GMD Geoscientific Model Development GMD Geosci. Model Dev. 1991-9603 Copernicus Publications Göttingen, Germany 10.5194/gmd-7-1225-2014 Modeling sugarcane yield with a process-based model from site to continental scale: uncertainties arising from model structure and parameter values Valade A. https://orcid.org/0000-0001-6098-0643 1 Ciais P. 1 Vuichard N. 1 Viovy N. https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9197-6417 1 Caubel A. 1 Huth N. 2 Marin F. 3 Martiné J.-F. 4 LSCE, CEA-CNRS, Gif-sur-Yvette, 91191, France CSIRO. Ecosystem Sciences, P.O. Box 102, Toowoomba, Qld, 4350, Australia EMBRAPA Informatica Agropecuria, Barão Geraldo, 13083-886 Campinas SP, Brazil CIRAD, UR SCA, Saint-Denis, La Réunion, 97408, France 30 06 2014 7 3 1225 1245 Copyright: © 2014 A. Valade et al. 2014 This work is licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Unported License. To view a copy of this licence, visit https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ This article is available from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/7/1225/2014/gmd-7-1225-2014.html The full text article is available as a PDF file from https://gmd.copernicus.org/articles/7/1225/2014/gmd-7-1225-2014.pdf

Agro-land surface models (agro-LSM) have been developed from the integration of specific crop processes into large-scale generic land surface models that allow calculating the spatial distribution and variability of energy, water and carbon fluxes within the soil–vegetation–atmosphere continuum. When developing agro-LSM models, particular attention must be given to the effects of crop phenology and management on the turbulent fluxes exchanged with the atmosphere, and the underlying water and carbon pools. A part of the uncertainty of agro-LSM models is related to their usually large number of parameters. In this study, we quantify the parameter-values uncertainty in the simulation of sugarcane biomass production with the agro-LSM ORCHIDEE–STICS, using a multi-regional approach with data from sites in Australia, La Réunion and Brazil. In ORCHIDEE–STICS, two models are chained: STICS, an agronomy model that calculates phenology and management, and ORCHIDEE, a land surface model that calculates biomass and other ecosystem variables forced by STICS phenology. First, the parameters that dominate the uncertainty of simulated biomass at harvest date are determined through a screening of 67 different parameters of both STICS and ORCHIDEE on a multi-site basis. Secondly, the uncertainty of harvested biomass attributable to those most sensitive parameters is quantified and specifically attributed to either STICS (phenology, management) or to ORCHIDEE (other ecosystem variables including biomass) through distinct Monte Carlo runs. The uncertainty on parameter values is constrained using observations by calibrating the model independently at seven sites. In a third step, a sensitivity analysis is carried out by varying the most sensitive parameters to investigate their effects at continental scale. A Monte Carlo sampling method associated with the calculation of partial ranked correlation coefficients is used to quantify the sensitivity of harvested biomass to input parameters on a continental scale across the large regions of intensive sugarcane cultivation in Australia and Brazil. The ten parameters driving most of the uncertainty in the ORCHIDEE–STICS modeled biomass at the 7 sites are identified by the screening procedure. We found that the 10 most sensitive parameters control phenology (maximum rate of increase of LAI) and root uptake of water and nitrogen (root profile and root growth rate, nitrogen stress threshold) in STICS, and photosynthesis (optimal temperature of photosynthesis, optimal carboxylation rate), radiation interception (extinction coefficient), and transpiration and respiration (stomatal conductance, growth and maintenance respiration coefficients) in ORCHIDEE. We find that the optimal carboxylation rate and photosynthesis temperature parameters contribute most to the uncertainty in harvested biomass simulations at site scale. The spatial variation of the ranked correlation between input parameters and modeled biomass at harvest is well explained by rain and temperature drivers, suggesting different climate-mediated sensitivities of modeled sugarcane yield to the model parameters, for Australia and Brazil. This study reveals the spatial and temporal patterns of uncertainty variability for a highly parameterized agro-LSM and calls for more systematic uncertainty analyses of such models.

 References Ball, J. T., Woodrow, I. E., and Berry, J. A.: A model predicting stomatal conductance and its contribution to the control of photosynthesis under different environmental conditions, Progr. Photosyn. Res., 221–224, 1987. Black, E., Vidale, P. L., Verhoef, A., Cuadra, S. V., Osborne, T., and Van den Hoof, C.: Cultivating C4 crops in a changing climate: sugarcane in Ghana, Environ. Res. Lett., 7, 044027, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044027">https://doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/7/4/044027</a>, 2012. Bouman, B.: A framework to deal with uncertainty in soil and management parameters in crop yield simulation: a case study for rice, Agr. Systems, 46, 1–17, 1994. Brisson, N., Mary, B., Ripoche, D., Jeuffroy, M.-H., Ruget, F., Nicoullaud, B., Gate, P., Devienne-Barret, F., Antonioletti, R., Durr, C., Richard, G., Beaudoin, N., Recous, S., Tayot, X., Plenet, D., Cellier, P., Machet, J.-M., Meynard, J.-M., and Delécolle, R.: STICS: a generic model for the simulation of crops and their water and nitrogen balances, I. Theory and parameterization applied to wheat and corn, Agronomie, 18, 311–346, 1998. Brisson, N., Gary, C., Justes, E., Roche, R., Mary, B., Ripoche, D., Zimmer, D., Sierra, J., Bertuzzi, P., and Burger, P.: An overview of the crop model STICS, Euro. J. Agronom., 18, 309–332, 2003. BSI: PAS 2050: 2008 Specification for the assessment of the life cycle greenhouse gas emissions of goods and services. British Standards Institution, 2008. Campolongo, F., Cariboni, J., and Saltelli, A.: An effective screening design for sensitivity analysis of large models, Environ. Model. Softw., 22, 1509–1518, 2007. Cariboni, J., Gatelli, D., Liska, R., and Saltelli, A.: The role of sensitivity analysis in ecological modelling, Ecol. Model., 203, 167–182, 2007. Cederberg, C., Persson, U. M., Neovius, K., Molander, S., and Clift, R.: Including carbon emissions from deforestation in the carbon footprint of Brazilian beef, Environ. Sci. Technol., 45, 1773–1779, 2011. Cheeroo-Nayamuth, F. C., Robertson, M. J., Wegener, M. K., and Nayamuth, A. R. H.: Using a simulation model to assess potential and attainable sugar cane yield in Mauritius, Field Crops Res., 66, 225–243, 2000. Cuadra, S. V., Costa, M. H., Kucharik, C. J., Da Rocha, H. R., Tatsch, J. D., Inman-Bamber, G., Da Rocha, R. P., Leite, C. C., and Cabral, O. M. R.: A biophysical model of Sugarcane growth, GCB Bioenergy 4, 36–48, 2012. Dee, D. P., Uppala, S. M., Simmons, A. J., Berrisford, P., Poli, P., Kobayashi, S., Andrae, U., Balmaseda, M. A., Balsamo, G., Bauer, P., Bechtold, P., Beljaars, A. C. M., van de Berg, L., Bidlot, J., Bormann, N., Delsol, C., Dragani, R., Fuentes, M., Geer, A. J., Haimberger, L., Healy, S. B., Hersbach, H., Hólm, E. V., Isaksen, L., Kållberg, P., Köhler, M., Matricardi, M., McNally, A. P., Monge-Sanz, B. M., Morcrette, J. J., Park, B. K., Peubey, C., de Rosnay, P., Tavolato, C., Thépaut, J. N., and Vitart, F.: The ERA-Interim reanalysis: configuration and performance of the data assimilation system, Q. J. Roy. Meteorol. Soc., 137, 553–597, 2011. Demirbas, A.: Biofuels sources, biofuel policy, biofuel economy and global biofuel projections, Energy Conversion Manage., 49, 2106–2116, 2008. de Vries, S. C., van de Ven, G. W. J., van Ittersum, M. K., and Giller, K. E.: Resource use efficiency and environmental performance of nine major biofuel crops, processed by first-generation conversion techniques, Biomass Bioenergy, 34, 588–601, 2010. Doornbosch, R. and Steenblik, R.: Biofuels: Is the cure worse than the disease?, Revista Virtual REDESMA 2, 63–100, 2008. Dufrêne, E., Davi, H., François, C., Maire, G. L., Dantec, V. L., and Granier, A.: Modelling carbon and water cycles in a beech forest: Part I: Model description and uncertainty analysis on modelled NEE, Ecol. Model., 185, 407–436, 2005. Fargione, J., Hill, J., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., and Hawthorne, P.: Land Clearing and the Biofuel Carbon Debt, Science, 319, 1235–1238, 2008. Georgescu, M., Lobell, D. B., Field, C. B., and Mahalov, A.: Simulated hydroclimatic impacts of projected Brazilian sugarcane expansion, Geophys. Res. Lett., 40, 972–977, 2013. Gervois, S., de Noblet-Ducoudre, N., Viovy, N., Ciais, P., Brisson, N., Seguin, B., and Perrier, A.: Including Croplands in a Global Biosphere Model: Methodology and Evaluation at Specific Sites, Earth Interactions 8, 1–25, 2004. Gervois, S., Ciais, P., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Brisson, N., Vuichard, N., and Viovy, N.: Carbon and water balance of European croplands throughout the 20th century, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 22, GB2022, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2007GB003018">https://doi.org/10.1029/2007GB003018</a>, 2008. Groenendijk, M., Dolman, A. J., van der Molen, M. K., Leuning, R., Arneth, A., Delpierre, N., Gash, J. H. C., Lindroth, A., Richardson, A. D., Verbeeck, H., and Wohlfahrt, G.: Assessing parameter variability in a photosynthesis model within and between plant functional types using global Fluxnet eddy covariance data, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 151, 22–38, 2011. Hill, J., Nelson, E., Tilman, D., Polasky, S., and Tiffany, D.: Environmental, economic, and energetic costs and benefits of biodiesel and ethanol biofuels, Proc. Natl. Aca. Sci., 103, 11206–11210, 2006. Howarth, R. W., Bringezu, S., Martinelli, L. A., Santoro, R., Messem, D., and Sala, O. E.: Introduction: Biofuels and the Environment in the 21st Century, Biofuels: environmental consequences and interactions with changing land use, Proceedings of the Scientific Committee on Problems of the Environment (SCOPE) International Biofuels Project Rapid Assessment, 22–25, 2008. IEA: Biofuels for transport An international perspective, International Energy Agency, 210 pp., 2004. IEA: Technology Roadmap, Biofuels for Transport, 2011. Keating, B. A., Robertson, M. J., Muchow, R. C., and Huth, N. I.: Modelling sugarcane production systems I. Development and performance of the sugarcane module, Field Crops Research 61, 253–271, 1999. Krinner, G., Viovy, N., de Noblet-Ducoudré, N., Ogée, J., Polcher, J., Friedlingstein, P., Ciais, P., Sitch, S., and Prentice, I. C.: A dynamic global vegetation model for studies of the coupled atmosphere-biosphere system, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19, GB1015, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002199">https://doi.org/10.1029/2003GB002199</a>, 2005. Kuppel, S., Chevallier, F., and Peylin, P.: Quantifying the model structural error in carbon cycle data assimilation systems, Geosci. Model Dev., 6, 45–55, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-45-2013">https://doi.org/10.5194/gmd-6-45-2013</a>, 2013. Lapola, D. M., Priess, J. A., and Bondeau, A.: Modeling the land requirements and potential productivity of sugarcane and jatropha in Brazil and India using the LPJmL dynamic global vegetation model, Biomass Bioenergy, 33, 1087–1095, 2009. Loarie, S. R., Lobell, D. B., Asner, G. P., Mu, Q., and Field, C. B.: Direct impacts on local climate of sugar-cane expansion in Brazil, Nature Clim. Change, 1, 105–109, 2011. Macedo, I. C., Seabra, J. E. A., and Silva, J. E. A. R.: Greenhouse gases emissions in the production and use of ethanol from sugarcane in Brazil: The 2005/2006 averages and a prediction for 2020, Biomass Bioenergy, 32, 582–595, 2008. Marin, F. R., Jones, J. W., Royce, F., Suguitani, C., Donzeli, J. L., Wander Filho, J. P., and Nassif, D. S.: Parameterization and evaluation of predictions of DSSAT/CANEGRO for Brazilian sugarcane, Agronomy J., 103, 304–315, 2011. Marino, S., Hogue, I. B., Ray, C. J., Kirschner, D. E., Marino, S., Hogue, I., Ray, C., and Kirschner, D.: A methodology for performing global uncertainty and sensitivity analysis in systems biology, J. Theor. Biol., 254, 178–196, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.04.011">https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtbi.2008.04.011</a>, 2008. McKay, M. D., Beckman, R. J., and Conover, W. J.: Comparison of Three Methods for Selecting Values of Input Variables in the Analysis of Output from a Computer Code, Technometrics, 21, 239–245, 1979. Medlyn, B. E., Robinson, A. P., Clement, R., and McMurtrie, R. E.: On the validation of models of forest CO<sub>2</sub> exchange using eddy covariance data: some perils and pitfalls, Tree Physiology, 25, 839–857, 2005. Monod, H., Naud, C., and Makowski, D.: Uncertainty and sensitivity analysis for crop models, in: Working with Dynamic Crop Models, Evaluation, Analysis, Parameterization and Applications, edited by: Wallach, D., Makowski, D., and Jones, J. W., Elsevier, Amsterdam, 55–100, 2006. Monsi, M. and Saeki, T.: Über den Lichtfaktor in den Pflanzengesellschaften und seine Bedeutung für die