EN中文

Journal of Resources and Ecology >

2022 , Vol. 13 >Issue 5: 797 - 812

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.05.005

Evaluating Ecological Restoration

Spatio-temporal Evolution and Flow of Water Provision Service Balance in Jinghe River Basin

  • GUAN Mengluan , 1 ,
  • ZHANG Qiang , 1, 2, * ,
  • WANG Baoliang 1 ,
  • ZHANG Huiyuan 1
Expand
  • 1. Chinese Research Academy of Environmental Sciences, Beijing 100012, China
  • 2. Policy Research Center for Environment and Economy, Ministry of Ecology and Environment of the People’s Republic of China, Beijing 100029, China
*ZHANG Qiang, E-mail:

GUAN Mengluan, E-mail:

Received date: 2021-11-01

  Accepted date: 2022-04-20

  Online published: 2022-07-15

Supported by

The National Natural Science Foundation of China(41701601)

The National Natural Science Foundation of China(41871196)

Fold

Abstract

Quantifying the whole process of ecosystem services from generation through transfer to use, and analyzing the balance between the supply and demand of regional ecosystem services are of great significance for formulating regional sustainable development strategies, realizing regional ecosystem management, and effective resource allocation. Based on the SWAT model, InVEST model, ArcGIS, and other software, this study analyzed the supply-demand balance of water provision services in Jinghe River Basin, a typical region located in the Loess Plateau, using multi-source data. This research then analyzed the spatial-temporal distribution pattern and spatial matching characteristics of the supply and demand of water provision services in Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015. On this basis, a spatial flow model of water provision service was constructed, the flow rules (flow paths) of the water provision service were explored at the subwatershed scale, and the spatial scope of the supply area and benefit area were depicted. The results show that: (1) Water resource supply and demand in the Jinghe River basin both showed increasing trends from 2000 to 2015. (2) The supply-demand balance of water resources was generally up to the standard, however, there were significant differences between urban and rural areas. The supply-demand balances of the central urban areas of each county were relatively low, and even exceeded the supply in the lower reaches of the Jingyang River, such as Gaoling County, Qindu District, and Jingyang County. In rural areas, due to the small population and industrial distribution, coupled with a better ecological environmental base, the supply-demand balance was relatively high, such as Pengyang County, Lingtai County, Huachi County, Huanxian County, Ningxian County, and Zhenyuan County. (3) From 2000 to 2015, the spatial matching pattern of supply and demand in the Jinghe River Basin showed a trend of decline with fluctuations. In 2015, the supply-demand ratios of more than 60% of the subwatersheds showed trends of decline, and the proportion of under-supply area increased by 55.7% in 2015 compared with that in 2000. (4) The supply areas of water provision service in Jinghe River Basin are distributed in the upper reaches of the basin, and the benefit areas are Huating County, Chongxin County, Yongshou County, Chunhua County, Ganxian County, Liquan County, Qindu District, and others in the middle and lower reaches.

Key words： ecosystem services; water provision services; supply-demand balance; flow; Loess Plateau

Cite this article

GUAN Mengluan , ZHANG Qiang , WANG Baoliang , ZHANG Huiyuan . Spatio-temporal Evolution and Flow of Water Provision Service Balance in Jinghe River Basin[J]. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 2022 , 13(5) : 797 -812 . DOI: 10.5814/j.issn.1674-764x.2022.05.005

1 Introduction

Ecosystem service supply can be defined as the products and services produced by the ecosystem for human beings, while demand refers to the consumption and use by human beings of the products and services produced by the ecosystem. These two are coupled through the ecosystem service flow and jointly constitute the dynamic process of ecosystem services from the natural ecosystem to the human social system (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, 2005; Burkhard et al., 2012; Fu et al., 2013; Costanza et al., 2014). As a critical part of ecosystem services, the water supply service plays an essential role in the regional water cycle and water balance, human survival and development (Mullin, 2020; Deng et al., 2021; Liu et al., 2021a). However, the spatial and temporal distribution mismatch of the water supply and the natural contradiction between supply and demand limit the sustainable development in this region, which has not been fully discussed in light of the rapid development of the social economy. Moreover, climate change further increases the uncertainties in precipitation and regional variability, bringing greater risks to regional water provision services (Ekness and Randhir, 2015; Mesfin et al., 2018; Liu et al., 2019b). Redistributing water resources by the government or other organizations has proven to be an effective tool for solving the contradiction between supply and demand of water resources at the regional and even national scales. However, quantitative estimation of water supply and demand and their spatial matching characteristics are the important premises for the scientific management and configuration of water resources, thus providing references for regional management and decision-making.
Estimating the characteristics of the temporal and spatial evolution of water supply and demand is the pre-condition for accurately depicting the balance between water supply and demand, and is also an important basis for understanding the spatial flow of water provision services. As one of the important ecosystem services, numerous studies have focused on water resource supply service (Xu et al., 2015; Krueger et al., 2019; Liu et al., 2021b), and there are abundant modelling methods related to it, including the classic hydrological models such as SWAT (Arnold et al., 2012), MIMES (Boumans et al., 2015), ARIES (Bagstad et al., 2013), and InVEST (Vigerstol and Aukema, 2011). Among them, the InVEST model based on the principle of water balance theory, has been widely applied in estimating water conservation, and case studies at different scales have shown its good performance (Redhead et al., 2016; Benra et al., 2021; Daneshi et al., 2021; Deng et al., 2021). However, the studies on water demand qualitative analysis are relative few, and there is a lack of quantitative research, especially on the spatial expression of water demand. A common practice among existing studies is to estimate spatialized water demand based on spatialized social-economic data combined with the water consumption of different land-use modes (Chen et al., 2020; Zhang et al., 2021). After estimating both the supply and demand sides, the concept of supply-demand ratio from economics can be introduced to measure the balance pattern of the regional water supply service. For example, Chen et al. (2020) used the logarithmic supply-demand ratio to calculate the regional sub-resource security index. By calculating the characteristics of the spatio-temporal evolution of the balanced pattern of water supply service in Yanhe River Basin, they found that there was a mismatch between water supply and demand in the basin. Ou et al. (2020) used the ratio of supply and demand to directly measure the spatio-temporal evolution of water provision services in Taihu Basin. They found that the counties with supply and demand deficits were increasing, and the balance between supply and demand was broken. Compared with the direct use of the supply-demand ratio, when there are large differences between supply/demand in different river segments within a basin, the logarithmic transformation of the supply-demand ratio can effectively balance those differences. As the most flowing ecosystem service, how water supply service spreads at both ends of supply and demand and how it affects the balance between supply and demand are important research topics in the field of ecosystem service flow. However, the recent research on ecosystem service flow models has made slow progress, and most studies are still in the conceptual model stage (Johnson et al., 2010). In these studies, the important role of water supply service flow in the water resource allocation process cannot be played due to the lack of any visual expression of the spatial flow process of water supply service and a clear definition of the supply area and the benefits area.
The Jinghe River Basin is located in the middle of the Loess Plateau, a secondary tributary of the Yellow River (Zhang et al., 2020). It is situated on the edge zone affected by the summer monsoon, which is sensitive to climate change. In addition, frequent extreme precipitation events have led to frequent floods in the basin in the past several hundred years (Zhao et al., 2014; Gu et al., 2015), and it is also a typical area of soil erosion (Huang et al., 2012; Sun, 2012). At the same time, as the largest tributary of the Weihe River, it is a strategic area for China’s northwestern development. In the past 50 years, the population in the basin has increased rapidly, and the water resource shortage has become serious (Guo et al., 2015). Since the implementation of ecological protection policies such as “grain plots to forestry”, the problem of soil erosion in the basin has been alleviated to a certain extent, and the ecological environment is improving. However, it is still unclear what changes have taken place in the water supply service of the watershed after the ecological projects were implemented. In addition, with the implementation of the economic strategy of the “Belt and Road Initiative”, the river basin is faced with the major issues of how to realize the balanced allocation of water resources in the fragile ecological environment and how to achieve the reasonable and efficient development of regional resource-economy-ecology. Therefore, spatial mapping and quantitative research on the balance of supply and demand and the service flow of water provision services, clarifying when and where the benefits generated by water provision services will be consumed, is the premise for formulating regional sustainable development strategies, and will also become an important basis for assisting decision-makers in water resource management.
Given these considerations, this study aims to answer three questions. 1) What was the water yield in Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015, its spatial distribution, and its spatio-temporal evolutionary characteristics? 2) What were the temporal and spatial distribution and evolutionary characteristics of water demand in Jinghe River Basin? 3) What was the balance pattern of water provision services in the Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015, and how has it changed?

