Open Agriculture 2022; 7: 504–519

Research Article

Daniel Markos*, Girma Mammo, Walelign Worku

Principal component and cluster analyses based

characterization of maize fields in southern
central Rift Valley of Ethiopia
https://doi.org/10.1515/opag-2022-0105 the formation of clusters are reduced from 12 to 5 (Tmean,
received March 15, 2022; accepted May 2, 2022 latitude, longitude, altitude, and RFmean) and 43 stations
Abstract: Soil management decisions should consider are grouped into 4 clusters (Shamana, Bilate, Hawassa,
physical potential of the environment, weather varia- and Dilla) which are geographically and ecologically distinct.
bility, and requirements of crops to maximize production These clusters require different sets of agro-meteorology
to the potential limits. This calls for characterization of advisory, maize management, and input delivery strategies.
environments using selected input variables. Such studies Keywords: cluster, eigen vector, homogenous zone, prin-
are scanty in southern central Rift Valley of Ethiopia due to cipal component, statistical variable
which the area is considered homogeneous and identical
for agricultural planning, extension, and input delivery
programs. Thus, to investigate the scenario, we employed
principal component, clustering, and GIS analysis on geo- Nomenclature
referenced physiographic and climatic attributes, and their
statistical variables obtained from 43 stations with the ANOVA analysis of variance
objective of identifying homogeneous management units ArcGIS geospatial software to view, edit, manage,
with similar physiography, weather pattern, and produc- and analyze geographic data
tion scheduling. The analysis of principal components CV coefficient of variability
(PCs) indicated that three PCs explained 74.7% of variance Eigen value coefficients of linear transformation that
in October, November, December, and January (ONDJ), measure the magnitude of variability
four PCs explained 79.3% of variance in February, March, Eigen vector directions along which linear transfor-
April, and May, and four PCs explained 80.5% of variance mation acts, stretching or compressing
in June, July, August, and September (JJAS). Cluster-I was input vectors
characterized by high altitude and low temperature in ONDJ FMAM February, March, April, and May
season. Cluster-II was characterized by low altitude and GIS geographic information SYSTEMS
high temperature across most seasons. Cluster-III was inter- ITCZ inter-tropical convergence zone
mediate in altitude, temperature, and rainfall. Cluster-IV JJAS June, July, August, and September
was characterized by high rainfall in JJAS. In all the clusters, L-moments a sequence of statistics used to sum-
PC1 was the mean rainfall component with strong association marize the shape of a probability
with altitude and longitude, while PC2 was the temperature distribution
component. PC3 is the statistical component with strong ONDJ October, November, December, and
influence from mean rainfall. Thus the factors that determine January
PC principal components obtained from PCA
PCA principal component analysis
 RFmax maximum monthly total rainfall
* Corresponding author: Daniel Markos, Hawassa University, RFmean mean monthly total rainfall
P.O. Box-05, Hawassa, Ethiopia, RFmin minimum monthly total rainfall
e-mail: studentdaniel77@gmail.com
STDEV standard deviation
Girma Mammo: Ethiopian Institute of Agricultural Research,
P.O. Box-2003, Addis Ababa, Ethiopia
Tmax maximum monthly temperature
Walelign Worku: Hawassa University, P.O. Box-05, Hawassa, Tmean mean monthly temperature
Ethiopia Tmin minimum monthly temperature

Open Access. © 2022 Daniel Markos et al., published by De Gruyter. This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0
International License.

1 Introduction
Maize is a strategic crop for the achievement of food
security in Ethiopia, which grows in varying eco-climates
ranging from moisture stress areas to high rainfall areas
and from lowlands to the highlands [1]. The crop requires
over 500 mm of precipitation per season [2]; however, this
much rainfall was not available in the growing season in
rain-fed farming systems. This makes the crop prone to
shocks related to climate variability and change in rain-
fed farming conditions. In dry sub-humid and semiarid
areas, the productivity of maize ranged between 1 and
300 MT/ha [3,4]. When rainfall was sufficient, average of
3–4 tons per hectare bumper harvest was recorded leading
to 20% and over increase in the maize yield whereas in
years with 10% decrement in rainfall maize production
was reduced by about 23% and more [5].
Rainfall is the single most important source of water
for maize production in south central production zones of
Ethiopia [6], whose variation could be explained by
global and local factors. March to May surface temperature
of the equatorial Pacific, mid-latitude northwest Pacific,
Indian, Red sea, and Atlantic oceans exert an influence
on the June, July, August and September (JJAS) rains with
strong correlation coefficient as prominent global factor
[7–10]. The rains during JJAS are due to ElNino Southern
Oscillation (ENSO) that causes north ward advance of
inter-tropical convergence zone (ITCZ) and easterly jets
producing rains in the majority regions of the country
[8]. Moreover, November to December sea surface tempera-
ture of northern Atlantic and Indian Oceans showed strong
correlation coefficient with February, March, April, and
May (FMAM) rains for the study area [7,11,12]. The rains
during FMAM are due to ENSO that causes northward
advance of the ITCZ and westerly jets which produces rains
in the east, southeast, and southern parts [7,8]. As wet air
rises, expands, and cools (due to mountains and hills), it
will reach its dew point where condensation occurs and
forms a cloud. When condensed water particles merge
and become large, it will fall as rain on windward side [11].
The rain shadow on leeward side becomes evident causing
variation in timing, amount, and distribution of rainfall
[11]. Although Sea surface temperature predictions are
similar, the areas represent varying topography, climatic
pattern, and potential for maize production [13,14]. More-
over topographic variability associated with altitudinal
and longitudinal differences show spatial rainfall com-
plexities at local (smaller) scale [15,16].
One way of learning and understanding the variability
and complexity posed by terrain with orographic effect
involves clustering and mapping [17,18]. Area clustering
PCA  505
is important to reduce the extensive data requirements for
water resource management, agricultural planning, agro-
climatic regionalization, and the assessment of regional
development [19]. Using location specific agro-climate
information, Zhou and his colleagues carried out clus-
tering study in small area of land (150,000 ha) in Murrum-
bidgee Irrigation Area of Australia and found 3–7 clusters
employing rainfall, temperature, growing degree days,
humidity, and evapotranspiration variables [20]. Similarly,
a 60 ha rain-fed wheat field was clustered into 2, 3, and 4
zones requiring alternative site specific management using
variables like electrical conductivity, elevation, soil depth,
soil organic matter, clay, and yield in Argentine Pampas
[21]. Jaynes and his colleagues considered yield data of
5 years collected from 224 plots in association with eleva-
tion, soil electrical conductivity, growing season rainfall
amount, and applied cluster analyses to develop potential
management zones of similar yield patterns with prediction
precision of 80% [22]. Some authors included L-moments of
rainfall along with latitude, longitude, and altitude to define
homogeneous regions [23,24].
Although different methods for choosing input vari-
ables for environmental characterization exist, principal
component analysis (PCA) and clustering were used simul-
taneously to identify important attributes and superior
clusters in biological sciences [25–28]. Both techniques
have also been used to delineate a relatively homogenous
region by authors including Kar et al. [29], Oliveira-Júnior
et al. [30], and Haque and deSouza [31] who adopted it to
generate the (PCs) consisting of different physical, hydro-
logical, and meteorological variables. Bisetegne et al. [32]
retained four eigen values associated with specific eigen
vectors to explain 75% of the variance of 24 gauge stations
and create five clusters using PCA technique in Ethiopia.
Later, Eklundh and Pilesjö [33] divided Ethiopia into seven
regions using PCA technique. Similarly various studies
were carried out in Ethiopia over years and rendered dif-
ferent clustering results [9,10,12,34]. The variations in clus-
tering results were attributed to difference in the base period
and purpose of the study. However, these studies were not
linked to specific economic activity and the weather system
that influences the study area but considered the area as
homogeneous. This may not allow planning of timely agri-
cultural input delivery and making provision of adequate
training on agricultural extension activities, which are
equally a challenge due to rainfall seasonality and varia-
bility [35,36]. Thus, there is a need to develop objective-
based clustering that is functional for both agricultural
and hydrological planning usable at operational scale for
maize production. Hence, this study was carried out with
the objectives of identifying and mapping homogeneous
506  Daniel Markos et al.
maize management clusters representing areas with rela-
tively similar physiography, weather pattern, and produc-
tion scheduling in the southern central Rift Valley of
Ethiopia.
2 Materials and methods
2.1 The study area
The study areas are located between Lakes Shala and
Abaya in southern part of central Rift Valley of Ethiopia.
It encompasses area coverage of 1,021,332 ha residing in
over 30 districts located in Oromia region (West Arsi),
SNNPR (Halaba, Hadiya, Kembata, Wolayta, and Gedeo)
and Sidama region (Figure 1).
2.2 Data source
A continuous time series of 43 available weather stations
located within and in close proximity to the study area
were used as source to collect daily rainfall data from
January 1991 to December 2020 (Figure 1). Geo-referenced
Figure 1: Study area and weather stations.
daily minimum and maximum temperatures, rainfall,
relative humidity, sunshine hours, and altitude of 30
years were acquired from the National Meteorology and
Climate Change Institute (the then National Meteorology
Agency), Hawassa Branch Office. Rainfall amount for the
months of each growing season and year were summed to
form a series of accumulated rainfall data for each season
October, November, December, and January (ONDJ), FMAM,
and JJAS. Data standardization was applied to the entire
database by ranking or counting events based on departures
from the local climatology in units of standard deviation
using the equation (1) [37]
(X − μreff )
Z= , (1)
σreff
where X is value, μreff is mean, and σreff is standard devia-
tion. Subsequently, L-moments, dispersion, and central ten-
dency were computed for all physiographic and weather
variables.
2.3 Independence of samples, homogeneity
of variance, and equality of means
Normality test for rainfall across locations and years was
carried out by a procedure set by Mishra et al. [38].
 PCA  507

