Soil water evaporation in the cultivation of green dwarf coconut palms in the Eastern Amazon¹

Evaporação da água no solo em cultivo de coqueiro-anão-verde na Amazônia Oriental

ABSTRACT

It is crucial to understand soil water evaporation, especially in coconut plantations, where soil cover directly influences this process. This study aimed to characterize and quantify the evaporation of water from the soil in a green dwarf coconut plantation under irrigated and non-irrigated conditions, occurring in the planting row and between the rows under the climatic conditions of the Eastern Amazon. The study was developed in a green dwarf coconut plantation in Santa Izabel do Pará, Brazil. Soil water evaporation was measured using microlysimeters. The experimental design was entirely randomized, with a split-plot scheme. The results were divided and analyzed into rainy and less rainy periods, and as the ANOVA assumptions were not met, the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests were performed (p ≤ 0.05). Soil water evaporation in the non-irrigated area was higher in both the row and the interrow compared to the irrigated area. Among the locations, soil water evaporation is greater in the row than interrows in both treatments, regardless of seasonality. The differences in soil water evaporation under the conditions analyzed can be attributed to the uncovered soil and its water dynamics, in addition to the shading caused by plant leaves, which interferes with the interception of solar radiation.

Key words:
Cocos nucifera L.; microlysimeter; soil moisture

HIGHLIGHTS:

Soil water evaporation is higher in non-irrigated coconut plantations, with clear seasonal variation.

Vegetation cover between the crop rows contributes to soil water conservation in coconut plantations.

Irrigation management with soil cover practices shows greater efficiency in water conservation.

RESUMO

É crucial compreender a evaporação da água do solo, especialmente em cultivos de coqueiro, onde a cobertura do solo influencia diretamente esse processo. Este estudo objetivou caracterizar e quantificar a evaporação da água no solo em cultivo de coqueiro-anão-verde sob condições irrigada e não irrigada, ocorrida na linha e na entrelinha de plantio, nas condições climáticas da Amazônia oriental. O estudo foi desenvolvido em cultivo de coqueiro-anão-verde em Santa Izabel do Pará, Brasil. A evaporação da água no solo foi mensurada por microlisímetros. O delineamento experimental foi inteiramente casualizado, com parcela subdividida. Os resultados foram divididos e analisados em períodos chuvoso e menos chuvoso, e por não atender os pressupostos da ANOVA, realizou-se teste de Kruskal-Wallis e Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney (p ≤ 0,05). A evaporação da água no solo na área não irrigada foi maior tanto na linha como na entrelinha comparado à área irrigada. Entre os locais, a evaporação da água no solo é maior na linha em comparação a entrelinha, em ambos os tratamentos, independe da sazonalidade. As diferenças na evaporação da água no solo nas condições analisadas, podem ser atribuídas ao solo descoberto e à sua dinâmica hídrica, além do sombreamento causado pelas folhas das plantas, que interfere na interceptação da radiação solar.

Palavras-chave:
Cocos nucifera L.; microlisímetro; umidade do solo

Introduction

The green dwarf coconut palm (Cocos nucifera L.) is a tropical plant of great socio-economic importance. Its many parts offer various components that can be used for both fresh consumption and industrialization (Lédo et al., 2020). Coconut farming plays an important role in Brazil’s economy, especially in the North and Northeast regions, because green coconuts are widely consumed in these regions (Carvalho et al., 2024). In 2022, the Northern region produced a total of 185,580.000 fruits, representing around 10% of national production. This region stands out as the third-largest producer in Brazil (IBGE, 2023).

The coconut palm produces fruit continuously and simultaneously maintains various stages of fruit development throughout the year, involving flowers and fruit from fertilization to the harvest stage (Fernandes et al., 2024). Given these conditions, this fruit tree is sensitive to water deficit, and according to Ohler (1999), the optimum conditions for its development correspond to rainfall of 125-195 mm per month, resulting in 1,500-2,300 mm per year, with a dry period of no more than three months. If grown in the humid tropics (Climate Am), the region’s rainfall meets the coconut palm’s annual water requirements, accumulating more than 2,000 mm per year (Souza et al., 2017). However, the eastern Amazon experiences a four-month “less rainy” period characterized by water deficits. During this time, it is crucial to adopt management strategies that enhance water use efficiency in agriculture, ensuring sustainable production with an adequate water supply for crop development (Fernandes et al., 2024).

