Surface Water

Chapter 3
Surface Water
Junguo Liu, Ganquan Mao, Shuyu Zhang, Xiaomang Liu, Lian Feng,
Zifeng Wang, He Chen, Yadu Pokhrel, Huy Dang, and Hong Wang
Abstract This chapter assesses surface water changes due to climate change
and human activities, by particularly examining runoff and streamflow. Changes
in the hydrological cycle due to climate change and human intervention can lead to
J. Liu (B) · G. Mao · S. Zhang · L. Feng · H. Chen · H. Wang

School of Environmental Sciences and Technology, Southern University of Science and
Technology, 1088 Xueyuan Road, Nanshan District, Shenzhen 518055, Guangdong, China
e-mail: [email protected]
G. Mao
S. Zhang
L. Feng
H. Chen
H. Wang
X. Liu
Key Laboratory of Water Cycle & Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic
Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, No. 11A, Datun Road,
Chaoyang District, Beijing 100101, China
Z. Wang
Department of Geography, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, SAR, China
Y. Pokhrel · H. Dang
Department of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Michigan State University, 1449
Engineering Research Ct. Room A134, East Lansing, MI 48824, USA
H. Dang
© The Author(s) 2024 49

D. Chen et al. (eds.), Water Resources in the Lancang-Mekong River Basin:
Impact of Climate Change and Human Interventions,
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-97-0759-1_3
50 J. Liu et al.
diverse environmental impacts and risks. Fresh water is the agent that delivers many
of the impacts of climate change on society. As the major component of fresh-
water systems, surface water has been significantly altered across basins in terms of
spatial and temporal characteristics. The comprehensive understanding of the current
status of surface water in the LMRB, such as the distributions and patterns of runoff
changes across the Lancang-Mekong River Basin was completed through the high-
resolution river network extraction and sophisticated hydrological models. Signif-
icant but different trends were found in the seasonal and annual runoff from
the LMRB due to different reasons. Over the period of 1971–2010, the annual
streamflow shows a general downward trend due to the continued enhancement
of human activities. Runoff in the dry season is found to increase faster than the
mean annual runoff. As for the spatial distribution, significant trends in streamflow
were observed mainly in the middle basin and east of the lower basin. Superim-
posed on the substantial seasonal cycles is the noticeable lake shrinkage in recent
years, especially the Tonle Sap Lake. Evidently decreased inundation was found in
most years in the recent two decades from 2000 to 2018. An evident decreasing
trend in runoff caused by climate change in the high correlation zone of the Tonle
Sap Lake, mainly due to the precipitation decreasing, indicates that climate change
contributed to the decrease in water level in the Tonle Sap Lake in addition to human
activities. In addition to the decreases in the runoff, streamflow and water level in
the Tonle Sap Lake, a significant (p < 0.05) downward trend in the baseflow was
also found from 1980 to 2007. Unlike the historical changes in runoff, previous
studies projected with high confidence an increasing trend for streamflow in the
LMRB, regardless of the climate forcings and models used. However, the flow
regime is highly susceptible to a variety of drivers, e.g., dam construction, irrigation
expansion, land-use change and climate change. Substantial changes are expected
in both annual and seasonal flow, along with a generally increasing trend. Although
hydropower development exhibits a limited influence on total annual flows, it has
the largest seasonal impact on streamflow, with an increase in the dry season and a
decrease in the wet season, by outweighing those of the other drivers.
3.1 Introduction
Despite rich water resources (~8,000 m3 /cap/yr), the LMRB faces significant chal-
lenges due to the high variability in runoff, both in terms of timing and location
(MRC, 2010). It is imperative to comprehend how runoff patterns respond to the
impacts of climate change and human interventions. This understanding is crucial
for ensuring the availability of water, food, and energy resources in the region, as
well as for achieving long-term sustainability. Therefore, a thorough assessment of
changes in the runoff regime of the LMRB is necessary to assist in understanding
the influence of regional climate changes and human activities on water availability.
The LMR originates in the Tibetan Plateau, a region that is extremely sensitive to
climate change (Chen et al., 2015; Kuang & Jiao, 2016). Climate change has already
3 Surface Water 51
left a significant imprint on the hydrology of the LMRB in recent decades (Lyon et al.,
2017; Phi Hoang et al., 2016). Over the past half century, the basin has experienced
increased temperatures as well as increased rainfall during the flood period and
reduced rainfall during the dry period. Additionally, the rapid economic growth,
rising food demands, and increasing energy requirements in riparian countries have
driven substantial changes in land use and land cover, especially due to extensive
agricultural expansion and hydropower development across the basin (Johnston &
Kummu, 2012). Climate change and human interventions have substantially reshaped
the basin’s runoff patterns, resulting in more frequent extreme events and extended
dry periods (Thilakarathne & Sridhar, 2017). The lack of upstream inflow during
the dry season exacerbates the risk of saltwater intrusion, impacting downstream
delta ecosystems, domestic water supplies, and agricultural production (Smajgl et al.,
2015). Simultaneously, intense and widespread precipitation events have led to severe
flooding, causing damage to crops and infrastructure, and disrupting the functions
of the downstream delta (Cosslett & Cosslett, 2014).
The changes in the runoff regime of the basin have led to the degradation of
essential natural resources in the region, including fish, water, and land, upon which
millions of people depend (Chea et al., 2016). In addition, the climate change impact
on water has been projected to intensify in the near future, and the spatial and
year-to-year distribution will be more uneven in the basin (Hoang et al., 2019).
Superimposed by the effects of human activities, thereby challenging sustainable
development in the region. Therefore, there is an urgent need to deepen our under-
standing of changing runoff patterns to facilitate collaborative efforts across borders
and synthesize scientific advancements for the benefit of the region’s sustainable
future.
3.2 Runoff Changes in the Basin
3.2.1 River Networks Geometry in the Basin
The geometry of river networks fundamentally constrains the discharge process and
thus has prominent impacts on water resource distribution. An expanded role for river
networks is increasingly recognized due to more evidence that small streams process
and store considerably more terrestrial materials than previously thought. However,
the attempts to elucidate changes in terrestrial materials, including runoff, in a basin
have been limited by modelling and observation at coarse resolutions. With Earth
Observation (EO) data increasingly available, this section presents a novel imagery-
based methodology to measure the geometry of river networks at finer resolutions
and of more dimensions. Using the proposed methodology, the high-resolution river
network geometric features including river networks, surface area, width, and depth
have been delineated, which contribute to a more complete understanding of the
distributions and patterns of the runoff changes across the LMRB.
52 J. Liu et al.
3.2.1.1 River Networks
The extraction of river networks plays a pivotal role in addressing fundamental

inquiries pertaining to the hydrological dynamics of a watershed’s surface. This prac-
tice, deeply rooted in the field of hydrology, has traditionally been employed for the
purpose of river flow modeling (David et al., 2011; Lin et al., 2018; Yamazaki et al.,
2013). Nevertheless, the utilization of high-resolution drainage networks has seen
a steady rise, finding applications not only in the realm of large-scale hydrological
predictions but also in spatially comprehensive research endeavors. These include
the evaluation of flood inundation, dam failure scenarios, and reservoir operations
(Lehner & Grill, 2013; Shin et al., 2020; Yamazaki et al., 2019). Such applications
hold particular significance in enhancing our comprehension of runoff patterns and
water resource management within the watershed.
To extract high-resolution river networks for the LMRB that further facilitate
surface water assessments, a new method is proposed, namely Remote Sensing
Stream Burning (RSSB) (Wang et al., 2021). Enabled by RSSB, the basin-scale
drainage networks are extracted at the highest 10-m resolution with the integration
of Sentinel-2 imagery (Fig. 3.1). Compared to river networks, drainage networks
provide additional flow information, such as flow direction and flow accumulation.
Table 3.1 illustrates the distribution of river length and river network density for
drainage networks extracted using the RSSB method. It is observed that both river
length and network density exhibit a general adherence to the conventional power
law pattern, as documented by Leopold and Maddock (1953). Of particular note is
the high-resolution approach, which successfully delineates nine stream orders (ω
= 9) in contrast to the coarse-resolution method. This observation underscores the
efficacy of the newly proposed technique, as it not only enhances the accuracy of
Fig. 3.1 Lancang-Mekong River networks extracted by RSSB (r represents the curvature radius of
a meander). The river order is shown in Strahler stream order
3 Surface Water 53
Table 3.1 Statistics of Lancang-Mekong River networks, including stream order ω (in Strahler
order), number nω , mean length Lmean , total length Ltotal , and the river networks density D
Order Lancang-Mekong river networks
(ω) nω L mean L total D
(km) (km) (km km−2 )
1 516,095 0.19 97,756 0.815
2 239,744 0.19 44,963 0.375
3 132,648 0.18 23,922 0.199
4 77,973 0.17 13,073 0.109
5 42,178 0.16 6,891 0.057
6 21,331 0.16 3,450 0.029
7 10,623 0.16 1,676 0.014
8 5,152 0.14 744 0.006
9 2,831 0.15 431 0.004
Total 1,048,575 0.18 192,907
flowline representation but also substantially augments the level of detail within the
network.
3.2.1.2 Surface Water Area
Surface water area is one of the most perceivable indicators of water resources,
offering a means to conduct quantitative assessments of human-induced modifica-
tions within a watershed, such as the linkage between river engineering and lake
losses, and the coupling of water loss with long-term droughts (Pekel et al., 2016).
Such applications aid in categorizing transitions in land surfaces, including conver-
sions from land to water, water to land, the permanence of land, or the enduring
presence of water, as described by Donchyts et al. (2016). These analyses provide
essential support for research and evaluations related to flood inundation, land recla-
mation, and sea-level rise, particularly in regions of environmental and societal signif-
icance (Müller et al., 2016). Additionally, the detection of water plays a pivotal role
as an initial step in numerous applications, including the mapping of land-use and
land-cover (Arino et al., 2012; Chen et al., 2014), predicting waterborne epidemic
disease (Smith et al., 2013), managing flood hazards, estimating water scarcity and
assessing water quality (Dottori et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2016; Olmanson et al., 2016;
Vanham et al., 2018).
The surface water area of the basin is highly fluctuating (Fig. 3.2). The total surface
water area estimated by MuWI method based on both Landsat and Sentinel-2 data
(Wang et al., 2018) is approximately between 20,000 and 30,000 km2 . Variations
in surface water area are generally synchronized with the flood and drought cycle
in the basin. For example, a devastating flood occurred in 2000 when the surface
54 J. Liu et al.
Fig. 3.2 The total monthly surface water area in Lancang-Mekong River basin
water area was high, while the 2015 drought, the most severe drought in the past
three decades, coincided with a low surface water area. The frequency of the cycle
appears to have decreased and stabilized in the past decade, which may imply that
the regulation capacity of the increasing number of dams has come into effect.
Surface water areas are disproportionally distributed in the six countries within
the transboundary basin (Fig. 3.3). Although more than one fifth (21.5%) of the basin
lands are located in China, China shares an insignificant portion of the total surface
water area (3–5%). In contrast, the downstream country, Cambodia, holds less basin
land than China, but accounts for the most surface water area (55–60%) among the
six countries.
Fig. 3.3 The yearly average surface water areas of six countries in the Lancang-Mekong River
basin
3 Surface Water 55
3.2.1.3 River Width and Bathymetry
The river width and river bathymetry (depth) are the two fundamental geometric
dimensions of the river networks. The river expands geometrically downstream due
to erosion from the accumulated flow. This geometric expansion with the increasing
flow often follows a power-law relationship, which is recognized as the well-known
theory of hydraulic geometry (Leopold & Maddock, 1953). The river width and
depth of the LMR (Fig. 3.4) follow the pattern of expansion in general where the
magnitude of the major stem is considerably larger than tributaries.
In particular, the LMRB is characterised by diverse fluvial geomorphology with
valley-constrained regions upstream and bedrock-constrained areas downstream
(Meshkova & Carling, 2012). The gradient of the upper Lancang River is approxi-
mately 2 m/km, more than ten times that of the lower Mekong River, indicating that
more convergent topography exists upstream while divergent but well-defined banks
are prevalent downstream (Pokhrel et al., 2018a, 2018b). Therefore, the upstream
river channels are relatively narrow but deep.
Fig. 3.4 Width and depth of the Lancang-Mekong River

56 J. Liu et al.
3.2.2 Runoff Modelling in the Basin
3.2.2.1 Runoff Simulation with WAYS
Hydrological models are the most common tools for runoff simulation. They simplify
the characterisation of real-world systems and describe the rainfall–runoff relations.
Hydrological components and water storage in land surface, soil, and groundwater
reservoirs are idealised in the model (Bierkens, 2015). In the basin considered here,
the runoff is simulated by a sophisticated large-scale hydrological model, WAYS
(Water And ecosYstem Simulator) that considers the spatial heterogeneity of the
root zone during the hydrological simulation (Mao & Liu, 2019). The WAYS model
is developed by the core members of the Strategic Priority Research Program of the
Chinese Academy of Sciences “Climate Change and Water Resources in the Great
River Regions in Southeast and South Asia” (project number XDA 20060400), and
is tailored for the hydrological processes modelling in the basin.
WAYS is a process-based hydrological model, implemented in Python, which
assumes water balance at the grid cell level and simulates the hydrological processes
in a fully distributed way. The WAYS model works on a daily time step, and the
model structure consists of five conceptual reservoirs: the snow reservoir Sw (mm)
representing the surface snow storage, the interception reservoir Si (mm) expressing
the water intercepted in the canopy, the root zone reservoir Sr (mm) describing
the root zone water storage in the unsaturated soil, the fast response reservoir Sf
(mm), and the slow response reservoir Ss (mm). Two lag functions are applied to
describe the lag time from the storm to peak flow (TlagF) and the lag time of recharge
from the root zone to the groundwater (TlagS). In addition to the water balance
equation, each reservoir also has process functions to connect the fluxes entering
or leaving the storage compartment (so-called constitutive functions). A schematic
representation of how the hydrological processes are modeled in WAYS is shown
in Fig. 3.5. Traditional hydrological models simulated soil hydrology with a layer-
based scheme that cannot reflect the influence of the heterogeneity in the root zone,
but the WAYS model assimilates the separately derived root zone storage capacity
and thus is able to consider the impacts of the spatial heterogeneity of root zone in
soil hydrology. More details about WAYS can be found in Mao and Liu (2019).
Using the newly developed WAYS model, some basic hydrological variables, such
as precipitation, temperature, and specific humidity, were simulated from 1971 to
2010. The WAYS model depicts the dynamics of the hydrological variables every
day at a spatial resolution of 0.5°, which allows for an in-depth understanding of the
changes in the hydrological system, including the runoff changes. In order to more
intuitively represent the dynamics of the simulated hydrological variables in the
entire basin, the variables are averaged from a daily scale to a monthly scale, which
is shown in Fig. 3.6. In addition, the spatial pattern of the hydrological variables can
also be revealed based on the simulations (see Fig. 3.7).
3 Surface Water 57
Fig. 3.5 Model structure of the WAYS model (Mao & Liu, 2019)
Fig. 3.6 The observed (precipitation) and simulated (Runoff, Evaporation, and Root Zone Water
Storage (RZWS)) time series of fundamental hydrological variables at a monthly scale
3.2.2.2 Runoff Simulation with a Multi-model Framework
In addition to the WAYS model, nine other state-of-the-art large-scale models

