SciELO - Scientific Electronic Library Online

 
vol.9 número4Evaluación hidrológica de la cuenca del río Teapa, utilizando el modelo MIKE-SHEUso de zeolita faujasita para adsorción de iones en aguas residuales municipales índice de autoresíndice de materiabúsqueda de artículos
Home Pagelista alfabética de revistas  

Servicios Personalizados

Revista

Articulo

Indicadores

Links relacionados

  • No hay artículos similaresSimilares en SciELO

Compartir


Tecnología y ciencias del agua

versión On-line ISSN 2007-2422

Tecnol. cienc. agua vol.9 no.4 Jiutepec jul./ago. 2018  Epub 24-Nov-2020

https://doi.org/10.24850/j-tyca-2018-04-07 

Articles

Comparison of RDI based on PET in three climatic locations in San Luis Potosi, Mexico

Daniel Francisco Campos-Aranda1 

1Profesor jubilado de la Universidad Autónoma de San Luis Potosí, San Luis Potosí, SLP, México, campos_aranda@hotmail.com


Abstract

Meteorological droughts are a recurring natural phenomenon that causes lack of precipitation. The severity of meteorological droughts is estimated by established algorithms known as drought indices. One such procedure, perhaps the simplest, is the Reconnaissance Drought Index, or RDI, which is based on the ratio between precipitation and potential evapotranspiration (PET) for a determined continuous period of months. In this study, the RDI is applied to three durations of meteorological drought at a weather station selected from each of the three geographic or climate zones in the state of San Luis Potosi, Mexico, which are: Villa de Arriaga (Potosino Plateau), Río Verde (Mean Zone), and Xilitla (Huasteca Region). The monthly rainfall records and average and minimum temperatures of each station cover more than 50 years. PET was estimated by four methods: (1) the Penman-Monteith formula, which is the reference method, (2) the Thornthwaite, (3) the Turc, and (4) the Hargreaves-Samani. The operating procedures for these criteria are detailed in appendices. The analysis of the results indicates that the RDIs estimated with the Hargreaves-Samani method are best for reproducing the results of the Penman-Monteith formula, in the three climatic locations processed. The Turc method also led to results similar to those of the reference. Therefore, it can be said that the RDI is a robust drought index, which practically does not depend on the method of estimating the PET. There is a noticeable difference in the operational procedures of the Penman-Monteith formula and the Hargreaves-Samani method. The latter is a practical solution that is worth mentioning.

Keywords Meteorological droughts; potential evapotranspiration; statistical tests; mean square error; mean bias error; types of meteorological drought (light,moderate,severe and extreme)

Resumen

Las sequías meteorológicas son un fenómeno natural recurrente que origina una escasez de precipitación. La severidad de las sequías meteorológicas se estima a través de algoritmos establecidos, conocidos como índices de sequías. Uno de tales procedimientos, quizá el más simple, es el índice de reconocimiento de sequías o RDI (Reconnaissance Drought Index), que está basado en el cociente entre la precipitación y evapotranspiración potencial (ETP), ocurridas en un cierto lapso, seguido de meses. En este estudio se aplica el RDI en tres duraciones de sequía meteorológica, en cada una de las tres estaciones climatológicas seleccionadas de cada zona geográfica o climática del estado de San Luis Potosí, México, que fueron: Villa de Arriaga (Altiplano Potosino), Río Verde (Zona Media) y Xilitla (Región Huasteca). Los registros mensuales de precipitación y temperaturas media y mínima de cada estación abarcan más de 50 años. La ETP se estimó con cuatro métodos: 1) la fórmula de Penman-Monteith, que es el criterio de referencia; los criterios de 2) Thornthwaite; 3) Turc, y 4) Hargreaves-Samani. Los procedimientos operativos de estos criterios se exponen en los apéndices (ver más adelante). El análisis de los resultados indica que los RDI estimados con el método de Hargreaves-Samani es el que mejor reproduce los resultados de la fórmula de Penman-Monteith en las tres localidades climáticas procesadas. También el método de Turc conduce a resultados similares a los de referencia y por ello se puede establecer que el RDI es un índice de sequías robusto, que prácticamente no depende del método de estimación de la ETP. Al haber una diferencia notable en los procedimientos operativos de la fórmula de Penman-Monteith y del método de Hargreaves-Samani, este último es una solución práctica muy importante.

Palabras clave sequías meteorológicas; evapotranspiración potencial; pruebas estadísticas; error cuadrático medio; error de sesgo medio; tipos de sequías meteorológicas (ligeras,moderadas,severas y extremas)

Introduction

The meteorological drought is a regional natural phenomenon produced by climate variability, which causes a decrease in the normal precipitation in an area over a significant period of time. For that reason, it has adverse effects on nature and society. The severity of meteorological droughts is commonly estimated based on drought indices, which vary in complexity, ranging from those using a single climatic variable such as the SPI (Standardized Precipitation Index) to those developing a water-soil balance such as the PDSI (Palmer Drought Severity Index). Hao and Singh (2015) have found that a single variable is not sufficient to characterize droughts, because they are recurring natural phenomena caused by multiple factors. Therefore, they have proposed multivariate drought indexes.

The latent variable approach allows the development of multivariate indices (Hao & Singh, 2015), consisting of establishing new climatic variables by means of a difference, or quotient, of other variables with widespread physical significance, such as monthly precipitation (P) and potential evapotranspiration (PET). When P-PET difference and the SPI operational algorithm were used, the SPEI was developed (Vicente-Serrano, Beguería, & López-Moreno, 2010) and when the P/PET ratio was used, the RDI Reconnaissance Drought Index was established, whose operational procedure is quite simple (Tsakiris & Vangelis, 2005; Tsakiris, Tigkas, Vangelis, & Pangalou, 2007; Vangelis, Tigkas, & Tsakiris, 2013).

The objective of this study was to present, in detail, the process of calculating the annual RDI, with durations of 3, 6, and 12 months. This procedure is applied to monthly rainfall data and average and minimum temperatures in three localities in the state of San Luis Potosí, representative of its three geographical or climatic zones. For this comparison of the RDI, the PET was estimated with four methods, whose detailed description is presented in appendices. These are: (1) the Penman-Monteith formula, which was the reference method; (2) Thornthwaite; (3) Turc, and (4) Hargreaves-Samani. The three results are analyzed and conclusions are formulated.

Methods and materials

The RDIst equations

The reconnaissance drought index (RDI) is initially calculated as the quotient between the accumulated monthly precipitation and the respective potential evapotranspiration, in k months considered for each study year i (Tsakiris & Vangelis, 2005; Tsakiris et al., 2007; Vangelis et al., 2013; Campos-Aranda, 2014):

aki=j=1kPjij=1kETPji (1)

In the previous equation, k is the duration of the meteorological drought studied, j the month considered, and i a range from 1 to NA, which is the number of years of the processed records (> 30). Since the magnitudes of aki can be represented probabilistically by the log-normal distribution, the standardized RDI values are easily obtained with the equation:

RDIsti=yki-y-σy (2)

in which:

yki=lnaki (3)

In Equation (2), y is the arithmetic mean and σy the standard deviation of the values yki. The positive values of the RDIst indicate wet periods and the negative ones are meteorological droughts, with the following severity: light up to -1.00, moderate ranging from -1.00 to -1.50, severe ranging from -1.50 to -2.00, and lastly, extreme less than -2.00. The common durations of k are 3, 6, 9, and 12 months, where the first three relate to the months with the highest percentage of precipitation and the fourth to the period from January to December. Durations less than one year may also correspond to the period of crop growth or times of high demand. Campos-Aranda (2014) present a comparison between the RDIst and the SPI.

Estimation of the reference PET

Towards the end of the 1970s, the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO) formulated guidelines for estimating water demands for crops (Doorenbos & Pruit, 1977). Advances in research and more accurate assessments of the use of water by crops show that the Penman method, suggested by the FAO, often overestimates the requirements, and that the alternative empirical criteria presented, in a variable way, closely represent reality (Allen, Pereira, Raes, & Smith, 1998).

In May 1990, FAO organized a panel of experts and researchers, in collaboration with the International Irrigation and Drainage Commission (ICID) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO), to review the methods for estimating crop demands and establish their modifications. The panel recommended the adoption of the Penman-Monteith formula as the standard method for estimating reference evapotranspiration (ETo) and advised on the estimation procedures for its various meteorological parameters (Allen et al., 1998).

Appendix 1 presents the Penman-Monteith formula, including the procedures for estimating its parameters based on meteorological data. Appendix 2 describes the FAO recommendations for an application with exclusively climatic data. The latter converts the Penman-Monteith formula into an applicable and valid worldwide method for calculating and comparing ETo. Allen et al. (1998) indicated that it is preferable to apply the Penman-Monteith formula even with the Appendix 2 approach, rather than use any other empirical method.

Empirical methods for estimating PET

In Appendix 3, Equations A.20 to A.31 represent the operational procedures for three empirical methods for estimating potential monthly evapotranspiration (PETji), which are: Thornthwaite, Turc, and Hargreaves-Samani.

Processed climate records

The state of San Luis Potosí can be divided into three climatic regions, which are: Altiplano Potosino Plateau, Mean Zone, and the Huasteca Region. The first has a semi-arid climate, the second is temperate-dry, and the third is warm-humid. In each of these regions, the weather stations with more extensive records and with the least number of missing monthly rainfall data and average and minimum temperatures were searched. The following three were selected: Villa de Arriaga, Río Verde, and Xilitla. In each of them, the few missing rainfall data were considered equal to the mode, estimated based on fitting the mixed gamma distribution to all the available monthly values (Campos-Aranda, 2005a). The missing average and minimum temperatures data were estimated with an interpolation procedure that took into account the trend observed in the month before and after the missing value.

