See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.

net/publication/348975276

Climate risk to peanut cultivation in Brazil across different planting seasons

Article in Journal of the Science of Food and Agriculture · February 2021

DOI: 10.1002/jsfa.11145

CITATIONS READS

4 441

5 authors, including:

Lucas Eduardo De Oliveira Aparecido João Antonio Lorençone

Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia do Sul de Minas Gerais Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Mato Grosso do Sul (IFMS)
181 PUBLICATIONS 709 CITATIONS 39 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

Pedro Antonio Lorençone Kamila Cunha de Meneses

Instituto Federal de Educação, Ciência e Tecnologia de Mato Grosso do Sul (IFMS) São Paulo State University
37 PUBLICATIONS 57 CITATIONS 38 PUBLICATIONS 154 CITATIONS

SEE PROFILE SEE PROFILE

All content following this page was uploaded by Lucas Eduardo De Oliveira Aparecido on 05 March 2021.

The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.

Research Article
Received: 24 July 2020 Revised: 2 February 2021 Accepted article published: 9 February 2021 Published online in Wiley Online Library:

(wileyonlinelibrary.com) DOI 10.1002/jsfa.11145

Climate risk to peanut cultivation in Brazil

across different planting seasons
Lucas Eduardo de Oliveira Aparecido,a* João Antonio Lorençone,b
Pedro Antonio Lorençone,b Kamila Cunha de Menesesc and
Jose Reinaldo da Silva Cabral de Moraesc

Abstract
BACKGROUND: Peanuts are widely grown in Brazil because of their great importance in the domestic vegetable oil industry and
the succession of sugarcane, soybean and maize crops, contributing to soil conservation and improvement in agricultural areas.
Thus, the present study aimed to determine the zoning of peanuts' climatic risk by estimating the water requirement satisfac-
tion index (WRSI) for the crop in Brazil. We used a historical series of data on average air temperature and rainfall between 1980
and 2016. Reference evapotranspiration was estimated using the method of Thornthwaite, and we subsequently calculated
crop evapotranspiration and maximum evapotranspiration. Water balances for all stations were calculated using the method
of Thornthwaite and Mather, with an available water capacity in the soil of 15, 30 and 45 mm. The definitions of suitable, unfit
and restricted areas and the planting season were performed using the WRSI.
RESULTS: Brazil has low climatic risk areas for growing peanuts throughout the year, except for winter. The country reveals that
88.19%, 97.93%, 99.16% and 39.25% of its area is suitable for planting peanuts on planting dates in spring, summer, autumn
and winter, respectively.
CONCLUSION: Brazil has a large part of the areas favorable to the planting of peanuts. The maximum availability of soil water at
a depth of 15, 30 and 45 mm does not influence regions with respect to peanut growing in Brazil. The states of Piauí, Ceará and
Bahia are the most unsuitable on the winter planting date, with an average WRSI of 0.22.
© 2021 Society of Chemical Industry

Keywords: Crop rotation; crop modeling; edapho-climatic aptitude; water balance; principal component analysis

INTRODUCTION
Peanuts comprise an expressive oilseed in the Brazilian market
because of the internal supply of vegetable oil and its use in man-
agement and conservation practices.1 Soil management systems
that adopt crop diversification promote several benefits because
the plant residues, when decomposed, alter the soil attributes,
consequently influencing the performance of succession plant-
ing.2,3 Peanuts are one of the most used crops in crop rotation
with sugarcane4–7 as a result of their potential with respect to
rotation systems and low soil fertility requirements; furthermore,
they have a well-developed root system and good adaptation to
sandy soils.8 Peanuts have a high economic value because of their
nutritional content, mainly proteins and fats.9,10
Brazil produces around 550 million tons of peanuts per year and
ranks 11th among the world's largest producers, in addition to
being the second-largest exporter in Latin America.11 Most of
the concentration of Brazilian production is in the Southeast,
and the state of São Paulo is the largest producer in the country12
(Fig. 1). The planting area in the 2018/19 season increased by 7.3%
compared to the previous season. This increase in cultivation
areas is mainly a result of the renewal of the sugarcane crop.13
Climate conditions directly affect peanut development.14 Pea-
nuts, similar to other crops, are limited by climatic factors.15,16
Air temperature and rainfall are the weather elements that influ-
ence peanut development the most,17,18 with peanuts develop-
ing well in the air temperature range of 25–30 °C,19 and with
temperatures above 32 °C reducing the amount of fruit mass.20
An air temperature of 28 °C is ideal for peanut development,
mainly in the pod formation phase.21 Air temperatures below
18 °C reduce the germination potential of seeds during
germination.22
Water requirements for peanuts vary from 500 mm to 700 mm
during its cycle with respect to obtaining a high yield.23 Peanuts
have water stress tolerance mechanisms.24 However, the
* Correspondence to: L Ed Oliveira Aparecido, Federal Institute of Education, Sci-
ence and Technology of South of Minas Gerais – IFSULDEMINAS – Campus of
Muzambinho, Muzambinho 37890-000, Brazil. E-mail: lucas.aparecido@muz.
ifsuldeminas.edu.br
a Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of South of Minas
Gerais – IFSULDEMINAS – Campus of Muzambinho, Muzambinho, Brazil
b Federal Institute of Education, Science and Technology of Mato Grosso do Sul
—Campus of Naviraí, IFMS – Federal Institute of Education, Naviraí, Brazil
c Department of Exact Sciences, State University of São Paulo-UNESP, Jabotica-
bal, Brazil
1

