<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<!DOCTYPE article PUBLIC "-//NLM//DTD Journal Publishing with OASIS Tables v3.0 20080202//EN" "https://jats.nlm.nih.gov/nlm-dtd/publishing/3.0/journalpub-oasis3.dtd">
<article xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink" xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:oasis="http://docs.oasis-open.org/ns/oasis-exchange/table" xml:lang="en" dtd-version="3.0" article-type="research-article">
  <front>
    <journal-meta><journal-id journal-id-type="publisher">HESS</journal-id><journal-title-group>
    <journal-title>Hydrology and Earth System Sciences</journal-title>
    <abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="publisher">HESS</abbrev-journal-title><abbrev-journal-title abbrev-type="nlm-ta">Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci.</abbrev-journal-title>
  </journal-title-group><issn pub-type="epub">1607-7938</issn><publisher>
    <publisher-name>Copernicus Publications</publisher-name>
    <publisher-loc>Göttingen, Germany</publisher-loc>
  </publisher></journal-meta>
    <article-meta>
      <article-id pub-id-type="doi">10.5194/hess-30-6963-2026</article-id><title-group><article-title>Is earlier always better? A comparative assessment of an early-stage response window for rainfall timing in multiyear drought alleviation in China</article-title><alt-title>Is earlier always better? Rainfall timing for multiyear drought alleviation</alt-title>
      </title-group>
      <contrib-group>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Yichen</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>Fubao</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff2">
          <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Wenbin</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9569-6762</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="yes" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Zhang</surname><given-names>Jie</given-names></name>
          <email>zhang_jie@hainanu.edu.cn</email>
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff3">
          <name><surname>Lai</surname><given-names>Wenli</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff4">
          <name><surname>Lin</surname><given-names>Jiquan</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff5">
          <name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>Wenchao</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Liu</surname><given-names>Wenjie</given-names></name>
          
        <ext-link>https://orcid.org/0000-0003-1196-7586</ext-link></contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Sun</surname><given-names>Zhongyi</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <contrib contrib-type="author" corresp="no" rid="aff1">
          <name><surname>Wang</surname><given-names>Peng</given-names></name>
          
        </contrib>
        <aff id="aff1"><label>1</label><institution>School of Ecology, Hainan University, Haikou, 570228, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff2"><label>2</label><institution>Key Laboratory of Water Cycle and Related Land Surface Processes, Institute of Geographic Sciences and Natural Resources Research, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, 100101, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff3"><label>3</label><institution>School of Geography and Environmental Sciences, Hainan Normal University, Haikou, 571158, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff4"><label>4</label><institution>Hainan Provincial Ecological Environment Monitoring Center, Haikou, 571126, China</institution>
        </aff>
        <aff id="aff5"><label>5</label><institution>College of Water Sciences, Beijing Normal University, Xinjiekouwai Street 19, Beijing, 100875, China</institution>
        </aff>
      </contrib-group>
      <author-notes><corresp id="corr1">Jie Zhang (zhang_jie@hainanu.edu.cn)</corresp></author-notes><pub-date><day>10</day><month>November</month><year>2026</year></pub-date>
      
      <volume>30</volume>
      <issue>21</issue>
      <fpage>6963</fpage><lpage>6981</lpage>
      <history>
        <date date-type="received"><day>28</day><month>August</month><year>2025</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-request"><day>9</day><month>October</month><year>2025</year></date>
           <date date-type="rev-recd"><day>26</day><month>August</month><year>2026</year></date>
           <date date-type="accepted"><day>25</day><month>October</month><year>2026</year></date>
      </history>
      <permissions>
        <copyright-statement>Copyright: © 2026 Yichen Zhang et al.</copyright-statement>
        <copyright-year>2026</copyright-year>
      <license license-type="open-access"><license-p>This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. To view a copy of this licence, visit <ext-link ext-link-type="uri" xlink:href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/">https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/</ext-link></license-p></license></permissions><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026.html">This article is available from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026.html</self-uri><self-uri xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026.pdf">The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026.pdf</self-uri>
      <abstract><title>Abstract</title>

      <p id="d2e196">Multiyear droughts (MYDs) are severe drought events with profound impacts on human activities and ecosystems. However, the timing that maximizes drought attenuation efficiency under additional precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M1" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) remains insufficiently quantified. With that in mind, we conducted a retrospective grid-based analysis of historical MYDs in China using the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI) over 1961–2020, with a calibration period of 1961–1990, and performed numerical experiments with hypothetical precipitation gradient increases during 1991–2020. We defined <inline-formula><mml:math id="M2" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> to quantify the sensitivity of drought alleviation to precipitation input. Actual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M3" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values derived from the numerical experiments showed strong consistency with theoretical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M4" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from a drought attenuation quantitative model (DAQM). Theoretical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M5" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> was further used to quantify MYD attenuation efficiency, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M6" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> identified as the timing of maximum theoretical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M7" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M8" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Overall, drought severity (DS) exhibits a nonlinear response to hypothetical precipitation increases. Both numerical experiment-based and DAQM-derived results identify an early-stage response window within the first three months (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M9" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and multiple robustness analyses confirm its stability. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M10" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> occurs most frequently at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M11" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, in 58.79 % of all grids, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M12" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M13" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were also non-negligible (22.11 % and 11.06 %). This suggests that missing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M14" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within this window does not necessarily imply a substantial reduction in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M15" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Compared with humid river basins in southern China, arid and semi-arid northern basins show a higher probability that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M16" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M17" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M18" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exceed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M19" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M20" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Drought duration (DD) is a key factor, as longer DD is associated with a greater likelihood of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M21" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M22" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> being the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M23" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M24" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.526</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 0.578). We noticed that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M25" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is jointly influenced by the cumulative temporal advantage of earlier precipitation input and the higher sensitivity of standardized drought indices under severe drought conditions. This study identifies an early-stage response window during MYD evolution and provides conceptual guidance for understanding how precipitation input timing influences drought alleviation across regions.</p>
  </abstract>
    
<funding-group>
<award-group id="gs1">
<funding-source>National Natural Science Foundation of China</funding-source>
<award-id>41901043</award-id>
<award-id>42261005</award-id>
</award-group>
<award-group id="gs2">
<funding-source>Henan Province Science and Technology Innovation Talent Program</funding-source>
<award-id>ZDYF2024SHFZ078</award-id>
</award-group>
</funding-group>
</article-meta>
  </front>
<body>
      

<sec id="Ch1.S1" sec-type="intro">
  <label>1</label><title>Introduction</title>
      <p id="d2e462">Droughts are recognized as a major natural hazard with profound negative effects on both human activities and the environment (Berdugo et al., 2020; Shi et al., 2021; Palagi et al., 2022). Compared to other natural hazards, droughts often rank higher in key characteristics of losses, such as total loss of life and total economic loss (Mishra and Singh, 2010). For instance, in the United States, drought caused USD 250 billion in damages and nearly 3000 deaths between 1980 and 2020, making it the costliest and second deadliest natural disaster during this period (Ault, 2020; Smith, 2020). In Europe, drought-related financial losses over the three decades prior to 2007 were estimated to exceed EUR 100 billion (Blauhut et al., 2016). In China, prolonged droughts in Southwest China during 2018–2020 resulted in economic losses of USD 240 million, underscoring the intensifying impacts of prolonged droughts (Feng et al., 2025). Such devastating drought events, which typically last more than 12 months (Brunner and Tallaksen, 2019; van Mourik et al., 2025), are referred to as multiyear droughts (MYDs). Under climate change, these persistent, expansive, and difficult-to-recover MYD events have shown an escalating trend in severity, duration, and frequency (Dai, 2013; Zhang et al., 2016; Stevenson et al., 2022; Chen et al., 2025; Wang et al., 2025).</p>
      <p id="d2e465">Droughts are primarily related to prolonged reductions in the precipitation for a region (McCabe and Wolock, 2015; Hao et al., 2018; Zhang et al., 2021). For instance, the Millennium Drought in southeast Australia (2001–2009) was the longest drought on record for the region (Van Dijk et al., 2013). Similarly, the California droughts from 2012 to 2015 included the driest three-year period on record in the state (2012–2014) (Mao et al., 2015; Luo et al., 2017). The MYD in Europe from 2014 to 2018 was also record-breaking for the region (Moravec et al., 2021; Büntgen et al., 2021). To better quantify the severity of drought, various drought indices have been developed based on deviations in water availability against long-term normal conditions. Currently, the most widely used drought indices include the Palmer Drought Severity Index (PDSI), Standardized Precipitation Evapotranspiration Index (SPEI), and Standardized Precipitation Index (SPI) (Zhang et al., 2016; Liu et al., 2017; Mukherjee and Mishra, 2021). These indices typically quantify drought severity on a monthly timescale based on precipitation and/or potential evapotranspiration (PET) (Easterling et al., 2007; Vicente-Serrano et al., 2010). They generally standardize monthly effective precipitation time series under the assumption of a normal distribution, enabling the identification of thresholds that delineate different drought intensities (Dai, 2011; Vicente-Serrano et al., 2025). Moreover, by thoughtfully incorporating auto-correlation processes (such as auto-correlation coefficients or the accumulation of antecedent water deficit/surplus), these indices can effectively capture the dynamic evolution of typical drought events, including their onset, development, recovery, and termination (Gupta and Karthikeyan, 2024). To further characterize the dynamic evolution of typical drought events, Yevjevich (1967) proposed the run theory, which extracts drought features based on three key characteristics. These include: (a) Drought duration (DD, the period during which a drought parameter is continuously below the critical threshold), (b) Drought intensity (DI, the maximum deviation of the drought index below the critical threshold during a drought event), (c) Drought severity (DS, the cumulative deficiency of a drought parameter below the critical threshold throughout the event). Such drought event features have been widely applied at station, regional, and global scales to assess drought processes and related impacts (Gu et al., 2020; Wu et al., 2022a; Ullah et al., 2022; Zhou et al., 2023), with DS particularly offering a more integrated measure of drought impact (Cavus and Aksoy, 2020).</p>
      <p id="d2e468">Previous studies have examined the dynamic evolution of drought events across the four stages, namely onset, development, recovery, and termination (Ma et al., 2023; Lin et al., 2023). It has been widely observed that the recovery and termination phases are often accompanied by increased precipitation (Haile et al., 2020). However, such hydrometeorological changes typically occur several months after the onset of severe drought, by which time substantial ecological, agricultural, and socioeconomic damages may have already occurred (DeChant and Moradkhani, 2015; Livneh and Hoerling, 2016; Wu et al., 2018). For example, in southeast Australia, the Millennium Drought (2001–2009) was terminated by unusually high rainfall in early 2010, yet this MYD still exhibited prolonged DD and high DS (Yang et al., 2017). Consequently, precipitation occurring earlier in the drought event is more effective in alleviating drought impacts (Fig. 1a and b). From another perspective, drought indices typically represent anomalies from normal conditions in a standardized way, allowing comparisons across space and time. This implies that during extreme drought, when the standardized index deviates far from zero, even small increases in precipitation can induce relatively large numerical shifts in the index, owing to the probabilistic structure of standardized indices. In contrast, when the index is closer to zero, the same precipitation perturbation results in much smaller numerical changes. For instance, using the widely applied PDSI as an example, achieving the same one-unit change in the index requires only about 48 % of the cumulative probability shift under extreme drought conditions (PDSI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M26" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) compared with that required under milder drought conditions (PDSI <inline-formula><mml:math id="M27" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Fig. 1c and d). This reflects the non-linear probabilistic spacing of the standardized drought indices, whereby values far below the drought threshold are numerically more sensitive to identical perturbations. Consequently, index responses to the same precipitation perturbation can differ substantially depending on the magnitude of PDSI deviations. However, such nonlinear responses are often overlooked. Small increases in precipitation during extreme drought are frequently dismissed as inconsequential, despite their potential to drive meaningful recovery (Pan et al., 2013).</p>

      <fig id="F1" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 1</label><caption><p id="d2e498">Conceptual and statistical illustrations related to drought alleviation and the normal distribution characteristics of commonly used drought indices (with PDSI as an example). Here, “forcing” refers to a hypothetical incremental water input applied at a given month within a drought event for conceptual illustration. Panels <bold>(a)</bold> and <bold>(b)</bold> illustrate the event-level progression of a drought and the associated accumulation of deficit. <bold>(a)</bold> During the early stage of a drought event, PDSI deviation is relatively small and the accumulated deficit is low. <bold>(b)</bold> As the drought progresses toward the drought intensity (DI) point, which is defined as the maximum deviation of the index below the critical threshold during the event, the PDSI deviation increases and the accumulated deficit becomes larger. Panels <bold>(c)</bold> and <bold>(d)</bold> illustrate the statistical behavior of the standardized index, independent of event-level cumulative deficit. <bold>(c)</bold> Change in cumulative probability induced by a one-unit shift in PDSI at different levels of PDSI deviation below the drought threshold. <bold>(d)</bold> PDSI shift required to achieve an equivalent change in cumulative probability at different levels of PDSI deviation.</p></caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026-f01.png"/>

