Investigating the effects of climate and land-use changes on surface runoff is critical for water resources management. The majority of studies focused on projected climate change effects on surface runoff, while neglecting future land-use change. Therefore, the main aim of this article is to discriminate the impacts of projected climate and land-use changes on surface runoff using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) through the lens of the Upper Indus Basin, Pakistan. Future scenarios of the land-use and climate changes are predicted using cellular automata artificial neural network and four bias-corrected general circulation models, respectively. The historical record (2000–2013) was divided into the calibration period (2000–2008) and the validation period (2009–2013). The simulated results demonstrated that the SWAT model performed well. The results obtained from 2000 to 2013 show that climate change (61.61%) has a higher influence on river runoff than land-use change (38.39%). Both climate and land-use changes are predicted to increase future runoff depth in this basin. The influence of climate change (12.76–25.92%) is greater than land-use change (0.37–1.1%). Global weather data has good applicability for simulating hydrological responses in the region where conventional gauges are unavailable. The study discusses that both climate and land-use changes impact runoff depth and concludes with some suggestions for water resources managers to bring water environment sustainability.

  • The SWAT model was used to isolate the climate and land-use change impacts on streamflow.

  • The general circulation model was used to assess climate change impacts on streamflow.

  • The CA-ANN model was used to predict future land use.

  • Multiple climate and land-use scenarios were set to isolate climate and land-use change impacts on streamflow.

  • Climate change effects overweigh the land-use change effects on streamflow.

Graphical Abstract

Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract

Reduction in streamflow is the main concern in most of the river basins that supply water for agriculture, industry, and the growing population along the river (Zhang et al. 2017). The major concern of today's world is the global potential climate change impacts on water resources. It causes natural disasters, i.e. monsoonal flood hazards (Nanding et al. 2020), wildfire risk (Du et al. 2021), and severe drought (Pokhrel et al. 2021). This devastation is increased by changes in the watershed's land use (Stocker et al. 2001). Land-use and climate change have a major influence on water ecology, which are often reflected in long-term geographical and temporal changes in the water balance components, such as runoff, soil moisture, evapotranspiration, groundwater, and streamflow (Fang et al. 2013; Memarian et al. 2014; Deng et al. 2015). Runoff is the interface of climate and land-use change in a basin where climate change mostly affects the spatial distribution and temporal variability of runoff. Land-use change refers to the human intervention on natural processes which badly impact river flow (Li et al. 2009; Liu et al. 2010; Wang et al. 2014; Birkinshaw et al. 2017; Zhang et al. 2017). Therefore, it is critical to quantify the impacts of climate and land-use changes on river runoff in order to assist policymakers and watershed managers in achieving watershed sustainability (Liu et al. 2010; Shang et al. 2019).

Pakistan is one of the world's water-stressed countries, with an annual average rainfall of 240 mm. Rapid urbanization and population increase are the major sources of water quality impairment at the basin scale (Ghoraba 2015). Previously, the water supply systems were built considering climatic trends that cause variations in streamflow. Variations in precipitation pose a great challenge to water resources management. These negative consequences of anthropogenic activities – both qualitatively and quantitively on water resources – restrict the use of water to meet the growing demands of future populations (Mukheibir 2007; Obuobie et al. 2012).

In this study, the watershed hydrological model, Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), incorporated in Geographic Information System (GIS) was applied. The SWAT model is frequently used nowadays because it is a river basin scale model capable of simulating the impacts of land management practices in large, complex watersheds, including the impacts that occur in the smaller modeling units, called hydrologic response units (HRUs). The SWAT has been termed by many studies as a computationally highly efficient model for forecasting the effects of land use and climate change on streamflow (Neitsch et al. 2011). Numerous studies have evaluated the SWAT model's effectiveness while globally assessing hydrological processes in various areas (Khan et al. 2014; Shang et al. 2019).

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has developed the most advanced numerical-based general circulation models (GCMs) to understand the future global climatic systems, such as the atmosphere, the sea ice, and the ocean (Fowler et al. 2007; Mahmood & Babel 2013). These models are very efficient in forecasting climate changes across the globe; but, outputs obtained from these models are completely based on large grid sizes that range from 250 to 600 km, which restrict its use in the evaluation of hydrological impacts caused by climate change (Wilby et al. 2000; Gebremeskel et al. 2004). However, dynamical and statistical downscaling (SD) methods have been developed to include GCM data into hydrological models to predict climate change. SD is often used by various institutions working on climate change (Wilby et al. 2000; Fowler et al. 2007).

