The impact of climate change on the water resource potential of the Gibe III watershed, Omo-Gibe Basin, Ethiopia, was investigated using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model and selected climate models of Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) for future projection. Because the Omo-Gibe Basin in general and the Gibe III watershed in particular was the source of hydropower generation, more work toward updating knowledge of climate change impact on it is required so as to manage the sustained use of the water resource and prevent sedimentation of the reservoir. High-resolution (0.25° × 0.25°) datasets of some general circulation models (GCMs) such as GFDL-ESM2M, MPI-ESM-MR, CSIRO-MK3-6-0, NorESM1-M, and MIROC5 were downloaded for six stations. After calibrating and validating the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model, the impact of climate change was simulated. Accordingly, the annual precipitation was expected to increase by 8.4 and 21.1% during 2050 and 2080, respectively; mean temperature was projected to increase by 1.85 and 2.8 °C in 2050 and 2080, respectively; the stream flow was expected to increase by 55.5 and 81% by 2050 and 2080, respectively, from the base period (1990–2017). The scenario of mean annual sediment yield would increase by 64.5 and 138% by 2050 and 2080, respectively. Therefore, actions toward reducing excess runoff production in the catchment and timely removal of sediment from the reservoir are required.

  • The impact of climate change on the water resource potential of the Gibe III watershed was evaluated. Accordingly, the following results were projected for 2050 and 2080, respectively.

  • Annual precipitation projected to increase by 8.4 and 21.1%.

  • The mean temperature is projected to increase by 1.85 and 2.8 °C.

  • The stream flow will increase by 55.5 and 81%.

  • The sediment yield is expected to increase by 64.5 and 138%.

Worldwide, climate change causes considerable economic and environmental risks. Increase in concentration of greenhouse gases could nearly double by the year 2100 (IPCC 2007) owing to the historic increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), methane (CH4), nitrous oxide (N2O), F-gases (fluorinated gases) (HFCs), among others (IPCC 2014). General Circulation Models (GCMs) are the vital resource used to perform climate change experiments globally, regionally, and at very fine scale-ups to identify climate patterns (Trzaska & Schnar 2014). While the resolution of GCM is quite coarse relative to the scale of exposure units in most impact assessments, several physical processes around the globe occur at smaller scales and cannot be properly modeled. Nowadays, GCMs take more and more components into account including sophisticated models of the sea ice, the carbon cycle, ice sheet dynamics, and even atmospheric chemistry (Goosse et al. 2013). Even though climate models are powerful tools for describing regional and local-scale climate conditions, climate variables either for present or future periods obtained directly from simulation of the model outputs are of limited value for impact study as they are coarse in nature (Jakob et al. 2011).

Evaluating the expected impact of climate change is a standard practice to develop adaptation mechanisms for its adverse effect on water resource availability and on agriculture in general, and stream flow and sediment yield of a given catchment in particular (Stocker 2013). With climate change threatening and uncertainty rising to its potential impacts, research is needed to examine how possible changes might affect water resources. The sustainable economic growth and development of Ethiopia is dependent on the proper utilization of agricultural land as well as on hydropower generation. The potential impact of climate change on the hydropower projects, such as flow condition and sedimentation problems, requires up-to-date information. Surface runoff was dominantly increased in the future scenarios and periods from the water balance components. A monthly analysis of precipitation indicated the reduction in April and May with drastic increase in wet seasons, peaking in October rather than in August. Belg season rainfall (March, April, and May) will likely reduce under all future scenarios. Higher precipitation is expected in November, indicating that the wet season will be long, and the dry season rainfall will be reduced or at risk. The future prediction of annual sediment yield showed an increase of above 50 and 100% during the 2050s and 2080s, respectively, for both scenarios. Therefore, integrated watershed management activities that could reduce excess runoff production in the catchment and facilitate infiltration to ground water and stream flow as well as timely removal of sediment from the reservoir are required. As this study was done with station-based climate model selection, further study is recommended applying each of the climate model datasets in all stations around the watershed. Among physically based, spatially distributed hydrological models, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model has been applied widely (Fontaine et al. 2001; Ficklin et al. 2009; Githui et al. 2009; Setegn 2010; Li et al. 2011; Mengistu & Sorteberg 2012; Shrestha et al. 2012) to evaluate the potential impact of climate change on stream flow and sedimentation. Those who applied the SWAT model in this study area did not give emphasis to analyzing the sediment yield component, which was the main focus here in this study, and therefore the application of SWAT under future climate change scenarios (IPCC 2013) to get the stream flow and sediment yield at Gibe III watershed is very important. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the impacts of climate change on the stream flow, sediment yield, and water resource potential at the Gibe III watershed using climate models with NASA NEX-GDDP datasets and the SWAT hydrologic model. This article is structured as follows: Introduction; Materials and Methods; Results and Discussion; Conclusion and Recommendations, and finally, a list of References.

Description of the study area

Location

The study watershed, Gibe III, as shown in Figure 1, is located in the Omo-Gibe River Basin, in the middle reaches of the Omo River, 450 km south of Addis Ababa, at latitude 6.6°–9.4°N and longitude 35.78°–38.42°E (Negash et al. 2016).
Figure 1

Gibe-III watershed location.

Figure 1

Gibe-III watershed location.

Close modal

The catchment area is 34,154 km2 and the estimated long-term average discharge is 438.2 m3/s (EEPCO 2009). According to the Water Works Design and Supervision Enterprise (WWDSE), in association with the South Design and Construction Supervision Enterprise (SDCSE) (2013), the monthly flow ranges from 60 m3/s in March to 1,500 m3/s in August. The Gibe III hydropower station includes a 243-m-high dam, which forms a reservoir with an area of approximately 200 km2, having live storage of approximately 11,750 mm3. Administratively, the reservoir spans 5 zones and 12 woredas, extending from the southern Omo zone downstream to Lake Turkana (UNEP 2013). Climates vary from hot and dry climates in the south to tropical humid highlands including the extreme north and northwest. The rainfall ranges from 1,200 to 1,900 mm and is uni-modal in the northern and central parts of the basin and bimodal in the southern part. The calculated average annual rainfall for the entire Gibe III Basin where the dam is located is 1,426 mm, with 75–80% of the annual precipitation falling between May and September. The mean annual temperatures in the basin vary from 16 °C in the northern highlands to more than 29 °C in the southern lowlands (EEPCO 2009).

The topography of the Omo-Gibe Basin is characterized by its physical variation. The northern two-thirds of the basin has mountainous to hilly terrain cut by deeply incised gorges of the Omo, Gojeb, and Gilgel Gibe River, while the southern one-third of the basin is a flat alluvial plain punctuated by hilly areas. The study watershed has an altitude range of 681–3,466 m.a.s.l (EEPCO 2009). The major land-use types in the study area are forest lands, urban areas, rangeland, agricultural lands, water bodies, and other built-up areas (Takala et al. 2016). In very broad terms, most of the northern catchments of the watershed are under extensive cultivation with increased pressure of cultivated areas into marginal lands at the expense of woodlands. The flatter and poorly drained bottomlands of the northern catchments are usually not cultivated but are used for dry season grazing and eucalyptus tree plantations. The eastern part of the area has some of the most densely populated and intensively farmed areas. The natural vegetation at the south of the area is sparse owing to deforestation, which has been increasing at an alarming rate (EEPCO 2009).

Method of analysis

NEX-GDDP NASA dataset and climate change scenarios

Climate change evaluation was based on model results collected as part of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) World Climate Research Program's (WCRP's) multi-model dataset (Meehl et al. 2007; Flato et al. 2013). Among different GCM models, GFDL-ESM2M, MPI-ESM-MR, CSIRO-MK3-6-0, NorESM1-M, and MIROC5 for the Woliso, Jimma, Shebe, Hosaina, and Sodo & Sekoru stations, respectively, were used as data source models (Table 1) (refer to Supplementary material Figures 1-6). The data of each of the models were spatially interpolated to represent the watershed area. The model results were available for the Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) 4.5 (medium to low emission) and RCP 8.5 (high to medium emissions) scenarios (Table 2). These models were selected based on the evaluation of station-based data with observations of respective station data obtained from the National Meteorological Agency (NMA) of Ethiopia (Abiy et al. 2022). The models provide daily precipitation and temperature data, which were bias-corrected statistical downscaled future data downloaded for each scenario, from the NEX-GDDP NASA dataset.