      </fig>

      <p id="d2e532">Currently, the timing that maximizes drought attenuation efficiency under additional precipitation (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M28" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) remains insufficiently quantified. Several existing studies focus on early drought monitoring or alleviation measures during severe drought (Haile et al., 2020). However, we suggest that effective drought alleviation may not necessarily occur at either of these two stages. In particular, cases where early precipitation input and drought conditions are considered together remain under-investigated. Therefore, it is necessary to clarify the relationship between the timing of precipitation input and drought alleviation. Because MYDs involve cumulative water deficits across seasons and years, exhibiting more persistent impacts, the timing of additional precipitation becomes more critical for alleviation, making MYDs particularly suitable for examining precipitation effects on DS. To this end, we propose a new framework involving a series of numerical experiments to retrospectively investigate typical historical MYD events. In this study, MYD events are defined at the grid level as the basic analytical units, with each representing a temporally continuous drought period identified independently within a single grid. Section 2 introduces the study area and datasets. In Sect. 3, representative MYD events are identified based on existing literature, with a particular focus on assessing the extent of drought alleviation during these events. A model based on hypothetical precipitation forcing applied at different months of MYD is developed to parameterize MYD attenuation efficiency. The accuracy of this parameter is evaluated by comparing model-derived estimates with empirical estimates derived directly from the numerical experiments. The results and related discussion are presented in Sects. 4 and 5. We close with a brief conclusion in Sect. 6.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S2">
  <label>2</label><title>Study area and datasets</title>
      <p id="d2e554">To assess the role of nonlinear patterns in MYD alleviation, we utilize a daily meteorological dataset suitable for calculating PDSI during the period of 1961 to 2020 over China. This dataset includes precipitation (pr), air temperature (mean, maximum, and minimum), relative humidity, wind speed, and sunshine duration. This dataset consisting of 756 stations is provided by the National Climate Centre of the China Meteorological Administration and has been quality-controlled before being released to the scientific community (<uri>https://www.nmic.cn/</uri>, last access: 26 August 2025). Given the importance of reliable statistics, we applied additional temporal and spatial consistency control on the data based on the information of the length of available data, the missing data, and the density of stations, etc. First, we conducted temporal consistency control on the dataset. Daily records from 1960–2020 were examined for each station, and stations with more than 5 % missing values were excluded. Short gaps (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M29" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>≤</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> d) in the remaining stations were filled using linear interpolation, while longer gaps were replaced with the multi-year mean for the corresponding day. Following this procedure, 620 out of 756 meteorological stations with continuous measurements were selected. These stations are distributed in 10 large river basins covering China, as shown in Fig. 2. Second, we conduct further control on the spatial inhomogeneity of station distribution. We select 199 grid boxes of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M30" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">°</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">°</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> longitude by latitude (Fig. 2), and each grid box should contain at least one station with continuing meteorological measurements. For the given grid box with multiple stations, the station results were averaged to represent the grid box. In doing that, we reduce the possible influence from temporal and spatial inhomogeneities in the data and ensure that the overall statistics are robust. The resulting grid-level daily meteorological series were then used as the basis for subsequent monthly aggregation and PDSI calculation.</p>

      <fig id="F2" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 2</label><caption><p id="d2e588">The study area covers 10 large river basins (regions). No. 1, the Songhua River; No. 2, the Liao River; No. 3, Northwestern Rivers; No. 4, the Hai River; No. 5, the Yellow River; No. 6, the Yangtze River; No. 7, the Huai River; No. 8, Southeastern Rivers; No. 9, Southwestern Rivers and No. 10, Pearl River. A total of 199 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M31" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">°</mml:mi><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">°</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) grid boxes (color: cyan) were identified as containing at least one station with continuous instrumental meteorological records. In total, 620 meteorological stations (purple dots) were used.</p></caption>
        <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026-f02.png"/>

      </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3">
  <label>3</label><title>Methods</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS1">
  <label>3.1</label><title>Overview</title>
      <p id="d2e628">To determine <inline-formula><mml:math id="M32" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of drought alleviation, we propose the following methodological framework that evaluates how early-stage hypothetical precipitation forcing and PDSI deviation magnitude jointly modulate the efficiency of alleviating grid-level MYD events. We calculate the PDSI using data from meteorological stations, identify representative grid-level MYD events which capture the key characteristics of persistent and severe droughts, and characterize them in terms of DS, DD, DI, Drought Development Period (DDP), and Drought Intensity Point (DIP, the PDSI value at the drought intensity point) (see Sect. 3.3 for identification criteria). Based on these identified grid-level MYDs, a series of numerical experiments is conducted by applying hypothetical precipitation increases along a prescribed gradient. The numerical experiment consists of the following three steps: (1) Validation of the nonlinear response of DS to incremental precipitation forcing applied along a gradient; (2) construction of a novel drought attenuation quantitative model (DAQM) to describe this response; (3) verification of the applicability of the key parameter derived from the DAQM, namely <inline-formula><mml:math id="M33" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, the MYD attenuation efficiency coefficient. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M34" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> characterizes how rapidly additional precipitation is converted into reductions in DS. For each grid-level MYD, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M35" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is evaluated across different forcing timings, and its maximum value (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M36" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is identified. The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M37" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is then identified as the timing corresponding to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M38" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In addition, we examine the relationship between DD, as a key event characteristic, and MYD attenuation efficiency under hypothetical precipitation forcing. A detailed description of each methodological component is provided in Sect. 3.2–3.4. For clarity, a consolidated table listing principal symbols, acronyms and their description is provided for reference (Table S1 in the Supplement). Figure 3 provides an overview of the workflow and methodological structure of the proposed framework.</p>

      <fig id="F3" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 3</label><caption><p id="d2e699">Workflow and method overview.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026-f03.png"/>

        </fig>

</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS2">
  <label>3.2</label><title>Estimation of PDSI using the Penman-Monteith method</title>
      <p id="d2e716">In this study, PDSI was used to quantify the deviation between observed monthly precipitation and the required precipitation, which was estimated each month under Climatically Appropriate For Existing Conditions (CAFEC). The PDSI was calculated following the CAFEC formulation and calibrated at the grid level over the calibration period 1961–1990 to calculate CAFEC values and establish a fixed climatological reference (Karl, 1986). This ensured that PDSI thresholds remained unchanged throughout the analysis (Fig. S1). The calibration period was intentionally kept independent from the subsequent numerical experiments, which were conducted exclusively for 1991–2020, in order to avoid altering the reference climatology and to allow consistent evaluation of hypothetical precipitation forcing effects (Fig. S1a). During the calibration period, monthly climatological values of the water balance components, including precipitation, PET, recharge, runoff, and losses, were derived to compute CAFEC precipitation, calibration coefficients, and the corresponding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M39" display="inline"><mml:mi>Z</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-index and PDSI time series.</p>
      <p id="d2e726">The PDSI formulation was based on a simple two-layer water balance model (Palmer, 1965), which considered both water supply and atmospheric evaporative demand. To ensure the credibility of PDSI results, we used the Penman-FAO56 method with a physically based formulation (Xu et al., 2022) to estimate PET (denoted as PET<sub>pm</sub>), as shown in Eq. (1). Specifically, daily PET was first calculated from daily meteorological observations and then aggregated to monthly values for use in the PDSI calculation.

            <disp-formula id="Ch1.E1" content-type="numbered"><label>1</label><mml:math id="M41" display="block"><mml:mtable rowspacing="0.2ex" class="split" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PET</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pm</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.408</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">900</mml:mn><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">273</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Rh</mml:mi><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.34</mml:mn><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

          Where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M42" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the slope of the vapor pressure curve, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M43" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">n</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the net radiation (calculated using surface downwelling/upwelling shortwave/longwave radiation), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M44" display="inline"><mml:mi>G</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the soil heat flux, which was assumed to be negligible (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M45" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>G</mml:mi><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) at the daily timescale beneath the grass reference surface (Allen et al., 1998), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M46" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">γ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the psychometric constant, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M47" display="inline"><mml:mi>T</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the monthly averaged air temperature, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M48" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>U</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the wind speed at 2 m height, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M49" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>e</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">s</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the saturation vapor pressure at a given air temperature, Rh is the relative humidity.</p>
      <p id="d2e925">In this study, long-term PDSI series for the period 1961–2020 were calculated using the tool provided by the Palmer Drought Severity Index (Jacobi et al., 2013).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS3">
  <label>3.3</label><title>Identification and characterization of grid-level MYD events based on run theory</title>
      <p id="d2e937">Run theory is a threshold-based method that defines drought events as temporally continuous periods during which PDSI remains below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M50" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Yang et al., 2024), such that any month exceeding this threshold marks the termination of an event. According to this method, each identified drought event was further characterized using a set of event-based indicators, including DS, DD, DI, DDP, and DIP.</p>
      <p id="d2e950">In this study, the identified grid-level drought events were further selected to capture the key characteristics of MYDs that are both persistent and sufficiently severe (hereafter referred to as typical MYDs), by retaining only those with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M51" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DD</mml:mi><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">12</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M52" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DI</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Brunner and Tallaksen, 2019; van Mourik et al., 2025; Chen et al., 2025). MYDs were required to be temporally continuous, with PDSI remaining below <inline-formula><mml:math id="M53" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>1 throughout the entire event. Since the calibration period was set to 1961–1990 and the CAFEC values needed to remain fixed during numerical experiments, the final selection was restricted to grid-level MYD samples occurring during 1991–2020 (Fig. S1a). A total of 351 grid-level MYD samples meeting these criteria were identified. Each basin contained at least 11 grid-level MYD samples, thereby helping to ensure the statistical robustness of the analysis.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4">
  <label>3.4</label><title>Numerical experiment design for quantifying drought attenuation efficiency under hypothetical precipitation increase</title>
      <p id="d2e994">According to run theory, for a given drought event characterized by its baseline monthly PDSI series (Fig. S2a), a hypothetical precipitation increase applied at a specific month leads to a reduction in DS, assuming all other conditions remain unchanged. This provides a foundation for quantifying drought attenuation efficiency in terms of DS reduction. The numerical experiments therefore apply hypothetical precipitation increases to individual months of a drought event independently, keeping all other months unchanged, and compare the resulting DS responses across months. The timing of hypothetical precipitation increases (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M54" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) is a key experimental parameter, representing the month at which the additional precipitation is applied within a grid-level MYD event.</p>
      <p id="d2e1008">Since this study focuses on drought alleviation, only hypothetical precipitation increase scenarios with incremental gradients are considered. The procedures of this numerical experiment were given as follows:</p>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4.SSSx1" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Step 1: Validation of nonlinear response</title>
      <p id="d2e1016">To validate the nonlinear response of MYD alleviation to hypothetical precipitation increases applied at different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M55" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and under varying PDSI values, a single-timing precipitation forcing strategy was adopted. Under this strategy, precipitation is increased at only one <inline-formula><mml:math id="M56" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within an MYD event, while precipitation in all other months remains unchanged. Since the calibration period in this study corresponds to the period 1961–1990, all numerical experiments were conducted for MYDs occurring after 1990, with no temporal overlap between the two periods (Fig. S1a). This design ensures that the reference climate is not influenced by hypothetical precipitation perturbations. Consequently, the baseline remains fixed throughout all gradient-based numerical experiments (Fig. S1a). The forcing strategy for a given MYD event during 1991–2020 is expressed as follows:

              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E2" content-type="numbered"><label>2</label><mml:math id="M57" display="block"><mml:mtable rowspacing="0.2ex" class="split" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right left"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd/><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">5</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">10</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi><mml:mo>,</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mspace linebreak="nobreak" width="0.125em"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:math></disp-formula>

            Where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M58" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the precipitation in the targeted month after applying the hypothetical forcing, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M59" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the observed precipitation in the same month under the baseline (unforced) scenario,<inline-formula><mml:math id="M60" display="inline"><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:math></inline-formula> is the long-term mean monthly precipitation, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M61" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the relative change in precipitation, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M62" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mover accent="true"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mo mathvariant="normal">‾</mml:mo></mml:mover></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the imposed hypothetical precipitation increment. The long-term mean monthly precipitation was used as the reference quantity for defining the perturbation magnitude because it provides a physically interpretable measure of local climatological conditions and is highly consistent with the standard deviation of monthly precipitation across the study area (Fig. S3). Considering that MYD responses may vary under different precipitation perturbation magnitudes, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M63" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> ranging from 0 % to 100 % at 5 % increments were used to systematically evaluate MYD responses across different perturbation conditions, thereby integrating both small and relatively large hypothetical precipitation perturbations. The upper bound of 100 % was selected to ensure that, even under severe antecedent drought conditions, the additional precipitation could bring monthly precipitation to or above its long-term mean and potentially shift conditions toward a relatively wet state.</p>
      <p id="d2e1219">As described above, applying precipitation forcing alters the DS of the corresponding MYD event. Therefore, the relationship between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M64" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and the resulting change in DS provides a basis for examining the nonlinear response of drought alleviation to hypothetical precipitation increases.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4.SSSx2" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Step 2: Construction of DAQM</title>
      <p id="d2e1239">To further parameterize drought attenuation efficiency in a consistent and comparable way across grids, forcing timings and MYDs, we developed DAQM. DAQM describes the relationship between hypothetical precipitation perturbations and the resulting reductions in event-level DS. It provides a unified framework for estimating the attenuation efficiency coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M65" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) while accounting for the nonlinear responses implied by Conceptual Models 1 and 2.</p>
      <p id="d2e1249">DS is defined as the cumulative sum of PDSI values over DD of a grid-level MYD period. In the model formulation, attenuation of DS under hypothetical precipitation increases is represented as a nonlinear diminishing-return process. This functional form is motivated by numerical experiments, which consistently show that incremental precipitation inputs produce progressively smaller marginal reductions in DS across grids and forcing timings, indicating a bounded drought alleviation response.</p>
      <p id="d2e1252">To represent this behavior, we adopt a first-order kinetic-like formulation, in which the instantaneous rate of DS reduction is proportional to the remaining DS. This structure captures rapid initial alleviation when residual DS is high and progressively slower alleviation as DS approaches zero.</p>
      <p id="d2e1255">Accordingly, Eq. (3) expresses the drought attenuation process in differential form, linking the instantaneous rate of DS reduction to the residual DS:

              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E3" content-type="numbered"><label>3</label><mml:math id="M66" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:mo>∂</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            Where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M67" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M68" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">baseline</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the observed DS under the baseline scenario, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M69" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the DS after the hypothetical precipitation is applied) is the relative change in DS.</p>
      <p id="d2e1358"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M70" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the attenuation efficiency coefficient, representing the proportionality with which additional precipitation is converted into reductions in residual DS. Because <inline-formula><mml:math id="M71" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is dimensionless, it allows direct comparison of attenuation efficiency across different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M72" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and regions.</p>
      <p id="d2e1385">It is clear that when no hypothetical precipitation forcing is applied (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M73" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), there is no change in DS (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M74" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Likewise, when sufficient forcing is applied, the MYD is fully alleviated (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M75" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Thus, the model is subject to the following boundary and limiting conditions:

