Abstract
This study evaluates hydrology and hydrological extremes under future climate change scenarios. The climate change scenarios were developed from multiple Global Circulation Models (GCMs), Representative Concentration Pathway (RCP) scenarios, and statistical downscaling techniques. To ensure hydrological model robustness, the Soil Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) was calibrated and validated using the Differential Split Sample Test (DSST) approach. The model was also calibrated and validated at the multi-gauges of the watershed. Future climate change scenarios revealed a reduction in precipitation (in the order of −9.1% to 4.9%) and a consistent increase in maximum temperature (0.34°C to 4.10°C) and minimum temperature (−0.15 °C to 3.7°C) in different climate model simulations. The climate change scenarios triggered a reduction of surface runoff and streamflow and a moderate increase in evapotranspiration. Future climate change scenarios projected a decrease in high flow (Q5) and low flow (Q95). A higher reduction of Q5 and annual minimum flow is also simulated in future climate scenarios, whereas an increase in annual maximum flow is simulated in climate change scenarios developed from the RCP8.5 emission scenario. The study suggests optimal water management structures which can reduce the effect of change in high and low flows.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Find the latest articles, discoveries, and news in related topics.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Climate change has a non-consistent effect on surface runoff and streamflow among different regions of the world. In the Midwestern, Northwestern, and Northeastern USA, an increase in streamflow was observed as a response to climate change, whereas a reduction in streamflow was observed in the southern states of the USA (Romero-Lankao et al., 2014; Talib and Randhir, 2017). For instance, in the Texas High Plains, prolonged high temperature and low rainfall caused severe drought events in 2011 and 2012 (Hoerling et al., 2013; Ray et al., 2018, 2017). Climate change also triggers a change in the seasonal magnitude and timing of streamflow. In snow-dominated watersheds, an increase in temperature has resulted in a shift in the magnitude and timing of hydrological events (Bates et al., 2008; Kim et al., 2017; Ray et al., 2016; Romero-Lankao et al., 2014). In the snow-dominated rivers of western North America, snowmelt attributed to climate change triggers an early peak flow of runoff (Barnett et al., 2005; Das et al., 2011). For instance, in the Ohio-Tennessee River Basin, an increase in early peak flow of runoff, i.e., the highest runoff in February and March and a reduced runoff during June–September, was simulated using different climate model simulations (Panagopoulos et al., 2015). These indicate that region and watershed-specific studies of climate change’s effect on hydrological characteristics are essential.
The effect of climate change on hydrological extremes also warrants special focus since extreme values are sensitive to climate change and could be impacted by uncertainties in climate modeling. Climate change amplifies low and high-flow change signals mainly attributed to changes in precipitation and temperature (De Girolamo et al., 2022; Kay et al., 2021; Marx et al., 2018). For instance, in 10 gauges of the Brazos River Basin of Texas, a higher reduction in minimum flow than maximum flow was observed from 1955 to 2014 (Sohoulande Djebou, 2017). Alas, changes in hydrological extreme events trigger more profound effects on the natural and anthropogenic ecosystems than changes in annual, seasonal, and monthly scales (Arnell, 2004; Taye and Willems, 2012). The 2015 record-breaking flood event has caused an estimated $2.6 billion damage in Texas and Oklahoma (USGCRP, 2018). Extreme hydrological events such as high flow frequency, extreme peak flow quantile, and extreme low flow quantile are characterized by uncertainty due to the uncertainties derived from climate data (Kay et al., 2021; Meresa et al., 2021). For instance, high uncertainty in precipitation of climate model simulation has triggered uncertainty in hydrological and extreme hydrological values in the Southeast Asian basins (Shrestha et al., 2021). Thus, caution is needed to maintain the quality of climate data before using it for hydrological modeling.
Hydrological climate change impact assessment studies are prone to have considerable uncertainties attributed to greenhouse gas emission scenarios, climate models, downscaling and bias correction techniques, and hydrological models (IPCC, 2013; Kundzewicz et al., 2018). For this, it is non-trivial to use the output of robust climate change scenarios for climate change impact studies. Climate change scenarios are consistent and plausible representations of future climate conditions through blending emission scenarios, climate model simulations, and downscaling techniques (IPCC-TGICA, 2007; IPCC, 2013; Moss et al., 2010). In climate change scenarios, GCMs have limitations in simulating regional and local scale precipitation and cloud cover of the mountain and coastal regions due to low spatial resolutions and inadequate parametrization of regional scale drivers of climate (Flato et al., 2013). For this, it is commendable to use the ensemble of GCM simulations than the single GCM simulation to reduce possible uncertainties stem from multiple sources (Flato et al., 2013; IPCC-TGICA, 2007; Teutschbein and Seibert, 2010). Besides, GCM downscaling is a commonly used technique in climate research to improve the horizontal resolution of climate models, reduce biases in GCM simulations, and better parametrize the effect of factors such as topography on local and regional scale climate (Flato et al., 2013; Fowler et al., 2007; IPCC, 2021).
Dynamical and statistical downscaling techniques involve transferring climate information from GCM simulations to regional and local scales (Flato et al., 2013; IPCC, 2013). In the dynamical downscaling technique, higher resolution climate models, i.e., Regional Climate Models (RCMs), are embedded within a GCM (Flato et al., 2013). However, this technique may also inherit biases from driving GCM, which is used as a boundary condition (Adachi and Tomita, 2020; Fowler et al., 2007). The statistical downscaling technique comprises different methods which develop empirical relationships between raw climate model simulations (RCM and GCM) and local observed climate data (Flato et al., 2013; Fowler et al., 2007; Lanzante et al., 2019). Weather typing schemes, linear methods, and weather generators are common methods of statistical downscaling (Fowler et al., 2007; Hernanz et al., 2022; Lanzante et al., 2020). It is also common to combine and interchangeably use statistical downscaling and statistical bias correction (Cannon et al., 2015; Pourmokhtarian et al., 2016; Wootten et al., 2021). For instance, the cumulative distribution function (CDFt), which adjusts the statistical distributions of climate model simulations, was considered a statistical downscaling technique (Lanzante et al., 2019) and a statistical bias correction technique (Teutschbein and Seibert, 2012). Wootten et al. (2021) have used the ratio delta method and equi-ratio quantile mapping, described as statistical downscaling and bias correction techniques.
The statistical downscaling and bias correction techniques are essential in climate change scenario development to transfer GCM and RCM simulations to smaller spatial scales, reducing climate model simulation biases and adding value to hydrological impact assessment. For instance, surface runoff simulated using bias-corrected RCM simulations is more reliable than surface runoff simulated using raw RCM simulation (Hagemann et al., 2011; Muerth et al., 2013). In five mesoscale catchments in Sweden, streamflow simulations with statistical bias correction were better fitted with the observed streamflow than the simulations without statistical bias adjustment of climate model simulations (Teutschbein and Seibert, 2012). Statistical downscaling and bias correction also add value in reproducing extreme hydro-climatic values than raw climate model simulations (Chen et al., 2013; Ji et al., 2020; Teutschbein and Seibert, 2012; Worku et al., 2020). Multiple statistical downscaling and bias correction techniques may capture the biases from RCM parametrization schemes and bias correction algorithms (Teutschbein and Seibert, 2012; Pourmokhtarian et al., 2016).
