<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" dtd-version="3.0"><?xmltex \makeatother\@nolinetrue\makeatletter?>
  <front>
    <journal-meta>
<journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">HESS</journal-id>
<journal-title-group>
<journal-title>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">HESS</abbrev-journal-title>
<abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
</journal-title-group>
<issn pub-type="epub">1607-7938</issn>
<publisher><publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
<publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
</publisher>
</journal-meta>

    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/hess-20-3967-2016</article-id><title-group><article-title>A three-pillar approach to assessing climate impacts on low flows</article-title>
      </title-group><?xmltex \runningtitle{A three-pillar approach}?><?xmltex \runningauthor{G. Laaha et al.}?>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Laaha</surname><given-names>Gregor</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6793-9640</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Parajka</surname><given-names>Juraj</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-1177-5181</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Viglione</surname><given-names>Alberto</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-7587-4832</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Koffler</surname><given-names>Daniel</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Haslinger</surname><given-names>Klaus</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-2237-9894</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Schöner</surname><given-names>Wolfgang</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zehetgruber</surname><given-names>Judith</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Blöschl</surname><given-names>Günter</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>Institute of Applied Statistics and Computing, University
of Natural Resources and Life Sciences (BOKU), Vienna,
Austria</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Institute for Hydraulic and Water Resources Engineering,
Vienna University of Technology, Vienna, Austria</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>Climate Research Department, Central Institute for
Meteorology and Geodynamics, Vienna, Austria</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Department of Geography and Regional Science, University
of Graz, Graz, Austria</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">G. Laaha (gregor.laaha@boku.ac.at)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>27</day><month>September</month><year>2016</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>20</volume>
      <issue>9</issue>
      <fpage>3967</fpage><lpage>3985</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>7</day><month>November</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>15</day><month>December</month><year>2015</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>22</day><month>June</month><year>2016</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>26</day><month>August</month><year>2016</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
<license license-type="open-access">
<license-p>This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this license, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/">http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/</ext-link></license-p>
</license>
</permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016.html">This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016.html</self-uri>
<self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016.pdf</self-uri>


      <abstract>
    <p>The objective of this paper is to present a framework for assessing climate
impacts on future low flows that combines different sources of information,
termed pillars. To illustrate the framework three pillars are chosen: (a) extrapolation of observed low-flow trends into the
future,
(b) rainfall–runoff projections based on climate scenarios and (c) extrapolation of
changing stochastic rainfall characteristics into the future combined with
rainfall–runoff modelling. Alternative pillars could be included in the
overall framework. The three pillars are combined by expert judgement based
on a synoptic view of data, model outputs and process reasoning. The
consistency/inconsistency between the pillars is considered an indicator of
the certainty/uncertainty of the projections. The viability of the framework
is illustrated for four example catchments from Austria that represent
typical climate conditions in central Europe. In the Alpine region where
winter low flows dominate, trend projections and climate scenarios yield
consistently increasing low flows, although of different magnitudes. In the
region north of the Alps, consistently small changes are projected by all
methods. In the regions in the south and south-east, more pronounced and
mostly decreasing trends are projected but there is disagreement in the
magnitudes of the projected changes. The process reasons for the consistencies/inconsistencies are discussed. For an Alpine region such as
Austria the key to understanding low flows is whether they are controlled by
freezing and snowmelt processes, or by the summer moisture deficit
associated with evaporation. It is argued that the three-pillar approach
offers a systematic framework of combining different sources of information
aimed at more robust projections than that obtained from each pillar alone.</p>
  </abstract>
    </article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

      <?xmltex \hack{\allowdisplaybreaks}?>
<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <title>Introduction</title>
      <p>Streamflow regimes are changing around the world due to multiple factors, and
low flows are often particularly affected. Direct human impacts, such as
abstractions, and climate impacts are difficult to isolate (Blöschl and
Montanari, 2010), yet understanding the causes of changes is essential for
many water management tasks. Research into assessing low-flow and drought
changes falls into two groups (Sivapalan et al., 2003).</p>
      <p>The first group infers catchment functioning from an interpretation of the
observed streamflow response at the catchment scale. It includes statistical
trend analyses of observed low-flow characteristics, such as the annual
minima, supported by analyses and interpretations of the process causes
(e.g. Giuntoli et al., 2013, in France, Hannaford and Buys, 2012, in the UK,
Wilson et al., 2010, in the Nordic countries, Lorenzo-Lacruz et al., 2012,
on the Iberian Peninsula, and Lins and Slack, 1999, and Douglas et al.,
2000, in the USA). Most trend analyses are performed locally on a
station-by-station basis and are therefore not fully conclusive at the
larger scale of climate processes. Regional trend analyses are based on
field significance statistics or block-bootstrapping procedures (e.g. Renard
et al., 2008; Wilson et al., 2010) or, alternatively, a regional
interpretation of trend patterns (e.g. Stahl et al., 2010). Most studies
perform trend interpretations in a heuristic way without cross-checking
against alternative sources of information.</p>
      <p>The second group involves a model cascade, where general circulation model
(GCM) outputs are fed into regional climate models (RCMs), the outputs of
which (usually precipitation and air temperature) are fed into hydrological
models to project future streamflows. Low-flow examples include De Wit et
al. (2007) for the Meuse, Hurkmans et al. (2010) for the Rhine and Majone et
al. (2012) for the Gállego river in Spain. National studies include Wong
et al. (2011) in Norway, Prudhomme et al. (2012) in the UK, Chauveau et al. (2013) in France and Blöschl et al. (2011) in Austria. The hydrological
models used in these studies are often not specifically parameterised for
low flows, which results in considerable uncertainties.</p>
      <p>The two approaches have relative strengths and weaknesses (see Hall et al.,
2014, for the flood case). The first approach makes fewer assumptions and is
more directly based on observations, but any extrapolation into the future is
more speculative. Recent changes in air temperature have been quite
consistent over time in many parts of the world. In the European Alps, for
example, the increase in air temperature since 1980 has been about
0.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C decade<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> with little variation between the decades (Böhm
et al., 2001; Auer et al., 2007), and the expected trends are similar. If
one assumes that air temperature is the main driver of low-flow changes,
persistence of low-flow changes into the near future is therefore a
reasonable assumption. Of course, such an extrapolation hinges on the
realism of the assumptions and is likely only applicable to a limited time
horizon. The second approach on the other hand is more process based so has
more potential for projections into the future, but the spatial resolution
of the atmospheric models is rather coarse (e.g. 10 km for dynamically
downscaled reclip:century simulations), so small-scale climate features,
such as cloud formation and rainfall generation, cannot be resolved. As a
consequence, air temperature projections tend to be more robust than
precipitation projections, in particular in Alpine landscapes (Field and
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012; Haslinger et al., 2013).
There is value therefore in confronting such projections with results from
other approaches.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <title>Three-pillar approach</title>
      <p>In this paper we propose a framework that combines complementary pieces of
information on low flows in order to enhance the reliability of the
projections. The overall philosophy has been inspired by the concept of
multi-model climate projections, where the projections from a group of models
together are considered to be more robust than the individual projections,
and the difference between the individual models represents an indicator of
the uncertainty associated with the projections. Knutti et al. (2010),
for example, states<disp-quote>
  <p>Ensemble: A group of comparable model simulations.
The ensemble can be used to gain a more accurate estimate of a model
property through the provision of a larger sample size, e.g., of a
climatological mean of the frequency of some rare event. Variation of the
results across the ensemble members gives an estimate of uncertainty.</p>
</disp-quote>While the climate models Knutti et al. (2010) are referring to are similar
in their basic design and only differ in specific process representations,
the notion of inferring predictive reliability from model consistency builds
on the broader principle of consilience, which suggests that, if multiple
sources of independent evidence are in agreement, the conclusion can be very
strong even if the individual sources do not provide strong evidence on
their own (Wilson, 1998). Combining different sources of information has a
long tradition in various fields of hydrology such as flood estimation
(Stedinger and Tasker, 1985; Gutknecht et al., 2006; Merz and Blöschl,
2008), low-flow estimation, (Laaha and Blöschl, 2007) and, more
generally, uncertainty estimation in ungauged basins (Gupta et al., 2013).</p>
      <p>The combination can be based on formal methods such as Bayesian statistics
(Viglione et al., 2013) or on a heuristic process reasoning based on expert
judgement (Merz and Blöschl, 2008). The latter is able to account for a
broader class of information sources but it is more subjective. In this
paper, we chose a heuristic approach because of its flexibility but, as
demonstrated by Viglione et al. (2013), this could be formalised.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F1" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Standardized Precipitation Evaporation Index (SPEI) in summer
(top) and winter (bottom) (3-month averages of monthly values) for the
four example catchments. Observed (HISTALP, Auer et al., 2007, black) and
projected (reclip:century ensemble spread, grey). Red and light red lines
represent the Gaussian low-pass filtered values of the observed and
projected SPEI, respectively.</p></caption>
        <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p>We illustrate the framework by choosing three pillars or sources of
information to assist in projecting low flows into the future. The first
pillar consists of extrapolating observed low-flow trends into the future.
The second pillar consists of rainfall–runoff projections driven by GCM-based climate scenarios. The third pillar extrapolates observed trends in
stochastic rainfall and temperature characteristics into the future,
combined with rainfall–runoff modelling. Alternative or additional pillars
could be used, e.g. the “trading space for time” approach (Perdigão
and Blöschl, 2014) where spatial gradients are transposed into temporal
changes.</p>
      <p>The data and assumptions about the three pillars differ, so one would also
expect the error structures to be different which will have a number of
benefits for the projections. Comparisons of observed and simulated low-flow
time series at the decadal timescale provide insight into the performance
of the runoff models as well as the climate hindcasts, which gives an
indication of their performance for the future. The analysis and projection
of the stochastic climate and low-flow behaviour shed light on their
co-behaviour, the sensitivity of low flows to changing climate variables and
the role of noise over decadal timescales. Finally, the consistency of the
projections by the different methods sheds light on the robustness of the
overall projections.</p>
      <p>We demonstrate the viability of the approach for four example regions in
Austria and discuss the findings in the context of hydrological climate
impact studies.</p><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <title>Case study regions and data</title>
      <p>The four example regions are representative of the main climatological units
in Austria. Although Austria is quite diverse, each of these regions is
rather homogeneous in terms of climate and hydrological regime. Within each
region, a typical catchment was selected guided by previous low-flow and
drought studies (Haslinger et al., 2014; Van Loon and Laaha, 2015).</p>
      <p>The Hoalp region (for Hochalpen) is located in the Alps and exhibits a clear
winter low-flow regime where freeze and snow processes are important, so
long-term trends are expected to be related to changing air temperatures.
The region is represented by the Matreier Tauernhaus catchment at the
Tauernbach (60 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> area, 1502 m a.s.l. altitude). The Muhlv
region (for Mühlviertel) is located north of the Alps and exhibits a
dominant summer low-flow regime as a result of summer precipitation and
evaporation, so precipitation and air temperature will be important low-flow
controls. The region is represented by the Hartmannsdorf catchment at the
Steinerne Mühl (138 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> area, 500 m altitude). The Gurk
region (for Gurktal) is located south of the Alps and also exhibits a
dominant summer low-flow regime. Precipitation enters the area from the
north-west through Atlantic cyclones, although screened to some extent by the
Alps, as well as from the south through Mediterranean cyclones.
