water

Article
Micro-Watershed Management for Erosion Control
Using Soil and Water Conservation Structures and
SWAT Modeling
Ghulam Nabi 1 , Fiaz Hussain 2,3 , Ray-Shyan Wu 2, *, Vinay Nangia 4 and Riffat Bibi 5
1 Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering, University of Engineering and Technology,
Lahore 54890, Pakistan; [email protected]
2 Department of Civil Engineering, National Central University, Chung Li 32001, Taiwan;
[email protected]
3 Department of Agricultural Engineering, PMAS-Arid Agriculture University Rawalpindi,
Rawalpindi 46000, Pakistan
4 Soil, Water, and Agronomy, International Centre for Agriculture Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA),
Rabat 10010, Morocco; [email protected]
5 Soil and Water Conservation Research Institute (SAWCRI), Chakwal 48800, Pakistan; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +886-3-4227151 (ext. 34126)




Received: 27 March 2020; Accepted: 14 May 2020; Published: 19 May 2020


Abstract: This study evaluated the effectiveness of soil and water conservation structures for soil
erosion control by applying a semi-distributed Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model in
various small watersheds of the Chakwal and Attock districts of Pothwar, Pakistan. The validated
model without soil conservation structures was applied to various ungauged small watershed
sites with soil conservation stone structures. The stone bund-type structure intervention was used
in the model through the modification of the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) to support
the practice factor (P-factor), the curve number, and the average slope length for the sub-basin
(SLSUBBSN). The structures had significant effects, and the average sediment yield reduction caused
by the soil conservation stone structures at these sites varied from 40% to 90%. The sediment yield
and erosion reductions were also compared under conditions involving vegetation cover change.
Agricultural land with winter wheat crops had a higher sediment yield than fallow land with crop
residue. The fallow land facilitated sediment yield reduction, along with soil conservation structures.
The slope classification analysis indicated that 60% of the agricultural area of the Chakwal and
Attock districts lie in a slope range of 0–4%, where considerable potential exists for implementing soil
conservation measures by installing soil conservation stone structures. The slope analysis measured
the suitability of conservation structures in the semi-mountainous Pothwar area in accordance with
agriculture practice on land having a slope of less than 5%. The SWAT model provides reliable
performance for erosion control and watershed management in soil erosion-prone areas with steep
slopes and heavy rainfall. These findings can serve as references for policymakers and planners.

Keywords: SWAT modeling; soil erosion; land management; soil conservation stone structures

1. Introduction
Soil is a precious natural resource that covers Earth’s land surfaces, and it contributes to basic human
needs like food, clean water, and clean air, as well as being a major carrier for biodiversity. There have
been antecedents (from 3500 B.C to 17th century) of soil knowledge and its relationship with human
practices before soil scientific studies. Soil is an integrated discipline within soil sciences, geography,
and land management, and it was developed in parallel with agriculture [1,2]. In the globalized world

Water 2020, 12, 1439; doi:10.3390/w12051439 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2020, 12, 1439 2 of 25

of the 21st century, soil sustainability depends not only on management choices by farmers, foresters,
and land planners but also on political decisions on rules and regulations; it also requires a large effort
of awareness raising and the communication of issues related to the degradation of soils and land by
scientists, civil society organizations, and policy makers [3]. Estimations have shown that worldwide,
75% of land is degraded due to physical, chemical, and biological processes [4]. Soil erosion has a severe
impact on the degradation of quality fertile topsoil. Worldwide, soil erosion losses are the highest in the
agro-ecosystems of Asia, Africa, and South America, averaging 30–40 t ha−1 year−1 , and it is the lowest
in the United States, Europe, and Australia, averaging 5–20 t ha−1 year−1 [5,6]. The multifunctional use
of land is needed within the boundaries of the soil–water system to achieve land degradation neutrality,
avoid further land degradation, and promote land restoration [7]. Keesstra et al. [7] introduced four
concepts (systems thinking, connectivity, nature-based solutions, and regenerative economics) in a
more integrated way to accomplish land degradation neutrality in an effort to achieve the soil-related
Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). A robust soil–water system is essential to achieve interlinked
SDGs through smart planning based on a socio–economical–ecological systems analysis [3,7].
Agricultural land degradation in rainfed mountainous areas is a major onsite problem (the
removal of top soil) that also causes offsite effects, such as downstream sediment deposition in fields,
floodplains, and water bodies. The costliest offsite damages occur when the soil particles enter lakes or
river systems [8,9]. Annual soil loss in the middle Yellow River basin of China amounts to 3700 t km−2 ,
the largest sediment-carrying river in the world [10]. The world’s 13 large rivers carry 5.8 billion
tons of sediments to reservoirs every year [11]. The Indus River in Pakistan ranks third in the world,
with an annual sediment load of 435 million tons in the Tarbela dam, which has lost about 35% of
initial reservoir capacity (11,600 Mm3 ) [12]. Water and soil are the most crucial natural resources for
agriculture and livestock production. Globally, water resource deterioration caused by soil erosion is
a growing concern. An estimated productivity loss of US$13–28 billion annually in drylands can be
attributed to soil erosion as well [13].
In Pakistan, dryland farming is practiced on 12 Mha of the Pothwar Plateau, the northern
mountains, and the northeastern plains. Soil erosion is a severe problem due to erratic rainfall, varied
soil slopes, and land use. A lot of land has been converted into gullies that are difficult to restore.
Different studies related to soil erosion severity have been conducted in the Pothwar region. Hussain et
al. evaluated the soil erosion parameters and estimated the annual sediment loss in small watersheds
of the Dhrabi River using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model. The annual sediment
yield ranged from 2.6 to 31.1 t hm−2 for the non-terraced catchments, while it ranged from 0.52 to
10.10 t hm−2 for the terraced catchments [14]. Iqbal et al. studied runoff plots in the Dhrabi watershed
in Chakwal Pakistan; cultivated slopes produced the highest soil loss (8.96 Mg ha−1 ) annually compared
to both undisturbed gentle and steep slopes at approximately 2.08 and 4.66 Mg ha−1 [15].
Nasir et al. applied the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE) and a Geographic
Information System (GIS) at the small mountainous watershed of Rawal Lake near Islamabad.
The predicted annual soil loss ranged from 0.1 to 28 t ha−1 [11]. Similarly, Ahmad et al. reported
annual soil loss rates of 17–41 t ha−1 under fallow conditions, as well as an annual rate of 9–26 t ha−1
under vegetative cover in the Fateh Jang watershed with a slope of 1–10% [16]. Saleem et al. assessed
the annual soil erosion (70–208 t ha−1 ) of the Pothwar region using the RUSLE model integrated with a
GIS [17]. Bashir et al. estimated the soil erosion risk using the Coordination of Information on the
Environment (CORINE) model in the Rawal watershed. The annual soil loss ranged between 24 and
28 t ha−1 , with a high erosion risk (26%) in areas with steep slopes and low vegetative cover [18].
The highest estimated record of soil erosion was 150–165 t ha−1 year−1 in the Dhrabi watershed of
the Pothwar region [12]. Nabi et al. reported that in the Soan watershed of Pothwar, the soil loss rates
in barren and shrub land were 63.41 and 53.41 t ha−1 year−1 , respectively, whereas those in low and
high cropping intensity land were 34.91 and 25.89 t ha−1 year−1 , respectively [19]. Vegetation cover on
sloped ground helps to reduce soil loss; however, during field preparation and cultivation, surface soil
becomes pulverized and easily eroded, causing acute topsoil erosion due to the removal of vegetation
Water 2020, 12, 1439 3 of 25

cover. Therefore, during the cultivation of sloping land, measures should be adopted to stop fertile
surface soil loss caused by substantial rainfall–runoff. If such measures are not applied, agricultural
land may turn barren in only a few years. Vegetation cover is a key measure for soil protection against
water erosion; it reduces the flow velocity of surface runoff by increasing surface roughness, in addition
to increasing the infiltration rate of soil [20–22].
Considerable increase in sediment yield at the expense of soil development poses a major threat
to soil and water resource development. Though water erosion is a function of many environmental
factors, its assessment and mitigation at the watershed level are complex phenomena; this is due
to the unpredictable nature of rainfall and topographic heterogeneities, climate, and land use–land
cover variability, as well as other watershed features for the specified areas under study. In addition,
inappropriate land management practices and human activities increase the dynamics of these factors.
At present, many models with a broad spectrum of concepts—which are classified as spatially
lumped, spatially distributed, empirical, regression, semi-distributed eco-hydrological models,
and factorial scoring models—are in use for modelling the rainfall–runoff–soil erosion and sediment
transport processes at different scales [23]. The empirical models are generally the simplest, limited to the
conditions and parameter inputs for which they have been developed. For example, the Universal Soil
Loss Equation (USLE) [24], the Agricultural Non-Point Source Pollution Model (AGNPS) [25], and the
Sediment Delivery Distributed (SEDD) model [26]. In conceptual models, a watershed is represented
by a storage system, such as the SWAT [27], the Large Scale Catchment Model (LASCAM) [28], or the
European Modeling and Simulation Symposium (EMSS) [29]. Physics-based models rely on the
solution of fundamental physical equations and are used for the quantification of physical processes.
Areal Nonpoint Source Watershed Environment Response Simulation (ANSWERS) [30]; Chemicals,
Runoff, and Erosion from Agricultural Management Systems (CREAMS) [31]; the Watershed Erosion
Simulation Program (WESP) [32]; Système Hydrologique Européen Sediment (SHESED) [33]; and the
European Soil Erosion Model (EUROSEM) [34] are some examples of physically based erosion and
sediment transport models.
This research was conducted in ungauged micro-watersheds of the Chakwal and Attock districts
of the Pothwar region. Soil erosion and water loss are extreme hazards in this area due to cultivated
highland slopes where timely soil and water conservation strategies and remedial measures are
required for sustainable crop productivity. A large number of loose stone structures have been built
by public departments and farmers themselves to reduce the soil erosion and moisture conservation
upside of these structures. There are few measurement points for rainfall and runoff, and most of the
watersheds are ungauged; both of these issues hamper model calibration and validations. The purpose
of the study was to evaluate the effectiveness of soil and water conservation structure for soil erosion
control using the SWAT model. The calibrated and validated model related to soil erosion was adopted
from Hussain et al. [14], where an experimental setup was used to monitor the soil and water loss from
agricultural catchment. The collected data were used to calibrate and validate soil erosion parameters
using the SWAT model.
This validated model was further modified for the application of soil and water conservation
structures, eventually to be recommended by this study as a strategy to counteract the soil erosion
with soil and conservation structures at a broader scale. Several studies related to soil and water
conservation intervention were carried out to control soil erosion at the field and sub-watershed scale
within the Gumara-Maksegnit watershed in the northern Highlands of Ethiopia [35–37], while Melaku
et al. predicted the impact of soil and water conservation structures on runoff and erosion processes
using the SWAT model [38]. However, studies on the impacts of soil and water structures on the
erosion process at the watershed scale that have used the SWAT model have been limited.
Our study was localized to the micro-watersheds with soil and water conservation structures
installed through the cooperative project coordinated by the International Centre for Agricultural
Research in the Dry Areas (ICARDA), the Centre of Excellence in Water Resources Engineering,
(CEWRE), and the Soil and Water Conservation Research Institute (SAWCRI). To the best of our
Water 2020, 12, 1439 4 of 25

knowledge, no study has been conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of these structures to control
soil erosion in the Pothwar region. The study results may encourage the stakeholders to extend this
practice to a larger scale by knowing the quantitative benefits of soil conservation structures. Therefore,
the SWAT model was adopted due to the availability of a comprehensive agricultural management
database, as well as a reduced time and cost [39–41]. In this context, the objective of this work was to
evaluate the effectiveness of soil and water conservation structures for soil erosion control using the
SWAT model in the micro-watersheds of the Chakwal and Attock districts.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Pothwar Region and Study Watersheds Description

