Detection of Anomalies and Changes of Rainfall in the Yellow River Basin, China, through Two Graphical Methods
Abstract
:1. Introduction
2. Data and Methods
2.1. Study Area
2.2. Data
2.3. Quantile Perturbation Method
2.3.1. Partial Trend Method
2.3.2. Nonparametric Bootstrap Method
- (1)
- Sample with replacement from the full series to obtain a bootstrap sample that has the same size as the full series.
- (2)
- Apply the PTM to the bootstrap sample. This yields a series of individual trend indices PIi. Then, the overall trend index PI* (summation i = 1 to n of PIi according to Formula 2) and partial trend indices PI’* (partial summation of PIi) are calculated.
- (3)
- Repeat steps 1 and 2 B times to obtain an estimate of the bootstrap distributions of PI* and PI’*.
- (4)
- Estimate the confidence intervals from the bootstrap distributions. For a given a significance level α, the two-sided confidence intervals are estimated by the 100α/2th and 100(1 − α/2)th percentiles of the bootstrap distribution.
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Temporal Anomaly in Extreme Daily Rainfall
3.2. Variations in Annual Rainfall
3.3. Variations in Rainy Days and Daily Rainfall Intensity
3.4. Variations in Extremes of Daily Rainfall
4. Conclusions
- (1)
- Previous studies generally have estimated an overall trend in a specified period, but have taken no notice of changes over time. The QPM has been used to analyze anomalies in extremes of daily rainfall since 1950s. The results show that about half of the stations had significant positive anomalies in extreme daily rainfall 50 years ago. Another cluster of positive anomalies was found to be prevailing in the middle reaches during the 1970s and 1980s. Severe floods occurred during the corresponding periods of the two clusters of positive anomalies. In recent years, the middle reaches between Hekou and Qingjian have also showed positive anomalies.
- (2)
- Changes in annual rainfall were observed with the PTM plot, and significant changes were further verified by the combination of the PTM index and the nonparametric bootstrap procedure. Annual rainfall was found to be significantly decreasing at 7 stations, mainly located in the latter half of the middle reaches. This is consistent with previous studies. However, previous studies neglected changes in different rainfall intensities, which are easily observed with the PTM plot. This study assessed changes in annual rainfall in five categories including light, low, moderate, high and heavy rainfall. Significant changes were found in 12.8% of all the estimates. Significant decreases were mostly in the middle reaches. About two-thirds of the significant decreases occurred in high and heavy rainfall.
- (3)
- Changes in rainfall structures in the Yellow River Basin have not been investigated. This study has used the PTM to analyze changes in the annual number of rainy days and daily rainfall intensity, and their changes in the wet and dry seasons. The results indicate that 64% of the stations experienced significant decreases in rainy days, and 28% of the stations experienced significant increases in daily rainfall intensity. Most stations in the middle and lower reaches showed a significant decrease in rainy days. The stations with increasing rainfall intensity generally also had a decrease in rainy days. The compensation resulted in no change to the total annual rainfall. Still, some stations had a decreasing number of rainy days without a change in rainfall intensity. Thus, the observed decreases in annual rainfall can be attributed to the decreases in rainy days. There were nearly twice as many stations with a decreasing number of rainy days during the wet season compared with during the dry season, which indicates that rainy days had a more marked decrease in the wet season. Another important finding is that 10 stations showed no change in annual rainy days but a decrease in the wet season. In contrast, the increases in rainfall intensity mainly occurred in the dry season.
- (4)
- Variations in extremes of daily rainfall were investigated with the PTM method. RX1day and RX5day showed a significant decrease only in 3 and 2 stations, respectively. R99 showed a significant decrease in 7 stations, including the stations with decreasing RX1day or RX5day.
