IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Research article
erd

Water Harvesting Potential and its Maximization by theApplication of Clayey Dressing in Qargha Reservoir
Watershed, Kabul, Afghanistan
SHAFIQULLAH RAHMANI
Department of Horticulture, Ghazni University, Ghazni, Afghanistan

IHSANULLAH AKRAMZOI
Department of Horticulture, Ghazni University, Ghazni, Afghanistan

MACHITO MIHARA*
Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo University of Agriculture, Tokyo, Japan
Email: m-mihara@nodai.ac.jp
Received 8 February 2021

Accepted 4 October 2021(*Corresponding Author)

Abstract The unfavorable impacts of climate change are experienced all over the world.
Afghanistan is among the countries that are severely affected by the impacts of climatechange. The adverse effect on water resources constitutes one of the most negative effects.
Currently, water management authorities and researchers look for improved water
management techniques that will reduce the pressure on the already stressed water resources.
Surface runoff harvesting is becoming more popular in regions with an arid-semi-arid climate,such as Afghanistan because of the increasing demand for scarce water resources. Therefore,a study was carried out to analyze the water harvesting potential in Qargha Reservoir
Watershed, and to evaluate the effectiveness of clayey dressing application in maximizing
surface runoff compared to control conditions. Rational method and sorptivity method wereused to estimate the potential surface runoff and clayey dressing (silty clay loam and clayloam) was applied as a conservation strategy. A small area of 2 ha was selected in suitableareas of Qargha Reservoir Watershed. Based on 16 rainfall events, the volume of surface
runoff estimated by the rational method was 509.40 m3, which was larger than the 478.34 m3,
estimated by the sorptivity method. After clayey dressing application, the estimated volumeof surface runoff based on the rational method increased to 1392.36 m3. Furthermore, theestimated volume of surface runoff after clayey dressing calculated with the sorptivity
method increase to 1608.46 m3 based on 16 rainfall events. Proper soil surface treatment suchas application of clayey dressing is highly recommended for achieving sustainable agriculture.
Keywords water harvesting, Qargha Reservoir, clayey dressing application,
silty clay loam, clay loam and sorptivity method

INTRODUCTION
In recent years, the adverse impacts of climate change occur more consistently, and the sector most
severely hit by climate change is agriculture sector. The adverse effect of climate crises on water
resources constitutes one of the most negative effects. Moreover, excessive use of available irrigationwater in the field aggravates the consequences. The most common irrigation method used in the study
area is surface irrigation (flood irrigation). Thus, intensive aridity has altered the yield pattern
negatively (Parvizi and Sepaskhah, 2015). According to Oweis and Hachum, (2006), rain water
harvesting can considerably boost productivity in the drier marginal environments. Water harvestingis among the most promising ways of supplementing the scarce surface water resources in areas tomeet demand (Aladenola and Adeboye, 2010). Maximizing surface runoff can be used to provide
partial water requirement of rain-fed and irrigation based agriculture (Parvizi and Sepaskhah, 2015).
Currently, water management authorities and researchers look for improved water management
techniques that will reduce the pressure on the already stressed water resources. Climate inducedⒸ ISERD116

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

changes in precipitation, surface runoff, and soil moisture will possibly have intense impacts onliving creatures (Hardy, 2005). Survey conducted by Rahmani and Mihara, (2017) reported that water
shortage was the main problem in the study area farmers face during crop production. Growing
season in Qargha Reservoir Watershed of Paghman District, Kabul Province starts in March and ends
in October; however, in the latter half from June to October, it hardly rains, which causes crop failure
and low productivity. So, collecting and stocking a certain amount of runoff water in the wet season
and using it as irrigation water during the latter half of the growing season can reduce water shortage
problems (Rahmani et al., 2019 and). Wide range of techniques such as soil compaction, gravel
removal, bitumen emulsion and tall oil, less permeable soil, wax and plastic and Sodium dispersantssuch as sodium carbonate and sodium chloride (Yazar et al., 2014, Parvizi et al., 2015, Short andLantzke, 2006, Amu-Mensah et al., 2013, Fink et al., 1980 and Frasier et al., 1987) used worldwidefor surface runoff maximization. This study aimed to evaluate the effectiveness of clayey dressing
application in surface runoff maximization compared to control conditions in the laboratory and inthe field.
OBJECTIVE
To analyze the water harvesting potential in Qargha Reservoir Watershed, and to evaluate theeffectiveness of clayey dressing application in maximizing surface runoff compared to controlconditions.
METHODOLOGY

Study Area
The research area lies between longitudes E 68° 49' 44'' and E 68° 40' 54'' and latitudes N 34° 25' 14''and N 34° 40' 19.2''. The research was carried out in Qargha Reservoir Watershed, Paghman District,
Kabul Province, Afghanistan. The total area of Paghman District is 361 km 2, and Qargha Reservoir
catchment area is 40.33 km2. According to Rahmani et al, (2018), average precipitation in thewatershed is around 280 mm annually and average annual temperature is 11.01 oC. Majority of thepeople living in Paghman District is small subsistence farmers with small plots of agricultural land.