While many researchers have investigated water quality problems in Pakistan (Daud et al. 2017; Bashir et al. 2020), there is a deficiency in evaluating the impacts of both land use and climate changes on a large and complex watershed scale. The main purpose of this study is to understand how surface runoff responds to projected land use and climate change at a representative watershed scale to provide a solid background for long-term water resource prediction and planning in the upper region of the Indus River. Moreover, this study also separates the impacts of climate and land-use change on river runoff.

Study area description

The study area comprises the Indus River which is shared by Pakistan, China, Afghanistan, and India and covers a total area of 1.1×106 km2 (Lutz et al. 2014). Moreover, the largest part of the Indus River basin lies in Pakistan and the smallest part in Afghanistan. It is extended between 32.48–37.07°N and 67.33–81.83°E (Archer 2003). This research study is confined to the upper region of the Indus River of Pakistan at Astore (Gilgit Baltistan) as shown in Figure 1, whose basin area is 45,400 km2 and elevation range is from 547 to 8,060 m.

Data collection

This research study is based on the following datasets whose details are given below.

Digital elevation model

Digital elevation model (DEM) data of the study area has been downloaded from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) (https://earthdata.nasa.gov/). The resolution of the Advanced Spaceborne Thermal Emission and Reflection Radiometer (ASTER) GDEM (Global Digital Elevation Model) is 30 m × 30 m. DEM data is used for watershed delineation. The delineated watershed is demonstrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1

Overview of study area showing the delineated watershed.

Figure 1

Overview of study area showing the delineated watershed.

Close modal

Land use

Land-use data of Moderate Resolution Imaging Spectroradiometer (MODIS) was downloaded from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/). The details of land-use classes and their percentages composition for the delineated watershed are demonstrated in Figure 2.

Figure 2

Details of the land use and soil classes and their percentage compositions.

Figure 2

Details of the land use and soil classes and their percentage compositions.

Close modal

Soil data

Soil data was downloaded from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) (http://www.fao.org/). The details of soil classes and their percentage compositions for the delineated watershed are demonstrated in Figure 2.

Hydroclimatic data sets

Meteorological data, which includes precipitation, temperature (maximum and minimum), humidity, sunshine duration, evapotranspiration, and wind speed, were collected from Pakistan Meteorological Department (PMD) from 1990 to 2013. Similarly, hydrological data which includes daily and average flow were obtained from Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) for the period of 1990–2013. Our study area includes a total of nine PMD stations, in which only four stations' data are available. Because of the unavailability of meteorological data, Global Weather data was used for simulation purposes. The PMD coordinates and WAPDA monitoring stations are depicted in Figure 1.

Daily precipitation and temperature (min and max) of four GCMs, namely, GFDL-ESM2G, HadGEM2-ES, MIROC5, and CanESM2 were used for simulations in the SWAT model from 2005 to 2010, which were obtained from Coupled Model Intercom-parison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) archive. These models are frequently used in the Asian region (Babar et al. 2015; Prasanna 2015; Mahmood & Jia 2016). The description of four GCMs is listed in Table 1.

Table 1

Overview of the GCMs adopted for the current study

Modeling centreModelInstitute IDResolution (km)
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, USA GFDL-ESM2G GFDL 90 × 144 
Met Office Hadley Centre, UK HadGEM2-ES MOHC 145 × 192 
Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Japan MIROC5 MIROC 128 × 256 
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Canada CanESM2 CCCma 192 × 288 
Modeling centreModelInstitute IDResolution (km)
Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, USA GFDL-ESM2G GFDL 90 × 144 
Met Office Hadley Centre, UK HadGEM2-ES MOHC 145 × 192 
Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, The University of Tokyo, Japan MIROC5 MIROC 128 × 256 
Canadian Centre for Climate Modelling and Analysis, Canada CanESM2 CCCma 192 × 288 

Methods

Bias correction of GCMs

Bias corrections are often applied to climate models when they do not show any/little similitude to observed data. GCMs are corrected by bias corrections which use a transformation algorithm to relate outputs of GCMs. The main objective of the biases is to create a correlation between observed and simulated data, which will be the premise for correcting future projections of GCMs (Sun et al. 2011; Nguyen et al. 2020). The climate model data for hydrologic modeling (CMhyd) tool was used for biasing climate models (Rathjens et al. 2016b). There are plenty of biasing methods in the CMhyd tool, i.e. linear scaling (additive and multiplicative), delta change correction (additive and multiplicative), power transformation of precipitation, precipitation local intensity scaling, variance scaling of temperature, and distribution mapping of precipitation and temperature (Rathjens et al. 2016a). Utilizing GCM results at the regional scale is more straightforward and faster with linear scaling than with statistical or dynamic downscaling. These methods are used to correct biases in GCM or RCM findings. SD involves the development of empirical relationships between local-scale variables (e.g. temperature or precipitation) and large-scale variables (e.g. specific humidity, sea level pressure, and temperature of GCMs), and then simulating future data using these relationships. However, bias correction successfully corrects the simulated GCM results (e.g. temperature and precipitation) (Fang et al. 2015). We have used linear scaling (additive and multiplicative) bias correction for our study area (Worku et al. 2020).

