water

Article
Assessing the Influence of the Three Gorges Dam on
Hydrological Drought Using GRACE Data
Fupeng Li 1 , Zhengtao Wang 1 , Nengfang Chao 2, * and Qingyi Song 3
1 School of Geodesy and Geomatics, Wuhan University, Wuhan 430079, China;
[email protected] (F.L.); [email protected] (Z.W.)
2 College of Marine Science and Technology, China University of Geosciences, Wuhan 430074, China
3 Faculty of Science, University of Alberta, Edmonton, AB T6G 2R3, Canada; [email protected]
* Correspondence: [email protected]; Tel.: +86-180-6210-1797




Received: 17 April 2018; Accepted: 19 May 2018; Published: 22 May 2018


Abstract: With worldwide economic and social development, more dams are being constructed to
meet the increasing demand for hydropower, which may considerably influence hydrological drought.
Here, an index named the “Dam Influence Index” (DII) is proposed to assess the influence of the
Three Gorges Dam (TGD) on hydrological drought in the Yangtze River Basin (YRB) in China. First,
the total terrestrial water storage (TTWS) is derived from Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment
data. Then, the natural-driven terrestrial water storage (NTWS) is predicted from the soil moisture,
precipitation, and temperature data based on an artificial neural network model. Finally, the DII
is derived using the empirical (Kaplan-Meier) cumulative distribution function of the differences
between the TTWS and the NTWS. The DIIs of the three sub-basins in the YRB were 1.38, −4.66,
and −7.32 between 2003 and 2008, which indicated an increase in TTWS in the upper sub-basin
and a reduction in the middle and lower sub-basins. According to the results, we concluded that
impoundments of the TGD between 2003 and 2008 slightly alleviated the hydrological drought in
the upper sub-basin and significantly aggravated the hydrological drought in the middle and lower
sub-basins, which is consistent with the Palmer Drought Severity Index. This study provides a new
perspective for estimating the effects of large-scale human activities on hydrological drought and a
scientific decision-making basis for the managing water resources over the operation of the TGD.

Keywords: hydrological drought; Three Gorges Dam; GRACE

1. Introduction
By implementing an operational definition of drought, three main physical drought types have
been established: Meteorological, agricultural, and hydrological [1–3]. Hydrological drought is caused
by the shortage of surface water and groundwater [4,5], affecting human society and economic
development. The severe hydrological droughts in the Yangtze River Basin (YRB) during the summer
of 2006 and the spring of 2011 [6,7] caused significant economic losses to the local people.
In 1993, the Chinese government decided to construct the Three Gorges Dam (TGD) in order
to mitigate the effects of global climate change including floods and to make full use of the water
resources for hydroelectric power generation [8–11]. The TGD began operation in 2003, and after three
major impoundments, construction was completed in 2009 [12]. With the construction and operation
of the TGD, YRB hydrological drought has been intensively affected by human activities [6], and the
reservoir operations may seriously affect the ecological balance of the downstream environments [13].
Dai et al. [6], Zhang et al. [7], Li et al. [14], Lai et al. [15], and Liu et al. [16] analyzed the effects of
the TGD on water levels in the middle and lower reaches of the Yangtze River using observational
data from hydrological stations and the TGD impounding data based on many mathematical

Water 2018, 10, 669; doi:10.3390/w10050669 www.mdpi.com/journal/water

Water 2018, 10, 669 2 of 17

models [17]. The results of their studies indicated that the construction and operation of the TGD had
a non-negligible impact on the water level changes of the Yangtze River. The influence of the TGD on
the hydrological drought in the YRB has been investigated using surface water level data from in-situ
hydrological stations, and it was found to not only be affected by the shortage of surface water but
also by the groundwater changes [4,5]. Moreover, the short-term variation in the total terrestrial water
storage (TTWS) was found to be mainly caused by changes in groundwater and surface water [18].
Since the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE) mission was successfully launched
in March 2002 [19], GRACE has been widely used to estimate hydrological drought. Yaraw et al. [20],
Chen et al. [21], and Frappart et al. [22] estimated hydrological drought events based on GRACE data.
Thomas et al. [23] proposed a method to quantify hydrological drought events using GRACE satellite
gravity data. This method detects the beginning, end, duration, recovery, and severity of hydrological
drought events. Chao et al. [24] proposed a new GRACE-based index called the “non-seasonal
storage deficit” to quantify the hydrological drought characteristics in Southwestern China. Therefore,
the GRACE-based TTWS can accurately estimate the influence of the TGD on hydrological drought in
the YRB.
Here, the TTWS in the upper, middle, and lower sub-basins of the YRB were calculated using
GRACE data. Then, the naturally driven terrestrial water storage (NTWS) in the three sub-basins
(upper, middle, and lower sub-basins of the YRB) were estimated from the soil moisture, precipitation,
and temperature data based on an artificial neural network (ANN) model. Additionally, an index
named the “Dam Influence Index” (DII), which reflects the effects of large-scale dam impoundments on
the TTWS, was created by using the NTWS and the TTWS between 2003 and 2008. Finally, the effects of
TGD impoundments on the hydrological drought between 2003 and 2008 in the YRB were estimated.

2. Study Area
The world’s third largest river, the Yangtze River, with a total length of 6300 km, flows across
11 provinces in China and finally flows into the East China Sea. The YRB [25], with an area of
1.8 million km2 , which accounts for approximately 18.8% of China’s territory, is divided into upper,
middle, and lower sub-basins by the Yichang and Hukou hydrological stations [26–28]. The region
above the Yichang hydrological station is the upper sub-basin of the YRB, and the world’s largest dam,
the TGD, is located in Yichang, approximately 100 km away from the Yichang hydrological station.
The region below the Hukou hydrological station is the lower sub-basin and the region between
Yichang and Hukou hydrological station is the middle sub-basin of the YRB. The upper, middle, and
lower sub-basins areas are 98, 51, and 29 km2 , respectively. The major surface bodies of the middle and
lower sub-basins are Dongting Lake in the central YRB and Poyang Lake near the Hukou hydrological
station (Figure 1).
The Yangtze River, between the TGD and Chongqing, with a length of 663 km and an area of
1084 km2 , composes the Three Gorges reservoirs (TGR) (Figure 1), which has a total water storage
capacity of 39.3 km3 [16]. In this study, the effects of the TGD on each sub-basin of the YRB will be
estimated based on GRACE data from April 2002 to July 2015.
Water 2018, 10, 669 3 of 17
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW    3 of 17 

 
Figure  1.  Map  of  the  upper,  middle,  and  lower  sub‐basins  and  the  mainstream  and  tributaries  of 
Figure 1. Map of the upper, middle, and lower sub-basins and the mainstream and tributaries of Yangtze
Yangtze River Basin (YRB). 
River Basin (YRB).

3. Data and Methods 
3. Data and Methods
3.1. GRACE 
3.1. GRACE
The  GRACE  monthly  time‐variable  gravity  field  models  from  the  Center  for  Space  Research 
The GRACE monthly time-variable gravity field models from the Center for Space Research (CSR)
(CSR) between April 2002 and July 2015 were used to infer the terrestrial water storage in the YRB 
between April 2002 and July 2015 were used to infer the terrestrial water storage in the YRB after
after reducing the effects of the atmosphere, tide, and solid tide. Moreover, the monthly time‐variable 
reducing the effects of the atmosphere, tide, and solid tide. Moreover, the monthly time-variable gravity
gravity field model with the maximum degree and order of the spherical harmonic coefficients was 
field model with the maximum degree and order of the spherical harmonic coefficients was 60. To
60. To eliminate the influence of the geocentric motions on the time‐variable gravity field model, the 
eliminate the influence of the geocentric motions on the time-variable gravity field model, the first-order
first‐order coefficient was estimated from Swenson et al. [29]. To improve the accuracy of the second 
coefficient was estimated from Swenson et al. [29]. To improve the accuracy of the second order of
the spherical harmonic coefficient, the C20 term ofCthe
order of the spherical harmonic coefficient, the  20   GRACE
term of the GRACE time‐variable gravity field 
time-variable gravity field models was
models was replaced by the satellite laser ranging (SLR) observation data [30]. The glacial isostatic 
replaced by the satellite laser ranging (SLR) observation data [30]. The glacial isostatic adjustment
adjustment (GIA) was removed by using the ICE‐5G (VM2) model (
(GIA) was removed by using the ICE-5G (VM2) model (Peltier, W.R, Peltier, W.R
Toronto,, Toronto, ON, Canada) 
ON, Canada) [31,32].
[31,32]. The north‐south strips and high‐degree noises [33–35] in the TTWS estimated by the GRACE 
The north-south strips and high-degree noises [33–35] in the TTWS estimated by the GRACE monthly
monthly time‐variable gravity field models were removed by de‐striping [35] and 300‐km Gaussian 
time-variable gravity field models were removed by de-striping [35] and 300-km Gaussian filtering [33].
filtering [33]. Although noise was removed by two‐step filtering, the true signal was also attenuated 
Although noise was removed by two-step filtering, the true signal was also attenuated [36]. However,
[36]. However, the GRACE signal attenuation due to filtering can be recovered by a scale factor k [37–
the GRACE signal attenuation due to filtering can be recovered by a scale factor k [37–40]. Here, we
40]. Here, we used the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) and the same method used 
used the Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) and the same method used by Landerer and
by Landerer and Swenson [40] to restore the signal, which included attenuation and leakage. 
Swenson [40] to restore the signal, which included attenuation and leakage.

3.2. GLDAS and TRMM 

3.2. GLDAS and TRMM
The Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) [41] model is a hydrological model
The Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) [41] model is a hydrological model that 
that contains
contains  soil soil moisture,
moisture,  surface
surface  temperature,
temperature,  accumulatedsnow, 
accumulated  snow,water/energy 
water/energyflux, 
flux, and 
and other
other 
hydrological components on land between 60 ◦ S and 90◦ N. The uncertainty of GLDAS model vary in
hydrological components on land between 60° S and 90° N. The uncertainty of GLDAS model vary 
different regions. According to Wang et al. [42], GLDAS precipitation and air temperature data match
in different regions. According to Wang et al. [42], GLDAS precipitation and air temperature data 
the ground
match  observations
the  ground  well in most
observations  well areas of China,
in  most  areas and the GLDAS
of  China,  TWSGLDAS 
and  the  changesTWS 
and GRACE
changes TWS and 
changes are well correlated in wet eastern China (including the YRB), which demonstrating
GRACE  TWS  changes  are  well  correlated  in  wet  eastern  China  (including  the  YRB),  which  that the
precipitation, temperature, and TWS changes in the YRB from the GLDAS-NOAH model (L4 Monthly
demonstrating that the precipitation, temperature, and TWS changes in the YRB from the GLDAS‐
1.0 × 1.0model 
NOAH  degree,(L4 
NASA, Washington,
Monthly  1.0  ×  1.0 DC, USA)
degree,  are reliable.
NASA,  In this study,
Washington,  the GLDAS-NOAH
D.C.,  USA)  are  reliable.  In 10this 
M
series model from National Aeronautical and Spatial Administration (NASA) from
study, the GLDAS‐NOAH 10 M series model from National Aeronautical and Spatial Administration  April 2002 to
July ◦
2015 with a spatial resolution of 1 × 1 was selected to calculate the average soil moisture and
(NASA) from April 2002 to July 2015 with a spatial resolution of 1 × 1° was selected to calculate the 
temperature of the YRB.
average soil moisture and temperature of the YRB. 
Furthermore, the scale factor k was calculated using the GLDAS hydrological model following 
the same method used by Landerer and Swenson. [40], which is summarized as follows: (1) the total 
Water 2018, 10, 669 4 of 17

Furthermore, the scale factor k was calculated using the GLDAS hydrological model following the
same method used by Landerer and Swenson. [40], which is summarized as follows: (1) the total water
storage of the GLDAS model, named GLDAS TWS (GTWS), is extracted; (2) the GTWS extracted in the
first step is converted into a spherical harmonic coefficient with a degree of 60; (3) similar to the GRACE
data, de-striping (P5M8) and 300-km Gaussian filtering are applied to the GLDAS spherical harmonic
coefficients; and (4) the filtered GTWS time series of a basin is calculated using the filtered GLDAS
spherical harmonic coefficients, and the scale factor k is estimated using the following equation [40]:

M= ∑ (∆ST − k∆SF ) (1)

where ∆ST is the true GTWS time series and ∆S F is the filtered GTWS time series. The parameter k
that minimizes M is the scale factor needed in this study, and the TTWS is recovered by multiplying
the filtered TTWS time series by the estimated scale factor k [40].
The Tropical Rainfall Measuring Mission (TRMM) satellite [43] from NASA and the National
Space Development Agency (NSDA) provide global precipitation data between 50◦ S and 50◦ N.
In this study, the third-grade monthly precipitation data (3B43), which merged the Global Precipitation
Climatology Centre (GPCC) rain gauge data and other satellite precipitation data from April 2002 to
July 2015 with a spatial resolution of 0.25 × 0.25◦ , and a temporal resolution of one month was used to
estimate the precipitation of the YRB.

3.3. ANN Approach

The ANN approach was proposed to extend the GRACE TTWS time series beyond the GRACE
observation period using a set of training samples based on the ANN model [44]. The reliability of the
ANN model depends on the correlation between the predictors and the target variable of the training
samples: The stronger the correlation, the higher the accuracy of the ANN model. Huang et al. [45]
found that a strong correlation between soil moisture and TTWS, and the GRACE TTWS time series
has been extended beyond the GRACE observation period based on the soil moisture, precipitation,
temperature data and the ANN model [46–48].
The mathematical ANN model is as follows [44]:

y = f (x) + ε (2)

where x is the input data (predictors), y is the output data (target variable), ε is the process noise, and
f is the function mapping of the input and output data. A more detailed description of the ANN
model can be found in the study of Long et al. [44]. After obtaining the function mappings from the
training samples, Equation (2) was used to extrapolate and predict the target variable (NTWS) using
the predictors (soil moisture, precipitation, and temperature). The accuracy of the ANN model was
evaluated based on three criteria: Nash–Sutcliff efficiency (NSE), the coefficient of determination (R2 ),
and mean absolute error (MAE) [44]:
n
2
∑ ( yi − oi )
i =1
NSE = 1 − n (3)
2
∑ ( oi − o )
i =1
 
n
 ∑ (yi − y)(oi − o ) 
2
 i =1 
R = s
  (4)
n n

2
∑ ( yi − y ) ∑ ( oi − o )
 
i =1 i =1
Water 2018, 10, 669 5 of 17

1 n
n i∑
MAE = | yi − oi | (5)
=1

where y is the predictions of the target data based on ANN model, o is the true value of the target data,
and n is the number of training samples. As the values of NSE and R2 increase and the value of MAE
decreases, the accuracy of the ANN model increases.

3.4. DII Based on TTWS and NTWS

After obtaining the basin-mean NTWS time series in the upper, middle, and lower sub-basins of
the YRB based on the ANN model, the differences x (t) of the basin-mean TTWS and the basin-mean
NTWS time series of the three sub-basins was calculated with:

x (t) = TTWS(t) − NTWS(t) (6)

where t = 1, 2, 3, ..., n and n are the number of TWS observations. The NTWS is defined so that it
cannot be affected by the TGD, and the inconsistency of the TTWS and the NTWS is mainly due to the
TGD impoundments. The DII for a specific region (YRB) was calculated by the following equation:

xZmax Z0
DI I = [ f ( x ) − f (0)]dx − [ f ( x ) − f ( xmin )]dx (7)
0 xmin

where f ( x ) is the empirical (Kaplan-Meier) cumulative distribution function (ECDF) of x (t) from
June 2003 to December 2008. The first formula in Equation (7) is the integration of f ( x ) minus f (0) in
the positive interval, and the second formula is the integration of f ( x ) minus f ( xmin ) in the negative
interval. Taking Equation (6) into account, a smaller value of the first formula in Equation (7) and
a larger value of the second formula indicate a more severe hydrological drought caused by the
TGD impoundments.
DII is an index developed in this study to evaluate anomalies of the TTWS due to the TGD
impoundments. High and low DII values represent high and low drought conditions, respectively.
For instance, a positive DII value indicates an alleviation of hydrological drought, whereas a negative
value represents an aggravation.

4. Results

4.1. Recovered TTWS in the YRB

The scale factors, calculated by using the basin-mean GLDAS TWS time series based on
Equation (1), of the upper, middle, and lower sub-basins of the YRB were 1.32, 1.15, and 1.54,
respectively [40]. Then, the TTWS of the three sub-basins were recovered by multiplying the filtered
TTWS time series by the scale factors (Figure 2). Moreover, the GRACE measurement error and the
leakage error of the recovered TTWS were estimated based on the method used by Wahr et al. [49] and
Landerer and Swenson [40], respectively (Table 1). Figure 2 shows the filtered and recovered TTWS
time series estimated using the GRACE data. For verification, the GLDAS TWS time series in the three
sub-basins are also shown in this figure. The correlation coefficients (R) between the GLDAS TWS and
the recovered TTWS time series during the TGD impoundment period from June 2003 to December
2008 were 0.89, 0.61, and 0.65 in the upper, middle, and lower sub-basins, respectively, indicating
that the recovered TTWS is more consistent with the GLDAS TWS in the upper sub-basin than in the
middle and lower sub-basins.
Water 2018, 10, 669 6 of 17
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW    6 of 17 

 
Figure  2.  The  Global  Land  Data  Assimilation  System  (GLDAS)  terrestrial  water  storage  (TWS), 
Figure 2. The Global Land Data Assimilation System (GLDAS) terrestrial water storage (TWS), filtered
filtered total terrestrial water storage (TTWS), and recovered TTWS time series in the (a) upper, (b) 
total terrestrial water storage (TTWS), and recovered TTWS time series in the (a) upper, (b) middle,
middle,  and  (c)  lower  sub‐basins  of the  Yangtze  River Basin  (YRB).  The  green,  blue,  and  red  lines 
and (c) lower sub-basins of the Yangtze River Basin (YRB). The green, blue, and red lines represent the
represent  the  GLDAS  TWS,  filtered  TTWS,  and  recovered  TTWS  time  series,  respectively.  The 
GLDAS TWS, filtered TTWS, and recovered TTWS time series, respectively. The correlation coefficient
correlation coefficient (R) between the GLDAS TWS and recovered GRACE TTWS time series during 
(R) between the GLDAS TWS and recovered GRACE TTWS time series during the Three Gorges Dam
the Three Gorges Dam (TGD) impoundment period are also shown. 
(TGD) impoundment period are also shown.

4.2. NTWS in the YRB 
Table 1. Measurement and leakage errors of the total terrestrial water storage (TTWS) in the upper,
middle and lower sub-basins of the YRB.
Zhang et al. [47] extended the TTWS of the YRB (2002–2012) to a longer time series (1979–2012) 
based on the ANN model. According to their study, the TTWS time series in the middle and lower 
Sub-Basin Upper (cm) Middle (cm) Lower (cm)
sub‐basins of the YRB between 2003 and 2008 was significantly lower than in other years, and the 
Measurement error 1.66 2.28 2.94
TTWS returned to a normal level in 2009. There are two interpretations for this phenomenon: (1) A 
Leakage error 2.03 2.77 2.69
natural drought due to precipitation and evaporation anomalies occurred between 2003 and 2008, 
and (2) during this period, significant human activities, such as the TGD impoundment, aggravated 
4.2. NTWS in the YRB
the hydrological drought in the middle and lower sub‐basins of the YRB. 
Figure 
Zhang et 3  shows 
al. [47] the  time  series 
extended of  precipitation 
the TTWS and  evaporation 
of the YRB (2002–2012) obtained 
to a longer time from 
seriesTRMM  and 
(1979–2012)
GLDAS, respectively, in the upper, middle, and lower sub‐basins of the YRB from April 2002 to July 
based on the ANN model. According to their study, the TTWS time series in the middle and lower
2015. 
sub-basins of the YRB between 2003 and 2008 was significantly lower than in other years, and the
TTWS The  precipitation 
returned and  evaporation 
to a normal level in 2009.in  the  YBR 
There were 
are two regular  from for
interpretations 2003 
thisto  2008.  Hence, 
phenomenon: (1)the 
A
possibility of natural drought was excluded. Because changes in the TTWS and droughts are closely 
natural drought due to precipitation and evaporation anomalies occurred between 2003 and 2008, and
related  to  this
(2) during that period,
of  precipitation 
significantwithout  significant such
human activities, human 
as theactivity  [50,51],  the  Annual 
TGD impoundment, Average 
aggravated the
Precipitation  (AAP)  and  Annual  Average  TTWS  (AAT) 
hydrological drought in the middle and lower sub-basins of the YRB. in  the  YRB  were  calculated  to  determine 
whether TTWS in the YRB were influenced by non‐natural factors. For a more intuitive comparison, 
Figure 3 shows the time series of precipitation and evaporation obtained from TRMM and GLDAS,
the AAT values of the three sub‐basins were adjusted by adding a constant, to ensure all Adjusted 
respectively, in the upper, middle, and lower sub-basins of the YRB from April 2002 to July 2015.
AAT (AAAT) values were positive (Figure 4), and the yearly relative change (YRC) of the AAP and 
AAAT were calculated as described in Ahmadalipour et al. [52]. The gap in the YRC between AAP 
and AAAT in the upper sub‐basin from 2003 to 2005 is significant, and the gap gradually narrowed 
between 2006 and 2008 (Figure 4a). The inconsistency between AAP and AAAT YRCs in the middle 
and lower sub‐basins from 2003 to 2008 was obvious (Figure 4b,c), and the AAP and AAAT in the 
three regions were highly consistent after 2009. The results demonstrate that the TTWS in the YRB 
from 2003 to 2008 was significantly affected by human activities and returned to normal in 2009. 
Water 2018, 10, 669 7 of 17
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW    7 of 17 

 
Figure 3. Time series of precipitation and evaporation in the (a) upper, (b) middle, and (c) lower sub‐
Figure 3. Time series of precipitation and evaporation in the (a) upper; (b) middle; and (c) lower
basins of the YRB from April 2002 to July 2015. 
sub-basins of the YRB from April 2002 to July 2015.
Water 2018, 10, 669 8 of 17
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW    8 of 17 

 
Figure 4. Annual Average Precipitation (AAP), Adjusted Annual Average TTWS (AAAT), and yearly 
Figure 4. Annual Average Precipitation (AAP), Adjusted Annual Average TTWS (AAAT), and yearly
relative change (YRC) of the AAP and AAAT in the (a) upper, (b) middle, and (c) lower sub‐basins of 
relative change (YRC) of the AAP and AAAT in the (a) upper; (b) middle; and (c) lower sub-basins of
the YRB from 2003 to 2014. 
the YRB from 2003 to 2014.
Water 2018, 10, 669 9 of 17

The precipitation and evaporation in the YBR were regular from 2003 to 2008. Hence, the possibility
of natural drought was excluded. Because changes in the TTWS and droughts are closely related
to that of precipitation without significant human activity [50,51], the Annual Average Precipitation
(AAP) and Annual Average TTWS (AAT) in the YRB were calculated to determine whether TTWS in
the YRB were influenced by non-natural factors. For a more intuitive comparison, the AAT values
of the three sub-basins were adjusted by adding a constant, to ensure all Adjusted AAT (AAAT)
values were positive (Figure 4), and the yearly relative change (YRC) of the AAP and AAAT were
calculated as described in Ahmadalipour et al. [52]. The gap in the YRC between AAP and AAAT in
the upper sub-basin from 2003 to 2005 is significant, and the gap gradually narrowed between 2006
and 2008 (Figure 4a). The inconsistency between AAP and AAAT YRCs in the middle and lower
sub-basins from 2003 to 2008 was obvious (Figure 4b,c), and the AAP and AAAT in the three regions
were highly consistent after 2009. The results demonstrate that the TTWS in the YRB from 2003 to 2008
was significantly affected by human activities and returned to normal in 2009.
The TGD began to operate in 2003 and achieved full capacity in 2009 after three major impoundments.
The major impoundments of the TGD between 2003 and 2008 are listed in Table 2 [12,14], and the
water level of the TGR changed from 66 to 172.3 m after the three major impoundments, which were
the main human activities that may have significantly affected the TTWS and hydrological drought
in the YRB. After construction was completed in 2009, the TGD impounded water from September
to October and then discharged it from April to May every year. In this period, the operation of the
TGD was geared toward adjusting floods and droughts in the middle and lower sub-basins of the YRB,
and there were no significant water level changes in the TGR [12]. Thus, the operation of the TGD had
little influence on the change in the TTWS in the YRB after 2009, as shown in Figure 4.

Table 2. Three major impoundments of the TGD between 2003 and 2008.

Date Start Level (m) End Level (m) Change (m)

June 2003 66.0 135.0 69.0
October 2006 135.0 156.0 21.0
November 2008 145.0 172.3 27.3

To estimate the effects of the three major TGD impoundments on the TTWS and hydrological
drought in the YRB between 2003 and 2008, the TTWS time series from 2009 to 2015 unaffected by the
TGD was extended to a longer time series (2002–2015) using natural data (soil moisture, precipitation,
and surface temperature) based on the ANN approach [43]. The predicted TTWS time series is a NTWS
time series that is unaffected by the TGD.
Figure 5 shows the TTWS time series and the NTWS time series predicted by the ANN approach.
The predicted NTWS time series in the upper sub-basin had the highest accuracy among the three
basins (Table 3). Compared with the area of the three regions and the accuracy of the ANN model,
the accuracy of the ANN model is related to the area of the basin. The larger the area of the basin,
the higher the accuracy of the ANN model. This is consistent with the result of Zhang et al. [47].
The NSE and R2 of the three sub-basins were greater than found by Zhang et al. [47]. They used
the GRACE data (2003–2015) affected by the TGD in training the ANN model, which reduced the
correlation between inputs and target data, whereas we used the “normal” GRACE data (2009–2015),
which revealed results that are more accurate.
In this study, the GRACE TWS time series from 2009 to 2015 was defined not affected by the TGD
construction and was used as a true value to text the accuracy of the NTWS based on Equations (3)–(5)
(Table 3). However, the GRACE TWS contains measurement and the leakage error (Table 1). Therefore,
the uncertainty (Table 3) of the NTWS was calculated by:
q
σ= σ2 m + σ2 l + MAE2 (8)
Water 2018, 10, 669 10 of 17

where σ is the uncertainty of the NTWS; σm and σl represent the measurement and leakage error of the
GRACE TWS respectively.
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW    10 of 17 

 
Figure 5. The natural‐driven terrestrial water storage (NTWS) and TTWS time series in the (a) upper, 
Figure 5. The natural-driven terrestrial water storage (NTWS) and TTWS time series in the (a) upper;
(b) middle, and (c) lower sub‐basins of the YRB. The red line and the blue lines represent the NTWS 
(b) middle; and time 
and  TTWS  (c) lower sub-basins
series,  of theNotably, 
respectively.  YRB. TheNTWS 
red lineis and the blueby 
predicted  lines represent
natural  data the NTWS and
including 
TTWS time series, respectively. Notably, NTWS is predicted by natural data including precipitation,
precipitation, temperature, and soil moisture based on an artificial neural network (ANN) model and 
temperature, and soil moisture based on an
TTWS was calculated using GRACE data.   artificial neural network (ANN) model and TTWS was
calculated using GRACE data.
4.3. DII of the YRB 
Table 3. The area and the accuracy of the predicted NTWS in the three sub-basins of the YRB.
After obtaining the TTWS and the NTWS, the differences  x(t )   of the two time series from April 
2002  to  July  2015  were  derived  using  Equation  (6). 2The  DIIs  of  the  YRB  between  June  2003  and 
Sub-Basin Area (km2 ) NSE R MAE (cm) Uncertainty (cm)
December 2008 were calculated based on Equation (7). To provide a decent validation for the DII, the 
Upper 983,118 0.92 0.96 0.93 2.78
Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI; Dai et al. [53]) of the YRB from April 2002 to December 2014 
Middle 512,733 0.87 0.93 1.29 3.76
[54] was obtained (Figure 6). For comparison, the PDSI anomaly (PDSIA) in the YRB between June 
Lower 288,205 0.85 0.92 1.89 4.41
2003 and December 2008 were estimated using the following equation: 

The change in the TTWS is mainly PDSIA caused byave in  aveout  

changes in soil moisture, groundwater, and(9)  surface
water (Swenson and Wahr [34]); however, only groundwater may change rapidly with surface water
in the shortave
where  in   is 
term the Therefore,
[18]. average  PDSI  during  the  TGD 
the inconsistency impoundment 
between the two period 
(NTWSbetween  June time
and TTWS) 2003 series
and  in
the YRB is mainly due to
December 2008, and  the
ave changes in groundwater and surface water.
out   is the average PDSI of this period, calculated respectively by: 

4.3. DII of the YRB  t2

After obtaining the TTWS and


the

NTWS,
PDSI (t )
the differences x (t) of the two time series from April
 avein  t  t1

2002 to July 2015 were derived 

using Equation n1
(6). The DIIs of the YRB between June 2003 and

December 2008 were calculated based on Equation
t1 (7). Tot3 provide a decent  validation for the(10) 
DII, the

Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI; Dai et
  [53])(of
al.PDSI
t  t0 PDSI anomaly

t ) the PDSI
YRB
t  t2
(t ) April 2002 to December 2014 [54]
from
 aveout 
was obtained (Figure 6). For comparison, the (PDSIA) in the YRB between June 2003
and December 2008 were estimated
 using the following2 equation:n
where t0 is April 2002, t1 is June 2003, t2 is December 2008, t3 is December 2014, and n1 and n2 are sum 
PDSI A = avein − aveout (9)
of the PDSIs in the two periods. 
The DIIs of the upper, middle and lower sub‐basins of the YRB between June 2003 and December 
2008 were 1.38, −4.66, and −7.32, respectively (Figure 6). During this period, the DIIs in the middle 
Water 2018, 10, 669 11 of 17

where avein is the average PDSI during the TGD impoundment period between June 2003 and
December 2008, and aveout is the average PDSI of this period, calculated respectively by:

Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW    t2 11 of 17 
∑ PDSI (t)



 ave = t=t1

and lower sub‐basins of the YRB were far below zero, demonstrating that the impoundment of the 
in n1
t1 t3 (10)
TGD significantly reduced the TTWS in the middle and lower sub‐basins. In the upper sub‐basin, the 
∑ PDSI (t)+ ∑ PDSI (t)


DII was 1.38, which is an increase in TTWS. 

 ave = t=t0
 t = t2
out n2
The  PDSIAs  of  the  upper,  middle  and  lower  sub‐basins  of  the  YRB  between  June  2003  and 
December 2008 were 0.07, −0.63, and −1.61 (Figure 6), indicating that the PDSI slightly increased in 
where t0 is April 2002, t1 is June 2003, t2 is December 2008, t3 is December 2014, and n1 and n2 are sum
the upper sub‐basin and was greatly reduced in the middle and lower sub‐basins during the TGD 
of theimpoundment period, which is consistent to the DIIs of the three regions. 
PDSIs in the two periods.

Figure 6. Cont.
Water 2018, 10, 669 12 of 17
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW    12 of 17 

 
Figure 6. Differences x(t) between TTWS and NTWS (black cylinders) from April 2002 to July 2015 
6. Differences
Figureand  x(t) between
the  Palmer  Drought  TTWS
Severity  Index and NTWS
(PDSI)  (blue (black cylinders)
and  red  cylinders) from April
between  2002
April  to and 
2002  July 2015
and the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) (blue and red cylinders) between April 2002 and
December 2014 in the (a) upper, (b) middle, and (c) lower sub‐basins of the YRB. The blue line in the 
December 2014 in the (a) upper, (b) middle, and (c) lower sub-basins of the YRB. The blue line in the
top window represents the empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF) of x(t) between June 
2003 and December 2008. The Dam Influence Indexes (DIIs) relative to the PDSIAs in the three regions 
top window represents the empirical cumulative distribution function (ECDF) of x(t) between June
between June 2003 and December 2008 are also shown. Note: DIIs were calculated by subtracting the 
2003 and December 2008. The Dam Influence Indexes (DIIs) relative to the PDSIAs in the three regions
between area of the green block from the red block (i.e., DII = A(area) − B(area)), and PDSIAs were calculated 
June 2003 and December 2008 are also shown. Note: DIIs were calculated by subtracting the
using Equation (9). 
area of the green block from the red block (i.e., DII = A(area) − B(area)), and PDSIAs were calculated
using Equation (9).
4.4. Characterization of the Hydrological Drought Events 
According to Thomas et al. [23], the hydrological drought signals are calculated by removing the 
The DIIs of the upper, middle and lower sub-basins of the YRB between June 2003 and December
annual and seasonal cycles from the TTWS and the NTWS time series. Any instance in which the 
2008 were 1.38, −4.66, and −7.32, respectively (Figure 6). During this period, the DIIs in the middle
negative residuals (hydrological drought signals) last three or more consecutive months is designated 
and lower sub-basins
a  hydrological  of the “event”. 
drought  YRB were farseverity
The  belowSzero, demonstrating
(t )   of  that
a  drought  event  is  the impoundment
calculated  using  the of the
TGD significantly reduced the TTWS in the middle and lower sub-basins. In the upper sub-basin, the
following equation [23]: 
DII was 1.38, which is an increase in TTWS.
The PDSIAs of the upper, middle and  M (t )sub-basins
S (t )lower  D(t )   of the YRB between June(11)  2003 and
December 2008
where  M(t) were
and  D(t)  −0.63,
0.07,are  and −1.61
the  average  (Figure
water  storage 6),deficit 
indicating that
and  the  the PDSI
duration  slightly
of  the  increased in
hydrological 
the upper sub-basin and was greatly reduced in the middle and lower sub-basins during the TGD
drought event, respectively [23]. 
impoundmentFigure 7 shows the hydrological drought signals from the NTWS and TTWS time series in the 
period, which is consistent to the DIIs of the three regions.
three  sub‐basins  obtained  using  the  method  described  in  Thomas  et  al.  [23].  Table  4  lists  the 
frequency,  duration, 
4.4. Characterization of the and  severity  of 
Hydrological the  hydrological 
Drought Events drought  events  shown  by  the  dark  area  in 
Figure 7 in the three sub‐basins of the YRB calculated by the NTWS and the TTWS time series from 
According to Thomas et al. [23], the hydrological drought signals are calculated by removing
2003 to 2008. The total duration of hydrological drought in the upper sub‐basin was reduced by 12 
the annual andwhereas 
months,  seasonal the cycles from thein 
total  duration  TTWS and the
the  middle  NTWS
and  lower time series.increased 
sub‐basins  Any instance
by  25  in which
and  27  the
negative residuals (hydrological drought signals) last three or more consecutive months is designated
months, respectively. The total severity of the hydrological drought in the upper sub‐basin decreased 
by 3.49 km
a hydrological 3/month, and the total severity increased by 473.16 and 381.24 km3/month in the middle 
drought “event”. The severity S(t) of a drought event is calculated using the following
and lower sub‐basins, respectively. The results indicated that the impoundments of the TGD between 
equation [23]:
2003  and  2008  slightly  alleviated  the  hydrological  drought  in  the  upper  sub‐basin  of  the  YRB  but 
S(t) = M(t) × D (t) (11)
significantly aggravated hydrological drought in the middle and lower sub‐basins, which coincides 
wherewith the DIIs and the PDSIAs. 
M(t) and D(t) are the average water storage deficit and the duration of the hydrological drought
event, respectively [23].
Figure 7 shows the hydrological drought signals from the NTWS and TTWS time series in the
three sub-basins obtained using the method described in Thomas et al. [23]. Table 4 lists the frequency,
duration, and severity of the hydrological drought events shown by the dark area in Figure 7 in the three
Water 2018, 10, 669 13 of 17

sub-basins of the YRB calculated by the NTWS and the TTWS time series from 2003 to 2008. The total
duration of hydrological drought in the upper sub-basin was reduced by 12 months, whereas the total
duration in the middle and lower sub-basins increased by 25 and 27 months, respectively. The total
severity of the hydrological drought in the upper sub-basin decreased by 3.49 km3 /month, and the total
severity increased by 473.16 and 381.24 km3 /month in the middle and lower sub-basins, respectively.
The results indicated that the impoundments of the TGD between 2003 and 2008 slightly alleviated
the hydrological drought in the upper sub-basin of the YRB but significantly aggravated hydrological
drought in the middle and lower sub-basins, which coincides with the DIIs and the PDSIAs.

Table 4. The frequency, duration, and severity of hydrological drought in the upper, middle, and lower
sub-basins of the YRB from 2003 to 2008 based on the NTWS and the TTWS.

Time Span of Duration Severity (km3 No. of Total Total Severity

Sub-Basin Data
Each Event (Months) Months) Months (km3 Months)
Jan. 2003 to Apr. 2003 4 −134.39
Aug. 2003 to Jun. 2004 11 −62.14
Aug. 2004 to Oct. 2004 3 −17.61
NTWS Dec. 2004 to Feb. 2005 3 −207.58 38 −616.21
Aug. 2006 to Jan. 2007 6 −165.79
Upper Area:
Mar. 2007 to Oct. 2007 8 −14.07
983,118 km2
Dec. 2007 to Feb. 2008 3 −134.39
Jan. 2003 to May 2003 5 −203.39
Oct. 2003 to Jul. 2004 10 −142.92
TTWS 26 −612.88
Jul. 2006 to Feb. 2007 8 −222.61
Oct. 2007 to Jan. 2008 4 −43.80
Apr. 2003 to Feb. 2004 11 −185.43
Jul. 2004 to Jan. 2005 7 −69.22
NTWS 32 −440.97
May 2006 to Feb. 2007 10 −126.87
Dec. 2007 to Mar. 2008 4 −59.45
Middle Area: Jan. 2003 to Apr. 2003 4 −58.92
512,733 km2 Jun. 2003 to Aug. 2004 15 −335.13
Oct. 2004 to Feb. 2006 17 −242.72
TTWS Jun. 2006 to Feb. 2007 9 −145.17 57 −914.13
Apr. 2007 to Jun. 2007 3 −49.41
Oct. 2007 to Mar. 2008 6 −60.99
May 2008 to Jul. 2008 3 −21.78
Aug. 2003 to Feb. 2004 7 −88.60
Nov. 2004 to Jan. 2005 3 −33.66
May 2005 to Jul. 2005 3 −31.30
NTWS 24 −270.40
Aug. 2006 to Nov. 2006 4 −21.41
Jun. 2007 to Aug. 2007 3 −67.86
Lower Area:
Oct. 2007 to Jan. 2008 4 −27.58
288,205 km2
Aug. 2003 to Aug. 2004 13 −263.31
Oct. 2004 to Apr. 2006 19 −193.32
TTWS Jun. 2006 to Nov. 2006 6 −68.57 51 −651.64
Apr. 2007 to Aug. 2007 5 −52.27
Oct. 2007 to May 2008 8 −74.17
Water 2018, 10, 669 14 of 17
Water 2018, 10, x FOR PEER REVIEW    13 of 17 

 
Figure 7. Hydrological drought signals from 2003 to 2008 in the (a) upper, (b) middle, and (c) lower 
Figure 7. Hydrological drought signals from 2003 to 2008 in the (a) upper; (b) middle; and (c) lower
sub‐basins. The hydrological drought signals were obtained by removing the annual and seasonal 
sub-basins. The hydrological drought signals were obtained by removing the annual and seasonal
cycles from the TTWS and the NTWS time series. The blue and green lines represent hydrological 
cycles from the TTWS
drought  signals  from and the NTWS
the  NTWS  and  time
TTWS series. The blue
time  series,  and greenand 
respectively,  lines
the represent hydrological
dark  areas  indicate 
drought signals from the NTWS
hydrological drought events.  and TTWS time series, respectively, and the dark areas indicate
hydrological drought events.
Water 2018, 10, 669 15 of 17

5. Conclusions
The effects of the TGD impoundments on the YRB hydrological drought from 2003 to 2008 were
evaluated based on the GRACE time-variable gravity field data. An ANN model was used to predict
the NTWS of the YRB based on soil moisture, precipitation, and temperature data. From 2003 to
2008, the NTWS time series in the upper sub-basin was in good agreement with the TTWS time series,
whereas the time series did not relate well to the middle and lower sub-basins, demonstrating the
considerable effect of the TGD impoundments on the TTWS in the middle and lower sub-basins.
The DIIs that reflect the influence of the TGD on the TTWS in the three sub-basins were calculated
based on the NTWS and the TTWS. The DIIs between June 2003 and December 2008 in the upper,
middle, and lower sub-basins of the YRB were 1.38, −4.66, and −7.32, respectively. These results
indicated that the three major TGD impoundments increased the TTWS in the upper sub-basin and
reduced the TTWS in the middle and lower sub-basins. For verification, the PDSIA of the YRB during
the TGD impoundments period between June 2003 and December 2008 were calculated. The PDSIAs
in the upper, middle, and lower sub-basins of the YRB were 0.07, −0.63, and −1.61, respectively, which
was consistent to the DIIs in the same regions.
The influence of the TGD impoundments on hydrological drought in the YRB from 2003 to 2008
was estimated based on the method used by Thomas et al. [23]. The total duration of hydrological
drought events in the upper sub-basin decreased by 12 months, whereas in the middle and lower
sub-basins, the drought duration increased by 25 and 27 months, respectively. The total drought
severity was reduced by 3.49 km3 /month in the upper sub-basin and increased by 473.16 and
381.24 km3 /month in the middle and lower sub-basins during 2003–2008, respectively, thereby
indicating that the TGD impoundments between 2003 and 2008 had little influence on the upper
sub-basin but significantly aggravated hydrological drought in the middle and lower sub-basins.
These results coincide with the results estimated by the DIIs and PDSIAs.

Author Contributions: N.C. initiated this study. F.L., Z.W., and N.C. carried out the data analyses and wrote the
first draft; F.L. finalized the data interpretations and the draft; Q.S. helped with some of the plots and data analyses.
Funding: This study is supported by the NSFC (China), under Grants 41704011, 41674015, 41274032, 41474018,
41774019, and 41429401, By the China Postdoctoral Science Foundation funded project (2017M622451), by the
National 973 Project of China, under Grants 2013CB733301 and 2013CB733302, by the Basic Research Foundation
16-01-01 of the Key Laboratory of Geospace Environment and Geodesy of Ministry of Education, Wuhan University,
and by the Open Research Fund Program of the State Key Laboratory of Geodesy and Earth’s Dynamics (Grant no.
SKLGED2017-2-2-E).
Acknowledgments: The authors thank the following data providers for making the data available: GRACE-CSR,
GRGS; GLDAS and TRMM.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Wilhite, D.A.; Glantz, M.H. Understanding the drought phenomenon: The role of definitions. Water Int.
1985, 10, 111–120. [CrossRef]
2. Keyantash, J.; Dracup, J.A. The Quantification of Drought: An Evaluation of Drought Indices. Bull. Am.
Meteorol. Soc. 2002, 83, 1167–1180. [CrossRef]
3. Leblanc, M.J.; Tregoning, P.; Ramillien, G.; Tweed, S.O.; Fakes, A. Basin-scale, integrated observations of the
early 21st century multiyear drought in Southeast Australia. Water Resour. Res. 2009, 45, 546–550. [CrossRef]
4. Hisdal, H.; Tallaksen, L.M. Estimation of regional meteorological and hydrological drought characteristics:
A case study for Denmark. J. Hydrol. 2003, 281, 230–247. [CrossRef]
5. Akyuz, D.E.; Bayazit, M.; Onoz, B. Markov Chain Models for Hydrological Drought Characteristics.
J. Hydrometeorol. 2012, 13, 298–309. [CrossRef]
6. Dai, Z.; Du, J.; Li, J.; Li, W.; Chen, J. Runoff characteristics of the Changjiang River during 2006: Effect of
extreme drought and the impounding of the Three Gorges Dam. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2008, 35, 521–539.
[CrossRef]
Water 2018, 10, 669 16 of 17

7. Zhang, Q.; Li, L.; Wang, Y.G.; Werner, A.D.; Xin, P.; Jiang, T.; Barry, D.A. Has the Three-Gorges Dam made
the Poyang Lake wetlands wetter and drier? Geophys. Res. Lett. 2012, 39, L20402.1–L20402.7. [CrossRef]
8. Graf, W.L. Dam Nation: A Geographic Census of American Dams and Their Large-Scale Hydrologic Impacts.
Water Resour. Res. 1999, 35, 1305–1311. [CrossRef]
9. Kittinger, J.N.; Coontz, K.M.; Yuan, Z.; Han, D.; Zhao, X.; Wilcox, B.A. Toward holistic evaluation and
assessment: Linking ecosystems and human well-being for the Three Gorges Dam. EcoHealth 2009, 6,
601–613. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
10. Mccartney, M. Living with dams: Managing the environmental impacts. Water Policy 2009, 11, 121–139. [CrossRef]
11. Bai, Y.; Xie, J.; Wang, X.; Li, C. Model fusion approach for monthly reservoir inflow forecasting. J. Hydroinform.
2016, 18, 634–650. [CrossRef]
12. Lai, X.; Liang, Q.; Huang, Q.; Jiang, J.; Lu, X.X. Numerical evaluation of flow regime changes induced by the
Three Gorges Dam in the Middle Yangtze. Hydrol. Res. 2016, 47, 149–160. [CrossRef]
13. Li, R.; Chen, Q.; Ye, F. Modelling the impacts of reservoir operations on the downstream riparian vegetation
and fish habitats in the Lijiang River. J. Hydroinform. 2011, 13, 229–244. [CrossRef]
14. Li, S.; Xiong, L.; Dong, L.; Zhang, J. Effects of the Three Gorges Reservoir on the hydrological droughts at the
downstream Yichang station during 2003–2011. Hydrol. Process. 2013, 27, 3981–3993. [CrossRef]
15. Lai, X.; Jiang, J.; Yang, G.; Lu, X.X. Should the Three Gorges Dam be blamed for the extremely low water
levels in the middle–lower Yangtze River? Hydrol. Process. 2014, 28, 150–160. [CrossRef]
16. Liu, Y.; Wu, G.; Guo, R.; Wan, R. Changing landscapes by damming: The Three Gorges Dam causes
downstream lake shrinkage and severe droughts. Landsc. Ecol. 2016, 31, 1883–1890. [CrossRef]
17. Lai, X.; Jiang, J.; Liang, Q.; Huang, Q. Large-scale hydrodynamic modeling of the middle Yangtze River
Basin with complex river–lake interactions. J. Hydrol. 2013, 492, 228–243. [CrossRef]
18. Cai, X.; Feng, L.; Wang, Y.; Chen, X. Influence of the Three Gorges Project on the Water Resource Components
of Poyang Lake Watershed: Observations from TRMM and GRACE. Adv. Meteorol. 2015, 1–7. [CrossRef]
19. Tapley, B.D.; Bettadpur, S.; Watkins, M.; Reigber, C. The gravity recovery and climate experiment mission
overview and early results. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2004, 31, L09607. [CrossRef]
20. Yirdaw, S.Z.; Snelgrove, K.R.; Agboma, C.O. GRACE satellite observations of terrestrial moisture changes for
drought characterization in the Canadian Prairie. J. Hydrol. 2008, 356, 84–92. [CrossRef]
21. Chen, J.L.; Wilson, C.R.; Tapley, B.D.; Yang, Z.L.; Niu, G.Y. 2005 drought event in the Amazon River basin as
measured by GRACE and estimated by climate models. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2009, 114, B05404. [CrossRef]
22. Frappart, F.; Papa, F.; da Silva, J.S.; Ramillien, G.; Prigent, C.; Seyler, F.; Calmant, S. Surface freshwater
storage and dynamics in the Amazon basin during the 2005 exceptional drought. Environ. Res. Lett. 2012, 7,
44010–44017. [CrossRef]
23. Thomas, A.C.; Reager, J.T.; Famiglietti, J.S.; Rodell, M. A GRACE-based water storage deficit approach for
hydrological drought characterization. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2014, 41, 1537–1545. [CrossRef]
24. Chao, N.; Wang, Z.; Jiang, W.; Chao, D. A quantitative approach for hydrological drought characterization in
Southwestern China using GRACE. Hydrogeol. J. 2016, 24, 1–11. [CrossRef]
25. Gong, L.; Xu, C.Y.; Chen, D.; Halldin, S.; Chen, Y.D. Sensitivity of the Penman–Monteith reference
evapotranspiration to key climatic variables in the Changjiang (Yangtze River) Basin. J. Hydrol. 2006,
329, 620–629. [CrossRef]
26. Hu, X.; Chen, J.; Zhou, Y.; Huang, C.; Liao, X. Seasonal water storage change of the Yangtze River Basin
detected by GRACE. Sci. China Earth Sci. 2006, 49, 483–491. [CrossRef]
27. Long, D.; Yang, Y.; Wada, Y.; Hong, Y.; Liang, W.; Chen, Y.; Yong, B.; Hou, Z.; Wei, J.; Chen, L. Deriving
scaling factors using a global hydrological model to restore GRACE total water storage changes for China’s
Yangtze River Basin. Remote Sens. Environ. 2015, 168, 177–193. [CrossRef]
28. Zhang, Z.; Chao, B.F.; Chen, J.; Wilson, C.R. Terrestrial water storage anomalies of Yangtze River Basin
droughts observed by GRACE and connections with ENSO. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2015, 126, 35–45. [CrossRef]
29. Swenson, S.; Chambers, D.; Wahr, J. Estimating geocenter variations from a combination of GRACE and
ocean model output. J. Geophys. Res. 2008, 113, B08410. [CrossRef]
30. Cheng, M.; Ries, J.C.; Tapley, B.D. Variations of the Earth’s figure axis from satellite laser ranging and GRACE.
J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 2011, 116. [CrossRef]
31. Peltier, W.R. global glacial isostasy and the surface of the ice-age earth: The ICE-5G (VM2) model and
GRACE. Annu. Rev. Earth Planet. Sci. 2004, 20, 111–149. [CrossRef]
Water 2018, 10, 669 17 of 17

32. Wahr, A.; Zhong, S. Computations of the viscoelastic response of a 3-D compressible Earth to surface loading:
An application to Glacial Isostatic Adjustment in Antarctica and Canada. Geophys. J. Int. 2013, 192, 557–572.
[CrossRef]
33. Wahr, J.; Molenaar, M.; Bryan, F. Time variability of the Earth’s gravity field: Hydrological and oceanic effects
and their possible detection using GRACE. J. Geophys. Res. Solid Earth 1998, 103, 30205–30230. [CrossRef]
34. Swenson, S.; Wahr, J.; Milly, P.C.D. Estimated accuracies of regional water storage variations inferred from
the Gravity Recovery and Climate Experiment (GRACE). Water Resour. Res. 2003, 39, 375–384. [CrossRef]
35. Swenson, S.; Wahr, J. Post-processing removal of correlated errors in GRACE data. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006,
33, 2006. [CrossRef]
36. Swenson, S.C.; Wahr, J.M. Estimating signal loss in regularized GRACE gravity field solutions. Geophys. J. Int.
2011, 185, 693–702. [CrossRef]
37. Swenson, S.; Wahr, J. Multi-sensor analysis of water storage variations in the Caspian Sea. Geophys. Res. Lett.
2007, 34, L16401. [CrossRef]
38. Rodell, M.; Famiglietti, J.S.; Chen, J.; Seneviratne, S.I.; Viterbo, P.; Holl, S.; Wilson, C.R. Basin scale estimates
of evapotranspiration using GRACE and other observations. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2004, 31, 183–213. [CrossRef]
39. Klees, R.; Zapreeva, E.A.; Winsemius, H.C.; Savenije, H.H.G. The bias in GRACE estimates of continental
water storage variations. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2007, 11, 1227–1241. [CrossRef]
40. Landerer, F.W.; Swenson, S.C. Accuracy of scaled GRACE terrestrial water storage estimates. Water Resour.
Res. 2012, 48. [CrossRef]
41. Rodell, M. The global land data assimilation system. Bull. Am. Meteorol. Soc. 2004, 85, 381–394. [CrossRef]
42. Wang, W.; Cui, W.; Wang, X.; Chen, X. Evaluation of GLDAS-1 and GLDAS-2 forcing data and Noah model
simulations over China at monthly scale. J. Hydrometeorol. 2016, 17, 2815–2833. [CrossRef]
43. Huffman, G.J.; Adler, R.F.; Bolvin, D.T.; Gu, G. Improving the global precipitation record: GPCP Version 2.1.
Geophys. Res. Lett. 2009, 36, 153–159. [CrossRef]
44. Long, D.; Shen, Y.; Sun, A.; Hong, Y.; Longuevergne, L.; Yang, Y.; Longuevergne, L.; Yang, Y.; Li, B.; Chen, L.
Drought and flood monitoring for a large karst plateau in Southwest China using extended GRACE data.
Remote Sens. Environ. 2014, 155, 145–160. [CrossRef]
45. Huang, Y.; Salama, M.S.; Krol, M.S.; van der Velde, R.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Zhou, Y.; Su, Z. Analysis of long-term
terrestrial water storage variations in the Yangtze River basin. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss. 2012, 9,
11487–11520. [CrossRef]
46. Sun, Y. Predicting groundwater level changes using GRACE data. Water Resour. Res. 2013, 49, 5900–5912.
[CrossRef]
47. Zhang, D.; Zhang, Q.; Werner, A.D.; Liu, X. GRACE-Based Hydrological Drought Evaluation of the Yangtze
River Basin, China. J. Hydrometeorol. 2016, 17, 811–828. [CrossRef]
48. Huang, Y.; Salama, M.S.; Krol, M.S.; Su, Z.; Hoekstra, A.Y.; Zeng, Y.; Zhou, Y. Estimation of human-induced
changes in terrestrial water storage through integration of GRACE satellite detection and hydrological
modeling: A case study of the Yangtze River Basin. Water Resour. Res. 2015, 51, 8494–8516. [CrossRef]
49. Wahr, J.; Swenson, S.; Velicogna, I. Accuracy of GRACE mass estimates. Geophys. Res. Lett. 2006, 33, 178–196.
[CrossRef]
50. Hossein, S.Z.; Han, M.S.; Gyewoon, C. Evaluation of Regional Droughts Using Monthly Gridded
Precipitation for Korea. J. Hydroinform. 2012, 14, 1036–1050. [CrossRef]
51. Zhang, N.; Xia, Z.; Zhang, S.; Jiang, H. Temporal and spatial characteristics of precipitation and droughts in
the upper reaches of the Yangtze River basin (China) in recent five decades. J. Hydroinform. 2012, 14, 221–235.
[CrossRef]
52. Ahmadalipour, A.; Rana, A.; Moradkhani, H.; Sharma, A. Multi-criteria evaluation of CMIP5 GCMs for
climate change impact analysis. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2015, 1–17. [CrossRef]
53. Dai, A.; Trenberth, K.E.; Qian, T. A Global Dataset of Palmer Drought Severity Index for 1870–2002: Relationship
with soil moisture and effects of surface warming. J. Hydrometeorol. 2004, 5, 1117–1130. [CrossRef]
54. Dai, A. Drought under global warming: A review. Wiley Interdiscip. Rev. Clim. Chang. 2011, 2, 45–65. [CrossRef]

© 2018 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/).