Decline of Yangtze River water and sediment discharge: Impact from natural and anthropogenic changes

Similar documents
From micro to macro scale the impact on the sediment discharge after construction of the Three Gorges Dam on Yangtze River (Changjiang)

Recent changes of suspended sediment yields in the Upper Yangtze River and its headwater tributaries

Calculating the suspended sediment load of the Dez River

Quaternary International

A quantitative assessment of human impacts on decrease in sediment flux from major Chinese rivers entering the western Pacific Ocean

Recent Changes of Suspended Sediment Yields in the Upper Yangtze River and Its Headwater Tributaries

Temporal and Spatial Changing Trends on the Fluvial Sedimentation in the Three Gorges Reservoir, Yangtze River in China

S.L. Yang 1, Z. Shi 2, H.Y. Zhao 1, P. Li 1, S.B. Dai 1 and A. Gao 1

Impact of climate change on freshwater resources in the Changjiang river basin

Impact of dams on Yangtze River sediment supply to the sea and delta intertidal wetland response

Suspended sediment balance for the mainstem of Changjiang (Yangtze River) in the period

Available online at ScienceDirect. Procedia Engineering 154 (2016 )

SEDIMENT DATA FOR THE LOWER MEKONG

Has Suspended Sediment Concentration Near the Mouth Bar of the Yangtze (Changjiang) Estuary Been Declining in Recent Years?

Is the Three Gorges Dam the cause behind the extremely low suspended sediment discharge into the Yangtze (Changjiang) Estuary of 2006?

River Response. Sediment Water Wood. Confinement. Bank material. Channel morphology. Valley slope. Riparian vegetation.

East Asia & Southeast Asia region

Great Lakes Dam Capacity Study

KEY CONTROLS ON SEDIMENT BUDGETING IN THE MISSISSIPPI RIVER FROM SOURCE TO SINK

Reduced sediment transport in the Yellow River due to anthropogenic changes

Evolution of the Po Delta, Italy

B-1. Attachment B-1. Evaluation of AdH Model Simplifications in Conowingo Reservoir Sediment Transport Modeling

Floods Lecture #21 20

Assessment of Lake Forest Lake Sediment Trapping Efficiency and Capacity. Marlon R. Cook Groundwater Assessment Program Geological Survey of Alabama

Sorption Characteristics of Sediments in the Upper Mississippi River System Above Lake Pepin

ADP-flow velocity profile to interpret hydromorphological features of China s Yangtze Three-Gorges valley

Enhanced lakebed sediment erosion in Dongting Lake induced by the operation of the Three Gorges Reservoir

Dams, sediment, and channel changes and why you should care

(case study Karaj watershed)

Remaining Capacity in Great Lakes Reservoirs

Sand as a stable and sustainable resource for nourishing the Mississippi River delta

Abrupt behaviours of streamflow and sediment load variations of the Yangtze River basin, China

Stop 1: Marmot Dam Stop 1: Marmot Dam

Nutrient and Sediment Cycling and Retention in Urban Floodplain Wetlands

Suspended sediment yields of rivers in Turkey

Closing the knowledge cap in Sediments and Fisheries

Table (6): Annual precipitation amounts as recorded by stations X and Y. No. X Y

Technical Memorandum No Sediment Model

GEOL 1121 Earth Processes and Environments

State Water Survey Division SURFACE WATER SECTION

Water discharge and sediment flux changes over the past decades in the Lower Mekong River: possible impacts of the Chinese dams

SPECIFIC DEGRADATION AND RESERVOIR SEDIMENTATION. By Renee Vandermause & Chun-Yao Yang

Sediment and nutrient transport and storage along the urban stream corridor

Simulation of sedimentation rates using the SWAT model A case study of the Tarbela Dam, Upper Indus Basin

Running Water Earth - Chapter 16 Stan Hatfield Southwestern Illinois College

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Detroit District. Boardman River SIAM Modeling Base-case Scenario

Badger Flood Situation Report. Robert Picco Amir Ali Khan Ken Rollings. Department of Environment Water Resources Management Division