Bartlett’s test was applied to rainfall data to verify the to the eigen value λ, and vice-versa. If Ait is the actual rain-
homogeneity of variance between the months of the fall data at stations i (i = 1, 2…s) in the year t (t = 1, 2…r), the
year (12 variances – temporal variability) at each site mean value is given in equation (4).
and among the sites (43 variances – spatial variability) N
1
at each of the 12 months of the year following a procedure mi = ⎛ ⎞ ∑ Pit . (4)
developed by Steel et al. [39]. ⎝ N ⎠ I=1

The centered data are given in equation (5) as follow:

di = {Pi − mi } . (5)
2.4 PCA The covariance matrix is shown below in equation:
N
PCA, a dimensionality reduction tool in multivariate ana- Cij = (1/ N ) ∑ ditdjt . (6)
lyses, was used for examining multidimensional data to t=1
reveal patterns between objects that would not be apparent
The eigen values {λj} and the eigen vectors {ϕij} of this
in a univariate analysis. The PCA with Varimax rotation was
symmetric matrix were extracted. PCs were a linear com-
aimed at finding the relative influence of each variable
bination of the original variables used as predictor vari-
explaining the variance of the system in each separate
able in multiple linear regressions [40] and composed in
cluster in ONDJ, FMAM, and JJAS seasons separately [40].
general as in equation (7):
For analysis of the data over the southern central Rift
M
Valley, let A be a(t × i) anomaly matrix of rainfall data
PCit = ∑dit∅jt ; ( j = 1, 2 … M ) . (7)
over a series of t = 30 years and i = 43 stations. A system t=1
of t × i numbers (elements) arranged in a rectangular
This transforms the original time series djt into the
arrangement along r rows and s columns and bounded by
new time series PCjt, orthogonal variables. First few PCjt’s
the brackets [] or () was called an r by s matrix as in equa-
were generally sufficient to explain the variation in the
tion (2).
original data. The eigen vectors {ϕij} represented spatial
a a12 … a1n patterns, while (PC)jt could be used to understand tem-
⎡ 11 ⎤
A=⎢ a21 a22 … a2n ⎥ (2)
… poral variability in the data. Determination of the number
⎢a … amn .⎥
⎢ m1 am2 ⎥ of components to be used in PCA was performed using
eigen values measuring more than 1 [41,42].
The elements of the matrix A represented departure
of rainfall values from their mean values. PCA was per-
formed to examine the coupling between predictors and
predicand. The determinant |A − λI| when expanded 2.5 Cluster analysis
would give a polynomial, which is called as characteristic
polynomial of matrix A. If, A = [aij] was a square matrix, For cluster analysis, a partitioning method was adopted
then the characteristic equation of A was |A − λI| = 0. The using two algorithms i.e., first hierarchical method was
roots of the characteristic equation were called eigen used to divide a set of N data vectors into K non-over-
values of A. Since, A = [aij ] was a square matrix of order lapping clusters (K ≤ N) [43] using identified variables
“n,” then there existed a non-zero vector X, where is from PCA. Second, each data vector was associated with
given by equation (3): a centroid by similarity. The Ward’s agglomerative hier-
x archical algorithm [44,45] was used as dissimilarity mea-
⎡ 1 ⎤
x2 ⎥ sure [46] (equation (8)):
X=⎢
⎢− (3)
− ⎥ n 1/2
⎢x ⎥
⎢ n .⎥ dij = ⎡ ⎤
⎢ ∑ (Xik −Xjk ) ⎥ , (8)
such that AX = λX, then the vector X was called an eigen ⎣ k=1 ⎦
vector of A corresponding to the eigen value λ. λ (Lamda) where dij is the Euclidean distance, n is the number of
was an eigen value of A and x is its corresponding eigen vectors, Xik is the input image vector and Xjk is the com-
vector. The covariance or correlation matrix of the dataset parison image vector. Ward’s algorithm [44] creates groups,
was used to derive the coefficients ajj, which are the eigen minimizing the dissimilarity, or minimizing the total sums
vectors. Alternatively, x becomes the eigen vector pertaining of squares within groups, also known as sum of square
508  Daniel Markos et al.
deviations (SSD). At each stage of the procedure, groups
were formed in such a manner that the resultant solution
bears the lowest SSD within groups. At these stages, the
joints of all possible pairs of groups were considered, and
the two resulting smaller SSD were grouped together gath-
ering alike individuals [46].
2.6 Data analysis
The presence of significant difference among clusters was
tested using identified variables from PCA with one-way
fixed effect ANOVA F test (equation (9)) and comparisons
of group means among clusters were carried out by factor
analysis provided in SPSS [47].
SSB/ (K − 1) MSB
F= = , (9)
SSW / (N − K ) MSW
where SSB is sum of squares between treatments, SSW is
the sum of squares within treatments, (k − 1) and (N − k)
are the degrees of freedom between and within treat-
ments, respectively [48]. Homogeneity of variance among
clusters was tested using Levene test statistic, and robust
tests of equality of means were checked for those with
homogeneous variance using Welch and Brown–For-
sythe statistic [49]. Post hoc comparison of means among
clusters was done using Bonferroni method, which is a
family contrast comparison method, used to compare
with m number of post hoc comparisons to assure m = k
(k − 1)/2 possible comparisons where k = the number of
groups being considered [50–52]. Finally LSD test was
done using equation (10):
PBonf = PLSD × m, (10)
where PBonf is the P value from Bonferroni test, PLSD is the
P value from LSD, and m is the group mean of a given
cluster.
2.7 Cluster mapping
The clusters were mapped in ArcGIS environment version
10.3 using Inverse Distance Weighting method for better
visualization of the results [53]. The clusters assume
value of an attribute z at any un-sampled point as a dis-
tance-weighted average of sampled points lying within
a defined neighborhood. The map of clusters and their
altitude, rainfall, soils, texture, and geology was drawn
using a 1:125,000 scale.
2.8 Principal component regression
Considering pre-processed or identified variables through
PCA as main inputs determining the spatial and temporal
variations in the study area, without loss of generality, the
regression equation can be given as in equation (11) [54]:
Y = Ÿi + έ = ß0 + ß1x 1i + ß2xi + … … .. +ßkxki + έ
(11)
(i = 1, 2, 3 …, n) ,
where k is the number of independent variables, ßj ( j = 1,
2, …., k) is the partial regression coefficient, xi is the ith
independent variable, y is the dependent variable, and ἐi
is the error term corresponding to yi.
3 Results and discussion
3.1 Correlation between predictor variables
and distribution of predicand
Strong, positive, and significant association was observed
between mean rainfall with latitude (R = 0.556, P < 0.001),
STDEV (R = 0.754, P < 0.0001), CV(R = 0.529, P < 0.001),
and maximum rainfall (R = 0.937, P < 0.0001) in ONDJ
season. However, the association of mean rainfall with
mean temperature (R = –0.388, P < 0.05) and minimum
temperature (R = –0.432, P < 0.005) was negative and
strong in ONDJ period (Table 1). Thus, areas that exhibit
higher temperature experience lower mean rainfall in ONDJ
period in the study area. Conversely, areas existing in higher
latitude experience higher rainfall in ONDJ season. Conse-
quently those variables uncorrelated to mean rainfall in
ONDJ period are longitude, altitude, Tmax, and RFmin. These
uncorrelated variables were used in subsequent PCA analysis
for ONDJ period. This result is in line with those of Machiwal
and his colleagues who elaborated rainfall correlation with
geographical factors and statistical parameters [43].
In FMAM season, the mean rainfall was positively and
strongly associated with STDEV (R = 0.603, P < 0.0001), CV
(R = 0.651, P < 0.0001), and maximum rainfall (R = 0.876,
P < 0.0001); however, the association of mean rainfall was
negative with latitude (R = –0.413*, P < 0.05) (Table 1 and
Figure 2). The increment in mean rainfall with decrement in
latitudes was due to the increased effects of ENSO in low
tropical areas, which agrees with reports of Bates et al. [55].
The association of mean annual rainfall was negative with
latitude (R = –0.580, P = 0.01), CV (R = –0.206, P = 0.05),
Tmin (R = –0.352, P < 0.05), and Tmean (R = –0.291, P < 0.05).
Thus, small increment in latitude results in decrement in the
 PCA  509

