The Krishnagiri reservoir is the main source of irrigation in Tamil Nadu, India. It has been reported to be hypereutrophic for over a decade with sediment and nutrient load sources responsible for the degradation of water quality. Remotely sensed satellite imagery analysis plays a significant role in assessing the water quality for developing a management strategy for reservoirs. The present study is an attempt to demonstrate the improvement in the chlorophyll-a (chl-a) estimation in the Krishnagiri reservoir by integrating remote sensing and in-situ measurements. Multiple regression equations were developed with the reflectance of Green, Red, NIR and SWIR1 bands of the Operational Land Imager (OLI) sensor of Landsat 8 satellite yielded the coefficient of determination for chlorophyll-a (chl-a) as 0.812, total dissolved solids (TDS) as 0.945 and electrical conductivity (EC) as 0.960 respectively. The developed regression model was further utilised to forecast chl-a and EC of the reservoir through the seasonal auto regressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) model. It is found that chl-a prediction showed that the reservoir continued to be hypereutrophic and EC significantly changed from a class C3 (high salinity) to class C4 (very high salinity). These results are alarming and an immediate reduction of the external load from the catchment through effective watershed management programs should be implemented.

  • Empirical equations for optically active water quality parameters (chl-a, TDS, EC) are developed using a remote sensing technique.

  • Regression analysis results were improved by including Red Band of LANDSAT 8 OLI imageries.

  • Chl-a and EC of Krishnagiri reservoir have been forecasted using ARIMA model.

Graphical Abstract

Graphical Abstract
Graphical Abstract

In recent years hydrologic and water quality mathematical models are developed and used by hydrologists for planning, managing and predicting water quality effects of changed conditions (Ziemińska-Stolarska & Skrzypski 2012; Loucks & Beek 2017; Liu 2018; Olowe 2018; Mbuh et al. 2019; Najafzadeh et al. 2021). Spatio-temporal change in water quality parameters serves to be an indicator in many studies (Abdollahi et al. 2017; Saturday et al. 2021) for environmental assessment through its trophic nature. Araujo et al. (2011) studied Funil Reservoir and stated that wet periods tend to bring in higher nutrient loadings, which can fuel algal blooms and degrade water. There is a direct linkage between nutrient loading and eutrophication (Yan et al. 2021). Nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus cling to sediments entering the reservoir feed the algae and proliferate its growth (Siriwardhana et al. 2019). Krishnagiri reservoir in Tamil Nadu, India, a hypereutrophic reservoir, was subjected to investigations on nutrient loads (Arunbabu et al. 2014), with the conclusion a systematic monitoring programme is essential to manage the reservoir water quality. The conventional approach to mapping the reservoir water quality is labour intensive and time-consuming. Also, it may not meet the desired standard of accuracy as it considers limited sample points and limited duration of monitoring (Kuha et al. 2020). With the advent of space technology, there are many satellites (IKONOS – Sawaya et al. 2003; IRS-LISS III – Mahato et al. 2004; LANDSAT – Wang et al. 2006; Georgas et al. 2009; Akbar et al. 2010; Wu et al. 2010; Modis Aqua – Ortega et al. 2010; Somvanshi et al. 2012; HICO- Keith et al. 2014) available on earth's orbit that can be used for water quality monitoring purposes (Gholizadeh et al. 2016).

Earlier in the Krishnagiri reservoir, a research work (Elangovan & Murali 2020) used a combination of bands 1, 3, 6, 7 of LANDSAT 8 OLI to develop a regression model for chlorophyll-a (chl-a; R2=0.635) with water quality parameters tested in the lab incorporating a time delay in testing with sparse sample points. The present study is also carried out in Krishnagiri reservoir, to improve the accuracy of chl-a estimation, lab testing of samples was replaced with the in-situ measurement using sophisticated chlorophyll sonde and multiparameter probes. This will eliminate the time delay in testing which eventually improve the performance of the regression equations for the optically active parameters such as chl-a, total dissolved solids (TDS) and electrical conductivity (EC). Further, the secondary goal of the study was to forecast the chl-a and EC of the reservoir to develop management strategies. A review of major studies in this area confirmed that the validated regressive model can be a useful tool in reservoir water quality management studies with a suitable forecast.

There are many time-series tools such as seasonal auto-regressive integrated moving average (SARIMA) least-square SVM (LSSVM) (Kaytez et al. 2015), multiple linear regression (Panklib et al. 2015), ARIMA-ANFIS (Barak & Sadegh 2016), ANFIS (Nokar et al. 2017), first-order fuzzy time-series (Tay et al. 2018) and ARIMA (Jain et al. 2018) and software available to find a fit for non-stationary data and develop a forecast. But most of the time-series data that remain non-stationary with a trend and seasonal variability such as water quality prediction (Katimon et al. 2018; Xu et al. 2019; Dastorani et al. 2020), dengue occurrence (Martinez et al. 2011), foreign tourism at the airport (Rusyana et al. 2016), precipitation (Geetha & Nasira 2016), temperature forecast studies, electrical consumption (Sim et al. 2019) and climate studies (Dimri et al. 2020), used SARIMA.

Historical data (2014–2020) of chl-a, and EC in Krishnagiri reservoir generated from the regression model exhibits seasonal variability and the SARIMA model was chosen for the forecast. Accordingly, the present study focused on integrating satellite data with time series to forecast the quality of inland water bodies (reservoir). Therefore the present work is the first attempt in Krishnagiri reservoir to predict the water quality parameters such as chl-a and EC for future years. The specific objectives of the study are (i) to develop a regression model integrating LANDSAT 8 OLI imageries with the in-situ measured optically active parameters such as chl-a, TDS and EC (ii) to validate the regression model with measured data and (iii) to forecast the water quality parameters (chl-a and EC) of the reservoir using the SARIMA model for the development of a better management strategy.

Krishnagiri dam (Figure 1) was constructed across the Ponnaiyar River in 1957 to sustain agriculture through irrigation. It also serves as a place for fish culture. It is located between 77 °41′56.4″ and 78 °16′51.6″ East longitude and 12 °23′45.6″ and 13 °2′27.6″ North latitude with a designed capacity of 68.2 MCM (Mohanakrishnan 1988). The dam receives water from a catchment area of 5,365 km2 predominately has agricultural activities. The bathymetry survey conducted in 2012 showed that the reservoir has lost as much as 52% of its capacity since 1957 due to sedimentation as a result of soil erosion from the catchment area (Arunbabu et al. 2014). The inflow into the reservoir is generally maximum between October and November. It has two main canals, namely the Left Main Canal (LMC) and the Right Main Canal (RMC), running parallel to the Ponnaiyar River and irrigates an area of 3,642 hectares. The length of the dam is 1,000 m with eight spillways of span 12.2 m each, three river sluices and two canal sluices. The water spread area of the reservoir is 12.32 km2 at full reservoir level (FRL). A hot climate prevails in the study region with a minimum and maximum temperature range of 22–24 °C and 34–37 °C respectively. The average annual rainfall in this region is about 800 mm.

Figure 1

Index map of the Krishnagiri Reservoir Project (KRP).

Figure 1

Index map of the Krishnagiri Reservoir Project (KRP).

Close modal

Available evidence supports (Arunbabu et al. 2014; Elangovan & Murali 2020) a higher incidence of fish kills in the Krishnagiri Reservoir Project (KRP) attributed to increased cyanobacterial blooms resulting from decreased dissolved oxygen concentrations in the reservoir. The KRP reservoir was subjected to several investigations (Arunbabu et al. 2014; Elangovan & Murali 2020; Saha et al. 2021) in the aspects of capacity loss and nutrient loadings but there has been no study on the forecast of water quality.

In-situ measurements

A small motorised boat was deployed to conduct the field measurements using a multi-parameter probe (Aquaread) and a field chlorophyll sonde (Exo) accomplished for logging the concentration of parameters such as TDS, salinity, EC, chl-a, temperature and dissolved oxygen. Both the sensors recorded the geographical locations and the depth of measurements. All the parameters were measured in-situ at a point below 30 cm from the free surface of the water to determine the spatial variation in the reservoir. Sampling was carried out during October, November and December of 2019 and February 2020. The spatial and temporal distribution of chl-a was mapped in the GIS platform (ArcGIS 10.1 version).

