Spatio-Temporal Trend Analysis of Water Quality: Application of Geospatial

Bigdata Analytics to Address Emerging Irrigation Issues in Awash Basin,

Ethiopia

Girma Kassa1 (Corresponding author), Aderaw Tsegaye1, and Melese Minaleshoa1

1
Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research (EIAR), Debre Zeit Research Center, P.O. Box, 32, Bishoftu, Ethiopia

Corresponding author: Tel. +251 911349320. E-mail: <girmakaza@google.com

Abstract

Recent data on the water quality and suitability dynamics of the Awash River, Ethiopia's most heavily used river for irrigated
agriculture, with water that spatiotemporally varies in the transport pathways, is scarce. Given increasing anthropogenic activities and
climate change, challenges like salinity and water quality degradation are significant concerns. This study addresses these issues by
using big data analytics and Geo-spatial Sci-tech to assess water quality in a robust, modern framework, enabling precise, timely
insights essential for sustainable irrigation management. The vast volume, high velocity, and complex variety of big data align well
with these demands, and geospatial analysis in Spatial Information Science and Technology-GISs (GIS, RS, GNSS) allows for
tracking and visualizing water quality trends across time and space. By leveraging big data analytics, this research valorized extensive
data from ten water quality monitoring stations over a period of twenty years, measuring parameters including pH, EC, and ion
concentrations. Results showed that pH values ranged from 7.4 to 8.4 (slightly to moderately alkaline), while EC ranged from 0.209
to 1.161dS/m between 2004 and 2019. Ion concentrations generally followed the northward sequence of Ca² ⁺>Na ⁺>Mg² ⁺>K ⁺,
HCO₃⁻>Cl⁻>SO₄²⁻, and Na⁺>Ca²⁺>Mg²⁺>K⁺. Spatial trend analysis revealed increasing progression of ECw, SAR, RSC, and other
ionic constituents, with temporal variations indicating a progressive decline in water quality, largely due to human activities. The
findings also indicated slight to moderate sodicity hazards across samples. These space-time variations underscore the importance of
using updated water quality evaluations and spatiotemporal analysis to inform water management strategies. This approach is
essential for supporting sustainable agriculture in river systems impacted by intensive agricultural, industrial, and urban activities,
helping mitigate potential future constraints on development in this critical sub-basin.

Keywords: Spatio-Temporal trend, Bigdata analytics with GISs, Awash River Basin, water quality, Ethiopia

Introduction

The quality of water used in irrigation plays a crucial role in the sustainability and productivity of irrigated agricultural
systems. Irrigation water contains dissolved minerals and salts whose concentrations and compositions vary significantly
depending on the source and path of the water. “Irrigation water quality” encompasses the specific attributes of a water supply
that dictate its suitability for agricultural use, impacting both soil and crop health. These attributes, particularly salinity and sodicity
levels, can incrementally degrade soil structure and fertility, affecting crop yield and quality even when other cultivation practices are
optimal.

Recent studies emphasize the cumulative impacts of salt buildup within the root zone. High salinity can severely limit a plant’s ability
to absorb water, leading to reduced crop yields (Ayers & Westcot, 1976). Contemporary research identifies soil salinity as a prevalent
issue due to groundwater irrigation practices, notably in regions reliant on such sources, where both sodium adsorption ratio (SAR)
and electrical conductivity (EC) are critical parameters (Nabala & Kalin, 2024). In arid and semi-arid climates, the management of
these variables is essential to maintain long-term soil health and crop resilience (Benitez-Alfonso et al., 2023; Mahdavimanshadi &
Fan, 2024)

The integration of reclaimed and freshwater irrigation is a recent adaptive approach to mitigate the effects of poor-quality irrigation
water on crops like rice and mandarins. Research by (Romero-Trigueros et al., 2024) on these combinations reveals potential in
maintaining yields while reducing environmental impact, though continuous monitoring of soil parameters remains necessary.
Similarly, improvements in soil carbon sequestration practices, as suggested in sustainable agriculture models, play a vital role in
moderating the adverse effects of salinity (Macedo et al., 2024)

In conclusion, the role of irrigation water quality in agricultural productivity extends beyond immediate crop yield, affecting soil
chemical balance, nutrient availability, and long-term sustainability. Future-oriented practices incorporating varied water sources, soil
management, and ongoing monitoring are indispensable to managing the intertwined challenges of salinity, sodicity, and nutrient
dynamics in intensive agricultural systems.

Szabolcs, (1989) reported that irrigation water sources commonly contain harmful levels of dissolved salts, which remain on the soil
surface after water evaporates. This salt accumulation leads to salinity issues, soil degradation, and reduced crop productivity
(Banderi et al., 2012). Poor-quality irrigation water necessitates advanced management techniques to mitigate further degradation and
minimize crop loss. Studies now underscore the importance of addressing soil salinity, as high salt concentrations can severely restrict
water uptake in plants, stunting growth and yield (Oster, 1994)

Natural water quality varies based on climate, geology, and land use, affecting soil interactions across regions (Jha et al., 2010;
Ouyang et al., 2006). Pollution, both point and nonpoint, exacerbates these issues. Human-induced pollution, from fertilizers and
runoff, contributes significantly to nonpoint source pollution, mobilizing contaminants like nitrates that degrade water and soil quality
(Kalkhoff et al., 2016). Recent data show that surface runoff transports these pollutants, which accumulate and alter soil properties,
further intensifying salinization in agricultural lands (Mathinya & Molomo, 2024). Adaptive strategies, such as combining low-
salinity water sources and soil treatments, are critical for sustaining productivity in salinity-affected regions (El-Ramady et al., 2024;
Martínez-Álvarez et al., 2023; Schubert & Qadir, 2024)

The Awash River, Ethiopia's longest inland river, is extensively utilized for domestic, industrial, and agricultural purposes (Tilahun et
al., 2017). It supports diverse agricultural operations in the Awash Valley, irrigating farms growing sugar, fruits, vegetables, and
horticultural crops (Shishaye, 2018). Water quality in the river varies spatially along its course due to both natural factors—such as
catchment area characteristics, elevation, and geology—and anthropogenic influences, such as farm runoff and industrial waste
(Pejman et al., 2009; Juang et al., 2009, Shishaye, 2018).

Research underscores a marked decline in water quality due to industrial pollutants and agricultural runoff, especially in the upper
Akaki catchment area of the Awash Basin, necessitating urgent policy reform (Dessie et al., 2024). Pollution levels differ across river
sites, demonstrating significant spatial variability, particularly in industrial zones. Understanding these quality trends is vital, as
continued use of marginal water may further reduce crop yields. Improved monitoring and regulatory measures are essential for
maintaining productivity and ecological health along the river.

To analyze irrigation water quality using big data analytics and geospatial techniques, it is essential to understand how modern
technologies and vast datasets can be integrated to monitor and manage water quality effectively. The intersection of big data
analytics with Geospatial Techniques allows researchers to capture, store, analyze, and visualize water quality data, offering insights
into temporal and spatial changes (Y. Chen, 2019; Kimothi et al., 2022; Kowe et al., 2023). The nature of big data, with its large
volume, high velocity, and complex variety, aligns well with the demands of modern water quality assessment. By leveraging big
data analytics, researchers can process and analyze enormous datasets generated from multiple locations and over extensive periods.
The integration of geospatial data allows for spatiotemporal analyses, crucial for tracking and visualizing water quality trends in
large, agriculturally significant rivers like the Awash. Geospatial Science and Technology (GIS-GNSS-RS) plays a pivotal role in
mapping, analyzing, and visualizing water quality across large river basins. Through spatial interpolation techniques, GIS can
estimate water quality parameters in unsampled areas, helping to identify pollution hotspots and areas prone to salinity hazards
(Kowe et al., 2023; Zeng et al., 2023). In the Awash River basin, for example, GIS could track the northward spread of salinity and
sodicity risks by analyzing SAR and EC spatial distributions. Temporal analyses allow researchers to visualize changes over time,
supporting early warning systems and informed management decisions.

Here is an in-depth breakdown of how these technologies relate to this and similar water quality assessment (WQA) studies via
potential application areas and big data Tools; structured around the 8 V's definitions:
1. Volume refers to the massive amount of data generated, collected, and stored over time.
 For a study like the Awash River monitoring project, large datasets are collected across multiple monitoring stations and
over many years (in this case, 21 years). Data points include measurements for parameters such as pH, Electrical
Conductivity (EC), Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR), and various ion concentrations.
 Cloud storage systems and data warehouses help manage this large volume of data, while tools like Apache Hadoop and
Spark can process and analyze it efficiently.

2. Velocity-is the speed at which data is generated and processed.

 Water quality data is collected continuously or periodically, depending on monitoring schedules. Real-time data from IoT
sensors, such as conductivity meters, can be integrated for rapid assessments, enabling quicker responses to changes in water
quality.
 Stream processing tools (e.g., Apache Kafka) enable near-real-time data analysis, allowing for faster decision-making,
especially valuable in detecting rapid changes in water quality due to pollution or salinity spikes.
3. Variety-addresses the different types of data collected (structured, unstructured, and semi-structured).
 Data on water quality comes in many forms, including sensor data (EC, pH), laboratory test results, weather data, satellite
images, and topographic maps. By combining geospatial data with tabular quality measurements, researchers gain a
comprehensive view of factors impacting water quality across space and time.
 GIS integrates and visualizes spatial data, while platforms like SQL databases and NoSQL solutions (e.g., MongoDB)
support the handling of structured and unstructured data together.

4. Veracity relates to data accuracy, consistency, and reliability.

 Ensuring data accuracy is vital in monitoring water quality, especially when integrating diverse sources such as field
measurements, lab analyses, and remotely sensed data. Regular calibration of equipment and validation of data help in
maintaining high veracity, essential for accurate modeling and trend analysis.
 Data cleansing and quality-checking tools (e.g., Talend, OpenRefine) are used to improve data reliability, minimizing errors
that may distort analytical outcomes.

5. Value- focuses on the actionable insights derived from data.

 By analyzing patterns and trends, researchers can gain insights into how water quality parameters fluctuate across seasons,
years, and locations. For example, tracking EC and SAR levels over time can help pinpoint areas at risk of salinity or
sodicity, enabling better management practices.
 Machine learning algorithms and statistical tools (e.g., R, Python libraries) provide predictive insights, helping stakeholders
make informed decisions about irrigation practices and water resource management.

6. Visualization- the representation of data in an easily interpretable format.

 GIS offers powerful visualization capabilities, mapping water quality metrics (e.g., pH, EC) across geographic locations and
over time. Temporal changes can be displayed through animated maps or dashboards, aiding in the detection of degradation
trends.
 Tools like ArcGIS, QGIS, Google Earth, and Tableau enable spatial and temporal data visualization, providing stakeholders
with clear, actionable maps and charts.