Besides, robust hydrological models are essential to reduce uncertainties and develop climate change impact assessment (Baldassarre et al., 2011; Kundzewicz et al., 2018). Identifying sensitive hydrological parameters, optimization algorithms, input data, and best performance measures is essential to reduce uncertainties in hydrological models used for climate impact assessment (Bárdossy and Singh, 2008; Gan et al., 2018). Further, calibration and validation at different temporal scales and areas of the basin (considering hydrological signatures in calibration and validation) are important to reduce the uncertainty of hydrological projections (Huang et al., 2020; Melišová et al., 2020). The conceptual and parameterization structure of hydrological models could also trigger uncertainty in projected hydrological components (Poulin et al., 2011). Thus, caution is needed in selecting, calibrating, and validating hydrological models before using them for climate change impact assessment.
This study was conducted in the Bosque watershed of the Brazos River Basin, Northcentral Texas, where climate change already poses a negative impact on the natural ecosystem and water availability (Hoerling et al., 2013; Shafer et al., 2014). Unlike other studies, this study applies both Differential Split Sample Test (DSST) and multi-site calibration and validation approaches. The DSST was used to test the hydrological model’s capability under changing and even contrasted climate conditions (Daggupati et al., 2015; Guilpart et al., 2020; Huang et al., 2020; Klemeš, 1986). Besides, this calibration and validation approach tests the stationarity assumption where the hydrological models calibrated using observed data are used for future hydrological climate change impact studies assuming the hydrological parameters are unchanging for future climate conditions. Further, the multi-site calibration and validation are to examine non-uniqueness (Beven, 2006) of the hydrological model calibrated at one of the gauges of the watershed.
The objectives of this study are to (1) evaluate the changes in precipitation, temperature, surface runoff, evapotranspiration, and streamflow under future climate change scenarios and (2) examine the magnitude of change in hydrological extremes under future climate change scenarios. This study blends multiple emission scenarios, GCM simulations, statistical downscaling, and bias correction techniques and uses a robustly calibrated and validated hydrological model to reduce uncertainty. This study can be essential to develop optimal water management and agriculture systems that help stakeholders to ensure sustainable water development and agricultural production.
Materials and method
This study integrates climate change scenarios with hydrological modeling. First, the study develops future climate change scenarios which blend multiple GCMs, emission scenarios, and statistical downscaling techniques. The climate change scenarios were used to analyze changes in precipitation and temperature and as input for the hydrological model. Hydrological model setup, calibration and validation, and uncertainty analysis were conducted before hydrological climate change impact assessment. Finally, the outputs of hydrological model simulations under different climate change scenarios were used to estimate changes in hydrological extremes.
Study area
The Bosque watershed is located in the Brazos River Basin, which covers most climate zones of Texas (Fig. 1). The watershed has an area of 4300 km2. The elevation in the watershed ranges from 111 to 596 meters (Ray et al., 2022). River Bosque drains into Lake Waco and supplies drinking water for a large population of the Waco area. The area of the Bosque watershed is under rangeland, woodland, forage fields, and dairy waste application fields. Dairy production and other agricultural enterprises, including peanut, range-fed cattle, pecan, peach, and forage hay production, are the dominant agricultural activity (Saleh and Gallego, 2007). The major soil types in the watershed include fine sandy loams with sandy clay (hydrologic group C), calcareous clays and clay loams (hydrologic group D), and fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic Udic Paleustalfs (fine-loamy, siliceous, thermic Udic Paleustalfs) The middle part of the Bosque watershed is characterized by deep-to-shallow clay, clay loam, and sandy loam which support oak, juniper, water-tolerant hardwoods (Tuppad et al., 2010; USDA-SCS, 1986).
The Bosque watershed has a warm-temperate, sub-humid climate where the average annual precipitation ranges from about 737 mm to 838 mm, and daily mean temperature ranges from 36oF in January to 96oF in July (USDA NRCS, 2008). The environment of the Bosque watershed is characterized by high-intensity, short-duration rainfall events and other precipitation extreme events that can cause high surface runoff (USDA NRCS, 2008; Nielsen-Gammon et al., 2005). The winter and fall precipitation is induced by northern cold fronts associated with the Pacific winter storm, which produce low-intensity, long-duration storms (Wong et al., 2015). In the spring and summer, most precipitation produces high-intensity, short-duration storms that can result in flooding in small watersheds.
Several rivers and streams, such as Hico, Valley Mills, and Clifton, contribute to the Bosque River. Storm-driven runoff is a primary hydrologic event and source of water quality impairment in the North Bosque River (Mcfarland and Adams, 2020). Water pollution is a major water-related problem in the Bosque watershed. In 2000, this watershed was identified as an elevated concern of increased levels of nutrients entering the watershed from tributary watersheds. High levels of sediments, total nitrogen, and total phosphorus were identified (Tuppad et al., 2010).
Data types and sources
The study has used spatial and non-spatial data acquired from different sources (Table 1). For climate change scenario development and SWAT model setup, climatic data such as precipitation and daily minimum and maximum air temperature (TMIN and TMAX) of all sub-basins of the Bosque watershed were obtained from Daymet gridded dataset. The Daymet is processed data largely derived from the stations’ data and includes remote sensing products to account for missing station data and spatiotemporal inconsistencies (Thornton et al., 2017). Daymet gridded observational dataset was also used to develop a baseline climate scenario (1981–2005) and for hydrological simulation during the baseline period. Daymet gridded dataset was selected because this dataset showed better performance than other gridded datasets in reproducing the in situ precipitation of the Bosque watershed (Ray et al., 2022). These climatic data were also used to generate weather station statistics needed to create SWAT’s weather generator input file (Arnold et al., 2012). The streamflow data of USGS discharge gauge stations located at different parts of the watershed were used. The USGS streamflow gauge stations are well distributed in the watershed, which increases the effectiveness of calibration as all of these stations are located at the outlets of sub-watersheds.
Spatial data such as land use, soil, and topography were required for hydrological modeling. The DEM data was used to create the basin boundary and stream networks. The slope generated from the DEM data was used to define Hydrological Response Units (HRU) and the soil and land use data. The Gridded Soil Survey Geographic (gSSURGO) was obtained from USDA’s Geospatial Data Gateway and used to set up the model. The land use/land cover data was obtained from the National Land Cover Database (NLCD). The latest iteration of NLCD, i.e., NLCD 2019, was used since this version contains 28 land covers characterizing land cover and change over different years from 2001 to 2019 (Dewitz and USGS, 2021). After identifying the different land use classes, they were redefined according to the SWAT land use database code. Thus, the land use/land cover of 2019 was used to represent the land use of the baseline period.
Climate change scenario development
This study has used the South Central Climate Projections Evaluation Project (C-PrEP) dataset to develop future climate change scenarios. The C-PrEP has future projections of temperature and precipitation, which are produced from a combination of GCMs, emissions scenarios, downscaling techniques, and training data (Dixon et al., 2020). The GCMs used in the project are Community Climate System Model version 4 (CCSM4), Model for Interdisciplinary Research on Climate version 5 (MIROC5), and Max-Planck-Institute Earth System Model running on a low-resolution grid (MPI-ESM-LR). These GCMs were selected by C-PrEP based on their better performance in reproducing the historical precipitation and temperature of the south-central USA than other GCMs (Wootten et al., 2021).
The GCMs simulate the response of the 21st-century climate for three different future atmospheric composition and emission scenarios called Representative Concentration Pathways (RCPs 2.6, 4.5, and 8.5). The RCP8.5 represents high emission scenarios (radiative forcing pathway), resulting in 8.5W/m2 by 2100 (Van Vuuren et al., 2011a). The RCP4.5, which represents intermediate emission levels of 4.5 W/m2 that could start stabilization after 2100 (Moss et al., 2010), was used. The RCP2.6 emission scenario represents a very low emission scenario for the future. This emission scenario could only be achieved if the Paris Agreement and other sustainable and substantial measures to mitigate future climate change are realized.
