Journal of Water Resource and Protection, 2013, 5, 474-483
http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/jwarp.2013.54047 Published Online April 2013 (http://www.scirp.org/journal/jwarp)
Evaluating the Impacts of Forest Clear Cutting on Water
and Sediment Yields Using SWAT in Mississippi
Sunita Khanal, Prem B. Parajuli
Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering, Mississippi State University, Mississippi State, USA
Email: pparajuli@abe.msstate.edu
Received January 28, 2013; revised March 1, 2013; accepted March 12, 2013
Copyright © 2013 Sunita Khanal, Prem B. Parajuli. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attri-
bution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly
cited.
ABSTRACT
Forest clear cutting alters the hydrological processes such as interception, evapotranspiration and infiltration of the for-
ested watershed and consequently increases the amount of water and sediment leaving the watershed. This study was
conducted in the Upper Pearl River Watershed (UPRW) located in east-central Mississippi to evaluate and compare the
potential impacts of forest clear cutting on water and sediment yields using the Soil and Water Assessment Tool
(SWAT) model. For this purpose, five hypothetical scenarios representing clear cutting at 10%, 20%, 30%, 55% and
75% of the total forest area of the watershed were generated. The SWAT model was first calibrated (1981-1995) and
validated (1996-2008) for monthly stream flow, and later verified (February 2010 to December 2010) for monthly
sediment load. Results show that the SWAT model was able to simulate stream flow and sediment load satisfactorily
during the calibration/validation and verification periods, respectively. The potential changes caused in yields as a result
of the changes in clearcut area were computed by comparing predicted yields from each clear cutting scenario and a
base condition. Results from five scenarios demonstrate substantial increase in yields with an increase in the percentage
of forest area clearcut. When compared with the base scenario, potential changes in water and sediment yields occur
between 17% to 96% and 33% to 250%, respectively, with an increase in clearcut area from 10% to 75%. Results also
indicate that, for all scenarios, percentage wise change is larger for sediment yield. Although predicted water and sedi-
ment yields generated from each scenario are subject to further verification with observed data, this study provides use-
ful information about the potential amount of water and sediment yields that may be produced under each scenario, and
that the potential changes that may happen on yields if similar magnitude of clear cutting occurs in the UPRW or in
similar watershed.
Keywords: Clear Cutting; Hydrology; Watershed; Water Quality; SWAT
1. Introduction
Water flowing from forested watershed is generally
higher in quality than that flowing from other land use
types, such as urban or agricultural watershed [1,2]. How-
ever, intensive forest management activities such as clear
cutting may reduce surface water quality due to trans-
portation of non-point source pollutants such as surface
runoff and sediment [3,4]. Many studies in the past have
shown strong evidences supporting increase in water
yield following forest clear cutting due to reduced eva-
potranspiration and soil infiltration capacity [5-7]. In ad-
dition, response of water yield to forest clear cutting is
also known to depend on the types of vegetation har-
vested and the percentage of forest area harvested, among
others. For instance, a study in the past reviewed 94
paired watershed studies conducted worldwide on the im-
pacts of forest cover change on water yield and deter-
mined 40 mm and 25 mm increase in water yield for
every 10% reduction in cover for coniferous and decidu-
ous forest, respectively [5]. The authors further reported
that at least 20% of the forest area should be removed for
detecting statistically significant increase in water yield.
More recently, a study conducted in the Mica Creek Ex-
perimental Watershed in Northern Idaho reported sig-
nificant increase in water yield after 50% clearcut harvest
of timber [7].
Sediment is one of the most important non-point source
pollutants from intensively managed forest [8]. Therefore,
in addition to water yield, response of sediment yield to
forest clear cutting has also been extensively studied [4,
9,10]. These studies have shown increase in sediment
C
opyright © 2013 SciRes. JWARP
S. KHANAL, P. B. PARAJULI 475
yield after forest clear cutting. For instance, a study as-
sessed the impacts of forest clear cutting in three water-
sheds: one control and the other two clearcut with and
without best management practices (BMP) in eastern
Kentucky [4]. The authors observed increased sediment
yield from both clearcut watersheds when compared with
the control watershed. Increase in sediment yield from
clearcut watershed without BPM and with BMP was ap-
proximately 30 times and 14 times higher than the con-
trol watershed [4]. In a similar study conducted in Vir-
ginia, significant increase in sediment yield was observed
following forest clear cutting [10].
The Upper Pearl River Watershed (UPRW) (Figure 1)
is an important watershed of Mississippi because it drains
directly into the Ross Barnett Reservoir. The Ross Bar-
nett Reservoir is one of the state’s largest surface water
bodies and serve as the main source of drinking water for
the city of Jackson [11]. It is a forest dominated water-
shed and forest industry has been identified as the main
source of watershed’s economy [12]. However, from wa-
ter quality perspective, excess sediment from unprotected
clearcut sites has been reported as one of the major threats
to the water bodies of the UPRW, including the Ross
Barnett Reservoir [12,13]. According to Mississippi De-
partment of Environmental Quality (MDEQ), approxi-
mately 19% (217 stream miles) of entire Pearl River ba-
sin, within which the UPRW is located, are in poor con-
dition [12]. The report also determined that the large pro-
portions of poor conditioned streams are located in the
upper part of the basin, where the UPRW is located. Un-
til recently, very few studies have assessed the hydrology
and water quality components of the UPRW [11,14], but
none of these are related to the impacts associated with
forest clear cutting. Thus, in view of the economic im-
portance of forest in the UPRW on the one hand, and
water quality concern on the other, evaluation of the
changes caused in water and sediment yields following
forest clear cutting seems essential for sustainable ex-
traction of forest products without degrading watershed
health.
