The main purpose of this paper was to investigate the monthly, seasonal, and annual rainfall variability in the Mae Klong River Basin in Thailand using the Mann–Kendall (MK) test, Sen's slope method, Spearman's Rho (SR) test, and the innovative trend analysis (ITA) method. The monthly rainfall data of eight stations for the period 1971–2015 were used for trend analysis. Datasets with significant serial correlation were corrected by the trend-free pre-whitening (TFPW) approach for statistical methods. The MK test showed increasing rainfall trends for five out of eight stations in the dry season while 50% of stations indicated increasing trends in the wet season. On an annual scale, 75% of the stations exhibited increasing rainfall trends. The results of the SR test were in line with the MK test for seasonal and annual rainfall. The ITA method showed comparable findings with those of the statistical methods. For the entire basin, trend analysis found increasing rainfall on both seasonal and annual scales by all the tests. The findings of this study could benefit water supply and management, drought monitoring, agricultural production activities, and socioeconomic development in the Mae Klong River Basin in the future.

  • Statistical methods and graphical methods for rainfall trends are compared.

  • Datasets with significant serial correlation were corrected by the trend-free pre-whitening (TFPW) approach for statistical methods.

  • The results of Spearman's Rho test were in line with the Mann–Kendall test for seasonal and annual rainfall.

  • The innovative trend analysis method showed comparable findings with those of the statistical methods.

Rainfall observation is a prerequisite for hydrological modeling of any river basin. Identification of rainfall trends is important in water resources planning and management. Rainfall is the primary source of agricultural food production and regulates our ecosystems. A decrease in rainfall can lead to serious water shortage and drought and, consequently, to a decreased crop yield and food insecurity (Cengiz et al. 2020). Ample quantities of freshwater resources availability are critical for life on Earth. Climate change, economic growth, and increase in population have increased the challenges of decision-makers to properly allocate water among different water use sectors (Khalil et al. 2018a). Planning of water resource systems is based on climate information. Water resource managers are mostly concerned about climate change and its impacts on the availability of water for different water use sectors.

Identifying trends in rainfall patterns helps in assessing the impact of climate change on precipitation. It provides valuable information for understanding how rainfall patterns are shifting over time and whether there are any significant changes. By detecting long-term trends, hydrologists can anticipate changes in water availability, plan for future water demands, and develop strategies to mitigate the effects of droughts or floods. Trend detection in hydro-meteorological variables has been studied by many researchers globally (Luis et al. 2000; Kumar et al. 2010; Longobardi & Villani 2010; Nenwiini & Kabanda 2013; Sayemuzzaman & Jha 2014; Zeleňáková et al. 2014; Merabtene et al. 2016; Wang et al. 2020). Trend detection in the time series data can be done by both parametric and non-parametric statistical techniques. The non-parametric techniques have been preferred. The Mann–Kendall (MK) test, a non-parametric test, has been frequently applied for the detection of trends in the time series data of precipitation and streamflow (Sayemuzzaman & Jha 2014). One benefit of the MK test is that the data need not conform to any specific distribution. The MK and Spearman's Rho (SR) tests are applicable under restrictive assumptions such as the independent structure of time series, normality of the distribution, and length of the data. The innovative trend analysis (ITA) method can be used to avoid such restrictive assumptions and the pre-whitening approach required by MK and SR tests for time series data with significant serial correlation is not necessary (Şen 2012). The ITA method can identify the hidden trends in the precipitation time series that cannot be detected using statistical methods (Cengiz et al. 2020). The ITA method has received increasing attention for trends analysis in hydro-meteorological variables (Dabanlı & Şen 2018; Wu et al. 2018; Zhou et al. 2018; Ali et al. 2019; Gedefaw et al. 2019; Alifujiang et al. 2020; Cengiz et al. 2020; Wang et al. 2020). Graphical (such as the ITA method) and statistical approaches, when combined, yield more influential and comprehensive information for inference than relying purely on statistical results (Onyutha 2016).

The Mae Klong River Basin is one of the 25 major river basins in Thailand. Administratively, the Mae Klong River Basin can be divided into 25 districts belonging to eight provinces. Around 70% of the basin area is composed of three provinces, namely Ratchaburi, Samut Songkhram, and Kanchanaburi. The Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand (EGAT) has been authorized to control all structures of the three main dams and operate the water supply in reservoirs. However, coordination at the departmental level between the EGAT and the Royal Irrigation Department (RID) is carried out by creating a seasonal plan of agricultural water needs, which will be used for water release determination from upper reservoirs. Allocating water in the main irrigation system and satisfying downstream water needs at Mae Klong Dam are accomplished by the RID. Meanwhile, the farm irrigation system is managed by water user associations (WUAs), which the farmers may pay for the maintenance of the system. The use of groundwater in the basin is free by regulation and law, both in terms of control and price, under the responsibility of the Department of Groundwater (Biltonen et al. 2003). The upland in the basin is covered with forest that is well preserved. The lowland has agricultural activities which contribute more sediments in river flows. The Greater Mae Klong Irrigation Project (GMKIP) which is located in the lower region of the basin is the second largest irrigation project in Thailand. The Lampachi River Basin, which is also located in the lower region, has a low forest land ratio but a high agriculture land ratio. Even though the rainfall is not very high, the high drainage density yields more suspended sediments as compared to other areas of the basin. For proper soil erosion control in the basin, it is necessary to protect the forests in the uplands and conserve soil in the cultivated lands in the lowlands. This requires establishing an appropriate relation between rainfall, watershed characteristics, and activities in the land comprising forest and agriculture (Maita et al. 1998). As per the development plans, the total agricultural area is expected to increase in the future, which in addition to an increase in population and industrial activities, will result in an increase in water requirement in the basin. Presently, the basin is facing water shortage, especially in the dry season (Tospornsampan et al. 2005; Khalil et al. 2018a). In the future, since the situation of water resources will be very tight, it is crucial for water resources planners to get information about the river basin from statistical and/or rainfall-runoff analysis. This information may be specifically required for effective water resource management in ungauged basins (Sugiyama et al. 1998). The watershed contributing runoff to the Srinagarind Dam has less rainfall as compared to the watershed contributing runoff to the Vajiralongkorn (VJK) Dam; however, the Srinagarind Dam watershed is a more reliable source of water supply, especially during prolonged drought conditions on an annual scale (Sugiyama et al. 1998). Kwanyuen et al. (1999) identified rainfall as one of the major factors that influenced the quality of water for both irrigation and drainage canals. Shrestha (2014) reported a reduction in water availability for the Mae Klong River Basin in the first half of this century followed by an increase in the latter half during the dry season. However, in the wet season, water availability is expected to increase during all decades of the century. Sharma & Babel (2018) studied climate change impacts on the streamflow in the Mae Klong River Basin. The results indicated a decrease in streamflow in the dry season while the streamflow is expected to increase in the wet season in the future. Rojrungtavee (2009) reported an increased magnitude in peak rainfall with a shorter duration of rainfall in the basin. Deb et al. (2018) also reported rainfall anomalies that are in line with the results of Shrestha (2014) for the Mae Klong River Basin using data from five GCMs (Global Climate Models). Khalil et al. (2018b) studied seasonal and annual trends of rainfall and streamflow in the Mae Klong River Basin, Thailand. The results showed increasing rainfall trends in the wet season and decreasing rainfall trends in the dry season which are in line with Shrestha (2014) and Deb et al. (2018).

According to a survey of the literature, the Mae Klong River Basin's rainfall trends are not analyzed using the ITA approach. The comparison of the ITA method with the widely utilized MK and SR tests was a novel aspect of this research study. The main objectives of this study were (i) to determine the temporal and spatial distribution of rainfall trends for eight stations in the Mae Klong River Basin in Thailand using the MK and SR tests, (ii) to compare the results of the MK test and the SR test with the ITA method, and (iii) to determine the significance of monotonic trends at 5% significance level. The results of this study are expected to help policymakers shape better strategies for climate change mitigation in the basin.

The Mae Klong River Basin is located in the west of Thailand between the UTM coordinates 1452024–1811727 N (geographical coordinates 13°8′–16°23′ N) in latitude and 411484-629930 E (98°11′–100°13′ E) in longitude. The total area of the basin is 30,167 km2 as shown in Figure 1. There are two main storage dams, i.e. the Srinagarind Dam (SNR) located on the Khwae Yai River and the VJK Dam located on the Khwae Noi River. There are two diversion dams, i.e. the Tha Thung Na Dam (TN) located downstream of SNR on the Khwae Yai River and the Mae Klong Dam (MK) constructed on the Mae Klong River. There are two small tributaries: the Lam Taphoen River which discharges to the Khwae Yai River and the Lampachi River which drains to the Khwae Noi River. Land use in the basin can be divided into forest (68.13%), agriculture (22.90%), urban (3.4%), miscellaneous areas (2.47%), and water (3.10%). Water demands inside the basin are composed of domestic and industrial demands, hydel power, and salinity control. Outside the basin, water is supplied to the neighboring Tha Chin Basin in the dry season and Bangkok Metropolitan Waterworks Authority (MWA). The GMKIP, which is the second-largest irrigation project in Thailand, is located in the lower part of the basin (Khalil et al. 2018a). The range for annual rainfall in the Mae Klong Basin is between 900 and 1,500 mm/year. The average annual rainfall is between about 1,000 and 1,300 mm/year (Biltonen et al. 2003).
Figure 1

The Mae Klong River Basin.

Figure 1

The Mae Klong River Basin.

Close modal

Materials

The monthly rainfall data of eight stations for the period 1971–2015 were obtained from the RID and the Thai Meteorological Department (TMD). The database of rainfall includes monthly, dry season, wet season, and annual totals for the eight stations. The spatial distribution of rainfall stations is shown in Figure 2(a). Based on the rainfall variation, the basin was divided into upper, middle, and lower regions. Annual rainfall data for the eight stations are shown in Figure 3, while statistical analysis (maximum, minimum, average, standard deviation (SD), coefficient of variation (CV), and skewness) of the annual data is given in Table 1. The mean annual rainfall varied between 840.73 mm (Station 130042) and 1,767.93 mm (Station 130053) in the basin. The mean annual rainfall of the stations was interpolated using the inverse distance weighting (IDW) technique in the TeREsA software. The spatial distribution of mean annual rainfall in the basin as shown in Figure 2(b) was interpolated using the IDW technique in the TeREsA software.
Table 1

Statistical properties of annual rainfall data during 1971–2015

Rainfall stations
Min. rainfall (mm)Max. rainfall (mm)Avg. rainfall (mm)Standard deviation (mm)CVSkewness
NameCode
A. Mueang, Kanchanaburi Station 130013 627.70 1,581.70 1,055.87 194.72 0.18 0.228 
A. Tha Maka, Kanchanaburi Station 130042 260.30 1,481.20 840.73 300.72 0.36 0.144 
A. Thong Pha Phum, Kanchanaburi Station 130053 1,155 2,438.70 1,767.93 298.08 0.17 0.124 
Ban Lum Sum, Kanchanaburi Station 130211 774.20 1,713.50 1,207.41 239.39 0.20 0.202 
Huai Mae Nam Noi, Kanchanaburi Station 130221 1,049.80 2,462.10 1,677.58 342.86 0.20 0.271 
Ban Thong Pong, Kanchanaburi Station 130571 508.88 1,414.41 970.49 204.80 0.21 0.037 
Umphang, Tak Station 376401 844.57 1,928.90 1,310.84 277.50 0.21 0.530 
Ban Bo, Ratchaburi Station 470161 754.00 1,722.20 1,159.71 222.40 0.19 0.315 
Rainfall stations
Min. rainfall (mm)Max. rainfall (mm)Avg. rainfall (mm)Standard deviation (mm)CVSkewness
NameCode
A. Mueang, Kanchanaburi Station 130013 627.70 1,581.70 1,055.87 194.72 0.18 0.228 
A. Tha Maka, Kanchanaburi Station 130042 260.30 1,481.20 840.73 300.72 0.36 0.144 
A. Thong Pha Phum, Kanchanaburi Station 130053 1,155 2,438.70 1,767.93 298.08 0.17 0.124 
Ban Lum Sum, Kanchanaburi Station 130211 774.20 1,713.50 1,207.41 239.39 0.20 0.202 
Huai Mae Nam Noi, Kanchanaburi Station 130221 1,049.80 2,462.10 1,677.58 342.86 0.20 0.271 
Ban Thong Pong, Kanchanaburi Station 130571 508.88 1,414.41 970.49 204.80 0.21 0.037 
Umphang, Tak Station 376401 844.57 1,928.90 1,310.84 277.50 0.21 0.530 
Ban Bo, Ratchaburi Station 470161 754.00 1,722.20 1,159.71 222.40 0.19 0.315 
Figure 2

Spatial distribution of (a) rainfall stations (b) mean annual rainfall in millimeter for the period 1971–2015 in the Mae Klong River Basin.

Figure 2

Spatial distribution of (a) rainfall stations (b) mean annual rainfall in millimeter for the period 1971–2015 in the Mae Klong River Basin.

Close modal
Figure 3

Annual rainfall of eight stations in the Mae Klong River Basin during 1971–2015 (dashed line shows the average rainfall).

Figure 3

Annual rainfall of eight stations in the Mae Klong River Basin during 1971–2015 (dashed line shows the average rainfall).

Close modal

Methods

Rainfall data homogeneity tests

The standard normal homogeneity test (SNHT) and the Buishand test were used to check the homogeneity of the rainfall data. These tests were conducted at a 5% significance level using the ‘trend’ R package (Pohlert 2018). In this study, for a data sample of 45, the critical value of the SNHT test statistic (To) is 8.33 (Alexandersson 1986) and the critical value of the Buishand test statistic () is 1.55 (Buishand 1982). The results of the two tests for the mean annual rainfall data of the stations are given in Table 2. For both tests, all the test statistic values were less than the critical values indicating the rainfall data series as homogeneous.

Table 2

Homogeneity tests statistics for mean annual rainfall data (for homogeneous series, To <8.33, and <1.55)

StationSNHT statistic (To)Buishand test statistic ()
Station 130013 6.65 1.29 
Station 130042 6.78 1.18 
Station 130053 2.82 0.85 
Station 130211 4.45 1.10 
Station 130221 2.46 1.14 
Station 130571 3.10 1.11 
Station 376401 2.51 1.26 
Station 470161 4.69 1.15 
StationSNHT statistic (To)Buishand test statistic ()
Station 130013 6.65 1.29 
Station 130042 6.78 1.18 
Station 130053 2.82 0.85 
Station 130211 4.45 1.10 
Station 130221 2.46 1.14 
Station 130571 3.10 1.11 
Station 376401 2.51 1.26 
Station 470161 4.69 1.15 

Serial correlation effect

The MK test requires the rainfall time series to be serially independent. If the data has serial correlation (also called autocorrelation), then the significance level of the MK test will be either underestimated or overestimated depending on whether the serial correlation is negative or positive. If the lag-1 correlation coefficient is not significant at the 5% level, then the MK test is applied to the original data series. Several methods have been proposed for the elimination of serial correlation in the time series data such as pre-whitening (von Storch 1995), variance correction (Hamed & Rao 1998), and the trend-free pre-whitening (TFPW) approach (Yue et al. 2002a). The TFPW procedure provides a better assessment of the significance of the trends for serially correlated data (Yue et al. 2002a, 2003; Zhang & Lu 2009) than the other approaches and has been applied by many researchers (Burn et al. 2004; Novotny & Stefan 2007; Wu et al. 2008; Kumar et al. 2009; Zhang & Lu 2009; Shadmani et al. 2012; Blain 2013; Ahmad et al. 2015). In this study, the data series with a significant autocorrelation (at a 5% significance level) was corrected by the TFPW approach.

MK trend test

The MK test statistic S (Mann 1945; Kendall 1975) is calculated by Equations (1) and (2):
(1)
where
(2)
xj and xk are sequential values of the time series data and n is the length of the dataset. A positive value of S indicates an upward (or increasing) trend and a negative value indicates a downward (or decreasing) trend. If the dataset length is more than 10, then the test is done using a normal distribution with expectation (E) and variance (var) using Equation (3):
(3)
where q is the number of tied groups and tp denotes the number of ties of extent p. A tied group is a set of sample data having the same value. The standard test statistic (ZMK) is given by Equation (4):
(4)

The value of ZMK is the MK test statistic that follows a normal distribution with mean 0 and variance 1. The trend test can be done at a selected significance level (denoted by α). The null hypothesis of no trend is rejected when , and the time series has a statistically significant trend. The value of can be obtained from the standard normal distribution table. In this study, the MK test is applied for the detection of rainfall trends that are statistically significant at α = 0.1% (99.9% confidence intervals), α = 0.1% (99% confidence intervals), α = 5% (95% confidence intervals), and α = 10% (90% confidence intervals). At the 0.1%, 1, 5, and 10% significance levels, the null hypothesis (no trend) is rejected if , , , and , respectively.

Sen's slope method

This non-parametric method (Sen 1968) is used to determine the magnitude (or slope) of trends in hydro-meteorological data. The technique involves calculating slopes for all pairs of ordinal time points and then using the median of these slopes as the estimate of the overall slope. This technique can be effectively used for the quantification of trends in time series data since it is not sensitive to outliers. The magnitude of the trend slope Q is computed by Equation (5) (Salmi et al. 2002):
(5)
where i = 1, 2, …, N, xj is the data value at time j, xk is the data value at time k, j is the time after k (j > k), and N is the number of all pairs xj and xk.

The Excel template MAKESENS 1.0 (MK test for trend and Sen's slope estimates) developed by the Finnish Meteorological Institute, Finland was used for detecting and estimating trends in the monthly, seasonal, and annual time series of rainfall data. In MAKESENS, the two-tailed test is used for four different significance levels α: 0.001, 0.01, 0.05, and 0.1 (Salmi et al. 2002). This tool has been used by many researchers for the trend analysis of hydro-meteorological variables (Burgmer et al. 2007; Santos & Fragoso 2013; Bernsteinová et al. 2015; Soni & Singh 2017; Tan et al. 2017). TeREsA software (Travaglini et al. 2016), which is a toolbox in R for environmental analysis, was used for plotting the spatial distribution of rainfall trends in the Mae Klong River Basin.

SR test

This is a rank-based non-parametric test similar to the MK test used for time series data of hydro-climatic variables to verify the absence of trends (Shadmani et al. 2012). Yue et al. (2002b) investigated the power of the MK and SR tests for detecting monotonic trends in hydrological series. The results indicated that these two non-parametric tests have similar power in detecting a trend. In this test, the null hypothesis states the time series data to be independent and distributed identically while the alternate hypothesis indicates the presence of increasing or decreasing trends (Yue et al. 2002b). The SR test statistic D and the standardized test statistic ZSR are given by Equations (6) and (7) (Shadmani et al. 2012):
(6)
(7)
where is the rank of ith observation, is the time series, and n is the length of the time series. Positive values of ZSR indicate upward trends, while a negative ZSR indicates downward trends in the time series. The null hypothesis of no trend is rejected when indicating that a significant trend exists in the time series data. Here, is the critical value of t taken from the t-student table for a 5% significance level. In this study, the critical value of is 2.02 for a sample size of 45.

Innovative trend analysis

Şen (2012) developed the ITA method for determining trends in hydro-meteorological data. According to this method, the hydro-meteorological series is divided into two equal subseries. The two subseries are separately sorted in ascending order. The first subseries is plotted on the x-axis while the second subseries is plotted on the y-axis. If the scatter data plots appear on the 1:1 (45°) straight line or very close to it within ±5% line, then it means that no trend exists in the time series data as shown in Figure 4. If the data points fall above the 1:1 line (upper triangle), then the time series has an increasing trend. If the data points fall below the 1:1 line (lower triangle), then the time series has a decreasing trend. Furthermore, the scatter data can be divided into ‘Low’, ‘Medium’, and ‘High’ clusters (groups) which can provide an interpretation domain for each group trend type. If the partial cluster is very close to 1:1 (45°) within ±5% or maximum within ±10% line, then no trend exists. If the partial cluster is above (below) the 1:1 line, then an increasing (decreasing) trend exists in that cluster (Öztopal & Şen 2017). The slope SITA is calculated by Equation (8) (Şen 2017a, 2017b):
(8)
where and are the arithmetic averages of the first and the second halves of the dependent variable, x, sequence, and n is the number of data.
Figure 4

Innovative trend analysis template with monotonic (increasing and decreasing) trends.

Figure 4

Innovative trend analysis template with monotonic (increasing and decreasing) trends.

Close modal
The trend indicator is given by Equation (9) (Cherinet et al. 2019):
(9)
where is the trend indicator, n is the number of observations on the subseries, xi is the data series in the first half subseries class, xj is the data series in the second half subseries part, and is the mean of data series in the first half subseries part. The trend indicator of ITA is multiplied by 10 to make the scale similar to the other two tests (MK test and Sen slope method). A positive value of indicates an increasing trend. However, a negative value of indicates a decreasing trend. However, when the scatter points are closest around the 1:1 straight line, it implies the nonexistence of a significant trend.

Calculation of autocorrelation coefficient

The lag-1 autocorrelation coefficient for the monthly, seasonal, and annual rainfall data for all stations was calculated using the function Acf in R programming language. The function Acf computes (and by default plots) an estimate of the autocorrelation function of a univariate time series. The lag-1 autocorrelation coefficient values for the monthly, seasonal, and annual time series are given in Table 3. The rainfall series for which the autocorrelation coefficient was significant at a 95% confidence level was ‘pre-whitened’ using the TFPW method suggested by Yue et al. (2002a) before the application of non-parametric tests using the ‘modifiedmk’ R package (Patakamuri 2020).

