sustainability
Article
Evaluating Spatiotemporal Variations of Groundwater–Surface
Water Interaction Using an Integrated Hydrological Model in
Huashan Basin, China
Lu Zhang 1,2 , Yunfeng Dai 1 , Jin Lin 1, *, Jiangbo Han 1 , Xiaomin Sun 1 , Xue Li 1 , Peng Liu 1 and Aimin Liao 1
Citation: Zhang, L.; Dai, Y.; Lin, J.;
Han, J.; Sun, X.; Li, X.; Liu, P.; Liao, A.
Evaluating Spatiotemporal Variations
of Groundwater–Surface Water
Interaction Using an Integrated
Hydrological Model in Huashan
Basin, China. Sustainability 2022, 14,
14325. https://doi.org/10.3390/
su142114325
Academic Editors: Yuyan Zhou,
Fernando António Leal Pacheco,
Yun Pan and Yicheng Gong
Received: 16 September 2022
Accepted: 25 October 2022
Published: 2 November 2022
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral
with regard to jurisdictional claims in
published maps and institutional affil-
iations.
Copyright: © 2022 by the authors.
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland.
This article is an open access article
distributed under the terms and
conditions of the Creative Commons
Attribution (CC BY) license (https://
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/
4.0/).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325. https://doi.org/10.3390/su142114325
1 Institute of Hydrology and Water Resources, Nanjing Hydraulic Research Institute, Nanjing 210029, China
2 State Key Laboratory of Hydrology-Water Resources and Hydraulic Engineering, Hohai University,
Nanjing 210098, China
* Correspondence: jlin@nhri.cn
Abstract: Quantifying the spatiotemporal variations of basin-scale surface water (SW)–groundwater
(GW) interactions is vital for the conjunctive management of water resources in the basin. In this
study, an integrated hydrological model (SWAT-MODFLOW) is used to simulate the SW–GW system
in the Huashan Basin. The numerical model was calibrated and validated using the streamflow
observations of the watershed outlet and the groundwater levels of the long-term monitoring wells
from 2016 to 2020 in the study area. The model results show that the SWAT–MODFLOW can achieve
a better fit for the streamflow discharge, compared with the results in the single SWAT model, with R2
(coefficient of correlation) and NSE (Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency coefficient) of 0.85 and 0.83, respectively.
The water table fitting results indicate that R2 and RMSE can reach 0.95 and 0.88, respectively. The
water budgets analysis demonstrates that the average rate (0.5281 m3 /s) of GW abstraction to SW
is larger than the rate (0.1289 m3 /s) of SW recharge to GW. Moreover, the exchange rate of SW
and GW gradually reaches a peak value from June to August, and the lowest value is shown in
April, for each hydrological year. Based on the IPPC6 CanESM5 dataset supplied by the Canadian
Climate Centre, the regional precipitation scenario subject to climate change was predicted by the
ASD (Auto Statistical Downscaling Model) a statistical downscaling method, under the climate
scenarios of SSP2_4.5 and SSP5_8.5. The SW–GW interaction pattern was modeled under the future
scenarios in the study area. The current (2016–2020) average annual rate of the SW–GW interaction
is considered as the base value. Subject to the SSP2_4.5 scenario, the average exchange rate of the
SW recharge to GW is 0.1583 m3 /s, which is an increase of 22.8%. The average exchange rate of the
GW discharge to SW is 0.5189 m3 /s which is a reduction of 0.017%. Subject to the SSP5_8.5 scenario,
the average exchange rate of SW recharge to GW is 0.1469 m3 /s, which is an increase of 14.7%. The
average exchange rate of the GW discharge to SW is 0.5953 m3 /s, which is an increases of 12.7%. The
results can assist in water resource management in the basin, by identifying potential locations of
nutrient transport from the aquifer to the river, as well as changes in spatial variability under future
climatic conditions.
Keywords: groundwater–surface water interaction; precipitation infiltration; SWAT–MODFLOW
coupling; climate change; region basin
1. Introduction
The interactions between surface water and groundwater affect the water recharge–
discharge, water supply, pollutant discharge and water ecology of a watershed system [1–4],
and the utilization of any of this water will impact the whole water resources system. Hence,
water resources assessment should take the surface water and groundwater in a watershed
as a whole, within the development of integrated water resources management [5,6].
Furthermore, quantification the surface water–groundwater interaction at the basin scale is
of great significance to the sustainable development of water resources.
https://www.mdpi.com/journal/sustainability
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 2 of 21

