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
henokshiferaw51@gmail.com 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)

mean annual global surface temperature has increased by
0.3–0.6 °C since the late nineteenth century and it is antici-
pated to further increase by 1.0–2 °C over the next 100 years
(IPCC 2014).
Climate change affects the function and operation of
existing water infrastructures including hydropower, struc-
tural, drainage and irrigation systems as well as water man-
agement practices (Eromo et al. 2016). Impact of climate
change on water resources, particularly on surface runoff is a
key and current research agenda at global level (IPCC 2014;
Pandey et al. 2016; Yin et al. 2016). There are many studies
at global level focused on impact of climate change on water
resources, particularly on surface runoff (Yin et al. 2016).
For example, Raneesh and Santosh (2011) assessed the effect
of climate change on streamflow and vegetative growth in
a humid tropical watershed of India. Similarly, Eromo et al.
(2016) investigated the impact of climate change on surface
hydrological process in Omo-Gibe river basin of Ethiopia
and reported that surface water decreases in terms of mean
monthly discharge in the dry season and increases in the wet
season. The percentage change in future seasonal and annual
hydrological variables was shown increasing trends. How-
ever, in the semi-arid northern Ethiopia, only few studies are
available which mainly focused on hydrological modelling
at different watershed scales. For example, Ashenafi (2014)
reported that land use and climate change are affecting
water resources in Geba catchment, northern Ethiopia. The
report from this study shows that the stream flow decreased
by 10% during the wet season and by 30% during the dry
season. According to Abebe (2014) as a result of climate
change, surface runoff in Suluh watershed of the Geba catch-
ment increased by 4.6% and base flow and deep percolation
were reduced by 10 and 7.4% respectively.
Hydrological modeling tools are very useful to investigate
the impact of climate change on the hydrology of a given
watershed (Pandey et al. 2016). Today, the use of hydrologi-
cal modeling for water resources planning and management
is becoming increasingly popular in various research studies.
Among many others, spatially and temporally distributed or
semi-distributed hydrological models such as SWAT have
important applications for discovering the relationships
between the climate of the watershed and hydrological pro-
cess (Mango et al. 2011). Such models are able to explicitly
represent the spatial variability of land surface characteris-
tics such as elevation, slope, vegetation, land use, soil and
climate (Abebe 2014).
Given its spatial and temporal capability of SWAT, dif-
ferent researchers are using SWAT to model watershed at
different scales. For instance, Kumar and Singh (2016) used
SWAT-VSA to model the surface runoff in the Himalayan
landscapes. He concluded that paddy croplands followed by
scrub, maize and forest cover as most contributing areas of
surface runoff generation in the watershed.
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Similarly, Gyamfi et al. (2017) also applied SWAT model
for groundwater recharge in a large scale basin in Olifants
basin, South Africa. The findings indicated that groundwa-
ter recharge declined by 10.37 mm (30.3%) and 2.34 mm
(9.82%) during the periods 2000–2007 and 2007–2013
respectively over the study area. Makwana and Tiwar (2017),
also carried out stream flow modeling using SWAT and neu-
ral networks (NNs). They found that the SWAT model pro-
vides a better description of water balance of the watershed,
whereas NN models present the surface runoff at the outlet
without any explicit consideration of different components
of the hydrologic cycle.
Furthermore, Raneesh and Santosh (2011) also used
SWAT for evaluating the effect of climate change on stream-
flow and vegetative growth in a humid tropical watershed of
India. However, in Ethiopia, only few studies are available
which lay emphasis on hydrological modelling at interme-
diate scale of a watershed. These studies demonstrate the
capability of SWAT model to simulate runoff at different
scales of watershed in different parts of the country.
Understanding the impact of climate change on the hydro-
logical processes at watershed level is crucial for water and
land resource management in order to put appropriate adap-
tation and mitigation measures (Gebrekristos 2015; Ashenafi
2014). Hence, this study was aimed at investigation on the
impacts of climate change on water resources at interme-
diate watershed scale which is helpful to put appropriate
amelioration measures, proper plans, and policy measures
to have sustainable water resources management. There-
fore, the main objective of this study was to determine and
simulate the impact of climate change on surface runoff in
Ilala watershed of Northern Ethiopia. The specific objec-
tives were to (1) assess and model climate change scenario
over the study area (2) determine surface runoff generation
and quantify the evapotranspiration of the study area, and
(3) evaluate possible effects of climate change on surface
runoff for the future.