Table 3

Lag-1 autocorrelation coefficient for rainfall data

Month/SeasonAutocorrelation coefficient
Station 130013Station 130042Station 130053Station 130211Station 130221Station 130571Station 376401Station 470161
January −0.127 −0.015 −0.146 0.131 −0.053 −0.052 −0.208 −0.078 
February −0.127 0.118 −0.006 −0.111 0.028 0.037 −0.043 −0.204 
March 0.067 0.191 −0.263 0.071 0.039 −0.188 0.032 −0.128 
April 0.128 0.109 −0.184 0.062 0.024 0.324* 0.019 −0.039 
May −0.224 0.238 0.193 0.109 −0.225 0.321* 0.173 0.035 
June −0.178 −0.016 0.172 0.143 0.173 0.113 −0.025 0.164 
July −0.095 0.032 0.152 −0.291 −0.017 −0.053 0.209 0.140 
August −0.020 0.022 0.013 −0.120 −0.125 0.082 0.067 0.184 
September 0.094 0.432* 0.098 0.093 0.104 −0.308 0.326* 0.005 
October 0.122 0.232 0.352* 0.127 0.332* 0.064 0.120 −0.030 
November −0.120 −0.008 0.115 −0.020 −0.106 −0.006 −0.103 0.002 
December 0.013 0.065 −0.106 −0.020 −0.149 −0.118 −0.037 −0.114 
Dry Season 0.161 0.372* 0.023 0.239 −0.173 0.250 0.164 −0.115 
Wet Season −0.078 0.112 −0.009 −0.061 0.048 0.376* 0.323* 0.069 
Annual −0.013 0.318* 0.023 0.170 0.007 −0.122 0.372* 0.067 
Month/SeasonAutocorrelation coefficient
Station 130013Station 130042Station 130053Station 130211Station 130221Station 130571Station 376401Station 470161
January −0.127 −0.015 −0.146 0.131 −0.053 −0.052 −0.208 −0.078 
February −0.127 0.118 −0.006 −0.111 0.028 0.037 −0.043 −0.204 
March 0.067 0.191 −0.263 0.071 0.039 −0.188 0.032 −0.128 
April 0.128 0.109 −0.184 0.062 0.024 0.324* 0.019 −0.039 
May −0.224 0.238 0.193 0.109 −0.225 0.321* 0.173 0.035 
June −0.178 −0.016 0.172 0.143 0.173 0.113 −0.025 0.164 
July −0.095 0.032 0.152 −0.291 −0.017 −0.053 0.209 0.140 
August −0.020 0.022 0.013 −0.120 −0.125 0.082 0.067 0.184 
September 0.094 0.432* 0.098 0.093 0.104 −0.308 0.326* 0.005 
October 0.122 0.232 0.352* 0.127 0.332* 0.064 0.120 −0.030 
November −0.120 −0.008 0.115 −0.020 −0.106 −0.006 −0.103 0.002 
December 0.013 0.065 −0.106 −0.020 −0.149 −0.118 −0.037 −0.114 
Dry Season 0.161 0.372* 0.023 0.239 −0.173 0.250 0.164 −0.115 
Wet Season −0.078 0.112 −0.009 −0.061 0.048 0.376* 0.323* 0.069 
Annual −0.013 0.318* 0.023 0.170 0.007 −0.122 0.372* 0.067 

Note: *Statistically significant at 95% confidence level.

Rainfall station-based trend analysis

Trend analysis was carried out on monthly, seasonal, and annual scales for the period 1971–2015. Due to climate characteristics, the seasons in the basin were classified into dry season starting from January to June and wet season from July to December (Biltonen et al. 2003; Manee et al. 2015; Khalil et al. 2018b; Khalil 2020). MK test statistic (ZMK) and Sen's slope (Q) for the monthly, seasonal, and annual series of rainfall are given in Table 4. The spatial distribution of trend analysis for the monthly, seasonal, and annual time series of rainfall data for the period 1971–2015 is shown in Figures 5 and 6. The SR test and the ITA results of the monthly, seasonal, and annual rainfall data are given in Tables 5 and 6, respectively. The ITA results were obtained by using the R package ‘trendchange’ (Patakamuri 2019). The source code of the package was slightly modified by this author to generate the desired graphical format of the ITA results as shown in Figures 79.
Table 4

MK test statistic (ZMK) and Sen's slope (Q) for monthly, seasonal, and annual rainfall in the Mae Klong River Basin

Month/SeasonStation 130013
Station 130042
Station 130053
Station 130211
Station 130221
Station 130571
Station 376401
Station 470161
ZMKQZMKQZMKQZMKQZMKQZMKQZMKQZMKQ
January 0.920 1.135 1.272 0.303 1.409 0.176 0.235 0.695 
February 1.164 0.008 0.773 0.039 0.920 0.929 −0.646 −0.166 −0.004 −0.518 
March 0.548 0.099 1.086 1.790+ 0.718 −1.360 −0.438 0.137 0.108 3.042** 0.941 −0.382 −0.135 
April −0.088 −0.044 0.470 0.072 −0.010 −0.054 1.174 0.870 2.221* 1.857 2.215* 1.176 2.710** 1.277 1.096 0.515 
May −0.518 −0.492 −1.135 −0.887 0.245 0.368 −1.418 −1.290 −0.225 −0.163 0.981 0.379 0.479 0.557 −0.518 −0.472 
June 0.998 0.418 −1.624 −1.130 −1.428 −1.689 −0.871 −0.722 −1.105 −1.762 −0.518 −0.301 0.010 0.002 0.714 0.575 
July 0.088 0.136 −1.516 −1.217 1.184 1.886 −0.313 −0.107 1.800+ 2.493 −1.634 −1.201 1.927+ 1.546 0.812 0.580 
August −0.929 −0.460 −1.360 −0.968 −0.108 −0.106 1.086 0.794 0.499 0.448 1.927+ 1.063 1.927+ 0.971 0.792 0.434 
September −0.421 −0.490 −1.709 −1.807 −0.440 −0.378 0.147 0.125 0.205 0.187 −0.734 −0.579 2.053* 1.681 0.225 0.262 
October 0.127 0.226 −0.362 −0.317 0.091 0.044 −0.479 −0.548 −1.224 −1.240 0.968 1.088 0.284 0.232 −0.910 −1.291 
November −1.105 −0.294 −0.714 0.039 −1.379 −0.382 −0.470 −1.321 −0.106 −0.841 −0.142 2.054* 0.845 
December −1.115 0.509 0.587 −0.900 −0.293 2.534* 0.006 0.039 −1.145 
Dry Season 0.401 0.710 −1.386 −1.708 −0.460 −1.247 −0.284 −0.520 0.421 1.163 1.947+ 2.387 2.397* 4.277 0.714 0.898 
Wet Season −0.812 −1.574 1.908+ 5.560 0.695 1.963 0.225 0.599 0.695 1.902 −0.961 −1.493 2.680** 6.221 −0.518 −1.231 
Annual 0.127 0.274 1.851+ −6.533 0.010 0.126 0.029 0.267 0.636 3.175 0.812 1.819 3.307*** 9.614 −0.088 −0.296 
Month/SeasonStation 130013
Station 130042
Station 130053
Station 130211
Station 130221
Station 130571
Station 376401
Station 470161
ZMKQZMKQZMKQZMKQZMKQZMKQZMKQZMKQ
January 0.920 1.135 1.272 0.303 1.409 0.176 0.235 0.695 
February 1.164 0.008 0.773 0.039 0.920 0.929 −0.646 −0.166 −0.004 −0.518 
March 0.548 0.099 1.086 1.790+ 0.718 −1.360 −0.438 0.137 0.108 3.042** 0.941 −0.382 −0.135 
April −0.088 −0.044 0.470 0.072 −0.010 −0.054 1.174 0.870 2.221* 1.857 2.215* 1.176 2.710** 1.277 1.096 0.515 
May −0.518 −0.492 −1.135 −0.887 0.245 0.368 −1.418 −1.290 −0.225 −0.163 0.981 0.379 0.479 0.557 −0.518 −0.472 
June 0.998 0.418 −1.624 −1.130 −1.428 −1.689 −0.871 −0.722 −1.105 −1.762 −0.518 −0.301 0.010 0.002 0.714 0.575 
July 0.088 0.136 −1.516 −1.217 1.184 1.886 −0.313 −0.107 1.800+ 2.493 −1.634 −1.201 1.927+ 1.546 0.812 0.580 
August −0.929 −0.460 −1.360 −0.968 −0.108 −0.106 1.086 0.794 0.499 0.448 1.927+ 1.063 1.927+ 0.971 0.792 0.434 
September −0.421 −0.490 −1.709 −1.807 −0.440 −0.378 0.147 0.125 0.205 0.187 −0.734 −0.579 2.053* 1.681 0.225 0.262 
October 0.127 0.226 −0.362 −0.317 0.091 0.044 −0.479 −0.548 −1.224 −1.240 0.968 1.088 0.284 0.232 −0.910 −1.291 
November −1.105 −0.294 −0.714 0.039 −1.379 −0.382 −0.470 −1.321 −0.106 −0.841 −0.142 2.054* 0.845 
December −1.115 0.509 0.587 −0.900 −0.293 2.534* 0.006 0.039 −1.145 
Dry Season 0.401 0.710 −1.386 −1.708 −0.460 −1.247 −0.284 −0.520 0.421 1.163 1.947+ 2.387 2.397* 4.277 0.714 0.898 
Wet Season −0.812 −1.574 1.908+ 5.560 0.695 1.963 0.225 0.599 0.695 1.902 −0.961 −1.493 2.680** 6.221 −0.518 −1.231 
Annual 0.127 0.274 1.851+ −6.533 0.010 0.126 0.029 0.267 0.636 3.175 0.812 1.819 3.307*** 9.614 −0.088 −0.296 

Note: ***if trend at α = 0.1% level of significance (), **if trend at α = 1% level of significance (), * if trend at α = 5% level of significance (), + if trend at α = 10% level of significance ().

ZMK is the MK test statistic and Q is the Sen's slope estimate in mm/year.