Precipitation and air temperature are important for low flows. The region is
represented by the Zollfeld catchment at the Glan (432 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>
area, 453 m altitude). The Buwe region (for Bucklige Welt) is located in the
south-east of Austria in the lee of the Alps, at the transition to a Pannonic
climate. The precipitation is lowest in this region. Low flows mainly occur
in summer with precipitation and air temperature as important controls. The
region is represented by the Altschlaining catchment at the Tauchenbach (89 km<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> area, 316 m altitude). Streamflow records in the four
catchments over the period 1976–2008 were used for all three pillars.</p>
      <p>Climate records were used for the second and third pillars. Gridded data
sets of daily precipitation, air temperature and potential evaporation over
the period 1976–2008 were used for calibrating the hydrological model. These
data are based on measured daily precipitation at 1091 stations and daily
air temperature at 212 stations. Potential evaporation was estimated by a
modified Blaney–Criddle method based on daily air temperature and potential
sunshine duration (Parajka et al., 2007). For each catchment, precipitation
and temperature records at one representative station over the period
1948–2010 were analysed as a basis of the stochastic simulations (third
pillar).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <title>Methods used for the pillars</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <title>Extrapolation of observed low-flow trends</title>
      <p>The streamflow records of the four stream gauges were analysed to estimate
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low-flow quantiles (i.e. the flow that is exceeded 95 % of the
time) for each year. The serial correlations of these annual low-flow series
were mostly insignificant, so they were not prewhitened (Yue et al., 2002).
Trends were tested for significance by a standard Mann–Kendall test. The
trends were estimated as the medians of all slopes between pairs of sample
points (Sen's slope, Sen, 1968) with regression parameters <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula>:
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal" stretchy="false">^</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          The uncertainty of the trends was assessed by a non-parametric bootstrapping
approach, which provides accurate confidence bounds in the case of
non-Gaussian regression residuals (Efron and Tibshirani, 1993). The approach
simulates the uncertainty distribution of trend estimates at time <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> by
resampling 5000 replications from the annual <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> series and calculating
the regression parameters <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mo stretchy="false" mathvariant="normal">^</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> for each of them. Equation (1) applied to these parameter distributions yields the uncertainty
distribution of trend estimates at time <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and its 0.025 and 0.975
empirical quantiles constitute the bounds of a two-sided 95 % confidence
interval.</p>
      <p>For the purpose of this paper, we assumed that the trends are linear and
persistent, and so extrapolated them into the future. This is of course a
strong assumption less likely to be valid with increasing time horizon.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <title>Climate projections and runoff modelling</title>
      <p>Four runs from the regional climate model COSMO in CLimate Mode (COSMO-CLM)
provided by the reclip:century1 project (Loibl et al., 2011) were used. The
runs had been obtained from ECHAM5 and HADCM3 GCMs forced by three IPCC emission
scenarios (A1B, B1 and A2). These scenarios
were selected for consistency with other ongoing studies in Austria (e.g.
Parajka et al., 2016). In order to check their realism with respect to
droughts and low flows, the Standardized Precipitation Evaporation Index (SPEI; Vicente-Serrano et al., 2010) was evaluated, which is the
Gaussian-transformed standardised monthly difference of precipitation and
evaporation. Values below zero indicate deficits in the climatic water
balance, and values below <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 indicate drought conditions. The SPEI has
been adopted here for its simplicity and because it can be calculated from
the HISTALP data (Auer et al., 2007) back to the year 1800. Haslinger et al. (2014)
demonstrated that the SPEI is correlated well with summer low flows
in the study region. In the winter (Fig. 1, bottom panels), the simulations
(light red lines) for Hoalp and Muhlv seem to be more consistent with
decadal observed fluctuations from the HISTALP data set (red lines) than for
Gurk and Buwe. Note that the comparison should focus on the long-term
(decadal) dynamics rather than individual years due to the nature of the
climate simulations. Overall, SPEI remains rather stable, which is due to
little change in winter precipitation. In the summer (Fig. 1, top panels),
the simulations are somewhat less consistent with the observations than for
the winter, in particular for Buwe where the simulations show a decreasing
trend in the overlapping period (1961–2003), while the observations show
little change. Overall, the summer SPEI projections show a decreasing trend
indicating a dryer future and the trend tends to steepen beyond 2050. This
is mainly due to the precipitation characteristics of the ECHAM5 simulations
used and not reflected in the other models or ECHAM5 runs. The extremely
negative trends in the summer SPEI should therefore be treated with caution.</p>
      <p>Runoff is simulated by the delta-change approach (e.g. Hay et al., 2000;
Diaz-Nieto and Wilby, 2005). A conceptual rainfall–runoff model (TUWmodel)
is used here, which simulates the daily water balance components from
precipitation, air temperature and potential evaporation inputs (Viglione
and Parajka, 2014; Parajka et al., 2007; Ceola et al., 2015). The routing
component of the model, which is most relevant for low flows, consists of a
number of reservoirs with different storage coefficients. Specifically,
excess rainfall enters the upper zone reservoir and leaves this reservoir
through three paths: outflow from the reservoir based on a fast storage
coefficient; percolation to the lower zone with a constant percolation rate;
and, if a threshold of the storage state is exceeded, through an additional
outlet based on a very fast storage coefficient. Water leaves the lower zone
based on a slow storage coefficient. The model parameters (including the
reservoir parameters representing groundwater storage) were calibrated
against observed streamflow by the SCE-UA procedure (Parajka et al., 2007;
Duan et al., 1992). The objective function (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was chosen on
the basis of prior analyses in the study region (Parajka and Blöschl,
2008) as
            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>
          where <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are the weights on high and
low flows, respectively, and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are
estimated as

                <disp-formula specific-use="align" content-type="numbered"><mml:math display="block"><mml:mtable displaystyle="true"><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E3"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>sim</mml:mtext><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>,</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr><mml:mlabeledtr id="Ch1.E4"><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mi>M</mml:mi><mml:mi>E</mml:mi><mml:mtext>log</mml:mtext></mml:msubsup></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi>log⁡</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">log</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">sim</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msubsup><mml:mo>∑</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>i</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi></mml:msubsup><mml:msup><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">log</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">log</mml:mi><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mfenced><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mlabeledtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the observed discharge on day <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mtext>obs</mml:mtext></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is its
average over the calibration (or verification) period of <italic>n</italic> days, and
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mtext>sim</mml:mtext><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi>i</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the simulated discharge.</p>
      <p>In order to assess the uncertainty of low-flow projections from a
hydrological modelling perspective, different calibration variants were
evaluated by varying the weights of Eq. (2), following the methodology of
Parajka et al. (2016). In order to assess the impact of time stability of
the model parameters, the model was calibrated separately for three
different periods (1976–1986, 1987–1997, 1998–2008), following the
methodology of Merz et al. (2011).</p>
      <p>Air temperatures and precipitation of the four regional climate model runs
were then evaluated for a reference period (1976–2008) and compared with two
future periods (2021–2050 and 2051–2080) for each month separately. The
differences (delta) were added to the observed daily air temperatures and
precipitation values for the four catchments from which future streamflow
was simulated using the rainfall–runoff model.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Observed trends of annual <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low flows in Austria in the
period 1976–2008. Colours correspond to the sign and the magnitude of the
trends (blue is increasing, red is decreasing). Size indicates
significance of trends. Units of the trends are standard deviations per
year. Squares indicate example catchments.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016-f02.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <title>Extrapolation of stochastic rainfall characteristics and runoff
modelling</title>
      <p>A stochastic model is used to investigate what would happen if the trend of
observed precipitation and air temperature characteristics in the period
1948–2010 would persist into the future. The results of the stochastic model
are used to drive a lumped version of the TUWmodel, which is similar to the
one used in the delta-change approach.</p>
      <p>The precipitation model is the point model of Sivapalan et al. (2005), which
simulates discrete rainfall events whose storm durations, interstorm periods
and average event rainfall intensities are all random, governed by specified
distributions whose parameters vary seasonally. The model was run on a daily
time step without considering within-storm rainfall patterns as the interest
was in low flows. A storm-separation algorithm was applied to the
precipitation data of the four stations, based on a minimum duration of dry
periods, in order to isolate precipitation events. From the event time
series the temporal trends of three model parameters (mean annual storm
duration, mean annual inter-storm period and mean annual storm intensity)
were estimated by the Theil–Sen algorithm, to serve as the trend components
of the precipitation model. The trends in these precipitation model
components were subsequently extrapolated into the future. Similar to the
low-flow extrapolation, this is a strong assumption less likely to be valid
with an increasing time horizon. The remaining rainfall model parameters were
calibrated to the precipitation data as described in Viglione et al. (2012)
and were kept constant for the entire simulation period. The stochastic
rainfall model was finally used to simulate an ensemble of 100 possible time
series of precipitation affected by trends in the three model parameters for
the period 1948–2080.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T1"><caption><p>Trend estimates of observed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low flows in the period
1976–2008 (Mann–Kendall test). Relative trends refer to the trend over the
observation period relative to its mean.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.95}[.95]?><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Hoalp</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Muhlv</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Gurk</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Buwe</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Trend</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.24<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.28</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.45</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.34<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> per 100 years)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Relative trend</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.21<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.38</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.78</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.88<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">(% per year)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"/>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> value</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.009</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.377</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.053</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.045</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.95}[.95]?><table-wrap-foot><p>Significance codes: <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>*</mml:mo><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.01;
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>*</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mi>p</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> &lt; 0.05.</p></table-wrap-foot><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></table-wrap>

      <p>For air temperature, instead, 100 possible time series were obtained by
randomising the observations in the following way. The time series of daily
temperatures were detrended according to the observed trend of mean annual
temperatures, the years were randomly mixed (with repetition) and the trend
was added to the reshuffled series. The trend in the temperatures was
reflected by an analogous trend in potential evaporation.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <title>Extrapolation of observed low-flow trends</title>
      <p>Table 1 summarises the results of the trend analyses of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low flows.
The Hoalp catchment exhibits a significantly increasing trend indicating
that the catchment has become wetter over the observation period while the
Buwe catchment indicates a significantly decreasing trend. Muhlv and Gurk
show decreasing trends that are, however, not significant at the 0.05
level.</p>
      <p>While our focus is on the four example catchments, it is important to put
the local analyses in a regional context to avoid the detection of local
effects on the flow regime, such as anthropogenic impacts. Equally
important, the regional context assists in a more meaningful interpretation
of regional climate scenarios that are valid for footprints of a few
hundreds of square kilometres or more. Figure 2 shows the trends of the four
example catchments together with trends of 408 stream gauges in Austria and
neighbouring regions. The trend patterns are in line with the main
hydro-climatic units represented by the four catchments. Significantly
increasing trends (large blue points) such as in the Hoalp catchment are
generally found in the Alpine region. Decreasing trends (large red points)
occur north of the Alps and, more frequently, in the south-eastern part of Austria.