While large numbers of studies in the past have evalu-
ated the impacts of forest clear cutting using the paired
watershed approach, modeling approach is being widely
used since last few years. Among the most widely used
hydrological models for predicting the impacts associated
with land use/land cover change on water and sediment
yields is the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)
model [15,16]. The ability of the SWAT model to predict
impacts associated with land use/land cover change on
water and sediment yields has been tested worldwide [17-
19]. Therefore, SWAT model was used in this study to
determine potential effects of forest clear cutting on wa-
ter and sediment yields.
The SWAT model is a physically based, watershed
scale hydrologic model that operates on a daily time step
to predict long term effects of management practices on
water, sediment, and chemical yields in watersheds [16].
The model first delineates and divides the watershed into
multiple sub-basins, which are further subdivided into
hydrologic response units (HRUs). The HRUs are the
smalllest homogenous units of the watershed that are cre-
ated by combining unique land use, soil and topography
[15]. The model computes surface runoff from daily rain-
fall by using the modified United States Department of
Figure 1. Location map of the Upper Pearl River Watershed showing climate stations, USGS gauge stations, highway and
reservoir.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. JWARP
S. KHANAL, P. B. PARAJULI
476
Agriculture (USDA) soil conservation service (SCS) run-
off curve number (CN) method or the Green-Ampt infil-
tration method [15,16]. Likewise, the SWAT model com-
putes sediment yield using the Modified Universal Soil
Loss Equation (MUSLE) for each HRU [20]. Detail de-
scription about the SWAT model and its components can
be found in SWAT manual [15,16].
The SWAT model requires input of spatial datasets
such as digital elevation model (DEM), soil data and land
use/cover data. In addition, it also requires non-spatial
time series of weather data, such as precipitation, tempe-
rature, wind speed, snow and relative humidity. In this
study, USGS 30 m × 30 m DEM [21], State Soil Geogra-
phic Database (STATSGO) [22], the cropland data layer
of year 2009 [23] were used for defining watershed phy-
sical characteristics, creating soil database and for creat-
ing land use database, respectively, of the UPRW. Daily
precipitation and temperature data for a period from 1980
to 2010 were used as weather input [24].
2. Materials and Methods
2.1. Study Area
The UPRW is located in east-central part of Mississippi
(Figure 1) and has an area of approximately 7885 km2. It
covers a total of the 11 counties of Mississippi: Choctaw,
Attala, Winston, Leake, Neshoba, Kemper, Madison, Ran-
kin, Scott, Newton and Noxubee and flows down to the
Ross Barnett Reservoir [12]. The watershed’s dominant
land use is forests, accounting for about 75% of the total
watershed area. Longleaf pine, mixed pine-hardwood,
dense cypress-Tupelo swamps and bottomland hardwood
are the most common types of forest in the watershed
[12]. Other land use types of the watershed include pas-
ture (19%), and urban and others (6%). Fine sandy loam
and silt loam are the dominant soil texture of the UPRW.
The mean elevation of the watershed is about 133 m, with
minimum and maximum elevation of 78 m and 221 m,
respectively.
2.2. Model Calibration, Validation and
Verification
The SWAT model was calibrated and validated against
monthly observed stream flow data obtained from the six
USGS (US Geological Survey) gauge stations: Burnside,
Edinburg, Ofahoma, Kosciousko, Carthage, and Lena.
Stream flow calibration at the five stations (Burnside,
Edinburg, Ofahoma, Kosciousko, and Carthage) was done
for the period January 1981 to December 1995. Due to
the unavailability of continuous long term observed stream
flow data, calibration at the Lena station was done for the
period January 1998 to December 2002. The calibration
process was done manually by adjusting six stream flow
parameters: Curve number (CN), soil evaporation com-
pensation factor (ESCO), base flow alpha factor (AL-
PHA_BF), surface runoff lag coefficient (SURLAG),
ground water “revap” coefficient GW_REVAP) and thre-
shold depth of water in the shallow aquifer for baseflow
(GWQMIN). The selection of these parameters was based
on the earlier studies conducted in the same watershed
[11]. The stream flow parameters that were selected for
model calibration, their range, default value and final
value are presented in Table 1. Later, validation of pre-
dicted stream flow was done for the period from January
1996 to December 2008 at the five stations and from
January 2003 to December 2008 at the Lena station. The
final value of all selected parameters that showed optimal
model efficiency during the calibration period was used
for model validation without their further modification.
After stream flow, SWAT model’s ability to predict
sediment load was verified using one year (February to
December 2010) of observed data. Due to the unavail-
ability of observed sediment data recorded by the USGS
for the UPRW, a sampling site was established near the
USGS rain gauge station (USGS 02483500) with in the
watershed. Grab samples were collected at an interval of
two weeks from the sampling site. The collected samples
were analyzed at the Mississippi State Chemical Labora-
tory to determine total suspended sediment (TSS). To
maintain consistency with the SWAT predicted sediment
loads, the obtained TSS data were converted into sedi-
ment load by establishing a relationship between TSS
and stream flow. Further, because of the limited avail-
ability of observed data for each month, daily empirical
sediment load was computed for the studied period using
the relationship between sediment loads and stream flow.