A Report on a Statistical Model to Forecast Seasonal Inflows to Cowichan Lake

Detroit 516 Activities

Simulated sediment flux during 1998 big-flood of the Yangtze (Changjiang) River, China

The effectiveness of check dams in controlling upstream channel stability in northeastern Taiwan

Dear Editor, Response to Anonymous Referee #1. Comment 1:

mountain rivers fixed channel boundaries (bedrock banks and bed) high transport capacity low storage input output

WINFAP 4 QMED Linking equation

THE CASPAR CREEK EXPERIMENTAL WATERSHED. Thomas Lisle, Hydrologist Pacific Southwest Forest and Range Experiment Station Arcata, Califorina

The Hydrologic Cycle STREAM SYSTEMS. Earth s Water and the Hydrologic Cycle. The Hydrologic Cycle. Hydrologic Cycle

CHANNEL GEOMORPHIC RESPONSES TO DISTURBANCES ASSESSED USING STREAMGAGE INFORMATION

Bathymetric Survey and Sediment Hydroacoustic Study of Canyon Lake. Michael Anderson UC Riverside

ADAM ŁAJCZAK Jan Kochanowski University, Institute of Geography, ul. Świętokrzyska 15, Kielce, Poland

Influence of the Major Drainages to the Mississippi River and Implications for System Level Management

Colorado River Management under Uncertainty

5/4/2017 Fountain Creek. Gage Analysis. Homework 6. Clifton, Cundiff, Pour, Queen, and Zey CIVE 717

Controls on fluvial evacuation of sediment from earthquake-triggered landslides

Hindcasting morphodynamic evolution with sand mud interactions in the Yangtze Estuary

Sediment yield estimation from a hydrographic survey: A case study for the Kremasta reservoir, Western Greece

Multi-decadal records of PCBs and PCDD/F in Rhône River sediment cores

Squaw Creek. General Information

low turbidity high turbidity

Resilient deltas. Dr. Irina Overeem 1,2)

Climate of Alaska: Past, Present and Future

APPLICATIONS OF MATHEMATICAL MODELING TO SEDIMENT RESEARCH IN THE THREE GORGES PROJECT. Ying Tan 1

Technical Memorandum No

MATHEMATICAL MODELING OF FLUVIAL SEDIMENT DELIVERY, NEKA RIVER, IRAN. S.E. Kermani H. Golmaee M.Z. Ahmadi

Appendix O. Sediment Transport Modelling Technical Memorandum

Fluvial Systems Lab Environmental Geology Lab Dr. Johnson

Appendix K.2: Sediment Management Excerpt from South Orange County Hydromodification Management Plan

Temporal and spatial responses of river discharge to tectonic and climatic perturbations: Choshui River, Taiwan, and Typhoon Mindulle (2004)

Appendix D. Model Setup, Calibration, and Validation

6.1 Water. The Water Cycle

Bank Erosion and Morphology of the Kaskaskia River

Technical Memorandum

Prentice Hall EARTH SCIENCE

2. PRESENT CONDITION OF THE RESERVOIR 2.1 View of Wonogiri Reservoir (1/3)

Sedimentation in the Nile River

Simulating Sediment Transport in the Patapsco River following Dam Removal with Dam Removal Express Assessment Model-1 (DREAM-1)

WP3: MORPH SAMPLING STRATEGY AND CHEMICAL ANALYSIS OF SEDIMENTS IN THE BARASONA RESERVOIR

Carbon Sequestration Potential from Coastal Wetlands Restoration Sites

Components of the Climate System. Lecture 2: Earth s Climate System. Pop Quiz. Sub-components Global cycles What comes in What goes out

UGRC 144 Science and Technology in Our Lives/Geohazards

PRESENTATION TITLE. Regional Sediment Management Application of a Coastal Model at the St. Johns River Entrance BUILDING STRONG

Lecture 2: Earth s Climate System

ICHE 2014, Hamburg - Lehfeldt & Kopmann (eds) Bundesanstalt für Wasserbau ISBN

How to predict the sedimentological impacts of reservoir operations?