Table 5

Spearman's Rho test statistic (ZSR) for monthly, seasonal, and annual rainfall in the Mae Klong River Basin

Month/SeasonStation 130013Station 130042Station 130053Station 130211Station 130221Station 130571Station 376401Station 470161
ZSRZSRZSRZSRZSRZSRZSRZSR
Jan 0.111 1.381 1.444 0.344 1.640 0.290 0.346 0.841 
Feb 1.165 0.998 0.074 0.922 1.061 −0.486 −0.285 −0.604 
Mar 0.367 0.986 1.741 −1.501 0.300 0.247 3.216* 0.481 
Apr −0.102 0.354 −0.051 1.219 2.179* 2.257* 2.628* 1.281 
May −0.613 −1.102 0.172 −1.407 −0.277 0.842 0.686 −0.438 
Jun 0.911 −1.571 −1.501 −0.850 −1.198 −0.391 0.080 0.725 
Jul 0.010 −1.633 1.235 −0.149 1.928 −1.598 1.978 0.866 
Aug −0.917 −1.392 −0.053 1.103 0.591 −1.724 1.982 0.698 
Sep −0.420 −1.727 −0.262 0.223 0.340 −0.579 2.445* 0.438 
Oct 0.041 −0.350 0.116 −0.483 −1.098 0.955 0.344 −1.014 
Nov −1.105 −0.632 0.054 −1.319 −0.510 −1.170 −0.717 2.049* 
Dec −1.260 0.552 0.667 −1.010 −0.412 2.632* 0.118 −1.215 
Dry Season 0.441 −1.397 −0.468 −0.322 0.426 2.104* 2.548* 0.876 
Wet Season −0.934 −1.902 0.763 0.053 1.016 −0.784 2.818* 0.566 
Annual 0.111 −1.933 0.144 −0.123 0.759 0.829 3.539* 0.191 
Month/SeasonStation 130013Station 130042Station 130053Station 130211Station 130221Station 130571Station 376401Station 470161
ZSRZSRZSRZSRZSRZSRZSRZSR
Jan 0.111 1.381 1.444 0.344 1.640 0.290 0.346 0.841 
Feb 1.165 0.998 0.074 0.922 1.061 −0.486 −0.285 −0.604 
Mar 0.367 0.986 1.741 −1.501 0.300 0.247 3.216* 0.481 
Apr −0.102 0.354 −0.051 1.219 2.179* 2.257* 2.628* 1.281 
May −0.613 −1.102 0.172 −1.407 −0.277 0.842 0.686 −0.438 
Jun 0.911 −1.571 −1.501 −0.850 −1.198 −0.391 0.080 0.725 
Jul 0.010 −1.633 1.235 −0.149 1.928 −1.598 1.978 0.866 
Aug −0.917 −1.392 −0.053 1.103 0.591 −1.724 1.982 0.698 
Sep −0.420 −1.727 −0.262 0.223 0.340 −0.579 2.445* 0.438 
Oct 0.041 −0.350 0.116 −0.483 −1.098 0.955 0.344 −1.014 
Nov −1.105 −0.632 0.054 −1.319 −0.510 −1.170 −0.717 2.049* 
Dec −1.260 0.552 0.667 −1.010 −0.412 2.632* 0.118 −1.215 
Dry Season 0.441 −1.397 −0.468 −0.322 0.426 2.104* 2.548* 0.876 
Wet Season −0.934 −1.902 0.763 0.053 1.016 −0.784 2.818* 0.566 
Annual 0.111 −1.933 0.144 −0.123 0.759 0.829 3.539* 0.191 

Note: *if trend at α = 0.05 level of significance (). ZSR is the SR test statistic.

Table 6

Innovative trend analysis for monthly, seasonal, and annual rainfall in the Mae Klong Basin

Month/SeasonStation 130013
Station 130042
Station 130053
Station 130211
Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator, CL95CL90Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator, CL95CL90Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator, CL95CL90Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator, CL95CL90
Jan 0.179* 5.706 ±0.055 ±− 0.046 0.339* 122.482 ±0.121 ±0.101 0.029 1.192 ±0.066 ±0.056 0.043 2.306 ±0.036 ±0.030 
Feb 0.419* 9.084 ±0.197 ±0.165 0.139* 9.464 ±0.041 ±0.034 −0.101 −1.270 ±0.114 ±0.095 0.126 1.466 ±0.149 ±0.125 
Mar 0.793* 5.925 ±0.160 ±− 0.134 0.615* 11.717 ±0.190 ±0.160 0.966* 5.306 ±0.126 ±0.106 0.522* 2.364 ±0.129 ±0.109 
Apr 0.482* 1.608 ±0.274 ±0.230 0.277 1.831 ±0.281 ±0.236 0.027 0.062 ±0.204 ±0.171 2.402* 7.466 ±0.494 ±0.414 
May 0.406 0.663 ±0.416 ±0.349 0.038 0.082 ±0.117 ±0.098 1.390* 1.590 ±0.315 ±0.265 −0.103 −0.151 ±0.292 ±0.245 
Jun 0.483* 1.286 ±0.205 ±0.172 0.449* 1.042 ±0.250 ±0.210 3.956* 2.704 ±0.435 ±0.365 −0.070 −0.139 ±0.211 ±0.177 
Jul 0.313* 0.713 ±0.117 ±0.098 1.205* 2.296 ±0.203 ±0.170 3.774* 2.963 ±0.430 ±0.361 0.470* 0.783 ±0.239 ±0.201 
Aug 0.048 0.105 ±0.139 ±0.117 −0.357 −0.755 ±0.368 ±0.309 0.358 0.245 ±0.508 ±0.426 1.360* 2.475 ±0.139 ±0.117 
Sep 0.780* 0.817 ±0.337 ±0.283 −0.201 −0.245 ±0.330 ±0.277 0.944* 0.887 ±0.288 ±0.242 1.541* 1.633 ±0.368 ±0.309 
Oct 0.683* 0.740 ±0.493 ±0.414 −0.250 −0.373 ±0.302 ±0.253 0.469* 0.617 ±0.276 ±0.231 2.359* 2.208 ±0.391 ±0.328 
Nov 1.117* 3.539 ±0.436 ±0.366 0.988* 3.992 ±0.171 ±0.144 0.183* 1.525 ±0.132 ±0.111 0.735* 3.000 ±0.237 ±0.199 
Dec 0.138* 4.143 ±− 0.033 ±0.027 0.048* 1.442 ±0.027 ±0.022 0.033* 2.200 ±0.020 ±0.017 0.214* 6.399 ±0.025 ±0.021 
Dry Season 2.403* 1.604 ±0.548 ±0.460 0.959* 0.858 ±0.387 ±0.325 1.645* 0.538 ±0.476 ±0.400 1.790* 0.975 ±0.479 ±0.402 
Wet Season 0.797* 0.255 ±0.492 ±0.413 3.050* 1.101 ±0.676 ±0.568 4.457* 0.949 ±0.686 ±0.575 0.064 0.018 ±0.559 ±0.469 
Annual 1.607* 0.348 ±0.459 ±0.385 2.090* 0.538 ±0.777 ±0.652 2.812* 0.363 ±1.724 ±− 1.447 1.854* 0.351 ±0.850 ±0.714 
Month/SeasonStation 130221
Station 130571
Station 376401
Station 470161
Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator,CL95CL90Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator,CL95CL90Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator,CL95CL90Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator,CL95CL90
Jan 0.091* 4.405 ±0.074 ±0.062 0.334* 12.387 ±0.102 ±0.086 0.035 1.459 ±0.051 ±0.043 0.102* 4.401 ±0.025 ±0.021 
Feb 0.347* 5.254 ±0.172 ±0.144 0.422* 10.551 ±0.092 ±0.078 0.097* 2.676 ±0.044 ±0.037 0.029 0.446 ±0.066 ±0.056 
Mar 0.786* 4.248 ±0.146 ±0.123 0.551* 7.596 ±0.091 ±0.076 1.730* 18.695 ±0.177 ±0.149 −0.173 −0.792 ±0.223 ±0.188 
Apr 2.141* 5.710 ±0.358 ±0.301 1.936* 9.798 ±0.275 ±0.230 1.994* 7.842 ±0.304 ±0.255 0.775* 2.336 ±0.133 ±0.112 
May −0.002 −0.002 ±0.261 ±0.219 0.435* 0.806 ±0.171 ±0.143 1.609* 2.155 ±0.211 ±0.177 0.098 0.142 ±0.333 ±0.279 
Jun 3.641* 3.027 ±0.621 ±0.522 0.129 0.326 ±0.236 ±0.198 −0.069 −0.091 ±0.155 ±0.130 0.660* 1.752 ±0.282 ±0.237 
Jul 4.849* 4.393 ±0.775 ±0.650 1.112* 2.230 ±0.235 ±0.197 2.856* 3.744 ±0.353 ±0.296 0.416* 0.931 ±0.194 ±0.162 
Aug 1.117* 0.943 ±0.353 ±0.297 1.111* 1.953 ±0.212 ±0.178 1.040* 1.122 ±0.193 ±0.162 0.878* 2.095 ±0.183 ±0.154 
Sep 2.171* 2.109 ±0.464 ±0.390 0.239* 0.258 ±0.191 ±0.160 2.567* 2.996 ±0.261 ±0.219 1.216* 1.407 ±0.349 ±0.293 
Oct 2.469* 2.746 ±0.324 ±0.272 0.411 0.543 ±0.535 ±0.449 0.357* 0.565 ±0.179 ±0.150 1.340* 1.117 ±0.363 ±0.304 
Nov 0.258* 1.769 ±0.172 ±0.144 0.032 0.204 ±0.155 ±0.130 0.100 0.806 ±0.131 ±0.110 2.009* 4.423 ±0.246 ±0.206 
Dec 0.017 0.901 ±0.058 ±0.049 0.161* 6.113 ±0.039 ±0.033 −0.024 −1.053 ±0.058 ±0.049 0.091* 2.496 ±0.046 ±0.039 
Dry Season −0.277 −0.099 ±0.502 ±0.421 3.807* 2.990 ±0.221 ±0.185 5.397* 2.827 ±0.592 ±0.497 1.287* 0.753 ±0.470 ±0.395 
Wet Season 5.427* 1.239 ±0.964 ±0.809 1.702* 0.581 ±0.522 ±0.438 6.182* 1.859 ±0.390 ±0.328 −0.930 −0.272 ±1.151 ±0.966 
Annual 5.149* 0.716 ±1.204 ±1.010 2.105* 0.500 ±0.615 ±0.516 11.579* 2.212 ±1.036 ±0.869 0.357 0.070 ±0.843 ±0.707 
Month/SeasonStation 130013
Station 130042
Station 130053
Station 130211
Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator, CL95CL90Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator, CL95CL90Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator, CL95CL90Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator, CL95CL90
Jan 0.179* 5.706 ±0.055 ±− 0.046 0.339* 122.482 ±0.121 ±0.101 0.029 1.192 ±0.066 ±0.056 0.043 2.306 ±0.036 ±0.030 
Feb 0.419* 9.084 ±0.197 ±0.165 0.139* 9.464 ±0.041 ±0.034 −0.101 −1.270 ±0.114 ±0.095 0.126 1.466 ±0.149 ±0.125 
Mar 0.793* 5.925 ±0.160 ±− 0.134 0.615* 11.717 ±0.190 ±0.160 0.966* 5.306 ±0.126 ±0.106 0.522* 2.364 ±0.129 ±0.109 
Apr 0.482* 1.608 ±0.274 ±0.230 0.277 1.831 ±0.281 ±0.236 0.027 0.062 ±0.204 ±0.171 2.402* 7.466 ±0.494 ±0.414 
May 0.406 0.663 ±0.416 ±0.349 0.038 0.082 ±0.117 ±0.098 1.390* 1.590 ±0.315 ±0.265 −0.103 −0.151 ±0.292 ±0.245 
Jun 0.483* 1.286 ±0.205 ±0.172 0.449* 1.042 ±0.250 ±0.210 3.956* 2.704 ±0.435 ±0.365 −0.070 −0.139 ±0.211 ±0.177 
Jul 0.313* 0.713 ±0.117 ±0.098 1.205* 2.296 ±0.203 ±0.170 3.774* 2.963 ±0.430 ±0.361 0.470* 0.783 ±0.239 ±0.201 
Aug 0.048 0.105 ±0.139 ±0.117 −0.357 −0.755 ±0.368 ±0.309 0.358 0.245 ±0.508 ±0.426 1.360* 2.475 ±0.139 ±0.117 
Sep 0.780* 0.817 ±0.337 ±0.283 −0.201 −0.245 ±0.330 ±0.277 0.944* 0.887 ±0.288 ±0.242 1.541* 1.633 ±0.368 ±0.309 
Oct 0.683* 0.740 ±0.493 ±0.414 −0.250 −0.373 ±0.302 ±0.253 0.469* 0.617 ±0.276 ±0.231 2.359* 2.208 ±0.391 ±0.328 
Nov 1.117* 3.539 ±0.436 ±0.366 0.988* 3.992 ±0.171 ±0.144 0.183* 1.525 ±0.132 ±0.111 0.735* 3.000 ±0.237 ±0.199 
Dec 0.138* 4.143 ±− 0.033 ±0.027 0.048* 1.442 ±0.027 ±0.022 0.033* 2.200 ±0.020 ±0.017 0.214* 6.399 ±0.025 ±0.021 
Dry Season 2.403* 1.604 ±0.548 ±0.460 0.959* 0.858 ±0.387 ±0.325 1.645* 0.538 ±0.476 ±0.400 1.790* 0.975 ±0.479 ±0.402 
Wet Season 0.797* 0.255 ±0.492 ±0.413 3.050* 1.101 ±0.676 ±0.568 4.457* 0.949 ±0.686 ±0.575 0.064 0.018 ±0.559 ±0.469 
Annual 1.607* 0.348 ±0.459 ±0.385 2.090* 0.538 ±0.777 ±0.652 2.812* 0.363 ±1.724 ±− 1.447 1.854* 0.351 ±0.850 ±0.714 
Month/SeasonStation 130221
Station 130571
Station 376401
Station 470161
Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator,CL95CL90Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator,CL95CL90Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator,CL95CL90Trend Slope, SITATrend Indicator,CL95CL90
Jan 0.091* 4.405 ±0.074 ±0.062 0.334* 12.387 ±0.102 ±0.086 0.035 1.459 ±0.051 ±0.043 0.102* 4.401 ±0.025 ±0.021 
Feb 0.347* 5.254 ±0.172 ±0.144 0.422* 10.551 ±0.092 ±0.078 0.097* 2.676 ±0.044 ±0.037 0.029 0.446 ±0.066 ±0.056 
Mar 0.786* 4.248 ±0.146 ±0.123 0.551* 7.596 ±0.091 ±0.076 1.730* 18.695 ±0.177 ±0.149 −0.173 −0.792 ±0.223 ±0.188 
Apr 2.141* 5.710 ±0.358 ±0.301 1.936* 9.798 ±0.275 ±0.230 1.994* 7.842 ±0.304 ±0.255 0.775* 2.336 ±0.133 ±0.112 
May −0.002 −0.002 ±0.261 ±0.219 0.435* 0.806 ±0.171 ±0.143 1.609* 2.155 ±0.211 ±0.177 0.098 0.142 ±0.333 ±0.279 
Jun 3.641* 3.027 ±0.621 ±0.522 0.129 0.326 ±0.236 ±0.198 −0.069 −0.091 ±0.155 ±0.130 0.660* 1.752 ±0.282 ±0.237 
Jul 4.849* 4.393 ±0.775 ±0.650 1.112* 2.230 ±0.235 ±0.197 2.856* 3.744 ±0.353 ±0.296 0.416* 0.931 ±0.194 ±0.162 
Aug 1.117* 0.943 ±0.353 ±0.297 1.111* 1.953 ±0.212 ±0.178 1.040* 1.122 ±0.193 ±0.162 0.878* 2.095 ±0.183 ±0.154 
Sep 2.171* 2.109 ±0.464 ±0.390 0.239* 0.258 ±0.191 ±0.160 2.567* 2.996 ±0.261 ±0.219 1.216* 1.407 ±0.349 ±0.293 
Oct 2.469* 2.746 ±0.324 ±0.272 0.411 0.543 ±0.535 ±0.449 0.357* 0.565 ±0.179 ±0.150 1.340* 1.117 ±0.363 ±0.304 
Nov 0.258* 1.769 ±0.172 ±0.144 0.032 0.204 ±0.155 ±0.130 0.100 0.806 ±0.131 ±0.110 2.009* 4.423 ±0.246 ±0.206 
Dec 0.017 0.901 ±0.058 ±0.049 0.161* 6.113 ±0.039 ±0.033 −0.024 −1.053 ±0.058 ±0.049 0.091* 2.496 ±0.046 ±0.039 
Dry Season −0.277 −0.099 ±0.502 ±0.421 3.807* 2.990 ±0.221 ±0.185 5.397* 2.827 ±0.592 ±0.497 1.287* 0.753 ±0.470 ±0.395 
Wet Season 5.427* 1.239 ±0.964 ±0.809 1.702* 0.581 ±0.522 ±0.438 6.182* 1.859 ±0.390 ±0.328 −0.930 −0.272 ±1.151 ±0.966 
Annual 5.149* 0.716 ±1.204 ±1.010 2.105* 0.500 ±0.615 ±0.516 11.579* 2.212 ±1.036 ±0.869 0.357 0.070 ±0.843 ±0.707 

