Figure 1.
The location of the Gönençay gauging station (D19A016).
Recently, due to changes in the global climate, there have been significant increases in flood and drought events. The changes in wet and dry periods can be examined by various methods using hydrometeorological data to analyze climate disasters. In this study, Gönençay Stream in the Asi River Basin was chosen as the study area, which contains abundant underground and surface water reserves in Türkiye. Within this region, not only are the agricultural activities intense, but also hydraulic structure applications such as dams and reservoirs draw attention. Previous studies stated that meteorological and agricultural droughts have started to be noticed in the basin. Therefore, temporal variation analyses can positively contribute to assessing possible hydrological droughts in the following years. In this context, wet and drought periods were determined using the Streamflow Drought Index method at 3, 6, 9, and 12-month time scales with monthly average flow data observed between 1990 and 2020. At the same time, the number and probabilities of drought categories on a 12-month time scale, the first expected transition times between classifications, and the expected residence times between categories were specified. The study revealed that the most severe dry period occurred between 2013 and 2014 and was classified as Extremely Drought. The wettest period was around 2018–2019 and was classified as Extremely Wet. The largest expected time residence among all classifications was calculated for the Extremely Drought category with nine months, means that if the Extremely Drought period ever occurs, it remains for approximately nine months. While the Moderately Drought period occurred within one month following the Extremely Drought duration, and a Near Normal Wet period was observed three months after the Extremely Wet period. The most seen drought category for monthly calculations was the Near Normal Wet category, and was seen over 200 times with a 52.8% probability. Considering the Gönençay region, it is possible that any Extreme drought classification eventually regresses to normal.
Citation: Serin Değerli Şimşek, Ömer Faruk Çapar, Evren Turhan. Assessment of Hydrological Drought Index change over long period (1990–2020): The case of İskenderun Gönençay Stream, Türkiye[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2023, 9(3): 441-454. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2023024
| [1] | Sajana Pramudith Hemakumara, Thilini Kaushalya, Kamal Laksiri, Miyuru B Gunathilake, Hazi Md Azamathulla, Upaka Rathnayake . Incorporation of SWAT & WEAP models for analysis of water demand deficits in the Kala Oya River Basin in Sri Lanka: perspective for climate and land change. AIMS Geosciences, 2025, 11(1): 155-200. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2025008 |
| [2] | Wahidullah Hussainzada, Han Soo Lee . Impact of land surface model schemes in snow-dominated arid and semiarid watersheds using the WRF-hydro modeling systems. AIMS Geosciences, 2024, 10(2): 312-332. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2024018 |
| [3] | Jennifer B Alford, Jose A Mora . Factors influencing chronic semi-arid headwater stream impairments: a southern California case study. AIMS Geosciences, 2022, 8(1): 98-126. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2022007 |
| [4] | Miyuru B Gunathilake, Thamashi Senerath, Upaka Rathnayake . Artificial neural network based PERSIANN data sets in evaluation of hydrologic utility of precipitation estimations in a tropical watershed of Sri Lanka. AIMS Geosciences, 2021, 7(3): 478-489. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2021027 |
| [5] | Margherita Bufalini, Farabollini Piero, Fuffa Emy, Materazzi Marco, Pambianchi Gilberto, Tromboni Michele . The significance of recent and short pluviometric time series for the assessment of flood hazard in the context of climate change: examples from some sample basins of the Adriatic Central Italy. AIMS Geosciences, 2019, 5(3): 568-590. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2019.3.568 |
| [6] | Shailesh Kumar Singh, Nelly Marcy . Comparison of Simple and Complex Hydrological Models for Predicting Catchment Discharge Under Climate Change. AIMS Geosciences, 2017, 3(3): 467-497. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2017.3.467 |
| [7] | Ramón Delanoy, Misael Díaz-Asencio, Rafael Méndez-Tejeda . Sedimentation in the Bay of Samaná, Dominican Republic (1900–2016). AIMS Geosciences, 2020, 6(3): 298-315. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2020018 |
| [8] | Shahid Latif, Firuza Mustafa . A nonparametric copula distribution framework for bivariate joint distribution analysis of flood characteristics for the Kelantan River basin in Malaysia. AIMS Geosciences, 2020, 6(2): 171-198. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2020012 |
| [9] | Wenqing Liu . A study on the spatial and temporal distribution of habitation sites in the Amur River Basin and its relationship with geographical environments. AIMS Geosciences, 2024, 10(1): 172-195. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2024010 |
| [10] | Kazuhisa A. Chikita . Environmental factors controlling stream water temperature in a forest catchment. AIMS Geosciences, 2018, 4(4): 192-214. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2018.4.192 |
Recently, due to changes in the global climate, there have been significant increases in flood and drought events. The changes in wet and dry periods can be examined by various methods using hydrometeorological data to analyze climate disasters. In this study, Gönençay Stream in the Asi River Basin was chosen as the study area, which contains abundant underground and surface water reserves in Türkiye. Within this region, not only are the agricultural activities intense, but also hydraulic structure applications such as dams and reservoirs draw attention. Previous studies stated that meteorological and agricultural droughts have started to be noticed in the basin. Therefore, temporal variation analyses can positively contribute to assessing possible hydrological droughts in the following years. In this context, wet and drought periods were determined using the Streamflow Drought Index method at 3, 6, 9, and 12-month time scales with monthly average flow data observed between 1990 and 2020. At the same time, the number and probabilities of drought categories on a 12-month time scale, the first expected transition times between classifications, and the expected residence times between categories were specified. The study revealed that the most severe dry period occurred between 2013 and 2014 and was classified as Extremely Drought. The wettest period was around 2018–2019 and was classified as Extremely Wet. The largest expected time residence among all classifications was calculated for the Extremely Drought category with nine months, means that if the Extremely Drought period ever occurs, it remains for approximately nine months. While the Moderately Drought period occurred within one month following the Extremely Drought duration, and a Near Normal Wet period was observed three months after the Extremely Wet period. The most seen drought category for monthly calculations was the Near Normal Wet category, and was seen over 200 times with a 52.8% probability. Considering the Gönençay region, it is possible that any Extreme drought classification eventually regresses to normal.
In the globalizing world, climatic changes and the time-dependent change in water consumption have significantly increased the number of natural disasters such as drought and floods. The incidence of these disasters can vary over the years, so it is critical to maintain water resources for their continuous use. Hydrological studies supplemented with historical data provide essential contributions to the preparation of water management policies more appropriately. In recent years, studies dealing with the long-term change of drought with various indices using hydrometeorological data have become more frequent, especially in arid and semi-arid areas. A common drought index is the standardized precipitation index (SPI). Unlike other indices, the SPI applies the observed precipitation measurements as the input data. The SPI method was developed by McKee et al. [1]. In the literature, there are many studies in which the SPI and meteorological drought are examined regionally [2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15]. With the SPI, the transition from dry to wet periods or vice versa can be studied during a certain period [16,17,18,19]. The index values provide a quantitative approach to the onset of drought and how it continues over time. Positive SPI values represent wet periods, while those with negative ones represent drought periods [18,20,21]. The fact that these transitions occur in large numbers affects the wet and drought formation. The streamflow drought index (SDI) method discussed in this study was developed by Nalbantis and Tsakiris [22]. Similar to the SPI calculation, only current data is used as the input data in the SDI method [23,24,25,26,27,28,29,30]. The SDI is independent of soil parameters or other properties, allowing this method to be the most practical side of this index. Additionally, wet and dry periods can be simultaneously considered. Furthermore, the practical application of the index allows researchers to examine more extensive areas as long as there are available discharge data.
Due to global climate change, problems such as decreasing precipitation and above-normal temperatures have begun to emerge. As a result, decreases in precipitation values also diminish the flow transferred to the basin, revealing hydrological, meteorological, and agricultural droughts. Consideringthe literature, many studies have focused on drought research specific to the Asi River Basin [24,31,32,33,34]. In these studies, it is stated that Extremely Drought periods are frequently observed around the Iskenderun region. While agricultural practices are a priority for the selected area, the number of water structure applications have also increased tremendously. Therefore, it is forecasted that in addition to meteorological and agricultural drought studies, examining hydrological drought indices over long periods will be helpful for feasibility evaluations. Moreover, the transition probabilities between drought classifications based on the hydrological drought approach for the Iskenderun region will significantly contribute to the literature. With the occurrence of a probability analysis, index outcomes become more understandable. Since agricultural and hydrological drought may cause significant adverse effects in this region, it is crucial to acknowledge and digitize the output of indexes. In this study, the Gönençay Stream in the Asi River Basin was determined as the study site by using the monthly average flow data between 1990–2020; wet and drought periods were investigated with the SDI method at 3, 6, 9, and 12-month time scales. In the literature, most drought indexes are examined by themselves. Without any further probability of occurrence studies, it is hard to visualize and foresee the possible drought expectancies. The prominent aspect of the study in the literature can be stated as the inspected historical or possible future drought occurrences. For a more detailed analysis, the occurrence probabilities of eight drought classifications for a 12-month time scale, the first expected transition times between classifications, and the expected residence times between categories were considered. With this additional feature, this study differs from the drought index researches made, especially in the Asi River Basin. Thanks to this part of the study, not only were wet and dry period investigations carried out, but also occurrence frequencies and probabilities of these periods were taken into account.
The Asi River Basin is considered as one of the most crucial basins of Turkey in terms of water resource potential. This reserve consists of both underground and above-surface water resources. The fruitful agricultural areas of the Gönençay region also have a great importance for economic development. Although most of the water utilized is provided from underground resources, surface water can also be considered a primary resource in the future. With the scope of the study, data between 1990 and 2020 from the gauging station no. D19A016 on Gönençayı Stream near İskenderun were preferred (Figure 1). The D19A016 station is between 36o 26' 16" north latitude and 36o 01' 08" east longitude. The catchment area of the station is 94 km2, and its elevation value is 240 m. During the observation period, the average monthly flow value was approximately 1.40 m3/s. Additionally, the minimum discharge is 0.010 m3/s, and the maximum flow rate is 78.40 m3/s [35]. The data were divided into three periods, 1990–2000, 2001–2010, and 2011–2020, and analyzed in detail to determine the number of wet and drought years.
