agronomy

Article
Sensitivity Analysis of Plant- and Cultivar-Specific
Parameters of APSIM-Sugar Model: Variation
between Climates and Management Conditions
M.H.J.P. Gunarathna 1,2, * , Kazuhito Sakai 3, *, Tamotsu Nakandakari 3 , Kazuro Momii 4 and
M.K.N. Kumari 1,2
1 United Graduate School of Agricultural Sciences, Kagoshima University, 1-21-24 Korimoto, Kagoshima-shi,
Kagoshima 890-0065, Japan; nadeeta@gmail.com
2 Faculty of Agriculture, Rajarata University of Sri Lanka, Puliyankulama, Anuradhapura 50000, Sri Lanka
3 Faculty of Agriculture, University of the Ryukyus, 1 Senbaru, Nishihara-cho, Okinawa 903-0213, Japan;
zhunai@agr.u-ryukyu.ac.jp
4 Faculty of Agriculture, Kagoshima University, 1-21-24 Korimoto, Kagoshima-shi, Kagoshima 890-8580,
Japan; momii@agri.kagoshima-u.ac.jp
* Correspondence: janaka78@gmail.com (M.H.J.P.G.); ksakai@agr.u-ryukyu.ac.jp (K.S.);
Tel.: +81-70-4419-3534 (M.H.J.P.G.); +81-89-895-8783 (K.S.); Fax: +81-89-895-8734 (K.S.)




Received: 18 April 2019; Accepted: 11 May 2019; Published: 14 May 2019


Abstract: With increasing demand for food and energy, there is a great need for improving sugarcane
productivity. New cultivars and management strategies can be assessed using process-based crop
models. Information on cultivars needs to be updated frequently, but it is still limited in most crop
models. Therefore, it is important to identify possible candidates for varietal parameterization and
calibration. Because sensitivity analysis is computationally expensive, we used a less expensive
emulator-based approach to conduct a global sensitivity analysis using the apsimr package and
GEM-SA software. We studied the sensitivity of four yield outputs of the APSIM-Sugar model to
13 parameters in rainfed and irrigated conditions in Japan and Sri Lanka. Unlike previous studies,
our aim was to give comprehensive insights into the variation in sensitivity due to variation in
climate. The results confirmed distinct variation of parameter influence between climates and between
management conditions. We identify possible candidates for parameterization and calibration of new
cultivars for APSIM-Sugar under different environments, and show the effect of variation in climate
on variation in parameter influence under different management conditions. It was confirmed that
both radiation use efficiency and transpiration efficiency were sensitive and have to be examined to
use new cultivars, though these are not listed as cultivar parameters.

Keywords: GEM-SA; apsimr; cultivar parameters; sugarcane; radiation use efficiency; transpiration
efficiency; Sri Lanka; Japan

1. Introduction
The production of sugarcane is increasing in importance as both a food and a source of energy.
Thus, productivity needs to improve continuously. The frequent introduction of new cultivars [1,2]
and management strategies [3–5] around the world necessitates new studies to validate them.
Several process-based crop models have been developed to simulate sugarcane growth and yield.
The widely cited Agricultural Production Systems Simulator (APSIM)-Sugar model [6,7] and the
Decision Support System for Agrotechnology Transfer (DSSAT)-Canegro model [8] can simulate the
growth and yield of sugarcane under different environmental (climatic and soil) and management
(irrigation, fertilization, etc.) conditions with different cultivars [2]. Crop models have been used for

Agronomy 2019, 9, 242; doi:10.3390/agronomy9050242 www.mdpi.com/journal/agronomy

Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 2 of 19

decision support in sugarcane farming, including irrigation scheduling [9,10], harvest scheduling [1,11],
and fertilizer management [12]. They are also used in projecting the influence of climate change [13–15]
and guiding varietal improvement [16]. However, most crop models are limited to old cultivars,
so studies of varietal differences are limited [17]. Further, model based assessments of currently grown
popular cultivars are still rare, for instance, no currently grown commercial cultivars are listed in
APSIM-Sugar 7.10 [2]. Process-based crop models should be well parameterized and calibrated to
achieve high accuracy. However, the measurement of a wide range of parameters is practically difficult,
and not enough data are available from field experiments (including breeding trials) to parameterize
all the required varietal information in APSIM-Sugar. Therefore, it is important to identify the most
influential parameters in the simulation of outputs through sensitivity analysis (SA). Some parameters
are easily measurable and available, whereas some are not, but they can be estimated through varietal
calibration. SA can guide crop modelers in parameterizing their cultivars using available data and
identify important parameters that need to be estimated by varietal calibration.
SA techniques can be broadly categorized as local or global [18]; local SA considers a single
parameter at a time, and global SA considers the combined effect of multiple parameters. Saltelli and
Annoni [19] reported the advantages of global SA over local SA; several global SA methods are available
to estimate the sensitivity of process-based crop models to parameters, but they are computationally
expensive. To minimize the computational cost, Sexton et al. [2] used an emulator-based approach to
study the sensitivity of APSIM-Sugar to cultivar parameters. An emulator is a simplified statistical
approximation of a more complex model [20] used in place of computationally expensive models.
An emulator with a high enough accuracy can replace an actual simulator to perform SA [21]. In this
approach, the simulator initially runs for relatively few simulations to build the emulator, then the
emulator is used for the SA.
Here, we aimed at assessing the sensitivity of four yield outputs—total aboveground biomass,
fresh cane weight, the weight of plant sucrose, and commercial cane sugar—to variations in
13 parameters used in APSIM-Sugar model under different environment and management conditions
using emulator-based global sensitivity analysis. By assessing variations in the influence of parameters,
we aimed at identifying important candidates for the parameterization and calibration of APSIM-Sugar
in different environments and management conditions. We also investigated the effect of radiation
use efficiency (RUE) and transpiration efficiency (TE) on the parameterization and calibration of
APSIM-Sugar. The relationship between the variations in influence and climate is examined.

2. Materials and Methods

2.1. Study Area

Two locations with different climates were selected for this study: Itoman city (26◦ 70 5800 N,
127◦ 400 5200 E), Okinawa prefecture, Japan, and Sevanagala town (6◦ 220 1300 N, 80◦ 540 4700 E), Monaragala
district, Sri Lanka. In Japan, Okinawa is the foremost cane sugar producer, accounting for about 59%
of the country’s production. In the Köppen climate classification, Okinawa is classified as Cfa (humid
subtropical) [22]. In Sri Lanka, sugar is an important subsector in the economy, with great potential for
employment and income generation and for the development of the country’s dry zone. Sugarcane
is grown mainly in the southern dry zone, where most processing plants are located. This zone
of Sri Lanka is classified as As (tropical with dry summer) [23]. In Okinawa, the 30-year average
monthly maximum and minimum temperatures both differ by about 15◦ C between summer and winter
(Figure 1a). In Sri Lanka, they differ by only 2 to 3 ◦ C (Figure 1b). Solar radiation shows high seasonal
variation in Okinawa (15 MJ/m2 /day), but less variation (6 MJ/m2 /day) in Sri Lanka. Average monthly
rainfall shows a contrasting unimodal rainfall pattern in Okinawa but a bimodal pattern in Sri Lanka.
The average monthly rainfall is 212 mm (± 72 mm SD) in Itoman and 169 mm (± 67) in Sri Lanka.
APSIM uses the Priestley–Taylor method to estimate potential evapotranspiration (ET). The monthly
potential ET varies slightly in Sri Lanka (2 mm/day) and moderately in Okinawa (4 mm/day; Figure 1).
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 3 of 19
Agronomy 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 3 of 19

Figure 1.
Figure 1. Average
Averagemonthly
monthlyclimate data
climate of (a)
data ofItoman, Okinawa,
(a) Itoman, Japan (1980–2010)
Okinawa, and (b) Sevanagala,
Japan (1980–2010) and (b)
Sevanagala, Monaragala, Sri Lanka (1980–2010); rain, mean monthly rainfall (mm); radn, solar
Monaragala, Sri Lanka (1980–2010); rain, mean monthly rainfall (mm); radn, mean daily meanradiation
daily
2 ); maxt, mean daily maximum temperature (◦ C); mint, mean daily minimum temperature (◦ C);
(MJ/mradiation
solar (MJ/m2); maxt, mean daily maximum temperature (°C); mint, mean daily minimum
eo, Potential(°C);
temperature evapotranspiration (mm/day).
eo, Potential evapotranspiration (mm/day).