In this context, accounting for water inputs (precipitation and irrigation) and outputs (evaporation and transpiration, runoff, and deep percolation) is extremely important for implementing and properly managing irrigation systems (Ferreira et al., 2023). Precise irrigation control plays a key role in maintaining the soil’s water balance, considering both evaporation and the crop’s water needs (Silva & Neves, 2020).

Therefore, quantifying evaporation in cultivated areas is essential for effective agricultural management (Zhang et al., 2019; Wanniarachchi & Sarukkalige, 2022). This is particularly relevant in coconut cultivation, which is usually grown with wide spacing between plants, resulting in extensive interrows. Depending on the soil cover in these rows, there can be significant variations in the evaporation process and the planting row below the plant.

The importance of this crop for various regions of Brazil and the high interest in its products, highlights the importance of studies on the meteorological effects on this crop (Pinheiro et al., 2021). Thus, understanding the atmospheric influence on the processes of distribution and removal of water from the soil, especially through evaporation, helps to manage the irrigation system and water resources better.

Given the above, this study aimed to characterize and quantify the evaporation of water from the soil in the cultivation of green dwarf coconut trees under irrigated and non-irrigated conditions, occurring in the planting row and between the rows, under the climatic conditions of the Eastern Amazon.

Material and Methods

The study was conducted on a commercial plantation of the dwarf-green coconut palm (Cocos nucifera L., cultivar AVeBrJ), distributed across two areas: a 7-ha irrigated plot and a 19.5-ha non-irrigated plot. The site is located at Fazenda Reunidas Sococo, in the municipality of Santa Izabel do Pará, Brazil (01° 13′ 40.35″ S, 48° 02′ 56.23″ W; 24 m a.s.l.), and the experiment was conducted from May 2021 to October 2022. According to the Köppen-Geiger classification, the climate of the region corresponds to the Am type, characterized as tropical humid, with an average annual temperature of 26 °C and mean annual rainfall of over 2,000 mm. In Santa Izabel do Pará, rainfall is distributed into a rainy period, from December to July, and a less rainy period, from August to November (Alvares et al., 2014; Souza et al., 2017).

During the study period, in each treatment area (irrigated and non-irrigated), the plants were 8 and 10 years old in the year 2022, respectively, with an average height of 7.30 m and distributed in a triangular arrangement of 7.5 × 7.5 × 7.5 m. The area is covered with tropical kudzu (Pueraria phaseoloides (Roxb.) Benth.), a perennial herbaceous legume planted alongside the coconut palm.

The soil was classified as Neossolo quartzarênico with a sandy loam texture (EMBRAPA, 2018), corresponding to Quartzipsamment (USDA, 2014), whose attributes can be seen in Table 1. The irrigation system used in the irrigated treatment was a micro-sprinkler, with one micro-sprinkler per plant, a flow rate of 96 L h^-1, a uniformity coefficient of 96%, and an application efficiency of 86%.

Table 1
Physical and water attributes of the soil (0 - 0.20 m layer) in the coconut plantation, Santa Izabel do Pará - PA

Physical and water attributes	Irrigated	Non-irrigated
Sand (g kg-1)	700	789
Silt (g kg-1)	220	181
Clay (g kg-1)	80	30
Soil density (kg dm-3)	1.59	1.43
θ FC1 (cm3 cm-3)	0.19	0.15
θ PWP2 (cm3 cm-3)	0.10	0.07
θ critical3 (cm3 cm-3)	0.13	0.11

• ¹Moisture content at field capacity, ²Moisture content at permanent wilting point, ³Critical soil moisture content

The meteorological data used was obtained from micrometeorological towers installed in each area, 12 m high. They housed an automatic weather station equipped with sensors for measuring air temperature (Tar) and relative humidity of air (RH) measured by a Thermohygrometer (HMP155A, Campbell Scientific Instrument, Logan, UT, USA), present in the non-irrigated treatment, and a Thermohygrometer (MeteoTemp, Barani Design Technologies, USA), for the irrigated treatment, all installed 2.1 m above the canopy.