Determining the relationship between rainfall, runoff, and soil erosion was imperative in the
Pothwar rainfed region for creating applicable soil and water conservation mechanisms, as well as for
enhancing crop productivity. Considering the long-term sustainability and productivity of eroded land,
the present study focused on the Chakwal and Attock districts of the Pothwar plateau between 32◦ 300
and 34◦ north latitudes and 71◦ 450 and 73◦ 450 east longitudes, as shown in Figure 1. The region has an
arid-to-semiarid climate with hot summers and cold winters [42]. The plateau land comprises broken
gullies, low hill ranges, and a flat to gently undulating topography. The textural classification varies
from sandy to silt and clay loam, and the land consists of poor-to-fertile soil derived from sandstone
and loess parent material [43].
The rainfall pattern is unpredictable with a high intensity; 60–70% of the total rainfall occurs during
the monsoon season (from mid-June to mid-September). The average annual rainfall varies from 250
to 1675 mm, with a decreasing trend from the north to the south. After rainfall, soil crusting decreases
the infiltration rate and aeration and increases the soil strength, which reduces plant emergence and
exposes the soil surface to erosion [44]. The soil loss rate becomes relatively high with higher intensity
rainfall–runoff over greater slope lengths and steepness levels.
Out of the total 1.82 Mha of the Pothwar region, approximately 0.77 Mha (43%) are cultivated,
and the remaining is mostly grazing land. Only 4% of the cultivated area has irrigated agriculture,
while the remaining area is under rainfed agriculture [45]. Rainfall plays an important role in crop
production. The principal crops of the area are wheat, maize, bajra, barley, pulses, groundnut, fruits,
and vegetables. Without adequate protection, the effects of rainfall–runoff erosion on this highly
erodible soil are severe, causing extensive fertile soil loss [19], endangered soil and water conservation
structures, and reservoir depletion through sedimentation. Moreover, this raises doubts regarding the
viability of existing and future soil and water conservation schemes.
The high rate of erosion creates a silting problem in the small dams of the Pothwar area. For the
sustainable agricultural and socioeconomic development of the region, the government has started
various projects for watershed development in the upstream of storage reservoirs, such as the Watershed
Management Program by Pakistan’s Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA).
Similarly, soil and water conservation activities have also been carried out in the Pothwar region
for erosion control and land development through a series of Barani area development projects.
The application of the loose stone structures project of SAWCRI (Soil and Water Conservation Research
Institute, Chakwal) with ICARDA (International Center for Agricultural Research in the Dry Areas)
for erosion control resulted in the development of some environmentally friendly and cost-effective
resource conservation technologies.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 5 of 25

Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 5 of 26

Figure
Figure 1. Location
1. Location mapmap of the
of the Pothwarregion,
Pothwar region,including
including the
theDharabi
Dharabiwatershed:
watershed: (a) Catchment-25;
Catchment-25; the
the Bala,
Kohkar (b) Kohkar
ChakBala, (c) Chak
Khushi, Khushi, (d)
Khandoya, Khandoya,
Ashraf Gully, (e) Ashraf
Khaliq Gully,Dhoke
Gully, (f) Khaliq
Hafiz Gully, (g) and
Abad, Dhoke
Dhoke
Hafiz Abad, and (h) Dhoke Dhamal micro-watersheds.
Dhamal micro-watersheds.

The soil and water conservation structures were installed in small terraced agriculture fields in
The soil and water conservation structures were installed in small terraced agriculture fields in the
the Chakwal and Attock districts by the SAWCRI Chakwal department. Seven small sites were
Chakwal and Attock districts by the SAWCRI Chakwal department. Seven small sites were selected to
selected to evaluate the effectiveness of these structures on soil erosion control. The description of
evaluate
thesethe effectiveness
sites of these
is given in Table structures
1, and on map
a location soil erosion
is showncontrol. The
in Figure 1. description of these
The demarcation sites is
of the
givenwatershed
in Table 1, andwas
areas a location map istask
a challenging shown in Figure
and was 1. The
performed demarcation
using of the watershed
a Global Positioning areas was
System (GPS)
a challenging task and
survey. During was performed
the survey, using a Global
the point elevation Positioning
data at different System
locations were (GPS) survey.
collected During
within and the
survey,
at the boundary of the watersheds. Using the elevation data in ArcGIS, we performed a topographicof the
the point elevation data at different locations were collected within and at the boundary
analysis and
watersheds. Usingobserved that all the
the elevation watersheds
data in ArcGIS, have
weaperformed
land slope ofa 2–7% where the
topographic crops are
analysis grown.
and observed
Thethe
that all location of the conservation
watersheds have a land structures
slope ofwas also where
2–7% noted for
theuse with are
crops the SWAT
grown.model
The setup.
location of the
conservation structures was also noted for use with the SWAT model setup.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 6 of 25

Table 1. Study watershed site descriptions.

Site Name District Land Use System Area (ha) Mean Land Slope (%)
Kohkar Bala 2.75 7.15
Khandoya 5.37 4.35
Winter wheat and
Khaliq Gully Chakwal 1.25 3.75
fallow land
Ashraf Gully 2.64 3.52
Chak Khushi 2.33 2.31
Dhoke Dhamal Winter wheat and 7.03 3.86
Attock
Dhoke Hafiz Abad fallow land 3.22 4.80
* Catchment-25 Chakwal Winter wheat 2.0 10.5
* used for SWAT calibration and validation due to the availability of measured flow and sediment data.

2.2. Soil and Water Conservation Structures

In the Pothwar region, the terrace land use system and the wide and deep gullies are used for
field crop production. The agriculture fields are usually not flat; however, various field terraces are
situated at different elevation levels (Figure 2a). Farmers make earthen embankments (bunds) to retain
rainwater and conserve soil moisture. When heavy rainstorms occur, the terrace land use system often
fails due to the breaching of the field embankments/bunds. This is mainly caused by the hydraulic
shear failure of the soil under saturated conditions. The disturbance of soil organisms can aggravate
the impact. Figure 2b shows such terrace failures, which increase the surface runoff and soil erosion,
Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 26
especially in the Pothwar area.

(a) (b)

(c) (d)
Figure
Figure 2. and
2. Soil Soil water
and water conservation
conservation structures:
structures: (a) Terraced
(a) Terraced cultivated
cultivated lands
lands in Pothwar.
in Pothwar. (b)
(b) Breached
Breached terrace bund/embankment. (c) Loose stone structures system. (d) A loose stone structure in
terrace bund/embankment. (c) Loose stone structures system. (d) A loose stone structure in the field.
the field.

The moving runoff from higher to lower fields takes not only the fertile topsoil but also essential
The idea is to retain water in a terrace until a certain rainfall amount (without overflowing the
nutrients and organic matter with it, thereby reducing the productive capacity of soils. If the breached
terrace) and then to divert the excess rainfall in a non-erosive way. First, this increases the infiltration
bundand
is not repaired
improves the before
amountnext rainy season,water;
of plant-available it leads to the formation
secondly, of gullies
it reduces soil erosion and rendersthe
by reducing the area
out of plough, a great national loss. Crop yields on such eroded lands are poor, and
amount and kinetic energy of the flowing water. On average, a water height of approximately 4–6the livelihood of
inches can be held back in the fields. The crest of the structures is kept raised 6–9 inches from the soil
surface to encourage in situ rainwater conservation. The height of the sidewalls of a structure should
be equal to the height of the field bund/embankment where the structure is to be installed. The cross-
section view of these structures is shown in Figure 3.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 7 of 25

resource-poor farmers is adversely affected. To reduce this problem, the eroded areas need sustainable
rehabilitation to ensure food security in the region. With the collaboration work of SAWCRI and
ICARDA, loose stone structures were installed in the upper, middle, and lower parts of terraced
watersheds, as shown in Figure 2c,d.
The idea is to retain water in a terrace until a certain rainfall amount (without overflowing the
terrace) and then to divert the excess rainfall in a non-erosive way. First, this increases the infiltration
and improves the amount of plant-available water; secondly, it reduces soil erosion by reducing the
amount and kinetic energy of the flowing water. On average, a water height of approximately 4–6
inches can be held back in the fields. The crest of the structures is kept raised 6–9 inches from the
soil surface to encourage in situ rainwater conservation. The height of the sidewalls of a structure
should be equal to the height of the field bund/embankment where the structure is to be installed.
Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 8 of 26
The
cross-section view of these structures is shown in Figure 3.

Figure3.3.Cross-section
Figure Cross-section of
ofaaloose
loosestone structure.
stone structure.

2.3. SWAT Model

2.3. SWAT Description
Model Description

The The
SWAT SWAT model
model is aissemi-distributed,
a semi-distributed,watershed
watershed scale,
scale,eco–hydrological
eco–hydrological model that that
model dealsdeals
with with
land–soil–water–plant
land–soil–water–plant systems
systems [27].This
[27]. Thismodel
model has
hasbeen
beentested
tested forfor
a wide
a wide variety of watershed
variety and and
of watershed
environmental
environmental conditions
conditions worldwide[46–56].
worldwide [46–56]. ArcSWAT
ArcSWATjointlyjointlydeveloped
developed by byUSDA
USDA Agricultural
Agricultural
Research Service (USDA-ARS) and Texas A&M AgriLife Research, was used to spatially link multiple
Research Service (USDA-ARS) and Texas A&M AgriLife Research, was used to spatially link multiple
model input data, such as watershed topography (digital elevation model (DEM)), soil, land use, land
model input data, such as watershed topography (digital elevation model (DEM)), soil, land use, land
management, and climatic data. During watershed delineation, the entire watershed was divided
management, andsub-basins.
into different climatic data. Then,During watershed
each sub-basin wasdelineation, the entire
discretized into a serieswatershed wasresponse
of hydrologic divided into
different
units (HRUs) as the smallest computation unit of a SWAT model, which were characterized by units
sub-basins. Then, each sub-basin was discretized into a series of hydrologic response
(HRUs) as the smallest
homogeneous soil, computation
land use, andunit of acombinations.
slope SWAT model,The whichdailywere characterized
climate input databy forhomogeneous
defined
soil, land use, were
locations and slope
spatiallycombinations.
related to theThe dailysub-basins
different climate input
of thedata
modelfor using
defined locations
a nearest were GIS
neighbor spatially
algorithm.
related The simulated
to the different sediment
sub-basins of theyield for each
model HRU
using was then
a nearest aggregated
neighbor GIS and processed
algorithm. tosimulated
The sub-
basin yield
sediment level results
for each onHRU
a daily time
was step
then resolution.and
aggregated The processed
surface runoff computation
to sub-basin was
level performed
results on a daily
using modified Soil Conservation Service–Curve Number (SCS–CN) method
time step resolution. The surface runoff computation was performed using modified Soil Conservation [57]. Sediment yield
levels from each HRU were estimated using the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) [58]
Service–Curve Number (SCS–CN) method [57]. Sediment yield levels from each HRU were estimated
written as a mass balance equation as follows:
using the Modified Universal Soil Loss Equation (MUSLE) .
[58] written as a mass balance equation
as follows: SY = 11.8 Q ×q × area .K .C .P . LS . CFRG , (1)

where SY is the sediment 0.56 runoff (mm ha−1), qpeak is the peak discharge (m3
 yield (t), Qsurf is the surface
SY = 11.8 Qsurf × q peak × areahru .KUSLE .CUSLE .PUSLE .LSUSLE .CFRG , (1)
s−1), and areahru is the area of the hydrological response unit (ha). KUSLE (0.013 (t.m2.hr)/(m3.t.cm)),
CUSLE, PUSLE, and LSUSLE are the USLE parameters. CFRG is the coarse fragment factor.
where SYThe is the sediment yield (t), Qsurfofisthe
sediment transport capacity
thestream
surface runoff (mm ha−1 ), qpeak
channel is a direct function
is the peak discharge
of the channel peak
−1 ), and area
(m3 svelocity, is the area of the hydrological response unit (ha). K (0.013 (t.m2 .hr)/(m3 .t.cm)),
whichhru
is used in the SWAT model, as shown in Equation (2): USLE
CUSLE , PUSLE , and LSUSLE are the USLE parameters. CFRG is the coarse fragment factor.
T = αv , (2)

where (t m−3) is the transport capacity of a channel, v (m s−1) is the channel peak velocity, and α
and b are constant coefficients.
The channel peak velocity was calculated using Manning’s formula in a reach segment, as
presented in Equation (3):
Water 2020, 12, 1439 8 of 25

The sediment transport capacity of the stream channel is a direct function of the channel peak
velocity, which is used in the SWAT model, as shown in Equation (2):

Tch = αvb , (2)

where Tch (t m−3 ) is the transport capacity of a channel, v (m s−1 ) is the channel peak velocity, and α
and b are constant coefficients.
The channel peak velocity was calculated using Manning’s formula in a reach segment, as presented
in Equation (3):
1
v = Rch 2/3 Sch 1/2 , (3)
n
where n is Manning’s roughness coefficient, Rch (m) is hydraulic radius, and Sch (m m−1 ) is the channel
bed slope.
Channel aggradation (Sedagg ) and channel degradation (Seddeg ) in tons were computed in the
channel segment using the criteria presented in Equations (4) and (5):

if sedi > Tch : Sedagg = (sedi − Tch ) × Vch & Seddeg = 0, (4)

i f Tch > sedi : Seddeg = (Tch − sedi ) × Vch × Kch × Cch & Sedagg = 0, (5)

where sedi (t m−3 ) is the initial concentration of sediment, Cch is the channel cover factor, Kch is the
channel erodibility factor, and Vch (m3 ) is the channel segment water volume.
Sedout (t) is the total sediment transported out of the channel segment, which was computed using
Equation (6):
  Vout
Sedout = sedi + Seddeg − Sedagg × , (6)
Vch
where Vout (m3 ) is the volume of water leaving the channel segment at each time step, sedi (t) is the
sediment inflow concentration at each time step, Sedagg (t) is the channel aggradation, Seddeg (t) is
channel degradation at each time step, and Vch (m3 ) is volume of channel segment water at each
time step.
Soil erosion is a direct function of the slope length and steepness, and it increases due to increases
in shear stress. Thus, a major influence of the slope on erosion appears to be exerted through its
impact on runoff velocity, and the sediment transport capacity of runoff increases with the increasing
flow velocity.

2.4. SWAT Model Input and Setup

The requisite spatial data (DEM, land use, and soil data) and temporal data (rainfall and
temperature) were prepared for the SWAT model setup. A physical topographical survey of the
watersheds was conducted using a GPS. The DEM of each watershed was generated using point-source
elevation data in a geographic information system by applying the inverse distance weighting (IDW)
method, as shown in Figure 4. The winter wheat land use classification was used according to cropping
practice, and the soil type was sandy loam for all small watersheds based upon the soil textural analysis.
The daily precipitation and temperature data were collected from the SAWCRI Chakwal for six years
from January 2010 to April 2015.
After the preparation of the requisite data file for model input, ArcSWAT9.3 was used to
automatically delineate sub-watersheds and to generate a stream network based on the DEM.
An appropriate database of sub-basin parameters and a comprehensive topographic report of the
watersheds were generated. The sub-watersheds topographic report was rechecked for area, slope,
location of outlet, and soil textural class according to the physical characteristics to make appropriate
database changes. SWAT coding conventions were used to reclassify the land use and soil maps into
HRUs based on the unique land use, soil class, and slope class in the overlaying section.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 9 of 25

The weather station location and lookup tables of daily precipitation and temperature (maximum
and minimum) data were loaded to link them with the required files. First, the model was simulated for
each watershed with validated parameters adopted from Hussain et al. [14] without the consideration
of the conservation structures, and then interventions of the soil and water conservation structures
were made by modifying the parameters for surface runoff and sediment yield. The setup of model
for each watershed with and without the consideration of the conservation structures is shown as the
right and left of Figure 4, respectively.
The locations of each soil and water conservation structure were marked and used for the correct
delineations of sub-basins. The demarcated sub-basins indicated the boundary of the agriculture fields,
while the structures were the outlet of each field in model setup when the conservation structures were
considered. The ideal factors that describe the effect of stone bunds are the USLE support practice
factor (P-factor), the curve number, and the average slope length for the sub-basin (SLSUBBSN).
Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 26
The SLSSUBSN value was modified by editing the HRU (.hru) input table, whereas the P-factor
and parameters
curve number werevalues
modified,were modified
namely by editing
the average slope the Management
steepness (HRU_SLP)(.mgt) input
of the HRUtable.
input Three
tables more
and two were
parameters basin parameters (SPCONthe
modified, namely andaverage
SPEXP) representing the general
slope steepness watershed
(HRU_SLP) attributes
of the in the tables
HRU input
Basin (.bsn) input files. SPCON and SPEXP are linear and exponential channel sediment
and two basin parameters (SPCON and SPEXP) representing the general watershed attributes in the routing
factors, respectively, that affect the movement and separation of sediment fractions in the channel
Basin (.bsn) input files. SPCON and SPEXP are linear and exponential channel sediment routing factors,
and were used to calculate the maximum amount of sediment re-entrained during channel sediment
respectively, that affect the movement and separation of sediment fractions in the channel and were
routing.
used to calculate the maximum amount of sediment re-entrained during channel sediment routing.

Without Conservation Structures With Conservation Structures

(a)

(b)

Figure 4. Cont.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 10 of 25
Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 26

(c)

(d)

(e)

Figure 4. Cont.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 11 of 25
Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 26

(f)

(g)

Figure 4. Topographic
Figure 4. Topographicmaps
mapsofofselected
selected small watershedsininthethe
small watersheds Chakwal
Chakwal andand Attock
Attock Districts
Districts for for
model application: (a) Khokar Bala watershed, (b) Khandoya watershed, (c) Khaliq Gully watershed,
model application: (a) Khokar Bala watershed, (b) Khandoya watershed, (c) Khaliq Gully watershed,
(d) Ashraf Gully
(d) Ashraf watershed,
Gully (e)(e)Chak
watershed, ChakKhushi watershed,(f)(f)Dhoke
Khushi watershed, Dhoke Dhamal
Dhamal watershed,
watershed, andDhoke
and (g) (g) Dhoke
HafizHafiz
Abad Abad watershed.
watershed.

2.5. Model Calibration

2.5. Model andand
Calibration Validation—Reference to the
Validation—Reference to thePrevious
PreviousStudy
Study
In thisIn this study,
study, thethecalibrated
calibrated and
andvalidated
validated model
modelwas was
adopted from afrom
adopted previous study [14].
a previous The [14].
study
calibrated parameters
The calibrated parameterswere were directly
directlyused
usedduring the the
during simulation
simulationof the
of SWAT
the SWAT model without
model the the
without
consideration of the soil and water conservation structures. Hussain et al. [14] successfully
consideration of the soil and water conservation structures. Hussain et al. [14] successfully performed performed
the calibration of soil erosion parameters in small watersheds of the Dhrabi River Catchment. In this
the calibration of soil erosion parameters in small watersheds of the Dhrabi River Catchment. In this
study, the Catchment-25 parameters were selected, as shown in Table 2 [14]. Catchment-25, having
study, the Catchment-25 parameters were selected, as shown in Table 2 [14]. Catchment-25, having an
an area of 2.0 ha, is an agricultural watershed consisting of deep gullies, and its average land slope is
area 10.5%.
of 2.0 Itha,
hasis well-defined
an agricultural watershed
boundaries consisting
and wide of deep
gully beds gullies,
that mimic theand
full its average land
representation slope is
of the
10.5%.
other study watersheds. The detailed description of Catchment-25 and SWAT model calibration andof the
It has well-defined boundaries and wide gully beds that mimic the full representation
othervalidation
study watersheds.
procedure and Theperformance
detailed description
can be seenof inCatchment-25 and SWAT
the study of Hussain model calibration and
et al. [14].
validation procedure
The and performance
SAWCRI collected the surfacecan be seen
runoff in the study
and sediment yield of Hussain
data et al.of[14].
at the outlet Catchment-25.
The
Theexperimental
SAWCRI collectedsetup forthe
data collection
surface is shown
runoff in Figure 5.
and sediment The automatic
yield data at therain gauge
outlet of and water
Catchment-25.
level recorder were installed for rainfall and runoff depth measurements.
The experimental setup for data collection is shown in Figure 5. The automatic rain gauge and The runoff discharge
watermeasurement
level recorder waswere
doneinstalled
using a for
sharp crested
rainfall andrectangular
runoff depth weir.measurements.
The settling basin Thewas useddischarge
runoff for
sediment collection. The stilling basin was 3 m wide, 4 m long, and 65 cm deep at the weir and 15 cm
measurement was done using a sharp crested rectangular weir. The settling basin was used for
sediment collection. The stilling basin was 3 m wide, 4 m long, and 65 cm deep at the weir and 15 cm
deep upstream, in order to trap coarse sediment as bed load, while the suspended load was collected
separately in 20 liter plastic buckets covered with a plastic sheet.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 12 of 25
Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 13 of 26