Trophic state index (TSI)

In addition, the trophic state index (TSI) (Li et al. 2017) of the reservoir is useful for comparing reservoirs within a region and for assessing changes in trophic status over time. It is calculated using the measured chl-a concentration using (Carlson 1977) Equation (1). The TSI classification ranges are given in Table 1.
(1)
Table 1

TSI and chll-a range for the classification of the trophic condition (Carlson 1977)

Trophic ConditionTSI ValueChl-a (mg/m3)
Oligotrophic <38 <2.2 
Mesotrophic 38–48 2.2–6 
Eutrophic 49–61 6.1–22 
Hypereutrophic >61 >22 
Trophic ConditionTSI ValueChl-a (mg/m3)
Oligotrophic <38 <2.2 
Mesotrophic 38–48 2.2–6 
Eutrophic 49–61 6.1–22 
Hypereutrophic >61 >22 

Satellite image processing

LANDSAT 8 OLI imageries of spatial resolution 30 m × 30 m and seven spectral bands on row 143, path 51 captured the study reservoir once every 16 days. The images are first taken in units of absolute radiance, using 32-bit floating-point computations, which are then converted into 16-bit integer values in level 1 products, as represented by digital numbers in the image. These level 1 imageries were downloaded from the USGS website (https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/). A total of 8 images between October 2019 and December 2019 and February 2020 were collected. Of this total, only the images obtained for October 2019, November 2019 and February 2020 could be used for the present study since the other imageries were not fully cloud-free. Fast Line-of-sight Atmospheric Analysis of Spectral Hypercubes (FLAASH) in ENVI 5.3 package (ENVI 2009) was used to correct the imageries for atmospheric errors and produce the atmospherically corrected reflectance image.

Regression model

The sampling locations of each month during the field investigations were plotted on the respective satellite imageries and the corresponding reflectance was extracted for the regression analysis. The extracted reflectance values from the LANDSAT 8 OLI image and the chl-a, TDS and EC measured in-situ on the same day were subjected to a Pearson correlation test to determine whether the chl-a, TDS, EC variations results in any changes in the reflectance values in the bands. Regression models with surface reflectance and chl-a, TDS and EC concentrations were developed only for the band exhibiting a significant correlation. Reflectance from the satellite data was used as an independent variable whereas measured water quality parameters (chl-a, TDS and EC) were used as the dependent variable in the regression analysis. Regression model accuracy is validated using Nash Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE). It is defined according to Equation (4).
(2)
where:
  • is the mean of Observed Values

  • is Model value

  • is Observed value at time t

  • is the no. of observation

NSE ranges between −∞ and 1.0 (1 inclusive), with NSE = 1 being the optimal value. Values between 0.0 and 1.0 are generally viewed as acceptable levels of performance, whereas values <0 indicate that the mean observed value is a better predictor than the simulated value, which indicates unacceptable performance (Moriasi et al. 2007).

SARIMA model

A regressed model with good accuracy is used for extracting historical data of chl-a and EC from reflectance band values of LANDSAT 8 OLI from 2014 to 2021. Not all months are free from cloud cover but one or two months in every quarter were left behind with minimal cloud cover. LANDSAT 8 imageries with 20% cloud cover were downloaded and processed with atmospheric correction. Sample points over the Krishnagiri reservoir for every imagery were established as shapefile in ARC GIS and band reflectance values were extracted. These reflectance values of bands as independent variables are substituted in developed empirical equations to estimate dependent variables chl-a and EC. The mean value of all parameter concentrations extracted from each sample point in a month was taken as the monthly average concentration of that parameter. Similarly, the average concentration of two or three months for every quarter was taken as a quarterly concentration of that parameter. Time series analysis and prediction can be carried out for a fixed time interval. For the present study, a constant time interval of three months with periodicity 4 (four quarters every year) is taken for analysis.

The IBM SPSS Statistics package offers time series analysis with SARIMA model using Box- Jenkins method (Sim et al. 2019). Auto correlation factor (ACF) and partial auto correlation factor (PACF) correlogram were used for selecting the model (auto-regressive (p) or moving average (q) or ARMA model (p, q) (Table 2) and seasonal model seasonal auto-regressive (P) or seasonal moving average (Q) or SARMA model (P, Q) (Table 3).

Table 2

The behaviour of the ACF and PACF for ARMA models (Shumway & Stoffer 2011)

Auto Regressive (p)Moving Average (q)ARMA(p, q)
ACF* Tails off Cuts off Tails off 
PACF* Cuts off Tails off Tails off 
Auto Regressive (p)Moving Average (q)ARMA(p, q)
ACF* Tails off Cuts off Tails off 
PACF* Cuts off Tails off Tails off 

*The values at nonseasonal lags h ≠ ks, for k ¼ 1, 2, …, are zero.

Table 3

The behaviour of the ACF and PACF for SARMA models (Shumway & Stoffer 2011)

AR(P)sMA(Q)sARMA(P, Q)s
ACF* Tails off at lags ks, k = 1, 2, …, Cuts off after lag Qs Tails off at lags ks 
PACF* Cuts off after lag Ps Tails off at lags ks, k = 1, 2, …, Tails off at lags ks 
AR(P)sMA(Q)sARMA(P, Q)s
ACF* Tails off at lags ks, k = 1, 2, …, Cuts off after lag Qs Tails off at lags ks 
PACF* Cuts off after lag Ps Tails off at lags ks, k = 1, 2, …, Tails off at lags ks 

*The values at nonseasonal lags h ≠ ks, for k = 1, 2, …, are zero.

ACF and PACF correlograms developed with historical time series data for the parameters chl-a and EC were checked for their stationarity. If the ACF and PACF have large values (positive) that decrease very slowly with time, this indicates that the integrating factor (d) is greater than zero, i.e., differencing should be done, whereas if the ACF and PACF have lower values (negative) indicating the integrating factor (d = 0). Non-stationary series have an ACF that remains significant for half a dozen or more lags, rather than quickly declining to 0. Differencing such a series until it is stationary is required before identifying the process (IBM SPSS Forecasting 20 User's Guide).

Autoregressive processes have an exponentially declining ACF and spikes in the first one or more lags of the PACF. The number of spikes indicates the order of the autoregression. Moving average processes have spikes in the first one or more lags of the ACF and an exponentially declining PACF. The number of spikes indicates the order of the moving average. Mixed (ARMA) processes typically show exponential declines in both the ACF and the PACF. Seasonal processes show these patterns at the seasonal lags (the multiples of the seasonal period).

A suitable model for chl-a and EC was identified among all possible ARIMA (p, d, q) and SARIMA (P, D, Q) combinations through parameter estimates and Bayesian information criteria (BIC) values. A model with a low BIC value suits the best fit (Wali et al. 2017). ACF and PACF residues of chl-a and EC were used for model validation (Sim et al. 2019).

The forecasted results of chl-a and EC can be used to suggest suitable management practices to control the water quality degradation of the reservoir.

Variation of the water depth

The water level in the dam was 12.79 m (Figure 2) at its highest in the year with a water spread of 10.96 km2. Thus the 15 sampling locations (Figure 3) in October were well spread across the entire water spread. The release of water in the irrigation canals decreased the water level of the dam in November, December and February 2020. The lowest water level (7.68 m) was during February sampling (only 5 locations) with a water spread of 1.344 km2. As there was a reduced inflow to the dam from the catchment, the water level in the dam decreased from October 2019 to February 2020, eventually decreasing the water spread area and hence the sampling sites and the numbers varied during each measurement.

Figure 2

Krishnagiri reservoir water level between September 2019 and April 2020 obtained from Water Resources Department, KRP Dam.

Figure 2

Krishnagiri reservoir water level between September 2019 and April 2020 obtained from Water Resources Department, KRP Dam.

Close modal
Figure 3

Water spread area (derived from LANDSAT OLI for the respective months) and sampling locations of chl-a during the study period (October 2019, November 2019, December 2019 and February 2020).

Figure 3

Water spread area (derived from LANDSAT OLI for the respective months) and sampling locations of chl-a during the study period (October 2019, November 2019, December 2019 and February 2020).

