Hydrogeology Journal

https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-020-02165-3

PAPER

Review: The influence of global change on Europe’s water cycle

and groundwater recharge
Thomas Riedel 1 & Tobias K. D. Weber 2

Received: 17 September 2019 / Accepted: 15 April 2020

# Springer-Verlag GmbH Germany, part of Springer Nature 2020

Abstract
Roughly a third of Europe’s water demand is satisfied by groundwater abstraction. Understanding how future changes in climate,
weather, vegetation and land use will affect the transport of atmospheric water to the subsurface is critical for successful
implementation of Europe’s Water Framework Directive and to maintain groundwater as a high-quality water resource. This
paper summarizes the known drivers of trends and variations in groundwater recharge (precipitation, evapotranspiration and
vegetation, land use) in Central Europe and how they have changed in recent decades. From past observations and future climate
projections, the foreseeable consequences for groundwater recharge under a changing climate are discussed. The paper focuses
on the complex role of soils and vegetation at the interface between atmosphere and groundwater, and addresses open questions
and possible new directions for research. Summarizing the evidence, land use and land-use change have a large control on
recharge, but the influence of climate change is increasingly recognized. Central Europe’s current transition from a temperate and
relatively moist climate towards a more variable and Mediterranean-like climate may shift recharge patterns and increase the ratio
of focused-to-diffusive recharge as precipitation patterns change and the frequency and intensity of climatic extremes (e.g., heavy
rainfall, heatwaves, droughts, floods and wild fires) increase. However, uncertainty remains with regard to the dynamic response
of Europe’s vegetation to climate change as well as to human modifications of the water cycle (e.g., through irrigation, forest
management, artificial recharge or urbanization), which currently challenges model-based predictions of future recharge.

Keywords Europe . Climate change . Soil processes . Weather . Groundwater recharge

Introduction has led to tremendous efforts to reduce surface water and

Europe heavily relies on groundwater as a resource. Roughly
65 billion m3 (or one-third of the total water withdrawn from
nature) was sourced from groundwater in the European
OECD countries in the years between 2008 and 2013, for
industry, agriculture, energy production and potable water
supply (OECD 2018). In Germany, the Netherlands, Austria,
and adjoining countries, more than 70% of drinking water
supply relies upon groundwater resources (European
Environment Agency 2000). Past water quality deterioration
* Thomas Riedel
t.riedel@iww-online.de
1
IWW Water Centre, Moritzstr. 26, 45476 Mülheim an der
Ruhr, Germany
2
Institute of Soil Science and Land Evaluation, University of
Hohenheim, Emil-Wolff-Straße 27, 70593 Stuttgart, Germany
groundwater pollution. One of the major milestones in water
resources protection was the introduction of the Water
Framework Directive (WFD) by the European Commission
(EC) in 2000. The approach of the WFD differs from earlier
efforts in that an ecological status needed to be defined and
maintained for a given water body, instead of controlling sin-
gle parameters (Voulvoulis et al. 2017); however, the WFD
not only addresses water quality, but also water quantity. It is
therefore likely that future changes in recharge are relevant for
management actions and decisions with the goal of achieving
a good quantitative status of groundwater resources in Europe.
While 1 or 2 years of reduced recharge do not necessarily
threaten human water supply or groundwater-dependent eco-
systems, longer periods of reduced recharge may result in
declining groundwater levels, lower baseflow, depletion of
groundwater resources, disappearance of wetlands and forests,
accumulation of salts or contaminants in soils, lower flushing
rates of shallow aquifers, extinction of groundwater-
dependent ecosystems and changes in groundwater-

dependent-ecosystem services (Aquilina et al. 2012;
McMahon et al. 2006; Jasechko et al. 2016; Havril et al.
2018; Devitt et al. 2019; Qiu et al. 2019; Tran et al. 2019).
Because climate model projections show large variations in
factors that are relevant for groundwater recharge such as pre-
cipitation and evapotranspiration, large uncertainty remains
with regard to future projections of groundwater recharge
(Bates et al. 2008). However, what is clear from observations
and projections is that changes in the hydrological cycle are
already under way, which might increase water stress, espe-
cially in Southern and Central Europe (Huntington 2006;
European Environment Agency 2017b; Schlosser et al.
2014; Hu et al. 2019; Teuling et al. 2019). Evaluating the
uncertainty associated with variability will help in the
decision-making process for water managers, and thus, is of
major importance for a future climate-robust public water sup-
ply (Milly et al. 2008). This becomes even more important
when considering that public water demand, in turn, is also
highly sensitive to climate change, since, it is related to air
temperature along with socioeconomic factors (e.g., Arbues
et al. 2003; Kenney et al. 2008).
To date, even for water professionals, it is unclear which of
the many factors that control recharge are changing and at
what rates the changes are occurring. The purpose of this
review is to summarize the factors that are relevant for ground-
water recharge in Central Europe and analyse how they have
varied over the past 50 years. Recently, several other publica-
tions have summarized or reviewed the question of how a
changing climate impacts groundwater recharge, mostly on a
global scale (Green et al. 2011; Taylor et al. 2013), or focusing
only on North America and Australia (Crosbie et al. 2013;
Kurylyk and MacQuarrie 2013; Meixner et al. 2016). These
reviews identified that the regions where recharge is most
sensitive to climate change are mountainous areas (due to
seasonal changes in snow pack dynamics and shifting precip-
itation patterns) and arid zones, whereas the socio-economic
impacts of a reduction in recharge will be most severe for
densely populated low-land areas (Döll 2009). The latter is
especially true for semi-arid regions where longer lasting
and more frequent droughts lead to groundwater withdrawal
rates for irrigation and human consumption that are not in
balance any more with recharge rates (Taylor et al. 2013).
This review focusses on, but is not restricted to, the central
parts of Europe (Germany, France, Belgium,
The Netherlands, Denmark, Poland, Czech Republic,
Austria, and Switzerland) that are currently not well adapted
to warmer and potentially drier conditions and where climate
change is expected to have adverse effects on ecology and
society (European Environment Agency 2017b). There is an
emphasis on the mechanistic understanding of soil, meteoro-
logical and vegetation factors, because these have not been
addressed comprehensively in previous reviews. While the
review is focused on quantitative aspects in Central Europe,
Hydrogeol J
the literature also comprises qualitative findings from studies
on groundwater recharge outside Europe. The organization of
the paper follows the water balance equation (see Eq. 1), i.e.
the sections refer to precipitation, evapotranspiration (ET),
surface runoff or soil-water content, including appropriate
subsections. Finally, some emerging questions that might
stimulate further research activities are identified.
Artificial recharge is increasingly recognized as a method
of coping with reduced natural recharge, but is excluded from
the current review. The interested reader is kindly referred to
other reviews on this topic (Dillon et al. 2009 and therein).
Definitions and measurements
Groundwater recharge is defined as all water that increases the
volume of groundwater. Changes in groundwater volume due
to an increase in temperature (thermal expansion of water) or a
decrease in salinity may also occur, but are negligible under
environmentally relevant conditions. For the purpose of this
review, recharge to surficial (unconfined) aquifers is consid-
ered, where the recharge-flux is dominated either by atmo-
spheric inputs (diffusive recharge) or by seepage from surface
waters (localized recharge). Recharge to confined aquifers is a
more complex issue that will here not to be discussed in depth.
When shallow and deep aquifers are hydraulically connected,
changes in recharge from precipitation may affect deeper
groundwater systems; however, the time scales for deeper
aquifers to react to changes in recharge from precipitation
are expected to be large, if any.
Occasionally, water percolating through soil (surface infil-
tration) is used as a surrogate for estimates of diffusive re-
charge to surficial aquifers, which is possible if capillary rise,
root water uptake or any other loss can be neglected. More
specifically, infiltration yields information on potential re-
charge, in contrast to direct recharge occurring at the top of
the water table.
The easiest way of defining recharge is based on the local
water budget. When precipitation (P), surface runoff (includ-
ing interflow, Rs), change in soil-water storage (dS/dt) and
actual evapotranspiration (ETa) are known, groundwater re-
charge (R), can be calculated using the following term:
R ¼ P–Rs–ETa –dS=dt ð1Þ
The soil-water storage (S) is usually ignored when calcula-
tions are made on an annual basis. When surface runoff is not
known or can be ignored, Eq. (1) simplifies to P – ETa, which
is then frequently termed “potential recharge”. All other pa-
rameters are directly measurable or can be estimated using a
wide range of methods. Recharge estimates based on such a
balance term work best in temperate and humid climates such
Hydrogeol J
as those prevailing in Central Europe, because measurement
errors of evapotranspiration are smaller as compared to that in
arid regions (Allison 1988).
Many methods have been developed to investigate ground-
water recharge; however, the choice depends on the temporal
and spatial scale of interest and the available data.
Additionally, some methods only yield appropriate results
when certain criteria are fulfilled. Direct measurements of soil
infiltration using lysimeters provide the most reliable way of
assessing diffusive recharge, but are labor and cost intensive.
For this reason, very few long-term recharge measurements
exist using this technique. In many cases, computational pro-
cess models are used instead. Soil-water-balance models, for
example, allow the user to define soil texture, daily input data
for precipitation and air temperature, rooting depth and vege-
tation type-specific transpiration functions, making them suit-
able for analyzing long-term variations in groundwater re-
charge, particularly when coupled to groundwater flow
models like MODFLOW (Twarakavi et al. 2008). Other ap-
proaches include using hydrological or hydrogeological
models that account for the full water budget (as indicated in
Eq. 1).
The different tools that are available to earth scientists for
estimating groundwater recharge have been described in detail
in several other excellent reviews (Rushton and Ward 1979;
Allison 1988; Scanlon et al. 2002; Seiler and Gat 2007; Han
et al. 2017; Xu and Chen 2005).
Physical and biological controls
on groundwater recharge: past and future
Recharge is driven by a variety of complex, sometimes mutu-
ally dependent, eco-hydrological and sometimes man-made
processes, and not all of these may contribute equally to re-
charge variations. Some of these processes, as well as the
Fig. 1 a Some of the principle mechanisms of recharge as they apply to
the humid and temperate climate of Central Europe. b Same as a, but
considering a more arid scenario that might occur under climate change.
In this scenario the climatic water balance is more negative as compared
anticipated changes for Central Europe discussed in this re-
view, are depicted in Fig. 1. Because many factors such as
vegetation cover show substantial spatial variation, the ability
to predict recharge is scale-dependent. Not included in Fig. 1,
but equally relevant, are soil properties—e.g., grain size dis-
tribution, hydraulic conductivity or preferential flow (Rahmati
et al. 2018; Mohammed et al. 2019; Glaser et al. 2019); more-
over, there is thought to be legacy effects of drought on plant-
soil and plant-plant feedbacks (Kaisermann et al. 2017).
Precipitation
In the temperate climate of Central Europe, precipitation is the
major source of recharge, which predominantly falls as rain
(liquid). Snow fall only makes a small contribution to total
precipitation except in high mountain ranges. Dew formation
is usually considered to provide only a negligible contribution
to the local water budget with a maximum of 7% of the total
annual precipitation in the lowlands of the Netherlands and
Germany (Jacobs et al. 2006; Xiao et al. 2009), but it may be
important during droughts and during cold periods, especially
in low mountain ranges where dew and hoar frost formation
may contribute up to 38% of the individual monthly water
budget (Groh et al. 2018). The main westerly wind direction
from the Atlantic Ocean across Europe is responsible for the
transport of humidity, so that Western Europe is considered to
be wetter than Eastern Europe, reflecting the transition from
an oceanic to a more continental-like climate (Gimeno et al.
2010). Smaller amounts of humidity are derived from the
North Sea and Baltic Sea as well as from the Mediterranean
Sea (Gimeno et al. 2010). In addition, some of the precipita-
tion falling on Europe is recycled (~50–70%), i.e. evapotrans-
piration transports soil moisture back to the atmosphere,
which eventually precipitates again over land (Ellison et al.
2017; van der Ent et al. 2010; Ciric et al. 2016). In Central
Europe topographic effects exert a large influence on
to the situation in a and a higher proportion of recharge occurs via
irrigation infiltration on cropland, reduced ET from groundwater-
dependent vegetation and surface water infiltration. Note that the total
volumue of groundwater may decrease in this scenario