7. Variability- highlights the inconsistency in data flows and how they vary over time.
 In the Awash River basin, water quality parameters fluctuate significantly between wet and dry seasons, as well as due to
anthropogenic activities. Understanding these variations is crucial for accurate risk assessment and planning.
 Time-series analysis tools (e.g., Prophet, ARIMA in Python) can model fluctuations, aiding in identifying patterns tied to
seasonal or human factors.

8. Volatility- the rate at which data becomes irrelevant or outdated.

 Water quality data can quickly become outdated due to dynamic environmental conditions, requiring constant updates and
monitoring. GIS-based big data systems support real-time analysis, which is particularly useful for immediate interventions
when pollution events occur.
 Databases like PostgreSQL with PostGIS allow for efficient storage of dynamic spatial data, while IoT integration enables
real-time data collection for continuous monitoring.

The combination of big data and GIS provides a robust framework for water quality assessment, enabling precise, timely insights that
are essential for managing irrigation practices in the face of climate change and increasing anthropogenic pressures (J. Chen et al.,
2022; Essamlali et al., 2024; Zeng et al., 2023). This research on Awash River water quality using big data analytics and GIS
techniques revealed several critical insights by identifying periods or locations where water quality declines, or stays within a normal
range so that seasonal irrigation adjustments or targeted interventions are recommended; by analyzing SAR and EC values indicating
areas at risk, which is particularly important for maintaining soil health and by spatial analysis revealing how urbanization, industrial
activities, and agricultural practices influence water quality, guiding policy for sustainable water usage.

Long-term water quality monitoring is critical for evaluating the spatiotemporal trends in water quality, assessing anthropogenic
impacts, implementing effective water management, and enforcing sustainable water resource regulations. The Awash River's water
quality is monitored by institutions such as the Werer Agricultural Research Center and the Awash Basin Authority. Previous studies
reveal significant temporal and spatial variations in water quality, including sediment, nutrients, microorganisms, and other chemical
and physical properties, often indicating a decline in water quality (Amare et al., (2017); Abebe and Jin (2020); Haile Arefayne and
Asfaw (2020).

Recent research underscores the rising pollution from agricultural runoff and industrial effluents, especially in the upper Awash basin,
where urban expansion intensifies water quality challenges. Surface and groundwater interactions, particularly between Lake Beseka
and the Awash River, continue to impact water quality, exacerbating salinity and pollutant levels (Belay EA. (2009). However, most
data cover only medium-term periods (2005–2013), and more recent, comprehensive long-term assessments are scarce. Newer studies
emphasize the urgent need for continuous monitoring to manage water quality sustainably amidst climate variability and increasing
agricultural demands

This study reveals the spatiotemporal extent and long-term trend of ARWQ through the analysis of multi-year monitoring data that
has been generated by WARC during the past 20 years (2004–2023). Besides addressing a multi-year spatial and temporal trend of
river water quality parameters and reflecting the most recent water quality status, it is also the first to take into account the use of
combining the Irrigation Water Quality Indexing (IWQI) approach and multivariate analysis to assess the status of water quality
holistically used for irrigation and provide apparent management needs to help curve emerging irrigation water quality issues. With
this framework, the goal and objectives of this investigation were set and run to investigate the spatiotemporal dynamics of River
Awash water quality and to evaluate the recent status and trend of the river’s water for suitability for irrigation.

Materials and methods

Description of the Study Area

The spatial extent of the Awash Basin stretches from 7° 53′ 14.2′′ N to 12° 3′ 6′′ N and 37° 57′ 13′′ E to 43° 25′ 6’’E within Ethiopia,
as shown in Fig. 1. The basin encompasses a total area of 113,308 km 2, with 64,006 km2 situated in the western area that drains into
the Awash River or its tributaries. Awash River is approximately 1250 km in length and has an annual flow of 4.59 billion m3
(BCM).

Figure 1. Location map of the Awash River Basin

and the sampling sites (1-10)

Water Sampling and Quality Parameters

The Awash River originates in Ginchi, a town 80 km west of Addis Ababa, at approximately 3000 meters above sea level (m.a.s.l.) in
Ethiopia’s central highlands. It traverses the Rift Valley and eventually flows into Lake Abe, near the Djibouti border, at around 250
m.a.s.l. (Degefu et al., 2013; Berhe et al., 2013; Tessema, 2011). The Rift Valley features volcanic and tectonic depressions, which
have created a variety of natural and artificial lakes, including Lake Beseka—a closed catchment now fed by irrigation runoff from
Abadir, Nora Era, and Fentaile farms. To manage water levels, a man-made outflow was developed between 2009 and 2010 by the
Awash Basin Authority (ABA).

The Awash Basin encompasses diverse regions including the Ethiopian Highlands, the main Rift, and the Afar Depression, each with
distinct ecological and climatic zones. The basin is divided into four zones: the Upper Valley (>1500 m.a.s.l.), Middle Valley (1000-
1500 m.a.s.l.), Lower Valley (<1000 m.a.s.l.), and Eastern Catchment (ranging from 1000 to 2500 m.a.s.l.). The Lower Valley,
featuring the delta plains of Tendahoo and Ayssaita, forms part of the Great Rift system. These zones support a variety of vegetation
and ecosystems, including forests, grasslands, and wetlands, making the basin ecologically significant.

According to Tessema, (2011) and AwBA, (2014), the basin is among Ethiopia's most heavily utilized, with over 65% of the nation’s
industries and extensive agricultural activity that spans 77.4% of the irrigable land. Key crops include sugarcane, cotton, vegetables,
and grains, contributing between 48-70% of irrigated agricultural output.

For water quality monitoring, ten sites along the Awash River were selected, primarily located at diversion points to represent
irrigation schemes. Samples were collected at these sites across low, medium, and high flow seasons, following Guidelines: NSW-
EPA-, (2022); NSW-EPA-2, (2022); E.W. Rice, R.B. Baird, (2017); Greenberg et al., (1992). This ongoing study, spanning 2004 to
2023, is conducted by the Werer and Debre Zeit Agricultural Research Centers (Appendix Table 1) and includes analyses of various
quality metrics-Table 1
Table 1 Water quality parameters, abbreviations, units, and Method or procedure of determination

Parameter Abbreviation Unit Method

Electrical conductivity ECw dS/m Conductivity meter
Power of Hydrogen (pH) pHw Scale (1-14) pH meter
+
Sodium Na meq/l Flame photometer
+
Potassium K meq/l Flame photometer
Calcium Ca2+ meq/l Titrimetric method
Magnesium Mg2+ meq/l Titrimetric method
-
Chloride Cl meq/l Titrimetric method
2-
Carbonate CO3 meq/l Titrimetric method
-
Bicarbonate HCO 3 meq/l Titrimetric method
2-
Sulfate SO4 meq/l Titrimetric method

Data Analysis and Interpretation

Piper-stiff Plotting

Piper diagrams, or trilinear diagrams, are a powerful tool for visualizing and interpreting the hydrochemical facies of water samples.
Developed by Arthur M. Piper (1944), these diagrams help identify pollution sources and track the distribution and accumulation of
dissolved salts in water, essential for understanding water quality trends in river basins. Piper diagrams plot major ions in water,
providing insights into total dissolved solids (TDS) and ion charge balances in mg/L.

The Awash River Basin’s recent studies have employed Piper diagrams to monitor water quality changes influenced by
anthropogenic activities and natural interactions. These developments underscore Piper diagrams’ evolving role in water quality
analysis, particularly as environmental pressures intensify in Ethiopia’s river basins. In this study, advanced hydrochemical modeling
software like EASY_QUIM (GHS, 2013), Grapher (GoldenSoftware, 2019), DIAGRAMMES (Adriano MAYER, 2022), and AqQA
(RockWare, 2020). have been used to map and analyze ion concentrations across sampling sites. Inputs of major cations and anions
enable accurate hydrochemical assessments of each water source, supporting efficient water quality management in the basin.

Cluster Analysis
Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC) (Forgy, 1965; Rubin, 1967) was employed to classify water samples into distinct
groups, facilitating the analysis of physicochemical water quality. Cluster Analysis (CA), a statistical technique, enhances the
classification of water quality parameters by grouping samples into similar clusters based on shared chemical characteristics, making
it easier to identify and manage quality patterns (Swanson et al., 2001). Recent applications of AHC, as noted in studies on Ethiopian
water bodies, have improved the precision of water quality evaluations by effectively grouping water samples based on ion
concentrations, which is essential for addressing water pollution issues (S. K. Amare et al., 2017). Using squared Euclidean distance,
major ions such as Na⁺, K⁺, Mg²⁺, Ca²⁺, Cl⁻, SO₄²⁻, HCO₃ ⁻, pH, and electrical conductivity (EC) values were clustered with the
furthest neighbor method. The calculations for these clusters were conducted using SPSS-IBM, (2019), PAST-V4.3 (Hammer,
Harper, and Ryan 2001), and SAGA v. 7.1.0. (Conrad et al., 2015). This approach allows for a more nuanced understanding of water
quality trends and aids in the effective management of pollution sources in regions facing increasing water quality challenges, such as
the Awash Basin.

Trend Analysis
Water quality parameters averaged over three seasons of varied stream flow conditions were assessed from the mean analytical
values of 2020 and 2023 to reflect the recent state. Temporal trend analysis was done based on annual average values of ECw, SAR,
RSC, Ca2+ plus Mg2+, Na+, and HCO3- averaged over respective sub-basin areas, representing the upper, middle, and lower awash
sub-basin areas, across the 2004–2020 study period. Microsoft Excel software with the XLSTAT plugin was used for
the data storage, cleaning, and partial analysis of both the temporal and spatial water quality trend analysis.

Interpretation and characterization of water quality

The study employed FAO (FAO and ITPS, 2015) irrigation water standards and related legislation to interpret water quality (Table 2,
Appendix Table 2). The Irrigation Water Quality Index (IWQ) assessed water fitness for irrigation by reflecting the cumulative
effects of hazard groups, including salinity, permeability risk, ion toxicity, and residual effects (Horton 1965; Cude, 2001). Suitability
classification relied on comparing observed values (SAR, IWQ, KI, PI, Na%, and RSC) with benchmark values (Table 3). Standard
mathematical normalization converted various water quality metrics, while WQIs in Table 4 guided classification. Recent studies
suggest that IWQ, alongside geospatial analysis, provides effective spatial and temporal water quality insights, essential for areas like
Ethiopia’s Awash Basin where water quality fluctuates (Minaleshoa et al., 2023). Analysis and diagram production used software
such as SPSS (2019), Grapher (GoldenSoftware, 2019), DIAGRAMMES (Adriano MAYER, 2022), and AqQA (RockWare, 2020),
with major ion concentrations as inputs.

