the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 05 Jan 2026
A review of Jinci Springs discharge in China: millennia utilization, decadal dry-up, and recent resurgence
Abstract. Jinci Springs, a historically significant karst spring system in the semi-arid region of northern China, has served as a critical water source and cultural landmark for millennia. This review synthesizes the socio-hydrological evolution of the springs, tracing transformations in water use, governance, and resilience from ancient times to the present. Early hydraulic interventions were primarily military-driven, later expanding to agricultural irrigation and ritual-based water governance. Over centuries, a hybrid governance system emerged that blended spiritual traditions, including water deity worship, with local institutions to mediate conflicts and allocate resources. In the modern era, intensified groundwater extraction—driven by technological advances and insufficient regulatory oversight—led to aquifer depletion and the cessation of spring flow in April 1994. The ensuing water crisis triggered a societal and institutional pivot toward conservation, culminating in a suite of restoration efforts and policy reforms. Intermittent spring resurgence began in May 2023, with continuous flow observed since September. This case underscores the importance of social adaptability, cultural continuity, and governance reform in maintaining spring systems under stress. By examining the long-term dynamics of Jinci Springs, this review contributes to broader discussions on socio-hydrological resilience and sustainable groundwater management in water-scarce regions.
- Preprint
(3738 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 04 Mar 2026)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5309', Anonymous Referee #1, 27 Jan 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', qianqian renyang, 03 Feb 2026
reply
We thank you for the positive assessment and the constructive suggestions. We agree that the manuscript requires careful technical polishing and improved methodological transparency. We will therefore undertake a moderate-to-major revision focusing on: (1) a complete standardization and verification of all in-text citations and references, (2) clearer definitions and consistent use of abbreviations (e.g., amsl), and (3) substantial expansion of Sections 2.2.1–2.2.3 to explicitly document data sources, integration procedures, and quality-control measures. In response to your specific comments, our revision plan is as follows:
- The format of the reference citation is a mess and must be completely checked one by one. For instance, many citations used the first name, not the last name, or used a mixture of first name initiation and last name. I just listed a few examples here. Between L40-45, G. Jiang et al., 2025 should be Jiang et al., 2025; L45-50, Keqiang et al., 2021 is definitely wrong as Keqiang is a first name. Z. Zhang et al., 2020 should be Zhang et al., 2020. In summary, almost all citations have errors or formatting issues, so they must be corrected one by one throughout the article.
Reply: We appreciate you for pointing out the citation-formatting issues. We will conduct a full, line-by-line verification of all in-text citations and the reference list, and standardize them to the journal’s required author–year format.
- L65, one should change above mean sea level to above mean sea level (amsl). After this, they can use amsl as the abbreviation.
Reply: Thank you. We will revise the text to define the abbreviation at first use as “above mean sea level (amsl)” and then use “amsl” consistently throughout the manuscript.
- Sections 2.2.1 to 2.2.3 should have more details. For example, on 2.2.1, what academic monographs is the author talking about? They should specify the source and name of the monographs. In section 2.2.3, what unified spatial framework are the authors talking about here? What kind of cross-validation has been done? More specific details should be provided here.
Reply: Thank you for this important comment. We agree that Sections 2.2.1–2.2.3 are currently too concise. In the revised manuscript, we will substantially expand these sections to ensure that data sources, processing procedures, and validation steps are clearly documented and reproducible. Specifically, in Section 2.2.1, we will explicitly list the key academic monographs and documentary sources by title and publication year, and clarify the type of information supported by each source. We will also introduce explicit inclusion and exclusion criteria to distinguish core evidential sources from contextual or background materials. In Section 2.2.2, we will specify the coordinate reference system and spatial resolution used to harmonize all geospatial layers. We will further describe how hydrological features derived from OpenStreetMap were refined and validated using published maps, figures, and authoritative studies to ensure spatial consistency and reliability. In Section 2.2.3, we will clearly define what is meant by a “unified spatial framework” and explain how cross-validation was implemented as a multi-source consistency check: Key temporal events and spatial features will be verified using at least two independent data sources. In cases where discrepancies exist, we will explicitly state the priority rules adopted and, where appropriate, annotate remaining uncertainties.
- I hope the author can also carefully talk about data quality control as well, as the data sources are broad, and likely with different standards in the data collection process, so some assurance of data quality is needed.
Reply: We agree and will add a dedicated subsection on data quality control. Specifically, we will (1classify data sources according to their reliability, including peer-reviewed studies, official reports and monographs, and other secondary materials, (2) apply consistency checks across sources for key variables and timelines, and (3) provide a summary table listing data types, sources, temporal coverage, and quality-control steps.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5309-AC1
-
AC1: 'Reply on RC1', qianqian renyang, 03 Feb 2026
reply
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5309', Anonymous Referee #2, 31 Jan 2026
reply
Dear Editor and authors,
The manuscript presents an evidence-based narrative spanning millennia of spring discharge utilization in China, chronicling a trajectory from long-term harmonious use, through intensified human disturbance and spring cessation, to integrated governance and recent resurgence. The research successfully aligns historical hydrological changes with institutional, cultural, engineering, and policy shifts on a single, traceable timeline. It sheds light on how governance paradigms remain effective—or fail—under different socio-economic contexts, and illustrates recovery pathways from slow-onset groundwater crises via supply-side augmentation and demand-side controls. This study provides a valuable and comparable case from China with clear implications for drought-risk research and sustainable water-resource governance. It is suitable for publication in HESS after minor revision with following comments.
1. Please clarify the specific objective of this study and how it aligns with HESS's focus on integrated socio-hydrological analysis. Additionally, explain what makes the Jinci Springs management system unique compared to other documented historical hydrology case studies.
2. In Lines 25-38, the transition from discussing "water’s symbolic and spiritual meanings" to asserting that balanced human–water relationships underpin societal stability lacks a logical bridge. This omission disrupts the paragraph's flow, so it is recommended to improve logical flow in Introduction.
3. While key milestones and quantitative specifics are incorporated, a summary table or timeline would allow readers to trace the causal narrative more clearly.
4. The methodology in Lines 100-109 provides an overly general description of the quantitative analysis for the Jinci Springs dry-up. The specific methods (e.g., water balance calculation, trend analysis) used to derive the attributions and percentages in Section 4.1 should be outlined more clearly, and adequate space should be allocated for this purpose.
5. Please attend to the following presentation details:
- Figures: Axes in Figure 1d and Figure 5c lack uniform labeling, and Figure 6a requires a scale. As to figure Referencing: Please explicitly call out all figures in the main text in numerical order before they appear (e.g., Figure 1a..."). some places it is used as Fig. 6a.
- References: Formatting is inconsistent. Please align all entries (author, year, title, etc.) with the target journal's guidelines.
6. The statement in Lines 449-451—that this historical development provides valuable lessons—pertains to knowledge already common among water professionals. In the Discussion and Conclusions, please describe the specific and novel contributions of this paper in greater detail.
7. Synthesize the "Society-Technology-Governance" Interaction: The paper excellently describes interactions between social systems, engineering, and hydrology, but this is dispersed in the text. I suggest adding a table or a conceptual diagram to systematically synthesize the key characteristics, interaction modes, and driving factors of this triad across the different eras (ancient, modern, restoration). This would crystallize the theoretical framework. Could be in Section 6 or other place that authors consider suitable.
8. Term Consistency: Ensure consistent use of key terms, such as "dry-up" vs. "dry up," and "re-flow" vs. "resurgence."
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5309-RC2 -
AC2: 'Reply on RC2', qianqian renyang, 03 Feb 2026
reply
- Please clarify the specific objective of this study and how it aligns with HESS's focus on integrated socio-hydrological analysis. Additionally, explain what makes the Jinci Springs management system unique compared to other documented historical hydrology case studies.
Reply: We thank you for this insightful comment. We will clarify the study objective in the Introduction by framing it as an integrated socio-hydrological synthesis that links long-term hydrological change with governance evolution, engineering interventions, and cultural institutions. Beyond documenting historical discharge changes, we will emphasize how different governance paradigms functioned or failed under shifting socio-economic and technological conditions. We will also better highlight what makes the Jinci Springs case unique, including its long and continuous documentation record, the co-existence of customary institutions, spiritual traditions, and state-led engineering, and its traceable trajectory from long-term stability to a slow-onset groundwater crisis and subsequent recovery.
- In Lines 25-38, the transition from discussing "water’s symbolic and spiritual meanings" to asserting that balanced human–water relationships underpin societal stability lacks a logical bridge. This omission disrupts the paragraph's flow, so it is recommended to improve logical flow in Introduction.
