Agricultural Drought Indices - US Department of Agriculture

More documents

Recommendations

Info

indices that are combined using a simple D0-D4 scheme and a percentile ranking methodology (Table 1) to look at addressing both short- and long-term drought across the United States. The key indicators/indices revolve around monitoring precipitation, temperature, streamflow, soil moisture, snowpack, and snow water equivalent. Various indices, such as the SPI and PDSI, are incorporated and integrated with remotely sensed vegetation indices to come up with a “blended convergence of evidence” approach in dealing with drought severity. The ranking percentile approach allows the user to compare and contrast indicators originally having different periods of record and units into one comprehensive indicator that addresses the customized needs of any given user. The approach also allows for flexibility and adaptation to the latest indices, indicators, and data that become available over time. It is a blending of objective science and subjective experience and guidance through the integration of impacts and reports from local experts at the field level. The impacts covered and labeled on the map are (A) for agricultural and (H) for hydrological drought. Nearly 300 local experts from across the country view the draft maps and provide their input, data, and impacts to either support or refute the initial depiction. An iterative process works through all the indicators, indices, data, and field input until a compromise is found for the week. The process then repeats itself the next week and so on. In addition, a set of Objective Drought Indicator Blends (OBDI) is used to help guide the process. This method combines a different set of indicators to produce separate short- and long-term blend maps that take various indices with variable weightings (depending on region and type of drought) to produce a composite set of maps, which are updated weekly. More details and information on the USDM, its classification scheme, and the Objective Blends can be found at http://drought.unl.edu/dm. Figure 4. The USDM for March 1, 2011. Table 1. The U.S. Drought Monitor classification and ranking percentile scheme. Category Description Ranking percentile D0 Abnormally Dry 30 D1 Moderate 20 D2 Severe 10 D3 Extreme 5 D4 Exceptional 2 Source: National Drought Mitigation Center, USDA, NOAA. 117
The North American Drought Monitor: Three years after the USDM was launched, the North American Drought Monitor (Lawrimore et al. 2002) (Figure 5) debuted in 2002 as an “experimental” monthly product that is forged out of a partnership between several entities in Canada, Mexico, and the United States. Since that time, the experimental label has been shed. As with the U.S. Drought Monitor, the NADM blends science and art. There is no one “correct” way to measure drought. Drought indices are used to detect and measure droughts, but different indices measure drought in different ways, and no single index works under all circumstances (Heim 2002). The ranking percentile principal is the same, but the inputs vary slightly depending on which parameters are readily available to the respective agencies involved in each country. As the process stands now, each country follows the same basic methodology, utilizing their own indicators to depict drought conditions within their borders. The monthly author (which rotates between the three countries) is then responsible for working out the merging of the GIS shape files and reconciling any disputes along the borders. Impact and data information are exchanged in working out any differences in an iterative fashion until all issues are resolved. More information and details on the NADM can be found at http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-andprecip/drought/nadm/index.html. Figure 5. North American Drought Monitor for January 2011. (http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/temp-andprecip/drought/nadm/nadm-maps.php) The Objective Blends Over time, the USDM authors have been asked at various professional meetings and forums why we do not create two separate USDMs for the short- and long-term periods and why we do not have a Flood Monitor. The questions have been relatively simple to answer: decision makers want one map with one number to interpret and the media want one product to display and disseminate, whether it be for droughts or floods. As a means of addressing the need for two maps and for those wanting to dig deeper into the science, a short-term (agricultural) (Figure 6) and a long-term (hydrological) (Figure 7) OBDI were initially tested experimentally over a 12-18 month period and are now used in giving an automated, computer-generated snapshot each week by climate division. 118
Page 1 and 2:
Agricultural Drought Indices Procee
Page 3 and 4:
© World Meteorological Organizatio
Page 5 and 6:
Page 7 and 8:
Preface With the world population p
Page 9 and 10:
Segura River Basin: Spanish Pilot R
Page 11 and 12:
Table 3. Segura River Basin resourc
Page 13 and 14:
Figure 5. Segura River Basin water