Table 2 FAO, (1985) Guidelines for Interpretation of Irrigation Water Quality

Potential Irrigation-Induced Restriction level on Use

Risks
Salinity Unit None Slight to Moderate Severe
ECw dS/m < 0.7 0.7 - 3.0 > 3.0
TDS mg/l < 450 450 – 2,000 > 2,000
Infiltration (affects infiltration rate of water into the soil. Evaluate using ECW and SAR together)
SAR = 0 - 3 and ECW > 0.7 0.7 - 0.2 < 0.2
=3-6 > 1.2 1.2 - 0.3 < 0.3
= 6 – 12 > 1.9 1.9 - 0.5 < 0.5
= 12 – 20 > 2.9 2.9 - 1.3 < 1.3
= 20 – 40 > 5.0 5.0 - 2.9 < 2.9
Toxicity of certain ions (affecting sensitive crops)
Sodium (Na): Surface irrigation SAR <3 3–9 >9
Sprinkler irrigation <3 >3
Chloride (Cl): Surface irrigation meq/L <4 4 - 10 > 10
Sprinkler irrigation <3 >3
Bicarbonate (HCO3) meq/L <1.5 1.5–8.5 > 8.5
pH unitless Normal range: 6.5–8.4

Table 3Irrigation Water Quality Indices, formulae, and sources

Irrigation Water Quality

Formula References
Indices (WQIs) 5
Irrigation Water Quality IWQ = ∑ Gi(Na+ K) (Simsek & Gunduz, 2007)
i=1
Na% = x 100
Sodium Percentage * (Ca+ Mg+ Na+ K ) (Todd, 1980)

Sodium Absorption Ratio SAR=¿ ¿ (L. A. Richards, 1954)

 Permeability Index PI =¿ ¿ x 100 (Doneen L.D., 1975)

Kelley Index KI = Na+/(Ca2+ + Mg2+) Kelley (1940)

Residual Sodium Carbonate RSC = (CO32- + HCO3 -) – (Ca2+ + Mg2+) Richards, L.A. (1954)
All WQIs are estimated in units of meq/L
Table 4WQIs-based guideline for classification of water quality.

Water Quality Indices Range Water Class

<22 Low
Irrigation Water Quality (IWQ)
22–37 Medium
>37 High
<20 Excellent
20–40 Good
Sodium Percentage (Na%) 40–60 Permissible
60–80 Doubtful
>80 Unsuitable
<10 Excellent
10–18 Good/safe
Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR)
18–26 Doubtful/moderate
>26 Unsuitable
>75% Good-Class I
Permeability Index (PI) 25% - 75% Good-Class II
<25% Unsuitable-Class III
<1 Good
Kelley Index (KI)
>1 Unsuitable
<1.25 Good
Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) 1.25–2.5 Doubtful
>2.5 Unsuitable

Results and Discussion

Water Facies and Physico-chemical Parameters

The major ions are effective signals for detecting solute sources; the wide ranges of ions in the water samples collected throughout
the stream flow channel reflect the influence of several recharge sources in the spatial domain. The average distribution of
concentrations of ions at the upstream sampling sites, including Koka, Wonji, Tibila, and Merti, is in the order of Ca2+ > Na+ > Mg2+
> K+ and HCO3 > Cl- > SO42-, indicating that a young stage of evolution is being recharged from the highland catchment areas with
the higher release of Ca2+ due to weathering of silicate minerals.

Furthermore, detectable HCO3- levels in river water samples might be attributed to carbonate dissolution and air silicate weathering.
(Obeidatt & Alawneh, 2019). In the study areas; downstream to Lake Beseka including sampling sites from Melka Sedi to Assaiyta,
the cationic dominance was in Na+ > Ca2+ > Mg2+ > K+ order whereas the anionic dominance remained the same as that in the
upstream areas. In line with the work of Gad et.al. (2020), such a shift in cationic dominance (from Ca2+ to Na+ dominance)
accounted for the effect of mixing up of high Na-containing Lake Beseka water to Awash River water. Throughout river water
sampling sites, CO32- was found in trace amounts.

The range and mean values of key physicochemical parameters in Awash River water samples from ten sites averaged over 2019-
2020, are presented in Table 5. The pH, spanning from 7.7 to 8.2, falls within the safe irrigation range (6.5 to 8.4) as per Ayers and
Westcot ( 1985). Electrical conductivity (EC) values range from 0.38 to 1.16 dS/m, with a mean of 0.69 dS/m; the lowest and highest
EC levels were observed at Wonji and Werer sites, respectively. According to irrigation guidelines, river water is categorized as
having medium to high salinity.

The concentrations of Ca²⁺ and Na⁺ ranged from 2.07 to 3.11 and 1.30 to 6.95 meq/l, respectively. In upper Awash areas, Ca² ⁺
dominated, while Na⁺ became predominant downstream. HCO₃ ⁻ (alkalinity), Cl ⁻, and SO₄² ⁻ levels ranged from 2.39 to 7.02, 0.49
to 2.05, and 0.30 to 1.65 meq/l, with HCO₃⁻ as the leading anion, followed by Cl ⁻. Recent findings support the significance of ion
variation, reflecting multiple recharge sources across the river’s flow path, influenced by geological and human activities. Ion
patterns upstream, including sites like Koka and Wonji, follow the order Ca² ⁺ > Na ⁺ > Mg² ⁺ > K ⁺ and HCO₃ ⁻ > Cl ⁻ > SO₄² ⁻,
signaling early-stage water evolution influenced by highland silicate mineral weathering (Srinivasa Moorthy et al., 2008). In
downstream areas near Lake Beseka, Na⁺ replaces Ca²⁺ as the dominant cation, attributed to Na-rich inflows from the lake.
Table 5Mean and range values of water quality parameters for the study period of 2019 - 2023

Range Mean ± SE
Parameter
Minimum Maximum
pH 7.6 8.2 8.00 ± 0.19
EC 0.38 1.16 0.69 ± 0.27
Ca2+ 2.07 3.11 1.46 ± 0.54
Mg2+ 0.85 1.27 0.22 ± 0.33
Na+ 1.30 6.95 3.44 ± 1.91
K+ 0.21 0.50 0.32 ± 0.11
HCO3- 2.39 7.02 4.08 ± 1.65
Cl- 0.49 2.05 1.04 ± 0.51
SO42- 0.30 1.65 0.94 ± 0.52
SAR 1.24 4.65 2.73 ± 1.22
RSC 0.26 2.68 1.17 ± 0.92

The Sodium Adsorption Ratio (SAR) in Awash River water samples ranged from 1.24 to 4.65, classifying the water as low-sodium
according to irrigation suitability standards (Ayers & Westcot, 1985). Residual Sodium Carbonate (RSC) values spanned from 0.26 to
2.68 meq/l, placing it variably within the "safe" to "unsuitable" categories for irrigation use. The river’s hydrochemical facies exhibit
a Ca-HCO₃ profile in the upper sub-basin, transitioning to a Na-Ca-HCO₃ type downstream, influenced by both natural and
anthropogenic factors, including inflows from Lake Beseka, which is high in sodium. This water type shift aligns with regional
studies showing increased Na dominance in downstream areas, especially where groundwater and surface water interactions intensify
salinity. Such hydrochemical analysis is essential for managing irrigation water quality, as it helps anticipate potential salinity and
alkalinity issues impacting crop productivity.
Spatial Trend

The spatial trend of Awash River water quality in 2019–2020, shown in Figures 2 and 3, illustrates variations in parameters like ECw,
SAR, RSC, and ion content across ten monitoring sites. Spatial analysis indicates that as water flows downstream from the upper to
mid-basin areas, levels of ECw, SAR, RSC, and ionic concentrations generally increase, with a subsequent decrease noted from
Meteka to downstream sites. This finding aligns with Haile Arefayne and Asfaw (2020), who observed similar trends.

As can be seen from Figures 2a and 2b, spatial variation in quality metrics observed amongst sampling sites of Upper (Koka to Merti)
and Lower Awash sub-basins (Dupty to Asaeyta) somehow seemed to be stable as compared to sampling sites within the Middle
awash sub-basin area were remarkable spatial water quality variation was seen. Recent studies reinforce the spatial variations,
highlighting significant differences in ionic composition and conductivity levels across sub-basins, such as by Shishaye, (2018).

ECiw SAR RSC

5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
Valuea

2.50
2.00
1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Koka Wonji Tibila Merti M.Sadi Werer Ambash Meteka Dupty Assayita
Sampling site

Figure 2 The spatial trend of ECw, SAR, and RSC values in River Awash
 Ca Mg Na HCO3 Cl SO4

8.00

7.00

6.00
Values (meq/l)

5.00

4.00

3.00

2.00

1.00

0.00
Koka Wonji Tibila Merti M.Sadi Werer Ambash Meteka Dupty Assayita

Sampling site

Figure 3 The spatial trend of ionic content in Awash River water

Water quality naturally fluctuates spatially and temporally due to environmental and anthropogenic factors, including altitude,
geology, streamside habitats, and connectivity with floodplains, along with seasonal rainfall (Juang et al., 2009; Pejman et al., 2009).
Human activities, such as agricultural runoff and industrial waste, are primary causes of water quality deterioration along rivers, with
impacts that vary by location and time (Shishaye, 2018).

Recent studies confirm that the spatial variability in Awash River water quality is influenced by three primary factors: human-induced
pollution, mineral dissolution, and ion exchange processes Haile Arefayne & Asfaw, (2020). Lake Beseka, a key contributor to
salinity in the Awash River, further exacerbates water quality degradation, as its high-salinity discharge flows into the river, affecting
downstream irrigation suitability (Abebe and Jin (2020). Notably, middle and downstream areas show elevated salinity and sodicity,
attributed to both Lake Beseka and local saline springs like Deho, whose discharge carries high levels of ECw and SAR, posing
additional risks to irrigation water quality.
Water quality metrics in response to stream flow change

Water quality and flow regimes in the Awash River are closely linked, and heavily influenced by seasonal variations from the Inter-
Tropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ). The river experiences high flows from July to September, with reduced flows in the dry season.
Figures 4(a–d) illustrate water quality trends, showing marked variations in pH, EC, and SAR across high, medium, and low flow
seasons. High EC and SAR values correspond to low-flow periods, highlighting an inverse relationship between streamflow and
water quality metrics.

During high flow, increased storm runoff dilutes alkaline ions, lowering pH and EC values across sampling sites, with pH decreasing
from 8.1 to 7.8 on average as rainfall peaks. This trend aligns with findings on rainwater’s natural acidity (Chien et al., 2018). Mean
EC values also vary by season: 0.60 dS/m during high flow, 0.73 dS/m during medium flow, and 0.82 dS/m in low flow, due to
reduced dilution and higher ion concentration in drier months LCRA (2014). This pattern also affects salinity, with water classes
shifting from medium (C2) to high salinity (C3) in downstream areas during low flows (Gedion (2009)).