The average monthly values of precipitation (mm) and average and minimum temperatures (°C) of each processed weather station are listed in Table 1, as well as their respective recording periods. At the Villa de Arriaga station during the period from 2010 to 2014, average monthly temperatures values were used, due to the fact that the records covered until 2009. Figure 1 shows the location of the three weather stations in the state of San Luis Potosí.

Table 1 Monthly average values of the climatic elements indicated in the three selected and processed weather stations in the state of San Luis Potosí, Mexico. 

Description: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Non Dec Annual
Weather station: Villa de Arriaga (Longitude 01° 23’ OG; Latitude 21° 54’ N; Altitude 2 170 masl; NA = 53 years)
Precipitation (1962-2014) 13.0 7.6 7.0 10.4 30.9 57.2 72.1 56.8 62.7 25.4 5.6 8.9 357.7
Precipitation percentage 3.6 2.1 2.0 2.9 8.6 16.0 20.2 15.9 17.5 7.1 1.6 2.5 100.0
Average temp. (1962-2009) 13.0 13.9 15.9 19.2 20.9 20.8 19.8 19.5 18.8 16.6 14.6 13.4 17.2
Minimum temp. (1962-2009) 4.3 4.9 7.0 9.5 11.2 11.4 11.3 11.0 10.5 8.4 6.0 4.8 8.4
Solar radiation (cal/cm2/day) 400 380 505 650 650 550 520 420 380 450 430 390 480
PET: Penman-Monteith 84.1 87.8 126.5 160.6 177.7 157.1 151.6 133.6 114.3 115.5 97.8 88.7 1495.4
PET: Thornthwaite 37.6 39.3 57.6 82.1 102.3 101.4 98.1 92.9 77.5 60.1 44.7 39.1 832.6
PET: Turc 82.7 75.8 113.5 156.9 162.6 138.8 129.0 105.5 95.2 104.4 94.1 82.1 1340.7
PET: Hargreaves-Samani 87.7 77.4 121.2 166.5 180.1 146.9 139.9 112.0 96.1 110.3 96.0 86.4 1420.5
Weather Station: Río Verde (Longitude 99° 59’ OG. Latitude 21° 56’ N. Altitude 987 masl. NA = 54 years)
Precipitation (1961-2014) 12.2 10.8 9.4 32.7 36.5 88.7 88.3 71.7 103.4 44.2 15.4 12.9 526.2
Precipitation percentage 2.3 2.0 1.8 6.2 6.9 16.9 16.8 13.6 19.7 8.4 2.9 2.5 100.0
Average temp. (1961-2014) 16.2 18.3 21.7 24.6 26.4 26.1 25.0 25.1 23.9 21.8 19.0 17.0 22.1
Minimum temp. (1961-2014) 8.6 10.0 12.6 15.7 18.2 19.0 18.3 18.3 17.7 15.1 12.1 9.7 14.6
Solar radiation (cal/cm2/day) 375 350 440 550 540 540 530 480 350 390 375 350 430
PET: Penman-Monteith 78.4 87.1 130.6 157.7 170.0 160.5 157.6 148.1 107.5 110.3 93.0 84.7 1485.4
PET: Thornthwaite 36.6 47.5 84.3 119.3 154.2 147.0 135.4 131.3 107.1 82.6 54.3 41.0 1140.6
PET: Turc 88.0 81.2 115.7 149.0 150.5 149.8 145.0 132.6 98.2 104.1 95.0 84.9 1394.1
PET: Hargreaves-Samani 90.8 81.6 124.4 162.1 171.9 165.0 163.1 147.8 101.4 110.5 95.5 86.9 1500.9
Weather station: Xilitla (Longitude 98° 59’ OG. Latitude 21° 23’ N. Altitude 630 masl. NA = 50 years)
Precipitation (1965-2014) 62.6 65.3 72.5 115.3 175.5 373.9 432.2 429.9 566.1 292.5 101.5 59.0 2746.2
Precipitation percentage 2.3 2.4 2.6 4.2 6.4 13.6 15.8 15.7 20.6 10.7 3.7 2.1 100.0
Average temp. (1965-2014) 17.4 18.7 21.4 24.2 25.9 26.2 25.6 25.9 25.0 23.1 20.3 18.3 22.7
Minimum temp. (1965-2014) 12.6 13.4 15.8 18.5 20.6 21.2 20.9 20.8 20.2 18.1 15.6 13.4 17.6
Solar radiation (cal/cm2/day) 350 350 400 480 500 460 490 450 310 375 360 300 400
PET: Penman-Monteith 69.1 78.3 106.1 127.9 142.9 132.1 137.9 132.2 98.4 105.9 87.4 74.3 1292.5
PET: Thornthwaite 42.1 48.2 80.2 113.3 146.3 148.9 142.8 142.1 119.1 94.9 62.6 47.2 1187.8
PET: Turc 85.8 82.1 105.8 130.9 139.3 129.8 136.1 126.6 89.9 103.0 94.3 76.8 1300.3
PET: Hargreaves-Samani 87.9 82.5 112.4 140.2 157.2 141.1 152.9 141.3 92.2 110.0 95.1 77.2 1390.0

Figure 1 Geographical location of the three weather stations processed of the state of San Luis Potosí, Mexico. 

Also, Table 1 shows the monthly average values for solar radiation (Rs j), obtained from the maps by Hernández, Tejeda-Martínez and Reyes (1991), on pages 65 to 76, for the three locations of the selected and processed weather stations. Also shown are the magnitudes of the average monthly potential evapotranspiration (mm) (PET j ), obtained through the equations presented in Appendices 1 to 3, applied on a monthly basis.

Quantification of differences with MSE and MBE

In order to quantify the numerical differences between the annual values of the RDIst of duration k, due to the effect of the change in the method of estimating the PETji, the following two statistical indicators were applied: (1) mean square error (MSE) and (2) medium bias error (MBE); whose expressions are (Vangelis et al., 2013):

ECMk=1NAi=1NAXrefki-Xestki21/2 (4)

ESMk=1NAi=1NAXrefki-Xestki (5)

In the above expressions, Xrefki are the annual values of RDIst calculated with Equations (1) to (3), for a duration k in months, with the PETji estimated using the Penman-Monteith formula (Appendices 1 and 2), which is the reference method, and Xrefki are the same annual values as the RDIst but calculated base on PETji, estimated by each one of the three empirical methods presented (Appendix 3). Equations (4) and (5) were also applied to the annual PETi values (k=12).

Analysis of results

Homogeneity of climatic records

Annual values were obtained based on each completed record of precipitation and monthly average and minimum temperature. With these series, the statistical quality analysis of the record was performed, for which the following seven tests were applied, one general and six specific: (1) Von Neumann, which detects loss of randomness by unspecified deterministic components, (2) Anderson and (3) Sneyers, which determine persistence, (4) Kendall and (5) Spearman, which detect trends, (6) Bartlett test of variability, and (7) Cramer, to identify changes in the mean. In all tests, a level of significance (α) of 5% was used. The statistical tests cited can be found in WMO (1971) and Machiwal and Jha (2012). The results of these tests are shown in Table 2, where NH and H represent non-homogeneous and homogeneous series or records, respectively.

Table 2 Results of statistical tests applied to annual records of precipitation (P) and average (Tt) and minimum (t) temperatures from the weather stations studied. 

Statistical tests: Villa de Arriaga Río Verde Xilitla
P Tt t P Tt t P Tt t
1. Von Neumann NH NH NH NH NH NH H NH NH
2. Persistence (Anderson) NH NH NH NH NH NH H NH NH
3. Persistence (Sneyers) NH NH NH NH NH NH H NH NH
4. Trend (Kendall) H NH↑ H H NH↑ NH↑ H NH H
5. Trend (Spearman) H NH↑ H H NH↑ NH↑ H NH H
6. Variability (Bartlett) H NH NH H H H H H H
7. Change in the mean (Cramer) H NH H H NH NH H NH NH
First-order linear correlation coef. 1 (r 1) 0.523 0.791 0.494 0.285 0.446 0.418 0.049 0.522 0.470

Regarding the annual precipitation (P), the records from Villa de Arriaga and Río Verde showed persistence, which was also detected with the von Neumann test. When taking into account that persistence is a statistical component of the time series, analyses aimed at quantifying meteorological droughts can continue, since the three records show no trend or changes in the mean, that is, loss of homogeneity.

The opposite occurred with annual average temperature (Tt) records, which were totally non-homogeneous, since they presented persistence (associated with r 1), an upward trend, and a change in the mean. In relation to the minimum annual temperature (t) records, the Rio Verde station was the least homogeneous, since it had an upward trend, and Villa de Arriaga was the most homogeneous, since it only had persistence. Xilitla was also non-homogeneous, having persistence and a change in the mean.

Numerical results of RDIst

Based on the percentages of monthly precipitation shown in Table 1, the three-month period with more rain from July to September and the six-month period from May to October were defined. At Villa de Arriaga, Río Verde, and Xilitla, for k = 3 months the sums of percentages varied by 52% and for k = 6 months they varied by 83%. Once these periods were defined, Equations 1 to 3 were applied to the precipitation data and to the estimates of the PET. Due to space limitations, only some of these results are shown in Tables 3 to 5.