This was done by using power function, following [25]
and [26] with stream flow as independent variable and
sediment load as dependent variable. The reason for us-
ing power equation instead of the other equations was
that the difference between the sum as well as the aver-
age of the observed and empirical data for the studied pe-
riod was very close to each other. Thus, daily empirical
sediment load for each month was used to compute em-
pirical monthly sediment loads, which was later used to
verify predicted monthly sediment loads for the UPRW.
Hereafter, empirical monthly sediment load will be stated
as observed sediment load in this study unless otherwise
stated.
The SWAT model was verified for observed monthly
sediment load by adjusting sediment parameters that
were selected following the literatures in the past [27,28].
Parameters that were modified during model verification
process, their range, default value and final value are pre-
sented in Table 1. Parameters that were adjusted for
sediment load simulation included the universal soil loss
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. JWARP
S. KHANAL, P. B. PARAJULI 477
Table 1. Adjusted parameters’, range , default value and final values adjusted for monthly stream flow calibaration and vali-
dation and sediment load verification.
No. Parameters Range Default value Final value
Stream flow
1 Curve number (CN)
i Deciduous forest (FRSD) 70 - 77 83 77
ii Evergreen forest (FRSE) 70 - 77 77 70
iii Mixed forest (FRST) 70 - 77 79 73
iv Wetland forest (WETF) 70 - 77 83 77
v Pasture (PAST) 74 - 86 84 79
vi Corn (CORN) 85 - 90 83 89
vii Residential medium density (URMD) 77 - 94 79 92
2 Soil evaporation compensation factor (ESCO) 0 - 1 1 0.4
3 Base flow alpha factor (ALPHA-BF) 0 - 1 0.048 0.9
4 Ground water “revap” coefficient (GWREVAP) 0 - 1 0.02 0.2
5 Threshold depth of water in the shallow aquifer (GWQMIN) 0 - 5000 0 1000
6 Surface runoff lag coefficient (SURLAG) 1 - 12 4 1
Sediment
7 Universal soil loss equation (USLE) crop management factor (C)
i Forest 0.001 - 0.5 0.001 0.003
ii Pasture 0.001 - 0.5 0.001 0.003
iii Corn 0.001 - 0.5 0.2 0.5
8 Coefficient in sediment transport equation (SPCON) 0.0001 - 0.01 0.0001 0.0003
9 Exponent in sediment transport equation (SPEXP) 1 - 1.5 1 1.5
10 Universal soil loss equation (USLE) support practice factor (P)
i Forest 0 - 1 1 0.5
ii Pasture 0 - 1 1 0.5
iii Corn 0 - 1 1 0.8
equation (USLE) cover factor C, universal soil loss equa-
tion (USLE) practice factor P, coefficient in sediment
transport equation (SPCON) and exponent in sediment
transport equation (SPEXP).
2.3. Forest Clear Cutting Scenario
The calibrated SWAT model was further used to quantify
potential changes caused on water and sediment yields
due to the implementation of forest clear cutting. For this
purpose, five hypothetical forest clear cutting scenarios
were developed. These scenarios included:
Scenario 1: 10% (488 km2) of the total forest area is
clearcut;
Scenario 2: 20% (992 km2) of the total forest area is
clearcut;
Scenario 3: 30% (1466 km2) of the total forest area is
clearcut;
Scenario 4: 55% (2707 km2) of the total forest area is
clearcut;
Scenario 5: 75% (3718 km2) of the total forest area is
clearcut.
To represent the condition of forest clear cutting real-
istically, scenarios were modeled by changing parameters,
such as crop growth parameter, runoff curve number and
USLE P factor in the crop database (.dat) and manage-
ment file (.mgt). The modified model parameters such as
the CN and a USLE P factor were set to 90 and 1, re-
spectively. These parameters were changed only in the
forested HRU’s of sub-basins that were selected using
stratified random sampling technique. Since the actual
area of forest in which clear cutting have been taking
place in the UPRW was not known, proposed scenarios
were built upon the literature review [5-7] and the ongo-
ing timber harvesting trend in the south [29-31]. In gen-
eral, forest lands in large watersheds like the UPRW are
owned by diverse landowners such as forest industry (FI),
timber investment management organizations (TIMOs)
and nonindustrial private forest (NIPF) owners. These
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. JWARP
S. KHANAL, P. B. PARAJULI
478
owners usually have multitude of management objectives.
For instance, while FI and TIMOs prefer intensive timber
harvesting [29,31], management preference of NIPF
ranged from very intensive timber management as that of
the FI and TIMOS to preference of amenity over timber
management only in a small portion of the forest they
owned [29,32]. Thus, to address such uncertainty in the
intensity of forest clear cutting in the watershed, sce-
narios with such range of forest clear cutting scenarios
were proposed in this study.
