| Literature DB >> 24701192 |
Wenchao Sun1, Jie Wang2, Zhanjie Li1, Xiaolei Yao1, Jingshan Yu1.
Abstract
The influences of climate change on water resources availability in Jinjiang Basin, China, were assessed using the Block-wise use of the TOPmodel with the Muskingum-Cunge routing method (BTOPMC) distributed hydrological model. The ensemble average of downscaled output from sixteen GCMs (General Circulation Models) for A1B emission scenario (medium CO2 emission) in the 2050s was adopted to build regional climate change scenario. The projected precipitation and temperature data were used to drive BTOPMC for predicting hydrological changes in the 2050s. Results show that evapotranspiration will increase in most time of a year. Runoff in summer to early autumn exhibits an increasing trend, while in the rest period of a year it shows a decreasing trend, especially in spring season. From the viewpoint of water resource availability, it is indicated that it has the possibility that water resources may not be sufficient to fulfill irrigation water demand in the spring season and one possible solution is to store more water in the reservoir in previous summer.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2014 PMID: 24701192 PMCID: PMC3948646 DOI: 10.1155/2014/908349
Source DB: PubMed Journal: ScientificWorldJournal ISSN: 1537-744X
Figure 1The river network, locations of streamflow stations and rainfall stations in Jinjiang Basin.
Figure 2Topography of Jinjiang Basin.
Figure 3The schematic description of BTOPMC structure for runoff generation at each grid, where P is gross precipitation, I max is maximum interception capacity, I is interception state, ET0 is interception evaporation, ET is evapotranspiration from soil water, S is maximum root zone storage capacity, S rz is soil water in root zone, q rz is soil water moving from root zone to gravity drainage zone, SD and S are soil water deficit and state in gravity drainage zone, q is groundwater recharge, q is overland flow, and q is base flow.
Data used in BTOPMC modeling in Jinjiang Basin.
| Type | Description | Remark |
|---|---|---|
| Physical data | Digital elevation map (DEM) | From GLOBE data, 30 arc second resolution |
| Land cover map | From IGBP classified global data, 1 km resolution | |
| Soil map | From harmonized world soil database (FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISSCAS/JRC, 2012) [ | |
| Soil texture | From harmonized world soil database (FAO/IIASA/ISRIC/ISSCAS/JRC, 2012) [ | |
|
| ||
| Meteorological data | Daily precipitation | From Bureau of Water Resources of Quanzhou City |
| Monthly precipitation | From CRU 2.0 data set, input for the S-W model | |
| Monthly cloud cover | From CRU 2.0 data set, input for the S-W model, | |
| Monthly diurnal temperature range | From CRU 2.0 data set, input for the S-W model, | |
| Monthly vapour pressure | From CRU 2.0 data set, input for the S-W model, | |
| Monthly wind speed | From CRU 2.0 data set, input for the S-W model, | |
| Monthly daylight duration | Calculated based on cloud cover, using the relationship of Doorenbos and Pruitt [ | |
| Monthly extraterrestrial radiation | Calculated based on the location latitude and the date in the year, using the method specified in Zhou et al. [ | |
|
| ||
| Vegetation data | Monthly NDVI | GIMMS NDVI (Pinzonet al. [ |
|
| ||
| Hydrological data | Daily observed streamflow | From Bureau of Water Resources of Quanzhou City |
Model parameter description.
| Parameter | Description | Unit | Range | Value |
|---|---|---|---|---|
|
| Saturated transmissivity | m2/h | 0.1–200 | Sand: 15 |
|
| Decay factor of transmissivity | — | 0.001–0.3 | 0.02 |
|
| Maximum root zone storage | m | 0.0001–0.8 | Forest: 0.02 |
|
| Soil drying function parameter | — | −3–8 | 4 |
|
| Average Manning's coefficient | — | 0.001–0.4 | 0.06 |
| Δ | Temporal discretization of flow in a channel segment | — | 1–8 | 2 |
| Δ | Spatial discretization of a channel segment | — | 1–8 | 6 |
Figure 4Basin averaged changes (green columns) of monthly mean precipitation and temperature between baseline (red columns) and future climate scenario in the 2050s.
Figure 5Streamflow simulations at Anxi station, where P is precipitation, Q obs is observed streamflow, and Q sim is simulated streamflow by BTOPMC.
Figure 6Streamflow simulations at Honglai station, where P is precipitation, Q obs is observed streamflow, and Q sim is simulated streamflow by BTOPMC.
Figure 7Streamflow simulations at Shilong station, where P is precipitation, Q obs is observed streamflow, and Q sim is simulated streamflow by BTOPMC.
Model performance at three streamflow stations.
| Station name | Anxi | Honglai | Shilong | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Criteria | NSE | VR | NSE | VR | NSE | VR |
| Calibration period | 84.0% | 96.3% | 63.3% | 111.0% | 78.6% | 110.2% |
| Validation period | 78.7% | 109.3% | 65.1% | 97.5% | 75.6% | 107.2% |
Figure 8Comparison between monthly averaged simulated and observed streamflow at Shilong station.
Figure 9Basin averaged changes (green columns) of monthly mean ET and steamflow at Shilong station between baseline (red columns) and future climate scenario in the 2050s.