View in EDS

How ecologists define drought, and why we should do better.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Title: How ecologists define drought, and why we should do better.
Authors: Slette, Ingrid J.1,2 (AUTHOR) ingrid.slette@colostate.edu, Post, Alison K.1,2 (AUTHOR), Awad, Mai2,3 (AUTHOR), Even, Trevor2,4 (AUTHOR), Punzalan, Arianna2,3,4 (AUTHOR), Williams, Sere1 (AUTHOR), Smith, Melinda D.1,2 (AUTHOR), Knapp, Alan K.1,2 (AUTHOR)
Source: Global Change Biology. Oct2019, Vol. 25 Issue 10, p3193-3200. 8p. 1 Chart, 4 Graphs.
Subjects: Drought management, Droughts, Ecologists, Ecosystem dynamics, Soil moisture, Drought forecasting
Abstract: Drought, widely studied as an important driver of ecosystem dynamics, is predicted to increase in frequency and severity globally. To study drought, ecologists must define or at least operationalize what constitutes a drought. How this is accomplished in practice is unclear, particularly given that climatologists have long struggled to agree on definitions of drought, beyond general variants of "an abnormal deficiency of water." We conducted a literature review of ecological drought studies (564 papers) to assess how ecologists describe and study drought. We found that ecologists characterize drought in a wide variety of ways (reduced precipitation, low soil moisture, reduced streamflow, etc.), but relatively few publications (~32%) explicitly define what are, and are not, drought conditions. More troubling, a surprising number of papers (~30%) simply equated "dry conditions" with "drought" and provided little characterization of the drought conditions studied. For a subset of these, we calculated Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index values for the reported drought periods. We found that while almost 90% of the studies were conducted under conditions quantifiable as slightly to extremely drier than average, ~50% were within the range of normal climatic variability. We conclude that the current state of the ecological drought literature hinders synthesis and our ability to draw broad ecological inferences because drought is often declared but is not explicitly defined or well characterized. We suggest that future drought publications provide at least one of the following: (a) the climatic context of the drought period based on long‐term records; (b) standardized climatic index values; (c) published metrics from drought‐monitoring organizations; (d) a quantitative definition of what the authors consider to be drought conditions for their system. With more detailed and consistent quantification of drought conditions, comparisons among studies can be more rigorous, increasing our understanding of the ecological effects of drought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
Copyright of Global Change Biology is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites without the copyright holder's express written permission. Additionally, content may not be used with any artificial intelligence tools or machine learning technologies. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)
Database: Engineering Source
Description
Abstract:Drought, widely studied as an important driver of ecosystem dynamics, is predicted to increase in frequency and severity globally. To study drought, ecologists must define or at least operationalize what constitutes a drought. How this is accomplished in practice is unclear, particularly given that climatologists have long struggled to agree on definitions of drought, beyond general variants of "an abnormal deficiency of water." We conducted a literature review of ecological drought studies (564 papers) to assess how ecologists describe and study drought. We found that ecologists characterize drought in a wide variety of ways (reduced precipitation, low soil moisture, reduced streamflow, etc.), but relatively few publications (~32%) explicitly define what are, and are not, drought conditions. More troubling, a surprising number of papers (~30%) simply equated "dry conditions" with "drought" and provided little characterization of the drought conditions studied. For a subset of these, we calculated Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index values for the reported drought periods. We found that while almost 90% of the studies were conducted under conditions quantifiable as slightly to extremely drier than average, ~50% were within the range of normal climatic variability. We conclude that the current state of the ecological drought literature hinders synthesis and our ability to draw broad ecological inferences because drought is often declared but is not explicitly defined or well characterized. We suggest that future drought publications provide at least one of the following: (a) the climatic context of the drought period based on long‐term records; (b) standardized climatic index values; (c) published metrics from drought‐monitoring organizations; (d) a quantitative definition of what the authors consider to be drought conditions for their system. With more detailed and consistent quantification of drought conditions, comparisons among studies can be more rigorous, increasing our understanding of the ecological effects of drought. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]
ISSN:13541013
DOI:10.1111/gcb.14747