2.4. Data Analysis
The predicted and observed data were compared by using
four commonly used statistics in hydrologic studies: co-
efficient of determination (R2); Nash-Sutcliffe model ef-
ficiency index (NSE); root mean square error (RMSE);
and percent bias (PBIAS), which are defined as:


 

2
22
i m
i m
pp
pp




21
11
n
im
i
nn
im
ii
oo
R
oo


(1)
2
1
2
1
n
ii
in
m
i
op
oo

1NSE (2)
1
2
21
ii
pn







1
n
i
RMSE o
(3)
1
1
100%
ii
in
i
i
op
PBIAS
o







n
(4)
where oi is the observed value, pi is the predicted value,
om is the average observed value, pm is the average pre-
dicted value and n is the number of observations. The R2
(Equation (1)) was used to compute the goodness of fit
between the simulated and observed values. The value
for R2 ranges between 0 and 1, where 1 indicates perfect
fit and zero indicates poor or unacceptable fit between
the simulated and observed values [27]. The NSE (Equa-
tion (2)) was used to evaluate the model efficiency be-
cause it indicates how well the plot of observed versus
simulated values fits the 1:1 line [33]. The value of NSE
can range between −∞ and 1, where 1 denotes perfect
model performance and −∞ denotes poor model perfor-
mance [11,34,35]. The RMSE (Equation (3)) was used to
evaluate the accuracy of the model prediction. The smal-
ler the value of RMSE, the smaller the error in the model
predicted values. A value of zero for RMSE indicates
perfect simulation of the observed data by the model [11,
35,36]. The PBIAS (Equation (4)) was used to evaluate
whether simulated values were larger or smaller than
their observed counterparts. The optimal value of PBIAS
is 0, with low-magnitude values indicating accurate mo-
del simulation. Positive value indicates a model bias to-
ward underestimations, whereas negative value indicates
model bias toward overestimation [36]. In this study, mo-
del efficiency statistics were rated based on the criteria
proposed by earlier literatures [35,37].
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Stream Flow Calibration and Validation
The performance statistics for the average monthly stream
flow during the calibration period are presented in Table
2. Results indicate good to very good correlation between
the simulated and observed stream flow, which is in-
dicted by R2 and NSE values, ranging from 0.58 to 0.82
and 0.43 to 0.83, respectively. Better match between the
simulated and observed stream flow is further supported
by PBIAS values ranging between 2.70% and 22.91%.
These estimated values of PBIAS demonstrate that the si-
mulated stream flow are slightly overestimated, though
within the limit suggested by earlier literatures [35,37].
Likewise, values of RMSE that ranged between 13.27
m3/s and 39.60 m3/s also illustrate good fit between the
simulated and observed stream flow. Even though RMSE
is slightly poor at the Carthage (32.63 m3/s) and Lena
(39.60 m3/s) stations, other statistics such as R2, NSE and
PBIAS show good model performance at these two sta-
tions.
Results of model validation for monthly stream flow at
the six USGS gauge stations exhibit acceptable but
slightly poor performance when compared with the re-
sults of calibration period. A summary of the results of
model validation is presented in Table 2. The R2 and
NSE values, ranging from 0.36 to 0.60 and 0.25 to 0.65,
respectively, indicate fair to good correlation between
simulated and observed stream flow. The RMSE values,
ranging between 12.31 m3/s and 34.97 m3/s are close to
the values of calibration period, with the exception at the
Lena station (53.44 m3/s). Furthermore, the PBIAS val-
ues ranging between 15.29% and ll.06% also reveal ex-
cellent to good model performance, except at the Ofa-
homa station (36.98%). However, other statistical re-
sults such as R2, NSE and PBIAS at the Ofahoma station
indicate satisfactory performance of the SWAT model.
The estimated PBIAS values reveal overestimation of
stream flow by the SWAT model at the three stations and
underestimation at the remaining three stations. Possible
explanations for such discrepancies between different
stations for stream flow prediction may be due to the va-
riation of precipitation input at these stations. Overall,
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. JWARP
S. KHANAL, P. B. PARAJULI
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. JWARP
479
Table 2. Model performance during stream flow calibration and validation at six USGS stations.
Calibration Period Validation Period
Station R2 NSE RMSE (m3/s) PBIAS (%) R2 NSE RMSE (m3/s) PBIAS (%)
Burnside 0.78 0.75 13.60 9.87 0.36 0.25 18.48 9.85
Carthage 0.81 0.80 32.63 2.70 0.64 0.56 34.97 11.06
Edinburg 0.82 0.80 20.90 4.50 0.58 0.55 24.74 9.47
Kosciousko 0.58 0.43 13.27 22.91 0.49 0.25 12.31 15.29
Lena 0.75 0.73 39.60 8.43 0.63 0.54 52.44 4.89
Ofahoma 0.72 0.65 14.96 20.67 0.68 0.33 14.93 36.98
the obtained validation results suggest that the calibrated
SWAT model can realistically simulate stream flow out-
side the calibration period.
The model efficiency statistics computed in this study
for the monthly stream flow prediction are in general
agreement with those reported by earlier studies using the
SWAT model [3,11,37-39]. A study conducted in south-
east Indiana reported calibrated monthly stream flow NSE
values between 0.59 and 0.80 for three different water-
sheds [39]. Likewise, a study determined R2 = 0.81, NSE
= 0.56, and PBIAS = 95.06% for calibrated monthly
stream flow for Red Rock Creek watershed in south-
central Kansas [37]. Moreover, SWAT model perform-
ance in this study is also consistent with the performance
statistics reported by a study conducted in the same wa-
tershed [11]. The values of R2, NSE and RMSE estimated
at the five USGS gauge stations were reported between
0.69 and 0.79, 0.68 and 0.79, and 14.14 and 37.03 m3/s,
respectively. Thus, because of the good performance
shown by the SWAT model in this study, the calibrated
SWAT model was further used to evaluate the potential
impacts of forest clear cutting on the hydrologic compo-
nent of the watershed, specifically on water yield.
3.2. Sediment Verification
The average monthly simulated sediment load was com-
pared with the observed sediment load from February
through December 2010. In regard to the SWAT model
performance for sediment load prediction, the uncalibrated
SWAT model, using the default values of sediment para-
meters, reveal satisfactory performance (R2 = 0.87, NSE
= 0.77, and PBIAS = 21.30%) for all statistics with the
exception of RMSE (= 177.80 Mg/ha) (Figure 2(a)). Re-
sult shows that the sediment load predicted with default
parameter has slightly underestimated sediment load com-
pared to the observed data, which is shown by the posi-
tive value of PBIAS. In an effort to improve the per-
formance of the SWAT model, few parameters related to
sediment were adjusted (Table 1). This resulted in an im-
proved performance of the SWAT model (R2 = 0.91, NSE
= 0.93, and PBIAS = 3.33%) for simulating monthly
sediment load for the UPRW (Figure 2(b)). Similar to
RMSE value estimated with default parameters, the value
of RMSE (= 107.53 Mg/ha) continued to remain high
even after the adjustment of sediment parameters. This
implies that the simulated monthly sediment load possess
relatively high error than that of the observed data.
As earlier noted, simulated sediment load was not va-
lidated because of the limited availability of the observed
data, therefore accurate prediction of sediment load out-
side the calibration period can be doubted. However, si-
mulated monthly sediment load for the calibration period
showed a performance close to or better than the per-
formance of SWAT models reported in earlier literatures
for monthly sediment calibration. For instance, a study in
the past used the calibrated SWAT model for stream flow
to validate monthly sediment yield prediction using only
two years of monthly data at Pomona Lake watershed.
The study reported good performance of the SWAT mo-
del with NSE = 0.66 [38]. The performance of the SWAT
model in this study for monthly sediment load prediction
was also found to be in consistent with the findings of
other studies [27]. Provided that the SWAT model showed
very good performance for sediment load prediction, the
calibrated SWAT model was considered to have predic-
tion accuracy sufficient for assessing the impacts of for-
est clear cutting on sediment yield of the studied water-
shed.
3.3. Effects of Clear Cutting on Water and
Sediment Yields
This study used the calibrated SWAT model to predict
potential water and sediment yields generated from five
hypothetical forest clear cutting scenarios. The calibrated
SWAT model was considered as the base scenario. The
clear cutting scenarios were run on an annual basis from
1980 to 2008. The potential changes in the average an-
nual water and sediment yields were analyzed by com-
puting the difference between each clear cutting scenario
and the base scenario. Figure 3 and Table 3 demonstrate
the SWAT predicted average annual water and sediment
yields, and also the changes in yields that occurred after
S. KHANAL, P. B. PARAJULI
480
Figure 2. Model performance during sediment load verification: (a) Model with default parameters; (b) Model with adjusted
parameters.
Figure 3. Average annual water yield (mm) and average annual sediment yield (Mg/ha) under respective clear cut scenarios.
Table 3. Predicted average annual water yield and sediment yield from each scenario and their percent change from base
scenario.
Change in water yield from base Change in sediment yield from base
Clearcut forest
harvesting scenario
Water yield
mm/yr mm/yr %
Sediment yield
(Mg/ha/yr) (Mg/ha/yr) %
Base 456.1 0.0 0% 4.3 0.0 0%
10% 534.1 78.0 17% 5.7 1.4 33%
20% 589.1 133.0 29% 7.7 3.4 78%
30% 666.7 210.6 46% 9.2 4.9 113%
55% 742.2 286.1 63% 11.6 7.3 169%
75% 893.9 437.8 96% 15.1 10.8 250%
the implementation of each scenario. Results in Figure 3
and Ta ble 3 show increase in both yields with increasing
percentage of forest area clearcut. The SWAT model si-
mulated average annual water and sediment yields for the
base scenario are 456 mm/yr and 4 Mg/ha/yr, respec-
tively.
The SWAT model predicted results demonstrate sub-
stantial increase in water yield with increase in clearcut
forest area (Figure 3 and Table 3). The predicted aver-
age annual water yield are 534 mm/yr, 589 mm/yr, 667
mm/yr, 742 mm/yr and 894 mm/yr from the scenarios in
which clear cutting was applied to 10%, 20%, 30%, 55%
and 75%, respectively, of the total forest area of the wa-
tershed. The forest clear cutting scenarios of this study
showed the magnitude of change in water yield due to
changes in the percentage of forest area clearcut. Com-
pared to the simulated average annual water yield of the
base scenario, approximately 17%, 29%, 46%, 63% and
96% increase in water yield was observed from scenarios
in which 10%, 20%, 30%, 55% and 75%, respectively, of
the forest area is clearcut. Greatest change in the average
annual water yield was observed from 75% forest area
clearcut scenario, which accounts for an increase in water
yield by approximately 488 mm when compared with the
base scenario. Comparison of changes in water yield that
occurred between subsequent scenarios showed that for
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. JWARP
S. KHANAL, P. B. PARAJULI 481
every 10% increase in the percentage of total forest area
clearcut, the changes in water yield occurred between 55
mm to 78 mm. Similar change in model predicted aver-
age annual water yield occurred, approximately by 76
mm, when the percentage of forest area clearcut was in-
creased from 30% to 55%, which accounts for an in-
crease of about 11% when compared with the 30% forest
area clearcut scenario. A considerable change in average
annual water yield of about 152 mm, an increase of ap-
proximately 20%, was observed from 75% forest area
clearcut scenario when compared with the 55% forest area
clearcut scenario. Further, water yield generated from 75%
forest area clearcut scenario is almost double the water
yield from the base scenario.