Acknowledgments
Author Contributions
Conflicts of Interest
References
- Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis; Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Peterson, T.C. Climate change indices. World Meteorol. Organ. Bull. 2005, 54, 83–86. [Google Scholar]
- Wang, W.; Shao, Q.; Yang, T.; Peng, S.; Yu, Z.; Taylor, J.; Xing, W.; Zhao, C.; Sun, F. Changes in daily temperature and precipitation extremes in the Yellow River Basin, China. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2013, 27, 401–421. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wilhelmi, O.V.; Wilhite, D.A. Assessing vulnerability to agricultural drought: A Nebraska case study. Nat. Hazards 2002, 25, 37–58. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mueller, E.N.; Pfister, A. Increasing occurrence of high-intensity rainstorm events relevant for the generation of soil erosion in a temperate lowland region in Central Europe. J. Hydrol. 2011, 411, 266–278. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kundzewicz, Z.W.; Kanae, S.; Seneviratne, S.I.; Handmer, J.; Nicholls, N.; Peduzzi, P.; Mechler, R.; Bouwer, L.M.; Arnell, N.; Mach, K.; et al. Flood risk and climate change: Global and regional perspectives. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2013, 59, 1–28. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Habeeb, D.; Vargo, J.; Stone, B. Rising heat wave trends in large US cities. Nat. Hazards 2015, 76, 1651–1665. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hallegatte, S.; Green, C.; Nicholls, R.J.; Corfee-Morlot, J. Future flood losses in major coastal cities. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2013, 3, 802–806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Deryng, D.; Conway, D.; Ramankutty, N.; Price, J.; Warren, R. Global crop yield response to extreme heat stress under multiple climate change futures. Environ. Res. Lett. 2014, 9, 034011. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Trenberth, K.E.; Fasullo, J.T.; Shepherd, T.G. Attribution of climate extreme events. Nat. Clim. Chang. 2015, 5, 725–730. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, Y.; Shin, J.Y.; Ahn, H.; Heo, J.H. The Spatial and Temporal Structure of Extreme Rainfall Trends in South Korea. Water 2017, 9, 809. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Hu, Y.; Maskey, S.; Uhlenbrook, S. Trends in temperature and rainfall extremes in the Yellow River source region, China. Clim. Chang. 2012, 110, 403–429. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Groisman, P.Y.; Knight, R.W.; Easterling, D.R.; Karl, T.R.; Hegerl, G.C.; Razuvaev, V.N. Trends in Intense Precipitation in the Climate Record. J. Clim. 2005, 18, 1326–1350. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Alpert, P. The paradoxical increase of Mediterranean extreme daily rainfall in spite of decrease in total values. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2002, 29, 31-1–31-4. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhao, G.; Tian, P.; Mu, X.; Jiao, J.; Wang, F.; Gao, P. Quantifying the impact of climate variability and human activities on streamflow in the middle reaches of the Yellow River basin, China. J. Hydrol. 2014, 519, 387–398. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ma, X.; Zuo, H.; Tian, M.; Zhang, L.; Meng, J.; Zhou, X.; Min, N.; Chang, X.; Liu, Y. Assessment of heavy metals contamination in sediments from three adjacent regions of the Yellow River using metal chemical fractions and multivariate analysis techniques. Chemosphere 2016, 144, 264–272. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yang, D.; Li, C.; Hu, H.; Lei, Z.; Yang, S.; Kusuda, T.; Koike, T.; Musiake, K. Analysis of water resources variability in the Yellow River of China during the last half century using historical data. Water Resour. Res. 2004, 40. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yu, L. The Huanghe (Yellow) River: Recent changes and its countermeasures. Cont. Shelf Res. 2006, 26, 2281–2298. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Q.; Oki, T.; Kanae, S.; Hu, H. Hydrological Cycles Change in the Yellow River Basin during the Last Half of the Twentieth Century. J. Clim. 2008, 21, 1790–1806. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tang, Y.; Tang, Q.; Tian, F.; Zhang, Z.; Liu, G. Responses of natural runoff to recent climatic variations in the Yellow River basin, China. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2013, 17, 4471–4480. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, P.; Deng, J.; Chai, X.; Mu, X.; Zhao, G.; Shao, H.; Sun, W. Dynamic sediment discharge in the Hekou–Longmen region of Yellow River and soil and water conservation implications. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 578, 56–66. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Yellow River Conservancy Commission (YRCC). Yellow River Water Resources Bulletin (2015); Yellow River Conservancy Commission of the Ministry of Water Resources: Zhengzhou, China, 2016. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Yao, Z.; Shi, X.; Qiao, S.; Liu, Q.; Kandasamy, S.; Liu, J.; Liu, Y.; Liu, J.; Fang, X.; Gao, J.; et al. Persistent effects of the Yellow River on the Chinese marginal seas began at least ~880 ka ago. Sci. Rep.-UK 2017, 7, 2827. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Liu, Q.; Cui, B. Impacts of climate change/variability on the streamflow in the Yellow River Basin, China. Ecol. Model. 2011, 222, 268–274. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Shu, L.; Finlayson, B. Flood management on the lower Yellow River: Hydrological and geomorphological perspectives. Sediment. Geol. 1993, 85, 285–296. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, H.; Yang, Z.; Saito, Y.; Liu, J.P.; Sun, X. Interannual and seasonal variation of the Huanghe (Yellow River) water discharge over the past 50 years: Connections to impacts from ENSO events and dams. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2006, 50, 212–225. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gao, P.; Mu, X.M.; Wang, F.; Li, R. Changes in streamflow and sediment discharge and the response to human activities in the middle reaches of the Yellow River. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2011, 15, 1–10. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- He, B.; Miao, C.; Shi, W. Trend, abrupt change, and periodicity of streamflow in the mainstream of Yellow River. Environ. Monit. Assess. 2013, 185, 6187–6199. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Gao, Z.; Zhang, L.; Zhang, X.; Cheng, L.; Potter, N.; Cowan, T.; Cai, W. Long-term streamflow trends in the middle reaches of the Yellow River Basin: Detecting drivers of change. Hydrol. Process. 