                  <disp-formula id="Ch1.E4" content-type="numbered"><label>4</label><mml:math id="M76" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:mfenced open="{" close=""><mml:mtable columnspacing="1em" rowspacing="0.2ex" class="aligned" displaystyle="true" columnalign="right"><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle class="stylechange" displaystyle="true"/><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr><mml:mtr><mml:mtd><mml:mrow><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true" class="stylechange"/><mml:munder><mml:mo movablelimits="false">lim⁡</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">∞</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:munder><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mtd></mml:mtr></mml:mtable></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            Thus, based on the differential Eq. (3) above and the boundary and limiting conditions in Eq. (4), the analytical solution describing the relationship between DS<sub>rate</sub> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M78" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can be obtained as follows:

              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E5" content-type="numbered"><label>5</label><mml:math id="M79" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>exp⁡</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>⋅</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            To ensure that this exponential structure reflects observed system behavior rather than an assumed mathematical form, we compared formulations inspired by zero-order, first-order, and second-order kinetic processes using historical MYDs during 1991–2020. Across most grids and events, the first-order structure more accurately reproduced the curvature observed in the numerical experiments (Table S2 in the Supplement). Extension to an n-order formulation showed that the estimated n converged toward unity (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M80" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>n</mml:mi><mml:mo>≈</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.98</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), further supporting the first-order representation. We also compared the exponential form against alternative empirical relationships. Logistic curves did not match the observed pattern. Power-law functions were unable to satisfy the required boundary conditions.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S3.SS4.SSSx3" specific-use="unnumbered">
  <title>Step 3: Verification of parameter robustness</title>
      <p id="d2e1563">To evaluate the robustness of the drought attenuation efficiency parameter <inline-formula><mml:math id="M81" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, we compared model-derived estimates obtained from DAQM (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M82" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">theoretical</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) with empirical estimates calculated directly from the numerical experiments (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M83" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">actual</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Specifically, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M84" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">theoretical</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is obtained by fitting the DAQM analytical solution to the full set of experimental outcomes, thereby capturing the nonlinear and bounded response of DS to hypothetical precipitation increases. In contrast, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M85" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">actual</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represents the empirical sensitivity of DS to small precipitation perturbations and is approximated from the initial slope of the relationship between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M86" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M87" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under the smallest forcing step (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M88" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">actual</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mfenced close=")" open="("><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">pr</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, where 0.05 is the smallest perturbation step used in the experiments).</p>
      <p id="d2e1674">The relative error between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M89" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">theoretical</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M90" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">actual</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was used as a diagnostic measure to assess the numerical reliability of the model-based parameterization:

              <disp-formula id="Ch1.E6" content-type="numbered"><label>6</label><mml:math id="M91" display="block"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="true"><mml:mfrac style="display"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">theoretical</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">actual</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">actual</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced><mml:mo>×</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">100</mml:mn><mml:mspace width="0.125em" linebreak="nobreak"/><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">%</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></disp-formula>

            Where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M92" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is the relative error, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M93" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">theoretical</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the model-derived attenuation efficiency coefficient, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M94" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">actual</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is the empirical estimate obtained from numerical experiments.</p>
      <p id="d2e1768">In subsequent analyses, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M95" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">theoretical</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is used as the primary indicator because it captures the overall nonlinear response structure of DS to hypothetical precipitation increases and provides a more comprehensive and comparable measure of drought attenuation efficiency across grids and forcing timings. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M96" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">actual</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is employed solely to verify internal consistency and is not used in other analyses.</p>
</sec>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4">
  <label>4</label><title>Results</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS1">
  <label>4.1</label><title>Response relationship between DS and hypothetical precipitation increase in China</title>
      <p id="d2e1810">Focusing on drought alleviation, the numerical experiments were constrained to the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M97" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> range of DDP, with the minimum DDP among the selected MYD events being 8 months. Accordingly, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M98" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M99" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M100" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M101" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> represent the first to the eighth month of MYD. For each <inline-formula><mml:math id="M102" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M103" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M104" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, DS<sub>rate</sub> values were calculated across hypothetical precipitation perturbations with pr<sub>rate</sub> ranging from 0 to 1 at 0.05 increments. Figure 4a presents the empirical DS<sub>rate</sub> responses derived directly from the numerical experiments, summarized as the mean <inline-formula><mml:math id="M108" display="inline"><mml:mo>±</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula> standard error (SE) across MYD events under different precipitation perturbation scenarios, mainly to illustrate the overall attenuation behavior across the study area. The resulting responses were then fitted for each <inline-formula><mml:math id="M109" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within each MYD event using the DAQM analytical form described in Sect. 3.4 (Eq. 5). The fitted relationships closely reproduced the numerical experiment outputs at the event scale with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M110" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values generally exceeding 0.90, confirming the suitability of the DAQM analytical form. This fitting yielded one theoretical attenuation efficiency parameter (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M111" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>) for each <inline-formula><mml:math id="M112" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, representing the drought attenuation efficiency of a given event at a specific timing. The corresponding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M113" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values are denoted as <inline-formula><mml:math id="M114" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M115" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M116" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M117" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively.</p>

      <fig id="F4" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 4</label><caption><p id="d2e2023">DS responses to hypothetical precipitation perturbations and cumulative absolute PDSI from event onset to a given month within a single event relative to the DS of that event during DDP in China. <bold>(a)</bold> Mean responses under different hypothetical precipitation perturbations for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M118" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across all MYD events, with error bars representing standard error. <bold>(b)</bold> Temporal evolution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M119" display="inline"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cumulative</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PDSI</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:math></inline-formula> during DDP across all MYD events.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026-f04.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e2071">To preserve regional differences, MYD events were identified and analyzed separately at each grid across the study area, rather than being calculated from regionally averaged conditions. By retaining individual grid-level responses, the analysis preserves spatial heterogeneity while comprehensively reflecting the overall MYD response characteristics across the study area. Based on these grid-level events, the changes in DS were not proportional along the increasing precipitation gradient. Within the same pr<sub>rate</sub> range from 0 to 1, all timings from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M121" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M122" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">8</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exhibited a similar nonlinear diminishing-return response pattern (Fig. 4a). The overall responses for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M123" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M124" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M125" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> remained relatively close, whereas a clearer reduction emerged from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M126" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> onward. Effect sizes between two groups were evaluated using Cohen's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M127" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the magnitude of differences was quantified using its absolute value (hereafter referred to as Cohen's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M128" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). Pairwise statistical comparisons further showed that although the differences among <inline-formula><mml:math id="M129" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were statistically significant (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M130" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the corresponding effect sizes were extremely small (Cohen's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M131" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.002</mml:mn><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.003</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Table S3). In contrast, comparisons involving <inline-formula><mml:math id="M132" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exhibited substantially larger effect sizes (Cohen's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M133" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>d</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.231</mml:mn><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.342</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Table S3). These results indicate that, when aggregated across all MYD events over the study area, the overall drought attenuation efficiencies associated with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M134" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> remained relatively close before a clearer decline emerges from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M135" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> onward.</p>
      <p id="d2e2268">Since hypothetical precipitation inputs applied at a given <inline-formula><mml:math id="M136" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> can only influence the subsequent stage of MYD evolution, cumulative deficits were further calculated to quantify the drought impacts accumulated before each timing. Because PDSI values during MYD events remain below the drought threshold (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M137" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PDSI</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), cumulative absolute PDSI was used in the analysis. Based on this, the ratio of cumulative absolute PDSI from event onset to a given month within a single event relative to the DS of that event <inline-formula><mml:math id="M138" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mfenced open="(" close=")"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cumulative</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PDSI</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was defined to quantify the proportion of drought impacts accumulated before each <inline-formula><mml:math id="M139" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The ratio increased progressively with MYD development across all MYD events (Fig. 4b). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M140" display="inline"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cumulative</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PDSI</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:math></inline-formula> values corresponding to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M141" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M142" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M143" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M144" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were approximately 0.04, 0.10, 0.17, 0.25, respectively. These results indicate that a progressively larger fraction of DS had already accumulated by later <inline-formula><mml:math id="M145" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> during MYD development, thereby reducing the remaining alleviation potential.</p>
      <p id="d2e2395">Within the relatively early MYD stages (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M146" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), further basin-scale analyses of pairwise comparisons among <inline-formula><mml:math id="M147" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> showed that the distinctions among early <inline-formula><mml:math id="M148" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> became substantially more pronounced (Fig. S4). The median Cohen's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M149" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values for pairwise comparisons among <inline-formula><mml:math id="M150" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> generally exceeded 0.80 in all ten river basins, corresponding to large effect sizes, while the minimum values were mostly greater than 0.50, indicating at least medium effect sizes. These results indicate that the differences among <inline-formula><mml:math id="M151" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> remain distinguishable at the river basin scale, supporting further investigation of attenuation efficiency differences among early <inline-formula><mml:math id="M152" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS2">
  <label>4.2</label><title>Validation of the MYD attenuation efficiency coefficient in China</title>
      <p id="d2e2508">For each grid, the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M153" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was first identified based on the DAQM-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M154" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Figure 5a shows the spatial distribution of the corresponding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M155" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across the study area. Overall, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M156" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dominates, accounting for 58.79 % of the grids, whereas <inline-formula><mml:math id="M157" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M158" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> account for 22.11 % and 11.06 %, respectively. To further evaluate the robustness of the DAQM-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M159" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, an independent estimate was obtained from DS<sub>rate</sub> responses (Fig. S5). During the numerical experiments, it was found that the identified <inline-formula><mml:math id="M161" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for a given MYD event was not always identical across different hypothetical precipitation perturbation scenarios, indicating that precipitation perturbation magnitude itself can influence the identified <inline-formula><mml:math id="M162" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. To reduce the influence of perturbation magnitude on <inline-formula><mml:math id="M163" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> identification, 21 hypothetical precipitation perturbation scenarios (pr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M164" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, 0.05, 0.10, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M165" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">…</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, 1.00) were separately evaluated for each MYD event, thereby integrating both small and relatively large perturbations into a comprehensive evaluation method. For each scenario, the corresponding optimal timing was first determined according to the maximum DS<sub>rate</sub> among different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M167" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The mode of the resulting 20 optimal timings was then used to represent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M168" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across different precipitation perturbation magnitudes (within the mode-based identification process, scenario without additional precipitation input, i.e., pr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M169" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, was not included because identical DS<sub>rate</sub> across all <inline-formula><mml:math id="M171" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> prevented a unique optimal timing from being identified), hereafter referred to as the mode-based approach. Because <inline-formula><mml:math id="M172" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is expressed as a discrete positive integer, the mode was adopted instead of the mean or median to ensure that the identified <inline-formula><mml:math id="M173" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> remained physically interpretable as an integer month. Notably, the DAQM-based estimates are also derived from all hypothetical precipitation perturbation scenarios through least-squares fitting, making the mode-based and DAQM-derived results directly comparable. The mode-based approach yields proportions of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M174" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (67.84 %), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M175" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (12.06 %), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M176" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (14.57 %) (Fig. S5). Comparison between the two approaches shows that 75.88 % of the grids exhibit identical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M177" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 6b). Further analyses focusing only on grids where the two approaches yield identical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M178" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>  show proportions of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M179" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (72.84 %), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M180" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (11.92 %), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M181" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (10.60 %) (Fig. S6).</p>

      <fig id="F5" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 5</label><caption><p id="d2e2828">Validation and robustness assessment of the MYD attenuation efficiency coefficient (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M182" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>). <bold>(a)</bold> Spatial distribution of the DAQM-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M183" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for each grid. The inset shows the frequency histogram of the DAQM-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M184" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across all grids. <bold>(b)</bold> Spatial distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M185" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> differences (mode-based <inline-formula><mml:math id="M186" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> minus DAQM-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M187" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The inset shows the frequency histogram of timing differences between mode-based and DAQM-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M188" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across all grids. <bold>(c)</bold> Spatial distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M189" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> for each grid. <bold>(d)</bold> Spatial distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M190" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> differences (small perturbation-based <inline-formula><mml:math id="M191" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> minus DAQM-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M192" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). The inset shows the frequency histogram of timing differences between small perturbation-based and DAQM-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M193" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across all grids. <bold>(e–g)</bold> Median actual versus median theoretical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M194" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values for the ten major river basins in <bold>(e)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M195" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <bold>(f)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M196" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <bold>(g)</bold> <inline-formula><mml:math id="M197" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The red dashed line is the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M198" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> line. The black solid line is the fitted line based on values from 10 river basins. Orange crosses are the values for individual river basins.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026-f05.png"/>