Additional regional analyses (not shown here), including field significance
testing, confirm the finding that the decreasing trends in the south-east are
more significant than in the north. The Buwe region appears to be
particularly affected by climate change as low flows show a strong decrease
at the end of the observation period.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T2" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Trend extrapolations of average <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low flows
(m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>) for the periods 2021–2050 and 2051–2080 based on
observed trends. Changes (%) refer to the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the future period
relative to the average <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the reference period (1976–2008). Values
in parentheses indicate 95 % confidence intervals.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="6">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Hoalp</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Muhlv</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Gurk</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">Buwe</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2021–2050</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.28 (0.19, 0.37)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.68 (0.45, 1.02)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">1.19 (0.58, 2.00)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">0.02 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.14, 0.14)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2021–2050</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Change (%)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn>39</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>71)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>41, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>34)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>36 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>72, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>90 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>177, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>22)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2051–2080</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.35 (0.22, 0.45)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.60 (0.15, 1.14)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.74 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.23, 2.01)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.08 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.33, 0.12)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">2051–2080</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Change (%)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>74  (0, 123)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>21 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>79, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>51)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>59 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>113, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>9)</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>148 (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>282, <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>36)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <p>Table 2 presents the trend extrapolations together with their confidence
bounds. Extrapolating observed trends to 2021–2050 would give a 39 %
increase in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for Hoalp, but the uncertainty is large, as indicated
by a range of the confidence interval from <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>7 to 71 %. Trend
extrapolations for the other catchments result in decreases that are the
smallest in Muhlv (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>8 %), moderate in Gurk (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>36 %) and the largest in Buwe
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>90 %). The uncertainty range is large, e.g. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>41 to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>34 % for
Muhlv, which is almost 10 times the mean change. Clearly, trend
extrapolations involve a lot of uncertainty, and this uncertainty increases
as one moves to the more distant time horizon of 2051–2080 (Table 2),
including negative discharges for Buwe and Gurk indicating intermittent
behaviour. Obviously, one would have very low confidence in the absolute
figures of such trend scenarios for the more distant future.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <title>Climate projections and runoff modelling</title>
      <p>Table 3 summarises the runoff model efficiencies <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for different
weights in the objective function. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 emphasises low
flows, while <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 emphasises high flows in the
calibration. With the exception of Gurk, there is a clear trend of
increasing (calibration) model performance from high flows to low flows. The
model performance between the calibration decades varies little. Overall,
Hoalp gives the largest efficiency, which is a reflection of the strong
seasonality associated with snow storage and melt while Buwe gives the
lowest efficiency due to the flashy nature of runoff that is difficult to
model on a daily time step (Fig. 3). The flashy runoff response of Buwe is
related to shallow soils, efficient drainage and frequent convective storms
(see Gaál et al., 2012). Additionally, there are only two climate
stations in the Buwe catchment, so local precipitation events may not always
be captured well. The event variability is large between and within the
years (Fig. 3). Both low flows and floods mainly occur in summer. As
compared to other catchments in Austria (Parajka et al., 2016), the Hoalp
and Buwe catchments represent typical conditions of high and low model
performances, respectively.</p>

<?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><table-wrap id="Ch1.T3"><caption><p>Runoff model efficiency <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Eq. 2) obtained for different
weights <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the four catchments for three calibration
periods. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 1 emphasise low
flows and high flow, respectively, in the calibration. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are listed in
the sequence of the calibration periods: 1976–1986/1987–1997/1998–2008.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><?xmltex \begin{scaleboxenv}{.83}[.83]?><oasis:tgroup cols="5">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"><inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Hoalp</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Muhlv</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">Gurk</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Buwe</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.96/0.95/0.90</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.82/0.84/0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.79/0.73/0.79</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.46/0.52/0.59</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.1</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.95/0.93/0.90</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.81/0.83/0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.79/0.73/0.79</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.37/0.52/0.58</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.2</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.94/0.92/0.90</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.80/0.82/0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.78/0.74/0.79</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.35/0.53/0.58</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.3</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.93/0.90/0.90</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.79/0.81/0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.78/0.74/0.79</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.34/0.54/0.58</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.4</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.92/0.89/0.89</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.79/0.80/0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.78/0.74/0.79</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.40/0.54/0.57</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.5</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.91/0.88/0.89</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.77/0.79/0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.78/0.75/0.78</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.36/0.55/0.56</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.6</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.90/0.86/0.89</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.77/0.78/0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.78/0.75/0.78</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.30/0.56/0.55</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.7</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.89/0.85/0.89</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.76/0.78/0.86</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.78/0.75/0.78</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.30/0.57/0.55</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.8</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.88/0.83/0.75</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.76/0.77/0.81</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.78/0.76/0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.30/0.58/0.49</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">0.9</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.88/0.82/0.73</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.75/0.76/0.81</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.78/0.76/0.80</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.28/0.59/0.49</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">1.0</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">0.87/0.82/0.72</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">0.75/0.75/0.81</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">0.78/0.77/0.81</oasis:entry>  
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">0.29/0.60/0.49</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup><?xmltex \end{scaleboxenv}?></oasis:table></table-wrap>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F3" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Observed daily discharge for the periods 1976–1986 (blue lines)
and 1998–2008 (red lines) in the Buwe (top) and Hoalp (bottom) catchments.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016-f03.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Figure 4 (left panel) shows the simulated annual <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low flows for the
reference period 1976–2008, based on calibrations for two subperiods (yellow
and blue), in each case indicating the variability of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> due to 11
calibration variants with different weights <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the objective
function (Table 3). The right panels show the simulations for two sets of
weights (light orange and red), in each case indicating the variability of
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> due to model parameters obtained from different decades. Although
the model has not specifically been calibrated to <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, it simulates
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> rather well. The differences between the two weighting variants
(Fig. 4 right) are small in absolute terms. The effect of temporal
instability of the model parameters is clearly visible in Buwe and Gurk
(Fig. 4 left), as the model calibrated to the 1976–1986 period tends to
overestimate <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the period 1998–2008. The decade 1976–1986
represents a colder period with less evaporation and relatively higher
runoff generation rates, which is reflected by lower values of the soil
moisture storage parameter (FC) and lower values of the parameter
controlling runoff generation (BETA). The model therefore overestimates
runoff when applied to the drier and warmer period 1998–2008. Even though
Table 3 indicates that Buwe has the lowest model performance, this is not
reflected in the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low-flow simulations in Fig. 4. This is because
the model does not simulate the fast runoff fluctuations well; however, it
does much better with prolonged drought spells.</p>
      <p>Figure 4 also shows that the uncertainty of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> estimates is the largest in
the Hoalp. The seasonal runoff variability of Alpine rivers is larger than
that of low-land rivers, which makes the model calibration more sensitive to
the weights assigned to high and low flows. Hoalp is also more sensitive to
the choice of the calibration period, which is a reflection of the high
sensitivity of low flows to seasonal climate. In contrast, the uncertainty
is smallest in the Gurk and Buwe catchments, where the effect of time
variability of the model parameters is of similar magnitude as the effect of
the weights in the objective function.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F4" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Annual <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low flows from observed data (black lines) and
from hydrologic model simulations (coloured bands) for the four catchments.
Band widths in the left panels show the variability due to different weights
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the objective function (Table 3) for two calibration periods
(1976–1986 and 1998–2008). Band widths in the right panels show the
variability due to different decades used for model calibration for two sets
of weights (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.0).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016-f04.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>Scenarios of air temperature and precipitation from the four climate model
runs are presented in Fig. 5. The largest warming is obtained by HADCM3 with
an increase of more than 2 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C in January and the summer months. In
January the ECHAM5-A2 run simulates a decrease in air temperature, whereas the
other runs simulate an increase. The ECHAM5 scenarios are consistent for the
summer months with an increase in air temperature of about 1 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C. The
precipitation projections are regionally less consistent and vary mostly
around <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>15 %. Exceptions are the HADCM3 run which simulates a
decrease of almost 30 % in the Gurk and Buwe catchments in August, and the
ECHAM5-A1B run which simulates an increase of about 30 % in the Hoalp and
Muhlv catchments in December.</p>
      <p>The delta-change projections for the period 2021–2050 relative to simulated
runoff in the reference period are shown in Fig. 6. They indicate an
increase of annual <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low flows in the Alpine Hoalp catchment, which is
in the range of 15 to 30 and 20 to 45 % for the different climate
projections and calibration weights, respectively. In the Muhlv catchment,
changes are small, while for Gurk and Buwe decreases are projected which are
around 7–13 and 15–20 %, respectively. <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is sensitive not only
to the selection of the climate scenarios, but also to the selection of the
objective function and the calibration period. The uncertainty is the largest in
the Hoalp catchment, where the objective function is more important than
choice of the climate scenarios. The mean winter air temperature in Hoalp is
about <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>6.0 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C, which is projected to increase by 2 to 2.5 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C,
depending on the scenario. These differences are of little relevance for
snow storage and snowmelt runoff during the winter low-flow period. Muhlv
and Buwe are also sensitive to the choice of objective function and
calibration period, while for the Gurk the choice of climate scenario is
more important.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F5" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Projections of air temperatures and precipitation for the four
catchments simulated by regional climate models. Shown are long-term monthly
changes of the future period (2021–2050) relative to the reference period
(1976–2008). Shaded areas indicate the range of climate scenarios/models.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <title>Extrapolation of stochastic rainfall characteristics and runoff
modelling</title>
      <p>Figure 7 shows that the estimated trend components fit well to the
precipitation statistics. Annual mean storm duration decreases quite
strongly for the Hoalp (by about <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.8 days/100 years). There is also a
slight decrease for Gurk (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.4 days/100 years) and Buwe (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.3 days/100 years). Interstorm period and storm intensity (Fig. 7, centre and right
panels) show no significant changes, apart from the Gurk where the annual
mean interstorm period increases by about 1 day/100 years, and annual mean
storm intensity increases by 2 mm day<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> per 100 years (which is a 30 %
increase per 100 years).</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F6" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Projections of annual <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low flows for the four catchments
in terms of changes of the future period (2021–2050) relative to simulated
runoff in the reference period (1976–2008). Band widths in the left panels
show the variability due to different weights <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the objective
function (Table 3) using HADCM3. Band widths in the right panels show the
variability due to the choice of climate projections for calibration variant
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>w</mml:mi><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> 0.5. Yellow and blue colours relate to two calibration periods for
the hydrological model.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016-f06.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The stochastic simulations (Fig. 8) indicate no trends in mean annual
precipitation for Muhlv in the north and Gurk in the southern part of Austria, a
drying trend for Buwe in the south-east and Hoalp in the Alps, but in the
latter case the observations exhibit a rather complex signal that is not
well represented by the linear model. The simulated temperatures (Fig. 8,
right panels) are more consistent with the observations with a persistently
increasing trend in all catchments. The trend is most pronounced in the Alps
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>4.4 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C/100 years), somewhat less pronounced in the south and
south-east (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.8 and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>2.6 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C/100 years) and there is only a
weak trend in the northern (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1.7 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C/100 years) part of Austria.</p>
      <p>Figure 9 shows the stochastic projections of annual runoff and <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low
flows (red lines) together with the observations (black lines). For Hoalp
(top row) <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> decreases only slightly despite the simulated large
decrease of annual runoff and precipitation. This is because winter low
flows are more controlled by air temperatures that increase the low flows,
and the two effects essentially cancel. For Muhlv (second row in Fig. 9),
the model extrapolates a slight reduction of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the future, even
though there is hardly any change in the annual precipitation (second row in
Fig. 8), which is due to increases in the evaporation. For Gurk (third row
in Fig. 9), the model also extrapolates a slight decrease in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which
is a result of the increasing trends in both evaporation and the interstorm
period (Figs. 7 and 8). For Buwe (bottom row in Fig. 9), the extrapolations
yield a moderately decreasing trend of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, which results from the
combined effect of slightly decreasing precipitation and increasing
evaporation.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F7" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Observed trends in the precipitation statistics for the climate
stations St. Jakob Def (Hoalp), Pabneukirchen (Muhlv), Klagenfurt (Gurk) and
Wöerterberg (Buwe). The trend lines (dashed) have been fitted with the
Theil–Sen method.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016-f07.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F8" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Stochastic simulations of mean annual precipitation and mean
annual temperature (red lines) for St. Jakob Def (Hoalp), Pabneukirchen
(Muhlv), Klagenfurt (Gurk) and Wöerterberg (Buwe); 100 simulated time series
for each station. For comparison, observations are shown (black lines).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016-f08.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F9" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Stochastic simulations of mean annual runoff and annual <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>
(red lines) assuming linear extrapolation of the rainfall model parameters
for the Hoalp, Muhlv, Gurk and Buwe catchments; 100 simulated time series
for each catchment. For comparison, observations are shown (black lines).