Close modal

Spatial distribution of chl-a

All the measured data were then imported into the ArcGIS platform to map the spatial distribution of chl-a in the reservoir. During the period from October 2019 to February 2020, the chl-a concentration ranged between 14 mg/m3 and 150 mg/m3. There exists a spatial difference in chl-a concentration in all sampling months (Figure 4). There is a higher concentration in the inflow region, medium concentration in the middle and lower concentration near the dam structure during October (20.93 mg/m3–43.75 mg/m3), whereas November (14 mg/m3–52 mg/m3) showed an increased concentration at inflow point, lesser in the middle area and uniformly distributed near the structure. A similar trend is seen during December (19.26 mg/m3–39.80 mg/m3) with uniform distribution of chl-a concentration from middle reach towards the structure and greater concentration at inflow points. The north-western part of the reservoir, especially the river mouths (inflow region), showed higher chl-a concentration, especially in the monsoon periods. The reservoir receives its peak inflow from the catchment in October, which brings sediment load to the reservoir as a result of soil erosion from the catchment. The residual fertilizers on topsoil from the farming fields reach the reservoir in addition to the urban waste load from the nearby city (Saha et al. 2021). The release of nutrients and organic matter associated with fine sediments has deleterious effects on water quality and specifically can decrease oxygen levels of the reservoir. The chl-a concentration peaked in February 2020 up to 150 mg/m3 when the reservoir recorded the lowest water level of 7.63 m due to a significant reduction of inflow.

Figure 4

Spatial and temporal distribution of chl-a concentration in Krishnagiri reservoir.

Figure 4

Spatial and temporal distribution of chl-a concentration in Krishnagiri reservoir.

Close modal

It is observed that the concentrations of chl-a were found to be decreasing from October to November and started to increase from December (Figure 5). Inflow and outflow volume from the reservoir has a direct relation to the change in concentration of chl-a (Elangovan & Murali 2020). Figure 5 shows the variation of chl-a with changes in inflow and outflow. Inflow volume into the reservoir showed that the increased inflow to the reservoir in October induced self-dilution of the chl-a concentration and hence there is a decreased chl-a concentration in November. Similarly, the decrease in inflow volume during November increased the concentration of chl-a in December.

Figure 5

Inflow, outflow and chl-a concentration in Krishnagiri reservoir.

Figure 5

Inflow, outflow and chl-a concentration in Krishnagiri reservoir.

Close modal

TSI

TSI provides the level of eutrophication based on the chl-a concentration. The TSI value ranges from 62.93 in October 2019 to 80.38 in February 2020 (Table 4). The maximum value is recorded in February 2020 when the reservoir was shallow with no inflow and outflow. Also in the Krishnagiri reservoir for October and November, the TSI value was found to be at its minimum because of increased inflow to the reservoir. In the subsequent months water from the reservoir is released for irrigation and also there is a decrease in inflow into the reservoir. With decreased inflow, algae proliferation starts, thus increasing the TSI value from December 2019.

Table 4

Chl-a and TSI of the Krishnagiri reservoir during the study period

MonthOct
Nov
Dec
Feb
ParameterMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean
Chl-a (mg/m343.78 21 26.65 52.4 14.4 25.6 40 19 29 150 89.62 90 
TSI 62.93   62.56   63.63   80.38   
MonthOct
Nov
Dec
Feb
ParameterMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMeanMaxMinMean
Chl-a (mg/m343.78 21 26.65 52.4 14.4 25.6 40 19 29 150 89.62 90 
TSI 62.93   62.56   63.63   80.38   

Regression model

The in-situ test was performed using NAQUA READ multi-parameter probe and YSI chlorophyll sonde in Krishnagiri reservoir exactly on the date of the LANDSAT 8 satellite pass on 16th October (2019), 17th November (2019), 19th December (2019), 3rd February (2020), and measured the concentration of optically active water quality parameters chl-a, TDS, EC with a count of 20 sample locations every month. But points with cloud cover are not considered for analysis. Cloud-free sample points taken for analysis numbered six for October, nine for December, and 13 for February (2020) (Table 5). As the LANDSAT 8 image of December 2019 showed maximum cloud cover, it is not considered for regression analysis.

Table 5

In-situ measured concentration of chl-a, TDS, EC in different sampling points and its band reflectance value from LANDSAT 8

Landsat 8 OLI Date of PassINSITU MEASURED WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
BAND VALUES
chl-a (mg/m3)TDS (mg/L)EC (μS/cm)CoastalBlueGreenRedNIRSWIR1SWIR2
16/10/2019 19.06 580 960 0.0367 0.0276 0.0444 0.0236 0.0173 0.0035 0.0023 
19.65 577 970.7 0.0483 0.039 0.0507 0.0274 0.0147 0.0032 0.0023 
20.77 576 958.3 0.0533 0.0421 0.054 0.0311 0.0213 0.0058 0.0035 
20.94 577 965.9 0.0475 0.0379 0.052 0.03 0.0347 0.0072 0.0038 
28.24 597 1005.3 0.0406 0.0357 0.0595 0.0294 0.0260 0.0038 0.0028 
35.93 575 975.9 0.0454 0.0366 0.0548 0.0298 0.0348 0.0076 0.0036 
17/11/2019 14.91 629 968.3 0.0398 0.0356 0.0613 0.0334 0.0351 0.0116 0.0074 
52.41 674 1036.2 0.0349 0.0225 0.0363 0.0279 0.0171 0.0068 0.0038 
19.42 616 947.4 0.0305 0.0273 0.0511 0.0261 0.0301 0.0069 0.004 
23.07 613 942.3 0.0357 0.0243 0.0335 0.021 0.0238 0.0073 0.0042 
14.35 627 965 0.0257 0.0213 0.0424 0.0212 0.0226 0.0072 0.004 
19.63 610 938.1 0.0344 0.0299 0.0499 0.0269 0.0269 0.0063 0.0034 
17.61 621 955.1 0.0206 0.0154 0.0317 0.0174 0.0154 0.0077 0.0053 
22.91 617 949.9 0.0253 0.016 0.025 0.0129 0.0109 0.0062 0.0042 
31.36 617 948.6 0.0343 0.0255 0.0396 0.0238 0.0167 0.0078 0.0049 
05/02/2020 163.46 785 1230.9 0.0250 0.026 0.0325 0.0366 0.0488 0.0195 0.0114 
150.04 794 1248.7 0.0251 0.026 0.03 0.03422 0.0421 0.018 0.01 
137.76 782 1225.5 0.0224 0.0242 0.0312 0.0352 0.0443 0.0161 0.0099 
143.12 787 1249.6 0.0246 0.025 0.031 0.0345 0.0411 0.0252 0.0191 
130.89 793 1220.1 0.0248 0.0267 0.0338 0.0361 0.0447 0.0145 0.0081 
120.45 791 1218 0.0270 0.0261 0.0322 0.0357 0.0469 0.0149 0.008 
89.62 797 1212.5 0.0241 0.0248 0.0292 0.0353 0.0497 0.0154 0.009 
144.65 785 1221.3 0.0282 0.03 0.0411 0.0416 0.0521 0.0158 0.0082 
135.01 767 1185 0.0234 0.0221 0.034 0.034 0.0419 0.0122 0.0073 
203.34 780 1268.1 0.0206 0.021 0.023 0.0324 0.0564 0.0146 0.0084 
304.53 775 1318 0.0259 0.0272 0.0397 0.0411 0.0517 0.0147 0.008 
178.13 766 1283.3 0.0300 0.0305 0.0424 0.0443 0.0546 0.0157 0.0084 
172.03 766 1322.5 0.0303 0.03345 0.04175 0.0463 0.0601 0.0155 0.00965 
Landsat 8 OLI Date of PassINSITU MEASURED WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS
BAND VALUES
chl-a (mg/m3)TDS (mg/L)EC (μS/cm)CoastalBlueGreenRedNIRSWIR1SWIR2
16/10/2019 19.06 580 960 0.0367 0.0276 0.0444 0.0236 0.0173 0.0035 0.0023 
19.65 577 970.7 0.0483 0.039 0.0507 0.0274 0.0147 0.0032 0.0023 
20.77 576 958.3 0.0533 0.0421 0.054 0.0311 0.0213 0.0058 0.0035 
20.94 577 965.9 0.0475 0.0379 0.052 0.03 0.0347 0.0072 0.0038 
28.24 597 1005.3 0.0406 0.0357 0.0595 0.0294 0.0260 0.0038 0.0028 
35.93 575 975.9 0.0454 0.0366 0.0548 0.0298 0.0348 0.0076 0.0036 
17/11/2019 14.91 629 968.3 0.0398 0.0356 0.0613 0.0334 0.0351 0.0116 0.0074 
52.41 674 1036.2 0.0349 0.0225 0.0363 0.0279 0.0171 0.0068 0.0038 
19.42 616 947.4 0.0305 0.0273 0.0511 0.0261 0.0301 0.0069 0.004 
23.07 613 942.3 0.0357 0.0243 0.0335 0.021 0.0238 0.0073 0.0042 
14.35 627 965 0.0257 0.0213 0.0424 0.0212 0.0226 0.0072 0.004 
19.63 610 938.1 0.0344 0.0299 0.0499 0.0269 0.0269 0.0063 0.0034 
17.61 621 955.1 0.0206 0.0154 0.0317 0.0174 0.0154 0.0077 0.0053 
22.91 617 949.9 0.0253 0.016 0.025 0.0129 0.0109 0.0062 0.0042 
31.36 617 948.6 0.0343 0.0255 0.0396 0.0238 0.0167 0.0078 0.0049 
05/02/2020 163.46 785 1230.9 0.0250 0.026 0.0325 0.0366 0.0488 0.0195 0.0114 
150.04 794 1248.7 0.0251 0.026 0.03 0.03422 0.0421 0.018 0.01 
137.76 782 1225.5 0.0224 0.0242 0.0312 0.0352 0.0443 0.0161 0.0099 
143.12 787 1249.6 0.0246 0.025 0.031 0.0345 0.0411 0.0252 0.0191 
130.89 793 1220.1 0.0248 0.0267 0.0338 0.0361 0.0447 0.0145 0.0081 
120.45 791 1218 0.0270 0.0261 0.0322 0.0357 0.0469 0.0149 0.008 
89.62 797 1212.5 0.0241 0.0248 0.0292 0.0353 0.0497 0.0154 0.009 
144.65 785 1221.3 0.0282 0.03 0.0411 0.0416 0.0521 0.0158 0.0082 
135.01 767 1185 0.0234 0.0221 0.034 0.034 0.0419 0.0122 0.0073 
203.34 780 1268.1 0.0206 0.021 0.023 0.0324 0.0564 0.0146 0.0084 
304.53 775 1318 0.0259 0.0272 0.0397 0.0411 0.0517 0.0147 0.008 
178.13 766 1283.3 0.0300 0.0305 0.0424 0.0443 0.0546 0.0157 0.0084 
172.03 766 1322.5 0.0303 0.03345 0.04175 0.0463 0.0601 0.0155 0.00965 

