Next Article in Journal
Study of the Effects of Ten-Year Microclimate Regulation Based on Different Vegetation Type Combinations in a City Riparian Zone
Previous Article in Journal
Econometric Model for the Financial Performance of Romanian Companies Operating in the Water Supply and Sewerage Field
Previous Article in Special Issue
Assessing the Forecasting Accuracy of a Modified Grey Self-Memory Precipitation Model Considering Scale Effects
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Diagnosis of Basin Eco-Hydrological Variation Based on Index Sensitivity of Similar Years: A Case Study in the Hanjiang River Basin

1
School of Water Conservancy and Hydropower, Hebei University of Engineering, Handan 056038, China
2
Hebei Key Laboratory of Intelligent Water Conservancy, School of Water Conservancy and Hydropower, Hebei University of Engineering, Handan 056038, China
3
China Institute of Water Resources and Hydropower Research, Beijing 100038, China
4
Zhejiang Zhonghong Design & Consulting Co., Ltd., Hangzhou 310051, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Water 2022, 14(12), 1931; https://doi.org/10.3390/w14121931
Submission received: 26 April 2022 / Revised: 10 June 2022 / Accepted: 14 June 2022 / Published: 16 June 2022
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Water and Soil Resources Management in Agricultural Areas)

Abstract

:
The variation of hydrological conditions in the basin affects the original stable state of the basin, and the change of eco-hydrological conditions also plays a decisive role in the stability of the basin. In this manuscript, Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA) was used to diagnose watershed variation from the eco-hydrological perspective, and a new diagnostic method was proposed in the current study, which was the extraction method of the most relevant eco-hydrological indicators based on a similar year sensitive index and the diagnosis method of variation period. This method used the sensitivity of statistical characteristics between similar years to provide the basis for the selection of the most ecologically-relevant hydrogeological indicators (ERHIs), then selected the strong variation indicators from the most relevant eco-hydrological indicators, and finally used the strong variation indicators to diagnose the watershed variation. The runoff data (1960 to 2020) in the Ankang gauging station of the Hanjiang River were analyzed, and the results showed that the indicators of high variation were the average duration index of low discharge in a year and the minimum discharge index of one day in a year. The variation period was from 1973 to 1986. It was concluded that the diagnosis results from the perspective of eco-hydrology were consistent with the actual hydrological situation changes, and this method had certain reliability.

