2021
DOI: 10.5194/hess-25-3429-2021
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Future changes in annual, seasonal and monthly runoff signatures in contrasting Alpine catchments in Austria

Abstract: Abstract. Hydrological regimes of alpine catchments are expected to be strongly affected by climate change, mostly due to their dependence on snow and ice dynamics. While seasonal changes have been studied extensively, studies on changes in the timing and magnitude of annual extremes remain rare. This study investigates the effects of climate change on runoff patterns in six contrasting Alpine catchments in Austria using a process-based, semi-distributed hydrological model and projections from 14 regional and … Show more

Help me understand this report
View preprint versions

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
13
0

Year Published

2021
2021
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
6
2
1

Relationship

1
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 35 publications
(28 citation statements)
references
References 89 publications
(134 reference statements)
0
13
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Therefore, the results are also subject to potential deficiencies of the mHM model, as hydrological models are known to be a source of uncertainty in climate change impact studies (Vetter et al, 2017;Hattermann et al, 2018;Mendoza et al, 2015;Giuntoli et al, 2015;Hagemann et al, 2013). For instance, mHM does not explicitly consider the effect of vegetation dynamics associated with climate change that would modify runoff processes, which can be a limitation that is also observed in previous studies (Duethmann et al, 2020;Hanus et al, 2021;Wu et al, 2016). However, the mHM model used in this study has been thoroughly calibrated to provide realistic simulations of hydrological state variables and fluxes in the VRB (Dembélé et al, 2020a).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, the results are also subject to potential deficiencies of the mHM model, as hydrological models are known to be a source of uncertainty in climate change impact studies (Vetter et al, 2017;Hattermann et al, 2018;Mendoza et al, 2015;Giuntoli et al, 2015;Hagemann et al, 2013). For instance, mHM does not explicitly consider the effect of vegetation dynamics associated with climate change that would modify runoff processes, which can be a limitation that is also observed in previous studies (Duethmann et al, 2020;Hanus et al, 2021;Wu et al, 2016). However, the mHM model used in this study has been thoroughly calibrated to provide realistic simulations of hydrological state variables and fluxes in the VRB (Dembélé et al, 2020a).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In scenario 2 K A , we assume an unchanged land use and that vegetation has not adapted its root zone storage capacity to the aridity and seasonality of the 2 K climate. This scenario implies the stationarity of model parameters by using S R,max,A in both the historical and 2 K runs, a common assumption of many climate change impact assessment studies (Booij, 2005;de Wit et al, 2007;Prudhomme et al, 2014;Hakala et al, 2019;Brunner et al, 2019;Gao et al, 2020;Rottler et al, 2020;Hanus et al, 2021). This is the benchmark scenario against which we compare the hydrological response, considering non-stationarity of the system, as in the following three scenarios.…”
Section: Hydrological Change Evaluationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…As a result of the rising temperatures, widespread and accelerating glacier retreat has been observed for several decades (e.g., Abermann et al, 2009;Sommer et al, 2020). Hydrological consequences include changes in water quantities (such as a transient increase in runoff) (Vormoor et al, 2015;Wijngaard et al, 2016), streamflow variability (van Tiel et al, 2019 and hydrograph timing, e.g., due to earlier snowmelt onset and a prolonged glacier melt period (Hanus et al, 2021;Kormann et al, 2016;Rottler et al, 2021Rottler et al, , 2020.…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%