Next Article in Journal
Earthquake Engineering Technology and Its Application
Previous Article in Journal
Robust-mv-M-LSTM-CI: Robust Energy Consumption Forecasting in Commercial Buildings during the COVID-19 Pandemic
 
 
Search for Articles:
Title / Keyword
Author / Affiliation / Email
Journal
Article Type
 
 
Advanced Search
 
Section
Special Issue
Volume
Issue
Number
Page
 
Journals
Sustainability
Volume 16
Issue 15
10.3390/su16156700
sustainability-logo
Submit to this Journal Review for this Journal Propose a Special Issue
► Article Menu

Article Menu

share Share announcement Help format_quote Cite question_answer Discuss in SciProfiles thumb_up
...
Endorse textsms
...
Comment
first_page
settings
Order Article Reprints
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

The Impacts of Dams on Streamflow in Tributaries to the Lower Mekong Basin

by
Romduol Khoeun
1,2,*,
Ratha Sor
2,3,
Kimsan Chann
1,2,
Sophea Rom Phy
1,
Chantha Oeurng
1 and
Ty Sok
1,4
1
Faculty of Hydrology and Water Resources Engineering, Institute of Technology of Cambodia, Russian Federation Blvd., Phnom Penh 12156, Cambodia
2
Wonders of the Mekong Project, c/o IFReDI, Fisheries Administration, No. 186, Preah Norodom Blvd., Khan Chamkarmon, Phnom Penh 12300, Cambodia
3
Graduate School, National University of Cheasim Kamchaymear, No. 152, Preah Norodom Blvd., Khan Chamkarmon, Phnom Penh 12300, Cambodia
4
Research and Innovation Center, Institute of Technology of Cambodia, Russian Federation Blvd., Phnom Penh 12156, Cambodia
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Sustainability 2024, 16(15), 6700; https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156700
Submission received: 6 May 2024 / Revised: 13 July 2024 / Accepted: 31 July 2024 / Published: 5 August 2024
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Global Hydrological Studies and Ecological Sustainability)
Browse Figures
Review Reports Versions Notes

Abstract

:
The Lower Mekong Basin has had extensive hydropower dam development, which changes its hydrologic conditions and threatens the exceptional aquatic biodiversity. This study quantifies the degree of hydrologic change between pre-impact (1965–1968) and post-impact (2018–2021) peak hydropower development in two major tributaries of the Lower Mekong Basin—the Sekong River, with the fewest dams, and the Sesan River, with the most dams. Both rivers have historically supported migratory fishes. We used daily pre- and post-impact data and the Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration framework to evaluate streamflow changes from dam development. We found significant changes in low- and high-magnitude flows in the pre- and post-impact periods of dam development. For the Sekong River, minimum flow had large fluctuations, with increases of 290% to 412% compared to the pre-impact period, while the Sesan River’s minimum flow ranged from 120% to 160% more than pre-impact. Dry season flows increased by 200 ± 63% on average in the Sekong River, which was caused by releases from upstream dams. Meanwhile, the Sesan River’s dry season flows increased by 100 ± 55% on average. This study indicates that seasonal flow changes and extreme flow events occurred more frequently in the two basins following dam construction, which may threaten the ecosystem’s function.

