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/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

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

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Free Plan

This paper compared future runoff projections using a Budyko type equation with respect to projections by a global hydrological model (GHM). The comparison was made for the annual mean runoff projections for a future period (2060–2100) after the Budyko parameter was set based on hydrologic model outputs at a present period (1960–2000). The objective of this study was to investigate the performance of the Budyko equation with respect to the hydrologic model at different climate regions. To address the question this study used the spatial average of runoff for the 35 largest basins in the world. According to the comparison, the projections by the two approaches agreed well (R2 = 0.983), in particular in humid tropic region (R2 = 0.986), but with consistent underestimation of future runoff (Median Error, ME = –0.042) by the Budyko equation. In subarctic region the performance of the Budyko equation was low (R2 = 0.599) due to the overestimation of future runoff (ME = 0.110). The results in the dry and temperate regions also showed some discrepancy (R2 = 0.931 and 0.724) without apparent patterns in the errors. The paper discussed possible reasons for the errors with respect to water and energy seasonality and changes in storage component contributions.

Comparison of future runoff projections using Budyko framework and global hydrologic model: conceptual simplicity vs process complexity