4.7 Article

Regional parent flood frequency distributions in Europe - Part 2: Climate and scale controls

期刊

HYDROLOGY AND EARTH SYSTEM SCIENCES
卷 18, 期 11, 页码 4391-4401

出版社

COPERNICUS GESELLSCHAFT MBH
DOI: 10.5194/hess-18-4391-2014

关键词

-

资金

  1. COST Office grant [ES0901]
  2. ERC FloodChange project (ERC Advanced Grant) [FP7-IDEAS-ERC-AG-PE10 291152]
  3. Austrian Science Funds (FWF) as part of the Vienna Doctoral Programme on Water Resource Systems (DK-plus) [W1219-N22]
  4. Italian Government
  5. Agency for Research and Development [APVV-0303-11]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

This study aims to better understand the effect of catchment scale and climate on the statistical properties of regional flood frequency distributions. A database of L-moment ratios of annual maximum series (AMS) of peak discharges from Austria, Italy and Slovakia, involving a total of 813 catchments with more than 25 yr of record length is presented, together with mean annual precipitation (MAP) and basin area as catchment descriptors surrogates of climate and scale controls. A purely data-based investigation performed on the database shows that the generalized extreme value (GEV) distribution provides a better representation of the averaged sample L-moment ratios compared to the other distributions considered, for catchments with medium to higher values of MAP independently of catchment area, while the three-parameter lognormal distribution is probably a more appropriate choice for drier (lower MAP) intermediate-sized catchments, which presented higher skewness values. Sample L-moment ratios do not follow systematically any of the theoretical two-parameter distributions. In particular, the averaged values of L-coefficient of skewness (L-Cs) are always larger than Gumbel's fixed L-Cs. The results presented in this paper contribute to the progress in defining a set of process-driven pan-European flood frequency distributions and to assess possible effects of environmental change on its properties.

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