1995
DOI: 10.1590/s0006-87051995000200022
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Índice climático de crescimento para gramíneas forrageiras no Estado de São Paulo

Abstract: RESUMOUtilizou-se o índice climático de crescimento (ICC) para gramíneas forrageiras, com base em temperatura, radiação solar e relação entre evapotranspiração real e potencial, a fim de estimar a produção de matéria seca (TAMS) de capim-colonião, gordura, jaraguá e pangola através da seguinte equação exponencial: ICC = a EXP (b ICC), onde a e b são constantes que diferem para cada espécie. Determinou-se o índice climático médio mensal para 47 localidades paulistas e regiões limítrofes. A variação espacial do … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
1
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2015
2015

Publication Types

Select...
4
1

Relationship

0
5

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 5 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 1 publication
0
1
0
Order By: Relevance
“…without irrigation, the CGI showed satisfactory statistics in the test of the estimates of tropical forage grass production in the states of São Paulo (Pedro Júnior, 1995) and Bahia (Santos et al, 2008). When analyzing the test results of models to predict dry matter production with independent data, the variables that produced the best statistics in generating the regressions also provided the best estimates of dry matter production of Tanzania grass (Table 3).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…without irrigation, the CGI showed satisfactory statistics in the test of the estimates of tropical forage grass production in the states of São Paulo (Pedro Júnior, 1995) and Bahia (Santos et al, 2008). When analyzing the test results of models to predict dry matter production with independent data, the variables that produced the best statistics in generating the regressions also provided the best estimates of dry matter production of Tanzania grass (Table 3).…”
Section: Resultsmentioning
confidence: 99%