Next Article in Journal
Detecting Shoot Beetle Damage on Yunnan Pine Using Landsat Time-Series Data
Previous Article in Journal
Variation in the Climate Sensitivity Dependent on Neighbourhood Composition in a Secondary Mixed Forest
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Assessing the Impact of Forest Change and Climate Variability on Dry Season Runoff by an Improved Single Watershed Approach: A Comparative Study in Two Large Watersheds, China

1
School of Resources and Environment, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China
2
Center for Information Geoscience, University of Electronic Science and Technology of China, Chengdu 611731, China
3
Research Institute of Forest Ecology, Environment and Protection, Chinese Academy of Forestry, Beijing 100091, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Forests 2018, 9(1), 46; https://doi.org/10.3390/f9010046
Submission received: 27 November 2017 / Revised: 8 January 2018 / Accepted: 17 January 2018 / Published: 20 January 2018
(This article belongs to the Section Forest Ecology and Management)

Abstract

:
Extensive studies on hydrological responses to forest change have been published for centuries, yet partitioning the hydrological effects of forest change, climate variability and other factors in a large watershed remains a challenge. In this study, we developed a single watershed approach combining the modified double mass curve (MDMC) and the time series multivariate autoregressive integrated moving average model (ARIMAX) to separate the impact of forest change, climate variability and other factors on dry season runoff variation in two large watersheds in China. The Zagunao watershed was examined for the deforestation effect, while the Meijiang watershed was examined to study the hydrological impact of reforestation. The key findings are: (1) both deforestation and reforestation led to significant reductions in dry season runoff, while climate variability yielded positive effects in the studied watersheds; (2) the hydrological response to forest change varied over time due to changes in soil infiltration and evapotranspiration after vegetation regeneration; (3) changes of subalpine natural forests produced greater impact on dry season runoff than alteration of planted forests. These findings are beneficial to water resource and forest management under climate change and highlight a better planning of forest operations and management incorporated trade-off between carbon and water in different forests.

1. Introduction

In spite of numerous studies on the hydrological responses of dry season runoff to forest change (forest harvesting, reforestation, etc.) [1,2,3,4,5], consistent conclusions can hardly be drawn [6,7]. The effect of forest change on dry season flows can be positive, negative or insignificant [8]. Some studies have demonstrated that forest loss can increase dry season runoff since the removal or death of forests can reduce evapotranspiration and canopy interception in disturbed sites and ultimately increase soil moisture and groundwater recharge [9]. Meanwhile, other studies have reported that fast vegetation regrowth and soil disturbances after forest harvesting may offset the water increment or even decrease dry season runoff [6,8,10]. Similarly, variable responses of dry season flow to afforestation or reforestation have also been found, which are mainly determined by the changes in soil properties caused by forest regrowth and forest practices [11,12]. However, most studies are conducted in small watersheds (<10 km2), and the impact of forest change on dry season runoff in large watersheds (>1000 km2) has been less investigated due to limitations such as the lack of efficient and commonly-accepted methods and complexity in ecological and hydrological processes at a larger spatial scale [13,14,15,16].
In the past few years, researchers have applied various approaches in large watershed studies. The experimental paired watersheds, physical hydrological models, sensitivity analysis, elasticity analysis and statistical test-hydrograph combined method are commonly used to evaluate the hydrological effect resulting from forest change, but they still have several limitations [17,18,19,20,21]. The experimental paired watershed approach requires long-term commitment and expensive cost. In addition, it is often constrained by the great difficulty in finding two watersheds with similarities in climate patterns, land use, forest, soil, morphology and geology at a larger spatial scale [5]. Hydrological models, especially distributed models (e.g., MIKE-SHE, Distributed Hydrology Soil Vegetation Model (DHSVM) and Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT)) need long-term hydrological and climatic data, as well as detailed information on watershed properties (e.g., forest, soil and topography), which are often absent in many watersheds [22,23]. Despite their ability to provide an efficient assessment, the sensitivity analysis, elasticity analysis or statistical test and hydrograph combined method may fail to remove the hydrological effect of non-forest drivers completely given that most of them only consider climate variability and forest change or land cover change as two dominating drivers, and neglect other factors [21,24].
Wei and Zhang (2010b) developed a single watershed approach, the “modified double mass curve” (MDMC), to estimate the hydrological effect of forest change in a large watershed [25]. Despite its successful application in both China and Canada [26,27,28,29,30], this approach can only be used in watersheds with limited human activities since it cannot differentiate the hydrological impact of other confounding factors including urbanization and agricultural activities from that of forest change. As a matter of fact, few forested watersheds worldwide are exempt from human impact. This calls for the development of a new efficient method that can be widely applied to separate the impact of climate variability, forest change and other confounding factors on hydrology. In order to address this problem, we improved the MDMC approach by introducing the multivariate autoregressive integrated moving average (ARIMAX) model to differentiate the effects of forest change, climate variability and other factors (e.g., human activities) on runoff. The MDMC was firstly used to exclude the climatic effect on runoff variation and then to estimate runoff variation attributed to non-climatic factors (forest change and other factors). Finally, the ARIMAX model was used to quantify the runoff variation attributed to forest change by establishing a quantitative relationship between accumulated runoff variation due to non-climatic factors and forest coverage data. We provided two examples (the Zagunao and Meijiang watersheds) demonstrating the application of this method to separate the effects of forest change and climate variability on dry season runoff. The Zagunao watershed dominated by subalpine natural coniferous forest suffered from deforestation due to forest harvesting lasting from the 1950s–1980s (about 15% reduction of forest coverage). The Meijiang watershed is mainly covered by subtropical coniferous plantations due to a large-scale reforestation program launched since 1980s (about a 44% increase of forest coverage). Understanding the responses of dry season runoff to forest change is essential for the strategy design of forest practices and forest ecosystem protection in these watersheds.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Watersheds