1. Introduction

In recent decades, the rapid development of the social economy, human activities, and climate change has gradually become important factors contributing to environmental change. The large-scale urbanization processes, such as the construction of dams and the implementation of various water conservancy and hydropower projects, have changed the underlying surface conditions and regional water circulation processes [1]. Climate change and human activities have also altered the hydrological cycle at the watershed scale. This hydrological alteration disrupts river continuity, aquatic ecology, and species composition and adaptability of biological communities [2]. At the same time, it will also lead to sudden changes in the hydrological process and hydrological characteristics or even mutate in a certain period of time. All variables change in two basic forms: one is sudden change and the other is variation. Regarding the relationship between mutation and variation, Huang et al. [3] pointed out in 2016 that mutation is a quantitative change from one state to another, whereas variation is a qualitative change; that is, when mutation occurs, variation does not necessarily occur, but when variation occurs, mutation will occur, and the degree of variation is greater than that of mutation. The sudden change or variation of hydrological conditions in the basin will directly affect or change the environment of living organisms, plants, and micro-organisms and may also severely and permanently destroy the original stable state of the basin. Therefore, this warrants the need to study the change of hydrological conditions in the basin for the monitoring and management of watershed systems, i.e., for the implementation of corresponding measures to minimize the influence of human activities and climate change.
Previous research has comprehensively studied the variation diagnosis of hydrological processes. In previous studies, the method of solving the variation points of hydrological regimes in river basins only considered a single hydrological variable, such as annual runoff [4]. Wang et al. [5] used the Mann-Kendall test, the cumulative anomaly method, and a sliding T test to diagnose the runoff sequence variation in the four water basins of Dongting Lake, with average annual flow as an index. It was concluded that the years of variation for each station were 1991, 1987, 1989, and 1973, respectively. Zhang et al. [6] used the linear regression method, the Mann-Kendall test, and the cumulative anomaly method to analyze the variation of annual runoff series at Gangu Station of Sandu River and Suide Station of Dali River; they found that the annual runoff of the two rivers showed a significant decreasing trend (p < 0.01), and the variation occurred around the 1990s. Zhang et al. [7] used the Mann-Kendall test and the moving average method to analyze the influence of Pohe Reservoir on the runoff process of Huanghe River, taking the annual average flow as the index, and they concluded that the inter-annual runoff and annual runoff of Huanghe River in Pohe Reservoir had great influence. Zeng et al. [8] took the completion time of the two hydropower stations as the hydrological mutation point, and they obtained that the hydrological change degree caused by the operation of the upstream hydropower station was 50.1%, which had a great impact on the runoff and ecology of the river. Tang et al. [9] set the year of runoff change and the start time of reservoir regulation as variation points to evaluate the ecological flow in the lower reaches of Hongshui River Basin. Because the flow is influenced by various control factors, a single hydrological variable cannot accurately reflect the change of hydrological regimes in the river basin during the year.
Richter et al. [10] proposed an index system that evaluates the process of hydrological change of water ecology in 1996, that is, Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration (IHA), which quantitatively analyzes the degree of hydrological variation. This index system is widely used to represent the characteristics of hydrological process changes. The IHA system contains 32 indicators, which is a relatively comprehensive and systematic index system recognized at present. It is divided into five groups, namely the average monthly discharge, the annual extreme discharge, the occurrence time of the annual extreme discharge, the frequency and delay of high and low pulses, and the change rate and frequency of discharge change [10,11]. The indicator of hydrologic alteration in the IHA index system can directly reflect the hydrological regime within the river channel. Therefore, in this study, the IHA index was used as a hydrological variable for diagnosis of the hydrological variation in the river basin.
The IHA index system can reflect the hydrological situation in the basin because it covers more than 170 hydrological indicators that have been published. However, since the information redundancy among the 170 hydrological indicators is very prominent [12], there are also the problems of autocorrelation and redundancy among IHA indicators [13]. In order to solve the above problems, many researchers use principal component analysis (PCA) to screen the most ecologically-relevant hydrological indicators for the IHA index system in order to analyze the hydrological regime in the basin. Olden and Poff [12] used the PCA method to test the long-series runoff from multiple locations in the United States of America, discussed the redundancy of more than 170 hydrological indicators, and divided these indicators into nine categories. The analysis showed that the first four principal components could represent 76% of the recorded flow variability [12]. Yang et al., used three methods, including a data mining method based on genetic programming, PCA, and an automatic ecological matrix, to determine six IHA indicators (occurrence time of annual minimum flow, rate of increase, number of flow reversals, annual maximum three-day flow, annual minimum seven-day flow, and May flow) as the most ecologically-relevant hydrogeological indicators (ERHIs) [14]. Gao et al., determined the relationship between IHA parameters by PCA, screened the ERHIs of an artificial simulation dataset, and subsequently measured runoff dataset [15]. Cheng Junxiang et al., used PCA to screen seven IHA indicators, namely the annual maximum 90-day discharge, annual minimum 3-day discharge, annual minimum discharge occurrence time, March discharge, June discharge, flow reversal times, and average annual duration of low discharge as the ERHIs [16]. PCA is a method of dimensionality reduction of variables and subsequent processing [17]. However, the data after dimensionality reduction has a certain fuzziness. The variables obtained after dimensionality reduction are only highly representative but not necessarily highly sensitive, and these selected indicators are not able to accurately reflect the changes of hydrological regimes in river basins.
In previous studies, there was a problem that a single hydrological variable could not fully represent the hydrological situation, and there were some drawbacks in the application of principal component analysis. To solve these problems, a new diagnostic method was proposed in the current study, which is the extraction method of the most relevant eco-hydrological indicators based on similar year-sensitive index and the diagnosis method of variation period. This method replaces the traditional single index with 32 hydrological indexes in the IHA index and uses the similar year-sensitive index extraction method to replace the principal component analysis method to screen the IHA index, which ensures that the selected indicators are highly representative and highly sensitive.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Hanjiang River Basin is one of the most resource-intensive areas in the Hubei province (Figure 1). With a total length of 1577 km, the Hanjiang River is the longest tributary of the Yangtze River. Its basin covers an area of 159,000 square kilometers, comprising 20 districts and 78 counties (cities) in Hubei, Shaanxi, Sichuan, Chongqing, and Gansu provinces. The basin is located in the subtropical monsoon region, with a mild and humid climate. The Hanjiang River Basin is mostly mountainous, with a mountainous area of 87,450 square kilometers, accounting for 55% of the whole basin area (159,000 square kilometers), a hilly area of 33,390 square kilometers (21%), a plain area of 36,570 square kilometers (23%), and a lake area of 1590 square kilometers (1%). Mountainous areas are distributed above Laohekou, while the main plains are distributed below Zhongxiang, with hilly areas between them. The average annual precipitation is 873 mm, and water volume is relatively abundant in the area [18]. The multiannual average air temperature is 14.6 °C, and the runoff is unevenly distributed within the year, with 75% of the water concentrated from May to October, and the annual variation is large [19]; that is, since 1960, the average flow rate reached the maximum value of 1350 m3/s in 1983 and the minimum value of 169 m3/s in 1999. Late-June to late-July is the summer flood season, and late-August to mid-October is autumn wet season with abundant precipitation resources [20]. There are many hydropower resources, with the theoretical reserves of water energy of 10.93 million kilowatts and the development capacity of 6.14 million kW [18]. The main tributaries of the Hanjiang River Basin are: Baohe, Danjiang River, Tanghe, Baihe, Duhe, etc. In this paper, the basin variation diagnosis of the Ankang hydrological station in the upper reaches of the Hanjiang River (Figure 1) is determined. The hydrological station is located at a longitude of 109° E and a latitude of 32.67° N. Ankang station is located downstream of the Ankang reservoir. Ankang reservoir was put into use at the end of December 1992, with an area of 77.5 square kilometers and a maximum storage capacity of 2.585 billion cubic meters, affecting the flow of the Ankang hydrological station.