Modeling of a River Basin Using SWAT Model and SUFI-2

A distributed runoff model for flood prediction in ungauged basins

Optimal Artificial Neural Network Modeling of Sedimentation yield and Runoff in high flow season of Indus River at Besham Qila for Terbela Dam

How Do Human Impacts and Geomorphological Responses Vary with Spatial Scale in the Streams and Rivers of the Illinois Basin?

3.0 TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY

Tarbela Dam in Pakistan. Case study of reservoir sedimentation

Available online at ScienceDirect. Procedia Engineering 154 (2016 )

Transcription:

Decline of Yangtze River water and sediment discharge: Impact from natural and anthropogenic S.L. Yang, K.H. Xu, J.D. Milliman, H. F. Yang, C.S. Wu Table S1 ost-tgd annual precipitation (), water discharge (), sediment flux ( S ), and their (%) relative to the averages of the pre-tgd periods Upstream basin at Yichang a (1006 10 3 km 2 ) S (142 10 3 km 2 ) S Averages over pre-tgd periods (209 10 3 km 2 ) S Lake oyang basin (122 10 3 km 2 ) S Basin upper than Datong (tidal limit) (1705 10 3 km 2 ) 1950 1968 b 868 454 541 886 53 119 1385 167 35 1484 104 17 1051 910 507 195002 c 855 440 491 875 48 54 1397 170 30 1571 112 15 1047 905 432 199302 d 856 430 378 816 35 7.8 1501 190 19 1730 129 10 1075 964 320 12 858 ( 1.2%) (+0.4%) (+0.2%) 903 (+4.0%) (+5.6%) (+5.4%) 852 ( 1.8%) ( 0.4%) 760 852 ( 1.8%) ( 0.4%) 886 (+2.1%) (+3.6%) (+3.4%) 791 ( 7.6%) 865 ( 0.3%) (+1.2%) (+1.0%) 770 895 (+3.1%) (+4.6%) 843 ( 2.9%) ( 1.4%) ( 1.5%) ost-tgd amount (between the brackets are in percent relative to the pre-tgd periods 1950 1968 (first row), 195002 (second row), and 199302 (third row), respectively) 410 ( 6.8%) ( 4.7%) 414 ( 8.8%) ( 5.9%) (.7%) 459 (+4.3%) (+6.8%) 285 (7%) (5%) (4%) 400 ( 6.9%) 419 ( 7.7%) ( 4.8%) 382 405 ( 8.0%) ( 5.9%) 9 ( 25%) ( 23%) 465 (+2.4%) (+8.1%) 398 ( 9.5%) 98 64 ( 88%) 110 9.1 53 32 ( 92%) 35 6.2 ( 99%) ( 99%) 43 ( 92%) 48 1125 (+27%) (+38%) 876 ( 1.1%) (+0.1%) (+7.3) 1035 (+17 %) (+18%) (+27%) 762 (-6.7%) 917 (+3.5%) (+4.8%) 916 (+3.4%) 826 ( 6.8%) 923 (+4.2%) (+5.5%) (+13%) 