The Zagunao River originates from the Zhegu Mountain and enters the Minjiang River, the largest tributary of the Upper Yangtze River at Weizhou County in the northwest of Sichuan Province, China (Figure 1). The Zagunao watershed is situated in the transitional zone from the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau to the Sichuan Basin, covering an area of 2441.77 km2. The Meijiang River flows into the Ganjiang River, the headwaters of the Poyang Lake in Jiangxi Province of China. The Meijiang River watershed covers an area of 6310.13 km2.
The Zagunao watershed is situated in a typical alpine climate zone mainly controlled by the Southwest Monsoon from the Indian Ocean in summer, resulting in wet season precipitation (May–October) accounting for about 80% of the annual total. The Meijiang watershed belongs to the humid subtropical monsoon climate, with mild climate and abundant precipitation. The mean annual precipitation and dry season (September–February) precipitation were 1735.5 mm and 447.8 mm, respectively. More information on watershed properties can be found in Table 1.
The major vegetation types in the Zagunao watershed include alpine meadow and subalpine coniferous forest, covering 46% and 32% of the total watershed area, respectively. The dominant tree species are Abies faxoniana Rehder & E.H.Wilson and Picea purpurea Mast. [27]. Forest land, orchard and farmland are major land cover types in the Meijiang watershed (Table 2). The natural forests consist of subtropical evergreen broad-leaved species such as Castanopsis fabri Hance and Castanopsis fissa (Champ. ex Benth.) Rehd. & Wils., while planted forests are dominated by Pinus massoniana Lamb., Cunninghamia lanceolata (Lamb.) Hook. and moso bamboo (Phyllostachys edulis (Carrière) J.Houz.) [30].
The Zagunao watershed was originally covered by a large area of natural subalpine coniferous forests, which were destroyed by continuous forest harvesting during the 1950s–1990s. Intensive logging of the old-growth coniferous forests started from 1955–1962, then gradually declined after 1965 and finally stopped in 1998 due to the Natural Forest Protection Plan. From 1950–2004, forest coverage in the Zagunao watershed dropped from 52.5%–36.9% (Figure 2). The Meijiang watershed maintained a low level of forest coverage around 25% from the 1960s–1970s due to large-scale logging since the 1940s. Large-scale reforestation was continuously conducted watershed-wide since the 1980s, leading to a significant increase in forest coverage from 27.6% in 1980 to 71.4% in 2005 (Figure 2).

2.2. Data

Daily hydrological records between 1959 and 2004 were collected from the Zagunao hydrological station, located at the outlet of the Zagunao watershed. Daily flow data from 1958–2005 were from Fenkeng hydrometric station situated at the outlet of the Meijiang watershed (Figure 1). Daily records were used to calculate monthly runoff, dry season runoff and annual runoff in this study (Table 1).
Climate data are very limited within or around the Zagunao watershed. There are only one active weather station (Li) and one rain gauge station (Miyaluo) situated within the Zagunao watershed. Monthly mean/min/max temperature data (1958–2004) from the Li County national weather station were used in the analysis. In order to capture the high spatial variability of precipitation in the Zagunao watershed, monthly precipitation data from 51 rain gauge and weather stations in the Minjiang River watershed were collected to generate spatially-interpolated monthly precipitation data from 1958–2004 by use of the ANUSPIN model. Then, monthly precipitation data from 1958–2004 for the Zagunao watershed were derived and calculated accordingly. For the Meijiang watershed, more weather stations are available. There are six active weather stations (Ningdu, Shicheng, Guangchang, Ruijin, Xingguo, Yudu) within or near the Meijiang watershed. Monthly mean/min/max temperature and precipitation during 1961 and 2005 from these weather stations were also applied in the ANUSPIN model to generate spatially-interpolated monthly climate data for the Meijiang watershed over the study period.
Forest coverage data used in the Zagunao and Meijiang watersheds were provided by the Miyaluo Forest Station of Sichuan Province and Ganzhou Regional Forestry Bureaus of Jiangxi Province, respectively.

2.3. Methods

Hydrological processes in the study watersheds can be influenced by climate variability, forest change (e.g., harvesting or reforestation) and other factors. The following methods including MDMC and ARIMAX were applied to separate and quantify the effects of climate variability, forest change and other factors on dry season runoff.

2.3.1. Trend Analysis

Trend analysis was first used to detect possible significant trends in hydrology, climate and forest coverage variables [31]. Kendall tau and Spearman rho tests were employed to identify the statistical significance of trends in dry season precipitation, temperature, evapotranspiration, runoff and forest coverage. These tests can eliminate the impacts of outliers and have no requirement for data distribution [32,33,34].

2.3.2. Excluding the Effect of Climate Variability on Dry Season Runoff

Wei and Zhang (2010b) developed the modified double mass curve (MDMC) to exclude the influence of climate variability on runoff in a single watershed successfully (Figure 3). The traditional double mass curve (DMC), which plots the accumulated runoff from the disturbed watershed against the accumulated runoff from the undisturbed one, is frequently used in paired watershed studies to detect the consistency in the runoff relationship between the disturbed watershed and the control watershed [35,36]. Unlike the traditional DMC, MDMC is for a single watershed study, by plotting accumulated runoff versus accumulated effective precipitation (the difference between precipitation and evapotranspiration). In this way, the climatic effects on runoff variation can be eliminated. In this study, the modified double mass curve was firstly plotted by accumulated dry season effective precipitation versus accumulated dry season runoff. The effective dry season precipitation refers to the difference between dry season precipitation and dry season evapotranspiration. Watershed-scale evapotranspiration can be computed according to land cover types and their corresponding proportions [27]. Evapotranspiration for each land cover type was calculated by Zhang’s equation, a revised version of Budyko’s evaporation (Equation (1)), by introducing a vegetation factor ω [37]. The Hargreaves equation was used to estimate potential evapotranspiration (Equation (2)) [38]:
E = P ( 1 + ω ( E 0 / P ) ) / ( 1 + ω ( E 0 / P ) + P / E 0 )
E 0 = 0.0023 × R a × ( ( T max + T max ) / 2 + 17.8 ) × ( T max T max ) 0.5
where E stands for the dry season actual evapotranspiration for each type; E0 and P are potential evapotranspiration and precipitation in the dry season; ω is the plant-available water coefficient, which for forest, grassland and shrub land are 2.0, 0.5 and 1.0, respectively [38]. Tmin and Tmax are the minimum and maximum temperature in °C.
According to Wei and Zhang’s illustration, MDMC of a given watershed is featured by a straight line during a less disturbed or undisturbed period, indicating a stable water balance relationship between forest and runoff. A breakpoint can be found in the MDMC if non-climatic factors significantly affect runoff (Figure 3). ARIMA intervention analysis (autoregressive integrate moving average) was used to detect whether the change point in the slope of MDMC was statistically significant [39]. Once the change point in the MDMC is statistically significant (α = 0.05), the period before breakpoint is defined as the reference period, while the period after the breakpoint is named as the disturbed period. The Wilcoxon test and sign test were further applied to confirm the statistical significance of the change point detected by the ARIMA intervention analysis. If both tests illustrate that the medians of the observed and the predicted data are statistically insignificant (α = 0.05) in the reference period and significant (α = 0.05) in disturbed periods, the change point is statistically significant. Then, a linear regression model established by observed accumulated dry season effective precipitation and accumulated dry season runoff without disturbances during the reference period can be used to predict the accumulated dry season runoff during the disturbed period. The differences between the observed accumulated dry season runoff and the predicted accumulated dry season runoff during the disturbed period can be viewed as the cumulative effect of non-climatic factors on runoff.
The cumulative effect of non-climatic factors (∆Qanc) and climate variability (∆Qac) on dry season runoff can be computed by Equations (3) and (4).
Δ Q a n c ( t ) = Δ Q a ( t ) Δ Q a 0 ( t )
where ∆Qa(t) and ∆Qa0(t) are observed accumulated dry season runoff for the t-th year and predicted accumulated dry season runoff without disturbances for the t-th year; ∆Qanc(t) represents accumulated dry season runoff variation attributed to non-climatic factors for the t-th year.
Δ Q a c ( t ) = Δ Q a ( t ) Δ Q a n c ( t )
where ∆Qac(t) stands for accumulated dry season runoff variation attributed to climate variability for the t-th year.

2.3.3. Quantifying the Effect of Forest Change on Dry Season Runoff

As mentioned before, the MDMC method can only separate runoff variation due to climate variability from that caused by non-climatic factors, and the hydrological effect of forest change and other factors cannot be quantified directly. We improved the MDMC method by introducing a multivariate ARIMA (ARIMAX) model that established a quantitative relationship between accumulated dry season runoff variation attributed to non-climatic factors (∆Qanc) and forest coverage over the disturbed period.
The ARIMAX, an extension of the ARIMA model with external regressors to improve model performance, has been widely used to predict auto-correlated data series in natural and social sciences [40,41,42]. An ARIMAX model fitted by ∆Qanc data series was established first. The accumulated forest coverage data series were pre-whitened to eliminate autocorrelations by fitting an ARIMA model [39,40,43]. Then, the pre-whitened accumulated forest coverage time series was added as a dynamic regressor in the established ARIMAX model. The selected ARIMAX model with forest coverage as the dynamic regressor can eventually be used to predict ∆Qanc. The predicted ∆Qanc can be defined as ∆Qanc0. Given that forest coverage serves as a predictor, the differences between ∆Qanc0 and ∆Qanc (∆Qad, Equations (5) and (6)), can express statistical errors (∆Qse) and dry season runoff variation from other factors (∆Qo). Here, we used the 95% confidence interval (CI) of predicted values as a standard to evaluate statistical errors of the selected ARIMAX model. Therefore, ∆Qd located beyond 95% CI are viewed as data points affected by both of the other factors and statistical errors, while ∆Qd within 95% CI are viewed as data points with statistical errors only (Figure 4). Once data points affected by both of the other factors and statistical errors are identified, runoff variation attributed to other factors (∆Qo) can be estimated for these data points (Equation (7)), and eventually, dry season runoff variation due to forest change can be computed accordingly (Equation (8)). All the statistical analyses were accomplished in R Studio Version 1.0.136, and free and open tools for R (the R Project for Statistical Computing) and the package “TSA” were used to establish the ARIMAX model. More detailed instruction on ARIMAX modelling can be found in the user manual of the TSA package in R.
Δ Q a d ( t ) = Δ Q a n c ( t ) Δ Q a n c 0 ( t )
Δ Q a d ( t ) = Δ Q d ( 1 ) + Δ Q d ( 2 ) + … … + Δ Q d ( t )
Δ Q o ( t ) = Δ Q d ( t ) Δ Q s e ( t )
Δ Q f ( t ) = Δ Q n c ( t ) Δ Q o ( t )
where ∆Qanc(t), ∆Qanc0(t) and ∆Qad(t) are observed accumulated dry season runoff variation attributed to non-climatic factors, predicted accumulated dry season runoff variation attributed to non-climatic factors and accumulated dry season runoff variation from the others for the t-th year. ∆Qo(t) and ∆Qf(t) represent dry season variation attributed to other factors and forest change for the t-th year; ∆Qse(t) is the statistical errors from the ARIMAX model for the t-th year.

3. Results

3.1. Trend Analysis

As shown in Table 3, there was a significant (α = 0.05) upward trend in dry season runoff in the Zagunao watershed. In the Meijiang watershed, dry season temperature showed a significant rising tendency (α = 0.05). Forest coverage showed a significant (α = 0.05) downward trend in the Zagunao watershed, while in the Meijiang watershed, a significant (α = 0.05) increasing trend in forest coverage was detected (α = 0.05). Meanwhile, we failed to identify significant changes in other variables.

3.2. Dry Season Runoff Variation Caused by Non-Climate Factors

According to the modified double mass curves (Figure 5), the ARIMA intervention test (Table 4) and the Wilcoxon and sign test (Table 5), we identified two significant change points in the Meijiang watershed (1987 and 1995), while only one breakpoint in the Zagunao watershed (1976). As estimated, accumulated dry season runoff variation attributed to non-climatic factors and climate variability during 1976–2004 in the Zagunao watershed was from −680.0 mm–2.3 mm and −76.2 mm–672.3 mm, respectively. In the Meijiang watershed, accumulated dry season runoff variation due to non-climatic factors and climate variability over 1987–2005 varied from −752.6 mm–−30.2 mm and 465.3 mm–1345.6 mm, respectively.