The correlation matrix for the chl-a, TDS and EC showed a significant correlation with the Coastal, Red, Green, NIR, SWIR 1, SWIR2, indicating that changes in the chl-a, TDS concentration and EC in the reservoir water would result in significant changes in the reflectance of significantly correlated bands (Table 6). Thus, it is possible to map the changes in chl-a, TDS concentration and EC with these bands.

Table 6

Pearson correlation of bands with chl-a, TDS, EC

BandPearson Correlation of Bands with TDS, chl-a, EC
chl-aTDSEC
Coastal −.556 −.740 −.590 
Red .758 .707 0.827 
Green −.470 −.645 −.511 
NIR .830 .825 .892 
SWIR1 .770 .894 .864 
SWIR2 .669 .804 .773 
BandPearson Correlation of Bands with TDS, chl-a, EC
chl-aTDSEC
Coastal −.556 −.740 −.590 
Red .758 .707 0.827 
Green −.470 −.645 −.511 
NIR .830 .825 .892 
SWIR1 .770 .894 .864 
SWIR2 .669 .804 .773 

Significant correlation exhibited with change in concentration of optically active water quality parameters and change in reflectance in the Coastal, Red, Green, NIR and SWIR 1 bands, indicating the quantity of energy reflected from the water surface containing algal matter in these bands will exhibit significant changes, compared to other bands. Accordingly, multiple regression equations for estimating the chl-a, TDS and EC were developed with the reflectance in the Coastal, Red, Green, SWIR 1, NIR and SWIR 2 bands (as independent variables) and chl-a, TDS concentration and EC (as dependent variables). Two equations for each parameter were developed as a result of the regression analysis (Table 7), using the combination of different bands.

Table 7

Multiple regression equation for chl-a, TDS, EC concentration

ParameterModelRR2Adjusted R2Std. Error of the EstimateRMSE
Chl-a in mg/m3 chl-a (mg/L) = 0.018 − 1.619*Green + 3.431*NIR + 3.432*SWIR1 − 2.788*SWIR2 − .180*Coastal 0.873 0.761 0.707 0.042 0.042 
chl-a = 0.004 − 3.362*Green + 6.065*Red + 1.135*NIR − 0.876*SWIR1 0.901 0.812 0.779 0.036 0.033 
TDS in mg/L log TDS = 2.87 − 1.889*Green + 1.786*NIR + 3.666*SWIR1 0.955 0.912 0.901 0.018 0.065 
log TDS = 2.799 − 2.836*Green + 3.664*Red + 0.265NIR + 2.407SWIR1 0.972 0.945 0.935 0.015 0.023 
EC in mS/cm EC = 0.921 − .3451*Green + 6.535*NIR + 6.05*SWIR1 + .567*Coastal 0.945 0.894 0.875 0.052 0.1375 
EC = 0.899 − 6.495*Green + 13.081*Red + 1.053*NIR + 1.439*SWIR1 0.98 0.960 0.953 0.032 0.028 
ParameterModelRR2Adjusted R2Std. Error of the EstimateRMSE
Chl-a in mg/m3 chl-a (mg/L) = 0.018 − 1.619*Green + 3.431*NIR + 3.432*SWIR1 − 2.788*SWIR2 − .180*Coastal 0.873 0.761 0.707 0.042 0.042 
chl-a = 0.004 − 3.362*Green + 6.065*Red + 1.135*NIR − 0.876*SWIR1 0.901 0.812 0.779 0.036 0.033 
TDS in mg/L log TDS = 2.87 − 1.889*Green + 1.786*NIR + 3.666*SWIR1 0.955 0.912 0.901 0.018 0.065 
log TDS = 2.799 − 2.836*Green + 3.664*Red + 0.265NIR + 2.407SWIR1 0.972 0.945 0.935 0.015 0.023 
EC in mS/cm EC = 0.921 − .3451*Green + 6.535*NIR + 6.05*SWIR1 + .567*Coastal 0.945 0.894 0.875 0.052 0.1375 
EC = 0.899 − 6.495*Green + 13.081*Red + 1.053*NIR + 1.439*SWIR1 0.98 0.960 0.953 0.032 0.028 

Among the regressed model with different band combinations, one with greater R2 and minimum standard error and RMSE were used for selecting the best model. From different regression operations, it is clear that bands Green, Red, NIR and SWIR1 are common in all models with greater R2 (0.812 for chl-a, 0.972 for TDS, 0.980 for EC) and their band combination alone is enough to estimate the optically active water quality parameters such as chl-a, TDS, EC of Krishnagiri reservoir. The previous model developed (Elangovan & Murali 2020) for chl-a with the combination of OLI sensor bands Coastal, Green, NIR, SWIR1, SWIR2 for the Krishnagiri reservoir had a coefficient of determination of 0.635. The present study showed an improved coefficient of determination of 0.761 with the same band combinations eliminating the lag time of sample testing by in-situ measurements. Thus it is proved the lag time of sample tests had a significant influence on the estimation of chl-a. Even though the samples are stored and transported to the lab for testing, in-situ measurements at the time of satellite pass would improve the model accuracy. Further, the inclusion of the Red band ((Table 6) 75% correlation with chl-a) in the combination also improved the model accuracy (R2 = 0.812).

Performance of the regression model

The NSE for the regression model for the three parameters chl-a (0.812), TDS (0.830) and EC (0.960) showed better performance (Figure 6) as NSE is close to 1.

Figure 6

Nash Sutcliffe efficiency plot of chlorophyll-a, Electrical Conductivity and Total dissolved solids (TDS).

Figure 6

Nash Sutcliffe efficiency plot of chlorophyll-a, Electrical Conductivity and Total dissolved solids (TDS).

Close modal

Historical time series data for SARIMA MODEL

The regressed model with good accuracy with greater R2 and minimum standard error (Table 7) was used for extracting historical data of chlorophyll-a and EC from reflectance band values of LANDSAT 8 OLI from 2014 to 2021 (Table 8).

Table 8

Historical time series data of chl-a, EC for every quarter from 2014 to 2021

YearQuarterchl-a (mg/m3)EC (mS/cm)
2014 72.100 1.069 
115.000 1.138 
147.000 1.223 
79.000 1.076 
2015 60.400 1.030 
80.000 1.048 
83.700 1.155 
121.000 1.169 
2016 91.400 1.094 
40.000 .999 
98.100 1.124 
90.000 1.108 
2017 104.500 1.135 
93.400 1.082 
73.500 1.107 
68.210 1.045 
2018 65.850 1.052 
39.770 .980 
88.800 1.098 
96.420 1.107 
2019 57.700 1.026 
121.000 1.181 
117.900 1.178 
25.100 .969 
2020 158.000 1.243 
100.000 1.540 
30.000 .942 
59.000 1.079 
2021 80.000 1.560 
43.600 1.049 
117.300 1.423 
YearQuarterchl-a (mg/m3)EC (mS/cm)
2014 72.100 1.069 
115.000 1.138 
147.000 1.223 
79.000 1.076 
2015 60.400 1.030 
80.000 1.048 
83.700 1.155 
121.000 1.169 
2016 91.400 1.094 
40.000 .999 
98.100 1.124 
90.000 1.108 
2017 104.500 1.135 
93.400 1.082 
73.500 1.107 
68.210 1.045 
2018 65.850 1.052 
39.770 .980 
88.800 1.098 
96.420 1.107 
2019 57.700 1.026 
121.000 1.181 
117.900 1.178 
25.100 .969 
2020 158.000 1.243 
100.000 1.540 
30.000 .942 
59.000 1.079 
2021 80.000 1.560 
43.600 1.049 
117.300 1.423 

Chl-a

Analysis of time series invariably involves the evaluation of trends and seasonality in the data. Trends are the long-term increase or decrease in the time series, whereas seasonality refers to the variations in the data at regular short intervals such as weekly, monthly, biyearly, quarterly, etc. (Wang et al. 2013). Time series data of chl-a shown in Figure 7 has no trend in its flow but has some seasonality variation. As the data is already detrended differencing parameter ‘d’ has no value.

Figure 7

Time series plot of chl-a in Krishnagiri reservoir (2014–2021).

Figure 7

Time series plot of chl-a in Krishnagiri reservoir (2014–2021).

Close modal

Also, from the ACF and PACF correlograms (Figures 8 and 9, respectively) it is evident that the data is detrended as the ACF and PACF do not have large values (positive) that decrease very slowly with time (Dimri et al. 2020). autoregressive (AR; p), moving average (q), seasonal AR (P) and seasonal MA (Q) can be estimated with the help of ACF and PACF plot with first-order seasonal differencing D = 1. From the correlogram with a small significance in seasonal periodic lag 4 of ACF (Figure 8), a peak significance in periodic lag 4 of PACF (Figure 9) and no significant peak in lag 1, 2, 3 of ACF and PACF it is inferred that the parameter ‘p’ and ‘q’ has no value while P = 1 also with a less chance of Q = 1. So our possible models will be S(P,D,Q) of S(1,1,1) and S(1,1,0) otherwise ARIMA (1,1,1)4 and ARIMA (1,1,0)4

Figure 8

ACF plot of chl-a with transformation D = 1.

Figure 8

ACF plot of chl-a with transformation D = 1.

Close modal
Figure 9

PACF plot of chl-a with transformation D = 1.

Figure 9

PACF plot of chl-a with transformation D = 1.

Close modal

Forecasting chl-a

The SPSS platform is used to run the identified models (1,1,1)4 and (1,1,0)4 and the best fit is selected based on BIC and parameter significance test (Tables 9 and 10, respectively). BIC is a criterion for model selection among the finite set of models where the model with the lowest BIC is preferred (Rahman & Hasan 2017; Wali et al. 2017). The SARIMA model generated a forecasted time series plot of chl-a and enlarged forecasted plot of chl-a for Krishnagiri reservoir is shown in Figures 10 and 11 respectively.

Table 9

Model summary for chl-a

ModelNumber of PredictorsModel Fit statistics
Ljung-Box Q(18)
Number of Outliers
Stationary R-squaredR-squaredRMSENormalized BICStatisticsDFSig.
(1,1,1)4 0.458 −0.430 39.410 7.714 24.727 16 0.075 
(1,1,0)4 0.327 0.775 42.177 7.606 23.306 17 0.140 
ModelNumber of PredictorsModel Fit statistics
Ljung-Box Q(18)
Number of Outliers
Stationary R-squaredR-squaredRMSENormalized BICStatisticsDFSig.
(1,1,1)4 0.458 −0.430 39.410 7.714 24.727 16 0.075 
(1,1,0)4 0.327 0.775 42.177 7.606 23.306 17 0.140 
Table 10

Model parameter significance for chl-a

ARIMA Model Parameters
ModelTransformationParameterLagEstimateSig.
(1,1,0)4 chl-a No transformation AR, Seasonal Lag 1 −0.628 0.001 
(1,1,1)4 chl-a No transformation Constant −2.115 0.432 
AR, Seasonal Lag 1 −0.259 0.505 
MA, Seasonal Lag 1 0.752 0.194 
ARIMA Model Parameters
ModelTransformationParameterLagEstimateSig.
(1,1,0)4 chl-a No transformation AR, Seasonal Lag 1 −0.628 0.001 
(1,1,1)4 chl-a No transformation Constant −2.115 0.432 
AR, Seasonal Lag 1 −0.259 0.505 
MA, Seasonal Lag 1 0.752 0.194 
Figure 10

Forecasted time series plot of chl-a for Krishnagiri reservoir.

Figure 10

Forecasted time series plot of chl-a for Krishnagiri reservoir.

Close modal
Figure 11

An enlarged forecasted plot of chl-a for Krishnagiri reservoir.

Figure 11

An enlarged forecasted plot of chl-a for Krishnagiri reservoir.

Close modal

From the model statistics (Table 9), it is inferred that model (1,1,0)4 is found to be the best fit with a low BIC value and model parameter significance <0.05 (Table 9), accepting the hypothesis that the model is significant, and it can be accepted. Sim et al. (2019) identified a significant model using the parameter significance test. The residual plots of ACF and PACF shown in Figure 12 can be used to check the adequacy of the model. It shows a random variation from the origin zero (0), the points below and above are all uneven, hence the model fitted is adequate.

Figure 12

Residual ACF and PACF plots of chl-a by Expert Modeler SPSS.

Figure 12

Residual ACF and PACF plots of chl-a by Expert Modeler SPSS.

Close modal

EC

Excess of salt increases the osmotic pressure of the soil solution, a situation that can result in a physiological drought condition. Thus, even though the soil in the field appears to have plenty of moisture, the plants will wilt. This occurs because the plant roots are unable to take up soil water due to their high osmotic potential (Zaman et al. 2018).

The total soluble salts (TSS) content of irrigation water is measured either by determining its EC, reported as micro siemens per centimetre (μS cm−1), or by determining the actual salt content in parts per million (ppm). According to USSL Staff (1954) salinity class C4 is not suitable for irrigation (Table 11). Time series data of EC (Table 8) showed non-stationarity by the Dickey-Fuller test (p = 0.614 > 0.05), and Phillips-Perron test (p = 0.80 > 0.05). Jalil & Rao (2019) defined a better non-parametric test for stationarity in the Phillips-Perron test.

Table 11

Salinity classes of irrigation waters (USSL Staff 1954)

The Salinity of Irrigation Water EC (μS cm−1)Salinity ClassSalinity HazardRemarks
100–250 C1 Low Can be used safely for irrigation 
250–750 C2 Medium Can be used if a moderate amount of leaching can occur 
750–2,250 C3 High Can be used for irrigation purposes with some management practices 
>2,250 C4 Very high It is not suitable for irrigation under ordinary conditions but may be used occasionally under very special circumstances 
The Salinity of Irrigation Water EC (μS cm−1)Salinity ClassSalinity HazardRemarks
100–250 C1 Low Can be used safely for irrigation 
250–750 C2 Medium Can be used if a moderate amount of leaching can occur 
750–2,250 C3 High Can be used for irrigation purposes with some management practices 
>2,250 C4 Very high It is not suitable for irrigation under ordinary conditions but may be used occasionally under very special circumstances 

It is inferred that there are unit roots in data from both tests and the p-value is significant for non-stationarity (greater than 0.05). Non-stationarity in data may be due to seasonality. From the time series of EC (Figure 13) and PhD thesis of Karunakaran (2004), it is evident that the EC value has an increasing trend over two decades with a mean value of EC as 0.707 milli siemens per centimetre in 2002, thus incorporating difference factor (d, D) with a time series plot of EC. Possible model parameters estimated from the ACF and PACF plot with d = 1 and D = 1 model shown in Figures 14 and 15 are

  • (1) (2,1,0) and (1,1,0)

  • (2) (2,1,1) and (1,1,0)

  • (3) (2,1,0) and (0,1,0)

Figure 13

Time series plot of EC in Krishnagiri reservoir (2014–2021).

Figure 13

Time series plot of EC in Krishnagiri reservoir (2014–2021).

Close modal
Figure 14

ACF plot of EC with transformation d = 1, D = 1.

Figure 14

ACF plot of EC with transformation d = 1, D = 1.

Close modal
Figure 15

PACF plot of EC with transformation d = 1, D = 1.

Figure 15

PACF plot of EC with transformation d = 1, D = 1.

Close modal

Forecasting EC

From the model statistics (Table 12) it is inferred that EC model_3 (2,1,0) (0,1,0)4 is found to be the best fit with a low normalised BIC value of −3.521 and model parameter significance <0.05 accepting the hypothesis that the model is significant (Table 13), and it can be accepted.

Table 12

Model summary for electrical conductivity

Model Statistics
ModelNumber of PredictorsModel Fit statistics
Ljung-Box Q(18)
Stationary R-squaredRMSENormalized BICStatisticsDFSig.
EC-Model_1 (2,1,1) (0,1,0)4 0.775 0.155 −3.351 22.993 15 0.084 
EC-Model_2 (2,1,1) (1,1,0)4 0.788 0.154 −3.242 21.654 14 0.086 
EC-Model_3 (2,1,0) (0,1,0)4 0.775 0.152 −3.521 23.017 16 0.113 
Model Statistics
ModelNumber of PredictorsModel Fit statistics
Ljung-Box Q(18)
Stationary R-squaredRMSENormalized BICStatisticsDFSig.
EC-Model_1 (2,1,1) (0,1,0)4 0.775 0.155 −3.351 22.993 15 0.084 
EC-Model_2 (2,1,1) (1,1,0)4 0.788 0.154 −3.242 21.654 14 0.086 
EC-Model_3 (2,1,0) (0,1,0)4 0.775 0.152 −3.521 23.017 16 0.113 
Table 13

Model parameter significance for electrical conductivity

ARIMA Model Parameters
EstimateSig.
EC-Model_1 (2,1,1) (0,1,0)4 EC No transformation AR Lag 1 −1.052 0.000 
Lag 2 −0.893 0.004 
Difference  
MA Lag 1 0.006 0.989 
Seasonal difference  
EC-Model_2 (2,1,1) (1,1,0)4 EC No transformation AR Lag 1 −0.889 0.003 
Lag 2 −0.789 0.006 
Difference  
MA Lag 1 0.259 0.501 
AR, Seasonal Lag 1 −0.369 0.285 
Seasonal difference  
EC-Model_3 (2,1,0) (0,1,0)4 EC No transformation AR Lag 1 −1.053 0.000* 
Lag 2 −0.897 0.000* 
Difference  
Seasonal difference  
ARIMA Model Parameters
EstimateSig.
EC-Model_1 (2,1,1) (0,1,0)4 EC No transformation AR Lag 1 −1.052 0.000 
Lag 2 −0.893 0.004 
Difference  
MA Lag 1 0.006 0.989 
Seasonal difference  
EC-Model_2 (2,1,1) (1,1,0)4 EC No transformation AR Lag 1 −0.889 0.003 
Lag 2 −0.789 0.006 
Difference  
MA Lag 1 0.259 0.501 
AR, Seasonal Lag 1 −0.369 0.285 
Seasonal difference  
EC-Model_3 (2,1,0) (0,1,0)4 EC No transformation AR Lag 1 −1.053 0.000* 
Lag 2 −0.897 0.000* 
Difference  
Seasonal difference  

*significant for model acceptance.

The residual plots of ACF and PACF shown in Figure 16 can be used to check the adequacy of the model. It shows a random variation from the origin zero (0); the points below and above are all uneven, hence the model fitted is adequate.

Figure 16

ACF and PACF residual plot of EC-Model_3 (2,1,0) (0,1,0)4.

Figure 16

ACF and PACF residual plot of EC-Model_3 (2,1,0) (0,1,0)4.

Close modal

From the forecast (Table 14), it is found that by the start of 2032 first quarter (Q1) Electrical conductivity is nearing 2.25 mS/cm. Irrigation water above 2.25 mS/cm is classified under C4 (Table 11). It takes almost a decade from 2022 for the Krishnagiri reservoir to degrade in its salinity from class C3 (high salinity) to class C4 (very high salinity) thus making it unsuitable for irrigation purposes. SARIMA model generated Forecasted time series plot of EC is shown in Figure 17.

Table 14

Forecast of EC in mS/cm of KRP

TimeForecasted EC in mS/cm
Q4 2021 1.26 
Q1 2022 1.185 
Q2 2022 1.528 
Q3 2022 1.501 
Q4 2022 0.995 
Q1 2023 1.642 
Q2 2023 1.532 
Q3 2023 1.335 
Q4 2023 1.414 
Q1 2024 1.597 
Q2 2024 1.451 
Q3 2024 1.707 
Q4 2024 1.341 
Q1 2025 1.586 
Q2 2025 1.774 
Q3 2025 1.623 
Q4 2025 1.387 
Q1 2026 1.86 
Q2 2026 1.691 
Q3 2026 1.712 
Q4 2026 1.615 
Q1 2027 1.788 
Q2 2027 1.811 
Q3 2027 1.899 
Q4 2027 1.559 
Q1 2028 1.927 
Q2 2028 1.962 
Q3 2028 1.862 
Q4 2028 1.709 
Q1 2029 2.049 
Q2 2029 1.946 
Q3 2029 2.017 
Q4 2029 1.808 
Q1 2030 2.054 
Q2 2030 2.1 
Q3 2030 2.097 
Q4 2030 1.832 
Q1 2031 2.203 
Q2 2031 2.168 
Q3 2031 2.139 
Q4 2031 1.974 
Q1 2032 2.263 
Q2 2032 2.224 
Q3 2032 2.273 
Q4 2032 2.03 
Q1 2033 2.331 
Q2 2033 2.349 
Q3 2033 2.326 
Q4 2033 2.108 
Q1 2034 2.448 
Q2 2034 2.404 
Q3 2034 2.412 
Q4 2034 2.216 
Q1 2035 2.504 
Q2 2035 2.494 
Q3 2035 2.513 
Q4 2035 2.275 
TimeForecasted EC in mS/cm
Q4 2021 1.26 
Q1 2022 1.185 
Q2 2022 1.528 
Q3 2022 1.501 
Q4 2022 0.995 
Q1 2023 1.642 
Q2 2023 1.532 
Q3 2023 1.335 
Q4 2023 1.414 
Q1 2024 1.597 
Q2 2024 1.451 
Q3 2024 1.707 
Q4 2024 1.341 
Q1 2025 1.586 
Q2 2025 1.774 
Q3 2025 1.623 
Q4 2025 1.387 
Q1 2026 1.86 
Q2 2026 1.691 
Q3 2026 1.712 
Q4 2026 1.615 
Q1 2027 1.788 
Q2 2027 1.811 
Q3 2027 1.899 
Q4 2027 1.559 
Q1 2028 1.927 
Q2 2028 1.962 
Q3 2028 1.862 
Q4 2028 1.709 
Q1 2029 2.049 
Q2 2029 1.946 
Q3 2029 2.017 
Q4 2029 1.808 
Q1 2030 2.054 
Q2 2030 2.1 
Q3 2030 2.097 
Q4 2030 1.832 
Q1 2031 2.203 
Q2 2031 2.168 
Q3 2031 2.139 
Q4 2031 1.974 
Q1 2032 2.263 
Q2 2032 2.224 
Q3 2032 2.273 
Q4 2032 2.03 
Q1 2033 2.331 
Q2 2033 2.349 
Q3 2033 2.326 
Q4 2033 2.108 
Q1 2034 2.448 
Q2 2034 2.404 
Q3 2034 2.412 
Q4 2034 2.216 
Q1 2035 2.504 
Q2 2035 2.494 
Q3 2035 2.513 
Q4 2035 2.275 

Bold values signify the range of EC shifting from Class 3 of high salinity to class 4 of very high salinity. Source USSL Staff (1954). See Table 11.

