© 2022 The Authors Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1480 doi: 10.2166/nh.2022.

060

Lijiang flood characteristics and implication of karst storage through Muskingum flood
routing via HEC-HMS, S. China

Saeed Rad a, Dai Junfeng b, c, *, Xu Jingxuand, Li Zitaoa, Pan Linyane, Zepeng Wana and Liao Line
a
College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Guilin University of Technology, Guilin 541004, China
b
Guangxi Key Laboratory of Environmental Pollution Control Theory and Technology, Guilin University of Technology, Guilin 541004, China
c
Guangxi Collaborative Innovation Center for Water Pollution Control and Safety in Karst Area, Guilin University of Technology, Guilin 541004, China
d
Guilin Water and Resources Bureau, Guilin 541199, China
e
College of Environment and Resources, Guangxi Normal University, Guilin 541004, China
*Corresponding author. E-mail: whudjf@163.com

SR, 0000-0001-6925-8657

ABSTRACT

We analyzed the characteristics of main karstic/non-karst reaches of the Lijiang River to uncover the causes behind different flood behaviors
by providing a better understanding of the flood formation. Having 63 years of rainfall-runoff data and applying the HEC-HMS model, geo/
hydrological features were investigated. The available reservoir capacity of karts (ARCK) was included through soil moisture accounting
loss data to assess its impact. In particular, the expected instantaneous peak discharge rates/times were found largely imbalanced with gen-
erated unit hydrographs. Moreover, significant gaps among the floods’ features for different subbasins in terms of required peak
modifications (2–4 times larger for mid-upstream, respectively) were mainly associated with the unique karst structure and initial condition
due to various ARCK in rainy/dry seasons. Besides, notable dissimilarities between the wedge/prism storage volumes and the hydrograph’s
wave traveling/receding time were observed owing to the geomorphological conditions. Although the contribution rates of drivers in karst
flood formation cannot be quantitively modeled, based on our results the ARCK emerged to play a substantial role on the forecasted results,
comparatively. Our results suggest that since ARCK varies, taking it into account (as initial abstraction) results in a more reliable estimation.
This was underpinned by the results in which the unmodified simulations had a qualified rate of 52% accuracy on average and increased to
67.5% after the ARCK inclusion. This work adds to the body of evidence illustrating that in karst hydrology, ignoring the situational circum-
stances in modeling might lead to inaccuracies in flood forecasting for such dynamic watersheds.

Key words: ARCK, HEC-HMS, karst storage, Lijiang river, Muskingum

HIGHLIGHTS

• Hydrological models inaccurately forecast flood features in karst basins.

• The seasonality of available karst reservoir capacity drives flood peaks.
• Initial conditions must be considered in model calibration for karstic areas.

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and
redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1481

GRAPHICAL ABSTRACT

INTRODUCTION
Natural resource availability is one of the key factors in the southern and eastern parts of China hosting a dense population
and providing the basis for rapid development. Huge rivers meander through the semitropical areas of south and southeast
China due to considerable amounts of annual rain. However, flood has been among the main environmental disasters in these
regions, which is responsible for the loss of life, properties, and other spillover effects. According to statistics around 7000
people died in China due to floods in a decade between 2006 and 2015 (Liu & Shi 2017). Hence, studying and analyzing
the flood drivers is vital for prevention measures. Although the influencing degree of different variables (i.e., land use/land
cover change) on flood formation in different watersheds is a controversial topic, nevertheless, flood is basically an environ-
mental depended phenomenon and can be driven by the surrounding’s situation in watersheds (Dai et al. 2021).
Along with the intricacy of the methods, came the necessity for a more thorough understanding of the hydrological pro-
cesses. Due to the nature of the hydrological phenomenon and its dependency on the variety of environmental indices,
complex models have been developed and a vast range of parameters are involved (Zhou et al. 2019). However, with remark-
able differences between the prediction results magnitudes when applying different hydrological formulas, it is imperative to
select the right approaches for any sensible attempt to predict future requirements such as flood mitigation planning
(Sharafati et al. 2020). As the impact of environmental variables on flood formation in watersheds can drastically change
the subject to the ambient conditions, therefore, the model’s output calibration is vital in accordance with the basin features
and actual recorded data (Elmoustafa & Moussa 2010).
Although the Soil Conservation Service Unit Hydrograph (SCS-UH) and Snyder’s synthetic Unit Hydrograph (SUH) are
widely applicable methods, nonetheless, they both might sometimes fail to provide accurate values in terms of the hydrograph
peak discharge and time estimation versus expected values in certain watersheds such as in our case. This is due to the gen-
eralization of values and coefficients used in hydrological models without taking the specific characteristics of each basin into
consideration (Pan 2018). Hence, the modification of the produced hydrographs based on the observed data is obligatory

