View
372
Download
3
Category
Tags:
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
Presented by Tammo S. Steenhuis, Dawit Asmare, Mohammad Enkamil, Christian Guzman, Tigist Y. Tebebu, Haimanote Bayabil, Assefa D. Zegeye, Seifu Tilahun Charlotte MacAlister and Simon Langan at the Nile Basin Development Challenge (NBDC) Science Workshop, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia, 9–10 July 2013
Citation preview
TAMMO S. STEENHUIS, DAWIT ASMARE, MOHAMMAD ENKAMIL, CHRISTIAN
GUZMAN, TIGIST Y. TEBEBU, HAIMANOTE BAYABIL, ASSEFA D. ZEGEYE, SEIFU
TILAHUN CHARLOTTE MACALISTER AND SIMON LANGAN
EVALUATING BEST MANAGEMENT PRACTICES FOR DECREASING
DOWNSTREAM SEDIMENT LOAD IN A DEGRADING BLUE NILE BASIN
NILE BASIN DEVELOPMENT CHALLENGE (NBDC) SCIENCE WORKSHOP
ADDIS ABABA, ETHIOPIA, 9–10 JULY 2013
What is the effect of improved rainwater
productivity in Ethiopia on the discharge
and sediment load downstream?
QUESTIONS TO BE ANSWERED RAINWATER PRODUCTIVITY EFFECTS ON SEDIMENT AND DISCHARGE
What was the discharge and sediment
concentration in the past?
Is there a trend?
What will be discharge and concentration in
the future with improved rainwater productivity
PAST DISCHARGE AND SEDIMENT
CONCENTRATION TRENDS
Very little data available, therefore
• Use mathematical model to relate the existing
discharge and sediment concentrations with rainfall
• Assume that changes in parameters reflects trends
• Assume that the main impact on the hydrology and
sediment load is an increase in degraded areas in the
landscape
• Climate changes (that has been minimal over the past)
are included in the mathematical model
WHAT WE DID Obtained discharge and sediment concentration data for Blue Nile at the Sudanese border
Gumura
Anjeni
Debre Mawi
Calibrated model to historical and recent data
Used historical parameters for current period and visa versa to predict change
Parameter Efficient Distributed Model (PED model)
BASICS OF THE MODEL
Basics of Model: Rainfall Intensities generally
greater than infiltration rates for unsaturated soils
Debre Mawi
Maybar
Ethiopia
0.00
1.00
2.00
3.00
4.00
5.00
6.00
7.00
8.00
9.00
10.00
0.00 0.20 0.40 0.60 0.80 1.00Infi
ltra
tio
n r
ate
or
rain
fall
in
ten
sit
y c
m/h
r
Probabaility of Exceedance
Rainfall Intensity Lowest Infiltration Rate
Median infiltration rate
Model Basics
Consequently,
Only those areas that saturate
during storm produce runoff
Regional groundwater rising to
surface in valley bottoms
Degraded soils with shallow low-
permeable sub soils
1
2
3
4
5
TESTING OF MODEL BASICS, DEBRE MAWI
Rainfall intensity vs.
storm runoff
R2 <0.4
Total rainfall vs.
storm runoff,
R2 > 0.59
Wee
kly
run
off
(m
m)
Rainfall intensity Weekly precipitation
Location of runoff source and infiltrating areas
Hill slope Areas
Degraded soils
Saturated
Surface runoff
infiltration
interflow
RUNOFF PLOTS (MAYBAR) SURFACE RUNOFF DECREASES
WITH STEEPNESS
16 37 43 64
slope of land
Runoff Coefficients
HYDROLOGY MODEL
There is a constant area for storm outflow after the
threshold is exceeded.
In the remaining part of the watershed, rain
infiltrates and becomes stream flow at some point
The threshold value can be obtained by simulating
a water balance. The threshold value is exceeded
when the soil exceeds field capacity.