2.2. Data Collection

In this study, the long-series daily discharge data of the Ankang gauging station in the Hanjiang River Basin from 1960 to 2020 were used. The watershed controlled by Ankang gauging station is located in the transitional zone between the north and south of China, with a catchment area of 41,400 km2, accounting for 26% of the total area of the Hanjiang River Basin. The multiannual average discharge is 534.81 m3/s, and the coefficient of variation is 0.4. Precipitation is mainly concentrated in June–September every year, and the total amount of precipitation in these four months accounts for nearly 60% of the whole year, with the highest amount in July [21]. The hydrological monitoring data came from the national real-time water and rain data base.
Ankang gauging station is the ecological flow control station of the Hanjiang River Basin, designated by the Ministry of Water Resources in the First Batch of Key Rivers and Lakes Ecological Flow Guarantee Objectives (for Trial Implementation), and it is an important basis for water distribution, ecological flow management, the unified dispatch of water resources, and the total control of water intake.

2.3. Method

2.3.1. Refine IHA Index System

The runoff volume and runoff characteristics of the river basin are affected by seasonal climatic variations. Due to the differences in precipitation and climate in different seasons, the precipitation period can be divided into wet and dry seasons. The wet season refers to the period in which rivers mainly rely on rainfall or snowmelt to replenish water and have a large amount of precipitation, usually in the rainy season or the period when the temperature continues to rise in spring, when the river is rich in water. The dry season refers to the period in which the surface water flow in the basin is exhausted and the precipitation is low and mainly relies on groundwater to replenish water sources. The wet and dry seasons of the basin can be divided according to the hydrological situation of the specific study basin. The precipitation at Ankang Station is mainly concentrated from June to September, so June to September of each year is designated as the wet season, and January to May and October to December of each year are the dry seasons. To ensure that the IHA index system is indicative of the seasonal hydrological regimes, the indicators are divided into the indicators of the wet season and dry season.
In view of the obvious redundancy problem among IHA variables [13], this method further screened the IHA system and generated the ERHIs, so as to reduce the hydrological index and maintain the key information of the original data as much as possible.

2.3.2. ERHIs Selection

Similar years can be understood as a few years with the same hydrological processes in the same basin. Ideally, the hydrological processes in similar years are completely overlapped; therefore, the IHA indicators obtained in similar years must be the same. Due to climate differences in different years and other reasons, hydrological processes in similar years will inevitably be different. The differences in hydrological processes between similar years will be reflected by various hydrological indicators. Among these indicators, there are some indicators that will change strongly due to the slight differences of hydrological processes between similar years. These indicators are referred to as sensitive indicators in this paper.
In order to ensure that the selected ERHIs were reliable, rational, and representative, the ERHIs were selected from sensitive indicators. The sample year and similar year (corresponding to each sample year) were selected at random. The coefficient of variation of each IHA index in the similar year was then calculated, and the IHA index with the top six variation coefficients and the most repeated occurrences was selected as an ERHI. The specific screening process is shown in Figure 2.
  • Calculation method of coefficient of variation [22].
The coefficient of variation of the index reflects its discriminating ability among all IHA indicators. The larger the coefficient of variation the greater the distribution variability and information content of the index and the stronger the information resolution ability of the index. On the contrary, if it is weaker, then it should be eliminated. The formula of the coefficient of variation is shown in Equation (1).
v j = 1 n i = 1 n ( x i j x ¯ j ) 2 x ¯ j
where v j is the coefficient of variation of the index; n is the number of objects being evaluated; x ¯ j is the average of the data of each year of the evaluation index; x i j is the value of the i indicator in the j year.
  • Euclidean distance [23].
Euclidean distance, also known as Euclidean metric, is a commonly used definition of distance, which refers to the true distance between two points in the m-dimensional space, or the natural length of the vector. The Euclidean formula is divided into two-dimensional space, three-dimensional space, and n-dimensional space. In this paper, the n-dimensional space formula was used to screen similar years. The Euclidean formula is shown in Equation (2).
d ( x , y ) = ( x 1 y 1 ) 2 + ( x 2 y 2 ) 2 + ( x n y n ) 2 = i = 1 n ( x i y i ) 2
where x i is the abscissa of the element in Euclidean space; y i is the ordinate of the element in Euclidean space.

