the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
European runoff drought event types: From historical classification to projected future changes
Abstract. European drought events have intensified in recent decades, raising concerns about water resources, agriculture, and ecosystem health. Most existing continental-scale drought assessments provide limited attribution of drought changes to the processes that generate runoff drought, which constrains understanding of how these processes will evolve in a warming climate. In this study, we provide the first continental-scale assessment of future changes in runoff drought generation processes across Europe, focusing on rainfall deficit, rain-to-snow and wet-to-dry season transitions, and snow-related processes. We used a continental-scale hydrological model in combination with observed meteorological data and climate simulations (GCMs) under a middle-of-the-road emission scenario (i.e., RCP4.5, ≈2 °C global warming by 2100). Unlike widely used aggregated drought index-based studies, our mechanism-specific classification approach distinguishes the physical drivers of drought events by classifying runoff droughts into seven event types based on their severity, duration, and frequency and leverages spatial clustering analysis (Getis–Ord G∗i method) to assess the climate responses. Our analysis reveals considerable regional differences in drought mechanisms and their responses. Historical observations (1971–2000) highlight that Mediterranean Europe experiences the most severe drought conditions, dominated by rainfall deficit processes and wet-to-dry season transitions, with deficits exceeding (> 4 mm day−1), prolonged durations (> 165 days), and high event frequencies. Future projections (2070–2099) indicate further drought intensification in the Mediterranean driven by increasing rainfall deficit and wet-to-dry transition events, with runoff deficit increases by 2–6 mm day−1 and duration extensions exceeding 200 days, while Northern and Western-Central Europe show predominantly decreasing drought severity due to declining cold-snow season droughts under warming conditions. Importantly, drought related to temperature-driven processes, especially those triggered by rain-to-snow transitions, exhibit the most pronounced projected changes. These findings demonstrate that different drought mechanisms respond distinctly to climate forcing. By attributing projected drought changes to specific generation processes, our results enable region-specific interpretation of drought hazard, which is crucial for effective water-resources planning across Europe.
Competing interests: At least one of the (co-)authors is a member of the editorial board of Hydrology and Earth System Sciences.
Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. While Copernicus Publications makes every effort to include appropriate place names, the final responsibility lies with the authors. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.- Preprint
(7861 KB) - Metadata XML
-
Supplement
(5977 KB) - BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 28 Apr 2026)
-
CC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-973', Yves Tramblay, 08 Mar 2026
reply
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Sadaf Nasreen, 16 Mar 2026
reply
We thank Dr. Yves Tramblay for this important and constructive comment. We agree that the rationale for the selection of validation basins in Fig. S1 was not explained clearly enough in the original manuscript. The station-screening criteria, and their implications for spatial representativeness, were not described in sufficient detail, and we will improve this part in the revised version. Somehow during the manuscript finalization, we missed to properly explain to the readers, that the purpose of Fig. S1 was to provide a drought-focused evaluation of the mHM simulations forced by EOBS. This included checking the consistency between the finer-resolution setup (0.1°) and the 0.5° setup used for the ISIMIP-based climate change analysis. It was not intended as a comprehensive validation against all currently available European gauges.In the revised manuscript, we will describe the station-selection procedure more explicitly. This will include the screening criterion used to retain only stations for which the upstream area was represented adequately in the coarser 0.5° setup. We will also report the number of retained basins more transparently and add information on their size range and regional distribution. In addition, we will update the station information using the latest GRDC availability as of early 2026.We also agree that the selected basin set is spatially uneven, and that this should be stated more clearly. In particular, the validation coverage is denser in Central Europe than in parts of southern Europe. This reduces the strength of the validation evidence in some Mediterranean regions. We will therefore revise the text to avoid implying uniform confidence across Europe.We also thank the Reviewer for pointing us to the EStreams database, which is a valuable new resource for large-sample European hydrology. We will include more validation stations using the latest updated GRDC records. Where feasible, we will possibly explore complementary resources such as EStreams.To address this comment more fully, we will revise the manuscript and supplement by:(1) adding an explicit description of the basin-selection criteria;(2) reporting the spatial distribution of the retained basins more clearly; and(3) softening the interpretation of Mediterranean-scale conclusions in regions where observational validation coverage remains limited.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-973-AC2