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1482

(Tassew et al. 2019). Employing computer methods as lumped or distributed hydrological models in different environments
(Brirhet & Benaabidate 2016) and circumstances in hydrology have been exemplified in numerous studies. Among which, the
Hydrologic Engineering Canter’s Hydrologic Modeling System (HEC-HMS) is a well-known flood prediction model, which
has been widely used by hydrologists all around the world (Choudhury et al. 2002; Kabeja et al. 2020; Sharafati et al. 2020),
especially for prediction purposes. Besides, due to its comprehensiveness and accuracy, the application of the Muskingum
technique in flood routing is reported in a vast number of literatures (Tewolde & Smithers 2006; Delphi et al. 2010; Mo
et al. 2021). To minimize the uncertainties and predict the temporal/spatial variations of flood hydrograph, the method
takes into account the prism and wedge storages beside the hydrograph waive traveling time, which both factors are
highly dependent on the watershed features and its physical descriptions.
Karst that is, in fact, residual carbonate hills (Jiang et al. 2020) is widely spread in some regions and accounted for about
15% of the lands in the world (Zhou et al. 2019), such as China, Malaysia (Sarawak), and Vietnam. In China, around one-
third of the country is covered by karst, especially concentrated in the south and southwest; however, the karst flow process is
yet the complicated research areas in hydrology (Cao et al. 2018; Jiang et al. 2019a, 2020; Mo et al. 2021). Among the diffi-
culties of flood routing in karst hydrology are unknown inflow–outflow currents (to and from the study areas) through karst
pipe networks that cause studying an open basin (not closed), karst cave water storage with retention/stagnation effects on
stormwater, as well as buried flows, just to mention few (Mo et al. 2021). Hence, the conceptualization of karst flow is chal-
lenging. The flood’s different behavior within a relatively small distance in the Lijiang catchment is a clear manifestation of
such impacts in the karst environment. The bare and covered karst (via the soil or loose sediment) underground water move-
ments in the Lijiang watershed was studied by Jiang et al. (2019a). Applying remote sensing imagery ( Jia et al. 2019) and
hydrological models in hydro-meteorological studies of the Lijiang River watershed has been exemplified by researchers
during the past two decades (Cao et al. 2018; Xu & Dai 2018); however, the quantitative karst condition impacts, weightage,
and its influencing degree on the flood characteristics have been rarely reported. In fact, the karstic watershed is a dynamic
environment that has different initial conditions prior to each flood event, and therefore, no single method could effectively
predict floods in such an environment for all the different scenarios. In other words, since the initial condition in such water-
shed is constantly changing, hence the model would require to be recalibrated for each flood. This is due to the change in the
volume of the retained water in karst cracks and underground lakes and its discharge rates, which is a function of rainfall
intervals, evaporation, and other ambient conditions (Dai et al. 2022).
Generally, there are three methods (empirical, conceptual, and distributed methods) for more accurately including the kars-
tic feature’s effect in the hydrological models. These methods use linear and nonlinear rainfall-runoff functions. These three
categories are either using lesser parameters for ease of applicability where no much data are available (i.e., empirical), or are
complex with so many parameters, data, and calibrations required (i.e., distributed), which make it difficult to apply. The con-
ceptual models, as the third group, however, are to some extent known to be hybrid methods as an integration of the previous
two (Zhou et al. 2019). One of the well-known karst models is XAJ, which is a conceptual model for humid regions. It was
modified by Zhou et al. where they offered a conceptual coupled hydrologic model (K-XAJ) to simulate the rainfall-runoff in
karst-dominated areas (Zhou et al. 2019). Mo et al. studied the quantitative karst effect on HEC-HMS simulation in the
Lijiang area through different size floods to calibrate the model and enhanced the model outcomes via taking the karst reser-
voir involved as a variable, which resulted in a 13–24% improvement in model forecasting accuracy (Mo et al. 2021).
However, what is missing in these models is that karst is an unsteady watershed in which if the same rainfall happens in
two different times, different amounts of it will be converted to runoff as the ARCK varies over time.
This study has focused on the flood characteristics in the upstream and midstream of the Lijiang River (Guilin and Yang-
shuo, respectively) and aims to uncover the main drivers of the stormwater different responses in these sub-watersheds
through analyzing the runoff formation process and exploring its influencing elements such as fluctuations in the available
reservoir capacity of karst. The work is vital for future river management, water consumption, and decision-making in this
area. Moreover, the results are important since the main income source in this karst landform is through the Lijiang
River-based tourism industry, which its peak time overlaps the monsoon and the flood season (Yao & Mallik 2020).

Study area
The Lijiang River lies between 109°450 –110°560 E and 24°380 –25°550 N latitudes and longitudes, and flows from the northeast
of the Guangxi autonomous region (in south China) toward the south as a part of the well-known Zhujiang River system (or
the Pearl River as the third biggest river of China) (Figure 1). Located at the Yunnan-Guizhou Plateau, more than one-third of

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1483

Guangxi is covered by karst landforms ( Jiang et al. 2019b) with a developed karst system which is mainly around the middle
and lower reaches of the Lijiang River watershed. Here, the carbonate rocks are mainly made of limestone, which are formed
during the middle-upper Cambrian to the middle Triassic geological periods (Wei et al. 2018).
The river originates from the hilly areas at the eastern side of Maoer mountain at its upper reaches and crosses through
Guilin City, then flat areas of Yangshuo county, and finally, the flow path approaches the Pingle County and continues further
south under another name (Guijiang River, as it merges other rivers) before being released into the Zhujiang River. With a
total of 214 km in length and 13 major tributaries ( Jia et al. 2019), Lijiang has more than 11,3000 km2 catchment area com-
prised of three distinguishable sub-watersheds.
First, the upstream section, which is the smallest subbasin, is Guilin and has an area of 2388 km2 (21% of the catchment
area). The fan-shaped Guilin subwatershed is marked with a prominent magnitude yearly precipitation of 75 inches
(1890 mm), averagely, due to its subtropical monsoon climate. Distinguishably, most parts of this region are steep and
hilly, which are composed of jungles, woodlands, and timber land covers. Impacted by humid systems entering this subbasin
through the South China Sea and Guangdong province, the elevated Maoer mountain causes more annual precipitations than
mid- and downstream (Liu et al. 2008). Second, the midstream section of the Lijiang catchment is Yangshuo county with an
area of 3425 km2 (30% of the catchment). It is more plateaued and karstic and has a yearly rainfall of 61 inches (1550 mm).
Third, the downstream section of the catchment is the mountain Pingle subbasin that is the greatest among the three. The area
of this section is 5484 km2 as 49% of the Lijiang catchment, which has a poor urbanization rate (comparatively) and 54
inches (1370 mm) of average yearly precipitation. Seasonality of rainfall in the Lijiang watershed has caused dramatic fluc-
tuations in the river flow rate (as low as 12 m3/s in the dry season and up to 12,000 m3/s in the raining season) (Chen et al.
2011). The average annual temperature in the Lijiang watershed is between 17 and 20 °C. As the majority of Lijiang’s scenic
spots and tourist sites are located near the river path or at the confluences, therefore, when flood arises, they will be the most
impacted zones. Furthermore, the residential areas (counties and cities) are majorly placed at the subbasins’ pour points. With
20 AAA-level scenic spots, the classic karst landscapes of this watershed are attracting up to 50 million tourists every year
(Yao & Mallik 2020).

