GSJ: Volume 9, Issue 3, March 2021

ISSN 2320-9186 1285

GSJ: Volume 9, Issue 3, March 2021, Online: ISSN 2320-9186

www.globalscientificjournal.com

Simulation of Sediment and Streamflow in Dabus River,

Blue Nile basin

Nesredin Bashewal Mangel a* , Bilal Kamal Harunb*

a
Hydraulic Engineering), Assosa, University Assosa, Ethiopia, P.O.BOX. 18
b
Hydraulic Engineering Assosa, University Assosa, Ethiopia, P.O.BOX. 18
a*
Corresponding Email: [email protected]

Abstract: Sediment yield and streamflow are depending on land use practice. The objective of this study to simulate
the sediment yield and streamflow in the Dabus river based on the available land use data, soil data, meteorological
data using the SWAT model. The initial soil conservation service runoff curve number is the most sensitive parameter
for the streamflow model in Dabus catchment, its alteration on the streamflow was measure by t-stat which is 7.86
and the significance of its factor indicate by p-value is 0.02. Whereas the average slope length of the sub-basins is the
sensitive parameter that affects the sediment model in this catchment, where t-stat is 2.65 and the p-value is 0.045.
The simulated streamflow and sediment were calibrated and validated at the outlet of the Dabus catchment. The
statistical value of model performances was evaluated by R2 = 0.97, 0.76, NS = 0.91, 0.82 and Pbais = -2.1, 17.9 for
streamflow calibration and validation. Whereas for sediment model calibration and validation R2 = 0.93, 0.94, NS =
0.88, 0.9 and Pbais = 12.46, 10.14 respectively. The sediment yield estimated from the agricultural area in Dabus
catchment 173.09 t/ha which is greater than 10 metric tons per hectare.

Keywords: SWAT; SWAT-CUP; Sediment; streamflow; sub-basin; catchment; Land use

sediment dredging in front of hydropower turbines. Sinar

1 Introduction
Dam has lost 65% of its original storage after62 years of
Sediment yield is the net result of soil erosion and operation (Shahin, 1993), Rosieres and Khashm al-Griba
sediment deposition processes. It is defined as the total Dam have also lost similar proportions since construction
sediment outflow from a catchment, measurable at a point (Ahmed, 2004).
of reference for a specific period [1][2]. Soil erosion is a Streamflow is the flow of water in streams, rivers, or
natural process accelerated by human activities. It is one of channels. It is derived from channel precipitation, overland
the most critical environmental hazards in the world. Every flow, interflow, and groundwater. Runoff of water in
year, erosion of soil surface from river basins amounts to 60 streams is responsible for the transport of sediment,
billion tons and resulting in 24 billion tons of sediment flux nutrients, and pollution downstream of the river. From the
to the oceans in the world, and almost 25 billion tons of soil upper Blue Nile basin, the estimated sediment passing the
are lost from agricultural lands [3]. From a global point of gauging station at EL-Deim across the border in Sudan
view, this currently represents a redistribution of soil ranges from 111-140 Mt/yr [1]. The relation between the
resources by 7% in each decade with multiple discharges and sediment flow in the river can be also
consequences. represented by the sediment rating curve.
Soil erosion by water is a major agent of land The sediment rating curve describes the average
degradation in Ethiopia and more specifically in the upper relationship between the discharge and suspended sediment
Blue Nile basin. it has a significant impact on downstream concentration at a certain location. Many regression
flooding and reservoir sedimentation[4]. The Blue Nile is functions can be used to represent the sediment rating curve.
one of the river basins which originated from the steep The most commonly used sediment rating curve is the
mountains of the Ethiopia Plateau. The soil erosion from the power regression function (Walling, 1978). The power
upstream of this basin is the major source of sediment load regression is given as (1).
in the Nile basin [5]. In the downstream of the Blue Nile Qs = a  Q b (1)
basin, the excessive sediment load was observed which led
to massive operation cost of irrigation canal desilting,
GSJ© 2021
www.globalscientificjournal.com
 GSJ: Volume 9, Issue 3, March 2021
ISSN 2320-9186 1286

