the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
An Enhanced SPEI Drought Monitoring Method Integrating Land Surface Characteristics
Justin Sheffield
Zhongwang Wei
Michael Ek
Eric F. Wood
Abstract. Atmospheric evaporative demand is a key metric for monitoring agricultural drought. The existing ways of estimating evaporative demand in drought indices do not faithfully represent the constraints of land surface characteristics and become less accurate over non-uniform land surfaces. This study proposes incorporating surface vegetation characteristics, such as vegetation dynamics data, aerodynamic and physiological parameters, into existing potential evapotranspiration (PET) methods. This approach is implemented over the Continental United States (CONUS) for the period of 1981–2017 and is tested in a recently developed drought index the Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI). We show that activating realistic maximum surface and aerodynamic conductance could improve prediction of soil moisture dynamics and drought impacts by 29 % on average compared to the widely used simple methods, especially effective in the forests and humid regions. Surface characteristics that have a strong influence on the performance of the SPEI are mainly driven by leaf area index (LAI). Our approach only requires the minimum amount of ancillary data, while permitting both historical reconstruction and real-time forecast of drought. This offers a physically meaningful, yet easy-to-implement way to account for the vegetation control in drought indices.
- Preprint
(5238 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Liqing Peng et al.
Status: open (extended)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2023-2100', Anonymous Referee #1, 22 Nov 2023
reply
Peng et al. generated a new SPEI drought index by refining the calculation method of potential evapotranspiration (PET), incorporating land surface characteristics driven mainly by leaf area index (LAI). They found that this new SPEI index has a higher correlation with surface moisture data and can explain 29% more variability within soil moisture. The improved index demonstrated good performance in humid regions and forest-dominated ecosystems, making the topic interesting. The manuscript is well-written; however, some concerns regarding methodology and evaluation remain evident. In general, I am favorable to the publication of the manuscript after a thorough revision.
Firstly, it appears that the evaluation throughout the paper relies on the correlation coefficient of the entire time series of SPEI and soil moisture. The increment in the correlation coefficient is almost less than 0.1, even if statistically significant. Since drought indices are typically used to identify and quantify drought events, I suggest the authors evaluate the skill of their improved SPEI index in detecting and quantifying extreme events rather than the dynamics of the entire time series.
Secondly, I observed that many Ga and Gs parameters (in Table 1) have been used to incorporate features of aerodynamic and surface conductance. I wonder if substantial uncertainty arises from these prescribed parameters. In other words, does the subpar performance of the improved SPEI index in non-forest ecosystems relate to larger uncertainties in parameters for grassland, shrubland, or cropland compared to the forest?
Thirdly, the improved SPEI exhibits better performance in humid regions, which aligns with expectations given the energy-limited water availability dynamics. However, in arid regions where water availability is more supply-dependent, the adjustment to PET has no significant effects and the uncertainty in precipitation data may be crucial. The authors may elaborate on this point in the manuscript.
Specific comment:
Figure 2: It is unclear whether the correlation between soil moisture and SPEI reflects temporal or spatial variability or includes both signals. Additionally, please clarify what the white dots within each bar represent.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2023-2100-RC1
Liqing Peng et al.
Liqing Peng et al.
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
150 | 70 | 12 | 232 | 11 | 8 |
- HTML: 150
- PDF: 70
- XML: 12
- Total: 232
- BibTeX: 11
- EndNote: 8
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1