Table 1: Correlation (R) between the predictor variables before applying PCA

Period Geographic parameters Climatic factors Statistical parameters

Longitude Latitude Altitude Tmin Tmax Tmean STDEV CV RFmin RFmax

ONDJ 0.193ns 0.556** 0.056ns –0.432** –0.229ns –0.388* 0.754*** 0.529** 0.091ns 0.937***
FMAM –0.116ns –0.413* –0.082ns 0.048ns 0.093ns 0.078ns 0.603*** 0.651*** 0.234ns 0.876***
JJAS 0.145ns –0.137ns –0.088ns –0.210ns –0.016ns –0.134ns 0.337* –0.257* 0.478** 0.756***
Annual –0.003ns –0.580** 0.146ns –0.352* –0.146ns –0.291* 0.565** –0.206* 0.537** 0.595**

*, **, *** denotes presence of significant, highly significant, and very highly significant associations, respectively, among variables but ns
shows the absence of significant associations.

mean annual and FMAM rainfall. Conversely, small increment
in latitude results in increment of the mean rainfall in ONDJ
season. JJAS season marks mainly rainy period for all places in
the study area due to which there was no statistical differece in
the amount of rain across clusters (Table 1 and Figure 2). Thus,
the predictor variables uncorrelated with mean monthly rain-
fall were Tmax, altitude, and longitude.
3.2 Eigen values of different components
and their significance level
For ONDJ, three PCs explained 74.7% of magnitude of
variance, whereas four variables explained 79.3% of var-
iations for FMAM. For JJAS, three PCs explained 78.2% of
variance in annual rainfall, while four variables explained
80.5% of variance (Table 2) using a cutoff point of eigen
value 1. This was because the variables with higher eigen
values were more important than those with smaller mag-
nitude in explaining the variances and thus contain most
of the information of the selected factors. These will be
used subsequently as forecasting factors. The 25.3, 20.7,
and 21.8% variability unexplained by the model in ONDJ,
FMAM, and JJAS seasons meant that there were other fac-
tors apart from geographic, climatic, and statistical factors
that could be used to elucidate the variation. Thus, the
original 12 variables were reduced dimensionally to 3–4
new variables and were used subsequently to explain
maximum amount of variance.
The maximum degree of variability in the dataset was
expressed with the first four components in FMAM

Figure 2: Rainfall distribution in annual, ONDJ, FMAM, and JJAS seasons in the study area.
510  Daniel Markos et al.

Table 2: Eigen value for ONDJ, FMAM, JJAS, and annual rainfall in the study area

Seasons Statistic PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 PC8 PC9 PC10 PC11

ONDJ Eigen value 4.484 2.738 0.991 0.862 0.639 0.489 0.335 0.293 0.170 0.000 0.000
Proportion 0.408 0.249 0.090 0.078 0.058 0.044 0.030 0.027 0.015 0.000 0.000
Cumulative 0.408 0.656 0.747 0.825 0.883 0.927 0.958 0.985 1.000 1.000 1.000
FMAM Eigen value 3.641 3.334 1.532 1.005 0.831 0.651 0.486 0.338 0.159 0.024 0.000
Proportion 0.303 0.278 0.128 0.084 0.069 0.054 0.041 0.028 0.013 0.002 0.000
Cumulative 0.303 0.581 0.709 0.793 0.862 0.916 0.957 0.985 0.998 1.000 1.000
JJAS Eigen value 4.105 2.099 1.552 1.103 0.804 0.599 0.443 0.296 0.000 0.000 0.000
Proportion 0.373 0.191 0.141 0.100 0.073 0.054 0.040 0.027 0.000 0.000 0.000
Cumulative 0.373 0.564 0.705 0.805 0.878 0.933 0.973 1.000 1.000 1.000 1.000
Annual Eigen value 4.486 2.787 1.334 0.860 0.529 0.495 0.240 0.171 0.094 0.004 0.000
Proportion 0.408 0.253 0.121 0.078 0.048 0.045 0.022 0.016 0.009 0.000 0.000
Cumulative 0.408 0.661 0.782 0.861 0.909 0.954 0.976 0.991 1.000 1.000 1.000

