Articles | Volume 26, issue 8
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2147-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-2147-2022
© Author(s) 2022. This work is distributed under
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Research article
| 
28 Apr 2022
Research article |
| 28 Apr 2022
| 28 Apr 2022
Unraveling the contribution of potential evaporation formulation to uncertainty under climate change
Thibault Lemaitre-Basset
CORRESPONDING AUTHOR
CNRS, EPHE, UMR 7619 METIS, Sorbonne Université, Case 105, 4 place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, HYCAR Research Unit, Antony, France
Ludovic Oudin
CNRS, EPHE, UMR 7619 METIS, Sorbonne Université, Case 105, 4 place Jussieu, 75005 Paris, France
Guillaume Thirel
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, HYCAR Research Unit, Antony, France
Lila Collet
Université Paris-Saclay, INRAE, HYCAR Research Unit, Antony, France
now at: OSIRIS Department, EDF Research and Development Division, EDF Lab Paris-Saclay, Palaiseau, France
Related authors
Laurent Strohmenger, Eric Sauquet, Claire Bernard, Jérémie Bonneau, Flora Branger, Amélie Bresson, Pierre Brigode, Rémy Buzier, Olivier Delaigue, Alexandre Devers, Guillaume Evin, Maïté Fournier, Shu-Chen Hsu, Sandra Lanini, Alban de Lavenne, Thibault Lemaitre-Basset, Claire Magand, Guilherme Mendoza Guimarães, Max Mentha, Simon Munier, Charles Perrin, Tristan Podechard, Léo Rouchy, Malak Sadki, Myriam Soutif-Bellenger, François Tilmant, Yves Tramblay, Anne-Lise Véron, Jean-Philippe Vidal, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3375–3391, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of a large visual inspection campaign of 674 streamflow time series in France. The objective was to detect non-natural records resulting from instrument failure or anthropogenic influences, such as hydroelectric power generation or reservoir management. We conclude that the identification of flaws in flow time series is highly dependent on the objectives and skills of individual evaluators, and we raise the need for better practices for data cleaning.
Guillaume Evin, Benoit Hingray, Guillaume Thirel, Agnès Ducharne, Laurent Strohmenger, Lola Corre, Yves Tramblay, Jean-Philippe Vidal, Jérémie Bonneau, François Colleoni, Joël Gailhard, Florence Habets, Frédéric Hendrickx, Louis Héraut, Peng Huang, Matthieu Le Lay, Claire Magand, Paola Marson, Céline Monteil, Simon Munier, Alix Reverdy, Jean-Michel Soubeyroux, Yoann Robin, Jean-Pierre Vergnes, Mathieu Vrac, and Eric Sauquet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2727, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-2727, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
Explore2 provides hydrological projections for 1,735 French catchments. Using QUALYPSO, this study assesses uncertainties, including internal variability. By the end of the century, low flows are projected to decline in southern France under high emissions, while other indicators remain uncertain. Emission scenarios and regional climate models are key uncertainty sources. Internal variability is often as large as climate-driven changes.
Eric Sauquet, Guillaume Evin, Sonia Siauve, Ryma Aissat, Patrick Arnaud, Maud Bérel, Jérémie Bonneau, Flora Branger, Yvan Caballero, François Colléoni, Agnès Ducharne, Joël Gailhard, Florence Habets, Frédéric Hendrickx, Louis Héraut, Benoît Hingray, Peng Huang, Tristan Jaouen, Alexis Jeantet, Sandra Lanini, Matthieu Le Lay, Claire Magand, Louise Mimeau, Céline Monteil, Simon Munier, Charles Perrin, Olivier Robelin, Fabienne Rousset, Jean-Michel Soubeyroux, Laurent Strohmenger, Guillaume Thirel, Flore Tocquer, Yves Tramblay, Jean-Pierre Vergnes, and Jean-Philippe Vidal
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1788, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1788, 2025
This preprint is open for discussion and under review for Hydrology and Earth System Sciences (HESS).
Short summary
Short summary
The Explore2 project has provided an unprecedented set of hydrological projections in terms of the number of hydrological models used and the spatial and temporal resolution. The results have been made available through various media. Under the high-emission scenario, the hydrological models mostly agree on the decrease in seasonal flows in the south of France, confirming its hotspot status, and on the decrease in summer flows throughout France, with the exception of the northern part of France.
