Next Article in Journal
Integrating Sustainable Stormwater Management in Urban Planning: Ways Forward towards Institutional Change and Collaborative Action
Next Article in Special Issue
Evaluation of Hydromulches as an Erosion Control Measure Using Laboratory-Scale Experiments
Previous Article in Journal
Application of the City Blueprint Approach in Landlocked Asian Countries: A Case Study of Ulaanbaatar, Mongolia
Previous Article in Special Issue
Effect of Rain Peak Morphology on Runoff and Sediment Yield in Miyun Water Source Reserve in China
 
 
Font Type:
Arial Georgia Verdana
Font Size:
Aa Aa Aa
Line Spacing:
Column Width:
Background:
Article

Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Rainfall Erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau

1
School of Geographic Sciences, Xinyang Normal University, Xinyang 464000, China
2
Institute of International Rivers and Eco–security, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China
3
Yunnan Key Laboratory of International Rivers and Trans-boundary Eco–security, Yunnan University, Kunming 650091, China
4
Soil and Water Conservation Bureau of Tibet Autonomous District, Lhasa 850000, China
5
Faculty of Geographical Science, Beijing Normal University, Beijing 100875, China
*
Author to whom correspondence should be addressed.
Submission received: 19 December 2019 / Revised: 7 January 2020 / Accepted: 8 January 2020 / Published: 10 January 2020
(This article belongs to the Special Issue Rainfall Erosivity in Soil Erosion Processes)

Abstract

:
The Tibetan Plateau is influenced by global climate change which results in frequent melting of glaciers and snow, and in heavy rainfalls. These conditions may increase the risk of soil erosion, but prediction is not feasible due to scarcity of rainfall data in the high altitudes of the region. In this study, daily precipitation data from 1 January 1981 to 31 December 2015 were selected for 38 meteorological stations in the Tibetan Plateau, and annual and seasonal rainfall erosivity were calculated for each station. Additionally, we used the Mann–Kendall trend test, Sen’s slope, trend coefficient, and climate tendency rate indicators to detect the temporal variation trend of rainfall erosivity. The results showed that the spatial distribution of rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau exhibited a significant decreasing trend from southeast to northwest. The average annual rainfall erosivity is 714 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1, and varies from 61 to 1776 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1. Rainfall erosivity was mainly concentrated in summer and autumn, accounting for 67.5% and 18.5%, respectively. In addition, annual, spring, and summer rainfall erosivity were increasing, with spring rainfall erosivity highly significant. Temporal and spatial patterns of rainfall erosivity indicated that the risk of soil erosion was relatively high in the Hengduan mountains in the eastern Tibetan Plateau, as well as in the Yarlung Zangbo River Valley and its vicinity.

1. Introduction

Soil erosion is a global environmental problem, which leads to land degradation, siltation of reservoirs, and eutrophication of water bodies, among others [1,2,3]. Formation mechanisms and succession processes of soil erosion are affected by rainfall erosivity, which is highly correlated with the product (EI) of the total storm energy (E) and the maximum 30 min intensity (I30), both derived from data by Wischmeier and Smith (1958) [4] and Wischmeier (1959) [5]. The concept of rainfall erosivity developed further by Hudson (1971) [6] and Wischmeier and Smith (1978) [7] describes erosivity as the average of annual summations of storm EI30. Rainfall erosivity is the basic factor in the Universal Soil Loss Equation [7] and the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation [8]. Additionally, many empirical soil erosion predictions also use rainfall erosivity [9,10,11,12]. Although the EI30 index has been accepted worldwide, its calculation requires hyetograph data for a storm. Therefore, the use of the EI30 index has been limited by a lack of high temporal resolution rainfall data.
Many statistical models have been established based on annual rainfall [13,14,15,16,17], monthly rainfall [18,19,20], daily rainfall [21,22,23,24,25], and even hourly rainfall [26,27]. Hourly rainfall data cannot be obtained from many of the national meteorological observation stations, which limits their application. By contrast, daily rainfall data can guarantee the accuracy of rainfall erosivity calculations due to the level of detail on rainfall variability [21]. Daily rainfall data is widely used in the calculation of rainfall erosivity [21,22,23,24,25].
The spatial heterogeneity of soil erosion is very high and has multiple scale characteristics. It depends on the diversity and complexity of factors affecting soil erosion. Rainfall erosivity is one of the basic factors responsible for soil erosion [28]. However, it is not distributed uniformly throughout the year, and at regional scale, knowledge of seasonal and even semi-monthly distribution of rainfall erosivity is critical to the accuracy of soil erosion calculations [8,11]. Therefore, the spatial and temporal distribution of rainfall erosivity concerns various countries and regions [12,15,29,30,31,32]. Spatial variability in rainfall erosivity in China is relatively large, with rainfall erosivity decreasing from the southeast to the northwest [33,34]. Therefore, compared with the northwest region, the risk of erosion in the southeastern region was significantly greater, and the area is also receiving the attention of scientists.
The global climate system is undergoing a change characterized by significant warming [35]. The Tibetan Plateau is sensitive to climate change and ecologically fragile [36]. Climate in the Tibetan Plateau has changed dramatically in the early 21st century, with the continuing severe warming and increasing precipitation [37]; changes include increasing snowmelt and more frequent heavy precipitation events. Vegetation changes in the Tibetan Plateau and its response to climate change [38], precipitation and climate change [39], runoff and soil erosion [40,41,42], as well as watershed non-point source pollution in the main farming area [43], have attracted the attention of researchers. Protecting the grasslands of the Tibetan Plateau is of great importance in limiting global climate change [44]. However, grassland degradation phenomena have been found due to the unreasonable use of grassland by human beings and changing global climate [45]. Besides, aeolian desertification is impeding sustainable socio-economic development [46]. Furthermore, soil erosion in this area is relatively weak compared to the eastern part of China, and recovery from soil erosion is lengthy and difficult once it occurs.
The service span of water conservancy facilities and flood control capabilities were reduced by severe soil erosion that led to the siltation of channel beds and thus a reduction in reservoir capacity in the Tibetan Plateau [47]. The Tibetan Plateau, especially the gorge area in the eastern part, has a large elevation difference where severe soil erosion restricts the development of agriculture and animal husbandry [42]. Sparse distribution of meteorological stations in this region prevented data collection on rain characteristics; however, surface runoff generated by snowmelt can also cause soil erosion. Although researchers have done some studies on rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau, it is far from enough [48,49,50,51]. Dynamic monitoring of soil erosion in China still requires detailed data on rainfall erosivity in the area.
To address this, daily precipitation data were used from 1 January 1981 to 31 December 2015 for a total of 38 stations in Tibet, and the annual and seasonal rainfall erosivity was calculated. The objectives of the study were to (a) identify long-term trends in rainfall erosivity, and (b) map the spatiotemporal patterns in rainfall erosivity. The results of this paper are intended to optimize the quantitative prediction of soil erosion and soil and water conservation planning services in the Tibetan Plateau.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

The Tibetan Plateau is part of and located in the southwestern part of the Qinghai–Tibet Plateau. It has a total area of about 1.2 million km2 and an average elevation of 4000 m, which gave it its designation as the “roof of the world”. Most of the Tibetan Plateau is arid and semi-arid. Precipitation has an uneven distribution and large spatial differentiation. The southeast area has annual precipitation of 600–800 mm, while the western area suffers from drought with annual precipitation of less than 200 mm. Precipitation from May through October accounts for more than 80% of the annual total. The spatial distribution of precipitation indicates a decreasing trend from the southeast to the northwest [52]. Mean annual temperature varies between −3.0 and 11.8 °C, and daily temperature fluctuations are often as much as about 15 °C [53]. The region experiences soil erosion, desertification, and mountain hazards. Grasslands make up the largest proportion of land cover, accounting for 56.72% of the total land area in the region. The proportion of cultivated land is 0.42% and it is mainly found in southern Tibet, with a small amount distributed in the east and southeast. Due to the high altitude in the northwestern region, the snow cover and frozen soil make this area unsuitable for human habitation, and the level of human activities is thus low. Thirty-eight meteorological stations used in this study are primarily found in the eastern and southern parts of the Tibetan Plateau, with very few in the northwest (Figure 1).