Figure 17

Forecast plot of EC in mS/cm of KRP quarterly.

Figure 17

Forecast plot of EC in mS/cm of KRP quarterly.

Close modal

The present study mapped the spatial and temporal distribution of chl-a in Krishnagiri Reservoir. TSI derived with chl-a provided the level of eutrophication. It ranged from 62.93 in.October 2019 to 80.38 in.February 2020 indicating the higher nourishment of nutrients. The spatial distribution of chl-a indicated higher concentrations at the inflow regions in the monsoon periods whereas the chl-a distribution was uniform in February when the reservoir recorded its lowest water level in that season. Regression results of LANDSAT 8 OLI images and optically active water quality parameters (chl-a, TDS, EC) can provide adequate information on the chl-a, TDS, EC concentration variations for Krishnagiri reservoir.

  • (i)

    The present study concluded that the time difference between the sample collection in the site and the lab testing should be an influencing factor for the model accuracy. This is proved with the in-situ measurement of chl-a showing a higher coefficient of determination (R2 = 0.761) than the sample tested at lab (R2 = 0.635) (Elangovan & Murali 2020).

  • (ii)

    Inclusion of the Red band, which showed 75% correlation with chl-a, had significantly improved the model accuracy from 0.635 to 0.812.

  • (iii)

    The estimate of the chl-a, TDS and EC concentration based on the developed regression model exhibited a high R2 value of 0.812, 0.945 and 0.960 respectively.

  • (iv)

    Forecast results of chl-a with the SAR model (1,1,0)4 showed a clear indication that the reservoir will remain hypereutrophic for the next two years (up to 2023) (any value of chl-a >22 mg/m3 is hypereutrophic).

  • (v)

    The EC forecast with significant model parameters (2,1,0) (0,1,0)4 alerts the decision-makers that the salinity of the Krishnagiri reservoir will be shifting from class C3 (high salinity) to class C4 (very high salinity) in the next decade.

It is evident from the study that integrating remote sensing data with in-situ measurements will significantly help in the monitoring and management of reservoirs. The developed regression model is an effective tool in extracting historical water quality data where historical data is not available and the SARIMA model can be used to predict seasonal water quality transformation over years. The results of the study can be used by the watershed managers to create the necessary framework for watershed conservation programs to reduce the sediment and nutrient loads to the reservoir.

The authors are grateful to the Centre For Water Resources, Anna University for providing wet chemistry lab facilities for performing various analyses.

The authors declare that they have no competing interests regarding the publication of this article.

Abdul Wahid performed the conceptualization methodology, writing, collected data and performed the analyses with the help and supervision of Arunbabu. Both authors contributed to the writing and review of the manuscript.

