Journals / Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi / 2019 / Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 6

Drought analysis in Mediterranean Region

Akdeniz Bölgesinde kuraklık analizi

Pages
665–671
Publication Date
2019-11-25
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

When the minimum values are considered, Adana has the least percentage values in both wetness and dryness conditions compared to other stations.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:Drought is a natural disaster developing secretly.
📊
Key Findings & Data:Temperature and precipitation data were used for 8 meteorological observation stations.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:When the minimum values are considered, Adana has the least percentage values in both wetness and dryness conditions compared to other stations.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:2018 Verileri
⚙️Variables:Kuraklık · Sıcaklık · Yağış

Abstract

Drought is a natural disaster developing secretly. In this study, Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) has been applied for in Turkey's Mediterranean Region. Temperature and precipitation data were used for 8 meteorological observation stations. According to the data, 8 stations (Adana, Antalya, Burdur, Hatay/Antakya, Isparta, Kahramanmaras, Mersin and Osmaniye) were observed between 1970-2018. Frequency analyzes of SPEI values of 1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months were calculated for each station. Monthly (1, 3, 6, 9 and 12 months) frequency values between the distribution of ear and wetlands is intended to make a comparison. Comparisons were made on how long the SPEI values were found in drought classes and on this availability. As a result, the data obtained from all stations in the Mediterranean region are between mild dry and near to normal. Mersin has the maximum value both in near to normal and dry conditions. When the minimum values are considered, Adana has the least percentage values in both wetness and dryness conditions compared to other stations.

Özet

Kuraklık gizlice gelişen bir doğal afettir. Bu çalışmada Standartlaştırılmış Yağış Evapotranspirasyon İndeksi (SPEI) Türkiye’nin Akdeniz Bölgesi’nde ilk kez uygulanmıştır. 8 meteoroloji gözlem istasyonun sıcaklık ve yağış verileri kullanılmıştır. Verilere göre 8 istasyon (Adana, Antalya, Burdur, Hatay/Antakya, Isparta, Kahramanmaraş, Mersin ve Osmaniye) 1970-2018 yılları arasında gözlem yapılmıştır. Her bir istasyon için 1, 3, 6, 9 ve 12 aylık SPEI değerlerinin frekans analizleri hesaplanmıştır. Aylık (1, 3, 6, 9 ve 12 aylık) frekans değerleri arasında kulak ve sulak dönemlerin dağılımlarının karşılaştırılmasının yapılması amaçlanmıştır. Bulunan SPEI değerlerinin kuraklık sınıflarında ne kadar mevcut olduğu ve bu mevcudiyet üzerinden karşılaştırmalar yapılmıştır. Sonuç olarak Akdeniz Bölgesindeki tüm istasyonlarda elde edilen veriler hafif kuraklık ile normale yakınlık arasındadır. Hem normale yakın hem de kurak durumlarda Mersin maximum değerler almıştır. Minimum değerlere bakıldığında ise diğer istasyonlara kıyasla Adana hem sulak hem de kurak durumlarda en az yüzdelik değerlerine sahiptir.

🔖

Cite This Article

BACANLI, Ü. G., AKŞAN, G. N. (2019). Drought analysis in Mediterranean Region. Pamukkale Üniversitesi Mühendislik Bilimleri Dergisi, Cilt: 25 - Sayı: 6, 665–671. https://ajindex.com/articles/42159

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (13)

  1. Kabat P, Schulze RE, Hellmuth ME, Veraart JA. Coping with Impacts of Climate Variability and Climate Change in Water Management: A Scoping Paper. International Secretariat of the Dialogue on Water and Climate, Wageningen, Netherlands, 2003.
  2. Trenberth KE, Dai A, Van der Schrier G, Jones PD, Barichivich J, Briffa KR and Sheffield J. “Global warming and changes in drought”. Natural Climate Change, 4(1), 17-22, 2014.
  3. Potop V, Možný M, Soukup J. “Drought evolution at various time scales in the lowland regions and their impact on vegetable crops in the Czech Republic”. Agricultural and Forest Meteorology, 156, 121-133, 2012.
  4. Keyantash J, Dracup JA. “The quantification of drought: An evaluation of drought indices”. Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society, 83, 1167-1180, 2002.
  5. Wilhite DA, Glantz MH. “Understanding: the drought phenomenon: The role of definitions”. Water International, 10(3), 111-120, 1985.
  6. Mouatadid S, Raj N, Deo RC, Adamowski JF. “Input selection and data-driven model performance optimization to predict the standardized precipitation and evaporation index in a drought-prone region”. Atmospheric Research, 212, 130-149, 2018.
  7. Dai A. “Drought under global warming: a review”. Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Climate Change, 2(1), 45-65, 2011.
  8. Potop V, Možný M, Boroneanţ C, Štěpánek P and Skalák P. “Observed spatiotemporal characteristics of drought on various time scales over the Czech Republic”. Theoretical and Applied Climatology, 115(3-4), 563-581, 2014.
  9. Wilhite DA, Sivakumar MVK, Wood DA. “Warning systems for drought preparedness and drought management”. World Meteorological Organization, Lisbon, Portugal, 5-7 September 2000. Tannehill IR. Drought its Causes and Effects. New Jersey, USA, Princeton University, 1947.
  10. Alam NM, Adhikary PP, Jana C, Kaushal R, Sharma NK, Avasthe RK, Ranjan R, Mishra PK. “Application of Markov model and standardized precipitation index for analysis of droughts in Bundelkhand region of India”. Journal of Tree Sciences, 31(1&2), 46-53, 2012.
  11. Alam NM, Mishra PK, Jana C, Adhikary PP. “Stochastic model for drought forecasting for Bundelkhand region in Central India”. Indian Journal of Agricultural Sciences, 84(2), 79-84, 2014.
  12. Alam NM, Ranjan R, Adhikary PP, Kumar A, Jana C, Panwar S, Mishra PK, Sharma NK. “Statistical modeling of weekly rainfall data for crop planning in Bundelkhand region of Central India”. India Section B: Biological Sciences, 44(3), 336-342, 2016.
  13. Alam NM, Sharma GC, Moreira E, Jana C, Mishra PK,