2 Data and methods

2.1 Study area

Jinghe River originates from Liupan Mountain (106°14°- 108°42°E, 34°46°-37°19°N) in Jingyuan County of Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region (Fig. 1), and is the largest tributary of the Weihe River in the middle reaches of the Yellow River. It spans most of the areas of 31 counties (cities and districts) in Shaanxi Province, Gansu Province, and Ningxia Hui Autonomous Region, covering a total area of 45421 km2. The trunk stream has a total length of 455.1 km (Guo et al., 2015; Li et al., 2022). Jinghe River Basin has a typical continental climate, with high temperatures in the south and low temperatures in the north. Precipitation is the main source of runoff in Jinghe River Basin. The annual average precipitation of the basin is 290-560 mm, with the precipitation mainly concentrated in summer and more arid conditions in winter. The decreasing trend of runoff in recent decades is significant (Zhang et al., 2013; Guo et al., 2015; Liu et al., 2019b). The main soil types in the basin are loessal soil and heilu soil, with a loose structure and prone to soil erosion, and the annual average soil loss is 5845 t km-2. Jinghe River Basin is one of the first areas to carry out the projects for implementing ecological protection and ecological compensation, such as grain for green, banning grazing, etc. Most counties within the river basins are economically underdeveloped and highly depend on natural resources. Furthermore, the well-being of the local people is vulnerable to ecological policy responses and the contradiction between protection and development is prominent.
Fig. 1 Location of the study area and the distribution of the rivers, digital elevation model (DEM), and administrative boundaries.

2.2 Data sources

The spatial data and other auxiliary data include seven main types. 1) Land use data of the four periods in 2000, 2005, 2010, and 2015, were obtained from the National Ecosystem Survey and Assessment of China (Ouyang et al., 2014). To obtain first-class types, this study reclassified the second-class land use/cover types by referring to the classification system of the National Ecosystem Survey and Assessment of China (Table 1). 2) The digital elevation model (DEM) data were obtained from the SRTM DEM digital elevation 90 m database (https://srtm.csi.cgiar.org/). Based on the DEM data, this study applied ArcSWAT model to extract watershed and subwatershed boundaries (Winchell et al., 2007), and overlaid the watershed boundaries with the county administrative boundaries (Fig. 1). 3) Meteorological data include the monthly precipitation data of 17 meteorological stations in the basin and its surroundings, which were downloaded from China Meteorological Data Service Centre (http://data.cma.cn/). In this study, monthly precipitation data were first summarized to obtain annual precipitation data, and spatial raster data of the four periods of precipitation were obtained by spatial interpolation using the ANUSPLIN model (Hutchinson and Xu, 2004). 4) The 1:0000000 scale spatial distribution data of China’s soil types were derived from The Soil Database of China for Land Surface Modeling (http://globalchange.bnu.edu.cn/) (Shangguan et al., 2013). Based on the soil type data, the available water content of plants was calculated by referring to the calculation method of Zhou (2003). Based on the second soil survey data of Shaanxi and Gansu provinces, Shaanxi Soil, Gansu Soil, and the methods applied in Canadell et al. (1996) and Chen et al. (2016), the maximum soil depth and maximum root limit depth of Jinghe River Basin were obtained (Table 1). 5) Potential evapotranspiration data, with a spatial resolution of 1 km×1 km, were obtained from Data Center for Resources and Environmental Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences (http://www.resdc.cn/). 6) Population spatial distribution data, with a spatial resolution of 1 km×1 km, were obtained from the Resources and Environmental Sciences and Data Center, Chinese Academy of Sciences (http://www.resdc.cn/) (Xu, 2017). 7) According to the Water Resources Bulletin and Statistical Yearbook of Shaanxi, Gansu and Ningxia Provinces in 2000, 2005, 2010 and 2015, coupled with the data for industry, agriculture, domestic water consumption and resident population in the Water Resources Bulletin, this study calculated the per capita water consumption in Jinghe River Basin (Table 2).
Table 1 Maximum root depths and evapotranspiration coefficients of the different land use types
Code Land use type Maximum root depth (mm) Evapotranspiration coefficient
1 Woodland 4000 1
2 Grassland 500 0.65
3 Wetland 300 1.2
4 Arable land 300 0.65
5 Artificial surface 1 0.3
6 Other 1 0.3
Table 2 Per capita water consumption in Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015 (Unit: m3 person-1)
Year 2000 2005 2010 2015
Per capita water consumption 865.35 1314.2 1162.35 1053.65

