<b>Assessment of modeling approaches for estimates of reference evapotranspiration for the region of Palotina, Paraná State, Brazil</b> - DOI: 10.4025/actasciagron.v30i5.5959

  • Vera Lucia Greco Syperreck UNIOESTE
  • Elcio Silvério Klosowski UNIOESTE
  • Marcelo Greco Corpo de Bombeiros
  • Cleber Furlanetto UNIOESTE
Keywords: irrigation, water consumption, reference crop

Abstract

The aim of this study was to compare the efficiency of three estimate methods for reference evapotranspiration in comparison with the FAO Penman-Monteith equation. Meteorological data used in this study were collected from the IAPAR meteorological station, located in Palotina, Paraná State, Brazil. In order to estimate the reference evapotranspiration, data available from 1994 to 2003 were used. The performance of the Thornthwaite, Camargo and Hargreaves-Samani methods were compared to the FAO Penman-Monteith equation. The average of daily reference evapotranspiration ranged from 2.58 to 3.62 mm day-1. The results indicated that the evaluated methods showed good adjustment when compared to the FAO Penman-Monteith method, according to the daily scale. The correlation coefficient (r) ranged from 0.85 to 0.86. The coefficient of accuracy or agreement (d) presented values that ranged from 0.82 to 0.85. In comparison to the FAO Penman-Monteith method, the Hargreaves-Samani, Thornthwaite and Camargo methods demonstrated good performance, when evaluated by the index (c).

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

Author Biography

Marcelo Greco, Corpo de Bombeiros
Attp://lattes.cnpq.br/9647467732882850
Published
2008-12-10
How to Cite
Syperreck, V. L. G., Klosowski, E. S., Greco, M., & Furlanetto, C. (2008). <b>Assessment of modeling approaches for estimates of reference evapotranspiration for the region of Palotina, Paraná State, Brazil</b&gt; - DOI: 10.4025/actasciagron.v30i5.5959. Acta Scientiarum. Agronomy, 30(5), 603-609. https://doi.org/10.4025/actasciagron.v30i5.5959
Section
Agricultural Engineering

 

2.0
2019CiteScore
 
 
60th percentile
Powered by  Scopus

 

2.0
2019CiteScore
 
 
60th percentile
Powered by  Scopus