period. Thus, PC1, PC2, PC3, and PC4 explained 30.3,
27.8, 12.8, and 8.4% of variance, respectively (Table 2).
FMAM is important because land preparation, planting,
urea application, and weeding are carried for maize crop
in the majority of the study areas. In all the seasons, PC1
was mean rainfall component with strong association
with altitude and longitude, but strong negative associa-
tion with Tmin, Tmax, and Tmean (Table 3) implying the
dynamics of the ITCZ over the study area [56,57]. This
was in turn due to a high elevation leading to low tem-
peratures (an increase in 1,000 m in altitude leads to a
decrease of 6.5°C in temperature). This result is in agree-
ment with reports of Belay in the Beles basin of Ethiopia,
who reported inverse relationship among mean tempera-
tures and elevations [58]. PC2 was termed as temperature
component and showed strong positive association with
latitude but strong to moderate negative association with
altitude. The variables that correlate most with PC1 are
RFmean (0.401), RFmax (0.478), and variance (0.400). The
first PC is positively correlated with these three variables.
Therefore, increasing the value of RFmean, RFmax, and
variance subsequently increases the value of PC1 (Table 3).
The variables positively associated with PC2 were Tmin
(0.456), Tmax (0.433), and Tmean (0.511). This summarizes
the direction of eigen vectors.
3.3 Rotated factor loadings and
communalities
After Varimax rotation, the PC results showed that Tmean
(0.960), Tmax (0.895), and Tmin (0.784) had large positive
loadings on factor 1 (Table 4). Hence, their increment is
vital for homogenous clustering. Whereas altitude (–0.829)
has large negative loading on factor 1 and thus acted as a
base for heterogeneity. RFmean (0.927) and RFmax (0.942) have
large positive loadings on factor 2 (Table 4; Figures 3–6).
Bilate, Bulbula, Aje, Alaba Kulito, Humbo, and Ropi had
high loadings with PC2, whereas Dilla, Humbo, Seraro, and
Shone locations had high loadings with PC1 (Figure 3). The
lowest loadings with PC1 were Woteraresa and wondo genet
whereas the lowest loadings with PC2 were Woteraresa, Tefer
Kela, and Yirgalem (Figure 3). The mean rainfall in FMAM

Table 3: Eigen vectors for FMAM rainfall

Variable PC1 PC2 PC3 PC4 PC5 PC6 PC7 PC8 PC9 PC10 PC11

Latitude –0.330 0.105 –0.041 –0.269 –0.388 0.725 0.109 –0.028 0.343 0.003 0.000
Longitude –0.199 –0.254 0.006 –0.410 0.598 –0.034 0.586 –0.104 0.118 0.021 0.000
Tmin 0.075 0.456 0.191 0.011 –0.153 –0.165 0.459 0.518 0.037 –0.005 0.256
Tmax 0.194 0.433 –0.165 –0.095 0.140 0.194 0.018 –0.616 –0.349 0.041 0.231
Tmean 0.151 0.511 0.025 –0.045 –0.016 0.006 0.287 –0.023 –0.168 0.019 –0.424
Altitude –0.205 –0.374 0.281 0.148 –0.342 0.112 0.345 –0.069 –0.674 0.096 0.000
RFmean 0.401 –0.086 0.426 –0.237 0.104 0.222 –0.149 0.103 –0.020 0.217 –0.564
RFmin –0.137 0.143 0.715 –0.091 0.198 0.080 –0.242 –0.071 –0.031 –0.470 0.279
Rfmax 0.478 –0.160 0.074 –0.196 0.006 0.187 –0.030 0.142 –0.005 0.459 0.553
Var 0.400 –0.198 –0.339 –0.133 0.020 0.265 0.076 0.276 –0.234 –0.679 –0.000
STDEV 0.242 –0.082 0.133 0.752 0.205 0.325 0.296 –0.149 0.302 –0.047 –0.000
CV –0.341 0.172 –0.159 0.200 0.489 0.360 –0.238 0.449 –0.339 0.216 0.000
 PCA  511

Table 4: Sorted rotated factor loadings and communalities for FMAM season

Variable Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 3 Factor 4 Communality

Latitude –0.017 –0.496 0.174 –0.481 0.508

Longitude –0.529 –0.022 0.006 –0.499 0.529
Tmin 0.784 –0.065 0.383 0.066 0.769
Tmean 0.960 –0.019 0.179 0.034 0.955
Tmax 0.895 0.038 –0.096 –0.010 0.811
Altitude –0.829 –0.063 0.259 0.068 0.762
RFmean 0.072 0.927 0.254 0.120 0.943
RFmin 0.032 0.009 0.960 –0.066 0.928
RFmax 0.057 0.942 –0.225 0.156 0.965
STDEV –0.059 0.204 –0.025 0.887 0.832
CV 0.069 –0.766 0.063 –0.076 0.602
% Var 0.277 0.256 0.149 0.111 0.793

was also meager in places like Aje, Ropi, Seraro, and Abaya.
Conversely Wolaita Sodo, Yirgalem, Tefer Kela, Hawassa,
Wondoget, Abaro, Boditi, Shamana, Durame, and Maykote
received quit good rain in FMAM season (Figure 3).
When the contribution of each variable to the linear
combinations was considered, longitude and altitude had
strong negative influence on PC2 (Figure 4). But Tmean
had strong positive influence on PC2. Similarly, RFmin
exerted weak influence on PC1 (Figure 4).

3.4 Cluster analysis

The agglomeration schedule coefficients end at 42 (right

top) whereas the elbow of the graph breaks sharply at 38
Figure 3: Score plot of observations for PC1 and PC2. (left). The difference between the top unit and elbow is
four clusters (Figure 5). This result of agglomeration

Figure 4: Bi-plot of variables used in PCA analysis. Figure 5: Agglomeration schedule coefficients.
512  Daniel Markos et al.
Horizontal line used to decide
number of clusters
Figure 6: Dendrogram using ward linkage.
schedule coefficients was verified by employing dendro-
gram method that automatically generated four relatively
homogeneous units in the study area (Figure 6). Loca-
tions in one cluster are more similar to one another
than locations in another cluster within a given season
with climatic, environmental, geological, and physio-
graphic features. Thus, four clusters were formed namely
cluster I (Shamana cluster), cluster II (Bilate cluster),
cluster III (Hawassa cluster), and cluster IV (Dilla cluster)
(Figures 5–7).
Figure 7: The location of the four clusters.
3.5 Map and attributes of clusters
Cluster II locations had largest area (388,193 ha) whereas
cluster IV areas had smallest area (121,931 ha). The area
coverage of clusters I (324,242 ha) and III (186,966 ha)
were intermediate (Figure 7). The records of annual and
JJAS rainfall were highest in cluster IV. The wettest
cluster during ONDJ is also cluster IV with mean rainfall
of 299.2 + 51.3 mm across the 4 months of ONDJ (Table 5).
Cluster I areas include high altitude maize growing areas
in Abaro, Duguna Fango, Damot Gale, Badawacho, Shala,
Seraro, Haisawita, Shashamane, Telamokantise, Aleta Wendo,
Woteraresa, and Wujegra. In these areas, tillage operation
begins early in November and planting maize starts with
some rainfall showers from mid-December to mid-January
unlike the other clusters. The areas in cluster II include low-
altitude areas in Humbo, Halaba, Seraro, Bedessa, Bilate Tena,
Bilate, Alaba Kulito, Shala, and Bulbula. These areas obtained
758.7 ± 125.8 mm of rain on average every year. ONDJ period
was critically dry in clusters II and III and hence, was unable to
support agricultural operations including tillage practices. In
the next FMAM season, all clusters receive fairly good rain,
except cluster II (Table 5). Hence, planting maize is usually
delayed up to the beginning of May in cluster II areas. The 3rd
cluster also called Hawassa cluster includes mid-altitude
areas of Badawacho, Hawassa, Seraro, Shashamane, Bor-
icha, Balela, Halaba, Humbo, Wolaita Sodo, and Bedessa.
The areas included in cluster IV were lowland to mid-alti-
tude areas in Aleta Wendo, Dilla, Tefer Kela, Dara, and
Chuko. Maize is usually grown as of March within the

Table 5: Descriptive statistics of cluster-wise mean rainfall for different seasons
Clusters ONDJ FMAM
Station RFmean Station RFmean
Cluster I 2 290.9 ± 30.2 9 274.8 ± 121
Cluster II 9 212.7 ± 45.2 14 224.6 ± 79.6
Cluster III 25 260.6 ± 44.6 16 277.5 ± 24.6
Cluster IV 7 299.2 ± 51.3 4 399.8 ± 62.6
agro-forestry system in this area. Thus, a given adminis-
trative district had more than one clusters, and careful
arrangements are required even within a district in plan-
ning extension service, input delivery, and agromet advi-
sories. This finding is in agreement with elucidation of
Befikadu et al. [59] who partitioned adjacent districts
into Bilate lowlands, Wolaita Sodo midlands, and Boditi
highland. The Bilate cluster represented maize production
agro-ecology termed as semiarid lowlands of central Rift
Valley or dry mid-altitudes by Abate et al. [1] and low
moisture areas by Worku et al. [60]. The Hawassa cluster
was one of the sub-moist mid altitude areas in central Rift
Valley in which is also called mid-altitude sub-humid by
Worku et al. [60]. The Shamana cluster stands for high-
land transitional moist areas with upper mid-altitudes
category as reported by Abate et al. [1] or highland sub-
humid areas as stated by Worku et al. [60]. Finally low to
mid altitude areas adjacent to mountain chains of Sidama
and Gedeo were grouped into Dilla cluster and represented
as humid tropics by Shengu [61], moist lower mid-alti-
tudes by Abate et al. [1], and as lowland sub-humid areas
by Worku et al. [60].
The presence of diverse maize production and recom-
mendation domains were also reported by Alemu et al.
[62] who elaborated high altitude sub-humid, low alti-
tude sub-humid, mid altitude sub-humid, and moisture
stressed places in the country. Thus, the highland, mid-
altitude, and lowland areas are grouped into four clusters
having different agro-ecology, cropping season, and choice
of varieties, and consequently require different input
delivery and training arrangement.
3.6 Geology, parent materials, and soils
In Shamana cluster, soils are developed from volcanic
sedimentary to lacustrine deposits and have relatively
higher clay and dominantly belong to Vertic Luvisols,
Eutric Cambisols, and Chromic Vertisols based on FAO
soil classification [63] (Figure 8). However, in Bilate
PCA  513
JJAS Annual
Station RFmean Station RFmean
4 406.3 ± 143.1 2 972.0 ± 97.8
4 321.4 ± 47.1 11 758.7 ± 125.8
25 415.8 ± 17.8 22 953.9 ± 57.5
10 599.2 ± 33.8 8 1,298.2 ± 70.4
cluster, the most dominant soil is riverine or lacustrine
alluvium derived from basalt, ignimbrite, lava, or ash
with dark brown loamy coarse sands and sandy loams
with often calcareous subsoil, and belong to Calcaric Flu-
visol, Orthic Andosol, Ortic Phaeozems, and Chromic Lui-
visols. In Hawassa cluster, the dominant soils are Vitric
Andosols, Eutric Cambisols, and Leptosols. The soils had
lacustrine and pyroclastic deposits of sands and silts,
interbedded with pumice (Figure 8). In Dilla cluster the
soils are originated from basalt rocks, and had deep red-
dish to brown clayey to clay loam texture classified as
Haplic Luvisols and Chromic Vertisols (Figure 8).
Low bulk density and weak structure of soils in Bilate
and Hawassa clusters render them vulnerable to erosion
even on gentle slopes compared to those in Shamana and
Dilla clusters. The altitude of the study area ranges from
1,174 m a.s.l. at Lake Abaya (Cluster II) to 3,160 m a.s.l. at
Woteraresa (Cluster I) (Figure 8), which leads to dramatic
variability in environmental conditions among clusters
over relatively short distances.
3.7 Evaluation statistics among clusters for
FMAM season
Each cluster was distinct and heterogeneous in climatic,
physical, and statistical variables (Table 6). There were
four clusters in FMAM season as dictated by altitude,
RFmin, and Tmin with 9, 14, 16, and 4 cluster members
in clusters I, II, III, and IV, respectively. Cluster II had
highest Tmin (22.7°C), lowest RFmin (86.1 mm), and lowest
altitude (1,701 m a.s.l.). Cluster I areas have lowest Tmin
(22.7°C) but highest altitude (2,180 m a.s.l.) (Table 6).
The ANOVA table showed that F-test was signifi-
cantly (P < 0.001) different among clusters for Tmin,
RFmin, and Altitude (Table 7).
The mean separation based on Bonferroni technique
showed that cluster I had significantly lower temperature
by value of 3.76 and 2.05°C compared to clusters II and
III, respectively. The difference in mean temperature
514  Daniel Markos et al.

Figure 8: Geology, altitude, and textural class of soils in the four clusters.

between cluster I and cluster IV was not significantly and Wujegra could be due to higher rainfall received in the
different (P < 0.05). The significantly lower temperature previous months that actually have cooling effect in the
in cluster I areas like Abaro, Bitena, Boditi, Haisawita, area. Cluster II areas with significantly higher Tmean com-
Mayokote, Shamana, Shone, Telamokantise, Woteraresa, pared to other clusters were Abaya, Alaba Kulito, Bilate,

Table 6: Descriptive statistics for the most significant variables in FMAM season

PC Clusters N Mean Std. deviation Std. error 95% CI for mean Mini mum Maxi mum

Lower bound Upper bound

Tmin Cluster I 9 18.9 1.19 0.38 18.09 19.79 16.50 20.40

(°C) Cluster II 14 22.7 0.83 0.24 22.17 23.23 21.90 24.40
Cluster III 16 21.0 0.51 0.12 20.73 21.24 20.00 22.10
Cluster IV 4 19.2 0.72 0.42 17.41 20.99 18.40 19.80
Total 43 20.9 1.63 0.25 20.36 21.37 16.50 24.40
RFmin Cluster I 9 87.5 47.0 14.9 53.9 121.1 2.7 148.9
(mm) Cluster II 14 86.1 61.1 17.6 47.3 125.0 8.4 220.6
Cluster III 16 107.3 86.4 20.4 64.4 150.3 11.5 313.1
Cluster IV 4 352.8 80.1 46.2 153.9 551.7 262.7 415.7
Total 43 113.9 96.2 14.7 84.3 143.5 2.7 415.7
Altitude Cluster I 9 2,180 251 79 2,001 2,360 1,876 2,631
(m a.s.l.) Cluster II 14 1,701 247 71 1,544 1,858 1,182 2,023
Cluster III 16 1,804 147 35 1,731 1,877 1,515 2,116
Cluster IV 4 1,785 86 50 1,571 1,998 1,698 1,870
Total 43 1,861 268 41 1,779 1,944 1,182 2,631
 PCA  515

Table 7: ANOVA table for uncorrelated variables of rainfall in FMAM season

Variables Source of variation Sum of squares df Mean square F Sig.

Tmin Between groups 86.0559 3 28.6853 43.3249 1.72 × 10−12

Within groups 25.82178 39 0.662097
Total 111.8777 42
RFmin Between groups 188270.3 3 62756.76 12.1962 9.01 × 10−6
Within groups 200677.3 39 5145.571
Total 388947.6 42
Altitude Between groups 1,400,502 3 466833.9 11.2207 1.91 × 10−5
Within groups 1,622,581 39 41604.64
Total 3,023,083 42

Table 8: Multiple comparisons and post hoc tests of PCs in FMAM season

PCs Pairwise comparison Mean difference (I − J) Std. error Sig. 95% Confidence interval

Lower bound Upper bound

Tmean Cluster I Cluster II –3.76 0.35 0.00 –4.73 –2.79

(°C) Cluster III –2.05 0.32 0.00 –2.94 –1.16
Cluster IV –0.26 0.54 1.00 –1.75 1.23
Cluster II Cluster I 3.76 0.35 0.00 2.79 4.73
Cluster III 1.71 0.30 0.00 0.87 2.55
Cluster IV 3.50 0.53 0.00 2.04 4.96
Cluster III Cluster I 2.05 0.32 0.00 1.16 2.94
Cluster II –1.71 0.30 0.00 –2.55 –0.87
Cluster IV 1.79 0.51 0.01 0.38 3.20
Cluster IV Cluster I 0.26 0.54 1.00 –1.23 1.75
Cluster II –3.50 0.53 0.00 –4.96 –2.04
Cluster III –1.79 0.51 0.01 –3.20 –0.38
RFmin Cluster I Cluster II 1.36 30.71 1.00 –84.02 86.73
(mm) Cluster III –19.84 28.29 1.00 –98.48 58.80
Cluster IV –265.34 47.22 0.00 –396.60 –134.09
Cluster II Cluster I –1.36 30.71 1.00 –86.73 84.02
Cluster III –21.20 26.73 1.00 –95.51 53.11
Cluster IV –266.70 46.30 0.00 –395.40 –138.00
Cluster III Cluster I 19.84 28.29 1.00 –58.80 98.48
Cluster II 21.20 26.73 1.00 –53.11 95.51
Cluster IV –245.50 44.73 0.00 –369.84 –121.16
Cluster IV Cluster I 265.34 47.22 0.00 134.09 396.60
Cluster II 266.70 46.30 0.00 138.00 395.40
Cluster III 245.50 44.73 0.00 121.16 369.84
Altitude Cluster I Cluster II 478.82 87.34 0.00 236.07 721.58
(m) Cluster III 376.20 80.45 0.00 152.59 599.81
Cluster IV 395.36 134.27 0.03 22.15 768.58
Cluster II Cluster I –478.82 87.34 0.00 –721.58 –236.07
Cluster III –102.63 76.02 1.00 –313.92 108.67
Cluster IV –83.46 131.66 1.00 –449.43 282.51
Cluster III Cluster I –376.20 80.45 0.00 –599.81 –152.59
Cluster II 102.63 76.02 1.00 –108.67 313.92
Cluster IV 19.17 127.20 1.00 –334.39 372.72
Cluster IV Cluster I –395.36 134.27 0.03 –768.58 –22.15
Cluster II 83.46 131.66 1.00 –282.51 449.43
Cluster III –19.17 127.20 1.00 –372.72 334.39
516  Daniel Markos et al.

Table 9: Estimate of the parameters (ß1, ß2, ß3 and R2) of the multiple linear regression and coefficient of determination (R²) of average
seasonal rainfall according to altitude (m), latitude (decimal degrees), and longitude (decimal degrees), in southern central Ethiopia

Season Cluster Constant Latitude (ß1) Longitude (ß2) Altitude (ß3) R2

ONDJ Cluster I 759 –90.9ns –1.7ns 0.0835* 0.746

Cluster II 314 –9.3ns –5.3ns 0.0798** 0.889
Cluster III 147 –370* 4.2ns 0.0832** 0.513
Cluster IV 5,702 22.7ns –153ns 0.1251* 0.910
FMAM Cluster I 1,821 –37.8ns –37.9* –0.0237ns 0.707
Cluster II 1,342 –47.4ns –27.2ns 0.0552ns 0.461
Cluster III –654 –31ns –31ns 0.0105ns 0.532
Cluster IV 23,753 –81.7ns –81.7ns –0.2240** 0.969
JJAS Cluster I –815 3ns 27.2ns –0.0642ns 0.619
Cluster II 2,246 27.1ns –67.7ns 0.0981* 0.689
Cluster III 126 –23.1ns 4.1ns –0.002ns 0.515
Cluster IV 12,092 135ns –335ns 0.0004ns 0.487
Annual Cluster I 23,467 –2,481* –128ns 0.045ns 0.863
Cluster II 23,524 –69ns –601ns 0.597ns 0.564
Cluster III 21,227 –5,791* –404* –0.223ns 0.632
Cluster IV –205,370 –1,510ns 566.7ns –0.283ns 0.713

ns, *, and ** are not significant, significant at 5 and 1% probability, respectively, by t-test, with 42° of freedom.

Bilate Tena, Bulbula, Chuko, Dilla, Felka, Hawassa, Humbo,
Morocho, and Seraro. These were the areas extending from
Lake Shala to Lake Abaya and lie in the central part of Rift
Valley. The difference in minimum rainfall received in
FMAM was significantly higher in cluster IV by 265, 267,
and 246 mm in clusters I, II, and III, respectively. Similarly,
significantly higher means of altitudes were measured in
clusters I than cluster II (P < 0.001), III (P < 0.001), and IV
(P < 0.05) by value of 479, 376, and 395 m, respectively
(Table 8).
3.8 Seasonal rainfall prediction
As maize is planted in FMAM season and continues to
grow in JJAS period, the two seasons are important for
rain-fed maize production. Additionally, sea surface tem-
perature and Tmean are not included in regression equa-
tion mainly because the former shows little variation
across clusters [11] and the latter has well-established
inverse relationship with altitude in Ethiopia [7,58], which
necessitates reduction in input variables and associated
redundancies. Hence, the percentage of the variance in
mean rainfall is explained by local factors including alti-
tude, latitude, and longitude. As depicted by regression of
geographical and topographic parameters (predictors) on
rainfall (predicand), coefficient of determination (R²) is
greater than 0.50 for most of the seasons and clusters
(Table 9). Latitude (ß1) and longitude (ß2) showed negative
regression coefficients for most of the clusters across the
seasons unlike altitude (ß3) which showed positive regres-
sion coefficients. Hence, latitude showed significant and
negative prediction on mean rainfall in third cluster in
ONDJ and annual seasons, and also first cluster in annual
season. Thus, areas in southern part of the study site (for
instance, Dilla) would receive more rainfall compared to
northern areas (for instance, Shala) (Figure 8). In FMAM
season, cluster I areas lying in lower longitude and cluster
IV areas located in lower altitude are going to receive
higher rainfall (Table 9). Similarly, cluster II areas lying
in relatively higher altitude are going to receive higher
rainfall in JJAS season. Thus, there is a need to prioritize
mitigation measures in cluster II areas lying in lower alti-
tude and cluster I areas situated in higher longitude in the
future. This agrees with findings of Teodoro et al. [64] who
showed altitude followed by latitude as an important phy-
siographic factor that influence the monthly rainfall beha-
vior in dry, transitional, and rainy periods.
4 Conclusion
This study examined the PCs responsible for agro-ecolog-
ical variations and the spatial patterns of ONDJ, FMAM,
JJAS, and annual rainfall in the dominant maize produ-
cing areas of south central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. Using
12 geographical, statistical, and agro-climatic variables
for a period of 30 years from 43 weather stations within
or nearby the study area and by applying integrating

