo C, Muñoz E, Zambrano-Bigiarini M (2015) Comparison of stationary and dynamic conceptual models in a mountainous and data-sparse catchment in the south-central Chilean Andes. Adv Meteorol 526158, 14 pages:1–14. https://doi.org/10.1155/2015/526158
Walling DE (1977) Assessing the accuracy of suspended sediment rating curve for a small basin. Water Resour Res 13(3):531–538. https://doi.org/10.1029/WR013i003p00531
Wang Z, Chen X, Xue X, Zhang L, Zhu W (2019) Mechanical parameter inversion in sandstone diversion tunnel and stability analysis during operation period. Civil Eng J 5(9):1917–1928. https://doi.org/10.28991/cej-2019-03091382
Willmott CJ (1981) On the validation of models. Phys Geogr 2:184–194
Acknowledgments
The authors would like to thank all the anonymous reviewers for their valuable comments and suggestions. We also thank the Central Water Commission (CWC), Bhopal, for providing the runoff and sediment yield data.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Ethical approval
This article does not contain any studies with human participants or animals performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Broder J. Merkel
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Meshram, S.G., Meshram, C. An effective dynamic runoff-sediment yield modeling for Shakkar watershed, Central India. Arab J Geosci 13, 1248 (2020). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06162-4
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-06162-4