English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Zendy Plus

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

We compared the spatiotemporal variability of temperatures and precipitation with that of the magnitude and timing of maximum daily spring flows in the geographically adjacent L’Assomption River (agricultural) and Matawin River (forested) watersheds during the period from 1932 to 2013. With regard to spatial variability, fall, winter, and spring temperatures as well as total precipitation are higher in the agricultural watershed than in the forested one. The magnitude of maximum daily spring flows is also higher in the first watershed as compared with the second, owing to substantial runoff, given that the amount of snow that gives rise to these flows is not significantly different in the two watersheds. These flows occur early in the season in the agricultural watershed because of the relatively high temperatures. With regard to temporal variability, minimum temperatures increased over time in both watersheds. Maximum temperatures in the fall only increased in the agricultural watershed. The amount of spring rain increased over time in both watersheds, whereas total precipitation increased significantly in the agricultural watershed only. However, the amount of snow decreased in the forested watershed. The magnitude of maximum daily spring flows increased over time in the forested watershed.

advances in meteorology

Comparison of the Spatiotemporal Variability of Temperature, Precipitation, and Maximum Daily Spring Flows in Two Watersheds in Quebec Characterized by Different Land Use