Description of the study area
Ilala watershed (Fig. 1) is located at 13°23´ to 13°31´30″
in North and 39°27´ to 39°31´48″ in East of Tigray region,
Northern Ethiopia. The watershed covers an area of 215 km2
and has an altitude ranging from 1964–2680 meter above
sea level (m.a.s.l). The climate of Ethiopia influenced by the
Indian and Atlantic Oceans. As the area is characterized by
a mono modal rainfall type the long rainy season (summer)
lasts from June to September and locally called "kirmt”. It
receives rainfall only from June to September. The rain-
fall distribution during this period varies between 240 and
398 mm with a peak rainfall in August. The “Kirmit” season
contributes about 83% of the annual rainfall, while about
17% of the annual rainfall comes from May and October.
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Fig. 1  Location map of Ilala watershed
The average maximum and minimum temperature is 28 and
11 °C respectively. The highest maximum temperature is
observed in May (29 °C) and June (30 °C). The minimum
temperature record was observed in December (8 °C) and
January (7 °C) and both months were dry and free of sub-
stantial rain.
Land use/land cover
Land use and land cover is an important factor affecting
different processes of a watershed, such as surface runoff,
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-
tivated land (AGRL)—33%, built-up area (URBN)—24%,
bush land (RNGE)—15%, bare land (BARL)—8%, shrub-
land (RNGB)—16%, grass land (PAST)—3.5%, forest-land
(FRST)—(0.1%) water body (WATER)—0.5% as shown in
Fig. 2. Built-up area and cultivated land were the most domi-
nant types of land cover types in the study area.
Soil and geology  and sunshine hour) were collected from Ethiopia National
The response of runoff to a rainfall event depends on the
nature and conditions of the underlying soils. The most
dominant soil type in the watershed is Calcaric Cambi-
sol (110 km2), Calcic Vertisol (95 km2) and Eutic Vertsol
(10 km2) (Ministry of Water Resources 1997). The SWAT
model requires soil property data such as the texture, chemi-
cal composition, physical properties, and available moisture
content, hydraulic conductivity, bulk density and organic
carbon content of different layers. The soil information was
collected from Tekeze River Basin Master Plan Project of
Ethiopia (TRBMPP). The geology of Ilala catchment is
highly disturbed due to volcanic eruptions. The catchment
is mainly dominated by limestone-shale-marl intercalation,
limestone, dolerite, sills and quaternary sediments (Geologi-
cal map of Ethiopia 1996).
Materials and methods
Data collection
Climate and hydrological data
Daily climate data (1980–2009) of the Mekelle gauging
station (rainfall, air temperature, wind speed, humidity,
Metrological Agency (NMA). For each data variables,
two main activities have been carried out in order to val-
idate and screen the reliability of input data. The first
activity was selection of good representative data years
for both rainfall and temperature that have long term
13

Fig. 2  land use and land cover
record. Finally, data analysis and interpretations has been
conducted using Excel spread sheets to sort out outliers.
The screened climatic data were used as an input to the
hydrological model. In addition, 12 years (1990–2002)
of observed hydrological river discharge were obtained
from Ethiopia Ministry of Water, irrigation and Electric
city for the purpose of model calibration and validation.
The period from 1990 to 1996 was used for calibration
whereas; the period from 1997 to 2002 was used for vali-
dation of the SWAT model.
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Spatial data
The digital elevation model (DEM), soil map, and land use
map were used by the SWAT model to delineate the hydro-
logical response units. The 30 m DEM was obtained from
United State Geological Survey Database (USGS) (http://
glovi​s.usgs.gov/). The land use and land cover of Ilala
watershed was prepared from Landsat imaginary products
(http://glovis​ .usgs.gov/) with spatial resolution of 30 m. The
images were downloaded in a dry season January month to
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

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

Climate change modelling scenarios Description of SWAT model

To generate the future climate change of the study area,
delta based statistical downscaling approach of the phase
Five Coupled Model Intercomparison (CMIP5) was used
in R software version 3.4.2. The general circulation model
(GCM) was undergone in the recent two representative con-
centration pathways (RCPs) 4.5 and 8.5 emission scenarios.
The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement
Project (AgMIP) guidelines and scripts were used to run the
model in “R” software. Detailed descriptions of RCPs and
their equivalent representation for atmospheric C ­ O2 con-
centrations are available in Wayne (2013) and Ruane et al.
(2015). The time period was classified according to AgMIP
protocol as; 1980–2009 (baseline period), 2018–2039 (near-
term), 2040–2069 (midterm) and 2070–2099 (end-term)
periods respectively (Rosenzweig et al. 2013; Thomson et al.
2011). Hence, changes in rainfall, minimum temperature
and maximum temperature for future were projected for the
The hydrological model used in this study is a continuous
time model that operates on a daily/sub-daily time step. It
is physically based and can operate on large basins for long
periods of time (Arnold et al. 1998; Neitsch et al. 2005). The
hydrological cycle in SWAT model is operated based on the
water balance equation as shown below (Eq. 1);
t
∑
SWt = SW0 + (Rday − Qsur − Ea − Wdeep − Qgw ) (1)
i
where: ­SWt, is the final soil water content in mm, ­SW0, is the
initial soil water content on the day (mm), t is the time days,
­Rday is the amount of precipitation in a day (mm), ­Qsurf is the
amount of surface runoff in a day (mm), Ea is the amount of
evapotranspiration on the day in mm, ­Wdeep is the amount
of water entering the vadose zone from the soil profile in a
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

The model uses the concept of infiltration excess runoff
mechanism. It assumes the runoff occurs whenever the rainfall
intensity is greater than the rate of infiltration (Neitsch et al.
2005). This process is very important in areas where signifi-
cant soil crusting and/or surface sealing occurs during storm
events, in irrigated fields, in urban areas and more generally
during very high rainfall intensity storms. For estimation of
surface runoff, SWAT uses two methods based on the above
assumption. The soil conservation curve number method and
Green and Ampt infiltration method (Green 1911). For this
particular research, the soil conservation services (SCS) curve
number was employed. Because of its capability to use daily
input data the SCS is commonly used. The SCS curve number
is described in Eq. (2) as follows:
(Rday − 0.2)2
Qsurf = (2)
(Rday + 0.8S)
where: ­Qsurf is the accumulated runoff or rainfall excess
(mm), ­Rday is the rainfall depth for the day (mm), S is the
retention parameter (mm). The retention parameter is defined
by Eq. (2) with curve number (CN), as shown in Eq. (3) below:
100
( )
S = 25.4 − 10 (3)
CN
SWAT calculates the peak runoff rate with a modified
rational method. In rational method, it is assumed that a pre-
cipitation of intensity I begins at time t = 0 and continues
indefinitely, the rate of runoff will increase until the time of
concentration, t = tconc. The modified rational method is math-
ematically expressed as in Eq. (4) below:
𝛼tc ∗ Qsurf ∗ A
qpeak = (4)
3.6 ∗ tconc
where, qpeak is the peak runoff rate (­ m3/s), αtc is the fraction
of daily precipitation that occurs during the time of concentra-
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
conversion factor.
SWAT model provides three methods for estimating poten-
tial evapotranspiration: Penman-Monteith, Priestly-Taylor and
Hargreaves methods (Nietsch et al. 2005). The three meth-
ods included in SWAT vary in the amount of required inputs
(Neitsch et al. 2005). For this study Hargreaves method was
employed as it required relatively a limited data.
Model setup
SWAT model requires intensive data including topography,
soil, and land use and weather data as input. To capture
the spatial and temporal variations of the watershed, it is
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
necessary to delineate the watershed into smaller sized sub
basin areas where the variables can be considered homog-
enous. Furthermore, the digital elevation model (DEM)
was used to divide the watershed into several hydrological
response units and to predict the location of the stream. The
Land use and soil maps were used to define the character-
istics of land cover and soil properties of the watershed,
respectively. Using the combination of the land use, DEM,
soil and slopes, the hydrological response units were devel-
oped to simulate the basin characteristics. Furthermore, a
weather generator model from statistical data summarized
over long-term monthly average series was developed in
order to fill missing values and to generate the other climatic
parameters (wind speed, sunshine hours and solar radiation).