J Sci Food Agric 2021 www.soci.org © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry

 www.soci.org
flowering period is sensitive to the water deficit in the soil, which
can cause flowers to fall and, consequently, pod formation.25,26
Agricultural production is highly dependent on natural
resources (i.e. soil, water, and favorable climatic conditions).27
With the zoning of climatic risk, it is possible to delimit the regions
with climatic suitability for a given crop through geographic
Figure 1. Spatial distribution of peanut production in Brazil. Adapted
from: IBGE (2020).20
Figure 2. Location of the Brazilian weather stations used in the present study.
2
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry
LE de Oliveira Aparecido et al.
information systems to minimize the risk of crop losses as a result
of rainfall.28 One way to determine climatic aptitude zones is agro-
climatic zoning, which uses the water requirement satisfaction
index (WRSI).29 This zoning measures the water needs of the
plants in their phenological phases based on the water balance.30
There are several studies in the literature with the zoning of cli-
matic risk for different crops (i.e. Physalis peruviana,31 avocado,32
soybean,33 wheat,30 beans,34 cotton35 and banana36). Climatic
zoning contributes to the reduction of production risks and con-
sequently a reduction in yield losses. However, there are few stud-
ies on the zoning of climatic risk found for peanut crop in Brazil.
Therefore, the present study aimed to determine the zoning of
peanut climatic risk by estimating the WRSI for the crop in Brazil.
MATERIALS AND METHODS
Brazil has twelve climate classes according to Köppen: Af, Am, Aw,
As, BSh, Cfa, Cfb, Cwa, Cwb, Cwc, Csa and Csb, where tropical zone
(type A) is the most prevalent in this country.37,38 Brazil has a terri-
torial extension of 8 516 000 km2 divided into five regions: Mid-
west, Northeast, North, South and Southeast. With this
geographical variety, Brazil has 15–20% of all animal and plant spe-
cies on the planet, such that it is a country with great biodiversity.39
Meteorological data from 4947 weather stations were collected
in the Brazilian database of meteorological data (BDMEP) of the
National Institute of Meteorology of Brazil (meteorological service
of Brazil) – INMET in the period 1980–2016 (Fig. 2).
We used air temperature (°C) and rainfall (mm) data to calculate
the reference evapotranspiration using the method of Thornthwaite
described in Eqns (1) to (6):
ET p = −415:85 +23:24T−0:43T 2 for T≥26:5°C ð1Þ
J Sci Food Agric 2021
Climate risk to peanut cultivation in Brazil www.soci.org


10T a Finally, ETo, in mm day−1, is calculated by:
ET p =16 for 0°C≤T<26:5°C ð2Þ
I
ETo=ET p ×Cor ð6Þ
I = ð0:2×TaÞ1:514 ð3Þ
a= 0:4924+1:79×10−2 I−7:71×10−5 I2 +6:75×10−7 I3 ð4Þ Crop evapotranspiration (ETc) was calculated using Eqn (7). The


 Kc values for each of the phenological phases were defined
ND N
Cor = × ð5Þ according to Doorenbos and Kassam23 (Table 1):
30 12
ET c =ET o ×kc ð7Þ
where ETp is the standard 30-day evapotranspiration
(mm 30 days); N is photoperiod in hours; I and a are thermal indi- where ETc is the crop evapotranspiration and kc is the crop coeffi-
ces; T is the average temperature for a given day or period (°C); Ta cient (peanut).
is the climatological normal annual temperature (°C); Cor is the The crop water balance was performed for all locations from ETo
correction factor; and ND is the number of days. determination, according to Thornthwaite and Mather.40 We use
three availability of soil water (AWC) at a depth of 15 mm (low),
30 mm (average) and 45 mm (high) for all locations [Eqns (8)–(13)].
Table 1. Crop coefficient of peanut (Arachis hypogea L.) (
NAC i =NAC i−1 + ðP−ETcÞi
Crop development stages Kc if ðP−ETcÞi <0 = ðNACi Þ ð8Þ
STOi = AWCe AWC

Initial 0.4–0.5 (
STOi = ðP−ETcÞi +STOi−1
Crop development 0.7–0.8 if ðP−ETcÞi ≥0= ðSTOi Þ ð9Þ
Intermediate period 0.95–1.1 NAC i =AWCln AWC
End of cycle 0.75–0.85
ALT i = STOi −STOi−1 ð10Þ
At harvest 0.55–0.6 
Total vegetative period 0.75–0.8 P + jALT i j ,if ALT<0
AET i = ð11Þ
23
ETci ,if ALT≥0
Source: Doorenbos and Kassam.

Figure 3. Influence of climate elements on the phenological development of peanut. G, Germination; FL, First leaves; FB, First branches; VG, Vegetative
growth; F, Flowering; GA, Gynophore appearance; EF, End of flowering; FM, Full maturation. Source: adapted from several authors.
3

J Sci Food Agric 2021 © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

 www.soci.org
Figure 4. Flowchart of the steps carried out for the development of the present study.
DEF =ETc−AET
 proposed by Steinmetz et al.:42 Unsuitable is WRSI < 0.35;
0 ,if AWC<0
SURi =
ðP−ETcÞi −ALT i , if AWC =0
where NAC is the accumulated negative; P is the precipitation
(mm); ETc is the crop evapotranspiration (mm); AWC is the avail-
able water capacity (mm); STO is the soil water storage (mm);
SUR is the water surplus at the soil–plant-atmosphere system
(mm); DEF is the water deficit at the soil–plant-atmosphere system
(mm); AET is the actual crop evapotranspiration (mm); ALT is the
soil water storage of the current month minus soil water storage
of the previous month (mm); and i is the monthly period.
The agroclimatic zones and the planting season were carried
out through the WRSI, which is the relationship between actual
crop evapotranspiration and maximum potential evapotranspira-
tion (AET/ETm) over the cycle. In the simulation, we used an
upright cultivar, indeterminate growth, harvest on average at
120 days, and indicated rainfed agriculture. Boote41 report that
peanuts have several phenological stages (Fig. 3).
Peanut plantations were simulated in four seasons. The sowing
dates were 21 September (spring), 21 December (summer),
20 March (autumn) and 21 June (winter). The WRSI estimate was
performed for each of the four sowing seasons (spring, summer,
autumn and winter) and each type of soil (AWC = 15 mm,
AWC = 35 mm and AWC = 45 mm). WRSI was calculated accord-
ing to Eqn (14):
AET
WRSI =
ETm
4
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry
LE de Oliveira Aparecido et al.
ð12Þ The WRSI indices were classified according to the methodology
ð13Þ Restricted is 0.35 < WRSI < 0.45; and suitable is WRSI > 0.45.
These classes were simulated for the four seasons of simulated
sowing. For the location to be considered suitable, it must have
a WRSI > 0.45 in 80% of the years tested. The stages of the study
until reaching the WRSI are shown in Fig. 4.
We performed descriptive statistical analysis to identify the var-
iations of the collected dataset and were represented by box
plots. A comparison of means test by the Tukey method was per-
formed between the WRSI values for all AWC.
The areas with the greatest potential for peanut production in
Brazil were obtained from the WRSI. With the interpolation and
crossing of information, the climatic risk zoning of Brazil was
obtained. Kriging43 was used as an interpolation method with
the spherical model, a neighbor and a spatial resolution of 0.25 °.
We use the principal component multivariate analysis tech-
nique, generating linear combinations of the original variables
constructed with the eigenvalues of the formed covariance
matrix.44 We consider the main components whose eigenvalues
were greater than the unit, according to the criterion established
by Kaiser.45 The coefficients that define the main components are
those with high values usually greater than or equal to 0.70.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Climatic elements had high variability between regions and seasons
in Brazil (Fig. 5). The mean ± SD annual air temperature in Brazil was
22.21 ± 2.77 °C. The highest and lowest air temperatures were in
ð14Þ
summer (24.17 ± 1.70 °C) and winter (19.76 ± 4.03 °C), respectively
J Sci Food Agric 2021
Climate risk to peanut cultivation in Brazil www.soci.org