3.3. Hydrological Response to Forest Change and Other Factors

Table 6 shows the structure, parameters’ estimation and model performance for the best fitted factored ARIMAX model of accumulated dry season runoff variation attributed to non-climatic factors (∆Qanc) with forest coverage data series as a dynamic regressor in the study watersheds. Figure 6 shows the predicted values of accumulated dry season runoff variation attributed to non-climatic factors by established ARIMAX models. There are significant differences between accumulated dry season runoff variation attributed to non-climatic factors and its predicted values in the Zagunao and Meijiang watersheds.
Figure 7 shows the estimated dry season runoff variation attributed to climate variability, forest change and other factors during the disturbed period in the study watersheds. Dry season runoff variation attributed to climate variability, forest change and other factors over the whole disturbed period (1976–2004) in the Zagunao watershed were 23.2 mm, −15.5 mm and −3.5 mm, respectively; and the relative contributions of climate variability, forest change and other factors to dry season runoff were 34.1%, 38.7% and 27.1%, respectively. In the Meijiang watershed, dry season runoff variation attributed to climate variability, forest change and other factors over the disturbed period was 58.0 mm, −6.3 mm and 4.6 mm, respectively, and their relative contributions were 45.8%, 25.7% and 28.5%, respectively (Table 7).
In addition, the impact of forest change on dry season runoff changed over time with forest recovery or regrowth. Over the period of 1976–1994, with mean forest coverage 37.7% less than the reference period, dry season runoff was reduced by 25 mm/year on average in the Zagunao watershed. During the period of 1995–2004, with limited forest harvesting, dry season runoff was averagely increased by 2.6 mm/year in this watershed. In the Meijiang watershed, dry season runoff decreased by 76.1 mm/year with increasing forest coverage over the period of 1987–1994, while during the period of 1995–2005, dry season runoff increased by 44.5 mm/year due to continuing forest cover gain.

4. Discussion

4.1. Dry Season Runoff Response to Forest Change

In the Zagunao watershed, dry season runoff reduced by 15.5 mm (9.7%) on average as a result of a 15.6% forest reduction due to forest harvesting from 1976–2004. This result was consistent with a qualitative study that detected a significant, positive correlation between forest harvesting rate and dry season runoff in the Zagunao watershed [29]. An experimental study in this watershed also showed that dry season runoff in a clear-cut site was lower than an undisturbed site [44]. However, the response of dry season runoff to forest harvesting varied over time as suggested by Figure 7. In the first few years after the breakpoint (1976–1982), dry season runoff was increased by forest harvesting due to the decrease in forest canopy interception and transpiration, resulting in more soil infiltration and soil water for the generation of dry season runoff. Several years later with the fast regeneration of understory vegetation and secondary broad-leaved forests such as birch, the effect of forest harvesting on dry season runoff became negative. The natural coniferous forests feature lower evaporation and transpiration and higher water conservation capacity, while the regenerated young broad-leaved trees were found to transpire more water than previous old-growth coniferous trees, resulting in a reduction of soil moisture [45]. In addition, given that natural forests are normally distributed on steep slopes in the Zagunao watershed, summer storms can cause severe soil loss and erosion without forest cover, leading to less soil water storage and recharge for groundwater in the wet season [46]. Since dry season runoff is mostly sustained by groundwater and soil water, reduced soil infiltration, water storage and groundwater caused by forest harvesting consequently yielded a negative effect on dry season runoff [27]. From 1995–2004, the negative effect of forest harvesting on dry season runoff diminished. Forest change increased dry season runoff by 1.6% (2.6 mm). This is due to the fact that forest harvesting gradually ceased and early plantation of Picea asperata Mast at the clear-cut sites started to mature in the late 1980s, which led to a gradual recovery of the water conservation capacity of forests in the Zagunao watershed.
Interestingly, large-scale plantation in the Meijiang watershed also yielded a negative effect on dry season runoff over the whole study period, but about a 40% increment in forest coverage only resulted in a 6.3 mm/year reduction in dry season runoff. The plantation in the early years was especially associated with a significant reduction of dry season runoff. During 1987–1994, dry season runoff was decreased by 76.1 mm/year (32.7%) as a result of the 17.1% forest increment. This is likely because the planted trees were mainly Cunninghamia lanceolata and Pinus massoniana, which featured high transpiration and soil evaporation, poorly developed understory vegetation and low litter cover, particularly for immature stands [47]. Therefore, high water consumption by planted young trees coupled with poorly-developed water conservation capacity greatly reduced dry season runoff during the early development of forest stands. However, as reforestation proceeded along with early planted trees being mature, the sponge effect of forests emerged when forest coverage reached about 60%. Over the period of 1995–2005, dry season runoff was increased by 44.5 mm/year (19.1%). The mature stands tended to have lower evapotranspiration than young stands, but more developed understory and forest litter to conserve soil water, thus more infiltration for groundwater and more water available for dry season runoff generation [48].
Obviously, with a disproportionate relationship to forest coverage rate, the response of dry season runoff to forest change is mainly determined by soil conditions, soil disturbances, tree species and vegetation regeneration after disturbances, as well as watershed topography. The integrated effects of these factors can lead to the highly variable response of dry season runoff to forest change over time and among watersheds. These findings are of great importance for watershed managers to make strategies to sustain both water resources and forest ecosystems in forest watersheds.