Recent studies reinforce that low flow conditions increase pollutant levels, with ion concentration and conductivity rising as dilution
decreases. These seasonal changes emphasize the need for targeted water management in river systems influenced by both natural
hydrology and human activities, particularly in heavily utilized regions like the Awash Basin.
Figure 4 Response of water quality variables; EC (a), SAR (b), RSC (c) and pH (d) values to changed stream flow

As stream flow decreases from high to low flow conditions, the mean sodium adsorption ratio (SAR) values increase across the
Awash River Basin: from 0.92 to 1.55 in the upper basin, 2.69 to 3.26 in the middle, and 1.77 to 2.54 in the lower basin. Residual
sodium carbonate (RSC) levels remain low upstream, indicating safe conditions for irrigation. Studies from similar regions show that
water quality, including physical and chemical properties, can fluctuate significantly during storm events (Göransson, Larson, and
Bendz, 2013; Chen and Chang, 2014; Rostami, He, and Hassan, 2018). These shifts, particularly during low flow conditions, can
exacerbate potential adverse effects due to reduced dilution. A pronounced effect is seen immediately downstream from Lake Beseka;
for instance, at Melka Sadi, the EC values rise by about 92% during low flows compared to high flows, highlighting a considerable
change in water quality.

Spatial clustering
The ten study sites along the Awash River were grouped into three clusters using Agglomerative Hierarchical Clustering (AHC)
analysis with a statistical threshold of (Dlink/Dmax) × 100 < 20. The dendrogram in Figure 4 visualizes the site grouping based on
water quality parameters, revealing significant spatial variation in water chemistry. Cluster 1 comprises upstream sites (Koka, Wonji,
Tibila, and Merti), Cluster 2 covers midstream sites (Melka Sadi, Werer, Ambash, and Meteka), and Cluster 3 includes downstream
sites (Dupty and Assayita).

Figure 5 Dendrogram showing cluster

analysis of samples based on water quality
characteristics
Cluster 1
This cluster displays a Ca-HCO₃ water type (Figure 5), characterized by calcium as the dominant cation (40–44%) and bicarbonate
as the main anion (78%). ECw values range from 0.35 to 0.39 dS/m, and SAR values range from 1.25 to 1.51, indicating medium
salinity and low sodium, aligning with irrigation standards for moderate-quality water quality (L. Richards, 1954); (Booker Tate,
1991),

Cluster 2
Representing a Na-Ca-HCO₃ water type, this cluster has higher sodium levels (60–68%) and substantial bicarbonate (70–73%). ECw
values are between 1.01 and 1.16 dS/m, marking it as high-salinity water. Elevated RSC values (1.95–2.68 meq/l) reflect these
influences. These sampling sites are located in the Middle Awash sub-basin area, where the River Awash has been subjected to both
anthropogenic and natural water quality degrading factors. These factors include the discharge and mixing of brackish Lake Beseka
water to the Awash River, inflows from thermal springs in Deho, Bilen, and Meteka; expansion of irrigated agriculture; and
abstraction of river water at the upstream end of the upper Awash sub-basin area.

Cluster 3
The downstream sites exhibit a Na-Ca-HCO₃ type similar to Cluster 2 but with a sulfate content of around 20% of the total anions.
Sodium is the dominant cation (55–58%), and bicarbonate remains the primary anion (64–65%). This cluster displays a mix of
characteristics from Clusters 1 and 2, likely due to upstream influences and agricultural runoff in the lower basin.

Recent analyses highlight the use of AHC for identifying water quality patterns in river systems, underscoring its effectiveness in
distinguishing clusters by unique hydrochemical signatures across river segments.

Figure 6 Piper diagram of Awash River reflecting hydrochemistry faces for all sampling sites

Temporal trend analysis

Results from temporal trend analysis indicate significant temporal changes in the hydrochemical composition of the Awash River,
with evolving water types. Figures 7a–f depict multiyear trends (2004–2023) in ECw, SAR, RSC, Ca² ⁺+Mg² ⁺, Na ⁺, and HCO₃ ⁻
levels across sub-basins. Average ECw values show a linear increase, with R² values of 0.71, 0.76, and 0.91 in the upper, middle, and
lower sub-basins, respectively. Notably, EC levels at the middle Awash increased steadily from 2007 to 2010 and accelerated until
2015 before declining slightly. This region saw EC rise from 0.49 dS/m in 2004 to 1.35 dS/m in 2015—about a 176% increase. Such
trends align with recent studies reporting intensified salinity, likely driven by rising agricultural and industrial pressures in the basin.

ECw increase rates vary across sub-basins, with slope values of 0.01, 0.05, and 0.02 in the upper, middle, and lower areas. The upper
Awash, more stable, saw ECw increase from 0.24 dS/m in 2004 to 0.39 dS/m in 2015 (a 63% increase). EC serves as a salinity hazard
indicator; thus, its increase signals rising salinity risks, particularly as irrigation systems intensify salt loads in water sources. By
2010, salinity classification shifted in the middle basin from medium (C2) to high (C3), with the upper sub-basin moving from low
(C1) to medium (C2) and the lower sub-basin largely maintaining medium salinity (C2). The result further indicates that values of
SAR, RSC, and ionic contents (Fig. 6b-f) varied with time, often reflecting a similar temporal trend seen in EC resulting in a changed
geochemical composition of the river water. Over the study seasons, values of Na+, SAR, RSC, and HCO32- were found to show
significant increases, while the change in Ca2+ plus Mg2+ was not remarkable, indicating a temporally increasing degradation of
water quality degradation with respect to alkalinity, sodicity, and ion toxicity hazards.

Water quality could vary in the same location over time due to changes in climate and anthropogenic activities (Newbold et al., 1982;
Vannote et al., 1980). Different human activities that have been taking place in the past along the river basin areas could be
mentioned as conceivable factors inducing the concomitant river water quality change so far detected in the present study. The
mixing of Lake Beseka water with the Awash River (beginning in 2007) and the expansion of irrigated agriculture in the upper and
middle catchment areas of the Basin (since the late 2008’s) were among the important anthropogenic activities being undertaken
during this study period. These factors combine to different degrees to create diverse water types with compositions that vary with
time. The linear diversity observed in the Stiff diagram plates below (Figures 7a and 7b) demonstrates the progression of
compositional shift: flattening, areal elongation of the horizontal Cation-Anion axis, and enlargement of content by incrementing
ionic concentrations over the years.
Rising SAR, RSC, and Na⁺ values over time reflect worsening water quality, with elevated alkalinity, sodicity, and ion toxicity
hazards. This pattern is attributed to human activities, including Lake Beseka inflow since 2007 and expanded irrigation in the basin's
upper and middle areas post-2008. Such factors contribute to a dynamic mix of water types, reflected in the progressive flattening
and elongation of Stiff diagram cation-anion axes, indicating ongoing compositional changes.

Figure 7a Overlay of Stiff Diagrams of Awash River,

2004–2019

Figure 7b. Stiff Diagram of Awash River plotted from the

concentration of major ions
The overlay of Stiff diagrams for the Awash River from 2004 to 2019 illustrates a clear linear increase in bicarbonate (HCO 3 *C3)
and sodium plus potassium (Na+K) concentrations, while changes in other ions remain relatively modest (Figure 7b). This rising
trend aligns with the increased mixing of water from Lake Beseka, implemented to mitigate the lake’s rapid expansion, which
threatened the local environment. Initially, a 2% mixing ratio was recommended, but by 2011, this ratio increased to over 10%, with
annual ratios recorded as 6.67%, 13.98%, 45.83%, 27.67%, and 18.73% from 2013 to 2017 ( Belay, (2009). Lake Beseka's water is
highly alkaline, with elevated levels of pH, ECw, SAR, and RSC, indicating significant sodicity and salinity hazards (Belay &
Eleni, 2009).

The large-scale irrigation schemes at Fentale and Kesem, established around 2010, have also impacted the Awash River's flow
regime, reducing dilution capacity. Studies show that irrigation and excessive water abstraction, like in other river systems, intensify
both quantitative and qualitative pressures on water resources (Kurunc, Yurekli, and Okman, 2005). Consequently, water quality
parameters have shown a notable increase, particularly since Lake Beseka mixing practices began and intensified between 2010 and
2016.
 7.00
6.00
RSC (meq/l)

5.00
f(x) = 0.163489139515455 x + 1.9366418128655
4.00 R² = 0.586205841521568
3.00
2.00
UA Linear (UA) Linear (UA)
1.00
MA Linear (MA) LA
0.00 R² = 0.409469144715653
04 005 006 007 008 009 010 011 012 013 014 015 016 017 018 019 020 021 022 023
20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2

Year

4.00
3.50
R² = 0.625559316655588
Ca + Mg (meq/l)

3.00
2.50
2.00 f(x) = 0.033609068627451 x + 1.78575367647059
R² = 0.673166088667785
1.50 UA
Linear (UA)
1.00 Linear (UA)
MA
0.50 Linear (MA)
0.00 Linear (MA)
LA
0 7 0 0 8 0 0 9 0 1 0 0 11 0 1 2 0 1 3 0 1 4 0 1 5 0 1 6 0 1 7 0 1 8 0 1 9 0 2 0 0 2 1 0 2 2 0 2 3 Linear (LA)
20 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Linear (LA)
Year Linear (LA)

UA
12.00 Linear (UA) MA
Linear (MA) Linear (MA) LA
10.00
8.00 R² ==0.582490718223698
f(x) 0.246053884711783 x + 3.78826754385963
HCO3 (meq/l)

6.00
4.00 R² = 0.735205343471055

2.00 R² = 0.834831177539211

0.00
04 05 06 07 08 09 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23
20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20 20
Year
Figure 8 Temporal trend of ECw (a), SAR (b), NA(me/l)(c), RSC (d), Ca+Mg (me/l)(e) and HCO 3 (f) at the 3 sub-basins of Awash

The hydrographs in Figures 8a–f illustrate a linear decrease in water quality metrics within the lower and middle Awash areas from
2016 onward, reflecting an improvement in water quality. Previously, pollution in downstream areas was primarily attributed to the
discharge from Lake Beseka into the Awash River (Eleni (2009); (Haile and Asfaw 2020). In recent years, Lake Beseka's water
quality has significantly improved, corroborated by data from Werer Agricultural Research's ongoing monitoring, which reported
reductions in ECw (0.33 dS/m), SAR (1.57 meq/L), and RSC (1.53 meq/L) by 2020 relative to 2016. This trend aligns with recent
studies emphasizing that the observed decrease in river pollution levels corresponds with improved water chemistry from Lake
Beseka. The reduction in ionic concentrations highlights a notable shift in the lake's hydrochemical properties, previously a primary
contaminant source, thus supporting improved river water quality downstream.

Geochemical composition
The hydrochemical water-quality concentration data from water samples of the River Awash were graphically evaluated through the
Piper Stiff diagrams (Figure 9). Generally, the classification of a river’s water into different water facies and water types is done
based on the concentration of various predominant cations and anions and the interrelationships of ions. The samples from the
upstream sampling sites (Wonji to Merti) throughout the study period lie at the border of the left quadrants of the diamond diagram
(Fig. 8a), indicating a Ca-HCO3 water type. River water samples downstream to Lake Beseka were found to have a hydrochemical
composition dominated by Na, closely followed by Ca, among cations, and HCO 3, among anions. These samples lay in the upper part
of the bottom quadrant of the piper plot, indicating a mixed Na-Ca-HCO3 type of hydrochemical facies.