Page 15 and 16:
Drought Indicator Expression After
Page 17 and 18:
Table 5. Analysis of drought impact
Page 19 and 20:
Even with this drought action plan
Page 21 and 22:
that complicates water management b
Page 23 and 24:
Understanding the nature of the haz
Page 25 and 26:
Figure 2. U.S. Drought Monitor for
Page 27 and 28:
Summary Drought is a creeping pheno
Page 29 and 30:
Agricultural Drought—WMO Perspect
Page 31 and 32:
c) CAgM-VI (Washington, USA, 1974)
Page 33 and 34:
an unusually large moisture demand.
Page 35 and 36:
the-clock nature of WIGOS, the anal
Page 37 and 38:
and temporal variations in drought
Page 39 and 40:
Support to Regional Institutions WM
Page 41 and 42:
Williams, M.A.J. and R.C. Balling,
Page 43 and 44:
The day after Black Sunday, an Asso
Page 45 and 46:
Meteorological research at these in
Page 47 and 48:
United States is sent to the Secret
Page 49 and 50:
Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI
Page 51 and 52:
PDSI as an operational index since
Page 53 and 54:
WAOB, GIS has become an important t
Page 55 and 56:
USDM as the official criteria for F
Page 57 and 58:
Monitoring Drought Risks in India w
Page 59 and 60:
areas recording large incidences of
Page 61 and 62:
The analysis revealed that out of 1
Page 63 and 64:
Figure 3. Aridity anomaly chart of
Page 65 and 66:
Figure 5. Progression of surface we
Page 67 and 68:
Agricultural Drought Indices in Cur
Page 69 and 70:
Meteorological and Agricultural Dro
Page 71 and 72:
Palmer Drought Severity Index Adapt
Page 73 and 74: Accumulated WD and WS April 2010 Ac
Page 75 and 76: Soil Water Storage (SWS) September
Page 77 and 78: hydrological characteristics, and c
Page 79 and 80: Agricultural Drought Indices in Cur
Page 81 and 82: application of drought indices has
Page 83 and 84: The Value of Crop and Pasture Simul
Page 85 and 86: To assist, many agriculturally-spec
Page 87 and 88: change in Australia. The PDSI provi
Page 89 and 90: Mpelasoka, F.S., M.A. Collier, R. S
Page 91 and 92: supply and demand are fully taken i
Page 93 and 94: In Germany, the Deutsche Wetterdien
Page 95 and 96: creation of a system of European su
Page 97 and 98: The second index is extracted from
Page 99 and 100: Figure 7. Standardized Soil Water I
Page 101 and 102: References Durand, Y., E. Brun, L.
Page 103 and 104: Europe around the Iberian Peninsula
Page 105 and 106: The incoming rainwater and the atmo
Page 107 and 108: Figure 6. Example of SPI map for a
Page 109 and 110: The 1991-95 Drought Episode A long-
Page 111 and 112: adverse climatic impacts on agricul
Page 113 and 114: Agricultural Drought Indices in the
Page 115 and 116: efers to deficiencies in surface an
Page 117 and 118: Figure 5. Time series of standardiz
Page 119 and 120: Limitations of Agricultural Drought
Page 121 and 122: Incorporating a Composite Approach
Page 123: Figure 3. Daily gridded SPI by regi
Page 127 and 128: process (a) emulates natural cycles
Page 129 and 130: Summary Given the complexity that d
Page 131 and 132: alance models cannot be applied for
Page 133 and 134: 60 50 40 Error 30 20 Systematic Err
Page 135 and 136: In Figure 4, examples of the normal
Page 137 and 138: Figure 7. Water balance for Brazil,
Page 139 and 140: The soil water balance module in th
Page 141 and 142: Water Balance as a Tool for Agricul
Page 143 and 144: Conclusions The topics discussed pr
Page 145 and 146: Use of Crop Models for Drought Anal
Page 147 and 148: The parameters used in crop simulat
Page 149 and 150: a model for cassava and potato (Tsu
Page 151 and 152: ackground. The system’s most impo
Page 153 and 154: management. In research, however, p
Page 155 and 156: Smajstrla, A.G. 1990. Technical Man
Page 157 and 158: Monitoring Regional Drought Conditi
Page 159 and 160: Figure 2 represents the regression
Page 161 and 162: Conclusions and Discussion Several
Page 163 and 164: Experiences During the Drought Peri
Page 165 and 166: During the years 2007 and 2008, for
Page 167 and 168: Figure 6. Management simulation mod
Page 169 and 170: Figure 9. Irrigation diversions in
Page 171 and 172: References Andreu, J., Ferrer Polo,
Page 173 and 174: Table 2. MERIS spectral bands MDS N
Page 175 and 176:
Figure 6. Spanish NSDIE during 2008
Page 177 and 178:
References Gu, Y., J. F. Brown, J.
Page 179 and 180:
Agricultural Drought Indices: Summa
Page 181 and 182:
Table 1. Agricultural drought indic
Page 183 and 184:
Accumulated Rainfall Deficits In an
Page 185 and 186:
Heim (2002) notes that as recently
Page 187 and 188:
each calendar day in the base perio
Page 189 and 190:
The purpose of the climatic charact
Page 191 and 192:
to compare moisture conditions at d
Page 193 and 194:
Table 6. Overview of different drou
Page 195 and 196:
have been adopted because of the av
Page 197 and 198:
TCI = 100 (T max - T) / (T max - T
Page 199 and 200:
Figure 1. The February 8, 2011, US
Page 201 and 202:
8) There is a universal interest in
Page 203 and 204:
Mavromatis, T. 2007. Drought index
Page 205:
show all

Agricultural Drought Indices - US Department of Agriculture

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?