# Supplementing Missing Data Using the Drainage-Area Ratio Method and Evaluating the Streamflow Drought Index with the Corrected Data Set

^{*}

## Abstract

**:**

## 1. Introduction

## 2. Materials and Methods

#### 2.1. Study Area and Data Used

^{2}, where 69% is in Syria, 23% is in Turkey and 8% is in Lebanon [31]. Eighty-eight kilometers of the Asi River flows within the borders of Turkey. At the same time, the Asi River, which irrigates the Amik Plain, changes its south to north directional flow on the Amik Plain and forms a route in a westerly direction. Near the city of Antakya, the flow enters a narrow strait in the east to west direction and forms the Harbiye waterfalls. Later, it forms a delta 6 km southwest of Samandağ, located east of Antakya, and then flows into the Mediterranean. The Asi River was named “Asi or Orontes” (meaning rebellious/insurgent in Turkish) because it flows northwards, unlike the other rivers in the region [32].

^{2}and is bordered by neighboring countries [24].

**Figure 1.**General location of the lower small Asi River sub-basin and streamflow gauge stations (SGSs) [33].

#### 2.2. Drainage-Area Ratio Method

^{3}/s and expresses the daily, monthly or annual flow amount; A is in km

^{2}and represents the drainage area around the selected location. The symbol ϕ is the exponent, and K is the correction coefficient. For example, if there is an SGS at a point i on the stream, the area of this SGS is A

_{i}, and its measured flow is Q

_{i}. If the basin drainage area of the location j, where the data will be transported, is evaluated as A

_{j}and its flow rate as Q

_{j}, Equations (1) and (2) can be written as follows [15]:

#### 2.3. Streamflow Drought Index Method

_{ij}, the cumulative flow volume by V

_{i,k}, and Equation (9) is obtained as follows [24]:

## 3. Results and Discussion

^{3}/s, whereas the data transferred to 1907 were concentrated in the range from 0 to 40 m

^{3}/s. In general, in transporting lower data values, the conformity was higher. In other words, it was better represented. Larger values deviated more [14,16].