Where Qs is suspended sediment concentration (mg/l), Q is 1985mm and the ranges of annual maximum and minimum
discharge flow (m3/s), “a” and “b” are regression temperature are 20 c̊- 35 c̊ and 8.5 c̊ -20 c̊ respectively, see
coefficient. Figure 1.
The sediment yield and streamflow are depending on the
land-use practices in the entire watershed [6]. Agricultural 2.2 Material
practices in the Dabus watershed are dominated by cereal In this study, the digital elevation model (DEM 30x30m
crop cultivation, which necessities frequent plowing that resolutions) was used in the analysis of spatial topographic
leads to little ground cover during the rainy season that in parameters of the study area. Such parameters are including
turn renders the soil to be more susceptible to erosion [7]. watershed delineation (sub-basin areas, slopes, elevations).
The main objective of this study is to simulate the The Sentinel-2A satellite image of 0.3km resolution land
sediment yield and streamflow for the Dabus catchment. cover (2004-LULC) was used, see Table 1. Whereas the
And to understand the response hydrology components to spatial soil data of the 1km resolution map obtained from a
the existing watershed characteristics. soil map of the world was used together with the land cover,
and slope data of the Dabus watershed to obtain hydrologic
2 Material and Method response units (hru) parameters used in the SWAT model.
According to FAO soil classification, the dominant soil
2.1 Location of Study Area
group in the Dabus watershed are Ao63, Bh12, Je23, Ne12,
The Dabus River is a north-flowing tributary of the Blue- Ne13, Re59, Vc23, Vc30, see Table 2. For the simulation of
Nile basin in southwestern Ethiopia. It bound within soil water of this data, the time series of meteorological data
34°28′53.57″W, 10°45′09.69″ N, 35°38′21.64″ E, (daily precipitation, temperature, solar radiation, wind
8°52′16.34″ S, and it joins its parent stream at 10°36′38″N speed, relative humidity) obtain from Ethiopia national
35°8′58″E. Its watershed covers an area of about 14725.39 meteorology agency the selected gauging station in the
km2. The altitude of the Dabus watershed ranges Dabus watershed was used. The observed streamflow from
approximately between 485 and 3150 above mean sea level. 1997-2008 was used for simulated streamflow and sediment
The annual rainfalls in this sub-basin range from 970mm to load calibration and validation.

Figure 1 Location of the study area, source: generated from geographic shapefile

GSJ© 2021
www.globalscientificjournal.com
 GSJ: Volume 9, Issue 3, March 2021
ISSN 2320-9186 1287

Table 1. Land use or land cover data and classification of Dabus catchment
2004-LULC SWAT-code Covered Area (%)
Rain feed crop (Crested wheat, Maize, Sorghum) CWGR 0.03
Mosaic cropland (Agricultural land) AGRL 32.06
Grassland (Range grass) RNGE 11.04
Every green forest FRSE 3.43
Deciduous Forest FRSD 15.49
Shrub/bushland (Range bush) RNGB 37.66
Water bodies WATR 0.03
Barren land BARR 0.09

