You are currently viewing a new version of our website. To view the old version click .
Sustainability
  • Article
  • Open Access

21 January 2023

Detection Framework of Abrupt Changes and Trends in Rainfall Erosivity in Three Gorges Reservoir, China

,
,
and
1
Changjiang River Scientific Research Institute, Wuhan 430015, China
2
Research Center on Mountain Torrent and Geologic Disaster Prevention, Ministry of Water Resources, Wuhan 430010, China
3
Wuhan Hydrology and Water Resources Survey Bureau, Wuhan 430074, China
4
State Key Lab Soil Erosion Dryland Farming Loess Plateau, Institute of Soil and Water Conservation, Chinese Academy of Sciences and Ministry of Water Resources, Bureau, Xianyang 712100, China
This article belongs to the Special Issue Advances in Sustainable and Environmental Hydrology, Hydrogeology and Water Resources

Highlights

What are the main findings?
  • Variations in the form of trends and abrupt changes are distinguished.
What is the implication of the main finding?
  • Using the single-test method produced large uncertainty. Trend tests were performed separately from abrupt change tests to assess the long-term changes in rainfall erosivity series, which would result in the wrong conclusion.

Abstract

Rainfall erosivity is commonly used to estimate the probability of soil erosion caused by rainfall. The accurate detection of temporal changes in rainfall erosivity and the identification of abrupt changes and trends are important for understanding the physical causes of variation. In this study, a detection framework is introduced to identify temporal changes in rainfall erosivity time series as follows: (i) The significance of time series variation of rainfall erosivity is assessed based on the Hurst coefficient and divided into three levels: None, medium, and high. (ii) The detection of abrupt changes (Mann–Kendall, Moving T, and Bayesian tests) and trends (Spearman and Kendall rank correlation tests) of variate series and the correlation coefficient between the variation component and the original series is calculated. (iii) The modified series is obtained by preferentially eliminating the variation component (trend or change point) with larger correlation coefficients. (iv) We substituted the modified series into steps i to iii until the correlation coefficient was not significant. This framework is used to analyze the variation of rainfall erosivity in the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. The results showed that by using traditional methods, both an increasing trend and an upward change point were observed in Zigui station. However, after the upward change point was deducted from the annual rainfall erosivity series R(t), the resultant Rm(t) showed no statistically significant trend. Trend analysis should be performed considering the existence of an abrupt change to assess the long-term changes in rainfall erosivity series; otherwise, it would result in the wrong conclusion. In addition, the change points detected in the Rm(t) varied with the methods. Compared with the single-test method, the proposed framework can effectively reduce uncertainty.

1. Introduction

Global warming and intensive human activities have exacerbated and triggered extreme rainfall events, increasing the risk of water and soil loss and environmental deterioration [1,2,3]. Rainfall erosivity (R factor), in the Universal Soil Loss Equation (USLE) [4] and the Revised USLE (RUSLE) [5], is used worldwide to assess and predict the potential of rainfall to cause erosion [6]. Understanding the variation of rainfall erosivity is critical for sediment yield modeling and land use management. After the construction and operation of the Three Gorges Dam, the seasonal distribution of precipitation changed, and non-stationary changes such as the change point and trend have been found on the watershed scale [7,8]. Thus, determining how to diagnose the physical causes of variation and evaluate the significance levels of complex variability in rainfall erosivity series are important issues in the Three Gorges Reservoir (TGR) area.
Temporal variations in rainfall erosivity have been extensively studied by scholars, both on basin and region scales. A number of test methods have been used to detect the abrupt changes or trends of rainfall erosivity. For the trend cases, Nunes et al. [9] investigated the precipitation and erosivity in southern Portugal by using Spearman’s rank correlation and found increasing trends in precipitation erosivity during autumn and summer. Fenta et al. [10] complemented the least-squares regression with the Kendall’ tau test in rainfall erosivity trends analysis. By adopting the Mann–Kendall test and Theil and Sen’s method, Wang et al. [11] found that rainfall erosivity in the source region of the Three rivers showed an upward trend. For the abrupt change cases, the non-parametric Mann–Kendall test was employed to test abrupt changes in rainfall erosivity [12,13]. Traditional statistical methods such as the moving T/F test [14,15], the rank sum test [16], Bayesian analysis [17], and the Pettitt test method [18] are regularly used for abrupt change detection. Regarding the nonlinear and nonstationary rainfall erosivity, Lü et al. [19] used the heuristic segmentation method in abrupt change detection.
In detecting the trends and abrupt changes in rainfall erosivity series, accurate detection is very essential to soil erosion prediction, sediment management, and conservation planning. Although there are many methods for detecting temporal variations in rainfall erosivity, as discussed above, each method has its advantages and weaknesses, and they may not be able to reasonably identify the variations [20,21,22]. For example, the Bayesian analysis method is applicable when the data follow the exponential family distribution [23]. Gocic and Trajkovic [24] reported that the Mann–Kendall test is not suitable for time series with multiple abrupt changes. The parametric tests, such as moving T and F tests, would result in unreliable results when the observed data do not meet the assumptions [25,26]. Non-parametric tests, such as the Kendall test [27] and Spearman test [28], are usually proposed to detect trends but cannot quantify the statistical significance. Generally, the application of a single method to describe the temporal variation is reasonably difficult to identify, and results are highly influenced by the methods used [22]. Previous research studies have focused on spatial-temporal variation in rainfall erosivity, but few have studied whether these changes really exist.
This paper proposes a framework using Hurst and correlation coefficients as indicators to improve detection accuracy and perform significance grading. The proposed framework is applied to analyze the variation of rainfall erosivity in the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. The aim of this study is to (1) analyze the spatial distribution of annual precipitation/rainfall erosivity in the TGR area and (2) provide a scientific basis for accurate analysis of rainfall erosivity.