deep upstream, in order to trap coarse sediment as bed load, while the suspended load was collected
The total sediment yield of the catchment for a particular event is the sum of the bed load and
separately in 20 liter plastic buckets covered with a plastic sheet.
suspended sediment. Coarser sediments were trapped in the stilling basin during the runoff event.
The total sediment yield of the catchment for a particular event is the sum of the bed load and
Aftersuspended
each runoff event, the standing water from the stilling basin was drained off through the drainpipe,
sediment. Coarser sediments were trapped in the stilling basin during the runoff event.
and the wet sediments werethe
After each runoff event, collected
standingand weighed.
water from theAstilling
composite
basin sample of theoffwet
was drained bed load
through the was
obtained
drainpipe, and the wet sediments were collected and weighed. A composite sample of the wet beddried
after mixing six-to-seven sub-samples collected throughout the stilling basin and oven
to determine the moisture
load was obtained contents.
after mixing The moisture
six-to-seven contents
sub-samples werethroughout
collected deductedthe from the wet
stilling basinweight
and to
oven dried
determine to determine
the dry weight ofthethemoisture
sediment.contents.
Finer The moisture
sediments incontents were
the runoff deducted
water passingfromthe
theweir
wet were
weight
sampled to determine
using the dry weight
vertical sampling tubesofwith
the sediment. Finer sediments
holes. Following in the
the runoff runoffthe
events, water passing
samples the
present in
weir were sampled using vertical sampling tubes with holes. Following the runoff
the container were collected and analyzed. The total suspended sediment loss from the catchment events, the was
samples present in the container were collected and analyzed. The total suspended sediment loss
obtained by multiplying the sediment concentration in the bucket with the runoff volume passing over
from the catchment was obtained by multiplying the sediment concentration in the bucket with the
the weir.
runoff volume passing over the weir.

Figure 5. The experimental setup for runoff and sediment yield [14].
Figure 5. The experimental setup for runoff and sediment yield [14].
2.6. Land
2.6. Land Use Use Scenarios
Scenarios
The scenarios were developed based upon the common cropping practices adopted by the
The scenarios were developed based upon the common cropping practices adopted by the farmers
farmers in this area. A common practice for agriculture is the sowing of one or two crops a year.
in this area. A common practice for agriculture is the sowing of one or two crops a year. Other than the
Other than the sowing period, the fields remain uncultivated as fallow land. Based upon this practice,
sowing
the period,
scenario the fields
related remain
to land coveruncultivated as fallow land.
change was adopted—that is, Based
winter upon
wheat this practice,
to fallow the scenario
land change.
related
Another other management practice is the use of conservation structures, which are used by the other
to land cover change was adopted—that is, winter wheat to fallow land change. Another
management
farmers forpractice is theconservation
soil–water use of conservation structures,
and to meet which
crop water are used byThese
requirements. the farmers forsafely
structures soil–water
conservation and to meet
pass the overland crop water
flow during requirements.
the monsoon season andThese structures
minimize safely to
the damages pass
the the overland
terrace ridges flow
andthe
during bunds.
monsoon season and minimize the damages to the terrace ridges and bunds.
The
The SWAT SWAT model
model was was appliedbased
applied basedon
onfour
four scenarios
scenarios atatallallwatershed
watershed sites. TheThe
sites. scenarios are are
scenarios
described as follows:
described as follows:
Scenario 1 (S1): The model was applied for soil erosion estimation on land without structures
Scenario 1 (S1): The model was applied for soil erosion estimation on land without structures
under the following conditions: the land use type was determined to be winter wheat; for overland
under the following conditions: the land use type was determined to be winter wheat; for overland
flow, Manning’s n = 0.15 (for short grass) was used, and for channel flow, Manning’s n = 0.025 (for
flow,natural,
Manning’s = 0.15 streams)
earth nuniform (for shortwas used.was used, and for channel flow, Manning’s n = 0.025 (for
grass)
natural, earth uniform
Scenario 2 (S2): streams)
The modelwas wasused.
applied for soil erosion estimation on land with structures under
Scenario
the 2 (S2): Theasmodel
same conditions S1. was applied for soil erosion estimation on land with structures under
the same Scenario
conditions as S1.
3 (S3): The model was applied for soil erosion estimation on fallow land without
structures.
Scenario 3 (S3): Thenmodel
Manning’s = 0.09 was
was used for overland
applied flow. Theestimation
for soil erosion crop residue onand channel
fallow landflow
without
conditions
structures. remained the
Manning’s n =same.
0.09 was used for overland flow. The crop residue and channel flow
conditions remained the same.
Scenario 4 (S4): The model was applied for soil erosion estimation on land with structures under
the same conditions as S3.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 13 of 25

3. Results
After the preparation of requisite input file, including different selected parameters, the model was
applied to all selected sites for the evaluation of the effectiveness of soil conservation structures. For this
purpose, the model was first run without soil conservation structures, and then conversation structures
were modeled to see their effectiveness. The model was also applied for the above-mentioned four
different scenarios related to field practices being adopted by the farmers in the area.
The modeled period was from 2009 to 2011 for Catchment-25. The runoff and sediment yield
data collected during 2009–2010 were used for model calibration, while the 2011 data were used for
validation. Some of the appropriate parameters were adjusted (Table 2) until the predicted runoff
and sediment yield approximately matched the measured ones at the outlet (Figure 6). To determine
the most sensitive parameters for model calibration, the sensitivity analysis was performed in the
ArcSWAT interface using five parameters for sediment yield (Table 2): USLE practice factor (PUSLE ),
USLE conservation practice factor (CUSLE ), USLE soil erodibility factor (KUSLE ), the linear parameter
for calculating the maximum amount of sediment that can be re-entrained during channel sediment
routing (SPCON), and the exponent parameter for calculating sediment re-entrained in channel
sediment routing (SPEXP). The PUSLE factor was found to be the most sensitive parameter during
model calibration using sensitivity analysis. Moreover, the obvious correspondence (coefficient of
determination (R2 ) = 0.80 and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) = 0.70) of the hydrographs of the
observed and simulated surface runoff and sediment yield indicated that the SWAT is capable of
simulating the hydrological regime of small watersheds in the Pothwar region (Figure 6).

3.1. Model Application without Conservation Structures

After separately setting up the SWAT model for each watershed, the model simulation was
performed with the default set of parameters in the default setting. Then, the soil erosion parameters
(Table 2) were used for sediment yield simulation in each watershed. The modeled period was from
2010 to 2015. We estimated that all the watersheds generated a maximum sediment yield in 2010,
while a minimum sediment yield was simulated in 2012. This indicated that the sediment yield is a
direct function of runoff and rainfall intensity. In 2010, Khaliq Gully model estimation was 59.3 t ha−1 ,
while in 2012, it was 2.3 t ha−1 . Similarly, the Ashraf Gully, Khokar Bala, Chak Khushi, Dhoke Dhamal,
Dhoke Hafiz Abad, and Khandoya watershed models produced annual sediment yields of 25, 37.6, 1.6,
15.3, 32.3, and 45.9 t ha−1 , respectively, in 2010 (Table 3).

3.2. Model Application with Conservation Structures

After the model application without conservation structures with calibrated soil erosion parameters,
the model was applied to the small watersheds using soil and water conservation structures. The model
setting was done in accordance with the location of conservation structures for the correct delineations
of sub-basins. The intervention of the soil and water conservation structures was made by modifying
the surface runoff and sediment yield parameters, as given in Table 2. The SWAT provides various
options to consider soil and water conservation structure impacts [59] including: (i) surface runoff may
be modified through the adjustment of the runoff ratio (curve number) and/or the consideration of a
micro-pond (pothole) at the related HRU level, which also impacts the soil erosion, and (ii) impacts on
the sediment yield levels may be modified via the adjustment of the support P-factor and/or the slope
length and steepness factor (LS) of the MUSLE [60]. The ideal factors that describe the effect of stone
bunds are the USLE support P-factor, the curve number, and the SLSUBBSN.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 14 of 25
Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 26

(b)

10
Sediment Yield (t/ha)

8 (c)
6
4
2
0
1/4/2009
6/4/2009
8/4/2009
14/4/2009
1/7/2009
11/7/2009
22/7/2009
28/7/2009
29/7/2009
8/8/2009
2/9/2009
8/2/2010
7/5/2010
9/6/2010
29/6/2010
20/7/2010
21/7/2010
22/7/2010
27/7/2010
29/7/2010
13/8/2010
21/8/2010
24/8/2010
18/9/2010
Rainfall Event
Obs S.Y (t/ha) Sim S.Y (t/ha)

Figure
Figure 6. Soil 6. Soil and
and Water Water Assessment
Assessment Tool (SWAT)
Tool (SWAT) model calibration
model calibration (a &validation
(a,c) and c) and validation (b &
(b,d) for d) for surface
surface runoff runoff and sediment
and sediment yield,yield, respectively
respectively of
of Catchment-25.
Catchment-25.
 Water 2020, 12, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 26