Fig. 1 Location map of proposed water harvesting site (Rahmani et al., 2019)
Surface runoff experiments were conducted in the field and laboratory. Sorptivity method andrational method were used to calculate surface runoff. Soil sorptivity experiments were carried out
in the laboratory; several samples from local soil were used in the experiment. The dominant soil
particle size distribution (soil texture) in the study area is loam. Thus, surface runoff was calculatedwith and without clayey dressing application. Clayey dressing application is an economical andenvironmental friendly runoff enhancement technique. Clayey dressing (less permeable soil) wasextracted using sieve sieving and cloth sieving. A clothing was placed on the bucked to remove largerⒸ ISERD

117

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

particles from diluted soil (Rahmani, et al., 2018). Cloth sieving was used for clayey dressing
extraction in the field and soil sieved (clayey dressing) using sieves of 38 μm and 75 μm were usedin the surface runoff experiment in the laboratory. Runoff experiment was conducted in thelaboratory of Land and Water Use Engineering, Tokyo University of Agriculture using runoff plots
with 0.90 m long, 0.052 m wide and 0.035 m deep. Marriott bottle was used to provide constant waterflow rate of 20 cm3 s-1 at constant pressure for a concentrated surface scenario and 8% slope.
The rational runoff coefficient for treated condition was calculated based on the runoff plot
experiment in the laboratory and in the field. The change in rational coefficient was recorded andthen added to rational runoff coefficient for control condition based on ODOT (2014). And then theaverage runoff coefficient was calculated. The average runoff coefficient for treated conditions
calculated was 0.41. Total 16 rainfall events observed from 18 November 2017 to 6 May 2018 for
170 days were selected for runoff volume estimation. Additionally, silty clay loam (SiCL) dressing
and clay loam (CL) dressing were used as a surface runoff maximization strategy. For further
information refer to the calculation of surface runoff using sorptivity method and rational method in
Qargha Reservoir Watershed control condition (Rahmani et al., 2019).
RESULTS AND DISCUSSIONSurface Runoff Estimation
The amounts of surface runoff generated under different treatments compared to control in thelaboratory are shown in Table 1. Silty clay loam dressing with 57%, 53% and 47% concentration
increased runoff 1.30 x, 1.28 x and 1.16 x, respectively. While, clay loam dressing with 65%, 60%
and 53% concentration increased runoff 1.43 x 1.41 x and 1.27 x, respectively. The result shows that,the clay dressing application is highly effective in increasing surface runoff, and the influence ofsieve size was not obvious. Shirazi et al., (2010) stated that permeability noticeably decreasing by
the increasing rate of clay in the clay-sand mixture. For instance, application of clayey dressing on
the soil surface is highly recommended as a runoff maximizer. Thus, it is very economical and easy
to use, and extraction does not need expensive and difficult equipment and tools to use. Availability
and generation of extra rainfall runoff water can help to revive agriculture in the study area andcultivate large dry uncultivated lands. Statistical analysis showed that there are significant differences
between control and clayey dressing applied conditions.
Table 1 Surface runoff water under different treatments
Clayeydressing

Dry density(g cm-3)

Treatment Water applied
RunoffInfiltration
Increase from
Runoff (C)(cg g-1)(dm3)(dm3 m-2)(dm3 m-2)
control (x)Control
12.96
9.70 a**
3.20
0.75
46.4
12.96
11.24 b**
1.68
0.87
1.16
SiCL
1.3
52.3
12.96
12.45 b**
0.50
0.96
1.28
56.9
12.96
12.62 b**0.00
0.97
1.30Control
12.96
8.68 a**
3.82
0.67
52.1
12.96
11.04 c**
1.55
0.85
1.27
CL
1.5
60.1
12.96
12.20 b**
0.00
0.94
1.41
64.9
12.96
12.38 b**
0.00
0.95
1.42
CL = Clay loam dressing, SiCL = Silty clay loam dressing, **denotes significance difference level at P<0.01

The result of surface runoff experiment conducted in the field showed that, Deh Ponba soil
treated with clayey dressing at 57.7 and 64.9 cg g-1 increased runoff by 1.41 x and 1.42 x, and Doda
Mast soil increased runoff by 1.55x and 1.58x compared to control shown in Table 2. Statisticalanalysis also showed that the result of control and treated conditions had signification differences.
Parvizi and Sepaskhah, (2016), examined the effect of gravel removal, rill construction across toslope and applying of baking soda on surface runoff. According to the results, gravel removal
technique is nearly as effective in the runoff enhancement as rill construction across to slope andbaking soda technique.
Ⓒ ISERD118

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Table 2 Surface runoff estimation in the field
Treatment(cg g-1)

Site

Water applied(dm3)

Runoff(dm3 m-2)

Runoff (C)Control45.0
27.7 a**0.62
Deh Ponba
SiCL 57.7
45.0
39.2 b**0.87
SiCL 64.9
45.0
39.5 b**0.88
Control
45.0
25.3 a**0.56
Doda Mast
SiCL 57.7
45.0
39.2 b**0.87
SiCL 64.9
45.0
39.5 b**0.88
SiCL = Silty clay loam dressing. **denotes significance difference level at P<0.01

Increase fromcontrol (x)
1.41
1.42
1.55
1.58

Results of runoff volume calculation showed that with clayey dressing application of either silty
clay loam or clay loam, the runoff volume increased from 509.40 m 3 to 1392.36 m3 compared tocontrol conditions, which shows 2.73 x increase in surface runoff. Similarly, the runoff coefficientvalue was increased from 0.15 to 0.41. The results of surface runoff calculated based on sorptivity
method with clayey dressing application showed that surface runoff volume can be increase to1608.46 m3 from 478.34 m3 control condition, which shows 3.36 x increase. Accordingly, bothmethods confirm that clayey dressing application onto the soil surface can effectively increase
surface runoff. The results of surface runoff volume in treated conditions estimated using sorptivity
method is shown in Table 3. For the result of surface runoff calculated using rational and Sorptivity
method in control conditions please refer to Rahmani et al., (2019). Comparison result of rationaland Sorptivity method calculated surface runoff is shown in Table 4.
Table 3 Surface runoff volume estimated using the rational method and sorptivity method
treated conditions
Rainfalleven
12345678910111213
1415
16P (mm)S

Area (m-2)

C

14.80
12.80
8.00
14.20
11.40
16.80
3.20
15.60
11.20
22.60
6.80
17.40
8.00
10.20
3.80
2.20

6.70
6.00
10.50
8.60
7.30
8.90
10.80
9.20
15.30
11.80
7.90
14.20
9.40
11.10
3.90
8.90

20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000
20000

0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41
0.41

Total

Qsp(mm)
9.00
7.70
2.10
7.40
5.70
9.40
0.00
8.30
2.80
12.80
2.10
7.40
2.40
3.40
0.00
0.00

Qsp(m3)179.70153.2042.50
147.90114.20188.700.00
165.2056.60
255.5041.60
147.80
48.30
67.10
0.00
0.00
1608.46

Qra(m3)121.36104.9665.60
116.4493.48
137.760.00
127.92
91.84
185.3255.76
142.68
65.60
83.64
0.00
0.00
1392.36

Amu-Mensah et al., (2013), reported that, possibility of water harvesting to can be created insoils with high infiltration rate by less permeable soil application onto the soils surface. In accordancewith the results, it was assumed that the higher effectiveness of clayey dressing in surface runoff
inducement (maximization) and reducing infiltration rate of the soil is due to its characteristic ofclogging and sealing surface which leads to lower infiltration rate and high runoff production. A
study conducted by Rahmani et al., (2018), indicated that, application of less permeable soil (clayeydressing) on soil surface lower the infiltration rate because of clogging soil pores and cracks. It is tobe concluded that, the increase observed in surface runoff by clayey dressing application compared
to control was due to clogging the soil pores and sealing the surface. Pore clogging and surface
sealing take place when the plug flow radius of the soil suspension was bigger than the radius of soil
Ⓒ ISERD119

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2pores. Mihara et al. (1993), also confirm that pore radius smaller than radius of plug flow causes
clogging of soil pores, which leads to increased runoff. Mihara and Yasutomi (1992) also reported
that clayey suspension flow causes pore clogging.
Table 4 Surface runoff volume change after clayey dressing compared to control
Treatment

MethodControl*
Clayey dressing
Control*
Clayey dressing

Sorptivity
methodRational
methodRainfallevents16161616

Area (m2)
20,00020,00020,00020,000

Runoff (m3) Increase in runoff volume (x)478.3
1,608.5
509.4
1,392.4

3.36 x2.73 xRational method and sorptivity method (control condition) by Rahmani et al.,( 2019).