Figure 5. Spatial variability of air temperature (Tair), precipitation (P) and reference evapotranspiration (ETo) of the seasons in Brazil. Legend: A is spring air
temperature, B is spring rainfall, C is spring evapotranspiration, D summer air temperature, E is summer rainfall, F is summer evapotranspiration, G is autumn
air temperature, H is autumn rainfall, I is autumn evapotranspiration, J is winter air temperature, K is winter rainfall and L is winter evapotranspiration.

(Fig. 5D, J). The states with the highest air temperatures were Amapá,
Maranhão and Pará, with an average of 27.10 ± 0.46 °C, 27.28
± 0.58 °C and 27.49 ± 0.49 °C, respectively. Although the states
with the lowest air temperatures were Paraná, Santa Catarina and
Rio Grande do Sul, with 19.80 ± 1.54 °C, 18.03 ± 1.52 °C and
17.96 ± 0.97 °C, respectively (Fig. 5J), these states are located in
the South of Brazil. The states of the Northeast region had the lowest
annual thermal amplitudes of 2.71 ± 0.69 °C, whereas the Southern
region had a thermal amplitude of 6.23 ± 1.2 °C.
Rainfall in Brazil showed higher volumes in the summer
(Fig. 5B, E, H, K). The highest values for rainfall were in the
Northern region. The average annual rainfall was 1466.8
± 601.4 mm, concentrating around 36% in the summer (Fig. 5E).
Summer and winter showed the highest and lowest rainfall in Bra-
zil, with an average of 197.8 ± 253.6 mm and 527.9 ± 266.4 mm,
respectively. The North and Northeast regions had the highest
and lowest rainfall concentration in the state, with an average of
2414.8 ± 260.5 mm and 1057.0 ± 392.2 mm, respectively. The
state of Amapá had the highest average annual rainfall of
2999.8 ± 305.3 mm. The lowest annual volume of rainfall was in
the state of Rio Grande do Norte of 800.8 ± 213.2 mm. In this
state, the rainfall is mainly concentrated in autumn (56%).46 The
5

J Sci Food Agric 2021 © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

 www.soci.org LE de Oliveira Aparecido et al.

Southern region demonstrated a homogeneous distribution in
rainfall, as found by Gonçalves and Back.47
The annual reference evapotranspiration (ETo) values in Brazil
ranged from 791.9 mm to 1365.6 mm, with higher values in the
Northern region (Fig. 5C, F, I, L). The average ETo for Brazil was
977.1 ± 156.9 mm annually, with higher values in the summer,
representing 34% of the total. In winter, the Brazil showed an
average of 138.8 ± 70.5 mm and 14% of the annual ETo. The high-
est and lowest mean ETo values were in the North and South, with
1258.4 ± 164.6 mm and 948.4 ± 125.3 mm, respectively. The
States of Pará, Amapá and Amazonas had the highest ETo values
in the country, with averages of 1320.4 ± 88.7 mm, 1321.9

Figure 6. Peanut edaphoclimatic zoning at different sowing dates (spring, summer, autumn and winter) and soil types (AWC of 15, 30 and 45 mm) to
Brazil. Green indicates low, yellow indicates medium and red indicates high risk, respectively, regarding peanut cultivation. Legend: A is availability of soil
water at a depth of 15 in spring, B is availability of soil water at a depth of 30 in spring, C is availability of soil water at a depth of 45 in spring, D is availability
of soil water at a depth of 15 in summer, E is availability of soil water at a depth of 30 in summer, F is is availability of soil water at a depth of 45 in summer,
G is availability of soil water at a depth of 15 in autumn, H is availability of soil water at a depth of 30 in autumn, I is availability of soil water at a depth of 45
in autumn, J is availability of soil water at a depth of 15 in winter, K is availability of soil water at a depth of 30 in winter and L is availability of soil water at a
depth of 45 in winter.
6

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2021

Climate risk to peanut cultivation in Brazil www.soci.org

± 13.1 mm and 1365.6 ± 54.4 mm, respectively. On the other

Table 2. The percentage of areas in the WRSI classes for peanuts
hand, the state of Rio Grande do Norte had a lower ETo of 797.4
planting at different sowing dates (spring, summer, autumn and win-
ter) and soil types (AWC of 15, 30 and 45 mm) in Brazil ± 121.7 mm, and the state with the lowest annual rainfall.