Water 2020, 12, 1439 15 of 25

Table 2. Soil erosion parameters used during the model’s application without conservation structures
(pre-condition) also used for Catchment-25 calibration. Post-condition parameters represent the
Table 2. Soil erosion parameters used during the model’s application without conservation structures
conservation structures. SPEXP: exponential channel sediment routing factor; SPCON: linear channel
(pre-condition) also used for Catchment-25 calibration. Post-condition parameters represent the
sediment routing factor; USLE_C: conservation practice factor; USLE_K: soil erodibility factor;
conservation structures. SPEXP: exponential channel sediment routing factor; SPCON: linear channel
SLSUBBSN: the average slope length for the sub-basin; HRU_SLP: average slope steepness of the
sediment routing
hydrological factor;unit
response USLE_C: conservation
(HRU) input tables; CN: practice factor; USLE_K: soil erodibility factor;
curve number.
SLSUBBSN: the average slope length for the sub-basin; HRU_SLP: average slope steepness of the
hydrological response unit (HRU) input SWAT Post-Condition
tables; CN: curve number.
SWAT Pre-Condition Parameters
Parameters
Parameter SWAT Pre-Condition
(Input Parameters
Default Value SWAT
Parameter Post-Condition
(Input Parameters
Modified
Parameter (InputFile)
File) Value
Default Value Used
Value Used File) (Input File) Value
Parameter Modified Value
USLE_P
USLE_P (.mgt) (.mgt) 0 to 10 to 1 0.65
0.65 USLE_P (.mgt)
USLE_P (.mgt) 0.11 0.11
SPEXP (.bsn) (.bsn)
SPEXP 1.0 to1.0
2.0to 2.0 1.0
1.0 SPEXPSPEXP
(.bsn)(.bsn) 1.25 1.25
SPCON (.bsn) 0.0001 to 0.01 0.0032 SPCON (.bsn) 0.001
0.0001 to
USLE_CSPCON
(crop.dat)(.bsn) 0.001 to 0.5 0.182
0.0032 SLSUBBSN
SPCON (.bsn)(.hru) 0.001 60 (m)
USLE_K (.sol) 0 to 0.650.01 0.246 HRU_SLP (.hru) 0.016
USLE_C (crop.dat) 0.001 to 0.5 0.182 SLSUBBSNCN2 (.hru)
(.mgt) 60 (m) 65
USLE_K (.sol) 0 to 0.65 0.246 HRU_SLP (.hru) 0.016
CN2 (.mgt) 65
These small watersheds already have existing soil and water conservation structures for the control
of soil erosion. The crests
These small of the structures
watersheds already have play a major
existing role
soil andinwater
reducing the flow structures
conservation velocity and for sediment
the
deposition (erosion
control of reduction)
soil erosion. dueoftothe
The crests ponding upstream
structures of the
play a major rolestructures,
in reducingwhereas the downstream
the flow velocity and
sections of thedeposition
sediment structures(erosion
preventreduction)
channel ordue gully development.
to ponding upstreamTheoftopography of the
the structures, regionthe
whereas consists
of permanent gullies where farmers use these gullies for the cultivation of crops.
downstream sections of the structures prevent channel or gully development. The topography of the The farmers manage
region consists
the gullies of permanent
in a terraced land usegullies where
system byfarmers
makinguse these
field gullies forbunds,
boundary the cultivation
as shown of crops. The 7 for
in Figure
farmers manage
the example the gullies
of the Khokar in asite.
Bala terraced land the
During use monsoon
system by making
season,field boundary
heavy bunds,cause
rainstorms as shown
the shear
in Figure
failure 7 foredges
of terrace the example of the Khokar
(field bunds) due toBala
the site.
heavyDuring the monsoon
surface season,
runoff. This heavy creates
problem rainstormsa loss of
cause the shear failure of terrace edges (field bunds) due to the heavy surface runoff. This problem
soil and damage to the crops. To reduce this problem, soil and water conservation structures have
creates a loss of soil and damage to the crops. To reduce this problem, soil and water conservation
been installed to retain water in the terrace up to a certain rainfall amount (without overflowing the
structures have been installed to retain water in the terrace up to a certain rainfall amount (without
terrace) and thenthe
overflowing to terrace)
divert the
andexcess
then torainfall in aexcess
divert the non-erosive way.
rainfall in These structures
a non-erosive appear
way. These as a type of
structures
stoneappear
bund.as a type of stone bund.

Figure
Figure 7. Permanentgullies
7. Permanent gulliesfor
for the
the cultivation
cultivation ofofcrops; anan
crops; example of Khokar
example Bala Bala
of Khokar site. site.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 16 of 25

3.3. Soil Erosion Estimation and Effect of Conservation Structures

The sediment yield results were compared under each condition, as shown in Table 3, by modifying
the SWAT parameters representing the conservation structures. The six parameters were modified
according to the slope characteristics of the small watersheds and field conditions, in addition to
being modified according to the terraced and contoured section of the SWAT user’s manual [59] and
a literature review [61–64]. Soil and water conservation structures, such as stone bunds, act as vital
measures in the reduction of flow velocity, surface runoff, soil erosion, and slope length in a watershed
system [65]. Suitable parameters that signify the effect and importance of loose stone structures are
the SLSUBBSN, land management practice parameter (USLE_P), and the CN2 for rainfall–runoff
conversion [61].
The impact of stone bund soil and water conservation structures was simulated through the
reduction of the CN2 for surface runoff ratio modification, as well as the adjustment of the P-factor to
account for trapped sediments at the stone bunds. Table 3 presents a significant sediment yield reduction
achieved by incorporating the parameter values recommended for stone structures. The average annual
sediment yield reduction varied from 40% to 98%; the Khokar Bala site showed the maximum reduction.
The average five-year sediment yield reduction engendered by structures at various sites varied from
54% to 98%, and these results are relatively comparable to the findings of various studies [61,63,66].
Betrie et al. indicated that 6–69% sediment reductions in the Upper Blue Nile River basin were
caused by stone bunds [61]. A field-scale study in the northern part of Ethiopia by Gebremichael et al.
indicated a 68% sediment yield reduction was engendered by stone bunds [66]. In addition, Herweg
and Ludi conducted a study at plot scale in the Eritrean highlands and Ethiopia, and they reported
72–100% sediment yield reductions engendered by stone bunds [63]. Based on the plot experiments
carried out in 2013, stone bund structures were found to reduce surface runoff by approximately
60–80% and sediment yield between 40% and 80% [67]. This is consistent with other plot experimental
findings reported by Adimassu et al., where stone bunds were found to reduce the sediment yield by
roughly 50% compared to untreated plots [68]. The effect of conservation structures on sediment yield
reduction was elucidated by Oweis and Ashraf in the Dhrabi watershed, and it was found that the
average soil loss rates in 2009 without and with structures were calculated were 47 and 37.98 t ha−1
year−1 , respectively, with a 20% reduction. However, the maximum soil loss rates without and with
structures were 2716.17 and 1731 t ha−1 year−1 , respectively, with a 37% reduction [69].
The large variation in sediment reduction with conservation structures was observed due to the
watershed topography and the numbers of soil and water conservation structures. For example, the
Khokar Bala site showed the maximum 98% reduction because this site has a 90% area at a 0–10%
slope (Table 3) and a total of 13 soil and water conservation structures. Based on the field observation
findings: (i) The conservation structures require regular maintenance because non-meshing can cause
stones to slide, which may lead to the displacement of the whole structure, and (ii) the structures were
not designed according to the hydraulic characteristics of the surface flow. Downstream damage of the
structures was common due to the non-availability of downstream energy dissipation arrangements.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 17 of 25

Table 3. The effect of stone structures on the sediment yield reduction.

Sediment Yield (t ha−1 ) Reduction Due to Stone Structures

Khokar Bala Khandoya Khaliq Gully Ashraf Gully Chak Khushi Dhoke Dhamal Dhoke Hafiz Abad
Year
W.O.S. W.S. % Red. W.O.S. W.S. % Red. W.O.S. W.S. % Red. W.O.S. W.S. % Red. W.O.S. W.S. % Red. W.O.S. W.S. % Red. W.O.S. W.S. % Red.
2010 37.6 0.9 97.6 45.9 14.6 68 59.3 30.3 49 25 10.4 58.5 1.6 0.8 49.4 15.3 8.3 45.7 32.3 13.5 58
2011 21.9 0.4 98.1 26.3 7.7 70.5 25.8 15.3 40.6 10.7 2.6 75.8 0.9 0.4 58.8 6.7 2.3 66.3 14.2 4.6 67
2012 3.9 0.1 98.5 5.5 0.5 90 2.3 0 100 0.9 0 100 0* 0 100 0.6 0 98.2 1.26 0.56 55
2013 28.7 0.7 97.7 21.1 4.1 80.5 32.9 14.6 55.7 14 3.5 75.2 1.1 0.2 78.2 8.9 2.2 75 18.5 9.4 49
2014 13.8 0.2 98.6 18.9 8.7 54 27.6 11.9 57 11.6 2.2 81.1 0.8 0.2 69.7 7.4 1.8 75.4 15.3 5.2 66
2015 21.1 0.3 98.8 32.5 15.6 52 34 25.2 25.9 14.5 3 79 0.9 0.1 92.1 9.4 0.9 90.3 18.6 9.1 51
Ave. - - 98.2 - - 69.2 - - 54.7 - - 78.3 - - 74.7 - - 75.2 - - 57.6
W.O.S.: without structures; W.S.: with structures; % Red: percent reduction; 0 * = 0.0001.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 18 of 25

3.4. Soil Erosion Estimation under Different Scenarios

The scenarios were developed to estimate the further reduction in soil erosion associated with
land use change under soil conservation structures. The scenarios were developed according to the
scientific literature of land use and vegetation cover importance to assess soil erosion and farmer’s
common cropping practices in the study region. Vegetation cover increases the infiltration rate [70],
reduces the erosive velocity of surface runoff, and plays a key role in resisting water erosion. A trivial
variation in vegetative cover can produce considerable effects in overland flow [71]. Vegetation cover
is a key factor in controlling and reducing surface runoff and water erosion on agricultural land [72].
The analysis of the various scenarios (Table 4) revealed that the sediment yield level was higher in
S1 and S2 than in S3 and S4. This indicated that the sediment yield level is higher on agricultural land
than on fallow land with crop residue. In the comparative analysis of S1 and S2, the average sediment
yield decreased to 1.25 t ha−1 , whereas in S3 and S4 (fallow land with crop residue), the average
sediment yield decreased to 0.85 t ha−1 . The results disclosed that land use change facilitates sediment
yield reduction, in addition to soil conservation structures.

Table 4. Effect of different scenarios on sediment yield reduction (S represents land use scenario and SY
is the sediment yield i.e., the amount of sediment received at the outlet of each watershed in a given
period of time).