2.3.3. Variation Diagnosis

1.
Primary diagnosis.
Although ERHIs will strongly respond to slight changes in the watershed, the variation degree of each indicator is an unknown quantity. In terms of determining the year of variation, if the selection is based on the indicators of weak variation, then it will render low reliability and cannot be used as a standard for selecting the final year of variation. Therefore, this method introduces the Hurst coefficient method to calculate the Hurst coefficient (h) of each ERHI and the correlation function C(t) of the Fractional Brownian Motion increment, and it determines the index variation degree of the selected ERHIs [24,25,26]. The variation degree analysis table of indicators is shown in Table 1.
2.
Detailed diagnosis.
According to the primary diagnostic results, the strong variation indicators selected from each section were used for detailed diagnosis. The jump diagnosis method and climate mutation detection method of hydrological variation diagnosis were used to determine the variation year. The diagnostic methods are shown in Table 2.
Finally, when determining the watershed variation period, there are many possibilities such as staggered periods or overlapping periods. Therefore, the following solutions are summarized:
(a)
If the strong variation index is one index: (I) When the years diagnosed by these methods are concentrated in a certain year, that year is the final variation year of the basin; (II) when the number of variation years is k and these variation years appear more frequently in the diagnostic results, the longest period between the years is taken as the final variation time period of the basin (i.e., k > 1).
(b)
If the strong variation index is two or more indicators: (I) When the variation year corresponding to the same index is concentrated in a certain year: (i) if the corresponding variation year among the indicators is the same, then the year is the final variation year, (ii) if the corresponding variation year among the indicators are different, then the time period between the maximum year and the minimum year is taken as the final variation time period; (II) when the variation year corresponding to the same index is distributed over many years: method II in case (a) was used to find out the variation period of each index. Several possibilities existing between the variation time periods of each index were assessed: (i) if the variation time periods of all indices overlap, the final watershed variation time period is the variation time period obtained by any index, (ii) if the variation time periods of some two or more indicators do not coincide, then the union of all variation time periods is taken as the final variation time period of the basin.

3. Results

3.1. Refine IHA Index System

In this paper, the variation diagnosis of the Hanjiang River Basin was analyzed by using the 61-year daily long-series data of the Ankang gauging station of the Hanjiang River Basin. From Figure 3, it can be seen that there was a high degree of correlation between the IHA index variables of the Ankang section of the Hanjiang River; the absolute value of correlation coefficient is greater than 0.9.
Specifically, there was a high correlation between the annual minimum 1, 3, 7, 30, and 90-day flows with the annual maximum 1, 3, 7, 30, and 90-day flows. There was a high correlation between the annual minimum 1, 3, 7, and 30-day flows with the base flow index, fall rate, and the number of reversals. In addition, there was a high correlation between the flows in December, January, February, and March with the annual minimum 1, 3, 7, 30, and 90-day flows. July, August, September, and October flows also had high correlations with the annual maximum 1, 3, 7, 30, and 90-day flows. There was also a high correlation between the low pulse duration with the fall rate and the number of reversals. Therefore, this paper made a detailed allocation of the IHA index system.
In this study, the Hanjiang River was divided into the wet season from June to September and the dry season from January to May and October to December. The refined IHA index system is shown in Table 3.

3.2. Determination of Similar Years

Ten years were randomly selected from the 61-year long sequence data as the sample year group. The Euclidean distance screening method was used to select the similar years, corresponding to each sample year based on the statistical value of watershed characteristics, as shown in Table 4. Ten similar years corresponding to wet and dry seasons were selected, as shown in Figure 4 and Figure 5.

3.3. Determination of ERHIs

The IHA index and the coefficient of variation of each index for the similar year group in the dry season and the similar year group in the wet season corresponding to each sample year were calculated. The first six indices of the variation coefficient in each similar year group were sensitive index, which were used as candidate sets of ERHIs. The frequency of occurrence of each index in the candidate set in the sample year group was recorded, and the study then selected the sensitive indicators of the top six in the frequency of occurrence in the wet season, and the same was repeated for the dry season; a total of twelve were determined. These twelve indicators were sorted according to the frequency of occurrence from highest to lowest, and the top six sensitive indicators were taken as ERHIs. Through the calculation of the PCA method, it was found that the first six indicators with a cumulative contribution rate greater than 80% included June flow, August flow, September flow, low pulse duration, date of min, and 1-day min, so these six indicators were taken as ERHIs. The ranking of twelve indicators in the final selection process is shown in Figure 6.

3.4. Rationality Analysis of ERHIs

3.4.1. Coverage Analysis

The coverage analysis was based on the rationality analysis of the coverage range of ERHIs in different groups and in different seasons. Table 5 shows the coverage analysis of indicators.
From the table, it can be concluded that the six ERHIs related to the first to fourth groups of indices and reached the full coverage of the wet and dry season.

3.4.2. Redundancy Analysis

The redundancy analysis of ERHIs was carried out to verify the mutual independence and high representativeness of the ERHIs. It can be seen from Figure 7 that there was a small correlation between most of the indicators; that is, there was no redundancy problem in the information, so it can be finally determined as an ERHI.

3.5. Variation Diagnosis

3.5.1. Primary Diagnosis

The ERHIs were preliminarily diagnosed. The Hurst coefficient (h) of each ERHI and the correlation function C(t) of the Fractional Brownian Motion increment were calculated, and the results showed that h and C(t) of the low pulse duration and the annual minimum 1-day flow index were 0.97, 0.91, 0.92, and 0.79, respectively, and these two indexes had a strong variation. The detailed results are shown in Figure 8.

