4.7 Article

Increasing Drought Risks Over the Past Four Centuries Amidst Projected Flood Intensification in the Kabul River Basin (Afghanistan and Pakistan)-Evidence From Tree Rings

期刊

GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH LETTERS
卷 49, 期 24, 页码 -

出版社

AMER GEOPHYSICAL UNION
DOI: 10.1029/2022GL100703

关键词

dendrochronology; precipitation reconstruction; drought; climate change; water resources; water cycle

资金

  1. Swiss National Science Foundation [IZSEZ0_186442]
  2. Higher Education Commission of Pakistan [20-422/RD]
  3. U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) NAS Grant [PGA-P280423]
  4. Lamont-Doherty Postdoctoral Fellowship
  5. Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF) [IZSEZ0_186442] Funding Source: Swiss National Science Foundation (SNF)

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased flood risks and intensifying droughts pose significant threats for the Kabul River Basin. Future water management needs to account for both flood and drought risks and be informed by long-term hydroclimatic variability.
Increased flood risks have been projected, but with large uncertainties, in the Kabul River Basin (Afghanistan and Pakistan). To place future changes in a long-term perspective, we produce a 382-year precipitation reconstruction for the basin using seven tree-ring chronologies of old-growth conifers from the Hindu Kush Mountains, a monsoon-shadow area. The reconstruction proves robust over rigorous cross-validations (R-2 = 0.60, RE = 0.60, CE = 0.53). The full reconstruction (1637-2018) reveals a steady decline in the low end of the precipitation distribution, implying increasing drought risks. We show that droughts are getting more severe, shorter, and more frequent, interspersed with more frequent pluvials in the past century. Drought risks, compounded with projected flood intensification, pose significant threats for this transboundary river. Therefore, future water management needs to account for both flood and drought risks and be informed by long-term hydroclimatic variability.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据