METHODS
In this work, the HEC-HMS rainfall-runoff model was applied in order to analyze the flood and its influencing factors in
different subbasins of the Lijiang River. The required information and primary input data to run the model are obtained
via using different software, functions, sources, and methods as presented in the following framework (Figure 2). After the

Figure 1 | The study area with the Lijiang River situation (a) and its three subbasins (b).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1484

Figure 2 | The flowchart of the applied method in the current study.

model establishment and calibration, considering the ARCK, initial abstractions were introduced for validation using real
data.

Digital Elevation Model, Universal Transverse Mercator, and river network layers
The two basic essential layers of each watershed in GIS are the DEM (Digital Elevation Model) layer and the river network.
These two data are provided in Arc-Hydro which is a GIS-based extension to be used later in the HEC-GeoHMS extension of
GIS and finally in the HEC-HMS model. First, the DEM layer of the watershed (which is a raster data) was obtained from the
US Geological Survey (USGS – available at https://earthexplorer.usgs.gov/) with an acceptable resolution of 30  30 m cell
dimensions. After being spliced and cropped, this layer was masked in Arc-Hydro according to the watershed boundaries and
based on the region’s UTM zone (Universal Transverse Mercator), which specifies the study area for coordination purposes in
GIS. This layer helps to classify the slopes, flow direction, and identify the conical karst spots through the Landsat imagery in
Hec-geoHMS to quantitatively calculate how many percent of each subwatershed is covered by bare karst. The UTM map
projection system, in fact, identifies different locations on the ground (in meters) in which the earth is divided into 60 longi-
tudinal zones (every 6° width is considered as one zone), and Lijiang falls in the 49th zone.
Then, the river network shape file (which is vector data) for the basin was obtained from the open street map website (avail-
able at https://www.openstreetmap.org) and embedded into the Arc-Hydro extension after clipping to match the watershed
boundaries. Next, for calibration, this vector data were post-processed via actual river network data as well as compared it
with different maps including local maps and Google earth maps through direct observation to match the topographical situ-
ation of the river channel, geometrically.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1485

Although GIS can automatically specify the river network from the DEM layer through considering the topography of the
basin, however, in low elevation areas of the basin, any road or valley might be taken as a river; therefore, the outcome of this
method must be calibrated observationally as well as comparatively. Finally, the basin and its subbasins boundaries were deli-
neated via HEC-GeoHMS software (geospatial hydrologic modeling extensions of the GIS model) considering the river
network data. The areas and the river length were also computed through this extension.

Landuse data, soil type, flow types, and CN number

Raster landuse data (the latest available images in 2013) were derived from the China Geographical information Monitoring
Cloud Platform (GIM Cloud). The soil type data layer of the watershed was downloaded (https://www.fao.org/soils-portal/
data) from the FAO portal. This layer would help identify the soil groups, hydrologically, to apply the infiltration rates for
different groups in CN number calculations via GIS.
The remote sensing information together with the soil type and the DEM layer was used to calculate the Soil Conservation
Service Curve Number (SCS-CN) grid of each subwatershed in GIS (in HEC-GeoHMS extension). The CN calculations were
done taking into consideration the different landuse types of the watershed such as agricultural, industrial, water, and timber-
land specified through color code. Using Arc-Hydro, the geographical and situational characteristics (length of the longest
river, area, the distance to the basin gravity center, CN, and slope) of the three subbasins’ hydrometric locations were
pulled out from GIS.
According to the identified landuse, area size, and CN numbers, the flow types in each subbasin were defined for the model
proportionally. In bare karst, three types of flow can happen such as rapid direct runoff on the impermeable surface, rapid
detention in underground lakes through the large size cracks and shafts, and slow leaching through smaller cracks. In covered
karst, the flow types before and after saturation would be different. Here, based on the soil infiltration rate, the flow will be
divided into two parts, the surface runoff will form in accordance with the CN number, and the influx part will join the under-
ground current through the underlying karst network. Therefore, the total runoff is the summation of the runoff in these three
parts (bare karst, cover karst, and non-karst), considering the area size in the sub-watershed, proportionally, in which coeffi-
cients are applied to convert the flow into the runoff for each part (Zhou et al. 2019). Lastly, the initial abstraction would be
calculated based on these values, as well as ARCK that is a function of the intervals and the current amount of soil moisture.
The soil moisture accounting loss data was acquired for a period of 1 year, and the fluctuation of soil water content in different
depths was analyzed versus the rainfall and river flow to obtain the ARCK for different seasons with various interval possi-
bilities according to our previous work (Dai et al. 2022). This will yield the ARCK that can result in the initial abstraction in
the model for more accurate flood simulation in the karstic watershed.

Rainfall data
Daily and average monthly rainfall data for the three subbasins of the Lijiang River (Guilin, Yangshuo, and Pingle) during 63
years (from 1954 to 2017) were obtained from their respective meteorological stations. In order to extend the precipitation
values of these three stations to their respective subbasin in the entire study area, zonal distribution (in GIS) using Radial
Basis Function (RBF) was applied (Figure 3(b)). It is clear that the northern areas of the watershed have the highest amounts
of precipitation and it decreases gradually to the southeast and further lower when it goes to southwestern parts of the Lijiang
basin due to elevation changes (Liu et al. 2008). Moreover, the available runoff data (daily, average monthly, and maximum
monthly in m3/s), as well as daily and average monthly water level (in m) were gathered from the three stations that are
located at the subbasin outlets.

Unit hydrographs
SCS and Snyder’s SUH as commonly used methods were employed to estimate the runoff before being applied in the HEC-
HMS model. In our study, the SUH was used to estimate the flood hydrograph, while the SCS technique was applied for com-
parison and control to check if the obtained data via SUH and SCS are different. Considering our watershed area scale, the
Snyder Unit Hydrograph is applied which is one of the most frequently used methods. To obtain the unit hydrograph, initially,
the peak instantaneous discharge value for each year was calculated from the existing daily and average monthly discharge
data. Then, via having long-term yearly peak instantaneous discharge data, Hydrological Frequency Analysis Plus DSS
(Hyfran-Plus) software was applied to calculate the expected maximum discharge for different return periods (2–10,000
years return periods) in all the three sub-watersheds. Hyfran-Plus is a developed mathematical process to fit statistical distri-
butions, especially for extreme events. The DSS stands for Decision Support System that helps to choose the most appropriate

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1486

Figure 3 | Zonal distribution map of rainfall using RBF (a) and Hyfran-Plus computed peak flood values in m3/s for different frequency design
storms (% confident level) in the Guilin subbasin (b).

type among various distributions of data. Theoretical and empirical distributions for fitting the given maximum discharge data
by Hyfran-Plus were analyzed based on the null hypothesis (H0) of accuracy tests. Three distribution tests of Weibul, Gamma,
and Gumbel were run to check if the adequacy and accuracy of the data are statistically correct at different significant levels
via an acceptable P-value (less than 0.05 α-value for a 95% confidence level) to reject the null hypothesis (H0) or accept the
alternate hypothesis (H1). Lastly, the unit hydrographs of the three subbasins were generated using both methods and modi-
fied according to the expected maximum discharge (with different return periods). The SCS equations (Equations (1)–(3)) and
Snyder formula (Equation (4)) are as follows:

F Q
¼ (1)
S P  Ia
Ia ¼ 0:2S (2)
25,400
CN ¼ (3)
S þ 245


 0:7
1000
(L0:8  þ1
CN
tp ¼ (4)
1900  Y 0:5

where CN is the empirical coefficient related to land use and soil type, P is the total rainfall, Ia and F are the values of the
primitive and total loss for precipitation both in mm, S is the holding capacity (retention) of the watershed, Q is the calculated
flow discharge rate in m3/s, tp is the lag time, L is the length of the main river, and Y is the slope in percentage.
The computed SUH offers certain discharge values at specific times (including the peak time). Therefore, the obtained SUH
was converted to an hourly hydrograph (via regressions for each limb of the graph). And then, the dimensions of the SUH can
be multiplied in any rainfall value (net amount of precipitation) to generate the runoff hydrograph of that single rain in its
respective subbasin. The net amount of rain resulted from the individual rains in particular return periods, hence, the 6 h.
Rainfall duration with different frequencies (50 years in our case) for the three stations was calculated.
SUH sometimes is not accurate enough in calculating the hydrological components such as the base and/or peak time of
the hydrograph. Comparing the expected peak discharge for a given frequency (obtained via Hyfran-Plus) with the calculated
values from SUH (and SCS) will result in a modified hydrograph to match the real observed data from the watershed. The
modifications are mainly to the peak discharge and the peak time for a total constant flood volume. And lastly, the modified

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1487

hydrographs can be used for calibration purposes in the HEC-HMS model. Since models are applying simplified equations
and uncertainties compared to the actual conditions, hence the calculations will always require calibration and modifications
through comparing the outcomes with real rainfall-runoff scenarios, as well as the calculated values (via Snyder’s method in
our case) for any watershed.

Muskingum flood routing

The HEC-HMS model uses the Muskingum method for flood routing. Unlike in SCS and Snyder unit hydrographs, the Musk-
ingum in the flood routing process is taking into account the form and characteristics impacts of the watershed (slope, river path
shape, topography, and geomorphological characteristics of the watershed) in prism and wedge storage. Prism is the steady part
of the flow, while the wedge is the additional part. The X and K coefficients are defined for greater degrees of sophistication and
reliability in the peak flood estimation. In fact, the final shape of a predicted hydrograph is a function of a complex set of criteria.
The relationship between X (dimensionless) and K in the Muskingum formula is as follows Equation (5):

Storage volume ¼ K(wedge þ prism) ¼ K[(X  inflow) þ (1  X)  outflow] (5)

where X represents the weighting factor to distribute the storage volume between the prism and wedge (flow-specific gravity
coefficient), while K is the flow travel time (or propagation time) in hour in this method. For instance, if X ¼ 0.3, then the
wedge is 30% and the prism would be 70% of the storage total volume. As for the K, the longer it takes for the peak to
move toward downstream (the greater K value), the more attenuation takes place which means the wave will have a lower
peak discharge at the downstream. Comparing X and K in the Muskingum method, the latest one (K) has more impact on
the hydrograph shape and peak, while higher values of X are translated to exponential magnitudes of wedges. The equations
used in Muskingum flood routing are as follows (Equations (6)–(9)) (Mo et al. 2021):

Qdo ¼ C0 Quo þ C1 Qui þ C3 Qdi (6)

0:5Dt  kx
C0 ¼ (7)
k  kx þ 0:5Dt
0:5Dt þ kx
C1 ¼ (8)
k  kx þ 0:5Dt
k  kx  0:5Dt
C2 ¼ (9)
k  kx þ 0:5Dt

where Qdo, Qdi, Quo, and Qui are denoted as the downstream and upstream outflow and inflow, respectively, t is the computation
P
2
interval, and C ¼ 1.
0

After the calibration of the model, six different floods that occurred in this watershed were used for validation and analysis.
Real data for floods at the beginning or end of the rainfall season at three subbasins were used with respect to the seasonality
of the ARCK.

