Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Figure 6 – uploaded by Domenico Caracciolo

See full PDFdownloadDownload figure
FIGURE5 Comparison between the w parameters of the Fu’s equation calculated using (a) long-term mean annual water balance and optimizing annual balance. (b) Uncertainty evaluation. Black dots represent basins whose elevation is less than 1,200 m a.s.l. (low- elevation basins), and the white dots represent basins whose elevation is higher than 1,200 m a.s.l. (high-elevation basins)

Figure5 5 Comparison between the w parameters of the Fu’s equation calculated using (a) long-term mean annual water balance and optimizing annual balance. (b) Uncertainty evaluation. Black dots represent basins whose elevation is less than 1,200 m a.s.l. (low- elevation basins), and the white dots represent basins whose elevation is higher than 1,200 m a.s.l. (high-elevation basins)

Related Figures (9)

FIGURE 1 Flow chart for the derivation of the accumulated runoff map using the Budyko’s curve. (online version in colour). DEM = digital elevation model
FIGURE 1 Flow chart for the derivation of the accumulated runoff map using the Budyko’s curve. (online version in colour). DEM = digital elevation model
FIGURE 2 Case study: DEM (digital elevation model) of Sicily, considered 53 basins’ limits and their (a) runoff gauging station locations, (b) meat annual rainfall, and (c) mean annual potential evapotranspiration
FIGURE 2 Case study: DEM (digital elevation model) of Sicily, considered 53 basins’ limits and their (a) runoff gauging station locations, (b) meat annual rainfall, and (c) mean annual potential evapotranspiration
TABLE 1 = Main morphologic and climatic characteristics of the considered basins
TABLE 1 = Main morphologic and climatic characteristics of the considered basins
TABLE 1 (Continued)
TABLE 1 (Continued)
4.2 | Annual surface runoff map derivation Note. A = total area (km?); Hm = mean elevation [m a.s.|.]; c = fraction of pervious area (%);R = average value of the annual rainfall (mm); E, = average value « the annual potential evapotranspiration (mm); Q = average value of the annual runoff (mm); Y = number of years of observations measured by the streamfloy gauging stations from 1968 to 1997 (year).
4.2 | Annual surface runoff map derivation Note. A = total area (km?); Hm = mean elevation [m a.s.|.]; c = fraction of pervious area (%);R = average value of the annual rainfall (mm); E, = average value « the annual potential evapotranspiration (mm); Q = average value of the annual runoff (mm); Y = number of years of observations measured by the streamfloy gauging stations from 1968 to 1997 (year).
FIGURE 6 Comparison between observed annual runoff cumulative distribution function (red line) and these obtained through the Monte Carl simulations (black dashed line) and the analytical approach (black line dots). Best cases (a) Belice at Bruciato, (b) Birgi at Chinisia, (c) Eleuterio at Risalaimi, (d) Fastaia at Lachinea, (e) Forgia at Lentini, and (f) Alcantara at San Giacomo. In each panel also climatic forcings are reported: rainfall (blue dashed line) and potential evapotranspiration (green dashed line). (a)-(e) are relative to low-elevation basins, and (f) is relative to an high- elevation basin
FIGURE 6 Comparison between observed annual runoff cumulative distribution function (red line) and these obtained through the Monte Carl simulations (black dashed line) and the analytical approach (black line dots). Best cases (a) Belice at Bruciato, (b) Birgi at Chinisia, (c) Eleuterio at Risalaimi, (d) Fastaia at Lachinea, (e) Forgia at Lentini, and (f) Alcantara at San Giacomo. In each panel also climatic forcings are reported: rainfall (blue dashed line) and potential evapotranspiration (green dashed line). (a)-(e) are relative to low-elevation basins, and (f) is relative to an high- elevation basin
FIGURE 7 Comparison between observed annual runoff cumulative distribution function (red line) and these obtained through the Monte Carl simulations (black dashed line) and the analytical approach (black line dots), worst cases: (a) Castello at Castello, (b) Ficuzza at san Pietro, (c) Nocella at Zucco, and (d) Imera Meridionale at Petralia. In each panel also, climatic forcings are reported: rainfall (blue dashed line) and potential evapotranspiration (green dashed line). (a)-(c) are relative to low-elevation basins, and (d) is relative to a high-elevation basin
FIGURE 7 Comparison between observed annual runoff cumulative distribution function (red line) and these obtained through the Monte Carl simulations (black dashed line) and the analytical approach (black line dots), worst cases: (a) Castello at Castello, (b) Ficuzza at san Pietro, (c) Nocella at Zucco, and (d) Imera Meridionale at Petralia. In each panel also, climatic forcings are reported: rainfall (blue dashed line) and potential evapotranspiration (green dashed line). (a)-(c) are relative to low-elevation basins, and (d) is relative to a high-elevation basin
FIGURE8 Annual discharge map associated with nonexceedance probability of (a) 5% and (b) 95%. Raster layer runoff has been obtained with the simplified analytical approach and accumulated according to the method shown in Figure 1
FIGURE8 Annual discharge map associated with nonexceedance probability of (a) 5% and (b) 95%. Raster layer runoff has been obtained with the simplified analytical approach and accumulated according to the method shown in Figure 1
580 California St., Suite 400
San Francisco, CA, 94104
© 2025 Academia. All rights reserved