Abstract
Drought is a climatic phenomenon that can occur in various regions with different climate conditions. Generally, drought has negative impacts on different fields such as environment, rangelands, and water resources. The agricultural section (especially rain-fed agriculture) is one of the parts that is directly affected by different types of drought especially meteorological and agricultural droughts. The standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) is one of the newest and most applied indices to assess drought characteristics. In this paper, a modification is suggested for SPEI with the substitution of observed precipitation (OP) with effective precipitation (EP) to evaluate drought, with an emphasis on consideration of drought effects on agricultural section. To calculate EP, Food and Agriculture Organization of the united nation method (FAO), US Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), the Simplified version of Soil Conservation Service of the US Department of Agriculture method (USDA-SCS simplified), and the CROPWAT version of USDA-SCS method (USDA-SCS CROPWAT) were used. To compare the calculated SPEI based on OP (SPEIOP) and EP (SPEIEP) (based on different EP calculation methods), the correlation coefficients (CC) between SPEIOP and SPEIEP in four synoptic stations with at least 30 years of climatic data and annual yield loss (%) in winter wheat (Triticum sativum) (simulated using AquaCrop model) in the suitable reference periods for agricultural drought were used. Results showed, in Fasa, Drodzan, and Zarghan stations, the CC between SPEI based on EP using the USBR method (SPEIUSBR) and annual YL% had the highest values (in 42.11%, 68.42%, and 36.84% of Triticum sativum all reference periods, respectively). In Shiraz station, the CC between SPEI based on EP using the FAO method (SPEIFAO) and annual YL% had the highest values (in 47.37% of all reference periods). In all stations, the SPEIUSBR had the most reference periods with significant CC at 0.05 or 0.01 levels.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.Avoid common mistakes on your manuscript.
Introduction
Drought is one of the most harmful environmental phenomena with a devastating impact on agricultural activities, human life, surface and underground water resources, wildlife, rangeland plants, environmental programs, and socio-economic sections (Zarei 2018; Sisi et al. 2018; Rezaei Banafsheh et al. 2015; Zamaniyan et al. 2012). Drought happens during a period of water deficit in a region due to low precipitation, high evapotranspiration, high groundwater derivation, or a mixture of the mentioned factors (Zarei and Mahmoudi 2017; Zamaniyan et al. 2012). Therefore, the evaluation of drought and its characteristics can play a focal role in managing this phenomenon and eliminating its negative impacts. For this purpose, in the recent decades, drought indices have implemented study (such as Standardized precipitation index (SPI), China Z index (CZI), Reconnaissance Drought Index (RDI), standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI), and other drought indices) to assess drought severity, frequency of occurrence, and some characteristics (Liyan et al. 2018; Prabnakorn et al. 2018; Zarei and Moghimi 2017; Vicente-Serrano et al. 2010; Tsakiris et al. 2007; McKee et al. 1993).
SPEI that was introduced by Vicente-Serrano et al. (2010) is one of the indices that has attracted many researchers in recent years. Wable et al. (2018) compared the RDI, SPEI, SPI, and two other drought indices using the decision criteria such as Robustness, Tractability, Transparency, Sophistication, and extendability in western India. The results of this paper showed that SPEI is the most suitable drought index for monitoring drought conditions. Adnan et al. (2018) compared 15 various drought indices in Pakistan. The result of this research indicated the SPI, SPEI, and RDI have had a good capability to monitor drought status in Pakistan. Liu et al. (2018) used SPEI to assess impacts of drought on the crop yield in the North China plain. Results of this paper showed that the correlation between agricultural crop yields and the SPEI time series increased in the winter wheat growth stage.
Zuo et al. (2018) evaluated the spatiotemporal patterns of drought in the Shandong Province of Eastern China using SPEI. According to their findings, a significant decreasing trend in the SPEI at the coastal stations for all the time scales was detected. Haro-Monteagudo et al. (2017) used SPI, SPEI, and PDSI to evaluate the utility of drought indices in measuring climate risks in agricultural productivity. Results indicated that the seasonal SPEI (3 months) was found to be the most suitable one in monitoring water availability and drought conditions.
Tajbakhsh et al. (2015) evaluated meteorological drought in Iran using SPEI. Accordingly, due to a considerable decrease in temperature in winter, the effect of evapotranspiration may not be significant. During spring, summer, and autumn, the effect of evapotranspiration is influenced heavily on precipitation in most provinces, especially the southern provinces of Iran. Gidey et al. (2018) used vegetation health index (VHI) to assess the long-term agricultural drought onset in northern Ethiopia. The results of this paper showed, when rainfall increases, that VHI tends to increase. So, the event of agricultural drought diminished. The review of drought condition using SPEI can be found in several manuscripts such as Jia et al. (2018), Liyan et al. (2018), Mathieu and Aires (2018), Peng et al. (2018), Soh et al. (2018), Virgílio et al. (2018), Xu et al. (2018) Garcia et al. (2017), Zare Abyaneh et al. (2015), Beguería et al. (2014), and Vicente-Serrano et al. (2012).
Tigkas et al. (2018) introduced a modified version for SPI named the Agricultural Standardized Precipitation Index (aSPI). In aSPI, the observed precipitation is replaced by the effective precipitation (Tigkas et al. 2018). The assessment of the correlation coefficients between SPI and aSPI and crop yield response in four regions of the study area in this paper under Mediterranean conditions showed that aSPI is more robust in identifying agricultural drought. Tigkas et al. (2016) presented a modified version for Reconnaissance Drought Index (RDIe). In RDIe, the observed precipitation is replaced by the effective precipitation. According to the results, modified RDI in an area with agricultural activities has better performance in studying the impacts of drought.
The aim of the present study is to introduce a new version of SPEI to assess agricultural drought based on the replacement of the OP with the EP. In the next stage, the accuracy of the modified SPEI (based on EP) will be evaluated in comparison with the original SPEI (based on OP).
Material and methods
Study area
Fars province is located between latitude 27° 05′ to 31° 55′ N and longitude 50° 07′ to 55° 54′ E, including 28 cities with a total area of about 125,000 km2 (Fig. 1). It is located in the southwest of Iran with an average elevation about 2015 m from the sea level, the average annual precipitation of the study area is near to 340 mm/year and the average mean annual temperature of the study region is around 18 °C. The climate conditions of this area based on modified De- Martonne index (De Martonne 1926; Zareiee 2014; Aguirre et al. 2018; Zarei et al. 2019) is mainly arid and semi-arid. The main cultivated crops in this region are winter wheat and winter barley. The study area includes more than 120 hydrological unit with a negative groundwater bill in most of these plains (discharge from groundwater is more than recharge). In this paper, meteorological data of four synoptic stations with suitable time duration (least 30 years) were used to calculate original SPEI and modified SPEI. Some of the climatic characteristics and geographical positions of selected synoptic stations are presented in Table 1.
Methodology
Data collection and potential evapotranspiration (PET) calculation
In this study, meteorological data of Fasa and Shiraz synoptic stations from 1967 to 2017 and Drodzan and Zarghan synoptic stations from 1988 to 2017 collected from Iran Meteorological Organization (IMO) were used. Before using the data, missing values of meteorological data in all stations were estimated via the normal ratio method (Mahdavi 2002), suitability of time duration in all stations was evaluated using Mockus method (Eq. 1) and the homogeneity of data series in all stations was assessed using the double mass curve method (Mahdavi 2002).
where N is the minimum necessary data series duration; t is the t student with the freedom degree of n-6; and R is the ratio of return period parameter of 100 to 2 years.
To calculate the potential evapotranspiration (PET) parameter, FAO Penman-Monteith (FAO-56) equation (Eq. 2) and CROPWAT 8 software were used (Allen et al. 1998; Ahani et al. 2012; Zarei et al. 2015).
where PET is the potential evapotranspiration; Δ is the slope of the saturation vapor pressure function; Rn is the net radiation; G is the soil heat flux density; γ is the psychometric constant; T is the mean air temperature; U2 is the average 24-h wind speed at 2-m height; and VPD is the vapor pressure deficit.
Effective precipitation (EP) calculation methods
In regard to the aims of researchers, different definitions are available for EP. For example, the hydrology science entry for EP is the percentage of precipitation that becomes a runoff (Mahdavi 2002); in agricultural science, the entry says the percentage of rainfall that can be used productively by the plants (Tigkas et al. 2016, 2018). In this research, we focus on the approach of EP in the fields of water consumptive use in plant development (EP in agricultural science). Many different methods are introduced to estimate EP indicator such as evaluating EP using weighted lysimeters, monitoring of soil moisture in the root zone of plants, and using empirical methods. (Tigkas et al. 2018; Ebrahimpour et al. 2014). Regarding the fact that necessary data for non-empirical methods were not available to calculate EP, empirical methods include the FAO method, USBR method, USDA-SCS simplified method, and USDA-SCS CROPWAT method were used in this study.
FAO method
Using the FAO method, EP can be measured on a monthly time scale. In this method, for months with the amount of precipitation less than 70 mm/month, Eq. 3 and for months with the amount of precipitation equal or more than 70 mm/month, Eq. 4 was used to calculate EP (Tigkas et al. 2018; Tigkas et al. 2016; Brouwer and Heibloem 1986):
where EP is the effective precipitation and R is the monthly precipitation.
USBR method
The USBR method introduced by the US Bureau of Reclamation and recommended to use for arid and semi-arid regions (Tigkas et al. 2018; Stamm 1967). The range of the effective precipitation based on the USBR method is presented in Table 2.
USDA-SCS simplified and USDA-SCS CROPWAT methods
These methods were developed by the Soil Conservation Service of the US Department of Agriculture (USDA-SCS) and recommended for arid and semi-arid regions (Tigkas et al. 2018; Kourgialas et al. 2015; Hess 2010; USDA 1970). EP based on the USDA-SCS simplified method calculating via Eq. 5:
EP based on the USDA-SCS CROPWAT method is calculated by Eqs. 6 and 7. Equation 6 is applicable for months with the amount of precipitation equal or less than 250 mm/month and Eq. 7 is applicable for months with the amount of precipitation more than 250 mm/month:
where EP is the effective precipitation and R the is monthly precipitation.
Percentage of annual yield loss calculation
Generally, vegetation has development patterns that follow the seasonal weather variability. For evaluating the vegetation response to drought, the constant and progressively increasing reference periods including 1, 3, 6, and 12 months (reference periods in 1-month time scales were Nov, Dec, Jan, Feb, Mar, Apr, May, and Jun, in 3-month time scales were Nov to Jan, Dec to Feb, Jan to Mar, Feb to Apr, Mar to May, and Apr to Jun, in 6-month time scales were Oct to Mar, Nov to Apr, Dec to May, and Jan to Jun, in 12-month time scales were Oct to Sep in each years) was selected to assess the effect of drought severity (Tigkas et al. 2018).
In this paper, to assess the impacts of drought on agricultural productions, changes in the percentage of annual yield loss (YL%) in winter wheat (Triticum sativum) under arid and semi-arid climate conditions influenced by the severity of drought were used, YL% expressed as:
where Yi is the annual crop yield and Yp is the potential yield for each year. Potential yield is the total yield of the crop without any environmental stresses especially stresses caused by water shortage (Sadras et al. 2015; Shirshahi et al. 2018). In this research to calculate YL% for the selected stations the water-driven simulation crop, AquaCrop model was used. The simulation was performed for the entire study period, based on P, T, and PET data of each station. In Fars province, Triticum sativum was planted in November and harvested in June. To provide the necessary information about Triticum sativum for AquaCrop model in Fars province, the results of the researches by Mousavizadeh et al. (2016), Zand-Parsa et al. (2016), Shamsnia and Pirmoradian (2013), Bahadori and Sepaskhah (2012), and Salemi et al. (2011) that calibrated AquaCrop model for winter wheat in the study area and regions with similar climate conditions were used.
Original and modified SPEI indices (SPEIOP and SPEIEP)
The standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) was introduced by Vicente-Serrano et al. (2010). To estimate SPEI, in the first stage, the differences between the precipitation (Pi) (in original SPEI, Pi is observed precipitation and in modified version of SPEI, Pi is effective precipitation) and potential Evapotranspiration (PETi) for month i (Di) was calculated and was aggregated at different time scales (Dk):
In the next stage, based on L-moment procedure (because this method is the most robust and easy approach (Ahmad et al. 1988)), the probability density function of a three-parameter log-logistic distribution is applied to take the negative values of Dk into account:
where k, λ, and μ are scale parameters
Finally, to calculate SPEI, the obtained values of F(x) are converted into corresponding Z-standardized normal values. It is suggested to refer Vicente-Serrano et al. (2010), Jia et al. (2018), Liyan et al. (2018), Mathieu and Aires (2018), and Peng et al. (2018) for more details about SPEI. The SPEI drought classification is presented in Table 3.
Comparison of original (SPEIOP) and modified SPEI (SPEIEP) values
To compare and assess calculated SPEIOP and SPEIEP, correlation coefficients between the original and modified SPEI values and annual percentage of yield loss in each station at different reference periods (constant and progressively increasing reference periods include 1, 3, 6, and 12 months) were used. In this regard, in the first stage, the normality of data series of calculated SPEIOP and SPEIEP in all stations and all-time scales using the Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were evaluated. In the next stage, to calculate correlation coefficients between the SPEIOP and SPEIEP and annual percentage of yield loss, in normal data series and in non-normal data series, Pearson test and Spearman Rho test were utilized, respectively.
Results and discussion
Calculated PET
Results of the calculated potential evapotranspiration (PET) (in monthly time scale) in selected synoptic stations showed that Drodzan and Zarghan stations had the highest and the least amount of the average of potential evapotranspiration (respectively). The estimated monthly PET in selected stations based on the FAO-56 equation is presented in Fig. 2.
Calculated effective precipitation (EP)
Results of the calculated EP in selected synoptic stations based on different methods of EP calculation methods showed that the monthly average of EP using the USBR method had the least amount of EP (in all stations). The monthly average of EP using the USDA-SCS CROPWAT method had the most amount of EP (in all stations). According to the results, the estimated EP based on the USDA-SCS CROPWAT method was more than the USDA-SCS simplified method and the estimated EP based on the USDA-SCS simplified method was more than the FAO method (Figs. 3 and 4 for example). It seems that differences in the amount of calculated EP using different methods of EP calculation depend on the nature of the procedures and equation of methods to estimate EP.
Percentage of annual yield loss (YL %)
Calculated percentage of annual YL showed that fluctuations of YL% affected by changes in climatic parameters in Shiraz and Fasa stations were more than Drodzan and Zarghan stations. Annual YL% in Shiraz station varies from 7.96 to 99.54%, in Fasa station varies from 11.42 to 93.9%, in Drodzan station varies from 0.18 to 26.44%, and in Zarghan station varies from 0.56 to 30.95%. The calculated percentage of annual yield loss in selected stations is presented in Fig. 5. Results showed that the maximum values of annual YL% occur in stations with less amount and inappropriate distribution of annual precipitation in growing season of winter wheat such as Fasa and Shiraz stations and the minimum values of annual YL% occur in stations with higher amount and appropriate distribution of annual precipitation in growing season of winter wheat such as Drodzan and Zarghan stations.
Original and modified SPEI (SPEIOP and SPEIEP)
After determining P, EP (based on different EP calculation methods) and PET in constant and progressively increasing reference periods include 1, 3, 6, and 12 months; SPEIOP and SPEIEP (based on different EP calculation methods) for all periods were calculated. Calculated SPEIOP and SPEIEP showed that in all stations and all-time scales normal class of drought severity had the most frequency of occurrence. According to the results, in all stations and all reference periods, the estimated values of SPEI using EP based on USDA-SCS CROPWAT method (SPEIUSC) and SPEIOP were more than SPEIEP based on other methods of EP calculation (respectively). Estimated values of SPEIUSBR were the least values for SPEI. Calculated 12-month SPEIOP and SPEIEP using different EP calculation methods in Shiraz and Drodzan stations are presented in Fig. 6 (for example).
Comparison and evaluation of SPEIOP and SPEIEP
To compare the SPEIOP and SPEIEP, in the first stage, the normality of calculated SPEIOP and SPEIEP data series in all stations and all-time scales using Kolmogorov-Smirnov test were evaluated (Tables 4 and 5). Normality test showed that, in 12-month and 6-month time scales of reference periods, data series of calculated SPEIOP and SPEIEP in all stations were normal at 0.05 significant level. In 3-month and 1-month time scales of reference periods, more reference period data series of calculated SPEIOP and SPEIEP were normal at 0.05 significant level. The SPEI data series in some of the reference periods were non-normal, these periods were mainly in months of seasons with the warmer and lower amounts of precipitation (Tables 4 and 5). It seems, considering the climate condition of the study area (arid and semi-arid), that fluctuations of climatic parameters such as precipitation, temperature, and other factors in warmer and less precipitated months and seasons are more than other months and seasons. In the next stage, correlation coefficients between SPEI and annual YL% in each station at all reference periods (in normal data series using Pearson test and in non-normal data series using Spearman Rho test) were estimated (Tables 6 and 7).