2.3 Methods

2.3.1 Estimation of water resource supply

Water resource supply is the estimation of the water provision service. Based on the principle of hydrological processes and hydrologic budget, in the narrow sense of the water supply based on human needs, it must meet the water requirement of vegetation growth and the part used in the natural ecological system of ecological water requirements, the part for the social and economic system to ensure production and living water, the vegetation growth requirement in the crop water requirement metrics are available, and the production and living water availability for the sum of runoff and soil water content. Water supply in a broad sense is water production, which refers to the difference between the input (precipitation) and output (evapotranspiration) of water resources in a basin (Xu et al., 2016). Based on the water yield module in the InVEST model, this study quantified the water supply of watersheds by the regional hydrologic budget method. The hydrologic budget method mainly considers the input (precipitation) and output (evapotranspiration, surface runoff) of water in the system, and the result is more accurate. The specific calculation method can be described as follows:
${{Y}_{x}}=\left( 1-\frac{AE{{T}_{x}}}{{{P}_{x}}} \right)\times {{P}_{x}}$
$\frac{AE{{T}_{x}}}{{{P}_{x}}}=1+\frac{PE{{T}_{x}}}{{{P}_{x}}}-{{\left[ 1+{{\left( \frac{PE{{T}_{x}}}{{{P}_{x}}} \right)}^{{{\omega }_{x}}}} \right]}^{1/{{\omega }_{x}}}}$
$PE{{T}_{x}}={{K}_{c}}({{l}_{x}})\times E{{T}_{0}}_{x}$
${{\omega }_{x}}=Z\times \frac{AW{{C}_{x}}}{{{P}_{x}}}+1.25$
$AW{{C}_{x}}=\text{min}\left( maxSoilDept{{h}_{x}},RootDept{{h}_{x}} \right)\times PAWC$
where Yx represents the annual water output of grid unit x; AETx denotes the actual annual evapotranspiration of grid unit x; Px refers to annual precipitation in grid unit x; PETx represents potential evapotranspiration; ωx denotes the non- physical parameters of natural climate-soil properties; ET0x refers to the reference crop evapotranspiration of grid unit x, and Kc(lx) represents the plant evapotranspiration coefficient of a specific land use type in grid unit x, which largely depends on the vegetation of land use in grid unit x; Kc is used to modify ET0x to the evapotranspiration of the specific crop or vegetation type in the grid cells; AWCx denotes soil effective water content (mm); maxSoilDepthx indicates the maximum soil depth (mm); RootDepthx indicates the maximum root limit depth (mm); PAWC means plants can use water; and Z is an empirical constant, also known as the “seasonal constant”, which ranges from 1 to 10.

2.3.2 Quantification method for the water resource demand

Different from natural processes, the water resource demand emphasizes the demand and consumption of water resources by human beings engaged in life, production, and other human activities, excluding the loss of surface water caused by natural process factors such as vegetation absorption and utilization, river interception and infiltration (Chen et al., 2020). Therefore, the amount of water consumed by human beings (water consumption) is taken as the demand for water provision services in this study. In order to explore the spatial distribution characteristics of water provision service demand, the spatial distribution data for the water supply service demand was calculated by using per capita water consumption and rasterized population density data. The formula is as follows:
${{D}_{x}}={{D}_{pcwc}}\times PO{{P}_{x}}$
where Dx represents the annual water demand of grid unit X; Dpcwc denotes per capita water consumption; and POPx represents the population density of grid unit x.

2.3.3 Analysis of the supply-demand balance of water provision services

(1) Supply-demand ratio
The ecosystem service supply-demand ratio can be defined as the spatial matching of supply and demand in a certain spatio-temporal range. In this study, the supply-demand ratio (R) is used to connect the amount of water supply service with human demand, and reveal the spatial distribution of either surplus or shortage (Liu et al., 2019c; Xu et al., 2021). The formula is described as follows:
$R=\frac{Y-D}{\left( {{Y}_{\text{max}}}+{{D}_{\text{max}}} \right)/2}$
where Y and D represent the actual supply and demand of water resource provision services, respectively. Ymax denotes the maximum supply value of water provision services in the evaluation region. Dmax represents the maximum demand value of water provision services in the evaluation region. R takes 0 value as the critical point of surplus and shortage. When R > 0, supply exceeds demand; when R = 0, supply and demand are balanced; and when R < 0, demand exceeds supply.
(2) Spatial flow model of water provision services
In this study, with reference to the hydrological process of catchment and the research of Chen et al. (2020), the spatial flow of water provision services was visualized as the flow between subwatersheds, which means that the flow units of this study took 18 subwatersheds as the basic research units, while the flow subject was static residual water (Fig. 2). This study assumes that the static water stays in the river basin, and water provision services will pass through the channel between each basin. If a subwatershed is elevated, the remaining water within that basin will flow to the adjacent low-lying subwatershed. Thus, this research defines this subwatershed as the water supply area; but if it is already a static water shortage unit, then it needs to be replenished by water from the upstream, and so this subwatershed is the beneficiary area of the water provision service. It should be pointed out in particular that, unlike Chen et al.’s (2020) definition of static water shortage unit as a negative value, in this study, if the supply-demand ratio in a single subwatershed is less than a specific threshold value (defined in this study as lower than 0.2), then the subwatershed is also defined as a static water shortage unit, and the water resource supply still needs to be obtained from the upstream subwatershed.
Fig. 2 Schematic diagram of the water provision service spatial flow model in Jinghe River Basin

3 Results

3.1 Spatial and temporal distribution characteristics of water supply and demand

3.1.1 Spatial and temporal distribution characteristics of water supply

From 2000 to 2015, the spatial pattern of water resource supply in Jinghe River Basin was basically steady, showing an overall increasing trend from the northwest toward the southeast (Fig. 3), which was consistent with the changing trend of precipitation, but contrary to the changing trend of evapotranspiration. Obvious high-value areas of grid unit water conservation depth/amount were mainly distributed in the Heihe, Daxi, Jinghe, Jiulalong, Sanshui, and Ganhe rivers. The high-value regions were mainly concentrated in the middle reaches of the Honghe, Ruhe, Puhe, Yuanchengchuan, Malian rivers, and the lower reaches of the Jinghe River Basin. The low-value areas were distributed in the northwest of the basin, including the upper reaches of the Dongchuan, Hedao, Puhe, and Yuancheng rivers.
Fig. 3 Spatial distribution of the water supply in grid unit in Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015
From 2000 to 2015, the total amount of water supply in Jinghe River Basin was 187.47×108 m3 in 2000, 175.78× 108 m3 in 2005, 211.99×108 m3 in 2010, and 202.66×108 m3 in 2015. As shown in Table 3, the amount of the water supply and the average depth of the water conservation first decreased, then increased, and then decreased again. The water supply in 2005 had the lowest value of 175.78×108 m3, decreasing by 6.65% compared with 2000. After that, the water supply in Jinghe River Basin recovered to 202.66× 108 m3 in 2015 with an annual growth rate of 3.9%. During the past 15 years, the water supply in the basin increased by 8.1%, indicating that the water resource supply capacity showed an overall increasing trend.
Table 3 Average water conservation depth and water supply amount in Jinghe River Basin during 2000-2015
Year Depth of water conservation (mm) Water supply (108 m3)
2000 424.03 187.47
2005 397.59 175.78
2010 479.49 211.99
2015 458.39 202.66
Based on the zoning statistics function of ArcGIS, the water supply values of 31 major counties (districts) in Jinghe River Basin were calculated (Table 4). From 2000 to 2015, the water supply of each county (district) ranged from 0.21×108 m3 (Gaoling County) to 30.18×108 m3 (Huanxian County). Among them, the water supply levels in Heshui County, Huachi County, Qingcheng County, Yuanzhou District, Ningxian County, and Zhengning County showed decreasing trends, while those in the other counties showed increasing trends. From 2000 to 2015, the water supply of each county showed a decreasing trend at first (2000-2005), then increasing (2005-2010), and then decreasing (2010-2015) once again. The average water supply levels of Dingbian County and Qianyang County showed trends of continuous increase. From 2000 to 2005, the most significant decrease was observed in the Ningxian County water supply (-1.92×108 m3). From 2005 to 2010, the greatest increase occurred in Huanxian County (4.57×108 m3). Finally, from 2010 to 2015, the largest increase and decrease of the water supply were observed in Huachi County (0.43×108 m3) and Zhenyuan County (-2.0×108 m3), respectively.
Table 4 Water supply by counties (districts) in Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015 (Unit: 108 m3)
City County 2000 2005 2010 2015 City County 2000 2005 2010 2015
Baoji Fengxiang 4.45 4.29 5.10 5.43 Qingyang Xifeng 4.70 4.14 5.19 4.86
Longxian 0.25 0.28 0.33 0.31 Zhenyuan 14.68 13.65 17.53 15.53
Qianyang 0.73 0.76 0.90 0.91 Zhengning 7.21 6.26 7.16 7.21
Guyuan Pengyang 9.91 9.27 11.36 10.14 Wuzhong Yanchi 1.81 1.77 2.18 2.60
Yuanzhou 2.05 1.85 2.23 2.01 Xi’an Gaoling 0.22 0.21 0.27 0.25
Jingyuan 4.62 5.39 5.73 5.69 Xianyang Binxian 6.03 5.32 6.82 6.82
Pingliang Chongxin 3.82 4.09 5.04 4.65 Changwu 2.84 2.48 3.29 3.22
Huating 3.71 4.61 5.14 4.81 Chunhua 1.93 1.74 2.13 2.17
Lingtai 9.94 9.53 11.99 11.99 Liquan 3.58 3.29 4.27 4.15
Kongtong 7.96 8.45 10.46 9.40 Qianxian 0.96 0.90 1.15 1.14
Jingchuan 7.10 6.48 8.51 8.13 Qindu 0.23 0.21 0.27 0.26
Qingyang Heshui 8.64 7.37 8.57 8.01 Xunyi 9.11 8.08 9.12 9.45
Huachi 10.26 9.35 10.11 9.77 Yongshou 3.13 2.84 3.55 3.66
Huanxian 26.93 25.61 30.18 28.35 Jingyang 2.16 1.98 2.63 2.44
Ningxian 13.45 11.53 14.07 13.42 Yulin Dingbian 3.57 3.79 4.42 4.80
Qingcheng 11.51 10.28 12.34 11.12

3.1.2 Temporal and spatial distribution characteristics of water demand

As depicted in Fig. 4, the spatial pattern of water demand in the Jinghe River Basin changed greatly from 2000 to 2015, consistent with the distribution of population density and construction land. Across the whole study region, the high-value area of water demand in 2005 increased significantly compared with that in 2000, mainly concentrated in Chongxin County. The spatial distribution of water demand in 2010 was basically the same as that in 2000. The high- value area of water demand in 2015 decreased compared with that in 2010, while the low-value area increased significantly. From the perspective of different regions, the counties (districts) in the middle and lower reaches of the Jinghe River Basin were the main water demand areas. The high water demand areas are mainly concentrated in Kongtong District of Pingliang City, Xifeng District of Qingyang City, Ganxian County, Liquan County, Jingyang County of Qindu District of Xianyang City, Gaoling County of Xi’an, and others in the middle and lower reaches, and the water demand is generally higher than 4219.177 m3. The superior natural conditions of the middle and lower reaches of the Jinghe River Basin have driven the rapid urbanization proc ess and thus present high human activity intensity, encompassing a large population and industrial prosperity. The low-value area of water demand is mainly concentrated in the upper reaches of Huachi County, Heshui County, Huanxian, Dingbian County, and Yanchi County. Affected by water conservation and soil erosion, the natural ecological environment in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River is fragile, and few areas are suitable for human habitation.
Fig. 4 Temporal and spatial distribution of water resource demand of the individual grid unit in the Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015
From 2000 to 2015, the water demand of the Jinghe River Basin was 50.63×108 m3 in 2000, 84.46×108 m3 in 2005, 66.3×108 m3 in 2010, and 61.34×108 m3 in 2015, so it increased at first and then decreased. In 2005, the water demand was the largest, increasing by 66.80% compared with 2000, and then decreasing by 18.18% annually to 6.13× 108 m3 in 2015. During the past 15 years, the water demand of Jinghe River Basin increased by 21.22%, and the overall water consumption capacity showed an increasing trend.
Based on the zoning statistics function of ArcGIS, the water demand values of 31 major counties (districts) in Jinghe River Basin were calculated (Table 5). From 2000 to 2015, the water demand of each county (district) ranged from 0.05×108 m3 (Longxian) to 11.8×108 m3 (Chongxin). Among them, the water demand of Gaoling County kept increasing; in Kongtong District, Jingchuan County and Zhenyuan County it first decreased (2000-2005) and then increased (2005-2015); and in the other counties (districts) it first increased (2000-2005) and then decreased (2005- 2015). From 2000 to 2005, the most significant increase in the water demand was observed in Chongxin County, which increased by 10.93×108 m3. From 2005 to 2015, the water demand in Zhenyuan County increased the most (3.49×108 m3), while that in Chongxin County decreased the most (-10.67×108 m3).
Table 5 Water demand of counties (districts) in Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015 (Unit: 108 m3)
City County 2000 2005 2010 2015
Baoji Fengxiang 0.41 0.66 0.58 0.54
Longxian 0.05 0.11 0.07 0.06
Qianyang 0.14 0.22 0.18 0.18
Guyuan Pengyang 1.97 2.85 2.37 2.10
Yuanzhou 0.56 1.00 0.67 0.63
Jingyuan 1.09 2.24 1.17 1.06
Pingliang Chongxin 0.87 11.80 1.22 1.13
Huating 1.10 3.11 1.68 1.54
Lingtai 1.80 2.62 2.05 1.86
Kongtong 3.90 2.42 5.87 5.48
Jingchuan 2.59 2.31 3.25 2.98
Qingyang Heshui 0.86 1.99 1.15 1.05
Huachi 0.78 1.76 1.02 0.95
Huanxian 2.53 3.05 3.26 2.99
Ningxian 4.20 6.64 4.89 4.42
Qingcheng 2.72 3.46 3.05 2.80
Xifeng 2.76 6.57 4.36 3.99
Zhenyuan 4.24 0.95 4.84 4.44
Zhengning 1.80 4.73 2.26 2.08
Wuzhong Yanchi 0.19 0.35 0.24 0.23
Xi’an Gaoling 0.33 0.72 0.72 1.10
Xianyang Binxian 2.65 4.19 3.66 3.35
Changwu 1.45 2.29 1.83 1.69
Chunhua 0.65 1.08 0.91 0.85
Liquan 2.89 4.48 3.90 3.64
Qianxian 0.84 1.43 1.22 1.12
Qindu 0.68 1.00 0.93 0.94
Xunyi 2.16 3.46 2.82 2.60
Yongshou 1.35 1.92 1.56 1.45
Jingyang 2.55 4.16 3.69 3.41
Yulin Dingbian 0.52 0.88 0.85 0.73

3.2 Risk analysis of the supply and demand of water provision services

3.2.1 Supply-demand ratios of water provision services at the county level

From the perspective of the supply-demand ratio of water provision services, the spatial matching pattern of the supply and demand of water provision services in Jinghe River Basin is well-matched (Fig. 5). The spatial pattern of the supply-demand ratio of water provision services changed considerably from 2000 to 2015, closely related to the spatial distribution of water demand. The spatial distribution of the water resource supply-demand ratio in 2005 changed significantly compared with that in 2000, and the area of water resource shortage increased significantly compared with that in 2000. The spatial distributions of the water supply-demand ratio in 2010 and 2015 were basically consistent, and the area of insufficient water supply continued todecrease compared with that in 2005. By 2015, the propor tion of insufficient water provision service areas in the Jinghe River Basin increased by 55.7% compared with 2000. The overall spatial matching pattern of the supply and demand of water provision services decreased. At the subregional level, the supply-demand ratios of Xifeng District, Kongdong District, Chongxin County, Huating County, Binxian and Changwu County city center, as well as Qian xian County, Liquan County, Jingyang County, Qindu County, and Gaolin County, which are located in the downstream of Jinhe River Basin, were all lower than zero. These areas generally have high water consumption industries and high-intensity urban construction activities. Furthermore, wide strips of land required irrigation to sustain them and thus they consumed a lot of water resources. The median areas with a supply-demand ratio of 0 to 0.11 are mainly distributed in the upper reaches of the basin, such as northern Huanxian County, Yanchi County and Dingbian County, as well as Kongtong District, Xifeng District, northwestern Zhenyuan County, Changwu County, Binxian County, and Liquan County. These areas mainly focus on production and living, and the supply and service of water resources are basically balanced, with the supply slightly exceeding the demand. In addition, the water provision services of many counties (districts) presented significant differences between the urban and rural areas. For example, in Xifeng District, Kongdong District, Chongxin County, Huating County, Binxian, and Changwu counties in the central city the supply-demand ratio is relatively low, where demand exceeds supply; while in rural areas, due to the lower population and industrial distribution coupled with a better ecological environmental base, the supply-demand ratios are higher.
Fig. 5 Temporal and spatial distribution of the water provision service supply-demand ratios in Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015

Note: Negative values indicate demand exceed supply.

Based on the zonal statistical function of ArcGIS, the supply-demand ratios of water provision services of the 31 major counties (districts) in Jinghe River Basin were calculated (Table 6). From 2000 to 2015, the supply-demand ratio of water resources in each county (district) decreased at first, but then increased, ranging from -0.41 (Chongxin County) to 1.57 (Huanxian). Gaoling County, Qindu District, and Jingyang County have supply-demand ratios of less than 0 from 2000 to 2015, so they have always been regions with insufficient supply. The supply-demand ratios in Chongxin County, Xifeng District, Liquan County, and Ganxian County were less than 0 in 2005 but greater than 0 in the other periods. The other 24 counties and districts had supply-demand ratios greater than 0 from 2000 to 2015. Among them, Pengyang County, Lingtai County, Huachi County, Huanxian County, Ningxian County, and Zhenyuan County had supply-demand ratios ≥0.5.
Table 6 Supply-demand ratios of water provision services among the counties (districts) in Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015
City County 2000 2005 2010 2015
Baoji Fengxiang 0.26 0.19 0.25 0.29
Longxian 0.01 0.01 0.01 0.02
Qianyang 0.04 0.03 0.04 0.04
Guyuan Pengyang 0.51 0.34 0.50 0.48
Yuanzhou 0.10 0.05 0.09 0.08
Jingyuan 0.23 0.17 0.25 0.27
Pingliang Chongxin 0.19 -0.41 0.21 0.21
Huating 0.17 0.08 0.19 0.19
Lingtai 0.52 0.37 0.55 0.60
Kongtong 0.26 0.32 0.25 0.23
Jingchuan 0.29 0.22 0.29 0.31
Qingyang Heshui 0.50 0.29 0.41 0.41
Huachi 0.61 0.41 0.50 0.52
Huanxian 1.57 1.21 1.49 1.50
Ningxian 0.59 0.26 0.51 0.53
Qingcheng 0.57 0.37 0.52 0.49
Xifeng 0.13 -0.13 0.05 0.05
Zhenyuan 0.67 0.68 0.70 0.66
Zhengning 0.35 0.08 0.27 0.30
Wuzhong Yanchi 0.10 0.08 0.11 0.14
Xi’an Gaoling -0.01 -0.03 -0.03 -0.05
Xianyang Binxian 0.22 0.06 0.18 0.21
Changwu 0.09 0.01 0.08 0.09
Chunhua 0.08 0.04 0.07 0.08
Liquan 0.04 -0.06 0.02 0.03
Qianxian 0.01 -0.03 0.00 0.00
Qindu -0.03 -0.04 -0.04 -0.04
Xunyi 0.45 0.25 0.35 0.41
Yongshou 0.11 0.05 0.11 0.13
Jingyang -0.03 -0.12 -0.06 -0.06
Yulin Dingbian 0.20 0.16 0.20 0.24

Note: Negative values indicate demand exceed supply. The same below.

3.2.2 Ratio of supply and demand of water provision services at the subwatershed scale

On the scale of subwatershed, the supply-demand ratio of water provision services was analyzed (Fig. 6, Table 7), and all the subwatersheds have basically achieved supply-demand balance (i.e., a supply-demand ratio greater than 0) since 2000. The supply-demand ratios of all subwatersheds showed the same trend over time, decreasing at first (2000-2005), then increasing (2005-2010) and maintaining a slowly rising trend in the last five years. However, compared with 2000, the supply-demand ratios of more than 60% of the subwatersheds showed decreasing trends by 2015. The supply-demand ratio of subwatershed 3 decreased the most (-0.14). From 2000 to 2005, the supply-demand ratios of all subwatersheds showed a downward trend, among which the supply-demand balances of subwatersheds 6, 13 and 10 were broken. The supply-demand ratio of subwatershed 6 decreased the most (-0.47), and those of subwatersheds 4 and 5 were the lowest (less than 0.01). In the subsequent five years (2005-2010), the supply-demand ratio of each subwatershed showed a trend of rapid increase, among which the supply-demand ratio of subwatershed 6 increased the most (+0.42), and the supply-demand ratios of subwatersheds 4 and 5 increased by more than 0.01. From 2010 to 2015, except for subwatersheds 4, 12, 13, 14, and 15, the supply and demand ratios showed a downward trend, but the overall increases were slight, with an average increase of about 0.04.
Fig. 6 Spatial and temporal distribution of the supply-demand ratios of water provision services in each subwatershed of the Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015.

Note: The numbers 0-17 denote the codes of the subwatersheds in Jinghe River Basin.

Table 7 Supply-demand ratios of water provision services in each of the subwatersheds of the Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015
Subwatershed number 2000 2005 2010 2015
0 0.37 0.28 0.33 0.40
1 0.43 0.38 0.44 0.53
2 0.79 0.58 0.65 0.68
3 0.65 0.27 0.50 0.50
4 0.31 0.31 0.32 0.31
5 0.59 0.58 0.60 0.60
6 0.38 -0.09 0.42 0.42
7 0.39 0.04 0.41 0.44
8 0.78 0.58 0.78 0.88
9 0.40 0.25 0.31 0.36
10 0.09 -0.08 0.05 0.08
11 0.72 0.37 0.57 0.60
12 1.37 1.12 1.28 1.24
13 0.12 -0.17 0.02 0.01
14 0.81 0.61 0.74 0.72
15 0.75 0.62 0.73 0.70
16 0.72 0.27 0.61 0.67
17 0.50 0.19 0.41 0.48
Affected by water conservation and soil erosion, the natural ecological environment in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River is fragile, and there are few areas that are suitable for human habitation. In the middle and lower reaches of the Jinghe River Basin, the natural conditions are relatively superior. Meanwhile, rapid urbanization has required much more ecosystem services, especially the water supply. The coordination status is good and has increased with the increase of human demands.

3.3 Spatial flow of water provision services

According to the surplus water in each subwatershed and the water flow direction within the basin, the subwatersheds that can not only meet the water consumption needs within the basin but also supply water to the downstream is defined as the supply area, while the subwatersheds that need to obtain water supply from the upstream is defined as the beneficiary area. Since 2000, the beneficiary areas of Jinghe River Basin have been mainly concentrated in the middle and lower reaches of the basin (Fig. 7), such as subwatersheds 6, 7, 10, 13, and 17, while the supply areas are distributed in the upper reaches of the basin. Figure 7 shows that the subwatersheds that need to receive upstream supply began to increase from 2000 to 2005, namely subwatersheds 6, 7, and 17, mainly including Huating County, Chongxin County, Lingtai County, Jingchuan County, Binxian, Yongshou County, Chunhua County, Qianxian County, Liquan County, Jingyang County, and Xianyang Qindu District. This is con-sistent with the results of the supply-demand ratio analysis at the county level, indicating that the pattern of water supply balance in the basin was broken, and the water resource shortage began to occur in the first five years of the study period. In the next five years (2005-2010), the number of subwatersheds needing replenishment decreased and returned to the level of 2000, and then remained relatively stable in the following five years (2010-2015).
Fig. 7 The surplus water in each subwatershed in the Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015

Note: The numbers 0-17 denote the codes of the subwatersheds in Jinghe River Basin.

From the recharge relationship of each subwatershed (Fig. 8), subwatersheds 13 and 10 are mainly replenished by subwatershed 17, while subwatershed 10 is mainly replenished by subwatershed 13. Subwatersheds 6 and 7 are replenished by subwatersheds 16 and 17 respectively, while subwatershed 17 is fed by subwatershed 16. In 2000, the subwatersheds with a large surplus of water resources were numbers 2, 8, 12, 14, and 15, with 18.44×108 m³, 10.93× 108 m³, 10.66×108 m³, 10.42×108 m³, and 10.62×108 m³, respectively. As a recharge area for subwatersheds 10 and 13 downstream, the surplus of subwatershed 17 in 2000 was 6.67×108 m³; while in 2005, the surpluses of subwatersheds 13, 6, and 10 were all negative, at -2.58×108 m³, -1.29× 108 m³, and -1.14×108 m³, respectively. The surpluses of subwatersheds 7 and 17 were only 0.6×108 m³ and 3.0×108 m³, respectively. In 2010, the surplus of each subwatershed was positive. The surpluses of numbers 2, 8, 12, 14, and 15 were large, at 2.03×108 m³, 1.24×108 m³, 1.17×108 m³, 1.16×108 m³, and 1.03×108 m³, respectively. The surpluses of subwatersheds 13 and 10 were the lowest, at 0.3×108 m³ and 0.8×108 m³, respectively. In 2015, the relative size of surplus of each subwatershed did not change much compared with 2010. The surpluses of subwatersheds 12, 8, 14, and 15 were the largest, at 1.82×108 m³, 1.28×108 m³, 1.05×108 m³, and 1.03×108 m³, respectively; while subwatersheds 13 and 10 still had the lowest surpluses, at 0.01×108 m³ and 0.12×108 m³, respectively.
Fig. 8 The demand area and supply area at the subwatershed scale in the Jinghe River Basin from 2000 to 2015

Note: The numbers 0-17 denote the codes of the subwatersheds in Jinghe River Basin.

4 Discussion

The demand for water provision services refers to all kinds of water resources that are consumed by human beings in life and production activities, which emphasizes the water consumption in the specific land use space. In recent years, numerous studies have focused on the quantitative research method of water resource provision services, however, the topic of quantification of water demand is still not fully discussed (Yan et al., 2017). Based on the rasterized population density data and per capita water consumption data, this research spatialized the demand for water provision services and mapped its spatial flow process and spatial scope in detail, revealing the mechanisms and dynamic changes of water provision services in the Jinghe River Basin. We found that both the water supply and water demand show increasing trends after entering the new century. Increases in water supply can be attributed to increases in precipitation and soil and water conservation (SWC) measures applied in the Jinghe River Basin (Peng et al., 2015). Meanwhile, intensifying human activities require much more water resources than before, and thus result in higher water demand. Not only that, human-dominated vegetation restoration activities, such as afforestation, have exacerbated the vegetation’s water demand and further caused more stress on the water supply (Wang et al., 2018). Therefore, we argue that much more attention should be paid to the balance between ecosystem restoration and water resource demand. Luckily, we also found that the water resources in the Jinghe River Basin basically achieved a balance between supply and demand. However, specific regions where water demand exceeds water supply should be a matter of concern, such as Pengyang County, Lingtai County, Huachi County, Huanxian County, Ningxian County, and Zhenyuan County. It is noteworthy that the balance between water supply and water demand has been broken since 2000. From the perspective of the subwatersheds, it seems that there is a growing tendency toward undersupplied basins. By identifying the benefiting areas and provisioning areas, we argue that our results can be helpful for realizing the rational allocation of water resources and ensuring water security in the Jinhe River Basin.
However, due to the limited available data, only the industrial, agricultural, and domestic water consumption were taken into consideration in the calculation of per capita water consumption. This study fails to take into consideration all the social production and domestic water consumption in the basin and the water consumption required by the maintenance of natural ecological processes, which may cause the water consumption in some regions to be underestimated. In addition, some studies have shown that combining water consumption data with land cover type, population density, and GDP density can quantify the demand for water resources more accurately (Zhang et al., 2021). This study analyzes the spatio-temporal patterns of supply and demand of water provision services at the county and the subwatershed scales in order try to reveal the formation mechanisms of water provision services in detail and spatial flow regularity. On the basis of the above results, this research further determines the scope of the benefit of water provision services. However, the DEM-based simulation of the natural confluence process of water supply service flow does not take into account the movement and recharge of artificial pipelines and groundwater, nor does it take into account the attenuating effect of service flow on the transmission path, so there is a certain deviation from the actual beneficiary area and flow.

5 Conclusions

This study combined the supply and demand of ecosystem service with ecosystem service flow research, depicting the spatial pattern and temporal variation characteristics of water supply distribution from 2000-2015 by using the water conservation module in the InVEST model. Based on spatial social and economic data, this research further simulated the spatial and temporal distribution features and evolution of water demand. In addition, the supply-demand ratio was applied to describe the conditions of the balance of water supply and demand among the counties and subwatersheds within Jinghe River Basin; and, finally, a water provision services flow model was applied to determine the subwatershed scale of the water provision service supply area and benefits area. We found that both the water demand and water supply show an increasing trend from 2000 to 2015 in the Jinghe River Basin. However, the increases in water demand are generally higher than the increases in water supply. Even so, the Jinghe River Basin can achieve a balance between water supply and demand. Nevertheless, the balance of water supply and demand seems to be less stable than it looks. As the beneficial area of water supply service, the middle and lower regions and counties should implement urban water consumption quota management to improve the contradiction between the supply and demand of regional water resources and improve water consumption efficiency. At the same time, it is necessary to strengthen the ecological protection of the upstream water supply area to achieve a balance between the supply and demand of water resources in the Jinghe River Basin. These results can achieve the rational allocation of the plentiful water resources, provide a scientific basis for protecting the safety of the river basin and also provide a reference for water resource management in other basins.

References

Publishing order | Descend order by publishing year | Descend order by cited within
[1]
Arnold J G, Moriasi D N, Gassman P W, et al. 2012. SWAT: Model use, calibration, and validation. Transactions of the ASABE, 55(4): 1491-1508.

DOI

[2]
Bagstad K J, Semmens D J, Winthrop R. 2013. Comparing approaches to spatially explicit ecosystem service modeling: A case study from the San Pedro River, Arizona. Ecosystem Services, 5: 40-50.

DOI

[3]
Benra F, de Frutos A, Gaglio M, et al. 2021. Mapping water ecosystem services: Evaluating InVEST model predictions in data scarce regions. Environmental Modelling & Software, 138: 104982. DOI: 10.1016/j.envsoft.2021.104982.

DOI

[4]
Boumans R, Roman J, Altman I, et al. 2015. The Multiscale Integrated Model of Ecosystem Services (MIMES): Simulating the interactions of coupled human and natural systems. Ecosystem Services, 12: 30-41.

DOI

[5]
Burkhard B, Kroll F, Nedkov S, et al. 2012. Mapping ecosystem service supply, demand and budgets. Ecological Indicators, 21: 17-29.

DOI

[6]
Canadell J, Jackson R B, Ehleringer J B, et al. 1996. Maximum rooting depth of vegetation types at the global scale. Oecologia, 108(4): 583-595.

DOI PMID

[7]
Chen D S, Li J, Zhang Y M, et al. 2020. Quantification and simulation of supply, demand and flow of water provision service in the Yanhe watershed, China. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 40(1): 112-122. (in Chinese)

[8]
Chen S S. 2016. Evaluation of ecological service function of water retention and soil conservation in water source area for the South-to-North Water Transfer—A case study in Shangluo City. Diss., Xi’an, China: Northwest University. (in Chinese)

[9]
Costanza R, de Groot R, Sutton P, et al. 2014. Changes in the global value of ecosystem services. Global Environmental Change, 26: 152-158.

DOI

[10]
Daneshi A, Brouwer R, Najafinejad A, et al. 2021. Modelling the impacts of climate and land use change on water security in a semi-arid forested watershed using InVEST. Journal of Hydrology, 593: 125621. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.125621.

DOI

[11]
Deng C X, Zhu D M, Nie X D, et al. 2021. Precipitation and urban expansion caused jointly the spatiotemporal dislocation between supply and demand of water provision service. Journal of Environmental Management, 299: 113660. DOI: 10.1016/j.jenvman.2021.113660.

DOI

[12]
Ekness P, Randhir T O. 2015. Effect of climate and land cover changes on watershed runoff: A multivariate assessment for storm water management. Journal of Geophysical Research: Biogeosciences, 120(9): 1785-1796.

[13]
Fu B J, Wang S, Su C H, et al. 2013. Linking ecosystem processes and ecosystem services. Current Opinion in Environmental Sustainability, 5(1): 4-10.

DOI

[14]
Gu J, Huang H Q, Zhou J, et al. 2015. Characteristics of flood disaster and flood deposition in Jinghe River Basin from the year of 1644 to 2003. Journal of Catastrophology, 30(1): 16-20. (in Chinese)

[15]
Guo A J, Chang J X, Wang Y M, et al. 2015. Variation characteristics of rainfall-runoff relationship and driving factors analysis in Jinghe River Basin in nearly 50 years. Transactions of the Chinese Society of Agricultural Engineering, 31(14): 165-171. (in Chinese)

[16]
Guo A J, Huang Q, Chang J X, et al. 2015. Variation of relationship between runoff and sediment based on Copula function in the Jinghe River Basin. Journal of Natural Resources, 30(4): 673-683. (in Chinese)

[17]
Huang C C, Pang J L, Zha X C, et al. 2012. Holocene palaeoflood events recorded by slackwater deposits along the lower Jinghe River Valley, middle Yellow River Basin, China. Journal of Quaternary Science, 27(5): 485-493.

DOI

[18]
Hutchinson M F, Xu T. 2004. Anusplin version 4.2 user guide. Canberra, Australia: Centre for Resource and Environmental Studies, The Australian National University.

[19]
Johnson G W, Bagstad K J, Snapp R R, et al. 2010. Service path attribution networks (SPANs):Spatially quantifying the flow of ecosystem services from landscapes to people. Computational Science and Its Applications —ICCSA 2010. Berlin, German: Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[20]
Krueger E, Rao P S C, Borchardt D. 2019. Quantifying urban water supply security under global change. Global Environmental Change, 56: 66-74.

DOI

[21]
Li J, Yu Y Y, Wang X F, et al. 2022. System dynamic relationship between service water and food: Case study at Jinghe River Basin. Journal of Cleaner Production, 330: 129794. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclepro.2021.129794.

DOI

[22]
Liu F, Xiong W, Wang Y H, et al. 2019a. Relationship between landscape pattern and runoff based on LUCC in Jinghe River Watershed. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 33(1): 137-142. (in Chinese)

[23]
Liu H, Shu C, Zhou T T, et al. 2021a. Trade-off and synergy relationships of ecosystem services and driving force analysis based on land cover change in Altay Prefecture. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 12(6): 777-790.

[24]
Liu J J, Zhou Z H, Yan Z Q, et al. 2019b. A new approach to separating the impacts of climate change and multiple human activities on water cycle processes based on a distributed hydrological model. Journal of Hydrology, 578: 124096. DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124096.

DOI

[25]
Liu L C, Liu C F, Wang C, et al. 2019c. Supply and demand matching of ecosystem services in loess hilly region: A case study of Lanzhou. Acta Geographica Sinica, 74(9): 1921-1937. (in Chinese)

[26]
Liu R, Niu X, Wang B, et al. 2021b. InVEST model-based spatiotemporal analysis of water supply services in the Zhangcheng District. Forests, 12(8): 1082. DOI: 10.3390/f12081082.

DOI

[27]
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. 2005. Ecosystems and human well- being. Washington DC, USA: Island Press.

[28]
Mullin M. 2020. The effects of drinking water service fragmentation on drought-related water security. Science, 368(6488): 274-277.

DOI PMID

[29]
Ou W X, Liu C, Tao Y. 2020. An analysis of spatio-temporal evolution of water supply and demand in Taihu Basin. Resources and Environment in the Yangtze Basin, 29(3): 623-633. (in Chinese)

[30]
Ouyang Z Y, Wang Q, Zheng H, et al. 2014. National ecosystem survey and assessment of China (2000-2010). Bulletin of Chinese Academy of Sciences, 29(4): 462-466. (in Chinese)

[31]
Peng H, Jia Y W, Tague C, et al. 2015. An eco-hydrological model-based assessment of the impacts of soil and water conservation management in the Jinghe River Basin, China. Water, 7(11): 6301-6320.

DOI

[32]
Redhead J W, Stratford C, Sharps K, et al. 2016. Empirical validation of the InVEST water yield ecosystem service model at a national scale. Science of the Total Environment, 569-570: 1418-1426.

DOI

[33]
Sahle M, Saito O, Fürst C, et al. 2019. Quantifying and mapping of water-related ecosystem services for enhancing the security of the food-water-energy nexus in tropical data-sparse catchment. Science of the Total Environment, 646: 573-586.

DOI

[34]
Shangguan W, Dai Y J, Liu B Y, et al. 2013. A China data set of soil properties for land surface modeling. Journal of Advances in Modeling Earth Systems, 5(2): 212-224.

DOI

[35]
Sun X. 2012. Normalized difference vegetation index dynamic change and its driving factor analysis with long time series in the Jinghe River Watershed on the Loess Plateau of China. Chinese Journal of Plant Ecology, 36(6): 511-521. (in Chinese)

DOI

[36]
Vigerstol K L, Aukema J E. 2011. A comparison of tools for modeling freshwater ecosystem services. Journal of Environmental Management, 92(10): 2403-2409.

DOI PMID

[37]
Wang H, Liu G H, Li Z S, et al. 2018. Assessing the driving forces in vegetation dynamics using net primary productivity as the indicator: A case study in Jinghe River Basin in the Loess Plateau. Forests, 9(7): 374. DOI: 10.3390/f9070374.

DOI

[38]
Winchell M, Srinivasan R, Di Luzio M, et al. 2007. ArcSWAT interface for SWAT 2005 (User’s guide). Texas, USA: Blackland Research Center, Texas Agricultural Experiment Station.

[39]
Xu C X, Gong J, Yan L L, et al. 2021. Spatiotemporal changes of supply and demand risk of soil conservation services in Bailongjiang Watershed, Gansu Province. Chinese Journal of Ecology, 40(5): 1397-1408. (in Chinese)

[40]
Xu J, Xiao Y, Xie G D, et al. 2016. Spatiotemporal analysis of water supply service in the Dongjiang Lake Basin. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 36(15): 4892-4906. (in Chinese)

[41]
Xu J, Yu X, Li N, et al. 2015. Spatial and temporal patterns of supply and demand balance of water supply services in the Dongjiang Lake Basin and its beneficiary areas. Journal of Resources and Ecology, 6(6): 386-396.

DOI

[42]
Xu X L. 2017. 1-km grid population dataset of China. http://www.resdc.cn/DOI/DOI.aspx

[43]
Yan Y, Zhu J Y, Wu G, et al. 2017. Review and prospective applications of demand, supply, and consumption of ecosystem services. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 37(8): 2489-2496. (in Chinese)

[44]
Zhang C, Li J, Zhou Z X. 2021. Water resources security pattern of the Weihe River Basin based on spatial flow model of water supply service. Scientia Geographica Sinica, 41(2): 350-359. (in Chinese)

[45]
Zhang J L, Shang Y Z, Liu J Y, et al. 2020. Causes of variations in sediment yield in the Jinghe River Basin, China. Scientific Reports, 10(1): 18054. DOI: 10.1038/s41598-020-74980-3.

DOI

[46]
Zhang S L, Yu P T, Zhang H J, et al. 2013. Impact of climate change on the hydrological process in medium scale basin of arid areas. Journal of Arid Land Resources and Environment, 27(10): 70-74. (in Chinese)

[47]
Zhang X R, Wang X F, Cheng C W, et al. 2021. Ecosystem service flows in Karst area of China based on the relationship between supply and demand. Acta Ecologica Sinica, 41(9): 3368-3380. (in Chinese)

[48]
Zhao L, Lyu A F, Wu J J, et al. 2014. Impact of meteorological drought on streamflow drought in Jinghe River Basin of China. Chinese Geographical Science, 24(6): 694-705.

DOI

[49]
Zhou W Z. 2003. A study on available water capacity of main soil types in China based on geographic information system. Diss., Nanjing, China: Nanjing Agricultural University.

Options
Outlines

/

〈 〉