hydrology

Article
Modeling Climate Change Impacts on Water Balance of a
Mediterranean Watershed Using SWAT+
Giuseppe Pulighe 1, * , Flavio Lupia 1 , Huajin Chen 2 and Hailong Yin 3

1 CREA-Research Centre for Agricultural Policies and Bioeconomy, 00198 Rome, Italy; flavio.lupia@crea.gov.it
2 Bayer CropScience, 700 Chesterfield Parkway West, Chesterfield, MO 63017, USA; jessica-h.chen@bayer.com
3 College of Environmental Science and Engineering, Tongji University, No 1239, Siping Road,
Shanghai 200092, China; 03158@tongji.edu.cn
* Correspondence: giuseppe.pulighe@crea.gov.it

Abstract: The consequences of climate change on food security in arid and semi-arid regions can
be serious. Understanding climate change impacts on water balance is critical to assess future crop
performance and develop sustainable adaptation strategies. This paper presents a climate change
impact study on the water balance components of an agricultural watershed in the Mediterranean
region. The restructured version of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT+) model was used to
simulate the hydrological components in the Sulcis watershed (Sardinia, Italy) for the baseline period
and compared to future climate projections at the end of the 21st century. The model was forced using
data from two Regional Climate Models under the representative concentration pathways RCP4.5
and RCP8.5 scenarios developed at a high resolution over the European domain. River discharge
data were used to calibrate and validate the SWAT+ model for the baseline period, while the future



hydrological response was evaluated for the mid-century (2006–2050) and late-century (2051–2098).


The model simulations indicated a future increase in temperature, decrease in precipitation, and
Citation: Pulighe, G.; Lupia, F.; Chen, consequently increase in potential evapotranspiration in both RCP scenarios. Results show that
H.; Yin, H. Modeling Climate Change these changes will significantly decrease water yield, surface runoff, groundwater recharge, and
Impacts on Water Balance of a baseflow. These results highlight how hydrological components alteration by climate change can
Mediterranean Watershed Using benefit from modelling high-resolution future scenarios that are useful for planning mitigation
SWAT+. Hydrology 2021, 8, 157.
measures in agricultural semi-arid Mediterranean regions.
https://doi.org/10.3390/
hydrology8040157
Keywords: Watershed modeling; hydrological impacts; simulation; agriculture; regional climate model

Academic Editor: Tommaso Caloiero

Received: 24 September 2021

Accepted: 12 October 2021
1. Introduction
Published: 15 October 2021 Climate and land-use change are significantly impacting water resources and altering
the precipitation regime and the components of the hydrological cycle [1]. These alterations
Publisher’s Note: MDPI stays neutral are putting rising pressures on freshwater-related ecosystem services and, consequently, on
with regard to jurisdictional claims in their ability to sustain ecosystems, biodiversity, agriculture production, and human water
published maps and institutional affil- need [2].
iations. Agriculture is one of the sectors most dependent on climate as it directly impacts
crop productivity. More frequent extreme events such as droughts have had adverse
effects on farmlands in vulnerable areas around the world [3]. This is especially true for
arid and semi-arid environments, where water shortage is a chief issue [4]. Meanwhile,
Copyright: © 2021 by the authors. the world population is expected to grow upward to 9.7 billion by 2050 [5]. Increasing
Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. demand under unfavorable weather conditions put huge pressure on agricultural systems.
This article is an open access article These circumstances call for the proactive development of sustainable adaptation strategies,
distributed under the terms and which require an understanding of crop performance under projected climate change sce-
conditions of the Creative Commons narios. As water availability is a major determinant of crop yield, modeling climate change
Attribution (CC BY) license (https:// impacts on water balance is a prerequisite for reliable prediction of future agricultural
creativecommons.org/licenses/by/ productivity [6].
4.0/).

Hydrology 2021, 8, 157. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology8040157 https://www.mdpi.com/journal/hydrology

Hydrology 2021, 8, 157 2 of 14

The Mediterranean area is particularly exposed to the effects of climate change and
consequent alterations in the hydrological regime [7,8]. It was projected that future winters
will become wetter and summers drier [9], exacerbating the magnitude and frequency of
the extreme weather events experienced in the last decades [10,11].
In recent years, the use of General Circulation Models (GCMs) and Regional Climate
Models (RCMs) allows performing reliable and accurate future projections for a range of
climate variables at high resolution in time and space. For instance, Leta and Bauwens [12]
assessed the impact of future climate change on the hydrological extremes in a river basin
in Belgium using statistically downscaled time series data. Similarly, Brouziyne et al. [13]
modeled flow regime alterations under projected climate change in a Mediterranean basin
forcing the eco-hydrological SWAT model with data from one climate model under two
emission scenarios. In the same vein, Vezzoli et al. [14] investigated river discharge in the
Po River basin using the TOPKAPI model and regional climate model projections under
two different representative concentration pathways (RCPs) [15]. In another study, Fonseca
and Santos [16] assessed projected climate change impacts on hydrologic flows applying
the HSPF model and a climatic dataset by an ensemble of five different GCM-RCM model
chains under two greenhouse gas emission scenarios.
All the above studies suggest a rising interest in modeling accurately internal water-
shed processes and in simulating reliable scenarios under future climate conditions. In this
sense, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool (SWAT) is one of the widely used hydrological
models that simulate the watershed processes, water quality, pesticide fate and transport,
and the nutrient cycles under various climates and conditions [17–19].
SWAT+ is the restructured version of the SWAT model [20,21], allowing a more
realistic simulation of river basins and water cycle compared to the previous version [18].
Although extensive research has been conducted using SWAT for modeling the effects
of climate change on hydrology [22], to date, few studies have investigated the use of
SWAT+ for representing hydrological consequences of climate change. In this study, we
test the ability of SWAT+ to model current and future effects of climate change on water
balance in a catchment in the Sulcis area (Italy). The specific objectives of this study were:
(i) to calibrate and validate the model to adequately represent the hydrological cycle in
the current scenario; (ii) to assess the projected changes in terms of climate patterns and
water balance under different RCP scenarios; (iii) to discuss potential consequences of these
changes in terms of suitable adaptation strategies. To the best of the authors’ knowledge,
there is no such study in the Mediterranean region that has assessed the impacts of climate
change on water balance on agricultural watersheds using the SWAT+ and RCMs at a
higher resolution.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area
The study area is the Sulcis district in the southwest part of Sardinia Region (Italy),
with a total drainage surface of around 173 km2 and an elevation ranging from 1 to 613 m
above the mean sea level (39◦ 10’ N, 8◦ 30’ E, Figure 1). The regional climate is classified as
Mediterranean semi-arid with a bimodal pattern of precipitation distribution, with a mean
annual temperature and rainfall of 16 ◦ C and 648 mm, respectively. The basin is relatively
flat, with undulating terrain in the northern part. Agricultural arable land, shrubs and
scattered grasses and pasture are the main land cover categories. There is one urban center
and few small villages located within the catchment territory.
Hydrology 2021, 8, 157 3 of 14
Hydrology 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 14

Figure1.1.Location
Figure Locationof
ofthe
theSulcis
Sulcisarea
areawith
withrespect
respecttotoItaly
Italy(a)
(a)and
andSardinia
Sardinia(b).
(b).The
Themap
mapshows
showsthe
theriver
rivernetwork
networkand
andthe
the
location of the gauge station.
location of the gauge station.

2.2. Experimental
2.2. Experimental Setup
Setup
2.2.1. SWAT+
2.2.1. SWAT+Model
Model
SWATisisaasemi-distributed
SWAT semi-distributedeco-hydrological
eco-hydrological model
model usedused
to to simulate
simulate thethe hydrologi-
hydrological
cycle and and
cal cycle sediment transport
sediment at theatwatershed
transport scale. scale.
the watershed The SWAT model model
The SWAT delineated a water-a
delineated
shed and sub-watersheds
watershed and sub-watershedsinto Hydrologic
into HydrologicResponse Units (HRUs)
Response that are
Units (HRUs) homogenous
that are homog-
spatial units with
enous spatial unitsa unique combination
with a unique of landof
combination use,landsoil,
use,and slope.
soil, and Soil water
slope. Soil balance
water bal-is
determined within the
ance is determined HRUs.
within theThe
HRUs. modelThewas extensively
model used worldwide
was extensively in the past
used worldwide at
in the
different scales forscales
past at different ecohydrological modelingmodeling
for ecohydrological during different
during climate
differentconditions and with
climate conditions
future climate projections [23–26].
and with future climate projections [24–27].
In
Inthis
thisstudy,
study,the
theSWAT+
SWAT+isisused.used.TheTheSWAT+
SWAT+ is is
a restructured
a restructured version of of
version SWAT
SWAT thatthat
is
more flexible
is more in terms
flexible of watershed
in terms of watershed discretization, configuration,
discretization, and spatial
configuration, representation
and spatial represen-
of processes,
tation as wellas
of processes, aswell
in defining management
as in defining schedules
management and operations,
schedules and database
and operations, and da-
maintaining. Advantages include improved anthropogenic water
tabase maintaining. Advantages include improved anthropogenic water use and manage- use and management,
flexibility in management
ment, flexibility schedules
in management and operations,
schedules easier printing
and operations, of outputs,
easier printing and rapid
of outputs, and
model calibration. Finally, SWAT+ has a free-file format that can be
rapid model calibration. Finally, SWAT+ has a free-file format that can be easily managed easily managed into
ainto
spreadsheet.
a spreadsheet. See See
Bieger et al.
Bieger et [21] forfor
al. [22] more details
more details and
andfurther
furtherexplanations
explanationson onnew
new
functions, improvements, and advantages.
functions, improvements, and advantages.
SWAT+
SWAT+models modelsthe thehydrologic
hydrologiccycle cycleusing
usingthe
thewater
waterbalance
balanceequation
equation(Equation
(Equation(1)):
(1)):
t  
𝑆𝑊
SWt=i = ∑ R−day𝑄 i − Q−sur𝐸 f −i −𝑊Ea − −W𝑄seep i)− Qgw i
𝑆𝑊SW+0 i +(𝑅 (1)
i =1
Hydrology 2021, 8, x FOR PEER REVIEW 4 of 14
Hydrology 2021, 8, 157 4 of 14

where SWt i is the final soil water content (mm) on day i, SW0 i is the initial soil water
content
whereon SWday
t i isi the
(mm),finalt soil
is the timecontent
water (days),(mm) Rday oni isday
the i,amount
SW0 i isof theprecipitation on day i
initial soil water
(mm), Qsurfon
content i isday
thei (mm),
amount t isofthesurface runoffRon
time (days), day iday i (mm),
is the amount Eaofi is the amount
precipitation onofdayevapo-
i (mm), Qsurf
transpiration oni dayis the amount
i (mm), of isurface
Wseep runoff on
is the amount ofday
wateri (mm), Ea i the
entering is the amount
vadose zone of from
theevapotranspiration
soil profile on day oni day
(mm), i (mm),
and W Qseep i isthe
gw i is theamount
amount of of water
returnentering
flow onthe vadose
day i (mm) zone [24].
from the soil profile on day
The work has been organized in the gwi (mm), and Q is the
following
i amount of return flow on day ,
way. First, baseline model simulation [23].
The work has been organized in the following way. First, baseline model simulation is
is conducted through a four-step procedure (see Figure 2): i) delineation of the watershed;
conducted through a four-step procedure (see Figure 2): (i) delineation of the watershed;
ii) creation of the HRU; iii) editing of inputs and run of the model; iv) visualization of the
(ii) creation of the HRU; (iii) editing of inputs and run of the model; (iv) visualization of the
results. Second,
results. Second,the themodel
model is iscalibrated
calibrated and and validated
validated usingusing discharge
discharge data measured
data measured in the in
thefield
fieldfrom
from one one gauge
gauge station
station (Figure
(Figure 1). Finally,
1). Finally, climateclimate
change change
projections projections
are computed are com-
puted forcing
forcing the validated
the validated SWAT+SWAT+ model by model
data (dailyby data (daily and
minimum minimum
maximum andtemperatures
maximum tem-
peratures and precipitation)
and precipitation) from two from RCM twounder RCM RCP4.5 underand RCP4.5 and RCP8.5
RCP8.5 scenarios. scenarios
In this study, the . In this
watershed
study, was delineated
the watershed using the SWAT+
was delineated using the plugin withinplugin
SWAT+ QGIS 3.16
within[27].QGIS 3.16 [28].

FigureFigure
2. The2. main steps
The main for for
steps setting-up
setting-upthe
theSWAT+ model,conducting
SWAT+ model, conducting calibration/validation,
calibration/validation, and climate
and climate changechange scenar-
scenarios.
ios.
2.2.2. Dataset
The geospatial data required by the SWAT+ model include (Table 1): Digital Elevation
2.2.2. Dataset
Model (DEM), land use/cover data, soil data, and river network. The DEM was used to
The geospatial data required by the SWAT+ model include (Table 1): Digital Eleva-
generate stream networks, the catchment and sub-basin delineation. Land use/cover, soil
tiondata
Model (DEM), land
and elevations wereuse/cover
jointly useddata, soil data,
to delineate and river
HRUs. network.
The dataset The DEM
is available fromwas
the used
to generate
web-portal stream
of the networks,
Autonomous theRegion
catchment and sub-basin
of Sardinia (RAS) [28].delineation.
The original Land
spatialuse/cover,
data
soilwere
dataconverted
and elevations were jointly
and ingested used
in a grid to delineate
format HRUs.
at a 10-meter The dataset is available from
resolution.
Step 1 uses
the web-portal of the 10-meter
Autonomous DEM and stream
Region network to(RAS)
of Sardinia derive[29].
the watershed,
The originallandscape
spatial data
wereunits and sub-basins.
converted In Stepin2,awe
and ingested used
grid a landatuse
format map (scale
a 10-meter 1:25,000) and a soil map
resolution.
(scale
Step1:50,000)
1 uses thewith10-meter
21 and 32DEM map units, respectively.
and stream These
network to data provide
derive specific soilland-
the watershed,
properties (e.g., sand, silt, and clay contents, the available water capacity of soil layers) and
scape units and sub-basins. In Step 2, we used a land use map (scale 1:25,000) and a soil
crop types required for the creation of the HRUs. The dataset provided by RAS is validated
map (scale 1:50,000) with 21 and 32 map units, respectively. These data provide specific
in terms of consistency, accuracy, and reliability.
soil properties (e.g.,
In Step 3, sand,
climate silt,
data and
for theclay contents,
period thewere
1979–2005 available
used towater capacity
set up of soil
the baseline layers)
sce-
andnario
cropcovering
types required fortime
a reasonable the span
creation
beforeoffuture
the HRUs.
periodsThe dataset Climate
simulations. provided by RAS is
variables
validated
include in terms
daily of consistency,
maximum and minimum accuracy, and reliability.
temperature, precipitation, solar radiation, relative
In Step and
humidity, 3, climate data obtained
wind speed for the period
from the1979-2005 were used
Climate Forecast to set
System up the baseline
Reanalysis [29]. In sce-
nario covering a reasonable time span before future periods simulations. Climate varia-
bles include daily maximum and minimum temperature, precipitation, solar radiation,
relative humidity, and wind speed obtained from the Climate Forecast System Reanalysis
[30]. In this step, prior to the simulation starts, the warm-up period of three years was set
Hydrology 2021, 8, 157 5 of 14

this step, prior to the simulation starts, the warm-up period of three years was set along
with other attributes such as the curve number (a function of the soil moisture) and the
water routing as a variable storage method.

Table 1. Dataset used for modeling water balance under the baseline period.

Data Resolution Date/Period Description Source

Land use 1:25,000 2008 Land use classes [28]
DEM 10 m 2008 Elevation [28]
Soil properties
Soil data 1:50,000 2003 (hydrological group, [28]
clay, silt, sand)
Temperature,
Meteorological precipitation, humidity,
daily 1979–2005 [29]
data solar radiation, wind
speed
Hydrological
monthly 1979–1992 River discharge [28]
data

2.2.3. Calibration and Validation

Sensitivity analysis, calibration, and validation of the SWAT+ model were conducted
using the SWAT+ Toolbox (integrated into QGIS interface), a free tool that assists users
on uncertainty and calibration analysis, and model check [30]. The calibration procedure
is performed through the optimization of model performances, which is carried out by
comparing observed and simulated data. Sensitivity analysis was carried out in the SWAT+
Toolbox using a Fourier Amplitude method with several iterations until the most suitable
parameters were fitted and fixed (see Section 3.1).
The model performances were evaluated by assessing the goodness-of-fit objective
function values recommended by Moriasi et al. [31] as well as graphical inspection. Nash-
Sutcliffe efficiency (NSE), the mean square error (MSE), the ratio of the root mean square
error (RMSE) to the standard deviation, and the percent of model bias (PBIAS) indices be-
tween observed and simulated data were used as objective functions for model calibration
and validation.
Monthly streamflow observations (m3 /s) from 1979 to 1992 at the Flumentepido
hydrological station (stream Flumentepido, Figure 1) were also obtained from RAS [32].
These data were used to assess and verify the predictive performances of the model
simulation. Streamflow was calibrated comparing observed and simulated data between
January 1982 and December 1985, while the period between January 1986 and December
1992 was set for validation. As mentioned above, the first three years of the dataset are set
as a warm-up.

2.2.4. Climate Projections

In this study, climate simulations over the 21st century for the period 2006–2098 were used
using two RCM, namely COSMO-CLM and KNMI RACMO22E models (Table 2). COSMO-
CLM is a very high-resolution model (about 8 km) provided by the Euro-Mediterranean Center
on Climate Change [33,34]. The model projections adapted to the Italian territory showed good
results on reproducing future climate scenarios in different contexts [35–37]. KNMI RACMO22E
model [38] is a dynamical downscaling dataset based on the CMIP5 CNRM-CM5 driving
model at a very high resolution (about 12.5 km) under the EURO-CORDEX initiative [39].
The bias-adjusted RACMO22E dataset was provided by the service Climadjust [40]. For more
details regarding the application of the different RCMs over the European continent, readers
are referred to Vautard et al. [41].
Climate change projections were conducted using the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenar-
ios until the mid-century (2006–2050) and late-century (2051–2098). The RCP4.5 is a
medium scenario of global emissions of greenhouse gases that stabilizes radiative forcing
Hydrology 2021, 8, 157 6 of 14

at 4.5 W/m2 (approximately 650 ppm CO2 -equivalent) [42], while the RCP8.5 is a very
high emission scenario leading to 8.5 W/m2 in the year 2100 (approximately 1370 ppm
CO2 -equivalent) [43]. Radiative forcing measures the combined effect of greenhouse-gas
emissions and other factors (e.g., aerosols, methane, nitrous oxide, other gases) on climate
warming [44].
Gridded dataset for two meteorological parameters (maximum and minimum tem-
perature, precipitation) available as network Common Data Form (netCDF) files were
converted into text format at each grid point to be ingested as weather stations in the
SWAT+ model.

Table 2. List of the regional climate models used in this study.

Model Name Institution RCP Scenario 1 Resolution Source

Royal Netherlands
RACMO22E Meteorological RCP4.5-RCP8.5 12.5 km [38]
Institute-Netherlands
Centro Euro-Mediterraneo
COSMO-CLM sui Cambiamenti RCP4.5-RCP8.5 8 km [33,34]
Climatici-Italy
1 van Vuuren et al., [43]: “The RCPs describe a set of possible developments in emissions and land use, based
on consistent scenarios representative of current literature. The RCPs should not be interpreted as forecasts or
absolute bounds or be seen as policy prescriptive. The socio-economic scenarios underlying the RCPs cannot be
treated as a set with an overarching internal logic. The socio-economic scenarios underlying each RCP should not
be considered unique”.

3. Results and Discussion

Hydrology 2021, 8,3.1. SWAT+
x FOR Calibration and Validation
PEER REVIEW 7 of
The comparison between the observed and simulated river discharge at Flumentepido
gauge showed very good model performance reproducing the water balance in the water-
shed during validation (Figure 3).
Table 3. Calibration For
and the calibration
validation period,
performance of thethe NSE,model
SWAT+ MSE, at
RMSE, and
the Flumentepido riv
PBIAS values were 0.349, 0.050,
gauge station. 0.224, and 33.95, respectively (Table 3). For the validation
period, the NSE, MSE, RMSE, and PBIAS values were 0.757, 0.019, 0.139, and 30.99, respec-
Objective
tively (Table 2). According to functions Calibration
Moriasi et al. [32], a streamflow Validation
simulation at monthly time
NSE 0.349
step is considered very good if NSE > 0.75, and PBIAS < ±10%, while RMSE being closer 0.757
MSE prediction. The unsatisfactory
to zero indicates accurate model 0.050 PBIAS value (>25%) could 0.019
RMSE 0.224
be explained by bias in some input and consequent some incorrect peak flow simulation 0.139
PBIAS
during moderate rainfall events. 33.95 30.99

Figure 3. Precipitation and simulated

Figure 3. Precipitation andand observed
simulated monthly
and discharges
observed monthlyduring the calibration
discharges during theand validationand
calibration periods at
the Flumentepido gauge station. Prediction uncertainty 95% (95PPU).
validation periods at the Flumentepido gauge station. Prediction uncertainty 95% (95PPU).