Description of SWAT model

The SWAT model is a watershed hydrological model incorporated in the GIS developed by the United States Department of Agriculture in the 1990s. It was designed to predict the effects of weather, different land-use patterns, and soil conditions on river runoff (Yi & Sophocleous 2011; Yu et al. 2013; Wisal et al. 2020). The SWAT model requires topographic (DEM), land-use/land-cover, soil, and daily weather (precipitation and temperature) data as their minimum inputs (Ficklin & Barnhart, 2014). The SWAT model uses water balance equation for simulation as follows:
(1)
where SWt is the final soil moisture content, mm; SW0 is the initial soil moisture content of the ith day, mm; t is the time, d; Rday is the precipitation of the ith day, mm; Qsurf is the surface runoff of day i, mm; Ea indicates the amount of evapotranspiration on day i, mm; Wseep indicates the amount of water entering the vale zone from the soil profile on day i, mm; and Qgw indicates the return flow amount on day i, mm.

SWAT model calibration and validation

The Doyian station at Astore River was selected for model calibration to evaluate the dominant parameters of the streamflow using SWAT-CUP (SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Procedures) automatic calibration with the Sequential Uncertainty Fitting program algorithm (SUFI-2) (Shang et al. 2019). The SWAT-CUP model was calibrated using monthly data from 2000 to 2008. Calibration is a process to assess the goodness of fit between the observed and simulated data to get the optimum values of representative functions such as Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), coefficient of determination (R2), root-mean-square error to the standard deviation ratio (RSR), and percent bias (PBIAS). For RSR and PBIAS, the most optimum value is zero, whereas for R2 and NSE, it is 1. The R2 value ranges from 0 to 1; values closer to 1 indicate the best results, while greater than 0.5 is in an acceptable range. Succeeding calibration, the model was validated for monthly data from 2009 to 2013. The model efficiency was tested in the validated period by evaluating the decision factors as shown in Table 2.

Table 2

Statistical indicators for model performance evaluation

Performance ratingNSERSRPBIAS (%)
Very good 0.75 < NSE ≤ 1 0 ≤ RSR ≤ 0.5 −10 < PBIAS < 10 
Good 0.65 < NSE ≤ 0.75 0.5 < RSR ≤ 0.6 ±10 ≤ PBIAS < ±15 
Satisfactory 0.5 < NSE ≤ 0.65 0.6 < RSR ≤ 0.7 ±15 ≤ PBIAS < ±25 
Unsatisfactory NSE ≤ 0.5 RSR > 0.7 PBIAS ≥ 25 
Performance ratingNSERSRPBIAS (%)
Very good 0.75 < NSE ≤ 1 0 ≤ RSR ≤ 0.5 −10 < PBIAS < 10 
Good 0.65 < NSE ≤ 0.75 0.5 < RSR ≤ 0.6 ±10 ≤ PBIAS < ±15 
Satisfactory 0.5 < NSE ≤ 0.65 0.6 < RSR ≤ 0.7 ±15 ≤ PBIAS < ±25 
Unsatisfactory NSE ≤ 0.5 RSR > 0.7 PBIAS ≥ 25 

Climate and land-use change contribution rate assessment

The SWAT model was used to separate the percentage of climate change impacts from land use on river flow. The observed and simulated flow data were compared using preset climate and land-use scenarios. For instance, four scenarios were used in which scenario 1 and scenario 3 encountered the land-use change impacts on river runoff, while scenario 2 and scenario 4 encountered the climate change impacts on river runoff as given in Table 3. The contribution rate was computed by Equations (6) and (7) where Q1, Q2, Q3, and Q4 are the average river runoff obtained from the below-mentioned scenarios (Guo et al. 2016; Shang et al. 2019):
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
Table 3

Scenarios-based contribution rate analysis

ScenariosLand useMeteorological data
2001 2000–2008 
2001 2008–2013 
2013 2000–2008 
2013 2008–2013 
ScenariosLand useMeteorological data
2001 2000–2008 
2001 2008–2013 
2013 2000–2008 
2013 2008–2013 
Hypothetically, is equal to , and thereafter, the impact of climate and land-use change on river runoff can be computed by climate change and land-use change:
(6)
(7)

Future land-use prediction

Land use was predicted for 2050 for the upper region of Indus River using the cellular automata artificial neural network (CA-ANN) model that uses QGIS plugin Modules for Land Use Change Simulations (MOLUSCE). Slope and aspects variables were used as land-use drivers. At the very outset, to check the model efficiency, the land use of 2001 and 2010 were used to predict the land use of 2015, and then that of 2050.

