Identifying runoff changes and quantifying the impacts of climate change and human activities are important for water resources planning and management in river basins. The impacts of climate change and human activities on runoff can be more accurately assessed through scientific hydrological modeling and data analysis methods. In this study, an integrated assessment framework was established to quantitatively separate the driving mechanisms of runoff at different time scales. The results show that the runoff of Wu River has shown a decreasing trend since 2004, with a change degree of 56%, and the monthly average flow indexes of August and September have changed significantly, both are over 90%. The NSE coefficient of the SWAT simulation effect is above 0.8, we validate the simulation results based on the LSTM model. It was found that climate change was the main factor affecting the runoff of Wu River, with the contribution rates reaching 60 and 57%, respectively. Pearson correlation analysis found that rainfall was the most important factor affecting the runoff. The results of this study are helpful to formulate effective water resources management policies and measures to ensure the sustainable utilization and management of water resources in the Wu River Basin.

  • Twenty-three parameters were selected for rate determination in SWAT-CUP by referring to a large number of literatures.

  • The SWAT model is used to compensate for the inadequate simulation of physical processes in the LSTM model when reconstructing runoff.

  • The effects of climate change and human activities on runoff variability at annual, monthly, and seasonal scales were quantified.

As a key link in the hydrological cycle, changes in river runoff not only affect the allocation and utilization of water resources, but also have far-reaching impacts on the ecological environment and human society (Patterson et al. 2013). With the rapid development of human society, the impact of human activities on the natural environment is becoming more and more significant, while global climate change also has a non-negligible impact on runoff (Ran et al. 2024). According to the IPCC report, global temperatures are rising (Hu et al. 2018), global warming is a serious problem that cannot be ignored, resulting in faster evaporation of surface water bodies, allowing more water to enter the atmosphere, directly affecting the formation and distribution of runoff. At least 3,700 large dams (each with a capacity of more than 1 MW) are planned or under construction globally, mainly in countries with emerging economies. These dams are expected to increase current global hydropower capacity by 73% (Zarfl et al. 2015). The construction of the Aswan Dam has caused a sharp reduction in runoff from the Nile River (Goharian et al. 2022). China's rivers are affected by climate change and several rivers are experiencing a decrease in runoff (Huang et al. 2015; Zhai & Tao 2017; Chen et al. 2022). Changes in river runoff affect surface water evaporation and heat transport, which in turn have an impact on climate, an impact that may further exacerbate climate change. These irregular climate changes and frequent human activities are significantly affecting the basin hydrological cycle processes. Therefore, how to accurately quantify and attribute the impacts of human activities and climate change on runoff is of great theoretical significance and practical value for understanding the pattern of runoff change, optimizing water resource allocation and coping with climate change (Huang & Qiu 2022; Li et al. 2022). Understanding the driving mechanisms of runoff can help to better manage water resources. By analyzing the impacts of different driving factors on runoff, future runoff trends can be predicted, providing a scientific basis for water resources planning and management. At the same time, understanding the different driving mechanisms can also help optimize the use and distribution of water resources and improve the sustainable use of water resources.

At this stage, the study of basin runoff response to climate change and human activities has become a hot issue in the study of water resources evolution. Human activities and climate change are considered to be the dominant factors affecting runoff (Yan et al. 2020). Among them, the impacts of human activities on runoff are complex and diverse, significantly altering the natural state of runoff through changes in land use, implementation of water conservancy projects, and development of agriculture (Lv et al. 2023). For example, changes in land use, such as land cover type conversion during urbanization, significantly alter the processes and characteristics of surface runoff. The increase in impervious area as a result of urbanization increases the surface runoff coefficient, which increases runoff volume and flood flow (Ramezani et al. 2023). In addition, the construction and operation of hydraulic measures such as reservoirs, dams, and irrigation canals, also have a significant impact on runoff by regulating the spatial and temporal distribution of runoff and altering the peaks and valleys of runoff (Su et al. 2023). At the same time, global warming has led to changes in precipitation patterns, resulting in increased floods and droughts in some areas, and higher temperatures have accelerated the rate of surface water evaporation. Changes in these climatic elements not only directly affect the generation and distribution of runoff, but also influence the availability of water resources and ecosystem stability through the process of hydrological cycle (Gray et al. 2023).

In order to quantify the contribution of human activities and climate change to runoff, researchers have used a variety of methods and models to analyze it. Previous studies have analyzed runoff driving mechanisms in three main ways (Shahid et al. 2021). One is to quantify the driving mechanisms using empirical formulae such as quantitatively distinguishing the response mechanisms of rainfall and climate change to runoff using models such as Budyko coupled hydrothermal model, cumulative volume slope method, double cumulative curve method, and regression analysis (Wang et al. 2021). When utilizing these empirical equation methods to quantify the driving mechanisms, attention needs to be paid to the applicability and limitations of the models, as well as the quality and completeness of the data. Second, the natural runoff is reconstructed based on the data-driven model, and the causes of runoff changes are analyzed based on the differences between the simulated runoff and the actual runoff. For example, long short-term memory (LSTM) neural network, BP algorithm, GRU and forest-on-the-fly models are used to reconstruct and simulate the intra-year process of watershed runoff (Liu et al. 2022; Zhang et al. 2023; He et al. 2024). Among them, LSTM models are widely used in hydrological forecasting and runoff simulation due to their superiority in handling serial data, as they have the advantages of non-linear forecasting ability, faster convergence, and capturing long-term correlation of time series (Yuan et al. 2018). However, these models often focus on the analysis of time-series data and ignore the influence of the actual subsurface parameters of the watershed, which leads to a certain deviation between the simulation results and the actual situation. Thirdly, physical hydrological models are used to reconstruct the natural runoff history by combining various climatic and subsurface parameters, and the commonly used models include SWAT (soil and water assessment tool), Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC) Macroscale Hydrologic Model, and WEP hydrological models to quantify the runoff driving mechanism (Jia et al. 2006; Akhter et al. 2022). Among them, the SWAT model is highly regarded for its excellent simulation capability of basin-scale hydrological characteristics. It is widely used in the fields of river simulation, pollutant transport simulation, simulation of changes in sub-basin surface conditions, and simulation of climate change response, and has been proved to be a reliable tool for simulating changes in watershed runoff (Tian et al. 2017). In view of the fact that most of the previous scholars only used a single model for modeling and simulation, the results were not convincing. Therefore, the SWAT model was used to simulate and reconstruct runoff in the basin to quantify the driving mechanism of runoff, LSTM was used to verify the simulated values, and the SWAT model was used to make up for the shortcomings of the LSTM model in simulating the physical process of runoff reconstruction. The accuracy of simulation data and the applicability of the method are guaranteed.

The Wu River is an important tributary in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River (the third longest river in the world) and the largest river in Guizhou Province, China, with rich mineral resources in the basin, which is also a veritable ‘golden waterway’. Due to human activities and climate change, its runoff has declined significantly (Wei et al. 2021), but different scholars have used different models and related methods to quantify the driving mechanisms. However, in quantifying the driving mechanisms, the models and related methods used by different scholars differ in their principles and data collection methods for the recovery of the Wu River Basin (WRB) runoff, and therefore, the analysis of runoff attribution is subject to certain limitations and relativities (Zheng et al. 2021). In addition, the current study needs more in-depth analysis at more detailed time scales (e.g., seasons and months) to reveal the drivers of runoff changes in the basin more comprehensively.