Focusing on one of the two systems and simplifying the other one, such as with
SWAT, TOPMODEL and MODFLOW, and simulating both the surface water system and
groundwater system are two commonly used models for analyzing the surface water–
groundwater interaction at the basin scale [7–9]. The second kind of model consists of the
fully coupled models which can simultaneously solve the surface water and groundwater
equations, and the loosely coupled models, which solve the surface water and groundwater
equations separately and exchange the model results at the boundaries. HydroGeoSphere
and MIKE-SHE were the widely used fully coupled models and GSFLOW and SWAT-
MODFLOW were the extensively used loosely coupled models [10–13]. The high demand
of data requirement and computational costs were common issues for constructing a fully
coupled model at the watershed scale, whereas the loosely coupled model can utilize the
current typical surface water and groundwater model, and most software related to it was
open-source. Hence, the loosely coupled model was more widely used. Bailey improved
the SWAT-MODFLOW coupled model and applied it to the Sprague River watershed in
Oregon, U.S.A. The study reproduced the spatial–temporal interaction patterns of surface
water–groundwater in the study area from 1970 to 2003 [13]. Jafari constructed a coupled
model for the Shiraz watershed in southwestern Italy, and performed a sensitivity analysis
of the coupled model [6]. Proloy demonstrated the importance of considering surface
water– groundwater interactions in modeling rainfall runoff in southeastern Australia,
using a coupled model [7]. Yifru used a coupled model to study groundwater recharge in
an agricultural watershed in Korea, and the results can provide a basis for sustainable local
water resources development [14].
Since the industrial revolution of the 1860s, global climate change has intensified, and
the rate of warming has accelerated. IPCC-AR6 [15] states that in the near-term projections
(2021–2040), the global surface 20-year average temperature (GSAT) could increase by
1.5 ◦ C compared to the 1850–1900 average and the high emission scenarios (SSP5-8.5) by
0.9–12.9%, from 1995–2014 (IPCC). Changes in climatic factors such as precipitation and
temperature are bound to have profound effects on the water cycle in the basin, especially
on the interaction between surface water and groundwater. Therefore, it is necessary to
reveal the impact of climate change on surface water–groundwater interactions at the
basin scale.
GCMs are the most effective tools for predicting changes in meteorological elements
such as climate and hydrology with the increase of greenhouse gases, mainly because
GCMs can provide effective information on climate and hydrology research on a global
scale [16]. Since the resolution of most current climate models is still not fine enough, there
will be large deviations in climate change studies directly applied to regions or watersheds,
especially precipitation. Therefore, the downscaling technology plays an unsubstitutable
role in climate change research and hydrology research. Statistical downscaling has been
widely used in the simulation and prediction of climate variables such as precipitation and
temperature, due to its various methods, simplicity and flexibility, and easy construction
of a first-level model with a small amount of computation [17]. The two commonly used
statistical downscaling methods are regression-based analysis and weather generator-based.
Multiple linear regression (MRL) and support vector machine (SVM) are commonly used
methods based on regression analysis [18]. SDSM (Statistical Downscaling Model) and ASD
are commonly used methods based on weather generators [19,20]. The results of Aimin
show that ASD models are able to downscale precipitation with reasonable accuracy [21].
In this study, The Chuzhou hydrological experimental basin was selected and a
SWAT-MODFLOW coupled model was constructed, to reproduce the spatial and temporal
interaction patterns of surface water– groundwater interactions in the basin. In contrast
to previous studies, the coupled model takes into account the spatial distribution of the
hydrogeological parameters of the aquifer (permeability coefficients, specific yield), which
affect the spatial and temporal variability of the GW; the coupled model also avoids the
artificiality of giving the groundwater model a downscaled infiltration coefficient as well
as the river bottom and the river level. In addition, the article uses statistical downscaling
 the hydrogeological parameters of the aquifer (permeability coefficients, specific yield),
which affect the spatial and temporal variability of the GW; the coupled model also avoids
the artificiality of giving the groundwater model a downscaled infiltration coefficient as
well as the river bottom and the river level. In addition, the article uses statistical
downscaling models to predict future precipitation and temperature in the study area,
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 3 of 21
and analyses the spatial and temporal variability of surface water–groundwater interac-
tions for two future scenarios, SSP2_4.5 and SSP5_8.5, to provide a basis for future water
resources development and use in the basin.
models to predict future precipitation and temperature in the study area, and analyses the
spatial and temporal variability of surface water–groundwater interactions for two future
2. Methodology
scenarios, SSP2_4.5 and SSP5_8.5, to provide a basis for future water resources development
2.1. and useArea
Study in the basin.
2.1.1.
2. Geography
Methodologyand Climate
The
2.1. Huashan
Study Area Basin is located in Chuzhou City, Anhui Province, China. The water-
2.1.1. Geography and Climate
shed is located between 118°8′7″ E~118°16′51″ E and 32°13′15″ N~32°18′55″ N. The surface
elevation ofHuashan
The the watershed
Basin is is 28 m in
located toChuzhou
350 m, and
City,the watershed
Anhui Province,area is about
China. 80 km2. The
The watershed
is located between 118 ◦ 80 7” E~118◦ 160 51” E and 32◦ 130 15” N~32◦ 180 55” N. The surface
Huashan Basin is surrounded by hills on three sides, with good closure, and has the typ-
ical elevation of the watershed
characteristics of Jianghuai is 28 m toand
hills 350landforms.
m, and the watershed arearunoff
The Chengxi is about 80 km2is. The
station the out-
Huashan Basin is surrounded by hills on three sides, with good closure,
let of the Huashan Basin. The study area belongs to the warm temperate semi-humid mon-and has the typical
characteristics of Jianghuai hills and landforms. The Chengxi runoff station is the outlet of
soon climate zone, with an annual average temperature of 15.2 °C. The precipitation is
the Huashan Basin. The study area belongs to the warm temperate semi-humid monsoon
mainly concentrated from June to September, between 610 mm and 1043 mm. The average
climate zone, with an annual average temperature of 15.2 ◦ C. The precipitation is mainly
annual precipitation
concentrated is 1043
from June mm. The average
to September, annual
between 610 evaporation
mm and 1043 mm. is 922average
The mm. annual
precipitation is 1043 mm. The average annual evaporation is 922 mm.
2.1.2. Hydrology
2.1.2. Hydrology
The river network in the Huashan Basin is fan-shaped, and there are four tributaries
above theThe river section,
outlet networknamely
in the Huashan Basin istributary,
Zhuyuangou fan-shaped, and there tributary,
Dongyuan are four tributaries
Zhongyuan
above the outlet section, namely Zhuyuangou tributary, Dongyuan tributary, Zhongyuan
tributary and Xiyuan tributary. The area of each sub-basin is 2.64 km 2, 8.82 km , 50.47 km2,
2
tributary and Xiyuan tributary. The area of each sub-basin is 2.64 km2 , 8.82 km2 , 50.47 km2 ,
17.95 kmkm
17.95
2 . The flow
2 . The ofof
flow the
theoutlet
outletsection
section has strongseasonality.
has strong seasonality. The
The precipitation
precipitation stations
stations
andand
groundwater
groundwater monitoring
monitoringwells
wells in
in the studyarea
the study areaare
areshown
shown in Figure
in Figure 1. The
1. The studystudy
areaarea
hashas
a low
a low population density, with fewer than 10,000 permanent residents and no no
population density, with fewer than 10,000 permanent residents and
centralized
centralizedmining.
mining.The
Themain
mainwater
water supply comesfrom
supply comes fromreservoirs
reservoirs outside
outside the basin.
the basin.

Figure
Figure 1. Huashan
1. Huashan Basin
Basin locationin
location inthe
the south
south west
westofofChina
Chinaand hydrological
and datadata
hydrological stations location.
stations loca-
tion.
The land-use types in the Huashan Basin are mainly orchard, agriculture and forest,
accounting for 51.25%, 24.5% and 17.74%, respectively. The land-use-type map is shown in
Figure 2. The soil types are mainly flooded paddy soil and lime soil, and contain a small
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 22

Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 The land-use types in the Huashan Basin are mainly orchard, agriculture and forest, 4 of 21

accounting for 51.25%, 24.5% and 17.74%, respectively. The land-use-type map is shown
in Figure 2. The soil types are mainly flooded paddy soil and lime soil, and contain a small
amount of yellow-brown
yellow-brown soil and silico-alumina
silico-alumina coarse
coarse bone
bone soil.
soil. The area of lime soil and
flooded paddy soil account for 57.69% and 26.92% of thethe total
total area,
area, respectively.
respectively.

Figure
Figure 2.
2. Types of land-use
Types of land-use in
in the
the Huashan
Huashan Basin.
Basin.

2.1.3. Hydrogeology
2.1.3. Hydrogeology
The Quaternary
The Quaternary aquifer
aquiferin inthe
theHuashan
HuashanBasin Basinis isanan unconfined
unconfined aquifer,
aquifer, andandthethe
li-
lithology is mainly silty clay and fine sand, with less gravel. The average
thology is mainly silty clay and fine sand, with less gravel. The average thickness of thickness of the
the
aquifer is
aquifer is about
about 7.5
7.5 m.
m.Based
Basedon onthe
theresults
resultsofofthe
theslug
slugtests,
tests, the
the hydraulic
hydraulic conductivity
conductivity is
is between
between 0.5–15
0.5–15 m/d,
m/d, andand
thethe averagespecific
average specificyield
yieldisis0.02.
0.02.The
Theaverage
average depth
depth ofof the
the
groundwater level
groundwater levelisis3.5
3.5m,m,ofofwhich
which thethe
piedmont
piedmont area is relatively
area large,
is relatively withwith
large, a maximum
a maxi-
of 15 m [22]. The surface water–groundwater interaction is frequent
mum of 15 m [22]. The surface water–groundwater interaction is frequent in the in the study area.
study
area.
2.2. Model
2.2.1. SWAT Model Information
2.2. Model
The SWAT model is based on meteorological data, digital elevation, soil type, land-use
2.2.1. SWAT Model Information
type and other data, and analyzes the impact of these elements on the transport of water
Thesediments,
bodies, SWAT model andisagricultural
based on meteorological
chemicals. The data, digital
SWAT modelelevation, soil type,
has a strong land-
physical
use type and other data, and analyzes the impact of these elements on the
mechanism. It is not represented by a simple linear regression, but fully considers the transport of
water bodies,
various sediments,
processes and agricultural
of the water body on thechemicals. The SWAT
surface, and needs to model
inputhas
thea runoff
strong of
phys-
the
ical mechanism.
underlying It isand
surface not the
represented by a simple related
various information linear regression, but The
to the runoff. fullymodel
considers the
has the
various processes of the water body on the surface, and needs to input the runoff
advantages of easy access to input data, high computational efficiency, and long-term series of the
underlying
simulation. surface and the various
The spatio-temporal information
resolution related of
and sources tothe
therequired
runoff. The
datamodel has the
are shown in
advantages of easy access to input data, high computational efficiency, and
Table 1. In SWAT, the Huashan Basin is divided into 63 sub-basins and 1136 hydrologicallong-term se-
ries simulation.
response The spatio-temporal resolution and sources of the required data are
units (HRUs).
shown in Table 1. In SWAT, the Huashan Basin is divided into 63 sub-basins and 1136
hydrological response units (HRUs).
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 5 of 21

Table 1. Data sources and frequency/resolution used for the SWAT model.

