COMPARASION OF METHODS THE EVAPORATION REFERENCE (ETO) IN THE REGION OF PETROLINA-PE
The study was aimed to estimate the reference evapotranspiration (ETo) daily for the region of Petrolina-PE, using data from the weather station Trough, inserted in the research unit of EMBRAPA-SEMIARID (CPATSA). Were used meteorological data for the year 2010 in the estimation methods of Penmam-Monteith-FAO (PM), of Linacre, Radiation and Class A pan. We adopted the method of PM as a parameter to evaluate the efficiency of other methods and the index (c) of Camargo and Sentelhas to evaluate their performance. For the method of PM was observed that in general the ETo values show great variability throughout the year in the semiarid region of the state of Pernambuco, reaching present daily average values between 3,0 and 8,0 mm day-1. According to the results it was observed that the methods of radiation and Linacre obtained satisfactory results, as the performance criterion, values above 0,85 for c in the months of September to january. However, with respect to error on the PM, the Linacre method was very efficient for the study area, as there was a value 0,76%, while the method of the class A pan method showed the worst results, with an error around 12%. Have the method of radiation, despite the good performance coefficient showed underestimate the PM method, obtaining an error of -13%.
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.