In summary, this study aims to (1) analyze the degree of alteration of hydrological indicators of runoff using the indicators of hydrological alteration (IHA) and the method of variation amplitude (RVA) methods; (2) reconstruct the runoff using the SWAT model and the LSTM model to quantitatively isolate the driving mechanisms of the runoff at different time scales; and (3) analyze the correlation between rainfall and runoff using the Pearson's correlation analysis and the cross-wavelet.

Study area

Wu River, also known as Qian River, is located between 26°–30.5°N latitude and 104°–109.5°E longitude, and is a right-bank tributary of the upper reaches of the Yangtze River, with a total length of 1,037 km and a watershed area of 8.792 × 107 km2. The basin topography is high in the southwest and low in the northeast, and the natural drop reaches 2,123.5 m (Xiao et al. 2018). The natural landscape of the WRB varies significantly and has unique geographical features (Figure 1(a)). The average annual precipitation in the basin is 850–1,600 mm, decreasing from south to north and from east to west. The average summer precipitation ranges from 450 to 850 mm, accounting for about 50% of the annual precipitation, decreasing from south to north and from east to west (Wang et al. 2023b). The most widely distributed land use in the WRB is forest land, followed by arable land and grassland, with less distribution of construction land and water bodies, and very little distribution of unutilized land, with obvious differences in land use distribution (Figure 1(b) and 1(c)).
Figure 1

Geographic location (a) and land use (b and c) of the Wu River Basin.

Figure 1

Geographic location (a) and land use (b and c) of the Wu River Basin.

Close modal

Data sources

The day-by-day runoff data from Wulong Hydrological Station in the Wu River Basin used in this study were obtained from the Hydrological Bulletin of the Yangtze River Water Resources Commission (http://www.cjh.com.cn) from 1980 to 2019. Meanwhile, the long-term meteorological data were obtained from the National Meteorological Data Center website (http://data.cma.cn). Daily meteorological data from 13 national meteorological stations within the Wu River Basin between 1980 and 2019 were selected for the study, which included indicators such as maximum, minimum and average air temperature, rainfall, relative humidity, and sunshine hours. The geographic location information of the specific hydrological and meteorological stations is detailed in Supplementary material 1. 500-meter elevation data from the Geospatial Data Cloud (GDC) were used for elevation data, while land use data were obtained from the China Regional Land Cover Database (CRLCD), and soil data were taken from the World Soil Database (HWSD). See supplementary material 1 for details of each hydrographic station.

Trend analysis and mutation tests

Using the results of the Mann-Kendall test can help us to determine the presence of statistically significant trends in the annual meteorological and hydrological data of the study area. Also, by performing a reverse sort on the raw time series data and performing the same statistical calculations, it can be used to detect the presence of mutation points. When two curves intersect at the 95% confidence level, it can be inferred that a mutation has occurred at that point in time (Guo et al. 2021).

The change of the curve can be utilized to verify the accuracy of the mutation point. Cumulative distance level is a commonly used method to determine the trend of the data by the curve intuitively (Pei et al. 2022), will be n moments of the cumulative distance level of all calculated, and can be plotted for trend analysis of the cumulative distance level curve. In order to detect the sudden change points in the time series, the sliding t-test is usually used and combined with other methods such as the cumulative distance level method for analysis.

The sliding t-test method determines whether there is a significant difference by comparing the means of two subsequence sample data to determine the location of possible mutation points. The specific calculation method of sliding t is shown in the literature (Du et al. 2019).

Analysis of hydrological conditions

IHA, a method used to assess the characteristics of river flow changes, is based on historical hydrologic data and calculates several indicators related to river flow changes, such as dry period duration, flood flow, and average flow. These indicators can be used to analyze the trend and magnitude of river flow changes, assess the ecological condition of the river, and predict future changes in river flow (Table 1).

Table 1

IHA parameters and their grouping

ClustersIHA indicatorsIHA hydrological indicator parameters
Group I Monthly traffic sizes (1–12) Average flow rate, January–December 
Group II Magnitude and duration of annual extreme flows (13–23) Average annual 1d, 3d, 7d, 30d, and 90d minimum (high) flow, baseflow index 
Group III Time of occurrence of annual extreme flows (24–25) Time of occurrence of annual minimum and maximum values 
Group IV Frequency and duration of high and low pulses (26–29) Number of high and low pulses; high and low pulse duration 
Group V Rate and frequency of change (30–32) Rate of increase; rate of decrease; number of reversals 
ClustersIHA indicatorsIHA hydrological indicator parameters
Group I Monthly traffic sizes (1–12) Average flow rate, January–December 
Group II Magnitude and duration of annual extreme flows (13–23) Average annual 1d, 3d, 7d, 30d, and 90d minimum (high) flow, baseflow index 
Group III Time of occurrence of annual extreme flows (24–25) Time of occurrence of annual minimum and maximum values 
Group IV Frequency and duration of high and low pulses (26–29) Number of high and low pulses; high and low pulse duration 
Group V Rate and frequency of change (30–32) Rate of increase; rate of decrease; number of reversals 

Range of variability approach (RVA) was proposed by Richter (Richter et al. 1996) in 1996 to give the changing status of hydrological indicators by comparing the actual condition with the expectation.

The IHA-RVA method is simple to calculate and does not require complex mathematical models and statistical methods. At the same time, the results of IHA indicators are easy to understand and can be presented in graphs and other visualizations for future hydrological predictions (Pal & Sarda 2021). IHA indicators can be used to assess the impacts of reservoir water transfer on river ecosystems and to make suggestions for improving reservoir management. To reflect the weighting size of each indicator, the average of the degree of change of the 32 IHA indicators was used to assess the overall change scenario of river ecosystems. The degree of overall hydrological change is calculated as follows:
(1)
where n is the number of indicators, it is also specified that the value division is the same as .

SWAT model

The SWAT model can use mathematical–physical equations to describe the physical processes such as flow production, catchment, and sand transport in hydrological processes, providing a basis for the future direction of watershed management. The model is a typical semi-distributed hydrological model that can take into account natural factors such as topography, climate, soil, and land use and land cover, making it a strong physical basis (Liu et al. 2019).

Based on sub-basins, the SWAT model divides areas with the same characteristics into the same hydrological response units (HRUs) in sub-basins according to different land use types, soil types, and topographic gradients (Figure 2(a)), and assumes that the same HRUs have similar hydrological responses in sub-basins (Jakada & Chen 2020). In the calculation of the model, the hydrological processes of various HRUs are calculated separately for sub-basins with different HRUs, and then, the output of each HRU is superimposed to obtain the overall hydrological response results of sub-basins.
Figure 2

SWAT model watershed delineation (a) and slope (b) diagrams.

Figure 2

SWAT model watershed delineation (a) and slope (b) diagrams.

Close modal
After the construction of the model, in order to evaluate the applicability of the model in the Wu River Basin, this paper uses the decision coefficients and Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency coefficients as the criteria (Zaibak & Meddi 2022), and the formulas are calculated as follows:
(2)
(3)
where and denote measured and simulated values, respectively; and denote the average of measured and simulated values, respectively. When > 0.50 and > 0.60, it indicates that the model simulation results are satisfactory.