Soil types (AWC)

Spring 15 mm 30 mm 45 mm

High 8.73% 8.90% 8.73%

Medium 2.58% 2.94% 2.58%
Low 88.69% 88.19% 88.69%
Summer
High 0.90% 0.90% 0.04%
Medium 1.18% 1.18% 1.04%
Low 97.93% 97.93% 98.91%
Autumn
High 0.06% 0.00% 0.00%
Medium 1.38% 0.84% 0.84%
Low 98.56% 99.16% 99.16%
Winter
High 53.91% 51.88% 49.99%
Medium 9.09% 9.95% 10.77%
Low 37.00% 38.17% 39.25% Figure 7. WRSI variability as a function of its occurrence for each peanut
sowing date in Brazil.

Table 3. WRSI values for each state in Brazil for peanut planting at different sowing dates (spring, summer, autumn and winter) and soil types (AWC
of 15, 30 and 45 mm) in Brazil

15 mm 30 mm 45 mm

Spring Summer Autumm Winter Spring Summer Autumm Winter Spring Summer Autumm Winter Average

AC 0.88 0.96 0.88 0.55 0.88 0.96 0.88 0.57 0.88 0.96 0.88 0.58 0.82
AL 0.37 0.4 0.76 0.63 0.4 0.44 0.76 0.63 0.43 0.48 0.76 0.63 0.56
AM 0.87 0.92 0.92 0.76 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.77 0.88 0.92 0.92 0.78 0.87
AP 0.46 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.49 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.53 0.88 0.91 0.91 0.8
BA 0.53 0.77 0.61 0.32 0.54 0.8 0.63 0.32 0.54 0.81 0.64 0.32 0.57
CE 0.06 0.64 0.89 0.22 0.06 0.66 0.89 0.25 0.06 0.67 0.9 0.28 0.47
DF 0.76 0.96 0.7 0.07 0.76 0.96 0.72 0.09 0.76 0.96 0.74 0.11 0.63
ES 0.73 0.93 0.69 0.33 0.73 0.94 0.7 0.35 0.73 0.94 0.71 0.36 0.68
GO 0.77 0.96 0.71 0.09 0.77 0.96 0.73 0.11 0.77 0.96 0.74 0.13 0.64
MA 0.32 0.87 0.87 0.35 0.33 0.87 0.88 0.38 0.33 0.87 0.88 0.4 0.61
MG 0.71 0.95 0.63 0.16 0.71 0.95 0.65 0.17 0.72 0.95 0.67 0.19 0.62
MS 0.77 0.95 0.7 0.38 0.77 0.95 0.7 0.4 0.77 0.95 0.7 0.41 0.7
MT 0.87 0.96 0.76 0.15 0.87 0.96 0.77 0.17 0.87 0.96 0.78 0.2 0.69
PA 0.6 0.89 0.88 0.66 0.62 0.89 0.89 0.67 0.64 0.89 0.89 0.69 0.77
PB 0.13 0.51 0.84 0.38 0.14 0.54 0.85 0.4 0.15 0.56 0.85 0.41 0.48
PE 0.24 0.5 0.81 0.49 0.27 0.54 0.81 0.5 0.29 0.57 0.82 0.5 0.53
PI 0.28 0.88 0.77 0.09 0.28 0.88 0.8 0.11 0.28 0.88 0.81 0.13 0.52
PR 0.71 0.94 0.65 0.37 0.71 0.94 0.65 0.37 0.71 0.94 0.65 0.37 0.67
RJ 0.7 0.94 0.68 0.29 0.7 0.94 0.69 0.3 0.71 0.94 0.69 0.32 0.66
RN 0.07 0.46 0.88 0.34 0.07 0.5 0.88 0.37 0.08 0.53 0.88 0.39 0.45
RO 0.92 0.96 0.84 0.32 0.92 0.96 0.84 0.35 0.92 0.96 0.85 0.39 0.77
RR 0.89 0.54 0.87 0.96 0.91 0.59 0.87 0.96 0.92 0.62 0.88 0.96 0.83
RS 0.59 0.92 0.56 0.27 0.59 0.92 0.56 0.27 0.59 0.93 0.56 0.27 0.59
SC 0.64 0.93 0.6 0.31 0.64 0.93 0.6 0.31 0.64 0.93 0.6 0.31 0.62
SE 0.4 0.36 0.75 0.64 0.43 0.4 0.75 0.64 0.47 0.43 0.75 0.64 0.56
SP 0.71 0.95 0.64 0.27 0.71 0.95 0.65 0.29 0.72 0.95 0.66 0.3 0.65
TO 0.77 0.95 0.76 0.08 0.77 0.95 0.79 0.09 0.77 0.95 0.8 0.11 0.65
Average 0.58 0.81 0.76 0.38 0.59 0.82 0.77 0.4 0.6 0.83 0.77 0.41
7