Table 1

Description of selected climate models used in this study

NumberModelCountry and institution
01 MPI-ESM-MR Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Germany 
02 CSIRO-Mk3-6-0 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence, Australia 
03 MIROC5 Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, Japan 
04 GFDL-ESM2M Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, America 
05 NorESM1-M Norway Consumer Council, Norway 
NumberModelCountry and institution
01 MPI-ESM-MR Max Planck Institute for Meteorology, Germany 
02 CSIRO-Mk3-6-0 Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organization Queensland Climate Change Centre of Excellence, Australia 
03 MIROC5 Atmosphere and Ocean Research Institute, Japan 
04 GFDL-ESM2M Geophysical Fluid Dynamics Laboratory, America 
05 NorESM1-M Norway Consumer Council, Norway 
Table 2

Explanation of emission scenarios of future climate projection

ScenariosDefinitionCountry
RCP 4.5 Becomes peak in total radiative forcing at +4.5 W/m2 before 2100 and decline United States by the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI) 
RCP 8.5 Raising radiative forcing pathway leading to +8.5 W/m2 in 2100 Austria at the International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA) 
ScenariosDefinitionCountry
RCP 4.5 Becomes peak in total radiative forcing at +4.5 W/m2 before 2100 and decline United States by the Joint Global Change Research Institute (JGCRI) 
RCP 8.5 Raising radiative forcing pathway leading to +8.5 W/m2 in 2100 Austria at the International Institute for Applied System Analysis (IIASA) 

SWAT model set up

For setting up of the SWAT model, meteorological data, hydrological data, digital elevation model (DEM) data, and land-use, land-cover (LULC) data of 2018 were used as input data. Accordingly, routine steps including watershed delineation, hydrological response unit (HRU) analysis, weather data input preparation, running SWAT, parameter sensitivity analysis using SWATCUP SUFI2 algorithm, calibrations, and model performance evaluation were applied procedurally. The SWAT default multiple HRU definition criteria with land, soil, and slope ratio of 20:10:20 (settings for land-use threshold (20%); soil threshold (10%); and slope threshold (20%) of individual sub-basin area) was selected in most SWAT applications (Winchell et al. 2012). The SWAT description is available at the SWAT link: https://swat.tamu.edu/docs/

Study of climate change impact on stream flow and sediment yield

Relative to the base period of 1990–2017, the effect of future climate change on stream flow and sediment yield was studied for the short term (2040–2069) and long term (2071 2099) using statistically downscaled datasets for climate variables (precipitation, maximum and minimum temperatures). The NEX-GDDP dataset for the selected five models output at each station (GFDL-ESM2M model for Woliso station, MPI-ESM-MR for Jimma station, CSIRO-MK3-6-0 for Shebe station, NorESM1-M for Hosaina station, and MIROC5 model for both Sodo and Sekoru stations) were used as input for the SWAT model to generate the future flow and sediment yield. The NEX-GDDP dataset of NASA, used in the aforementioned five models for emission scenario RCPs 4.5 and 8.5, was downloaded and used for climate change projection. After the routine steps of parameter selection, sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validation, the calibrated SWAT model was used for estimation of stream flow and sediment yield under future scenarios for 2050 and 2080.

Uncertainty analysis

In general, the sources of uncertainties of climate scenarios are multiple. The climate system itself is too complex to be represented in a numerical model and contains a number of assumptions and parameterizations that each climate modeling center approaches differently. Uncertainties in climate scenarios and GCM outputs may be much larger (Abdo et al. 2009). Uncertainties in projected changes in a hydrological system arise from internal variability of the climate; uncertainty in future greenhouse gas and aerosol emissions; the translation of these emissions into climate change by global climate models; hydrological model uncertainty; uncertainty caused by sufficiency of field data at all scales; and uncertainty of downscaling techniques (Bates et al. 2008).

The uncertainties emanating from SWAT parameters, input data, and model structure are handled through the sequential and uncertainty fitting algorithm (SUFI-2) tool of the SWATCUP (Soil and Water Assessment Tool–Calibration and Uncertainty Procedure) software (Abbaspour et al. 2007). The program links the Generalized Likelihood Uncertainty Estimation (GLUE; Beven and Binley 1992). The paper also included r-factors and p-factors, which also indicate the result of the uncertainty analysis.

The routine work followed in this study was shown in Figure 2, starting with indicating the source of data and data type as well as a description of how the SWAT model contributed to this study. Meteorological data include precipitation, maximum and minimum temperature, sunshine hours, relative humidity, and wind speed. Hydrological data include discharge and sediment data for model calibration and validation. DEM with spatial resolution of 30 m and land-use map of 2018 obtained from satellite image as well as soil data from the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) soil database were used as spatial data sources. The detailed flowchart is shown in Figure 2.
Figure 2

Flow chart for general framework of this study.

Figure 2

Flow chart for general framework of this study.

Close modal

Evaluation of climate data for selected models

The results of the statistical evaluation for mean monthly and mean annual rainfall for the base scenario (1976–2005) at the selected stations for the representative models are provided in Table 3.

Table 3

Statistical evaluation results of mean monthly and annual rainfall for selected stations

StationSelected modelEvaluation statistics for monthly mean
Annual mean (mm)
RMSENSEObserved rainfall (mm)Model rainfall (mm)ObservedModelDifferenceDifference (%)
Hosaina NorESM 19.75 0.89 0.88 102.62 101.4 1,231.47 1,216.9 −14.57 −1.2 
Jimma MPI-ESM-MR 11.97 0.98 0.97 123.49 123.2 1,481.92 1,478 −3.92 −0.3 
Shebe CSIRO-Mk3-6-0 16.03 0.97 0.94 127.29 126.4 1,527.49 1,516.7 −10.79 −0.7 
Sodo MIROC5 19.43 0.97 0.91 108.60 100.8 1,302.90 1,209.7 −93.2 −7.2 
Sekoru MIROC5 17.95 0.94 0.96 108.91 111.8 1,306.88 1,342.1 35.22 2.7 
Woliso GFDL-ESM2M 26.68 0.92 0.91 103.04 109.0 1,236.51 1,308.1 71.59 5.8 
Overall Mean 18.64 0.95 0.93 112.33 112.1 1,347.86 1,345.3 −2.6 −0.9 
StationSelected modelEvaluation statistics for monthly mean
Annual mean (mm)
RMSENSEObserved rainfall (mm)Model rainfall (mm)ObservedModelDifferenceDifference (%)
Hosaina NorESM 19.75 0.89 0.88 102.62 101.4 1,231.47 1,216.9 −14.57 −1.2 
Jimma MPI-ESM-MR 11.97 0.98 0.97 123.49 123.2 1,481.92 1,478 −3.92 −0.3 
Shebe CSIRO-Mk3-6-0 16.03 0.97 0.94 127.29 126.4 1,527.49 1,516.7 −10.79 −0.7 
Sodo MIROC5 19.43 0.97 0.91 108.60 100.8 1,302.90 1,209.7 −93.2 −7.2 
Sekoru MIROC5 17.95 0.94 0.96 108.91 111.8 1,306.88 1,342.1 35.22 2.7 
Woliso GFDL-ESM2M 26.68 0.92 0.91 103.04 109.0 1,236.51 1,308.1 71.59 5.8 
Overall Mean 18.64 0.95 0.93 112.33 112.1 1,347.86 1,345.3 −2.6 −0.9 

The results indicated that each model best represents the station. The maximum deviation of the respective model's mean annual rainfall from the observation was obtained at Sodo station, with 7.2%. However, the minimum difference was observed as 0.3% at Jimma station indicating the best representation of observation by the model rainfall data. Higher and Nash Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) values that approach 1 indicate the model efficiency to represent the respective observation data in the area. Accordingly, the relation between model and observed data resulted in and NSE of greater than 0.7 for the selected models of the station. According to Table 3, the models selected were applicable in representing the observation in each station based on statistical test values such as RMSE, RSQ, and NSE. Moreover, the overall variation of the mean precipitation between the model and observation was about 0.9%, which indicates the acceptance of models for future prediction of precipitation (refer to Supplementary data Tables 3–4).

The monthly amount of rainfall for each selected station is indicated in Figure 3, the best graphical fit shows the appropriateness of each model for the respective stations (refer to Supplementary data Tables 1–2). However, underestimation was observed for the months of July and August for the Sodo station rainfall although overall mean rainfall for Gibe III watershed showed better agreement between observed data and the model. The mean annual rainfall at Gibe III is shown in Figure 4 as 1,342.9 and 1,345.2 mm during 1976–2005 for mean observed and model data, respectively, showing the best agreement. The mean annual maximum temperature of 25.3 and 25.0 °C and mean annual minimum temperature of 12.5 and 10.7 °C was obtained for the observed and model data, respectively, which shows better agreement (Figure 4). Generally, the observation and model mean at each month are not significantly different in amount and pattern (Figures 3 and 4). The precipitation and temperature pattern and magnitude were reproduced by the selected models at the watershed at the base period so that its projection of future climate could be applied for simulation of the hydrological process in the watershed.
Figure 3

Distribution of monthly precipitation of the six meteorological stations in the watershed and the model outputs in the respective stations for the period 1976–2005 for the Gibe III watershed.

