!"#"$%&'"()*+(,*-#+$.+)/%(*%0*1%/$*2%/3).4"5 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
!"#"$%&'"()*+(,*-#+$.+)/%(*%0*1%/$*2%/3).4"5 6+3",*7(,/8"3*0%4*9:4/8.$).4+$*!4%.:;)*2%(/)%4/(: -4/<*=4.":"4*+(,*>?3%(*@8;3("4 !"&A*%0*B$+()*+(,*1%/$*18/"(8"3
!"&A*%0*B$+()*+(,*1%/$*18/"(8"3 @<$+;%'+*1)+)"*C(/#"43/)? 1)"#"(*D./4/(: !"&A*%0*E"%:4+&;? @;/%*1)+)"*C(/#"43/)? !"#$%&'($)*+,,!$-./01".23$4/.5$,.67$).6189/#$*:1#/;<86.=1$8.$>?86.=<:7#$ @#?616.=1 A=6;#/168B$.C$D#:/<10<$E F6=?.7= G9=#$HEIJ$%&'(
2")"%4%$%:/8+$
H B4"8/&/)+)/%(*,"0/8/)3 H B4"8/&/)+)/%(*'"+3.4"'"()3
9:4/8.$).4+$
H 1%/$*'%/3).4"*,"0/8/)3 H 1%/$*'%/3).4"*'"+3.4"'"()3
I?,4%$%:/8+$
H 1.40+8"*G+)"4*+(,*:4%.(,G+)"4*,"0/8/)3 H 1.40+8"*+(,*:4%.(,G+)"4*'"+3.4"'"()3
=+?*J%AK*@=K*@8)A*LMK*NOLNA*P9BQ R.);"4K*@=K*9.:A*SK*NOLNA*PT/'*6"8<"$Q B%8+33")K*@=K*9.:A*NNK*NOLN*P1."*@:4%8</Q>"U+3*J%AK*@=K*9.:A*NOLN*P2+4<*2+F4?Q
– Meteorological indices – Surface water monitoring – Remotely sensed vegetation indices
– Measurement challenges – Conceptual challenges
US Drought Monitor, May 24, 2018. Courtesy of NDMC-UNL. Oklahoma automated in situ soil moisture mapping system, 5-cm depth, May 23, 2018.
– Heat dissipation sensors
– Water content reflectometers
Service
– County non-irrigated yields
– Winter wheat – Hay – Cotton
indicator of the potential energy of the soil water; kPa
volumetric water content X soil depth; mm
capacity (FAW): volumetric water content scaled between 0 (wilting point) and 1 (field capacity); unitless
minus mean value for this day
empirical pdf fit for each day
cumulative probability which is transformed to a standard normal value
Maximum correlation coefficients (r) between soil water storage anomaly and wheat, hay, or cotton yield anomaly for individual counties in Oklahoma (2000-2016) and the Texas Panhandle from (2002-2016). The day of year on which maximum correlation occurred varied by county.
Average correlation (r) between SWS-anomaly and wheat, hay, or cotton yield anomaly for counties in Oklahoma (2000-2016) and the Texas Panhandle (2002-2016). The black line represents the across- county average correlation coefficient for each day of year for counties with significant soil moisture-yield anomaly relationships, and the shaded area around each line represents one standard
< 0.05)
Time series of soil water storage (SWS), SWS-anomaly, and standardized SWS (SSWS) for the Marena Oklahoma Mesonet station near Stillwater, Oklahoma from 2000-2016 and the Reese Center West Texas Mesonet station near Lubbock, Texas from 2002-2016. The solid black lines represent mean values for each day of the year, and the shaded region is the area between 10th and 90th percentile values. For SWS, maximum and minimum values are represented by dashed lines.
Correlogramsfor soil water storage (SWS), SWS-anomaly, and standardized SWS (SSWS) for the Marena Oklahoma Mesonet station near Stillwater, Oklahoma from 2000-2016 and the Reese Center West Texas Mesonet station near Lubbock, Texas from 2002-2016. Dashed lines are included at ±0.2 as an estimate of the limit of practically meaningful autocorrelation.
Correlation coefficients (r) between drought indices and wheat, hay,
significant soil moisture-crop yield anomaly relationships were combined into a single correlation analysis for each drought index- crop combination, and Oklahoma data were from 2000-2016 and Texas Panhandle data were from 2002-2016. Drought indices included matric potential (MP), soil water storage (SWS), and fraction of available water capacity (FAW), and r is shown for index values, anomalies, and statistically standardized indices. Error bars are 90% confidence intervals, and columns with different lowercase are significantly different at P < 0.10.
– Soil water storage anomaly – Standardized soil water storage
– Depth units (mm or in) – Easier to construct – Easier to interpret
– Unitless – More difficult to construct and interpret – Slightly stronger correlations to yield
" @<$+;%'+*2"3%(")*3)+00 " X"3)*>"U+3*2"3%(")* 3)+00 " [+)/%(+$*9:4/8.$).4+$*1)+)/3)/83*1"4#/8"