2.2. Apsim Simulation

2.2. Apsim Simulation
APSIM is a process-based dynamic crop model that combines biophysical and management
APSIM is a process-based dynamic crop model that combines biophysical and management
modules within a central engine to simulate diverse cropping systems [6,24]. The model is driven by
modules within a central engine to simulate diverse cropping systems [6,24]. The model is driven by
daily climate
daily climate data
dataandandcancan
simulate the growth,
simulate development,
the growth, development,and yield
and of cropsofand
yield theirand
crops interactions
their
with soil.
interactions with soil.
APSIM-Sugar model
APSIM-Sugar modelsimulates
simulatessugarcane
sugarcane growth via dry
growth via weight accumulation
dry weight due to intercepted
accumulation due to
radiation in a daily time step. Dry weight accumulation in APSIM-Sugar
intercepted radiation in a daily time step. Dry weight accumulation in APSIM-Sugar is determined is determined by RUE [7].
The model partitions the daily accumulated biomass into leaf, immature
by RUE [7]. The model partitions the daily accumulated biomass into leaf, immature stem top, stem top, structural stem,
roots, and sucrose. Then it simulates the key outputs (fresh cane yield, sugar
structural stem, roots, and sucrose. Then it simulates the key outputs (fresh cane yield, sugar yield, yield, and sucrose
contents)
and sucrose [2,7]. This process
contents) [2,7]. Thisis controlled
process is by environmental
controlled (soil and climate),
by environmental (soil and plant or ratoon,
climate), plant orand
cultivar-specific parameters [7,25,26].
ratoon, and cultivar-specific parameters [7,25,26].
Sugarcane growth
Sugarcane growthwas wassimulated
simulatedfromfrom1 1January
January2000
2000toto3131 December
December 2010,
2010, using
using rainfed
rainfed
conditions and
conditions and irrigated
irrigatedconditions
conditions(assuming
(assuming50% 50%management-allowed
management-allowed deficit).
deficit). SoilSoil
datadata
for for
Sri Sri
Lanka were
Lanka werederived
derivedusing
usingpedotransfer
pedotransferfunctions
functionsdeveloped
developed byby Gunarathna
Gunarathna et al.
et al. [27],
[27], andand other
other datadata
gathered from
were gathered fromaareport
reportby bythe
theSoil
SoilScience
ScienceSociety
SocietyofofSriSri Lanka
Lanka [28].
[28]. SoilSoil data
data forfor Okinawa
Okinawa werewere
collected
collected through
throughcomprehensive
comprehensivesoil soilanalysis.
analysis.Meteorological
Meteorological data forfor
data SriSri
Lanka
Lanka were extracted
were extractedfromfrom
the AgMERRA
AgMERRAglobal globalgridded
griddedclimate
climatedataset
dataset[29]
[29]byby
the
theNetCDF-Extractor
NetCDF-Extractor v. 2.0 tooltool
v. 2.0 of AgriMetSoft
of AgriMetSoft
(https://www.agrimetsoft.com).
(https://www.agrimetsoft.com).Those ThoseforforOkinawa
Okinawa were
wereobtained
obtained from
from thetheJapan
Japan Meteorological
Meteorological
Agency website (http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/risk/obsdl/index.php).
(http://www.data.jma.go.jp/gmd/risk/obsdl/index.php). In In both
both locations,
locations, thethe data on
on daily rainfall, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and solar
daily rainfall, maximum temperature, minimum temperature, and solar radiation covered 1980 radiation covered 1980toto2010.
2010.
Figure 1 shows the variation of climatic variables used for these simulations. Table 1 summarizes1the
Figure 1 shows the variation of climatic variables used for these simulations. Table
summarizes the soil and
soil and management management
conditions conditions
of the of the two locations.
two locations.

Table
Table1.1.Soil
Soiland
andmanagement
managementconditions
conditionsofof
selected locations
selected used
locations forfor
used thethe
simulations.
simulations.
Location
Location Itoman,Itoman,
Okinawa, Japan
Okinawa, Japan Sevanagala, Monaragala,
Sevanagala, Monaragala,Sri Sri
Lanka
Lanka
26°7'58''N
◦ 0127°40'52''E
◦
26 7 58”N 127 40 52”E0 6°22'13''N
◦ 0 80°54'47''E
◦
6 22 13”N 80 54 47”E0
Shimajiri Mahji
Shimajiri Mahji Solodized Solonetz
Solodized Solonetz
Depth:
Depth: 110 cm 110 cm Depth:
Depth: 100 cm 100 cm
Soil
Soil PAWC: 68.4 mm PAWC: 91.6 mm
PAWC: 68.4 mm
Average bulk density 1.11 g/cm3
PAWC: 91.6 mm
Average bulk density 1.37 g/cm3
Planting Average bulk
Aprildensity
01 (Spring1.11 g/cm3
planting) AverageApril
bulk01density 1.37 planting)
(Yala season g/cm3
Crop duration
Planting April 01 (Spring 315planting)
days April 01 (Yala season 360 daysplanting)
Stalk density 7 stalks/m2 8 stalks/m2
Crop duration 315 days 360 days
Fertilizer 190 kg/ha as NH4 -N 200 kg/ha as Urea
Stalk application
Fertilizer density time 317and
stalks/m 2
62 days after planting 458and
stalks/m 2
90 days after planting
Fertilizer 190 kg/ha as NH4-N 200 kg/ha as Urea
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 4 of 19

Table 1. Cont.

Location Itoman, Okinawa, Japan Sevanagala, Monaragala, Sri Lanka

Automatic irrigation
Irrigation Fraction of ASW below which irrigation is applied = 0.5
Efficiency of the irrigation = 0.5
PAWC, Plant available water content; ASW, Available soil water.

2.3. Gaussian Emulation Machine for Sensitivity Analysis (GEM-SA)

GEM-SA is an open-source software used to build software emulators from a set of inputs
and outputs so as to perform predictions, uncertainty analysis, and SA using far fewer code runs
than Monte Carlo–based methods [30]. It uses Bayesian analysis of computer code outputs [31].
The underlying mathematical procedures used in GEM-SA and analytical procedures used to conduct
SA with GEM-SA are described in detail by Kennedy and O’Hagan [31], Kennedy et al. [32] and
Kennedy and Petropoulos [30]. GEM-SA estimates two variance-based sensitivity indices—the main
effect and the total effect—by partitioning the total output variance induced by variations in all input
parameters [33]. Gunarathna et al. [34] reported the accuracy of emulators developed by GEM-SA for
subtropical environments. Sexton et al. [2] used GEM-SA to assess the sensitivity of sugarcane biomass
and yield to ten parameters in two regions in Australia; despite little variation in climate between the
regions, sensitivities differed between the regions, as one region grows rainfed sugarcane and the other
grows irrigated sugarcane. Gunarathna et al. [35] used GEM-SA to assess the sensitivity of outputs of
APSIM-Oryza to soil parameters in different climatic conditions and reported different sensitivities
among regions.
We used GEM-SA to assess the sensitivity of total (green + trash) aboveground biomass, fresh
cane weight (canefw), the weight of plant sucrose (sucrose_wt), and commercial cane sugar (% ccs) to
13 selected parameters (Table 2). We assessed emulator accuracy, parameters that influence outputs,
the variability of those parameters between years and between rainfed and irrigated conditions, and
the effect of climate. Figure 2 shows an overview of the procedure we used for this study.

Table 2. Selected parameters used to assess the parameter sensitivity on total crop above-ground
biomass, fresh cane weight, the weight of plant sucrose and commercial cane sugar.

Parameter as Listed in APSIM-Sugar Lower and Upper

Level Code Unit
Model (Description) Bound
Leaf_size_no = 1 LS1 mm2 500–2000
leaf_size (Leaf area of the respective leaf) Leaf_size_no = 14 LS2 mm2 25,000–70,000
Leaf_size_no = 20 LS3 mm2 25,000–70,000
cane_fraction (Fraction of accumulated biomass
CF gg−1 0.65–0.80
partitioned to cane)
sucrose_fraction_stalk (Fraction of accumulated
Stress factor = 1 SF gg−1 0.50–0.70
biomass partitioned to sucrose)
sucrose_delay (Sucrose accumulation delay) SD gm−2 0–600
min_sstem_sucrose (Minimum stem biomass
MSS gm−2 450–1500
before partitioning to sucrose commences)
min_sstem_sucrose_redn (reduction to
MSSR gm−2 0–20
minimum stem sucrose under stress)
tt_emerg_to_begcane (Accumulated thermal ◦C
EB day 1200–1900
time from emergence to beginning of cane)
tt_begcane_to_flowering (Accumulated ◦C
BF day 5500–6500
thermal time from beginning of cane to flowering)
tt_flowering_to_crop_end (Accumulated ◦C
FC day 1750–2250
thermal time from flowering to end of the crop)
green_leaf_no (Maximum number of fully
GLN No. 9–14
expanded green leaves)
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 5 of 19

Table 2. Cont.

Parameter as Listed in APSIM-Sugar Lower and Upper

Level Code Unit
Model (Description) Bound
Agronomy 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW Tiller_leaf_size_no = 1 TLS1 mm2 mm−2 1–6 5 of 19
Tiller_leaf_size_no = 4 TLS2 mm2 mm−2 1–6
tillerf_leaf_size (Tillering factors according to
the leaf numbers) Tiller_leaf_size_no = 10 TLS3 mm2 mm2−2 1–6
Tiller_leaf_size_no = 16 TLS4 mm mm−2 1–6
Tiller_leaf_size_no = 16 TLS4 mm2 mm2−2 1–6
Tiller_leaf_size_no
Tiller_leaf_size_no = 26 = 26TLS5 TLS5 mm2 mm
mm−2
mm−2 1–6 1–6
Stage_code
Stage_code =1 =1 TE1 TE1 kg kPa/kg
kg kPa/kg 0.008–0.014
0.008–0.014
Stage_code =2 =2
Stage_code TE2 TE2 kg kPa/kg
kg kPa/kg 0.008–0.014
0.008–0.014
Stage_code =3 =3
Stage_code TE3 TE3 kg kPa/kg
kg kPa/kg 0.008–0.014
0.008–0.014
transp_eff (Transpiration efficiency)
transp_eff(Transpiration efficiency) Stage_code =4 =4
Stage_code TE4 TE4 kg kPa/kg
kg kPa/kg 0.008–0.014
0.008–0.014
Stage_code = 5 TE5
Stage_code = 5 TE5 kg kPa/kg
kg kPa/kg 0.008–0.014
0.008–0.014
Stage_code = 6 TE6 kg kPa/kg 0.008–0.014
Stage_code = 6 TE6 kg kPa/kg 0.008–0.014
rue (Radiation use efficiency) Stage_code = 3 RUE3 g/MJ 1.2–2.5
rue (Radiation use efficiency) Stage_code
Stage_code =4 =3 RUE4 RUE3 g/MJ g/MJ 1.2–2.5
1.2–2.5
Stage_code =5 =4
Stage_code RUE5 RUE4 g/MJ g/MJ 1.2–2.5
1.2–2.5
Stage_code = 5 RUE5 g/MJ 1.2–2.5

Figure 2. Flowchart of the analysis procedure used for the study.