Yves Tramblay, Guillaume Thirel, Laurent Strohmenger, Guillaume Evin, Lola Corre, Louis Heraut, and Eric Sauquet
EGUsphere, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1635, https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2025-1635, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
How climate change impacts floods in France? Using simulations for 3000 rivers in climate projections, results show that flood trends vary depending on the region. In the north, floods may become more severe, but in many other areas, the trends are mixed. Floods from intense rainfall are becoming more frequent, while snowmelt floods are strongly decreasing. Overall, the study shows that understanding what causes floods is key to predicting how they are likely to change with the climate.
Léonard Santos, Vazken Andréassian, Torben O. Sonnenborg, Göran Lindström, Alban de Lavenne, Charles Perrin, Lila Collet, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 29, 683–700, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-683-2025, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-29-683-2025, 2025
Short summary
Short summary
This work investigates how hydrological models are transferred to a period in which climate conditions are different to the ones of the period in which they were set up. The robustness assessment test built to detect dependencies between model error and climatic drivers was applied to three hydrological models in 352 catchments in Denmark, France and Sweden. Potential issues are seen in a significant number of catchments for the models, even though the catchments differ for each model.
Guillaume Thirel, Léonard Santos, Olivier Delaigue, and Charles Perrin
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 4837–4860, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4837-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-4837-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
We discuss how mathematical transformations impact calibrated hydrological model simulations. We assess how 11 transformations behave over the complete range of streamflows. Extreme transformations lead to models that are specialized for extreme streamflows but show poor performance outside the range of targeted streamflows and are less robust. We show that no a priori assumption about transformations can be taken as warranted.
Pierre Brigode and Ludovic Oudin
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci. Discuss., https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-336, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-336, 2024
Preprint under review for HESS
Short summary
Short summary
We analyzed how well two global climate datasets can simulate river flows across Europe over the last 150 years. Our results show good performance overall, revealing important long-term changes in water availability and extreme events, like floods, in different regions. This research helps us better understand past and future water trends, providing insights to manage resources and address the challenges posed by climate change.
Cyril Thébault, Charles Perrin, Vazken Andréassian, Guillaume Thirel, Sébastien Legrand, and Olivier Delaigue
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 28, 1539–1566, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1539-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-28-1539-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
Streamflow forecasting is useful for many applications, ranging from population safety (e.g. floods) to water resource management (e.g. agriculture or hydropower). To this end, hydrological models must be optimized. However, a model is inherently wrong. This study aims to analyse the contribution of a multi-model approach within a variable spatial framework to improve streamflow simulations. The underlying idea is to take advantage of the strength of each modelling framework tested.
Nils Poncet, Philippe Lucas-Picher, Yves Tramblay, Guillaume Thirel, Humberto Vergara, Jonathan Gourley, and Antoinette Alias
Nat. Hazards Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 1163–1183, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1163-2024, https://doi.org/10.5194/nhess-24-1163-2024, 2024
Short summary
Short summary
High-resolution convection-permitting climate models (CPMs) are now available to better simulate rainstorm events leading to flash floods. In this study, two hydrological models are compared to simulate floods in a Mediterranean basin, showing a better ability of the CPM to reproduce flood peaks compared to coarser-resolution climate models. Future projections are also different, with a projected increase for the most severe floods and a potential decrease for the most frequent events.
Laurent Strohmenger, Eric Sauquet, Claire Bernard, Jérémie Bonneau, Flora Branger, Amélie Bresson, Pierre Brigode, Rémy Buzier, Olivier Delaigue, Alexandre Devers, Guillaume Evin, Maïté Fournier, Shu-Chen Hsu, Sandra Lanini, Alban de Lavenne, Thibault Lemaitre-Basset, Claire Magand, Guilherme Mendoza Guimarães, Max Mentha, Simon Munier, Charles Perrin, Tristan Podechard, Léo Rouchy, Malak Sadki, Myriam Soutif-Bellenger, François Tilmant, Yves Tramblay, Anne-Lise Véron, Jean-Philippe Vidal, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3375–3391, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3375-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3375-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
We present the results of a large visual inspection campaign of 674 streamflow time series in France. The objective was to detect non-natural records resulting from instrument failure or anthropogenic influences, such as hydroelectric power generation or reservoir management. We conclude that the identification of flaws in flow time series is highly dependent on the objectives and skills of individual evaluators, and we raise the need for better practices for data cleaning.