1. Introduction

Hydropower dams are being developed extensively in developing rivers, such as the Congo, Yangtze, Yellow, Amazon, and Mekong rivers, which introduces complex tradeoffs for river ecosystems and local people, communities, and economies [1]. For instance, dams provide economic and social benefits, such as flood and drought risk reduction [2,3], irrigation water [4], and electricity [5]. In addition to single-purpose dams, there are also multipurpose dams that serve as flood control, provide irrigation, and generate electricity [6]. On the other hand, they may alter hydrology [7], contribute to wetland destruction [8,9], degrade water quality [10], alter sediment transport [11,12], fragment rivers [13], reduce biological and ecological productivity [14], and contribute to prolonged and severe drought [15] and biodiversity loss [16]. Flow alteration is a fundamental change to river systems, because it is a master variable that affects physical, chemical, and biological processes [17]. Typically, dams decrease flows in the wet season and increase them in the dry season [8,18]; therefore, flow magnitude, timing, frequency, duration, and rate of change can be also affected [19,20], which consequently leads to longer wet or dry seasons [21,22].
The Mekong River supports tremendous aquatic biodiversity, including ~1200 fish species [23], and is home to aquatic invertebrates such as rotifers [24], aquatic insects [25,26], annelids, crustaceans, and molluscs [27,28]. Fish from the Lower Mekong Basin (LMB) are a primary food source for local people [29,30], and fisheries provided an estimated ~US$11 billion to the economy in 2015 [31]. Despite being ecologically, economically, and socially important, the Mekong River is a hydropower dam development hotspot. Since the mid-1990s, 11 mega dams have been constructed on the Upper Mekong River mainstem in China [32]. In the LMB, at least 129 dams have been commissioned, including 5 mainstem dams in Laos. Hydropower dams in the LMB have the capacity to provide >30,000 megawatts (MW) of power generation, with an estimated revenue of US$160 billion from all projects by 2040 [33]. One of the primary areas for hydropower dams in the LMB is the area containing the Sekong, Sesan, and Srepok rivers (the 3S Basin), which are major tributaries to the LMB (Figure 1). As of 2021, at least 51 dams are operating in the 3S Basin, with a combined generating capacity of 4684 MW. The Sesan River has the most dams of the three rivers, with 22 dams, and the Sekong has the fewest, with 14 dams [34].
The impact of hydropower dam development is evidenced from one basin to another across the globe [35,36,37,38]. For instance, dam development in the Paraiba do Sul River Basin located in the southeast region of Brazil has disrupted sediment transport, causing significant coastal erosion and impacting socio-environmental resilience [37]. In southern Ethiopia, Africa, the Gibe III dam on the Omo River has had a significant negative impact on indigenous communities, including economic collapse, hunger, disease, environmental destruction, and interethnic conflict [38]. For the 3S Basin, past and ongoing hydropower dam development has led to deviated streamflow from natural regimes [35,36]. Piman, Cochrane, Arias, Green, and Dat [35] examined the effects of hydrologic change caused by hydropower dams in the whole 3S Basin, using the water assessment tool (SWAT) and the HEC-ResSim models, and found that the construction of new dams along the main rivers of the 3S Basin can alter seasonal flows, leading to increased dry season flow and decreased wet season flow as part of a strategy to maximize electricity production. Oeurng and Sok [36] evaluated changes in flow and water quality in the Sesan River using the Indicators of Hydrological Alteration (IHA) framework, and discovered that significant hydrologic changes occurred during both the low flow and high flow periods following the construction of the Yali Falls dam in Vietnam. In this regard, understanding the impact of dam operation on flow changes is crucial for addressing sustainable river development concerns, including power generation and downstream ecosystem alteration, and can provide insights for better reservoir planning/building. Therefore, it is important to quantify and compare flow alteration before and after dam construction and between the least and most dammed rivers in the 3S.
In this study, we quantify the degree of hydrologic alteration prior to and following dam construction in the Sekong and Sesan rivers. For each river, we first assess the degree of daily hydrologic alteration during the pre-impact (1965–1968) and post-impact (2018–2021) periods of dam construction, using the 5th and 95th percentiles of flows to indicate the highest and lowest pulses, respectively. We then compare the hydrologic alteration between the two periods for each river and between the two rivers to compute the extent to which the hydrologic alteration differs. Low flows, represented by exceedance of the 95th percentile flows, are important for understanding the minimum flow requirement for ecological health and managing water resources during dry seasons. Exceedance of the 5th flow percentile indicates high flows, which are significant for describing flood events.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Sekong and Sesan rivers (2S) are major tributaries of the LMB and are important for irrigation, transportation, hydropower generation, fisheries, and ecosystem services. These rivers flow through portions of Laos, Cambodia, and Vietnam (Figure 1). The total watershed area of the two rivers is about 47,615 km2, of which the Sekong Basin encompasses about 28,815 km2, while the Sesan Basin is about 18,800 km2 [39]. The wet monsoon season from May to October provides more than 80% of the annual rainfall. The dry season lasts from November to April, with cooler temperatures observed from November to January. The average annual rainfall can exceed 2500 mm and precipitation varies throughout the watersheds. The Sekong, Sesan, and Srepok rivers collectively contribute a mean annual discharge of ~2890 m3/s, which is ~25% of all streamflow to the Mekong River [40].

2.2. River Flow Data

Daily streamflow was measured by the Mekong River Commission (MRC) at the Siempang gauge station in the Sekong River and the Veurnsai gauge station in the Sesan River. Flow data for each river was divided into two periods: the pre-impact period (PreIm: 1965–1968) and the post-impact period (PostIm: 2018–2021). The pre-impact period was selected because no dams had been built in either river basin and daily data was available. The post-development period followed recent mega hydropower dam construction, including the Sesan 4 and Lower Sesan 2 dams in the Sesan River and the XeKaman 1 Dam in the Sekong River (Figure 2). The descriptive statistics of streamflow for the pre- and post-impact periods in both rivers is provided in Table A1.

2.3. Data Analysis

2.3.1. Indicators of Hydrologic Alteration and Extreme Flow Events

We used the IHA framework to quantify streamflow changes from hydropower dam development at study stream gauges. The IHA model is widely implemented and well-known for its effectiveness at quantifying flow changes [19,41,42,43]. For example, Van Binh et al. [41] utilized IHA to examine the long-term alteration of flow regime in the Mekong River. Piman [42] estimated how changes in land use, climate, and hydropower development affect the hydrologic alteration of the Srepok River using IHA. Zhou et al. [43] used IHA to analyze the cumulative effects of cascading reservoirs on the flow regime in the Jinsha River in China. Flow regime is central to sustaining ecosystem function, productivity, and the livelihoods of local people [12,44,45].
The IHA framework was created to assess streamflow alteration by detecting differences in the range of natural variability based on 33 parameters of hydrologic alteration [46,47]. The pre-impact period is our reference condition for natural flows. In this study, we used only 10 of the 33 parameters (Table 1) for the subsequent analysis identifying extreme flow events. We selected these 10 parameters as we focused on flow magnitude and duration in different periods, while the changes in extreme flow events were detected by flow duration curves and flow maxima and minima.
We used flow duration curves to assess changes in the low- and high-magnitude flows. The 5th (Q5) and 95th (Q95) exceedance probabilities of flow in each period were calculated, where Q5 indicates high-magnitude flows and Q95 represents low-magnitude flows. Q5 is a common metric for assessing how hydrologic alteration affects high flow conditions, such as evaluating the capacity of reservoirs to store large inflows [48]. To identify extreme flow events, we also used 1-, 3-, 7-, 30-, and 90-day minimum and maximum flows estimated by the IHA framework. These indicators are widely used [49].

