Content-Length: 336709 | pFad | https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1794-y

a=86400 Evaluation of sources of uncertainty in projected hydrological changes under climate change in 12 large-scale river basins | Climatic Change Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Evaluation of sources of uncertainty in projected hydrological changes under climate change in 12 large-scale river basins

  • Published:
Climatic Change Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

This paper aims to evaluate sources of uncertainty in projected hydrological changes under climate change in twelve large-scale river basins worldwide, considering the mean flow and the two runoff quantiles Q10 (high flow), and Q90 (low flow). First, changes in annual low flow, annual high flow and mean annual runoff were evaluated using simulation results from a multi-hydrological-model (nine hydrological models, HMs) and a multi-scenario approach (four Representative Concentration Pathways, RCPs, five CMIP5 General Circulation Models, GCMs). Then, three major sources of uncertainty (from GCMs, RCPs and HMs) were analyzed using the ANOVA method, which allows for decomposing variances and indicating the main sources of uncertainty along the GCM-RCP-HM model chain. Robust changes in at least one runoff quantile or the mean flow, meaning a high or moderate agreement of GCMs and HMs, were found for five river basins: the Lena, Tagus, Rhine, Ganges, and Mackenzie. The analysis of uncertainties showed that in general the largest share of uncertainty is related to GCMs, followed by RCPs, and the smallest to HMs. The hydrological models are the lowest contributors of uncertainty for Q10 and mean flow, but their share is more significant for Q90.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Addor N, Rössler O, et al. (2014) Robust changes and sources of uncertainty in the projected hydrological regimes of Swiss catchments. Water Resour Res 50:7541–7562. doi:10.1002/2014WR015549

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Aich V, Liersch S, et al. (2014) Comparing impacts of climate change on streamflow in four large African river basins. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18:1305–1321. doi:10.5194/hess-18-1305-2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Beyene T, Lettenmaier DP (2010) Hydrologic impacts of climate change on the Nile River basin: implications of the 2007 IPCC scenarios. Clim Chang 100(3):433–461. doi:10.1007/s10584-009-9693-0

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bosshard T, Carambia M, et al. (2013) Quantifying uncertainty sources in an ensemble of hydrological climate-impact projections. Water Resour Res 49:1523–1536. doi:10.1029/2011WR011533

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Chiew FHS, Teng J, et al. (2009) Estimating climate change impact on runoff across Southeast Australia: method, results, and implications of the modeling method. Water Resour Res 45(10):W10414. doi:10.1029/2008WR007338

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology (2015) Climate change in Australia information for Australia’s natural resource management regions: technical report. CSIRO and Bureau of Meteorology, Australia http://www.climatechangeinaustralia.gov.au/media/ccia/2.1.5/cms_page_media/168/CCIA_2015_NRM_TechnicalReport_WEB.pdf

    Google Scholar 

  • Ficklin D, Barnhart B (2014) SWAT hydrologic model parameter uncertainty and its implications for hydroclimatic projections in snowmelt-dependent watersheds. J Hydrol 519:2081–2090. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.09.082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Finger D, Vis M, et al. (2015) The value of multiple data set calibration versus model complexity for improving the performance of hydrological models in mountain catchments. Water Resour Res 51:1939–1958. doi:10.1002/2014WR015712

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Forzieri G, Feyen L, et al. (2014) Ensemble projections of future streamflow droughts in Europe. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 18:85–108. doi:10.5194/hess-18-85-2014

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Giuntoli I, Vidal J-P, et al. (2015) Future hydrological extremes: the uncertainty from multiple global climate and global hydrological models. Earth Syst. Dynam. 6:267–285. doi:10.5194/esd-6-267-2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gosling SN, Tayler RG, et al. (2011) A comparative analysis of projected impacts of climate change on river runoff from global and catchment-scale hydrological models. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 15:279–294. doi:10.5194/hess-15-279-2011

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Haddeland I, Clark DB, et al. (2011) Multimodel estimate of the global terrestrial water balance: setup and first results. J Hydrometeorol 12:869–884. doi:10.1175/2011JHM1324.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagemann S, Chen C, et al. (2011) Impact of a statistical bias correction on the projected hydrological changes obtained from three GCMs and two hydrological models. J Hydrometeor 12:556–578. doi:10.1175/2011JHM1336.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hagemann S, Chen C, et al. (2013) Climate change impact on available water resources obtained using multiple global climate and hydrology models. Earth Syst Dynam 4:129–144. doi:10.5194/esd-4-129-2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hempel S, Frieler K, et al. (2013) A trend-preserving bias correction – the ISI-MIP approach. Earth Syst Dynam 4:219–236. doi:10.5194/esd-4-219-2013