## 4. Conclusions

## Author Contributions

## Funding

## Institutional Review Board Statement

## Informed Consent Statement

## Data Availability Statement

## Acknowledgments

## Conflicts of Interest

## References

- Akçakoca, F.; Apaydın, H. Modelling of Bektas Creek daily streamflow with Generalized Regression Neural Network Method. Int. J. Adv. Sci. Res. Eng.
**2020**, 6, 97–103. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mesta, B.; Akgun, O.B.; Kentel, E. Alternative solutions for long missing streamflow data for sustainable water resources management. Int. J. Water Resour. Dev.
**2021**, 37, 882–905. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Asaad, M.N.; Eryürük, Ş.; Eryürük, K. Forecasting of streamflow and comparison of artificial intelligence methods: A case study for Meram Stream in Konya, Turkey. Sustainability
**2022**, 14, 6319. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Turhan, E.; Özmen-Çağatay, H. Using of Artificial Neural Network (ANN) for setting estimation model of missing flow data: Asi River-Demirköprü Flow Observation Station (FOS). Çukurova Üniversitesi Mühendislik Mimar. Fakültesi Derg.
**2016**, 31, 93–106. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Loganathan, P.; Mahindrakar, A.B. Intercomparing the robustness of machine learning models in simulation and forecasting of streamflow. J. Water Clim. Chang.
**2021**, 12, 1824–1837. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kilinc, H.C. Daily streamflow forecasting based on the hybrid Particle Swarm Optimization and Long Short-Term Memory model in the Orontes Basin. Water
**2022**, 14, 490. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Üneş, F.; Demirci, M.; Zelenakova, M.; Çalışıcı, M.; Taşar, B.; Vranay, F.; Kaya, Y.Z. River Flow Estimation Using Artificial Intelligence and Fuzzy Techniques. Water
**2020**, 12, 2427. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Yilmaz, M.; Tosunoğlu, F.; Kaplan, N.H.; Üneş, F.; Hanay, Y.S. Predicting monthly streamflow using artificial neural networks and wavelet neural networks models. Model. Earth Syst. Environ.
**2022**, 8, 5547–5563. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Mehraein, M.; Mohanavelu, A.; Naganna, S.R.; Kulls, C.; Kisi, O. Monthly Streamflow Prediction by Metaheuristic Regression Approaches Considering Satellite Precipitation Data. Water
**2022**, 14, 3636. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Hamzah, F.B.; Hamzah, F.M.; Razali, S.F.M.; Jaafar, O.; Jamil, N.A. Imputation methods for recovering streamflowobservation: A methodological review. Cogent Environ. Sci.
**2020**, 6, 1745133. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Ergen, K.; Kentel, E. An integrated map correlation method and multiple-source sites drainage-area ratio method for estimating streamflows at ungauged catchments: A case study of Western Black Sea Region, Turkey. J. Environ. Manag.
**2016**, 166, 309–320. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Li, Q.; Peng, Y.; Wang, G.; Wang, H.; Xue, B.; Hu, X. A Combined Method for Estimating Continuous Runoff by Parameter Transfer and Drainage Area Ratio Method in Ungauged Catchments. Water
**2019**, 11, 1104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Saka, F.; Babacan, H.T. Discharge Estimation by Drainage Area Ratio Method at Some Specific Discharges for 2251 Stream Gauging Station in East Black Sea Basin, Turkey. J. Investig. Eng. Technol.
**2019**, 2, 309–320. [Google Scholar] - Yılmaz, M.U.; Önöz, B. Evaluation of statistical methods for estimating missing daily streamflow data. Tek. Dergi
**2019**, 30, 9597–9620. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Yılmaz, M.U.; Önöz, B. A comparative study of statistical methods for daily streamflow estimation at ungauged basins in Turkey. Water
**2020**, 12, 459. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version] - Bakış, R.; Şirin, F.Ç.; Bayazıt, Y. Linear Analysis of Region-Ratio Method for Flow Gauges. İklim Değişikliği Ve Çevre Derg.
**2020**, 5, 8–15. [Google Scholar] - Değerli, S.; Turhan, E. Investigation of Streamflow Data Accuracy with Bias Correction Using Drainage Area-Ratio Method. Eur. J. Sci. Technol.
**2022**, 34, 100–104. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Turhan, E.; Değerli, S. A Comparative Study of Probability Distribution Models for Flood Discharge Estimation: Case of Kravga Bridge, Turkey. Cas. Geofiz. J.
**2022**, 39, 243–257. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Turhan, E. An Investigation on the Effect of Outliers for Flood Frequency Analysis: The Case of the Eastern Mediterranean Basin, Turkey. Sustainability
**2022**, 14, 16558. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Djamel, B.; Houari, Z.; Fares, B. Floods and Hydrograms of Floods of Rivers in Arid Zones of the Mediterranean, Case of the Kingdom of Morocco. Int. J. Geosci.
**2020**, 11, 651–666. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Gümüş, V. Hydrological drought analysis of Asi River Basin with Streamflow Drought Index. GU J. Sci. Part C
**2017**, 5, 65–73. [Google Scholar] - Dikici, M. Drought analysis with different indices for the Asi Basin (Turkey). Sci. Rep.
