4.7 Article

A methodology to asess relations between climatic variability and variations in hydrologic time series in the southwestern United States

期刊

JOURNAL OF HYDROLOGY
卷 287, 期 1-4, 页码 252-269

出版社

ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2003.10.006

关键词

ground-water; surface-water; climate; climate cycles; recharge; discharge

向作者/读者索取更多资源

A new method for frequency analysis of hydrologic time series was developed to facilitate the estimation and reconstruction of individual or groups of frequencies from hydrologic time-series and facilitate the comparison of these isolated time-series components across data types, between different hydrologic settings within a watershed, between watersheds, and across frequencies. While climate-related variations in inflow to and outflow from aquifers have often been neglected, the development and management of ground-water and surface-water resources has required the inclusion of the assessment of the effects of climatic variability on the supply and demand and sustainability of use. The regional assessment of climatic variability of surface-water and ground-water flow throughout the southwestern United States required this new systematic method of hydrologic time-series analysis. To demonstrate the application of this new method, six hydrologic time-series from the Mojave River Basin, California were analyzed. The results indicate that climatic variability exists in all the data types and are partially coincident with known climate cycles such as the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and the El Nino-Southern Oscillation. The time-series also indicate lagged correlations between tree-ring indices, streamflow, stream base flow, and ground-water levels. These correlations and reconstructed time-series can be used to better understand the relation of hydrologic response to climatic forcings and to facilitate the simulation of streamflow and ground-water recharge for a more realistic approach to water-resource management. Published by Elsevier B.V.

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