J Sci Food Agric 2021 © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

 www.soci.org
Brazil has shown a significant variation in WRSI for peanuts
depending on planting dates. At the same time, AWC has shown
no influence on the crop's climatic risk zoning (Fig. 6).
During the spring, 88.19% of Brazil territory had a low climatic
risk for the crop, presenting 2.94% with medium risk and 8.90%
with high risk. Thus, peanut planting is not feasible in parts of
Northeastern Brazil, such as in the states of Ceará, Paraíba, Per-
nambuco, in addition to the northern part of Bahia and western
Alagoas (Fig. 6D, E, F), as also observed by Amaral et al.48 and Silva
and Amaral.49
Figure 8. WRSI variability as a function of different peanut sowing dates
in Brazil.
Figure 9. WRSI variability as a function of different sowing dates for Midwest Brazil. (A) Goiás, (B) Mato Grosso, (C) Mato Grosso do Sul and (D) Distrito
Federal.
8
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry
LE de Oliveira Aparecido et al.
The summer in Brazil provided a low risk for peanut cultivation,
with 97.93% of the country's territory presenting a low climatic
risk in that season, in which 1.18% was medium and 0.9% of the
areas had a high climatic risk for growing peanuts (Table 2). The
states of Acre, Goiás and Rondônia, as well as the Federal District,
had the largest WRSI in the country studied during the summer,
with 0.96 (Table 3). In comparison, other states showed the
affected peanut development, such as Alagoas and Sergipe,
which had a WRSI of 0.44 and 0.40, respectively.
The territory of Brazil had 99% of the area with low climate risk
for peanut planting in the autumn (Table 2). Only the Bahia and
Minas Gerais states had an average climate risk, with WRSI values
of around 0.61 and 0.63, respectively (Table 3).
We observed that 51.88% of the territory of Brazil had a high risk
with respect to peanut cultivation during winter (Fig. 6J–L), with a
9.95% medium risk and 38.17% of the territory having favorable
conditions for the crop development (Table 2). The South, Mid-
west and Southeast regions presented risks for peanut cultivation,
except for parts of Mato Grosso do Sul, the northern part of Paraná
and the western part of São Paulo. The states of Amazônia, Acre,
Amapá and Roraima, as well as the northern part of Pará and
the Northeastern coast, were classified as having a low climatic
risk, these regions were suitable for peanut cultivation throughout
the year. The Federal District and Tocantins demonstrated the
lowest WRSI (0.03). Even in the winter season, the state of Roraima
presented a high WRSI (0.96) (Table 3). The largest sugarcane pro-
ducers in Brazil are Sao Paulo, Goiás and Minas Gerais, with 337.24
million tons, 75.64 million tons and 64.46 million tons, respec-
tively. These regions were suitable for planting peanuts (Fig. 6)
for most of the year. Therefore, we recommend using peanuts in
crop rotation with sugarcane because the improvement provides
nutrients and helps preserve the microbiota and physical
J Sci Food Agric 2021
Climate risk to peanut cultivation in Brazil www.soci.org

structure of the soil.50 The most suitable period for peanut cultiva- Maximum soil water availability did not influence the zon-
tion is during the spring because this period presented a low cli- ing of climatic risk for peanuts (Fig. 6). Peanut planting in
matic risk for the crop, still precedes the rainfall and coincides winter provided a WRSI of between 0 and 0.4, with a well-
with the end of the sugarcane harvest in several regions.51 distributed probability of occurrence. In summer, planting

Figure 10. WRSI variability as a function of different sowing dates for Southern Brazil. (A) Paraná, (B) Rio Grande do Sul and (C) Santa Catarina.

Figure 11. WRSI variability as a function of different sowing dates for Southeastern Brazil. (A) Espírito Santo, (B) Minas Gerais, (C) Rio de Janeiro and
(D) São Paulo.
9

J Sci Food Agric 2021 © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa

 www.soci.org
Figure 12. WRSI variability as a function of different sowing dates for Northern Brazil. (A) Acre, (B) Amazonas, (C) Amapá, (D) Pará, (E) Rondônia,
(F) Roraima and (G) Tocantins.
peanuts provided a WRSI of between 0.4 and 1.0, with a
greater probability of being around 1.0. These values demon-
strated that planting in this period is climatically favorable to
crop in Brazil (Fig. 7).
The territory of Brazil has a great variation between WRSI and
the planting dates in different seasons (Fig. 8). Summer and
autumn had the largest areas suitable for peanut cultivation, with
an average WRSI between the seasons of 0.85 ± 0.17 and 0.70
± 0.11, respectively. The locations suitable for summer were
94% and 99% in the autumn for the crop. The lowest average sea-
son was winter, with 0.30 ± 0.20, with 69% of the regions unsuita-
ble and only 17% suitable for peanut cultivation. Spring was the
period of the year with the largest number of restricted locations
(0.35 < WRSI < 0.45), with 20% of all locations and a mean WRSI
of 0.57 ± 0.24.
The Midwest region of Brazil showed a low variation of WRSI
between the seasons (Fig. 9). The Peanut planting in summer pro-
vided the highest average. However, the number of locations suit-
able for peanut cultivation was similar for Spring, Summer and
Autumn, with 99% of the locations suitable and averages of
0.79 ± 0.07, 0.95 ± 0.04 and 0.73 ± 0.05, respectively. The Federal
District had the highest summer average, with 0.96 ± 0.00