Probability density functions of <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for three periods are shown on the
right.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016-f09.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>The underlying assumption about observed trends in precipitation and
temperature to persist into the future is quite strong. In contrast to the
other pillars, here we do not consider the uncertainty associated with the
estimation (and extrapolation) of the trends. The confidence bounds in Figs. 9 and
10 represent the modelled variability of the low-flow producing
processes, which are assumed to be known both in the present and in the
future. Despite the strong assumptions made it should be noted that the
results of this approach are non-trivial, as the way the trends in
precipitation and temperature translate into trends in low flows differs
between the catchments because of non-linear process interactions.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6">
  <title>Three-pillar synthesis</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS1">
  <title>Combination of information</title>
      <p>The concept of multi-model ensembles starts with the premise that (a) a
group of model projections will give more reliable results than the
individual models alone and (b) the consistency/inconsistency of the model
results is an indicator of the robustness or reliability of the projections
(Knutti et al., 2010). In the context of the three-pillar approach proposed
here, the methods and information used in each pillar are largely
independent of each other, so one would expect the errors to be close to
independent, and a combination of the projections should indeed increase the
overall reliability of the projection. We will evaluate heuristically to
what degree this premise can be achieved based on hydrological reasoning and
visual comparisons of synoptic plots of the individual estimates and their
respective confidence bounds. The reasoning accounts for the differences in
the nature of the uncertainties of the projections and gives more weight to
the more reliable pieces of information.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F10" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Three-pillar projections of annual <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low flows for the
Hoalp, Muhlv, Gurk and Buwe catchments. Black lines refer to observed annual
<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Pillar 1: extrapolation of observed low-flow trends (blue) and
0.95 level confidence bounds (blue curved lines); bold/thin parts refer to
observation/extrapolation period. Pillar 2: simulations in the observation
period (grey line), and climate projections and runoff modelling for
2021–2050 and 2051–2080 (box plots, shades of green indicate different
climate scenarios, range of box plots indicates different parameters of the
hydrological model). Pillar 3: extrapolation of stochastic rainfall
characteristics and runoff modelling (100 realisations, red lines) with 0.50
level (black dashed lines) and 0.90 level (black dotted lines) confidence
bounds.</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=426.791339pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016-f10.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>When comparing the projections two cases exist. In the first case,
projections are consistent within their confidence bounds. This will lend
credence to all projections as they support each other, in particular if the
changes of the driving hydrological processes (precipitation, snow storage
and melt, evaporation) are consistent. The overall uncertainty will be
expressed here as three levels of confidence (high, medium, low; Field and
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, 2012). In the second case, the
individual projections are not consistent within their uncertainty bounds,
which will suggest lower confidence in the overall projections. Rather than
simply averaging the individual projections, here, we explore the reasons
for the disagreement, by checking the credibility of each projection based
on the data used and the assumptions made.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6.SS2">
  <title>Application to the study area</title>
      <p>Figure 10 compiles the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> projections from the three pillars, and Fig. 11 shows their probability density functions for the period 2021–2050.</p>
      <p>For the Hoalp region in the Alps (Fig. 10, top left), both the extrapolation
of observed low-flow trends and the climate scenarios suggest increases in
low flows. In this region, low flows occur in winter due to snow storage
processes that are mainly driven by seasonal temperature (Fig. 3).
Schöner et al. (2012) showed that regional climate models have been able to
simulate the observed increase of winter temperatures in the Alpine region
since the 1970s well, which suggests that the winter low-flow changes are
captured well by the climate scenarios. However, a lot of uncertainty is
introduced by the parameterisations of the rainfall–runoff model as
indicated by the wide boxes in Fig. 10. This uncertainty is due to the
sensitivity of the simulations to the model parameters in an Alpine
environment (Figs. 4 and 6). From a regional perspective (Fig. 2), the
observed low-flow trends are significant; i.e. the percentage of stations
with a significant trend is much greater than expected by chance
(Blöschl et al., 2011). This means that the climate scenarios and the
trend extrapolations can be reconciled, at least in terms of the sign of the
changes. The stochastic extrapolations, in contrast, project no or even
slightly decreasing low-flow trends. A closer inspection of observed air
temperatures suggests that winter temperatures (<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.65 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C/10 years) have changed more by half than the annual average
(<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mo>+</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.46 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C/10 years in the period 1976–2010). However, the stochastic model assumes a
constant change throughout the year, which results in underestimates of
future <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Of course, the model could be straightforwardly extended to
include seasonal variations in the changes but, as it is now, it nicely
illustrates the case of an inconsistency that is well understood. Because of
this, little weight is given to the stochastic projections in the overall
assessment, and one would expect an increase in low flows by at least
20–40 % for the 2021–2050 period with medium to high confidence.</p>

      <?xmltex \floatpos{t}?><fig id="Ch1.F11" specific-use="star"><caption><p>Probability density functions (pdf's) of annual <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> low flows
2021–2050 of the three-pillar projections for the Hoalp, Muhlv, Gurk and
Buwe catchments as in Fig. 10. Pillar 1: extrapolation of observed low
flows (blue). Pillar 2: climate projections and runoff modelling (different
shades of green). Pillar 3: extrapolation of stochastic rainfall
characteristics and runoff modelling (red). The pdf's represent both
variability within the period and uncertainty (pillars 1 and 2) and
variability alone (pillar 3). For comparison, observed <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in the
reference period (1976–2008) is shown (dashed grey line).</p></caption>
          <?xmltex \igopts{width=398.338583pt}?><graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/20/3967/2016/hess-20-3967-2016-f11.pdf"/>

        </fig>

      <p>For the Muhlv region north of the Alps, the extrapolation of observed low-flow trends corresponds well with the stochastic projections (Fig. 10 top
right). Both methods project a slight reduction of about 5–10 % for
2021–2050. Seasonal air temperature trends are similar to the annual trends
(0.43 <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mo>∘</mml:mo></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula>C/10 years in the period 1976–2010), so the structure of the
stochastic model is appropriate here. The rainfall–runoff simulations
capture the observed trend well for the observation period. The climate
scenarios predict a slight decrease in <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for 2021–2050 but there is a
lot of variability between the scenarios (also see Fig. 5). On a regional
level, Blöschl et al. (2011) reported no field significance of the
observed low-flow trends in this region which, together with the three
pillars, here suggests a slight tendency for decreasing low flows in
2021–2050 with medium confidence. For the 2051–2080 period all methods
become more uncertain, but all point towards a drying trend (low to medium
confidence).</p>
      <p>The Gurk region south of the Alps (Fig. 10 bottom left) shows a somewhat
similar behaviour to Muhlv, although the observed low-flow pattern is rather
non-linear with a drop at the beginning of the observations and a flattening
out after 1990. Extrapolating a linear trend in low flows may therefore not
be reliable. The stochastic projections are more in line with the
observations and indicate a slight decrease until 2080. Winter SPEI in the
period 1961–2003 is not simulated well (Fig. 1), which suggests issues with
the seasonal water balance of the GCM-based simulations. However, the
climate scenario projections are in line with extrapolated trends and
stochastic projections. All pillars point to a slight to moderate drying
trend in low flows for the 2021–2050 period (medium confidence) and towards
a somewhat stronger drying trend for 2051–2080 (low to medium confidence).</p>
      <p>The Buwe region in the south-east gives larger changes (Fig. 10, bottom
right). The observed low-flow trends are strongly influenced by the recent
dry years between 2000 and 2005, which is consistent with the regional
behaviour (Fig. 2 and Blöschl et al., 2011). A linear trend
extrapolation, however, does not seem very plausible, in particular because
the most recent year in the data set (2008) was less dry. In fact, more
recent data for 2009–2014 (not included in the analysis) show that low flows
have partly recovered (annual Q95 values ranging from 0.1 to 0.3 m<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:math></inline-formula> s<inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi/><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:msup><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> illustrating the limitations of trend extrapolation. The
stochastic projection yields a moderately decreasing trend, which is more
plausible, and related to both increasing temperatures and decreasing
precipitation (Fig. 8). The climate scenarios give slightly stronger
decreasing trends for the two periods, but it should be noted that, in
contrast to the other catchments, the summer SPEI trend in the period
1961–2003 is not captured well and likely overestimated by the climate
simulations (Fig. 1, top right). Figure 2 shows consistently decreasing trends
of observed streamflow in the region. Overall, the pillars therefore point
towards a slight to moderate drying trend for 2021–2050, and a stronger
drying trend for 2051–2080 with medium confidence.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7">
  <title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S7.SS1">
  <title>Extrapolation of observed low-flow trends</title>
      <p>The trend scenarios are based on the assumption that changes are linear over
time. This is a simplifying view of non-stationarity. The Earth system is
clearly non-linear, so often regime shifts are observed rather than trends.
These can be detected in a similar way as trends (see, e.g., Rodionov, 2006)
but it is more difficult to make assumptions about persistence of change than
for the case of linear trends. In the European Alps, annual air temperatures
have increased linearly since the mid-1970s, so a continuing trend is a
plausible assumption about the near future. Trends in air temperatures
translate into changes in low flows in a non-linear way and this depends on
the time of the year low flows occur (Laaha and Blöschl, 2006). Winter
low flows are a consequence of frost and snow storage, which is reflected by
a remarkable co-behaviour of observed low flows with temperature for the
Alpine Hoalp catchment (Fig. 10 top left).</p>
      <p>For the other catchments that exhibit a summer low-flow regime, the past
changes of low flows are more subtle. The flow records are rather short, so
discerning trends from long range fluctuations is difficult (Montanari et
al., 1997). In all cases, the uncertainty of the trend scenarios is large,
as indicated by the wide confidence bounds. It should be noted that the
confidence bounds are conditional on the assumption that the linear trend
model applies. If one relaxed this assumption, the bounds would be even
wider. Part of the uncertainty comes from the relatively short record length
(33 years). Hannaford et al. (2013) showed that low-flow trends in European
regimes are subject to pronounced decadal-scale variability so that even
post-1960 trends (50 years) are often not consistent with the long-term
pattern. Long climate records may assist in trend detection. Haslinger et
al. (2014) found that the SPEI is a good proxy of summer low flows in the study area where the
HISTALP data set (Auer et al., 2007) allows for analysing climate fluctuations
back to the year 1800 (Fig. 1). The decreasing trends of summer SPEI from
the climate projections (Fig. 1) are in line with the low-flow trends in
Muhlv and Gurk, and both point to a decrease of low flows that extends into
the future.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7.SS2">
  <title>Climate projections and runoff modelling</title>
      <p>Similar to the ensemble projections of Wong et al. (2011), Majone et al. (2012)
and De Wit et al. (2007), we assessed the uncertainty arising from the
choice of the climate model and emission scenario. We did not assess
downscaling errors, as De Wit et al. (2007) did, as they usually play a
minor role when using a delta-change approach that applies a change factor
to locally observed signals. Uncertainty arising from the hydrological model
structure may also be assessed by a model ensemble (e.g. Habets et al.,
2013) but we have chosen to focus on the uncertainty of model parameters
instead. The results suggest that the <inline-formula><mml:math display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>Q</mml:mi><mml:mn>95</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> projections are not only
sensitive to the choice of climate scenarios, but also to the objective
function and the calibration period. The uncertainty associated with the
objective function is largest in the Alpine Hoalp catchment, where the
strong streamflow seasonality makes the weighting between high and low flows
particularly important. The uncertainty associated with the calibration
period is largest in Buwe and Gurk where parameters from a colder period
with less evaporation tend to overestimate runoff in warmer periods. A
similar effect is expected for a future, warmer climate, so the projected
low flows may decrease more strongly than the projected average. This
finding may depend both on model type and the climate region. Hay et al. (2000),
for example, found a minor role of the hydrological model for three
river basins in the USA, although they did not specifically examine the time
stability of model parameters. Bosshard et al. (2013), on the other hand,
suggested that the hydrological model accounted for 5–40 % of the total
streamflow ensemble uncertainty in the Alpine Rhine. Similarly, Samaniego et
al. (2013) found that accounting for hydrological model parameter
uncertainty is essential for identifying drought events, and multi-parameter
ensembles were efficiently able to identify the magnitude of that
uncertainty.</p>
      <p>Low-flow projections are challenging because low flows are typically driven
by groundwater discharge processes (both recharge and discharge). These
processes are difficult to understand and model due to their local nature.
