Future trend and sensitivity analysis of evapotranspiration in the Senegal River Basin
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Senegal River Basin in West Africa. This work aimed to assess reference evapotranspiration (ET0) trends and its sensitivity to climate variables on the period 2036–2065 in the Senegal River basin. Seven General Circulation Models (GCMs) and seven Regional Climate Models (RCMs) of the CMIP5 project were used under the scenarios RCP4.5 and RCP8.5. The performance of GCMs and RCMs was first evaluated by comparing their outputs with the reanalyses data. The change of ET0 is determined between the periods 1971–2000 and 2036–2065. A sensitivity coefficient was calculated to analyze the influence of climatic variables on ET0. Finally, the Mann Kendall test and Sen slope were used to detect future trends in ET0 and climate variables. It was found that RCMs were here more robust than GCMs in estimating reference evapotranspiration over the period 1984–2000. Compared to the period 1971–2000, the RCMs show that ET0 will increase by 14–293 mm under RCP4.5 and by 55–387 mm under RCP8.5 according to the climatic zones. The maximum values are observed in Sahelian zone and the minimum one in Guinean area. The sensitivity analysis shows that ET0 is more sensitive to relative humidity, maximum temperature and solar radiation. The trend analysis reveals, generally, a significant increase in ET0 and in maximum and minimum temperatures in the period 2036–2065 under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios. This means that ET0 will not be stationary and may continue to increase after 2065 because of the increase of temperature.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".