Benchmarking of drought and climate indices for agricultural drought monitoring in Argentina
Metadatos
Mostrar el registro completo del ítemEditorial
Elsevier
Materia
Drought indices Agricultural drought Teleconnections Statistical model Soybean yield
Fecha
2021-10-10Referencia bibliográfica
R.J. Araneda-Cabrera, M. Bermúdez and J. Puertas. Benchmarking of drought and climate indices for agricultural drought monitoring in Argentina. Science of the Total Environment 790 (2021) 148090 [https://doi.org/10.1016/j.scitotenv.2021.148090]
Patrocinador
Spanish Regional Government of Galicia (Xunta de Galicia); European Commission ED481A-2018/162; European Union H2020 Research and Innovation Program under the Marie SkodowskaCurie Grant Agreement No. 754446; Research and Transfer Fund of the University of Granada - Athenea3iResumen
Site-specific studies are required to identify suitable drought indices (DIs) for assessing and predicting droughtrelated
impacts. This study presents a benchmark of eight DIs and 19 large-scale climate indices (CIs) to monitor
agricultural drought in Argentina. First, the link between the CIs and DIs was investigated at the departmentaladministrative
level and at different temporal scales. Then, the effectiveness of the DIs in explaining the variability
of crop yields, understood as impacts of agricultural droughts, was evaluated using statistical regression
models. Soybeans were used as the reference crop. Additionally, the performances of DIs and CIs in explaining
the variability of crop yields were compared. The CIs located in the Pacific Ocean (El Niño 3.4 and El Niño
4) were found to have the best correlations with the DIs (R values up to 0.49). These relationships were stronger
with longer temporal aggregations and during the wet and hot seasons (summer), showing a significant role in
the triggering of droughts in Argentina. The DIs that best corelatedwith CIswere those that included temperature
in their calculations (STCI, SVHI, and SPEI). The impacts of droughts on soybean productionwere better explained
using DIs than with CIs (up to 89% vs 8% of variability explained) as predictors of the statistical models. SVHI-6
and SPEI-6, depending on the area of interest, were, during the phenological period of crop growth (summer),
the most effective DIs in explaining annual variations in soybean yields. The results may be of interest in water
resource management, drought risk management, and the Argentinean soybean production sector. Furthermore,
they provide a foundation for future studies aimed at forecasting agricultural droughts and their impacts.