Table 2. Soil data and its properties on Dabus catchment

Soil type /SWATcode/ Area(%) k(m/hr) AWC (%) Sand (%) Silt (%) Clay (%) USLE_K
Je23-a-121 8.42 36.21 36.21 33 37 30 0.26
Re59-2c-246 4.75 37.21 37.21 47 31 22 0.3
Bh12-3c-31 24.4 22.04 22.04 37 26 36 0.27
Ne13-3b-158 16.91 8.64 8.64 27 26 47 0.23
Ao63-3b-6 3.48 13.58 13.58 26 33 41 0.28
Vc30-3a-269 13.72 7.69 7.69 25 33 41 0.23
Ne12-3b-156 18.01 8.12 8.12 26 31 43 0.25
Vc23-3a-262 10.32 3.11 3.11 27 27 46 0.21
Note:- The dominant soil name corresponding to soil code in table 2: Eutric-fluvisols-Je23, Eutric-Regosols-Re59,
Eutric-Nitosols-Ne12, Ne13, Orthic-Acrisols-Ao63, Humic-Combisols-Bh12, and Chromic-Vertisols-Vc23, Vc30
(Dewitte et al., 2013). k-soil hydraulic conductivity (m/hr), AWC- available moisture content in soil (%), USLE-K-
soil erodibility factor.

2.3 Methods
 P − 0.2S 
2

SWAT (Soil Water Assessment Tool) model is a QSur = (2)

continuous-time, process-based river basin model. It was  P − 0.8S 
developed to evaluate the effects of alternative management Whereas
decisions on water resources and non-point source pollution
 1000  
in large river basins[8]. The major components of the SWAT s = 25.4 100  − 10  (3)
model include weather, hydrology, erosion, soil  CN  
temperature, plant growth, pesticide, nutrients, land Where Qsur is surface runoff (mm), P is rainfall depth for the
management, channel, and reservoir routing. The model day (mm), S is the retention parameter(mm) and CN is curve
divided the catchment or basins into sub-basins, each sub- number.
basin is connected through a stream channel and further The streamflow of river channel routing methods is
divided into hydrologic response units (hru). Based on hru available in SWAT. The used routing method is either a
developed for each sub-basin, then the model simulates variable storage routing method or the Muskingum routing
hydrology, water, sediment, and other pollution components method.
in the watershed of the given river. In SWAT, there are two The variable storage routing method is given as (4).
alternative methods (SCS, and Green & Ampt infiltration 𝑉𝑖𝑛 − 𝑉𝑜𝑢𝑡 = ∆𝑉𝑠𝑡𝑜𝑟𝑒𝑑 (4)
methods) for simulation of surface runoff in the catchment.
SCS-curve number method uses monthly rainfall data for or
estimation of surface runoff of catchment for this study. The
SCS-curve number is given as (2).  qin ,1 + qin ,2   qout ,1 + qout ,2 
  t −   t = Vstored ,2 − Vstored ,1
 2   2 

GSJ© 2021
www.globalscientificjournal.com
 GSJ: Volume 9, Issue 3, March 2021
ISSN 2320-9186 1288

Vstored Vstored ,2 Vstored ,1 2.4 Model Performance

tt = = = (5)
qout qout ,2 qout ,1 The accuracy, consistency, and adaptability
performance of the model must be evaluated [13]. In this
Where: Vin and Vout are volumes of water entered in (m3) study, the statistical methods used to evaluate the
and left the reach respectively, tt is travel time in (s) qin and performance of the model are: Nash-Sutcliffe model
qout are the flow rate entered in (m3/s) and left the reach with efficiency coefficient (NSE), coefficient of determination
a given time step t. (R2), and PBIAS measure the model quantitatively.
The Muskingum routing method used in SWAT is based on n
Muskingum Cung. It is given as (6).
Q2 = C1 I 2 + C2 I1 + C3Q1 (6)
 (O − S ) i i
2

NSE = 1 − i =1
n
(11)
Where
−2k + t  (O − O) i
2

C1 = (7) i =1
2k (1 −  ) + t  n 
2

2k + t   (Oi − O)( Si − S ) 

C2 =
R 2 = n i =1 
(8)
2k (1 −  ) + t n
(12)

