Advertisement

Journal of Mountain Science

, Volume 13, Issue 7, pp 1245–1264 | Cite as

Application and comparison of coaxial correlation diagram and hydrological model for reconstructing flood series under human disturbance

  • Peng-nian Huang
  • Zhi-jia Li
  • Qiao-ling Li
  • Ke Zhang
  • Han-chen Zhang
Article

Abstract

Intense human activities have greatly changed the flood generation conditions in most areas of the world, and have destroyed the consistency in the annual flood peak and volume series. For design flood estimation, coaxial correlation diagram and conceptual hydrological model are two frequently used tools to adjust and reconstruct the flood series under human disturbance. This study took a typical mountain catchment of the Haihe River Basin as an example to investigate the effects of human activities on flood regime and to compare and assess the two adjustment methods. The main purpose is to construct a conceptual hydrological model which can incorporate the effects of human activities. The results show that the coaxial correlation diagram is simple and widely-used, but can only adjust the time series of total flood volumes. Therefore, it is only applicable under certain conditions (e.g. There is a strong link between the flood peaks and volumes and the link is not significantly affected by human activities). The conceptual model is a powerful tool to adjust the time series of both flood peak flows and flood volumes over different durations provided that it is closely related to the catchment hydrological characteristics, specifically accounting for the effects of human activities, and incorporating expert knowledge when estimating or calibrating parameters. It is suggested that the two methods should be used together to cross check each other.

