Climate change, hydrology, and ecological models: intercomparison and validation

Simple item page
dc.contributor.advisorFowler, Norma L.en
dc.contributor.advisorFamiglietti, James Stephenen
dc.creatorGordon, Wendy Silvermanen
dc.date.accessioned2008-08-28T21:28:23Zen
dc.date.accessioned2017-05-11T22:15:47Z
dc.date.available2008-08-28T21:28:23Zen
dc.date.available2017-05-11T22:15:47Z
dc.date.issued2003en
dc.descriptiontexten
dc.description.abstractThis dissertation consisted of three related studies. The first study used historical streamflow records from the Hydro-Climatic Data Network (HCDN) representing 13 unimpaired watersheds to validate runoff simulated by six terrestrial ecosystem models (Biome-BGC, Century, GTEC, LPJ, MC1, and TEM) comprising VEMAP. The validation exercise tracked the historical period of VEMAP from 1895-1993. This study demonstrated that the models performed better in wet watersheds, where runoff was generally underestimated, than dry ones, where runoff was overestimated. The static vegetation models outperformed the dynamic vegetation models. TEM, an independently calibrated model, was the best performer. GTEC, a model missing a snow routine and an evaporation function, was the lowest performer. This study suggested that improvements to these types of models may come from more realistic descriptions of hydrologic processes in arid environments. The second study examined water balance parameters of four of these models (Biome-BGC, Century, LPJ, and MC1) from the inception of the VEMAP climatological data base in 1895 through 2100. The 21st century simulations were based on the Hadley Centre and Canadian Centre for Climate Modeling general circulation models (GCM). Runoff and actual evapotranspiration trends were positive in the majority of cases. Percentage changes in runoff exceeded underlying changes in precipitation and this amplification increased over time. Results varied by model and GCM. The third study sought to address an underlying assumption of the validation work. Streamflow gauging stations included in the HCDN have been carefully screened to filter out factors that could confound their use in the assessment of long-term climate signals. One criterion for station inclusion was that land uses in the watershed had not changed over the period of record so as to significantly alter natural streamflow. This assumption was explicitly tested in a watershed selected for the validation study by interpreting remotely-sensed imagery from the North American Landscape Characterization (NALC) project, and land cover was found to be relatively unchanged over the period examined, 1972-1992. Runoff modeling of land-cover changes was accomplished using the Long-Term Hydrologic Impacts Assessment model and runoff changes were less than 5% over the twenty year period.
dc.description.departmentBiological Sciences, School ofen
dc.format.mediumelectronicen
dc.identifierb56808641en
dc.identifier.oclc56087868en
dc.identifier.proqst3116315en
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2152/610en
dc.language.isoengen
dc.rightsCopyright is held by the author. Presentation of this material on the Libraries' web site by University Libraries, The University of Texas at Austin was made possible under a limited license grant from the author who has retained all copyrights in the works.en
dc.subject.lcshClimatic changes--United Statesen
dc.subject.lcshWater balance (Hydrology)en
dc.subject.lcshLandscape changesen
dc.titleClimate change, hydrology, and ecological models: intercomparison and validationen
dc.type.genreThesisen

Files

Collections

University of Texas at Austin