precipitation, with the highest amounts of precipitation being
received by the Alps and other mountain ranges (Isotta et al.
2014).
The total amount of annual rain fall in Europe appears to
have declined by a small rate of up to 2.8 mm per decade in the
period from 1946 to 1999, but regional trends are often much
smaller than the interannual variability (Klein Tank et al.
2002; Scherrer et al. 2016). The few seasonal trends emerging
from precipitation data of the past 4–6 decades are as follows:
winter rainfall has increased significantly (up to a few precent
per decade) along the North Sea coasts of Denmark, Germany
and the Netherlands as well as in the Alps (Austria and
Switzerland; Anders et al. 2014), while Poland, Hungary
and Germany experienced slight decreases in spring or sum-
mer precipitation (Anders et al. 2014; Wibig 2012; Brasseur
et al. 2017; Brienen et al. 2013).
Ensemble climate projections, including the results of the
Coupled Model Intercomparison Project Phase 5, predict that
these trends will continue in the future. For the average annual
precipitation, the variability of the model outputs was larger
than the predicted trends, and based on this, it was concluded
that Central Europe may not experience dramatic changes
within the coming three to four decades (Tomassini and
Jacob 2009; Rojas et al. 2019). Only Southern and Central
Europe will experience a slight decline in future summer-
time precipitation (June–August), while Northern Europe will
experience an increase in precipitation (Seneviratne et al.
2006; Christensen et al. 2007; Pfeifer et al. 2015; Rojas
et al. 2019). For high Alpine elevations, an increase in summer
precipitation is projected (Giorgi et al. 2016) and models in-
dicate that there is an increased probability for extratropical
storms, known as Vb-cyclones, causing some of the summer
extreme precipitation events over Central Europe (Volosciuk
et al. 2016). Future precipitation variability, expressed as the
standard deviation in projected summer-time precipitation, is
expected to further increase (Seneviratne et al. 2006).
The rate at which precipitation enters a soil depends on the
hydraulic properties (i.e. conductivity) and the saturation of
the near surface soil. If the hydraulic conductivity of the near-
surface soil is low, infiltration-excess runoff occurs. If the
hydraulic conductivity is high, but the soil is already saturated,
saturation-excess runoff occurs. Hence, a few days with heavy
or even extreme rainfall will likely increase surface runoff
(when the rainfall rate exceeds the infiltration capacity of the
soil), leading to a smaller fraction of rain becoming ground-
water recharge, as compared to more evenly distributed pre-
cipitation (Gburek and Folmar 1999; Welker et al. 1991).
Convective precipitation causing the most intense rainfall
events on short-time and small spatial scales (minutes to hours
and meters to a few kilometers, respectively) has increased in
Europe and Asia during the past five decades (Ye et al. 2017;
van den Besselaar et al. 2012) and periods of consecutive days
with precipitation are getting longer (Zolina et al. 2010). Both
Hydrogeol J
may increase saturation-excess runoff and reduce the fraction
of rain turning into recharge. The strong spatial heterogeneity
of high-intensity rainfall events ultimately challenge recharge
estimates at small scales, because the required high density of
networks of rain gauges is rarely found in reality due to high
maintenance costs (Kidd et al. 2017). Alternatively, this may
be supported by incorporating input uncertainty into recharge
models (Kavetski et al. 2006).
Because the distribution of rain over a certain time period is
important for infiltration and recharge, projected changes in
groundwater recharge heavily rely on the temporal resolution
of the input data (daily, monthly, yearly) and how variations in
local weather are covered by the input data (Rushton and
Ward 1979; Batalha et al. 2018). As a result, the question of
how daily variability can be implemented in future projections
is a matter of discussion in the current literature. One approach
to circumvent the problem is to use climate analogues, i.e. use
actual meteorological data based on instrumental observations
from locations that are thought to resemble future conditions
at the site of interest (Leterme et al. 2012). This is somewhat
difficult, because one has to consider that not all aspects of
local geography or vegetation may be appropriately mim-
icked, and often only one single parameter is suitable as a
climate analogue—either temperature or precipitation or wind
speed, but not the combination of all parameters (Dahinden
et al. 2017). Another is to generate artificial climate data using
stochastic approaches (Hartkamp et al. 2003; Jones and
Thornton 2013). This aspect of weather being a local phenom-
enon, may increase the scale of uncertainty, when local or
even regional changes in groundwater recharge patterns are
analyzed using large-scale climate simulations.
Evapotranspiration
Physically, evapotranspiration (ET) is a result of a vapor pres-
sure deficit between the soil and the atmosphere (evaporation)
and between the plant leaves’ stomata and the atmosphere. ET
transfers water from intercept, the soil storage and from shal-
low groundwater back to the atmosphere. With reference to
Eq. (1), nonzero ET can lead to a reduction in groundwater
recharge and/or reduce the soil-water content. Evapotranspi-
ration is controlled by many factors such as water-table depth,
soil hydraulic properties, vegetation type, rooting depth, inci-
dent solar radiation, and wind speed. Many of these factors
can be measured or computed and used in formulas to estimate
potential or actual ET (ETp and ETa, respectively; a more
detailed glossary of the terminology can be found in Gerling
et al. (2019)). The most widely used formulations for calcu-
lating ETp are the Penman and the Penman–Monteith equa-
tions, which are physically based models that require the input
of meteorological data and plant physiological characteristics
(Monteith 1981; Penman 1948). The potential ET corresponds
to the maximum possible ET, while ETa is a measure for the
Hydrogeol J
total exchange of moisture with the atmosphere as determined
in the field. There are various forms of computing ETp, for
example, for determining ET for different crops when the
specific physiological characteristics (e.g., the crop coeffi-
cient) of a plant are known (Allen et al. 1998). These formulas
are suitable to capture future changes in potential ET, when
the required input data are available (Donohue et al. 2010).
Over the past four decades, atmospheric evaporative de-
mand and ET appear to have increased across many sites in
Europe (Duethmann and Blöschl 2018; Stanhill and Möller
2008; Trnka et al. 2015; Zhang et al. 2016; Ukkola and
Prentice 2013; Teuling et al. 2019; Vicente-Serrano et al.
2019), yet the reasons are still under debate. Discussed are
changes in solar radiation, increases in plant growth and plant
activity, changes in water availability, temperature increases
and wind speed changes among others (see the following sub-
sections). A further increase in ET seems to be almost certain
as all climate models predict this trend, and it is noteworthy to
state that this may reduce recharge (Pohle et al. 2012).
Physical factors affecting evapotranspiration
Generally, evaporation from soil is possible under the condi-
tion of incident energy supply and is controlled either by at-
mospheric conditions (stage 1 evaporation) or by the state and
hydraulic properties of the soil (stage 2 evaporation). Because
the water pressure deficit of air is temperature dependent
(warm air stores more water than cold air), ETp increases with
increasing air temperature. The humid climate in Northern and
Central Europe usually does not restrict ETa as a consequence
of the energy state of water in the soil, but ETa is limited
practically by the atmospheric conditions throughout most of
the year (Seneviratne et al. 2010). In Central Europe, the in-
cident solar radiation has a marked control on ETa. (Teuling
et al. 2009). Evapotranspiration in Europe therefore appears to
be controlled partly by global trends in radiation—the so-
called phases of “dimming” and “brightening” (Wild et al.
2005; Teuling et al. 2009). The last dimming phase had its
maximum in the early 1980s, after which solar radiation in-
creased continuously, thereby driving an increase in
evapotranspiration.
Globally, wind speed has also been shown to affect evap-
oration rates (McVicar et al. 2012) and changes in wind speed
may therefore have to be considered in accurate predictions of
future ETa and ETp. Locally, however, wind speed has been
shown to be of little importance for changes in ET in a study
from Austria (Duethmann and Blöschl 2018).
The depth to which a bare soil can evaporate water depends
on several factors. As a rule of thumb (and ignoring differ-
ences in the soil properties), a shallow water table supports
evaporation, while water tables that are deep below the surface
do not (Zhang and Schilling 2006; Maxwell and Condon
2016). However, soil texture influences capillary driven flow
such that coarse and fine-grained soils show differences in
evaporation dynamics and depth of the drying front
(Lehmann et al. 2008). The conceptualization of all soil water
as water stored and conducted in capillaries has serious limi-
tations and noncapillary water needs to be accounted for
(Tuller and Or 2001; Diamantopoulos and Durner 2013). A
simple and physically consistent while flexible model as
proposed by Weber et al. (2019) achieves this. For laboratory
experiments they could show that their model outperforms
any standard van Genuchten-Mualem (van Genuchten 1980)
type model, in particular in drier conditions.
Vegetation
Vegetation is one of the main drivers in Europe’s hydrological
cycle. It plays a major role in shaping a catchments’ water
balance through its influence on potential and actual ET, sur-
face runoff and recharge (Acharya et al. 2017, 2018;
Anderegg et al. 2019; Gburek and Folmar 1999; Sahin and
Hall 1996; Finch 1998; Zhang and Schilling 2006; Kim and
Jackson 2012; Orellana et al. 2012; Sheil 2018). In Europe,
about 55–67% of ET is the result of transpiration, which most-
ly occurs in summer during the vegetation period when ac-
tively transpiring plants prevail (Schlesinger and Jasechko
2014). As a result, the fraction of winter precipitation that
contributes to recharge is larger than the fraction of summer
precipitation. Investigations on the isotopic composition of
precipitation and groundwater in Poland, Germany and
France suggest that roughly 0–51% of winter precipitation
but only 0–17% of summer precipitation turns into groundwa-
ter (Jasechko et al. 2014; Raidla et al. 2016).
Across many forest biomes worldwide, ET shows a clear
relation to precipitation that can be expressed by using only
two parameters: fraction of forest cover (f) and the maximum
potential ET (Budyko 1974; Zhang et al. 2001). When surface
runoff can be neglected, the relation between precipitation and
ET can be used to loosely approximate annual groundwater
recharge fairly easily. However, the relation between forest
cover and ET has been proven to be overly simplistic, for
example, when considering tree growth stage and differences
in tree type (Teuling 2018). Modelling studies, as well as
direct measurements of recharge under forests using large
scale lysimeters, showed that tree type and growing stage
are the most influential factors (Figs. 2 and 3; Harsch et al.
2009; Natkhin et al. 2012; Rosenqvist et al. 2010; Teuling
2018; Zingk 1988). One of the rare long-term studies in
Central Europe by Harsch et al. (2009) covers more than four
decades of recharge under grassland, and newly planted de-
ciduous (Beach, Oak) and coniferous vegetation. After three
decades, recharge under fully grown deciduous forest (100–
150 mm/year) was less than half compared to recharge under
grassland (300–350 mm/year) (Fig. 2a). A similar relation
between vegetation type and groundwater recharge has been

Fig. 2 a Decadal averaged precipitation and groundwater recharge
(GWR) under different vegetation types measured at lysimeter station
found using recharge estimates based on the difference be-
tween precipitation and evapotranspiration from 13 locations
in northern Germany (Zingk 1988; Fig. 3). Apparently,
groundwater recharge under Oak and Beech showed an
inverted relation to tree height (Fig. 2b; Harsch et al. 2009),
while recharge under coniferous vegetation (Spruce), on the
other hand, did not show large variance (Fig. 2a) and was not
correlated with tree height. These vegetation-dependent dif-
ferences in ET are rooted in plant-specific physiological char-
acteristics that control water transport such as the photosyn-
thetic rate or leaf area (Anderegg et al. 2019).
The extent to which vegetation can take up soil water and
therefore reduce groundwater recharge is a matter of rooting
depth. Deep roots can access more soil water than shallow
roots do (Li et al. 2018) and roots in general have access to
groundwater or water in the capillary fringe that would not
evaporate from a bare soil (Fan et al. 2013; Maxwell and
Condon 2016; Barbeta and Peñuelas 2017). Some of the water
Fig. 3 Influence of vegetation type on evapotranspiration (ET) and
groundwater recharge in the period from 1983 to 1984 at a study site in
northern Germany (after Zingk 1988). Precipitation was 650–800 mm/
year in the study area during the study period
Hydrogeol J
St. Arnold. b Average tree height and recharge under deciduous forest
(Oak and Beech). Data from Land NRW (2020) and Harsch et al. (2009)
transpired by plants is directly derived from groundwater, es-
pecially during the dry season (Barbeta and Peñuelas 2017;
Orellana et al. 2012). This transfer of groundwater to the at-
mosphere does not directly reduce recharge, but leads to de-
clining groundwater levels and therefore to a thickening of the
unsaturated zone, which in turn postpones recharge of infil-
trating water by increasing the travel time in the unsaturated
zone (Rossman et al. 2014).
It follows that accurate predictions of recharge require
knowledge on the spatial distribution, abundance, rooting
depth, density and age structure of vegetation, which is often
not centrally and publicly available, so that very rough as-
sumptions need to be made when considering current and
future predictions of the fraction of precipitation that turns into
effective recharge.
Potential and actual evapotranspiration deviate in late
summer in Central Europe, indicating that actual ET often
becomes water-limited at the end of a summer when soils
are dry (Clark 2013). The effect of summer evapotranspira-
tion lasts a long time and eventually influences groundwa-
ter recharge in winter. Before water can percolate to the
water table, the soil-water storage has to be replenished to
reach field capacity after the summer (Brooks et al. 2009).
Therefore, long-lasting and dry summers may affect the
soil-water storage even into the following year, when the
winter precipitation and reduced ET does not completely
replenish the soil–water storage. In the extreme case of wa-
ter limitation such as the European summer droughts and
heat waves of 2003 and 2018, drought-induced damage to
vegetation occurs, which, for example, strongly reduces
forest ecosystem functioning including transpiration and
leads to lower-than-average crop yields (Ciais et al. 2005;
Reichstein et al. 2007; Toreti et al. 2019). The long-term
effects of such an extreme drought for groundwater re-
charge are still unclear and further research is required,
Hydrogeol J
especially when considering that the risk for droughts in
Central Europe increases with climate change (Samaniego
et al. 2018; Hänsel et al. 2019).
The question is then, how does climate change act on veg-
etation with regard to transpiration and recharge? There are
several responses:
1. Total forest cover and volume have increased in
Europe over the past few decades because of large-
scale reforestation and afforestation, as well as a gen-
eral increase in vegetation activity and forest stand
growth dynamics, which has partly been attributed
to climate change (Myneni et al. 1997; Slayback
et al. 2003; Pretzsch et al. 2014; Solberg et al. 2009;
Song et al. 2018). The increase in forest cover and
vegetation activity correlates with potential and actual
ET (Duethmann and Blöschl 2018; Teuling et al.
2019). In light of the strong effect that forest cover
has on ET and groundwater recharge such an increase
in forest cover, will inevitably result in declining re-
charge rates on the continental scale, unless substan-
tial increases in precipitation or intensifications in tree
mortality and wild fires due to climate change will
offset this trend (Bellot et al. 2001; Anderegg et al.
2013; Pretzsch et al. 2014; Allen et al. 2015; Teuling
et al. 2019). Though one does have to keep in mind,
that Europe’s forests are highly managed ecosystems
and forest cover may therefore be predictable to some
extent—for example, forest management decisions are
increasingly recognizing the need to adapt to climate
change and currently more species are planted that are
adapted to drier conditions.
2. Growing-season length appears to have increased in
Central Europe over the past few decades mainly due
to an earlier onset of flowering (Menzel and Fabian
1999; Menzel 2003; Amano et al. 2010). Observations
of leafing in the Czech Republic (Czechia) and
satellite-derived measurements of European vegeta-
tion phenology have shown that the onset of the
growing season has shifted by roughly –0.5 days/year
since 1981 in Central Europe (Bauer et al. 2010;
Stöckli and Vidale 2004). Projections of the duration
of the growing season show that this trend is expected
to continue in the future (Ruosteenoja et al. 2016).
This elongation of the period in which vegetation
removes water from soils increases total annual tran-
spiration and reduces recharge under vegetated sur-
faces, except for cropland where recharge could in-
crease due to a higher irrigation demand (Ficklin
et al. 2010; Hwang et al. 2018). However, for crops
the earlier onset of the growing season does not imply
an elongation of the growing season. Because of
faster plant ripening, the end of the growing season
for crops is shifting to earlier dates, which reduces the
amount of annual ET from farmland through changes
in the farmland’s energy balance (Ficklin et al. 2010;
Sacks and Kucharik 2011; Barthel et al. 2012). The
opposite is predicted for winter cereals, because
warming allows for more area to be cultivated with
winter cereals (Barthel et al. 2012). Extension of the
growing season length and faster plant development
potentially allow for multiple cropping in Europe in
the future; however, as evaporative demand of the
atmosphere increases, soils will dry faster in the fu-
ture, thereby increasing crop water demand. As a re-
sult, irrigation may be implemented in Europe more
often, so that agriculture will eventually become lim-
ited by the water resources available (Iglesias and
Garrote 2015). Finally, economic factors (e.g., de-
mand for agricultural products) will ultimately deter-
mine the farmer’s decisions on multiple cropping.
Because future agro-economic factors are far from
certain (Toreti et al. 2019), this adds additional uncer-
tainty to recharge modelling under cropland.
3. Currently, the vegetation of Central Europe is dominated
by grassland, coniferous and evergreen forests, agricultur-
ally used land, and to a minor extend artificial greens
(residential gardens or public parks) in the lowlands, and
pasture, woodland, and shrubs in alpine and high-elevated
mountain regions. However, climate-induced changes in
species abundance and diversity may become important
in the future depending on the severity of climate change
(Allen et al. 2015; Theurillat and Guisan 2001). Further,
hot temperatures and heat waves reduce the growth of
plants substantially and increase the heat-induced damage
to vegetation with consequences for transpiration
(Hatfield and Prueger 2015).
4. While warmer and dryer conditions in the future may lead
to more evaporation due to an increase in atmospheric
vapor pressure deficit, increases in atmospheric CO2 con-
centrations may lead to a reduced stomatal conductance
and a more efficient plant water use, which reduces tran-
spiration. However, the effect of a higher water-use effi-
ciency on transpiration may be offset by increased leaf
area or lengthening of the growing season (Frank et al.
2015; Swann et al. 2016; Milly and Dunne 2016) and it
appears to be restricted to soil-moisture-limited sites
(Guerrieri et al. 2019). Models of future recharge that
exclude CO2-effects on plant physiology show a pro-
nounced decrease in groundwater recharge across most
of Europe (Dezsi et al. 2018; Haidu and Nistor 2019). In
contrast, including stomatal closure in hydrological
models shows either minor effects of climate change on
evapotranspiration and recharge (Eckhardt and Ulbrich
2003; Yang et al. 2019) or increases in recharge (van
Roosmalen et al. 2009).

