Predicting land change trends and water consumption in typical arid regions using multi-models and multiple perspectives.

• Human activities are emerging as the primary driver of changes in land cover. • Water consumption in agriculture and ecology has opposite trends in the future. • Cultivated land expansion crowding out natural vegetation areas in the future. • Coupling GEE and PLUS to monitor and predict LULC changes. Water scarcity has emerged as a major impediment to the long-term development of inland arid region basins. Increased human activity has produced land degradation in arid areas and water stress in recent years. The objective of this research was to expose patterns in land cover changes in inland arid basin and the mechanisms driving them, as well as to optimize the socioeconomic and ecological water consumption structure of water resources. Therefore, this research used Google Earth Engine to map land cover year by year from 2000 to 2020, simulated future land cover changes and driving force analysis using a Patch-generating land use simulation model, and finally established the relationship between water consumption of different systems and different land cover types using linear equations, and scenario simulation method were used to estimates the ecological and agricultural water consumption in 2035. The results showed (1) Over the previous 20 years, there has been an increase in the amount of saline, agricultural land, and natural vegetation (grassland, scrub, and forest), as well as a considerable drop around permanent glaciers and snow. (2) Under the Markov-2035 scenario, saline land decreases to 32.92 km2, natural vegetation decreases to 381.89 km2, arable land shrinks to 135.69 km2, and the permanent glacier shrinks to 30.03 km2. Ecological water consumption would be 0.127 × 108 m3, while agricultural water consumption would be 0.394 × 108 m3. (3) Elevation influenced the variety of all land cover types. Saline land was more sensitive to temperature, railroad proximity, and pH; agricultural land was more sensitive to population density and gross regional product; and natural vegetation was more sensitive to soil organic matter, railroad proximity, and temperature. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]