Keywords

Flood regime change Human activities Coaxial correlation diagram Conceptual hydrological model Mountain catchment Flood peak flows 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Anderson RM, Koren VI, Reed SM (2006) Using SSURGO data to improve Sacramento Model a priori parameter estimates. Journal of Hydrology 320(1–2): 103–116. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.020CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bao ZX, Zhang JY, Wang GQ, et al. (2012) Attribution for decreasing streamflow of the Haihe River basin, northern China: Climate variability or human activities? Journal of Hydrology 460: 117–129. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.06.054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Beighley RE, Moglen GE (2003) Adjusting measured peak discharges from an urbanizing watershed to reflect a stationary land use signal. Water resources research 39(4) DOI: 10.1029/2002wr001846Google Scholar
  4. Brocca L, Melone F, Moramarco T (2008) On the estimation of antecedent wetness conditions in rainfall-runoff modelling. Hydrological Processes 22(5): 629–642. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.6629CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Di Baldassarre G, Kooy M, Kemerink JS, et al. (2013) Towards understanding the dynamic behaviour of floodplains as human-water systems. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 17(8): 3235–3244. DOI: 10.5194/hess-17-3235-2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duan QY, Sorooshian S, Gupta V (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water resources research 28(4): 1015–1031. DOI: 10.1029/91WR02985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Duan QY, Sorooshian S, Gupta VK (1994) Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models. Journal of Hydrology 158(3): 265–284. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1694(94)90057-4CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Fenicia F, Kavetski D, Savenije HHG, et al. (2014) Catchment properties, function, and conceptual model representation: is there a correspondence?. Hydrological Processes 28(4): 2451–2467. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.9726CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Gaal L, Szolgay J, Kohnova S, et al. (2015) Dependence between flood peaks and volumes: a case study on climate and hydrological controls. Hydrological Sciences Journal-Journal Des Sciences Hydrologiques 60(6): 968–984. DOI: 10.1080/02626667.2014.951361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Gan TY (1998) Hydroclimatic trends and possible climatic warming in the Canadian Prairies. Water resources research 34(11): 3009–3015. DOI: 10.1029/98WR01265CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Gan TY, Dlamini EM, Biftu GF (1997) Effects of model complexity and structure, data quality, and objective functions on hydrologic modeling. Journal of Hydrology 192(1): 81–103. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03114-9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gharari S, Hrachowitz M, Fenicia F, et al. (2014) Using expert knowledge to increase realism in environmental system models can dramatically reduce the need for calibration. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18(12): 4839–4859. DOI: 10.5194/hessd-10-14801-2013CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hall J, Arheimer B, Borga M, et al. (2014) Understanding flood regime changes in Europe: a state-of-the-art assessment. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18(7): 2735–2772. DOI: 10.5194/hess-18-2735-2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. He H, Xia DZ, Gan HX (2011) Study on Extraction and Application of Hydrological Characteristics. Water Resources Informatization 103(4): 4–8. (In Chinese)Google Scholar
  15. Hrachowitz M, Fovet O, Ruiz L, et al. (2014) Process consistency in models: The importance of system signatures, expert knowledge, and process complexity. Water resources research 50(9): 7445–7469. DOI: 10.1002/2014WR015484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Jothityangkoon C, Sivapalan M, Farmer DL (2001) Process controls of water balance variability in a large semi-arid catchment: downward approach to hydrological model development. Journal of Hydrology 254(1–4): 174–198. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1694(01)00496-6CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Latron J, Gallart F (2008) Runoff generation processes in a small Mediterranean research catchment (Vallcebre, Eastern Pyrenees). Journal of Hydrology 358(3–4): 206–220. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.06.014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Li DL, Wang WS, Hu SX, et al. (2012) Characteristics of annual runoff variation in major rivers of China. Hydrological Processes 26(19): 2866–2877. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.8361CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Li JZ, Feng P, Chen FL (2014) Effects of land use change on flood characteristics in mountainous area of Daqinghe watershed, China. Natural Hazards 70(1): 593–607. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-013-0830-8.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Li L, Xia J, Xu C-Y, et al. (2009) Analyse the sources of equifinality in hydrological model using GLUE methodology. In: Hydroinformatics in Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Water Resources, Proceedings of Symposium JS. pp: 130–138.Google Scholar
  21. Liu CM, Yu JJ, Kendy E (2001) Groundwater exploitation and its impact on the environment in the North China Plain. Water International 26(2): 265–272. DOI: 10.1080/02508060108686913CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. McIntyre N, Al-Qurashi A (2009) Performance of ten rainfallrunoff models applied to an arid catchment in Oman. Environmental Modelling & Software 24(6): 726–738. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2008.11.001CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Ministry of Water Resources of PRC (2006) Regulation for calculating design flood of water resources and hydropower projects. China Water & Power Press, Beijing, P.R.China. p 7 (In Chinese).Google Scholar
  24. Nash J, Sutcliffe JV (1970) River flow forecasting through conceptual models part I—A discussion of principles. Journal of Hydrology 10(3): 282–290.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. National Center of Hydrological Information (2000) Standard for hydrological information and hydrological forecasting. China WaterPower Press, Beijing, China. pp: 19 (In Chinese).Google Scholar
  26. Niehoff D, Fritsch U, Bronstert A (2002) Land-use impacts on storm-runoff generation: scenarios of land-use change and simulation of hydrological response in a meso-scale catchment in SW-Germany. Journal of Hydrology 267(1–2): 80–93. DOI: 10.1016/S0022-1694(02)00142-7CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Petrone KC, Hughes JD, Van Niel TG, et al. (2010) Streamflow decline in southwestern Australia, 1950-2008. Geophysical Research Letters 37: L11401. DOI: 10.1029/2010GL043102CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Sanderson EW, Jaiteh M, Levy MA, et al. (2002) The human footprint and the last of the wild. Bioscience 52(10): 891–904. DOI: 10.1641/0006-3568(2002)052[0891:THFATL]2.0CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Savenije HHG, Hoekstra AY, van der Zaag P (2014) Evolving water science in the Anthropocene. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences 18(1): 319–332. DOI: 10.5194/hess-18-319-2014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Shih SS, Yang SC, Ouyang HT (2014) Anthropogenic effects and climate change threats on the flood diversion of Erchung Floodway in Tanshui River, northern Taiwan. Natural Hazards 73(3): 1733–1747. DOI: 10.1007/s11069-014-1166-8CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Son K, Sivapalan M (2007) Improving model structure and reducing parameter uncertainty in conceptual water balance models through the use of auxiliary data. Water resources research 43(1): W01415. DOI: 10.1029/2006wr005032CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Wang WG, Shao QX, Yang T, et al. (2013) Quantitative assessment of the impact of climate variability and human activities on runoff changes: a case study in four catchments of the Haihe River basin, China. Hydrological Processes 27(8): 1158–1174. DOI: 10.1002/hyp.9299CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wang YC, Yu PS, Yang TC (2010) Comparison of genetic algorithms and shuffled complex evolution approach for calibrating distributed rainfall-runoff model. Hydrological Processes 24(8): 1015–1026. DOI: 10.1002/Hyp.7543CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Xiong LH, Yu KX, Zhang HG, et al. (2013) Annual runoff change in the headstream of Yangtze River and its relation to precipitation and air temperature. Hydrology Research 44(5): 850–874. DOI: 10.2166/nh.2012.120CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. Xu HL, Xu CY, Chen H, et al. (2013) Assessing the influence of rain gauge density and distribution on hydrological model performance in a humid region of China. Journal of Hydrology 505: 1–12. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.09.004CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Yang YH, Tian F (2009) Abrupt change of runoff and its major driving factors in Haihe River Catchment, China. Journal of Hydrology 374(3–4): 373–383. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.040CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Yao C, Zhang K, Yu ZB, et al. (2014) Improving the flood prediction capability of the Xinanjiang model in ungauged nested catchments by coupling it with the geomorphologic instantaneous unit hydrograph. Journal of Hydrology 517: 1035–1048. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.06.037CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Yuan X, Lei T (2004) Soil and water conservation measures and their benefits in runoff and sediment reductions. Transactions of the CSAE 20(2): 296–300. (In Chinese).Google Scholar
  39. Zhang L, Zhou Y (2009) Analysis of soil and water conservation measures in the Qiuzhuang catchment. Hebei Water Resources 6: 29. (In Chinese).Google Scholar
  40. Zhao RJ (1992) The Xinanjiang model applied in China. Journal of Hydrology 135(1): 371–381. DOI: 10.1016/0022-1694(92)90096-EGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science Press, Institute of Mountain Hazards and Environment, CAS and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Peng-nian Huang
    • 1
    • 2
  • Zhi-jia Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Qiao-ling Li
    • 1
    • 2
  • Ke Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
    • 3
  • Han-chen Zhang
    • 1
    • 2
  1. 1.College of Hydrology and Water ResourcesHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  2. 2.National Cooperative Innovation Center for Water Safety & Hydro-ScienceHohai UniversityNanjingChina
  3. 3.Cooperative Institute for Mescoscale Meteorological StudiesUniversity of OklahomaNormanUSA

Personalised recommendations