Fleckenstein et al. (2006), for example, found that the percentage of river
channel responsible for 50 % of total river seepage during low-flow
conditions in the Cosumnes River, California, ranged from 10 to 26 %
depending on the spatial configuration of hydrogeologic heterogeneity. This
heterogeneity has not been resolved in the present study and is rarely
resolved in catchment-scale climate assessment studies. It is therefore
important to note that, while the climate drought processes tend to be
rather large scale, the catchment response during low-flow periods can have
specific local effects, which differ from those of the larger-scale pattern.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7.SS3">
  <title>Extrapolation of stochastic rainfall characteristics and runoff
modelling</title>
      <p>Stochastic models of rainfall characteristics can be conditioned to future
climates in a number of ways (see, e.g., Hall et al., 2014). A common method
is to first calibrate the model parameters to the current climate and then
adjust the parameters to precipitation from climate scenarios at daily,
seasonal and annual timescales (e.g. Hundecha and Merz, 2012; Blöschl
et al., 2011). To illustrate the three-pillar approach we have adopted here
the very simple assumption about extrapolating the trends in the rainfall model
parameters and air temperatures linearly into the future. The reasoning, and
the limitations, are similar to the direct trend extrapolation of low flows,
building on the inertia of the climate system. Consequently, the
extrapolation of temperature will be more appropriate than that of
precipitation and the extrapolation into the near future will be more
appropriate than that into the more distant future.</p>
      <p>Alternative stochastic models could be used within the same three-pillar
framework. The model could be adjusted to climate scenarios in a similar way
as the model of Hundecha and Merz (2012), and correlations between
precipitation and air temperature could be accounted for. Also, the long
range dependence of streamflow (Szolgayová et al., 2014) could be
considered by extending the stochastic precipitation model (e.g. Thyer and
Kuczera, 2003). This will result in more complex patterns of future
simulated low flows.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S7.SS4">
  <title>Assessing the value of synthesis</title>
      <p>Climate impact and assessment studies in hydrology have traditionally been
dominated by the paradigm of modelling cascades (Blöschl and Montanari,
2010), so a fresh look at the problem for the particular case of low flows
opens up a number of opportunities. The three-pillar approach allows for a
diverse set of methods based on different assumptions and data to be
compared and combined in a coherent way. For the case study catchment Muhlv
in the region north of the Alps, for example, consistently small low-flow
changes are projected by all methods, which adds credence to the projections.
The synthesis framework proposed here puts a lot of emphasis on heuristic
process reasoning. This may contribute to a better understanding of low-flow
response to a future climate than a mere examination of scenario results.
For an Alpine region such as Austria, the key to understanding low flows is
whether they are controlled by freezing and snowmelt processes, or by the
summer moisture deficit associated with evaporation. Understanding of the
key processes helps putting the projections from the diverse methods into
perspective. For example, for the Alpine Hoalp catchment this reasoning
points towards increasing low flows, which is also consistent with all three
pillars adopted here. In a similar way, Luce and Holden (2009) and Luce et
al. (2013) explained decreasing low-flow trends in the Pacific Northwest of
the USA by declines in mountain precipitation and suggested that this trend
will persist into the future. Luce et al. (2013) pointed out that in their
study initial interpretations of apparently consistent trends would have
been misleading, partly due to artefacts in data, missing information and
over-extrapolation of trends, which triggered additional analyses leading to
a differing perception of hydrological change. This example illustrates the
importance of careful process reasoning in every step of the analysis.</p>
      <p>The three-pillar approach also provides opportunities for a more complete
assessment of the uncertainty of the projections. The multi-model ensemble
premise of variations between ensemble members being an indicator of
projection uncertainty is consistent with the case study findings of this
paper. For example, the comparisons of the methods for the Hoalp catchment
highlighted issues with the assumption about a uniform seasonal temperature
change of the stochastic model, so less credibility was given to this pillar
in this particular case. For the Buwe catchment, non-linear changes of
observed low flows shed doubts on the linear-trend assumption, so less
credibility was given to the low-flow extrapolation pillar. On the other
hand, for predicting near-future low flows in the Hoalp catchment, the trend
extrapolation appears most reliable. From trend extrapolations alone one
would infer a 39 % increase in low flows until 2021–2050 (Table 2) but the
uncertainty is of equal magnitude. Additional information from rainfall–runoff projections that suggest an increase of up to 30 % constrain the
projected increase to about 20 to 40 %.</p>
      <p>In the context of water resources management, decision makers are usually
reluctant to use the output from black box models as the sole basis of their
decisions. Just as important as the expected changes in the water system are
the uncertainties associated with the changes as well as a process reasoning
in terms of cause and effect. This is particular the case if robust drought
management strategies, such as the vulnerability approach, are to be adopted
(Wilby and Dessai, 2010; Blöschl et al., 2013). Typically, these
strategies are designed to perform well over a wide range of assumptions
about the future and potentially extremely negative effects. Central to the
approach is an understanding of the cause–effect relationships within the
water system under a variety of conditions, as well as an appreciation of
the possible uncertainties. Methods often involve exploratory modelling
approaches (Watts et al., 2012), which fit well with the three-pillar
approach proposed here. We therefore believe that the approach put forward
in this paper can play an important role in assisting risk managers in
developing drought management strategies for the practice.</p>
      <p>It should be emphasised that the extrapolation pillars have been adopted
here to illustrate the framework and could be replaced by other methods such
as the “trading space for time” approach (Perdigão and Blöschl,
2014) where spatial gradients are transposed into temporal changes. Also,
heuristic process reasoning has been adopted to compare the pillars based on
expert judgement because of its flexibility. The combination could be based
on formal methods (e.g. Bayesian methods, Viglione et al., 2013) that allow
accounting for subjective information on low flows and their process causes.
Finally, the three-pillar approach presented in this paper is not
necessarily restricted to low flows and could be adapted to other hydrologic
characteristics.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S8" sec-type="conclusions">
  <title>Conclusions</title>
      <p>We propose a framework that combines low-flow projections from different
sources of information, termed pillars. To illustrate the framework three
pillars have been chosen: (a) direct extrapolation of low-flow trends, (b) estimation
of low flows from GCM-projected climates using a runoff model
and (c) stochastic simulations from trend-extrapolated climates using a
similar runoff model.</p>
      <p>The methods and information used in each pillar are largely independent from
each other, so one would expect the errors to be close to independent, and a
combination of the projections should increase the overall reliability of
the projection. We evaluate heuristically to what degree this premise can be
achieved for four example regions in Austria, based on hydrological
reasoning and visual comparisons of synoptic plots of the individual
estimates and their respective confidence bounds.</p>
      <p>For the Alpine region where winter low flows dominate, trend projections and
climate scenarios yield consistent projections of a wetting trend but of
different magnitudes. For the region north of the Alps, all methods project
rather small changes. For the regions in the south and south-east more
pronounced and mostly decreasing trends are projected but there is
disagreement in the magnitude of the changes. The synthesis of the case
study projections suggests that the framework (i) tends to enhance the
robustness of the overall assessment, (ii) adds to the understanding of the
cause–effect relationships of low flows and (iii) sheds light on the
uncertainties involved based on the consistency/inconsistency of the
pillars.</p>
      <p>Future work may be directed towards adding pillars, or replacing some of the
pillars used here. One possibility is historic information from archives and
tree-ring analyses that would allow for assessment of a wider spectrum of
drought conditions. Other possibilities are the “trading space for time”
approach as well as more formal multi-model ensembles.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p>The paper is a contribution to UNESCO's FRIEND-Water program. The authors
would like to thank the Austrian Climate Research Program ACRP for financial
support through the projects CILFAD (GZ B060362) and DALF-Pro (GZ B464822),
and the Austrian Academy of Sciences for financial support through the
“Predictability of Runoff” project. We thank the Central Institute for
Meteorology and Geodynamics (ZAMG) and the Hydrographical Service of Austria
(HZB) for providing meteorological and hydrological data, and Tobias Gauster
for assistance with Fig. 10. We would like to thank Luis Samaniego, Charlie Luce and Chuck Kroll for their useful comments on the manuscript.