2016, 30, 1315–1329. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Xin, Z.; Yu, X.; Li, Q.; Lu, X.X. Spatiotemporal variation in rainfall erosivity on the Chinese Loess Plateau during the period 1956–2008. Reg. Environ. Chang. 2011, 11, 149–159. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Yan, Y.; Yang, Z.; Liu, Q. Nonlinear trend in streamflow and its response to climate change under complex ecohydrological patterns in the Yellow River Basin, China. Ecol. Model. 2013, 252, 220–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Liang, K.; Liu, S.; Bai, P.; Nie, R. The Yellow River basin becomes wetter or drier? The case as indicated by mean precipitation and extremes during 1961–2012. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2015, 119, 701–722. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tian, Q.; Yang, S. Regional climatic response to global warming: Trends in temperature and precipitation in the Yellow, Yangtze and Pearl River basins since the 1950s. Quat. Int. 2017, 440, 1–11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kendall, M.G. A new measure of rank correlation. Biometrika 1938, 30, 81–93. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Mann, H.B. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica 1945, 13, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sen, P.K. Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall’s tau. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1968, 63, 1379–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Piao, S.L.; Ciais, P.; Huang, Y.; Shen, Z.; Peng, S.; Li, J.; Zhou, L.; Liu, H.; Ma, Y.; Ding, Y.; et al. The impacts of climate change on water resources and agriculture in China. Nature 2010, 467, 43–51. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Nyeko-Ogiramoi, P.; Willems, P.; Ngirane-Katashaya, G. Trend and variability in observed hydrometeorological extremes in the Lake Victoria basin. J. Hydrol. 2013, 489, 56–73. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ntegeka, V.; Willems, P. Trends and multidecadal oscillations in rainfall extremes, based on a more than 100-year time series of 10 min rainfall intensities at Uccle, Belgium. Water Resour. Res. 2008, 44, W07402. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Tabari, H.; Taye, M.T.; Onyutha, C.; Willems, P. Decadal Analysis of River Flow Extremes Using Quantile-Based Approaches. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 3371–3387. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Willems, P. Multidecadal oscillatory behaviour of rainfall extremes in Europe. Clim. Chang. 2013, 120, 931–944. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kisi, O.; Ay, M. Comparison of Mann–Kendall and innovative trend method for water quality parameters of the Kizilirmak River, Turkey. J. Hydrol. 2014, 513, 362–375. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, H.; Qian, H. Innovative trend analysis of annual and seasonal rainfall and extreme values in Shaanxi, China, since the 1950s. Int. J. Climatol. 2017, 37, 2582–2592. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dabanlı, İ.; Şen, Z.; Yeleğen, M.Ö.; Şişman, E.; Selek, B.; Güçlü, Y.S. Trend Assessment by the Innovative-Şen Method. Water Resour. Manag. 