2. Methods

2.1. Methodological Framework

A detection framework is introduced to identify the temporal changes of rainfall erosivity (in Figure 1). Firstly, as shown in Table 1, the Hurst coefficient (H) is used to quantitatively characterize the long-term correlation of the time series [29,30], which is evaluated for rainfall erosivity time series, and the significance levels of H value are graded into three levels: None, medium, and high. Secondly, the abrupt changes and trends are detected for variate series. The correlation coefficient method is employed to confirm the effectiveness of the correlation coefficient index. The significance levels of abrupt changes and trends of rainfall erosivity series are also divided into three ranks: None, medium, and high. Thirdly, according to the principle of the maximum correlation coefficient, the change point or trend with the largest correlation coefficient is selected for its best interpretation of the impacts of changes. Finally, we removed the variation component (change point or trend) and larger correlation coefficients and substitute the modified series into steps one to three until the correlation coefficient is not significant.
Figure 1. The framework of temporal changes identification for rainfall erosivity time series.
Table 1. Hurst coefficient H of significance level classification for temporal variations in rainfall erosivity time series.

2.2. The Correlation Coefficient Method for Trend Detection

In the trend detection procedure, supposing that the rainfall erosivity series R t , t = 1 , 2 , , n has a significant trend, the original series is given as follows:
R t = a + b t + η t t = 1 , 2 , , n
where a and b are parameters, η t is the residual term, and R ¯ and t ¯ are the average values of Rt and t. Then, the correlation coefficient rt between the rainfall erosivity series Rt and t is estimated by:
r t = i = 1 n R i R ¯ t t ¯ i = 1 n R i R ¯ 2 i = 1 n t t ¯ 2
If the rt value is positive, it indicates that the R factor has an increasing trend and vice versa. In this study, r values at 95% and 99% confidence levels are taken as the thresholds, and the significance levels of trend changes are divided into three levels: None, medium, and high (Table 2).
Table 2. Correlation coefficient r of significance level classification for trends in rainfall erosivity time series.

