the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 License.
Forecasting agricultural drought: the Australian Agriculture Drought Indicators
Abstract. Drought is a recurrent and significant driver of stress on agricultural enterprises in Australia. Historically, rainfall indices have been used to identify drought and inform government responses. However, rainfall indicators overlook important factors such as drought propagation and commodity prices. To address these shortcomings, AADI (Australian Agriculture Drought Indicators) was recently developed to monitor and forecast drought for upcoming seasons using biophysical and agro-economic models, including crop yields, pasture growth, and farm profit at ~ 5 km2 resolution. Here, we evaluate the skill of drought indicator forecasts driven by the ACCESS-S2 dynamical global climate model over a hindcast period from 1990–2018. Analysis of the AADI hindcasts finds that antecedent landscape conditions significantly enhance predictive skill for crop yields, pasture growth, and farm profit across a financial year. As lead time shortens from 12 to 3 months, forecast confidence increases: median farm profit indicator skill rises from 43 % at 12 months to 67 % and 73 % at 6 and 3 months, respectively, whilst median farm profit biases remain below 2 % across all lead times, with high reliability indicating a well-calibrated ensemble, making the forecasts highly suitable for risk management and decision-making. Forecasts for wheat, sorghum, and pasture are also skilful and reliable in ensemble spread, although residual biases can occur (e.g., up to 20 % for sorghum), which suggests further system refinements are needed. Analysis of historical events in both dry and wet conditions demonstrated the AADI system’s ability to identify drought-impacted areas with increased confidence up to 6 months earlier than rainfall deficits.
- Preprint
(3126 KB) - Metadata XML
- BibTeX
- EndNote
Status: open (until 10 Apr 2025)
-
RC1: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4129', Anonymous Referee #1, 14 Mar 2025
reply
This is my first review of the manuscript Forecasting Agricultural Drought: The Australian Agriculture Drought Indicators by Andrew Schepen et al. The paper is well-written, clear, and highly relevant to the journal. The topic is timely, as forecasting agricultural droughts is a critical area of research with significant implications.
However, I have a few moderate concerns, outlined below:
-
The study primarily focuses on the sensitivity of seasonal forecasting system performance in relation to crop production and farm profit, rather than assessing the system’s ability to predict crop growth. This is because the observations used are not real but rather derived from the same system, forced by ground data. While I do not see this as a weakness, I believe the authors should clarify this distinction when presenting the paper and discussing the results. Additionally, if this study is more of a sensitivity analysis of forecast errors, it would be beneficial to explore the relationship between meteorological forecast errors and crop yield errors. This could provide valuable insights into conditions where the system may struggle to predict crop yield accurately.
-
The dataset description is not sufficiently detailed. I suggest providing more information to improve clarity and transparency.
-
The AADI system should be described more thoroughly. For example, it is unclear whether irrigation is considered and how water limitations are accounted for. Additionally, what would be the impact of these factors? Given that some crops in Australia are irrigated, a discussion on this aspect would enhance the study’s practical relevance.
-
Has the system been tested without post-processing? If so, what is the impact? Including this analysis would provide valuable recommendations for the development of simpler systems in other regions.
Overall, the study is strong, but addressing these points would improve its clarity and impact.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4129-RC1 -
-
RC2: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4129', Anonymous Referee #2, 24 Mar 2025
reply
The manuscript titled "Forecasting Agricultural Drought: the Australian Agriculture Drought Indicators" presents a novel ensemble-based drought forecasting system that integrates post-processed seasonal climate predictions from the ACCESS-S2 model with biophysical and economic models. The authors address a topic of great significance in Australia, where forecasting drought is a primary concern for numerous stakeholders. The topic is presented in an excellent manner, and the manuscript includes a commendable literature review. The authors tackle a critical issue by evaluating forecast performance for four key drought-related indicators: wheat yield, sorghum yield, pasture growth, and farm profit over a historical hindcast period (1990 - 2018). The manuscript is methodologically robust, highly relevant, and well-written. However, some clarifications and refinements are needed. The following are suggestions for improvement:
- The Introduction would benefit from an expanded discussion of major historical drought events in Australia, including impacts on agriculture. This sets the context more clearly for the need and relevance of AADI.
- While the manuscript describes the datasets used, it would be helpful to include a consolidated table summarizing the key datasets, variables, spatial resolution, and time periods. This could be placed in the Methods section or as a supplement.