Data Type Date Frequency/Resolution Source

DEM / 12.5 × 12.5 m Department of Natural Resources of Anhui Province
Land use 2018 30 × 30 m Department of Natural Resources of Anhui Province
Soil map / 1 × 1 km HWSD
Meteorological data Daily 2000–2020 China Meteorological Data Network
Runoff data Daily 2016–2020 Chuzhou Hydrology Bureau

2.2.2. MODFLOW Model Information

MODFLOW is a fully distributed three-dimensional groundwater flow model based
on physical mechanism. It is the most commonly used groundwater flow model. The
MODFLOW-NWT version was used. The boundary of the groundwater model is consistent
with the boundary of the SWAT model. According to the characteristics of the aquifer, the
outlet section is set as the general head boundary, and the rest of the section is set as the
no-flow boundary. The top elevation of the model is given by the DEM data. The research
area is divided into 189 rows and 275 columns by using 50 m × 50 m unit grids. The vertical
pipe experiment was carried out in the riverbed of the Zhongyuan river, and the hydraulic
conductivity of the riverbed was small, about 0.005 m/d. In order to provide more accurate
initial groundwater levels to facilitate the calibration of the coupled model, a steady flow
model was calibrated to provide initial values. The conceptual model of groundwater is
shown in Figure 3, below. In MODFLOW, Darcy’s law was used to calculate the interaction
between the surface water and groundwater. The formula is as follows [23]:

Hriv − Hgw
Q = KLP
Z

where Q is the interaction flow between the surface water and groundwater (L3 /T); K
is the hydraulic conductivity of the river bed (L/T); L is the length of the river (L); P is
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 6 of 22
the wet circumference of the river (L); Hriv is the water level of the river (L); Hgw is the
groundwater level (L); Z is the thickness of the river bed (L).

Figure
Figure 3. Conceptual 3. Conceptual
Model Model of in
of Groundwater Groundwater in Huashan Basin.
Huashan Basin.

2.2.3. SWAT-MODFLOW Model Information

The surface hydrological process is simulated by the SWAT model, which mainly
includes the processes of runoff, infiltration, soil moisture evaporation, etc. The ground-
water flow is simulated by the MODFLOW-NWT model, including the calculations of the
main groundwater source and sink terms such as exploitation, drains and canals and, in
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 6 of 21

2.2.3. SWAT-MODFLOW Model Information

The surface hydrological process is simulated by the SWAT model, which mainly in-
cludes the processes of runoff, infiltration, soil moisture evaporation, etc. The groundwater
flow is simulated by the MODFLOW-NWT model, including the calculations of the main
groundwater source and sink terms such as exploitation, drains and canals and, in addition,
the calculation of surface water–groundwater interaction.
Since the HRUs divided by the SWAT have no spatial location information, the HRUs
are further decomposed into DHRUs (Disaggregated Hydrologic Response Units) with spa-
tial information, to complete the spatial correspondence between SWAT and MODFLOW.
The interaction between the surface water–groundwater is mainly that SWAT transmits
the calculated groundwater infiltration recharge to the recharge package of MODFLOW.
MODFLOW calculates the interaction between the surface water and groundwater, and
transfers it to SWAT. The above process has been integrated into an independent executable
program by Professor Bailey from the University of Colorado. MODFLOW is a subroutine
of SWAT [13].

2.3. Prediction of Future Precipitation and Temperature

Some research results have shown that the second-generation Canadian Earth System
Model (CanESM2) developed by the Canadian Climate Center has achieved good applica-
tion results in East Asia [24–26]. Therefore, the SSP2_4.5 and SSP5_8.5 scenarios provided
by the CanESM5 model were selected to predict the future temperature and precipitation
in the Huashan Basin.
ASD (Automated Statistical Downscaling model) model is a statistical downscaling
model based on the linear regression method, which is developed from the SDSM model
(Statistical Downscaling Model) [19]. ASD models rely on the Matlab platform to develop
and run, and can automatically select predictors, calibrate model parameters, and generate
future climate scenarios. The prediction factor selection method (the recursive algorithm)
in the SDSM model was improved. While calculating the partial correlation between two
variables, the maximum number of control variables is 12, and the ASD model eliminates
the impact of users’ subjective judgment. The specific process of the ASD model has been
described in detail in the literature [27].
Climate change will affect the surface water–groundwater interaction with the changes
of temperature and precipitation in the study area. The atmospheric circulation model
and statistical downscaling method are combined to predict the future temperature and
precipitation in the study area. The impact of climate change on the spatial-temporal
interaction pattern of the surface water and groundwater was analyzed using the SWAT-
MODFLOW coupling model in the study area. The coupled model is shown in detail in
Figure 4, below. The first step is to use the data of the study area to construct and calibrate
the surface-water model and the groundwater model, respectively. The second step is to use
the constructed surface-water and groundwater models to calibrate the coupled model. The
third step is to prepare meteorological data, using the ASD statistical downscaling model
to downscale precipitation and temperature; the fourth step is to input the downscaled
data into the coupling model, drive the model, and analyze the results.
 the surface-water model and the groundwater model, respectively. The second step is to
use the constructed surface-water and groundwater models to calibrate the coupled
model. The third step is to prepare meteorological data, using the ASD statistical
downscaling model to downscale precipitation and temperature; the fourth step is to in-
put the downscaled data into the coupling model, drive the model, and analyze the re-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 7 of 21
sults.

Figure 4. Applied simulation strategy in this research.

Figure 4. Applied simulation strategy in this research.
3. Result and Discussion
3.1. Estimation of Surface Water and Groundwater Parameters
3.1.1. Estimation of Surface Parameters
The calibration of the SWAT model is mainly completed through the SWATCUP
program, and the ten most sensitive parameters were selected. The range and optimal
solution of the selected parameters, as well as the sensitivity ranking of each parameter,
are shown in Table 2. The three most sensitive parameters are CN2, which characterizes
surface runoff, SOL_AWC, which characterizes soil capacity in the unsaturated zone, and
SOL_K, which characterizes aquifer permeability. The groundwater has a great influence
on the hydrological process of the basin. To restore the hydrological cycle of the basin
more accurately, it is necessary to describe the spatial distribution of the hydrogeological
parameters of the aquifer, such as the hydraulic conductivity, specific yield, etc.

3.1.2. Estimation of Aquifer Parameters

The calibrated SWAT model is coupled with the calibrated MODFLOW model, and
the SWAT-MODFLOW coupling model is further calibrated. The calibration process is
mainly realized by adjusting the hydraulic conductivity (K) and specific yield (Sy). The
initial values of hydraulic conductivity were obtained by the slug tests [27]. Figure 5
shows the slug test results for four of the typical boreholes, which have permeability
coefficients of 1.03, 16.04, 4.22 and 5.35 m/d, in that order. The good alignment results of
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 8 of 21

the borehole data indicate that the hydrogeological parameters determined using the slug
test are more accurate. In the calibration process, the values of the hydraulic conductivity
and specific yield are manually adjusted, and the groundwater level and the stream flow of
the outlet section are fitted at the same time. While the calculated and simulated values
fit well, the hydraulic conductivity at this time is determined as the optimal parameter.
The spatial distribution of the final calibrated hydraulic conductivity is shown in Figure 6.
Upstream near the boundary area is the piedmont area, and the hydraulic conductivity is
relatively small, only 1–1.5 m/d. In the middle area the spatial difference of the hydraulic
conductivity is relatively large. In the north of the study area, the hydraulic conductivity is
15 m/d.

Table 2. Most sensitive SWAT parameters and adjustment range.

Sensitivity
Parameter Description Method Max Min Value
Rank
CN2.mgt SCS run-off curve number f 1 Relative −0.25 0.1 −0.1
SOL_AWC.sol Available water capacity of the soil layer 2 Replace 0 1 0.51
SOL_K.sol Saturated hydraulic conductivity 3 Relative −0.5 0.5 −0.21
Threshold depth of water in the shallow
REVAPMN.gw 4 Replace 0 500 497.5
aquifer for “revap” to occur
EPCO.bsn Plant uptake compensation factor 5 Replace 0 1 0.59
ALPHA_BF.gw Base-flow alpha factor 6 Replace 0 1 0.62
Threshold depth of water in the shallow
GWQMN.gw 7 Replace −500 500 384.17
aquifer required for return flow to occur
ESCO.bsn Soil evaporation compensation factor 8 Replace 0 1 0.39
GW_REVAP.gw Groundwater
Sustainability 2022, 14, x “revap”
FOR PEERcoefficient
REVIEW 9 Replace 0.02 0.2 0.17 9 of 22
GW_DELAY.gw Groundwater delay 10 Replace 0 30 6.95

Figure 5. Measured data matched with type curves for the injecting-water type slug interference tests.
Figure 5. Measured data matched with type curves for the injecting-water type slug interference
tests.
 Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 9 of 21
Figure 5. Measured data matched with type curves for the injecting-water type slug interference
tests.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 22

Figure 6. Spatial distribution of calibrated hydraulic conductivity.

