Water Resources Management

, 23:341 | Cite as

Ecological Water Requirement (EWR) Analysis of High Mountain and Steep Gorge (HMSG) River—Application to Upper Lancang–Mekong River

  • Hu Bo
  • Cui Baoshan
  • Dong Shikui
  • Zhai Hongjuan
  • Liu Zhaoyang


As “corridor” in the south–north and “barrier” in the west–east direction, Lancang River, the upstream of Lancang–Mekong River, has an obvious spatial–temporal characteristic and unique regional attributes. Recently, the hydropower development of the mainstream along Lancang River has disturbed the regional ecosystem to have unstable factors, and threatened the ecosystem health. This paper used the couple model of Grading Coefficient of ecological water requirement (GCEWR) and the ecological runoff (ER) to simulate the ecological water requirement (EWR) of Lancang River, in a broad sense, this method belongs to hydrology–ecology methodology. In the GCEWR–ER, We adopted ecological characteristic indexes (ECI) and hydrological characteristic variables (e.g. variance index) to calculate the GCEWR, and used three methods to calculate the basic variable (e.g. ER) of EWR: the first method directly used annual average runoff as ER; the second method was used frequency method and took year as basic time unit, and the third method took season (e.g. flood season, non-flood season) as the basic time unit to evaluate ER. Finally, in order to demonstrate applicability of this developed methodology, this paper adopted GCEWR–ER method to calculate the EWR of Lancang River in the Longitudinal Range-Gorge Region. By the systematic analysis of the results, we could get the minimum, satisfying and optimal EWR for the Lancang River, which were 142.53 × 108, 286.46 × 108 and 385.96 × 108 m3. The three EWR respectively occupied 25.10%, 50.46% and 67.98% of the average measured run-off (567.75 × 108 m3) of the Lancang River, and respectively occupied 18.63%, 37.45% and 50.45% of the natural run-off (765 × 108 m3) of the Lancang River.


Ecological water requirements (EWR) Grading coefficient of ecological water requirement (GCEWR) Ecological characteristic index (ECI) Ecological runoff (ER) Lancang River 