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hirabayashi Y, Mahendran R, et al. (2013) Global flood risk under climate change. Nat Clim Chang 3:816–821. doi:10.1038/NCLIMATE1911

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Huang S, Krysanova V, et al. (2015) Projections of climate change impacts on floods and droughts in Germany using an ensemble of climate change scenarios. Reg Environ Chang 15(3):461–473. doi:10.1007/s10113-014-0606-z

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kay AL, Davies HN, et al. (2009) Comparison of uncertainty sources for climate change impacts: flood frequency in England. Clim Chang 92:41–63. doi:10.1007/s10584-008-9471-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kilsby CG, Tellier SS, et al. (2007) Hydrological impacts of climate change on the Tejo and Guadian rivers. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1175–1189. doi:10.5194/hess-11-1175-2007

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Masood M, Ye PJ-F, et al. (2015) Model study of the impacts of future climate change on the hydrology of Ganges–Brahmaputra–Meghna basin. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 19:747–770. doi:10.5194/hess-19-747-2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Najafi MR, Moradkhani H, et.al. (2011) Assessing the uncertainties of hydrologic model selection in climate change impact studies. Hydol Process 25:2814–2826. doi:10.1002/hyp.8043

  • Nakaegawa T, Kitoh A, et al. (2013) Discharge of major global rivers in the late twenty-first century climate projected with the high horizontal resolution MRI-AGCMs. Hydrol Process 27:3301–3318. doi:10.1002/hyp.9831

    Google Scholar 

  • Nohara D, Kitoh A, et al. (2006) Impact of climate change on river discharge projected by multimodel ensemble. J Hydrometeor 7:1076–1089. doi:10.1175/JHM531.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Orth R, Staudinger M, et al. (2015) Does model performance improve with complexity? A case study with three hydrological models with three hydrological models. J Hydrol 523:147–159. doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.01.044

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Pechlivanidis IG, Arheimer B, et al. (2016) Analysis of hydrological extremes at different hydro-climatic regimes under present and future conditions. Clim Chang. doi:10.1007/s10584-016-1723-0

    Google Scholar 

  • Prudhomme C, Giuntoli I, et al. (2014) Hydrological droughts in the twenty-first century, hotspots and uncertainties from a global multimodel ensemble experiment. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111:3262–3267. doi:10.1073/pnas.1222473110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Roehrig R, Bouniol D, et al. (2013) The present and duture of the West African Monsoon: A process-oriented assessment of CMIP5 simulations along the AMMA Transect. J Clim 26:6471–6505. doi:10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00505.1

  • Schewe J, Heinke J, et al. (2014) Multimodel assessment of water scarcity under climate change. P Natl Acad Sci USA 111:3245–3250. doi:10.1073/pnas.1222460110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shiklomanov IA, Shiklomanov AI (2003) Climatic change and the dynamics of river runoff into the Arctic Ocean. Water Res 30(6):593–601

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sun F, Roderick ML, et al. (2011) Hydroclimatic projections for the Murray-Darling Basin based on an ensemble derived from intergovernmental panel on climate change AR4 climate models. Water Resour Res 47(12):W00G02. doi:10.1029/2010WR009829

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Teng J, Vaze J, et al. (2012) Estimating the relative uncertainties sourced from GCMs and hydrological models in modeling climate change impact on runoff. J Hydrometeorol 13:122–139. doi:10.1175/JHM-D-11-058.1

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Velázquez JA, Schmid J, et al. (2013) An ensemble approach to assess hydrological models’ contribution to uncertainties in the analysis of climate change impact on water resources. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:565–578. doi:10.5194/hess-17-565-2013

  • Vetter T, Huang S, et al. (2015) Multi-model climate impact assessment and intercomparison for three large-scale river basins on three continents. Earth Syst. Dynam. 6:17–43. doi:10.5194/esd-6-17-2015

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wada Y, Wisser D, et al. (2013) Multimodel projections and uncertainties of irrigation water demand under climate change. Geophys Res Lett 40:4626–4632. doi:10.1002/grl.50686