The GCM simulations were downscaled using Daymet gridded observation dataset and different statistical downscaling techniques. The Ratio Delta method (DeltaSD) and the Equi-Distant Quantile Mapping (EDQM) are the statistical downscaling and bias correction techniques used to adjust GCM simulations. The future period used for climate scenarios was 2031–2099. A detailed description of GCMs, downscaling techniques, and Daymet datasets is given by Tefera et al. under review. Future climate change scenario development incorporates 3 GCMs, 2 statistical downscaling techniques, 3 emission scenarios, 1 gridded observation dataset, and three daily climate variables (maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and daily total precipitation).
SWAT model setup
The hydrological model, SWAT, is used to predict the impact of land management and climate change on water, sediment, and agricultural chemical yields in large complex watersheds with varying soils, land use, and management conditions (Arnold et al., 1998; Gassman et al., 2007). The SWAT model is successfully applied in river basins and watersheds of Texas, USA, to study hydrological processes and other environmental applications such as the effect of land management and climate change on hydrology, water quality, and sediments (Chen et al., 2019, 2017; Elhassan et al., 2016; Stewart et al., 2006).
The SWAT model discretizes the Bosque watershed into 86 sub-basins. Further, the sub-basins were classified into Hydrological Response Units (HRUs). HRUs are unique combinations of slope, soil, and land use. Multiple HRUs were defined in a basin to allow heterogeneity within the basin. The HRU definition processes created 694 HRUs.
The surface runoff was estimated using the Soil Conservation Service (SCS), currently the Natural Resources Conservation Service, curve number computation (with modification) method. The Soil Conservation Service (SCS) Curve Number method is widely accepted to estimate surface runoff. The Penman-Monteith method was used to estimate potential evapotranspiration (PET) since it is a physical-based model.
SWAT model calibration/validation and uncertainty analysis
The SWAT model was calibrated and validated to represent the hydrologic conditions of the Bosque watershed before we used it to analyze climate change impacts. To robustly simulate the effect of climate change on hydrology, the SWAT model was calibrated and validated using the Differential Split Sample Test (Klemeš, 1986) method. The differential split sample calibration and validation approach is recommended whenever a hydrological model is intended to simulate the hydrology of watersheds under conditions different from the baseline conditions, such as climate change scenarios and land-use change studies (Daggupati et al., 2015). Accordingly, the years from 2000 to 2019 were grouped as dry and wet years based on their relative streamflow (Fig. 2). Since the simulation of different climate models under emission scenario projects a reduction of rainfall in the future period (section 3.1), the streamflow of wet years was used for model calibration, and the streamflow of dry years was used for validation at Valley Mills gauge of the Bosque watershed. Besides DSST approach, the model calibrated and validated using streamflow of wet and dry years was further validated at Crawford and McGregor gauges of the watershed. Thus, the calibration and validation were based on multi-site and DSST approaches.
The SUFI-2 in SWAT-CUP (Abbaspour et al., 2004) was used to perform sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validation of streamflow. Since there are many parameters in SWAT, only 12 parameters were identified as sensitive parameters through global sensitivity analysis. Parameters related to soil water, runoff, groundwater, evapotranspiration, and channel hydraulic conductivity were considered for the sensitivity analysis. The highest sensitive parameters with a smaller p value and larger t-test were selected (Abbaspour et al., 2015). Sensitive parameters were used to calibrate the streamflow of the watershed at different gauges (Table 2).
The qualifier (r_) refers to a relative change in the parameter where the default values are multiplied by 1 plus a factor in the parameter range, while (v_) refers to the substitution of the default parameter by a value from the parameter range. The extensions (e.g., .hru, .bsn, and .gw) indicate the SWAT parameter family
Performance of calibration/validation and uncertainty analysis
The performance of the hydrological model during calibration and validation at multi-gauges was evaluated using correlation coefficient (R2), Nash and Sutcliffe simulation efficiency (NSE), KGE (Kling–Gupta Efficiency) (Knoben et al., 2019), percent bias (PBIAS), and the ratio of the root mean square error to the standard deviation of measured data (RSR). These are important goodness-of-fit evaluation criteria (Moriasi et al., 2007; Moriasi et al., 2015; Abbaspour, 2015). The SWAT model calibrated and validated using these parameters and observed streamflow at all gauges revealed more than acceptable performance under different statistical metrics (Moriasi et al., 2015) (Table 3 and Fig. 3). The calibration at the Valley Mills gauge using the streamflow of the wet years showed very good efficiency (NSE = 0.89, KGE = 0.90, R2 = 0.90, and PBIAS = 4.5). The validation at the Valley Mills gauge using the streamflow of the dry years revealed NSE, R2, KGE, and PBIAS of 0.77, 0.78, 0.85, and 5.3, respectively (Table 3).
In most calibration and validation stages, the simulated hydrographs are well matched with the observed hydrographs (Fig. 3). However, in some cases, the model struggles to simulate the low and peak flows. For instance, at the Valley Mills gauge calibration, the model underestimated the peak flow in 2016 and 2019 (Fig. 3 and Table 3). All validations coherently underestimate the peak flow of 2009 at all gauges of the watersheds. Generally, there are more underestimations and overestimations at the Crawford gauge of the watershed than at other gauges.
Model calibration and validation were also evaluated using P-factor and the R-factor on the SUFI-2 algorithm (Abbaspour et al., 2004; Abbaspour et al., 2007). The SUFI-2 estimates uncertainty at 95 percent prediction uncertainty (95PPU). The P-factor is the percentage of the measured data bracketed within the 95PPU, while the R-factor measures the thickness of the uncertainty band. A P-factor of 1 and an R-factor of 0 indicate the exact fit of simulation with measurement (Abbaspour et al., 2007; Abbaspour, 2015). In most calibration and validation cases, the model achieved recommended P-factor value (>0.7) and recommended R-factor value (<1.5) (Abbaspour et al., 2015). The calibration at the Valley Mills gauge showed a P-factor of 87% and an R-factor of 0.83. Similarly, the validation using streamflow of dry years at this gauge also has a P-factor of 77% and an R-factor of 0.94. The validation at Crawford and McGregor gauges discloses a P-factor of 65 and 67 and an r-R-factor of 0.82 and 0.67, respectively (Table 3). The best P-factor and r-R-factor values were obtained at the Valley Mills gauge during the calibration period.
The SWAT model calibration and uncertainty analysis accentuate that the SWAT model can adequately simulate the streamflow of the Bosque watershed. The hydrological model is evaluated under changing climate conditions and multi-sites of the watershed. In future climate scenarios, precipitation reduction is projected in the study area. As a result, the model was calibrated using historical wet years and validated using historical dry years. This is because it is recommended to calibrate the hydrological model using DSST and wet years of the historical period (Daggupati et al., 2015; Krysanova et al., 2018). Thus, this model setup can be used to simulate climate change’s impact on the hydrology of the Bosque watershed. However, it is non-trivial to use robust climate scenarios developed from multiple climate model simulations, emission scenarios, and downscaling techniques to reduce uncertainty in climate change scenarios.
Analysis of hydrology and hydrological extremes under climate change scenarios
The change in hydrological components, such as surface runoff, evapotranspiration, and streamflow under baseline and future climate change scenarios, was analyzed. For this, climate data of each climate scenario were used to force the SWAT model to be calibrated and validated using multi-gauge and DSST approaches (section 2.5). The hydrological extremes were analyzed using the mean discharge, Q5 (high flow), and Q95 (low flow). The Q5 and Q95 are commonly used flow indices and are defined as the flow values that exceed the flow time series data by 5% and 95% of the flow, respectively. Besides, the annual maximum and minimum flows (McMillan, 2021) were also used to analyze the extremes in streamflow under climate change scenarios. Thus, the changes in these hydrological extreme indicators between baseline and future climate change scenarios were analyzed.
Result and analysis
Climate change scenarios
Most climate model simulations (S-RCMs) and ensemble mean of the simulations (E-RCMs) project a reduction of mean annual precipitation in the future and under all emission scenarios (Fig. 4). From the ensemble mean outputs, it is only under RCP2.6 an increase in precipitation is projected. In the future, the change in projected precipitation is in the range of −9.1% (MIROC5-EQDM under RCP8.5) to 4.9% (MPI-ESM-LR-EDQM under RCP2.6). A high decrease in precipitation is projected in the future and under RCP8.5 than other climate scenarios (Fig. 4). On the other hand, a high reduction of precipitation is also projected from GCM simulations downscaled by the DeltaSD method than the EDQM method. This indicates the choice of downscaling method has influenced the projected precipitation. In general, most future climate scenarios derived from different emission scenarios, GCM simulations, and downscaling techniques disclose similar future precipitation change signals and comparable rates of precipitation reduction.
Concurrent with these findings, projected precipitation showed variation following variation in emission scenarios in Texas High Plains (Chen et al., 2019). In the Texas High Plains, an increase in precipitation (in the order of 2.7% to 3.0%) under the RCP 2.6 emission scenario and a decrease in precipitation (in the order of 1.2% to 7.0%) under RCP 4.5 and RCP8.5 emission scenarios is projected for 2040–2099 (Chen et al., 2019). Similarly, a higher reduction (14%) of precipitation was projected in the 2090s under the high (A2) emission scenario in the Brazos River Basin of Texas (Awal et al., 2016). This coherence in the projection of precipitation among studies indicates a more likely decrease of precipitation in high and medium emission scenarios. Such precipitation changes may trigger tremendous environmental impacts, further affecting the water and agriculture sector.
Future climate change scenarios consistently project maximum (TMAX) and minimum (TMIN) temperatures. All future climate change scenarios revealed an increase in mean annual TMAX and TMIN in the future (Fig. 4). The increase in TMAX (TMIN) is in the range of 0.34 °C (−0.15 °C) (CCSM4-DeltaSD under RCP2.6) and 4.10°C (3.7°C) (MIROC5-DeltaSD and MIROC5-EDQM, respectively, under RCP8.5). However, the magnitude of change is different following the choice of emission scenarios, downscaling techniques, and climate models. The GCM simulations statistically downscaled by EDQM showed a higher increase of TMAX and TMIN than simulations downscaled by the DeltaSD downscaling technique. The ensemble mean of climate model simulations downscaled by DeltaSD and under the RCP8.5 emission scenario revealed an increase in TMAX (TMIN) of 3.27°C (2.96°C). In contrast, the ensemble mean of climate model simulations downscaled by EDQM and under the RCP8.5 emission scenario revealed an increase in TMAX (TMIN) of 3.56°C (3.29°C). The MIROC5 downscaled by DeltaSD and EDQM techniques showed a higher increase in TMAX and TMIN than other GCMs. Concurrent with the global temperature projection (IPCC, 2021, 2013), a higher increase in temperature is projected in the climate scenarios developed from the RCP8.5 emission scenario and the last decades of the 21st century. Other studies in the Great Plains of Texas also project a consistent increase in temperature. For instance, in Texas, an increase in temperature (2.2–4.8°C) was projected relative to the mean of 1971−2000 from different climate model simulations and emission scenarios (Jiang and Yang, 2012). Such temperature changes could exacerbate existing environmental disasters such as wildfires which happened during the drought of 2011 and destroyed more than 1500 homes in Texas (USGCRP, 2018).
Hydrological components under future climate change scenarios
Hydrological components such as precipitation, surface runoff, groundwater, and water yield are projected to decrease in future climate scenarios. The reduction of surface runoff is in the order of 20% and 61%, while the reduction in groundwater is in the order of 27% and 59% (Fig. 5). Lower reduction of surface runoff, groundwater, and water yield is simulated from climate model simulations under RCP2.6 emission scenarios. However, no significant difference was observed in surface runoff, groundwater, and water yield simulated from climate model simulations under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 emission scenarios revealed. Simulated hydrological components of future climate scenarios showed sensitivity to the choice of statistical downscaling techniques. Higher reduction of surface runoff, groundwater, and water yield is simulated from climate model simulations statistically downscaled by DeltaSD downscaling technique than EDQM downscaling technique. This is attributed to the difference in projected precipitation from DeltaSD and EDQM statistical downscaling techniques, where a higher precipitation reduction was projected in climate models downscaled by the DeltaSD downscaling technique (section 3.1).
The changes in simulated hydrological components are mainly attributed to the decrease in precipitation in future climate scenarios. Even the change in precipitation counterbalances the effect of temperature increase on evapotranspiration. Thus, some climate model simulations also simulate a reduction in evapotranspiration. Even though there is a higher increase in temperature in climate model simulations of RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, a negative change in simulated evapotranspiration is simulated in climate models under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 emission scenarios. Comparatively, low temperature increases and lower precipitation reduction trigger an increase in simulated evapotranspiration in climate models under RCP2.6 emission scenarios.
Figure 6 presents the net change in evapotranspiration (ETmm) and surface runoff (SURQmm) under future climate change scenarios at the sub-basins of the Bosque watershed. A reduction in precipitation counterbalances a steady increase in temperature. Thus, a reduction in ETmm is simulated in most sub-basin and future climate change scenarios. The simulated ETmm and SURQmm showed variation following the driving GCMs and downscaling techniques. The simulations developed from the MPI-ESM-LR model revealed higher ETmm and SURQmm. In contrast, simulations in the MIROC5 GCM are characterized by a higher negative change in SURQmm and ETmm. Future SURQmm simulations in the EDQM downscaling techniques revealed a lower reduction of SURQmm. This is attributed to higher projected precipitation in the EDQM downscaling technique than in the DeltaSD downscaling technique.
Future ETmm and SURQmm also reveal variations among the sub-basin of the watershed. Projected higher precipitation in the southern part of the sub-basin resulted in an increase in ETmm in future climate change scenarios. However, an increase in evaporation in this sub-basin area further resulted in a significant reduction of SURQmm. The sub-basins in the southeastern part of the watershed simulate an increase in both ETmm and SURQmm. This accentuates an increase in precipitation which is available for evapotranspiration and SURQmm.
Streamflow in future climate change scenarios
The mean annual streamflow is projected to decrease consistently in future climate change scenarios. In the single climate model simulations, streamflow reduction is in the order of −14% (MPI-ESM-LR-EDQM) to −64% (CCSM4-DeltaSD). In contrast, the reduction in mean annual streamflow is in the range of −37% (−21% to −51%) in the climate model simulations under the RCP2.6 emission scenario and −43% (−17% to −58%) under the RCP4.5 emission scenario. Concurrent with future precipitation projection, future streamflow simulation shows sensitivity to the choice of statistical downscaling techniques and driving GCMs than emission scenarios. A higher reduction in streamflow is simulated in the GCM simulations downscaled by DeltaSD statistical downscaling technique than in GCM simulations downscaled by EDQM statistical downscaling technique (Fig. 7). Streamflow simulations derived from MPI-ESM-LR revealed a lower streamflow reduction, while streamflow simulations derived from MIROC5 revealed a higher streamflow reduction. In the RCP8.5 emission scenario, a higher streamflow reduction is simulated in the last three decades of the 21st century (2070s to 2090s). Climate model simulations project an increase in streamflow in some years, but the ensemble mean under all emission scenarios reveals a consistent reduction of streamflow from 2031 to 2099 (Fig. 7).