The SWAT model predicted sediment yield follows
the similar pattern for the proposed clearcut scenarios
(Figure 3 and Table 3). Percentage wise, increase in
sediment yield from each scenario is much larger than
the water yield, ranging between 33% and 250%. This
suggests that the impact of clear cutting is greater on se-
diment yield than that on water yield. In general, forest
clear cutting increases the amount of water available for
surface runoff due to increased water yield; therefore,
increase in sediment yield after clear cutting can be attri-
buted to an increase in water yield. The predicted sedi-
ment yield ranged between 6 Mg/ha and 15 Mg/ha or
33% and 250%, respectively. Compared to the base value,
30% forest area clear cut scenario resulted in an increase
of sediment yield by about 113% or 9 Mg/ha (Table 3).
The predicted sediment yield generated from 55% forest
clear cutting scenario is almost double the sediment yield
generated from the base scenario. As expected, greatest
increase in model predicted sediment yield was observed
from 75% forest clear cutting scenarios, which resulted
in an increase of about 250%, or 15 Mg/ha (Figure 3 and
Table 3).
Overall, this study supported the findings of earlier
studies that have indicated that decrease in forest cover
increases water and sediment yields [4,5,7]. If clear cut-
ting is implemented in similar magnitude in the UPRW
watershed, increase in average annual water and sedi-
ment yields would occur by as much as 96% or 894 mm
and 250% or 15 Mg/ha, respectively. However, due to
unavailability of limited literatures from similar areas,
cross validation of water and sediment yield generated
from each scenario applied for the UPRW was not possi-
ble. Further, it should be noted that the predicted yields
from each scenario may be different than the actual
yields in the watershed for similar magnitude of clear
cutting. One possible explanation for the possible differ-
ence in yields is the implementation of BMPs after clear
cutting, which was beyond the scope of this study. An-
other possible reason is the model uncertainty, which
may exist due to different forest management activities at
the local level, and also due to errors contained in the
spatial data input. Thus, cautious interpretation of these
results is suggested
4. Conclusions
This study evaluated and compared the potential impacts
of forest clear cutting on water and sediment yields of the
UPRW located in east-central Mississippi. The SWAT
model was used to simulate five hypothetical scenarios
that represented clear cutting at 10%, 20%, 30%, 55%
and 75% of the total forest area of the watershed. The
SWAT model was first calibrated (1981-1995) and vali-
dated (1996-2008) for monthly stream flow, and later
verified (February 2010 to December 2010) for monthly
sediment load. Results show that the SWAT model was
able to simulate stream flow and sediment load satisfac-
torily during the calibration/validation and verification
period, respectively. This was shown by high R2 and NSE
values (>0.6) at five of six stations during the calibration
period. Small values of PBIAS (i.e. within the suggested
limit of ±25% by earlier literatures) at all the six stations,
and relatively small values of RMSE (13.27 - 39.60 m3/s)
also reveal that the SWAT model was able to predict
stream flow with minimum error and limited bias. Like-
wise, R2 and NSE values greater than or equal to 0.77 for
both default and adjusted sediment related parameters,
PBIAS value within ±22% with default parameter and
±4% with adjusted parameter also illustrate that the
SWAT model was able to predict sediment load reasona-
bly well.
The calibrated SWAT model was further used to simu-
late the base scenario as well as the five clear cutting sce-
narios. Potential changes in yields that may happen due
to the implementation of clear cutting were computed by
comparing yields from each scenario and a base scenario.
As expected, increase in water and sediment yields was
observed with increase in the percentage of forest area
clear cut. This indicates that the SWAT model predicted
results of this study have supported the findings of earlier
studies that showed evidences supporting increase in wa-
ter and sediment yields following forest clear cutting.
Compared to the simulated average annual water yield
of the base scenario, approximately 17%, 29%, 46%,
63% and 96% increase in water yield was observed from
scenarios that represent clear cutting at 10%, 20%, 30%,
55% and 75%, respectively, of the total forest area of the
watershed. These correspond to an average annual in-
crease in water yield by approximately 78 mm, 133 mm,
210.6 mm, 286.1 mm and 437.8 mm from respective sce-
narios. More seriously, an increase of about 33%, 78%,
113%, 169% and 250% was observed with increase in
percentage of forest area clear cut. These represent an in-
crease in average annual sediment yield by about 1.4
Mg/ha, 3.4 Mg/ha, 4.9 Mg/ha,, 7.3 Mg/ha, and 10.8
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. JWARP
S. KHANAL, P. B. PARAJULI
482
Mg/ha.
Since the UPRW drains directly into the Ross Barnett
Reservoir, increase in water and sediment yields at the
UPRW will have serious environmental effects to the re-
servoir. Therefore, it is suggested that the percentage of
forest area that is clear cut in the watershed should be
considered with care. Even though, predicted water and
sediment yields generated from each scenario are subject
to further verification with observed data, this study pro-
vides useful information about the potential amount of
water and sediment yields that may be produced under
each scenario, and that the potential changes that may
happen on yields if similar magnitude of clear cutting oc-
curs in the UPRW or in similar watershed.
5. Acknowledgements
This material is based upon the work performed through
the special Research Initiatives (SRI); the Mississippi
Agricultural and Forestry Experiment Station (MAFES);
the Sustainable Energy Research Centre at Mississippi
State University; and is supported by the Department of
Energy under Award number DE-FG3606GO86025. We
acknowledge the contributions Mr. Kurt Readus, Assis-
tant State Conservationist, NRCS/MS.