Figure 9 Piper diagrams of the River Awash water at a Koka, Wonji, Tibila, and Merti

The chemical composition of certain river water is primarily dependent on the geology, geochemical processes, and, anthropogenic
activities that take place within the basin. According to Shishaye and Nagari, (2016), a sample lying in the left quadrant represents
calcium bicarbonate waters mostly originating from shallow fresh groundwater, and the right quadrant represents sodium chloride
waters originating from deep ancient groundwater and marine groundwater, with sodium bicarbonate waters originating from deep
groundwater impacted by ion exchange in the lower quadrant. The calcium bicarbonate water type identified in all water samples
from the upstream area suggests that the River Awash originates from a shallow to medium-depth calcium bicarbonate-laden fresh
groundwater of the geologically basalt-dominated Magdala group formation at the upstream of the basin. Basaltic parent materials
are rich in Ca2+ and HCO3 − (Chandrasekar et al., 2018), and consequently, associated aquifers mostly yield Ca(HCO 3)2 water types
(Srinivasa Moorthy et al., 2008), implying that the predominant origin of water quality determinants for the Awash River is the
shallow-medium depth central highland aquifers that are dominated by Magdala group basalts.
The combination of Lake Beseqa water with River Awash led to a distinct geochemical makeup of the downstream river water,
transforming it from a Ca-HCO3-laden water type to a Na-Ca-HCO 3 dominated mixture (Fig. 8c–f). Thus, the change in the
geochemical composition of the downstream sites is demonstrably attributed to the impact of the lake water. It was discovered that
the geo-chemical constituents of lake water dominantly modified the water quality values in the downstream sample locations.

Recent studies confirm that these changes in water type and quality are influenced not only by natural geology and geochemical
processes but also increasingly by human activities, including agriculture and urbanization. Anthropogenic contributions, along with
geological interactions, underscore the evolving hydrochemistry of the Awash, where continued monitoring and management are
essential to sustain water quality for multiple uses within the basin.
Figure 10 Piper diagrams of Melka Sadi, Werer, Ambash, Meteka, Dubty, and Asaiyta water samples

Present status of irrigation water suitability from the river Awash

Any irrigation water is prone to dissolved mineral salt contaminants with varying concentrations and compositions depending on the
source and course. Irrigation water quality and quantity delivered to the agricultural fields account for all potential problems that may
occur as a result. The system for the evaluation and characterization of water quality (chemical property) embraces three principal
parameters. These parameters include salinity, sodicity, alkalinity, and toxicity hazards. Mean and range values for selected
physicochemical variables of river water samples are presented in Tables 6 and 7.
Table 6 Mean and range values of major water salinity/sodicity parameters of Awash River water

Sub-basin Sampling site pHw ECw (dS/m) SAR RSC (meq/l)

Awash River at Koka dam 7.6 0.40 1.31 0.33

Awash River at Wonji Pump site 7.8 0.38 1.24 0.26
Awash River at Tibila 7.8 0.43 1.43 0.29
Awash River at Merti Weir site 7.8 0.40 1.44 0.39
Upper Awash

Minimum 7.6 0.38 1.24 0.26

Maximum 7.8 0.43 1.44 0.39
Mean 7.7 0.40 1.35 0.32
SD 0.07 0.02 0.10 0.05
Awash River at M.Sedi Weir site 8.1 0.92 3.42 1.95
Awash River at Werer Pump site 8.2 1.16 4.65 2.64
Awash River at Ambash Pump site 8.1 1.00 4.18 2.68
Awash River at Meteka Pump site 8.1 0.76 3.65 1.70
Middle Awash

Minimum 8.1 0.76 3.42 1.70

Maximum 8.2 1.16 4.65 2.68
Mean 8.1 0.96 3.97 2.24
SD 0.04 0.17 0.55 0.49
Awash River at Dupty Pump site 8.1 0.74 3.15 0.91
Awash River at Assaiyta Pump site 8.1 0.71 3.09 0.92
Lower Awash

Minimum 8.1 0.71 3.09 0.91

Maximum 8.1 0.74 3.15 0.92
Mean 8.1 0.73 3.12 0.91
SD 0.04 0.02 0.04 0.00

pHw (Alkalinity/Acidity)
The Awash River exhibits a slightly alkaline pH, averaging 8.0, ranging between 7.7 to 8.2, consistent with acceptable irrigation
levels (6.5–8.4) Recent studies confirm this pH balance across various points in the basin, which influences nutrient solubility for
crops and limits toxic ion availability. Notably, bicarbonate levels can be elevated in water with a pH above 8.0, presenting long-term
soil alkalinity risks if not managed. The pH, by in large, determines the solubility and ultimate availability of many plant nutrients
and potentially toxic ions. Soil is much more strongly buffered against changes in pH than water. Except in extreme conditions,
irrigation water will cause soil pH to change slowly with time and does not present a problem in itself over the short term . However,
some problems can still occur within the pH range considered "normal" or "acceptable." For instance, alkaline water with a pH of 8.0
and above may harbor a high volume of bicarbonates.

Salinity Hazard (ECw)

Salinity, indicated by Electrical Conductivity (ECw), is used as a proxy measure that is in direct proportion to the concentration of
ions in water and significantly impacts agricultural output. ECw values in the upper Awash average 0.40 dS/m, classifying as fresh
and suitable for irrigation, while middle and lower regions exhibit slightly restrictive levels (0.71–1.16 dS/m). Table 6 presents the
range and mean ECw values of water samples averaged over three flow seasons. All the ECw values across the Upper Awash
sampling sites varied between 0.38-0.43 with mean values of 0.40 0.02 dS/m, which indicates a fresh or slightly freshening water
type, as indicated in Figure 11, and was at the acceptably optimal level for irrigation. Range values of ECw were found to vary
between 0.76 and 1.16 dS/m, at sampling sites in the middle awash area and 0.71 to 0.71 dS/m at lower awash sampling sites laying
within a slight to moderate level of restriction (Ayers & Westcot, 1985). Water quality-induced salinity problems occur when the root
zone salts accumulate due to intensified irrigation and exceed the biological tolerance and assisted resistance, leading to crop loss.

Figure 11. Water sample freshness level on Piper diagram-based grading criteria

These findings align with a 2023 assessment of the Awash Basin's water quality, which highlights a salinity trend that risks crop
health and soil quality over time, particularly in the middle basin with the permissible C3 classification. Such salinity can lead to
substantial salt accumulation in soils due to prolonged irrigation, creating challenges for non-saline crop production.
Current studies suggest using low-salinity water (C2) for moderately tolerant crops and moderate leaching to prevent salinization.
However, high-salinity water (C3) necessitates drainage infrastructure and salt-tolerant plants to minimize salinity hazards. The
research underscores that without proper irrigation management and drainage, the saline buildup could degrade agricultural lands in
the Awash Basin. This has been exemplified by studies indicating that, even with permissible salinity, irrigation over several seasons
could deposit up to 2,000 pounds of salt per acre-foot, thus elevating long-term risks of soil salinization and reduced crop
productivity.
In summary, while the Awash River’s water quality largely supports irrigation, long-term use demands active management practices,
including leaching, drainage, and crop selection to mitigate salinity effects and ensure sustainable agricultural productivity. Elevated
SAR and RSC values necessitate careful monitoring and potential soil management practices to maintain agricultural productivity.

Sodicity Hazard
Sodium Adsorption Ratio –(SAR)
Some water quality problems are associated not only with the mere presence of a constituent but also with the interactions among
them. Sodicity/alkali hazards are one of the problems that often confront the long-term use of a given irrigation water source. It
relates to preserving sufficient soil permeability to allow water to permeate and flow freely through the soil. The Sodium Adsorption
Ratio (SAR), as a water sodicity index, relates the relative concentration of Na to the combined concentration of Ca and Mg. The
issue arises when irrigation water has a disproportionately higher sodium ion content than calcium and magnesium divalent ions,
while the total salt concentration is still limited. The coincidence of low salt (low ECw) and high SAR is known to impede the
percolation of water across the profile, an indirect hindrance of soil permeability or water infiltration capacity. A high SAR or low
ECw value can, separately or in synergy, act to disperse soil aggregates to cause soil sealing and crust formation, which reduce large
pores and holes in number and size where aeration and drainage are accommodated.
Table 7 Water quality interpretation guidelines for irrigation.

ECiw Salinity Degree of restriction Sodicity Degree of

Sampling site SAR
(dS/m) Class on use Class Restriction on Use

AR at Koka dam 0.40 1.31 C2 None S1 Slight to Moderate

AR at Wonji PS 0.38 1.24 C2 None S1 Slight to Moderate
AR at Tibila 0.43 1.43 C2 None S1 Slight to Moderate
AR at Merti WS 0.40 1.44 C2 None S1 Slight to Moderate
AR at MS W.S 0.92 3.42 C3 Slight to Moderate S1 Slight to Moderate
AR at Werer PS 1.16 4.65 C3 Slight to Moderate S1 Slight to Moderate
AR at Ambash PS 1.00 4.18 C3 Slight to Moderate S1 Slight to Moderate
AR at Meteka PS 0.76 3.65 C3 Slight to Moderate S1 Slight to Moderate
AR at Dupty 0.74 3.15 C2 Slight to Moderate S1 Slight to Moderate
AR at Assayita 0.71 3.09 C2 Slight to Moderate S1 Slight to Moderate

The SAR values for all water samples varied between 1.24 (at Wonji) and 4.65 (at Werer), with mean values of 2.75 (Table 7). SAR
had shown to increase from upstream to the middle reach (Werer), then tend to decrease towards downstream areas. With the increase
in SAR value, ECw value had concomitantly increased, and vice versa. Evidence suggests that the connection between the potential
for soil problems and the SAR values is directly associated with the ECw of the water. Based on both ECw and SAR and their
interaction (Ayers & Westcot, 1985), the water quality of the River Awash in terms of sodicity hazards and potential water infiltration
problems appeared to lie within the class of a slight to moderate degree of restriction on use (Table 7 and Appendix Table 2

Sodium Percentage (Na%)

The percentage of Na is frequently used to estimate the appropriateness of certain water for agricultural use. When the relative
concentration of Na+ contents in surface water exceeds Ca2+ and Mg2+, it reacts with the soil and declines its permeability. Low
permeability in turn disrupts the soil structure that results in the development of stunted plantations (Purushothman et al., 2012;
Sudhakar & Narsimha, 2013). The Na ratio over the study years ranged from 41.15 to 62.85, with an average value of 53.52 (Table
6). Based on the recorded Na% values, water samples from Koka, Wonji, Tibila, Merti, Melka Sadi, Dupty, and Assaiyta were in a
permissible suitability class for irrigation, while the remaining water samples from Werer, Ambash, and Meteka sites fell into a
doubtful suitability class (Table 5, Figures 5 and 6)

Permeability Index (PI)

The PI is frequently used to evaluate the suitability of water altered by high levels of Na+, Ca 2+, Mg2+, and HCO3- emersions for
irrigation (Ravikumar, Somashekar, and Angami, 2011). Across all the sampling sites, PI values varied between 22.48 and 42.83
(Appendix Table 4). Based on the PI values, the river water samples were classified into two classes: 1/ Good-Class II, which
represents Koka, Wonji, Tibila, Merti, Melka Sadi, Dupty, and Assaiyta and 2/Unsuitable-Class III, which represents Werer, Ambash,
and Meteka sites (Table 5), indicating that river water represented by samples with Good-Class II could be validated for irrigation.

