Journal of Geographical Sciences >
The influence of climate change and human activities on runoff in the middle reaches of the Huaihe River Basin, China
Author: Gao Chao (1978-), PhD and Professor, specialized in climate change and hydrology and water resources.E-mail: gaoqinchao1@163.com
Received date: 2017-06-08
Accepted date: 2017-08-16
Online published: 2018-01-10
Supported by
National Natural Science Foundation of China, No.41571018
Copyright
This study presents a soil and water integrated model (SWIM) and associated statistical analyses for the Huaihe River Basin (HRB) based on daily meteorological, river runoff, and water resource data encompassing the period between 1959 and 2015. The aim of this research is to quantitatively analyze the rate of contribution of upstream runoff to that of the midstream as well as the influence of climate change and human activities in this section of the river. Our goal is to explain why extreme precipitation is concentrated in the upper reaches of the HRB while floods tend to occur frequently in the middle reaches of this river basin. Results show that the rate of contribution of precipitation to runoff in the upper reaches of the HRB is significantly higher than temperature. Data show that the maximum contribution rate of upstream runoff to that of the midstream can be as high as 2.23%, while the contribution of temperature is just 0.38%. In contrast, the rate of contribution of human activities to runoff is 87.20% in the middle reaches of the HRB, while that due to climate change is 12.80%. Frequent flood disasters therefore occur in the middle reaches of the HRB because of the combined effects of extreme precipitation in the upper reaches and human activities in the middle sections.
Key words: runoff; climate change; human activity; contribution rate; Huaihe River Basin
GAO Chao , RUAN Tian . The influence of climate change and human activities on runoff in the middle reaches of the Huaihe River Basin, China[J]. Journal of Geographical Sciences, 2018 , 28(1) : 79 -92 . DOI: 10.1007/s11442-018-1460-6
Figure 1 Maps illustrating the flood disaster affected areas (a) and spatial distribution of extreme precipitation (b) in the middle and upper reaches of the HRB |
Figure 2 Map showing the study area as well as meteorological stations, the drainage system, and watershed |
Figure 3 Graphs showing SWIM-simulated daily runoff depths for the upper reaches of the HRB during the calibration between 1959 and 1988 (a) and validation between 1989 and 2008 (b) periods of this study |
Figure 4 Graphs showing SWIM-simulated daily runoff depths for the middle reaches of the HRB during the calibration between 1959 and 1988 (a) and validation between 1989 and 2008 (b) periods of this study |
Table 1 SWIM runoff sensitivities given different levels of precipitation recorded at meteorological stations in the upper reaches of the HRB |
Δt(°C) | Δp (%) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
-20 | -10 | +0 | +10 | +20 | |
+3 | -36.12 | -18.35 | 0.33 | 20.54 | 39.93 |
+2 | -36.24 | -18.48 | 0.23 | 19.74 | 39.89 |
+1 | -36.36 | -18.62 | 0.09 | 19.62 | 39.78 |
0 | -36.48 | -18.72 | 0.00 | 19.08 | 39.73 |
-1 | -36.29 | -18.53 | 0.21 | 19.81 | 40.00 |
Table 2 Standardized runoff sensitivity results for the upper reaches of the HRB |
Δp(%) | Δt(°C) | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|
-1.2649 | -0.6324 | 0 | 0.6324 | 1.2649 | |
1.26491 | -1.3038 | -0.6559 | 0.0249 | 0.7619 | 1.4687 |
0.63246 | -1.3083 | -0.6608 | 0.0213 | 0.7327 | 1.4675 |
0 | -1.3128 | -0.6658 | 0.0161 | 0.7285 | 1.4635 |
-0.63246 | -1.3171 | -0.6695 | 0.0130 | 0.7320 | 1.4614 |
-1.26491 | -1.31028 | -0.6624 | 0.0208 | 0.7352 | 1.4713 |
Figure 5 Trend in annual temperature (a) and precipitation (b) between 1959 and 2008 |
Figure 6 Contribution rates of spring, summer, autumn, and winter seasons to runoff in the middle and upper reaches of the HRB |
Table 3 Contribution rates of upstream meteorological factors to midstream runoff |
Contribution rate of upstream meteorological factors to runoff (%) | Contribution rate of upstream meteorological factors to midstream runoff (%) | |||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Annual average | Spring | Summer | Autumn | Winter | ||
Precipitation | (min) 6.13 | 1.70 | 1.77 | 1.73 | 1.53 | 1.55 |
(max) 7.73 | 2.14 | 2.23 | 2.18 | 1.93 | 1.96 | |
Temperature | (min) -0.48 | -0.13 | -0.14 | -0.14 | -0.12 | -0.12 |
(max) 1.32 | 0.37 | 0.38 | 0.37 | 0.33 | 0.33 |
Figure 7 MK test results for runoff sequences (a), and the combined results of MK and sliding T-tests (b) |
Table 4 River runoff during base and evaluation periods in the middle reaches of the HRB (106 m3•s-1) |
Different periods | Runoff |
---|---|
WB | 7.627 |
WHN | 6.966 |
WHR | 7.041 |
ΔWT | 0.661 |
ΔWH | 0.586 |
ΔWC | 0.075 |
Table 5 Contribution rates of climate change and human activities to the HRB midstream runoff |
Total variation (106 m3•s‒1) | Climate change | Human activities | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Variation (106 m3•s‒1) | Contribution rate | Variation (106 m3•s‒1) | Contribution rate | |
0.661 | 0.075 | 12.80% | 0.586 | 87.20% |
Figure 8 Anomalies in surface water resources in the HRB between 1997 and 2015 |
Figure 9 The changes in GDP, crop acreage, and the urbanization rate within the HRB between 1996 and 2015 |
Figure 10 Risk assessment zoning maps for precipitation-related flooding disasters within the HRB over 100- (a) and 1000-year (b) return periods |
The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.
[1] |
|
[2] |
|
[3] |
|
[4] |
|
[5] |
|
[6] |
|
[7] |
|
[8] |
|
[9] |
|
[10] |
|
[11] |
|
[12] |
|
[13] |
|
[14] |
|
[15] |
|
[16] |
|
[17] |
|
[18] |
|
[19] |
|
[20] |
|
[21] |
|
[22] |
|
[23] |
|
[24] |
|
[25] |
|
[26] |
|
[27] |
|
[28] |
|
[29] |
|
[30] |
|
[31] |
|
[32] |
|
[33] |
|
[34] |
|
[35] |
|
[36] |
|
[37] |
|
[38] |
|
[39] |
|
[40] |
|
[41] |
|
[42] |
|
/
〈 |
|
〉 |