Land use
Land use and land-use change can impact groundwater re-
charge in several ways. The impact of vegetation (forest,
grassland, and cropland) has already been mentioned (e.g.,
Zomlot et al. 2017). Given that almost three-quarters of land
cover in Europe is vegetated (including crop land), vegetation
type should be the dominant feature-shaping recharge in
Europe (European Environment Agency 2017a). Changing
land use from crop land to forest, for example, decreases re-
charge, while removing forests may increase recharge at the
catchment scale (van Roosmalen et al. 2009; Han et al. 2017).
Nevertheless, one has to keep in mind that removing forests
may only locally enhance recharge to groundwater. A loss of
vegetation decreases water availability elsewhere, because
some of the moisture transferred to the atmosphere by plants,
returns as precipitation elsewhere (Ellison et al. 2012; van der
Ent et al. 2010).
More than 10% of Central Europe has experienced land-
use change since the year 1950 (Fuchs et al. 2013). The most
prominent conversion was from grass land to forest and from
cropland to grassland (Fuchs et al. 2013); however, in the
more recent past this picture has changed. From 1990 to
2012, there was a continuous increase in urban and industrial
areas as well as water bodies, while wetlands and some arable
land were lost (European Environment Agency 2017a).
Changes in recharge upon conversion of natural or farmland
into urban space may be due to—e.g. removal of trees and
vegetation; soil compaction to a degree that infiltration capac-
ities are reduced; covering of native soils with impervious
surfaces that increase surface runoff; interactions of sewers
and water mains with aquifers (Seiler and Gat 2007; Han
et al. 2017). Soil sealing, for example, has been increasing
continuously in Germany, France, Belgium and other
Central European countries for more than a decade
(European Environment Agency 2017a) with potential effects
on the regional water balance; however, recharge under urban
areas is not necessarily lower as compared to natural land
(Lerner 2002; Han et al. 2017). Because the urban fabric
shows a large heterogeneity in soil type, degree of sealing
and land use, recharge may vary considerably on the micro-
scale. Therefore, the biggest structural impact on recharge
from urbanization is probably the shift from diffusive recharge
to more localized ‘point source’-type recharge. Asphalt roads
are usually not permeable, but roads and lanes covered by
sand and gravel as well as lawns, sport grounds and gardens,
show very high permeability. A study on recharge below a
city in Switzerland showed that urban recharge was higher as
compared to recharge at neighboring locations with natural
vegetation cover amounting to 450–500 mm/year (Minnig
et al. 2017). This has been attributed to lower evapotranspira-
tion in the city area (most of the urban green space is grass)
and leakage from water mains and sewage pipes. However,
Hydrogeol J
interception and rainwater accumulating on flat roofs may
locally result in high rates of ET, which was shown for two
cities in the Netherlands (Jacobs et al. 2015). Water main
leakages are usually sources of water to the subsurface, be-
cause of the high pressure maintained. Damaged sewage
pipes, on the other hand, may discharge water if above the
water table, but will receive groundwater if below the water
table (Lerner 2002). Indirect evidence for recharge from leaky
pipes beneath other European cities comes from the detection
of various personal care products and pharmaceuticals in
groundwater, but accurate quantification of leakage is notori-
ously difficult with these often biodegradable compounds
(Yang et al. 1999; Vazquez-Sune et al. 2010; Wolf et al.
2012).
Lawns reduce surface runoff, increase water infiltration and
increase groundwater recharge (Monteiro 2017). Lawn
watering in the growing season may also be an additional
source of groundwater recharge in European cities, but
watering of private and public parks, gardens or other green-
belt land is very difficult to quantify, notwithstanding the as-
sociated impact on recharge (Hogue and Pincetl 2015). More
information on the impact of watering on the urban water
cycle is needed to fully understand recharge under urban
areas. In summary, although less than 5% of Europe is urban
area today (European Environment Agency 2017a), urbaniza-
tion may also play a critical role in groundwater recharge
locally.
Temperature
As soils and aquifers continue to warm (Riedel 2019), the
increase in temperature increases the hydraulic conductivity.
This mainly results from the temperature-dependence of the
viscosity of water, while density changes are almost negligible
(Liu et al. 2019). For example, the dynamic viscosity is 1.5217
and 1.0023 m2/s at 5 and 20 °C, respectively, which directly
translates into a change of 50% in hydraulic conductivity ac-
cording to Darcy’s law. In contrast, changes in density only
lead to minor change in hydraulic conductivity of less than 1%
across the same temperature range. As a result, seasonal var-
iations in river-water infiltration rates into aquifers have partly
been attributed to the temperature-dependence in viscosity
(Blaschke et al. 2003; Derx et al. 2013). Warming may there-
fore increase stream–aquifer exchange rates and the infiltra-
tion velocity in soils, but the expected effect may only be
marginal for a mean temperature increase of 2 °C. Further
warming of soils may increase evaporation, which may coun-
terbalance higher infiltration rates.
Surface water
In the humid climate of Central Europe the exchange between
groundwater and rivers can be vivid and the modus of
Hydrogeol J
exchange (discharge or recharge) can vary seasonally, be
event-based and change over small distances, which chal-
lenges observations and models on larger temporal and spatial
scales (e.g., Barthel et al. 2008; Brunner et al. 2017; Selle et al.
2013). During low-flows and hydrological droughts, recharge
from rivers will be minimal (or even negative) and the fre-
quency of low-flows and droughts is expected to increase with
climate change (Feyen and Dankers 2009; Roudier et al.
2015). River floods, on the other hand, may create episodic
infiltration events, i.e. river water being above the water table
thereby transporting more river water to the subsurface than
under conditions of average river-flow (Partington et al.
2013). However, the role of floods for groundwater recharge
in Europe is not well constraint and needs further research.
Floods may become more pronounced worldwide, but a co-
herent picture for European rivers does not emerge (Glaser
et al. 2010; Roudier et al. 2015), because emerging trends in
flood river discharge are highly heterogeneous across Europe.
Decreasing snow fall, snow cover and increasing snow melt in
the cold season decreased flood intensity in snow-fall domi-
nated catchments in Eastern Europe and in the Alps, while
increasing flood intensities from more autumn and winter pre-
cipitation have been observed for northwestern Europe
(Blöschl et al. 2019; Brunner and Tallaksen 2019). The even
distribution of flood events across Europe and the rather sto-
chastic occurrence will likely complicate efforts to predict
recharge from major flood events in the future.
One has to keep in mind, though, that Europe is a dense-
ly populated region with highly managed water systems
where the anthropogenic water cycle increasingly overlies
natural water flows, thereby masking potential effects of
climate change effects on runoff (e.g., Karakurt et al.
2019).
Mountainous regions
Landform and topography influence recharge, but ground-
water recharge in mountainous regions is less well stud-
ied. Large variations in elevation and steep topography
create higher rates of surface runoff, which is difficult to
analyze. Further, snow fall rather than rain may occur in
the cold season, so that precipitation does not immediately
enter the local water cycle until temperatures rise above
freezing point. In fractured rocks, snow melt contributes
to recharge when overlying soil layers are thin or absent,
and fractures allow for a preferential transport of water
through the aquifer (Wright and Novakowski 2019). The
process of recharge after snow melt can be relatively rapid
(Gleeson et al. 2009); however, in some cases the low
permeability of the underlying rock may prevent infiltra-
tion of melting snow so that water accumulates in ponds
at the surface or turns into surface runoff (Flint et al.
2008). In the future, temperatures are expected to increase
in higher elevations; therefore, in northern Europe and in
mountainous regions in Central Europe, the delay in re-
charge (between snow fall and snow melt) will continue
to diminish (Kurylyk and MacQuarrie 2013). In low
mountain ranges of Europe, more precipitation will fall
as rain rather than snow as warming continues (Eckhardt
and Ulbrich 2003). However, the overall snow cover in
alpine regions is also projected to decrease with global
warming, and together with an increase in evapotranspi-
ration a reduction in recharge is expected for mountainous
regions (Roudier et al. 2015; Taylor et al. 2013).
In alpine regions, often only a thin soil layer exists that
permits fast percolation through the soil zone, so that in-
filtration is basically limited by the permeability of the
basement (Flint et al. 2008). However, the mechanisms of
recharge in consolidated sediments and rocks are complex
and remain to be a topic of research, for example, in aqui-
fer systems of the Alps (Goldscheider 2005; Goldscheider
and Neukum 2010). In general, all rock types experience
recharge, but the mode can be different between different
rock types. This is further complicated when more than one
rock type is present, which increases the spatial heteroge-
neity across short vertical and horizontal scales in fractured
rocks (Shapiro 2002). In crystalline rocks, recharge perco-
lates deeper as compared to layered sedimentary rocks,
which is likely the result of fractures in crystalline rock
(Wright and Novakowski 2019). In karst settings, several
flow components with different flow velocities have been
identified; a fast-flow component with transit times of a
few days was found in karst conduits and open fissures,
and slower flow components in less well drained fissures
and fractures (Lauber and Goldscheider 2014). The fast-
flow component will only moderately raise the water table
during a recharge event, but strongly increase the discharge
to springs and streams as indicated by the low residence
times of water in such catchments (Stoelzle et al. 2014).
Due to the slow flow component and the relatively low
specific yield of small fractures and fissures, the hydraulic
head responses to rainfall events can be strong (Cai and
Ofterdinger 2016; Gburek and Folmar 1999; Miles and
Novakowski 2016).
Furthermore, small-scale variations in groundwater-
level depth can control recharge (Maxwell and Kollet
2008). Groundwater recharge is greater on hills and slopes
where the distance to the water table is larger as compared
to river valleys, where recharge can even be negative (dis-
charge), so that topography, in part, controls spatial pat-
terns in groundwater recharge, especially in regions with
steep hill slopes. Moreover, entire ecosystems have been
shown to be supported by the high-elevation mountainous
precipitation and subsurface flow separated from the local
ecosystem by large distances, while receiving little rain
themselves (Wells et al. 2017).

Relation between soil moisture and recharge
Because soil moisture is equally sensitive to precipitation and
ET in Europe, it can be used as an integrated indicator for the
local water fluxes (Teuling et al. 2013). Although dependent
on the hydraulic properties, the tendency that the drier soils
imply less recharge holds true. There is evidence for a decreas-
ing soil moisture in the eastern part of Central Europe (Trnka
et al. 2009, 2015) and the decreasing soil moisture trends are
likely to extend to the continental scale in the coming decades,
especially in the summer months (Holsten et al. 2009;
Ruosteenoja et al. 2018; Samaniego et al. 2018). This wide-
spread reduction in soil moisture may result in reduced
recycling of precipitation at downwind locations, thereby in-
creasing the overall likelihood of agricultural droughts on the
continental-scale (Herrera-Estrada et al. 2019). An implication
of this drying trend is that agricultural irrigation demand in
Central Europe may increase to cope with decreasing crop
yields and to prevent crop failure during agricultural droughts
(Iglesias and Garrote 2015) unless rising atmospheric CO2
reduces irrigation demand due to stomatal closure (Ficklin
et al. 2010; van Roosmalen et al. 2009). Recharge from irri-
gation may result either from irrigation infiltration or from
more focused leakage below drainage canals (Meredith and
Blais 2019). It has to be noted though, that the total effect of
irrigation on groundwater storage will be negative, when irri-
gation water is sourced from local groundwater increasing
additional competition between agriculture and other
users—e.g. public water supply (Flörke et al. 2018). Further,
irrigation of cropland will artificially increase recharge in the
warmer summer months, when natural recharge is low, which
may have consequences for groundwater quality in the long-
run (Mas-Pla and Mencio 2018; Rodríguez-Escales et al.
2018; Riedel 2019).
How do variations in climatic
and anthropogenic drivers act
on groundwater recharge?
The obvious answer is: it depends. Changes in subsurface
storage may either occur through changes in recharge or
changes in discharge. Because a reduction in discharge
may also be considered as an additional source of re-
charge, the concept of capture has been introduced in
hydrogeology, and has been defined in several ways
(Alley et al. 1999; Barlow and Leake 2012; Konikow
and Leake 2014; Sophocleous 2002). With respect to
groundwater storage, capture can be anything of the fol-
lowing: infiltration of surface water (streams, rivers,
lakes) to groundwater; decreases in discharge to springs,
streams and lakes (base flow); decrease in evapotranspi-
ration due to water-table drawdown, which reduces the
Hydrogeol J
water available for shallow rooting plants to transpire.
Induced recharge from reduced ET due to human ground-
water abstraction in areas with declining water tables may
be substantial (Condon and Maxwell 2019). Similarly, a
decline in water tables due to human groundwater abstrac-
tion may induce some localized recharge through seepage
from rivers and lakes to groundwater, when the hydraulic
connection between surface water and the aquifer is suf-
ficiently strong. Thus, it will be critical to see how total
human water demand in Europe develops in the future and
how much of this demand will be satisfied by the use of
groundwater resources.
The question of how and when groundwater will react to
changes in climatic drivers is further a matter of the re-
sponsiveness of groundwater (Van Lanen et al. 2013;
Corona et al. 2017). The actual response time for an aquifer
to react to changes in boundary conditions critically de-
pends on the dimensions and the hydraulic properties of
the aquifer, the distance to the nearest river or stream as
well as the thickness of the overlying unsaturated zone
(Theis 1940; Barlow and Leake 2012; Corona et al. 2017;
Barthel et al. 2012; Cuthbert et al. 2019). Infiltrating water
needs to percolate through the unsaturated zone until it
finally reaches the water table, where recharge occurs by
definition. A thick unsaturated zone, or low permeability
of the unsaturated zone, will cause recharge to be delayed,
i.e. groundwater will not directly react to changes in pre-
cipitation, soil moisture or land use (Hunt et al. 2008;
Rossman et al. 2014; Huang et al. 2018; Kumar et al.
2016). Oscillatory infiltration fluxes in the unsaturated
zone driven by natural climate variability may not even
be recognizable in recharge changes, because the transit
in the unsaturated zone dampens such periodic signals with
the dampening depending on soil texture and hydraulic
properties (Corona et al. 2017). Exceptions occur where
macropores, earthworm burrows, fractures or root holes
create preferential flow paths through a soil profile, which
leads to shorter residence times of water in a soil (Beven
and Germann 1982; Luo et al. 2019). The ratio of piston
flow to preferential flow then determines how quickly wa-
ter tables respond to changes in the soil-water balance
(Xiang et al. 2019). However, preferential flow appears
to be most important for catchment hydrology when the
lateral flow component through soil horizons plays a minor
role (Glaser et al. 2019). In general, shallow water tables
and low groundwater ages indicate that groundwater will
react quickly to environmental changes, whereas the oppo-
site is true for old groundwater and regions with a thick
unsaturated zone.
The time lag between soil-water infiltration and re-
charge has major implications for groundwater resources
management. While pumping may cause groundwater
levels to decline immediately (groundwater storage loss),
Hydrogeol J

