Evaluating the impacts of climate change and land-use change on future droughts in northeast Thailand.

The impacts of climate change (CC) on droughts are well documented, but the effects of land-use change (LUC) are poorly understood. This study compares the projected individual and combined impacts of these stressors on future droughts (2021-2050), with respect to baseline (1981-2010) in one of the major tributaries of the Mekong River. LUC impacts on hydrological droughts are minimal compared to CC, with the latter expected to shorten the recurrence interval of a 20-year return period event to every 14 years. Both CC and LUC have significant impacts on agricultural droughts with heightened sensitivity. 'Once in a Decade' agricultural droughts will be 40% (35%) longer and 88% (87%) more severe under the CC (LUC) scenario. Under both stressors, the events occurring every 20 years will be twice as frequent. Results highlight the intensification of future droughts and the urgency for actions to mitigate/adapt to climate change and manage land use. Future policy shall holistically address agricultural water management, sustainable land use management, and crop management to cope with future droughts. We recommend developing resilient agricultural practices, enhanced water resource management strategies, and incorporating drought risk into land-use planning to mitigate the compounded impacts of CC and LUC.

Using multi criteria decision analysis in a geographical information system framework to assess drought risk.

In this study we use the Mun river basin to demonstrate how a Multi Criteria Decision Analysis - Geographical Information Systems (MCDA-GIS) methodology can be used to assess drought risk. This paper not only provides a step forward in considering other elements such as land use change, climate within drought risk but also splits annual risk across three seasons (wet, cool and hot), previously not done. We also investigate how land use change, in the form of a/reforestation and changing crop varieties could potentially mitigate future risk. MCDA rankings from experts found that climatic factors such as rainfall, evapotranspiration and maximum temperature were the most significant. By splitting up the seasons we have been able to observe the temporal and spatial changes in drought risk at an increased detail, an important step in mitigating water security issue in the future. Results for cool months found an increased risk in the north and east (Surin, Si Sa Ket and Rio Et). With hot months finding increased risk in the east (Surin and Si Sa Ket especially) and west in Nakon Ratchasima. Whereas the wet season risk was greatest in the West (Nakon Ratchima, Khon Kean and Mara Sarakham). Differences in future land use scenarios compared to 2017 found that if current trends continued (BAU), the areas at risk from drought will increase. However, by changing land use in the form of a/reforestation (COB) or changing crop types (PRO), drought risk will decrease. Thus, the MCDA-GIS methodology serves as a great starting point, providing a high flexibility in data, meaning the methodology can readily applied to other case studies across the world.

Analysis of potential nature-based solutions for the Mun River Basin, Thailand.

Despite the growth in research and applications of nature-based solutions (NBS) within the literature, there are limited applications in South East Asia, moreover studies which quantitatively assess the impacts of NBS could have on hazard reduction are scarce. This paper addresses this gap by developing and validating MCDA-GIS analysis to map how potential nature strategies could mitigate flood hazard if applied within the Mun River Basin, Thailand. Through a literature review, the top three solutions for flood and drought hazards were found: wetlands, re/afforestation, and changing crop types. These strategies were reviewed and validated with a MCDA-GIS methodology, through land use change (LUC) maps to depict different future scenarios. The results found that flood hazard did decrease when NBS were implemented in the catchment, especially for A/Reforestation, and to a greater extent when a combination of NBS were applied. This article provides specific insights into the current gaps of NBS publications, specifically considering the case of the Mun River Basin, Thailand.

Vitamin D supplementation in bipolar depression: A double blind placebo controlled trial.

OBJECTIVE: Bipolar depression is difficult to treat. Vitamin D supplementation is well tolerated and may improve mood via its neurotransmitter synthesis regulation, nerve growth factor enhancement and antioxidant properties. Vitamin D adjunct reduces unipolar depression, but has not been tried in bipolar depression. METHODS: 18-70yos with DSM IV bipolar depression and Vitamin D deficiency (<30 ng/ml) were randomized in a controlled double blind trial of 5000IU Vitamin D3 po qday supplementation versus placebo for twelve weeks. Change in Montgomery-Åsberg Depression Rating Scale (MADRS), Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale (HAM-A), Young Mania Rating Scale (YMRS), medication, and tolerance were assessed q2weeks. RESULTS: 16 VitD vs 17 placebo subjects did not differ in baseline characteristics (mean = 44 yo, SD = 13), VitD level (19.2 ± 65.8  g/ml vs 19.3 ± 5.5 ng/ml respectively) or mood ratings (MADRS 21.3 ± 6.4 vs 22.8 ± 6.9 respectively). At 12wks, the placebo group VitD levels remained unchanged, while the VitD group levels increased to 28 ng/ml. MADRS score decreased significantly in both placebo (mean = 6.42 (95% CI [2.28 to 10.56]) and VitD groups (mean = 9.54 (95% CI[3.51 to 15.56]) (p = 0.031), but there were no differences between treatment groups (time by treatment interaction estimate: 0.29, t(23) = 0.14, p = 0.89); VitD and placebo groups had similar reductions in YMRS and HAM-A. Vitamin D3 was well tolerated. CONCLUSIONS: In this small study, despite a greater rise in Vitamin D levels in the VitD supplementation group, there was no significant difference reduction in depressive symptoms. However both groups' VitD levels remained deficient. Vitamin D3 supplementation vs placebo did not improve reduction in mood elevation or anxiety symptoms.