Determining the proportion of streamflow that is generated by cold season processes versus summer rainfall in Utah, USA

Julander, Randall P.; Clayton, Jordan A.

doi:10.1016/j.ejrh.2018.04.005

Cited by 13 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 19 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Model results indicate monsoon rains in the ER generate 10 ± 6% the annual streamflow with contributions helping to sustain late season baseflow. Results fall in the reported range of streamflow generated from rain across the western US at 30% (Li et al, 2017) and 1-2% (Julander & Clayton, 2018), with the lower limit occurring in more arid climates than the ER. Years with large snow accumulation and low atmospheric water demand directly describe the efficiency of monsoon rain to generate streamflow.…”

Section: 1029/2020gl090856mentioning

confidence: 71%

Efficiency of the Summer Monsoon in Generating Streamflow Within a Snow‐Dominated Headwater Basin of the Colorado River

Carroll

Gochis

Williams

2020

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: 1029/2020gl090856mentioning

confidence: 71%

Efficiency of the Summer Monsoon in Generating Streamflow Within a Snow‐Dominated Headwater Basin of the Colorado River

Carroll

Gochis

Williams

2020

Geophysical Research Letters

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In part this is because response intervals of hydrographs usually cannot be associated with one single snowmelt event; these response signals tend to be longer and integrate multiple periods of input. While prior studies have suggested that snowmelt contributes 70-98% of total runoff (Barnett et al, 2005;Julander & Clayton, 2018;Kapnick & Delworth, 2013;Li et al, 2017;Stewart et al, 2004), these estimates may have been too high because of the challenges in separating out the effects of snowmelt and rain on streamflow generation. When we aggregated our QRI values to annual time scales we found that on average 46% of input at the study watersheds originated from snowmelt alone, with the addition of another 29% from mixed rain and snow inputs.…”

Section: Subannual Hydrologic Response To Rainfall and Snowmelt Input...mentioning

confidence: 99%

Subannual Streamflow Responses to Rainfall and Snowmelt Inputs in Snow‐Dominated Watersheds of the Western United States

Hammond

Kampf

2020

Water Resources Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Streamflow generation in mountain watersheds is strongly influenced by snow accumulation and melt, and multiple studies have found that snow loss leads to earlier snowmelt timing and declines in annual streamflow. However, hydrologic responses to snow loss are heterogeneous, and not all areas experience streamflow declines. This research examines whether streamflow generation is different for rainfall versus snowmelt inputs. We compiled a sample of 57 small U.S. Geological Survey watersheds in the western United States containing a Natural Resource Conservation Service Snow Telemetry site and having ratios of mean annual peak snow water equivalent to precipitation ratios >0.25. Daily streamflow was separated into quickflow and baseflow using a digital filter, and quickflow was then divided into quickflow response intervals using thresholds in quickflow slope. Each quickflow response interval was categorized by its fraction of input from snowmelt. Most sites exhibited two streamflow generation peaks each year, with one peak in the winter when runoff efficiency is greatest, and the second in the spring during peak snowmelt input. On average, study watersheds were dominated by snowmelt inputs (70%), and snowmelt and mixed inputs usually generated greater streamflow than rainfall because of higher inputs and longer durations. However, rainfall produced high streamflow generation in winter, when watersheds have their highest runoff efficiency (81%) across all input types. We demonstrate that while snowmelt is important for streamflow generation due to high input over long periods, increases in rain and mixed input during wet winter periods can countervail tendencies for reduced streamflow with declining snowpacks.

show abstract

“…The differences in the evapotranspiration scheme are particularly important in arid and semi-arid regions where the runoff ratio is low, and a minor difference in simulated evaporation causes a big relative difference in runoff (Haddeland et al, 2011). Similarly, the runoff ratio in summer is lower than in winter, owing to a higher evapotranspiration in summer and a higher contribution of summer rainfall to recharge soil moisture (Merz and Blöschl, 2009;Rodríguez-Blanco et al, 2012;Julander and Clayton, 2018). Based on the results of this study, the snow scheme appears to have a more important role than the evapotranspiration scheme in the differences among the selected GIMs, as the GIM uncertainty in winter is far larger than that in the other seasons (Fig.…”

Section: H08mentioning

confidence: 99%

Extreme value analysis dilemma for climate change impact assessment on global flood and extreme precipitation

Tabari

2021

Journal of Hydrology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A reliable estimation of hydrological extremes with potentially severe socio-economic impacts is of crucial importance for efficient planning and design of hydraulic structures. Extreme value theory provides a firm theoretical foundation for the statistical modelling of extreme hydrological events. The dilemma in the modelling is on whether to use block maxima (BM) or peak-over-threshold (POT) method, each with its own cons and pros. It remains unexplored to what extent future projected changes in extreme hydrological events are influenced by the method choice, especially when some simplifications are made to lessen the computational burden for large-scale studies. This study addresses this research question by a comparative analysis between the BM and POT methods on future climate change impact on global flood and extreme precipitation. The extreme precipitation analysis is performed using 24 CMIP5 general circulation models (GCMs), while the flood analysis is based on a multi-model ensemble of 20 members including five global impact models forced by four CMIP5 GCMs. The results reveal that the BM and POT methods agree on the sign of changes in flood and extreme precipitation intensities, but disagree on the magnitude. The discrepancy between the BM and POT results increases with event extremity. The difference also varies with season, where the difference in the global land area with increasing signals peaks in winter at the rates of 11% for extreme precipitation and in summer at the rates of 3.5% for flood.

show abstract

Determining the proportion of streamflow that is generated by cold season processes versus summer rainfall in Utah, USA

Cited by 13 publications

References 19 publications

Efficiency of the Summer Monsoon in Generating Streamflow Within a Snow‐Dominated Headwater Basin of the Colorado River

Efficiency of the Summer Monsoon in Generating Streamflow Within a Snow‐Dominated Headwater Basin of the Colorado River

Subannual Streamflow Responses to Rainfall and Snowmelt Inputs in Snow‐Dominated Watersheds of the Western United States

Extreme value analysis dilemma for climate change impact assessment on global flood and extreme precipitation

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About