4.7 Article

A Time-Dependent Drought Index for Non-Stationary Precipitation Series

期刊

WATER RESOURCES MANAGEMENT
卷 29, 期 15, 页码 5631-5647

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s11269-015-1138-0

关键词

Drought; Standardized precipitation index; Time-dependent standardized precipitation index; Non-stationarity; GAMLSS

资金

  1. National Natural Science Foundation of China [51479130]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

In a rapidly changing environment, a greater concern about the establishment and improvement of drought indices is expected. The main goal of this study is to develop and apply a time-dependent Standardized Precipitation Index (SPIt) that takes account of the possible non-stationary behaviors in precipitation records. Summer precipitation observations (1959 similar to 2011) from 21 raingauge stations in the Luanhe River basin are fitted with non-stationary Gamma distributions respectively by means of the Generalized Additive Models in Location, Scale and Shape (GAMLSS). The temporal variability of the distribution's parameter (related to the mean) is flexibly described by an optimized polynomial function. Based on the non-stationary distribution, the SPIt is calculated and then employed to assess the spatio-temporal characteristics of summer drought in the basin. Results of the non-stationary modeling indicate an overall decreasing trend in the summer precipitation during 1959 similar to 2011, and especially a significant decrease in the period of 2000 to 2011. The SPIt is found to be more robust and reliable compared with the traditional Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI). Moreover, remarkable difference is observed between the historical drought assessments of SPIt and SPI in the Luanhe River basin, implying that the non-stationarity of hydrological time series cannot be ignored in drought analyses and forecasts. The proposed SPIt method can be a feasible alternative for drought monitoring under non-stationary conditions, intended to provide a valuable reference for further studies.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据