<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?><?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Edited by: K. Stahl<?xmltex \hack{\newline}?>
Reviewed by:  L. Samaniego, C. Kroll, and C. Luce</p></ack><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Auer, I., Böhm, R., Jurkovic, A., Lipa, W., Orlik, A., Potzmann, R.,
Schöner, W., Ungersböck, M., Matulla, C., Briffa, K., Jones, P.,
Efthymiadis, D., Brunetti, M., Nanni, T., Maugeri, M., Mercalli, L., Mestre,
O., Moisselin, J.-M., Begert, M., Müller-Westermeier, G., Kveton, V.,
Bochnicek, O., Stastny, P., Lapin, M., Szalai, S., Szentimrey, T., Cegnar,
T., Dolinar, M., Gajic-Capka, M., Zaninovic, K., Majstorovic, Z., and
Nieplova, E.: HISTALP—historical instrumental climatological surface time
series of the Greater Alpine Region, Int. J. Climatol., 27, 17–46,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.1377" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.1377</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Blöschl, G. and Montanari, A.: Climate change impacts–throwing the
dice?, Hydrol. Process., 24, 374–381, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Blöschl, G., Viglione, A., Merz, R., Parajka, J., Salinas, J. L., and
Schöner, W.: Auswirkungen des Klimawandels auf Hochwasser und
Niederwasser (Climate impacts on floods and low flows), Österr. Wasser-
Abfallwirtsch., 63, 21–30, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Blöschl, G., Viglione, A., and Montanari, A.: Emerging Approaches to
Hydrological Risk Management in a Changing World, in Climate Vulnerability,
3–10, Elsevier, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Böhm, R., Auer, I., Brunetti, M., Maugeri, M., Nanni, T., and
Schöner, W.: Regional temperature variability in the European Alps:
1760–1998 from homogenized instrumental time series, Int. J. Climatol.,
21, 1779–1801, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.689" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/joc.689</ext-link>, 2001.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Bosshard, T., Carambia, M., Goergen, K., Kotlarski, S., Krahe, P., Zappa, M.,
and Schär, C.: Quantifying uncertainty sources in an ensemble of
hydrological climate-impact projections, Water Resour. Res., 49,
1523–1536, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011533" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011WR011533</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Ceola, S., Arheimer, B., Baratti, E., Blöschl, G., Capell, R., Castellarin, A., Freer, J., Han, D.,
Hrachowitz, M., Hundecha, Y., Hutton, C., Lindström, G., Montanari, A., Nijzink, R., Parajka, J., Toth, E.,
Viglione, A., and Wagener, T.: Virtual laboratories: new opportunities for collaborative water science,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2101–2117, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2101-2015" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-19-2101-2015</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Chauveau, M., Chazot, S., Perrin, C., Bourgin, P.-Y., Sauquet, E., Vidal,
J.-P., Rouchy, N., Martin, E., David, J., Norotte, T., Maugis, P., and De
Lacaze, X.: Quels impacts des changements climatiques sur les eaux de
surface en France à l'horizon 2070?, Houille Blanche, 4, 5–15,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/lhb/2013027" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1051/lhb/2013027</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>De Wit, M. J. M., Van den Hurk, B., Warmerdam, P. M. M., Torfs, P. J. J. F.,
Roulin, E., and Van Deursen, W. P. A.: Impact of climate change on low-flows
in the river Meuse, Climate Change, 82, 351–372,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9195-2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10584-006-9195-2</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Diaz-Nieto, J. and Wilby, R. L.: A comparison of statistical downscaling and
climate change factor methods: impacts on low flows in the River Thames,
United Kingdom, Climate Change, 69, 245–268, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Douglas, E., Vogel, R., and Kroll, C.: Trends in floods and low flows in the
United States: impact of spatial correlation, J. Hydrol., 240, 90–105,
2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V.: Effective and efficient global
optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models, Water Resour. Res., 28,
1015–1031, 1992.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. J.: An introduction to the bootstrap Chapman &amp; Hall, New York, 436 pp., 1993.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Field, C. B. and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Managing the
risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaption:
special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Fleckenstein, J. H., Niswonger, R. G., and Fogg, G. E.:
River-aquifer interactions, geologic heterogeneity, and low-flow management,
Ground water, 44, 837–852, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Gaál, L., Szolgay, J., Kohnová, S., Parajka, J., Merz, R., Viglione,
A., and Blöschl, G.: Flood timescales: Understanding the interplay of
climate and catchment processes through comparative hydrology, Water Resour.
Res., 48, W04511, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011509" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011WR011509</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Giuntoli, I., Renard, B., Vidal, J.-P., and Bard, A.: Low flows in France and
their relationship to large-scale climate indices, J. Hydrol., 482,
105–118, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.038" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.038</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Gupta, H.V., Blöschl, G., McDonnel, J., Savenije, H., Sivapalan, M.,
Viglione, A., and Wagener, T.: Synthesis,  in:  Runoff Prediction in
Ungauged Basins – Synthesis across Processes, Places and Scales, edited by: Blöschl, G.,
Sivapalan, M., Wagener, T., Viglione, A., and Savenije, H., Chapter 12,
361–383, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Gutknecht, D., Blöschl, G., Reszler, C., and Heindl, H.: Ein
“Mehr-Standbeine”-Ansatz zur Ermittlung von
Bemessungshochwässern kleiner Auftretenswahrscheinlichkeit, Österr.
Wasser- Abfallwirtsch., 58, 44–50, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Habets, F., Boé, J., Déqué, M., Ducharne, A., Gascoin, S.,
Hachour, A., Martin, E., Pagé, C., Sauquet, E., Terray, L., Thiéry,
D., Oudin, L. and Viennot, P.: Impact of climate change on the hydrogeology
of two basins in northern France, Climate Change, 121, 771–785,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0934-x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1007/s10584-013-0934-x</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Hall, J., Arheimer, B., Borga, M., Brázdil, R., Claps, P., Kiss, A., Kjeldsen, T. R.,
Kriauciuniene, J., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Lang, M., Llasat, M. C., Macdonald, N., McIntyre, N.,
Mediero, L., Merz, B., Merz, R., Molnar, P., Montanari, A., Neuhold, C., Parajka, J., PerdigÃo, R. A. P.,
Plavcová, L., Rogger, M., Salinas, J. L., Sauquet, E., Schär, C., Szolgay, J., Viglione, A.,
and Blöschl, G.: Understanding flood regime changes in Europe: a state-of-the-art assessment,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2735–2772, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2735-2014" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-18-2735-2014</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Hannaford, J. and Buys, G.: Trends in seasonal river flow regimes in the UK,
J. Hydrol., 475, 158–174, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Hannaford, J., Buys, G., Stahl, K., and Tallaksen, L. M.: The influence of decadal-scale variability
on trends in long European streamflow records, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2717–2733, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2717-2013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-17-2717-2013</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Haslinger, K., Anders, I., and Hofstätter, M.: Regional climate modelling
over complex terrain: an evaluation study of COSMO-CLM hindcast model runs
for the Greater Alpine Region, Clim. Dynam., 40, 511–529, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Haslinger, K., Koffler, D., Schöner, W., and Laaha, G.: Exploring the
link between meteorological drought and streamflow: Effects of
climate-catchment interaction, Water Resour. Res., 50, 2468–2487,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013WR015051" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2013WR015051</ext-link>, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Hay, L. E., Wilby, R. L., Leavesley, G. H.: A comparison of delta
change and downscaled GCM scenarios for three mountainous basins in the
United States, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 36, 387–397, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb04276.x" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb04276.x</ext-link>, 2000.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Hundecha, Y. and Merz, B.: Exploring the relationship between changes in
climate and floods using a model-based analysis, Water Resour. Res., 48, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010527" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011WR010527</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Hurkmans, R., Terink, W., Uijlenhoet, R., Torfs, P., Jacob, D., and Troch, P.
A.: Changes in streamflow dynamics in the Rhine basin under three
high-resolution regional climate scenarios, J. Climate, 23, 679–699, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Knutti, R., Abramowitz, G., Collins, M., Eyring,  V.,  Gleckler, P. J.,
Hewitson,  B., and Mearns,  L.:  Good Practice Guidance Paper on Assessing and
Combining Multi Model Climate Projections, in: Meeting Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Assessing and
Combining Multi Model Climate Projections, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D.,
Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., and Midgley, P. M., IPCC Working Group I
Technical Support Unit, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Laaha, G. and Blöschl, G.: Seasonality indices for regionalizing low
flows, Hydrol. Process., 20, 3851–3878, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6161" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.6161</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Laaha, G. and Blöschl, G.: A national low flow estimation procedure for
Austria, Hydrol. Sci. J., 52, 625–644, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1623/hysj.52.4.625" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1623/hysj.52.4.625</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Lins, H. F. and Slack, J. R.: Streamflow trends in the United States,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 227–230, 1999.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Loibl, W., Formayer, H., Schöner, W., Truhetz, H., Anders, I., Gobiet,
A., Heinrich, G., Köstl, M., Nadeem, I., Peters-Anders, J., Schicker, I., Suklitsch, M., and Züger, H.:
Reclip: century 1 Research for climate protection: century climate
simulations: models, data and ghg-scenarios, simulations, ACRP Final Rep.
Reclip Century Part Vienna, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>Lorenzo-Lacruz, J., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., López-Moreno, J. I.,
Morán-Tejeda, E., and Zabalza, J.: Recent trends in Iberian streamflows
(1945–2005), J. Hydrol., 414–415, 463–475,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.11.023" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.11.023</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Luce, C. H. and Holden, Z. A.: Declining annual streamflow distributions in
the Pacific Northwest United States, 1948–2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,
L16401, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039407" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2009GL039407</ext-link>, 2009.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Luce, C. H., Abatzoglou, J. T., and Holden, Z. A.: The Missing Mountain
Water: Slower Westerlies Decrease Orographic Enhancement in the Pacific
Northwest USA, Science, 342, 1360–1364, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1242335" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.1242335</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Majone, B., Bovolo, C. I., Bellin, A., Blenkinsop, S., and Fowler, H. J.:
Modeling the impacts of future climate change on water resources for the
Gállego river basin (Spain), Water Resour. Res., 48, W01512,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010985" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011WR010985</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Merz, R. and Blöschl, G.: Flood frequency hydrology: 2. Combining data
evidence, Water Resour. Res., 44, W08433, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006745" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007WR006745</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Merz, R., Parajka, J., and Blöschl, G.: Time stability of catchment model
parameters: Implications for climate impact analyses, Water Resour. Res.,
47, W02531, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009505" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2010WR009505</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Montanari, A., Rosso, R., and Taqqu, M. S.: Fractionally differenced
ARIMA models applied to hydrologic time series: Identification, estimation,
and simulation, Water Resour. Res., 33, 1035–1044, 1997.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Parajka, J. and Blöschl, G.: The value of MODIS snow cover data in validating and
calibrating conceptual hydrologic models, J. Hydrol., 358, 240–258, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.06.006" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.06.006</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Parajka, J., Merz, R., and Blöschl, G.: Uncertainty and multiple
objective calibration in regional water balance modelling: case study in 320
Austrian catchments, Hydrol. Process., 21, 435–446,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6253" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.6253</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Parajka, J., Blaschke, A. P., Blöschl, G., Haslinger, K., Hepp, G., Laaha, G., Schöner, W., Trautvetter, H.,
Viglione, A., and Zessner, M.: Uncertainty contributions to low-flow projections in Austria,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2085–2101, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2085-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-20-2085-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Perdigão, R. A. P. and  Blöschl, G.: Spatiotemporal flood
sensitivity to annual precipitation: Evidence for landscape-climate
coevolution, Water Resour. Res., 50, 5492–5509, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015365" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2014WR015365</ext-link>,
2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Prudhomme, C., Young, A., Watts, G., Haxton, T., Crooks, S., Williamson, J.,
Davies, H., Dadson, S., and Allen, S.: The drying up of Britain? A national
estimate of changes in seasonal river flows from 11 Regional Climate Model
simulations, Hydrol. Process., 26, 1115–1118, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8434" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.8434</ext-link>,
2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Renard, B., Lang, M., Bois, P., Dupeyrat, A., Mestre, O., Niel, H., Sauquet,
E., Prudhomme, C., Parey, S., Paquet, E., Neppel, L., and Gailhard, J.:
Regional methods for trend detection: Assessing field significance and
regional consistency, Water Resour. Res., 44, W08419,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006268" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007WR006268</ext-link>, 2008.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Rodionov, S. N.:  Use of prewhitening in climate regime shift
detection, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33,  L12707, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006GL025904" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2006GL025904</ext-link>, 2006.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>Samaniego, L., Kumar, R., and Zink, M.: Implications of Parameter
Uncertainty on Soil Moisture Drought Analysis in Germany, J.
