the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
| 19 Oct 2021
The control of climate sensitivity on variability and change of summer runoff from two glacierised Himalayan catchments
Abstract. The response of catchment runoff to climate forcing is determined by its climate sensitivity. We investigate the sensitivity of summer runoff to precipitation and temperature changes in winter-snow dominated Chandra (western Himalaya), and summer-rain dominated upper Dudhkoshi (eastern Himalaya) catchments in order to understand the nature of climate-change impact on the mean summer runoff and its variability. The runoff over the period 1980–2018 is simulated with a semi-distribute hydrologic model, which is calibrated using available discharge and glacier mass loss data. An analysis of the interannual variability of the simulated summer runoff reveals that the runoff from the glacierised parts of the catchments is sensitive to temperature changes, but is insensitive to precipitation changes. The behaviour of the summer runoff from the non-glacierised parts is exactly opposite. Such precipitation-independent runoff from the glacierised parts stabilises the catchment runoff against precipitation variability to some degree. With shrinking glacier cover over the coming decades, the summer runoff from the two catchments is expected become more sensitive to the precipitation forcing and less sensitive to the temperature forcing. Because of these competing effects, the impact of the glacier loss on the interannual variability of summer runoff may not be significant. However, the characteristic ‘peak water’ in the long-term mean summer runoff, which is caused by the excess meltwater released by the shrinking ice reserve, may lead to a detectable signal over the background interannual variability of runoff in these two catchments.
- Preprint
(1157 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(655 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-499', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Nov 2021
Understanding the uncertainties of the runoff in the glacierised catchments and its impacts on the availability of water in Himalayan rivers is critical. This manuscript discussed the climate sensitive on variability and change of summer runoff in two glacierised Himalayan catchments. The authors argued that the runoff from the glacierised parts of the catchments is sensitive to temperature changes, but is insensitive to precipitation changes. With shrinking glacier cover over the coming decades, the summer runoff from the two catchments is expected become more sensitive to the precipitation forcing and less sensitive to the temperature forcing. These conclusion is clear and interesting, but not novel enough with comparison of the recent other researches. However, I still recommend this manuscript can be published.
Some suggests:
- The description of the VIC model (including the input data, e.g. CMIP 5 data) is to simple toohelp for the reader to understand the article.
- The authors did not considered the glacier volume change, then the conclusion is somewhat not convincible.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-499-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply to RC1', Argha Banerjee, 16 Dec 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-499', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Nov 2021
In this manuscript the climate sensitivities of runoff (catchment, glacierized and non-glacierized parts) in two contrasting glacierized Himalayan catchments are analyzed. The obtained climate sensitivities are then used to derive a measure for the standard deviation of streamflow and to make projections of how streamflow will change under climate change. A hydrological model combined with a glacier melt model is used to simulate streamflow timeseries for the two catchments. Instead of deriving the streamflow variability and the future changes directly from the model output, the model simulations are used to get the climate sensitivities of summer runoff to annual precipitation and summer temperature. This step is likely needed because the hydrological model only includes a static glacier. The study comes to the (not very novel) conclusion that glacierized parts of the catchment are sensitive to temperature and that the non-glacierized parts are sensitive to changes in precipitation. It also suggests that climate sensitivities can be used to estimate magnitude and timing of peak water, but it is unclear how climate sensitivities should be derived for ungauged catchments and what the advantages are of not directly estimating peak water from (glacio)-hydrological models. Overall, I think that, despite the interesting topic of climate sensitivity of glacierized catchments which is suitable for HESS, the study does not do a good job in addressing a clear research gap. Besides, I have some doubts about some parts of the methods, there are some unclear descriptions and there is a lack of discussion on the simplifications, interpretation of the findings and the implications. Please find below my major and minor comments.
Novelty and research gap
The introduction of the manuscript is very minimal, it touches on a few topics but does not show how this study fits in between previous studies and it does not clearly explain the research gap and what the study aims to achieve and why. The sentence ‘Due to a lack of long-term data…. may still be lacking’ does not do justice to all the studies that exist on streamflow and its projections of Himalayan catchments. Here I would expect to read what climate sensitivities can add to the existing (modelling) studies. Then in the second part of the introduction, the explanation of how climate sensitivities are related to long-term changes and the glacier compensation effect are very unclear. What to do with the sentence ‘Climate-sensitivity based predictions for future changes in runoff are reliable ………..over the calibration period’? How does that match with the peak water exercise in the manuscript? The relation between climate sensitivity and glacier compensation effect is also not clear and requires more explanation. In the last sentence ‘We also attempt to do this and that (glacier compensation effect and peak water)’ I miss reasoning on why these attempts are needed.
Methodology
The workflow in this manuscript is not completely clear to me. The aim of the study is to assess climate sensitivities, because those can help to understand the variability and changes of streamflow. Since there is only limited streamflow data available, timeseries of streamflow are simulated with the VIC model. However, in theory, such models can also provide information on variability and change, so as a reader I need some argumentation why climate sensitivities are a useful alternative route, especially when there are no or only few streamflow observations available.
The simulations of streamflow are crucial here for the derivation of climate sensitivities, and I am surprised by the similar sensitivities of the two catchments, while their precipitation seasonality and mass balance type are so different. How is snowmelt simulated in the VIC model? Is there a different parameter for snow and glacier melt? If there is snow falling on the summer accumulation type glacier, is melt then also reduced in the model (albedo effect)? Have you tested if there is a difference in summer runoff sensitivity to summer precipitation in the non-glacierized parts? How is ET modelled? This should be important for the non-glacierized runoff sensitivity to temperature. Regarding the parameter sensitivity tests, were the optimized DDF and ap parameters fixed? Low parameter sensitivity may suggest that the model is not very suitable to model the system. Also, summer runoff may not be the optimal variable to test with, as timing of melt and snow/rain ratio will be important to model right to extract the sensitivities in a meaningful way. Could Qg and Qr for the 40 year of simulations be easily plotted, and compared with other modelling studies?
Climate sensitivities are derived for catchment runoff, glacier runoff and non-glacierized runoff. There is a formula given (eq4) for how to derive catchment runoff sensitivity from the glacier and non-glacier runoff, but, if I am right, it is not used for the results. Has this been tested for?
In Eq. 8, the changes in runoff due to changes in glacier cover are estimated by the recent difference in runoff from the glaciers and the non-glacierized parts. This, however, neglects the process of usually increasing precipitation with elevation. For large changes of glacier cover this may become quite relevant. Also, assuming ‘the recent ratio of winter to summer runoff remain unchanged’ contradicts many previous studies of increased winter flow and decreased summer flow. If these assumptions need to be made, I wonder how the results could be used, as many of the models do actually include these kinds of feedbacks.
Throughout the results section, the climate sensitivities are presented as mm change per change in degree C or per change of mm of precipitation. Based on these outcomes, some sensitivities are regarded as zero. However, these results are misleading if they are not communicated in how much T and P varies per year. In general, it would be helpful, I think, to communicate them in percentage from the mean flow, and also present all of them in an overview table.
Unclear descriptions
Throughout the manuscript there are quite some words missing or misspelled (please carefully check!), and unclear descriptions or presentation (see also list below). For example, units are missing in equations, and there is a mix of units in m and in mm.
The bias correction methods description is very unclear. Apparently, temperature is corrected based on station data, but precipitation not and instead is corrected via a calibration parameter. Why is that? How is the meteorological input data used in VIC? Are T and P lapse rates used? If so, how are they obtained? For the VIC modelling, how does the coupling between the glacierized and non-glacierized parts work? Is there snow redistribution from the non-glacierized parts onto the glacier? And does glacier melt contribute to baseflow?
How are the mass balances calculated? Per catchment or per glacier? And how are they compared with available data, per glacier or per catchment? How is the glacier runoff modelled in a similar way to Huss and Hock? Are the same sensitivities as for the non-glacierized parts used for the parts that get de-glacierized?
In general, there are a lot of references to supplementary material, and I would suggest to better describe some of these in the main text.