This idea is confirmed and backed by Mihara and Yasutomi (1993) and Mihara et al., (1992),
which conclude that clay suspension caused pore clogging and surface sealing. According to Robert(1974), infiltration decreases with increased number of suspended solids in the water. Further, hestated that sediment deposition caused surface sealing.
CONCLUSION
Water harvesting is one of the promising ways of supplementing the surface and underground scarcewater resources in areas where existing water supply system is inadequate to meet demand. Water
harvesting can substantially increase rainwater productivity in the drier marginal environments. The
results of both laboratory and field runoff experiment showed that clayey dressing application (lesspermeable soil) was highly effective in maximizing surface runoff and to lower infiltration rate evenin rainfall events with depth and intensity. Thus, the result of surface runoff calculated using rational
method and sorptivity method also indicated that surface runoff can be increased with clayey dressing
application onto the soil surface. The statistical analysis also showed that there were significant
differences between control and soil treated with clayey dressing. So, maximizing surface runoff canbe used to provide water requirement of rain-fed and irrigation based agriculture.
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
We would like to convey our sincere gratitude to Faculty of Regional Environment Science, Tokyo
University of Agriculture, for continues support and backing during our study.
REFERENCES
Aladenola, O.O. and Adeboye, O.B. 2010. Assessing the potential for rainwater harvesting. Water Resources
Management, 24 (10), 2129-2137.
Amu-Mensah, F.K., Tahei, Y. and Mitsuhiro, I. 2013. Improving soil surface conditions for enhanced rainwater
harvesting on highly permeable soils. International Journal of Water Resources and Environmental
Engineering, 5 (11), 616-621.
Fink, D.H., Frasie, G.W. and Cooley, K.R. 1980. Water harvesting by wax-treated soil surface, Progress,problems and potential. Agricultural Management, 3, 125-134.
Frasie, G.W., Dutt, G.R. and Fink, D.H. 1987. Sodium salt treated catchments for water harvesting. American
Society of Agricultural Engineers, 30 (3), 658-664.
Hardy, J.T. 2005. Climate change: Causes, effects and solutions. Wiley, John Wiley and Sons, 77-95. UK.
Keese, C.W. 2006. Sealing ponds and lakes with bentonite. Extension Agricultural Engineer, Texas
Agricultural Extension Service, The Texas A and M University, Texas, 77843.
Mihara, M. and Yasutomi, R. 1992. Structural mechanism in porous medium by soil suspension flow. InMoldenaers, P. and Keunings, R. (Eds.), Theoretical and Applied Rheology, Proc. XIth International
Congress on Rheology, 653.
Ⓒ ISERD

120

IJERD – International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development (2021) 12-2

Mihara, M., Yasutomi, R. and Nakamura, Y. 1993. Rheological study on strainer structure of under drain pipes
for slope protection. Proc. International Conference for Agricultural Machinery and Process Engineering,
197-204.
Oweis, T. and Hachum, A. 2006. Water harvesting and supplemental irrigation for improved water productivityof dry farming systems in West Asia and North Africa. Agricultural Water Management, 80, 57-73.
Parvizi, H. and Sepaskhah, A.R. 2016. The effect of physical and chemical treatments on runoff, infiltrationand soil loss. Iran Agricultural Research, 35 (2), 9-18.
Rahmani, S. and Mihara, M. 2017. Current agricultural status and problems faced in Paghman District of Kabul
Province, Afghanistan. International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development, 8 (1), 180-186.
Rahmani, S., Nakajima, T. and Mihara, M. 2018. Development of water harvesting technique in Qargha
Reservoir Watershed of Paghman District, Afghanistan. International Journal of Environmental and RuralDevelopment IJERD, 9 (1), 142-149.
Rahmani, S., Nakamura, T. and Mihara, M. 2019. Analyzing water harvesting potentials in zoned areas inQargha Reservoir Watershed. International Journal of Environmental and Rural Development IJERD, 10(1), 88-94.
Shirazi, S.M., Kazama, H., Salman, F.A., Othman, F. and Akib, S. 2010. Permeability and swellingcharacteristics of bentonite. International Journal of the Physical Sciences, 5 (11), 1647-1659.
Yazar, A., Kuzucu, M., Elik, I.C., Sezen, S.M. and Jacobsen, S.E. 2014. Water harvesting for improved waterproductivity in dry environments of the Mediterranean region case study, Pistachio in Turkey. Journal ofAgronomy and Crop Science, 200, 361-370.

Ⓒ ISERD

121