methods like PCA, spatial clustering, and interpolation,
we were able to quantify and delineate the distinct clus-
ters that require specific agronomic decisions by farmers,
researchers, and policy makers. The PCA resulted in three
to four significant PCs explaining 74.7% of variance for
ONDJ, 79.3% of variations in FMAM, 80.5% of variance in
JJAS, and 78.2% of variance in annual rainfall. The hier-
archical cluster analysis that integrated the identified
PC’s resulted in four statistically distinct clusters.
Latitude had strong influence on rainfall component
(PC1). Longitude and altitude had strong influence on
temperature component (PC2). Mean rainfall influenced
PC3 strongly. Thus, the original ecological factors which
determined the formation of clusters in the study area
were Tmean, latitude, longitude, altitude, and RFmean.
The Shamana cluster has soils with high clay content
and characterized by high altitude, low temperature,
and higher rainfall components in ONDJ season. The
Bilate cluster has course sand to sandy loam soils, and
characterized by low altitude and high temperature com-
ponents across most seasons. The Hawassa cluster pos-
sesses soils with dominant sand and silt mixtures, and
has intermediate altitude, temperature, and rainfall com-
ponents in most seasons. The Dilla cluster has clayey to
clay loam soils and characterized by high rainfall compo-
nents in JJAS and annual seasons. The results also showed
that rainfall decreased and rainfall variability increased at
higher longitudes and lower altitudes showing significant
future risks in clusters I, II, and IV areas. Hence, any plan-
ning and management activity related to maize production
should recognize the ecological distinctness of the clusters
from one another. The findings of this study depicted that
areas differing in biophysical potential should be treated
independently during inputs delivery, agricultural plan-
ning, and designing of adaptation strategies to maximize
productivity and reduce risks associated with agricultural
production. Hence, the national and regional governments
should establish different sets of input delivery, extension,
and agromet advisory programs for each cluster and the
local government should play a proactive role to manage
cluster-wise schedules. Moreover, future research work
shall embody rainfall characteristics and its variability in
each of these clusters and develop operational maize
calendar usable at grass root level.
Acknowledgments: The authors acknowledge Hawassa
University College of Agriculture School of Plant and
Horticultural Sciences for allowing to join the PhD program
in Agronomy and the National Meteorology and Climate
Change Institute (the then National Meteorology Agency),
Hawassa Branch Office for provision of geo-referenced
PCA  517
weather data, and Southern Agriculture Research Institute
(SARI) for provision of required funds to procure weather
data.
Funding information: The authors obtained data procure-
ment fund from Southern Agriculture Research Institute
(SARI).
Author contributions: D.M. and G.M. – conceptualization,
formal analysis, methodology, and writing – original draft;
D.M. – Data collection and resources;; and W.W. – writing –
review and editing.
Conflict of interest: The authors state no conflict of interest.
Data availability statement: The datasets generated during
and/or analyzed during the current study are available
from the corresponding author on reasonable request.
References
[1] Abate T, Shiferaw B, Menkir A, Wegary D, Kebede Y, Tesfaye K,
et al. Factors that transformed maize productivity in Ethiopia.
Food Security. 2015;7:965–81.
[2] Allen RG, Pereira LS, Raes D, Smith M. Crop
Evapotranspiration-Guidelines for Computing Crop Water
Requirements-FAO Irrigation and Drainage Paper 56. Vol. 300,
Rome, Italy: FAO; 1998. p. 6541.
[3] FAO. Food loss analysis: causes and solutions – Case study on
the maize value chain in the Federal Democratic Republic of
Ethiopia, Rome; 2018. p. 46. Licence: CC BY-NC-SA 30 IGO.
[4] Mosisa W, Legesse W, Berhanu T, Girma D, Girum A, Wende A,
et al. Status and future direction of maize research and pro-
duction in Ethiopia. Proceedings of the 3rd National Maize
Workshop of Ethiopia. Vol. 2012. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 18–20
April 2011. p. 17–23.
[5] Yami M, Meyer F, Hassan R. The impact of production shocks
on maize markets in Ethiopia: implications for regional trade
and food security. Agric Food Econ. 2020;8:1–25.
[6] Tadeg A. Climate Change National Adaptation Programme of
Action (NAPA) of Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia; 2007.
[7] Diro GT, Grimes DIF, Black E. Large scale features affecting
ethiopian rainfall. Adv Glob Change Res. 2015;43:13–50.
[8] Taye MT, Dyer E, Charles KJ, Hirons LC. Potential predictability
of the Ethiopian summer rains: understanding local variations
and their implications for water management decisions. Sci
Tot Env. 2021;755:1–16.
[9] Diro GT, Grimes DIF, Black E, O’Neill A, Pardo-Iguzquiza E.
Evaluation of reanalysis rainfall estimates over Ethiopia. Int J
Climatol. 2009;29:67–78.
[10] Gissila T, Black E, Grimes DIF, Slingo JM. Seasonal forecasting of
the Ethiopian summer rains. Int J Climatol. 2004;24:1345–58.
[11] Alhamshry A, Almaw AF, Yasuda H, Kimura R, Shimizu K.
Seasonal rainfall variability in ethiopia and its long-term link
to global sea surface temperatures. Water. 2020;12(55):1–19.
518  Daniel Markos et al.
[12] Koricha D, Sorteberg A. Validation of operational seasonal
rainfall forecast in Ethiopia. Water Resour Res.
2013;49:7681–97.
[13] Gebremichael A, Quraishi S, Mamo G. Analysis of seasonal
rainfall variability for agricultural water resource management
in southern region of Ethiopia. J Nat Sci Res. 2014;4:56–79.
[14] Mesay A. The onset, cessation and dry spells of the small rainy
season (Belg) of Ethiopia National Meteorological Agency.
Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: 2006.
[15] Bekele F, Mosisa N, Terefe D. Analysis of current rainfall
variability and trends over Bale-Zone, South Eastern highland
of Ethiopia. Clim Change. 2017;3(12):889–902.
[16] Abegaz WB, Mekoya A. Rainfall variability and trends over
Central Ethiopia. Int J Env Sci Nat Res. 2020;24(4):1–13.
[17] Kumari M, Singh CK, Basistha A. Clustering data and incor-
porating topographical variables for improving spatial inter-
polation of rainfall in mountainous region. Water Resour
Manage. 2016;31:425–42. doi: 10.1007/s11269-016-1534-0.
[18] Pereira VGC, Gri DJ, Marangoni T, Frigo JP, Azevedo KD,
Grzesiuck AE. Exigências climáticas para a cultura do feijão
(Phaseolus vulgaris L). Rev Brasileira de Energ Renováveis.
2014;3:32–42.
[19] Amissah-Arthur A, Jagtap SS. Geographic variation in growing
season rainfall during three decades in Nigeria using principal
component and cluster analyses. Theor App Clim.
1999;63:107–16.
[20] Zhou D, Khan S, Abbas A, Rana T, Zhang H, Chen Y. Climatic
regionalization mapping of the Murrumbidgee Irrigation Area,
Australia. Prog Nat Sci. 2009;19:1773–9.
[21] Cordoba MA, Bruno CI, Costa JL, Peralta NR, Balzarini MG.
Protocol for multivariate homogeneous zone delineation in
precision Agriculture. Bio Syst Eng. 2016;143:95–107.
[22] Jaynes DB, Colvin TS, Kaspar TC. Identifying potential soybean
management zones from multi-year yield data. Comp Electron
Agric. 2005;46:309–27.
[23] Arellanolara F, Sandoval CAE. Multivariate delineation of
rainfall homogeneous regions for estimating quantiles of
maximum daily rainfall: A case study of northwestern Mexico.
Atmósfera. 2014;27(1):1–14.
[24] Raju KS, Kumar DN. Classification of Indian meteorological
stations using cluster and fuzzy cluster analysis and Kohonen
artificial neural networks. Nordic Hydrol. 2007;38(3):303–14.
[25] Indhumathi R, Sathiyabama S. Reducing and clustering high
dimensional data through principal component analysis. Int J
Comp App. 2010;11(8):1–4.
[26] Abreu BD, Barbosa SB, da Silva EC, Santoro K, Batista ÂM,
Martinez RL. Principal component and cluster analyses to
evaluate production and milk quality traits. Rev Ciência
Agronômica. 2020;51(3):e20196977.
[27] Oumenskou H, El Baghdadi M, Barakat A, Aquit M, Ennaji W,
Karroum LA, et al. Multivariate statistical analysis for spatial
evaluation of physicochemical properties of agricultural soils
from Beni-Amir irrigated perimeter, Tadla plain, Morocco. Geol
Ecol Landsc. 2019;3(2):83–94.
[28] Kandel M, Ghimire SK, Ojha BR, Shrestha J. Analysis of genetic
diversity among the maize inbred lines (Zea mays L) under
heat stress condition. J Maize Res Dev. 2017;3(1):86–97.
[29] Kar AK, Goel NK, Lohani AK, Roy GP. Application of clustering
techniques using prioritized variables in regional flood
frequency analysis – Case study of Mahanadi Basin. J Hydrol
Eng. 2011;17:213–23.
[30] Oliveira-Júnior JF, Xavier FMG, Teodoro PE, Gois G, Delgado RC.
Cluster analysis identified homogeneus regions in Tocantins
State. Braz Biosci. 2017;33(2):333–40.
[31] Haque MM, deSouza A. Water demand modelling using inde-
pendent component regression technique. Water Resour Res.
2017;31:299–312.
[32] Bisetegne D, Ogallo L, Ininda J. Rainfall characteristics in
Ethiopia. Proceeding of First Technical Conference on
Meteorological Research in Eastern and Southern Africa.
Nairobi, Kenya: University of Nairobi, 1986.
[33] Eklundh L, Pilesjö P. Regionalization and spatial estimation of
Ethiopian mean annual rainfall. Int J Climatol.
1990;10:473–94.
[34] Mamo GD. Using seasonal climate outlook to advise on sor-
ghum production in the central Rift Valley of Ethiopia. PhD
Thesis in Agro-meteorology. Bloemfontein, South Africa:
Faculty of Natural and Agricultural Sciences, University of the
Free State; 2005.
[35] Fufa MJ, Yadeta DW. Trends and Challenges in Improved
Agricultural Inputs Use by Smallholder Farmers in Ethiopia:
A Review. Turk J Agric Food Sci Technol. 2020;8(11):2286–92.
[36] Sime G, Aune JB. Sustainability of improved crop varieties and
agricultural practices: A case study in the central Rift Valley of
Ethiopia. Agriculture. 2018;8177:1–16.
[37] Sippel S, Zscheischler J, Heimann ML, Otto FE, Peters J,
Mahecha MD. Quantifying changes in climate variability and
extremes: pitfalls and their overcoming. Geophys Res Lett.
2015;42:9990–8.
[38] Mishra P, Pandey CM, Singh U, Gupta A, Sahu C, Keshri A.
Descriptive statistics and normality tests for statistical data.
Ann Card Anaesth. 2019;22:67–72.
[39] Steel RGD, Torrie JH, Dickey DA. Principles and procedures of
statistics a biometrical approach. 3rd edn. Nova York:
McGraw- Hill; 1997. p. 666.
[40] Pires JCM, Martins FG, Sousa SIV, Alvim-Ferraz MCM,
Pereira MC. Selection and validation of parameters in multiple
linear and principal component regressions. Env Model Soft.
2008;23:50–5.
[41] Ruhango A. East African Seasonal Rainfall prediction using
multiple linear regression and regression with ARIMA
errors models. PhD Thesis. Wurzberg, Germany: University
of Julius Maximillian, Institute of Geography and
Geology; 2021.
[42] Smith EV. Detecting and evaluating the impact of multidi-
mensionality using item fit statistics and principal component
analysis of residuals. J Appl Meas. 2002;3(2):205–23.
[43] Machiwal D, Kumar S, Meena HM, Santra P, Singh RK,
Singh DV. Clustering of rainfall stations and distinguishing
influential factors using PCA and HCA techniques over the
western dry region of India. Meteorol Appl. 2019;26:300–11.
[44] Ward JH. Hierarchical grouping to optimize an objective func-
tion. Am Stat Assoc. 1963;58(301):236–44.
[45] Hosking JRM, Wallis JR. Regional Frequency Analysis: An
Approach based on L-moments. New York, NY, USA:
Cambridge University Press; 1997.
[46] Everitt BS. The Cambridge Dictionary of Statistics. 2nd edn.
Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press; 2002.