Model calibration and validation

Calibration (2000–2008) and validation (2009–2013) were carried out on the observed flow data obtained from WAPDA at the Doyain outlet station at Astore River. A warm-up period of 2 years (1998–2000) was used to initialize the calibration process. The model calibration process was followed by sensitivity analysis to choose parameters that govern the observed river runoff. A total of 24 most effective parameters were selected for model calibration as demonstrated in Table 4. The model performance was evaluated to predict the watershed conditions by statistical indicators such as R2, NSE, PBIAS, and RSR as given in Table 5, and simulated flow results are demonstrated in Figure 3.

Table 4

Parameters sensitive to river runoff, their fitted values, and initial ranges

ParameterDescriptionFitted valueRanges
CN2.mgt SCS runoff curve number 78.5 (35,98) 
ALPHA_BF.gw Baseflow alpha factor (days) 0.63 (0,1) 
GW_DELAY.gw Groundwater delay (days) 485.40 (0,500) 
GWQMN.gw Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer required for return flow to occur (mm) 534.95 (0, 5,000) 
SURLAG.hru Surface runoff lag time 12.52 (0.05,24) 
SLSOIL.hru Slope length for lateral subsurface flow 131.25 (0,150) 
EPCO.hru Plant uptake compensation factor 0.47 (0,1) 
SOL_K(..).sol Saturated hydraulic conductivity 283.33 (0, 2,000) 
OL_AWC(..).sol Available water capacity of the soil layer 0.52 (0,1) 
CH_N2.rte Manning's n value for the main channel 0.30 (−0.01,0.3) 
SFTMP.bsn Snowfall temperature −4.56 (−20,20) 
SMTMP.bsn Snow melt base temperature 5.33 (−20,20) 
SMFMX.bsn Maximum melt rate for snow during year (occurs on summer solstice) 3.55 (0,20) 
SMFMN.bsn Minimum melt rate for snow during the year (occurs on winter solstice) 19.50 (0,20) 
SNO50COV.bsn Snow water equivalent that corresponds to 50% snow cover 0.25 (0,1) 
CH_K2.rte Effective hydraulic conductivity in main channel alluvium 481.32 (−0.01,500) 
ESCO.hru Soil evaporation compensation factor 0.60 (0,1) 
OV_N.hru Manning's n value for overland flow 17.45 (0.01,30) 
LAT_TTIME.hru Lateral flow travel time 49.07 (0,180) 
CANMX.hru Maximum canopy storage 97.50 (0,100) 
CNOP{..}.mgt SCS runoff curve number for moisture condition 29.13 (0,100) 
RFINC(..).sub Rainfall adjustment 63.25 (0,100) 
TMPINC(..).sub Temperature adjustment 64.98 (0,100) 
SNO_SUB.sub Initial snow water content 69.47 (0,150) 
ParameterDescriptionFitted valueRanges
CN2.mgt SCS runoff curve number 78.5 (35,98) 
ALPHA_BF.gw Baseflow alpha factor (days) 0.63 (0,1) 
GW_DELAY.gw Groundwater delay (days) 485.40 (0,500) 
GWQMN.gw Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer required for return flow to occur (mm) 534.95 (0, 5,000) 
SURLAG.hru Surface runoff lag time 12.52 (0.05,24) 
SLSOIL.hru Slope length for lateral subsurface flow 131.25 (0,150) 
EPCO.hru Plant uptake compensation factor 0.47 (0,1) 
SOL_K(..).sol Saturated hydraulic conductivity 283.33 (0, 2,000) 
OL_AWC(..).sol Available water capacity of the soil layer 0.52 (0,1) 
CH_N2.rte Manning's n value for the main channel 0.30 (−0.01,0.3) 
SFTMP.bsn Snowfall temperature −4.56 (−20,20) 
SMTMP.bsn Snow melt base temperature 5.33 (−20,20) 
SMFMX.bsn Maximum melt rate for snow during year (occurs on summer solstice) 3.55 (0,20) 
SMFMN.bsn Minimum melt rate for snow during the year (occurs on winter solstice) 19.50 (0,20) 
SNO50COV.bsn Snow water equivalent that corresponds to 50% snow cover 0.25 (0,1) 
CH_K2.rte Effective hydraulic conductivity in main channel alluvium 481.32 (−0.01,500) 
ESCO.hru Soil evaporation compensation factor 0.60 (0,1) 
OV_N.hru Manning's n value for overland flow 17.45 (0.01,30) 
LAT_TTIME.hru Lateral flow travel time 49.07 (0,180) 
CANMX.hru Maximum canopy storage 97.50 (0,100) 
CNOP{..}.mgt SCS runoff curve number for moisture condition 29.13 (0,100) 
RFINC(..).sub Rainfall adjustment 63.25 (0,100) 
TMPINC(..).sub Temperature adjustment 64.98 (0,100) 
SNO_SUB.sub Initial snow water content 69.47 (0,150) 
Table 5