Note: *if trend at 95% confidence level (5% significance level), CL90 = 90% confidence level, CL95 = 95% confidence level.

Figure 5

Spatial distribution of trends in monthly rainfall using the MK test.

Figure 5

Spatial distribution of trends in monthly rainfall using the MK test.

Close modal
Figure 6

Spatial distribution of trends in seasonal and annual rainfall using the MK test.

Figure 6

Spatial distribution of trends in seasonal and annual rainfall using the MK test.

Close modal
Figure 7

Rainfall (mm) trends in the dry season using the ITA method.

Figure 7

Rainfall (mm) trends in the dry season using the ITA method.

Close modal
Figure 8

Rainfall (mm) trends in the wet season using the ITA method.

Figure 8

Rainfall (mm) trends in the wet season using the ITA method.

Close modal
Figure 9

Rainfall (mm) trends in the annual data using the ITA method.

Figure 9

Rainfall (mm) trends in the annual data using the ITA method.

Close modal

Rainfall trends in the monthly data

No trends for rainfall were detected for the month of January in any of the observation stations. For the month of March, Station 376401 located in the upper region of the basin indicated a statistically significant increasing trend at 99% confidence level with a trend slope of 0.941 mm/year. The SR test also showed an increasing trend for Station 376401 in March. The SR test statistic was statistically significant at 95% confidence level with a value of 3.216 (). In April, six out of eight stations showed increasing trends while two stations showed decreasing trends (Station 130013 and Station 130053). The increasing trend for Station 376401 is significant at 99% confidence level with a slope of 1.277 mm/year. The increasing trends of Station 130221 and Station 130571 were significant at 95% confidence level with a slope of 1.857 mm/year and 1.176 mm/year, respectively. The SR test also showed statically increasing trends for Stations 130221, 130571, and 376401 with test statistic values of 2.179, 2.257, and 2.628, respectively. In May and June, which are the dry seasons, five out of eight stations showed a decreasing trend. The months of August, September, and October have shown a similar trend with rainfall trends increasing for 50% (4 out of 8) of the stations while decreasing for the remaining 50% stations. In September, Station 376401 showed a statistically significant increasing trend with 5% significance level having a slope of 1.681 mm/year and a Spearman Rho test statistic value of 2.445. The rainfall trends for five stations decreased in November. Station 470161 had a statistically significant decreasing slope of −0.845 mm/year at 95% confidence level whereas the value of the Spearman Rho test statistic was 2.049. No trends were detected for December except for Station 130571, which had a statistically significant decreasing trend at 95% confidence level with a slope of −0.006 mm/year while the Spearman Rho test statistic value was 2.632. The variation in the rainfall trends could be due to the geographical locations (latitude and longitude) of the rainfall stations and topography of the study area.

For the month of January, the range of the ITA slope varied from −0.179 to 0.339. An increasing trend was indicated by five stations while three stations showed decreasing trends. These trends were found to be significant at 95% confidence level for six stations. For the month of March, the range of the ITA slope varied from −0.522 to 1.730. Significant increasing trends were found for six stations. Two stations (Station 130211 and Station 470161) indicated decreasing trends (also indicated by the MK and SR tests) of which the trend for Station 130211 was significant. In July, 75% (six out of eight) of the stations showed increasing trends. All the trends (increasing and decreasing) were found to be significant. The decreasing trends of Stations 130042 and Station 130571 are in line with MK and SR tests. In September, seven stations showed significant increasing trends while the decreasing trend of Station 130042 was not significant. For the month of November, the ITA method showed significant decreasing trends for six stations, whereas the MK and SR tests indicated decreasing trends for five stations.

Rainfall trends in the dry season

For the dry season using the MK test, 63% of the stations (five out of eight) showed increasing trends while three stations showed decreasing rainfall trends. The increasing trend of Station 376401 was significant at 95% confidence level with an increasing slope of 4.277 mm/year. The increasing trend of Station 130571 was significant at 90% confidence level with a slope of 2.387 mm/year. The SR test indicated increasing trends for five stations in the dry season. The increasing trends of Stations 130571 and 376401 were significant at 95% confidence level with Spearman Rho test statistic values of 2.104 and 2.548, respectively. The ITA method showed significant increasing trends for six stations in the dry season as shown in Figure 7. The slope of ITA varied from −1.645 to 5.397. Station 130053 and Station 130221 indicated decreasing trends.

Rainfall trends in the wet season

In the wet season using the MK test, 50% (four out of eight) of stations showed increasing trends while 50% of stations indicated decreasing rainfall trends. The increasing trend of Station 376401 was significant at 99% confidence level with a slope of 6.221 mm/year. The decreasing trend of Station 130042 was significant at 90% confidence level with a slope of −5.560 mm/year. The SR test showed increasing trends for 50% (four out of eight) stations in the wet season. The increasing rainfall of Station 376401 was significant at 95% confidence level with a test statistic value of 2.818. The upper region of the Mae Klong River Basin showed increasing trends while the middle and lower regions showed mixed seasonal rainfall trends. Station 376401 and Station 130053, which are located in the upper region, showed increasing rainfall trends in the wet season. For the wet season using the ITA method, 50% of the stations had increasing trends as shown in Figure 8. The slope of ITA ranged from −3.05 (Station 130042) to 6.182 (Station 376401). The indication of decreasing trends for these four stations (Stations 130013, 130042, 130571, and 470161) are consistent with the MK and SR tests.