Reply: We agree that the transition in Lines 25–38 can be strengthened. We will revise this paragraph to explicitly link symbolic and spiritual meanings of water to their functional role in shaping norms, compliance, and collective behavior, thereby providing a clearer bridge to the concept of balanced human-water relationships as a foundation for societal stability.
- While key milestones and quantitative specifics are incorporated, a summary table or timeline would allow readers to trace the causal narrative more clearly.
Reply: We agree that a summary visualization would improve clarity. We will add a timeline-style summary table that synthesizes major hydrological states, human interventions, and governance shifts, allowing readers to more easily trace the causal narrative from long-term utilization through dry-up to resurgence.
- The methodology in Lines 100-109 provides an overly general description of the quantitative analysis for the Jinci Springs dry-up. The specific methods (e.g., water balance calculation, trend analysis) used to derive the attributions and percentages in Section 4.1 should be outlined more clearly, and adequate space should be allocated for this purpose.
Reply: We appreciate this comments. We will expand the Methods section to explicitly describe the analytical approaches used, including water balance reasoning, trend analysis of long-term discharge and groundwater levels, and comparative attribution based on reported extraction, dewatering, and recharge changes from published sources. While this study does not introduce new numerical modeling, we will clarify how the reported percentages and attributions are derived from synthesis of existing quantitative studies and official datasets.
- Please attend to the following presentation details:
(1) Figures: Axes in Figure 1d and Figure 5c lack uniform labeling, and Figure 6a requires a scale. As to figure Referencing: Please explicitly call out all figures in the main text in numerical order before they appear (e.g., Figure 1a..."). some places it is used as Fig. 6a.
Reply: We will carefully revise all figures to ensure consistent axis labeling, appropriate scaling, and uniform terminology. All figures will be explicitly referenced in the main text in numerical order prior to their appearance, and figure citations will be standardized throughout the manuscript.
(2) References: Formatting is inconsistent. Please align all entries (author, year, title, etc.) with the target journal's guidelines.
Reply: All references will be thoroughly checked and reformatted to fully comply with the journal’s guidelines.
- The statement in Lines 449-451—that this historical development provides valuable lessons—pertains to knowledge already common among water professionals. In the Discussion and Conclusions, please describe the specific and novel contributions of this paper in greater detail.
Reply: Thank you for your helpful suggestion. In the revised manuscript, we will replace this generic wording with a more explicit and concrete synthesis grounded in the Discussion and Conclusions. Specifically, we will revise this part to: (1) explicitly summarize how the Jinci Springs case demonstrates a long-term transition from culturally embedded and institutionally mediated water use, through technology-driven overexploitation, to an integrated recovery phase combining policy, engineering, and social adaptation; (2) highlight the role of governance breakdown and delayed institutional response in enabling a slow-onset groundwater crisis, as documented for the period from the 1960s to the 1994 flow cessation; and (3) clearly articulate how the post-2003 recovery illustrates a coupled supply-side and demand-side pathway that led to the 2023 spring resurgence.
- Synthesize the "Society-Technology-Governance" Interaction: The paper excellently describes interactions between social systems, engineering, and hydrology, but this is dispersed in the text. I suggest adding a table or a conceptual diagram to systematically synthesize the key characteristics, interaction modes, and driving factors of this triad across the different eras (ancient, modern, restoration). This would crystallize the theoretical framework. Could be in Section 6 or other place that authors consider suitable.
Reply: We agree with this suggestion. To better crystallize the theoretical framework, we will add a synthesis table or conceptual diagram that systematically summarizes the interactions among social systems, engineering technologies, and governance modes across different historical phases, including ancient utilization, modern exploitation, and restoration.
- Term Consistency: Ensure consistent use of key terms, such as "dry-up" vs. "dry up," and "re-flow" vs. "resurgence."
Reply: Tanks. We will conduct a full-text terminology check and standardization, carefully revise the manuscript to ensure consistent use of key terms throughout, including “dry-up” versus “dry up” and “re-flow” versus “resurgence”, following a single standardized terminology.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5309-AC2 -
RC4: 'Reply on AC2', Anonymous Referee #2, 06 Feb 2026
reply
Waiting for reviewing the revised version.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5309-RC4
-
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2025-5309', Anonymous Referee #3, 02 Feb 2026
reply
General:
This is a very interesting paper, combining hydrology, historical and social perspectives. I appreciate the long term perspective on the importance of the spring, its significance throughout history, its drying up and recovery. Overall I feel the presentation is well organized and clear. It is an important story of revival that needs to be told.