(Fig. 9D). Mato Grosso do Sul was the state with the highest aver-
age in winter, with 0.39 ± 0.05 (Fig. 9C), with most of their loca-
tions being restricted to peanut cultivation in winter, whereas
10
the other states presented most of their inadequate locations in
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry
LE de Oliveira Aparecido et al.
winter. Therefore, Mato Grosso do Sul has the climatic aptitude
for peanut growing and has a wide sowing window in a crop
rotation system with sugarcane, which presented large areas of
cultivation in the state, as also verified by Zoz et al.52
In the Southern region of Brazil, there were greater variations in
WRSI (Fig. 10). During the summer, cultivation was the period with
the most suitable areas, and consequently the highest WRSI, with
0.93 ± 0.2. The planting dates in the spring and autumn had low
WRSI, in which all states showed an average above 0.63. However,
winter presented low WRSI for peanuts in the region, with averages
of 0.37 ± 0.03, 0.27 ± 0.03 and 0.31 ± 0.03 for the states of Paraná,
Rio Grande do Sul and Santa Catarina, respectively. The state of Rio
Grande do Sul had the lowest WRSI values in winter seasons, and
Paraná obtained the highest WRSI values in suumer seasons
(Fig. 10A, B). Thus, Paraná has an excellent aptitude for peanut grow-
ing during the year, except in winter, but can be used in crop rota-
tion systems (e.g. sugarcane, soybean and maize); however, low air
temperatures make sugarcane cultivation difficult in the region.53,54
However, the Southeast region showed high WRSI averages for
most of its locations with respect to climatic risk for peanut culti-
vation over the year. The highest WRSI average occurred between
December and February (Summer), with 0.93 ± 0.04. The lowest
WRSI occurred in winter, with 0.23 ± 0.10 (Fig. 11). The plantations
in spring, summer and autumn were suitable for peanut. How-
ever, the winter cultivation showed a greater variation, with only
0.3% of the suitable locations, 18.4% restricted and 81.3%
J Sci Food Agric 2021
Climate risk to peanut cultivation in Brazil
Figure 13. WRSI variability as a function of different sowing dates for the Northeastern Brazil. (A) Alagoas, (B) Bahia, (C) Ceará, (D) Maranhão, (E) Paraíba,
(F) Pernambuco, (G) Piauí, (H) Rio Grande do Norte and (I) Sergipe.
unsuitable for peanut cultivation. The states presented similar
averages between the seasons. The lowest average occurred in
the state of Minas Gerais in Winter, with 0.17 ± 0.08 (Fig. 11B).
The Southeast Region is the largest sugarcane producer in
Brazil.12,55
The variations were similar between the states of Brazil for pea-
nut planting in seasons. However, Espírito Santo obtained, on
average, the highest WRSI among the states (Fig. 11A). The period
indicated for peanut planting in the region is between September
and January. During this period, the sugarcane is harvested, and
so it is the ideal season for crop rotation using peanut, conse-
quently improving the physical–chemical and microbiological
properties of the soil.13,56
Northern Brazil demonstrated high WRSI values, with few
locations at climatic risk during the year (Fig. 12). The summer
planting was the period with the greatest suitability for pea-
nuts in the region. The states of that region had WRSI values
above 0.90, except for Roraima (0.59), which concentrates its
rainfall in winter, and thus is considered as a suitable state
for peanut cultivation (Fig. 12 F). The states had low climatic
risk when peanut planting in spring and autumn, but, in the
winter, the states of Roraima, Tocantins and Southern Pará
presented a medium and low climatic risk, with averages of
0.35 ± 0.09 and 0.09 ± 0.05, respectively (Fig. 12F, G). The
state of Amazonas showed less variability during the seasons,
with average values between 0.77 and 0.92. The region
J Sci Food Agric 2021 © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
showed potential for peanut cultivation during the year, with
minor exceptions. Therefore, cultivation is not recommend as
a result of the extensive deforested areas, in addition to the
current focus on preserving the Atlantic Forest and its natural
resources.57,58
Northeast Brazil had high variability between its states
(Fig. 13). The region had an average WRSI for peanut planting
in spring, summer, autumn and winter of 0.30 ± 0.23, 0.68
± 0.20, 0.79 ± 0.13 and 0.35 ± 0.25, respectively. In general,
autumn had the lowest climatic risks. On the other hand, plant-
ing in the spring concentrated the greatest climatic risk, differ-
ing from other Brazilian regions. In the autumn, the states with
the highest WRSI were Rio Grande do Norte, Paraíba and Ceará,
with WRSI values of 0.88 (Fig. 13C, E, H). Only the state of Bahia
had low WRSI values in the spring crop, with 0.54 ± 0.19
(Fig. 11B). On the other hand, Sergipe and Alagoas were the
states that showed average climatic risk during the summer
and low risk in the winter, as well as Pernambuco
(Fig. 13A, F, I). On average, in the region, peanut cultivation is
recommended in the autumn, with higher WRSI values among
the states.
Principal component analysis (Fig. 14) revealed that rainfall
represented 84% of the data variance in spring, 75% in summer,
60% in autumn and 81% in winter for all AWC; thus, there is a
direct dependency relationship between these factors, such that
the greater the availability of precipitation, the greater the WRSI
11
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org LE de Oliveira Aparecido et al.