2.3. The Correlation Coefficient Method for Abrupt Changes Detection

In order to obtain the correlation coefficient between the abrupt change component and the original series Rt, we divided Rt into two parts, Ra and Rb, according to the position of the change point τi, and the corresponding average values are given as follows:
R a ¯ = ( R 1 + R 2 + R τ i ) / τ i
R b ¯ = ( R τ i + 1 + R τ i + 2 + R n ) / n τ i
R ¯ = ( R 1 + R 2 + R n ) / n
where R a ¯ , R b ¯ , and R ¯ are the average values of Ra, Rb, and Rt with the size of τi, n-τi, and n, respectively. A new series Ct is generated as follows:
C t = R a ¯ t = 1 , 2 , , τ i R b ¯ t = τ i + 1 , τ i + 2 , , n
where Ct reflects the change point component in Rt. The average values of Ct are given as follows:
C ¯ = C 1 + C 2 + ... , + C n / n
The correlation coefficient ri between Rt and Ct is given by [31]:
r i = ± ( t = 1 n R t C t n R ¯ C ¯ ) 2 ( t = 1 n R t 2 n R ¯ 2 ) ( t = 1 n C t 2 n C ¯ 2 )
Let τ 1 , τ 2 , , τ m be the change points obtained by the selected methods, the correlation coefficients of which are r 1 , r 2 , , r m , respectively. For the purpose of detecting abrupt changes in rainfall erosivity, correlation coefficients r are calculated by Equation (8), and we analyzed which significance levels (Table 3) they belonged to and chose the position τ with the maximum correlation coefficient rmax as the jump-point.
Table 3. Coefficient r of significance level classification for abrupt changes in rainfall erosivity time series.
In this study, the moving T (MMT), Mann–Kendall (MKT), and Bayesian (BYS) tests are selected for abrupt change detection. Spearman rank correlation coefficients and Kendall correlation tests are employed to detect trends. The correlation coefficient and Hurst coefficient values at 95% and 99% confidence levels are taken as the thresholds.

4. Discussion

4.1. Performance of the Detection Framework

Variations in the form of trends and abrupt changes are hard to distinguish in statistical tests [37,38]. This study presented a four-step framework for detecting trends and abrupt changes based on Hurst and correlation coefficients. The detection of trends and change points suggested that the annual rainfall erosivity in Zigui has a weak increasing trend and a strong upward change point (Table 6). This result was in agreement with previous studies that rainfall erosivity increased in humid areas [11,39]. Generally, trend tests were performed separately from abrupt change tests to assess the long-term variations in time series [13]. However, after the upward change point was deducted from R(t), the resultant Rm(t) showed no statistically significant trend (Table 7). Similar studies were reported by Wang et al. [11] using the relative trend index (RT) and annual rainfall erosivity data in Qingshuihe station in the SRTR during the period of 1961–2012, and no significant trends were observed. Instead, when considering abrupt changes, an increasing trend was found in Qingshuihe station for the latest period of 1993–2012, generating new explanations of variations in rainfall erosivity. Interpretations of rainfall erosivity series are sensitive to the selection of statistical methods or models. Thus, a clear distinction between trends and abrupt changes is important to understand the physical causes or the variation in rainfall erosivity. In addition, the abrupt changes detected in the Rm(t) series varied with the methods. As shown in Table 7, both MTT and BYS found the same change point in 1963, while the change point obtained from MKT was in 1978. It is difficult to reasonably identify the change points with a single-test method [22] (Xie et al., 2019). Through this framework, the most reliable variation components can be extracted, which is an effective method to reduce uncertainty.

4.2. Possible Causes for The Rainfall Erosivity Changes

Temporal characteristics in rainfall erosivity are directly affected by changes in erosive rainfall events [40,41]. Yigzaw et al. [42] reported that a 4%−1 increase in extreme precipitation was found after the dam construction. An increase in precipitation was also observed in the TGR areas [19,43]. During the operation of the Three Gorges Dam, the waterway of TGR reached 660 km, with a water area of 1084 km2. Significant changes in land use and evaporation will lead to regional weather patterns change [44]. Hossain et al. [45] showed that dam construction can improve the convective effective potential energy, which may increase the chance of precipitation.
In addition, influenced by climate warming, the amount of precipitation and the number of extreme precipitation events showed an increasing trend in most areas [1]. During 1959–2013, the amount of extreme precipitation (daily rainfall amount > 95th percentile) in TGR increased by 6.48% per 1 °C [19]. Generally, precipitation intensity is related to raindrop kinetic energy, which has a great influence on potential erosivity [46]. At Zigui station, which is near the TGD, a significant linear relationship between rainfall erosivity and Q5 was found in both flood (R2 = 0.81) and no-flood (R2 = 0.67) seasons (Figure 7). Therefore, the possible causes for the variation in rainfall erosivity are attributed to an increase in rainfall intensity and duration.
Figure 7. Relationship between rainfall erosivity and erosive rainfall amounts at Zigui station during flood season (a) and no-flood season (b).