RESULTS
The calculated results through both techniques (SCS versus Snyder) for peak discharge and the peak time of the unit hydro-
graph in each one of the three subbasins were adjacent (with approximately 7% difference in peak discharge rates). However,
the expected peak discharge via Hyfran-Plus according to the actual observed data found to have a remarkable gap with the
two methods’ obtained values. For instance, the 50 years frequency rain’s hydrograph was simulated with SUH which for
Guilin a 134.7 mm rain did produce 67,224 m3 of total runoff volume, a peak discharge of 1266 m3/s during the base and
peak times of 182 and 26 h, respectively. The expected peak discharge (via Hyfran-Plus from observed data) for the same
rain was 4930 m3/s, which is approximately four times higher. For the same total runoff volume, this will result in a much
shorter base time (47 h) and a peak time (7 h). In other words, we must calibrate the SUH hydrograph with four times greater
peak during almost a quarter of the SUH computed base/peak times for Guilin (Figure 4(a)).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1488

Figure 4 | Direct and calibrated hydrographs via SUH for Guilin subbasin (a) and SUH computed-amended values for 50 years frequency rain
in the Lijiang basin (b).

Then, a comparison between two of the subbasins (Guilin and Yangshuo at its downstream) was performed. Although with
30% larger size compared to the Guilin subbasin, and approximately the same amount of rain, the flood hydrograph in Yang-
shuo has a much lower peak. Here also, a gap between the actual and simulated hydrographs was found for this subbasin
(Yangshuo); however, the required modification to match the observed data was much lower than Guilin, comparatively.
Indeed, a 1424 m3/s initial calculated peak flood (via SUH) was modified to 2843 m3/s expected peak (doubled), in the
same way as explained above, and the 230 h calculated base time was reduced to 106 h modified base time. After adding
the Guilin flood hydrograph with a lag time of 9 h to the Yangshuo hydrograph, the total calculated peak discharge rate
was 7856 m3/s, which was supposed to be 6400 m3/s based on Hyfran-Plus computed data. For this total value, the difference
between the expected and the modified peak is due to the fact that the expected peak resulted from Hyfran-Plus with 95%
confidence level is somewhere between the two blue lines margin (Figure 3(b)) and the best possibility of estimation or
the average value falls on the red line in the below graph; therefore, the primary calculated value (7856 m3/s) by SUH
was accepted and no modifications were required.
Lastly, for Pingle which is the biggest subbasin at downstream, an initial obtained peak discharge rate of 2323 m3/s was
modified to 6947 m3/s (based on the 8004 m3/s expected peak discharge computed by Hyfran-Plus), and the 185 h calcu-
lated base time via SUH reduced to 54 h. Yangshuo (containing Guilin flood) hydrograph was added to it with a 2 h lag
time, which accounted for a total of 12,060 m3/s discharge versus 11,455 m3/s calculated via Hyfran-Plus (605 m3/s differ-
ence) with a double-peak discharge shape of the hydrograph. Figure 4(a) and 4(b) shows these differences in the Guilin
subbasin graphically as well as the final Lijiang watershed hydrograph in Pingle in m3/s during the time. After the SUH
graph modifications, we could use the calculated lag parts and the obtained hydrograph to run the HEC-HMS model to
fit the final results.
In the HEC-HMS model, the 0.00001 tolerance, 3000 iteration, and a high Nash–Sutcliffe Efficiency or NSE value of 0.972
resulted, indicating that the model can be applied for simulation purpose in the Lijiang River. The NSE equal to 1 is con-
sidered a perfect fit, .0.75 is very good, 0.64–0.74 is good, 0.5–0.64 is satisfactory, and ,0.5 is considered as
unsatisfactory fit (Moriasi et al. 2007). The model-generated outlet discharge graph for a 50 years design storm with
12,223 m3/s was obtained as below in Figure 5, which represents an obvious matching with the SUH amended hydrograph
as shown in Figure 4(b). The calibrated output of the model was only reliable after modifying the unit hydrograph peak dis-
charge rate and peak/base time.
Moreover, the average values of X and K in the Muskingum flood routing formula for different reaches of the three sub-
basins are tabulated and comparatively presented below in Table 1.
Lastly, the established model was validated using actual data. In fact, in terms of qualified rate, the simulations for six
different actual flood events during 2017, 2018, 2019, and 2020 had only 52% accuracy, on average, in different subbasins
prior to modification, with some unsatisfactory NSE value (,0.5) while increased to 67.5% after the inclusion of ARCK
(Table 2).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1489

Figure 5 | HEC-HMS-generated hydrograph at Pingle for the entire Lijiang watershed.

Table 1 | Fifty years frequency flood hydrological parameters in three subbasins and geological comparison via GIS/HEC-HMS

Area (km2) Slope (%) Qmax.cal (m3/s) Qmax.exp (m3/s) Qmax.mod (m3/s) Tb (h) Tp (h) P (mm) Qtotal (m3) K (h) X

Guilin 2387.7 13.6 1266 4930 5013 47 9 134.7 67,200 1.56 0.24
Yangshuo 3425.2 6.7 1424 3103 2843 106 19 130 95,500 3.78 0.38
Pingle 5484.3 12.7 2323 8004 6947 54 12 117 123,000 1.65 0.21
Qmax.cal: calculated maximum discharge; Qmax.exp: expected maximum discharge; Qmax.mod: modified maximum discharge.