Lack of discussion
Section 4.9 is quite a deception to read. Basically, it summarizes the methods to obtain streamflow simulations. The approach used in this manuscript is very theoretical, and at least in the discussion section I think a translation again to the glacio-hydrological processes is needed (e.g. compensation of the glacierized and non-glacierized runoff parts, connecting precipitation importance for mass balance to changes in summer streamflow, describing why temperature is not relevant for non-glacierized parts, interaction of P and T processes).
Also, as mentioned before, it would be good to show what can be learned from these derived sensitivities, how can this approach be implemented to derive sensitivities in other catchments, or how do these results give a different perspective from what we already know?
And last but not least, I think a comparison with other climate sensitivities (also outside the Himalayas) is needed (e.g. He. 2021, Engelhardt et al., 2017, Moore et al., 2020), and some reasoning why there where no differences found between the two catchments (summer acc. types are thought to be very sensitive to temperature) and/or the differences in peak water timing in the two catchments, and the large differences in temperature sensitivities found in the studies that you cite in section 4.5
Minor comments and technical corrections
Title: from – change to ‘in’?
L3: catchments – change into glacierized catchments, also remove ‘in order’, and what is meant with ‘the nature’?
L5: semi-distributeD
L22: response OF glacierized
L23: data – do you mean observations?
L27: also BE helpful
L37: An – a
L45: time series is – ARE
L54: is in – is LOCATED in
Table 1: do these values represent catchment mean? Or station values?
L60: solid to liquid or liquid to solid? Text and table say something different
Section 2 Study area – explain here the two glacier accumulation types
L65: bias corrected reanalysis data: bias corrected on what?
L67: relativvely – relatively
L75: concentrate ON
L84: please explain how you go from derivative in Q to anomaly Q
L97: onesdefined
L133: projected future changes in glacier area – How were they arrived? Is this data given per glacier? Or if per basin, do they match with the basins studied here?
L135: Also here, were these timeseries available for the catchment or for individual glaciers? How were they processed for this study?
L137: ignored – if precipitation changes were ignored, it means that in equation 15, change in P is zero and thus non-glacierized runoff is not included in the calculation for change in catchment runoff?
L138: gridded values available: please explain
L140 year 2002 and in L155 year 2002 – how did you derive glacier extent in 2000 then?
L155-156: Please explain how the geodetic mass balances were obtained for the studied catchments
L185: size – elevation range?
L194: shrinkage of glacier fraction – is this value per decade? And is it the decline in catchment glacier cover or the decline in glacierized area?
L202-203: For melt calculations…… data set: very unclear, please rephrase
L236: j denoting individual records – what is meant here?
L280: the sentences have a strange order here, with two times comparing to other studies
L295: th – the
L305: Linear response: what is meant here?
L321-L322: What about ET losses? Or change in storage
L338: has – have
L354: where can I see this effect of stabilizing scaled with glacier fraction?
L390 and 399: to – two
L392: accurate sensitivities – sounds plausible, but how to derive them?
L402 and 472: depndence
L406-407: Do they propose that in this paper?
Section 4.8.3 – Why is peakwater not calculated for catchment runoff?
Figure 1 – It may be an idea to indicate the sub-catchments which were you used in other studies and that you use for comparison of your results
Figure 2 – Please provide the meaning of the parameters
Figure 4 – what do the different dots represent?
References
Engelhardt, M., Schuler, T. V., & Andreassen, L. M. (2015). Sensitivities of glacier mass balance and runoff to climate perturbations in Norway. Annals of Glaciology, 56(70), 79-88.
He, Z. (2021). Sensitivities of hydrological processes to climate changes in a Central Asian glacierized basin. Frontiers in Water, 3, 46
Moore, R. D., Pelto, B., Menounos, B., & Hutchinson, D. (2020). Detecting the effects of sustained glacier wastage on streamflow in variably glacierized catchments. Frontiers in Earth science, 8,136.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-499-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Argha Banerjee, 16 Dec 2021
-
CC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-499', Koji Fujita, 30 Nov 2021
Dear authors,
The model of this study yielded the insensitive response of glacier runoff to precipitation change but this is not discussed in depth. The model can resolve how each component responds (that’s why we utilize numerical models, right?). Figure 11a of Fujita and Sakai (2014, HESS) could be helpful for this issue. Runoff responses to precipitation change are different in ice-containing and ice-free surfaces, and the compensation of these opposite responses could yield the insensitive response. I suggest that the authors perform this kind of analysis. It would be interesting if the authors find a different reason.
