Effect of Climate Change on Hydrological regimes of semi-arid region of (Pahuj river basin) and its consequences on Fodder production

using SWAT Model

Objectives:

1. To assess the change in different hydrological regimes due to climate change. 2. Its consequences on fodder production in India.
Introduction: India has sufficient water resources on an average, but the use is constrained due to its uneven distribution with respect to time and space. The impacts of climate change on water resources is due to an intensification of the global hydrological cycle affecting the surface water and ground water, and changes in amount of precipitation, frequency and intensity were predicted, if these changes surplus may affect the magnitude and timing of runoff but deficit changes leads to drought (IPCC report 2000). Increase in aerosols (atmospheric pollutants) due to emission of greenhouse gases including black carbon and burning of fossil fuels, Ozone depletion and the human interface in deforestation in the form of forest fires and loss of wetlands are factors for weather extremes. The loss of forest cover which normally intercept rainfall and allow it to be absorbed by the soil, causes precipitation to reach across the land, eroding top soil, causing floods and droughts. Among the greenhouse gases, CO2 is the predominant gas leading to global warming as it traps long wave radiation and emit back to the earth surface. The global warming is heating of surface atmosphere due to emission of greenhouse gases, thereby increasing global atmospheric temperature over a long period of time. Such changes in surface air temperature and rainfall over a long period of time is known as climate change. Impacts of grazing on hydrology result from alteration of plant species composition, density, ground cover and litter. Livestock trampling may result in soil compaction (Naeth et al., 1990), increased runoff and change in water regimes (Twerdoff et al., 1999). Hydrological processes vary in space and time, the use of hydrological models becomes necessary to predict the best management practices that minimize adverse impacts on surface runoff. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is one such distributed parameter hydrological model that provides opportunities to improve watershed modeling accuracy and long term perditions of hydrological components like, surface runoff, stream flow and evapotranspiration (Arnold et al., 1998). The SWAT model has been widely applied to various scenarios of watersheds, including simulating the effects of climate change in an agricultural watershed (Hanratty and Stefan, 1998). In developing countries like India, it is predicted that meat and milk consumption will grow at 2.8 and 3.3 percent per annum respectively. Livestock production is the backbone of Indian agriculture contributing 7 percent to annual GDP and a source of livelihood for 70 percent population in rural areas. Based on the draft report of Xth five year plan and IGFRI(Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute) Perspective plan, Vision 2025 (2007), A projected livestock population estimates by the year 2025 will be 344 (million adult cattle units). The forage and feed demands to meet this livestock population is projected as 1170 and 650 against the available 411.3 and 488 million tones of Green and Dry fodder respectively. The net deficit of 64.87% and 24.92% of Green fodder and Dry fodder respectively. Hence to address the above problems, the present study is proposed to take up with the above objectives. Review of Literature: The Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model were used to quantify the impacts of climate change for five different watershed in Europe within the Climate hydrochemistry and economics of surface water systems project (CHESS, 2001).

According to Afinowicz et al., (2005), SWAT model was used to evaluate the influence of woody plants on water budgets of semi-arid rangeland in south Texas. Removal of brush cover resulted in drastic changes in ET (32 mm per year over the entire basin), surface runoff, base flow and deep percolation. Gosain et al., (2006) revealed that, simulated impacts of a 2041-2060 climate change scenario on the stream flows of 12 major rivers in India. Surface runoff was found to generally decrease, and the severity of both floods and droughts increased due to the effect of climate change. Nearing et al.,(2005), concluded that climate change could potentially result in significant soil erosion increases if necessary conservation efforts were not implemented. Miller et al., (2002), predicted an increase in stream flows in the San Pedro watershed due to increased urban and agricultural land use. Where as a shift from agricultural to forest land use were predicted a 4 percent decrease in stream flow in the Cannonsville watershed. Weber et al.,( 2001), reported that increased stream flow was predicted with SWAT for the 59.8 km2 Aar watershed in the German state of Hessen, in response to a grassland scenario in which the grassland area increased from 20 to 41 percent while the forest covered area decreased by about 70 percent. References