3.5.2. Detailed Diagnosis

The strong variation indicators obtained from the preliminary diagnosis were diagnosed in detail. The diagnostic results showed that there were three methods for diagnosing if the low pulse duration index had a significant variation in 1973 and 1974, respectively, and there were two methods for diagnosing if the low pulse duration index had a significant variation in 1977. There were three methods for diagnosing if the annual minimum 1-day flow index had a significant variation in 1973, and there were four methods for diagnosing if the annual minimum 1-day flow index had a significant variation in 1986. The detailed results are shown in Table 6.

4. Discussion

4.1. The Rationality of ERHIs

The coverage rate of ERHIs in the group and the coverage rate of each index in the wet and dry seasons were both high, which means the selected ERHIs had certain rationality. The correlation coefficient (absolute value) between most ERHIs was less than 0.2. It demonstrated that the six ERHIs selected had high reliability and representativeness.

4.2. Rationality of Variation Period

By analyzing the runoff data of the Ankang hydrological station for 61 years with various variation diagnostic methods, it was concluded that the variation time period of the low pulse duration index was between 1973–1977, and the variation time period of the annual minimum 1-day flow index was between 1973–1986.

4.2.1. Runoff Perspective

From Figure 9 and Figure 10, it can be seen that, from 1973, the annual minimum 1-day flow index began to show a downward trend, until after 1986, and the overall level of this index dropped to one-fifth of that before 1973. Meanwhile, the low pulse duration index was divided into two stages: from 1973 to 1977 and after 1977, and the overall level of this index dropped to one-fifth of that before 1973.

4.2.2. Climate Perspective

From 1955 to 2017, there were many abrupt changes in the extreme temperature index and the extreme precipitation index in Ankang City, which were mainly concentrated in the 1960s–1970s and the 1990s–early 21st century [34]. The abrupt changes in the extreme climate and extreme precipitation index were also important reasons for the variation of the annual minimum 1-day flow index. The abrupt change period of the climate and precipitation index also corresponded to the variation time period of the annual minimum 1-day flow index. Except for the 1980s, the temperature in the studied period was higher than that in the benchmark time period (1961–1990), and the precipitation was lower than that in the benchmark time period (1961–1990), which was exactly opposite to the distribution of annual average temperature [34]. In the 1980s, the temperature was lower than that in the benchmark time period, which reduced evaporation in the basin [34]. This was also the reason why the annual minimum 1-day flow had an upward trend in 1974–1976 and 1981–1984. From the 1980s to 1990s, with the increase of temperature and evaporation, the overall flow of the basin decreased, resulting in the annual minimum 1-day flow from 1986 reducing to one-fifth of that before 1973.

4.2.3. Human Factor Perspective

In the 1970s, Ankang City developed a few water conservancy projects, such as the construction of the Ankang Hydropower Station, with changes in the way by which water was allocated to citizens.
Therefore, it was determined that between 1973–1986 was the ecological variation period of Ankang gauging station.

4.3. The limitations of the Methodology

Although the selection of the sample year was random, the determination of the number of sample years was mixed with great human factors. The number of sample years also directly affected its representativeness in long series data. Therefore, the selection of the sample year still needs further improvement.
The longer the sample length, the higher the accuracy of watershed variation diagnosis. Because this study only diagnosed the variation of runoff data from 1960 to 2020, there were some certain differences between the research results and the actual hydrological situation. Therefore, further research is needed on the interpolation extension of runoff series data.