2.2. Collection of Rainfall Data

Daily precipitation data from 1 January 1981 to 31 December 2015 for a total of 38 stations from the National Meteorological Information Center of the China Meteorological Administration were used in the present study [54]. The altitude of these stations varies from 2327 to 4800 m, with the lowest elevation at Zayu station and the highest at Amdo station. The northernmost and westernmost station was Shiquanhe, the southernmost was Pagri, and the easternmost was Markam station (Figure 1).

2.3. Methodology

2.3.1. Calculation of Rainfall Erosivity

Rainfall data were checked for quality. The cold and warm season rainfall estimation model was selected to calculate rainfall erosivity [34,55]. The model takes into full account the characteristics of rainfall in China; that is, the warm season (May–September) with multi-convective, short-duration heavy rain, and the cold season (October–December, January–April) with many frontal, long-duration and heavy rains. The model has been widely used, especially in the first national water census in China [11].
The rainfall erosivity model for estimating the daily rainfall during the warm and cold seasons has the following form:
R ¯ = k = 1 24 R ¯ h a l f m o n t h k ,
R ¯ h a l f m o n t h k = 1 n i = 1 n j = 0 m ( α × p i , j , k 1.7265 ) ,
W ¯ R ¯ h a l f m o n t h k = R ¯ h a l f m o n t h k R ¯ ,
where R ¯ is the average annual rainfall erosivity in MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1; k = 1, 2, …, 24, which divide the year into 24 half months; R ¯ h a l f m o n t h k is rain erosivity of the kth half-month in MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1; I = 1, 2, …, n, and n indicates the rainfall data year; j = 0,1, …, m, m is the number of the erosion-causing rainy days in the kth half month of the ith year; p i , j , k is the j amount of erosive daily rainfall (rainfall ≥12 mm) in the kth month of the ith year in mm, with j = 0 indicating no erosive rainfall resulting in p i , j , k = 0 ; in the dry season α is 0.3101, and in the rainy season α is 0.3937; and W ¯ R ¯ h a l f m o n t h k is the ratio of the average rainfall erosivity of the kth month to the average annual rainfall erosivity.

2.3.2. Trend Coefficient and Climate Tendency Rate

To determine temporal variability in rainfall erosivity, we applied the trend coefficient (TC) and climate tendency rate (CTR) indicators, which are widely used to detect and assess, respectively, the direction and extent of long-term change in climate factors [56,57]. The formula for the trend coefficient is as follows:
r x t = i = 1 n ( x i x ¯ ) ( i t ¯ ) i n ( x i x ¯ ) 2 i = 1 n ( i t ¯ ) 2
t ¯ = ( n + 1 ) / 2
where r x t is the trend coefficient and n is the number of years. x i is rainfall erosivity of the i-th year. x ¯ is the average annual rainfall erosivity for the n years. When the trend coefficient r x t is positive, it indicates a linearly increasing trend of rainfall erosivity, and a negative value indicates a linearly decreasing trend.
A linear equation is usually used to indicate trends in meteorological elements [58,59]. The climate tendency rate was calculated as follows:
p t = a 0 + a 1 t t = 1 , 2 , , n ,
d x t d t = a 1 ,
where a 1 × 10 is the climate tendency rate over a 10-year period (MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1·10a1), indicating the variation of rainfall erosivity per 10 years.
According to the linear regression theory,
a 1 = r x t σ x σ t ,
where σ x is the mean square error of the rainfall erosivity and σ t is the mean square error of sequence 1, 2, …, n.

2.3.3. Mann–Kendall Trend Test

The Mann–Kendall test [60,61] was used to detect the significance level and the abrupt-change point of the long-term variability in R factors; the specific calculation method was as follows:
Construct a matrix for the time series x which has a sample of n:
s k = i = 1 k r i ( k = 2 , 3 , , n ) ,
r i = { + 1 w h e n x i > x j 0 o t h e r w i s e ( j = 1 , 2 , , i ) .
Define the statistic UFk given the assumption that the time series is random and independent:
U F k = [ s k E ( s k ) ] V a r ( s k ) ( k = 1 , 2 , , n ) ,
where UF1 = 0, and E(sk) and Var(sk) are the average and variance of the cumulative number sk, respectively. When x1, x2, …, xn are mutually independent and of the same continuous distribution, they can be calculated from the equations below:
E ( s k ) = n ( n + 1 ) 4 ,
V a r ( s k ) = n ( n 1 ) ( 2 n + 5 ) 72 .
UFi is the standard normal distribution, which is calculated according to the time sequence x1, x2, …, xn. Given the significance level α, when∣UFi> Uα, there is a significant trend in the sequence.
Repeat the calculation to the inverted sequence xn, xn−1, …, x1, and make UBk = −UFk (k = n, n − 1, … 1), UB = 0. Intersection of UF and UB is the abrupt change point.

2.3.4. Sen’s Slope Estimator

Sen (1968) [62] developed the non-parametric procedure for estimating the slope of the trend in the sample of N pairs of data:
Q i = x j x k j k f o r i = 1 , , N ,
where xj and xk are the data values at times j and k (j > k), respectively.
If there is only one datum in each time period, then N = n ( n 1 ) / 2 , where n is the number of time periods. If there are multiple observations in one or more time periods, then N < n ( n 1 ) / 2 , where n is the total number of observations. The N values of Qi are ranked from smallest to largest and the median of slope or Sen’s slope estimator is computed as shown:
Q m e d = { Q [ ( N + 1 ) / 2 ] i f N i s o d d Q [ N / 2 ] + Q [ ( N + 2 ) / 2 ] 2 i f N i s e v e n .
The sign of Qmed reflects the direction of data trend, while its value indicates the steepness of the trend.
The confidence interval about the time slope [62,63] can be computed as follows:
C α = Z 1 α / 2 V a r ( S ) ,
where Var (S) is defined in Equation (13) and Z1−α/2 is obtained from the standard normal distribution table. In this study, the confidence interval was computed at two significance levels (α = 0.01 and α = 0.05).
Then, M 1 = ( N C α ) / 2 and M 2 = ( N + C α ) / 2 are calculated. The lower and upper limits of the confidence interval, Qmin and Qmax, are the M1 largest and the (M2+1)th largest of the N ordered slope estimates [63].
The slope Qmed is statistically different than zero if the two limits (Qmin and Qmax) have the same sign.
Both the Mann–Kendall statistical test and Sen’s slope have been frequently used to detect the significance of trends in hydro-meteorological time series [64,65,66,67,68,69].