Fig. 4 Example of the relation a 1 800

between commonly used drought
SPEI−12
indicators, SPEI-12 (SPEI values SPI−12
accumulated for 12 month)

SPEI−12 / SPI−12
0.5 600
GWR

GWR [mm a ]
−1
obtained from the global SPEI
data base (Beguería et al. 2020),
0 400
SPI-12 (SPI values averaged for
12 month obtained from
International Research Institute −0.5 200
for Climate and Society 2020)
and groundwater recharge −1 0
(GWR) at St. Arnold lysimeter 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
site (for data source see Fig. 2). a Year
Time series of annual infiltration
at St. Arnold (grassland site), SPI- b 700
c 700
12 and SPEI-12. b Correlation
between SPEI-12 and annual 600 600
recharge (Pearson’s r = 0.686;
GWR [mm a ]

GWR [mm a ]
−1

−1
500 500
p < 0.001). c Correlation between
SPI-12 and annual recharge 400 400
(Pearson’s r = 0.558; p < 0.001)
300 300

200 200

100 100
−1 −0.5 0 0.5 1 −1 −0.5 0 0.5 1
SPEI−12 SPI−12

changes in precipitation will change groundwater storage Socioeconomic consequences

only with a temporal offset. Changes in climate will alter
groundwater recharge patterns, but this may not immedi-
ately become evident in groundwater storage changes.
Thus, pumping rates, that are thought to be in balance
with current groundwater recharge rates, may already be
unsustainable for some catchments, where infiltration has
already declined or will decline in the near future.
Another question is: How well can one predict the ef-
fects of droughts on groundwater resources? Recharge
rates appear to be related to commonly applied meteoro-
logical drought indices such as the Standardized
Precipitation Index (SPI; McKee et al. 1993) or the modi-
fied Standardized Precipitation Evaporation Index (SPEI;
Vicente-Serrano et al. 2010). An example is given in
Fig. 4; however, in some cases indices such as the SPI fail
to identify groundwater droughts (e.g., Kumar et al. 2016).
For the specific task of identifying groundwater droughts
the standardized groundwater level index (SGI) has proven
to be useful especially when accounting for site-specific
characteristics of an aquifer (Bloomfield and Marchant
2013; Haas and Birk 2017). Differences between SPI and
SGI (i.e. differences between precipitation and groundwa-
ter volume) indicate that human water abstraction and
stream–aquifer interactions in addition to precipitation
readily affect water tables (Haas and Birk 2019). Thus,
predictions of groundwater drought based on hydrometeo-
rological drought indices or direct observations of recharge
are currently limited to regions with little to no human
influence.
Changes in recharge will have an effect on society if these
changes exceed the natural variability that current water re-
source management approaches are adapted to. A substantial
increase in recharge may lead to rising water tables. In areas
with shallow water tables, this may increase soil wetting and
surface runoff, which can be problematic in urbanized areas.
If recharge decreases, even more severe consequences may
arise. A few years with lower than average recharge will result
in less groundwater added to stream flow (Tran et al. 2019).
Lower stream flow will in turn provide problems for different
sectors. Low-flows in rivers reduce energy production from
hydropower and the water available for cooling during elec-
tricity generation. It also poses problems for river navigation
(Jonkeren et al. 2013) and agriculture. Lower recharge may
also be problematic for drinking water production from
groundwater resources. The capture zone of a well, A (m2),
can roughly be estimated by
A ¼ Q R−1 ; ð2Þ
with Q being the well production rate (m3/s) and R being the
areal-averaged recharge rate (m/s). Lower recharge rates will
increase the capture zone, when drinking water production is
not lowered proportionally; however, current regulation prac-
tices define groundwater protection areas to be static, so an
increase in capture zone exceeding the protected area may
result in the production of groundwater of lower quality.
Finally, lower recharge rates will inevitably collide with one
Table 1 Summary of global changes (climatic and land-use changes as discussed in this review) expected to occur in Europe within the upcoming decades and their estimated effects on recharge

Event/process Expected change in the future Reference Hydraulic response

Floods Less frequent in Eastern Europe, more frequent in Blöschl et al. (2019) Uncertain: increase in surface runoff but local/episodic recharge possible
northwestern Europe
Shift in precipitation type More rain, less snow in mountain regions Taylor et al. (2013) Increase in immediate recharge possible
Heavy rainfall Increase in frequency and intensity O’Gorman (2015) Uncertain: increase in local recharge possible,
depends on soil saturation and hydraulic conductivity of the subsurface
Periods of consecutive days with Increase in frequency and duration Zolina et al. (2010) Possible increase in recharge and surface runoff
precipitation
Storm water infiltration Increasingly implemented in urban planning and Ferguson (1994) Increase in localized urban recharge
development
Drought More frequent and intense droughts per decade Samaniego et al. (2018); Less diffusive recharge
Hänsel et al. (2019)
Irrigation of gardens and greens More frequent as droughts and heatwaves become more Monteiro (2017) Increase in localized urban recharge; poorly quantified so far
intense
Irrigation of arable land Increase in irrigation demand during drought and heat Iglesias and Garrote (2015) Increase in recharge under arable land possible if water is applied above the
waves holding capacity of a soil
De−/afforestation Identified as adaptation measure by European van Roosmalen et al. Increase/decrease in recharge
Communities (2007) (2009);
Han et al. (2017)
Tree mortality More severe as droughts and heatwaves become more Anderegg et al. (2013) Increase in recharge
intense
Forest fires Increasing frequency in Southern and Central Europe Bellot et al. (2001) Increasing yield/recharge until recovery of vegetation;
long-term effects on recharge uncertain
Elongation of vegetation period Trend continues in the future Ruosteenoja et al. (2016) Decrease in recharge as ET increases
Global greening Increase Piao et al. (2020) More ET, less recharge and runoff
Species shift Species move to higher elevations or northwards Theurillat and Guisan Uncertain
(2001)
Stomatal closure Reduction in stomatal conductance Eckhardt and Ulbrich Uncertain: decrease or no change in ET,
(2003); increase or no change in recharge/runoff;
Yang et al. (2019) may reduce irrigation demand
Warming of soil and aquifer Warming continues Derx et al. (2013); Liu et al. Possible increase in recharge as hydraulic conductivity increases,
(2019) but higher soil temperature might increase evaporation from bare soil
Atmospheric evaporative demand Increase Vicente-Serrano et al. Less recharge
(2019)
Flooding of former opencast mines Depends on management decisions Pusch and Hoffmann Increase in recharge
(2000)
Hydrogeol J
Hydrogeol J
of the main objectives of the WFD, i.e. ensuring a ‘good
quantitative status’. Reduced recharge may become a major
challenge in the implementation of the WFD in the long run,
especially when considering that groundwater withdrawals
may increase due to higher water demand as global warming
continues.
Future research directions and outlook
While some effects of global change on groundwater recharge
are relatively easy to model (e.g., slow and continuous chang-
es in mean annual rainfall or temperature) or can at least be
estimated reasonably well, others pose more difficult chal-
lenges (see Table 1 and discussion below).
1. To date, field observations of extreme climatic events
such as heat waves, droughts and heavy precipitation
and how they affect recharge are rare, making future pro-
jections of recharge under climate change even more dif-
ficult. Quantifying the dynamic and often transient chang-
es in recharge from surface-water bodies during climatic
extremes requires measurements at high temporal and
spatial resolution. Because the frequency and intensity
of climatic extremes are projected to increase in the com-
ing decades, more knowledge is required on how ground-
water will react to these events.
2. Climate has a large influence on plant species distribution
and growth, so one might expect that climate-change-
induced shifts in plant species distributions as well as
productivity and growth will in turn modulate water
fluxes. Indeed, studies indicate an influence of climate
change on vegetation-based water fluxes in Europe and
elsewhere, but soil water and groundwater are not well
represented by many climate models (e.g., Mankin et al.
2019). Because carbon and nutrient cycles in soils and
vegetation are intimately associated with the hydrological
cycle, projections of future recharge might benefit from
coupling climate model projections with more sophisticat-
ed soil–water-balance models that account for vegetation
growth dynamics, which in land surface modelling is be-
ing adopted (Ingwersen et al. 2018).
3. Further, future projections of recharge will necessarily
have to include the occurrence of climatic extremes; how-
ever, it is important to not only include the obvious effects
of climatic extremes on recharge but also to account for
some of the indirect effects. Examples of indirect effects
with regard to vegetation are increasing tree mortality as a
result of heat stress or extreme drought, which reduces
actual evapotranspiration and increases recharge. Using
the immediate output of climate models on the projected
response of the vegetation to climate change in recharge
models may not be sufficient to account for these effects,
because an appropriate representation of tree mortality
under climate change requires the development of specific
vegetation models (Anderegg et al. 2015).
4. Europe’s water cycle is in transition from one that has
purely been driven by natural water fluxes in the past to
one that is continuously adjusted and optimized to satisfy
the human water demand (e.g., Karakurt et al. 2019; Haas
and Birk 2019). In this respect, recharge, as one aspect of
the hydrological cycle, is already strongly modulated by
patterns of land and water use as discussed in this review.
This trend is likely to continue in the future. Increases in
irrigation requirements, especially in Southern and
Western Europe, and construction/removal of drainage
canals in Central and Northern Europe might affect the
quantity (and quality) of recharge under arable land.
Water saving programmes suggest that forest manage-
ment could be one option for sustaining or even increas-
ing the water yield and groundwater volume in catch-
ments used for drinking water production (European
Communities 2007). In the urban environment, infiltra-
tion of storm water as opposed to discharging it through
conventional pipe systems is increasingly used to cope
with flood hazards and enhance local urban recharge
(Ferguson 1994). There are also examples of anthropo-
genic activities that alter natural recharge patterns on larg-
er scales—for example, in eastern Germany a total of
13 km3 of groundwater has been abstracted from aquifers
for lignite mining in opencast mines for several decades.
Currently, measures are being taken to replenish aquifer
storage and to fill up the empty pits in the forthcoming
decades, partly by taking water from surrounding rivers
for recharge, which then reduces stream discharge (Pusch
and Hoffmann 2000; Grünewald 2001). These few exam-
ples given here illustrate the need to establish a clear role
for the human footprint within Europe’s water cycle
(Abbott et al. 2019.
In summary, many aspects of Europe’s changing water
cycle (vegetation, ET, human water abstraction, land-use
change) still remain uncertain, especially with regard to
future projections, which decreases the value of these pro-
jections as a planning tool for water management deci-
sions (Meixner et al. 2016; Herrmann et al. 2016;
Brown and Ward 2013; Kundzewicz et al. 2007; Bates
et al. 2008; Hegerl et al. 2015; Teuling et al. 2019).
Modelled recharge estimates should therefore always be
accompanied by a sensitivity analysis, which serves to
illustrate the model’s inherent uncertainties, including
those uncertainties derived from the climate projections
used as boundary conditions, by either properly describ-
ing the likelihood of upper and lower estimates or by
providing the variance of multiple model runs (Holman