Koji Fujita, Nagoya University
Reference
Fujita, K. and Sakai, A.: Modelling runoff from a Himalayan debris-covered glacier, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2679–2694, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2679-2014, 2014.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-499-CC1 - AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Argha Banerjee, 16 Dec 2021
Status: closed
-
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-499', Anonymous Referee #1, 11 Nov 2021
Understanding the uncertainties of the runoff in the glacierised catchments and its impacts on the availability of water in Himalayan rivers is critical. This manuscript discussed the climate sensitive on variability and change of summer runoff in two glacierised Himalayan catchments. The authors argued that the runoff from the glacierised parts of the catchments is sensitive to temperature changes, but is insensitive to precipitation changes. With shrinking glacier cover over the coming decades, the summer runoff from the two catchments is expected become more sensitive to the precipitation forcing and less sensitive to the temperature forcing. These conclusion is clear and interesting, but not novel enough with comparison of the recent other researches. However, I still recommend this manuscript can be published.
Some suggests:
- The description of the VIC model (including the input data, e.g. CMIP 5 data) is to simple toohelp for the reader to understand the article.
- The authors did not considered the glacier volume change, then the conclusion is somewhat not convincible.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-499-RC1 - AC1: 'Reply to RC1', Argha Banerjee, 16 Dec 2021
-
RC2: 'Comment on hess-2021-499', Anonymous Referee #2, 23 Nov 2021
In this manuscript the climate sensitivities of runoff (catchment, glacierized and non-glacierized parts) in two contrasting glacierized Himalayan catchments are analyzed. The obtained climate sensitivities are then used to derive a measure for the standard deviation of streamflow and to make projections of how streamflow will change under climate change. A hydrological model combined with a glacier melt model is used to simulate streamflow timeseries for the two catchments. Instead of deriving the streamflow variability and the future changes directly from the model output, the model simulations are used to get the climate sensitivities of summer runoff to annual precipitation and summer temperature. This step is likely needed because the hydrological model only includes a static glacier. The study comes to the (not very novel) conclusion that glacierized parts of the catchment are sensitive to temperature and that the non-glacierized parts are sensitive to changes in precipitation. It also suggests that climate sensitivities can be used to estimate magnitude and timing of peak water, but it is unclear how climate sensitivities should be derived for ungauged catchments and what the advantages are of not directly estimating peak water from (glacio)-hydrological models. Overall, I think that, despite the interesting topic of climate sensitivity of glacierized catchments which is suitable for HESS, the study does not do a good job in addressing a clear research gap. Besides, I have some doubts about some parts of the methods, there are some unclear descriptions and there is a lack of discussion on the simplifications, interpretation of the findings and the implications. Please find below my major and minor comments.
Novelty and research gap
The introduction of the manuscript is very minimal, it touches on a few topics but does not show how this study fits in between previous studies and it does not clearly explain the research gap and what the study aims to achieve and why. The sentence ‘Due to a lack of long-term data…. may still be lacking’ does not do justice to all the studies that exist on streamflow and its projections of Himalayan catchments. Here I would expect to read what climate sensitivities can add to the existing (modelling) studies. Then in the second part of the introduction, the explanation of how climate sensitivities are related to long-term changes and the glacier compensation effect are very unclear. What to do with the sentence ‘Climate-sensitivity based predictions for future changes in runoff are reliable ………..over the calibration period’? How does that match with the peak water exercise in the manuscript? The relation between climate sensitivity and glacier compensation effect is also not clear and requires more explanation. In the last sentence ‘We also attempt to do this and that (glacier compensation effect and peak water)’ I miss reasoning on why these attempts are needed.
Methodology
The workflow in this manuscript is not completely clear to me. The aim of the study is to assess climate sensitivities, because those can help to understand the variability and changes of streamflow. Since there is only limited streamflow data available, timeseries of streamflow are simulated with the VIC model. However, in theory, such models can also provide information on variability and change, so as a reader I need some argumentation why climate sensitivities are a useful alternative route, especially when there are no or only few streamflow observations available.