2016, 30, 5193–5203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martínez-Austria, P.F.; Bandala, E.R.; Patiño-Gómez, C. Temperature and heat wave trends in northwest Mexico. Phys. Chem. Earth 2016, 91, 20–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onyutha, C. Identification of sub-trends from hydro-meteorological series. Stoch. Environ. Res. Risk Assess. 2016, 30, 189–205. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Öztopal, A.; Şen, Z. Innovative Trend Methodology Applications Innovative to Precipitation Records in Turkey. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 727–737. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Kisi, O. An innovative method for trend analysis of monthly pan evaporations. J. Hydrol. 2015, 527, 1123–1129. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chau, K.W.; Wu, C.L. A hybrid model coupled with singular spectrum analysis for daily rainfall prediction. J. Hydroinform. 2010, 12, 458–473. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wu, C.L.; Chau, K.W.; Fan, C. Prediction of rainfall time series using modular artificial neural networks coupled with data-preprocessing techniques. J. Hydrol. 2010, 389, 146–167. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Chen, X.Y.; Chau, K.W.; Busari, A.O. A comparative study of population-based optimization algorithms for downstream river flow forecasting by a hybrid neural network model. Eng. Appl. Artif. Intell. 2015, 46, 258–268. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Taormina, R.; Chau, K.W.; Sivakumar, B. Neural network river forecasting through baseflow separation and binary-coded swarm optimization. J. Hydrol. 2015, 529, 1788–1797. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Gholami, V.; Chau, K.W.; Fadaee, F.; Torkaman, J.; Ghaffari, A. Modeling of groundwater level fluctuations using dendrochronology in alluvial aquifers. J. Hydrol. 2015, 529, 1060–1069. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Wang, W.C.; Chau, K.W.; Xu, D.M.; Qiu, L.; Liu, C.C. The Annual Maximum Flood Peak Discharge Forecasting Using Hermite Projection Pursuit Regression with SSO and LS Method. Water Resour. Manag. 2017, 31, 461–477. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Miao, C.Y.; Ni, J.R.; Borthwick, A.G.L. Recent changes of water discharge and sediment load in the Yellow River basin, China. Prog. Phys. Geogr. 2010, 34, 541–561. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
- Yellow River Conservancy Commission (YRCC). Yellow River Water Resources Bulletin (2014); Yellow River Conservancy Commission of the Ministry of Water Resources: Zhengzhou, China, 2015. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Yellow River Conservancy Commission (YRCC). Yellow River Water Resources Bulletin (2013); Yellow River Conservancy Commission of the Ministry of Water Resources: Zhengzhou, China, 2014. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Ntegeka, V. Assessment of the Observed and Future Climate Variability and Change in Hydroclimatic and Hydrological Extremes. Ph.D. Dissertation, Katholieke Universiteit, Leuven, Belgium, 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Baxter, S.C.; Graham, L.L. Characterization of random composites using moving-window technique. J. Eng. Mech. 2000, 126, 389–397. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Onyutha, C.; Willems, P. Identification of the main attribute of river flow temporal variations in the Nile Basin. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2015, 12, 12167–12214. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Şen, Z. Innovative Trend Analysis Methodology. J. Hydrol. Eng. 2012, 17, 1042–1046. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Sonali, P.; Nagesh Kumar, D. Review of trend detection methods and their application to detect temperature changes in India. J. Hydrol. 2013, 476, 212–227. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Jung, I.; Bae, D.H.; Kim, G. Recent trends of mean and extreme precipitation in Korea. Int. J. Climatol. 2011, 31, 359–370. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Efron, B. Bootstrap methods: Another look at the jackknife. Ann. Stat. 1979, 7, 1–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Efron, B. Estimation and Accuracy after Model Selection. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 2014, 109, 991–1007. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed]
- Efron, B.; Tibshirani, R.J. An Introduction to the Bootstrap; Chapman & Hall: New York, NY, USA, 1993. [Google Scholar]
- Davison, A.C.; Hinkley, D.V. Bootstrap Methods and Their Application; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK, 1997. [Google Scholar]
- Drought Relief Office of Shaanxi Province; Agricultural Meteorology Center of Shaanxi Province. Drought Disaster Yearbook of Shaanxi (1949–1995); Xi’an Map Press: Xi’an, China, 1999. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
- Peng, J.; Fan, Z.; Wu, D.; Zhuang, J.; Dai, F.; Chen, W.; Zhao, C. Heavy rainfall triggered loess–mudstone landslide and subsequent debris flow in Tianshui, China. Eng. Geol. 2015, 186, 79–90. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Zhuang, J.; Peng, J.; Wang, G.; Iqbal, J.; Wang, Y.; Li, W.; Xu, Q.; Zhu, X. Prediction of rainfall-induced shallow landslides in the Loess Plateau, Yan’an, China, using the TRIGRS model. Earth Surf. Process. Landf. 2017, 42, 915–927. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
Station Number | Start Year | Elevation | Questionable Records (‰) | Station Number | Start Year | Elevation | Questionable Records (‰) |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 1957 | 3120.0 | 2.83 | 25 | 1954 | 449.5 | 0 |
2 | 1958 | 2475.0 | 0 | 26 | 1954 | 746.0 | 0 |
3 | 1958 | 2910.0 | 0 | 27 | 1953 | 2064.9 | 0 |
4 | 1951 | 1917.2 | 0 | 28 | 1959 | 499.2 | 0.09 |
5 | 1957 | 1813.9 | 0 | 29 | 1955 | 1155.9 | 0.04 |
6 | 1951 | 1893.8 | 1.29 | 30 | 1955 | 471.0 | 2.61 |
7 | 1951 | 2315.0 | 1.29 | 31 | 1959 | 994.6 | 2.88 |
8 | 1958 | 1668.5 | 1.44 | 32 | 1951 | 1421.0 | 1.29 |
9 | 1951 | 1398.2 | 1.20 | 33 | 1951 | 1346.6 | 1.29 |
10 | 1958 | 2450.6 | 1.44 | 34 | 1957 | 1255.6 | 2.78 |
11 | 1957 | 1630.9 | 1.32 | 35 | 1957 | 409.9 | 1.32 |
12 | 1958 | 1916.5 | 1.39 | 36 | 1956 | 375.0 | 2.65 |
13 | 1957 | 1345.8 | 0 | 37 | 1958 | 505.0 | 0 |
14 | 1955 | 1036.0 | 2.69 | 38 | 1957 | 659.5 | 1.37 |
15 | 1957 | 1401.0 | 0 | 39 | 1957 | 860.1 | 0 |
16 | 1955 | 1012.6 | 0 | 40 | 1957 | 742.4 | 0 |
17 | 1957 | 1098.0 | 1.41 | 41 | 1953 | 658.5 | 0 |
18 | 1953 | 929.7 | 0.09 | 42 | 1951 | 73.2 | 2.49 |
19 | 1951 | 1157.0 | 1.29 | 43 | 1951 | 73.7 | 2.49 |
20 | 1954 | 1111.0 | 1.39 | 44 | 1951 | 51.7 | 1.29 |