REFERENCES
[1] J. E. Douglass, “Watershed Values Important in Land Use
Planning on Southern Forests,” Journal of Forestry, Vol.
72, No. 10, 1974, pp. 617-621.
[2] M. Chang, “Forest Hydrology: An Introduction to Water
and Forests,” 3rd Edition, CRC Press, New York. 2006.
[3] A. Saleh, J. R. Williams, J. C. Wood, L. M. Hauck and W.
H. Blackburn, “Application of APEX for Forestry,” Tran-
sactions of the ASAE, Vol. 47, No. 3, 2004, pp. 751-765.
[4] M. A. Arthur, G. B. Coltharp and D. L. Brown, “Effects
of Best Management Practices on Forest Streamwater
Quality in Eastern Kentucky,” American Water Resources
Association, Vol. 34, No. 3, 1998, pp. 481-495.
doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb00948.x
[5] J. M. Bosch and J. D. Hewlett, “A Review of Catchment
Experiments to Determine the Effect of Vegetation Chan-
ges on Water Yield and Evapotranspiration,” Journal of
Hydrology, Vol. 55, No. 1-4, 1982, pp. 3-23.
doi:10.1016/0022-1694(82)90117-2
[6] J. D. Stednick, “Monitoring the Effects of Timber Harvest
on Annual Water Yield,” Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 176,
No. 1-4, 1996, pp. 79-95.
doi:10.1016/0022-1694(95)02780-7
[7] J. A. Hubbart, T. E. Link, J. A. Gravelle and W. J. Elliot,
“Timber Harvest Impacts on Water Yield in the Continen-
tal/Maritime Hydroclimatic Region of the United States,”
Forest Science, Vol. 53, No. 2, 2007, pp. 169-180.
[8] J. M. Grace, “Forest Operations and Water Quality in the
South,” Transactions of the ASAE, Vol. 48, No. 2, 2005,
pp. 871-880.
[9] T. W. Chu, A. Shirmohammadi, H. Montas and A. Sa-
deghi, “Evaluation of the SWAT Model’s Sediment and
Nutrient Components in the Piedmont Physiographic Re-
gion of Maryland,” Transactions of the ASABE, Vol. 47,
No. 5, 2004, pp. 1523-1538.
[10] T. M. Wynn, S. Mostaghimi, J. W. Frazee, P. W. Mc-
Clellan, R. M. Shaffer and W. M. Aust, “Effects of Forest
Harvesting Best Management Practices on Surface Water
Quality in the Virginia Coastal Plain,” Transactions of the
ASAE, Vol. 43, No. 4, 2000, pp. 927-936.
[11] P. B. Parajuli, “Assessing Sensitivity of Hydrologic Res-
ponses to Climate Change from Forested Watershed in
Mississippi,” Hydrological Processes, Vol. 24, No. 26,
2010, pp. 3785-3797. doi:10.1002/hyp.7793
[12] Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MD-
EQ), “Citizen’s Guide to Water Quality in the Pearl River
Basin,” 2007.
http://www.deq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/pdf/WMB_PearlRiv
erBasinCitizen-
Guide112008/$File/Pearl%20River%20Basin_Final_pr.p
df?OpenElement
[13] Mississippi Department of Environmental Quality (MD-
EQ), “Pearl River Basin Status Report,” 2000.
http://www.deq.state.ms.us/mdeq.nsf/pdf/WMB_prstatusr
eport/$File/prstatusreport.pdf?OpenElement
[14] M. L. M. Tagert, “Water Quality, Modeling, and Land
Use Investigations in the Upper Pearl River Basin of
East-Central Mississippi,” Ph.D. Thesis, Mississippi State
University, Starkville, 2006.
[15] S. L. Neitsch, J. G. Arnold, J. R. Kiniry and J. R. Wil-
liams, “Soil and Water Assessment Tool SWAT, Theo-
retical Documentation,” Blackland Research Center, Grass-
land, Soil and Water Research Laboratory, Agricultural
Research Service, Temple, 2005.
[16] J. G. Arnold, R. Srinivasan, R. S. Muttiah and J. R. Wil-
liams, “Large Area Hydrologic Modeling and Assessment
Part I: Model Development,” Journal of American Water
Resources Association, Vol. 34, No. 1, 1998, pp. 73-89.
doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.1998.tb05961.x
[17] L. Kalin and M. M. Hantush, “Hydrologic Modeling of an
Eastern Pennsylnania Watershed with NEXRAD and Rain
Gauge Data,” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, Vol.
11, No. 6, 2006, pp. 555-569.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(2006)11:6(555)
[18] F. Githui, F. Mutua and W. Bauwens, “Estimating the
Impacts of Land-Cover Chang on Runoff Using the Soil
and Water Assessment Tool SWAT: Case Study of Nzoia
Catchment, Kenya,” Hydrological Sciences, Vol. 54, No.
5, 2009, pp. 899-908.
[19] R. A. Kuhnle, R. L. Bingner, G. R. Foster and E. H. Gris-
singer, “Effect of Land Use Changes on Sediment Trans-
port in Goodwin Creek,” Water Resources Research, Vol.
32, No. 10, 1996, pp. 3189-3196.
doi:10.1029/96WR02104
[20] J. R. Williams and H. Brendt, “Sediment Yield Prediction
Based on Watershed Hydrology,” Transactions of the
ASAE, Vol. 20, No. 6, 1977, pp. 1100-1104.