C3 =
2k (1 −  ) − t
(9)
 (Oi − O)2  (Si − S )2
i =1 i =1
2k (1 −  ) + t n
Where k is storage time constant for the reach (s), θ is
weighting factor (0-0.5), I2 is inflow at the end of time step
 (O − S ) i i
Pbias = i =1
.100% (13)
(m3/s), I1 is inflow at the beginning of time step (m3/s), Q2 n

is the outflow at the end of time step (m3/s), Q1 is the O

i =1
i
outflow at the beginning of time step (m3/s).
Sediment in streams is transported in two patterns, first, the Where Si and Oi are simulated and observed values during
sediment is immersed in and moved with water, which is model evaluation at time step ith respectively, Ō is the
called suspended sediment, and its amount crossing a average observed value, and “n” is the number of values.
section of river per time unit is called suspended sediment
load. Second, the sediment is in the forms of slip, rolling, or 3 Result and Discussion
jumping motions which are called bed load [9]. The
3.1 Sensitivity Parameters Analysis
sediment yield in SWAT is estimated with MUSLE, which
is developed by [10]. The MUSLE is applied for each hru
SWAT-CUP enables the sensitivity analysis, calibration,
and sediment yields will be route down through the main
validation, and uncertainty analysis of the SWAT model
channel by using a stream power equation. The MUSLE is
applied for each hru and sediment yields will be route down [12]. In this study, the sensitivity parameters analysis for
through the main channel by using a stream power equation, both streamflow and sediment in the Dabus river basin was
done with 13 input parameters selected to streamflow, see
which is the modified Bagnold’s equation (1977) as
in Table 3, 10 input parameters were selected to sediment,
reported in [11]. The sediment routing method is given as
see in Table 4.
equation (10).
SUFI-2-algorithm was used to execute the parameters
within 200 iterations of simulations during calibration and
Qsed = 11.8  K  LS  C  P  ( Q  q  A)
0.56
(10) validation of streamflow and sediment. In the SUFI-2
Where Qsed is the sediment yield for given events (metric algorithm, the assessment of the sensitive parameters is
tons), Q is surface runoff (mmH2O ha-1), A is the area of hru measured using the t-stat values[14]. The high value of t-
within the basin (ha), q is the peak runoff rate (m3/s), K is stat indicated that the corresponding parameter is the most
the soil erodibility, LS is topography factor, C is the cover sensitive for selected model output and P-value is used to
and management and P is the support factor. indicate the significance of that parameter affect the selected
SWAT-CUP was for calibration and validation of the model output. Therefore, the only “R_CN.mgt” was
SWAT model output. SWAT-CUP stands for SWAT determined as the most sensitive parameter for the SWAT
calibration uncertainty, program, which is developed to streamflow model output, see Table 5, whereas, “R_SLSU-
analyze the prediction of the uncertainty of SWAT model BBSN in sub-basin-1, 3,7, 12, 15, 16,20 were the most
calibration and validation results [12]. sensitive parameters sediment, see in Table 5

GSJ© 2021
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 9, Issue 3, March 2021
ISSN 2320-9186 1289

Table 3 Selected parameters for sensitive analysis to streamflow model in Dabus river
Parameters Name Description of parameters Range Fitted Value
R__CN2.mgt Initial SCS runoff curve number for moisture condition-II -0.4 0.05
V__ALPHA_BF Baseflow alpha factor (days) 0.0 - 1 0.74
V__GW_DELAY Groundwater delay (days) 30– 450 42.35
V__GWQMN Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer (mm) 0.0 – 2 1.94
V__GW_REVAP Ground water "Revap” coefficient 0.0 – 0.2 0.03
V__ESCO. Soil evaporation compensation factor 0.8 – 1 0.98
V__CH_N2. Manning's "N" value for the main channel 0.0 – 0.3 0.13
V__CH_K2. Effective hydraulic conductivity (mm/hr) 5– 130 67.5
V__ALPHA_BNK. Baseflow alpha factor for bank storage (days) 0.0 – 1.0 0.85
R__SOL_AWC Available water capacity for soil layer -0.2 – 0.4 0.35
R__SOL_K Soil Conductivity (mm/hr) -0.8 – 0.8 0.09
R__SOL_BD Soil moisture bulk density -0.5 – 0.6 0.31
V__SFTMP Snowfall temperature -5 – 5 -2.94

