Water Resources

, Volume 46, Supplement 2, pp S31–S39 | Cite as

The Impact of Climate Change on Surface, Subsurface, and Groundwater Flow: A Case Study of the Oka River (European Russia)

  • A. S. KaluginEmail author


The article considers an approach to evaluating the change in surface, subsurface and groundwater flow on a large river catchment exemplified by the Oka River basin. The study is based on the synthesis of a physical-mathematical model of runoff formation and atmosphere–ocean general circulation models. The paper presents the results of calibration and verification of a hydrological model over a period of history, as well as the assessment of reproduction accuracy of meteorological and hydrological characteristics according to the data of global climate models and observation data. Based on an ensemble of atmosphere–ocean general circulation models, the changes in meteorological (air temperature, precipitation, air humidity deficit) and hydrological (surface runoff, soil moisture content, groundwater flow) characteristics by the middle and the end of the 21st century have been calculated, under the scenarios RCP 2.6 and RCP 6.0 with regard to the historical period.


runoff formation model climate change the Oka River surface, subsurface and groundwater flow 



This study was supported by the Russian Science Foundation (the development of a technique for evaluating surface, subsurface and groundwater flow—project no. 17-77-30006; the development of the runoff formation model using global databases—project no. 19-17-00215) and State scientific assignment of WPI RAS (numerical experiments using hydrological and climate models for the Oka R. basin—no. 0147-2019-0001 (AAAA-A18-118022090056-0)).


  1. 1.
    Antokhina, E.N. and Zhuk, V.A., Application of the ECOMAG model to simulation of river runoff from watersheds differing in their area, Vodn. Khoz. Rossii: Probl., Tekhnol., Upravl., 2011, no. 4, pp. 17–32.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Barthold, F.K., Tyralla, C., Schneider, K., Vache, K.B., Frede, H.G., and Breuer, L., How many tracers do we need for end member mixing analysis (EMMA)? A sensitivity analysis, Water Resour. Res., 2011, vol. 47, W08519.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Borsch, S.V., Gelfan, A.N., Moreydo, V.M., Motovilov, Yu.G., and Simonov, Yu.A., Long-term ensemble forecasting of spring inflow into the Cheboksary reservoir based on the hydrological model: results of operational testing, Proc. Hydrometcentre of Russia, 2017, vol. 366, pp. 68–86.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Frieler, K., Lange, S., Piontek, F., Reyer, C.P.O., Schewe, J., Warszawski, L., Zhao, F., Chini, L., Denvil, S., Emanuel, K., Geiger, T., Halladay, K., Hurtt, G., Mengel, M., Murakami, D., Ostberg, S., Popp, A., Riva, R., Stevanovic, M., Suzuki, T., Volkholz, J., Burke, E., Ciais, P., Ebi, K., Eddy, T.D., Elliott, J., Galbraith, E., Gosling, S.N., Hattermann, F., Hickler, T., Hinkel, J., Hof, C., Huber, V., Jägermeyr, J., Krysanova, V., Marcé, R., Müller Schmied, H., Mouratiadou, I., Pierson, D., Tittensor, D.P., Vautard, R., van Vliet, M., Biber, M.F., Betts, R.A., Bodirsky, B.L., Deryng, D., Frolking, S., Jones, C.D., Lotze, H.K., Lotze-Campen, H., Sahajpal, R., Thonicke, K., Tian, H., and Yamagata, Y., Assessing the impacts of 1.5°C global warming—simulation protocol of the inter-sectoral impact model intercomparison project (ISIMIP2b), Geosci. Model Dev., 2017, vol. 10, no. 12, pp. 4321–4345.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grigorev, V.Yu., Dzhamalov, R.G., and Frolova, N.L., The river flow of the Oka and the Don—its alteration and causes of change, Geogr. Issues, 2018, vol. 145, pp. 194–205.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    James, A.L., and Roulet N.T., Investigating the applicability of end-member mixing analysis (EMMA) across scale: A study of eight small, nested catchments in a temperate forested watershed, Water Resour. Res., 2006, vol. 42, W08434.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Maxwell R.M. and Miller N.L., Development of a coupled land surface and groundwater model, J. Hydrometeorol., 2005, vol. 6, pp. 233–247.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Maxwell, R.M., Putti, M., Meyerhoff, S., Delfs, J.O., Ferguson, I.M., Ivanov, V., Kim, J., OlafKolditz3,7, Kollet, S.J., Kumar, M., Lopez, S., Niu, J., Paniconi, C., Park, Y.J., Phanikumar, M.S., Shen, C., Sudicky, E.A., and Sulis, M., Surface-subsurface model intercomparison: a first set of benchmark results to diagnose integrated hydrology and feedbacks, Water Resour. Res., 2014, vol. 50, pp. 1531–1549.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Motovilov, Yu.G., Hydrological simulation of river basins at different spatial scales: 1. Generalization and averaging algorithms, Water Resour., 2016, vol. 43, no. 3, pp. 429–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sulis, M., Paniconi, C., Rivard, C., Harvey, R., and Chaumont D., Assessment of climate change impacts at the catchment scale with a detailed hydrological model of surface–subsurface interactions and comparison with a land surface model, Water Resour. Res., 2011, vol. 47, W01513.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Pleiades Publishing, Ltd. 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Water Problems Institute, Russian Academy of SciencesMoscowRussia

Personalised recommendations