Results indicated, in Fasa station, correlation coefficients (CC) between calculated SPEIOP and annual YL% in 26.32% of all reference periods were significant at 0.05 or 0.01 levels, CC between calculated SPEIFAO and annual YL% in 31.58% of all reference periods were significant at 0.05 or 0.01 levels, CC between calculated SPEIUSBR and annual YL% in 42.11% of all reference periods were significant at 0.05 or 0.01 levels, CC between calculated SPEI using EP based on USDA-SCS simplified method (SPEISS) and annual YL% in 31.58% of all reference periods were significant at 0.05 or 0.01 levels and CC between calculated SPEIUSC and annual YL% in 36.84% of all reference periods were significant at 0.05 or 0.01 levels. Regardless of the significant or non-significant correlation coefficients, CC between data series of SPEIOP and annual YL% in 5.26% of all reference periods had the highest values, CC between data series of SPEIFAO and annual YL% in 21.05% of all reference periods had the highest values, CC between data series of SPEIUSBR and annual YL% in 42.11% of all reference periods had the highest values and CC between data series of SPEIUSC and annual YL% in 31.58% of all reference periods had the highest values (Table 6).
In Shiraz station, correlation coefficients (CC) between calculated SPEIOP, SPEIUSBR, SPEISS, and SPEIUSC methods and annual YL% in 31.58% of all reference periods were significant at 0.05 or 0.01 levels, CC between calculated SPEIFAO and annual YL% in 21.05% of all reference periods were significant at 0.05 or 0.01 levels. Regardless of the significant or non-significant correlation coefficients, CC between data series of SPEIOP and annual YL% in 21.05% of all reference periods had the highest values, CC between data series of SPEIFAO and annual YL% in 47.37% of all reference periods had the highest values, CC between data series of SPEIUSBR and annual YL% in 5.26% of all reference periods had the highest values and CC between data series of SPEIUSC and annual YL% in 26.32% of all reference periods had the highest values (Table 6).
In Zarghan station, correlation coefficients (CC) between calculated SPEIOP, SPEIFAO, SPEIUSBR, and SPEIUSC methods and annual YL% in 10.53% of all reference periods were significant at 0.05 or 0.01 levels. Regardless of the significant or the non-significant correlation coefficients, CC between data series of SPEIOP and annual YL% in 31.58% of all reference periods had the highest values, CC between data series of SPEIFAO and annual YL% in 26.32% of all reference periods had the highest values, CC between data series of SPEIUSBR and annual YL% in 36.84% of all reference periods had the highest values and CC between data series of SPEISS and annual YL% in 5.26% of all reference periods had the highest values (Table 7).
In Drodzan station, correlation coefficients (CC) between calculated SPEIOP, SPEIFAO, SPEISS, and SPEIUSC methods and annual YL% in 73.68% of all reference periods were significant at 0.05 or 0.01 levels, CC between calculated SPEIUSBR and annual YL% in 89.47% of all reference periods were significant at 0.05 or 0.01 levels. Regardless of the significant or the non-significant correlation coefficients, CC between data series of SPEIOP and annual YL% in 5.26% of all reference periods had the highest values, CC between data series of SPEIFAO and annual YL% in 21.05% of all reference periods had the highest values, CC between data series of SPEIUSBR and annual YL% in 68.42% of all reference periods had the highest values, and CC between data series of SPEIUSC and annual YL% in 5.26% of all reference periods had the highest values (Table 7). It seems that the higher CC of SPEIUSBR with YL% in the most stations (75% of selected stations) is due to more accuracy and ability of the USBR method to estimate EP in different ranges of OP.
Calculated CC between data series of SPEIOP and SPEIEP and annual YL% showed that in some of the reference periods, CC was positive and in some of the reference periods, CC was negative. In cases with negative CC, by increasing the SPEIOP and SPEIEP values, the conditions of the study area become wetter and annual Yl% will decrease or by decreasing the SPEIOP and SPEIEP values, the conditions of the study area become drier and annual Yl% will increase; therefore, CC between data series of SPEIOP and SPEIEP and annual YL% will be negative. In cases with positive CC, by increasing the SPEIOP and SPEIEP values, the conditions of the study area become wetter but annual Yl% of the study area increased or by decreasing the SPEIOP and SPEIEP values, the conditions of the study area become drier but annual Yl% of the study area decreased; therefore, CC between data series of SPEIOP and SPEIEP and annual YL% will be positive. The reason of the positive and negative values of CC can be the unsuitability time distribution of precipitation, the frosting of crops, affected by a severe temperature drop, flash rains and hail occurrence especially in spring and etc. in the growth period of winter wheat.
Results of the research by Tigkas et al. (2018) to present a modified version for SPI (aSPI) based on replacement of OP with EP showed that aSPI is more robust than the SPI in identifying agricultural drought. Results of research by Tigkas et al. (2016) to present a modified version for RDI (RDIe) based on replacement of OP with EP showed that the RDIe in an area with agricultural activities has better performance to assess the impacts of drought. It seems that the results of this paper are similar to the results of researches done (Tigkas et al. 2016, 2018) in the case of RDIe and aSPI indices.
Conclusion
Drought is a climatic phenomenon that has always been damaging human societies, different parts of the environment, agricultural sections, natural resources, wildlife, etc. Various drought indices have been presented for the evaluation of drought, that SPEI is one of the most important and recommended indices for assessing the severity of drought in different time scales. This index is based on the ratio of P (OP) and PET parameters. The hypothesis of this study is that replacement of the observed precipitation with effective rainfall in SPEI can be effective in increasing the accuracy of the SPEI to assess characteristics of agricultural drought.
Therefore, in this paper, a new version of SPEI to assess agricultural drought based on the replacement of the OP with EP was introduced. EP parameter was estimated using four methods of EP calculation, including FAO, USBR USDA-SCS simplified, and USDA-SCS CROPWAT. To evaluate the accuracy of calculated SPEIOP and SPEIEP, correlation coefficients (CC) between SPEI and annual YL% in winter wheat (Triticum sativum) in the 19 reference periods were evaluated. Results showed that, regardless of the significant or the non-significant correlation coefficients, in Fasa, Drodzan, and Zarghan stations, calculated SPEIUSBR had the highest values of CC with annual YL% (in 42.11%, 68.42%, and 36.84% of all reference periods, respectively). In Shiraz station, calculated SPEIFAO had the highest values of CC with annual YL% (in 47.37% of all reference periods). In all stations, calculated SPEIUSBR had the most reference periods with significant CC at 0.05 or 0.01 levels. In all stations, calculated SPEISS had the least values of CC with annual YL%. According to the results, almost in all stations, correlation between YL% and SPEIEP was more than the correlation between YL% and SPEIOP. On the other hand, the number of time periods with a significant correlation between SPEIEP and YL% in SPEIUSBR was more than other SPEIEP indices. It seems that the higher CC of SPEIUSBR with YL% is due to more accuracy of the USBR method to estimate EP in different ranges of OP. So, it is suggested to assess agricultural drought, SPEIOP replaces with SPEIUSBR. Finally, the results of the presented paper are proper for areas with arid and semi-arid climate (according to the climate of selected stations). Therefore, it should be noted that to use the modified SPEI in different climate conditions, the model requires calibration and adaptation.
References
Adnan S, Ullah K, Shuanglin L, Gao S, Khan AH, Mahmood R (2018) Comparison of various drought indices to monitor drought status in Pakistan. Clim Dyn 51(5–6):1885–1899
Aguirre A, Río MD, Condés S (2018) Intra- and inter-specific variation of the maximum size-density relationship along an aridity gradient in Iberian pinewoods. For Ecol Manag 411:90–100
Ahani H, Kherad M, Kousari MR, Roosmalen LV, Aryanfar R, Hoseine SM (2012) Non-parametric trend analysis of the aridity index for three large arid and semi-arid basins in Iran. Theor Appl Climatol 112:553–564
Ahmad MI, Sinclair CD, Werritty A (1988) Log-logistic flood frequency analysis. Journal of Hydrology 98(3–4):205–224
Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M (1998) Crop evapotranspiration. Guidelines for computing crop water requirements, FAO irrigation and drainage paper 56. FAO, Roma
Bahadori A, Sepaskhah AR (2012) Evaluation of the effects of different water management on winter wheat crop in the Bajgah and downstream of the Dorodzan dam using AquaCrop and CropSyst models, MSc thesis, Shiraz University
Beguería S, Vicente-Serrano SM, Reig F, Latorre B (2014) Standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) revisited: parameter fitting, evapotranspiration models, tools, datasets and drought monitoring. Int J Climatol 34(10):3001–3023
Brouwer C, Heibloem M (1986) Irrigation water management: irrigation water needs. Training manual no. 3. FAO, Rome
De Martonne E (1926) Aérisme et indice d’aridité. C R Acad Sci 182:1395–1398
Ebrahimpour M, Rahimi J, Nikkhah A, Bazrafshan J (2014) Monitoring agricultural drought using the standardized effective precipitation index. J Irrig Drain Eng 141(1):04014044
Garcia PM, Nicolas AL, Velazquez MP (2017) Combined use of relative drought indices to analyze climate change impact on meteorological and hydrological droughts in a Mediterranean basin. J Hydrol 554:292–305
Gidey E, Dikinya O, Sebego R, Segosebe E, Zenebe A (2018) Analysis of the long-term agricultural drought onset, cessation, duration, frequency, severity and spatial extent using Vegetation Health Index (VHI) in Raya and its environs, Northern Ethiopia. Environmental Systems Research 7(1):13. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40068-018-0115-z
Haro-Monteagudo D, Daccache D, Knox J (2017) Exploring the utility of drought indicators to assess climate risks to agricultural productivity in a humid climate. Hydrol Res 49(2):539–551. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2017.010
Hess T (2010) Estimating green water footprints in a temperate environment. Water 2(3):351–362
Jia Y, Zhang B, Ma B (2018) Daily SPEI reveals long-term change in drought characteristics in Southwest China. Chin Geogr Sci 28(4):680–693. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11769-018-0973-3
Kourgialas NN, Karatzas GP, Morianou G (2015) Water management plan for olive orchards in a semi-mountainous area of Crete, Greece. Glob Nest J 17(1):72–81
Liu X, Pan Y, Zhu X, Yang T, Bai J, Sun Z (2018) Drought evolution and its impact on the crop yield in the North China Plain. J Hydrol 564:985–996
Liyan T, Shanshui Y, Steven MQ (2018) Evaluation of six indices for monitoring agricultural drought in the south-central United States. Agric For Meteorol 249:107–119
Mahdavi M (2002) Applied hydrology, Tehran university press, 2, p.437
Mathieu JA, Aires F (2018) Assessment of the Agroclimatic indices to improve crop yield forecasting. Agric For Meteorol 253-254:15–30
McKee TB, Doesken NJ, Kleist J (1993) The relationship of drought frequency and duration to time scales. In: Proc. 8th Conf. on Applied Climatology, 17–22 January, American Meteorological Society, Mass, 179–184
Mousavizadeh SF, Honar T, Ahmadi SH (2016) Assessment of the AquaCrop model for simulating canola under different irrigation managements in a semiarid area. Int J Plant Prod 10(4):425–446
Peng Y, Jun X, Yongyong Z, Chesheng Z, Yunfeng Q (2018) Comprehensive assessment of drought risk in the arid region of Northwest China based on the global palmer drought severity index gridded data. Sci Total Environ 627:951–962. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2018.01.234
Prabnakorn S, Maskey S, Suryadi FX, De Fraiture C (2018) Rice yield in response to climate trends and drought index in the Mun River Basin, Thailand. Sci Total Environ 621:108–119
Rezaei Banafsheh M, Rezaei A, Faridpour M (2015) Analyzing agricultural drought in east Azarbaijan province emphasizing remote sensing technique and vegetation condition index. Water and Soil Science (Agricultural Science) 25(1):113–123
Sadras VO, Cassman KGG, Grassini P, Hall AJ, Bastiaanssen WGM, Laborte AG, Milne AE, Sileshi G, Steduto P (2015) Yield gap analysis of field crops—methods and case studies. FAO and DWFI - FAO Water Reports No. 41, Rome, Italy
Salemi H, Soom MAM, Lee TS, Mousavi SF, Ganji A, Yusoff MK (2011) Application of AquaCrop model in deficit irrigation management of winter wheat in arid region. Afr J Agric Res 6(10):2204–2215
Shamsnia SA, Pirmoradian N (2013) Simulation of Rainfed wheat yield response to climatic fluctuations using model (case study: shiraz region in southern of Iran). Int J Eng Sci Invention 2(5):51–56
Shirshahi F, Babazadeh H, Ebrahimipak N, Zeraatkish Y (2018) Calibration and assessment of AquaCrop model for managing the quantity and time of applying wheat deficit irrigation. Irrigation Sciences and Engineering 4(1):31–44
Sisi W, Xingguo M, Shi H, Suxia L, Zhengjia L (2018) Assessment of droughts and wheat yield loss on the North China Plain with an aggregate drought index (ADI) approach. Ecol Indic 87:107–116
Soh YW, Koo CH, Huang YF, Fung KF (2018) Application of artificial intelligence models for the prediction of standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) at Langat River Basin, Malaysia. Comput Electron Agric 144:164–173. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compag.2017.12.002
Stamm GG (1967) Problems and procedures in determining water supply requirements for irrigation projects. In: Hagan et al (eds) Irrigation of agricultural lands. Agronomy Monograph 11. American Society of Agronomy, Madison, pp 771–784
Tajbakhsh S, Eisakhani N, Fazl Kazemi A (2015) Assessment of meteorological drought in Iran using standardized precipitation and evapotranspiration index (SPEI). Journal of the Earth and Space Physics 41(2):313–321
Tigkas D, Vangelis H, Tsakiris G (2016) Introducing a modified reconnaissance drought index (RDIe) incorporating effective precipitation. Procedia Engineering 162:332–339
Tigkas D, Vangelis H, Tsakiris G (2018) Drought characterization based on an agriculture-oriented standardized precipitation index. Theor Appl Climatol 135:1435–1447. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-018-2451-3
Tsakiris G, Pangalou D, Vangelis H (2007) Regional drought assessment based on reconnaissance drought index (RDI). Water Resour Manag 21(5):821–833
USDA SCS (1970) Irrigation water requirements. United States Department of Agriculture, soil conservation service, tech. Rel. No 21, (rev. 1970), 88p
Vicente-Serrano SM, Beguer’ıa S, Lopez-Moreno JI (2010) A multi-scalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index – SPEI. J Clim 23:1696–1718
Vicente-Serrano SM, Begueria S, Lorenzo-Lacruz J, Julio CJ, Lopez-Moreno JI, Azorin-Molina C, Revuelto J, Morán-Tejeda E, Sanchez-Lorenzo A (2012) Performance of drought indices for ecological, agricultural, and hydrological applications. Earth Interact 16:1–27
Virgílio AB, Gouveia CM, DaCamara CC, Trigo IF (2018) A climatological assessment of drought impact on vegetation health index. Agric For Meteorol 259:286–295
Wable PS, Jha MK, Shekhar A (2018) Comparison of drought indices in a semi-Arid River Basin of India. Water Resour Manag 33:1–28. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-018-2089-z
Xu HJ, Wang XP, Zhao CY, Yang XM (2018) Diverse responses of vegetation growth to meteorological drought across climate zones and land biomes in northern China from 1981 to 2014. Agric For Meteorol 262:1–13
Zamaniyan MT, Behyar MB, Karimi HA, Vazifedoust M (2012) Agricultural drought monitoring and analysis using remotely sensed data from NOAA-AVHRR. Journal of Climate Research 3(9):102–103
Zand-Parsa SH, Parvizi S, Sepaskhah AR, Mahbod M (2016) Evaluation of simulated soil water content, dry matter and grain yield of winter wheat (cv. Shiraz) using WSM and AquaCrop models. JWSS 20(77):59–70 (In Persian)
Zare Abyaneh H, Ghabaei SM, Mosaedi A (2015) Drought monitoring based on standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) under the effect of climate change. Journal of Water and Soil 29(2):384–392
Zarei AR (2018) Evaluation of drought condition in arid and semi- arid regions, using RDI index. Water Resour Manag 32:1689–1711. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1898-9
Zarei AR, Mahmoudi MR (2017) Evaluation of changes in RDIst index effected by different potential evapotranspiration calculation methods. Water Resour Manag 31(15):4981–4999
Zarei AR, Moghimi MM (2017) Environmental assessment of semi-humid and humid regions based on modelling and forecasting of changes in monthly temperature. Int J Environ Sci Technol. https://doi.org/10.1007/s13762-017-1600-z
Zarei AR, Zare S, Parsamehr AH (2015) Comparison of several methods to estimate reference evapotranspiration. West Afr J App Ecol 23:17–25
Zarei AR, Shabani A, Mahmoudi MR (2019) Comparison of the climate indices based on the relationship between yield loss of rain-fed winter wheat and changes of climate indices using GEE model. Sci Total Environ 661:711–722
Zareiee AR (2014) Evaluation of changes in different climates of Iran, using De-Martonne index and Mann-Kendall trend test, natural hazards and earth system science. Discuss 2:2245–2261
Zuo D, Cai S, Xu Z, Li F, Sun W, Yang X, Kan G, Liu P (2018) Spatiotemporal patterns of drought at various time scales in Shandong Province of Eastern China. Theor Appl Climatol 131(1–2):271–284. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-016-1969-5
Acknowledgments
Authors of this paper would like to thank the national meteorological organization of Iran (www.irimo.ir) and water meteorological organization of Fars province for providing the necessary meteorological information.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Zarei, A.R., Moghimi, M.M. Modified version for SPEI to evaluate and modeling the agricultural drought severity. Int J Biometeorol 63, 911–925 (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-019-01704-2
Received:
Revised:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-019-01704-2