        </fig>

      <fig id="F6" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 6</label><caption><p id="d2e3043">Spatial distribution of the changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M199" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M200" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) derived from the DAQM model. <bold>(a)</bold> Change in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M201" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M202" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M203" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M204" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). <bold>(b)</bold> Change in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M205" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M206" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M207" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M208" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026-f06.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e3162">According to the DAQM constructed in Sect. 3.4, as the increment in pr<sub>rate</sub> approaches zero, the corresponding DS<sub>rate</sub> also approaches zero. Under this condition, the estimated value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M211" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> approaches the actual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M212" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Therefore, the actual values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M213" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> can be approximated using the numerical experiment controlling a small perturbation of a individual input variable (pr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M214" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and its corresponding DS<sub>rate</sub>. Based on this principle, actual values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M216" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> were calculated from the numerical experiments and compared with the theoretical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M217" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values derived from the DAQM developed in Sect. 3.4, at the grid scale. Figure 5c shows the spatial distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M218" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> across all given grids, with 72.86 % of the grids exhibiting <inline-formula><mml:math id="M219" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values below 5 %. Slightly larger deviations mainly occur in parts of northern and southern China, whereas semi-arid regions generally exhibit relatively stronger agreement between theoretical and actual estimates. Despite these regional differences, the overall <inline-formula><mml:math id="M220" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> remains modest, with most grids exhibiting values around 6 %, confirming the robustness of the DAQM across the study area (Figs. 5c and S4). To further evaluate whether <inline-formula><mml:math id="M221" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> influences <inline-formula><mml:math id="M222" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, the small perturbation experiments (pr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M223" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were also used to independently identify <inline-formula><mml:math id="M224" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. S7). Comparison with the DAQM-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M225" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> shows agreement in 89.95 % of the grids (Fig. 5d), indicating that the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M226" display="inline"><mml:mi mathvariant="italic">ϵ</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> does not substantially alter the spatial pattern of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M227" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. To further evaluate the robustness of the DAQM framework at the basin scale, comparisons between theoretical (DAQM-derived) and actual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M228" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values (small perturbation-based) were conducted across the ten major river basins in China. A strong positive correlation was observed between the theoretical and actual values, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M229" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values exceeding 0.90 for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M230" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M231" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M232" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across the ten river basins in China (Fig. 5e–g). The comparison results for each month revealed no significant deviation from the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M233" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>:</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reference line, with slopes of 1.063, 1.060, and 1.037 for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M234" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M235" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M236" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively (Fig. 5e–g).</p>
      <p id="d2e3434">Overall, these results demonstrate the robustness and applicability of the theoretical values at both the grid and river basin scales. For this reason, the DAQM was further employed to investigate drought attenuation efficiency at different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M237" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This quantitative model was also used to identify <inline-formula><mml:math id="M238" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for precipitation input across <inline-formula><mml:math id="M239" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M240" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M241" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S4.SS3">
  <label>4.3</label><title>Quantification of the relationship between MYD attenuation efficiency and precipitation input timing in China</title>
      <p id="d2e3500">To identify <inline-formula><mml:math id="M242" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in various river basins during <inline-formula><mml:math id="M243" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M244" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M245" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, a series of numerical experiments were conducted using the DAQM. Figure 6 presents the spatial distributions of the changes in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M246" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M247" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M248" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M249" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M250" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M251" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M252" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). As demonstrated by the validation results shown in Sect. 4.2, the DAQM framework performs robustly across most regions, supporting the interpretation of the following spatial patterns. Additional analyses based on small perturbation experiments (pr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M253" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) further confirm that the DAQM-derived results generally capture the spatial patterns (Fig. S8). Strong consistency was observed between the responses derived from the small perturbation experiments and those obtained from the full hypothetical precipitation-gradient framework, with correlation coefficients of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M254" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.957</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M255" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Figs. 6a and S8a) and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M256" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.955</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M257" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Figs. 6b and S8b) (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M258" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>p</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.001</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in both cases). Therefore, the spatial patterns shown in Fig. 6 can be considered reliable for interpreting drought attenuation efficiency.</p>
      <p id="d2e3730">To enable a clearer comparison of magnitude among cases where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M259" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, absolute values were used. Notably, the larger absolute values of negative <inline-formula><mml:math id="M260" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M261" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>&lt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) were mainly observed in the humid river basins of southern China, particularly in the Pearl River and Yangtze River basins (Fig. 6 and Table 1). By comparison, smaller absolute values of negative <inline-formula><mml:math id="M262" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were detected in the arid and semi-arid northern regions of China, particularly in the Liao River basin (Fig. 6 and Table 1). Moreover, in 118 out of 199 grids (59.30 %), the absolute values of negative <inline-formula><mml:math id="M263" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were larger than those of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M264" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 6 and Table 1). This disparity indicates that, in more than half of MYD occurrences, the greatest attenuation efficiency tends to occur at earliest <inline-formula><mml:math id="M265" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M266" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). Interestingly, we found that 40 out of 199 grids (20.10 %) exhibited positive values in both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M267" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M268" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 6). These results indicate that, in a non-negligible portion of grids, the greatest attenuation efficiency does not occur at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M269" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></p>

<table-wrap id="T1" specific-use="star"><label>Table 1</label><caption><p id="d2e3872">Summary of the number of grids, median values of DD, and changes in theoretical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M270" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (derived from the DAQM model; <inline-formula><mml:math id="M271" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M272" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M273" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">32</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) and actual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M274" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (derived from the small perturbation experiments with pr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M275" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), across the ten river basins and all of China.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="9">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="4" colname="col4" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="5" colname="col5" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="6" colname="col6" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="7" colname="col7" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="8" colname="col8" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="9" colname="col9" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">River basin</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">Number</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">Median</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M280" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M281" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M282" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M283" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M284" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">32</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M285" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">32</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>)</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">of grids</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">DD</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">DAQM-</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">Small pertur-</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">DAQM-</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">Small pertur-</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">DAQM-</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">Small pertur-</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"/>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">(Months)</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4">derived</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5">bation-based</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6">derived</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7">bation-based</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8">derived</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9">bation-based</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Songhua River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">26</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">22</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M286" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.091</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M287" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.045</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M288" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.235</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M289" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.220</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M290" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula><italic><bold>0.142</bold></italic></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M291" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula><italic><bold>0.154</bold></italic></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Liao River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">10</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">28</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><bold>0.022</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><bold>0.045</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><bold>0.003</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><bold>0.004</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M292" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula><bold>0.024</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M293" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula><bold>0.026</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Northwestern Rivers</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">44</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">17</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M294" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.071</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M295" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.062</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M296" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.152</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M297" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.154</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M298" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.087</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M299" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.107</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hai River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">29</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M300" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.083</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M301" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.082</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M302" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.110</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M303" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.113</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M304" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.053</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M305" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.054</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Yellow River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">20</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M306" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.069</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M307" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.059</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M308" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.111</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M309" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.089</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M310" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.090</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M311" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.081</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Yangtze River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">39</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M312" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.145</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M313" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.151</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M314" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula><italic><bold>0.250</bold></italic></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M315" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.229</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M316" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.127</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M317" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.130</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Huai River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">11</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">23</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M318" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.081</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M319" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.081</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M320" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.141</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M321" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.184</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M322" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.042</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M323" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.039</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Southeastern Rivers</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">8</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">14</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M324" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.024</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M325" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.029</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M326" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.196</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M327" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula><italic><bold>0.252</bold></italic></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M328" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.077</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M329" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.108</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Southwestern Rivers</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">15</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M330" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.148</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M331" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.150</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M332" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.148</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M333" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.153</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M334" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.083</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M335" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.085</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pearl River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">18</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">19</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M336" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula><italic><bold>0.162</bold></italic></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M337" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula><italic><bold>0.153</bold></italic></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M338" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.200</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M339" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.196</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M340" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.063</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M341" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.077</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">All of China</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">199</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">21</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col4"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M342" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.080</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col5"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M343" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.075</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col6"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M344" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.166</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col7"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M345" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.151</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col8"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M346" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.094</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col9"><inline-formula><mml:math id="M347" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.093</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d2e3985">Note: The bold value marks the maximum <inline-formula><mml:math id="M276" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> among the ten river basins in China, and the bold-italic value marks the minimum <inline-formula><mml:math id="M277" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. <inline-formula><mml:math id="M278" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values are derived from both the DAQM-derived and small perturbation-based (pr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M279" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) results.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

      <p id="d2e5003">These experiments also aimed to identify the key drought event characteristics responsible for the variation in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M348" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Since DS represents the cumulative water deficit over the entire DD, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M349" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> is derived from DS, DD constitutes an important factor influencing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M350" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in addition to the standardized characteristics of PDSI itself. Therefore, the spatial distribution and statistical characteristics of DD are examined to help interpret basin-scale differences in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M351" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 7 and Table 1). We summarize the probability density function (PDF) of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M352" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M353" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> for all of grid-level MYD events across 10 river basins in China (Fig. 7 and Table 1). The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M354" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values exhibit a roughly normal distribution across river basins (Fig. 7). The median values of both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M355" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M356" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are negative in 9 out of 10 basins, with the median of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M357" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> being lower than that of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M358" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Table 1). In most basins, the standard deviation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M359" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is also larger than that of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M360" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, indicating greater variability in the efficiency difference between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M361" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M362" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 7). These results suggest an efficiency advantage of early precipitation input (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M363" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M364" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>). This advantage becomes more pronounced when comparing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M365" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M366" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. However, positive <inline-formula><mml:math id="M367" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M368" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values were found in 33.67 % and 23.12 % of all grids, respectively (Fig. 6a and b). Similar results were also evident in the PDFs for all of China and each individual basin (Fig. 7). Consistent patterns are observed in both the DAQM-derived results (Fig. 7) and the small perturbation-based results (Fig. S9). These results suggest a non-negligible role of the higher sensitivity of normally distributed standardized drought indices to identical precipitation perturbations under more severe drought conditions. Longer DD tends to be associated with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M369" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values closer to or even above zero (Fig. 7 and Table 1). In particular, the Liao River, with a relatively long DD of 28 months (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M370" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DD</mml:mi><mml:mtext>all China</mml:mtext></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> months), shows median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M371" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values of 0.022 for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M372" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and 0.003 for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M373" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 7 and Table 1). In contrast, the Pearl River, characterized by a shorter DD of 19 months, exhibits more negative median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M374" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M375" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.162 and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M376" display="inline"><mml:mo>-</mml:mo></mml:math></inline-formula>0.200 for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M377" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M378" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 7 and Table 1), respectively.</p>

      <fig id="F7" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 7</label><caption><p id="d2e5376">Spatial distribution of the median drought duration from 1991 to 2020 across the 10 river basins in China. Surrounding panels show the probability distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M379" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from the DAQM model for all of China and each basin, based on grid-level MYD samples. Specifically, the orange lines represent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M380" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the green lines represent <inline-formula><mml:math id="M381" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> The <inline-formula><mml:math id="M382" display="inline"><mml:mi>x</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axis in each panel denotes <inline-formula><mml:math id="M383" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M384" display="inline"><mml:mi>y</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>-axis denotes probability. The number in the upper-right corner of each panel indicates the basin code.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026-f07.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e5449">To further investigate the influence of DD as an important event characteristic, an equal-width binning method was applied to examine the variation of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M385" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under different DD values. Specifically, the original DD values of the selected MYD events ranged from 13 to 51 months. These events were grouped into bins according to their DD values. To ensure the robustness of the results (each bin contained no fewer than 10 grid-level events), the DD range was limited to 13 to 40 months, and the bin width was set to 4 months. This setting yielded a total of seven bins (Fig. 8). We calculated the median values of both <inline-formula><mml:math id="M386" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and DD within each bin. As shown in Fig. 8, we found a positive correlation between DD and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M387" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M388" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values of 0.526 and 0.578 for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M389" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M390" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. Notably, when DD exceeds 29 months (as shown in Fig. 8), the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M391" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values approaching zero, indicating that the drought attenuation efficiencies of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M392" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M393" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> become comparable to that of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M394" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. In contrast, when DD is shorter (around 17 months, as shown in Fig. 8), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M395" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> demonstrates notably higher drought attenuation efficiency than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M396" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M397" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. These results suggest that DD is a key factor influencing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M398" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>

      <fig id="F8"><label>Figure 8</label><caption><p id="d2e5610">Median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M399" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of MYD under different DD. The orange line represents <inline-formula><mml:math id="M400" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">21</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and the green line represents <inline-formula><mml:math id="M401" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mrow><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">31</mml:mn><mml:mo>.</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> Shaded areas indicate half the standard error as the confidence interval.</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026-f08.png"/>

        </fig>

      <p id="d2e5658">To clarify the alleviation advantages of the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M402" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, we consider both the cumulative temporal advantage of earlier precipitation input and the statistical properties of standardized drought indices. Figure 9 and Table 2 present a comparison between the drought attenuation efficiency of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M403" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and those of  <inline-formula><mml:math id="M404" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M405" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (the month corresponding to DIP within a MYD event). The corresponding <inline-formula><mml:math id="M406" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M407" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M408" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M409" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M410" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M411" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M412" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) exhibit differences. For simplicity, two ratios, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M413" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M414" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, are used to quantify the differences in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M415" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M416" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M417" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and between <inline-formula><mml:math id="M418" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M419" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively. In terms of magnitude, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M420" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is typically close to 1, while <inline-formula><mml:math id="M421" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> consistently exceeds 2 (Table 2). From the perspective of the cumulative temporal advantage of earlier precipitation input, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M422" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> tends to dominate (Fig. 9a and Table 2). Nevertheless, the presence of grids with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M423" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> suggests <inline-formula><mml:math id="M424" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>&gt;</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> should not be overlooked (Fig. 9a). At the basin scale, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M425" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>dominates in most regions, except in the Liao River basin, where the median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M426" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> reaches 1.135 (Table 2). In contrast, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M427" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> offers a more substantial advantage in drought attenuation efficiency compared to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M428" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 9b and Table 2). This advantage is particularly pronounced in the Liao River and Songhua River basins, where the median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M429" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values reach 15.430 and 12.555, respectively. By contrast, the advantage of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M430" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> is less evident in the Southeastern River and Hai River basins, with median <inline-formula><mml:math id="M431" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values of 3.428 and 2.413, respectively.</p>

      <fig id="F9" specific-use="star"><label>Figure 9</label><caption><p id="d2e6055">Spatial distribution of the ratios of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M432" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> derived from the Optimal Solution Model relative to those derived separately from Conceptual Model 1 and Conceptual Model 2. <bold>(a)</bold> The ratio of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M433" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M434" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M435" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M436" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), <bold>(b)</bold> the ratio of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M437" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> between the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M438" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M439" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M440" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>).</p></caption>
          <graphic xlink:href="https://hess.copernicus.org/articles/30/6963/2026/hess-30-6963-2026-f09.png"/>