S1 S2 SY Reduction S3 S4 SY Reduction
Watershed Name
(t ha−1 ) (t ha−1 ) (t ha−1 ) (t ha−1 ) (t ha−1 ) (t ha−1 )
Khokar Bala 32.1 29.5 2.6 29.3 28.6 0.7
Khandoya 48.75 47 1.75 42.28 41.18 1.1
Khaliq Gully 25.98 24.75 1.23 17.1 16.5 0.6
Ashraf Gully 10.95 10.15 0.8 7.91 7.04 0.86
Chak Khushi 2.6 2.2 0.4 2.01 1.98 0.03
Dhoke Dhamal 12.6 11.56 1.04 11.9 11.1 0.8
Dhoke Hafiz Abad 24.4 20.8 3.6 18.2 17.3 0.9

Notably, a visual observation of the various structures revealed that the effects of the structures on
soil erosion control generally extended to a 4–5 m radius from the center of the structure crests during
high flow seasons; the water was accumulated and sediment was deposited upstream of the structures.

3.5. Spatial Analysis of Slope Ranges for Attock and Chakwal Districts
As reported by various researchers, the soil loss is minimal on sloping land with vegetation cover;
however, when the available vegetation cover is removed, soil loss becomes more significant as a
function of the slope length and slope steepness. The stream power, as a function of the shear stress
and flow velocity, is the basic criterion for assessing the erosion of soil particles caused by overland
flow. The shear stress and flow velocity are directly proportional to the slope steepness. This means
that the steeper the land slope is, the greater the shear stress becomes, consequently increasing the
potential for soil erosion.
Additionally, when soil conservation structures are installed in a field, farmers focus on cultivating
agricultural crops in the areas above and below such structures. Considering these factors, this section
estimated the potential area that would benefit from the installation of structures in Chakwal and
Attock. Accordingly, the suitable slopes for stone structures and agricultural practices were analyzed
at the district level based on the slope characteristics of selected sites. The areas under various slopes
in the small watersheds were calculated and are shown in Table 5.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 19 of 25

Table 5. The areas under different slopes in small watersheds of the Chakwal and Attock districts.

Ashraf Khaliq Chak Dhoke Dhoke Khokar

Category Category Khandoya
Gully Gully Khushi Dhamal Hafiz Abad Bala
Slope (%) Area (%) Area (%) Area (%) Area (%) Area (%) Slope (%) Area (%) Area (%)
0–2 63 50 97 81 72 0–5 65 70
2–5 30 42 3 17 22 5–10 25 19
5–10 7 8 - 1 6 10–15 10 11

All selected watershed sites were found to have a maximum slope area of less than 5%. This is
because the selected sites were used for agricultural production. Farmers have graded the land as
suitable for crop production and generating less surface runoff. The agricultural practices are only
possible on soil that has a slope of less than 8%; otherwise, land grading must be carried out. The same
has been suggested by various authors. A USLE experiment conducted at the SAWCRI office concluded
that only a slope of less than 10% is acceptable for agricultural practices under rainfed conditions.
A slope classification analysis was performed to check the areal installation applicability of the soil
and water conservation structures on district level, as shown in Table 6. The maximum proportions of
the areas in the Attock and Chakwal districts with less than 20% slope were 94% and 94.5%, respectively.
The table shows that approximately 60% of the area of the Attock and Chakwal districts lies in a slope
range of 0–4%, whereas 30% lies in a slope range of 4–10%. The minimum slope areas were considered
according to the findings of Betrie et al., who recommended that stone bunds should be applied in
low-slope areas for soil conservation [61]. However, the effectiveness of the structures depends on the
local topography and soil and land use–land cover conditions. Considering the topographic conditions,
considerable potential exists for implementing soil conservation measures through the installation
of stone structures. However, the appropriate maintenance of the structures is crucial for sustaining
their effectiveness.

Table 6. Slope classification analysis of the Chakwal and Attock districts.

Chakwal Attock
Slope Category
Area Area Area Area
(%) (km2 ) (%) (km2 ) (%)
0–4 4095 60 3918 61
4.1–10 1913 28 1786 28
10.1–20 547 8 472 7
20.1–40 233 3 165 3
40.1–90 75 1 55 1

4. Discussion
The previous research study conducted by Hussain et al. [14] in the Dhrabi River Catchment
indicated that erratic and intensive rainfall during the rainy season generated several peak runoff
events, exposing the steep sloped areas to potentially severe soil erosion. For example, in Catchment-25,
a total 400 mm rainfall was accumulated from eleven erosive rainstorms in 2009, where a maximum
of 108 mm day−1 rainstorms generated 46.2 mm runoff and a 6.86 t ha−1 sediment yield. Similarly,
the total soil loss during the 2010 investigation period was 31.13 t ha−1 [14]. In the SWAT, the erosive
impact of rainfall is generally estimated in terms of peak runoff generation, so the results obtained
during calibration and validation are represented in Figure 6 for surface runoff and sediment yield.
The analysis was performed for each total rainfall event and the respective total surface runoff and
sediment yield generated by each event. The overall statistical results indicated that the performance
of the SWAT was satisfactory and that the simulated values generally matched the corresponding
observed values well. However, model adequacy should be further evaluated by how well the
model captures high and low rainfall events, specifically regarding the replication of fluctuations in
Water 2020, 12, 1439 20 of 25

the resulting hydrographs and sediment yields. The graphical results (Figure 6) revealed that the
SWAT was able to satisfactorily reproduce most of the low flow and sediment yield events (due to
low rainfall events), although some relatively low sediment yields were considerably overpredicted,
e.g., sediment yield events on 7 August 2011. In contrast, it was also found that the SWAT typically
underestimated or overestimated high flow and sediment yield events in response to high rainfall
events. For example, a maximum intensity rainstorm on 29 July 2010 resulted in the overestimation
of surface runoff and sediment yields, while another maximum intensity rainstorm on 29 July 2009
resulted in underestimations. These discrepancies may have occurred due to inaccuracies in observed
climate, runoff, and sediment data, such as some of the rainfall events, not being measured properly;
this, in turn, could have led to underestimations or overestimations of runoff peaks. Another possible
reason could be related to short, rapid rainfall events, which could have led lead to an overestimation
discrepancy because small catchments have low times of concentration and thus a low capacity to
minimize peak runoff. In addition, the CN technique cannot accurately predict runoff for days that
experience several storms. The underestimation and/or overestimation of sediment yield was also
observed during high intensity rainstorm events, which may have been due to uncertainties in runoff
simulation measurements, as well as uncertainties in model parameterization. This may have also been
due to the observed data used for model calibration and validation. Relatively short term events with
several storms having high intensity may not have been captured well by the sampling of sediment
data, including inaccurately high loads being measured during short term events, which led to an
overestimation in sediment yield. The literature data findings indicated that the semi-mountainous
region of Pothwar is rainfed and soil erosion is a serious issue due to the steep slope and heavy rainfall.
The calibration and validation of the SWAT was successfully performed using parameters mentioned
in Table 2 for surface runoff and sediment yield. Similar studies, such as the sediment simulation
results by Betrie et al. [61] reported good agreement between the model daily sediment predictions and
the observed concentrations at the El Diem gauging station (Ethiopia–Sudan border). SWAT studies for
smaller watersheds in the northeast and northwest of Ethiopia have tended to show weaker hydrologic
results [73,74], which is an indication that it may be difficult to accurately represent the processes
and obtain better results for smaller watersheds. Keeping in view the literature studies, the validated
SWAT model was applied to small watersheds of the Pothwar area with and without soil and water
conservation structures.
The calibrated and validated model parameters were adopted for ungauged small watersheds for
the simulation of sediment yield without the consideration of soil and water conservation structures.
The soil and water conservation structures were modeled with the modification of appropriate
parameters, and then the effectiveness of these structures in terms of reduction of soil erosion was
calculated. The results showed that the soil and water conservation structures constructed by the
farmers and the SAWCRI department reduced the soil losses in the small watersheds of the Pothwar
region. The results showed that the watersheds in the case of without soil and water conservation
structures had higher sediment losses than the watersheds with soil and water conservation structures,
given similar climatic and land use patterns. The intervention of soil and water conservation structures
measures by the mobilization of the community has a significant soil loss reduction to protect their
land from the rainfall-driven soil erosion. To the best of our knowledge, no one has reported the
effectiveness of soil and water conservation structures for the reduction of soil erosion in the Pothwar
region or in Pakistan. This is the first study in this area where the SWAT model has been used for the
evaluation of effectiveness of soil and water conservation structures for soil erosion control. For this
purpose, appropriate parameters responsible for soil erosion were modified according to the type
of soil and water conservation structures, as performed by different researchers in literature such as
Betrie et al. [61] in the Upper Blue Nile River basin, Gebremichael et al. [66] in the northern part of
Ethiopia, and Melaku et al. [38] in the Gumara Maksegnit watershed in northwest Ethiopia. The SWAT
model has been found to be a useful tool for understanding the hydrologic processes and the sediment
dynamic in the study area watersheds, and it assessed the impacts of soil and water conservation
Water 2020, 12, 1439 21 of 25

structures on the erosion process. It was observed that severe erosion led to higher soil losses in some
watersheds dominated with gullies, such as the Khokar Bala site. This is substantiated by the photo
taken in Figure 7, which shows the development of deep gullies in the upper parts of the watershed that
were found to contribute higher soil erosion losses and to generate higher sediment load at the outlet.
The model results indicated that soil and water conservation structures might considerably
decrease soil loss by 40–90% in small watersheds of the Pothwar region. Herweg and Ludi conducted
a study at the plot scale in the Eritrean highlands of Ethiopia and reported 72–100% sediment yield
reductions engendered by stone bunds [63], which was close to the current finding of the soil loss
reduction level due to soil and water conservation structures. Similarly, Betrie et al. [61] indicated
6–69% sediment reductions in the Upper Blue Nile River basin caused by stone bunds, and their results
were in agreement with our findings. The average annual sediment yield estimated by the SWAT
model without the consideration of soil and water conservation structures in all selected sites was
in the range of 8.05–30.31 t ha−1 . Our findings were in agreement with other studies conducted in
the Pothwar region such as those from Hussain et al. [14], who estimated the annual sediment loss
(ranged from 2.6 to 31.1 t hm−2 ) in small watersheds of the Dhrabi River Catchment, while Ahmad et
al. [16] reported annual soil loss rates of 9–26 t ha−1 in the Fateh Jang watershed (Attock) with a slope
of 1–10%. Similarly, Nasir et al. [11] predicted an annual soil loss that ranged from 0.1 to 28 t ha−1 at
the small mountainous watershed of Rawal Lake in Rawalpindi. The literature data findings indicated
that the semi-mountainous region of Pothwar is rainfed and soil erosion is a serious issue due to steep
slope and heavy rainfall. The region receive erratic rainfall during a short rainy season and almost
70% precipitation occurs during monsoon [75,76]. The comparative studies on sediment and soil loss
confirmed the results of the current study conducted in small watersheds of the Pothwar region.
The soil and water conservation structures are effective measures in reducing the soil erosion
problems in the Pothwar region that have varied land slopes. This study reveals that considering the
topographic conditions, loose stone soil and water conservation structures should be installed in areas
with a slope range of 0–10%, and wire-meshed stone structures should be installed in areas with a
slope range of 6–10%. Proper energy dissipation arrangements should be implemented to prevent
downstream erosion.