5. Conclusions

(1)
The variation point of total runoff in the watershed cannot be regarded as the variation point of watershed ecology, and the ecological variation points of the watershed are accumulated and formed in a certain period of time. That is, watershed ecological demand is the requirement for the hydrological situation process, and the correct determination of ecological requirements needs a stable runoff series based on the hydrological situation process without variation. Therefore, the project used the analytical relationship and sensitivity analysis of ecology and hydrology. The set of ecological–hydrological sensitive indicators with high sensitivity in the basin was obtained by the similar year method, and the variation diagnosis of sensitive indicators was carried out.
In existing studies, most of the indicators were screened by principal component analysis (PCA) for correlation analysis, without considering the sensitivity of ecological indicators to hydrological changes. The stable runoff series was determined by the variation point of the total annual runoff, which does not conform to the characteristics of ecological flow process control. Therefore, it was difficult to reflect the correct ecological requirements of the basin.
(2)
In this study, the IHA index was used to diagnose the hydrological changes in the watershed from the perspective of eco-hydrology. We proposed an extraction method of the most relevant eco-hydrological indicators based on similar year sensitive indices and the diagnostic method of variation period. By using the sensitivity of indicators in different similar years, the problem of outstanding redundancy among IHA indicators was solved. Among the 32 IHA indexes, six indexes were selected as the most relevant hydrological indexes, which were the June flow, August flow, September flow, low pulse duration, date of min, and 1-day min. The period of eco-hydrological variation in the basin was from 1973 to 1986.
(3)
The study found that the periods of extreme climate change and human activities, especially the time of construction of hydraulic structures, were consistent with the variation periods determined by the high variation indicators. It also confirmed that climate change and human activities seriously impacted the hydrological variation within the studied basin. Furthermore, it verified the feasibility of an extraction method for the most relevant eco-hydrological indices based on similar year sensitive indices and the diagnosis method of variation period to diagnose the hydrological variation of river basins.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization, S.C. and Z.L.; methodology, S.C. and Z.L.; software, Z.L.; validation, S.C., X.L. and L.W.; formal analysis, Z.L.; investigation, Z.L.; resources, S.C. and X.L.; data curation, S.C.; writing—original draft preparation, Z.L.; writing—review and editing, Z.L., S.C. and X.L.; visualization, Z.L.; supervision, S.C., X.L. and L.W.; project administration, S.C.; funding acquisition, S.C. and X.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This work was funded by the National Key Research and Development Program of China (2018YFE0196000), the National Nature Science Fund (42175178), the National Natural Science Fund (U20A20316), and the Hebei Natural Science Fund (E2020402074).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Zhang, S.; Ban, X.; Hang, Q.; Liu, D.F. Analysis of hydrological regime changes in the midstream Han River using range of variability approach. J. Hydroelectr. Eng. 2016, 35, 34–43. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Guo, W.X.; Jin, Y.G.; Li, Y.; Shi, M.Y.; Wang, H.X. Quantitaive Assessment of the Impact of Climate Change and Human Activities on the Hydrological Regime in the Middle and Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River During the Past 60 Years. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2021, 30, 2464–2470. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Huang, Q.; Kong, B.; Fan, J.J. Hydrological Elements Comprehensive Detecting Variation. Yellow River 2016, 38, 18–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Yang, Z.F.; Cui, B.S.; Sun, T. The Mechanism, Model and Allocation for Wetland Ecological Water Requirement; Science Press: Beijing, China, 2012; pp. 7–22. [Google Scholar]
  5. Wang, H.X.; Zhu, Y.W.; Zha, H.F.; Guo, W.X. Environmental Flows in Four Watersheds of Dongting Lake Under Different Hydrological Conditions. J. Hydroecol. 2021, 42, 10–17. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Zhang, S.Y.; Zhao, G.J.; Mu, X.M.; Tian, P.; Gao, P.; Sun, Y.W. Hydrologic Regime Change and Its Attribution Analysis of River Runoff in Typical Watershed on Loess Plateau. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2021, 41, 1–8. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Zhang, W.H.; Qu, S.M.; Xu, Y.; Shi, P. Influence of Pohe Reservoir on runoff process and hydrological regime of Huanghe River. Water Resour. Prot. 2021, 37, 61–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Zeng, J.F.; Liu, Z.W.; Liu, Y.C.; Zou, J.P.; Tong, X.Q.; Liu, X.G.; Xie, S.S. Eco-hydrological Regime of Source Area of Dongjiang River Based on IHA-RVA. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2021, 41, 157–164. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Tang, Y.; Chen, L.; She, Z. Evaluation of instream ecological flow with consideration of ecological responses to hydrological variations in the downstream Hongshui River Basin, China. Ecol. Indic. 