Although the SPI represents meteorological drought and the SDI represents hydrological drought, there are some similar features in both index computations, which are widely preferred in the literature for various time scales [1]. While the SPI method only accepts the observed precipitation data as variables, the SDI method applies discharge data as the input parameter [22]. In addition to both the SPI and DPI methods having common advantages, there are also some disadvantages. For example, both indices have a single type of data, and the precision of the results can vary depending on the length of this data series [36]. In addition, it is stated in the literature that effective results may not be obtained for indices that have only one input data and are calculated with probability distribution formulations unless the probability distributions are well determined. Therefore, this study calculated the indice according to the normal distribution, considered one of the most basic probability distributions [37]. The flow data specified in Equation 1 is shown as Qa, b, where "a" represents the hydrological year, "b" means the month in a water year, and k symbolizes the reference period. Equation 1 expresses the way the cumulative flow volume is evaluated in the SDI method [26]:
| Va,k=3k∑b=1Qa,b a=1,2,…b=1,2,….,12 k=1,2,3,4 | (1) |
In Equations 1 and 2, k = 1 represents the October-December period, k = 2 represents the October-March period, k = 3 represents the October-June period, and k = 4 represents the October-September period were implemented for the calculations. The SDI values for each k period of a hydrological year according to the cumulative discharge volumes are obtained as follows [26] (Equation 2):
| SDIa,k=Vak−¯VkSk, k=1,2,3,4 | (2) |
¯Vk and Sk in the Equation 2 symbolizes the cumulative flow rate's average and standard deviation values, respectively. In Equation 2, Vak is a streamflow value of specified time ("a" indice as water year and "k" as period of the year). Eight different classifications ranging from Extremely Wet to Extremely Drought were specified to examine at what level the results represent the wet and drought periods. The classifications are shown in Table 1 [29]:
| SDI Values | Classification |
| SDI ≤ −2 | Extremely Drought (ED) |
| −2 < SDI ≤ −1.5 | Severely Drought (SD) |
| −1.5 < SD I≤ −1 | Moderately Drought (MD) |
| −1 < SDI ≤ 0 | Near Normal Drought (ND) |
| 0 < SDI ≤ 1 | Near Normal Wet (NW) |
| 1 < SDI ≤ 1.5 | Moderately Wet (MW) |
| 1.5 < SDI ≤ 2 | Severely Wet (SW) |
| SDI > 2 | Extremely Wet (EW) |
DownLoad:
CSV
This study aimed to examine hydrological drought over time. In this context, the Gönençay Stream in the Asi River Basin was selected as the study area because of its abundant water reserves. From the recorded discharge data between 1990–2020, wet and drought periods were evaluated with the SDI method at 3, 6, 9, and 12-month time scales. In addition, the number and probability of occurrence, the first expected transition times between classifications, and the expected residence times between categories were also assessed in a 12-month time scale.
Considering the inferences obtained from the study, the most intense drought period occurred between 2013 and 2014 with the Extremely Drought classification [33]. Additionally, the wettest period occured between 2018 and 2019 with the Extremely Wet classification. In the first ten years, wet period numbers were predominant for 8 years, while in the last 20 years, there was an increase in the frequency of dry periods and wet periods counted as 12 out of 20 [31,34]. Moreover, wet and drought periods in the first ten years were generally at the Moderately level. However, for the last ten years, there was an increase in the severity of wet and drought periods because the SDI values in the Moderate category changed to Extreme (Figure 2).
There was always a continuous drought period between 2003 and 2008 [29]. This drought duration was determined as the most extensive continuous period ever. Hence, from the trend change, it can be said that the SDI-3 July period is the most vulnerable duration (Figure 3).
While there was an extended wet period in 1990–2000, it is seen that the effect of Severely and Extremely Drought periods have increased since 2000. Although the Extremely Drought period in 2013 was noticed in all 3, 6, 9, and 12 time periods, it is noteworthy that the highest values are in SDI-9. In Figure 3, the SDI-9 panel displays an increase in drought periods in addition to the reduction in wet periods. Considering the comparison of the SDI values in the same period, which horizontal straight lines considered as the most compatible, it is seen that all drought category values of SDI-9 and SDI-12 have been in great accordance since 2000. However, according to the SDI-3 and SDI-6 values, it is noteworthy that the drought periods are more compatible than the wet ones (Figure 4).
Focusing on an annual basis, an upsurge is observed in the number of Near Normal periods, while there is no significant difference in the number of drought periods (Figure 5). It is assumed that this situation resulted in a decrease in the number of wet periods. From SDI-3 to SDI-12, it can be seen that the periodic effects diminish and partially turn into the Near Normal periods. For SDI-3, there is a drought period of 99 months, which gradually decreases to 90 by SDI-12. However, the opposite case was seen for normal periods, which were 118 for SDI-3 and 136 for SDI-12.