Table 4 Selected parameter for sensitive analysis to sediment model in Dabus river
Parameters Name Description of parameters Range Fitted Value
R_HRU_SLP.hru Average slope steepness of sub-basin_1, 3, 7, 12, 15, 16, 20 0-0.2 0.088
Manning's "n" value for overland flow on sub-basin_1, 3, 7,
R_OV_N -0.2 -0.088
12, 15, 16, 20
R_SLSUBBSN Average slope length of sub-basin_1, 3, 7, 12, 15, 16,20 0-0.2 0.053
V_CH_N2 Manning's "n" value for the main channel 0-0.3 0.115
V_CH_K2 Effective hydraulic conductivity in main channel alluvium 5-130 8.676
Linear parameter for calculating the maximum amount of
SPCON sediment that can be re-entrained during channel sediment 0.0001-0.01 0.005
routing
Exponent parameter for calculating sediment re-entrained in
SPEXP 1-1.5 1.02
channel sediment routing
RSIDN Initial residue cover (kg/ha) 0-1000 0.05
CH_COV1 Channel erodibility factor 0.05-0.6 0.07
CH_COV2 Channel cover factor 0.001-1 0.009

Table 5 Analyzed sensitive parameters for streamflow and sediment model in Dabus river
Type of model Parameter Name t-Stat P-Value
R__CN2.mgt 7.86 0.02
V__GW_DELAY. 1.65 0.2
R__SOL_BD 1.59 0.21
V__ESCO 1.5 0.23
V__ALPHA_BF 0.86 0.45
Streamflow model V__ALPHA_BNK 0.85 0.46
V__CH_K2. 0.66 0.56
R__SOL_K -0.65 0.56
V__GWQMN -0.38 0.73
V__GW_REVAP 0.19 0.86
V__SFTMP 0.14 0.9
R__SOL_AWC 0.02 0.98
V__CH_N2 0.01 0.99
R_SLSUBBSN_1,3,7,12,15,16,20 2.657 0.045
R_OV_N_1,3,7,12,15,16,20 2.366 0.064
R_HRU_SLP.hru_1,3,7,12,15,16,20 2.262 0.073
V_CH_N2 -2.124 0.087
Sediment model V_CH_K2 -1.983 0.104
SPCON -1.847 0.124
SPEXP 1.329 0.241
RSIDN 1.166 0.296

GSJ© 2021
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 9, Issue 3, March 2021
ISSN 2320-9186 1290

CH_COV1 -0.838 0.44

CH_COV2 0.801 0.459

3.2 Model Calibration and Validation

Sediment model calibration
In this study, SWAT-CUP (SUFI-2 algorithm) was used 50000 0

Suspended sediment load (tons)

to calibrate and validate the simulated streamflow and 45000

Total monthly RF (mm)

sediment in the Dabus river basin at the outlet point of 40000 200
the river. The observed streamflow data at the outlet point 35000
from the 2000-2005 year of the recorded period was used 30000 400
25000
for calibration, see Figure 2, and from 2005-2008 was
20000 600
taken for validation of simulated streamflow, see Figure
15000
3. But the recorded sediment data was not enough to 10000 800
calibrate and validate simulated sediment load in this 5000
basin. Therefore, because of the lack of measured the 0 1000
sediment rating curve method was used to obtained
sediment data from the measured streamflow data for
calibration and validation of sediment flow out in the
river at the outlet point of the basin. The same to Time(month)
calibration and validation of streamflow, the obtained RF observed simulated
data has been broken from 2000-2005 of measured data
was taken for calibration of simulated sediment, see Figure 4 Calibrated sediment out at Dabus outlet
Figure 4, and from 2005-2008 period of measured data
taken for validation Figure 5. Sediment model validation
Suspended Sediment Load (tons)
40000 0
Streamflow model Calibration 35000

