Research Article  Open Access
Ziwei Xiao, Peng Shi, Peng Jiang, Jianwei Hu, Simin Qu, Xingyu Chen, Yingbing Chen, Yunqiu Dai, Jianjin Wang, "The Spatiotemporal Variations of Runoff in the Yangtze River Basin under Climate Change", Advances in Meteorology, vol. 2018, Article ID 5903451, 14 pages, 2018. https://doi.org/10.1155/2018/5903451
The Spatiotemporal Variations of Runoff in the Yangtze River Basin under Climate Change
Abstract
A better understanding of the runoff variations contributes to a better utilization of water resources and water conservancy planning. In this paper, we analyzed the runoff changes in the Yangtze River Basin (YRB) including the spatiotemporal characteristics of intraannual variation, the trend, the mutation point, and the period of annual runoff using various statistical methods. We also investigated how changes in the precipitation and temperature could impact on runoff. We found that the intraannual runoff shows a decreasing trend from 1954 to 2008 and from upper stream to lower stream. On the annual runoff sequence, the upstream runoff has a high consistency and shows an increasing diversity from upper stream to lower stream. The mutation points of the annual runoff in the YRB are years 1961 and 2004. Annual runoff presents multitime scales for dry and abundance changes. Hurst values show that the runoffs at the main control stations all have Hurst phenomenon (the persistence of annual runoff). The sensitivity analyses of runoff variation to precipitation and temperature were also conducted. Our results show that the response of runoff to precipitation is more sensitive than that to temperature. The response of runoff to temperature is only onethird of the response to precipitation. A decrease in temperature may offset the impact of decreasing rainfall on runoff, while an increase in both rainfall and temperature leads to strongest runoff variations in the YRB.
1. Introduction
Climate change and human activities influence the global water cycle process [1]. Any change within the climate system and the impact of human activities at each link will be reflected in key elements of the hydrologic cycle [2–6]. Under the background of global warming and human disturbance, river runoff has changed significantly, which has aggravated the shortage of water resources and caused the deterioration of ecological environment [7]. Hence, understanding the changes of runoff in a watershed is critical to mitigate the water resources crisis, protect the ecological environment, and realize the sustainable development of society and economy [8–10].
The spatiotemporal variations of runoff have been extensively studied in Yangtze River Basin (YRB). Chen et al. analyzed annual mean runoff from Yichang, Wuhan, and Datong stations. They examined runoff variability of the YRB based on hydrological data from the three stations and found that the runoff in the middle and lower reaches tends to increase by about 50% over that in the upper reach above Yichang [11]. Zhang and Wen analyzed annual runoff of the upper YRB, showing that the annual runoff discharge in Jinsha recorded at Pingshan had normal variation during the past decades [12]. Xu et al. used the distributed hydrological model to analyze the spatialtemporal variation of runoff in the upper YRB; their results indicated that the annual river discharges at hydrological gauges on the mainstream show no significant trend [13]. Zhang and Wei analyzed the variation of runoff in the upper reaches of the YRB on the basis of monitoring data series from 1881 to 2006. They found that the average annual runoff after 1990 is obviously higher than that before 1990 [14]. Hong et al. calculated the streamflow drought index (SDI) series with 12month time scale and assessed the hydrological drought of the upper YRB based on the daily streamflow data of the Yichang hydrological station from 1882 to 2009 [15]. However, to our knowledge, there have been relatively fewer studies that investigate the spatial differences of runoff changing trend in the whole basin and examine the multiscale temporal variability of runoff at different locations.
The changes of annual runoff in the YRB are affected by many factors, including meteorological factors such as precipitation, temperature, and the impact of human activities. In recent decades, with the rapid population growth, the YRB water resources development and utilization have been significantly improved. According to statistics, the YRB has built more than 46,000 dams and 7,000 culverts [16]. Lots of studies have been conducted describing a clear response to dam building in terms of sediment yield, runoff, and its impact on estuarine and coastal regions during this later period [17]. They found that human activities, especially large dam construction such as the Three Gorges Dam in the river basin, mainly effect the relocation of seasonal runoff and have little influence on the annual flow regime [18]. Zhang et al. indicated that human activities (deforestation, dam construction and operation, etc.) exert more influences on sediment loads than on annual runoff and indicated that the variation in the annual runoff is mainly controlled by climate fluctuation (i.e., precipitation variation) in the YRB [19]. Chen et al. adopted a multiple correlation analysis of discharge, precipitation, dam volume, population, and GDP in the YRB, showing that only precipitation is significantly correlated with discharge, explaining 80% of the variance [17]. The pattern of storage and release for the hydroelectric dams is that a part of the high flows towards the end of summer and into autumn are stored for later release through the turbines in the low flow period in late winter and spring [20]. This is revealed in changes to monthly flows but has little impact on total annual discharge. As a result, there has been increasing concern about climate change as a driver of annual runoff changes in the YRB [21–23].
Precipitation and temperature are the most critical climate factors, which control runoff variations [24, 25]. Studies have shown that, for every 10% increase in precipitation, river runoff will increase by 25% in Australia [26], 195% in the United States [27], and 27% in Huaihe River Basin, China [28]. At present, warming is the main feature of global climate change [29]. Studies have shown that climate warming will increase the water vapor content, accelerate the hydrological processes, and cause dry areas to be drier and humid areas to be more humid [30, 31]. However, warming strengthens the evapotranspiration, which results in less runoff [32–35]. Therefore, the runoff response analysis was mainly conducted in terms of precipitation and temperature.
Linear regression modeling approach is a common and simple method for runoff simulation in the YRB [36, 37]. However, the linear regression modeling tends to introduce more simulation error due to various nonlinear relationships in nature. In this study, a nonlinear regression model was used for runoff response analysis based on the research of the runoff changes in the YRB. Two control stations are selected in the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the YRB, respectively.
In this paper, we strive to offer a comprehensive analysis of the spatiotemporal variations of runoff in the YRB using various statistical methods. A number of hydrological stations in the upper, middle, and lower reaches are selected for the analysis. We seek here to investigate the spatial differences of the runoff changing trend in the YRB, present the multiscale temporal changes of runoff at different locations, and conduct a sensitivity analysis of runoff response to precipitation and temperature.
2. Study Area and Data
2.1. Study Area
The YRB (24° to 35°N, 90° to 122°E) covers 19 provinces, municipalities, and autonomous regions across the three major economic zones in eastern, central, and western China. It is the third largest basin in the world with a total catchment area of 1.8 million square kilometers, accounting for 18.8% of China’s land area. The basin has a wealth of natural resources. Yichang (YC) and Hukou (HK) stations are the demarcation points of the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the YRB. The average annual precipitation in the Yangtze River Basin is 1126.7 mm, which belongs to the area with abundant precipitation. The topography of the YRB is a multilevel stepped topography. The runoff flows through mountains, plateaus, basins (tributaries), hills, and plains. Due to the influence of local circulation and topography, the spatial distribution of annual precipitation is very uneven, decreasing from southeast to northwest [22]. The main land use/land cover in the YRB is forest, arable, and grassland, accounting for more than 90% of the total area of the basin. The proportions of water, urban and rural construction land, and other unused lands are relatively small [38].
2.2. Data Description
The average daily discharge data of two control stations in the upper, middle, and lower reaches of the Yangtze River Basin were chosen (Figure 1). All of these sites are located in the mainstream of the Yangtze River Basin. The data of these stations is not completely continuous; after removing the discontinuous data series, the measured data series of each site are shown in Table 1. The time series length is not consistent. As a result, we chose the average daily discharge data from 1954 to 2008 (55 years in total) for the analysis period.

3. Methods
The distribution of runoff within a year is closely related to the source of river runoff and the natural geography of river basin. It is also one of the basic data needed by the national water sector and an important criterion for water resources assessment. Several typical indicators, such as the nonuniformity coefficient, are regarded to be better for denoting integral characteristics of intraannual distribution of streamflow. They can serve for the decision of water resources management in the region with high socialeconomic development [39, 40]. The relative change amplitude index can further verify the nonuniformity of the annual distribution of runoff. Therefore, in this paper, the intraannual distribution of runoff in the YRB was analyzed using the two indices: the coefficient of nonuniformity [41–43] and relative change amplitude.
In this study, cumulative anomaly curve method and linear propensity estimation method were used for trend analysis, wavelet analysis was used for cyclical characteristics analysis, method was used for runoff persistence analysis, and nonlinear regression model was used for runoff response analysis.
3.1. Cumulative Anomaly Curve Method
Cumulative anomaly is a commonly used method of judging the trend of change. We can visually determine the trend through the curve. When the cumulative anomaly curve is on the rise, it indicates the increase of anomaly, that is, the upward trend; otherwise it indicates the downward trend. For a hydrological sample sequence , the cumulative anomaly at a particular moment is expressed aswhere is the cumulative anomaly from year 1 to year , is the hydrological sample value of year , and is the average value.
3.2. Linear Propensity Estimation Method
The sample series correspond to a value of at time , and a linear regression between and is established as follows:where is the regression constant, is the regression coefficient, and and are estimated using the least squares method. The sign of the regression coefficient indicates the tendency of the scalar , the positive value indicates the increasing trend, and the negative value indicates the decreasing trend.
The correlation coefficient represents the degree of linearity of the linear correlation between and time . In order to judge whether the degree of change is significant, it is necessary to test the significance of . Determine the significance level α; if , it indicates that the trend of with time is significant; otherwise it shows that the trend is not obvious.
Due to the influence of hydrological cycles, natural conditions, and human activities, the hydrological regime tends to change in time or space, that is, obviously beyond the regularization of the system. For example, the statistical characteristics of the sequence (such as mean) in hydrological statistical significance have changed significantly, so that the hydrological sequence does not conform to the definition of “consistency” in a certain sense. However, in the calculation of hydrological frequency, the hydrological sequence must be consistent, and the nonconformity sequence should be processed. The key to the processing is to find the mutation point of the sequence. Therefore, in terms of hydrological modeling and forecasting, hydrological analysis, and so on, we need to understand and diagnose the mutation point of hydrological time series in any time so as to take the correct hydrological analysis and scheduling decisions. The statistical test method can be used to test the trend and jump components of the hydrological sequence.
Common mutant detection methods are lowpass filtering, sliding test, Cramer method, and MannKendall method. Different methods have different test sensitivity, so the results are slightly different [44]. For mutation analysis, MannKendall nonparametric test method and test were used in this study. MannKendall nonparametric test was used to identify the mutation points first, and then the test was used to further identify the abrupt points.
3.3. MannKendall Nonparametric Test Method
The MannKendall nonparametric test method (MK method) has the advantage that the sample does not require a certain distribution of the sample and is not subject to a small number of anomalies, so the method is more suitable for type variables and sequential variables. Furthermore, its calculation is relatively simple. This method was originally used only to detect trends in the sequence. After continuous development, this method can be used to determine the starting position of various trends. Goossens and Berger applied this method to the reverse sequence for detecting the mutation point [45].
For a time series with sample sizes, construct a rank sequence:where
The rank sequence is the cumulative number of which is larger than . Under the assumption that the time series are randomly independent, the order statistics are defined as
Here = 0; and are the mean and variance of , respectively. When are independent and have the same continuous distribution, let
Next we construct the inverseorder statistics. We repeat the above process by time reverse order . Let = (), and = 0.
If the and curves intersect and with the intersection between the critical lines, the time of the corresponding intersection is the beginning of the mutation.
3.4. Test
If the mean difference between the two subsequences exceeds a certain significant level, the mean value is considered to be qualitative and the sequence has a mutation.
For a time series with sample sizes, a certain time is set as a reference point artificially. The sequence is divided into two subsequences, the number of samples is and , the average is and , and the variance is and . The statistic is defined as follows:where
The statistic follows the distribution of degrees of freedom + − 2. Given a significant level of , if , it is considered a mutation.
3.5. Wavelet Analysis Method
Wavelet analysis is becoming a common tool for analyzing localized variations of power within a time series. By decomposing a time series into timefrequency space, one is able to determine both dominant modes of variability and how those modes vary in time [46]. The wavelet transform has been used for numerous studies in geophysics [47–49].
3.6. Method
analysis is a time series statistical method proposed by Hearst on the basis of a large number of empirical studies, which plays an important role in fractal theory. The Hearst exponent is closely related to the fractal dimension of the fractional Brownian motion, which indicates the persistence (or antipersistence) of the fractional Brownian motion [50]. The value of is in the range of (0, 1), corresponding to different value; its meaning is as follows: H (0, 0.5): that time series has antipersistence; that is, the general trend of future changes is contrary to the past. From an average point of view, the trend of the past diminishes the trend of increasing trends in the past, and the increase in the past suggests a tendency to decrease in the future. The smaller the value, the stronger the reverse resistance. H = 0.5: it means that the time series are independent of each other. That is, the value of any time has nothing to do with the past. H (0.5, 1): it indicates that the time series is persistent, which means that the changing trend in the future will be the same as the trend in the past. The smaller the value, the stronger the reverse resistance. The greater the value, the stronger the persistence. From the above analysis, we can see that the Hurst index can better reveal the trend components in the time series. is calculated from the following formula:where is range, is standard deviation, is sample size, and is a constant.
3.7. Nonlinear Regression
The relationship between the dependent variable and the independent variable can be approximated by a linear equation. However, in nature, the nonlinear relationship exists in large numbers. The linear regression model requires that the variables must be linearly related. Curve estimation can only deal with nonlinear problems that can be linearly transformed by variable transformation, so these methods have some limitations. In contrast, nonlinear regression can be used to estimate the model between the variable and the independent variable, and the specific form of the estimation equation can be arbitrarily set according to the specific needs. The nonlinear regression process is a special nonlinear regression model fitting process, which uses iterative method to fit various complex curve models and extends the definition of residuals from the least squares method.
4. Results and Discussion
4.1. Runoff Characteristics and Trend Analysis
4.1.1. IntraAnnual Variation
Based on daily runoff data of 6 stations, the annual heterogeneity coefficient and relative change range of each site in different periods were calculated, which were divided by chronology and listed in Table 2.

The high value indicated a high degree of nonuniformity as is the high value. Table 2 indicates that the distribution of annual runoff is not uniform, and the variation regularities of the value and value are similar. WX and YC control stations in the upper reaches of YRB had the lowest heterogeneity at the beginning of the 21st century and the highest inhomogeneity in 1950s. The inhomogeneities of the LS and WHG stations in the middle reaches of the YRB were similar in the 1950s and 1990s, and the inhomogeneity in the early 21st century was low. For the two downstream control stations, the inhomogeneity of the HK station varied greatly, with the highest in the 1950s and the lowest in the early 21st century and the negative change in the flow data due to the tidal effect, so the relative change in the 1960s amplitude is negative. On the whole, the heterogeneity of DT station is low, which is the lowest in the 21st century. As the tides have cyclical changes in the up and down tide replacement stage [51], the flow also will change in the opposite direction. HK station is located in the tidal reach, where runoff is affected by the tide, and the law of change is somewhat special. Thus, in general, the nonuniformity of the distribution of annual runoff presents temporal and spatial variation, which shows a downward trend from 1954 to 2008 and from upper stream to lower stream (HK station is an exception). This phenomenon may be related to the construction of more than 50,000 reservoirs in the YRB. The construction of the reservoirs changed the original regularity of natural runoff, which made the difference of runoff small. Meanwhile, the economy of the lower reaches of the YRB is more developed than that of the upper reaches, and the influence of human activities on runoff is large, so the heterogeneity of runoff is weakened.
4.1.2. Annual Runoff Characteristics
(1) Runoff Trend Diagnosis. The cumulative anomaly curves are divided into upper, middle, and lower reaches and are plotted in Figure 2.
From Figure 2, it can be seen that the cumulative anomaly curves of the two control stations in the upper reaches of the YRB are almost completely coincident with each other; the cumulative anomaly curves of the middle reaches are almost the same, but the runoff values are slightly different. The cumulative anomaly curve at downstream control stations is large, including data sizes and trend. In addition, 6 hydrological stations all show a clear upward trend at the end of the 20th century.
Linear propensity estimation method was used to estimate the trend of runoff, and the correlation coefficient was used to test the significance. The trend value , the correlation coefficient , and the significance of the annual runoff of the control station are shown in Table 3. The negative values indicate that runoffs at five stations all decrease with time, while runoff at HK station shows an increasing trend. This is consistent with the conclusion of Li et al.’s study about natural runoff from 1953 to 2011 in HK station in 2015 [52]. The significance test revealed that the runoff at YC station located in the upper reaches of the YRB displays a significant decreasing trend at the confidence level of 0.05. The results show that the annual runoff in the YRB is decreasing, and the annual runoff of the YC hydrological station in the upper reaches is obviously decreasing.

(2) Runoff Mutation Test. The mutation points are identified by the MK test. The UF and UB values were calculated according to the corresponding formulas, and the curves of UF and UB with time were plotted. Take the WX station as an example; the curves of the UF and UB changes with time were shown in Figure 3. Considering the influence of the data length, it can be seen that the UF and UB curves intersect in 1961 and 2004, and the intersection was within the critical line.
The other stations curves of UF and UB with time were plotted in the same way, and then the variance points obtained by MK test were summarized in Table 4. Then, the test was performed on the variation points identified in Table 4, respectively, and the test results were shown in Table 5. If the absolute value of exceeds the critical value, it means that the significance test is passed.


The results show that the absolute value of annual runoff of YC station in 1961 is greater than the critical value of 0.1 significance level, which indicates that the mean mutation of YC station occurred in 1961. Similarly, the mean mutations of LS, WHG, HK, and DT stations occurred in 2004, 2004, 1998, and 2004, respectively.
(3) Runoff Cycle Analysis. Morlet wavelet was chosen for wavelet transform. The wavelet is a continuous plane wave modulated by a Gaussian function. The wavelet function is as follows:where is the angular frequency, here taken to be 6 to satisfy the admissibility condition [53].
In Figure 4, “” represents a positive value center, indicating the runoff wet season, and “” represents a negative center, indicating the dry season of runoff. There are two obvious periods of change in annual runoff throughout the analysis period. During the period from 1975 to 1992, there was a periodical change of about 11 years; two centers were sandwiched by three positive centers runoff wetdry oscillation. The periodical changes in the time scale around 18 years mainly existed from 1954 to 1973 and from 1993 to 2008; one center was sandwiched by two negative centers runoff drywet oscillation.
The modulus of Morlet wavelet coefficients reflects the distribution of energy density corresponding to the period of different time scales in the time domain. The larger the coefficient modulus, the stronger the periodicity of the corresponding period or scale. Figure 5 indicates that the 18year scale has the largest modulus during runoff evolution, which means that the periodical variation of the 18 years is the most obvious. This periodicity became weaker from 1954 to 1973 and stronger from 1993 to 2008. The modulus at the time scale of about 11 years is relatively weaker, and the periodicity is constant in the period from 1975 to 1992.
The wavelet variance is obtained by integrating the square of the wavelet coefficients. And the contribution of wavelet energy is proportional to the modulus of wavelet coefficients. Therefore, the wavelet variance can be used to determine the relative intensity of different types of disturbance in the signal and the main time scale of existence, namely, the main period.
The annual runoff time series have the multiscale periodic characteristics. Some of the periodic changes in the time scale are obvious and some are not. The wavelet variance indicated that the first main cycle of the runoff period is 18 years; the second main cycle is 11 years. The results are shown in Table 6 for the wavelet analysis of the runoff of other stations.

Previous studies suggested that solar activity may affect changes in the Earth’s climate, especially in the field of precipitation [54–57], thus affecting runoff. Wang et al. conducted a statistical analysis of the sunspot activity in the past 50 years, indicating that the solar activity has a quasi11a period and a quasi80a century cycle. In the declining period of solar activity 11a period, the YRB and its south of the region in the summer are prone to floods [58]. This also explains to some extent that 5 of the 6 hydrological stations in this paper have a quasi period of 11 years. On the other hand, the quasiperiodic variations in sea surface variables have shown growing promise for longrange precipitation variation. The 3–6year periodical El NinoSouthern Oscillation (ENSO) is the best known oceanicatmospheric index that can explain the variability of precipitation in YRB [59]. The other oceanic indices such as Pacific Decadal Oscillation and Atlantic Ocean Oscillation may have modulation effects on ENSOprecipitation relationship [56, 60, 61]. As a result, the runoff in YRB may present multiscale temporal variability (Table 6).
(4) Continuity Analysis of Runoff Variation. Figure 6 displays the Hurst values of WX, YC, LS, WHG, HK, and DT stations. Except for LS station, the annual runoff time series as a trajectory of the fractional Brownian movement shows persistence, which indicates that the annual runoff will exhibit the same trend as that in the past. The runoff sequence of the LS station is antipersistent. LS station is different from the other stations due to the following facts: LS station is located in the alluvial river, vulnerable to erosion and deposition changes. There are many tributaries along the river; the flood fluctuations of main stream and tributaries are not synchronized. It is located in the middle section; the runoff is affected not only by the upper stream flood fluctuations but also by the lower stream backwater.
4.2. Runoff Response Analysis
DT station was chosen for runoff response analysis. It is located in the lower reach of Yellow River, which controls a catchment area of about 1.7 million km^{2}. It covers about 94% of the total YRB. It is also an important station for water regime monitoring in the lower reaches of the YRB. Therefore, the runoff data of the DT station are usually used for analysis. The precipitation and temperature of the 120 meteorological stations in the watershed controlled by the DT Station were selected as the basic climatic factors. The precipitation and temperature are from the 1961–2008 data compiled by the National Meteorological Center. The temperature is the daily average, and the precipitation is the daily total value. The locations of the DT hydrological station and the corresponding weather stations are shown in Figure 7.
4.2.1. Establishment of the Model
Considering the nonlinear relationship between water resources system and climate change and referring to Fu and Liu [62], the nonlinear regression model of , , and was established by mathematical method, where is the annual runoff depth of DT station; P is the regional average precipitation; is the regional average temperature. First we plotted the scatter matrix as shown in Figure 8.
According to the scatter matrix to determine the relationship between the three variables, as shown in Figure 8, the scatter matrix is divided into nine subgraphs, which describe the changes between the three variables. It can be seen that there is a significant linear relationship between and and , respectively. And by observing the scatter plot between and , there is a certain relationship between the two variables, which indicates that there may be a cross effect between the two dependent variables. Thus, the following nonlinear regression equation is established:
Table 7 shows the nonlinear regression model (see (11)). It can be seen that, after 13 iterations, the model reaches the convergence criterion and the optimal solution was found. Thus, the predictive regression model for , , and is as follows:The square of model was 0.828, indicating that the model in (12) on the DT annual runoff fitting effect is better.
 
number of primary iterations is shown on the left side of the decimal, and the number of secondary iterations is shown on the right side of the decimal. model stops running after 13 iterations and the optimal solution has been found. 
4.2.2. Response of Runoff to Climatic Factors
The optimal model was selected by nonlinear regression analysis to quantitatively assess the response of the runoff to the climatic factors. We constructed two types of climate factors change: each climate factor changes alone; multifactors change at the same time, that is, factors coupling changes.
Table 8 indicates that the difference between the factors of each element (including the extreme maximum and the extreme minimum) and the average are obvious, where the difference between and the average is about ±7% and the difference between and the average is about ±15%. Therefore, the average changes of regional factors are in the range of 7% to 15%. Based on the above analysis, the change amplitude in the design for the factors was in the middle of the actual data change. Tables 9 and 10, respectively, are the two types of changes and R response results, where has been converted into the relative rate of change.
 
Notes. represents the difference between the maximum and the average; represents the difference between the minimum and the average. 


Table 9 shows the relative change of at DT station caused by changes of a single climatic factor. The aim is to evaluate how the runoff could be impacted by the climatic factors with changes of the same level.
As can be seen from Table 9, when the degree of change of factors is the same, the response of is different. When the change of is +5%, the rate of change of is 13.43%. When is increased by 5%, the rate of change of is 4.4%, which is 1/3 of . Among the two factors, when the degree of change of factors is the same, has the most significant response to . When the climate factor is reduced, changes become more complex. When the change of is −5%, the rate of change of is −2.73%. When is decreased by 5%, the rate of change of is 6.14%. That is to say, when the temperature decreases, the runoff is increasing, and when precipitation decreases, the runoff is decreasing. This is because the temperature decreases lead to reducing the evaporation rate of water and then the amount of water used for evaporation loss is reduced, so the runoff increases. And precipitation is the most important source of runoff, so the reduction of precipitation will lead directly to the reduction of runoff.
Table 10 shows the relative changes in Chasepass flow when multiclimatic factors change. In Table 3, we considered the conditions for the coupling variation of and T, and the symbols “+” and “−” denote increases and decreases, respectively.
It can be seen from Table 10 that, considering the and coupling changes, with and in the same direction or reverse changes, the impact of the is different. When increases with T, changes from +5% to +15%, and the increment can vary by about 20.85%. When decreases with T, changes from −5% to −15%, and the increment can vary by about −12.73%. When increases while decreases, changes from +5% to +15%, and the increment can vary by about 13.4%. When decreases while increases, changes from −5% to −15%, and the increment can vary by about −17.55%. This phenomenon shows that when rainfall and temperature are reduced at the same time, the impact on runoff is minimum; when the precipitation and temperature increase at the same time, the impact on runoff is maximum. And regardless of the increase or decrease in precipitation, the effect of temperature increase on runoff is greater than that of temperature reduction. This is because when the precipitation increases, the air vapor content is high, and the water holding capacity of air increases by about 7% per 1°C warming [30], which leads to increased water vapor in the atmosphere. In this situation, there is a tendency for more intense precipitation events which will further lead to additional runoff. When the precipitation decreases, increased heating leads to greater evaporation and thus surface drying, thereby increasing the intensity and duration of drought [30].
5. Conclusions
In this paper, different statistical methods were used to detect the trend, the mutation point, and multiscale variability: The intraannual variation of runoff in the YRB was analyzed by using two indexes of nonuniformity coefficient and the relative change amplitude index. The annual variation of runoff was analyzed using cumulative anomaly curve method, linear propensity estimation method, MannKendall nonparametric test method, test, and Wavelet analysis method. The future trend was predicted using the Hurst index of runoff sequence, estimated by analysis. Furthermore, the runoff response analysis was conducted by quantitatively analyzing the response of runoff to the two most sensitive climatic factors (precipitation and temperature).
There is a significant change in spatiotemporal distribution of runoff in the YRB. The intraannual runoff variation showed a decreasing nonuniformity from the 1950s to the beginning of the 21st century and from upper stream to lower stream, excluding the HK control station, of which the intraannual runoff variation is impacted by the tidal effect. The historical changing trend of annual runoff is more consistent in the upper reaches than in the lower reaches of the YRB, which resulted from the impact of more human activities and more severe land use on runoff variation in the lower reaches [63, 64]. Annual runoff decreases with time in general and YC station showed a significant decreasing trend with a significance level of 0.05. The mutation point of the annual runoff sequence was mainly in 1961 and 2004, when the YRB experienced significant storm floods [65, 66], indicating that mutations in the annual runoff series may be caused by extreme precipitation events. In addition, the annual runoff has a multitime scale feature that is similar to that of solar activity [58]. The analysis of the annual runoff in the YRB shows that the values of the main control station annual runoff are not equal to 0.5; the Hurst phenomenon exists; that is, the runoff sequence of the LS station is antipersistent and the other runoff is persistent. And in the past 55 years, the values were different; the trend is not the same, so the future trend is also different. The historical runoff of WX, YC, LS, WHG, and DT stations decreased with time, and the historical trend of YC station was significantly reduced, while the historical runoff of HK station showed no significant upward trend. That is, WX, YC, WHG, and DT stations in the future may still be a reducing trend; HK station may still be an increasing trend in the future; the future trend of LS station is contrary to historical trends to be an increasing trend.
The runoff response analysis indicated that the effect of precipitation on runoff is three times that of the temperature at DT station. As a result, analysis on multiscale temporal variability of precipitation is important for investigating the runoff variations [67–69]. When the coupling sets of changes in climate factors are different, the influence degree of DT runoff is different. When the climate elements are coupled and increased in the same direction, the response of the runoff to any single climatic factor change is less than the response to the multielement coupling change; however, when the climate factor is coupled and the reverse changes when the precipitation is reduced, the runoff decreases, and if the temperature increases, the evaporation increases, which further leads the runoff to decrease; when the precipitation is increased, the runoff increases, and if the temperature decreases, the water vapor in the atmosphere decreases, which weakened the role of rainfall, thus inhibiting the increase in runoff.
Ethical Approval
The manuscript is prepared in accordance with the ethical standards of the responsible committee on human experimentation and with the latest version (2008) of Declaration of Helsinki of 1975.
Conflicts of Interest
The authors declare that there are no conflicts of interest.
Authors’ Contributions
Peng Shi, Peng Jiang, Simin Qu, and Jianwei Hu conceived and designed the numerical simulation methods; Ziwei Xiao, Xingyu Chen, Yingbing Chen, and Yunqiu Dai implemented the methods; Ziwei Xiao and Jianjin Wang analyzed the data; Ziwei Xiao, Peng Shi, and Peng Jiang wrote the paper.
Acknowledgments
The first author acknowledges the following financial support: the National Key Technologies R&D Program of China (2017YFC0405601), the National Natural Science Foundation of China (no. 41730750/51479062/41371048), the Fundamental Research Funds for the Central Universities (2015B14314), and the UKChina Critical Zone Observatory (CZO) Program (41571130071). The corresponding author is supported by Open Research Fund Program of State Key Laboratory of HydrologyWater Resources and Hydraulic Engineering (2015490611).
References
 C. Dagbegnon, S. Djebou, and V. P. Singh, “Impact of climate change on the hydrologic cycle and implications for society,” Environment and Social Psychology, vol. 1, no. 1, 2016. View at: Google Scholar
 Z. Liu C, “Impact of climate change and human activity on the hydrological cycle in North China,” in Proceeding of the 20th General Assembly of the International Union of Geodesy and Geophysics, pp. 149–151, Vienna, Austria, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
 C. Z. Liu, C. Zhan S, J. Xia, and etal., “Review on the influences of climate change and human activities on runoff,” Shuili Xuebao/Journal of Hydraulic Engineering, vol. 45, no. 4, pp. 379–385, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
 S. Allen K, G. Plattner K, A. Nauels, and etal., “Climate Change: The Physical Science Basis. An overview of the Working Group 1 contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC),” Contribution of Working, vol. 43, no. 22, pp. 143–151, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
 T. Oki and S. Kanae, “Global hydrological cycles and world water resources,” Science, vol. 313, no. 5790, pp. 1068–1072, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. C. S. Djebou, “Bridging drought and climate aridity,” Journal of Arid Environments, vol. 144, pp. 170–180, 2017. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. C. D. Milly, K. A. Dunne, and A. V. Vecchia, “Global pattern of trends in streamflow and water availability in a changing climate,” Nature, vol. 438, no. 7066, pp. 347–350, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J.Y. Zhang, G.Q. Wang, R.M. He, and C.S. Liu, “Variation trends of runoffs in the Middle Yellow River basin and its response to climate change,” Shuikexue Jinzhan/Advances in Water Science, vol. 20, no. 2, pp. 153–158, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
 J.Y. Zhang, S.L. Zhang, J.X. Wang, and Y. Li, “Study on runoff trends of the six larger basins in China over the past 50 years,” Shuikexue Jinzhan/Advances in Water Science, vol. 18, no. 2, pp. 230–234, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
 M. Balme, T. Vischel, T. Lebel, C. Peugeot, and S. Galle, “Assessing the water balance in the Sahel: Impact of small scale rainfall variability on runoff: Part 1: Rainfall variability analysis,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 331, no. 12, pp. 336–348, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z. Chen, J. Li, H. Shen, and W. Zhanghua, “Yangtze River of China: historical analysis of discharge variability and sediment flux,” Geomorphology, vol. 41, no. 2, pp. 77–91, 2001. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. Zhang and A. Wen, “Current changes of sediment yields in the upper Yangtze River and its two biggest tributaries, China,” Global and Planetary Change, vol. 41, no. 34, pp. 221–227, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Xu, D. Yang, Y. Yi, Z. Lei, J. Chen, and W. Yang, “Spatial and temporal variation of runoff in the Yangtze River basin during the past 40 years,” Quaternary International, vol. 186, no. 1, pp. 32–42, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. D. Zhang and J. H. Wei, “Analysis of runoff variation in the Upper Yangtze River and its impact on the Three Gorges Project,” Earth Science Frontiers, vol. 17, no. 6, pp. 263–270, 2010 (Chinese). View at: Google Scholar
 X. Hong, S. Guo, Y. Zhou, and L. Xiong, “Uncertainties in assessing hydrological drought using streamflow drought index for the upper Yangtze River basin,” Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, vol. 29, no. 4, pp. 1235–1247, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z. H. Zou, Q. F. Li, Z. Q. Xia, and H. J. Wang, “Humaninduced alterations in runoff of the Yangtze River,” Journal of Hohai University (Natural Sciences), vol. 35, no. 6, pp. 622–626, 2007. View at: Google Scholar
 J. Chen, X. D. Wu, B. L. Finlayson et al., “Variability and trend in the hydrology of the Yangtze River, China: annual precipitation and runoff,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 513, pp. 403–412, 2014. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 M. Yu, Q. Li, G. Lu, T. Cai, W. Xie, and X. Bai, “Investigation into the impacts of the gezhouba and the three gorges reservoirs on the flow regime of the yangtze river,” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, vol. 18, no. 9, pp. 1098–1106, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Q. Zhang, C. Liu, C.Y. Xu, Y. Xu, and T. Jiang, “Observed trends of annual maximum water level and streamflow during past 130 years in the Yangtze River basin, China,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 324, no. 14, pp. 255–265, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Z. Chen, Z. Wang, B. Finlayson, J. Chen, and D. Yin, “Implications of flow control by the Three Gorges Dam on sediment and channel dynamics of the middle Yangtze (Changjiang) River, China,” Geology, vol. 38, no. 11, pp. 1043–1046, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Q. Zhang, C.Y. Xu, T. Jiang, and Y. Wu, “Possible influence of ENSO on annual maximum streamflow of the Yangtze River, China,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 333, no. 2–4, pp. 265–274, 2007. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Q. Zhang, C.Y. Xu, Z. Zhang, Y. D. Chen, C.L. Liu, and H. Lin, “Spatial and temporal variability of precipitation maxima during 1960–2005 in the Yangtze River basin and possible association with largescale circulation,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 353, no. 34, pp. 215–227, 2008. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Zhu, H. Wang, W. Zhou, and J. Ma, “Recent changes in the summer precipitation pattern in East China and the background circulation,” Climate Dynamics, vol. 36, no. 7, pp. 1463–1473, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. B. Fu and C. M. Liu, “Estimation of regional water resource response to global warming  a case study of Wanquan Basin,” Acta Geographica Sinica, vol. 46, no. 3, pp. 277–288, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
 C. Z. Liu and Y. Y. Tian, “The application of a improved nonlinear monthly water balance model in the study of impact of climate change on runoff,” Advance of Water Science, vol. 2, no. 2, pp. 120–126, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
 R. N. Jones, F. H. S. Chiew, W. C. Boughton, and L. Zhang, “Estimating the sensitivity of mean annual runoff to climate change using selected hydrological models,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 29, no. 10, pp. 1419–1429, 2006. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 N. Mantua, I. Tohver, and A. Hamlet, “Climate change impacts on streamflow extremes and summertime stream temperature and their possible consequences for freshwater salmon habitat in Washington State,” Climatic Change, vol. 102, no. 12, pp. 187–223, 2010. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 L. R. Wang, L. Q. Xue, and S. Q. Wang, “Evolutionary tendency of water resources in the basin above Hongze Lake under the condition of climate change,” Water Resources Protection, vol. 31, no. 3, pp. 57–62, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
 Working Group I of IPCC, “Climate change 2013: the physical science basis, summary for policymakers. Stockholm: IPCC, 2013”. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 K. E. Trenberth, “Changes in precipitation with climate change,” Climate Research, vol. 47, no. 12, pp. 123–138, 2011. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. Labat, Y. Goddéris, J. L. Probst, and J. L. Guyot, “Evidence for global runoff increase related to climate warming,” Advances in Water Resources, vol. 27, no. 6, pp. 631–642, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. L. Yang, Y. S. Rong, and P. G. Yang, “Analysis of pan evaporation change trend and its influencing factors in Sichuan Basin,” Water Resources Protection, vol. 30, no. 3, pp. 38–45, 2014. View at: Google Scholar
 Y.S. Rong, X.N. Zhang, H.Y. Jiang, and L.Y. Bai, “Pan evaporation change and its impact on water cycle over the upper reach of the Yangtze River,” Chinese Journal of Geophysic, vol. 55, no. 9, pp. 2889–2897, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. A. Vano, T. Das, and D. P. Lettenmaier, “Hydrologic sensitivities of Colorado River runoff to changes in precipitation and temperature,” Journal of Hydrometeorology, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 932–949, 2012. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 S. M. VicenteSerrano and J. I. LópezMoreno, “Hydrological response to different time scales of climatological drought: an evaluation of the Standardized Precipitation Index in a mountainous Mediterranean basin,” Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, vol. 9, no. 5, pp. 523–533, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. F. Zeng and J. Z. Zhou, “Response and prediction of mean annual runoff in the Yangtze River Basin to climate changes,” Yangtze River, vol. 41, no. 12, pp. 80–83, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
 Y. S. Rong, J. Wei, and et al., “Quantitative analysis on the response of runoff to climate change in Yangtze River Basin,” Water Resources Protection, vol. 31, no. 6, pp. 40–44, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
 K. Gao, Z. X. Zhou, and Y. P. Yang, “Land use structure and its spatial autocorrelation analysis in the Yangtze River Basin,” Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, vol. s1, pp. 13–20, 2010. View at: Google Scholar
 G. Feng and Y. Li, “Quantification of nonuniformity in annual distribution of stream flows,” Xibei Nonglin Keji Daxue Xuebao, 2000. View at: Google Scholar
 H. Zheng and C. Liu, “Changes of annual runoff distribution in the headwater of the yellow river basin,” Progress in Geography, 2003. View at: Google Scholar
 G. Feng, “A discussion on coefficient of nonuniformity in hydrologic year,” Journal of Mountain Research, 1991. View at: Google Scholar
 M. Yang, B. Zhang, and H. Wang, “The study on the change of mountainous runoff Heihe River basin from 1950 to 2004,” Resources Science, 2009. View at: Google Scholar
 Y. Wu, W. Cheng, and L. Ren, “Analysis on the characteristics of annual runoff in Hotan catchment,” Journal of Natural Resources, vol. 21, no. 3, pp. 375–381, 2006. View at: Google Scholar
 F. Wei and H. Cao, “Detection of abrupt changes and trend prediction of the air temperature in China,” Scientia Atmospherica Sinica, 1995. View at: Google Scholar
 C. Goossens and A. Berger, “Annual and seasonal climatic variations over the northern hemisphere and Europe during the last century,” Annales Geophysicae, Series B, vol. 4, no. 4, pp. 385–400, 1986. View at: Google Scholar
 C. Torrence and G. P. Compo, “A practical guide to wavelet analysis,” Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, vol. 79, no. 1, pp. 61–78, 1998. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 D. Labat, “Recent advances in wavelet analyses: Part 1. A review of concepts,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 314, no. 14, pp. 275–288, 2005. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 F. Salerno and G. Tartari, “A coupled approach of surface hydrological modelling and Wavelet Analysis for understanding the baseflow components of river discharge in karst environments,” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 376, no. 12, pp. 295–306, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y.F. Sang, “A review on the applications of wavelet transform in hydrology time series analysis,” Atmospheric Research, vol. 122, pp. 8–15, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 X. Wang, B. Q. Hu, and J. Xia, “Analysis method of trend and aberrance point on hydrological time series,” Journal of Wuhan University of Hydraulic & Electric Engineering, vol. 35, no. 2, pp. 10–12, 2002. View at: Google Scholar
 Q. SiMin, B. Weimin, S. Peng, Y. Zhongbo, and J. Peng, “Waterstage forecasting in a multitributary tidal river using a bidirectional muskingum method,” Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, vol. 14, no. 12, pp. 1299–1308, 2009. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 W. Li, C. Y. Li, and D. Y. Wu, “Analysis on characteristics of natural runoff into and out of Poyang Lake in recent 60 years,” Yangtze River, vol. 46, no. 17, pp. 18–23, 2015. View at: Google Scholar
 M. Farge, “Wavelet transforms and their applications to turbulence,” Annual Review of Fluid Mechanics, vol. 24, no. 1, pp. 395–457, 1992. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 R. X. Yang and Z. M. Zhan, “Sunspot cycle length  sun activity indicators closely related to climate,” Progress in Geography, vol. 15, no. 2, pp. 1–4, 1996. View at: Google Scholar
 A. J. Cowden and E. Funkhouser, “The effect of solar activity on the weather and climate,” Journal of Henan Normal University (Natural Science), vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 43–45, 2001. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. Jiang, M. R. Gautam, J. Zhu, and Z. Yu, “How well do the GCMs/RCMs capture the multiscale temporal variability of precipitation in the Southwestern United States?” Journal of Hydrology, vol. 479, pp. 75–85, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 P. Shi, M. Wu, S. Qu et al., “Spatial distribution and temporal trends in precipitation concentration indices for the Southwest China,” Water Resources Management, vol. 29, no. 11, pp. 3941–3955, 2015. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 Y. Wang G, Z. Gong S, and L. Xu, “Analysis of long trend of temperature and precipitation in china and its influencing factors,” Journal of Applied Meteorology and Climatology, vol. 16, no. s1, pp. 85–91, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
 K. E. Trenberth, “Spatial and temporal variations of the Southern Oscillation,” Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, vol. 102, no. 433, pp. 639–653, 1976. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 W. J. Yu, H. J. Zhou, and etal., “Characteristic research on drought and flood disasters in the Yangtze River Basin,” Journal of Catastrophology, vol. 28, no. 3, pp. 42–47, 2013. View at: Google Scholar
 L. J. Zhang and Y. F. Qian, “A study on the feature of precipitation concentration and its relation to floodproducing in the Yangtze River Valley of China,” Chinese Journal of Geophysics, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 622–630, 2004. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 G. B. Fu and C. M. Liu, “Preliminary estimation of the impact of global warming on water resources,” National Geological Society of China, 1990. View at: Google Scholar
 Y. P. Xu, R. H. Yu, and Z. W. Ma, “Analysis on the cause of formation of flood disaster and flood characteristics,” Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, vol. 14, no. 5, pp. 638–643, 2005. View at: Google Scholar
 J. Chen, J. M. Cheng, and J. X. Wu, “Changes of land use and ecosystem service functions in Yangtze River Basin from 2000 to 2010,” Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, vol. 26, no. 06, pp. 894–901, 2017. View at: Google Scholar
 G. D. Wang, “Brief introduction of extraordinary storm flood in Minjiang 1961 in June,” Journal of China Hydrology, vol. 5, 1984. View at: Google Scholar
 C. X. Li, C. L. Zhang, H. P. Yu, and Y. Zhang, “Analysis of “2004.9” sterm flood in Yichang area of the Yangtze River,” Yangtze River, vol. 39, no. 18, pp. 910, 2008. View at: Google Scholar
 P. Jiang, Z. Yu, M. R. Gautam, and K. Acharya, “The spatiotemporal characteristics of extreme precipitation events in the Western United States,” Water Resources Management, vol. 30, no. 13, pp. 4807–4821, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 F. Yuan, R. Berndtsson, C. B. Uvo, L. Zhang, and P. Jiang, “Summer precipitation prediction in the source region of the Yellow River using climate indices,” Hydrology Research, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 847–856, 2016. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
 J. Peng, Z. Yu, and M. R. Gautam, “Pacific and Atlantic Ocean influence on the spatiotemporal variability of heavy precipitation in the western United States,” Global and Planetary Change, vol. 109, pp. 38–45, 2013. View at: Publisher Site  Google Scholar
Copyright
Copyright © 2018 Ziwei Xiao et al. This is an open access article distributed under the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.