Table 2 | Average NSE values for the six simulated flood events in three subbasins before and after ARCK modifications

NSE values 2017 May 2018 Apr 2018 Aug 2019 Apr 2019 Aug 2020 Apr Average

Initial 0.54 0.74 0.41 0.67 0.33 0.41 0.52

After ARCK 0.66 0.85 0.62 0.92 0.51 0.49 0.675

DISCUSSION
The huge gap between the observed and calculated peak discharges in the individual subbasins and also different required
modification rates for different subbasins are probably because of the three justifications discussed here. These three are
including slope, karst reservoir capacity, and river cross-section. For a 50-year frequency design storm in Guilin versus Yang-
shuo (134.7 and 130 mm precipitation, respectively), the total produced runoff volumes are 67,200 versus 95,500 m3,
respectively, which the difference is obviously due to the watershed sizes as the Guilin subbasin area is 30% smaller than
Yangshuo. However, the flood hydrograph peak in Guilin was remarkably higher than Yangshuo (5013 compared to
2843 m3/s) with a sudden onset (9 h in Guilin versus 19 h in Yangshuo), which means Guilin has 76% higher peak during
almost half of the peak time in Yangshuo. Although the slope variation might cause this gap to some extent, however, the

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1490

main trigger lies between the karst condition and prism to wedge storage volume. As evidence, comparing these two subba-
sins, the calculated average watershed slopes via GIS are 13.6 versus 7.6% for Guilin and Yangshuo, respectively. If we
decrease the Guilin slope (in the SCS equation) from 13.6 to 7.6%, the calculated peak in the unit hydrograph will be
degraded by 29%, only which justifies a part of the peak difference between Guilin and Yangshuo. Moreover, the impact
of CN number variation was also negligible. Therefore, the other two important drivers are more likely to cause the high
peak in Guilin compared to Yangshuo.
The second reason is the ARCK in Yangshuo. Geomorphologically, Devonian limestone bedrocks are the dominant parent
material in the karst regions of the Lijiang catchment. Mountains here are mainly vertical-sided limestone tower karsts (peak
forest or Fenglin karst type), raised individually from the alluvial plains of the Lijiang watershed. Besides, the connected con-
ical shape hills (peak cluster or Fengcong karst type) of this basin, which stand on a common base and are connected, form a
continuous terrain like an egg-box topography in the northeast of the province (Figure 6).
The towers and conical hills are generally believed that being left from coalescence dolines due to the dissolution of lime-
stone rocks during long evolution progress as they are fragile and vulnerable to environment changes (Jiang et al. 2019a).
Fenglin karst type is mostly formed by stormwater erosion, while the Fengcong karst type has been mainly formed through
the solution process due to rainfall. Unlike in Guilin, most parts of its downstream (Yangshuo) are covered by karst as shown
in Figure 6(b).
From the lithology point of view, these hills and towers drain the rainwater completely to the surface/subsurface water
through their steep surface, cave networks, shafts, and skylights, which work the same as a 3D drainage system (Dai et al.

Figure 6 | The dramatic landscape of Fenglin karst and conical towers surrounding the Lijiang River (a), the karst map of Yangshuo
(Zhao et al. 2020) (b), a covered karst area in the Yangshuo subbasin being uncovered (c), the schematic process of water flow in the
karstic network structure from surface flow, to stone leaching, and retention in underground lakes (d).

