555
Views
5
CrossRef citations to date
0
Altmetric
Articles

Vertical zonality of the water cycle and the impact of land-use change on runoff in the Qingshui River Basin of Wutai Mountain, China

, , , , , & show all
Pages 2080-2092 | Received 14 Apr 2018, Accepted 15 Apr 2019, Published online: 27 Aug 2019

Figures & data

Figure 1. Location and digital elevation model of the Qingshui River Basin.

Figure 1. Location and digital elevation model of the Qingshui River Basin.

Figure 2. Land-use map of the QRB.

Figure 2. Land-use map of the QRB.

Figure 3. Vertical landscape belts in the QRB.

Figure 3. Vertical landscape belts in the QRB.

Figure 4. Simulation results of monthly streamflow in the QRB for (a) the calibration period (1960–1985) and (b) the validation period (1986–2000).

Figure 4. Simulation results of monthly streamflow in the QRB for (a) the calibration period (1960–1985) and (b) the validation period (1986–2000).

Figure 5. Comparison of annual evapotranspiration from WEP-L and MODIS in the QRB for the period 2001–2015.

Figure 5. Comparison of annual evapotranspiration from WEP-L and MODIS in the QRB for the period 2001–2015.

Figure 6. Changes with elevation in mean value of (a) water cycle flux and (b) energy flux in the QRB for the period 1960–2015.

Figure 6. Changes with elevation in mean value of (a) water cycle flux and (b) energy flux in the QRB for the period 1960–2015.

Figure 7. Changes with elevation in mean value of (a) water cycle flux coefficients and (b) energy flux ratios in the QRB for the period 1960–2015.

Figure 7. Changes with elevation in mean value of (a) water cycle flux coefficients and (b) energy flux ratios in the QRB for the period 1960–2015.

Table 1. Water cycle fluxes and energy fluxes for each vertical vegetation belt and the whole QRB for the period 1960–2015. Coniferous: evergreen coniferous shrub forest; Deciduous: deciduous broad-leaved forest.

Figure 8. Comparison of mean (a) water cycle flux and (b) energy flux for various vertical vegetation belts for the period 1960–2015.

Figure 8. Comparison of mean (a) water cycle flux and (b) energy flux for various vertical vegetation belts for the period 1960–2015.

Figure 9. Comparison of mean (a) water cycle flux coefficients and (b) energy flux ratio for various vertical vegetation belts for the period 1960–2015.

Figure 9. Comparison of mean (a) water cycle flux coefficients and (b) energy flux ratio for various vertical vegetation belts for the period 1960–2015.

Table 2. Water balance for each vertical vegetation belt for the three study periods. Coniferous: Evergreen coniferous shrub forest; Deciduous: deciduous broad-leaved forest. ET: evapotranspiration.

Table 3. Results of the water cycle elements and runoff amounts under different simulated scenarios (1960–2015). Present: present land use; ‘All’ refers to the present land use of converted land in each case; the last three scenarios represent the conversion of present farmland to different land use. Change ratio is ratio of the difference between the changed scenario and the present scenario to the present scenario.

Reprints and Corporate Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

To request a reprint or corporate permissions for this article, please click on the relevant link below:

Academic Permissions

Please note: Selecting permissions does not provide access to the full text of the article, please see our help page How do I view content?

Obtain permissions instantly via Rightslink by clicking on the button below:

If you are unable to obtain permissions via Rightslink, please complete and submit this Permissions form. For more information, please visit our Permissions help page.