- Was there any explicit quality control or filtering applied to the input data (e.g., rainfall, temperature) before simulation? If so, briefly describe this process. Otherwise, consider referencing previous studies that confirms the reliability of the datasets used.
- Consider including a flowchart that visually summarizes the overall methodology (not only for the AADI system). A brief caption accompanying the figure would support reader comprehension.
- It would be better to clarify the spatial analysis methodology used when aggregating or averaging forecast data across Australia. Explain whether area-weighted averaging or other geostatistical techniques were applied to spatially aggregated time series.
- The study focuses on model-based skill evaluation using pseudo-observations. Please address the rationale for this choice in more detail. How do the authors justify relying on model-to model comparison without validating forecasts against real ground-truth data?
- Explain the rationale for using ACCESS-S2 exclusively. If alternatives (e.g., ECMWF, SEAS5, NMME) were considered, briefly note why ACCESS-S2 was selected.
- In the Discussion section, please consider addressing the uncertainties associated with the input datasets and how these may affect the reliability of the forecast outputs.
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4129-RC2 -
RC3: 'Comment on egusphere-2024-4129', Anonymous Referee #3, 31 Mar 2025
reply
The paper addresses an important and timely topic of drought forecasting for agricultural enterprises, going beyond rainfall indices. Its main objective is to assess the forecasting performance of multiple drought indictors within the AADI system. The results show that farm profit indicator has a high forecasting skill in comparison to rainfall indices. Assessment of historical events shows the usefulness of this indicator in predicting drought impacts. Overall, the manuscript is well written, but some clarifications and improvements will be useful for the readers.
General Comments
- There appears to be some inconsistency in abstract and introduction regarding what is being assessed. From the abstract, I thought the paper will use commodity prices (along with crop growth) to forecast occurrence of droughts. But then in lines 52-53, it appears the goal is to forecast farm enterprises financial performance i.e. impacts of droughts using farmpredict model. And then again in line 70, there is mention of using farm profit as drought indicator. It would be helpful if the introduction consistently explains whether the paper aims to forecast drought via farm profit or to evaluate farm profit for drought impact assessment. Additionally, the introduction will also benefit with an explicit statement of its main aims, such as: “The aim of this study is…”
- It would help to specify the months, fiscal year boundaries, or assumptions that go into your farm profit calculations, so Section 4.2 can be understood without needing to reference other works.
- Over the hindcast period, the farm profit indicator is shown to have a good predictive skill as presented in section 4.6. However, the performance is assessed for historically declared droughts. It doesn’t become immediately clear to me how such prediction will be used in real-time forecasting to attribute changes in farm profits to droughts. I assume from the information provided in section 5 about inclusion of factors like soil moisture (Lines 383-385) within the AADI system, however, such information is not presented in the methods section and should be included briefly despite the reference to Hughes et al. (2024a).
- From the manuscript, it doesn’t become completely clear to me how the paper addresses the stated shortcoming of drought propagation (line 14-15) and drought evolution (Line 36-37) in the drought forecasts.
- Drought can raise or lower commodity prices. Is this aspect captured in your profit-based indicator, or are prices assumed exogenous? Please clarify.
- The Discussion should reference related work on drought forecasting indicators in agriculture to help place your results in wider context.
Specific comments
- Lines 62-63: “…policy planners might be interested in outlook for winter and summer crops…”Do you mean total production and not only yields? Please clarify.
- Line 72-73: Please give examples for threshold and categorical forecasts.
- Line 95: It would be useful for the readers to start with a brief introduction to ACCESS-S2 climate model.
- Line 138: “MOF” used without definition
- Line 231-233: “….. indicating skill in some regions in the Austral Spring."It is not clear how you reached this result. Either mention in text that this is not shown or add reference figure.
- Line 245: IDR instead of interdecile range
Citation: https://doi.org/10.5194/egusphere-2024-4129-RC3
Viewed
HTML | XML | Total | BibTeX | EndNote | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
131 | 33 | 7 | 171 | 3 | 3 |
- HTML: 131
- PDF: 33
- XML: 7
- Total: 171
- BibTeX: 3
- EndNote: 3
Viewed (geographical distribution)
Country | # | Views | % |
---|---|---|---|
United States of America | 1 | 58 | 31 |
Australia | 2 | 37 | 19 |
China | 3 | 16 | 8 |
France | 4 | 12 | 6 |
Germany | 5 | 9 | 4 |
Total: | 0 |
HTML: | 0 |
PDF: | 0 |
XML: | 0 |
- 1
- 58