Olivier Delaigue, Pierre Brigode, Guillaume Thirel, and Laurent Coron
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 27, 3293–3327, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3293-2023, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-27-3293-2023, 2023
Short summary
Short summary
Teaching hydrological modeling is an important, but difficult, matter. It requires appropriate tools and teaching material. In this article, we present the airGRteaching package, which is an open-source software tool relying on widely used hydrological models. This tool proposes an interface and numerous hydrological modeling exercises representing a wide range of hydrological applications. We show how this tool can be applied to simple but real-life cases.
Eva Sebok, Hans Jørgen Henriksen, Ernesto Pastén-Zapata, Peter Berg, Guillaume Thirel, Anthony Lemoine, Andrea Lira-Loarca, Christiana Photiadou, Rafael Pimentel, Paul Royer-Gaspard, Erik Kjellström, Jens Hesselbjerg Christensen, Jean Philippe Vidal, Philippe Lucas-Picher, Markus G. Donat, Giovanni Besio, María José Polo, Simon Stisen, Yvan Caballero, Ilias G. Pechlivanidis, Lars Troldborg, and Jens Christian Refsgaard
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 5605–5625, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5605-2022, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-5605-2022, 2022
Short summary
Short summary
Hydrological models projecting the impact of changing climate carry a lot of uncertainty. Thus, these models usually have a multitude of simulations using different future climate data. This study used the subjective opinion of experts to assess which climate and hydrological models are the most likely to correctly predict climate impacts, thereby easing the computational burden. The experts could select more likely hydrological models, while the climate models were deemed equally probable.
Paul Royer-Gaspard, Vazken Andréassian, and Guillaume Thirel
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5703–5716, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5703-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5703-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
Most evaluation studies based on the differential split-sample test (DSST) endorse the consensus that rainfall–runoff models lack climatic robustness. In this technical note, we propose a new performance metric to evaluate model robustness without applying the DSST and which can be used with a single hydrological model calibration. Our work makes it possible to evaluate the temporal transferability of any hydrological model, including uncalibrated models, at a very low computational cost.
Alexis Jeantet, Hocine Henine, Cédric Chaumont, Lila Collet, Guillaume Thirel, and Julien Tournebize
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5447–5471, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5447-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5447-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The hydrological subsurface drainage model SIDRA-RU is assessed at the French national scale, using a unique database representing the large majority of the French drained areas. The model is evaluated following its capacity to simulate the drainage discharge variability and the annual drained water balance. Eventually, the temporal robustness of SIDRA-RU is assessed to demonstrate the utility of this model as a long-term management tool.
Pierre Nicolle, Vazken Andréassian, Paul Royer-Gaspard, Charles Perrin, Guillaume Thirel, Laurent Coron, and Léonard Santos
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 5013–5027, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5013-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-5013-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
In this note, a new method (RAT) is proposed to assess the robustness of hydrological models. The RAT method is particularly interesting because it does not require multiple calibrations (it is therefore applicable to uncalibrated models), and it can be used to determine whether a hydrological model may be safely used for climate change impact studies. Success at the robustness assessment test is a necessary (but not sufficient) condition of model robustness.
Paul C. Astagneau, Guillaume Thirel, Olivier Delaigue, Joseph H. A. Guillaume, Juraj Parajka, Claudia C. Brauer, Alberto Viglione, Wouter Buytaert, and Keith J. Beven
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 3937–3973, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-3937-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
The R programming language has become an important tool for many applications in hydrology. In this study, we provide an analysis of some of the R tools providing hydrological models. In total, two aspects are uniformly investigated, namely the conceptualisation of the models and the practicality of their implementation for end-users. These comparisons aim at easing the choice of R tools for users and at improving their usability for hydrology modelling to support more transferable research.
Laurène J. E. Bouaziz, Fabrizio Fenicia, Guillaume Thirel, Tanja de Boer-Euser, Joost Buitink, Claudia C. Brauer, Jan De Niel, Benjamin J. Dewals, Gilles Drogue, Benjamin Grelier, Lieke A. Melsen, Sotirios Moustakas, Jiri Nossent, Fernando Pereira, Eric Sprokkereef, Jasper Stam, Albrecht H. Weerts, Patrick Willems, Hubert H. G. Savenije, and Markus Hrachowitz
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1069–1095, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1069-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1069-2021, 2021
Short summary
Short summary
We quantify the differences in internal states and fluxes of 12 process-based models with similar streamflow performance and assess their plausibility using remotely sensed estimates of evaporation, snow cover, soil moisture and total storage anomalies. The dissimilarities in internal process representation imply that these models cannot all simultaneously be close to reality. Therefore, we invite modelers to evaluate their models using multiple variables and to rely on multi-model studies.