EROSION MODEL
• Surface runoff interflow and baseflow from three areas
<30 days; 30 - 60 days >60 days
H = 1 H decreases 1→0 H=0
Model has been validated
in several small watersheds
GUMARA 1,500 KM2
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
0.8
1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010
po
rtio
n o
f w
ater
shed
are
a
GUMARA: INPUT DATA
Well drained
hillsides
Max Stor Saturated Area 90 mm
Max Stor Degraded Area 30 mm
Max Stor Hillside 250 mm
base flow half life (t1/2) 20 days
interflow (τ*) 35 days
Degraded
Hillsides Periodically saturated areas
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
01/01/1987 01/01/1988 01/01/1989 01/01/1990 01/01/1991 01/01/1992
Dis
char
ge(
mm
/day
)
Observed…Predicted…
GUMARA WATERSHED
VALIDATION NS=0.6
GUMARA DISCHARGE CALIBRATION 1981-1986 VALIDATION 1987-1992
y = 1.04x + 0.81 R² = 0.85
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
0 100 200 300 400
Pre
dic
ted
Flo
w(m
m/m
on
th)
Observed Flow(mm/month)
y = 0.9237x + 1.692 R² = 0.8505
0
50
100
150
200
250
0 50 100 150 200 250
Pre
dic
ted
Flo
w(m
m/m
on
th)
Observed Flow(mm/month)
GUMARA VALIDATION/CALIBRATION SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION
1981-1992 1994 -2005
y = 0.9997x R² = 0.8513
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10
Pre
dec
ted
sed
imen
t co
nc,
g/L
Observed sediment conc, g/L
y = 1.03x + 0.22 R² = 0.85
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
0 5 10Pre
dic
ted
Sed
imen
t co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
g/l)
Measured Sediment Concentration (g/l)
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
18D
isch
arg
e(m
m/d
ay)
Observed flow(mm/day)
Predicted flow(mm/day)
degraded
GUMARA EFFECT OF DEGRADATION
4% DEGRADED SOIL VS 14% DEGRADED AREAS
Cumulative discharge Cumulative soil loss
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Cu
mu
lati
ve d
isch
arg
e, m
Axis Title
not degraded
degraded
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
Cu
mu
lati
ve s
edim
ents
loss
, To
ns
not degraded
degraded
BLUE NILE
Discharge 2003, degraded area = 0.22
Blue Nile watershed, 170,000 km2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
5000
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
50
1-Ja
n-0
3
2-M
ar-0
3
1-M
ay-0
3
30-J
un
-03
29-A
ug
-03
28-O
ct-0
3
27-D
ec-0
3
Pre
cip
tati
on
(m
m/1
0-d
ays)
Dis
char
ge
(mm
/10-
day
s)
2003 calibration 1993 calibration 1993 calibartion
Observed Precip
1960
SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION 2003 DEGRADED
AREA =0.22 BLUE NILE WATERSHED 180,000 KM2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
5000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1-Ja
n-0
3
2-M
ar-0
3
1-M
ay-0
3
30-J
un
-03
29-A
ug
-03
28-O
ct-0
3
27-D
ec-0
3
Pre
cip
tati
on
(m
m/1
0-d
ays)
Sed
imen
t co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
g/l)
Observed Predicted 2003
Predicted 1993 Precipitation
SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION 1993 DEGRADED AREA =0.18