Kelley Index (KI)

The KI irrigation suitability assessment (Sudhakar & Narsimha, 2013) conducted along with the PI revealed the presence of sodium
in excess. The KI values varied from 0.60 to 1.59b across two years, with an average value of 1.12. As a result, only river water
samples from the upper Awash area are qualified for the good class, while samples representing river water from the lower and
middle Awash areas are considered unsuitable. A KI below one (KI < 1) indicates that the water is appropriate for irrigation, whereas
a KI value over one (> 1) denotes the abundance of Na in the water(Kelley, 1940; Sundaray et al., 2009).

Irrigation Water Quality (IWQ)

Irrigation water quality class of water with IWQI value less than 22 is considered as low suitability, 22–37 is regarded as moderate
suitability, and those above 37 are regarded as high suitability (Dutta, Dwivedi, and Kumar, 2018). The computed mean IWQ values
over two years period varied from 25 to 32, with an average value of 29 (Appendix Table 4); showing that all the water samples were
in a moderate IWQ suitability class.
Alkalinity Hazard (RSC)
When establishing and categorizing the irrigation suitability of a given water, the reference to the alkalinity content is also crucial.
The alkalinity (CO32-+ HCO3-) concentration greater than the alkaline earth metals (Ca 2+ and Mg2+) is known as the ‘Residual Sodium
Carbonate’ (RSC) (Sundaray et al., 2009). The RSC value is a proxy for the irrigation water quality hazard due to alkalinity. The RSC
values of all sampling sites from the upper to the lower reach of the river varied from 0.26 to 0.39, 1.70 to 2.68, and 0.91 to 0.92
meq/l. According to these RSC values, all the water samples representing the upper and lower sub-basin areas with values less than
1.25 (Table 5, Figures 5 and 6), fell into a good class—acceptable for irrigation. The RSC At the middle reach, RSC values in Melka
Sedi and Meteka sampling sites were found to lie in a doubtful class, whereas water samples from Ambash and Werer pump sites
contained RSC values greater than 2.50 meq/l and were generally regarded as unsuitable. According to Sudhakar and Narsimha
(2013), soil water movement may be deterred by sustained usage of alkali-laden irrigation water with an RSC of more than 2.5 meq/l
by clogging soil pores with the accumulated salt. Such marginal waters are believed to be used for successful irrigation, but only with
the necessary ameliorative or amendment measures and proper management practices.
Specific-Ion Toxicity Hazard
Bicarbonate, chloride, sodium, and ions are among the major dissolved constituents of water. In addition to their role in the
salinization of water and the soil beneath, chloride and sodium at high concentrations can pose harm to crop plants. Potential toxicity
due to sodium hazards is based on SAR values. The SAR values for all water samples varied between 1.24 and 4.65 and were within
a slight to moderate degree of restriction for use. The content of Cl for all water samples was found to exist within the threshold limit
set by FAO (1985), indicating that the water from all sampling sites is safe for irrigation usage under both surface and sprinkler
irrigation conditions with no restriction. Range values of HCO 3- varied between 2.39 to 7.02 meq/L at Koka and Werer sampling
sites, respectively (Appendix Table 4). The values of HCO 3- recorded for water samples from all sampling points along the stream
flow were found to lie between a slight and moderate degree of restriction for irrigation use. High bicarbonate levels in water can
cause calcium to precipitate, deplete it from the soil, and consequently let it sod. This raises soil sodicity and lowers the exchangeable
calcium content of the soil. Magnesium may also deteriorate alike and be lost. In severe circumstances, soil calcium and magnesium
depletion will impair plant development. Bicarbonates may also cause the loss of many tree species due to lime deposit damage on
the root.

Supplementary Findings
A recent study in the Awash Basin (Yadeta & Gemeda, 2024) further highlights the implications of sodicity and salinity on soil,
noting interactions between SAR and ECw that affect infiltration rates. Additionally, the influence of Beseka Lake water inflows has
been linked to salinity increases downstream, underscoring the need for adaptive management in affected areas.

Table 8 Values of WQIs in sampling locations of the River Awash

Sampling site EC (dS/m) SAR RSC KI %Na PI (%) IWQ

Koka 0.40 1.31 0.33 0.65 43 43 30
Wonji 0.38 1.24 0.26 0.60 41 42 31
Tibila 0.43 1.43 0.29 0.68 45 39 32
Merti 0.40 1.44 0.39 0.67 44 40 32
Melka Sadi 0.92 3.42 1.95 1.25 60 25 26
Werer 1.16 4.65 2.64 1.59 63 22 25
Ambash 1.00 4.18 2.68 1.55 63 24 26
Meteka 0.76 3.65 1.70 1.50 62 25 26
Dubty 0.74 3.15 0.91 1.32 58 29 27
Assaiyta 0.71 3.09 0.92 1.36 58 29 28
Minimum 0.38 1.24 0.26 0.60 41 22 25
Maximum 1.16 4.65 2.68 1.59 63 43 32
Mean 0.69 2.75 1.21 1.12 54 32 29
SD 0.28 1.29 0.96 0.42 9 8 3
Table 9 Classification of water quality across sampling sites according to WQIs

Salinity Sodicity Alkalinity

Sampling Permeability/infiltration problem
hazard hazard hazard IWQ
site
EC *** SAR/EC* KI Na% PI%** RSC
Koka Class 2 S to M Good Permissible Class II Good Medium
Wonji Class 2 S to M Good Permissible Class II Good Medium
Tibila Class 2 S to M Good Permissible Class II Good Medium
Merti Class 2 S to M Good Permissible Class II Good Medium
Melka Sadi Class 3 S to M Unsuitable Doubtful Class III Doubtful Medium
Werer Class 3 S to M Unsuitable Doubtful Class III Unsuitable Medium
Ambash Class 3 S to M Unsuitable Doubtful Class III Unsuitable Medium
Meteka Class 3 S to M Unsuitable Doubtful Class III Doubtful Medium
Dubty Class 2 S to M Unsuitable Permissible Class II Good Medium
Assaiyta Class 2 S to M Unsuitable Permissible Class II Good Medium
*Class II in PI (%) indicates a good class for irrigation and Class III indicates an Unsuitable class for irrigation
**S to M in SAR/EC indicates slightly to moderate sodicity hazard
***Class 2: medium salinity water and appraised as a good class; Class 3: high salinity water appraised as permissible

Conclusion and Recommendations

This study assessed the spatiotemporal changes in the water quality of the Awash River and evaluated its suitability for irrigation
based on long-term data. The findings are summarized as follows:

Water Quality Changes: Over the 2004–2020 period, water quality has shown both temporal and spatial variability.
Notably, the middle Awash sub-basin experienced the most pronounced changes, while the upstream areas remained
relatively stable.

Spatial Patterns and Human Impact: Water quality degradation increased downstream from Koka to Meteka, suggesting
significant anthropogenic influence. Low stream flow led to elevated ionic concentrations, salinity, and sodicity, indicating
that lower flow periods may worsen water quality. Research highlights that pollution sources from agricultural and industrial
activities further intensify these effects, particularly downstream of Lake Beseka.

Hydrochemical Composition and Irrigation Suitability: The upstream river area exhibited Ca-HCO3 facies with
moderate salinity (C2) and low sodium, while the downstream reached high salinity and alkalinity (C3) levels, especially
during low flow seasons. Despite seasonal changes, water quality upstream largely supports agricultural use, while the
middle and lower reaches require careful management to prevent salinization.
Recent studies recommend regular monitoring, pollution control, and the use of salt-tolerant crops to sustain irrigation,
particularly in areas where water drainage is limited. Improved practices, such as moderate leaching and drainage
installations, can mitigate adverse effects from high salinity water, especially in the C3 zones.

Specific Recommendations:
Long-Term Water Management: To maintain irrigation potential, strategic flow monitoring is essential. Continued
assessment of pollutant sources is also recommended to address water quality impacts from industrial and agricultural
runoff.

Integrated Monitoring and Heavy Metal Assessment:

 Further studies on heavy metal contamination in soils irrigated by the river are crucial to safeguard agricultural
productivity and public health. These insights support a robust water quality framework for sustainable agriculture in the
 Awash Basin, with an emphasis on adaptive practices to mitigate climate and anthropogenic impacts on river water
quality.
 For the original article, updated information and research on water quality trends in the Awash Basin were included from
various studies such as recent findings on hydrochemical trends and pollution impacts, ensuring a more comprehensive
and current perspective on water quality management in the region.

References

Abebe, Y., & Jin, L. (2020). Impact of Lake Beseka on the Water Quality of Awash River. American Journal of Water Resources,
8(1), 21–30.

Adriano MAYER. (2022). DIAGRAMMES (Version 6.77.exe). Laboratoire d’Hydrogéologie d’Avignon. http://www.lha.univ-
avignon.fr/

Amare, S. K., Zebene, K., & Agizew, N. E. (2017). Spatial and temporal water quality dynamics of Awash River using multivariate
statistical techniques. African Journal of Environmental Science and Technology, 11(11), 565–577.
https://doi.org/10.5897/ajest2017.2353

Amare, S., Zebene, K., & Agizew, N. (2017). Evaluating water quality of Awash River using water quality index. Int J Water Resour
Environ Eng, 9(11), 243–253.

AwBA. (2014). Strategic River Basin Plan for Awash Basin, Melka Werer, Ethiopia. Awash Basin Authority.

Ayers, R. S., & Westcot, D. W. (1976). Water Quality for Agriculture. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 29. Rome.

Ayers, R. S., & Westcot, D. W. (1985). Water Quality for Agriculture. Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations:
Rome, Italy.

Banderi, A., Mohammad, M. S., Hamdi, H., Shomeli, M., & Ali, S. D. (2012). Water quality assessment of Amir Kabir sugarcane
agro-industry with respect to agricultural and drinking views. Journal of Environment and Ecology, 3(1):, 11–28.

Belay, E. E. A., & Eleni, A. B. (2009). Growing lake with growing problems: integrated hydrogeological investigation on Lake
Beseka. ZEF, Germany., 64.

Belay EA. (2009). Growing lake with growing problems: integrated hydrogeological investigation on Lake Beseka, Ethiopia.
Rheinis- Chen Friedrich-Wilhelms-Universität Bonn, Bonn, 1–10.

Benitez-Alfonso, Y., Soanes, B. K., Zimba, S., Sinanaj, B., German, L., Sharma, V., Bohra, A., Kolesnikova, A., Dunn, J. A., Martin,
A. C., Khashi u Rahman, M., Saati-Santamaría, Z., García-Fraile, P., Ferreira, E. A., Frazão, L. A., Cowling, W. A., Siddique,
K. H. M., Pandey, M. K., Farooq, M., … Foyer, C. H. (2023). Enhancing climate change resilience in agricultural crops.
Current Biology, 33(23), R1246–R1261. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2023.10.028

Berhe, F., AM, M., D, H., & Y, S. (2013). MODSIM-based water allocation modeling of Awash River Basin, Ethiopia. Catena, 109,
118–128.

Booker Tate. (1991). Booker Tropical Soil manual: A Handbook for Soil Survey and Agricultural Land Evaluation in the Tropics and
Subtropics. Longman Scientific and Technical, Essex, New York.

Chandrasekar, T., Sabarathinam, C., Nadesan, D., Rajendiran, T., RBP, B., Keesari, T., PM, V., V, U., & R, A. (2018). Geochemical
(process-based) characterization of groundwater along the KT boundary of South India. Geochemistry 78(1):1–16.

Chen, H. J., & Chang, H. (2014). Response of discharge, TSS, and E. coli to rainfall events in urban, suburban, and rural watersheds.
Environmental Science: Processes & Impacts, 16(10), 2313–2324.

Chen, J., Chen, S., Fu, R., Li, D., Jiang, H., Wang, C., Peng, Y., Jia, K., & Hicks, B. J. (2022). Remote Sensing Big Data for Water
Environment Monitoring: Current Status, Challenges, and Future Prospects. In Earth’s Future (Vol. 10, Issue 2). John Wiley
and Sons Inc. https://doi.org/10.1029/2021EF002289

Chen, Y. (2019). Advance of Big Data in Water Quality Monitoring.

https://research-information.bris.ac.uk/en/studentTheses/advance-of-big-data-in-water-quality-monitoring
Chien, H., Pierce, K., Huicheng, C., & Kieran, P. (2018). Impacts of Changed Stream flow on Selected Water Quality Parameters in
the Upper Esopus Creek Watershed of New York, USA. 6(1), 71–78. https://doi.org/10.15640/jges.v6n1a5

Conrad, O., Bechtel, B., Bock, M., Dietrich, H., Fischer, E., Gerlitz, L., Wehberg, J., Wichmann, V., & Böhner, J. (2015). System for
Automated Geoscientific Analyses (SAGA) v. 2.1.4. Geoscientific Model Development, 8(7), 1991–2007.
https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-8-1991-2015

Cude, C. G. (2001). Oregon Water Quality Index a Tool for Evaluating Water Quality Management Effectiveness’. Journal of the
American Water Resources Association, 37(1), 125–137. http://www.deq.state.or.us/

Degefu, F., A, L., Y, T., & K, T. (2013). The water quality degradation of upper Awash River, Ethiopia. Ethiop. J. Environ. Stud.
Manag. 6(1):58-66. Ethiop. J. Environ. Stud. Manag., 6(1), 58–66.

Dessie, B. K., Aschale, M., Assegide, E., Alamirew, T., Walsh, C. L., & Zeleke, G. (2024). Pollution challenges and consequences of
the Akaki catchment, Upper Awash Basin, Ethiopia: Evidence for policy reform and action. World Water Policy, 10(1), 363–
372. https://doi.org/10.1002/wwp2.12169

Doneen L.D. (1975). Water quality for irrigated agriculture’, in Plants in Saline Environments, eds A. Poljakoff-Mayber & J. Gale,
Springer–Verlag, Berlin.

Dutta, S., Dwivedi, A., & Kumar, M. S. (2018). Use of water quality index and multivariate statistical techniques for the assessment
of spatial variations in water quality of a small river. Environ. Monit. Assess. [CrossRef] [PubMed], 190, 718.

E.W. Rice, R.B. Baird, A. D. E. (2017). Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater, 23rd Edition. In American
Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation.

El-Ramady, H., Prokisch, J., Mansour, H., Bayoumi, Y. A., Shalaby, T. A., Veres, S., & Brevik, E. C. (2024). Review of Crop
Response to Soil Salinity Stress: Possible Approaches from Leaching to Nano-Management. In Soil Systems (Vol. 8, Issue 1).
Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI). https://doi.org/10.3390/soilsystems8010011

Essamlali, I., Nhaila, H., & El Khaili, M. (2024). Advances in machine learning and IoT for water quality monitoring: A
comprehensive review. In Heliyon (Vol. 10, Issue 6). Elsevier Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e27920

FAO. (1985). FAO Water Quality for Agriculture. Rome, Italy.

FAO and ITPS, FAO, & ITPS. (2015). Status of the World’s Soil Resources (SWSR) – Main Report. FAO and ITPS, Rome, Italy.
FAO (Food and Agriculture Organization) and ITPS (Intergovernmental Technical Panel on Soils).

Forgy, E. (1965). Cluster Analysis of multivariate data: efficiency vs. interpretability of classifications. Biometrics, 21, 768.

Gedion, T. (2009). Surface Water–Groundwater Interactions and Effects of Irrigation on Water and Soil Resources in the Awash
Valley. AAU.

GHS. (2013). EASY_QUIM (v5.o).

GoldenSoftware. (2019). Grapher ® 14.4.420 (64-bit) Jul 13 2019, 2D & 3D Graphing Software, , LLC
graphersupport@goldensoftware.com ,. www.goldensoftware.com

Göransson, G., Larson, M., & Bendz, D. (2013). Variation in turbidity with precipitation and flow in a regulated river system
&ndash; river Göta Älv, SW Sweden. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17(7), 2529–2542.

Greenberg, A. E., Clesceri, L. S. (eds. ., & Eaton, A. D. (1992). Standard methods for the examination of water and wastewater, 18
ed. American Public Health Association, American Water Works Association, Water Environment Federation, Washington
(D.C.).

Haile Arefayne, & Asfaw, A. T. (2020). Analysis and evaluation of the spatial and temporal variabilities of river water quality
parameters. Applied Water Science, 10(6), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-020-01222-2

Hammer, 0., Harper, D. . T., & Ryan, P. D. (2001). PAST: Paleontological Statistics software package for education and data
analysis. Palaeontologia Electronica, 4(1): 9pp.

Horton, R. (1965). An Index Number System for Rating Water Quality. J. Water Pollut. Control Fed., 37, 300–306.
Jha, R. B., Waidbacher, H., Sharma, S., & Straif, M. (2010). Study of agricultural impacts through fish base variables in different
rivers. International Journal of Environmental Science Technology, 7 (3), 609–615.

Juang, D. F., Lee, C. H., & Sueh, S. C. (2009). Chlorinated volatile organic compounds found near the water surface of heavily
polluted rivers. International Journal of Environmental Science Technology, 6 (4), 545–556.

Kalkhoff, S. J., Hubbard, L. E., Tomer, M. D., & James, D. E. (2016). Effect of variable annual precipitation and nutrient input on
nitrogen and phosphorus transport from two Midwestern agricultural watersheds. Science of the Total Environment, 559(3), 53–
62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.03.127

Kelley, W. P. (1940). Permissible composition and concentration of irrigated waters. Proc. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. , 66, 607–613.

Kimothi, S., Thapliyal, A., Akram, S. V., Singh, R., Gehlot, A., Mohamed, H. G., Anand, D., Ibrahim, M., & Noya, I. D. (2022). Big
Data Analysis Framework for Water Quality Indicators with Assimilation of IoT and ML. Electronics (Switzerland), 11(13).
https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics11131927

Kowe, P., Ncube, E., Magidi, J., Ndambuki, J. M., Rwasoka, D. T., Gumindoga, W., Maviza, A., de jesus Paulo Mavaringana, M., &
Kakanda, E. T. (2023). Spatial-temporal variability analysis of water quality using remote sensing data: A case study of Lake
Manyame. Scientific African, 21. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.sciaf.2023.e01877

Kurunc, A., Yurekli, K., & Okman, C. (2005). Effects of Kilickaya am on concentration and load values of water quality constituents
in Kelkit stream in Turkey. Journal of Hydrology, 317, 17–30.

LCRA. (2014). Water quality indicators. In: Colorado river watch network. http://www.lcra.org/water/quality/colorado-river-watch-
network/Pages/water-quality-indicators.aspx

Macedo, R. S., Lima, R. P., de Almeida Alves Carneiro, K., Moro, L., Refati, D. C., Campos, M. C. C., Beirigo, R. M., da Cruz, G.
K. G., de Sousa, A. A. P., de Brito Neto, J. F., Duarte, J. A., & Costa, D. T. da. (2024). Assessment of Soil Quality of
Smallholder Agroecosystems in the Semiarid Region of Northeastern Brazil. Land, 13(3). https://doi.org/10.3390/land13030304

Mahdavimanshadi, M., & Fan, N. (2024). Multistage Stochastic Optimization for Semi-arid Farm Crop Rotation and Water Irrigation
Scheduling Under Drought Scenarios. Journal of Agricultural, Biological, and Environmental Statistics, 1–24.
https://doi.org/10.1007/S13253-024-00651-9/METRICS

Martínez-Álvarez, V., Imbernón-Mulero, A., Maestre-Valero, J. F., Ben Abdallah, S., & Gallego-Elvira, B. (2023). Agronomic
Analysis of the Replacement of Conventional Agricultural Water Supply by Desalinated Seawater as an Adaptive Strategy to
Water Scarcity in South-Eastern Spain. Agronomy, 13(12). https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13122878

Mathinya, V. N., & Molomo, M. L. (2024). Distribution and redistribution of salt ions in saline soils with shallow groundwater table.
50(4), 345–356.

Nabala, E. H., & Kalin, R. M. (2024). Groundwater Quality and Vulnerability Assessment in the Nakivale Sub-catchment of the
Transboundary Lake Victoria Basin, Uganda. https://doi.org/10.20944/preprints202410.1602.v1

Newbold, J. D., O’Neill, R. V., Elwood, J. W., & Winkle., W. van. (1982). Nutrient spiralling in streams: implications for nutrient
limitation and invertebrate activity. American Naturalist, 120 ., 628–652.

NSW-EPA-. (2022). Environment Protection Authority Sampling design part 1 - application Contaminated Land Guidelines.

NSW-EPA-2. (2022). Environment Protection Authority interpretation Sampling design part 2 - C, Sampling design part 2 -
interpretation.

Obeidatt, A., & Alawneh, M. (2019). Hydrochemistry and groundwater quality assessment in Mafraq Province. Jordan. Open Access
Libr. J., 6, 1–10. [CrossRef].

Oster, J. D. (1994). Irrigation with poor quality water. Agricultural Water Management, 25(3), 271–297.
https://doi.org/10.1016/0378-3774(94)90064-7

Ouyang, Y. N., Kizza, P., Wu, Q. T., Shinde, D., & Huang, C. H. (2006). Assessment of seasonal variations in surface water quality.
Journal of Water Research, 40 (20), 3800–3810.

Pejman, A. H., Bidhendi, G. R., Karbassi, A. R., Mehrdadi, N. E., & Bidhendi, M. (2009). Evaluation of spatial and seasonal
 variations in surface water quality using multivariate statistical techniques. International Journal of Environmental Science
AndTechnology, 6 (3), 467–476.

Piper, A. M. (1944). A graphic procedure in the geochemical interpretation of water‐analyses. Eos, Transactions. American
Geophysical Union, 25(6), 914–928.

Purushothman, P., Rao, M. S., Kumar, B., Rawat, Y. S., Krishan, G., Gupta, S., Marwah, S., Bhatia, A. K., Kaushik, Y. B., &
Angurala, M. P. (2012). Drinking and irrigation water quality in Jalandhar and Kapurthala Districts, Punjab, India: Using
hydrochemistry. Int. J. Earth Sci. Eng., 5, 1599–1608.

Ravikumar, P., Somashekar, R. K., & Angami, M. (2011). Hydrochemistry and evaluation of groundwater suitability for irrigation
and drinking purposes in the Markandeya River basin, Belgaum District, Karnataka State, India. Environ. Monit. Assess., 173,
459–487. [CrossRef].

Richards, L. (1954). Diagnosis and improvement of saline and alkali soils. In L. A. Richards (Ed.), USA Department of Agriculture
Handbook 60 (pp. 98-105). Washington, DC: US Government Printing Office.

Richards, L. A. (1954). Diagnosis and Improvement of Saline and Alkali Soils. In U.S. Department of Agriculture.

RockWare, I. A. (2020). AqQA,The Spreadsheet for Water Analyses" (version 1.5.O [1.5.1.0) 2020 10:16 AM.). Rockware, Inc. .
Rockware® AND Aq•QA® are registered trademark of Rockware, Inc.Copyright C 2003-2020.
https://www.rockware.com/product/aqqa/

Romero-Trigueros, C., Mirás-Avalos, J. M., Bayona, J. M., Nortes, P. A., Alarcón, J. J., & Nicolás, E. (2024). Long-term effects of
combining reclaimed and freshwater on mandarin tree performance. Agricultural Water Management, 305, 109113.
https://doi.org/10.1016/J.AGWAT.2024.109113

Rostami, S., He, J., & Hassan, Q. K. (2018). Riverine Water Quality Response to Precipitation and Its Change. Environments, 5(8).
http;//doi.org/10.3390/environments5010008.

Rubin, J. (1967): (1967). Optimal Classification into Groups: An Approach for Solving the Taxonomy Problem. J. Theoretical
Biology, 15, 103–144.

Schubert, S., & Qadir, M. (2024). On-Site Salinity Management. Soil Salinity and Salt Resistance of Crop Plants, 67–88.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-73250-8_5

Shishaye, H. (2018). Diagnosing the suitability of lake water for domestic and agricultural uses: a case study in Eastern Ethiopia.
East Afr J Sci, 12(2), 101–110.

Shishaye, H., & Nagari, A. (2016). Hydrogeochemical analysis and evalu- ation of the groundwater in the Haramaya Well Field,
Eastern Hararghe Zone, Ethiopia. J Hydrogeol Hydrol Eng, 5(4).

Simsek, C., & Gunduz, O. (2007). IWQ index: A GIS-integrated technique to assess irrigation water quality. Environ. Monit. Assess.,
128, 277–300. [CrossRef].

SPSS-IBM. (2019). IBM SPSS Statistics for Windows (No. 26). IBM. https://www.ibm.com/analytics/spss-statistics-software

Srinivasa Moorthy, K., Chidambaram, S., Prasanna, M. V., Vasanthavihar, M., Peter, J., & Anandhan, P. (2008). Identification of
major sources controlling groundwater chemistry from a hard rock terrain—A case study from Mettur taluk, Salem district,
Tamil Nadu, India. J. Earth Syst. Sci., 117, 49–58. [CrossRef].

Sudhakar, A., & Narsimha, A. (2013). Suitability and assessment of groundwater for irrigation purpose: A case study of Kushaiguda
area, Ranga Reddy district, Andhra Pradesh, India. Adv. Appl. Sci. Res., 4(75–81).

Sundaray, S., Nayak, B., & Bhatta, D. (2009). Environmental studies on river water quality with reference to suitability for
agricultural purposes: Mahanadi river estuarine system, India—a case study. Environ Monit Assess, 155, 227–243.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s1066 1-008-0431-2

Swanson, S., JM, B., Schwar MT, A., & KW, P. (2001). Two-way cluster analysis of geochemical data to constrain spring source
waters. Elsevier Science B.V., Chemical Geology, 179Ž2001, 73–91.

Szabolcs, & Szabolcs, I. (1989). Salt-affected Soils. CRC Press, Boca Raton, FL, 274.
Tessema, S. (2011). Hydrological Modelling as a Tool for Sustainable Water Resources Management: A Case Study of the Awash
River Basin, Licentiate Thesis Environmental Management and Assessment Research Group Department of Land and Water
Resources Engineering, Royal Institut.

Tilahun, A., Shishaye, H., & Gebremariam, B. (2017). Sediment inflow esti- mation and mapping its spatial distribution at sub-basin
scale: the case of Tendaho Dam, Afar Regional State, Ethiopia. Ethiop. J Environ Stud Manag, 10(3), 1–15.

Todd, D. K. (1980). Groundwater Hydrology. In Wiley.

Vannote, R. L., Minshall, G. W., Cummins, K. W., Sedell, J. R., & Cushing, C. E. (1980). The river continuum concept. Canadian.
Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences, 37, 130–137.

Zeng, Y., Zhou, Y., Cao, W., Hu, D., Luo, Y., & Pan, H. (2023). Big data analysis of water quality monitoring results from the Xiang
River and an impact analysis of pollution management policies. Mathematical Biosciences and Engineering, 20(5), 9443–9469.
https://doi.org/10.3934/mbe.2023415
Appendix
Appendix Table 1 Name of water sampling stations and respective geo-reference data

Geo-reference Elevation
Sub-basin Water sampling site name Easting Northing (masl)
M. Kuntre (Koka) 8.40668 39.02050 1591
Upper Awash Wonjji pump site 8.45570 39.23098 1550
AR near Tibilla village 8.50880 39.56480 1237
Merti weir site 8.76248 39.88520 980
M/Sedi weir site 9.20540 40.11854 747
Middle Awash Werer pump site 9.33448 40.17136 739
Ambash pump site 9.41112 40.15846 733
Meteka pump site 9.97479 40.51849 576
Lower Awash Dupty 11.72571 41.08581 376
Assayita 11.54376 41.44975 358

Appendix Table 2 Classification of IWQ for surface water samples

Class of Water Irrigation Water Salinity Range of Degree of Restriction

ECw (dS/m) on Use

Class 1 (C1) Low salinity water < 0.25 Excellent

Class 2 (C2) Medium salinity water 0.25-0.75 Good
Class 3 (C3) High salinity water 0.76-2.00 Permissible
Class 4 (C4) Very high salinity water 2.01-3.00 Doubtful
Class 5 (C5) Excessively high salinity water >3.00 Unsuitable
Source: Richards (1954) and Booker Tropical Soil Manual (Booker Tate, 1991)

Appendix Table 3 Classification of Irrigation Water (Salinity) & Sodicity)

Sodium Class Irrigation Water Sodicity SAR

S1 Low sodium water < 10
S2 Medium sodium water 10 -18
S3 High sodium water 18 - 26
S4 Very high sodium water > 26
Source: Richards (1954) and Booker Tropical Soil Manual (Booker Tate, 1991)

Appendix Table 4 Mean values of selected water quality parameters for the period 2019 and 2023

Sub- ECiw Cations (meq/l) Anions (meq/l) RSC

basin Sampling site pHi (dS/m Ca+M Na K HCO Cl SO4 SAR (meq/l)
w ) g 3
Upper Koka dam 7.63 0.40 2.06 1.34 0.21 2.39 0.52 0.30 1.31 0.33
Awash Wonji PS 7.75 0.38 2.18 1.30 0.23 2.44 0.49 0.36 1.24 0.26
Tibila 7.78 0.43 2.25 1.52 0.31 2.54 0.52 0.38 1.43 0.29
Merti WS 7.78 0.40 2.31 1.55 0.23 2.70 0.51 0.41 1.44 0.39
Minimum 7.63 0.38 2.06 1.30 0.21 2.39 0.49 0.30 1.24 0.26
Maximum 7.78 0.43 2.31 1.55 0.31 2.70 0.52 0.41 1.44 0.39
Mean 7.74 0.40 2.20 1.43 0.24 2.52 0.51 0.36 1.35 0.32
SD 0.07 0.02 0.11 0.13 0.04 0.14 0.02 0.05 0.10 0.05
Middl MS W.S 8.08 0.92 3.87 4.84 0.40 5.82 1.55 1.28 3.42 1.95
e WARC PS 8.16 1.16 4.38 6.95 0.45 7.02 2.05 1.41 4.65 2.64
Awash Amb. PS 8.08 1.00 3.66 5.66 0.50 6.34 1.31 1.14 4.18 2.68
 Meteka PS 8.10 0.76 3.00 4.51 0.25 4.70 1.22 1.15 3.65 1.70
Minimum 8.08 0.76 3.00 4.51 0.25 4.70 1.22 1.14 3.42 1.70
Maximum 8.16 1.16 4.38 6.95 0.50 7.02 2.05 1.41 4.65 2.68
Mean 8.10 0.96 3.73 5.49 0.40 5.97 1.53 1.25 3.97 2.24
SD 0.04 0.17 0.57 1.09 0.11 0.98 0.37 0.12 0.55 0.49
Lower Dupty 8.13 0.74 2.81 3.71 0.21 3.72 1.08 1.65 3.15 0.91
Awash Assayita 8.07 0.71 2.57 3.50 0.37 3.48 1.00 1.59 3.09 0.92
Minimum 8.07 0.71 2.57 3.50 0.21 3.48 1.00 1.59 3.09 0.91
Maximum 8.13 0.74 2.81 3.71 0.37 3.72 1.08 1.65 3.15 0.92
Mean 8.10 0.73 2.69 3.60 0.29 3.60 1.04 1.62 3.12 0.91
SD 0.04 0.02 0.17 0.15 0.12 0.17 0.06 0.04 0.04 0.00