Impacts of climate change and agricultural activities on water quality in the Lower Kaidu River Basin, China

doi:10.1007/s11442-020-1721-z

Abstract

Abstract:

In the context of climate change and over-exploitation of water resources, water shortage and water pollution in arid regions have become major constraints to local sustainable development. In this study, we established a Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model for simulating non-point source (NPS) pollution in the irrigation area of the lower reaches of the Kaidu River Basin, based on spatial and attribute data (2010-2014). Four climate change scenarios (2040-2044) and two agricultural management scenarios were input into the SWAT model to quantify the effects of climate change and agricultural management on solvents and solutes of pollutants in the study area. The simulation results show that compared to the reference period (2010-2014), with a decline in streamflow from the Kaidu River, the average annual irrigation water consumption is expected to decrease by 3.84×10 ⁸ m ³ or 8.87% during the period of 2040-2044. Meanwhile, the average annual total nitrogen (TN) and total phosphorus (TP) in agricultural drainage canals will also increase by 10.50% and 30.06%, respectively. Through the implementation of agricultural management measures, the TN and TP in farmland drainage can be reduced by 14.49% and 16.03%, respectively, reaching 661.56 t and 12.99 t, accordingly, and the increasing water efficiency can save irrigation water consumption by 4.41×10 ⁸ m ³ or 4.77%. The results indicate that although the water environment in the irrigation area in the lower reaches of the Kaidu River Basin is deteriorating, the situation can be improved by implementing appropriate agricultural production methods. The quantitative analysis results of NPS pollutants in the irrigation area under different scenarios provide a scientific basis for water environmental management in the Kaidu River Basin.

Key words: climate change, agricultural management, non-point pollutants, SWAT, Kaidu River Basin, water quality

BA Wulong, DU Pengfei, LIU Tie, BAO Anming, CHEN Xi, LIU Jiao, QIN Chengxin. Impacts of climate change and agricultural activities on water quality in the Lower Kaidu River Basin, China[J].Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2020, 30(1): 164-176.