**2020**, 10, 20739. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] [PubMed] - Turhan, E.; Çulha, B.D.; Değerli, S. Hydrological evaluation of Streamflow Drought Index method for different time scales: A case study of Arsuz Plain, Turkey. J. Nat. Hazards Environ.
**2022**, 8, 25–36. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Turhan, E.; Değerli, S.; Çatal, E.N. Long-term hydrological drought analysis in agricultural irrigation area: The case of Dörtyol-Erzin Plain, Turkey. Curr. Trends Nat. Sci.
**2022**, 21, 501–512. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Topçu, E.; Seçkin, N.; Haktanır, N.E. Drought analyses of Eastern Mediterranean, Seyhan, Ceyhan, and Asi Basins by using aggregate drought index (ADI). Theor. Appl. Climatol.
**2022**, 147, 909–924. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Nalbantis, I.; Tsakiris, G. Evaluation of a Hydrological Drought Index. Eur. Water
**2008**, 23, 67–77. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Abbas, A.; Waseem, M.; Ullah, W.; Zhao, C.; Zhu, J. Spatiotemporal analysis of meteorological and hydrological droughts and their propagations. Water
**2021**, 13, 2237. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Kubiak-Wójcicka, K.; Nagy, P.; Zelenáková, M.; Hlavatá, H.; Abd-Elhamid, H.F. Identification of Extreme Weather Events Using Meteorological and Hydrological Indicators in the Laborec River Catchment, Slovakia. Water
**2021**, 13, 1413. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Katipoğlu, O.M.; Acar, R.; Şenocak, S. Spatio-temporal analysis of meteorological and hydrological droughts in the Euphrates Basin, Turkey. Water Supply
**2021**, 21, 1657–1673. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Zhang, Q.; Miao, C.; Gou, J.; Wu, J.; Jiao, W.; Song, Y.; Xu, D. Spatiotemporal characteristics of meteorological to hydrological drought propagation under natural conditions in China. Weather. Clim. Extrem.
**2022**, 38, 100505. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - The State Hydraulic Works (knownly as DSI). Annual Streamflow Observation Records (1986–2020). Head of Study and Planning Department, Ankara. 2015. Available online: https://www.dsi.gov.tr/Sayfa/Detay/744 (accessed on 15 September 2022).
- Nalcıoğlu, A.; Ünsal, M.; Ercan, B.; Yağcı, A.E. Modeling of hydrometeorological factors with discharge in Asi Basin. KSU J. Agric. Nat.
**2020**, 23, 1510–1517. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Geçen, R.; Usun, Ç.F. Orontes River, it’s basin, international usage and problems. Elazığ, Türkiye. Int. Symp. Geomorphol.
**2017**, 636–644. Available online: http://www.ujes.org/anasayfa/ (accessed on 15 September 2022). - Emerson, D.G.; Vecchia, A.V.; Dahl, A.L.; United States Geological Survey (USGS); Bureau of Reclamation. Evaluation of Drainage-Area Ratio Method Used to Estimate Streamflow for the Red River of the North Basin, North Dakota and Minnesota; US Department of the Interior: Washington, DC, USA; US Geological Survey: Reston, VA, USA, 2005.
- Fung, K.F.; Huang, Y.F.; Koo, C.H.; Tan, K.W. Standardized Precipation Index (SPI) and Standardized Precipation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI) drought characteristic and trend analysis using the second generation canadian earth system model (CanESM2) outputs under representative concentration pathway (RCP) 8.5. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci.
**2019**, 14, 399–408. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Safarianzengir, V.; Sobhani, B. Simulation and analysis of natural hazard phenomenon, drought in Southwest of The Caspian Sea, Iran. Carpathian J. Earth Environ. Sci.
**2020**, 15, 127–136. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Moccia, B.; Mineo, C.; Ridolfi, E.; Russo, F.; Napolitano, F. SPI-Based Drought Classification in Italy: Influence of Different Probability Distribution Functions. Water
**2022**, 14, 3668. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Norliyana, W.; Ismail, W.; Zawiah, W.; Zin, W.; Ibrahim, W. Estimation of rainfall and streamflow missing data for Terengganu, Malaysia by using interpolation technique methods. Malays. J. Fundam. Appl. Sci.
**2017**, 13, 213–217. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Turhan, E.; Kaya Keleş, M.; Tantekin, A.; Keleş, A.E. The Investigation of the Applicability of Data-Driven Techniques in Hydrological Modeling: The Case of Seyhan Basin. Rocz. Ochr. Sr.
**2019**, 21, 29–51. [Google Scholar] - Salimi, H.; Asadi, E.; Darbandi, S. Meteorological and Hydrological Drought Monitoring Using Several Drought Indices. Appl. Water Sci.
**2021**, 11, 11. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef] - Cammalleri, C.; Vogt, J.; Salamon, P. Development of an operational low-flow index for hydrological drought monitoring over Europe. Hydrol. Sci. J.
**2017**, 62, 346–358. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]