BLUE NILE WATERSHED 180,000 KM2
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
5000
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
1-Ja
n-9
3
2-M
ar-9
3
1-M
ay-9
3
30-J
un
-93
29-A
ug
-93
28-O
ct-9
3
27-D
ec-9
3
Pre
cip
tati
on
(m
m/1
0-d
ays)
Sed
imen
t co
nce
ntr
atio
n (
g/l)
Observed Predicted 1993 degr. frac. 0.18
Predicted 2003 degr. frac. 0.22" Precipitation
CUMULATIVE DISCHARGE BLUE NILE SUDAN BORDER
0.0
0.5
1.0
1.5
2.0
1-Ja
n-98
1-M
ay-9
8
29-A
ug-9
8
27-D
ec-9
8
26-A
pr-9
9
24-A
ug-9
9
22-D
ec-9
9
20-A
pr-0
0
18-A
ug-0
0
16-D
ec-0
0
15-A
pr-0
1
13-A
ug-0
1
11-D
ec-0
1
10-A
pr-0
2
8-A
ug-0
2
6-D
ec-0
2
5-A
pr-0
3
3-A
ug-0
3
1-D
ec-0
3
Cu
mu
lati
ve D
isch
arg
e (m
) 2003 degr frac 0.22
1993 degr frac 0.18
1963 degr frac 0.10
10% difference is equal to 6 BCM
which can irrigate 500,000 ha
CUMULATIVE SEDIMENT LOSS BLUE NILE SUDAN BORDER
0
10
20
30
40
50
1-Ja
n-98
1-M
ay-9
8
29-A
ug-9
8
27-D
ec-9
8
26-A
pr-9
9
24-A
ug-9
9
22-D
ec-9
9
20-A
pr-0
0
18-A
ug-0
0
16-D
ec-0
0
15-A
pr-0
1
13-A
ug-0
1
11-D
ec-0
1
10-A
pr-0
2
8-A
ug-0
2
6-D
ec-0
2
5-A
pr-0
3
3-A
ug-0
3
1-D
ec-0
3
Cu
mu
lati
ve s
oil
loss
(To
ns/
/ha)
2003 degr frac 0.22
1993 degr frac 0.18
1963 degr frac 0.10
Need more data
ARE THESE RESULTS
REASONABLE?
ALMOST NO EFFECT ON DISCHARGE
LARGE EFFECT ON SEDIMENT
ANJENI: TERRACES INSTALLED IN 1986 AND 1987
EFFECT ON DISCHARGE AND LAND USE
ANJENI INSTALLATION OF TERRACES 1986-1987
DISCHARGE
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
180
2000
5
10
15
20
25
30
31-D
ec-8
3
26-S
ep-8
6
22-J
un-8
9
18-M
ar-9
2
13-D
ec-9
4
8-S
ep-9
7
4-Ju
n-00
Dai
ly S
trea
m F
low
(m
m/d
ay)
Measured Flow
Predicted Flow
precipitation
Installation
of terraces
SEDIMENT CONCENTRATION AT WATERSHED OUTLET
0.00
10.00
20.00
30.00
40.00
50.00
60.00
5/31/1984
10/13/1985
2/25/1987
7/9/1988
11/21/1989
4/5/1991
8/17/1992
12/30/1993
Sed
imen
t co
nce
ntr
atio
n,
g/l
Installation
of terraces
Rain water Management
Practices for Erosion
Control
EFFECT OF INSTALLATION OF TERRACES
•
• Virtually no effect on total runoff and distribution
between various discharge components
• Reduces sediment by what can be stored behind the
terraces. Once terraces are level, sediment
concentration are nearly back to old levels
EFFECTIVENESS OF
INFILTRATION FURROWS
AMOUNT OF SOIL SAVED IS
WHAT CAN BE STORED IN
FURROWS
PERMANENT PLANT COVER ON DEGRADED AREAS
This will stop erosion and provides income
Preventing head cuts moving upstream
Shaping the gully below angle of repose
Planting trees around gullies
Gully check dams
Planting Trees
Only by reversing the degradation of the land
further increases in sediment load can be
prevented
Structural soil and conservation measures are
only effective for a limited time to control
erosion
Arresting gully formation will save land and
reduce sediment in streams
No-till will conserve soil, but might increase soil
degradation due to increased pesticide use
Supporting Publications at
soilandwater\bee\cornell.edu
Search for soilandwater Ethiopia Cornell
Recommended