Neural network modeling

LSTM is a temporal recurrent neural network (RNN) that evolved from the traditional RNN. LSTM is a special type of RNN with memory structures for learning long-term information (Xiang et al. 2020). When dealing with long-term dependencies, traditional artificial neural networks are unable to associate previous information with the current time step, while LSTM effectively solves this problem by introducing gating mechanisms and cell states, enabling the model to better capture long-term dependency information in sequences.

Correlation analysis methods

The cross-wavelet transform (XWT) was developed on the basis of traditional wavelet analysis and continuous wavelet transform (CWT) to examine the time–frequency spatial relationship between two time series (Wu et al. 2022).

The cross-wavelet reflects the positive, negative, and lagged characteristics of the correlation between two series. Pearson correlation coefficient can reflect the degree of linear correlation between two random variables. The Pearson correlation coefficient is widely used to measure the linear relationship between two variables x and y. The Pearson correlation coefficient is defined as the quotient of the covariance and standard deviation between two variables:
(4)

Generally speaking, the greater the absolute value of the correlation coefficient between two variables, the higher the degree of correlation between the two variables (Niu et al. 2021).

Methods of quantitative runoff attribution analysis

The study period was divided into a base period and an impact period based on the mutation test results. The difference between the measured runoff in the base period and the impact period is the total runoff change. Considering that climate change and human activities affect runoff independently of each other, the total runoff change can be decomposed into two parts: climate change and human activities, of which the human activities impact is the land use impact. The specific calculations related to the above are as follows:
(5)
(6)
where and are the measured average monthly runoff (m3/s) in the base period and the impact period, respectively, and and are the simulated average monthly runoff in the base period and the impact period, respectively.
In this study, the computational relative contribution model proposed by Peng (Peng et al. 2016) was used to assess the relative contribution of climate change and human activities to runoff changes in the Wu River Basin, and the formula for calculating the relative contribution rate is as follows:
(7)
(8)
where and represent the relative contribution of human activities and climate change to runoff changes, respectively.

Degree of change in hydrological indicators

The study quantitatively assessed the degree of alteration of runoff using the IHA-RVA method (Figure 3). In terms of the degree of change of the monthly average flow index, the monthly flow in August and September showed the most obvious change, which was more than 90%, and the rest of the months showed medium–low change, which may have certain impacts on water resource management, agricultural irrigation, ecological environment, and climate change adaptation in the Wu River Basin; in terms of the magnitude and duration of the annual extreme flow, the maximum flow of the 1d and 3d flow changed the most obviously, which was more than 85%, and the rest of the indicators showed medium–low change; in terms of the time of occurrence of the annual extreme flow, the two parameters showed the most obvious change, which was more than 85%. 85% or more, and the rest of the indicators show medium–low change; from the time of the annual extreme flow, both parameters show low change; from the frequency and duration of high and low pulse, the duration of high and low pulse show high change, and the frequency of high and low pulse show medium change; from the rate of change and frequency, the rate of increase and rate of decrease show high change, and the number of reversal shows low change. Overall, the comprehensive degree of change of hydrological indicators of Wu River is 56%, showing moderate change, of which 28% are high change indicators, 40% are moderate change indicators, and 32% are low change indicators.
Figure 3

Degree of change in hydrological indicators of the Wu River. H for high change; M for medium change; L for low change.

Figure 3

Degree of change in hydrological indicators of the Wu River. H for high change; M for medium change; L for low change.

Close modal

Hydrologic evolution patterns at multiple time scales

The Mann-Kendall trend test, cumulative distance method, and sliding t-test were used to comprehensively analyze the average runoff of Wulong Hydrological Station from 1980 to 2019. The mutation years of the Mann-Kendall trend test were 1985, 1991, 2005, 2007, and 2014. The mutation years measured by the cumulative anomaly method were 1984 and 2004. The mutation years measured by the sliding t-test were 1985 and 2004. After comprehensive consideration, we determined 2004 as the abrupt runoff year of Wu River. As shown in Figure 4(a), the average annual runoff of the Wu River fluctuates and changes more obviously, and according to the trend line, the runoff of the Wu River shows a decreasing trend as a whole. As shown in Figure 4, taking the mutation year 2004 as the demarcation line, the average monthly runoff of Wu River and the average runoff change of Wu River in four seasons were analyzed, and the results showed that the average monthly runoff in the 5 months after the mutation year, namely, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10, was smaller than that before the mutation year, and the changes in the 3 months of 6, 7, and 8 were the most significant, which were reduced by 790.184 and 1,310.39 m3/s, respectively, compared with the pre-mutiny year, 711.23 m3/s; September and October are also more significant changes, respectively, compared with the pre-mutation period decreased by 299.164 and 443.626 m3/s; the rest of the months of the average runoff compared with the pre-mutation period are a small increase in the change is not significant. From the seasonal scale, the runoff in summer and autumn after the mutation year was much smaller than that before the mutation year, with a decrease of 2,811.81 and 687.095 m3/s, respectively, and the runoff in spring and winter increased slightly compared with that before the mutation year, with an increase of 365.4172 and 269.0263 m3/s, respectively. In summary, due to the flood season in summer and autumn, with the construction of various levels of reservoirs in the Wu River Basin, the total storage capacity of reservoirs in summer and autumn has increased significantly, and the average monthly runoff in flood season has decreased significantly. Overall, climate change is the main reason for the runoff changes, and at the same time, human activities such as the construction of large-scale hydropower projects have increased the total water storage capacity of reservoirs, which greatly exacerbated the runoff changes.
Figure 4

Characteristics and differences in runoff changes at different time scales.

Figure 4

Characteristics and differences in runoff changes at different time scales.

Close modal

Calibration and validation of the SWAT model for the Wu River Basin

Sensitivity analysis helps in identifying the model parameters that have a critical impact on the model output. This in turn helps in calibrating the model by considering only the calibrated sensitive parameters, which can significantly reduce the model run time for good results (Himanshu et al. 2016). Referring to previous studies, we selected 23 parameters (Table 2) for rate calibration. Running the model again after rate-setting the parameters, the simulation effect is significantly better than the case without rate-setting, which further proves the necessity of parameter rate-setting. By running SWAT-CUP, we singled out five coefficients with the strongest correlation. v__ALPHA_BF.gw indicates the coefficient of groundwater influence on surface water, with a value of 0.245240, which implies that groundwater influence on surface runoff is moderate during the simulation; r__CN2.mgt is used for estimating the potential maximum retention, and 0.014232 is a relatively small value that may indicate low groundwater recharge potential for that soil type or management condition; and r__SOL_AWC().sol is used to indicate the effective water content of the soil. The value of 0.276019 is a direct reflection of the availability of water in the soil. A higher AWC value means that more water is available in the soil for plant uptake and utilization, which is beneficial to crop growth and development; v__TIMP.bsn is usually associated with the baseflow recession coefficient (BRC), which is used to characterize the process of groundwater flow recession, and this value of 0.867486 describes the groundwater flow. The value of 0.867486 describes the rate of reduction or recession of groundwater flow; v__CH_K2.rte is a parameter related to channel hydraulic conductance (CHC), and the specific value of the parameter, 88.974030, represents a certain specific channel hydraulic conductivity, which describes the ease with which water can flow in the channel.