Statistical indicators for model calibration and validation which regulate the flow regime

Calibration (2000–2008)
Validation (2009–2013)
R2NSEPBIASRSRR2NSEPBIASRSR
0.7 0.69 9.7 0.56 0.66 0.61 21.3 0.62 
Calibration (2000–2008)
Validation (2009–2013)
R2NSEPBIASRSRR2NSEPBIASRSR
0.7 0.69 9.7 0.56 0.66 0.61 21.3 0.62 
Figure 3

SWAT model monthly streamflow calibration and validation results.

Figure 3

SWAT model monthly streamflow calibration and validation results.

Close modal

Impacts of climate and land-use change on river runoff

The simulated annual streamflow results show the effects of climate and land-use change on river runoff over the preset scenarios as demonstrated in Table 6. The total variation observed in streamflow is 121.32 m3/s. In the aforementioned total variation in streamflow, climate and land-use changes contributed 74.75 and 46.58 m3/s increase in the streamflow. Climate and land-use change caused 61.61 and 38.39% variations in the streamflow, respectively, in the upper region of the Indus River. It shows that climate change is the major driver in the understudy area which caused variation in the streamflow.

Table 6

Climate and land use change impacts on streamflow under different scenarios

ScenariosPeriodSimulated annual runoff (m3/s)Variation (m3/s)% Climate contribution% Land-use contribution
2000–2008 94.48   
2009–2013 151.23 56.75 61.61 38.39 
2000–2008 129.84 35.36   
2009–2013 123.69 29.21   
ScenariosPeriodSimulated annual runoff (m3/s)Variation (m3/s)% Climate contribution% Land-use contribution
2000–2008 94.48   
2009–2013 151.23 56.75 61.61 38.39 
2000–2008 129.84 35.36   
2009–2013 123.69 29.21   

Climate and land-use changes significantly alter the hydrological cycle. Adaptation methods for water management should consider how climatic variability will impact the hydrological regime and water supplies (Krysanova & White 2015). Tan et al. (2015) used the SWAT model to investigate the effects of land-use change and climatic variability in the Johor River basin, Malaysia where temperature and precipitation showed a significant increasing trend. The results demonstrated that the anticipated climatic variability showed a greater impact on streamflow and evaporation, in comparison to the projected land-use changes.

Climatic effects on streamflow

The SWAT model was used to assess the influence of climate change, i.e. precipitation and temperature (min and max) on the streamflow using four different GCMs. The analysis was carried out for four different periods (2007–2020, 2021–2034, 2035–2048, and 2086–2099). Table 7 shows the future mean annual streamflow of four GCMs at Astore River, Doyian station where a remarkable increase was observed in future streamflow in comparison to its base period (2007–2020).

Table 7

Future prediction of streamflow (m3/s) based on the four GCM models in the upper region of Indus River basin

Model2007–20202021–20342035–20482086–2099
CanESM2 154.98 174.75 (+12.76%) 195.15 (+25.92%) 189.14 (+22.04%) 
GFDL-ESM2G 150.12 178.25 (+18.74%) 183.36 (+22.14%) 173.47 (+15.55) 
MIROC5 154.61 177.48 (+14.79%) 187.61 (+21.34%) 181.2 (+17.2%) 
HadGEM2 158.69 184.45 (+16.23%) 193.85 (+22.16%) 186.77 (+17.7%) 
Model2007–20202021–20342035–20482086–2099
CanESM2 154.98 174.75 (+12.76%) 195.15 (+25.92%) 189.14 (+22.04%) 
GFDL-ESM2G 150.12 178.25 (+18.74%) 183.36 (+22.14%) 173.47 (+15.55) 
MIROC5 154.61 177.48 (+14.79%) 187.61 (+21.34%) 181.2 (+17.2%) 
HadGEM2 158.69 184.45 (+16.23%) 193.85 (+22.16%) 186.77 (+17.7%) 

Neupane et al. (2014) investigated the impacts of climate change on monsoon-driven streamflow in a central Himalayan watershed where predicted streamflow increased during the monsoon and post-monsoon seasons, while decreasing during the pre-monsoon season. Sood et al. (2013) used the SWAT model to assess the climate change impacts on the Volta River Basin in West Africa, where rainfall showed a decreasing trend while air temperature exhibited an increasing trend causing greater variability and reduced (40%) streamflow.

Land-use change effects on streamflow

Land use for the year 2050 was projected using QGIS plugin MOLUSCE. First, the land use of 2001 and 2010 was used to predict the land use of 2015, using CA-ANN. Later, the projected land-use map of 2015 was compared with NASA MODIS land use for correctness and kappa value, which were found to be 80.26 and 0.72%, respectively. After validation, the land use of 2001 and 2018 was used to predict the land use of 2050. Increase and decrease are observed in different land-use classes as demonstrated. Figure 4 and Table 8 depict the area in percentages of variant land-use classes in different years.

Table 8

Area (%) change of different land-use classes

Land-use class200120182050
Evergreen needleleaf forest 0.09% 0.05% 0.08% 
Evergreen broadleaf forest 0.05% 0.03% 0.01% 
Deciduous needleleaf forest 0.05% 0.08% 0.02% 
Deciduous broadleaf forest 0.06% 0.04% 0.12% 
Mixed forest 0.09% 0.09% 0.07% 
Shrubland 0.14% 0.13% 0.12% 
Mixed grassland 0.41% 0.35% 0.25% 
Snow or ice 1.00% 0.90% 1.06% 
Savanna 2.83% 3.19% 3.04% 
Grassland 34.34% 31.90% 27.99% 
Wetlands-mixed 2.31% 2.57% 3.77% 
Mixed dryland 1.94% 3.20% 3.69% 
Residential-medium density 1.86% 2.38% 3.96% 
Cropland/grassland mosaic 1.88% 3.37% 3.89% 
Forest-mixed 9.31% 11.13% 8.77% 
Barren or sparsely vegetated 43.65% 40.55% 43.12% 
Water bodies 0.02% 0.03% 0.03% 
Land-use class200120182050
Evergreen needleleaf forest 0.09% 0.05% 0.08% 
Evergreen broadleaf forest 0.05% 0.03% 0.01% 
Deciduous needleleaf forest 0.05% 0.08% 0.02% 
Deciduous broadleaf forest 0.06% 0.04% 0.12% 
Mixed forest 0.09% 0.09% 0.07% 
Shrubland 0.14% 0.13% 0.12% 
Mixed grassland 0.41% 0.35% 0.25% 
Snow or ice 1.00% 0.90% 1.06% 
Savanna 2.83% 3.19% 3.04% 
Grassland 34.34% 31.90% 27.99% 
Wetlands-mixed 2.31% 2.57% 3.77% 
Mixed dryland 1.94% 3.20% 3.69% 
Residential-medium density 1.86% 2.38% 3.96% 
Cropland/grassland mosaic 1.88% 3.37% 3.89% 
Forest-mixed 9.31% 11.13% 8.77% 
Barren or sparsely vegetated 43.65% 40.55% 43.12% 
Water bodies 0.02% 0.03% 0.03% 
Figure 4

Land-use maps of the study area: (a) 2001 land use, (b) 2018 land use, and (c) the predicted land use of 2050.

Figure 4

Land-use maps of the study area: (a) 2001 land use, (b) 2018 land use, and (c) the predicted land use of 2050.

Close modal

Later, the projected land use of 2050 influence was evaluated on surface runoff using the SWAT model. The results showed that streamflow changes from 0.37 to 1.1% in response to the land use of 2018 and 2050.

The impacts of land-use/land-cover changes are evaluated using present trends and future scenarios. Getachew & Melesse (2012) studied the impacts of land-use change on the Angered watershed in Ethiopia. Decades of land-cover change affect runoff and reservoir inflow. Agricultural and urban areas increased, whereas forest and grassland areas shrank, affecting the mean monthly flow. Baker & Miller (2013) used the SWAT model to investigate how land development affects water resources in Kenya's River Njor. The results showed that dramatic alterations in land use have increased surface runoff and decreased groundwater recharge. Urbanization, agriculture, energy demand, and crop production are expected to grow in the Cedar River Basin of the Midwest, which will increase surface runoff and decrease baseflow (Wu et al. 2013). Schilling et al. (2014) examined the impacts of agricultural land use on flood risk reduction in Iowa's Raccoon River watershed. The study results unveiled that cropland conversion to permanent vegetation reduces the frequency of floods, but not their duration.

Watershed management implications

This study reported that climate change influence on the Indus flow regime overweighs land-use change. Climate change will increase water availability in the short term and decrease it in the long term. This dramatic change in flow regime is attributed to global warming. In the early 21st century, flow is expected to increase in summer followed by a decrease in the same in the late decades of the century. Summer and late spring discharges will increase in the short term because of excessive snowmelt, and in contrast, will decrease in the long term because of the disappearance of glaciers; but their effect will be lessened by rainfall. Some current aspects need re-assessment to improve waters condition in the basin. The sustainability of the current water system in the basin is questionable. Water management practices are suggested to store water which will help to lessen the influences of extreme conditions, i.e. flood and drought. The stored water will be used in the dry season for agriculture, hydropower, industrial, and domestic purposes. Furthermore, plantations are suggested in the study area to decline the increasing trend of air temperature as the sensitivity of streamflow is higher in the study area (Ahmad et al. 2020; Shah et al. 2021).