Manon Cassagnole, Maria-Helena Ramos, Ioanna Zalachori, Guillaume Thirel, Rémy Garçon, Joël Gailhard, and Thomas Ouillon
Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 25, 1033–1052, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1033-2021, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-25-1033-2021, 2021
Cited articles
Almorox, J., Quej, V. H., and Martí, P.: Global performance ranking of
temperature-based approaches for evapotranspiration estimation considering
Köppen climate classes, J. Hydrol., 528, 514–522,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.06.057, 2015. a
Bae, D.-H., Jung, I.-W., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Hydrologic uncertainties in
climate change from IPCC AR4 GCM simulations of the Chungju Basin, Korea,
J. Hydrol., 401, 90–105,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.02.012, 2011. a
Boé, J. and Terray, L.: Uncertainties in summer evapotranspiration changes
over Europe and implications for regional climate change,
Geophys. Res. Lett., 35, L05702, https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL032417, 2008. a
Dallaire, G., Poulin, A., Arsenault, R., and Brissette, F.: Uncertainty of
potential evapotranspiration modelling in climate change impact studies on
low flows in North America, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 66, 689–702,
https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2021.1888955, 2021. a
Donohue, R. J., McVicar, T. R., and Roderick, M. L.: Assessing the ability of
potential evaporation formulations to capture the dynamics in evaporative
demand within a changing climate, J. Hydrol., 386, 186–197,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.020, 2010. a
Duan, K., Sun, G., McNulty, S. G., Caldwell, P. V., Cohen, E. C., Sun, S., Aldridge, H. D., Zhou, D., Zhang, L., and Zhang, Y.: Future shift of the relative roles of precipitation and temperature in controlling annual runoff in the conterminous United States, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 21, 5517–5529, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-5517-2017, 2017. a
EURO-CORDEX: https://www.euro-cordex.net, last access: 19 April 2022. a
Evin, G.: QUALYPSO: Partitioning Uncertainty Components of an Incomplete
Ensemble of Climate Projections, R package
version 1.2, https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=QUALYPSO, last access: 5 December 2020. a
Evin, G., Hingray, B., Blanchet, J., Eckert, N., Morin, S., and Verfaillie, D.:
Partitioning Uncertainty Components of an Incomplete Ensemble of Climate
Projections Using Data Augmentation, J. Climate, 32, 2423–2440,
https://doi.org/10.1175/jcli-d-18-0606.1, 2019. a
Federer, C. A., Vörösmarty, C., and Fekete, B.: Intercomparison of Methods
for Calculating Potential Evaporation in Regional and Global Water Balance
Models, Water Resour. Res., 32, 2315–2321,
https://doi.org/10.1029/96WR00801, 1996. a
Hamon, W. R.: Estimating Potential Evapotranspiration,
T. Am. Soc. Civ. Eng., 128, 324–338,
https://doi.org/10.1061/TACEAT.0008673, 1963. a
Hargreaves, H. G. and Samani, A. Z.: Reference Crop Evapotranspiration from
Temperature, Appl. Eng. Agric., 1, 96–99,
https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.26773, 1985. a
Hawkins, E. and Sutton, R.: Time of emergence of climate signals, Geophys. Res. Lett., 39, https://doi.org/10.1029/2011GL050087, 2012. a
Hingray, B. and Saïd, M.: Partitioning Internal Variability and Model
Uncertainty Components in a Multimember Multimodel Ensemble of Climate
Projections, J. Climate, 27, 6779–6798,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-13-00629.1, 2014. a, b
Hingray, B., Blanchet, J., Evin, G., and Vidal, J.-P.: Uncertainty component
estimates in transient climate projections, Clim. Dynam., 53, 2501–2516,
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-019-04635-1, 2019. a
Hosseinzadehtalaei, P., Tabari, H., and Willems, P.: Quantification of
uncertainty in reference evapotranspiration climate change signals in
Belgium, Hydrol. Res., 48, 1391–1401, https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2016.243,
2016. a
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Climate Change 2013 – The
Physical Science Basis: Working Group I Contribution to the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415324, 2014a. a