Sensitivity analysis, calibration and validation
of the model
Sensitivity analysis is crucial in modeling as it helps to
understand the rate of change in the outputs of the model as
a result of changes in model inputs (Gassman et al. 2007).
Knowing which parameter of the model is more sensitive
to the given inputs can help to determine parameters values
which is important to have more accurate values in calibra-
tion of model and thus to better understand the characteris-
tics of hydrological processes in a given watershed. In this
study, Latin Hypercube One-factor-At-a-Time (LH-OAT)
was employed. The LH-OAT sensitivity analysis combines
the strength of global and local sensitivity analysis meth-
ods (Van Griensven et al. 2006). After sensitivity analysis,
model calibrations were done by selecting the most sensible
parameters of the model. This was done by checking results
against the observations at the watershed outlet to ensure
similar response over time which involves comparing the
model outputs, generated with the recorded stream flows.
In this process, model parameters varied until recorded flow
patterns were accurately simulated.
Uncertainty analysis
Uncertainty analysis was performed after sensitivity analysis
using SWAT-CUPv.2012 (Soil Water Analysis Calibration
and Uncertainty Program) software. SWAT-CUP SUFI-2
(Sequential Uncertainty fitting version 2) was used for
uncertainty and calibration, validation process (Abbaspour
et al. 2004).
The degree of uncertainties was measured as the P-factor,
which is the percentage of observed data related by the 95PPU
(95% prediction uncertainty). The 95PPU is calculated at the
2.5 and 97.5% levels of cumulative distribution of the output
variables. Another measure quantifying the strength of uncer-
tainty analysis was the R-factor, which is the average thickness
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
Calibration Flow 71 0.5 0.54
Validation Flow 74 0.6  0.63
in GFDL-ESM2M (− 1.2%) (Table 4). The difference among
the simulated climate outputs could be mainly due to the
basic modeling structures and parameterization of the GCMs
(Araya et al. 2017). It is assumed that the climate impacts of
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).
Hydrological modelling
Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis
Twenty-seven hydrological parameters were tested for sen-
sitivity analysis for the simulation of the stream flow in the
study area. From the total 27 hydrological flow parameters, 4
parameters were found to be sensitive. Curve number (CN2),
Base flow alpha factor (ALPHA_BF), Groundwater delay
(GW_DELAY) and Threshold depth of water in the shallow
aquifer required for return flow to occur (GWQMN.gw) have
shown a relatively higher sensitivity as described in Table 5.
The analysis was conducted for the entire period of calibra-
tion and validation periods.
SUFI-2 is given several iterations to get the acceptable
results. Each of iterations provides the suggested values
for the new parameters to be used in the next iteration.
Finally, it provides the acceptable result with the values of
the Nash–Sutcliffe, Coefficient of determination and other
statistical parameters.
The p-factor, which is the percentage of observations
bracketed by the 95% prediction uncertainty (95PPU),
brackets 71, 74% of the observation during calibration and
validation periods. R-factor equals to 0.5 and 0.6. The result
categorized within the acceptable range values as recom-
mended by Abbaspour et al. (2004).
NSE
SWAT model for the study area was good during the cali-
bration period with NSE > 0.50. The uncertainty analysis
0.51 indicated parameter effectiveness  of  SCS curve number
 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-
low aquifer required for return flow to occur (GWQMN.gw)
played an important roles in the calibration and validation
of SWAT model. Table 5 explains the computed P-factor,
R-factor, ­R2 and NSE values of the analysis.
Calibration and validation surface runoff using
SUFI‑2 algorithm
In this study, the comparisons between the observed and
simulated daily values of flow of the watershed were done
using different evaluation criteria. Those were, comparing
annual water balance, statistical index Nash Sutcliffe effi-
ciency (ENS), coefficient of determination (­ R2), and graphi-
cal comparison of hydrograph shape. The optimum param-
eter values obtained during calibration period were used to
validate the model with independent observed data.
The model was calibrated using SWAT-CUP SUFI-2
algorism and the comparison between the observed and
simulated stream flow showed a reasonable good agreement
(Fig. 3). As shown below in Table 6 four main hydrological
parameters (CN2.mgt, ALPHA_BF, GW_DELAY.gw and
GWQMN.gw) were selected which create significant varia-
tion in the calibration. Accordingly, by adjusting the values
of parameters, the hydrograph of calibration was fitted as
shown in the graph (Fig. 3). The result shows that the timing
and shape of the runoff hydrograph were well predicted. The
low flow and high flows (peak flow) are well represented as
well. The performance of the model was also valued using
statistical indicators and based on the R­ 2 and ENS. In the
2
calibration period ­R was 0.55 and ENS = 0.51, while for the
validation period was 0.63 and 0.54 (Fig. 4). These values
can be considered as satisfactory as suggested by Moriasi
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-
son of the study area is between June and September and
the higher surface runoff also occurs during these months.
The coefficient determination for the calibration and vali-
dation periods was 0.54 and 0.63. The higher value of R ­ 2
implies that the simulated discharge agreed well with the
observed discharge. The detailed statistics of simulated
and observed values are presented in Table 6.
The rainfall in the area comes with great intensity over
a short period of time and concentrated in a few months.
Hence, much water is falling on the ground very rapidly
and gets little time to percolate-in and most of the water
flows as runoff into nearby rivers and lakes.
The highest evapotranspiration were recorded in April
and March with a value of 184.3 and 181.8 mm per month
respectively (Fig. 5). In contrast, the lowest evapotranspira-
tion were recorded in July and August 69 and 63 mm per
month. The evapotranspiration loss was considerable in the
study area. Almost 75% of the total rainfall received was
changed into evapotranspiration.
Rainfall‑ runoff relationships
The surface runoff has direct relation with the rainfall as
shown in Fig.  6. The higher the rainfall, the higher the
surface runoff. Rainfall and runoff are responsible factors

13

Fig. 5  Evapotranspiration trend
of the study area
for the detachment, transport, and deposition of sediment
particles.
At the beginning of the rainy season, surface runoff
increased rapidly, with a peak in June in most of the year.
The average peak rainfall in the area was in July and the
average peak discharge was in August. Both the simulated
and observed flows indicated that during July and August,
there was a highest intensity of rainfall that contributed to
high surface runoff. The runoff was highly correlated with
rainfall ­(R2 = 0.97) as shown in Fig. 7.
Water balance of the watershed
The annual average rainfall and other hydrological compo-
nents were compared for each year of the calibration and
validation periods. The main water balance components of
Fig. 6  Rainfall runoff relation-
ships
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
the watershed include: the total amount of rainfall falling on
the watershed, actual evapotranspiration and the net amount
of water that leaves the watershed and contributes to stream
flow in the reach (water yield). The water yield during vali-
dation period was higher than the calibration period. This
could be because the rainfall amount during the validation
period was relatively higher. Table 7 showed that water
balance components of Ilala watershed during the simula-
tion period. From these components only, 6.2% of the total
rainfall received in the study area was changed into surface
runoff, while the majority of the component around 75% has
contributed to evapotranspiration. Ground water recharge
contributed about 7.8% of the total water balance. This high
evapotranspiration loss could be due to temperature fluc-
tuations and dry wind weather condition of the watershed
(Tesfaye et al. 2017).
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment

Impact on future hydrological response
In the mean ensemble model result in RCP4.5, the change
in surface runoff ranged from 1.75 to 0.74%, whereas, in
RCP8.5 from 0.76 to 0.36% as shown in Table 8. The mini-
mum and maximum monthly variation change in surface
runoff volume is 0.36% in RCP8.5 end-term and RCP4.5
in near-term (1.74%) respectively as shown in Table 8. The
overall increase in temperature and rainfall results in reduc-
tion in surface runoff in the watershed. The result of the
study has a similarity with findings of other researches like
(Tesfaye et al. 2017; Ashenafi 2014). As many studies indi-
cated that increasing water abstractions, particularly in the
semi-arid catchments of the basin, might have caused the
decline of stream flow during dry and small rainy seasons
(Gebremicael et al. 2016; Alemayehu et al. 2009; Nyssen
et al. 2010). Hence, this could be due to surface and shallow
groundwater development and abstraction for irrigation have
significantly increased since the mid-2000s, after implemen-
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

explained in Gebremicael et al. (2016). Moreover, climate
change has also a considerable effect on declining the sur-
face runoff (Abebe 2014; Ashenafi 2014; Tesfaye et  al.
2017). In most of the models except HadGEMs-ES they
showed both increasing and decreasing trends in surface
runoff in all RCPs and time periods. However, the overall
average trend showed that a decreased trend in surface runoff
for the future in all time segments and RCPs from near-term
to end-term periods respectively. This could be potentially
attributed to the effect of climate change (Gebremicael et al.
2017).
The other reason could be that the total amount of rainfall
received in the study area has a relatively higher amount of
water converted to ground water recharge (7.8%) than the
surface runoff (6.2%). As reported by Nyssen et al. (2010);
Gebremicael et al. (2017) there is an increasing trend in
water abstractions particularly in the semi-arid catchments
of the basins, and this might have caused to decline of sur-
face runoff during dry and small rainy seasons. Moreover,
due to the increment of the temperature there was high evap-
oration loss in the study area. This all could contribute to
reduction in surface runoff in the study area.
Conclusions
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
and 4.5 °C in end-term periods. Similarly, maximum temper-
ature increase from 1.7 to 7.6 °C in near-term and end-term
time periods. However, the rainfall did not show a systematic
increase or decrease trend in the study area. The SWAT was
successfully used to simulate the hydrological dynamics of
Ilala watershed. Sensitivity analysis was done to select the
most sensitive parameters for further calibration processes.
SWAT-CUP was also used to calibrate and validate the
model. The calibration parameters of SWAT were selected
based on sensitivity analysis of model results. The graphi-
cal comparison of simulated and observed time series of the
monthly flows has shown good match of the hydrographs.
The calibration results of the flows, showed that Nash–Sut-
cliffe efficiency (NSE) of (0.51 and 0.54) and coefficient
of determination (­ R2) (0.54, 0.63) for the calibration and
validation periods respectively. The total average simulated
water yield was 188 mm/year. The water yield was higher
in the validation period than the calibration period, which
could be attributed to higher rainfall during the validation
period. In line with this, 6.2% of the total rainfall received
in the area was changed into surface runoff. The surface
runoff is directly associated with rainfall. The rainfall- run-
off relationships was strongly correlated with ­R2 = 0.97. In
addition, there had been high evapotranspiration loss in the
13
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
watershed as almost 75% of the total rainfall received were
lost as evapotranspiration and only 7.8% as ground water
recharge. For all investigated periods the average surface
runoff for future will decrease under climate change scenar-
ios with a value of 1.74–0.36%. There will be a considerable
effect of climate change on surface runoff. Thus, the findings
could be useful for water managers’ decisions’ and policy-
makers. It gives also a direction mechanism for adaptation
and mitigation measures. Moreover, it helps to implement
appropriate watershed management activities and to ensure
sustainable water resources management in the watershed
and in other agro-ecologically similar watersheds.
Acknowledgements  The research was supported by the Open Soci-
ety Foundation-Africa Climate Change Adaptation Initiative (OSF-
ACCAI) project at  Institute of Climate and Society of Mekelle Uni-
versity (MU-ICS). The authors also would like to thank the Ethiopia
National Metrological Agency (NMA), and Ethiopian Ministry of
Water, Irrigation and Electricity for providing meteorological and
hydrological data of the study area. The authors express sincere
appreciation to Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement
Project (AgMIP) for their initiation and development of the technical
scripts for climate modelling.
Compliance with ethical standards 
Conflict of interest  The authors declare that they have no conflict of
interest.
References
Abbaspour KC, Johnson CA, van Genuchten MT (2004) Estimating
uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential uncer-
tainty fitting procedure 3:1340–1352
Abebe BA (2014) Modeling the effect of climate and land use change
on the water resources in Northern Ethiopia: the case of Suluh
River Basin, p 23
Alemayehu F, Taha N, Nyssen J et al (2009) The impacts of watershed
management on land use and land cover dynamics in Eastern Tig-
ray (Ethiopia). Resour Conserv Recycl 53:192–198. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.resco​nrec.2008.11.007
Araya A, Girma A, Demelash T et al (2015a) Assessing impacts of
climate change on tef (Eragrostis tef) productivity in Debrezeit
area. Ethiopia 4:39–48
Araya A, Hoogenboom G, Luedeling E et al (2015b) Assessment of
maize growth and yield using crop models under present and
future climate in southwestern Ethiopia. Agric For Meteorol 214–
215:252–265. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrfo​rmet.2015.08.259
Araya A, Kisekka I, Girma A et al (2017) The challenges and oppor-
tunities for wheat production under future climate in Northern
Ethiopia. J Agric Sci 155:379–393. https:​ //doi.org/10.1017/S0021​
85961​60004​60
Arnold JG (1998) The GIS tool chosen was the geographical 34:91–101
Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams JR (1998) Large
area hydrologic modeling and assesment part I: model develop-
ment. JAWRA J Am Water Resour Assoc 34:73–89. https​://doi.
org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb059​61.x
Ashenafi AA (2014) Modeling hydrological responses to changes in
land cover and climate in Geba River Basin, Northern Ethiopia.
Ph.D. Thesis, Freie Univ Berlin, Ger 187
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
Awulachew SB, Erkossa T, Smakhtin V, Fernando A (2009) Improved
water and land management in the ethiopian highlands: its impact
on downstream stakeholders dependent on the Blue Nile
Eromo S, Adane C, Santosh A, Pingale M (2016) Assessment of the
impact of climate change on surface hydrological processes
using SWAT: a case study of Omo-Gibe river basin, Ethiopia.
Model Earth Syst Environ 2:1–15. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4080​
8-016-0257-9
Gassman WP, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG (2007) The soil and
water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and
future research directions. Trans ASABE 50(4):1211–1250
Gassman PW, Sadeghi AM, Srinivasan R (2014) Applications of the
SWAT model special section: overview and insights. J Environ
Qual 43:1. https​://doi.org/10.2134/jeq20​13.11.0466
Gebrekristos ST (2015) Understanding catchment processes and hydro-
logical modelling in the Abay/Upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia
Gebremicael TG, Mohamed YA, Betrie GD et al (2013) Trend analy-
sis of runoff and sediment fluxes in the Upper Blue Nile basin:
a combined analysis of statistical tests, physically-based models
and landuse maps. J Hydrol 482:57–68. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydr​ol.2012.12.023
Gebremicael TG, Mohamed YA, van der Zaag P, Hagos EY (2016)
Temporal and spatial changes of rainfall and streamflow in the
Upper Tekeze–Atbara River Basin, Ethiopia. Hydrol Earth Syst
Sci Discuss 0:1–29. https​://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2016-318
Gebremicael TG, Mohamed YA, Zaag PV, Hagos EY (2017) Tempo-
ral and spatial changes of rainfall and streamflow in the Upper
Tekezē-Atbara river basin, Ethiopia. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci
21:2127–2142. https​://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-2127-2017
Geological map of Ethiopia (1996) Geology of Ethiopia
Green AGA (1911) Studies on soil physics. Agric Sci 4:1 (1–24)
Gyamfi C, Ndambuki M, Anornu GK, Gislar Edgar K (2017) Ground-
water recharge modelling in a large scale basin: an example
using the SWAT hydrologic model. Model Earth Syst Environ
3:8-017-0383
Hurni H, Tato K, Zeleke G (2005) The implications of changes in
population, land use, and land management for surface runoff in
the upper Nile Basin area of Ethiopia. Mt Res Dev 25:147–154
IPCC (2014) Summary for policymakers
Kumar S, Singh S (2016) Modelling spatially distributed surface run-
off generation using SWAT-VSA: a case study in a watershed of
the north-west Himalayan landscape. Model Earth Syst Environ
2:1–11. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s4080​8-016-0249-9
Makwana JJ, Tiwar MK (2017) Hydrological stream flow modelling
using soil and water assessment tool (SWAT) and neural networks
