Advertisement

SN Applied Sciences

, 1:465 | Cite as

Analysis of changes trend in spatial and temporal pattern of drought over south of Iran using standardized precipitation index (SPI)

  • Abdol Rassoul ZareiEmail author
Research Article
  • 37 Downloads
Part of the following topical collections:
  1. 2. Earth and Environmental Sciences (general)

Abstract

In this research, the precipitation data of 16 synoptic stations from 1980 to 2014 in the south of Iran were used to evaluate the changes of the spatial and temporal pattern of drought based on the SPI index. Results of changes trend analysis in the temporal pattern based on linear regression (LR) showed that the most droughts occurred in the annual time scale (at 37.5% of stations). Based on Mann–Kendall (MK) and Spearman’s Rho (SR) tests, the most drought trends occurred in winter and annual time scales. Analysis of spatial pattern changes of drought showed that percent of areas in all classes of drought and all-time scales had non-significant changes (based on MK test), according to SR test, only the areas in moderate wet class of drought had a significant decreasing trend at 5% level. Analysis of LR test showed that the percent of areas in all classes of drought in seasonal time scales had non-significant changes, in annual time scale severe dry and extreme dry classes had a significant decreasing trend at 5% level. Generally, results showed that area percentage with dry classes had an increasing trend, therefore the study area is going to be drier and it’s effective on agricultural activities, natural resources management, surface water resources and underground water resources planning and other activities.

Keywords

SPI index Drought Spatial changes Temporal changes Parametric Non-parametric tests 

1 Introduction

Drought is a natural disaster that could be occurred in all regions with different climate conditions. Drought can be affected on the surface water resources, underground water resources, agriculture water demand, water consumption in natural resources, industry, humans and wildlife sections [6, 10, 21, 26, 28, 36, 37, 40, 43]. Drought develops slowly, is difficult to detect and can present a range of diverse aspects in different regions [1, 39].

The drought has been categorized into 4 types [13, 14]: meteorological, agricultural, hydrological and socio-economic. Meteorological drought is defined as the lack of precipitation over a region in a specific time period (in this paper the changes trend in the spatial and temporal pattern of meteorological drought were assessed). If the meteorological drought continues, it can cause other types of drought [8]. Drought indices that are based on climatic parameters (such as precipitation, evapotranspiration, temperature and etc.), soil properties and others, were used to evaluate drought severity [15, 44]. Drought indices can help the scientists and managers to assess the characteristics of droughts for reducing the impacts of it [2, 27].

Many different drought indices have been introduced to assess drought conditions in the world. One of the popular indices in recognizing and monitoring of drought is the standardized precipitation index (SPI) that was introduced by McKee et al. [17]. In this study, the SPI index was used to evaluate drought because of the following reasons: (1) only precipitation data are needed for the calculation of this index. (2) The SPI index is astandardizedmeasure of precipitationin differentclimatic regions anddifferent timescales [35, 38].

Many researchers from different regions of the world have used SPI index to assess drought conditions in recent years: [3, 4, 7, 22, 25, 30, 31, 32, 33, 42].

Mahmoudi et al. [16] compared seven (precipitation-based) drought indices in Iran using meteorological data series of 41 stations from 1985 to 2013. Results of this research indicated SPI index is the best drought index to assess drought conditions in Iran. Kavianpour et al. [11] used the SPI index and two other drought indices for spatial and temporal analysis of drought in three provinces of Iran using meteorological data series of during 1982–2012. Nasrollahi et al. [20] sued SPI index to assess the spatial and temporal patterns of drought hazard and risk in Semnan province, Iran. In this research data series of meteorological stations from 1985 to 2011 in 3-months and 12-months time scales were used. Results of this paper showed Shahroud and Damghan at 3-months and Shahroud, Damghan, and Semnan at 12-months timescale were the most susceptible regions to drought.

Zarei et al. [41] evaluated the spatial pattern of drought in the south of Iran based on Reconnaissance Drought Index (RDI). According to the results of this paper, in a 3-months time scale, the area percentage with dry classes had an increasing trend and areas with the wet condition had a decreasing trend. In the annual time scale, the area percentage with wet classes and the normal class had a decreasing trend, and the area percentage with near-normal class and dry classes had an increasing trend. Hanafi et al. [9] to evaluate drought characteristic in Tehran province were used the SPI index and Markov Chain model. Results of this paper showed that the equilibrium probability of dry, wet and normal periods in the stations of this province is 29, 30 and 41% respectively. Results of drought assessment in Golestan province based on SPI index with Bazrafshan et al. [5] showed that the most severe drought in 6-months time scale was observed in Saliantapeh station while the highest severity in 9, 12 and 24-time scales was observed in Polejadeh station. Rostamian et al. [23] used the SPI index for predicting meteorological drought intensity in Beheshtabad watershed. Results of this research showed that an increase in duration and magnitude of droughts in the third future period is more than the second and initial future periods. Saadati et al. [24] used the SPI index for drought frequency analysis in Isfahan province. According to the results, a severe drought has occurred in the west of the province and an extreme drought has occurred in the east and northeast of the province.