Table 3 Data, RDIst values, and types of annual meteorological droughts (TS) calculated with the estimated potential evapotranspiration, according to the empirical criteria indicated, in the Villa de Arriaga weather station, San Luis Potosí 

Year P i (mm) According to Penman-Monteith formula According to Hargreaves-Samani method
PET i (mm) k = 3 months k = 6 months k = 12 months PET i (mm) k = 3 months k = 6 months k = 12 months
RDIst TS RDIst TS RDIst TS RDIst TS RDIst TS RDIst TS
1962 268.4 1495.8 -0.110 SL -0.169 SL -0.217 SL 1433.6 -0.112 SL -0.179 SL -0.229 SL
1963 279.1 1442.0 -0.444 SL -0.755 SL -0.089 SL 1387.2 -0.474 SL -0.786 SL -0.108 SL
1964 489.0 1392.8 0.600 - 0.960 - 0.917 - 1370.2 0.553 - 0.889 - 0.855 -
1965 426.1 1376.3 0.600 - 0.389 - 0.704 - 1364.0 0.551 - 0.306 - 0.632 -
1966 631.7 1293.4 0.5714 - 1.264 - 1.475 - 1287.1 0.491 - 1.165 - 1.391 -
1967 538.0 1299.7 0.722 - 0.991 - 1.195 - 1275.1 0.668 - 0.913 - 1.137 -
1968 379.9 1368.5 0.664 - 0.584 - 0.520 - 1347.8 0.595 - 0.500 - 0.459 -
1969 174.0 1450.0 -0.285 SL -0.786 SL -0.897 SL 1405.9 -0.331 SL -0.841 SL -0.924 SL
1970 269.7 1418.5 -0.078 SL 0.045 - -0.119 SL 1381.9 -0.133 SL -0.009 SL -0.159 SL
1971 593.0 1394.1 1.259 - 1.577 - 1.241 - 1372.1 1.191 - 1.489 - 1.177 -
1972 347.0 1417.3 0.248 - 0.603 - 0.308 - 1388.5 0.194 - 0.533 - 0.257 -
1973 328.5 1418.9 0.647 - 0.538 - 0.213 - 1390.9 0.586 - 0.458 - 0.162 -
1974 156.9 1423.4 0.021 - -0.978 SL -1.041 SM 1391.7 -0.031 SL -1.044 SM -1.081 SM
1975 280.5 1432.3 0.329 - 0.185 - -0.069 SL 1397.9 0.267 - 0.118 - -0.112 SL
1976 359.5 1397.9 0.695 - 0.741 - 0.391 - 1362.3 0.638 - 0.669 - 0.348 -
1977 96.0 1395.6 -0.319 SL -1.535 SS -1.837 SS 1353.3 -0.338 SL -1.567 SS -1.860 SS
1978 507.5 1363.3 1.321 - 1.333 - 1.016 - 1325.2 1.288 - 1.273 - 0.974 -
1979 192.0 1419.7 0.077 - -0.770 SL -0.695 SL 1372.7 0.051 - -0.805 SL -0.719 SL
1980 375.5 1393.4 0.064 - -0.062 SL 0.470 - 1355.5 0.039 - -0.101 SL 0.430 -
1981 270.9 1385.6 -0.567 SL -0.343 SL -0.072 SL 1340.1 -0.577 SL -0.367 SL -0.100 SL
1982 292.5 1438.5 -0.443 SL -0.015 SL -0.006 SL 1376.0 -0.449 SL -0.024 SL -0.015 SL
1983 154.5 1385.6 -0.219 SL -0.791 SL -1.021 SM 1345.3 -0.232 SL -0.804 SL -1.050 SM
1984 148.0 1419.9 -0.017 SL -1.055 SM -1.135 SM 1372.2 -0.059 SL -1.090 SM -1.156 SM
1985 167.0 1428.0 -0.765 SL -0.792 SL -0.941 SL 1369.2 -0.760 SL -0.789 SL -0.949 SL
1986 504.0 1404.8 -0.621 SL 1.012 - 0.953 - 1371.9 -0.638 SL 0.978 - 0.904 -
1987 504.9 1377.7 0.939 - 1.049 - 0.989 - 1321.5 0.947 - 1.056 - 0.970 -
1988 256.0 1407.2 0.337 - 0.054 - -0.194 SL 1343.9 0.338 - 0.51 - -0.200 SL
1989 359.5 1469.2 -0.052 SL -0.155 SL 0.307 - 1354.1 0.018 - -0.074 SL 0.358 -
1990 728.3 1507.6 0.916 - 1.440 - 1.456 - 1384.9 0.989 - 1.518 - 1.507 -
1991 1028.5 1564.4 1.572 - 2.045 - 1.977 - 1416.6 1.649 - 2.138 - 2.049 -
1992 838.0 1624.5 0.015 - 0.934 - 1.567 - 1458.3 0.115 - 1.051 - 1.656 -
1993 523.0 1716.8 0.696 - 0.754 - 0.677 - 1639.7 0.634 - 0.690 - 0.667 -
1994 564.9 1561.4 0.632 - 1.123 - 0.968 - 1448.4 0.706 - 1.191 - 1.005 -
1995 392.8 1530.0 -0.103 SL -0.190 SL 0.388 - 1409.2 -0.042 SL -0.115 SL 0.440 -
1996 666.0 1686.9 1.263 - 1.136 - 1.115 - 1506.8 1.370 - 1.260 - 1.215 -
1997 454.0 1730.8 -0.052 SL 0.272 - 0.424 - 1536.6 0.043 - 0.393 - 0.538 -
1998 418.0 1748.9 0.181 - 0.383 - 0.267 - 1564.4 0.285 - 0.504 - 0.369 -
1999 249.0 1698.0 -0.126 SL -0.256 SL -0.558 SL 1516.1 -0.065 SL -0.153 SL -0.449 SL
2000 123.0 1599.0 -5.157 SE -1.464 SM -1.648 SS 1469.4 -5.148 SE -1.411 SM -1.582 SS
2001 111.8 1564.2 -0.470 SL -1.484 SM -1.773 SS 1458.5 -0.452 SL -1.438 SM -1.730 SS
2002 139.3 1582.7 -0.956 SL -1.437 SM -1.421 SM 1516.8 -0.956 SL -1.419 SM -1.426 SM
2003 337.0 1638.4 0.463 - 0.356 - 0.014 - 1590.3 0.455 - 0.343 - -0.021 SL
2004 613.4 1645.2 0.452 - 0.978 - 1.019 - 1532.7 0.481 - 1.017 - 1.048 -
2005 287.0 1667.3 0.147 - -0.323 SL -0.287 SL 1548.7 0.195 - -0.262 SL -0.246 SL
2006 340.0 1637.5 0.120 - 0.121 - 0.029 - 1531.1 0.152 - 0.158 - 0.058 -
2007 270.0 1630.7 -0.564 SL -0.473 SL -0.353 SL 1531.0 -0.537 SL -0.439 SL -0.329 SL
2008 546.4 1602.8 1.214 - 1.177 - 0.867 - 1499.5 1.247 - 1.207 - 0.890 -
2009 201.0 1518.3 -0.501 SL -0.627 SL -0.731 SL 1468.8 -0.497 SL -0.618 SL -0.755 SL
2010 264.0 1498.3 0.029 - -0.763 SL -0.248 SL 1420.1 0.036 - -0.753 SL -0.241 SL
2011 75.8 1498.3 -1.324 SM -2.076 SE -2.357 SE 1420.1 -1.323 SM -2.065 SE -2.338 SE
2012 134.9 1498.3 -0.669 SL -1.610 SS -1.382 SM 1420.1 -0.665 SL -1.599 SS -1.369 SM
2013 138.9 1498.3 -1.436 SM -1.849 SS -1.333 SM 1420.1 -1.436 SM -1.838 SS -1.320 SM
2014 165.0 1498.3 -1.518 SS -1.287 SM -1.043 SM 1420.1 -1.517 SS -1.276 SM -1.030 SM

Table 4 Data, RDIst values and types of annual meteorological droughts (TS) calculated with the estimated potential evapotranspiration, according to the indicated empirical criteria, in the Villa de Arriaga weather station, San Luis Potosí 