et al. 2009; Kurylyk and MacQuarrie 2013; Crosbie et al.
2013, Moeck et al. 2016)
For confined aquifers, projections are even more difficult to
obtain because, on short time scales, climate and weather var-
iations may not affect deeper aquifers that are separated from
overlying hydrogeological units by low-permeability layers.
On longer times scales, this might not be the case.
One way for water resources planning to cope with an
uncertain future is to continuously monitor groundwater re-
charge (or at least the principle factors controlling recharge
such as soil moisture, precipitation, evapotranspiration) direct-
ly in a respective catchment to gain insights into possible
ongoing hydrological changes (e.g., Holländer et al. 2016).
Detecting changes in meteorological variables before water-
table measurements show a response to climatic changes will
offer more time (depending on the hydraulic responsiveness
of the system) to react by developing appropriate adaption
strategies. By doing so, resource managers will learn a great
deal about the resources at hand and identify key climate-
related challenges that the individual system is facing.
Variability has been a key aspect of groundwater recharge in
the past. There is mounting evidence that it will play a big part
in the future. It is time to keep track of these variations.
Acknowledgements The manuscript benefited from insightful comments
by T. aus der Beek, S. Birk and one anonymous reviewer.
Funding information This work was funded by the Collaborative
Research Center 1253 CAMPOS (Project 7: Stochastic Modelling
Framework), funded by the German Research Foundation (DFG, Grant
Agreement SFB 1253/1 2017).
Compliance with ethical standards
Conflict of interest The authors declare no conflict of interest.
References
Abbott BW, Bishop K, Zarnetske JP, Hannah DM, Frei RJ, Minaudo C,
Chapin FS, Krause S, Conner L, Ellison D, Godsey SE, Plont S,
Marçais J, Kolbe T, Huebner A, Hampton T, Gu S, Buhman M,
Sayedi SS, Ursache O, Chapin M, Henderson KD, Pinay G (2019)
A water cycle for the Anthropocene. Hydrol Process 33:3046–3052.
https://doi.org/10.1002/hyp.13544
Acharya BS, Halihan T, Zou CB, Will RE (2017) Vegetation controls on
the spatiotemporal heterogeneity of deep moisture in the unsaturated
zone: a hydrogeophysical evaluation. Sci Rep 7:1499. https://doi.
org/10.1038/s41598-017-01662-y
Acharya BS, Kharel G, Zou CB, Wilcox BP, Halihan T (2018) Woody
plant encroachment impacts on groundwater recharge: a review.
Water 10:1466. https://doi.org/10.3390/w10101466
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration:
guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation
and Drainage Paper no. 56, Food and Agriculture Organization of
the United Nations, Rome
Allen CD, Breshears DD, McDowell NG (2015) On underestimation of
global vulnerability to tree mortality and forest die-off from hotter
Hydrogeol J
drought in the Anthropocene. Ecosphere 6:129. https://doi.org/10.
1890/ES15-00203.1
Alley WM, Reilly TE, Franke OL (1999) Sustainability of ground-water
resources. US Geol Surv Circ 1186. https://doi.org/10.3133/cir1186
Allison GB (1988) A review of some of the physical chemical and iso-
topic techniques available for estimating ground water recharge. In:
Simmers I (ed) Estimation of natural ground water recharge. Reidel,
Dordrecht, The Netherlands, pp 49–72
Amano T, Smithers RJ, Sparks TH, Sutherland WJ (2010) A 250-year
index of first flowering dates and its response to temperature chang-
es. Proc R Soc Biol Sci 277:2451–2457. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspb.2010.0291
Anderegg WRL, Kane JM, Anderegg LDL (2013) Consequences of
widespread tree mortality triggered by drought and temperature
stress. Nat Clim Chang 3:30–36. https://doi.org/10.1038/
NCLIMATE1635
Anderegg WRL, Flint A, Huang C, Flint L, Berry JA, Davis FW, Sperry
JS, Field CB (2015) Tree mortality predicted from drought-induced
vascular damage. Nat Geosci 8:367–371. https://doi.org/10.1038/
ngeo2400
Anderegg WRL, Trugman AT, Bowling DR, Salvucci G, Tuttle SE
(2019) Plant functional traits and climate influence drought intensi-
fication and land-atmosphere feedbacks. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA
116:14071–14076. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1904747116
Anders I, Stagl J, Auer I, Pavlik D (2014) Climate change in Central and
Eastern Europe. In: Rannow S, Neubert M (eds) Managing protected
areas in Central and Eastern Europe under climate change.
Advances in Global Change Research book series 58, Springer.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-94-007-7960-0_2
Aquilina L, Vergnaud-Ayraud V, Labasque T, Bour O, Molénat J, Ruiz
L, de Montety V, De Ridder J, Roques C, Longuevergne L (2012)
Nitrate dynamics in agricultural catchments deduced from ground-
water dating and long-term nitrate monitoring in surface- and
groundwaters. Sci Total Environ 435–436:167–178. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2012.06.028
Arbues F, Garcia-Valinas M, Martinez-Espineira R (2003) Estimation of
residential water demand: a state-of-the-art review. J Socio-Econ 32:
81–102. https://doi.org/10.1016/S1053-5357(03)00005-2
Barbeta A, Peñuelas J (2017) Relative contribution of groundwater to
plant transpiration estimated with stable isotopes. Sci Rep 7:
10580. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-017-09643-x
Barlow PM, Leake SA (2012) Streamflow depletion by wells: under-
standing and managing the effects of groundwater pumping on
streamflow. US Geol Surv Circ 1376. https://doi.org/10.3133/
cir1376
Barthel R, Jagelke J, Götzinger J, Gaiser T, Printz A (2008) Aspects of
choosing appropriate concepts for modelling groundwater resources
in regional integrated water resources management: examples from
the Neckar (Germany) and Ouémé catchment (Benin). Phys Chem
Earth 33(1–2):92–114. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.pce.2007.04.013
Barthel R, Reichenau TG, Krimly T, Dabbert S, Schneider K, Mauser W
(2012) Integrated modeling of global change impacts on agriculture
and groundwater resources. Water Resour Manag 26:1929–1951.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-012-0001-9
Batalha MS, Barbosa MC, Faybishenko B, van Genuchten MT (2018)
Effect of temporal averaging of meteorological data on predictions
of groundwater recharge. J Hydrol Hydrodyn 66:143–152. https://
doi.org/10.1515/johh-2017-0051
Bates BC, Kundzewicz ZW, Wu S, Palutikof JP (eds) (2008) Climate
change and water. Technical paper, Intergovernmental Panel on
Climate Change (IPCC) Secretariat, Geneva
Bauer Z, Trnka M, Bauerová J, Možny M, Štepánek P, Bartošová L,
Žalud Z (2010) Changing climate and the phenological response
of great tit and collared flycatcher populations in floodplain forest
ecosystems in Central Europe. Int J Biometeorol 54:125–135.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-009-0259-7
Hydrogeol J
Beguería B, Latorre B, Reig F, Vicente-Serrano SM (2020) Global SPEI
database. https://spei.csic.es/database.html. Accessed 3 April 2020
Bellot J, Bonet A, Sanchez JR, Chirino E (2001) Likely effects of land use
changes on the runoff and aquifer recharge in a semiarid landscape
using a hydrological model. Landsc Urban Plan 55:41–53. https://
doi.org/10.1016/S0169-2046(01)00118-9
Beven K, Germann P (1982) Macropores and water flow in soils. Water
Resour Res 18:1311–1325. https://doi.org/10.1029/
WR018i005p01311
Blaschke A, Steiner KH, Schmalfuss R, Gutknecht D, Sengschmitt D
(2003) Clogging processes in hyporheic interstices of an impounded
river, the Danube at Vienna, Austria. Int Rev Hydrobiol 88:397–
413. https://doi.org/10.1002/iroh.200390034
Bloomfield JP, Marchant BP (2013) Analysis of groundwater drought
building on the standardised precipitation index approach. Hydrol
Earth Syst Sci 17:4769–4787. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-17-
4769-2013
Blöschl G, Hall J, Viglione A, Perdigão RAP, Parajka J, Merz B, Lun D,
Arheimer B, Aronica GT, Bilibashi A, Boháč M, Bonacci O, Borga
M, Čanjevac I, Castellarin A, Chirico GB, Claps P, Frolova N,
Ganora D, Gorbachova L, Gül A, Hannaford J, Harrigan S,
Kireeva M, Kiss A, Kjeldsen TR, Kohnová S, Koskela JJ,
Ledvinka O, Macdonald N, Mavrova-Guirguinova M, Mediero L,
Merz R, Molnar P, Montanari A, Murphy C, Osuch M, Ovcharuk V,
Radevski I, Salinas JL, Sauquet E, Šraj M, Szolgay J, Volpi E,
Wilson D, Zaimi K, Živković N (2019) Changing climate both
increases and decreases European river floods. Nature 573:108–
111. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1495-6
Brasseur GP, Jacob D, Schuck-Zöller S (2017) Klimawandel in
Deutschland: Entwicklung, Folgen, Risiken und Perspektiven
[Climate change in Germany: development, consequences, risks
and perspectives]. Springer, Berlin
Brienen S, Kapala A, Mächel H, Simmer C (2013) Regional centennial
precipitation variability over Germany from extended observation
records. Int J Climatol 33:2167–2184. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.
3581
Brooks JR, Barnard HR, Coulombe R, McDonnell JJ (2009)
Ecohydrologic separation of water between trees and streams in a
Mediterranean climate. Nat Geosci 3:100–104. https://doi.org/10.
1038/ngeo722
Brown C, Ward MN (2013) Managing climate risk in water supply sys-
tems. IWA, London. https://doi.org/10.2166/9781780400594
Brunner MI, Tallaksen LM (2019) Proneness of European catchments to
multiyear streamflow droughts. Water Resour Res 55. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2019WR025903
Brunner P, Therrien R, Renard P, Simmons CT, Franssen HJH (2017)
Advances in understanding river–groundwater interactions. Rev
Geophys 55:818–854. https://doi.org/10.1002/2017RG000556
Budyko MI (1974) Climate and life. Academic, New York
Cai Z, Ofterdinger U (2016) Analysis of groundwater-level response to
rainfall and estimation of annual recharge in fractured hard rock
aquifers, NW Ireland. J Hydrol 535:71–84. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhydrol.2016.01.066
Christensen JH, Hewitson B, Busuioc A, Chen A, Gao X, Held I, Jones
R, Kolli RK, Kwon W-T, Laprise R, Magaña Rueda V, Mearns L,
Menéndez CG, Räisänen J, Rinke A, Sarr A, Whetton P (2007)
Regional climate projections. In: Solomon S, Qin D, Manning M,
Chen Z, Marquis M, Averyt KB, Tignor M, Miller HL (eds) Climate
change 2007: the physical science basis. Contribution of Working
Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.
https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/ab055a
Ciais PH, Reichstein M, Viovy N, Granier A, Ogée J, Allard V, Aubinet
M, Buchmann N, Bernhofer CHR, Carrara A, Chevallier F, De
Noblet N, Friend AD, Friedlingstein P, Grünwald T, Heinesch B,
Keronen P, Knohl A, Krinner G, Loustau D, Manca G, Matteucci G,
Miglietta F, Ourcival JM, Papale D, Pilegaard K, Rambal S, Seufert
G, Soussana JF, Sanz MJ, Schulze ED, Vesala T, Valentini R (2005)
Europe-wide reduction in primary productivity caused by the heat
and drought in 2003. Nature 437(7058):529–533
Ciric D, Stojanovic M, Drumond A, Nieto R, Gimeno L (2016) Tracking
the origin of moisture over the Danube river basin using a
Lagrangian approach. Atmosphere 7:162. https://doi.org/10.3390/
atmos7120162
Clark C (2013) Measurements of actual and pan evaporation in the upper
Brue catchment UK: the first 25 years. Weather 68:200–208. https://
doi.org/10.1002/wea.2090
Condon LE, Maxwell RM (2019) Simulating the sensitivity of evapo-
transpiration and streamflow to large-scale groundwater depletion.
Sci Adv 5:eaav4574. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aav4574
Corona CR, Gurdak JJ, Dickinson JE, Ferré TPA, Maurer EP (2017)
Climate variability and vadose zone controls on damping of tran-
sient recharge. J Hydrol 561:1094–1104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2017.08.028
Crosbie RS, Pickett T, Mpelasoka FS, Charles SP, Barron OV (2013) An
assessment of the climate change impacts on groundwater recharge
at a continental scale using a probabilistic approach with an ensem-
ble of GCMs. Clim Chang 117:41–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10584-012-0558-6
Cuthbert MO, Gleeson T, Moosdorf N, Befus KM, Schneider A,
Hartmann J, Lehner B (2019) Global patterns and dynamics of cli-
mate–groundwater interactions. Nat Clim Change 9(2):137–141
Dahinden F, Fischer EM, Knutti R (2017) Future local climate unlike
currently observed anywhere. Environ Res Lett 12:084004. https://
doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/aa75d7
Derx J, Farnleitner AH, Zessner M, Blaschke AP (2013) Evaluating the
effect of temperature induced water viscosity and density fluctua-
tions on virus and DOC removal during river bank filtration: a sce-
nario analysis. River Syst 20:169–184. https://doi.org/10.1127/
1868-5749/2012/0059
Devitt TJ, Wright AM, Cannatella DC, Hilli DM (2019) Species delim-
itation in endangered groundwater salamanders: implications for
aquifer management and biodiversity conservation. Proc Natl
Acad Sci USA 116:2624–2633. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.
1815014116
Dezsi Ş, Mîndrescu M, Petrea D, Rai KP, Hamann A, Nistor MM (2018)
High-resolution projections of evapotranspiration and water avail-
ability for Europe under climate change. Int J Climatol 38:3832–
3841. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.5537
Diamantopoulos E, Durner W (2013) Physically-based model of soil
hydraulic properties accounting for variable contact angle and its
effect on hysteresis. Adv Water Resour 59:169–180. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2013.06.005
Dillon P, Pavelic P, Page D, Beringen H, Ward J (2009) Managed aquifer
recharge: an introduction. Waterlines Report Series no. 13, National
Water Commission, Canberra, Australia
Döll P (2009) Vulnerability to the impact of climate change on renewable
groundwater resources: a global-scale assessment. Environ Res Lett
4:035006. https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/3/035006
Donohue RJ, McVicar TR, Roderick ML (2012) Assessing the ability of
potential evaporation formulations to capture the dynamics in evap-
orative demand within a changing climate. J Hydrol 386:186–197.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.03.020
Duethmann D, Blöschl G (2018) Why has catchment evaporation in-
creased in the past 40 years? A data-based study in Austria.
Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 22:5143–5158. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-
22-5143-2018
Eckhardt K, Ulbrich U (2003) Potential impacts of climate change on
groundwater recharge and streamflow in a central European low
mountain range. J Hydrol 284:244–252. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
jhydrol.2003.08.005