(CLM4, DBH, H08, LPJmL, MATSIRO, MPI-HM, PRC-GLOBWB, VIC, and
WaterGAP2) were applied to simulate the runoff for uncertainty assessment.
Including the WAYS model, all the selected models participated in the second phase of
the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Inter-Comparison Project, which offers a framework
for consistently investigating the impacts of climate change across affected sectors
and spatial scales (ISIMIP2a) (Warszawski et al., 2014). All models were driven by
58 J. Liu et al.
Fig. 3.7 The spatial pattern of the observed and simulated annual hydrological variables:
a precipitation, b runoff, c root zone water storage, d evaporation
the same climate forcing (Global Soil Wetness Project Phase 3 data) (GSWP3) using
a spatial resolution of 0.5° from 1 January 1971 to 31 December 2010 on a continuous
run on a daily scale. The GSWP3 dataset was generated based on the 20th Century
Reanalysis Project, and has been widely used in several studies conducting hydrolog-
ical simulations (Masaki et al., 2017; Tangdamrongsub et al., 2018; Veldkamp et al.,
2017). The WaterGAP and WAYS models were calibrated prior to the hydrological
simulation (Alcamo et al., 2003; Mao & Liu, 2019), while the other eight models
were not calibrated specifically for the ISIMIP2a simulations, and their default model
parameters were therefore used in the runoff simulations. All models were treated as
independent, although many of them shared similar structures and parameterisations:
3 Surface Water 59
for example, some were similar with respect to their fundamental approach to simu-
lating evapotranspiration, representing water exchanges in soil across the basin, and
modelling snow melting. The basic differences in the models with respect to simu-
lating land-surface hydrological processes are presented in Table 3.2, and detailed
descriptions of the models applied in this work are provided by references associated
with each model cited in the table.
To assess the accuracy of the hydrological models, a rigorous verification process
was conducted. Monthly runoff data from the International Satellite Land Surface
Climatology Project Initiative II University of New Hampshire/Global Runoff Data
Centre (ISLSCP II UNH/GRDC) were employed for validation purposes. These data,
available at a spatial resolution of 0.5° and spanning the period from 1986 to 1995,
served as a benchmark for evaluating the performance of model simulations within
the basin. The ISLSCP II UNH/GRDC dataset, often referred to as UNH-GRDC,
is a composite of runoff data generated through a combination of water balance
Table 3.2 Technical description of the ten evaluated global-scale hydrological models
Model Model Snow melt Evapotranspiration Number of References
type scheme scheme soil layers
CLM4 LSM Physically Monin–Obukhov 15 Lawrence
based snow similarity theory et al. (2011)
module
DBH LSM Energy Energy balance 3 Tang et al.
balance model (2006)
method
H08 HM Energy Bulk approach 1 Hanasaki
balance et al. (2008)
method
LPJmL DVM Degree-day Priestley–Taylor 6 Gerten et al.
method (2004)
MATSIRO LSM Energy Monin–Obukhov 13 Takata et al.
balance similarity theory (2003)
method
MPI-HM HM Degree-day Penman–Monteith 1 Stacke and
method Hagemann
(2012)
PRC-GLOBWB HM Degree-day Hamon 2 van Beek
method et al. (2011)
VIC HM Energy Penman–Monteith 3 Liang et al.
balance (1994)
method
WaterGAP2 HM Degree-day Priestley–Taylor 1 Alcamo
method et al. (2003)
WAYS HM Degree-day Penman–Monteith 1 Mao and Liu
method (2019)
LSM Land surface model, HM Hydrological model, DVM Dynamic vegetation model
60 J. Liu et al.
model estimates and the assimilation of observed discharge data from gauge stations.
While it retains the spatial characteristics of the water balance, it is influenced and
constrained by observed records from these monitoring stations (Fekete et al., 2011).
Importantly, the UNH-GRDC dataset serves as a standardized reference dataset in
the ISIMIP2a initiative for model validation purposes, as established by Warszawski
et al. (2014).
Prior to examining changes in runoff patterns, an evaluation of the hydrological
models used for runoff simulation was conducted against reference runoff data. This
evaluation commenced with an analysis of the models’ performance through the
simulation of monthly runoff time series. Subsequently, the models’ capabilities in
replicating runoff at various return periods were assessed. Results indicated that
all models were able to replicate the observed monthly runoff time series, and the
seasonal runoff cycles were particularly well duplicated by the models. However,
relatively large uncertainties were observed in high-value runoff simulations during
summer seasons (with a wider spread among the models) in comparison with the
low-value simulations (as depicted in Fig. 3.8). Although uncertainties existed in the
model simulations, the multi-model ensemble mean agreed well with the reference
runoff data. During the evaluation process, the performances of the models were
further evaluated using a set of transferrable benchmarks. In order to overcome the
problem that, generally, different metrics are only suitable for assessing individual
characteristics of a simulated time series, and to enable consistent comparisons,
six commonly used metrics were applied (the relative bias, normalised root mean
square difference (RMSD), correlation coefficient, normalised standard deviation,
centered RMSD, and the Nash–Sutcliffe coefficient of efficiency (NSE)), and some
were standardised prior to conducting comparisons. These metrics were then used
to assess the relative performance of each model in different aspects, and the results
were presented in three types of diagrams (a target, a radar, and a Taylor diagram).
Fig. 3.8 Simulated basin-average monthly runoff time series by ISIMIP2a models (dashed lines),
model ensemble mean (solid blue line), and UNH-GRDC runoff reference data (solid black line)
3 Surface Water 61
The ten selected models and the multi-model ensemble were evaluated to deter-
mine their ability to reproduce the observed monthly runoff time series. In addition,
the model simulated monthly runoff time series and the corresponding ensemble
mean were compared with reference data (UNH-GRDC runoff data) for the period
from 1986 to 1995 (see Fig. 3.8). Results indicated that all models were able to repli-
cate the observed monthly runoff time series, and the seasonal runoff cycles were
particularly well duplicated by the models. However, relatively large uncertainties
were observed in high-value runoff simulations during summer seasons (with a wider
spread among the models) in comparison with the low-value simulations (as depicted
in Fig. 3.8). Although uncertainties existed in the model simulations, the multi-model
ensemble mean agreed well with the reference runoff data.
Detailed model evaluations revealed that the ensemble mean of the model was
better than that of the single model in terms of monthly time series, seasonal cycles,
and runoff at different return periods. Particularly, the model ensemble mean was also
capable of modelling variability in the runoff time series. Accordingly, the model
ensemble mean was used to analyse runoff regime changes in the basin, and then
quantify the uncertainty associated with the model based on ten model simulations
(Fig. 3.9).
The comprehensive model evaluations unveiled that the model ensemble mean
displayed superior performance compared to the individual models in replicating
monthly time series, capturing seasonal cycles, and estimating runoff across various
return periods. Notably, the model ensemble mean exhibited a remarkable capacity
for modeling the variability within the runoff time series. Consequently, the analysis
of runoff regime changes within the basin was carried out using the model ensemble
mean. Subsequently, assessments were based on the results of the ten individual
model simulations to quantify the uncertainties associated with the modeling process.
3.2.3 Historical Changes in Runoff
The changes in watershed runoff in the LMRB are firstly analysed by using hydro-
logical simulations of the ten models. Based on five hydrological indicators, the
characteristics of runoff changes within the basin from 1971 to 2010 were investi-
gated. Mean Annual Runoff (MAR) was used to assess the overall runoff changes on
a yearly scale and during the wet and dry seasons, respectively. The 95th percentile
runoff (Q95) and the 5th percentile runoff (Q5) were applied to assess the high value
and low value of runoff changes in the basin, respectively, and the annual 7-day
maxima runoff (MAX-7) and annual 7-day minima runoff (MIN-7) were used to
appraise the runoff regime changes relating to extreme events (Danneberg, 2012).
Based on the model ensemble mean, the average MAR in the LMRB was approxi-
mately 655 mm/yr for the period 1971–2010 and MAR increased by 8.0% (52.61 mm)
during this period (Fig. 3.10). However, there was only a slight annual increase in
MAR, at an average rate of 0.2% (1.32 mm/yr) and the trend detected was not
significant. For the entire basin, different hydrological indicators showed different
62 J. Liu et al.
Fig. 3.9 Diagrams showing statistics used in model evaluations: a target diagram for relative bias
and normalised root mean square difference, b radar diagram showing the Nash–Sutcliffe coefficient
of efficiency, c Taylor diagram showing the correlation coefficient, normalised standard deviation
of errors, and centered RMSD
change ratios for the period 1971–2010. All hydrological indicators from all models
demonstrated an increasing change trend for the basin, with the exception for MIN7
and Q95 indicators, which exhibited lower runoff values. However, some models
demonstrated decreased trends with the median value of multiple models indicating
an increasing trend. Models also showed relatively high agreements for change trend
detections of MAR, MAX7, Q5, and runoff in the wet season. The highest model
agreement was observed with respect to the MAR trend detection, where the smallest
spread range was found among model estimates. In contrast, large uncertainties in
model estimates were observed for change trend detections of low runoff values
(MIN7 and Q95) and runoff in the dry season, particularly the trend in the dry season,
which ranged from 7.6 to 34.9%. Overall, although uncertainties existed, the model
ensemble mean based estimates indicated that runoff in the basin increased during the
period 1971–2010 with respect to low values, high values, MAR, and runoff in both
dry and wet seasons. The change in MAR (8.1%) exhibited an increasing magnitude,
similar to the changes in MAX7 (8.5%), and Q5 (8.0%), indicating higher runoff. For
3 Surface Water 63
Fig. 3.10 Changes in different hydrological indicators from the ten hydrological model simulations.
The box-whiskers represent the 0th, 25th, 50th, 75th, and 100th percentiles of the distribution in
changes for each hydrological indicator
the model average, low flow with respect to minimum runoff over seven consecutive
days (MIN7) and runoff that exceeded 95% of the time series (Q95) exhibited the
lowest increasing ratio with change values of 2.2 and 1.7%. Runoff during the dry
season showed the greatest increase (17.7%) for the period 1971–2010, while runoff
during the wet season increased slightly (approximately 6.2%).
Spatially, the trend in Mean Annual Runoff (MAR) exhibited a distinct gradient
across the basin, with a pronounced increasing trend in both the upper and lower basin
areas, which contrasted with the prevailing decreasing trend observed in the middle
basin. Additionally, a small region within the lower basin displayed a decreasing trend
(see Fig. 3.11). The trends observed in Maximum 7-Day Runoff (MAX7) and the 5th
percentile runoff (Q5) displayed broadly similar patterns to those of MAR. However,
when it comes to trends in low flow, specifically for Minimum 7-Day Runoff (MIN7)
and the 95th percentile runoff (Q95), there were slight variations in spatial distribution
compared to other hydrological indicators. Notably, more pronounced negative trends
were evident in the middle and lower basin regions, albeit with relatively lower local
variability.
Significant trends were observed mainly in regions that showed positive trends for
annual runoff and high flow, particularly in the lower basin. In contrast, there was a
significant negative trend for low flow and a less significant positive trend throughout
the domain, which was particularly visible in the middle and lower basin. In addition
to the differences in the significance tests, large differences were also observed in
the model agreements for trend detection with respect to annual runoff, low flow,
and high flow. For most of the region, the models consistently detected trends in
64 J. Liu et al.
Fig. 3.11 Spatial distribution of change trends in a MAR, b MIN7, c MAX7, d Q95, and e Q5,
based on the model ensemble mean
annual runoff and high flow, aligning with the trend direction indicated by the model
ensemble mean. This alignment encompassed both positive and negative trends, with
all models demonstrating the same directional consistency. However, for low flow,
there were more noticeable inconsistencies between the model estimates of trends.
Throughout the entire domain, the models only agreed in a few pixels (mostly with
respect to a negative trend), while the disagreement among models for low flow
trends was widespread across the upper and lower basin.
In addition to our multi-model analysis of runoff changes, we provide a summary
from the literature regarding streamflow patterns. It was observed that, during the
time span from 1960 to 2010, there existed a general downward trend in annual
streamflow within the basin. However, after 2010, no clear trend was detectable,
although the confidence level associated with such a trend was low, as indicated
by Ruiz-Barradas and Nigam (2018). Most of the studies conducted on historical
streamflow in the basin reported a decreasing trend, while a minority of studies
indicated the opposite—an increasing trend in streamflow. These discrepancies in
3 Surface Water 65
findings can be attributed to variations in data sources and methodologies employed

in each study, as summarized in Table 3.3.
Studies have indicated that the drivers behind streamflow alterations vary across
different regions and time periods. Climate change emerged as a primary catalyst
for changes in streamflow within the Lancang-Mekong River Basin (LMRB) before
2010, whereas human activities, particularly dam construction, became more influen-
tial after 2010. Climate change predominantly governed alterations in annual stream-
flow during the transitional period from 1992 to 2009, accounting for 82.3% of the
changes, while human activities contributed to 61.9% of the streamflow changes in
the post-impact period from 2010 to 2014, as outlined by Li et al. (2017). When
considering annual streamflow and water-level variations, the hydrological response
within the Lancang River Basin is observed to be more sensitive to climate factors
than to human activities, especially when compared to the Mekong River Basin (Li &
He, 2008). This discrepancy underscores the escalating impact of intensive human
activities on hydrological processes, particularly within the Mekong River Basin in
recent years (Shin et al., 2020).
3.2.4 Historical Impacts of Dams on Streamflow
Streamflow in the Mekong River has been altered by dams, both in the mainstream
and tributaries (Han et al., 2019; Pokhrel et al., 2018a; Räsänen et al., 2017; Shin et al.,
2020). Specifically, upstream flow regulation by dams has resulted in reduced peak
flow and increased low flow, attenuating the flood pulse amplitude. Such changes in
streamflow patterns at various mainstem and tributary locations within the Mekong
River Basin have been investigated by numerous studies using either observed stream-
flow records or basin-wide hydrological modelling. For example, Li et al. (2017)
examined the observed streamflow at five gauging stations for the pre-development
(1960–1991), transition (1992–2009), and post-development (2010–2014) periods
and found that the dam filling and operation reduced streamflow in the upper portion
of the basin, but such an impact was relatively small at the Stung Treng station in the
downstream. Importantly, they reported that dam operations, especially the cascade
dams in the Lancang River in China, reduced wet season flow and increased dry
season flow resulting in a unique seasonal variation compared to the pre-development
period. Numerous other studies have conducted similar analysis suggesting that the
impact of upstream dams have already been felt in terms of alterations in stream-
flow signatures even in the mainstream Mekong (e.g., Campbell, 2007; Cochrane
et al., 2014; Han et al., 2019; Räsänen et al., 2017; Zhao et al., 2012). These studies
have used different statistical techniques to detect the changes in streamflow in a
particular year or during a given period and attribute the change to dam construc-
tion. For example, the changes in streamflow during 2010–2014 period have been
linked primarily to the construction of large dams (i.e., the Jinghong, Xiaowan,
Gongguoqiao, and Nuozhadu) in the Lancang River by assuming that filling of new
reservoirs with high storage capacity directly affected downstream flows (Li et al.,
Table 3.3 Changes in streamflow over the Lancang-Mekong River Basin and its upper (LRB) and lower (MRB) parts
66
References Location Data Period Annual streamflow Seasonal streamflow

Variable/Model Observation Dry season Wet season
(source)
He and Chen LRB Discharge (MRC) Yes 1962–2000 Increase in base flow Substantial increase Discharge are
(2002) in flow reduced by 25%
Kummu and LRB Water level and Yes 1962–2000 Increase in mean flow in post- N/A N/A
Varis (2007) discharge (MRC) dam period (1993–2000)
compared to pre-dam period
(1962–1992)
Lu et al. MRB Water level and Yes 1962–2003 Both the water level and Minima flow N/A
(2008) discharge (MRC) baseflow are decreased increased
Kummu and MRB Water level and Yes 1923–1965 Water level is decreased Water level is Flood peaks are
Sarkkula discharge (MRC) 1997–2006 increased reduced
(2008)
Delgado LMRB Discharge (Southern Yes 1913–2007 Flood magnitude is decreasing N/A Flood magnitude
et al. (2010) Institute of Water but the variability is increasing is decreasing but
Resources Research the variability is
in Ho Chi Minh City, increasing
Vietnam)
Piman et al. LMRB SWAT simulation No 1987–2006 N/A 63% increase in dry 22% decrease in
(2012) season flows wet season flows
Räsänen LMRB VMod simulation No 1990–2008 Not clearly determined 90% increase in A 20–22%
et al. (2012) December–May decrease in
flows June–November
flow
(continued)
J. Liu et al.
Table 3.3 (continued)
(source)
Cochrane LMRB Discharge (MRC) Yes 1960–2010 Water levels are slowly Mean water levels Mean water levels
3 Surface Water
et al. (2014) decreased in downstream MRB are increased for are increased for
30% less than 5%
Räsänen LMRB Discharge (MRC) and Yes 1960–2014 N/A Increased by Increased by
et al. (2017) VMod simulation 121–187% in LRB 32–46% in LMR
and increased in and increased in
41–74% in MRB 0–6% in MRB
Li et al. LMRB Discharge (MRC) Yes 1960–2014 Streamflow is increased in the Increased by Decreased by
(2017) LRB, but no clear trend is 23–55% in LRB 10–32% in LMR
found in the MRB, resulting a and by 9–69% in and decreased by
no significant change in the MRB 0–13% in MRB
LMRB (less than 3%)
Hoang et al. LMRB VMod simulation No 2036–2065 No clear trend is determined Sharply increased Decreased by
(2019) forced by CMIP5 by 45–150% 0–25%
(RCP4.5 and RCP8.5)
Kingston LMRB SLURP model No 2 z C warming Mean monthly river discharge Greatest increases Greatest
et al. (2011) simulation across seven changes from −16 to +55% in May and June decreases are
GCMs found in July and
August
(continued)
67
68

(source)
Eastham LMRB Hydrological No 1951–2030 Increased by 21% with a range N/A N/A
et al. (2008) simulation based on from −8 to 90%
11 GCMS
Västilä et al. LMRB VIC simulation No 1995–2004 Only a 4% increase in annual Decreased Increased by 5%
(2010) 2010–2049 streamflow
J. Liu et al.
3 Surface Water 69
2017). Such effects of Lancang cascade dams have been felt the most in the imme-
diate downstream regions; the effects tend to decrease downstream because of larger
flow accumulation from the tributaries and relatively small storage compared to the
high flow volume in the far downstream.
The observation-based studies have provided crucial insights into the changes in
streamflow and its seasonal signatures. However, it is challenging to attribute the
recorded changes explicitly to climate variability or dam construction by using only
observational data. Hydrological modelling can fill this gap by providing a frame-
work where simulations can be conducted with and without considering dams—
given the same climate conditions—such that the direct impacts of dams can be
estimated by using the difference between two such simulations. However, very
limited such studies have been conducted to date because of the challenges in simu-
lating the complex and interconnected river-floodplain-reservoir processes over the
entire basin. Among few such studies is that by Shin et al. (2020) that used a newly
developed, high-resolution (~5 km grid) hydrodynamic model called the CaMa-
Flood-Dam to explicitly simulate the effects of climate variability and dams over
the entire Mekong basin. The model is based on the global hydrodynamics model
CaMa-Flood (Yamazaki et al., 2014) and a new reservoir inundation and release
scheme (Shin et al., 2019).
The study found that the impact of dams significantly increased after 2010 because
the basin-wide reservoir storage capacity doubled from 2010 to recent years. In partic-
ular, river flows at various mainstem locations in the middle and lower reaches have
been increasingly altered by dams in recent years (Fig. 3.12). This rapid increase
in storage capacity came primarily from the completion of the Lancang cascade
dams (Hecht et al., 2019; Pokhrel et al., 2018a). The study by Shin et al. (2020)
also explicitly simulated water levels across the basin and inundation both the
upstream and downstream of dams. Consistent with the changes in streamflow, the
study reported a noticeable change in water levels downstream of dams, primarily
after 2010 (Fig. 3.13). Their model explicitly simulated inundation dynamics in the
natural rivers and floodplains as well as the upstream of dams. The model realistically
captured the flood occurrence behind the major dams across the basin (Figs. 3.14
and 3.15) that depicted the influence of dam regulation at different levels on the
flood besides climate change. Another study analysed the changes in streamflow
due to climate change and dams by combining a hydrological model and observed
discharges (Han et al., 2019); however, their model did not explicitly simulate reser-
voir operation. They quantified the impact of climate change and dams, reporting that
during the 1987–2014 period the mean annual streamflow declined by ~ 6% compared
to the 1980–1986 period. During the 1987–2007 period, only 43% of these changes
were attributed to dams (~57% to climate change), but the contribution of dams rose
drastically to 95% during the 2008–2014 period.
These findings suggest that the impacts of dams on streamflow were rather small
until the late 2000s but have substantially increased in recent times since the comple-
tion of cascade dams in the Lancang river. Indeed, the total basin-wide active dam
storage before 2010 amounts to only about 2% of the mean annual flow volume
(Hecht et al., 2019), which increased rapidly after 2010 (Shin et al., 2020) and is
70 J. Liu et al.
Fig. 3.12 River discharge simulated by CaMa-Flood-Dam model for three selected stations in the
mainstem Mekong. Seasonal average for the periods of a 1979–2009 and b 2010–2016, and two dry
years c before and d after basin-wide reservoir storage capacity doubled in 2010. NAT, DamIND-full,
DamIND-low, and DamIND-opt denote simulations without dams (i.e., natural setting), considering
dams with reservoirs at full level, considering dams with reservoirs at low level, and considering
dams with reservoirs at the optimised regulation level, respectively. Figure modified after Shin et al.
(2020)
expected to rise further to about 19% of annual mean flow volume by the mid-2020s
(Hecht et al., 2019). This increase is expected to come not only from the continued
dam construction in the Lancang river but also from the construction of several
large dams in the lower basin including the recently completed Xayabouri Dam
(Stone, 2011, 2016) and controversial Luang Prabang dam that is under construc-
tion (Fumagalli, 2020). Dam construction in the Laos and Cambodia portions of the
Mekong Basin remains a highly contested issue and whether and how many of the
proposed dams will be constructed in the coming decades remains highly uncertain.
However, hydrological and hydrodynamic simulations clearly suggest that the fear
of killing the Mekong by altering the magnitude, timing and duration of the Mekong
flood pulse is a reality if many of the dams were to be built (Pokhrel et al., 2018b).
If the mainstream flow were to be regulated by upstream dams, the hydrology of
the Tonle Sap Lake—including the flow reversal in the Tonle Sap River—could be
largely disrupted, also bringing major changes in flood dynamics in the Mekong Delta
(Pokhrel et al., 2018b) and directly impacting fisheries across the Lower Mekong,
especially in the Tonle Sap Lake region (Burbano et al., 2020). Some approaches have
3 Surface Water 71
Fig. 3.13 Same as in Fig. 3.12 but for water level
been suggested to minimise downstream impacts, especially on fisheries (Sabo et al.,

2017), but the practical aspects of such engineering approaches remain unexplored
(Williams, 2018).
3.2.5 Projected Changes in Streamflow
Unlike historical streamflow changes, previous studies have consistently projected

an increasing trend in streamflow within the Lancang-Mekong River Basin (LMRB),
regardless of the climate forcings and models employed. However, it is important
to note that the flow regime in this basin is highly susceptible to various drivers,
including dam construction, irrigation expansion, land-use changes, and climate
change. Substantial changes are anticipated in both annual and seasonal flow patterns,
with an overall increasing trend (Hecht et al., 2019; Hoang et al., 2019). Notably,
hydropower development, while exerting a limited influence on total annual flow,
has the most significant seasonal impact on streamflow, leading to an increase in the
dry season and a decrease in the wet season, surpassing the effects of other drivers
(Hoang et al., 2019). Furthermore, studies suggest that climate change may lead to a
15% increase in annual streamflow, while irrigation expansions could result in a slight
decrease of 3% in annual streamflow over the period from 2036 to 2065 compared to
72 J. Liu et al.
Fig. 3.14 Simulated flood occurrence at 3-arcsec (~90 m) resolution for the entire MRB (Shin
et al., 2020). Labeled black boxes indicate regions for which a zoomed-in view is presented in
Fig. 3.15. Red circles indicate the locations of dams simulated in the CaMa-Flood-Dam model
the period from 1971 to 2000. These projections were based on statistically down-
scaled data from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5 (CMIP5) and
utilized a distributed hydrological model, VMod, with a spatial resolution of 5 km ×
5 km (Hoang et al., 2019). Taking future dam development into account, the change
ratio in the dry season (70% increase) surpasses that in the wet season (15% decrease).
3 Surface Water 73
Fig. 3.15 Comparison of inundation dynamics simulated by CaMa-Flood-Dam model (left; 1979–
2016 period) with the Global Surface Water (GWS) data (right; Pekel et al. (2016); 1984–2018
period). Results are shown as flood occurrence for the regions indicated in Fig. 3.14. Red circles
indicate dam locations. Figure modified after Shin et al. (2020)
In the 3S tributary, streamflow is projected to increase by 96% in the dry season and
decrease by 25% in the wet season, highlighting higher streamflow sensitivity to
climate change and human activities in the 3S system compared to the entire LMRB
(Shrestha et al., 2016).
It is important to note that scenarios for streamflow changes exhibit spatial vari-
ability, especially within the Mekong River Basin (Liu et al., 2022). While an
increasing streamflow trend is projected for the future of LMRB, uncertainties remain
substantial. For instance, studies have reported varying projections, including an
annual runoff increase ranging from 4 to 90% by the 2030s compared to the histor-
ical period (1951–2000), based on different global climate models (GCMs) (Eastham
et al., 2008). Other studies, using CMIP5 datasets for the near future (2036–2065),
have reported relatively modest changes in mean annual flow, ranging from 3 to 10%
in the LMRB (Phi Hoang et al., 2016; Västilä et al., 2010).
Furthermore, projections indicate that the magnitude and frequency of extreme
high-flow events are expected to increase, while low-flow events are anticipated to
become less frequent, primarily due to the impacts of climate change (Phi Hoang
et al., 2016). This shift could potentially heighten flood risks within the basin.
However, it’s worth noting that the massive construction of hydropower facilities,
which has altered discharge patterns, is expected to exert a more substantial influence
on hydrography in the next few decades compared to climate change (Lauri et al.,
2012). Additionally, different patterns of hydrological changes may be observed in
different subbasins of the basin, and the expected change ratios vary by location (Phi
Hoang et al., 2016). Moreover, the number of wet days is projected to increase by the
74 J. Liu et al.
end of the twenty-first century (2080–2099), potentially increasing flood risk while
benefiting water utilization during dry periods (Kiem et al., 2008).
3.2.6 Uncertainties in Streamflow Simulation
Due to the constraints of time and cost associated with large-scale and long-term field
observations, hydrological models (HMs) and land surface models (LSMs) are valu-
able tools for simulating and managing water resources. Uncertainties in a hydrolog-
ical simulation are inevitable due to the difference between the natural hydrological
processes and model descriptions. Thus, uncertainties must be considered to reflect
the reliability of models.
To assess uncertainties in model simulation in the Lancang-Mekong River Basin,
observed discharge data from seven hydrological stations were used to evaluate
ten HMs and LSMs from the Inter-Sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project
(ISI-MIP2a). The simulated discharge data forced by Global Soil Wetness Project
3 (GSWP3) data in the ISI-MIP2a simulation round were selected. To capture the
diverse aspects of hydrological regimes and their associated uncertainties, we consid-
ered simulated discharge series at various percentiles, including the 5th percentile
(Q5), 25th percentile (Q25), 50th percentile (Q50), 75th percentile (Q75), and 95th
percentile (Q95). These percentiles provide insights into extremely low discharge
(Q5), the median discharge (Q50), high flow conditions (Q95), and additional
discharge information in the form of Q25 and Q75, contributing to a comprehensive
evaluation of the uncertainties inherent in different hydrological scenarios (Fig. 3.16;
Table 3.4).
For Q5 (Fig. 3.17), large deviations occurred between the simulated and observed
discharge series. Discharge curves simulated by different models were more divergent
than that of high flow (Fig. 3.18). The model ensemble discharge and the observed
discharge displayed high consistency at most stations for all percentiles. Systematic
errors occurred at Q5 for CLM4, H08 and LPJmL, where these models simulated a
much smaller discharge than the observed and other models. As for high discharge
percentiles, the simulated curves were more concentrated, which indicated more
realistic simulations and smaller uncertainties.
Dispersion of the simulated discharge series reflects the uncertainties in discharge
simulations among different models. The large deviations between the selected
models indicated that uncertainties in discharge simulation for lower percentiles
were much greater than that for higher percentiles.
The analysis of statistical metrics consistently revealed a pattern of decreasing
model uncertainty as we moved from lower percentiles to higher percentiles
(Fig. 3.19). Furthermore, all the models exhibited significant correlations with the
observed discharge series, with most models achieving an R-squared (R2) value
greater than 0.60 for all stations. Notably, several models surpassed an R2 value of
0.80 for stations located downstream of the river, including WaterGAP2, MPI-HM,
H08, MATRISO, and WAYS (Table 3.5). These results signify that the simulated
discharge series produced by all the models satisfactorily replicate the observed
3 Surface Water 75
Fig. 3.16 Location of the seven hydrological stations
series. In contrast to the single model series, the model ensemble series consis-
tently outperformed at all stations. Generally, R2 values tended to increase as we
moved closer to the river’s estuary but exhibited a decline for stations in proximity
to the estuary, such as Stung Treng and Kratie. Figure 3.19b demonstrated that
the majority of Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE) values exceeded 0.40, indicating
that the model simulations could be considered reliable. Similar to R2, the model
ensemble displayed higher NSE values than the individual models at most stations.
WaterGAP2 emerged as the top-performing model across all stations based on NSE
76
Table 3.4 General information of the ten evaluated Global Hydrological Models (GHMs) and Land Surface Models (LSMs)
Model Class of model Spatial resolution (°) Evapotranspiration Dam/Reservoir Surface runoff Routing
CLM4 LSM 0.5 The mass transfer No TOPMODEL-based Linear reservoir, constant
equation (Beven & Kirkby, 1979) flow velocity
DBH GHM 0.5 Energy balance No SiB2 model based Linear reservoir model
(Sellers et al., 1986)
H08 GHM 0.5 Bulk approach Yes An improved bucket Based on DDM30
model (Hanasaki et al.,
2008)
LPJmL GHM 0.5 Priestley–Taylor Yes A semi-empirical Continuity equation derived
method (Haxeltine & from linear reservoir model,
Prentice, 1996) routing data according to
DDM30
MATSIRO LSM 0.5 Penman–Monteith Yes SiB2 model based TRIP model based on
(Sellers et al., 1986) DDM30
MPI-HM GHM 0.5 Bulk approach No HD-Model based Linear reservoir cascade
(Hagemann & Dümenil, based on DDM30
1998)
ORCHIDEE LSM 0.5 Bulk approach No A multi-layer soil STN-30p river network
hydrology scheme (de
Rosnay et al., 2002)
WaterGAP2 GHM 0.5 Priestley–Taylor Yes HBV model based Linear reservoir, flow
(Alcamo et al., 2003) velocity based on
Manning–Strickler based on
DDM30
WAYS GHM 0.5 Penman–Monteith No Xinanjiang model based CaMa-Flood
(Zhao, 1992)
J. Liu et al.
3 Surface Water 77
Fig. 3.17 Comparison of the annual discharge series of observed and simulated discharges at the
5th percentile. a Chiang Saen, b Luang Prabang, c Nong Khai, d Mukdahan, e Pakse, f Stung Treng,
and g Kratie
Fig. 3.18 Comparison of the annual discharge series of observed and simulated discharges at the
95th percentile. a Chiang Saen, b Luang Prabang, c Nong Khai, d Mukdahan, e Pakse, f Stung
Treng, and g Kratie
78 J. Liu et al.
Fig. 3.19 Comparison of model performances with different metrics at different percentiles. a R2,
b NSE, c Δμ, and d Δσ. Details of the definition of metrics could be found in Chen et al. (2021a,
2021b)
and even outperformed the model ensemble at stations in Luang Prabang, Pakse,
and Kratie. Additionally, Δμ represented negative deviations at Chiang Saen and
Luang Prabang stations, while positive deviations were observed at Nang Khai and
Kratie stations for most of the models. Δσ indicated deviations from the standard
deviation between the simulated discharge series and the observed data. Notably,
H08 and ORCHIDEE exhibited significantly different Δσ values compared to other
models. H08 displayed larger Δσ values than the other models at all stations, while
ORCHIDEE demonstrated the opposite performance. The DBH model exhibited a
substantial positive deviation in Δμ but performed well in Δσ.
In terms of model performance rankings based on the scoring system, WaterGAP2
secured the top position, followed by WAYS, PCR-GLOWBW, MPI-HM, and
MATRISO, which ranked 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 5th, respectively. On the other hand,
ORCHIDEE received the lowest ranking, primarily due to its poor performance in
Δμ. The CLM4 model exhibited less favorable performance, particularly in terms
of Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency (NSE), with values of 0.18 at Chiang Saen and 0.24
at Kratie. Additionally, the CLM4 model displayed negative deviations for Δμ
at Chiang Saen (−0.46) and Luang Prabang (−0.39). These results indicated that
the simulated discharge series for the CLM4 model diverged significantly from
the outcomes of other models. As we moved closer to the estuary, both NSE and
R2 values for most models approached 1, indicating improved model performance.
However, there was a decline in these values at the Kratie station. Furthermore, nega-
tive Δμ values were observed for most models at Chiang Saen, Luang Prabang, and
Pakse, suggesting that these models consistently underestimated the magnitude of
Table 3.5 Model performances at seven hydrological stations based on the Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient (NSE), correlation coefficient (R2), mean
deviation in mean (Δμ), and mean deviation in standard deviation (Δσ). Details of the rank system could be found in Chen et al. (2021a, 2021b)
Station Indicator CLM4 DBH H08 LPJmL MATRISO MPI-HM ORCHIDEE PCR-GLOWBW WaterGAP2 WAYS ENSEMBLE
Chiang NSE 0.18 0.45 0.52 0.54 0.60 0.71 0.50 0.55 0.71 0.25 0.79
Saen R2 0.52 0.64 0.75 0.65 0.72 0.73 0.65 0.57 0.79 0.49 0.80
3 Surface Water
Δμ −0.46 0.17 −0.02 −0.11 −0.26 −0.10 −0.21 −0.02 0.08 −0.04 −0.10
Δσ −0.18 0.17 0.35 0.12 −0.06 −0.07 −0.48 −0.11 0.16 0.18 −0.09
Luang NSE 0.39 0.56 0.69 0.65 0.73 0.75 0.57 0.69 0.85 0.59 0.84
Prabang R2 0.60 0.61 0.80 0.70 0.78 0.80 0.72 0.71 0.85 0.64 0.85
Δμ −0.39 0.08 −0.05 −0.14 −0.20 0.10 −0.18 −0.01 −0.01 −0.19 −0.10
Δσ −0.14 −0.01 0.22 0.01 −0.11 0.11 −0.48 0.00 −0.03 −0.13 −0.13
Nang Khai NSE 0.60 0.45 0.50 0.65 0.75 0.71 0.66 0.73 0.86 0.71 0.86
R2 0.72 0.65 0.81 0.77 0.80 0.76 0.73 0.73 0.86 0.73 0.87
Δμ −0.08 0.29 0.16 0.05 0.02 0.09 0.08 −0.03 0.02 0.02 0.06
Δσ 0.19 0.11 0.42 0.21 0.13 0.09 −0.40 −0.07 −0.02 0.01 0.00
Mukdahan NSE 0.72 0.67 0.73 0.73 0.82 0.74 0.57 0.74 0.90 0.89 0.91
R2 0.77 0.78 0.88 0.82 0.85 0.78 0.69 0.75 0.90 0.89 0.91
Δμ −0.19 0.26 0.17 0.07 −0.17 0.12 0.00 −0.06 −0.03 0.04 0.02
Δσ −0.04 0.08 0.28 0.20 −0.10 0.04 −0.52 −0.06 −0.09 −0.04 −0.08
Pakse NSE 0.63 0.81 0.85 0.82 0.79 0.78 0.48 0.75 0.91 0.90 0.90
R2 0.68 0.82 0.88 0.85 0.83 0.78 0.65 0.76 0.92 0.90 0.92
Δμ −0.08 0.12 0.02 −0.04 −0.19 −0.02 −0.10 0.06 −0.01 0.00 −0.02
Δσ 0.03 −0.04 0.10 0.06 −0.12 −0.10 −0.60 −0.06 −0.12 −0.14 −0.15
Stung NSE 0.60 0.82 0.82 0.83 0.74 0.73 0.51 0.73 0.87 0.87 0.88
Treng (continued)
79
80
Station Indicator CLM4 DBH H08 LPJmL MATRISO MPI-HM ORCHIDEE PCR-GLOWBW WaterGAP2 WAYS ENSEMBLE
R2 0.64 0.83 0.84 0.84 0.78 0.74 0.62 0.73 0.88 0.88 0.90
Δμ −0.11 0.07 −0.02 −0.08 −0.19 −0.09 0.11 0.02 0.04 0.02 −0.02
Δσ −0.06 −0.11 0.03 −0.03 −0.19 −0.19 −0.53 −0.13 −0.11 −0.16 −0.21
Kratie NSE 0.24 0.52 0.47 0.57 0.77 0.60 0.51 0.70 0.87 0.89 0.86
R2 0.56 0.84 0.86 0.84 0.78 0.76 0.64 0.74 0.90 0.90 0.91
Δμ 0.21 0.48 0.35 0.27 −0.11 0.28 0.22 0.16 0.15 0.09 0.21
Δσ 0.28 0.21 0.44 0.37 −0.11 0.16 −0.48 0.01 0.00 −0.12 0.00
RANK 9 8 7 6 5 4 10 3 1 2
J. Liu et al.
3 Surface Water 81
discharge series at these stations. Nevertheless, as the stations moved closer to the
estuary, models with negative Δμ values decreased in number, and only two models
(MATRISO and ORCHIDEE) displayed negative values for Δμ at the Kratie station.
This shift underscores the enhancement in model performances as we moved closer
to the estuary.
The models had poor performances for low discharge percentiles, although the
simulated performances improved as discharge percentiles increased. The model
performances in terms of discharge simulations generally improved with the distance
to the estuary for all discharge percentiles. For the Lancang-Mekong River Basin,
the discharge increases from upstream to downstream, which can partly explain the
better performance downstream. However, the models had difficulties in simulating
discharge for the river sections close to the estuary. The complex processes between
the freshwater and saline water bodies may be the cause of this difficulty. The results
suggest that current models have limits in extreme hydrological event simulations,
which is vital for water resources management. It also indicates that current models
are limited in extreme hydrology event prediction, which usually brings huge losses
to the economy and society.
3.3 Baseflow Estimation and Change in the Basin
Streamflow in a river consists of two components, namely baseflow and storm-

flow. Baseflow refers to the component of streamflow originating from ground-
water storage and other delayed sources (Hall, 1968). It represents the flow within
a stream that would persist even in the absence of direct runoff resulting from rain-
fall. As a result, baseflow is an important source of water for a river, especially in
dry seasons. Baseflow estimation has been achieved through isotopic and chemical
tracer methods (Genereux, 1998; Muñoz-Villers et al., 2016). However, these tracer
methods are often costly and labor-intensive when applied in field measurements
(Lott & Stewart, 2016). To address these challenges, various mathematical methods
have been developed for baseflow estimation that do not require the use of tracers.
These methods include graphical approaches (Institute of Hydrology, 1980; Sloto,
1996) and digital filter methods (Anand Tularam & Ilahee, 2008; Chapman, 1991;
Eckhardt, 2005; Furey & Gupta, 2001; Huyck et al., 2005; Lin et al., 2007; Maxwell,
1996). These techniques provide alternative means of estimating baseflow efficiently
and cost-effectively (Fig. 3.20).
In this chapter, the baseflow of two typical hydrologic stations in the Mekong
River Basin, namely Yongjinghong and Kratie, were estimated and projected using
mathematical methods. The Yongjinghong Station is located in the Upper Mekong
River Basin, and the Kratie Station is located in the Lower Lancang-Mekong River
Basin.
82 J. Liu et al.
Fig. 3.20 Schematic

diagram of baseflow. Total
streamflow in a river consists
of two components, namely
baseflow and stormflow
3.3.1 Comparison of Baseflow Estimation Methods
3.3.1.1 Baseflow Evaluation Criterion
Because of the lack of baseflow observation data, it is difficult to evaluate the accu-
racy of different baseflow separation methods through the observed baseflow. In
this chapter, a robust mathematical evaluation method is employed to evaluate the
accuracy of different separation methods. The main guideline is as follows. When
the quick flow (interflow and overland flow) of a basin ceases on a certain day, the
streamflow is completely replenished by the baseflow, and the streamflow of that day
is equal to the baseflow. The daily streamflows of these days can then be used as
the baseflow benchmark to assess different baseflow separation methods. According
to Brutsaert (2008), days when streamflow is completely replenished by baseflow
(hereafter baseflow days) can be selected through the following four steps:
(1) Exclude days with streamflow dy dt
≥ 0, where dy dt
i
= yi+1 −y
2
i−1
.
(2) Exclude two days before and three days after the day with streamflow dy dt
≥ 0.
(3) Exclude five days after high flow events that were identified by flood peaks
greater than the 90th quantile of all daily streamflow observations (Cheng et al.,
2016).
2
(4) Exclude days followed by a day with smaller dy dt
, namely dd xy2 < 0.
These four steps have two purposes. The first three steps are to exclude the days
when the streamflow may contain quick flow. The last step is to exclude the days
when daily streamflow violates the pattern of baseflow recession during dry periods,
namely followed by a larger − dydt
(Xie et al., 2020). Baseflow days selected by the
four steps are shown in Fig. 3.21.
The baseflow days (Black points in Fig. 3.21) were used as the baseflow bench-
mark to evaluate the accuracy of different baseflow separation methods, based on
the evaluation metrics of Kling-Gupta Efficiency (KGE) (Knoben et al., 2019) and
relative bias (BIAS):
3 Surface Water 83
Fig. 3.21 Selecting baseflow days according to the four steps. The red points are excluded through
the first three steps. The blue points are excluded through the last step. The daily streamflow
observations are from the Yongjinghong station in 1980
⎡
|
| ( )2 ( )2
√ σm Qm
K G E = 1 − (r − 1) +
2
−1 + −1 (3.1)
σo Q0
∑n
(Q oi − Q mi )
B I AS = 1 ∑n (3.2)
1 Q oi
where r is Pearson’s correlation between the selected baseflow and the corresponding
estimated baseflow. σo is the standard deviation of the selected baseflow, and σm is
the standard deviation of the corresponding estimated baseflow. Q 0 is the mean value
of the selected baseflow, and Q m is the mean value of the corresponding estimated
baseflow. Qoi and Qmi are the selected baseflow and the corresponding estimated
baseflow on the ith day, respectively.
3.3.1.2 Baseflow Separation Methods
In this chapter, 9 baseflow separation methods were evaluated, including 5 digital

filter methods, namely the Chapman method, the LH method, the Eckhardt method,
the EWMA method and the CM method, and 4 graphic methods, namely the UKIH
method and three HYSEP methods. The digital filter methods are grounded on the
assumption that baseflow constitutes the low-frequency component of streamflow,
which exhibits a slow response to precipitation events, while quick flow represents the
high-frequency component, reacting rapidly to precipitation. In contrast, the graphic
methods identify specific low-flow points within a streamflow hydrograph, connect
these points to form a continuous baseflow line, and subsequently constrain this
baseflow line beneath the streamflow hydrograph to derive the baseflow hydrograph.
For a more comprehensive understanding of these methods, their principles and
specific details are presented in Table 3.6.
Table 3.6 The principles and details of 9 baseflow separation methods
84
Method Introduction References

Graphic UKIH method Turning points are selected as follows: Institute of
method (1) The streamflow series was divided into 5-day blocks without overlapping. The minimum streamflow Hydrology (1980)
of each block was denoted as Q1 , Q2 , …, Qt
(2) Every three minimum points were taken as a group, namely (Q1 , Q2 , Q3 ), (Q4 , Q5 , Q6 ), …, (Qt−1 ,
Qt , Qt+1 ),
(3) Groups with Qt ≤ 1.11Qt−1 and Qt ≤ 1.11Qt+1 were selected. The central values are turning points
Turning points are linearly interpolated as a baseflow line
HYSEP-fixed HYSEP had three algorithms to select low-flow points, namely fixed interval, sliding interval, and local Sloto (1996)
HYSEP-slide minimum. The local minimum method is used to introduce HYSEP
(1) The movement duration of overland flow was estimated by empirical relationship N = A0.2 , where
HYSEP- Local N is the number of days when overland flow will cease, and A is the basin area
(2) The entire period of streamflow is traversed with a sliding window, whose interval is equal to the odd
integer nearest to 2N. The lowest streamflow in the window was selected as the local minimum point
(3) These local minimum points are connected to define the baseflow hydrograph
1+β
Digital LH method f k = β f k−1 + 2 (yk − yk−1 )( f k ≥ 0) Lyne and Hollick
filter bk = yk − f k (1979)
method where f k indicates the kth quick flow filtered, yk is the sum of kth baseflow and quick flow, and β is the
filter parameter, assigned a value of 0.925 (Nathan & McMahon, 1990)
Chapman bk = αbk−1 + 1−α 2 ( f k + f k−1 )(0 ≤ bk ≤ yk ) Chapman (1991)
method where the filter parameter α is recession constant and α can be calculated by recession analysis
(Eckhardt, 2008)
α 1−α
CM method bk = 2−α bk−1 + 2−α yk (0 ≤ bk ≤ yk ) Maxwell (1996)
where α is a recession constant calculated by recession analysis (Eckhardt, 2008)
(continued)
J. Liu et al.
Method Introduction References
(1−B F Imax )αbk−1 +(1−α)B F Imax yk
Eckhardt bk = 1−α B F Imax Eckhardt (2005)
method where α is the recession constant, BFI max is calculated by a backward filter method (Collischonn & Fan,
3 Surface Water
2013)
EWMA bk = εyk + (1 − ε)bk−1 (0 ≤ bk ≤ yk ) Anand Tularam and
method where ε is the smoothing constant, assigned a value of 0.013 Ilahee (2008)
85
86 J. Liu et al.
3.3.1.3 Comparisons of Baseflow Separation Methods
Reservoir construction has significantly affected streamflow observations in the

Lancang-Mekong River Basin since 2008. Thus, 2007 was selected as the last year
of the baseflow separation in this study. Daily streamflow observations for the two
hydrologic stations, namely Yongjinghong and Kratie, from 1980 to 2007 were
obtained from the Mekong River Commission (https://portal.mrcmekong.org/home).
To evaluate the accuracy of the 9 baseflow separation methods, the baseflow points
obtained through the four steps in Sect. 3.3.1.1 and the baseflow estimated using the
9 methods introduced in Sect. 3.3.1.2 were compared in the two hydrologic stations.
Table 3.7 shows the evaluation result of the 9 baseflow separation methods for the
two hydrologic stations. For Yongjinghong Station, the Eckhardt method has the
largest value of KGE and the smallest value of BIAS among the 9 methods, with
values of 0.86 and 5.98% respectively. For Kratie Station, the Eckhardt method also
has the largest value of KGE and the smallest value of BIAS among the 9 methods,
with values of 0.93 and 5.81% respectively. Generally, the Eckhardt method has the
best performance to estimate baseflow for the two hydrologic stations. The good
performance indicates that it is reliable to use the Eckhardt method in estimating
baseflow for the two hydrologic stations in the LMRB.
3.3.2 Baseflow Estimation in the Basin
Using the Eckhardt method, the baseflows of the two hydrologic stations from 1980
to 2007 were estimated. From 1980 to 2007, the annual average runoff of the two
hydrologic stations, namely Yongjinghong and Kratie, was 388 mm and 649 mm,
respectively. The annual average baseflow of the two hydrologic stations was 199 mm
and 359 mm, respectively. The annual average BaseFlow Index (BFI), namely the
Table 3.7 The evaluation result of the 9 baseflow separation methods

Methods Yongjinghong Kratie
KGE BIAS (%) KGE BIAS (%)
UKIH 0.82 7.9 0.80 17.1
Local 0.86 7.1 0.74 20.1
Fixed 0.83 10.1 0.72 22.5
Slide 0.80 11.1 0.73 21.0
LH 0.70 16.8 0.62 28.6
Chapman 0.67 19.2 0.72 20.5
CM 0.43 23.2 0.67 25.3
EWMA 0.85 6.7 0.84 14.0
Eckhardt 0.86 6.0 0.93 5.8
3 Surface Water 87
Table 3.8 Annual average

Stations Runoff (mm) Baseflow (mm) BFI
runoff, baseflow and BFI for
the two hydrological stations Yongjinghong 388 199 0.51
from 1980 to 2007 Kratie 649 359 0.55
ratio of baseflow to streamflow, of the two hydrologic stations was 0.51 and 0.55,
respectively (Table 3.8). The annual BFI of the Yongjinghong Station from 1980 to
2007 showed a significant (p < 0.05) downward trend, with a value of −0.001 yr−1 ,
while the annual BFI of the Kratie Station showed a significant (p < 0.05) upward
trend, with a value of 0.09 yr−1 (Fig. 3.22). The annual baseflow of the Yongjinghong
Station from 1980 to 2007 showed a nonsignificant (p = 0.22) downward trend, with
a value of −0.77 mm/yr, while the annual baseflow of the Kratie Station showed a
significant (p < 0.05) upward trend, with a value of 7.22 mm/yr.
From 1980 to 2007, the maximum and minimum average monthly BFI of
Yunjinghong Station were in December (0.75) and June (0.34), respectively
(Fig. 3.22). The maximum and minimum average monthly baseflow of Yunjinghong
Station were in September (34 mm) and April (6 mm), respectively. The maximum
and minimum average monthly BFI of Kratie Station were in December (0.62) and
June (0.46), respectively. The maximum and minimum average monthly baseflow of
Kratie Station was in September (80 mm) and February (7 mm), respectively.
Fig. 3.22 The annual baseflow and BFI (a, b), and average monthly runoff, baseflow and BFI (c,
d) from 1980 to 2007 for the two hydrological stations Yongjinghong (a, c) and Kratie (b, d)
88 J. Liu et al.
3.3.3 Influencing Factors of Baseflow [Xiaomang Liu]
For a basin, climatic factors have the most direct impact on the baseflow (Brutsaert,
2005). Climatic factors influence baseflow by altering rates of evapotranspiration,
infiltration and recharge, and timing of snowmelt runoff (Tague & Grant, 2009;
Winograd et al., 1998). Additionally, baseflow is also influenced by different basin
characteristics, including climate conditions, soils, topography, and land cover.
Figure 3.23 shows scatterplots of monthly baseflow versus four climatic factors,
namely precipitation (Pr), surface shortwave radiation (SSR), wind speed (u), and air
temperature (Ta), for the two hydrologic stations, namely Yongjinghong and Kratie.
For Yongjinghong Station, significant (p < 0.05) positive correlations were found
between baseflow and the two climate factors, namely Pr and Ta, and the values
of Pearson’s correlation (r) were 0.56 and 0.50, respectively. Significant (p < 0.05)
negative correlations were found between baseflow and the other two factors, namely
SSR and u, and the values of r were −0.24 and −0.60, respectively. For Kratie Station,
both Pr and Ta were significantly (p < 0.05) positively correlated with baseflow, and
the values of r were 0.67 and 0.39, respectively. Both SSR and u were significantly
(p < 0.05) negatively correlated with baseflow, and the values of r were −0.47 and −
0.46, respectively. Thus, baseflow is significantly affected by the four climatic factors
in the Lancang-Mekong River Basin.
3.3.4 Projected Change in Baseflow
Although the Eckhardt method can accurately estimate baseflow, the method needs
daily streamflow as input, while accurate daily streamflow estimates are not available
for the future. Therefore, models are needed to simulate the future baseflow. Past
studies have shown that mechanism models, such as hydrological models and land
surface models, have low accuracy in simulating baseflow (Bai et al., 2016). This is
due to the groundwater simulation of the hydrologic model and the land surface model
being relatively simple (Lo & Famiglietti, 2010). In this study, a machine learning
approach, namely the Long Short-Term Memory network, was used to estimate the
future baseflow based on data from the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project
phases 6 (CMIP6).
3.3.4.1 The Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Network
The LSTM network is a state-of-art machine learning approach for time series fore-
casting (Hochreiter & Schmidhuber, 1997). It has the advantage of remembering
information for a long period, namely long-time memory (Kratzert et al., 2018; Shen,
2018; Zhang et al., 2018). This advantage benefits monthly baseflow estimation and
3 Surface Water 89
Fig. 3.23 The relationships between the monthly baseflow and the four climatic factors for
Yongjinghong Station (a–d) and Kratie (e–h). r value is the Pearson correlation coefficient. The
shaded bands represent 95% confidence intervals for the regressions
90 J. Liu et al.
prediction by learning long-term dependencies between baseflow and previous basin

conditions.
The Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) network is structured as a collection of
interconnected memory blocks, with each block consisting of several key compo-
nents: a cell state, input gate, output gate, and forget gate, along with the hidden state.
The cell state functions as the system’s memory, retaining crucial information. The
three gates, namely the input gate, output gate, and forget gate, enable the network
to selectively store and retrieve important information from past time steps while
discarding irrelevant data (Kratzert et al., 2018). The details of the LSTM network
can refer to Hochreiter and Schmidhuber (1997) and Kratzert et al. (2019). In this
study, the LSTM network was constructed using the deep learning toolbox available
in MATLAB. Four related climatic factors, namely monthly precipitation (Pr), air
temperature (Ta), surface shortwave radiation (SSR), and wind speed (u), were used
to estimate and predict monthly baseflow based on Sect. 3.3.3.
3.3.4.2 Data and Method
Historical data of the four variables from 1980 to 2014 were obtained from Princeton
Global Meteorological Forcing Dataset (Sheffield et al., 2006; Zhang et al., 2018),
with a spatial resolution of 0.5°. Future data on these variables from 2015 to 2100
were obtained from 26 general circulation models (GCMs) in the CMIP6 (Table 3.9).
Simulations from four shared socioeconomic pathways (SSPs), drawn from Tier 1 of
ScenarioMIP: SSP1-2.6 (+2.6 W/m2 imbalance; low forcing sustainability pathway),
SSP2-4.5 (+4.5 W/m2 ; medium forcing middle-of-the-road pathway), SSP3-7.0
(+7.0 W/m2 ; medium- to high-end forcing pathway), and SSP5-8.5 (+8.5 W/m2 ;
high-end forcing pathway), were used (O’Neill et al., 2016). The bilinear interpo-
lation method was used to downscale all the variables to a common horizontal grid
at 0.5° × 0.5° resolution. To proceed with further analysis with reduced biases, the
perturbation method was used to perform bias correction against observed data.
The classic split sample test scheme (KlemeŠ, 1986) was used for calibration
and validation of the LSTM. The available data in the basin was split into two sub-
periods, namely sub-period I and sub-period II, which were used to calibrate and
validate the LSTM, respectively. The LSTM was calibrated in sub-period I (1980–
1999) and validated in sub-period II (2000–2007). The Nash–Sutcliffe efficiency
(NSE) between simulated and observed baseflow was taken as the objective function
to train the LSTM. The KGE and BIAS were used to evaluate the accuracy of model
estimation.
3.3.4.3 Estimating and Predicting Baseflow with the LSTM Model
Generally, the LSTM model performed well in the calibration and validation periods
for the two hydrologic stations, namely Yongjinghong and Kratie (Table 3.10). In
the calibration period, the KGE values between the observed and simulated baseflow
3 Surface Water 91
Table 3.9 The information of the 26 GCMs in the CMIP6

No. ESM Center Realisations Resolution (km)
1 ACCESS-CM2 CSIRO-ARCCSS, r1i1p1f1 144 × 192
Australia
2 ACCESS-ESM1-5 CSIRO, Australia r1i1p1f1 145 × 192
3 BCC-CSM2-MR BCC, China r1i1p1f1 160 × 320
4 CanESM5 CCCma, Canada r1i1p1f1 64 × 128
5 CanESM5-CanOE CCCma, Canada r1i1p2f1 64 × 128
6 CESM2 NCAR, USA r1i1p1f1 192 × 288
7 CESM2-WACCM NCAR, USA r1i1p1f1 192 × 288
8 CNRM-CM6-1 CNRM-CERFACS, r1i1p1f2 128 × 256
France
9 CNRM-ESM2-1 CNRM-CERFACS, r1i1p1f2 128 × 256
France
10 EC-Earth3 EC-Earth-Consortium r1i1p1f1 256 × 512
11 EC-Earth3-Veg EC-Earth-Consortium r1i1p1f1 256 × 512
12 FGOALS-f3-L CAS, China r1i1p1f1 180 × 288
13 FGOALS-g3 CAS, China r1i1p1f1 80 × 180
14 GFDL-ESM4 NOAA-GFDL, USA r1i1p1f1 180 × 288
15 GISS-E2-1-G NASA-GISS, USA r1i1p1f2 90 × 144
16 HadGEM3-GC31-LL MOHC, UK r1i1p1f3 144 × 192
17 INM-CM4-8 INM, Russia r1i1p1f1 120 × 180
18 INM-CM5-0 INM, Russia r1i1p1f1 120 × 180
19 IPSL-CM6A-LR IPSL, France r1i1p1f1 143 × 144
20 MIROC6 JAMSTEC/AORI/NIES/ r1i1p1f1 128 × 256
R-CCS, Japan
21 MIROC-ES2L JAMSTEC/AORI/NIES/ r1i1p1f2 64 × 128
R-CCS, Japan
22 MPI-ESM1-2-h MPI-M, Germany r1i1p1f1 192 × 384
23 MPI-ESM1-2-LR MPI-M, Germany r1i1p1f1 96 × 192
24 MRI-ESM2-0 MRI, Japan r1i1p1f1 160 × 320
25 NorESM2-MM NCC, Norway r1i1p1f1 192 × 288
26 UKESM1-0-LL MOHC, UK r1i1p1f2 144 × 192
for the two hydrologic stations are 0.90 and 0.92, respectively. The BIAS values
between observed and simulated baseflow for the two hydrologic stations are 1.3%
and 1.6%, respectively. In the validation period, the median KGE values for the two
stations are 0.87 and 0.75 respectively, and the BIAS values are 11.0% and 16.8%
respectively. Thus, the trained LSTM model was used to estimate the future monthly
baseflow.
92 J. Liu et al.
Table 3.10 Performance of the LSTM model for the two hydrological stations
Stations Calibration period Validation period
KGE BIAS (%) KGE BIAS (%)
Yongjinghong 0.90 1.3 0.87 11.0
Kratie 0.92 1.6 0.75 16.8
The trained LSTM model was used to estimate and predict the monthly baseflow
from 1980 to 2100 for the two hydrologic stations. Figure 3.24 shows the time series
of annual baseflow and BFI for the two hydrological stations from 1980 to 2100.
Annual baseflows for the two hydrological stations in the four scenarios, namely
SSP1-26, SSP2-45, SSP3-70, and SSP5-85, all have increasing trends, and the BFI
in the four scenarios all have a slightly increasing trend. Table 3.11 shows the average
annual baseflow and BFI for the two hydrological stations from 2015 to 2100. It could
be found from Table 3.11 that the volume of baseflow from the Yongjinghong station
upstream is much lower than that of Kratie station downstream, while the BFI is just
slightly lower. And with the intensification of climate change and human activities,
the baseflow at both the upstream and downstream increases and that at the upstream
increases faster than that of the downstream, but the BFIs keep consistent, implying
that the total streamflow doesnot have a similar increasing trend.
Fig. 3.24 Annual baseflow and BFI from 1980 to 2100 for the Yongjinghong station (a, b) and
Kratie station (c, d) for the four scenarios. The shading denotes the 95% confidence intervals of the
26 models
3 Surface Water 93
Table 3.11 Annual average baseflow and BFI for the two hydrological stations from 2015 to 2100
in the four scenarios
Scenarios Yongjinghong Kratie
Baseflow (mm) BFI Baseflow (mm) BFI
SSP1-26 210 ± 13 0.56 ± 0.02 498 ± 86 0.59 ± 0.07
SSP2-45 208 ± 13 0.56 ± 0.02 501 ± 85 0.60 ± 0.07
SSP3-70 207 ± 16 0.55 ± 0.03 462 ± 82 0.56 ± 0.09
SSP5-85 218 ± 16 0.56 ± 0.03 501 ± 83 0.57 ± 0.09
3.4 Dynamics of Inundation Area and Water Turbidity

in Tonle Sap Lake
3.4.1 Inundation Area Detection
Tonle Sap Lake (TSL) in Cambodia stands as the largest lake in Southeast Asia,
playing a pivotal role as one of the world’s most productive lake-wetland systems.
This remarkable ecosystem supports approximately 1.7 million people who depend
on it for their livelihoods. What sets TSL apart is its distinctive “flood pulse”
phenomenon, marked by seasonal water level fluctuations between the wet and dry
seasons, creating a periodically inundated floodplain. This dynamic floodplain offers
unique habitats for seasonally migratory fish species and receives a vital influx of
nutrients from the Mekong River. It serves as a critical source of freshwater resources
and preserves essential habitats for numerous endangered species. Furthermore, the
flood regime of TSL exerts a significant influence on land cover changes, such as
delineating the extent of cropland in the floodplain and impacting alterations in
forest cover. Consequently, Tonle Sap Lake holds the status of being the “heart of
the lower Mekong” as regional socio-economic development and the sustainability
of the ecosystem profoundly rely on the intricate dynamics of this “flood pulse.”
The boundary of Tonle Sap Lake was firstly defined before the inundation area
extraction, which is the buffered extent that was larger than the maximum possible
inundation area of the open water body of the lake (Lin & Qi, 2017). This definition
is different from previous studies that also considered the entire floodplain as Tonle
Sap Lake (Arias et al., 2012; Frappart et al., 2018; Sakamoto et al., 2007), and the
currently used boundary excluded most of the area in the floodplain of Tonle Sap
Lake. Such exclusion is because of the difficulty in estimating the surface area of the
entire floodplain when using optical remote sensing data, where the water is hidden
beneath the flooded forest. The inundation areas were extracted based on a normalised
difference vegetation index (NDVI) (Mcfeeters, 1996; Verhoef, 1996). Note that the
NDVI thresholds to separate water and land may differ among images. To overcome
this challenge, a self-developed interactive graphical user interface (GUI) by Hou
et al. (2018) was used to determine the optimal image-specific threshold. We further
94 J. Liu et al.
visualised the resulting land/water boundaries to assure the best consistency with the
largest contrasts over NDVI images.
3.4.2 Modelling Inundation Areas and Their Change
Inundation in the Tonle Sap Lake region is governed by the (1) reversed flow in the
Tonle Sap river, (2) inflow from the lake tributaries, and (3) direct rainfall on the
lake system. The lake’s floodplains extend into 12,000–15,000 km2 area during the
wet season, storing 50–80 km3 of water, which shrinks to ~2,400 km2 during the
dry season with a water storage of 1.5–3.0 km3 . The lake water levels during these
wet-dry transitions vary between ~1.4 to ~9.0 m (Arias et al., 2012; Chen et al.,
2021a, 2021b; Frappart et al., 2018; Kummu & Sarkkula, 2008; Kummu et al., 2014;
Pokhrel et al., 2018a). Besides the permanently flooded lake portion, substantial areas
in its periphery are flooded seasonally with varied flood occurrence during average,
wet, and dry years (Fig. 25X; Dang et al., 2022). The dry–wet variation in flooded
areas within a year serves as an important detention reservoir to provide increased
dry season flow in the Mekong Delta region. The flooded areas vary vastly not only
seasonally but also from year to year depending on regional climate variability and
the water levels in the mainstream Mekong River that drive the flow reversal in the
Tonle Sap River. On an average basis over long terms, ~54% of the inflow to the
Tonle Sap Lake comes from the Mekong River either through flow reversal in the
Tonle Sap River or by overland flooding, and the rest is contributed by inflow from
the tributaries (~34%) and precipitation over the lake (~12%) (Kummu et al., 2014)
(Fig. 3.25).
Numerous studies have examined how the inundated areas in the Tonle Sap
Lake floodplain have been changing in the past few decades by using hydrological-
hydrodynamic modelling and remote sensing data. For example, Lin and Qi (2017)
mapped the open water areas in the Tonle Sap Lake from 2001 to 2015 using remote
sensing products and showed large inter-annual variability, also noting a consis-
tent decline in open water areas during that period. They attributed such shrinking
Fig. 3.25 Average flood occurrence (% time during a year) of the Tonle Sap Lake area in a dry
year (a, 2015), long-term average (b, between 1979 and 2016) and a wet year (c, 2000)
3 Surface Water 95
of the lake to the rapid increase in dam construction in the Mekong River Basin
during the same period, but their study did not explicitly isolate the effects of dams
versus climate change and variability. Another recent study (Frappart et al., 2018)
used remotely sensed data to map inundation extents during the 1993–2017 period,
finding that interannual anomalies of the lake surface water storage variations are
more related to precipitation fluctuation outside of the Tonle Sap watershed with
discharge from the Mekong River being the major influence. The study by Ji et al.
(2018) used the Modified Normalised Difference Water Index (MNDWI) based on
MODIS satellite data for 2000–2014 period. They suggested a decline in water
surface area, especially after 2008, by 8.3% and 1.5% during the flood and dry
seasons, respectively. This study also indicated a more dominant role of rainfall in
the Mekong River Basin than that of the rainfall in the lake watershed on the variation
of water areas in the lake, but also noted that the construction and operation of new
dams in the Lancang river could not be directly linked to the decline in the lake area.
Instead, they indicated that the increased runoff due to dam release during the dry
season could have mitigated the decline in surface area during the dry season. These
findings are in line with a potential increase in dry-season flow and water levels when
the mainstream Mekong flow is regulated by upstream dams (Pokhrel et al., 2018b).
Chen et al. (2021a, 2021b) conducted a study revealing notable declines in water
levels and inundation areas during the dry season and throughout the entire year since
the late 1990s. These declines occurred alongside increased sub-decadal variability
in the region. The study also identified decreasing probabilities of encountering high
inundation areas and increasing probabilities of encountering low inundation areas
for the period from 2000 to 2019 when compared to the return period of inundation
areas for the years 1986 to 2000 and 1960 to 1986. Furthermore, the research unveiled
a shift in the mean seasonal cycle of daily water levels, with a 10-day shift in the dry
season and a 5-day shift in the wet season between the periods 2000–2019 and 1986–
2000. The study also established significant correlations and changes in coherence
between water levels and large-scale atmospheric circulations, including El Niño-
Southern Oscillation (ENSO), Pacific Decadal Oscillation (PDO), and Indian Ocean
Dipole (IOD). These findings suggest that atmospheric circulations exerted influ-
ences on the flood pulse at various time scales. Additionally, changes in discharge at
the Mekong mainstream were observed, indicating that anthropogenic factors may
have played a role in impacting the high water levels in the lake. In summary, the
study points to a diminishing flood pulse in the Tonle Sap Lake region since the
late 1990s. These previous studies assume that water infrastructure development and
climate change are the main factors affecting the inundation extent and duration in
the Tonle Sap Lake region. However, a recent study by Ng and Park (2021) that
used remote sensing products for 1980–2018 period highlighted the role of intensi-
fied local sand mining at Phnom Penh and Prek Kdam, which could have lowered
the riverbed at the entrance from the Mekong mainstream to the lake and signifi-
cantly impacted lake inundation dynamic. While these studies have provided crucial
information on the changing inundation dynamics of the Tonle Sap Lake, the results
suffer from uncertainties arising from missing data, cloud contamination, effect of
vegetation, and inherent uncertainties in satellite products.
96 J. Liu et al.
Hydrological modelling can fill the data gaps by providing spatially complete and
temporally continuous simulations; however, realistic simulations require accurate
input data and model parameters, which are not abundantly available for the Tonle
Sap Lake region. Numerous modelling studies have been conducted for the Tonle
Sap Lake. Kummu et al. (2014) presented a detailed modelling and water balance
analysis of the Tonle Sap Lake system using an integrated framework that employed
a digital bathymetry model, water level-area-volume relationship and the EIA 3D
hydrodynamic model (Kummu et al., 2006). They provided a detailed water balance
of the lake, including inundated areas, timing of flow reversal in the Tonle Sap River,
and various other related hydrodynamic attributes of the lake. They also suggested
that the lake water level is primarily governed by water levels in the Mekong River,
and noted that a relatively small change in water level would inundate large areas of
the floodplain.
3.4.3 Water Turbidity Estimation
To investigate the potential impacts of lake inundation changes on water turbidity,

the concentrations of total suspended sediments (TSS) were quantitatively retrieved
using remote sensing images. Various methods have been developed previously to
estimate the TSS concentrations of inland and coastal waters using satellite obser-
vations, with the algorithms ranging from empirical (Doxaran et al., 2002; Feng
et al., 2012; Hou et al., 2018; Nechad et al., 2010) to semianalytical approaches
(Dekker et al., 2001). The underlined theory of these algorithms is the sensitivity of
the TSS concentration to red and NIR reflectance (Feng et al., 2012; Tassan, 1994),
where the signals increase with TSS increases, owing to the enhanced backscat-
tering of suspended particles (Babin et al., 2003). In this study, a red band-based
algorithm, previously used in both Tonle Sap Lake (Hoshikawa et al., 2019) and
various other global waters (Miller and McKee 2004), was established in this work
by using concurrent MODIS reflectance and in situ TSS concentrations, expressed
as follows:
( )
TSS mg L−1 = 10.32 e21.72×Ω (Ω = R645 ) (3.3)
where R645 is the MODIS surface reflectance product in the 645 nm band, which has
been proven to be effective in TSS estimation in lacustrine waters (Feng et al., 2018).
Indeed, the feasibility of this algorithm can be indicated by the high correlation (R2
= 0.84), small root mean square error (34.2%) and large TSS range (8.6–398.0 mg
L−1 ) (see Fig. 3.26).
3 Surface Water 97
Fig. 3.26 Calibration of a

remote sensing model to
retrieve TSS concentrations
in Tonle Sap Lake using
MODIS red band (Wang
et al., 2020)
3.4.4 Long-Term Evolution of Inundation Area and Water

Turbidity
Figure 3.27a displays the monthly mean inundation areas of Tonle Sap Lake for the
period between 1988 and 2018, determined from both Landsat (red) and MODIS
(black) data. Additionally, the monthly mean climatological inundation areas, which
represent multiyear monthly means estimated using MODIS data, are plotted as green
dashed lines. Points falling above the green line indicate that the current month’s inun-
dation value exceeded the monthly climatology, and vice versa. To analyze inundation
trends over the past three decades, monthly anomalies were calculated as deviations
from the monthly climatologies (in percent), as shown in Fig. 3.27b. Throughout
the observed period, the inundation area of Tonle Sap Lake exhibited considerable
variability, ranging from 3599.8 km2 in October 2001 to 2304 km2 in March 2013.
These values experienced rapid fluctuations due to pronounced seasonal changes
influenced primarily by shifts in regional precipitation and interactions between the
river and the lake (Frappart et al., 2018).
However, superimposed on these substantial seasonal cycles is a noticeable trend
of lake shrinkage in recent years. There is clear evidence of decreased inundation in
most years over the past two decades (see Fig. 3.27a, b). Specifically, the decreasing
patterns from 2000 to 2018 were consistent between MODIS and Landsat observa-
tions, despite differences in their data availabilities. This shrinking trend is further
underscored by the consistent declines in the annual mean (8.22 km2 per year, signif-
icant at P < 0.05), annual minimum (5.93 km2 per year, significant at P < 0.05), and
annual maximum (17.82 km2 per year, significant at P < 0.05) inundation areas,
as derived from MODIS-extracted data for the period between 2000 and 2018 (see
Fig. 3.28). Furthermore, although statistically insignificant, a decreasing trend was
also observed in the annual maximum and minimum ratio (P > 0.05), indicating
a reduced strength of the flood pulse between the dry and wet seasons during the
MODIS observational period (see Fig. 3.28d).
98 J. Liu et al.
Fig. 3.27 Monthly mean inundation area of Tonle Sap Lake between 1988 and 2018 obtained using
the MODIS and Landsat observations (Wang et al., 2020)
Fig. 3.28 MODIS observed annual a maximum, b minimum, c mean and d maximum/minimum
inundation areas of Tonle Sap Lake (Wang et al., 2020)
3 Surface Water 99
Figures 3.29 and 3.30 show the annual mean TSS maps and zonal mean values of
Tonle Sap Lake from 2000 to 2018. The annual mean TSS concentration of the entire
lake showed a statistically significant increasing trend between 2000 and 2018 (see
Fig. 3.30a, 7.92 mg L−1 yr−1 , P < 0.05). In terms of seasonal patterns, significant
TSS increasing trends were detected in quarters 1 and 4, whereas nonsignificant
trends were identified in quarters 2 and 3 (Fig. 3.30b–e). Moreover, remarkable
spatial heterogeneity was revealed in the TSS concentration maps. In particular, in
most of the years, riverine estuaries in the southeastern, northwestern, and northern
parts of the lake showed consistently higher values (sediment plume). The significant
seasonal TSS dynamics can partially explain the spatial heterogeneities of the annual
TSS maps. The zonal mean TSS concentration of the entire lake was generally
<100 mg L−1 (bluish to greenish) before 2004, and such values reached above 100 mg
L−1 in most of the later years. Spatially, TSS increase could be found in almost every
location of the lake (see the last panel of Fig. 3.29).
Fig. 3.29 Annual mean TSS concentration maps of Tonle Sap Lake from 2000 to 2018. The last
panel shows the change rate for the annual mean TSS concentration at each location in Tonle Sap
Lake between 2000 and 2018 (Wang et al., 2020)
100 J. Liu et al.
Fig. 3.30 Long-term mean values of TSS concentration in the Tonle Sap Lake. a annual mean,
b–e quarterly mean from quarter 1–4 (Wang et al., 2020)
3.4.5 Drivers of Change in Inundation Area and Water

Turbidity
Figure 3.31a reveals the identification of a high correlation zone (HCZ) marked
with black dots, situated in the northern region of the Tonle Sap Lake drainage basin,
depicted by yellowish to reddish coloring, encompassing more than 50% of the entire
Mekong River Basin. Analyzing the change rate in annual mean precipitation between
2000 and 2016 (as shown in Fig. 3.31b), it becomes evident that approximately one-
third of locations within the HCZ exhibit a statistically significant decreasing trend in
precipitation. In contrast, most regions outside the HCZ display insignificant corre-
lations. Notably, the year-to-year fluctuations in mean precipitation within the HCZ
closely mirror those observed in the inundation area of Tonle Sap Lake, with a robust
correlation (R2 = 0.67, significant at P < 0.05) (Fig. 3.31d). Similarly, a strong corre-
lation exists between the annual mean runoff at Kratie station and the precipitation
within the HCZ (R2 = 0.68, significant at P < 0.05) (Fig. 3.31e). Consequently,
3 Surface Water 101
Fig. 3.31 Correlations (R2) between the annual mean precipitation at each location in the Mekong
River Basin and the annual mean inundation area of Tonle Sap Lake between 2000 and 2016.
b Annual mean precipitation change rate from 2000 to 2016 for each location in the Mekong River
Basin; c same as b but with a period from 1988 to 2000. The black dots in (a–c) represent pixels
with statistically significant (P < 0.05) precipitation trends. d Long-term annual mean precipitation
throughout Tonle Sap Lake (P_lake), the Mekong River Basin (P_Mekong), and the HCZ (P_HCZ).
e Long-term patterns and correlations between annual mean precipitation of the HCZ (P_HCZ) and
runoff discharge of the Mekong River at Kratie (Wang et al., 2020)
102 J. Liu et al.
it can be deduced that the recent reduction in Tonle Sap Lake’s inundation area is
intimately linked with the decline in runoff in the Mekong River and the decrease in
precipitation within the HCZ.
The HCZ is situated in the lower basin of the Mekong River, predominantly
outside the drainage basin of Tonle Sap Lake. Recent reductions in precipitation
within the Mekong River Basin have previously been linked to El Niño/La Niña
events, as well as the Indian and Western North Pacific Monsoons (Frappart et al.,
2018). Previous research has suggested that the decreased runoff from the Mekong
River was primarily a consequence of climate change rather than human interven-
tions, such as upstream dam construction in China. In contrast, there were no signif-
icant trends in precipitation for most of the Mekong River Basin between 1988 and
2000 (Fig. 3.31c), which could potentially explain the stabilized inundation observed
during this period (see Fig. 3.25). To assess the relative impacts of three potential
factors on the interannual inundation changes of Tonle Sap Lake, a multiple general
linear model was employed (Tao et al., 2015). These factors included the precipita-
tion of the HCZ, the number of dams, and the evapotranspiration (ET) of the lake’s
drainage basin. The analysis revealed that the relative contributions were 76.1% for
HCZ precipitation, 6.9% for the number of dams, and 2.0% for ET, respectively.
These findings underscore the predominant role of HCZ precipitation changes in
driving the interannual dynamics of the lake’s inundation.
The water turbidity of the Tonle Sap Lake is likely to be controlled by two factors:
(1) Sediment resuspension, which can be attributed to external forces such as wind
activity within the lake, sediment discharge within the lake basin, as well as internal
forces related to hydrodynamics (Hoshikawa et al., 2019); and (2) exchanges of
sediments between the Tonle Sap Lake and the Mekong River. Satellite observations
showed a pronounced increase in water turbidity, which was likely due to the lake
shrinkage induced hydrodynamic changes. For example, higher chances of sediment
resuspension from the bottom can be expected when water depth decreases, even if
other external factors are stable. Indeed, it was further confirmed that the validity
of this hypothesis by the statistically significant correlations between the annual
TSS concentration and inundation area (R2 = 0.41 for quarter 1 and R2 = 0.49 for
quarter 4, both with P < 0.05, see Fig. 3.32a, d). Such correlations agreed well with
the results of a former study (Hoshikawa et al., 2019), where statistically significant
relationships were detected between water depth and TSS in dry seasons. Therefore,
the inundation shrinkage (i.e., water depth decline) has caused an increase in sediment
resuspension through either wind or gravity flow and therefore lead to the recent
increase in water turbidity in Tonle Sap Lake (Siev et al., 2018). In contrast, the TSS
trend and TSS- inundation correlations in quarters 2 and 3 were insignificant, which
were associated with the reversed flow of the Mekong River to Tonle Sap Lake that
was intervented by human activities during these periods (Fig. 3.32b, c). Numerically,
sediment flux from the Tonle Sap River to the lake varies between 5.1 and 6.4 Mt
year−1 , whereas the magnitude of reversal sediment discharge from the lake to the
river was about three times smaller (Kummu & Sarkkula, 2008; Sok et al., 2021). As
such, the lake turbidity could be substantially modulated by the sediment-rich flows
from the Mekong River, which smears the inundation shrinkage-induced impacts in
3 Surface Water 103
Fig. 3.32 Relationships between the seasonal mean TSS and inundation areas of Tonle Sap Lake.
a–d Quarters 1–4 (Wang et al., 2020)
wet seasons. Nevertheless, physical modelling and additional in situ hydrological

measurements are required to determine the underlined mechanisms and to quantify
the exact contributions of various drivers on the inundation and water turbidity.
3.4.6 Projected Change in Inundation Area
Numerous studies have used hydrological models to simulate and quantify the future
changes in the Tonle Sap Lake’s inundation dynamics under various scenarios repre-
senting both climate variability and water infrastructure development plans. For
example, Västilä et al. (2010) used multiple models including GCM, VIC, EIA to
examine the effects of changes in sea level and Mekong mainstream discharge under
climate change on the Lower Mekong flood pulse during 2010–2049 period. They
found that water levels in the Lower Mekong, including the Tonle Sap Lake, would
increase in the future, leading to higher annual flooded areas. In particular, annual
maximum water depth and flooded areas increased during average and dry years
and decreased during wet years. The study also reported that flood duration will be
likely to increase slightly with greater flooding starting earlier and lasting longer
with flood peaks arriving earlier in average hydrological years. Arias et al. (2012)
evaluated the impact of water infrastructure development and climate change by
using the MRC Decision Support Framework for multiple scenarios of progressive
stages in comparison to simulations by Västilä et al. (2010). They reported that while
hydropower development could reduce flood extent by up to 1,200 km2 , climate
change is expected to increase flood extent by up to 1,000 km2 . They also noted that
during average years in the future, water levels in the lake during October–November
104 J. Liu et al.
may increase due to climate change but reduce due to dam construction. The largest
changes may occur during dry years, and the areas most impacted would be those
at the fringe of the open water with flood duration of 9–10 months, and halfway
between open water and the edge of the floodplain, flooded for ~4 months. A recent
study also showed similar results based on hypothetical dam simulations, indicating
that regulation of mainstream Mekong flow by dams may increase areas flooded
for over 7 months and reduce those flooded for less than 5 months (Pokhrel et al.,
2018b). Similar findings have been reported by Yu et al. (2019) using CAESAR-
LISFLOOD system and by Try et al. (2020) using RRI model. Further, Arias et al.
(2014) identified that areas that currently have long periods or are permanently inun-
dated throughout the year are likely to expand while seasonally inundated areas will
be decreased. They also found that the hydrological alteration of the hydropower
system in the 3S basin could have similar effects as the Lancang dam cascade and
the cumulative effect of development in both areas will cause significant disruption
to the inundation pattern of the lake.
3.5 Past and Future Changes in Climate and Water

Resources in the LMRB
3.5.1 Climate of the Lancang-Mekong River Basin
3.5.1.1 Past and Future Warming Trends
In the past decade, there have been notable and confidently increasing trends in the
annual mean temperature across the LMRB (Fan et al., 2015). These warming trends
in both the Lancang River Basin and Mekong River Basin have surpassed the global
average temperature rise, which was reported as 0.17 °C per decade since 1981 by
Hartfield et al. (2018).
Between the early 1980s and 2010, there were no statistically significant changes
in annual maximum and minimum temperatures observed over the Lancang River
Basin (Fan et al., 2015). However, it’s noteworthy that both annual maximum and
minimum temperatures exhibited the same warming trend direction as the mean
annual temperature in the Mekong River Basin during the same period (Lutz et al.,
2014). Among the seasons, the highest rate of warming trends was observed during
winter (December–February) across both the Lancang River Basin (Fan et al., 2015)
and the Mekong River Basin (Lutz et al., 2014) from 1981 to 2010. It’s worth
mentioning that the Lancang River Basin had already been experiencing warmer
winters prior to 1981, particularly during the period from the 1960s to the early
2000s (You et al., 2010).
Projections for the twenty-first century indicate statistically significant warming
trends in mean annual temperature over the Lancang-Mekong River Basin (Kingston
et al., 2011; Lacombe et al., 2012). These trends are expected to be more pronounced
3 Surface Water 105
in the northern and southern parts of the basin (Lauri et al., 2012). However, it’s
important to note that the extent of temperature change varies depending on the
climate scenario used in the models. Over the Mekong River Basin, a warming trend
of 0.01–0.03 °C per decade is projected (Zhou et al., 2013), while the Lancang
River Basin is expected to experience slightly more evident and consistent warming
(Kingston et al., 2011). Projections suggest that by 2050, the daily maximum temper-
ature over the Mekong River Basin is likely to increase, with estimates ranging from
1.6 °C in the northern and southwestern regions to 4.1 °C in the southeastern areas,
where the historical climate has been cooler than in the central part of the basin
(Zhou et al., 2013). Consequently, an increase in the frequency of annual hot days
(daily maximum temperature >33 °C) is anticipated, particularly in the southern part
of the Mekong River Basin (Västilä et al., 2010). Regarding seasonal temperature
changes, projections indicate a fairly homogeneous increase in temperatures across
the Mekong River Basin, with a warmer climate expected during wet seasons (1.7–
5.3 °C) compared to dry seasons (1.5–3.5 °C) for the near future (2020–2050) (Zhou
et al., 2013). Meanwhile, daily mean temperatures across the Lancang River Basin
are projected to be higher during dry seasons (7.5–10.5 °C) than during wet seasons
(6.0–7.5 °C) under the 6 °C warming scenario. Furthermore, the warming trend is
expected to extend to higher elevations, especially above 400 m, in the Mekong River
Basin during this century (Zhou et al., 2013).
3.5.1.2 Uncertainty in Estimated Past and Projected Future

Precipitation
Previous studies have reported moderately increasing trends in annual precipitation

over the Lancang-Mekong River Basin (LMRB) in recent decades, although with
varying levels of confidence (Lacombe et al., 2013). One recent study found a wet
but statistically insignificant trend of 24.8 mm/decade in annual precipitation over
the LMRB during the period 1983–2016 (Chen et al., 2019). In contrast, from 1981
to 2007, annual precipitation based on daily gridded (0.25° × 0.25°) APHRODITE
(Asian Precipitation-Highly Resolved Observational Data Integration Towards Eval-
uation of Water Resources) data showed a significant increasing trend of 52.6 mm/
decade over the Mekong River Basin (Lutz et al., 2014). Similarly, there was a signifi-
cant increase (14.5 mm/decade) in annual precipitation over the Lancang River Basin
during the period 1981–2010, based on in situ precipitation records at seven mete-
orological stations (Liu et al., 2022). These findings suggest that while there are
differences in estimates based on different datasets, there has been an increasing
trend in annual precipitation in the LMRB in recent years. There is a consensus,
with high confidence, that significant increases in annual precipitation are expected
across the LMRB over the next 30–50 years (Lacombe et al., 2012). Variability in
annual precipitation is also projected to increase in this basin (Lauri et al., 2012). This
high confidence in projected wetting trends is primarily attributed to future global
warming, which is likely to enhance the transport of water vapor from the Indian
Ocean and the western Pacific Ocean towards the LMRB, resulting in increased
106 J. Liu et al.
precipitation across the region (Zhang et al., 2017). Depending on the emissions
scenario, these projected wetting trends in annual precipitation over the Lancang-
Mekong River Basin range from 2.5–8.6% to 1.2–5.8% per year. For instance, annual
precipitation is expected to increase by 35–365 mm (3–14%) over the Mekong River
Basin by 2050 (Zhou et al., 2013) and by approximately 10% over the Lancang River
Basin under the 2 °C warming scenario.
In terms of monthly precipitation, projections indicate increases over the Lancang
River Basin for all months by 20–60% under warming scenarios of 2–6 °C, except
for April, which shows a projected decrease of 16–40% (Kingston et al., 2011). With
moderate confidence, it is expected that precipitation will increase during the wet
season (May–October) over the Mekong River Basin by 2050 but decrease in the dry
season (November–April) (Zhou et al., 2013). Additionally, there is a likelihood that
precipitation will shift from higher to lower elevations, such that historical annual
precipitation levels of 1,500 mm recorded at an elevation of approximately 280 m
may be observed at elevations of around 80 m (Zhou et al., 2013) (Fig. 3.33).
Fig. 3.33 Changes in temperature and precipitation over the a LMRB, b upper part of the LMRB
(LRB) and c lower part of the LMRB (MRB), based on the published literature
3 Surface Water 107
3.5.2 Water Resources in the LMRB: Historical Changes

and Future Projections
3.5.2.1 Annual Mean Discharge
A general trend of decreasing annual streamflow was identified in the Lancang-

Mekong River Basin (LMRB) over the period of 1960–2010, although this trend is
associated with low confidence. However, no clear trend has been observed after
2010 (Ruiz-Barradas et al., 2018). It’s worth noting that different studies have
reported varying trends in historical streamflow in the LMRB, with some indicating
a decrease and others suggesting an increase. These discrepancies can be attributed
to differences in data sources and methodologies used in each study.
The changes in streamflow in the LMRB are the result of a combination of climate
change and human activities, and the contributions of these factors vary across regions
and time periods. Climate change was a dominant driver of streamflow alterations
in the LMRB before 2010, accounting for 82.3% of the changes during the transi-
tion period of 1992–2009. In contrast, human activities, primarily dam construction,
played a more significant role after 2010, contributing 61.9% of the changes in
streamflow during the post-impact period of 2010–2014 (Li et al., 2017). Notably,
the hydrological response of the Lancang River Basin appears to be more sensitive
to climate factors than human activities when compared to the Mekong River Basin,
underscoring the increasing impact of intensive human activities on hydrological
processes in the Mekong River Basin, particularly in recent years (Shin et al. 2020).
Projections for future streamflow changes exhibit spatial variability, particularly
within the Mekong River Basin (Liu et al., 2022). While an increasing trend in stream-
flow is anticipated for the Lancang-Mekong River Basin, significant uncertainties
persist. Some studies project a 21% increase in annual runoff by the 2030s compared
to the historical period (1951–2000) based on 11 global climate models (GCMs)
(Eastham et al., 2008). In contrast, Västilä et al. (2010) reported only a 4% increase
in annual flow by the 2040s in the Lancang-Mekong River Basin, using dynamically
downscaled data from the ECHAM4 climate model. Other investigations based on
CMIP5 datasets for the near future (2036–2065) have also indicated relatively small
changes in mean annual flow, ranging from 3 to 10% in the Lancang-Mekong River
Basin (Hoang et al., 2016; Västilä et al., 2010).
Furthermore, the magnitude and frequency of extremely high-flow events are
projected to increase, while low-flow events are expected to occur less frequently,
particularly as a result of climate change (Hoang et al., 2016). These more frequent
extreme high-flow events could pose increased flood risks in the Lancang-Mekong
River Basin. It’s worth noting that the extensive construction of hydropower projects,
which has led to changes in discharge, is anticipated to have a more significant impact
on hydrography in the basin compared to climate change over the next 20–30 years
(Hoang et al., 2019; Lauri et al., 2012) (Fig. 3.34).
108 J. Liu et al.
Fig. 3.34 Changes in streamflow over a the LMRB, b LRB, and c MRB, based on published works
3.5.2.2 Groundwater
Global groundwater data from the International Groundwater Resources Assessment

Center (IGRAC) indicate that approximately 0.55 km3 of groundwater was extracted
from the Lancang-Mekong River Basin (mainly from the Mekong River Basin) in
2000 (Wada et al., 2010). However, it’s important to note that this estimate is signifi-
cantly lower than what has been reported by country-based statistics (Ha et al., 2015).
This discrepancy could be attributed to the fact that the global database from IGRAC
may not fully account for groundwater use by individual households across the basin
(Pokhrel et al., 2018a, 2018b).
The groundwater system in the Lancang-Mekong River Basin (LMRB) is
primarily influenced by changing hydrological conditions and intensive human activ-
ities, both of which impact the groundwater balance in terms of recharge and with-
drawal (White, 2002). Over a 30-year monitoring period in the Mekong Delta, a
significant decline in groundwater levels has been observed (IUCN, 2011). Particu-
larly in Ca Mau Province, Vietnam, groundwater levels have dropped by as much as
10 m since 1995 (IUCN, 2011). In the river delta region of Vietnam, groundwater
levels have consistently decreased at a rate of approximately 0.3 m per year, as docu-
mented by data from nested monitoring wells. This decline in groundwater levels
has also led to land subsidence in the region, occurring at an average rate of about
1.6 cm per year (Erban et al., 2013).
The principal factors driving these declining trends in groundwater levels can be
attributed to increased water demand and reduced water supply (IUCN, 2011). The
3 Surface Water 109
growing population and expansion of agriculture have generated a higher demand for
freshwater resources, intensifying the exploitation of groundwater. Additionally, the
supply of clean water in this region has decreased (IUCN, 2011). Reduced ground-
water recharge is primarily a result of changes in land use, including deforestation
and increased cultivation of fields, which reduce the groundwater recharge ratio
accordingly (White, 2002).
3.5.2.3 Potential Environmental and Social Impacts of Water Resource

Changes
Anticipated changes in the water resources of the Lancang-Mekong River Basin

(LMRB) are likely to have significant implications for sustainable water manage-
ment. These projected changes in the basin’s flow regime are expected to have
negative consequences across several dimensions.
Firstly, substantial alterations to flow regimes can disrupt aquatic ecosystems by
changing the distribution of vegetation, the natural habitats of native species, and fish
migration patterns (Arias et al., 2012). Dams, in particular, are expected to profoundly
impact fish abundance and catch in the lower reaches of the Mekong River Basin,
which can have implications for dietary protein consumption (Burbano et al., 2020).
Furthermore, reduced streamflow during the wet season may impede overland water
flows that trigger the natural sedimentation process on floodplains, affecting flood-
recession agriculture. Decreased sedimentation will also reduce the nutrients carried
by sediment during flood events, further impacting crop yields (Hoang et al., 2019).
It is projected that water use in the LMRB will significantly increase due to
rapid socioeconomic development and population growth, outpacing the increase
in available water resources (Eastham et al., 2008). This could lead to growing
challenges related to water security, with an increasing number of people facing
water stress. Moreover, studies have shown that regions with significantly regulated
flows due to dams tend to experience downstream shifts in water scarcity hotspots
(Veldkamp et al., 2017).
The demand for groundwater in the LMRB is expected to surge under climate
change conditions, as surface water becomes less accessible. This intensification
of groundwater extraction could lead to large-scale land subsidence, potentially
resulting in the release of arsenic from deep groundwater through vertical migra-
tion (Wagner et al., 2012). This poses risks to crop yields and human health in the
future (Merola et al., 2014).
Despite these negative effects of an altered water system, there are some positive
impacts to consider. For instance, an increase in streamflow during the dry season
(Shin et al., 2020) could help alleviate water stress for agriculture (Son et al., 2012).
Higher water levels during the dry season can prevent saltwater intrusion downstream,
particularly in the vulnerable Mekong Delta (Smajgl et al., 2015). Additionally, the
relatively lower water levels during the wet season induced by dams imply reduced
flood risks along the river, especially in the main floodplains of the Mekong Delta
(Pokhrel et al., 2018a, 2018b).
110 J. Liu et al.
References
Alcamo, J., Döll, P., Henrichs, T., Kaspar, F., Lehner, B., Rösch, T., & Siebert, S. (2003). Develop-
ment and testing of the WaterGAP 2 global model of water use and availability. Hydrological
Sciences Journal, 48(3), 317–338. https://doi.org/10.1623/hysj.48.3.317.45290
Anand Tularam, G., & Ilahee, M. (2008). Exponential smoothing method of base flow separation and
its impact on continuous loss estimates. Mahbub American Journal of Environmental Sciences,
4(2), 136–144. https://doi.org/10.3844/ajessp.2008.136.144
Arias, M. E., Cochrane, T. A., Piman, T., Kummu, M., Caruso, B. S., & Killeen, T. J. (2012).
Quantifying changes in flooding and habitats in the Tonle Sap Lake (Cambodia) caused by
water infrastructure development and climate change in the Mekong Basin. Journal of Environ-
mental Management, 112, 53–66. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jenvman.2012.07.003. http://www.
sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0301479712003647
Arias, M., Piman, T., Lauri, H., Cochrane, T., & Kummu, M. (2014). Dams on Mekong tributaries
as significant contributors of hydrological alterations to the Tonle Sap Floodplain in Cambodia.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 18(12), 5303.
Arino, O., Ramos Perez, J. J., Kalogirou, V., Bontemps, S., Defourny, P., & Van Bogaert, E. (2012).
Global land cover map for 2009 (GlobCover 2009). European Space Agency (ESA) & Université
Catholique de Louvain (UCL). https://doi.org/10.1594/PANGAEA.787668
Babin, M., Morel, A., Fournier-Sicre, V., Fell, F., & Stramski, D. (2003). Light scattering properties
of marine particles in coastal and open ocean waters as related to the particle mass concentration.
Limnology and oceanography, 48(2), 843–859
Bai, P., Liu, X., Yang, T., Liang, K., & Liu, C. (2016). Evaluation of streamflow simulation results
of land surface models in GLDAS on the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Atmospheres, 121(20), 12, 112–180, 197. https://doi.org/10.1002/2016JD025501
Beven, K. J., & Kirkby, M. J. (1979). A physically-based variable contributing area model of basin
hydrology. Hydrological Science Journal 24, 43–69.
Bierkens, M. F. P. (2015). Global hydrology 2015: State, trends, and directions. Water Resources
Research, 51(7), 4923–4947. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015WR017173
Brutsaert, W. (2005). Hydrology: An introduction. Cambridge University Press.
Brutsaert, W. (2008). Long-term groundwater storage trends estimated from streamflow records:
Climatic perspective. Water Resources Research, 44(2). https://doi.org/10.1029/2007WR
006518
Burbano, M., Shin, S., Nguyen, K., & Pokhrel, Y. (2020a). Hydrologic changes, dam construction,
and the shift in dietary protein in the Lower Mekong River Basin. Journal of Hydrology, 581,
124454. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124454
Campbell, I. C. (2007). Perceptions, data, and river management: Lessons from the Mekong River.
Water Resources Research, 43(2).
Chapman, T. G. (1991). Comment on “Evaluation of automated techniques for base flow and
recession analyses” by R. J. Nathan and T. A. McMahon. In Water resources research (Vol. 27,
Issue 7, pp. 1783–1784). Wiley. https://doi.org/10.1029/91WR01007
Chea, R., Grenouillet, G., & Lek, S. (2016). Evidence of water quality degradation in Lower Mekong
Basin revealed by self-organizing map. PLoS ONE, 11(1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.
pone.0145527
Chen, J., Chen, J., Liao, A., Cao, X., Chen, L., Chen, X., He, C., Han, G., Peng, S., Lu, M.,
Zhang, W., Tong, X., & Mills, J. (2014). Global land cover mapping at 30 m resolution: A
POK-based operational approach. ISPRS Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 103,
7–27. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.isprsjprs.2014.09.002
Chen, A., Ho, C.H., Chen, D., & Azorin-Molina, C. (2019). Tropical cyclone rainfall in the Mekong
River Basin for 1983–2016. Atmosphere Research, 226, 66–75.
Chen, A., Liu, J., Kummu, M., Varis, O., Tang, Q., Mao, G., Wang, J., & Chen, D. (2021a).
Multidecadal variability of the Tonle Sap Lake flood pulse regime. Hydrological Processes,
35(9), e14327. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.14327
3 Surface Water 111
Chen, H., Liu, J., Mao, G., et al. (2021b). Intercomparison of ten ISI-MIP models in simulating
discharges along the Lancang-Mekong River basin. Science of the Total Environment, 765,
144494.
Chen, D., Xu, B., Yao, T., Guo, Z., Cui, P., Chen, F., Zhang, R., Zhang, X., Zhang, Y., Fan, J., Hou,
Z., & Zhang, T. (2015). Assessment of past, present and future environmental changes on the
Tibetan Plateau. Chinese Science Bulletin, 60(32).
Cheng, L., Zhang, L., & Brutsaert, W. (2016). Automated selection of pure base flows from
regular daily streamflow data: Objective algorithm. Journal of Hydrologic Engineering, 21(11),
06016008. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0001427
Cochrane, T. A., Arias, M. E., & Piman, T. (2014). Historical impact of water infrastructure on water
levels of the Mekong River and the Tonle Sap system. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
18(11), 4529–4541. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-4529-2014
Collischonn, W., & Fan, F. M. (2013). Defining parameters for Eckhardt’s digital baseflow filter.
Hydrological Processes, 27(18), 2614–2622.
Cosslett, T. L., & Cosslett, P. D. (2014). Major threats to Mekong Delta: Climate change and
mainstream dams. In Water resources and food security in the Vietnam Mekong Delta (pp. 75–
96). Springer.
Dang, T. D., Cochrane, T. A., Arias, M. E., & Tri, V. P. D. (2018). Future hydrological alterations
in the Mekong Delta under the impact of water resources development, land subsidence and sea
level rise. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 15, 119–133. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.
2017.12.002
Dang, H., Pokhrel, Y., Shin, S., Stelly, J., Ahlquist, D., & Du Bui, D. (2022). Hydrologic balance
and inundation dynamics of Southeast Asia’s largest inland lake altered by hydropower dams
in the Mekong River basin. Science of the Total Environment, 831, 154833.
Danneberg, J. (2012). Changes in runoff time series in Thuringia, Germany—Mann-Kendall trend
test and extreme value analysis. Advances in Geosciences, 31, 49–56.
David, C. H., Maidment, D. R., Niu, G.-Y., Yang, Z.-L., Habets, F., & Eijkhout, V. (2011). River
network routing on the NHDPlus dataset. Journal of Hydrometeorology, 12(5), 913–934. https://
doi.org/10.1175/2011JHM1345.1
Dekker, A. G., Vos, R. J., & Peters, S. W. (2001). Comparison of remote sensing data, model results
and in situ data for total suspended matter (TSM) in the southern Frisian lakes. Science of the
Total Environment, 268(1–3), 197–214.
de Rosnay, P., Browne, P., de Boisséson, E., Fairbairn, D., Hirahara, Y., Ochi, K., ... & Rabier,
F. (2022). Coupled data assimilation at ECMWF: Current status, challenges and future
developments. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, 148(747), 2672–2702.
Delgado, J. M., Apel, H., & Merz, B. (2010). Flood trends and variability in the Mekong river.
Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 14(3), 407–418. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-407-
2010
Donchyts, G., Baart, F., Winsemius, H., Gorelick, N., Kwadijk, J., & van de Giesen, N. (2016).
Earth’s surface water change over the past 30 years. Nature Climate Change, 6(9), 810–813.
Dottori, F., Salamon, P., Bianchi, A., Alfieri, L., Hirpa, F. A., & Feyen, L. (2016). Development and
evaluation of a framework for global flood hazard mapping. Advances in Water Resources, 94,
87–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2016.05.002
Doxaran, D., Froidefond, J. M., Lavender, S., & Castaing, P. (2002). Spectral signature of
highly turbid waters: Application with SPOT data to quantify suspended particulate matter
concentrations. Remote Sensing of Environment, 81(1), 149–161.
Eastham, J., Mpelasoka, F., Mainuddin, M., Ticehurst, C., Dyce, P., Hodgson, G., Ali, R., & Kirby,
M. (2008). Mekong river basin water resources assessment: Impacts of climate change.
Eckhardt, K. (2005). How to construct recursive digital filters for baseflow separation. Hydrological
Processes, 19(2), 507–515. https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.5675
Eckhardt, K. (2008). A comparison of baseflow indices, which were calculated with seven different
baseflow separation methods. Journal of Hydrology, 352(1–2), 168–173.
112 J. Liu et al.
Erban, L. E., Gorelick, S. M., Zebker, H. A., & Fendorf, S. (2013). Release of arsenic to deep ground-
water in the Mekong Delta, Vietnam, linked to pumping-induced land subsidence. Proceedings
of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 110, 13751–13756. https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1300503110
Fan, H., He, D., & Wang, H. (2015). Environmental consequences of damming the mainstream
Lancang-Mekong River: A review. Earth-Science Reviews, 146, 77–91.
Feng, L., Hu, C., Chen, X., Tian, L., & Chen, L. (2012). Human induced turbidity changes in Poyang
lake between 2000 and 2010: Observations from MODIS. Journal of Geophysical Research:
Oceans, 117(C7).
Feng, L., Hu, C., & Li, J. (2018). Can MODIS land reflectance products be used for estuarine and
inland waters? Water Resources Research, 54(5), 3583–3601.
Fekete, B. M., Vorosmarty, C. J., Hall, F. G., Collatz, G. J., Meeson, B. W., Los, S. O., Brown
De Colstoun, E., & Landis, D. R. (2011). ISLSCP II UNH/GRDC composite monthly runoff.
ORNL DAAC.https://doi.org/10.3334/ORNLDAAC/994
Frappart, F., Biancamaria, S., Normandin, C., Blarel, F., Bourrel, L., Aumont, M., Azemar, P., Vu,
P.-L., Le Toan, T., Lubac, B., & Darrozes, J. (2018). Influence of recent climatic events on the
surface water storage of the Tonle Sap Lake. Science of the Total Environment, 636, 1520–1533.
Fumagalli, M. (2020). Luang Prabang: Climate change and rapid development. Cities, 97, 102549.
Furey, P. R., & Gupta, V. K. (2001). A physically based filter for separating base flow from streamflow
time series. Water Resources Research, 37(11), 2709–2722. https://doi.org/10.1029/2001WR
000243
Genereux, D. (1998). Quantifying uncertainty in tracer-based hydrograph separations. Water
Resources Research, 34(4), 915–919. https://doi.org/10.1029/98WR00010
Gerten, D., Schaphoff, S., Haberlandt, U., Lucht, W., & Sitch, S. (2004). Terrestrial vegetation
and water balance—Hydrological evaluation of a dynamic global vegetation model. Journal of
Hydrology, 286(1), 249–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.09.029
Ha, K., Ngoc, NTM., Lee, E., & Jayakumar, R. (2015). Current status and issues of groundwater
in the Mekong river basin. Korea Institute of Geoscience and Mineral Resources (KIGAM).
Hagemann, S., & Dümenil, L. (1998). Documentation for the hydrological discharge model.
Hall, F. R. (1968). Base-flow recessions—A review. Water Resources Research, 4(5), 973–983.
https://doi.org/10.1029/WR004i005p00973
Han, Z., Long, D., Fang, Y., Hou, A., & Hong, Y. (2019). Impacts of climate change and human
activities on the flow regime of the dammed Lancang River in Southwest China. Journal of
Hydrology, 570, 96–105.
Hanasaki, N., Kanae, S., Oki, T., Masuda, K., Motoya, K., Shirakawa, N., Shen, Y., & Tanaka,
K. (2008). An integrated model for the assessment of global water resources—Part 1: Model
description and input meteorological forcing. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 12(4),
1007–1025.
Hartfield, G., Blunden, J., & Arndt, D. S. (2018). State of the Climate in 2017. Bulletin of the
American Meteorological Society, 99(8), Si-S310.
Haxeltine, A., & Prentice, I. C. (1996). BIOME3: An equilibrium terrestrial biosphere model based
on ecophysiological constraints, resource availability, and competition among plant functional
types. Global Biogeochemical Cycles, 10(4), 693–709.
He, D., & Chen, L. (2002). The impact of hydropower cascade development in the Lancang-Mekong
Basin, Yunnan. Mekong Update and Dialogue, 5(3), 2–4.
Hecht, J. S., Lacombe, G., Arias, M. E., Dang, T. D., & Piman, T. (2019). Hydropower dams of
the Mekong River basin: A review of their hydrological impacts. Journal of Hydrology, 568,
285–300. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.10.045
Hoang, L. P., Lauri, H., Kummu, M., Koponen, J., Van Vliet, M. T., & Supit, I. (2016). Mekong River
flow and hydrological extremes under climate change. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
Hoang, L. P., van Vliet, M. T. H., Kummu, M., Lauri, H., Koponen, J., Supit, I., Leemans, R., Kabat,
P., & Ludwig, F. (2019). The Mekong’s future flows under multiple drivers: How climate change,
3 Surface Water 113
hydropower developments and irrigation expansions drive hydrological changes. Science of the
Total Environment, 649, 601–609. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.08.160
Hochreiter, S., & Schmidhuber, J. (1997). LSTM can solve hard long time lag problems. Advances
in Neural Information Processing Systems, 473–479.
Hoshikawa, K., Fujihara, Y., Siev, S., Arai, S., Nakamura, T., Fujii, H., ... & Yoshimura, C. (2019).
Characterization of total suspended solid dynamics in a large shallow lake using long-term daily
satellite images. Hydrological Processes, 33(21), 2745–2758.
Hou, X., Feng, L., Chen, X., & Zhang, Y. (2018). Dynamics of the wetland vegetation in large lakes
of the Yangtze Plain in response to both fertilizer consumption and climatic changes. ISPRS
Journal of Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing, 141, 148–160.
Huyck, A. A. O., Pauwels, V. R. N., & Verhoest, N. E. C. (2005). A base flow separation algorithm
based on the linearized Boussinesq equation for complex hillslopes. Water Resources Research,
41(8), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003789
Institute of Hydrology. (1980). Low flow studies report no.1 research report. Institute of Hydrology.
International Union for Conservation of Nature. (2011). Groundwater in the Mekong Delta. Ministry
of Foreign Affairs of Finland.
Ji, X., Li, Y., Luo, X., & He, D. (2018). Changes in the Lake Area of Tonle Sap: Possible linkage
to runoff alterations in the Lancang River? Remote Sensing, 10(6), 866.
Johnston, R., & Kummu, M. (2012). Water resource models in the Mekong Basin: A review. Water
Resources Management, 26(2), 429–455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-011-9925-8
Kiem, A. S., Ishidaira, H., Hapuarachchi, H. P., Zhou, M. C., Hirabayashi, Y., & Takeuchi, K. (2008).
Future hydroclimatology of the Mekong River basin simulated using the high-resolution Japan
Meteorological Agency (JMA) AGCM. Hydrological Processes, 22(9), 1382–1394. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hyp.6947
Kingston, D. G., Thompson, J. R., & Kite, G. (2011). Uncertainty in climate change projections of
discharge for the Mekong River Basin. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 15(5), 1459–1471.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-15-1459-2011
KlemeŠ, V. (1986). Operational testing of hydrological simulation models. Hydrological Sciences
Journal, 31(1), 13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626668609491024
Knoben, W. J. M., Freer, J. E., & Woods, R. A. (2019). Technical note: Inherent benchmark or not?
Comparing Nash-Sutcliffe and Kling-Gupta efficiency scores. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences, 23(10), 4323–4331. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Brenner, C., Schulz, K., & Herrnegger, M. (2018). Rainfall–runoff modelling
using Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) networks. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences,
Kratzert, F., Klotz, D., Shalev, G., Klambauer, G., Hochreiter, S., & Nearing, G. (2019).
Benchmarking a catchmentaware long short-term memory network (LSTM) for large-scale
hydrological modeling. Hydrological Earth System Science Discussion, 1–32.
Kuang, X., & Jiao, J. J. (2016). Review on climate change on the Tibetan Plateau during the last
half century. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres, 121(8), 3979–4007.
Kummu, M., & Sarkkula, J. (2008). Impact of the Mekong River flow alteration on the Tonle Sap
flood pulse. AMBIO: A Journal of the Human Environment, 37(3), 185–192. http://www.bio
one.org/doi/abs/10.1579/0044-7447%282008%2937%5B185%3AIOTMRF%5D2.0.CO%3B2
Kummu, M., Sarkkula, J., Koponen, J., & Nikula, J. (2006). Ecosystem management of the
Tonle Sap Lake: An integrated modelling approach. International Journal of Water Resources
Development, 22(3), 497–519.
Kummu, M., Tes, S., Yin, S., Adamson, P., Józsa, J., Koponen, J., Richey, J., & Sarkkula, J. (2014).
Water balance analysis for the Tonle Sap Lake–floodplain system. Hydrological Processes,
28(4), 1722–1733.
Kummu, M., & Varis, O. (2007). Sediment-related impacts due to upstream reservoir trapping, the
Lower Mekong River. Geomorphology, 85(3–4), 275–293.
Lacombe, G., Hoanh, C. T., & Smakhtin, V. (2012). Multi-year variability or unidirectional trends?
Mapping long-term precipitation and temperature changes in continental Southeast Asia using
114 J. Liu et al.
PRECIS regional climate model. Climate Change, 113, 285–299. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10

584-011-0359-3
Lacombe, G., Smakhtin, V., & Hoanh, C. T. (2013). Wetting tendency in the Central Mekong
Basin consistent with climate change-induced atmospheric disturbances already observed in
East Asia. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 111, 251–263. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-
012-0654-6
Lauri, H., De Moel, H., Ward, P. J., Räsänen, T. A., Keskinen, M., & Kummu, M. (2012). Future
changes in Mekong River hydrology: Impact of climate change and reservoir operation on
discharge. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16(12), 4603–4619. https://doi.org/10.5194/
hess-16-4603-2012
Lawrence, D. M., Oleson, K. W., Flanner, M. G., Thornton, P. E., Swenson, S. C., Lawrence, P. J.,
Zeng, X., Yang, Z.-L., Levis, S., Sakaguchi, K., Bonan, G. B., & Slater, A. G. (2011). Parame-
terization improvements and functional and structural advances in Version 4 of the Community
Land Model. Journal of Advances in Modelling Earth Systems, 3(1), M03001. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2011MS00045
Lehner, B., & Grill, G. (2013). Global river hydrography and network routing: Baseline data and new
approaches to study the world’s large river systems. Hydrological Processes, 27(15), 2171–2186.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.9740
Leopold, L. B., & Maddock, T. J. (1953). The hydraulic geometry of stream channels and some
physiographic implications. In Geological survey professional paper 252.
Li, S., & He, D. (2008). Water level response to hydropower development in the upper Mekong
River. Ambio.
Li, D., Long, D., Zhao, J., Lu, H., & Hong, Y. (2017). Observed changes in flow regimes in the
Mekong River basin. Journal of Hydrology, 551, 217–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.
2017.05.061
Liang, X., Lettenmaier, D. P., Wood, E. F., & Burges, S. J. (1994). A simple hydrologically
based model of land surface water and energy fluxes for general circulation models. Journal of
Geophysical Research, 99(D7), 14415–14428.
Lin, K., Guo, S., Zhang, W., & Liu, P. (2007). A new baseflow separation method based on analytical
solutions of the Horton infiltration capacity curve. Hydrological Processes, 21(13), 1719–1736.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6357
Lin, Z., & Qi, J. (2017). Hydro-dam—A nature-based solution or an ecological problem: The fate
of the Tonlé Sap Lake. Environmental Research, 158, 24–32.
Lin, P., Yang, Z.-L., Gochis, D. J., Yu, W., Maidment, D. R., Somos-Valenzuela, M. A., & David,
C. H. (2018). Implementation of a vector-based river network routing scheme in the community
WRF-Hydro modelling framework for flood discharge simulation. Environmental Modelling &
Software, 107, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsoft.2018.05.018
Liu, J., Chen, D., Mao, G., Irannezhad, M., & Pokhrel, Y. (2022). Past and future changes in climate
and water resources in the Lancang-Mekong River Basin: Current understanding and future
research directions. Engineering, 13, 144–152.
Liu, J., Shi, Z., & Wang, D. (2016). Measuring and mapping the flood vulnerability based on land-
use patterns: A case study of Beijing, China. Natural Hazards, 83(3), 1545–1565. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s11069-016-2375-0
Lo, M. H., & Famiglietti, J. S. (2010). Effect of water table dynamics on land surface hydrologic
memory. Journal of Geophysical Research Atmospheres, 115(22), 22118. https://doi.org/10.
1029/2010JD014191
Lott, D. A., & Stewart, M. T. (2016). Base flow separation: A comparison of analytical and mass
balance methods. Journal of Hydrology, 535, 525–533. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.
01.063
Lu, X., Wang, J.-J., & Carl, G.-W. (2008). Are the Chinese dams to be blamed for the lower water
levels in the Lower Mekong? Modern Myths of the Mekong, 39–51.
3 Surface Water 115
Lutz, A., Terink, W., Droogers, P., Immerzeel, W., & Piman, T. (2014). Development of baseline
climate data set and trend analysis in the Mekong Basin. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-88-9-
1383.
Lyne, V., & Hollick, M. (1979). Stochastic time-variable rainfall-runoff modelling Need to cite this
paper? Want more papers like this?
Lyon, S. W., King, K., Polpanich, O. U., & Lacombe, G. (2017). Assessing hydrologic changes
across the Lower Mekong Basin. Journal of Hydrology: Regional Studies, 12, 303–314. https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2017.06.007
Mao, G., & Liu, J. (2019). WAYS v1: A hydrological model for root zone water storage simulation
on a global scale. Geoscientific Model Development, 12(12), 5267–5289. https://doi.org/10.
5194/gmd-12-5267-2019
Masaki, Y., Hanasaki, N., Biemans, H., Schmied, H. M., Tang, Q., Wada, Y., Gosling, S. N.,
Takahashi, K., & Hijioka, Y. (2017). Intercomparison of global river discharge simulations
focusing on dam operation—Multiple models analysis in two case-study river basins, Missouri-
Mississippi and Green-Colorado. Environmental Research Letters, 12(5). https://doi.org/10.
1088/1748-9326/aa57a8
Maxwell, T. C. A. (1996). Baseflow separation—Comparison of numerical methods with tracer
experiments. Hydrology and Water Resources Symposium 1996: Water and the Environment;
Preprints of Papers.
McFeeters, S. K. (1996). The use of the Normalized Difference Water Index (NDWI) in the
delineation of open water features. International Journal of Remote Sensing, 17(7), 1425–1432.
Merola, R. B., Hien, T. T., Quyen, D. T. T., & Vengosh, A. (2014). Arsenic exposure to drinking
water in the Mekong Delta. Science of the Total Environment, 511, 544–552. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2014.12.091
Meshkova, L. V., & Carling, P. A. (2012). The geomorphological characteristics of the Mekong River
in northern Cambodia: A mixed bedrock-alluvial multi-channel network. Geomorphology, 147,
2–17. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.geomorph.2011.06.041
MRC. (2010). Mekong River Commission: State of the Basin Report 2010.
Müller, M. F., Yoon, J., Gorelick, S. M., Avisse, N., & Tilmant, A. (2016). Impact of the Syrian
refugee crisis on land use and transboundary freshwater resources. Proceedings of the National
Academy of Sciences, 113(52), 14932–14937. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1614342113
Muñoz-Villers, L. E., Geissert, D. R., Holwerda, F., & McDonnell, J. J. (2016). Factors influencing
stream baseflow transit times in tropical montane watersheds. Hydrology and Earth System
Sciences, 20(4), 1621–1635. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-1621-2016
Nathan, R. J., & McMahon, T. A. (1990). Evaluation of automated techniques for base flow and
recession analyses. Water Resources Research, 26(7), 1465–1473.
Nechad, B., Ruddick, K. G., & Park, Y. (2010). Calibration and validation of a generic multi-
sensor algorithm for mapping of total suspended matter in turbid waters. Remote Sensing of
Environment, 114(4), 854–866.
Ng, W. X., & Park, E. (2021). Shrinking Tonlé Sap and the recent intensification of sand mining in
the Cambodian Mekong River. Science of the Total Environment, 777, 146180. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.146180. Epub 2021 Mar 3. PMID: 33689891.
O’Neill, B. C., Tebaldi, C., Van Vuuren, D. P., Eyring, V., Friedlingstein, P., Hurtt, G., Knutti, R.,
Kriegler, E., Lamarque, J. F., Lowe, J., Meehl, G. A., Moss, R., Riahi, K., & Sanderson, B. M.
(2016). The Scenario Model Intercomparison Project (ScenarioMIP) for CMIP6. Geoscientific
Model Development, 9(9), 3461–3482. https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-9-3461-2016
Olmanson, L. G., Brezonik, P. L., Finlay, J. C., & Bauer, M. E. (2016). Comparison of Landsat 8
and Landsat 7 for regional measurements of CDOM and water clarity in lakes. Remote Sensing
of Environment, 185, 119–128. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2016.01.007
Pekel, J.-F., Cottam, A., Gorelick, N., & Belward, A. S. (2016). High-resolution mapping of global
surface water and its long-term changes. Nature, 540(7633), 418–422. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nature20584
116 J. Liu et al.
Phi Hoang, L., Lauri, H., Kummu, M., Koponen, J., Van Vliet, M. T. H. V. H., Supit, I., Leemans,
R., Kabat, P., Ludwig, F., Hoang, L. P., Lauri, H., Kummu, M., Koponen, J., Van Vliet, M. T.
H. V. H., Supit, I., Leemans, R., Kabat, P., Ludwig, F., Phi Hoang, L., & Ludwig, F. (2016).
Mekong River flow and hydrological extremes under climate change. Hydrology and Earth
System Sciences, 20(7), 3027–3041. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3027-2016
Piman, T., Cochrane, T. A., Arias, M. E., Green, A., Dat, N. D., Cochrane, A. T., Arias, E. M., Green,
A., Dat, D. N., Cochrane, T. A., Arias, M. E., Green, A., & Dat, N. D. (2012). Assessment of
flow changes from hydropower development and operations in Sekong, Sesan, and Srepok rivers
of the Mekong basin. Journal of Water Resources Planning and Management, 139(6), 723–732.
https://doi.org/10.1061/(ASCE)WR.1943-5452.0000286
Pokhrel, Y., Burbano, M., Roush, J., Kang, H., Sridhar, V., & Hyndman, D. W. (2018a). A review
of the integrated effects of changing climate, land use, and dams on Mekong river hydrology.
Water, 10(3), 266. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10030266
Pokhrel, Y., Shin, S., Lin, Z., Yamazaki, D., & Qi, J. (2018b). Potential disruption of flood dynamics
in the Lower Mekong River Basin due to upstream flow regulation. Scientific Reports, 8(1),
17767.
Räsänen, T. A., Koponen, J., Lauri, H., & Kummu, M. (2012). Downstream hydrological impacts of
hydropower development in the Upper Mekong Basin. Water Resources Management, 26(12),
3495–3513. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0087-0
Räsänen, T. A., Someth, P., Lauri, H., Koponen, J., Sarkkula, J., & Kummu, M. (2017). Observed
river discharge changes due to hydropower operations in the Upper Mekong Basin. Journal of
Hydrology, 545, 28–41. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.12.023
Ruiz-Barradas, A., & Nigam, S. (2018). Hydroclimate variability and change over the Mekong
River Basin: Modelling and predictability and policy implications. Journal of Hydrometeorology,
19(5), 849–869. https://doi.org/10.1175/jhm-d-17-0195.1
Ruiz-Barradas, A., Chafik, L., Nigam, S., & Häkkinen, S. (2018). Recent subsurface North Atlantic
cooling trend in context of Atlantic decadal-to-multidecadal variability. Tellus A: Dynamic
Meteorology and Oceanography, 70(1), 1–19.
Sabo, J., Ruhi, A., Holtgrieve, G., Elliott, V., Arias, M., Ngor, P. B., Räsänen, T., & Nam, S. (2017).
Designing river flows to improve food security futures in the Lower Mekong Basin. Science,
358(6368), eaao1053.
Sakamoto, T., Van Nguyen, N., Kotera, A., Ohno, H., Ishitsuka, N., & Yokozawa, M. (2007).
Detecting temporal changes in the extent of annual flooding within the Cambodia and the
Vietnamese Mekong Delta from MODIS timeseries imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment,
109(3), 295–313.
Sellers_1986_J._Atmos._Sci.pdf . (n.d.).
Sheffield, J., Goteti, G., & Wood, E. F. (2006). Development of a 50-year high-resolution global
dataset of meteorological forcings for land surface modelling. Journal of Climate, 19(13), 3088–
3111. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI3790.1
Shen, C. (2018). A transdisciplinary review of deep learning research and its relevance for water
resources scientists. Water Resources Research, 54(11), 8558–8593. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2018WR022643
Shin, S., Pokhrel, Y., & Miguez-Macho, G. (2019). High resolution modelling of reservoir release
and storage dynamics at the continental scale. Water Resources Research, 55, 787–810.
Shin, S., Pokhrel, Y., Yamazaki, D., Huang, X., Torbick, N., Qi, J., Pattanakiat, S., Ngo-Duc, T.,
Nguyen, T. D., & Miguez-Macho, G. (2020). High resolution modelling of river-floodplain-
reservoir inundation dynamics in the Mekong River Basin. Water Resources Research, 56(5),
e2019WR026449. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR026449
Shrestha, S., Anal, A. K., Salam, P. A., & der Valk, M. (2016). Managing water resources under
climate uncertainty. Springer.
Siev, S., Yang, H., Sok, T., Uk, S., Song, L., Kodikara, D., ... & Yoshimura, C. (2018). Sediment
dynamics in a large shallow lake characterized by seasonal flood pulse in Southeast Asia. Science
of the Total Environment, 631, 597–607.
3 Surface Water 117
Sloto, R. (1996). HYSEP-A computer program for streamflow hydrograph separation and analysis
hopewell furnace national historic site view project. In researchgate.net.
Smajgl, A., Toan, T. Q., Nhan, D. K., Ward, J., Trung, N. H., Tri, L. Q., Tri, V. P. D., & Vu, P. T.
(2015). Responding to rising sea levels in the Mekong Delta. Nature Climate Change, 5, 167.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate2469
Smith, M. W., Macklin, M. G., & Thomas, C. J. (2013). Hydrological and geomorphological controls
of malaria transmission. Earth-Science Reviews, 116(1), 109–127. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ear
scirev.2012.11.004
Sok, T., Oeurng, C., Kaing, V., et al. (2021). Assessment of suspended sediment load variability in
the Tonle Sap and Lower Mekong Rivers, Cambodia. CATENA, 202, 105291.
Son, N. T., Chen, C. F., Chen, C. R., Chang, L. Y., Minh, V. Q., & Sona, N. T. (2012). Monitoring
agricultural drought in the Lower Mekong Basin using MODIS NDVI and land surface temper-
ature data. Read the Latest Articles of International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and
Geoinformation, 18, 417–427. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jag.2012.03.014
Stacke, T., & Hagemann, S. (2012). Development and evaluation of a global dynamical wetlands
extent scheme. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 16(8), 2915–2933. https://doi.org/10.
5194/hess-16-2915-2012
Stone, R. (2011). Mayhem on the Mekong. Science, 333(6044), 814–818.
Stone, R. (2016). Dam-building threatens Mekong fisheries. Science, 354(6316), 1084–1085.
Tague, C., & Grant, G. E. (2009). Groundwater dynamics mediate low-flow response to global
warming in snow-dominated alpine regions. Water Resources Research, 45(7), 7421. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2008WR007179
Takata, K., Emori, S., & Watanabe, T. (2003). Development of the minimal advanced treatments of
surface interaction and runoff. Global and Planetary Change, 38(1), 209–222. https://doi.org/
10.1016/S0921-8181(03)00030-4
Tang, Q., Oki, T., & Kanae, S. (2006). A distributed biosphere hydrological model (DBHM) for
large river basin. Proceedings of Hydraulic Engineering, 50, 37–42. https://doi.org/10.2208/
prohe.50.37
Tangdamrongsub, N., Han, S.-C., Decker, M., Yeo, I.-Y., & Kim, H. (2018). On the use of the
GRACE normal equation of inter-satellite tracking data for estimation of soil moisture and
groundwater in Australia. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, 22(3), 1811–1829. https://doi.
org/10.5194/hess-22-1811-2018
Tao, S., Fang, J., Zhao, X., Zhao, S., Shen, H., Hu, H., Tang, Z., Wang, Z., & Guo, Q. (2015).
Rapid loss of lakes on the mongolian plateau. Proceedings of National Academical Science 112,
2281–2286.
Tassan, S. (1994). Local algorithms using SeaWiFS data for the retrieval of phytoplankton, pigments,
suspended sediment, and yellow substance in coastal waters. Applied optics, 33(12), 2369–2378.
Thilakarathne, M., & Sridhar, V. (2017). Characterization of future drought conditions in the Lower
Mekong River Basin. Weather and Climate Extremes, 17(April), 47–58. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.wace.2017.07.004
Try, S., Tanaka, S., Tanaka, K., Sayama, T., Lee, G., & Oeurng, C. (2020). Assessing the effects of
climate change on flood inundation in the lower Mekong Basin using high-resolution AGCM
outputs. Progress in Earth and Planetary Science, 7(1), 1–16.
van Beek, L. P. H., Wada, Y., & Bierkens, M. F. P. (2011). Global monthly water stress: 1. Water
balance and water availability. Water Resources Research, 47(7), 15.
Vanham, D., Hoekstra, A. Y., Wada, Y., Bouraoui, F., de Roo, A., Mekonnen, M. M., van de Bund,
W. J., Batelaan, O., Pavelic, P., Bastiaanssen, W. G. M., Kummu, M., Rockström, J., Liu, J.,
Bisselink, B., Ronco, P., Pistocchi, A., & Bidoglio, G. (2018). Physical water scarcity metrics
for monitoring progress towards SDG target 6.4: An evaluation of indicator 6.4.2 “Level of
water stress.” Science of the Total Environment, 613–614, 218–232. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
SCITOTENV.2017.09.056
118 J. Liu et al.
Västilä, K., Kummu, M., Sangmanee, C., & Chinvanno, S. (2010). Modelling climate change impacts
on the flood pulse in the lower mekong floodplains. Journal of Water and Climate Change, 1(1),
67–86. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2010.008
Veldkamp, T. I. E., Wada, Y., Aerts, J. C. J. H., Döll, P., Gosling, S. N., Liu, J., Masaki, Y., Oki, T.,
Ostberg, S., Pokhrel, Y., Satoh, Y., Kim, H., & Ward, P. J. (2017). Water scarcity hotspots travel
downstream due to human interventions in the 20th and 21st century. Nature Communications,
8, 15697. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms15697
Verhoef, W., Menenti, M., & Azzali, S. (1996). Cover A colour composite of NOAA-AVHRR-
NDVI based on time series analysis (1981–1992). International Journal of Remote Sensing,
17(2), 231–235.
Wada, Y., van Beek, L. P. H., van Kempen, C. M., Reckman, J. W. T. M., Vasak, S., & Bierkens, M.
F. P. (2010). Global depletion of groundwater resources. Geophysical Research Letters, 37(20),
L20402. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010GL044571.
Wagner, F., Tran, V. B., & Renaud, F. G. (2012). Groundwater resources in the Mekong Delta:
Availability, utilization and risks. In F. G. Renaud & C. Kuenzer (Eds.), The Mekong Delta
system: Interdisciplinary analysis of a river Delta (pp. 201–220). Springer. https://doi.org/10.
1007/978-94-007-3962-8_7.
Wang, Y., Feng, L., Liu, J., et al. (2020). Changes of inundation area and water turbidity of Tonle Sap
Lake: Responses to climate changes or upstream dam construction? Environmental Research
Letters, 15(9), 0940a1.
Wang, Z., Liu, J., Li, J., Meng, Y., Pokhrel, Y., & Zhang, H. (2021). Basin-scale high-resolution
extraction of drainage networks using 10-m Sentinel-2 imagery. Remote Sensing of Environment,
255, 112281. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.rse.2020.112281
Wang, Z., Liu, J., Li, J., & Zhang, D. D. (2018). Multi-spectral water index (MuWI): A native 10-m
multi-spectral water index for accurate water mapping on Sentinel-2. Remote Sensing, 10, 1643.
https://doi.org/10.3390/rs10101643
Warszawski, L., Frieler, K., Huber, V., Piontek, F., Serdeczny, O., & Schewe, J. (2014). The inter-
sectoral impact model intercomparison project (ISI-MIP): Project framework. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111(9), 3228–3232. https://
doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1312330110
White, I. (2002). Water management in the Mekong Delta: Changes, conflicts and opportunities.
UNESCO.
Williams, J. G. (2018). Comment on “Designing river flows to improve food security futures in the
Lower Mekong Basin”. Science, 361(6398), eaat1225.
Winograd, I. J., Riggs, A. C., & Coplen, T. B. (1998). The relative contributions of summer
and cool-season precipitation to groundwater recharge, Spring Mountains, Nevada, USA. In
Hydrogeology journal (Vol. 6). Springer.
Xie, J., Liu, X., Wang, K., Yang, T., Liang, K., & Liu, C. (2020). Evaluation of typical methods
for baseflow separation in the contiguous United States. Journal of Hydrology, 583, 124628.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2020.124628
Yamazaki, D., De Almeida, G. A. M., & Bates, P. D. (2013). Improving computational efficiency
in global river models by implementing the local inertial flow equation and a vector-based
river network map. Water Resources Research, 49(11), 7221–7235. https://doi.org/10.1002/
wrcr.20552
Yamazaki, D., Ikeshima, D., Sosa, J., Bates, P. D., Allen, G. H., & Pavelsky, T. M. (2019). MERIT
hydro: A high-resolution global hydrography map based on latest topography dataset. Water
Resources Research, 55(6), 5053–5073. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR024873
Yamazaki, D., Sato, T., Kanae, S., Hirabayashi, Y., & Bates, P. D. (2014). Regional flood dynamics
in a bifurcating mega delta simulated in a global river model. Geophysical Research Letters,
41(9), 3127–3135.
You, Q., Kang, S., Pepin, N., Flügel, W.-A., Yan, Y., & Behrawan, H. (2010). Relationship between
temperature trend magnitude, elevation and mean temperature in the Tibetan Plateau from
3 Surface Water 119
homogenized surface stations and reanalysis data. Global and Planetary Change, 71, 124–133.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2010.01.020
Yu, W., Kim, Y., Lee, D., & Lee, G. (2019). Hydrological assessment of basin development scenarios:
Impacts on the Tonle Sap Lake in Cambodia. Quaternary International, 503, 115–127.
Zhang, Y., Pan, M., Sheffield, J., Siemann, A. L., Fisher, C. K., Liang, M., Beck, H. E., Wanders,
N., MacCracken, R. F., Houser, P. R., Zhou, T., Lettenmaier, D. P., Pinker, R. T., Bytheway,
J., Kummerow, C. D., & Wood, E. F. (2018). A Climate Data Record (CDR) for the global
terrestrial water budget: 1984–2010. In Hydrology and earth system sciences (Vol. 22, Issue 1,
pp. 241–263). Copernicus GmbH. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-241-2018
Zhang, C., Tang, Q., & Chen, D. (2017). Recent changes in the moisture source of precipitation
over the Tibetan Plateau. Journal of Climate, 30(5), 1807–1819. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-
D-16-0493.1
Zhao, R.-J. (1992). The Xinanjiang model applied in China. Journal of Hydrology, 135(1–4), 371–
381.
Zhao, Q., Liu, S., Deng, L., Dong, S., Yang, J., & Wang, C. (2012). The effects of dam construction
and precipitation variability on hydrologic alteration in the Lancang River Basin of southwest
China. Stochastic Environmental Research and Risk Assessment, 26(7), 993–1011.
Zhou, J. Z., Xu, X. P., Chu, W. J., Zhu, Z. C., Chen, Y. H., & Lai, S. W. (2013). Analysis and
simulation of the fluid field in thermal water-jet nozzle based on ANSYS FLUENT & ICEM
CFD. Applied Mechanics and Materials, 423, 1677–1684.
Open Access This chapter is licensed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits use, sharing,
adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate
credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license and
indicate if changes were made.
The images or other third party material in this chapter are included in the chapter’s Creative
Commons license, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not
included in the chapter’s Creative Commons license and your intended use is not permitted by
statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from
the copyright holder.

Surface Water

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Surface Water

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Surface Water

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Chapter 3

J. Liu (B) · G. Mao · S. Zhang · L. Feng · H. Chen · H. Wang

© The Author(s) 2024 49

3.2 Runoff Changes in the Basin

3.2.1 River Networks Geometry in the Basin

3.2.1.1 River Networks

The extraction of river networks plays a pivotal role in addressing fundamental

3.2.1.2 Surface Water Area

3.2.1.3 River Width and Bathymetry

Fig. 3.4 Width and depth of the Lancang-Mekong River

3.2.2 Runoff Modelling in the Basin

3.2.2.1 Runoff Simulation with WAYS

3.2.2.2 Runoff Simulation with a Multi-model Framework

In addition to the WAYS model, nine other state-of-the-art large-scale models

3.2.3 Historical Changes in Runoff

findings can be attributed to variations in data sources and methodologies employed

3.2.4 Historical Impacts of Dams on Streamflow

References Location Data Period Annual streamflow Seasonal streamflow

References Location Data Period Annual streamflow Seasonal streamflow

Fig. 3.13 Same as in Fig. 3.12 but for water level

been suggested to minimise downstream impacts, especially on fisheries (Sabo et al.,

3.2.5 Projected Changes in Streamflow

Unlike historical streamflow changes, previous studies have consistently projected

3.2.6 Uncertainties in Streamflow Simulation

Fig. 3.16 Location of the seven hydrological stations

3.3 Baseflow Estimation and Change in the Basin

Streamflow in a river consists of two components, namely baseflow and storm-

Fig. 3.20 Schematic

3.3.1 Comparison of Baseflow Estimation Methods

3.3.1.1 Baseflow Evaluation Criterion

3.3.1.2 Baseflow Separation Methods

In this chapter, 9 baseflow separation methods were evaluated, including 5 digital

Method Introduction References

3.3.1.3 Comparisons of Baseflow Separation Methods

Reservoir construction has significantly affected streamflow observations in the

3.3.2 Baseflow Estimation in the Basin

Table 3.7 The evaluation result of the 9 baseflow separation methods

Table 3.8 Annual average

3.3.3 Influencing Factors of Baseflow [Xiaomang Liu]

3.3.4 Projected Change in Baseflow

3.3.4.1 The Long Short-Term Memory (LSTM) Network

prediction by learning long-term dependencies between baseflow and previous basin

3.3.4.2 Data and Method

3.3.4.3 Estimating and Predicting Baseflow with the LSTM Model

Table 3.9 The information of the 26 GCMs in the CMIP6

3.4 Dynamics of Inundation Area and Water Turbidity

3.4.1 Inundation Area Detection

3.4.2 Modelling Inundation Areas and Their Change

3.4.3 Water Turbidity Estimation

To investigate the potential impacts of lake inundation changes on water turbidity,

Fig. 3.26 Calibration of a

3.4.4 Long-Term Evolution of Inundation Area and Water

3.4.5 Drivers of Change in Inundation Area and Water

wet seasons. Nevertheless, physical modelling and additional in situ hydrological

3.4.6 Projected Change in Inundation Area

3.5 Past and Future Changes in Climate and Water

3.5.1 Climate of the Lancang-Mekong River Basin

3.5.1.1 Past and Future Warming Trends

3.5.1.2 Uncertainty in Estimated Past and Projected Future