Skip to main content
Advertisement
Browse Subject Areas
?

Click through the PLOS taxonomy to find articles in your field.

For more information about PLOS Subject Areas, click here.

< Back to Article

Fig 1.

Model domain, bathymetry (background scale), included rivers (red stars) and polygons (yellow lines) defining the different regions considered for rivers’ basins.

More »

Fig 1 Expand

Table 1.

Institutes/modelling groups providing the atmospheric model data used in the present contribution.

More »

Table 1 Expand

Table 2.

Basin names and included rivers.

More »

Table 2 Expand

Fig 2.

Relative change on P for each catchment area for MPI RCP4.5 scenario (A), EC-Earth RCP4.5 scenario (B), MPI RCP8.5 scenario (C) and EC-Earth RCP8.5 scenario (D).

The 0% change level is indicated with a bold black line.

More »

Fig 2 Expand

Table 3.

Computed annual changes in freshwater flow for the different model/rcp combinations.

More »

Table 3 Expand

Fig 3.

Mean P change (%) for each river basin district and model/RCP combination.

More »

Fig 3 Expand

Table 4.

Basin-integrated anomalies for the different model/emission scenario runs (absolute and relative changes with respect to the baseline future).

More »

Table 4 Expand

Fig 4.

SSS, SST and Cla anomalies maps (simulation flow modified—simulation flow cte) for the period 2095–2100 and for the different models/emission scenarios.

More »

Fig 4 Expand

Fig 5.

Scatter plots of SST anomalies versus Chla anomalies for the different models/emission scenarios.

More »

Fig 5 Expand

Fig 6.

Correlation coefficient (R) maps of monthly SST anomalies vs. Chla anomalies at each model node for the different models/emission scenarios.

Non-significant correlations (at 99%) are blanked.

More »

Fig 6 Expand

Table 5.

Statistics of the correlations shown in Fig 6.

Percentage of the total basin where each type of correlation (positive, red color in Fig 6 or negative, blue color in Fig 6) is present. Mean depth of the nodes (model locations) where each type of correlation is computed. Mean value of all correlation coefficients (R) for each type of relationships.

More »

Table 5 Expand

Fig 7.

Correlation coefficient (R) maps of monthly SST anomalies vs. Chla anomalies at each model node for the different models/emission scenarios.

‘Bloom’ period corresponds to February-March-April while ‘no-bloom’ period corresponds to July-August-September. Non-significant correlations (at 99%) are blanked.

More »

Fig 7 Expand

Table 6.

Statistics of the correlations SST vs. Cla shown in Fig 7.

The bloom period corresponds to the months February-April-March while the non-bloom period correspond to the months July-August-September.

More »

Table 6 Expand

Fig 8.

Correlation coefficient (R) maps of monthly AONB (α/β) anomalies vs. Chla anomalies at each model node for the different models/emission scenarios.

Non-significant correlations (at 99%) are blanked.

More »

Fig 8 Expand