ArticleScientific reports2026
Hydrometric assessment of Himalayan springs using classical hydrological methods for springshed management.
Article in Scientific reports, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Springs represent critical lifelines for mountain water security; however, discharge reductions and seasonal drying increasingly threaten 1.3 billion people dependent on Himalayan water systems amid accelerating climate change. This study presents a systematic application of classical hydrological methods across eight representative springs in the Tawi catchment, J&K UT, India, providing a comprehensive and unprecedented hydrometric assessment framework for data-scarce regions of Indian Himalayas. Three complimentary hydrological approaches were adopted: (1) flow regime analysis using hydrograph assessment and base flow separation, (2) statistical assessment using correlation and persistence functions, and (3) flow reliability evaluation using duration curves and variability indices. Results revealed distinct hydrological signatures: three springs exhibited perennial behavior with high base flow indices (0.67-0.88), strong groundwater contribution (> 800,000 L total volume), and low variability (CV < 0.3), while five springs demonstrated seasonal-flashy responses with discharge variability ratios exceeding 2.5. Cross-correlation analysis identified response lag times ranging from immediate (1 day) for shallow systems to 49 days for deeper groundwater-fed springs. Auto-correlation functions revealed memory of 14-49 days, indicating varying aquifer storage capacities. The evidence-based classification supports development of targeted community interventions: stable springs require recharge zone protection and forest conservation, whereas vulnerable springs necessitate artificial recharge structures, check dams, and community-based storage systems. This framework directly supports UN Sustainable Development Goal 6 (Clean Water and Sanitation) and Goal 13 (Climate Action), demonstrating that systematic, scientifically robust classical methods offer cost-effective alternatives for springshed management, thereby supporting mountain water security globally.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.