Rainfall trends in annual rainfall

On an annual scale using the MK test, 75% of the stations (six out of eight) showed increasing trends while two stations showed decreasing trends as shown in Figure 6. The increasing trend of Station 376401 was statistically significant at 99.9% confidence level with an increasing slope of 9.614 mm/year. The decreasing trend of Station 130042 was significant at 90% confidence level with a slope of −6.533 mm/year. The SR test showed increasing trends for five stations on an annual scale. The increasing trend of Station 376401 was significant at 95% confidence level with a test statistic value of 3.539. The ITA method indicated increasing trends for seven stations as shown in Figure 9. All increasing trends were significant at 95% confidence level, except for Station 470161. The slope of ITA varied from −2.09 to 11.579. The decreasing trend of Station 130042 is consistent with the MK and SR test results. A comparison between statistical and ITA methods for rainfall trends on seasonal and annual scales for the eight rainfall stations is depicted in Table 7.

Table 7

Comparison between statistical and graphical methods for seasonal and annual rainfall during 1975–2015

Rainfall stationsDry season
Wet season
Annual
MKSRITAMKSRITAMKSRITA
Station 130013 Increasing Increasing Increasing* Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* 
Station 130042 Decreasing Decreasing Increasing* Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing* Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing* 
Station 130053 Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* 
Station 130211 Decreasing Decreasing Increasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing Increasing Decreasing Increasing* 
Station 130221 Increasing Increasing Decreasing Increasing Increasing Increasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* 
Station 130571 Increasing+ Increasing* Increasing* Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* 
Station 376401 Increasing* Increasing* Increasing* Increasing** Increasing* Increasing* Increasing*** Increasing* Increasing* 
Station 470161 Increasing Increasing Increasing* Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Increasing 
Rainfall stationsDry season
Wet season
Annual
MKSRITAMKSRITAMKSRITA
Station 130013 Increasing Increasing Increasing* Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* 
Station 130042 Decreasing Decreasing Increasing* Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing* Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing* 
Station 130053 Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* 
Station 130211 Decreasing Decreasing Increasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing Increasing Decreasing Increasing* 
Station 130221 Increasing Increasing Decreasing Increasing Increasing Increasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* 
Station 130571 Increasing+ Increasing* Increasing* Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* 
Station 376401 Increasing* Increasing* Increasing* Increasing** Increasing* Increasing* Increasing*** Increasing* Increasing* 
Station 470161 Increasing Increasing Increasing* Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Decreasing Increasing 

Note: *** trend at 0.1% level of significance, ** trend at 1% level of significance, * trend at 5% level of significance. + trend at 10% level of significance.

Overall, the results showed that stations with significant trends based on ITA methods were more numerous than those based on MK and SR tests. There could be several reasons. The ITA method is designed to be sensitive in identifying and analyzing trends within a given time series. It incorporates visual inspection and numerical calculations to determine the trend type and slope. Unlike the MK and SR tests, the ITA method compares last parts of the record with earlier periods within the time series itself, allowing for the appreciation of trend variations within the record. Additionally, the method uses the number of crossings along the trend line to identify surplus and deficit parts of the time series with respect to the trend line. This sensitivity allows for a more comprehensive understanding of the trend patterns within the data (Şen 2017b).

Rainfall trend analysis for the whole Mae Klong River Basin

The arithmetic mean method was used to average the rainfall data of the eight stations for the whole Mae Klong River Basin. Rainfall trend analysis was carried out for the monthly, seasonal, and annual time series. The results of trend analysis for both the MK test and SR test are given in Table 8 while those for the ITA method are given in Table 9. For the month of January using the MK test, a statistically significant increasing trend was observed at 95% confidence level with a slope of 0.052 mm/year. February month has an increasing trend with 90% confidence level and has a slope of 0.206 mm/year. The SR test had similar trends for monthly data but none of them were statistically significant. The ITA method showed statistically significant trends at 95% confidence level for all months as shown in Figure 10. The range of the ITA slope varied from −0.939 to 1.295. Decreasing rainfall trends were observed for the months of June, October, November, and December which were consistent with the results of MK and SR tests.
Table 8

Rainfall trend analysis for the whole Mae Klong River Basin using MK and SR tests

Month/SeasonFirst yearLast YearNo. of yearsMann–Kendall Test
Spearman's Rho Test
ZMKsignificanceQ (mm/year)ZSR
Jan 1971 2015 45 2.015 0.052 1.999 
Feb 1971 2015 45 1.712 0.206 1.654 
Mar 1971 2015 45 0.831  0.208 0.848 
Apr 1971 2015 45 1.438  0.678 1.491 
May 1971 2015 45 −0.577  −0.309 −0.609 
Jun 1971 2015 45 −1.203  −0.676 −1.297 
Jul 1971 2015 45 0.675  0.419 0.934 
Aug 1971 2015 45 −0.068  −0.033 −0.145 
Sep 1971 2015 45 −0.029  −0.023 −0.097 
Oct 1971 2015 45 −0.479  −0.365 −0.416 
Nov 1971 2015 45 −1.360  −0.376 −1.276 
Dec 1971 2015 45 −0.362  −0.001 −0.322 
Dry season 1971 2015 45 0.655  0.708 0.812 
Wet season 1971 2015 45 0.225  0.292 0.181 
Annual 1971 2015 45 0.479  0.843 0.635 
Month/SeasonFirst yearLast YearNo. of yearsMann–Kendall Test
Spearman's Rho Test
ZMKsignificanceQ (mm/year)ZSR
Jan 1971 2015 45 2.015 0.052 1.999 
Feb 1971 2015 45 1.712 0.206 1.654 
Mar 1971 2015 45 0.831  0.208 0.848 
Apr 1971 2015 45 1.438  0.678 1.491 
May 1971 2015 45 −0.577  −0.309 −0.609 
Jun 1971 2015 45 −1.203  −0.676 −1.297 
Jul 1971 2015 45 0.675  0.419 0.934 
Aug 1971 2015 45 −0.068  −0.033 −0.145 
Sep 1971 2015 45 −0.029  −0.023 −0.097 
Oct 1971 2015 45 −0.479  −0.365 −0.416 
Nov 1971 2015 45 −1.360  −0.376 −1.276 
Dec 1971 2015 45 −0.362  −0.001 −0.322 
Dry season 1971 2015 45 0.655  0.708 0.812 
Wet season 1971 2015 45 0.225  0.292 0.181 
Annual 1971 2015 45 0.479  0.843 0.635 

Note: * if trend at α = 5% level of significance, + if trend at α = 10% level of significance. ZMK is the MK test statistic and Q is the Sen's slope estimate in mm/year. * if trend at α = 5% level of significance (). ZSR is the SR test statistic.

Table 9

Rainfall trend analysis for the whole Mae Klong River Basin using the ITA method

Month/SeasonTrend slope, SITATrend indicator, CL95CL90
Jan 0.063* 2.922 ±0.054 ±0.045 
Feb 0.185* 3.400 ±0.070 ±0.059 
Mar 0.593* 4.100 ±0.092 ±0.077 
Apr 1.254* 4.240 ±0.309 ±0.259 
May 0.484* 0.695 ±0.141 ±0.118 
Jun 0.864* 1.256 ±0.149 ±0.125 
Jul 1.295* 1.834 ±0.180 ±0.151 
Aug 0.416* 0.551 ±0.168 ±0.141 
Sep 1.157* 1.241 ±0.253 ±0.213 
Oct 0.939* 1.088 ±0.283 ±0.238 
Nov 0.645* 2.852 ±0.214 ±0.179 
Dec 0.078* 2.845 ±0.024 ±0.020 
Dry season 1.715* 0.902 ±0.281 ±0.236 
Wet season 1.206* 0.344 ±0.664 ±0.557 
Annual 2.922* 0.540 ±0.561 ±0.471 
Month/SeasonTrend slope, SITATrend indicator, CL95CL90
Jan 0.063* 2.922 ±0.054 ±0.045 
Feb 0.185* 3.400 ±0.070 ±0.059 
Mar 0.593* 4.100 ±0.092 ±0.077 
Apr 1.254* 4.240 ±0.309 ±0.259 
May 0.484* 0.695 ±0.141 ±0.118 
Jun 0.864* 1.256 ±0.149 ±0.125 
Jul 1.295* 1.834 ±0.180 ±0.151 
Aug 0.416* 0.551 ±0.168 ±0.141 
Sep 1.157* 1.241 ±0.253 ±0.213 
Oct 0.939* 1.088 ±0.283 ±0.238 
Nov 0.645* 2.852 ±0.214 ±0.179 
Dec 0.078* 2.845 ±0.024 ±0.020 
Dry season 1.715* 0.902 ±0.281 ±0.236 
Wet season 1.206* 0.344 ±0.664 ±0.557 
Annual 2.922* 0.540 ±0.561 ±0.471 

Note: *if trend at 95% confidence level (5% significance level).

Figure 10

Rainfall (mm) trends for the entire Mae Klong River Basin data using the ITA method.

Figure 10

Rainfall (mm) trends for the entire Mae Klong River Basin data using the ITA method.

Close modal

The rainfall trends increased on seasonal and annual scales for the basin. For the MK test, the dry season has more increasing rainfall trend as compared to the wet season with a slope of 0.708 mm/year. On an annual scale, the rainfall has an increasing trend with a slope of 0.843 mm/year. SR test results were similar to the MK test results for the entire basin on the annual time scale. The ITA representation of trend analysis for seasonal and annual rainfall is shown in Figure 10. Significant increasing trends at 95% confidence level were observed for seasonal and annual rainfall. The values of the ITA slope ranged from 1.206 (wet season) to 2.922 (annual rainfall). A comparison between statistical and ITA methods for rainfall trends on seasonal and annual scales for the whole basin is depicted in Table 10.

Table 10

Comparison between statistical and graphical methods for the whole Mae Klong River Basin during 1975–2015

Dry season
Wet season
Annual
MKSRITAMKSRITAMKSRITA
Increasing Increasing Increasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* 
Dry season
Wet season
Annual
MKSRITAMKSRITAMKSRITA
Increasing Increasing Increasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* Increasing Increasing Increasing* 

Note: *if trend at 95% confidence level (5% significance level).

