2015, Pfannerstill, M., Guse, B., Reusser, D., Fohrer, N.

2015, Aich, V., Liersch, S., Vetter, T., Andersson, J.C.M., Müller, E.N., Hattermann, F.F.

2014, Hall, J., Arheimer, B., Borga, M., Brázdil, R., Claps, P., Kiss, A., Kjeldsen, T.R., Kriauĉuniene, J., Kundzewicz, Z.W., Lang, M., Llasat, M.C., Macdonald, N., McIntyre, N., Mediero, L., Merz, B., Merz, R., Molnar, P., Montanari, A., Neuhold, C., Parajka, J., Perdigão, R.A.P., Plavcová, L., Rogger, M., Salinas, J.L., Sauquet, E., Schär, C., Szolgay, J., Viglione, A., Blöschl, G.

There is growing concern that flooding is becoming more frequent and severe in Europe. A better understanding of flood regime changes and their drivers is therefore needed. The paper reviews the current knowledge on flood regime changes in European rivers that has traditionally been obtained through two alternative research approaches. The first approach is the data-based detection of changes in observed flood events. Current methods are reviewed together with their challenges and opportunities. For example, observation biases, the merging of different data sources and accounting for nonlinear drivers and responses. The second approach consists of modelled scenarios of future floods. Challenges and opportunities associated with flood change scenarios are discussed such as fully accounting for uncertainties in the modelling cascade and feedbacks. To make progress in flood change research, we suggest that a synthesis of these two approaches is needed. This can be achieved by focusing on long duration records and flood-rich and flood-poor periods rather than on short duration flood trends only, by formally attributing causes of observed flood changes, by validating scenarios against observed flood regime dynamics, and by developing low-dimensional models of flood changes and feedbacks. The paper finishes with a call for a joint European flood change research network.

2015, Hesse, C., Stefanova, A., Krysanova, V.

2014, Pastor, A.V., Ludwig, F., Biemans, H., Hoff, H., Kabat, P.

As the water requirement for food production and other human needs grows, quantification of environmental flow requirements (EFRs) is necessary to assess the amount of water needed to sustain freshwater ecosystems. EFRs are the result of the quantification of water necessary to sustain the riverine ecosystem, which is calculated from the mean of an environmental flow (EF) method. In this study, five EF methods for calculating EFRs were compared with 11 case studies of locally assessed EFRs. We used three existing methods (Smakhtin, Tennant, and Tessmann) and two newly developed methods (the variable monthly flow method (VMF) and the Q90-Q50 method). All methods were compared globally and validated at local scales while mimicking the natural flow regime. The VMF and the Tessmann methods use algorithms to classify the flow regime into high, intermediate, and low-flow months and they take into account intra-annual variability by allocating EFRs with a percentage of mean monthly flow (MMF). The Q90-Q50 method allocates annual flow quantiles (Q90 and Q50) depending on the flow season. The results showed that, on average, 37% of annual discharge was required to sustain environmental flow requirement. More water is needed for environmental flows during low-flow periods (46-71% of average low-flows) compared to high-flow periods (17-45% of average high-flows). Environmental flow requirements estimates from the Tennant, Q90-Q50, and Smakhtin methods were higher than the locally calculated EFRs for river systems with relatively stable flows and were lower than the locally calculated EFRs for rivers with variable flows. The VMF and Tessmann methods showed the highest correlation with the locally calculated EFRs (R2 = 0.91). The main difference between the Tessmann and VMF methods is that the Tessmann method allocates all water to EFRs in low-flow periods while the VMF method allocates 60% of the flow in low-flow periods. Thus, other water sectors such as irrigation can withdraw up to 40% of the flow during the low-flow season and freshwater ecosystems can still be kept in reasonable ecological condition. The global applicability of the five methods was tested using the global vegetation and the Lund-Potsdam-Jena managed land (LPJmL) hydrological model. The calculated global annual EFRs for fair ecological conditions represent between 25 and 46% of mean annual flow (MAF). Variable flow regimes, such as the Nile, have lower EFRs (ranging from 12 to 48% of MAF) than stable tropical regimes such as the Amazon (which has EFRs ranging from 30 to 67% of MAF).

2015, Lobanova, A., Stagl, J., Vetter, T., Hattermann, F.