Ellison DN, Futter M, Bishop K (2012) On the forest cover–water yield
debate: from demand- to supply-side thinking. Glob Chang Biol 18:
806–820. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2011.02589.x
Ellison D, Morris CE, Locatelli B, Sheil D, Cohen J, Murdiyarso D,
Gutierrez V, Mv N, Creed IF, Pokorny J, Gaveau D, Spracklen
DV, Tobella AB, Ilstedt U, Teuling AJ, Gebrehiwot SG, Sands
DC, Muys B, Verbist B, Springgay E, Sugandi Y, Sullivan CA
(2017) Trees, forests and water: cool insights for a hot world. Glob
Environ Chang 43:51–61. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloenvcha.
2017.01.002
European Communities (2007) Drought management plan report.
Technical report 2008-023, EC, Brussels
European Environment Agency (2000) Environmental signals 2000.
Environmental assessment report no. 6, European Environment
Agency, Copenhagen
European Environment Agency (2017a) Landscapes in transition: an ac-
count of 25 years of land cover change in Europe. Report. https://
doi.org/10.2800/81075
European Environment Agency (2017b) Climate change, impacts and
vulnerability in Europe 2016: an indicator-based report. https://doi.
org/10.2800/534806
Fan Y, Li H, Miguez-Macho G (2013) Global patterns of groundwater
table depth. Science 339:940–943. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.
1229881
Ferguson BK (1994) Stormwater infiltration. CRC, Boca Raton, FL
Feyen L, Dankers R (2009) Impact of global warming on streamflow
drought in Europe. J Geophys Res 114:D17116. https://doi.org/10.
1029/2008JD011438
Ficklin DL, Luedeling E, Zhang M (2010) Sensitivity of groundwater
recharge under irrigated agriculture to changes in climate, CO2 con-
centrations and canopy structure. Agric Water Manag 97:1039–
1050. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2010.02.009
Finch JW (1998) Estimating direct groundwater recharge using a simple
water balance model: sensitivity to land surface parameters. J
Hydrol 211:112–125. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1694(98)
00225-X
Flint AL, Flint LE, Dettinger MD (2008) Modeling soil moisture process-
es and recharge under a melting snow-pack. Vadose Zone J 7:350–
357. https://doi.org/10.2136/vzj2006.0135
Flörke M, Schneider C, McDonald RI (2018) Water competition between
cities and agriculture driven by climate change and urban growth.
Nat Sustain 1:51–58. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41893-017-0006-8
Frank DC, Poulter B, Saurer M, Esper J, Huntingford C, Helle G, Treydte
K, Zimmermann NE, Schleser G, Ahlström A, Ciais P,
Friedlingstein P, Levis S, Lomas M, Sitch S, Viovy N, Andreu-
Hayles L, Bednarz Z, Berninger F, Boettger T, D’Alessandro CM,
Daux V, Filot M, Grabner M, Gutierrez E, Haupt M, Hilasvuori E,
Jungner H, Kalela-Brundin M, Krapiec M, Leuenberger M, Loader
NJ, Marah H, Masson-Delmotte V, Pazdur A, Pawelczyk S, Pierre
M, Planells O, Pukiene R, Reynolds-Henne CE, Rinne KT, Saracino
A, Sonninen E, Stievenard M, Switsur VR, Szczepanek M,
Szychowska-Krapiec E, Todaro L, Waterhouse J, Weigl M (2015)
Water-use efficiency and transpiration across European forests dur-
ing the Anthropocene. Nat Clim Chang 5:579–583. https://doi.org/
10.1038/NCLIMATE2614
Fuchs R, Herold M, Verburg PH, Clevers JGPW (2013) A high resolu-
tion and harmonized model approach for reconstructing and
analysing historic land changes in Europe. Biogeosciences 10:
543–559. https://doi.org/10.5194/bg-10-1543-2013
Gburek WJ, Folmar GJ (1999) A groundwater recharge field study: site
characterization and initial results. Hydrol Process 13:2813–2831.
https://doi.org/10.1002/(SICI)1099-1085(19991215)13:17<2813::
AID-HYP901>3.0.CO;2-6
Gerling L, Weber TKD, Reineke D, Durner W, Martin S, Weber S (2019)
Eddy covariance-based surface–atmosphere exchange and crop
Hydrogeol J
coefficient determination in a mountainous peatland.
Ecohydrology 12:e2047. https://doi.org/10.1002/eco.2047
Gimeno L, Drumond A, Nieto R, Trigo RM, Stohl A (2010) On the origin
of continental precipitation. Geophys Res Lett 37:L13804. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2010GL043712
Giorgi F, Torma C, Coppola E, Ban N, Schär C, Somot S (2016)
Enhanced summer convective rainfall at Alpine high elevations in
response to climate warming. Nat Geosci 9:584–589. https://doi.org/
10.1038/ngeo2761
Glaser R, Riemann D, Schönbein J, Barriendos M, Brázdil R, Bertolin C,
Camuffo D, Deutsch M, Dobrovolný P, van Engelen A, Enzi S,
Halicková M, Koenig SJ, Kotyza O, Limanówka D, Macková J,
Sghedoni M, Martin B, Himmelsbach I (2010) The variability of
European floods since AD 1500. Clim Chang 101:235–256. https://
doi.org/10.1007/s10584-010-9816-7
Glaser B, Jackisch C, Hopp L, Klaus J (2019) How meaningful are plot-
scale observations and simulations of preferential flow for catch-
ment models? Vadose Zone J 18:180146. https://doi.org/10.5445/
IR/1000096102
Gleeson T, Novakowski K, Kurt Kyser T (2009) Extremely rapid and
localized recharge to a fractured rock aquifer. J Hydrol 376:496–
509. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.07.056
Goldscheider N (2005) Fold structure and underground drainage pattern
in the alpine karst system Hochifen-Gottesacker. Eclogae Geol Helv
98:1–17. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00015-005-1143-z
Goldscheider N, Neukum C (2010) Fold and fault control on the drainage
pattern of a double-karst-aquifer system, Winterstaude, Austrian
Alps. Acta Carsolog 39:173–186. https://doi.org/10.3986/ac.v39i2.
91
Green TR, Taniguchi M, Kooi H, Gurdak JJ, Allen DM, Hiscock KM,
Treidel H, Aureli A (2011) Beneath the surface of global change:
impacts of climate change on groundwater. J Hydrol 405:532–560.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.05.002
Groh J, Slawitsch V, Herndl M, Graf A, Vereecken H, Pütz T (2018)
Determining dew and hoar frost formation for a low mountain range
and alpine grassland site by weighable lysimeter. J Hydrol 563:372–
381. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.06.009
Grünewald U (2001) Water resources management in river catchments
influenced by lignite mining. Ecol Eng 17(2-3):143–152
Guerrieri R, Belmecheri S, Ollinger SV, Asbjornsen H, Jennings K, Xiao
J, Stocker B, Martin M, Hollinger D, Bracho-Garrillo R, Dore CS,
Kolb T, Munger W, Novick K, Richardson A (2019) Disentangling
the role of photosynthesis and stomatal conductance on rising forest
water-use efficiency. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:16909–16914.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1905912116
Haas JC, Birk S (2017) Characterizing the spatiotemporal variability of
groundwater levels of alluvial aquifers in different settings using
drought indices. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 21:2421–2448. https://doi.
org/10.5194/hess-21-2421-2017
Haas JC, Birk S (2019) Trends in Austrian groundwater: climate or hu-
man impact? J Hydrol Reg Stud 22:100597. https://doi.org/10.1016/
j.ejrh.2019.100597
Haidu I, Nistor MM (2019) Long-term effect of climate change on
groundwater recharge in the Grand Est region of France. Meteorol
Appl. https://doi.org/10.1002/met.1796
Han D, Currell M, Cao G, Hall B (2017) Alterations to groundwater
recharge due to anthropogenic landscape change. J Hydrol 554:
545–557. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.018
Hänsel S, Ustrnul Z, Lupikasze E, Skalak P (2019) Assessing seasonal
drought variations and trends over Central Europe. Adv Water
Resour 127:53–75. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.advwatres.2019.03.
005
Harsch N, Brandenburg M, Klemm O (2009) Large-scale lysimeter site
St. Arnold, Germany: analysis of 40 years of precipitation, leachate
and evapotranspiration. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 13:305e317. https://
doi.org/10.5194/hessd-5-2623-2008
Hydrogeol J
Hartkamp AD, White JW, Hoogenboom G (2003) Comparison of three
weather generators for crop modeling: a case study for subtropical
environments. Agric Syst 76:539–560. https://doi.org/10.1016/
S0308-521X(01)00108-1
Hatfield JL, Prueger JH (2015) Temperature extremes: effect on plant
growth and development. Weather Clim Extremes 10:4–10.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2015.08.001
Havril T, Tóth A, Molson JW, Galsa A, Mádl-Szonyi J (2018) Impacts of
predicted climate change on groundwater flow systems: can wet-
lands disappear due to recharge reduction? J Hydrol 563:1169–
1180. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.020
Hegerl GC, Black E, Allan RP, Ingram WJ, Polson D, Trenberth KE,
Chadwick RS, Arkin PA, Sarojini BB, Becker A, Dai A, Durack PJ,
Easterling D, Fowler HJ, Kendon EJ, Huffman GJ, Liu C, Marsh R,
New M, Osborn TJ, Skliris N, Stott PA, Vidale PL, Wijffels SE,
Wilcox LJ, Willett KM, Zhang X (2015) Challenges in quantifying
changes in the global water cycle. Bull Am Meteorol Soc 96:1097–
1115. https://doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-13-00212.1
Herrera-Estrada JE, Martinez JA, Dominguez F, Findell KL, Wood EF,
Sheffield J (2019) Reduced moisture transport linked to drought
propagation across North America. Geophys Res Lett 46:5243–
5253. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019GL082475
Herrmann F, Baghdadi N, Blaschek M, Deidda R, Duttmann R, Jeunesse
IL, Sellami H, Vereecken H, Wendland F (2016) Simulation of
future groundwater recharge using a climate model ensemble and
SAR-image based soil parameter distribution: a case study in an
intensively used Mediterranean catchment. Sci Total Environ 543:
889–905. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2015.07.036
Hogue TS, Pincetl S (2015) Are you watering your lawn? Science 348:
1319–1320. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaa6909
Holländer HM, Wang ZJ, Assefa KA, Woodbury AD (2016) Improved
recharge estimation from portable, low-cost weather stations.
Groundwater 54:243–254. https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12346
Holman I, Tascone D, Hess TM (2009) A comparison of stochastic and
deterministic downscaling methods for modelling potential ground-
water recharge under climate change in East Anglia, UK:
Implications for groundwater resource management. Hydrogeol J
17:1629–1641
Holsten A, Vetter T, Vohland K, Krysanova V (2009) Impact of climate
change on soil moisture dynamics in Brandenburg with a focus on
nature conservation areas. Ecol Model 220:2076–2087. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.ecolmodel.2009.04.038
Hu B, Teng Y, Zhang Y, Zhu C (2019) Review: the projected hydrologic
cycle under the scenario of 936 ppm CO2 in 2100. Hydrogeol J 27:
31–53. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-018-1844-9
Huang YN, Chang QR, Li Z (2018) Land use change impacts on the
amount and quality of recharge water in the loess tablelands of
China. Sci Total Environ 628–629:443–452. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2018.02.076
Hunt RJ, Prudic DE, Walker JF, Anderson MP (2008) Importance of
unsaturated zone flow for simulating recharge in a humid climate.
Groundwater 46:551–560. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6584.
2007.00427.x
Huntington TG (2006) Evidence for intensification of the global water
cycle: review and synthesis. J Hydrol 319:83–95. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhydrol.2005.07.003
Hwang T, Martin KL, Vose JM, Wear D, Miles B, Kim Y, Band LE
(2018) Nonstationary hydrologic behavior in forested watersheds is
mediated by climate-induced changes in growing season length and
subsequent vegetation growth. Water Resour Res 54:1–17. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2017WR022279
Iglesias A, Garrote L (2015) Adaptation strategies for agricultural water
management under climate change in Europe. Agric Water Manag
155:113–124. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2015.03.014
Ingwersen J, Högy P, Wizemann HD, Warrach-Sagi K, Streck T (2018)
Coupling the land surface model Noah-MP with the generic crop
growth model Gecros: model description, calibration and validation.
Agric For Meteorol 262:322–339. https://doi.org/10.1016/J.
AGRFORMET.2018.06.023
International Research Institute for Climate and Society (2020)
Standardized Precipitation Index. https://iridl.ldeo.columbia.edu/
maproom/Global/Precipitation/SPI.html. Accessed 3 April 2020
Isotta FA, Frei C, Weilguni V, Perčec Tadić M, Lassègues P, Rudolf B,
Pavan V, Cacciamani C, Antolini G, Ratto SM, Munari M,
Micheletti S, Bonati V, Lussana C, Ronchi C, Panettieri E, Marigo
G, Vertačnik G (2014) The climate of daily precipitation in the Alps:
development and analysis of a high-resolution grid dataset from pan-
Alpine rain-gauge data. Int J Climatol 34:1657–1675. https://doi.
org/10.1002/joc.3794
Jacobs AFG, Heusinkveld BG, Wichink Kruit RJ, Berkowicz SM (2006)
Contribution of dew to the water budget of a grassland area in the
Netherlands. Water Resour Res 42:W03415. https://doi.org/10.
1029/2005WR004055
Jacobs C, Elbers J, Brolsma R, Hartogensis O, Moors E, Márquez RM,
van Hove B (2015) Assessment of evaporative water loss from
Dutch cities. Build Environ 83:27–38. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.
buildenv.2014.07.005
Jasechko S, Birks SJ, Gleeson T, Wada Y, Fawcett PJ, Sharp ZD,
Mcdonnell JJ, Welker JM (2014) The pronounced seasonality of
global groundwater recharge. Water Resour Res 50:8845–8867.
https://doi.org/10.1002/2014WR015809
Jasechko S, Kirchner JW, Welker JM, McDonnell JJ (2016) Substantial
proportion of global streamflow less than three months old. Nat
Geosci 9:126–129. https://doi.org/10.1038/NGEO2636
Jones PG, Thornton PK (2013) Generating downscaled weather data
from a suite of climate models for agricultural modelling applica-
tions. Agrc Syst 114:1–5. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agsy.2012.08.
002
Jonkeren O, Rietveld P, van Ommeren J, te Linde A (2013) Climate
change and economic consequences for inland waterway transport
in Europe. Reg Environ Chang 14:953–965. https://doi.org/10.
1007/s10113-013-0441-7
Kaisermann A, de Vries FT, Griffiths RI, Bardgett RD (2017) Legacy
effects of drought on plant–soil feedbacks and plant–plant interac-
tions. New Phytol 215:1413–1424. https://doi.org/10.1111/nph.
14661
Karakurt L, Schmid L, Hübner U, Drewes J (2019) Dynamics of waste-
water effluent contributions in streams and impacts on drinking
water supply via riverbank filtration in Germany: a national recon-
naissance. Environ Sci Technol 53:6154–6616. https://doi.org/10.
1021/acs.est.8b07216
Kavetski D, Kuczera G, Franks SW (2006) Bayesian analysis of input
uncertainty in hydrological modeling: 1. theory. Water Resour Res
42:279. https://doi.org/10.1029/2005WR004368
Kenney DS, Goemans C, Klein RA, Lowrey J, Reidy K (2008)
Residential water demand management: lessons from Aurora,
Colorado. J Am Water Resour Assoc 44:192–207. https://doi.org/
10.1111/j.1752-1688.2007.00147.x
Kidd C, Becker A, Huffman GJ, Muller CL, Joe P, Skofronick-Jackson
G, Kirschbaum DB (2017) So, how much of the earth’s surface is
covered by rain gauges? Bull Am Meteorol Soc 98:69–78. https://
doi.org/10.1175/BAMS-D-14-00283.1
Kim JH, Jackson RB (2012) A global analysis of groundwater recharge
for vegetation, climate, and soils. Vadose Zone J 11:1–35. https://
doi.org/10.2136/vzj2011.0021RA
Klein Tank AMG, Wijngaard JB, Können GP, Böhm R, Demarée G,
Gocheva A, Mileta M, Pashiardis S, Hejkrlik L, Kern-Hansen C,
Heino R, Bessemoulin P, Müller-Westermeier G, Tzanakou M,
Szalai S, Pálsdóttir T, Fitzgerald D, Rubin S, Capaldo M, Maugeri
M, Leitass A, Bukantis A, Aberfeld R, van Engelen AFV, Forland
E, Mietus M, Coelho F, Mares C, Razuvaev V, Nieplova E, Cegnar
T, López JA, Dahlström B, Moberg A, Kirchhofer W, Ceylan A,