As shown in Figure 2(b), the upper region of the basin had more mean annual rainfall contributing runoff to two main reservoirs, Srinagarind and Vajiralongkorn dams. The downstream release from both the dams is re-regulated by two diversion dams, Tha Thung Na and Mae Klong Dams, due to which the lower region of the basin with relatively lower mean annual precipitation had no potential droughts. Water is supplied to the GMKIP from the Mae Klong Dam. This irrigation demand was 6,219 MCM/year during the period 2000–2015. The increasing rainfall trends in the basin have pointed to the ample availability of water resources in the basin for meeting inside water demands as well as outer basin transfer to MWA Bangkok and to the neighboring Tha Chin Basin during the dry season. For the period 2000–2015, this diverted water to the Tha Chin Basin and MWA was 849 and 352 MCM/year, respectively (Khalil et al. 2018a).

Both the MK and SR tests indicated similar trends in the monthly, seasonal, and annual rainfall data. The ITA method showed comparable findings in seasonal and annual rainfall. Increasing rainfall trends were found for 50% of the stations in the wet season which could continue in the future as reported by other studies (Rojrungtavee 2009; Shrestha 2014; Deb et al. 2018). Station 376401 which is located in the upper region of the basin (Figure 2(a)) showed increasing rainfall trends in both dry and wet seasons, which are in line with the findings of Manee et al. (2015). Also, for Station 376401, increasing trends were indicated by all tests on an annual scale. Since runoff in this region contributes inflows to the Srinagarind Dam, it implies an increasing trend for inflows to the dam. Manee et al. (2015) reported increasing trends for inflows to the Srinagarind Dam on seasonal and annual scales.

From the spatial distribution of stations, it is observed that the annual rainfall trends increase in the upper and middle regions of the Mae Klong River Basin while they decrease in the lower region of the basin. The increased rainfall trends in the wet season and on an annual scale in the upper region of the basin could have implications for inflows to the two main dams (Srinagarind and Vajiralongkorn). It could suggest that the dams should be operated in a manner to optimize the hydropower production and downstream release of water during the dry season to meet the water demands. The RID has recently planned water supply to Uthai Thani Province from the Srinagarind Dam at 1892 MCM/year (Khalil et al. 2018a). Station 130571, which is located in the Lam Taphoen River Basin (Figure 1), has an increasing rainfall trend on an annual scale. The Lam Taphoen River drains to the Khwae Yai River downstream of the Tha Thung Na (TN) Dam. A greater portion of the area of Lam Taphoen is dependent on rain-fed agriculture. Station 470161, which is located in the Lampachi River Basin, showed decreasing rainfall trends in the wet season and on an annual scale. The Lampachi River Basin has a serious problem of soil erosion due to which it has no medium or large-scale irrigation projects (Biltonen et al. 2003). Trend analysis for the whole of the Mae Klong River Basin showed increasing trends in seasonal (dry and wet) and annual rainfall. This could help in the preservation of forests, which cover 68.13% of the area, and in increasing water availability for irrigation, as agriculture accounts for 22.90% of the area in the basin.

Rainfall provides the primary input to water resources of any basin. The current study evaluated trends in monthly, seasonal, and annual rainfall for the Mae Klong Basin located in the western region of Thailand during 1971–2015. The MK test was used to detect the trend and the Sen's slope method was used to determine the magnitude of the trend. The SR test was also used for the detection of trends. The TFPW approach was used to correct the autocorrelation in the time series. The results obtained from the statistical tests were compared with that of the ITA method. The major conclusions are given as follows:

  • (1)

    The ITA method offers a more modern, simple, easy-to-interpret, and effective approach to trend analysis compared to classical methods such as the MK and SR tests. The ITA method allows for the comparison of recent parts of the time series with earlier periods within the same record. Unlike the MK and SR tests, it does not rely on restrictive assumptions like the independent structure of the time series or normality of the distribution. Furthermore, the ITA method allows for the calculation of trend magnitude (slope) without the need for regression approaches or additional assumptions.

  • (2)

    For station-based trend analysis using the MK test, five stations showed increasing trends in the dry season while for the wet season, 50% (four out of eight) of the stations showed increasing rainfall trends. Station 376401, which is located in the upper region of the Mae Klong River Basin, showed a statistically significant upward trend at 95% confidence level with a slope of 4.277 mm/year in the dry season while a significant upward trend at 90% confidence level with a slope of 6.221 mm/year in the wet season. On an annual scale, 75% of the stations exhibited upward rainfall trends. The SR test indicated similar trends for both seasonal and annual rainfall. The ITA method showed significant increasing trends for six stations in the dry season while four stations (50%) showed increasing trends in the wet season. For annual rainfall, the ITA method showed increasing trends for seven out of eight rainfall stations.

  • (3)

    Trend analysis for the entire Mae Klong River Basin showed increasing rainfall trends in both seasonal and annual data. Sen's slope estimates for dry and wet seasons were 0.708 mm/year and 0.292 mm/year, respectively, while 0.843 mm/year for the annual data. The SR test also showed increasing rainfall trends for seasonal and annual rainfall. The ITA method also showed significant increasing trends for both dry and wet seasons and annual rainfall. The values of the ITA slope ranged from 1.206 (wet season) to 2.922 (annual rainfall).

  • (4)

    Increasing rainfall trends both on seasonal and annual scales have supported the fact of outer basin water transfer to the neighboring Tha Chin Basin during the dry season and to the MWA for water supply in Bangkok. As water in the basin is supplied both inside and outside to meet water demands, it could imply to operate the dams considering suitable reservoir operating policies in the basin for efficient water resource management.

Trend detection in rainfall data provides valuable insights into climate change, water resource management, infrastructure planning, and risk assessment. It helps in making informed decisions and developing strategies to adapt to changing rainfall patterns. Identifying trends in rainfall data also aids in assessing the risk of extreme weather events such as heavy rainfall or prolonged droughts. This information is essential for developing early warning systems and implementing appropriate measures to mitigate the impacts of such events. The results of this study can help water resource managers and local stakeholders to understand the variability of rainfall for better assessment and planning of water resources in the basin.

The author is thankful to the Royal Irrigation Department (RID) and Thai Meteorological Department (TMD) for providing data for this study.

No funding was received for this study.

A.K. contributed to the study conception and design, material preparation, data collection and analysis, and wrote the manuscript.

All relevant data are included in the paper or its Supplementary Information.

The authors declare there is no conflict.

