Abstract

Abstract. Long term average change in streamflow is a major concern in hydrology and water resources management. Some simple analytical methods exist for the assessment of the sensitivity of streamflow to climatic variations. These are based on the Budyko hypothesis, which assumes that long term average streamflow can be predicted by climate conditions, namely by annual average precipitation and evaporative demand. Recently, Tomer and Schilling (2009) presented an ecohydrological concept to distinguish between effects of climate change and basin characteristics change on streamflow. We relate the concept to a coupled consideration of the water and energy balance. We show that the concept is equivalent to the assumption that the sum of the ratio of annual actual evapotranspiration to precipitation and the ratio of actual to potential evapotranspiration is constant, even when climate conditions are changing. Here, we use this assumption to derive analytical solutions to the problem of streamflow sensitivity to climate. We show how, according to this assumption, climate sensitivity would be influenced by different climatic conditions and the actual hydrological response of a basin. Finally, the properties and implications of the method are compared with established Budyko sensitivity methods and illustrated by three case studies. It appears that the largest differences between both approaches occur under limiting conditions. Specifically, the sensitivity framework based on the ecohydrological concept does not adhere to the water and energy limits, while the Budyko approach accounts for limiting conditions by increasing the sensitivity of streamflow to a catchment parameter encoding basin characteristics. Our findings do not support any application of the ecohydrological concept under conditions close to the water or energy limits, instead we suggest a correction based on the Budyko framework.

Highlights

  • In this paper we consider the question how variations in climate affect the hydrological response of river basins

  • We find that α = 135◦, i.e. the observed change is in climate change direction of the CCUW hypothesis, with increased aridity resulting in increased W and reduced U with quite similar absolute values

  • This paper is based on a conceptual framework published by Tomer and Schilling (2009), which links shifts in ecohydrological states of river basins to shifts in climate and basin characteristics

Read more

Summary

Introduction

In this paper we consider the question how variations in climate affect the hydrological response of river basins. Renner et al.: Evaluation of water-energy balance frameworks effects from land-use change effects on streamflow They utilize two non-dimensional ecohydrologic state variables representing water and energy balance components, which describe the hydro-climatic state of a basin and carry information of how water and energy fluxes are partitioned at the catchment scale. The central hypothesis of Tomer and Schilling (2009) is that from the observed shift of these states, the type of change can be deduced Their theory is based on experiments with different agricultural conservation treatments of four small field size experimental watersheds (30–61 ha). The conceptual model proposed by Tomer and Schilling (2009) has great scientific appeal, because of its potential to separate climatic from land use effects on the water balance. What are the implications of such a model, given the range of possible hydro-climatic states and changes therein?

How does it compare to existing climate sensitivity approaches?
Theory
Coupled water and energy balance
The ecohydrologic framework for change attribution
Derivation of climatic sensitivity using the CCUW hypothesis
The Budyko hypothesis and derived sensitivities
Mapping of the Budyko functions into UW space
Mapping CCUW into Budyko space
Climatic sensitivity of basin evapotranspiration and streamflow
Climate-vegetation feedback effects
Application: three case studies
Conclusions
Potentials and limitations
Insights on the catchment parameter
Validation
Findings
Perspectives
Full Text
Paper version not known

Talk to us

Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have

Schedule a call

Disclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.