Nonetheless, considered on a monthly basis, the driest periods for the SDI-3 values occurred in the SDI-3 October period, and the wettest periods occured in the SDI-3 April duration. For the SDI-6 values, it is a crucial detail that while the SDI-6 April period is predicted to be drier, the Near Normal periods are more in number [18]. SDI-12 values were found to have the least number of drought periods (Figure 6).
As stated in Table 2, the Near Normal Wet periods were the most frequent, with a 52.8% probability of occurrence and was observed 205 times. However, the Severely Wet period only occured three times, with an 8% percentage.
| Occurence Properties | ||
| Number of drought classifications | Probability of occurrence | |
| Drought Classifications | ||
| Extremely Drought | 19 | 0.049 |
| Severely Drought | 4 | 0.010 |
| Moderately Drought | 21 | 0.054 |
| Near Normal Drought | 95 | 0.245 |
| Near Normal Wet | 205 | 0.528 |
| Moderately Wet | 28 | 0.072 |
| Severely Wet | 3 | 0.008 |
| Extremely Wet | 13 | 0.034 |
DownLoad:
CSV
The low incidence of the Severely Wet and Severely Drought periods indicates two circumstances, which are the transitions from the Moderately Drought period directly to the Extremely Drought period, and from the Moderately Wet to the Extremely Wet period. Since the wetness of the region turned into drought over the years, the 30-year data series was examined in 3 groups (Table 3). In the first group identified, between 1990–2000, maximum drought and maximum wet periods were spotted. There was a rapid increase in drought periods between 2001–2010 in the transition to the second time zone. For the third period, between 2011–2020, the number of wet periods seems to be the same as the 1990–2000 period, while there are significant differences between the dry periods in the two durations. According to the expected residence times in all classifications, the Extremely Drought period lasted the most, with a 9-month waiting period (Figure 7). Among the classifications, the Severely Wet period has the least expected residence time. Although the Near-Normal Wet and Near-Normal Drought periods seem more abundant, they occur less frequently compared to the Extremely Drought periods. It is thought that this situation mostly happened because the classifications accepted in the normal category are seen more frequently in a shorter time interval.
| Number of drought months | Number of wet months | |||||||
| Years | SDI-3 | SDI-6 | SDI-9 | SDI-12 | SDI-3 | SDI-6 | SDI-9 | SDI-12 |
| 1990–2000 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 53 | 47 | 34 | 30 |
| 2001–2010 | 52 | 55 | 33 | 34 | 9 | 18 | 24 | 30 |
| 2011–2020 | 37 | 35 | 54 | 52 | 34 | 39 | 40 | 40 |
DownLoad:
CSV
The expected transition period refers to the average time it takes to transition from a dry to a wet period (Figure 8). While the expected residence time for a Moderately Drought period is calculated as two months, its expected transition time is 27 months. In this case, it can be said that the transition to the wet period will take longer in the case of the Moderately Drought encountered. Considering the 1, 2, and 3 months after the end of the wet and drought period classifications, the Moderately Drought period was always observed one month after the Extremely Drought period. This inference supports the idea that the Severely Drought period does not follow the Extremely Drought period; instead, there is a direct transition to a Moderately Drought classification. Likewise, the occurrence of a Near Normal Wet period indicates a sudden conversion between the Extremely and Near Normal period classifications.
| 1 Month Later | 2 Months Later | 3 Months Later | ||||
| Most Possible Category | Probability | Most Possible Category | Probability | Most Possible Category | Probability | |
| Extremely Drought | Moderately Drought | 1.000 | Near Normal Drought | 1.000 | Near Normal Drought | 0.500 |
| Severely Drought | Moderately Drought | 0.670 | Moderately Drought | 0.670 | Moderately Drought | 0.330 |
| Moderately Drought | Near Normal Drought | 0.570 | Near Normal Drought | 0.570 | Near Normal Drought | 0.570 |
| Near Normal Drought | Near Normal Wet | 0.700 | Near Normal Wet | 0.400 | Near Normal Drought | 0.700 |
| Near Normal Wet | Near Normal Drought | 0.670 | Near Normal Drought | 0.670 | Near Normal Drought | 0.670 |
| Moderately Wet | Near Normal Wet | 0.380 | Near Normal Wet | 0.380 | Near Normal Wet | 0.380 |
| Severely Wet | Moderately Wet | 0.670 | Near Normal Wet | 0.670 | Near Normal Wet | 0.670 |
| Extremely Wet | Severely Wet | 0.670 | Moderately Wet | 1.000 | Near Normal Wet | 1.000 |
DownLoad:
CSV
The results of the study carried out with flow data from the Gönençay River, which stands out with its agricultural production in the Asi River Basin, can be summarized as follows:
● Most drought periods occured between 2013–2014; this finding is compatible with previous studies, as they mentioned extreme drought events that were seen in the Dörtyol and İskenderun regions of the Basin after 1990 [33].