2.3.2. Hydrologic Alteration between Periods and Rivers

To examine hydrologic changes between the two periods, the relative hydrologic change was computed as a percentage. The results from this analysis were then divided into three categories based on their relationship to the median: those less than or equal to the 33rd percentile, those between the 34th and 67th percentiles, and those exceeding the 67th percentile. These categories represent low, medium, and high degrees of hydrologic alteration, respectively [47]. The relative hydrologic change was as follows:
R e l a t i v e   H y d r o l o g i c   C h a n g e = P o s t - I m p a c t   F l o w − ( P r e - I m p a c t   F l o w ) P r e - I m p a c t   F l o w × 100 .
When the value of the relative hydrologic change is positive, it means that streamflow increased from the pre-impact to the post-impact period. Conversely, a negative value indicates a decrease in the streamflow of the studied rivers [50].
Moreover, flow data was also compared between the pre- and post-impact periods, between rivers, and between the wet and dry seasons (Figure A1) using the Kruskal–Wallis test. In total, six comparative analyses were completed (Table 2).

3. Results

3.1. Changes in Flow Duration Curves and Flow Maxima and Minima

There was a larger increase in streamflow between the pre- and post-impact periods for Q5 (the highest 5% of flows) than for Q95 (the lowest 5% of flows), and for the Sekong River than the Sesan River (Figure 3). The below table notes the magnitude of increased low and high flows between the pre- and post-impact periods for the Sekong and Sesan rivers.
Overall, the Sekong River—with the fewest dams—had larger flow increases before and after dam development than the Sesan River, which has fewer dams (Figure 4). The 1-, 3-, 7-, 30-, and 90-day minimum flows increased in the Sekong River by more than 250% following dam construction (Figure 4). Minimum flows in the post-impact period were 359–425 m3/s higher than in the pre-impact period. The 1-, 3-, 7-, and 30-day maximum flows were 50% higher than in the pre-dam impact period, while there was a negligible change in the 90-day maximum flow because it was only 1.3% higher in the post-impact compared to the pre-impact period (Figure 4). For the Sesan River, minimum flows increased by 121–161% in the post-dam impact period. The 1-day maximum flow had a 56% increase, with smaller increases for the 3-, 7-, and 30-day maximum flows. The 90-day maximum flow in the Sesan River was the only minima/maxima metric that decreased following dam construction because a negative relative change of −10% was observed (Figure 4). Further details on both the pre- and post-impact flows and the minima/maxima metrics of the two rivers are provided in Figure A2.

3.2. Hydrologic Alteration between Periods and River Basins

For the dry season, there was a high degree of hydrologic change (200% ± 163) in the Sekong River between the pre- and post-dam periods (Table 3). Following the post-dam period, streamflow in the Sekong River gradually increased from October to April (Nov–Apr). On average, April had the largest increase in streamflow between the pre-and post-dam periods. In the Sesan River, we also found a high degree of hydrologic change (100% ± 55), and increased streamflow occurred from September through May, during which April and May had the largest increased streamflow.
For the wet season, streamflow in the Sekong River decreased from pre-dam conditions from June to September, during which July had the greatest reduction (−37%). For the Sesan River, streamflow decreased from pre-dam conditions from June to August, and the largest decrease was found in July (Table 3).
The comparative results of the hydrologic changes between the two rivers indicate that streamflow increased significantly between the pre- and post-impact periods for both the Sekong and Sesan rivers in the dry season (Figure 5). Moreover, streamflow in the post-impact period was significantly higher in Sekong River than the Sesan River in the dry season. In the wet season, however, there was no significant change in streamflow between the pre- and post-impact periods for either river (Figure 5).