Figure 2. Flowchart of the analysis procedure used for the study.

2.4. Global Sensitivity Analysis

SA indicates which input parameters have the most influence on model outputs. We conducted
SA using daily climate data from 2000 to 2010 to assess the sensitivity of the 4 yield outputs to 13
parameters (11 cultivar-specific parameters, RUE, and TE; Table 2) under rainfed and irrigated
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 6 of 19

2.4. Global Sensitivity Analysis

SA indicates which input parameters have the most influence on model outputs. We conducted SA
using daily climate data from 2000 to 2010 to assess the sensitivity of the 4 yield outputs to 13 parameters
(11 cultivar-specific parameters, RUE, and TE; Table 2) under rainfed and irrigated conditions in two
distinct environments (Figure 2). Initially, 300 test points (of each and every parameter and outputs)
evenly distributed between lower and upper bounds (Table 2) and related outputs of APSIM were
generated by the apsimr package [36] of R software [37]. We chose the upper and lower bounds in
consideration of the range of parameter values of cultivars in APSIM 7.10 Sugar model. We used
the Gaussian Process emulator in GEM-SA [32] to develop 160 emulators (10 years × 4 outputs × 2
environments × 2 management conditions). Variance based sensitivity indices (Main, Si and total
effects, STi ) were estimated by partitioning the total output variance induced by variations in all input
parameters with the assumption that all input uncertainties are unknown but uniform. The main effect
index (Si ) is defined as: 
Var E( f (X|xi )
Si =  (1)
Var f (X)
where, Var{f (X)} is the total variance in the output given variations in all parameters; Var{E( f (X|xi )} is
the variance in the expected output f (X) given xi is known. Hence, Si represents the expected reduction
in output variance if parameter xi were known [2]. The relative importance of each parameter in
terms of its effect on output uncertainty can be ranked using this Si values of selected parameters [38].
The total sensitivity index (STi ) is defined as:

Var E( f (X|x−i )
STi = 1 −  (2)
Var f (X)

where, Var{E( f (X|x−i )} is the variance in the expected output f (X) if all parameters except xi are known.
Saltelli and Annoni [39] suggested to use STi when sensitivity analysis aims to set non-influential
parameters to default values and removing them from potential calibrations.
The prior mean option for each input was set as linear. Models were assessed by using the
leave-one-out cross-validation procedure of GEM-SA. In cross-validation procedure, a series of left-out
points were estimated as output from the code which we actually know the true values. Therefore,
the error values are readily available [40]. GEM-SA calculates the cross-validation root-mean-squared
error (RMSE, Equation (3)) and root-mean-squared standardized error (RMSSE, Equation (4)) from
the results of the cross-validation [30], and the sigma squared (σ2 ) value. We used these inbuilt
diagnostics to assess the accuracy of the emulator approximations. We evaluated the variation in
sensitivity of model outputs to changes in parameter values under two management conditions and
two environments using the variances (as a percentage) of the main effect index (Si ) and total effect
index (STi ) provided by GEM-SA.
s
( yi − ŷ)2
Pn
i=1
RMSE = (3)
n
s
(( yi − ŷ)/si )2
Pn
i=1
RMSSE = (4)
n
where, yi is the true output for the ith training run, ŷ is the corresponding emulator approximation, si is
the standard deviation calculated with the ith training point removed and n is the number of runs [30].
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 7 of 19

3. Results and Discussion

3.1. Emulator Accuracy

A series of internally calculated statistical measures (σ2 , RMSE and RMSSE) of GEM-SA were
used to quantify the uncertainty of the sensitivity analysis due to emulation of model simulation [30].
WeAgronomy 2 (variance of the emulator after standardization of output) to evaluate the linearity of the
used σ2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 7 of 19
GEM-SA emulators, as σ2 ranges near to 0 when a model shows linearity and show higher values
(Figure
when 3), soshows
a model the models
moderate showed good
to high to moderate
nonlinearity, linearity
albeit with noin defined
both environments,
cutoff values.and higher
Petropoulos
linearity in Sri Lankan conditions. Hence emulators can successfully replace the simulators.
2
et al. [41] reported that their emulators showed linearity or moderate nonlinearity at σ values between
0.13 and RMSSE values
1.6. We got are near 1 when
σ2 values emulator
of 0.15 to 1.43 results are close
for Okinawa to simulator
and results;
0.10 to 0.59 lower
for Sri and(Figure
Lanka higher 3),
values respectively indicate over- and underestimation. Our RMSSE values of cross-validation
so the models showed good to moderate linearity in both environments, and higher linearity in Sri results
were close
Lankan to 1: 0.89Hence
conditions. to 1.09emulators
in Okinawa and
can 0.85 to 1.12 in
successfully Sri Lanka
replace (Figure 3). These values are lower
the simulators.
than previously reported values of emulators assessed as satisfactory [30,41,42].

Figure 3. (a) Sigma squared value, (b) Cross validated Cross-validation root mean squared standardized
Figure 3. (a) Sigma squared value, (b) Cross validated Cross-validation root mean squared
error of results of selected outputs under two climatic conditions (Okinawa and Sri Lanka). IR, Irrigated;
standardized error of results of selected outputs under two climatic conditions (Okinawa and Sri
RF, rainfed.
Lanka). IR, Irrigated; RF, rainfed.

RMSSE values are near 1 when emulator results are close to simulator results; lower and higher
3.2. Sensitivity of Crop Growth and Yield to Changes in Plant and Cultivar Specific Parameters
values respectively indicate over- and underestimation. Our RMSSE values of cross-validation results
Bothtomain
were close effect
1: 0.89 andintotal
to 1.09 effect and
Okinawa sensitivity
0.85 to indices of parameters
1.12 in Sri Lanka (Figure varied significantly
3). These across
values are lower
environments and management conditions (Figures 4–7) and among
than previously reported values of emulators assessed as satisfactory [30,41,42]. years. There were no big
differences between the main and total effect indices, and the main effect index was able to explain a
major
3.2. portionofof
Sensitivity CroptheGrowth
variability, so we
and Yield to neglected
Changes incombined
Plant andeffects.
CultivarUnder rainfed
Specific conditions, soil
Parameters
moisture deficit is possible and may affect other processes. Thus, parameters showed less interannual
Both main
variation under effect andconditions
rainfed total effectthan
sensitivity indices of
under irrigated parameters
conditions. varied significantly
Interannual across
variability was
environments
greater in Okinawa than in Sri Lanka as a result of wide variation in temperature and solar radiationbig
and management conditions (Figures 4–7) and among years. There were no
differences
during thebetween
growingthe mainWe
season. and total the
ranked effect indices,
influence ofand the main
parameters effect index
according to thewas able value
median to explain
of
a major portion
main effects overof the
the10
variability,
study years so(Table
we neglected combined
3). Significant effects.(over
contributions Under1%)rainfed conditions,
is highlighted (bold)soil
moisture deficit
in the Table 3. is possible and may affect other processes. Thus, parameters showed less interannual
variation under rainfedstage
RUE of growth conditions
4 (fromthan under irrigated
beginning of cane conditions. InterannualRUE4)
growth to flowering; variability wasmost
was the greater
influential on all the four tested model outputs despite locations and management (Table 3 and
Figures 4 to 7). In both environments, biomass and cane fresh weight showed a different pattern of
parameter influence from sucrose weight and ccs for all other parameters. RUE of growth stage 3
(from emergence to beginning of cane growth; RUE3) was the second most influential parameter for
biomass and cane fresh weight. It was ranked two to three for CCS and sucrose weight in Okinawa
and two to six for CCS and sucrose weight in Sri Lanka. For CCS and sucrose weight, MSS has a
 In both environments, minimum structural stem sucrose content (MSS) and sucrose fraction under
stress (SF) influenced CCS and sucrose weight under both water regimes. CF also influenced CCS in
both climates and sucrose weight in Sri Lanka under rainfed conditions. MSS reduction (MSSR)
influenced ccs under rainfed conditions in Okinawa but not in Sri Lanka. Sexton et al. [2] reported
higher sensitivity of biomass production to RUE and GLN and of sucrose yield to RUE and SF under
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 8 of 19
Australian conditions.
In almost all cases, RUE4, RUE3, TE4 (plant-specific parameters), GLN, CF, MSS, and SF
in Okinawa than inparameters)
(cultivar-specific Sri Lanka as explained >90% variation
a result of wide of variability (Table 3).and
in temperature RUE4
solarhad the greatest
radiation during
the growing season. We ranked the influence of parameters according to the median value In
influence, and was more influential in Sri Lanka than in Okinawa in both water regimes. both
of main
climates,
effects overgrowth stage 4years
the 10 study fell between July
(Table 3). and the following
Significant February
contributions (overor March,
1%) when solar
is highlighted radiation,
(bold) in the
potential
Table 3. ET, and maximum and minimum temperatures varied much more in Okinawa than in Sri
Lanka.