3.2.Figure
Model Spatial distribution
6. Calibration of calibrated hydraulic conductivity.
and Validation
3.2.1.
3.2.SWAT-MODFLOW Performance for Surface Water
Model Calibration and Validation
3.2.1.
TheSWAT-MODFLOW Performance
performance of the for Surface
coupled model Water water was calibrated and validated
on surface
by usingThethe
performance of the
stream flow coupled
data model
of the on surface
Chengxi water
runoff was calibrated
hydrological and validated
station in the outlet
by using the stream flow data of the Chengxi runoff hydrological
section from 2016 to 2020. The curves of the observed and simulated values station in the
areoutlet
shown in
section from 2016 to 2020. The curves of the observed and simulated values are shown
Figure 7. The stream flow fitting trend of the outlet section of the SWAT model and the
in Figure 7. The stream flow fitting trend of the outlet section of the SWAT model and
SWAT-MODFLOW model is consistent with the measured flow curve. However, the
the SWAT-MODFLOW model is consistent with the measured flow curve. However, the
SWAT
SWATmodel
modeloverestimates theflow
overestimates the flow at the
at the outlet
outlet section
section at multiple
at multiple timeduring
time points pointsthe
during
thesimulation
simulation period. Moreover, the SWAT model under-simulates flood
period. Moreover, the SWAT model under-simulates flood peaks. This is due topeaks. This is
duethe
toinherent
the inherent
defectsdefects of themodel
of the SWAT SWATinmodel in simulating
simulating flood [28,29].
flood prediction prediction [28,29].

Figure 7. Observed
Figure 7. ObservedSWAT
SWAT and SWAT-MODFLOW-simulated
and SWAT-MODFLOW-simulated timetime
seriesseries of stream
of stream discharge.
discharge.

Compared with SWAT, SWAT-MODFLOW obtains more accurate results after con-
sidering the spatial distribution of the hydrogeological parameters and calculating the
surface water–groundwater interactions, due to the high frequency of interaction between
surface water and groundwater in the study area. The hydrographs simulated by SWAT-
MODFLOW can better fit the measured values. In July 2020, the floods caused by heavy
precipitation could not be simulated well by SWAT or SWAT-MODFLOW. The simula-
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 10 of 21

Compared with SWAT, SWAT-MODFLOW obtains more accurate results after con-
sidering the spatial distribution of the hydrogeological parameters and calculating the
surface water–groundwater interactions, due to the high frequency of interaction between
surface water and groundwater in the study area. The hydrographs simulated by SWAT-
MODFLOW can better fit the measured values. In July 2020, the floods caused by heavy
precipitation could not be simulated well by SWAT or SWAT-MODFLOW. The simulation
results of SWAT and SWAT-MODFLOW are evaluated by the deterministic coefficients
and Nash efficiency coefficients, and the results are shown in Table 3. The deterministic
coefficients and Nash efficiency coefficients of the SWAT model are 0.78 and 0.76, and the
deterministic coefficients and Nash efficiency coefficients of SWAT-MODFLOW are 0.85
and 0.83.

Table 3. Statistical analysis between the observed and calculated monthly flows, for the SWAT and
SWAT-MODFLOW models.

Name Statistical SWAT SWAT-MODFLOW

R2 0.78 0.85
Chengxi
NSE 0.76 0.83

3.2.2. SWAT-MODFLOW Performance for Groundwater

The performance of the coupled model on the groundwater was evaluated using the
groundwater level of the monitoring wells from 2018 to 2020. Two indicators commonly
used to evaluate groundwater models are selected: the coefficient of certainty (R2 ) and
the root-mean-square error (RMSE). Figure 8 shows the groundwater level fitting curve
of 10 monitoring wells in the study area. The SWAT-MODFLOW model can simulate the
groundwater-level-variation trend of the monitoring wells. The error between the simu-
lated value and measured value is basically controlled within 1 m. There is groundwater
development and utilization in some areas of the basin, but there are no measurement data.
The impact of exploitation is not considered in the numerical model. As a result, there is a
gap between the simulated and measured values of the groundwater-level-changes of some
monitoring wells at certain times. The scatter plots of the simulated and measured values
of all monitoring wells are shown in Figure 9. The certainty coefficient (R2 ) of the simulated
and measured values is 0.95, and the root-mean-square error (RMSE) is 0.88 m. One moni-
toring well was observed at a slightly higher water level than the simulated water level,
because it was at the edge of a farm field. The results show that the SWAT-MODFLOW
coupling model can reproduce the variation process of the groundwater level.

3.3. Spatial-Temporal Patterns of GW and SW Interaction

The annual interaction between GW and SW throughout the simulation period
(2016–2020), is shown in Figure 10. Negative values represent groundwater recharge
to surface water, positive values indicate that surface water recharges groundwater. During
the 5-year simulation period, surface water was in a state of receiving recharge. The 5-year
average groundwater recharge rate of surface water is 0.5281 m3 /s, and the rate of surface
water recharge to groundwater is 0.1289 m3 /s. The surface–groundwater interaction varies
with seasonality. The recharge of groundwater to surface water in 2019 is 0.2374 m3 /s. The
recharge is only 45% of the 5-year average, which is related to the precipitation of only
564 mm in 2019. The amount of groundwater-recharging surface water in 2020 is relatively
lower than that in 2016–2018. Although the precipitation in 2020 is 1322 mm, following a
dry year the precipitation in 2020 firstly recharged the soil moisture and aquifer.
 changes of some monitoring wells at certain times. The scatter plots of the simulated and
measured values of all monitoring wells are shown in Figure 9. The certainty coefficient
(R2) of the simulated and measured values is 0.95, and the root-mean-square error (RMSE)
is 0.88 m. One monitoring well was observed at a slightly higher water level than the sim-
ulated water level, because it was at the edge of a farm field. The results show that the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 11 of 21
SWAT-MODFLOW coupling model can reproduce the variation process of the ground-
water level.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 12 of 2

Figure 8.
Figure 8. The
The calculated
calculated vs.
vs. observed
observed groundwater
groundwater levels
levels over
over time.
time.

Figure9.9.Correlation
Figure Correlation of the
of the calculated
calculated and observed
and observed groundwater
groundwater levels. levels.

3.3. Spatial-Temporal Patterns of GW and SW Interaction

The annual interaction between GW and SW throughout the simulation period
(2016–2020), is shown in Figure 10. Negative values represent groundwater recharge t
surface water, positive values indicate that surface water recharges groundwater. During
the 5-year simulation period, surface water was in a state of receiving recharge. The 5
 surface water recharge to groundwater is 0.1289 m /s. The surface–groundwater interac-
tion varies with seasonality. The recharge of groundwater to surface water in 2019 is
0.2374 m3/s. The recharge is only 45% of the 5-year average, which is related to the precip-
itation of only 564 mm in 2019. The amount of groundwater-recharging surface water in
2020 is relatively lower than that in 2016–2018. Although the precipitation in 2020 is 1322
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 12 of 21
mm, following a dry year the precipitation in 2020 firstly recharged the soil moisture and
aquifer.

Figure
Figure10.
10.2016–2020
2016–2020annual
annualaverage
average surface water–groundwaterinteraction.
surface water–groundwater interaction.

