Published in

European Geosciences Union, Earth System Dynamics Discussions, 1(4), p. 279-315

DOI: 10.5194/esdd-4-279-2013

Links

Tools

Export citation

Search in Google Scholar

Comparing projections of future changes in runoff and water resources from hydrological and ecosystem models in ISI-MIP

This paper is made freely available by the publisher.
This paper is made freely available by the publisher.

Full text: Download

Green circle
Preprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Postprint: archiving allowed
Green circle
Published version: archiving allowed
Data provided by SHERPA/RoMEO

Abstract

Projections of future changes in runoff can have important implications for water resources and flooding. In this study, runoff projections from ISI-MIP (Inter-sectoral Impact Model Intercomparison Project) simulations forced with HadGEM2-ES bias-corrected climate data under the Representative Concentration Pathway 8.5 have been analysed. Projections of change from the baseline period (1981–2010) to the future (2070–2099) from a number of different ecosystems and hydrological models were studied. The differences between projections from the two types of model were looked at globally and regionally. Typically, across different regions the ecosystem models tended to project larger increases and smaller decreases in runoff than the hydrological models. However, the differences varied both regionally and seasonally. Sensitivity experiments were also used to investigate the contributions of varying CO2 and allowing vegetation distribution to evolve on projected changes in runoff. In two out of four models which had data available from CO2 sensitivity experiments, allowing CO2 to vary was found to increase runoff more than keeping CO2 constant, while in two models runoff decreased. This suggests more uncertainty in runoff responses to elevated CO2 than previously considered. As CO2 effects on evapotranspiration via stomatal conductance and leaf-area index are more commonly included in ecosystems models than in hydrological models, this may partially explain some of the difference between model types. Keeping the vegetation distribution static in JULES runs had much less effect on runoff projections than varying CO2, but this may be more pronounced if looked at over a longer timescale as vegetation changes may take longer to reach a new state.