Assessment of Water yield service on the basis of InVEST tool (case study: Delichai watershed)

Document Type : Complete scientific research article

Authors

Abstract

Background and objectives: Numerous benefits that people obtain from ecosystems are called ecosystem services. This services have a wide range and one of the most valuable of them is water Yield. Water Yield means long-term average of annual rivers flow and recharge of aquifers by precipitation. In these years, due to different land use types and their potential in water yield, the evaluation of water yield at each land use type is important. The objective of this study is to assess and map the water yield at different land uses such as rangeland, agriculture, built up area, bare ground and Juniperus ecological niche to decide which management decisions are appropriate for the area and how much water is provided by each land use.
Materials and methods: this study is done in Delichai watershed, one of the northern sub watersheds of Hableroud river basin that located in Tehran province. The water yield model is based on the Budyko curve that determines the amount of water running off each pixel of land as the total precipitation less the fraction of the water that undergoes evapo-transpiration. the required data include maps of land use and land cover, annual precipitation, average annual potential evapotranspiration, soil depth, plant available water content, boundary of watersheds and sub-watersheds as well as a biophysical table reflecting the biophysical attributes that entered in InVEST 3.3.2 tool to map and estimate water yield ecosystem service.
Results: After entering the required data model as well as compare the initial results obtained with the actual data in the outlet, model calibrated with hydrogeological parameters Z, and the final results were obtained after calibration. According to the results, the amount of water runoff in whole Delichaee watershed is about 42 million cubic meters. Results in different land uses indicate that the maximum amount of runoff in land uses is in bare grounds with 2923.992 cubic meter per hectare and then, Rangeland and agriculture land uses with 1264.109 and 1062.725 cubic meter per hectare runoff respectively have the highest values. Also, the lowest amount of runoff is 511.287 cubic meter per hectare in Juniperus ecological niche.
Conclusion: Results of this study shows that Although InVEST model needs available and relatively simple data but it has high efficiency. And we can use it for mapping ecosystem services and decision making. Physiographic and climatic factors have a great impact on the amount of water in watershed and among these factors, elevation and precipitation are the most effective ones also we should not overlook the effect of vegetation. Therefore according to importance of water provision and problems in water supply for people who live in the region using this model or other models like it, we can estimate the relative runoff and the role of vegetation in reducing it.

Keywords

References

1.Allen, R.G., Pereira, L.S., Raes, D., and Smith, M. 1998. Crop evapotranspiration- Guidelines for computing crop water requirements-FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO, Rome, 300: 9. 330p.
2.Arnold, J.G., Srinivasin, R., Muttiah, R.S., and Williams, J.R. 1998. Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment: part I. Model development. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 34: 1. 73-89.
3.Asadolahi, Z., Salmanmahiny, A., and Sakieh, Y. 2017. Hyrcanian forests conservation based on ecosystem services approach. Environmental Earth Sciences, 76: 10. 347-365.
4.Azimi, M., Heshmati, G.A., Farahpour, M., Faramarzi, M., and Abbaspour, K.C. 2013. Modeling the impact of rangeland management on forage production of sagebrush species in arid and semi-arid regions of Iran. Ecological modelling, 250: 1-14.
5.Bai, Y., Zheng, H., Ouyang, Z., Zhuang, C., and Jiang, B. 2013. Modeling hydrological ecosystem services and tradeoffs: a case study in Baiyangdian watershed, China. Environmental earth sciences, 70: 2. 709-718.
6.Barano, T., McKenzie, E., Bhagabati, N., Conte, M., Ennaanay, D., Hadian, O., Olwero, N., Tallis, H., Wolny, S., and Ng, G. 2010. Integrating Ecosystem Services into Spatial Planning in Sumatra, Indonesia. TEEBcase. 6p.
7.Boithias, L., Acuña, V., Vergoñós, L., Ziv, G., Marcé, R., and Sabater, S. 2014. Assessment of the water supply: demand ratios in a Mediterranean basin under different global change scenarios and mitigation alternatives. Science of the Total Environment, 470: 567-577.
8.Brauman, K.A., Daily, G.C., Duarte, T.K.E., and Mooney, H.A. 2007. The nature and value of ecosystem services: an overview highlighting hydrologic services. Annu. Rev. Environ. Resource. 32: 67-98.
9.Brisbane Declaration. 2007. The Brisbane Declaration: Environmental flows are essential for freshwater ecosystem health and human well-being. In 10th International River Symposium, Brisbane, 3-6.
10.Budyko, M.I. 1974. Climate and life. San Diego, California: Academic.
11.Canqiang, Z., Wenhua, L., Biao, Z., and Moucheng, L. 2012. Water yield of Xitiaoxi River Basin based on INVEST modeling. J. Resour. Ecol. 3: 1. 50-54.
12.Cardella Dammeyer, H., Schwinning, S., Schwartz, B.F., and Moore, G.W. 2016. Effects of juniper removal and rainfall variation on tree transpiration in a semi‐arid karst: evidence of complex water storage dynamics. Hydrological Processes, 30: 24. 4568-4581.
13.Chambers, W., Toth, F., de Soya, I., Green, J., Hirakuri, S., Isozaki, H., Kambu, A., Lohan, D., Nuengsigkapian, P., and Pena-Neira, S. 2005. Typology of responses, millennium ecosystem assessment. In: Ecosystems and Human Well-being: Policy Responses, Island Press, Washington, D.C. 3: 37-70.
14.De Groot, R.S., Alkemade, R., Braat, L., Hein, L., and Willemen, L. 2010. Challenges in integrating the concept of ecosystem services and values in landscape planning, management and decision making. Ecological complexity, 7: 3. 260-272.
15.Donohue, R.J., Roderick, M.L., and McVicar, T.R. 2012. Roots, storms and soil pores: Incorporating key ecohydrological processes into Budyko’s hydrological model. J. Hydrol. 436: 35-50.
 16.Egoh, B., Drakou, E.G., Dunbar, M.B., Maes, J., and Willemen, L. 2012. Indicators for mapping ecosystem services: a review. Report EUR, 25456.
17.FAO. 2014. ⟨http://data.fao.org/ measure? entryId¼afb484eb-3a92-4b22-b657 a4c575ae52b1&tab¼metadata⟩ (accessed 25/08/14).
18.Fisher, B., Turner, R.K., and Morling, P. 2009. Defining and classifying ecosystem services for decision making. Ecological economics, 68: 3. 643-653.
19.Goldman, R., Tallis, H., Kareiva, P., and Daily, G. 2008. Field evidence that ecosystem service projects support biodiversity and diversify options. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U S A 105: 27. 9445-9448.
20.Hamel, P., and Guswa, A.J. 2015. Uncertainty analysis of a spatially explicit annual water-balance model: case study of the Cape Fear basin, North Carolina. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 19: 2. 839-853.
21.Jafari, M., Zare Chahouki, M.A., Tavili, A., and Kohandel, A. 2005. Soil-vegetation relationships in rangelands of Qom province. Pajouhesh & Sazandegi. 73: 110-116. (In Persian)
22.Leavesley, G.H., Lichty, R.W., Thoutman, B.M., and Saindon, L.G. 1983. Precipitation-runoff modeling system: User's manual, Washington, DC: USGS. 207p.
23.Leh, M.D., Matlock, M.D., Cummings, E.C., and Nalley, L.L. 2013. Quantifying and mapping multiple ecosystem services change in West Africa. Agriculture, ecosystems & environment, 165: 6-18.