2021, 130, 108104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Richter, B.D.; Baumgartner, J.V.; Braun, P.D.P. A Method for Assessing Hydrologic Alteration within Ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10, 1163–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  11. Mathews, R.; Richter, B.D. Application of the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration Software in Environmental Flow Setting1. J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2007, 4, 1400–1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Olden, J.D.; Poff, N.L. Redundancy and the choice of hydrologic indices for characterizing streamflow regimes. River Res. Appl. 2003, 19, 101–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Smakhtin, V.U.; Shilpakar, R.L.; Hughes, D.A. Hydrology-based assessment of environmental flows: An example from Nepal. J. Sci. Hydrol. 2006, 51, 207–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  14. Yang, Y.; Cai, X.; Herricks, E.E. Identification of hydrologic indicators related to fish diversity and abundance: A data mining approach for fish community analysis. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, 472–479. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Gao, Y.; Vogel, R.M.; Kroll, C.N.; Poff, N.L.; Olden, J.D. Development of representative indicators of hydrologic alteration. J. Hydrol. 2009, 374, 136–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Cheng, J.X.; Xu, L.G.; Jiang, J.H. Optimal selection of the most ecologically relevant hydrologic indicators and its application for environmental flow calculation in Lake Dongting. J. Lake Sci. 2018, 30, 1235–1245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  17. Zhou, Z.H. Machine Learning; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing, China, 2016; p. 229. [Google Scholar]
  18. Bai, M.C.; Ban, X.; Diplas, P.; Xiao, F. Quantifying the spatio-temporal variation of flow and its ecological impacts in the middle-section of Hanjiang river following the Danjiangkou reservoir impoundment. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2017, 26, 1476–1487. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Wang, L.; Shu, Z.K.; Wang, G.Q.; Peng, T.; Lin, Q.X.; Zhou, J. Spatial and Temporal Evolution of Multi-Scale Meteorological Drought in Hanjiang River Basin from 1961 to 2018. Resour. Environ. Yangtze Basin 2021, 30, 1649–1658. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Deng, P.; Zhang, M.; Guo, H.; Xu, C. Error analysis and correction of the daily GSMaP products over Hanjiang River Basin of China. Atmos. Res. 2018, 214, 121–134. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Zhao, Z.Y.; Wang, H.R.; Zhao, Y.; Hu, L.T.; Liu, H.J. Analysis of Monthly Precipitation Characteristics of Ankang Station in Upper Hanjiang River from 1950 to 2014 Based on Chaos Theory. J. Yangtze River Sci. Res. Inst. 2021, 38, 137–142. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Shi, B.F.; Chi, G.T. Green industry evaluation indicators screening model basedon the maximum information content and its application. Syst. Eng. Theory Pract. 2014, 34, 1799–1810. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Su, L.; Gao, C.C.; Cao, S.S.; Yan, L.Y.; Meng, Z.Q.; Tian, H.M.; Liu, M. Spatial representative evaluation of ambient air quality monitoring stations in the Yangtze River Delta: Taking PM2.5 as an example. Acta Sci. Circum. 2021, 41, 4377–4387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Mandelbrot, B.B.; Wallis, J.R. Computer Experiments with Fractional Gaussian Noises: Part 1, Averages and Variances. Water Resour. Res. 1969, 5, 228–241. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Mandelbrot, B.B.; Wallis, J.R. Computer Experiments with Fractional Gaussian Noises: Part 2, Rescaled Ranges and Spectra. Water Resour. Res. 1969, 5, 242–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Li, H.Q.; Wang, F.Q. Fractional Theory and Its Applications in Molecular Science; Science Press: Beijng, China, 1993; pp. 41–59. [Google Scholar]
  27. Mann, H.B. Nonparametric Tests Against Trend. Econometrica 1945, 13, 245. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Beck, J.L.; Katafygiotis, L.S. Updating Models and Their Uncertainties. I: Bayesian Statistical Framework. J. Eng. Mech. 1998, 124, 455–461. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Katafygiotis, L.S.; Beck, J.L. Updating Models and Their Uncertainties. II: Model Identifiability. J. Eng. Mech. 1998, 124, 463–467. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Guo, Y.; Hou, S.Z.; Lin, X.Z. Variation characteristics of runoff and sediment in Xiliugou River basin for recent 51 years. J. Arid. Land Resour. Environ. 2014, 28, 176–183. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Wang, Q.; Wang, S.W.; Hu, Q.F.; Wang, Y.T.; Liu, Y.; Li, L.J. Calculation of instream ecological water requirements under runoff variation conditions: Taking Xitiao River in Taihu Lake Basin as an example. J. Geogr. Sci. 2021, 31, 1140–1158. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Yonetani, T. Discontinuous Changes of Precipitation in Japan after 1900 Detected by the Lepage Test. J. Meteorol. Soc. Jpn. 1992, 70, 95–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  33. Leveson, N. A new accident model for engineering safer systems. Saf. Sci. 2004, 42, 237–270. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  34. Xiao, W.W.; An, B.; Jia, D. Temporal Variation Characteristics of Extreme Weather Events in Ankang from 1955 to 2017. J. Soil Water Conserv. 2021, 28, 212–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Figure 1. Overview of the Hanjiang River Basin.
Figure 1. Overview of the Hanjiang River Basin.
Water 14 01931 g001
Figure 2. ERHIs selection process.
Figure 2. ERHIs selection process.
Water 14 01931 g002
Figure 3. Thermodynamic diagram of the IHA index correlation.
Figure 3. Thermodynamic diagram of the IHA index correlation.
Water 14 01931 g003
Figure 4. Similar years corresponding to the sample year of the wet season. Note: The arcs in the figure connect the sample year and its corresponding similar years. The size of the circle indicates the number of occurrences of the year.
