4.5 Article

Assessment of Gridded CRU TS Data for Long-Term Climatic Water Balance Monitoring over the Sao Francisco Watershed, Brazil

期刊

ATMOSPHERE
卷 11, 期 11, 页码 -

出版社

MDPI
DOI: 10.3390/atmos11111207

关键词

potential evapotranspiration; precipitation; Brazilian Semiarid region; climate change; climate trends

资金

  1. Coordination for the Improvement of Higher Education Personnel (CAPES) [1765923]
  2. National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq) [303802/2017-0]

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Understanding the long-term behavior of rainfall and potential evapotranspiration (PET) over watersheds is crucial for the monitoring of hydrometeorological processes and climate change at the regional scale. The Sao Francisco watershed (SFW) in Brazil is an important hydrological system that transports water from humid regions throughout the Brazilian semiarid region. However, long-term, gapless meteorological data with good spatial coverage in the region are not available. Thus, gridded datasets, such as the Climate Research Unit TimeSeries (CRU TS), can be used as alternative sources of information, if carefully validated beforehand. The objective of this study was to assess CRU TS (v4.02) rainfall and PET data over the SFW, and to evaluate their long-term (1942-2016) climatological aspects. Point-based measurements retrieved from rain gauges and meteorological stations of national agencies were used for validation. Overall, rainfall and PET gridded data correlated well with point-based observations (r = 0.87 and r = 0.89), with a poorer performance in the lower (semiarid) portion of the SFW (r ranging from 0.50 to 0.70 in individual stations). Increasing PET trends throughout the entire SFW and decreasing rainfall trends in areas surrounding the semiarid SFW were detected in both gridded (smoother slopes) and observational (steeper slopes) datasets. This study provides users with prior information on the accuracy of long-term CRU TS rainfall and PET estimates over the SFW.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.5
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据