TEMPORAL VARIABILITY OF SPACE POTENTIAL EVAPOTRANSPIRATION IN SUBMEDIO SÃO FRANCISCO RIVER USING THE FACTOR ANALYSIS IN PRINCIPAL COMPONENTS
AbstractEvapotranspiration is one of the most important processes of the hydrological cycle, consisting of the link between energy, climate and water availability. Therefore the aim of this work was to apply multivariate statistics, factor analysis by principal components (PCA) in monthly series of potential evapotranspiration (ETP) in the Lower Basin of the Valley of the São Francisco region. We chose this region because it is embedded in the Brazilian semiarid region, which is one of the areas of the country more susceptible to the effects of climate change, both in the physical aspect as socioeconomic. The data used are time series (1960-1990) average air temperature (Tmed) expanding in grids with a resolution of 0.5 ° x 0.5 ° derived from the Regional Climates for Impacts Studies Providing ( PRECIS ) the Hadley Centre model. To determine the ETP was chosen the method of Thornthwaite and Mather (1955). Factor analysis was applied to the spatio-temporal mode for ETP data using SPSS software. The average value of 1.386 mm was observed for annual series of ETP in the study area. For the study period of 1960-1990 the set of analyzed data can be represented by three factors together explain 96.7 % of the variability of the data studied. The addition of ( 3.3% ) are associated with noise. The explanation of the first factor is directly influenced by variables related to water availability and energetic. The second factor can is associated with incidence of rainfall producing systems, such as Tropospheric Cyclonic Vortex and the ITCZ, and the influence of land use - irrigated crops . Finally the third and last factor has a direct relation to the change of dry to wet, and possibly soil type of the region.
How to Cite
To access the DECLARATION AND TRANSFER OF COPYRIGHT AUTHOR’S DECLARATION AND COPYRIGHT LICENSE click here.
Ethical Guidelines for Journal Publication
The Ciência e Natura journal is committed to ensuring ethics in publication and quality of articles.
Conformance to standards of ethical behavior is therefore expected of all parties involved: Authors, Editors, Reviewers, and the Publisher.
Authors: Authors should present an objective discussion of the significance of research work as well as sufficient detail and references to permit others to replicate the experiments. Fraudulent or knowingly inaccurate statements constitute unethical behavior and are unacceptable. Review Articles should also be objective, comprehensive, and accurate accounts of the state of the art. The Authors should ensure that their work is entirely original works, and if the work and/or words of others have been used, this has been appropriately acknowledged. Plagiarism in all its forms constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Submitting the same manuscript to more than one journal concurrently constitutes unethical publishing behavior and is unacceptable. Authors should not submit articles describing essentially the same research to more than one journal. The corresponding Author should ensure that there is a full consensus of all Co-authors in approving the final version of the paper and its submission for publication.
Editors: Editors should evaluate manuscripts exclusively on the basis of their academic merit. An Editor must not use unpublished information in the editor's own research without the express written consent of the Author. Editors should take reasonable responsive measures when ethical complaints have been presented concerning a submitted manuscript or published paper.
Reviewers: Any manuscripts received for review must be treated as confidential documents. Privileged information or ideas obtained through peer review must be kept confidential and not used for personal advantage. Reviewers should be conducted objectively, and observations should be formulated clearly with supporting arguments, so that Authors can use them for improving the paper. Any selected Reviewer who feels unqualified to review the research reported in a manuscript or knows that its prompt review will be impossible should notify the Editor and excuse himself from the review process. Reviewers should not consider manuscripts in which they have conflicts of interest resulting from competitive, collaborative, or other relationships or connections with any of the authors, companies, or institutions connected to the papers.