Fig. 3: Comparing results from this study with PCR-GLOBWB and WaterGAP. | Communications Earth & Environment

Fig. 3: Comparing results from this study with PCR-GLOBWB and WaterGAP.

From: Freshwater inflows to closed basins of the Andean plateau in Chile, Argentina, and Bolivia

Fig. 3

a Basin-wide average modeled river discharge vs. basin-wide river discharge from field measurements (3 total) for WaterGAP (blue triangle), PCR-GLOBWB (orange circle), and this study (LiCBWA, green square). Upper and lower bounds are included for LiCBWA and represent the minimum and maximum streamflow calculations. b Basin-wide modeled available water from WaterGAP (blue triangle) and PCR-GLOBWB (orange circle) vs. basin-wide average modeled available freshwater from LiCBWA for all 28 basins. Upper and lower bounds are defined from ranges in groundwater recharge and streamflow. c Box plots of average available freshwater for all three models. The box is bounded by the IQR, and the outliers are greater than 1.5 × the IQR. d Water scarcity classifications based on average availability minus the demand for all 28 basins (labeled on the vertical axis). The bottom axis shows AWARE characterization factors calculated from WaterGAP (blue), PCR-GLOBWB (orange), and LiCBWA (green). The top axis shows water scarcity classifications from Schomberg et al. 48, with CF cutoffs represented as blue and red dotted lines.

Back to article page