Comparative analysis of meteorological data from Rio Brilhante MS: INMET station, BR-DWGD database and ERA5 reanalysis
Keywords:
Correlation, Precipitation, TemperatureAbstract
Considering agriculture as one of the main economic poles in Brazil, the state of Mato Grosso do Sul is an important center of agricultural and livestock production. Studying the climate during all months of the year, identifying the most critical periods, is of great importance for agriculture in the region, and can provide valuable information for decision-making and risk reduction. The objective of this work is the comparison between the data observed in the surface meteorological station and of two different databases, ERA5 and BR-DWGD. Daily data were used and the variables of temperature (mean, maximum and minimum, in ºC) and precipitation (mm) occurred in the twelve months of the year in the period from 2009 to 2022, from station A743 of the National Institute of Meteorology (INMET), installed at Rio Brilhante, Mato Grasso do Sul, Brazil (21,775°S, 54,528°W and 324.31 m altitude) and Reanalysis data from the ERA5 global model and the BR-DWGD data. The results of the comparison between the databases and the observed data showed that the precipitation values have low correlation and greater variation with the observed data, although the BR-DWGD has a correlation of 0.83. Temperature values showed values between 0.8 and 1 in both databases. Thus, the BR-DWGD database is more suitable for the climate analysis of the study region.
Downloads
References
CAMPBELL, B. Climate change impacts and adaptation options in the agrifood system – A summary of recent IPCC Sixth Assessment Report findings. Rome, FAO, 2022. DOI 10.4060/cc0425en.
CONAB. 2023. Safra brasileira de grãos. Disponível em: https://www.conab.gov.br/info-agro/safras/graos. Acesso em 16 abr. 2023.
CUNHA, R. C. C.; FARIAS, F. R. Dinâmica produtiva e ordenamento territorial dos agronegócios do Mato Grosso do Sul pós-2003. Geosul, v. 34, n. 71, p. 130-153, 2019. DOI 10.5007/1982-5153.2019v34n71p130.
DORSA, A. C. C.; CONSTANTINO, M. Análise do desempenho econômico da região Centro-Oeste, Brasil, de 2002 a 2015. Multitemas, v. 25, n. 60, p. 181-206, 2020. DOI 10.20435/multi.v25i60.2466.
FAROOQ, A.; FAROOQ, N.; AKBAR, H.; HASSAN, Z.U.; GHEEWALA, S.H. A Critical Review of Climate Change Impact at a Global Scale on Cereal Crop Production. Agronomy, v. 13, 162, 2023. DOI 10.3390/agronomy13010162.
HERSBACH, H.; BELL, B.; BERRIDFORD, P.; HIRAHARA, S.; HORáNYI, A. et al The ERA5 global reanalysis. Quarterly Journal of the Royal Meteorological Society, v. 146, n. 730, p. 1999-2049, 2020. DOI 10.1002/qj.3803.
INMET - Instituto Nacional de Meteorologia . Normais Climatológicas 1991-2020. Disponível em: https://clima.inmet.gov.br/NormaisClimatologicas/1991-2020/precipitacao_acumulada_mensal_anual. Acesso em: 16 Abr. 2023.
NIMER, E. 1977. Clima: Geografia do Brasil – Região Centro-Oeste. Rio de Janeiro: IBGE. 364 p.
PELLEGRINO, G.Q.; ASSAD, E.D.; MARIN, F.R. Mudanças Climáticas Globais e a Agricultura no Brasil. Revista Multiciência, n. 8. 2007.
SERRA, A.; RATISBONNA, L. As massas de ar da América do Sul: 2ª parte. Revista Geográfica, v. 52, n. 1, p. 41-61. 1960.
STÜKER, E.; SCHUSTER, C. H.; SCHUSTER, J. J.; CAETANO SANTOS, D.; MEDEIROS, L. E.; DENARDIN COSTA, F.; DEMARCO, G.; SCREMIN PUHALES, F. (2016), Comparação entre os dados de vento das reanálises meteorológicas ERA-Interim e CFSR com os dados das estações automáticas do INMET no Rio Grande do Sul. Ciência e Natura, v. 38, p.284-290. 2016. DOI 10.5902/2179460X20233
WILLMOTT, C.J.; AKLESON, G.S.; DAVIS, R.E. et al. Statistic for the evaluation and comparison of models. Journal of Geophysical Research, v. 90, p. 8995-9005, 1985.
XAVIER, A. C.; SCANLON, B. R.; KING, C. W.; ALVES, A. I. New improved Brazilian daily weather gridded data (1961–2020). Int. J. Climatol. v. 42, p. 8390-8404. may. 2022. DOI 10.1002/joc.7731.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2025 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.