3. Results

3.1. Temporal Variability in Rainfall Erosivity

Sen’s slope estimator analysis indicated that rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau exhibited an increasing trend from 1980 to 2015, but the trend was not significant. Sen’s slope of annual rainfall erosivity was 3.05 (p = 0.32). However, variability at each station was high, and 13 stations exhibited a decreasing trend (34% of the stations), and 25 stations an increasing trend (66% of the stations) (Figure 2a, Table 1). The climate tendency rate had a significantly increasing trend at the Gerze station in the northern part of the Tibetan Plateau, Shenza station in the middle, and Markam station in the eastern part of the Minjiang River basin (at the 0.05 significance level), and the rate increased by 20 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1·10a−1, 32 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1·10a−1, and 50 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1·10a−1, respectively, at the three stations. Increasing rainfall erosivity was mainly found in the southern Tibetan valley, Yarlung Zangbo River basin, and Hengduan Mountains in the Tibetan Plateau, especially in the Lancang River Basin. An annual rainfall erosivity anomaly showed that it fluctuated. The rainfall erosivity was small before 1987, and the value increased after 2010. In the study period, two-thirds of the annual rainfall erosivity was higher than the average; the minimum appeared in 1992, and the maximum appeared in 1998 (Figure 2b). The results of the M–K test showed a non-significant increasing trend in rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau since 1984 (Figure 2c).
The distribution of rainfall erosivity over the 24 and a half months is an input factor for many soil erosion model calculations, including the Chinese Soil Loss Equation (CSLE) [70] and for calculating vegetation cover and biological measure factors. Data from 1981 to 2010 indicated that rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau was mainly concentrated in June–September, accounting for 81% of the year (Figure 3). This was closely related to the monsoon climate of the Tibetan Plateau, as monsoons account for 58.5% of the annual precipitation [52]. The proportion of rainfall in May–October accounted for 90% of the rain in the eastern part of Tibet [49]. Therefore, the rainy season was also a frequent period of soil water erosion.
Rainfall erosivity at most meteorological stations in spring showed an increasing trend; only 5 of the 38 meteorological stations had a decreasing trend (Figure 4a, Table 2). The climate tendency rate indicated a significant increasing trend (at the 0.05 significance level) at Cona and Nyingchi stations in the southern part of the Tibetan Plateau, and a highly significant increase (at 0.01 significance level) at the Sog station in the upper reaches of the Nu River Basin; the climate tendency rate increased by 10, 20, and 11 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1·10a−1, respectively, for the three stations. Sen’s slope analysis indicated that rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau increased during the study period. Sen’s slope value for spring rainfall erosivity was 1.85 (p = 0.005 < 0.01). Rainfall erosivity with a decreasing trend was found in the western part of the Tibetan Plateau where the Zuogong station had an insignificant decreasing trend; its erosivity decreased by 40 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1·10a−1 (Table 2). A spring rainfall erosivity anomaly showed that rainfall erosivity was smaller before 2000, and larger after 2000. During the study period, spring rainfall erosivity was below average 67% of the time; the minimum appeared in 1987 and the maximum in 2010 (Figure 4b). The M–K test results showed an increasing trend in spring erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau since 1987, a significant increasing trend after 2010, and the abrupt year occurred in 2005 (Figure 4c).
Increasing rainfall erosivity in summer was observed at more stations than did decreasing, with 21 of 38 meteorological stations (55%) showing increasing trends in rainfall erosivity (Figure 5a, Table 3). Based on the climate tendency rate, Shenza station in the middle of the Tibetan Plateau, and the Qamdo station of the Lancang River Basin in the eastern Hengduan Mountains showed a significant trend (at 0.05 significance level) with an increase of 31 and 41 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1·10a−1, respectively; the trend at Gerze station in the west and Markam station in the Lancang River Basin in the eastern Hengduan Mountains was highly significant (at the 0.01 significance level) at 24 and 69 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1·10a−1, respectively. The results of Sen’s slope estimator indicated an increasing but not significant trend during the study period. The Sen’s slope value of summer rainfall erosivity was 1.41 (p = 0.41). Rainfall erosivity showing a decreasing trend was observed mainly in the western part of the Tibetan Plateau, the southern part, and the western part of Hengduan Mountains, with the largest decrease at Gyangze and Lhorong stations where the trend coefficient decreased by 34 and 24 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1·10a−1, respectively (Table 3). A summer rainfall erosivity anomaly showed that summer rainfall erosivity was above average in most years (57%), with the minimum in 1983 and the maximum in 1998 (Figure 5b). The M–K test results indicated an insignificant increasing trend of summer rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau since 1983 (Figure 5c).
The number of stations with increasing rainfall erosivity in autumn was slightly lower than that with a decreasing trend; 17 of the 38 meteorological stations (45%) showed an increasing trend for rainfall erosivity (Figure 6a, Table 4). Bases on the climate tendency rate, the Konggar station in the Yarlung Zangbo River valley in the southern part of the Tibetan Plateau (near Zetang station) showed a significant increasing trend (at the 0.05 significance level), and the Lhunze station showed a highly significant increasing trend (at the 0.01 significance level), with an increase of 16 and 13 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1·10a−1, respectively. The results of autumn rainfall erosivity indicated an insignificant decreasing trend during the study period. The Sen’s slope value of autumn rainfall erosivity was −0.02 (p = 0.98). In addition to the Yarlung Zangbo River Basin, autumn rainfall erosivity in other areas was mainly decreasing (Table 3). Autumn rainfall erosivity at the Bome and Zuogong stations in the Hengduan Mountains in the eastern part of the Tibetan Plateau decreased by 46 and 9 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1·10a−1, respectively. An autumn rainfall erosivity anomaly shows that autumn rainfall erosivity was above average in most years (50%), with the minimum in 1992 and the maximum in 1985 (Figure 6b). The M–K test results indicated an insignificant increasing trend in the Tibetan Plateau from 1984 to 2003, and a slowly increasing trend after 2008 (Figure 5c).
Winter rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau was very low, and about 66% of the stations had a value of 0 (Figure 7a, Table 5). The results indicated an insignificant decreasing trend in winter rainfall erosivity during the study period. Meanwhile, the Sen’s slope value of winter rainfall erosivity was −0.03 (p = 0.89). Based on the climate tendency rate, the largest decreasing trend was observed at the Lhunze station and Qamdo in the Hengduan Mountains in the eastern part of the Tibetan Plateau, as well as at the Cona station in the southern region, where it decreased almost 100%. The anomaly showed that winter rainfall erosivity was below average in most years (66%), with the minimum in 1992 and the maximum in 1989 (Figure 7b). The M–K test results demonstrated that the winter rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau had an insignificant decreasing trend since 1991 (Figure 7c).

3.2. Spatial Distribution of Rainfall Erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau

Spatial distribution of rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau showed a decreasing trend from the southeast to the northwest (Figure 8). The average annual rainfall erosivity at 38 meteorological stations varied from 61 to 1776 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1 during the study period, with an average of 714 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1. The largest annual rainfall erosivity was observed at the Bome station in the eastern part of the Tibetan Plateau, and the smallest at the Shiquanhe station in the western region (Figure 8). Rainfall erosivity was <500 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1 at 24% of the stations, 500–1000 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1 at 55%, and >1000 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1 at 21% of the stations. Relatively high rainfall erosivity was mainly distributed in the Hengduan Mountains in the eastern part of the Tibetan Plateau and in the low-elevation areas between the Yarlung Zangbo and Nu rivers.
The seasonal distribution of rainfall erosivity varied greatly across the Tibetan Plateau; the average summer rainfall erosivity was 482 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1, accounting for a maximum of 67.5% of the annual rainfall erosivity, followed by autumn and spring, accounting for 18.5% and 11.5%, respectively. The proportion of winter rainfall erosivity was the smallest at only 2.5%. Seasonal variability in rainfall erosivity varied among meteorological stations, but generally followed rain distribution in summer > autumn > spring > winter (Figure 9). The proportions of spring to annual total rainfall erosivity differed among meteorological stations. The Shiquanhe station had the smallest proportion at 0 and the Zayu station in the Hengduan Mountains had a proportion of 46.5%. Meanwhile, the proportion in the south was higher than in the north, and higher in the east than in the west, resulting in a slight decreasing trend from the southeast to the northwest (Figure 9a). The proportion of summer rainfall erosivity varied from the smallest of 16.4% at Nyalam, to the largest of 94.7% at Shiquanhe station. In addition, 71% of the stations accounted for more than 70% of summer rainfall erosivity, and summer rainfall erosivity in most meteorological stations in the southern Tibet Valley contributed more than 80% to the total (Figure 9b). The proportion of autumn rainfall erosivity at each meteorological station varied between 5.3% and 39.4% with the highest at Purang station, followed by the Nyalan and Cona stations; these stations were located on the southernmost edge of the Tibetan Plateau (Figure 9c). The proportion of winter rainfall erosivity to the total was small, with less than 4% of the stations contributing >90% of the winter erosivity. In that, the Nyalam station contributed the most at 33.9%, followed by Purang, both located on the southwestern edge of the Tibetan Plateau (Figure 9d).

4. Discussion

Rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau from 1981 to 2015 varied from 61 to 1776 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1, with an average of 714 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1. This value is higher than the inland areas of northwest China, but smaller than the areas of east and south China [34]. Yan et al. [48] assessed temporal and spatial distribution of rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau using TRMM 3B42 data from 2000 to 2008 and showed a decreasing trend during the study period. However, our results showed that from 1980 to 2015, the annual rainfall erosivity indicated an insignificant increase. If we put our research period in 2000–2008, the annual rainfall erosivity also showed a slight decrease. Fan et al. [53] found that rainfall erosivity varied from 32 to 12,189 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1, with an average of 768 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1 during 2000–2010, which is closed to our findings. Gu et al. [49] also estimated rainfall erosivity in the Hengduan Mountainous Region of Eastern Tibet. Their results showed that rainfall erosivity of Qamdo station based on monthly rainfall was about 300 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1, which was half of our value. Data precision and models cause the difference. Daily rainfall data is better than monthly rainfall data. Spatial distribution is characterized by a decreasing trend from the southeast to the northwest, which is in accord with previous studies [33,34,50,51].
Topography and monsoon affect rainfall distribution in the study area. The higher the altitude, the less the rainfall (Figure 10a). High altitude and atmospheric circulation patterns have created a cold, dry, and fragile environment, which is very sensitive to soil erosion. Weak rainfall erosivity can cause very severe soil erosion, and terrain has an important influence on the distribution of rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau. Previous studies have shown that altitude, slope, and aspect affect transport of water vapor and the spatial distribution of precipitation in the study area [71]. The relationship between the average annual rainfall erosivity and altitude of meteorological stations revealed a high correlation coefficient (−0.63), with rainfall erosivity decreasing with increasing altitude (Table 6, Figure 10b). The main factors affecting rainfall erosivity were rainfall and rainfall intensity. There is a strong correlation between rainfall and rainfall erosivity in the study area (Figure 10c). The correlation coefficient is as high as 0.92.
The north–south pattern of the mountains and river valleys in Hengduan Mountains in eastern Tibet was conducive to the entry of water vapor from the Indian Ocean, and the rainfall was relatively abundant in that area. Therefore, the annual rainfall erosivity was also relatively high in eastern Tibet, with annual, spring, and summer rainfall erosivity increasing during the study period. In northwestern Tibet, precipitation was extremely small, and the corresponding rainfall erosivity was low; this was due to the obstruction by the mountain system of the Himalayas coupled with high altitude and low temperature. In southern Tibet and in the Himalayas, annual rainfall erosivity was small, mainly due to the local topography of the leeward slope of the mountain. However, in the Yarlung Zangbo river valley, rainfall erosivity was higher due to a lower terrain and sufficient water and heat. Additionally, precipitation in the rainy season has a pronounced vertical differentiation in the plateau, and with the increase in altitude, precipitation significantly decreases, and then increases [71], leading to complexity in the spatial distribution of rainfall erosivity.
Rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau exhibited a decreasing trend from the southeast to the northwest, due to mainly to the monsoon. Specifically, the trend was affected by the southeast monsoon from the Pacific Ocean, and by the southwest monsoon from the Indian Ocean [72]. The climate of the Tibetan Plateau is diverse, from southeast to northwest, and includes tropical, subtropical, temperate plateau, plateau sub-frigid, and plateau cold zones. The southern Tibetan valley belongs to the subtropical monsoon climate, with relatively abundant precipitation, and relatively high rainfall erosivity. The annual, spring, and summer rainfall erosivity showed an increasing trend in the Tibetan Plateau, with spring erosivity showing an especially significant increase, which was closely related to climate change in this area. The region experienced a warming and more humid trend [73]. A previous study has shown that there was a slight increase in annual rainfall erosivity in most parts of China. Besides, the central and eastern Qinghai–Tibet Plateau is the region with the most significant increase in rainfall erosivity [33]. Our results also showed that the rainfall erosivity of most meteorological stations on the Tibetan Plateau was increasing. This variation may increase the risk of soil erosion in the region.
The Tibetan Plateau is located in the most active geological and structural tectonic belt with the most varied geological history and the strongest tectonic movement in China; physical weathering of the ground is strong, the freezing and thawing effects are widely distributed, and the material on slopes is unstable, leading to an extremely fragile environment. As shown in this study, the risk of soil erosion in the Hengduan Mountains in the eastern Tibetan Plateau and the Yarlung Zangbo River Valley and its vicinity were high. Rainfall erosivity in this area was not only high, but also showed an increased trend, especially in spring. As the temperature rises, the snow melts and erosion caused by rainfall makes the risk of soil erosion in spring also high. Previous studies also showed that the region with the largest annual erosion modulus in Tibet was the “Three Rivers Basin” in the east (Jinsha River, Lancang River, and Nu River), followed by the Yarlung River valley [74]. The terrain of the Tibetan Plateau is complex; heavy rainfall is likely to cause soil erosion, as well as floods, landslides, and mudslides. Annual rainfall erosivity in the Hengduan Mountains in eastern Tibet was relatively high, and mainly concentrated in summer. The area was high, and with sleep slopes and deep river gorges, and the mountains and valleys coexist. Coupled with flood disasters, it is a region with high risk of soil erosion. Due to the influence of the southwest monsoon in the Indian Ocean, the southern Tibetan valley has excellent hydrothermal conditions and can grow many subtropical crops, but human activities undermine environmental protection, which results in creation of important sources of soil erosion from low-coverage grasslands and sloping farmland in the valley.

5. Conclusions

The Tibetan Plateau is an ecologically fragile area. Climate in the Tibetan Plateau has changed significantly in the early 21st century, especially due to significant warming. The risk of soil erosion brought about by climate change may be significant. In this study, we collected daily precipitation data from 1 January 1981 to 31 December 2015 at 38 meteorological stations in the Tibetan Plateau, and calculated annual and seasonal rainfall erosivity. Temporal and spatial variability patterns of rainfall erosivity were analyzed. We concluded that:
(1) Rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau from 1981 to 2015 varied from 61 to 1776 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1, with an average of 714 MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1. The spatial distribution of rainfall erosivity differed significantly across the area, with the value decreasing from the southeast to the northwest.
(2) Summer rainfall erosivity accounted for 67.5% of the total annual rain erosivity, followed by autumn and spring, accounting for 18.5% and 11.5%, respectively. Between 1981 to 2015, and especially since the mid-1980s, annual and summer rainfall erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau exhibited an increasing trend (increased by 50% and 60%); spring erosivity had a highly significant increasing (increased by 94%), while autumn and winter a slightly decreasing trend (less than 10%).
(3) The spatial distribution and temporal variability in rainfall erosivity were affected by the special topography and monsoon of the Tibetan Plateau, as well as by increasing warming and humidification in this area. In contrast, soil erosion risk was high in the Hengduan Mountains in the eastern Tibetan Plateau and in the Yarlung Zangbo River Valley and its vicinity.

Author Contributions

Conceptualization: Z.G., X.D.; methodology: Z.G.; software: T.Y., Z.G.; writing—original draft preparation: Z.G., K.G.; writing—review and editing: Y.L., D.F.; project administration: D.F. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.

Funding

This research was funded by the Second Tibetan Plateau Scientific Expedition and Research Program (STEP) (grant number 2019QZKK0307), and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant number 41561063 and 41867029).

Acknowledgments

We are thankful to Beijing Normal University for providing the necessary data and technical support in the rainfall erosivity calculation.

Conflicts of Interest

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References

  1. Pimentel, D. Soil erosion: A food and environmental threat. Environ. Dev. Sustain. 2006, 8, 119–137. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  2. Smith, P.; House, J.I.; Bustamante, M.; Sobocká, J.; Harper, R.; Pan, G.; West, P.C.; Clark, J.M.; Adhya, T.; Rumpel, C.; et al. Global change pressures on soils from land use and management. Glob. Chang. Biol. 2016, 22, 1008–1028. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  3. Borrelli, P.; Robinson, D.A.; Fleischer, L.R.; Lugato, E.; Ballabio, C.; Alewell, C.; Meusburger, K.; Modugno, S.; Schütt, B.; Ferro, V.; et al. An assessment of the global impact of 21st century land use change on soil erosion. Nat. Commun. 2017, 8, 2013. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  4. Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Rainfall energy and its relationship to soil loss. Trans. AGU 1958, 39, 285–291. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  5. Wischmeier, W.H. A rainfall erosion index for a universal soil loss equation. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1959, 23, 246–249. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  6. Hudson, N. Soil Conservation; Cornell University Press: Ithaca, NY, USA, 1971. [Google Scholar]
  7. Wischmeier, W.H.; Smith, D.D. Predicting Rainfall Erosion Losses: A Guide to Conservation Planning; Agriculture Handbook 537; U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 1978.
  8. Renard, K.G.; Foster, G.R.; Weesies, G.A.; McCool, D.K.; Yoder, D.C. Predicting Soil Erosion by Water: A Guide to Conservation Planning with the Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE); United States Department of Agriculture: Washington, DC, USA, 1997.
  9. Kinnell, P.I.A.; Risse, L.M. USLE-M: Empirical modeling rainfall erosion through runoff and sediment concentration. Soil Sci. Soc. Am. J. 1998, 62, 1667–1672. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  10. Foster, G.R. User’s Reference Guide: Revised Universal Soil Loss Equation (RUSLE2); U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agricultural Research Service: Washington, DC, USA, 2004.
  11. Liu, B.Y.; Guo, S.Y.; Li, Z.G. China’s hydraulic erosion sampling survey. Soil Water Conserv. China 2013, 10, 26–34. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  12. Panagos, P.; Borrelli, P.; Poesen, J.; Ballabio, C.; Lugato, E.; Meusburger, K.; Montanarella, L.; Alewell, C. The new assessment of soil loss by water erosion in Europe. Environ. Sci. Policy 2015, 54, 438–447. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  13. Mikhailova, E.A.; Bryant, R.B.; Schwager, S.J.; Smith, S.D. Predicting rainfall erosivity in Honduras. Soil Sci. Am. J. 1997, 61, 273–279. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  14. Shi, D.M.; Jiang, D.; Lu, X.P.; Jiang, G.Y. Temporal distribution characteristics of rainfall erosivity in Fuling District, Chongqing. Trans. CSAE 2008, 24, 16–21. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  15. Bonilla, C.A.; Vidal, K.L. Rainfall erosivity in Central Chile. J. Hydrol. 2011, 410, 126–133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  16. Lee, J.H.; Heo, J.H. Evaluation of estimation methods for rainfall erosivity based on annual precipitation in Korea. J. Hydrol. 2011, 409, 30–48. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  17. Alipour, Z.T.; Mahdian, M.H.; Pazira, E.; Hakimkhani, S.; Saeedi, M. The determination of the best rainfall erosivity index for Namak Lake Basin and evaluation of spatial variations. J. Basic Appl. Sci. Res. 2012, 2, 484–494. [Google Scholar]
  18. Renard, K.G.; Freimund, J.R. Using monthly precipitation data to estimate the R-factor in the revised USLE. J. Hydrol. 1994, 157, 287–306. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  19. Oduro-Afriyie, K. Rainfall erosivity map for Ghana. Geoderma 1996, 74, 161–166. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  20. Ferro, V.; Porto, P.; Yu, B. A comparative study of rainfall erosivity estimation for southern Italy and southeastern Australia. Hydrol. Sci. J. 1999, 44, 3–24. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  21. Richardson, C.W.; Forster, G.R.; Wright, D.A. Estimation of erosion index from daily rainfall amount. Trans. ASABE 1983, 26, 153–156. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  22. Yu, B.; Rosewell, C.J. An assessment of a daily rainfall erosivity model for New South Wales. Soil Res. 1996, 34, 139–152. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  23. Zhang, W.B.; Xie, Y.; Liu, B.Y. Rainfall erosivity estimation using daily rainfall amounts. Sci. Geogr. Sin. 2002, 22, 705–711. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  24. Petkovsek, G.; Mikos, M. Estimating the R factor from daily rainfall data in the sub-Mediterranean climate of southwest Slovenia. Hydrolog. Sci. J. 2004, 49, 869–877. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  25. Angulo-Martinez, M.; Begueria, S. Estimating rainfall erosivity from daily precipitation records: A comparison among methods using data from the Ebro Basin (NE Spain). J. Hydrol. 2009, 379, 111–121. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  26. Mannaerts, C.M.; Gabriels, D. Rainfall erosivity in Cape Verde. Soil Tillage. Res. 2000, 55, 207–212. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  27. Yin, S.Q.; Xie, Y.; Wang, C.G. Calculation of rainfall erosivity by using hourly rainfall data. Geogr. Res. 2007, 26, 541–547. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  28. Hamlaoui-Moulai, L.; Mesbah, M.; Souag-Gamane, D.; Medjerab, A. Detecting hydro-climatic change using spatiotemporal analysis of rainfall time series in Western Algeria. Nat. Hazards. 2013, 65, 1293–1311. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  29. Ramos, M.C.; Durán, B. Assessment of rainfall erosivity and its spatial and temporal variabilities: Case study of the Penedès area (NE Spain). Catena 2014, 123, 135–147. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  30. Silva, A.M. Rainfall erosivity map for Brazil. Catena 2004, 57, 251–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  31. Vallebona, C.; Pellegrino, E.; Frumento, P.; Bonari, E. Temporal trends in extreme rainfall intensity and erosivity in the Mediterranean region: A case study in southern Tuscany, Italy. Clim. Chang. 2015, 128, 139–151. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  32. Zhang, W.B.; Xie, Y.; Liu, B.Y. Spatial distribution of rainfall erosivity in China. J. Mt. Sci. 2003, 21, 33–40. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  33. Liu, B.T.; Tao, H.P.; Song, C.F.; Guo, B.; Shi, Z.; Zhang, C.; Kong, B.; He, B. Temporal and spatial variations of rainfall erosivity in China during 1960 to 2009. Geogr. Res. 2013, 32, 245–256. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  34. Yin, S.Q.; Zhang, W.B.; Xie, Y.; Liu, S.H.; Liu, F. Spatial distribution of rainfall erosivity in China based on high density battle network. Soil Water Conserv. China 2013, 10, 45–50. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  35. IPCC. Working Group I Contribution to the IPCC Fifth Assessment Report, Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis: Summary for Policymakers. Available online: http://www.climatechange2013.org/report/ (accessed on 28 October 2013).
  36. Sun, H.L.; Zheng, D. The Formation, Evolution and Development of the Qinghai-Tibet Plateau; Science and Technology Press: Guangzhou, China, 1998. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  37. Sun, K.H.; Zeng, X.D.; Li, F. Climate change characteristics in ecological fragile zones in China during 1980–2014. Clim. Environ. Res. 2019, 24, 455–468. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  38. Huang, X.L.; Zhang, T.B.; Yi, G.H.; He, D.; Zhou, X.B.; Li, J.J.; Bie, X.J.; Miao, J.Q. Dynamic Changes of NDVI in the Growing Season of the Tibetan Plateau During the Past 17 Years and Its Response to Climate Change. Int. J. Environ. Res. Public Health 2019, 16, 3452. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  39. Xu, Z.X.; Gong, T.L.; Li, J.Y. Decadal trend of climate in the Tibetan Plateau—Regional temperature and precipitation. Hydrol. Process. 2008, 22, 3056–3065. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  40. Wang, X.D.; Zhong, X.H.; Fan, J.R. Assessment and spatial distribution of sensitivity of soil erosion in Tibet. J. Geogr. Sci. 2004, 14, 41–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  41. Xu, X.L.; Liu, W.; Kong, Y.P.; Zhang, K.L.; Yu, B.; Chen, J.D. Runoff and water erosion on road side-slopes: Effects of rainfall characteristics and slope length. Transp. Res. D Transp. Environ. 2009, 14, 497–501. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  42. Gu, S.X. Study on the soil and water loss control model of the typical watershed in the eastern Tibet. Res. Soil Water Conserv. 2012, 19, 86–89. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  43. Fang, G.L.; Xiang, B.; Du, J.Q.; Wang, B.L.; Zhang, L.K.; Hu, Y.; Xu, J. Risk assessment of non-point source pollution export in Lasahe basin. TSCAE 2015, 31, 247–254. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  44. Wang, G.X.; Qian, J.; Cheng, G.D.; Lai, Y.M. Soil organic carbon pool of grassland soils on the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau and its global implication. Sci. Total Environ. 2002, 291, 207–217. [Google Scholar]
  45. Liu, S.Z.; Fan, J.R.; Zhou, L. Degradation of grass lands and its preventive countermeasures in Tibet Autonomous Region. Chin. J. Eco-Agric. 2002, 10, 1–3. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  46. Li, Q.; Zhang, C.L.; Shen, Y.P.; Jia, W.R.; Li, J. Developing trend of aeolian desertification in China’s Tibet Autonomous Region from 1977 to 2010. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 895. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  47. Shi, Z.; Mao, W.Y. Tibetan water resource and conservancy construction. Yangtze River 1999, 30, 52–54. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  48. Yan, D.; Fan, J.R.; Guo, F.F.; Guo, X.; Gong, K.F. Spatiotemporal distribution of precipitation erosivity in Tibet Autonomous Region. Bull. Soil Water Conserv. 2010, 30, 17–21. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  49. Gu, S.X.; Wang, X.D.; Liu, S.Z. The preliminary research on rainfall erosivity based on simple estimation method in the Hengduan Mountainous Region of the eastern Tibet. Res. Soil Water Conserv. 2011, 18, 28–31. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  50. Wang, Y.S.; Cheng, C.C.; Xie, Y.; Liu, B.Y.; Yin, S.Q.; Liu, Y.N.; Hao, Y.F. Increasing trends in rainfall-runoff erosivity in the Source Region of the Three Rivers, 1961–2012. Sci. Total Environ. 2017, 592, 639–648. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  51. Panagos, P.; Borreli, P.; Meusburger, K.; Yu, B.; Klik, A.; Lim, K.J.; Yang, J.E.; Niabihi, M.; Larionov, G.A.; Krasnov, S.F.; et al. Global rainfall erosivity assessment based on high-temporal resolution rainfall records. Sci. Rep. 2017, 7, 4175. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] [Green Version]
  52. Du, J.; Ma, Y.C. Climate analysis of precipitation trends in Tibetan Plateau. J. Geogr. Sci. 2004, 3, 56–63. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  53. Fan, J.R.; Chen, Y.; Yan, D.; Guo, F.F. Characteristics of rainfall erosivity based on tropical rainfall measuring mission data in Tibet, China. J. Mt. Sci. 2013, 10, 1008–1017. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  54. National Meteorological Infomation Center. 2015. Available online: http://data.cma.gov.cn (accessed on 11 January 2019).
  55. Xie, Y.; Yin, S.Q.; Liu, B.Y.; Nearing, M.A.; Zhao, Y. Models for estimating daily rainfall erosivity in China. J. Hydrol. 2016, 535, 547–558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  56. Liu, C.M.; Zeng, Y. Changes of pan evaporation in the recent 40 years in the Yellow River Basin. Water Int. 2004, 29, 510–516. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  57. Wu, J.; Fu, C.B.; Zhang, L.Y.; Tang, J.P. Trends of visibility on sunny days in China in the recent 50 years. Atmos. Environ. 2012, 55, 339–346. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  58. Liu, M.; Peng, X.Y.; Li, J.X.; Pu, M.J. Climatic characteristics of high temperature in Jiangsu Province in recent 50 years. Resour. Sci. 2011, 33, 1991–1998. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  59. Wang, F.Y.; Liu, P.X. Characteristics analysis on sunshine duration change in Jiuquan Oasis in recent 45 years. Plateau Meteorol. 2010, 29, 999–1004. [Google Scholar]
  60. Mann, H.B. Nonparametric tests against trend. Econometrica 1945, 13, 245–259. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  61. Kendall, M.G. Rank Correlation Methods; Griffin: London, UK, 1975. [Google Scholar]
  62. Sen, P.K. Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall’s tau. J. Am. Stat. Assoc. 1968, 63, 1379–1389. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  63. Gilbert, R.O. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring; John Wiley and Sons: New York, NY, USA, 1987. [Google Scholar]
  64. Lettenmaier, D.P.; Wood, E.F.; Wallis, J.R. Hydro-climatological trends in the continental United States, 1948–1988. J. Clim. 1994, 7, 586–607. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  65. Partal, T.; Kahya, E. Trend analysis in Turkish precipitation data. Hydrol. Process. 2006, 20, 2011–2026. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  66. Modarres, R.; Silva, V.P.R. Rainfall trends in arid and semi-arid regions of Iran. J. Arid. Environ. 2007, 70, 344–355. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  67. ElNesr, M.N.; Abu-Zreig, M.M.; Alazba, A.A. Temperature trends and distribution in the Arabian Peninsula. Am. J. Environ. Sci. 2010, 6, 191–203. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [Green Version]
  68. Tabari, H.; Marofi, S. Changes of pan evaporation in the west of Iran. Water Resour. Manag. 2011, 25, 97–111. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  69. Gu, Z.J.; Duan, X.W.; Liu, B.; Hu, J.M.; He, J.N. The spatial distribution and temporal variation of rainfall erosivity in the Yunnan Plateau, Southwest China: 1960–2012. Catena 2016, 145, 291–300. [Google Scholar]
  70. Liu, B.Y.; Zhang, K.L.; Xie, Y. An empirical soil loss equation. In Proceedings of the 12th International Soil Conservation Organization Conference, Beijing, China, 26–31 May 2002; Tsinghua University Press: Beijing, China, 2002; Volume II, p. 15. [Google Scholar]
  71. Zhang, J.; Li, D.L.; He, J.M.; Wang, X.Y. Influence of terrain on spatial distribution of precipitation in rainy and rainy years of Qinghai-Tibet Plateau. Adv. Water Sci. 2007, 3, 11–18. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
  72. Shu, S.J.; Yu, Z.F.; Wang, Y.; Bai, M. A statistic model for the spatial distribution of precipitation estimation over the Tibetan complex terrain. China J. Geophys. 2005, 48, 535–542. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  73. Piao, S.L.; Cui, M.D.; Chen, A.P.; Wang, X.H.; Ciais, P.; Liu, J.; Tang, Y.H. Altitude and temperature dependence of change in the spring vegetation green-up date from 1982 to 2006 in the Qinghai-Xizang Plateau. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2011, 151, 1599–1608. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
  74. Li, D.M. Preliminary Analysis on the Causes, Harm and Difficulties of Soil and Water Loss Distribution in Tibet. Tibet Sci. Tech. 2001, 1, 21–24. (In Chinese) [Google Scholar]
Figure 1. Study area and distribution of meteorological stations.
Figure 1. Study area and distribution of meteorological stations.
Water 12 00200 g001
Figure 2. The trend coefficient (a), anomalies (b), and M–K test (c) for annual rainfall erosivity from 1981 to 2015 in the Tibetan Plateau. Note: Dots are scaled according to trend magnitude. The red color corresponds to an increasing trend, and the green color corresponds to a decreasing trend. UF > 0 indicates an increasing trend, UF < 0 indicates a decreasing trend. The mutation year exists at the intersection of UF and UB.
Figure 2. The trend coefficient (a), anomalies (b), and M–K test (c) for annual rainfall erosivity from 1981 to 2015 in the Tibetan Plateau. Note: Dots are scaled according to trend magnitude. The red color corresponds to an increasing trend, and the green color corresponds to a decreasing trend. UF > 0 indicates an increasing trend, UF < 0 indicates a decreasing trend. The mutation year exists at the intersection of UF and UB.
Water 12 00200 g002
Figure 3. Statistics of half-monthly rainfall erosivity and its percentages.
Figure 3. Statistics of half-monthly rainfall erosivity and its percentages.
Water 12 00200 g003
Figure 4. The trend coefficient (a), anomalies (b), and M–K test (c) for spring rainfall erosivity from 1981 to 2015 in Tibetan Plateau. Note: Dots are scaled according to trend magnitude. The red color corresponds to an increasing trend, and the green color corresponds to a decreasing trend. UF > 0 indicates an increasing trend, UF < 0 indicates a decreasing trend. The mutation year exists at the intersection of UF and UB.
Figure 4. The trend coefficient (a), anomalies (b), and M–K test (c) for spring rainfall erosivity from 1981 to 2015 in Tibetan Plateau. Note: Dots are scaled according to trend magnitude. The red color corresponds to an increasing trend, and the green color corresponds to a decreasing trend. UF > 0 indicates an increasing trend, UF < 0 indicates a decreasing trend. The mutation year exists at the intersection of UF and UB.
Water 12 00200 g004
Figure 5. The trend coefficient (a), anomalies (b), and M–K test (c) for summer rainfall erosivity from 1981 to 2015 in the Tibetan Plateau. Note: Dots are scaled according to trend magnitude. The red color corresponds to an increasing trend, and the green color corresponds to a decreasing trend. UF > 0 indicates an increasing trend, UF < 0 indicates a decreasing trend. The mutation year exists at the intersection of UF and UB.
Figure 5. The trend coefficient (a), anomalies (b), and M–K test (c) for summer rainfall erosivity from 1981 to 2015 in the Tibetan Plateau. Note: Dots are scaled according to trend magnitude. The red color corresponds to an increasing trend, and the green color corresponds to a decreasing trend. UF > 0 indicates an increasing trend, UF < 0 indicates a decreasing trend. The mutation year exists at the intersection of UF and UB.
Water 12 00200 g005
Figure 6. The trend coefficient (a), anomalies (b), and M–K test (c) for autumn rainfall erosivity from 1981 to 2015 in Tibetan Plateau. Note: Dots are scaled according to trend magnitude. The red color corresponds to an increasing trend, and the green color corresponds to a decreasing trend. UF > 0 indicates an increasing trend, UF < 0 indicates a decreasing trend. The mutation year exists at the intersection of UF and UB.
Figure 6. The trend coefficient (a), anomalies (b), and M–K test (c) for autumn rainfall erosivity from 1981 to 2015 in Tibetan Plateau. Note: Dots are scaled according to trend magnitude. The red color corresponds to an increasing trend, and the green color corresponds to a decreasing trend. UF > 0 indicates an increasing trend, UF < 0 indicates a decreasing trend. The mutation year exists at the intersection of UF and UB.
Water 12 00200 g006
Figure 7. The trend coefficient (a), anomalies (b), and M-K test (c) for winter rainfall erosivity from 1981 to 2015 in Tibetan Plateau. Note: Dots are scaled according to trend magnitude. The red color corresponds to an increasing trend, and the green color corresponds to a decreasing trend. UF > 0 indicates an increasing trend, UF < 0 indicates a decreasing trend. The mutation year exists at the intersection of UF and UB.
Figure 7. The trend coefficient (a), anomalies (b), and M-K test (c) for winter rainfall erosivity from 1981 to 2015 in Tibetan Plateau. Note: Dots are scaled according to trend magnitude. The red color corresponds to an increasing trend, and the green color corresponds to a decreasing trend. UF > 0 indicates an increasing trend, UF < 0 indicates a decreasing trend. The mutation year exists at the intersection of UF and UB.
Water 12 00200 g007
Figure 8. Spatial distribution of annual average rainfall erosivity (MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1) from 1981 to 2015.
Figure 8. Spatial distribution of annual average rainfall erosivity (MJ·mm·ha−1·h−1) from 1981 to 2015.
Water 12 00200 g008
Figure 9. Spatial distribution of spring (a), summer (b), autumn (c), and winter (d) rainfall erosivity from 1981 to 2015.
Figure 9. Spatial distribution of spring (a), summer (b), autumn (c), and winter (d) rainfall erosivity from 1981 to 2015.
Water 12 00200 g009
Figure 10. Correlation between elevation and annual rainfall (a), elevation and annual rainfall erosivity (b), annual rainfall and annual rainfall erosivity (c) of meteorological stations.
Figure 10. Correlation between elevation and annual rainfall (a), elevation and annual rainfall erosivity (b), annual rainfall and annual rainfall erosivity (c) of meteorological stations.
Water 12 00200 g010
Table 1. Statistical tests for annual rainfall erosivity for the period 1981–2015.
Table 1. Statistical tests for annual rainfall erosivity for the period 1981–2015.
StationZsQmedStationZsQmedStationZsQmedStationZsQmed
Shiquanhe−0.4930.000Shigatse0.5735.495Cona1.1844.227Bome−0.398−3.866
Gerze2.075 *5.030Nyemo−0.308−1.668Lhunze1.715.334Baxoi1.0082.447
Baingoin−0.059−0.151Konggar1.4628.526Pagri0.7413.367Gyaca1.1847.970
Amdo−0.294−1.144Lhasa1.64111.284Sog−0.312−1.725Nyingchi−0.068−0.836
Naqu0.000−0.060Maizhokunggar0.8597.607Biru0.5932.892Mainling0.6525.247
Purang−0.243−0.502Zetang1.5648.255Denqen0.0150.302Zuogong−0.089−0.184
Shenza2.102 *7.084Nyalam−0.267−7.061Riwoqe0.7414.040Markam1.95712.316
Damxung0.7593.489Tingri1.0385.141Qamdo1.3926.841Zayu−0.625−4.515
Lazi1.7896.831Gyangze−1.379−4.114Lhari1.4765.079
Nanmulin1.0719.389Nagarze1.0225.305Lhorong−0.728−2.851
Note: Zs: Mann–Kendall test, Qmed: Sen’s slope estimator, *: Statistically significant trend at the 0.05 significance level.
Table 2. Statistical tests for spring rainfall erosivity for the period 1981–2015.
Table 2. Statistical tests for spring rainfall erosivity for the period 1981–2015.
StationZsQmedStationZsQmedStationZsQmedStationZsQmed
Shiquanhe--Shigatse0.6150Cona2.25 *1.927Bome1.4497.632
Gerze1.3640Nyemo1.1510Lhunze−0.0240Baxoi1.4670.485
Baingoin0.8250Konggar1.0440Pagri1.8191.512Gyaca1.7150.873
Amdo0.8300Lhasa1.2270Sog2.753 **1.966Nyingchi2.261 *3.985
Naqu1.9430Maizhokunggar−0.0660Biru0.9590.452Mainling1.8532.571
Purang−1.198−0.852Zetang0.2990Denqen0.1870Zuogong1.3860
Shenza1.9130Nyalam−0.460−0.950Riwoqe0.7300.332Markam1.7820.815
Damxung0.8820Tingri1.6230Qamdo0.5390.133Zayu−0.199−2.253
Lazi0.9170Gyangze−0.2280Lhari0.1300.312
Nanmulin1.9700Nagarze0.3700Lhorong0.7790.944
Note: Zs: Mann–Kendall test, Qmed: Sen’s slope estimator, *: Statistically significant trend at the 0.05 significance level, **: Statistically significant trend at the 0.01 significance level.
Table 3. Statistical tests for summer rainfall erosivity for the period 1981–2015.
Table 3. Statistical tests for summer rainfall erosivity for the period 1981–2015.
StationZsQmedStationZsQmedStationZsQmedStationZsQmed
Shiquanhe−0.199−2.253Shigatse0.6045.805Cona−0.600−0.873Bome−1.647-10.265
Gerze2.861 **4.857Nyemo−0.730−2.692Lhunze1.1422.823Baxoi1.2752.085
Baingoin0.2080.608Konggar0.4423.397Pagri−0.504−1.199Gyaca0.7954.846
Amdo−0.418−1.626Lhasa2.14111.923Sog−0.483−1.821Nyingchi−0.204−1.231
Naqu−0.036−0.443Maizhokunggar0.6976.002Biru−0.089−0.151Mainling0.2962.119
Purang−1.2620Zetang1.1904.986Denqen−0.666−3.152Zuogong−0.059−0.157
Shenza2.017 *5.683Nyalam−1.008−3.273Riwoqe0.1480.469Markam2.580 **14.369
Damxung0.8212.952Tingri0.5341.774Qamdo2.070 *8.620Zayu−1.221−4.697
Lazi1.5915.814Gyangze−1.286−4.041Lhari0.6972.741
Nanmulin1.46311.478Nagarze0.9243.610Lhorong−0.976−2.554
Note: Zs: Mann–Kendall test, Qmed: Sen’s slope estimator, *: Statistically significant trend at the 0.05 significance level, **: Statistically significant trend at the 0.01significance level.
Table 4. Statistical tests for autumn rainfall erosivity for the period 1981–2015.
Table 4. Statistical tests for autumn rainfall erosivity for the period 1981–2015.
StationZsQmedStationZsQmedStationZsQmedStationZsQmed
Shiquanhe−0.2260Shigatse0.9660.934Cona1.0881.124Bome−0.824−3.893
Gerze−0.2330Nyemo0.3090.191Lhunze3.061 **2.567Baxoi−1.168−0.775
Baingoin0.3010Konggar1.990 *3.093Pagri0.58 0.302Gyaca−0.0160
Amdo−0.171−0.074Lhasa−1.089−1.582Sog−0.824−0.958Nyingchi−0.272−1.306
Naqu−0.965−1.680Maizhokunggar−0.730−1.911Biru0.2520.494Mainling−0.682−1.031
Purang0.9040Zetang0.0340Denqen0.8211.740Zuogong−1.380−1.870
Shenza−0.8680Nyalam−0.326−2.011Riwoqe1.4532.589Markam−0.830−1.821
Damxung−0.543−0.981Tingri−0.1710Qamdo0.5000.753Zayu−0.939−3.321
Lazi0.4320Gyangze1.2380Lhari1.0221.779
Nanmulin−0.0180Nagarze0.0490Lhorong−0.744−1.360
Note: Zs: Mann–Kendall test, Qmed: Sen’s slope estimator, *: Statistically significant trend at the 0.05 significance level, **: Statistically significant trend at the 0.01significance level.
Table 5. Statistical tests for winter rainfall erosivity for the period 1981–2015.
Table 5. Statistical tests for winter rainfall erosivity for the period 1981–2015.
StationZsQmedStationZsQmedStationZsQmedStationZsQmed
Shiquanhe--Shigatse--Cona−1.5640Bome1.2550
Gerze--Nyemo--Lhunze−1.6180Baxoi−1.6310
Baingoin--Konggar--Pagri0.5550Gyaca--
Amdo--Lhasa--Sog--Nyingchi--
Naqu--Maizhokunggar−0.5450Biru--Mainling−1.3590
Purang00Zetang--Denqen--Zuogong--
Shenza--Nyalam−0.148−1.017Riwoqe−1.6310Markam--
Damxung--Tingri--Qamdo−1.6180Zayu−0.2880
Lazi--Gyangze−1.6280Lhari--
Nanmulin--Nagarze−1.6250Lhorong−1.6280
Note: Zs: Mann–Kendall test, Qmed: Sen’s slope estimator, -: No data.
Table 6. Rainfall (P) and rainfall erosivity (R) for the period 1981–2015.
Table 6. Rainfall (P) and rainfall erosivity (R) for the period 1981–2015.
StationPRStationPRStationPRStationPR
Shiquanhe6761Shigatse425883Cona415333Bome8951776
Gerze174181Nyemo336526Lhunze267292Baxoi253307
Baingoin333313Konggar389716Pagri445 516Gyaca502753
Amdo459561Lhasa424750Sog602797Nyingchi6841201
Naqu436521Maizhokunggar5521078Biru595798Mainling6921072
Purang146243Zetang374630Denqen640887Zuogong444713
Shenza325385Nyalam6561530Riwoqe604924Markam5851127
Damxung470626Tingri284557Qamdo472674Zayu7681460
Lazi326580Gyangze275389Lhari7311098
Nanmulin458835Nagarze361503Lhorong415532

Share and Cite

MDPI and ACS Style

Gu, Z.; Feng, D.; Duan, X.; Gong, K.; Li, Y.; Yue, T. Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Rainfall Erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau. Water 2020, 12, 200. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/w12010200

AMA Style

Gu Z, Feng D, Duan X, Gong K, Li Y, Yue T. Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Rainfall Erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau. Water. 2020; 12(1):200. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/w12010200

Chicago/Turabian Style

Gu, Zhijia, Detai Feng, Xingwu Duan, Kuifang Gong, Yawen Li, and Tianyu Yue. 2020. "Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Rainfall Erosivity in the Tibetan Plateau" Water 12, no. 1: 200. https://0-doi-org.brum.beds.ac.uk/10.3390/w12010200

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