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1491

2021; Mo et al. 2021). For hydrologists’ concern, these conical rocky towers should transform the rainfall into runoff quickly
and form a sharp hydrograph with a short peak time due to the absence of soil in these karst towers together with a high slope
(Cao et al. 2018). However, in karst watersheds, besides the surface flow, the stormwater partially converts to undercurrent
through the epikarst and infiltration zone owing to the developed karrens, sinkholes, foot caves, and a natural drainage net-
work structurally (Figure 6(d)). This part (which is magnitude is greatly dependent on the ARCK and its drainage network)
will flow into the saturated zone and subterranean rivers and will avoid sudden raises in the produced peak floods (Jiang et al.
2019a). This will have an immediate attenuation impact on the expected hydrograph, especially in bare karst (peak cluster)
due to its developed sinkholes as compared to covered karst.
Considering the rainfall intervals, the possible scenarios of flood formation are between the margin of minimum and
maximum available reservoir capacity of karst. During the wet season, a worst-case scenario might be two heavy rainfalls
in a row with a short interval in which the first will fill the ARCK and consequently the second one will entirely be con-
verted to runoff. On the other hand, if the same scenario happens during the dry season, no flood may occur as both
rainfalls might just fill the ARCK and saturate the soil (Dai et al. 2022). Any other scenario also could be defined in
between these two margins; therefore, the magnitude of ARCK which is a function of other parameters (such as intensity
and duration of the previous rains, evaporation, temperature, humidity, and season, karstic water discharge rate which
depend on the morphology and shape of the underground network) can largely control the flood features. The inclusion
of this variable into the model did enhance the prediction accuracy by an average of 15.5% for six simulated floods. The
influencing degree of these drainage networks and ARCK on the flood formation is highly dependent on the development
of these cracks and hidden pipe systems. Technically, the development of the drainage network, sinkholes, and reservoirs is
an evolutionary progress, in which the geomorphological stage of the watershed shows how developed the network might
be. The karst in Yangshuo is in its old age (matured or monadnock), which indicates that the underground system and
networks are most likely well developed and in a stable stage (Jia et al. 2019). Moreover, the definite magnitude of the
ARCK in detaining the stormwater or the amount of inflow–outflow to and from these open basins is still undeterminable
accurately (Mo et al. 2021). This was underpinned by the obtained simulated hydrographs compared with the actual data in
our work, especially at Yangshuo where a modified initial abstraction resulting from ARCK could calibrate the model out-
puts with higher accuracy.
On the other hand, as abovementioned, the model uses the Muskingum method for flood routing. As can be seen in Table 1,
subbasins with higher slopes (Guilin and Pingle) are having smaller wedges and shorter travel times (or smaller X and K,
respectively), while the plateau landforms (Yangshuo watershed) have longer travel time and higher X or ‘wedge to prism
storage ratio’. Hence, besides the impact of the slope and the karst reservoir, the third probable cause behind the different
flood behaviors (in peak flood magnitude, peak time, and receding time) between these two sub-watersheds might be the geo-
morphology of the river path in these two parts of the watershed, which is considered in Muskingum with more details unlike
for SCS or Snyder.
In the Guilin subbasin, lower values of X represent smaller wedges and bigger prisms (compared to Yangshuo). This means
that the river network in Guilin must have a bigger cross-sectional area (in total) to accommodate higher volumes of the prism
than the wedge comparatively. However, bigger values of K, which represents the wave traveling time, cause a sharp hydro-
graph. In other words, although the magnitude of the wedge proportionally to the prism is smaller than in Yangshuo;
however, this smaller volume travels downstream within a relatively shorter time due to the higher average slope of the sub-
watershed. Therefore, although the total river cross-section is larger, the flood wave peak is not getting any lower or
attenuated, but typically a quick flood with a progressive peak happens in Guilin City at the subbasin’s outlet. The bigger
or smaller cross-section size is referred to as the bathymetry-measured river cross-section size as a function of the watershed
area, in which vast areas would require bigger cross-section sizes accordingly. Guilin has more tributaries and hence a bigger
‘total cross-section size to watershed area ratio’ as compared to Yangshuo at its downstream with fewer tributaries. In con-
trast, having a larger X value which means less prism and more wedge, the total river cross-section in Yangshuo is smaller. It
also has a higher flood wave traveling time (2.4 times higher than Guilin) due to its lower slope. Hence, unlike in Guilin, the
cause behind the flood in Yangshuo is the longer traveling time (due to the lower slope) of an attenuated peak. And since flat
watersheds produce shallow and widespread floods, therefore, this lower volume of the wedge (compared to Guilin) will over-
flow to the surrounding areas of the river path, forming a shallow flood, and recedes after a relatively longer period of time.
Altogether, although the flood formation driver’s contribution rates in this watershed cannot be quantitatively modeled,
however, the ARCK emerged to play the most important role as a decisive factor among the three justifications behind the

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1492

lower peak hydrograph in Yangshuo, since the basic ingredients found uncontroversial and it is in agreement with other find-
ings in this catchment (Bailly-Comte et al. 2008; Zhao et al. 2019).

CONCLUSIONS
This work has conducted an analysis of the flood formation influencing factors in karstic areas of the Lijiang watershed.
Applying the HEC-HMS model and comparing the simulated versus actual data, our results suggest that besides slope
impact, a higher prism to wedge ratios in upstream causes a sharp hydrograph with a relatively short peak/base time. In con-
trast, the same amount of rainfall in midstream causes a more attenuated peak with a longer receding time. Irrespective of the
details, this is more likely due to the available karst reservoir in this subbasin as well as the lower slope, while the latest seems
to have less influence. The different capacities of the karstic reservoir during dry or wet seasons and its fluctuations within the
rainy season resulted in the model calibration accuracy to be highly dependent on the initial abstract values as output had a
low qualified rate of 52% accuracy prior to calibration which increased to 67.5%. We may, therefore, consider the available
reservoir capacity of karst (ARCK) as the main driver in the model calibration for reliable flood forecasting in this karstic
watershed.

FUNDING
This work was funded by the Natural Science Foundation of China (Grant Nos. 52150410408 and 51979046), the National
Key Research and Development Program of China (Grant No. 2019YFC0507500), and the Science and Technology Major
Project of Guangxi, China (Grant No. AA20161004).

AUTHOR CONTRIBUTIONS
S.R. developed methodology, wrote the review, and edited the article. J.D. conceptualized the whole article, edited and super-
vised the article. J.X. conducted data curation and wrote the original draft. Z.W. validated, investigated, and visualized the
article. L.L. also helped Z.L. and L.P. in formal analysis, administering the project, and brought resources.

DATA AVAILABILITY STATEMENT

Data cannot be made publicly available; readers should contact the corresponding author for details.

CONFLICT OF INTEREST
The authors declare there is no conflict.

