Author Contributions
Conceptualization, H.L. and Y.J.; methodology, H.L.; software, Y.J.; validation, C.N. and H.L.; formal analysis, P.H.; investigation, P.H. and J.D.; resources, J.D.; data curation, H.S.; writing—review and editing, Q.Z.; visualization, Y.J.; supervision, Y.J. and C.N.; project administration, H.L.; funding acquisition, Y.J. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Figure 1.
Geographical location of KMRSC.
Figure 1.
Geographical location of KMRSC.
Figure 2.
Water resources regions covered in the modelling domain. The modelling domain comprises of seven Class III Water Resources Regions (WRRs), namely, USS (Upstream Sina Station), SPR (South Panjiang River), NPR (North Panjiang River), HSR (HongShuihe River), LJR (LiuJiang River), YJR (YouJiang River), and ZYM (Zuojiang and Yujiang Main Stream).
Figure 2.
Water resources regions covered in the modelling domain. The modelling domain comprises of seven Class III Water Resources Regions (WRRs), namely, USS (Upstream Sina Station), SPR (South Panjiang River), NPR (North Panjiang River), HSR (HongShuihe River), LJR (LiuJiang River), YJR (YouJiang River), and ZYM (Zuojiang and Yujiang Main Stream).
Figure 3.
Representative data maps in the modelling domain: (a) meteorological and hydrological stations; (b) soil types; (c) land-use in 2015; and (d) annual average value of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI).
Figure 3.
Representative data maps in the modelling domain: (a) meteorological and hydrological stations; (b) soil types; (c) land-use in 2015; and (d) annual average value of Normalized Difference Vegetation Index (NDVI).
Figure 4.
Schematic illustration of distribution structure of Water and Energy transfer Processes model for Large river basins (WEP-L model): (a) horizontal structure and (b) vertical structure.
Figure 4.
Schematic illustration of distribution structure of Water and Energy transfer Processes model for Large river basins (WEP-L model): (a) horizontal structure and (b) vertical structure.
Figure 5.
Computation unit in the simulated model domain: (a) sub-watersheds and (b) contour belts.
Figure 5.
Computation unit in the simulated model domain: (a) sub-watersheds and (b) contour belts.
Figure 6.
Schematic representation of vertical hierarchical structure for karst system (modified from Perrin et al. [
11]).
Figure 6.
Schematic representation of vertical hierarchical structure for karst system (modified from Perrin et al. [
11]).
Figure 7.
Parameter tuning zones in the karst mountain region of southwest China.
Figure 7.
Parameter tuning zones in the karst mountain region of southwest China.
Figure 8.
Comparison of simulated monthly discharge and the statistical values at Sancha station: (a) considering epikarst zone and (b) without considering epikarst zone.
Figure 8.
Comparison of simulated monthly discharge and the statistical values at Sancha station: (a) considering epikarst zone and (b) without considering epikarst zone.
Figure 9.
Schematic illustration of model validation results: (a) Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) and (b) Relative error (RE).
Figure 9.
Schematic illustration of model validation results: (a) Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) and (b) Relative error (RE).
Figure 10.
Spatial distribution of annual average values of main water cycle fluxes in the modelling domain: (a) precipitation, (b) infiltration, and (c) evapotranspiration. The seven Class III WRRs include Upstream Sina Station (USS), South Panjiang River (SPR), North Panjiang River (NPR), HongShuihe River (HSR), LiuJiang River (LJR), YouJiang River (YJR), and Zuojiang and Yujiang Main stream (ZYM).
Figure 10.
Spatial distribution of annual average values of main water cycle fluxes in the modelling domain: (a) precipitation, (b) infiltration, and (c) evapotranspiration. The seven Class III WRRs include Upstream Sina Station (USS), South Panjiang River (SPR), North Panjiang River (NPR), HongShuihe River (HSR), LiuJiang River (LJR), YouJiang River (YJR), and Zuojiang and Yujiang Main stream (ZYM).
Figure 11.
Spatial distribution of blue and green water in the modelling domain: (a) annual average blue water and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) (b) annual average green water. The seven Class III WRRs include Upstream Sina Station (USS), South Panjiang River (SPR), North Panjiang River (NPR), HongShuihe River (HSR), LiuJiang River (LJR), YouJiang River (YJR), and Zuojiang and Yujiang Main stream (ZYM).
Figure 11.
Spatial distribution of blue and green water in the modelling domain: (a) annual average blue water and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE) (b) annual average green water. The seven Class III WRRs include Upstream Sina Station (USS), South Panjiang River (SPR), North Panjiang River (NPR), HongShuihe River (HSR), LiuJiang River (LJR), YouJiang River (YJR), and Zuojiang and Yujiang Main stream (ZYM).
Figure 12.
Annual variability of water cycle fluxes in KMRSC.
Figure 12.