Figure 3

Distribution of monthly precipitation of the six meteorological stations in the watershed and the model outputs in the respective stations for the period 1976–2005 for the Gibe III watershed.

Close modal
Figure 4

Long-term (1976–2005) mean monthly precipitation and maximum and minimum temperatures at the watershed for observation and mean of five models.

Figure 4

Long-term (1976–2005) mean monthly precipitation and maximum and minimum temperatures at the watershed for observation and mean of five models.

Close modal

Future climate change projections

The future climate changes in the short term (2040–2069) and the long term (2071–2099) were analyzed by comparing the future downscaled climate parameter with the base period (1990–2017). The climate change estimation was made using the RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 from the NEX-GDDP dataset from NASA.

Figure 5 shows that the Belg season rainfall (March, April, and May) will likely be reduced under all future scenarios. It is expected to get higher precipitation in November, indicating that the wet season will be long, and the dry season rainfall will be reduced or at risk.
Figure 5

Change of future projection of monthly mean precipitation at the Gibe III watershed.

Figure 5

Change of future projection of monthly mean precipitation at the Gibe III watershed.

Close modal

Mean annual rainfall and temperature changes from the base scenario

During the 2050s and 2080s, the projected rainfall result indicates that mean annual rainfall is expected to increase by 3.2 and 11.0% in the RCP 4.5 scenario, while the increments were 9.7 and 29.5% in the case of the RCP 8.5 scenario, respectively (Table 4) (refer to Supplementary data Figures 7–10). The result is consistent with the report of the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) (2013) undertaken for the Gibe III watershed. It summarized that the annual rainfall would increase in the range of −3 to +25% by the 2080s. According to McSweeney et al. (2012), by the year 2100, an increase of more than 20% in precipitation is expected. A similar result was obtained by using the prediction model ensemble mean compared with the base line period, with the rainfall expected to increase by 36.57% (Ashenafi 2017).

Table 4

Change in temperature and rainfall during the 2050s and 2080s under RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 emission scenarios relative to 2000s (1990–2017, base scenario) mean output of climate models

Data periodTmax (°C)ΔTmax (°C)Tmin (°C)ΔTmin (°C)Annual rainfall (mm)Δ Annual rainfall (%)
Base scenario 2000s 25.8 – 12.8 – 1,354.7 – 
RCP 4.5 2050s 26.6 0.8 12.2 −0.6 1,398.9 3.2 
 2080s 26.96 1.16 12.7 −0.1 1,503.7 11.0 
RCP 8.5 2050s 27.2 1.4 12.8 1,486.6 9.7 
 2080s 28.6 2.8 14.3 1.5 1,754.6 29.5 
Data periodTmax (°C)ΔTmax (°C)Tmin (°C)ΔTmin (°C)Annual rainfall (mm)Δ Annual rainfall (%)
Base scenario 2000s 25.8 – 12.8 – 1,354.7 – 
RCP 4.5 2050s 26.6 0.8 12.2 −0.6 1,398.9 3.2 
 2080s 26.96 1.16 12.7 −0.1 1,503.7 11.0 
RCP 8.5 2050s 27.2 1.4 12.8 1,486.6 9.7 
 2080s 28.6 2.8 14.3 1.5 1,754.6 29.5 

Note: Change in temperature and rainfall is relative to 2000s (1990–2017, base period).

Similarly, the mean annual maximum and minimum temperature changes are provided in Table 4, indicating that, during 2050s and 2080s, maximum temperature increase of about 0.8 and 1.2 °C in the case of RCP 4.5 is expected, while it is expected to increase by 1.4 and 2.8 °C in the RCP 8.5 scenario. The finding of the report by UNEP (2013) at the same watershed shows that the change in mean temperature during the 2080s would range between 1.8 and 4.3 °C. Field et al. (2014) reported that as a result of the current and past anthropogenic greenhouse gas emissions, the global surface temperature is likely to increase by 3–6 °C for the RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 by 2100.

Conversely, the minimum temperature increases by about −0.6 and −0.1 °C in the RCP 4.5 scenario, while it increases by 0 and 1.5 °C in the RCP 8.5 scenario. The overall trend of mean temperature at both scenarios is shown in Figure 6. The increment for RCP 8.5 was at an increasing rate, while it was slightly decreasing for RCP 4.5 (Figure 6). This result is in agreement with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) (2013) that, because RCP 8.5 had higher emission of greenhouse gases than the RCP 4.5 scenario, the projected increment in temperature change under RCP 4.5 was lower than under RCP 8.5. However the mean annual rainfall in both scenarios showed an increasing trend (Figure 7), which was also reported by Melkamu et al. (2017) for the same watershed.
Figure 6

The trend of mean annual temperature for the two different emission scenarios.

Figure 6

The trend of mean annual temperature for the two different emission scenarios.

Close modal
Figure 7

The trend of annual rainfall for the two different emission scenarios.

Figure 7

The trend of annual rainfall for the two different emission scenarios.

Close modal

According to the work of different scholars such as Rowel et al. (2015), Souverijns et al. (2016), Ongoma and Chen (2017), Muhati et al. (2018), and Shiferaw (2018), the projected increase of surface temperatures and rainfall for the East African region by GCM dataset was expected. Their results conclude that annual rainfall and temperature will increase in the 21st century relative to the 20th century. In addition to the increased annual temperature by 0.38, 0.96, and 0.77 °C by the end of 2035, 2050, and 2065, respectively, the report of similar studies at this watershed showed increasing annual precipitation by 5.31, 3.07, and 0.31% in the short term, mid-term, and long term, respectively (Melkamu et al. 2017; Mango et al. 2021).

Impact of climate change on water resource potential

SWAT model parameter sensitivity analysis

The parameter selection and sensitivity analysis were performed with repeated and procedural steps in a SWATCUP setup; the most sensitive parameters were obtained for Abelti gauge station for stream flow and sediment yield as provided in Table 5.

Table 5

Sensitive parameter rank for both flow and sediment modeling at the Abelti station

Flow parameter sensitivity
Sediment parameter sensitivity
Parametert-Statp-valueRankParametert-Statp-valueRank
1:R__CN2 −13.6 0.00 6:V__USLE_C −27.26 0.00 
6:V__LAT_TTIME 11.98 0.00 13:R__CN2 −21.11 0.00 
13:V__GW_REVAP 2.25 0.03 5:V__SPEXP 11.08 0.00 
12:V__HRU_SLP −1.56 0.12 9:V__USLE_P −8.47 0.00 
3:R__SOL_BD 1.52 0.13 14:V__CH_N2 −6.37 0.00 
5:V__OV_N 1.25 0.22 1:V__HRU_SLP −4.13 0.00 
22:V__CH_K2 −1.16 0.25 4:V__SPCON 2.68 0.01 
20:V__SLSUBBSN 0.91 0.37 3:V__CH_K2 2.51 0.01 
9:R__SOL_AWC −0.80 0.42 8:V__BIOMIX −1.85 0.07 
17:R__SOL_K 0.71 0.48 10 2:V__SLSUBBSN 0.84 0.40 10 
2:V__ALPHA_BF −0.52 0.61 11 12:V__CH_COV2 0.75 0.45 11 
18:V__RCHRG_DP 0.50 0.62 12 10:V__RSDIN −0.42 0.67 12 
10:V__REVAPMN −0.47 0.64 13 7:R__USLE_K −0.24 0.81 13 
16:V__GWQMN −0.39 0.69 14 11:V__CH_COV1 0.22 0.83 14 
11:V__ESCO 0.39 0.69 15 – – –  
7:V__ALPHA_BNK −0.39 0.70 16 – – –  
4:V__GW_DELAY −0.34 0.73 17 – – –  
8:V__CANMX 0.29 0.77 18 – – –  
15:V__CH_S2 0.23 0.82 19 – – –  
21:V__SURLAG −0.21 0.83 20 – – –  
14:V__CH_N2 0.05 0.96 21 – – –  
19:V__EPCO −0.04 0.97 22 – – –  
Flow parameter sensitivity
Sediment parameter sensitivity
Parametert-Statp-valueRankParametert-Statp-valueRank
1:R__CN2 −13.6 0.00 6:V__USLE_C −27.26 0.00 
6:V__LAT_TTIME 11.98 0.00 13:R__CN2 −21.11 0.00 
13:V__GW_REVAP 2.25 0.03 5:V__SPEXP 11.08 0.00 
12:V__HRU_SLP −1.56 0.12 9:V__USLE_P −8.47 0.00 
3:R__SOL_BD 1.52 0.13 14:V__CH_N2 −6.37 0.00 
5:V__OV_N 1.25 0.22 1:V__HRU_SLP −4.13 0.00 
22:V__CH_K2 −1.16 0.25 4:V__SPCON 2.68 0.01 
20:V__SLSUBBSN 0.91 0.37 3:V__CH_K2 2.51 0.01 
9:R__SOL_AWC −0.80 0.42 8:V__BIOMIX −1.85 0.07 
17:R__SOL_K 0.71 0.48 10 2:V__SLSUBBSN 0.84 0.40 10 
2:V__ALPHA_BF −0.52 0.61 11 12:V__CH_COV2 0.75 0.45 11 
18:V__RCHRG_DP 0.50 0.62 12 10:V__RSDIN −0.42 0.67 12 
10:V__REVAPMN −0.47 0.64 13 7:R__USLE_K −0.24 0.81 13 
16:V__GWQMN −0.39 0.69 14 11:V__CH_COV1 0.22 0.83 14 
11:V__ESCO 0.39 0.69 15 – – –  
7:V__ALPHA_BNK −0.39 0.70 16 – – –  
4:V__GW_DELAY −0.34 0.73 17 – – –  
8:V__CANMX 0.29 0.77 18 – – –  
15:V__CH_S2 0.23 0.82 19 – – –  
21:V__SURLAG −0.21 0.83 20 – – –  
14:V__CH_N2 0.05 0.96 21 – – –  
19:V__EPCO −0.04 0.97 22 – – –  