Year Tt i (°C) t i (°C) According to Thornthwaite criterion According to Turc criterion
PET i (mm) k = 3 months k = 6 months k = 12 months PET i (mm) k = 3 months k = 6 months k = 12 months
RDIst TS RDIst TS RDIst TS RDIst TS RDIst TS RDIst TS
1962 17.4 9.0 825.3 -0.122 SL -0.203 SL -0.215 SL 1354.2 -0.112 SL -0.175 SL -0.228 SL
1963 16.5 8.3 776. -0.383 SL -0.702 SL -0.045 SL 1319.6 -0.485 SL -0.799 SL -0.120 SL
1964 16.2 9.0 758.4 0.644 - 1.107 - 0.946 - 1309.5 0.538 - 0.859 - 0.830 -
1965 15.9 8.9 756.8 0.623 - 0.416 - 0.716 - 1298.7 0.537 - 0.285 - 0.614 -
1966 14.0 7.5 700.3 0.630 - 1.335 - 1.515 - 1217.5 0.476 - 1.137 - 1.379 -
1967 13.7 6.6 693.0 0.766 - 1.089 - 1.260 - 1206.2 0.651 - 0.886 - 1.126 -
1968 15.5 8.3 742.8 0.709 - 0.639 - 0.553 - 1282.4 0.579 - 0.480 - 0.443 -
1969 16.8 8.8 798.5 -0.301 SL 0.852 SL 0.894 SL 1330.8 -0.334 SL -0.840 SL -0.923 SL
1970 16.2 8.5 772.4 -0.086 SL 0.071 - -0.094 SL 1312.1 -0.143 SL -0.026 SL -0.167 SL
1971 16.1 8.8 760.1 1.310 - 1.658 - 1.269 - 1309.9 1.172 - 1.460 - 1.151 -
1972 16.4 8.9 774.1 0.284 - 0.664 - 0.329 - 1321.0 0.181 - 0.511 - 0.242 -
1973 16.5 9.0 778.0 0.669 - 0.555 - 0.228 - 1323.0 0.571 - 0.438 - 0.148 -
1974 16.6 9.0 780.5 0.002 - -0.981 SL -1.031 SM 1325.1 -0.039 SL -1.050 SM 1.088 SM
1975 16.6 9.0 780.2 0.423 - 0.271 - -0.045 SL 1331.4 0.251 - 0.101 - -0.126 SL
1976 15.9 8.3 751.8 0.765 - 0.848 - 0.439 - 1300.8 0.620 - 0.642 - 0.327 -
1977 15.6 7.9 747.4 -0.257 SL -1.475 SM 1.790 SS 1288.2 -0.351 SL -1.578 SS 1.861 SS
1978 14.9 7.3 727.8 1.365 - 1.428 - 1.078 - 1259.3 1.270 - 1.244 - 0.957 -
1979 16.0 8.2 768.0 0.92 - -0.741 SL -0.661 SL 1301.9 0.044 - -0.814 SL -0.722 SL
1980 15.7 8.2 754.5 0.053 - -0.054 SL 0.507 - 1287.1 0.29 - -0.117 SL 0.417 -
1981 15.4 7.6 737.9 -0.503 SL -0.253 SL -0.009 SL 1276.0 -0.589 SL -0.388 SL -0.113 SL
1982 16.1 7.9 766.2 -0.371 SL 0.067 - 0.057 - 1308.4 -0.460 SL -0.041 SL -0.027 SL
1983 15.4 7.7 739.9 -0.089 SL -0.676 SL -0.966 SL 1279.0 -0.248 SL -0.816 SL -1.055 SM
1984 16.1 8.2 762.0 0.043 - -0.968 SL -1.089 SM 1307.6 -0.073 SL -1.103 SM -1.164 SM
1985 16.0 7.8 764.1 -0.724 SL -0.754 SL -0.889 SL 1301.6 -0.766 SL -0.798 SL -0.954 SL
1986 16.2 8.8 767.6 -0.627 SL 1.052 - 0.977 - 1303.5 -0.644 SL 0.959 - 0.888 -
1987 14.8 6.8 732.4 0.944 - 1.084 - 1.059 - 1244.7 0.933 - 1.034 0.968 -
1988 15.2 6.9 745.8 0.364 - 0.088 - -0.123 SL 1269.2 0.327 - 0.039 - -0.199 SL
1989 15.6 5.9 755.8 -0.014 SL -0.056 SL 0.430 - 1281.7 0.012 - -0.084 SL 0.352 -
1990 16.2 6.1 790.6 0.926 - 1.472 - 1.551 - 1299.8 0.985 - 1.509 - 1.507 -
1991 16.9 5.7 821.0 1.621 - 2.085 - 2.072 - 1327.5 1.645 - 2.137 - 2.048 -
1992 17.9 6.2 881.9 -0.092 SL 0.855 - 1.603 - 1362.0 0.142 - 1.073 - 1.663 -
1993 22.2 12.8 1603.7 -0.379 SL -0.588 SL 0.210 SL 1454.2 0.786 - 0.845 - 0.767 -
1994 17.6 7.6 872.3 0.564 - 0.977 - 0.953 - 1345.72 0.722 - 1.216 - 1.025 -
1995 16.5 6.3 821.4 -0.002 SL -0.260 SL 0.439 - 1306.3 -0.044 SL -0.079 SL 0.468 -
1996 19.2 6.9 981.5 1.126 - 0.837 - 1.032 - 1387.1 1.401 - 1.315 - 1.249 -
1997 19.9 7.0 996.7 -0.242 SL 0.41 - 0.356 - 1429.4 0.874 - 0.443 - 0.559 -
1998 20.7 8.3 1055.0 -0.112 SL 0.056 - 0.120 - 1451.1 0.341 - 0.561 - 0.396 -
1999 19.3 6.7 923.3 -0.060 SL -0.234 SL 0.532 SL 1420.8 -0.061 SL -0.132 SL -0.434 SL
2000 18.3 7.7 854.6 -5.144 SE -1.385 SM -1.597 SS 1389.3 -5.133 SE -1.402 SM -1.574 SS
2001 18.1 8.2 845.1 -0.407 SL -1.446 SM -1.740 SS 1380.1 -0.456 SL -1.430 SM -1.722 SS
2002 19.6 10.7 912.0 -0.920 SL -1.422 SM -1.496 SM 1429.5 -0.952 SL -1.402 SM -1.414 SM
2003 21.5 13.1 1019.0 0.488 - 0.346 - -0.186 SL 1486.5 0.461 - 0.359 - -0.004 SL
2004 20.2 10.1 927.9 0.555 - 1.148 - 0.988 - 1446.7 0.481 - 1.011 - 1.042 -
2005 20.6 10.3 951.2 0.234 - -0.182 SL -0.342 SL 1458.5 0.198 - -0.258 SL -0.240 SL
2006 20.2 10.3 924.2 0.228 - 0.286 - -0.006 SL 1446.0 0.151 - 0.155 - 0.057 -
2007 20.2 10.5 925.3 -0.485 SL -0.350 SL -0.399 SL 1446.0 -0.534 SL -0.436 SL -0.328 SL
2008 19.3 9.8 901.2 1.289 - 1.278 - 0.841 - 1409.1 1.244 - 1.199 - 0.893 -
2009 18.4 10.2 861.4 -0.498 SL -0.606 SL -0.778 SL 1386.1 -0.496 SL -0.616 SL -0.750 SL
2010 17.2 8.4 808.6 0.047 - -0.745 SL -0.208 SL 1348.4 0.031 - -0.755 SL -0.249 SL
2011 17.2 8.4 808.6 -1.326 SM -2.083 SE -2.324 SE 1348.4 -1.323 SM -2.057 SE -2.332 SE
2012 17.2 8.4 808.6 -0.661 SL -1.608 SS -1.324 SM 1348.4 -0.668 SL -1.595 SS -1.370 SM
2013 17.2 8.4 808.6 -1.440 SM -1.852 SS -1.297 SM 1348.4 -1.435 SM -1.832 SS -1.321 SM
2014 17.2 8.4 808.6 -1.523 SS -1.279 SM -1.005 SM 1348.4 -1.517 SS -1.274 SM -1.033 SM

Table 5 Data, RDIst values and types of annual meteorological droughts (TS) calculated with the estimated potential evapotranspiration according to the indicated empirical criteria, in the Xilitla weather station, San Luis Potosí 