4.2. Relative Contributions of Forest Change and Climate Variability on Dry Season Runoff

The relative contributions of forest change and climate variability to runoff variation can imply their impact strength [49,50,51]. As suggested by our calculation, the relative contributions of forest change and climate variability can be different among watersheds. In the Zagunao watershed, forest change is more influential on dry season runoff than climate variability. The relative contribution of forest change to dry season runoff variation was 38.7%, while that of climate variability was 34.1%. On the contrary, climate variability was the major driver for dry season runoff variation in the Meijiang watershed. The relative contribution of climate variability was up to 45.8%, much greater than that of forest change (25.7%), in this watershed. The different result in these two watersheds clearly demonstrated that forests play a more important role in the water cycle in the Zagunao watershed than in the Meijiang watershed. In other words, dry season runoff in the Zagunao watershed can be more sensitive to forest change than that in the Meijiang watershed. Subalpine old-growth coniferous forests in the Zagunao watershed characterized by low transpiration and evaporation, high canopy interception and soil water storage are crucial for sustaining a stable water supply in the dry season [52,53]. Once they are harvested, it will take a long time to reach a full hydrological recovery. This highlights the importance of protection of subalpine natural forests in the upper streams of the Yangtze River. In spite of large-scale plantation with a forest coverage increment of 40% in the Meijiang watershed, its contribution to dry season runoff was relatively low. This suggests that planted forests in this watershed are poorly managed, especially for understory vegetation and forest litter [12]. This calls for a better design of forest operations and plantation management, for example site preparation, establishment, thinning, management of understory and litter. A sound plantation strategy should not only aim to increase biomass, but also recover the hydrological function of forests to ensure a stable water supply in dry seasons.

4.3. Limitations and Future Studies

Our improved single watershed approach combining MDMC and ARIMAX can successfully separate the impact of forest change, climate variability and other factor on dry season runoff over a watershed scale. It can yield a quick assessment of the relative contributions of climate variability, land cover/land use change and other factors (human activities such as urbanization, agricultural activities, infrastructure and road construction) on runoff variations and can be widely applied in any watershed with fewer data requirements. Nevertheless, this single watershed approach fails to identify the impact of climate variability and forest change on other hydrological processes such as soil water and evapotranspiration, as well as low flows and peak flows. In addition, it cannot quantify the spatial differences in hydrological response to forest change at a watershed scale. Therefore, a physically-based hydrological model should also be used in future studies to quantify responses of various hydrological processes to forest change and climate variability and to investigate their feedback mechanism over a large spatial scale.

5. Conclusions

Forest loss caused by harvesting generally yielded a negative effect on dry season runoff in the Zagunao watershed. In the Meijiang watershed, forest gains due to large-scale planation also produced a negative impact on dry season runoff over the disturbed period. However, the hydrological response to forest change varied over time due to vegetation regeneration-associated changes in soil infiltration and evapotranspiration. In addition, dry season runoff in the Zagunao watershed can be more sensitive to forest change than that in the Meijiang watershed. This highlights the protection of the subalpine natural forest ecosystem in the Zagunao River and better planning of forest operations and management incorporated trade-off between carbon and water.

Acknowledgments

This research was supported by the international scientific and technical cooperation project “Enhancing subtropical plantation carbon sink and multiple-purpose management system planning” (No. 2015DFA31440), the Special Research Program for Public-welfare Forestry “Effects of climate change on forest water and carbon balance and adaptive ecological restoration” (No. 201404201) and the China National Science Foundation (No. 31770759 and No. 31400489).