        </fig>

<table-wrap id="T2" specific-use="star"><label>Table 2</label><caption><p id="d2e6175">Summary of the median values of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M441" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M442" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across the ten river basins and all of China.</p></caption><oasis:table frame="topbot"><oasis:tgroup cols="3">
     <oasis:colspec colnum="1" colname="col1" align="left"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="2" colname="col2" align="right"/>
     <oasis:colspec colnum="3" colname="col3" align="right"/>
     <oasis:thead>
       <oasis:row rowsep="1">
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">River basin</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">P50 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M445" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">P50 (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M446" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub><mml:mo>/</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:thead>
     <oasis:tbody>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Songhua River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">12.555</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Liao River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2"><bold>1.135</bold></oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><bold>15.430</bold></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Northwestern Rivers</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.023</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">7.677</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Hai River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3"><italic><bold>2.413</bold></italic></oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Yellow River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.001</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.932</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Yangtze River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">4.704</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Huai River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.707</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Southeastern Rivers</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.428</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Southwestern Rivers</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.069</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6.539</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">Pearl River</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">3.429</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
       <oasis:row>
         <oasis:entry colname="col1">All of China</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col2">1.000</oasis:entry>
         <oasis:entry colname="col3">6.979</oasis:entry>
       </oasis:row>
     </oasis:tbody>
   </oasis:tgroup></oasis:table><table-wrap-foot><p id="d2e6214">Note: The bold value marks the maximum <inline-formula><mml:math id="M443" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> among the ten river basins in China, and the bold-italic value marks the minimum <inline-formula><mml:math id="M444" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>P</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">50</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p></table-wrap-foot></table-wrap>

</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5">
  <label>5</label><title>Discussion</title>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS1">
  <label>5.1</label><title>MYD alleviation response to hypothetical increased precipitation</title>
      <p id="d2e6460">Current studies on precipitation-based drought alleviation, referring to the dominant role of precipitation in driving drought alleviation, have primarily focused on the early stage of drought development (DeChant and Moradkhani, 2015; Livneh and Hoerling, 2016; Wu et al., 2018). Yang et al. (2017) integrated early precipitation input with drought-induced losses and concluded that earlier precipitation is more effective in alleviating drought impacts. This interpretation is consistent with the cumulative temporal advantage associated with earlier precipitation input considered in this study. However, due to the statistical properties of standardized drought indices, more severe drought conditions are often associated with higher attenuation efficiency under identical precipitation perturbations (Fig. 1). To further interpret the mechanisms controlling drought attenuation efficiency, two conceptual models were considered (Fig. S2). Conceptual Model 1 considers the same hypothetical precipitation increase applied at different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M447" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within an MYD event (Fig. S2b). Because the precipitation perturbation can influence DS only from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M448" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> onward, earlier <inline-formula><mml:math id="M449" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> allows a longer period during which the drought process can be affected. Consequently, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M450" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under Conceptual Model 1 tends to occur at the beginning of the event (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M451" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M452" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Conceptual Model 2 features the same precipitation forcing applied at the same <inline-formula><mml:math id="M453" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, but under different PDSI values (Fig. S2c). As a standardized index, PDSI (similar to widely used normally distributed standardized indices such as SPEI and SPI) exhibits tail sensitivity, whereby values further below the drought threshold tend to experience larger numerical responses under identical precipitation perturbations. Because DS is calculated as the cumulative sum of monthly PDSI values over DD, this property of PDSI also affects event-level DS. This mechanism forms the basis of Conceptual Model 2 and favors <inline-formula><mml:math id="M454" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> toward the month of DIP occurrence (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M455" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), i.e., <inline-formula><mml:math id="M456" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>→</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The interaction between these two mechanisms suggests that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M457" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> should theoretically fall within the interval from <inline-formula><mml:math id="M458" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M459" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, because <inline-formula><mml:math id="M460" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of MYD events typically occurs much later than the onset (<inline-formula><mml:math id="M461" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>≫</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) (Fig. S2d). The nonlinear pattern in DS response to increased precipitation (Figs. 1 and 4) can be more comprehensively understood by jointly considering these two conceptual models. To further clarify this relationship, attenuation efficiencies at different <inline-formula><mml:math id="M462" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> were quantified using the DAQM developed in Sect. 3.4. Under the same hypothetical precipitation forcing, a higher value of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M463" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at a given <inline-formula><mml:math id="M464" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">forcing</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> indicates greater drought attenuation efficiency. The results further show that attenuation efficiencies among <inline-formula><mml:math id="M465" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> remain relatively close, whereas clearer separation emerges after <inline-formula><mml:math id="M466" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 4a and Table. S3). This pattern suggests that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M467" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> constitute an important early-stage response window during which the effects described in Conceptual Models 1 and 2 partially offset each other. However, progressively increasing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M468" display="inline"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cumulative</mml:mi><mml:mfenced open="|" close="|"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PDSI</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:math></inline-formula> during drought development (e.g., approximately 0.04, 0.10, 0.17, and 0.25 at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M469" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M470" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M471" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M472" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, respectively) indicate the continuous accumulation of drought impacts during MYD evolution. Once <inline-formula><mml:math id="M473" display="inline"><mml:mstyle displaystyle="false"><mml:mfrac style="text"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">cumulative</mml:mi><mml:mfenced close="|" open="|"><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">PDSI</mml:mi></mml:mfenced></mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DS</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mstyle></mml:math></inline-formula> reaches a sufficiently high level (approximately 0.25 at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M474" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">4</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>), the cumulative temporal advantage associated with earlier precipitation input becomes dominant. These findings further reflect the complexity of drought alleviation processes and can be interpreted through the interaction between the two conceptual models.</p>
      <p id="d2e6814">Consistent with several existing studies (Pan et al., 2013; Haile et al., 2020), <inline-formula><mml:math id="M475" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> remains the dominant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M476" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> across China. However, we noted that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M477" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M478" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, while occurring later than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M479" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, are still non-negligible in the early stage of MYD. Spatially, the grids where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M480" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M481" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are dominant account for 22.11 % and 11.06 % of all grids, respectively (Fig. 5a). According to the classification of climate zones based on average annual precipitation (Yang et al., 2022), compared with the humid river basins in southern China, the arid and semi-arid northern regions exhibited a higher probability that drought attenuation efficiency at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M482" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M483" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> exceeds that at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M484" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Figs. 6 and 9a). This interpretation is supported by the strong agreement between theoretical and actual <inline-formula><mml:math id="M485" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> values shown in Fig. 5. We further noticed that the Liao River basin (semi-arid basin) and Pearl River basin (humid basin) exhibited relatively high and low MYD attenuation efficiency, respectively. This difference may be associated with the generally more severe drought conditions in the Liao River basin compared to those in the Pearl River basin (Huang et al., 2019; Lai et al., 2024; Zhang et al., 2025). Due to the statistical properties of standardized drought indices, increased precipitation tends to induce stronger attenuation responses under more severe drought conditions. Consequently, the influence of the second mechanism becomes relatively more evident in arid and semi-arid regions, increasing the probability that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M486" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M487" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> may exceed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M488" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in attenuation efficiency within the early-stage response window. By contrast, in humid basins characterized by relatively milder drought conditions, the cumulative temporal advantage associated with earlier precipitation input remains dominant, resulting in a stronger preference for <inline-formula><mml:math id="M489" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This conclusion was consistent with previous findings (Wang et al., 2025), showing the importance of earlier precipitation input for alleviating MYD in the humid basins of China.</p>
      <p id="d2e6980">Overall, our results do not suggest that “later is better” for MYD alleviation. Instead, they reveal the existence of an early-stage response window during which <inline-formula><mml:math id="M490" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M491" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> may still exhibit attenuation efficiencies comparable to or even exceeding that of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M492" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. This finding is particularly important for MYDs because these events involve cumulative water deficits across seasons and years, making the timing of precipitation input especially critical for drought alleviation. Missing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M493" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> does not necessarily imply that the opportunity for maximum attenuation efficiency has already been lost, provided that precipitation input still occurs within the early-stage window.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS2">
  <label>5.2</label><title>Robustness of optimal timing identification within the early-stage response window</title>
      <p id="d2e7035">The basin-scale Cohen's <inline-formula><mml:math id="M494" display="inline"><mml:mi>d</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> results indicate that the attenuation efficiency differences among <inline-formula><mml:math id="M495" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are distinguishable and cannot be attributed to random variability or noise (Fig. S4). Accordingly, the robustness of the DAQM-derived <inline-formula><mml:math id="M496" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> was evaluated through comparisons among the DAQM-derived results, the mode-based results, and the small perturbation-based results. Despite methodological differences among these three approaches, all consistently indicate that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M497" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> dominates overall, while the possibility that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M498" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M499" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> may exceed <inline-formula><mml:math id="M500" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within the early-stage response window remains non-negligible (Figs. 5a, S5, S6, and S7).</p>
      <p id="d2e7119">Comparison between the mode-based and DAQM-derived approaches shows that 75.88 % of grids exhibit identical <inline-formula><mml:math id="M501" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (Fig. 5b). The distribution of timing differences is approximately symmetric and centered around zero, suggesting that the discrepancies are spatially random rather than systematically biased. In addition, Fig. S6 shows that, even when only grids with identical results are considered, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M502" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M503" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> still account for a substantial proportion of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M504" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> (11.92 % and 10.60 %, respectively), confirming their non-negligible role within the early-stage response period. Generally, small perturbation experiments (pr<inline-formula><mml:math id="M505" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi/><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">rate</mml:mi></mml:msub><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">0.05</mml:mn></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>) represent more frequently occurring weak perturbation conditions in real-world situations. The comparison between small perturbation-based and DAQM-derived estimates further supports the robustness of the identified <inline-formula><mml:math id="M506" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Although relative errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M507" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> exist across grids, the overall relative error magnitude remains small across China, with 72.86 % of grids showing relative errors in <inline-formula><mml:math id="M508" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> below 5 % and most of the remaining grids around 6 %, indicating relatively limited deviations overall. Even though 27.14 % of grids exhibit relative errors exceeding 5 %, this has limited influence on the identification of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M509" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, as 89.95 % of grids show identical results between the two approaches (Fig. 5d). The distribution of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M510" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> differences in Fig. 5d further indicates that the remaining discrepancies are not systematically biased. In addition, compared with the small perturbation-based results, the DAQM-derived probability distributions of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M511" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">Δ</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> appear smoother (Figs. 7 and S9), reflecting that the DAQM integrates attenuation responses across the full precipitation-gradient experiment.</p>
      <p id="d2e7238">Overall, the DAQM-derived results demonstrate strong robustness across multiple validation approaches. The DAQM provides a theoretical basis that helps interpret and justify the patterns observed in the numerical experiments, thereby offering a more physically interpretable basis for attenuation efficiency and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M512" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> identification.</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS3">
  <label>5.3</label><title>Key drought event characteristics influencing MYD attenuation efficiency</title>
      <p id="d2e7260">Recent studies have shown that droughts are increasing in both frequency and severity (Dai et al., 2020; Fischer et al., 2025), although substantial regional differences exist. Similarly, Chen et al. (2025) highlighted that MYDs are also becoming more frequent and severe at global scales. To further characterize the dynamic evolution of MYD, three commonly used features include DD, DS, and DI. Among these, DD is a key factor for identifying MYDs, as MYDs are typically defined by a duration exceeding 12 months (Massari et al., 2022). DS represents the overall impact of MYD, while DI is related to the onset timing of the recovery stage. In current studies, standardized drought indices are commonly used to quantify drought severity (Mishra and Singh, 2010). According to the statistical characteristics of the normal distribution (Dai, 2011), drought indices responses to identical precipitation inputs can vary considerably depending on the magnitude of index values below the drought threshold. This aligns with Conceptual Model 2 presented in Sect. 5.1, where small increases in precipitation have the potential to induce substantial shifts toward alleviation when the index deviates far below the drought threshold. Our findings further indicate that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M513" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M514" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> of MYD do not coincide, especially in longer-duration MYD, where <inline-formula><mml:math id="M515" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">DIP</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> tends to occur much later than <inline-formula><mml:math id="M516" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. With that in mind, we examined the relationship between DD and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M517" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>. Our results demonstrate a positive correlation between DD and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M518" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> in MYD (Figs. 7 and 8). Specifically, basins in northern China, characterized by longer DD, tend to have a higher probability of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M519" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M520" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> being the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M521" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> within the early-stage response window, in contrast to southern basins with shorter DD (Fig. 7 and Table 1).</p>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S5.SS4">
  <label>5.4</label><title>Limitations and uncertainties</title>
      <p id="d2e7363">Droughts are not only influenced by pr, but also by other non-precipitation factors such as wind speed, air temperature, radiation, and relative humidity, among others. These non-precipitation factors are widely used to estimate potential evapotranspiration. However, this study focuses solely on pr. This is primarily because drought alleviation mainly depends on the effective management and allocation of available water resources. In future studies, the framework could be further improved by considering these non-precipitation factors. Another limitation concerns the range of pr increase scenarios considered in our experiments. As shown in Fig. S3, the long-term mean and standard deviation of monthly pr are approximately comparable, indicating that the maximum increase corresponds approximately to one standard deviation. Increases beyond 100 % would therefore represent stronger anomalies that are less frequently encountered and were not considered. Future studies could assess the drought alleviation response under such conditions. It is also essential to recognize that our study is a retrospective analysis based on historical MYDs. This study provides a framework for exploring attenuation efficiency within the early-stage response window of MYD development. However, determining whether a drought event would develop into an MYD at an early stage remains a major challenge (Xu et al., 2021; Gumus, 2023). This is due to the complexity of the factors influencing the development of droughts into MYDs. Furthermore, this study currently focuses solely on meteorological drought. Research on other types of drought, such as agricultural, hydrological, and socio-economic droughts, will also be a key focus in future studies. Future research should evaluate the applicability of our framework to other types of drought. To this end, it is also necessary to further optimize the framework by fully considering additional influencing factors (Tian et al., 2022; Wu et al., 2022b; Meresa et al., 2023).</p>
</sec>
</sec>
<sec id="Ch1.S6" sec-type="conclusions">
  <label>6</label><title>Conclusion</title>
      <p id="d2e7375">This study applied a series of numerical experiments involving hypothetical precipitation gradient increases to investigate the attenuation efficiency for 351 historical MYDs during 1991–2020 across ten river basins in China, based on monthly PDSI calculated from daily meteorological data. Following these experiments, we developed the DAQM, a single-parameter model designed to quantify drought attenuation efficiency through the key coefficient, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M522" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula>, with <inline-formula><mml:math id="M523" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> identified as the timing corresponding to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M524" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>k</mml:mi><mml:mo>max⁡</mml:mo></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. The main conclusions can be summarized as follows:</p>
      <p id="d2e7407">(1) A nonlinear response relationship was identified between DS and hypothetical precipitation forcing applied incrementally along a gradient. Based on this relationship, the DAQM quantified attenuation efficiency and identified <inline-formula><mml:math id="M525" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, and showed strong agreement with both the mode-based and the small perturbation-based estimates, confirming its robustness and applicability for characterizing attenuation efficiency during MYD evolution.</p>
      <p id="d2e7421">(2) Our results revealed the existence of an early-stage response window during MYD evolution, corresponding primarily to <inline-formula><mml:math id="M526" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mo>∼</mml:mo><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Within this window, attenuation efficiency is jointly influenced by the cumulative temporal advantage associated with earlier precipitation input and the higher numerical sensitivity of standardized drought indices under more severe drought conditions. Although <inline-formula><mml:math id="M527" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> remains the dominant <inline-formula><mml:math id="M528" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> in most regions, accounting for 58.79 % of all grids, <inline-formula><mml:math id="M529" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M530" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> are also non-negligible, accounting for 22.11 % and 11.06 %, respectively. These findings do not suggest that later precipitation input is generally more effective than earlier precipitation input. Instead, they indicate that within the early-stage response window, precipitation input during <inline-formula><mml:math id="M531" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M532" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> may still exhibit attenuation efficiencies comparable to, or exceeding, that of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M533" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> under certain conditions. This implies that, during the early stage of MYD evolution, missing <inline-formula><mml:math id="M534" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> does not necessarily mean that the opportunity for relatively high attenuation efficiency has already been lost.</p>
      <p id="d2e7531">(3) DD is a key factor influencing attenuation efficiency within the early-stage response window. Longer DD was associated with a greater likelihood of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M535" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M536" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> emerging as the <inline-formula><mml:math id="M537" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mi mathvariant="normal">optimal</mml:mi></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>, evidenced by <inline-formula><mml:math id="M538" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msup><mml:mi>R</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msup></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> values of 0.526 and 0.578, respectively. When DD exceeds 29 months, the MYD attenuation efficiencies of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M539" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> and <inline-formula><mml:math id="M540" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> become comparable to that of <inline-formula><mml:math id="M541" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>. Compared with the humid river basins in Southern China, the arid and semi-arid northern regions exhibited a higher probability that <inline-formula><mml:math id="M542" display="inline"><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:math></inline-formula> at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M543" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">2</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> or <inline-formula><mml:math id="M544" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">3</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula> would exceed that at <inline-formula><mml:math id="M545" display="inline"><mml:mrow><mml:msub><mml:mi>t</mml:mi><mml:mn mathvariant="normal">1</mml:mn></mml:msub></mml:mrow></mml:math></inline-formula>.</p>
      <p id="d2e7653">Overall, this study identifies and characterizes an early-stage response window during MYD evolution and further clarifies the competing mechanisms controlling attenuation efficiency within this window. With the increasing frequency and severity of MYDs in the future, our findings provide theoretical support and methodological guidance for improving the understanding of how precipitation input timing influences drought alleviation, thereby contributing to the development of more targeted and effective drought alleviation strategies across different regions.</p>
</sec>