Pachaljuk O, Alexander LV, Petrovic P (2002) Daily dataset of
20th-century surface air temperature and precipitation series for
the European Climate Assessment. Int J Climatol 22:1441–1453.
https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.773
Konikow LF, Leake SA (2014) Depletion and capture: revisiting “the
source of water derived from wells”. Groundwater 52:100–111.
https://doi.org/10.1111/gwat.12204
Kumar R, Musuuza JL, Van Loon AF, Teuling AJ, Barthel R, Ten Broek
J, Mai J, Samaniego L, Attinger S (2016) Multiscale evaluation of
the standardized precipitation index as a groundwater drought indi-
cator. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 20:1117–1131. https://doi.org/10.5194/
hess-20-1117-2016
Kundzewicz ZW, Mata LJ, Arnell NW, Döll P, Kabat P, Jiménez B
(2007) Freshwater resources and their management. In: Parry ML,
Canziani OF, Paluticof JP, van der Linden PJ, Hanson CE (eds)
Climate change 2007: impacts, adaptation, and vulnerability.
Contributions of the Working Group II to the Fourth Assessment
Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.
Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, pp 173–210
Kurylyk BL, MacQuarrie KTB (2013) The uncertainty associated with
estimating future groundwater recharge: a summary of recent re-
search and an example from a small unconfined aquifer in a northern
humid-continental climate. J Hydrol 492:244–253. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jhydrol.2013.03.043
Land NRW (2020) Tageswerte aus dem Lysimeter St. Arnold [Daily
values from the St. Arnold lysimeter]. https://www.opengeodata.
nrw.de/produkte/umwelt_klima/wasser/lysstarnold/. Accessed 3
April 2020
Lauber U, Goldscheider N (2014) Use of artificial and natural tracers to
assess groundwater transit-time distribution and flow systems in a
high-alpine karst system (Wetterstein Mountains, Germany).
Hydrogeol J 22:1807–1824. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-014-
1173-6
Lehmann P, Assouline S, Or D (2008) Characteristic lengths affecting
evaporative drying of porous media. Phys Rev E 77:05630. https://
doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevE.77.056309
Lerner DN (2002) Identifying and quantifying urban recharge: a review.
Hydrogeol J 10:143–152. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-001-
0177-1
Leterme B, Mallants D, Jacques D (2012) Sensitivity of groundwater
recharge using climatic analogues and HYDRUS-1D. Hydrol
Earth Syst Sci 16:2485–2497. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-16-
2485-2012
Li H, Si BC, Li M (2018) Rooting depth controls potential groundwater
recharge on hillslopes. J Hydrol 564:164–174. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhydrol.2018.07.002
Liu S, Zhou Y, Kamps P, Smits F, Olsthoorn T (2019) Effect of temper-
ature variations on the travel time of infiltrating water in the
Amsterdam water supply dunes (the Netherlands). Hydrogeol J 27:
2199. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-019-01976-3
Luo Z, Niu L, Zhang L, Chen X, Zhang W, Xie B, Du J, Zhu Z, Wu S, Li
X (2019) Roots-enhanced preferential flows in deciduous and co-
niferous forest soils revealed by dual-tracer experiments. J Environ
Qual 48:136–146. https://doi.org/10.2134/jeq2018.03.0091
Mankin JS, Seager R, Smerdon JE, Cook BI, Williams AP (2019) Mid-
latitude freshwater availability reduced by projected vegetation re-
sponses to climate change. Nat Geosci 12:983–988. https://doi.org/
10.1038/s41561-019-0480-x
Mas-Pla J, Mencio A (2018) Groundwater nitrate pollution and climate
change: learnings from a water balance-based analysis of several
aquifers in a western Mediterranean region (Catalonia). Environ
Sci Pollut Res 26:2184–2202. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11356-018-
1859-8
Maxwell RM, Condon LE (2016) Connections between groundwater
flow and transpiration partitioning. Science 353:377–380. https://
doi.org/10.1126/science.aaf7891
Hydrogeol J
Maxwell RM, Kollet SJ (2008) Interdependence of groundwater dynam-
ics and land-energy feedbacks under climate change. Nat Geosci 1:
665–669. https://doi.org/10.1038/ngeo315
McKee TB, Doesken NJ, Kleist J (1993) The relationship of drought
frequency and duration to time scales. Proceedings of the 8th
Conference on Applied Climatology, American Meteorological
Society, Boston, 17–22 January 1993
McMahon PB, Dennehy KF, Bruce BW, Böhlke JK, Michel RL, Gurdak
JJ, Hurlbut DB (2006) Storage and transit time of chemicals in thick
unsaturated zones under rangeland and irrigated cropland, High
Plains, United States. Water Resour Res 42:W03413. https://doi.
org/10.1029/2005WR004417
McVicar TR, Roderick ML, Donohue RJ, Li LT, Van Niel TG, Thomas
A, Grieser J, Jhajharia D, Himri Y, Mahowald NM (2010) Global
review and synthesis of trends in observed terrestrial near-surface
wind speeds: implications for evaporation. J Hydrol 416–417:182–
205. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2011.10.024
Meixner T, Manning AH, Stonestrom DA, Allen DM, Ajami H, Blasch
KW, Brookfield AE, Castro CL, Clark JF, Gochis DJ, Flint AL
(2016) Implications of projected climate change for groundwater
recharge in the western United States. J Hydrol 534:124–138.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2015.12.027
Menzel A (2003) Phenological anomalies in Germany and their relation
to air temperature and NAO. Clim Chang 57:243–263. https://doi.
org/10.1023/A:1022880418362
Menzel A, Fabian P (1999) Growing season extended in Europe. Nature
397:659. https://doi.org/10.1038/17709
Meredith E, Blais N (2019) Quantifying irrigation recharge sources using
groundwater modeling. Agric Water Manag 214:9–16. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.agwat.2018.12.032
Miles OW, Novakowski KS (2016) Large water-table response to rainfall
in a shallow bedrock aquifer having minimal overburden cover. J
Hydrol 541:1316–1328. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2016.08.
034
Milly PCD, Dunne KA (2016) Potential evapotranspiration and continen-
tal drying. Nat Clim Chang 6:946–949. https://doi.org/10.1038/
nclimate3046
Milly PCD, Betancourt J, Falkenmark M, Hirsch RM, Kundzewicz ZW,
Lettenmaier DP, Stouffer RJ (2008) Climate change: stationarity is
dead—whither water management? Science 319:573. https://doi.
org/10.1126/science.1151915
Minnig M, Moeck C, Radny D, Schirmer M (2017) Impact of urbaniza-
tion on groundwater recharge rates in Dübendorf, Switzerland. J
Hydrol 563:1135–1146. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.
058
Moeck C, Brunner P, Hunkeler D (2016) The influence of model struc-
ture on groundwater recharge rates in climate-change impact studies.
Hydrogeol J 24:1171–1184. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-016-
1367-1
Mohammed AA, Pavlovskii I, Cey EE, Hayashi M (2019) Effects of
preferential flow on snowmelt partitioning and groundwater re-
charge in frozen soils. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 23:5017–5031.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-23-5017-2019
Monteiro JA (2017) Ecosystem services from turfgrass landscapes. Urban
For Urban Green 26:151–157. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ufug.2017.
04.001
Monteith JL (1981) Evaporation and surface temperature. Q J R Meteorol
Soc 107:1–27. https://doi.org/10.1002/qj.49710745102
Myneni RB, Keeling CD, Tucker CJ, Asrar G, Nemani RR (1997)
Increased plant growth in the northern high latitudes from 1981 to
1991. Nature 386:698–702. https://doi.org/10.1038/386698a0
Natkhin M, Steidl J, Dietrich O, Dannoeski R, Lischeid G (2012)
Differentiating between climate effects and forest growth dynamic
effects on decreasing groundwater recharge in a lowland region in
northeast Germany. J Hydrol 448–449:245–254. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhydrol.2012.05.005
Hydrogeol J
O’Gorman PA (2015) Precipitation extremes under climate change. Curr
Clim Chang Rep 1:49–59. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40641-015-
0009-3
OECD (2018) Environment database: freshwater abstractions. https://
stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DataSetCode=WATER_ABSTRACT.
Accessed 03 April 2020
Orellana F, Verma P, Loheide SP II, Daly E (2012) Monitoring and
modeling water-vegetation interactions in groundwater-dependent
ecosystems. Rev Geophys 50:RG3003. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2011RG000383
Partington D, Brunner P, Frei S, Simmons CT, Werner AD, Therrien R,
Maier HR, Dandy GC, Fleckenstein JH (2013) Interpreting
streamflow generation mechanisms from integrated surface-
subsurface flow models of a riparian wetland and catchment.
Water Resour Res 49:5501–5519. https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.
20405
Penman HL (1948) Natural evaporation from open water, bare soil and
grass. Proc Roy Soc London 193:120–145. https://doi.org/10.1098/
rspa.1948.0037
Pfeifer S, Bülow K, Gobiet A, Hänsler A, Mudelsee M, Otto J, Diana R,
Teichmann C, Jacob D (2015) Robustness of ensemble climate pro-
jections analyzed with climate signal maps: seasonal and extreme
precipitation for Germany. Atmosphere 6:677–698. https://doi.org/
10.3390/atmos6050677
Piao S, Wang X, Park T, Chen C, Lian X, He Y, Bjerke JW, Chen A,
Ciais P, Tømmervik H, Nemani RR, Myneni RB (2020)
Characteristics, drivers and feedbacks of global greening. Nat Rev
Earth Environ 1:14–27. https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-019-0001-x
Pohle I, Koch H, Grünewald U (2012) Potential climate change impacts
on the water balance of subcatchments of the River Spree, Germany.
Adv Geosci 32:49–53. https://doi.org/10.5194/adgeo-32-49-2012
Pretzsch H, Biber P, Schütze G, Uhl E, Rötzer T (2014) Forest stand
growth dynamics in Central Europe have accelerated since 1870.
Nat Commun 5:4967. https://doi.org/10.1038/ncomms5967
Pusch M, Hoffmann A (2000) Conservation concept for a river ecosystem
(River Spree, Germany) impacted by low abstraction in a large post-
mining area. Landsc Urban Plan 51:165–176. https://doi.org/10.
1016/S0169-2046(00)00107-9
Qiu J, Zipper SC, Motew M, Booth EG, Kucharik CJ, Loheide SP (2019)
Nonlinear groundwater influence on biophysical indicators of eco-
system services. Nat Sustain 2:475–483. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41893-019-0278-2
Rahmati M, Weihermüller L, Vanderborght J, Pachepsky YA, Mao L,
Sadeghi SH, Moosavi N, Kheirfam H, Montzka C, Van Looy K,
Toth B, Hazbavi Z, Al Yamani W, Albalasmeh AA, Alghzawi MZ,
Angulo-Jaramillo R, Antonino ACD, Arampatzis G, Armindo RA,
Asadi H, Bamutaze Y, Batlle-Aguilar J, Bechet B, Becker F, Blöschl
G, Bohne K, Braud I, Castellano C, Cerdà A, Chalhoub M, Cichota
R, Cislerová M, Clothier B, Coquet Y, Cornells W, Corradini C,
Coutinho AP, de Oliveira MB, de Macedo JR, Duráes MR, Emami
H, Eskandari I, Farajnia A, Flammini A, Fodor N, Gharaibeh M,
Ghavimipanah MH, Ghezzehei TA, Giertz S, Hatzigiannakis EG,
Horn R, Jiménez JJ, Jacques D, Keesstra SD, Kelishadi H, Kiani-
Harchegani M, Kouselou M, Kumar Jha M, Lassabatere L, Li X,
Liebig MA, Lichner L, López MV, Machiwal D, Mallants D,
Mallmann MS, de Oliveira Marques JD, Marshall MR, Mertens J,
Meunier R, Mohammadi MH, Mohanty BP, Moncada MP,
Montenegro S, Morbidelli R, Moret-Fernández D, Moosavi AA,
Mosaddeghi MR, Mousavi SB, Mozaffari H, Nabiollahi K,
Neyshabouri MR, Ottoni MV, Ottoni Filho TB, Pahlavan Rad
MR, Panagopoulos A, Peth S, Peyneau PE, Picciafuoco T, Poesen
J, Pulido M, Reinert DJ, Reinsch S, Rezaei M, Roberts FP,
Robinson D, Rodrigo-Comino J, Rotunno Filho OC, Saito T,
Suganuma H, Saltalippi C, Sándor R, Schütt B, Seeger M,
Sepehrnia N, Sharifi Moghaddam E, Shukla M, Shutaro S,
Sorando R, Stanley AA, Strauss P, Su Z, Taghizadeh-Mehrjardi R,
Taguas E, Teixeira WG, Vaezi AR, Vafakhah M, Vogel T, Vogeler
I, Votrubova J, Werner S, Winarski T, Yilmaz D, Young MH,
Zacharias S, Zeng Y, Zhao Y, Zhao H, Vereecken H (2018)
Development and analysis of the Soil Water Infiltration Global
Database. Earth Syst Sci Data 10:1237–1263. https://doi.org/10.
5194/essd-10-1237-2018
Raidla V, Kern Z, Pärn J, Babre A, Erg K, Ivask J, Kalvāns A, Kohán B,
Lelgus M, Martma T, Mokrik R, Popovs K, Vaikmäe R (2016) A
δ18O isoscape for the shallow groundwater in the Baltic Artesian
Basin. J Hydrol 542:254–267. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.
2016.09.004
Reichstein M, Ciais P, Papale D, Valentini R, Running S, Viovy N,
Cramer W, Granier A, Ogee J, Allard V, Aubinet M, Chr B,
Buchmann N, Carrara A, Grünwald T, Heimann M, Heinesch B,
Knohl A, Kutsch W, Loustau D, Manca G, Matteucci G, Miglietta F,
Ourcival JM, Pilegaard K, Pumpanen J, Rambal S, Schaphoff S,
Seufert G, Soussana J-F, Sanz M-J, Vesala T, Zhao M (2007)
Reduction of ecosystem productivity and respiration during the
European summer 2003 climate anomaly: a joint flux tower, remote
sensing and modeling analysis. Glob Chang Biol 13:634–651.
https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2486.2006.01224.x
Riedel T (2019) Temperature-associated changes in groundwater quality.
J Hydrol 572:206–212. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.02.
059
Rodríguez-Escales P, Canelles A, Sanchez-Vila X, Folch A, Kurtzman D,
Rossetto R, FernándezEscalante E, Lobo-Ferreira JP, Sapiano M,
San-Sebastián J, Schüth C (2018) A risk assessment methodology
to evaluate the risk failure of managed aquifer recharge in the
Mediterranean Basin. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 22:3213–3227.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-22-3213-2018
Rojas M, Lambert F, Ramirez-Villegas J, Challinor AJ (2019) Emergence
of robust precipitation changes across crop production areas in the
21st century. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 116:6673–6678. https://doi.
org/10.1073/pnas.1811463116
Rosenqvist L, Hansen K, Vesterdal L, van der Salm C (2010) Water
balance in afforestation chronosequences of common oak and
Norway spruce on former arable land in Denmark and southern
Sweden. Agric For Meteorol 150:196–207. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agrformet.2009.10.004
Rossman NR, Zlotnik VA, Rowe CM, Szilagyi J (2014) Vadose zone lag
time and potential 21st century climate change effects on spatially
distributed groundwater recharge in the semi-arid Nebraska Sand
Hills. J Hydrol 519:656–669. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.
2014.07.057
Roudier P, Andersson JC, Donnelly C, Feyen L, Greuell W, Ludwig F
(2015) Projections of future floods and hydrological droughts in
Europe under a+ 2 °C global warming. Clim Chang 135:341–355.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10584-015-1570-4
Ruosteenoja K, Räisänen J, Venälainen A, Kämäräinen M (2016)
Projections for the duration and degree days of the thermal growing
season in Europe derived from CMIP5 model output. Int J Climatol
36:3039–3055. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4535
Ruosteenoja K, Markkanen T, Venäläinen A, Räisänen P, Peltola H
(2018) Seasonal soil moisture and drought occurrence in Europe in
CMIP5 projections for the 21st century. Clim Dyn 50:1177–1192.
https://doi.org/10.1007/s00382-017-3671-4
Rushton KR, Ward C (1979) The estimation of groundwater recharge. J
Hydrol 41:345–361. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-1694(79)90070-
2
Sacks WJ, Kucharik CJ (2011) Crop management and phenology trends
in the U.S. corn belt: impacts on yields, evapotranspiration and
energy balance. Agric For Meteorol 151:882–894. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.agrformet.2011.02.010
Sahin V, Hall MJ (1996) The effects of afforestation and deforestation on
water yields. J Hydrol 178:293–309. https://doi.org/10.1016/0022-
1694(95)02825-0

