TREND IN NUMBER OF DAYS OF PRECIPITATION IN THE STATE OF MATO GROSSO

Authors

  • Francisco Fernando Noronha Marcuzzo Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais - Ministério de Minas e Energia
  • Nayhara de Lima Oliveira IFG - Instituto Federal de Goiás - Goiânia/GO
  • Murilo Raphael Dias Cardoso UFG/IESA - Universidade Federal de Goiás / Instituto de Estudos Sócio-Ambientais – Goiânia/GO

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X9342

Abstract

Rainfall is one of the most important variables of the hydrological cycle,making its constraints, as the Number of Days with Rain (NDR), of greatimportance in climatological studies. In order to analyze the monthlyand annual trend of Number of Days with Rain in the state of MatoGrosso, we performed a study of its extreme variability and its possiblecorrelation with the El Nino Southern Oscillation (ENSO) phenomenaof moderate or heavy intensity. We used monthly and annual averagesof the NDR of the historical series of rainfall data obtained from theNational Hydrometeorological Network, the National Water Agency andthe Geological Survey of Brazil. It was used the historical series of 30years (1977-2006). For the statistic treatment we calculated the temporalaverages of the number of days with rainfall of 120 rainfall stationsdistributed in the state of Mato Grosso. It was observed that only themonth of March tended to increase the NDR for the historical series studied, leaving the other months and the annual general average withdecreasing trend on NDR in the state of Mato Grosso. Results are presentedin graphical trends of NDR for each month and year, correlatedwith the intensity of ENSO, and also in the monthly histogram with theaverage of 30 years and for each one of the three decades.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biographies

Francisco Fernando Noronha Marcuzzo, Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais - Ministério de Minas e Energia

http://lattes.cnpq.br/1923800998058989

Engenheiro Agrônomo formado pela UNESP (Universidade Estadual Paulista) em 2001 - Campus de Botucatu. Mestre em Irrigação e Drenagem pelo Departamento de Engenharia Rural da UNESP (Universidade Estadual Paulista) em 2004 - Campus de Botucatu. Doutor em Engenharia Hidráulica e Saneamento pela USP (Universidade de São Paulo) Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos em 2008. Pós-doutorado em Engenharia Hidráulica e Saneamento pela USP (Universidade de São Paulo) Escola de Engenharia de São Carlos. Atualmente é Pesquisador (concursado) em Geociências na área de Engenharia Hidrológica da CPRM (Companhia de Pesquisa de Recursos Minerais) - Serviço Geológico do Brasil - do Ministério de Minas e Energia. Trabalha com engenahria hidrológica, hidráulica, climatologia, evaporação, evapotranspiração, balanço hídrico, programação matemática linear, não linear, e algoritmos genéticos. Tem experiência na área de Engenharia de Recursos Hídricos, com ênfase em hidrologia, hidrometria, hidráulica e irrigação, atuando principalmente nos seguintes temas: fluviometria, pluviometria, pesquisa operacional, otimização matemática linear e não linear, algoritmos genéticos. Revisor do periódico científico Engenharia na Agricultura e Geoambiente On-line.

Nayhara de Lima Oliveira, IFG - Instituto Federal de Goiás - Goiânia/GO

Tecnóloga em Saneamento Ambiental

Murilo Raphael Dias Cardoso, UFG/IESA - Universidade Federal de Goiás / Instituto de Estudos Sócio-Ambientais – Goiânia/GO

Geógrafo, Mestrando

Downloads

Published

2013-03-13

How to Cite

Marcuzzo, F. F. N., Oliveira, N. de L., & Cardoso, M. R. D. (2013). TREND IN NUMBER OF DAYS OF PRECIPITATION IN THE STATE OF MATO GROSSO. Ciência E Natura, 34(2), 59–82. https://doi.org/10.5902/2179460X9342

Issue

Vol. 34 No. 2 (2012)

Section

Geography

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.

Most read articles by the same author(s)