  1. Arthington AH, Zalucki JM (eds) (1998) Comparative evaluation of environmental flow assessment techniques: review of methods. In: Land and water resources research and development corporation, pp 68–691Google Scholar
  2. Arthington AH, King JM, O’Keefee JH (1992) Development of a holistic approach for assessing environmental flow requirements of river ecosystem. In: Pigram JJ, Hooper BP (eds) Water allocation for the environment. Centre for policy research. University of New England, Armidale, pp 69–76Google Scholar
  3. Dakova S, Uzunov Y, Mandadjiev D (2000) Low flow—the river’s ecosystem limiting factor. Ecol Eng 16:167–174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Denis AH, Hannart P (2003) A desktop model used to provide an initial estimate of the ecological instream flow requirements of rivers in South Africa. J Hydrol 270:167–181CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Denis AH, Hannart P, Watkins D (2003) Continuous base flow separation from time series of daily and monthly stream flow data. Water SA 29(1):43–48Google Scholar
  6. Feng Y, He DM, Bao HS (2000) Study on the equitable and suitable allocation model of water resources in the Lancang–Mekong River Basin. J Nat Resour 15(3):241–245Google Scholar
  7. Gan S, He DM, Dang CL (2002) The comparison of three case study area on landscape structure of Lancang river basin in Yunnan province. J Mt Sci 20(5):564–569Google Scholar
  8. Hartmann J, Levy JK, Okada N (2006) Managing surface water contamination in Nagoya, Japan: an integrated water basin management decision framework. Water Resour Manag 20:411–430CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. He DM, Wu SH, Peng H, Yang ZF, Ou XK, Cui BS (2005) A study of ecosystem change in longitudinal range-gorge region and transboundary eco-security in Southwest China. Adv Eart Sci 20(3):338–344Google Scholar
  10. He DM, Feng Y, Gan S, You WH (2006) Transboundary hydrological effects of hydropower dam construction on the Lancang River. Chin Sci Bull 51(Supp):16–24Google Scholar
  11. Hemstrom MA, Korol JJ, Hann WJ (2001) Trends in terrestrial plant communities and landscape health indicate the effects of alternative management strategies in the interior Columbia River basin. Forest Ecol Manag 1–3(153):105–125CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hughes DA (2001) Providing hydrological information and data analysis tools for the determination of ecological instream flow requirements for south African rivers. J Hydrol 241:140–151CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Imeson AC, Prinsen HAM (2004) Vegetation patterns as biological indicators for identifying runoff and sediment source and sink areas for semi-arid landscape in Spain. Agric Ecosyst Environ 2(104):333–342CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Jayasuriya RT (2004) Modeling the regional and farm-level economic impacts of environmental flows for regulated rivers in NSW, Australia. Agric Water Manag 1(66):77–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. King J, Louw D (1998) Instream flow assessments for regulated rivers in South Africa using the building block methodology. Aquat Ecosyst Health Manag 1:109–124CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Li LJ, Zheng HX (2000) Environmental and ecological water consumption of river systems in Haihe–Luanhe basins. Acta Geogr Sin 4(5):495–500Google Scholar
  17. Macro F, Giorgio G, Macro L (2005) Analytical derivation of the flood frequency curve through partial duration series analysis and a probabilistic representation of the runoff coefficient. J Hydrol 303:1–15CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Matthewe RC, Bao Y (1991) The Texas method of preliminary instream flow determination. Rivers 2(4):295–310Google Scholar
  19. Mazvimavi D, Madamombe E, Makurira H (2007) Assessment of environmental flow requirements for river basin planning in Zimbabwe. Phys Chem Earth 32:995–1006Google Scholar
  20. Mike A (2005) Linking science and decision-making: features and experience from environmental river flow setting. Environ Model Softw 20:99–109CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Richard D, Rafik H (2003) Environmental flows: concepts and methods. World Bank, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  22. Richter BD (1997) How much water does a river need? Freshw Biol 37(2):231–249.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Richter BD, Baumgartner JV, Powell J, Braun DP (1996) A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv Biol 10(4):1163–1174CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Rushton CD (2000) Instream flows in Washington State: past, present and future (Draft). Water Resources Program, Department of Ecology, Olympia, pp 1–42Google Scholar
  25. Smakhtin V, Revenga C, Döll P (2004) Taking into account environmental water requirements in global-scale water resources assessments. Comprehensive assessment research report 2. IWMI, Colombo, Sri LankaGoogle Scholar
  26. Stalnaker C (1995) The instream flow incremental methodology: a primer for IFIM. Biological report 29. USDI, National Biological Service, Washington, DC, p 44Google Scholar
  27. Tennant DL (1976) Instream flow regimens for fish, wildlife, recreation and related environmental resources. Fisheries 1(4):6–10CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Tharme RE (1996) A review of international methodologies for the quantification of the instream flow requirements of rivers. Water law review policy for policy development. Department of Water Affairs and Forestry, Pretoria, South Africa, p 116Google Scholar
  29. Tharme RE (2003) A global perspective on environmental flow assessment: emerging trends in the development and application of environmental flow methodologies for rivers. River Res Appl 19(4):397–441CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Whittaker D, Shelby B, Jackson W, Beschtz R (1993) Instream flows for recreation: a handbook on concepts and research methods. National Park Service-RTCA, Washington, DC, p 104Google Scholar
  31. Wu SH, Dai EF, He DM (2005) Major research perspective on environmental and developmental issues for the longitudinal range-gorge region (LRGR) in Southwestern China. Prog Geogr 24(1):31–40Google Scholar
  32. Wu H, Soh LK, Samal A, Chen XH (2008) Trend analysis of streamflow drought events in Nebraska. Water Resour Manag 22:145–164CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Yang ZF, Zhang Y (2003) Comparison of methods for ecological and environmental flow in river channels. J Hydrodynam 18(3):294–301Google Scholar
  34. Zhang Y, Yang ZF, Wang XQ (2005) Computing method of divisional ecological and environmental water requirement for river channel and its application to the Yellow river basin. Acta Sci Circumstant 25(4):429–435Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media B.V. 2008

Authors and Affiliations

  • Hu Bo
    • 1
  • Cui Baoshan
    • 1
  • Dong Shikui
    • 1
  • Zhai Hongjuan
    • 1
  • Liu Zhaoyang
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Environment, State Key Joint Laboratory of Environmental Simulation and Pollution ControlBeijing Normal UniversityBeijingChina

Personalised recommendations