Total monthly RF (mm)

2000 0 200
30000
200 25000
Total monthly RF(mm)

1500 400
Flow (m3/s)

400 20000
1000 15000 600
600
500 10000
800 800
5000
0 1000 0 1000
May-01

May-03

May-05
Jan-00

Jan-02

Jan-04
Sep-00

Sep-02

Sep-04

Time (month) Time (month)

RF observed RF Observed Simulated

Figure 2 Calibrated streamflow at the Dabus outlet Figure 5 Validated sediment out at Dabus outlet

The performance of the model was evaluated during

Streamflow model Validation calibration and validation of the simulated streamflow
2000 0
and sediment. Therefore, the statistical value of SWAT-
1500 200 CUP output is summarized in Table 6
Total monthly RF(mm)
Flow (m3/s)

400 Table 6. Model performance

1000
600 Type of models R2 NS Pbais
500 800 Streamflow calibration 0.97 0.91 -2.1
(m3/s) Validation 0.76 0.82 17.9
0 1000
Sediment calibration 0.93 0.88 12.46
Apr-06

Dec-07
Nov-05

May-08
Jul-07
Jan-05
Jun-05

Oct-08
Sep-06
Feb-07

(ton) Validation 0.94 0.9 10.14

Time (month) 3.3 Monthly Sediment and Streamflow

RF observed Best_Sim
The maximum sediment yields were reported for
Figure 3 Validated streamflow at the Dabus outlet agricultural land in the Dabus catchment, see in Table 7.

GSJ© 2021
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 9, Issue 3, March 2021
ISSN 2320-9186 1291

This shows that the soil from cultivated lands is easily of sediment load data from measure flow rate, but it
detached by the overland flow during the rainy season requires enough or continuous measurement [16]–[18].
which leads to a large amount of sediment yield occurring Because a lack of enough measured sediment data will
in this catchment. In other, the rate of erosion from prompt to use of the sediment rating curve method for
cultivated land is high in this catchment. Due to this, the estimating the suspended sediment load from measured
detached soil fragment is transported overland flow into discharge flow [15], [19]. In this study, the sediment
the stream channel and deposited in the main channel rating curve was plotted for measured suspended
where the slope in the river is low. As a result, it is sediment concentration and the flow rate at the outlet of
possible to say that poor land use practice in this the Dabus river basin, see Figure 7a. The fitting line for
catchment is the factor for severity erosion risk that leads power regression was indicated with R2 is 0.88. The
to high sediment problems in the Blue Nile basin. rating curve for the estimated suspended sediment
In this study the SWAT model simultaneously, hydrology concentration from the measured flow rate at the outlet
components such as water flow in the streams and point of the basin is plotted, see Figure 7b. Then the
sediment as well with help routing methods available in fitting line for the power regression function is indicated
the model. As a result of sensitive parameters analyzed with R2 is 0.98. The correlation of estimated sediment
for both streamflow and sediment model indicate that the value from the measured flow rate and simulated
land use practice has an impact on the streamflow model, sediment value using the SWAT model at the outlet of
see Figure 6. Therefore, to reduce the impact of land use the Dabus river basin was strongly fitted such as R2 is
practice for both streamflow and sediment yield 0.99 Figure 8. This shows that applying power regression
problems in this catchment the best management practice to estimate the sediment load from the measure flow rate
is necessary [1]. was a successful method of calculating sediment load for
Table 7.Average sediment yield in Dabus catchment the required purpose in this study.
SWAT-code Area (%) Sediment Yield(t/ha)
AGRL 32.06 173.09
FRSD 11.04 0.72 Sediment Rating Curve

Concentration (mg/l)
450
FRSE 3.43 0.55 Measured Sediment
FRST 15.49 0.21 400
RNGB 37.66 16.2 350
RNGE 0.03 11.06
300

Average monthly streamflow and 250 R² = 0.88

1200 sediment yield 30
200
Sediment yield is (t/ha)