Samaniego L, Thober S, Kumar R, Wanders N, Rakovec O, Pan M, Zink
M, Sheffield J, Wood EF, Marx A (2018) Anthropogenic warming
exacerbates European soil moisture droughts. Nat Clim Chang 8:
421–426. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41558-018-0138-5
Scanlon BR, Healy RW, Cook PG (2002) Choosing appropriate tech-
niques for quantifying groundwater recharge. Hydrogeol J 10:18–
29. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10040-001-0176-2
Scherrer SC, Fischer EM, Posselt R, Liniger MA, Croci-Maspoli M,
Knutti R (2016) Emerging trends in heavy precipitation and hot
temperature extremes in Switzerland. J Geophys Res Atmos 121:
2626–2637. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD024634
Schlesinger WH, Jasechko S (2014) Transpiration in the global water
cycle. Agric For Meteorol 189–190:115–117. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.agrformet.2014.01.011
Schlosser CA, Strzepek K, Gao X, Fant C, Blanc È, Paltsev S, Jacoby H,
Reilly J, Gueneau A (2014) The future of global water stress: an
integrated assessment. Earth’s Future 2:341–361. https://doi.org/10.
1002/2014EF000238
Seiler KP, Gat JR (2007) Groundwater recharge from run-off, infiltration
and percolation. Water Science and Technology Library, vol 55.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4020-5306-1
Selle B, Rink K, Kolditz O (2013) Recharge and discharge controls on
groundwater travel times and flow paths to production wells for the
Ammer catchment in southwestern Germany. Environ Earth Sci 69:
443–452. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12665-013-2333-z
Seneviratne SI, Luthi D, Litschi M, Schär C (2006) Land–atmosphere
coupling and climate change in Europe. Nature 443:205–209.
https://doi.org/10.1038/nature05095
Seneviratne SI, Corti T, Davin EL, Hirschi M, Jaeger EB, Lehner I,
Orlowsky B, Teuling AJ (2010) Investigating soil moisture–
climate interactions in a changing climate: a review. Earth-Sci Rev
99:125–161. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.earscirev.2010.02.004
Shapiro AM (2002) Cautions and suggestions for geochemical sampling
in fractured rock. Groundw Monit Remediat 22:151–164. https://
doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-6592.2002.tb00764.x
Sheil DF (2018) Forests, atmospheric water and an uncertain future: the
new biology of the global water cycle. For Ecosyst 5:19. https://doi.
org/10.1186/s40663-018-0138-y
Slayback DA, Pinzon JE, Los SO, Tucker CJ (2003) Northern hemi-
sphere photosynthetic trends 1982–99. Glob Chang Biol 9:1–15.
https://doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2486.2003.00507.x
Solberg S, Dobbertin M, Reinds GJ, Lange H, Andreassen K, Fernandez
PG, Hildingsson A, de Vries W (2009) Analyses of the impact of
changes in atmospheric deposition and climate on forest growth in
European monitoring plots: a stand growth approach. For Ecol
Manag 258:1735–1750. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foreco.2008.09.
057
Song XP, Hansen MC, Stehman SV, Potapov PV, Tyukavina A, Vermote
EF, Townshend JR (2018) Global land change from 1982 to 2016.
Nature 560:639–643
Sophocleous M (2002) Interactions between groundwater and surface
water: the state of the science. Hydrogeol J 10:52–67. https://doi.
org/10.1007/s10040-001-0170-8
Stanhill G, Möller M (2008) Evaporative climate change in the British
Isles. Int J Climatol 28:1127–1137. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.1619
Stöckli R, Vidale PL (2004) European plant phenology and climate as
seen in a 20-year AVHRR land-surface parameter dataset. Int J
Remote Sens 10:3303–3330. https://doi.org/10.1080/
01431160310001618149
Stoelzle M, Stahl K, Morhard A, Weiler M (2014) Streamflow sensitivity
to drought scenarios in catchments with different geology. Geophys
Res Lett 41:6174–6183. https://doi.org/10.1002/2014GL061344
Swann ALS, Hoffman FM, Koven CD, Randerson JT (2016) Plant re-
sponses to increasing CO2 reduce estimates of climate impacts on
drought severity. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 113:10019–10024.
https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1604581113
Hydrogeol J
Taylor RG, Scanlon B, Döll P, Rodell M, Van Beek R, Wada Y,
Longuevergne L, Leblanc M, Famiglietti JS, Edmunds M,
Konikow L, Green TR, Chen J, Taniguchi M, Bierkens MFP
(2013) Ground water and climate change. Nat Clim Chang 3:322–
329. https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1744
Teuling AJ (2018) A forest evapotranspiration paradox investigated using
lysimeter data. Vadose Zone J 17:170031. https://doi.org/10.2136/
vzj2017.01.0031
Teuling AJ, Hirschi M, Ohmura A, Wild M, Reichstein M, Ciais P,
Buchmann N, Ammann C, Montagnani L, Richardson AD,
Wohlfahrt G, Seneviratne SI (2009) A regional perspective on
trends in continental evaporation. Geophys Res Lett 36:L02404.
https://doi.org/10.1029/2008GL036584
Teuling AJ, Van Loon AF, Seneviratne SI, Lehner I, Aubinet M,
Heinesch B, Bernhofer C, Grünwald T, Prasse H, Spank U (2013)
Evapotranspiration amplifies European summer drought. Geophys
Res Lett 40:2071–2075. https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50495
Teuling AJ, De Badts E, Jansen FA, Fuchs R, Buitink J, van Dijke AJH,
Sterling S (2019) Climate change, re−/afforestation, and urbanisa-
tion impacts on evapotranspiration and streamflow in Europe.
Hydrol Earth Syst Sci. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-2018-634
Theis CV (1940) The source of water derived from wells: essential factors
controlling the response of an aquifer to development. Civ Eng 10:
277–280
Theurillat JP, Guisan A (2001) Potential impact of climate change on
vegetation in the European Alps: a review. Clim Chang 50:77–
109. https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1010632015572
Tomassini L, Jacob D (2009) Spatial analysis of trends in extreme pre-
cipitation events in high-resolution climate model results and obser-
vations for Germany. J Geophys Res 114:D12113. https://doi.org/
10.1029/2008JD010652
Toreti A, Belward A, Perez-Dominguez I, Naumann G, Luterbacher J,
Cronie O, Seguini L, Baruth B, vanden Berg M, Dentener F, Ceglar
A, Chatzopoulos T, Zampieri M (2019) The exceptional 2018
European water seesaw calls for action on adaptation. Earth’s
Future 7:652–663. https://doi.org/10.1029/2019EF001170
Tran QQ, Willems P, Huysmans M (2019) Coupling catchment runoff
models to groundwater flow models in a multi-model ensemble
approach for improved prediction of groundwater recharge, hydrau-
lic heads and river discharge. Hydrogeol J. https://doi.org/10.1007/
s10040-019-02018-8
Trnka M, Kysely J, Mozny M, Dubrovsky M (2009) Changes in the
central European soil moisture availability and circulation patterns
in 1881–2005. Int J Climatol 29:655–672. https://doi.org/10.1002/
joc.1703
Trnka M, Brázdil R, Balek J, Semerádová D, Hlavinka P, Možný M,
Štěpánek P, Dobrovolný P, Zahradníček P, Dubrovský M,
Eitzinger J, Fuchs B, Svoboda M, Hayes M, Žalud Z (2015)
Drivers of soil drying in the Czech Republic between 1961 and
2012. Int J Climatol 35:2664–2675. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.
4167
Tuller M, Or D (2001) Hydraulic conductivity of variably saturated po-
rous media: film and corner flow in angular pore space. Wat Resour
Res 37:1257–1276. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900328
Twarakavi NKC, Šimůnek J, Seo S (2008) Evaluating interactions be-
tween groundwater and vadose zone using the HYDRUS-based
flow package for MODFLOW. Vadose Zone J 7:757. https://doi.
org/10.2136/vzj2007.0082
Ukkola AM, Prentice IC (2013) A worldwide analysis of trends in water-
balance evapotranspiration. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:4177–4187.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hessd-10-5739-2013
van den Besselaar EJM, Klein Tank AMG, Buishand TA (2012) Trends
in European precipitation extremes over 1951–2010. Int J Climatol
33:2682–2689. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.3619
Hydrogeol J
van der Ent RJ, Savenije HHG, Schaefli B, Steele-Dunne SC (2010)
Origin and fate of atmospheric moisture over continents. Water
Resour Res 46:W09525. https://doi.org/10.1029/2010WR009127
van Genuchten MT (1980) Closed-form equation for predicting the hy-
draulic conductivity of unsaturated soils. Soil Sci Soc Am J 44:892–
898. https://doi.org/10.2136/sssaj1980.03615995004400050002x
Van Lanen HAJ, Wanders N, Tallaksen LM, Van Loon AF (2013)
Hydrological drought across the world: impact of climate and phys-
ical catchment structure. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci 17:1715–1732.
https://doi.org/10.5194/hessd-9-12145-2012
van Roosmalen L, Sonnenborg TO, Jensen KH (2009) Impact of climate
and land use change on the hydrology of a large-scale agricultural
catchment. Wat Resour Res 45:W00A15. https://doi.org/10.1029/
2007WR006760
Vazquez-Sune E, Carrera J, Tubau I, Sanchez-Vila X, Soler A (2010) An
approach to identify urban groundwater recharge. Hydrol Earth Syst
Sci 14:2085–2097. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-14-2085-2010
Vicente-Serrano SM, Beguería S, López-Moreno JI (2010) A multiscalar
drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized precip-
itation evapotranspiration index. J Clim 23:1696–1718. https://doi.
org/10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1
Vicente-Serrano SM, McVicar TR, Miralles DG, Yang Y, Tomas-
Burguera M (2019) Unraveling the influence of atmospheric evap-
orative demand on drought and its response to climate change.
WIREs Clim Chang. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.632
Volosciuk C, Maraun D, Semenov VA, Tilinina N, Gulev SK, Latif M
(2016) Rising Mediterranean Sea surface temperatures amplify ex-
treme summer precipitation in Central Europe. Sci Rep 6:32450.
https://doi.org/10.1038/srep32450
Voulvoulis N, Arpon KD, Giakoumis T (2017) The EU Water
Framework Directive: from great expectations to problems with
implementation. Sci Total Environ 575:358–366. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.scitotenv.2016.09.228
Weber TKD, Durner W, Streck T, Diamantopoulos E (2019) A modular
framework for modelling unsaturated soil hydraulic properties over
the full moisture range. Water Resour Res 55:4994–5011. https://
doi.org/10.1029/2018WR024584
Welker JM, McClelland S, Weaver TW (1991) Soil water retention after
natural and simulated rainfall on a temperate grassland. Theor Appl
Climatol 44:447–453. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00868178
Wells C, Ketcheson S, Price J (2017) Hydrology of a wetland-dominated
headwater basin in the boreal plain, Alberta, Canada. J Hydrol 547:
168–183. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.01.052
Wibig J (2012) Has the frequency or intensity of hot weather events
changed in Poland since 1950? Adv Sci Res 8:87–91. https://doi.
org/10.5194/asr-8-87-2012
Wild M, Gilgen H, Roesch A, Ohmura A, Long CN, Dutton EG, Forgan
B, Kallis A, Russak V, Tsvetkow A (2005) From dimming to bright-
ening: decadal changes in solar radiation at earth’s surface. Science
308:847–850. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103215
Wolf L, Zwiener C, Zemann M (2012) Tracking artificial sweeteners and
pharmaceuticals introduced into urban groundwater by leaking
sewer networks. Sci Total Environ 430:8–19. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.scitotenv.2012.04.059
Wright SN, Novakowski KS (2019) Groundwater recharge, flow and
stable isotope attenuation in sedimentary and crystalline fractured
rocks: Spatiotemporal monitoring from multi-level wells. J Hydro
571:178–192
Xiang W, Si BC, Biswas A, Li Z (2019) Quantifying dual recharge
mechanisms in deep unsaturated zone of Chinese Loess Plateau
using stable isotopes. Geoderma 337:773–781. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.geoderma.2018.10.006
Xiao H, Meissner R, Seeger J, Rupp H, Borg H (2009) Effect of vegeta-
tion type and growth stage on dewfall, determined with high preci-
sion weighing lysimeters at a site in northern Germany. J Hydrol
377:43–49. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.08.006
Xu CY, Chen D (2005) Comparison of seven models for estimation of
evapotranspiration and groundwater recharge using lysimeter mea-
surement data in Germany. Hydrol Proc 19:3717–3734. https://doi.
org/10.1002/hyp.5853
Yang Y, Lerner DN, Barrett MH, Tellam JH (1999) Quantification of
groundwater recharge in the city of Nottingham, UK. Environ Geol
38:183–198. https://doi.org/10.1007/s002540050414
Yang Y, Roderick ML, Zhang S, McVicar TR, Donohue RJ (2019)
Hydrologic implications of vegetation response to elevated CO2 in
climate projections. Nat Clim Chang 9:44. https://doi.org/10.1038/
s41558-018-0361-0
Ye H, Fetzer EJ, Wong S, Lambrigtsen BH (2017) Rapid decadal con-
vective precipitation increase over Eurasia during the last three de-
cades of the 20th century. Sci Adv 3:e1600944. https://doi.org/10.
1126/sciadv.1600944
Zhang YK, Schilling KE (2006) Effects of land cover on water table, soil
moisture, evapotranspiration, and groundwater recharge: a field ob-
servation and analysis. J Hydrol 319:328–338. https://doi.org/10.
1016/j.jhydrol.2005.06.044
Zhang L, Dawes WR, Walker GR (2001) Response of mean annual
evapotranspiration to vegetation changes at catchment scale. Water
Resour Res 37:701–708. https://doi.org/10.1029/2000WR900325
Zhang Y, Peña-Arancibia JL, McVicar TR, Chiew FHS, Vaze J, Liu C,
Lu X, Zheng H, Wang Y, Liu YY, Miralles DG, Pan M (2016)
Multi-decadal trends in global terrestrial evapotranspiration and its
components. Sci Rep 6:19124. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep19124
Zingk M (1988) Groundwater recharge in Schleswig-Holstein (West-
Germany). Agricl Water Manag 14(1–4):339–343
Zolina O, Simmer C, Gulev SK, Kollet S (2010) Changing structure of
European precipitation: longer wet periods leading to more abun-
dant rainfalls. Geophys Res Lett 37:L06704. https://doi.org/10.
1029/2010GL042468
Zomlot Z, Verbeiren B, Huysmans M, Batelaan O (2017) Trajectory
analysis of land use and land cover maps to improve spatial-
temporal patterns, and impact assessment on groundwater recharge.
J Hydrol 554:558–569. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.09.
032