The determinants of streamflow variability and variation in Three-River Source of China: climate change or ecological restoration?
- 236 Downloads
Exploring the determinant between climate change and ecological restoration for streamflow dynamics is a significant issue in global change research and is essential for restoration policy assessment and climate change adaptation. In this paper, the combination of elasticity method and Budyko framework was applied with the meteorological and hydrological data from 1980 to 2014. The variability and variation of streamflow were explained by individual elasticity coefficient and contribution of climate change and ecological restoration between 1980–1999 and 2000–2014. Results showed that streamflow was more sensitive to climate change in the Yellow River source (YER) than in the Yangtze River source (YZR). Ecological restoration was positively correlated with the variability of streamflow in YER with 7.38% relative change in elasticity coefficients, while it was opposite trend in YZR with a relative change of − 7.41%. However, the impacts of climate change and ecological restoration on the variation of streamflow were not consistent with the variability. In YER, ecological restoration dominated the streamflow reduction with a contribution of 82.43%, whereas, in YZR, climate change mainly contributed to the streamflow increase which could explain 123.72% and the precipitation was the major contributor. By analysis, the difference in two catchments might result from the spatial heterogeneity of precipitation conditions and land use/cover change, especially the conversion of grassland. The results suggest that the implementation of ecological recovery should consider the difference of streamflow change in response to ecological restoration and climate change for the sustainability of water resources.
KeywordsStreamflow variability and variation Climate change Ecological restoration Sensitivity and contribution analysis Three-River Source of China
This work was supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 41671098, 41775081, 41701019) and the Clean Development Mechanism Funding Projects of China (Grant No. 2013034). Thank editors and reviewers’ comments, which are very helpful in revising and improving our paper as well as the important guiding significance to our future researches.
- Budyko MI (1963) Evaporation under natural conditions Gidrometeoizdat Leningrad. English translation by Isr Program for Sci Transl, JerusalemGoogle Scholar
- Fathian F, Dehghan Z, Bazrkar MH, Eslamian S (2016) Trends in hydrological and climatic variables affected by four variations of the Mann–Kendall approach in Urmia Lake Basin, Iran. Hydrolog Sci J 61:892–904Google Scholar
- Milly PCD, Dunne KA (2002) Macroscale water fluxes 2 Water and energy supply control of their interannual variability. Water Resour Res 38:24-21–24-29Google Scholar
- Roderick ML, Farquhar GD (2011) A simple framework for relating variations in runoff to variations in climatic conditions and catchment properties. Water Resour Res 47:W00G07Google Scholar
- Wang D, Hejazi M (2011) Quantifying the relative contribution of the climate and direct human impacts on mean annual streamflow in the contiguous United States. Water Resour Res 47:W00J12Google Scholar
- Zhang XP, Zhang L, Zhao J, Rustomji P, Hairsine P (2008) Responses of streamflow to changes in climate and land use/cover in the Loess Plateau, China. Water Resour Res 44:2183–2188Google Scholar
- Zheng HX, Zhang L, Zhu RR, Liu CM, Sato Y, Fukushima Y (2009) Responses of streamflow to climate and land surface change in the headwaters of the Yellow River Basin. Water Resour Res 45:19Google Scholar