4.6 Article

Variation in Runoff of the Arys River and Keles River Watersheds (Kazakhstan), as Influenced by Climate Variation and Human Activity

期刊

SUSTAINABILITY
卷 11, 期 17, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/su11174788

关键词

runoff; Keles River; Arys River; precipitation-runoff relation; human activity; climate change

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [U1603242]
  2. Science and Technology Service Network Initiative Program of Chinese Academy of Sciences [KFJ-STS-QYZD-071]
  3. Training Program for Youth Innovative Talents in Science and Technology in Xinjiang [QN2016BS0052]
  4. CAS Light of West China Program [2017-XBQNXZ-B-012]
  5. Foundation of State Key Laboratory of Desert and Oasis Ecology, Xinjiang Institute of Ecology and Geography Chinese Academy of Sciences

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Runoff formation is a complex meteorological-hydrological process impacted by many factors, especially in the inland river basin. In this study, long-term (1960-2015) river runoff and climate data in the Arys and Keles River watersheds (Kazakhstan) were gathered to analyze the impacts of climate variation and human activity on runoff. The non-parametric Kendall test and the Pettitt test were used to identify trends and change points in the time data series. It was found that both watersheds had significant upward trends in temperature and potential evapotranspiration data, and insignificant upward trends in the runoff. Change points in annual runoff were identified around the year 1973. The hydrological sensitivity method was employed to evaluate the impacts of climate variation and human activity on mean annual runoff based on precipitation and potential evapotranspiration. It was found that the decline in annual runoff over both catchments can be mainly attributed to human activity, the reduction percentages due to human activities range from 59% to 99%. The results of this study can provide a reference for the development and water management of the regional water resources.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据