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. JWARP
S. KHANAL, P. B. PARAJULI
Copyright © 2013 SciRes. JWARP
483
[21] US Geological Society (USGS), “National Elevation Data-
set,” 1999.
http://seamless.usgs.gov/website/seamless/viewer.htm
[22] US Department of Agriculture (USDA), “Soil Data Mart,”
Natural Resources Conservation Service, 2005.
http://soildatamart.nrcs.usda.gov/Default.aspx
[23] US Department of Agriculture, National Agricultural Sta-
tistics Service (USDA/NASS), “The Cropland Data Layer,”
2009.
http://www.nass.usda.gov/research/Cropland/SARS1a.ht
m
[24] National Climatic Data Center (NCDC), “Locate Weather
Observationa Station Record,” 2010.
http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/land-based-station-data/find-st
ation
[25] J. R. Gray and F. J. M. Simoes, “Estimating Sediment
Discharge,” In: M. H. Gracia, Ed., Sedimentation Engi-
neering: Processes, Meausurements, Modeling and Prac-
tice, American Society of Civil Engineers, 2008, pp.
1067-1088.
[26] J. G. Rankl, “Relations between Total-Sediment Load and
Peak Discharge for Rainstorm Runoff on Five Ephemeral
Streams in Wyoming,” 2004.
http://pubs.usgs.gov/wri/wri024150/pdf/wrir02-4150.pdf
[27] C. Santhi, J. G. Arnold, J. R. Williams, W. A. Dugas and
L, Hauck, “Validation of the SWAT Model on a Large
River Basin with Point and Nonpoint Sources,” Journal
of American Water Resources Association, Vol. 37, No. 5,
2001, pp. 1169-1188.
doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2001.tb03630.x
[28] S. G. Setegn, R. Srinivasan, B. Dargahi and A. M. Me-
lesse, “Spatial Delineation of Soil Erosion Vulnerability
in the Lake Tana Basin, Ethiopia,” Hydrological Proc-
esses, Vol. 23, No. 26, 2009, pp. 3738-3750.
[29] J. P. Siry, “Intensive Timber Management Practices,” In:
D. N. Wear and J. G. Greis, Eds., Southern Forest Re-
source AssessmentTechnical Report , USDA Forest Ser-
vice, Sourthern Research Station, Ashville, 2002, pp.
327-340.
[30] O. Joshi and, S. R. Mehmood, “Factors Affecting Nonin-
dustrial Private Forest Landowners’ Willingness to Sup-
ply Woody Biomass for Bioenergy,” Biomass and Bio-
energy, Vol. 35, No. 1, 2011, pp. 186-192.
doi:10.1016/j.biombioe.2010.08.016
[31] W. R. Rogers and I. A. Munn, “Forest Management In-
tensity: A Comparison of Timber Investment Manage-
ment Organizations and Industrial Landowners in Missis-
sippi,” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry, Vol. 27, No.
2, 2003, pp. 83-91.
[32] O. Joshi and S. R. Mehmood, “Segmenting Southern
Nonindustrial Private Forest Landowners on the Basis of
Their Management Objectives and Motivations for Wood-
Based Bioenergy,” Southern Journal of Applied Forestry,
Vol. 35, No. 2, 2011, pp. 87-92.
[33] J. E. Nash and J. V. Sutcliffe, “River Flow Forecasting
through Conceptual Models: Part I. A Discussion of Prin-
ciples,” Journal of Hydrology, Vol. 10, No. 3, 1970, pp.
282-290. doi:10.1016/0022-1694(70)90255-6
[34] R. Srinivasan, X. Zhang and J. Arnold, “SWAT Un-
gauaged: Hydrological Budget and Crop Yield Predic-
tions in the Upper Mississippi River Basin,” Transactions
of the ASABE, Vol. 53, No. 5, 2010, pp. 1533-1546.
[35] D. N. Moriasi, J. G. Arnold, M. W. VanLiew, R. L.
Binger, R. D. Harmel and T. L. Veith, “Model Evaluation
Guidelines for Systematic Quantification of Accuracy in
Watershed Simulations,” Transactions of the ASABE, Vol.
50, No. 3, 2007, pp. 885-900.
[36] H. V. Gupta, S. Sorooshian and P. O. Yapo, “Status of
Automatic Calibration for Hydrologic Models: Compari-
son with Multilevel Expert Calibration,” Journal of Hy-
drologic Engineering, Vol. 4, No. 2, 1999, pp. 135-143.
doi:10.1061/(ASCE)1084-0699(1999)4:2(135)
[37] P. B. Parajuli, N. O. Nelson, L. D. Frees and K. R. Man-
kin, “Comparison of AnnAGNPS and SWAT Model Si-
mulation Results in USDACEAP Agricultural Watersheds
in South-Central Kansas,” Hydrological Processes, Vol.
23, No. 5, 2009, pp. 748-76 3.
[38] A. P. Nejadhashemi, B. J. Wardynski and J. D. Munoz,
“Evaluating the Impacts of Land Use Changes on Hydro-
logic Responses in the Agricultural Regions of Michigan
and Wisconsin,” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences
Discussions, Vol. 8, No. 2, 2011, pp. 3421-3468.
doi:10.5194/hessd-8-3421-2011
[39] G. G. Vazquez-Amabile and B. A. Engel, “Use of SWAT
to Compute Groundwater Table Depth and Stream Flow
in the Muscatatuck River Watershed,” Transactions of the
ASAE, Vol. 48, No. 3, 2005, pp. 991-1003