Among selected parameters, the SCS_CN for moisture condition II (Cn2), lateral flow travel time (LAT_TTIME), groundwater ‘revap’ coefficient (GW_REVAP.gw), average slope steepness (HRU_SLP), soil bulk density (SOL_BD.sol), Manning's ‘n’ value for overland flow (OV_N), effective hydraulic conductivity in main channel alluvium (CH_K2, average slope length (SLSUBBSN), soil conductivity (SOL_K), and soil available water capacity (Sol_AWC) were found to be sensitive parameters that have important roles in the hydrological process in the study watershed among all the tested 22 parameters. In addition, about eight of the most sensitive parameters were obtained to have high effect on the simulated sediment yield values. Therefore, parameters such as USLE cover or management factor (USLE_C), the SCS_CN for moisture condition II (Cn2), exponential factor for channel sediment routing (SPEXP), USLE support practice factor (USLE_ P), Manning's ‘n’ value for the main channel (CH_N2), average slope steepness (HRU_SLP), linear factor for channel sediment routing (SPCON), and effective hydraulic conductivity in main channel alluvium (CH_K2) were highly sensitive parameters for sediment yield simulation in the watershed. Considering the limitations of parameterization with respect to physical meaning of the parameter in the area (parameters expected to affect stream flow and sediment yield but not top sensitive), additional parameters were considered for calibration and validation of the SWAT model for both variables (flow and sediment).

Stream flow and sediment yield calibration and validation

For flow calibration, about 11 parameters from flow parameters and 7 parameters (not including common parameters of flow and sediment) from sediment parameters were selected. Attention was given to prevent over-parameterization, loss of meaning of the parameters, and missing the reasonability of the output. Table 6 shows the selected sensitive parameters, ranges of parameter values, and fitted value results.

Table 6

Flow and sediment yield calibrated parameters

Parameters of flow
Parameters of sediment
ParameterValue fittedMinMaxParameterFitted valueMinMax
CN2 * −0.06 35 98 SPCON 0.0009 0.0001 0.01 
ALPHA_BF 0.30 SPEXP 1.14 1.11 1.5 
SOL_BD* 0.14 0.9 2.5 USLE_C 0.28 0.001 0.5 
OV_N 26.58 0.01 30 USLE_K* 0.09 0.65 
LAT_TTIME 25.78 180 USLE_P 0.57 
SOL_AWC* 0.09 RSDIN 8,954 10,000 
HRU_SLP 0.36 CH_COV2 0.47 −0.001 
GW_REVAP 0.10 0.02 0.2     
SLSUBBSN 37.02 10 150     
CH_K2 16.26 –0.01 500     
SOL_K* −0.25 2,000     
Parameters of flow
Parameters of sediment
ParameterValue fittedMinMaxParameterFitted valueMinMax
CN2 * −0.06 35 98 SPCON 0.0009 0.0001 0.01 
ALPHA_BF 0.30 SPEXP 1.14 1.11 1.5 
SOL_BD* 0.14 0.9 2.5 USLE_C 0.28 0.001 0.5 
OV_N 26.58 0.01 30 USLE_K* 0.09 0.65 
LAT_TTIME 25.78 180 USLE_P 0.57 
SOL_AWC* 0.09 RSDIN 8,954 10,000 
HRU_SLP 0.36 CH_COV2 0.47 −0.001 
GW_REVAP 0.10 0.02 0.2     
SLSUBBSN 37.02 10 150     
CH_K2 16.26 –0.01 500     
SOL_K* −0.25 2,000     

Note: Parameters with asterisk were treated as relative change so that the original parameter value in SWAT is multiplied by (1 + fitted value).

Flow and sediment yield calibration and validation result

Based on the streamflow and sediment yield calibration and validation results, the SWAT model's efficiency was assessed using the criteria provided in Table 7 which is supported by Moriasi et al. (2007), Nash & Sutcliffe (1970), and Santhi et al. (2001).

Table 7

Performance ratings for the recommended statistics from Moriasi et al. (2007) 

RatingPBIAS (%)
NSEStream flowSediment
Very good 0.75 − 1.0 0.75 − 1.00 Less than ±10 Less than ±15 
Good 0.65 − 0.75 0.65 − 0.75 ±10 to ±15 ±15 to ±30 
Satisfactory 0.60 − 0.65 0.50 − 0.65 ±15 to ±25 ±30 to ±55 
Unsatisfactory <0.6 <0.5 More than ±25 More than ±55 
RatingPBIAS (%)
NSEStream flowSediment
Very good 0.75 − 1.0 0.75 − 1.00 Less than ±10 Less than ±15 
Good 0.65 − 0.75 0.65 − 0.75 ±10 to ±15 ±15 to ±30 
Satisfactory 0.60 − 0.65 0.50 − 0.65 ±15 to ±25 ±30 to ±55 
Unsatisfactory <0.6 <0.5 More than ±25 More than ±55 

Note: PBIAS means percent bias in %.

For the stream flow performance evaluation, the computed statistical indicators provided in Table 8 resulted in an R2, NSE, and percent bias (PBIAS) of 0.90, 0.87, and −5.8% for calibration and 0.82, 0.77, and 14.8% for the validation period, respectively. According to the Moriasi et al. (2007) recommendations, the statistical indicators show very good model performance both for periods of calibration and validation for flow and sediment yield. The statistical results of 0.87, 0.86, and −6.0% for R2, NSE, and PBIAS at the calibration and 0.75, 0.73, and 10.9% for R2, NSE, and PBIAS at validation periods were observed for sediment yield, which confirms that the sediment yield is well reproduced by the model. The monthly measured and simulated flows in the calibration and validation periods were demonstrated by the acceptable results of R2, NSE, and PBIAS as well as the monthly mean values. Monthly mean observed and simulated flow at calibration was 218.75 and 231.79 m3/s, respectively, while that of validation was 226.37 and 192.92 m3/s, respectively. The flow result was simulated well approaching the observed discharge. The result confirms that the model could be applicable for use in the watershed. Similarly, the mean monthly sediment yield at the Abelti catchment was found to be 1.05 and 1.11 Mton from the observed data and the simulation for the calibration, respectively, while it was 1.01 and 0.9 Mton for the observed data and the simulation for validation, respectively. The good agreement direct linkage charts between monthly rainfall pattern (Figure 8) with observed and simulated discharge values strengthens the better performance of the model. The calibration and validation graphs in Figure 9 indicate the best fit of the observation with simulated model outputs although the peak flows in some years were underestimated. The reports of authors such as Khan et al. (2023) and Aqnouy et al. (2023) show that the SWAT model underestimates the high flow and overestimates the low flow. Based on the criteria of Moriasi et al. (2007), the performance of the model was obtained to be very good and good in modeling stream flow and sediment yield, respectively. Sediment yield simulation in the model indicated good performance with acceptable range and so that can be used for further application.
Table 8

Performance evaluation statistic of the model for flow and sediment calibration at Abelti sub-watershed

VariableMean obs.aMean sim.aR2NSEPBIASp-factorr-factor
Flow Calibration 218.75 231.39 0.9 0.87 −5.80 0.85 1.05 
Validation 226.37 192.92 0.82 0.77 14.8 0.83 1.23 
Sediment Calibration 105 × 104111 × 1040.87 0.86 −6.0 0.78 0.85 
Validation 101 × 10490 × 1040.75 0.73 10.9 0.67 0.67 
VariableMean obs.aMean sim.aR2NSEPBIASp-factorr-factor
Flow Calibration 218.75 231.39 0.9 0.87 −5.80 0.85 1.05 
Validation 226.37 192.92 0.82 0.77 14.8 0.83 1.23 
Sediment Calibration 105 × 104111 × 1040.87 0.86 −6.0 0.78 0.85 
Validation 101 × 10490 × 1040.75 0.73 10.9 0.67 0.67 

aMonthly (m3/s) for flow and tons for sediment load.