In this study, the SWAT model was used to evaluate the impacts of climate and land-use change on river runoff in the upper region of the Indus river basin. Future land-use and climate change scenarios are projected through the CA-ANN model and four bias-corrected GCM models, respectively. This study reported the percentage contribution of climate and land-use changes on runoff depth for the adopted as well as projected scenarios. The conclusions can be summarized as follows:

  • (1)

    The simulated results demonstrated that the SWAT model yields good statistical results during calibration (NSE = 0.69, R2 = 0.7, RSR = 0.56, and PBIAS = 9.7) and validation (NSE = 0.61, R2 = 0.66, RSR = 0.62, and PBIAS = 21.3).

  • (2)

    SWAT model was used to isolate the climate and land-use change impacts on river runoff in the upper region of the Indus river basin, Doyain station at Astore River, where the contribution rate of climate and land-use changes on surface runoff was 61.61 and 38.39%, respectively.

  • (3)

    GCMs (CanESM2, GFDL-ESM2G, MIROC5, and HadGEM2) based on CMIP5 have good applicability in the study area for the assessment of future climate change. Simulations with the calibrated model were conducted for 2007–2020, 2021–2034, 2035–2048, and 2086–2099 periods, where an increase was observed in the average annual river runoff.

  • (4)

    The predicted land use of 2050 by the CA-ANN model indicated an increasing trend of river runoff in the future by 1.1%.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