      
      </body>
    <back><notes notes-type="codeavailability"><title>Code availability</title>

      <p id="d2e7661">The PDSI series in this study were calculated using the MATLAB PDSI tool of Jacobi et al. (2013), as modified by Ficklin et al. (2015) to incorporate the Penman–Monteith potential evapotranspiration method. The modified MATLAB code was obtained from the publicly available GitHub repository at <uri>https://github.com/dficklin/CAGEO-paper.git</uri> (Ficklin, 2015).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="dataavailability"><title>Data availability</title>

      <p id="d2e7670">The daily meteorological dataset from 756 stations suitable for calculating PDSI during the period of 1961 to 2020 over China is available from the National Meteorological Information Center of the China Meteorological Administration via <uri>http://www.nmic.cn/</uri> (last access: 26 August 2025).</p>
  </notes><app-group>
        <supplementary-material position="anchor"><p id="d2e7676">The supplement related to this article is available online at <inline-supplementary-material xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-6963-2026-supplement" xlink:title="pdf">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-30-6963-2026-supplement</inline-supplementary-material>.</p></supplementary-material>
        </app-group><notes notes-type="authorcontribution"><title>Author contributions</title>

      <p id="d2e7685">YZ: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Validation, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing – review and editing. FS: Conceptualization, Investigation, Methodology, Supervision, Writing – review and editing. WBL: Conceptualization, Investigation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing – review and editing. JZ: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Resources, Supervision, Validation, Writing – review and editing. WLL: Data curation, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Supervision. JL: Data curation, Investigation, Validation, Visualization. WS: Conceptualization, Formal analysis, Methodology. WJL: Conceptualization, Methodology, Project administration. ZS: Data curation, Visualization. PW: Formal analysis, Validation.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="competinginterests"><title>Competing interests</title>

      <p id="d2e7691">The contact author has declared that none of the authors has any competing interests.</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="disclaimer"><title>Disclaimer</title>

      <p id="d2e7697">Publisher's note: Copernicus Publications remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims made in the text, published maps, institutional affiliations, or any other geographical representation in this paper. The authors bear the ultimate responsibility for providing appropriate place names. Views expressed in the text are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the publisher.</p>
  </notes><ack><title>Acknowledgements</title><p id="d2e7703">The authors express their gratitude to the National Natural Science Foundation of China, Hainan Province Science and Technology Special Fund, the Innovative Research Projects for Postgraduates of Hainan Province, and Hainan Provincial Higher Education Research Project for the financial support of this research project.</p></ack><notes notes-type="financialsupport"><title>Financial support</title>

      <p id="d2e7709">This research has been supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China (grant nos. 41901043 and 42261005); Hainan Province Science and Technology Special Fund (grant no. ZDYF2024SHFZ078); the Innovative Research Projects for Postgraduates of Hainan Province (grant no. Qhyb2024-100); and Hainan Provincial Higher Education Research Project (grant no. Hnjg2024-46).</p>
  </notes><notes notes-type="reviewstatement"><title>Review statement</title>

      <p id="d2e7715">This paper was edited by Carlo De Michele and reviewed by three anonymous referees.</p>
  </notes><ref-list>
    <title>References</title>