The simulations of streamflow are crucial here for the derivation of climate sensitivities, and I am surprised by the similar sensitivities of the two catchments, while their precipitation seasonality and mass balance type are so different. How is snowmelt simulated in the VIC model? Is there a different parameter for snow and glacier melt? If there is snow falling on the summer accumulation type glacier, is melt then also reduced in the model (albedo effect)? Have you tested if there is a difference in summer runoff sensitivity to summer precipitation in the non-glacierized parts? How is ET modelled? This should be important for the non-glacierized runoff sensitivity to temperature. Regarding the parameter sensitivity tests, were the optimized DDF and ap parameters fixed? Low parameter sensitivity may suggest that the model is not very suitable to model the system. Also, summer runoff may not be the optimal variable to test with, as timing of melt and snow/rain ratio will be important to model right to extract the sensitivities in a meaningful way. Could Qg and Qr for the 40 year of simulations be easily plotted, and compared with other modelling studies?
Climate sensitivities are derived for catchment runoff, glacier runoff and non-glacierized runoff. There is a formula given (eq4) for how to derive catchment runoff sensitivity from the glacier and non-glacier runoff, but, if I am right, it is not used for the results. Has this been tested for?
In Eq. 8, the changes in runoff due to changes in glacier cover are estimated by the recent difference in runoff from the glaciers and the non-glacierized parts. This, however, neglects the process of usually increasing precipitation with elevation. For large changes of glacier cover this may become quite relevant. Also, assuming ‘the recent ratio of winter to summer runoff remain unchanged’ contradicts many previous studies of increased winter flow and decreased summer flow. If these assumptions need to be made, I wonder how the results could be used, as many of the models do actually include these kinds of feedbacks.
Throughout the results section, the climate sensitivities are presented as mm change per change in degree C or per change of mm of precipitation. Based on these outcomes, some sensitivities are regarded as zero. However, these results are misleading if they are not communicated in how much T and P varies per year. In general, it would be helpful, I think, to communicate them in percentage from the mean flow, and also present all of them in an overview table.
Unclear descriptions
Throughout the manuscript there are quite some words missing or misspelled (please carefully check!), and unclear descriptions or presentation (see also list below). For example, units are missing in equations, and there is a mix of units in m and in mm.
The bias correction methods description is very unclear. Apparently, temperature is corrected based on station data, but precipitation not and instead is corrected via a calibration parameter. Why is that? How is the meteorological input data used in VIC? Are T and P lapse rates used? If so, how are they obtained? For the VIC modelling, how does the coupling between the glacierized and non-glacierized parts work? Is there snow redistribution from the non-glacierized parts onto the glacier? And does glacier melt contribute to baseflow?
How are the mass balances calculated? Per catchment or per glacier? And how are they compared with available data, per glacier or per catchment? How is the glacier runoff modelled in a similar way to Huss and Hock? Are the same sensitivities as for the non-glacierized parts used for the parts that get de-glacierized?
In general, there are a lot of references to supplementary material, and I would suggest to better describe some of these in the main text.
Lack of discussion
Section 4.9 is quite a deception to read. Basically, it summarizes the methods to obtain streamflow simulations. The approach used in this manuscript is very theoretical, and at least in the discussion section I think a translation again to the glacio-hydrological processes is needed (e.g. compensation of the glacierized and non-glacierized runoff parts, connecting precipitation importance for mass balance to changes in summer streamflow, describing why temperature is not relevant for non-glacierized parts, interaction of P and T processes).
Also, as mentioned before, it would be good to show what can be learned from these derived sensitivities, how can this approach be implemented to derive sensitivities in other catchments, or how do these results give a different perspective from what we already know?
And last but not least, I think a comparison with other climate sensitivities (also outside the Himalayas) is needed (e.g. He. 2021, Engelhardt et al., 2017, Moore et al., 2020), and some reasoning why there where no differences found between the two catchments (summer acc. types are thought to be very sensitive to temperature) and/or the differences in peak water timing in the two catchments, and the large differences in temperature sensitivities found in the studies that you cite in section 4.5
Minor comments and technical corrections
Title: from – change to ‘in’?
