| Literature DB >> 32080276 |
Yan Liu1,2, Hongyan Li3,4, Geng Cui5, Yuqing Cao1,2.
Abstract
Entities:
Year: 2020 PMID: 32080276 PMCID: PMC7033256 DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-59980-7
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Sci Rep ISSN: 2045-2322 Impact factor: 4.379
Figure 1Location of the Hulan River Basin in eastern Songnen Plain in the central Heilongjiang Province, China.
Figure 2Topography and elevation contours of the Hulan River Basin.
Figure 3Water sampling point in main stream and tributaries of the Hulan River basin (Symbolizing each river by capital letters A to H from upper reaches to lower reaches, the same below).
Figure 4Water quality spatial clustering analysis results for tributaries of the Hulan River.
Figure 5Scatter plot showing the principal component analysis of river water quality sample clusters.
Figure 6Piper diagram of surface waters in the Hulan River basin showing water chemistry types.
Figure 7Spatial distribution of water chemistry type.
Average ion content of each river groups A and B and the mainstream.
| Region | Location | Average ion content (mg/L) | |||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Na+ + K+ | Ca2+ | Mg2+ | HCO3− | SO42− | Cl− | ||
| Group A | Upstream | 5.16 | 14.42 | 2.67 | 31.40 | 12.18 | 10.01 |
| Midstream | 13.19 | 25.91 | 6.44 | 79.84 | 16.74 | 15.64 | |
| Downstream | 17.34 | 25.03 | 5.93 | 67.34 | 17.78 | 21.41 | |
| Group B | Upstream | 15.64 | 25.06 | 5.90 | 97.99 | 10.41 | 12.87 |
| Midstream | 24.79 | 31.84 | 7.91 | 122.68 | 14.21 | 20.31 | |
| Downstream | 17.86 | 27.08 | 6.82 | 96.55 | 14.46 | 17.43 | |
| Mainstream | Upstream | 6.26 | 14.85 | 3.00 | 35.36 | 10.79 | 10.77 |
| Midstream | 8.49 | 18.41 | 3.96 | 42.99 | 15.73 | 12.69 | |
| Downstream | 10.11 | 19.66 | 4.44 | 49.78 | 16.32 | 14.06 | |
Water quality environmental indicators.
| Region | Location | Total hardness (mg/L, calculated as CaCO3) | Electrical conductance (μs/cm) | Eh (mV) | DO (mg/L) | CODcr (mg/L) | pH |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Group A | Upstream | 49.69 | 114.67 | 209.83 | 7.21 | 23.44 | 7.76 |
| Midstream | 56.42 | 129.00 | 200.00 | 7.65 | 23.00 | 7.63 | |
| Downstream | 57.33 | 136.00 | 195.60 | 7.93 | 23.80 | 7.60 | |
| Group B | Upstream | 155.79 | 365.00 | 183.00 | 7.45 | 30.29 | 8.09 |
| Midstream | 171.16 | 379.33 | 171.33 | 7.70 | 34.52 | 7.89 | |
| Downstream | 137.62 | 294.75 | 197.75 | 7.39 | 22.18 | 7.57 | |
| Mainstream | Upstream | 50.01 | 114.14 | 170.25 | 6.65 | 23.96 | 7.51 |
| Midstream | 63.00 | 150.17 | 196.00 | 7.44 | 21.43 | 7.64 | |
| Downstream | 68.20 | 163.67 | 203.67 | 6.93 | 22.26 | 7.66 |
Figure 8Spatial characteristics of total nitrogen and phosphorus in the Hulan River basin.
Figure 9Gibbs diagrams of surface water chemical origins.
Figure 10End element plots indicating the origins of ions in surface waters.
Figure 11Pie chart showing the proportion of different land uses.
Figure 12Land use distribution in the river basin.
Data sources used in the Soil Water and Assessment Tool (SWAT) Model Simulation.
| Data | Range Accuracy | Data Source |
|---|---|---|
| Digital elevation model | STRM 90 m | |
| Soil maps | 1:1000000 | Harmonized world soil database |
| Land use/cover | 1:100000 | |
| Weather data | CMADS (2008–2016) | |
| Runoff | 2008–2016 | Hydrographic office |
Results of SWAT-CUP Sensitivity analysis.
| Rank | Runoff | Sediment | Total N | Total P |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | SMTMP.bsn | SPCON | NPERCO | PPERCO |
| 2 | SMFMX.bsn | CN2 | SOL_ORGN | PHOSKD |
| 3 | TIMP.bsn | SPEXP | USLE_P | CN2 |
| 4 | GW_DELAY.gw | SLOPE | SOL_NO3 | SOL_ORGP |
| 5 | ALPHA_BF.gw | ULSE_P | CN2 | SLOPE |
| 6 | ESCO.hru | SOL_Z | BIOMIX | USLE_P |
| 7 | ALPHA_BNK.rte | GWQMN | SLOPE | USLE_C |
Simulation evaluation of monthly runoff.
| Index | Tieli | Sifangtai | Qinjia | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calibration (2010–11) | Verification (2012) | Calibration (2010–11) | Verification (2012) | Calibration (2010–12) | Verification (2014) | |
| NSE | 0.741 | 0.769 | 0.753 | 0.643 | 0.721 | 0.713 |
| R2 | 0.743 | 0.81 | 0.723 | 0.756 | 0.75 | 0.693 |
| PBIAS | 0.06 | 0.30 | 0.06 | 0.23 | 0.605 | 0.356 |
Simulation evaluation of total phosphorus.
| Index | Sifangtai | Qinjia | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calibration (2010–2011) | Verification (2012) | Calibration (2010–2012) | Verification (2014) | |
| NSE | 0.653 | 0.643 | 0.621 | 0.635 |
| R2 | 0.611 | 0.616 | 0.672 | 0.641 |
| PBIAS | 0.41 | 0.43 | 0.417 | 0.55 |
Figure 13Simulated total nitrogen load flux.
Figure 14Simulated total phosphorus load flux.
Simulation evaluation of sediment transport.
| Index | Tieli | Sifangtai | Qinjia | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Calibration (2010–13) | Validation (2014) | Calibration (2010–13) | Verification (2014) | Calibration (2010–13) | Verification (2014) | |
| NSE | 0.661 | 0.739 | 0.673 | 0.643 | 0.641 | 0.613 |
| R2 | 0.725 | 0.726 | 0.753 | 0.714 | 0.638 | 0.624 |
| PBIAS | 0.354 | 0.297 | 0.31 | 0.40 | 0.613 | 0.423 |