The objectives of this study are: (a) assessment of temporal monotonic trends at the time scale of seasonal and annual drought based on SPI index using parametric and nonparametric trend analysis techniques, such as LR, MK and SR testes in South of Iran from 1980 to 2014. (b) Evaluation of the spatial pattern trend changes of drought (trend of changes in areas percentage with different classes of drought) based on standardized precipitation index (SPI) in seasonal and annual time scales.

2 Methods and material

2.1 Study area

The study area is located in the south of Iran with an area of 594,996.54 km2. The climate of this area varies between hyper-arid and semi-arid. In this study the precipitation data of 16 synoptic stations from the study area (Fig. 1) for the period 1980–2014 were used, the selected synoptic stations and their meteorological characteristics are presented in Table 1. Statistical parameters of monthly precipitation time series at 16 synoptic stations during the period 1980–2014 showed that the mean monthly precipitation varies from 4.25 to 26.05 mm. Besides, it is evident that Zabol station in the southeast of the area had the lowest mean monthly precipitation. The highest coefficient of variation (CV) of the annual precipitation value was observed at Jask station (located in the south of area) at the rate of 298.84%, while the lowest CV of 163.56% was found in Kerman. The main amount of precipitation fell in western regions of the area, such as Bushehr, Fasa and Shiraz.
Fig. 1

Geographical position and digital elevation map (DEM) of the study area and spatial distribution of selected stations

Table 1

selected synoptic stations and climatic properties of them

Stations

Longitude (degree, decimal)

Latitude (degree, decimal)

Elevation (m a.s.l)

Precipitation (mm year−1)

ET0 (mm year−1)

Aridity index

Climate condition

Abadeh

52.671

31.181

2030.11

131.98

1647.59

0.080

Arid

Bam

58.352

29.102

1066.80

55.56

2340.59

0.024

Hyper-arid

Bandar Abbas

56.370

27.221

9.81

171.31

1894.01

0.090

Arid

Bandar Lengeh

54.831

26.531

22.90

126.27

2051.90

0.062

Arid

Bushehr

50.824

28.971

7.10

251.66

1845.69

0.136

Arid

Chahbahar

60.323

25.310

7.81

120.7

1746.39

0.069

Arid

Fassa

53.683

28.970

1287.80

285.71

1631.62

0.175

Arid

Jask

57.773

25.633

4.91

124.74

1881.06

0.066

Arid

Iran Shahr

60.670

27.094

590.31

101.12

2839.72

0.035

Hyper-arid

Kerman

56.971

30.251

1753.73

135.23

1911.98

0.071

Arid

Saravan

62.331

27.332

1194.21

106.23

2606.13

0.041

Hyper-arid

Shahr Babak

55.130

30.102

1833.91

148.09

1903.53

0.078

Arid

Shiraz

52.602

29.533

1483.80

312.60

1794.19

0.174

Arid

Sirjan

55.683

29.470

1738.70

144.86

1869.43

0.077

Arid

Zabol

61.494

31.011

488.32

51.09

2584.21

0.019

Hyper-arid

Zahedan

60.930

29.470

1369.73

76.21

1788.52

0.043

Hyper-arid

ET0 calculated based on FAO-56 Penman–Monteith equation. Aridity index show the degree of dryness of the climate [34]

2.2 Estimation of standardized precipitation index (SPI)

SPI computation involves two stages that at the first stage, a probability distribution (e.g. gamma distribution) fitted to a long-term precipitation record at the desired station. Transformation of gamma distribution into normal distribution is the second stage resulted in zero mean SPI. Both dry and wet conditions can be monitored using SPI drought index and this index may be computed with different time steps (e.g. 1-month, 3-months and 24-months). The use of different time scales allows the effects of a precipitation deficit on different water resource components (groundwater, reservoir storage, soil moisture and streamflow) to be assessed [19]. SPI drought index was expressed below [17]:
$${\text{SPI}} = \mp \left[ {{\text{t}} - \frac{{{\text{c}}_{0} + {\text{c}}_{1} {\text{t}} + {\text{c}}_{2} {\text{t}}^{2} }}{{1 + {\text{d}}_{1} {\text{t}} + {\text{d}}_{2} {\text{t}}^{2} + {\text{d}}_{3} {\text{t}}^{3} }}} \right]$$
(1)
$${\text{t}} = \sqrt {\ln \left[ {\frac{1}{{\left( {{\text{G}}\left( {\text{x}} \right)} \right)^{2} }}} \right]}$$
(2)
where \({\text{c}}_{0} ,\;{\text{c}}_{1} ,\;{\text{c}}_{2} ,\;{\text{d}}_{0} ,\;{\text{d}}_{1} \;{\text{and}}\;{\text{d}}_{3}\) are calculation parameters and \(G(x)\) is gamma function:
$$g\left( x \right) = \frac{1}{{\beta^{\alpha } \cdot \varGamma (\alpha )}}x^{\alpha - 1} \cdot e^{{ - \frac{x}{\beta }}} ,\;x > 0$$
(3)
where α = form parameter; β = scale parameter; x = precipitation quantity; \(\varGamma (\alpha)\) = gamma function. The SPI drought classification showed in Table 2.
Table 2