901 (+1.7%) (+3.0%) 832 ( 6.1%) ( 4.9%) (+2.0%) 911 (+2.8%) (+4.1%) 55 (+3.8%) (+15%) (+57%) 39 (+11%) 68 (+28%) (+94%) (8%) 45 ( 6.3%) (8%) 45 ( 6.3%) 66 (+25%) (+38%) (+89%) 51 (.8%) (+6.3%) (+46%) 43 (+23%) 48 ( 9.4%) (0%) (+37%) 15 ( 72%) (+92%) 7.6 ( 2.6%) 17 (+119%) 2.8 ( 95%) ( 64%) 8.3 ( 85%) (+6.4%) 4.6 ( 96%) ( 41%) 4.9 ( 96%) (7%) 12 (+54%) 5.4 ( 95%) 3.7 ( 97%) ( 53%) 8.3 ( 85%) (+6.4%) 1204 1415 (+2.2%) (+1.3%) 1303 ( 6.0%) ( 6.7%) (%) 1356 ( 2.1%) ( 2.9%) 1194 1417 (+2.3%) (+1.4%) 1167 1527 (+9.3%) (+1.7%) 954 (2%) (6%) 1513 (+9.2%) (+8.3%) (+0.8%) 1305 ( 5.8%) ( 6.6%) 176 (+5.4%) (+3.5%) ( 7.4%) 150 153 ( 8.4%) 155 ( 7.2%) ( 8.8%) 140 151 ( 9.6%) 135 182 (+9.0%) (+7.1%) ( 4.3%) 103 (8%) (9%) ( 46%) 180 (+7.8%) (+5.9%) ( 5.3%) 152 ( 9.0%) 18 ( 49%) (%) ( 5%) 9.1 ( 70%) 6.4 10 8.2 ( 58%) 7.9 3.7 ( 88%) 12 (5%) 2.0 6.3 8.4 ( 76%) ( 72%) ( 56%) 1300 (%) ( 25%) 1340 1570 (+5.8%) ( 0.1%) ( 9.1%) 1630 (+9.8%) (+3.8%) ( 5.8%) 1270 (%) 1460 ( 1.6%) ( 7.1%) 1320 2110 (+34%) (+22%) 1160 (3%) 2030 (+37%) (+17%) 1520 (+2.4%) (.2%) 90 (0%) 66 (7%) ( 41%) ( 49%) 109 (+4.8%) 119 (+14%) (+6.3%) 75 ( 28%) (3%) 92 72 (6%) ( 44%) 159 (+53%) (+24%) 64 (9%) ( 43%) 158 (+52%) (+41%) (+22%) 100 (.8%) 5.3 ( 65%) 3.1 6.8 ( 55%) (2%) 7.2 ( 58%) ( 28%) 2.9 3.9 ( 61%) 2.9 13 (+30%) 4.0 9.0 (%) a Yichang is 40 km downstream from TGD. b eriod before decline in sediment flux at Datong due to construction of dams 35. c Long term period prior to construction of the TGD during which precipitation, water and sediment discharges have longest continueous data. d re-tgd decade which has the same time duration as the post-tgd decade.. 5.8 ( 61%) 1016 (.3%) (.0%) ( 5.5%) 1046 ( 0.1%) 1016 (.3%) (.0%) ( 5.5%) 962 ( 8.5%) ( 8.1%) 978 ( 6.9%) ( 6.6%) ( 9.1%) 1058 (+0.7%) ( 1.6%) 935 1140 (+8.5%) (+8.9%) (+6.0%) 865 (%) 1130 (+7.5%) (+7.9%) (+5.1%) 1015 (.4%) (.1%) 925 (+1.4%) (+2.2%) ( 4.0%) 788 902 ( 0.9%) ( 0.3%) ( 6.4%) 689 771 829 ( 8.4%) 782 1022 (+13%) (+6.0%) 667 (%) 1002 (+3.9) 838 ( 7.9%) ( 7.4%) S 206 (6%) 147 ( 54%) 216 85 138 ( 68%) 130 ( 70%) 111 ( 65%) 185 ( 64%) 72 161 ( 68%) ( 63%) 145 ( 55%)