Parallel to the mean annual streamflow, the mean monthly streamflow is projected to decrease consistently in future climate change scenarios. Future streamflow simulation shows a change in a seasonal pattern where the wet months (May and October) in the baseline climate (Vogl and Lopes, 2009) are characterized by low streamflow, while dry months (July and August) in the baseline climate revealed lower reduction. Future streamflow in May shows a significant reduction (in the order of −10% to −67%). October, the second high streamflow season of the watershed, could face a significant reduction in streamflow in the future (Fig. 8). The ensemble mean of climate model simulations under the RCP8.5 emission scenario simulates an increase in streamflow in July and August (Fig. 8c). The choice of statistical downscaling techniques and driving GCMs influences future monthly streamflow simulations. The MPI-ESM-LR statistically downscaled by the EDQM technique simulates an increase in future streamflow in the June–September months (Fig. 8). In other studies, a streamflow reduction during 2040–2060 was also investigated in the Brazos River Basin, where the Bosque watershed is located (Wurbs et al., 2005). Even a negative trend in mean annual streamflow was observed at 10 Brazos River Basin gauge stations from 1955 to 2014 (Sohoulande Djebou, 2017). This reduction of streamflow in the study region will negatively impact different water uses such as irrigation water use, domestic water supply, and hydropower generation. Climate change already has a strong negative impact on water availability for irrigation on the Texas Rice Belt farmers and a reduction in instream flow needs in the Colorado River (USGCRP, 2018).
Hydrological extremes in future climate change scenarios
The change in temperature and precipitation has resulted in a disproportional change in high flow (Q5) and low flow (Q95). Higher and consistent reduction of low flow is simulated in all climate scenarios (Table 4 and Fig. 9). The change in low flow is from −55% to −89%. A lower reduction of low flow (−57% to −86%) is estimated in the climate change scenarios developed from the RCP2.6 emission scenario. In comparison, a higher reduction of low flow (−55% to −89%) is simulated in the climate change scenarios developed from RCP4.5 emission scenario. The change in low flow also revealed a significant difference (p≤0.05) among the statistical downscaling techniques where higher low flow reduction is simulated in the GCMs downscaled by DeltaSD downscaling technique than the EDQM downscaling technique. However, the decline in high flow is lower than the low flow. Even an increase in high flow is estimated in some future climate change scenarios. The change in high flow is in the order of −59% to 18%. The percentage change in high flow is −22% in the ensemble mean of the RCP2.6 emission scenario, while it is −34% in the ensemble mean of the RCP4.5 emission scenario. Simulated high and low flows also show variation following the statistical downscaling techniques. For instance, in the climate model simulations downscaled by EDQM, the change in high flow ranges from −8% to 10%, −15% to −1%, and −10% to 18% under RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 emission scenarios, respectively, while the change in high flow in the climate model simulations downscaled by DeltaSD is in the order of −44% to −49%, −48% to −55%, and −54% and −59% under RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 emission scenarios, respectively.
Percentage change in low flow (Q95), high flow (Q5), annual maximum flow, and annual minimum flow under future climate change scenarios. a RCP2.6, b RCP4.5, and c RCP8.5 emission scenarios. DeltaSD and EDQM represent ratio delta and Equi-Distant Quantile Mapping statistical downscaling techniques, respectively
In future climate change scenarios, annual maximum and minimum flow revealed similar patterns with high and low flows, respectively (Fig. 9). All climate change scenarios simulated a higher reduction of annual minimum flow (−67% to −92%). However, simulated annual maximum flow showed a mixed trend where future climate change scenarios simulated an increase and a negative change in annual maximum flow. A change in annual maximum flow is in the order of −36% to 74%, −46% to 28%, and −48% to 91% under RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 emission scenarios, respectively. This denotes that the streamflow of the Bosque watershed in the future will be characterized by extreme high and low flows, which could have multifarious effects on the natural ecosystems and the agricultural sector of the area. Similar to this study, a higher reduction of minimum flow than maximum flow was observed in 10 river gauges of the Brazos River Basin from 1955 to 2014 (Sohoulande Djebou, 2017). Projected hydrological extremes will increase the risks of existing hydro-climatic extreme impacts. Texas had several record-breaking floods in 2015, 2016, and 2017. The 2015 flood, even alone, has caused an estimated $2.6 billion in damage in Texas and Oklahoma (USGCRP, 2018).
Despite the reduction in mean annual flow, the return period of high flow has revealed a mixed trend, whereas an increase in high flow is depicted in the return period of some future climate model simulations. The maximum flow in the baseline flow is lower than GCM simulations downscaled by EDQM statistical downscaling techniques (Fig. 10). The maximum flow occurring every 68 years is projected to increase from 28 m3/s in baseline climate to 42 m3/s in the GCM simulations downscaled by EDQM statistical downscaling techniques under the RCP8.5 emission scenario. The maximum flow occurring every 17 years is simulated to increase from 21 m3/s in baseline climate to 26 m3/s, 24 m3/s, and 29 m3/s in the GCM simulations downscaled by EDQM statistical downscaling techniques under RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 emission scenarios, respectively. This indicates increased magnitude and frequency of high flow in some climate model simulations, while the maximum flow occurring every 68 years is projected to decrease from 28 m3/s in baseline climate to 23 m3/s in the GCM simulations downscaled by DeltaSD statistical downscaling techniques under the RCP8.5 emission scenario. The maximum flow occurring every 17 years is simulated to decrease from 21 m3/s in baseline climate to 15 m3/s, 13 m3/s, and 17 m3/s in the GCM simulations downscaled by EDQM statistical downscaling techniques under RCP2.6, RCP4.5, and RCP8.5 emission scenarios, respectively.
Conclusion
The main objectives of this study were to quantify the changes in precipitation, temperature, surface runoff, evapotranspiration, and streamflow under future climate change scenarios and evaluate the magnitude of change in hydrological extremes under future climate change scenarios in the Bosque watershed, Brazos River Basin of Central Texas. The study showed how to integrate robust climate change scenarios with DSST and multi-site calibration and validation approaches. Using DSST and multi-site calibration and validation approaches, the study set up a hydrological model which shows more than acceptable performance (Moriasi et al., 2015). The parameters calibrated and validated at different gauges of the Bosque watershed can be used in other nearby watersheds with similar climate, topography, land use, and soil characteristics following the parameter transfer approach (Santhi et al., 2009).
Concurrent with the precipitation projection in the southern and southwestern regions of the United States (Romero-Lankao et al., 2014; USGCRP, 2018), most climate change scenarios in this study have negative signals indicating a future decrease in precipitation. The study also showed a steady increase in minimum and maximum temperature. The Great Plains region, including Texas, is under threat of different climate change impacts (Shafer et al., 2014). Projected changes in precipitation and temperature could escalate existing climate-driven impacts on the water and agriculture sector. This study also indicates significant variation in the magnitude of precipitation and temperature change following the choice of emission scenarios, GCM simulations, and downscaling techniques. For instance, GCM simulations downscaled by the DeltaSD technique showed a higher reduction of projected precipitation. However, most climate change scenarios derived from all downscaling techniques disclose negative precipitation change signals which corroborate a reduction in future precipitation, while GCM simulations downscaled by the EDQM technique showed a higher increase of projected TMAX and TMIN. Thus, climate change impact studies and climate adaptation decision analysis systems should consider such variations in climate change projections.