Categorized of SPI drought index [3, 18]

Class number

Category

Values of SPI index

Symbol

1

Extremely dry

SPI ≤ −2

ED

2

Severely dry

− 1.99 < SPI < −1.5

SD

3

Moderately dry

− 1.49 < SPI < −1

MD

4

Near normal

− 0.99 < SPI < 0

NN

5

Normal

0 < SPI < 0.99

N

6

Moderately wet

1 < SPI < 1.49

MW

7

Very wet

1.5 < SPI < 1.99

VW

8

Extremely wet

SPI ≥ 2

EW

In this study using the monthly precipitation data of 16 meteorological stations in the south of Iran, SPI values were calculated for the time scales of 3-months (seasonal) and 12-months (annual) for the period of 1980 to 2014 (Figs. 2, 3 and 4). In the next stage, LR, MK and SR tests at 5% significance level were used to evaluate the changes in the temporal pattern of drought.
Fig. 2

Annual and seasonal SPI time series in Bushehr synoptic station (with semi-arid climate condition)

Fig. 3

Annual and seasonal SPI time series in Bandar Abass synoptic station (with arid climate condition)

Fig. 4

Annual and seasonal SPI time series in Zahedan synoptic station (with hyper-arid climate condition)

The spatial maps of drought that were prepared based on geostatistical analysis and interpolation techniques using ArcGIS 10.2 software were used in the study area in 3-months and 12-months time scales for each year to assess the changes trend in the spatial pattern of drought (Figs. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9). In order to provide interpolation maps the inverse distance weighting (IDW) method were used because calculated SPI data series in all stations for each year (at each time scales) were not normal. Then, the surface percent of the study area that is located in each drought classes were calculated for each year. Finally, the changes trend in the surface percent in each class of drought in the study area were evaluated based on LR, MK and SR tests at 5% significance level.
Fig. 5

Spatial Pattern drought based on SPI index in annual time scale (for example)

Fig. 6

Spatial Pattern of drought based on SPI index in 3-months time scale (winter) (for example)

Fig. 7

Spatial Pattern of drought based on SPI index in 3-months time scale (spring) (for example)

Fig. 8

Spatial Pattern of drought based on SPI index in 3-months time scale (summer) (for example)

Fig. 9

Spatial Pattern of drought based on SPI index in 3-months time scale (autumn) (for example)

2.3 Statistical methods

In this study, after assessing the normality of seasonal and annual SPI data series using Shapiro–Wilk test (Table 3), Because of the large variation in the results of the normality test of data series, the trend of calculated SPI data series was evaluated based on non-parametric statistical (Mann–Kendall (MK) and Spearman’s Rho (SR) tests) and parametric test (linear regression (LR) test).
Table 3

Results of normality test of calculated SPI index in different time scales (based on Shapiro–Wilk test)