(NNs) for the Limkheda watershed, Gujarat, India. Model Earth
Syst Environ 3:635–645
Mango LM, Melesse AM, McClain ME et al (2011) Land use and
climate change impacts on the hydrology of the upper Mara
River Basin, Kenya: results of a modeling study to support better
resource management. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:2245–2258. https​
://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-2245-2011
Milly PCD, Dunne KA, Vecchia AV (2005) Global pattern of trends in
streamflow and water availability in a changing climate. Nature
438:347–350
Ministry of Water Resources (1997) Tekeze river basin integrated
development master plan project
Ministry Water Resources M (2002) Water sector developemnt pro-
gram main report of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW et al (2007a) Model evaluation
guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed
simulations. Trans ASABE 50:885–900. https​://doi.org/10.13031​
/2013.23153​
Moriasi DN, Arnold JG, Van Liew MW et al (2007b) Model evaluation
guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed
simulations. 50:885–900
Neitsch SL, Arnold JG, Kiniry JR (2005) SWAT theoretical documen-
tation (version 2005). Grassland, Soil and Water ResearchLabo-
ratory, Agricultural Research Service, Temple, TX. pp 95–116
Nyssen J, Poesen J, Gebremichael D et al (2007) Interdisciplinary on-
site evaluation of stone bunds to control soil erosion on cropland
in Northern Ethiopia. 94:151–163. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.still​
.2006.07.011
Nyssen J, Clymans W, Descheemaeker K et al (2010) Impact of soil
and water conservation measures on catchment hydrological
response—a case in north Ethiopia. Hydrol Process 24:1880–
1895. https​://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7628
Pandey A, Himanshu SK, Mishra SK, Singh VP (2016) Physically
based soil erosion and sediment yield models revisited. Catena
147:595–620. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.caten​a.2016.08.002
Raneesh KY, Santosh GT (2011) A study on the impact of climate
change on streamflow at the watershed scale in the humid tropics.
Hydrol Sci 56:946–965
Rosenzweig C, Jones JW, Hatfield JL et al (2013) Agricultural and
forest meteorology the agricultural model intercomparison and
improvement project (AgMIP): protocols and pilot studies. Agric
For Meteorol 170:166–182. https ​ : //doi.org/10.1016/j.agrfo​
rmet.2012.09.011
Ruane AC, Goldberg R, Chryssanthacopoulos J (2015) Agricultural
and forest meteorology climate forcing datasets for agricultural
modeling: merged products for gap-filling and historical climate
series estimation. Agric For Meteorol 200:233–248. https​://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agrfo​rmet.2014.09.016
Taddese G (2001) Land degradation: a challenge to Ethiopia. Environ
Manag 27:815–824. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s0026​70010​190
Tesfaye S, Birhane E, Leijnse T, Zee SEATM., Van Der (2017) Sci-
ence of the total environment climatic controls of ecohydrological
responses in the highlands of northern Ethiopia. Sci Total Environ
609:77–91. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.scito​tenv.2017.07.138
Thomson AM, Calvin KV, Smith SJ et al (2011) RCP4.5: a pathway for
stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Clim Change 109:77–
94. https​://doi.org/10.1007/s1058​4-011-0151-4
van Griensven A, Meixner T, Grunwald S et al (2006) A global sen-
sitivity analysis tool for the parameters of multi-variable catch-
ment models. J Hydrol 324:10–23. https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydr​
ol.2005.09.008
Vancampenhout K, Nyssen J, Gebremichael D et al (2006) Stone bunds
for soil conservation in the northern Ethiopian highlands: impacts
on soil fertility and crop yield. Soil Tillage Res 90:1–15. https​://
doi.org/10.1016/j.still​.2005.08.004
Wayne GP (2013) The Beginner’s guide to representative concentration
pathways (RCPs). Skept Sciece 1.0:1–24
Welde K, Gebremariam B (2017) International soil and water con-
servation research e ff ect of land use land cover dynamics on
hydrological response of watershed: case study of Tekeze Dam
watershed, northern Ethiopia. Int Soil Water Conserv Res 5:1–16.
https​://doi.org/10.1016/j.iswcr​.2017.03.002
Yin J, He F, Xiong Y, Qiu G (2016) Effect of land use/land cover and
climate changes on surface runoff in a semi-humid and semi-arid
transition zone in Northwest China. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Dis-
cuss. https​://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2016-212
13