Author Contributions

Yiping Hou performed the data analysis and wrote the paper. Mingfang Zhang conceived of and designed the research. Zuozhu Meng collected the vegetation data. Shirong Liu and Pengsen Sun co-wrote the section ‘Discussion’. Taoli Yang interpreted the vegetation data.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Van Dijk, A.; Peña-Arancibia, J.; Bruijnzeel, L. Land cover and water yield: Inference problems when comparing catchments with mixed land cover. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 3461–3473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  2. Sahin, V.; Hall, M. The effects of afforestation and deforestation on water yields. J. Hydrol. 1996, 178, 293–309. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Stednick, J. Monitoring the effects of timber harvest on annual water yield. J. Hydrol. 1996, 176, 79–95. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Andreassian, V. Watershed and forests: From historical controversy to scientific debate. J. Hydrol. 2004, 291, 1–27. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Brown, A.; Zhang, L.; McMahon, T.A.; Western, A.W.; Vertessy, R.A. A review of paired catchment studies for determining changes in water yield resulting from alterations in vegetation. J. Hydrol. 2005, 310, 28–61. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Bruijnzeel, L. Hydrological functions of tropical forests: Not seeing the soils for the trees. Agric. Ecosyst. Environ. 2004, 104, 185–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Moore, R.; Wondzell, S. Physical hydrology and the effects of forest harvesting in the Pacific Northwest: A review. J. Am. Water Reour. Assoc. 2005, 41, 763–784. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Calder, I.R. Blue Revolution–Integrated Land and Water Resources Management, 2nd ed.; Earthscan: London, UK, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  9. Bosch, J.; Hewlett, J. A review of catchment experiments to determine the effect of vegetation changes on water yield and evapotranspiration. J. Hydrol. 1982, 55, 3–23. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Hicks, B.J.; Beschta, R.L.; Harr, R.D. Long-term changes in streamflow following logging in western Oregon and associated fisheries implications. Water Resour. Bull. 1991, 27, 217–226. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Chandler, D.G. Reversibility of forest conversion impacts on water budgets in tropical karst terrain. For. Ecol. Manag. 2006, 224, 81–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Van Dijk, A.I.J.M.; Keenan, R.J. Planted forests and water in perspective. For. Ecol. Manag. 2007, 251, 1–9. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Carvalho-Santos, C.; Nunes, J.; Monteiro, A.; Hein, L.; Honrado, J. Assessing the effects of land cover and future climate conditions on the provision of hydrological services in a medium-sized watershed of Portugal. Hydrol. Process. 2016, 30, 720–738. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Scott, D.; Prinsloo, F. Longer-term effects of pine and eucalypt plantations on streamflow. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, W00A08. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Costa, M.; Botta, A.; Cardille, J. Effects of large-scale changes in land cover on the discharge of the Tocantins River, Southeastern Amazonia. J. Hydrol. 2003, 283, 206–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Tuteja, N.; Vaze, J.; Teng, J.; Mutendeudzi, M. Partitioning the effects of pine plantations and climate variability on runoff from a large catchment in southeastern Australia. Water Resour. Res. 2007, 43, W08415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Rodionov, S. A brief overview of the regime shift detection methods. In Large-Scale Disturbances (Regime Shifts) and Recovery in Aquatic Ecosystems: Challenges for Management toward Sustainability; Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Ocean, University of Washington: Seattle, WA, USA, 2005. [Google Scholar]
  18. Amatya, D.M.; Sun, G.; Rossi, C.G.; Segane, H.S.; Nettles, J.E.; Panda, S. Forests, Land Use Change, and Water, Impact of Climate Change on Water Resources in Agriculture; Rodrigues, R., Ed.; CRC Press/Taylor & Francis: Boca Raton, FL, USA, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  19. Sun, G.; Amatya, D.; McNulty, S. Forest hydrology. In Systems Hydrology, Handbook of Applied Hydrology; Sing, V.V., Ed.; Southern Research Station: Asheville, NC, USA, 2016. [Google Scholar]
  20. Putz, G.; Burke, J.; Smith, D.W.; Chanasyk, D.S.; Prepas, E.E.; Mapfumo, E. Modelling the effects of boreal forest landscape management upon streamflow and water quality: Basic concepts and considerations. J. Environ. Eng. Sci. 2003, S2, 87–101. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Wei, X.; Liu, W.; Zhou, P. Quantifying the relative contributions of forest change and climatic variability to hydrology in large watersheds: A critical review of research methods. Water 2013, 5, 728–746. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Kirchner, J.W. Getting the right answers for the right reasons: Linking measurements, analyses, and models to advance the science of hydrology. Water Resour. Res. 2006, 42, W03S04. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Beven, K. The future of distributed models: Model calibration and uncertainty prediction. Hydrol. Process. 1992, 6, 279–298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Dooge, J.C.I.; Bruen, M.; Parmentier, B. A simple model for estimating the sensitivity of runoff to long–term changes in precipitation without a change in vegetation. Adv. Water Resour. 1999, 23, 153–163. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Wei, X.; Zhang, M. Quantifying streamflow change caused by forest disturbance at a large spatial scale: A single watershed study. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46, W12525. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Zhang, M.; Wei, X. The effects of cumulative forest disturbance on streamflow in a large watershed in the central interior of British Columbia, Canada. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2012, 16, 2021–2034. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  27. Zhang, M.; Wei, X.; Sun, P.; Liu, S. The effect of forest harvesting and climatic variability on runoff in a large watershed: The case study in the Upper Minjiang River of Yangtze River basin. J. Hydrol. 2012, 464–465, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Zhang, M.; Wei, X.; Li, Q. Do the hydrological responses to forest disturbances in large watersheds vary along climatic gradients in the interior of British Columbia, Canada? Ecohydrology 2017, 10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Yao, Y.F.; Cai, T.J.; Wei, X.H.; Zhang, M.F.; Ju, C.Y. Effect of forest recovery on summer streamflow in small forested watersheds, Northeastern China. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 26, 1208–1214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Liu, W.; Wei, X.; Liu, S.; Liu, Y.; Fan, H.; Zhang, M.; Yin, J.; Zhan, M. How do climate and forest changes affect long-term streamflow dynamics? A case study in the upper reach of Poyang River basin. Ecohydrology 2014, 8, 46–57. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Zhang, X.; Zhang, L.; Zhao, J.; Rustomji, P.; Hairsine, P. Responses of streamflow to changes in climate and land use/cover in the Loess Plateau, China. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, W00A07. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Spearman, C. Demonstration of formulae for true measurement of correlation. Am. J. Psychol. 1907, 33, 55–62. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Mann, H. Non-parametric tests against trend. Econometrica 1945, 13, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Kendall, M. Rank Correlation Measures; Charles Griffin: London, UK, 1975; p. 202. [Google Scholar]
  35. Siriwardena, L.; Finlayson, B.L.; McMahon, T.A. The impact of land use change on catchment hydrology in large catchments: The Comet River, Central Queensland, Australia. J. Hydrol. 2006, 326, 199–214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Wigbout, M. Limitations in the use of double mass curves. J. Hydrol. 1973, 12, 132–138. [Google Scholar]
  37. Zhang, L.; Dawes, W.; Walker, G. Response of mean annual evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 37, 701–708. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  38. Hargreaves, G.; Samani, Z. Reference crop evapotranspiration from temperature. Appl. Eng. Agric. 1985, 1, 96–99. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Box, G.E.P.; Cox, D.R. An analysis of transformations. J. R. Stat. Soc. B 1964, 26, 211–252. [Google Scholar]
  40. Box, G.E.P.; Jenkins, G.M. Time Series Analysis: Forecasting and Control; Holden Day: San Francisco, CA, USA, 1976. [Google Scholar]
  41. Engle, R.; Watson, M. A one-factor multivariate time series model of metropolitan wage rates. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1981, 76, 774–781. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Brocklebank, J.; Dickey, D. SAS for Forecasting Time Series, 2nd ed.; John Wiley: New York, NY, USA, 2003. [Google Scholar]
  43. Law, T.H.; Umar, R.S.R.; Zulkaurnain, S.; Kulanthayan, S. Impact of the effect of economic crisis and the targeted motorcycle safety programme on motorcycle-related accidents, injuries and fatalities in Malaysia. Int. J. Inj. Control Saf. Promot. 2005, 12, 9–21. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  44. Ma, X. The impacts of forest harvesting on stream discharge and sediment in the upper Minjiang River Basin. Nat. Res. J. 1980, 5, 78–87. [Google Scholar]
  45. Löf, M.; Paulsson, R.; Dan, R.; Welander, N.T. The influence of different overstory removal on planted spruce and several broadleaved tree species: Survival, growth and pine weevil damage during three years. Ann. For. Sci. 2005, 62, 237–244. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Liu, S.; Sun, P.; Wang, J.; Chen, L. Hydrological Functions of Forest Vegetation in Upper Reaches of the Yangtze River. J. Nat. Res. 2001, 16, 451–456. [Google Scholar]
  47. Chen, C.; Zhang, J.; Zhou, C.; Zheng, H. Researches on improving the quality of forest land and the productivity of artificial Cunninghamia lanceolata stands. J. Appl. Ecol. 1990, 1, 97–106. [Google Scholar]
  48. Amiro, B.D.; Barr, A.G.; Black, T.A.; Iwashita, H.; Kljun, N.; McCaughey, J.H.; Morgenstern, K.; Murayama, S.; Nesic, S.; Orchansky, A.L.; et al. Carbon, energy and water fluxes at mature and disturbed forest sites, Saskatchewan, Canada. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2006, 136, 237–251. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Li, Z.; Liu, W.; Zhang, X.; Zheng, F. Impacts of land use change and climate variability on hydrology in an agriculture catchment on the Loess Plateau of China. J. Hydrol. 2009, 377, 35–42. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Ma, Z.; Kang, S.; Zhang, L.; Tong, L. Analysis of impacts of climate variability and human activity on stream flow for a river basin in arid region of northwest China. J. Hydrol. 2008, 352, 239–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Zheng, H.; Zhang, L.; Zhu, C.; Liu, C.; Sato, Y.; Fukushima, Y. Responses of streamflow to climate and land surface change in the headwaters of the Yellow River Basin. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, W00A19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Harr, D.R. Potential for augmenting water yield through forest practices in western Washington and western Oregon. Water Resour. Bull. 1983, 19, 383–393. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Van der Weert, R. Hydrological conditions in Indonesia; Delft Hydraulics: Jakarta, Indonesia, 1994; p. 72. [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. The location of the study watersheds.
Figure 1. The location of the study watersheds.
Forests 09 00046 g001
Figure 2. Forest coverage in (a) the Zagunao watershed and (b) the Meijiang watershed.
Figure 2. Forest coverage in (a) the Zagunao watershed and (b) the Meijiang watershed.
Forests 09 00046 g002
Figure 3. An example of modified double mass curve (MDMC) (unit: mm).
Figure 3. An example of modified double mass curve (MDMC) (unit: mm).
Forests 09 00046 g003
Figure 4. An example of 95% CI. Note: ∆Qd located beyond 95% CI are viewed as data points affected by both of the other factors and statistical errors, while ∆Qd within 95% CI are viewed as data points with statistical errors. CI: confidence interval.
Figure 4. An example of 95% CI. Note: ∆Qd located beyond 95% CI are viewed as data points affected by both of the other factors and statistical errors, while ∆Qd within 95% CI are viewed as data points with statistical errors. CI: confidence interval.
Forests 09 00046 g004
Figure 5. Modified double mass curves in (a) the Zagunao and (b) the Meijiang watersheds.
Figure 5. Modified double mass curves in (a) the Zagunao and (b) the Meijiang watersheds.
Forests 09 00046 g005
Figure 6. Observed and predicted accumulated dry season runoff variation attributed to forest change in (a) the Zagunao watershed and (b) the Meijiang watershed.
Figure 6. Observed and predicted accumulated dry season runoff variation attributed to forest change in (a) the Zagunao watershed and (b) the Meijiang watershed.
Forests 09 00046 g006
Figure 7. Dry season runoff variation attributed to climate variability (∆Qc), forest change (∆Qf) and other factors (∆Qo) in (a) the Zagunao watershed and (b) the Meijiang watershed.
