the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Spatiotemporal responses of runoff to climate change on the southern Tibetan Plateau
Abstract. A comprehensive understanding of spatiotemporal runoff changes at a sub-basin scale of the Yarlung Zangbo (YZ) basin on the southern Tibetan Plateau (TP), amidst varying climatic and cryospheric conditions, is imperative for effective water resources management. However, spatiotemporal differences of runoff composition, change and the attribution within the YZ basin have not been extensively explored, primarily due to the lack of hydrometeorological observations, especially in the downstream region. In this study, we investigated historical and future evolution of annual and seasonal total water availability, as well as glacier runoff and snowmelt contributions across six sub-basins of the YZ with a particular focus on the comparison between the upstream Nuxia (NX) basin and the downstream Nuxia-Pasighat (NX-BXK) basin, based on a newly generated precipitation dataset and a well-validated model with streamflow, glacier mass, and snow cover observations. Our findings revealed large spatiotemporal differences in changes exist within the YZ basin for 1971–2020. Firstly, runoff generation was dominated by rainfall runoff throughout the YZ basin, with glacier runoff playing more important role in the annual total runoff (19 %) in the NX-BXK sub-basin compared to other sub-basins. Notably, glacier runoff contributed 52 % of the total runoff at the Pasighat outlet of the YZ basin. Secondly, annual runoff exhibited an increasing trend in the NX basin but a decreasing trend in the NX-BXK, primarily attributed to rainfall runoff changes influenced by atmospheric moisture. Glacier runoff enhanced water supply, by offsetting the decreasing contribution from rainfall. Total runoff will consistently increase (27–100 mm/10 yr) across the sub-basins through the 21st century, resulting from increased rainfall runoff and a minor effect of increased snowmelt and glacier runoff.
- Preprint
(2560 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(2743 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 02 Jun 2024)
-
CC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-11', Sivarajah Mylevaganam, 15 Feb 2024
reply
The concept of accounting has been floating around in the business world for many decades. This has been presented in the form of income statements, balance sheets, and cash flow statements to bolster the business operations of many listed and non-listed entities around the world. Considering its potential to resolve many issues, this fascinating concept has been embraced by many disciplines. Water science is one of them, which echoes this concept in the forms of water balance and water availability to address many demanding issues such as upstream/downstream conflicts and interbasin transfers.
In this manuscript, the authors employ an integrated modeling environment to evaluate the runoff composition in the Yarlung Zangbo river basin on the southern Tibetan Plateau, which nourishes around 2 billion human lives.
- Most of the equations that are presented in the manuscript need to be rewritten. For example, eq. 3 should be written using a summation notation (see the attached file).The subscripts are confusing (compare eq. 2 and eq. 3). To reflect the band of interest and the grid of interest, the dependent variable should have two subscripts (i.e., i and j).
- The unit of the dependent variable in eq.2 is incorrect. Is it mm/day or mm?
- The definition of “f” in eq.2 is incorrect. Are you referring to the proportion of glacier area in a particular grid whose total runoff is being calculated?
- The variables in eq.4 need units to understand your calculations.
- Refer to Part II
-
CC2: 'Comment on hess-2024-11', Sivarajah Mylevaganam, 16 Feb 2024
reply
Sivarajah Mylevaganam
Alumnus, Spatial Sciences Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA.1. Line 164-166
As per the authors, there are around 280 precipitation gages. The spatial extent of the river basin (i.e., YZ) is around 250,000 km2. The spatial resolution of the modeling task is 10km. Therefore, the reason for using a machine-learning algorithm to develop a precipitation grid is not understood. Wouldn’t the popular interpolation algorithms that are packaged with GIS products (e.g.,Esri’s ArcGIS) improve the simulation results?
2. Is your DDF (see eq.2) a constant for a particular pixel/grid (10km in spatial extent)? Is your T a constant for a particular pixel/grid? This is what has been understood from your eq.2 and eq.3.If these values are constants for a particular pixel/grid, the value of your Rglac is meaningless. Without considering the temperature profile across your elevation bands, does the value of Rglac computed using eq.2 and eq.3 make sense? Without considering the vertical profile of DDF across your elevation bands, does the value of Rglac make sense? See the attached PDF file.
3. For a particular grid/pixel (10km in spatial extent) of your interest, would you be able to show the values of your Ms (see eq.3)? Is the value of your “n” constant for the study area (i.e., YZ)?