1000 25
150
Water flow (m3/s)

800 20
600 15 100
0 500 1000 1500
400 10
Measured Flow Rate(Cumes)
200 5
0 0 (a)
Jan Mar May Jul Sep Nov
Sediment Rating Curve for Dabus river
concentration (mg/L)
suspended Sediment

Time (month) 400

Obs-Flow(m3/s) 350
Sim-Flow (m3/s
300
Sediment Yield (ton/ha)
250
Figure 6Average monthly streamflow and sediment 200
yield for Dabus basin R² = 0.98
150
3.4 Sediment Rating curve 100
Sediment load is an important component in river basin 50
management. It is usually transported in the river during 0
extreme events related to the intensity of rainfall and high 0 500 1000 1500
river flow[15]. During this event the difficulty face to the Discharge (m3/s)
collection of sediment data rather than discharge flow in
the river. The sediment load measurement method based (b)
on the measured suspended sediment concentration and Figure 7(a), (b) Sediment Rating Curve
the flow rate is a stable and reliable method for estimation

GSJ© 2021
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 9, Issue 3, March 2021
ISSN 2320-9186 1292

watersheds in the Upper Blue Nile basin,

Rating Corelation Graphs Ethiopia,” Geomorphology, vol. 303, pp. 446–
Simulated sediment Load
400.09
455, 2018.
300.09
[3] D. E. Walling, “The changing sediment loads of
the world ’ s rivers,” 2008.
(mg/l)

200.09
R² = 0.99
[4] E. Garzanti, S. Andò, G. Vezzoli, A. Ali Abdel
100.09 Megid, and A. El Kammar, “Petrology of Nile
River sands (Ethiopia and Sudan): Sediment
0.09
budgets and erosion patterns,” Earth Planet. Sci.
0.09 100.09 200.09 300.09 400.09 Lett., vol. 252, no. 3–4, pp. 327–341, 2006.
Observed sediment load (mg/l)
[5] L. Tamene, S. J. Park, R. Dikau, and P. L. G.
Figure 8 Sediment Rating Curve for Dabus river Vlek, “Analysis of factors determining sediment
yield variability in the highlands of northern
4 Conclusion Ethiopia,” vol. 76, pp. 76–91, 2006.
Based on the available spatial land use data, soil data, [6] G. T. Ayele, E. Z. Teshale, B. Yu, I. D.
meteorological data on Dabus catchment, the SWAT Rutherfurd, and J. Jeong, “Streamflow and
model was used to simulate the sediment and streamflow Sediment Yield Prediction for Watershed
for the Dabus river, Blue Nile basin. SWAT CUP (SUFI- Prioritization in the Upper Blue Nile River
2 algorithm) is the computer program that was used to Basin , Ethiopia,” pp. 1–28, 2017.
assess the sensitive parameter, calibration, and validation
of streamflow and sediment model in the Dabus river [7] P. Asrat and B. Simane, “Household ‑ and plot ‑
basin. The runoff curve number (R_CN.mgt.) in the only level impacts of sustainable land management
parameter was the most sensitive parameter that affects practices in the face of climate variability and
the streamflow model. R_SLSUBBSN_1,3,7,12,15,16,- change : empirical evidence from Dabus Sub ‑
20 were the most sensitive to sediment model in the basin , Blue Nile River , Ethiopia,” Agric. Food
basin. Secur., pp. 1–12, 2017.
The measured time series flow data was used in
streamflow, but estimated sediment value from measured [8] J. G. Arnold et al., “SWAT: Model use,
flow by sediment rating curve was used in sediment calibration, and validation,” Trans. ASABE, vol.
model calibration and validation. In this study, the 55, no. 4, pp. 1491–1508, 2012.
maximum sediment yield was estimated from [9] S. Naqshband, J. S. Ribberink, S. J. M. H.
agricultural land, which equals 173.09 t/ha. This implies Hulscher, and ., “Using Both Free Surface
the bad practices of land use are the major factor that the Effect and Sediment Transport Mode
sediment yield in the Dabus watershed. The sediment Parameters in Defining the Morphology of
rating curve is the alternative way to obtain sediment load River Dunes and Their Evolution to Upper
data for the required purpose unless the measured data Stage Plane Beds,” vol. 140, no. 1996, pp. 1–6,
are available. 2014.

Acknowledgment [10] J. G. Arnold, J. R. Williams, D. R. Maidment,

and .., “Continuous-time water and sediment-
This research is part of my MSc thesis, my great routing model for large basins,” J. Hydraul.
gratitude to Assosa University, the higher education Eng., vol. 121, no. 2, pp. 171–183, 1995.
institutions in Ethiopia for funding me to achieve my goal
[11] P. Marco and A. van, “Suitability of SWAT
during my MSc study, program. I extend my gratitude to
Model for Sediment Yields Modelling in the
Addis Ababa Science and Technology University,
Eastern Africa,” Adv. Data, Methods, Model.
College of Civil and Architectural Engineering, Civil
Their Appl. Geosci., no. May, 2011.
Engineering department, Academic staff members for
their encouragement to see my successes in this study. [12] K. . Abbaspour, “User manual for SWAT-CUP,
SWAT calibration, and uncertainty analysis
References programs. Swiss Federal Institute of
[1] G. D. Betrie, Y. A. Mohamed, A. Van AquaticScience and Technology, Eawag,
Griensven, and R. Srinivasan, “Sediment Duebendorf, Switzerland, 2012, pp. 93.,” vol.
management modelling in the Blue Nile Basin 130, no. 8, pp. 965–970, 2012.
using SWAT model,” pp. 807–818, 2011. [13] M. Goswami, K. M. O’Connor, K. P. Bhattarai,
[2] K. Ebabu et al., “Analyzing the variability of and ., “Development of regionalisation
sediment yield: A case study from paired procedures using a multi-model approach for

GSJ© 2021
www.globalscientificjournal.com
GSJ: Volume 9, Issue 3, March 2021
ISSN 2320-9186 1293

flow simulation in an ungauged catchment,” J.

Hydrol., vol. 333, no. 2–4, pp. 517–531, 2007.
[14] K. Khalid et al., “Sensitivity Analysis in
Watershed Model Using SUFI-2 Algorithm,” in
Procedia Engineering, 2016, vol. 162, pp. 441–
447.
[15] S. S. Tfwala and Y. M. Wang, “Estimating
sediment discharge using sediment rating curves
and artificial neural networks in the Shiwen
River, Taiwan,” Water (Switzerland), vol. 8, no.
2, 2016.
[16] N. G. Roy and R. Sinha, “Effective discharge
for suspended sediment transport of the Ganga
River and its geomorphic implication,”
Geomorphology, vol. 227, pp. 18–30, 2014.
[17] A. Higgins, J. C. Restrepo, J. C. Ortiz, J. Pierini,
and L. Otero, “Suspended sediment transport in
the Magdalena River (Colombia, South
America): Hydrologic regime, rating parameters
and effective discharge variability,” Int. J.
Sediment Res., vol. 31, no. 1, pp. 25–35, 2016.
[18] C. D. Guzman, S. A. Tilahun, A. D. Zegeye,
and T. S. Steenhuis, “Suspended sediment
concentration-discharge relationships in the
(sub-) humid Ethiopian highlands,” Hydrol.
Earth Syst. Sci., vol. 17, no. 3, pp. 1067–1077,
2013.
[19] H. R. Moftakhari, D. A. Jay, S. A. Talke, and D.
H. Schoellhamer, “Estimation of historic flows
and sediment loads to San Francisco Bay , 1849
– 2011,” J. Hydrol., vol. 529, pp. 1247–1261,
2015.

GSJ© 2021
www.globalscientificjournal.com