Themonthly
The
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW monthlyaverage
averageinteraction
interactionofofthe
the surface
surface water–groundwaterisisshown
water–groundwater shown
inin
13 Fig-
of 22
Figure
ure 11. In11.terms
In terms of surface
of surface water
water rechargetotogroundwater,
recharge groundwater, due dueto tothe
theheavy
heavyprecipitation
precipitation
fromJune
from JunetotoAugust
Augustand and the
the high
high water
water level
levelofofthe
therivers,
rivers,the
therecharge
recharge ofofgroundwater
groundwater
fromthe
from therivers
riversaccounts
accountsfor
for 35%
35% of
of the
the annual
annual total
totalrecharge.
recharge.FromFromSeptember
September totoOctober,
October,
The
the reduction
groundwater in precipitation
level was resulted
already high, inunder
lowertheriver levels of
influence compared
previous to previous months,
precipitation. The
the groundwater level was already high, under the influence of previous precipitation.
with less groundwater
reduction recharge
in precipitation resultedfrom the rivers.
in lower In terms
river levels of groundwater
compared to previous recharge
months, withto riv-
ers,
lessthe recharge ofrecharge
groundwater groundwater
from thetorivers.
riversInisterms
lowestof in April and the
groundwater highest
recharge in July.
to rivers, theThe
recharge from June to August accounts for 38% of the annual recharge. In the annual dry
recharge of groundwater to rivers is lowest in April and the highest in July. The recharge
from June
season, theto August accounts
groundwater is offor 38%significance
great of the annualinrecharge. In thethe
maintaining annual dry season,
natural runoff the
of the
groundwater is of great significance in maintaining the natural runoff of the rivers.
rivers.

Figure
Figure11.
11.Monthly
Monthlyaverage
average of
of the surfacewater–groundwater
the surface water–groundwaterinteraction.
interaction.

Figure12
Figure 12shows
shows the
the spatial distribution
distributionofofthe
the5-year
5-yearaverage
averageinteraction
interactionof of
thethe
sur-
sur-
face water and groundwater
face water and groundwater for the 1836 river grids, over the entire simulation period
the 1836 river grids, over the entire simulation period
(2016–2020).The
(2016–2020). Theinteraction
interactionrule
rule between
between thethe surface
surface water
water and
and groundwater
groundwater is very
is very com-
complex
plex in theinHuangshan
the Huangshan basin.
basin. TheThe amountofofinteraction
amount interaction between
betweenthe thesurface
surfacewater
waterandand
groundwaterin
groundwater intributaries
tributaries is
is relatively
relativelysmall.
small.Whether
Whetherititisisthe
thesurface water
surface waterrecharging
recharging
groundwater or the groundwater recharging the surface water, the interaction volume is
groundwater or 3the groundwater recharging the surface water, the interaction volume is
mostly 0–100 m /d. After the tributaries converge, the water level of the river rises rela-
mostly 0–100 m3/d. After the tributaries converge, the water level of the river rises rela-
tively, generally manifesting as surface water supplying groundwater. It is more obvious
tively, generally manifesting as surface water supplying groundwater. It is more obvious
especially near the outlet of the watershed.
especially near the outlet of the watershed.
 plex in the Huangshan basin. The amount of interaction between the surface water and
groundwater in tributaries is relatively small. Whether it is the surface water recharging
groundwater or the groundwater recharging the surface water, the interaction volume is
mostly 0–100 m3/d. After the tributaries converge, the water level of the river rises rela-
tively, generally manifesting as surface water supplying groundwater. It is more obvious
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 13 of 21
especially near the outlet of the watershed.

Figure 12. Annual average spatial GW–SW interaction (2016–2020). (From blue to red, the river grids
for each color are 14, 20, 61, 1103 and 638 respectively).

Among the four sub-basins, the Zhuyuangou sub-basin is close to the outlet of the
watershed, and the area is small. In general, surface water recharges groundwater, and the
interaction between the surface water and groundwater is small, in the range of 0–100 m3 /d.
The main stream of the Dongyuan and Xiyuan sub-basins is represented as surface water
supplementing groundwater; tributaries are transformed into groundwater supplementing
surface water. In addition, the interaction volume of the main river is larger than that
of the tributaries. Especially in the Xiyuan sub-basin, in the main stream position, the
recharge of groundwater to surface water can reach 400–600 m3 /d. Due to the relatively
large number of human activities in the Zhongyuan sub-basin, the interaction rule between
the surface water and groundwater is more complex. The surface water recharging the
groundwater and the groundwater recharging the surface water alternate along the whole
river. The relationship between the surface water and groundwater near the outlet of the
watershed is as follows: at a distance upstream of the outlet, the surface water recharges
the groundwater, and after the interaction between the Xiyuan and the Dongyuan and
Zhongyuan coverage, the groundwater replenishes the surface water.

3.4. General Model Results

The spatial distribution of precipitation infiltration transferred from the SWAT model
to the MODFLOW model on a daily average over the entire simulation period (2016–2020),
is shown in Figure 13. The precipitation infiltration in the hilly area around the basin is
smaller than that on the plain area. The recharge in the hilly area along the riverbed is
larger than that in other surrounding hilly areas. On the plain area, the forest area is larger
than other land-use types. The 5-year average infiltration coefficient of precipitation is 0.17,
and the average annual infiltration coefficient of precipitation is shown in Table 4. In 2019,
the precipitation was only 564 mm, and the infiltration coefficient of precipitation was 0.1.
In 2020, due to the influence of the previous dry year, precipitation had to give priority
to replenishing soil moisture before recharging the saturated aquifer, so the infiltration
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 14 of 21

coefficient of precipitation in 2020 is lower than that of 2016–2018. In addition, there are
three areas with large precipitation infiltration spatially. The main reason is that these areas
are lower in terrain than the surrounding areas, and belong to the catchment area.15While
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW of 22
the precipitation was heavy, these areas will have been submerged, and have formed a
small reservoir within a certain area.

Figure
Figure13.
13.Daily
Dailyaverage
averageprecipitation
precipitationinfiltration.
infiltration.

4. Annual
TableThe averagelevel
groundwater infiltration coefficient
calculated of precipitation.
by SWAT-MODFLOW at the end of the simulation
period is shown in Figure 14. The area with the highest groundwater level appears in the
Precipitation Infiltration Infiltration Coefficient
hilly area
Yeararound the Huashan(mm)
Precipitation Basin, and the area
(mm)
with the lowest groundwater level ap-
of Precipitation
pears near the outlet of the entire watershed, which is consistent with the topographical
2016 1453.4 319.85 0.22
conditions of the basin. In addition, because the river is recharged by groundwater, the
2017 1119.3 203.89 0.18
groundwater
2018 level along1348.9
the river is lower than 270.15
the surrounding groundwater 0.20 level. The
5-year 2019
average precipitation
564.1was slightly higher 56.7
than the multi-year average. 0.10Compared
with the initial groundwater
2020 1321.6 level of the basin,211.69
the groundwater table at the 0.16end of the
simulation period was slightly higher than the initial head.
The groundwater level calculated by SWAT-MODFLOW at the end of the simulation
period is shown in Figure 14. The area with the highest groundwater level appears in
the hilly area around the Huashan Basin, and the area with the lowest groundwater level
appears near the outlet of the entire watershed, which is consistent with the topographical
conditions of the basin. In addition, because the river is recharged by groundwater, the
groundwater level along the river is lower than the surrounding groundwater level. The
5-year average precipitation was slightly higher than the multi-year average. Compared
with the initial groundwater level of the basin, the groundwater table at the end of the
simulation period was slightly higher than the initial head.
 pears near the outlet of the entire watershed, which is consistent with the topographica
conditions of the basin. In addition, because the river is recharged by groundwater, the
groundwater level along the river is lower than the surrounding groundwater level. The
5-year average precipitation was slightly higher than the multi-year average. Compared
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 15 ofend
with the initial groundwater level of the basin, the groundwater table at the 21 of the

simulation period was slightly higher than the initial head.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 16 of 22

3.5. Effect of Climate Change on Groundwater and Surface Water

Figure
3.5.1.
Figure 14.Groundwater
Effects
14. Groundwater
of Climate level
Change
level calculated
on by
calculated by SWAT-MODFLOW
Precipitation
SWAT-MODFLOW at the
and Temperature
at the end endsimulation
of the of the simulation
period. period

3.5. A statistical
Effect downscaling
of Climate model wasand
Change on Groundwater used to downscale
Surface Water the CanESM5 future climate
data provided
3.5.1. Effects ofby the Canadian
Climate Change onClimate Centre.
Precipitation and Two scenarios, SSP2_4.5 and SSP5_8.5,
Temperature
were selected for downscaling
A statistical the analysismodel
of future
was climate change. The
used to downscale thefitted
CanESM5curves for climate
future precipitation
and temperature
data areCanadian
provided by the shown inClimate
FigureCentre.
15 below,Two with the RMSE
scenarios, SSP2_4.5ofand
0.657 mm and
SSP5_8.5, were0.011 °C
for the SSP2_4.5
selected scenarioofand
for the analysis 1.14climate
future mm and 0.0108
change. °Cfitted
The for the SSP2_8.5
curves scenario. The
for precipitation andresults
temperature
show are shown with
that, compared in Figure
the 15 below, with
current year,thebyRMSE
2050,ofunder
0.657 mmtheand 0.011 ◦ Cand
SSP2_4.5 for the
SSP5_8.5
SSP2_4.5 scenario and 1.14 mm and 0.0108 ◦ C for the SSP2_8.5 scenario. The results show
scenarios, the precipitation will increase by 10.32% (110.87 mm) and 13.69% (147.12 mm),
that, compared with the current year, by 2050, under the SSP2_4.5 and SSP5_8.5 scenarios,
respectively; the temperature will increase by 5.67% (1.15 °C) and 6.48% (1.32 °C), respec-
the precipitation will increase by 10.32% (110.87 mm) and 13.69% (147.12 mm), respectively;
tively. The historical precipitation used is 1979–2014. The historical precipitation and the
the temperature will increase by 5.67% (1.15 ◦ C) and 6.48% (1.32 ◦ C), respectively. The
precipitation results predicted by the two climate models
historical precipitation used is 1979–2014. The historical precipitation SSP2_4.5
and the and SSP5_8.5, are
precipitation
shown
resultsin Figure 16.
predicted by the two climate models SSP2_4.5 and SSP5_8.5, are shown in Figure 16.

Figure 15. Cont.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 16 of 21

Figure 15. FittedFigure

curves 15.of precipitation
Fitted and maximum
curves of precipitation temperature
and maximum for SSP2_4.5
temperature andand
for SSP2_4.5 SSP5_8.5
SSP5_8.5 sce-
scenarios. narios.
Figure 15. Fitted curves of precipitation and maximum temperature for SSP2_4.5 and SSP5_8.5 sce-
narios.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 17 of 22

Figure 16. Time series of precipitation (mm) in historical (1979–2014) and predicted (2015–2050)
Figure 16. Time series of precipitation (mm) in historical (1979–2014) and predicted (2015–2050) pe-
periods in the Huashan
riods in Basin.
the Huashan Basin.

The changes inTheaverage

changesmonthly precipitation
in average in differentinmonths
monthly precipitation differentof the year
months in year
of the histor-
in his-
ical years and under
torical years and under the two scenarios of SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5, are shown in 17.
the two scenarios of SSP2-4.5 and SSP5-8.5, are shown in Figure Figure
Except for August and September,
17. Except for August andtheSeptember,
precipitation shows a downward
the precipitation trend,trend,
shows a downward and the
and the
rest of the months
rest ofshow an increasing
the months trend. The
show an increasing SSP5_8.5
trend. climate
The SSP5_8.5 scenario
climate scenariohas
has more
more pre-
precipitation incipitation
July, andinthe
July, and the probability
probability of extreme
of extreme precipitation
precipitation is higher.
is higher.

Figure
Figure 17. Monthly 17. Monthly
average average precipitation
precipitation in the futureinunder
the future under different
different climate scenarios.
climate scenarios.

3.5.2. The Impact of Climate Change on the Spatial–Temporal Interaction between the
3.5.2. The Impact of Climate Change on the Spatial–Temporal Interaction between the
Surface and Groundwater
Surface and Groundwater
In general, the occurrence of extreme weather brought about by climate change has
In general,further
the occurrence of extreme weather brought about by climate change has
exacerbated the inter-annual differences in the interaction between the surface wa-
further exacerbated thegroundwater
ter and inter-annual indifferences
the HuashaninBasin.
the interaction
Especially inbetween the surface
the SSP5_8.5 scenario,water
the mini-
mum recharge amount of the surface water to groundwater is 0.0702 m3/s, and the maxi-
mum recharge amount is 0.1818 m3/s, a difference of 2.6 times. The maximum recharge
amount of the groundwater to surface water is 1.1148 m3/s, and the minimum recharge
amount is 0.1681 m3/s, a difference of 6.63 times.
Due to the increase in precipitation in the future prediction period, compared with
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 17 of 21

and groundwater in the Huashan Basin. Especially in the SSP5_8.5 scenario, the minimum
recharge amount of the surface water to groundwater is 0.0702 m3 /s, and the maximum
recharge amount is 0.1818 m3 /s, a difference of 2.6 times. The maximum recharge amount
of the groundwater to surface water is 1.1148 m3 /s, and the minimum recharge amount is
0.1681 m3 /s, a difference of 6.63 times.
Due to the increase in precipitation in the future prediction period, compared with the
current (2016–2020) annual average, the ssp2_4.5 and ssp5_8.5 scenarios will both show the
surface water recharge to groundwater and the groundwater recharge to surface water as
an increasing trend in the next 30 years (2021–2050) (Figure 18). In the ssp2_4.5 scenario,
the surface water recharges the groundwater on average 0.1583 m3 /s, an increase of 22.8%
compared with the base period; the groundwater recharges the surface water 0.5189 m3 /s,
a slight decrease compared with the base period, a decrease of 0.017%. In the ssp5_8.5
scenario, the average groundwater recharge is 0.1469 m3 /s, an increase of 14.7% compared
Sustainability 2022,
with 14, the
x FOR REVIEW the groundwater recharge to surface water is 0.5953 m3 /s, an increase
PEERperiod;
base 18 of 22

of 12.7%, compared with the base period.

Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 18 of 22

Figure 18. Surface–groundwater interaction in 2021–2050 under SSP2_4.5 scenario.

Figure 18. Surface–groundwater interaction in 2021–2050 under SSP2_4.5 and SSP5_8.5 scenario.
(Red represents the SSP2_4.5 scenario
The average and interactions
monthly blue represents
of thethe SSP5_8.5
surface waterscenario, with positive
and groundwater values
for the two
representing surface water
climate recharge
scenarios to next
in the groundwater and negative
30 years (2021–2050) valuesinrepresenting
are shown groundwater
Figure 19. Compared with
thewater.)
recharge to surface base year, the recharge of the surface water to groundwater and the groundwater to
surface water in August and September decreased, which was related to the decrease in
Figure 18. Surface–groundwater interaction in 2021–2050 under SSP2_4.5 scenario.
The average monthlyininteractions
precipitation of the surface
August and September duringwater and groundwater
the prediction period. Due toforthethe two
increas-
ingin
climate scenarios trend
theof precipitation
next yearsin(2021–2050)
30monthly other months, theshown
recharging of the groundwater by thewith
cor-
The average interactions ofare in Figure
the surface water 19. Compared
and groundwater for the two
responding surface water also increased. In July, the SSP5_8.5 scenario had a larger dis-
the base year, the recharge
climate scenariosof in
thethesurface water
next 30 years to groundwater
(2021–2050) are shownand the groundwater
in Figure 19. Compared with to
charge of the groundwater to surface water, reaching 1.2929 m3/s.
surface water intheAugust
base year,andtheSeptember
recharge of the surface water
decreased, whichto groundwater
was related andtothe
thegroundwater
decrease in to
precipitation in surface
AugustwaterandinSeptember
August andduring
September
the decreased,
prediction which was Due
period. related
totothe
theincreasing
decrease in
precipitation in August and September during the prediction period. Due to the increas-
trend of precipitation in other months, the recharging of the groundwater by the corre-
ing trend of precipitation in other months, the recharging of the groundwater by the cor-
sponding surface water also
responding increased.
surface In July,
water also the SSP5_8.5
increased. In July, thescenario
SSP5_8.5had a larger
scenario had adischarge
larger dis-
of the groundwater
chargetoofsurface water, reaching
the groundwater to surface1.2929 m3 /s. 1.2929 m3/s.
water, reaching

Figure 19. Average monthly GW–SW interaction in 2021–2050, under SSP5_4.5 scenario.