Table 2

SWAT model simulation parameter rate determination results

CodingPhysical meaningFinal parameter rangeParameter value
r__CN2.mgt Runoff curve coefficient [−2.418037, 2.768037] 0.014232 
v__ALPHA_BF.gw Baseflow partition coefficient [−0.129182, 0.624182] 0.245240 
v__GW_DELAY.gw Groundwater delay parameter [−143.93898, 252.238968] 195.585526 
v__GWQMN.gw Shallow groundwater runoff coefficient [177.922531, 534.577454] 455.043396 
v__GW_REVAP.gw Groundwater evaporation coefficient [0.102056, 0.266444] 0.255101 
v__ESCO.hru Soil evaporation compensation coefficient [0.493343, 1.481657] 0.984535 
v__CH_N2.rte Main channel Manning's coefficient [−0.128748, 0.157248] −0.120454 
v__CH_K2.rte Effective hydraulic conductivity of the main channel [56.838894, 160.836105] 88.974030 
r__SOL_AWC().sol Effective water content of surface soil [−3.324999, 0.894999] 0.276019 
r__SOL_K().sol Soil saturated infiltration coefficient [−0.804859, 3.594859] −0.070106 
v__SFTMP.bsn Snowfall temperature threshold [−1.632810, 15.132810] 12.198827 
v__SMTMP.bsn Surface snowmelt depth temperature [−4.633020, 6.133020] −0.574223 
v__SMFMX.bsn Total water storage capacity [−1.532886, 12.832887] 12.186427 
v__SMFMN.bsn Minimum soil water storage capacity [−2.582731, 12.482732] 6.110041 
v__TIMP.bsn Rainfall infiltration snowmelt temperature [0.307835, 0.905115] 0.867486 
v__SURLAG.bsn Surface runoff retardation time [−6.276535, 13.920784] 6.104422 
r__SOL_Z().sol Soil depth [2.158459, 7.484040] 2.866761 
v__HRU_SLP.Hru Average slope [0.465837, 1.399163] 0.961433 
v__REVAPMN.gw Re-evaporation coefficient of shallow groundwater [72.663216, 410.421753] 125.691307 
r__SOL_BD().sol Soil bulk weight [0.680043, 3.044957] 2.536500 
v__CANMX.hru Maximum canopy retention [−9.164934, 63.664932] −3.557034 
v__BIOMIX.mgt Biomass mixing rate [0.280860, 0.844140] 0.770350 
r__SOL_ALB().sol Soil albedo [−0.047284, 0.151034] 0.043744 
CodingPhysical meaningFinal parameter rangeParameter value
r__CN2.mgt Runoff curve coefficient [−2.418037, 2.768037] 0.014232 
v__ALPHA_BF.gw Baseflow partition coefficient [−0.129182, 0.624182] 0.245240 
v__GW_DELAY.gw Groundwater delay parameter [−143.93898, 252.238968] 195.585526 
v__GWQMN.gw Shallow groundwater runoff coefficient [177.922531, 534.577454] 455.043396 
v__GW_REVAP.gw Groundwater evaporation coefficient [0.102056, 0.266444] 0.255101 
v__ESCO.hru Soil evaporation compensation coefficient [0.493343, 1.481657] 0.984535 
v__CH_N2.rte Main channel Manning's coefficient [−0.128748, 0.157248] −0.120454 
v__CH_K2.rte Effective hydraulic conductivity of the main channel [56.838894, 160.836105] 88.974030 
r__SOL_AWC().sol Effective water content of surface soil [−3.324999, 0.894999] 0.276019 
r__SOL_K().sol Soil saturated infiltration coefficient [−0.804859, 3.594859] −0.070106 
v__SFTMP.bsn Snowfall temperature threshold [−1.632810, 15.132810] 12.198827 
v__SMTMP.bsn Surface snowmelt depth temperature [−4.633020, 6.133020] −0.574223 
v__SMFMX.bsn Total water storage capacity [−1.532886, 12.832887] 12.186427 
v__SMFMN.bsn Minimum soil water storage capacity [−2.582731, 12.482732] 6.110041 
v__TIMP.bsn Rainfall infiltration snowmelt temperature [0.307835, 0.905115] 0.867486 
v__SURLAG.bsn Surface runoff retardation time [−6.276535, 13.920784] 6.104422 
r__SOL_Z().sol Soil depth [2.158459, 7.484040] 2.866761 
v__HRU_SLP.Hru Average slope [0.465837, 1.399163] 0.961433 
v__REVAPMN.gw Re-evaporation coefficient of shallow groundwater [72.663216, 410.421753] 125.691307 
r__SOL_BD().sol Soil bulk weight [0.680043, 3.044957] 2.536500 
v__CANMX.hru Maximum canopy retention [−9.164934, 63.664932] −3.557034 
v__BIOMIX.mgt Biomass mixing rate [0.280860, 0.844140] 0.770350 
r__SOL_ALB().sol Soil albedo [−0.047284, 0.151034] 0.043744 

Analysis of model run results

Other data such as meteorological data remained unchanged. The simulation was based on land use data of the base period and the impact period, and the SWAT model was run for simulation. As shown in Table 3, the simulation result coefficients R2 and NS of the base period and the impact period were both above 0.8, indicating a good simulation effect. Especially, the R2 coefficients before the mutation were all around 0.90. The simulation effect after the mutation was lower than before, but also reached 0.69 and 0.74, respectively. The operation effect of the SWAT model in the Wu River Basin is ideal, and the monthly average simulated runoff can be used as the basis for the change of attributable discharge.

Table 3

Statistics of coefficient indicators of simulation effect of the SWAT model under different scenarios

Data typeR2NS coefficientMutation years ago R2R2 after the mutation year
Land use data for 1980 0.8121 0.81 0.8962 0.6882 
Land use data for 2020 0.8334 0.83 0.9051 0.7441 
Data typeR2NS coefficientMutation years ago R2R2 after the mutation year
Land use data for 1980 0.8121 0.81 0.8962 0.6882 
Land use data for 2020 0.8334 0.83 0.9051 0.7441 

It can be seen from Figure 5 that the model captures the trend and fluctuation of observed runoff in general, indicating that the SWAT model can reasonably simulate the hydrological process of the basin. The scatter plot on the right shows the relationship between the observed and simulated values. It can be seen that the two show a good positive correlation, and the linear regression line fitting effect is also quite good. However, the scatter plot also shows some deviation from the regression line in areas with high runoff values. This suggests that the model may have certain challenges in simulating extreme or high-traffic events, possibly due to limitations in the model structure or input data. As shown in Figure 6, the simulation accuracy of the model here is significantly improved compared with the previous results using land use data in 1980. This may be because the 2020 land use data is more reflective of the actual conditions of the current basin, allowing the model to better capture the characteristics of changes in hydrological processes. It can also be seen from the three subgraphs that runoff in Wu River Basin has shown more fluctuations and extreme events in recent years. This may be related to factors such as land use and climate change within the basin, posing new challenges for water resources management and disaster prevention. In general, the SWAT model uses 2020 land use data to simulate runoff in Wu River Basin more accurately, providing more reliable scientific support for watershed hydrological analysis and management decision-making. However, it is still necessary to further optimize the model and improve the simulation ability of extreme cases to better cope with future hydrological changes.
Figure 5

SWAT output results for 1980 land use data.

Figure 5

SWAT output results for 1980 land use data.

Close modal
Figure 6

Map of SWAT output results for 2020 land use data.

Figure 6

Map of SWAT output results for 2020 land use data.

Close modal

LSTM model validation

The SWAT model has a better performance in hydrological simulation, which can consider the influence of land use, soil type, and other factors on hydrological processes, while the LSTM model is good at processing time series data and capturing long-term dependencies in the time series data. The LSTM model is a kind of deep learning model, which is able to automatically learn long-term dependencies in time series data. Compared with the SWAT model, which is more cumbersome in data acquisition and processing, the LSTM model does not need to specify too many rules and parameters, and can automatically learn runoff patterns and regularities through a large amount of data. The LSTM model primarily relies on historical data to capture the combined impact of various factors, including climate change. However, without additional input and explanation, it may not be able to effectively differentiate between the effects of human activity and natural climate change. Therefore, this study predominantly utilizes the LSTM model to offer robust predictive power based on its observed data, emphasizing overall changes in traffic patterns and potential future trends. Additionally, the SWAT model is employed to provide a mechanistic understanding of how specific human activities and climate factors alter hydrological processes in order to facilitate analysis of the relative contribution of land use change.

Particle Swarm Optimization (PSO) is an optimization algorithm widely used in constrained optimization, dynamic optimization, multi-objective optimization, dynamic multi-objective optimization, and other problems, which has the advantages of less requirements on the optimized function and faster convergence (Yang et al. 2022). Therefore, we combine the PSO algorithm to optimize the LSTM parameters, and we set the initial range of each parameter as follows: calculate the global optimal fitness value, set the initial learning rate, regularization parameter, and the number of hidden layers in the ranges of [0.001–0.01], [0.0001–0.1], and [10–30], and set the dropout to 0.2, and the maximum number of training times to 500. The number of training is 500. Some other hyperparameters such as output dimension are optimized by a grid approach. After PSO optimization, the global optimal fitness value is 0.0517, the optimal learning rate is 0.0047, the optimal regularization parameter is 0.0001, and the optimal number of hidden layers is 15.

The results show that the coefficient of determination R2 of the SWAT simulation reaches 0.81 and the coefficient of NS is 0.81 (Figure 7), while the coefficient of determination R2 of the LSTM model is 0.77 and the coefficient of NS is 0.76. The results of the two models are shown in Figure 7, which indicate that the two models are well fitted. It shows that the monthly runoff simulated by the above two models in Wu River Basin can be used as a basis for analyzing the attribution of runoff changes with a certain degree of reliability.
Figure 7

Comparison of multi-model simulation effect and measured effect.

Figure 7

Comparison of multi-model simulation effect and measured effect.

Close modal

Driving mechanism analysis

The contribution values and impact weights of climate change and human activities were derived through the runoff quantitative attribution analysis method. SWAT simulation results show that from the monthly scale (Figure 8(a)), the relative contribution value of human activities is higher only in March, April, May, and November, in which human activities have the greatest impacts in March and November, reaching 0.67 and 0.69, respectively, whereas the rest of the months have the climate change relative contribution value. From the seasonal scale (Figure 8(b)), except for spring, which is more affected by human activities, the other three seasons are more affected by climate change, with summer and winter being the most significant, reaching 0.69 and 0.67, respectively. From the yearly scale, climate change has a more significant impact, reaching 0.60. By comparing the monthly and seasonal scales, the contribution rate of the monthly scale is basically the same as that of the seasonal scale, which indicates that the runoff changes are influenced by the seasonal scale more obviously. In general, climate change has a more significant impact on the runoff change of the Wu River. By looking at Figure 8(c), it can be seen that climate change plays a dominant role in the flood season and is the main factor influencing the reduction of runoff in the Wu River, while the difference between land use in the flood season and non-flood season is more significant.
Figure 8

Comparison of the contribution value and influence weight of each change quantity between SWAT (a–c) and LSTM (d–f) simulation results.

Figure 8

Comparison of the contribution value and influence weight of each change quantity between SWAT (a–c) and LSTM (d–f) simulation results.

Close modal

The LSTM simulation results show that from the monthly scale (Figure 8(d)), the relative contribution of human activities is higher only in March, April, May, and November, in which March and November have the greatest impacts of human activities, reaching 0.61 and 0.72, respectively, while the rest of the months have a greater relative contribution of climate change, in which the relative contribution of climate change reaches the peak in January and July, reaching 0.81 and 0.71, respectively. From the seasonal scale (Figure 8(e)), except for spring, which is more affected by human activities, all the other three seasons are more affected by climate change, with summer and winter being the most significant, reaching 0.68 and 0.67, respectively. From the annual scale, climate change has a more significant effect, reaching 0.57. By comparing the monthly and seasonal scales, the results of the contribution rate on the monthly scale are similar to the results of the contribution rate on the seasonal scale, and the results of the contribution rate on the seasonal scale are similar to the results of the contribution rate on the monthly scale. In general, climate change has a more significant impact on the runoff change of the Wu River. By looking at Figure 8(f), it can be seen that climate change plays a dominant role in the flood season and is the main factor influencing the reduction of the runoff of the Wu River, while the difference between land use in the flood season and out of season is more significant.

Attribution analysis and model comparison

In recent years, under the influence of climate change and human activities, river runoff has decreased to different degrees in different regions (Zhang et al. 2018), and this effect is not caused by a single element in the basin, but by the interaction between multiple elements. In this study, based on 32 hydrological indicators, the hydrological conditions of the Wu River Basin were analyzed before and after 2004, and the overall change was 56%, which is a moderate change. The changes in hydrological conditions in the Wu River Basin provide a basis for the subsequent analysis of runoff changes. The SWAT model is based on the comparative analysis of reconstructed natural runoff and measured runoff, and calculates the contribution values of climate change and human activities on the monthly scale and the influence weights on the yearly, seasonal, and monthly scales. As shown in Figure 8(c) and 8(f), on the monthly scale, human activities and climate change increased synchronously and peaked in the flood season, the contribution of climate change to runoff change increased by 792.53 m3/s in May–June, and the contribution of human activities to runoff change increased by 460.96 m3/s in June–July. This is directly related to the construction of various water conservancy projects in the Wu River since 2004, and the reservoirs and the river water lifting. The construction and operation of the projects have a direct impact on the river runoff. This conclusion is consistent with the results of Wei et al. (2021).

Compared with the traditional RNN, the LSTM model is able to learn and preserve long-term dependencies in time series data more efficiently, and is suitable for dealing with non-linear relationships, long sequence data, and tasks with long-term memory dependencies. By comparing Figure 8(a)–8(c) and Figure 8(d)–8(f), the simulation results of the two models are basically the same. From the LSTM simulation results, in terms of annual scale, the contribution rate of climate change is 0.57, which is slightly lower than that of 0.60 in the SWAT model, and as a whole, the coefficient of determination R2 of the LSTM model is slightly lower than that of the SWAT model. According to the study of Hernandez et al. (2000), the SWAT model reflects well on the rainfall relationship. The results indicate that the SWAT model simulates a stronger correlation between runoff and rainfall and a higher sensitivity to rainfall changes, resulting in better SWAT model simulation results for monthly runoff than the LSTM model. Since the meteorological data in this study include rainfall, the SWAT model simulation results are more significant. On the other hand, the training samples of the LSTM model are small because the simulation scale is monthly. Deep learning is very dependent on the size of the training samples, and too small training samples may not be able to provide more time-series information, resulting in lower simulation accuracy, which may also be the reason why the coefficient of determination R2 of the LSTM model is smaller. The contribution of climate change to runoff reduction in the Wu River calculated based on the Water and Energy Transfer Processes in Large River Basins (WEP-L) model is 70.3% (Wang et al. 2023a), which is about 10% more than the relative contribution of climate change calculated by the SWAT model in this study, due to the fact that the WEP-L model separates the land use from the human activities, which results in a higher relative contribution of climate change. Guo et al. (2021) combined the Mann-Kendall test, IHA, Budyko's hypothesis, climate and subsurface changes in a comprehensive analysis of runoff in the Wu River Basin, and found that the precipitation contribution (P), the potential evapotranspiration (ET0), and the subsurface-to-runoff changes were 61.5, 11.4, and 26.9%, respectively. Climate change, as the dominant factor in runoff reduction, places higher demands on water resources management and climate change adaptation. There is a need to develop more refined and targeted water resources management and climate change adaptation strategies, and to strengthen inter-basin management as well as climate change monitoring and early warning systems in order to address the challenges of climate change on water resources and ecosystems.

This study also has limitations in terms of model uncertainty. The SWAT model requires parameter adjustments in all simulations of runoff. The magnitude and size of the parameter adjustments are uncertain and require consistent criteria. For example, the soil depth coefficients in the SWAT model were not investigated and surveyed in the field, but only trained empirically with the SWAT-CUP software. This leads to errors in runoff calculations and uncertainty in simulations. Meanwhile, the small training samples of the LSTM model do not provide more time-series information, which leads to lower simulation accuracy which will also affect the reliability of the study. During the SWAT model rate determination process, we selected 23 parameters, and more parameters can be added in the future to improve the accuracy of the simulation results. In the future, we can also use more accurate fully distributed hydrologic models for runoff simulation, such as the DHSVM (Distributed Hydrology Soil Vegetation Model) model, which takes into account multiple factors such as topography, soil, vegetation, rainfall, evaporation-transpiration, and groundwater flow, when dealing with hydrologic processes in a watershed, and delineates and simulates watersheds at a detailed spatial scale with complex parameterization schemes and high demand for input data, providing more refined and accurate runoff and hydrologic simulation results.

Climate change analysis

Through the analysis in the previous subsection, it can be found that climate change is the main factor affecting runoff. In order to better analyze the correlation between climate change and runoff, we used Pearson correlation analysis to correlate the meteorological data of constructing SWAT database with runoff, as shown in Figure 9(a), it can be seen that the rainfall is the most important factor affecting runoff, and the correlation reaches 0.83. In order to study the relationship between precipitation and runoff in a deeper way, the present study introduces the cross-wavelet as shown in Figure 9(b) and 9(c), it can be found that from 2009 to 2012, rainfall exceeds runoff by about 2.3 cycles, and the correlation between rainfall and runoff at different cycle scales is positive, with correlation coefficients greater than 0.8 or more. Since rainfall exceeds runoff, this means that the relationship between rainfall and runoff needs to be more accurately grasped when forecasting and scheduling water resources. Inaccurate prediction may lead to deviations in water storage and power generation in reservoirs, hydropower stations, and other water facilities, affecting the effective utilization of water resources. At the same time, high correlation also means that changes in rainfall will directly affect runoff, making the supply of water resources more unstable and increasing the difficulty of water resources management.
Figure 9

Meteorological data and runoff correlation.

Figure 9

Meteorological data and runoff correlation.

Close modal

To this end, we should take the following measures: First, strengthen the early warning system and establish an effective rainfall and runoff monitoring network to ensure that rainfall and runoff data can be obtained in real time and accurately. By using modern weather forecast (such as GCM-SSP in CMIP6 framework) and runoff simulation technology (such as SWAT model and VIC model), the change trend of rainfall and runoff can be predicted in advance to provide a scientific basis for flood control and disaster reduction. The combination of global climate models (GCMs) and shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs) provides powerful tools for understanding and predicting future climate change. GCM-SSP simulations can analyze climate trends such as temperature, precipitation, and extreme weather events under different socioeconomic development paths. This model helps to assess the impacts of different development paths on the climate system and develop adaptation and mitigation strategies. The second is to optimize reservoir scheduling. In view of the situation that rainfall is ahead of runoff, reservoir management departments should conduct reservoir scheduling in advance and rationally arrange reservoir storage and water release plans. Appropriately reduce the water level of the reservoir before rainfall to increase the storage capacity of the reservoir; the water level of the reservoir is gradually increased according to the runoff after rainfall to relieve the flood control pressure in the lower reaches of the Wu River.

Underlayment analysis

In recent decades, a large number of reservoirs have been constructed in the Yangtze River basin, and their operation inevitably affects natural runoff (Duan et al. 2016). As shown in Figure 10(b), the increase in the number of reservoirs in the Wu River has led to a significant increase in the total reservoir capacity, which further leads to a decrease in the Wu River runoff. In order to prevent flooding, reservoir complexes usually store water at the end of the flood season to meet the water demand for domestic and productive use during the non-flood season. Meanwhile, rainfall during the flood season is more concentrated, which makes the interactions between climate change and human activities peak during this season. According to the land use transfer matrix of the Wu River Basin (Figure 10(a)), for the conversion of cropland, forest land, and grassland during the period of 1980–2020, the most significant is the conversion of grassland to woodland, reaching 3,672.116 km2, 1,625.84 km2 of fallow forest, 572.97 km2 of fallow grass, and 1,544.85 km2 of woodland to grassland. Overall, the area of arable land decreases, and the area of woodland, grassland, and construction land increases. This is consistent with Liu Fang's (n.d.) view that land use changes along the lower reaches of the Yangtze River in recent years have been characterized by a decrease in the amount of arable land and an increase in the amount of land used for construction. With the increase of grassland and woodland, the transpiration of plants will greatly increase the potential evapotranspiration and affect the runoff. The increase in construction land mainly stems from the occupation of arable land. Due to the region's rapid economic and social development, rapid population growth and accelerated urbanization, there is a scarcity of land reserve resources, and arable land protection and total balance are under great pressure. Various types of construction land play the most important contribution to the total loss of arable land, and highlight the contradiction between construction land and arable land. Thus, the increase in the area of construction land due to the policy of returning farmland to forests and grasslands in the Wu River Basin is the main driving factor for the reduction of runoff (Xiong et al. 2020). While promoting ecological protection and urban development, it is necessary to give full consideration to the impact of land use changes on water resources and to take reasonable measures to reduce the negative impact of construction land on runoff.
Figure 10

Land use shifts in the Wu River (a) and reservoir construction (b).

Figure 10

Land use shifts in the Wu River (a) and reservoir construction (b).

Close modal

In this study, we used an integrated framework to attribute changes in runoff in the Wu River Basin. We used 32 IHA indicators to analyze the hydrological conditions of the Wu River Basin before and after 2004. Based on the SWAT model, we analyzed the runoff changes in different time scales in the Wu River Basin. To ensure the reliability of the simulation results, we also added the LSTM neural network model to analyze the runoff changes in the same time scale in the Wu River. The results show that the flow of the Wu River changed abruptly in 2004, and the hydrological condition of the Wu River Basin changed significantly after the abrupt change: the overall change was 56%, which was a medium degree of change, and 9 IHA indicators had high variability, 13 indicators had medium variability, and 10 indicators had low variability. The results also showed that on the annual scale, the results of both models indicated that climate change was the main driver influencing the changes in the runoff of the Wu River, and the relative contribution of climate change was 60 and 57% for the SWAT and LSTM models, respectively, on the annual scale. The inputs to SWAT models usually include parameters such as land use, rainfall, evaporation, and soil type, and the outputs are hydrologic variables such as soil moisture and runoff. The inputs to LSTM models are time series data, and the outputs depend on the specific task, and may be the predicted values for the next time step or other relevant information. SWAT models are more concerned with the physical factors of hydrologic processes, while LSTM models are more suited for dealing with time series data. Therefore, the characteristics and nature of the data may have an impact on the prediction results of the model. The attribution results of the two models on the seasonal scale showed that climate change was the dominant factor affecting runoff changes in summer, with absolute changes of 5,021.9 and 2,473.19 m3/s, respectively; human activities were the dominant factor affecting runoff changes in winter, with absolute changes of 263.04 and 296.84 m3/s, respectively; and on the monthly scale, the effect of climate change was more significant in flood season than in non-flood season, and its absolute changes peaked in July and May, with 1,976.2 and 1,417.56 m3/s, respectively.

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Akhter
M.
,
Malik
M. I.
,
Mehraj
T.
,
Shah
A. F.
,
Ahmad
S.
,
Bhat
W. A.
&
Mujeeb
S.
2022
Runoff modelling of Aripal watershed using SWAT model
.
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
15
(
16
),
1419
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-022-10708-z
.
Chen
X.
,
Liu
Y.
,
Zhang
J.
,
Guan
T.
,
Sun
Z.
,
Jin
J.
,
Liu
C.
,
Wang
G.
&
Bao
Z.
2022
Quantify runoff reduction in the Zhang River due to water diversion for irrigation
.
Water
14
(
12
),
1918
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14121918
.
Du
R.
,
Shang
F.
&
Ma
N.
2019
Automatic mutation feature identification from well logging curves based on sliding t test algorithm
.
Cluster Computing
22
(
S6
),
14193
14200
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10586-018-2267-z
.
Duan
W.
,
Guo
S.
,
Wang
J.
&
Liu
D.
2016
Impact of cascaded reservoirs group on flow regime in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River
.
Water
8
(
6
),
218
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w8060218
.
Goharian
E.
,
Shaltout
M.
,
Erfani
M.
&
Eladawy
A.
2022
Developing an optimized policy tree-based reservoir operation model for high Aswan Dam Reservoir, Nile River
.
Water
14
(
7
),
1061
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14071061
.
Gray
L. C.
,
Zhao
L.
&
Stillwell
A. S.
2023
Impacts of climate change on global total and urban runoff
.
Journal of Hydrology
620
,
129352
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.129352
.
Guo
W.
,
Hu
J.
&
Wang
H.
2021
Analysis of runoff variation characteristics and influencing factors in the Wujiang River Basin in the past 30 years
.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
19
(
1
),
372
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19010372
.
He
F.
,
Wan
Q.
,
Wang
Y.
,
Wu
J.
,
Zhang
X.
&
Feng
Y.
2024
Daily runoff prediction with a seasonal decomposition-based deep GRU method
.
Water
16
(
4
),
618
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w16040618
.
Hernandez
M.
,
Miller
S. N.
,
Goodrich
D. C.
,
Goff
B. F.
,
Kepner
W. G.
,
Edmonds
C. M.
&
Bruce Jones
K.
2000
Modeling runoff response to land cover and rainfall spatial variability in semi-arid watersheds
.
Environmental Monitoring and Assessment
64
,
285
298
.
https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1006445811859
.
Himanshu
S. K.
,
Pandey
A.
&
Shrestha
P.
2016
Application of SWAT in an Indian River basin for modeling runoff, sediment and water balance
.
Environmental Earth Sciences
76
(
1
),
3
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-016-6316-8
.
Hu
X.
,
Cai
M.
,
Yang
S.
&
Sejas
S. A.
2018
Air temperature feedback and its contribution to global warming
.
Science China Earth Sciences
61
(
10
),
1491
1509
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11430-017-9226-6
.
Huang
X.
&
Qiu
L.
2022
Analysis of runoff variation and driving mechanism in Huangfuchuan River basin in the middle reaches of the Yellow River, China
.
Applied Water Science
12
(
10
),
234
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s13201-022-01753-w
.
Huang
S.
,
Huang
Q.
&
Chen
Y.
2015
Quantitative estimation on contributions of climate changes and human activities to decreasing runoff in Weihe River Basin, China
.
Chinese Geographical Science
25
(
5
),
569
581
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-015-0734-5
.
Jakada
H.
&
Chen
Z.
2020
An approach to runoff modelling in small karst watersheds using the SWAT model
.
Arabian Journal of Geosciences
13
(
8
),
318
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-020-05291-0
.
Jia
Y.
,
Wang
H.
,
Zhou
Z.
,
Qiu
Y.
,
Luo
X.
,
Wang
J.
,
Yan
D.
&
Qin
D.
2006
Development of the WEP-L distributed hydrological model and dynamic assessment of water resources in the Yellow River basin
.
Journal of Hydrology
331
(
3
),
606
629
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.06.006
.
Li
D.
,
Zhu
L.
,
Xu
W.
&
Ye
C.
2022
Quantifying the impact of climate change and human activities on runoff at a tropical watershed in South China
.
Frontiers in Environmental Science
10
,
1023188
.
https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2022.1023188
.
Liu Fang
n.d.
Frontiers | Spatial Response of Urban Land Use Change and Ecosystem Service Value in the Lower Reaches of the Yangtze River: A Case Study of Tongling, China
.
Liu
X.
,
Yang
M.
,
Meng
X.
,
Wen
F.
&
Sun
G.
2019
Assessing the impact of reservoir parameters on runoff in the Yalong River basin using the SWAT model
.
Water
11
(
4
),
643
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040643
.
Liu
X.
,
Zhang
X.
,
Kong
X.
&
Shen
Y.-J.
2022
Random forest model has the potential for runoff simulation and attribution
.
Water
14
(
13
),
2053
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132053
.
Lv
C.
,
Wang
X.
,
Ling
M.
,
Xu
W.
&
Yan
D.
2023
Effects of precipitation concentration and human activities on city runoff changes
.
Water Resources Management
37
(
13
),
5023
5036
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-023-03593-y
.
Niu
S.
,
Shu
L.
,
Li
H.
,
Xiang
H.
,
Wang
X.
,
Opoku
P. A.
&
Li
Y.
2021
Identification of preferential runoff belts in Jinan Spring basin based on hydrological time-series correlation
.
Water
13
(
22
),
Article 22
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w13223255
.
Patterson
L. A.
,
Lutz
B.
&
Doyle
M. W.
2013
Climate and direct human contributions to changes in mean annual streamflow in the South Atlantic, USA
.
Water Resources Research
49
(
11
),
7278
7291
.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014618
.
Pei
L.
,
Wang
C.
,
Sun
L.
&
Wang
L.
2022
Temporal and spatial variation (2001–2020) characteristics of wind speed in the water erosion area of the typical black soil region, Northeast China
.
International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health
19
(
17
),
10473
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph191710473
.
Peng
D.
,
Qiu
L.
,
Fang
J.
&
Zhang
Z.
2016
Quantification of climate changes and human activities that impact runoff in the Taihu Lake Basin, China
.
Mathematical Problems in Engineering
2016
,
1
7
.
https://doi.org/10.1155/2016/2194196
.
Ramezani
M. R.
,
Helfer
F.
&
Yu
B.
2023
Individual and combined impacts of urbanization and climate change on catchment runoff in Southeast Queensland, Australia
.
Science of The Total Environment
861
,
160528
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2022.160528
.
Ran
D.
,
Huijuan
X.
,
Zongjie
L.
,
Bin
X.
,
Mengqing
L.
&
Xiaoying
L.
2024
Quantitative analysis of the effects of climate change and human activities on the runoff in the Shiyang River Basin
.
Environmental Earth Sciences
83
(
6
),
172
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-024-11456-x
.
Richter
B. D.
,
Baumgartner
J. V.
,
Powell
J.
&
Braun
D. P.
1996
A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems
.
Conservation Biology
10
(
4
),
1163
1174
.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1523-1739.1996.10041163.x
.
Shahid
M.
,
Rahman
K. U.
,
Haider
S.
,
Gabriel
H. F.
,
Khan
A. J.
,
Pham
Q. B.
,
Pande
C. B.
,
Linh
N. T. T.
&
Anh
D. T.
2021
Quantitative assessment of regional land use and climate change impact on runoff across Gilgit watershed
.
Environmental Earth Sciences
80
(
22
),
743
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-021-10032-x
.
Su
J.
,
Long
A.
,
Chen
F.
,
Ren
C.
,
Zhang
P.
,
Zhang
J.
,
Gu
X.
&
Deng
X.
2023
Impact of the construction of water conservation projects on runoff from the Weigan River
.
Water
15
(
13
),
2431
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15132431
.
Tian
P.
,
Zhang
C.
,
Chen
Y.
,
Zhao
H.
,
Liu
J.
&
Lu
H.
2017
Simulation analysis of Jiujiang River basin runoff based on SWAT model
.
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
64
,
012005
.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/64/1/012005
.
Wang
H.
,
Lv
X.
&
Zhang
M.
2021
Sensitivity and attribution analysis based on the Budyko hypothesis for streamflow change in the Baiyangdian catchment, China
.
Ecological Indicators
121
,
107221
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2020.107221
.
Wang
H.
,
Cheng
S.
,
He
N.
,
Huang
L.
,
Yang
H.
,
Hong
F.
,
Ma
Y.
,
Chen
W.
&
Guo
W.
2023a
Multi-scale flow regimes and driving forces analysis based on different models: A case study of the Wu river basin
.
Water Supply
23
(
9
),
3978
3996
.
https://doi.org/10.2166/ws.2023.199
.
Wang
J.
,
Peng
T.
,
Xiang
Y.
,
Yin
Z.
&
Qi
H.
2023b
Analysis of the characteristics of uneven spatio-temporal distribution in Wujiang River basin over the last 60 years
.
Atmosphere
14
(
9
),
1356
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos14091356
.
Wei
G.
,
Jun
S.
,
Yangshuo
O.
,
Liqiang
Y.
,
Guangdong
W.
,
Ning
C. F.
&
Kun
W.
2021
Research on runoff variation trend and hydrological situation variation in Wujiang River basin
.
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
826
(
1
),
012004
.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/826/1/012004
.
Wu
L.
,
Wang
S.
,
Bai
X.
,
Chen
F.
,
Li
C.
,
Ran
C.
&
Zhang
S.
2022
Identifying the multi-scale influences of climate factors on runoff changes in a typical karst watershed using wavelet analysis
.
Land
11
(
8
),
1284
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/land11081284
.
Xiang
Z.
,
Yan
J.
&
Demir
I.
2020
A rainfall-runoff model with LSTM-based sequence-to-sequence learning
.
Water Resources Research
56
(
1
),
e2019WR025326
.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025326
.
Xiao
J.
,
Bai
X.
,
Zhou
D.
,
Qian
Q.
,
Zeng
C.
&
Chen
F.
2018
Spatial-temporal evolution of vegetation coverage and analysis of it's future trends in Wujiang River basin
.
IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science
108
,
042066
.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1755-1315/108/4/042066
.
Yan
X.
,
Bao
Z.
,
Zhang
J.
,
Wang
G.
,
He
R.
&
Liu
C.
2020
Quantifying contributions of climate change and local human activities to runoff decline in the upper reaches of the Luanhe River basin
.
Journal of Hydro-Environment Research
28
,
67
74
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jher.2018.11.002
.
Yang
X.
,
Maihemuti
B.
,
Simayi
Z.
,
Saydi
M.
&
Na
L.
2022
Prediction of glacially derived runoff in the Muzati River Watershed based on the PSO-LSTM model
.
Water
14
(
13
),
Article 13
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w14132018
.
Yuan
X.
,
Chen
C.
,
Lei
X.
,
Yuan
Y.
&
Muhammad Adnan
R.
2018
Monthly runoff forecasting based on LSTM–ALO model
.
Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment
32
(
8
),
2199
2212
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-018-1560-y
.
Zaibak
I.
&
Meddi
M.
2022
Simulating streamflow in the Cheliff basin of west northern Algeria using the SWAT model
.
Journal of Earth System Science
131
(
1
),
25
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12040-021-01777-x
.
Zarfl
C.
,
Lumsdon
A. E.
,
Berlekamp
J.
,
Tydecks
L.
&
Tockner
K.
2015
A global boom in hydropower dam construction
.
Aquatic Sciences
77
(
1
),
161
170
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00027-014-0377-0
.
Zhai
R.
&
Tao
F.
2017
Contributions of climate change and human activities to runoff change in seven typical catchments across China
.
Science of The Total Environment
605–606
,
219
229
.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2017.06.210
.
Zhang
Z.
,
Wan
L.
,
Dong
C.
,
Xie
Y.
,
Yang
C.
,
Yang
J.
&
Li
Y.
2018
Impacts of climate change and human activities on the surface runoff in the Wuhua River basin
.
Sustainability
10
(
10
),
3405
.
https://doi.org/10.3390/su10103405
.
Zhang
Z.
,
Liu
S.
,
Ma
K.
,
Zhang
X.
,
Yang
Y.
&
Cui
F.
2023
Runoff simulation of the upper Jinsha River Basin based on LSTM driven by elevation dependent climatic forcing
.
Progress in Geography
42
(
6
),
1139
1152
.
https://doi.org/10.18306/dlkxjz.2023.06.009
.
Zheng
J.
,
He
Y.
,
Jiang
X.
,
Nie
T.
&
Lei
Y.
2021
Attribution analysis of runoff variation in Kuye River basin based on three Budyko methods
.
Land
10
(
10
),
Article 10
.
. https://doi.org/10.3390/land10101061
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).