REFERENCES

Bailly-Comte, V., Jourde, H., Roesch, A., Pistre, S. & Batiot- Guilhe, C. 2008 Time series analyses for karst/river interactions assessment: case
of the Coulazou river (southern France). Journal of Hydrology 349 (1–2), 98–11.
Brirhet, H. & Benaabidate, L. 2016 Comparison of two hydrological models (lumped and distributed) over a pilot area of the Issen Watershed
in the Souss Basin, Morocco. European Scientific Journal, ESJ 12 (18), 347. https://doi.org/10.19044/esj.2016.v12n18p347.
Cao, Y., Zhang, J., Yang, M., Lei, X., Guo, B., Yang, L., Zeng, Z. & Qu, J. 2018 Application of SWAT model with CMADS data to estimate
hydrological elements and parameter uncertainty based on SUFI-2 algorithm in the Lijiang River Basin, China. Water 10, 742.
Chen, Q., Yang, Q. & Lin, Y. 2011 Development and application of a hybrid model to analyze spatial distribution of macroinvertebrates
under flow regulation in the Lijiang River. Ecological Informatics 6 (6), 407–413.
Choudhury, P., Shrivastava, R. K. & Narulkar, S. M. 2002 Flood routing in river networks using equivalent Muskingum inflow. Journal of
Hydrologic Engineering 7, 413–419.
Dai, J., Rad, S., Xu, J., Pen, S., Gan, L., Chen, X., Yu, C. W. & Zhang, S. 2021 Impacts of climate change versus landuse change on recent
Lijiang River flood regime, South China. Tecnologia y Ciencias del Agua 12 (3), 257–303.
Dai, J., Rad, S., Xu, J., Wan, Z., Li, Z., Pan, L. & Shahab, A. 2022 Influence of karst reservoir capacity on flood in Lijiang Basin based on
modified HEC-HMS through soil moisture accounting loss. Atmosphere 13 (10), 1544.
Delphi, M., Shooshtari, M. M. & Zadeh, H. H. 2010 Application of diffusion wave method for flood routing in Karun River. International
Journal of Environmental Science and Development 1, 432.
Elmoustafa, A. M. & Moussa, A. M. 2010 Evaluating of Muskingum Hydrologic Model Parameters in Reach Four of Nile River Using 1D
Model. Scientific Bulletin Cairo University, Cairo, Egypt.
Jia, Z., Liu, X., Cai, X. & Xing, L. 2019 Quantitative remote sensing analysis of the geomorphological development of the Lijiang River Basin,
Southern China. Journal of the Indian Society of Remote Sensing 47 (5), 737–747.

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest
 Hydrology Research Vol 53 No 12, 1493

Jiang, G., Guo, F. & Tang, C. 2019a Groundwater systems in bare and covered karst aquifers: evidence from tracer tests, hydrochemistry, and
groundwater ages. Environmental Earth Sciences 78 (20), 1–14.
Jiang, G., Guo, F., Lo, K. F. A., Liu, F., Guo, Y., Wu, W. & Polk, J. S. 2019b Utilization status of rainwater harvesting and its improvement
techniques in bare karst areas for domestic use and ecological restoration. Carbonates and Evaporites 34, 1381–1390.
Jiang, G., Guo, F. & Wei, M. 2020 Hydrogeological characteristics of foot caves in a karst peak-forest plain in South China. Hydrogeology
Journal 28 (2), 535–548.
Kabeja, C., Li, R., Guo, J., Rwatangabo, D. E. R., Manyifika, M., Gao, Z., Wang, Y. & Zhang, Y. 2020 The impact of reforestation induced land
cover change (1990–2017) on flood peak discharge using HEC-HMS hydrological model and satellite observations: a study in two
mountain basins, China. Water 12 (5), 1–22. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12051347.
Liu, J. & Shi, Z. 2017 Quantifying land-use change impacts on the dynamic evolution of flood vulnerability. Land Use Policy 65, 198–210.
Liu, Y. Q., Chen, C. M. & Zheng, Y. 2008 The characteristics of spatial distribution and types of Apr. ∼Sept. Rainfall in the Pearl River Basin
24, 67–73.
Mo, C., Wang, Y., Ruan, Y., Qin, J., Zhang, M., Sun, G. & Jin, J. 2021 The effect of karst system occurrence on flood peaks in small watersheds,
southwest China. Hydrology Research 52 (1), 305–322.
Moriasi, D., Arnold, J., Van Liew, M., Bingner, R., Harmel, R. & Veith, T. 2007 Model evaluation guidelines for systematic quantification of
accuracy in watershed simulations. Transactions of the ASABE 50, 885.
Pan, Z. 2018 Distributed NAM Hydrological Model Research and System Implementation. Huazhong University of Science and Technology,
Wuhan, China (in Chinese with English abstract).
Sharafati, A., Yaseen, Z. M. & Pezeshki, E. 2020 Strategic assessment of dam overtopping reliability using a stochastic process approach.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering 25 (7), 04020029.
Tassew, B. G., Belete, M. A. & Miegel, K. 2019 Application of HEC-HMS model for flow simulation in the Lake Tana basin: the case of Gilgel
Abay catchment, upper Blue Nile basin, Ethiopia. Hydrology 6 (1), 21.
Tewolde, M. H. & Smithers, J. 2006 Flood routing in ungauged catchments using Muskingum methods. Water SA 32, 379–388.
Wei, Y. L., Li, C. Z. & Chen, W. H. 2018 Characteristics and formation and evolution analysis of the karst landscape of Guangxi. Guangxi
Sciences 25, 465–504.
Xu, J. & Dai, J. 2018 Variation characteristics of runoff in upper reaches of Lijiang River basin. Yangtze River 49 (10), 41–46 (in Chinese with
English abstract).
Yao, Y. & Mallik, A. 2020 Stream flow changes and the sustainability of cruise tourism on the Lijiang River, China. Sustainability 12, 7711.
Zhao, Y., Liao, W. & Lei, X. 2019 Hydrological simulation for karst mountain areas: a case study of central Guizhou Province. Water 11 (5), 991.
Zhao, H., Xiao, Q., Zhang, C., Zhang, Q., Wu, X., Yu, S., Miao, Y. & Wang, Q. 2020 Transformation of DIC into POC in a karst river system:
evidence from δ13CDIC and δ13CPOC in Lijiang, Southwest China. Environmental Earth Sciences 79 (12), 1–12.
Zhou, Q., Chen, L., Singh, V. P., Zhou, J., Chen, X. & Xiong, L. 2019 Rainfall-runoff simulation in karst dominated areas based on a coupled
conceptual hydrological model. Journal of Hydrology 573, 524–533.

First received 24 May 2022; accepted in revised form 16 November 2022. Available online 7 December 2022

Downloaded from http://iwaponline.com/hr/article-pdf/53/12/1480/1153604/nh0531480.pdf

by guest