3.2. Future Climate and Water Balance Projections

For the assessment of future climate and water projections, the period 1979–2005 w
considered as a baseline, while the future changes were estimated for up to 2050s (200
Hydrology 2021, 8, 157 7 of 14

Table 3. Calibration and validation performance of the SWAT+ model at the Flumentepido river
gauge station.

Objective Functions Calibration Validation

NSE 0.349 0.757
MSE 0.050 0.019
RMSE 0.224 0.139
PBIAS 33.95 30.99

This effect was also reported in the literature for arid and semi-arid environments
in Mediterranean climates [13,45]. The underestimation of major peak flow events could
be explained by some errors in the meteorological data not uniformly distributed across
the study area, as well as model limitations on reproducing complex processes that drive
climate variability. Another possible explanation for prediction uncertainty is the com-
plex geomorphology of the area and the proximity to the sea, which can limit both the
performance of both baseline and climate projections performances.
The sensitivity analysis performed with the SWAT+ Toolbox showed that the most
sensitive parameters that affect the simulation are: the baseflow recession constant (alpha);
percolation coefficient (perco); minimum aquifer storage to allow return flow (flo_min);
available water capacity of the soil layer (awc).

3.2. Future Climate and Water Balance Projections

For the assessment of future climate and water projections, the period 1979–2005
was considered as a baseline, while the future changes were estimated for up to 2050s
(2006–2050) and 2098s (2051–2098), respectively. The results of projected changes for the
main components of temperature, precipitation, and the water balance, under the climate
models and RCP scenarios, are reported in Tables 4–7. Supplementary data are presented
in Tables S1–S6.

Table 4. Precipitation and temperature under baseline and future climate projections for the
RACMO22E regional climate model under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios.

2006–2050 2051–2098 2006–2050 2051–2098

Baseline
(RCP4.5) (RCP4.5) (RCP8.5) (RCP8.5)
Precipitation
639 474 456 649 647
(mm/year)
Temp max (◦ C) 20.2 22.6 23.3 22.7 24.4
Temp min (◦ C) 14.4 14.2 15 14.3 16.1
Temp mean (◦ C) 17.3 18.4 19.1 18.5 20.2

Table 5. Precipitation and temperature under baseline and future climate projections for the COSMO-
CLM regional climate model under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios.

2006–2050 2051–2098 2006–2050 2051–2098

Baseline
(RCP4.5) (RCP4.5) (RCP8.5) (RCP8.5)
Precipitation
639 664 663 662 662
(mm/year)
Temp max (◦ C) 20.2 20.2 21.5 19.8 22.7
Temp min (◦ C) 14.4 12.9 14.2 12.9 15.7
Temp mean (◦ C) 17.3 16.6 17.8 16.3 19.2
 2006–2050 2051–2098 2006–2050 2051–2098
Baseline
(RCP4.5) (RCP4.5) (RCP8.5) (RCP8.5)
Hydrology 2021, 8, 157
Precipitation 8 662
of 14
639 664 663 662
(mm/year)
Temp max
20.2 20.2 21.5 19.8 22.7
(°C)
Table 6. Water balance components under baseline and future climate projections for the RACMO22E
Temp min
regional climate model under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios.
14.4 12.9 14.2 12.9 15.7
(°C)
2006–2050 2051–2098 2006–2050 2051–2098
Temp mean
(mm/year) Baseline
(RCP4.5) (RCP4.5) (RCP8.5) (RCP8.5)
17.3 16.6 17.8 16.3 19.2
(°C)
PET 1581 2201 2312 2539 2763
ET 544 439 425 605 604
3.2.1. Projected
SURQ Changes
54.3in Precipitation
26.7 and Temperature
23.9 33.7 32.5
LATQ 6.13 2.12 1.89 2.71 2.59
The mean annual
PERC 31.1precipitation
6.67under RCP4.5
5.75 and RCP8.5
8.8 scenarios8.19
project con-
trastingWYLD
values for the60.4
RACMO22E 28.8 model. Under25.8
the RCP4.5 during
36.4 the mid-century,
35.1 the
projected precipitation was 474 mm/year (decrease by -25.4% compared to baseline),
while
Tableduring
7. Waterthe late-century,
balance components a decrease equal
under baseline andtofuture
456 mm/year (decrease
climate projections by COSMO-
for the -28.3% com-
pared
CLMtoregional
baseline) was
climate estimated.
model under RCP4.5Conversely,
and RCP8.5under the RCP8.5 scenario during the mid-
scenarios.
century, the projected precipitation was 649 mm/year (decrease by -2% compared to base-
2006–2050 2051–2098 2006–2050 2051–2098
line), (mm/Year)
while during the late-century,
Baseline it was estimated
(RCP4.5) (RCP4.5)
equal to 647 mm/year
(RCP8.5)
(decrease by -
(RCP8.5)
1.7% compared to baseline). For the COSMO-CLM model under the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5,
PET 1581 2382 2563 2358 2675
the precipitation
ET projections
544 indicate 614a slight increase
618 (about 660 613mm/year) for 615 both emis-
sion scenarios
SURQ for the mid-century
54.3 and
36.2 late-century.34.7 34.8 34.2
LATQ
Concerning 6.13
temperature, for the3.02RACMO22E 2.52model, the2.78 mean annual2.61 temperature
PERC 31.1 10.5 7.85 8.91 8.56
was projected
WYLD
to increase
60.4
for both 39.2 emission scenarios37.2
during37.6 the mid- and36.8 late-century
(Figure 4). The highest increase is expected for the RCP8.5 emission scenario by 2.9 °C in
the3.2.1.
late-century
Projectedcompared
Changes into the baseline
Precipitation andmean annual temperature. On a seasonal scale,
Temperature
July is the warmest month with a mean temperature and max temperature of 29.3 °C and
The mean annual precipitation under RCP4.5 and RCP8.5 scenarios project contrasting
35.08 °C, for
values respectively,
the RACMO22E under the RCP8.5
model. Under the during
RCP4.5 theduring
late-century (Table S2).
the mid-century, the projected
Temperatures for the COSMO-CLM model showed
precipitation was 474 mm/year (decrease by −25.4% compared to baseline), an increase during
whilethe late-cen-
during
turythefor both emission
late-century, scenarios,
a decrease equalwith to 456a maximum of 1.9 °C for
mm/year (decrease by − the RCP8.5
28.3% as compared
compared to
to the historically
baseline) observedConversely,
was estimated. values. Onunder a monthly scale,scenario
the RCP8.5 Augustduringis the warmest month with
the mid-century,
the projected
a mean precipitation
temperature and max was 649 mm/year
temperature of (decrease
28.7 °C and −2%°C,
by 33.1 compared to baseline),
respectively, under the
whileduring
RCP8.5 during the
thelate-century,
late-centuryit (Table
was estimated equal to
S3). Overall, in647 mm/year
contrast (decrease by
to predicted −1.7%
precipitation,
bothcompared
RCMs showedto baseline). For the COSMO-CLM
an increasing model underconfirming
trend in temperatures, the RCP4.5general
and RCP8.5,warming the ex-
precipitation projections indicate a slight increase (about 660 mm/year) for both emission
pected in Italy for the end of the century [35]. Simulations are not so large for median
scenarios for the mid-century and late-century.
values, Concerning
although the COSMO-CLM
temperature, for themodel
RACMO22Etends model,
to underestimate
the mean annual temperature,
temperature as sug-
gested by other studies [34]. As suggested above for the baseline
was projected to increase for both emission scenarios during the mid- and late-century results, climate projec-
tions can be
(Figure biased
4). The in areas
highest with
increase heterogeneous
is expected land cover,
for the RCP8.5 emissioncomplex
scenarioterrain,
by 2.9 as◦ C well
in as
withtheirregular coastlines
late-century compared [34].
to Other researchers
the baseline (see [47,48])
mean annual suggested
temperature. that multiscale
On a seasonal scale, re-
July is the warmest month with a mean temperature and max temperature ◦ C and
of 29.3 analyzed
lations between climate phenomena and the streamflow could be rigorously in
◦
the35.08
futureC,by respectively, under theanalysis.
the cross-wavelet RCP8.5 during the late-century (Table S2).

FigureFigure
4. Monthly evolution
4. Monthly ofofthe
evolution themean
mean temperature for:
temperature for: (a)(a) RACMO22E
RACMO22E under
under the RCP4.5
the RCP4.5 and RCP8.5;
and RCP8.5; (B) COSMO-
(b) COSMO-CLM
CLM under
underthe
theRCP4.5
RCP4.5 and RCP8.5.
and RCP8.5.
Hydrology 2021, 8, 157 9 of 14

Temperatures for the COSMO-CLM model showed an increase during the late-century
for both emission scenarios, with a maximum of 1.9 ◦ C for the RCP8.5 as compared to the
historically observed values. On a monthly scale, August is the warmest month with a mean
temperature and max temperature of 28.7 ◦ C and 33.1 ◦ C, respectively, under the RCP8.5
during the late-century (Table S3). Overall, in contrast to predicted precipitation, both
RCMs showed an increasing trend in temperatures, confirming general warming expected
in Italy for the end of the century [34]. Simulations are not so large for median values,
although the COSMO-CLM model tends to underestimate temperature, as suggested by
other studies [33]. As suggested above for the baseline results, climate projections can be
biased in areas with heterogeneous land cover, complex terrain, as well as with irregular
coastlines [33]. Other researchers (see [46,47]) suggested that multiscale relations between
climate phenomena and the streamflow could be rigorously analyzed in the future by the
cross-wavelet analysis.

3.2.2. Projected Changes in Water Balance

At the basin scale, the mean annual potential evapotranspiration (PET) calculated
with the Penman–Monteith equation was projected to increase significantly under both
climate models compared to the baseline period equal to 1581 mm/year (Tables 6 and 7).
Under the RCP4.5 emission scenario for RACMO22E, PET was projected to increase up to
2201 mm/year and 2312 under the mid-century and late-century, respectively. Under the
RCP8.5 scenario, PET has projected a further increase up to 2539 and 2763 mm/year under
the mid-century and late-century, respectively.
PET is the dominant water balance component, and its increase is strongly driven
by the increase in temperature. Conversely, actual evapotranspiration (ET) showed a
decreasing trend during the summer months (Figure 4) since ET represents the real flow
of water from the surface to the atmosphere, while PET is the evaporative demand of
the atmosphere, mostly driven by temperature [13,48]. Data from several studies suggest
similar increasing trends of PET in semi-arid climates [16,49]. The future increase in PET
compared to the baseline in the basin is evident for both models and RCPs, as depicted on
a monthly scale in Figure 4. In contrast, the ET trend is more uniform for both models and
RCPs throughout the year.
The mean annual ET under the RCP4.5 scenario for RACMO22E showed a decrease
during the mid-century (439 mm/year) (decrease by −19.3% compared to the baseline) and
the late-century (425 mm/year) (decrease by −21.9% compared to the baseline) compared
to the baseline period (544 mm/year). This decrease is consistent with the decrease in
projected precipitation since these are a proxy for the ET trend, reflecting the exchange
of energy in the soil-water-atmosphere processes [50]. On the contrary, under the RCP8.5
scenario, ET was projected to increase about 605 mm, following the increase in projected
precipitation (both mid- and late-century) compared to the RCP4.5 scenario. On a monthly
scale, the reduction in projected ET under the RCP4.5 was evident for the autumn months
(Table S5 and Figure 5) due to a reduction in projected precipitation.
The total mean annual ET and PET for the COSMO-CLM model showed an increase
during the late-century for both emission scenarios. Under the RCP4.5 scenario, PET has
projected a further increase up to 2382 and 2563 mm/year under the mid-century and late-
century, respectively. A less evident increase for the RCP8.5 scenario compared to RCP4.5,
up to 2358 and 2675 mm/year under the mid-century and late-century, respectively. For the
COSMO-CLM model, the projected annual ET remained almost constant for both scenarios
during the mid-century and late-century (approximately 615 mm/year), an increase of 13%
compared to the baseline period.
 to the baseline period (544 mm/year). This decrease is consistent with the decrease i
jected precipitation since these are a proxy for the ET trend, reflecting the exchan
energy in the soil-water-atmosphere processes [51]. On the contrary, under the R
scenario, ET was projected to increase about 605 mm, following the increase in pro
Hydrology 2021, 8, 157
precipitation (both mid- and late-century) compared to the RCP4.5 scenario.
10 of 14
On a mo
scale, the reduction in projected ET under the RCP4.5 was evident for the autumn m
(Table S5 and Figure 5) due to a reduction in projected precipitation.

5. Monthly
Figure evolution
Figure 5. Monthly of evolution of precipitation,
precipitation, actual evapotranspiration,
actual evapotranspiration, and potential evapotran-
and potential evapotranspiration for: RACMO22
under the RCP4.5 (a) and RCP8.5 (b); COSMO-CLM under the RCP4.5 (c) and RCP8.5 (d).
spiration for: RACMO22E under the RCP4.5 (a) and RCP8.5 (b); COSMO-CLM under the RCP4.5
(c) and RCP8.5 (d).
The total mean annual ET and PET for the COSMO-CLM model showed an in
At the basin scale,
during thethe simulatedfor
late-century water
bothbalance
emissionwas projectedUnder
scenarios. to decrease for both
the RCP4.5 scenario, PE
scenarios due to increasing
projected temperatures
a further increaseand
up the consequent
to 2,382 amount
and 2,563 of water
mm/year lossthe
under in the
mid-centur
atmosphere. Significant
late-century,decreases are projected
respectively. for totalincrease
A less evident annual streamflow leaving
for the RCP8.5 the compa
scenario
watershed (WYLD), surface runoff (SURQ), percolation (PERC), and lateral flow (LATQ)
(Tables 6 and 7). For the RACMO22E model, SURQ was projected with a marked reduction
of 26.7 mm/year under the RCP4.5 scenario (decrease by −50% compared to the baseline
period (54.3 mm/year), while the reduction under the RCP8.5 scenario is close to −40%
compared to baseline period). Similarly, the COSMO-CLM model showed a decrease for
SURQ of about 34 mm/year, a decrease of around −37% compared to the baseline period.

3.3. Consequences of Water Balance Alterations

In line with other climate change impacts on water balance over the Mediterranean
region, this study found that the Sulcis area will experience a marked decrease of water
components under the RCMs and emission scenarios in the future decades [13,51]. The
reduction in precipitation and rising temperatures will alter flow regimes and consequently
water availability at the watershed level [52–54]. Drought events, water stress, and temper-
ature increases at the seasonal level will impact the growing cycle and phenological stages
(e.g., flowering, ripening) of major crops, such as durum wheat, maize, vegetables, and
forage production, impacting the quantity and quality of food production [55]. Mitigation
scenarios and adaptation measures (e.g., early flowering and early sowing cultivars, new
cultivars) toward climate-smart agriculture need to be addressed urgently to guarantee
sustainable productions and economic benefits for local communities [3,56,57].

4. Conclusions
This study assesses the impacts of climate change on the hydrologic regime of a semi-
arid Mediterranean watershed located in Sardinia (Italy) by using the restructured version
of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool model. Simulation of the hydrological cycle was
carried out by forcing the model with two RCMs for two emission scenarios (RCP4.5 and
RCP8.5). The results show that by the end of the 21st century, climate change is projected to
significantly affect water balance (i.e., water yield, groundwater recharge, baseflow, surface
runoff). Therefore, these climate change effects on the hydrological regime might pose
Hydrology 2021, 8, 157 11 of 14

great challenges and further stress on agricultural crops in the study area, e.g., jeopardizing
land use and irrigation practices.
Despite some inherent limitations of climate projections (e.g., accuracy, uncertainty)
and specific methodological assumptions of the study (e.g., constant land use, constant
agricultural management practices, and their role in the future flowrate conditions), the
findings of this work can contribute to highlight possible consequences of future climate
changes under the Mediterranean regions, as well as helping in designing high-resolution
transformative adaptation on suitable water management, by providing insights for policy-
makers and decision-makers. From a further research perspective, the results of this study
can be used to develop set-up detailed crop models and to define climate-smart agriculture
practices and improved resources management.

Supplementary Materials: The following are available online at https://www.mdpi.com/article/10

.3390/hydrology8040157/s1, Tables S1–S6.
Author Contributions: Conceptualization, G.P.; data curation, G.P.; methodology, G.P.; software, G.P.;
validation, G.P.; formal analysis, G.P., F.L.; investigation, G.P.; writing—original draft preparation,
G.P., F.L., H.C. and H.Y.; writing—review and editing, G.P., F.L., H.C. and H.Y.; visualization, G.P.;
supervision, G.P. All authors have read and agreed to the published version of the manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Institutional Review Board Statement: Not applicable.
Informed Consent Statement: Not applicable.
Data Availability Statement: The datasets generated during and/or analysed during the current
study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
Acknowledgments: We would like to thank Edoardo Bucchignani and CMCC Foundation (Eu-
roMediterranean Centre on Climate Changes)—REMHI Division for providing the COSMO-CLM
data. Thanks also to Juan José Sáenz de la Torre and Climadjust (https://climadjust.com/home
(accessed on 30 May 2021)) for providing the RACMO22E data. Climadjust was funded by the
Copernicus Climate Change Service and developed under contract C3S_428i.
Conflicts of Interest: The manuscript has no conflict of interests with Bayer CropScience.

Abbreviations
List of abbreviation: GCMs, General Circulation Models; RCMs, Regional Climate Models;
SWAT, the Soil and Water Assessment Tool model; TOPKAPI, the TOPographic Kinematic APproxi-
mation and Integration model; RCPs, representative concentration pathways; HSPF, the Hydrological
Simulation Program FORTRAN model; HRUs, Hydrologic Response Units; DEM, Digital Eleva-
tion Model; RAS, Autonomous Region of Sardinia; NSE, Nash-Sutcliffe efficiency; MSE, the mean
square error; RMSE, the ratio of the root mean square error to the standard deviation; PBIAS, the
percent of model bias; netCDF, network Common Data Form; COSMO-CLM, the climate model
of the Centro Euro-Mediterraneo sui Cambiamenti Climatici; RACMO22E, the climate model of
the Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute; netCDF, Network Common Data Form file; CMIP5
CNRM-CM5, the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project of the National Centre for Meteorological
Research; EURO-CORDEX, the European branch of the international CORDEX initiative; PET, poten-
tial evapotranspiration; ET, actual evapotranspiration. WYLD, water yield; SURQ, surface runoff;
PERC, percolation; LATQ lateral flow.
Hydrology 2021, 8, 157 12 of 14

References
1. Ficklin, D.L.; Abatzoglou, J.T.; Robeson, S.M.; Null, S.E.; Knouft, J.H. Natural and managed watersheds show similar responses to
recent climate change. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 2018, 115, 8553–8557. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
2. Pham, H.V.; Sperotto, A.; Torresan, S.; Acuña, V.; Jorda-Capdevila, D.; Rianna, G.; Marcomini, A.; Critto, A. Coupling scenarios of
climate and land-use change with assessments of potential ecosystem services at the river basin scale. Ecosyst. Serv. 2019, 40,
101045. [CrossRef]
3. Brouziyne, Y.; Abouabdillah, A.; Hirich, A.; Bouabid, R.; Zaaboul, R.; Benaabidate, L. Modeling sustainable adaptation strategies
toward a climate-smart agriculture in a Mediterranean watershed under projected climate change scenarios. Agric. Syst. 2018,
162, 154–163. [CrossRef]
4. Kahil, M.T.; Dinar, A.; Albiac, J. Modeling water scarcity and droughts for policy adaptation to climate change in arid and
semiarid regions. J. Hydrol. 2015, 522, 95–109. [CrossRef]
5. McConnell, L.L.; Kelly, I.D.; Jones, R.L. Integrating Technologies to Minimize Environmental Impacts. In Agricultural Chemicals
and the Environment: Issues and Potential Solutions, 2nd ed.; Royal Society of Chemistry: London, UK, 2016; pp. 1–19.
6. Aliyari, F.; Bailey, R.T.; Arabi, M. Appraising climate change impacts on future water resources and agricultural productivity in
agro-urban river basins. Sci. Total Environ. 2021, 788, 147717. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
7. Lionello, P.; Malanotte-Rizzoli, P.; Boscolo, R.; Alpert, P.; Artale, V.; Li, L.; Luterbacher, J.; May, W.; Trigo, R.; Tsimplis, M.; et al.
The Mediterranean climate: An overview of the main characteristics and issues. In Developments in Earth and Environmental
Sciences; Elsevier: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2006; pp. 1–26.
8. Erol, A.; Randhir, T.O. Climatic change impacts on the ecohydrology of Mediterranean watersheds. Clim. Chang. 2012, 114,
319–341. [CrossRef]
9. Alessandri, A.; De Felice, M.; Zeng, N.; Mariotti, A.; Pan, Y.; Cherchi, A.; Lee, J.-Y.; Wang, B.; Ha, K.-J.; Ruti, P.; et al. Robust
assessment of the expansion and retreat of Mediterranean climate in the 21st century. Sci. Rep. 2015, 4, 7211. [CrossRef]
10. Schär, C.; Vidale, P.L.; Lüthi, D.; Frei, C.; Häberli, C.; Liniger, M.A.; Appenzeller, C. The role of increasing temperature variability
in European summer heatwaves. Nature 2004, 427, 332–336. [CrossRef] [PubMed]
11. Mastrantonas, N.; Herrera-Lormendez, P.; Magnusson, L.; Pappenberger, F.; Matschullat, J. Extreme precipitation events in the
Mediterranean: Spatiotemporal characteristics and connection to large-scale atmospheric flow patterns. Int. J. Climatol. 2021, 41,
2710–2728. [CrossRef]
12. Leta, O.T.; Bauwens, W. Assessment of the impact of climate change on daily extreme peak and low flows of Zenne basin in
Belgium. Hydrology 2018, 5, 38. [CrossRef]
13. Brouziyne, Y.; De Girolamo, A.M.; Aboubdillah, A.; Benaabidate, L.; Bouchaou, L.; Chehbouni, A. Modeling alterations in flow
regimes under changing climate in a Mediterranean watershed: An analysis of ecologically-relevant hydrological indicators. Ecol.
Inform. 2021, 61, 101219. [CrossRef]
14. Vezzoli, R.; Mercogliano, P.; Pecora, S.; Zollo, A.L.; Cacciamani, C. Hydrological simulation of Po River (North Italy) discharge
under climate change scenarios using the RCM COSMO-CLM. Sci. Total Environ. 2015, 521–522, 346–358. [CrossRef]
15. Meinshausen, M.; Smith, S.J.; Calvin, K.; Daniel, J.S.; Kainuma, M.L.T.; Lamarque, J.; Matsumoto, K.; Montzka, S.A.; Raper, S.C.B.;
Riahi, K.; et al. The RCP greenhouse gas concentrations and their extensions from 1765 to 2300. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 213–241.
[CrossRef]
16. Fonseca, A.R.; Santos, J.A. Predicting hydrologic flows under climate change: The Tâmega Basin as an analog for the Mediter-
ranean region. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 668, 1013–1024. [CrossRef]
17. Arnold, J.G.; Moriasi, D.N.; Gassman, P.W.; Abbaspour, K.C.; White, M.J.; Srinivasan, R.; Santhi, C.; Harmel, R.D.; van Griensven,
A.; Van Liew, M.W.; et al. SWAT: Model Use, Calibration, and Validation. Trans. ASABE 2012, 55, 1491–1508. [CrossRef]
18. Wang, R.; Yuan, Y.; Yen, H.; Grieneisen, M.; Arnold, J.; Wang, D.; Wang, C.; Zhang, M. A review of pesticide fate and transport
simulation at watershed level using SWAT: Current status and research concerns. Sci. Total Environ. 2019, 669, 512–526. [CrossRef]
19. Gassman, P.W.; Sadeghi, A.M.; Srinivasan, R. Applications of the SWAT Model Special Section: Overview and Insights. J. Environ.
Qual. 2014, 43, 1–8. [CrossRef]
20. van Tol, J.; Bieger, K.; Arnold, J.G. A hydropedological approach to simulate streamflow and soil water contents with SWAT+.
Hydrol. Process. 2021, 35. [CrossRef]
21. Bieger, K.; Arnold, J.G.; Rathjens, H.; White, M.J.; Bosch, D.D.; Allen, P.M.; Volk, M.; Srinivasan, R. Introduction to SWAT+, A
Completely Restructured Version of the Soil and Water Assessment Tool. JAWRA J. Am. Water Resour. Assoc. 2017, 53, 115–130.
[CrossRef]
22. Tan, M.L.; Gassman, P.W.; Yang, X.; Haywood, J. A review of SWAT applications, performance and future needs for simulation of
hydro-climatic extremes. Adv. Water Resour. 2020, 143, 103662. [CrossRef]
23. Pulighe, G.; Bonati, G.; Colangeli, M.; Traverso, L.; Lupia, F.; Altobelli, F.; Marta, A.D.; Napoli, M. Predicting streamflow and
nutrient loadings in a semi-arid Mediterranean watershed with ephemeral streams using the SWAT model. Agronomy 2020, 10, 2.
[CrossRef]
24. Ricci, G.F.; De Girolamo, A.M.; Abdelwahab, O.M.M.; Gentile, F. Identifying sediment source areas in a Mediterranean watershed
using the SWAT model. L. Degrad. Dev. 2018, 29, 1233–1248. [CrossRef]
25. Panagopoulos, Y.; Makropoulos, C.; Baltas, E.; Mimikou, M. SWAT parameterization for the identification of critical diffuse
pollution source areas under data limitations. Ecol. Modell. 2011, 222, 3500–3512. [CrossRef]
Hydrology 2021, 8, 157 13 of 14