Station name

Winter

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Annual

Abadeh

0.582*

0.208*

0.000

0.502*

0.704*

Bam

0.182*

0.008

0.000

0.024

0.585*

Bandar Abbas

0.257*

0.001

0.000

0.301*

0.936*

Bandar Lengeh

0.280*

0.000

0.000

0.048

0.991*

Bushehr

0.935*

0.327*

0.000

0.119*

0.185*

Chahbahar

0.965*

0.000

0.000

0.001

0.057*

Fassa

0.303*

0.471*

0.000

0.575*

0.670*

Jask

0.673*

0.000

0.000

0.002

0.255*

Iran Shahr

0.817*

0.018

0.001

0.011

0.364*

Kerman

0.679*

0.822*

0.000

0.573*

0.412*

Saravan

0.004

0.133*

0.002

0.034

0.008

Shahr Babak

0.122*

0.993*

0.001

0.103*

0.076*

Shiraz

0.323*

0.353*

0.000

0.644*

0.518*

Sirjan

0.507*

0.546*

0.001

0.119*

0.008

Zabol

0.662*

0.000

0.000

0.052*

0.300*

Zahedan

0.250*

0.018

0.000

0.051*

0.632*

*Data series is normal at 5% level

2.3.1 Mann–Kendall (MK) trend test

MK trend tests were commonly used to evaluate of trends in series of environmental data, climate data or hydrological data [41]. The MK test statistic S [12] is calculated by using:
$${\text{s}} = \mathop \sum \limits_{{{\text{i}} = 1}}^{{{\text{n}} - 1}} \mathop \sum \limits_{{{\text{j}} = {\text{i}} + 1}}^{\text{n}} {\text{sgn}}\left( {{\text{x}}_{\text{j}} - {\text{x}}_{\text{i}} } \right)$$
(4)
The standardized normal test statistic \({\text{Z}}_{\text{s}}\) is computed as:
$${\text{Z}}_{\text{s}} = \left\{ {\begin{array}{*{20}l} {\frac{{{\text{s}} - 1}}{{\sqrt {\upsigma^{2} ({\text{s}})} }},} \hfill & {\text{if}} \hfill & {{\text{S}} > 0} \hfill \\ {0,} \hfill & {\text{if}} \hfill & {{\text{S}} = 0} \hfill \\ {\frac{{{\text{s}} - 1}}{{\sqrt {\upsigma^{2} ({\text{s}})} }},} \hfill & {\text{if}} \hfill & {{\text{S}} < 0} \hfill \\ \end{array} } \right\}$$
(5)
If \({\text{Z}}_{\text{s}}\) was more than 1.96 trend of changes is increasing and If \({\text{Z}}_{\text{s}}\) was less than − 1.96 trend of changes is decreasing (At the 5% significance level).

2.3.2 Spearman’s Rho (SR) test

The standardized test statistic (ZD) based on SR test was expressed as follows [29]:
$${\text{Z}}_{\text{D}} = {\text{D}}\sqrt {\frac{{{\text{n}} - 2}}{{1 - {\text{D}}^{2} }}}$$
(6)
$${\text{D}} = 1 - \frac{{6\mathop \sum \nolimits_{{{\text{i}} = 1}}^{\text{n}} \left( {{\text{R}}\left( {{\text{X}}_{\text{i}} } \right) - {\text{i}}} \right)^{2} }}{{{\text{n}}\left( {{\text{n}}^{2} - 1} \right)}}$$
(7)
where \({\text{R}}\left( {{\text{X}}_{\text{i}} } \right)\): is the rank of the observation data, \({\text{X}}_{\text{i}}\): in the time series and n is the length of the time series. If ZD was more than 2.08 trend of changes is increasing and If ZD was less than − 2.08 trend of changes is decreasing (at the 5% significance level).

2.3.3 Linear regression (LR) method

An LR method is one of the parametric methods that is used to indicate the mean temporal change of the studied variables (slope). If the slope of mean temporal change of the studied variables was positive, data series will have an increasing trend, while negative values of the slope of the studied variables indicate decreasing trends.

3 Results and discussion

3.1 Analysis of trend of changes in temporal pattern of drought

3.1.1 Analysis of trend of changes in seasonal (3-months) SPI index

Analysis of 3-months SPI trend showed that: In spring time scale there is a general negative trend in 10 stations out of 16 and is a general positive trend in 6 stations out of 16 (trend of changes at all stations were non-significant based on all statistical tests). In summer time scale there is a general negative trend in 6 stations out of 16 which is significant in only Bandar Lengeh station (Based on Spearman’s Rho test) and is a general positive trend in 10 stations out of 16 which is significant in only Shiraz station (Based on Spearman’s Rho test). In autumn time scale there is a general negative trend in 14 stations out of 16 and is a general positive trend in 2 stations out of 16 (trend of changes at all stations were non-significant based on all statistical tests). In winter time scale there is a general negative trend in 15 stations out of 16 which is significant in only two stations (Based on all statistical tests) (Table 4).
Table 4

Statistical tests of seasonal (3-months) standardized precipitation index (SPI) from 1980–2014 period

Station name

Test

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Winter

Abadeh

Z s

− 0.014

0.741

0.809

− 0.469

Z D

− 0.036

1.524

0.922

− 0.510

b

0.000

0.001

0.008

− 0.005

Bam

Z s

− 1.236

0.000

− 0.057

− 0.682

Z D

− 1.181

0.683

− 0.440

− 0.544

b

− 0.012

0.003

− 0.004

− 0.004

Bandar Abass

Z s

− 1.726

− 0.064

− 0.810

− 0.881

Z D

− 0.644

− 1.066

− 0.823

− 0.862

b

− 0.015

− 0.003

− 0.010

− 0.010

Bandar Lengeh

Z s

− 0.044

− 1.448

− 1.023

− 1.463

Z D

− 0.968

− 2.421*

− 0.823

− 1.477

b

− 0.002

− 0.002

− 0.009

− 0.016

Bushehr

Z s

− 0.327

− 0.500

− 0.497

− 1.094

Z D

− 0.185

− 1.219

− 0.402

− 1.011

b

− 0.001

0.000

− 0.002

− 0.011

Chahbahar

Z s

0.326

0.575

1.032

− 1.236

Z D

1.834

1.537

1.873

− 1.314

b

0.009

0.003

0.014

− 0.017

Fassa

Z s

0.696

1.177

− 0.597

− 1.264

Z D

0.819

1.797

− 0.560

− 1.198

b

0.005

0.005

− 0.008

− 0.009

Iran Shahr

Z s

− 0.699

− 0.331

− 0.827

− 0.312

Z D

− 0.206

− 0.538

− 0.189

− 0.202

b

− 0.004

− 0.008

− 0.009

− 0.007

Jask

Z s

0.484

− 1.360

− 0.157

− 2.386*

Z D

1.763

− 0.180

− 0.127

− 2.556*

b

0.005

− 0.003

− 0.005

− 0.027*

Kerman

Z s

− 0.526

0.424

− 0.951

− 1.719

Z D

− 0.381

1.856

− 0.958

− 1.677

b

− 0.005

0.004

− 0.012

− 0.011

Saravan

Z s

− 0.895

− 1.892

− 1.667

0.241

Z D

− 0.695

− 0.652

− 0.887

0.480

b

− 0.006

− 0.018

− 0.017

0.004

Shahr Babak

Z s

− 0.398

0.000

− 0.682

− 2.173*

Z D

− 0.450

1.026

− 0.982

− 2.288*

b

− 0.005

0.003

− 0.012

− 0.021*

Shiraz

Z s

0.099

1.533

− 0.071

− 1.406

Z D

0.145

2.398*

− 0.056

− 1.345

b

0.000

0.006

− 0.002

− 0.010

Sirjan

Z s

− 1.207

0.014

− 1.193

− 1.548

Z D

− 1.001

0.981

− 1.400

− 1.356

b

− 0.009

0.005

− 0.014

− 0.013

Zabol

Z s

0.688

0.000

− 0.839

− 1.818

Z D

1.049

− 1.106

− 0.723

− 1.954

b

0.000

0.000

− 0.015

− 0.019

Zahedan

Z s

0.355

0.501

− 0.484

− 0.923

Z D

0.400

0.221

− 0.296

− 0.934

b

0.002

− 0.004

− 0.003

− 0.008

Zs Mann–Kendall test, Zd Spearman’s Rho test, b slope of linear regression

* Significantly trend at 5% level

3.1.2 Analysis of annual (12-months) changes trend SPI index

Result of Analysis of 12-months (annual) SPI trend showed that there is a general negative trend in 14 stations out of 16 which is significant in only four stations based on linear regression test (Bandar Abbas, Bandar Lengeh, Jask and Saravan stations) and is significant in only two stations (Sirjan and Zabol stations) based on all statistical tests (Table 5).
Table 5

Statistical tests of annual standardized precipitation index (SPI) from 1980 to 2014

Station name

Test

Annual

Station name

Test

Annual

Abadeh

Z s

0.568

Jask

Z s

− 1.576

Z D

0.484

Z D

− 1.674

b

0.000

b

− 0.026*

Bam

Z s

− 0.937

Kerman

Z s

− 1.633

Z D

− 0.757

Z D

− 1.760

b

− 0.016

b

− 0.006

Bandar Abass

Z s

− 1.633

Saravan

Z s

− 0.625

Z D

− 1.753

Z D

− 0.640

b

− 0.028*

b

− 0.032*

Bandar Lengeh

Z s

− 1.520

Shahr Babak

Z s

− 1.889

Z D

− 1.834

Z D

− 1.976

b

− 0.029*

b

− 0.047

Bushehr

Z s

− 0.639

Shiraz

Z s

− 0.923

Z D

− 0.644

Z D

− 0.842

b

− 0.017

b

− 0.017

Chahbahar

Z s

0.497

Sirjan

Z s

− 2.002*

Z D

0.476

Z D

− 2.173*

b

0.003

b

− 0.023*

Fassa

Z s

− 1.605

Zabol

Z s

− 2.059*

Z D

− 1.481

Z D

− 2.357*

b

− 0.022

b

− 0.035*

Iran Shahr

Z s

− 0.667

Zahedan

Z s

− 0.327

Z D

− 0.811

Z D

− 0.334

b

− 0.013

b

− 0.009

Zs Mann–Kendall test, Zd Spearman’s Rho test, b Slope of linear regression

*Significantly trend at 5% level

3.2 Analysis of changes trend in spatial pattern of drought

3.2.1 Analysis of seasonal (3-months) changes trend in SPI index

According to the results, analysis of changes trend in spatial pattern of drought in seasonal time scale that is presented in Table 6 based on MK and SR tests, the area percentage of study area in classes with normal and wet condition (Extremely Wet (EW), Very Wet (VW), Moderately Wet (MW) and Normal (N) classes) almost in all seasonal time scales (winter, spring, summer and autumn) had decreasing trend and in classes with dry condition (Extremely Dry (ED), Severe Dry (SD), Moderately Dry (MD) and Near Normal (NN) classes) almost in all time scales had increasing trend but these trends of changes are not significant. Only decreasing trend of changes in the area percentage of moderate wet class in summer time scale was significant at 5% level based on the SR test with ZD = −2.323. Analysis of changes trend in the spatial pattern of drought based on LR method showed that in winter time scale, the surface percent of the study area in EW, VW and MW classes had decreasing trend and trend of changes in N and NN classes was increasing. Changes trend in all classes in this time scale was not significant. MD, SD and ED classes were not observed in winter time scale. In spring time scale the area percentage in VW, MW and N classes had decreasing trend and trend of changes in NN and MD classes were increasing. Changes trend in all classes in the spring was non-significant. EW, SD and ED classes were not observed in this time scale. In summer time scale classes with MW, N, NN and MD condition were observed, almost all classes had not significant trend, other classes of drought were not observed in summer time scale. In autumn time scale the area percentage with VW, MW and N classes had a decreasing trend. The area percentage with NN and MD classes had an increasing trend. Change trend in all classes was not significant (Table 6).
Table 6

Statistical tests of the trend of changes in area percent of different classes of drought based on standardized precipitation index in different time scales from 1980 to 2014 period

SPI Classes

Test

Annual

Spring

Summer

Autumn

Winter

Extremely dry

Z s

0.610

×

×

×

×

Z D

1.455

×

×

×

×

b

0.430*

×

×

×

×

Severely dry

Z s

0.053

×

×

×

×

Z D

0.733

×

×

×

×

b

0.429*

×

×

×

×

Moderately dry

Z s

0.014

0.745

− 0.326

1.448

×

Z D

1.181

1.316

− 0.419

1.737

×

b

0.212

0.060

− 0.028

0.147

×

Near normal

Z s

0.568

0.326

0.156

0.057

0.881

Z D

0.671

0.234

0.138

0.221

0.988

b

0.223

0.221

0.029

0.122

0.079

Normal

Z s

− 0.326

− 0.598

0.048

0.057

1.434

Z D

− 0.306

− 0.333

1.267

0.189

1.088

b

− 0.062

− 0.161

0.006

0.029

0.267

Moderately wet

Z s

− 0.763

0.089

− 1.465

− 0.136

− 0.805

Z D

− 0.881

0.646

− 2.323*

− 1.442

− 1.321

b

− 0.245

0.056

− 0.007

− 0.154

− 0.210

Very wet

Z s

− 1.299

0.239

×

− 0.304

− 1.270

Z D

− 0.367

0.914

×

− 0.366

− 0.344

b

− 0.066

0.023

×

− 0.086

− 0.176

Extremely wet

Z s

0.020

×

×

×

− 0.404

Z D

0.497

×

×

×

− 0.822

b

0.006

×

×

×

− 0.059

Zs Mann–Kendall test, Zd Spearman’s Rho test, b slope of linear regression and ×  class with this condition was not observed in this time scale

*Significantly trend at 5% level

3.2.2 Analysis of annual (12-months) changes trend in SPI index

In the annual time scale, the area percentage of VW, MW and N classes had a decreasing trend. The area percentage with NN, SD and ED classes had an increasing trend. Change trend in SD and ED classes were significant at 5% level (Table 6).