● The wettest periods of the region occurred in the first ten years. This also makes sense with previous studies indicating a significant decrease in wet periods after 2000 [31,32,33,34].
● The number of drought periods increases significantly over time [31,32,33,34].
● A continuous drought period appeared between 2003–2008 for all time periods. Even though the SDI values between 2008–2010 turn slightly positive, they are still in line with other studies that address the Asi Basin [30,31,32,33,34].
● For all time periods, it is seen that the Near Normal durations are more in number. Additionally, as the time periods get larger, the SDI values ranges diminish, thence it is expected to see an increase in the number of Near Normal periods [18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27,28,29].
● Any Extreme drought classification seems to eventually regress to normal for the Gönençay region. The duration in question may vary from one to six months.
The incidence of natural disasters such as floods and droughts has been increasing recently. It is safe to say that this situation is mainly caused by global climate change, but it is also related to the malpractices of people in nature. Climate analysis with precipitation records will positively contribute to future forecasting studies to minimize the possible effects of these problems. In this study, the Gönençay Stream in the Asi River Basin, which has critical water resources in Türkiye, was chosen as the study area. Using observations between 1990–2020, wet and drought periods were analyzed by the SDI method at 3, 6, 9, and 12-month scales. Additionally, eight different wet and dry period classifications were divided for the 12-month time scale, and the number of drought occurrences and their probabilities, the first expected transition times between the classifications, and the expected residence times between the categories were analyzed.
Consequently, the most severe drought occured between 2013–2014 and were given the Extremely Drought classification. The wettest period occurred between 2018–2019 and was in the Extremely Wet category. While the drought period persisted between 2003 and 2008, there was also an uninterrupted wet period between 1990 and 2000. The expected residence times in all classifications were examined, and the longest residence time was detected in the Extremely Drought period with nine months. However, it has been concluded that the Near Normal Wet and Near Normal Drought periods occured with fewer residence times. While the Moderately Drought period occurred one month after the Extremely Drought period, the Near Normal Wet period was consistently seen three months after the Extremely Wet period. While the study area is crucial in terms of agriculture, water structure applications have developed rapidly in recent years. Therefore, various drought indices and long-term hydrological analyzes will provide essential knowledge for future feasibility studies. Addititionally, for upcoming studies, indices with more than one input parameter can be preferred if using only one kind of input data affects drought estimations; on the other hand, deep learning techniques and hybrid induce techniques may provide a different approach to the drought problem. Hydrometeorological evaluations and projection estimation models to with different drought indices should be utilized for future studies, which will be able to create solutions to current environmental problems.
The authors thank the General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works (DSI, location: Ankara, Turkey) for yielding the streamflow gauge station data within the study context.
The authors declare they have not used Artificial Intelligence (AI) tools in the creation of this article.
The authors declare no conflict of interest.
| [1] | McKee TB, Doesken NJ, Kleist J (1993) The relationship of drought frequency and duration to time scales. Proc 8th Conf Appl Climatol 17: 179–183. |
| [2] |
Zhang N, Xia Z, Zhang S, et al. (2012) Temporal and spatial characteristics of precipitation and droughts in the upper reaches of the Yangtze River basin (China) in recent five decades. J Hydroinf 14: 221–235. https://doi.org/10.2166/hydro.2011.097 doi: 10.2166/hydro.2011.097
|
| [3] | Łabędzki L, Bąk B (2014) Meteorological and agricultural drought indices used in drought monitoring in Poland: a review. Meteorology Hydrology and Water Management. Meteorol Hydrol Water Manage Res Oper Appl 2: 3–13. |
| [4] |
Rahmat SN, Jayasuriya N, Bhuiyan M (2015) Assessing droughts using meteorological drought indices in Victoria, Australia. Hydrol Res 46: 463–476. https://doi.org/10.2166/nh.2014.105 doi: 10.2166/nh.2014.105
|
| [5] |
Oloruntade AJ, Mohammad TA, Ghazali AH, et al. (2017) Analysis of meteorological and hydrological droughts in the Niger-South Basin, Nigeria. Global Planet Change 155: 225–233. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.05.002 doi: 10.1016/j.gloplacha.2017.05.002
|
| [6] |
Fung KF, Huang YF, Koo CH, et al. (2019) Standardized precipitation index (SPI) and standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) drought characteristic and trend analysis using the second-generation Canadian earth system model (CanESM2) outputs under representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5. Carpath J Earth Env 14: 399–408. https://doi.org/10.26471/cjees/2019/014/089 doi: 10.26471/cjees/2019/014/089
|
| [7] |
Sofiane K, Abdesselam M, Nekkache GA (2019) Long-term seasonal characterization and evolution of extreme drought and flooding variability in northwest Algeria. Meteorol Hydrol Water Manage 7: 63–71. https://doi.org/10.26491/mhwm/106101 doi: 10.26491/mhwm/106101
|
| [8] |
Bong CHJ, Richard J (2020) Drought and climate change assessment using standardized precipitation index (SPI) for Sarawak River Basin. J Water Clim Change 11: 956–965. https://doi.org/10.2166/wcc.2019.036 doi: 10.2166/wcc.2019.036
|
| [9] |
Fellag M, Achite M, Walega A (2021) Spatial-temporal characterization of meteorological drought using the Standardized precipitation index Case study in Algeria. Acta Sci Pol Formatio Circumiectus 20: 19–31. https://doi.org/10.15576/ASP.FC/2021.20.1.19 doi: 10.15576/ASP.FC/2021.20.1.19
|
| [10] |
Esit M, Yuce MI (2022) Comprehensive evaluation of trend analysis of extreme drought events in the Ceyhan River Basin, Turkey. Meteorol Hydrol Water Manage 10. https://doi.org/10.26491/mhwm/154573 doi: 10.26491/mhwm/154573
|
| [11] |
Minh HVT, Kumar P, Van Ty T, et al. (2022) Understanding Dry and Wet Conditions in the Vietnamese Mekong Delta Using Multiple Drought Indices: A Case Study in Ca Mau Province. Hydrology 9: 213. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology9120213 doi: 10.3390/hydrology9120213
|
| [12] |
Kebaili Bargaoui Z, Jemai S (2022) SPI-3 Analysis of Medjerda River Basin and Gamma Model Limits in Semi-Arid and Arid Contexts. Atmosphere 13: 2021. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos13122021 doi: 10.3390/atmos13122021
|
| [13] |
Adnan RM, Dai HL, Kuriqi A, et al. (2023) Improving drought modeling based on new heuristic machine learning methods. Ain Shams Eng J 14: 102168. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.asej.2023.102168 doi: 10.1016/j.asej.2023.102168
|
| [14] |
Młyński D, Wałęga A, Kuriqi A (2021) Influence of meteorological drought on environmental flows in mountain catchments. Ecol Indic 133: 108460. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108460 doi: 10.1016/j.ecolind.2021.108460
|
| [15] |
Adnan RM, Mostafa RR, Islam ARMT, et al. (2021) Improving drought modeling using hybrid random vector functional link methods. Water 13: 3379. https://doi.org/10.3390/w13233379 doi: 10.3390/w13233379
|
| [16] |
Amirataee B, Montaseri M (2017) The performance of SPI and PNPI in analyzing the spatial and temporal trend of dry and wet periods over Iran. Nat Hazards 86: 89–106. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11069-016-2675-4 doi: 10.1007/s11069-016-2675-4
|
| [17] |
Şişman E (2019) Su Talep Seviyesine Göre Kurak ve Sulak Dönem Analizi. Dicle Üniversitesi Mühendislik Fakültesi Mühendislik Dergisi 10: 301–310. (In Turkish). https://doi.org/10.24012/dumf.449592 doi: 10.24012/dumf.449592
|
| [18] |
Turhan E, Değerli S (2021) Analysis of Wet and Drought Periods based on Streamflow Data in the Fırtına Creek Sub-basin between 1965–2015 years. Black Sea J Sci 11: 277–288. https://doi.org/10.31466/kfbd.915979 doi: 10.31466/kfbd.915979
|
| [19] |
Moccia B, Mineo C, Ridolfi E, et al. (2022) SPI-Based Drought Classification in Italy: Influence of Different Probability Distribution Functions. Water 14: 3668. https://doi.org/10.3390/w14223668 doi: 10.3390/w14223668
|
| [20] | Akar Ö, Oğuz İ, Yürekli K (2015) Comparison of Dry and Wet Periods with the Help of Some Drought Indexes in İkikara Watershed. J Agric Fac Gaziosmanpaşa Univ 32: 7–13. |
