Reference evapotranspiration estimates in different cloudiness conditions
Autor(a) principal: | |
---|---|
Data de Publicação: | 2011 |
Outros Autores: | , , , |
Tipo de documento: | Artigo |
Idioma: | por |
Título da fonte: | Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) |
Texto Completo: | https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/9469 |
Resumo: | The objective of this work was to evaluate the performance of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) estimation methods, in different cloudiness conditions, in Seropédica, RJ, Brazil. The ETo estimates were compared with daily measurements made on weighing lysimeter, between 6/1/2006 and 7/31/2007, by pooling the data or discretizing them according to the variance of daily clearness index (KT), in four classes: KT≤0.35, cloudy sky (Clo); 0.35<KT≤0.55, partly cloudy sky (PCDi); 0.55<KT≤0.65, partly opened (PCOp); and KT>0.65, open sky (Op). The mean absolute error (MBE), the square root of the mean square error (RMSE) and indexes of adjustment and performance were used as quality indicators of the different methods. In the pooled data, Penman‑Monteith FAO (PMF) and Hargreaves‑Samani (HS) methods had 84.05 and 79.52% performance indexes, respectively, while Jensen & Haise, Linacre and Makking methods had performances below 60%. Changes in the cloudiness conditions affected the performance of ETo estimation methods. The best results were obtained with the solar radiation (86.1%) and Camargo (81.8%) methods, under the Op and Clo conditions. The PMF and HS methods can be employed in a complementary way, since their performance were 78.4% (Clo and PCDi) and 77.6% (PCOp and Op), respectively. |
id |
EMBRAPA-4_4c9ba85ee7e288461c6e6013d93abd5e |
---|---|
oai_identifier_str |
oai:ojs.seer.sct.embrapa.br:article/9469 |
network_acronym_str |
EMBRAPA-4 |
network_name_str |
Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) |
repository_id_str |
|
spelling |
Reference evapotranspiration estimates in different cloudiness conditionsEstimativas da evapotranspiração de referência em diferentes condições de nebulosidadeHargreaves-Samani; lysimeter; irrigation management; Penman-Monteith; atmospheric transmissivityHargreaves-Samani; lisímetro; manejo da irrigação; Penman-Monteith; transmissividade atmosféricaThe objective of this work was to evaluate the performance of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) estimation methods, in different cloudiness conditions, in Seropédica, RJ, Brazil. The ETo estimates were compared with daily measurements made on weighing lysimeter, between 6/1/2006 and 7/31/2007, by pooling the data or discretizing them according to the variance of daily clearness index (KT), in four classes: KT≤0.35, cloudy sky (Clo); 0.35<KT≤0.55, partly cloudy sky (PCDi); 0.55<KT≤0.65, partly opened (PCOp); and KT>0.65, open sky (Op). The mean absolute error (MBE), the square root of the mean square error (RMSE) and indexes of adjustment and performance were used as quality indicators of the different methods. In the pooled data, Penman‑Monteith FAO (PMF) and Hargreaves‑Samani (HS) methods had 84.05 and 79.52% performance indexes, respectively, while Jensen & Haise, Linacre and Makking methods had performances below 60%. Changes in the cloudiness conditions affected the performance of ETo estimation methods. The best results were obtained with the solar radiation (86.1%) and Camargo (81.8%) methods, under the Op and Clo conditions. The PMF and HS methods can be employed in a complementary way, since their performance were 78.4% (Clo and PCDi) and 77.6% (PCOp and Op), respectively.O objetivo deste trabalho foi avaliar o desempenho de métodos de estimativa da evapotranspiração de referência (ETo), em diferentes condições de nebulosidade, no Município de Seropédica, RJ. As estimativas de ETo, entre 1/6/2006 e 31/7/2007, foram comparadas com medidas diárias realizadas em lisímetro de pesagem, com agrupamento total dos dados e com a discretização pela variação do índice de claridade diário KT em quatro classes: KT≤0,35, nublado (Nub); 0,35<KT≤0,55, céu parcialmente nublado (PNAd); 0,55<KT≤0,65, céu parcialmente aberto (PNAb); e KT>0,65, céu aberto (Ab). Para avaliação da qualidade das estimativas realizadas pelos diferentes métodos, foram empregados o erro absoluto médio (MBE), a raiz quadrada do quadrado médio do erro (RMSE), e índices de ajustamento e de desempenho. No agrupamento total dos dados, os métodos Penman‑Monteith FAO (PMF) e Hargreaves‑Samani (HS) apresentaram coeficientes de desempenho de 84,05 e 79,52%, respectivamente, enquanto os métodos Jensen & Haise, Linacre e Makking apresentaram desempenho inferior a 60%. A variação das condições de nebulosidade influenciaram o desempenho dos métodos de estimativa de ETo. Os melhores resultados foram obtidos pelos métodos da radiação solar (86,1%) e de Camargo (81,8%), nas condições Ab e Nub. Os métodos PMF e HS podem ser empregados de forma complementar, pois apresentaram desempenhos de 78,4% (Nub e PNAd) e de 77,6% (PNAb e Ab), respectivamente.Termos para indexação: Hargreaves-Samani, lisímetro, manejo da irrigação, Penman-MPesquisa Agropecuaria BrasileiraPesquisa Agropecuária BrasileiraCNPq e FAPERJde Souza, Adilson Pachecode Carvalho, Daniel FonsecaDuarte da Silva, Leonardo Batistade Almeida, Frederico Terrada Rocha, Hermes Soares2011-05-26info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersionapplication/pdfhttps://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/9469Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira; v.46, n.3, mar. 2011; 219-228Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira; v.46, n.3, mar. 2011; 219-2281678-39210100-104xreponame:Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online)instname:Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)instacron:EMBRAPAporhttps://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/9469/6256https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/downloadSuppFile/9469/4689https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/downloadSuppFile/9469/4690https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/downloadSuppFile/9469/4691https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/downloadSuppFile/9469/4692https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/downloadSuppFile/9469/4693info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess2014-05-19T18:25:13Zoai:ojs.seer.sct.embrapa.br:article/9469Revistahttp://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pabPRIhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.phppab@sct.embrapa.br || sct.pab@embrapa.br1678-39210100-204Xopendoar:2014-05-19T18:25:13Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa)false |
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv |
Reference evapotranspiration estimates in different cloudiness conditions Estimativas da evapotranspiração de referência em diferentes condições de nebulosidade |
title |
Reference evapotranspiration estimates in different cloudiness conditions |
spellingShingle |
Reference evapotranspiration estimates in different cloudiness conditions de Souza, Adilson Pacheco Hargreaves-Samani; lysimeter; irrigation management; Penman-Monteith; atmospheric transmissivity Hargreaves-Samani; lisímetro; manejo da irrigação; Penman-Monteith; transmissividade atmosférica |
title_short |
Reference evapotranspiration estimates in different cloudiness conditions |
title_full |
Reference evapotranspiration estimates in different cloudiness conditions |
title_fullStr |
Reference evapotranspiration estimates in different cloudiness conditions |
title_full_unstemmed |
Reference evapotranspiration estimates in different cloudiness conditions |
title_sort |
Reference evapotranspiration estimates in different cloudiness conditions |
author |
de Souza, Adilson Pacheco |
author_facet |
de Souza, Adilson Pacheco de Carvalho, Daniel Fonseca Duarte da Silva, Leonardo Batista de Almeida, Frederico Terra da Rocha, Hermes Soares |
author_role |
author |
author2 |
de Carvalho, Daniel Fonseca Duarte da Silva, Leonardo Batista de Almeida, Frederico Terra da Rocha, Hermes Soares |
author2_role |
author author author author |
dc.contributor.none.fl_str_mv |
CNPq e FAPERJ |
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv |
de Souza, Adilson Pacheco de Carvalho, Daniel Fonseca Duarte da Silva, Leonardo Batista de Almeida, Frederico Terra da Rocha, Hermes Soares |
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv |
Hargreaves-Samani; lysimeter; irrigation management; Penman-Monteith; atmospheric transmissivity Hargreaves-Samani; lisímetro; manejo da irrigação; Penman-Monteith; transmissividade atmosférica |
topic |
Hargreaves-Samani; lysimeter; irrigation management; Penman-Monteith; atmospheric transmissivity Hargreaves-Samani; lisímetro; manejo da irrigação; Penman-Monteith; transmissividade atmosférica |
description |
The objective of this work was to evaluate the performance of reference evapotranspiration (ETo) estimation methods, in different cloudiness conditions, in Seropédica, RJ, Brazil. The ETo estimates were compared with daily measurements made on weighing lysimeter, between 6/1/2006 and 7/31/2007, by pooling the data or discretizing them according to the variance of daily clearness index (KT), in four classes: KT≤0.35, cloudy sky (Clo); 0.35<KT≤0.55, partly cloudy sky (PCDi); 0.55<KT≤0.65, partly opened (PCOp); and KT>0.65, open sky (Op). The mean absolute error (MBE), the square root of the mean square error (RMSE) and indexes of adjustment and performance were used as quality indicators of the different methods. In the pooled data, Penman‑Monteith FAO (PMF) and Hargreaves‑Samani (HS) methods had 84.05 and 79.52% performance indexes, respectively, while Jensen & Haise, Linacre and Makking methods had performances below 60%. Changes in the cloudiness conditions affected the performance of ETo estimation methods. The best results were obtained with the solar radiation (86.1%) and Camargo (81.8%) methods, under the Op and Clo conditions. The PMF and HS methods can be employed in a complementary way, since their performance were 78.4% (Clo and PCDi) and 77.6% (PCOp and Op), respectively. |
publishDate |
2011 |
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv |
2011-05-26 |
dc.type.none.fl_str_mv |
|
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/article info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion |
format |
article |
status_str |
publishedVersion |
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv |
https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/9469 |
url |
https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/9469 |
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv |
por |
language |
por |
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv |
https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/view/9469/6256 https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/downloadSuppFile/9469/4689 https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/downloadSuppFile/9469/4690 https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/downloadSuppFile/9469/4691 https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/downloadSuppFile/9469/4692 https://seer.sct.embrapa.br/index.php/pab/article/downloadSuppFile/9469/4693 |
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv |
info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess |
eu_rights_str_mv |
openAccess |
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv |
application/pdf |
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira |
publisher.none.fl_str_mv |
Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira |
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv |
Pesquisa Agropecuaria Brasileira; v.46, n.3, mar. 2011; 219-228 Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira; v.46, n.3, mar. 2011; 219-228 1678-3921 0100-104x reponame:Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) instname:Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) instacron:EMBRAPA |
instname_str |
Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) |
instacron_str |
EMBRAPA |
institution |
EMBRAPA |
reponame_str |
Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) |
collection |
Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) |
repository.name.fl_str_mv |
Pesquisa Agropecuária Brasileira (Online) - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária (Embrapa) |
repository.mail.fl_str_mv |
pab@sct.embrapa.br || sct.pab@embrapa.br |
_version_ |
1793416677630672896 |