4 Conclusions

In this research, the changes trend of the spatial and temporal pattern of drought in the south of Iran in annual and seasonal time scales using SPI was evaluated. According to the meteorological data of 16 synoptic stations during the period of 1980–2014 in the south of Iran the most percent area of the study region has arid and semi-arid climate conditions. Results of analysis of changes trend in the temporal pattern of drought indicated that, in spring time scale about 56.2%, in summer 43.75%, in autumn 87.5% and in winter time scale 93.7% of station had decreasing trend in SPI index based on all statistical methods (LR, MK and SR tests). In annual time scale 87.5% of the stations had a decreasing trend. According to the results of the analysis of changes trend in the temporal pattern of drought based on parametric and non-parametric statistical tests indicated that the study area is becoming drier. Therefore, it is imperative that managers in their planning, especially for water affiliated sectors, pay special attention to this issue. Considering the upward trend of drought can reduce its negative effects. Results of analysis of changes trend in the spatial pattern of drought revealed that almost in all seasonal and annual time scales the surface percent with dry classes (ED, SD and MD classes) had increasing trend and areas with a wet condition (EW, VW and MW) had a decreasing trend. According to the spatial pattern maps of drought in the study area, it seems, the increase in the surface percent of areas with dry classes has mainly occurred in the western, southern and southeastern regions of the study area. Finally, given that the main source of income of the residents of southern Iran is agriculture and animal husbandry, therefore, it is suggested that managers using the results of this paper try to reduce the negative impacts of drought in these sections.

Notes

Acknowledgments

Authors would like to thank national meteorological organization of Iran for provide the meteorological data.

Compliance with ethical standards

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest

References

  1. 1.
    Aleboali A, Ghazavi R, Satatinejad J (2016) Study the effects of drought on groundwater resources using SPI index (a case study: Kashan plain). Desert Ecosyst Eng 5(10):13–22Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Asadi Zarch MA, Sivakumar B, Malekinezhad H, Sharma A (2017) Future aridity under conditions of global climate change. J Hydrol 554:451–469CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bahrami M, Zarei AR, Cakav S (2017) Analysis of drought transitions using log-linear models in Iran. Int J Water 11(3):266–278CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bahrami M, Bazrkar S, Zarei AR (2018) Modeling, prediction and trend assessment of drought in Iran using standardized precipitation index. J Water Clim Change 10(1):181–196CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bazrafshan O, Mohseni Saravi M, Moeini A (2011) A study on drought characteristic in Golestan province using standardized precipitation index (SPI). Iran J Range Desert Res 18(3):395–407Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bennani S, Nsarellah N, Jlibene M, Tadesse W, Birouk A, Ouabbou H (2017) Efficiency of drought tolerance indices under different stress severities for bread wheat selection. Aust J Crop Sci 11(4):395–405CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Buttafuoco G, Caloiero T, Ricca N, Guagliardi I (2018) Assessment of drought and its uncertainty in a southern Italy area (Calabria region). Measurement 113:205–210CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Djebou DCS (2017) Bridging drought and climate aridity. J Arid Environ 144:170–180CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hanafi A, Khoshakhlagh F, Soltani M (2012) analyzing the drought of Tehran province using SPI index and forecasting it by the Markov Chain model. J Geogr Environ Sustain 2(3):87–100Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ismail D, Ashok KM, Zekai S (2017) Long-term spatiotemporal drought variability in Turkey. J Hydrol 552:779–792CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kavianpour M, Seyedabadi M, Moazami S (2018) Spatial and temporal analysis of drought based on a combined index using copula. Environ Earth Sci 77(22):769CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kendall MG (1975) the advanced theory of statistics: design and analysis, and time-series, vol 3. Charles Griffin & Company Limited, LondonGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Khan MI, Liu D, Fu Q, Saddique Q, Faiz MA, Li T, Qamar MU, Cui S, Cheng C (2017) projected changes of future extremedroughtevents under numerousdrought indicesin the Eilongjiang province of China. Water Resour Manage 31:3921–3937CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kwarteng F, Shwetha G, Rahul P (2017) Reconnaissance drought Index as potential drought monitoring tool in a Deccan Plateau, Hot semi-arid climatic zone. Int J Agric Sci 9(1):2183–2186Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Li R, Tsunekawa A, Tsubo M (2017) Assessment of agricultural drought in rain fed cereal production areas of northern China. Theor Appl Climatol 127(3–4):597–609CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Mahmoudi P, Rigi A, Kamak MM (2019) A comparative study of precipitation-based drought indices with the aim of selecting the best index for drought monitoring in Iran. Theor Appl Climatol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-019-02778-z CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    McKee TB, Doesken NJ, Kleist J (1993) the relationship of drought frequency and duration to time scales. In: 8th conference on applied climatology, 17–22 January, Anaheim, California, pp 179–184Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Moreira EE, Paulo AA, Pereira LS, Mexia JT (2006) Analysis of SPI drought class transitions using loglinear models. J Hydrol 331(1–2):349–359CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Morid S, Smakhtin V, Moghadasi M (2006) Comparison of seven meteorological indices for drought monitoring in Iran. Int J Climatol 26:971–985CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Nasrollahi M, Khosravi H, Moghaddamnia A, Malekian A, Shahid S (2018) Assessment of drought risk index using drought hazard and vulnerability indices. Arab J Geosci 11(20):606CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Ning Y, Yi L, Tianjie L, Lingling P (2018) Drought evolution, severity and trends in mainland China over 1961–2013. Sci Total Environ 616–617:73–89Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Nosrati K, Zareiee AR (2011) Assessment of meteorological drought using SPI in West Azarbaijan Province, Iran. J Appl Sci Environ Manag 15(4):563–569Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Rostamian R, Eslamian S, Farzaneh MR (2013) Application of standardized precipitation index for predicting meteorological drought intensity in Beheshtabad watershed, central Iran. Int. J. Hydrol Sci Technol 3(1):63–77CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Saadati S, Soltani S, Eslamian S (2009) Statistical analysis of return period of drought conditions in Isfahan province using the Standardized Precipitation Index. J Range Watershed Manag (Iran J Nat Resour) 62(1):249–261Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Sanginabadi H, Saghafian B, Delavar M (2019) Coupled groundwater drought and water scarcity index for intensively overdrafted aquifers. J Hydrol Eng 24(4):04019003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Şarlak N, Mahmood Agha OMA (2017) Spatial and temporal variations of aridity indices in Iraq. Theor Appl Climatol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00704-017-2163-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Shamsnia SA, Pirmoradian N, Amiri SN (2009) Modeling of drought in Fars Province using time series analysis. J Geogr Plan 14(28):165–189Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sidahmed AE (2018) Recent trends in dry lands and future scope for advancement. In: Climate variability impacts on land use and livelihoods in dry lands.  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-56681-8_2
  29. 29.
    Sneyers R (1990) On the statistical analysis of series of observations. In: WMO Technical Note (143). World Meteorological Organization, GeneveGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sobral BS, de Oliveira-Júnior JF, de Gois G, Pereira-Júnior ER, de Bodas Terassi PM, Muniz-Júnior JGR, Lyra GB, Zeri M (2019) Drought characterization for the state of Rio de Janeiro based on the annual SPI index: trends, statistical tests and its relation with ENSO. Atmos Res 220:141–154CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Soleimani Sardou F, Bahremand A (2014) Hydrological drought analysis using SDI Index in Halilrud basin of Iran. Environ Resour Res 2(1):47–56Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tajbakhsh S, Esakhani N, Fazel KA (2015) Assessment of meteorological drought in Iran using standard precipitation and evapotranspiration index. J Earth Space Phys 41(2):313–321Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Thakur A (2019) Temporal analysis of drought using standardized precipitation index for Wainganga sub-basin, India. J Pharmacogn Phytochem 8(1):268–272Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) (1992) World atlas of desertificationGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Uosefi N, Hejam S, Iran Nezhad P (2004) Estimating the probabilities of drought and rain using Markov Chain and normal distribution case study Ghazvin. J Geogr Res 60(86):121–128Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Vali A, Roustaei F (2016) a time series analysis of drought for the last five decades in Central Iran. Desert Ecosyst Eng 5(11):92–97Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zarei AR (2018) Evaluation of drought condition in arid and semi-Arid regions, using RDI Index. Water Resour Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-017-1898-9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. 38.
    Zarei AR, Mahmoudi MR (2017) Evaluation of changes in RDIst index effected by different potential evapotranspiration calculation methods. Water Resour Manage 31(15):4981–4999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. 39.
    Zarei AR, Moghimi MM (2019) Modified version for SPEI to evaluate and modeling the agricultural drought severity. Int J Biometeorol.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00484-019-01704-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. 40.
    Zarei AR, Parsamehr AH, Zare S (2015) Comparison of several methods to estimate reference evapotranspiration. West Afri J Appl Ecol 23(2):17–25Google Scholar
  41. 41.
    Zarei AR, Moghimi MM, Mahmoudi MR (2016) Analysis of changes in spatial pattern of drought using RDI index in south of Iran. Water Resour Manag.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-016-1380-0 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  42. 42.
    Zarei AR, Moghimi MM, Bahrami M (2017) Monitoring and prediction of monthly drought using standardized precipitation index and Markov Chain (case study: southeast of Iran). Geogr Sustain Environ 7(23):39–51Google Scholar
  43. 43.
    Zarei AR, Shabani A, Mahmoudi MR (2019) Comparison of the climate indices based on the relationship between yield loss of rain-fed winter wheat and changes of climate indices using GEE model. Sci Total Environ 661:711–722CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. 44.
    Zhijie T, Ruide Y, Xi C, Guijin M, Yanfei G (2018) Analysis of the spatio-temporal patterns of dry and wet conditions in central Asia. Atmosphere.  https://doi.org/10.3390/atmos9010007 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Range and Watershed Management (Nature Engineering), College of Agricultural ScienceFasa UniversityFasaIran

Personalised recommendations