Annual variability of water cycle fluxes in KMRSC.
Figure 13.
Intra-annual variability of water cycle fluxes in KMRSC. Min, P25, P50, P75, and Max denote the minimum, lower quartile, median, upper quartile, and maximum of monthly data from 1956 to 2015.
Figure 13.
Intra-annual variability of water cycle fluxes in KMRSC. Min, P25, P50, P75, and Max denote the minimum, lower quartile, median, upper quartile, and maximum of monthly data from 1956 to 2015.
Figure 14.
Change rates of precipitation and blue water in each sub-watershed under the median emission scenario (RCP4.5) relative to the baseline period.
Figure 14.
Change rates of precipitation and blue water in each sub-watershed under the median emission scenario (RCP4.5) relative to the baseline period.
Figure 15.
Spatial distribution of local per capita blue water in the modelling domain.
Figure 15.
Spatial distribution of local per capita blue water in the modelling domain.
Table 1.
Geographical and administrative divisions of karst mountain region of southwest China (KMRSC).
Table 1.
Geographical and administrative divisions of karst mountain region of southwest China (KMRSC).
Regions | Physical Geographical Divisions | Administrative Divisions |
---|
Location | Area/104 km2 | Proportion/% | P/mm | ET/mm | Location | Area/104 km2 | Proportion/% | P/mm | ET/mm |
---|
KMRSC | Pearl River | 5.3 | 25 | 1280 | 764 | Guizhou | 9.5 | 45 | 1397 | 772 |
Yangtze River | 16.0 | 75 | 1581 | 905 | Guangxi | 11.8 | 55 | 1595 | 951 |
Table 2.
Equivalent soil moisture movement parameters in karst system.
Table 2.
Equivalent soil moisture movement parameters in karst system.
Parameters | Soil Layer | Epikarst Zone | Transition Layer |
---|
Name | Unit | Sand | Loam | Clay Loam | Clay | Upper | Lower |
---|
Soil thick | cm | 50 | 50 | 50 | 50 | 300 | 300 | 200 |
Soil porosity | cm3/cm3 | 0.4 | 0.466 | 0.475 | 0.479 | 0.12 | 0.06 | 0.02 |
Field capacity | cm3/cm3 | 0.174 | 0.278 | 0.365 | 0.387 | 0.05 | 0.03 | 0.01 |
Residual moisture content | cm3/cm3 | 0.077 | 0.12 | 0.17 | 0.25 | 0.02 | 0.01 | 0.003 |
Saturated hydraulic conductivity | cm/s | 2.5 × 10−3 | 7 × 10−4 | 2 × 10−4 | 3 × 10−3 | k0 × e−al |
Table 3.
Improved performance of the WEP-karst model at Sancha station in the Longjiang River basin.
Table 3.
Improved performance of the WEP-karst model at Sancha station in the Longjiang River basin.
Hydrological Stations | WEP Model | Hydrological Process | Periods | NSE | RE |
---|
Sancha | Without considering epikarst zone | Monthly discharge | Calibration period (1956–1980) | 0.77 | 10.4% |
Validation period (1981–2000) | 0.75 | 11.5% |
Considering epikarst zone | Calibration period (1956–1980) | 0.86 | −4.3% |
Validation period (1981–2000) | 0.88 | −3.8% |
Table 4.
Calibration and validation of simulated monthly discharge at 18 representative hydrological stations.
Table 4.
Calibration and validation of simulated monthly discharge at 18 representative hydrological stations.
Hydrological Stations | Calibration Period (1956–1980) | Validation Period (1981–2000) |
---|
NSE | RE | NSE | RE |
---|
Yachihe | 0.81 | −1.8% | 0.86 | 2.6% |
Sinan | 0.86 | 8.5% | 0.90 | 4.1% |
Shidong | 0.80 | 2.1% | 0.76 | 3.1% |
Jiangbianjie | 0.73 | −6.4% | 0.71 | −9.8% |
Zhexiang | 0.84 | 2.4% | 0.80 | −6.0% |
Zhedong | 0.74 | 4.8% | 0.78 | 0.4% |
Bamao | 0.81 | 0.4% | 0.74 | −2.4% |
Baise | 0.8 | 8.3% | 0.76 | 7.6% |
Duan | 0.81 | −2.4% | 0.80 | 8.3% |
Chongzuo | 0.84 | −0.8% | 0.91 | 2.6% |
Nanning | 0.91 | 2.6% | 0.94 | 1.4% |
Guigang | 0.83 | 4.1% | 0.81 | 4.7% |
Changan | 0.94 | 1.4% | 0.87 | −3.5% |
Sancha | 0.86 | −4.3% | 0.88 | −3.8% |
Liuzhou | 0.94 | −3.6% | 0.93 | −2.0% |
Duiting | 0.92 | 1.2% | 0.93 | −3.3% |
Wuxuan | 0.86 | 3.8% | 0.83 | 4.5% |
Dahuang | 0.85 | 3.9% | 0.81 | 6.5% |
Table 5.
Annual average precipitation, infiltration, and evapotranspiration in the Class III WRRs and KMRSC.
Table 5.
Annual average precipitation, infiltration, and evapotranspiration in the Class III WRRs and KMRSC.
Regions | Precipitation (mm) | Infiltration (mm) | Evapotranspiration (mm) |
---|
USS | 1265 | 749 | 732 |
SPR | 1217 | 857 | 880 |
NPR | 1408 | 827 | 856 |
HSR | 1593 | 954 | 995 |
LJR | 1659 | 823 | 833 |
YJR | 1446 | 892 | 1085 |
ZYM | 1597 | 859 | 904 |
KMRSC | 1506 | 862 | 870 |
Table 6.
Annual average blue water and green water in the Class III WRRs and KMRSC.
Table 6.
Annual average blue water and green water in the Class III WRRs and KMRSC.
Regions | Blue Water (mm) | Green Water |
---|
Amount (mm) | Proportion (%) |
---|
USS | 560 | 388 | 53.01 |
SPR | 417 | 446 | 50.68 |
NPR | 616 | 346 | 40.42 |
HSR | 741 | 495 | 49.75 |
LJR | 918 | 479 | 57.50 |
YJR | 532 | 562 | 51.80 |
ZYM | 694 | 477 | 52.77 |
KMRSC | 701 | 445 | 51.15 |
Table 7.
Mann–Kendall test results and the CV values for water cycle fluxes in KMRSC.
Table 7.
Mann–Kendall test results and the CV values for water cycle fluxes in KMRSC.
Water Cycle Fluxes | Mann–Kendall Test | Coefficient of Variation (CV) |
---|
Z Statistic | Significance | Change Rate (mm/year) |
---|
Precipitation | −2.9 | ** | −2.59 | 0.13 |
Infiltration | −2.7 | ** | −1.48 | 0.12 |
Evapotranspiration | −3.4 | ** | −1.65 | 0.08 |
Blue water | −2.1 | * | −2.07 | 0.28 |
Green water | −0.8 | - | −0.14 | 0.07 |
Table 8.
Monthly average (in mm) of water cycle fluxes in KMRSC.
Table 8.
Monthly average (in mm) of water cycle fluxes in KMRSC.
Month | Precipitation | Infiltration | Evapotranspiration | Blue Water | Green Water |
---|
January | 36 | 25 | 34 | 15 | 7 |
February | 39 | 27 | 40 | 14 | 8 |
March | 59 | 41 | 59 | 17 | 16 |
April | 107 | 70 | 79 | 27 | 30 |
May | 209 | 127 | 98 | 66 | 48 |
June | 273 | 141 | 101 | 136 | 59 |
July | 246 | 128 | 129 | 134 | 89 |
August | 209 | 109 | 115 | 113 | 84 |
September | 132 | 78 | 84 | 72 | 50 |
October | 99 | 59 | 60 | 51 | 32 |
November | 60 | 35 | 38 | 36 | 13 |
December | 37 | 23 | 33 | 21 | 8 |
Total | 1506 | 862 | 870 | 701 | 445 |
Table 9.
Annual average of water cycle fluxes during the prediction period and their change rates compared to the base period results.
Table 9.
Annual average of water cycle fluxes during the prediction period and their change rates compared to the base period results.
Regions | Precipitation | Infiltration | Evapotranspiration | Blue Water | Green Water |
---|
Amount/mm | Rate/% | Amount/mm | Rate/% | Amount/mm | Rate/% | Amount/mm | Rate/% | Amount/mm | Rate/% |
---|
USS | 1218 | −3.7 | 746 | −0.4 | 746 | 1.9 | 471 | −16.0 | 394 | 1.4 |
SPR | 1160 | −4.7 | 845 | −1.4 | 873 | −0.8 | 349 | −16.3 | 444 | −0.5 |
NPR | 1360 | −3.4 | 825 | −0.2 | 860 | 0.5 | 518 | −15.8 | 347 | 0.4 |
HSR | 1542 | −3.2 | 925 | −3.0 | 961 | −3.4 | 648 | −12.5 | 481 | −2.8 |
LJR | 1616 | −2.6 | 822 | −0.1 | 840 | 0.8 | 819 | −10. 8 | 481 | 0.4 |
YJR | 1428 | −1.2 | 891 | −0.2 | 1061 | −2.2 | 493 | −7.2 | 555 | −1.3 |
ZYM | 1605 | 0.5 | 860 | 0.1 | 930 | 2.9 | 680 | −2.0 | 485 | 1.6 |
KMRSC | 1461 | −3.0 | 858 | −0.46 | 875 | 0.6 | 625 | −10.8 | 447 | 0.5 |