L3: catchments – change into glacierized catchments, also remove ‘in order’, and what is meant with ‘the nature’?
L5: semi-distributeD
L22: response OF glacierized
L23: data – do you mean observations?
L27: also BE helpful
L37: An – a
L45: time series is – ARE
L54: is in – is LOCATED in
Table 1: do these values represent catchment mean? Or station values?
L60: solid to liquid or liquid to solid? Text and table say something different
Section 2 Study area – explain here the two glacier accumulation types
L65: bias corrected reanalysis data: bias corrected on what?
L67: relativvely – relatively
L75: concentrate ON
L84: please explain how you go from derivative in Q to anomaly Q
L97: onesdefined
L133: projected future changes in glacier area – How were they arrived? Is this data given per glacier? Or if per basin, do they match with the basins studied here?
L135: Also here, were these timeseries available for the catchment or for individual glaciers? How were they processed for this study?
L137: ignored – if precipitation changes were ignored, it means that in equation 15, change in P is zero and thus non-glacierized runoff is not included in the calculation for change in catchment runoff?
L138: gridded values available: please explain
L140 year 2002 and in L155 year 2002 – how did you derive glacier extent in 2000 then?
L155-156: Please explain how the geodetic mass balances were obtained for the studied catchments
L185: size – elevation range?
L194: shrinkage of glacier fraction – is this value per decade? And is it the decline in catchment glacier cover or the decline in glacierized area?
L202-203: For melt calculations…… data set: very unclear, please rephrase
L236: j denoting individual records – what is meant here?
L280: the sentences have a strange order here, with two times comparing to other studies
L295: th – the
L305: Linear response: what is meant here?
L321-L322: What about ET losses? Or change in storage
L338: has – have
L354: where can I see this effect of stabilizing scaled with glacier fraction?
L390 and 399: to – two
L392: accurate sensitivities – sounds plausible, but how to derive them?
L402 and 472: depndence
L406-407: Do they propose that in this paper?
Section 4.8.3 – Why is peakwater not calculated for catchment runoff?
Figure 1 – It may be an idea to indicate the sub-catchments which were you used in other studies and that you use for comparison of your results
Figure 2 – Please provide the meaning of the parameters
Figure 4 – what do the different dots represent?
References
Engelhardt, M., Schuler, T. V., & Andreassen, L. M. (2015). Sensitivities of glacier mass balance and runoff to climate perturbations in Norway. Annals of Glaciology, 56(70), 79-88.
He, Z. (2021). Sensitivities of hydrological processes to climate changes in a Central Asian glacierized basin. Frontiers in Water, 3, 46
Moore, R. D., Pelto, B., Menounos, B., & Hutchinson, D. (2020). Detecting the effects of sustained glacier wastage on streamflow in variably glacierized catchments. Frontiers in Earth science, 8,136.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-499-RC2 - AC2: 'Reply on RC2', Argha Banerjee, 16 Dec 2021
-
CC1: 'Comment on hess-2021-499', Koji Fujita, 30 Nov 2021
Dear authors,
The model of this study yielded the insensitive response of glacier runoff to precipitation change but this is not discussed in depth. The model can resolve how each component responds (that’s why we utilize numerical models, right?). Figure 11a of Fujita and Sakai (2014, HESS) could be helpful for this issue. Runoff responses to precipitation change are different in ice-containing and ice-free surfaces, and the compensation of these opposite responses could yield the insensitive response. I suggest that the authors perform this kind of analysis. It would be interesting if the authors find a different reason.
Koji Fujita, Nagoya University
Reference
Fujita, K. and Sakai, A.: Modelling runoff from a Himalayan debris-covered glacier, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 18, 2679–2694, https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-18-2679-2014, 2014.Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2021-499-CC1 - AC3: 'Reply on CC1', Argha Banerjee, 16 Dec 2021
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1,156 | 348 | 58 | 1,562 | 121 | 46 | 46 |
- HTML: 1,156
- PDF: 348
- XML: 58
- Total: 1,562
- Supplement: 121
- BibTeX: 46
- EndNote: 46
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