      <ref id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56 – Crop Evapotranspiration, FAO, Rome, Italy, ISBN 92-5-104219-5, <uri>https://www.fao.org/4/x0490E/x0490e00.htm</uri> (last access: 26 August 2025), 1998.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>Ault, T. R.: On the essentials of drought in a changing climate, Science, 368, 256–260, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz5492" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.aaz5492</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>Berdugo, M., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Soliveres, S., Hernández-Clemente, R., Zhao, Y., Gaitán, J. J., Gross, N., Saiz, H., Maire, V., Lehmann, A., and Rillig, M. C.: Global ecosystem thresholds driven by aridity, Science, 367, 787–790, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay5958" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.aay5958</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>Blauhut, V., Stahl, K., Stagge, J. H., Tallaksen, L. M., De Stefano, L., and Vogt, J.: Estimating drought risk across Europe from reported drought impacts, drought indices, and vulnerability factors, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2779–2800, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2779-2016" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-20-2779-2016</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>Brunner, M. I. and Tallaksen, L. M.: Proneness of European catchments to multiyear streamflow droughts, Water Resour. Res., 55, 8881–8894, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025903" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2019WR025903</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>Büntgen, U., Urban, O., Krusic, P. J., Rybníček, M., Kolář, T., Kyncl, T., Ač, A., Koňasová, E., Čáslavský, J., Esper, J., and Wagner, S.: Recent European drought extremes beyond Common Era background variability, Nat. Geosci., 14, 190–196, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00698-0" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s41561-021-00698-0</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>Cavus, Y. and Aksoy, H.: Critical drought severity/intensity-duration-frequency curves based on precipitation deficit, J. Hydrol., 584, 124312, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124312" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124312</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>Chen, L., Brun, P., Buri, P., Fatichi, S., Gessler, A., McCarthy, M. J., Pellicciotti, F., Stocker, B., and Karger, D. N.: Global increase in the occurrence and impact of multiyear droughts, Science, 387, 278–284, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado4245" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/science.ado4245</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>Dai, A.: Drought under global warming: a review, Wires Clim. Change, 2, 45–65, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.81" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/wcc.81</ext-link>, 2011.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>Dai, A.: Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 52–58, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1633" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/nclimate1633</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>Dai, M., Huang, S., Huang, Q., Leng, G., Guo, Y., Wang, L., Fang, W., Li, P., and Zheng, X.: Assessing agricultural drought risk and its dynamic evolution characteristics, Agric. Water Manage., 231, 106003, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106003" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106003</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>DeChant, C. M. and Moradkhani, H.: Analyzing the sensitivity of drought recovery forecasts to land surface initial conditions, J. Hydrol., 526, 89–100, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.021</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>Easterling, D. R., Wallis, T. W., Lawrimore, J. H., and Heim Jr., R. R.: Effects of temperature and precipitation trends on US drought, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L20709, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031541" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2007GL031541</ext-link>, 2007.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>Feng, X., Wang, Z., Wu, X., Huang, S., Li, J., Lai, C., Zeng, Z., and Lin, G.: Tracking 3D drought events across global river basins: Climatology, spatial footprint, and temporal changes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 52, e2024GL111442, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL111442" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2024GL111442</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>Ficklin, D. L.: CAGEO-paper, GitHub [code], <uri>https://github.com/dficklin/CAGEO-paper</uri> (last access: 26 August 2025), 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>Ficklin, D. L., Letsinger, S. L., Gholizadeh, H., and Maxwell, J. T.: Incorporation of the Penman–Monteith potential evapotranspiration method into a Palmer Drought Severity Index tool, Comput. Geosci., 85, 136–141, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.09.013" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.cageo.2015.09.013</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>Fischer, E. M., Bador, M., Huser, R., Kendon, E. J., Robinson, A., and Sippel, S.: Record-breaking extremes in a warming climate, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 6, 456–470, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-025-00681-y" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s43017-025-00681-y</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>Gu, L., Chen, J., Yin, J., Sullivan, S. C., Wang, H.-M., Guo, S., Zhang, L., and Kim, J.-S.: Projected increases in magnitude and socioeconomic exposure of global droughts in 1.5 and 2 °C warmer climates, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 451–472, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-451-2020" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-24-451-2020</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>Gumus, V.: Evaluating the effect of the SPI and SPEI methods on drought monitoring over Turkey, J. Hydrol., 626, 130386, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130386" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130386</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>Gupta, A. and Karthikeyan, L.: Role of initial conditions and meteorological drought in soil moisture drought propagation: An event-based causal analysis over South Asia, Earth's Future, 12, e2024EF004674, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EF004674" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2024EF004674</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>Haile, G. G., Tang, Q., Li, W., Liu, X., and Zhang, X.: Drought: Progress in broadening its understanding, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.-Water, 7, e1407, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1407" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/wat2.1407</ext-link>, 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>Hao, Z., Singh, V. P., and Xia, Y.: Seasonal drought prediction: Advances, challenges, and future prospects, Rev. Geophys., 56, 108–141, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016RG000549" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016RG000549</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>Huang, S., Wang, L., Wang, H., Huang, Q., Leng, G., Fang, W., and Zhang, Y.: Spatio-temporal characteristics of drought structure across China using an integrated drought index, Agric. Water Manage., 218, 182–192, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.03.053" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agwat.2019.03.053</ext-link>, 2019.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>Jacobi, J., Perrone, D., Duncan, L. L., and Hornberger, G.: A tool for calculating the Palmer drought indices, Water Resour. Res., 49, 6086–6089, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20342" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/wrcr.20342</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>Karl, T. R.: The Sensitivity of the Palmer Drought Severity Index and Palmer's Z-Index to their Calibration Coefficients Including Potential Evapotranspiration, J. Appl. Meteorol., 25, 77–86, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1986)025&lt;0077:TSOTPD&gt;2.0.CO;2" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/1520-0450(1986)025&lt;0077:TSOTPD&gt;2.0.CO;2</ext-link>, 1986.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>Lai, C., Sun, H., Wu, X., Li, J., Wang, Z., Tong, H., and Feng, J.: Water availability may not constrain vegetation growth in Northern Hemisphere, Agric. Water Manage., 291, 108649, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108649" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108649</ext-link>, 2024.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>Lin, H., Yu, Z., Chen, X., Gu, H., Ju, Q., and Shen, T.: Spatial-temporal dynamics of meteorological and soil moisture drought on the Tibetan Plateau: Trend, response, and propagation process, J. Hydrol., 626, 130211, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130211" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130211</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>Liu, Y., Zhu, Y., Ren, L., Singh, V. P., Yang, X., and Yuan, F.: A multiscalar Palmer drought severity index, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 6850–6858, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073871" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017GL073871</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>Livneh, B. and Hoerling, M. P.: The physics of drought in the US central Great Plains, J. Climate, 29, 6783–6804, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0697.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0697.1</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>Luo, L., Apps, D., Arcand, S., Xu, H., Pan, M., and Hoerling, M.: Contribution of temperature and precipitation anomalies to the California drought during 2012–2015, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 3184–3192, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL072027" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2016GL072027</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>Ma, Q., Li, Y., Liu, F., Feng, H., Biswas, A., and Zhang, Q.: SPEI and multi-threshold run theory based drought analysis using multi-source products in China, J. Hydrol., 616, 128737, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128737" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128737</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>Mao, Y., Nijssen, B., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Is climate change implicated in the 2013–2014 California drought? A hydrologic perspective, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 2805–2813, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063456" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GL063456</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>Massari, C., Avanzi, F., Bruno, G., Gabellani, S., Penna, D., and Camici, S.: Evaporation enhancement drives the European water-budget deficit during multi-year droughts, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1527–1543, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1527-2022" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/hess-26-1527-2022</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>McCabe, G. J. and Wolock, D. M.: Variability and trends in global drought, Earth Space Sci., 2, 223–228, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015EA000100" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015EA000100</ext-link>, 2015.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>Meresa, H., Zhang, Y., Tian, J., and Faiz, M. A.: Understanding the role of catchment and climate characteristics in the propagation of meteorological to hydrological drought, J. Hydrol., 617, 128967, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128967" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128967</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>Mishra, A. K. and Singh, V. P.: A review of drought concepts, J. Hydrol., 391, 202–216, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.07.012" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.07.012</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>Moravec, V., Markonis, Y., Rakovec, O., Svoboda, M., Trnka, M., Kumar, R., and Hanel, M.: Europe under multi-year droughts: how severe was the 2014–2018 drought period?, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 034062, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe828" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1088/1748-9326/abe828</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>Mukherjee, S. and Mishra, A. K.: Increase in compound drought and heatwaves in a warming world, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL090617, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090617" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2020GL090617</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>Palagi, E., Coronese, M., Lamperti, F., and Roventini, A.: Climate change and the nonlinear impact of precipitation anomalies on income inequality, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, e2203595119, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2203595119" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.2203595119</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>Palmer, W. C.: Meteorological drought, Research paper no. 45, US Weather Bureau, Washington, DC, 58 pp., <uri>https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/temp-and-precip/drought/docs/palmer.pdf</uri> (last access: 26 August 2025), 1965.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>Pan, M., Yuan, X., and Wood, E. F.: A probabilistic framework for assessing drought recovery, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 3637–3642, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50728" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/grl.50728</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>Shi, H., Tian, H., Lange, S., Yang, J., Pan, S., Fu, B., and Reyer, C. P.: Terrestrial biodiversity threatened by increasing global aridity velocity under high-level warming, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 118, e2015552118, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2015552118" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.2015552118</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>Smith, A. B.: 2010–2019: A landmark decade of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, <uri>https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2010-2019-landmark-decade-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate</uri> (last access: 26 August 2025), 2020.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>Stevenson, S., Coats, S., Touma, D., Cole, J., Lehner, F., Fasullo, J., and Otto-Bliesner, B.: Twenty-first century hydroclimate: A continually changing baseline, with more frequent extremes, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, e2108124119, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108124119" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1073/pnas.2108124119</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>Tian, Q., Lu, J., and Chen, X.: A novel comprehensive agricultural drought index reflecting time lag of soil moisture to meteorology: A case study in the Yangtze River basin, China, Catena, 209, 105804, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105804" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.catena.2021.105804</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>Ullah, I., Ma, X., Asfaw, T. G., Yin, J., Iyakaremye, V., Saleem, F., Xing, Y., Azam, K., and Syed, S.: Projected changes in increased drought risks over South Asia under a warmer climate, Earth's Future, 10, e2022EF002830, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF002830" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2022EF002830</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>Van Dijk, A. I., Beck, H. E., Crosbie, R. S., De Jeu, R. A., Liu, Y. Y., Podger, G. M., Timbal, B., and Viney, N. R.: The Millennium Drought in southeast Australia (2001–2009): Natural and human causes and implications for water resources, ecosystems, economy, and society, Water Resour. Res., 49, 1040–1057, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20123" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/wrcr.20123</ext-link>, 2013.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>van Mourik, J., Ruijsch, D., van der Wiel, K., Hazeleger, W., and Wanders, N.: Regional drivers and characteristics of multi-year droughts, Weather Clim. Extremes, 48, 100748, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2025.100748" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.wace.2025.100748</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., and López-Moreno, J. I.: A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index, J. Climate, 23, 1696–1718, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1</ext-link>, 2010.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Domínguez-Castro, F., Beguería, S., El Kenawy, A., Gimeno-Sotelo, L., Franquesa, M., Azorin-Molina, C., Andres-Martin, M., and Halifa-Marín, A.: Atmospheric drought indices in future projections, Nat. Water., 3, 374–387, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-025-00416-9" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1038/s44221-025-00416-9</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>Wang, C., Chen, J., Lee, S. C., Xiong, L., Su, T., Lin, Q., and Xu, C. Y.: Response and recovery times of vegetation productivity under drought stress: Dominant factors and relationships, J. Hydrol., 655, 132945, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.132945" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.132945</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>Wu, J., Chen, X., Yao, H., Liu, Z., and Zhang, D.: Hydrological drought instantaneous propagation speed based on the variable motion relationship of speed-time process, Water Resour. Res., 54, 9549–9565, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023120" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2018WR023120</ext-link>, 2018.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>Wu, J., Yao, H., Chen, X., Wang, G., Bai, X., and Zhang, D.: A framework for assessing compound drought events from a drought propagation perspective, J. Hydrol., 604, 127228, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127228" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127228</ext-link>, 2022a.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>Wu, W., Zhang, J., Sun, Z., Yu, J., Liu, W., Yu, R., and Wang, P.: Attribution analysis of land degradation in Hainan Island based on geographical detector, Ecol. Ind., 141, 109119, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109119" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109119</ext-link>, 2022b.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>Xu, L., Chen, N., Yang, C., Zhang, C., and Yu, H.: A parametric multivariate drought index for drought monitoring and assessment under climate change, Agric. For. Meteorol., 310, 108657, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108657" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108657</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>Xu, Y., Zhu, X., Cheng, X., Gun, Z., Lin, J., Zhao, J., Yao, L., and Zhou, C.: Drought assessment of China in 2002–2017 based on a comprehensive drought index, Agric. For. Meteorol., 319, 108922, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108922" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108922</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>Yang, L., Zhao, G., Tian, P., Mu, X., Tian, X., Feng, J., and Bai, Y.: Runoff changes in the major river basins of China and their responses to potential driving forces, J. Hydrol., 607, 127536, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127536" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127536</ext-link>, 2022.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>Yang, X., Wu, F., Yuan, S., Ren, L., Sheffield, J., Fang, X., Jiang, S., and Liu, Y.: Quantifying the impact of human activities on hydrological drought and drought propagation in China using the PCR-GLOBWB v2. 0 model, Water Resour. Res., 60, e2023WR035443, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2023WR035443" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2023WR035443</ext-link>, 2024. </mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>Yang, Y., McVicar, T. R., Donohue, R. J., Zhang, Y., Roderick, M. L., Chiew, F. H., Zhang, L., and Zhang, J.: Lags in hydrologic recovery following an extreme drought: Assessing the roles of climate and catchment characteristics, Water Resour. Res., 53, 4821–4837, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020683" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2017WR020683</ext-link>, 2017.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>Yevjevich, V. M.: An objective approach to definitions and investigations of continental hydrologic droughts, Hydro. Pap., Colorado State University, no. 23, 25 pp., <uri>http://hdl.handle.net/10217/61303</uri> (last access: 26 August 2025), 1967.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, J., Sun, F., Xu, J., Chen, Y., Sang, Y. F., and Liu, C.: Dependence of trends in and sensitivity of drought over China (1961–2013) on potential evaporation model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 206–213, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067473" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1002/2015GL067473</ext-link>, 2016.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, Q., Miao, C., Su, J., Gou, J., Hu, J., Zhao, X., and Xu, Y.: A new high-resolution multi-drought-index dataset for mainland China, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 837–853, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-837-2025" ext-link-type="DOI">10.5194/essd-17-837-2025</ext-link>, 2025.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>Zhang, W., Furtado, K., Wu, P., Zhou, T., Chadwick, R., Marzin, C., Rostron, J., and Sexton, D.: Increasing precipitation variability on daily-to-multiyear time scales in a warmer world, Sci. Adv., 7, eabf8021, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf8021" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1126/sciadv.abf8021</ext-link>, 2021.</mixed-citation></ref>
      <ref id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>Zhou, Z., Zhang, L., Chen, J., She, D., Wang, G., Zhang, Q., Xia, J., and Zhang, Y.: Projecting global drought risk under various SSP-RCP scenarios, Earth's Future, 11, e2022EF003420, <ext-link xlink:href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003420" ext-link-type="DOI">10.1029/2022EF003420</ext-link>, 2023.</mixed-citation></ref>

  </ref-list></back>
    <!--<article-title-html>Is earlier always better? A comparative assessment of an early-stage response window for rainfall timing in multiyear drought alleviation in China</article-title-html>
<abstract-html/>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib1"><label>1</label><mixed-citation>
      
Allen, R. G., Pereira, L. S., Raes, D., and Smith, M.: FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper No. 56 – Crop Evapotranspiration, FAO, Rome, Italy, ISBN 92-5-104219-5, <a href="https://www.fao.org/4/x0490E/x0490e00.htm" target="_blank"/> (last access: 26 August 2025), 1998.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib2"><label>2</label><mixed-citation>
      
Ault, T. R.: On the essentials of drought in a changing climate, Science, 368, 256–260, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz5492" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aaz5492</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib3"><label>3</label><mixed-citation>
      
Berdugo, M., Delgado-Baquerizo, M., Soliveres, S., Hernández-Clemente, R., Zhao, Y., Gaitán, J. J., Gross, N., Saiz, H., Maire, V., Lehmann, A., and Rillig, M. C.: Global ecosystem thresholds driven by aridity, Science, 367, 787–790, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay5958" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.aay5958</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib4"><label>4</label><mixed-citation>
      
Blauhut, V., Stahl, K., Stagge, J. H., Tallaksen, L. M., De Stefano, L., and Vogt, J.: Estimating drought risk across Europe from reported drought impacts, drought indices, and vulnerability factors, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 20, 2779–2800, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2779-2016" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-20-2779-2016</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib5"><label>5</label><mixed-citation>
      
Brunner, M. I. and Tallaksen, L. M.: Proneness of European catchments to multiyear streamflow droughts, Water Resour. Res., 55, 8881–8894, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025903" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2019WR025903</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib6"><label>6</label><mixed-citation>
      
Büntgen, U., Urban, O., Krusic, P. J., Rybníček, M., Kolář, T., Kyncl, T., Ač, A., Koňasová, E., Čáslavský, J., Esper, J., and Wagner, S.: Recent European drought extremes beyond Common Era background variability, Nat. Geosci., 14, 190–196, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00698-0" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s41561-021-00698-0</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib7"><label>7</label><mixed-citation>
      
Cavus, Y. and Aksoy, H.: Critical drought severity/intensity-duration-frequency curves based on precipitation deficit, J. Hydrol., 584, 124312, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124312" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2019.124312</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib8"><label>8</label><mixed-citation>
      
Chen, L., Brun, P., Buri, P., Fatichi, S., Gessler, A., McCarthy, M. J., Pellicciotti, F., Stocker, B., and Karger, D. N.: Global increase in the occurrence and impact of multiyear droughts, Science, 387, 278–284, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado4245" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/science.ado4245</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib9"><label>9</label><mixed-citation>
      
Dai, A.: Drought under global warming: a review, Wires Clim. Change, 2, 45–65, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.81" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/wcc.81</a>, 2011.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib10"><label>10</label><mixed-citation>
      
Dai, A.: Increasing drought under global warming in observations and models, Nat. Clim. Change, 3, 52–58, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1633" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/nclimate1633</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib11"><label>11</label><mixed-citation>
      
Dai, M., Huang, S., Huang, Q., Leng, G., Guo, Y., Wang, L., Fang, W., Li, P., and Zheng, X.: Assessing agricultural drought risk and its dynamic evolution characteristics, Agric. Water Manage., 231, 106003, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106003" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2020.106003</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib12"><label>12</label><mixed-citation>
      
DeChant, C. M. and Moradkhani, H.: Analyzing the sensitivity of drought recovery forecasts to land surface initial conditions, J. Hydrol., 526, 89–100, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2014.10.021</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib13"><label>13</label><mixed-citation>
      
Easterling, D. R., Wallis, T. W., Lawrimore, J. H., and Heim Jr., R. R.: Effects of temperature and precipitation trends on US drought, Geophys. Res. Lett., 34, L20709, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031541" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GL031541</a>, 2007.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib14"><label>14</label><mixed-citation>
      
Feng, X., Wang, Z., Wu, X., Huang, S., Li, J., Lai, C., Zeng, Z., and Lin, G.: Tracking 3D drought events across global river basins: Climatology, spatial footprint, and temporal changes, Geophys. Res. Lett., 52, e2024GL111442, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL111442" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2024GL111442</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib15"><label>15</label><mixed-citation>
      
Ficklin, D. L.: CAGEO-paper, GitHub [code], <a href="https://github.com/dficklin/CAGEO-paper" target="_blank"/> (last access: 26 August 2025), 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib16"><label>16</label><mixed-citation>
      
Ficklin, D. L., Letsinger, S. L., Gholizadeh, H., and Maxwell, J. T.: Incorporation of the Penman–Monteith potential evapotranspiration method into a Palmer Drought Severity Index tool, Comput. Geosci., 85, 136–141, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.09.013" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cageo.2015.09.013</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib17"><label>17</label><mixed-citation>
      
Fischer, E. M., Bador, M., Huser, R., Kendon, E. J., Robinson, A., and Sippel, S.: Record-breaking extremes in a warming climate, Nat. Rev. Earth Environ., 6, 456–470, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-025-00681-y" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s43017-025-00681-y</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib18"><label>18</label><mixed-citation>
      
Gu, L., Chen, J., Yin, J., Sullivan, S. C., Wang, H.-M., Guo, S., Zhang, L., and Kim, J.-S.: Projected increases in magnitude and socioeconomic exposure of global droughts in 1.5 and 2&thinsp;°C warmer climates, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 24, 451–472, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-451-2020" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-24-451-2020</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib19"><label>19</label><mixed-citation>
      
Gumus, V.: Evaluating the effect of the SPI and SPEI methods on drought monitoring over Turkey, J. Hydrol., 626, 130386, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130386" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130386</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib20"><label>20</label><mixed-citation>
      