Figure 7. Dry season runoff variation attributed to climate variability (∆Qc), forest change (∆Qf) and other factors (∆Qo) in (a) the Zagunao watershed and (b) the Meijiang watershed.
Forests 09 00046 g007
Table 1. A summary of watershed characteristics.
Table 1. A summary of watershed characteristics.
MetricsZagunaoMeijiang
Drainage area2441.77 km²6310.13 km²
Climate typeAlpine climateSubtropical monsoon climate
Hydrological yearNovember–OctoberMarch–February
Dry seasonNovember–AprilSeptember–February
T (°C)11.218.4
Td (°C)5.514.0
P (mm)999.71735.5
Pd (mm)184.4447.8
Q (mm)773.4857.7
Qd (mm)160.4233.0
Note: Td, Pd and Qd refer to dry season temperature, dry season precipitation and dry season runoff.
Table 2. Land use/cover in the study watersheds.
Table 2. Land use/cover in the study watersheds.
Land Use Types% of Total Watershed Area
ZagunaoMeijiang
Forest land37.0068.75
Orchard12.008.48
Farmland0.4920.39
Urban or built-up land0.011.01
Grassland47.001.37
Snow and Ice3.500.00
Table 3. Results of trend analysis in the study watersheds.
Table 3. Results of trend analysis in the study watersheds.
VariablesZagunaoMeijiang
Kendall TauSpearman RhoKendall TauSpearman Rho
Annual runoff0.32 *0.46 *0.010.00
Dry season runoff0.40 *0.57 *−0.03−0.06
Annual precipitation0.140.230.100.10
Dry season precipitation−0.13−0.14−0.15−0.25
Annual mean temperature0.090.150.47 *0.65 *
Annual maximum temperature0.220.320.54 *0.71 *
Annual minimum temperature−0.15−0.220.44 *0.61 *
Dry season mean temperature0.070.090.39 *0.53 *
Annual evapotranspiration0.10−0.120.120.16
Dry season evapotranspiration−0.17−0.23−0.07−0.13
Forest coverage0.77 *0.92 *−0.98 *−0.99 *
* Significant at α = 0.05.
Table 4. ARIMA Intervention models for the slope of MDMC.
Table 4. ARIMA Intervention models for the slope of MDMC.
WatershedAP PartInt PartMA PartIntervention PartChange TypeModel StructureMS
CP1CP2
p(1)p(2)d(1)q(1)Ω(1)(1)Ω(2)(2)
Zagunao000−0.98 (p = 0.00)1.90 (p = 0.00)−0.33 (p = 0.03)00GPLn(x) (0,0,1)0.69
Meijiang−0.95 (p = 0.00)−0.68 (p = 0.00)10−0.78 (p = 0.03)−0.95 (p = 0.00)−0.94 (p = 0.03)−0.98 (p = 0.00)GPLn(x) (2,1,0)0.16
Note: p, d and q are parameters for autoregression, differencing and moving average; Ω and are parameters for intervention; AR part, Int part and MA part refer to the autoregressive part, the integrated part and the moving average part, respectively; CP, GP and MS refer to the change point, gradual permanent change and model residual, respectively. ARIMA: autoregressive integrated moving average; MDMC: modified double mass curve.
Table 5. Wilcoxon test and Sign test for significance of differences in predicted dry season runoff and observed dry season runoff in reference and disturbed periods.
Table 5. Wilcoxon test and Sign test for significance of differences in predicted dry season runoff and observed dry season runoff in reference and disturbed periods.
WatershedPeriodWilcoxon TestSign Test
ZagunaoReference period (1959–1975)0.31 (p = 0.758)0.22 (p = 0.737)
Disturbed period (1976–2004)4.00 * (p = 0.000)2.97 * (p = 0.003)
MeijiangReference period (1961–1986)0.65 (p = 0.517)0.59 (p = 0.556)
Disturbed period (1987–1994)2.52 * (p = 0.011)2.47 * (p = 0.013)
Disturbed period (1995–2005)2.93 * (p = 0.003)3.02 * (p = 0.003)
* Significant at α = 0.05.
Table 6. ARIMAX models for accumulation of forest coverage and ∆Qanc0.
Table 6. ARIMAX models for accumulation of forest coverage and ∆Qanc0.
WatershedModel StructureParameter Estimation
p(1)q(1)cForest Coverage
ZagunaoAccumulation of forest coverage: ARIMA(1,1,1)0.59 (p < 0.001)0.78 (p < 0.001)//
Qanc0: ARIMAX(0,0,1)/1.24 (p < 0.001)−190.5 (p < 0.005)−112.4 (p < 0.001)
MeijiangAccumulation of forest coverage: ARIMA(1,1,1)0.626 (p < 0.000)0.795 (p < 0.001)//
Qanc0: ARIMAX(1,0,0)0.601 (p < 0.001)/−1283.136 (p < 0.001)509.451 (p < 0.001)
Note: p is autoregressive parameter; q is moving average parameter; c stands for constant.
Table 7. Dry season runoff variations to climate variability, forest change and other factors in the study watersheds.
Table 7. Dry season runoff variations to climate variability, forest change and other factors in the study watersheds.
WatershedPhaseQ (mm)Qc (mm)Qf (mm)Qo (mm)Qc (%)Qf (%)Qo (%)Q (%)Rc (%)Rf (%)Ro (%)F (%)Reference F (%)
Zagunao1976–1994−4.8 ± 5.222.0 ± 19.5−25.0 ± 22.1−1.8 ± 17.313.7 ± 12.2−15.6 ± 13.8−1.1 ± 10.8−3.0 ± 3.238.2 ± 3.238.8 ± 4.323.1 ± 4.937.7 45.4
1995–200421.3 ± 7.025.4 ± 42.42.6 ± 52.9−6.7 ± 46.115.8 ± 26.41.6 ± 33.0−4.2 ± 28.813.3 ± 4.326.4 ± 5.238.4 ± 5.035.2 ± 5.037.5
1976–20044.2 ± 4.723.2 ± 19.0−15.5 ± 22.8−3.5 ± 19.014.5 ± 11.8−9.7 ± 14.2−2.2 ± 11.92.6 ± 2.934.1 ± 2.938.7 ± 3.327.2 ± 3.737.5
Meijiang1987–199427.1 ± 24.9121.2 ± 68.2−76.1 ± 60.6−18.0 ± 46.352.0 ± 29.3−32.7 ± 26.0−7.7 ± 19.911.6 ± 10.735.8 ± 7.735.1 ± 8.829.0 ± 9.247.1 30.0
1995–200577.6 ± 56.512.1 ± 61.844.5 ± 11.721.0 ± 25.65.2 ± 26.519.1 ± 5.09.0 ± 11.033.3 ± 24.253.0 ± 6.318.9 ± 4.628.1 ± 6.769.2
1987–200556.3 ± 34.158.0 ± 46.4−6.3 ± 29.04.6 ± 24.124.9 ± 19.9−2.7 ± 12.52.0 ± 10.424.2 ± 14.645.8 ± 5.225.7 ± 4.828.5 ± 5.359.9
Note: ∆Q%, ∆Qf%, ∆Qc% and ∆Qo% are relative dry season mean flow variation (∆Q% = ∆Q/Q × 100%, Q is average dry season mean flow), relative dry season mean flow variation attributed to forest change (∆Qf% = ΔQf/Q × 100%), relative dry season mean flow variation attributed to climate variability (∆Qc% = ΔQc/Q × 100%) and relative dry season mean flow variation attributed to other factors (∆Qo% = ΔQo/Q × 100%). Rf, Rc, Ro, F are the relative contributions of forest change, climate variability, other factors and forest coverage, respectively. Rf = |∆Qf|/(|ΔQf| + |ΔQc| + |ΔQo|) × 100%; Rc = 100 × |ΔQc|/(|ΔQf| + |ΔQc| + |ΔQo|) × 100%; Ro = |ΔQo|/(|ΔQf| + |ΔQc| + |ΔQo|) × 100%.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Hou, Y.; Zhang, M.; Meng, Z.; Liu, S.; Sun, P.; Yang, T. Assessing the Impact of Forest Change and Climate Variability on Dry Season Runoff by an Improved Single Watershed Approach: A Comparative Study in Two Large Watersheds, China. Forests 2018, 9, 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9010046

AMA Style

Hou Y, Zhang M, Meng Z, Liu S, Sun P, Yang T. Assessing the Impact of Forest Change and Climate Variability on Dry Season Runoff by an Improved Single Watershed Approach: A Comparative Study in Two Large Watersheds, China. Forests. 2018; 9(1):46. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9010046

Chicago/Turabian Style

Hou, Yiping, Mingfang Zhang, Zuozhu Meng, Shirong Liu, Pengsen Sun, and Taoli Yang. 2018. "Assessing the Impact of Forest Change and Climate Variability on Dry Season Runoff by an Improved Single Watershed Approach: A Comparative Study in Two Large Watersheds, China" Forests 9, no. 1: 46. https://doi.org/10.3390/f9010046

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