Abstract
The spatial and temporal distribution of precipitation is of great importance for the rain-fed agricultural production and the socioeconomics of Mato Grosso (MT), Brazil. MT has a sparse network of ground rain gauges that limits the effective use of precipitation information for sustainable agricultural production and water resources in the region. Several gridded precipitation products from remote sensing and reanalysis of land surface models are currently available that can enhance the use of such information. However, these products are available at different spatial and temporal resolutions which add some challenges to stakeholders (users) to identify their appropriateness for specific applications (e.g., irrigation requirements, length of growing season, and drought monitoring). Thus, it is necessary to provide an assessment of the reliability of these precipitation estimates. The objective of this work was to compare regional precipitation estimates over MT as provided by the Global Land Data Assimilation (GLDAS), Modern-Era Retrospective Analysis for Research and Applications (MERRA), Tropical Rainfall Measurement Mission (TRMM), Global Precipitation Measurement (GPM), and the Global Precipitation Climatology Project (GPCP) with ground-based measurements. The comparison was conducted for the 2000–2018 period at eleven ground-based weather stations that covered different climate zones in MT using daily, monthly, and annual temporal resolutions. The comparison used the Pearson correlation index–r, Willmott index–d, root mean square error—RMSE, and the Wilks methods. The results showed GPM and GLDAS estimates did not differ significantly with the measured daily, monthly, and annual precipitation. TRMM estimates slightly overestimated daily precipitation by about 4.7% but did not show significant difference on the monthly and annual scales when compared with local measurements. The GPCP underestimated annual precipitation by about 7.1%. MERRA underestimated daily, monthly, and annual precipitation by about 22.9% on average. In general, all products satisfactorily estimated monthly precipitation, and most of them satisfactorily estimated annual precipitation; however, they showed low accuracy when estimating daily precipitation. The TRMM, GPM, GPCP, and GLDAS estimates had the highest performance, from high to low, while MERRA showed the lowest performance. The findings of this study can be used to support the decision-making process in the region in application related to water resources management, sustainability of agriculture production, and drought management.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