26. Chen, Y.; Marek, G.W.; Marek, T.H.; Moorhead, J.E.; Heflin, K.R.; Brauer, D.K.; Gowda, P.H.; Srinivasan, R. Simulating the impacts
of climate change on hydrology and crop production in the Northern High Plains of Texas using an improved SWAT model.
Agric. Water Manag. 2019, 221, 13–24. [CrossRef]
27. QGIS Geographic Information System. QGIS Development Team. Available online: https://www.qgis.org/it/site/ (accessed on
30 September 2021).
28. RAS Regione Autonoma della Sardegna—Sardegna Geoportale. Available online: http://www.sardegnageoportale.it/index.
php?xsl=1594&s=40&v=9&c=8753&n=10 (accessed on 30 May 2021).
29. CFSR, The National Centers for Environmental Prediction (NCEP)–Climate Forecast System Reanalysis (CFSR), 2019. Available
online: https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/products/weather-climate-models/climate-forecast-system (accessed on 30 May 2021).
30. SWAT+. Introducing SWAT+, A Completely Revised Version of the SWAT Model. Available online: https://swat.tamu.edu/
software/plus/ (accessed on 30 September 2021).
31. Moriasi, D.N.; Arnold, J.G.; Van Liew, M.W.; Bingner, R.L.; Harmel, R.D.; Veith, T.L. Model evaluation guidelines for systematic
quantification of accuracy in watershed simulations. Trans. ASABE 2007, 50, 885–900. [CrossRef]
32. RAS Regione Autonoma della Sardegna—Annali Idrologici Della Sardegna. Available online: https://www.regione.sardegna.it/
j/v/25?s=205270&v=2&c=5650&t=1 (accessed on 10 May 2021).
33. Zollo, A.L.; Rillo, V.; Bucchignani, E.; Montesarchio, M.; Mercogliano, P. Extreme temperature and precipitation events over
Italy: Assessment of high-resolution simulations with COSMO-CLM and future scenarios. Int. J. Climatol. 2016, 36, 987–1004.
[CrossRef]
34. Bucchignani, E.; Montesarchio, M.; Zollo, A.L.; Mercogliano, P. High-resolution climate simulations with COSMO-CLM over
Italy: Performance evaluation and climate projections for the 21st century. Int. J. Climatol. 2016, 36, 735–756. [CrossRef]
35. Bonfante, A.; Monaco, E.; Langella, G.; Mercogliano, P.; Bucchignani, E.; Manna, P.; Terribile, F. A dynamic viticultural zoning to
explore the resilience of terroir concept under climate change. Sci. Total Environ. 2018, 624, 294–308. [CrossRef]
36. Adinolfi, M.; Raffa, M.; Reder, A.; Mercogliano, P. Evaluation and expected changes of summer precipitation at convection
permitting scale with COSMO-CLM over alpine space. Atmosphere 2021, 12, 54. [CrossRef]
37. Senatore, A.; Mendicino, G.; Smiatek, G.; Kunstmann, H. Regional climate change projections and hydrological impact analysis
for a Mediterranean basin in Southern Italy. J. Hydrol. 2011, 399, 70–92. [CrossRef]
38. van Meijgaard, E.; van Ulft, L.H.; van de Berg, W.J.; Bosveld, F.C.; van den Hurk, B.J.J.M.; Lenderink, G.; Siebesma, A.P. The KNMI
Regional Atmospheric Climate Model RACMO Version 2.1; KNMI: De Bilt, The Netherlands, 2008.
39. EURO-CORDEX Coordinated Downscaling Experiment—European Domain. Available online: https://www.euro-cordex.net/
(accessed on 30 September 2021).
40. Climadjust. Climadjust Was Funded by the Copernicus Climate Change Service and Developed under Contract C3S_428i.
Available online: https://climadjust.com/home (accessed on 10 March 2021).
41. Vautard, R.; Kadygrov, N.; Iles, C.; Boberg, F.; Buonomo, E.; Bülow, K.; Coppola, E.; Corre, L.; Meijgaard, E.; Nogherotto, R.; et al.
Evaluation of the large EURO-CORDEX regional climate model ensemble. J. Geophys. Res. Atmos. 2020, 26, 1–28.
42. Thomson, A.M.; Calvin, K.V.; Smith, S.J.; Kyle, G.P.; Volke, A.; Patel, P.; Delgado-Arias, S.; Bond-Lamberty, B.; Wise, M.A.; Clarke,
L.E.; et al. RCP4.5: A pathway for stabilization of radiative forcing by 2100. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 77–94. [CrossRef]
43. van Vuuren, D.P.; Edmonds, J.; Kainuma, M.; Riahi, K.; Thomson, A.; Hibbard, K.; Hurtt, G.C.; Kram, T.; Krey, V.; Lamarque,
J.F.; et al. The representative concentration pathways: An overview. Clim. Chang. 2011, 109, 5–31. [CrossRef]
44. Hausfather, Z.; Peters, G.P. Emissions—The ‘business as usual’ story is misleading. Nature 2020, 577, 618–620. [CrossRef]
45. Chen, H.; Luo, Y.; Potter, C.; Moran, P.J.; Grieneisen, M.L.; Zhang, M. Modeling pesticide diuron loading from the San Joaquin
watershed into the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta using SWAT. Water Res. 2017, 121, 374–385. [CrossRef]
46. Ghaderpour, E.; Vujadinovic, T.; Hassan, Q.K. Application of the Least-Squares Wavelet software in hydrology: Athabasca River
Basin. J. Hydrol. Reg. Stud. 2021, 36, 100847. [CrossRef]
47. Canchala, T.; Loaiza Cerón, W.; Francés, F.; Carvajal-Escobar, Y.; Andreoli, R.; Kayano, M.; Alfonso-Morales, W.; Caicedo-Bravo,
E.; Ferreira de Souza, R. Streamflow Variability in Colombian Pacific Basins and Their Teleconnections with Climate Indices.
Water 2020, 12, 526. [CrossRef]
48. Donohue, R.J.; McVicar, T.R.; Roderick, M.L. Assessing the ability of potential evaporation formulations to capture the dynamics
in evaporative demand within a changing climate. J. Hydrol. 2010, 386, 186–197. [CrossRef]
49. Mengistu, D.; Bewket, W.; Dosio, A.; Panitz, H.J. Climate change impacts on water resources in the Upper Blue Nile (Abay) River
Basin, Ethiopia. J. Hydrol. 2021, 592, 125614. [CrossRef]
50. Allen, R.G.; Pereira, L.S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper N.56. Crop. Evapotranspiration—Guidelines for
Computing Crop Water Requirements; FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56; FAO: Rome, Italy, 1998; ISBN 9251042195.
51. Giannakopoulos, C.; Le Sager, P.; Bindi, M.; Moriondo, M.; Kostopoulou, E.; Goodess, C.M. Climatic changes and associated
impacts in the Mediterranean resulting from a 2 ◦ C global warming. Glob. Planet. Chang. 2009, 68, 209–224. [CrossRef]
52. Spinoni, J.; Vogt, J.V.; Naumann, G.; Barbosa, P.; Dosio, A. Will drought events become more frequent and severe in Europe? Int. J.
Climatol. 2018, 38, 1718–1736. [CrossRef]
53. Milano, M.; Ruelland, D.; Fernandez, S.; Dezetter, A.; Fabre, J.; Servat, E.; Fritsch, J.-M.; Ardoin-Bardin, S.; Thivet, G. Current state
of Mediterranean water resources and future trends under climatic and anthropogenic changes. Hydrol. Sci. J. 2013, 58, 498–518.
[CrossRef]
Hydrology 2021, 8, 157 14 of 14

54. Saade, J.; Atieh, M.; Ghanimeh, S.; Golmohammadi, G. Modeling Impact of Climate Change on Surface Water Availability Using
SWAT Model in a Semi-Arid Basin: Case of El Kalb River, Lebanon. Hydrology 2021, 8, 134. [CrossRef]
55. Yang, C.; Fraga, H.; van Ieperen, W.; Trindade, H.; Santos, J.A. Effects of climate change and adaptation options on winter wheat
yield under rainfed Mediterranean conditions in southern Portugal. Clim. Chang. 2019, 154, 159–178. [CrossRef]
56. Iglesias, A.; Garrote, L. Adaptation strategies for agricultural water management under climate change in Europe. Agric. Water
Manag. 2015, 155, 113–124. [CrossRef]
57. Garrote, L.; Granados, A.; Iglesias, A. Strategies to reduce water stress in Euro-Mediterranean river basins. Sci. Total Environ.
2016, 543, 997–1009. [CrossRef]