Comparison between evapotranspiration estimate methods in the state of Rio Grande do Sul
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X84530Keywords:
Evapotranspiration, Pampa Biome, Estimation methodsAbstract
The characterization of evapotranspiration requires time and financial investment, but from meteorological data, it is possible to estimate the values of this phenomenon by means of indirect methods. The Penman-Monteith FAO (PM) method is considered the most accurate by the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations (FAO), which recommends its use because it takes into account solar radiation, temperature, relative humidity, and wind speed, data that are not always available in some locations in Brazil, making it necessary to use more simplified methods. Therefore, the objective of this work is to compare the evapotranspiration estimated by the Penman-Monteith FAO method with the evapotranspiration estimated by the methods of Penman-Monteith Simplified (PMS), Priestley-Taylor (PT), and Hargraves-Samani (HS) for the 10 weather stations of the National Institute of Meteorology (INMET) distributed in the Pampa biome in the state of Rio Grande do Sul. The results obtained indicated some divergences between the compared methods. However, the PT method showed more accurate results, with the best performance among the proposed methods. This indicates that this method can be used in future studies in the region, especially in cases of a lack of meteorological data.
Downloads
References
RG, A. (1998). Crop evapotranspiration: guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrig Drain, 56, 147-151.
Câmpara, A. S. (2018). Identificação da área de transição paisagística entre os biomas Pampa e Mata Atlântica na região centro-oeste do Rio Grande do Sul.
Collischonn, W., & Dornelles, F. (2013). Hidrologia para engenharia e ciências ambientais. Porto Alegre: Associação Brasileira de Recursos Hídricos (ABRH), 336.
Djaman, K., Irmak, S., Kabenge, I., & Futakuchi, K. (2016). Evaluation of FAO-56 penman-monteith model with limited data and the valiantzas models for estimating grass-reference evapotranspiration in Sahelian conditions. Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering, 142(11), 04016044.
Djaman, K., Koudahe, K., Lombard, K., & O’Neill, M. (2018). Sum of hourly vs. daily Penman-Monteith grass-reference evapotranspiration under semiarid and arid climate. Irrig Drain Syst Eng, 7(1), 1-6.
Garcia, M., Raes, D., Allen, R., & Herbas, C. (2004). Dynamics of reference evapotranspiration in the Bolivian highlands (Altiplano). Agricultural and forest meteorology, 125(1-2), 67-82.
Gomes, M., De Vargas, T., Belladona, R., & Duarte, M. (2018). Aplicação do interpolador IDW para elaboração de mapas hidrogeológicos paramétricos na região da Serra Gaúcha. Scientia cum industria, 6(3), 38-43.
Hargreaves, G. H. (1975). Moisture availability and crop production. Transactions of the ASAE, 18(5), 980-0984.
Hargreaves, G. H., & Samani, Z. A. (1982). Estimating potential evapotranspiration. Journal of the irrigation and Drainage Division, 108(3), 225-230.
Hess, T. M. (1998). Trends in reference evapo-transpiration in the North East Arid Zone of Nigeria, 1961–91. Journal of Arid Environments, 38(1), 99-115.
IBGE – Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, Rio Grande do Sul, 2023. Available at: <https://cidades.ibge.gov.br/brasil/rs/rio-grande/panorama>
INMET – Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia. Banco de Dados Meteorológicos para Ensino e Pesquisa - BDMEP. Rio Grande do Sul, 2023. Available at: <https://bdmep.inmet.gov.br/>
Jabloun, M. D., & Sahli, A. (2008). Evaluation of FAO-56 methodology for estimating reference evapotranspiration using limited climatic data: Application to Tunisia. Agricultural water management, 95(6), 707-715.
Jakob, A. A. E., & Young, A. F. (2006). O uso de métodos de interpolação espacial de dados nas análises sociodemográficas. Trabalho apresentado no XV Encontro Nacional de Estudos Populacionais, ABEP, realizado em Caxambu, MG, Brasil. Disponível em: http://www.abep.org.br/publicacoes/index.php/anais/article/viewFile/1530/1494
Jacobs, J. M., Satti, S. R., & Fitzgerald, J. M. (2001). Evaluation of reference evapotranspiration methodologies and AFSIRS crop water use simulation model. St. Johns River Water Management District.
Jensen, M. E., Burman, R. D., & Allen, R. G. (1990). Evapotranspiration and irrigation water requirements: a manual. ASCE manuals and reports on engineering practice (USA). no. 70.
Maidment, D. R. (Ed.). (1992). Handbook of hydrology (pp. xx+-1000).
Martınez-Cob, A., & Tejero-Juste, M. (2004). A wind-based qualitative calibration of the Hargreaves ET0 estimation equation in semiarid regions. Agricultural water management, 64(3), 251-264.
Sena, C. C. R. (2021). Uso do sensoriamento remoto para a estimativa da evapotranspiração atual e diagnóstico do manejo da irrigação da cultura do tomate industrial em Goiás.
Stöckle, C. O., Kjelgaard, J., & Bellocchi, G. (2004). Evaluation of estimated weather data for calculating Penman-Monteith reference crop evapotranspiration. Irrigation science, 23, 39-46.
Thaines, P. (2022). Sistema integrado com telemetria e mensageria para auxiliar o manejo de irrigação agrícola através do cálculo da evapotranspiração de referência. Disponível em: https://repositorio.ufsc.br/handle/123456789/243463
Tucci, C. E. (2012). Hidrologia: Ciência e Aplicação. 4ª edição. ed. Porto Alegre: Editora da UFRGS, 4.
Wmo. World Meteorological Organization (2010). Guide to the global observing system. n. 488, Genebra, Suíça. 172p.
Zappa, L., Schlaffer, S., Brocca, L., Vreugdenhil, M., Nendel, C., & Dorigo, W. (2022). How accurately can we retrieve irrigation timing and water amounts from (satellite) soil moisture?. International Journal of Applied Earth Observation and Geoinformation, 113, 102979.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Ciência e Natura
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.
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.
In particular,
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.