2
Figure4.4.Sensitivity
Figure SensitivityofofAPSIM-Sugar
APSIM-Sugarbiomass
biomass(g/m
(g/m2)) to
to parameters
parameters in in (a)
(a) Okinawa
Okinawa and
and(b)(b)Sri
SriLanka;
Lanka;
SiS, imain effect; ST
, main effect; ST , total effect; IR, irrigated; RF, rainfed; TLS
i i, total effect; IR, irrigated; RF, rainfed; TLS , tiller leaf size; TE
1–5, tiller leaf size; TE1–6
1–5 , transpiration
1–6, transpiration

efficiency;
efficiency;SF2,
SF2,sucrose
sucrosefraction
fractionunder
understress;
stress;SD,
SD,sucrose
sucrosedelay;
delay;RUERUE3–5 3–5,, radiation
radiationuse
useefficiency;
efficiency;MSS,
MSS,
minimum
minimumstructural
structuralstemstemsucrose;
sucrose;MSSR,
MSSR,MSS MSSreduction;
reduction;LS 1–3, leaf size;
LS1–3 size; GLN,
GLN, green
greenleaf
leafnumber;
number;FC,
FC,
thermal time from flowering to crop end; EB, thermal time from emergence to beginning of cane; CF,
cane fraction; BF, thermal time from beginning of cane to flowering.

RUE of growth stage 4 (from beginning of cane growth to flowering; RUE4) was the most influential
on all the four tested model outputs despite locations and management (Table 3 and Figures 4–7). In
both environments, biomass and cane fresh weight showed a different pattern of parameter influence
from sucrose weight and ccs for all other parameters. RUE of growth stage 3 (from emergence to
beginning of cane growth; RUE3) was the second most influential parameter for biomass and cane
fresh weight. It was ranked two to three for CCS and sucrose weight in Okinawa and two to six for
CCS and sucrose weight in Sri Lanka. For CCS and sucrose weight, MSS has a higher effect than RUE3.
Green leaf number (GLN) was the third most influential parameter for biomass, and cane fresh weight,
however, it was ranked four to five in Okinawa and three to five in Sri Lanka for CCS and sucrose
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 9 of 19

weight. Cane fraction (CF) and thermal time between emergence and beginning of cane (EB) also
influenced biomass in both environments in both water regimes.
Transpiration efficiency of growth stage 4 (TE4) has a greater influence in biomass under rainfed
conditions than under irrigation conditions [43]. This was more pronounced under Sri Lankan growing
conditions, probably because higher water-holding capacity of the Sri Lankan soil (Table 1). In both
environments, minimum structural stem sucrose content (MSS) and sucrose fraction under stress (SF)
influenced CCS and sucrose weight under both water regimes. CF also influenced CCS in both climates
and sucrose weight in Sri Lanka under rainfed conditions. MSS reduction (MSSR) influenced ccs under
rainfed conditions in Okinawa but not in Sri Lanka. Sexton et al. [2] reported higher sensitivity of
biomass production to RUE and GLN and of sucrose yield to RUE and SF under Australian conditions.
In almost all cases, RUE4, RUE3, TE4 (plant-specific parameters), GLN, CF, MSS, and SF
(cultivar-specific
Agronomy 2019, 9, xparameters) explained >90% of variability (Table 3). RUE4 had the greatest influence,
FOR PEER REVIEW 9 of 19
and was more influential in Sri Lanka than in Okinawa in both water regimes. In both climates, growth
stage 4thermal
fell between Julyflowering
time from and the to
following
crop end;February
EB, thermalortime
March,fromwhen solar to
emergence radiation,
beginningpotential ET, and
of cane; CF,
maximum cane and
fraction; BF, thermal
minimum time from beginning
temperatures of cane
varied much to flowering.
more in Okinawa than in Sri Lanka.

Figure5.5.Sensitivity
Figure SensitivityofofAPSIM-Sugar
APSIM-Sugarfresh freshcane
caneyield
yield(t/ha)
(t/ha)to
to parameters
parameters in
in (a)
(a) Okinawa and (b)
Okinawa and (b) Sri
Sri
Lanka. S , main effect; ST , total effect; IR, irrigated; RF, rainfed. For parameter names, see Figure
Lanka. iSi, main effect; STi i, total effect; IR, irrigated; RF, rainfed. For parameter names, see Figure 4.4.
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 10 of 19
Agronomy 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 10 of 19

Figure6.6.Sensitivity
Figure SensitivityofofAPSIM-Sugar
APSIM-Sugarcommercial
commercial cane sugar
cane sugar(%)(%)
to parameters in (a)
to parameters in Okinawa and and
(a) Okinawa (b)
Sri Lanka. Si
(b) Sri Lanka., main effect; STi
Si, main effect;, total effect; IR, irrigated; RF, rainfed. For parameter names, see Figure
STi, total effect; IR, irrigated; RF, rainfed. For parameter names, see 4.
Figure 4.
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 11 of 19
Agronomy 2019, 9, x FOR PEER REVIEW 11 of 19

2
Figure7.7.Sensitivity
Figure Sensitivityof
ofAPSIM-Sugar
APSIM-Sugarsucrose sucroseyield
yield(g/m
(g/m2))to
toparameters
parametersin
in(a)
(a)Okinawa
Okinawaandand(b)
(b)Sri
Sri
Lanka. S i main effect; ST
Lanka. Si, main effect; STi, total effect; IR, irrigated; RF, rainfed. For parameter names, see Figure4.4.
, i , total effect; IR, irrigated; RF, rainfed. For parameter names, see Figure

Table 3. Parameters most influential in simulation of biomass, canefw, ccs, and sucrose_wt in
Table 3. Parameters
APSIM-Sugar under most influential
different in simulation
environments (boldofindicates
biomass, canefw, ccs, and
parameters that sucrose_wt
contributedin>1%
APSIM-
of
Sugar under
variation). different environments (bold indicates parameters that contributed >1% of variation).

Biomass
Biomass Cane fresh
Cane Fresh weight
Weight CCS
CCS Sucrose
Sucrose weight
Weight
Parameter RF RF
Parameter IR IR RFRF IRIR RF
RF IR
IR RF
RF IR
IR
Si Si Rank
Rank Si SiRank
RankSi Si Rank
RankSiSi Rank Rank SiSi Rank
Rank Si Rank
Si Rank Si
Si Rank
Rank Si Si Rank
Rank

Okinawa, Japan
Okinawa, Japan
RUE4
RUE449.049.01 1 57.757.7 1 1 58.3
58.3 1 1 66.3 66.3 1 1 41.2
41.2 11 42.342.3 11 58.5
58.5 11 64.6
64.6 1 1
RUE3 18.0 2 23.6 2 12.6 2 17.2 2 5.4 3 7.0 3 9.2 3 11.2 2
GLNRUE3 7.7 18.03 2 6.723.6 3 2 6.212.6 3 2 5.3 17.2 3 2 3.4 5.4 53 2.7 7.0 35 9.2 4.9 34 11.24.3 24
CFGLN 3.1 7.7 4 3 2.5 6.7 4 3 0.66.2 6 3 0.55.3 6 3 3.4 65 1.7
2.3 2.7 56 4.9 0.7 46 4.3 0.6 46
TE4 1.7 5 0.5 6 2.0 4 0.5 5 0.1 10 0.0 11 0.7 7 0.1 9
EB CF 1.4 3.1 6 4 1.8 2.5 5 4 1.00.6 5 6 0.50.5 4 6 2.3 86 0.2
0.2 1.7 68 0.7 0.2 69 0.6 0.2 68
MSSTE4 0.0 1.722 5 0.0 0.5 18 6 0.02.0 22 4 0.00.5 165 28.5 0.1 210 27.30.0 11 2 10.1
0.7 72 0.1 8.8 93
MSSR 0.0 17 0.0 25 0.0 21 0.0 25 1.2 7 0.5 7 0.3 8 0.3 7
SF EB 0.0 1.414 6 0.0 1.8 16 5 0.01.0 16 5 0.00.5 194 0.2 48 4.8
5.0 0.2 84 0.2 2.2 95 0.2 1.6 85
MSS 0.0 22 0.0 18 0.0 22 0.0 16 28.5 2 27.3 2 10.1 2 8.8 3
MSSR 0.0 17 0.0 25 0.0 21 0.0 25 1.2 7 0.5 7 0.3 8 0.3 7
SF 0.0 14 0.0 16 0.0 16 0.0 19 5.0 4 4.8 4 2.2 5 1.6 5
Monaragala, Sri Lanka
RUE4 60.5 1 71.1 1 67.5 1 76.4 1 44.8 1 54.2 1 70.1 1 79.3 1
RUE3 14.5 2 13.0 2 13.1 2 11.7 2 5.1 4 2.5 6 9.4 2 7.4 2
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 12 of 19

Table 3. Cont.

Biomass Cane Fresh Weight CCS Sucrose Weight

Parameter RF IR RF IR RF IR RF IR
Si Rank Si Rank Si Rank Si Rank Si Rank Si Rank Si Rank Si Rank
Monaragala, Sri Lanka
RUE4 60.5 1 71.1 1 67.5 1 76.4 1 44.8 1 54.2 1 70.1 1 79.3 1
RUE3 14.5 2 13.0 2 13.1 2 11.7 2 5.1 4 2.5 6 9.4 2 7.4 2
GLN 6.7 3 6.2 3 5.7 4 5.0 3 3.2 5 2.9 5 5.2 3 4.5 3
CF 5.3 5 3.7 4 0.7 5 0.3 6 1.9 6 3.0 4 1.0 7 0.7 6
TE4 6.0 4 1.4 6 6.7 3 1.4 4 0.6 8 0.5 7 2.0 6 0.1 8
EB 1.5 6 1.6 5 0.5 6 0.7 5 0.8 7 0.3 8 0.4 8 0.4 7
MSS 0.0 18 0.0 11 0.0 23 0.0 13 19.5 2 14.8 2 3.8 4 2.5 4
MSSR 0.0 16 0.0 12 0.0 21 0.0 20 0.3 9 0.1 9 0.1 9 0.0 9
SF 0.0 23 0.0 8 0.0 26 0.0 18 10.4 3 10.5 3 2.6 5 2.3 5
Biomass, total aboveground biomass (g/m2 ); Cane fresh weight (t/ha); CCS, commercial cane sugar (%); sucrose
weight (g/m2 ); RF, rainfed; IR, irrigated; Si , main effect; RUE, radiation use efficiency; GLN, green leaf number;
CF, cane fraction; TE, transpiration efficiency; EB, thermal time from emergence to beginning of cane; MSS, minimum
structural stem sucrose; MSSR, MSS reduction; SF, sucrose fraction under stress.

3.3. Role of RUE4 on APSIM-Sugar Simulations

Daily dry matter production (DDMP; g/m2 ) of sugarcane under irrigated conditions was simulated
using the default values for RUE (1.8 g/MJ) and TE (8.7 g/kPa/kg) in APSIM-Sugar. Maximum possible
daily dry matter production (MDMP; g/m2 ) was calculated as the product of daily intercepted solar
radiation and RUE. APSIM estimates intercepted solar radiation as a function of leaf area index and
radiation extinction coefficient of 0.38 (Equation (5)).

I = I0 × EXP(−k × LAI ) (5)

where, I is the Intercepted solar radiation, I0 is the total solar radiation at top of the canopy, k is
extinction coefficient and LAI is the leaf area index.
During growth stage 4, DDMP had a close relationship with solar radiation in both environments
(Figure 8), confirming the high dependency of DDMP on solar radiation. However, it had greater
uncertainty throughout the range of intercepted solar radiation in Okinawa than in Sri Lanka,
indicating limitation by other factors. This explains the higher sensitivity of DDMP to RUE4 in Sri
Lanka. RUE is highly sensitive to nitrogen stress and to high and low temperatures [44]. No nitrogen
stress was reported during this period in either environment (see the next paragraph). Therefore,
temperature and solar radiation contributed most to the variation in the sensitivity of DDMP to RUE4
in both environments.
Lower DDMP values than MDMP values confirm that APSIM-Sugar did not use the maximum
RUE values to simulate DDMP during growth stage 4 specially in days with higher intercepted solar
radiation (Figure 9c). During the study period, the minimum and maximum temperatures were within
the optimum range (15–45 ◦ C, Figure 9a) [45], and no nitrogen deficit and only slight water stress
were recorded (Figure 9b). There was no water stress on days with a radiation level of <15 MJ/m2
(Figure 9d), and APSIM-Sugar operates with maximum RUE. RUE can be maximized with favorable
water, nitrogen, and temperature conditions [44], and some authors reported higher RUE values than 2
g/MJ [46–48] while APSIM-Sugar remains at 1.8 g/MJ. This might cause APSIM to underestimate yield,
especially in simulation studies based on modern commercial sugarcane cultivars.
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 13 of 19
Agronomy
Agronomy2019,
2019,9,9,xxFOR
FORPEER
PEERREVIEW
REVIEW 13
13ofof19
19

Figure
Figure8. Relationship ofofintercepted solar radiation (MJ/m22))2 during growth stage 4 with simulated
Figure8.8.Relationship
Relationship ofintercepted
interceptedsolarsolarradiation
radiation(MJ/m
(MJ/m )during
duringgrowth
growth stage 4 withsimulated
simulated
daily dry matter production (g/m 2 ) of irrigated sugarcane and calculated maximum possible daily dry
daily
dailydry
drymatter
matterproduction
production(g/m (g/m)2)ofofirrigated
2
irrigatedsugarcane
sugarcaneand
andcalculated
calculated maximum possible dailydry
dry
matter production (g/m 2 )2 of sugarcane in (a) Okinawa and (b) Sri Lanka.
matter production (g/m ) of sugarcane in (a) Okinawa and (b)
matter production (g/m ) of sugarcane in (a) Okinawa and (b) Sri Lanka.
2 Sri Lanka.

Figure
Figure 9.9.(a)
Figure 9.(a) Maximum
Maximum
(a) Maximum and
and
and minimum
minimum
minimum temperature
temperature
temperature variation
variation
variation during
during crop
duringcrop stage
stage444in
cropstage ininSri
Sri Lanka.
Lanka.(b)
SriLanka. (b)Soil
Soil
water
water deficit
deficit
water (swdef_photo)
(swdef_photo)
deficit (swdef_photo) and
and nitrogennitrogen deficit (nfact_photo)
deficit (nfact_photo)
and nitrogen for photosynthesis
for photosynthesis
deficit (nfact_photo) of irrigated
of irrigatedofsugarcane
for photosynthesis irrigated
=
(1sugarcane
no stress,
sugarcane (1(10===no
no stress,
full 00==(c)
stress).
stress, full stress).
stress).(c)
Relationship
full (c)Relationship
of intercepted
Relationship ofofintercepted
solar solar
radiation
intercepted radiation
(MJ/m
solar
2 ) with
radiation (MJ/m 2) with
simulated
(MJ/m 2) with

simulated
daily dry daily
matter dry matter
production production
(DDMP; g/m 2
(DDMP;) of g/m 2
irrigated) of irrigated
sugarcane sugarcane
and and
calculated calculated
maximum maximum
possible
simulated daily dry matter production (DDMP; g/m ) of irrigated sugarcane and calculated maximum
2

possible daily 2 ) of sugarcane.

dailydry drymatter
matterproduction (MDMP; g/m
g/m)2)ofofsugarcane. (d)
(d)Relationship between solar
2
daily dry matter
possible production (MDMP; g/m
production (MDMP; (d) Relationship
sugarcane. between solar
Relationship radiation
between solar
radiation
(MJ/m 2
radiation (MJ/m
) and(MJ/m 2) and soil water deficit for photosynthesis of irrigated sugarcane.
soil water
2 ) anddeficit for photosynthesis
soil water of irrigated of
deficit for photosynthesis sugarcane.
irrigated sugarcane.

3.4.Since
3.4. RUE is of
Investigation
Investigationaofstandard parameter
Interannual
Interannual Variationin
Variation ininplant and ratoon
Parameter
Parameter Influencecrops, it is usually unchanged in varietal
Influence
parameterization. However, cultivars show a range of RUE values [48], so it needs to be parameterized
Sexton
Sexton et al.
al.[2]
[2]found high
highinterannual variation
variationofofparameter influence and
andsuggested the
to achieve goodetsimulations.
foundSexton interannual
et al. [2,49] suggested to parameter
add RUE and influence suggested
TE as varietal the
parameters
contribution of climatic variation. Several plant- and cultivar-specific
contribution of climatic variation. Several plant- and cultivar-specific parameters showed parameters showed
 parameters on interannual variation in sensitivity in Sri Lanka, we investigated the sensitivity of
canefw to highly influential parameters (Table 3). Considering climatic factors, we selected three
growing seasons (Y2 2001–02, Y7 2006–07, Y10 2009–10) for comparison (Figure 10). We calculated
cumulative growing degree-days, assuming a base temperature of 9 °C. Y10 had the highest
cumulative growing degree-days (6663) and Y7 had the lowest (6425). Y7 had the highest cumulative
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 14 of 19
rainfall (2232 mm) and Y2 had the lowest (1504 mm). Y2 had the highest cumulative solar radiation
(6703 MJ/m2) and cumulative potential ET (1688 mm). Y10 had the lowest cumulative solar radiation
in (6179 MJ/mAPSIM
2) and cumulative potential ET (1566 mm).
upcoming versions; our results prompt us to agree. Our results under Okinawan conditions
As a to
are similar tropical country, Sri
those reported Lanka receives
by Sexton et al. [2],high
but solar
there radiation even in high-rainfall
are no published years.
results to compare
Therefore, under irrigated conditions, canefw had high sensitivity to RUE4 in all three years. Since
with the Sri Lankan environment. Therefore, we suggest the need for studies to determine the
irrigation supplies all crop water requirements, RUE4 had greater influence in Y2, a low-rainfall year
influence of sugarcane cultivar parameters in different tropical environments to confirm our findings.
with high solar radiation, than in the other years. Under rainfed conditions, RUE4 had a stronger
Sexton et al. [49] reported the inability of APSIM-Sugar to differentiate the yields of four commercial
relationship to canefw in Y7 (highest rainfall) than in the other years. This result confirms the higher
cultivars. The lack of enough cultivar parameters that influence the growth and yield of sugarcane
sensitivity of canefw to RUE4, but the sensitivity is directly linked to moisture availability for plants.
means that APSIM-Sugar may not be able to distinguish varietal differences if those parameters are not
Solar radiation was similar among years in the first 3 months of the growing season but then differed
parameterized and calibrated properly.
among years. Under irrigated conditions, the sensitivity of canefw to RUE3 was similar among years.
Under
3.4. rainfed of
Investigation conditions,
Interannual however,
Variationit inwas less in Y2
Parameter than in the other years. In Y2, RUE3 became
Influence
insensitive to increasing RUE as controlled by soil moisture deficit due to less rainfall and high
SextonET.
potential et al. [2] found
Under high
irrigated interannual
conditions, GLN,variation
TE4, CF,of and
parameter influence
EB showed little and
or nosuggested
variation the
in
contribution of climatic
influence among variation.
years. Under Several
rainfed plant- and cultivar-specific
conditions, however, GLN,parameters
TE4, and showed
CF showed considerable
greater
interannual
variation invariation
influence,inmore
influence (Figures
so in Y2, owing4–7).
to bothTohigher
study solar
the influence
radiation ofand climatic
moisture parameters
stress. on
interannual variation in sensitivity in Sri Lanka, we investigated the sensitivity of
To study the influence of climatic parameters on interannual variation in sensitivity in Okinawa, canefw to highly
influential
we selectedparameters (Tableseasons
three growing 3). Considering climatic
(Y2 2001–2002, Y4factors, we selected
2003–2004, three growing
and Y9 2008–2009) seasons (Y2
for comparison
2001–02,
(Figure Y7
11).2006–07, Y10
Y4 had the 2009–10)
highest for comparison
cumulative growing (Figure 10). We
degree-days calculated
(4847) and Y2 had cumulative
the lowestgrowing
(4833).
Since Okinawa
degree-days, receives
assuming a basehigh rainfall due
temperature ◦
of 9 toC.typhoons,
Y10 had thethe cumulative
highest cumulativerainfall does degree-days
growing not reflect
cropping
(6663) and Y7conditions, so we calculated
had the lowest (6425). Y7the hadeffective rainfall
the highest by usingrainfall
cumulative a water(2232balancemm) approach.
and Y2 hadY2
thehad the highest
lowest cumulative
(1504 mm). Y2 hadrainfall
the highest(2478cumulative
mm) and Y9 hadradiation
solar the lowest (1215
(6703 mm),
MJ/m 2 ) and
but Y4 had the
cumulative
highest ET
potential cumulative
(1688 mm). effective
Y10 had rainfall and Y2
the lowest had the lowest.
cumulative Y9 had the
solar radiation (6179 MJ/m2cumulative
highest solar
) and cumulative
radiation
potential ET(4999
(1566MJ/m
mm).) and cumulative potential ET (1247 mm). Y2 had the lowest cumulative solar
2

radiation (4690 MJ/m2) and cumulative potential ET (1170 mm).

Figure 10. Depiction of interannual sensitivity variation of sugarcane in Sri Lanka: cumulative
Figure 10. Depiction of interannual sensitivity variation of sugarcane in Sri Lanka: cumulative rainfall
rainfall (mm), cumulative solar radiation2 (MJ/m2 ), cumulative growing degree-days, cumulative
(mm), cumulative solar radiation (MJ/m ), cumulative growing degree-days, cumulative potential
potential evapotranspiration (mm), and parameter sensitivity variation among 2001–2002, 2006–2007,
and 2009–2010.

As a tropical country, Sri Lanka receives high solar radiation even in high-rainfall years. Therefore,
under irrigated conditions, canefw had high sensitivity to RUE4 in all three years. Since irrigation
supplies all crop water requirements, RUE4 had greater influence in Y2, a low-rainfall year with high
solar radiation, than in the other years. Under rainfed conditions, RUE4 had a stronger relationship to
canefw in Y7 (highest rainfall) than in the other years. This result confirms the higher sensitivity of
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 15 of 19

canefw to RUE4, but the sensitivity is directly linked to moisture availability for plants. Solar radiation
was similar among years in the first 3 months of the growing season but then differed among years.
Under irrigated conditions, the sensitivity of canefw to RUE3 was similar among years. Under rainfed
conditions, however, it was less in Y2 than in the other years. In Y2, RUE3 became insensitive to
increasing RUE as controlled by soil moisture deficit due to less rainfall and high potential ET. Under
irrigated conditions, GLN, TE4, CF, and EB showed little or no variation in influence among years.
Under rainfed conditions, however, GLN, TE4, and CF showed greater variation in influence, more so
in Y2, owing to both higher solar radiation and moisture stress.
To study the influence of climatic parameters on interannual variation in sensitivity in Okinawa,
we selected three growing seasons (Y2 2001–2002, Y4 2003–2004, and Y9 2008–2009) for comparison
(Figure 11). Y4 had the highest cumulative growing degree-days (4847) and Y2 had the lowest (4833).
Since Okinawa receives high rainfall due to typhoons, the cumulative rainfall does not reflect cropping
conditions, so we calculated the effective rainfall by using a water balance approach. Y2 had the highest
cumulative rainfall
Agronomy 2019, (2478
9, x FOR PEERmm) and Y9 had the lowest (1215 mm), but Y4 had the highest cumulative
REVIEW 15 of 19
effective rainfall and Y2 had the lowest. Y9 had the highest cumulative solar radiation (4999 MJ/m2 )
evapotranspiration
and cumulative potential(mm), and parameter
ET (1247 mm). Y2 sensitivity variation
had the lowest among 2001–2002,
cumulative 2006–2007,
solar radiation MJ/m2 )
and
(4690
2009–2010. potential ET (1170 mm).
and cumulative

Figure 11.Depiction
Figure11. Depictionofofinterannual
interannualsensitivity
sensitivity variation
variation of sugarcane
sugarcane in
in Okinawa:
Okinawa:cumulative
cumulativerainfall
rainfall
(mm), 2 cumulative growing
(mm),cumulative
cumulativeeffective
effectiverainfall
rainfall(mm),
(mm),cumulative
cumulative solar
solar radiation
radiation (MJ/m2),), cumulative growing
degree-days,
degree-days,cumulative
cumulative potential evapotranspiration
potential evapotranspiration(mm), and parameter
(mm), sensitivity
and parameter variation
sensitivity among
variation
2001–2002, 2003–2004, and 2008–2009.
among 2001–2002, 2003–2004, and 2008–2009.

With
With lower
lowersolar radiation
solar radiation than
thanin in
SriSri
Lanka,
Lanka,thethe
sensitivity
sensitivityof of
canefw
canefwto RUE4
to RUE4 was lower,
was lower,butbut
still
significant, in Okinawa
still significant, in all three
in Okinawa in all years. The sensitivity
three years. of canefw
The sensitivity to RUE4
of canefw was lowest
to RUE4 in Y2 in
was lowest owing
Y2
toowing
the lower
to thesolar
lowerradiation and effective
solar radiation rainfallrainfall
and effective than inthan
the in
other
the two
otheryears. Under
two years. the lower
Under solar
the lower
radiation, the influence
solar radiation, of RUE4
the influence of differed little between
RUE4 differed irrigated
little between and rainfed
irrigated conditions.
and rainfed This result
conditions. This
confirms the higher
result confirms thesensitivity of canefw
higher sensitivity ofto RUE4,tobut
canefw the sensitivity
RUE4, is directly
but the sensitivity is linked
directlytolinked
solar radiation
to solar
and moisture
radiation andavailability for plants.forRUE3
moisture availability plants.also showed
RUE3 less influence
also showed on canefw
less influence in Y2 in
on canefw than
Y2 in the
than
in thetwo
other other two years,
years, on account
on account of lower
of lower effective
effective rainfall
rainfall and and solar
solar radiation. Although
radiation. Although the theclimatic
climatic
conditionswere
conditions weresimilar,
similar, under
under rainfed
rainfed conditionscanefw
conditions canefwwas wasless
less sensitive
sensitive toto RUE3
RUE3 inin
Y4Y4 than
than in in
Y9.
Y9. Canefw
Canefw was morewas more sensitive
sensitive to GLN to GLN
in Y4in Y4Y9
and andthan
Y9 than
in Y2inowing
Y2 owing to higher
to higher effective
effective rainfall
rainfall and and
solar
solar radiation. TE4, CF, and EB had little or no variation in influence among years under either
irrigated or rainfed conditions.

3.5. Relationship between Statistical Dispersion and Climatological Parameters

We examined the statistical dispersion of emulator canefw outputs in response to climatic
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 16 of 19

radiation. TE4, CF, and EB had little or no variation in influence among years under either irrigated or
rainfed conditions.

3.5. Relationship between Statistical Dispersion and Climatological Parameters

We examined the statistical dispersion of emulator canefw outputs in response to climatic
parameters (Figure 12). In Sri Lanka, under irrigated conditions, cumulative solar radiation (CSR)
had the closest relationship with the average output, and cumulative growing degree-days had the
closest relationship with SD. Under rainfed conditions, cumulative rainfall had the closest relationship
with average and CSR had the closest relationship with SD. In Okinawa, under both water regimes,
CSR had the
Agronomy 2019,closest
9, x FORrelationship
PEER REVIEWwith average and SD. 16 of 19

Figure 12.Relationships
Figure12. Relationshipsbetween
betweenaverage
average and
and SD
SD of
of emulator canefw predictions
emulator canefw predictionswith
withmost
mostclosely
closely
related climatic conditions during the study period.
related climatic conditions during the study period.

Solar
Solarradiation
radiationisis aa key
key factor governingthe
factor governing thesensitivity
sensitivityofof canefw
canefw to to parameters
parameters irrespective
irrespective of
ofclimatic
climaticconditions.
conditions.UnderUnderhighhighsolar
solarradiation
radiationwithwithabundant
abundantsoil soilmoisture,
moisture,canefw
canefwdepended
depended
mainly
mainlyononsolar
solarradiation,
radiation,andandits
itsvariability
variability in
in sensitivity
sensitivity depended
depended on on temperature.
temperature. UnderUnderhigh
high
solar radiation with water stress, canefw depended mainly on rainfall, and its variability
solar radiation with water stress, canefw depended mainly on rainfall, and its variability in sensitivity in sensitivity
was
wasgoverned
governedmainly
mainlybybysolar
solarradiation.
radiation. Under low solar solar radiation,
radiation,irrespective
irrespectiveofofwater
wateravailability,
availability,
canefw
canefw and its sensitivity were governed mainly by solar radiation. Similarly, Grossi et reported
and its sensitivity were governed mainly by solar radiation. Similarly, Grossi et al. [50] al. [50]
the higher the
reported sensitivity
higher of sorghumofyield
sensitivity to rainfall,
sorghum yield solar radiation,
to rainfall, solarand CO2 inand
radiation, DSSATCO2 simulations.
in DSSAT
Hence, solar radiation,
simulations. rainfall,
Hence, solar and temperature
radiation, rainfall, andhave the greatest
temperature influence
have on canefw
the greatest in crop
influence models.
on canefw
in crop models.
4. Conclusions
4. Conclusions
We used GEM-SA to assess the influence of 13 parameters (11 cultivar-specific parameters, RUE,
and TE)Weofused
APSIM-Sugar
GEM-SA toon predicted
assess biomass,
the influence of 13fresh cane yield,
parameters sucrose weight,
(11 cultivar-specific and commercial
parameters, RUE,
cane
and TE) of APSIM-Sugar on predicted biomass, fresh cane yield, sucrose weight, and commercialIn
sugar yield (ccs) under rainfed and irrigated conditions in two distinctive environments.
both
caneenvironments, allunder
sugar yield (ccs) four outputs were
rainfed and highly conditions
irrigated sensitive tointhe
twoRUE of cropenvironments.
distinctive growth stageIn 4 (from
both
environments,
the beginning ofall four
cane outputs
growth were highlyand
to flowering) sensitive
growthtostage
the RUE of crop
3 (from growthto
emergence stage 4 (from theof
the beginning
beginning
cane growth)ofand
canetogrowth
green to flowering)
leaf number, and growth stage
irrespective 3 (from
of water emergence
regime. Biomassto the
wasbeginning
sensitiveoftocane
cane
growth)and
fraction and to green
thermal time leaf number,
from irrespective
emergence of water regime.
to the beginning of caneBiomass was sensitive
(EB) in both to caneIn
environments.
fraction and
Okinawa, thermal
biomass time from
and fresh emergence
cane yield to the beginning
were sensitive of canestage
to TE of growth (EB) 4inunder
both rainfed
environments. In
conditions,
Okinawa, biomass and fresh cane yield were sensitive to TE of growth stage
but less sensitive under irrigated conditions. In Sri Lanka, they were sensitive under both water 4 under rainfed
conditions,
regimes. but less
In both sensitive under
environments, ccs irrigated
and sucrose conditions.
weight In Sri Lanka,
were sensitive they
to were sensitive
minimum under both
structural stem
water regimes.
sucrose In both
content (MSS) andenvironments, ccs and
sucrose fraction sucrose
under stressweight were(SF)
condition sensitive
undertoboth
minimum structuralIn
water regimes.
stem sucrose content (MSS) and sucrose fraction under stress condition (SF) under both water
regimes. In Okinawa, ccs and sucrose weight were slightly sensitive to MSS reduction (MSSR) and
cane fraction under rainfed but less sensitive under irrigated conditions. In Sri Lanka, biomass, fresh
cane yield, and sucrose yield were sensitive to TE of growth stage 4 under rainfed but less sensitive
under irrigated conditions. These results confirm distinct variations in parameter influence across
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 17 of 19

Okinawa, ccs and sucrose weight were slightly sensitive to MSS reduction (MSSR) and cane fraction
under rainfed but less sensitive under irrigated conditions. In Sri Lanka, biomass, fresh cane yield,
and sucrose yield were sensitive to TE of growth stage 4 under rainfed but less sensitive under
irrigated conditions. These results confirm distinct variations in parameter influence across climates,
management conditions, and outputs. This shows why SA conducted in similar environments is vital to
identifying parameters important for parameterization and calibration of sugarcane cultivars. In both
environments, green leaf number and cane fraction were important candidates for parameterization of
cultivars. We suggest that attention to calibration of EB, MSS, MSSR, and SF will improve the accuracy
of simulations of sugarcane growth and yield in both environments. Although they are not listed as
cultivar parameters in the APSIM-Sugar model, if reliable and ample data available, it is advisable
to calibrate TE of growth stage 4 and RUE of growth stages 3 and 4 also. Interannual variations in
solar radiation, rainfall, and temperature explained the variation of parameter influence. Therefore,
variations in climatic parameters must be accounted for in the modeling of sugarcane growth and yield
using APSIM.

Author Contributions: M.H.J.P.G., K.S. and M.K.N.K conceptualized, conceived and performed, and K.S., T.N.
and K.M. supervised the study. M.H.J.P.G. and K.S. interpreted data and developed the manuscript. All authors
read and approved the final manuscript.
Funding: This research received no external funding.
Conflicts of Interest: The authors declare no conflict of interest.

References
1. Lisson, S.N.; Inman-Bamber, N.G.; Robertson, M.J.; Keating, B.A. The historical and future contribution of
crop physiology and modelling research to sugarcane production systems. Field Crop. Res. 2005, 92, 321–335.
[CrossRef]
2. Sexton, J.; Everingham, Y.L.; Inman-Bamber, G. A global sensitivity analysis of cultivar trait parameters in a
sugarcane growth model for contrasting production environments in Queensland, Australia. Eur. J. Agron.
2017, 88, 96–105. [CrossRef]
3. Gunarathna, M.H.J.P.; Sakai, K.; Nakandakari, T.; Kazuro, M.; Onodera, T.; Kaneshiro, H.; Uehara, H.;
Wakasugi, K. Optimized subsurface irrigation system (OPSIS): Beyond traditional subsurface irrigation.
Water 2017, 9, 599. [CrossRef]
4. Gunarathna, M.H.J.P.; Sakai, K.; Nakandakari, T.; Momii, K.; Onodera, T.; Kaneshiro, H.; Uehara, H.;
Wakasugi, K. Optimized subsurface irrigation system: The future of sugarcane irrigation. Water 2018, 10, 314.
[CrossRef]
5. Surendran, U.; Jayakumar, M.; Marimuthu, S. Science of the total environment low cost drip irrigation:
Impact on sugarcane yield, water and energy saving in semiarid tropical agro ecosystem in India. Sci. Total
Environ. 2016, 573, 1430–1440. [CrossRef]
6. Holzworth, D.P.; Huth, N.I.; deVoil, P.G.; Zurcher, E.J.; Herrmann, N.I.; McLean, G.; Chenu, K.; van
Oosterom, E.J.; Snow, V.; Murphy, C.; et al. APSIM—Evolution towards a new generation of agricultural
systems simulation. Environ. Model. Softw. 2014, 62, 327–350. [CrossRef]
7. Keating, B.A.; Robertson, M.J.; Muchow, R.C.; Huth, N.I. Modelling sugarcane production systems I.
Development and performance of the sugarcane module. Field Crop. Res. 1999, 61, 253–271. [CrossRef]
8. Jones, J.W.; Hoogenboom, G.; Porter, C.H.; Boote, K.J.; Batchelor, W.D.; Hunt, L.A.; Wilkens, P.W.; Singh, U.;
Gijsman, A.J.; Ritchie, J.T. The DSSAT cropping system model. Eur. J. Agron. 2003, 18, 235–265. [CrossRef]
9. Everingham, Y.; Baillie, C.; Inman-Bamber, G.; Baillie, J. Forecasting water allocations for Bundaberg
sugarcane farmers. Clim. Res. 2008, 36, 231–239. [CrossRef]
10. Inman-Bamber, N.G.; McGlinchey, M.G. Crop coefficients and water-use estimates for sugarcane based on
long-term bowen ratio energy balance measurements. Field Crop. Res. 2003, 83, 125–138. [CrossRef]
11. Bocca, F.F.; Rodrigues, L.H.A.; Arraes, N.A.M. When do I want to know and why? Different demands on
sugarcane yield predictions. Agric. Syst. 2015, 135, 48–56. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 18 of 19

