Premium
Standardized drought indices in ecological research: Why one size does not fit all
Author(s) -
Zang Christian S.,
Buras Allan,
EsquivelMuelbert Adriane,
Jump Alistair S.,
Rigling Andreas,
Rammig Anja
Publication year - 2020
Publication title -
global change biology
Language(s) - English
Resource type - Journals
SCImago Journal Rank - 4.146
H-Index - 255
eISSN - 1365-2486
pISSN - 1354-1013
DOI - 10.1111/gcb.14809
Subject(s) - standardization , index (typography) , evapotranspiration , misrepresentation , precipitation , environmental science , climate change , physical geography , ecology , environmental resource management , geography , political science , computer science , meteorology , biology , world wide web , law
While we generally agree with Slette et al. (Global Change Biol, 2019), that ecologists ‘should do better’ when defining drought in ecological studies, we argue against the uncritical use of a standardized drought index (such as the Standardized Precipitation and Evapotranspiration Index, SPEI; Vicente‐Serrano et al. J Climate, 23: 1696–1718, 2010), as a stand‐alone criterium for quantifying and reporting drought conditions. Specifically, we raise the following issues: (a) standardization can lead to a misrepresentation of actual water supply, especially for moist climates; (b) standardized values are not directly comparable between different reference periods; and finally, (c) spatially coarsely resolved data sources are unlikely to represent site‐level water supply.This article is a commentary on Slette et al., 25, 3193–3200; See also the response to this Letter to the Editor by Slette et al., 26, e1–e3.