دوماهنامه

ارزیابی قابلیت اطمینان داده‌های شبکه‌بندی شاخص استاندارد‌شده بارش- تبخیر و تعرق در حوضه‌‌های آبریز ایران

نوع مقاله : مقالات پژوهشی

نویسندگان

گروه جغرافیای طبیعی، دانشکده جغرافیا و برنامه‌ریزی محیطی، دانشگاه سیستان و بلوچستان، زاهدان، ایران

چکیده
شاخص استاندارد شده بارش- تبخیر و تعرق (SPEI)، از پُرکاربردترین شاخص‌های ارزیابی خشکسالی در سطح جهان به شمار می‌رود. این شاخص، از متغیر‌های بارش و دما (به منظور تخمین تبخیر و تعرق) به عنوان داده‌های ورودی خود برای ارزیابی خشکسالی استفاده می‌کند و به این ترتیب به عنوان یک شاخص دومتغیره خشکسالی شناخته می‌شود. محدودیت دسترسی به داده‌های ایستگاهی بلندمدت و یکنواخت در گستره‌هایی با پیچیدگی ناهمواری و تنوع اقلیمی زیاد (به مانند ایران)، چالش جدی برای پایش دقیق شرایط خشکسالی ایجاد می‌کند. در این راستا، پایگاه داده شبکه‌بندی شده جهانی از این شاخص (SPEIbase) مبتنی بر تلفیق داده‌های ماهواره‌ای، مدل‌های اقلیمی و داده‌های اندازه‌گیری شده، توسعه داده شده است. بنابراین، این پژوهش به بررسی سطح توافق بین SPEI و SPEIbase به‌عنوان ابزارهای ارزیابی خشکسالی در مقیاس‌های زمانی 1، 3، 6، 9 و 12 ماهه متمرکز است تا قابلیت اطمینان به جایگزینی آن را به‌دلیل وضوح زمانی و مکانی بالا و دسترسی سریع‌تر فراهم نماید. ارزیابی میزان هماهنگی و توافق بین SPEI و SPEIbase از طریق آزمون همبستگی خطی پیرسون، آزمون وزن‌دار کاپای کوهن و نمودار بلند- آلتمن انجام گرفته است. شاخص SPEI بر مبنای داده‌های بارش و دمای مقیاس ماهانه از 43 ایستگاه هواشناسی ایران در دوره 1986 تا 2023 و بر پایه برآورد تبخیر و تعرق پتانسیل مبتنی بر معادله تورنت‌ویت محاسبه شده است. شاخص SPEIbase نیز که بر مبنای مجموعه داده‌های سری زمانی اقلیمی نسخه 09/4 واحد تحقیقات اقلیمی و بر پایه برآورد تبخیر و تعرق پتانسیل مبتنی بر معادله پنمن- مانتیث فائو 56، محاسبه شده برای دوره مشابه استخراج شده است. یافته‌ها بیانگر ضریب همبستگی قوی و توافق زیاد بین SPEI و SPEIbase در اکثر مناطق ایران است. به‌طور کلی، میزان همبستگی از مقیاس‌های کوتاه‌تر (1 و 3 ماهه) به مقیاس‌های بلندتر (6، 9 و 12 ماهه) افزایش دارد. به‌عنوان یافته کلی، SPEIbase در بسیاری از مناطق ایران، به‌ویژه در نواحی کوهستانی، قابلیت جایگزینی برای داده‌های ایستگاهی را دارا می‌باشد.

کلیدواژه‌ها

موضوعات

عنوان مقاله English

Reliability Assessment of Gridded SPEI (SPEIbase) in Iran's Catchments

نویسندگان English

N. Poodineh
H. Nazaripour
M. Khosravi
Department of Physical Geography, Faculty of Geography and Environmental Planning, University of Sistan and Baluchestan, Zahedan, Iran
چکیده English

 Introduction
Drought is one of the most complex and costly natural disasters, and its accurate monitoring is essential for water resources management and vulnerability reduction. The Standardized Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), as a bivariate index, utilizes precipitation and temperature data (to estimate evapotranspiration) and has gained widespread application due to its multiscalar nature and sensitivity to climate change. However, limited access to long-term and uniform station-based data in a country with high climatic diversity and complex topography like Iran poses a significant challenge for accurate drought monitoring. The global gridded database SPEIbase, with a spatial resolution of 0.5 arc degrees, has been developed by integrating satellite data, climate models, and in-situ measurements. This study aims to evaluate the reliability of SPEIbase compared to station-based data across Iran's catchments to assess the feasibility of substituting this database due to its extensive spatial coverage and easier accessibility.
 
Materials and Methods
Two datasets were used in this research: 1) Station data including monthly precipitation time series and monthly mean temperature from 43 meteorological stations in Iran for the statistical period 1986-2023, obtained from the Iran Meteorological Organization (IRIMO). 2) Gridded SPEIbase data, version 2.11, based on the CRU TS 4.09 dataset, extracted for the same period from the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia. The station-based SPEI was calculated using potential evapotranspiration estimated via the Thornthwaite method at time scales of 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12 months. The SPEIbase index, based on potential evapotranspiration estimated via the FAO-56 Penman-Monteith method, was extracted for the corresponding period. The concordance and agreement between the two indices were evaluated using three statistical methods: 1) Pearson's correlation coefficient to assess linear relationship, 2) Weighted Cohen's Kappa statistic to measure agreement in drought classes (8 classes ranging from extreme drought to extremely wet), and 3) Bland-Altman plots to examine limits of agreement and systematic bias.
 
Results and Discussion
Findings indicated that the Pearson correlation coefficient between SPEI and SPEIbase fell within the strong correlation range (0.70 to 0.90) for most stations and catchments in Iran. The highest correlations were observed at stations in mountainous areas, such as Khorramabad (0.92), Hamedan (0.87), and Urmia (0.86) at the 12-month scale. Conversely, coastal and lowland stations like Bandar Abbas, Ramsar, and Babolsar showed relatively weaker correlations (0.63 to 0.67) at shorter time scales. Results from the Weighted Cohen's Kappa statistic also demonstrated substantial agreement (0.60 to 0.80) in drought classification between the two indices in mountainous regions and moderate agreement (0.40 to 0.60) in lowland and coastal areas. Bland-Altman plots revealed narrow limits of agreement and random scatter of points around the mean line, indicating no significant systematic bias. A key finding was the increase in correlation and agreement with increasing time scale; the highest agreement was observed at 9 and 12-month scales (hydrological drought) and the lowest at the 1-month scale (meteorological drought). Bam station, with a mean annual precipitation of approximately 53.7 mm, exhibited the lowest correlation (0.64) and agreement (0.39) at the 12-month scale, possibly due to hyper-arid conditions and limitations of evapotranspiration estimation methods in such climates. Constructed violin plots confirmed the concentration of correlation and kappa coefficients at higher ranges with increasing time scale.
 
Conclusion
The SPEIbase database demonstrates suitable accuracy for drought monitoring across Iran's catchments and shows high concordance and agreement with station-based data in many regions, particularly mountainous areas. As the time scale increases from 1 to 12 months, correlation and agreement improve, indicating higher reliability of this database for monitoring agricultural and hydrological droughts. In coastal and lowland regions, especially at shorter time scales, caution is recommended when using this database. Given its extensive spatial coverage, appropriate temporal resolution, and free accessibility, SPEIbase can serve as a reliable alternative to station-based data in data-sparse regions or areas with incomplete records. It is suggested that future research calculate station-based SPEI using the FAO-56 Penman-Monteith method to evaluate the impact of the evapotranspiration estimation method on the level of agreement with SPEIbase
 
Acknowledgement 
The authors would like to thank the Iran Meteorological Organization (IRIMO) for providing the meteorological data used in this research free of charge.

کلیدواژه‌ها English

Bland and Altman plot
Degree of agreement
Drought
Pearson’s correlation coefficient
Weighted Cohen’s Kappa

Authors retain the copyright. This is an open access article distributed under Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (CC BY 4.0).

  1. Adler, J., & Parmryd, I. (2010). Quantifying colocalization by correlation: the Pearson correlation coefficient is superior to the Mander's overlap coefficient. Cytometry Part A77(8), 733-742. https://doi.org/10.1002/ cyto.a.20896
  2. Ahmadalipour, A., Moradkhani, H., & Demirel, M.C. (2017). A comparative assessment of projected meteorological and hydrological droughts: elucidating the role of temperature. Journal of Hydrology553, 785-797. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2017.08.047
  3. Allen, R.G. (2000). Using the FAO-56 dual crop coefficient method over an irrigated region as part of an evapotranspiration intercomparison study. Journal of Hydrology229(1-2), 27-41. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0022-1694(99)00194-8
  4. Beguería, S., & Vicente-Serrano, SM. (2023). SPEI: Calculation of the Standardized Precipitation-Evapotranspiration Indexhttps://spei.csic.eshttps://github.com/sbegueria/SPEI
  5. Bisht, H., LOO, S., Suna, T., Vishnoi, L., Gautam, S., & Singh, D.K. (2023). Drought assessment and trend analysis using SPI and SPEI during southwest monsoon season over Bundelkhand region of Uttar Pradesh, India. Mausam74(1), 119-128. https://doi.org/10.54302/mausam.v74i1.3519
  6. Bland, J.M., & Altman, D. (2010). Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. The Lancet327(8476), 307-310. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2009.10.001
  7. Brands, S., Iturbide, M., González-Pardo, J.D., Herrera, S., Bedia, J., Manzanas, R., Rodriguez-Guisado, E., Begueria, S., Vicente-Serrano, S.M., & Gutiérrez, J.M. (2025). Seasonal drought predictions in the Mediterranean using the SPEI index: Paving the way for their operational applicability in climate services. Climate Services38, 100555. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cliser.2025.100555
  8. Cohen, J. (1960). A co-efficient of agreement for norminal scales. Education Psychology Meas20, 111-116. http://hdl.handle.net/1942/28116
  9. Fleiss, J.L. (1971). Measuring nominal scale agreement among many raters. Psychological Bulletin76(5), 378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0031619
  10. Gebrechorkos, S.H., Peng, J., Dyer, E., Miralles, D.G., Vicente-Serrano, S.M., Funk, C., Beck, H.E., Asfaw, D.T., Singer, N.B., & Dadson, S.J. (2023). Global high-resolution drought indices for 1981–2022. Earth System Science Data Discussions2023, 1-28. https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-15-5449-2023
  11. Giavarina, D. (2015). Understanding bland altman analysis. Biochemia Medica25(2), 141-151. https://doi.org/ 10.11613/BM.2015.015
  12. Gwet, K.L. (2008). Computing inter‐rater reliability and its variance in the presence of high agreement. British Journal of Mathematical and Statistical Psychology61(1), 29-48. https://doi.org/10.1348/000711006X126600
  13. Hargreaves, G.H., & Samani, Z.A. (1985) Reference crop evapotranspiration from ambient air temperature. Apply Engineering Agriculture, 1(2), 96–99. https://doi.org/10.13031/2013.26773
  14. Imran, H.M., Kala, J., Uddin, S., Islam, A.S., & Acharya, N. (2023). Spatiotemporal analysis of temperature and precipitation extremes over Bangladesh using a novel gridded observational dataset. Weather and Climate Extremes39, 100544. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2022.100544
  15. Keyantash, J., & Dracup, J.A. (2002). The quantification of drought: an evaluation of drought indices. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society83(8), 1167-1180. https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0477-83.8.1167
  16. Landis, J.R., & Koch, G.G. (1977). An application of hierarchical kappa-type statistics in the assessment of majority agreement among multiple observers. Biometrics, 363-374. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529786
  17. Lweendo, M.K., Lu, B., Wang, M., Zhang, H., & Xu, W. (2017). Characterization of droughts in humid subtropical region, upper kafue river basin (Southern Africa). Water9(4), 242. https://doi.org/10.3390/ w9040242
  18. Manzano, A., Clemente, M.A., Morata, A., Luna, M.Y., Beguería, S., Vicente-Serrano, S.M., & Martín, M.L. (2019). Analysis of the atmospheric circulation pattern effects over SPEI drought index in Spain. Atmospheric Research230, 104630. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.104630
  19. Mehran, A., Mazdiyasni, O., & AghaKouchak, A. (2015). A hybrid framework for assessing socioeconomic drought: Linking climate variability, local resilience, and demand. Journal of Geophysical Research: Atmospheres120(15), 7520-7533. https://doi.org/10.1002/2015JD023147
