Cited by 1,676Hydrology and Watershed Management StudiesClimate variability and modelsHydrology and Drought Analysis

Runoff conditions in the upper Danube basin under an ensemble of climate change scenarios

Kling, Harald, Fuchs, Martin, Paulin, Maria·2012·Journal of Hydrology

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jhydrol.2012.01.011

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kling, H., Fuchs, M., & Paulin, M.
Affiliations
AFRY (Austria) (AT)
Corresponding author
Kling, Harald
Venue
Journal of Hydrology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-03
Volume
424-425
Pages
264-277
ISSN
0022-1694 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W1990471334
Cited by
1,676
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 199 · 2025: 209 · 2024: 219 · 2023: 231 · 2022: 256 · 2021: 183 · 2020: 134 · 2019: 75 · 2018: 62 · 2017: 33 · 2016: 31 · 2015: 16 · 2014: 15 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 2
FWCI
12.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
Journal of Hydrology (publishedVersion)
Funders
Bundesministerium für Verkehr, Innovation und Technologie
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Water Science and Technology › Hydrology and Watershed Management Studies
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Climate variability and models
  • Physical Sciences › Environmental Science › Global and Planetary Change › Hydrology and Drought Analysis
Keywords
runoff projections, Upper Danube basin, climate change scenarios, regional climate model, ensemble modelling, bias correction, delta change method, model evaluation, seasonal runoff, flow duration curve, A1B emission scenario, hydrological model uncertainty

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review