Figure 14. Principal component analysis according to different seasons (spring, summer, autumn and winter) and regions of Brazil (North, Northeast,
Midwest, Southeast and South). T, air temperature; P, rainfall; 15, 30 and 45 are availability of soil water at a depth of 15, 30 and 45 mm.

in the region. The same is true for the Northeast, Southeast and
Midwest, except for the summer season, which presents rainfall
with a greater contribution in the second principal compo-
nent (CP2).
For the South of Brazil, considered to be one of the coldest
regions (Fig. 5), the air temperature presents, in all seasons except
12
summer, a direct relationship with AWC 15, 30 and 45 mm, with
these attributes being retained in CP1, representing 76% of the
data variance in spring, 70% in summer, 66% in autumn and 86%
in winter. The main component two (CP2) represented 17%, 20%,
17% and 8% of the dataset variability between the spring, summer,
autumn and winter seasons, respectively (Fig. 14).

wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry J Sci Food Agric 2021

Climate risk to peanut cultivation in Brazil
CONCLUSIONS
The maximum availability of soil water at a depth of 15, 30 and
45 mm does not influence regions suitable, restricted and unsui-
table for peanut growing in Brazil. Brazil shows a low climatic risk
for growing peanuts for the whole year, except for winter. The
country has 88.19%, 97.93%, 99.16% and 39.25% of its area suit-
able for peanut planting on sowing dates during spring, summer,
autumn and winter, respectively.
The states of Roraima, Amapá and Amazonas are suitable for
planting in the country. However, attention should be paid to
environmental preservation areas that make monoculture impos-
sible, reducing the areas suitable in these states. The states of
Piauí, Ceará and Bahia are unsuitable for winter sowing dates, with
mean WRSI values of 0.22. The Northeastern coast was to be dem-
onstrated suitable for the whole year.
Peanut cultivation during spring is recommended in the coun-
try, considering the low climatic risk during the season, and it also
precedes the rainiest periods in Brazil, facilitating the crop rota-
tion system with sugarcane, soybean and maize. In the Northeast,
the best period for sowing peanuts is in the autumn such that
crop rotation can be an alternative for the region. Rainfall was
the factor that most influenced seasonal and geographic suitable
for peanut production. Principal component 1 demonstrated that
representing 84% of the data variance in spring, 75% in summer,
60% in autumn and 81% in winter for all AWC.
REFERENCES
1 Leal AS and Almeida JR, Peanuts and their use. Braz J Agric 11:180–198
(2020).
2 Gao H, Dai W, Fang K, Yi X, Chen N, Penttinen P et al., Rice-duck co-
culture integrated different fertilizers reduce P losses and Pb accu-
mulation in subtropical China. Chemosphere 245:125571 (2020).
3 Soman C, Li D, Wander MM and Kent AD, Long-term fertilizer and crop-
rotation treatments differentially affect soil bacterial community
structure. Plant Soil 413:145–159 (2017).
4 Guimarães SO, Costa AA, Vasconcelos Júnior F d C, da Silva EM,
Sales DC, de Araújo Júnior LM et al., Projeções de Mudanças Climáti-
cas sobre o Nordeste Brasileiro dos Modelos do CMIP5 e do CORDEX.
Rev Bras Meteorol 31:337–365 (2016).
5 Júnnyor W d SG, Diserens E, De Maria IC, Araujo-Junior CF, CVV F and
de Souza ZM, Prediction of soil stresses and compaction due to agri-
cultural machines in sugarcane cultivation systems with and without
crop rotation. Sci Total Environ 681:424–434 (2019).
6 Do Prado EAF, Vitorino ACT, Garcia RA, da Silva CJ and Mauad M, Struc-
tural quality of an oxisol under conventional soil tillage and prede-
cessor crops in sugarcane rotation. Sugar Tech 21:93–103 (2019).
7 Chagas MF, Bordonal RO, Cavalett O, Carvalho JLN, Bonomi A and La
Scala N Jr, Environmental and economic impacts of different sugar-
cane production systems in the ethanol biorefinery. Biofuels Bioprod
Biorefin 10:89–106 (2016).
8 Reyes-Cabrera J, Leon RG, Erickson JE, Rowland DL, Silveira ML and
Morgan KT, Differences in biomass and water dynamics between a
cotton-peanut rotation and a sweet sorghum bioenergy crop with
and without biochar and vinasse as soil amendments. Field Crops
Res 214:123–130 (2017).
9 Bonku R and Yu J, Health aspects of peanuts as an outcome of its
chemical composition. Food Sci Human Wellness 9:21–30 (2020).
10 Lozano MG, de Oliveira Sartori AG, Markowicz Bastos DH and Bismara
Regitano-d'Arce MA, Selected nutrients and antinutrients in peanut
cultivars harvested in Brazil. J Sci Food Agric 99:5334–5340 (2019).
11 Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations - FAO. Data-
bases. FAO, United States; 2020.
12 IBGE IBDGEE. Sistema IBGE de Recuperação Automática - SIDRA: Pro-
dução Agrícola Municipal. 2018. Available: https://sidra.ibge.gov.
br/home/pnadcm [28 May 2020].
13 CONAB CNDAC. Acompanhamento da safra brasileira: Grãos. Conab;
2019.
J Sci Food Agric 2021 © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry
www.soci.org
14 Shi P, Li X and Shen J, Nonlinear modelling of selected micro- and
macro-properties of weathered asphalt mixtures. Construct Build
Mater 253:119097 (2020).
15 Halder D, Kheroar S, Srivastava RK and Panda RK, Assessment of future
climate variability and potential adaptation strategies on yield of
peanut and Kharif rice in eastern India. Theor Appl Climatol 140:
823–838 (2020).
16 Faye B, Webber H, Diop M, Mbaye ML, Owusu-Sekyere JD, Naab JB
et al., Potential impact of climate change on peanut yield in Senegal,
West Africa. Field Crops Res 219:148–159 (2018).
17 Hoogenboom G, Contribution of agrometeorology to the simulation of
crop production and its applications. Agric For Meteorol 103:
137–157 (2000).
18 Carleton TA, Crop-damaging temperatures increase suicide rates in
India. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 114:8746–8751 (2017).
19 Pradhan D, Shekoofa A and Sinclair TR, Temperature effect on peanut
(Arachis hypogaea L.) transpiration response to vapor pressure defi-
cit and its recovery. J Crop Improv 33:177–186 (2019).
20 Ketring DL, Temperature effects on vegetative and reproductive devel-
opment of peanut 1, 2. Crop Sci 24:877–882 (1984).
21 Prasad PV, Craufurd PQ and Summerfield RJ, Sensitivity of peanut to
timing of heat stress during reproductive development. Crop Sci
39:1352–1357 (1999).
22 Avila S, Beux MR, Ribani RH and Zambiazi RC, Stingless bee honey:
Quality parameters, bioactive compounds, health-promotion prop-
erties and modification detection strategies. Trends Food Sci Technol
81:37–50 (2018).
23 Doorenbos J and Kassam AH. Yield response to water. 1979.
24 Katam R, Sakata K, Suravajhala P, Pechan T, Kambiranda DM, Naik KS
et al., Comparative leaf proteomics of drought-tolerant and-
susceptible peanut in response to water stress. J Proteomics 143:
209–226 (2016).
25 Pallas JE Jr, Stansell JR and Koske TJ, Effects of drought on Florunner
peanuts 1. Agron J 71:853–858 (1979).
26 Canecchio Filho V, Amendoim da sêca. Épocas de plantio. Bragantia
14:XXIII–XXIV (1955).
27 Radin B and Matzenauer R, Uso das informações meteorológicas
na agricultura do Rio Grande do Sul. Agrometeoros 24:41–54
(2016).
28 de Souza LGM, Parente T d L, Lazarini E, Bossolani JW and Caioni S,
Growth regulator and density population in the culture of runner
peanut. Nucleus 15:217–225 (2018).
29 Gonçalves SL and Wrege MS, Considerações sobre metodologias para
zoneamento agrícola em escala regionalizada. Agrometeoros 26:
275–285 (2020).
30 Pasinato A, da Cunha GR, Fontana DC, Monteiro JEB d A, Nakai AM and
de Oliveira AF, Potential area and limitations for the expansion of
rainfed wheat in the Cerrado biome of Central Brazil. Pesqui Agro-
pecu Bras 53:779–790 (2018).
31 Aparecido LE d O, Batista RM, de Moraes JR d SC, Costa CTS and de
Moraes-Oliveira AF, Agricultural zoning of climate risk for Physalis
peruviana cultivation in Southeastern Brazil. Pesqui Agropecu Bras
54:e00057 (2019).
32 Caldana NF d S, Nitsche PR, Martelócio AC, Rudke AP, Zaro GC, Batista
Ferreira LG et al., Agroclimatic Risk Zoning of Avocado (Persea amer-
icana) in the Hydrographic Basin of Paraná River III, Brazil. Agriculture
9:263 (2019).
33 de Melo ACA, Nobre Júnior A d A, da Silva FAM and de Abreu LM, Cli-
matic risk zoning methodologies for soybean cultivation in the Cer-
rado Biome. Nativa 8:26–36 (2020).
34 Fenner W, Dallacort R, Dalchiavon FC, Santi A, da Silva FS and
Barbieri JD, Zoning of water requirement satisfaction index for com-
mon bean in Mato Grosso. Rev Bras Eng Agríc Ambient 21:476–480
(2017).
35 Pereira LS, Paredes P, Сholpankulov ED, Inchenkova OP, Teodoro PR
and Horst MG, Irrigation scheduling strategies for cotton to cope
with water scarcity in the Fergana Valley, Central Asia. Agric Water
Manage 96:723–735 (2009).
36 Li J, Huang L, Zhang J, Coulter JA, Li L and Gan Y, Diversifying crop rota-
tion improves system robustness. Agron Sustainable Dev 39:1–13
(2019).
37 Alvares CA, Stape JL, Sentelhas PC and de Moraes Gonçalves JL, Model-
ing monthly mean air temperature for Brazil. Theor Appl Climatol
113:407–427 (2013).
13
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa
 www.soci.org
38 Köppen W. Das Geographische System der Klimatologie. Berlin, 44 p.
1936.
39 Tucci CEM, Hespanhol I and Netto MOC, Water Management in Brazil.
UNESCO, Brasília (2001).
40 Thornthwaite CW, Mather JR. The water balance. Publications in Clima-
tology 8:04–114 (1955).
41 Boote K, Growth stages of peanut (Arachis hypogaea L.). Peanut Sci 9:
35–40 (1982).
42 Steinmetz S, Reyniers FN, Forest F. Evaluation of the climatic risk on
upland rice in Brazil. In: Colloque “Resistance A La Sécheresse En
Millieu Intertropicale: Quelles Recherches Our Le Moyen Terme?. CIRAD,
p. 43–54 (1985).
43 Krige DG, A statistical approach to some basic mine valuation problems
on the Witwatersrand. J South Afr Inst Min Metall 52:119–139 (1951).
44 Hair JF Jr, Black WC, Babin BJ, Anderson RE and Tatham RL, Análise mul-
tivariada de dados. Bookman:1: 688 (2009).
45 Kaiser HF, The varimax criterion for analytic rotation in factor analysis.
Psychometrika 23:187–200 (1958).
46 de Almeida AQ, Souza RMS, Loureiro DC, Pereira D d R, MAS C and
Vieira JS, Modelagem da dependência espacial do índice de erosivi-
dade das chuvas no semiárido brasileiro. Pesqui Agropecu Bras 52:
371–379 (2017).
47 Gonçalves FN and Back ÁJ, Análise da variação espacial e sazonal e de
tendências na precipitação da região sul do Brasil. Rev Cienc Agrar
41:11–20 (2018).
48 do Amaral JAB, Silva MT and de Araújo ACC, Municípios aptos e época
de plantio para a cultura do amendoim no estado de Pernambuco,
segundo o zoneamento de riscos climáticos. Campina Grande - PB,
58428-095, Brazil: Embrapa Algodão, (2006).
49 Silva MT and do AJAB, Zoneamento de risco climático para a cultura do
amendoim no Estado do Rio Grande do Norte. Rev Biol Ciênc Terra 7:
93–99 (2007).
14
wileyonlinelibrary.com/jsfa © 2021 Society of Chemical Industry
View publication stats
LE de Oliveira Aparecido et al.
50 Mulvaney MJ, Balkcom KS, Wood CW and Jordan D, Peanut
residue carbon and nitrogen mineralization under simulated
conventional and conservation tillage. Agron J 109:696–705
(2017).
51 Paungfoo-Lonhienne C, Wang W, Yeoh YK and Halpin N, Legume crop
rotation suppressed nitrifying microbial community in a sugarcane
cropping soil. Sci Rep 7:1–7 (2017).
52 Zoz T, da Costa ACT, Steiner F, Zoz A, Witt TW and Zuffo AM, Agro-
nomic performance of creeping peanut ('Arachis hypogaea'l.),
grown in different row spacing and plant densities under condi-
tions of humid subtropical climate. Aust J Crop Sci 13:138–143
(2019).
53 Araújo R, Alves Junior J, Casaroli D and Evangelista AWP, Variação na
qualidade da matéria-prima da cana-de-açúcar em decorrência da
suspensão da irrigação antes da colheita e da ocorrência de baixas
temperaturas. Bragantia 75:118–127 (2016).
54 Montoya J, Pecha B, Roman D, Janna FC and Garcia-Perez M, Effect of
temperature and heating rate on product distribution from the
pyrolysis of sugarcane bagasse in a hot plate reactor. J Anal Appl
Pyrolysis 123:347–363 (2017).
55 Balsadi OV, Mercado de trabalho assalariado na cultura da cana-de-
açúcar no Brasil no período 1992–2004, in Área de Informação da
Sede-Artigo em periódico indexado (ALICE). Informações Econômicas,
São Paulo, v. 37, n. 2, fev. 2007 (2007).
56 Ambrosano EJ, Cantarella H, Ambrosano GMB, Schammas EA, Dias FLF,
Rossi F et al., Produtividade da cana-de-açúcar após o cultivo de
leguminosas. Bragantia 70:810–818 (2011).
57 Homma AKO, Amazônia: os limites da opção extrativa. Ciência hoje
159:70–73 (2000).
58 Mittermeier RA, Da Fonseca GA, Rylands AB and Brandon K, A brief his-
tory of biodiversity conservation in Brazil. Conserv Biol 19:601–607
(2005).
J Sci Food Agric 2021