**Figure 2.**Temporal changes in the streamflow values for the number 1906 SGS. (

**a**) 1926 to 1906, (

**b**)1927 to 1906, (

**c**) 1928 to 1906, (

**d**) 1930 to 1906.

**Figure 3.**Temporal changes in the streamflow values for the number 1907 SGS. (

**a**) 1926 to 1907, (

**b**)1927 to 1907, (

**c**) 1928 to 1907, (

**d**) 1930 to 1907.

**Figure 4.**Flow duration curves for the number 1906 SGS. (

**a**) 1926 to 1906, (

**b**)1927 to 1906, (

**c**) 1928 to 1906, (

**d**) 1930 to 1906.

**Figure 5.**Flow duration curve for the number 1907 SGS. (

**a**) 1926 to 1907, (

**b**)1927 to 1907, (

**c**) 1928 to 1907, (

**d**) 1930 to 1907.

**Figure 6.**Correlation plot between the original and bias-corrected values for the number 1906 and 1907 SGSs. (

**a**) 1926 to 1906, (

**b**) 1927 to 1906, (

**c**) 1928 to 1906, (

**d**) 1930 to 1906, (

**e**) 1926 to 1907, (

**f**)1927 to 1907, (

**g**) 1928 to 1907, (

**h**) 1930 to 1907. Linear regression line represented with grey, x=y graph represented with black colored line.

**Figure 7.**RMSE and MAE values in the transfer cases for applying bias correction. (

**a**) RMSE results, (

**b**) MAE results.

**Figure 8.**Obtained SDI-12 values for the transfer cases to the target SGSs. (

**a**) 1926 and 1906, (

**b**) 1927 and 1906, (

**c**) 1928 and 1906, (

**d**) 1930 and 1906, (

**e**) 1926 and 1907, (

**f**) 1927 and 1907, (

**g**) 1928 and 1907, (

**h**) 1930 and 1907.

**Figure 9.**Scatter plots of SDI-12 values. (

**a**) 1926 and 1906, (

**b**) 1927 and 1906, (

**c**) 1928 and 1906, (

**d**) 1930 and 1906, (

**e**) 1926 and 1907, (

**f**) 1927 and 1907, (

**g**) 1928 and 1907, (

**h**) 1930 and 1907.

**Figure 10.**The mean annual SDI values for the raw (original) data and the other station data with bias correction. (

**a**) 1906 comparisons, (

**b**) 1907 comparisons.

**Figure 11.**Frequency values for the raw (original) and transferred to the other station data with bias correction. (

**a**) 1926 and 1906, (

**b**) 1927 and 1906, (

**c**) 1928 and 1906, (

**d**) 1930 and 1906, (

**e**) 1926 and 1907, (

**f**) 1927 and 1907, (

**g**) 1928 and 1907, (

**h**) 1930 and 1907.

**Figure 12.**Raw and bias-corrected SDI values comparison. (

**a**) 1926 and 1906, (

**b**) 1927 and 1906, (

**c**) 1928 and 1906, (

**d**) 1930 and 1906, (

**e**) 1926 and 1907, (

**f**)1927 and 1907, (

**g**) 1928 and 1907, (

**h**) 1930 and 1907. Linear regression line represented with yellow line.

**Figure 14.**Contour maps for the 1907 SGS raw data, the SDI results with the original values and the SDI values with the transferred flow data. (

**a**) 1907 and 1930 3D Mesh graph over time, (

**b**) 1907 and 1930 contour graph over time.

**Table 1.**SGSs general information [33].

Station No. | Latitude (N) | Longitude (E) | Drainage Area (km^{2}) |
---|---|---|---|

D19A026 (1926) | 36°57′03″ | 33°02′11″ | 2689.2 |

D19A027 (1927) | 36°39′34″ | 34°00′02″ | 1005.2 |

D19A028 (1928) | 36°10′32″ | 32°23′44″ | 313.2 |

D19A030 (1930) | 36°10′32″ | 32°23′44″ | 313.2 |

1906 | 36°10′32″ | 32°23′44″ | 313.2 |

1907 | 36°10′32″ | 32°23′44″ | 313.2 |

**Table 2.**Drought classification [23].

Index Value | Category |
---|---|

SDI ≤ −2 | Extreme drought |

−2 < SDI ≤ −1.5 | Severe drought |

−1.5 < SDI ≤ −1 | Moderate drought |

−1 < SDI ≤ 0 | Mild drought |

0 < SDI ≤ 1 | Mildly wet |

1 < SDI ≤ 1.5 | Moderately wet |

1.5 < SDI ≤ 2 | Severely wet |

SDI > 2 | Extremely wet |

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting from any ideas, methods, instructions or products referred to in the content. |

© 2023 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).

## Share and Cite

**MDPI and ACS Style**

Turhan, E.; Değerli Şimşek, S. Supplementing Missing Data Using the Drainage-Area Ratio Method and Evaluating the Streamflow Drought Index with the Corrected Data Set. *Water* **2023**, *15*, 425.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030425

**AMA Style**

Turhan E, Değerli Şimşek S. Supplementing Missing Data Using the Drainage-Area Ratio Method and Evaluating the Streamflow Drought Index with the Corrected Data Set. *Water*. 2023; 15(3):425.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030425

**Chicago/Turabian Style**

Turhan, Evren, and Serin Değerli Şimşek. 2023. "Supplementing Missing Data Using the Drainage-Area Ratio Method and Evaluating the Streamflow Drought Index with the Corrected Data Set" *Water* 15, no. 3: 425.
https://doi.org/10.3390/w15030425