-
AC2: 'Reply on CC1', Sadaf Nasreen, 16 Mar 2026
reply
-
AC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2026-973', Sadaf Nasreen, 16 Mar 2026
reply
We thank Dr. Yves Tramblay for this important and constructive comment. We agree that the rationale for the selection of validation basins in Fig. S1 was not explained clearly enough in the original manuscript. The station-screening criteria, and their implications for spatial representativeness, were not described in sufficient detail, and we will improve this part in the revised version. Somehow during the manuscript finalization, we missed to properly explain to the readers, that the purpose of Fig. S1 was to provide a drought-focused evaluation of the mHM simulations forced by EOBS. This included checking the consistency between the finer-resolution setup (0.1°) and the 0.5° setup used for the ISIMIP-based climate change analysis. It was not intended as a comprehensive validation against all currently available European gauges.In the revised manuscript, we will describe the station-selection procedure more explicitly. This will include the screening criterion used to retain only stations for which the upstream area was represented adequately in the coarser 0.5° setup. We will also report the number of retained basins more transparently and add information on their size range and regional distribution. In addition, we will update the station information using the latest GRDC availability as of early 2026.We also agree that the selected basin set is spatially uneven, and that this should be stated more clearly. In particular, the validation coverage is denser in Central Europe than in parts of southern Europe. This reduces the strength of the validation evidence in some Mediterranean regions. We will therefore revise the text to avoid implying uniform confidence across Europe.We also thank the Reviewer for pointing us to the EStreams database, which is a valuable new resource for large-sample European hydrology. We will include more validation stations using the latest updated GRDC records. Where feasible, we will possibly explore complementary resources such as EStreams.To address this comment more fully, we will revise the manuscript and supplement by:(1) adding an explicit description of the basin-selection criteria;(2) reporting the spatial distribution of the retained basins more clearly; and(3) softening the interpretation of Mediterranean-scale conclusions in regions where observational validation coverage remains limited.Citation: https://doi.org/
10.5194/egusphere-2026-973-AC1
Viewed
| HTML | XML | Total | Supplement | BibTeX | EndNote | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 201 | 102 | 21 | 324 | 56 | 15 | 20 |
- HTML: 201
- PDF: 102
- XML: 21
- Total: 324
- Supplement: 56
- BibTeX: 15
- EndNote: 20
Viewed (geographical distribution)
| Country | # | Views | % |
|---|
| Total: | 0 |
| HTML: | 0 |
| PDF: | 0 |
| XML: | 0 |
- 1
I read this manuscript with interest. It proposes a classification of drought types in Europe, both historically and in future ISIMIP2b simulations using the mHM hydrological model.
However, looking at supplementary figure S1, I am very surprised by the choice of validation basins for the mHM simuations, that constitute the core of the study. No justification is given on the criteria to select these stations for model validation, even though there are now large river discharge databases in Europe that would allow for much more comprehensive validation. As an example, weekly discharge in 17,130 basins in Europe:
do Nascimento, T.V.M., Rudlang, J., Höge, M. t al. EStreams: An integrated dataset and catalogue of streamflow, hydro-climatic and landscape variables for Europe. Sci Data 11, 879 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41597-024-03706-1
There is also no mention of the size of the basins considered in this work, while the results suggest a homogeneous coverage of the whole of Europe. However, with data such as EOBS at 0.125° spatial resolution, which is also not homogeneous in quality across Europe, it is obvious that this data is more tailored for large basins.
The stations shown in Figure S1 reveal a strong location bias towards Central Europe. However, this happens to be the region with the highest density of stations in EOBS data (see for example https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.7269 and https://doi.org/10.1029/2017JD028200, notably Figure 1 of the latter).
In fact, this figure S1 shows that there are only 7 basins in France and 11 in Spain (with some nested within the Ebro), and none in Italy or Greece. However, the results place a strong emphasis on Mediterranean regions. I find this problematic because we see low performances for some basins in Spain.
It seems to me that this validation should be reinforced to give more confidence in the results, particularly in the basins of southern Europe where it is well known that, in addition to climatic influences, there are various factors that play a role in the reduction of low flows:
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Kenawy, A. E., Peña-Angulo, D., Lorenzo-Lacruz, J., Murphy, C., Hannaford, J., Dadson, S., Stahl, K., Noguera, I., Fraquesa, M., Fernández-Duque, B., & Domínguez-Castro, F. (2025). Forest expansion and irrigated agriculture reinforce low river flows in southern Europe during dry years. Journal of Hydrology, 653, 132818. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.132818