| [21] |
Musonda B, Jing Y, Iyakaremye V, et al. (2020) Analysis of long-term variations of drought characteristics using standardized precipitation index over Zambia. Atmosphere 11: 1268. https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos11121268 doi: 10.3390/atmos11121268
|
| [22] | Nalbantis I (2008) Evaluation of a hydrological drought index. Eur Water 23: 67–77. |
| [23] |
Hong X, Guo S, Zhou Y, et al. (2015) Uncertainties in assessing hydrological drought using streamflow drought index for the upper Yangtze River basin. Stoch Environ Res Risk Assess 29: 1235–1247. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00477-014-0949-5 doi: 10.1007/s00477-014-0949-5
|
| [24] | Gümüş V (2017) Hydrological Drought Analysis of Asi River Basin with Streamflow Drought Index. Gazi Univ Fen Blm Derg 5: 65–73. |
| [25] | Kubiak-Wójcicka K, Zeleňáková M, Purcz P, et al. (2019) The use of a Standardized Runoff Indicator for hydrological characterization of selected rivers of Poland and Slovakia. Rocznik Ochrona Środowiska 21: 167–183. |
| [26] |
Yaltı S, Aksu H (2019) Drought Analysis of Iğdır Turkey. Turk J Agric Food Sci Technol 7: 2227–2232. https://doi.org/10.24925/turjaf.v7i12.2227-2232.3004 doi: 10.24925/turjaf.v7i12.2227-2232.3004
|
| [27] |
Ozkaya A, Zerberg Y (2019) A 40-year analysis of the hydrological drought index for the Tigris Basin, Turkey. Water 11: 657. https://doi.org/10.3390/w11040657 doi: 10.3390/w11040657
|
| [28] |
Turhan E, Duyan Çulha B, Değerli S (2022) Hydrological Evaluation of Streamflow Drought Index Method for Different Time Scales: A Case Study of Arsuz Plain, Turkey. J Nat Hazards Environ 8: 25–36. https://doi.org/10.21324/dacd.903655 doi: 10.21324/dacd.903655
|
| [29] |
Turhan E, Değerli S, Çatal EN (2022) Long-term hydrological drought analysis in agricultural irrigation area: The case of Dörtyol-Erzin Plain, Turkey. Curr Trends Nat Sci 11: 501–512. https://doi.org/10.47068/ctns.2022.v11i21.054 doi: 10.47068/ctns.2022.v11i21.054
|
| [30] |
Hasan HH, Razali SFM, Muhammad NS, et al. (2022) Modified Hydrological Drought Risk Assessment Based on Spatial and Temporal Approaches. Sustainability 14: 6337. https://doi.org/10.3390/su14106337 doi: 10.3390/su14106337
|
| [31] |
Dikici M (2020) Drought analysis with different indices for the Asi Basin (Turkey). Sci Rep 10: 20739. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-77827-z doi: 10.1038/s41598-020-77827-z
|
| [32] |
Dikici M, Aksel M (2021) Evaluation of two vegetation indices (NDVI and VCI) Over Asi Basin in Turkey. Teknik Dergi 32: 10995–11011. https://doi.org/10.18400/tekderg.590356 doi: 10.18400/tekderg.590356
|
| [33] |
Topçu E, Seçkin N, Haktanır NA (2022) Drought analyses of Eastern Mediterranean, Seyhan, Ceyhan, and Asi Basins by using aggregate drought index (ADI). Theor Appl Climatol 147: 909–924. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-021-03873-w doi: 10.1007/s00704-021-03873-w
|
| [34] |
Topçu E, Seçkin N (2022) Drought assessment using the reconnaissance drought index (RDI): A case study of Eastern Mediterranean, Seyhan, Ceyhan, and Asi basins of Turkey. J Eng Res 10. https://doi.org/10.36909/jer.12113 doi: 10.36909/jer.12113
|
| [35] | The General Directorate of State Hydraulic Works, Türkiye (DSI), Annual Streamflow Observation Records (1986–2020). Head of Study and Planning Department, Ankara, 2015. Available from: https://www.dsi.gov.tr/Sayfa/Detay/744. |
| [36] |
Hänsel S, Schucknecht A, Matschullat J (2016) The Modified Rainfall Anomaly Index (mRAI)—is this an alternative to the Standardised Precipitation Index (SPI) in evaluating future extreme precipitation characteristics. Theor Appl Climatol 123: 827–844. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-015-1389-y doi: 10.1007/s00704-015-1389-y
|
| [37] |
Mahmoudi P, Ghaemi A, Rigi A, et al. (2021) Recommendations for modifying the Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) for drought monitoring in arid and semi-arid regions. Water Resour Manage 35: 3253–3275. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-021-02891-7 doi: 10.1007/s11269-021-02891-7
|
| 1. | Serin Değerli Şimşek, Evren Turhan, An evaluation of spatiotemporal changes of meteorological drought in the Mediterranean sub-basins in Türkiye using discrepancy precipitation and standardized precipitation index, 2024, 0921-030X, 10.1007/s11069-024-06906-5 |
Serin Değerli Şimşek, Ömer Faruk Çapar, Evren Turhan. Assessment of Hydrological Drought Index change over long period (1990–2020): The case of İskenderun Gönençay Stream, Türkiye[J]. AIMS Geosciences, 2023, 9(3): 441-454. doi: 10.3934/geosci.2023024
| SDI Values | Classification |
| SDI ≤ −2 | Extremely Drought (ED) |
| −2 < SDI ≤ −1.5 | Severely Drought (SD) |
| −1.5 < SD I≤ −1 | Moderately Drought (MD) |
| −1 < SDI ≤ 0 | Near Normal Drought (ND) |
| 0 < SDI ≤ 1 | Near Normal Wet (NW) |
| 1 < SDI ≤ 1.5 | Moderately Wet (MW) |
| 1.5 < SDI ≤ 2 | Severely Wet (SW) |
| SDI > 2 | Extremely Wet (EW) |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Occurence Properties | ||
| Number of drought classifications | Probability of occurrence | |
| Drought Classifications | ||
| Extremely Drought | 19 | 0.049 |
| Severely Drought | 4 | 0.010 |
| Moderately Drought | 21 | 0.054 |
| Near Normal Drought | 95 | 0.245 |
| Near Normal Wet | 205 | 0.528 |
| Moderately Wet | 28 | 0.072 |
| Severely Wet | 3 | 0.008 |
| Extremely Wet | 13 | 0.034 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| Number of drought months | Number of wet months | |||||||
| Years | SDI-3 | SDI-6 | SDI-9 | SDI-12 | SDI-3 | SDI-6 | SDI-9 | SDI-12 |
| 1990–2000 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 53 | 47 | 34 | 30 |
| 2001–2010 | 52 | 55 | 33 | 34 | 9 | 18 | 24 | 30 |
| 2011–2020 | 37 | 35 | 54 | 52 | 34 | 39 | 40 | 40 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| 1 Month Later | 2 Months Later | 3 Months Later | ||||
| Most Possible Category | Probability | Most Possible Category | Probability | Most Possible Category | Probability | |
| Extremely Drought | Moderately Drought | 1.000 | Near Normal Drought | 1.000 | Near Normal Drought | 0.500 |
| Severely Drought | Moderately Drought | 0.670 | Moderately Drought | 0.670 | Moderately Drought | 0.330 |
| Moderately Drought | Near Normal Drought | 0.570 | Near Normal Drought | 0.570 | Near Normal Drought | 0.570 |
| Near Normal Drought | Near Normal Wet | 0.700 | Near Normal Wet | 0.400 | Near Normal Drought | 0.700 |
| Near Normal Wet | Near Normal Drought | 0.670 | Near Normal Drought | 0.670 | Near Normal Drought | 0.670 |
| Moderately Wet | Near Normal Wet | 0.380 | Near Normal Wet | 0.380 | Near Normal Wet | 0.380 |
| Severely Wet | Moderately Wet | 0.670 | Near Normal Wet | 0.670 | Near Normal Wet | 0.670 |
| Extremely Wet | Severely Wet | 0.670 | Moderately Wet | 1.000 | Near Normal Wet | 1.000 |
DownLoad:
CSV
| SDI Values | Classification |
| SDI ≤ −2 | Extremely Drought (ED) |
| −2 < SDI ≤ −1.5 | Severely Drought (SD) |
| −1.5 < SD I≤ −1 | Moderately Drought (MD) |
| −1 < SDI ≤ 0 | Near Normal Drought (ND) |
| 0 < SDI ≤ 1 | Near Normal Wet (NW) |
| 1 < SDI ≤ 1.5 | Moderately Wet (MW) |
| 1.5 < SDI ≤ 2 | Severely Wet (SW) |
| SDI > 2 | Extremely Wet (EW) |
| Occurence Properties | ||
| Number of drought classifications | Probability of occurrence | |
| Drought Classifications | ||
| Extremely Drought | 19 | 0.049 |
| Severely Drought | 4 | 0.010 |
| Moderately Drought | 21 | 0.054 |
| Near Normal Drought | 95 | 0.245 |
| Near Normal Wet | 205 | 0.528 |
| Moderately Wet | 28 | 0.072 |
| Severely Wet | 3 | 0.008 |
| Extremely Wet | 13 | 0.034 |
| Number of drought months | Number of wet months | |||||||
| Years | SDI-3 | SDI-6 | SDI-9 | SDI-12 | SDI-3 | SDI-6 | SDI-9 | SDI-12 |
| 1990–2000 | 10 | 8 | 6 | 4 | 53 | 47 | 34 | 30 |
| 2001–2010 | 52 | 55 | 33 | 34 | 9 | 18 | 24 | 30 |
| 2011–2020 | 37 | 35 | 54 | 52 | 34 | 39 | 40 | 40 |
| 1 Month Later | 2 Months Later | 3 Months Later | ||||
| Most Possible Category | Probability | Most Possible Category | Probability | Most Possible Category | Probability | |
| Extremely Drought | Moderately Drought | 1.000 | Near Normal Drought | 1.000 | Near Normal Drought | 0.500 |
| Severely Drought | Moderately Drought | 0.670 | Moderately Drought | 0.670 | Moderately Drought | 0.330 |
| Moderately Drought | Near Normal Drought | 0.570 | Near Normal Drought | 0.570 | Near Normal Drought | 0.570 |
| Near Normal Drought | Near Normal Wet | 0.700 | Near Normal Wet | 0.400 | Near Normal Drought | 0.700 |
| Near Normal Wet | Near Normal Drought | 0.670 | Near Normal Drought | 0.670 | Near Normal Drought | 0.670 |
| Moderately Wet | Near Normal Wet | 0.380 | Near Normal Wet | 0.380 | Near Normal Wet | 0.380 |
| Severely Wet | Moderately Wet | 0.670 | Near Normal Wet | 0.670 | Near Normal Wet | 0.670 |
| Extremely Wet | Severely Wet | 0.670 | Moderately Wet | 1.000 | Near Normal Wet | 1.000 |