4. Discussion

Our study is the first to assess and compare the impacts of dams on streamflow in the least and most dammed rivers in the 3S Basin. Overall, we found that the post-impact flows are generally higher than the pre-impact flows for both rivers. Binh et al. [41], based on a long-term data analysis of the Mekong River, also revealed that flow regime alteration was more pronounced in the high-dam development period compared to the no-dam development period. This could be due to substantial change in the flood peak, flood frequency, flood duration, and high-flow discharges induced by dams [41]. Tian et al. [51] also indicate a similar finding from the Three Gorges Dam located in the Yangtze River of China.
The Sekong River had a higher volume of flows for both the Q5 and Q95 compared to the Sesan River. This finding is relatively similar to that of a study by Oeurng et al. [40], who found that the annual flow of 1167 m3/s of the Sekong River was far higher than the 743 m3/s flow of the Sesan River. Higher precipitation in Sekong during dry and wet seasons also leads to higher Q5 and Q95 [40], as in the case of other studies [52,53]. For the Sesan River, it is the most dammed river of the 3S Basin [34], with six mainstem dams that have a capacity of >100 Megawatts, which are the Plei Krong, Yali Falls, Sesan 3, Sesan 3A, Sesan 4, Sesan 4A (63 Megawatts), and Lower Sesan 2 Dams. Therefore, water can be trapped in the upstream dams located above the stream gauge station (except for Lower Sesan 2) (Figure A3) and, therefore, these dams contribute to a higher volume of flow overall.
For both rivers, streamflow significantly increased between pre-dam and post-dam periods in the dry season. Evidence of increased dry season flow and low flow has also been seen following hydropower dam development in other parts of the Mekong River Basin [41,54] and the Yangtze River of China [51]. This is because dam discharge retains water from the wet season to generate energy. For instance, between March and May 2016, 12.65 billion cubic meters of water was released from Jinghong hydropower dams in the Yunnan province of China, contributing to an increase of 602–1010 m3/s along the downstream Mekong mainstem river. For the wet season, however, we found no significant flow change, while previous studies have indicated decreasing wet seasonal flow due to dam operations [45,55,56]. This discrepancy can be attributed to the study periods, dam scenarios, and reservoir operation rules, as have been illustrated by Ziv et al. [30].
In the whole Mekong Basin, large-scale hydropower dam development has brought concerns regarding biodiversity loss [34,57], degradation of the ecosystem [58], and reduced ecosystem services [59]. However, small run-of-river hydropower dams have been found to be safe and environmentally friendly because they provide a reliable local and cross-border energy and water supply [60]. These solutions are eco-friendly, enhance energy security, reduce greenhouse gas emissions, and promote regional cooperation. They also offer economic benefits, improve water management, and support local communities by providing stable energy and better water resources [61].
This study, however, is lacking long time series data that could be included in the analysis. Although we have incorporated two periods representing the pre- and post-dam development, the results showed only the hydrologic change between two study points, rather than exploring the long-term trend of change and its intra- and inter-variations. Another interesting aspect to be taken into account is the inclusion of the other river (Srepok) in the 3S Basin, because this river is the second most dammed in the system [34], which allows the analysis of the environmental tradeoffs of hydropower dam development. Moreover, watersheds, annual precipitation, and extreme climate conditions are also key variables to include when analyzing the impacts of dams on river development. All of these would provide insight that could allow better management and sustainable development of the system.

5. Conclusions and Implications

Overall, we found likely impacts of hydropower dam development on streamflow in the two river basins, most notably, significantly increased dry season flow and low flow minima. We also found significant lower streamflow in the Sesan River than in the Sekong River. Our findings support previous research—which, in general, examines hydrologic change for the whole 3S Basin [35] or for one individual river [36]—with additional and detailed flow changes from the pre-dam period to the dammed period, and in particular analyzes the flow change difference between the most (Sesan) and least (Sekong) dammed rivers of the 3S Basin. Future work focusing on the sustainability management and development of the 3S Basin would benefit from conducting a time series analysis of streamflow and identifying the environmental tradeoffs of hydropower dam development. Moreover, assessing the attributes of watershed size, annual precipitation, and extreme climate conditions would also provide additional understanding of streamflow and water quality change patterns in the 3S Basin.
In the LMB, hydropower dam development has been found to have an immense impact on streamflow [62], fish biodiversity and biomass [30,34], and agriculture productivity [63]. The 3S Basin, an important watershed of the LMB, is vital for biodiversity as it provides pathways for migratory fish [34], and it also aids ecosystem services and local communities; limiting future dam development to maintain current riverine migration corridors and habitat connectivity should be a priority. Other alternatives are to optimize the existing dams’ operation rules to improve environmental impacts [64].

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: R.K. and R.S.; methodology and formal analysis: R.K., K.C., R.S. and T.S.; investigation: T.S., C.O. and R.S.; data acquisition: R.S.; data curation: R.S. and R.K.; writing—original draft preparation: R.K. and R.S.; writing—review and editing: R.K., T.S., K.C., S.R.P., C.O. and R.S.; visualization: R.K., K.C. and R.S.; supervision: T.S., C.O. and R.S.; funding acquisition: R.S. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was partly funded by the United States Agency for International Development’s ‘Wonders of the Mekong’ Cooperative Agreement, no.: AID-OAA-A-16-00057.

Institutional Review Board Statement

Not applicable.

Informed Consent Statement

Not applicable.

Data Availability Statement

The data presented in this study are available on request from the corresponding author.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank the Mekong River Commission for providing the database for our analysis. We are also grateful for the technical support by HydroMet and the Disaster Management Lab, Institute of Technology of Cambodia, Phnom Penh, Cambodia. We also thank Sarah E. Null for English editing and insightful comments on the manuscript.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflicts of interest.

Appendix A

Sustainability 16 06700 g0a1
Figure A1. Monthly average discharge at gauge stations in the Sekong and Sesan rivers.
Figure A1. Monthly average discharge at gauge stations in the Sekong and Sesan rivers.
Sustainability 16 06700 g0a1
Sustainability 16 06700 g0a2
Figure A2. The observed minimum/maximum discharges (flows) and the corresponding relative changes in the Sekong (a,b) and Sesan (c,d) rivers.
Figure A2. The observed minimum/maximum discharges (flows) and the corresponding relative changes in the Sekong (a,b) and Sesan (c,d) rivers.
Sustainability 16 06700 g0a2
Sustainability 16 06700 g0a3
Figure A3. The cumulative storage of upstream dams above the studied gauge station in the Sesan River.
Figure A3. The cumulative storage of upstream dams above the studied gauge station in the Sesan River.
Sustainability 16 06700 g0a3
Table A1. The descriptive statistics of streamflow for the pre- and post-impact periods in the Sekong and Sesan rivers (m3/s).
Table A1. The descriptive statistics of streamflow for the pre- and post-impact periods in the Sekong and Sesan rivers (m3/s).
Dry SeasonWet Season
SekongSesanSekongSesan
Pre-Post-Pre-Post-Pre-Post-Pre-Post-
Mean226.5708.3248.1415.01903.02085.31023.21093.6
Median202.0654.0177.0357.41540.01374.01020.0840.7
SD132.0304.3172.1194.01387.31965.2669.3898.7
Min68.0281.075.0193.3135.0255.095.0225.2
Max1020.03956.0855.01377.36130.010,301.03420.06101.5
Range952.03675.0780.01184.05995.010,046.03325.05876.4

References

  1. Moran, E.F.; Lopez, M.C.; Moore, N.; Müller, N.; Hyndman, D.W. Sustainable hydropower in the 21st century. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 11891–11898. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Agostinho, A.A.; Gomes, L.C.; Veríssimo, S.; Okada, E.K. Flood regime, dam regulation and fish in the Upper Paraná River: Effects on assemblage attributes, reproduction and recruitment. Rev. Fish Biol. Fish. 2004, 14, 11–19. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Nakamura, F.; Komiyama, E. A challenge to dam improvement for the protection of both salmon and human livelihood in Shiretoko, Japan’s third Natural Heritage Site. Landsc. Ecol. Eng. 2010, 6, 143–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  4. Kingsford, R.T. Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions and river management on floodplain wetlands in Australia. Austral Ecol. 2000, 25, 109–127. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Baxter, R.M. Environmental effects of dams and impoundments. Annu. Rev. Ecol. 1977, 8, 255–283. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Skoulikaris, C.; Ganoulis, J. Multipurpose hydropower projects economic assessment under climate change conditions. Fresenious Environ. Bull 2017, 26, 5599–5607. [Google Scholar]
  7. Dang, T.D.; Cochrane, T.A.; Arias, M.E.; Van, P.D.T.; de Vries, T.T. Hydrological alterations from water infrastructure development in the Mekong floodplains. Hydrol. Process. 2016, 30, 3824–3838. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  8. Hecht, J.S.; Lacombe, G.; Arias, M.E.; Dang, T.D.; Piman, T. Hydropower dams of the Mekong River basin: A review of their hydrological impacts. J. Hydrol. 2019, 568, 285–300. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  9. Kingsford, R.; Thomas, R. Destruction of wetlands and waterbird populations by dams and irrigation on the Murrumbidgee River in arid Australia. Environ. Manag. 2004, 34, 383–396. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  10. Wei, G.; Yang, Z.; Cui, B.; Li, B.; Chen, H.; Bai, J.; Dong, S. Impact of dam construction on water quality and water self-purification capacity of the Lancang River, China. Water Resour. Manag. 2009, 23, 1763–1780. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  11. Wu, X.; Xiang, X.; Chen, X.; Zhang, X.; Hua, W. Effects of cascade reservoir dams on the streamflow and sediment transport in the Wujiang River basin of the Yangtze River, China. J. Inland Waters 2018, 8, 216–228. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  12. Klaver, G.; van Os, B.; Negrel, P.; Petelet-Giraud, E. Influence of hydropower dams on the composition of the suspended and riverbank sediments in the Danube. J. Environ. Pollut. 2007, 148, 718–728. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  13. Soukhaphon, A.; Baird, I.G.; Hogan, Z.S. The impacts of hydropower dams in the Mekong River Basin: A review. Water 2021, 13, 265. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Franklin, K.; Dietrich, W.; Trush, W. Downstream ecological effects of dams, a geomorphic perspective. J. Biosci. 1995, 45, 183–192. [Google Scholar]
  15. Chann, K.; Sok, T.; Khoeun, R.; Men, V.; Visessri, S.; Oeurng, C.; Sor, R.; Null, S.E. Prolonged and Severe Drought in the Most Dammed Tributaries of the Lower Mekong Basin. Sustainability 2022, 14, 16254. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Wu, H.; Chen, J.; Xu, J.; Zeng, G.; Sang, L.; Liu, Q.; Yin, Z.; Dai, J.; Yin, D.; Liang, J. Effects of dam construction on biodiversity: A review. J. Clean. Prod. 2019, 221, 480–489. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Poff, N.L.; Zimmerman, J.K. Ecological responses to altered flow regimes: A literature review to inform the science and management of environmental flows. J. Freshw. Biol. 2010, 55, 194–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  18. Habit, E.; García, A.; Díaz, G.; Arriagada, P.; Link, O.; Parra, O.; Thoms, M. River science and management issues in Chile: Hydropower development and native fish communities. River Res. 2019, 35, 489–499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Richter, B.D.; Baumgartner, J.V.; Powell, J.; Braun, D.P. A method for assessing hydrologic alteration within ecosystems. Conserv. Biol. 1996, 10, 1163–1174. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. McMillan, H.K. A review of hydrologic signatures and their applications. J. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Water 2021, 8, e1499. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Magilligan, F.J.; Nislow, K.H. Changes in hydrologic regime by dams. J. Geomorphol. 2005, 71, 61–78. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Daniels, M.E.; Danner, E.M. The drivers of river temperatures below a large dam. J. Water Resour. Res. 2020, 56, e2019WR026751. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Rainboth, W.J.; Vidthayanon, C.; Yen, M.D. Fishes of the Greater Mekong Ecosystem with Species List and Photographic Atlas; University of Michigan Museum of Zoology: Ann Arbor, MI, USA, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  24. Sor, R.; Meas, S.; Wong, K.K.; Min, M.; Segers, H. Diversity of Monogononta rotifer species among standing waterbodies in northern Cambodia. J. Limnol. 2015, 74, 192–204. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Doeurk, B.; Chhorn, S.; Sin, S.; Phauk, S.; Sor, R. Diversity, distribution and habitat associations of aquatic beetles. Cambodian J. Nat. Hist. 2022, 90–98. [Google Scholar]
  26. Chhorn, S.; Chan, B.; Sin, S.; Doeurk, B.; Chhy, T.; Phauk, S.; Sor, R. Diversity, abundance and habitat characteristics. Cambodian J. Nat. Hist. 2020, 61–68. [Google Scholar]
  27. Sor, R.; Boets, P.; Chea, R.; Goethals, P.L.; Lek, S. Spatial organization of macroinvertebrate assemblages in the Lower Mekong Basin. Limnologica 2017, 64, 20–30. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  28. Sor, R.; Ngor, P.B.; Boets, P.; Goethals, P.L.; Lek, S.; Hogan, Z.S.; Park, Y.-S. Patterns of mekong mollusc biodiversity: Identification of emerging threats and importance to management and livelihoods in a region of globally significant biodiversity and endemism. Water 2020, 12, 2619. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ngor, P.B.; Sor, R.; Prak, L.H.; So, N.; Hogan, Z.S.; Lek, S. Mollusc Fisheries and Length–Weight Relationship in Tonle Sap Flood Pulse System, Cambodia. In Annales de Limnologie-International Journal of Limnology; EDP Sciences: Les Ulis, France, 2018; p. 34. [Google Scholar]
  30. Ziv, G.; Baran, E.; Nam, S.; Rodríguez-Iturbe, I.; Levin, S.A. Trading-off fish biodiversity, food security, and hydropower in the Mekong River Basin. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2012, 109, 5609–5614. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  31. Hortle, K.; Bamrungrach, P. Fisheries habitat and yield in the Lower Mekong Basin. MRC Tech. Pap. 2015, 47, 1–69. [Google Scholar]
  32. Fan, H.; He, D.; Wang, H. Environmental consequences of damming the mainstream Lancang-Mekong River: A review. Earth-Sci. Rev. 2015, 146, 77–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  33. Franciscato, B.R.F.; Udaeta, M.E.M.; Gimenez, A.L.V.; de Almeida Prado, F.A., Jr. Strategic decision making based on energy rates and costs from Itaipu’s Multinational Energy Agreement Perspective. Energy Strategy Rev. 2022, 44, 100967. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  34. Sor, R.; Ngor, P.B.; Lek, S.; Chann, K.; Khoeun, R.; Chandra, S.; Hogan, Z.S.; Null, S.E. Fish biodiversity declines with dam development in the Lower Mekong Basin. Sci. Rep. 2023, 13, 8571. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  35. Piman, T.; Cochrane, T.; Arias, M.; Green, A.; Dat, N. Assessment of flow changes from hydropower development and operations in Sekong, Sesan and Srepok Rivers of the Mekong Basin. J. Water Resour. Plan. Manag. 2013, 139, 723–732. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  36. Oeurng, C.; Sok, T. Assessing changes in flow and water quality emerging from hydropower development and operation in the Sesan River Basin of the Lower Mekong Region. Sustain. Water Resour. Manag. 2020, 6, 1–12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  37. Lämmle, L.; Perez Filho, A.; Donadio, C.; Arienzo, M.; Ferrara, L.; Santos, C.D.J.; Souza, A.O. Engineering, Anthropogenic Pressure on Hydrographic Basin and Coastal Erosion in the Delta of Paraíba do Sul River, Southeast Brazil. J. Mar. Sci. 2022, 10, 1585. [Google Scholar]
  38. Carr, C.J. Human Rights Violations and the Policy Crossroads. In River Basin Development and Human Rights in Eastern Africa—A Policy Crossroads; Springer International Publishing: Berlin/Heidelberg, Germany, 2017; pp. 191–216. [Google Scholar]
  39. Constable, D. Atlas of the 3S Basins; IUCN Regional Office: Bangkok, Thailand, 2015. [Google Scholar]
  40. Oeurng, C.; Cochrane, T.A.; Arias, M.E.; Shrestha, B.; Piman, T. Assessment of changes in riverine nitrate in the Sesan, Srepok and Sekong tributaries of the Lower Mekong River Basin. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2016, 8, 95–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Van Binh, D.; Kantoush, S.A.; Saber, M.; Mai, N.P.; Maskey, S.; Phong, D.T.; Sumi, T. Long-term alterations of flow regimes of the Mekong River and adaptation strategies for the Vietnamese Mekong Delta. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2020, 32, 100742. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Piman, T. Multiple drivers of hydrological alteration in the transboundary Srepok River Basin of the Lower Mekong Region. J. Environ. Manag. 2020, 278, 111524. [Google Scholar]
  43. Zhou, X.; Huang, X.; Zhao, H.; Ma, K.J.H. Development of a revised method for indicators of hydrologic alteration for analyzing the cumulative impacts of cascading reservoirs on flow regime. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2020, 24, 4091–4107. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  44. Winton, R.S.; Calamita, E.; Wehrli, B. Reviews and syntheses: Dams, water quality and tropical reservoir stratification. J. Biogeosci. 2019, 16, 1657–1671. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  45. Piman, T.; Lennaerts, T.; Southalack, P. Assessment of hydrological changes in the lower Mekong Basin from Basin-Wide development scenarios. J. Hydrol. Process. 2013, 27, 2115–2125. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  46. Richter, B.; Baumgartner, J.; Wigington, R.; Braun, D. How much water does a river need? Freshw. Biol. 1997, 37, 231–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Richter, B.D.; Baumgartner, J.V.; Braun, D.P.; Powell, J. A spatial assessment of hydrologic alteration within a river network. Regul. Rivers Res. Manag. Int. J. Devoted River Res. Manag. 1998, 14, 329–340. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  48. Yang, T.; Zhang, Q.; Chen, Y.D.; Tao, X.; Xu, C.; Chen, X. A spatial assessment of hydrologic alteration caused by dam construction in the middle and lower Yellow River, China. Hydrol. Process. Int. J. 2008, 22, 3829–3843. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  49. Wang, Y.; Wang, D.; Lewis, Q.W.; Wu, J.; Huang, F. A framework to assess the cumulative impacts of dams on hydrological regime: A case study of the Yangtze River. Hydrol. Process. 2017, 31, 3045–3055. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  50. Conservancy, N. Indicators of hydrologic alteration. Version 7. User’s manual. Nat. Conserv. 2007. Available online: https://www.conservationgateway.org/Documents/IHAV7.pdf (accessed on 6 May 2024).
  51. Tian, J.; Chang, J.; Zhang, Z.; Wang, Y.; Wu, Y.; Jiang, T. Influence of Three Gorges Dam on downstream low flow. Water 2019, 11, 65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  52. Hope, A.; Bart, R. Synthetic monthly flow duration curves for the Cape Floristic Region, South Africa. Water SA 2012, 38, 191–200. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  53. Abimbola, O.P.; Wenninger, J.; Venneker, R.; Mittelstet, A.R. The assessment of water resources in ungauged catchments in Rwanda. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2017, 13, 274–289. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. Mekong River Commission. Hydrological Impacts of the Lancang Hydropower Cascade on Downstream Extreme Events. Mekong River Comm. Secr. Vientiane Laos 2019. Available online: http://www.waser.cn/waser/EL/PapersReports/webinfo/2021/02/1608503695067859.htm (accessed on 6 May 2024).