  20. Nazaripour, H., Hamidianpour, M., Khosravi, M., & Vazirimehr, M. (2022). Variability of drought frequency and intensity in Iran using SPEI. Journal of Water and Soil Science26(4), 233-247.‎ (In Persian). https://doi.org/ 10.47176/jwss.26.4.45861
  21. Nikdad, P., Mohammadi Ghaleni, M., & Moghaddasi, M. (2023). Evaluation of actual and potential evapotranspiration in global products across Iran's sub basins. Iranian Journal of Soil and Water Research54(5), 789-810. https://doi.org/10.22059/ijswr.2023.357603.669481
  22. Ojha, N., Merlin, O., Suere, C., & Escorihuela, M.J. (2021). Extending the spatio-temporal applicability of DISPATCH soil moisture downscaling algorithm: A study case using SMAP, MODIS and Sentinel-3 data. Frontiers in Environmental Science9, 555216. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenvs.2021.555216
  23. Peña-Gallardo, M., Vicente-Serrano, S.M., Hannaford, J., Lorenzo-Lacruz, J., Svoboda, M., Dominguez-Castro, F., Manteta, M., Tomas-Burguera, M., & El Kenawy, A. (2019). Complex influences of meteorological drought time-scales on hydrological droughts in natural basins of the contiguous Unites States. Journal of Hydrology568, 611-625. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2018.11.026
  24. Raziei, T. (2017). Köppen-Geiger climate classification of Iran and investigation of its changes during 20th century. Journal of the Earth and Space Physics43(2), 419-439. (In Persian). https://doi.org/10.22059/ jesphys.2017.58916.
  25. Raziei, T., Saghafian, B., Paulo, A.A., Pereira, L.S., & Bordi, I. (2009). Spatial patterns and temporal variability of drought in western Iran. Water Resources Management23(3), 439-455. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11269-008-9282-4
  26. Satgé, F., Hussain, Y., Molina‐Carpio, J., Pillco, R., Laugner, C., Akhter, G., & Bonnet, M.P. (2020). Reliability of SM2RAIN precipitation datasets in comparison to gauge observations and hydrological modelling over arid regions. International Journal of Climatology41(S1). https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.6704
  27. Schober, P., Boer, C., & Schwarte, L.A. (2018). Correlation coefficients: appropriate use and interpretation. Anesthesia & Analgesia126(5), 1763-1768. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8
  28. Stagge, J.H., Tallaksen, L.M., Gudmundsson, L., Van Loon, A.F., & Stahl, K. (2015). Candidate distributions for climatological drought indices (SPI and SPEI). International Journal of Climatology35(13), 4027-4040. https://doi.org/10.1002/joc.4267
  29. Tefera, A.S., Ayoade, J.O., & Bello, N.J. (2019). Comparative analyses of SPI and SPEI as drought assessment tools in Tigray Region, Northern Ethiopia. SN Applied Sciences1(10), 1265. https://doi.org/10.1007/s42452-019-1326-2
  30. Tukimat, N.N.A., Harun, S., & Shahid, S. (2012). Comparison of different methods in estimating potential evapotranspiration at Muda Irrigation Scheme of Malaysia. Journal of Agriculture and Rural Development in the Tropics and Subtropics (JARTS)113(1), 77-85. https://urn.fi/urn:nbn:de:hebis:34-2012091441739
  31. Vicente-Serrano, S.M., Beguería, S., & López-Moreno, J.I. (2010). A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index. Journal of Climate23(7), 1696-1718. https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1
  32. Vicente-Serrano, S.M., Peña-Angulo, D., Beguería, S., Domínguez-Castro, F., Tomás-Burguera, M., Noguera, I., Gimeno-Sotelo, L., & El Kenawy, A. (2022). Global drought trends and future projections. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society A: Mathematical, Physical and Engineering Sciences380(2238). https://doi.org/10.1098/rsta.2021.0285
  33. Viera, A.J., & Garrett, J.M. (2005). Understanding interobserver agreement: the kappa statistic. Fam Med37(5), 360-363. PMID: 15883903.
  34. Warrens, M.J. (2013). Weighted kappas for 3× 3 tables. Journal of Probability and Statistics2013(1), 325831. https://doi.org/10.1155/2013/325831
  35. Watson, P.F., & Petrie, A. (2010). Method agreement analysis: a review of correct methodology. Theriogenology73(9), 1167-1179. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.theriogenology.2010.01.003

 

ارسال نظر در مورد این مقاله
نام را وارد کنید.
نشانی پست الکترونیکی را به درستی وارد کنید.
وابستگی سازمانی را به درستی وارد کنید.
توضیحات را وارد کنید (حداقل 50 حرف)
CAPTCHA Image
شناسه امنیتی را به درستی وارد کنید.
دوره 39، شماره 6 - شماره پیاپی 104
بهمن و اسفند 1404
صفحه 610-589

  • تاریخ دریافت 28 بهمن 1404
  • تاریخ بازنگری 24 فروردین 1405
  • تاریخ پذیرش 30 فروردین 1405
  • تاریخ اولین انتشار 30 فروردین 1405