12. Gaydon, D.S.; Wang, E.; Poulton, P.L.; Ahmad, B.; Ahmed, F.; Akhter, S.; Ali, I.; Amarasingha, R.; Chaki, A.K.;
Chen, C.; et al. Evaluation of the APSIM model in cropping systems of Asia. Field Crop. Res. 2017, 204, 52–75.
[CrossRef]
13. Singels, A.; Jones, M.; Marin, F.; Ruane, A.; Thorburn, P. Predicting climate change impacts on sugarcane
production at sites in Australia, Brazil and South Africa using the canegro model. Sugar Tech. 2014, 16,
347–355. [CrossRef]
14. Thorburn, P.; Biggs, J.; Jones, M.R.; Singels, A.; Marin, F.; Martine, J.-F.; Chinorumba, S.; Viator, R.; Nunez, O.
Evaluation of the APSIM-Sugar model for simulation sugarcane yield at sites in seven countries: Initial
results. Proc. S. Afr. Sugar Technol. Assoc. 2014, 318–322.
15. Zubair, L.; Nissanka, S.P.; Weerakoon, W.M.W.; Herath, D.I.; Karunaratne, A.S.; Agalawatte, P.; Herath, R.M.;
Yahiya, S.Z.; Punyawardhene, B.V.R.; Vishwanathan, J.; et al. Climate change impacts on rice farming systems
in Northwestern Sri Lanka. Handb. Clim. Chang. Agroecosyst. 2015, 3, 315–352.
16. Basnayake, J.; Jackson, P.A.; Inman-Bamber, N.G.; Lakshmanan, P. Sugarcane for water-limited environments.
Genetic variation in cane yield and sugar content in response to water stress. J. Exp. Bot. 2012, 63, 6023–6033.
[CrossRef] [PubMed]
17. Inman-Bamber, N.G.; Jackson, P.A.; Stokes, C.J.; Verrall, S.; Lakshmanan, P.; Basnayake, J. Sugarcane for
water-limited environments: Enhanced capability of the APSIM sugarcane model for assessing traits for
transpiration efficiency and root water supply. Field Crop. Res. 2016, 196, 112–123. [CrossRef]
18. Saltelli, A.; Ratto, M.; Andres, T.; Campolongo, F.; Cariboni, J.; Gatelli, D.; Saisana, M.; Tarantola, S.
Global Sensitivity Analysis: The Primer; John Wiley & Sons: Hoboken, NJ, USA, 2008; ISBN 9780470059975.
19. Saltelli, A.; Annoni, P.; Azzini, I.; Campolongo, F.; Ratto, M.; Tarantola, S. Variance based sensitivity analysis
of model output. Design and estimator for the total sensitivity index. Comput. Phys. Commun. 2010, 181,
259–270. [CrossRef]
20. O’Hagan, A. Bayesian analysis of computer code outputs: A tutorial. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2006, 91,
1290–1300. [CrossRef]
21. Uusitalo, L.; Lehikoinen, A.; Helle, I.; Myrberg, K. An overview of methods to evaluate uncertainty of
deterministic models in decision support. Environ. Model. Softw. 2015, 63, 24–31. [CrossRef]
22. Gima, H.; Yoshitake, T. A comparative study of energy security in okinawa prefecture and the state of hawaii.
Evergr. Jt. J. Nov. Carbon Resour. Sci. Green Asia Strateg. 2016, 3, 36–44. [CrossRef]
23. Buysse, M. Irrigation water supply for non-irrigation purposes in Uda Walawe: Policy and effects. Int. Water
Manag. Inst. Rep. 2002, 1–20.
24. Keating, B.A.; Carberry, P.S.; Hammer, G.L.; Probert, M.E.; Robertson, M.J.; Holzworth, D.; Huth, N.I.;
Hargreaves, J.N.G.; Meinke, H.; Hochman, Z.; et al. An overview of APSIM, a model designed for farming
systems simulation. Eur. J. Agron. 2003, 18, 267–288. [CrossRef]
25. Dias, H.B.; Inman-Bamber, G.; Bermejo, R.; Sentelhas, P.C.; Christodoulou, D. New APSIM-Sugar features
and parameters required to account for high sugarcane yields in tropical environments. Field Crop. Res. 2019,
235, 38–53. [CrossRef]
26. Keating, B.A.; Robertson, M.J.; Muchow, R.C.; Huth, N.I. Modelling sugarcane production systems: II:
Analysis of system performance and methodology issues. Field Crop. Res. 2000, 68, 1–20.
27. Gunarathna, M.H.J.P.; Sakai, K.; Nakandakari, T.; Momii, K.; Kumari, M.K.N.; Amarasekara, M.G.T.S.
Pedotransfer functions to estimate hydraulic properties of tropical Sri Lankan soils. Soil Tillage Res. 2019,
190, 109–119. [CrossRef]
28. Dassanayake, A.R.; De Silva, G.G.R.; Mapa, R.B.; Kumaragamage, D. Benchmark Soils of the Dry Zone of
Sri Lanka: Factsheets; Mapa, R.B., Somasiri, S., Dassanayake, A.R., Eds.; Soil Science Society of Sri Lanka:
Peradeniya, Sri Lanka, 2010.
29. Ruane, A.C.; Goldberg, R.; Chryssanthacopoulos, J. Climate forcing datasets for agricultural modeling:
Merged products for gap-filling and historical climate series estimation. Agric. For. Meteorol. 2015, 200,
233–248. [CrossRef]
30. Kennedy, M.C.; Petropoulos, G.P. GEM-SA: The Gaussian Emulation Machine for Sensitivity Analysis; Elsevier
Inc.: Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 2017; ISBN 9780128030318.
31. Kennedy, M.C.; O’Hagan, A. Bayesian calibration of computer models. J. R. Stat. Soc. Ser. B (Stat. Methodol.)
2001, 63, 425–464. [CrossRef]
Agronomy 2019, 9, 242 19 of 19

32. Kennedy, M.C.; Anderson, C.W.; Conti, S.; O’Hagan, A. Case studies in Gaussian process modelling of
computer codes. Reliab. Eng. Syst. Saf. 2006, 91, 1301–1309. [CrossRef]
33. Bakar, I.A.A.; Kamaruddin, M.K. Uncertain mesoscopic parameters in dry woven fabric with Gaussian
Emulation Machine for Sensitivity Analysis (GEM-SA). J. Phys. Conf. Ser. 2018, 1130. [CrossRef]
34. Gunarathna, M.H.J.P.; Sakai, K.; Kumari, M.K.N. Sensitivity Analysis of APSIM model using GEM-SA
software: Emulator accuracy assessment. In Proceedings of the ICESD International Conference, Sydney,
Australia, 5–6 March 2019; pp. 6–10.
35. Gunarathna, M.H.J.P.; Sakai, K.; Kumari, M.K.N. Can crop modeling sucess with estimated soil hydraulic
parameters? In Proceedings of the PAWEES-INWEPF International Conference Nara 2018, Nara, Japan,
20–22 November 2018; pp. 461–470.
36. Stanfill, B. apsimr: Edit, Run and Evaluate APSIM Simulations Easily Using R. R Package Version 1.2. 2015.
Available online: https://CRAN.R-project.org/package=apsimr (accessed on 5 July 2018).
37. R Core Team. R: A Language and Environment for Statistical Computing; R Foundation for Statistical Computing:
Vienna, Austria, 2018.
38. Oakley, J.E.; Hagan, A.O. Probabilistic sensitivity analysis of complex models: A Bayesian approach. J. R.
Stat. B 2004, 66, 751–769. [CrossRef]
39. Saltelli, A.; Annoni, P. How to avoid a perfunctory sensitivity analysis. Environ. Model. Softw. 2010, 25,
1508–1517. [CrossRef]
40. Petropoulos, G.P.; Ireland, G.; Griffiths, H.M.; Kennedy, M.C.; Ioannou-Katidis, P.; Kalivas, D.P. Extending
the global sensitivity analysis of the SimSphere model in the context of its future exploitation by the scientific
community. Water 2015, 7, 2101–2141. [CrossRef]
41. Petropoulos, G.; Wooster, M.J.; Carlson, T.N.; Kennedy, M.C.; Scholze, M. A global Bayesian sensitivity
analysis of the 1d SimSphere soil-vegetation-atmospheric transfer (SVAT) model using Gaussian model
emulation. Ecol. Modell. 2009, 220, 2427–2440. [CrossRef]
42. Lee, L.A.; Carslaw, K.S.; Pringle, K.J.; Mann, G.W.; Spracklen, D.V. Emulation of a complex global aerosol
model to quantify sensitivity to uncertain parameters. Atmos. Chem. Phys. 2011, 11, 12253–12273. [CrossRef]
43. Sexton, J.; Everingham, Y.L. Global sensitivity analysis of key parameters in a process-based sugarcane
growth model—A Bayesian approach. In Proceedings of the 7th International Congress on Environmental
Modelling and Software, San Diego, CA, USA, 15–19 June 2014.
44. Zhao, G.; Bryan, B.A.; Song, X. Sensitivity and uncertainty analysis of the APSIM-wheat model: Interactions
between cultivar, environmental, and management parameters. Ecol. Modell. 2014, 279, 1–11. [CrossRef]
45. Martiné, J.-F.; Siband, P.; Bonhomme, R. Simulation of the maximum yield of sugar cane at different altitudes:
Effect of temperature on the conversion of radiation into biomass Simulation of the maximum yield of sugar
cane on the conversion of radiation into biomass. Agronomie 1999, 19, 3–12. [CrossRef]
46. Ferreira, R.A., Jr.; De Souza, J.L.; Lyra, G.B.; Escobedo, J.F.; Santos, M.V.C. Energy conversion efficiency
in sugarcane under two row spacings in northeast of Brazil. Rev. Bras. Eng. Agrícola e Ambient. 2015, 19,
741–747. [CrossRef]
47. Martin, M.; Acreche, A. Nitrogen-, water- and radiation-use efficiencies affected by sugarcane breeding in
Argentina. Plant Breed. 2017, 136, 174–181. [CrossRef]
48. De Silva, A.L.C.; De Costa, W.A.J.M. Growth and radiation use efficiency of sugarcane under irrigated and
rain-fed conditions in sri lanka. Sugar Tech. 2012, 14, 247–254. [CrossRef]
49. Sexton, J.; Inman-bamber, N.G.; Everingham, Y.; Basnayake, J.; Lakshmanan, P.; Jackson, P. Detailed trait
characterisation is needed for simulation of cultivar responses to water stress. Proc. Aust. Soc. Sugar
Cane Technol. 2014, 36, 82–92.
50. Grossi, M.C.; Justino, F.; Rodrigues, R.D.Á.; Andrade, C.L.T. Sensitivity of the sorghum yield to individual
changes in climate parameters: Modelling based approach. Bragantia 2015, 74, 341–349. [CrossRef]

© 2019 by the authors. Licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access
article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution
(CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).