Ahmad
W.
,
Khan
A. U.
,
Khan
F. A.
,
Farooq
M.
,
Baig
A. A.
,
Shah
L. A.
&
Khan
J.
2020
How vegetation spatially alters the response of precipitation and air temperature? Evidence from Pakistan
.
Asian J. Atmos. Environ.
14
(
2
),
133
145
.
Bashir
N.
,
Saeed
R.
,
Afzaal
M.
,
Ahmad
A.
,
Muhammad
N.
,
Iqbal
J.
,
Khan
A.
,
Maqbool
Y.
&
Hameed
S.
2020
Water quality assessment of lower Jhelum canal in Pakistan by using geographic information system (GIS)
.
Groundwater for Sustainable Development
10
,
100357
.
Birkinshaw
S. J.
,
Guerreiro
S. B.
,
Nicholson
A.
,
Liang
Q.
,
Quinn
P.
,
Zhang
L.
,
He
B.
,
Yin
J.
&
Fowler
H. J.
2017
Climate Change Impacts on Yangtze River Discharge at the Three Gorges Dam
.
Daud
M.
,
Nafees
M.
,
Ali
S.
,
Rizwan
M.
,
Bajwa
R. A.
,
Shakoor
M. B.
,
Arshad
M. U.
,
Chatha
S. A. S.
,
Deeba
F.
&
Murad
W.
2017
Drinking water quality status and contamination in Pakistan
.
BioMed research international
2017
,
7908183
.
Du
J.
,
Wang
K.
&
Cui
B.
2021
Attribution of the extreme drought-related risk of wildfires in spring 2019 over Southwest China
.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society
102
(
1
),
S83
S90
.
Gebremeskel
S.
,
Liu
Y. B.
,
De Smedt
F.
,
Hoffmann
L.
&
Pfister
L.
2004
Analysing the effect of climate changes on streamflow using statistically downscaled GCM scenarios
.
Int. J. River Basin Manag.
2
,
271
280
.
Getachew
H. E.
&
Melesse
A. M.
2012
The impact of land use change on the hydrology of the Angereb Watershed, Ethiopia
.
Int. J. Water Sci.
1
(
6
).
Khan
A.
,
Ghoraba
S.
,
Arnold
J. G.
&
Di Luzio
M.
2014
Hydrological modeling of upper Indus Basin and assessment of deltaic ecology
.
Int. J. Mod. Eng. Res.
4
,
73
85
.
Krysanova
V.
&
White
M.
2015
Advances in water resources assessment with SWAT—an overview
.
Hydrological Sciences Journal
60
(
5
),
771
783
.
Lutz
A.
,
Immerzeel
W.
,
Shrestha
A.
&
Bierkens
M.
2014
Consistent increase in High Asia's runoff due to increasing glacier melt and precipitation
.
Nat. Clim. Change
4
,
587
592
.
Memarian
H.
,
Balasundram
S. K.
,
Abbaspour
K. C.
,
Talib
J. B.
,
Boon Sung
C. T.
&
Sood
A. M.
2014
SWAT-based hydrological modelling of tropical land-use scenarios
.
Hydrol. Sci. J.
59
,
1808
1829
.
Mukheibir
P.
2007
Access to Water – the Impact of Climate Change in Small Municipalities
.
Nanding
N.
,
Chen
Y.
,
Wu
H.
,
Dong
B.
,
Tian
F.
,
Lott
F. C.
,
Tett
S. F.
,
Rico-Ramirez
M. A.
,
Chen
Y.
&
Huang
Z.
2020
Anthropogenic influences on 2019 July precipitation extremes over the mid–lower reaches of the Yangtze River
.
Frontiers in Environmental Science
8
,
230
.
Neitsch
S. L.
,
Arnold
J. G.
,
Kiniry
J. R.
&
Williams
J. R.
2011
Soil and Water Assessment Tool Theoretical Documentation Version 2009
.
Texas Water Resources Institute, College Station, TX
.
Nguyen
H.
,
Mehrotra
R.
&
Sharma
A.
2020
Assessment of climate change impacts on reservoir storage reliability, resilience, and vulnerability using a multivariate frequency bias correction approach
.
Water Resour. Res.
56
,
e2019WR026022
.
Obuobie
E.
,
Kankam-Yeboah
K.
,
Amisigo
B.
,
Opoku-Ankomah
Y.
&
Ofori
D.
2012
Assessment of water stress in river basins in Ghana
.
J. Water Clim. Change
3
,
276
286
.
Pokhrel
Y.
,
Felfelani
F.
,
Satoh
Y.
,
Boulange
J.
,
Burek
P.
,
Gädeke
A.
,
Gerten
D.
,
Gosling
S. N.
,
Grillakis
M.
&
Gudmundsson
L.
2021
Global terrestrial water storage and drought severity under climate change
.
Nature Climate Change
11
(
3
),
226
233
.
Rathjens
H.
,
Bieger
K.
,
Srinivasan
R.
,
Chaubey
I.
&
Arnold
J.
2016a
CMhyd User Manual
.
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
.
Rathjens
H.
,
Bieger
K.
,
Srinivasan
R.
,
Chaubey
I.
&
Arnold
J.
2016b
CMhyd User Manual: Documentation for Preparing Simulated Climate Change Data for Hydrologic Impact Studies
.
Texas A&M University, College Station, TX
.
Schilling
K. E.
,
Gassman
P. W.
,
Kling
C. L.
,
Campbell
T.
,
Jha
M. K.
,
Wolter
C. F.
&
Arnold
J. G.
2014
The potential for agricultural land use change to reduce flood risk in a large watershed
.
Hydrol. Process.
28
(
8
),
3314
3325
.
Shah
L. A.
,
Khan
A. U.
,
Khan
F. A.
,
Khan
Z.
,
Rauf
A. U.
,
Rahman
S. U.
,
Iqbal
M. J.
,
Ahmad
I.
&
Abbas
A.
2021
Statistical significance assessment of streamflow elasticity of major rivers
.
Civil Eng. J.
7
(
5
),
893
905
.
Stocker
T.
,
Clarke
G.
,
Le Treut
H.
,
Lindzen
R.
,
Meleshko
V.
,
Mugara
R.
,
Palmer
T.
,
Pierrehumbert
R.
,
Sellers
P.
&
Trenberth
K.
2001
IPCC, 2001: Climate Change 2001: the Scientific Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Third Assessment Report of the IPCC
.
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge, UK
, pp.
417
470
.
Sun
F.
,
Roderick
M. L.
,
Lim
W. H.
&
Farquhar
G. D.
2011
Hydroclimatic projections for the Murray-Darling Basin based on an ensemble derived from Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change AR4 climate models
.
Water Resour. Res.
47
,
1
14
.
Tan
M. L.
,
Ibrahim
A. L.
,
Yusop
Z.
,
Duan
Z.
&
Ling
L.
2015
Impacts of land-use and climate variability on hydrological components in the Johor River basin, Malaysia
.
Hydrological Sciences Journal
60
(
5
),
873
889
.
Wilby
R. L.
,
Hay
L. E.
,
Gutowski Jr
W. J.
,
Arritt
R. W.
,
Takle
E. S.
,
Pan
Z.
,
Leavesley
G. H.
&
Clark
M. P.
2000
Hydrological responses to dynamically and statistically downscaled climate model output
.
Geophys. Res. Lett.
27
,
1199
1202
.
Yu
W.
,
Zhao
Y.
,
Nan
Z.
&
Li
S.
2013
Improvement of snowmelt implementation in the SWAT hydrologic model
.
Acta Ecol. Sin.
33
,
6992
7001
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).