The incident global solar radiation (Rg) was measured by a Pyranometer (CMP6, Campbell Scientific Instrument, Logan, UT, USA) on all the towers installed. Wind speed (U) was measured by an Anemometer (05106, Campbell Scientific Instrument, Logan, UT, USA) on each tower. Soil moisture (θ) was measured by Time Domain Reflectometry - TDR (CS616, Campbell Scientific Instrument, Logan, UT, USA) inserted vertically into the ground from 0 to 0.30 m. Rainfall (P) was measured on both towers using a rain gauge (TB4, Campbell Scientific Instrument, Logan, UT, USA).

The thermohygrometers in the irrigated treatment were connected to a CR1000 datalogger (Campbell Scientific Instrument, Logan, UT, USA), and the other sensors, like those in the non-irrigated treatment, were connected to a CR10X datalogger (Campbell Scientific Instrument, Logan, UT, USA). All readings were taken every 10 seconds, and the averages and totals were recorded every 20 minutes.

The leaf area index (LAI) of the tropical kudzu present in the crop was determined monthly, with six repetitions in each area (1 m²), using the disk method (Souza et al., 2010). The LAI of the coconut palm (Eq. 2) was determined using six plants in each treatment. Two leaves from the middle third were chosen, following the methodology proposed by Friend & Corley (1994) (Eq. 1). This methodology was calibrated and validated by taking leaf area measurements using a leaf area digitizer (LI - 3100, LI-COR, Lincoln, NE, USA), from the leaflets of the leaves in the middle third of the coconut palm plants. This resulted in the coefficient k of the original equation being changed from 0.45 to 0.49.

$$AL=2\times k\times N\times l\times b$$ (1)

$$LAI=\frac{AL\times NL}{DP\times DR}$$ (2)

where:

AL - area of a leaf;

k - constant relating the true area to the estimate (0.49);

N - number of leaflets;

l - average length between measured leaflets (m);

b - average width between measured leaflets (m);

NL - number of leaves on the plant;

DP - distance between plants; and,

DR - distance between rows.

The Penman-Monteith equation (Allen et al., 1998) was used to determine reference evapotranspiration (ET_o). The data used to estimate ET_o was obtained from an automatic surface weather station at the headquarters of the Sococo Company, about 2 km (approximately 1.24 miles) away from the experimental area.

Soil water evaporation was measured using PVC microlysimeters with a diameter of 100 mm, a depth of 150 mm, and a wall thickness of 2.5 mm installed in the experimental area, following the methodology proposed by Flumignan et al. (2012). The batteries of microlysimeters were installed in the planting row and interrow. In each treatment, four plants were selected, each equipped with four microlysimeters-two placed within the plant row and two in the interrow-totaling 16 microlysimeters per treatment and 32 in total. The readings were taken daily, from Monday to Friday morning, using a common scale (precision 0.01 g). Soil water evaporation (SWE) was calculated according to the equation proposed by Flumignan et al. (2012) (Eq. 3):

$$SWE=\frac{{\Delta }_{ML}}{SAM}+[(P+I)-CAP]$$ (3)

where:

SWE - soil water evaporation measured using a microlysimeter (mm);

Δ_ML - change in microlysimeter mass (kg);

SAM - surface area of the microlysimeter (0.00785 m²);

P - precipitation (mm);

I - irrigation amount (mm); and,

CAP - volume of water drained from the microlysimeter (mm).

The experimental design was completely randomized (CRD), arranged in a split-plot scheme, consisting of treatments (irrigated and non-irrigated) and locations (row and interrow), and the replications consisted of daily point data. The results were divided and analyzed into two periods, rainy and less rainy. The results that met the assumptions of Shapiro-Wilk normality (p > 0.05) and Levene-Test homogeneity (p > 0.05) were then submitted to analysis of variance (ANOVA), with Tukey’s test subsequently applied (p ≤ 0.05). When the ANOVA assumptions were not met, the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests (p ≤ 0.05) were performed (recommended for non-parametric data). The statistical analyses were conducted using the R 4.2.1 software (R Core Team, 2023).

Results and Discussion

During the rainy season, the irrigated treatment presented an average air temperature (Tar) of 25.7 °C (± 0.6) and relative humidity of air (RH) of 91.8% (± 3.1) (Figure 1A). Global radiation (Rg) averaged 14.7 MJ m⁻² per day (± 3.4). The vapor pressure deficit (VPD) was 0.3 kPa (± 0.1) (Figure 1B), and wind speed (U) averaged 0.5 m s⁻¹ (± 0.19) (Figure 1C). For the non-irrigated treatment, in the same period, Tar was 25.9 °C (± 0.6), and RH was 87.4% (± 2.9) (Figure 1A). Rg averaged 16.3 MJ m² per day (± 2.0), while DPV recorded 0.4 kPa (± 0.1) (Figure 1B) and U averaged 0.6 m s^-1 (± 0.1). For both treatment areas, reference evapotranspiration (ET_o) averaged 3.0 mm per day (± 0.5) (Figure 1C).

Figure 1
(A) Air temperature (Tar, ºC) and relative humidity (RH, %); (B) global radiation (Rg, MJ m² per day) and vapor pressure deficit (VPD, kPa); (C) wind speed (U, m s^-1) and reference evapotranspiration (ET_o, mm per day) observed during the experimental period at Fazenda Reunidas Sococo, in the municipality of Santa Izabel do Pará, Brazil

In the less rainy period, in the irrigated treatment, the average Tar was 26.5 °C (± 0.4), and RH was 89.0% (± 3.2) (Figure 1A). The average Rg was 17.2 MJ m² per day (± 3.1), the VPD recorded an average of 0.4 kPa (± 0.1) (Figure 1B), and the U presented an average of 0.6 m s^-1 (± 0.2) (Figure 1C). For the non-irrigated treatment, during the same period, the Tar was 26.6 °C (± 0.3), and the RH was 84.4% (± 2.2) (Figure 1A). The average Rg was 19.65 MJ m² per day (± 1.5), while the mean VPD was 0.6 kPa (± 0.1) (Figure 1B) and U averaged 0.7 m s^-1 (± 0.1). In both treatment areas, ET_o averaged 4.1 mm per day (± 0.5) (Figure 1C).

In general, for all the treatments, the observed meteorological variables (except rainfall) showed higher averages during the less rainy period compared to the other periods of the year, except for RH and θ, which were higher during the rainy period. In the irrigated treatment, the meteorological variables Tar, U, Rg, and Vapor Pressure Deficit (VPD) during the less rainy period were, respectively, 2.9, 31.9, 17.2, and 40.7% higher than during the rainy period, except for RH, which was 3.0% lower during the less rainy period (Figures 1A, B and C).

On the other hand, in the non-irrigated treatment during the less rainy period, the meteorological variables Tar, U, Rg, and VPD were, respectively, 2.7, 28.0, 20.3, and 28.0% higher than during the rainy period, and RH was 3.4% lower during the less rainy period (Figures 1A, B, and C). In both treatments, ET_o was 37.2% higher during the less rainy period than the rainy period (Figure 1C).

During the less rainy period, the higher Tar averages were influenced by the increase in solar radiation, resulting from less cloud cover due to the reduction in rainfall. This scenario favored the intensification of VPD, which is higher during dry periods, reflecting a greater demand for water vapor than during the rainy period (Ataide et al., 2020). Given these conditions, an increase in ET_o was also observed, highlighting the role of solar radiation and water availability in the dynamics of evaporation and water vapor fluxes in the agricultural system.

During the experimental period, from May 2021 to October 2022, the global phenomenon of El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO) was in the cold phase (La Niña), contributing to the intensification of rainfall volumes (NOAA, 2025). The total rainfall (TR) in the irrigated treatment during the experimental period was 3,686.2 mm, of which 73.4% corresponded to the rainy period (2,705.5 mm) and 26.6% to the less rainy period (980.8 mm). In the non-irrigated treatment, total rainfall during the experiment amounted to 3,834.1 mm, of which 74.9% corresponded to the rainy season (2,870.8 mm) and 25.1% to the less rainy season (963.3 mm). Total irrigation (Ir) in the irrigated treatment during the experiment was 496.8 mm (Figure 2).

Figure 2
Total rainfall (TR, mm) in the irrigated (I) and non-irrigated treatments (NI) and irrigation (Ir, mm) during the experimental period. The shaded area indicates the less rainy period

Volumetric water content (θ) was monitored in the planting rows and interrows throughout the experimental period. The θ in the irrigated treatment during the rainy season averaged around 0.21 m³ m^-3 (± 0.03) in the planting row and 0.26 m³ m^-3 (± 0.02) in the interrow, while during the less rainy season, the averages were 0.17 m³ m^-3 (± 0.02) in the row and 0.23 m³ m^-3 (± 0.01) in the interrow (Figure 3A).

Figure 3
Volumetric water content (θ, m³ m⁻³) in the irrigated (A) and non-irrigated (B) treatments, measured in the planting rows and interrows. Dashed lines indicate field capacity (FC), permanent wilting point (PWP), and critical soil moisture (θc). Soil water evaporation (SWE, mm per day) under irrigated (C) and non-irrigated (D) conditions in the planting rows and interrows. The shaded area indicates the less rainy period

It can be seen that the interrow in the irrigated area always had the highest volumetric water content in the soil, regardless of the time of year, possibly due to waterlogging of the soil as a result of continuous water management and frequent access by machinery. In the non-irrigated treatment, θ during the rainy season obtained an average in the row and interrow of 0.16 m³ m^-3 (± 0.02) (Figure 3B). For the less rainy period, the θ reached the lowest values, with an average of 0.13 m³ m^-3 (± 0.03) in the row and 0.12 m³ m^-3 (± 0.03) in the interrow (Figure 3B).

During the rainy season, the irrigated area had an average SWE of 1.27 mm per day (± 0.20) in the row and 1.13 mm per day (± 0.19) in the interrow (Figure 3C), while in the non-irrigated area, there was a greater loss due to evaporation, with an average SWE of 1.43 (± 0.14) and 1.35 mm per day (± 0.17) in the row and interrow, respectively (Figure 3D).

During the less rainy period, SWE was obtained in the irrigated area, with an average of 1.58 mm per day (± 0.17) in the row and 1.43 mm per day (± 0.19) in the interrow (Figure 3C), while for the non-irrigated area, the average was 1.69 mm per day (± 0.15) in the row and 1.58 mm per day (± 0.16) in the interrow (Figure 3D). The maintenance of high evaporation in the non-irrigated area during the less rainy period led to a continuous depletion of water in the soil, as seen in Figure 3B, which can be detrimental to the physiological processes of the coconut palm under these conditions.

The soil water evaporation data obtained did not meet the ANOVA assumptions, so the Kruskal-Wallis and Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney tests (p ≤ 0.05) were used to test the significance of the differences found. Significant differences were observed between the treatments and sites analyzed. In the non-irrigated treatment, SWE was higher in both the planting row and the interrow compared to the irrigated treatment sites. SWE was higher in the planting row between sites than the interrow in both treatments. These behaviors were observed regardless of the study period (Figures 4A and B).

Figure 4
Boxplot of soil water evaporation (SWE, mm per day), considering the significant differences by the Wilcoxon-Mann-Whitney test (p ≤ 0.05) in the experimental area during the rainy period (A) and the less rainy period (B), in the irrigated (I) and non-irrigated (NI) treatments, in the row and interrow

During the rainy season, the SWE averages in the non-irrigated treatment were 14.8 and 21.3% higher than those in the irrigated treatment, in the row and the interrow, respectively (Figure 4A). Similarly, in the less rainy season, these averages were 7.0 and 10.5% higher than those in the irrigated treatment (Figure 4B). These results corroborate the lower soil water retention in the non-irrigated treatment, indicating that the greater water loss may be associated with the high SWE values observed in the non-irrigated treatment in both periods analyzed (Figures 4A and B).

The higher SWE in the non-irrigated treatment can be attributed to the higher VPD in this area, which was 51.6% higher than in the irrigated treatment (Figure 1B), indicating a higher atmospheric demand for water vapor in the non-irrigated area. Flumignan et al. (2012) demonstrated that, under soil water availability, evaporation occurs at a potential rate, being regulated by atmospheric demand, a characteristic of Phase I of the evaporative process. Under the observed conditions (Figure 3B), soil water remained between field capacity and permanent wilting point, indicating sufficient availability to meet the higher atmospheric demand in the non-irrigated treatment.

During the rainy season, the average SWE in the row was 13.0 and 6.9% higher than the interrow in the irrigated and non-irrigated treatments, respectively (Figure 4A). In the less rainy season, this difference was 10.5 and 7.0%, respectively (Figure 4B). Therefore, the water loss by evaporation between the locations (row and the interrow) in the experimental conditions is independent of the treatment, showing that environmental factors, such as solar radiation and vapor pressure deficit, may play a more determining role in this process.

The higher SWE observed in the planting row in both treatments can be attributed to the difference in leaf architecture between coconut and tropical kudzu, reflected in the LAI values (1.51 m² m^-2 for coconut and 2.73 m² m^-2 for tropical kudzu). Sprenger et al. (2017), Wang et al. (2021) and Wang et al. (2024) showed that soils with less vegetation cover present greater water loss through evaporation due to greater exposure to solar radiation. Similarly, in the present study, the lower LAI of coconut, combined with the low plant density in the soil under its canopy due to crown management, reduced soil cover and increased its exposure to solar radiation, intensifying the evaporation process in the planting row.

The lower SWE observed in the interrow is related to the higher LAI of tropical kudzu (2.73 m² m^-2). Gava et al. (2013) and Naveen-Gupta et al. (2021) demonstrated that soil cover significantly reduces water loss by evaporation. Thus, the presence of tropical kudzu in the interrow provides greater shading and soil cover, increasing the interception of solar radiation and hindering the transfer of energy to the surface, limiting the interrow’s evaporative process.

Reducing evaporation is essential for preserving water in the soil, contributing to moisture conservation, and minimizing water losses. Almeida et al. (2019) and Soltani et al. (2023) show that soil cover plays a fundamental role in this process, reducing evaporation and prolonging water availability for agricultural systems. In the present study, the results reinforce these benefits, highlighting the relevance of regulating water exchange for the soil-plant-atmosphere balance.

Given the above, understanding the process of soil water evaporation is essential to prevent excessive irrigation. This knowledge provides insight into soil water loss and the contribution of evaporation to the overall evapotranspiration process, thereby supporting more efficient water resource management for irrigation purposes.

Therefore, understanding the factors that influence evaporation in different crops, whether they are subject to irrigation or not, both in the planting row and interrow, is of significant importance for rational crop management. With knowledge of this nature, it becomes possible, for example, to install and position the irrigation system close to the plants, associated with soil cover management with forage plants or dead matter, enabling greater water conservation in the soil and avoiding large losses due to evaporation, maximizing agricultural production and ensuring productive sustainability.

Conclusions

1. The highest soil water evaporation totals were recorded in non-irrigated coconut areas.

2. Soil water evaporation was higher in the planting rows than in the interrows, regardless of the presence or absence of irrigation.

3. Shading caused by leaves reduces soil water evaporation.

4. The differences observed in soil water evaporation under the conditions analyzed are related to soil cover and atmospheric demand for water vapor.

Literature Cited

• Allen, R. G.; Pereira, L. S.; Raes, D.; Smith, M. Crop evapotranspiration-guidelines for computing crop water requirements. FAO Irrigation and drainage paper 56. Rome: FAO, 1998. 300p.
• Almeida, A. C. S.; Pusch, M.; Bonifácio, J. S.; Oliveira, F. C.; Geisenholff, L.; Biscaro, G. A. Efeito da tensão crítica de irrigação e cobertura do solo sobre o cultivo de rabanete. Revista Agrarian, v.12, p.308-317, 2019. https://doi.org/10.30612/agrarian.v12i45.4566
  » https://doi.org/10.30612/agrarian.v12i45.4566
• Alvares, C. A.; Stape, J. L.; Sentelhas, P. C.; Gonçalves, J. L. M.; Sparovek, G. Köppen’s climate classification map for Brazil. Meteorologische Zeitschrift, v.22, p.711-728, 2014.
• Ataide, W. L. S.; Oliveira, F. de A.; Pinto, C. A. D. Balanço de radiação, energia e fechamento do balanço em uma floresta prístina na Amazônia oriental. Revista Brasileira de Geografia Física, v.13, p.2603-2627, 2020. https://doi.org/10.26848/rbgf.v13.6.p2603-2627
  » https://doi.org/10.26848/rbgf.v13.6.p2603-2627
• Carvalho, E. de O. T.; Fernandes, G. S. T.; Rua, M. L.; Monteiro, A. C.; Silva, J. V. F. da; Velame, M. de L. A. V.; Pinto, J. V. de N.; Lins, P. M. P.; Miranda, F. R. de; Souza, P. J. D. O. P. de. Water productivity in irrigated coconut palms in humid tropical climate conditions in eastern Brazilian Amazon. Ciência Rural, v.54, e20230416, 2024. http://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20230416
  » http://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20230416
• EMBRAPA - Empresa Brasileira de Pesquisa Agropecuária. Sistema brasileiro de classificação de solos. Rio de Janeiro: Embrapa, 5.ed. 2018. 412p
• Fernandes, G. S. T.; Ribeiro, L. R. T.; Rua, M. L.; Vieira, W. G. M.; Pinto, J. V. N.; Souza, P. J. O. P. de. Meteorological conditions affect the seasonal development and yield of green dwarf coconut. Pesquisa Agropecuária Tropical, v.54, e77037, 2024. https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-40632024v5477037
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/1983-40632024v5477037
• Ferreira, A.; Rolim, J.; Paredes, P.; Cameira, M. D. R. Methodologies for water accounting at the collective irrigation system scale aiming at optimizing water productivity. Agronomy, v.13, e1938, 2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071938
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/agronomy13071938
• Flumignan, D. L.; Faria, R. T. de; Lena, B. P. Test of a microlysimeter for measurement of soil evaporation. Engenharia Agrícola, v.32, p.80-90, 2012. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-69162012000100009
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-69162012000100009
• Friend, D.; Corley R. H. V. Measuring coconut palm dry matter production. Experimental Agriculture, v.30, p.223-235, 1994. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700024169
  » https://doi.org/10.1017/S0014479700024169
• Gava, R.; Freitas, P. S. L. de; Faria, R. T. de; Rezende, R.; Frizzone, J. A. Soil water evaporation under densities of coverage with vegetable residue. Engenharia Agrícola, v.33, p.89-98, 2013. https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-69162013000100010
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S0100-69162013000100010
• IBGE - Instituto Brasileiro de Geografia e Estatística, 2023. Produção agrícola municipal. Available at: < Available at: https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/1613#resultado >. Accessed on: Jun. 2024.
  » https://sidra.ibge.gov.br/tabela/1613#resultado
• Lédo, A. S. da; Santana, F. V.; Oliveira, A. C. A. de; Oliveira, L. A. R. de; Silva, A. V. C. da. Cryopreservation of Brazilian green dwarf coconut plumules by droplet-vitrification. Ciência Rural , v.50, p.1-8, 2020. https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20190020
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/0103-8478cr20190020
• Naveen-Gupta; Humphreys, E.; Eberbach, P. L.; Balwinder-Singh; Sudhir-Yadav; Kukal, S. S. Effects of tillage and mulch on soil evaporation in a dry seeded rice-wheat cropping system. Soil and Tillage Research, v.209, e104976, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.104976
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.still.2021.104976
• NOAA - National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Cold & Warm Episodes by Season. Available at: < Available at: https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php > Accessed on: May 2025.
  » https://origin.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/analysis_monitoring/ensostuff/ONI_v5.php
• Ohler, J. G. Climate and soils. In: Ohler, J. G. (ed.). Modern coconut management: palm cultivation and products. Rome: FAO , 1999. p.35-53.
• Pinheiro, A. G.; Souza, L. S. B. de; Jardim, A. M. F.; Araújo Júnior, G. N.; Alves, C. P.; Souza, C. A. A. de; Silva, G. I. N. da; Silva, T. G. F. da. Importance of crop simulation models in view of the impacts of climate change on agricultural production - Review. Revista Brasileira de Geografia Física , v.14, p.3648-3666, 2021. https://doi.org/10.26848/rbgf.v14.6.p3648-3666
  » https://doi.org/10.26848/rbgf.v14.6.p3648-3666
• R Core Team. R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. < https://www.R-project.org/ >. 2022.
  » https://www.R-project.org/
• Silva, S. N. da; Neves, E. das. Importância do manejo da irrigação. Enciclopédia Biosfera, v.17, p.271-288, 2020.
• Soltani, E.; Soltani, A.; Alimagham, M.; Dehghani, A. A. Water conservation in cropping systems through the reduction of soil evaporation: a case study of Iran. Arabian Journal of Geosciences, v.16, e198, 2023. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-023-11296-2
  » https://doi.org/10.1007/s12517-023-11296-2
• Souza, E. B. de; Ferreira, D. B. S.; Guimarães, J. T. F.; Franco, V. S.; Azevedo, F. T. M. de; Souza, P. J. O. P de. Padrões climatológicos e tendências da precipitação nos regimes chuvoso e seco da Amazônia oriental. Revista Brasileira de Climatologia, v.21, e2454, 2017. https://doi.org/10.5380/abclima.v21i0.41232
  » https://doi.org/10.5380/abclima.v21i0.41232
• Souza, P. J. O. P. de; Ribeiro, A.; Rocha, E. J. P. da; Loureiro, R. S.; Bispo, C. J. C.; Sousa, A. M. L. Albedo da cultura da soja em área de avanço da fronteira agrícola na Amazônia. Revista Brasileira de Engenharia Agrícola e Ambiental, v.54, p.65-73. 2010. https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662010000100009
  » https://doi.org/10.1590/S1415-43662010000100009
• Sprenger, M.; Tetzlaff, D.; Soulsby, C. Soil water stable isotopes reveal evaporation dynamics at the soil-plant-atmosphere interface of the critical zone. Hydrology and Earth System Sciences, v.21, p.3839-3856, 2017. https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3839-2017
  » https://doi.org/10.5194/hess-21-3839-2017
• USDA - United States Department of Agriculture. Soil Survey Staff. Keys to soil taxonomy. 12. ed. Washington, DC: USDA, 2014.
• Wang, J.; Yin, M.; Duan, Y.; Wang, Y.; Ma, Y.; Wan, H.; Kang, Y.; Qi, G.; Jia, Q. Enhancing water and soil resources utilization via wolfberry-alfalfa intercropping. Plants, v.13, e2374, 2024. https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13172374
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/plants13172374
• Wang, Y.; Horton, R.; Xue, X.; Ren, T. Partitioning evapotranspiration by measuring soil water evaporation with heat-pulse sensors and plant transpiration with sap flow gauges. Agricultural Water Management, v.252, e106883, 2021. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106883
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.agwat.2021.106883
• Wanniarachchi, S.; Sarukkalige, R. A review on evapotranspiration estimation in agricultural water management: Past, present, and future. Hydrology, v.9, e123, 2022. https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology9070123
  » https://doi.org/10.3390/hydrology9070123
• Zhang, Z.; Christensen, M.; Nan, Z.; Whish, J. P. M.; Bell, L. W.; Wang, J.; Wang, Z.; Sim, R. Plant development and solar radiation interception of four annual forage plants in response to sowing date in a semi-arid environment. Industrial Crops and Products, v.131, p.41-53, 2019. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.01.028
  » https://doi.org/10.1016/j.indcrop.2019.01.028

• ¹ Research developed at Fazenda Reunidas Sococo, Santa Izabel do Pará, PA, Brazil

Supplementary documents

• The authors declare that there are no supplementary data.

Financing statement

• Conselho Nacional de Desenvolvimento Científico e Tecnológico (CNPq) - Granting a doctoral scholarship to the author Fernandes, G. S. T. (Edital n° 12/2020, process 154794/2021-0); Productivity grant for the author Souza, P. J. de O. P. de (Edital n° 09/2022, process 311681/2022-0) and and research funding through the Universal project (process 403902/2021-5). Fundação Amazônia de Amparo a Estudos e Pesquisas (FAPESPA/CNPq) - (Call project 008/2022, process 2023/158057). Sococo Agroindústria da Amazônia S/A.

Edited by

• Editors: Toshik Iarley da Silva & Hans Raj Gheyi

Data availability

The authors declare that there are no supplementary data.

Publication Dates

• Publication in this collection
  01 Sept 2025
• Date of issue
  Dec 2025

History

• Received
  26 Dec 2024
• Accepted
  04 July 2025
• Published
  16 July 2025