4. Refer to Part III
-
CC3: 'Comment on hess-2024-11', Sivarajah Mylevaganam, 17 Feb 2024
reply
Sivarajah Mylevaganam
Alumnus, Spatial Sciences Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA.- As per the authors, the temporal resolution of the modeling work was 3 h (line 270-271). Moreover, as per the authors, the temporal resolution of the precipitation dataset was 24 h (line 165-166). The conversion algorithm from 24 h to 3 h is not found in the current version of the manuscript. How was this conversion carried out in the integrated modeling environment? The computation of Rglac(eq.2 and eq.3) contradicts line 270-271.
- As per eq.1 (line 278-282), Rvic is the runoff (surface+baseflow) computed by a model named Variable Infiltration Capacity (VIC). In other words, given the rainfall and the other defining parameters, the model generates the runoff for each pixel/grid (spatial resolution of 10km, see the attached pdf file). As per eq.1, the authors consider only the portion of the runoff (i.e., (1-f)Rvic) generated in a grid/pixel for the rainfall value given for that pixel/grid. What has happened to the other component (i.e., f*Rvic)? As per eq.2, the parameter DDF (i.e., the degree-day factor of glacier or snow melt, see line 284-285) doesn’t account for this component (i.e., f*Rvic).
- Refer to Part IV
Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
The author is an alumnus of Texas A&M University, Texas, USA. The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.
-
CC4: 'Comment on hess-2024-11', Sivarajah Mylevaganam, 19 Feb 2024
reply
Sivarajah Mylevaganam
Alumnus, Spatial Sciences Laboratory, Texas A&M University, College Station, USA.- As per the authors, a lumped concept has been implemented to calculate the runoff from the glacier (see line 282-292).In other words, a calibration parameter named DDF has been used to calculate the runoff from the glacier (see line 282-292).Moreover, as per the authors, a correlation (an exponential curve) between the glacier volume and glacier area (see eq.4) has been used to compute the glacier volume given the glacier area. The initial glacier area is obtained from the first Glacier Inventory of China (CGI V1.0; see line 299-300).In the current version of the manuscript, the actual pipeline, if there exists one, between the DDF and the glacier volume(S, see eq.4) is not found. What is the relationship between DDF and S? Isn’t the glacier volume melted to get Rglac?
- I am trying to understand the relationship expressed in eq.2. Assume that the value of DDF is 10 units. I guess this value is reasonable considering the calibrated value that has been presented in the manuscript (see line 338-339). Moreover, assume that the number of elevation bands (n) is set to 1. If the air temperature is 10 units, as per eq.2 and eq.3, the calculated value of Rglac will be 100 units. Similarly, if the air temperature is 20 units, as per eq.2 and eq.3, the calculated value of Rglac will be 200 units. Do the values govern the underlying principles? Since the value of Tbase is set to 0, basically, eq.2 is a linear relationship that goes through the origin. The gradient of the line is the defining parameter (i.e., DDF). What is the physical meaning of DDF? Is it the glacier volume that could be melted given the temperature values?
- Refer to Part V
Acknowledgement and Disclaimer
The author is an alumnus of Texas A&M University, Texas, USA. The views expressed here are solely those of the author in his private capacity and do not in any way represent the views of Texas A&M University, Texas, USA.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-11-CC4 -
RC1: 'Comment on hess-2024-11', Anonymous Referee #1, 25 Mar 2024
reply
This resubmitted version of the paper has addressed my previous concerns effectively, demonstrating the authors' great efforts. The manuscript now provides a clear explanation of the novel motivation behind the work, and the research results are presented in an informative manner with well-crafted plots. The first comparisons of sub-basin runoff changes in the YZ river are particularly valuable, as they contribute to a better understanding of runoff changes at the downstream basin outlet, which will likely be of great interest to other researchers.
Before accepting this version, I have three minor suggestions:
1. Including additional statements on the calculation of runoff composition contributions in sub-basins would enhance reader understanding of differences among the sub-basins. For instance, providing formulas such as rainfall contribution = rainfall in the sub-basin / (rainfall + snowmelt + glacier melt) generated in the sub-basin area could clarify these calculations.
2. It would be beneficial to include a table summarizing the model calibration and performance to provide a more straightforward description of the calibration procedure. This table could include details such as the calibration step, model parameters calibrated in each step, data used for evaluation, objective function, and performance metrics.
3. Adding an additional discussion section to explore the underlying reasons for the different runoff change trends (both historical and future) in the sub-basins would enrich the results. In this section, quantitative comparisons of changes in total precipitation, temperature, snow fraction in precipitation, evapotranspiration, and glacier mass among the sub-basins could be included to provide more insight into the observed runoff change trends.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2024-11-RC1
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
301 | 99 | 24 | 424 | 29 | 15 | 10 |
- HTML: 301
- PDF: 99
- XML: 24
- Total: 424
- Supplement: 29
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 10
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1