Hydrometeorol., 14, 47–68, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-12-075.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JHM-D-12-075.1</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Schöner, W., Böhm, R., and Auer, I.: 125 years of high-mountain
research at Sonnblick Observatory (Austrian Alps)—from “the house above
the clouds” to a unique research platform, Theor. Appl. Climatol., 110,
491–498, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Sen, P. K.: Estimates of the regression coefficient based on
Kendall's tau, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 63,
1379–1389, 1968.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Sivapalan, M., Blöschl, G., Zhang, L., and Vertessy, R.: Downward
approach to hydrological prediction, Hydrol. Process., 17, 2101–2111,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1425" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/hyp.1425</ext-link>, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Sivapalan, M., Blöschl, G., Merz, R., and Gutknecht, D.: Linking flood
frequency to long-term water balance: Incorporating effects of seasonality,
Water Resour. Res., 41, W06012, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003439" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2004WR003439</ext-link>, 2005.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Stahl, K., Hisdal, H., Hannaford, J., Tallaksen, L. M., van Lanen, H. A. J., Sauquet, E., Demuth, S.,
Fendekova, M., and Jódar, J.: Streamflow trends in Europe: evidence from a dataset of near-natural catchments,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 2367–2382, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2367-2010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-14-2367-2010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Stedinger, J. R. and Tasker, G. D.: Regional hydrologic analysis: 1.
Ordinary, weighted, and generalized least squares compared, Water Resour.
Res., 21, 1421–1432, 1985.
 </mixed-citation></ref><?xmltex \hack{\newpage}?>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Szolgayová, E., Laaha, G., Blöschl, G., and Bucher, C.: Factors
influencing long range dependence in streamflow of European rivers, Hydrol.
Process., 28, 1573–1586, 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Thyer, M. and Kuczera, G.: A hidden Markov model for modelling long-term
persistence in multi-site rainfall time series 1., Model calibration using a
Bayesian approach, J. Hydrol., 275, 12–26, 2003.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Van Loon, A. F. and Laaha, G.: Hydrological drought severity explained by
climate and catchment characteristics, J. Hydrol., 526, 3–14,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.059" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.059</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., and López-Moreno, J. I.: A
multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized
precipitation evapotranspiration index, J. Climate, 23, 1696–1718, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Viglione, A. and Parajka, J.: TUWmodel: Lumped Hydrological Model for
Education Purposes, R package, available at:
<uri>http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=TUWmodel</uri> (last access: 28 September 2015), 2014.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Viglione, A., Castellarin, A., Rogger, M., Merz, R., and Blöschl, G.:
Extreme rainstorms: Comparing regional envelope curves to stochastically
generated events, Water Resour. Res., 48, W01509, <ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010515" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011WR010515</ext-link>, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Viglione, A., Merz, R., Salinas, J. L., and Blöschl, G.: Flood frequency
hydrology: 3. A Bayesian analysis, Water Resour. Res., 49, 675–692,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010782" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2011WR010782</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Watts, G., von Christierson, B., Hannaford, J., and Lonsdale, K.: Testing the
resilience of water supply systems to long droughts, J. Hydrol., 414,
255–267, 2012.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Wilby, R. L. and Dessai, S.: Robust adaptation to climate change, Weather,
65, 180–185, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Wilson, D., Hisdal, H., and Lawrence, D.: Has streamflow changed in the
Nordic countries? – Recent trends and comparisons to hydrological
projections, J. Hydrol., 394, 334–346,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.09.010" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.09.010</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Wilson, E. O.: Consilience: the unity of knowledge, New York: Knopf,
1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>Wong, W. K., Beldring, S., Engen-Skaugen, T., Haddeland, I., and Hisdal, H.:
Climate Change Effects on Spatiotemporal Patterns of Hydroclimatological
Summer Droughts in Norway, J. Hydrometeorol., 12, 1205–1220,
<ext-link xlink:href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011JHM1357.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2011JHM1357.1</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Yue, S., Pilon, P., Phinney, B., and Cavadias, G.: The influence of
autocorrelation on the ability to detect trend in hydrological series,
Hydrol. Process., 16, 1807–1829, 2002.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list><app-group content-type="float"><app><title/>

    </app></app-group></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>A three-pillar approach to assessing climate impacts on low flows</article-title-html>
<abstract-html><p class="p">The objective of this paper is to present a framework for assessing climate
impacts on future low flows that combines different sources of information,
termed pillars. To illustrate the framework three pillars are chosen: (a) extrapolation of observed low-flow trends into the
future,
(b) rainfall–runoff projections based on climate scenarios and (c) extrapolation of
changing stochastic rainfall characteristics into the future combined with
rainfall–runoff modelling. Alternative pillars could be included in the
overall framework. The three pillars are combined by expert judgement based
on a synoptic view of data, model outputs and process reasoning. The
consistency/inconsistency between the pillars is considered an indicator of
the certainty/uncertainty of the projections. The viability of the framework
is illustrated for four example catchments from Austria that represent
typical climate conditions in central Europe. In the Alpine region where
winter low flows dominate, trend projections and climate scenarios yield
consistently increasing low flows, although of different magnitudes. In the
region north of the Alps, consistently small changes are projected by all
methods. In the regions in the south and south-east, more pronounced and
mostly decreasing trends are projected but there is disagreement in the
magnitudes of the projected changes. The process reasons for the consistencies/inconsistencies are discussed. For an Alpine region such as
Austria the key to understanding low flows is whether they are controlled by
freezing and snowmelt processes, or by the summer moisture deficit
associated with evaporation. It is argued that the three-pillar approach
offers a systematic framework of combining different sources of information
aimed at more robust projections than that obtained from each pillar alone.</p></abstract-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
Auer, I., Böhm, R., Jurkovic, A., Lipa, W., Orlik, A., Potzmann, R.,
Schöner, W., Ungersböck, M., Matulla, C., Briffa, K., Jones, P.,
Efthymiadis, D., Brunetti, M., Nanni, T., Maugeri, M., Mercalli, L., Mestre,
O., Moisselin, J.-M., Begert, M., Müller-Westermeier, G., Kveton, V.,
Bochnicek, O., Stastny, P., Lapin, M., Szalai, S., Szentimrey, T., Cegnar,
T., Dolinar, M., Gajic-Capka, M., Zaninovic, K., Majstorovic, Z., and
Nieplova, E.: HISTALP—historical instrumental climatological surface time
series of the Greater Alpine Region, Int. J. Climatol., 27, 17–46,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.1377" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/joc.1377</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
Blöschl, G. and Montanari, A.: Climate change impacts–throwing the
dice?, Hydrol. Process., 24, 374–381, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
Blöschl, G., Viglione, A., Merz, R., Parajka, J., Salinas, J. L., and
Schöner, W.: Auswirkungen des Klimawandels auf Hochwasser und
Niederwasser (Climate impacts on floods and low flows), Österr. Wasser-
Abfallwirtsch., 63, 21–30, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
Blöschl, G., Viglione, A., and Montanari, A.: Emerging Approaches to
Hydrological Risk Management in a Changing World, in Climate Vulnerability,
3–10, Elsevier, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
Böhm, R., Auer, I., Brunetti, M., Maugeri, M., Nanni, T., and
Schöner, W.: Regional temperature variability in the European Alps:
1760–1998 from homogenized instrumental time series, Int. J. Climatol.,
21, 1779–1801, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/joc.689" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/joc.689</a>, 2001.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
Bosshard, T., Carambia, M., Goergen, K., Kotlarski, S., Krahe, P., Zappa, M.,
and Schär, C.: Quantifying uncertainty sources in an ensemble of
hydrological climate-impact projections, Water Resour. Res., 49,
1523–1536, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011533" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011WR011533</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
Ceola, S., Arheimer, B., Baratti, E., Blöschl, G., Capell, R., Castellarin, A., Freer, J., Han, D.,
Hrachowitz, M., Hundecha, Y., Hutton, C., Lindström, G., Montanari, A., Nijzink, R., Parajka, J., Toth, E.,
Viglione, A., and Wagener, T.: Virtual laboratories: new opportunities for collaborative water science,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 19, 2101–2117, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-19-2101-2015" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/hess-19-2101-2015</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
Chauveau, M., Chazot, S., Perrin, C., Bourgin, P.-Y., Sauquet, E., Vidal,
J.-P., Rouchy, N., Martin, E., David, J., Norotte, T., Maugis, P., and De
Lacaze, X.: Quels impacts des changements climatiques sur les eaux de
surface en France à l'horizon 2070?, Houille Blanche, 4, 5–15,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1051/lhb/2013027" target="_blank">doi:10.1051/lhb/2013027</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
De Wit, M. J. M., Van den Hurk, B., Warmerdam, P. M. M., Torfs, P. J. J. F.,
Roulin, E., and Van Deursen, W. P. A.: Impact of climate change on low-flows
in the river Meuse, Climate Change, 82, 351–372,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-006-9195-2" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s10584-006-9195-2</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
Diaz-Nieto, J. and Wilby, R. L.: A comparison of statistical downscaling and
climate change factor methods: impacts on low flows in the River Thames,
United Kingdom, Climate Change, 69, 245–268, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
Douglas, E., Vogel, R., and Kroll, C.: Trends in floods and low flows in the
United States: impact of spatial correlation, J. Hydrol., 240, 90–105,
2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
Duan, Q., Sorooshian, S., and Gupta, V.: Effective and efficient global
optimization for conceptual rainfall-runoff models, Water Resour. Res., 28,
1015–1031, 1992.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
Efron, B. and Tibshirani, R. J.: An introduction to the bootstrap Chapman &amp; Hall, New York, 436 pp., 1993.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
Field, C. B. and Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Managing the
risks of extreme events and disasters to advance climate change adaption:
special report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge
University Press, New York, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
Fleckenstein, J. H., Niswonger, R. G., and Fogg, G. E.:
River-aquifer interactions, geologic heterogeneity, and low-flow management,
Ground water, 44, 837–852, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
Gaál, L., Szolgay, J., Kohnová, S., Parajka, J., Merz, R., Viglione,
A., and Blöschl, G.: Flood timescales: Understanding the interplay of
climate and catchment processes through comparative hydrology, Water Resour.
Res., 48, W04511, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR011509" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011WR011509</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
Giuntoli, I., Renard, B., Vidal, J.-P., and Bard, A.: Low flows in France and
their relationship to large-scale climate indices, J. Hydrol., 482,
105–118, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.038" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.12.038</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
Gupta, H.V., Blöschl, G., McDonnel, J., Savenije, H., Sivapalan, M.,
Viglione, A., and Wagener, T.: Synthesis,  in:  Runoff Prediction in
Ungauged Basins – Synthesis across Processes, Places and Scales, edited by: Blöschl, G.,
Sivapalan, M., Wagener, T., Viglione, A., and Savenije, H., Chapter 12,
361–383, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
Gutknecht, D., Blöschl, G., Reszler, C., and Heindl, H.: Ein
“Mehr-Standbeine”-Ansatz zur Ermittlung von
Bemessungshochwässern kleiner Auftretenswahrscheinlichkeit, Österr.
