OPEN ACCESS
The water availability in the Usumacinta River sub-basin is determined through the analysis of the amount and frequency of precipitation, associated with the quantity, frequency and magnitude of flow regimes (environmental flows). The river is located in south-eastern Mexico. The precipitation of pre- impact (1960–1983) and post-impact (1984–2008) periods was analysed using a climatological mesh database created by CICESE (Center of Scientific Research and Higher Education of Ensenada) cover- ing the period 1960–2008. For the analysis of flows, the hydrometric information the IHA V7 program was used to define the main trends in the temporal variation of the daily flows of the pre and post-impact periods. A number of several factors such as: the increase in monthly precipitation in the rainy season and a decrease of the precipitation in the dry season in the post-impact period, the significant increase in the number of days with zero precipitation, the increase in the number of days a year with a greater amplitude in the maximum rainfall, a positive tendency of precipitation in rainy season and a signifi- cant decrease in the dry season; implies that now in the wet period it rains more and in dry season it rains less, indicating that the climate is more extreme, aspects that can be associated with the effects of climate change. Also, torrential rains that can be associated to the changes in the precipitation rates are due to the effects of climatic change. The natural flow shows a slight decrease in the flow during the rainy season, or a significant decrease in the flow rates for some months in the post-impact period. This condition does not coincide with the increase in precipitation for this period and in this part of the basin, a situation that may be related to the anthropic use of the resource. The Usumacinta basin is relevant for the environmental services that it provides.
climate change, Environmental Flows, water management.
[1] Jones, Ph. D. & Wigley, T.M.L., Estimation of global temperature trends: what’s buckets important and what isn’t. Climatic Change, 100, pp. 59–69, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9836-3
[2] Swart, R., Bernstein, L., Ha-Duong, M. & Petersen. A., Agreeing to disagree: uncertainty management in assessing climate change, impacts and responses by the IPCC. Climatic Change, 92, pp. 1–29, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-008-9444-7
[3] Arnell, N.W., Adapting to climate change: an evolving research programme. Climatic Change, 100, pp. 107–111, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9839-0
[4] Cohen, S.J., From observer to extension agent—using research experiences to enable proactive response to climate change. Climatic Change, 100, pp. 131–135, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9811-z
[5] Yarime, M., Takeda, Y. & Kajikawa, Y., Towards institutional analysis of sustainability science: a quantitative examination of the patterns of research collaboration. Sustain- ability Science, 5, pp. 115–125, 2010. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11625-009-0090-4
[6] Komar, P.D., Beach processes and sedimentation. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice Hall, 1976.
[7] Fischer, S. & Kummer, H., Effects of residual flow and habitat fragmentation on distri- bution and movement of bullhead (Cottus gobio L.) in an alpine stream. Hydrobiologia, 422/423, pp. 305–317, 2000. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-011-4164-2_25
[8] INEGI, Síntesis geográfica y anexo cartográfico del Estado de Tabasco: México D.F, 1986.
[9] Kolb, M. & Galicia, L., Challenging the linear forestation narrative in the Neo-tropic: regional patterns and processes of deforestation and regeneration in southern Mexico. The Geographical Journal, 178(2), pp. 147–161, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2011.00431.x
[10] National Water Commission, Statistics on water in Mexico. Conagua, 2014. Available at: www.conagua.gob.mx.
[11] March, M.I., & Castro, M., La Cuenca del Río Usumacinta: Perfil y Perspectivas para su Conservación y Desarrollo Sustentable. INECC (Instituto Nacional de Ecología y Cambio Climático, 2016. Available at: www2.inecc.gob.mx/publicaciones/libros/639/ rusumacinta.pdf. Consultado el 26/enero/2016.
[12] McKee, T.B., Doesken, N.J., & Kleist, J., The relationship of drought frequency and duration to time scales. In: Proceedings of the 8th Conference on Applied Climatology. American Meteorological Society, 17(22), pp. 179–183, 1993.
[13] McKee, T.B, Doeskin, N.J. & Kieist, J., Drought monitoring with multiple time scales. Proceedings of the 9th Conference on Applied Climatology, January 15–20, 1995, American Meteorological Society, Boston, Massachusetts, pp. 233–236. 1995.
[14] Shepard, D.S., Computer mapping: The SYMAP interpolation algorithm. Spatial Statistics and Models (G. L. Gaile and C. J. Willmott, Eds., D. Reidel, ), pp. 133–145, 1984.
[15] Zhu, C., Dennis, P., & Lettenmaier, D.P., Long-term climate and derived surface hydrology and energy flux data for Mexico: 1925–2004. Journal of Climate, 20, pp. 1936–1946, 2007. https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli4086.1
[16] Muñoz-Arriola, F., Avissar, R., Zhu, C., & Lettenmaier, D.P., Sensitivity of the water resources of Rio Yaqui Basin, Mexico, to agriculture extensification under multiscale climate conditions. Water Resources Research, 45(11), 2009. https://doi.org/10.1029/2007wr006783
[17] OMM. Índice normalizado de precipitación. Guía de Usuario. OMM-No 1090, 2012. ISBN 978-92-63-31090-3.
[18] TNC (The Nature Conservancy), Indicators of hydrologic alteration, Version 7. User Manual. USA, 2006.
[19] Kobashi, T., Severinghaus, J.P., Barnola, J.M., Kawamura, K., Carter, T. & Nakaegawa, T., Persistent multi-decadal Greenland temperature fluctuation through the last millennium. Climatic Change, 100, pp. 733–756, 2009, available at: Springerlink.com. (accessed 20 March 2016). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9689-9
[20] Wetherald, R.T., Changes of time mean state and variability of hydrology in response to a doubling and quadrupling of CO2 Changes. Climatic Change, 102, pp. 651–670, 2009, avail- able at: http://www.springer.com/earth+sciences+and+geography/atmospheric+sciences/ journal/10584.html. (accessed 19 March 2011). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-009-9701-4
[21] Kolb, M. & Galicia, L., Challenging the linear forestation narrative in the Neo-tropic: regional patterns and processes of deforestation and regeneration in southern Mexico. The Geographical Journal, 178(2), pp. 147–161, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1475-4959.2011.00431.x
[22] Rodiles-Hernández R., González-Díaz, A. A. & Pérez-Mora, E. Inventario ictiofaunísti- co en tres regiones hidrológicas prioritarias de la Cuenca del Grijalva-Usumacinta en el Estado de Chiapas. El Colegio de la Frontera Sur (ECOSUR-Unidad San Cristóbal). Informe final SNIB-CONABIO proyecto No. FM020. México D. F. 2011.
[23] De la Maza, J. & Carabias, J. (2011). Usumacinta. Bases para una política de sustent- abilidad ambiental. Instituto Mexicano de Tecnología del Agua-Natura y Ecosistemas Mexicanos A.C. México.
[24] King, J., Brown, C. & Sabet, H., A scenario-based holistic approach to environmental flow assessments for rivers. River Research and Applications, 19, pp. 619–639, 2003. https://doi.org/10.1002/rra.709