Stoffproduktion, Japanese J. Botany, 14, 22–52, 1953. Morris, M. D.: Factorial sampling plans for preliminary computational experiments, Technometrics, 33, 161–174, 1991. Muchow, R. C., Spillman, M. F., Wood, A. W., and Thomas, M. R.: Radiation interception and biomass accumulation in a sugarcane crop grown under irrigated tropical conditions, Austr. J. Agr. Res., 45, 37–49, 1994. Naylor, R. L., Liska, A. J., Burke, M. B., Falcon, W. P., Gaskell, J. C., Rozelle, S. D., and Cassman, K. G.: The Ripple Effect: Biofuels, Food Security, and the Environment, Environment: Science and Policy for Sustainable Development, 49, 30–43, 2007. OECD: OECD-FAO Agricultural Outlook 2012–2021, June 2012 Edn., OECD Publishing and FAO, 2012. Poulter, B., Hattermann, F., Hawkins, E. D., Zaehle, S., Sitch, S., Restrepo-Coupe, N., Heyder, U., and Cramer, W.: Robust dynamics of Amazon dieback to climate change with perturbed ecosystem model parameters, Global Change Biol., 16, 2476–2495, 2010. Pujol, G.: Simplex-based screening designs for estimating metamodels, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 94, 1156–1160, 2009. Pujol, G., Iooss, B., and Janon, A.: Sensitivity: sensitivity analysis, 1.7 ed, p. R package, 2013. Robertson, M. J., Wood, A. W., and Muchow, R. C.: Growth of sugarcane under high input conditions in tropical Australia, I. Radiation use, biomass accumulation and partitioning, Field Crops Res., 48, 11–25, 1996. Rosenzweig, C., Jones, J. W., Hatfield, J. L., Ruane, A. C., Boote, K. J., Thorburn, P., Antle, J. M., Nelson, G. C., Porter, C., Janssen, S., Asseng, S., Basso, B., Ewert, F., Wallach, D., Baigorria, G., and Winter, J. M.: The Agricultural Model Intercomparison and Improvement Project (AgMIP): Protocols and pilot studies, Agr. Forest Meteorol., 170, 166–182, 2013. Saltelli, A. and Marivoet, J.: Non-parametric statistics in sensitivity analysis for model output: a comparison of selected techniques, Reliab. Eng. Syst. Safety, 28, 229–253, 1990. Saltelli, A., Tarantola, S., Campolongo, F., and Ratto, M.: Sensitivity Analysis in practice. A Guide to Assessing Scientific Models, Halsted Press New York, NY, USA, 2004. Schubert, C.: Can biofuels finally take center stage?, Nat. Biotech., 24, 777–784, 2006. Searchinger, T., Heimlich, R., Houghton, R.A., Dong, F., Elobeid, A., Fabiosa, J., Tokgoz, S., Hayes, D., and Yu, T.-H.: Use of US Croplands for Biofuels Increases Greenhouse Gases Through Emissions from Land-Use Change, Science, 319, 1238–1240, 2008. Sorda, G., Banse, M., and Kemfert, C.: An overview of biofuel policies across the world, Energy Policy, 38, 6977–6988, 2010. Surendran Nair, S., Kang, S., Zhang, X., Miguez, F. E., Izaurralde, R. C., Post, W. M., Dietze, M. C., Lynd, L. R., and Wullschleger, S. D.: Bioenergy crop models: descriptions, data requirements, and future challenges, GCB Bioenergy, 4, 620–633, 2012. Tarantola, A.: Inverse problem theory: methods for data fitting and model parameter estimation, Elsevier, Distributors for the United States and Canada, Elsevier Science Pub. Co., Amsterdam, New York, New York, NY, USA, 1987. Valade, A., Vuichard, N., Ciais, P., Ruget, F., Viovy, N., Gabrielle, B., Huth, N., and Martiné, J. F.: ORCHIDEE-STICS, a process-based model of sugarcane biomass production: calibration of model parameters governing phenology, GCB Bioenergy, 2013. Verbeeck, H., Samson, R., Verdonck, F., and Lemeur, R.: Parameter sensitivity and uncertainty of the forest carbon flux model FORUG: a Monte Carlo analysis, Tree Physiol., 26, 807–817, 2006. von Blottnitz, H. and Curran, M. A.: A review of assessments conducted on bio-ethanol as a transportation fuel from a net energy, greenhouse gas, and environmental life cycle perspective, J. Cleaner Production, 15, 607–619, 2007. Wang, X., He, X., Williams, J., Izaurralde, R., and Atwood, J.: Sensitivity and uncertainty analyses of crop yields and soil organic carbon simulated with EPIC, T. Am. Soc. Agr. Eng., 48, 1041–1054, 2005. Wyss, G. D. and Jorgensen, K. H.: A user's guide to LHS: Sandia's Latin hypercube sampling software, SAND98-0210, Sandia National Laboratories, Albuquerque, NM, 1998. Zaehle, S., Sitch, S., Smith, B., and Hatterman, F.: Effects of parameter uncertainties on the modeling of terrestrial biosphere dynamics, Global Biogeochem. Cy., 19, GB3020, <a href="http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002395">https://doi.org/10.1029/2004GB002395</a>, 2005.