Ahmad
I.
,
Tang
D.
,
Wang
T.
,
Wang
M.
&
Wagan
B.
2015
Precipitation trends over time using Mann–Kendall and Spearman's rho tests in swat river basin, Pakistan
.
Adv. Meteorol.
doi:10.1155/2015/431860
.
Alexandersson
H.
1986
A homogeneity test applied to precipitation data
.
Journal of Climatology
6
(
6
),
661
675
.
doi:10.1002/joc.3370060607
.
Alifujiang
Y.
,
Abuduwaili
J.
,
Maihemuti
B.
,
Emin
B.
&
Groll
M.
2020
Innovative trend analysis of precipitation in the Lake Issyk-Kul Basin, Kyrgyzstan
.
Atmosphere
11
(
4
),
332
.
doi:10.3390/atmos11040332
.
Bernsteinová
J.
,
Bässler
C.
,
Zimmermann
L.
,
Langhammer
J.
&
Beudert
B.
2015
Changes in runoff in two neighbouring catchments in the Bohemian Forest related to climate and land cover changes
.
Journal of Hydrology and Hydromechanics
63
(
4
),
342
352
.
doi:10.1515/johh-2015-0037
.
Biltonen
E.
,
Kwanyuen
B.
,
Kositsakulchai
E.
,
Pattani
S.
,
2003
Development of water-management institutions in the Mae Klong River Basin, Thailand
. In:
Governance for Integrated Water Resources Management in A River-Basin Context. Proceedings of A Regional Seminar, Bangkok, May, 2002
(
Bruns
B.
&
Bandaragoda
D. J.
, eds.).
IWMI
,
Colombo, Sri Lanka
, pp.
109
137
.
Blain
G. C.
2013
The mann-Kendall test: the need to consider the interaction between serial correlation and trend
.
Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy
35
(
4
),
393
402
.
doi:10.4025/actasciagron.v35i4.16006
.
Buishand
T. A.
1982
Some methods for testing the homogeneity of rainfall records
.
Journal of Hydrology
58
(
1–2
),
11
27
.
doi:10.1016/0022-1694(82)90066-x
.
Burgmer
T.
,
Hillebrand
H.
&
Pfenninger
M.
2007
Effects of climate-driven temperature changes on the diversity of freshwater acroinvertebrates
.
Oecologia
151
(
1
),
93
103
.
doi:10.1007/s00442-006-0542-9
.
Burn
D. H.
,
Cunderlik
D. H.
&
Pietroniro
A.
2004
Hydrological trends and variability in the Liard River Basin
.
Hydrolog. Sci. J.
49
(
1
),
53
67
.
doi:10.1623/hysj.49.1.53.53994
.
Cherinet
A. A.
,
Yan
D.
,
Wang
H.
,
Song
X.
,
Qin
T.
,
Kassa
M. T.
,
Girma
A.
,
Dorjsuren
B.
,
Gedefaw
M.
,
Wang
H.
&
Yadamjav
O.
2019
Impacts of recent climate trends and human activity on the land cover change of the Abbay River Basin in Ethiopia
.
Advances in Meteorology
2019
,
1
14
.
doi:10.1155/2019/5250870
.
Dabanlı
İ.
&
Şen
Z.
2018
Classical and innovative-Şen trend assessment under climate change perspective
.
International Journal of Global Warming
15
(
1
),
19
37
.
doi:10.1504/ijgw.2018.091951
.
Deb
P.
,
Babel
M. S.
&
Denis
A. F.
2018
Multi-GCMs approach for assessing climate change impact on water resources in Thailand
.
Modeling Earth Systems and Environment
4
(
2
),
825
839
.
doi:10.1007/s40808-018-0428-y
.
Gedefaw
M.
,
Yan
D.
,
Wang
H.
,
Qin
T.
&
Wang
K.
2019
Analysis of the recent trends of two climate parameters over two eco-regions of Ethiopia
.
Water
11
(
1
),
161
.
doi:10.3390/w11010161
.
Hamed
K. H.
&
Rao
A. R.
1998
A modified Mann-Kendall trend test for autocorrelated data
.
J Hydrol
204
,
182
196
.
doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(97)00125-x
.
Kendall
M. G.
1975
Rank correlation measures
.
Charles Griffin, London
4
,
202
.
Khalil
A.
2020
Rainfall trend analysis in the Mae Klong River Basin, Thailand
.
Songklanakarin Journal of Science & Technology
42
(
4
).
doi:10.14456/sjst-psu.2020.113
.
Khalil
A.
,
Rittima
A.
&
Phankamolsil
Y.
2018a
The projected changes in water status of the Mae klong basin, Thailand, using WEAP model
.
Paddy and Water Environment
16
(
3
),
439
455
.
doi:10.1007/s10333-018-0638-y
.
Khalil
A.
,
Rittima
A.
&
Phankamolsil
Y.
2018b
Seasonal and annual trends of rainfall and streamflow in the Mae Klong Basin, Thailand
.
Applied Environmental Research
40
(
3
),
77
90
.
doi:10.35762/aer.2018.40.3.8
.
Kumar
S.
,
Merwade
V.
,
Kam
J.
&
Thurner
K.
2009
Streamflow trends in Indiana: effects of long term persistence, precipitation and subsurface drains
.
J. Hydrol.
374
,
171
183
.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2009.06.012
.
Kumar
V.
,
Jain
S. K.
&
Singh
Y.
2010
Analysis of long-term rainfall trends in India
.
Hydrological Sciences Journal–Journal des Sciences Hydrologiques
55
(
4
),
484
496
.
doi:10.1080/02626667.2010.481373
.
Kwanyuen
B.
,
Cherdchanpipat
N.
&
Masayoshi
S.
1999
Effect of irrigation to river water quality at Thamaka irrigation project
. In:
Workshop on Sustainable Management of Mae Klong River Basin
(Satoh, M. & Bahalayodhin, B., eds.)
.
Kasetsart University, Faculty of Engineering and University of Tsukuba (Japan)
,
Thailand
.
Institute of Agricultural and Forest Engineering, Bangkok, Thailand
.
Longobardi
A.
&
Villani
P.
2010
Trend analysis of annual and seasonal rainfall time series in the Mediterranean area
.
International Journal of Climatology
30
(
10
),
1538
1546
.
doi:10.1002/joc.2001
.
Luis
M. D.
,
Raventós
J.
,
González-Hidalgo
J. C.
,
Sánchez
J. R.
&
Cortina
J.
2000
Spatial analysis of rainfall trends in the region of Valencia (East Spain)
.
Int J Climatol
20
(
12
),
1451
1469
.
doi:10.1002/1097-0088(200010)20:12 < 1451::aid-joc547 > 3.0.co;2-0
.
Maita
H.
,
Nagai
T.
,
Vudhivanich
V.
,
Kwanyuen
B.
,
Ngernprasertsri
S.
,
Tangtham
N.
&
Lorsirirat
K.
1998
Analysis of suspended sediment yield and watershed characteristics in Mae Klong River Basin
. In
Proceedings of the Workshop on Sustainable Development of Agricultural Infrastructure and Organizational Management of Chao Phraya and Mae Klong Basins
, pp.
38
56
.
Manee
D.
,
Tachikawa
Y.
&
Yorozu
K.
2015
Analysis of hydrologic variable changes related to large scale reservoir operation in Thailand
. In
THA 2015 International Conference on ‘Climate Change and Water & Environmental Management in Monsoon Asia’ 28–30 January 2015
,
Bangkok, Thailand
.
Mann
H. B.
1945
Non-parametric tests against trend
.
Econometrica
13
,
245
259
.
doi:10.2307/1907187
.
Merabtene
T.
,
Siddique
M.
&
Shanableh
A.
2016
Assessment of seasonal and annual rainfall trends and variability in Sharjah City, UAE
.
Advances in Meteorology
1
16
.
doi:10.1155/2016/6206238
.
Nenwiini
S.
&
Kabanda
T. A.
2013
Trends and variability assessment of rainfall in Vhembe South Africa
.
Journal of Human Ecology
42
(
2
),
171
176
.
doi:10.1080/09709274.2013.11906591
.
Novotny
E. V.
&
Stefan
H. G.
2007
Stream flow in Minnesota: indicator of climate change
.
J. Hydrol.
334
,
319
333
.
doi:10.1016/j.jhydrol.2006.10.011
.
Onyutha
C.
2016
Statistical uncertainty in hydrometeorological trend analyses
.
Advances in Meteorology
2016
,
1
26
.
doi:10.1155/2016/8701617
.
Öztopal
A.
&
Şen
Z.
2017
Innovative trend methodology applications to precipitation records in Turkey
.
Water Resources Management
31
(
3
),
727
737
.
doi:10.1007/s11269-016-1343-5
.
Patakamuri
S. K.
2019
trendchange: Innovative Trend Analysis and Time-Series Change Point Analysis
.
R Package version 1.1
Patakamuri
S. K.
2020
modifiedmk: Modified Versions of Mann Kendall and Spearman's Rho Trend Tests
.
R Package version 1.5
.
Pohlert
T.
2018
Trend: Non Parametric Trend Tests and Change Point Detection
.
R package (Version 1.1.1)
Rojrungtavee
C.
2009
Assessment of Water Supply and Demand Under Future Climatic Change Conditions in the Mae Klong River Basin, Thailand
.
Master Thesis
,
Asian Institute of Technology (AIT)
,
Thailand
.
Salmi
T.
,
Maatta
A.
,
Anttila
P.
,
Ruoho-Airola
T.
&
Amnell
T.
2002
Detecting Trends of Annual Values of Atmospheric Pollutants by the Mann-Kendall Test and Sen's Slope Estimates-The Excel Template Application MAKESENS
.
Finnish Meteorological Institute, Publications on air quality No. 31
,
Helsinki
.
Santos
M.
&
Fragoso
M.
2013
Precipitation variability in Northern Portugal: data homogeneity assessment and trends in extreme precipitation indices
.
Atmospheric Research
131
,
34
45
.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.04.008
.
Sayemuzzaman
M.
&
Jha
M. K.
2014
Seasonal and annual precipitation time series trend analysis in North Carolina, United States
.
Atmospheric Research
137
,
183
194
.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2013.10.012
.
Sen
P. K.
1968
Estimates of the regression coefficient based on Kendall's tau
.
Journal of the American Statistical Association
63
(
324
),
1379
1389
.
doi:10.1080/01621459.1968.10480934
.
Şen
Z.
2012
Innovative trend analysis methodology
.
Journal of Hydrologic Engineering
17
(
9
),
1042
1046
.
doi:10.1061/(asce)he.1943-5584.0000556
.
Şen
Z.
2017a
Innovative trend significance test and applications
.
Theoretical and Applied Climatology
127
(
3–4
),
939
947
.
doi:10.1007/s00704-015-1681-x
.
Şen
Z.
2017b
Innovative Trend Analyses
. In:
Innovative Trend Methodologies in Science and Engineering
(Şen, Z., ed.)
.
Springer
,
Cham
.
https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-52338-5_5
Shadmani
M.
,
Marofi
S.
&
Roknian
M.
2012
Trend analysis in reference evapotranspiration using Mann-Kendall and Spearman's Rho tests in arid regions of Iran
.
Water Resources Management
26
(
1
),
211
224
.
doi:10.1007/s11269-011-9913-z
.
Shrestha
S.
2014
Assessment of water availability under climate change scenarios in Thailand
. In:
Climate Change Impacts and Adaptation in Water Resources and Water Use Sectors
(Shrestha, S., ed.)
.
Springer International Publishing
,
Cham
, pp.
9
23
.
Soni
D. K.
,
Singh
K. K.
,
2017
Trend analysis of climatic parameters at Kurukshetra (Haryana), India and its influence on reference evapotranspiration
. In:
Development of Water Resources in India: Water Science and Technology Library
, Vol.
75
(
Garg
V.
,
Singh
V.
&
Raj
V.
, eds.).
Springer
,
Cham
.
Sugiyama
H.
,
Vudhivanich
V.
,
Ngernprasertsri
S.
&
Lorsirirat
K.
1998
Hydrologic drought characteristics of the upstream reaches of the Mae Klong River
. In
Proceedings of the Workshop on Sustainable Development of Agricultural Infrastructure and Organizational Management of Chao Phraya and Mae Klong Basins, Kasetsart University and University of Tsukuba
, pp.
1
15
.
Tan
M. L.
,
Ibrahim
A. L.
,
Cracknell
A. P.
&
Yusop
Z.
2017
Changes in precipitation extremes over the Kelantan River Basin, Malaysia
.
International Journal of Climatology
37
(
10
),
3780
3797
.
doi:10.1002/joc.4952
.
Tospornsampan
J.
,
Kita
I.
,
Ishii
M.
&
Kitamura
Y.
2005
Optimization of a multiple reservoir system using a simulated annealing--A case study in the Mae Klong system, Thailand
.
Paddy and Water Environment
3
(
3
),
137
147
.
doi:10.1007/s10333-005-0010-x
.
Travaglini
E.
,
Fluixá-Sanmartín
J.
,
Alesina
S.
,
Foehn
A.
&
García Hernández
J.
2016
TeREsA – User Manual v1.1
.
CREALP Group
,
Switzerland
.
Von Storch
V. H.
1995
Misuses of Statistical Analysis in Climate Research
. In:
Analysis of Climate Variability: Applications of Statistical Techniques
(
von Storch
H.
&
Navarra
A.
, eds.).
Springer–Verlag
,
Berlin
, pp.
11
26
.
Wang
Y.
,
Xu
Y.
,
Tabari
H.
,
Wang
J.
,
Wang
Q.
,
Song
S.
&
Hu
Z.
2020
Innovative trend analysis of annual and seasonal rainfall in the Yangtze River Delta, eastern China
.
Atmospheric Research
231
,
104673
.
doi:10.1016/j.atmosres.2019.104673
.
Wu
H.
,
Soh
L. K.
,
Samal
A.
&
Chen
X. H.
2008
Trend analysis of streamflow drought events in Nebraska
.
Water Resour Manage
22
,
145
164
.
doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9148-6
.
Yue
S.
,
Pilon
P.
,
Phinney
B.
&
Cavadias
G.
2002a
The influence of autocorrelation on the ability to detect trend in hydrological series
.
Hydrological Processes
16
(
9
),
1807
1829
.
doi:10.1002/hyp.1095
.
Yue
S.
,
Pilon
P.
&
Cavadias
G.
2002b
Power of the Mann-Kendall and Spearman'S rho tests for detecting monotonic trends in hydrological series
.
J Hydrol
259
,
254
271
.
doi:10.1016/s0022-1694(01)00594-7
.
Yue
S.
,
Pilon
P.
&
Phinney
B.
2003
Canadian streamflow trend detection: impacts of serial and cross correlation
.
Hydrol. Sci. J.
48
(
1
),
51
63
.
doi:10.1623/hysj.48.1.51.43478
.
Zeleňáková
M.
,
Purcz
P.
&
Hlavatá
H.
2014
Long-term precipitation trends in Eastern Slovakia
.
British Journal of Environment & Climate Change
4
(
2
),
217
228
.
doi:10.9734/bjecc/2014/10655
.
Zhou
Z.
,
Wang
L.
,
Lin
A.
,
Zhang
M.
&
Niu
Z.
2018
Innovative trend analysis of solar radiation in China during 1962–2015
.
Renewable Energy
119
,
675
689
.
doi:10.1016/j.renene.2017.12.052
.
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution Licence (CC BY 4.0), which permits copying, adaptation and redistribution, provided the original work is properly cited (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).