Figure 20 shows the spatial interaction pattern of the surface and groundwater for
2021–2050 in 1836 river grids of the SWAT-MODFLOW model, under the SSP2_4.5 and
SSP5_8.5 scenarios. Compared with the current situation, the average surface-water–
groundwater interaction in the next 30 years will be larger. It may be related to the in-
Figure 19. Average monthly GW–SW interaction in 2021–2050, under SSP5_4.5 scenario.
Figure 19. Average monthly
creasing GW–SW
number interaction
of extreme in 2021–2050,
climates. Among them, under SSP5_4.5 and
the Dongyuan SSP5_8.5
sub-basin, scenario.
Xiyuan sub-
basin
(Red represents the and Zhuyuangou
SSP2_4.5 scenario sub-basin have obvious SSP5_8.5
variation characteristics. Except forvalues
some
Figure 20 shows and blue represents
the spatial interactionthe scenario,
pattern of the surface with positive
and groundwater for
reaches
representing surface of the
water main stream,
recharge the interaction
to groundwater and volume
negative decreases,
values and the remaining
representing reaches
2021–2050 in 1836 river grids of the SWAT-MODFLOW model, under thegroundwater
SSP2_4.5 and
have a larger interaction volume. In addition, in the SSP2_4.5 and SSP5_8.5 scenarios, due
SSP5_8.5
recharge to surface water.)scenarios. Compared with the current situation, the average surface-water–
to the increase in precipitation, the groundwater level increases. The transformation of the
groundwater interaction in the next 30 years will be larger. It may be related to the in-
interaction between the surface and groundwater appears at some river segments of the
creasing number of extreme climates. Among them, the Dongyuan sub-basin, Xiyuan sub-
tributaries. Recharged groundwater from surface water translates to surface water re-
basin and Zhuyuangou sub-basin have obvious variation characteristics. Except for some
charged by groundwater. Compared with the SSP2_4.5 scenario, this phenomenon is more
reaches of the main stream, the interaction volume decreases, and the remaining reaches
obvious in SSP5_8.5.
have a larger interaction volume. In addition, in the SSP2_4.5 and SSP5_8.5 scenarios, due
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 18 of 21

Figure 20 shows the spatial interaction pattern of the surface and groundwater for
2021–2050 in 1836 river grids of the SWAT-MODFLOW model, under the SSP2_4.5 and
SSP5_8.5 scenarios. Compared with the current situation, the average surface-water–
groundwater interaction in the next 30 years will be larger. It may be related to the
increasing number of extreme climates. Among them, the Dongyuan sub-basin, Xiyuan sub-
basin and Zhuyuangou sub-basin have obvious variation characteristics. Except for some
reaches of the main stream, the interaction volume decreases, and the remaining reaches
have a larger interaction volume. In addition, in the SSP2_4.5 and SSP5_8.5 scenarios, due
to the increase in precipitation, the groundwater level increases. The transformation of
the interaction between the surface and groundwater appears at some river segments of
the tributaries. Recharged groundwater from surface water translates to surface water
recharged by groundwater. Compared with the SSP2_4.5 scenario, this phenomenon is
more obvious in SSP5_8.5.
It has been noted that in plain areas, where the hydraulic gradient is low, vertical
upward water movement dominates. There is a strong correlation between shallow ground-
water and surface water balance processes, as groundwater levels can rise to the surface
with uncertain cycles [30,31]. Coupled surface groundwater models are therefore essen-
tial in analyzing surface–groundwater interactions on the plains and in the planning and
management of water resources. Future changes in climate, on the other hand, can lead
to changes in the groundwater head, which in turn can alter surface water–groundwater
recharge and discharge relationships [32]. In this study, the SSP2_4.5 scenario resulted in
101 river cells with changing recharge and discharge relationships compared to the status
quo, representing 5.5% of the entire river cells (1836). These changes in the vegetation
and the benthic and nutrient relationships have a significant impact. The development of
rational exploitation plans based on different water resources is essential for the sustainable
Sustainability 2022, 14, x FOR PEER REVIEW 19 of 22
development of water resources and water ecology in the basin. Climate change varies
greatly among regions of the world, and requires specific analysis in the context of local
conditions, and the ideas in this paper may provide a good case study for similar research.

ssp2_4.5 (From blue to red, the river grids for each color are 17, 19, 56, 1005 and 739, respectively.)

Figure 20. Cont.

Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 19 of 21

ssp2_4.5 (From blue to red, the river grids for each color are 17, 19, 56, 1005 and 739, respectively.)

ssp5_8.5 (From blue to red, the river grids for each color are 17, 21, 74, 1093 and 631, respectively.)
Figure 20. Annual average surface water—groundwater interaction for two future scenarios.
Figure 20. Annual average surface water—groundwater interaction for two future scenarios.

4. Conclusions
It has been noted that in plain areas, where the hydraulic gradient is low, vertical
upwardUsingwater movement
the coupled dominates.
numerical modelThere is a strong correlation
SWAT-MODFLOW, between shallow
the spatial–temporal inter-
groundwater
action patternand surface
of the water
surface balance
water processes, asingroundwater
and groundwater the Huashanlevels
Basin can
wasrise to the
analyzed.
Compared to using one of the models alone, SWAT-MODFLOW performs better in both
the stream flow and groundwater level calibration results. The applicability of SWAT-
MODFLOW to small watersheds is demonstrated. By adjusting the hydraulic conductivity
and specific yield of the groundwater model, the calibration of the coupled model can be
validated quickly, to a certain extent.
During the simulation period (2016–2020), the spatio-temporal transformation of
surface water and groundwater in the basin is complex. The average 5-year recharge rate of
groundwater to surface water is 0.5281 m3 /s, and the rate of surface water to groundwater
is 0.1289 m3 /s. The smallest excretions occur in April, and the largest excretions occur in
June-September. The difference in interaction between seasons is related to the amount
of precipitation. Spatially, the interaction volume of tributaries is smaller than that of the
main stream, which is 0–100 m3 /d. After the tributary coverage, most of them appear as
surface water supplying groundwater. In addition, the interaction between surface water
and groundwater at the outlet of the watershed is relatively large. The infiltration recharge
in the study area is smaller in the surrounding hilly area than on the plain area. The
5-year-average-infiltration coefficient of precipitation is 0.17. The results of the prediction
stage suggest that climate change scenarios are essential for the integrated management
of water resources in the basin. Under the ssp5_8.5 scenario, surface water recharges to
groundwater on average 0.1469 m3 /s, an increase of 14.7% compared with the base period;
groundwater recharges to surface water 0.5953 m3 /s, an increase of 12.7% compared with
the base period.
The coupled model reproduces the water cycle process in the basin, and enhances the
understanding of the temporal and spatial characteristics of precipitation infiltration and
surface water—groundwater interaction. This contributes to the integrated management of
water resources in the basin. After identifying the high groundwater-discharge area, the
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 20 of 21

solute transport model can be further coupled in the future, to solve the current increasing
problem of non-point source pollution in the watershed. In addition, the addition of
isotopic data can further improve the accuracy of the coupled model.

Author Contributions: L.Z. and J.L. conceived and designed the study; Y.D., J.H., X.L., X.S., P.L.
and A.L. collected the data and carried out the investigation; L.Z. analyzed the data; L.Z. wrote
the paper, with the assistance of J.L. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of
the manuscript.
Funding: This work was supported by the National Key R&D Program of China (Grant No.
2021YFC3200501), special funds for Basic Research and Business Expenses of Central Level Public
Welfare Research Institutes (Grant No. Y521005), and Nation Nature Science Foundation of China
(Grant No. 91847301, 92047203).
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: Not applicable.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Sophocleous, M. Interactions between groundwater and surface water: The state of the science. Hydrogeol. J. 2002, 10, 52–67.
[CrossRef]
2. Kalbus, E.; Schmidt, C.; Molson, J.W.; Reinstorf, F.; Schirmer, M. Influence of aquifer and streambed heterogeneity on the
distribution of groundwater discharge. Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. 2009, 13, 69–77. [CrossRef]
3. Hussein, M.; Schwartz, F.W. Modeling of flow and contaminant transport in coupled stream–aquifer systems. J. Contam. Hydrol.
2003, 65, 41–64. [CrossRef]
4. Waibel, M.S.; Gannett, M.W.; Chang, H.; Hulbe, C.L. Spatial variability of the response to climate change in regional groundwater
systems—Examples from simulations in the Deschutes Basin, Oregon. J. Hydrol. Amst. 2013, 486, 187–201. [CrossRef]
5. Fleckenstein, J.H.; Krause, S.; Hannah, D.M.; Boano, F. Groundwater-surface water interactions: New methods and models to
improve understanding of processes and dynamic. Adv. Water Resour. 2010, 33, 1291–1295. [CrossRef]
6. Jafari, F.; Javadi, S.; Golmohammadi, G.; Karimi, N.; Mohammadi, K. Numerical simulation of groundwater flow and aquifer-
system compaction using simulation and InSAR technique: Saveh basin, Iran. Environ. Earth Sci. 2016, 75, 833. [CrossRef]
7. Priya, R.Y.; Manjula, R. A review for comparing SWAT and SWAT coupled models and its applications—ScienceDirect. Mater.
Today Proc. 2021, 45, 7190–7194. [CrossRef]
8. Gumindoga, W.; Rwasoka, D.T.; Murwira, A. Simulation of streamflow using TOPMODEL in the Upper Save River catchment of
Zimbabwe. Phys. Chem. Earth 2011, 36, 806–813. [CrossRef]
9. Harbaugh, A.W.; Banta, E.R.; Hill, M.C.; McDonald, M.G. MODFLOW-2000, The U.S. geological survey modular ground-water
model-user guide to modularization concepts and the ground-water flow process. Open-File Rep. USA Geol. Surv. 2000, 92, 134.
10. Cornelissen, T.; Diekkrüger, B.; Bogena, H. Using HydroGeoSphere in a Forested Catchment: How does Spatial Resolution
Influence the Simulation of Spatio-temporal Soil Moisture Variability? Procedia Environ. Sci. 2013, 19, 198–207. [CrossRef]
11. Rujner, H.; Leonhardt, G.; Marsalek, J.; Viklander, M. High-resolution modelling of the grass swale response to runoff inflows
with Mike SHE. J. Hydrol. 2018, 562, 411–422. [CrossRef]
12. Gao, F.; Feng, G.; Han, M.; Dash, P.; Jenkins, J.; Liu, C. Assessment of surface water resources in the big sunflower river watershed
using coupled SWAT-MODFLOW model. Water 2017, 11, 528. [CrossRef]
13. Bailey, R.T.; Wible, T.C.; Arabi, M.; Records, R.M.; Ditty, J. Assessing regional-scale spatio-temporal patterns of groundwater–
surface water interactions using a coupled SWAT-MODFLOW model. Hydrol. Process. 2016, 30, 4420–4433. [CrossRef]
14. Yifru, B.A.; Chung, I.M.; Kim, M.G.; Chang, S.W. Assessment of Groundwater Recharge in Agro-Urban Watersheds Using
Integrated SWAT-MODFLOW Model. Sustainability 2020, 12, 6593. [CrossRef]
15. IPCC. Summary for Policymakers. In Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change; Cambridge University Press: Cambridge, UK; New York, NY,
USA, 2013.
16. Chu, J.T.; Xia, J.; Xu, C.-Y.; Singh, V.P. Statistical downscaling of daily mean temperature, pan evaporation and precipitation for
climate change scenarios in Haihe River, China. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2010, 99, 149–161. [CrossRef]
17. Samadi, S.; Wilson, C.A.M.E.; Moradkhani, H. Uncertainty analysis of statistical downscaling models using Hadley Centre
Coupled Model. Theor. Appl. Climatol. 2013, 114, 673–690. [CrossRef]
18. Huth, R. Statistical downscaling of daily temperature in Central Europe. J. Clim. 2002, 15, 1731–1742. [CrossRef]
19. Wilby, R.; Dawson, C.; Barrow, E. SDSM-a decision support tool for the assessment of regional climate change impacts. Environ.
Model. Softw. 2002, 17, 147–159. [CrossRef]
Sustainability 2022, 14, 14325 21 of 21

20. Hessami, M.; Gachon, P.; Ouarda, T.B.; St-Hilaire, A. Automated regression-based statistical downscaling tool. Environ. Model.
Softw. 2008, 23, 813–834. [CrossRef]
21. Amin, M.Z.M.; Islam, T.; Ishak, A.M. Downscaling and projection of precipitation from general circulation model predictors in an
equatorial climate region by the automated regression-based statistical. Arch. Meteorol. Geophys. Bioclimatol. Ser. B 2013, 118,
347–364. [CrossRef]
22. Wang, M.; Lu, B.; Wang, J.; Zhang, H.; Guo, L.; Lin, H. Using dual isotopes and a bayesian isotope mixing model to evaluate
nitrate sources of surface water in a drinking water source watershed, East China. Water 2016, 8, 355. [CrossRef]
23. Harbaugh, A.W. MODFLOW-2005, the US Geological Survey Modular Ground-Water Model: The Ground-Water Flow Process; US
Department of the Interior, US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2005.
24. Chen, L.; Frauenfeld, O.W. Surface air temperature changes over the twentieth and twenty-first centuries in China simulated by
20 CMIP5 models. J. Clim. 2014, 27, 3920–3937. [CrossRef]
25. Hua, W.; Chen, H.; Sun, S.; Zhou, L. Assessing climatic impacts of future land use and land cover change projected with the
CanESM2 model. Int. J. Climatol. 2015, 35, 3661–3675. [CrossRef]
26. Li, Y.; Yan, D.; Peng, H.; Xiao, S. Evaluation of precipitation in CMIP6 over the Yangtze River Basin. Atmos. Res. 2021, 253, 105406.
[CrossRef]
27. Dai, Y.; Zhao, Y.; Lin, J.; Han, J.; Sun, X.; Li, W.; Liu, J. Analysis of slug interference tests conducted in an artificial fracture.
Hydrogeol. J. 2021, 29, 895–907. [CrossRef]
28. Myers, D.T.; Ficklin, D.L.; Robeson, S.M. Incorporating rain-on-snow into the SWAT model results in more accurate simulations
of hydrologic extremes. J. Hydrol. 2021, 603, 126972. [CrossRef]
29. Zakizadeh, H.; Ahmadi, H.; Zehtabian, G.; Moeini, A.; Moghaddamnia, A. A novel study of SWAT and ANN models for runoff
simulation with application on dataset of metrological stations. Phys. Chem. Earth Parts A/B/C 2020, 120, 102899. [CrossRef]
30. Gu, Y.; Wang, S.; Hu, Q.; Sun, J.; Cai, M.; Lu, Z.; Gao, M. Continuous assessment of the adaptability between river network
connectivity and water security in a typical highly urbanized area in eastern China. Front. Environ. Sci. 2022, 1265. [CrossRef]
31. Ochoa, C.G.; Masson, I.; Cazenave, G.; Vives, L.; Amábile, G.V. A novel approach for the integral Management of Water Extremes
in plain areas. Hydrology 2019, 6, 70. [CrossRef]
32. Chunn, D.; Faramarzi, M.; Smerdon, B.; Alessi, D.S. Application of an integrated SWAT–MODFLOW model to evaluate potential
impacts of climate change and water withdrawals on groundwater–surface water interactions in west-Central Alberta. Water
2019, 11, 110. [CrossRef]