Year P i (mm) According to Penman-Monteith formula According to Turc method
PET i (mm) k = 3 months k = 6 months k = 12 months PET i (mm) k = 3 months k = 6 months k = 12 months
RDIst TS RDIst TS RDIst TS RDIst TS RDIst TS RDIst TS
1965 3010.6 1248.6 0.755 - 0.616 - 0.606 - 1293.6 0.692 - 0.517 - 0.522 -
1966 2627.7 1228.8 -2.209 SE -0.106 SL 0.123 - 1272.7 -2.311 SE -0.214 SL 0.009 -
1967 2912.1 1280.6 0.640 - 0.446 - 0.370 - 1290.1 0.600 - 0.501 - 0.391 -
1968 2302.7 1268.2 0.410 - -0.288 SL -0.536 SL 1289.1 0.348 - -0.345 SL -0.612 SL
1969 3532.0 1285.4 1.448 - 1.102 - 1.133 - 1301.0 1.504 - 1.172 - 1.182 -
1970 2961.0 1244.1 0.227 - 0.779 - 0.554 - 1273.4 0.189 - 0.758 - 0.518 -
1971 3330.5 1301.2 0.749 - 0.945 - 0.847 - 1300.9 0.730 - 0.951 - 0.931 -
1972 3202.0 1238.5 0.072 - 0.771 - 0.888 - 1292.6 -0.011 SL 0.639 - 0.789 -
1973 3166.0 1215.6 0.276 - 1.054 - 0.917 - 1290.1 0.121 - 0.911 - 0.749 -
1974 3044.9 1247.6 0.865 - 0.710 - 0.655 - 1290.9 0.754 - 0.579 - 0.579 -
1975 3474.5 1294.7 1.304 - 1.183 - 1.038 - 1294.0 1.510 - 1.377 - 1.135 -
1976 3297.2 1167.0 1.073 - 1.014 - 1.245 - 1263.1 0.948 - 0.828 - 1.014 -
1977 1787.2 1255.0 -1.913 SS -1.601 SS -1.516 SS 1285.5 -2.008 SE -1.656 SS -1.686 SS
1978 3276.6 1234.0 0.781 - 0.909 - 0.995 - 1287.7 0.761 - 0.886 - 0.904 -
1979 2364.1 1326.2 -0.111 SL -0.692 SL -0.611 SL 1297.6 -0.025 SL -0.622 SL -0.527 SL
1980 1896.6 1363.4 -0.617 SL -1.790 SS -1.610 SS 1314.2 -0.444 SL -14.704 SS -1.527 SS
1981 3351.7 1307.4 0.183 - 0.627 - 0.853 - 1304.6 0.249 - 0.713 - 0.946 -
1982 1951.0 1345.8 -1.812 SS -1.770 SS -1.444 SM 1310.0 -1.667 SS -1.752 SS -1.392 SM
1983 3728.5 1320.8 1.790 - 1.391 - 1.242 - 1296.7 1.909 - 1.561 - 1.428 -
1984 3758.7 1257.0 1.473 - 1.720 - 1.474 - 1287.5 1.400 - 1.718 - 1.493 -
1985 2720.6 1296.9 -0.449 SL -0.179 SL 0.045 - 1294.7 -0.482 SL -0.222 SL 0.084 -
1986 2552.2 1284.9 -1.433 SM -0.244 SL -0.175 SL 1299.3 -1.449 SM -0.299 SL -0.205 SL
1987 2388.8 1257.9 0.319 - 0.076 SL -0.356 SL 1272.9 0.310 - -0.097 SL -0.401 SL
1988 2815.8 1253.0 -0.167 SL 0.227 - 0.323 - 1288.9 -0.198 SL 0.123 - 0.251 -
1989 2713.6 1333.0 -0.386 SL -0.850 SL -0.076 SL 1303.6 -0.423 SL -0.859 SL 0.044 -
1990 2639.0 1285.6 0.290 - -0.231 SL -0.042 SL 1302.9 0.232 - -0.291 SL -0.074 SL
1991 3597.0 1256.3 0.853 - 1.196 - 1.299 - 1301.9 0.779 - 1.194 - 1.257 -
1992 3175.5 1191.0 0.320 - 0.585 - 1.012 - 1279.9 0.236 - 0.451 - 0.796 -
1993 3481.9 1240.3 0.557 - 1.010 - 1.219 - 1296.0 0.477 - 0.922 - 1.137 -
1994 2532.3 1271.3 0.333 - 0.029 - -0.164 SL 1305.9 0.351 - -0.019 SL -0.260 SL
1995 2617.0 1292.1 0.362 - 0.002 - -0.096 SL 1313.3 0.356 - 0.009 - -0.143 SL
1996 1918.0 1305.1 -0.695 SL -1.086 SM -1.389 SM 1304.4 -0.713 SL -1.107 SM -1.446 SM
1997 1999.5 1273.9 -2.126 SE -1.269 SM -1.123 SM 1302.9 -2.156 SE -1.344 SM -1.263 SM
1998 2819.5 1314.2 0.567 - 0.155 - 0.136 - 1326.8 0.572 - 0.201 - 0.132 -
1999 2576.1 1312.0 0.729 - 0.188 - -0.221 SL 1313.4 0.710 - 0.198 - -0.211 SL
2000 1974.6 1307.4 -1.860 SS -1.214 SM -1.279 SM 1317.6 -1.898 SS -1.309 SM -1.365 SM
2001 2751.0 1293.4 -0.158 SL -0.053 SL 0.101 - 1313.9 -0.161 SL -0.059 SL 0.069 -
2002 1880.7 1314.4 -0.902 SL -1.040 SM -1.497 SM 1309.7 -0.888 SL -0.996 SL -1.548 SS
2003 2686.6 1294.2 0.557 - 0.204 - 0.003 - 1305.0 0.448 - 0.187 - -0.004 SL
2004 2155.8 1283.1 -0.754 SL -0.967 SL -0.849 SL 1301.5 -0.761 SL -1.041 SM -0.936 SL
2005 2517.9 1332.2 -0.601 SL -0.152 SL -0.375 SL 1316.0 -0.507 SL -0.076 SL -0.318 SL
2006 1654.4 1379.0 -1.443 SM -2.448 SE -2.206 SE 1322.8 -1.378 SM -2.422 SE -2.140 SE
2007 2948.9 1311.1 0.420 - 0.410 - 0.326 - 1305.6 0.486 - 0.499 - 0.394 -
2008 3475.2 1332.7 0.943 - 1.143 - 0.922 - 1310.1 0.940 - 1.247 - 1.083 -
2009 2239.0 1393.9 -0.892 SL -0.887 SL -1.030 SM 1325.3 -0.714 SL -0.688 SL -0.851 SL
2010 2880.7 1340.4 0.710 - -0.016 SL 0.143 - 1302.2 0.805 - 0.102 - 0.304 -
2011 1554.5 1387.8 -1.169 SM -2.122 SE -2.483 SE 1313.4 -1.107 SM -2.045 SE -2.376 SE
2012 2202.8 1376.5 -0.193 SL -0.987 SL -1.046 SM 1315.2 -0.108 SL -0.905 SL -0.888 SL
2013 3764.8 1327.5 1.333 - 1.186 - 1.260 - 1304.0 1.410 - 1.297 - 1.446 -
2014 3100.4 1356.1 -0.452 SL 0.464 - 0.392 - 1311.7 -0.418 SL 0.530 - 0.588 -

Tables 3 and 4 show all the results of the Villa de Arriaga station, which is the one with the greatest variability, since its average annual precipitation and temperature ranged from 75.8 to 1 028.5 mm and from 13.7 to 21.5 °C. Table 5 shows some of the results corresponding to the Xilitla station, which is the one with less dispersion, with average annual precipitation and temperature ranging from 1 554.5 to 3 764.8 mm and from 21.2 to 23.9 °C, respectively.

Tables 3 to 5 use the following symbols for the severity or types of meteorological drought: light droughts (SL), moderate droughts (SM), severe droughts (SS), and extreme droughts (SE). The numerical results of the RDIst shown in Tables 3 to 5 allow a precise or detailed inspection and comparison of their annual values, observing a remarkable similarity both in their annual values and in the types of meteorological droughts they define, independently of the PET estimation method. The above will be numerically modified in Tables 6 and 7, and can be seen in Figure 2 with the results in Table 3, relating to the Villa de Arriaga station, with k = 12 months.

Figure 2 Comparison of the 53 RDIst values calculated with the PET based on Penman-Monteith (ordinate) and Hargreaves-Samani (abscissa), in the Villa de Arriaga weather station, San Luis Potosí 

Results of MSE and MBE

Table 6 shows the numerical values of the MSE and the MBE. The comparison at the annual level of the PET estimates indicates that, in semi-arid and temperate-dry climates, the results of the Thornthwaite method is least similar to the Penman-Monteith formula, and the Hargreaves-Samani is more accurate. In the warm-humid climate, the results from the above two methods are nearly the same, and the Turc is most accurate. The minus sign in the MBE corresponding to the Turc and Hargreaves-Samani methods (last column of Table 6) indicates that these criteria overestimated the PET, with respect to that of the reference. The previous findings define the presentation of the results of the RDIst in Table 3, Table 4, and Table 5.

Table 6 Comparison of the MSE and the MBE between the annual PET and RDIst with the Penman-Monteith formula and their respective values as estimated with the three empirical methods cited, for the three indicated weather stations in the state of San Luis Potosí, Mexico. Note: minimum values of each comparison are shown in parenthesis. 

Concept: Station: Villa de Arriaga Station: Río Verde Station: Xilitla
k =3 k= 6 k = 12 k =3 k= 6 k = 12 k =3 k= 6 k = 12
MSE of PET annual de Thornth-waite - - 668.3 - - 346.4 - - 110.8
MSE of PET annual de Turc - - 166.8 - - 94.2 - - (39.1)
MSE of PET annual de Hargrea-ves-Samani - - (89.1) - - (24.5) - - 103.1
MBE of PET annual de Thornth-waite - - 662.8 - - 344.8 - - 104.8
MBE of PET annual de Turc - - 154.7 - - 91.3 - - (-7.8)
MBE of PET annual de Hargrea-ves-Samani - - (74.9) - - (-15.5) - - -97.5
MSE of RDIst annuales de Thornthwaite 0.165 0.210 0.136 0.072 0.100 0.097 0.086 0.117 0.112
MSE of RDIst annuales de Turc 0.062 0.080 0.062 0.035 0.044 0.046 0.082 0.089 0.108
MSE of RDIst annuales de Hargreaves-Samani (0.050) (0.062) (0.050) (0.029) (0.036) (0.039) (0.070) (0.076) (0.098)
MBE of RDIst annuales de Thornth-waite (-0.263·10-7) 3.104·10-7 (-0.157·10-7) 0.464·10-7 (-0.072·10-7) 2.390·10-7 (-1.571·10-7) 10.82·10-7 -3.034·10-7
MBE of RDIst annuales de Turc -1.468·10-7 2.525·10-7 -1.338·10-7 -3.024·10-7 1.352·10-7 -4.136·10-7 4.908·10-7 -3.648·10-7 (-2.730·10-7)
MBE of RDIst annuales de Hargrea-ves-Samani -0.461·10-7 (-1.091·10-7) 1.343·10-7 (-0.248·10-7) -5.061·10-7 ( 1.209·10-7) 8.440·10-7 ( 0.071·10-7) -4.518·10-7

The MSE corresponding to the annual RDIst values for the three durations analyzed was greater with the Thornthwaite method and of similar order of magnitude with the other two criteria, but the Hargreaves-Samani method always led to a lower value for the three climates studied. Regarding the MBE values obtained, in general they were low, of the same order of magnitude and modifying the results of the MBE, varying their sign according to the PET estimation method and the duration, k.

Severity of meteorological droughts (SMET)

Table 7 shows the estimates related to the number obtained from each type of SMET, for each of the three durations (k) and each weather stations processed. In general, the duration of three months showed the greatest dispersions in the SMET number, which in theory must be equal to half the number of years of records (NA), a value which is indicated for each weather station. The percentages quoted in Table 7 were calculated with the number of SMET found; therefore they add up to 100%.

Table 7 Severity of the meteorological droughts obtained with the RDIst for the three durations (k) studied, in months, applying each one of the estimation PET criteria, in the three weather stations indicated, in the state of San Luis Potosí, Mexico. 

Types of meteorological droughts (SMET): Penman-Monteith Thornthwaite Turc Hargreaves-Samani
k =3 k= 6 k = 12 k =3 k= 6 k = 12 k =3 k= 6 k = 12 k =3 k= 6 k = 12
No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. % No. %
Weather Station: Villa de Arriaga (NA/2 = 26.5)
Light SMET 20 83.3 17 65.4 15 57.7 22 84.6 18 69.2 18 64.3 19 82.6 17 63.0 16 59.3 19 82.6 17 63.0 16 59.3
Moderate SMET 2 8.3 5 19.2 7 26.9 2 7.7 5 19.2 6 21.4 2 8.7 6 22.2 7 25.9 2 8.7 6 22.2 7 25.9
Severe SMET 1 4.2 3 11.5 3 11.5 1 3.8 2 7.7 3 10.7 1 4.3 3 11.1 3 11.1 1 4.3 3 11.1 3 11.1
Extreme SMET 1 4.2 1 3.8 1 3.8 1 3.8 1 3.8 1 3.6 1 4.3 1 3.7 1 3.7 1 4.3 1 3.7 1 3.7
Weather Station: Río Verde (NA/2 = 27)
Light SMET 17 68.0 22 78.6 18 66.7 18 69.2 19 70.4 19 67.9 18 69.2 22 78.6 18 66.7 18 69.2 22 78.6 18 66.7
Moderate SMET 4 16.0 4 14.3 6 22.2 6 23.1 6 22.2 6 21.4 6 23.1 4 14.3 6 22.2 6 23.1 4 14.3 6 22.2
Severe SMET 2 8.0 0 0.0 2 7.4 0 0.0 1 3.7 2 7.1 0 0.0 1 3.6 2 7.4 0 0.0 1 3.6 2 7.4
Extreme SMET 2 8.0 2 7.1 1 3.7 2 7.7 1 3.7 1 3.6 2 7.7 1 3.6 1 3.7 2 7.7 1 3.6 1 3.7
Weather Station: Xilitla (NA/2 = 25)
Light SMET 13 61.9 14 60.9 11 50.0 12 57.1 15 60.0 14 58.3 14 63.6 14 60.9 13 59.1 13 61.9 14 58.3 13 59.1
Moderate SMET 3 14.3 4 17.4 7 31.8 4 19.0 6 24.0 6 25.0 3 13.6 4 17.4 4 18.2 3 14.3 5 20.8 4 18.2
Severe SMET 3 14.3 3 13.0 2 9.1 3 14.3 3 12.0 2 8.3 2 9.1 3 13.0 3 13.6 2 9.5 3 12.5 3 13.6
Extreme SMET 2 9.5 2 8.7 2 9.1 2 9.5 1 4.0 2 8.3 3 13.6 2 8.7 2 9.1 3 14.3 2 8.3 2 9.1

The Thornthwaite method resulted in the percentages of each type of SMET, which are more dissimilar than those obtained with the reference PET. This happened in the three weather stations, but was more pronounced in Río Verde.

It can be stated that the percentages of each SMET that define the Turc and Hargreaves-Samani methods were quite similar to those obtained with the Penman-Monteith formula. This confirms the results in Table 6.

The numerical values in Tables 6 and 7 allow us to conclude that there is no significant influence on the annual RDIst values, nor on the percentages of each type of SMET that they define, when the Hargreaves-Samani method is applied to any of the three weather stations processed. The Thornthwaite method is applicable only in the warm-humid climate of the Xilitla weather station.

Conclusions

The results of the application of RDIst to the three weather stations processed in the state of San Luis Potosí, belonging to different climates, indicate that there is no significant influence on the annual RDIst values or on the percentages of each type of meteorological drought that they detect, when using the empirical methods of Hargreaves-Samani and Turc to estimate monthly potential evapotranspiration (PET), in comparison with the results of the Penman-Monteith formula, taken as a reference.

This allows the RDIst to be established as a robust meteorological drought index, which is practically independent of the PET estimation method.

The numerical calculation of the PET, according to the Penman-Monteith formula and the Hargreaves-Samani method, is remarkably different in terms of complexity. Therefore, the result in Table 6 indicating that the MSE is the lowest in the three climates studied, given such empirical criterion, is extremely important for its practical significance.

Appendix 1: Penman-Monteith Formula

Theoretical and operational equations

H. L. Penman, in 1948, was the first to obtain an equation that combines the energy required to sustain evaporation and an empirical description of the diffusion mechanism by which energy is removed from the evaporation surface as water vapor (Shuttleworth, 1993). Penman's formula led to a new evaporation estimation criterion called the Combination Method. Several researchers modified the Penman formula to take into account the effects of the evolution of aerodynamic conditions on the growth of the crop, the former through resistance factors. The resistance of the surface (r s ) on the water vapor flow in the stomata of the leaves and on the soil surface is distinguished from the aerodynamic resistance (r a ) that occurs due to the friction of the air flow over the vegetable surface. Although the exchange processes in the vegetation layer are much more complex, the measurements and calculations of latent heat flow, λET, have shown a high correlation, at least for a uniform grass surface. With such modifications the theoretical Penman-Monteith formula was obtained (Allen et al., 1998):

λET = Rn-G+ρa cp es-e/ra+γ1+rs/ra (A.1)

where λET is the speed of evapotranspiration in megajoule per m2 per day (MJ/m2/d), Δ is the slope at one point of the saturation vapor curve versus the temperature in kilopascal per °C (kPa/°C), Rn is the net solar radiation in MJ/m2/d, G is the flow of heat from the ground in MJ/m2/d, ρa is the average density of air at constant pressure in kg/m3, c p is specific heat of the air at constant pressure in MJ/kg/°C, (e s - e) is the vapor pressure deficit of air in kPa, r a is the aerodynamic resistance in s/m, γ is the psychrometric constant in kPa/°C, and r s the surface resistance in s/m.

When considering a hypothetical vegetation surface that is 12 cm high, with a fixed surface resistance of 70 s/m, and an albedo of 0.23 in active growth that completely shades the ground and does not lack water, the following operational Penman-Monteith formula (Allen et al., 1998) is obtained:

ETo=0.408Rn-G+γ900/(Tt+273)u2(es-e)+ γ(1+0.34u2) (A.2)

where ETo is the reference evapotranspiration in millimeters per day (mm/d) and the two new terms are Tt, which is the average air temperature at 2 meters high in °C, and u 2, which is the average wind speed at 2 m high in m/s. The value r s = 70 s/m corresponds to a moderately dry soil surface resulting from frequent irrigation, approximately weekly.

To get Equation A.2 from A.1, the depth of water in mm/d can be expressed in terms of energy received per unit area. This energy refers to the heat needed to evaporate the specified water depth, and is known as latent heat of evaporation (λ), which is a function of the water temperature (Ta) and is calculated with the following equation in MJ/kg (Allen et al., 1998):

λ = 2.501 - 0.002361·Ta (A.3)

Since the value of λ does not change much with Ta, Ta = 20 °C is used, and then λ is approximately 2.45 MJ/kg, that is, 2.45 MJ are required to evaporate one kilogram of water or one liter. Then, a 1 mm depth of water is equivalent to 2.45 MJ/m2, since 1 mm per m2 is a cubic decimeter, that is, one liter. The first numerical coefficient in Equation A.2 converts the radiation, expressed in MJ/m2/d, to evaporation, in mm/d, and is equivalent to the inverse value of λ (1/λ = 0.408).

Equation (A.2) can be applied at intervals of one day, ten days, one month or even the total duration of crop growth or one year. To obtain ETo in mm/h, the numerator in the rectangular parenthesis is changed to 37 and all the variables are per hour rather than per day. For verification of the results, in humid tropical regions with a moderate average temperature (Tt≈20 °C), ETo varies from 3 to 5 mm/d; and with a hot climate, (Tt >30°C) it ranges from 5 to 7 mm/d, these intervals increase by one unit in the arid zones (Allen et al., 1998). In Mexico, applications of Equation A.2 have already been done by González-Camacho, Cervantes-Osornio, Ojeda-Bustamante and López-Cruz (2008), and Chávez-Ramírez et al. (2013).

Estimation of parameters Δ and γ

All the expressions presented below are from Allen et al. (1998) and are used to estimate the potential evapotranspiration ( PETji) in month j of each year i, which is required for the application of Equation 1. The slope (Δ in kPa/°C) in the vapor pressure curve of saturation at a point relative to the average air temperature (Tt) in °C, is calculated with the expression:

ji = 4 0890.6108exp 17.27TtjiTtji+237.3Ttji+237.32 (A.4)

The psychrometric constant (γ in kPa/°C) is determined with the following expression:

γji=cpPελji=1.6286210-3Pλji (A.5)

where c p = 1.013·10-3 MJ/kg/°C and ε = 0.622 are the quotients of the molecular weight of water vapor to that of air, λ is estimated with Equation A.3 for the value of Ttji in °C, and P is the atmospheric pressure at the site in kPa. This is estimated with the equation:

P=101.3293-0.0065z2935.26 (A.6)

in which, z is the altitude in meters above sea level.

Estimation of radiations Rn and G

The net radiation (Rn) is equivalent to the difference between the net short-wave incident solar radiation (Rns) and the net long-wave solar radiation that is emitted or released (Rnl), that is:

Rn = Rns - Rnl (A.7)

The Rns is the difference between the incident radiation solar (Rs) and the reflected one, so it is estimated with the expression:

Rnsj = (1 - α)·Rsj (A.8)

where α is the albedo or coefficient of reflection of the vegetation cover, which is dimensionless. A value of 0.23 is adopted for the hypothetical reference grass. Rs j must be expressed in MJ/m2/d, therefore, the average monthly values, in cal/cm2/d, from the maps proposed by Almanza and López (1975), or by Hernández et al. (1991), must be multiplied by 0.041868 to obtain MJ/m2/d.

The long-wave energy emission rate is proportional to the absolute temperature of the surface raised to the fourth power. This relationship is known as the Stefan-Boltzmann's Law. Since water vapor, clouds, carbon dioxide, and dust absorb and emit long-wave radiation, their balance or net flow that leaves the earth's surface is estimated by correcting the Stefan-Boltzmann law for relative humidity and cloudiness, according to the following equation:

Rnlji=σTtji40.34-0.14eji1.35RsjRsoj-0.35 (A.9)

where, σ = 4.903·10-9 MJ/K4/m2/d is Stefan-Boltzmann's constant, Ttji is the average temperature of the month, in degrees Kelvin, equal to the degrees centigrade (°C) plus 273.16, eji is the current partial vapor pressure in kPa and Rso is the solar radiation on clear days or without cloudiness, in MJ/m2/d. This is estimated with the expression:

Rso = (0.75 + 2·10-5·z)·Rej (A.10)

where, z is the altitude of the site and Re j is the what is known as extraterrestrial radiation, in MJ/m2/d. The quotient Rs/Rso must be less than one. The estimates of eji, Re j , and of the two missing terms in Equation A.2 (e s and u 2) are detailed in the following Appendix.

By considering that the heat flow from the ground (G) is less than Rn, a very simple expression is used for its estimation, which considers the ground temperature to be similar to that of air; this is:

G=csTtj+Ttj-1dz (A.11)

where, c s = 2.10 MJ/m3/°C is the caloric capacity of the ground, Δd is the interval in days, and Δz is the soil depth affected, which for lapses of one month or more is considered equal to 2 meters. Based on these numerical values, Equation A.11 for the first month, subsequent, and last month are:

Gj=1=0.14Ttj+1-Ttj (A.12)

Gj=0.07Ttj+1-Ttj-1 (A.13)

Gj=12NA=0.14Ttj-Ttj-1 (A.14)

In equation A.14, NA is the number of years in the climatic record processed.

Appendix 2: Complementary climatic estimations

Extraterrestrial radiation

Re j is the solar radiation at the top of the atmosphere in cal/cm2/d. It is tabulated monthly and is a function of the latitude of the site (φ), in degrees. To avoid interpolation of Re j , 12 third-degree Newton polynomials were developed. Their formula is applicable at latitudes from 10 to 40 degrees north (Campos-Aranda, 2005a):

Rej=b0+b1(φ-10)+b2(φ-10)(φ-20)+b3(φ-10)(φ-20)(φ-30) (A.15)

Los b i coefficients are as follows:

Months b 0 b 1 b 2 b 3 Months b 0 b 1 b 2 b 3
Jan 760 -12 -0.075 1/600 Jul 880 5 -0.100 -1/1200
Feb 820 -9 -0.100 1/1200 Aug 890 2 -0.125 -1/1200
Mar 875 -5 -0.125 1/1200 Sept 880 -2.5 -0.150 1/1200
Apr 895 0 -0.125 -1/1200 Oct 840 -8 -0.075 -1/1200
May 890 4 -0.100 -1/400 Nov 780 -11.5 -0.025 -1/300
Jun 875 6 -0.100 -1/600 Dec 740 -12.5 -0.075 1/1200

The values of Re j estimated with Equation A.15 must be multiplied by 0.041868 to obtain them in MJ/m2/d.

Partial vapor pressure

To estimate eji with Equation A.9, we remember that hotter air may contain more water vapor, whose maximum is the partial pressure of saturation vapor (e s), in kilopascal (kPa), which is a function of temperature and is estimated with the following expression:

esji=0.6108exp17.27Ttji(Ttji+237.3) (A.16)

When there is less amount of water vapor than the maximum, the partial pressure of water vapor is designated by e, and then the relative humidity (HR) in percentage is:

HR = ees 100 (A.17)

If the air that contains any amount of water vapor equal to e is cooling, it reaches a point where e becomes e s, and that temperature is called the dew point (t*), which is estimated with Equation A.16. Solving for this gives us:

t*ji=237.3Ineji/0.610817.27-Ineji/0.6108 (A.18)

Having found that t* is very close to the average monthly minimum temperature (tji), a simple way of estimating the value of eji is established. This was verified almost three decades ago by Arteaga-Ramírez (1989), and more recently by Cervantes-Osornio, Arteaga-Ramírez, Vázquez-Peña, Ojeda-Bustamante and Quevedo-Nolasco (2013).

Table A.1 shows the monthly average relative humidity data (Equation A.17), partial vapor pressure (e), and minimum temperature (t) for five meteorological observatories (SARH, 1982), which are surrounding the three weather stations that will be processed. Based on Equation A.18, using 6.108 instead of 0.6108, since e is in mbar, the corresponding dew point temperatures (t*) were obtained. Then, the differences between t and t* were calculated for their inspection and to determine the corrections to the value t, since theoretically these differences should be close to zero.

Table A.1 Monthly average values for several climatic elements in the five meteorological observatories indicated. *Average annual precipitation. 

Description: Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Annual
Meteorological observatory: Saltillo (Coah.). PMA* = 269.4 mm
Relative humidity (%) 62 59 54 54 58 62 65 68 72 70 64 62 62
Vapor pressure (mbar) 9.1 9.6 9.0 13.0 15.6 17.9 17.6 17.5 16.6 13.9 11.5 9.1 13.3
Dew point (t * °C) 5.6 6.4 5.4 10.9 13.6 15.8 15.5 15.4 14.6 11.9 9.0 5.6 11.2
Minimum temp. (t °C) 5.2 6.8 8.7 12.7 14.7 16.4 16.5 16.2 14.5 11.6 8.0 6.3 11.4
Differences t - t * (°C) -0.4 0.4 3.3 1.8 1.1 0.6 1.0 0.8 -0.1 -0.3 -1.0 0.7 0.2
Meteorological observatory: San Luis Potosí (SLP). PMA = 315.4 mm
Relative humidity (%) 51 43 39 37 47 56 60 61 65 63 57 56 52
Vapor pressure (mbar) 7.5 6.8 7.3 7.9 11.3 13.4 13.8 13.3 13.8 12.0 9.6 8.3 10.4
Dew point (t * °C) 2.9 1.5 2.5 3.6 8.8 11.3 11.8 11.2 11.8 9.7 6.4 4.3 7.5
Minimum temp. (t °C) 6.2 7.4 9.9 11.9 13.4 14.2 13.5 13.5 13.2 10.7 8.1 6.5 10.7
Differences t - t * (°C) 3.3 5.9 7.4 8.3 4.6 2.9 1.7 2.3 1.4 1.0 1.7 2.2 3.2
Meteorological observatory: Río Verde (SLP). PMA = 484.9 mm
Relative humidity (%) 73 70 64 64 66 69 73 72 77 76 76 75 71
Vapor pressure (mbar) 12.8 13.6 14.8 17.2 19.7 21.3 20.9 21.4 20.9 18.4 15.6 13.7 17.5
Dew point (t * °C) 10.6 11.5 12.8 15.1 17.3 18.5 18.2 18.6 18.2 16.2 13.6 11.6 15.4
Minimum temp. (t °C) 9.2 10.8 12.9 16.0 17.9 19.0 18.2 18.3 17.3 15.0 12.2 9.6 14.7
Differences t - t * (°C) -1.4 -0.7 0.1 0.9 0.6 0.5 0.0 -0.3 -0.9 -1.2 -1.4 -2.0 -0.7
Meteorological observatory: Aguascalientes (Ags.). PMA = 537.2 mm
Relative humidity (%) 57 52 46 43 46 59 65 67 69 64 59 61 57
Vapor pressure (mbar) 8.8 8.9 9.4 10.1 12.2 14.8 15.3 15.6 15.2 13.0 10.5 9.6 11.9
Dew point (t * °C) 5.1 5.3 6.1 7.1 9.9 12.8 13.3 13.6 13.2 10.9 7.7 6.4 9.5
Minimum temp. (t °C) 4.6 6.1 8.2 11.0 13.4 14.8 14.1 13.9 13.3 10.6 7.2 5.5 10.2
Differences t - t * (°C) -0.5 0.8 2.1 3.9 3.5 2.0 0.8 0.3 0.1 -0.3 -0.5 -0.9 0.7
Meteorological observatory: Tampico (Tam.). PMA = 985.9 mm
Relative humidity (%) 81 81 80 82 81 82 80 80 81 79 79 80 80
Vapor pressure (mbar) 17.7 19.3 21.1 25.5 28.5 30.5 30.3 30.4 29.7 25.9 21.5 18.9 24.9
Dew point (t * °C) 15.6 16.9 18.4 21.4 23.2 24.4 24.3 24.3 23.9 21.7 18.7 16.6 21.0
Minimum temp. (t °C) 14.1 15.7 17.6 20.8 22.9 23.9 23.8 24.1 23.1 21.2 18.3 15.7 20.1
Differences t - t * (°C) -1.5 -1.2 -0.8 -0.6 -0.3 -0.5 -0.5 -0.2 -0.8 -0.5 -0.4 -0.9 -0.9

The corrections in °C suggested in Saltillo are combined for the Villa de Arriaga station (September to February with zero and March to August with -1.00) and for Aguascalientes (July to February zero and March to June -2.00), proposing: September to February with zero and March to August with -1.50. Data from the San Luis Potosí observatory were not used since they are not considered to be fully reliable. For the observatory of Río Verde, the recommended corrections are: March to August zero and September to February +1.20. Finally, in the Xilitla station, the correction suggested for the Tampico observatory, which is to add 0.60°C in all months, will be applied.

Average wind speed

Finally, regarding the estimation of the average wind speed (v) to be used in Equation A.2, the FAO has established four values according to the type of winds that occur in the region: (1) weak from 0.50 to 1.0 m/s, (2) moderate from 1 to 3 m/s, (3) severe from 3 to 5 m/s and (4) strong ≥ 5 m/s. It also points out that the average speed at 2 m high in more than 2 000 meteorological stations in the world is 2 m/s.

Campos-Aranda (2005b) processed average monthly wind speed data (m/s) from 31 meteorological observatories that had this data, with the number of records ranging from 8 to 20 years. He found that the mode of 2.05 m/s verifies the observed global mean value and results in a sample and population median of the order of 2.3 m/s. This value is recommended for the monthly average.