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

Abdollahi
Z.
,
Kavian
A.
&
Sadeghi
S. H.
2017
Spatio-temporal changes of water quality variables in a highly disturbed river
.
Global Journal of Environmental Science and Management
3
,
243
256
.
doi:10.22034/gjesm.2017.03.03.002
.
Akbar
T.
,
Hassan
Q.
&
Achari
G.
2010
A remote sensing based framework for predicting water quality of different source waters
. In:
Proceedings of ISPRS Commission I Mid-Term Symposium, Image Data Acquisition – Sensors & Platforms
,
15–18 June
,
Calgary, AB, Canada
.
Araujo
F. G.
,
Costa de Azevedo
M. C.
&
Lima Ferreira
M. d. N.
2011
Seasonal changes and spatial variation in the water quality of a eutrophic tropical reservoir determined by the inflowing river
.
Lake and Reservoir Management
27
,
343
354
.
Arunbabu
E.
,
Ravichandran
S.
&
Sreeja
P.
2014
Sedimentation and internal phosphorus loads in Krishnagiri Reservoir, India
.
Lakes & Reservoirs Research & Management
19
,
161
173
.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lre.12069
.
Barak
S.
&
Sadegh
S. S.
2016
Forecasting energy consumption using ensemble ARIMA–ANFIS hybrid algorithm
.
International Journal of Electrical Power and Energies
82
,
92
104
.
Carlson
R. E.
1977
A trophic state index for lakes: trophic state index
.
Limnology and Oceanography
22
(
2
),
361
369
.
https://doi.org/10.4319/lo.1977.22.2.0361
.
Dastorani
M.
,
Mirzavand
M.
,
Dastorani
M. T.
&
Khosravi
H.
2020
Simulation and prediction of surface water quality using stochastic models
.
Sustainable Water Resources Management
6
(
4
),
74
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-020-00430-7
.
Dimri
T.
,
Ahmad
S.
&
Sharif
M.
2020
Time series analysis of climate variables using seasonal ARIMA approach
.
Journal of Earth System Science
129
,
149
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-020-01408-x
.
Elangovan
A.
&
Murali
V.
2020
Mapping the chlorophyll-a concentrations in hypereutrophic Krishnagiri Reservoir (India) using Landsat 8 Operational Land Imager
.
Lakes & Reservoirs
00
,
1
11
.
https://doi.org/10.1111/lre.12346
.
ENVI
2009
Atmospheric Correction Module User's Guide
.
Geetha
A.
&
Nasira
G. M.
2016
Time series modeling and forecasting: tropical cyclone prediction using ARIMA model
. In
3rd International Conference on Computing for Sustainable Global Development (INDIACom), 2016
, pp.
3080
3086
.
Georgas
N.
,
Li
W.
&
Blumberg
A. F.
2009
Investigation of Coastal CDOM Distributions Using In-Situ and Remote Sensing Observations and a Predictive CDOM Fate and Transport Model
.
DTIC Document
,
Detroit, MI
,
USA
.
Gholizadeh
M. h.
,
Melesse
A. M.
&
Reddi
L.
2016
A comprehensive review on water quality parameter estimation using remote sensing techniques
.
Sensors
2016
,
16, 1298
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/s16081298
.
IBM SPSS Forecasting 20
2011
Jain
P. K.
,
Quamer
W.
&
Rajendra Pamula
R.
2018
Electricity consumption forecasting using time series analysis
. In
International Conference on Advances in Computing and Data Sciences
, pp.
327
335
.
Jalil
A.
,
Rao
N. H.
2019
Chapter 8–time series analysis (Stationarity, cointegration, and causality)
. In:
Environmental Kuznets Curve (EKC)
(
Özcan
B.
&
Öztürk
I.
, eds).
Academic Press
, pp.
85
99
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-12-816797-7.00008-4
.
Karunakaran
N.
2004
Eutrophication of Krishnagiri Reservoir Causes and Environmental Impacts
.
PhD Thesis
,
Center for Water resources, Anna University
,
Chennai
,
India
.
Katimon
A.
,
Shahid
S.
&
Mohsenipour
M.
2018
Modeling water quality and hydrological variables using ARIMA: a case study of Johor River, Malaysia
.
Sustainable Water Resources Management
4
(
4
),
991
998
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s40899-017-0202-8
.
Kaytez
F.
,
Taplamacioglu
M. C.
,
Cam
E.
&
Hardalac
F.
2015
Forecasting electricity consumption: a comparison of regression analysis, neural networks, and least squares support vector machines
.
Electrical Power and Energy Systems
67
,
431
438
.
Keith
D. J.
,
Schaeffer
B. A.
,
Lunetta
R. S.
,
Gould
R. W.
Jr.
,
Rocha
K.
&
Cobb
D. J.
2014
Remote sensing of selected water-quality indicators with the hyperspectral imager for the coastal ocean (HICO) sensor
.
International Journal of Remote Sensing
35
,
2927
2962
.
Kuha
J.
,
Jarvinen
M.
,
Salmi
P.
&
Karjalainen
J.
2020
Calibration of in situ chlorophyll fluorometers for organic matter
.
Hydrobiologia
847
,
4377
4387
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10750-019-04086-z
.
Liu
L.
2018
Application of a Hydrodynamic and Water Quality Model for Inland Surface Water Systems
.
doi:10.5772/intechopen.74914
.
Loucks
P.
&
Beek
E.
2017
Water Quality Modeling and Prediction
.
doi:10.1007/978-3-319-44234-1_10
.
Mahato
L. L.
,
Pathak
A. K.
,
Kapoor
D.
,
Patel
N.
&
Murthy
M.
2004
Surface water monitoring and evaluation of indravati reservoir using the application of principal component analysis using satellite remote sensing technology
. In
Proceedings of Map Asia 2004
,
Beijing, China
, pp.
26
29
.
Martinez
E. Z.
,
da Silva
E. A. S.
&
Fabbro
A. L. D.
2011
A SARIMA forecasting model to predict the number of cases of dengue in Campinas, State of São Paulo, Brazil
.
Revista da Sociedade Brasileira de Medicina Tropical
44
(
4
),
436
440
.
Mbuh
M. J.
,
Mbih
R.
&
Wendi
C.
2019
Water quality modeling and sensitivity analysis using Water Quality Analysis Simulation Program (WASP) in the shenandoah river watershed
.
Physical Geography
40
(
2
),
127
148
.
doi:10.1080/02723646.2018.1507339
.
Mohanakrishnan
A.
1988
The Krishnagiri Reservoir Project: A Technical Document
.
Anna University Publication, Anna University Chennai
.
Moriasi
D.
,
Arnold
J.
,
Van Liew
M.
,
Bingner
R.
,
Harmel
R.
&
Veith
T.
2007
Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations
.
Transactions of the ASABE
50
,
885
900
.
Najafzadeh
M.
,
Homaei
F.
&
Farhadi
H.
2021
Reliability assessment of water quality index based on guidelines of national sanitation foundation in natural streams: integration of remote sensing and data-driven models
.
Artificial Intelligence Review
54
(
6
),
4619
4651
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10462-021-10007-1
.
Nokar
M. A.
,
Tashtarian
F.
&
Moghaddam
M. H. Y.
2017
Residential power consumption forecasting in the smart grid using ANFIS system
. In
7th International Conference On Computer and Knowledge Engineering
, pp.
1
9
.
Olowe
K. O.
2018
Assessment of some existing water quality models
.
Nature Environment & Pollution Technology
17
(
3
),
939
948
.
Panklib
K.
,
Prakasvudhisam
C.
&
Khummonqkol
D.
2015
Electricity consumption forecasting in Thailand using an artificial neural network and multiple linear regression
.
Energy Sources, Part B: Economics, Planning, and Policy
10
(
4
),
427
434
.
Rahman
A.
&
Hasan M
M.
2017
Modelling and forecasting of carbon dioxide emissions in Bangladesh using autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMA) models
.
Open Journal of Statistics
7
,
560
566
.
https://doi.org/10.4236/ojs.2017.74038. https://doi.org/10.1080/15567249.2011.559520
.
Rusyana
A.
,
Nurhasanaj
,
M.
&
Flancia
M.
2016
Sarima model for forecasting foreign tourist at the Kualanamu International Airport
. In:
12th International Conference on Mathematics, Statistics and Their Applications
, pp.
153
158
.
Saha
A.
,
Jesna
P. K.
,
Ramya
V. L.
,
Mol
S. S.
,
Panikkar
P.
,
Vijaykumar
M. E.
,
Sarkar
U. K.
&
Das
B. K.
2021
Phosphorus fractions in the sediment of a tropical reservoir, India: implications for pollution source identification and eutrophication
.
Environmental Geochemistry and Health
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10653-021-00985-0
.
Saturday
A.
,
Lyimo
T. J.
,
Machiwa
J.
&
Pamba
S.
2021
Spatio-temporal variations in physicochemical water quality parameters of Lake Bunyonyi, Southwestern Uganda
.
SN Applied Sciences
3
,
684
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-021-04672-8
.
Sawaya
K. E.
,
Olmanson
L. G.
,
Heinert
N. J.
,
Brezonik
P. L.
&
Bauer
M. E.
2003
Extending satellite remote sensing to local scales: land and water resource monitoring using high-resolution imagery
.
Remote Sensing of Environment
88
,
144
156
.
Shumway
R.
&
Stoffer
D.
2011
Time Series and Its Applications
.
doi:10.1007/978-1-4757-3261-0
.
Sim
S.
,
Gaik
T.
,
Huong
A.
&
Tiong
W.
2019
Forecasting electricity consumption using SARIMA method in IBM SPSS software
.
Universal Journal of Electrical and Electronic Engineering
6
,
103
114
.
doi:0.13189/ujeee.2019.061614
.
Siriwardhana
C.
,
Cooray
A.
,
Liyanage
S.
&
Koliyabandara
P.
2019
Seasonal and spatial variation of dissolved oxygen and nutrients in Padaviya reservoir, Sri Lanka
.
Journal of Chemistry
2019
,
1
11
.
doi:0.1155/2019/5405016
.
Somvanshi
S.
,
Kunwar
P.
,
Singh
N.
,
Shukla
S.
&
Pathak
V.
2012
Integrated remote sensing and GIS approach for water quality analysis of gomti river, Uttar Pradesh
.
International Journal of Environmental Science and Technology
3
,
62
74
.
Tay
K. G.
,
Choy
Y. Y.
&
Chew
C. Y.
2018
Forecasting electricity consumption using fuzzy time series
.
International Journal of Engineering and Technology
7
(
4.30
),
342
346
.
USSL Staff
1954
Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils
.
USDA Handbook No 60
,
Washington, DC
,
USA
, p.
160
.
Wali
V. B.
,
Beeraladinni
D.
&
Lokesh
H.
2017
Forecasting of area and production of cotton in India: an application of ARIMA model
.
International Journal of Pure and Applied Bioscience
5
(
5
),
341
347
.
http://dx.doi.org/10.18782/2320-7051.5409
.
Wang
F.
,
Han
L.
,
Kung
H. T.
&
van Arsdale
R.
2006
Applications of Landsat-5 TM imagery in assessing and mapping water quality in Reelfoot Lake, Tennessee
.
International Journal of Remote Sensing
27
,
5269
5283
.
Wang
S.
,
Feng
J.
&
Liu
G.
2013
Application of seasonal time series model in the precipitation forecast
.
Mathematical and Computer Modelling
58
(
3–4
),
677
683
.
doi:10.1016/j.mcm.2011.10.034
.
Wu
C.
,
Wu
J.
,
Qi
J.
,
Zhang
L.
,
Huang
H.
,
Lou
L.
&
Chen
Y.
2010
Empirical estimation of total phosphorus concentration in the mainstream of the Qiantang River in China using Landsat TM data
.
International Journal of Remote Sensing
31
,
2309
2324
.
Xu
R.
,
Xiong
Q.
,
Yi
H.
,
Wu
C.
&
Ye
J.
2019
Research on water quality prediction based on SARIMA-LSTM: a case study of Beilun Estuary
. In:
2019 IEEE 21st International Conference on High-Performance Computing and Communications; IEEE 17th International Conference on Smart City; IEEE 5th International Conference on Data Science and Systems (HPCC/SmartCity/DSS)
, pp.
2183
2188
.
https://doi.org/10.1109/HPCC/SmartCity/DSS.2019.00302
.
Yan
Q.
,
Cheng
T.
,
Song
J.
,
Zhou
J.
,
Hung
C.-C.
&
Cai
Z.
2021
Internal nutrient loading is a potential source of eutrophication in Shenzhen Bay, China
.
Ecological Indicators
127
,
107736
.
ISSN 1470-160X. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.107736
.
Zaman
M.
,
Shahid
S. A.
&
Heng
L.
2018
Irrigation water quality
. In:
Guideline for Salinity Assessment, Mitigation and Adaptation Using Nuclear and Related Techniques
.
Springer
,
Cham
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-96190-3_5
.
Ziemińska-Stolarska
A.
&
Skrzypski
J.
2012
Review of mathematical models of water quality
.
Ecological Chemistry and Engineering S
19
(
2
),
197
211
.
https://doi.org/10.2478/v10216-011-0015-x
.
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