4.7 Article

Global Assessment of the Standardized Evapotranspiration Deficit Index (SEDI) for Drought Analysis and Monitoring

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLIMATE
Volume 31, Issue 14, Pages 5371-5393

Publisher

AMER METEOROLOGICAL SOC
DOI: 10.1175/JCLI-D-17-0775.1

Keywords

Drought; Evapotranspiration; Hydrometeorology; Indices; Climate variability

Funding

  1. Spanish Commission of Science and Technology [PCIN-2015-220, CGL2014-52135-C03-01]
  2. FEDER
  3. Water Works 2014
  4. FORMAS (Sweden)
  5. DLR (Germany)
  6. BMWFW (Austria)
  7. IFD (Denmark)
  8. MINECO (Spain)
  9. ANR (France)
  10. European Union [690462]
  11. European Research Council (ERC) [715254]
  12. Spanish Ministry of Economy and Competitiveness
  13. Ministerio de Educacion, Cultura y Deporte

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This article developed and implemented a new methodology for calculating the standardized evapotranspiration deficit index (SEDI) globally based on the log-logistic distribution to fit the evaporation deficit (ED), the difference between actual evapotranspiration (ETa) and atmospheric evaporative demand (AED). Our findings demonstrate that, regardless of the AED dataset used, a log-logistic distribution most optimally fitted the ED time series. As such, in many regions across the terrestrial globe, the SEDI is insensitive to the AED method used for calculation, with the exception of winter months and boreal regions. The SEDI showed significant correlations (p < 0.05) with the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index (SPEI) across a wide range of regions, particularly for short (<3 month) SPEI time scales. This work provides a robust approach for calculating spatially and temporally comparable SEDI estimates, regardless of the climate region and land surface conditions, and it assesses the performance and the applicability of the SEDI to quantify drought severity across varying crop and natural vegetation areas.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.7
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available