The changing environment due to climate variability and human activities could influence hydrological processes, which are complex (
Marengo et al., 1998;
Schulze, 2000;
Tomer and Schilling, 2009;
Zhang et al., 2010). With the deterioration of water resources and increasing consumption of global water resources, the study of the impact of climate variability and human activities on hydrology has been of great interest in hydrological science (
Vorosmarty et al., 2000;
Kang et al., 2004;
Scanlon et al., 2007). Many studies have pointed out that global warming could intensify global hydrological processes (
Brutsaert and Parlange, 1998;
Zhang et al., 2003;
Batisani, 2011). Specific to the regional scale, the impact of climate variability on steam flow variation needs to be investigated under each local climate scenario. Land use changes due to human activities and agricultural development can also affect stream flow (
Calder, 1993). Climate variability, such as changes in precipitation and evapotranspiration, and increasing temperatures, could cause great variations in regional hydrological processes (
Arnell and Reynard, 1996;
Li et al., 2010;
Wang and Hejazi, 2011;
Ma et al., 2015). The effects of climate variability on stream flow in basins across Australia that were simulated by a hydrological model using long term climate data and future climate variability scenarios showed that changes in precipitation could result in enormous variations in stream flow, including both decrease and increase (
Chiew et al., 1995;
Chiew and McMahon, 2002). A study in North America found that changes in precipitation resulted in up to double the percentage variations in stream flow. Compared with precipitation, temperature changes were only mildly correlated with stream flow variations (
Najjar, 1999). Human activities, such as land use/change, water intake, and water transfer projections play vital roles in the temporal and spatial changes of the hydrologic cycle, especially in stream flow variation. (
Costa et al., 2003;
Li et al., 2007a;
Elfert and Bormann, 2010). For example, afforestation could lead to decreases in stream flow, and irrigation can also influence stream flow (
Bosch and Hewlett, 1982;
Huang and Zhang, 2004; Mu
et al., 2007). These activities can not only alter landscape patterns, which affect stream flow processes, but also directly affect the quantity of stream flow. Generally speaking, human activities could affect stream flow in two ways. Some activities (i.e. water intake and water transfer projections) could directly affect stream flow and water resources variation. A study of the Middle Yellow River found that the contribution of direct human activities was about 3% to 5% during the past 50 years (
Liang et al., 2013). However, stream flow variation influenced by direct activities could show different results in different regions. Changes in landscape patterns could affect stream flows through flow regime processes, such as flood frequency, base flow and mean annual stream flow discharge (
Costa et al., 2003;
Brath et al., 2006;
Wang et al., 2006). Many empirical methods have been used to identify the impacts of those variations that were caused by climate variability and human activities (
Zhan and Yu, 1994). But general conclusions could not be applied to all basins based on these empirical studies. Statistical methods (i.e. Mann-Kendall test, Yamamoto test and moving
t-test) have been proposed to identify variation trends and distinguish between the contributions of climate variability and human activities in a catchment stream flow (
Li et al., 2009;
Zhang and Lu, 2009). Due to the limited temporal scale and lack of physical mechanisms, hydrological models have been applied to analyze the responses of stream flow processes. However, the results of model simulations have many uncertainties that are caused by model structures, parameters and spatial scales (
Li et al., 2007b). In order to improve the accuracy of these studies, two methods in particular have been used to quantify and compare the impacts of climate variability and human activities on stream flow (Xu and Vandewiele, 1995;
Yates, 1996;
Jothityangkoon, 2001;
Hu et al., 2012).