24.Liang, L., and Liu, Q. 2014. Stream flow sensitivity analysis to climate change for a large water‐limited basin. Hydrological Processes, 28: 4. 1767-1774.
25.Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D.P., Wood, E.F., and Burges, S.J. 1994. A simple hydrologically based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. J. Geophysic. Res. Atmospheres. 99: 7. 14415-14428.
26.Liquete, C., Piroddi, C., Drakou, E.G., Gurney, L., Katsanevakis, S., Charef, A., and Egoh, B. 2013. Current status and future prospects for the assessment of marine and coastal ecosystem services: a systematic review. PloS one, 8: 7. 1-15.
27.MA (Millennium Assessment). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Wellbeing: Synthesis. Island Press, Washington, D.C. 245p.
28.Maczko, K. 2008. Sustainable rangelands ecosystem goods and services. 120p.
29.Malinga, R., Gordon, L.J., Jewitt, G., and Lindborg, R. 2015. Mapping ecosystem services across scales and continents–A review. Ecosystem Services, 13: 57-63.
30.Meijer, K.S., Krogt, W.N.M., and Beek, E. 2012. A new approach to incorporating environmental flow requirements in water allocation modeling. Water Resour. Manage. 26: 1271-86.
31.Mesdaghi, M. 1998. Rangeland and Rangeland management in Iran. Astan ghods razavi. Press, 260p. (In Persian)
32.Pessacg, N., Flaherty, S., Brandizi, L., Solman, S., and Pascual, M. 2015. Getting water right: A case study in water yield modelling based on precipitation data. Science of the Total Environment, 537: 225-234.
33.Redhead, J.W., Stratford, C., Sharps, K., Jones, L., Ziv, G., Clarke, D., Oliver, T.H., and Bullock, J.M. 2016. Empirical validation of the InVEST water yield ecosystem service model at a national scale. Science of the Total Environment, 569: 1418-1426.
34.Salmanmahiny, A., Jazi, H., Karimipour, H., Mehri, A., Kamiab, H., and Zare Garizi, A. 2012. Capability evaluation and land use planning (Integrated watershed management: Hableroud). 338p. (In Persian)
35.Seppelt, R., Dormann, C.F., Eppink, F.V., Lautenbach, S., and Schmidt, S. 2011. A quantitative review of ecosystem service studies: approaches, shortcomings and the road ahead. J. Appl. Ecol. 48: 3. 630-636.
36.Sharp, R., Tallis, H.T., Ricketts, T., Guerry, A.D., Wood, S.A., Chaplin-Kramer, R., Nelson, E., Ennaanay, D., Wolny, S., Olwero, N., and Vigerstol, K. 2014. InVEST user’s guide. The Natural Capital Project, Stanford. 161p.
37.Sánchez-Canales, M., Benito, A.L., Passuello, A., Terrado, M., Ziv, G., Acuña, V., Schuhmacher, M., and Elorza, F.J. 2012. Sensitivity analysis of ecosystem service valuation in a Mediterranean watershed. Science of the total environment, 440: 140-153.
38.Sun, G., and Lockaby, B.G. 2012. Water quantity and quality at the urban–rural interface. Urban–Rural Interfaces: Linking People and Nature, urbanruralinter. Pp: 29-48.
39.Terrado, M., Acuña, V., Ennaanay, D., Tallis, H., and Sabater, S. 2014. Impact of climate extremes on hydrological ecosystem services in a heavily humanized Mediterranean basin. Ecological Indicators, 37: 199-209.
40.Villa, F., Bagstad, K.J., Voigt, B., Johnson, G.W., Portela, R., Honzák, M., and Batker, D. 2014. A methodology for adaptable and robust ecosystem services assessment. PloS one, 9: 3. 91001.
41.Waage, S., Armstrong, K., and Hwang, L. 2010. Future Expectations of Corporate Environmental Performance: Emerging Ecosystem Services Tools and Applications. Business for Social Responsibility’s Environmental Services, Tools, & Markets Working Group. 24p.
42.Wilcox, B.P., Breshears, D.B., and Allen, C.D. 2003. Ecohydrolgy of a resource-conserving semiarid woodland: temporal and spatial scaling and disturbance. Ecological Monographs, 73: 223-239.
43.Xu, X., Liu, W., Scanlon, B.R., Zhang, L., and Pan, M. 2013. Local and global factors controlling water‐energy balances within the Budyko framework. Geophysical Research Letters, 40: 23. 6123-6129.
44.Zarandian, A., Baral, H., Stork, N.E., Ling, M.A., Yavari, A.R., Jafari, H.R., and Amirnejad, H. 2017. Modeling ecosystem services informs spatial planning in lands adjacent to Sarvelat and Javaherdasht protected area in northern Iran. Land Use Policy 61: 487-500.
45.Zhang, L., Dawes, W.R., and Walker, G.R. 2001. Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetatio changes at catchment scale Water Resources Research. 37: 701-708.
Journal of Water and Soil Conservation
Volume 25, Issue 4
November and December 2018
Pages 275-290

Files

Share

How to cite

Statistics