1. Afinowicz, J. D., C. L. Munster, and B. P. Wilcox. 2005. Modeling effects of brush management
on the rangeland water budget: Edwards Plateau, Texas. J. American Water Resour. Assoc. 41(1): 181-193. 2. Arnold, J. G., R. Srinivasan, R. S. Muttiah, and J. R. Williams.1998. Large-area hydrologic modeling and assessment: Part I. Model development. J. American Water Resour. Assoc. 34(1):7389. 3. CHESS. 2001. Climate, hydrochemistry, and economics of surface-water systems project report. Sponsored by EC Environment and Climate Research Programme.. Available at: www.nwl.ac.uk/ih/www/research/images/chessreport .pdf. 4. Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis, Summary for Policy Makers and Technical Summary of the Working Group I Report, Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Geneva, Switzerland, 2001 (IPCC 2001). 5. Climate Change and Agriculture over India. Editors: Prasada Rao, G.S.L.H.V., Rao, G.G.S.N., Rao, V.U.M., and Ramakrishna, Y.S.(2008). Edited by AICRIPMA, Hyderabad and KAU, Thrissur. Printed. Mac world Thrissu r, Kerla, India. Pages 1-258. 6. Gosain, A. K., S. Rao, and D. Basuray. 2006. Climate change impact assessment on hydrology of Indian river basins. Current Sci. 90(3): 346-353. 7. Hanaratty, M.P., Stefan, H.G., 1998. Simulating climate change effects in a Minnesota Agricultural Watershed. J. Environ. Qual. 27,1524-1532. 8. IGFRI Perspective Plan: Vision 2025, 2007. Indian Grassland and Fodder Research Institute, Jhansi U.P. India. Pp21-23. 9. Naeth,M.A., Pluth, D.J., Chanasyk, D.S., Bailey, A.W., Fedkenheuer,A.W. 1990. Soil compacting impacts of grazing in mixed prairie and fescue grassland ecosystems of Alberta. Can. J.Soil. Sci. 70, 157-167. 10. Nearing, M. A., V. Jetten, C. Baffaut, O. Cerdan, A. Couturier, M.Hernandez, Y. Le Bissonnais, M. H. Nichols, J. P. Nunes, C. S.Renschler, V. Souchere, and K. van Ost. 2005. Modeling response of soil erosion and runoff to changes in precipitation and cover. Catena 61(2-3): 131-154. 11. Miller, S. N., W. G. Kepner, M. H. Mehaffey, M. Hernandez, R. C.Miller, D. C. Goodrich, K. K Devonald, D. T. Heggem, and W.P. Miller. 2002. Integrating landscape assessment and hydrologic modeling for land cover change analysis. J. American Water Res. Assoc. 38(4): 915 -929. 12. Twerdoff,D.A., Chanasyk,D.S., Naeth, M.A., Baron, V.S., Mapfumo, E., 1999. Soil water regimes of rotationally grazed perennial and annual forages. Can. J.Soil.Sci. 79, 627-637.

13. Weber, A., N. Fohrer, and D. Moller. 2001. Longterm land use changes in a Mesocale watershed
due to socioeconomic factors: Effects on landscape structures and functions. Ecol. Model.140 (1-2): 125-140.

Treatments:
1.

Rangeland management ungrazed watershed and without conservation measures (control).

2. Heavily grazed watershed (2.4 animal unit months per ha.) 3. Very heavily grazed watershed (4.8 AUM per hectare) 4. Silvipasture system with conservation measures.
5.

Rangeland management with conservation measures

6. Hortipasture system with conservation measures (Each plot size about 1.0 ha to 2.5 ha.)
Conservation measures in Rangelands (Non-arable): Staggered trenches Continuous contour trenches, trench cum bunds, loose boulder structures Gabion structures, micro-catchments and bio-engineering measures (sand bags/local material with vegetation support). Conservation measures in Arable lands: Loose boulder structures, Gabion structures, and Waste weirs/Check dams etc., Hydrological data: Runoff, Soil loss, Nutrient loss, moisture content, Temp (min and max), Evapotranspiration, RH, Precipitation, Sunshine hours data and biomass production.

Study area