Figure 4. Similar years corresponding to the sample year of the wet season. Note: The arcs in the figure connect the sample year and its corresponding similar years. The size of the circle indicates the number of occurrences of the year.
Water 14 01931 g004
Figure 5. Similar years corresponding to the sample year of the dry season. Note: The arcs in the figure connect the sample year and its corresponding similar years. The size of the circle indicates the number of occurrences of the year.
Figure 5. Similar years corresponding to the sample year of the dry season. Note: The arcs in the figure connect the sample year and its corresponding similar years. The size of the circle indicates the number of occurrences of the year.
Water 14 01931 g005
Figure 6. Overlap times of variation coefficient of ERHIs.
Figure 6. Overlap times of variation coefficient of ERHIs.
Water 14 01931 g006
Figure 7. Thermal diagram of the ERHIs correlation.
Figure 7. Thermal diagram of the ERHIs correlation.
Water 14 01931 g007
Figure 8. Variation intensity of ERHIs.
Figure 8. Variation intensity of ERHIs.
Water 14 01931 g008
Figure 9. Hydrograph of annual minimum 1-day flow index.
Figure 9. Hydrograph of annual minimum 1-day flow index.
Water 14 01931 g009
Figure 10. Hydrograph of the low pulse duration index.
Figure 10. Hydrograph of the low pulse duration index.
Water 14 01931 g010
Table 1. Variation degree analysis.
Table 1. Variation degree analysis.
C(t)hVariation DegreeC(t)hVariation Degree
0 ≤ C(t) < 0.5 ≤ h < No0.6 ≤ C(t) < 0.80.839 ≤ h < 0.924Strong
C(t) < h < Weak0.8 ≤ C(t) < 1.00.924 ≤ h < 1.0Extremely strong
C(t) < 0.6h < 0.839Medium
Note: α and β are the significance level, and α > β ; r α and r β are the lowest value of the correlation function C ( t ) , respectively; h α = [ 1 + ln ( 1 + r α ) / ln 2 ] / 2 , h β = [ 1 + ln ( 1 + r β ) / ln 2 ] / 2 .
Table 2. Diagnostic methods and sources of variation.
Table 2. Diagnostic methods and sources of variation.
Diagnostic MethodsReferences
Mann-Kendall methodMann H.B. [27]
Bayesian AnalysisBeck J.L. et al. [28,29]
MTTGuo et al. [30]
Sequential Clustering methodWang [31]
Le Page methodYonetani T. et al. [32]
BG segmentation algorithmN.G. Leveson [33]
Table 3. Refined IHA index.
Table 3. Refined IHA index.
Different SeasonGroupRedistribution of Hydrological Change Indicators
Dry seasonGroup 1: Monthly flowJanuary–May and October–December flows
Group 2: Magnitude and duration of annual extreme water conditionsMinimum 1, 3, 7, 30, and 90-day flows, Base flow index
Group 3: Timing of annual extreme water conditionsDate of min
Group 4: Frequency and duration of low pulsesLow pulse count
Low pulse duration
Group 5: Rate and frequency of water condition changesRise rate, Fall rate
Number of reversals
Wet seasonGroup 1: Monthly flowJune–September flows
Group 2: Magnitude and duration of annual extreme water conditionsMaximum 1, 3, 7, 30, and 90-day flows
Group 3: Timing of annual extreme water conditionsDate of max
Group 4: Frequency and duration of high pulsesHigh pulse count
High pulse duration
Group 5: Rate and frequency of water condition changesRise rate, Fall rate
Number of reversals
Table 4. Sample year and corresponding similar year.
Table 4. Sample year and corresponding similar year.
Sample YearSeasonSimilar Year
1962wet1960196919701971197219791988199020122017
dry1965197119721980199019941996200920152019
1976wet1960196919701973197819791990200520122019
dry1965197019811982199019941996200920152019
1984wet1961196319671968197419751980198920002007
dry1965196719681969197119721980199019941996
1985wet1961196719731975197820002005200720122019
dry1967196819691971197219751980199020002003
1986wet1971197719881993200220042009201320152018
dry1960196619771987198819931998200620122018
1991wet1971197219771988199320022009201320152018
dry1978197919931995199720012007201020132020
1992wet1969197019711972197719791988199020132017
dry1969197019711972197719791988199020132017
2008wet1966199319941995199619971999200420182020
dry1970198119821987198819892004200620112018
2014wet1961196719731975197819802000200520072019
dry1960196619771987198819891998200620112018
2016wet1966199419951996199719992001200420062020
dry1960196619771987198819931998200620122018
Table 5. Coverage analysis of indicators.
Table 5. Coverage analysis of indicators.
GroupERHIsSeasons
Group 3: Timing of annual extreme water conditionsDate of minDry
Group 1: Monthly flowAugust flowWet
Group 1: Monthly flowJune flowWet
Group 1: Monthly flowSeptember flowWet
Group 4: Frequency and duration of high and low pulsesLow pulse durationDry
Group 2: Magnitude and duration of annual extreme water conditions1-day minDry
Table 6. Diagnostic results of the strong variation index and corresponding mutation year.
Table 6. Diagnostic results of the strong variation index and corresponding mutation year.
Diagnostic MethodsLow Pulse Duration1-Day Min
Mann-Kendall method1977——
Bayesian Analysis19601973
MTT1973,1974,19771973,1986
Sequential Clustering method19731986
Le Page method1973,19741973,1986
BG segmentation algorithm19741986
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Li, Z.; Cai, S.; Lei, X.; Wang, L. Diagnosis of Basin Eco-Hydrological Variation Based on Index Sensitivity of Similar Years: A Case Study in the Hanjiang River Basin. Water 2022, 14, 1931. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14121931

AMA Style

Li Z, Cai S, Lei X, Wang L. Diagnosis of Basin Eco-Hydrological Variation Based on Index Sensitivity of Similar Years: A Case Study in the Hanjiang River Basin. Water. 2022; 14(12):1931. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14121931

Chicago/Turabian Style

Li, Zhe, Siyu Cai, Xiaohui Lei, and Lingmin Wang. 2022. "Diagnosis of Basin Eco-Hydrological Variation Based on Index Sensitivity of Similar Years: A Case Study in the Hanjiang River Basin" Water 14, no. 12: 1931. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14121931

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop