Climatic Change

, Volume 100, Issue 3–4, pp 509–523 | Cite as

Hydrologic effects of climate change in the Yukon River Basin



A monthly water balance (WB) model was developed for the Yukon River Basin (YRB). The WB model was calibrated using mean monthly values of precipitation and temperature derived from the Precipitation-elevation Regression on Independent Slopes Model (PRISM) data set and by comparing estimated mean monthly runoff with runoff measured at Pilot Station, Alaska. The calibration procedure used the Shuffled Complex Evolution global search. Potential hydrologic effects of climate change were assessed for the YRB by imposing changes in precipitation and temperature derived from selected Inter-governmental Panel for Climate Change (IPCC) climate simulations. Scenarios from five general circulation model (GCM) simulations were used to provide a range of potential changes. Results from the scenarios indicate an increase in annual runoff in the twenty-first century for the YRB with simulated increases in precipitation having the greatest effect on increases in runoff. Simulated increases in temperature were found to alter the timing of snow accumulation and melt.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Brabets TP, Wang B, Meade RH (2000) Environmental and hydrologic overview of the Yukon River Basin, Alaska and Canada. WRI 99-4204, pp 106Google Scholar
  2. Brown RD, Braaten RO (1998) Spatial and temporal variability of monthly Canadian snow depths, 1946–1995. Atmos Ocean 36:37–54Google Scholar
  3. Brugman MM, Raistrick P, Pietroniro A (1997) Glacier related impacts of doubling atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations on British Columbia and Yukon, Ch 6. In: Taylor E, Taylor B (eds) Responding to global climate change in British Columbia and Yukon: climate impacts and adaptation. Env. Canada and BC Ministry of Env. Lands and Parks 350Google Scholar
  4. Daly C, Neilson RP, Phillips DL (1994) A statistical-topographic model for mapping climatological precipitation over Mountainous Terrain. J Appl Meteorol 33:140–158CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta V (1992) Effective and efficient global optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models. Water Resour Res 28(4):1015–1031CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Duan Q, Gupta VK, Sorooshian S (1993) A shuffled complex evolution approach for effective and efficient global minimization. J Opt 76(3):501–521Google Scholar
  7. Duan Q, Sorooshian S, Gupta VK (1994) Optimal use of the SCE-UA global optimization method for calibrating watershed models. J Hydrol 158:265–284CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Federer CA, Vorosmarty C, Fekete B (1996) Intercomparison of methods for calculating potential evaporation in regional and global water balance models. Water Resour Res 32:2315–2321CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Fowler HJ, Blenkinsopa S, Tebaldib C (2007) Review. Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modeling. Int J Climatol 27:1547–1578CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Hamon WR (1961) Estimating potential evapotranspiration. J Hydraul Div Proc Am Soc Civil Eng 87:107–120Google Scholar
  11. Hay LE, Wilby RL, Leavesley GH (2000) A comparison of delta change and downscaled GCM scenarios for three mountainous basins in the United States. J Am Water Resour Assoc 36(2):387–397CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hay LE, Leavesley GH, Clark MP, Markstrom SL, Viger RJ, Umemoto M (2006) Step-wise, multiple-objective calibration of a hydrologic model for a snowmelt-dominated basin. J Am Water Resour Assoc 42(4):877–890CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hinzman LD, Kane DL, Woo M (2005) Permafrost hydrology. In: Anderson MG (ed) Encyclopedia of hydrological sciences. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  14. Hogue TS, Sorooshian S, Gupta H, Holz A, Braatz D (2000) A multi-step automatic calibration scheme for river forecasting models. J Hydrometeorol 1:524–542CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. IPCC (2007) Summary for policymakers. In: Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contributions of Working Group 1 to the Fourth Assessment Report of the IPCC. Cambridge Univ. Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  16. Kaser G, Cogley JG, Dyurgerov MB, Meier MF, Ohmura A (2006) Mass balance of glaciers and ice caps: consensus estimates for 1961–2004. Geophys Res Lett 33:L19501. doi:10.1029/2006GL027511 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Kuczera G (1997) Efficient subspace probabilistic parameter optimization for catchment models. Water Resour Res 33(1):177–186CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Legates DR, McCabe GJ (2005) A re-evaluation of the average annual global water balance. Phys Geogr 26:467–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Le Treut H, Somerville R, Cubasch U, Ding Y, Mauritzen C, Mokssit A, Peterson T, Prather M (2007) Historical overview of climate change. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M, Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  20. Lu J, Sun G, McNulty SG, Amataya DM (2005) A comparison of six potential evapotranspiration methods for regional use in the southeastern United States. J Am Water Resour Assoc 3:621–633CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. Madsen H (2003) Parameter estimation in distributed hydrological catchment modelling using automatic calibration with multiple objectives. Adv Water Resour 26:205–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Manabe S, Milly PCD, Wetherald R (2004) Simulated long-term changes in river discharge and soil moisture due to global warming. J Hydrol Sci 49:625–642CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. McCabe GJ, Ayers MA (1989) Hydrologic effects of climate change in the Delaware River Basin. Water Resour Bull 25:1231–1242Google Scholar
  24. McCabe GJ, Markstrom SL (2007) A monthly water-balance model driven by a graphical user interface. USGS Open-File report 2007-1088, pp 6Google Scholar
  25. McCabe GJ, Wolock DM (1999) Future snowpack conditions in the western United States derived from general circulation model climate simulations. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35:1473–1484CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. McCabe GJ, Wolock DM (2008) Joint variability of global runoff and global sea-surface temperatures. J Climate 9:816–824Google Scholar
  27. Nijssen B, O’Donnell GM, Hamlet AF, Lettenmaier DP (2001) Hydrologic sensitivity of global rivers to climate change. Clim Change 30:143–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Rango A, Martinec J (1995) Revisiting the degree-day method for snowmelt computations. Water Resour Bull 31:657–669Google Scholar
  29. Ruosteenoja K, Carter TR, Jylha K, Tuomenvirta H (2003) Future climate in world regions: an intercomparison of model-basin projections for the new IPCC emissions scenarios. Finn Environment Institute 644:29Google Scholar
  30. Tarboton DG, Al-Adhami MJ, Bowles DS (1991) A preliminary comparison of snowmelt models for erosion prediction. In: Proceedings of the 59th annual western snow conference, Juneau, Alaska, pp 79–90Google Scholar
  31. Vorosmarty CJ, Federer CA, Schloss AL (1998) Potential evaporation functions compared on US watersheds: possible implications for global-scale water balance and terrestrial ecosystem modeling. J Hydrol 207:147–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Walvoord MA, Striegl RG (2007) Increased groundwater to stream discharge from permafrost thawing in the Yukon River basin: potential impacts on lateral export of carbon and nitrogen. Geophys Res Lett 34(12):L12402CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Wolock DW, McCabe GJ (1999) Simulated effects of climate change on mean annual runoff in the conterminous United States. In: Adams DB (ed) Proceedings of specialty conference on potential consequences of climate variability and change to water resources of the United States, 10-12 May 1999. Atlanta, Georgia: American Water Resources Association, pp 161–164Google Scholar
  34. Yapo PO, Gupta HV, Sorooshian S (1996) Automatic calibration of conceptual rainfall-runoff models: sensitivity to calibration data. J Hyd 181:23–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© US Government 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Denver Federal CenterUS Geological SurveyDenverCanada

Personalised recommendations