Figure 8

Calibration and validation of monthly mean stream flow at the Abelti sub-watershed (1993–2010) with rainfall interlinkage.

Figure 8

Calibration and validation of monthly mean stream flow at the Abelti sub-watershed (1993–2010) with rainfall interlinkage.

Close modal
Figure 9

Calibration and validation of monthly mean sediment yield at the Abelti sub-watershed (1993–2010).

Figure 9

Calibration and validation of monthly mean sediment yield at the Abelti sub-watershed (1993–2010).

Close modal

Uncertainty analysis for the Abelti sub-watershed

The degree to which all uncertainties are accounted for is quantified by a measure of the p-factor, which is the percentage of the measured data bracketed by 95% prediction uncertainty (95PPU) (Abbaspour et al. 2007). Similarly, r-factor is used as the measure quantifying the strength of a calibration or uncertainty analysis, which is the average thickness of the 95PPU band divided by the standard deviation of the measured data (Abbaspour 2013). Theoretically, a p-factor of 1 (all observations bracketed by the prediction uncertainty) and r-factor of 0 (achievement of rather small uncertainty band) indicate that the simulation exactly corresponds to the measured data but p-factor ranges between 0 and 100%, while that of r-factor ranges between 0 and infinity. The degree to which they are away from these numbers can be used to judge the strength of our calibration. When acceptable values of r-factor and p-factor are reached, then the parameter uncertainties are the desired parameter ranges (Moriasi et al. 2007).

According to Table 8, the result of flow calibration and validation at Abelti gave p-factors of 0.85 and 0.83 and r-factor 1.05 and 1.23, respectively. Calibration and validation of sediment yield indicated p-factors of 0.78 and 0.67 and r-factors of 0.85 and 0.67, respectively. The result indicates that 85% of the measured data were bracketed by the 95PPU range of uncertainty in the output for flow calibration, and 83% during validation, which is in the range of acceptance. During the calibration and validation, the thickness of the uncertainty band was obtained as 95PPU of the r-factors 1.05 and 1.23 for flow and 0.85 and 0.67 for sediment yield, respectively. Setegn et al. (2009) justified that low p-factors and large r-factors in uncertainty simulation could be due to the error in the rainfall and temperature input data, which may be the reason for the results in this study as well, for the validation periods indicating a 38% r-factor. The area has complex topography and a highly converting land-use land-cover condition that could also increase uncertainty more than the model structure.

Stream flow and sediment yield simulation for future periods

The climate data of 2050 and 2080 for both RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 for the selected models were used as input for the calibrated SWAT model, and the flow and sediment responses were analyzed as follows. The result in Table 9 shows that climate change will have a prominent effect on stream flow and sediment load. It indicates an increasing amount of stream flow and sediment yield by 2050 and 2080 in both the RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios. The relative increase of flow from the current situation was 54 and 74% for RCP 4.5 for 2050 and 2080, while it was 56 and 117% for RCP 8.5 for 2050 and 2080, respectively. The response was directly linked to increasing future rainfall (Dao & Tadashi 2013). Similarly, sediment load was expected to increase in future climate change conditions under the RCP 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios (Table 9) from the 3.78Mton at the current condition to the 10.15Mton (169% increase) at RCP 8.5 in 2080.

Table 9

Stream flow and sediment condition under future climate change scenarios

VariableScenarioRCP 4.5
RCP 8.5
Current2050208020502080
Mean monthly stream flow (m3/s) 499.9 770.8 873.4 783.4 1,087.1 
Percent change relative to current (%) – 54 74 56 117 
Mean monthly sediment load (Mton) 3.78 6.02 7.83 6.44 10.15 
Percent change relative to current (%) – 59 107 70 169 
VariableScenarioRCP 4.5
RCP 8.5
Current2050208020502080
Mean monthly stream flow (m3/s) 499.9 770.8 873.4 783.4 1,087.1 
Percent change relative to current (%) – 54 74 56 117 
Mean monthly sediment load (Mton) 3.78 6.02 7.83 6.44 10.15 
Percent change relative to current (%) – 59 107 70 169 

The projected effect of climate change in monthly mean stream flow and sediment yield in each month of the future periods for the RCPs 4.5 and 8.5 scenarios are indicated in Table 9. The result shows a significant increase in stream flow and sediment yield for both periods and scenarios. At the same watershed, Ashenafi (2017) also reported the projections with increasing stream flow in both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 emission scenarios.

Generally, both RCP scenarios showed quite similar patterns of increment in projected monthly precipitation, stream flow, and sediment yield in the study area. Similar findings were reported by some other scholars including Shrestha et al. (2013), Adem et al. (2015), and Azari et al. (2016). Figure 10 displays the projected mean monthly flow and sediment yield at the outlet of the Gibe III watershed under all RCP scenarios and periods.
Figure 10

The projected monthly stream flow and sediment yield for the future scenario.

Figure 10

The projected monthly stream flow and sediment yield for the future scenario.

Close modal

As it is shown in Figure 10, the high flow months (June to October) were expected to increase in all scenarios relative to the dry months (November to May) in the current situation. The result shows significantly higher mean monthly stream flow and sediment yield under the RCP 8.5 emission scenario during 2080 than others in the rainy season. The peaks of sediment yield exactly follow similar patterns of stream flow peaks as also reported by Kumar & Mishra (2014), justifying that the sediment yields have a direct link and trend with simulated runoff peaks.

The future prediction shows that the average monthly sediment yield at the outlet would increase in all months during both scenarios and periods (Figure 11) except April and May, which had shown decreased sedimentation by 13% during the 2050s at RCP 4.5 and 51% during the 2080s at RCP 8.5 for April, while it was decreased by 0.9% during the 2080s for RCP 4.5 and 11.9% during the 2080s at RCP 8.5 for May. These months were considered together as the period of low flow (Figures 8 and 9) as the sediment will have less opportunity to be transported (refer to Supplementary data Tables 6–7). The percent of increment for RCP 8.5 (high emission) scenario was higher in flow and sediment yield than RCP 4.5 (medium emission) scenario. The result is in line with Rizwan et al. (2010) who researched the upper Blue Nile using different GCM outputs, which showed that the runoff increases in the future in the major rainy seasons. In general, climate change results in an increase in stream flow in Gibe III watershed, which is one of the major contributors to Lake Turkana (UNEP 2013). Meanwhile, the increase in flow will feed a significant amount of water for irrigation into the downstream site (EEPCO 2009; Abdella et al. 2013). Therefore, in general, the effect of climate change may increase the runoff and sediment yield at the watershed much more than could result from excess flow affecting the downstream part of the basin.
Figure 11

Percentage change of projected average stream flow and sediment yield at the Gibe III watershed for 2040–2070 and 2071–2099 under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 relative to the current condition (1990–2017).

Figure 11

Percentage change of projected average stream flow and sediment yield at the Gibe III watershed for 2040–2070 and 2071–2099 under RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 relative to the current condition (1990–2017).

Close modal

Evaluation of water balance components

The main water balance components of the basin include: the total amount of precipitation, actual evapotranspiration, and the net amount of water that contributes to stream flow in the reach (water yield). The water yield includes surface runoff contributing to stream flow, lateral flow contributing to stream flow, groundwater contributing to stream flow minus the losses. The period from 1990 to 2017 was used as the current period (base period) to analyze the impact of climate change on stream flow and sediment yield. The daily precipitation and minimum and maximum temperatures used for the future prediction purpose were from the period 2040–2069 for the 2050s and 2070–2099 for the 2080s, which was input for calibrating the SWAT model. The result in Table 10 shows that the variation of discharge is strongly linked with the increasing trend of precipitation in the future.

