| Literature DB >> 26115484 |
Xiaoli Hu1, Ling Lu1, Xin Li1, Jianhua Wang1, Ming Guo1.
Abstract
The Heihe River Basin (HRB) is a typical arid inland river basin in northwestern China. From the 1960s to the 1990s, the downstream flow in the HRB declined as a result of large, artificial changes in the distribution of water and land and a lack of effective water resource management. Consequently, the ecosystems of the lower reaches of the basin substantially deteriorated. To restore these degraded ecosystems, the Ecological Water Diversion Project (EWDP) was initiated by the Chinese government in 2000. The project led to agricultural and ecological changes in the middle reaches of the basin. In this study, we present three datasets of land use/cover in the middle reaches of the HRB derived from Landsat TM/ETM+ images in 2000, 2007 and 2011. We used these data to investigate changes in land use/cover between 2000 and 2011 and the implications for sustainable water resource management. The results show that the most significant land use/cover change in the middle reaches of the HRB was the continuous expansion of farmland for economic interests. From 2000 to 2011, the farmland area increased by 12.01%. The farmland expansion increased the water resource stress; thus, groundwater was over-extracted and the ecosystem was degraded in particular areas. Both consequences are negative and potentially threaten the sustainability of the middle reaches of the HRB and the entire river basin. Local governments should therefore improve the management of water resources, particularly groundwater management, and should strictly control farmland reclamation. Then, water resources could be ecologically and socioeconomically sustained, and the balance between upstream and downstream water demands could be ensured. The results of this study can also serve as a reference for the sustainable management of water resources in other arid inland river basins.Entities:
Mesh:
Year: 2015 PMID: 26115484 PMCID: PMC4482701 DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0128960
Source DB: PubMed Journal: PLoS One ISSN: 1932-6203 Impact factor: 3.240
Fig 1Location of the study area.
The TM/ETM+ data used in this study.
| NO. | Acquisition date | Path-row number | Sensor |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | 2000-08-10 | 133/033 | ETM+ |
| 2 | 2000-06-14 | 134/033 | ETM+ |
| 3 | 2007-08-22 | 133/033 | TM |
| 4 | 2007-08-13 | 134/033 | TM |
| 5 | 2011-08-01 | 133/033 | TM |
| 6 | 2011-08-08 | 134/033 | TM |
Description of the land use/cover classification system used in this study.
| Level 1 type | Level 2 type | Description |
|---|---|---|
| Farmland | Hilly dryland | Rain-fed farmland without irrigation |
| Plain dryland | Farmland with guaranteed water source or irrigation facilities | |
| Forestland | Arboreal forest | Natural or plantation forest with a canopy cover >30% |
| Shrub forest | Woodland or shrub with a canopy cover >40% and a height ≤ 2 m | |
| Sparse forest | Natural or plantation forest with a canopy cover ≤30% | |
| Other forest | Economic woodland, such as orchards and nurseries | |
| Grassland | Thick grassland | Natural or artificial grassland with a canopy cover >50% |
| Moderate grassland | Natural or artificial grassland with a canopy cover between 20% and 50% | |
| Sparse grassland | Natural or artificial grassland with a canopy cover ≤20% | |
| Water body | River and canal | Land covered by rivers, including canals |
| Lake | Land covered by lakes | |
| Reservoir and pond | Man-made facilities for water reservation | |
| Overflow land | Land between normal water level and flood level | |
| Built-up land | Residences, transportation networks, and other building structures, including land for urban occupation | |
| Wetland | Land area whose soil is saturated with moisture either permanently or seasonally | |
| Desert | Land yet to be utilized, including land deemed difficult to use, such as sandy land, saline, barren soil, and bare rock |
Fig 2Maps of land use/cover in the study area over 2000–2011 (case 1 was a typical example of land use/cover change driven by migrants).
Changes in the primary types of land use/cover.
| Year | Parameter | Farmland | Forestland | Grassland | Water body | Built-up land | Wetland | Desert |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
|
| 2132.45 | 134.34 | 1106.77 | 328.02 | 131.27 | 157.47 | 6694.70 |
|
| 19.96 | 1.26 | 10.36 | 3.07 | 1.23 | 1.47 | 62.66 | |
|
|
| 2340.79 | 135.93 | 1042.78 | 309.65 | 154.32 | 148.38 | 6553.17 |
|
| 21.91 | 1.27 | 9.76 | 2.90 | 1.44 | 1.39 | 61.33 | |
|
|
| 2388.59 | 143.97 | 1037.52 | 307.14 | 162.73 | 156.48 | 6488.58 |
|
| 22.35 | 1.35 | 9.71 | 2.87 | 1.52 | 1.46 | 60.73 | |
|
|
| 208.34 | 1.58 | -63.99 | -18.36 | 23.04 | -9.09 | -141.54 |
|
| 9.77 | 1.18 | -5.78 | -5.60 | 17.55 | -5.78 | -2.11 | |
|
|
| 47.81 | 8.04 | -5.26 | -2.51 | 8.41 | 8.10 | -64.58 |
|
| 2.04 | 5.92 | -0.50 | -0.81 | 5.45 | 5.46 | -0.99 | |
|
|
| 256.14 | 9.63 | -69.24 | -20.87 | 31.46 | -0.99 | -206.12 |
|
| 12.01 | 7.17 | -6.26 | -6.36 | 23.96 | -0.63 | -3.08 |
The dynamic transition matrix of land use/cover types between 2000 and 2011 (km2).
| 2000 | 2011 | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Farmland | Forestland | Grassland | Water body | Built-up land | Wetland | Desert | |
|
| 2082.40 | 6.00 | 5.71 | 2.13 | 24.32 | 6.12 | 5.77 |
|
| 26.88 | 100.40 | 2.61 | 0.53 | 0.13 | 0.27 | 3.52 |
|
| 71.51 | 16.28 | 907.86 | 2.62 | 0.81 | 4.69 | 103.00 |
|
| 12.03 | 2.09 | 8.42 | 298.93 | 0.07 | 6.16 | 0.33 |
|
| 0.00 | 0.02 | 0.00 | 0.00 | 131.25 | 0.00 | 0.00 |
|
| 14.67 | 0.75 | 8.39 | 0.80 | 0.56 | 132.13 | 0.17 |
|
| 181.11 | 18.44 | 104.54 | 2.13 | 5.59 | 7.10 | 6375.79 |
Fig 3Run-off flows released between the Yingluoxia and Zhengyixia hydrological stations and the available surface water resources in the middle reaches of the HRB from 1990 to 2011.
Fig 4Case 1: farmland area changes in Xusanwan, Gaotai County, from 2000 to 2007, driven by migrants.
Fig 5Newly reclaimed farmland in the inter-dune zone.
Fig 6GDP change during 2000–2011.
Fig 7Average change in the groundwater level at 42 observation wells in the middle reaches of the HRB.
The red line indicates trends over the past ten years.