  55. Liu, K.-T.; Tseng, K.-H.; Shum, C.K.; Liu, C.-Y.; Kuo, C.-Y.; Liu, G.; Jia, Y.; Shang, K. Assessment of the Impact of Reservoirs in the Upper Mekong River Using Satellite Radar Altimetry and Remote Sensing Imageries. Remote Sens. 2016, 8, 367. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  56. Do, P.; Tian, F.; Zhu, T.; Zohidov, B.; Ni, G.; Lu, H.; Liu, H. Exploring synergies in the water-food-energy nexus by using an integrated hydro-economic optimization model for the Lancang-Mekong River basin. Sci. Total Environ. 2020, 728, 137996. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  57. Baird, I.G.; Hogan, Z.S. Hydropower Dam development and fish biodiversity in the Mekong River Basin: A review. Water 2023, 15, 1352. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Orr, S.; Pittock, J.; Chapagain, A.; Dumaresq, D. Dams on the Mekong River: Lost fish protein and the implications for land and water resources. Glob. Environ. Chang. 2012, 22, 925–932. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  59. Dugan, P.J.; Barlow, C.; Agostinho, A.A.; Baran, E.; Cada, G.F.; Chen, D.; Cowx, I.G.; Ferguson, J.W.; Jutagate, T.; Mallen-Cooper, M. Fish migration, dams, and loss of ecosystem services in the Mekong basin. Ambio 2010, 39, 344–348. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
  60. Azimov, U.; Avezova, N. Sustainable small-scale hydropower solutions in Central Asian countries for local and cross-border energy/water supply. Renew. Sustain. Energy Rev. 2022, 167, 112726. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Venot, J.-P.; de Fraiture, C.; Nti Acheampong, E. Revisiting Dominant Notions: A Review of Costs, Performance and Institutions of Small Reservoirs in Sub-Saharan Africa; International Water Management Institute: Colombo, Sri Lanka, 2012. [Google Scholar]
  62. Ngor, P.B.; Legendre, P.; Oberdorff, T.; Lek, S. Flow alterations by dams shaped fish assemblage dynamics in the complex Mekong-3S river system. Ecol. Indic. 2018, 88, 103–114. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Yoshida, Y.; Lee, H.S.; Trung, B.H.; Tran, H.-D.; Lall, M.K.; Kakar, K.; Xuan, T.D. Impacts of mainstream hydropower dams on fisheries and agriculture in lower Mekong Basin. Sustainability 2020, 12, 2408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  64. Richter, B.D.; Thomas, G.A. Restoring environmental flows by modifying dam operations. Ecology 2007, 12. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Sustainability 16 06700 g001
Figure 1. The Sekong and Sesan rivers, with dams and monitoring stations.
Figure 1. The Sekong and Sesan rivers, with dams and monitoring stations.
Sustainability 16 06700 g001
Sustainability 16 06700 g002
Figure 2. The cumulative reservoir storage for both river basins (gray shading), the Sekong River (blue line), and the Sesan River (red dashed line), with a timeline of dam construction.
Figure 2. The cumulative reservoir storage for both river basins (gray shading), the Sekong River (blue line), and the Sesan River (red dashed line), with a timeline of dam construction.
Sustainability 16 06700 g002
Sustainability 16 06700 g003
Figure 3. The flow duration curves for the pre- and post-impact periods at the Siempang station in the Sekong River and the Veurnsai station in the Sesan River.
Figure 3. The flow duration curves for the pre- and post-impact periods at the Siempang station in the Sekong River and the Veurnsai station in the Sesan River.
Sustainability 16 06700 g003
Sustainability 16 06700 g004
Figure 4. The percent changes in the post-dam development flow minima and maxima compared to the pre-dam development hydrology at the Siempang station in the Sekong River and the Veurnsai station in the Sesan River.
Figure 4. The percent changes in the post-dam development flow minima and maxima compared to the pre-dam development hydrology at the Siempang station in the Sekong River and the Veurnsai station in the Sesan River.
Sustainability 16 06700 g004
Sustainability 16 06700 g005
Figure 5. Box and whisker plots showing the differences in streamflow between the pre- and post-impact periods for each river, and between the rivers in dry and wet seasons. Different lower case letters in the boxplot indicate significant differences at the p < 0.05.
Figure 5. Box and whisker plots showing the differences in streamflow between the pre- and post-impact periods for each river, and between the rivers in dry and wet seasons. Different lower case letters in the boxplot indicate significant differences at the p < 0.05.
Sustainability 16 06700 g005
Table 1. Summary of the hydrologic parameters of the IHA framework used in this study [46].
Table 1. Summary of the hydrologic parameters of the IHA framework used in this study [46].
IHA Statistics GroupRegime CharacteristicsStreamflow Parameter Used in This Study
Magnitude and duration of annual extreme water conditionsMagnitude, durationAnnual minima 1-day means
Annual maxima 1-day means
Annual minima 3-day means
Annual maxima 3-day means
Annual minima 7-day means
Annual maxima 7-day means
Annual minima 30-day means
Annual maxima 30-day means
Annual minima 90-day means
Annual maxima 90-day means
Table 2. Summary of comparative analyses made for this study.
Table 2. Summary of comparative analyses made for this study.
Pre- vs. Post-Impact ComparisonBasin Comparison
(1) Dry season Sekong River Pre- vs. Post-Hydropower Impact(5) Sekong vs. Sesan
(2) Dry season Sesan River Pre- vs. Post-Hydropower Impact
(3) Wet season Sekong River Pre- vs. Post- Hydropower Impact(6) Sekong vs. Sesan
(4) Wet season Sesan River Pre- vs. Post- Hydropower Impact
Table 3. The average monthly flows and relative changes for the pre- and post-impact periods at the Siempang station in the Sekong River and the Veurnsai station in the Sesan River. Orange and green highlights correspond to the dry and wet seasons, respectively.
Table 3. The average monthly flows and relative changes for the pre- and post-impact periods at the Siempang station in the Sekong River and the Veurnsai station in the Sesan River. Orange and green highlights correspond to the dry and wet seasons, respectively.
MonthSekong Sesan
Pre- (m3/s)Post- (m3/s)Relative
Change (%)		Degree of ChangePre- (m3/s)Post- (m3/s)Relative
Change (%)		Degree of Change
Nov58674727Low40872377High
Dec39663260Medium33049650Medium
Jan278667140High23436455Medium
Feb209627200High15728481High
Mar136567315High119305156High
Apr100557457High116326181High
Dry Season
Mean ± SD		284
±182		633
±70		200
±163		High

227
±120		416
±168		100
±55		High
May234565142High133387191High
Jun692675−3Low640501−21Low
Jul16951075−37Medium1275855−33Low
Aug24252406−1Low14001151−18Low
Sep29502891−2Low1482176619Low
Oct1032117814Low63398656Medium
Wet Season
Mean ± SD		1505
±1046		1465
±958		18.8
±63		Low

927
±539		941
±497		32
±84		Low
Annual
Mean ± SD		894
±958		1049
±780		109
±151		High

557
±522		679
±447		66
±77		High
Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content.

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Khoeun, R.; Sor, R.; Chann, K.; Phy, S.R.; Oeurng, C.; Sok, T. The Impacts of Dams on Streamflow in Tributaries to the Lower Mekong Basin. Sustainability 2024, 16, 6700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156700

AMA Style

Khoeun R, Sor R, Chann K, Phy SR, Oeurng C, Sok T. The Impacts of Dams on Streamflow in Tributaries to the Lower Mekong Basin. Sustainability. 2024; 16(15):6700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156700

Chicago/Turabian Style

Khoeun, Romduol, Ratha Sor, Kimsan Chann, Sophea Rom Phy, Chantha Oeurng, and Ty Sok. 2024. "The Impacts of Dams on Streamflow in Tributaries to the Lower Mekong Basin" Sustainability 16, no. 15: 6700. https://doi.org/10.3390/su16156700

Note that from the first issue of 2016, this journal uses article numbers instead of page numbers. See further details here.

Article Metrics

Back to TopTop