5. Conclusions
In this research, we performed SWAT watershed modeling to describe the driving hydrological
and sediment transport related processes of small watersheds. The effectiveness of soil and water
conservation structures for soil erosion control was assessed with a SWAT model. Stone bund-type
structure interventions were done in the model through modification of the USLE support P-factor,
the curve number, and the SLSUBBSN. The model results revealed that a 40–90% sediment yield
reduction could be achieved using soil conservation structures. Thus, soil and water conservation
structures are effective options for soil erosion control in rainfed areas. The land use change
scenario results revealed that vegetation cover facilitated sediment yield reduction, in addition
to soil conservation structures. An all-inclusive interpretation of the quantitative model results may be
misleading because no model can fully simulate all the physical processes of soil and water interactions
in a real sense. Some assumptions were made during modeling; however, based on the results, we
suggest to policymakers and planners that more than 60% of the area in the Attock and Chakwal
districts has potential for soil and water conservation structures.

Author Contributions: G.N. and F.H. contributed equally to this research. Conceptualization, G.N. and F.H.;
data curation, F.H. and R.B.; formal analysis, F.H., R.-S.W., and V.N.; investigation, R.-S.W.; methodology, G.N.;
project administration, R.B.; resources, V.N.; software, F.H.; supervision, G.N.; visualization, R.-S.W., V.N., and
R.B.; writing—original draft, G.N. and F.H.; writing—review and editing, F.H. All authors have read and agreed
to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 22 of 25

Acknowledgments: This study is part of a research project under the Consultative Group for International
Agricultural Research-CGIAR Research Program (CRP) on Dryland Systems. University of Engineering and
Technology, Centre for Excellence in Water Resources Engineering, Lahore, Pakistan, The International Center for
Agriculture Research in the Dry Areas, Syria, country office Pakistan and Soil and Water Conservation Research
Institute, Chakwal, Pakistan performed collaborative research work. The authors particularly thank all colleagues
involved in the fieldwork.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Rodrigo-Comino, J.; Senciales, J.M.; Cerdà, A.; Brevik, E.C. The multidisciplinary origin of soil geography:
A review. Earth Sci. Rev. 2018, 177, 114–123. [CrossRef]
2. Desruelles, S.; Fouache, E.; Eddargach, W.; Cammas, C.; Wattez, J.; Beuzen-Waller, T.; Martin, C.; Tengberg, M.;
Cable, C.; Thornton, C.; et al. Evidence for early irrigation at Bat (Wadi Sharsah, northwestern Oman) before
the advent of farming villages. Quat. Sci. Rev. 2016, 150, 42–54. [CrossRef]
3. Keesstra, S.D.; Bouma, J.; Wallinga, J.; Tittonell, P.; Smith, P.; Cerdà, A.; Montanarella, L.; Quinton, J.N.;
Pachepsky, Y.; Van Der Putten, W.H.; et al. The significance of soils and soil science towards realization of
the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals. Soil 2016, 2, 111–128. [CrossRef]
4. Scholes, R.; Montanarella, L.; Brainich, A.; Barger, N.; Ten Brink, B.; Cantele, M.; Erasmus, B.; Fisher, J.;
Gardner, T.; Holland, T.G.; et al. Summary for Policymakers of the Thematic Assessment Report on Land Degradation
and Restoration of the Intergovernmental Science-Policy Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services; IPBES
Secretariat: Bonn, Germany, 2018; pp. 1–31.
5. Pimentel, D. Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2006, 8, 119–137. [CrossRef]
6. Ananda, J.; Herath, G. Soil erosion in developing countries: A socio-economic appraisal. J. Environ. Manag.
2003, 68, 343–353. [CrossRef]
7. Keesstra, S.; Mol, G.; de Leeuw, J.; Okx, J.; de Cleen, M.; Visser, S. Soil-related sustainable development goals:
Four concepts to make land degradation neutrality and restoration work. Land 2018, 7, 133. [CrossRef]
8. KRIS, Watershed. Cumulative Watershed Effects. Klamath Resource Information System (KRIS). 2002.
Available online: http://www.krisweb.com/watershd/impacts.htm (accessed on 1 August 2013).
9. Ontario Envirothon. [Chapter 7] Soil Erosion. Ontario Envirothon, a Program of Ontario Forestry Association.
2007. Available online: http://www.ontarioenvirothon.on.ca/files/soil/soil_Chapter7.pdf (accessed on 1
August 2013).
10. Mu, X. Trend and change-point analyses of streamflow and sediment discharge in the Yellow River during
1950 to 2005. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2010, 55, 275–285.
11. Nasir, A.; Uchida, K.; Ashraf, M. Estimation of soil erosion by using RUSLE and GIS for small mountainous
watershed in Pakistan. Pak. J. Water Resour. 2006, 10, 11–21.
12. Ashraf, M.; Hassan, F.U.; Saleem, A.; Iqbal, M.M. Soil conservation and management: A prerequisite for
sustainable agriculture in Pothwar. Sci. Technol. Dev. 2002, 21, 25–31.
13. Scherr, S.J.; Yadav, S. Land Degradation in the Developing World: Implications for Food, Agriculture and the
Environment to 2020; Food, Agriculture and the Environment Discussion Paper 14; IFPRI: Washington, DC,
USA, 1996.
14. Hussain, F.; Nabi, G.; Wu, R.-S.; Hussain, B.; Abbas, T. Parameter evaluation for soil erosion estimation on
small watersheds using SWAT model. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2019, 12, 96–108. [CrossRef]
15. Iqbal, M.N.; Jilani, G.; Ali, A.; Ali, S.; Ansar, M.; Aziz, I.; Sajjad, M.R. Soil and water loss from natural and
cultivated slopes in Dharabi watershed. J. Biodivers. Environ. Sci. 2015, 7, 128–135.
16. Ahmad, S.; Ikram, M.A.M. Soil and water conservation and integration land use in Pothwar, Pakistan. In Soil
Physics: Applications Under Stress Environments; Pakistan Agricultural Research Council: Islamabad, Pakistan,
1990; pp. 301–312.
17. Saleem, U.; Ali, A.; Iqbal, M.; Javid, M.; Imran, M. Geospatial assessment of soil erosion intensity and
sediment yield: A case study of Potohar Region, Pakistan. Environ. Earth Sci. 2018, 77, 705. [CrossRef]
18. Bashir, S.; Baig, M.A.; Ashraf, M.; Anwar, M.M.; Bhalli, M.N.; Munawar, S. Risk Assessment of Soil Erosion
in Rawal Watershed using Geoinformatics Techniques. Sci. Int. (Lahore) 2013, 25, 583–588.
19. Nabi, G.; Latif., M.; Ahsan, M.; Anwar, S. Soil erosion estimation of Soan river catchment using remote
sensing and geographic information system. Soil Environ. 2008, 27, 36–42.
Water 2020, 12, 1439 23 of 25

20. Rehman, O.; Rashid, M.; Kausar, R.; Alvi, S.; Hussain, R. Slope gradient and vegetation cover effects on
the runoff and sediment yield in hillslope agriculture. Turk. J. Agric. Food Sci. Technol. 2015, 3, 478–483.
[CrossRef]
21. Gordon, J.M.; Bennett, S.J.; Alfonso, C.V.; Bingner, R.L. Modeling long term soil losses on agricultural fields
due to ephemeral gully erosion. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2008, 63, 173–181. [CrossRef]
22. Saco, P.M.; Willgoose, G.R.; Hancock, G.R. Eco-geomorphology of banded vegetation patterns in arid and
semi-arid regions. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 11, 1717–1730. [CrossRef]
23. De Vente, J.; Poesen, J.; Verstraeten, G.; Govers, G.; Vanmaercke, M.; Van Rompaey, A.; Arabkhedri, M.;
Boix-Fayos, C. Predicting soil erosion and sediment yield at regional scales: Where do we stand? Earth Sci.
Rev. 2013, 127, 16–29. [CrossRef]
24. Wischmeier, H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses; Agriculture Handbook no 537; USDA Science
and Education Administration: Hyattsville, MD, USA, 1978.
25. Young, R.A.; Onstad, C.A.; Bosch, D.D.; Anderson, W.P. AGNPS: A nonpoint-source pollution model for
evaluating agricultural watersheds. J. Soil Water Conserv. 1989, 44, 168–173.
26. Ferro, V.; Porto, P. Sediment delivery distributed (SEDD) model. ASCE J. Hydraul. Eng. 2000, 5, 411–422.
[CrossRef]
27. Arnold, J.G.; Srinivasan, R.; Muttiah, R.S.; Williams, J.R. Large-area hydrologic modeling and assessment:
Part I. Model development. J. Am. Water Res. Assoc. 1998, 34, 73–89. [CrossRef]
28. Viney, N.R.; Sivapalan, M. A conceptual model of sediment transport: Application to the Avon River Basin
in Western Australia. Hydrol. Process. 1999, 13, 727–743. [CrossRef]
29. Vertessey, R.A.; Watson, F.G.R.; Rahman, J.M.; Cuddy, S.D.; Seaton, S.P.; Chiew, F.H.; Scanlon, P.J.;
Marston, F.M.; Lymbuner, L.; Jeanelle, S.; et al. New software to aid water quality management in
the catchments and waterways of the south-east Queensland region. In Proceedings of the Third Australian
Stream Management Conference: The Value of Healthy Streams, Brisbane, Queensland, 27–29 August 2001;
pp. 611–616.
30. Beasley, D.B.; Huggins, L.F.; Monke, E.J. ANSWERS—A model for watershed planning. Trans. Am. Soc.
Agric. Eng. 1980, 23, 938–944. [CrossRef]
31. Knisel, W.G. CREAMS: A Field Scale Model for Chemicals, Runoff and Erosion from Agricultural Management
Systems; USDA: Hyattsville, MD, USA, 1980.
32. Lopes, V.L. A Numerical Model of Watershed Erosion and Sediment Yield. Ph.D. Thesis, The University of
Arizona, Tucson, AZ, USA, 1987.
33. Wicks, J.M. Physically-Based Mathematical Modelling of Catchment Sediment Yield. Ph.D. Thesis,
Department of Civil Engineering, University of Newcastle Upon Tyne, England, UK, 1988.
34. Morgan, R.P.C.; Quinton, J.N.; Smith, R.E.; Govers, G.; Poesen, J.W.A.; Auerswald, K.; Chisci, G.; Torri, D.;
Styczen, M.E. The European soil erosion model (EUROSEM): A dynamic approach for predicting sediment
transport from fields and small catchments. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 1998, 23, 527–544. [CrossRef]
35. Klik, A.; Wakolbinger, S.; Obereder, E.; Strohmeier, S.; Melaku, N.D. Impacts of stone bunds on soil loss and
surface runoff: A case study from Gumara-Maksegnit Watershed, Northern Ethiopia; Purdue University: West
Lafayette, IN, USA, 2016.
36. Nyssen, J.; Poesen, J.; Gebremichael, D.; Vancampenhout, K.; Dáes, M.; Yihdego, G.; Deckers, J.
Interdisciplinary on-site evaluation of stone bunds to control soil erosion on cropland in Northern Ethiopia.
Soil Tillage Res. 2007, 95, 151–163. [CrossRef]
37. Klik, A.; Schürz, C.; Strohmeier, S.; Melaku, N.D.; Ziadat, F.; Schwen, A.; Zucca, C. Impact of stone bunds
on temporal and spatial variability of soil physical properties: A field study from northern Ethiopia. Land
Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 585–595. [CrossRef]
38. Melaku, N.D.; Renschler, C.S.; Holzmann, H.; Strohmeier, S.; Bayu, W.; Zucca, C.; Ziadat, F.; Klik, A.
Prediction of soil and water conservation structure impacts on runoff and erosion processes using SWAT
model in the northern Ethiopian highlands. J. Soils Sediments 2018, 18, 1743–1755. [CrossRef]
39. Arabi, M.; Frankenberger, J.R.; Engel, B.A.; Arnold, J.G. Representation of agricultural conservation practices
with SWAT. Hydrol. Process. 2008, 22, 3042–3055. [CrossRef]
Water 2020, 12, 1439 24 of 25