Table S2 contributions from various driving factors to post-tgd water-discharge (relative to pre-tgd averages in 199302 (first row) and 195002 (second row)) Upstream basin at Yichang (430 km 3 /yr in 199302; 440 km 3 /yr in 195002) (Method 1) a (35 km 3 /yr in 199302; 48 km 3 /yr in 195002) (Method 1) a (190 km 3 /yr in 199302; 170 km 3 /yr in 195002) (Method 1) a Lake oyang basin (129 km 3 /yr in 199302; 110 km 3 /yr in 195002) (Method 1) a Basin upstream from Datong (tidal limit) (964 km 3 /yr in 199302; 905 km 3 /yr in 195002) (Method 1; Method 2) a b c d e b c e b c e b c e b c d e 0 +1±0 2±0.1.3±1 7.0±1 ±1 +7 +14±2 +25±5 +6±2 18±5 +5 1±2 0±2 +16±2 +35±2 9 22 45±5-32±0.6 +12±5 +10±0.6 9 71±5; 1±7 44±2.3±1 +46; +76±8 +78±3 16 26 +35±1 +30±1 51±1 56±1 +4 9 1±0.2 +1±0.6 8±0.2 9±0.7 +2±0.2 1±0.7 22±0.2 63 46 41±5 ±0.5 22±5 19±0.4 6 7 5±2; 12±1 1±0.1; 1±2; 164±1 6±0.2 +29 +19 ±0.1 6±0.2 +32±0.2 +11±0.3 + +10±0.2 +16±3 +23±0.2 +4±3 7 ±1 16±2 2±1 16±2 0 4±2 1±0 62 71±5; 56±4 44±2 +9±5 ; 6±4 +41±2; 5 5 73±3 70±3 9.5±1 62±4 75±4 2 2±0.4 ±3 0±0.4 2±3 5 ±1 7±0.6 ±1 12±0.6 +7 ±1 +6±0.1 +1±1 +1±0.1 5 216 6±10; 166±12 122±6 9.5±1 129±11;9±13 84±7 0 4±0.1 6±0.2 26±0.2 4±0.3 +10 +4±0.8 7±0.8 50 0 2±2 1±2 18±2 +1±2 54 7 49±6 6±0.7 5±6 1±0.7 193 4 7±8; 128±9 0±5 76±8 ; 65±9 4±5 21 +22±1 +18±1.1±1 19±2 25±2 2 7±1 18±0.6 9 19 9±0.7 +3±0.2 0±0.7 22±0.2 7 ±3 ±0.3 8±3 7±0.3 5 76 21±1;±1 +16±0.8.1±1 0±2;6±2 78±2 58 48 49±2 49±2 9±2 +1±2 +11 +1±0.2 6±1 +10±0.2 +3±1 55 5 5±3 5±3 ±3 0±3 57 43±5 0±0.6 ±5 ±0.6 182 123 167±12; 5±14 160±8 ±12; +23±14 +37±8 25 5 +6±0.3 +3±0.1 2.5±0.3 28±1 5±1 +31 +18 +4±0.8 +26±1 +14±0.8 8 +12 +3±0.2 +19±2 ±0.2 7±2 +30 +47 +41±5 +64±1 ±5 ±1 +58 +117 +77±5; +71±5 +130±6 2.5±0.3 16±5 ; ±5 ±7 91 1 66±3 64±3 7±3 +16 +3 +4±0.2 +2±0.4 +12±0.2 +1±0.4 87 67 58±4 68±5 ±4 +1±5 65 48 61±7 50±1 4±7 +2±1 7 238 251±18;3±21 260±13 46±18; 2±21 +22±13 +35 +25 +29±1 +24±1 +6±1 +1±1 +8 5 +1±0.2 5±1 +7±0.2 0±1 +10 +1±0.1 +17±1 ±0.1 7±1 +29 +46 +±4 +55±1 4±4 9±1 +38 +97 +65±5; +89±6 +119±5 ±5; 51±6 22±5 12 2 42 ±0.4 8±0 4.2±0.4 18±0.9 0±0.5 +13 0 +8±1 ±0.6 8 18 ±1 ±2 4±1 12 22±3 6±0.1 7±3 6±0.1 126 67 73±5; 81±6 46±3 4.2±0.4 49±5 ; 41±6 ±3 a In Method 1, precipitation-based water discharge was predicted directly using post-tgd basin-wide precipitation data and the pre-tgd correlation between water discharge and precipitation in 199302. In Method 2, the precipitation-based water discharge at Datong was predicted first using post-tgd sub-basin precipitation data and the pre-tgd correlations between water discharge and precipitation of the sub-basins, and then using water delivery models for the middle and lower reaches of the main river. Method S 2, was omitted for the prediction of precipitation-based change in water discharge from 1950 1968 to 12, considering that the result of this method is comparable to the result of Method S 1 as suggest by the predicted from 199302 to 12. b Change measured over the post-tgd period relative to the pre-tgd averages in 199302 (first row) and t 195002 (second row). c recipitation-based change. The error of this change is determined by Equations 22 and 23. d Change due to TGD operation; i.e., the loss of water discharge because of water impoundment and evaporation in the TGR. e Balance between the observed change and the predicted due to precipitation and TGD operation, presumably caused by drivers such as water consumption, other reservoirs, water-soil conservation and temperature change. The error of this predicted change for the Yichang and Datong gauging stations is determined by the errors of the predicted due to precipitation and TGD, i.e., being lower than the sum the errors of the predicted due to precipitation and TGD and larger than both of them..

Table S3 contributions from various driving factors to post-tgd sediment-load (relative to pre-tgd averages in 199302 (first row) and 1950 1968 (second row)) Upstream basin at Yichang (378 Mt/y in 199302; 541 Mt/yr in 1950 1968) (Method S 1) a (7.8 Mt/yr in 199302; 119Mt/yr in 1950 1968) (Method S 1) a (19.3 Mt/yr in 199302; 35 Mt/yr in 1950 1968) (Method S 1) a Lake oyang basin (10 Mt/yr in 199302; 17 Mt/yr in 1950 1968) (Method S 1) a Basin upstream from Datong (tidal limit) (320 Mt/yr in 199302; 507 Mt/yr in1950 1968 (Method S 1; Method S 2) a d Changes d Changes 280 443 9±2 ±3 166±6 43±7 257±8 +7.4 4 +7.9±3 +106±41 0.4±3 210±41 1.9 8.6±3 5.9±2 +6.7±3 ±2 4.7 12 5.1±2 6.2±1 +0.4±2 5.5±1 4 01 24±4; ±5 ±2 3±7 +23±9; +26±9 3±8 14 477 +66±15 +24±3 9±4 230±17 52±6 0.2 1 1.3±0.5 ±8 +1.1±0.5 94±8 26.9±1-0.4±0.2 6.1±1 26±0.2 6.9 4.6±1 5.2±1 2.3±1 8.8±1 3 60 ±2; +6±1 +12±2 87±5 73±6; 92±6 285±6 268 431 18±4 195±5 55±8 211±7 +9.3 2 +3.9±2 +58±22 +6.1±2 160±22 6.5±2.3±1 6.5±2 26±1.1 2.2±0.6 +0.7±0.2 0.9±0.6 ±0.2 4 1 24±4; 18±3 ±2 0±6 +30±8; +24±8 166±7 69 532 5±32 6±15 6±2 7±31 00±16 5.0 120.8±1 4.3±2 1.2±1 2±2 9.0 25 5.3±2 2±0.8.7±2 23±0.4 2.8 9.8 1.6±0.4 +2.1±0.4 1.2±0.4 12±0.4 235 22 44±7; 69±10 64±9 77±3 4±9; 89±12 181±11 25 488 19±4 26±3 2±5 4±8 260±7 +0.5 1 +1.2±0.4 +0.8±0.1 2±0.4 8.8±3 6.1±2 2.2±3 7.1 5.4±±2 6.9±1 1.7±2 7.1±1 182 69 8±6; 7±6 50±8 5±6 7±9;±9 214±12 46 509 +37±8 +7±0.9 235±6 8±12 280±7.2 4 0.2±0.1 +0.8±0.3.1±0.1 5±0.3.8±1-0.4±0.2 7.2±1 ±0.2 8.1 5.5±1 2.7±0.6 2.6±1 ±0.6 190 77 8±1; +1±0.2 +22±3 6±7 46±8; 55±7 263±9 43 506 6±23 85±11 5±4 62±2 5 246±13 2.9 4 2.5±1 1.9±2 0.4±1 2±2 16 2 9.4±3 6.9±3 6.6±3 7.0 4.9±2 5.1±1 2.1±2 8.9±1 9 96 54±8; 71±10 87±13 8±5 47±11; 0±13 1±16 45 508 +2±0.4 ±2 224±4 9±4 1±5 +4.6 7 0±0 +4.2±0.8 +4.6±0 1±0.8 6.8 23 0.9±0.3 +2.5±1 5.9±0.3 26±1 +2.8 4.2 +4.6±2 +17±4 1.8±2 21±4 5 22 +22±3; +16±2 +95±14 1±7 6±7; 0±3 266±18 72 535 3±29 6±14 4±4 125±31 15±16 2.4 4 0.6±0.2 5.6±2 1.8±0.2 99±2 3 ±5 12±4 4±3 22±4 6.0 6.4±2 9.5±2 +0.4±2.5±2 248 485 80±12; 98±15 0±23 78±5 90±15; 72±18 257±26 35 498 +53±12 +16±2 217±6 1±15 7±7 4.1 5 2.4±1 1.7±0.7 1.7±1 3±0.7 1.3±0.5 +2.1±1 12±0.5 1±1 1.0 8.0 +3.5±1 +15±4 4.5±1 23±4 9 46 +18±3; +28±4 +87±13 7±7 ±9; 0±9 6±17 12 30 493 ±6 5±4 9±5 4±9 9±7 +0.5 1 +0.1±0 +1.6±0.6 +0.4±0 3±0.6 6.1±2.3±1 4.9±2 24±1 4.2 2.5±0.7-0.1±0 1.7±0.7 ±0 5 62 24±4; ±5 ±3 3±6 9±8; 6±9 2±8 a In Method S 1, the precipitation-based sediment discharge was predicted directly using post-tgd basin-wide precipitation data and the pre-tgd correlations between precipitation and water and sediment discharge. In Method S 2, the precipitation-based sediment discharge at Datong was predicted firstly using the post-tgd sub-basin precipitation data and the pre-tgd correlations between precipitation and water and discharge of the sub-basins, and then using sediment delivery models for the middle and lower reaches of the main river. Method S 2, was omitted for the prediction of precipitation-based change in sediment flux from 1950 1968 to 12, considering that the result of this method is comparable to the result of Method S 1 as suggest by the predicted from 199302 to 12. b Change measured over the post-tgd period relative to the pre-tgd averages in 199302 (first row) and 195602 (second row). c Change generated by precipitation; i.e., the difference between the post-tgd precipitation-based sediment discharge and the average pre-tgd sediment discharge. The error of this change is determined by Equations 22 and 23. d Change in sediment discharge due to the TGD operation; i.e., the impact of sedimentation in the TGR and downstream deposition/erosion in response to TGD operation. For the Yichang station, the error of predicted change in sediment load is basically the error in estimating the sediment flux from the ungauged areas around the TGR, assuming that the error of sediment discharge at the gauging stations is negligible. The annual sediment fluxes from the ungauged areas in 12 were predicted by Yang et al. (2014) (see their Table). In this study, we estimated the relative errors of their predictions using Equation 22 and 23. e Balance between observed and predicted change due to precipitation and TGD operation, presumably caused by drivers such as other dams, water-soil conservation, sand mining, water consumption, and temperature change. The error of this predicted change is determined by the errors of the predicted due to precipitation and TGD.

Table S4 An example of error estimation for predicted water discharges at Datong using the regression relationship between annual precipitation and water discharge Measured values values ( Errors of predicted values Relative errors of predicted values (%) Regression of 1 Regression of 2 1 = 1.3513 517, r = 0.91, p < 0.001. 2 = 1.3727 529, r = 0.89, p < 0.001. Error of predicted : The difference between predicted and measured water discharge. Relative error of predicted (%): ( -Measured ) *100/ Measured. A: average; S: Standard deviation. 1956 1028 843 873 883 30 40 4 5 1957 1022 824 864 874 40 50 5 6 1958 1005 862 841 850-21 -12-2 -1 1959 1016 773 856 866 83 93 11 12 1960 973 768 798 807 30 39 4 5 1961 1058 892 913 924 21 32 2 4 1962 1031 941 876 886-65 -55-7 -6 1963 979 770 807 816 37 46 5 6 1964 1065 1038 922 9-116 -105-11 -10 1965 1063 875 919 930 44 55 5 6 1966 904 775 704 712-71 -63-9 -8 1967 1063 888 920 930 32 42 4 5 1968 1086 944 950 962 6 18 1 2 1969 1027 874 871 881-3 7 0 1 1970 1119 992 996 1008 4 16 0 2 1971 927 731 736 744 5 13 1 2 1972 956 698 774 783 76 85 11 12 1973 1145 1074 1031 1043-43 -31-4 -3 1974 1040 839 888 899 49 60 6 7 1975 1126 1008 1004 1016-4 8 0 1 1976 975 842 800 809-42 - -5-4 1977 1025 914 869 878-45 -36-5 -4 1978 922 676 729 737 53 61 8 9 1979 950 738 767 775 29 37 4 5 1980 1146 997 1032 1044 35 47 4 5 1981 1017 878 857 866-21 -12-2 -1 1982 1099 957 968 979 11 22 1 2 1983 1197 1110 1101 1114-9 4-1 0 1984 1030 874 874 884 0 10 0 1 1985 991 823 822 832-1 9 0 1 1986 916 714 721 728 7 14 1 2 1987 10 837 879 889 42 52 5 6 1988 940 832 753 762-79 -70-9 -8 1989 1103 966 973 985 7 19 1 2 1990 1042 906 891 901-15 -5-2 -1 1991 1057 929 911 921-18 -8-2 -1 1992 993 869 824 834-45 -35-5 -4 1993 1147 977 10 1045 56 68 6 7 1994 1048 853 900 910 47 57 6 7 1995 10 980 879 889-101 -91-10 -9 1996 1017 952 857 867-95 -85-10 -9 1997 980 850 807 816-43 -34-5 -4 1998 1211 1244 1120 1134-124 -110-10 -9 1999 1116 1037 992 1004-45 - -4-3 2000 1086 927 950 961 23 34 2 4 2001 949 825 765 774-60 -51-7 -6 2002 1158 993 1048 1061 55 68 6 7 A±S ±57 0±43 0±57 10±43 1±6 0±5 0±6 1±5

Table S5 Errors of predicted water and sediment discharges at Yichang and Datong stations for the pre-tgd decade (199302), using the regression relationships between annual precipitation and water discharge (Equation 2 and 6) and between water discharge and sediment flux (Equations 11 and 15) over the pre-tgd decade For the gauging station at Yichang For the gauging station at Datong (Tidal limit) : recipitation; : Water discharge; S : Sediment flux; S: rediction error estimated by Equations 22 and 23.. Relative error: ( v -M V )*100/M V, where v and M V represent predicted and measured values, respectively. Measured values values±s Relative errors Measured values values±s Relative errors S S (%) S (%) S S (%) S (%) 1993 917 460 464 477±20 471±106 4 1 1147 977 370 1049±74 344±46 7 7 1994 789 348 210 379±15 269±60 9 28 1048 853 239 932±63 308±41 9 29 1995 855 423 363 429±17 365±82 2 1 10 980 355 914±64 302±41 7 1996 813 422 359 398±16 302±68 6 16 1017 952 324 894±63 296±41 6 9 1997 753 363 7 352±14 225±50 3 980 850 299 850±59 282±40 0 6 1998 968 523 743 515±21 570±127 2 23 1211 1244 401 1126±79 368±48 9 8 1999 916 482 4 476±19 469±105 1 8 1116 1037 317 1013±71 3±49 2 5 2000 906 471 390 468±19 451±101 1 16 1086 927 9 977±69 322±44 5 5 2001 813 416 299 397±16 301±67 4 1 949 825 276 814±58 271±43 1 2 2002 829 393 228 410±17 326±73 4 43 1158 993 275 1063±74 348±36 7 27 199302 856 430 383 430±18 375±84 0±5 3±23 1075 964 320 963±68 317±42 0 ±7 1 ±15