Simulation reveals runoff changes linked to territorial spatial change in the Xitiaoxi Basin, highlighting land use impacts.
The use of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model driven by China Meteorological Assimilation Driving Datasets (CMADS) for runoff simulation research is of great significance for regional flood prevention and control. Therefore, from the perspective of production-living-ecological space, this article combined multi-source data such as DEM, soil texture and land use type, in order to construct scenarios of territorial spatial change (TSC) across distinct periods. Based on the CMADS-L40 data and the SWAT model, it simulated the runoff dynamics in the Xitiaoxi River Basin, and analyzed the hydrological response characteristics under different TSCs. The results showed that The SWAT model, driven by CMADS-L40 data, demonstrated robust performance in monthly runoff simulation. The coefficient of determination (R2), Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE), and the absolute value of percentage bias (|PBIAS|) during the calibration and validation period all met the accuracy requirements of the model, which validated the applicability of CMADS-L40 data and the SWAT model for runoff simulation at the watershed scale. Changes in territorial spatial patterns are closely correlated with runoff variation. Changes in agricultural production space and forest ecological space show statistically significant negative correlation with runoff change, while industrial production space change exhibits a significant positive correlation with runoff change. The expansion of production space, particularly industrial production space, leads to increased runoff, whereas the enlargement of agricultural production space and forest ecological space can reduce runoff. This article contributes to highlighting the role of land use policy in hydrological regulation, providing a scientific basis for optimizing territorial spatial planning to mitigate flood risks and protect water resources.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Kong et al. (2025) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: