Premium
Effects of changes in winter snowpacks on summer low flows: case studies in the Sierra Nevada, California, USA
Author(s) -
Godsey S. E.,
Kirchner J. W.,
Tague C. L.
Publication year - 2013
Publication title -
hydrological processes
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 1.222
H-Index - 161
eISSN - 1099-1085
pISSN - 0885-6087
DOI - 10.1002/hyp.9943
Subject(s) - snowpack , water year , streamflow , snowmelt , environmental science , snow , hydrology (agriculture) , streams , climate change , ecosystem , climatology , drainage basin , geology , geography , meteorology , ecology , oceanography , biology , computer network , cartography , geotechnical engineering , computer science
Abstract Seasonal low flows are important for sustaining ecosystems and for supplying human needs during the dry season. In California's Sierra Nevada mountains, low flows are primarily sustained by groundwater that is recharged during snowmelt. As the climate warms over the next century, the volume of the annual Sierra Nevada snowpack is expected to decrease by ~40–90%. In eight snow‐dominated catchments in the Sierra Nevada, we analysed records of snow water equivalent (SWE) and unimpaired streamflow records spanning 10–33 years. Linear extrapolations of historical SWE/streamflow relationships suggest that annual minimum flows in some catchments could decrease to zero if peak SWE is reduced to roughly half of its historical average. For every 10% decrease in peak SWE, annual minimum flows decrease 9–22% and occur 3–7 days earlier in the year. In two of the study catchments, Sagehen and Pitman Creeks, seasonal low flows are significantly correlated with the previous year's snowpack as well as the current year's snowpack. We explore how future warming could affect the relationship between winter snowpacks and summer low flows, using a distributed hydrologic model Regional Hydro‐ecologic Ecosystem Simulation System (RHESSys) to simulate the response of two study catchments. Model results suggest that a 10% decrease in peak SWE will lead to a 1–8% decrease in low flows. The modelled streams do not dry up completely, because the effects of reduced SWE are partly offset by increased fall or winter net gains in storage, and by shifts in the timing of peak evapotranspiration. We consider how groundwater storage, snowmelt and evapotranspiration rates, and precipitation phase (snow vs rain) influence catchment response to warming. Copyright © 2013 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.