21 | 1957 | 1052.7 | 0 | 45 | 1951 | 170.3 | 0 |
22 | 1957 | 851.3 | 0 | 46 | 1957 | 121.8 | 0 |
23 | 1957 | 458.1 | 1.37 | 47 | 1951 | 11.7 | 1.20 |
24 | 1957 | 433.8 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
Station Number | Annual Rainfall | Light Rainfall | Low Rainfall | Moderate Rainfall | High Rainfall | Heavy Rainfall |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1 | 0.81 | 0.56 | 0.74 | 1.20 | 0.97 | 0.60 |
2 | −0.23 | −0.14 | 0.04 | 0.60 | −0.13 | −1.48 |
3 | −0.15 | 0.16 | 0.37 | −0.12 | −0.11 | −0.98 |
4 | 0 | 0.41 | 0.56 | 0.06 | −0.58 | −0.37 |
5 | −0.20 | 0.54 | 0.47 | 0.56 | −0.47 | −2.09 * |
6 | −0.99 | −0.64 | −0.33 | −0.56 | −1.13 | −2.17 * |
7 | −0.48 | −0.70 | −0.47 | −0.60 | −0.25 | −0.43 |
8 | −0.04 | 0.48 | 0.71 | 0.52 | −0.17 | −1.64 |
9 | −0.17 | 0.07 | 0.18 | −0.13 | −0.12 | −0.82 |
10 | −1.24 * | 0.27 | −1.00 | −1.27 | −1.94 * | −2.02 * |
11 | 0.30 | −0.38 | 0.67 | 0.46 | 0.31 | 0.45 |
12 | −0.63 | 0.11 | −0.23 | −0.76 | −1.18 | −0.99 |
13 | −0.24 | 0.82 | 0.07 | 0.50 | −0.19 | −2.39 * |
14 | −0.74 | 0.05 | −0.36 | −0.46 | −0.75 | −1.97 * |
15 | 0.28 | 0.75 | 0.69 | 0.42 | 0.16 | −0.61 |
16 | 0.06 | 1.02 | 0.78 | 0.26 | −0.51 | −1.09 |
17 | 0 | 0.69 | 0.05 | 0.30 | −0.33 | −0.69 |
18 | −1.02 | −0.89 | −1.15 * | −0.95 | −0.99 | −1.10 |
19 | 0.06 | 0.56 | 0.26 | 0.20 | −0.14 | −0.49 |
20 | −0.83 | 0.49 | −0.31 | −0.91 | −1.43 * | −1.81 * |
21 | −1.04 * | −0.15 | −0.72 | −1.00 | −1.64 * | −1.69 * |
22 | −1.11 * | −0.74 | −0.74 | −0.87 | −1.45 * | −1.76 * |
23 | −0.38 | −0.10 | −0.13 | −0.13 | −0.27 | −1.28 |
24 | −0.68 | −0.48 | −0.13 | −0.61 | −0.54 | −1.64 |
25 | −1.07 * | −0.27 | −1.13 * | −0.59 | −1.18 | −2.00 * |
26 | −1.04 * | −0.56 | −1.09 * | −1.12 | −1.12 | −1.27 |
27 | −1.84 ** | −2.07 ** | −1.55 ** | −1.69 ** | −1.52 ** | −2.33 ** |
28 | −0.91 | −0.10 | −0.56 | −0.79 | −1.69 * | −1.26 |
29 | −0.64 | −0.51 | −0.05 | −0.91 | −0.77 | −0.92 |
30 | −1.21 * | −1.31 * | −1.03 * | −0.80 | −0.92 | −1.90 * |
31 | −0.74 | −0.58 | −0.90 | −0.67 | −0.50 | −1.01 |
32 | −0.57 | −0.86 | −0.26 | −0.33 | −1.00 | −0.40 |
33 | −0.47 | −0.77 | −0.48 | −0.03 | −0.42 | −0.62 |
34 | −0.26 | −0.38 | −0.31 | −0.94 | 0.51 | −0.14 |
35 | −0.62 | −0.73 | −0.76 | 0.09 | −0.69 | −1.01 |
36 | −0.79 | −0.64 | −0.95 | −0.76 | −0.83 | −0.76 |
37 | −0.10 | −0.65 | −0.07 | 0.23 | −0.18 | 0.10 |
38 | −0.78 | −0.71 | −0.52 | −0.29 | −1.60 * | −0.79 |
39 | −0.55 | −0.24 | 0.01 | −0.10 | −1.04 | −1.39 |
40 | −0.69 | −0.52 | −0.39 | −0.60 | −0.43 | −1.48 |
41 | −0.48 | −0.33 | −0.31 | −0.21 | −0.07 | −1.36 |
42 | −0.51 | −0.52 | −0.01 | −1.07 | −0.79 | −0.24 |
43 | −0.09 | −0.26 | −0.38 | −0.18 | −0.10 | 0.42 |
44 | −0.19 | −0.60 | −1.48 * | −0.52 | 0.59 | 0.96 |
45 | 0.55 | 0.62 | 0.92 | 1.21 | 0.64 | −0.55 |
46 | 0.94 | −0.18 | 1.15 * | 1.79 * | 1.63 * | 0.33 |
47 | −0.30 | −0.45 | −0.31 | 0.22 | 0.16 | −1.09 |
Station Number | Rainy Day | Rainfall Intensity | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
All Season | Dry Season | Wet Season | All Season | Dry Season | Wet Season | |
1 | 0.19 | 0.31 | −0.17 | 0.58 | 0.51 | 0.68 |
2 | −0.22 | −0.06 | −0.61 | −0.02 | −0.14 | 0.01 |
3 | −0.39 | −0.01 | −1.10 ** | 0.35 | 0.61 | 0.11 |
4 | −0.11 | 0.34 | −0.98 ** | 0.13 | 0.64 | 0.10 |
5 | 0.02 | 0.08 | −0.41 | −0.12 | 0.38 | −0.52 |
6 | −1.22 ** | −1.31 ** | −1.54 ** | 0.23 | 1.34 * | −0.12 |
7 | −0.58 | −0.45 | −0.91 ** | 0.08 | 0.33 | 0.01 |
8 | −0.93 | −0.12 | −1.94 ** | 1.13 * | 1.48 | 0.78 |
9 | −0.60 | −0.15 | −0.98 | 0.49 | 1.31 | −0.21 |
10 | −1.12 ** | −0.82 * | −1.86 ** | −0.11 | 0.53 | −0.26 |
11 | 0.05 | 0.97 | −0.75 | 0.25 | 0.19 | 0.31 |
12 | −1.34 ** | −1.01 * | −2.02 ** | 0.85 | 1.21 | 0.99 |
13 | −1.11 ** | −0.45 | −1.90 ** | 1.05 * | 1.72 * | 1.20 |
14 | −0.75 | −0.58 | −1.07 * | 0.18 | 0.95 | −0.58 |
15 | −0.85 ** | −0.59 | −1.40 ** | 1.38 * | 1.92 ** | 1.42 |
16 | −0.66 | −0.28 | −1.16 ** | 0.97 | 1.15 | 0.62 |
17 | −0.48 | −0.01 | −1.16 * | 0.65 | 0.80 | 0.50 |
18 | −2.13 ** | −1.89 ** | −2.49 ** | 1.35 ** | 0.87 | 1.59 * |
19 | −1.26 ** | −0.86 | −1.76 ** | 1.60 ** | 1.35 | 1.43 |
20 | −1.31 ** | −0.80 | −2.06 ** | 0.60 | 2.08 * | −0.26 |
21 | −0.97 ** | −0.71 | −1.44 ** | −0.01 | −0.27 | 0.21 |
22 | −1.15 ** | −0.98 * | −1.60 ** | 0.04 | 0.78 | −0.22 |
23 | −0.95 * | −0.71 | −1.44 ** | 0.71 | 0.68 | 1.01 |
24 | −1.49 ** | −1.29 * | −1.95 ** | 1.02 | 1.22 | 1.00 |
25 | −1.32 ** | −1.14 * | −1.82 ** | 0.36 | 0.86 | 0.44 |
26 | −0.99 * | −0.76 | −1.47 ** | −0.10 | −0.17 | 0.18 |
27 | −1.32 ** | −1.30 ** | −1.44 ** | −0.58 | −0.75 | −0.31 |
28 | −0.96 * | −1.10 * | −0.87 | 0.13 | 0.78 | −0.48 |
29 | −1.62 ** | −1.24 ** | −1.97 ** | 1.21 ** | 1.32 ** | 1.19 |
30 | −1.43 ** | −1.19 ** | −1.62 ** | 0.28 | 0.63 | 0.17 |
31 | −0.87 * | −0.96 * | −0.88 | 0.09 | 0.12 | 0.13 |
32 | −0.97 ** | −0.68 | −1.56 ** | 0.43 | 0.32 | 0.91 |
33 | −0.43 | −0.22 | −0.91 * | 0 | 0.11 | 0.07 |
34 | −1.62 ** | −1.44 * | −1.95 ** | 1.60 ** | 1.79 ** | 1.49 |
35 | −0.96 ** | −0.73 | −1.62 ** | 0.32 | 0.43 | 0.70 |
36 | −1.11 ** | −0.89 * | −1.48 * | 0.17 | 0.72 | −0.65 |
37 | −0.06 | 0.03 | −0.65 | −0.06 | 0.23 | −0.41 |
38 | −0.94 ** | −0.66 | −1.62 ** | 0.23 | 0.36 | 0.32 |
39 | −0.60 | −0.31 | −1.34 ** | 0.08 | 0.35 | 0.35 |
40 | −1.13 ** | −0.85 * | −1.71 ** | 0.54 | 0.36 | 0.72 |
41 | −1.71 ** | −1.61 ** | −1.82 ** | 1.47 ** | 1.93 ** | 1.31 |
42 | −1.08 ** | −1.24 * | −0.97 | 0.60 | 0.92 | 0.33 |
43 | −1.71 ** | −1.85 ** | −1.58 ** | 1.72 ** | 1.04 | 2.10 * |
44 | −1.22 ** | −1.57 ** | −0.95 * | 1.11 * | 2.09 * | 0.25 |
45 | −0.56 | −0.71 | −0.41 | 1.34 * | 1.54 | 1.36 |
46 | −0.85 | −0.58 | −1.42 * | 1.91 ** | 2.37 ** | 2.19 * |
47 | −2.14 ** | −2.23 ** | −2.19 ** | 2.09 ** | 2.40 * | 2.40 * |
© 2017 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).
Share and Cite
Wu, H.; Li, X.; Qian, H. Detection of Anomalies and Changes of Rainfall in the Yellow River Basin, China, through Two Graphical Methods. Water 2018, 10, 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010015
Wu H, Li X, Qian H. Detection of Anomalies and Changes of Rainfall in the Yellow River Basin, China, through Two Graphical Methods. Water. 2018; 10(1):15. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010015
Chicago/Turabian StyleWu, Hao, Xinyan Li, and Hui Qian. 2018. "Detection of Anomalies and Changes of Rainfall in the Yellow River Basin, China, through Two Graphical Methods" Water 10, no. 1: 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010015
APA StyleWu, H., Li, X., & Qian, H. (2018). Detection of Anomalies and Changes of Rainfall in the Yellow River Basin, China, through Two Graphical Methods. Water, 10(1), 15. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10010015