Predicting hydrologic responses to climate changes in highly glacierized and mountainous region Upper Indus Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The Upper Indus Basin (UIB) is a major source of supplying water to different areas because of snow and glaciers melt and is also enduring the regional impacts of global climate change. The expected changes in temperature, precipitation and snowmelt could be reasons for further escalation of the problem. Therefore, estimation of hydrological processes is critical for UIB. The objectives of this paper were to estimate the impacts of climate change on water resources and future projection for surface water under different climatic scenarios using soil and water assessment tool (SWAT). The methodology includes: (i) development of SWAT model using land cover, soil and meteorological data; (ii) calibration of the model using daily flow data from 1978 to 1993; (iii) model validation for the time 1994–2003; (iv) bias correction of regional climate model (RCM), and (v) utilization of bias-corrected RCM for future assessment under representative concentration pathways RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 for mid (2041–2070) and late century (2071–2100). The results of the study revealed a strong correlation between simulated and observed flow withR2and Nash–Sutcliff efficiency (NSE) equal to 0.85 each for daily flow. For validation,R2and NSE were found to be 0.84 and 0.80, respectively. Compared to baseline period (1976–2005), the result of RCM showed an increase in temperature ranging from 2.36°C to 3.50°C and 2.92°C to 5.23°C for RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 respectively, till the end of the twenty-first century. Likewise, the increase in annual average precipitation is 2.4% to 2.5% and 6.0% to 4.6% (mid to late century) under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5, respectively. The model simulation results for RCP4.5 showed increase in flow by 19.24% and 16.78% for mid and late century, respectively. For RCP8.5, the increase in flow is 20.13% and 15.86% during mid and late century, respectively. The model was more sensitive towards available moisture and snowmelt parameters. Thus, SWAT model could be used as effective tool for climate change valuation and for sustainable management of water resources in future.
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 | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 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".