Figures/Tables 11

Figure 1

Table 1

Table 2

Table 3

Figure 2

Figure 3

Figure 4

Figure 5

Table 4

Figure 6

Table 5

References 37

1	Abbaspour K C, Johnson C A, Genuchten M T V , 2004. Estimating uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential uncertainty fitting procedure. Vadose Zone Journal, 3(4):1340-1352.
2	Akhavan S, Abedi-Koupai J, Mousavi S F et al., 2010. Application of SWAT model to investigate nitrate leaching in Hamadan-Bahar Watershed, Iran. Agriculture Ecosystems & Environment, 139(4):675-688.
3	Alcon F, Miguel M D D, Burton M , 2011. Duration analysis of adoption of drip irrigation technology in southeastern Spain. Technological Forecasting & Social Change, 78(6):991-1001.
4	Al-Mukhtar M, Dunger V, Merkel B , 2014. Assessing the impacts of climate change on hydrology of the upper reach of the Spree River: Germany. Water Resources Management, 28(10):2731-2749.
5	Ba W L, Du P F, Liu T et al., 2018. Simulating hydrological responses to climate change using dynamic and statistical downscaling methods: A case study in the Kaidu River Basin, Xinjiang, China. Journal of Arid Land, 10(6):905-920.
6	Basher M A, Liu T, Kabir M A et al., 2010. Climate change impact on the hydrological extremes in the Kaidu River Basin, China. Journal of Flood Engineering, 1(2):93-108.
7	Bouraoui F, Grizzetti B , 2014. Modelling mitigation options to reduce diffuse nitrogen water pollution from agriculture. Science of the Total Environment, 468:1267-1277.
8	Chamchati H, Bahir M , 2011. Contributions of climate change on water resources in semi-arid areas: Example of the Essaouira Basin (Morocco). Geographia Technica, 1(1):1-8.
9	Chen C C, Chen Y N, Yang Y H et al., 2010. Hydrology and water resources variation and its response to regional climate change in Xinjiang. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 20(4):599-612.
10	Chen J J , 2002. Analysis of water environment in the Xinjiang arid region. Arid Environmental Monitoring, 16(4):223-224. (in Chinese)
11	Chen Y N, Yang Q, Luo Y et al., 2012. Ponder on the issues of water resources in the arid region of northwest China. Arid Land Geography, 35(1):1-9. (in Chinese)
12	Dechmi F, Skhiri A , 2013. Evaluation of best management practices under intensive irrigation using SWAT model. Agricultural Water Management, 123:55-64.
13	Dibike Y B, Coulibaly P , 2005. Hydrologic impact of climate change in the Saguenay watershed: Comparison of downscaling methods and hydrologic models. Journal of Hydrology, 307(1-4):145-163.
14	Griensven A V, Ndomba P, Yalew S et al., 2012. Critical review of the application of SWAT in the upper Nile Basin countries. Hydrology & Earth System Sciences Discussions, 9(3):3761-3788.
15	Guo M, Zhou X, Li J et al., 2015. Assessment of the salinization processes in the largest inland freshwater lake of China. Stochastic Environmental Research & Risk Assessment, 29(7):1823-1833.
16	Gupta H V, Sorooshian S, Yapo P O , 1999. Status of automatic calibration for hydrologic models: Comparison with multilevel expert calibration. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 4(2):135-143.
17	Kaini P, Nicklow J W , 2012. Optimizing structural best management practices using SWAT and genetic algorithm to improve water quality goals. Water Resources Management, 26(7):1827-1845.
18	Lei X, Lu J, Liu Z et al., 2015. Concentration and distribution of antibiotics in water-sediment system of Bosten Lake, Xinjiang. Environmental Science & Pollution Research International, 22(3):1670-1678.
19	Liu T, Willems P, Pan X L et al., 2011. Climate change impact on water resource extremes in a headwater region of the Tarim Basin in China. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(11):3511-3527.
20	Liu Y, Mu S, Bao A et al., 2015. Effects of salinity and (an)ions on arsenic behavior in sediment of Bosten Lake, Northwest China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(8):4707-4716.
21	Mihon D, Bacu V, Rodila D et al., 2013. Grid based hydrologic model calibration and execution. In: Dumitrache L (eds.). Advances in Intelligent Control Systems and Computer Science. Berlin Heidelberg: Springer, 279-293
22	Moriasi D N, Arnold J G, Liew M W V et al., 2007. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE, 50(3):885-900.
23	Moriasi D N, Gowda P H, Arnold J G et al., 2013. Modeling the impact of nitrogen fertilizer application and tile drain configuration on nitrate leaching using SWAT. Agricultural Water Management, 130:36-43.
24	Mostofa K M G, Li W, Wu F et al., 2017. Environmental characteristics and changes of sediment pore water dissolved organic matter in four Chinese lakes. Environmental Science & Pollution Research, 25(5):1-22.
25	Neitsch S L, Arnold J G, Kiniry J R et al., 2011. Soil and water assessment tool theoretical documentation version 2009, Texas water resources institute, technical report No. 406. Texas: Texas A&M University System College Station.
26	Pongpetch N, Suwanwaree P, Yossapol C et al., 2015. Using SWAT to assess the critical areas and nonpoint source pollution reduction best management practices in Lam Takong River Basin, Thailand. Environmentasia, 8(1):41-52.
27	Rusuli Y, Li L, Ahmad S et al., 2015. Dynamics model to simulate water and salt balance of Bosten Lake in Xinjiang, China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 74(3):2499-2510.
28	Shen B B, Wu J L, Zhao Z H , 2017. Organochlorine pesticides and polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons in water and sediment of the Bosten Lake, Northwest China. Journal of Arid Land, 9(2):287-298.
29	Wang G , 1999. The utilization of water resource and its influence on eco-environment in the northwest arid area of china. Journal of Natural Resources, 43(2):121-131. (in Chinese)
30	Wang S X, Wu B, Yang P N et al., 2011. Determination of the ecological groundwater depth considering ecological integrity over oasis irrigation areas in the Yanqi Basin. Resources Science, 33(3):422-430. (in Chinese)
31	Wang S X, Wu B, Yang P N , 2014. Assessing the changes in land use and ecosystem services in an oasis agricultural region of Yanqi Basin, Northwest China. Environmental Monitoring & Assessment, 186(12):8343-8357. (in Chinese)
32	Wang X J, Yu Z T, Wang J P et al., 2018. Carbon Cycle in the Changing Arid Land of China. Singapore: Springer.
33	Xiao J, Jin Z, Jin W et al., 2015. Major ion chemistry, weathering process and water quality of natural waters in the Bosten Lake catchment in an extreme arid region, NW China. Environmental Earth Sciences, 73(7):3697-3708.
34	Xie X, Cui Y , 2011. Development and test of SWAT for modeling hydrological processes in irrigation districts with paddy rice. Journal of Hydrology, 396(1):61-71.
35	Yu Y, Pi Y Y, Yu X et al., 2019. Climate change, water resources and sustainable development in the arid and semi-arid lands of Central Asia in the past 30 years. Journal of Arid Land, 11(1):1-14.
36	Zhang X Y, Zhang M H , 2011. Modeling effectiveness of agricultural BMPs to reduce sediment load and organophosphate pesticides in surface runoff. Science of the Total Environment, 409(10):1949-1958.
37	Zuo Q T, Zhou K F, Xia J et al., 2007. A quantified study method and its application to sustainable management of water resources in arid basins. Science in China (Series D), 50(1):9-15.