Solar radiation with temperature data

When the Rs j maps of Almanza and López (1975), or Hernández et al. (1991) are not available, or one does not want to use monthly average values, an estimate based on the monthly difference between the maximum (T) and minimum temperature (t) of the air can be made, since such difference is related to the degree of cloudiness at the site. In general, on clear days or days without cloudiness, high temperatures are generated during the day and low at night, due to the fact that long-wave radiation is not absorbed or returned. The opposite occurs on cloudy days. The empirical operational equation is (Allen et al., 1998):

Rsji=kaRejTji-tji (A.19)

in which, Rsji is solar radiation, in MJ/m2/d, ka is an adjustment factor that ranges from 0.16 to 0.19, with units 1/°C, and Re j is extraterrestrial radiation in MJ/m2/d. The value ka = 0.16 is used for inland locations, where air masses are not influenced by the sea, and ka = 0.19 is used in coastal areas where there is such an affectation. Allen et al. (1998) also indicate how Rsji data from a nearby meteorological station can be transported to the location under study.

Appendix 3: Empirical estimation criteria for PET

Thornthwaite Method

This estimates the potential evapotranspiration PETji) of month j of year i based solely on the average temperature (Ttji) in °C and the latitude of the site (LAT) in degrees. Its equation is (Mather, 1977; Campos-Aranda, 2005a, Xu, Singh, Chen, & Chen, 2008):

ETPji=16 10TtjiICiαFcj (A.20)

in which, IC i is an annual heat index, equal to the sum of the 12 monthly indices, which are:

icj=Ttji51.514 (A.21)

The exponent α is a function of IC i with the following empirical equation:

α=0.4924+1.79210-2ICi-7.7110-5IC12+6.7510-7IC13 (A.22)

Finally, Fc j is a monthly average corrective factor function of the latitude of the site and the number of days of the month (ndm). This formula is:

Fcj=N12ndm30 (A.23)

where N is the maximum sunlight or maximum number of hours with average monthly sunshine. For its estimation in the Mexican Republic, Campos-Aranda (2005a) proposed the following empirical expression:

N = A + B [sen 30 nm + 83.5] (A.24)

in which, nm is the number of the month, with 1 for January and 12 for December; A and B are constants, a function of the latitude of the site (LAT) in degrees, with the following expressions:

A = 12.09086 + 0.00266·LAT (A.25)

B = 0.2194 - 0.06988·LAT (A.26)

Turc Method

In the early 1960s, L. Turc proposed the following equation to estimate the monthly and 10-day PETji, which is a function of the average monthly temperature, Ttji, of the incident solar radiation Rs j , expressed in cal/cm2/d, and of the average monthly relative humidity (Turc, 1961; Campos-Aranda, 2005a; Xu et al., 2008):

ETPji=cjTtjiTtji+15Rsj+50FCji (A.27)

The coefficient c j takes the following values: 0.40 for months of 30 or 31 days, 0.37 for February, and 0.13 for a period of 10 days. The corrective factor is applied when the average monthly relative humidity (HRji) is less than 50%, its expression is:

FCji=1 +50-HRji70 (A.28)

Hargreaves-Samani Method

Average daily potential evapotranspiration (ETPji),in millimeters, were proposed in the early 1980s, exclusively based on the average temperature (Ttji) expressed in degrees Fahrenheit and the daily average incident solar radiation ( Rsji) expressed in millimeters of evaporated water depth. Its equation is (Hargreaves and Samani, 1982, Campos-Aranda, 2005a, Xu et al., 2008):

ETPji=0.0075RsjiTtji (A.29)

The incident solar radiation (Rsji) can be estimated with the Angström formula (Jáuregui-Ostos, 1978, Allen et al., 1998) when there is insolation or actual sunlight (n) data, or with the monthly maps available for the Mexican Republic (Almanza and López, 1975; Hernández et al., 1991), which are reported in cal/cm2/d. For the transformation of Rsj into evaporated water depth per day, the following formula is used:

Rsji=10RsjHvji (A.30)

where Hvji is the so-called latent heat of evaporation or energy needed in calories to evaporate 1 g or cm3 of water. It is estimated with the following expression, with the average ( Ttji) monthly temperature in °C:

Hvji=595.9-0.55Ttji (A.31)

The other empirical formula by Hargreaves-Samani can be consulted in Campos-Aranda (2005a), which is a function of extraterrestrial solar radiation and monthly average and minimum temperatures. An application of this criterion is given in Campos-Aranda (2014).

REFERENCES

Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., & Smith, M. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration (guidelines for computing crop water requirements). Irrigation and Drainage Paper (No. 56). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. [ Links ]

Almanza, R., & López, S. (1975). Radiación solar global en la república mexicana mediante datos de Insolación. Series del Instituto de Ingeniería, 357, 20. [ Links ]

Arteaga-Ramírez, R. (1989). Estudio preliminar para la estimación de la humedad relativa en la república mexicana (pp. 334-344). En: Memorias de la Segunda Reunión Nacional de Agroclimatología. Chapingo, México: Universidad Autónoma Chapingo. [ Links ]

Campos-Aranda, D. F. (2005a). Estimación de la evapotranspiración. FDP Gamma Mixta (pp. 267-281). En: Agroclimatología Cuantitativa de Cultivos (pp. 65-96). México, DF, México: Editorial Trillas. [ Links ]

Campos-Aranda, D. F. (2005b). Estimación empírica de la ETP en la república mexicana. Ingeniería Hidráulica en México, 20(3), 99-110. [ Links ]

Campos-Aranda, D. F. (2014). Comparación de tres métodos estadísticos para detección y monitoreo de sequías meteorológicas. Agrociencia, 48(5), 463-476. [ Links ]

Cervantes-Osornio, R., Arteaga-Ramírez, R., Vázquez-Peña, M. A., Ojeda-Bustamante, W., & Quevedo-Nolasco, A. (2013). Comparación de modelos para estimar la presión real de vapor de agua. Tecnología y Ciencias del Agua, 4(2), 37-54. [ Links ]

Chávez-Ramírez, E., González-Cervantes, G., González-Barrios, J. L., Dzul-López, E., Sánchez-Cohen, I., López-Santos, A., & Chávez-Simental, J. A. (2013). Uso de estaciones climatológicas automáticas y modelos matemáticos para determinar la evapotranspiración. Tecnología y Ciencias del Agua, 4(4), 115-126. [ Links ]

Doorenbos, J., & Pruitt, W. O. (1977). Guidelines for predicting crop water requirements. Irrigation and Drainage Paper (No. 24). Rome, Italy: Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations . [ Links ]

González-Camacho, J. M., Cervantes-Osornio, R., Ojeda-Bustamante, W., & López-Cruz, I. (2008). Predicción de la evapotranspiración de referencia mediante redes neuronales artificiales. Ingeniería Hidráulica en México, 23(1), 127-138. [ Links ]

Hao, Z. K., & Singh, V. P. (2015). Drought characterization from a multivariate perspective: A review. Journal of Hydrology, 527, 668-678. [ Links ]

Hargreaves, G. H., & Samani, Z. A. (1982). Estimating potential evapotranspiration. Journal of the Irrigation and Drainage Division, 108(IR3), 225-230. [ Links ]

Hernández, H. E., Tejeda-Martínez, A., & Reyes, T. S. (1991). Atlas solar de la república mexicana. Xalapa, Veracruz, México: Universidad de Colima y Universidad Veracruzana. [ Links ]

Jáuregui-Ostos, E. (1978). Una primera estimación de la distribución de la radiación global y neta en México. Recursos Hidráulicos, 7(2), 96-105. [ Links ]

Mather, J. R. (1977). the climatic water budget. Exercise V. In: Workbook in Applied Climatology (pp. 29-44). New Jersey, USA: Laboratory of Climatology. [ Links ]

Machiwal, D., & Jha, M. K. (2012). Methods for time series analysis. In: Hydrologic Time Series Analysis: Theory and Practice (pp. 51-84). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer. [ Links ]

SARH, Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos. (1982). Normales climatológicas. Periodo 1941-1970. México, DF, México: Dirección General del Servicio Meteorológico Nacional, Secretaría de Agricultura y Recursos Hidráulicos. [ Links ]

Shuttleworth, W. J. (1993). Evaporation. In: Maidment, D. R. (ed.). Handbook of Hydrology (pp. 4.1-4.53). New York, USA: McGraw-Hill, Inc. [ Links ]

Tsakiris, G., Tigkas, D., Vangelis, H., & Pangalou, D. (2007). Regional drought identification and assessment. In: Rossi, G., Vega, T., & Bonaccorso, B. (eds.). Methods and Tools for Drought Analysis and Management (pp. 169-191). Dordrecht, The Netherlands: Springer . [ Links ]

Tsakiris, G., & Vangelis, H. (2005). Establishing a drought index incorporating evapotranspiration. European Water, 9(10), 3-11. [ Links ]

Turc, L. (1961). Évaluation des besoins en eau d’irrigation, évapotranspiration potentielle. Formule climatique simplifiée et mise a jour. Annales Agronomiques, 12(1), 13-49. [ Links ]

Vangelis, H., Tigkas, D., & Tsakiris, G. (2013). The effect of PET method on Reconnaissance Drought Index (RDI) calculation. Journal of Arid Environments, 88, 130-140. [ Links ]

Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., & López-Moreno, J. I. (2010). A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: The Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index. Journal of Climate, 23(7), 1696-1718. [ Links ]

WMO, World Meteorological Organization. (1971). Annexed III: Standard tests of significance to be recommended in routine analysis of climatic fluctuations. In: Climatic Change (Technical Note No. 79) (pp. 58-71). Geneva, Switzerland: Secretariat of the World Meteorological Organization. [ Links ]

Xu, C., Singh, V. P., Chen, Y. D., & Chen, D. (2008). Evaporation and Evapotranspiration. In: Singh, V. P. (ed.). Hydrology and Hydraulics (pp. 229-276). Highlands Ranch, Colorado, USA: Water Resources Publications. [ Links ]

Received: June 21, 2016; Accepted: January 24, 2018

Creative Commons License Este es un artículo publicado en acceso abierto bajo una licencia Creative Commons