Table 10

Water balance component as affected by future periods and climate change scenarios

Hydrological componentCurrent period2050s
2080s
Δ(2050s) %
Δ(2080s) %
RCP 4.5RCP 8.5RCP 4.5RCP 8.5RCP 4.5RCP 8.5RCP 4.5RCP 8.5
PCP (mm) 1,286.1 1,442.1 1,509.9 1,551.6 1,800.6 12.1 17.4 20.6 40.0 
Sur_Q (mm) 149.91 260.5 316.8 321.0 446.9 73.7 111.3 114.1 198.1 
Lat_Q (mm) 52.12 48.3 43.7 48.2 48.3 −7.3 −16.2 −7.5 −7.3 
Qgw (mm) 282.47 438.6 398.9 474.3 554.0 55.3 41.2 67.9 96.1 
WYD (mm) 484.5 747.4 759.4 843.5 1,049.2 54.2 56.7 74 116.5 
ET (mm) 646.1 567.7 528.2 577.7 614.6 −12.1 −18.2 −10.6 −4.9 
Sediment load (t/ha) 60.6 90.8 80.0 145.2 122.0 49.7 32.0 139.5 101.1 
Hydrological componentCurrent period2050s
2080s
Δ(2050s) %
Δ(2080s) %
RCP 4.5RCP 8.5RCP 4.5RCP 8.5RCP 4.5RCP 8.5RCP 4.5RCP 8.5
PCP (mm) 1,286.1 1,442.1 1,509.9 1,551.6 1,800.6 12.1 17.4 20.6 40.0 
Sur_Q (mm) 149.91 260.5 316.8 321.0 446.9 73.7 111.3 114.1 198.1 
Lat_Q (mm) 52.12 48.3 43.7 48.2 48.3 −7.3 −16.2 −7.5 −7.3 
Qgw (mm) 282.47 438.6 398.9 474.3 554.0 55.3 41.2 67.9 96.1 
WYD (mm) 484.5 747.4 759.4 843.5 1,049.2 54.2 56.7 74 116.5 
ET (mm) 646.1 567.7 528.2 577.7 614.6 −12.1 −18.2 −10.6 −4.9 
Sediment load (t/ha) 60.6 90.8 80.0 145.2 122.0 49.7 32.0 139.5 101.1 

PCP, precipitation; Sur_Q, surface runoff; Lat_Q, lateral flow into stream; WYD, total water yield; ET, evapotranspiration; GW, groundwater recharge (percolation below root zone).

As can be seen from Figure 12, the annual precipitation, surface flow, ground flow, water yield, and sediment load in the watershed are projected to increase in future climate change scenarios for both RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5 as compared with the current condition (1990–2017). The percentage increment of total average annual water yield may be due to increasing surface flow and ground flow as the evapotranspiration (ET) and lateral flow will likely reduce in the future. As predicted by SWAT model, the annual water yield was expected to increase by 54.2 and 56.7% during the 2050s and by 74 and 116.5% during the 2080s relative to the current period (1990–2017) under RCPs 4.5 and 8.5, respectively. Similar findings were obtained by Beyene et al. (2010) and Dile et al. (2013) by modeling for the upper Blue Nile Basin and Gilgel Abay River, respectively. One can calculate from Table 10 that ET would be decreased by 15.2 and 7.7% in the 2050s and 2080s, respectively, relative to the 2000s. This result is consistent with the justification of Neitsch et al. (2002) that rainfall is the driving factor in variation of runoff and other water balance components while increase in CO2 concentration contributes in reducing ET rates and increasing surface runoff. While ET rates are known to increase with higher temperature, increasing humidity, and higher CO2 concentrations, both tend to reduce transpiration and counteract the higher temperature effects on ET (Snyder et al. 2011). As it could be observed from Table 10, the mean basin annual sediment load was also expected to increase by 40.9 and 120.4% in the future periods of 2050s and 2080s, respectively. However, it was observed that sediment load showed a decrease with increasing CO2 emission scenarios (118 t/ha at RCP 4.5 and 101 t/ha at RCP 8.5). In the 2050s, it is expected to be 90 t/ha under RCP 4.5 and 80 t/ha under RCP 8.5, while in the 2080s, it is expected to be 145 t/ha under the RCP 4.5 and 122 t/ha under the RCP 8.5 scenarios. Although the increasing annual precipitation, surface runoff, and water yield were observed at the higher emission scenario and future period, the sediment yield was not consistent with the increase in the scenario as it was higher in the RCP 4.5 than in the RCP 8.5 emission scenario, which indicates the influence of other factors on sedimentation. The slight reduction of the annual sediment load at a high emission scenario may be the case of the redistribution of sediments affected by combined effect of higher temperature, rainfall, and CO2 concentration. Similar findings were obtained by Rodríguez-Blanco et al. (2016) who applied the SWAT model for simulating future stream flow and sediment yield. The result of the simulation indicates the opportunity to obtain higher discharge and sediment loads in the future from the watershed, although the percentage changes were observed to be higher in the long-term climate change scenario. In general, sediment yield from the Gibe III watershed is likely to increase with climate change, which strongly indicates the need for sediment management strategies in the area.
Figure 12

Predicted annual change in water resource potential at different climate change scenarios.

Figure 12

Predicted annual change in water resource potential at different climate change scenarios.

Close modal

It was observed for RCP 4.5 that the mean annual sediment yield was expected to increase by 49.7 and 139.5% in the 2050s and 2080s, respectively. Under the RCP 8.5 scenario, it was also expected to increase by 32 and 101.1% during the 2050s and 2080s, respectively. According to the results, precipitation and sediment yield share a strong relationship, which confirms the previous findings of Mullan et al. (2012), Dao & Tadashi (2013), Cousino et al. (2015), and Azim et al. (2016). The Gibe III reservoir's typical maximum capacity since it began filling in mid-2015 is approximately 8.3 km3. At periods of minimum water levels, the reservoir's capacity is approximately 4.1 km3. According to SOGREAH 2010, the anticipated capacity of the Gibe III reservoir was expected to be 14,700 mm3 at its maximum level, with 2,950 Mm3 of dead volume and 11,750 Mm3 of active volume. It controls about 50% of the Omo catchment area, and about 70% of the total water runoff. Based on the estimated volume in the Gibe III reservoir at an annual maximum water level, the reservoir is approximately 6 km3 below its planned capacity (Sogreah 2010). This indicates that there may be a potential for additional water abstraction behind the dam in the future.

The study on the response of water resource potential to possible future climate change at the Gibe III watershed, Omo-Gibe Basin, is a very important and current issue. The impact of climate change on stream flow, sediment yield and water resource potential in the Gibe III watershed was evaluated. The dataset output downloaded from five GCM climate models (GFDL-ESM2M, MPI-ESM-MR, CSIRO-MK3-6-0, NorESM1-M, and MIROC5), spatially covering the watershed area for different climate stations, were used to project the future climate condition and predict future stream flow, sediment yield, and water resource potential. These climate models used the NASA NEX-GDDP dataset centered at two different time slices (2050s and 2080s) under two emission scenarios (RCPs 4.5 and 8.5). This study was expected to show the effect of climate change on the water balance component so that planners of the watershed could develop preventive action plans for sustaining water resource potential. Similarly, due to the expanding agricultural land in the watershed, the risk of sediment flow to the reservoir was currently considered as the issue in the area that should be predicted and known under different climate change scenarios and future periods. With regard to monthly rainfall variation in the area, which could affect monthly stream flow, modeling the future projection was very important to implement preventive action as a solution to an expected event. The finding showed an increasing trend for annual precipitation of 6.2 and 11.8% under RCP 4.5 during the 2050s and 2080s as well as 10.5 and 30.4% under RCp 8.5 during the 2050s and 2080s, respectively. The maximum temperature was expected to increase by 1.9 and 2.80 °C during the 2050s and 2080s, while the minimum temperature was also projected to increase by 1.8 and 2.81 °C during the 2050s and 2080s, respectively. The result showed in the future surface runoff amount would likely dominate, increasing relative to other water balance components. The annual sediment yield would increase by about 50% during the 2050s under the RCP 4.5 emission scenario and by more than 100% during the 2080s under both emission scenarios. The monthly sediment yield will change by more than 50 and 100% during the 2050s and 2080s under both emission scenarios, which requires more attention with respect to saving reservoir life year. The belg season (from February to May) will likely be dry and the kiremt season (from June to September) is projected to be long, shifting the peak month from August to October by the 2050s.

The SWAT model output shows that the stream flow was expected to increase by 55 and 95.5% during the 2050s and 2080s, respectively, relative to base period (1990–2017). The response was directly related to increasing future rainfall and surface runoff. The annual sediment yield at the watershed outlet was projected to increase by 64.5 and 138% during the 2050s and 2080s, respectively. Except for the months of April and May, all other months showed increasing sediment loads. Under RCP 4.5, the average annual basin sediment load was 91 and 145.2 t/ha (during the 2050s and 2080s, respectively), while under RCP 8.5 it was 80 and 122.0 t/ha (during the 2050s and 2080s, respectively) so that the mean of 118 t/ha at the RCP 4.5 and 101 t/ha at the RCP 8.5 emission scenario was predicted. The slight reduction of annual basin mean sediment load at the high emission scenario may be due to the combined effect of higher temperature, rainfall, and CO2 concentration. In general, it is likely that the climate change may increase the runoff and sediment yield at the watershed much more if the watershed is not properly managed to reduce surface flow. The monthly analysis shows that the wet months may bring flooding to the river, and thus, environmental conservation measures need to be emphasized to avoid the failure of structures and ecological disturbance. It is also better to focus on harvesting excess water from the wet season to minimize the effects of droughts that could follow the high flow season. The sedimentation of the reservoir could be reduced by upstream watershed management interventions and frequent removal of sediment from the reservoir. Overall, the results highlight the need for development and cooperation in the region to encourage robust management strategies for climate resilience and to combat rapid climate change in the basin. The overall output of this study gave us critical issues that we should focus on, such as reducing excess surface runoff, preventing sedimentation in the reservoir, and preparing flood control structures at downstream sites because increasing precipitation especially during the wet season is expected. Generally, the findings show the requirement of additional dam construction downstream in the future. Moreover, a further similar study is recommended using the NASA NEX-GDDP dataset on other climate models of CMIP5 as well as using the dataset of one single climate model downloaded for all climate stations spatially covering the watershed. Studies with other hydrological models are also suggested so as to build confidence by reducing possible uncertainty in the decision-making in hydrological design and water resources management of the watershed.

The authors gratefully acknowledge the National Meteorological Agency of Ethiopia for provision of observed data. Similarly, the authors acknowledge the Climate Analytics Group and NASA Ames Research Center for preparing the official website (https://dataserver.nccs.nasa.gov/thredds/catalog/bypass/NEX-GDDP/bcsd/catalog.html) and making it possible to download the NASA NEX-GDDP dataset distributed by the NASA Center for Climate Simulation (NCCS).