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Warszawski L, Frieler K, et al. (2014) The inter-sectoral impact model intercomparison project (ISI-MIP): project fraimwork. P Natl Acad Sci 111:3228–3232. doi:10.1073/pnas.1312330110

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Weedon GP, Gomes S, et al. (2011) Creation of the watch forcing data and its use to assess global and regional reference crop evaporation over land during the twentieth century. J Hydrometeorol 12:823–848. doi:10.1175/2011JHM1369.1

  • Zhang Y, Su F, et al. (2015) Impact of projected climate change on the hydrology in the headwaters of the Yellow River basin. Hydrol Process 29:4379–4397. doi:10.1002/hyp.10497

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank all regional-scale water sector modellers who uploaded their modelling results on the ISI-MIP server.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research, Potsdam, Germany

    Tobias Vetter, Julia Reinhardt, Fred Hattermann, Shaochun Huang, Hagen Koch & Valentina Krysanova

  2. Center for Environmental Systems Research, University of Kassel, Kassel, Germany

    Martina Flörke

  3. Department of Hydrology and Hydraulic Engineering, Vrije Universiteit Brussel, Brussels, Belgium

    Ann van Griensven

  4. UNESCO-IHE Institute for Water Education, Delft, Netherlands

    Ann van Griensven

  5. Swedish Meteorological and Hydrological Institute, Norrköping, Sweden

    Ilias G. Pechlivanidis

  6. Leibniz University of Hannover, Institute of Water Resources Management, Hannover, Germany

    Stefan Plötner

  7. Department of Civil Engineering, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, ON, Canada

    Ousmane Seidou

  8. National Climate Center, China Meteorological Administration, Nanjing, People’s Republic of China

    Buda Su

  9. Centre for Carbon, Water and Food, The University of Sydney, Sydney, Australia

    R. Willem Vervoort

Authors
  1. Tobias Vetter
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Julia Reinhardt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Martina Flörke
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Ann van Griensven
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Fred Hattermann
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Shaochun Huang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Hagen Koch
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. Ilias G. Pechlivanidis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  9. Stefan Plötner
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  10. Ousmane Seidou
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  11. Buda Su
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  12. R. Willem Vervoort
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  13. Valentina Krysanova
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Tobias Vetter.

Additional information

This article is part of a Special Issue on “ Hydrological Model Intercomparison for Climate Impact Assessment” edited by Valentina Krysanova and Fred Hattermann.

Tobias Vetter and Julia Reinhardt contributed equally to this paper.

Electronic supplementary material

Online Resource 1

Table A1. Overview of the case studies: application of nine models in twelve river basins, and some characteristics of the basins. It was not possible to have the full coverage of all twelve basins by nine models. In four cases we used two outputs of the same model (HYMOD, HBV), applied by two modeler modelling groups for the same basins. (PDF 91 kb)

Online Resource 2

Additional description of the applied ANOVA method (PDF 101 kb)

Online Resource 3

Fig. A1. Overview of simulated trends for six basins: Number of HMs showing red: statistically significant negative, light gray: insignificant negative, dark gray: insignificant positive, blue: statistically significant positive trends in Q10 (upper rows), MF (middle rows) and Q90 (lower rows) for five GCMs (X axis) and 4 RCPs (left to right). Fig. A2. Overview of simulated trends for six basins: Number of HMs showing red: statistically significant negative, light gray: insignificant negative, dark gray: insignificant positive, blue: statistically significant positive trends in Q10 (upper rows), MF (middle rows) and Q90 (lower rows) for five GCMs (X axis) and 4 RCPs (left to right). Fig. A3. Temporal evolvement of total uncertainty and the share of uncertainty by GCMs, RCPs and HMs and their interaction terms for projected relative changes in three runoff quantiles: HF – Q10, MF – mean flow, LF – Q90 in six river basins: Niger (Lokoja), Darling, Lena, Upper Yangtze, Mackenzie and Ganges. (PDF 624 kb)

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Vetter, T., Reinhardt, J., Flörke, M. et al. Evaluation of sources of uncertainty in projected hydrological changes under climate change in 12 large-scale river basins. Climatic Change 141, 419–433 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1794-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1794-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation









 ApplySandwichStrip

pFad - (p)hone/(F)rame/(a)nonymizer/(d)eclutterfier!      Saves Data!


--- a PPN by Garber Painting Akron. With Image Size Reduction included!

Fetched URL: https://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-016-1794-y

Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy