Changes to flow regime on the Niger River at Koulikoro under a changing climate
Bibliographic record
Abstract
A significant decrease in mean river flow as well as shifts in flood regimes have been reported at several locations along the River Niger. These changes are the combined effect of persistent droughts, damming and increased consumption of water. Moreover, it is believed that climate change will impact on the hydrological regime of the river in the next decades and exacerbate existing problems. While decision makers and stakeholders are aware of these issues, it is hard for them to figure out what actions should be taken without a quantitative estimate of future changes. In this paper, a Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) model of the Niger River watershed at Koulikoro was successfully calibrated, then forced with the climate time series of variable length generated by nine regional climate models (RCMs) from the AMMA-ENSEMBLES experiment. The RCMs were run under the SRES A1B emissions scenario. A combination of quantile-quantile transformation and nearest-neighbour search was used to correct biases in the distributions of RCM outputs. Streamflow time series were generated for the 2026–2050 period (all nine RCMs), and for the 2051–2075 and 2076–2100 periods (three out of nine RCMs) based on the availability of RCM simulations. It was found that the quantile-quantile transformation improved the simulation of both precipitation extremes and ratio of monthly dry days/wet days. All RCMs predicted an increase in temperature and solar radiation, and a decrease in average annual relative humidity in all three future periods relative to the 1981–1989 period, but there was no consensus among them about the direction of change of annual average wind speed, precipitation and streamflow. When all model projections were averaged, mean annual precipitation was projected to decrease, while the total precipitation in the flood season (August, September, October) increased, driving the mean annual flow up by 6.9% (2026–2050), 0.9% (2051–2075) and 5.6% (2076–2100). A t-test showed that changes in multi-model annual mean flow and annual maximum monthly flow between all four periods were not statistically significant at the 95% confidence level.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".