首页> 外文期刊>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences >Accounting for environmental flow requirements in global water assessments
【24h】

Accounting for environmental flow requirements in global water assessments

机译:全球水评估中的环境流量要求

获取原文
获取外文期刊封面目录资料

摘要

As the water requirement for food production and other human needs grows, quantification of environmental flow requirements (EFRs) is necessary to assess the amount of water needed to sustain freshwater ecosystems. EFRs are the result of the quantification of water necessary to sustain the riverine ecosystem, which is calculated from the mean of an environmental flow (EF) method. In this study, five EF methods for calculating EFRs were compared with 11 case studies of locally assessed EFRs. We used three existing methods (Smakhtin, Tennant, and Tessmann) and two newly developed methods (the variable monthly flow method (VMF) and the iQ/isub90/sub_iQ/isub50/sub method). All methods were compared globally and validated at local scales while mimicking the natural flow regime. The VMF and the Tessmann methods use algorithms to classify the flow regime into high, intermediate, and low-flow months and they take into account intra-annual variability by allocating EFRs with a percentage of mean monthly flow (MMF). The iQ/isub90/sub_iQ/isub50/sub method allocates annual flow quantiles (iQ/isub90/sub and iQ/isub50/sub) depending on the flow season. The results showed that, on average, 37% of annual discharge was required to sustain environmental flow requirement. More water is needed for environmental flows during low-flow periods (46–71% of average low-flows) compared to high-flow periods (17–45% of average high-flows). Environmental flow requirements estimates from the Tennant, iQ/isub90/sub_iQ/isub50/sub, and Smakhtin methods were higher than the locally calculated EFRs for river systems with relatively stable flows and were lower than the locally calculated EFRs for rivers with variable flows. The VMF and Tessmann methods showed the highest correlation with the locally calculated EFRs (iR/isup2/sup=0.91). The main difference between the Tessmann and VMF methods is that the Tessmann method allocates all water to EFRs in low-flow periods while the VMF method allocates 60% of the flow in low-flow periods. Thus, other water sectors such as irrigation can withdraw up to 40% of the flow during the low-flow season and freshwater ecosystems can still be kept in reasonable ecological condition. The global applicability of the five methods was tested using the global vegetation and the Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed land (LPJmL) hydrological model. The calculated global annual EFRs for fair ecological conditions represent between 25 and 46% of mean annual flow (MAF). Variable flow regimes, such as the Nile, have lower EFRs (ranging from 12 to 48% of MAF) than stable tropical regimes such as the Amazon (which has EFRs ranging from 30 to 67% of MAF).
机译:随着粮食生产和其他人类需求的水需求增长,环境流量要求(EFRS)的量化是评估维持淡水生态系统所需的水量。 EFRS是维持河流生态系统所需的水的量化,这是由环境流(EF)方法的平均值计算的。在该研究中,将5种用于计算EFRS的EF方法与11个局部评估的EFR的11例研究进行了比较。我们使用了三种现有方法(Smakhtin,Tennant和Tessmann)和两个新开发的方法(可变月度流量(VMF)和 Q 90 _ q 50 方法)。全球比较所有方法并在局部刻度上验证,同时模仿自然流动制度。 VMF和TESSMANN方法使用算法将流动制度分类为高,中间和低流量,通过分配EFRS以平均月流量(MMF)的百分比分配EFR来考虑年度变异性。 q 90 _ q 50 方法分配年度流量量( q 90 和 q 50 )。结果表明,平均而言,37%的年度出院需要维持环境流量要求。与高流量时期(平均高流量的17-45%)相比,在低流量期间(平均低流量的46-71%)需要更多水(46-71%)。环境流量要求估计来自曲线, q 90 _ q 50 ,smakhtin方法高于本地计算具有相对稳定流动的河流系统的EFR,并且低于具有变量流动的河流的本地计算的EFR。 VMF和TESSMANN方法显示出与本地计算的EFR( R 2 = 0.91)相关的最高相关性。 TESSMANN和VMF方法之间的主要区别在于TESSMANN方法在低流量期间将所有水分配给EFRS,而VMF方法分配了60%的低流量周期的流量。因此,诸如灌溉之类的其他水部门可以在低流量季节期间提取高达40%的流动,并且淡水生态系统仍然可以保持在合理的生态状态。使用全球植被和Lund-Potsdam-jena托管(LPJML)水文模型测试了五种方法的全球适用性。计算出的全球每年为公平生态条件的EFRS代表25%至46%的年度流量(MAF)。比尼罗的可变流量制度(例如尼罗河)比稳定的热带制度(如亚马逊等稳定的热带制度(其中包括30%至67%的MAF)的稳定热带制度。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号