[47] SPSS Inc. SPSS Base 11.0 for Windows User’s Guide.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall; 2001.
[48] Harrell EE. Regression modelling strategies with applications
to linear models, logistic regression and survival analysis.
New York, USA: Springer; 2000.
[49] Mendeş M, Akkartal E. Comparison of ANOVA F and WELCH
tests with their respective permutation versions in terms of
type I error rates and test power. Res Artic. 2010;16(5):711–6.
[50] Aslam M, Albassam M. Presenting post hoc multiple comparison
tests under neutrosophic statistics. Sci. 2020;32:2728–32.
[51] Alex JK. Homogeneity of variances, Wiley Stats Ref: Statistics
Reference; 2014, Online. doi: 101002/9781118445112.
[52] Cleophas TJ, Zwinderman AH. Bonferroni t-Test. Statistical
analysis of clinical data on a pocket calculator. The
Netherlands: Springer Nature; 2011. p. 41–2.
[53] Wong WSD, Lee J. Statistical analysis of geographic informa-
tion with ArcView GIS and ArcGIS. Hoboken, USA: Wiley; 2005.
[54] Niu W, Feng Z, Feng B, Min Y, Cheng C, Zhou J. Comparison of
multiple linear regression, artificial neural network, extreme
learning machine, and support vector machine in deriving
operation rule of hydropower reservoir. Water. 2019;11:88.
[55] Bates B, Kundzewicz Z, Wu S. Climate change and water,
intergovernmental panel on climate change IPCC secretariat.
Geneva, Switzerland: The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate
Change; 2008.
[56] Seleshi Y, Camberlin P. Recent changes in dry spell and
extreme rainfall events in Ethiopia. Theor Appl Climatol.
2006;83:181–91.
PCA  519
[57] Seleshi Y, Zanke U. Recent changes in rainfall and rainy days
in Ethiopia. Int J Climatol. 2004;24(8):973–83.
[58] Belay AS, Fenta AA, Yenehun A, Nigate F, Tilahun SA,
Moges MM, et al. Evaluation and application of
multi-source satellite rainfall product CHIRPS to
assess spatiotemporal rainfall variability on data-sparse
western margins of Ethiopian highlands. Remote Sens.
2019;11:1–22.
[59] Befikadu E, Simane B, Teferi E, Ongoma V, Tefera N. Climate
variability and farmers’ perception in Southern Ethiopia.
Advan Meteor. 2019;7341465:1–20.
[60] Worku M, Twumasi-Afriyie S, Wolde L, Tadesse B, Demisie G,
Bogale G, et al. Meeting the Challenges of Global Climate
Change and Food Security through Innovative Maize Research.
Proceedings of the 3rd National Maize Workshop of Ethiopia.
Mexico, DF: CIMMYT; 2012.
[61] Shengu MK. Seed system and quality estimation of maize (Zea
Mays L) in humid tropics of Southern Ethiopia. Intern J Dev
Res. 2017;7(3):12057–73.
[62] Alemu D, Yirga C, Bekele A, Tesfaye A. Situation and Outlook of
Maize in Ethiopia. Addis Ababa, Ethiopia: EIAR; 2014.
[63] Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations. The
digital soil map of the world, Version 3.6, Land and water
development division. Rome, Italy; 2003.
[64] Teodoro PE, da CUNHA CC, Correa G, Ribeiro LP, Torres FE, De
Oliveira-Junior JF, et al. Altitude and geographic coordinates to
estimate monthly rainfall in the state of mato grosso do sul.
Biosci J. 2016;32(1):41–7.