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

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Abbaspour
K. C.
2013
SWAT-CUP 2012: SWAT Calibration and Uncertainty Programs. SWAT User Manual
.
Eawag and Swiss Federal Institute of Aquatic Science and Technology
,
Dubendorf
.
Abbaspour
K. C.
,
Vejdani
M.
&
Haghighat
S.
2007
SWATCUP calibration and uncertainty programs for SWAT
. In: Proceeding of Intl. Congress on Modelling and Simulation (MODSIM'07) (Oxley, L. & Kulasiri, D., eds.).
Modelling and Simulation Society of Australia and New Zealand
,
Melbourne
, pp.
1603
-
1609
.
Abdella
M.
,
Wolfgang
F.
,
Disse
M.
&
Robert
R. N.
2013
The Effect of Climate Change on Water Resources Potential of Omo Gibe Basin, Ethiopia
.
PhD Dissertation
,
Unpublished
.
Abdo
K.
,
Fiseha
B. M.
,
Rientjes
T. H. M.
,
Gieske
A. S. M.
&
Haile
A. T.
2009
Assessment of climate change impacts on the hydrology of Gilgel Abay catchment in Lake Tana basin, Ethiopia
.
Hydrol. Processes
23
,
3661
3669
.
Abiy
G.
,
Asfaw
K.
&
Yali
E. W.
2022
Reliability of NASA NEX-GDDP dataset in reproducing climatological mean temperature and precipitation over the Gibe III Watershed, Omo-Gibe Basin, Ethiopia
.
East Afr. J. Sci.
16
(
2
),
133
154
.
Adem
A.
,
Tilahun
S.
,
Ayana
E.
,
Worqlul
A.
,
Assefa
T.
,
Dessu
S.
&
Melesse
A.
2015
Climate change impact on sediment yield in the Upper Gilgel Abay Catchment, Blue Nile Basin, Ethiopia
. In:
Landscape Dynamics, Soils and Hydrological Processes in Varied Climates
.
Springer Geogr
.
Aqnouy
M.
,
Ahmed
M.
,
Ayele
G. T.
,
Bouizrou
I.
,
Bouadila
A.
&
Stitou El Messari
J. E.
2023
Comparison of hydrological platforms in assessing rainfall-runoff behavior in a Mediterranean watershed of Northern Morocco
.
Water
15
,
447
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030447
.
Ashenafi
G.
2017
Evaluation of the Impacts of Climate Change on Water Resources of OMO-Gibe River Basin. MSc Thesis: Case Study of Gibe III Catchment Addis Ababa University. Available from: http://etd.aau.edu.et/handle/123456789/9315 (accessed 20 July 2021)
.
Azari
M.
,
Reza
H.
,
Saghafian
B.
&
Faramarzi
M.
2016
Climate change impacts on stream flow and sediment yield in the North of Iran
.
Hydrol. Sci. J.
61
,
123
133
.
Azim
F.
,
Shakir
A.
,
Rehman
H.
&
Kanwal
A.
2016
Impact of climate change on sediment yield for Naran watershed, Pakistan
.
Int. J. Sediment Res.
31
,
212
219
.
Bates
B. C.
,
Kundzewicz
Z.
,
Wu
W. S.
&
Palutikof
J. P.
2008
Climate Change and Water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
.
IPCC Secretariat
,
Geneva, Switzerland
, p.
210
.
Beyene
T.
,
Lettenmaier
P.
&
Kabat
P.
2010
Hydrological impacts of climate change on the Nile River Basin: Implications of the 2007 IPCC scenarios
.
Clim. Chang.
100
,
433
461
.
doi: 10.1007/s10584-009-9693-0
.
Cousino
L. K.
,
Becker
R. H.
&
Zmijewski
K. A.
2015
Modeling the effects of climate change on water, sediment, and nutrient yields from the Maumee River watershed
.
J. Hydrol.: Reg. Stud.
4
,
762
775
.
doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2015.06.017
.
Dao
N.
&
Tadashi
S.
2013
Assessment of climate change impacts on hydrology and sediment yield in the river catchment, Vietnam
.
Hydraul. Eng.
69
,
31
36
.
EEPCO (Ethiopian electric power corporation)
2009
Environmental and social management plan for Gibe III hydroelectric project: prepared by Salini contractor and MDI international consulting engineers 238p
Ficklin
L.
,
Luo
Y.
,
Luedeling
E.
&
Zhang
M.
2009
Climate change sensitivity assessment of a highly agricultural watershed using SWAT
.
J. Hydrol.
374
(
1–2
).
Field
C. B.
,
Barros
V. R.
,
Dokken
D. J.
,
Mach
K. J.
,
Mastrandrea
M. D.
,
Bilir
T. E.
,
Chatterjee
M.
,
Ebi
K. L.
,
Estrada
Y. O.
,
Genova
R. C.
,
Girma
B.
,
Kissel
E. S.
,
Levy
A. N.
,
MacCracken
S.
,
Mastrandrea
P. R.
&
White
L. L.
2014
Climate Change 2014: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability: Part A: Global and Sectoral Aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, New York, NY, p. 1132
.
Flato
G.
,
Marotzke
J.
,
Abiodun
B.
,
Braconnot
P.
,
Chou
S. C.
,
Collins
W.
,
Cox
P.
,
Driouech
F.
,
Emori
S.
,
Eyring
V.
,
Forest
C.
,
Gleckler
P.
,
Guilyardi
E.
,
Jakob
C.
,
Kattsov
V.
,
Reason
C.
&
Rummukainen
M.
2013
Evaluation of climate models
. In:
Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
(
Stocker
T. F.
,
Qin
D.
,
Plattner
G.-K.
,
Tignor
M.
,
Allen
S. K.
,
Boschung
J.
,
Nauels
A.
,
Xia
Y.
,
Bex
V.
&
Midgley
P. M.
, eds).
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge, United Kingdom
.
and New York, NY, USA
.
Fontaine
A.
,
Klassen
F.
,
Cruickshank
S.
&
Hotchkiss
H.
2001
Hydrological response to climate change in the Black Hills of South Dakota, USA
.
Hydrol. Sci. J.
46
, (
1
),
27
40
.
Githui
F.
,
Gitau
W.
,
Mutua
F.
&
Bauwens
W.
2009
Climate change impact on SWAT simulated streamflow in western Kenya
.
Int. J. Climatol.
29
,
1823
1834
.
doi:10.1002/ioc.1828
.
Goosse
H.
,
Barriat
Y.
,
Lefebvre
W.
,
Loutre
F.
&
Zunz
V.
2013
Introduction to climate dynamics and climate modeling. Available from: http://www.climate.be/textbook (accessed 2 September 2017)
.
IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change)
2007
Climate change 2007: synthesis report. Contribution of working groups I, II and III to the fourth assessment report of the Intergovernmental panel on climate change (Core Writing Team, R.K Pachauri & A. Reisinger, eds). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, p. 104
.
IPCC
2013
Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (T. Stoker, D. Qin, K. Lattner, M. Tigner, K. Allen, J. Boschung, A. Nauels, Y. Xia, V. Bex, P. Midgley, eds). Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, New York, USA
.
IPCC
2014
Climate Change 2014: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. (Core Writing Team, R.K. Pachauri & L.A. Meyer eds.). IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, pp. 151
.
Jakob
M.
,
Gobiet
A.
&
Leuprecht
A.
2011
Empirical-statistical downscaling and error correction of daily precipitation from regional climate models
.
Int. J. Climatol.
31
(
10
),
1530
1544
.
doi:10.1002/joc.2168
.
Khan
S.
,
Khan
A. U.
,
Khan
M.
,
Khan
F. A.
,
Khan
S.
&
Khan
J.
2023
Intercomparison of SWAT and ANN techniques in simulating streamflows in the Astore Basin of the Upper Indus
.
Water Sci. Technol.
88
(
7
),
1847
1862
.
doi: 10.2166/wst.2023.299. PMID: 37831000
.
McSweeney
C.
,
New
M.
&
Lizcano
G.
2012
UNDP Climate Change Country Profiles: Ethiopia
.
Meehl
G. A.
,
Covey, C., Delworth, T., Latif, M., McAvaney, B., Mitchell, J. F. B., Stouffer, R. J. & Taylor, K. E.
2007
The WCRP CMIP3 multi-model dataset —A new era in climate change research
.
Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc.
88
,
1383
1394
.
Melkamu
T. A.
,
Negash
W. A.
&
Abdella
K. M.
2017
Assessment of the impacts of climate change on Gibe-III reservoir using Reliability, Resilience and Vulnerability (RRV) indices
.
Int. J. Sci. Eng. Res.
8
(
10
),
1606
.
ISSN 2229-5518. Available from: http://www.ijser.org.
Mengistu
T.
&
Sorteberg
A.
2012
Sensitivity of SWAT simulated streamflow to climatic changes within the Eastern Nile River basin
.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
16
,
391
407
.
doi:10.5194/hess-16-391-2012
.
Moriasi
N.
,
Arnold
G.
,
Van Liew
W.
,
Bingner
L.
,
Harmel
D.
&
Veith
L.
2007
Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations
.
Am. Soc. Agric. Biol. Eng.
2007
(
50
),
885
900
.
Muhati
G. L.
,
Olago
D.
&
Olaka
L.
2018
Past and projected rainfall and temperature trends in a sub-humid Montane Forest in Northern Kenya based on the CMIP5 model ensemble
.
Global Ecol. Conserv
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gecco.2018.e00469
Nash
E.
&
Sutcliffe
V.
1970
River flow Forecasting Through Conceptual Models:Part I
.
Negash
T.
,
Ayalew
T.
&
Endashaw
M.
2016
Proceeding of the Second National Consultative Workshop on Integrated Watershed Management on Omo-Gibe Basin. Jointly Organized by Jimma University and PHE Ethiopia Consortium. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Neitsch
S. L.
,
Arnold
J. G.
,
Srinivasan
R.
&
Williams
J. R.
2002
Soil and Water Assessment Tool User's Manual
.
Texas Water Resources Institute
,
Collegue Station, TX, USA
, p.
506
.
Ongoma
V.
&
Chen
H.
2017
Temporal and spatial variability of temperature and precipitation over East Africa from 1951 to 2010
.
Meteorol. Atmos. Phys.
129
(
2
),
131e144
.
Springer Vienna. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00703-016-0462-0
Rizwan
N.
,
Timothy
B.
,
Mohamed
S.
&
Mohamed
E.
2010
Blue Nile runoff sensitivity to climate change
.
Open Hydrol. J.
2010
(
4
),
137
151
.
Rodríguez-Blanco
M.
,
Arias
R.
,
Taboada-Castro
M.
,
Nunes
J.
,
Keizer
J.
&
Taboada-Castro
M.
2016
Potential impact of climate change on suspended sediment yield in NW Spain: A case study on the Corbeira catchment
.
Water
8
(
10
),
444
.
doi: 10.3390/w8100444
.
Rowel
D. P.
,
Booth
B. B.
,
Nicholson
S. E.
&
Good
P.
2015
Reconciling past and future rainfall trends over East Africa
.
J. Clim.
28
(
24
),
9768
9788
.
Santhi
C.
,
Arnold
J. G.
,
Williams
,
J. R.
,
Dugas
,
W. A.
,
Srinivasan
R.
&
Hauck
L. M.
2001
Validation of the SWAT Model on a Large River Basin with point and nonpoint sources
.
JAWRA
37
(
5
),
1169
1188
.
Setegn
S. G.
2010
Modelling Hydrological and Hydrodynamic Processes in Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia
.
PhD Thesis
,
Royal Institute of Technology
,
Stockholm, Sweden
.
Setegn
S. G.
,
Srinivasan
R.
,
Dargahi
B.
&
Melesse
A. M.
2009
Spatial delineation of soil erosion vulnerability in the Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia
.
Hydrological Processes
23
(
26
),
3738
-
3750
.
Shrestha
B.
,
Bebel
S.
,
Maskey
S.
,
van Griensven
A.
,
Uhlenbrook
S.
,
Green
A.
&
Akkharath
I.
2012
Impact of climate change on sediment yield in the Mekong River Basin: A case study of the Nam Ou Basin, Lao PDR
.
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss.
9
,
3339
3384
.
Shrestha
B.
,
Babel
M.
,
Maskey
S.
,
Van
A.
,
Uhlenbrook
S.
,
Green
A.
&
Akkharath
I.
2013
Impact of climate change on sediment yield in the Mekong River basin: A case study of the Nam Ou basin, Lao PDR
.
J. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.
17
,
1
20
.
Snyder
R. L.
,
Moratiel
R.
,
Song
Z.
,
Swelam
A.
,
Jomaa
I.
&
Shapland
T.
2011
Evapotranspiration response to climate change
.
Acta Hortic.
922
,
91
98
.
doi:10.17660/actahortic.2011.922
.
Sogreah
,
2010
Ethopua Gibe III hydropower project. Independent review and studies regarding & social impact asseseents for the Gibe III hydropower project. Final report. May 2010. Prepared for European Investiment Bank
.
Souverijns
N.
,
Thiery
W.
,
Demuzere
M. M.
&
Van Lipzig
N. P.
2016
Drivers of Future Changes in East African Precipitation
.
IOP Publishing
, pp.
0
9
.
Stocker
T.
2013
The Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
.
Cambridge University Press
,
Cambridge, UK
.
Takala
W.
,
Adugna
T.
&
Tamam
D.
2016
Land use land cover change analysis using multi temporal landsat data in Gilgel Gibe, Omo Gibe Basin, Ethiopia
.
Int. J. Sci. Technol.
5
(
7
).
Trzaska
S.
&
Schnar
E.
2014
Review of Downscaling Methods for Climate Change Projections
.
African and Latin American Resilience to Climate Change (ARCC)
,
Burlington, Vermont
.
UNEP (United Nations Environment Programme)
2013
Ethiopia's Gibe III Dam: It's Potential Impact on Lake Turkana Water Levels (A Case Study Using Hydrologic Modeling and Multi-Source Satellite Data). Division of Early Warning and Assessment (DEWA)
.
UNEP
.
Winchell
M.
,
Srinivasan
R.
,
Di Luzio
M.
&
Arnold
J.
2012
ArcSWAT Interface for SWAT2012. User's Guide. Blackland Research and Extension Center Texas AgriLife Research 720 Texas 76502
.
WWDSE (Water Works Design Supervision Enterprise in Association with SDCSE)
2013
Kuraz Sugar Development Project Sectoral Study Reports: Climatology and Hydrology Study Report
.
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/).

Supplementary data