4.6 Article

Impacts of Climate Change on Mean Annual Water Balance for Watersheds in Michigan, USA

Journal

WATER
Volume 7, Issue 7, Pages 3565-3578

Publisher

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/w7073565

Keywords

water balance; baseflow; climate sensitivity; Budyko Hypothesis; Michigan

Funding

  1. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  2. Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering in Purdue University
  3. China Scholarship Council (CSC)
  4. Department of Agricultural and Biological Engineering in Purdue University

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Evaluation of water balance at the watershed scale is a fundamental step for estimating streamflow in watersheds. Mean annual water balance of 17 watersheds across Michigan were evaluated by comparing observed streamflow with simulated streamflow estimated using Fu's Equation, which is based on the Budyko Hypothesis. The Budyko Hypothesis describes mean annual water balance as a function of available water and energy. Impact of long-term climatic controls (e.g., precipitation, potential evapotranspiration (ETP)) on mean annual water balance was also investigated with Fu's Equation. Results indicated that observed streamflow ranged from 237 to 529 mm per year, with an average of 363 mm per year in the study watersheds during 1967-2011. On average, 40% of long-term precipitation in the study watersheds was converted into surface runoff. The performance of Fu's Equation in estimating mean annual streamflow resulted in Root Mean Square Error (RMSE) value of 64.1 mm/year. Mean annual streamflow was sensitive to changes in mean annual precipitation, and less sensitive to changes in mean annual ETp in the watersheds. With the increase of baseflow index (BFI), mean annual streamflow was less sensitive to climate change. Overall, different contributions of baseflow to streamflow modified the impact of climate controls on mean annual water balance in the baseflow-dominated watersheds.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available