Evaluation of effective management plan for an agricultural watershed using AVSWAT model, remote sensing and GIS

In the present investigation, an effort has been made to identify the critical sub-watersheds for the development of best management plan for a small watershed of Eastern India using a hydrological model, namely, AVSWAT2000. A total of 180 combinations of various management treatments including crops (rice, maize ground nut and soybean), tillage (zero, conservation, field cultivator, mould board plough and conventional practices) and fertilizer levels (existing half of recommended and recommended) have been evaluated. The investigation reveled that rice cannot be replaced by other crops such as groundnut, maize, mungbean, sorghum and soybean since comparatively these crops resulted in higher sediment yield. The tillage practices with disk plough have been found to have more impact on sediment yield and nutrient losses than conventional tillage practices for the existing level of fertilizer. Sediment yield decreased in the case of zero tillage, conservation tillage, field cultivator, moldboard plough, and conservation tillage as compare to conventional tillage. Lowest NO3–N loss was observed in zero tillage in all the fertilizer treatments, whereas field cultivator, moldboard plough and disk plough resulted in increase of NO3–N loss. As compared to conventional tillage, the losses of soluble phosphorus were increased in moldboard plough. The losses of organic nitrogen were also increased as fertilizer dose increased. After zero tillage the conservation tillage preformed better in all the fertilizer treatments as per loss of organic nitrogen and organic phosphorus is concerned. It can be concluded that the sediment yield was found to be the highest in the case of disk plough followed by moldboard plough, field cultivator, conventional tillage, field cultivator and least in zero tillage practices. The nutrient losses were found to be in different order with tillage practices, resulted highest in disk plough tillage practices. In view of sediment yield and nutrient losses, the conservation tillage practice was found to be the best as the sediment yield is less than the average soil loss whereas nutrient loss is within the permissible limit.

[1]  Richard A C Cooke,et al.  Assessment of management alternatives on a small agricultural watershed , 1997 .

[2]  John R. Williams,et al.  A modeling approach to determining the relationship between erosion and soil productivity [EPIC, Erosion-Productivity Impact Calculator, mathematical models] , 1984 .

[3]  Santanu Kumar Behera,et al.  Evaluation of management alternatives for an agricultural watershed in a sub-humid subtropical region using a physical process based model , 2006 .

[4]  I. Abrol,et al.  Soil erosion rates in India , 1992 .

[5]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  Nonpoint Source (NPS) Pollution Modeling Using Models Integrated with Geographic Information Systems (GIS) , 1993 .

[6]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  Automatic calibration of a distributed catchment model , 2001 .

[7]  Stephan J. Nix,et al.  Hydrologic Regionalization of Watersheds. I: Methodology Development , 2002 .

[8]  Sudhindra N. Panda,et al.  Modelling of an Agricultural Watershed using Remote Sensing and a Geographic Information System , 2005 .

[9]  Peter Strauss,et al.  AgriBMPWater: systems approach to environmentally acceptable farming , 2005, Environ. Model. Softw..

[10]  S. Mostaghimi,et al.  IDENTIFICATION OF CRITICAL NONPOINT POLLUTION SOURCE AREAS USING GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEMS AND WATER QUALITY MODELING , 1992 .

[11]  A. M. Duda,et al.  Addressing Nonpoint Sources of Water Pollution Must Become an International Priority , 1993 .

[12]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  Effect of watershed subdivision on simulation runoff and fine sediment yield , 1997 .

[13]  Nicola Fohrer,et al.  Long-term land use changes in a mesoscale watershed due to socio-economic factors — effects on landscape structures and functions , 2001 .

[14]  S. Dressing,et al.  ES Feature: Pollution from Nonpoint Sources. , 1987, Environmental science & technology.

[15]  F. Ghidey,et al.  Comparison of Measured and WEPP Predicted Runoff and Soil Loss for Midwest Claypan Soil , 1996 .

[16]  Bernard A. Engel,et al.  HYDROLOGIC PARAMETERIZATION OF WATERSHEDS FOR RUNOFF PREDICTION USING SWAT 1 , 1998 .

[17]  Ramesh P. Rudra,et al.  Targeting remedial measures to control nonpoint source pollution. , 1990 .

[18]  J. Arnold,et al.  VALIDATION OF THE SWAT MODEL ON A LARGE RWER BASIN WITH POINT AND NONPOINT SOURCES 1 , 2001 .

[19]  J. Nash,et al.  River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I — A discussion of principles☆ , 1970 .

[20]  C. K. Mutchler,et al.  Comparison of Sediment Yield Models on Watersheds in Mississippi , 1989 .

[21]  Drainage Division,et al.  Criteria for Evaluation of Watershed Models , 1993 .

[22]  J. Feyen,et al.  Calibration, Validation and Sensitivity Analysis of the MIKE-SHE Model Using the Neuenkirchen Catchment as Case Study , 1997 .

[23]  Jeffrey G. Arnold,et al.  APPLICATION OF SWAT FOR THE UPPER NORTH BOSQUE RIVER WATERSHED , 2000 .

[24]  M. P. Tripathi,et al.  Hydrological modelling of a small watershed using generated rainfall in the soil and water assessment tool model , 2004 .

[25]  K. Eckhardt,et al.  Hydrologic Response to land use changes on the catchment scale , 2001 .

[26]  A. Rango,et al.  MERITS OF STATISTICAL CRITERIA FOR THE PERFORMANCE OF HYDROLOGICAL MODELS1 , 1989 .

[27]  R. G. Spomer,et al.  Dissolved nitrogen and phosphorus in runoff from watersheds in conservation and conventional tillage , 1985 .

[28]  B. Wright.  The modeling approach. , 1984, International review of cytology.

[29]  R. Young,et al.  AGNPS: A nonpoint-source pollution model for evaluating agricultural watersheds , 1989 .

[30]  J. Hamlett,et al.  Hydrologic calibration of the SWAT model in a watershed containing fragipan soils , 1998 .

[31]  Steven T. Bednarz,et al.  LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART II: MODEL APPLICATION 1 , 1998 .

[32]  Raghavan Srinivasan,et al.  A modeling approach to evaluate the impacts of water quality management plans implemented in a watershed in Texas , 2006, Environ. Model. Softw..

[33]  L. F. Huggins,et al.  ANSWERS: A Model for Watershed Planning , 1980 .

[34]  Francisco Olivera,et al.  Extracting Hydrologic Information from Spatial Data for HMS Modeling , 2001 .

[35]  K. Mcgregor,et al.  PLANT NUTRIENT LOSSES IN RUNOFF FROM CONSERVATION TILLAGE CORN , 1984 .

[36]  John R. Williams,et al.  Sediment yield prediction based on watershed hydrology. , 1977 .

[37]  Samar J. Bhuyan,et al.  An integrated approach for water quality assessment of a Kansas watershed , 2003, Environ. Model. Softw..

[38]  J. Arnold,et al.  SWAT2000: current capabilities and research opportunities in applied watershed modelling , 2005 .

[39]  R. Train,et al.  Quality criteria for water , 1979 .

[40]  Narendra Singh Raghuwanshi,et al.  Development of effective management plan for critical subwatersheds using SWAT model , 2005 .

[41]  Saied Mostaghimi,et al.  ANIMALWASTE BMP IMPACTS ON SEDIMENT AND NUTRIENT LOSSES IN RUNOFF FROM THE OWL RUN WATERSHED , 2000 .

[42]  John R. Williams,et al.  LARGE AREA HYDROLOGIC MODELING AND ASSESSMENT PART I: MODEL DEVELOPMENT 1 , 1998 .

[43]  George H. Hargreaves,et al.  Reference Crop Evapotranspiration from Temperature , 1985 .