Wasser- Abfallwirtsch., 58, 44–50, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
Habets, F., Boé, J., Déqué, M., Ducharne, A., Gascoin, S.,
Hachour, A., Martin, E., Pagé, C., Sauquet, E., Terray, L., Thiéry,
D., Oudin, L. and Viennot, P.: Impact of climate change on the hydrogeology
of two basins in northern France, Climate Change, 121, 771–785,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10584-013-0934-x" target="_blank">doi:10.1007/s10584-013-0934-x</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
Hall, J., Arheimer, B., Borga, M., Brázdil, R., Claps, P., Kiss, A., Kjeldsen, T. R.,
Kriauciuniene, J., Kundzewicz, Z. W., Lang, M., Llasat, M. C., Macdonald, N., McIntyre, N.,
Mediero, L., Merz, B., Merz, R., Molnar, P., Montanari, A., Neuhold, C., Parajka, J., PerdigÃo, R. A. P.,
Plavcová, L., Rogger, M., Salinas, J. L., Sauquet, E., Schär, C., Szolgay, J., Viglione, A.,
and Blöschl, G.: Understanding flood regime changes in Europe: a state-of-the-art assessment,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2735–2772, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2735-2014" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/hess-18-2735-2014</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
Hannaford, J. and Buys, G.: Trends in seasonal river flow regimes in the UK,
J. Hydrol., 475, 158–174, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
Hannaford, J., Buys, G., Stahl, K., and Tallaksen, L. M.: The influence of decadal-scale variability
on trends in long European streamflow records, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 2717–2733, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-2717-2013" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/hess-17-2717-2013</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
Haslinger, K., Anders, I., and Hofstätter, M.: Regional climate modelling
over complex terrain: an evaluation study of COSMO-CLM hindcast model runs
for the Greater Alpine Region, Clim. Dynam., 40, 511–529, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
Haslinger, K., Koffler, D., Schöner, W., and Laaha, G.: Exploring the
link between meteorological drought and streamflow: Effects of
climate-catchment interaction, Water Resour. Res., 50, 2468–2487,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2013WR015051" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2013WR015051</a>, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
Hay, L. E., Wilby, R. L., Leavesley, G. H.: A comparison of delta
change and downscaled GCM scenarios for three mountainous basins in the
United States, J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc., 36, 387–397, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb04276.x" target="_blank">doi:10.1111/j.1752-1688.2000.tb04276.x</a>, 2000.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
Hundecha, Y. and Merz, B.: Exploring the relationship between changes in
climate and floods using a model-based analysis, Water Resour. Res., 48, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010527" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011WR010527</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
Hurkmans, R., Terink, W., Uijlenhoet, R., Torfs, P., Jacob, D., and Troch, P.
A.: Changes in streamflow dynamics in the Rhine basin under three
high-resolution regional climate scenarios, J. Climate, 23, 679–699, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
Knutti, R., Abramowitz, G., Collins, M., Eyring,  V.,  Gleckler, P. J.,
Hewitson,  B., and Mearns,  L.:  Good Practice Guidance Paper on Assessing and
Combining Multi Model Climate Projections, in: Meeting Report of the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change Expert Meeting on Assessing and
Combining Multi Model Climate Projections, edited by: Stocker, T. F., Qin, D.,
Plattner, G.-K., Tignor, M., and Midgley, P. M., IPCC Working Group I
Technical Support Unit, University of Bern, Bern, Switzerland, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
Laaha, G. and Blöschl, G.: Seasonality indices for regionalizing low
flows, Hydrol. Process., 20, 3851–3878, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6161" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/hyp.6161</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
Laaha, G. and Blöschl, G.: A national low flow estimation procedure for
Austria, Hydrol. Sci. J., 52, 625–644, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1623/hysj.52.4.625" target="_blank">doi:10.1623/hysj.52.4.625</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
Lins, H. F. and Slack, J. R.: Streamflow trends in the United States,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 26, 227–230, 1999.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
Loibl, W., Formayer, H., Schöner, W., Truhetz, H., Anders, I., Gobiet,
A., Heinrich, G., Köstl, M., Nadeem, I., Peters-Anders, J., Schicker, I., Suklitsch, M., and Züger, H.:
Reclip: century 1 Research for climate protection: century climate
simulations: models, data and ghg-scenarios, simulations, ACRP Final Rep.
Reclip Century Part Vienna, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
Lorenzo-Lacruz, J., Vicente-Serrano, S. M., López-Moreno, J. I.,
Morán-Tejeda, E., and Zabalza, J.: Recent trends in Iberian streamflows
(1945–2005), J. Hydrol., 414–415, 463–475,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.11.023" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.11.023</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
Luce, C. H. and Holden, Z. A.: Declining annual streamflow distributions in
the Pacific Northwest United States, 1948–2006, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36,
L16401, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2009GL039407" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2009GL039407</a>, 2009.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
Luce, C. H., Abatzoglou, J. T., and Holden, Z. A.: The Missing Mountain
Water: Slower Westerlies Decrease Orographic Enhancement in the Pacific
Northwest USA, Science, 342, 1360–1364, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1126/science.1242335" target="_blank">doi:10.1126/science.1242335</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
Majone, B., Bovolo, C. I., Bellin, A., Blenkinsop, S., and Fowler, H. J.:
Modeling the impacts of future climate change on water resources for the
Gállego river basin (Spain), Water Resour. Res., 48, W01512,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010985" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011WR010985</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
Merz, R. and Blöschl, G.: Flood frequency hydrology: 2. Combining data
evidence, Water Resour. Res., 44, W08433, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006745" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2007WR006745</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
Merz, R., Parajka, J., and Blöschl, G.: Time stability of catchment model
parameters: Implications for climate impact analyses, Water Resour. Res.,
47, W02531, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009505" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2010WR009505</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
Montanari, A., Rosso, R., and Taqqu, M. S.: Fractionally differenced
ARIMA models applied to hydrologic time series: Identification, estimation,
and simulation, Water Resour. Res., 33, 1035–1044, 1997.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
Parajka, J. and Blöschl, G.: The value of MODIS snow cover data in validating and
calibrating conceptual hydrologic models, J. Hydrol., 358, 240–258, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.06.006" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.06.006</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
Parajka, J., Merz, R., and Blöschl, G.: Uncertainty and multiple
objective calibration in regional water balance modelling: case study in 320
Austrian catchments, Hydrol. Process., 21, 435–446,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.6253" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/hyp.6253</a>, 2007.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
Parajka, J., Blaschke, A. P., Blöschl, G., Haslinger, K., Hepp, G., Laaha, G., Schöner, W., Trautvetter, H.,
Viglione, A., and Zessner, M.: Uncertainty contributions to low-flow projections in Austria,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2085–2101, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2085-2016" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/hess-20-2085-2016</a>, 2016.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
Perdigão, R. A. P. and  Blöschl, G.: Spatiotemporal flood
sensitivity to annual precipitation: Evidence for landscape-climate
coevolution, Water Resour. Res., 50, 5492–5509, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015365" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/2014WR015365</a>,
2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
Prudhomme, C., Young, A., Watts, G., Haxton, T., Crooks, S., Williamson, J.,
Davies, H., Dadson, S., and Allen, S.: The drying up of Britain? A national
estimate of changes in seasonal river flows from 11 Regional Climate Model
simulations, Hydrol. Process., 26, 1115–1118, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.8434" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/hyp.8434</a>,
2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
Renard, B., Lang, M., Bois, P., Dupeyrat, A., Mestre, O., Niel, H., Sauquet,
E., Prudhomme, C., Parey, S., Paquet, E., Neppel, L., and Gailhard, J.:
Regional methods for trend detection: Assessing field significance and
regional consistency, Water Resour. Res., 44, W08419,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007WR006268" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2007WR006268</a>, 2008.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
Rodionov, S. N.:  Use of prewhitening in climate regime shift
detection, Geophys. Res. Lett., 33,  L12707, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006GL025904" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2006GL025904</a>, 2006.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
Samaniego, L., Kumar, R., and Zink, M.: Implications of Parameter
Uncertainty on Soil Moisture Drought Analysis in Germany, J.
Hydrometeorol., 14, 47–68, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/JHM-D-12-075.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/JHM-D-12-075.1</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
Schöner, W., Böhm, R., and Auer, I.: 125 years of high-mountain
research at Sonnblick Observatory (Austrian Alps)—from “the house above
the clouds” to a unique research platform, Theor. Appl. Climatol., 110,
491–498, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
Sen, P. K.: Estimates of the regression coefficient based on
Kendall's tau, J. Am. Stat. Assoc., 63,
1379–1389, 1968.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
Sivapalan, M., Blöschl, G., Zhang, L., and Vertessy, R.: Downward
approach to hydrological prediction, Hydrol. Process., 17, 2101–2111,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/hyp.1425" target="_blank">doi:10.1002/hyp.1425</a>, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
Sivapalan, M., Blöschl, G., Merz, R., and Gutknecht, D.: Linking flood
frequency to long-term water balance: Incorporating effects of seasonality,
Water Resour. Res., 41, W06012, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004WR003439" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2004WR003439</a>, 2005.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
Stahl, K., Hisdal, H., Hannaford, J., Tallaksen, L. M., van Lanen, H. A. J., Sauquet, E., Demuth, S.,
Fendekova, M., and Jódar, J.: Streamflow trends in Europe: evidence from a dataset of near-natural catchments,
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 14, 2367–2382, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2367-2010" target="_blank">doi:10.5194/hess-14-2367-2010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
Stedinger, J. R. and Tasker, G. D.: Regional hydrologic analysis: 1.
Ordinary, weighted, and generalized least squares compared, Water Resour.
Res., 21, 1421–1432, 1985.

</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
Szolgayová, E., Laaha, G., Blöschl, G., and Bucher, C.: Factors
influencing long range dependence in streamflow of European rivers, Hydrol.
Process., 28, 1573–1586, 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
Thyer, M. and Kuczera, G.: A hidden Markov model for modelling long-term
persistence in multi-site rainfall time series 1., Model calibration using a
Bayesian approach, J. Hydrol., 275, 12–26, 2003.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
Van Loon, A. F. and Laaha, G.: Hydrological drought severity explained by
climate and catchment characteristics, J. Hydrol., 526, 3–14,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.059" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.059</a>, 2015.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., and López-Moreno, J. I.: A
multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized
precipitation evapotranspiration index, J. Climate, 23, 1696–1718, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
Viglione, A. and Parajka, J.: TUWmodel: Lumped Hydrological Model for
Education Purposes, R package, available at:
<a href="http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=TUWmodel" target="_blank">http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=TUWmodel</a> (last access: 28 September 2015), 2014.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
Viglione, A., Castellarin, A., Rogger, M., Merz, R., and Blöschl, G.:
Extreme rainstorms: Comparing regional envelope curves to stochastically
generated events, Water Resour. Res., 48, W01509, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010515" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011WR010515</a>, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
Viglione, A., Merz, R., Salinas, J. L., and Blöschl, G.: Flood frequency
hydrology: 3. A Bayesian analysis, Water Resour. Res., 49, 675–692,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2011WR010782" target="_blank">doi:10.1029/2011WR010782</a>, 2013.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
Watts, G., von Christierson, B., Hannaford, J., and Lonsdale, K.: Testing the
resilience of water supply systems to long droughts, J. Hydrol., 414,
255–267, 2012.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
Wilby, R. L. and Dessai, S.: Robust adaptation to climate change, Weather,
65, 180–185, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
Wilson, D., Hisdal, H., and Lawrence, D.: Has streamflow changed in the
Nordic countries? – Recent trends and comparisons to hydrological
projections, J. Hydrol., 394, 334–346,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.09.010" target="_blank">doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.09.010</a>, 2010.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib65"><label>65</label><mixed-citation>
Wilson, E. O.: Consilience: the unity of knowledge, New York: Knopf,
1998.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib66"><label>66</label><mixed-citation>
Wong, W. K., Beldring, S., Engen-Skaugen, T., Haddeland, I., and Hisdal, H.:
Climate Change Effects on Spatiotemporal Patterns of Hydroclimatological
Summer Droughts in Norway, J. Hydrometeorol., 12, 1205–1220,
<a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1175/2011JHM1357.1" target="_blank">doi:10.1175/2011JHM1357.1</a>, 2011.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib67"><label>67</label><mixed-citation>
Yue, S., Pilon, P., Phinney, B., and Cavadias, G.: The influence of
autocorrelation on the ability to detect trend in hydrological series,
Hydrol. Process., 16, 1807–1829, 2002.
</mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