This study simulates a higher reduction of surface runoff, streamflow, and a negative change signal in evapotranspiration in future climate change scenarios. This is attributed to the compound effect of a reduction in precipitation and an increase in temperature. A higher surface runoff reduction is simulated in the climate model simulations developed from the RCP8.5 emission scenario and DeltaSD downscaling technique, which are characterized by a higher precipitation reduction and a higher temperature increase. A higher reduction in precipitation and a higher increase in temperature under the RCP8.5 emission scenario resulted in a negative change signal in evapotranspiration. The hydrological extremes in future climate change scenarios showed a steady decrease in low and annual minimum flows. This upholds there will be far lower flows in the dry seasons and years when drought occurs. However, an increase in high flow and annual maximum flow was simulated in some future climate change scenarios. For instance, a 10% and 18% increase in high flow was simulated in the MPI-ESM-LR4-EDQM under RCP2.6 and RCP8.5 emission scenarios, respectively. Unlike future trends in mean annual stream flow, annual maximum flow reveals an increase in most future climate change scenarios. Simulated hydrology and hydrological extremes revealed variation among the downscaling techniques. Parallel to precipitation projection, a higher reduction in surface runoff, groundwater, and streamflow was simulated in climate change scenarios derived from the DeltaSD downscaling technique than the EDQM counterparts. The variation in the influence of statistical downscaling techniques is strongly significant (p≤0.001) in the projection of high and low flows where far higher reductions of high flow and low flow follow the DeltaSD downscaling technique. Even climate change scenarios developed from EDQM downscaling technique project an increase in annual maximum flow. This corroborates a difference in the transfer functions in the DeltaSD and EDQM downscaling techniques to adjust extreme values.
These changes in hydrology and hydrological extremes could have multifarious effects on the water, agriculture, infrastructure, and other natural and anthropogenic systems. Central Texas and the Great Plains region, in general, are already characterized by recurrent drought, flood, and increase in drought severity (Rajsekhar et al., 2015; Shafer et al., 2014; USGCRP, 2018). The region is affected by a shortage of irrigation water (USGCRP, 2018). Thus, future changes in precipitation and evapotranspiration may escalate this problem by reducing soil moisture availability, irrigation water use, shortening the crops’ maturity period, and alterations in the hydro-ecosystems. Thus, water management structures, which can reduce the risk of flooding events, increase soil water availability, and non-structural water-based climate change adaptation decisions are essential in the watershed for the years to come. Similar to the current study, other studies that can provide better hydro-climatic information are central to building water management and the agriculture sector to buffer future hydro-climatic extremes.
Data availability
The datasets used or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request.
References
Abbaspour, K.C., 2015. SWAT - CUP SWATcalibration and uncertainty programs - a user manual.
Abbaspour KC, Johnson CA (2004) Estimating uncertain flow and transport parameters using a sequential uncertainty fitting procedure. Vadose Zone J 1352:1340–1352
Abbaspour KC, Rouholahnejad E, Vaghefi S, Srinivasan R, Yang H, Kløve B (2015) A continental-scale hydrology and water quality model for Europe : calibration and uncertainty of a high-resolution large-scale SWAT model. J Hydrol 524:733–752. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.027
Adachi SA, Tomita H (2020) Methodology of the constraint condition in dynamical downscaling for regional climate evaluation: a review. J Geophys Res Atmos 125:e2019JD032166. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019JD032166
Arnell NW (2004) Climate change and global water resources: SRES emissions and socio-economic scenarios. Global Environ Change 14:31–52. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2003.10.006
Arnold JG, Srinivasan R, Muttiah RS, Williams J (1998) Large area hydrologic modeling and assessment part I: model development. J Am Water Resour Assoc 34:73–89. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0899-9007(00)00483-4
Awal R, Bayabil HK, Fares A (2016) Analysis of potential future climate and climate extremes in the Brazos Headwaters Basin Texas. Water 8(12):603. https://doi.org/10.3390/w8120603
Bárdossy A, Singh SK (2008) Robust estimation of hydrological model parameters. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 12:1273–1283. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-12-1273-2008
Barnett TP, Adam JC, Lettenmaier DP (2005) Potential impacts of a warming climate on water availability in snow-dominated regions. Nature 438:303–309. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature04141
Bates, B., Kundzewicz, Z., Wu, S. and, Palutikof, J., 2008. Climate change and water. Technical Paper of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, IPCC Secretariat, Geneva, 210 pp.
Beven K (2006) A manifesto for the equifinality thesis. J Hydrol 320:18–36. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.007
Cannon AJ, Sobie SR, Murdock TQ (2015) Bias correction of GCM precipitation by quantile mapping: how well do methods preserve changes in quantiles and extremes? J Clim 28:6938–6959. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00754.1
Chen J, Brissette FP, Chaumont D, Braun M (2013) Performance and uncertainty evaluation of empirical downscaling methods in quantifying the climate change impacts on hydrology over two North American river basins. J Hydrol 479:200–214. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.11.062
Chen Y, Ale S, Rajan N, Srinivasan R (2017) Modeling the effects of land use change from cotton ( Gossypium hirsutum L .) to perennial bioenergy grasses on watershed hydrology and water quality under changing climate. Agric Water Manag 192:198–208. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2017.07.011
Chen Y, Marek GW, Marek TH, Moorhead JE, Heflin KR, Brauer DK, Gowda PH, Srinivasan R (2019) Simulating the impacts of climate change on hydrology and crop production in the Northern High Plains of Texas using an improved SWAT model. Agric Water Manag 221:13–24. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.04.021
Daggupati P, Pai N, Ale S, Douglas-Mankin KR, Zeckoski RW, Jeong J, Parajuli PB, Saraswat D, Youssef MA (2015) A recommended calibration and validation strategy for hydrologic and water quality models. Trans ASABE 58:1705–1719. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.58.10712
Das RK, Garg RK, Ganju A (2011) Measurement of temperature gradient in seasonal snowpack using improved automated temperature profiler. Def Sci J 61:554–558. https://doi.org/10.14429/dsj.61.379
De Girolamo AM, Barca E, Leone M, Lo Porto A (2022) Impact of long-term climate change on flow regime in a Mediterranean basin. J Hydrol Reg Stud 41:101061. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ejrh.2022.101061
Di Baldassarre G, Elshamy M, Van Griensven A, Kigobe M, Ndomba P, Mutemi J, Mutua F, Moges S, Xuan Y, Solomatine D, Uhlenbrook S, Soliman E, Kigobe M, Ndomba P, Mutemi J, Mutua F, Xuan Y, Solomatine D, Uhlenbrook S et al (2011) Future hydrology and climate in the River Nile basin: a review. Hydrolog Sci J-J des Sci Hydrolog 56(2):199
Dixon KW, Wootten AM, Nath MJ, Lanzante J, Adams-Smith DJ, Whitlock CE, Gaitán CF, McPherson RA (2020) South central climate projections evaluation project (C-PrEP). South Central Climate Adaptation Science Center, Norman Oklahoma, USA
Elhassan A, Xie H, Al-othman AA, Mcclelland J, Sharif HO, Elhassan A, Xie H, Al-othman AA (2016) Water quality modelling in the San Antonio River Basin driven by radar rainfall data. Geom Nat Hazards Risk 5705:953. https://doi.org/10.1080/19475705.2015.1009500
Fowler HJ, Blenkinsop S, Tebaldi C (2007) Linking climate change modelling to impacts studies: recent advances in downscaling techniques for hydrological modelling. Int J Climatol 27:1547–1578. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1556
Gan Y, Liang XZ, Duan Q, Ye A, Di Z, Hong Y, Li J (2018) A systematic assessment and reduction of parametric uncertainties for a distributed hydrological model. J Hydrol 564:697–711. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.07.055
Gassman PW, Reyes MR, Green CH, Arnold JG (2007) The soil and water assessment tool: historical development, applications, and future research directions. Am Soc Agric Biol Eng 50:1211–1250
Hernanz A, García-Valero JA, Domínguez M, Ramos-Calzado P, Pastor-Saavedra MA, Rodríguez-Camino E (2022) Evaluation of statistical downscaling methods for climate change projections over Spain: present conditions with perfect predictors. Int J Climatol 42:762–776. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7271
Hoerling M, Kumar A, Dole R, Nielsen-Gammon JW, Eischeid J, Perlwitz J, Quan XW, Zhang T, Pegion P, Chen M (2013) Anatomy of an extreme event. J Clim 26:2811–2832. https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-12-00270.1
Huang S, Shah H, Naz BS, Shrestha N, Mishra V, Daggupati P, Ghimire U, Vetter T (2020) Impacts of hydrological model calibration on projected hydrological changes under climate change—a multi-model assessment in three large river basins. Clim Change 163:1143–1164. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-020-02872-6
Ji X, Li Y, Luo X, He D, Guo R, Wang J, Bai Y (2020) Evaluation of bias correction methods for APHRODITE data to improve hydrologic simulation in a large Himalayan basin. Atmos Res 242:104964. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2020.104964
Jiang X, Yang Z (2012) Projected changes of temperature and precipitation in Texas from downscaled global climate models. Clim Res 53:229–244. https://doi.org/10.3354/cr01093
Kim D, Ray RL, Choi M (2017) Simulations of energy balance components at snow-dominated montane watershed by land surface models. Environ Earth Sci 76:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-6655-0
Klemeš V (1986) Operational testing of hydrological simulation models. Hydrol Sci J 31(1):13–24. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626668609491024
Knoben WJM, Freer JE, Woods RA (2019) Technical note: inherent benchmark or not? Comparing Nash-Sutcliffe and Kling-Gupta efficiency scores. HydrolEarth Syst Sci 23:4323–4331. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-4323-2019
Krysanova V, Donnelly C, Gelfan A, Gerten D, Arheimer B, Hattermann F, Kundzewicz ZW (2018) How the performance of hydrological models relates to credibility of projections under climate change. Hydrol Sci J 63:696–720. https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2018.1446214
Kundzewicz ZW, Krysanova V, Benestad RE, Hov P, Otto IM (2018) Uncertainty in climate change impacts on water resources. Environ Sci Policy 79:1–8. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.envsci.2017.10.008
Lanzante JR, Nath MJ, Whitlock CE, Dixon KW, Adams-Smith D (2019) Evaluation and improvement of tail behaviour in the cumulative distribution function transform downscaling method. Int J Climatol 39:2449–2460. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5964
Lanzante JR, Adams-Smith D, Dixon KW, Nath M, Whitlock CE (2020) Evaluation of some distributional downscaling methods as applied to daily maximum temperature with emphasis on extremes. Int J Climatol 40:1571–1585. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6288
Lenderink G, Buishand A, Van Deursen W (2007) Estimates of future discharges of the river Rhine using two scenario methodologies: direct versus delta approach. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 11:1145–1159. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-11-1145-2007
Marx A, Kumar R, Thober S, Rakovec O, Wanders N, Zink M, Wood EF, Pan M, Sheffield J, Samaniego L (2018) Climate change alters low flows in Europe under global warming of 1.5, 2, and 3°C. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 22:1017–1032. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-1017-2018
Mcfarland A, Adams T (2020) Semiannual water quality report for the Bosque River watershed. Texas Inst Ppl Environ Res 1803:23
McMillan HK (2021) A review of hydrologic signatures and their applications. Wiley Interdiscip Rev Water 8:1–23. https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1499
Melišová E, Vizina A, Staponites LR, Hanel M (2020) The role of hydrological signatures in calibration of conceptual hydrological model. Water (Switzerland) 12:1–15. https://doi.org/10.3390/w12123401
Meresa H, Tischbein B, Mendela J, Demoz R, Abreha T, Weldemichael M, Ogbu K (2021) The role of input and hydrological parameters uncertainties in extreme hydrological simulations. Nat Resour Model 35(1):e12320. https://doi.org/10.1111/nrm.12320
Moriasi DN, Gitau MW, Pai N, Daggupati P (2015) Hydrologic and water quality models: performance measures and evaluation criteria. Trans ASABE 58:1763–1785. https://doi.org/10.13031/trans.58.10715
Moss RH, Edmonds JA, Hibbard KA, Manning MR, Rose SK, van Vuuren DP, Carter TR, Emori S, Kainuma M, Kram T, Meehl GA, Mitchell JFB, Nakicenovic N, Riahi K, Smith SJ, Stouffer RJ, Thomson AM, Weyant JP, Wilbanks TJ (2010) The next generation of scenarios for climate change research and assessment. Nature 463:747–756. https://doi.org/10.1038/nature08823
Muerth MJ, Gauvin St-Denis B, Ricard S, Velázquez JA, Schmid J, Minville M, Caya D, Chaumont D, Ludwig R, Turcotte R (2013) On the need for bias correction in regional climate scenarios to assess climate change impacts on river runoff. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:1189–1204. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1189-2013
Nielsen-Gammon JW, Zhang F, Odins AM, Myoung B (2005) Extreme rainfall in Texas: patterns and predictability. Phys Geogr 26:340–364. https://doi.org/10.2747/0272-3646.26.5.340
Panagopoulos Y, Gassman PW, Arritt RW, Daryl E, Campbell TD, Valcu A, Jha MK, Kling CL, Srinivasan R, White M, Arnold JG (2015) Impacts of climate change on hydrology , water quality and crop productivity in the Ohio-Tennessee River Basin. Int J Agric Biol Eng Open 8:36–53. https://doi.org/10.3965/j.ijabe.20150803.1497
Piani C, Weedon GP, Best M, Gomes SM, Viterbo P, Hagemann S, Haerter JO (2010) Statistical bias correction of global simulated daily precipitation and temperature for the application of hydrological models. J Hydrol 395:199–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.10.024
Poulin A, Brissette F, Leconte R, Arsenault R, Malo JS (2011) Uncertainty of hydrological modelling in climate change impact studies in a Canadian, snow-dominated river basin. J Hydrol 409:626–636. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.08.057
Pourmokhtarian A, Driscoll CT, Campbell JL, Hayhoe K, Stoner AMK (2016) The effects of climate downscaling technique and observational data set on modeled ecological responses. Ecol Appl 26:1321–1337. https://doi.org/10.1890/15-0745
Ray RL, Beighley RE, Yoon Y (2016) Integrating runoff generation and flow routing in Susquehanna River Basin to characterize key hydrologic processes contributing to maximum annual flood events. J Hydrol Eng 21:1–15. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0001389
Ray RL, Fares A, He Y, Temimi M (2017) Evaluation and inter-comparison of satellite soil moisture products using in situ observations over Texas, U.S. Water 9:372. https://doi.org/10.3390/w9060372
Ray RL, Fares A, Risch E (2018) Effects of drought on crop production and cropping areas in Texas. Agric Environ Lett 3(1):170037. https://doi.org/10.2134/ael2017.11.0037
Romero-Lankao P, Smith JB, Davidson DJ, Diffenbaugh NS, Kinney PL, Kirshen P, Kovacs P, Ruiz LV (2014) North America. In: Climate change 2014: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability. Part B: regional aspects. Contribution of Working Group II to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Dokk, [Barros, V.R., C.B. Field, D.J, pp 1439–1498
Saleh A, Gallego O (2007) Application of SWAT and APEX using the SWAPP (SWAT-APEX) program for the upper North Bosque River watershed in Texas. Trans ASABE 50:1177–1187
Santhi C, Kannan N, Arnold JG, Di Luzio M (2009) Spatial calibration and temporal validation of flow for regional scale hydrologic modeling. J Am WATER Resour Assoc 44:829–846
Shrestha S, Bae DH, Hok P, Ghimire S, Pokhrel Y (2021) Future hydrology and hydrological extremes under climate change in Asian river basins. Sci Rep 11:1–12. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-021-96656-2
Sohoulande Djebou D (2017) Spectrum of climate change and streamflow alteration at a watershed scale. Environ Earth Sci 76:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-017-7006-x
Stewart GR, Munster CL, Vietor DM, Arnold JG, Mcfarland AMS, White R, Provin T (2006) Simulating water quality improvements in the upper North Bosque River watershed due to phosphorus export through turfgrass sod. Am Soc Agric Biol Eng 49:357–366
Taye MT, Willems P (2012) Temporal variability of hydroclimatic extremes in the Blue Nile basin. Water Resour Res 48:1–13. https://doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011466
Teutschbein C, Seibert J (2010) Regional climate models for hydrological impact studies at the catchment scale: a review of recent modeling strategies. Geogr Compass 7:834–860
Teutschbein C, Seibert J (2012) Bias correction of regional climate model simulations for hydrological climate-change impact studies: review and evaluation of different methods. J Hydrol 456–457:12–29. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.052
Tuppad P, Kannan N, Srinivasan R, Rossi CG, Arnold JG (2010) Simulation of agricultural management alternatives for watershed protection. Water Resour Manag 24:3115–3144. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-010-9598-8
USDA NRCS (2008) Ecosystems restoration project. Bosque River watershed, Bosque, Coryell, Hamilton, McLennan, Somervell and Erath Counties, Texas
USDA-SCS (1986) Urban hydrology for small watersheds. Tech. Release 55. USDA-SCS, Washington, D.C.