Climate scenarios	Temperature change (℃)	Precipitation change (%)	Streamflow change (%)
A	+0.5	-10	-10
B	+0.7	+10	+10
C	+1.3	+20	-10
D	+1.9	+30	-20
Management scenarios	Measures
E	Agricultural irrigation efficiency increased from 58 % to 75%
F	Amount of fertilizer application reduced by 20%

Parameter	Definition	Ranges	Fitted value
LAT_TTIME	Lateral flow travel time	0.00-180.00	62.00
NPERCO	Nitrogen percolation coefficient	0.00-1.00	0.21
ALPHA_BF	Baseflow alpha factor	0.00-1.00	0.25
GW_REVAP	Groundwater evaporation coefficient	0.02-0.20	0.02
GW_DELAY	Groundwater delay	0.00-500.00	14.00
ESCO	Soil evaporation compensation factor	0.00-1.00	0.19
BIOMIX	Biological mixing efficiency	0.00-1.00	0.26
USLE_P	USLE equation support practice	0.00-1.00	0.26
BC1	Rate constant for biological oxidation of NH₃	0.10-1.00	0.55
BC2	Rate constant for biological oxidation NO₂ to NO₃	0.20-2.00	1.10

Variable	Period	R²	NSE	PBIAS (%)
Streamflow	Calibration (2012/01-2013/12)	0.84	0.80	-28.57
Streamflow	Validation (2014/01-2014/12)	0.86	0.83	7.46
TN (t)	Calibration (2012/01-2013/12)	0.85	0.79	-27.32
TN (t)	Validation (2014/01-2014/12)	0.86	0.82	10.68
TP (t)	Calibration (2012/01-2013/12)	0.79	0.75	-35.34
TP (t)	Validation (2014/01-2014/12)	0.81	0.73	12.35

Sub-basin ID	Receiving water	Drainage canal	TN (t)	TP (t)	Discharge (10⁴m³/s)
24	Big Lake District	Kaidu River	2345.36	9.50	225896.46
16		Halayin, Dongdahan	4.16	0.24	723.98
19		Benbutu, 25th Regiment	9.52	0.60	1539.51
22		Bohu Town, Wulan Town	10.29	0.64	1485.38
7		Bortu, 26th Regiment West	6.26	0.66	1545.33
2	Yellow Water District	Huangshui River	499.58	2.70	12633.36
8		22nd Regiment North and South	36.69	1.21	2624.37
13		Shengli, Beigan	26.85	0.99	2331.01
15		Dongfeng	24.11	0.81	1685.94
3		6th and 4th Companies of the 24th Regiment	16.6	0.01	101.94
6		Qingshui River West and East	22.64	1.85	1516.93
27	Small Lake District	Tuanjie	61.52	3.28	10091.55
29		Jiefang, 40 Lichengzi	22.58	1.03	2461.36
31		27th Regiment, Yongning Town	23.03	0.96	2091.49
33		Yongning Town East, Chaganur	9.91	0.51	1268.55
Total			3119.10	24.99	267997.16

Scenarios	Water source	Precipitation (mm)	Discharge (m³/s)	TN (t)	TP (t)
Reference period	Drainage	79.51	4.21×10⁸	773.73	15.47
Reference period	River	246.47	2.26×10⁹	2345.36	9.50
Scenario A	Drainage	71.56	4.03×10⁸	704.39	13.60
Scenario A	River	221.82	1.93×10⁹	2233.16	9.12
Scenario B	Drainage	87.46	4.37×10⁸	845.33	21.88
Scenario B	River	271.12	2.58×10⁹	2485.97	15.21
Scenario C	Drainage	95.41	4.09×10⁸	847.70	20.98
Scenario C	River	295.76	1.94×10⁹	2331.32	13.70
Scenario D	Drainage	103.36	3.84×10⁸	854.98	20.20
Scenario D	River	320.41	1.61×10⁹	2222.45	12.87
Scenario E	Drainage	79.51	4.41×10⁸	773.73	15.47
Scenario E	River	246.47	2.26×10⁹	2345.36	9.50
Scenario F	Drainage	79.51	4.21×10⁸	661.56	12.99
Scenario F	River	246.47	2.26×10⁹	2312.59	8.93