5. Conclusions

In this study, we proposed a detection framework for trends and abrupt changes in rainfall erosivity based on Hurst and correlation coefficients. Firstly, the Hurst coefficient was applied to detect the variations in rainfall erosivity at three ranks: None, medium, and high. Secondly, the correlation coefficient between variations (trends or abrupt changes) and the original series was estimated at three levels: None, medium, and high. Thirdly, the variation component of the maximum correlation coefficient was removed to obtain a modified series. Fourthly, we substituted the modified series into steps one to three until the correlation coefficient was not significant. This framework was used to analyze the variation of rainfall erosivity in the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Conclusions are drawn as follows:
  • The distribution of average annual rainfall erosivity showed a pattern of low ends and a high middle from the northeast to southwest TGR. The values of the Hurst coefficient showed no significant variation in annual rainfall erosivity time series for 7 stations, 63.6% of all 11 stations in the TGR, with 2 stations (Lichuan and Jianshi) having weak variation and 2 stations (Zigui and Fengjie) having strong variation.
  • An increasing trend and an upward change point in rainfall erosivity were observed in Zigui using traditional methods. However, after the upward change point was deducted from the annual rainfall erosivity series R(t), the resultant Rm(t) showed no statistically significant trend. This finding revealed that trend tests were performed separately from abrupt change tests to assess the long-term changes in rainfall erosivity series, which may lead to the wrong conclusion. In addition, the abrupt changes detected in the Rm(t) series varied with the methods.
  • At Zigui station, a significant linear relationship between rainfall erosivity and Q5 was found in both flood and no-flood seasons. The increase in heavy precipitation with a high intensity and long duration led to variations in rainfall erosivity.
Further research should analyze the impact of extreme rainfall events on erosion, and more research should aim for the quantitative description and classification of the changes in rainfall erosivity, especially the impact of hydrological periodical fluctuation.

Author Contributions

Methodology, J.L.; Resources, L.D.; Writing—original draft, Q.F.; Writing—review & editing, H.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was financially supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (2021YFE0111900), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (No. 51909011), Key R&D projects of Hubei Province (2021BAA186), and the Fundamental Research Funds for Central Public Welfare Research Institutes (No. CKSF2019410TB).

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

Not applicable..

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest in this paper.

References

  1. Donat, M.G.; Alexander, L.V.; Yang, H. Global land-based datasets for monitoring climatic extremes. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2013, 94, 997–1006. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Cao, L.; Pan, S. Changes in precipitation extremes over the “Three-River Headwaters” region, hinterland of the Tibetan Plateau, during 1960–2012. Quat. Int. 2014, 321, 105–115. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Eekhout, J.; Vente, J.D. Global impact of climate change on soil erosion and potential for adaptation through soil conservation. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2022, 226, 103921. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning; U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1978. [Google Scholar]
  5. Renard, K.G.; Foster, G.R.; Weesies, G.A.; McCool, D.; Yoder, D. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning With the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE); U.S. Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1997. [Google Scholar]
  6. Nearing, M.A.; Yin, S.Q.; Borrelli, P.; Polyakov, V.O. Rainfall erosivity: An historical review. Catena 2017, 157, 357–362. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  7. Fu, B.J.; Wu, B.F.; Lu, Y.H.; Xu, Z.H.; Cao, J.H.; Dong, N.; Yang, G.S.; Zhou, Y.M. Three Gores Project: Efforts and challenges for the environment. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2010, 34, 741–754. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Liu, H.; Zhang, G.; Zhang, P.; Zhu, S. Spatial Distribution and Temporal Trends of Rainfall Erosivity in Three Gorges Reservoir Area of China. Math. Probl. Eng. 2020, 1–15. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Nunes, A.N.; Lourenço, L.; Vieira, A.; Bento-Gonçalves, A. Precipitation and Erosivity in Southern Portugal: Seasonal Variability and Trends (1950–2008). Land Degrad. Dev. 2013, 27, 211–222. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Fenta, A.A.; Yasuda, H.; Shimizu, K.; Haregeweyn, N.; Kawai, T.; Sultan, D.; Ebabu, K.; Belay, A.S. Spatial distribution and temporal trends of rainfall and erosivity in the Eastern Africa region. Hydrol. Process. 2017, 31, 4555–4567. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wang, Y.; Cheng, C.; Xie, Y.; Liu, B.; Yin, S.; Liu, Y.; Hao, Y. Increasing trends in rainfall-runoff erosivity in the Source Region of the Three Rivers, 1961–2012. Sci. Total. Environ. 2017, 592, 639–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Qin, W.; Guo, Q.G.; Zuo, C.Q.; Shan, Z.J.; Ma, L.; Sun, G. Spatial distribution and temporal trends of rainfall erosivity in mainland China for 1951–2010. Catena 2016, 147, 177–186. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Gu, Z.J.; Duan, X.W.; Liu, B.; Hu, J.M.; He, J.N. The spatial distribution and temporal variation of rainfall erosivity in the Yunnan Plateau, Southwest China: 1960–2012. Catena 2016, 145, 291–300. [Google Scholar]
  14. Jackson, F.L.; Hannah, D.M.; Fryer, R.J.; Millar, C.P.; Malcolm, I.A. Development of spatial regression models for predicting summer river temperatures from landscape characteristics: Implications for land and fisheries management. Hydrol. Process. 2017, 31, 1225–1238. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  15. Joshi, M.K.; Pandey, A.C. Trend and spectral analysis of rainfall over India during 1901–2000. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2011, 116, D06104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Huang, S.; Chang, J.; Huang, Q.; Wang, Y.; Chen, Y. Spatio-Temporal Changes in Potential Evaporation Based on Entropy Across the Wei River Basin. Water Resour. Manag. 2014, 28, 4599–4613. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Shang, X.; Wang, D.; Singh, V.P.; Wang, Y.; Wu, J.; Liu, J.; Zou, Y.; He, R. Effect of Uncertainty in Historical Data on Flood Frequency Analysis Using Bayesian Method. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2021, 26, 04021011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Zuo, D.; Xu, Z.; Yang, H.; Liu, X. Spatiotemporal variations and abrupt changes of potential evapotranspiration and its sensitivity to key meteorological variables in the Wei River basin, China. Hydrol. Process. 2011, 26, 1149–1160. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Lü, M.Q.; Jiang, Y.; Chen, X.L.; Chen, J.L.; Wu, S.J.; Liu, J. Spatiotemporal Variations of Extreme Precipitation under a Changing Climate in the Three Gorges Reservoir Area (TGRA). Atmosphere 2018, 9, 24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Lloyd, C.E.M.; Freer, J.E.; Collins, A.L.; Johnes, P.J.; Jones, J.I. Methods for detecting change in hydrochemical time series in response to targeted pollutant mitigation in river catchments. J. Hydrol. 2014, 514, 297–312. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Turner, J.; Lu, H.; White, I.; King, J.C.; Phillips, T.; Hosking, J.S.; Bracegirdle, T.; Marshall, G.J.; Mulvaney, R.; Deb, P. Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability. Nature 2016, 535, 411–415. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Xie, P.; Gu, H.T.; Sang, Y.F.; Wu, Z.Y.; Singh, V.P. Comparison of different methods for detecting change points in hydroclimatic time series. J. Hydrol. 2019, 577, 123973. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Jo, S.; Kim, G.; Jeon, J.-J. Bayesian analysis to detect abrupt changes in extreme hydrological processes. J. Hydrol. 2016, 538, 63–70. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  24. Gocic, M.; Trajkovic, S. Analysis of changes in meteorological variables using Mann-Kendall and Sen’s slope estimator statistical tests in Serbia. Glob. Planet. Change 2013, 100, 172–182. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Shoemaker, L.H. Fixing the F test for equal variances. Am. Stat. 2003, 57, 105–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  26. Geisser, S. Testing Hypotheses. In Modes of Parametric Statistical Inference; Shewhart, W.A., Wilks, S.S., Geisser, S., Eds.; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2006. [Google Scholar]
  27. Kendall, M.; Stuart, A.; Ord, K.J.; Arnold, S. Kendall’s Advanced Theory of Statistics: Volume 2A-Classical Inference and the Linear Model (Kendall’s Library of Statistics), 6th ed.; Hodder Arnold Publication: London, UK, 1999. [Google Scholar]
  28. Lee, A.F.; Heghinian, S.M. A shift of the mean level in a sequence of independent normal random variables: A Bayesian approach. Technometrics 1977, 19, 503–506. [Google Scholar]
  29. Hurst, H.E. Long-Term Storage Capacity of Reservoirs. Trans. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng. 1951, 116, 770–808. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Xie, P.; Chen, G.C.; Lei, H.F. Hydrological alteration analysis method based on hurst coefficient. J. Basic Sci. Eng. 2009, 17, 3239, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  31. Murphy, K.R.; Myors, B.; Wolach, A. Statistical Power Analysis: A Simple and General Model for Traditional and Modern Hypothesis Tests; Routledge: New York, NY, USA, 2014; 244p. [Google Scholar]
  32. Ye, C.; Chen, C.; Butler, O.M.; Rashti, M.R.; Esfandbod, M.; Du, M.; Zhang, Q. Spatial and temporal dynamics of nutrients in riparian soils after nine years of operation of the Three Gorges Reservoir, China. Sci. Total. Environ. 2019, 664, 841–850. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  33. Wu, J.G.; Huang, J.H.; Han, X.G.; Gao, X.M.; He, F.L.; Jiang, M.X.; Jiang, Z.G.; Primack, R.B.; Shen, Z.H. The Three Gorges Dam: An ecological perspective. Front. Ecol. Environ. 2004, 2, 241–248. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Zhang, W.B.; Xie, Y.; Liu, B.Y. Rainfall erosivity estimation using daily rainfall amounts. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2004, 22, 705–711, (In Chinese with English Abstract). [Google Scholar]
  35. Richardson, C.W.; Foster, G.R.; Wright, D.A. Estimation of Erosion Index from Daily Rainfall Amount. Trans. ASAE 1983, 26, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Xie, Y.; Liu, B.Y.; Nearing, M.A. Practical Thresholds for Separating Erosive and Non-Erosive Storms. Trans. ASAE 2002, 45, 1843–1847. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Yevjevich, V.H. Stochastic Processes in Hydrology; Water Resources Publications: Littleton, CO, USA, 1972. [Google Scholar]
  38. Xiong, L.H.; Guo, S.L. Trend test and change-point detection for the annual discharge series of the Yangtze River at the Yichang hydrological station. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2004, 49, 99–112. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  39. Zhang, Y.; Chao, Y.; Fan, R.; Ren, F.; Qi, B.; Ji, K.; Xu, B. Spatial-temporal trends of rainfall erosivity and its implication for sustainable agriculture in the Wei River Basin of China. Agric. Water Manag. 2020, 106557. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Panagos, P.; Ballabio, C.; Borrelli, P.; Meusburger, K.; Klik, A.; Rousseva, S.; Tadić, M.P.; Michaelides, S.; Hrabalíková, M.; Olsen, P.; et al. Rainfall erosivity in Europe. Sci. Total. Environ. 2015, 511, 801–814. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  41. Shin, J.-Y.; Kim, T.; Heo, J.-H.; Lee, J.-H. Spatial and temporal variations in rainfall erosivity and erosivity density in South Korea. Catena 2019, 176, 125–144. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Yigzaw, W.; Hossain, F.; Kalyanapu, A. Impact of Artificial Reservoir Size and Land Use/Land Cover Patterns on Probable Maximum Precipitation and Flood: Case of Folsom Dam on the American River. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2013, 18, 1180–1190. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  43. Wu, L.; Zhang, Q.; Jiang, Z. Three Gorges Dam affects regional precipitation. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 331, 338–345. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Niyogi, D.; Kishtawal, C.; Tripathi, S.; Govindaraju, R. Observational evidence that agricultural intensification and land use change may be reducing the Indian summer monsoon rainfall. Water Resour. Res. 2010, 46, 91–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Hossain, F.; Jeyachandran, I.; Pielke, R. Have Large Dams Altered Extreme Precipitation Patterns? Eos 2009, 90, 453–454. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Ziadat, F.M.; Taimeh, A.Y. Effect of rainfall intensity, slope, land use and antecedent soil moisture on soil erosion in an arid environment. Land Degrad. Develop. 2013, 24, 582–590. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Article Metrics

Citations

Article Access Statistics

Multiple requests from the same IP address are counted as one view.