Van Vuuren DP, Edmonds J, Kainuma M, Riahi K, Thomson A, Hibbard K, Hurtt GC, Kram T, Krey V, Lamarque JF, Masui T (2011a) The representative concentration pathways : an overview. Clim Change 109:5–31. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
Wong CI, Banner JL, Musgrove M (2015) Holocene climate variability in Texas , USA : an integration of existing paleoclimate data and modeling with a new , high-resolution speleothem record. Quat Sci Rev 127:155. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.quascirev.2015.06.023
Wootten AM, Dixon KW, Adams-Smith DJ, McPherson RA (2021) Statistically downscaled precipitation sensitivity to gridded observation data and downscaling technique. Int J Climatol 41:980–1001. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6716
Worku G, Teferi E, Bantider A, Dile YT (2020) Statistical bias correction of regional climate model simulations for climate change projection in the Jemma sub-basin, upper Blue Nile Basin of Ethiopia. Theor Appl Climatol 139:1569–1588. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-019-03053-x
Wurbs RA, Muttiah RS, Felden F (2005) Incorporation of climate change in water availability modeling. J Hydrol Eng 10:375–385. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)1084-0699(2005)10:5(375)
Arnold, J.G., Kiniry, J., Srinivasan, R., Williams, J., Haney, E., Neitsch, S., 2012. Soil & water assessment tool: input/output documentation version 2012.
Dewitz, J., USGS, 2021. National Land Cover Database (NLCD) 2019 Products (ver. 2.0, June 2021): U.S. Geological Survey data release, https://doi.org/10.5066/P9KZCM54.
Flato, G., Marotzke, J., Abiodun, B., Braconnot, P., Chou, S.C., Collins, W., Cox, P., Driouech, F., Emori, S., Eyring, V., Forest, C., Gleckler, P., Guilyardi, E., Jakob, C., Kattsov, V., Reason, C., Rummukainen, M., 2013. Evaluation of climate models. In: Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fifth Assess- ment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Stocker, T.F., D. Qin, G.-K. Plattner, M. Tignor, S.K. Al.
Guilpart E, Espanmanesh V, Tilmant A, Anctil F (2020) A Robust calibration / validation protocol of a hydrological model using hidden Markov states. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss:1–22. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2020-596
Hagemann S, Chen C, Haerter JO, Heinke J, Gerten D, Piani C (2011) Impact of a statistical bias correction on the projected hydrological changes obtained from three GCMs and two hydrology models. J Hydrometeorol. https://doi.org/10.1175/2011JHM1336.1
IPCC-TGICA, 2007. General guidelines on the use of scenario data for climate impact and adaptation assessment. Version 2. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Task Group on Data and Scenario Support for Impact and Climate Assessment.
IPCC, 2021. Climate change 2021: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Sixth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Masson-Delmotte, [Masson-Delmotte, V., P. Zhai, A. Pirani, S.L. Connors, C. Péan, S. Berger, , Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA,.
IPCC, 2013. Climate change 2013: the physical science basis, Contribution of Working Group I to the fifth assessment report of the intergovernmental panel on climate change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY,USA,1535 pp.
Kay AL, Griffin A, Rudd AC, Chapman RM, Bell VA, Arnell NW (2021) Climate change effects on indicators of high and low river flow across Great Britain. Adv Water Resour 151. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2021.103909
Rajsekhar D, Singh VP, Mishra AK (2015) Hydrologic drought atlas for Texas. J Hydrol Eng 20. https://doi.org/10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0001074
Ray RL, Sishodia RP, Tefera GW (2022) Evaluation of gridded precipitation data for hydrologic modeling in North-Central Texas. Remote Sens 14
Shafer, M., Ojima, D., Antle, J.M., Kluck, D., McPherson, R.A., Petersen, S., Scanlon, B., Sherman, K., 2014. Ch. 19: Great Plains. Climate change impacts in the United States: the third national climate assessment, J. M. Melillo, Terese (T.C.) Richmond, and G. W. Yohe, Eds., U.S. Global Change Research Program. pp. 441–461. https://doi.org/10.7930/J0D798BC.On
USGCRP, 2018. Impacts, risks, and adaptation in the United States: fourth national climate assessment, volume II: [Reidmiller, D.R., C.W. Avery, D.R. Easterling, K.E. Kunkel, K.L.M. Lewis, T.K. Maycock, and B.C. Stewart (eds.)]. U.S. global change research program, Was.
Vogl, A.L., Lopes, V.L., 2009. Impacts of water resources development on flow regimes in the Brazos River 331–345. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10661-008-0538-5
Vuuren, D.P. Van, Kainuma, M., Riahi, K., 2011b. The representative concentration pathways : an overview . Climatic change . This issue The representative concentration pathways : an overview. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-011-0148-z
Funding
This study was supported by the Evans-Allen 1890 Research Formula Program (under section 1445) of the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), National Institute of Food and Agriculture.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
Ram L. Ray was involved in the design, discussion, and write-up of the manuscript. Gebrekidan Worku Tefera was involved in the design, data preparation, data analysis, discussion, and manuscript write-up.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Ethics approval
Not applicable. This manuscript does not involve researching humans or animals.
Consent to participate
Not applicable.
Consent for publication
Not applicable.
Conflict of interest
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Responsible Editor: Marcus Schulz
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.
About this article
Cite this article
Tefera, G.W., Ray, R.L. Hydrology and hydrological extremes under climate change scenarios in the Bosque watershed, North-Central Texas, USA. Environ Sci Pollut Res 31, 40636–40654 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27477-1
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-023-27477-1