I feel the paper could be strengthened by explaining or analyzing better the reasons for its collapse, and also the reasons for the spring revival. In addition I find that some of the statements could be sharpened up, or made more clear. The paper seems to present a rather happy story line rather than highlight the many trials and tribulations. Roughly the story line is traditional management led to sustainable use; post 1950 people did not realize that GW was not limitless and kept pumping; the springs dry up, the people get more ecologically conscious and work to revive the springs. There are hints that the history was also frought with difficulties hinting at strife between the military and farmers, strife between farmers and the local government; deities whose role was also empowering farmres; lots of negotation to establish water rights and allocation procedures. I would like to understand more of the decisoin making process, especially in modern times - post 1950.
As an example, one line says "People began to reassess their relationship with the environment, emphasizing ecological protection and sustainable development". Which people had that view? Or was this a government view. I imagine that people had all different viewpoints. Those already pumping groundwater for example may not be happy when they have to stop pumping.
The spring revival sounds impressive. What were the positive results: was more land irrigated? more income for farmers. Surely tourism must benefit, but it is not mentioned. What are the benefits. And also who were the losers?
Similarly what was the cost. It sounds like a lot of additional water had to be diverted into the area from the Yellow River and reservoirs, and this must also have an environmental cost. as well as monetary cost It would be great if these tradesoffs were discussed. Some farmers must have lost out, or perhaps they were compensated. It seems like the article "glosses over" some of the more difficult choices that have to be made.
Similarly," the conclusions state: The dual pressures of economic and environmental prompted the local government and populace to implement various measures to revive the Jinci Springs in an attempt to re-establish a sustainable human-water relation. " It would be good to know more about the process, not just the technical process of putting in pipes and reservoirs, for negotiating and coming to the solution that was made.
Overall, I would like to see more of the "rough edges" of the story, the hard decisions that had to be made, and more in depth discussion of why and how decisions were made.
It is a good story that should be told, and hope the authors can add some more of the details.
************************
Specific comments:
I go through comments in the order they come in the paper. The last section, in many ways the most important needs more attention, while the first part includes minor comments.
Line 83 it says that the springs exhibit substantial and stable flow, but the later in the document it becomes clear that the flow was reduced to zero (not stable). Please reformulate this or clarify.
Line 130. Does this mean that the canal was dug as part of a military campaign?
Line 167: not clear on what is meant by efficiency of water use, and I suggest using another word instead of efficiency, perhaps effectiveness. Did the better management allow for irrigation land expansion? In fact, I don't think you can know if efficiency went up since no one measured it.
169: The use of the term sustainability is not clear. While there was long term use, but was it environmentally and socially sustainable? In this period, there may have also been times when its use was interrupted.
176: "as water resources became increasingly scarce. " Does it mean demand surpassed supply. Or does it mean that the source is running out? Perhaps use another term besides scarce.
line 177. How did the spring allocation become more precise? Did they measure water? Or were the rules better articulted. It sounds like managers kept refining and fine tuning the allocation and delivery process
line 220.
- “This transition aimed to consolidate state power in dealing with the local droughts by establishing a new belief system in the region. In the early Ming dynasty (1369 CE),”
How do we know the aim was to consolidate state power, and it is not clear how this would help deal with drought. Below in about line 243, it seems that local people made up their gods to help in dealing with public authorities as opposed to consolidating state power.
line 248. Groundwater pumping clearly led to a reduction in flow. Why was there so much groundwater pumping. Did the irrigated area increase? Were there more farmers, increased intensity, more agricultural production.
line 321. They cut the area to 245 ha to save irrigation gw. How big was the area, and what did they cut it down to
line 323. What is recycled irrigation water. Is it pumping from drains, or is it recycling municipal effluent. Explain a little more.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-5309-RC3
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 169 | 70 | 26 | 265 | 15 | 17 |
- HTML: 169
- PDF: 70
- XML: 26
- Total: 265
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 17
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
Comments:
Given the issues mentioned above, a moderate to major revision is required.