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change: Technical Summary, Cambridge University Press, 1, 35–94, https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9781107415379.004,
2014b. a
Jacob, D., Petersen, J., Eggert, B., Alias, A., Christensen, O. B., Bouwer,
L. M., Braun, A., Colette, A., Deque, M., Georgievski, G., Georgopoulou, E.,
Gobiet, A., Menut, L., Nikulin, G., Haensler, A., Hempelmann, N., Jones, C.,
Keuler, K., Kovats, S., Kroner, N., Kotlarski, S., Kriegsmann, A., Martin,
E., Van Meijgaard, E., Moseley, C., Pfeifer, S., Preuschmann, S.,
Radermacher, C., Radtke, K., Rechid, D., Rounsevell, M., Samuelsson, P.,
Somot, S., Soussana, J.-F., Teichmann, C., Valentini, R., Vautard, R., Weber,
B., and Yiou, P.: EURO-CORDEX: new high-resolution climate change
projections for European impact research, Reg. Environ. Change,
14, 563–578, https://doi.org/10.1007/s10113-013-0499-2, 2014. a
Jung, M., Reichstein, M., Ciais, P., Seneviratne, S.I., Sheffield, J., Goulden, M.L., Bonan, G., Cescatti, A., Chen, J., de Jeu, R., Dolman, A.J., Eugster, W., Gerten, D., Gianelle, D., Gobron, N., Heinke, J., Kimball, J., Law, B.E., Montagnani, L., Mu, Q., Mueller, B., Oleson, K., Papale, D., Richardson, A.D., Roupsard, O., Running, S., Tomelleri, E., Viovy, N., Weber, U., Williams, C., Wood, E., Zaehle, S., and Zhang, K.: Recent
decline in the global land evapotranspiration trend due to limited moisture
supply, Nature, 467, 951–954, https://doi.org/10.1038/nature09396, 2010. a
Kay, A. and Davies, H.: Calculating potential evaporation from climate model
data: A source of uncertainty for hydrological climate change impacts,
J. Hydrol., 358, 221–239, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2008.06.005,
2008. a, b, c, d
Kingston, D. G., Todd, M. C., Taylor, R. G., Thompson, J. R., and Arnell,
N. W.: Uncertainty in the estimation of potential evapotranspiration under
climate change, Geophys. Res. Lett., 36, L20403, https://doi.org/10.1029/2009GL040267, 2009. a
Lafaysse, M., Hingray, B., Mezghani, A., Gailhard, J., and Terray, L.: Internal
variability and model uncertainty components in future hydrometeorological
projections: The Alpine Durance basin, Water Resour. Res., 50,
3317–3341, https://doi.org/10.1002/2013WR014897, 2014. a
Lemaitre-Basset, T.: R functions to compute potential evaporation, Portail Data INRAE [data set], https://doi.org/10.15454/NCNCHG, 2021. a
Lemaitre-Basset, T., Collet, L., Thirel, G., Parajka, J., Evin, G., and
Hingray, B.: Climate change impact and uncertainty analysis on hydrological
extremes in a French Mediterranean catchment, Hydrolog. Sci. J.,
66, 888–903, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2021.1895437, 2021. a
McAfee, S. A.: Methodological differences in projected potential
evapotranspiration, Climatic Change, 120, 915–930,
https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(93)90095-Y, 2013. a
McKenney, M. S. and Rosenberg, N. J.: Sensitivity of some potential
evapotranspiration estimation methods to climate change,
Agr. Forest Meteorol., 64, 81–110, https://doi.org/10.1016/0168-1923(93)90095-Y, 1993. a
McMahon, T. A., Peel, M. C., Lowe, L., Srikanthan, R., and McVicar, T. R.: Estimating actual, potential, reference crop and pan evaporation using standard meteorological data: a pragmatic synthesis, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1331–1363, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1331-2013, 2013. a, b
Milly, P. C. and Dunne, K. A.: Potential evapotranspiration and continental
drying, Nat. Clim. Change, 6, 946–949, https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate3046, 2016. a, b, c
Monteith, J. L.: Evaporation and environment, in: Symposia of the society for
experimental biology, volume 19, Cambridge University Press (CUP), Cambridge, UK, 205–234 pp., 1965. a
Morton, F.: Operational estimates of areal evapotranspiration and their
significance to the science and practice of hydrology, J. Hydrol.,
66, 1–76, https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(83)90177-4, 1983. a
Nandakumar, N. and Mein, R.: Uncertainty in rainfall—runoff model simulations
and the implications for predicting the hydrologic effects of land-use
change, J. Hydrol., 192, 211–232,
https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(96)03106-X, 1997. a
Oudin, L., Hervieu, F., Michel, C., Perrin, C., Andréassian, V., Anctil, F.,
and Loumagne, C.: Which potential evapotranspiration input for a lumped
rainfall–runoff model?: Part 2—Towards a simple and efficient potential
evapotranspiration model for rainfall–runoff modelling, J. Hydrol., 303, 290–306, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2004.08.026, 2005. a, b, c
Oudin, L., Perrin, C., Mathevet, T., Andréassian, V., and Michel, C.: Impact
of biased and randomly corrupted inputs on the efficiency and the parameters
of watershed models, J. Hydrol., 320, 62–83,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.016, 2006. a
Penman, H. L.: Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and grass,
P. Roy. Soc. Lond. A. Mat., 193, 120–145, https://doi.org/10.1098/rspa.1948.0037, 1948. a
Priestley, C. H. B. and Taylor, R. J.: On the Assessment of Surface Heat Flux
and Evaporation Using Large-Scale Parameters, Mon. Weather Rev., 100, 81–92, https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0493(1972)100<0081:OTAOSH>2.3.CO;2, 1972. a
Prudhomme, C. and Williamson, J.: Derivation of RCM-driven potential evapotranspiration for hydrological climate change impact analysis in Great Britain: a comparison of methods and associated uncertainty in future projections, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 17, 1365–1377, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-1365-2013, 2013. a
Schwingshackl, C., Davin, E. L., Hirschi, M., Sørland, S. L., Wartenburger,
R., and Seneviratne, S. I.: Regional climate model projections underestimate
future warming due to missing plant physiological CO2 response, Environ. Res. Lett., 14, 114019, https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab4949, 2019. a
Seibert, J. and Vis, M. J. P.: Teaching hydrological modeling with a user-friendly catchment-runoff-model software package, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 16, 3315–3325, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-3315-2012, 2012. a
Seiller, G. and Anctil, F.: How do potential evapotranspiration formulas
influence hydrological projections?, Hydrolog. Sci. J., 61,
2249–2266, https://doi.org/10.1080/02626667.2015.1100302, 2016. a, b
Shaw, S. B. and Riha, S. J.: Assessing temperature-based PET equations under a
changing climate in temperate, deciduous forests, Hydrol. Process., 25,
1466–1478, https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.7913, 2011. a
Thompson, J., Green, A., and Kingston, D.: Potential evapotranspiration-related
uncertainty in climate change impacts on river flow: An assessment for the
Mekong River basin, J. Hydrol., 510, 259–279,
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.12.010, 2014. a
Vidal, J.-P., Hingray, B., Magand, C., Sauquet, E., and Ducharne, A.: Hierarchy of climate and hydrological uncertainties in transient low-flow projections, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 3651–3672, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-3651-2016, 2016. a
Vrac, M. and Friederichs, P.: Multivariate—Intervariable, Spatial, and
Temporal—Bias Correction, J. Climate, 28, 218–237,
https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-14-00059.1, 2015. a
Wang, W., Xing, W., and Shao, Q.: How large are uncertainties in future
projection of reference evapotranspiration through different approaches?,
J. Hydrol., 524, 696–700, https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.03.033,
2015. a
Wilby, R. L. and Dessai, S.: Robust adaptation to climate change, Weather, 65,
180–185, https://doi.org/10.1002/wea.543, 2010. a
Yang, Y., Roderick, M. L., Zhang, S., McVicar, T. R., and Donohue, R. J.:
Hydrologic implications of vegetation response to elevated CO2 in climate
projections, Nat. Clim. Change, 9, 44–48, 2019. a
Short summary
Increasing temperature will impact evaporation and water resource management. Hydrological models are fed with an estimation of the evaporative demand of the atmosphere, called potential evapotranspiration (PE). The objectives of this study were (1) to compute the future PE anomaly over France and (2) to determine the impact of the choice of the method to estimate PE. Our results show that all methods present similar future trends. No method really stands out from the others.
Increasing temperature will impact evaporation and water resource management. Hydrological...
