Abstract

In comparison to a measured field water balance (FWB), we aimed to evaluate the impact of using different functions to daily estimate the crop coefficient (Kc) and soil water depletion fraction (p) in a climatological water balance (CWB), and verify that the grouping of output variables provides improved results. The FWB was conducted in Telêmaco Borba, Southern Brazil. The data were collected at weekly intervals in 2009, in an area of loblolly pine with 6 years-old. The CWB considers different equations to estimate daily Kc and p values. The output components of the CWB were estimated daily, then weekly and monthly grouped for comparison with the FWB. Linear correlation analysis, index “d” of concordance, index “c” of performance, mean error, mean absolute error and root mean square error were performed in order to compare the water balances, based on the soil-water storage variation (DS) and actual evapotranspiration (ETa). The use of a Kc measured weekly improved the CWB, providing high correlation and small errors in relation to a measured water balance, independent of the comparison scale. On the other hand, the use of a Kc that considers climate variables (Kc_k) had the worst levels of accuracy and precision, and the biggest mistakes in all analyzes and all tested variables. There was no significant improvement with the daily variation of p, both grouping weeks as in months. The proposed equations do not represent any gain in the CWB, in comparison with the use of a constant p value over time. The estimate of the CWB and its subsequent grouping in months for comparison provided greater degree of accuracy and precision for the variables analyzed, but caused the biggest mistakes. Therefore, the calculation of CWB should be performed with the highest periodicity possible, and grouping the CWB output variables should only be performed for comparison.

Key words: Pinus taeda, crop evapotranspiration, actual evapotranspiration, soil water storage, field water balance.