40. Ramos, M.C.; Benito, C.; Martínez-Casasnovas, J.A. Simulating soil conservation measures to control soil and
nutrient losses in a small, vineyard dominated, basin. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2015, 213, 194–208. [CrossRef]
41. Briak, H.; Mrabet, R.; Moussadek, R.; Aboumaria, K. Use of a calibrated SWAT model to evaluate the effects
of agricultural BMPs on sediments of the Kalaya river basin (North of Morocco). Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res.
2019, 2, 176–183. [CrossRef]
42. Zakaullah Ashraf, M.; Afzal, M.; Yaseen, M.; Khan, K. Appraisal of Sediment Load in Rainfed Areas of
Pothwar Region in Pakistan. Glob. J. Res. Eng. 2014, 14, 25–33.
43. Nizami, M.A.; Shafiq, M.; Rashid, M.; Aslam, M. The Soils and Their Agricultural Development Potential in
Pothwar; WRRI-LRRP, National Agricultural Research Centre: Islamabad, Pakistan, 2004; p. 158.
44. Shafiq, M.; Rashid, A.; Mangrio, A.G. Agricultural potential soil resources of Pothwar Plateau. Soil Environ.
2005, 24, 109–119.
45. Khan, R.S. Pothwar’s Agricultural Potential, Pakistan Agriculture Overview, Courtesy Daily Dawn, 24 May 2002.
46. Gassman, P.W.; Reyes, M.R.; Green, C.H.; Arnold, J.G. The Soil and Water Assessment Tool: Historical
development, applications and future directions. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 1211–1250. [CrossRef]
47. Gassman, P.W.; Sadeghi, A.M.; Srinivasan, R. Applications of the SWAT model special section: Overview
and insights. J. Environ. Qual. 2014, 43, 1–8. [CrossRef]
48. Douglas-Mankin, K.R.; Srinivasan, R.; Arnold, J.G. Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model: Current
developments and applications. Trans. ASABE 2010, 53, 1423–1431. [CrossRef]
49. Tuppad, P.; Douglas-Mankin, K.R.; Lee, T.; Srinivasan., R.; Arnold, J.G. Soil and Water Assessment Tool
(SWAT) hydrologic/water quality model: Extended capability and wider adoption. Trans. ASABE 2011, 54,
1677–1684. [CrossRef]
50. Krysanova, V.; White, M. Advances in water resources assessment with SWAT—An overview. Hydrol. Sci. J.
2015, 60, 771–783. [CrossRef]
51. Bressiani, D.A.; Gassman, P.W.; Fernandes, J.G.; Garbossa, L.H.P.; Srinivasan, R.; Bonuma, N.B.;
Mendiondo, E.M. A review of SWAT (Soil and Water Application Tool) applications in Brazil: Challenges
and prospects. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2015, 8, 9–35.
52. Tripathi, M.P.; Panda, R.K.; Raghuwanshi, N.S. Identification and Prioritization of Critical Sub-watersheds
for Soil Conservation Management using the SWAT Model. Bio Syst. Eng. 2003, 85, 365–379. [CrossRef]
53. Zabaleta, A.; Meaurio, M.; Ruiz, E.; Antigüedad, I. Simulation climate change impact on runoff and sediment
yield in a small watershed in the Basque Country, northern Spain. J. Environ. Qual. 2014, 43, 235–245.
[CrossRef]
54. Lemann, T.; Zeleke, G.; Amsler, C.; Giovanoli, L.; Suter, H.; Roth, V. Modelling the effect of soil and water
conservation on discharge and sediment yield in the upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Appl. Geogr. 2016, 73,
89–101. [CrossRef]
55. Roth, V.; Lemann, T. Comparing CFSR and conventional weather data for discharge and soil loss modelling
with SWAT in small catchments in the Ethiopian Highlands. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2016, 20, 921–934.
[CrossRef]
56. Setegn, S.G.; Dargahi, B.; Srinivasan, R.; Melesse, A.M. Modeling of sediment yield from Anjeni-Gauged
watershed, Ethiopia using SWAT model. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2010, 46, 514–526. [CrossRef]
57. USDA-SCS (U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service). National Engineering Handbook; Section
4; Hydrology. U.S. Department of Agriculture-Soil Conservation Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1972.
58. Williams; Berndt, H.D. Sediment yield prediction based on watershed hydrology. Trans. ASAE 1977, 20,
1100–1104. [CrossRef]
59. Neitsch, S.L.; Arnold, J.G.; Kiniry, J.; Williams, J.R. Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation
(Version 2005); USDA Agricultural Research Service and Texas A&M Blackland Research Center: Temple, TX,
USA, 2005.
60. Williams, J.R. Sediment routing for agricultural watersheds. JAWRA 1975, 11, 965–974. [CrossRef]
61. Betrie, G.D.; Mohamed, Y.A.; van Griensven, A.; Srinivasan, R. Sediment management modelling in the Blue
Nile Basin using SWAT model. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 807–818. [CrossRef]
62. Addis, H.K.; Strohmeier, S.; Ziadat, F.; Melaku, N.D.; Klik, A. Modeling streamflow and sediment using
SWAT in the Ethiopian Highlands. Int. J. Agric. Biol. Eng. 2016, 9, 51–66.
63. Herweg, K.; Ludi, E. The performance of selected soil and water conservation measures-case studies from
Ethiopia and Eritrea. Catena 1999, 36, 99–114. [CrossRef]
Water 2020, 12, 1439 25 of 25

64. Hurni, H. Erosion—Productivity—Conservation systems in Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the 4th International

Conference on Soil Conservation, Maracay, Venezuela, 3–9 November 1985; pp. 654–674.
65. Bracmort, K.; Arabi, M.; Frankenberger, J.; Engel, B.; Arnold, J. Modeling long-term water quality impact of
structural BMPs. Trans. ASABE 2006, 49, 367–374. [CrossRef]
66. Gebremichael, D.; Nyssen, J.; Poesen, J.; Deckers, J.; Haile, M.; Govers, G.; Moeyersons, J. Effectiveness of
stone bunds in controlling soil erosion on cropland in the Tigray highlands, Northern Ethiopia. Soil Use
Manag. 2005, 21, 287–297. [CrossRef]
67. Rieder, J.; Strohmeier, S.; Demelash, N.; Ziadat, F.; Klik, A. Investigation of the impact of stone bunds on
water erosion in northern Ethiopia. In Proceedings of the EGU General Assembly Conference, Vienna,
Austria, 27 April–2 May 2014; Volume 16, p. 3885.
68. Adimassu, Z.; Mekonnen, K.; Yirga, C.; Kessler, A. Effect of soil bunds on runoff, soil and nutrient losses,
and crop yield in the central highlands of Ethiopia. Land Degrad. Dev. 2012, 25, 554–564. [CrossRef]
69. Oweis, T.; Ashraf, M. Assessment and Options for Improved Productivity and Sustainability of Natural Resources in
Dhrabi Watershed Pakistan; ICARDA: Aleppo, Syria, 2012; p. 77.
70. Hejduk, S.; Kasprzak, K. A contribution to proposals of the width of protective grasslands strips. Soil Water
Conserv. 2005, 4, 30–35.
71. Wei, M.; Bogaard, T.A.; Beek, R. Dynamic effects of vegetation on the long-term stability of slopes: Components
of evaporation. Geophys. Res. Abstr. 2011, 13, 7720–7725.
72. Hofman, I.; Ries, R.F.; Gilley, G.E. Relationship of runoff and soil loss to ground cover of native and reclaimed
grazing land. Agron. J. 1985, 75, 599–607. [CrossRef]
73. Schmidt, E.; Zemadim, B. Expanding sustainable land management in Ethiopia: Scenarios for improved
agricultural water management in the Blue Nile. Agric. Water Manag. 2015, 158, 166–178. [CrossRef]
74. Yesuf, H.M.; Assen, M.; Alamirew, T.; Melesse, A.M. Modeling of sediment yield in Maybar gauged watershed
using SWAT, northeast Ethiopia. Catena 2015, 127, 191–205. [CrossRef]
75. Baig, M.B.; Shahid, S.A.; Straquadine, G.S. Making rainfed agriculture sustainable through environmental
friendly technologies in Pakistan: A review. Int. Soil Water Conserv. Res. 2013, 1, 36–52. [CrossRef]
76. Hussain, F.; Nabi, G.; Boota, M.W. Rainfall trend analysis by using the Mann-Kendall Test & Sen’s Slope
Estimates: A case study of district Chakwal rain gauge, Barani area, Northern Punjab Province, Pakistan.
Sci. Int. (Lahore) 2015, 27, 3159–3165.

© 2020 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).