Advertisement

Environmental Earth Sciences

, Volume 71, Issue 6, pp 2491–2501 | Cite as

Standardized precipitation evaporation index (SPEI)-based drought assessment in semi-arid south Texas

  • E. Annette HernandezEmail author
  • Venkatesh Uddameri
Thematic Issue

Abstract

The coastal semi-arid region of south Texas is known for its erratic climate that fluctuates between long periods of drought and extremely wet hurricane-induced storms. The standard precipitation index (SPI) and the standard precipitation evaporation index (SPEI) were used in this study in conjunction with precipitation and temperature projections from two general circulation models (GCMs), namely, the National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR) Parallel Climate Model (PCM) and the UK Meteorological Office Hadley Centre model (HCM) for two emission scenarios—A1B (~720 ppm CO2 stabilization) and B1 (~550 ppm CO2 stabilization) at six major urban centers of south Texas spanning five climatic zones. Both the models predict a progressively increasing aridity of the region throughout the twenty-first century. The SPI exhibits greater variability in the available moisture during the first half of the twenty-first century while the SPEI depicts a downward trend caused by increasing temperature. However, droughts during the latter half of the twenty-first century are due to both increasing temperature and decreasing precipitation. These results suggest that droughts during the first half of the twenty-first century are likely caused by meteorological demands (temperature or potential evapotranspiration (PET) controlled), while those during the latter half are likely to be more critical as they curtail moisture supply to the region over large periods of time (precipitation and PET controlled). The drought effects are more pronounced for the A1B scenario than the B1 scenario and while spatial patterns are not always consistent, the effects are generally felt more strongly in the hinterlands than in coastal areas. The projected increased warming of the region, along with potential decreases in precipitation, points toward increased reliance on groundwater resources which are noted to be a buffer against droughts. However, there is a need for human adaptation to climate change, a greater commitment to groundwater conservation and development of large-scale regional aquifer storage and recovery (ASR) facilities that are capable of long-term storage in order to sustain groundwater availability. Groundwater resource managers and planners must confront the possibility of an increased potential for prolonged (multi-year) droughts and develop innovative strategies that effectively integrate water augmentation technologies and conservation-oriented policies to ensure the sustainability of aquifer resources well into the next century.

Keywords

Climate change Evapotranspiration Global warming Thornthwaite method Downscaling Global circulation model 

References

  1. Brutsaert W, Parlange M (1998) Hydrologic cycle explains the evaporation paradox. Nature 396(6706):30CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Eagleson PS (1978) Climate, soil, and vegetation: 4. The expected value of annual evapotranspiration. Water Resour Res 14(5):731–739CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Fulbright TE, Bryant F (2002) The last great habitat. Caesar Kleberg Wildlife Research Institute, Texas A & M University-Kingsville, KingsvilleGoogle Scholar
  4. Ghosh S, Mujumdar P (2007) Nonparametric methods for modeling GCM and scenario uncertainty in drought assessment. Water Resour Res 43(7):W07405Google Scholar
  5. Gordon C, Cooper C, Senior CA, Banks H, Gregory JM, Johns TC, Mitchell JFB, Wood RA (2000) The simulation of SST, sea ice extents and ocean heat transports in a version of the Hadley Centre coupled model without flux adjustments. Clim Dyn 16(2):147–168CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Guttman NB (1999) Accepting the standardized precipitation index: a calculation algorithm. J Am Water Resour Assoc 35(2):311–322CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Hayhoe K, Cayan D, Field CB, Frumhoff PC, Maurer EP, Miller NL, Moser SC, Schneider SH, Cahill KN, Cleland EE (2004) Emissions pathways, climate change, and impacts on California. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 101(34):12422–12427CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Hirsch RM, Slack JR (1984) A nonparametric trend test for seasonal data with serial dependence. Water Resour Res 20(6):727–732CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Hutchison W (2010) The use of groundwater availability models in Texas in the establishment of desired future conditions. GSA Annual Meeting, DenverGoogle Scholar
  10. IPCC (2000) Special report on emission scenarios. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  11. Larkin TJ, Bomar GW (1983) Climatic atlas of Texas. Texas Department of Water Resources, AustinGoogle Scholar
  12. Maurer EP (2007) Uncertainty in hydrologic impacts of climate change in the Sierra Nevada, California, under two emissions scenarios. Clim Change 82(3):309–325CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Maurer E, Hidalgo H (2007) Utility of daily vs. monthly large-scale climate data: an intercomparison of two statistical downscaling methods. Hydrol Earth Syst Sci Discuss 4(5):3413–3440CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. McKee TB, Doesken NJ, Kleist J (1993) The relationship of drought frequency and duration to time scales, vol 17. In: Proceedings of the 8th conference on applied climatology. American Meteorological Society, Boston, MAGoogle Scholar
  15. Mishra AK, Singh VP (2011) Drought modeling—a review. J Hydrol 403(1):157–175CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Norwine J, John K (2007) The changing climate of south Texas, 1900–2100: problems and prospects, impacts and implications. CREST-RESSACA, Texas A&M University-Kingsville, KingsvilleGoogle Scholar
  17. Thom HCS (1968) Approximate convolution of the gamma and mixed gamma distributions. Mon Weather Rev 96(12):883–886CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Thornthwaite CW (1948) An approach toward a rational classification of climate. Geogr Rev 38(1):55–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Tsur Y (1990) Stabilization role of groundwater when surface water supplies are uncertain: the implications for groundwater development. Water Resour Res 26(5):811–818Google Scholar
  20. TWDB (2012) Water for Texas 2012 state water plan. Texas Water Development Board, AustinGoogle Scholar
  21. Uddameri V (2005) Sustainability and groundwater management. Clean Technol Environ Policy 7(4):231–232CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Uddameri V (2007) A dynamic programming model for optimal planning of aquifer storage and recovery facility operations. Environ Geol 51(6):953–962CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Uddameri V, Kuchanur M (2007) Estimating aquifer recharge in Mission River watershed, Texas: model development and calibration using genetic algorithms. Environ Geol 51(6):897–910CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Uddameri V, Singaraju SG, Hernandez E (2013) Temporal variability of freshwater and pore water recirculation components of submarine groundwater discharges at Baffin Bay, Texas. Environmental Earth Sciences (in press)Google Scholar
  25. USBR (2011) Reclamation, SECURE Water Act Section 9503(c)—reclamation climate change and water, report to Congress, 2011 US Department of the Interior, Bureau of Reclamation, Washington, DCGoogle Scholar
  26. Vicente-Serrano SM, Beguería S, López-Moreno JI (2010) A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index. J Clim 23(7):1696–1718CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Vicente-Serrano SM, Beguería S, Lorenzo-Lacruz J, Camarero JJ, López-Moreno JI, Azorin-Molina C, Revuelto J, Morán-Tejeda E, Sanchez-Lorenzo A (2012) Performance of drought indices for ecological, agricultural and hydrological applications. Earth Interact 16(10):1–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Washington W, Weatherly J, Meehl G, Semtner A Jr, Bettge T, Craig A, Strand W Jr, Arblaster J, Wayland V, James R (2000) Parallel climate model (PCM) control and transient simulations. Clim Dyn 16(10):755–774CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Wood AW, Leung LR, Sridhar V, Lettenmaier DP (2004) Hydrologic implications of dynamical and statistical approaches to downscaling climate model outputs. Climatic Change 62(1):189–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Civil and Environmental EngineeringTexas Tech UniversityLubbockUSA

Personalised recommendations