Gupta, A. and Karthikeyan, L.: Role of initial conditions and meteorological drought in soil moisture drought propagation: An event-based causal analysis over South Asia, Earth's Future, 12, e2024EF004674, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EF004674" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2024EF004674</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib21"><label>21</label><mixed-citation>
      
Haile, G. G., Tang, Q., Li, W., Liu, X., and Zhang, X.: Drought: Progress in broadening its understanding, Wiley Interdiscip. Rev.-Water, 7, e1407, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1407" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/wat2.1407</a>, 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib22"><label>22</label><mixed-citation>
      
Hao, Z., Singh, V. P., and Xia, Y.: Seasonal drought prediction: Advances, challenges, and future prospects, Rev. Geophys., 56, 108–141, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016RG000549" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016RG000549</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib23"><label>23</label><mixed-citation>
      
Huang, S., Wang, L., Wang, H., Huang, Q., Leng, G., Fang, W., and Zhang, Y.: Spatio-temporal characteristics of drought structure across China using an integrated drought index, Agric. Water Manage., 218, 182–192, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.03.053" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2019.03.053</a>, 2019.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib24"><label>24</label><mixed-citation>
      
Jacobi, J., Perrone, D., Duncan, L. L., and Hornberger, G.: A tool for calculating the Palmer drought indices, Water Resour. Res., 49, 6086–6089, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20342" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20342</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib25"><label>25</label><mixed-citation>
      
Karl, T. R.: The Sensitivity of the Palmer Drought Severity Index and Palmer's Z-Index to their Calibration Coefficients Including Potential Evapotranspiration, J. Appl. Meteorol., 25, 77–86, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1986)025&lt;0077:TSOTPD&gt;2.0.CO;2" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/1520-0450(1986)025&lt;0077:TSOTPD&gt;2.0.CO;2</a>, 1986.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib26"><label>26</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lai, C., Sun, H., Wu, X., Li, J., Wang, Z., Tong, H., and Feng, J.: Water availability may not constrain vegetation growth in Northern Hemisphere, Agric. Water Manage., 291, 108649, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108649" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2023.108649</a>, 2024.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib27"><label>27</label><mixed-citation>
      
Lin, H., Yu, Z., Chen, X., Gu, H., Ju, Q., and Shen, T.: Spatial-temporal dynamics of meteorological and soil moisture drought on the Tibetan Plateau: Trend, response, and propagation process, J. Hydrol., 626, 130211, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130211" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2023.130211</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib28"><label>28</label><mixed-citation>
      
Liu, Y., Zhu, Y., Ren, L., Singh, V. P., Yang, X., and Yuan, F.: A multiscalar Palmer drought severity index, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 6850–6858, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073871" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017GL073871</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib29"><label>29</label><mixed-citation>
      
Livneh, B. and Hoerling, M. P.: The physics of drought in the US central Great Plains, J. Climate, 29, 6783–6804, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0697.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/JCLI-D-15-0697.1</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib30"><label>30</label><mixed-citation>
      
Luo, L., Apps, D., Arcand, S., Xu, H., Pan, M., and Hoerling, M.: Contribution of temperature and precipitation anomalies to the California drought during 2012–2015, Geophys. Res. Lett., 44, 3184–3192, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL072027" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2016GL072027</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib31"><label>31</label><mixed-citation>
      
Ma, Q., Li, Y., Liu, F., Feng, H., Biswas, A., and Zhang, Q.: SPEI and multi-threshold run theory based drought analysis using multi-source products in China, J. Hydrol., 616, 128737, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128737" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128737</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib32"><label>32</label><mixed-citation>
      
Mao, Y., Nijssen, B., and Lettenmaier, D. P.: Is climate change implicated in the 2013–2014 California drought? A hydrologic perspective, Geophys. Res. Lett., 42, 2805–2813, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063456" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL063456</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib33"><label>33</label><mixed-citation>
      
Massari, C., Avanzi, F., Bruno, G., Gabellani, S., Penna, D., and Camici, S.: Evaporation enhancement drives the European water-budget deficit during multi-year droughts, Hydrol. Earth Syst. Sci., 26, 1527–1543, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1527-2022" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-26-1527-2022</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib34"><label>34</label><mixed-citation>
      
McCabe, G. J. and Wolock, D. M.: Variability and trends in global drought, Earth Space Sci., 2, 223–228, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015EA000100" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015EA000100</a>, 2015.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib35"><label>35</label><mixed-citation>
      
Meresa, H., Zhang, Y., Tian, J., and Faiz, M. A.: Understanding the role of catchment and climate characteristics in the propagation of meteorological to hydrological drought, J. Hydrol., 617, 128967, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128967" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.128967</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib36"><label>36</label><mixed-citation>
      
Mishra, A. K. and Singh, V. P.: A review of drought concepts, J. Hydrol., 391, 202–216, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.07.012" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2010.07.012</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib37"><label>37</label><mixed-citation>
      
Moravec, V., Markonis, Y., Rakovec, O., Svoboda, M., Trnka, M., Kumar, R., and Hanel, M.: Europe under multi-year droughts: how severe was the 2014–2018 drought period?, Environ. Res. Lett., 16, 034062, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe828" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/abe828</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib38"><label>38</label><mixed-citation>
      
Mukherjee, S. and Mishra, A. K.: Increase in compound drought and heatwaves in a warming world, Geophys. Res. Lett., 48, e2020GL090617, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090617" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2020GL090617</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib39"><label>39</label><mixed-citation>
      
Palagi, E., Coronese, M., Lamperti, F., and Roventini, A.: Climate change and the nonlinear impact of precipitation anomalies on income inequality, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, e2203595119, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2203595119" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2203595119</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib40"><label>40</label><mixed-citation>
      
Palmer, W. C.: Meteorological drought, Research paper no. 45, US Weather Bureau, Washington, DC, 58 pp., <a href="https://www.ncei.noaa.gov/monitoring-content/temp-and-precip/drought/docs/palmer.pdf" target="_blank"/> (last access: 26 August 2025), 1965.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib41"><label>41</label><mixed-citation>
      
Pan, M., Yuan, X., and Wood, E. F.: A probabilistic framework for assessing drought recovery, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 3637–3642, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50728" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/grl.50728</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib42"><label>42</label><mixed-citation>
      
Shi, H., Tian, H., Lange, S., Yang, J., Pan, S., Fu, B., and Reyer, C. P.: Terrestrial biodiversity threatened by increasing global aridity velocity under high-level warming, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 118, e2015552118, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2015552118" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2015552118</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib43"><label>43</label><mixed-citation>
      
Smith, A. B.: 2010–2019: A landmark decade of U.S. billion-dollar weather and climate disasters, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, <a href="https://www.climate.gov/news-features/blogs/beyond-data/2010-2019-landmark-decade-us-billion-dollar-weather-and-climate" target="_blank"/> (last access: 26 August 2025), 2020.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib44"><label>44</label><mixed-citation>
      
Stevenson, S., Coats, S., Touma, D., Cole, J., Lehner, F., Fasullo, J., and Otto-Bliesner, B.: Twenty-first century hydroclimate: A continually changing baseline, with more frequent extremes, P. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA, 119, e2108124119, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108124119" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2108124119</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib45"><label>45</label><mixed-citation>
      
Tian, Q., Lu, J., and Chen, X.: A novel comprehensive agricultural drought index reflecting time lag of soil moisture to meteorology: A case study in the Yangtze River basin, China, Catena, 209, 105804, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105804" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.catena.2021.105804</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib46"><label>46</label><mixed-citation>
      
Ullah, I., Ma, X., Asfaw, T. G., Yin, J., Iyakaremye, V., Saleem, F., Xing, Y., Azam, K., and Syed, S.: Projected changes in increased drought risks over South Asia under a warmer climate, Earth's Future, 10, e2022EF002830, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF002830" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF002830</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib47"><label>47</label><mixed-citation>
      
Van Dijk, A. I., Beck, H. E., Crosbie, R. S., De Jeu, R. A., Liu, Y. Y., Podger, G. M., Timbal, B., and Viney, N. R.: The Millennium Drought in southeast Australia (2001–2009): Natural and human causes and implications for water resources, ecosystems, economy, and society, Water Resour. Res., 49, 1040–1057, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20123" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/wrcr.20123</a>, 2013.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib48"><label>48</label><mixed-citation>
      
van Mourik, J., Ruijsch, D., van der Wiel, K., Hazeleger, W., and Wanders, N.: Regional drivers and characteristics of multi-year droughts, Weather Clim. Extremes, 48, 100748, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2025.100748" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.wace.2025.100748</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib49"><label>49</label><mixed-citation>
      
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Beguería, S., and López-Moreno, J. I.: A multiscalar drought index sensitive to global warming: the standardized precipitation evapotranspiration index, J. Climate, 23, 1696–1718, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1175/2009JCLI2909.1</a>, 2010.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib50"><label>50</label><mixed-citation>
      
Vicente-Serrano, S. M., Domínguez-Castro, F., Beguería, S., El Kenawy, A., Gimeno-Sotelo, L., Franquesa, M., Azorin-Molina, C., Andres-Martin, M., and Halifa-Marín, A.: Atmospheric drought indices in future projections, Nat. Water., 3, 374–387, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-025-00416-9" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1038/s44221-025-00416-9</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib51"><label>51</label><mixed-citation>
      
Wang, C., Chen, J., Lee, S. C., Xiong, L., Su, T., Lin, Q., and Xu, C. Y.: Response and recovery times of vegetation productivity under drought stress: Dominant factors and relationships, J. Hydrol., 655, 132945, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.132945" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2025.132945</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib52"><label>52</label><mixed-citation>
      
Wu, J., Chen, X., Yao, H., Liu, Z., and Zhang, D.: Hydrological drought instantaneous propagation speed based on the variable motion relationship of speed-time process, Water Resour. Res., 54, 9549–9565, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023120" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2018WR023120</a>, 2018.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib53"><label>53</label><mixed-citation>
      
Wu, J., Yao, H., Chen, X., Wang, G., Bai, X., and Zhang, D.: A framework for assessing compound drought events from a drought propagation perspective, J. Hydrol., 604, 127228, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127228" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2021.127228</a>, 2022a.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib54"><label>54</label><mixed-citation>
      
Wu, W., Zhang, J., Sun, Z., Yu, J., Liu, W., Yu, R., and Wang, P.: Attribution analysis of land degradation in Hainan Island based on geographical detector, Ecol. Ind., 141, 109119, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109119" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ecolind.2022.109119</a>, 2022b.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib55"><label>55</label><mixed-citation>
      
Xu, L., Chen, N., Yang, C., Zhang, C., and Yu, H.: A parametric multivariate drought index for drought monitoring and assessment under climate change, Agric. For. Meteorol., 310, 108657, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108657" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2021.108657</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib56"><label>56</label><mixed-citation>
      
Xu, Y., Zhu, X., Cheng, X., Gun, Z., Lin, J., Zhao, J., Yao, L., and Zhou, C.: Drought assessment of China in 2002–2017 based on a comprehensive drought index, Agric. For. Meteorol., 319, 108922, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108922" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agrformet.2022.108922</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib57"><label>57</label><mixed-citation>
      
Yang, L., Zhao, G., Tian, P., Mu, X., Tian, X., Feng, J., and Bai, Y.: Runoff changes in the major river basins of China and their responses to potential driving forces, J. Hydrol., 607, 127536, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127536" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jhydrol.2022.127536</a>, 2022.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib58"><label>58</label><mixed-citation>
      
Yang, X., Wu, F., Yuan, S., Ren, L., Sheffield, J., Fang, X., Jiang, S., and Liu, Y.: Quantifying the impact of human activities on hydrological drought and drought propagation in China using the PCR-GLOBWB v2. 0 model, Water Resour. Res., 60, e2023WR035443, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2023WR035443" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2023WR035443</a>, 2024.


    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib59"><label>59</label><mixed-citation>
      
Yang, Y., McVicar, T. R., Donohue, R. J., Zhang, Y., Roderick, M. L., Chiew, F. H., Zhang, L., and Zhang, J.: Lags in hydrologic recovery following an extreme drought: Assessing the roles of climate and catchment characteristics, Water Resour. Res., 53, 4821–4837, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020683" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2017WR020683</a>, 2017.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib60"><label>60</label><mixed-citation>
      
Yevjevich, V. M.: An objective approach to definitions and investigations of continental hydrologic droughts, Hydro. Pap., Colorado State University, no. 23, 25 pp., <a href="http://hdl.handle.net/10217/61303" target="_blank"/> (last access: 26 August 2025), 1967.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib61"><label>61</label><mixed-citation>
      
Zhang, J., Sun, F., Xu, J., Chen, Y., Sang, Y. F., and Liu, C.: Dependence of trends in and sensitivity of drought over China (1961–2013) on potential evaporation model, Geophys. Res. Lett., 43, 206–213, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067473" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1002/2015GL067473</a>, 2016.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib62"><label>62</label><mixed-citation>
      
Zhang, Q., Miao, C., Su, J., Gou, J., Hu, J., Zhao, X., and Xu, Y.: A new high-resolution multi-drought-index dataset for mainland China, Earth Syst. Sci. Data, 17, 837–853, <a href="https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-837-2025" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.5194/essd-17-837-2025</a>, 2025.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib63"><label>63</label><mixed-citation>
      
Zhang, W., Furtado, K., Wu, P., Zhou, T., Chadwick, R., Marzin, C., Rostron, J., and Sexton, D.: Increasing precipitation variability on daily-to-multiyear time scales in a warmer world, Sci. Adv., 7, eabf8021, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf8021" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abf8021</a>, 2021.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>
<ref-html id="bib1.bib64"><label>64</label><mixed-citation>
      
Zhou, Z., Zhang, L., Chen, J., She, D., Wang, G., Zhang, Q., Xia, J., and Zhang, Y.: Projecting global drought risk under various SSP-RCP scenarios, Earth's Future, 11, e2022EF003420, <a href="https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003420" target="_blank">https://doi.org/10.1029/2022EF003420</a>, 2023.

    </mixed-citation></ref-html>--></article>
