Back to all available

Climate change effects on hydrologic processes and water quality in the Connecticut River Watershed

climate-change-biology
ecohydrology

Abstract

Increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather events, driven by climate change, are expected to alter hydrological and water quality processes in the Connecticut River watershed. This study aims to model the temporal and spatial impacts of climate change on the watershed's hydrology and nutrient dynamics. We used the Hydrologic and Water Quality System (HAWQS), which incorporates the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT), to establish a baseline scenario and assess two climate scenarios: CMIP5-RCP 4.5 and RCP 8.5. The model was validated using observed data from USGS sites. Our results show that both climate scenarios will cause significant changes in hydrological processes, including a shift in precipitation seasonality, with more rainfall expected during winter and early spring. These changes will affect nutrient loading, shifting the seasonal peaks of nitrogen and phosphorus. Notably, the nitrogen-to-phosphorus ratio is projected to decrease across the entire watershed under both climate scenarios. These findings suggest that the altered hydrological regime and nutrient dynamics could have cascading effects on aquatic ecosystems, impacting phytoplankton and algal growth, with important implications for future nutrient management strategies.
Ask to review this manuscript

Notes for potential reviewers

  • Volunteering is not a guarantee that you will be asked to review. There are many reasons: reviewers must be qualified, there should be no conflicts of interest, a minimum of two reviewers have already accepted an invitation, etc.
  • This is NOT OPEN peer review. The review is single-blind, and all recommendations are sent privately to the Academic Editor handling the manuscript. All reviews are published and reviewers can choose to sign their reviews.
  • What happens after volunteering? It may be a few days before you receive an invitation to review with further instructions. You will need to accept the invitation to then become an official referee for the manuscript. If you do not receive an invitation it is for one of many possible reasons as noted above.
  • PeerJ does not judge submissions based on subjective measures such as novelty, impact or degree of advance. Effectively, reviewers are asked to comment on whether or not the submission is scientifically and technically sound and therefore deserves to join the scientific literature. Our Peer Review criteria can be found on the "Editorial Criteria" page - reviewers are specifically asked to comment on 3 broad areas: "Basic Reporting", "Experimental Design" and "Validity of the Findings".
  • Reviewers are expected to comment in a timely, professional, and constructive manner.
  • Until the article is published, reviewers must regard all information relating to the submission as strictly confidential.
  • When submitting a review, reviewers are given the option to "sign" their review (i.e. to associate their name with their comments). Otherwise, all review comments remain anonymous.
  • All reviews of published articles are published. This includes manuscript files, peer review comments, author rebuttals and revised materials.
  • Each time a decision is made by the Academic Editor, each reviewer will receive a copy of the Decision Letter (which will include the comments of all reviewers).

If you have any questions about submitting your review, please email us at [email protected].